Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

RV 2014: Stimulate Investment Using Publicly Owned Property by Fran DeCoste


Published on

Stimulate Investment Using Publicly Owned Property

How do you implement successful TOD on publicly owned parcels? Hear how three cities -- Boston, Seattle and Atlanta -- are doing it. From hundred-year-old systems in Boston to new light rail extensions in downtown Seattle, these cities are grappling with opportunities and hurdles. How do they ensure equitable development that serves people who live and work in these station areas? How are they maximizing publicly owned land to create the successful station areas of tomorrow? Three different scenarios. Countless strategies.

Moderator: Eric Halvorsen, Assistant Director of Transportation, Metropolitan Area Planning Council, Boston, Massachusetts
Ryan Curren, Program Manager, City of Seattle, Washington
Francis X. DeCoste Jr., Chief Operating Officer, TR Advisors LLC, Boston, Massachusetts
Jared Lombard, AICP, Principal Planner, Atlanta Regional Council, Atlanta, Georgia
Sarah Lovell, Senior TOD Analyst, Sound Transit, Seattle, Washington

Published in: Real Estate
  • D0WNL0AD FULL ▶ ▶ ▶ ▶ ◀ ◀ ◀ ◀
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here

RV 2014: Stimulate Investment Using Publicly Owned Property by Fran DeCoste

  1. 1. TOD vs Non-utilized Parking
  2. 2. Why rethink your parking program? • Surface parking lots offer some of the best opportunity for development - Parking lots are generally the largest land mass available around transit nodes. - Can easily provide connectivity to station. - Lower costs for site construction. - Development enhances the transit node creating a sense of place. - Generates new ridership.
  3. 3. Seas of asphalt
  4. 4. Empty spaces = $$$$ (the loss of) • On a national average surface parking lot maintenance costs run from $300 to $500 per space annually. • Ex: Newburyport, MA 814 Spaces 20% Occupancy 651 empty spaces $260,400 annual cost to maintain empty spaces ($400U)
  5. 5. Projected increase in ridership may never meet the supply of parking • The goal of any transit agency is to limit the amount of vehicle trips to a transit node. • Alternative modes of transportation should be promoted •
  6. 6. Do you really need replacement? • Transit agencies have historically required a “one for one” parking space replacement policy for development. • Understand your demand, plan for realistic growth (or reduction). • Requiring structured parking can be deal killer! • Remember those operating costs for empty parking!
  7. 7. TOD Case: MBTA Greenbush Station • MBTA commuter parking lot with 946 with an occupancy of 20%. • MBTA engaged with town to adopt a TOD district at the station. • MBTA made available approximately 3 acres for development, reducing the commuter parking by 464 spaces.
  8. 8. Resulting in a June, 2014 winning bid
  9. 9. TOD Case: MBTA Newburyport • MBTA surpluses 350 of the 814 parking spaces. • MBTA engaged with the Mayor and City Council to agree to support a 40R (TOD) district. • An RFP was issued in 2013.
  10. 10. Result: Currently in approval process • Proposed 67 unit residential project with 25% to be affordable. • Proposed commercial use of the vacant depot building. • Repair and maintenance of driveway to station area. • Pocket park connecting the bikewalk path from the downtown area to the station.