Really well done! Many thanks for this. Perhaps the most overlooked and almost certainly the greatest health benefit of TOD and mode shifting to transit is from increased physical activity. It’s far greater than air quality improvements from vehicle electrification. See e.g. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11524-020-00510-1#Sec10 The fact that transit trips are almost always “active” - walking or cycling with a shared motorized segment in the middle is often buried in methods of health studies. But loads of evidence shows that transit riders get similar amounts of physical activity as those who report walking or cycling to work. The latter almost always live close enough to commute that way. The vast majority of people in any sizable metro do not and never will. The Dutch are the world champs of exploiting the transit-active mobility link, with massive bike parks at transit stations. Last I checked, I think something like 1/3 of bike trips in the Netherlands are to or from transit. Also, TOD can further increase local walks replacing drives by increasing the number of people and destinations like schools and shops within a walkable area.
This is convincing and impressive, rigorous work. Now I'm going to say the sort of thing I always say (sorry): do we only need to convince a small number of zoning officials of this? Or does a political case need to be made?
Definitely a political case at the state level, and to some extent at the citywide local level in the largest jurisdictions with rail. In NYC, for example, we're looking at citywide TOD actions
Not the main point of your article: but I was always frustrated by those blaming Uber for the decline in transit. At least here in Chicago: it was vast declines in security, hygiene, and timeliness that first led people to abandon the L. And then choose Uber over buying a car in some circumstances. Can't skip that middle step where transit decided they had to be a mobile homeless shelter for equity reasons.
If people were satisfied with transit: it wouldn't be a question. You don't see this in, say, Toronto
Very interesting analysis! We are building high density, low parking apartments near transit in Charlotte to drive up ridership, and walkability. Can't wait for Waymo to start operating.
It would be interesting to compare this analysis with case studies around rail expansions (Denver, Charlotte, Los Angeles, etc). It seems like, historically, rail drives up property values such that colder markets become hotter as density expands from the premium rail stations to the next adjacent tier.
This is great! I will be referencing this in any future transit writing
If you ever do a follow-up, one thing I'd love to see is "What 40 units per gross acre actually looks like" in photos; a post showing photos of different levels of density that can support different levels/types of transit frequency could be very helpful
People are afraid of their neighborhood turning into Midtown Manhattan (I personally am very pro-housing and transit and wouldn't want to live in Midtown Manhattan), so seeing photos of real, existing neighborhoods with trees and parks and shops and 3-4 story apartment buildings and duplexes/triplexes and frequent train/bus routes etc can show people the range of what is possible
If the goal is to boost and balance goals of transit ridership and housing production, then the right, as well as sensible, approach is to require a reasonable inclusionary units likely to be occupied by lower income, transit dependent people. With offsets and, as necessary given local market conditions, public subsidies.
Affluent residents with transportation options are not guaranteed to use the transit as much as those who lack a car or rarely hop an Uber. That is especially true where transit is less than frequent or reliable. Its even more likely to be true once self-driving cars are competing with transit.
This will help address the crux of the housing shortage and resulting rent burdens which is at low and moderate income levels. And the mix of incomes will further economic mobility for lower income residents while prevent TOD projects from becoming enclaves of affluence. the social costs of But it need not result in an unacceptable tradeoff for the goal of housing production. Reportedly, Los Angeles’ inclusionary Transit Oriented Communities program has been a success, boosting production of both affordable and market rate units. That result despite a design with a mix of offsets that leaned developers to the choice of the extremely low income tier (30%) for the inclusionary units, unusually low for an IZ program.
As long as the inclusionary units are publicly funded, that can work. Most unfunded IZ mandates have totally failed to produce meaningful amounts of housing, and they tend to raise market rents as well by serving as a tax on new housing. Better to fund IZ with a tax on all homes, rather than a mandatory tax levied only on new homes.
Really well done! Many thanks for this. Perhaps the most overlooked and almost certainly the greatest health benefit of TOD and mode shifting to transit is from increased physical activity. It’s far greater than air quality improvements from vehicle electrification. See e.g. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11524-020-00510-1#Sec10 The fact that transit trips are almost always “active” - walking or cycling with a shared motorized segment in the middle is often buried in methods of health studies. But loads of evidence shows that transit riders get similar amounts of physical activity as those who report walking or cycling to work. The latter almost always live close enough to commute that way. The vast majority of people in any sizable metro do not and never will. The Dutch are the world champs of exploiting the transit-active mobility link, with massive bike parks at transit stations. Last I checked, I think something like 1/3 of bike trips in the Netherlands are to or from transit. Also, TOD can further increase local walks replacing drives by increasing the number of people and destinations like schools and shops within a walkable area.
This is convincing and impressive, rigorous work. Now I'm going to say the sort of thing I always say (sorry): do we only need to convince a small number of zoning officials of this? Or does a political case need to be made?
Definitely a political case at the state level, and to some extent at the citywide local level in the largest jurisdictions with rail. In NYC, for example, we're looking at citywide TOD actions
Nice. I will be pleased if it can be pulled off with only a state-level or city-level democratic mandate.
Not the main point of your article: but I was always frustrated by those blaming Uber for the decline in transit. At least here in Chicago: it was vast declines in security, hygiene, and timeliness that first led people to abandon the L. And then choose Uber over buying a car in some circumstances. Can't skip that middle step where transit decided they had to be a mobile homeless shelter for equity reasons.
If people were satisfied with transit: it wouldn't be a question. You don't see this in, say, Toronto
Very interesting analysis! We are building high density, low parking apartments near transit in Charlotte to drive up ridership, and walkability. Can't wait for Waymo to start operating.
It would be interesting to compare this analysis with case studies around rail expansions (Denver, Charlotte, Los Angeles, etc). It seems like, historically, rail drives up property values such that colder markets become hotter as density expands from the premium rail stations to the next adjacent tier.
This is great! I will be referencing this in any future transit writing
If you ever do a follow-up, one thing I'd love to see is "What 40 units per gross acre actually looks like" in photos; a post showing photos of different levels of density that can support different levels/types of transit frequency could be very helpful
People are afraid of their neighborhood turning into Midtown Manhattan (I personally am very pro-housing and transit and wouldn't want to live in Midtown Manhattan), so seeing photos of real, existing neighborhoods with trees and parks and shops and 3-4 story apartment buildings and duplexes/triplexes and frequent train/bus routes etc can show people the range of what is possible
If the goal is to boost and balance goals of transit ridership and housing production, then the right, as well as sensible, approach is to require a reasonable inclusionary units likely to be occupied by lower income, transit dependent people. With offsets and, as necessary given local market conditions, public subsidies.
Affluent residents with transportation options are not guaranteed to use the transit as much as those who lack a car or rarely hop an Uber. That is especially true where transit is less than frequent or reliable. Its even more likely to be true once self-driving cars are competing with transit.
This will help address the crux of the housing shortage and resulting rent burdens which is at low and moderate income levels. And the mix of incomes will further economic mobility for lower income residents while prevent TOD projects from becoming enclaves of affluence. the social costs of But it need not result in an unacceptable tradeoff for the goal of housing production. Reportedly, Los Angeles’ inclusionary Transit Oriented Communities program has been a success, boosting production of both affordable and market rate units. That result despite a design with a mix of offsets that leaned developers to the choice of the extremely low income tier (30%) for the inclusionary units, unusually low for an IZ program.
As long as the inclusionary units are publicly funded, that can work. Most unfunded IZ mandates have totally failed to produce meaningful amounts of housing, and they tend to raise market rents as well by serving as a tax on new housing. Better to fund IZ with a tax on all homes, rather than a mandatory tax levied only on new homes.
Indeed:
Progress and Public Transit: Density by Design https://share.google/XPlaKgPhiMSxANHoO