Resolution 3434 Transit-Oriented Development Policy Interim Evaluation

Resolution 3434 Transit-Oriented Development Policy

Interim Evaluation

September 7, 2006

MTC Elderly and Disabled Advisory Committee

MTC Planning Committee – Evaluation of Resolution 3434 TOD Policy

Adam Millard-Ball, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates

Resolution 3434 Transit-Oriented Development Policy

Three pillars Corridor housing thresholds Corridor working groups Station area plans

Evaluation requested after 12 months

Technology BART Light Rail

Bus Rapid

Transit

Commuter Rail

Ferry

Housing Threshold

3,850 3,300 2,750 2,200 750



Ridership Impacts of Transit-Oriented Development

“Given the preponderance of evidence, the ridership benefits of TOD are unassailable.”- Transportation Research Board review

Well-designed TOD can boost ridership by 5-6 times

Other factors magnify ridership benefits• Higher density• Reduced parking and parking charges• Constrained auto infrastructure

Greatest benefits within ½ mile radius TOD promotes system efficiency

• Off-peak trips• Little marginal cost to transit operators



TOD Residents’ Transit Mode Shares

20.5

37.8

1317.4

6.6

44.9

3.3 4.84.25.4 5.8

13.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

All ResidentialSites

BART: PleasantHill

BART: S.Alameda Cnty

LA Metro: LongBeach

SD Trolley: Mission Valley

Caltrain Commuter

To

tal T

rip

s (%

)

Surveyed Sites Surrounding City

Source: Lund, Cervero & Willson, 2004



Transit Shares: Home-Based Work Trips

Source: Gossen (2005). Categories refer to distances from rail station or ferry terminal.



Corridor Housing Thresholds

Thresholds are achievable Some corridors have

straightforward path (e.g. Dumbarton Rail)

In other corridors, continued planning required

Thresholds can be met with modest increases in density

Too soon to judge impact on affordable housing

Land-use conflicts are not precluding meeting thresholds

Employment thresholds are not appropriate

Land banking not yet addressed



Corridor Performance – July 2006

Corridor

Threshold

(Housing Units)

Currently achieved?

Achieved with adopted plans?

Achieved with TOD scenario?

eBART2,200 No No

Likely with long-term TOD

Silicon Valley Rapid Transit

3,850 No NoYes, with

moderate TOD

AC Transit Bus Rapid Transit

2,750 Yes -- --

Caltrain Downtown Extension

2,200 Yes -- --

Muni – New Central Subway

3,300 Yes -- --

Sonoma-Marin Rail (SMART)

2,200 No NoYes, with long-

term TOD

Dumbarton Rail2,200 No

Likely, once plans

adopted---

Expanded Ferry Service 750 Varies



Potential Station Area Housing - SMART

Threshold = 2,200 units

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

ExistingUnits

Scenario1

Scenario2

Scenario3

ABAG2030

Avera

ge U

nit

s p

er

Sta

tio

n A

rea

High

Low

Threshold



Potential Station Area Housing - SVRT


0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

ExistingUnits

Scenario1

Scenario2

Scenario3

ABAG2030

Avera

ge U

nit

s p

er

Sta

tio

n A

rea

High

Low

Threshold



Potential Station Area Housing - eBART


0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Existing +Pipeline

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 ABAG 2030

Avera

ge U

nit

s p

er

Sta

tio

n A

rea



Potential Station Area Housing – Dumbarton Rail


0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Existing Scenario 2 ABAG 2030

Avera

ge U

nit

s p

er

Sta

tio

n A

rea



Land Use Conflicts: BART to San Jose/Santa Clara

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

Nu

mb

er o

f H

ou

sin

g U

nit

s

Frem

ont

War

m S

pring

s

Mon

tagu

e/Cap

itol

Berry

essa

Alum R

ock

Downt

own

San Jo

se

Diridon

/Are

na

Santa

Clar

a

Existing

Scenario 1: GP Low

Scenario 2: Potential

Scenario 3: Enhanced



Corridor Working Groups

Role: bring together CMAs, city and county planning staff, transit agencies, and other key stakeholders

Too soon to evaluate effectiveness Potentially difficult decisions have yet to be taken Little incentive to meet once housing threshold met Potential additional tasks

• Allocate potential incentive funding

• Determine how to maximize ridership and meet farebox recovery criteria

• Prioritize access improvements• Determine station role



Station Area Plans

Role: address range of issues, including:• Future land-use changes• Station access needs• Circulation improvements• Pedestrian-friendly design• TOD-supportive parking• ADA accessibility

Pilot cycle currently underway Preliminary indications – changing way in

which local jurisdictions think about their stations

Emerging as critical to TOD policy Grant recipients note supportive influence

of MTC TOD policy

MTC-Funded Station Area

Plans: Pilot Cycle

Hacienda

Alameda Point

Fairfield

Menlo Park

Pittsburg – Railroad Ave

San Leandro

Santa Clara

Downtown Santa Rosa



Incentives for Additional Housing

How to spur corridors to go above and beyond housing threshold?

Potential incentives Redirect existing funding

(e.g. HIP) Use potential new

funding sources – bonds on 2006 ballot

Direct incentives to stations/corridors that significantly exceed housing threshold

Reduce the potential for cities to reverse land-use decisions

Non-TOD

TOD Policy11%

Remainder16%

Existing Stations

23%

Smart-GrowthTOD

Target50%

Growth to 2030



Other Conclusions

TOD has broad benefits for both transit ridership and transit efficiency

TOD Policy complements other policies that promote transit ridership• BART System Expansion Policy• Federal New Starts criteria• Regional Measure 2 farebox recovery

Meeting TOD policy goals represents only part of the effort needed to ensure new transit extensions maximize ridership

Too early to analyze the full implications of the TOD policy



Questions?

Comments?

July 14, 2006

MTC Planning Committee

Documents

Resolution 3434 Transit-Oriented Development Policy Interim Evaluation