TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT IN PHILADELPHIA:Using a proven strategy to create more vibrant, livable neighborhoods.

A report outlining

opportunities to create

more TOD in Philadelphia

and its role in supporting

a stronger city economy.

Report researched and written by Econsult Corporation for NeighborhoodsNow

F u n d e d i n p a r t b y C i t i b a n k , S u r d n a F o u n d a t i o n a n d T h e P r u d e n t i a l F o u n d a t i o n .

October 2007

About NeighborhoodsNowNeighborhoodsNow, a Philadelphia-based nonprofit contributes to the economic vitality of thecity and region by collaborating with public and private organizations to strengthen low- andmoderate-income communities. We are a catalyst using public policy work, direct revitalizationprograms and strategic partnerships to re-energize and rebuild neighborhoods. Our HealthyNeighborhoods Initiative focuses on stabilizing ‘middle-market’ neighborhoods throughimprovements in physical appearance, resident engagement and market health. Our transit-oriented development work seeks to capitalize on existing transit assets by attracting new realestate investments that benefit current and future neighborhood residents. NeighborhoodsNow isgoverned by a board of directors with expertise in economic development, neighborhoodrevitalization and policy development.

About Econsult CorporationEconsult Corporation (www.econsult.com) was founded in Philadelphia in 1979 for the purpose ofproviding high quality economic research and statistical & econometric analysis in support oflitigation. Today Econsult’s practice has expanded beyond litigation to include economicconsulting services to assist business and public policy decision-makers. Econsult's academicallydistinguished consultants and affiliates combine quantitative expertise and experience withcustomized approaches designed to meet client's needs.

About the AuthorsRichard P. Voith, Ph.D., Principal Author. Dick Voith is Senior Vice President and Principal ofEconsult Corporation. He is an economist whose contributions to transportation and urbaneconomics span both the academic and popular press. In particular, Dr. Voith is a well knownexpert in transportation and real estate economics, including the impacts of transportation andother policies on the real estate market and development patterns. Dr. Voith was recentlyappointed by PA Governor Rendell to the newly created Transportation Funding and ReformCommission charged with recommending appropriate levels of funding for transit systems, roadsand bridges throughout the Commonwealth. Dr. Voith was also a leader in the GreaterPhiladelphia Transportation Initiative, the region’s first independent organization dedicated totransportation policy analysis and research in Greater Philadelphia. Prior to joining Econsult, Dr.Voith held the position of Economic Advisor at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia wherehis responsibilities included analysis of Philadelphia’s regional economy.

Dr. Voith served on the Board of Directors of the Southeastern Pennsylvania TransportationAuthority (1992-2000) as one of two representatives for the City of Philadelphia. He is currentlyon the editorial board of Real Estate Economics and an associate member of the Urban LandInstitute.

Lee Huang, M.G.A Lee Huang is a Director of Econsult Corporation. With an undergraduatedegree from the Wharton School and a master’s degree from the Fels School of Government ofthe University of Pennsylvania, Lee provides an excellent perspective for public, private, and non-profit clients. As an employee of The Enterprise Center in Philadelphia for ten years, Lee also hasextensive experience in day to day management as well as strategic decision making. Lee is a keymember of the Econsult consulting team, and has been responsible for leading projects examiningcommercial corridors, state and city tax incentive zones, and transportation planning, as well asproviding financial and economic impact analysis for a wide range of clients.

Acknowledgements

e are extremely grateful to Lee Huangand Richard Voith of Econsult

Corporation for producing a very thoughtfuland timely report, and for engaging in aniterative process and graciously allowingmany people to provide comments andparticipate in the review process. We alsothank the following, who not onlygenerously provided their time and expertiseto the review process, but have also madevaluable contributions to the development ofNeighborhoodNow’s approach andphilosophy.

Richard Bickel, Delaware Valley Regional Planning CommissionKaren Black, May 8 ConsultingKaryn Conway, Ogontz Avenue Revitalization CorporationOmowale Crenshaw, Enterprise Heights Real Estate Development CompanyAnne Fadullon, Dale CorporationDavid Fogel, SEPTAAndrew Frishkoff, City of PhiladelphiaEva Gladstein, City of PhiladelphiaRose Gray, Asociación Puertorriqueños en MarchaDonald Haskin, CitibankFarah Jimenez, Mt. Airy USAMelissa Long, Long AssociatesKarin Morris, Delaware Valley Regional Planning CommissionJeremey Newberg, Capital AccessRichard Redding, Philadelphia City Planning CommissionJason Salus, Mt. Airy USAPatrick Starr, Pennsylvania Environmental CouncilSam Zimmerman-Bergman, Reconnecting AmericaDiane Strauss, Strauss and AssociatesMichelle Webb, Philadelphia City PlanningCommissionV. Lamar Wilson, Wilson Associates

NeighborhoodsNowBoard of Directors

Thomas L. Webster, Chair, The Gabriel InstituteLarry Segal, Vice Chair, Impact Pennsylvania Strategies, LLCRobert Penn Biron, Secretary, City ofPhiladelphia, Law DepartmentJim Ferris, Treasurer, NeighborWorks Capital CorporationKimberly Allen, Wachovia Regional FoundationJohn Claypool AIA, AICP, American Institute of Architects PhiladelphiaDavid Fair, United Way of SoutheasternPennsylvaniaAmy B. Lempert, Federal Reserve Bank of PhiladelphiaBelinda Mayo, Office of Housing and Community DevelopmentRobert Rosenthal, TRF Development PartnersGene S. Schneyer, Esq., Resources for Human DevelopmentSamuel Sherman, Jr. New Urban Ventures

NeighborhoodsNow StaffBeverly Coleman, Executive DirectorDiane-Louise Wormley, Deputy DirectorJacina Adolphus, Program AssistantAriel Ben-Amos, Graduate Intern

Graphics and EditorialMargaret Hughes BerkeySage Communications PartnersCover Design - SK DesignworksPhotos - Raymond Holman, Jr., HeatherNewcomb

The opinions expressed in this report are those of theauthors and do not necessarily express the views ofthe funders.

W

Foreword

n behalf of Econsult Corporation, I want to thank NeighborhoodsNow for giving us theopportunity to produce this report: “Transit-Oriented Development: Using a Proven

Strategy to Create More Vibrant, Livable Neighborhoods.” Whether in my capacity as aconsultant, or working on the Governor’s Transportation Funding and Reform Commission or inmy former role as Vice Chair of the Board of Directors of SEPTA, I have always believed thatPhiladelphia needs to make the most of its outstanding transit infrastructure. In many ways,transit is fundamental to the city’s urban character, which is the city’s greatest financial strengthand its most distinctive characteristic. Transit-oriented development can be a powerfully effectiveway to capitalize on Philadelphia’s assets and to do it in a way that has the most impact onneighborhoods.

Transit-oriented development was an integral component of Philadelphia’s development in thepast, and deserves to be an integral approach to our development in the future. The notion oforienting residential, retail, and recreational activities to make the most of transit access is as oldas some of Philadelphia’s oldest neighborhoods. Sadly, citywide disinvestment during the secondhalf of the 20th century, combined with funding crises at SEPTA, have resulted in little if anydevelopment near Philadelphia’s transit hubs.

However, the pieces are in place to stimulate new and exciting development aroundPhiladelphia’s transit stops in ways that make the most of the city’s urban assets and its incredibleneighborhoods. The transit infrastructure is still there, of course, and despite past funding woes,SEPTA has continued to make large investments to maintain it. Just as importantly, the fundingpicture for public transportation has improved considerably as a result of this year’s budgetnegotiations.

Philadelphia is in the midst of an extended upward trend in residential and commercialdevelopment, both in Center City as well as the neighborhoods. Existing and new residents areembracing Philadelphia’s urban renewal as a positive thing, buoyed by amenities like newlyrenovated parks, improved public schools and vibrant cultural options. Finally, important work isbeing done at the state level, to provide incentives and targeted funds to facilitate the connectionbetween transit and development.

In short, we are at a crossroads. Can we make the most of transit infrastructure, and the access tojobs, shopping, and recreation that it provides? Can we push to orient new development totransit in such a way that good urban design and safe passageways result? Do we have thecollective will to do this all for the benefit of Philadelphia’s neighborhoods and of the city as awhole?

We need to be able to answer yes to these questions. Our report concludes with action items, andit is my sincere hope that all of us will take action to make more transit-oriented developmenthappen in Philadelphia.

- Dick VoithEconsult Corporation

O

Table of Contents

Executive Summary i

Chapter One: Making the Case for Transit-Oriented Development in Philadelphia 1

Chapter Two: Transit Service and Its Impact on Development 7

Chapter Three: Barriers to Transit-Oriented Development in Philadelphia 17

Chapter Four: Solutions That Encourage More Transit-Oriented Development 25

Chapter Five: Recommendations for Stakeholders 31

Appendix: Site Analysis 37

Executive Summary

i

Executive Summary

Making the Case forTransit-OrientedDevelopment inPhiladelphia

ransit-oriented development (TOD)may seem like a new-fangled notion,

and in fact has particularly gainedmomentum and cachet in the past decade;but it is in fact a strategy as old as some ofPhiladelphia’s oldest neighborhoods. Then,as now, neighborhoods became more vibrantand livable to the extent that newdevelopment could be oriented to transitaccess and to the value of the mobility itafforded. Conversely, neighborhoods havesuffered in vibrancy and livability whenreinvestment has been hindered or whenthere has been little or no coordination withtransportation infrastructure.

So it is appropriate that transit-orienteddevelopment is a major focus ofNeighborhoodsNow. It is also anappropriate moment for the release of thispublication, “Transit-Oriented Development inPhiladelphia: Using a Proven Strategy to CreateMore Vibrant, Livable Neighborhoods.”Philadelphia has enjoyed a resurgence in

development activity in the past decade; andin parallel, the City and other key

stakeholders are bringing to the foreimportant discussions on related topics suchas transportation funding, city planning, andneighborhood development. The time is rightto return to a concept authentic to urbanPhiladelphia and to its most storiedneighborhoods, that of transit-orienteddevelopment.

TOD refers to a mixed-use development inclose proximity to a public transit station,which provides a community with a varietyof transportation options, multiple uses in acompact setting, and pedestrian-friendlydesign. If done well, TOD can confer a varietyof benefits to residents and to a region:

• A sense of place • Economicdevelopment

• Economic equity • Environmentalstewardship

• Greater mobility • Healthier citizens

• Increased transitridership

• Public costsavings

• Public/privatepartnerships

• Public safety

• Quality of life • Reducedcongestion

This list of potential benefits is of greatrelevance to neighborhoods. Neigh-borhoods all across Philadelphia, after all,seek to be aesthetically pleasing andauthentically designed; they want robustcommercial growth but also multiple pricepoints for housing; and they desire most ofall an enhanced economic and social qualityof life. TODs, at their best, can confer thesesorts of positives to neighborhoods in which theyare located:

T

Germantown neighborhood of Philadelphia

ii

• Affordability. Higher densities can enablea mixing of house price levels. Also andimportantly, proximity to transit stopscan lead to a reduction intransportation costs for workingfamilies, by reducing or eveneliminating the need for a car andrelated expenses. Thus, connecting withTOD can produce a twofold effect oncost of living for working families.

• Access. For the segment of the localpopulation that does not wish to orcannot afford to own a car, being nearpublic transit greatly increases the poolof potential jobs that can be pursuedand obtained, as well as the universe ofretail outlets that can be reached andutilized. To the extent that TODbrings retail and other employment toneighborhoods, these also representadditional shopping options and jobopportunities.

• Aesthetics. TOD can bring good urbandesign to previously disinvestedcommunities. Its value for pedestrian-friendliness can also bring the necessarylighting and access to make saferpreviously avoided intersections.

These potential benefits represent the upsidefor neighborhoods of having TOD. Thedownside for neighborhoods of not havingTOD, of course, is that disinvestmentimposes higher costs on families, stiflesaccess to employment and retail centers, andcreates physical eyesores in once-prominentlocations.

Infrastructurally, TOD requires extensive railtransit service and a dense central core, twoconditions that regions around the nationare spending billions of dollars to create orrecreate. Meanwhile, Philadelphia has bothattributes in abundance. However, goodTOD in Philadelphia’s neighborhoods hasproven elusive. In fact, where developmenthas occurred near transit stops, it has nottapped into the benefits of transit-oriented

development and can generally be bestdescribed as merely transit-adjacentdevelopment. Even worse, there are asignificant number of promising sites inwhich no meaningful development hasoccurred at all.

The hindrances to TOD in Philadelphiaappear to be more systemic:

• The hollowing out of urbanPhiladelphia diminished the value of accessto destinations served by transit.From a development perspective, thevalue of transit access has beenfurther lessened by cheap auto travel,

regional decentralization, reducedservice levels, and uncertaintyresulting from the absence ofdedicated funding.

• No development, let alone thatoriented to transit, will take place ifthere is no profit to be made indeveloping. In fact, the City

Fruitvale Transit Village. Located in Oakland, CA, this257,000 square foot transit village was built on former BARTparking lots and provides 47 units of mixed-income housing,114,000 square feet of community services (clinic, library,senior center), 40,000 square feet of retail shops andrestaurants and a 150-car parking garage. The project’sprimary goals include reducing poverty, encouragingpublic/private investment, improving public safety, providinghigh quality housing and increasing transit ridership. FruitvaleTransit Village is considered one of the most successfulinner-city TODs in the country. Citigroup invested $27 millionin construction and permanent financing for this $100 million,mixed-use development.

Executive Summary

iii

experienced a significant 50-yearpattern of population and employment lossafter World War II.

• Although Philadelphia does not lackfor viable TOD sites, its antiquatedzoning code does not go far enough toencourage TOD.

These barriers, however discouraging, alsorepresent opportunities to act now to stemthe existence of transit-adjacent develop-ment and transit-anemic development andto stimulate the movement towards transit-oriented development. In many ways, thetime is right for transit-oriented development inPhiladelphia:

• There is a distinct increase in thequality and quantity of conversationsat the highest levels over theimportant subject of dedicated funding forpublic transportation, coupled with therecent multiyear funding commitmentby the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania for SEPTA.

• The City is no longer bleedingresidents and jobs, and in fact, thanksin part to a citywide ten-year taxabatement on new construction andsignificant renovation, there has beena notable increase in residential andcommercial development.

• There has been much discussionrecently over the updating andreforming of the City’s zoning code, andmany groups are particularly urgingthe City Planning Commission tospearhead a more aggressive andcoordinated agenda to zone keytransit-proximate sites to encourageTOD.

Transit Service and Its Impact onDevelopment

As much as public transit in Philadelphia isdisdained in the media and on the street, it isunmistakably a core asset for the City. Itcould become a key advantage in anincreasingly competitive regional, national,and global economy. The continuingsuburbanization of jobs, houses, and retailonly underscores this reality: Philadelphia’sedge lies in its urbanness. From this perspective,the City’s vast transit infrastructure is anasset around which to build, literally, ratherthan a liability to starve or avoid.

Many of Philadelphia’s neighborhoods grewup around transit and railroad lines. In fact,much of the real estate development in thefirst half of the 20th century was undertakenjointly with transit development. Before thepredominance of the car, private incentiveswere well aligned for TOD; with the adventof the car, that link has been broken.Highways are developed and financedindependently of residential and commercialdevelopment, and as there is no single entitythat has the incentive or authority toundertake TOD, there is no easy coordinationbetween land use, transportation planning, andprivate development. Further, as the region hasdecentralized, more and more areas are notaccessible except by car.

In evaluating sites for TOD, one mustconsider the value of the site’s nearby transportation

West Philadelphia neighborhood

iv

services. The extent to which transit offersreal value to residents and businesses in aTOD will determine the profitability andtherefore the viability of its realization.After all, developers engage in a TOD whenthey can expect a sufficient return for theirefforts. Developer’s profits, in turn, dependon the extent to which households and firmsare willing to locate in the TOD.

The price that the site commands, then, willincrease if the transit service is perceived ashaving long-term value, value that peopleand businesses are willing to pay for to be inclose proximity, and value that isdetermined in part by the followingconsiderations:

• The long-term certainty of the service. Theprospect of insufficient funds hasfrequently resulted in SEPTAproposing to cut or end services and/orraise fares. The significant uncertaintyregarding the frequency, cost, and veryexistence of SEPTA services is a majorimpediment to successful TOD.Conversely, positive developments,such as the State’s recent multi-yearcommitment of funding to SEPTA, arepositively accounted for in the decisionsof people and organizations thatdepend on transit.

• The number and desirability of destinations.An important aspect of the valuederived from proximity to a rail stationis the access afforded by that station.For example, of the considerableevidence demonstrating that people arewilling to pay more to live near transitstops, it has been proven that much ofthe value conferred is as a result ofaccess to employment centers. Access toemployment centers is of huge consequence toneighborhoods, particularly low- tomoderate-income ones. To the extentthat car ownership percentages are low,access for such neighborhoods toemployment centers via public transit isthe difference between a relatively small

universe of job opportunities and amuch larger, more promising universe.

• The frequency of service and integration withother services. High frequency routes,wide spans of hours of operation, andservice integration, all increase thecomfort level riders have about thetransit system and thus the valuedevelopers can derive from locatingnew uses in close proximity to itsstations.

• The importance of service amenities. Ridingtransit can be made to be a moreenjoyable means of traveling, sinceriders do not get stuck in traffic, theycan concentrate on their work or on agood book, and do not have to worry

about the cost or hassle of parking oncethey have arrived at their destination.The stations themselves could besources of value enhancement, to theextent that they adhere to the TODprinciple of being aesthetically pleasing,friendly to pedestrian access, andauthentic to their particular place.Well-lit and well-greened transitstations could reduce crime, noise, andpollution, three important potentialfactors that otherwise could confernegative value on transit-proximatesites.

• How automobile access integrates with TOD.Successful TODs are able to balancethe need for cars with the need for

SEPTA’s Market East Regional Rail Station

Executive Summary

v

density, and are designed in such a wayto extract the value of good automobileaccess without that accessibilityrendering the transit service lessvaluable. At the very least, parkingstructures could be designed to enhancethe pedestrian experience, by includingretail or other visually appealing uses atthe street level.

Barriers to Transit-OrientedDevelopment in Philadelphia

Construction costs in Philadelphia aresignificantly higher than those in thesurrounding suburbs, making it expensive tosupply Philadelphia with TOD.Furthermore, decentralization of residential,employment, and retail centers has resultedin a significant loss of population, jobs, andshopping activity in Philadelphia.

The fact that the impacts of this decline inpopulation and jobs were not felt equallyacross the city is even worse for the existenceof TOD in Philadelphia. Typically, theoldest, most obsolete development isabandoned first. In Philadelphia’s case, thismeant that the oldest communities thatdeveloped along the major transit lines werethe most adversely affected. Thus, instead ofTOD-friendly sites attracting more development, theyexperienced more disinvestment.

Structural Hurdles• Site assembly with multiple small and/or

odd-sized lots

• Demolition and environmental clean-upcosts

• Union costs – rates and work rule changesrequired

Governmental Hurdles• Time consuming and uncertain zoning

permitting and entitled processes

• Regulatory requirements with excessivecosts

• Lack of government promotion of TOD

• Outdated and excessively restricted zoning

• SEPTA’s regulatory and monetaryconstraints in advocating for TOD

• Need for public subsidy

Therefore, all things being equal, developerswill tend to gravitate towards developing inthe suburbs rather than in the city. TheCity could change that equation and makedevelopment in the city more desirable in terms ofamenities, and/or by lowering the cost todevelop in the city.

Thus, for example, the continuation of theten-year property tax abatement is vital tocontinuing to make developmenteconomically feasible in the city. Othercitywide policy decisions, such as reducingthe wage tax and Business Privilege tax,improve the viability of TOD by makingaccess to Center City and its retail andemployment locations all the more valuable.

Finally, the City could work with SEPTA toshore up its uncertain funding base. Thereis very little contribution to transit services atthe local level, and this translates into a lackof focus on transit at the local level and a lack ofcoordination between SEPTA and the City aroundtransit and development. This lack ofcollaborative mindset has resulted in majorinvestments in transit infrastructure, such asthe rebuilding of the elevated portion of theMarket Frankford Line (MFL) in WestPhiladelphia, with virtually no considerationof TOD surrounding its station areas.

TOD, with its focus on transit access, goodurban design, and multiple housing pricepoints, could be an effective mechanism bywhich previously disinvested locations, suchas those around MFL stations in WestPhiladelphia and Broad Street Line (BSL)stations in North Philadelphia and SouthPhiladelphia, could be rejuvenated in waysthat are aesthetically pleasing and thatproduce lively, mixed-income settings.Other opportunities exist in communities

vi

served by the Regional Rail and bus transitservice. Thus, such an uncoordinated effortas what has taken place with thereconstruction of the elevated portion of theMFL in West Philadelphia represents a hugeloss in opportunity to consider approachesthat foster healthy and vibrantneighborhoods and that encouragedevelopment that fully capitalizes on thetransit resource that the MFL represents tothe City.

Solutions That Encourage MoreTransit-Oriented Development

There are three key steps that the City ofPhiladelphia and SEPTA must take to maketransit-oriented development (TOD) areality:

Creation of transit-oriented zoning overlays forneighborhood TODs and regional TODs. In orderto encourage and facilitate TOD, the Citycould create zoning overlays appropriate forneighborhoods near transit stations.

• For station areas in Philadelphia thatare appropriate for residentialneighborhood TODs, the zoning rulescould include parking maximums,higher residential density allowances,facilities for pedestrian access,neighborhood-oriented mixed-usedevelopment and transit inter-connections. Such mechanisms could

help ensure that development activityresults in affordable housing, safepassageways, good urban design, andother positive outcomes forneighborhoods.

• Zoning overlays could also be used tostimulate regional TODs, where existingtransit services make the station areaaccessible to a wide area of the regionby transit. These overlays can attemptto spur development by increasingallowed densities. The developmentscan be multimodal in nature, providinggood auto access as well as transitaccess. Zoning overlays could ensure,however, that parking does notinterfere or detract from transit access.

Transit Revitalization Investment Districts(TRIDs). The Transit RevitalizationInvestment District Act was enacted in 2004by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania toenable local governments and transitauthorities to create TRIDs. TRIDs enablemunicipal governments and transitauthorities to more closely coordinatetransportation infrastructure, land use, andprivate development. Both the City andSEPTA have much to gain from theaggressive pursuit of TRID as a means tocreating more TOD:

• The enabling mechanism of valuecapture, whether through tax incrementfinancing or other avenues, means thatTOD-related development andamenities could be funded with nonegative impact on the City budget, butrather by taking a portion of futureproperty tax increases that willmaterialize around the site as a result ofthe new enhancements. A typical valuecapture at a neighborhood level might,for example, generate anywhere fromtwo to four million dollars upfront,which could be used for infrastructureimprovements and paid off over timewith the incremental increase inproperty tax revenues that result from

TOD opportunity at Broad and Spring Garden Streets

Executive Summary

vii

higher property values in and aroundthe TOD.

• As for SEPTA, it has already beendiscussed that TOD could equate toincreased ridership; TRIDs are an effectiveway for SEPTA to work with the Citytowards that end.

Developing a priority list of TOD sites. Inaddition to an overall, citywide TODstrategy, the City could develop a prioritylist of TOD sites, and mobilize funding,leadership, and administrative efforts

towards developing such sites, in order toachieve early success and build momentumfor even more aggressive and comprehensiveaction. Specifically, all possible sites couldbe identified and then classified by demandand by use. Perhaps early successes willprovide lessons for stakeholders to warm tothe potential of TOD to rejuvenate otherlocations around the city. Notinsignificantly, TOD is somewhat fuzzy tograsp on paper but distinctly clear to allwhen built out, so quick wins are not onlyuseful for building momentum but also forcreating images around which more andmore supporters could rally. In parallel,City funds could be identified and allocatedtowards this effort, which would furtherstimulate additional private sector attentionand investment.

• In the long-term, all MFL and BSL stopscould be considered for TOD; after all, thesevery areas were once major residentialand retail centers, during the first halfof the 20th century, when such usestruly were transit-oriented. Such anorientation to transit use has a deeplineage in Philadelphia, and is a majorreason for the remarkable socio-economic diversity of its neighbor-hoods. It is inspiring to think that sitesthat once thrived because high densityand transit access were consideredassets, and then deteriorated becausethose same characteristics were deemedliabilities, could now be evaluated anewas promising places for development.

• The need for early successes fromwhich to build leads us to suggest that afew attractive sites should be targetedfor immediate action. We agree withNeighborhoodsNow’s focus on the 46th

and Market and the Temple University sites,as they represent highly attractive,high-density locations primed for earlyTOD success. Importantly, both sitesrepresent opportunities to organizeexisting positive momentum aroundprivate development towards ends thatensure a healthy evolution to mixed-use, mixed-income communities thatare transit-oriented and aestheticallypleasing.

• Other locations, particularly the WayneJunction station, the North Philadelphiastation, and the Broad and Girard stationexhibit characteristics conducive toTOD, as do other subway, bus, and railstops.

Recommendations forStakeholders

Transit-oriented development (TOD) is, likeall real estate development, a collaborativeexercise. Thus, it is important that allstakeholders work collectively to pursue both

Temple University SEPTA Station

viii

individual TOD sites as well as an overallenvironment that is more conducive toTOD. Several nonprofits including thePennsylvania Environmental Council, theEconomy League of Greater Philadelphia,and PennTrans are contributing to elevatingthe significance of public transportation.The following stakeholders are critical toensuring successful TOD:

• The City of Philadelphia. The City shouldpursue an aggressive implementation ofTRIDs and of TOD zoning overlays, aswell as of value capture mechanisms togenerate funds to support reinvestment,and affordable housing initiatives thatinduce a greater mixing of house pricelevels. City funds could be identifiedand allocated, further stimulatingadditional private sector attention andinvestment. Accompanied by reduceddevelopment costs (via the continuedproperty tax abatement on newdevelopment) and reduced administrativecosts (via unified TOD checklists andinter-agency orientations), thesemeasures help create an environmentfriendly to development and especially toTOD.

• The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. TheTRID Act is a great start and theCommonwealth resources it commitscould be appropriately expended; theCommonwealth could also work withthe City to identify dedicated fundingsources for transit, thus reducinguncertainties around service levels, aswell as additional public subsidies insupport of TOD. The Commonwealth’srecent commitment to funding SEPTAis also a huge step towards fullycapturing the value of transit proximity,and thus represents positive momentumupon which to build.

• SEPTA. The TRID Act providesSEPTA with greater flexibility toconsider collaborations with the City, aswell as operational objectives that moreclosely coordinate land use and development

opportunity with transportation infrastructure;SEPTA could also build TOD plans intoall major infrastructure investments.

• Developers. If the public sector isstepping forward with incentives toencourage TOD, private and non-profit developers need to step forwardwith proposals that deliver the intendedresults: mixed-income, pedestrian-friendly,and aesthetically pleasing developments.

• Institutional Anchors. Institutional anchorsincluding universities and hospitalscould enter into dialogues with the Cityand SEPTA, such that issues ofmobility, parking and pedestrianfriendliness are incorporated into theirdevelopment plans.

• Neighborhood Groups. Neighborhoodgroups could take advantage of theirstrong community voice and demandnot no TOD or any TOD, but TODthat helps lead to more vibrant, livableneighborhoods; they could also sellresidents and policymakers alike on themerits of TOD by championing small-scaleexamples of successful TODs that havebeen brought into existence by theefforts of local CDCs.

• Delaware Valley Regional PlanningCommission (DVRPC). The big-pictureperspective of metropolitan planningorganizations (MPOs) comes in handyas TOD initiatives intersect withregional issues of land use, trans-portation policy, and environmentalstewardship. Accordingly, DVRPCcould advocate for more dedicated andsecure sources of funding for SEPTA,and could continue to make TOD apriority in is funding allocation process,thus using its influence in setting landuse to encourage private developmentthat is oriented to transit and thatadheres to TOD principles.

1

Defining TOD

Reconnecting America’s program, The Center for Transit-Oriented Development, uses the following definition: “Transit-oriented development is often defined as higher-density mixed-use development within walking distance – or a half mile – oftransit stations. We use a performance-based definition, andbelieve that projects should also:

• Increase ‘location efficiency’ so people can walk and bikeand take transit

• Boost transit ridership and minimize traffic

• Provide a rich mix of housing, shopping and transportationchoices

• Generate revenue for the public and private sectors andprovide value for both new and existing residents

• Create a sense of place

We believe that TOD is really about creating attractive, walkable,sustainable communities that allow residents to have housingand transportation choices and to live convenient, affordable,pleasant lives – with places for our kids to play and for ourparents to grow old comfortably.”

Chapter One

Making the Case forTransit-OrientedDevelopment inPhiladelphia

ransit-oriented development (TOD)may seem like a new-fangled notion,

and in fact has particularly gainedmomentum and cachet in the past decade;but it is in fact a strategy as old as some ofPhiladelphia’s oldest neighborhoods. Then,as now, neighborhoods became more vibrantand livable to the extent that newdevelopment could be oriented to transitaccess and to the value of the mobility itafforded. Conversely, neighborhoods havesuffered in vibrancy and livability whenreinvestment has been hindered or whenthere has been little or no coordination withtransportation infrastructure.

So it is appropriate that transit-orienteddevelopment is a major focus ofNeighborhoodsNow. It is also anappropriate moment for the release of thispublication, “Transit-Oriented Development inPhiladelphia: Using a Proven Strategy to CreateMore Vibrant, Livable Neighborhoods.”Philadelphia has enjoyed a resurgence indevelopment activity in the past decade; andin parallel, the City and other keystakeholders are bringing to the foreimportant discussions on related topics suchas transportation funding, city planning, andneighborhood development. The time isright to return to a concept authentic tourban Philadelphia and to its most storiedneighborhoods, that of transit-orienteddevelopment.

What is Transit-OrientedDevelopment?

While there is not yet a universally accepteddefinition of TOD in the US, most expertswould agree that it refers to a mixed-usedevelopment in close proximity to a publictransit station, which provides a communitywith a variety of transportation options,multiple uses in a compact setting, andpedestrian-friendly design. Recent examplesin the Philadelphia region include Frankford(Market-Frankford Line) and Cecil B.Moore (Broad Street Line),1 while a recentpublication profiled successful TODs inDorchester, Massachusetts; Washington,DC; and Decatur, Georgia.2

If done well, TOD can confer a variety ofbenefits to residents and to a region:

1 Pennsylvania Environmental Council, SEPTA.2 “Preserving and Promoting Diverse Transit-OrientedNeighborhoods,” Center for Transit-OrientedDevelopment (December 2006).

T

2

• A sense of place. In contrast to thesameness of blandness of manysuburban developments, TOD valuesthe physical form, and its designs seekto be visually appealing and authenticto a particular community.

• Economic development. Retail and othercommercial development catalyzed byTOD can result in job creation,commercial growth, and tax revenues.

• Economic equity. By making availablehousing at different price points, allwithin walking distance to publictransportation, TOD can truly createmixed-income communities andaddress affordable housing concerns.

• Environmental stewardship. The high-density approach of TOD meansgreater recapture of brownfields,increased preservation of open spaces,and fewer resources wasted inproviding infrastructure to far-flungdevelopments.

• Greater mobility across all generations.Proximity to transit means moresocial and vocational options forteens, boomers, and the elderly, incomparison to more car-orientedsuburban developments.

• Healthier citizens. TOD encouragesresidents to get out of their cars andmake at least part of the trip frompoint A to point B by walking orbiking.

• Increased transit ridership. Co-locatingresidential, retail, and office uses neartransit gets more people out of theircars and onto public transportation,spreading out the fixed costs of transitinfrastructure over more users.

• Public cost savings. Aggregatingdevelopment in a compact fashionmeans governments need not stretchout their sewer, water, and otherinfrastructures in costly ways.

• Public/private partnerships. Because itpromises profits for privatedevelopers, quality-of-life gains forresidents, and property tax revenueincreases for municipalities, TOD canbe a meeting point for dynamicalliances between the public andprivate sectors.

• Public safety. The re-orienting of transitstops to facilitate pedestrian accesscan achieve great gains in theperception of safety, both for users ofthe stop and for residents and workersnear it.

• Quality of life. Residents, now givencentral locations to congregate andinteract, can build a richer sense ofconnectedness that is not often foundin isolated, car-centric suburbs.

• Reduced congestion. Moving peopletowards greater public transit usetakes cars off the road, reducingpollution costs, highway wear andtear, and time lost while stuck intraffic.

Fruitvale Transit Village, Oakland, CA

3

The Payoff for Neighborhoods

While we will distinguish later betweenregional TODs and neighborhood TODs,and between the more expansive versus themore localized advantages of TOD, it isimportant to note here that this list ofpotential benefits is of great relevance toneighborhoods. Neighborhoods all acrossPhiladelphia, after all, seek to beaesthetically pleasing and authenticallydesigned; they want robust commercialgrowth but also multiple price points forhousing; and they desire most of all anenhanced economic and social quality of life.

TODs at their best can confer these andother positives to neighborhoods in which theyare located. A neighborhood-framed reviewof the above list of benefits would yield thefollowing main payoffs at the neighborhoodlevel:

• Affordability. Higher densities canenable a mixing of house price levels.Also and importantly, proximity totransit stops can lead to a reduction intransportation costs for workingfamilies, by reducing or eveneliminating the need for a car andrelated expenses.3 Thus, connecting

3 The Center for Housing Policy contends thataffordable housing measures must also account fortransportation costs, with access to public transit being

inclusionary zoning programs withTOD can produce a twofold effect oncost of living for working families.

• Access. For the segment of the localpopulation that cannot afford or doesnot desire to own a car, being nearpublic transit greatly increases thepool of potential jobs that can bepursued and obtained, as well as theuniverse of retail outlets that can bereached and utilized. To the extentthat TOD brings retail and otheremployment to neighborhoods, thesealso represent additional shoppingoptions and job opportunities.

• Aesthetics. TOD can bring good urbandesign to previously disinvested

communities. Its value for pedestrian-friendliness can also bring thenecessary lighting and access to makepreviously avoided intersections safer.

These potential benefits represent the upsidefor neighborhoods of having TOD. Thedownside for neighborhoods of not havingTOD, of course, is that disinvestmentimposes higher costs on families, stifles

one significant way to ease the cost burden for low- tomoderate-income families. “The Combined Housingand Transportation Burdens of Working Families,”Center for Housing Policy (October 2006).

Both photos: Mt. Airy neighborhood of Philadelphia

4

access to employment and retail centers, andcreates physical eyesores in once-prominentlocations.

Transit-Oriented – Not Transit-Adjacent or Transit-Anemic

TOD is not a new-fangled notion butactually dates back to the original streetcarsuburbs of the late 19th century and early20th century, although such clustering of jobsand homes around rail stops is often morecorrectly referred to as “development-orientedtransit,” since developers built transit aroundexisting uses rather than vice versa. Theseoriginal locations are often the very sites thathold the most promise for modern-dayTOD. However, general disinvestment inolder urban corridors, combined withfragmented or no planning, has resulted notin TOD but in what we refer to as “transit-anemic development,” represented by crumblinginfrastructure and minimal active use.

This clustering of residential andcommercial districts near streetcar stops wasfollowed by a more car-driven land usepattern after World War II, as heavyinvestment in roads and highways greatlyaccelerated Americans’ reliance on theautomobile. During this time, what littlepublic transportation that remained focusedon buses, which of course used the samestreets and added even more trafficcongestion. Thus, any public transitinitiatives put forth during this periodtended to focus on relieving congestion, andwere not connected to any sort ofcomprehensive or strategic development ofland. We consider this “transit-adjacentdevelopment,” facilitating auto-oriented accessand not fully capitalizing on the benefits ofproximity to transit and the increasedmobility it affords.

Within the last ten years or so, conversationsabout transit and land use began to re-emerge, as federal legislation started to levelthe playing field for public transit versus

highways, and as developers realized thatcloser proximity to transit stops couldincrease land value. At this point, the full-range of TOD-related benefits had not yetbeen considered, so transit projects wereconsidered solely on the basis of increasedfinancial value, not for how they couldsynergistically and aesthetically interact withadjacent development.

This sort of development, often referred toas “transit-related development,” is now givingway to a broader approach, coined “transit-oriented development” by industry godfatherPeter Calthorpe, a Berkeley architect andplanner who envisioned TOD as animportant aspect and manifestation of agrowing “New Urbanist” movement in theUS. Far from being just about dollars andcents, Calthorpe advocated for TOD as away to restore identity, texture, and beautyto neighborhoods. Meanwhile, otheradvocates were beginning to formulate theirown economic cost-benefit cases in favor ofTOD, seeing it as not just marginalimprovements tacked onto existingapproaches but as a completely new andmore holistic paradigm of development.4

Infrastructural Prerequisites forTransit-Oriented Development

There are two infrastructural prerequisitesto doing TOD well and accruing its manypotential benefits:

1. Extensive rail transit service. TOD istypically near a rail station, not onlybecause such facilities providetransportation access, but becausethey represent a long-term, fixedinfrastructure commitment.

2. Dense central core. Dense central coresenhance the attractiveness of a

4 “Transit-Oriented Development: Moving fromRhetoric to Reality,” Brookings Institution (June2002).

5

TOD because they provide a majordestination where automobiles arenot required.

Across the nation, regions are spendingbillions of dollars to create or recreate thesetwo conditions. For example, Denver,Phoenix, and Seattle have invested billionsof public dollars into building transit lines;while older cities like Chicago andWashington, DC have seeded major mixed-use initiatives to generate new foot traffic instruggling neighborhoods around socialservices, arts and culture, and retail. In allof these cases, the hoped-for return on suchpublic investments is clear: higher propertytax revenues resulting from the enhancedproperty value of locations that haveexperienced greater private reinvestmentand more public amenities from TOD.

Meanwhile, as other cities expend massivepublic funds to achieve the rail infrastructureand physical density necessary to achievesuch a return, Philadelphia has both attributes inabundance. Philadelphia is one of fivemetropolitan areas that have more than 200stations and are thus classified as having“extensive systems.”5 Its dense, easilywalkable downtown, which is heavily servedby public transit, suggests to some that all ofCenter City Philadelphia is one big TOD.In addition, Philadelphia has enjoyedsuccess in creating what we will consider“regional TODs,” such as the Gallery Mallat Market East, the Cira Centre at 30th

Street Station, and the soon-to-be-completedOne Pennsylvania Plaza near SuburbanStation.

However, in recent years, good TOD inPhiladelphia’s neighborhoods has proven elusive. Infact, where development has occurred neartransit stops, it is has not tapped into thebenefits of transit-oriented development andcan generally be best described as merelytransit-adjacent development. Even worse,

5 “Preserving and Promoting Diverse Transit-OrientedNeighborhoods,” Center for Transit-OrientedDevelopment (December 2006).

there are a significant number of promisingsites in which no meaningful developmenthas occurred at all.

The Time is Right for Transit-Oriented Development inPhiladelphia

As mentioned above, some of Philadelphia’soldest and most storied neighborhoods wereearly examples of TOD success; while morerecent successes in TOD have tended to bemore regionally-oriented sites, such as theCira Centre in University City. It is possiblewe are at the cusp of yet another set of successes, thistime again at the neighborhood level, basedon the promise of up-and-comingdevelopments, particularly at 46th andMarket Streets in West Philadelphia and atthe Temple University Regional Rail stationin North Philadelphia.

Nevertheless, such promising developmentsare still too few and far behind. WherePhiladelphia has fallen short in catalyzingTOD, it has not been because of a lack ofthe requisite physical infrastructure. Rather,the hindrances in Philadelphia appear to be moresystemic. Consider three necessaryingredients for TOD to take root:

1. There must be a perception of addedvalue from transit services. Thehollowing out of urban Philadelphiadiminished the value of access todestinations served by transit. Froma development perspective, thevalue of transit access has beenfurther lessened by cheap autotravel, regional decentralization,reduced service levels, anduncertainty resulting from theabsence of dedicated funding.

2. There must exist a potential forprofitable development. Nodevelopment, let alone that orientedto transit, will take place if there isno profit to be made in developing.

6

In fact, the city experienced asignificant 50-year pattern ofpopulation and employment lossafter World War II.

3. Available sites, and TOD-friendlyzoning at such sites. AlthoughPhiladelphia does not lack for viableTOD sites, its antiquated zoningcode does not go far enough toencourage TOD.

These barriers, however discouraging, alsorepresent opportunities to act now to stemthe existence of transit-adjacent develop-ment and transit-anemic development andto stimulate the movement towards transit-oriented development. In many cases, thetime is right for transit-oriented development inPhiladelphia:

1. Transit funding and use. There is adistinct increase in the quality andquantity of conversations at thehighest levels over the importantsubject of dedicated funding forpublic transportation. A recentmulti-year funding commitment bythe Commonwealth of Pennsylvaniameans that for the first time in itshistory, SEPTA anticipates adequateand stable funding for the foreseeablefuture, opening its window to a morelong-term perspective.

2. Development is taking place in Philadelphia.The city is no longer bleedingresidents and jobs, and in fact, thanksin large part to a citywide ten-yearproperty tax abatement on newconstruction and significantrenovation, there has been a notableincrease in residential andcommercial development. While it isimpossible to predict what the futurewill hold, especially in light of thecurrent pullback in residential realestate, it is safe to say that the past fewyears have seen a commendablereversal of a decades-longdisinvestment.

3. TOD zones. There has been muchdiscussion recently over the updatingand reforming of the City’s zoningcode. Many groups are particularlyurging the City Planning Commissionto spearhead a more aggressive andcoordinated agenda to zone keytransit-proximate sites to encourageTOD.

We will discuss each of these points infurther detail in the sections to follow,beginning with the importance of transitservice, followed by TOD from adevelopment standpoint, and concludingwith implementable solutions. We close ourreport with some specific recommendationsfor key stakeholders. For while the time isright for transit-oriented development inPhiladelphia, actual success will come onlyfrom the actions of specific players and of allentities working in concert.

7

Chapter Two

Transit Service and ItsImpact on Development

s much as public transit in Philadelphiais pilloried in the media and on the

street, it is unmistakably a core asset for theCity and one on which its residents andworkers rely heavily (see below). If properlymanaged, it can become a key advantage inan increasingly competitive regional,national, and global economy. Thecontinuing suburbanization of jobs, houses,and retail only underscores this reality:Philadelphia’s edge lies in its urbanness. From thisperspective, the City’s vast transitinfrastructure is an asset around which tobuild, literally, rather than a liability tostarve or avoid.

2006 SEPTA Ridership, Selected Lines

All City Transit bus lines 146.7 M

Market-Frankford Line 52.2 M

Broad Street Line 33.5 M

All Subway Surface lines 19.1 M

All Regional Rail lines 28.6 M

Source: SEPTA (2007)

Transit and Development

Many of Philadelphia’s neighborhoods, andsome of its older suburbs, grew up aroundtransit and railroad lines. In fact, much ofthe real estate development in the first halfof the 20th century was undertaken jointlywith transit development, often by the sameentity. Before the predominance of the car,

private incentives were well aligned fortransit-oriented development (TOD).

With the advent of the car, that link hasbeen broken. Highways are developed andfinanced independently of residential andcommercial development, and our primarytransit provider was previously prohibitedfrom being directly involved in TOD.6Thus, there is no single entity that has theincentive or authority to undertake TOD, noeasy coordination between land use, transportationplanning, and private development.

Since the time that most of the transit systemwas put into place, we have invested heavilyin roads and cars, with the net result that theregion has spread out tremendously, in mostcases in places and with densities that arenot amenable to transit access (see below).As the region has decentralized, more andmore areas are not accessible except by car.This means that households need to ownmore cars, and that the value of the region’stransit system is diminished as a generalmobility tool.

As the region decentralized, the transitsystem increasingly became stretchedbeyond its resources as it tried to provide atleast minimal transit services to increasinglyfar-flung suburban areas, despite nosignificant growth in resources. To provideservice to the spreading region, SEPTAreallocated resources by reducing frequencyon core urban routes while creating newsuburban routes. In addition, in an attemptto be more competitive on long distanceregional rail routes, SEPTA eliminatedurban stations and reduced frequency onmany of the remaining urban stops. Thus,

6 This barrier appears to be on its way to beingremoved, as the Pennsylvania State Legislaturerecently passed the Transit Revitalization InvestmentDistrict (TRID) Act. This act authorizes state publictransportation agencies to work with counties, localgovernments, transportation authorities, the privatesector, and Amtrak to create and designate TransitRevitalization Investment Districts (TRIDs). TRIDsare discussed in further detail later in the report.

A

8

the process of decentralization has tended toreduce the value of transit service in urbanareas.

Philadelphia Metropolitan Development:1930 - 2000

Source: DVRPC: “2030 Report”

It may seem obvious but it is all too oftenoverlooked: in evaluating sites for TOD, onemust consider the value of the site’s nearbytransportation services. The extent to whichtransit offers real value to residents andbusinesses in a TOD – that will determinethe profitability and therefore the viability ofits realization. After all, developers engagein a TOD when they can expect a sufficientreturn for their efforts. Developer’s profits,in turn, depend on the extent to whichhouseholds and firms are willing to locate inthe TOD.

The price that the site commands, then, willincrease if the transit service is perceived ashaving long-term value, value that peopleand businesses are willing to pay for to be inclose proximity. In unpacking this concept,we will discuss the following considerations:

• The long term certainty of the service

• The number and desirability ofdestinations

• The frequency of service andintegration with other services

• The importance of service amenities

• How automobile access integrateswith TOD

The Long Term Certainty ofTransit Service

Transit-oriented development (TOD) isgenerally considered most appropriatearound fixed-rail facilities, in part becausethese facilities represent significant,immovable infrastructure with very longlives. In general, it is believed that once acommunity bears the high fixed cost of railinvestments, it will continue to bear themarginal cost of providing service. Thus, incontrast to bus stops, there is greaterassurance that the value conferred by the

9

transit service will be a long-termproposition.

Still, the existence of infrastructure does notguarantee the quality or even continuationof service. Notably, as will be discussedbelow, in Philadelphia, the lack of goodTOD activity in the region can likely betraced to uncertainties in quality and in servicelevels as a result of ongoing budget shortfalls.

Since its inception in 1964 from aconglomeration of failing private transitproviders, SEPTA has lurched from budgetcrisis to budget crisis, each with a resultingeffect on the long term certainty of part orall of its system:7

• There were significant reductions inrail services in the early years,including the Newark and Pottstownlines.

• There have been eliminations anddowngrades of service to RegionalRail lines and service in the city,including, for example, the off-peak

7 We do not count periodic service disruptions arisingfrom infrastructure reinvestment. While they cangreatly inconvenience riders as well as neighboringresidents and businesses, if managed well they can andshould have a positive and long-term impact on alocation’s value and its desirability as a TOD site, tothe extent that they represent investments in deliveringbetter and more stable transit service.

and weekend service on the ChestnutHill West route being cut by half.

• Numerous stations have either seentheir service eliminated, downgraded,or threatened with closure.8

• The Market-Frankford Line andBroad Street Line have also beenperiodically reduced due to budgetaryissues.

• There have been extended servicedisruptions for strikes (108 days onRegional Rail in 1983, and 40 dayson buses, subways, and trolleys in1998).

Perhaps even more important than the slowdownward trend in the level of SEPTA’s railservices within the City of Philadelphia is theperiodic threat of drastic service reductionsin response to budgetary crises. Theprospect of insufficient funds has almostevery year led SEPTA to state its inability topredict if it will have to cut or end services

and/or hike fares. Conversely, positivedevelopments, such as the State’s recentmulti-year commitment of funding toSEPTA, are positively accounted for in thedecisions of people and organizations thatdepend on transit.

8 The reasons for these closures or threatened closuresranged from low use to attempts to speed up service byeliminating interim stops to budgetary savings.

Market East SEPTA Regional Rail Station

SEPTA Regional Rail train

10

Fundamentally, TOD is based on the long-termviability of transit service. Therefore, thesignificant uncertainty regarding thefrequency, cost, and very existence ofSEPTA services is a major impediment tosuccessful TOD. To the extent thatdevelopers have perceived this very realuncertainty for a number of years in a row,they will be accordingly discouraged topursue projects that depend on monetizingpeoples’ perceived value of proximity totransit.

The Number and Desirability ofDestinations

An important aspect of the value derivedfrom proximity to a rail station is the accessafforded by that station, i.e., where one canget to from the rail stop. If a rail station hastrains that go to multiple destinations, or ifthere are convenient connections from onetransit service to another, the transportationadvantages of the station are greater than ifthe travel opportunities are basically limitedto stations along the one line, all other thingsbeing equal.

Many, but not all, of the Regional Railstations in the city essentially provideconvenient service only to other stationsalong a single line. This means that mostneighborhood regional rail services areoriented to providing commuter service tothe central core of the city, includingTemple, Market East Station, SuburbanStation, 30th Street Station and UniversityCity. Their value as transit-orienteddevelopment (TOD) areas are thusly limitedto residential and neighborhood serviceretail development.9

9 Regional Rail service, unlike buses, subways, andtrolleys, is too infrequent to transfer to or from anothertrip, whether a bus, subway, trolley, or anotherRegional Rail line. Instead, riders time their arrival toRegional Rail stations based on a schedule, and thustheir use of Regional Rail is limited to that trip’sstarting and ending point.

In contrast to most of the Regional Railstations, stops along the Market-FrankfordLine (MFL) and Broad Street Line (BSL), aswell as a limited number of Regional Railstations, provide access to a wide variety ofdestinations. In the case of the MFL and BSL,their frequent service (average wait timesunder five minutes) allows for easy transferto other services, while for some RegionalRail stations such as Wayne Junction, NorthPhiladelphia, and Temple, the entire systempasses through these stations, so in theory,there is region-wide access. Finally, in thecase of North Philadelphia and Temple,there is also subway service. These features,in an ideal world, should confer significantvalue to these locations as places to live andto work.

Of course, while the sheer number ofdestinations is an important indicator of astation’s desirability, the quality of thosedestinations is just as important, particularlyin the case of employment opportunities. Ofthe considerable evidence demonstratingthat people are willing to pay more to livenear transit stops, it has been proven thatmuch of the value conferred is as a result ofaccess to employment centers.10

Research has shown that in Philadelphia,the value of living near Regional Railstations increases when employment inPhiladelphia increases.11 One need onlyscan this region’s major employment centersto see that the ones that enjoy the densestconcentrations of jobs, most notably CenterCity and University City, are the very onesthat are relatively well-served by transit,while for the ones that have lower jobdensities, the mode of choice is the car (seebelow).

10 “Public Investment Strategies: How They Matterfor Neighborhoods in Philadelphia,” Gillen andWachter (2006); “Has Suburbanization Diminishedthe Importance of Access to Center City?” (Voith,2000).11 “The Suburban Housing Market: The Effects OfCity And Suburban Job Growth” (Voith, 1996).

11

12

Ten Largest Employment Centers in thePennsylvania Sub-Region 2005

Employment Center County # of Employees Employees per Acre

Center City Philadelphia 287174 180.0

West Phila./Univ. City Philadelphia 74353 26.3

Rt.30/Devon-Haverford Delaware 56486 13.9

King of Prussia Montgomery 49812 11.3

Rt.202/Great Valley-Malvern Chester 48023 8.5

Far Northeast Philadelphia 45350 6.9

West Chester Chester 42539 10.0

North Broad Street Philadelphia 41931 13.2

Willow Grove/Horsham Montgomery 40045 8.1

Rt.30/ Exton-Coatesville Chester 39414 5.7Source: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (2005)

Access to employment centers is of huge consequenceto neighborhoods, particularly low- tomoderate-income ones. To the extent thatcar ownership percentages are low, accessfor such neighborhoods to employment

centers via public transit is the differencebetween a relatively small universe of jobopportunities and a much larger, morepromising universe.

Simply put, proximity to a transit stationconfers value to the degree that one can usethat station to go to and come from otherdesirable locations. This connectivity,particularly to employment centers, also

works the other way, in that employers seeklocations their workers can reach in multipleways, including transit. The quality and quantityof destinations is therefore an importantcharacteristic that both private and non-profit developers and public decision-makersneed to consider in identifying suitablecandidates for TOD.

The Frequency of Service andIntegration with Other Services

The high quality and vast quantity ofdestinations that a particular station canaccess can, however, be trumped byinfrequent and un-integrated or under-integrated service. In too many cases, that is

Market-Frankford Line subway car

13

Temple Regional Rail Station

the case for transit, particularly for RegionalRail users, who must schedule their trips tobe consistent with services that may run onlyonce an hour; and who are essentiallylimited by the discrete destinations of theline. In contrast, two of the greatadvantages of a car, at least in theory, arethat the driver does not have to wait for itand he can go to any destination he chooses.

However, it is possible to create a transitsystem that requires relatively little waitingand scheduling, while also providing accessto a wide variety of destinations. What isrequired is a combination of high frequencyroutes, wide spans of hours of operation, and serviceintegration, three characteristics that, if co-existing together, greatly increase thecomfort level riders have about the transitsystem and thus the value developers canderive from locating new uses in closeproximity to its stations.12

Fortunately, SEPTA currently has many ofthese elements in place. The MFL and BSLare high frequency services that also connectwith bus services (which, unfortunately, areoften less frequent) and light rail services.13

Still, SEPTA is not perceived as anintegrated system providing a wide variety oftravel options, because riders experience somuch uncertainty regarding successfulconnections, due in large part to incompleteor missing information.

In theory, SEPTA is close to what isnecessary to create significant value-addedfor development near transit stops.Unfortunately, this value has yet to berealized to its fullest potential. Rectifyingthat missed opportunity will make TODmore likely to happen.

12 Of course, the elimination of paper transfers, whichwas proposed this past summer, would have made thesystem less integrated and therefore less valuable.13 With some notable exceptions, the integration of theRegional Rail and other transit services is,unfortunately, limited. This is a result, in part, of therelatively infrequent Regional Rail service, asdescribed above.

The Importance of ServiceAmenities and Station Aesthetics

There has been a great deal of research onhow people value their time when traveling,but much less on how people value thepleasantness and amenities associated withtheir travel. However, it is clear that limitedfunds cause SEPTA to make difficult trade-offs in terms of passenger amenities.Philadelphia transit services are utilitarian atbest. Stations are frequently in disrepair,many vehicles are crowded, and passengerinformation is very limited if not non-existent. One only has to compare this to atrip in one’s own car – with stereo, airconditioning, privacy, frequent trafficreports, and other pluses – to recognize theamenity deficit SEPTA faces.

It does not have to be so. Riding transit can bemade to be a more enjoyable means of traveling fromPoint A to Point B. Fixed-rail transit ridersdo not get stuck in traffic, they canconcentrate on their work or on a good

book, and do not have to worry about thecost or hassle of parking once they havearrived at their destination.

The stations themselves could be sources of valueenhancement, to the extent that they adhere tothe TOD principle of being aestheticallypleasing, friendly to pedestrian access, andauthentic to their particular place. Asmunicipalities get smarter about generatinga return through increased property tax

14

9th and Race St. parking garage with noground floor retail

revenues on public investments in suchamenities as parks and waterfront recreationareas, they can consider that the sameprinciples are in play when it comes tobuilding, improving, and beautifying transitstops in neighborhoods.

Importantly, part of the value enhancementachieved by well-designed transit stations isin reducing any real or perceived negativeimpacts of proximity to a transit station. Forexample, well-lit and well-greened transitstations can reduce crime, noise, and pollution,three important potential factors thatotherwise could confer negative value ontransit-proximate sites.

Unfortunately, all too often transitinfrastructure is built without regard topedestrian-friendliness, station amenities, orany other aesthetic considerations by usersor by the neighborhoods in which these sitesare located. To the extent that it is alwaysrebuilding stations, SEPTA has many futureopportunities to incorporate good urbandesign into these projects.

How Automobile AccessIntegrates with TOD

Cars are ubiquitous in today’s society. Gooddevelopment oriented to transit stops mustsimultaneously account for that reality.Successful TODs are able to balance theneed for cars with the need for density, andare designed in such a way to extract thevalue of good automobile access without thataccessibility rendering the transit service lessvaluable.

Specifically, a review of effective TODdesigns yields the following insights on howto integrate automobile access into a TOD:

• Parking can be located near, but not atthe transit facility, thus avoidingcongestion and encouraging drivers to

patronize local shopping and services.At the very least, parking structurescould be designed to enhance thepedestrian experience, by includingretail or other visually appealing uses atthe street level.

• A shared parking area or structure

complements mixed-use development.Ground floor retail, restaurants andentertainment near transit can takeadvantage of varying peak use times toserve drivers with relatively fewerparking spaces. The parking area isthus destinational for local residentsand transit users as well as drivers fromoutside the TOD.

• Variable access pricing provides anincentive for turnover of parkingspaces, while increasing the price of on-street parking discourages congestioncaused by cruising for spaces and long-term occupancy, and furtherincentivizing the use of transit.

15

Philly Car Share location at Carpenter Lane R8Regional Rail Station

Tivoli Square development, Washington DC

The Ellington, Washington DC

• SEPTA has demonstrated aninnovative approach to the intersectionbetween transit use and driving bypartnering with Philly Car Share, a

non-profit car sharing entity, toreimburse drivers who use RegionalRail en route to picking up their rentedcars.

Washington, DC is home to two excellentexamples in this regard, both located lessthan 0.1 miles from a Metro station and yetintegrating automobile access into othercommendable TOD design elements:14

14 “TOD Case Studies: Implementation in Low-Income, Ethnically Diverse Neighborhoods,”Reconnecting America: Center For Transit-OrientedDevelopment, January 2007.

• The Ellington, in the U Street District,was named “Best Mid-Rise ApartmentBuilding of 2005” by the NationalAssociation of Home Builders. Thisdevelopment consists of 190 rental unitsand 17,000 square feet of ground floorretail, as well as 177 parking spaces in atwo-level, below grade, parking garage.

• Tivoli Square also makes use of ashared parking lot, located behind thedevelopment and off of the mainthroughway. The lot can be accessedfrom two different streets and is sharedby the residents of the development’s 45condominium units, as well as byemployees and patrons of its grocery

store and local-serving retail and the28,000 square feet of office spacelocated in the development.

17

Chapter Three

Barriers to Transit-OrientedDevelopment inPhiladelphia

tating the obvious, to achieve theadvantages of transit-oriented

development (TOD) requires thatdevelopment actually take place. Differentstakeholders can play their part in creatingan environment that is friendly to suchdevelopment, but ultimately developers haveto decide whether or not to risk their owntime and capital.

When some of Philadelphia’s oldestneighborhoods were developed, thesedevelopers found transit-proximate sites tobe worth that risk. In contrast, for much ofthe past 50 years, very few sites, transit-proximate or not, have been developed.With the city now enjoying a resurgence innew construction, it is important to considerwhat needs to be done to inducedevelopment that is near transit stops andthat capitalizes on the mobility that suchlocations afford.

How Supply and DemandDetermines If and Where Transit-Oriented Development Will Succeed

Basic supply and demand theory tells us thatthe price and quantity of a good isdetermined by the intersection betweenproducers’ motivation to supply a good andconsumers’ preferences to demand thatgood. These simple economic principleshold true in the case of TOD, so it isinstructive to consider the supply anddemand of TOD in Philadelphia.

It is well documented that construction costsin Philadelphia are significantly higher than

those in the surrounding suburbs. Thesehigher costs have led to a lower supply ofnew housing in Philadelphia than wouldhave occurred if the production costs weremore in line with regional averages.15

High construction costs also accelerate therate of decline in neighborhoods. Whenconstruction costs are high, existing residentsreconsider whether they should reinvest intheir homes, or move to another home,where they could perhaps get more for theirinvestment dollar. High construction coststherefore lower reinvestment inneighborhoods, accelerating the decline ofolder neighborhoods.

Those locations, unfortunately, tend to bethe ones near our best transit services. Inother words, relative to other places, it isexpensive to supply Philadelphia with TOD.

What about the demand for TOD inPhiladelphia? From 1960 through 2000, thepopulation of Philadelphia fell fromapproximately 2 million to 1.5 million, adecline of almost 25 percent. This meantthat roughly one quarter of the housing inPhiladelphia was no longer needed. Upuntil recently, this trend in decline in thedemand for housing looked as if it wouldcontinue indefinitely. Given the populationdecline, it is not surprising to learn that therewere less than 100 new housing starts inPhiladelphia in 1999; in contrast, theaverage number of starts in 1999 for each ofthe four Pennsylvania suburban counties was2,383 (see below).

15 “Construction costs within the city wereconsiderably higher than elsewhere, whether anotherurban center or an adjoining suburb. Even as recentlyas 2000, Philadelphia had the sixth highestconstruction costs among the 50 largest markets in thenation – 20 percent above the average. The result wasa situation in which construction costs exceededmarket values, plaguing growth in city centers andprecipitating a further decline in both jobs andpopulation in the city itself.” “Advancing RegionalEquity: The Second National Summit on EquitableDevelopment, Social Justice, and Smart Growth,”Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia (2005).

S

18

Housing Starts, 19991999 Housing Starts, by PA County

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

Bucks

Delaware

Chester

Montgomery

Philadelphia

Source: Pennsylvania Builders Association

These negative population and housingtrends went hand in hand with an evenmore severe decline in employment: from1969 through 2002, employment in the Cityplummeted 27 percent from 939,000 to683,000 (see below).

Philadelphia Employment, 1969-2002

600650700

750800850900

9501000

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Year

Em

plo

ym

en

t (i

n t

ho

us

an

ds

)

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

During this time, manufacturing becamemuch more mechanized, evaporating theemployment base that was distributedthroughout the City, and taking with it thedemand for housing in these neighborhoods.As jobs and population left the City, simplyproviding basic services such as public safetyand education became increasinglychallenging. Tax bases were declining, andentrenched interests made fiscal adjustmentsdifficult. Rising tax rates in response todeclining tax revenues only accelerated thedecline.16

16 “The city‘s share of U.S. employment in four of thesix industry divisions displayed an inverse relationshipto changes in the wage and gross receipts tax rate. Inthree of the four cases this relationship was statisticallysignificant for the impact of the wage tax rate. The

Even worse for the existence of TOD inPhiladelphia, the impacts of this decline inpopulation and jobs were not felt equallyacross the city. Typically, the oldest, mostobsolete development is abandoned first. InPhiladelphia’s case, this meant that theoldest communities that developed along themajor transit lines were the most adverselyaffected. Thus, rather than increasingdensity around the Market-Frankford Line,the Broad Street Line, and regional railstations, density was actually decreasing;instead of TOD-friendly sites attracting moredevelopment, they experienced more disinvestment.

Despite significant development efforts,Center City Philadelphia, which was and isthe focal point of the region’s transit system,substantially lost its role as the predominantretail center for the region. In a sense, thespreading out of purchasing dollars is theequivalent story as the physical erosion neartransit stops: as the region decentralized andcars made traveling to far-flung suburbsmore convenient, once-vibrantneighborhoods and commercial corridorslost their residents, commercial activity, andretail dollars, creating a vicious cycle ofdisinvestment and uncompetitiveness.

To further compound matters, some peopleduring this time believed that this “de-densification” was not bad and perhaps evenhighly desirable. In fact, there was seriousdiscussion at the highest levels about how tobest “manage” decline; that rather thanfighting the loss of people and jobs from thecity, the city should become more like thesuburbs in offering the type of low-density,auto-friendly environment that it seemedmore and more households weredemanding.

relationship between gross receipts tax rates and taxbases is always significant for these sectors.”“Choosing the Best Mix of Taxes for Philadelphia: AnEconometric Analysis of the Impacts of Tax Rates onTax Bases, Tax Revenue, and the Private Economy,”Econsult Corporation (2003).

19

Recall that TOD is valued to the extent thatthe mobility that access to transit affords isvalued. Combine lower density inneighborhoods and the declining retail roleof Center City with the relative convenienceof retail and employment options in thesuburbs as a result of easy automobileaccess, and it is clear that the demand for TODplummeted during this time.

Any good that is expensive to supply anddiminishing in demand is going to see itsquantity plunge. Even worse for TOD, thisdownward trend became a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, as disinvestment repelledinterest even more, begetting even moredisinvestment. If there was any consolationfor Philadelphia, it was solely in the notionthat other, older cities were experiencingsimilar pains from the industry shifts andchanging residential and employmentpatterns of the second half of the 20th

century.

Fortunately, in recent years, these negativetrends have largely run their course, re-opening the possibility that TOD could bereasonably considered in Philadelphia:

• The transition of the city from amanufacturing-heavy location to aservice-heavy location has beenlargely completed;

• The rapid expansion of the suburbs, asassociated with massive highwayinvestment and low land costs, hasslowed; and

• The negative association that manypeople have towards all things urbanis dissipating.

With expectations of the future improvingfor urban areas, it is likely that transit couldonce again contribute to the positive valueand growth of neighborhoods. This createsa development context that is morewelcoming to TOD.

Development HurdlesPhiladelphia Faces

At the most basic level, development occurswhen a developer can make a competitiverate of return on a project.17 Projects areundertaken when the value of the revenuegenerated by the project, either through therent or through the sale of the project,exceeds the construction costs.18

For most of the last 40 years, it has beendifficult to develop in Philadelphia,especially in the neighborhoods, for thesimple fact that demand has beeninsufficient to set rents and prices highenough to justify the costs of developmentand construction. Unfortunately, theconditions that made developmentunprofitable in Philadelphia also madeTOD even less likely to occur.19 What littledevelopment that did take place near transitstops could only be charitably described astransit-adjacent (physically proximate totransit but not really leveraging the full valueof transit proximity).

However, due in large part to a citywide ten-year property tax abatement on newconstruction and major renovations, andaided by a national movement towardsurban living, these negative trends are easingif not completely reversing (see below). Thiscreates a genuine opportunity for TOD totake root in Philadelphia.

17 Note that it is not sufficient for a project to simplybe profitable, but it must also earn a rate of return thatis greater than or equal to other, similarly riskyinvestment options.18 This is the case for for-profit developers; in parallel,a growing number of equally sophisticated non-profitdevelopers are capitalizing on tax credits, grants, andother funding sources to bring developments to light.19 Additional barriers experienced by Philadelphia areendemic to locations in many, older urban centers: theneed for environmental remediation, the cost of fixingdebilitated infrastructure, and fragmentation of lotownership.

20

Montgomery County MD Zoning Ordinance

Montgomery County, Maryland established Transit-Oriented Mixed Use Zones in 2005 to achieve adevelopment pattern that “encourages pedestrianactivity and access, promotes use of transit,andcreates a coherent arrangement of buildings and usesthat contribute to a sense of place.” The Code requiresall buildings to open at the street, include sufficientstreet lighting to provide access and security, avoidblank walls, locate off-street parking to the side, rear orbelow grade if feasible and provide continuous, directand convenient pedestrian and bicycle pathways, andconnections to transit stations. In addition, the Countyrequires significant public amenities to be added tonew developments such as pocket and urban parks,public plazas and water features, wide sidewalk areas,bus shelters, and benches. Rather than providing a listof prohibited uses, the Code lists all permitted usesencouraging those that create an active pedestrianenvironment such as restaurants, shops, and servicesfrom day care to drycleaning that commuters seek touse conveniently during their commute.

Residential Building Permits 1999-2005

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Philadelphia

Suburban County Average

Source: US Census Bureau (2006)

Believe it or not, though, changing peoples’location preferences and even changing thefundamental costs associated with buildingin Philadelphia is not enough. We mustaddress the role of transit and of SEPTA, theregion’s main transit service provider, as wasdiscussed previously. Here we consider themindset of the developer, and the publicpolicy hurdles that need to be addressed toclear the way for additional development,particularly that which orients itself neartransit.

Again, for TOD, as for any sort ofdevelopment, to be successful, it must delivera sufficient return on investment. Relativeto its suburbs, Philadelphia begins withhigher input costs and longer turn-aroundtimes, both of which diminish a developer’sreturn and lessen the likelihood of taking ona project. Some of the reasons for thesedifferences are structural, and some aregovernmental:

Structural Hurdles• Site assembly with multiple small and/or

odd-sized lots

• Demolition and environmental clean-upcosts

• Union costs – rates and work rule changesrequired

Governmental Hurdles• Time consuming and uncertain zoning

permitting and entitled processes

• Regulatory requirements with excessivecosts

• Lack of government promotion of TOD

• Outdated and excessively restricted zoning

• SEPTA’s regulatory and monetaryconstraints in advocating for TOD

• Need for public subsidy

Therefore, all things being equal, developerswill tend to gravitate towards developing inthe suburbs rather than in the city. TheCity could change that equation by makingdevelopment in the city more desirable than in thesuburbs, such that developers are willing tobear the higher cost of developing in the citybecause of the higher potential payoff.

21

But the City could also change that equationby lowering the cost to develop in the city. Thus,for example, the continuation of the ten-yearproperty tax abatement is vital to continuingto make development economically feasiblein the city. Other citywide policy decisions,such as reducing the wage tax and BusinessPrivilege tax, improve the viability of TODby making access to Center City and itsretail and employment locations all the morevaluable.

Nevertheless, despite these importantimprovements, some sort of public subsidy isassumed to be needed, at least at this stage, to getprojects off the ground. This is particularly truein cases where mixed-income housing isdesired. Thus, the topic of public fundingwill be further elaborated below.

These policy solutions not only facilitatedevelopment mechanically, by improvingthe financial and logistical challenges ofphysically developing in Philadelphia; theyalso help change the mindset of developersand of the residential and commercialconsumers they are developing for. Forexample, TOD-friendly public policies likethe ones described above turn a perceivedliability – high density – into a real asset.Plus, they signal an openness to collaborateand to get things done, a most welcome

contrast to far too many experiencesdevelopers are increasingly facing as theypropose development programs to variousmunicipalities and townships.

SEPTA and the City ofPhiladelphia

The continued uncertainty regardingSEPTA funding and services is a majorobstacle to TOD. As stated earlier,developers, businesses, homebuyers, andapartment renters will not consider long-term transit-oriented locations, or at the veryleast will significantly discount the value ofsuch locations, in cases where the qualityand quantity of transit in the future isuncertain.

Most of the uncertainty regarding the futureof SEPTA transit services is a result of itsuncertain funding base. It is almost an annualevent that SEPTA is forced to considereliminating major elements of its service inresponse to budgetary problems. It is welldocumented that this is truly a fundingcommitment problem rather than a case ofSEPTA spending its funds inefficiently.20

In general, the focus of discussions aboutsolutions to this funding issue has been at thestate level, but there is also some action thatcould be taken at a local level. There is verylittle contribution to transit services at thelocal level, and this translates into a lack offocus on transit at the local level. Any long-termsolution to SEPTA funding uncertaintiesshould therefore include incentives forincreased ridership, which would over timeincrease SEPTA’s interest in TOD.

20 “Operating support is so limited that transitagencies are using significant portions of capital fundsfor maintenance. This practice results in higher costsfor deferred capital needs.” “Investing in Our Future:Addressing Pennsylvania’s Transportation FundingCrisis,” Pennsylvania Transportation Funding andReform Commission (2006).

Cira Centre, 30th Street, Philadelphia

22

It is also important to note that some of theuncertainty with respect to transit services isa result of choices made by SEPTA.SEPTA has consciously reduced service insome urban Regional Rail stations andeliminated others in an effort to save timeand money on the lines. In addition,SEPTA has floated proposals to eliminateentire lines in the city. This kind ofdiscussion all but eliminates the possibility ofTOD associated with these facilities, andundermines the confidence of the public inthe certainty of service at other locations.

Unlike some transit agencies, SEPTA hasnot been a leading participant in the TODdevelopment process. SEPTA’s enablinglegislation has not allowed it to acquire landfor non-transportation purposes, andSEPTA owns relatively little land in areassuitable for TOD. Further, SEPTA has notmade it a priority to alter these institutionalconstraints. Finally, SEPTA’s funding woeshave forced it into a short-term mindset,through which long-term investments suchas TOD are hard to entertain.

Recent legislation, however, has allowed thecreation of Transit RevitalizationInvestment Districts (TRIDs), which will bediscussed in further detail below. Thisrelatively new legislation at least provides themechanism through which SEPTA andmunicipalities could work together to createTOD. The jury remains out as to whetherthe tools are sufficient to result in significant

TOD, but the possibility is there to includeSEPTA in such conversations that intersectTOD, transportation planning, and landuse.21

As for SEPTA’s institutional relationshipwith the City, whether a consequence of theSEPTA board structure (much less Cityrepresentation on the board than itsproportion of ridership) or of the relativesmall share of local funding, SEPTA and theCity have not tended to work cooperatively withrespect to transit or development: SEPTA’s budget

woes constrain its willingness to thinkcollaboratively, while the City no longer hasa cabinet-level transportation coordinatorposition within its administration, althoughcertainly there is a new opportunity toreinstate such an office with the City’supcoming change in mayoral leadership.

This lack of collaborative mindset hasresulted in major investments in transitinfrastructure, such as the rebuilding of theelevated portion of the MFL in WestPhiladelphia, with virtually no considerationof TOD surrounding its station areas.Rather than representing a (literally) once-in-a-lifetime chance to coordinate new

21 This is a particularly welcome development in lightof recent public and legislative backlash against the useof eminent domain in the wake of the historic Kelo vs.City of New London case in 2005, which to someextent validated economic development as apermissible “public use” in the taking of privateproperty.

Market-Frankford Line, 56th and Market St.

Under-utilized site adjacent to North PhiladelphiaAmtrak / SEPTA stations

23

transit infrastructure with neighborhooddevelopment and integrated design, thetrack and station reconstruction has simplybeen one big, expensive construction projectthat has produced only disruption forbusinesses on Market Street and congestionfor people driving through WestPhiladelphia.

TOD, with its focus on transit access,authentic design, and multiple housing pricepoints, could be an effective mechanism bywhich previously disinvested locations, suchas those around MFL stations in WestPhiladelphia, could be rejuvenated in waysthat beautify physically and that producelively, mixed-income settings. Thus, suchan uncoordinated effort as what has takenplace with the reconstruction of the elevatedportion of the MFL in West Philadelphiarepresents a huge loss in opportunity toconsider approaches that foster healthy andvibrant neighborhoods and that encouragedevelopment that fully capitalizes on thetransit resource that the MFL represents tothe city.

In order for TOD to become a reality inPhiladelphia’s neighborhoods, the City andSEPTA must form a coherent, cooperativerelationship to foster TOD. The lack of agood relationship between the City andSEPTA has often meant that the City’seconomic development activities haveremained independent of transitconsiderations, leading to far too little TOD.However, cooperation could take place, as isevidenced by SEPTA’s recent collaborationwith the City Planning Commission on theAllegheny West TOD study.

25

Chapter Four

Solutions that EncourageMore Transit-OrientedDevelopment

lthough transit-oriented development(TOD) holds the potential for financial

gain – no development would take placeunless it was profitable – the public nature ofsuch initiatives presuppose the participationof the public sector, from a financial andregulatory standpoint. In this discussion, wefocus on our assessment of key steps that theCity of Philadelphia and SEPTA, as two keypublic stakeholders, must take to make TODa reality. There are three specific items thatcould be addressed:

• Creation of transit-oriented zoningoverlays for neighborhood TODsand regional TODs

• Creation of TRIDs at every stop onthe Market-Frankford Line andBroad Street Line and for selectedRegional Rail stops

• Development of a priority list forfunding TOD sites

Zoning Overlays forNeighborhood TODs andRegional TODs

The areas around too many of our mostsignificant transit hubs are characterized bycrumbling infrastructure, anemic and low-density development, and/or transit-adjacent development that does not fullycapitalize on the value that could becaptured from access to transit. In order toencourage and facilitate TOD instead, theCity could create zoning overlays

appropriate for neighborhoods near transitstations.

There is a wide range of zoning tools thatcould be applied to TOD. These tools couldbe carefully assessed and incorporated intothe transit zoning overlay, to expeditecollaboration towards the pursuit of TODs.For example, Phoenix, AZ, which has had agreat deal of success in implementingsuccessful TOD, has recently created atransit-oriented zoning overlay for parts ofthe city. The transit-oriented zones, thoughnot very extensive in terms of area covered,could be extremely effective in assuring thatTOD occurs in a way that takes fulladvantage of nearby transit stops andstations.22

For station areas in Philadelphia that areappropriate for residential neighborhood TODs,the zoning rules could include parkingmaximums, higher residential densityallowances, facilities for pedestrian access,neighborhood-oriented mixed-usedevelopment and transit interconnections.In areas where transit service is located nearsignificant green space such as a park, thisamenity could be leveraged along with thetransit access to create higher value andhigher density residential development.

To the extent that mixed-income housing isa principal objective of a neighborhoodTOD, density bonuses could be tied to theconstruction of affordable housing units. Inother words, such incentives could be zonedinto a targeted neighborhood, such that theadded cost of building housing units andthen selling them below market rates is offsetby the added profits that are enjoyed by thedeveloper when he or she is allowed to build

22 For example, the zoning code requires thatstructured parking facilities located adjacent to transitstops must provide non-parking uses on the groundfloor. Additionally, sidewalks are required to be aminimum of 8 feet wide, while parking lots must belocated to the rear or interior of a parcel. Thesemeasures enhance walkability, an important elementof TOD.

A

26

more units on a site than was previouslyallowed.23

These and other mechanisms could helpensure that development activity results inaffordable housing, safe passageways, goodurban design, and other positive outcomesfor neighborhoods. In contrast, in manycases, current zoning regulations not only donot facilitate TOD, but they literally makeTOD illegal to pursue, by restricting the sortof flexibility needed to achieve theadvantages promised by TOD.

Zoning overlays could also be used tostimulate regional TODs. There are a numberof areas throughout the city where existingtransit services make the station areaaccessible to a wide area of the region bytransit; current examples include the CiraCentre at 30th Street Station and the GalleryMall at Market East. Specific zoningoverlays that combine dense mixed-usedevelopment – residential, commercial, andretail – could be created. These overlayscould attempt to spur development byincreasing allowed densities. Moreover,these developments could be multimodal innature, providing good auto access as well astransit access. Zoning overlays could ensure,however, that parking does not interfere ordetract from transit access.

Transit Revitalization InvestmentDistricts (TRIDs)

The Transit Revitalization InvestmentDistrict Act was enacted in 2004 by the

23 The Holly Street Village Apartments in Pasadena isa remarkable example of this coupling of incentives foraffordable housing and for TOD. Completed someten years before the introduction of the Gold Line, thecomplex came together because city officials plannedfor transit access and, seeking mixed-use housingoriented to the future station, provided the necessarydensity incentives to the developer to make the projecthappen.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and withaggressive initial and ongoing leadershipfrom the Delaware Valley RegionalPlanning Commission, to enable localgovernments and transit authorities to createTransit Revitalization Investment Districts(TRIDs). TRIDs enable municipalgovernments and transit authorities to moreclosely coordinate transportationinfrastructure, land use, and privatedevelopment in the following ways:

• Providing incentives for transit-oriented development,

• Establishing mechanisms to capturethe value added by developmentaround transit stops,

• Encouraging community involvementin the location, design, andimplementation of developmentactivities, and

• Receiving priority for grants andtechnical assistance through the state’sDepartment of Community andEconomic Development (DCED).

A local government could designate a TRIDin any geographic area within 1/8 to 1/2 of

Temple Regional Rail Station (Source: Google Maps2007)

27

a mile from a transit stop. Once a locationis identified, a four-step process begins:24

1. Planning – A municipality undertakes aTRID Planning Study, whichprovides the rationale for thedesignated TRID and which must bepublicly reviewed.

2. Program management – The municipalitythen forms a management entity toimplement the TRID, and themunicipality and transit agencyprepare public infrastructureimprovement lists and coordinatevalue capture shares with theapplicable school district and county.

3. Implementation – The TRIDImplementation Program, which isalso subject to public review, is thenexecuted by the municipality andtransit agency, and developer interestis solicited and development proposalsreviewed.

4. Execution – Finally, a DevelopmentAgreement is executed, constructionbegins, and the management entityadministers the value capturerevenues and expenditures inaccordance with the TRIDImplementation Program.

Early examples in the Philadelphia area, allof which are still in the planning phase,include the Temple University, 46th andMarket, Marcus Hook, Bryn Mawr, andAllegheny regional rail stops. However, aswill be further elaborated below, there arenumerous additional sites that the City andSEPTA could designate as TRIDs. In fact,every stop on the Market-Frankford Lineand Broad Street Line, as well as selectedRegional Rail stops, could be considered forTRIDs. Such designations will rallycollaboration between developers andcommunity groups, facilitate the cooperative

24 Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission(2005).

development of land use plans, andstimulate TOD.

Both the City and SEPTA have much togain from the aggressive pursuit of TRID asa means to creating more TOD:

• The enabling mechanism of valuecapture, whether through taxincrement financing or other avenues,means that TOD-relateddevelopment and amenities could befunded with no negative impact onthe City budget, but rather by takinga portion of future property taxrevenue increases that will materializearound the site as a result of the newenhancements.25

The utilization of a value capturemechanism such as tax incrementfinancing (TIF) and the City’sexisting property tax abatement issomewhat, but not totally, mutuallyexclusive. Property taxes that resultdirectly from new construction ormajor renovation that is privatelydeveloped could either be abated orcaptured via TIF, but not both.

However, new increments ofproperty taxes that result fromproperty value increases in existingand surrounding properties could becaptured via TIF, generating upfrontdollars that could be used to buildpublic infrastructure and amenities,like transit stops, plazas, and parks.A typical value capture at aneighborhood level might, forexample, generate anywhere from

25 To the extent that these potentially value enhancingimprovements are being made in residentialneighborhoods, there is always a concern thatparticularly vulnerable populations, such as low-income residents and elderly people living on fixedincome, will be possibly priced out of their existinghomes by future property tax increases. This can beoffset by the increase in value of their main asset, anincrease which can, through various financial vehicles,be converted into cash flow to help pay for any taxincreases.

28

two to four million dollars upfront,which could be used forinfrastructure improvements andpaid off over time with theincremental increase in property taxrevenues that result from higherproperty values in and around theTOD.

• As for SEPTA, it has already beendiscussed that TOD could equate toincreased ridership; TRIDs are aneffective way for SEPTA to work withthe City towards that end.

Developing a Priority List ofFunding TOD Sites

Despite the inherent benefits of transit-oriented development (TOD) and the manysuitable locations for considering TOD inPhiladelphia, many years of anemicdevelopment near transit stops haveatrophied decision-makers’ willingness toaggressively consider such developments. Inorder to build positive momentum withleaders around TOD, existing successes willhave to be identified, and early successespursued and celebrated. Not insignificantly,TOD is somewhat fuzzy to grasp on paperbut distinctly clear to all when built out, so

quick wins are not only useful for buildingmomentum but also for creating imagesaround which more and more supporterscould rally.

In fact, as mentioned above, a handful ofpromising TOD sites are moving forward.To begin with, the Temple University and46th and Market stations are among ahandful of sites that are in the TRIDplanning phase:

• Development around the TempleUniversity Regional Rail Station is beingdriven in part by the AsociaciónPuertorriqueños en Marcha, a largesocial service agency and developer ofretail and residential units.

• Development around the 46th andMarket Street Market-Frankford LineStation is being spearheaded by TheEnterprise Center CommunityDevelopment Corporation,highlighted by the Plaza at EnterpriseHeights, an environmentally friendlydevelopment of 100 residential units,45,000 SF of commercial space, and35,000 SF of retail space.

However, in addition to highlighting theseearly opportunities, the City could alsodevelop a priority list of TOD sites, andmobilize funding, leadership, andadministrative efforts towards developingsuch sites. Specifically, all possible sitescould be identified and then classified, basedon their potential for TOD, into one of threetiers:

1. No or low demand. Fundamentaldemand is too low, and the value oftransit access has been fully capturedwith little to no prospect forimprovement.

2. Some potential demand. Current demandis low, but external factors areimproving, such that improved transitopportunities could generate sufficientdemand to induce new development.Temple University with SEPTA

Regional Rail Station and new housing

29

3. Great potential demand. Current use isstable or growing, but the site couldbe made more dense and/or morevaluable if transit opportunities wereaggressively improved and marketed.

This initial sorting could help prioritizeefforts and identify easy early “wins.” Asecond, more detailed analysis would look atthese potential sites from the prospective ofvarious possible uses, particularly retail,residential, and commercial:

• Retail – Many of these sites currentlyhave demand for retail that is low andintra-neighborhood in nature,although there may exist some strongcandidates for inter-neighborhoodretail (see below). Some sites maybenefit from an increasing preferencein retail towards environmentalconsiderations and urban locations,from a transit access standpoint.

• Residential – Housing may very well bethe highest and best use for manypotential sites, to the extent thattransit value is generated from theability to commute to job centers.Thus, TOD might be most promisingin neighborhoods that are seeing largeinfluxes of new residents who work inCenter City.

• Commercial – TOD that focuses on thisuse will find its greatest success nearinstitutional facilities, such ashospitals, universities, andgovernment buildings, since a criticalmass of jobs is needed to sustain suchsites.

By evaluating all possible sites using thesegeneral criteria, a priority list could bedeveloped, behind which attention could begenerated towards the sort of collaborativeand strategic effort required to implementTOD. As for locations, most if not all transitstops could be seriously evaluated for TODpotential, as noted by the Delaware Valley

Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) inits 2004 inventory of potential TOD sites:

While the region has over 340 fixed-rail stations, themajority of them have transit-adjacent developments(TADs). Transit-adjacent development isdevelopment that is physically near transit but fails tofully capitalize on its proximity, both in promotingtransit ridership and as an economic and communitydevelopment tool. 26

The report goes on to list five main primecandidates: 30th and Market, 46th andMarket, the Bridge-Pratt TransportationCenter, Girard, and Temple University.However, we believe that in the long run,every Market-Frankford Line (MFL) station andBroad Street Line (BSL) station could be considered.Continued high frequency of service onthese two lines has led to very largeriderships - 52 million for the MFL and 33million for the BSL in 2006 – and thusmaking every stop on these two lines a primecandidate for TOD.

In a sense, it is fitting to site TOD at theselocations; after all, these very areas wereonce major residential and retail centers,during the first half of the 20th century, whensuch uses truly were transit-oriented. It isunfortunate that decades of disinvestmenthave transformed these once-proudcorridors into the locations in the City withthe oldest infrastructure and most anemicdevelopment. It is, conversely, inspiring tothink that sites that once thrived becausehigh density and transit access wereconsidered assets, and then deterioratedbecause those same characteristics weredeemed liabilities, could now be evaluatedanew as promising places for development.

In the short term, we agree withNeighborhoodsNow’s focus on the 46th andMarket and the Temple University sites, as theyrepresent highly attractive, high-densitylocations primed for early TOD success.

26 “Linking Transit, Communities and Development: RegionalInventory of Transit-Oriented Development Sites”, DelawareValley Regional Planning Commission (August 2003).

30

The City’s Office of Housing andCommunity Development is currentlyworking with NeighborhoodsNow toadminister a planning grant from DCEDand PennDOT to study the prospect of aTRID around these two transit stations.

Importantly, both sites representopportunities to organize existing positivemomentum around private developmenttowards ends that ensure a healthy evolutionto mixed-use, mixed-income communitiesthat are pedestrian-friendly, aestheticallypleasing, and oriented to transit use. Suchan orientation to transit use, as stated above,has a deep lineage in Philadelphia, and is amajor reason for the remarkable socio-economic diversity of its neighborhoods,even after decades of disinvestment anddecentralization. Perhaps these two earlysuccesses, at the 46th and Market and theTemple University sites, will provide lessonsfor stakeholders to warm to the potential ofTOD to rejuvenate other locations aroundthe City.

Regional Rail lines, eight in all, togethercarry 78,000 people per day, or lesscombined than either the MFL or BSL.However, much of that traffic is bycommuters, affording certain opportunitiesfor TOD, particularly of the regionallyoriented kinds. In particular, we believe thatthe Wayne Junction station has potential,particularly for residential development,based on its many Regional Rail and buslines that pass through it, its generallyattractive housing stock, and its closeproximity to Center City.

Other locations, particularly the NorthPhiladelphia station and the Broad and Girardstation exhibit characteristics appealing toTOD, as do other subway, bus, and railstops. Aerial maps of these and otherlocations are greatly informative in terms ofdepicting the extent of the misseddevelopment opportunities for TOD:considerable vacant land, vast swaths ofpedestrian-unfriendly parking in support ofnearby retail and entertainment uses, and

general underutilization and disinvestment.In the Appendix, we provide maps andcommentary of some stations around whichdevelopment is currently far short of itspotential.

In parallel of this site analysis, City funds couldbe identified and allocated towards this effort, whichwould further stimulate additional private sectorattention and investment. To give but onemunicipal example, the City of Boston has a$30 million TOD infrastructure and housingsupport bond program, the proceeds ofwhich will help fund pedestrianimprovements, bicycle facilities, urbandesign, and housing initiatives.27

27 City of Boston’s Department of NeighborhoodDevelopment.

31

Chapter Five

Recommendations forStakeholders

ransit-oriented development (TOD) is,like all real estate development,

necessarily a collaborative exercise. Thus, itis important that all stakeholders workcollectively to pursue both individual TODsites as well as an environment that is moreconducive to TOD. Several nonprofitsincluding the Pennsylvania EnvironmentalCouncil, the Economy League of GreaterPhiladelphia, and PennTrans arecontributing to elevating the significance ofpublic transportation. Due to both theirvested interests as well as their ability toeffect real change, the following eightstakeholders will be the most importantwhen it comes to ensuring successful TOD:

• The City of Philadelphia

• The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

• SEPTA

• Developers

• Institutional anchors

• Neighborhood groups

• Intra-neighborhood and inter-neighborhood groups

• Delaware Valley Regional PlanningCommission (DVRPC)

The City of Philadelphia

The public sector could prepare itself to leadin this effort by better understanding andappreciating the important financial,

societal, and environmental benefits thataccrue from well-designed TOD. It is clearfrom the experience of Philadelphia that,absent aggressive and intelligent interventionby local governments, TOD does nothappen on its own, resulting in eitherdisinvestment or else development that ismore oriented to automobile traffic thantransit access. The fact that these potentialsites are visually and strategically prominentlocations in the city ought to warrant somepublic sector attention.

The City of Philadelphia could considerregulatory ways within its means to stimulatedevelopment around transit stops thatactually capitalizes on the locational value ofthese transit-proximate sites:

• For example, the City could work withSEPTA to create Transit RevitalizationInvestment Districts (TRIDs) toencourage TOD. In fact, the City’sOffice of Housing and CommunityDevelopment is currently workingwith NeighborhoodsNow toadminister a planning grant fromDCED and PennDOT to study theprospect of a TRID around the 46th

and Market and the TempleUniversity stations.

• In parallel, the City could also pursuespecial transit-oriented zoning overlays. Infact, the City Planning Commission iscurrently looking at an overalloverhaul of the City’s zoning code, aswell as special designations for areasaround Market-Frankford Line (MFL)and Broad Street Line (BSL) stops.

• These overlays could includeparameters concerning affordablehousing and thus induce a greatermixing of house price levels byoffering compensatory incentives, such asdensity bonuses, to offset the cost ofproviding affordable housing and to

T

32

thus effectively induce developers tochoose to build at such sites.28

The City could also lower the cost of developmentand of business in Philadelphia:

• First, the City could continue itsproperty tax abatement program for newdevelopments. In doing so, it wouldbe continuing to make the city adevelopment-friendly environment.

• Indirectly, lower business taxes alsocontribute to a more TOD-friendlyenvironment, largely by makingaccess to employment centers inCenter City more valuable.

• In parallel, City funds could beidentified and allocated towards thiseffort, which would further stimulateadditional private sector attention andinvestment.

The City could also reduce the administrativecosts required to engage in profitabledevelopment in Philadelphia:

• The City could be workingcollaboratively with developers andneighborhood groups to help streamlinethe process of assembling land,balancing the importance of sitecontrol in determining the feasibility,timing, and profitability of a potentialTOD project with the need to besensitive to current residents and thedesire to minimize the amount ofwholesale relocation of residents andbusinesses. On the one side, the Citycould create a unified checklist offorms, agencies, and procedures thatare involved in moving forward with aTOD, and/or host integrated

28 Boston and Denver are two examples of municipalgovernments using inclusionary housing requirementsand offsetting developer incentives to ensure thathousing is built near transit and that a mixing of pricelevels is secured, according to “Realizing the Potential:Expanding Housing Opportunities Near Transit”(Reconnecting America, 2007).

orientation sessions that connectprospective developers with all of thekey entities within the city that wouldbe involved in a TOD initiative. Onthe other side, the City could launchoutreach efforts to educatecommunity groups on theneighborhood-level benefits of TOD.

• The City could explore the possibilityof creating some sort of clearinghouse tofacilitate the pairing of private and non-profitdevelopers with potential non-residentialpublic sector tenants. Securing thesekinds of stable anchor tenants early inthe development process helps lowerthe risk of development, facilitates thesecuring of financing, and acceleratesthe development timetable.

Importantly, the City could also make publicinfrastructure investments that could add value toneighborhoods near transit stops and furtherinduce private development in suchlocations:

• The City’s recent $150 million bondissue includes $65 million forcommercial corridors, many of which areserved by major transit lines. Thesesorts of investments could beincorporated into existing TODinitiatives that similarly seek tostrengthen retail centers and improvepedestrian friendliness.

• The City could also pursue additionaltax increment financing (TIF) districts that,like TRIDs, generate funds in supportof necessary infrastructureimprovements at the neighborhoodand corridor level.

• The City could also assist with landacquisition and assembly. For example,TriMet, Portland’s regional transitauthority, and the Santa Clara ValleyTransit Agency have both purchasedseveral sites for resale to TODprojects; while the Contra CostaCounty Redevelopment Agency

33

New housing development in North Philadelphia nearTemple University

assembled land and madeinfrastructural investments totaling$20 million in support of developmentaround the Pleasant Hill BARTStation.29

Finally, given the upcoming change inleadership, the City could considerreinstituting the position of Deputy Mayor forTransportation. This would help to foster a

more formal and collaborative relationshipwith SEPTA, as well as ensure that TODbecomes a major City priority, particularlyas it relates to the active participation of theCity Planning Commission. It will alsofacilitate the City’s ability to engage in acomprehensive, intergovernmental, andcitywide TOD initiative in which it seeks toidentify potential TOD sites, create apriority list of those sites ranked according tolikelihood of success and feasibility, and pairinterested developers with attractiveopportunities. In so doing, the City wouldbe making sure that TOD occurs in placesin which it is most likely to succeed and bydevelopers with strong incentives to ensurethat success.

29 “The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit-Oriented Development,” Dittmar and Ohland (2004).

The Commonwealth ofPennsylvania

The TRID Act, passed by theCommonwealth in 2004, goes a long waytowards enabling municipalities andtransportation authorities to work moreeasily together and to take action to facilitateTOD. It will be important for theCommonwealth to remain engaged in thiseffort, committing ongoing technical assistanceand financial resources so that Philadelphiacould take full advantage of the flexibilityand authority provided by the TRID Act.

• Particularly in these early years, thestate’s Department of Communityand Economic Development and theDepartment of Transportation willneed to guide municipalities,transportation authorities, developers,and neighborhood groups through theTRID planning, program management, andimplementation phases.

• State agencies have also been directedto provide Commonwealth resourcesto assist local governments and transitagencies in actually implementing TRIDplans, while TRID planning andimplementation is to receive priorityconsideration for DCED grants. Thesefunding commitments must behonored and carried out.

Secondly, the Commonwealth has animportant role to play in ensuinge dedicatedfunding streams for SEPTA, such thatuncertainty in fare levels and service qualityis alleviated. The Commonwealth’s recentcommitment to funding SEPTA is also ahuge step towards fully capturing the valueof transit proximity, and thus representspositive momentum upon which to build.

• Specifically, the Commonwealth couldfollow the lead of other states withlarge municipalities, and push moreresponsibility for transportation funding downto the local and regional level, in exchangefor more programmatic autonomy as

34

well as legislative permission togenerate funds for transportation atthe local level. Such local fundingsources might include tax increases,regional tolls, or corridor-based valuecapture mechanisms.30

• What state funds the Commonwealthhas committed to the region could bedesignated in such a way thatattention is given to expending themin ways consistent with TOD. Forexample, as will be noted below,SEPTA could be required to submit aTOD plan for all major infrastructureinvestments that use state funds.

The Commonwealth could also work withthe City to reorient government subsidies designedto induce mixed-income and affordable housing,such that TOD sites are prioritized. In thisway, the impact on low- to moderate-income families would be multiplied by theopportunity to not only buy a home belowmarket prices, but to reduce or eveneliminate the carrying cost of car ownership.

SEPTA

SEPTA could make institutional changes tomore actively pursue partnerships with the Citythat synergistically catalyze healthydevelopment around its stations. Asmentioned previously, successful TODrequires extensive cooperation among largeinstitutional stakeholders, the two mostimportant of which are the City ofPhiladelphia and SEPTA.

SEPTA could also continue to seek tostabilize its funding and operations so thatthe value of transit access need not be sosteeply discounted on account of theuncertainty of service frequency orexistence. This includes continued dialogue

30 “Transportation Needs Assessment and FinancialAnalysis in Pennsylvania,” Econsult Corporation(2007).

with state and local officials about dedicatedfunding streams.

Finally, SEPTA could seek to broaden itsfocus and mission from that of narrowlydefined operational goals to being moreactively involved in coordinated developmentefforts. This would ensure that SEPTA gets agreater return on its transit developments, aswell as foster the sort of collaborativeenvironment that is essential to successfulTOD.

The TRID process now gives SEPTA theability to more easily participate in TOD viaheightened authority and facilitatedpartnerships. SEPTA could go one stepfurther and build TOD precepts into all majorinfrastructure investments: parking garagesshould not have pedestrian-unfriendlyground level floors, stations could be mademore safe and accessible, and line-wideimprovements could be made in conjunctionwith broader neighborhood developmentplans.

Developers

Private and non-profit developers couldwork with local officials and neighborhoodgroups to delineate the advantages of TOD, thusaligning incentives such that all parties areworking towards shared goals rather thanconflicting over perceived differences indesired ends. Transit access, high-densitydevelopment, and pedestrian friendlinesscould also become greater selling points inattracting users, renters, and buyers.

Of course, profit only comes from creatingvalue, and value is created by responding tocustomer preferences. So while publicsector stakeholders have an important roleto play in creating the overall environmentand providing the specific incentives suchthat developers are sufficiently motivated,those developers must actually deliverproposals that deliver the benefits that users,

35

Meeting of neighborhood residents

xneighborhoods groups, and localpolicymakers seek:

• A range of housing choices. Providingresidential options at different pricepoints will require creative proposalsand layouts to win over a variety ofusers as well as community groupsand elected officials.

• Attractive, authentic design.Redevelopment of older, historicallysignificant sites has the addedchallenge and opportunity of meldingnew techniques and materials withappropriate respect for the past.

• Safety and privacy. Proposed layoutsmust reduce crime, noise, andpollution, balancing the mobility anddensity of transit-proximatedevelopment with the privacy andseclusion needed for living andworking.

Institutional Anchors

Institutional anchors have a role to play infacilitating TOD in Philadelphia. Entitiessuch as universities and hospitals have muchto gain from orienting their expansion projects inways that capitalize on the value of transit access.Accordingly, it is important for them toenter into dialogue with the City andSEPTA, such that issues of mobility,parking, and pedestrian friendliness areincorporated into their development plans.

Because of the large volume of employeesand students that these institutions represent,there is also additional leverage that couldbe exercised in terms of implementingtransportation programming that utilizes theexisting public transit infrastructure ratherthan introducing new, auto-oriented routes.Such a move is cost-conserving for theinstitution, and it increases the connectionbetween campus and transit.

Intra-Neighborhood and Inter-Neighborhood Groups

Neighborhood residents, or the groups thatrepresent them, may choose to organizeagainst TOD rather than for it, whether it isout of a “NIMBY” sentiment (more typicalof a suburban response to TOD) or inresponse to the specter of “gentrification”(more typical of an urban response to TOD).To be sure, poorly conceived TOD is worsethan none at all. Thus, intra-neighborhoodand inter-neighborhood groups could playan active role in the rollout of TOD in

Philadelphia, not in stifling healthydevelopment but in demanding that it issensitive to local historical, aesthetic, andmobility concerns, encouraging ofpedestrian access and commercial activity,and oriented to existing transitinfrastructure.

These groups could also mobilize residentsto push local government to open up itsplanning “playbook” to generate solutions thatincrease vibrancy, uses, and commerce inneighborhoods. Neighborhood groups couldtake advantage of their strong communityvoice, again not to demand either no TODor any TOD, but TOD that helps lead tomore vibrant, livable neighborhoods.

36

8th and Race planned development (Source: SPG3)

Of course, many residents are generallyskeptical if not outright hostile towardsinitiatives that seek to enhance the value ofcertain locations, perhaps fearing that futureproperty tax increases that result will pricethem out of their current homes. It will beimportant, then, for neighborhood groups todo just as much “in-reach” as “outreach,” inthat just as they are making their case insupport of TOD to local and regionaldecision-makers, they will need to make asimilar case to neighborhood residents: thatincreased personal mobility, physicalamenities, good urban design, and moreresidential and retail options are all positivethings for neighborhoods.

Both the “in-reach” and the “outreach”could be further supplemented bychampioning small-scale examples of successfulTODs that have been brought into existenceby the efforts of local CDCs. These successstories provide a role model for developersto envision what larger investments couldlook like, generating momentum foradditional, large-scale private development.They may also allay the concerns ofskeptical residents, so that TOD is seen asan attractive amenity to be sought after andnot an eyesore to be avoided.

Delaware Valley RegionalPlanning Commission (DVRPC)

Metropolitan planning organizations(MPOs) have an important coordinating rolein the encouragement of more TOD. Theirbig-picture perspective comes in particularlyhandy as TOD initiatives intersect withregional issues of land use, transportation policy, andenvironmental stewardship.

DVRPC has been and could continue toactively advocate for more dedicated and securesources of funding for SEPTA. In doing this,they would be helping to reduce the riskassociated with TOD in regard to the long-term certainty of transit service.

DVRPC has made TOD a priority in itsTransportation & Community DevelopmentInitiative (TCDI) grant program, and hasestablished a strong planning, education,technical assistance, and implementationprogram for TOD. It has also beenaggressive from the start on the use ofTRIDs to stimulate development neartransit stops. DVRPC could use itsinfluence in setting land use to encourageprivate development that is oriented totransit and that adheres to TOD principles.In particular, transportation funding couldbe allocated to projects that have significantTOD components, and subsequentevaluation based on the land use,development, and environmentalconsequences of these projects.

37

Appendix

Site Analysis

erial maps of possible transit-orienteddevelopment (TOD) locations are

greatly informative in terms of depicting theextent of the missed developmentopportunities for TOD. In this appendix,we provide maps and commentary of somestations around which development iscurrently far short of its potential.

Market-Frankford Line (MFL)Sites

There are several remarkable features aboutthe aerial photograph in Figure A.1:

• First, some of the old buildings,including the former ProvidentMutual Life Insurance Companybuilding, are neither high density nororiented toward the transit stop.

• Second, there is a considerableamount of land that is simplyundeveloped.

• Third, there is very little left of theoriginal, high density but low-riseresidential and commercialdevelopment near the stop.

• Finally, the new developments, whichinclude a Rite Aid, are decidedlytransit-adjacent development (TAD)that are geared primarily to autoaccess.

Thus, MFL users are forced to walk pastlarge areas of parking on their way to thestop. This phenomenon is sadly repeatedthroughout the stations along the MFL andBSL.

Figure A.1 - 46th and Market MFL Station

Source: Google Maps 2007

Figure A.2 displays the neighborhoodaround the 56th and Market MFL station.Near this station, there remains some of theoriginal low-rise, high-density buildings, butone entire adjacent city block is virtually allgreen space. While green space may be anattractive urban feature, it is an inapprop-riate use for land located next to a transitstop, unless perhaps it is integrated as astrategic amenity into an overall high densityTOD.

Note also the auto-oriented grocery storeimmediately adjacent to the station, which isan extremely important resource for theimmediate neighborhood but which couldhave been even more effective if it hadadhered to TOD principles such that itsdesign and layout were more synchronizedwith its immediate surroundings. Thisautomobile orientation also characterizes theErie stop on the MFL (see Figure A.3).

A

38

Figure A.2 - 56th and Market MFL Station

Source: Google Maps 2007

Figure A.3 – Erie-Torresdale Avenue MFL Station

Source: Google Maps 2007

Broad Street Line (BSL) Sites

Of course, an extreme use that requires lotsof parking is a sporting venue; and thePattison Avenue BSL station isPhiladelphia’s premier example (see FigureA.4). Note also the residue of the demolitionof Veterans Stadium. The two previouslocations, as well as Oregon Avenue on theBSL (see Figure A.5), are adjacent toextensive public parks. As mentioned above,public parks could be integrated with TOD

in order to create highly attractiveresidential locations or regional publicamenities. Unfortunately, this has not yettaken place at the 56th and Market, ErieAvenue, or Oregon Avenue stations.

Figure A.4 – Pattison Avenue BSL Station

Source: Google Maps 2007

Figure A.5 – Oregon Avenue BSL Station

Source: Google Maps 2007

Many stations on the BSL’s northern halfhave very low density uses, which is asurprise given how geographically close theyare to Center City. The degree of

39

underutilization is particularly evident at theSpring Garden BSL Station (see Figure A.6),the Fairmount BSL Station (see Figure A.7),the Girard Avenue BSL Station, which alsohas light rail service (see Figure A.8), theWyoming BSL Station (see Figure A.9), andthe North Philadelphia BSL Station, whichis also adjacent to Regional Rail stopsserving all lines and Amtrak (see FigureA.10).

Figure A.6 – Spring Garden BSL Station

Source: Google Maps 2007

Figure A.7 – Fairmount BSL Station

Source: Google Maps 2007

Figure A.8 – Girard Avenue BSL Station

Source: Google Maps 2007

Figure A.9 – Wyoming BSL Station

Source: Google Maps 2007

40

Figure A.10 – North Philadelphia BSL Station

Source: Google Maps 2007

Regional Rail Stations, TrolleyStops, and Bus Terminals orTransfer Points

In addition to the stations on the MFL andBSL, there are communities throughout thecity with Regional Rail stations, trolley andlight rail stops, and bus terminals or transferpoints that are potential candidates forTOD. All rail stations do not offer the sameopportunities, and none of these servicesprovide the frequent service that is providedby either the MFL or BSL; however, in anumber of cases, there are a mix of lines thatcome together, creating a multi-modal hubthat could potentially enhance TODopportunities. Most notably, these include:

• Wayne Junction

• North Philadelphia

• Girard Avenue

• Wissahickon Transfer

• Olney Terminal

While Wayne Junction does have somedense, rowhouse-style housing nearby,overall the station area is not well connectedto its surrounding area. Given its high levelof rail and bus service, it should be able tosupport significant mixed-use development.It could be an attractive residential andemployment destination, since severalregional rail lines pass through thisintersection. Additionally, it is a very short15-minute ride to Center City from WayneJunction (see Figure A.11).

Figure A.11 – Wayne Junction Regional RailStation

Source: Google Maps 2007

In North Philadelphia, there are twoRegional Rail stations, North Philadelphiaand North Broad, as well as a stop on theBSL and an Amtrak stop, all within a three-block radius (see Figure A.12). Everyregional rail line passes through thesestations, thus making for a shorter transitcommute for most suburban commuters.Because of its excellent transit service andintercity rail service, this location is a naturalone for transit-oriented development. Yet,remarkably, the area around the stations hasseen virtually no redevelopment.

41

Figure A.12 – North Philadelphia and Environs

Source: Google Maps 2007

Wissahickon Transfer presents a differentkind of TOD opportunity than most sites.This site does have Regional Rail service.However and more importantly, it is atransfer point for 11 bus routes connectingmany employment centers, including CenterCity, Bala Cynwyd, and King of Prussia,thus satisfying the need for a high volume ofpassengers. This area has generally seenvery low density, transit-hostiledevelopment. In one of the largerdevelopments is a rental storage facility,which generates no transit traffic and doesnot particularly need transit access (seeFigure A.13).

Figure A.13 – Wissahickon Transfer/WissahickonStation

Source: Google Maps 2007

Olney Terminal is a major BSL and busconnection, with buses serving the Northeastand Northern Suburbs. It is well suited toresidential and light commercialdevelopment. Nevertheless, theneighborhood has seen little reinvestment(see Figure A.14).

Figure A.14 – Olney Terminal (Bus and BSLStation)

Source: Google Maps 2007

1211 Chestnut Street, Suite 310

Philadelphia, PA 19107

215.564.9470

www.neighborhoodsnowphila.org

NeighborhoodsNow contributes to the vitality of Philadelphia and the region by collaborating with

public and private organizations and securing resources to create programs and influence policies that

strengthen neighborhoods where people live and work.

NeighborhoodsNow is supported by generous contributions from

Capmark

Citibank

Federal Home Loan Bank of Pittsburgh

Mellon Financial

Pennsylvania Department of Community and

Economic Development

Philadelphia Office of Housing and

Community Development

PNC Bank

Sovereign Bank

Surdna Foundation

TD Banknorth

The Pew Charitable Trusts

The Prudential Foundation

United Way of Southeastern Pennsylvania

Wachovia Foundation

William Penn Foundation

3600 Market StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19104215.382.1894www.econsult.com

EconsultCorpor ation