1. Pursuing TOD is a core requirement for cities to achieve a significant modal shift away from reliance on private vehicles. It requires long-term vision and investment. Cities as diverse as Portland, Cape Town, Curitiba, Tokyo and Stockholm are leading the way, and this is how cities can join them.
ESTABLISH A LONG-TERM, CITY-OWNED AND CITY-WIDE VISION FOR TOD
1. A city’s TOD vision is usually established at the mayoral (or equivalent) level. This is sometimes linked to a comprehensive urban development plan, or equivalent city-wide land use plan.
2. Realising TOD is a long-term undertaking, so it is important that the vision is seen to be owned more widely by the city and its residents (and not by the political party in power when it is established). This requires widespread cross-party support and long-term investment in transit and urban development.
3. Cities should take steps to ensure that their TOD vision has this support by inviting widespread participation in its development.
4. Engage with residents though city-scale consultation to frame and design TOD to work locally. In Portland, Oregon citizen participation is key to its Portland Plan and the ‘complete neighbourhoods’ concept it promotes.
5. Implementation of this vision will require careful communication and participatory design with local communities, as explained later in this article.
MEASURE ACCESS TO TRANSIT AND CONSIDER SETTING CITY TARGETS
1. Cities can set TOD targets to send a clear signal to developers and citizens about their urban development future. TOD targets set by cities typically take one or a combination of the following forms:
- A percentage of new development within a certain radius of transit stations.
- A percentage of the population living in TOD zones.
- Percentage of population with access to public transport.
2. Setting these targets is not a requirement for implementing TOD – some cities implement TOD without setting targets, or prefer not to set targets because meeting them relies on developers and the real estate market.
3. Nevertheless, target setting can be a useful tool for cities pursuing TOD, sending a signal about future development priorities and establishing a mandate for cities to enact zoning updates and other regulatory changes required.
IDENTIFY WHERE TO APPLY TOD AND THE APPROPRIATE DENSITY AND DEVELOPMENT MIX
1. TOD cannot be applied everywhere across a transit network as densities of jobs and residents vary widely. It usually targets areas that already have transit access.
2. Cities should commission analysis to determine which areas are good candidates for TOD, the level of density those areas can absorb, and the appropriate local development mix to strike the right balance between jobs, housing and other amenities.
3. Cities can use the World Bank’s Three Values (3V) framework to guide this analysis. It assesses:
4. Node value. This is the importance of public transit network stations, based on passenger traffic, connections with other transport modes, and centrality within the network.
5. Place value. This is the quality and attractiveness of the area around the station, determined by the diversity of land use, availability of essential services like schools and healthcare, proportion of everyday amenities that can already be accessed by walking or cycling, pedestrian accessibility and the size of urban blocks around the station, among other factors.
6. Market potential value or ‘market readiness.’ This is the unrealised market value of the area surrounding the station. This measures major variables that can influence demand and supply for land. Demand includes considerations such as current and future number of jobs in the surrounding area and those accessible within 30-minute transit, current and future housing densities. Supply is, for example, the amount of developable land, possible changes in zoning policy and market vibrancy. This should incorporate an analysis of the real estate market and feasibility criteria to determine realistic future development demand, and establish the maximum feasible affordable housing requirements.
7. Cities can target TOD in areas where there are imbalances between node, place and market potential value. For instance, by improving the urban environment around a major transport hub, or by improving public transport service in a booming area.
8. City planners can also use ITDP’s TOD Standard 3.0 to help identify priority areas for investment and densification.
PROMOTE BENEFITS THAT WILL WIN THE LOCAL ARGUMENT WITH RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES
1. Residents can be resistant to TOD as they typically don’t like changes that allow for more local development. To win local support, cities should engage residents and businesses.
2. Raise awareness of the expected benefits and agree on the details. Engage on an ongoing basis to monitor actual benefits and residents’ evolving concerns as TOD is implemented in their neighbourhood.
3. The benefits will differ depending on the neighbourhood characteristics, as well as dynamics between existing and incoming residents, residents and businesses, and between existing renters and home owners.
4. Cities should conduct analysis of the local area to inform citizen engagement strategies and policies to work locally.
5. The main benefits of TOD that resonate with local residents and businesses are:
6. The city and neighbourhood will become more liveable, with shorter commuting times, vibrant communities and well-used public areas.
7. Cost and convenience savings from reduced – or even no – need for car ownership and expanded mobility options. In many cities, car-based transportation is the second highest household expense, after housing, making TOD an important affordability strategy.
8. Improved congestion, air quality and health through reduced vehicle traffic and increased physical activity.
9 Local job creation and better access to jobs. Cities can increase support for TOD by committing to hire and provide on-the-job training for local workers.
10. Increased local retail and services income from increased foot traffic.
DESIGN TOD TO WORK FOR EVERYONE
1. If cities don’t emphasise equitable TOD, it can displace lower income groups through the process of gentrification. Existing homeowners benefit through raised property values, but it becomes more difficult for renters and younger people to buy or rent homes in the area.
2. TOD also offers some of the best opportunities for building affordable homes in cities. Developers can build more homes in less space and with less parking, which can otherwise account for a significant part of construction costs.
3. Inequitable planning also risks undermining the premise of TOD (see box below). Cities must balance the need to attract developers who will seek to maximise profits while taking on development risk, with the need to ensure access to homes, job opportunities and services for all residents at all income levels.Cities should:
4. Allocate a significant portion of new development to affordable housing. The locally appropriate requirement for affordable new housing (often given as a % of units to be developed on site) will depend on the way affordable housing is funded and managed locally, and what the market can afford. This will be informed by the market analysis outlined earlier. The figure should be as high as possible, but if set too high, developers may not build at all and everyone loses.
5. Ensure that the market study considers the expected income levels of households who will likely seek to rent or purchase TOD housing, relative to area averages, and address this in the % affordability requirements.
6. Act early to preserve and create affordable housing in target areas before land values increase when the area is upzoned or new transit is built.
GETTING THE BALANCE RIGHT BETWEEN COMMUNITY AND DEVELOPER INTERESTS
1. If the scales are tipped too much in favour of developers, the project may be seen as working to promote developer profits at the expense of local people, and risk losing crucial local support. It also undermines the premise of TOD because:
2. The people who would work in local shops and other local businesses cannot afford to live in the local area, especially in areas where affordable housing is already scarce.
3. Lower income residents are often the most likely to use the public transport at the centre of TOD, as switching to public transport reduces the cost of living. Affordable housing is therefore important from a transit agency’s perspective as it supports ridership and fare revenue.
4. TOD will fail to serve as a mechanism to reduce urban sprawl as the city’s population increases if the cost of homes in the centre or dense TOD areas are significantly more expensive than homes of comparable size in sprawl areas.
Source:
https://www.c40knowledgehub.org/s/article/How-to-implement-transit-oriented-development?language=en_US
