MITOD.org has created an action guide for local and regional planners to assess and implement mixed-income transit-oriented development in their jurisdictions.  The action guide has two components, 1) Analysis which is focused on Opportunities, Strategies & Existing Conditions and looks at an area’s population, community stability, real estate market, development capacity and existing housing inventory.  2) Tools which compile specific strategies planners and stakeholders can take to achieve each strategy and provides case studies for how these strategies have been used in other municipalities.

Here are the suggested steps in determining the appropriateness and feasibility of MITOD in your market:

Write your initial thoughts about the station area’s development potential, housing needs, challenges and opportunities.

1. List all stake holders
2. Identify existing partnerships between stakeholders
3. Reach out to stakeholders
4. Prepare hypothesis statement for station area which should include:

• Current state of affordability
• Level of household and community stability
• Predicted impact of a MITOD
• Number of existing affordable households to be preserved
• Number and size of opportunity sites
• Goals for the station area (senior housing, large families, student population, etc.)

Who is in the station area?

1. Identify income and expenses of household’s in the transit zone and surrounding areas
2. Identify household types
3. Identify age distribution of the station area
4. Characterize the neighborhood and the housing needs of the demographic represented in the station area.

Key Data to collect:

• Median household income for transit zone & surrounding area (city, county, region)
• Income distribution
• Household spending for housing (> 30% of household budget is considered a burden; > 50% is a severe burden)
• Household types such as large families, seniors, students, singles, couples without kids (various types require different housing and services)
• Age distribution (this is an indicator of housing type needs and services)

Note: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) definitions:

        High Income household (HH):  > 120% of average median income (AMI)

        Moderate Income HH:               80-120% of AMI

        Low Income HH:                         50-80% of AMI

        Very Low Income HH:                30-50% of AMI

        Extremely Low Income HH:      < 30% of AMI

For example:  A HH making $30,000 per year in an area with AMI of $45,000 would be considered a low income HH (30,000/45,000 = 67%).  Conversely, a HH making $55,000 in the same market would be considered a high income HH (55,000/45,000 = 122%).

What housing exists?

1. Describe the quality and condition of the existing housing stock
2. Determine the character of the existing housing
3. Describe characteristics of any subsidized housing in the station area

Key data to collect:

• Housing type: % share of single family vs. multi-family and determine area densities
• Housing size: what is the mix in terms of number of bedrooms
• Multi-family size: average size of buildings
• Housing tenure: % share of renters vs. owner occupied
• Housing age
• Housing vacancy (indicator of market disconnect and declining neighborhood)
• Housing quality
• Subsidized housing (number of)
• Subsidized housing stability (note whether existing units are likely to stay affordable and if there is market pressure or opportunity to revert to market rate.

Discussion points:

• Diversity of housing options
• Rental housing options (note that home ownership strengthens neighborhood stability and can act as a barrier to displacement)
• Are there appropriate housing options for the household types represented?
• Housing expenditures (if the majority of the neighborhood is experiencing a housing burden the development of additional subsidized housing may be needed)

What preservation opportunities exist?

• Indicators of at-risk districts include rising rents or home prices, with a high number of renters (particularly low-income) and limited permanent affordable housing.

Note: At-risk subsidized housing includes Project-based Section 8 units.  This is public housing in which landlords enter into a 10 year contract with the Public Housing Authority (PHA) to provide units to low-income tenants with Section 8 vouchers.  The Public Housing Authority pays the landlord the difference between fair market rent and whatever the voucher holding renter can afford.  Affordability for the renter is determined as 30% of their household income.  For example: market rate is $900 per month for an apartment and the renter’s annual household income is $30,000 or $2,500 per month which makes the affordable rent $750 ($2,500 x 30% = $750).  The renter pays the landlord $750 and the PHA pays the remaining $150 per month.  After 10 years the landlord can opt out of the contract and bring all units to market rents  without subsidy. 

• Subsidized affordable housing developments approaching expiration for an area can be found through the National Housing Trust http://www.nhtinc.org/housing_data.php

 Is there development site capacity?

1. Look for under-utilized or vacant parcels
2. Evaluate predominant land uses in the transit district
3. Quantify and characterize vacant or under-utilized land uses
4. Determine the likely location and characteristics of potential and new real estate development in the station area (location, size, potential assemblage, public vs. private ownership status (public lands and buildings are good opportunities to negotiate reduced acquisition prices or joint development)
5. Major land uses that will influence the project
6. Major activity and employment centers
7. Priority sites that have strong political support    
8. Under-utilized sites (Land value vs. Improvement value); look for:

• Private surface parking lots
• Aging commercial buildings
• One story multi-family structures
• Obsolete industrial buildings
• Low priced motels
• Private storage facilities

Do existing policies promote MITOD?

1. Identify housing policies that may be affecting housing development, or lack thereof
2. Identify lack of certain types of housing such of live work studios, existing policies may prevent
3. Preservation policies may be a hindrance
4. Discussion Points:

• Renter protection
• Redevelopment Zones
• Zoning Alignment with housing needs
• Inclusionary housing policy
• Parking requirements
• Efficient and transparent public approvals and permitting
• Public Agency Collaboration
• Funding and Financing

Strategy Analysis

1. How stable is the station area population?
2. What is the social trajectory of the station area?
3. Analyze recent changes in the station area income, educational attainment and household structure
4. Evaluate whether the station area is Stable vs. Changing or Vulnerable
5. Key data to collect:

• Employment in station area (ratio of workers to residents within ½ mile radius)
• Household structure
• Education – school quality
• Median Income (look for changing trends in the median HH income of area)
• Change in income distribution
• Change in homebuyer income (look at income of homebuyers vs. overall income; see HMDA http://www.ffiec.gov/hmda/)
• Tenure trends: Owner to renter indicates instability vs. Renter to owner which is indicative of a more stable market but can result in gentrification

What are the potential post transit housing market conditions?

Is the market appreciating?

• Compare station housing costs to region
• Area rents
• Rent Trend
• Home prices
• Home price trend
• Foreclosures
• Land prices & construction prices
• Vacancy (station vs. surrounding area)
• Foreclosure rate (station vs. surrounding area)
• New development(s)
• Local employment  vs. regional employment
• Type of jobs in the area and being created

One of the keys to achieving successful transit-oriented development is providing diverse housing options where appropriate.  Historically affordable and low-income housing has been isolated from market rate units creating blight and a stigma towards low-income households.  By creating a mix of low, affordable and market rate units cities allow greater opportunity to lower-income households to attain a more prosperous life for their families.  By locating housing close to transit stations, lower income households can reduce their transportation costs, gain greater access to employment and education and help stabilize communities.

Incoming search terms:

• transit-oriented development
• transit oriented development definition
• transit oriented

Demographics:

Population:

Forecasted 2020    111,168         16.67%

Census 2010           95,290          7.85%

2005 (est.)               88,350         13.65%

2000                          77,737

Mean Family Income 2009          $81,587

Total Housing Units 2010             39,967

Corporate Locations:

Blue Lynx Media                   495 jobs               $60,641 average salary

Med Fusion Labs                  900 jobs               $74,444 average salary

Orthofix Inc.                           315 jobs                

Vinson Process Controls    78 jobs                  $88,000 average salary

TIAA-CREF                             350 jobs  

Semperian                                800 jobs             

2010 Tax Rate:

Below are property tax millage rates per $100 of valuation:

City of Lewisville Property Tax                   $0.44021

Denton County                                                $0.27390

Lewisville ISD                                                  $1.42670

City of Lewisville Sales Tax                         $8% (1.75% local option)

Transit-Oriented Development Incentives

Tax Rebates or Abatements:

Tax Rebates or Abatements are utilized to reduce the municipal property tax liability for economically valuable projects.  The City of Lewisville will consider use of a Tax Rebate for both firm based and development based incentives on a case-by-case basis according to the merits of each project.  Including new jobs, average salary, total payroll, and capital investment.  If utilized, Tax Rebates are subject to a maximum term of 10 years, cannot be applied to existing value, and the value of the land.  Projects requesting a Tax Rebate are evaluated based on the increase in assessed value over the base year value of the property.

Grants:

Under Texas Local Government Code Chapter 380, the City of Lewisville  is authorized to provide grants or loans of funds to stimulate investment.   Because the City of Lewisville OED (Office of Economic Development) is funded primarily from General Fund revenues, the potential for cash driven incentives is limited.  Incentives of this type are considered for focus area projects, often on a reimbursement basis.  This encompasses requests regarding construction costs, infrastructure, inventory tax, sales tax, and fees.

State and Federal Incentive Support:

The city actively supports incentive requests made to other government entities having jurisdiction in Lewisville.  While the City will partner with these projects for support, and where requested, may elect to provide administrative or financial support to these applications.  The City is not responsible for ultimate decisions to grant incentives by other governmental bodies.  Such programs include:

• Texas Enterprise Zone Fund
• Foreign Trade Zones
• Requests for rebates of state or federal taxes, fees, or impositions

Special Financing Initiatives:

The City of Lewisville, as other municipalities in Texas, has the capability of leveraging certain tax tools such as low or no interest loans, revenue bonds, or sales tax increments.  Utilization of these types of incentives is a time consuming process with substantive public involvement required, and as such, would be reserved for projects of the highest caliber.  Applicants that intend to request these types of incentives should submit a narrative project plan to the City of Lewisville OED.

Brownfield Redevelopment Program:

The City of Lewisville may fund Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments for qualifying projects with the use of EPA grant funds.  Certain projects could qualify for additional tax incentives based on the cost of clean up or potential economic impact of the project such as job creation or construction costs.

Utilities & Infrastructure:

A number of financing options are available to the City to assist with outlay associated with infrastructure and utilities.  This type of incentive would be covered under Grant financing availability.

Expedited Permitting and Approvals:

Lewisville offers a one-stop-shop approach to permitting.  The Lewisville Office of Economic Development and Planning will act as a facilitator for high caliber projects, ensuring expedited review and central staff contacts and oversight for the project.

One of Lewisville’s great strengths is its low permitting fees and speedy time to occupancy.  For new construction, site plans can be approved in a matter of  weeks.  The estimated time to issue a building permit is 10-20 working days from submission.  When the City finds a project to be economically beneficial, Economic Development and Planning staff will identify a project coordinator to oversee the project.  The City will do its best to expedite the review of permits under 10 days. 

Incoming search terms:

• city bus lewisville tx
• lewisville tx city buses
• millage rate lewisville

The City of Fort Worth has seen tremendous growth over the past 10 years, 38%, making it one of the fastest growing cities in the nation.  Like many cities they will need to adapt to the changing demographics this type of growth demands.  Currently, The T operates local bus service and co-operates commuter rail, the Trinity Railway Express, with the Dallas Area Rapid Transit Authority.     

Here are highlights from the Fort Worth Transportation Authority’s 2010 Strategic Plan, also known as “The T”:

 Currently challenges include insufficient current revenue sources, obstacles to expansion into non-member areas, and inadequate size of the T’s present facilities for full service build out of bus, rail and other transit services.

Fort Worth is expected to grow to over 1 million people by 2040.

The greater number of people will add to a growing congestion problem as the increase in highway capacity will not be capable of growing as fast as the population.

Another challenge is the costs of driving and the need for a more affordable solution.  Gas prices may once again rise and demand for public transportation will increase.

Plan Goals

1. Transportation: The T must become a transportation provider that appeals to a broad cross-section of people in Tarrant County.  The T also must have stronger appeal among other segments of the population, a provider of choice.  The T can actively reduce barriers to transit use by providing a service that customers feel safe using, that reliably delivers people to their destinations, and that is simple and easy to use.
2. Timeliness: If transit trips take significantly more time to complete than the same trip in a car, few people will choose the public transportation option.  Investment should be made in services that offer faster travel times - such as commuter rail and express bus service and improving local services to reduce travel time.
3. Technology: New vehicle technologies should be investigated for the potential to reduce fuel and maintenance expenses. 

Expanding Commuter Rail

In a standard survey distributed to a variety of interest groups in preparing the 2010 Strategic Plan, the items ranked most important were those related to the expansion of commuter rail in the region.  Among commuter rail projects, none are as critical as the completion of the Southwest-2-Northeast (SW-2-NE) rail corridor.  By 2015 The T will open service along the SW-2-NE corridor.

Looking beyond 2015, The T will be investigating additional rail corridors for planning service.  Important is some type of rail service to Southeast Fort Worth, given the large population and high transit use among its residents.  Rail service to this portion of the city could eventually connect to either Arlington or Mansfield.  Other rail corridors recommended for service in the long-term (10-25 year) horizon are lines to Johnson County, the Alliance area (north Fort Worth), west Fort Worth, and the Western Bypass of the current SW-2-NE project.

Important activities of this objective are:

• Complete Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for SW-2-NE
• Receive Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
• Develop vehicle specifications and select vehicle manufacturer
• Construct and begin operation on SW-2-NE corridor
• Complete Southeast Fort Worth Passenger Rail Feasibility Study
• Implement express trains on Trinity Railway Express (TRE)
• Procure rail trackage rights on additional rail corridors
• Design, construct, and operate service on additional commuter rail corridors
• Explore options to serve Arlington Entertainment district via Dorothy Spur

Express bus may serve interim purposes until demand warrants rail service in a corridor, or it may serve in heavily travelled corridors where rail isn’t possible or appropriate.

Create Enhanced Bus Corridors & Expand Local Bus Service

Enhanced bus corridors would include bus rapid transit (BRT) in the city.  Such corridors would serve as trunk lines enabling better usage of the entire bus network.  These corridors should provide better experiences for the customer both at stops and in the vehicles.  Some of the capital elements of enhanced bus corridors are: transit signal priority at all intersections to improve travel time, higher level amenities at stops, 60-foot low-floor buses to accommodate passenger loads.  The first enhanced bus corridor to be in service will be on East Lancaster with other lines to follow in the future.

Even within existing member communities, as the population and employment in them grow, more bus service will be needed to meet demand.  Two particular areas of focus for expanding service are the growing Alliance area in far north Fort Worth and the Naval Joint Reserve Base.  In order to create an effective network, additional transfer centers should be considered and built as appropriate.

Improve Community Perception of Transit

The T must work to educate community members on the benefits The T brings to the community.  Much of the vision in this Strategic Plan will ultimately depend upon expanding revenue sources, a difficult proposition with many other public needs demanding attention too.  The T should demonstrate to Tarrant County residents that a strong transit system is an economic catalyst, improves quality of life and makes the city more competitive.  Maintaining strong support within the service area can also be a strong enticement for current non-members to join.

New Services to Expand Transit’s Reach

Circulation within the urban core will be critical in ensuring potential rail passengers are adequately connected to their final destination.  A modern street car has been envisioned by many in the city and The T is supportive of bringing this technology to Fort Worth.  Other, less expensive options such as rubber-tired replica vehicles similar to Molley the Trolley should be investigated for use in central city circulation as well.

Some activities for this objective are:

1. Create on-demand, flexible service using smaller vehicles for low density areas
2. Develop a bicycle sharing program with kiosks at transit centers and major stops throughout the city
3. Investigate use of car sharing system at transit centers for residents who forgo a personal auto
4. Operate a modern streetcar system in the central city
5. Explore innovative ways to provide late night service

Create Transit-Friendly Environments

Increasingly, transit is seen as a catalyst to creating more desirable built environments.  As infrastructure and development centered on the automobile ages, many are seeing the unsustainable environment it creates.  Development that targets other travel markets, such as pedestrians and transit users, are being created to transform this built environment.  Its appeal to populations more inclined to use transit and increased densities near transit stops results in more usage of transit from the area.  And it creates an opportunity for The T to work with developers, community groups, and public and business leaders to improve quality of life within the community.  Additionally, such development creates a possible source of funding if strategies are in place to capture value that transit investment creates.  Finally, funding from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and other federal agencies are increasingly encouraging projects that promote walkable, mixed-use, livable communities.

Action items for this objective are:

• Coordinating with local jurisdictions to encourage Transit-Oriented Development near transit centers
• Ensure facilities allow good pedestrian and bicycle connections to surrounding neighborhoods
• Increase number of bus shelters and other amenities at existing bus stops
• Improve security at transit facilities
• Monitor bus stops regularly and keep all clean and in a state of good repair
• Investigate utility of creating dedicated police force for The T

Technology for Tomorrow

Technology holds many opportunities to reduce barriers to using transit.  Web based applications can be utilized to help customers plan their trips, and with the increasing number and abilities of mobile devices, these applications can be accessed anywhere.  Technology also offers the ability to market services to younger, tech savvy generations and create enduring markets for transit.

Key initiatives for improved customer information include:

• Developing an on-line trip planning function with regional trip planning capabilities
• Increase and customize alerts for online and mobile users
• Create smartphone applications for transmitting information to customers
• Expand use of information maps at bus stops throughout service area
• Implement real-time customer information center at stations and online

Key initiatives for improving efficiency include:

• Investigate electric or hybrid vehicle technologies
• Implement Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system for paratransit scheduling
• Utilize smart cards as an option for fare payment
• Install Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL) systems on buses
• Use mobile data terminals for efficient scheduling in flexible services

Challenges

Creating a truly regional transit network requires the expansion of service into current non-member areas.  An additional challenge will be to identify funding for many of the programs identified by this plan.  Non-traditional funding sources should be explored such as looking to opportunities to work with private sector partners, creating new revenues from existing or planned assets, and forming partnerships that allow cost sharing on projects.  Strategies to capture value created by planned transit facilities should also be developed.

Activities to meet these challenges are:

• Support efforts to permit local option revenue sources for transit
• Collaborate with non-member cities on ways to enable their entry into The T service area
• Develop plan for capturing value on developments near transit stations and along transit corridors
• Create strategies for collecting usage fees from those residing outside service area
• Work with Denton County Transportation Authority and Dallas Area Rapid Transit on projects that allow cost sharing
• Investigate utility of creating dedicated police force for The T
• Develop strategic parking management plan for stations and downtown Fort Worth

For more information click on The T logo below:

Incoming search terms:

• fort worth texas
• downtown fort worth
• Fort Worth Transportation Authority Bus
• downtown fort worth texas
• fort worth downtown
• Downtown Fort Worth TX
• aerial city views downtown fort worth tx
• fort worth the t streetcar
• downton fort worth
• downtown ft worth

DART aims to help create communities where residents can live, work, and play without relying on an automobile.

Opened in 1996, the DART light rail system now encompasses 45 miles of transit and 35 light rail transit (LRT) stations.  Successful TODs achieve the following:

• Embody the principles of good transit-oriented design 
• Complement the station area and the surrounding neighborhood
• Enrich the transit experience for DART riders and the pedestrian experience of those who visit or live in the area
• Add to the municipal tax base

By 2018, DART will more than double the light rail network to 93 miles, with even more expansion identified in its 2030 Transit System Plan.

(click logo to be directed the the plan)

Station Area Development Potential

Transit-oriented development (TOD) is a development style that promotes mixed-use development within a 5 to 10 minute walk of a transit station.  Characteristics of TOD:

Place-making: TOD creates a sense of community and of place, a destination that people want to return to time and again. 

Market Capture: Increasingly, people want more housing choices and more transportation choices.  Skyrocketing fuel prices make suburban commutes less attractive than ever.  Further, a housing market shift toward convenience, affordability, and activity – combined with shifting demographics – reinforces the attractiveness of TOD.  In a 2003 study by Reconnecting America, Dallas was named tenth among U.S. cities with the highest potential demand for TOD housing.  The study found that by 2030, there could be a TOD housing demand of 270,676 households, or a percentage increase of 483% from 2000.

Property Values:In 2007, the Urban Land Institute described TOD as an “emerging trend” in real estate and a “best bet for investors” for the third consecutive year.  In the North Texas region, TODs are proven as a solid investment.  A Fall 2007 study commissioned by DART and produced by the University of North Texas attributed $4.26 billion in development generated by TOD around DART projects since 1999.  When comparing TOD to non-TOD, the UNT study showed that transit-oriented residential development had 39% greater property values than non-TOD residential development, and that transit-oriented office development had 53% greater property values than office development outside of transit station areas.

Density: Transit station areas offer a concentration of people, businesses, and activity that translate into high numbers of residents and customers for development sites.  Station areas also have a much higher capacity for density than other non-core developments, offering the biggest potential for growth.

Parking reductions: Since many customers arrive at station-area developments via transit rather than cars, parking needs for station area development are much lower than for suburban-style development.  Municipal parking standards tend to be significantly reduced within proximity of station areas, and shared parking is the rule instead of the exception.  For customers that do travel by car, transit-oriented development offers a “park once” experience for visitors, where it’s possible to park in one location at the beginning of an outing and enjoy local offerings on foot.

Sustainability: Without auto-related pollution, station areas enjoy cleaner air quality on average than car congested areas.  TODs also represent a more efficient use of land, energy, and resources than suburban greenfield development, and help conserve open space and gas by concentrating development around transit.

Stability: Since transit facilities are a permanent fixture, developing around transit stations has the security of stability, unlike auto-dependent developments whose location could fall out of favor with consumers over time.

Transit-Oriented Development

To date (2008), there are four transit-oriented developments along the DART rail system: Southside at Lamar (Cedars Station); Mockingbird Station (Mockingbird Station); Galatyn Park (Galatyn Park); and East Side Village Phase I and II (Downtown Plano).  These developments are examples of how projects can blend with existing neighborhoods, create a community, and be an added value to transit riders.  Note: Since the writing of these guidelines there are several TODs that have been built, are under construction, or are in the planning stages. 

Station Area Types

DART contains two primary station environment types in its 45-mile system: Urban infill station environments and suburban station environments.

[A]  Urban Infill Station Environment

Characteristics:

1.  {High Density} (a minimum of 1.5:1 floor area ratio or 35 dwelling units per acre)

2.  {Mixed Use} (office, retail, housing, hotel, institutional/medical, and civic uses, including traditional city centers)

3.  {Distances are short} (within 1/4 or 1/2 mile) compared with a similar number of possible destinations in the suburbs

4.  Typically served by a {grid of streets} with similar sized blocks for development

5.  Circulation system with {short block sizes} and {continuous sidewalks} favors pedestrians

6.  Downtown stations may be at a convergence of multiple transit corridors, so {passenger transfer is a major activity}

7.  Development opportunities are typically infill sites among existing uses or redevelopment of larger sites

[B]  Suburban Station Environment

Characteristics:

1.  Development {density} can vary greatly, but is generally {moderate to low} with a {low mix of uses} 

2.  { Located at or near} major suburban activity centers such as an {office complex} or a {regional retail center}

 3.  Typically, buildings are spread apart, and are served by {surface parking, large arterial roads and freeways} in addition to transit

 4.  Given the nature of the suburban environment, there is typically {more flexibility to design and assemble larger parcels of land}

 5.  The frequency of connected, {local streets is typically inconsistent} or may be completely lacking

6.  {Pedestrian access} to stations is usually {weak}

7.  Development opportunities include infill, redevelopment or new (greenfield) sites, or brownfield sites

8.  Parking consists of surface lots or structured parking shared by uses 

Developer Considerations:

What mix of uses is right for this site?

How does this site connect to surrounding sites?

How densely can the site be developed?

What considerations should be given to civic space or public art?

What type of building form would be best?

How well can pedestrians flow through the site?

General Station Area Development Goals:

Adjust the mix and intensity of station area development to achieve complementary adjacency’s and transitions between existing and proposed uses (e.g. retail to housing, retail to office, higher density to lower density)

Promote long-term vision for the station area

 Address nuisances such as noise, traffic congestion, interference with view through setbacks, separation, buffers, screening, and traffic calming.

Accommodate existing viable businesses

 Protect unique and sensitive natural environments

 Protect valued views

Station Area Components:

Land Use

Intensity of Development

Built Form

Civic Space and Public Art

Circulation

Landscape

Sustainable Development

For more information about the DART Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Guidelines please click the DART logo below:

Incoming search terms:

• station area development

(click on logos above to be directed to the website)

Through the Partnership and guided by six Livability Principles (see below), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Department of Transportation (DOT), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are coordinating investments and aligning policies to support communities that want to give Americans more housing choices, make transportation systems more efficient and reliable, reinforce existing investments, and support vibrant and healthy neighborhoods that attract businesses.  Each agency is working to incorporate the principles into its funding programs, policies, and future legislative proposals.

HUD-DOT-EPA Partnership for Sustainable Communities Guiding Livability Principles:

1. Provide more transportation choices.  Develop safe, reliable, and economical transportation choices to decrease household transportation costs, reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign oil, improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and promote public health.
2. Promote equitable, affordable housing.  Expand location – and energy-efficient housing choices for people of all ages, incomes, races, and ethnicities to increase mobility and lower the combined cost of housing and transportation.
3. Enhance economic competitiveness.  Improve economic competitiveness through reliable and timely access to employment centers, educational opportunities, services and other basic needs by workers, as well as expanded business access to markets.
4. Support existing communities.  Target federal funding toward existing communities – through strategies like transit-oriented, mixed-use development and land recycling - to increase community revitalization and the efficiency of public works investments and safeguard rural landscapes.
5. Coordinate and leverage federal policies and investment.  Align federal policies and funding to remove barriers to collaboration, leverage funding, and increase the accountability and effectiveness of all levels of government to plan for future growth, including making smart energy choices such as locally generated renewable energy.
6. Value communities and neighborhoods.  Enhance the unique characteristics of all communities by investing in healthy, safe, and walkable neighborhoods – rural, urban, or suburban.

In its first year, the Partnership for Sustainable Communities made strides toward three goals:

1. Targeting resources through grants and other programs to help states and communities create jobs and stronger economies by developing more sustainably.
2. Removing regulatory policy barriers at the federal level to make it easier for state and local governments to access federal services and resources.
3. Aligning agency priorities and embedding the Livability Principles in each agency’s actions so that transportation, housing, and environmental protection efforts are coordinated.

Available Grants:

Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Grants:  In February 2010, as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, DOT announced $1.5 billion in TIGER grants for more than 50 innovative transportation projects across the country.

Joint DOT TIGER II-HUD Community Challenge Grants:  For the first time, DOT and HUD will join forces to award up to $75 million – up to $35 million in transportation planning grants from the second round of TIGER funds and $40 million in HUD Community Challenge Planning Grants to support local planning activities that integrate transportation, housing, and economic development (awarded Fall 2010).

HUD Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grants:  In June 2010, HUD opened the application process for the $100 million Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant program.  This program will support metropolitan and multi jurisdictional planning efforts that integrate housing, land use, economic and workforce development, transportation, and infrastructure investments (awarded Fall 2010).

Funds for Urban Circulator Bus & Bus Livability Projects:  In July 2010, DOT awarded nearly $300 million under two new programs that will give Americans better transportation choices and strengthen communities.  Six cities were chosen including Cincinnati, OH; Orlando, FL; Montrose, CO; and New York City, NY.

State Revolving Funds for Water Infrastructure:  The single largest category of funds that flow from EPA to states and ultimately local communities is funding for water infrastructure projects, also known as State Revolving Funds (SRFs).  In May 2010, EPA issued guidance to states on spending the 2010 appropriation of $3.3 billion for clean water and drinking water infrastructure.  The guidance explicitly recommends that states make funding decisions that are consistent with the Livability Principles, and that they discourage expanding infrastructure to accommodate growth if there are available facilities in existing communities.

Source: Progress for American Communities: Partnership for Sustainable Communities

Incoming search terms:

• partnership for sustainable communities

There are a number of Federal programs that currently support (or can be used to support) planning for or building TOD.  Examples include the New Starts transit capital program, which awards points in the application process to proposed transit projects with transit-supportive land use characteristics, and the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program, which allows states to adopt criteria that prioritize affordable housing projects located near transit.   

Authorizing Legislation: 

Many states have adopted legislation that establishes authority for localities to create TOD districts or special zones that can enact tax increment financing, be prioritized for transportation funds or receive other benefits.  For example, the California Transit Development Planning Act of 1994 (California Code, Section 65460) allows cities and counties to designate transit villages within 1/2 mile of transit stations and makes these districts eligible for transportation funding, gives them access to expedited permitting and encourages localities to enact density bonuses there.

Design Guidelines:

States, regions, cities or transit agencies can adopt guidelines that outline an agency’s support for TOD and give recommended land uses and design characteristics in TOD zones.  For example, the Florida DOT is developing TOD Design Guidelines to aid local governments and public agencies in planning for and implementing transit, with a particular focus on land use and urban design policies in transit corridors (www.floridatod.com).  The Dallas Area Rapid Transit Agency DART has also created Transit-Oriented Development Guidelines to promote TOD around DART transit facilities.  The Guidelines were designed as an informational handbook to assist the general public and the development community in understanding DART’s approach to TOD and transit facility design.  It is intended to help developers succeed in the TOD projects (www.dart.org/tod).

Local Zoning:

TOD-supportive zoning will vary depending on the local context but typically includes higher density, mixed-use development, reduced parking requirements and/or special affordable housing policies near transit.

Direct Funding & Financial Incentive Programs:

Programs that provide grants, loans, tax credits, or direct financial incentives to TOD projects or plans have been sorted into three categories:

1. Planning – funds to conduct corridor, district or station area TOD planning.
2. Implementation – funds for construction of projects or infrastructure in a TOD district.
3. Property Acquisition – funds dedicated to acquiring property or land banking in locations near transit.

Source: 2010 Inventory of TOD Programs: A National Review of State, Regional and Local Programs that Fund Transit-Oriented Development Plans and Projects (January 2011, Reconnecting America)

Guiding Principles:

By 2030, the region will need about $142.9 billion (2009$) to eliminate the most severe levels of congestion.  However, the region does not have enough resources for all its transportation needs through 2030.  The following principles help the region best allocate the limited resources it has:

• Maintain and operate existing facilities
• Improve efficiency of existing facilities
• Reduce single occupancy trips
• Increase transit trips
• Increase auto occupancy

Regional Growth:

The Dallas-Fort Worth region has continued to see increases in population and employment in recent years, making it the fourth-largest metropolitan area in the county.  The population of the nine-county area is 6.3 million people, with more than 1 million people having arrived since 2000.  This population growth will continue to make it difficult to fund needed transportation system capacity improvements.  To help meet residents’ needs, continual efforts are being made to alleviate congestion, improve air quality, and provide a more reliable transportation system.

The cost of congestion is expected to increase significantly as the region’s population swells to more than 8.5 million.  The region’s surging population will affect more than the number of cars on the road.

The annual cost of congestion is forecasted to rise from $4.2 billion in 2007 to $6.5 billion by 2030.

.

Mobility 2030 – 2009 Amendment Cost Summary:

Air Quality Program:

Mobility 2030 – 2009 Amendment includes the following air quality initiatives for implementation in the DFW area:

• Clean Vehicles
• Vanpools
• HOV lanes
• Transit
• Grade separations
• Bike & Pedestrian facilities
• Park-and-ride lots
• Signal & intersection improvements
• Employer trip reduction programs
• Intelligent Transportation Systems

Sustainable Development Initiatives:

• Transit-oriented development
• Infill development
• Freight-oriented development
• Rural preservation
• Development of south Dallas/southeast Fort Worth

Regional Rail:

Expanding the regional transit system is a vital part of improving the transportation network in the DFW area.  Transit service includes local bus, express bus, light rail, and commuter rail service.  Transit system planning is a coordinated effort involving NCTCOG, Dallas Area Rapid Transit, the Denton County Transportation Authority, and the Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T).  DART and The T jointly operate the Trinity Railway Express, a commuter rail service that carries riders between Fort Worth and Dallas.

North Texas is committed to expanding the rail system throughout the region.  A number of potential rail corridors have been identified and will be evaluated for further development.  North Texas rail plans suggest the area can be best served by a combination of light, commuter, and regional rail.

Rail System Funding

The transit recommendations include about 500 miles of rail.  Dallas-Fort Worth is currently served by 83 miles of rail, and 166 miles have been programmed, are under development or have been identified in planning studies.  However, 251 miles are pending alternate funding through a region wide rail transit development initiative for a total of 417 additional rail miles.  This initiative brings together federal, state, and local elected officials along with the private sector to achieve consensus on how to implement regional rail.

The RTC is committed to increasing transportation options to people in the region.  A seamless transit system is a vital element of the overall plan.

Roadway System

Additional roadway capacity is needed and would help alleviate major congestion throughout the region.  However, the resources needed to fund many necessary projects are unavailable.  While a need for improvement exists in various corridors, these projects must be deferred until more money is available.  The nine-county area faces almost $64.6 billion (2009$) in unfunded needs through 2030.  Just 55% of the funding has been identified.  Innovation will prove more necessary as the state and region continue to grapple with a combination of higher costs and less revenue.  The age of the existing infrastructure will also place more importance on maintenance.

Incoming search terms:

• mobility 2030
• 2030 fort worth

Project Summary

Eastside Village is located in downtown Plano, Texas immediately adjacent to the Dallas Area Rapid Transit’s Downtown Plano Station along the Red Line and the DART bus system.  Plano is a large suburban city located approximately 19 miles north of downtown Dallas.  It has experienced enormous growth over the past 50 years growing from 3,600 in 1960 to almost 260,000 today.  While experiencing such dramatic growth, like many rapidly expanding suburban towns, Plano’s downtown was left out.  This area is home to the city’s municipal offices and historic neighborhoods.  The traditional main street (15th street) has several boutique shops, eclectic restaurants and service retail.  Community attractions include Haggard Park, a Farmer’s Market, Plano Arts Centre, the Interurban Railway Station Museum and Eisenburg’s In-line Skate Rink which are all within walking distance to Eastside Village. 

Eastside Village was developed as a public / private partnership between the City of Plano, Amicus Partners, and DART.  It was built in 2000, three years prior to the DART Red Line expansion to the area.  Developer Robert Shaw of RTKL Associates, Inc. helped transform a largely vacant tract in the center of town to an attractive, red brick, mixed-use village directly fronting the DART station.  Eastside Village was built in two phases. 

Features of Eastside Village (Phase I):

• $17.7 million development
• High-Density, mixed-use, 3.6 acre development of 245,000 square feet 
• 234 apartments (65 units per acre) 
• 15,000 square feet of ground floor retail space
• 3 and 4-story buildings that wrap around three sides of a 5-story parking structure

Today with the addition of Eastside Village (Phase II) the project now features 500 residential units and 40,000 square feet of retail and commercial space.

Station Attributes:

• Station name: Downtown Plano
• At-grade double track side platforms
• Parking spaces: 0 (nearby public lots are available)
• Average daily ridership: 650
• Peak service frequency: 10 minutes

Area Demographics (1/2 mile radius):

• Population: 4,134
• Employment: 3,585
• Total Households: 1,582
• Median Household Income: $35,677 (2000 Census)

TOD Evaluation Criteria:

Walkability:  The project itself is very pedestrian friendly with tree-lined brick paved sidewalks, benches, decorative pole lights, appropriately scaled storefronts and tucked away parking.    

Connectivity:  The connection to the DART light rail station is exceptional, with the station literally at the front door.  The walk to the municipal buildings and Haggard Park is equally convenient.  However, trying to access the main street is somewhat problematic and there seems to be an excellent opportunity to extend a pedestrian pathway through the north buildings along 15th to Eastside Village.  This would connect the project to 15th in a much more direct manner.  As a side note to the City of Plano, it seems there is also an opportunity to slow down traffic along 15th and increase visibility.  Perhaps by creating raised pedestrian crosswalks to slow down traffic and change the head-in angled parking to parallel parking with  valet  areas, this may improve the ambiance and convenience for those visiting by car.  

Mixed-Use and Mixed-Housing:  Eastside Village now contains 500 residential units over 40,000 square feet of retail / commercial space with ample parking for visitors and residents on the compact site.  The retail space for the project lacks clear connectivity to15th street and appears to be struggling.  Most of the occupied spaces seem to be offices, perhaps part of the live/ work program the project offers.  However, if the block due south redevelops and opens towards Eastside Village creating a strong pedestrian connection it will greatly improve the likelihood for success of the retail space.

Quality Architecture and Urban Design:  Eastside Village was designed by RTKL and Womack + Hampton Architects and was the winner of the 2003 CLIDE Landmark Award for Excellence in Redevelopment.  The architecture is reminiscent of old downtown red brick architecture with appropriately scaled storefronts.  However it is lacking adequate retail signage such as blade signs, wall plaques, and internally illuminated wall signs needed for a vibrant retail presence.  Without a concerted effort to improve the retail presence at the property it is merely a place for people to live adjacent to a main street and mass transit.   

Community:  While community can be experienced at the many events that occur year-round at Haggard Park, community within the project was not experienced.  The “heart” of the project was not apparent but may be an intentional gesture to allow community to be experienced within the greater context of downtown.  It is understood that the Phase II courtyard and pool will offer opportunities for community within the development, however outdoor seating areas, dining, cafes, and the like which activate the sidewalks create a more comfortable setting in which to socialize and meet neighbors.   

Density:   The project boasts over 65 units per acre.  This is an extremely dense project with an efficient design to maximize the building footprint on the site.  

Sustainability:  While the fact that Eastside Village is a transit-oriented development makes it a more sustainable choice, it is not clear if the building systems were designed with above average energy or water efficiency in mind. 

Overall Betterment of Life for Residents: Being somewhat of a pioneering project, Eastside Village is a drastic leap in the right direction for TOD in the DFW Metroplex.  There is no doubt that residents feel part of historic downtown Plano and connected to the greater Dallas area via the DART Light Rail and Bus Transit systems.  Reduced auto expenses mean more disposable income, savings and investment dollars and mass transit in lieu of auto gridlock means less stress and more personal time, whether from reduce commute times or available time spent on the train for reading, working or relaxation.  Eastside Village is a Plano jewel that should be embraced and expanded upon.  The city should continue to integrate and, most of all, connect the rest of downtown to this project. 

Incoming search terms:

• downtown plano texas
• plano tx downtown
• Plano Texas
• downtown plano tx
• plano texas downtown
• plano downtown
• downtown plano
• eastside village plano
• plano tx
• eastside village

Project Summary

The first mixed-use project designed and built around a multimodal, rail-based transit station in Dallas, Mockingbird Station has achieved what many once thought was impossible: it has convinced middleclass, automobile-driving residents to use transit. The transit-oriented development (TOD)—which contains 178,000 square feet (16,536 m2) of retail, restaurant, and cinema space; 137,000 square feet (12,727 m2) of office space; 211 loft apartments; and parking for 1,580 cars—is immediately adjacent and connected to one of the largest stations on the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) rail line. The station also offers connections to bus, taxi, and shuttle service. Located four miles north of downtown Dallas, the ten-acre (4 ha) project makes use of very dense zoning; its approximately 500,000 square feet (46,450 m2) of rentable building area and 520,000 square feet (48,308 m2) of parking are unprecedented in density outside of Dallas’s central business district.

Mockingbird Station combines adaptive use with new construction. Two existing structures—including a historic Western Union telephone assembly building and an office building, which has been expanded—constituted the project’s base. The developer, UC Urban (now Hughes Development, LP), made the risky design decision to place the project’s “front door” at the rail station platform rather than along the freeway exposure—and to give the project the same name as the station. The result has been that customers and other visitors clearly see how they can get to and from the project by train, and many patrons regularly use DART.

The project’s many inventive, cutting-edge features made it difficult for the developer to obtain approvals, infrastructure improvements, financing, and retail tenants. The city was ill prepared to consider the project’s unusual traffic and access issues, given its adjacency to transit, while the transit authority was inexperienced in dealing with the needs of developers; construction was thus delayed by several months. Extraordinary efforts were required to obtain both short- and long-term equity and debt funding. The developer had to pay for all road improvements and for the full cost of connecting the project to the rail platform. The developer received no reimbursement from the public sector for assuming these costs, and the project benefited from no special tax districts or permit abatements. The developer was able to obtain—on behalf of the city and the transit agency—federal funding for off-site pedestrian access improvements to the area. Overall, relentless efforts were needed to “sell” the project to government officials, lenders, and prospective retail tenants alike.

Complete since July 2001, the first phase of Mockingbird Station has proven remarkably successful, particularly since TOD was an untried concept in Texas. Residential occupancies have consistently outpaced the market, with above-average rents for the area. The retail and office space are, respectively, approximately 88 and 92 percent occupied. Future phases are expected to include a hotel and additional retail or residential uses. Mockingbird Station has proved to city, county, and state officials that a properly conceived mixed-use TOD can succeed and flourish by serving the adjacent neighborhood while acting as a catalyst to increase transit use.

The Development Team

UC Urban
Hughes Development, LP

Designer(s)
RTKL Associates, Inc.
Selzer Associates, Inc.
Envirodesign

Site Statistics

Site Size 10 acres

Office Space 137,000 sf
Retail Space 178,000 sf
Residential Units 211
Hotel Rooms NA
Parking Spaces 1,580
Max Floors 4

Date Started: 2000
Date Completed: 2001

Project Web Site: www.mockingbirdstation.com

Incoming search terms:

• mockingbird station lofts
• mockingbird station dallas tx
• development around the mockingbird transit station
• transit oriented development retail
• mockingbird station site plan
• dart mockingbird station dallas tx
• transportation from dfw to mockingbird station
• price per square foot for loft in transit oriented development
• dallas rapid transit oriented development
• mockingbird Station development