Land Impacts of Rapid Transit: Implications of Recent Experience Executive Summary December 1977

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 23

DOT-TPI-10-77-31

Land Use
Impacts
of
Rapid
Transit
Implications of
Recent Experience

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
December 1977

Prepared for
Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Policy,
Plans, and International
Affairs
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an


agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States
Government nor any agency Thereof, nor any of their employees,
makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal
liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or
usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process
disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately
owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product,
process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or
otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,
recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any
agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein
do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States
Government or any agency thereof.
DISCLAIMER

Portions of this document may be illegible in


electronic image products. Images are produced
from the best available original document.
-

Technical Report Documentation Page

2. Government Accession No.


7 . Report No.

DOT-TPI-10-77-31
4. Title and Sub!itle

Land U s e Impacts o f Rapid T r a n s i t : December 1977


Performing organization Code
I m p l i c a t i o n s of Recent E x p e r i e n c e
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8 Performing Organization Report No.
7. Author(s)
R o b e r t L. Knight and L i s a L. Trygg
9. Performing organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

D e Leuw, C a t h e r E, Company
1 2 0 Howard S t r e e t , P . O . Box 7991
L
1I-
11. Contract or Grant No.

San F r a n c i s c o , C a l i f o r n i a 94120 DOT-OS-60181


113. Type of Report and Period Covered
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
U.S. Department of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n - A s s i s t a n t
S e c r e t a r y f o r P o l i c y , P l a n s and I n t e r n a t i o n a l
Affairs 14. Sponsoring Agency Code

I
15. Supplementary Notes

F u l l F i n a l R e p o r t a l s o a v a i l a b l e from DOT; B i b l i o g r a p h y a v a i l a b l e s e p a r a t e l y
from C o u n c i l o f P l a n n i n g L i b r a r i a n s , M o n t i c e l l o , I l l i n o i s .

16. Abstract

T h i s r e p o r t reviews evidence o f l a n d use impacts of r e c e n t major r a p i d t r a n s i t


improvements and draws c o n c l u s i o n s c o n c e r n i n g t h e e x t e n t and n a t u r e of s u c h
impacts and t h e c o n d i t i o n s u n d e r which t h e y have o c c u r r e d . . T r a n s i t improve-
ments s t u d i e d are p r i m a r i l y post-World War I1 i n o r i g i n . American and Canadian
examples a r e s t r e s s e d , a l t h o u g h European e x p e r i e n c e i s t r e a t e d b r i e f l y .
V i r t u a l l y a l l major modern American and Canadian r a p i d t r a n s i t improvements
are i n c l u d e d , c o v e r i n g c o n v e n t i o n a l r a p i d r a i l , commuter r a i l , l i g h t r a i l and
bus/busway. I n a d d i t i o n t o c o n c l u s i o n s on general- p a t t e r n s o f l a n d u s e i m -
pact c a u s e s , r e s e a r c h recommendations and F e d e r a l p o l i c y i m p l i c a t i o n s a r e
drawn.

Rapid t r a n s i t ; l a n d u s e impact; l a n d Availability is unlimited. Document may


u s e p l a n n i n g ; commuter r a i l ; l i g h t be released t o t h e N a t i o n a l T e c h n i c a l
r a i l t r a n s i t ; busways; urban p l a n n i n g ; .
I n f o r m a t i o n !Service, U . S Department o f
t r a n s i t , European; t r a n s i t , American Commerce, fox s a l e t o t h e p u b l i c .

I I
19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. o! Pages 22. Price

none none
17
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8.72)
Land Use
Impacts
of
Rapid
Transit
Implications of
Recent Experience

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
December 1977

Prepared for
Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Policy,
Plans, and International
Affairs
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
i ’
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

i r *v!- . --r7
ASSISTANT SECRETARY

In recent years many conflicting claims and hopes have been heard concerning the ability of
major new rapid transit improvements to generate or encourage desirable changes in urban land
development. To aid in judging these different views, this office recently commissioned De Leuw,
Cather & Company to conduct a detailed study of the ways which modern rapid transit
improvements have actually been found to affect land use.

The study involved a review of most of the major rapid transit projects completed in the past 30
years in the United States and Canada. It analyzed the impact of transit improvements on (1) the
overall growth of a metropolitan area relative to competing areas: (2) land use patterns; and (3)
the strength of central business districts. Its conclusions emphasized the importance of the
relationship of transit improvements to local land use policies and other factors, such as land
availability and developability.

The study’s full final report is available from our office. However, becauseof the important urban
transportation policy implications of its findings, we have asked the consultants to prepare this
brief Executive Summary for wider distribution to p o k y makers and the public. It emphasizes
major findings and key policy implications for future puiblic investments in the different transit
modes.

We believe that interested citizens and public officials at all levels will find this to be a very
valuable and informative document.

Chester Davenport
Assistant Secretary for Poiicy Plans
and International Affairs

1
2
About the Study

This study was undertaken for the Office of the models of land use change. This study has sought to
Secretary, U S . Department of Transportation, and discover which factors are consistently important,
was completed in mid-1977. Its purpose was to help how thley interact, and how powerful transit im-
improve policies and planning methods for urban provements are in comparison to other factors.
transit by identifying the extent and kinds of land use
changes which have actually occurred due to major
rapid transit improvements. “Rapid transit” as used Methods
here refers not only to conventional rapid rail transit
(CRT) but also to light rail, commuter rail, and The study made use of a wide variety of evidence. A
busways. Both United States and Canadian ex- major (effort wa!; devoted to the assembly of
periences were included in the study, covering available literature on the impacts of actual rail
wholly new rapid transit systems and other major transit systems, including historical, descriptive,
improvements built during the past 25 years. Some analytical and policy sources. (The resulting exten-
European experiences were also described. sive bibliography is available both in the Final
Report ,and also as a separate document; see inside
The need for such a study was great. In recent years back cover.) Further information was sought
new or expanded rapid transit systems have been through site visits, interviews with local officials and
considered in an increasing number of metropolitan land developers, ilnd descriptive statistical data.
areas. Very high costs are involved in such
decisions, so those responsible must have the Most clf the stuidy’s attention was directed to
greatest possible assurance that the investment’s conventional rapild rail transit improvements, since
benefits are accurately predicted. The promotion of most new rapid transit investments have been of this
new or intensified land development has often been type. Study of coinmuter rail, light rail and busway
suggested as an important benefit of rapid transit, improvements was necessarily limited due to the few
but evidence to support or refute this has been examples available. The available light rail im-
fragmentary and inconclusive. Land use impact provements were particularly limited and also not
forecasting methods have been correspondingly representative of those now being planned or built in
weak. several cities.

With this lack of information and planning tools, All information W i l S combined into a series of city-
local planners and decision-makers face severe by-city evaluations, and submitted to all the persons
problems in trying to select an optimal transit interviewed in each city for their review. The final
alternative. Similarly, Federal authorities charged report, ,which combined these city-specific studies
with, responsibility for apportioning the limited with an analysis of their similarities and a derivation
funds for such transit improvements among cities of polic,y implications, was reviewed by an indepen-
find it almost impossible to evaluate and compare dent panel of leading transportation researchers.
different projects. Debate over land use impact These included David Boyce (University of Illinois),
continues, with extreme positions often taken.. William Garrison (University of California), and
According to some, a new rapid transit system will Vukan Vuchic (university of Pennsylvania).
almost automatically lead to a m ructuring of
the city, while others contend th t’s effect on
auto-dominated travel patterns is toosmall to have
any significant land use consequences.

The truth is almost certainly somewhere in the


middle, with impact depending on a number of
factors in addition to the transit improvement. Some
are no doubt unique to individual situations; others
may be more widely applicable. However, to date
such common factors have not been identified or
specified in detail either in theory or in applied

3
Systems Studied

Rapid Rail: Major New Systems


Toronto TTC
Montreal Metro
San Francisco BART

Rapid Rail:
Smaller Systems and Improvements
Philadelphia Lindenwold
Boston Red, Orange, and Blue Line
Extensions
Chicago Congress, Dan Ryan, Milwaukee
(Kennedy) Lines
Cleveland RTS
New York PATH, Crosstown Subway
Washington METRO (incomplete)

Commuter Rail
Toronto GO
Philadelphia Center City Commuter
Connection
Chicago General service improvements

Light Rail
Boston Green Line
Chicago Skokie Swift

Busway
Los Angeles El Monte Busway
Seattle Blue Streak Bus
Washington Shirley Highway Express
I Miami Blue Dash

4
Issues

The study sought to illuminate several key issues


often posed by decision-makers. Although a study
of past experience can only suggest implications
rather than definitive answers, the findings should
help to strengthen the basis on which transit
decisions are made.

The remainder of this summary report presents the


major findings and implications, organized accord-
ing to each of the following issues in turn:

Downtown Development: Can a major transit improvement strengthen the


Central Business District and subsidiary business
districk around transit stations?

Growth Focusing: Can a major transit improvement lead to an


increased concentration of residences and activity,
particularly in such a way as to create land use
patterns more favorable to transit?

Regional Growth: Can i major t,ransit improvement increase the


overall' economic or population growth of a
metropolitan area relative to competing ones?

Impacts of Different Types of Transit: Are land use impacts limited to conventional rapid
transit, or are other modes such as light rail,
commuter rail and buslbusway capable of such
effects:?

Role of Land Use Policy: What role do public land use policies, such as zoning
or tax incentive:;, play in this process either as a
cause or as a result?

Other Factors Influencing Land Use


Impacts: Summing up, how do major rapid transit im-
provernents seem to interact with other factors to
.I . cause land use changes?
r
Downtown Development

The primary factor behind such impacts has been


Recent major rapid transit improvements the existence of a strong and effective demand for
have been important inducements to down- new office and retail space. This appears to have
town development near stations, but only been determined by social and economic forces of
when supported by other powerful factors. regional and national scale. A related factor present
in all instances was an already healthy and active
commercial area, which encouraged both con-
The studies of the transit systems in Toronto, sumers and developers of land.
Montreal, and San Francisco concluded that the
transit improvements there were significant forces Timing of such new development appears to have
in the extent and nature of the intensive high-rise been determined largely by these same economic
commercial office development in the CBD. In forces, such that new development (downtown and
Toronto and Montreal, in particular, the new elsewhere) cannot be predicted to occur within a
subways provided a much-needed increase in short time after the transit system is announced or
access to the downtown area and thus assisted its built. In Toronto, Montreal and San Francisco the
growth. downtown subways were opened in 1954,1966 and
1973 respectively, but intensive downtown develop-
In such cases, where inadequate prior access was ment began at about thesame time (1958-1960) in all
actually a recognized constraint on downtown three.
growth, the evidence indicates that transit has been
a virtual necessity for intensification of development The availability of land for development has also
to occur. At the same time, it is clearly not sufficient; been a major factor. This refers not only t! nearby
if the New York subway had been built in Kansas; a open or underutilized parcels but also to the
city like New York would not have resulted. In San feasibility of their assembly into a site large enough
Francisco, the BART subway and the associated for economically viable development. In many
beautification of Market Street were partly responsi- instances in this study it was observed that
ble for the expansion of the financial district fragmented or clouded ownership of otherwise
southward across Market, revitalizing that declining highly attractive sites absolutely prevented develop-
area. As in Toronto and Montreal, BART also ment that otherwise would have occurred. The most
enhanced the CBD’s accessibility by providing striking example is at the intersection of Toronto’s
additional commuter capacity in some major two subway lines north of the CBD, where in-
congested radial corridors. However, in all three terspersed with new development are block-long
cases, other factors were also essential in this areas right at the station in which complexities of
downtown development. ownership are likely to prevent development in-
definitely.
In subsidiary centers outside the CBD, recent transit
improvements have so far had relatively mixed Another similar factor was the placement of the
effects. Largely transit-induced commercial station with respect to the business district. At
development has occurred in several such centers, Boston’s Quincy Center station, the commercial
notably in Oakland and Berkeley along the BART district is actually several blocks away. This is also
system, Haddonfield on Philadelphia’s Lindenwold the case in Hayward on BART. In contrast, BART
Line, and at several stations on the Toronto system. stations are located in the center of the Berkeley and
At the same time, much of this development has Oakland shoping and office areas, where related
been less than had been hoped. Moreover, no development has occurred.
significant commercial development attributable to
transit improvements has occurred at other sub- Other public investments coordinated with the
centers such as Boston’s Quincy Center and transit improvement also appear to have been
Malden, San Francisco’s Mission Street, and other influential in encouraging transit-oriented develop-
BART-served subcenters such as downtown ment, although in many instances their effect has
Hayward. been overshadowed to date by opposing forces

6
such as the lack of consumer demand. Typical of Implications
such investments are the Malden Government
Center in that Boston suburb, the Federal It is clear that rapid transit improvementscan help to
government’s Social Security complex near BART’S induce increased d o w n t o w n develop ment ,
Richmond station, the Oakland Museum and Laney However, the presence of other supportive factors is
College at the same system’s Lake Merritt station, essential. Perhaps most important is the presence of
the Canadian government’s large office complex effective demand; if business centers throughout a
now being completed at Toronto’s York Mills metropolitan area are stagnating, there is little
station, and the convention center planned near reason, to expect that transit service to one of them
Metro Center in old downtown Washington, D.C. will generate development. In a period of slow or no
economic growth, little impact can be expected
Formal urban renewal activities coordinated with under the best of circumstances.
transit development have been an important aspect
of this public investment in several cases. Even The availability of land feasible for development is
without the construction of public facilities the an important factor which may easily be overlooked.
simplification of land assembly for private In particular, assembly of a viable site from,the
developers has in some instances led to redevelop- available parcels is crucial. Complexities of
ment, as in downtown Oakland. In others, such as ownership of surrounding land should be con-
Oakland’s Lake Merritt and downtown areas, the sidered a serialus detriment. This should be a
combination of publicly-assembled land and the consideration in the early stages of transit planning,
presence of new public buildings has proven particularly in the location of stations.
attractive to private developers. This is especially
significant since the areas involved were otherwise The location of other public facility investments
deteriorated and without significant development should be coordinated with transit improvements in
for many years. order ‘to encourage concentrated development. The
public sector’s awn need for offices and other high-
Similar efforts at public-private renewal activity density facilities is a form of leverage which could be
around transit stations have been attempted used inore in leasing as well as construction. The
elsewhere, notably Washington. Although develop- location of publicly-funded urban renewal projects
ment appears inevitable, a variety of forces in- is another. Development resulting from such coor-
cluding lack of economic demand and the general dination within the public sector should help to
unattractiveness of the specific areas involved have generate the confidence needed among private
restrained action by developers. developers to follow suit, particularly in marginal
Iocat io ns .

The length of tirne from commitment, construction,


or initial operati’on of a major transit improvement to
the generation of significant related land use change
is completely unpredictable. In most cases a period
of five years or more is involved, and in some others
it may be much longer - if ever. As noted earlier, not
only must conditions at the site be opportune; the
general area’s levels of demand for development and
capital to meet it must also be healthy. This indicates
that Federal policy toward rapid transit financing
should not, in general, be based on a presumption of
public revenues from early land use impacts being
available to finance subsequent system expansion.
Growth Focusing

This factor has been powerful at several BART


Recent major rail transit improvements have stations ((3.9 Rockridge, El Cerrito Plaid) as well as
played a key role in intensification of land the areas surrounding some Lindenwold stations
use in station areas outside the CBD, but and others in suburban Washington - almost
only when joined with other favorable everywhere stations have been or are to be sited in
forces. such areas. Even in Toronto, where transit-related
development has been most intense, such areas are
typically protected by zoning.
Examples include the high-rise apartment
developments at several suburban Toronto subway
The station area’s social and physical
stations, the location of large office complexes at
Boston’s suburban North Quincy station, and the characteristics were found to be important factors.
intensification of use at small existing subcenters. Transit’s effect on land use appears to have been
This latter is best illustrated by the Yorkdale station minimal when development of a scale and type
on Toronto’s not yet completed Spadina line, where necessary to be economically viable was not
the owner of a suburban shopping center whose complementary to the surrounding land uses. For
parking lot adjoins the station is planning to build a example, the stations of Montreal’s north-south
series of connected office buildings to join the subway line are situated largely in working-class
station and the main shopping mall. neighborhoods of three- and four-story apartment
blocks. Air rights on the cleared areas above the
Such development has of course not always stations are available and more intensive uses are
occurred. Little has happened at most suburban permitted, yet almost no development has occurred.
BART stations as well as most of those in Montreal, According to some local officials and observers, the
Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, and some in Toronto. primary reason is that construction costs allow only
Philadelphia’s Lindenwold Line presents an in- luxury high-rise apartments, and prospective
between case; extensive low-density residential tenants would prefer to live in other parts of the city.
development partly attributable to the transit line
has occurred in the corridor, with thousands of Physical characteristics, particularly blight, have
commuters driving to the transit stations. However, sometimes been added to social problems to render
even many of the apartment developments nearby areas even less likely to be developed into uses
are not within walking distance, and there is no high- complementary to the transit station. Malden Center
density development of the type most complemen- in Boston is the scene of intensive and imaginative
tary to rapid transit. public efforts at renewal near the new transit station,
but its generally aging and unattractive character
As with downtown development, a number of forces has so far limited success. The BART stations in
have been influential in complementing or older, disadvantaged neighborhoods in Oakland are
counteracting the development potential provided unlikely to attract private investment despite their
by transit improvements. These include several high-accessibility locations. Areas around
already discussed as well as others. Among them are Lindenwold Line stations in Camden, a declining
neighborhood opposition, social and physical older subcenter, have similar problems.
characteristics of the area, ease of access to the
station site, availability of developable land, and
public policies toward development. Ease of access to the station site is a key factor.
Where new transit stations are isolated from
In existing low-density residential areas, the place- surrounding activity or available land, little deuelop-
ment of a transit station has often generated strong ment has occurred. This factor’s effects are seen
opposition among residents. This has sometimes most clearly in Chicago and Cleveland. In Chicago,
led to the official imposition of tight controls on the location of the three newest rapid transit
development in the area. As a result, irrespective of extensions in freeway medians has resulted in a
other factors favoring more intensive development, separation of the station from any land which might
little if any changes in land use have occurred. be used for complementary development.

a
In Cleveland, much of the rapid transit line parallels of this incentive. Since the region‘s demand for such
a wide railroad switching area, substantial earth development was strong, much of it then had to
embankments and a heavy industrial corridor. occur around the station - where transit access
Development in these station areas is as yet nil, with provided an important added inducement. Thus
the main potential for activity resting in the station’s transit and land use policy were fully complemen-
parking lot air rights. tary.

Availability ot’developable land has already been


discussed in some detail. There are many additional Implic:ations
examples of lack of development attributable in part
to the difficulty of land assembly or the high cost of Transit improvements can help in intensification of
its conversion. However, it is more useful to land uses around outlying stations. As with impacts
complement the earlier discussion with some in dovvntown areas, however, many other factors are
examples of how this factor has been used to required in addition to transit. For example, location
advantage. in lowdensity vesidential surroundings may com-
pletely block land use impacts. If intensification of
In Toronto, several station sites adjoined obsolete land use is desired as a complement to rapid transit
and underused wood and coal yards. These large service, established low-density residential
tracts were in single owr,?rship and were quickly neighborhoods are poor choices. This does not
developed into high-rise apa? Tent and office mean that stations should be far from patrons’
structures compatible with their alrect access to the homes, but on~ly that nearby small commercial
subway. In Chicago, the Burlington’ Northern centers or undeveloped areas are better for en-
Railroad is planning a high-rise development at one couragement of land use impact. This often requires
of their suburban commuter stations on their own moving the proposed station location only a few
underutilized land. In Montreal, the Longueuil blocks.
station is on a large tract which was originally a
military post. After the subway opened, this tract Criteria for corridor and station site selection should
was used first as a parking lot for Expo ’67 (which be expanded to include the full range of land use
was one subway stop away, on an island) and impact factors identified in this study. The land use
afterwards was developed into high-rise apartments impact potential of a rapid transit station could often
as well as office and hotel space. be improved dramatically merely by moving it a few
hundred feet to a new location where other factors
Similar examples occur elsewhere The point, are rnore favorable. Federal policy should en-
however, is clear; where large-scale land assembly couraige the use of such site-specific assessments
was facilitated the potential for transit-oriented as ani important element in the,demonstration of
development was much enhanced likely land use benefits.

Whether influenced most by neighborhood The views and knowledge of the land development
preferences nfrastructure capacity, or other forces; industry should also be incorporated into com-
the local government’s public land use policies prehimive urban planning as well as into transit
concerning the preferred or permissible forms of planning. -Early involvement of the developmfit
station-area development has in some cases been a perspective- in the transit system location process
particularly powerful determinant of what land use would ensure proper con, deration of a number of
impacts actually occur. In Toronto, allowance of key factors in land use impact which are n - ‘ now
very high densities of development (up‘to 12:l in commonly included. Someof these, as noted earlier,
floor area ratio) in many areas around transit include the ease of land assembly for redevelop-
stations provided a strong incentive to intensive ment, access to the site, cost of site preparation, and
development. The fact that relatively small and well- development potential of the immediate surroun-
defined areas were so designated, in contrast to the dings. Federal policy should s ongly encourage
low densities allowed throughout most of the rest of this use of knowledgeable land development exper-
the Metropolitan area, further enhanced the power tise wherever lend use impacts are sought.

9
Regional Growth

In general, the migration of population from one


Although evidence is limited, .,-cent ex- region to another is more likely to be motivated by
perience provides no indication that any considerations more immediate that transit, such as
rapid transit improvements have led to net the possibility of better employment or a safer and
new urban economic ov population growth. more attractive place to live. It is therefore probable
that transit’s interregional effects depend on its
ability to influence the rate of job-creating invest-
Because of the many ways in which cities differ, it ment in its metropolitan area. However, relatively
would be difficult to isolate and identify with any little of the country’s basic employment is free to
confidence the effect of a specific transit improve- migrate, being fixed by prior plant investment,
ment on a metropolitan area’ population and materials supply, and regional markets. Of the
economic vitality. Any comparisons would be employers who can choose to establish facilities in
seriously confounded by the effects of factors not one city rather than another, it is hard to imagine that
related to transit. The one case found in which this one city’s rapid transit facilities could be a decisive
was attempted was in the BART Impact Program, and consistent element in their choices.
where despite the use of a variety of approaches no
difference in regional growth attributable to the Implications
transit system could be found.
The lack of evidence of net regional growth in
Some earlier writers cited Toronto’s growth during population, jobs or wealth due to recent transit
the first decade after the initial subway opening as improvemer ‘c. seems to imply that such effects
an example of a major increase in regional property should not be expected. However, such an implica-
value largely due to transit. However, although tion is not wholly justified. Reli,ble data and
Toronto grew rapidlyduring the 1960s,several other methods for a reasonable test of this effect are
Canadian cities without transit exceeded its rate. lacking, and in addition future approaches ‘ 0
This study concluded that Toronto’s growth was achieving such effects may be different and mure
mainly due to other factors. Some of these included effective than those w’\ich were available for study
the city’s heavy European immigration, its strategic here. Moreover, future energ” shortages may result
location, and continuous economic and social in an increased dependence L , I rapid transit, and its
stability. In addition, the portion which might be correspondingly greater influence on interregional
attributable to the subway was most likely to have locational choices for business and individuals.
been a shift from other parts of Metro Toronto into
the areas along the subway. Despite these limitations, this study’s findings do
imply that net regional growth impacts directly
Other evidence includes the changes in population attributable to new transit improvements are
growth rates among cities in recent yoars. U S . probably not going to be large in comparison with
Census figures indicate, both in 1970 and 1975, a the transit investment. Evidence for this is found
shift away from the country’s major cities (par- both in the BART Impact Program’s study and in the
ticularly those of the industrial Northeast) to smaller present study’s general finding that many positive
cities, none of which have rapid .transit systems. factors, fortuitous as well as planned, are required in
Population is also continuing to shift from central addition to a transit improvement even for any major
cities to their suburbs, but these are not in- land use restructuring to result. It seems that so
terregional movements. many other forces are involved that any net gain in
regional wealth or economic vitality is likely to be
Historical data suggest that early major transit hard to identify and cannot fairly be attributed to the
improvements such as the New York City subway transit improvement alone. Thus Federal policy
were essential for the continued expansion of the might reasonably support the use of major transit
city’s population and economy. If these major improvements as one element of a coordinated
improvements had not been provided in one of these package of efforts to revitalize a declining urban
major East Coast cities, it is possible that much of its economy and social order, but should not rely upon
subsequent economic growth might have instead transit investment as the sole or primary tool for
occurred in another city not so constrained. such purposes.

10
Impacts of Different Types of Transit

In addition to impacts of conventional rail


rapid transit, some recent major commuter
rail improvements were found to have
contributed to land use intensification.
Evidence on light rail and busway,c was
sparse and inconclusive.

The bulk of theevidence on commuter rail impacts is


derived from Toronto’s “GO” system, an all-new
service begun in 1968. High-rise apartment
buildings are beginning to appear at a number of
suburban stations. This contrasts with the typically
low density development in the rest of Toronto’s
suburban fringe, and occurs despite generally low Implications
levels of use (fewer than 1,000trips per day) at most
stations. Reasons for this new development seem to Despite this lack; of direct evidence, the study’s other
include the low cost and ease of assembly of land, findings on impacts of rapid rail improvements
encouragement through zoning, and high cost of permit some conjecture on this subject. Most
housing elsewhere in addition to the ease of access important is the finding that even with conventional
to the CBD by both “GO” and nearby highways. rapid rail systems, land use impacts depend large’ly
on the coordinated action of many other factors in
Little can be concluded from recent North American addition to the transit improvement. This implies
experience concerning light rail and bus/busway’s that other rapid transit modes might also lead to
potential for land use impact. No land use impacts significant land use impacts ifthe same other factors
attributable to recent improvements have been could be brought to bear. For example, both the
made on this continent in recent years, and even promise and the actuality of a major rapid rail transit
those available for study tend to be unrepresentative improvement were seen to have acted often as
of future systems. catalysts to the development process, providing the
needed support for efforts at local zoning and land
use Ipolicy chilnges needed to encourage land
development. The new accessibility provided by the
transit improvement was important, but significant
land use impacts were seen to occur sometimes
even where only small increases in transit
accessibility occurred.

Hence it is possible that other transit modes


providing less rapid or high-capacity service - such
as light rail and busways - might in some cases be
able to serve a:: effective catalysts for desired land
use changes. The same is true of commuter rail
improvements. Until more actual experience with
land use impacts of such modes is available, then,
Federal policy should not deny the possibility that
fixed transit modes other than conventional rail
might contribute significantly to urban growth-
f oc USing .

11
Role of Land Use Policy

lieu of sales to reduce developers’ initial capital


Local land use policies have often been requirements (Toronto). Toronto also encouraged
instrumental in facilitating transit’s land use intensive land development near some central
impacts. At the same time, the transit stations by designing the subway structure to
improvement itself has sometimes provided include provisions for support of very heavy
the rationale needed for acceptance of such buildings. This amounted to a “land use policy”
policy changes. encouraging developers to build such buildings,
since no unusual foundation costs were then
required during their construction.
Land use policies have often been instrumental in
determining whether and to what degree com- Conditions of air rights and excess land sale or
plementary development would occur around lease have also acted as implicit land use policies.
transit stations. This is especially so in Toronto. The Toronto’s approach has been to get the land back
same is true, though to a lesser extent, with into use as quickly as possible, and so has
downtown development in San Francisco. A reverse encouraged development in many ways (although
situation is found in Washington, D.C. where height revenues from land leases have still been very
limits have restricted the degree of density incentive significant). Other rapid transit systems such as
which can be offered to developers. BART have had similar although less aggressive
policies. One contrasting example is Washington,
An important aspect of these situations and some D.C., where WMATA has negotiated one air rights
others in which zoning and related incentives have lease with provisions for profit-sharing with the
been successful is that their power has depended on developer. This approach may restrain development
the degree of advantage they provided for the if not sensitively applied, but the Washington case
station site versus others elsewhere in the city. If a deserves careful attention as a possible model.
city were already overzoned (or if variances were
easily obtained) to allow intensification of existing Feedback: Effects of Transit on Land Use Policy
development at many competing locations, the
inducement to develop at the transit station was Evidence shows that transit has often influenced
correspondingly less. Both in Toronto and San land use policies. In many cases the inauguration of
Francisco, the transit station-area zoning incentives a major new transit improvement has provided the
were part of a city-wide rezoning. rationale for changes in land use policy to comple-
ment the transit service. In fact, this may represent
Land use policies have also effectively prevented one of the most important ways in which a transit
development at transit stations by restricting land improvement may influence land use.
uses to such low densities that no allowable new
development was economically viable. The Land use policies generated largely by the advent of
Rockridge BART station area is an example of this. a new transit improvement include examples in
Other public policies have also restrained develop- Toronto, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Boston and
ment: New York’s 1908 attempt to tax away Washington. In Toronto, as already noted, the
speculative profits on land along subway routes, rezoning for intensification of development at transit
resulting in a stagnation of development, is a stations arose several years after the first subway
dramatic example of such a policy. segment’s completion and was directly attributable
to it. In San Francisco, the 1966 rezoning in theCBD
Land Use Policies of the Transit Authority was heavily influenced by BART, as were similar
station-area rezoning efforts in several suburbs
Actions of the transit authority itself with respect to along the BART lines.
the sale or use of excess land and air rights are
another important form of land use policy. These Also on BART (in downtown Oakland) as well as
may have important effects on the degree to which with the Center City Commuter Connection in
such land is redeveloped to complement the transit Philadelphia, support for plans for high-rise
system, for example by offering long term leases in redevelopment was largely dependent on the transit

12
improvements. In the Boston suburb of Quincy, objectives prior to consideration of rapid transit.
zoning was changed specifically to complement the This is typically done now in a general way through
transit system’s potential to induce more intensive adoption of comprehensive land use plans at the
development. In Washington, many of the com- regional level. However, greater specificity is
munities to be served have conducted studies of required. In too many of the cases reviewed, a rapid
METRO’Sland use impact potential and altered their transit system was built with its stations in
zoning in response. neighborhoods which were actually unwilling to
aIlow co mp Iement ary i nt ens if icat ion of deveI o p-
Not all of these transit-induced land use policy ment. The typical result is either underutilization of
changes have been complementary to transit. the station, serious station access problems, or
Downzoning has been mentioned for BART’S both. 1-0 avoid such misuse of the costly transit
Rockridge station, and has occurred elsewhere as resource, planning - both as a continuing com-
well. In fact, the power of zoning is most significant prehensive process and in the specific studies in
when it is used in ;this manner, since its effect is preparation for a major transit improvement -
absolute: development is forbidden, no matter how it should include ,assessments of the feasibility of
may be encouraged by other forces including land use intensification in thesmall, specific areas to
transit. This is asubstantial loss in potential regional be proposed for transit access.
development impact, and suggests that locations
likely to have such constraints should be avoided as Land use policies have often been instrumental in
transit station sites wherever possible if major new the generation or prevention of land use change
station-area development is a central objective. around transit stations. Policies regarding provision
of infrastructure (such as streets, sewerage and
Implications water), property taxation, and plan approval
procedures have had similar effects. These specific
The coordination of transit and land use should not policies should support overall urban development
be restricted to a one-time rapid transit development objectives; if for example a stated objective of
planning effort. If rapid transit is to be an effective focusing future development into subcenters is
policy instrument for shaping the city, its application contradicted by zoning regulations which allow
should be based on urban development objectives equally intensive development in many locations
which are themselves accepted policy and which are outside the subcenters, the objective is not likely to
compatible with rapid transit. Such objectives tend be met successfully.
to involve a focusing of development and inten-
sification of density near transit stations or in In most cases reviewed, the presence of a transit
corridors served by transit rather than a more station was not enough to attract a major share of
spreadout, lower density pattern. new developmeint when in competition with an
1.
It is conceivable that rapid transit planninglnight be
excess of other similarly zoned tocations. Federal
policy’ should urge the rationalization of land use
done specifically to prevent rather than enf,ouragea andaotlher local policies with transit-related land use
focusing of development. This could be elone fairly impact objectives as much as possible within legal
easily by locating the system to avoid colnplemen- constr,aints. At the very least, zoning and infrastruc-
tary factors and by blocking such effects VI a land use ture provision in most transit station areas should
policy, infrastructure limitations,. and c ther con- allow intensive development, and efforts to further

I
straints. In a few specific station areas thil; might be liberaliize zoning in other areas counter to growth-
reasonable. In general, however, it seems snrealistic focusing objectives should be denied as a matter of
to seek the benefits of rapid transit sei; ice for an consistent local policy.
area without also encouragimg the intensive nearby
development which complements the transit capaci-
ty with large numbers of potential patroiis.

This suggests that Federal policy should encourage


a more precise definition of local land use policy
Factors Influencing Land Use Impact

Implications
A consistent set of factors is involved in the
generation of transit’s land use impacts. Once local urban development objectives are
These form an empirical model on which defined, supporting policies and programs - in-
predictions of impact may be based. cluding rapid transit - can be developed. These
should be focused on influencing the land
developers’ investment decisions. This study’s
results indicate that rapid transit can be used as one
Formal and informal theories abound regarding the factor to help shape land use patterns. This appears
relationship of land use and transportation. None is to be largely a process of influencing the location
of adequate scope, precision, and empirical and nature of development in a metropolitan area
relevance for practical use in the study of transit’s rather than its net amount. However, transit cannot
land use impact. From among these, this study has create desired land use patterns by itself if other
adopted the hypothesis that such impacts are powerful factors oppose it.
dependent on many non-transportation factors in
addition to the access, travel time and cost benefits Land use objectives are difficult to meet largely
of the transit improvement. Moreover, the study has because of all the diverse forces which influence
focused on the decision-making process of the land development. Federal policy must acknowledge
developer rather than the ultimate consumer. Thus these many forces and the need for their coordina-
the study has sought to identify the factors of tion. This is not an abstract goal; if land use, energy,
significance to the developer and the combinations and environmental objectives are to be met, it is a
of factors under which development is likely to practical necessity. Without coordination, urban
occur or not occur. development will continue to be essentially un-
planned and the land use impacts sought from
As described earlier, recent experience with transit’s transit improvements w i II sddom be real ized.
apparent land use impact was found toexhibit some
commun properties from city to city and case to Clearly the relative importance of each factor varies
case. Many of the same causal factors w d e found from one case to another. In general, however, the
again and again despite many differences in specific study’s findings indicate that none can be ignored,
conditions from one example to another. These for a serious deficiency in any one appears to be
recurring factors may be combined to suggest a capable of limiting or even preventing land use
general model of the land use impact process. impacts. Thus, all the factors should be made as
favorable as possible. In some cases this may
A diagrammatic view of such a model is shown on involve moving a proposed transit station to a more
the following page. Each major factor which was advantageous location; in others there may be a
found in this study to encourage land use change need to coordinate policies in land use, taxation,
following a transit improvement is shown with its urban renewal, and infrastructure with the transit
various components. The model illustrates clearly investment.
the scope of such factors in addition to the transit
improvement itself. With such an approach, various transit alternatives
can be evaluated on the basis of their ability to take
All these factors act to influence the developer of advantage of each of these factors and their
land, whose decisions are the immediate “causes” of consequent relative likelihood of land use impact.
land use impacts. As the model indicates, the Even more important, an understanding of the
developer is free to choose whether or not to invest workings of these factors permits the use of rapid
in a particular location. If these factors are not transit as an effective component in the continuing,
favorable in comparison with other choices, the integrated process of planning and guiding the
inveFtment will be made somewhere else. development of urban areas.

14
Public

Urban
Renewal

(Young
Assembly
Amendment)

AVAILABILITY OF
DEVELOPABLE LAND

I I
PHYSICAL
Public Access
Facilities Blight
Compatible
Land Uses Social
Crime
Social
Character
NEAREY LAND
INVES- MENTS 1
ATTRACTIVENESS
Development OF SITE FOR
DEVELOPMENT

01
COMMITMENT
TO SPECIFIC
IMPROVEMENT IMPLEMENl ATlON IMPACT
OF TRANSIT
IMPROVEMENT ACCESSIBILITY
r

REGIONS
Neighborhood DEM_AND FOR NEW
Att it udes DEVELOPMENT
L

USE PC LlClES National


Zoning 8 Economy
Development
Incentives
Regional
Economy
Goals of Larger OTHER Taxation
Community GOVERNMENT and other
Growth POLICIES Assessments
Social Cliaracter
Plan B DAlar Infrastructure
Priorities Compliance Provisions


with other
Public Piograms
Environmental
Impact Review
Equal
Opportunity
Conclusions

Clearly Federal policies such as those derived and implemented from day to day. Finally, there is no
presented here must not be so unrealistic at the local reason that the private land development perspec-
level as to be impossible to implement. There are tive could not now be incorporated into public land
real limitations to the immediate success of even use and transportation planning.
these modest proposals. The fragmentation of local
authority in most cities, the ever-present conflicts These implications must be used with great care in
among jurisdictions and the differences in the the making of Federal policy toward support of local
priorities of their constituencies, natural though initiatives in urban development and transit im-
they are, loom large as frustrations in the achieve- provement. The Federal government already places
ment of meaningful regional objectives and en- many requirements on local authorities seeking
forceable, consistent policies. In the face of these financial aid for such initiatives; this study’s results
realities, the Federal government’s policies must be should not be interpreted simply as a call for more
realistic. difficult, slow and costly analyses prior to a Federal
commitment. There are other ways to encourage the
The thrust of the policy implications which have needed attention to land use impact. For example,
been presented here is straightforward: The Federal the recommended transit station site analyses can
government should use its influence to encourage be done in stages as projects are planned and
every possible means of local coordination of the implemented, beginning with a screening of general
factors which this study has found necessary to locations and a review of other factors such as local
achieve desired land use impacts from major transit policy during initial alternatives analyses. More
improvements. Complete control over these factors precise site selection studies and initial local policy
is not a possibility nor is it ever likely to be in this coordination could be made during preliminary
society - nor should it. But much can be done now to engineering, after an initial Federal commitment.
improve the chances of achieving desired land use Demonstration of previously-promised progress in
impacts - where they are desired - simply by local land use-transit policy coordination could be
stressing the early identification of situations in made a condition of initial and continued construc-
which the needed factors are favorable or not. tion funding, based on periodic review. In this way
Beyond this, local policies in fields such as land use the implications of this study could be implemented
and infrastructure can be better coordinated with without delaying implementation of the transit
transit planning, at least by realizing and avoiding system.
further inconsistencies as policies evolve and are

16
. /
NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the spon-


sorship of the Department of Transportation in the
interest of information exchange. The United States
'
Government assumes no lia,bility for its contents or
use thereof.

I
Knighi. R. L. and L. L. Trygg. Land Use Impacts of Rapid Transit: Implications of Recent
Experience. Final Report, DOT-OS-60181. Washington. D.C.: US. Government Printing
Office! 1977.

Trygg, L. L. and Sgourakis, A. Land Use Impacts of Rapid Transit, Bibliography No. 1377.
Monticello, Illinois: Council of Planning Librarians, 1977.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
POSTAGE AND F E E S P A I D
Washington, D.C. 20590 DEPARTMENT O F
TRANSPORTATION
OWcial Business
DOT 518
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

You might also like