This document summarizes a presentation given at the 5th GIB Summit in May 2015 on the role of the public and private sectors in transit-oriented development. The presentation discusses how compact, mixed-use, transit-oriented development can help reduce transportation costs and emissions while improving economic growth by reducing infrastructure costs and encouraging more sustainable transportation options like walking, cycling, and public transit over private vehicle use.

1. This presentation was
held during the 5th GIB
Summit, May 27-28 2015.
The presentation and
more information on the
Global Infrastructure Basel
Foundation are available
on www.gib-foundation.org
The next GIB Summit will take place in Basel,
May 24-25, 2016.
The information and views set out in this presenation are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Global
Infrastructure Basel Foundation. Neither the Global Infrastructure Basel Foundation nor any person acting on its behalf may be held responsible
for the use of the information contained therein.

2. The
Role
of
the
Public
&
Private
Sectors
in
Transit
Oriented
Development
Colin K. Hughes
Director of Global Policy and Project Evaluation
Institute for Transportation & Development Policy
May, 2015

3. Why
TOD?
Because
we
must
change
the
way
we
travel

4. Transporta0on:
A
driving
force
behind
climate
change
Transport
6,623
Mt,
23%
Power
GeneraFon,
13333,
46%
Industry,
4781,
17%
ResidenFal,
1877,
6%
Services,
878,
3%
Other,
1333,
5%
Global
Energy-­‐Related
Greenhouse
Gas
Emissions
(Mt)
We
must
change
the
way
we
travel

5. 1.2
million
Premature
deaths
from
outdoor
air
pollu0on
yearly
-­‐World
Health
Organiza0on
240
minutes
Average
Commute
for
poorest
quin0le
ci0zens
in
Sao
Paulo
-­‐
SOW,
2012
10%
of
GDP
Wasted
from
Cumula0ve
Impacts
of
Traffic
-­‐UNEP,
2011
1.3
million
Traffic
Deaths
50%
of
whom
are
walking
or
cycling
-­‐World
Health
Organiza0on
We
must
change
the
way
we
travel

6. Sprawl
costs
the
United
States
over
$400
billion
per
annum
6
Sprawl
costs
in
the
United
States
per
annum
SOURCE:
Litman
(2014)
for
New
Climate
Economy
commissioned
by
LSE
Ci0es.
Note:
these
denote
the
poten0al
savings
from
smart
growth
policies.
See
Litman,
T.,
2014
(forthcoming).
Analysis
of
Public
Policies
that
Uninten3onally
Encourage
and
Subsidize
Urban
Sprawl
for
detail
of
underlying
data
sources.
Total
Billion US$
External
costs:
air
pollu0on,
conges0on,
noise,
others
217
90
72
31
0
100
200
300
400
500
Increased
public
service
costs
Crash
costs
Increased
infrastructure
capital
costs
Total
private
costs
(including
travel
0me,
vehicle
ownership
etc.)
are
324
billion
US$
410

7. We
must
shiP
travel
modes
to
limit
climate
change
to
2
degrees
and
meet
future
mobility
demand.
OECD
Baseline
High
ShiP
Non-­‐OECD
Baseline
High
ShiP
GLOBAL HIGH SHIFT SCENARIO: Passenger travel by mode

8. n-­‐OECD OECD non-­‐OECD OECD non-­‐OECD OECD noCD non-­‐OECD OECD non-­‐OECD
Infrastructure
Rail
Infrastructure
BRT
Infrastructure
Roadway
O&M
Cycle/e-­‐bike
O&M
Rail
O&M
Bus
O&M
Private
vehicle
O&M
Road-­‐related
Fuel
Electricity
Fuel
LDV-­‐2W
liquid
fue
Purchase
Cycle/e-­‐bike
Purchase
Rail
Purchase
Bus
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
OECD non-­‐OECD OECD non-­‐OECD OECD non-­‐OECD OECD non-­‐OECD
2010-­‐2030 2010-­‐2050 2010-­‐2030 2010-­‐2050
Base High
Shift
Trillion
US
Dollars
Infrastructure
Rail
Infrastructure
BRT
Infrastructure
Roadway
O&M
Cycle/e-­‐bike
O&M
Rail
O&M
Bus
O&M
Private
vehicle
O&M
Road-­‐related
Fuel
Electricity
Fuel
LDV-­‐2W
liquid
fuel
Purchase
Cycle/e-­‐bike
Purchase
Rail
Purchase
Bus
Purchase
Private
vehicle
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
OECD non-­‐OECD OECD non-­‐OECD OECD non-­‐OECD OECD non-­‐OECD
2010-­‐2030 2010-­‐2050 2010-­‐2030 2010-­‐2050
Trillion
US
Dollars
CD non-­‐OECD OECD non-­‐OECD OECD non-­‐OECD OECCD OECD non-­‐OECD OECD non-­‐OECD
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
O&M
Cycle/e
O&M
Rail
O&M
Bus
O&M
Private
O&M
Road-­‐re
Fuel
Electricit
Fuel
LDV-­‐2W
Purchase
Cyc
Purchase
Rail
Purchase
Bus
OECD
Baseline
High
ShiP
Non-­‐OECD
Baseline
High
ShiP
The
required
shi`
in
investment
actually
saves
$114
trillion
in
infrastructure,
fuel,
and
maintenance
by
2050.
GLOBAL HIGH SHIFT SCENARIO: Total Investment by Mode

9. Tale
of
Two
Ci0es:
Transit
and
Density
Source: Bertaud and Richardson, 2004, Kenworthy (2003) citied in Lefevre,
B.
(2009);
+
ITDP
Rapid
Transit
Database,
2014
Popula0on:
2.5
million
Rapid
Transit:
74
km
Urban
area:
4,280
km2
Per
capita
transport
CO2:
7.5
t
Popula0on:
2.8
million
Rapid
Transit:
153
km
Urban
area:
162
km2
Per cap ann. transport CO2:
0.7
t
ATLANTA
BARCELONA

10. The
Cost
of
Transit
is
Dependent
on
Density
Rapid
Transit:
125
km
Metro,
27
km
Light
Rail
Es0mated
Total
Rapid
Transit
Infrastructure
Cost:
$20
billion
(2014, USD)
ATLANTA
BARCELONA
Rapid
Transit:
74
km
Metro
Estimated Total Rapid Transit
Infrastructure cost for same area
coverage as Barcelona :
$500 billion (2014, USD)

11. Many
ciFes
mismanagement
land
use
and
lack
of
investment
in
transport
infrastructure.

12. Others
have
investment
and
management,
but
it
is
oPen
according
to
the
wrong
models.

13. the
shape
of
the
ciFes
we
build
the
transport
we
use

14. the
shape
of
the
ciFes
we
build
the
transport
we
use

16. transport
walk
cycle
densify
connect
compact
shiP
mix
uses

17. transport
walk
cycle
densify
connect
compact
shi`
mix
uses

18. Compact
Ci0es
Reduce
Costs
and
Deliver
Wide
Benefits
1. Compact
urban
development
could
save
China
$1.4
trillion
in
infrastructure
spending
(World
Bank)
2. Compact
urban
pathway
in
China
could
lead
to
higher
economic
growth,
greater
produc0vity,
boost
to
ter0ary
industry
share
(World
Bank)
3. Transit-­‐orientated
development
can
reduce
per
capita
car
use
by
up
to
50%
and
reduce
costs
by
20%
(Arrington
et
al.,
2008)
4. Co-­‐benefits
include:
equitable
accessibility,
reduced
conges0on,
improved
public
health
and
safety,
energy
security
(Arrington,
et
al,
2008)
5. Compact
urban
model
in
Ho
Chi
Minh
City
could
reduce
air
pollu0on
(PM2.5)
by
44%
(ADB,
CAI,
and
Chreod,
2013)
6. Compact,
connected
urban
development
could
reduce
emissions
by
up
to
1.5
GT
by
2030
–
primarily
from
transport
(LSE
Ci0es,
2014)

19. The
Role
of
Government
in
TOD
and
Financing

20. The
Role
of
Government
• In
the
EU
it
is
infrastructure
investment:
The
EU
has
more
funds
to
directly
invest
in
the
area
with
infrastructure,
remedia0on,
ameni0es
to
add
value.
However
it
has
more
limited
pubic
financing
op0ons,
puhng
most
of
the
risk
on
the
developer.
• In
the
US
it
is
largely
risk
reduc0on:
The
US
employs
strategic
planning
regulatory
and
crea0ve
financing
mechanisms
due
to
lack
of
public
sector
funds
for
infrastructure
such
as
tax
credits,
abatements,
interest-­‐free
or
low-­‐interest
loans
and
grants,
philanthropic
funds
to
reduce
risk.

21. Smart
Government
Needed
– City
vision
=
predictability
for
developers
Predictability
majers
to
developers.
– Good
nego0ators
-­‐
can
either
bring
people
to
a
weak
market
or
extract
bejer
development
or
ameni0es
in
a
strong
market
– Commitment
to
the
long
haul
–
what
are
the
poli0cal
0melines
that
affect
this
if
a
development
typically
takes
10
–
15
years.
– Si0ng
is
cri0cal
and
complex
– Public
investment
is
cri0cal
(transit,
upgrading
of
u0li0es,
land
banking
remedia0on)

22. Many
Countries
Need
More
Transit
Investment
Source:
Best
Prac3ce
in
Na3onal
Support
for
Urban
Transporta3on,
Part
1:
Evalua3ng
Country
Performance
in
Mee3ng
the
Transit
Needs
of
Urban
Popula3ons;
ITDP

23. Higher
Funding,
Smarter
Investments,
and
More
Debt
Leveraging
is
Needed
to
Grow
Transit
Source:
Best
Prac3ce
in
Na3onal
Support
for
Urban
Transporta3on,
Part
1:
Evalua3ng
Country
Performance
in
Mee3ng
the
Transit
Needs
of
Urban
Popula3ons;
ITDP

24. Sao
Paulo
Strategic
Plan:
A
New
Best
PracFce
DESIGN
REGULATION:
Densifica0on
w/
value
capture;
mixed
use,
ac0ve
frontage,
public
passage
incen0ves;
parking
disincen0ves.

25. TOD
PRIORITY:
150
meters
around
corridor
400
meters
radius
around
sta0on

26. DENSIFY:
Building
rights
increased
along
corridors
• Corridor
far
maximum:
4
(x
2)
• Off
corridors
far
maximum:
2
• Basic
far
1
(as
of
right)
• Minimial
far
(varies)

27. Value
capture:
Development
above
basic
far
(1:1)
is
subject
to
urban
fund
fees
towards
improvements
and
services

28. MIXED
USE
INCENTIVE:
Ground
floor
commercial
space
is
discounted
from
far
calcula0on
(up
to
20%
of
total
building
floor
area)

29. Ac0ve
Frontage
Incen0ve:
Addi0onal
50%
of
the
lot
area
dedicated
to
local
commerce
and
services
discounted
in
the
calcula0on
of
allowed
far.

30. CONNECT:
Public
passages
Public
passages
permanently
open
on
property
get
equal
amount
of
addi0onal
building
rights
(far)

31. Shi`:
parking
disincen0ve
Reduced
parking
places
discounted
from
far
calcula0on:
-­‐
1
per
dwelling
unit
(down
from
1,
2
or
3
mini.
Depending
on
unit
size)
-­‐
1
PER
100M2
of
non-­‐residen0al
use.
Addi0onal
parking
area
becomes
part
of
basic
buildable
area

32. What
is
TOD
and
how
it
is
measured?

33. Free
Downloads:
www.todstandard.org

35. Site/Project Name City, Country
Total
Score
Walk
Score
1.1
Walkways
1.2
Crosswalk
s
1.3
Visually
Active
Frontage
1.4
Physically
Permeabl
e
Frontage
1.5 Shade
and
Shelter
Cycle
Score
2.1 Cycle
Network
2.2 Cycle
Parking at
Transit
Stations
2.3 Cycle
Parking at
Buildings
2.4 Cycle
Access in
Building
Conne
ct
Score
3.1 Small
Blocks
3.2
Prioritize
d
Connectiv
ity
Mix
Score
5.1
Complem
entary
Uses
5.2
Accessibili
ty to Food
5.3
Affordabl
e Housing
Densif
y
Score
6.1 Land
Use
Density
Compa
ct
Score
7.1 Urban
Site
7.2
Transit
Options
Shift
Score
8.1 Off-
Street
Parking
8.2
Driveway
Density
8.3
Roadway
Area
Central Saint Giles London, UK 99 14 3 3 6 1 1 5 2 1 1 1 15 10 5 15 10 1 4 15 15 15 10 5 20 10 2 8
Hammarby SjÖstad Stockholm, Sweden 94 15 3 3 6 2 1 4 2 1 1 0 15 10 5 10 6 1 3 15 15 15 10 5 20 10 2 8
Vauban Freiburg, Germany 90 13 3 3 6 0 1 4 2 1 1 0 15 10 5 13 10 1 2 15 15 10 6 4 20 10 2 8
Quartier Massena, Paris Rive
Gauche Paris, France 90 14 3 3 6 1 1 4 2 0 1 1 13 10 3 15 10 1 4 15 15 15 10 5 14 4 2 8
Liuyun Xiaoqu Guangzhou, China 90 14 3 3 6 2 0 3 1 1 1 0 15 10 5 11 10 1 0 15 15 15 10 5 17 10 2 5
Centro Internacional de BogotáBogotá, Columbia 90 11 3 0 6 1 1 3 0 1 1 1 11 6 5 15 10 1 4 15 15 15 10 5 20 10 2 8
Bo01, Västra Hamnen Malmö, Sweden 90 14 3 3 6 1 1 4 2 1 1 0 15 10 5 11 10 1 0 15 15 11 10 1 20 10 2 8
HafenCity Hamburg, Germany 87 13 3 3 6 0 1 4 2 1 1 0 15 10 5 15 10 1 4 15 15 15 10 5 10 0 2 8
Olympic Village Vancouver, Canada 86 12 3 0 6 2 1 3 2 1 0 0 15 10 5 9 4 1 4 15 15 15 10 5 17 10 2 5
Uptown, Cleveland Cleveland, Ohio, USA 84 14 3 3 6 1 1 3 2 0 1 0 13 10 3 11 10 1 0 15 15 11 6 5 17 10 2 5
Jianwai SOHO Beijing, China 83 12 3 0 6 2 1 5 2 1 1 1 13 10 3 11 10 1 0 15 15 15 10 5 12 10 2 0
GWL Terrein Amsterdam, Netherlands 82 15 3 3 6 2 1 5 2 1 1 1 15 10 5 15 10 1 4 0 0 15 10 5 17 10 2 5
World Trade Center site New York, New York USA 79 13 3 3 6 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 15 10 5 5 4 1 0 15 15 15 10 5 14 4 2 8
Ciudadela El Recreo Bogotá, Colombia 79 5 0 0 0 4 1 4 2 1 0 1 11 10 1 15 10 1 4 15 15 9 6 3 20 10 2 8
Puerto Madero Buenos Aires, Argentina 78 13 3 3 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 15 10 5 11 10 1 0 15 15 14 10 4 10 0 2 8
Pearl District Portland, Oregon, USA 78 15 3 3 6 2 1 2 0 1 1 0 15 10 5 11 6 1 4 15 15 15 10 5 5 3 2 0
New Quay, Docklands Melbourne, Australia 78 14 3 3 5 2 1 3 2 1 0 0 15 10 5 11 10 1 0 15 15 10 6 4 10 0 2 8
Bab Al Bahr Rabat-Salé, Morocco 78 12 3 0 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 15 10 5 7 6 1 0 15 15 15 10 5 14 4 2 8
North Battery Park City New York, New York, USA 77 10 3 0 6 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 9 6 3 15 10 1 4 15 15 15 10 5 11 4 2 5
Mission Bay San Francisco, California, 76 11 3 0 6 1 1 2 0 1 0 1 11 6 5 11 6 1 4 15 15 15 10 5 11 1 2 8
Fruitvale Station Village Oakland, California, USA 76 12 3 0 6 2 1 2 0 1 1 0 15 10 5 11 6 1 4 15 15 11 6 5 10 0 2 8
Corvin Budapest. Hungary 76 14 3 3 6 1 1 4 2 0 1 1 15 10 5 11 10 1 0 7 7 15 10 5 10 0 2 8
Reforma 222 México City, México 75 13 3 3 4 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 15 10 5 11 10 1 0 15 15 15 10 5 5 0 0 5
Marina Bay Financial Centre Singapore 74 11 3 0 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 15 10 5 11 10 1 0 15 15 11 6 5 11 1 2 8
Wilshire Vermont Station Los Angeles, California, USA 71 13 3 3 6 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 9 6 3 15 10 1 4 15 15 15 10 5 2 0 2 0
Bank of America Building New York, New York, USA 70 12 3 0 6 2 1 2 0 0 1 1 9 6 3 5 0 1 4 15 15 15 10 5 12 10 2 0
Whampoa Garden Hong Kong, China 69 13 3 3 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 15 10 5 7 6 1 0 7 7 15 10 5 12 2 2 8
South Lake Union Seattle, Washington, USA 66 10 3 0 6 0 1 4 2 1 1 0 9 6 3 9 4 1 4 7 7 15 10 5 12 10 2 0
Kanyon Mall Istanbul, Turkey 65 10 3 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 3 11 10 1 0 15 15 14 10 4 10 0 2 8
Neo Superquadra Curitiba, Brazil 63 13 3 3 6 0 1 5 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 7 6 1 0 0 0 15 10 5 20 10 2 8
Grand Gateway 66 Shanghai, China 62 6 3 3 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 3 0 3 11 10 1 0 15 15 15 10 5 10 0 2 8
Special West Chelsea District
(High Line Upzoning) New York, New York, USA 61 14 3 3 6 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 3 0 3 11 10 1 0 15 15 14 10 4 2 0 2 0
Digital Media City Seoul, South Korea 60 10 3 0 6 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 15 10 5 9 4 1 4 0 0 15 10 5 10 0 2 8
Uptown, Oakland Oakland, California, USA 58 10 3 0 6 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 3 2 1 15 10 1 4 15 15 12 10 2 2 0 2 0
Kronsberg Hanover, Germany 58 13 3 3 6 0 1 4 2 1 1 0 15 10 5 5 0 1 4 0 0 1 1 0 20 10 2 8
Podomoro City Jakarta, Indonesia 53 8 3 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 1 0 1 0 15 15 15 10 5 11 1 2 8
The Mixc Shenzhen, China 50 6 0 0 5 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 11 10 1 0 15 15 15 10 5 2 0 2 0
Metrozone* Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 6 1 0 15 15 15 10 5 10 0 2 8
Bairro Carioca Rio de Janeiro, Brasil 47 5 3 0 2 0 0 4 2 1 0 1 3 0 3 8 4 0 4 0 0 15 10 5 12 10 2 0
S.E.W.S.H. Scheme, Vadaj* Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India 46 3 0 0 0 2 1 2 2 0 0 0 13 10 3 5 0 1 4 0 0 9 6 3 14 4 2 8
East Liberty station area
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
USA 46 9 3 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 10 3 9 4 1 4 0 0 15 10 5 0 0 0 0
Empire Estate
Pimpri Chinchwad,
Maharashtra, India 49 8 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 4 1 2 15 15 14 10 4 5 3 2 0
Águas Claras - DF Brasília, Brazil 45 6 3 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 7 6 1 7 6 1 0 0 0 11 6 5 13 3 2 8
Mitikah Phase 1 México City, México 41 10 3 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 11 10 1 0 0 0 15 10 5 0 0 0 0
Rio Vista West San Diego, California, USA 40 10 3 0 6 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 3 0 3 5 4 1 0 15 15 3 3 0 2 0 2 0
Ciudad del Rio Partial Plan* Medellín, Colombia 39 7 3 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 7 6 1 0 0 0 15 10 5 7 0 2 5
Sikander Bakht Nagar,
Behrampur* Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India 37 3 0 0 0 2 1 2 2 0 0 0 5 2 3 9 4 1 4 0 0 7 6 1 11 4 2 5
South End station area
Charlotte, North Carolina,
USA 36 10 3 0 6 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 3 0 3 4 0 0 4 0 0 8 3 5 10 0 2 8
CETRAM Zapata México City, México 34 4 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 2 1 9 4 1 4 0 0 15 10 5 2 0 2 0
SIPCOT Siruseri Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 6 1 5 12 2 2 8
Sikander Bakht Nagar,
Behrampur Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India 3 0 0 0 2 1 2 2 0 0 0 5 2 3 9 4 1 4 0 0 7 6 1 11 4 2 5
Ciudad del Rio (partial plan)* Medellín, Colombia 7 3 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 7 6 1 0 0 0 15 10 5 7 0 2 5
S.E.W.S.H. Scheme, Vadaj
(Affordable housing at Vadaj)* Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India 3 0 0 0 2 1 2 2 0 0 0 13 10 3 5 0 1 4 0 0 9 6 3 14 4 2 8
Metrozone* Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 6 1 0 15 15 15 10 5 10 0 2 8

36. Central
Saint
Giles,
Lond
99
Poi
•
An
11-­‐story
office
building
that
has
405,000
P2
of
commercial
space.
• A
15-­‐story
residenFal
building
with
109
dwelling
units,
half
of
which
are
affordable.
• A
pedestrian
plaza
located
between
the
two
buildings
at
the
centre
of
the
site
is
surrounded
by
24,500P2
of
ground
floor
transparent
retail
&
restaurant
spa

37. Strong
land
market
=
• Developer
gave
land
for
pedestrian
plaza
• 50%
of
residen0al
units
affordable
in
exchange
for
two
more
floors
of
commercial
• Affordable
housing
requirement
in
Camden’s
site
brief