Chile Verde

—————————————

The first method of amending regulations is overlay zoning. An overlay zone applies supplemental provisions to a specific area within a basic use zoning district, without disturbing requirements of the basic use district. If the overlay requirements conflict with the basic use requirements, the stricter requirements apply. For example, the City of Seattle passed its Station Area Overlay legislation in 2001, which created Station Area Overlay Districts around eight future light rail stations. The provisions of the Station Area Overlay Districts, which came from neighbourhood plan recommendations, aim to encourage housing development and discourage automobile oriented development near the planned light rail stations. In addition to Station Area Overlay Districts, Seattle also has two pedestrian overlay zones with provisions that lower parking requirements, limit parking lot development, and call for ground level uses to be pedestrian oriented.

The creation of a new zoning classification is another technique used, in which land use regulations and development standards can be specifically customized to achieve TOD objectives. For example, in Gresham, Oregon, four new zones were created around a light rail station. While each of the four zones encouraged a certain type of development, they all allowed an intermixing of uses. The new zones also were required to comply with transit-supportive development standards. The city of Denver, Colorado, is in the process of adopting a transit mixed-use zone which allows more floor area per unit of land than is generally typical of urban development. This zone also provides for parking reductions, requires a general development plan, and requires each TOD site to be no less than 10 acres. Design guidelines are given for structures and surface areas. While overlay districts are the addition of regulations over and above the underlying zone, an advantage of creating new zoning districts is to “wipe the slate clean” of earlier regulation. They can be drafted more simply than overlay districts.

Another option involving land use regulations to support transit oriented development and the use of transit service is the adoption of trip reduction ordinances. Trip reduction ordinances are regulations passed by a local government, which require developers, property owners and/or employers to participate or assist in financing transportation management efforts. Ordinances may specify a target reduction in the number of vehicle trips expected from a development based on the standardized trip generation rates. Trip reduction ordinances may also establish peak periods for travel reduction; establish time tables for compliance, and penalties for non-compliance.

Trip reduction activities specified in ordinances can encompass a wide range of actions, including public transit promotion. There is generally no limit to what activities are conducted, as long as those activities produce trip reduction results. Because the use of transit service is increased where persons rely less on private automobile travel, other efforts to release people from their reliance on cars may also bolster use of transit. Such efforts may include property manager or employer provision of ride matching services for carpooling, provision of vanpool programs (which might also be a service offered by the public transit agency), and offering a guaranteed ride home program for employees of businesses located within transit oriented development and who use commute alternatives. A local government could develop a trip reduction ordinance with requirements to identify and examine potential bus transit development efforts and implement them if they are deemed feasible as a means to mitigate traffic congestion.

• Crafting Transit Supportive design guidelines:

Transit supportive design guidelines are another proactive approach communities are taking to encourage transit considerations in future development plans. A 1993 survey showed that approximately 25 percent of the transit agencies in the United States have some type of transit supportive design guidelines, a percentage that has likely increased over the last nine years. Transit supportive guidelines are to be used during a project’s design and development review stages by the architects, planners, landscape architects, engineers, local officials, and developers involved. They are a way of letting the involved parties know the needs of transit. Included in the guidelines should be a transit checklist, which can be used as an aid to developers or adopted officially into a municipality’s development review process.

One of the most effective and nationally known sets of transit supportive guidelines comes from Snohomish County, north of Seattle, Washington. “A Guide to Land Use and Public Transportation,” developed by Snohomish County Transit (SNO-TRANS), uses graphics and illustrations in its guidelines for designing transit-friendly projects. The guidelines not only address new development but provide suggestions on how to retrofit car-oriented suburban development over time to become more mixed-use and transit-oriented.

The Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority, also known as LYNX, took a proactive approach to transit friendly development by creating the “Central Florida Mobility Design Manual,” a book of explicit and detailed guidelines for integrating a balanced transportation system into the physical design of new growth and redevelopment. Based on the comprehensive plans of the 26 cities and three counties in the Central Florida region, the manual includes a mobility design checklist and covers such topics as pedestrian, bicycle, vehicular and transit circulation; transit stops and terminals; and building location and design.

• Providing effective access by alternative transportation modes:

Another key element of building TOD in established communities is making communities more pedestrian and bicycle friendly. For TOD to be successful and for residents to truly rely less on automobiles, it must be feasible to make most routine personal trips by foot. There will have to be a sufficient variety of retail establishments within walking distance of the TOD to meet resident needs. The suburban style development of most established communities is not conducive to other modes of transportation besides the automobile. A number of communities are attempting to change this with street improvements aimed at making walking and bicycling viable modes of transportation. As alternative travel modes are improved, this reinforces the establishment of a transit orientation. Improvements require having pedestrian, transit, and bicycle linkages that are attractive, continuous, direct, and convenient.

In its attempts to become more pedestrian oriented, Charlotte, North Carolina adopted a new zoning category called the Pedestrian Overlay District (referred to as PED). The PED provisions aim to improve accessibility to pedestrians and transit users, increase development potential, encourage a mixture of uses, and encourage the reuse of existing buildings and development that complement adjacent neighbourhoods. Fourteen corridors have been identified as potential PEDs. Individual Pedscape Plans must be developed for each area before it is zoned as a PED overlay district. The first of these plans to be developed, the East Boulevard Pedscape Plan, sets requirements for new development and calls for improvements such as wider sidewalks, cross walks, landscaping, planting strips, planters, pedestrian lighting, medians, and bike lanes.

Orlando, Florida, is a community whose focus on bicyclists has gone hand-in-hand with building TOD in established communities. In 1990, Bicycle magazine ranked Orlando as the second worst city for bicycling in the country. The ranking inspired City officials to develop a long-range bicycle plan, with the goal of increasing bicycling as a mode of transportation by “implementing a system of safe, economical and efficient bikeway facilities and by supporting bicycle-related programs.” Since the plan was completed in 1994, the City has built over 150 miles of bikeways. The 2001 Plan update calls for the construction of an additional 79 miles by 2006 and another 100 miles by 2010. Orlando also placed 94 bicycle racks at public facilities throughout the city and now requires all new developments to provide bicycle parking close to the main entrance. The city’s bicycle facilities had improved so much by the year 2000 that the League of American Bicyclists designated Orlando as one of 52 “Bicycle Friendly Communities” in the United States.

Managing parking:

Parking management programs that encourage parking maximums, reduce parking requirements, utilize shared parking, and carefully design and locate parking structures are another way to make policies more supportive of TOD. Parking management can be used to tip the balance toward making conditions more favourable to transit and less favourable to auto travel. For example, Portland, Oregon, does not have minimum parking requirements, but rather sets parking maximums in the downtown area and allows less parking near its MAX light rail stations. In Florida, the City of Orlando sets the maximum number of parking spaces for retail at four spaces per 1000 square feet of gross floor area and has a lower than normal minimum parking requirement of 2.5 spaces per 1000 square feet of gross floor area. Edward Beimborn et al. suggest that local governments require each proposed development project to explore the feasibility of shared parking on all adjacent parking facilities. In San Francisco, the San Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI) worked with residents and businesses around the 3rdStreet light rail project to develop parking recommendations that resulted in more on-street and shared parking. Houston’s Main Street Revitalization Project has a parking management plan that will concentrate parking at the southern end of the transit corridor and will integrate parking facilities into mixed-use commercial/residential development rather than stand alone parking structures.  People will be able to park in the southern end and ride light rail up and down the corridor. To complement the reduction of parking supply in transit oriented development, a recent change in the federal tax code now allows more employers to use a strategy called “parking cash-out.” Under this strategy, an employer gives employees a choice either to keep a parking space at work or accept a cash payment and give up the parking space. Any employer that makes subsidized parking available for employees in off-street lots and garages can offer parking cash-out.  Before 1998, federal tax law prohibited an employer from providing an option of cash income or a tax-exempt parking benefit to employees. If an employer chose to give an employee the option of cash in lieu of a parking space, then all parking provided by the employer lost its tax exempt status causing the employer and employee to be required to pay taxes on the value of the parking subsidy. That quirk in the legislation has been remedied so employers now can offer employees a broader choice of commute options without affecting those who opt to keep the parking benefit. As a result of parking cash-out, a significant number of employees will take the cash and choose to ride transit, walk, bike or carpool to work, thus reducing parking demand. According to case studies and research, parking cash out reduces driving to work by 20 percent or more.

Benefits from reducing parking demand accrue to individuals, businesses and communities. Individuals benefit by receiving more equitable choices in how they choose to commute. Current federal tax law allows most employers to provide up to $180 per month per employee for parking and up to $100 per month for transit and vanpool co-payments to employees. Businesses, especially small employers who must lease parking spaces, may be able to reduce parking costs. Parking cash-out works best for employers who lease, rather than own, parking although any employer who pays for parking can implement parking cash-out. If employers were to negotiate lease agreements that itemized the cost of parking, then employers would gain better control over the number of parking spaces they chose to lease. This can result in more competitive rents that may attract more employers to the transit oriented development. Employers can reduce their site parking requirements and save on payroll taxes by offering the parking qualified transportation fringe benefit and offering to cash it out. Redeveloping areas in cities, such as transit oriented developments, can lessen their parking requirements if employers participate in this program. This will result in the use of city real estate for higher, more profitable uses that support redevelopment success.

Building Transit Oriented Development At Park-And-Ride Lots

Locating development around park-and-ride lots is a way for transit agencies and local governments to focus development around transit and make more efficient use of the land they already own. King County’s Transit Oriented Development Program began in 1998 and is based on the redevelopment of transit centers and/or park-and-ride lots. The aim of the program is to control urban sprawl by building housing and other amenities on and around park-and-ride lots. King County hired Economics Research Associates to rank their park-and-ride lots from a private development perspective, then scheduled TOD projects based on that ranking. The Village at Overlook Station, a redevelopment of a five-acre park-and-ride lot, was one of the first pilot projects. The station development, which operates as a park-and-ride lot and a major bus facility, includes two levels of covered parking with over 500 parking stalls to be shared by residents and park-and-ride users, 308 rental housing units, and a 2,400 square foot child care facility for residents and park-and-ride users. This project is the nation’s first housing development to be built over a transit station.

In Denver, Colorado, the Regional Transportation District (RTD) works with local communities and developers to redevelop park-and-ride lots and surrounding areas into “transit villages.”  RTD’s function is to help local municipalities create a development plan, make sure the land is available for the right kind of development, and help developers “bring the vision to life.”

Predesignating transit Corridors and incorporating transit service into future development:

Beimborn et al. suggest that community planning efforts should determine where future major transit services should exist and then predesignate a future system of transit corridors. Future core transit routes should be mapped out prior to approving development.

Charlotte, North Carolina, provides an illustrative example of this approach. The widespread traffic congestion caused by the area’s low density and suburban land development patterns compelled the City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County to develop the “Centres and Corridors Concepts Plan” in 1994. This long-term growth management guide addressed traffic congestion, new development patterns, and creating new transit options. The major focus of the plan was to integrate transit and land use by concentrating transit supportive development and redevelopment along the five major transportation corridors (the North, Northeast, South, Southeast, and West Corridors). A few years later, the 2025 Integrated Transit/Land Use Plan was developed, which provides the framework for developing rapid transit and transit supportive land use plans for the five corridors, in addition to transit improvements outside the corridor areas. The designs for a new light rail line are currently underway for the South Corridor.

Incorporating Transit Service into Future development/ redevelopment:

Some communities are proactively incorporating transit into the design phase of future development. For example, in Arlington County, Virginia, transportation demand management (TDM) strategies are required for all new development site plans. TDM is a set of specific strategies that foster increased efficiency of the transportation system by influencing travel behaviour by mode, time, frequency, trip length, regulation, route or cost. TDM discourages drive-alone commuting through better management of existing transportation infrastructure, services and resources. TDM strategies can include both transit-related facilities and service improvements in addition to promotional efforts. TDM strategies also commonly include actions that support the use of transit, such as provision of an emergency guaranteed ride home program and provision of other commute alternatives (carpooling, vanpooling, telecommuting, bicycling) that reduce the need for private auto ownership.

The City of Orlando provides two examples of future development and redevelopment projects that incorporate transit planning as a fundamental design component.  Orlando is currently in the process of redeveloping its old Naval Training Centre (NTC) into a traditional neighbourhood community called Lake Baldwin. The Lake Baldwin plan incorporates transit planning aimed at reducing automobile dependence. Transit plans for the redevelopment include timely bus routes linking the community to downtown Orlando, the possibility of rubber wheel trolleys or buses to connect neighbourhood centres to the Village Centre and the nearby Business Park, and provisions for a future light rail system which could connect the Village Centre with Orlando’s major activity centres.

Another example is the Southeast Orlando Sector Plan. The City of Orlando has identified the 19,300 acres of Southeast Orlando as a Future Growth Centre, with the Orlando International Airport providing the primary employment base. The proposed uses for the area include a Town Centre to serve as the downtown, village and neighbourhood centres, and Airport Support Districts. The plan includes a dense, well-connected street system to promote a balanced transportation system. The street system will be designed to allow transit to route directly through the communities or town centres to transit stations, which will be located in the centre of mixed-use commercial and residential areas. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities connect all developments in the Southeast Area Plan.

Adapting transit services to suburban areas:

In addition to retrofitting the physical environment and planning policy framework that will enable transit to effectively operate in its traditional manner, transit systems also are attempting the converse approach, by reworking traditional services to function better in a suburban environment. Suburban style development has had major impacts on the provision of transit services. The traditional radial network of transit routes alone cannot effectively serve suburban communities. To better serve communities, transit agencies are taking various steps to adapt public transportation services to enhance and supplement the radial networks. “Guidelines for Enhancing Suburban Mobility Using Public Transportation,” issued by the Transit Cooperative Research Program, provides a useful description of different types of services that transit agencies are implementing such as express bus services, local area circulators, shuttles, and subscription vans and buses.

Higher speed express bus service for longer commutes to and from suburbs or between suburbs, often using HOV lanes, has become popular with transit agencies as a means to compete with the automobile in terms of comfort, convenience, and travel time. For example, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, express bus service operates on private bus rights-of-way called bus ways, allowing buses to bypass traffic congestion.

Local area circulators and shuttles are designed to supplement and, in some cases, to substitute for major line-haul routes. Such service approaches come in the form of fixed-route, route deviation, and demand-response (often called dial-a-ride). Circulators and shuttles can be a more effective form of service in areas with discontinuous roadways, low-density development, or other factors that make line-haul service difficult. For example, in Allentown, Pennsylvania, the LANTA WhirleyBird Mall Express circulator provides a link between popular shopping destinations and connects to LANTA’s regular route network. Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) in North Carolina provides another example. CATS recently launched smaller neighbourhood shuttles in suburban communities that transport customers to and from destinations within the neighbourhoods. They stop at neighbourhood “hubs” where customers can connect free of charge to CATS line-haul routes that service downtown.

In some communities, employers and other sponsors are contracting with transit agencies (public and private) for subscription bus or van services. In this type of arrangement, express bus or van service is offered to a closed group of riders. The sponsor determines the route and pays a set rate. In Texas, Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) teamed up with Campbell Centre Management to provide “E/Shuttle,” which transports employees between Lovers Lane Rail Station and the Campbell Centre. The shuttle is provided by DART, and the Campbell Centre provides the shuttle operator.

The Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART), the transit provider for suburban Detroit, serves as an excellent example of a transit agency adapting its services to better meet the needs of the community. In order to enhance employment-related transportation in the mid-1990’s, SMART changed its focus from fixed route transit to a more flexible system that offered such services as employee shuttles, suburban-to-suburban park and ride routes, demand-response, and flexible routing. SMART also designed three programs aimed at helping individuals move from welfare to work. The “Get a Job, Get a Ride!” program provides new employees with a free one-month bus pass. SMART’s Jobline is an automated telephone system that advertises job openings along SMART bus routes. The Job Express program uses small buses to take passengers from the line-haul route directly to the door of their work sites.

Advancements in technology also have played an integral role in helping transit, particularly bus service, more effectively serve suburban communities. David Freedman provides a description of bus transit technology advances in the United States, particularly in Montgomery County, Maryland. Freedman observes the common perception is that while buses are “old, smelly, noisy, bone-shaking, always late, and stuck in the same … traffic as everyone else,” buses are becoming much more sophisticated and efficient through “high-tech” makeovers. As an alternative to major transportation infrastructure projects that cost billions of dollars, Montgomery County decided to improve its bus system in the early 1990s at a cost of about $4.5 million. The improvements included installing global positioning receivers and communications gear on 250 buses, setting up transmitters, and adapting the county’s traffic control centre to handle a new bus dispatch system. The global positioning system (GPS) constantly transmits bus locations to dispatchers at the traffic control centre. If there are any problems, the dispatchers can relay instructions to the bus drivers through a small screen next to the bus dashboard. For example, if a bus is running late, a dispatcher can direct the driver to skip stops or tell a bus behind it to jump ahead. If a bus runs into traffic problems, a dispatcher can give the driver rerouting directions to avoid congestion. The traffic control centre can also remotely operate the county’s 800 traffic signals to ease traffic jams, or extend a green light for a bus that is behind schedule. Bus ridership went up 20 percent between 1996 and 2001.

The ability to constantly track bus locations and timeliness through GPS is helping transit agencies come up with more efficient routes and schedules. Many buses are also being equipped with “people trackers” that allow buses to count each new rider through a tripped light beam or pressure on a floorboard. This further aids transit agencies in implementing the most appropriate route frequencies and bus sizes for each route based on the different passenger loads throughout the day.

Transmitted GPS data is also being used for “smart signs” at bus stops that display how long it will be until the next bus arrives. Smart signs are currently being used in Montgomery County, Maryland; King County, Washington; and Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota. Similar GPS advancements include King County’s BusView system that allows riders to access minute-by-minute locations of buses over the Internet. They also include the MyBus system that allows riders to access bus arrival times over the Internet or web enabled cell phones and hand held computers

Another advancement to bus service is the development of bus rapid transit (BRT) systems. A BRT is an express bus with limited and widely spaced stops that has its own travel lane, allowing it to bypass traffic. Riding BRT can be compared to riding commuter or light rail. Because BRT offers a small number of stops, smaller feeder buses usually supplement them. Cities that have recently implemented BRT systems include Washington, Los Angeles, and Pittsburgh.

Continually advancing technology holds great potential for what transit systems will be able to do in the future. Freedman writes,

Imagine, then, calling a transit company that sends a bus 15 minutes later to the corner near your home, from which you’re whisked to a BRT that takes you the 20 miles to downtown in just 25 minutes, even in rush hour. Eventually the system may be smart enough to automatically track your location by cell phone, so that all you need to do is say into the phone, “I’d like a bus to the Williamstown Mall,” and then wait a few seconds to hear how soon your custom-programmed bus will pull up beside you.

Considering how rapidly bus technology is changing, that scenario may actually come true. For now, many transit agencies have strived to make their services more user friendly by creating comprehensive websites where users can access information such as routes, schedules, trip planners, service changes, and transit news.

Commuter assistance programs also play a part in promoting transit usage. For example, the Commuter Assistance Program in Arlington County, Virginia, provides a website called CommuterPage.com designed to encourage alternate modes of transportation. CommuterPage.com offers a vast array of alternative transportation services such as daily commuter news, complete information on all the public transit systems and several private systems in the Washington, D.C. area, information about carpool and vanpool services, weather conditions, air quality reports, traffic alerts, and online ordering for transit passes. The site recently introduced CommuterPage.com Mobile Services, which allows users to access commuter news and schedules for Arlington Transit and Arlington Metrobus from mobile devices such as Palms, Pocket PCs and web enabled cell-phones. CommuterPage.com receives approximately 72,000 visits per month.

Offering Location Efficient Mortgage

In addition to physical design, regulation, and transit service approaches to creating transit friendliness in established car oriented communities, another approach uses monetary incentives for homebuyers to purchase homes near transit. Known as a Location Efficient Mortgage (LEM)® program, it encourages the development of efficient, environmentally progressive communities to reduce urban sprawl and dependence on the automobile. This program grants homebuyers larger loans and lower down payments than those for which they would normally qualify when they choose to live in close proximity to public transit and major retail and employment centres. LEM® takes into account how much money households can save each year by using public transit and applies that to their buying power, resulting in a potential increase in credit extension of several thousand dollars. The “Location Efficient Value” of a home is calculated by a computerized mapping tool that assigns values based on residential density, automobile ownership, annual income, and access to public transportation and major retail and employment centres. The LEM® is an example of a tool that addresses the power inherent in the home purchasing decision made by individuals. While TOD is touted for the good it does for society, the LEM® creates a reason why it makes good sense for the individual to choose transit. It creates a personal benefit.

Seattle, Washington, was the first city to team up with Fannie Mae to offer LEM®. In order to participate in the program, homebuyers must agree to owning no more than one car and live within one quarter mile of a bus line or one half mile of a train or light rail system. As an added benefit and an incentive to use transit, participants in the program automatically qualify to receive a 25 percent discount on an annual one-zone bus pass for two years. They also receive free membership and discounted fees for the car-sharing Flexcar program.

The LEM® Program was developed by the Centre for Neighborhood Technology, the Natural Resources Defence Council, and the Surface Transportation Policy Project, with support from Fannie Mae, with an aim of linking home ownership and public transit. The program has also been launched in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Chicago. Similarly, the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) is providing marketing support and transit passes for borrowers of the Fannie Mae Atlanta Smart Commute housing initiative.

Offering Car Sharing Programs
A service strategy that shows promise in supporting the mobility of persons choosing to live in transit oriented development is car sharing programs. These are short term auto rental programs, either private businesses or cooperatives, that make sense to persons who do not need a car to commute to and from work and who do not drive more than about 7,500 miles per year. Car sharing programs enable persons to do away with private auto ownership by making available rental cars, vans and trucks. Some survey data show that transit trip making of persons increases to 53 percent of total trips after joining a car sharing program, up from 35 percent of total trips prior to joining.

Members of car sharing programs can reserve a vehicle by phone or by Internet, usually 24 hours per day, seven days per week, and rent it for as little as an hour, or as much as a week or more. Members no longer have to be involved with repairs, insurance or parking. There are at least 46 cities in the United States and Canada that currently have car sharing programs.

Addressing and overcoming community resistance through public education

While progress has been made on many fronts in the areas of physical design, public policy, transit service improvements, and technology to build transit oriented development in established communities, perhaps the most difficult challenge is addressing resistance from the communities themselves. Many suburban residents do not want transit services brought onto their streets. Their concerns are about safety, noise, fumes, and litter and a general fear that public transportation will bring an undesirable social element into their neighbourhoods. Transit agencies have taken steps to make transit more acceptable to suburban communities. For example, employing public involvement processes in planning the TOD allows leaders to address community concerns and gather valuable input from citizens. Such input can result in design guidelines for both the land development as well as the transit service itself, to preserve the distinct character of each neighbourhood. To address community concerns, transit agencies have provided smaller transit vehicles, clean-fuel or electric vehicles, and improved bus stop maintenance.

For example, Arlington Transit (ART) in Virginia supplements the regional Metrobus system with smaller, quieter, neighbourhood-friendly vehicles that operate on clean-burning natural gas. ART works with neighbourhood civic associations to identify where the transit needs are and to address any resident concerns.

Charlotte, North Carolina, implemented an extensive public involvement plan when alternative transit options were being explored for Charlotte’s South Corridor. During each phase of the Major Investment Study, residents and stakeholders were educated about the transit opportunities and challenges in the corridor, and their input was gathered to identify community needs, issues, and concerns.

Similarly, Seattle’s Station Area Planning Program also included a successful community outreach program. The outreach involved citizens in the station area planning process through the establishment of Station Area Advisory Committees in the area of each proposed light rail station.

A more extreme approach was taken in the Atlanta metropolitan area. The Atlanta region is well known for the massive population growth and suburban sprawl it experienced in the 1980s and 1990s, resulting in some of the worst traffic conditions and air quality in the nation. In the past, the 12 counties surrounding Atlanta put up strong resistance to creating a regional bus system, expressing fear that transit would bring city crime to their communities. In 1998, Georgia Governor Roy Barnes created the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA), giving it broad powers to deal with local governments. GRTA quickly proposed a regional express bus system and used a “carrot and stick” approach by making road money available to counties willing to participate. By April 2002, 11 of the 12 suburban counties had adopted the proposal.

Upon review of the performance criteria of Belzer and Autler, what seems missing is a measure of the broad appeal that TOD should deliver to homebuyers who otherwise move to the suburbs. The existing criteria frame the issues according to outcomes enjoyed by society as a whole rather than specific value to the individual. Criteria assessing positive societal outcomes are useful for government planners in order to decide the best actions for the region. However, these actions should be complemented with a criterion for assessing how the individual homebuyer or commuter will make locational and transportation decisions based upon what is best for him or herself. This is a perspective that has not been well explored by the literature addressing transit oriented development. Developers will continue to build large homes with three-car garages on one half-acre lots until there is some indication that more homebuyers are willing to buy or lease into TOD.

To compete with suburbia, TOD must offer suburban amenities—the sense of spaciousness, peacefulness, newness, privacy, exclusivity, etc., that suburbanites desire, and at the same time be dense enough to offer what suburbia cannot. That is, for example, the variety of land uses to

enable comparison shopping on foot, as well as lively night life, and a stimulating arts and cultural scene. TOD may even be able to trump the image of suburbia being child friendly, as more suburban parents question the lack of sidewalks for children to safely walk and bicycle to school. The North Natomas Transportation Management Association in Sacramento, California, describes a community that is using an extensive collaborative process to create a child friendly transit oriented development:

The City of Sacramento envisions a new urban form for North Natomas consisting of a well-integrated mixture of land uses, interdependent on quality transit service. Fourteen neighbourhoods surround the Town Centre. The Town Centre will be the heart of the community. Each of the surrounding neighbourhoods has an elementary school as its focal point….”

Achieving such dual appeal would attract newcomers to TOD and quell resistance from existing suburban residents.  While it has taken more than 50 years of suburban development patterns to create the challenges of building transit oriented development in established communities, it is probably realistic to expect that progress will be slow and incremental as existing communities undergo redevelopment. It may take at least several decades, if not another 50 years to turn around the adverse impacts that suburbanization has made upon transit. On the other hand, ever quickening access to reliable information in this age of telecommunications may serve to accelerate changes in cultural attitudes if not only to change investment decisions. Over the 50 years of suburban development, homebuyers have attempted to buy larger homes, as can be found in the suburbs, even though family/household size has continued to shrink. However, real estate is not necessarily always the best investment vehicle, and the common financial advice to purchase “as much house as you can afford” may be a myth that has run its course. While storage warehouses have sprung up all across suburbia to contain possessions that no longer fit in people’s homes, a countertrend has emerged in which there is a renewed interest in simplified living. If this countertrend prevails, more homebuyers and tenants may consider anew the personal advantages of living in a TOD.

Considering that, for every $1 spent on TOD, another $1,400 is spent on conventional suburban development; the general public also may simply lack basic knowledge about what TOD is and what it looks like. A TOD may not yet have been built in their urban area. As more TOD is built and advertised and more homebuyers are exposed to this option, the market may gain momentum with increased awareness spurring more TOD home purchases.

Regardless of how these trends play out, the resistance of established car oriented communities to adopt TOD features suggests that there is a general lack of understanding of the suburban home buying and leasing market that transit visionaries hope to persuade. This lack of knowledge can be initially addressed through focused market research to determine how TOD can be provided to maximize its appeal.

This study also has found that TOD approaches can differ significantly from place to place,

depending upon circumstances such as differences in land development regulations, zoning ordinances, market forces, development opportunities, available transit services, and the regional economy. Researchers also found that some physical design features of TOD may be critical, depending on the particular goals of the development. For that reason, it is important that goals of the TOD be defined early in its development. While the acceptance and adoption of TOD in established communities is an incremental process that may take decades to come to fruition, new technologies such as hybrid electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cells add some degree of optimism for the future of transit to better serve suburbia as it exists today. Society has derived certain positive benefits from suburban life, which have lessened the capacity of traditional transit systems to serve the public. This project identifies the perceived problems of suburban development that are created for individuals as well as society as a whole. Private automobile transportation is available and affordable to most, but not all. Those not served by automobile transportation are sorely disadvantaged. The solution must include efforts in both directions: in order to enable transit to better serve the public, transit agencies need to be able to maximize their ability to extend effective services to suburbia, and people need to be attracted back to urban life through the creation of transit-oriented development. Based upon this synthesis of conceptual information about TOD as well as the experience and insights offered by municipal planners, transit professionals, and other practitioners, several observations and conclusions can be drawn:

1)  The acceptance and adoption of TOD in established communities is an incremental process that may take decades to come to fruition.

2) Developing transit oriented communities will have a greater chance of success when a combination of tools are used together, including regulations such as zoning and parking ordinances, along with incentives such as tax exemptions, an expedited permit review process, density bonuses, or a reduction or waiver of certain development fees.

3)   For TOD projects to be successful, they must strive to capture most of the traditional suburban amenities that are so valued by suburbanites, such as the perception of quietness, spaciousness, light, privacy, safety, and security, while capitalizing on its unique strengths not shared with suburbia. These strengths include more stimulating commercial opportunities within walking distance and a cohesive sense of community.

4)  TOD has the capacity to break ground in our culture. While suburbia offers socio-economic homogeneity, TOD offers the opportunity to arrange cultural and socio-economic diversity that is appealing. For example, TOD can be designed to increase liveability for children, the elderly, and persons with disabilities. Development policies in TOD to intersperse affordable housing with middle-income and affluent housing can soften the demarcation between “us” and “them” and alleviate the desire to find socio-economic sanctuary in suburbia. Social programs, education, and services that elevate low-income persons from poverty and revitalize urban neighbourhoods have the potential to slow suburbanization.

5)  For TOD to be successful and for residents to truly rely less on automobiles, residents must be able to make most routine personal trips by foot. There will have to be a sufficient variety of retail establishments to meet resident needs, within walking distance from home or by uncomplicated transit trips. This suggests finding a workable balance between providing sufficient development density while preserving other elements of suburban appeal.

6)   TOD retrofitting has the best current chance of success in areas with initially amenable markets, such as high concentrations of single adults, “empty nesters,” childless couples, and immigrants.

7)   TOD approaches can differ significantly from place to place depending upon factors and circumstances such as land development regulations, zoning ordinances, market factors, development opportunities, available public transportation services, resources, and the regional economy. For example, Atlanta’s Lindbergh City Center covers 47 acres, is based around a rail station, and includes major housing, retail, and office space. King County’s Village at Overlook Station, on the other hand, covers five acres, is built over a bus station, and includes rental housing units, a park and ride, and a child care facility.

8) New technologies add some degree of optimism for the future of transit to better serve suburbia as it exists today.

BENEFITS

Few ideas have captured the attention of transit planners like Transit Oriented Development. There is much discussion about the concept in the literature and among professionals. This project provides a needed synthesis of that discussion, and it documents issues about which discussion has been based on untested assumptions and which require further investigation.

Other recommendations

Retrofitting at Home:

Food gardening:  “For urban residents aware of the fragility of the food supply system, home gardening is a practical activity that can provide much of the fresh food of a family, and also bias the diet away from over consumption of animal protein and towards vegetable and fruit.”  (2005, D. Holmgren “ Retrofitting Suburbs for Sustainability”)

New ways of sharing land:  providing new alternatives for community formation and cultural innovation. Eg: eco villages and co-housing schemes are beginning to appear combining “ecological” building with common infrastructure and community governance.  (2005, D. Holmgren “ Retrofitting Suburbs for Sustainability”)

Developing financial incentives to stimulate a second building in large properties to increase population in low density areas. Eg: student housing for new immigrants, rear apartment houses for single couples.

Prefer Local:

Implement a State and Council Government Development Plan to foster Local Network Economies.

Developing local Educations Programs, to train trade workers and households in ecological technics of green building, plumbing, urban farming and gardening.

Prefer Local Campaign: Developing a comprehensive marketing campaign to “Prefer Local products and services”: Local schools, local workers, local jobs and local businesses.

Local ID benefits:  Develop or improve local ID offers and benefits (eg: Library card) to access to a “Local incentive Plan” in each Municipality. These incentives could be related with discounts for green services to retrofit, remodelling, gardening, plumbing and electricity reparations or just regular services such as housekeeping, baby sitting or just a coffee in the local café. Local ID also could be used as a” Local Credit Cards” for local services.

Segmented retrofitting strategy:  At the moment there is a free market for the Government retrofitting strategy ( insulation, solar panels and solar water rebates), that means that any company from anywhere can offer insulation or solar panel   installation services around Victoria, taking the money from some suburbs to somewhere else. I suggest that each council take advantage of retrofitting jobs for their population, by generating and boosting their own local businesses and campaigns.

Green Roof campaigns: Develop local strategies to promote the development of Green Roofs and green patches in commercial areas and buildings. Eg: working with Local schools and Tafes to develop Roof Garden strategies.

From the Mall to the Park:

Park as a Green Business: Creating strategies to attract people to parks and green areas by developing, vegetable organic gardens, green houses and community farms in each park; boosting green jobs and education programs within the local communities and fostering community food markets.

Local electricity farms: Developing small scale, local electricity solar and wind farms in public areas and parks for training and local consumption purposes.

Educational programs in Public areas:  Education should be one of the main sources of green Jobs permaculture, botanic, green building, water management, solar and wind electricity, tai chi, yoga and other activities could enhance the use of parks and green areas, managed by local councils.

Community Network stations:  Implement public facilities that can add functions to a park centre, retail mall or office park. A network station in a park can be equipped, furnished and staffed to function as a private office, meeting space, training centre public service counter, classroom, medical examination room, retail shop, etc.*

Green Stations: Each park should have a Cyber Café, a small library and a Learning Centre for education purposes managed by each council.

From car to Public transport:

Improve transport alternatives for commuters:

Electric community vans:  Developing of a new model of electric vehicle for short distances to transport people from their home to the trams and train stations ( door to door) . eg:  ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P223i_tLXok )

Better Public transport offers: Developing an alternative category for train commuters to foster its use in the executive segment (Class AA and A).  One of the main problems at the moment of making the decision to get public transport instead of the car is the uncomfortable and insecure image standing in a carriage full of people feeling like a sardine. An incorporation of a new alternative to commute in a ” just sitting carriage”  could  increase the usage of public transport in the executive segment.

Create local and government Incentives to develop and recuperate train stations premises, by doing concession with the municipalities and allocating people and businesses to take care of each building and surrounding spaces; making them more attractive, friendly and secure places to the public. Every station should be able to produce their own energy by using wind and solar power.  Eg:  “The best Stations in Melbourne”

Enhance and develop new pricing strategies to favour local transport. Eg: Local Tram tickets in a 5 km radius.

Improving and making safer bicycle parking lots in train stations.

Improving and making clear parking lines on the streets to the train and tram stations.

Recovery through Retrofit

(summary)

Middle class Task force Council on Environmental Quality of America.

“Recovery through retrofit “is the US national strategy launched in October 2009, to improve energy efficiency and create opportunities for communities through the country. Home retrofits can potentially help people earn money, as home retrofit workers, while also helping them save money, by lowering their utility bills.

Recommendations summary:

Provide American Home owners with straightforward and reliable home energy retrofit information.

Develop energy performance label for homes:

The Government is proposing to do for homes what ENERGY STAR has done for appliances, helping consumers identify energy efficient products. New homes can already earn the Energy Star label, but not such label is available for existing homes. The department of Energy and Environment Protection agency are working together to develop an energy performance label for these homes. The end result will be an easily recognizable benchmark that energy auditors, retrofitters, lenders, realtors and consumers can use to compare home energy performance and identify the most energy efficient homes.

Develop a National Home Energy Performance Measure

The US Government must establish a standardized home energy performance measure applicable to every home in America. This measure will make it much easier for consumers to understand how much they can save by retrofitting their home. It will also give lenders the information they need to work with homeowners who are looking to invest in the home energy improvements.

Reduce High Upfront costs and make is easy for homeowners to borrow money for home energy retrofits.

Support Municipal Energy Financing

Property tax or municipal energy financing allows the costs of retrofits to be added to homeowner’s property tax bill, with monthly payments generally lower that utility bill savings. This arrangement attaches the costs of the energy retrofit to the property, not the individual, eliminating uncertainty about recovering the cost of the improvements if the property is sold. Federal departments and Agencies will work in partnership with state and local governments to establish standardized underwriting criteria and safeguards to protect consumers and minimize financial risks to the homeowners and mortgages lenders.

The Department of energy will support model financing programs to provide much needed upfront capital utilizing recovery Act funding provided for the Department’s Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant and State Energy programs.

Improve Energy Efficiency Mortgages:

Expanding the use of energy Efficient Mortgages will simplify the process of obtaining and financing energy retrofits at a home’s point of sale. This effort will also work to lower the cost of home energy audits as well as the monthly financing payments, and ensure that retrofits are accurately valued in the appraisal process. Federal departments and agencies will work collaboratively to: advance a standard home energy performance measure and more uniform underwriting procedures; develop procedures for more accurate home energy appraisals; and streamline the energy audit process.

Expand State Revolving Loan Funds

Expanding state revolving loan funds from 16 states to all 50 states will leverage private capital and achieve economies of scale necessary to produce consistent and affordable loan products. This will allow consumers to borrow money for home energy retrofits from private firms at lower interest rates. In addition to funding new programs through the Recovery Act, the Federal Government will work to provide examples of successful revolving loan programs and technical assistance to states without revolving loan programs in order to encourage their adoption.

Mobilize a Well-Trained National Energy Retrofit Workforce and Expand Good, Green Job Opportunities for All American Workers

Establish National Workforce Certifications and Training Standards

A uniform set of national standards to qualify energy efficiency and retrofit workers and industry training providers will establish the foundation of consumer confidence that work will be completed correctly and produce the expected energy savings and benefits. Consistent high-level national standards will spur the utilization of qualified training providers that offer career-track programs for people of all skill levels, promote and expand green jobs opportunities, and facilitate the mobilization of a national home retrofit workforce. Federal Departments and Agencies (including the Department of Labour, the Department of Energy, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Environmental Protection Agency) will work in collaboration to assess existing standards and training programs and develop consistent models, guides, and best practices for training and certification. The Department of Education, the Department of Commerce, and the Small Business Administration will assist in implementing the best practices developed by the other Departments and Agencies.  These recommendations do not involve spending large new sums of Federal dollars in our fiscally-constrained environment. Rather, they focus on removing information barriers, transaction costs, liquidity constraints, and other market failures that often prevent homeowners from making investments that have both private and social benefits.

Moving Forward

To ensure that the recommendations in this Report are implemented, CEQ will convene an interagency Energy Retrofit Working Group, which will be chaired by the Department of Energy, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Labour, and the Environmental Protection Agency. In addition to implementing the recommendations and proposed actions of this Recovery through Retrofit effort, the Working Group will track its progress and operate as the single point of contact for the successful implementation of this effort. Within thirty days, the Working Group will submit an implementation plan to the Vice President. Additional strategies will also be developed to expand the retrofit market to rental housing. Moreover, the Working Group will report to the Vice President regularly on its progress towards implementing each of the recommendations identified in this Report.

References:

Retrofitting Communities:

Websites and links:

http://www.camecon.com
http://www.energybulletin.net
http://www.savehomeenergy.ca
www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/Recovery_Through_Retrofit_Final_Report.pdf
http://www.walkable.org
CSIRO, Sustainability Network. March 2005, “Retrofitting the Suburbs for Sustainability”, David Holmgren,  pp 1-9

Books:

* Retrofitting Suburbia: Urban Design Solutions for Redesigning Suburbs/ 2009 Dunham-Jones and J. Williamson.
* Transit Oriented Development:

Websites:

* Building Transit Oriented Development in Established Communities / 2002,  Goodwill and Hendricks, AICP , Centre of Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida.   www.nctr.usf.edu/pdf/473-135.pdf
* http://www.transitorienteddevelopment.org/
* http://www.newurbanism.org

Books

* Transit Oriented Development: making it happen / 2009, Curtis, Renne,Bertolini.
* The new Transit Town :  Best Practices in Transit oriented Development/ 2009  Dittmar, Ohland ; foreword by Peter Calthorpe

Felipe A. Gore
International Urban and Environmental Management,
RMIT University