resolution 3434 transit-oriented development policy interim evaluation
DESCRIPTION
Resolution 3434 Transit-Oriented Development Policy Interim Evaluation. September 7, 2006 MTC Elderly and Disabled Advisory Committee. Resolution 3434 Transit-Oriented Development Policy. Three pillars Corridor housing thresholds Corridor working groups Station area plans - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
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
MTC Planning Committee – Evaluation of Resolution 3434 TOD Policy
Adam Millard-Ball, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
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
MTC Planning Committee – Evaluation of Resolution 3434 TOD Policy
Adam Millard-Ball, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
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
MTC Planning Committee – Evaluation of Resolution 3434 TOD Policy
Adam Millard-Ball, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Transit Shares: Home-Based Work Trips
Source: Gossen (2005). Categories refer to distances from rail station or ferry terminal.
MTC Planning Committee – Evaluation of Resolution 3434 TOD Policy
Adam Millard-Ball, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
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
MTC Planning Committee – Evaluation of Resolution 3434 TOD Policy
Adam Millard-Ball, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
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
MTC Planning Committee – Evaluation of Resolution 3434 TOD Policy
Adam Millard-Ball, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
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
MTC Planning Committee – Evaluation of Resolution 3434 TOD Policy
Adam Millard-Ball, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Potential Station Area Housing - SVRT
Threshold = 3,850 units
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
MTC Planning Committee – Evaluation of Resolution 3434 TOD Policy
Adam Millard-Ball, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Potential Station Area Housing - eBART
Threshold = 2,200 units
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
MTC Planning Committee – Evaluation of Resolution 3434 TOD Policy
Adam Millard-Ball, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Potential Station Area Housing – Dumbarton Rail
Threshold = 2,200 units
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
MTC Planning Committee – Evaluation of Resolution 3434 TOD Policy
Adam Millard-Ball, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
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
MTC Planning Committee – Evaluation of Resolution 3434 TOD Policy
Adam Millard-Ball, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
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
MTC Planning Committee – Evaluation of Resolution 3434 TOD Policy
Adam Millard-Ball, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
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
MTC Planning Committee – Evaluation of Resolution 3434 TOD Policy
Adam Millard-Ball, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
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
MTC Planning Committee – Evaluation of Resolution 3434 TOD Policy
Adam Millard-Ball, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
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
MTC Planning Committee – Evaluation of Resolution 3434 TOD Policy
Adam Millard-Ball, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Questions?
Comments?
July 14, 2006
MTC Planning Committee