Performance Measures for Assessing Transit-Oriented Development

Michael S. Bomba, Ph.D.University of North Texas

Center for Economic Development and Researchhttp://cedr.unt.edu

April 14, 2015

UNT Center for Economic Development & Research

• Established in 1989• Conducts economic analysis and

public policy research• Growing emphasis on

transportation research– TOD– Toll Roads– Freight– NEPA Compliance

• Small staff of professional and student researchers Image Credit: University of North Texas.

Characteristics of Transit-Oriented Development

Goal to manipulate travel behavior through the urban form • Typically mixed-use development

• Residential and retail, sometimes office too

• Occasionally TODs are employment only

• Served by mass transit• Almost always served by light or

commuter rail

• Walkable or bike-friendly• Stores and services within walking

distance and easily reachable

Image Credit: City of Austin.

Characteristics of Transit-Oriented Development

• Higher densities– Multistory apartments, condominiums,

or townhomes– Retail at street level/No large blank

spaces along the street• The stereotype of TOD residents is

largely true (Dill, 2008; Arrington and Cervero, 2008):– Single or a couple– Childless– Often female– Young or retired– Own fewer cars or no car

Photo Credit: Dallas Area Rapid Transit.

Source: CDC/NCHS, National Vital Statistics System, 2015.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015.

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21)

• Authorized for two years starting October, 2012

• Extended to May 31, 2015 by the Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2014

• MAP-21 requires states, MPOs, and transit agencies to establish performance targets

• TOD Planning Pilot Grants –(20005(b) of MAP-21)– $20 million over two years– Funding delayed applications

submitted November 2014

Photo Credit: Wikipedia Open Source.

Potential Performance Measures for TOD• Reducing regional VMT• Shifting travel mode choice

– Home-to-work– Non-home-to-work

• Connectivity with other transportation modes

• Reduced pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions (GhG)

• Increased property values• New economic activity

Image Credit: Federal Highway Administration.

Performance Measures for TOD• Juxtapose against competing transit

projects• Local community needs and goals• Transit agency goals and priorities• Regional needs and goals• Available funding from local, state,

and federal sources• MAP-21 language is generally vague

on how to measure performance• TCRP 56 Performance-Based

Measures in Transit Fund AllocationPhoto Credit: North Central Texas Council of Governments.

Regional Vehicle Miles Traveled• 43% of current residents in Texas

TODs reported decreased car usage• 17% of TOD residents more likely to

drive a car after moving to their current residence, but more likely to use a train (34.3%), bus (20.2%), walk (53.7%), and bicycle (18.8%)

• Self-selection may explain mode shifts and reduced VMT– Require the proper built environment

Photo Credit: Dallas Area Rapid Transit.

Shifting Commuter Mode Choice – Work Trips

• Residents in and near TODs are more likely to use transit

• Texas TOD residents slightly less likely to use car compared to control group (89.1% vs. 92.5%) but drove fewer trip miles

• Texas TOD residents more likely than control group to use train, bus, walking, or biking to commute to work Photo Credit: Dallas Area Rapid Transit.

Shifting Commuter Mode Choice – Non-Work Trips

• Residents in traditional neighborhoods more likely to walk to the store (Lund, 2003; Handy, Cao, and Mokhtarian, 2006)

• Trip distance may be a more important factor than urban design (Boarnet and Sarmiento, 1998; Krizek, 2000)

• Self-selection of TOD/neotraditional residents, more inclined to replace driving trips (Boarnet and Crane, 2001; Lund, 2003; Krizek2003)

• Texas TOD residents more likely to use a train or bus for non-work trips– Shopping, sporting events, dining/entertainment

Connectivity with Other Transportation Modes

Source: Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 2014.

Source: Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 2014.

Photo Credits: Dallas Area Rapid Transit.

Reduced Pollutants and Greenhouse Gas (GhG) Emissions

• Reduced VMT and mode shifts of TOD residents logically leads to reduced emission of air pollutants and GhG

• 17% of U.S. CO2 emissions are due to passenger vehicles

• Dallas-Fort Worth area designated as moderate nonattainment for ozone– Another piece in the puzzle for

reducing emissions Photo Credit: The Sierra Club.

Increased Property Values• 2014 study compared estimated

property values around more than 60 DART stations to a control group– Found appraised property values

around DART stations to be $1.5 billion vs. $0.6 billion in the control areas

– Most of the difference was due to multifamily development

• Estimated property taxes paid around DART stations totaled $36.4 million vs. $14.3 million in the control areas Photo Credit: Dallas Area Rapid Transit.

New Economic Development• Economic impacts from transit

– Construction– Operations– New business activities

• TODs create an environment that attracts the “creative class”

• Depending upon scale and location, can attract major employers Image Credit: Trinity River Vision.

Conclusions• Overall, TOD has a positive impact on

efforts to reduce congestion and VMT • Preaches to the converted

– Behavior shifts occur mostly for a self-selected subgroup

– However, this subgroup is a grossly underserved market

• Residents of Texas TODs are reducing their use of automobiles and increase their use of alternate modes

• Key performance measures are reduced VMT, travel mode shifts, multimodal connectivity, increased property values, and economic development opportunities

Photo Credit: Capital Metro

Suggestions for Moving Forward• Municipalities should seek to

reduce TOD developers’ risk– Streamlining and predictability of the

permitting and inspection processes– Some incentives may be justified

• Intra-regional transit agencies must continue to link and coordinate regional transit infrastructure and service– Avoid further fragmenting of local

transit services and infrastructure– Losing connectivity, efficiencies, and

economies of scale Image Credit: Dallas Area Rapid Transit.

QUESTIONS?

Bibliography• Arrington, G.B. and R. Cervero. 2008. Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel. TCRP Report 128. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/14179/tcrp-report-128-

effects-of-tod-on-housing-parking-and

• Boarnet, Marlon G. and Randall Crane. 2001. Travel by Design: The Influence of the Urban Form on Travel. New York: Oxford University Press.

• Boarnet, Marlon G. and Sharon Sarmiento. 1998. “Can Land-Use Policy Really Affect Travel Behavior? A Study of the Link between Non-work Travel and Land-Use Characteristics.” Urban Studies 35(7): 1155-1169.

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2015. Marriage Rates by State: 1990, 1995, and 1999-2012. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/state_marriage_rates_90_95_and_99-12.pdf.

• Clower, Terry et al. 2010. Evaluating the Impact of Transit-Oriented Development. TxDOT Project 0-6511-1. Center for Economic Development and Research –University of North Texas: Denton, Texas. http://cedr.unt.edu/sites/cedr.unt.edu/files/users/lgg0003/FHWA-TX10-0-6511-1.pdf.

• Clower, Terry et al. 2014. Developmental Impacts of the Dallas Area Rapid Transit Light Rail System. Center for Economic Development and Research – University of North Texas: Denton, Texas. http://cedr.unt.edu/sites/cedr.unt.edu/files/users/lgg0003/DART_DevelopmentalImpacts_Jan2014.pdf.

• Dill, Jennifer. 2008. “Transit Use at Transit-Oriented Developments in Portland, Oregon Area.” Transportation Research Record 2063: 159-167.

• Federal Highway Administration – U.S. Department of Transportation. 2015. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/about/.

• Federal Transit Agency – U.S. Department of Transportation. 2015. Pilot Program for Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Planning. http://www.fta.dot.gov/grants/13077_16135.html

• Federal Transit Agency – U.S. Department of Transportation. 2015. Apportionment of Funds for the Period Beginning on October 1, 2014 and Ending on May 31, 2014, Pursuant to the Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2014. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/notices/n4510778.cfm

• Handy, Susan, Xinyu Cao, and Patricia L. Mokhtarian. 2006. “Self-Selecting in the Relationship between the Built Environment and Walking: Empirical Evidence from Northern California.” Journal of the American Planning Association 72(1): 55-74.

Bibliography (Continued)• Krizek, Kevin J. 2000. Pretest-Posttest Strategy for Researching Neighborhood-Scale Urban Form and Travel Behavior.” Transportation Research Record 1722: 48-

55.

• Krizek, Kevin J. 2003. “Residential Relocation and Changes in Urban Travel: Does Neighborhood-Scale Urban Form Matter?” Journal of the American Planning Association. 69(3): 265-281.

• Lund, Hollie. 2003. “Testing the Claims of New Urbanism: Local Access, Pedestrian Travel, and Neighboring Behaviors.” Journal of the American Planning Association 69(4): 414-429.

• Livingston, G. and D. Cohn. 2010. Childlessness Up Among All Women; Down Among Women with Advanced Degrees. Pew Research Center. 25 June 2010. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/06/25/childlessness-up-among-all-women-down-among-women-with-advanced-degrees/

• Stanley, R.G. and P.G. Henderson. 2004. Performance-Based Measures in Transit Fund Allocation: A Synthesis of Transit Practice. TCRP Synthesis 56. Transportation Research Board: Washington, D.C. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_syn_56.pdf

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. Smart Growth and Transportation. http://www2.epa.gov/smart-growth/smart-growth-and-transportation#transitorienteddevelopment.

• U.S. Census Bureau. 2015. Estimated Median Age at First Marriage, by Sex: 1890 to the Present. https://www.census.gov/hhes/families/files/ms2.csv.

2010 Survey of Texas TOD Residents

• Surveyed TOD residents in Dallas, Fort Worth, and Austin• 427 responses, 14.2 percent response rate

• Also surveyed control group of 600 residents from Dallas and Collin Counties