84

INTRODUCTION

Much of what was stressed in the previous casestudies centers on the “destination” and the role thattransit can play in enhancing the communities wheretransit stops and stations are located. But thisapproach leaves out a fundamental goal of transit,which is to provide a convenient way for people toreach their destinations.

Many people in the United States have no optionbut to use a car to get from place to place. The designand planning of communities over the past decadesprecludes other options or makes them so inconve-nient that few people walk, ride a bike, or take publictransit. Even existing communities—older neighbor-hoods that had once been walkable and well-servedby public transit—have been negatively impacted byautomobiles so that, ironically enough, cars are nowrequired rather than optional.

Today, as participants in focus groups for thisstudy emphasized, people live complicated lives.With two working parents and the need to plan chil-dren’s activities, everyone seems to be going—as onefocus group participant put it—“from everywhere toeverywhere.” Those who cannot drive because of age,illness, or income are especially sensitive to the lack ofconvenience in their lives and their dependence onothers just to get around.

Overview of Community Strategiesand Role of Transit

Chapters 4 through 7 presented what communities,in general, are doing to improve livability before dis-cussing existing and potential transit roles. In the caseof concerns about access and convenience, transit isinseparable from overall community strategies.

While many people are tired of having to drive carsto do the simplest errand, of waiting in traffic jamsand of chauffeuring their kids from school to musiclessons, the automobile has clear advantages in termsof flexibility and comfort. In contrast, most transit sys-tems have been based on rigid routes and scheduling,especially rail systems. For reasons of economic prac-ticality, some destinations simply cannot be served orserviced as frequently as others.

However, new approaches are being tried to maketransit more flexible, comfortable, and convenient—not to replace the car, but to provide more viablealternatives that meet individual as well as commu-nity needs.

Land-use strategies (see also Chapter 2) to changethe design of communities so that they are more com-pact and, therefore, appropriate for a variety of trans-portation options have even been reported as a coverstory in Newsweek. As the article begins, “Most of usactually know what we want in a neighborhood—we

CHAPTER 8

Making Communities Accessible and Convenient

Americans are not irrationally car-crazed. We seem wedded to the automobile because policyafter government policy encourages us to be.

—Jessica Mathews in the Washington Post. [1]

Since the 1950’s, autocentric transportation policies at every level—federal, state, and local—have effectively destroyed transportation options for Americans. These policies have wiped outwalkable, older communities while preventing the creation of new ones.

—Richard Moe, President, National Trust for Historic Preservation. [2]

85

just don’t know how to get it, because developershave been building the wrong thing for 50 years.”[3] While somewhat overstated, it is true that thereis at least a debate going on today about land useand transportation that was less prominent a fewyears ago.

The goal of more progressive land-use strategies isto plan and design communities more compactly soresidents can walk, bike, or take a bus and not alwayshave to drive. There should be centers in a commu-nity where shops, schools, services, and other destina-tions are within walking distance of each other. Theproblem is that, at least for the present, very little newdevelopment provides such an alternative and estab-lished areas cannot be transformed overnight. As aresult, land-use strategies, as important as they are,represent a long-term approach.

Retrofitting traditional communities or re-establishing pedestrian and transit networks in com-munities that were built prior to auto-dominatedpolicies offers great potential for more immediateresults. Case studies of Pioneer Square in Portland;Davies Square in Somerville, Massachusetts; Woodbridge,New Jersey; the Los Angeles Neighborhood Initiative; andthe Green Line, Chicago are some of the key examplesof the impact of retrofitting to improve pedestrianand transit access.

Effective transit systems that simply offer conve-nient service at competitive prices also represent aneffective strategy. The Big Blue Bus in Santa Monica isone dramatic example of a bus system that providesconvenience and accessibility in a city that is part ofthe car-oriented culture of Los Angeles. Many of thecase studies presented here—such as Davis Square,

Somerville, MA; 16th Street Transitway, Denver; and GoBoulder, Colorado—are transit systems that offer con-venient service within neighborhoods, downtowns, orcommunities as a whole.

Another more specialized strategy has been thecreation of transit shuttles and connectors, shuttle busservices that connect residential neighborhoods withemployment centers. Some systems facilitate connec-tions with commuter rail and rapid transit stations.These transit shuttles and connectors are often spon-sored by developers and corporate employers, aloneor in partnership with transit agencies, and financingusually comes from a combination of rider fares,employer subsidies, grants and public subsidies.Other systems, like Chicago’s JobLink Corporation(see example in Chapter 6) takes inner city residentsto job-rich suburbs in subscription vans and buses.Still other programs provide employer-sponsoredshuttle buses from outlying regional bus and rail stations to office and industrial parks not served byregular transit. A variety of examples are provided inthis chapter.

Intermodal transit centers help improve the func-tioning of existing transit and improve linkagesbetween different modes of travel. Meridian,Mississippi is currently transforming its historic rail-road station for this specific role. Most of the casestudies presented in this report, however, have somesort of intermodal component to them: WellstonStation, St. Louis, combines local buses, shuttle vans,and light rail; Corpus Christi’s Staples Street Station isa bus transfer center that connects to a downtownrubber wheel trolley. LINC (Local Initiative for Neigh-borhood Circulation) in Seattle is in the process ofdeveloping neighborhood intermodal centers withconnections to regional buses and private taxis. TheWatts Shuttle feeds regional bus lines.

Neighborhood-based transportation services mayoffer the most potential to support the goals ofneighborhood convenience and accessibility. Casestudies include two very diverse communities—Watts, Los Angeles, and Aspen, Colorado—where newtransit services provide flexible service in smallerbuses to local destinations. These systems are viewedpositively by passengers because they offer moreoptions than larger buses. Just the same, muchremains to be learned about the long-term viability ofthese systems. Experimental demonstrations can behelpful in assessing their effectiveness, for example,the LINC Shuttle in Seattle was a 6-month pilot projectto test specific assumptions and evaluate publicresponse. In the future, such neighborhood trans-portation services can also create mini-centers of com-munity life, help generate new jobs and businesses,and improve access to a larger region.

Figure 8-1. The Tohono Tadai Center, Tucson, AZ, pro-vides a focal point for development near the Tucson Mall.(Credit: Steven Haines)

86

ENDNOTES

1. Quoted in Surface Transportation Policy Project Bulletin(June/July 1994) p.6.

2. Ibid., p.6–7.3. “Bye-Bye, Suburban Dream: 15 Ways to Fix the

Suburbs,” Newsweek (May 15, 1995).

EXAMPLES

Santa Monica, CA: The Big Blue BusConvenient and Accessible City BusService Builds Livability and TransitRidership

We want to make riding a bus an enjoyable experience, so that the passenger steps on a clean bus, meets a helpfuldriver, and rides to a destination he or she wants to reach.

—Bob Ayer, Assistant Director, Big Blue Bus

For 70 years, Santa Monica has taken an activeapproach to transit to assure that the city and itsnearby destinations are accessible and convenientfor residents. In 1923, the sparsely settled commu-nity offered an exclusive citywide bus franchise to aprivate bus operator that would establish bus routesspecified by the city. Within a few years, complica-tions arose and neither state-run railroad nor privatebus services were meeting the needs of SantaMonica’s residents. In an attempt to improve thesituation, the city bought buses and established itsown routes. Later, the local private company mergedwith the city’s Big Blue Bus (BBB). For almost 70years, the BBB has operated local main line bus ser-vice to Los Angeles County’s west side under localcontrol.

The BBB carries approximately 19 million passen-gers per year on 135 buses. With a fare of 50 cents (thenational average is 75 cents), the farebox recoveryratio is 46 percent compared to the U.S. transit systemaverage of 28 percent. More than half of the com-pany’s revenue (61 percent) comes from fares and therest (39 percent) from subsidy, which is precisely thereverse of the budget for Los Angeles County transit.Most important, the BBB received a rating of “favor-able” by 98 percent of its passengers. According toMr. Ayer, the favorable rating is a direct result ofefforts to keep the buses clean and ensure that they“look like something people want to ride,” ratherthan have people thinking “they don’t care.”

The BBB runs five lines to the University ofCalifornia, Los Angeles, and four lines to the beach,one line to downtown Los Angeles, and it operatesspecial monthly trips. The BBB takes input from the

community on a regular basis regarding its service;almost everyone in the city of Santa Monica liveswithin two blocks of a bus stop. As residential to com-mercial service has proved successful, the focus of theservice has evolved and is now geared toward linkingbusiness centers and providing point-to-point servicebetween the aerospace center, El Segundo, and SantaMonica. In fact, one experimental route provides“family seating” and videotaped entertainment foraerospace commuters.

The newest development for the BBB is a citywidestreet enhancement project along Main Street andPico Boulevard, which has marked a turning point forthe BBB. The city, the BBB, and local businesses arenow working together to enhance the community andtransit amenities.

Kids Kab: Reducing the Need for ParentChauffeuring

One of the community livability challenges formany parents is transporting children convenientlyand safely. Kids Kab is a privately operated transitservice for children, designed specifically to meet theneeds of busy working families. It offers individuallycustomized door-to-door transportation to and fromschool, after-school activities, doctor appointments,music lessons, and weekend social and sports events.

Figure 8-2. “For almost 20 years, Pico buses turnedaround in Ocean Park on a turntable. Celebrating its instal-lation in May 1934 are Finance Commissioner T.H. Plumer,Ocean Park amusement man Jesse Kramer and localbathing beauties.” (Credit: Santa Monica Library photocourtesy of the Big Blue Bus, as quoted in History of SantaMonica’s Big Blue Bus by Bob Ayer, City of Santa Monica,CA, 1992, pg. 19)

The service was created by Pamela Henderson, aworking mother of three children in Birmingham,Michigan. From its humble beginning in 1991, withthree vans and manual dispatching, the business hasexpanded into a far-reaching network of franchises in12 states that collectively carry 50,000 riders a month.The fast growth of Kids Kab—and numerous imita-tors—demonstrates that there is a market for cus-tomized transportation services focused on childrenand young teenagers.

The service is offered by subscription and on asingle-ride basis. In some communities, Kids Kabcarries students to and from classes at independentschools that do not have school bus transportation oftheir own. Peak demand occurs after school, withvans carrying children to sports activities, music anddance lessons, and dentist appointments. Weekendsare also periods of high demand for transportation tosports events, birthday parties, and dances.

Because safety and security are uppermost in par-ents’ minds, children are issued photo identificationcards that become their bus admission ticket.Children are not left unattended; they must be met atthe door by a parent or other pre-approved person.To allay parents’ fears of turning their children overto strangers, drivers are carefully screened with anemphasis on hiring parents, school bus drivers andretired neighbors living in the service area.

New Jersey Transit WHEELS Program:Experimenting with Flexible Service toServe Local Mobility Needs

When you ride our WHEELS you travel in comfort, andin the company of friends and neighbors. Without a worryabout weather, traffic, or wear and tear on your car, andthat means less wear and tear on you. So go ahead andlaugh, talk, sleep and relax, on NJ Transit WHEELS.It’s the way more and more people are getting around.

—From a NJ Transit promotional brochure

The New Jersey Transit WHEELS program is anexperimental program to test special transit servicesto serve local mobility needs not currently served by traditional buses. Funding from CMAQ has, since1993, made it possible every month for 138,000 peo-ple to travel to and from home, school, shopping,work, and commuter rail stations. The WHEELS pro-gram operates express service along a fixed routebetween residential areas and rail stations, office dis-tricts (corporate and industrial parks), and shoppingcenters statewide. Several routes pick up passengersat park-and-ride lots, bus terminals, hotels, and trainstations. Between two and four 20-passenger mini-buses service each route on weekdays.

The most successful of NJ Transit’s 19 WHEELSSuburban Transportation Services is the PrincetonJunction Rail Station-Lawrence route. The PrincetonJunction service is a flexible subscription service,which requires passengers to reserve their seats inadvance for a specific month, week, or day. The service operates every 30 min during weekday rushhours from 5 a.m. to 8 a.m. and from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30p.m. between the Princeton Junction Rail Station(along the Northeast Corridor Rail Line) in WestWindsor and residential neighborhoods in Lawrence(in Mercer County). Arrivals and departures arescheduled to coordinate with the trains. Fares rangefrom $1.40 one way to $49.00 for a monthly pass.

The shuttle service was introduced by NJ Transitas a way to solve the serious parking problem thatexists at the Princeton Junction rail station and toassist commuters traveling to destinations along the Northeast Corridor Rail Line. The service is operated by Mayflower Contract Services for NJTransit, which requires Mayflower to coordinatepassenger pickup requests closely with trainarrivals/departures.

Ridership has more than tripled—from 471 to1,968 in eight months—since the service began inAugust 1994. Brochures, Transit Days, free-ridecoupons, give-away items, and direct mail solicita-tion have been used to draw more riders to this service.

87

Figure 8-3. Brochure for Kids Kab, a privately operated trans-portation service for children, which provides transportation toand from after school activities. (Credit: Kids Kab)

88

CASE STUDIES

Case studies present three different communities:Aspen, Colorado, a wealthy resort community; Watts,a low-income neighborhood in Los Angeles; andMeridian, Mississippi, a small city. Each hasaddressed the goal of improved access and conve-nience in a different manner, but the community-initiated process has yielded transit programs in allthree communities that address the needs of residentsin a more effective manner:

Case Study 8-1: Aspen, CO: City Shuttles Community Develops Plan to Reduce Traffic Congestionand Increase Mobility

Case Study 8-2: Los Angeles, CA: The DASH Watts Shuttle Community-Scaled Transit Links NeighborhoodDestinations

Case Study 8-3: Meridian, MS: Union Station Train Station Becomes Community Transportation Hub

Aspen cannot build its way out of traffic problems anymorethan Los Angeles was able to solve its problems with everlarger and wider freeways. The community seeks to providea balanced, integrated transportation system for residents,visitors and commuters that reduces congestion andpollution.

—Aspen Area Community Plan, January 1993

SUMMARY

Aspen, Colorado, a charming, old mining townand world-famous ski resort, was plagued withtraffic congestion and a parking shortage untilrecently when a “pay-for-parking” program andincreased local transit services were introduced. This“carrot and stick” approach was the only way toconvince people to leave their cars at home, or atleast outside the business district, according to GaryGleason, the Marketing Director of the Roaring ForkTransit Agency (RFTA). While parking fees wereinstituted in early 1995 to discourage the use ofdowntown streets as free, long-term parking lots, aninexpensive demand-response van service and a freeshuttle from outlying park-and-ride facilities wereintroduced at the same time to provide alternativetransportation. Commuter service was alsoexpanded in terms of frequency and number ofexpress runs.The response has been overwhelminglypositive and there has been a substantial increase intransit ridership.

PLANNING PROCESS

Because tourism is Aspen’s economic engine, theRFTA and the local ski corporations have longprovided free bus service within the city andbetween the four ski areas as a service to visitors.Locals, commuters and tourists, however, stilltended to clog up the unmetered streets of Aspen,

Figure 8-4. NJ Transit WHEELS promotional brochure.(Credit: NJ Transit Corporation)

Case Study 8-1Aspen, CO: City Shuttles Community Develops Plan to Reduce TrafficCongestion and Increase Mobility

especially during the peak winter season. The full-time population of Aspen is only 6,000, but itexpands to as many as 30,000 during the wintermonths. In addition, 60 percent of the people whowork in Aspen live outside the city, primarilybecause of very high housing costs, and the full-timepopulation in the entire Roaring Fork River Valleyhas expanded to 30,000 in recent years. To serve thislarge commuter population, the RFTA provides busservice along Highway 82, the corridor through theRoaring Fork River Valley—the only means of enter-ing Aspen for most of the year. The parking fee program was intended to encourage even more ofthese commuters to take the bus. A new parking lotat the airport outside of town, serviced by anotherfree shuttle, was also built to encourage both com-muters and visitors to leave their cars outside ofAspen.

The pay-for-parking program, free shuttle buses,and other proposals for reducing congestion grewout of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP).Developing transportation alternatives was an im-portant theme of the AACP, a document intended to“revive the vitality that previously characterizedAspen,” while developing “a livable environment forthe community’s residents, employees, and visitors.”The AACP published in 1993, was the result of a 2-year, community-based process, led by citizen taskforces and professional consultants. Along withaction plans to revitalize the permanent residentcommunity by providing more affordable housing,promote sustainable development and maintaindesign quality, Aspen residents expressed the need,in the AACP’s “Transportation Action Plan,” to pro-vide transportation alternatives in order to reducetheir dependency on automobiles. The increase incommuter traffic caused by the displacement of theworkforce was described in the AACP as “degradingboth the air quality and the quality of life for bothresidents and visitors.” Aspen residents realized that“Aspen cannot build its way out of traffic problemsanymore than Los Angeles was able to solve its prob-lems with ever larger and wider freeways.”

The Transportation Action Plan proposed detailedsolutions that would do the following:

• Limit vehicle trips into Aspen,• Provide efficient valley-wide mass transit,• Alter land-use patterns,• Move people within and around the city without

automobiles,• Create a less congested downtown,• Enhance pedestrian mobility,• Improve bikeways, and

• Provide practical car storage facilities on the out-skirts of town.

The developers of the Transportation Action Planrecognized that locals and visitors alike would onlytake advantage of the parking facilities outside oftown if mobility within town, through frequent,accessible shuttle services, was enhanced. Likewise,the transit service would only be used if drivers werediscouraged from bringing their cars into town. Thus,each component of the Transportation Action Planwas dependent on the implementation of the othercomponents. Most of the steps outlined in theTransportation Action Plan were phased in between1992 and 1995.

89

Figures 8-5 and 8-6. Case Study 8-1. Downtown Aspen,CO (Figure 8-5) and the Rubby Park Transit Center (Figure 8-6). To overcome its traffic congestion and parkingshortage, the city of Aspen instituted a free shuttle servicethat ferries visitors and area employees from outlying park-and-ride facilities and bus stations into the downtown.Similar shuttles offer service from residentialneighborhoods. (Credit: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

A controversial plan by the Colorado Departmentof Transportation to bring a four-lane highway intoAspen was recently rejected by the community. Thecity of Aspen proposes to build, instead, a new two-lane parkway from the airport, with a light rail sys-tem running down the median, to replace the over-crowded two-lane highway. The new road, called“Alternative H,” would retain the historic characterof the “entrance to Aspen,” preserve open space,reduce the number of cars coming into town andforce vehicles to slow down as they enter.“Alternative H” would provide a more bicycle andpedestrian-friendly approach to entering the town,and it would have fewer hidden costs, such as theadditional parking garages needed for a four-lanehighway.

STRATEGY

The RFTA has expanded the range of choiceswithin the three types of transit service that it pro-vides in the Aspen area as follows.

City Buses. The service hours of the free circulatingbus system that has been operating for many yearswithin the city were increased; it now runs from 6:30 a.m. to 2:30 a.m., on four year-round routes andtwo additional seasonal routes, at 20- to 30-minintervals. New services recently added to supple-ment the bus system include: a “dial-a-ride” van ser-vice, seating 15, that circulates on a 15-min fixedroute— the service is free, but if the van picks uppassengers at their doors, the charge is $0.50; theGalena Street Shuttle, a free, seasonal downtowntrolley that runs north-south from the municipalparking structure through town to the AspenMountain gondola; and the Airport Park-and-RideShuttle, a free, seasonal service from a 350-car park-ing lot into the center of town, designed primarilyfor commuters.

Seasonal Bus Service. The local ski company paysfor ski-area shuttles that operate in winter. In thesummer, RFTA buses climb the winding road (nocars allowed) to the foot of the Maroon Bells, a spec-tacular group of high mountain peaks, for a fee of$5.00.

The Commuter Corridor to Glenwood Springs. TheRFTA provides 1.5 million passenger trips a year, pri-marily for commuters, on buses that run along theRoaring Fork River Valley. With the introduction ofpaid parking in Aspen, the level of commuter transit

service was doubled to encourage people to ridebuses by making them even more convenient.

The parking fee introduced in the downtown busi-ness district to encourage people to use the manytransit choices was only $1.00 per hour. But to make itequitable, and to counter the charge that only the richcould park in Aspen, parking was limited to 2 hours.Rather than individual meters, which were deemed tobe unsightly, “pay and display” meters, which dis-pense tickets to place in the windshield, wereattached to the historic-style lampposts at mid-blocklocations. Aspen also introduced the innovative ideaof “in-car” meters which can be purchased from thecity and credited with up to $500 of parking time, alsoin 2-hour increments.

FUNDING

The RFTA is funded by a 1 cent sales tax that wasraised recently to 11⁄2 cents to help fund the light railsystem. While the ski-area shuttles are paid for by theski company, the other free shuttles are paid for out ofthe regular operating budget of the RFTA. The costper ride is about $2.00, relatively low by industrystandards. The free service is perceived by the RFTAand the community as being critical to the success ofAspen as a comfortable and convenient resort desti-nation, as well as a means of encouraging residents toleave their cars at home. Parking revenues, collectedby the city of Aspen, go primarily toward the enforce-ment of parking restrictions, as well as to help pay forthe free park-and-ride shuttle service from the airportinto town.

OVERCOMING OBSTACLES

The RFTA and the city of Aspen have faced theirshare of obstacles; changing long-established behav-ior patterns, particularly within a privileged popula-tion, has not been easy. In addition, maintaining thecharacter of a small town while coming up with big-city transportation solutions has, at times, createdproblems of scale.

The opposition to the parking fee proposal wasfierce: a “honk-in” was staged a month before the pro-gram was to take effect to protest the end to free park-ing. Thousands of cars, with horns blaring, circled CityHall on New Year’s Day for 25 min. Mayor JohnBennett stood outside City Hall with a sound levelmeter, greeting the protesters, and handing out prizesto the loudest horns. Nevertheless, the program wentahead and within 2 weeks of its inception even itsstaunchest opponents were calling it a resounding suc-

90

cess: the congestion was noticeably diminished andthe city was perceived to be more livable.

IMPACT AND ASSESSMENT

The parking fees have been remarkably successfulas a disincentive, motivating people to take the bus.Commuter ridership in the valley is up 35 percentfrom last year to this year and ridership in the city isup 23 percent. Parking occupancy has dropped from95 percent to 85 percent which has reduced vehiclemiles traveled and parking “trolling.” Average dailytraffic into Aspen has declined by 3 to 4 percent sincepaid parking was initiated.

CONCLUSIONS

Although Aspen, a wealthy resort town with hugeseasonal fluctuations in ridership, may have little incommon with most urban communities, its problemsof traffic congestion, degraded air quality, and ardu-ous commutes are familiar livability concerns. TheAspen community’s innovative solutions, introducedthrough a long citizen-participation process, can serveas models to other communities across the country.By carefully adapting urban-scale transit solutions tothe needs of a small town, the RFTA and the Aspencommunity are succeeding at preserving the qualityof life in the Aspen area while enhancing mobility.Transportation strategies, including improved transitand restraints on auto use, have made the area farmore livable.

SOURCE

Aspen Area Community Plan (January 1993).

I love being the director of a transportation program thatprovides such a wonderful service to a community I’velived in my entire life. The people who use the Watts shut-tle need it desperately and really depend on its services.

—Teddy Watkins, Watts Labor Community Action Committee

SUMMARY

The Los Angeles Department of Transportation(LADOT) began operating the local shuttle service inLos Angeles’ Watts neighborhood in September 1990as a transportation demonstration project, in responseto the community’s request for improved local transitservice. The initial program was so popular that ser-vice was expanded and a second route was consid-ered and added this year. DASH shuttles also operatewithin downtown Los Angeles, Pacific Palisades,Fairfax, Hollywood, Midtown, Crenshaw, Van Nuys,Warner Center, and southeast Los Angeles, for a totalof 17 communities throughout the city. Most shuttlesoperate 6 days per week with 20- to 45-min head-ways. For 25 cents, residents are connected by DASHshuttles to the key retail, recreational, and socialservice centers in their neighborhoods.

PLANNING PROCESS

Watts is an economically disadvantaged neighbor-hood in Los Angeles, an area that never fully recov-ered from the Watts riots in 1965. Since that time,there has been a great deal of investment in the area,especially in the form of community services, retail,and educational and health facilities. While the hos-pital, shopping center, and park had done much toimprove the livability of the neighborhood for resi-dents, many people were unable to reach thesedestinations. They were scattered throughout thecommunity and had limited public-access services.Residents approached their local councilwomanrequesting a solution to the problem—a fixed-routeshuttle bus service that would circulate throughoutthe neighborhood and connect residents to vitalcommunity centers.

The Mayor and City Council responded to the com-munity’s concerns by establishing a 1-year transporta-tion demonstration project to initiate shuttle service in the greater Watts community. The project wasfunded through Proposition Local Transit Assistancemoneys. In September 1990, two buses (with onebackup) began to travel a bi-directional route every 45 min.

Many groups joined together to plan and imple-ment the DASH shuttle service in Watts. Theyincluded the offices of the Mayor and two council-members and their Transportation Policy ReviewCommittee; representatives from LADOT and the LosAngeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority(LACMTA); local senior centers and civic associationsthat actively solicited both the City Council and theLADOT for neighborhood transit service; and the

91

Case Study 8-2Los Angeles, CA: The DASH Watts ShuttleCommunity-Scaled Transit Links Neighborhood Destinations

Watts Labor Community Action Committee(WLCAC), a nonprofit organization, which won thecompetitive contract to operate the service forLADOT.

STRATEGY

The Watts DASH Shuttle was approved by theMayor and City Council in 1989. LADOT staffworked with the WLCAC to identify the community’sactivity centers, and WLCAC helped the communitydevelop and propose the route it wanted to the CityCouncil. The route connects residents to the neighbor-hood’s most important destinations, including WillRogers Memorial Park, City Hall, the Post Office, theHealth Foundation, a hospital, a job and vocationalpreparation center, a social services facility, and twoplazas within the neighborhood’s retail and commer-cial corridor. It also connects to the 103rd Street andImperial Metro Blue Line Stations, a light rail operat-ing between downtown Los Angeles and the city ofLong Beach. The shuttle and municipal/city busesshare the same bus stops, which usually only consistof a bench and sign.

Now, with five shuttles (four in service and onespare), the service operates on 20-min headways from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays, and from 9 a.m. to6 p.m. on Saturdays. The fare is 25 cents, but seniorsand persons with disabilities ride free with an MTApass. Half of LADOT’s DASH buses now run on com-pressed natural gas or propane, which produce lesspollution than regular gas or diesel-powered buses.However, the current buses used in Watts are diesel-powered.

DASH is only one component of the regional MetroSystem. In addition to DASH, there is CommuterExpress bus service between downtown Los Angelesand residential neighborhoods, the battery-operatedSan Pedro Electric Trolley, and Cityride, a dial-a-ridevan and taxi service that serves seniors and personswith disabilities.

FUNDING

The DASH Watts demonstration project was ini-tially funded through City Proposition A funds,which the City Council appropriated for the Wattsprogram. Now the city is using a combination ofProposition A and C funds.

The monthly operating costs of the DASH Wattsaverage $34,000, which is paid to the WLCAC, thecity’s contract operator. Total fare revenue, at 25 centsper ride, averages $10,000 per month for DASH

Watts, which has the highest farebox ratio of all thetransit services operated by LADOT.

OVERCOMING OBSTACLES

Problems and difficulties facing DASH Watts havebeen vandalism of its buses (rock throwing, in partic-ular) and gang-related problems. The WLCAC hasmounted a 31⁄2-year-long community outreach effortwith area schools, block associations, the local police,and the parents of students, to enlist their cooperationin changing the behavior of the offending gangs.Using funds from the city and Proposition C, a LosAngeles Police Department (LAPD) sergeant has beenassigned to address the security issues on communityDASH buses and often rides the route with passen-gers. In recent months, the problems have stoppedand no incidents have occurred on board the DASHbuses. As part of this security effort, and in coopera-tion with the LAPD, the WLCAC has instituted strictrules governing on-board behavior, and violation ofthese rules results in a perpetrator’s prompt removalfrom the bus.

IMPACT AND ASSESSMENT

In its second year of operation, the DASH Wattsfleet for Watts expanded from two to four vehiclesand carried 40 passengers per revenue hour, twiceLACMTA’s ridership standard. Two years later, in1994, ridership had increased to 48 passengers perhour. LADOT began planning a second route to servethe northern and western sections of the Watts com-munity; DASH Watts North was implemented thisyear. Today, 50,000 passengers ride the DASH Wattsshuttle each month giving it the highest ridership perhour and the lowest subsidy per passenger of all ofLADOT’s services.

CONCLUSIONS

The DASH Watts is vital to the livability of thistransit-dependent community. The shuttle connectspeople to the many social, medical, educational, andcommunity services that have been systematicallydeveloped for the benefit of Watts’ residents. In fact,introducing new social services into a communitywithout providing patrons with the means to accessthem makes the programs much less effective than ifa transit component were incorporated as part of theproject from the start. According to Teddy Watkins,Director of WLCAC, of the 100 DASH buses thatserve 20 routes systemwide, DASH Watts is the most

92

93Figure 8-7. Case Study 8-2. DASH Watts Brochure and service route showing how the routes serve many local destinations,including the post office, library, city hall, and social services. (Credit: Los Angeles Department of Transportation)

successful primarily because it connects transit-depen-dent people with the destinations they want to reach.

SUMMARY

Often referred to as a “child of the railroad,”Meridian was settled in 1859 along the Mississippi-Alabama border, at the junction of the Vicksburg andAlabama lines, and developed to accommodateemployees of the rail lines.

Although Meridian now serves the transportationneeds of nine surrounding counties, there are no tran-sit centers where passengers can catch the bus ortransfer from the train. The Union Station Multi-Modal Transfer Center is being planned to providethe predominantly low-income population with safe,reliable, and convenient access to buses and trainsand to link all major forms of transportation. Withnearly 30 percent of Meridian residents living belowthe poverty line and a median household income of$18,000 per year, efficient and accessible public transitis truly a necessity.

PLANNING PROCESS

The original Union Station was constructed jointlyby the Mobile & Ohio, the Southern, the Alabama &Vicksburg, the New Orleans, and the Northeasternrail lines. The station opened in August of 1906 andhad heavy rail traffic for the better part of the century,supporting 44 trains per day. Much of the originalstructure, including the central tower, was demol-ished by 1966, and all that remained was the easternwing of the passenger depot, which currently servesas a ticket area, office space, and waiting room with aseating capacity of 50. Since 1966, Meridian has nothad an adequate train station. Transit service isextremely fragmented, and people must travel all overtown to catch and transfer between trains, buses, andtaxis, creating disjointed and difficult transit access.

Many cite John Robert Smith, the mayor ofMeridian, as providing impetus for the project. JohnSmith developed a strong interest in building a cen-tral multimodal transportation center (MMTC) inMeridian in December 1990 when—while building amodel train set for his son—he researched the role ofrail in the development of the west. Since then, Mayor

Smith has expended considerable time and effort ingenerating interest in and educating the businesscommunity, municipal government, and citizensabout the need and benefits of a multimodal facilityfor Meridian, and its potential to serve as a tool foreconomic revival. The goals of the MMTC are notonly to centralize transportation services, but also tostimulate tourism by promoting the historic preserva-tion of this important railroad town and to act as acatalyst for downtown revitalization efforts.

The project began with feasibility studies in 1991,funded by the Meridian City Council. The city thencommissioned a team of architects and engineers todevelop a design. They held a series of town meetingsand discussion groups with community committees,key design professionals, citizens and railroad “buffs”to obtain community input and discuss conceptualdesigns. Based on this community input, the designteam developed conceptual drawings that outlinedthe major components of the MMTC. Implementationis expected in 1996.

STRATEGY

The Multi-Modal Transfer Center will occupy fourcity blocks. Six acres of this space has been donated bythe Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company andincludes the existing historic station structure. Thedesign of the Union Station Multi-Modal TransferCenter will resemble the original railroad depot thatoccupied the space in the 1900s. Construction is set tobegin in June of 1996 and should last approximately 18 months.

Center facilities will include the Union StationRailroad Museum, a landscaped area with memorialbrick pavers, a new terminal building attached to thesurviving portion of the depot, and areas for futureuse. A site for a farmers’ market and a landscapedpark area with a covered stage for festivals and othercity events are proposed.

The major transportation agencies that will haveoffices at the MMTC include the Meridian TransitSystem, Amtrak, Norfolk Southern Rail, Greyhoundand Trailways buses, and local taxis. The MeridianLauderdale County Partnership, an economic devel-opment agency that promotes tourism, economic andindustrial development, and employment, also plansto relocate its offices to the MMTC and to assumeresponsibility for managing the facility. Auxiliary ser-vices and retail uses planned for the MMTC includethe following:

• Conference rooms and convention activities;• A hospitality center with special-event ticket

sales;

94

Case Study 8-3Meridian, MS: Union Station Train Station Becomes CommunityTransportation Hub

95

Figure 8-8. Case Study: 8-3. This Union Station Patrons Club Membership form invites local residents to purchase a brick orhave their name inscribed on a plaque at this multimodal center being constructed at a historic train station. (Credit: City ofMeridian, Mississippi)

96

• Restaurants and a food court, lounge, and giftshop;

• A trolley link to CBD-area locations;• Historic train excursions;• An airport and Naval Air Station shuttle service;• Travel agencies and airline ticketing;• A tour bus operation;• A package express; and• A welcome center.

FUNDING

The city of Meridian has received $2.56 million inFederal Transportation Enhancement Funds for thepreservation of historic transportation structures toinitiate the project. A $30,000 FTA Sec. 8 PlanningGrant supported the intermodal terminal feasibilitystudy. Another $1.3 million was generated by aCertificate of Participation and state bonds that cov-ered the local match for design and engineering work.

In addition to public meetings, citizen involvementwas encouraged by the Union Station Patrons’ Club.Because of the strong railroad heritage, project devel-opers created the Patrons’ Club to encourage peopleto take ownership of the project. Engraved brickpavers identifying donors as “patrons” are being soldto raise money for the purchase of planters, benches,and other amenities not funded by the federal dollars,as well as to pave the walkways. To date, over 1,000bricks have been sold. Another fundraising programin place is the “sale” to corporate sponsors of the2,500 replicas of turn-of-the-century, Union Metallampposts to be installed at the MMTC. Funds fromthe lampposts will also go toward opening the rail-road museum at the station.

Robert West, an artist from Atlanta, has been com-missioned to paint an original work depicting the sta-tion as it was at the turn of the century. Proceeds fromthis limited edition print are being collected by theRailroad Historical Society and will also help to fundthe construction of the railroad museum.

OVERCOMING OBSTACLES

Amtrak reported that for the period between Juneand December 1994, Meridian’s Union Station had

more than 9,000 boardings. However, Amtrak hassince reduced service from 7 to 4 days per week, andpassenger figures have dropped substantially fromapproximately 1,800 people per month to about 900.Similar figures are expected with the construction ofthe MMTC.

While some opposition surfaced among commu-nity members regarding the necessity of such a trans-fer center, the majority of citizens supported theeffort; support was reinforced by communityinvolvement.

Because this project was the first ISTEA project forthe state of Mississippi, completing the requisitepaperwork has proven to be a major obstacle. Theguidelines are new and unfamiliar to the state high-way department, the agency administering the fund-ing, which had little experience in implementinghistoric preservation projects.

IMPACT AND ASSESSMENT

Generating enthusiasm for a transportation projectinvolving rail was not difficult in this railroad cityand the success of the project thus far is attributable tothe participation of all those concerned throughoutthe process. The citizens of Meridian have becomemore aware of the benefits and importance of multi-modal facilities. Expectations of spin-off economicdevelopment and improved downtown developmentare high.

CONCLUSIONS

The success of the transfer center thus far has beendue to the early and continued involvement of gov-ernment leaders, property owners, the business com-munity, concerned citizens, and users. Sustaininginvolvement and developing a sense of public own-ership are of utmost importance in order for the proj-ect to be a success. Amtrak and the city of Meridianare hopeful that the project will reestablish the roleplayed by rail in America’s communities and pro-vide the people of Meridian with a transportationcenter that will greatly enhance their mobility andlivability.

INTRODUCTION

The issue of guiding growth is very often consid-ered the most important livability concern. Growthcan create opportunity, but it also can cause peopleconcern about the sustained livability of their commu-nities. Mismanaged growth erodes places for commu-nity life and pulls the economic and social rug outfrom under older downtowns and neighborhoods.Some critics argue that sprawl is a no-win situation:trapping low-income and minority families in inner-cities while creating a not-so-good-life in the traffic-ridden suburbs. Cities like Phoenix have doubled insize between 1970 and 1990 and even environmen-tally conscious Denver has increased 77 percent since1973, encompassing more than 550 sq mi. For this rea-son, the research team has included the issue of guid-ing growth as a separate chapter.

Overview of Community Strategies

In a recent front page article in the Wall StreetJournal, Portland, Oregon, was praised for its regionalapproach to land use (“Portland Shows Nation’s CityPlanners How to Guide Growth,” December 26, 1995).

In the 1970s, Portland implemented an ambitious pro-gram that combined the establishment of an urbangrowth boundary with strategies to focus gowth indowntown and encourage transit use (see Case Study4-1). This initiative is considered integral to the eco-nomic success of the Portland region, its vital transitsystem, and high quality of life.

Communities that have chosen to take part in shap-ing their own growth have used a variety of strategiesto do so. Portland’s are typical: encouraging higherdensities; growing upward rather than outward; con-taining growth by prohibiting or limiting develop-ment outside of established boundaries; and develop-ing pedestrian-oriented residential and commercialneighborhoods.

While they are still the exception rather than therule, many communities have instituted detailedplans to direct and control growth. These plans—which are usually enforced through zoning ordi-nances—direct growth and establish specific landuses in designated areas. Emphasis is placed ondeveloping mixes of uses, rather than exclusionarysingle-purpose uses that generate more automobiletrips. This kind of planning can only be implementedwith foresight and is often difficult to initiate. Manycities have tried to adopt such plans, but have been

CHAPTER 9

Shaping Community Growth

[We are] at a crossroads. We can either take control of our growth and channel it in ways thatwill enhance our communities, or we can sit and watch unmanaged growth destroy the thingswe value [most about them.]

—Seattle 2014 Plan

All we have to do is look at Los Angeles to see how many people want to leave it because it’s asprawling, violent, congested, smoggy, unlivable city. So what are we [Coloradans] doing? Nota damn thing different than they did in LA.

—Dick Lamm, former Governor of Colorado about Colorado’s failure to pass growth management legislation. [1]

97

derailed by various interest groups and communitypressures.

Increasingly more common are situations wherecommunities prepare specific plans for large tracts ofland, such as redevelopment parcels, within existingcommunity boundaries. These plans are less threaten-ing to communities when they are prepared withextensive community input. In addition, these plansactually help to encourage development because proj-ects that comply with guidelines and regulations canproceed without delays, and developers are assuredthat neighboring projects will reinforce, not detract,from their own projects. By virtue of their specific reg-ulations, these plans also offer opportunities to shapedensities within areas and help make an area morepedestrian and transit friendly.

There is, today, strong interest in developing newmodels of suburbs that feature “neotraditional”communities—sometimes called “transit-orientedcommunities”—which re-create neighborhooddevelopment patterns more typical of the early part of this century. These design improvements ofteninclude grids of through streets, rather than curvingcul de sacs; smaller lots with garages off rear alleys;sidewalks and front porches. Because only a few ofthese communities have been constructed, and theseare located in exurban areas, their impact has probablybeen more on reshaping the orientation of planningand design professions than on shaping real growth.

Role of Transit

A major goal of guiding growth is to encourage theuse of public transit. As Portland illustrates, theinvestment in transit helps achieve the goal of reduc-ing sprawl and encouraging the development ofmixed-use centers. Transit can play a leading role,however, simply by initiating community discussionsabout growth and livability. A number of differenttransit strategies can be pursued.

Transit-oriented development (TOD) (also called“pedestrian pockets” or “transit villages”) is the termcommonly used to express new development con-structed around transit facilities. These facilities act as focal points for a community and are generallyaccompanied by higher densities of land use, with anemphasis on walking. The car becomes an optionrather than a necessity. Most of the discussion aboutTODs has been in the western and southern cities andin suburban areas; eastern cities, which grew up in the1940s, evolved a kind of natural TOD. Davis Square inSomerville, Massachusetts, did not have a subway stopuntil a decade ago, but it was originally developed as

a tight, urban neighborhood and the station had animmediate impact on the area. The Green Line Initiativein Chicago and Wellston Station in St. Louis areexamples of reintroducing TOD in an area where itexisted historically, but was essentially obliterated bymassive urban deterioration and urban renewal.Fruitvale in Oakland, California, is also applying theseprinciples to an older area, focusing on a parking lotadjacent to a rapid transit station built in the 1970s.

Transit service reorganization is another methodused to support growth concerns, often as part of amore comprehensive strategy. GO Boulder in Coloradois a program that includes special passes for busesand shuttles, as well as a variety of transportationmanagement programs—all intended to reduce theuse of the automobile and support community envi-ronmental goals. In Seattle, LINC is part of a broadcommunity effort to create “urban villages” as part ofa new regional strategy to direct growth; Aspen’sShuttle is also part of a broader development strategyfor the community. Corpus Christi’s transit programinvolves creation of bus transfer centers downtownand in neighborhoods to create strong centers ofactivity. Tucson has a similar program, for which theTohono Tadai Transit Center near Tucson Mall is animportant component.

Finally, new rail systems, have been used toencourage growth. In once car-oriented cities likeWashington, DC; San Francisco, CA; Portland, OR;and San Diego, CA; light and heavy rail systems havebegun to have a major impact on the shape andgrowth of the community. One example—Arlington,Virginia, a suburb of Washington, DC—is presentedhere. Unfortunately, such systems can be controver-sial. In Seattle, the light rail system was turned downby voters, in part because it would not serve many

98

Figure 9-1. Sprawling development in San Bernardino, CA.(Credit: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.).

communities: LINC is the alternative approach nowbeing pursued.

ENDNOTE

1. Wall Street Journal (December 26, 1995) p.1.

EXAMPLE

Arlington County’s Rosslyn-BallstonMetrorail Corridor Using Transit to Shape Growth and CreateCommunity

Arlington had the vision to understand the enviable posi-tion it occupied in the Washington metropolitan region andthen acted decisively to secure that position for future gen-erations. The county took full advantage of the significanttransit investment and planned for growth before it hap-pened and then, when the rail system was completed andthe market came of age, it was able to steer growth in thedirection of the plan.

—Robert Buchanan, Ballston Developer

Arlington County, in Northern Virginia, is adensely developed inner-ring suburb in the Wash-ington, DC, area. Occupying about 26 sq mi andlocated across the Potomac River from Washington,the county was largely built in the early part of the1900s as a bedroom community for federal workers indowntown Washington. Since World War II, thecounty experienced almost 30 years of steady officegrowth, fueled first by the growth of federal agenciesand more recently by the arrival of private firmsdoing business, directly or indirectly, with thegovernment.

That success was blurred, however, by what cameto be perceived as the darker side of growth. This isexemplified by the county’s experience with Rosslyn,the focus of the first spurt of post-war redevelop-ment, whose transformation from a tawdry ware-house district into a high-density urban office centerbecame the subject of much criticism. The absence ofnew residential construction discouraged retail andrestaurant development, causing the area to becomean “urban desert” at night. Also, a lack of openspaces and street-level stores, combined with theuncoordinated development of pedestrian and vehic-ular circulation systems, added to Rosslyn’s ratherunappealing image. Finally, speculation that neigh-borhoods surrounding Rosslyn would themselvesbecome targets for high-density development led to their deterioration.

Toward the end of the 1960s, Rosslyn became asymbol of what Arlington residents did not want to

see happen in the rest of the county. These attitudeswere fostered by the emergence of a broaderphenomenon—public questioning in ArlingtonCounty and elsewhere of the deleterious effects ofnew growth on the environment, the quality of life,and the viability of established neighborhoods. By theearly seventies, it could be no longer assumed thatcounty residents agreed—as they generally had in the1950s and 1960s—that growth was a desirable end initself. In this climate of opinion, it was clear thatfurther redevelopment of the Rosslyn-Ballstoncorridor, especially of the areas around Metrorailtransit stations, would require a new approach.

Well before Metro construction began, the county,anticipating both positive and negative economicand environmental impacts, began a process of sec-tor planning for station areas to take maximumadvantage of opportunities that the system offeredand to mitigate its undesirable effects. In general, the sector planning process involved a clear commit-ment to (1) accommodate growth stimulated by thetransit stations and a corresponding commitment tocontain development within designated transitimpact zones, (2) avoid undesirable spillover effectsbeyond these zones, and (3) preclude the kinds ofurban design shortcomings evident in Rosslyn’sredevelopment. Sector plans would encouragemixed-use development, focus on good architectureand urban design, reinforce the unique character ofeach station area, and clearly demarcate the high-density transit zones from surrounding low-densityresidential areas. Each of the five stations was toserve a unique function and have a well-definedidentity: Rosslyn as a major business and employ-ment center; Court House as a government andadministrative center; Clarendon as an urban village;Virginia Square as the focus for cultural, recrea-tional, and educational activities; and Ballston as anew downtown in central Arlington.

The planning effort for the five stations in the cor-ridor involved extensive public participation. It produced detailed sector plans for each affected station area, governed by the following common principles:

• Highest densities would be concentrated withinwalking distance of Metro stations, with buildingheights, densities and uses “tapered down” toexisting single-family residential neighborhoods.Within the Metro core areas, a mixture of office,hotel, retail, and high-rise residential develop-ment would be encouraged. Residential develop-ment would be a particularly high priority in allstation areas. This mixed-use approach, coupledwith common design criteria aimed at ensuring a

99

quality pedestrian environment, would ensurean active, vibrant core area.

• Existing single-family residences and most resi-dential communities would be preserved.Neighborhood conservation plans calling for theestablishment of buffer zones of relatively low-density development would be implemented.

• Commercial revitalization would come aboutprimarily as a function of redevelopment of thecore area and associated increases in residentialland-use density.

• Each station would feature integral pedestriancirculation systems connecting residential areas,commercial facilities, and Metro entrances, and astreetscape program focused on pedestrianamenities and landscaping.

• Adequate open space in the station areas in gen-eral, and the core areas in particular, would beobtained through a combination of county acqui-sitions and the site plan approval process.

As a result of these policies, the overwhelmingstate of the county’s commercial and residentialdevelopment between 1970 and 1994 has taken placein these corridors within 1/2 mi of a Metrorail sta-tion. This development includes 14,700 residentialunits, 21 million sq ft of office space, more than 6,000new hotel rooms, and 2.2 million sq ft of service anddestination retail. These designated transit hubs haveabsorbed 94 percent of the county’s new office devel-opment and more than 90 percent of its hotel andretail development. This concentration of intensemixed-use development has yielded a much higheruse of transit in this corridor than in other inner-suburb locations in the greater Washington region. As a result of the development pattern, several Metro-rail stations in this corridor have the highest daily boarding of any stations outside the district central-office core. In 1995, 77,400 daily boardings wererecorded at corridor stations (more than 150,000 tripsper day).

Nearly 19 percent of Arlington residents use pub-lic transportation on a daily basis and 42 percent relyon transit at least once a week. In addition, Ballston is a particularly attractive place to live for peoplewith disabilities as they can easily access all of theshops in the area, live in an accessible area, and usepublic transit.

Today, the challenge for Arlington County is toupgrade the pedestrian environments in these high-density development zones, to provide better connec-tivity to the transit stations and to adjacentneighborhoods, and to plan for still greater variety inthe land-use mix of corridor centers. These improve-ments will capitalize on the area’s high densities tomake it even more livable.

CASE STUDIES

Case studies show how three different communitiesin the west and south are incorporating transit as akey ingredient in a community growth and develop-ment plan:

Case Study 9-1: Boulder, CO: GO Boulder New Transit Services Key to Meeting LocalEnvironmental Goals

Case Study 9-2: Seattle, WA: Local Initiative for Neighborhood Circulation (LINC) Neighborhood Transit System Channeling CommunityGrowth

Case Study 9-3: Corpus Christi, TX: Staples Street BusTransfer Station and the Downtown Trolley Transit Reorganization Sets Stage for Downtown andNeighborhood Renewal

Together we can move transportation forward, one idea at atime.

—GO Boulder Brochure

Designing transportation alternatives to match people’sneeds, properly pricing the use of the auto, and ensuringgrowth pays its own way for transportation needs—theseare the policies our community has chosen to improve mobil-ity and preserve Boulder’s quality of life. GO Boulder’smission is to help us successfully implement these policies.

—Steve Pomerance, City Councilmember

SUMMARY

Boulder, home of the University of Colorado andgateway to Colorado’s Rocky Mountains NationalPark, enjoys a well-deserved reputation as one ofAmerica’s most livable communities. The city boaststhe largest municipally owned open-space system inthe nation, with more than 100 mi of paths and trailsand 80 mi of designated bikeways. This includes an11-mi, grade-separated path traversing the city alongBoulder Creek, which has become one of the bestknown examples of an imaginative recreational use ofan urban waterway. Boulder’s Pearl Street Mall,unlike many of its contemporaries built in the mid-1970s, has remained a vibrant, commercially success-ful pedestrian precinct.

A threat to Boulder’s livability comes from contin-ued growth and its associated traffic, the result of a job-

100

Case Study 9-1Boulder, CO: GO Boulder New Transit Services Key to Meeting Local Environmental Goals

housing imbalance that has brought hordes of newcommuters into the Boulder Valley. The city’s responsehas been to mount a series of actions intended to arrestthe slide toward gridlock. Boulder’s strategy can beheld out as a model of how a community can preserveits livability through alternative transportation.

PLANNING PROCESS

Boulder has a long-standing tradition of growthmanagement. In the mid-1970s, a citizen-led initiativeimposed an annual 2 percent cap on residentialgrowth, which the City Council subsequently madeprogressively more stringent. While the cap was suc-cessful in limiting growth within the city boundaries,it did not prevent leapfrog development in the sur-rounding communities, which grew at a rapid pacethroughout the 1980s and during the early 1990s.

In the meantime, Boulder continued to offer a wel-coming and attractive environment for clean, high-techindustry, which led to a robust expansion of employ-ment inside the city. The combination of these trendscreated a serious job-housing imbalance that is thesource of the present traffic problem. Boulder Valleyhas become a regional job center with a net inflow ofcommuter vehicles during the day. Of the total 510,000daily vehicle trips with destinations in the BoulderValley, 140,000—close to 30 percent—originate outsidethe valley. Regional land use-transportation forecastsestimate that traffic in the Boulder Valley will increasefrom 2.5 million to 4 million daily vehicle miles oftravel by the year 2020. With no plans for constructionof new roads in the foreseeable future, and with CBDparking capacity limited, Boulder’s citizens havebecome justifiably concerned about the effects of thesetrends on the quality of life in their community.

Boulder’s response has been to take an activestance. In 1989, the Boulder City Council adopted aTransportation Master Plan (TMP) with a goal ofshifting 15 percent of existing single-occupant vehicle(SOV) trips to other modes by 2010. To help imple-ment this goal, the council created GO Boulder, an“alternative modes” division within the city adminis-tration. Boulder is the only municipality in the nationto have created an operating unit devoted specificallyto promoting transportation alternatives.

The TMP had an extensive public outreach process.More than 70 stakeholder groups and organizationswere identified and invited to provide input. Theseincluded the Sierra Club, PLAN Boulder County, theEnvironmental Defense Fund, the Chamber ofCommerce, the League of Women Voters and variousneighborhood associations.

In November 1994, a city-sponsored initiative pro-posed a wide-ranging program of transit serviceimprovements, including more frequent service on

local and regional routes, a transit pass offeringunlimited access to bus service to all 80,000 down-town Boulder employees, and improved bicycle andpedestrian facilities. The $12.2 million/year TransitInitiative was to be funded through a combination oflocal taxes. The citywide referendum failed by a sub-stantial margin, the victim of a general anti-tax senti-ment and a belief that the measure was too narrowlyfocused on transit improvements.

STRATEGY

Following the failed referendum, the city pro-ceeded to mount an aggressive multi-pronged strat-egy using its regularly appropriated budget. Thestrategy has several elements as follows.

The ECO Pass. The main instrument of the campaignis the ECO Pass, an unlimited-use annual transit passfor use on the HOP Shuttle, sold through employers.The pass is offered at a deep discount: $35–$65/year,depending on the level of transit. Participating em-ployers, however, must purchase the pass for all theiremployees. The pass is provided to all university stu-dents for $12.00 per semester through an automaticcharge to their tuition bill. ECO pass is also marketedto high school students, residents of suburban hous-ing developments, and urban neighborhoods.

The “HOP” A Community Access Shuttle. To supple-ment the Regional Transit District (RTD) line haul andlocal service, the city of Boulder launched a local shut-tle service in October 1994. The objective of the serviceis to encourage residents, employees, students and vis-itors to use public transportation instead of their cars

101

Figure 9-2. Case Study 9-1. HOP Shuttle, Boulder, CO,functions as a local shuttle service to encourage residents,area employees, students, and visitors to leave their cars athome. One cannot “hop” on, however, without first purchas-ing an ECO pass, which is an unlimited-use annual transitpass. (Credit: GO Boulder).

102

Figure 9-3. Case Study 9-1. GO Boulder’s promotional materials and posters make their point in a clever and eye-catchingmanner. (Credit: GO Boulder).

during the day for trips such as shopping, lunch,errands and meetings, with the ultimate goal of per-suading people to leave their cars at home in the firstplace. The HOP shuttle connects Boulder’s three majoractivity centers: the CBD, the University of Colorado’smain campus, and the Crossroads Mall, a majorregional shopping center. The HOP operates week-days from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on 10-min headways, usingeight propane-fueled, 30-ft buses. Recently, nighttimeservice during the academic year was added at therequest of the University. One cannot hop a HOPshuttle without having purchased an ECO Pass—nofares are collected on the bus. HOP’s initial 6-monthridership goal of 2,000 daily riders was exceeded inthe first 6 weeks. The shuttle carries 3,000–4,000 ridersper day. The shuttle service is operated by a privatecontractor at an annual cost of $700,000, which iscovered through ECO Pass sales, with the citycontributing the rest from general operating funds.

Bicycle Facilitation. With more than 80 mi of desig-nated paths and bike lanes, Boulder is a bicycle-friendlycity par excellence. Bicycles are designated as “vehi-cles” and allowed to use vehicular roadways as well asdedicated bicycle paths and sidewalks. In the winter-time, snow clearance on bikeways is given the samepriority as on city streets. After a heavy snow fall, bike-ways are said to be often open to traffic before the city’sroadways. A large student population and an aggres-sive marketing program contribute to making Boulderthe second most bike-intensive community in thenation, with 12 percent of all trips made on bike (Davis,California, carries the top honors, with 14 percent).

Ridesharing. Carpools and vanpools constitute 24percent of Boulder’s total daily person miles and areactively promoted by the city in cooperation with theDenver Council of Governments. GO Boulder was thefirst city agency in the nation to receive federal fund-ing to buy vanpool vehicles used to support employeetransportation programs.

Residential Parking Permit Program. In 1986, inresponse to an increase in nonresident spillover park-ing in residential neighborhoods, the city developed aresidential parking permit (RPP) program. Residentsliving within the designated zone and businesseslocated within the zone are exempt from the on-streetparking restrictions after purchasing and displayingRPP permits in their vehicles. Everyone else isrestricted to 2-hour parking between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.on weekdays. Two RPP zones have been established.

Congestion Relief. By far the most ambitious andpotentially controversial initiative is Boulder’s con-gestion pricing project or, as Boulder’s officials prefer

to call it, “congestion relief” project. This projectexplores the technical, institutional, and political fea-sibility of using market-based measures to discourageautomobile use among Boulder’s residents, students,and workers. As part of its congestion relief initiative,the city will be exploring various strategies, rangingfrom voluntary employer-based transportationdemand management (TDM) programs to regulatory,ordinance-based programs and pricing measures suchas “smog fees,” congestion tolls, pricing of off-streetparking and taxes on private parking facilities. Thecongestion relief project, according to city officials,will carefully consider these issues with the help of anactive public outreach effort. The intent is to remainin step with public opinion and to shape a strategythat Boulder’s citizens will accept as reasonable andsupport politically.

The city of Boulder is currently updating its TMP.The 1995 TMP Update will be considered by the plan-ning board and the transportation advisory board,culminating with a city council review and adoptionin spring 1996. The transit portion of the plan reflectsfeedback from the failed public initiative. As part ofthis plan, the city is considering a new goal of reduc-ing SOV use to 25 percent and increasing ridesharingto 29 percent, transit use to 7 percent, and bicycle useto 15 percent.

FUNDING

GO Boulder’s operational funding is approximately$1.2 million per year. The budget is divided amongtransit, bicycle programs (20 percent), pedestrianimprovements and marketing/public information (25percent for each). Capital funding comes from a spe-cial capital budget. All of GO Boulder’s funding andmost capital transportation funding comes from salestax; a small portion of capital funding comes from adevelopment excise tax.

The city devotes 26 percent of its $4 million peryear capital transportation budget to the bicycle/pedestrian capital program. The congestion relief pro-ject is funded with a $492,000 grant under the FederalCongestion Pricing Pilot Program.

OVERCOMING OBSTACLES

The biggest obstacle to overcome was the failure ofthe Transit Initiative. Through subsequent surveysand focus groups city officials attempted to gain anunderstanding of why the initiative had failed andwhat the community would like to see in the future. Itwas concluded that the initiative did not clearly com-municate the benefits of the additional transit ser-

103

vices, which were perceived by the public as “justmore big diesel buses running around empty.” Thefact that there were other competing tax increases onthe ballot did not help either.

IMPACT AND ASSESSMENT

The city’s aggressive promotion of alternativetransportation has paid off. The marketing campaignhas been highly successful: a total of 15,000 employ-ees and 25,000 students currently carry the ECO Pass.Since the introduction of the ECO Pass in 1989, transitridership has increased by 161 percent. Since theestablishment of the GO Boulder program in 1990,SOV trips have decreased, while transit and bicycleuse has increased. Boulder’s current modal split isone that most communities would look on with envy:

Mode 1990* (%) 1994* (%) Goal (%)

Single-Occupant Vehicles 47 44 25Multi-Occupant Vehicles 24 22 29Pedestrians 17 19 24Bicycles 10 11 15Transit 2 4 7

* Transportation Master Plan Update 2020, approved June 19, 1996, updatedJuly 16, 1996.

CONCLUSIONS

GO Boulder demonstrates the benefits of addressingcommunity livability and environmental goals togetherwith transportation facilities and services. Programs toreduce use of autos and increase use of transit, bicycles,and walking have worked because of the comprehen-sive approach taken. In addition, new transit servicesare tailored to community needs and the ECO Passmakes transit usage convenient and inexpensive. Theseprograms appear to be an effective base on which tobuild even greater transit ridership increases.

If we are really serious about cutting down on car trips,there needs to be some user-friendly, convenient type of ser-vice to get people around their neighborhoods and connectthem with the regional service.

––Dan Williams, Metro transit spokesman [1]

SUMMARY

For 6 months in 1995, residents of Ballard, a neigh-borhood in Seattle, participated in the trial run of anew, more flexible local transit system. They wereable to flag down a free minibus only minutes fromtheir homes that circulated frequently around thecommunity and linked them to the regional bus sys-tem. The shuttle dropped off passengers at their doorson the return trip. By moving people more efficientlyaround their neighborhoods, the city of Seattle andKing County/Metro, the Seattle transit authority,hoped to increase transit ridership and discourageshort, frequent, SOV trips. In addition, LINC (LocalInitiative for Neighborhood Circulation) was the firststep in a new, far-reaching transportation to replaceSeattle’s current radial-route system, focused ondowntown Seattle, with a system that links transithubs in neighborhood centers throughout the city,including downtown. The new three-tier transporta-tion plan, also called LINC, was developed to rein-force Mayor Norm Rice’s “urban village” scheme bymeeting the specific transportation needs of eachcommunity.

The Seattle Engineering Department (SED), withassistance from the King County/Metro, developedthe 6-month pilot project in Ballard to test the feasi-bility of this local transit service concept. While theexperiment was necessarily limited in scope and didnot entirely fit the needs of the community, it has setthe stage for both a new approach to transit andtransit-centered growth.

PLANNING PROCESS

The Seattle Transportation Plan. In 1991, the Wash-ington state legislature passed a Growth ManagementAct requiring all municipalities to develop 20-yearplans to project their future growth, define futureland-use patterns and develop local and regionaltransportation alternatives to accommodate thegrowth. In Seattle, as part of its Comprehensive Plan,Mayor Rice’s administration introduced the urban vil-lage concept as a means of channeling growth intospecific neighborhoods, both new and existing,thereby controlling future development. These urbanvillages would become nodes of activity that couldalso serve as transit centers throughout the city. Thetransportation component of the Seattle Compre-hensive Plan was developed to reinforce the urbanvillage idea by providing a network of limited-stoparterial buses throughout the Seattle area, connectingtransit hubs and taking people where they need to go,instead of largely providing radial service to and fromthe center city.

104

Case Study 9-2Seattle, WA: Local Initiative for NeighborhoodCirculation (LINC) Neighborhood Transit System ChannelingCommunity Growth

The design engineer who developed this pilotproject, Hiro Takahashi of the SED said he was motivated by the sight of “empty and half-emptybuses running around.” He had stopped using the bus system himself because he found itinconvenient.

Planners used the pilot study to do the following:

• Learn more about how a local bus service, usingsmall shuttles with frequent stops, would actu-ally work;

• Gain public input and gauge community accep-tance of alternative transit modes;

• Answer technical and operational questions asso-ciated with the development of new types ofservices;

• Identify institutional barriers associated with thedevelopment of new types of services; and

• Determine long-term costs of the LINC program.

The SED, with assistance from King County/Metro,developed a temporary, 6-month planning study totest the local transit service using Metro staff andequipment. Ballard, a waterfront community in north-west Seattle, was selected for the demonstration proj-ect because of the significant number of people whouse mass transit: many residents commute to down-town Seattle by express bus and students frequentlytravel by bus to the nearby university. Approximately1 sq mi in area, the neighborhood has a diverse, pri-marily middle-income population of about 10,000.The pilot program, which ran from May 6 to October31, 1995, did not replace or decrease any of the exist-ing transit services in Ballard.

An eight-member community advisory committeeof Ballard residents participated in the planningprocess for LINC. Three 1⁄ 2-day planning workshopswere held between October 1994 and January 1995 atwhich the committee helped to select the routes,made recommendations on how local transit use inthe community could be increased and providedinput on the overall design of the pilot program.Upon completion of the project, the committee helpedto evaluate its effectiveness.

The community was also involved in designing thelogo for the LINC vans. A “LINC Bus Design Con-test” was conducted in local schools in Ballard. Thecolorful, eye-catching design submitted by two highschool students was selected. For their efforts, the students received a $200 savings bond from a localbank as well as an award from Mayor Rice.

STRATEGY

The underlying concept for local LINC service isthat people only need to walk a block or two to astreet where they can catch a passing shuttle.Passengers do not have to stand at designated busstops to be picked up; they simply wave down thebus and it pulls over to the curb. Commuters on theirway home can get off the bus from downtown andgrab a shuttle home almost like they would a taxi.Thus, LINC is intended to provide service so frequentthat people can travel around their community with-out consulting bus schedules. This custom-tailored,local transit service is intended to provide the “miss-ing link” in the regional transportation system byserving the needs of the commuters and those making

105

Figures 9-4 and 9-5. Case Study 9-2. The Local Initiativefor Neighborhood Circulation (LINC) shuttle provides intra-neighborhood transportation service on smaller, morecommunity-friendly, vehicles. The local transit agencydeveloped refrigerator magnets (Figure 9-5) to market theservice to local residents. (Credit: LINC).

short trips within a neighborhood and by makingregional bus and rail services more accessible.

For the pilot study, the LINC service consisted of afleet of six 10-passenger vans operating on four differ-ent routes. The buses operated between 9 a.m. and 7p.m., Monday through Saturday, and between 9 a.m.and 5 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. The LINC ser-vice area covered approximately 2 sq mi. The routeswere selected to allow easy transfer to regular Metroroutes and to serve the business district of Ballard aswell as local parks and civic institutions. The onlyposted stop was at Bergen Place in the business district, where all routes terminated.

Two types of neighborhood service were tested: afixed-route circulator and a flexible routing service.The fixed routes operated vans every 30 min. Theflexible routing service dropped passengers anywherewithin a service area on their trips from the businessdistrict.

While SED was developing the LINC pilot program,Metro was investigating the design of the transitcenters that will serve as connecting points betweenthe local circulators and higher capacity transit lines.These transit hubs are intended to become activitynodes within neighborhood commercial centers.

FUNDING

The city of Seattle received a $500,000 FederalTransit Administration grant to pay Metro (the transitauthority) for the project on a fee-for-service-hourbasis. The funding was provided through the CentralPuget Sound Transportation Account.

The LINC service was free during the 6-month trialperiod. Start-up costs, from June 1994 through April1995, amounted to $70,619 and the operating costs forthe 6-month demonstration project came to a total of$538,134. This resulted in an average cost per passen-ger of $11.30, much higher than Metro’s latest esti-mate for regular bus service of $2.67 per passengerper trip in 1993.

OVERCOMING OBSTACLES

Christopher Sims, the Project Manager of the LINCdemonstration program, and Harold Lewis, his coun-terpart at Metro, both regretted that more time couldnot be spent with the community while developingthe system. They emphasized the need for more com-munity involvement in the future and the importanceof educating the public about a new system such asthis. The community planning phase was inadequate,not only in providing the information needed, butalso in giving the community a sense of ownership ofthe system. Marketing the service to the public in

advance is critical in building acceptance for a newtransit service and this will be increased in the future.

Another difficulty was designing a system thatcould reach the entire community. Christopher Simsreported that the waterfront and marinas were not onthe routes and that residents and businesses in thisarea expressed displeasure in being excluded. TheLINC’s circular routes, although standard in manycommunities, did not correspond to the essentially lin-ear layout of the Ballard community.

One of the major obstacles encountered by SED wassimply running a transit system, because it is an engi-neering department not a transit provider. Althoughthe drivers and equipment were provided by Metro,SED engineers and staff lacked the experience, flexi-bility, and training to operate a system efficiently. Infuture demonstration projects, an interagency teamwill be formed from SED and Metro staff dedicated torunning the project.

IMPACT AND ASSESSMENT

The very fact that the LINC demonstration projecttested only one piece of the proposed three-tier pro-gram, without changes to the existing transit system,necessarily limited the scope of the experiment andthe information that could be gained from it. Regionalbus schedules were not changed to coincide withLINC shuttles; thus the ability to transfer smoothlyfrom a local to a regional transit system was limited.The inter-community component is not yet in placeand the transit centers where residents will transfer toregional buses are not yet built. Therefore, the pilotprogram could only be evaluated as a test of a localservice and not of the entire LINC concept.

According to surveys conducted in September 1995,and published in Metro’s evaluation report inJanuary, 1996, response to the LINC pilot projectwithin the Ballard community was very positive. Ofthe 718 passengers questioned, 78 percent were verysatisfied with LINC service and 88 percent were verysatisfied with the comfort of the vans. Passengercounts, tabulated by means of random and non-random sampling techniques, showed that theaverage daily number of weekday passengers for allfour LINC routes were 381 passengers in June and 277in September. The 27 percent drop may have beendue to the start of public school. The average week-day passengers per hour for all four routes was 6.3passengers/hour in June and 4.6 in September. Theaverage weekday passenger per hour was slightlyhigher for the fixed routes. LINC service appeared tohave no significant impact on regular Metro rider-ship; ridership on the six regular routes remainedconstant between summer 1994 and summer 1995.

106

Surveys revealed that the majority (65 percent) ofLINC riders were female and a large number (25 per-cent) were 65 years old or older. Fifty-seven percentof them did not work or volunteer outside of thehome. The passengers took an average of 6.01 trips aweek on LINC, but they said 44 percent of these tripswould have been walking trips had LINC not beenthere. Only 6 percent of the trips would have been“drive alone,” thus LINC did not appear to replaceSOVs as a means of transportation. In fact, for 72 per-cent of the trips, cars were not available. LINCappeared to serve primarily a non-working popula-tion without cars rather than commuters: only 3 per-cent of destinations mentioned were work related,while 71 percent were on their way home. The“flagging-down” option was not necessarilypreferred: only 25 percent of the rides started bywaving down a LINC van. There was also nopreference for one type of route over another.

Robert Mattson, the manager of the city’s neighbor-hood service center in Ballard, believed that manypeople liked using the minibuses because they werefree. In addition, they were perceived as being morecomfortable and more user-friendly than the typicalbus, especially since they were air-conditioned. Mr.Mattson also believes, that the system could havebeen integrated better into the community. Heobserved that the LINC system was not designed tomeet a specific demand; Ballard residents andbusiness owners did not seek the service, nor was thepresent bus system perceived as being inadequate. Inaddition, the nominal effort at citizen participationwas not enough to build a mandate for the LINCsystem in the community.

According to Mr. Mattson, several flaws, inherentin a flexible neighborhood circulator, were mentionedby the users. Because the outbound LINC shuttles hadno specific stops and could be flagged down, olderpeople had no convenient and comfortable place to sitand wait (and the vans were not always on schedule).Many residents were also slow to learn how to flagdown the minibus. Other complaints were due to thelimited scope of the experiment. Since the normallocal bus service was not suspended during the dura-tion of the test, residents of Ballard often found theredundancy confusing and inefficient. Many residentsbelieved the familiar bus service to be more conve-nient than the LINC shuttles on the inbound trips,although LINC was preferred on outbound tripsbecause it provided door-to-door service. Because thetransit center was not yet in place, LINC shuttle busespulled into an existing parking lot to meet theregional buses, thereby blocking parking spaces andcreating more congestion.

Metro has determined that three levels of transitwould be unaffordable, but it is still planning some

LINC-type, “level-3” services. Metro is working withthe city to provide permanent service (not just demon-stration projects) in western Seattle-King County. Thisservice is anticipated sometime in 1997. This will con-sist of modifying existing bus service rather than over-laying new service as was done in Ballard. From theexperience in Ballard, Metro has learned to allot moretime for working with the community and to involvecounty and city planning offices.

CONCLUSIONS

Although ridership was not high and many feel thatLINC was a failure because it did not get commutersout of their cars in the course of its 6-month trialperiod, two key lessons were learned. First, a newshuttle system should be integrated with other inter-community transit services to give passengers theability to transfer smoothly to the larger web of transitservice. Second, more time and resources are necessaryto develop and market the system to the community.

In March 1995, the Regional Transit Authority’sreferendum on a $6.7 billion regional rail transitsystem was defeated. Opponents criticized the plan forproposing to spend the bulk of the funds on regionalrail systems focused on downtown Seattle withoutimproving local service. The LINC concept placesmore emphasis on transit centers, thus creating a net-work of transit routes connecting the city’s neighbor-hoods, and provides a local transit service designed toaddress the livability needs of specific communities.

ENDNOTE

1. Seattle Post-Intelligencer (May 5, 1995).

The Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) has had aneed to develop a number of facilities in major public tran-sit areas. The agency determined that the greatest commu-nity benefit would be realized if these transit projects couldbe used to stimulate additional redevelopment in the areasaround the transit improvement. This has required that dif-ferent entities both public and private, work together toachieve this goal.

—Steve Ortmann, former Chief Development Officer,Regional Transportation Authority, Corpus Christi, TX

107

Case Study 9-3Corpus Christi, TX: Staples Street Bus TransferStation and the Downtown Trolley Transit Reorganization Sets Stage for Downtown and Neighborhood Renewal

SUMMARY

In 1995, the Corpus Christi Regional TransportationAuthority (RTA) opened a new bus transfer station onNorth Staples Street, close to downtown and acrossfrom the new City Hall, to serve as the major hub of a new system of transit centers around the city. Thenew station replaced a string of bus stops alongStaples Street, providing a more convenient and saferplace to change buses. But this station was also in-tended to create a node of activity that would attractnew business to a blighted neighborhood and helpsupport the revitalization of the downtown. CorpusChristi, Texas, like many mid-sized cities, has seen thevitality and economic base of its downtown drainedaway by massive retail and residential developmentin the suburbs, leaving corporate and public institu-tions as the only presence in what was once the heartof the city.

The Staples Street Station is part of an RTA strategyto develop transit centers that can help improve ser-vice, while acting as catalysts for growth and devel-opment. Other transit centers are currently beingplanned.

PLANNING PROCESS

Corpus Christi is located on the Gulf of Mexico,about 200 mi southwest of Houston. The populationof the city itself is 275,000, while the service area forthe RTA is about 300,000. About 5 percent of the city’stotal population is transit dependent. Since the retailand commercial activity has been dispersed to thesuburbs, primarily south of the city along a majorcommercial strip, Corpus Christi has evolved into acity without centers or corridors, making it more diffi-cult for public transit to serve its customers efficiently.Therefore, the RTA devised a transit center-basedapproach to supplement or even replace the bus stopsalong corridors. This new strategy places transit cen-ters where bus routes come together, thus potentiallycreating new nodes of retail or other activity, as wellas pleasant places to wait that are safer and more com-fortable than a typical bus stop. By rescheduling thebus system, the RTA has been able to bring as manyas 14 routes together (as at the Staples Street Station,the first transit center constructed), thus assemblingmany more transit users together in one spot, necessi-tating a larger facility than a simple bus stop.

When constructing new facilities and upgradingexisting ones, the RTA has tried to build a sense ofpride and ownership among transit users for theirfacilities through architectural design and public artthat express the character of the community. In

addition, the RTA has realized that by making thesurrounding community safer and more pedestrianfriendly, the overall experience of transit users isgreatly enhanced. In planning its transit center-basedsystem, the RTA not only developed design conceptsfor the new facilities but proposed other public andprivate improvements that could make an evengreater impact on the surrounding neighborhoods.

Community involvement, both in terms of devel-oping the design as well as in actual participation inthe project, was deemed critical to the Staples StreetStation’s success. As Steve Ortmann said, “It wasimportant for the community to sense that this wastheir project rather than a project that was imposedupon the community.” Transit users, local busi-nesses, and employees at nearby public agencieswere surveyed for their suggestions for the design ofthe new facility. A series of meetings was held withbusinesses and city staff—the bus station’s neigh-bors—to determine key issues that would enhancethe business environment around the station. Inaddition, numerous citywide public hearings wereheld to discuss the route and schedule changes neces-sitated by moving to a transit-based system. The pub-lic’s comments and ideas have been incorporated inmany of the changes as well as in the design of thebus station. It was also decided that a participatorypublic art project would be a strong mechanism for ensuring participation as well as ownership in theproject (see Chapter 4).

STRATEGY

Design Strategy. The station fronts squarely ontoStaples Street. It has a strong sidewalk “edge” andresembles a Spanish-style civic building with its tallclock tower and arched portals. The colorful tiles pro-duced by the public art project break up the expanseof stucco at the entry portal and at the bases of thecolumns. High metal roofs extend back, supported onsteel columns, providing the feel of a 19th centurytrain-shed structure. A central open space surroundedby trees in tiled planters is a focal point, intended fora future fountain or vending area. A small building atthe rear has a restroom and small eating area for busdrivers.

The station can accommodate as many as 5,000people a day, with benches and shelter for all.Phones, waste receptacles, and lighting are morethan adequate, but the station as yet provides norestroom facilities or enclosed waiting area for transitusers. Historic-style street lighting surrounds thebuilding, while a replica of a historic Corpus Christifixture, with globe luminaries, provides accent light-

108

ing. The bus station was designed with the idea thatsmall retail uses could be accommodated on its site:the front structure can be altered slightly to enclose

retail kiosks within its walls, and the open spacecould accommodate several vending carts. Theseopportunities have not been taken advantage of,although the RTA is now considering sponsoring avendor program.

Management Strategy. The transit center system hashelped to streamline some management approaches.For example, the street supervisors, who circulate incars to monitor bus operations, have found the trans-fer center system to be a more efficient way to checktheir routes; scheduling problems, breakdowns, emer-gencies, and other problems encountered within thebus system can be easily and closely followed.

Consolidating bus stops also makes patrolling themeasier. Corpus Christi police officers are able to patrolthe Staples Street Station on a random but frequentbasis. Officers do not merely cruise by in their cars, asat many transit facilities, but actually stand with thebus passengers, offering information and assistance,and discouraging the homeless from settling in orfrom harassing transit users.

The Downtown Trolley. Enhancements to the trans-portation system were also deemed an essentialcomponent of the overall project. Strengtheningdowntown connections to the new facility wouldenhance the operation of the facility and wouldimprove access throughout the downtown. Thus, a free downtown shuttle—a replica of an old trolley—was introduced, which operates every 10 min and provides an important link to the rest ofdowntown.

Pedestrian Improvements. The success of the StaplesStreet Station has encouraged the RTA to initiate twomore community-based planning efforts that arebeing funded by the Federal Transit Administration’sLivable Communities Project. A plan is being toimprove the pedestrian environment around theStaples Street Station and to link it to a nearby lowincome neighborhood, largely transit dependent,located on the other side of a major interstatehighway. The area around another bus transit center,the Six Points Station, located in a small commercialcenter in a residential community, is also beingtargeted for improvements that will help to create asense of place. Crosswalks are being added, traffic-calming measures are being introduced and land-scaping and lighting are being enhanced in order toimprove pedestrian access to the station, encouragemore pedestrian use, and help revitalize the localbusinesses.

109

Figures 9-6 through 9-8. Case Study 9-3. Once an emptyparking lot, the new Staples Street Station in Corpus Christi,TX, has become both a transportation node and a place forthe Corpus Christi community. Future plans include retailkiosks, a weekly “mercado” and improving the pedestrianenvironment and access to the center from adjacent neigh-borhoods. (Credit: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.).

FUNDING

The Corpus Christi RTA and its capital improve-ments are funded by a 1/2 percent sales tax. In thecompletion of the Staples Street Station, a FederalTransit Administration grant of $800,000 was used.FTA Livable Communities funding is being used tomake the pedestrian improvements to existing transitcenters.

OVERCOMING OBSTACLES

The station currently handles 14 bus routes in 10slots, including the downtown trolley. Because of thetightness of the site, the bus area is smaller than isusually required for this number of bus routes. Thisnecessitated the rerouting and rescheduling of theentire system to be able to use the facility more effi-ciently, but the RTA considered this to be a sacrificeworth making in order to provide better service.

IMPACT AND ASSESSMENT

The new bus station has met the RTA’s goals ofproviding a safer and more comfortable place to waitand it appears to have had a positive effect on rider-ship: the RTA counted 3,000 people per day using themany separate bus stops at Staples and LeopardStreets in 1990; whereas, in 1995, 4,000 people per daypassed through the Staples Street Station. PPS con-ducted a survey to assess reactions to the new stationand its impact on the surrounding community andmade on-site observations. The following is a sum-mary of the results.

The new bus transfer center has become almost atown square or plaza not only because of the numberof people who pass through it, but also because itattracts other people who simply come there to “hangout.” This added benefit serves to make the placesafer and more secure. In the afternoon, when thelargest number of people were observed, the bus sta-tion had a festive feeling about it, with many peoplesocializing and meeting friends. Bus drivers who stopthere to wait for their riders also appear to be well-known by the passengers and often greet them, aswell as chat with their colleagues. Passengers sug-gested that this pleasant atmosphere could beenhanced with the simple addition of a food and bev-

erage cart and cafes or other retail opportunities sur-rounding the station, as well as by the addition ofsome simple entertainment.

Retail business in the area surrounding the StaplesStreet Station has not yet improved. Vacant store-fronts are numerous and the primary businesses inthe area continue to be bail bond establishments andpawn shops, although some of these appear to haverecently gone out of business. A convenience store,located across Staples Street and one block north ofthe station, is the only store in the vicinity that sellsfood and beverages, except for a small Mexicanrestaurant next door. The manager of the store saidthat more than 50 percent of his customers are transitriders from the bus station. Likewise, the Mexicanrestaurant attracts a large number of transit users.

Although there was no explicit strategy to improvethe retail activity in the area of the Staples StreetStation, there was the hope that a new bus stationacross the street from the new City Hall would have apositive influence on what was perceived to be ablighted neighborhood. Although no new retail useshave opened since the completion of the bus station,the number of people who pass through the stationeveryday cannot help but create a new market thatsurely will be tapped.

Transit users questioned at the Staples StreetStation were, for the most part, very pleased with thenew station and found that taking the bus was saferand more convenient than it used to be. The majorcomplaints expressed about the facility were the in-adequacy of shelter during heavy rain and wind, andthe lack of restroom facilities. In addition, many tran-sit users wait at the station as long as an hour andrequested food concessions at the station.

CONCLUSIONS

The RTA of Corpus Christi has found that by mak-ing people-friendly transit improvements, it can have alarger impact on the surrounding urban area, enhanc-ing the vitality of the urban environment and encour-aging economic activity. The Staples Street Bus Stationhas been well-received throughout the city of CorpusChristi and has been acclaimed around the country as a ground-breaking approach to the design of transitfacilities. Its success has spurred the agency to reachbeyond the boundaries of building a typical bus stop tothe larger goal of helping to reshape communities.

110

Part III

A Guide for Implementation

This page left intentionally blank.

As the case studies in this report clearly show, thereis no single planning process that applies to all com-munities in which transit is seeking to support com-munity livability goals. Every community has its owncharacter, style of accomplishing tasks, and level ofcommunity interest. Moreover, legally mandatedplanning processes for transit agencies also vary ac-cording to such factors as state and local governmentrequirements, project size and scope, and fundingsources used.

Still, there are many common characteristics to thevarious processes used in planning and implement-ing the case-study projects, and it is these commoncharacteristics that are addressed in this chapter.Specifically, the case studies demonstrate the impactof a community-driven project, where communitieshave been given the opportunity—not just to respondto a plan—but actively to take part in identifyingissues, developing concepts, and evolving strategiesin a manner that taps their own experience. In thisway, they have become “owners” of projects and haveretained a sustained interest and stake in futureprogress.

In this process, many transit agencies have formedactive partnerships with community organizations.As the case studies in this report demonstrate, thisapproach can enhance resources—both human andfinancial—available to undertake projects: very often

a small transit investment can leverage other substan-tial local contributions of time and money.

Sometimes such a process has been instituted aftera previous approach failed because of communityopposition. While a community-based process maynot be always quicker, issues of community concernare identified early on, thus avoiding collapse of aproject at the end of the planning process or at thebeginning of construction, when delays becomeextremely costly.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR COMMUNITYINVOLVEMENT IN CURRENT TRANSITPLANNING PROCESSES

Recent changes in federal transit planning processesand policies are very supportive of community-based processes for creating livable communities. Acommunity-oriented planning and decision-makingprocess for transportation projects is, indeed, man-dated by law. The Intermodal Surface TransportationEfficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) is a landmark piece oflegislation, which recognizes that the InterstateHighway System is nearly complete and that moreemphasis needs to be placed on system preservationand efficiency rather than on new construction. ISTEAseeks to provide more local control over transportation

CHAPTER 10

The Community-Based Process for Creating Livable Communities

Livable communities do not simply happen. They are the by-product of a coordinated and par-ticipatory transportation and community planning process where transit decisions are made inconjunction with decisions on land use and other transportation investments. The principles oflivable communities can be instilled throughout the planning and project development process.

—“Planning, Developing, and Implementing Community-Sensitive Transit” (The FTA Livable Communities Initiative) [1]

113

114

decisions and encourages coordination among statesand metropolitan areas and among different forms oftransportation (pedestrian, bicycle, and transit uses—not just roads). ISTEA also emphasizes the importanceof community participation and involving key stake-holders in transportation planning including the pri-vate sector, local community groups, and othergovernment organizations.

This approach is also completely consistent withthe new Federal Highway Administration/FederalTransit Administration Interim Policy on PublicInvolvement. The policy, which grew out of ISTEA,calls for “promoting an active role for the public inthe development of transportation plans, programs,and projects from the early stages of the planningprocess through detailed project development.”

The responsibility for implementing ISTEA inmetropolitan areas, including public involvement,falls primarily on metropolitan planning organiza-tions (MPOs); outside of MPO boundaries, the re-sponsibility becomes one of the state department oftransportation. MPOs produce a long-range (20-year) transportation plan as well as transportationimprovement programs (TIPs), which describeprojects that are to be funded and implemented overa 3–5 year period. The development of both the long-range plan and the near-term improvementsoffers a base onto which community involvementand transit and livability partnerships can be built.Because TIPs are updated at least every 2 years, theyoffer an ongoing opportunity for involvement andparticipation.

Other opportunities for building community part-nerships arise when major projects (such as the con-struction of a new light rail system) requiring federalfunds are planned. Such projects may require a majorinvestment study (MIS) to evaluate the effectivenessof a variety of strategies to solve a specific transporta-tion problem, which can include different combina-tions of transportation modes. Like the TIP, the MISshould be a collaborative process involving a broadcross-section of the community.

Not all transit projects are funded under ISTEA andthere are many other contexts for transit planning rel-evant to improving community livability. Indeed,there has been a shift in funding away from the fed-eral government to state and local sources. Differentstates and cities have different requirements, al-though most large projects generally have some re-quirement for public participation or review. Smallprojects, such as new bus shelters or renovating atrain station, may have few, if any, “required” publicparticipation components.

In general, case studies were successful becausethey went beyond the minimum required level of

public participation from the outset—whether theproject was large or small, federally funded or not.Indeed, since many projects and programs pre-datedISTEA, the degree of public involvement is even morenoteworthy. The next section describes ways that thepublic participation process has been enhanced incommunities—resulting in the projects highlighted inthe case studies.

Note: For further information about transit planning processes,consult “A Guide to Metropolitan Planing under ISTEA: Howthe Pieces Fit Together” (available from the US Department ofTransportation, Publication No. FHWA-PD-95-031) and“Planning, Developing, and Implementing Community-SensitiveTransit” (The FTA Livable Communities Initiative, FederalTransit Administration, 1996).

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:GOING BEYOND “REQUIREMENTS”

Public participation does not necessarily mean thatcommunities are truly involved in a project or pro-gram especially if communities are asked to react to a plan rather than to help create and initiate conceptsfor improvement. Indeed, projects like FruitvaleTransit Village in Oakland, California were initiatedbecause the community reacted negatively to theoriginal project proposal by Bay Area Rapid Transit(BART). More common is the situation where projectsproceed, but do not achieve their true potential be-cause it is more difficult for people to be committed toprojects that are externally conceived and do not stemfrom the needs of their communities.

On the other hand, the case studies show that, if thecommunity is asked to define the problem from the

Figure 10-1. Meetings like this one held in San Bernardino, CA, are key to the process of involving communities in thetransit planning process and in generating ongoing commu-nity support for these projects. (Credit: Project for PublicSpaces, Inc.)

start rather than merely review a solution, the issuesof concern to the community can be addressed. Acommunity-based process, then, should include morethan just approval or review, but should grow out ofidentifying community needs from the outset.

From the case studies presented here, three keystrategies for enhancing the public participationprocess emerge again and again. These strategiesfocus on making places in communities more livableby forging community partnerships around thoseplaces and developing a step-by-step program ofenhancements. This approach is very supportive ofthe existing planning processes transit agencies arealready familiar with and practice. Making an extraeffort allows transit to expand limited resources andbuilds a constituency for transit by linking it withcommunity decision-making processes.

Strategy No. 1: Focus on Place-Making

As presented in Chapter 1, a place-making ap-proach to community livability seeks to focus com-munity participation around very specific issues toenhance quality of life in that place. Through thisapproach, people are encouraged to clearly defineissues, contribute ideas and develop agendas thataddress their concerns as well as encourage them toparticipate in implementing strategies to address suchquestions as the following:

• What works and does not work about this neigh-borhood or space? What problems exist?

• What would make it work better? What kind ofdesign improvements are needed? What types ofmanagement strategies should be introduced?

• How can transit support and enhance the activi-ties of the place?

Addressing these questions not only allows formore concrete discussions of livability, but alsoencourages communities to look at problems andopportunities holistically—rather than as a series ofseparate, unrelated projects developed by differentcity agencies or different professional groups.

The case studies show that creating holistic com-munities requires that specialists such as traffic en-gineers, transit operators, architects, and communitydevelopment officials work together towards thesame community improvement goals. Focusing onwhat is needed to make a place better and relying onthe input of those who use and experience that placeon a regular basis helps to guide this coordination.Indeed, many of the successful case studies hadarchitects and planners who approached the designfrom a community perspective, considered the

broader needs of a place, and acted more as problemsolvers and facilitators for community-identifiedissues. Pioneer Courthouse Square in Portland, Oregon,Davis Square in Somerville, Massachusetts, and GOBoulder, Boulder, Colorado, are examples of projectswhich grew out of such a holistic approach.

Chapter 11 describes in more detail the techniquesthat can be used for learning more about how a placeis currently used and perceived. This chapter alsoincludes a checklist that can be used by a transitagency or community organization as it undertakes acommunity-based planning process. In general, thesetechniques go beyond community meetings forobtaining input and may include (depending on thesize and scope of the project) detailed surveys of pub-lic opinion, focus groups, and brainstorming work-shops as well as actual studies of how a space or placeis used by people. Woodbridge Station, NJ; CorpusChristi Staples Street Station; and the Port Authority BusTerminal in New York City are all projects that involvedextensive on-site observations, surveys, and analysisas part of the process of developing recommendationsfor improvements.

Strategy No. 2:Step-by-Step Implementation

These short-term projects are not interim solutions,but stepping stones within a plan’s longer range con-text that can act as catalysts for change, while provid-ing immediate enhancement for communities. While

115

Figure 10-2. Strategy No. 1: Focus on Place-Making. ThePortland community was and continues to be involved indecisions regarding both the expansion of transit service inPortland and the function of Pioneer Courthouse Square.The Square was planned concurrently with the new light railsystem and was partially funded by the sale of bricks andother design elements (such as water fountains) to the public. (Credit: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

large-scale, capital-intensive projects still have theirrole, improvements that can be implemented quicklyprovide opportunities for immediately boosting pub-lic interest, morale, and use. These small projects alsoallow an idea or project to be tested in the field beforebeginning more widespread implementation. Forexample, LINC in Seattle began as a 6-month experi-ment to test public reaction and the Port Authority BusTerminal Revitalization Program in New York Citystarted as a vending cart program to understand howpositive uses might inhibit security problems.

The Los Angeles Neighborhood Initiative (LANI) proj-ects are all designed to be completed in 6–12 monthswith the concept of maximizing the effects of smallchanges. For example, instead of placing a bus shelterat a location where the bus happens to stop, LANIworks to coordinate it with other nearby amenities.The LANI approach is to work with a local businessto put out a vending cart with cold drinks, a mer-chant’s association to donate a bench, and the city toplant some trees. With these elements, a communitycreates a place where before there was none. BecauseLANI is working in several neighborhoods concur-rently, it is also able to organize many disparatesmaller projects under one program. The New JerseyTransit Station Renewal Program is taking a similarapproach to its commuter rail stations. The types of

changes adopted by NJ Transit communities dealwith a wide variety of place improvements: new seat-ing and amenities; economic uses such as public mar-kets, vendors and cafes; special events and ongoingspace programming; and so on. These changes can beseen, used, and enjoyed. By showing actual accom-plishments, these programs are sustaining communityinvolvement and support while creating opportunitiesto test and evaluate the effectiveness of improvements.

116

Figure 10-3. Strategy No. 2: Step-by-Step Implementation.NJ Transit hired an artist to create this lively map of theWoodbridge train station area which includes a directory oflocal businesses and accurately depicts each building in thedowntown. (Credit: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

Figures 10-4 and 10-5. Strategy No. 3: Developing EffectiveTransit/Community Partnerships. Volunteers, like this seniorcitizen in Portland, OR, can become involved in keeping tran-sit facilities and stops clean and well maintained (Figure 10-4)or a partnership can be established with a local merchantsor downtown association (Figure 10-5). Either way, moreand more communities across the country are partneringwith transit agencies to provide these important services.(Credit: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

While large capital construction projects require adifferent and more involved process (with more fed-eral requirements), small projects can be locally drivenand accomplished in-house with little governmentalintervention and, ironically, little required public participation. Clearly, however, these small projectsbenefit from increased public participation and com-munity partnerships, which increase the likelihood ofacceptance and implementation, as well as opening upopportunities for leveraging additional funding.

Strategy No. 3: Developing EffectiveTransit/Community Partnerships

Case studies in this chapter focus specifically onpartnerships between communities and public andprivate entities as a means to achieving a commu-nity’s vision. Community groups and transit agencieshave found that, by working together, they createbenefits beyond what a transit agency could do byitself and help to improve the livability of the entireneighborhood as a result.

The essential characteristic of a community partner-ship is that different government agencies, the privatesector, nonprofit groups, and citizens communicateand work together on an ongoing basis. The processof analyzing problems and developing solutionstogether encourages people to work with each otherin a constructive and creative manner. A momentumis achieved that would have been virtually impossiblehad people not been brought together to addresscommon concerns.

The working relationship developed during theplanning process can continue to function even after aplan is “complete” to guide future programs and proj-ects. To ensure that such a relationship is sustained,an ongoing organization and public-private commu-nity partnership is needed that is vested with anappropriate level of financial, technical, and manage-ment support. This enables community members tocontinue their involvement to implement their plan,develop new ideas, and further fulfill the commu-nity’s vision.

A community partnership structured around a placeshould be representative of the different interests orgroups of stakeholders who have some role in thatplace: businesses, government agencies, nonprofitorganizations, community groups, and so forth.Because every place is different, the composition andform of the community partnership will vary. The casestudies demonstrate different types of organizationalstructures, ranging from ad hoc advisory groups toelaborately structured public-private community part-nerships. It is for one structure to evolve into another,

for example: a small advisory committee can become aboard of directors for a permanent organization.

This approach suggests a different form of leader-ship in communities. A leader of a community part-nership needs to inspire the active participation ofpeople, but in a different manner than the moreexpected form of leadership, which tends to involveinspiration through force of personality or ideas. Forthis reason, a leader of a community partnership actsas a facilitator of ideas to ensure that every participantis heard in a fair and equitable manner.

Sustaining and Maintaining aCommunity Partnership

A transit agency participating in a community part-nership will need internal organizational support andflexibility. Very often, however, there are internalneeds—such as having to “fast-track” an importantproject—that transcend one department within anagency. The New Jersey Transit Station RenewalProgram, for example, has a project manager withinthe agency that shepherds the projects through thevarious internal bureaucracies.

It is clear that community partnerships also taketime, sustained energy, continual follow-up, andextensive communication with those involved toachieve desired results. The importance of communi-cating the visions to expand participation was oftenstressed by community leaders and transit agenciesalike, to allow a project to leverage additional energyand support. This is why most community partner-ships need strong staff support, usually from one orga-nization that takes the lead. This organization does notnecessarily have to be the transit agency. FruitvaleTransit Village in Oakland, California, is an example ofone community organization that has taken on thisresponsibility. In Wilmington, Delaware, an MPO hastaken on the role and the transit agency has benefitedgreatly from this community partnership effort.

Implementing Through Community Partnerships

The community partnerships presented have gener-ally operated as collaborations where decisions arereached by consensus, multiple viable options are iden-tified, processes are agreed to by parties, diverse per-spectives are legitimized, stakeholders are involved atthe earliest point, and there is free-flowing information.In addition, as seen in most of the successful projects,community partnerships provide an opportunity topool funding and resources and to share responsibilityfor implementation and ongoing management.

117

Community partnerships present opportunities forparticipants to be responsible for specific aspects of aproject and to identify new resources. During thevisioning process for each Los Angeles NeighborhoodInitiative project, neighborhoods were able to identifycomplementary funds to achieve greater communityimpact. Moreover, as projects proceeded, new re-sources emerged, including contributions of volun-teer or in-kind labor and materials. In Tucson, the OldPueblo Trolley took this approach to the extreme byusing community volunteers to restore a historic trol-ley line. The project obtained state funding only afteryears of effort.

Transit agencies themselves have resources valu-able to communities that are not always recognized.Pioneer Courthouse Square in Portland, Oregon, becamefinancially feasible because the transit agency couldcontribute funds to the construction of the squarebecause it was to be the hub of its new light rail sys-tem. Along the Green Line in Chicago the transit agencycontrols a considerable amount of underused land,which it plans to sell to generate additional incomefor the agency and ridership for the subway, whilehelping to rebuild communities along the route.

Finally, community partnerships open up newfunding sources that would not be available for atransit agency alone. Since funding sources also carrytheir own restrictions, skilled community partner-ships like Fruitvale Transit Village in Oakland havelearned to develop specific aspects of their projects so that they become eligible for those funds. Fund-raising campaigns—like selling bricks engraved witha donor’s name to help finance Pioneer CourthouseSquare—can also be planned from the start of aproject.

ENDNOTE

1. Livability Communities Initiative, “Planning,Developing and Implementing Community SensitiveTransit,” Federal Transit Administration (1996) p.7.

CASE STUDIES

Case studies in this chapter illustrate a variety ofcommunity partnership opportunities as well as plan-ning processes for different transit-livability programs.These processes include use of community volunteers(Tucson Old Pueblo Trolley) and extensive communityinvolvement and partnerships with grass-roots organi-zations (Fruitvale Transit Village). New Jersey TransitStation Renewal Program and the Denver Partnershiphave established strong links among transit, local gov-ernment, and the business community. In Wilmington,Delaware, a transit agency is working closely with theMPO to achieve broadbased improvements to the

downtown. Finally, South Station in Boston is an excel-lent example of a transit agency working with privatedevelopers to revitalize a historic train station.

Case Study 10-1: Tucson, AZ: Old Pueblo TrolleyVolunteers Revive Historic Trolley Line

Case Study 10-2; Oakland, CA: BART Fruitvale Transit Village Using Transit to Leverage Funding for Community Development

Case Study 10-3: New Jersey Transit Station Renewal ProgramCreating Partnerships with Community

Case Study 10-4: Boston, MA: South StationTransit-Private Developer Partnership Transforms Historic Station

Case Study 10-5: Wilminton, DE: Wilmington Infastructure Studies Intergovernmental-Private Sector Partnership to Promote Enhanced Livability and Economic Development

Case Study 10-6: Denver, CO: The 16th Street TransitwayTwenty Years of Public-Private Partnerships and Reinvestment

Don’t start a project like this unless you want to dedicateyour whole life to it.

—Eugene Caywood, President, Old Pueblo Trolley

The trolley helps people decide to come to Fourth Avenue.We hope it can become a practical, usable, everyday “hop on/hop off” means of transportation.

—Libby Stone, Executive Director,Fourth Avenue Business District

SUMMARY

In 1983, the Centennial Coordinator for theUniversity of Arizona came up with an idea: whynot restore trolley service to the University as part ofthe school’s centennial celebration? With this goal inmind, an all-volunteer group called Old PuebloTrolley began a 10-year odyssey to restore trolleyservice to downtown Tucson. Successfully achieved,although unfortunately missing the University’sCentennial by a decade, the first trolley to run alongFourth Avenue and University Boulevard in 60 yearstook its maiden voyage in May 1993. Old PuebloTrolley has purchased and restored vintage electricstreetcars and trolleys and their current fleet has

118

Case Study 10-1Tucson, AZ: Old Pueblo Trolley Volunteers Revive Historic Trolley Line

vehicles from Belgium and Japan as well as rehabili-tated trolleys from other parts of the United States.The entire effort, from track laying to trolley repair,was accomplished almost entirely by volunteers.Today, restored trolleys serve shoppers, visitors, and university students and brings office workers to lunch at the many cafes and restaurants alongFourth Avenue. The trolleys serve about 20,000 people per year.

PLANNING PROCESS

The first electric street car graced the streets of thensmall-town Tucson, Arizona, on June 1, 1906, as areplacement for horse-and mule-drawn streetcars.Service, which continued for the next 24 years, startedwith five double-truck, two-man electric streetcars thatthe Tucson Rapid Transit Company (TRT) purchasedfrom the Los Angeles Railway. The route ran to theUniversity of Arizona campus from downtown viaCongress, Stone Avenue, and Third Street (nowUniversity Boulevard) and a second route brought pas-sengers to Carillo Gardens via South, Fourth Avenue,Stone Avenue, and Seventeenth Streets—both routesserving shopping and residential neighborhoods. Overthe years, a total of 12 streetcars were used, which car-ried between 16 and 30 passengers each. In 1925, buseswere added and the routes expanded. In 1930, a peti-tion to permanently replace the streetcars with buseswas approved by the Tucson City Council. Rail street-car service ceased at midnight, New Year’s Eve, 1930.

The idea of restoring streetcar service to theUniversity of Arizona was promoted by Ruth Cross,the University’s Centennial Coordinator, as a way ofcelebrating the school’s 1985 centennial anniversary.An all-volunteer group called Bring Back the Trolley(later officially named Old Pueblo Trolley [OPT]) wasformed to realize Ms. Cross’s vision. The dozen mem-bers of Bring Back the Trolley (which became a non-profit corporation in September 1983) convinced thecity of Tucson and state of Arizona to do a feasibilitystudy in late 1983, which demonstrated that trolleyservice was both a feasible and useful addition to thecity’s public transit fleet. The report called for an 18-hour operating schedule with four trolleys along aroute between two major downtown destinations—theUniversity and the Convention Center. Unfortunately,the study and community support notwithstanding, atrolley bond issue was defeated in May 1984. The factthat OPT only had 2 months before the bond electionto promote the idea is the major reason given for itsdefeat.

Rather than signaling the end of this trolley initia-tive, it heralded its beginning. OPT’s membersdecided to continue the effort with the knowledgethat 17,000 “yes” votes had been received for the trol-

ley bond issue and that many other cities were under-taking similar efforts. A dramatically scaled back ver-sion was planned, which was to be accomplishedsolely with donations of money, materials, and vol-unteer labor. The strategy was to garner grass rootscommunity support, build partnerships with the merchants, property owners, and the Universityalong the proposed route, and start out small—with amanageable route and two trolleys.

In March 1985, OPT leased a historic streetcar fromthe Orange Empire Railway Museum (Perris,California) identical to TRT’s Car No. 10, the laststreetcar to operate in Tucson. Hauled to Tucson bytruck in time for the University of Arizona’s Centen-nial Founders Day Parade, the car took volunteers 8 years to restore to working order. The city’s secondstreetcar, which was originally built for Kyoto, Japan,was purchased in 1992 from the Osaka Hankai Elec-tric Tramway Company using funds from the stategrant (see funding).

119

Figures 10-6 and 10-7. Case Study 10-1. Tucson’s OldPueblo Trolley was rebuilt entirely by volunteers, who con-tinue to fundraise for its expansion as well as serve as con-ductors (Figure 10-6). Volunteers from the InternationalBrotherhood of Electrical Workers uncover the originalburied tracks (Figure 10-7). (Credit: Old Pueblo Trolley)

In September 1985, OPT won approval from thecity to build and operate a streetcar route betweenthe University’s main gates and the OPT car barn, abuilding located on Fourth Avenue and Eighth Streetthat OPT leased for $1.00 per year. OPT volunteersalso were permitted to work within the public rightof way and the city agreed to expose existing historictracks. Volunteers restored track salvaged from pre-vious road work projects. From 1985 through 1993,OPT volunteers, including members of the Inter-national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW),patched concrete, restrung overhead electrical wires,constructed track, and installed historic light poles.Operation of the OPT officially began May 17, 1993,on a 1.1-mi route along Fourth Avenue from the maingate of the University to OPT’s trolley barn.

During the first two tourist seasons, the trolleysoperated 7 days a week from November through Mayand on weekends the rest of the year, serving a widevariety of shops, restaurants, cafes, historic homes,and the University, and enhancing the retail activityalong the Fourth Avenue corridor. This year, trolleyshave only been able to maintain the summer sched-ule: Fridays from 6 p.m. to midnight, Saturdays from10 a.m. to midnight, and Sundays from noon to 6 p.m.

OPT’s long-term plans are the completion ofrestoration of two additional historic streetcars, ex-pansion of their route and service to the ConventionCenter through the Downtown Arts District and theRonstadt Transit Center, establishment of an ArizonaTransit museum and restoration facility at the carbarn, and recruitment of additional conductors, opera-tors, mechanics, and dispatchers.

STRATEGY

There are four elements of OPT’s strategy for gettinga trolley system up and running again.

Track and Overhead. Volunteers, working in collab-oration with the city’s traffic engineers, performed allthe track work, with members of the IBEW stringingthe overhead electrical wires. Old tracks buriedunder asphalt had to be uncovered and repaired andnew tracks laid. The city assisted in this effort by per-mitting volunteers to work in the public right of wayand by cooperating with OPT in salvaging rail forrestoration.

Vehicle Acquisition and Restoration. Because of itslimited funds and the fact that no original trolleysremain in Tucson, OPT has been necessarily resource-ful in its acquisition of streetcars. For example, theBrussels trolley had been shipped to Phoenix in 1980and became part of a restaurant project, which laterwent bankrupt. It was purchased at a bankruptcy sale

by Rod Wattis, who later donated it to OPT. The 1953Japanese trolley was purchased for very little from thetramway company in Osaka; however, the shippingcosts totaled almost $30,000. The first car obtained byOPT had languished on a lot at MGM studios where ithad been used in movies depicting Los Angeles in the1940s, then later had been outside at the OrangeEmpire Railway Museum until it was in need of totalrebuilding.

Operations. Volunteers continue to be recruited andtrained to operate trolleys and restore vehicles.Operators take a mandatory 60-hour training course,while conductors go through a 20-hour course. OPTprobably has the youngest conductor in the nation:Silas Montgomery, who is 11 years old.

Public Relations. OPT also publishes Trolley Tracks, aquarterly newsletter with news of the organization,updates on operation, and historical informationabout Tucson’s trolleys. OPT allows groups to charterits trolleys for educational trips, private parties, andother celebrations; the group is a member of both theArizona Historical Society and the Association ofRailway Museums.

FUNDING

The acquisition of streetcars, and everything to exca-vate the right of way, from cranes to crane operators,was donated or paid for through private contributions,support from the Fourth Avenue Merchants Asso-ciation and University Boulevard property owners.During the first 7 years of planning, OPT was able to raise a total of $200,000. However, in 1990, the OPTfaced a serious cash shortage, which threatened thesuccessful completion of the project. In June 1990, theArizona State Legislature allotted $500,000 in state lot-tery transportation funding to the OPT as a demon-stration light-rail project, thereby ensuring that theproject would come to fruition. OPT has applied forISTEA funds for service extensions and improvements,including extension of the tracks and construction of anew “turn-around.” It currently receives support from200 members nationally, local foundations and busi-nesses, in-kind contributions, and fares from passen-gers. OPT needs a permanent revenue stream to allowoperation when volunteers are not available. Coop-eration between the city, merchants, and propertyowners will be essential in making that happen.

OVERCOMING OBSTACLES

The primary obstacles overcome by the OPT projectwere financial ones. Though it did not provide fund-ing, the city assisted in salvaging track and allowing

120

the work to occur in the first place. Permitting volun-teers to perform construction and electrical work onpublic city streets is truly remarkable. The state’s dis-bursement of $500,000 dollars in lottery funds to theproject at a crucial moment may not have occurredhad the project not come as far as it had workingsolely with donations and volunteer labor. However,keeping together a cadre of active and dedicated vol-unteers for an extended period of time is a labor-intensive effort. There is only so much that volunteersmay be able to accomplish. Fundraising, similarly, is afull-time job.

The trolley faced some physical obstacles as well.The height clearance allowed by the Southern PacificRailroad underpasses at the northern and southernends of Fourth Avenue is inadequate to allow the trol-ley cars to pass underneath. In addition, the grade ofthe road as it passes under the railroad is so steep thatthe trolleys do not have enough power to travel upthe slope, especially when full of passengers.However, the underpass, built in 1916, is due forrebuilding with the design request for proposalscheduled for 1996. Within 4 years, the new under-pass will be built, which will allow the OPT to con-tinue its route downtown to the Ronstadt TransitCenter and, eventually, to the Convention Center.

IMPACT AND ASSESSMENT

Since opening, OPT has served more than 60,000passengers traveling through the West Universityneighborhood and Fourth Avenue business district ontwo restored trolleys. OPT is a popular attraction fortourists and provides low-cost transportation for uni-versity students, shoppers, and area residents, mak-ing it easier for people to leave their cars at home.

According to Libby Stone, Executive Director of theFourth Avenue Business District, merchants withinthis business district are very glad that the trolleyexists, because the trolley helps draw tourists to thearea who spend money, while adding to the wholeconcept of Fourth Avenue as an eclectic shopping anddining district. Some believe, however, that the trolleyis treated too much like a “museum on wheels” or ahistoric piece, and not enough like a practical form ofeveryday transportation.

CONCLUSIONS

The OPT could not have succeeded had it not beenfor community involvement and cooperative partner-ships. The adage, “when the people lead, the leaderswill follow” is particularly relevant to the OPT project.It has sought and gained national (and international)recognition in an attempt to convince suburban-dwelling Tucsonians that a livable center city is a

viable place deserving their support and patronage.The dedication of the OPT members and volunteers isextraordinary and the success of the trolley is a tributeto their unflagging dedication and enthusiasm.

This project embodies the dreams of a community. Becauseof the dedication of citizens throughout the community andbecause of the dedication of Arabella Martinez, the dreamwill become a reality.

—former U.S. DOT Secretary Frederico Peña at the 1993MTC Transportation Awards Program

There are two strengths of this project that have made itsuccessful. One, SSUC mobilized neighborhood and politi-cal support from the onset of the project and two, they generated federal money to match private capital.

—Michael Bernick, BART Board of Directors

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) seesprojects like the BART pedestrian plaza as a way to usetransportation investments to serve larger communitygoals. It is probably the best example of bottoms-up transportation planning in the Bay Area. We need morecommunity-based groups that are willing to wade into thetransportation arena to advance projects.

—Ellen Griffin, MTC

While the Fruitvale BART project presents an unusualopportunity to do “cutting edge” transit-based develop-ment in an inner city setting, perhaps the most unique as-pect of the project is the grassroots origination of the proj-ect, and the collaborative approach to its planning. Theleading role played by SSUC in the project will ensure thata community-based, collaborative approach will be main-tained throughout the project and that community interestswill remain at the forefront of development considerations.

—Rich Bell, Unity Council Fruitvale BARTProject Manager

SUMMARY

The Fruitvale BART Transit Village development in Oakland, California, involves the conversion ofBART’s parking lots and adjacent public and privateproperties into a transit-based, mixed-use develop-ment and community center with a variety of attrac-tions and community services for this low-incomeneighborhood. The Spanish Speaking Unity Council(Unity Council), a 32-year-old, nonprofit communitydevelopment organization, is the developer of thisnational model of community-based transit planning.The new Fruitvale BART Transit Village has thepotential of being designated a “station-area redevel-opment district” under California law. The project

121

Case Study 10-2Oakland, CA: BART Fruitvale Transit VillageUsing Transit to Leverage Fundingfor Community Development

aims to increase transit ridership and employmentopportunities in the area, attract social service facilitiesand retail businesses, and generally improve the qual-ity of life and livability of the Fruitvale neighborhood.

The vision for the Fruitvale BART Transit Villageincludes the following:

• A pedestrian plaza connecting the BART stationwith the East 14th Street commercial district;

• Two parking structures containing retail storesand restaurants on the ground level and com-munity facilities on the second and third levelsfacing the pedestrian plaza;

• Other public and private agencies such as LaClinica de La Raza, a senior center, a child devel-opment center and the Unity Council’s head-quarters;

• Affordable housing, including housing for seniorcitizens;

• Additional retail on the private parcels;• An intermodal bus transfer facility behind the

BART station; and• Facade and street streetscape improvements

along the East 14th Street retail corridor.

Although this project has yet to be built, the exten-sive community planning and visioning processalready undertaken is perhaps one of the best exam-ples of its kind in the United States. With the help of a$6.6 million EZ grant, the Unity Council and its part-ners have more than $23,000,000 in funds for prede-velopment planning and for the construction of theFruitvale BART Transit Village. Funding sourcesinclude the city of Oakland, DOT/FTA, BART, theFord Foundation, the James Irvine Foundation, theWilliam and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Levi-Strauss Foundation, the BankAmerica Foundation,Citibank and the Departments of Housing and UrbanDevelopment and Health and Human Services.

PLANNING PROCESS

Oakland’s Fruitvale is primarily a low-incomeLatino, Asian, and African-American community. Fivemajor and several smaller nonprofit, grassroots com-munity and social service organizations have estab-lished themselves in the community. One of the oldestis the Unity Council, a community development corpo-ration whose mission is to reverse the deterioration ofthe neighborhood through a comprehensive programof physical, economic, and social development.

The Fruitvale Transit Village initiative got under-way in 1991, when two contradictory assessmentsstirred extensive debate about the future of the East

14th Street commercial district. While the University-Oakland Metropolitan Forum had identified this areaas a prime community development opportunity andrecommended integration of the commercial districtand the existing transit station, BART had proposedconstructing a multilevel parking facility on a siteadjacent to the Fruitvale station.

Seeing a new parking structure as offering little tobenefit to the community, the Unity Council took thelead in organizing a broad, community-based plan-ning process not only to develop alternatives to theparking structure, but also to conceive an overallvision for the project and a long-range plan for theFruitvale neighborhood. The Unity Council begandiscussions and hosted planning sessions with thecommunity out of which developed a proposal to cre-ate a pedestrian plaza linking the BART station withthe East 14th Street business district. In 1992, the cityprovided the Unity Council with a $185,000 planninggrant to further develop the project, marking thebeginning of the city’s commitment to the Fruitvaleneighborhood.

The Unity Council continued to work with the com-munity to formulate the neighborhood developmentplan and to meet with community leaders and repre-sentatives from BART and the city. It sponsored adesign charrette in which five major architecturalfirms developed alternative land-use plans that werereviewed at a community design symposium in May1993. Soon thereafter, the Unity Council established apublic-private partnership with BART and the city towork together to develop the transit village. It signeda memorandum of understanding with the two publicagencies and subsequently signed an exclusive nego-tiating agreement (ENA) with BART. It also com-pleted a market study, a financial feasibility study, aPhase I EIS, a Phase II toxic assessment for the seniorhousing project, and a preliminary traffic impact study.

In late 1994, the Unity Council consultants pre-pared design guidelines for East 14th Street, with theinvolvement of the merchants, property owners, andinterested residents. The city is likely to adopt theseas part of the revision of its general plan and specificneighborhood plan.

In February 1995, the Unity Council also selected anarchitectural firm to lead the community site-planningprocess. Three public meetings and several forumsaddressing specific development issues were heldwith special constituencies such as youth and seniorcitizens, as well as with the city, BART, and ACTransit. A consensus plan emerged from the discus-sions that proposed closing East 12th Street. Becauseof community concerns, however, a second plan wasdeveloped merely to narrow the street. The new planhas received positive feedback from the city, BART,

122

FTA, and a number of community groups that haveseen it and mitigates many of the environmentalimpacts of the consensus plan.

STRATEGY

In response to BART’s proposal to build a newparking structure for the Fruitvale station, the UnityCouncil and the Fruitvale community developed avision to do the following:

• Revitalize the area around their BART station;• Create a transit- and pedestrian-friendly urban

center for Fruitvale;• Integrate the BART station into the community

by creating a pedestrian-friendly link betweenBART and East 14th Street, housing, and existingcommunity facilities;

• Improve bus and pedestrian access to the stationas well as to the adjacent commercial district;

• Draw commercial activity to the area, particu-larly toward East 14th Street;

• Enhance the safety of residents and transit pas-sengers alike, particularly along East 14th Street;

• Introduce entrepreneurial and job opportunitiesinto the community by locating community ser-vices and commercial facilities at the site;

• Make street and facade improvements along East14th Street; and

• Build affordable housing to decrease overcrowd-ing, improve security in the area through an“eyes-on-the-street” approach and enhance retailsales in Fruitvale.

As proposed, the Fruitvale Transit Village willencompass 15 to 24 acres of BART land, adjacent citystreets and private properties and will cost approxi-mately $100 million to develop. Phase I will includethe intermodal bus transfer facility, two parkingstructures (one for BART and the other for the tenantsof the transit village), and the pedestrian plaza linkingthe BART station to the commercial district. Retailand community office space, a medical facility(Clinica de la Raza), a child care center, senior hous-ing and the Unity Council’s headquarters (housingother public and private agencies such as the LatinAmerican Library) will also be built in Phase I. PhaseII will include a supermarket, other retail uses andhousing. The first elements of Phase I to start con-struction will be the senior housing and child carefacilities in September 1996, after environmental clearance is received.

The Unity Council will initiate the facade and streetstreetscape enhancements in 1996. It will coordinate

its efforts with the city’s Office of EconomicDevelopment and Employment (OEDE) and itsNeighborhood Community Revitalization Program.The city has already installed historic-style streetlights, planted street trees, contracted with localartists to design and install an arch to span FruitvaleAvenue at the corner of East 14th Street, and initiateda facade improvement program using Americorpsvolunteers.

The Unity Council has established a communitydesign board that will make recommendations as towhich stores in the commercial corridor will get thefacelift. Given limited funds, decisions will be made inaccordance with guidelines that have been establishedto ensure that the facade improvement program com-plements the transit village. The Unity Council willhire a contractor and work with a crew of the East BayConservation Corps to do the work. It will providebusiness assistance to those property owners and mer-chants who want to make more improvements thanare possible with Unity Council and city funds. Theywill be provided assistance with putting togetherbusiness plans and loan packages to upgrade theirbusinesses as well as their buildings. The programalso includes an arts program that will hire localartists to produce a logo and banners with that logo toprovide an identity to Fruitvale. The work of localartists will be displayed in empty store fronts. All ofthis is part of a marketing plan to enhance the imageof Fruitvale and improve the business environment.

Construction of the other elements of Phase I isscheduled to begin in March 1997 and to reach com-pletion 18 months later. Construction of Phase II isscheduled to begin immediately after that and becompleted in the year 2001. After the transit village is finally built out, the Unity Council will focus onobtaining available, adjacent private parcels of landbeyond the transit village.

The BART ENA with the Unity Council will lead toa development implementation agreement when theUnity Council completes all the requirements of theENA. It will be the first time that BART has not issueda competitive request for proposal for bids for a joint-development project.

Controversial, unresolved issues, such as the type,location, and density of the proposed residentialunits, have been left open for discussion while otheraspects of the plan, where consensus has beenreached, have moved forward.

FUNDING

The key to the success of the Fruitvale TransitVillage initiative has been the ability of the UnityCouncil to attract funds from a range of sources to

123

124

Figures 10-8 and 10-9. Case Study 10-2. Proposed plans for the Fruitvale BART Transit Village, Oakland, CA, feature a central square, senior housing, day care facilitiesand residential units to replace a parking lot and existing transit station. Key to Figure 10-8: 1-Existing BART Station; 2-Bus Plaza; 3-Festival Plaza; 4-Parking Struc-ture; 5-Retail/Commercial; 6–12th Street; 7–34th Avenue; 8-Residential over Parking/Retail; 9-Retail; 10-Day Care Facility; 11-Senior Housing; 12-Surface Parking; 13-Playground; 14-Senior Center. (Credit: MV&P International and Legobreta Arquitectos)

fund the many elements of the transit village project.In 1992, the city awarded a $185,000 planning grant tothe Unity Council for planning the BART station arearedevelopment project. In 1993, former U.S. DOTSecretary Frederico Peña and FTA AdministratorGordon Linton gave the Metropolitan TransportationCommission (MTC) a $470,000 planning grant for theFruitvale project. To date, more than $23 million hasbeen raised or allocated by the Unity Council and itspartners, including the following:

• $6.234 million for the senior housing;• $780,000 for the pedestrian plaza;• $2.675 million for the intermodal bus transfer

center;• $2.250 million from the city of Oakland for a

multipurpose/senior center;• $1.869 million for predevelopment planning

from the city, FTA, and foundations;• $1.246 million for land assembly and relocation

from the city, Department of Health and HumanServices (Head Start), the Unity Council and LaClinica de La Raza; and

• $917,000 for the East 14th Street facade and streetstreetscape improvements from the city andHousing and Urban Development’s (HUD) HopeVI funds through the Oakland HousingAuthority.

Not included above are the staff costs of the city,BART, AC Transit, or La Clinica or the costs of thecity’s and BART’s environmental impact studies.Also, not included is the $45,000 raised by artistCarolyna Marks from local community organizations,corporations, foundations, and individuals to financethe creation of her “Peace Wall” for the Fruitvale sta-tion, made of 3,600 tiles painted by students, commu-nity groups, merchants, local politicians, celebrities,and BART officials.

There are pending grants and loans from federal,state, and local governments as well as foundationsand banks. This pending funding exceeds $10,000,000and is subject to completion of specific grant condi-tions prior to disbursement.

There are financial gaps for some of the specific ele-ments of the development, but most will be filled byborrowing from private lenders because projectionsshow that debt can be repaid from the income flowsfrom specific projects. A major financial gap of morethan $10,000,000 relates to the BART parking structure.The gap exists because BART has a “no parking fee”policy which means there is no income to service debt.This is being discussed with BART and the city’s redevelopment agency.

The Unity Council has used the transit village de-velopment to attract millions of dollars to the Fruit-vale community that might not have been forthcom-

125

Figures 10-8 and 10-9. (continued)

ing without the transit initiative. This transit projecthas served to generate momentum and, most impor-tant, funding for a myriad of other community andeconomic development programs.

OVERCOMING OBSTACLES

Inner city neighborhood redevelopment is a com-plex and extremely difficult undertaking. Privatedevelopers have usually shied away from such pro-jects because of the difficulties. Few communitydevelopment corporations have attempted to under-take a project of the scale of the Fruitvale BARTTransit Village.

The Unity Council has faced a number of chal-lenges and obstacles, and these have changed as thedevelopment advanced. The initial challenge was con-vincing BART, the city, and others that the FruitvaleBART Transit Village was not a dream. There werequestions about the Unity Council’s developmentcapacity and its ability to raise large sums of money.These concerns were legitimate because the UnityCouncil is a relatively small community developmentcorporation, had not been in the development busi-ness for a number of years, and did not have staffwith mixed-use and large-scale development experi-ence. These doubts have for the most part been over-come as the Unity Council has demonstrated itscapacity to raise substantial dollars. Particularlyimportant in changing perceptions were FTA’s plan-ning and HUD’s senior housing grants. The concernsabout the Unity Council’s development capacity have subsided as the Unity Council completed onetask after another and is now poised to begin con-struction on the senior housing. The concern aboutthe Unity Council’s development capacity has nowchanged to concerns about its implementation capac-ity. To mitigate this concern, the Unity Council isexploring the possibility of selecting a joint-venturepartner with financing and large-scale constructionexperience.

A second challenge has been finding resources tobuild the BART parking structure. Building the park-ing structure is critical as an integral element of thepedestrian plaza, plaza retail, and community facili-ties. Also, its construction in Phase I allows for thebuilding of the Phase II housing on BART land.Unfortunately, the capital improvement funds thatBART was going to invest in the Fruitvale parkingstructure were used to build a parking structure atanother station. The Unity Council initially thoughtthese funds were replaceable, but this may not be thecase. The Unity Council is discussing working with

BART and the redevelopment agency to address thismajor financial gap.

A third challenge has been environmental clearance.The Unity Council could not begin the final environ-mental clearance process until there was a final siteplan. The community site-planning process was exten-sive and time-consuming. The consensus site planwould have had substantial environmental impactsthat would have been costly to mitigate because of theclosing of East 12th Street for which there was alsosome community opposition. In addition, the amountof time needed to obtain environmental clearance forthe consensus plan might have jeopardized some ofthe funding for the transit village. The Unity Councildecided to develop an alternative site plan in whichEast 12th was narrowed, but not closed.

A related challenge has been the numerous andconflicting government rules, regulations, conditions,and timelines of the various grantors. DOT, HUD,and Health and Human Services (HHS) environ-mental clearance rules and processes are differentfrom each other. The city and the state of Californiaair quality requirements are different from the fed-eral National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)requirements.

Release of funding is also caught up with environ-mental clearance. The Unity Council has had to use itsscarce unrestricted dollars to cover property acquisi-tion until other funding is released.

The lack of funds has meant that the Unity Councilmissed the opportunity to land bank earlier in theplanning stage when there was still some skepticismabout the reality of the transit village. Now someproperty owners hope to make financial profits onproperties that were not salable 2 years ago. This hasraised the cost for the development of the transit vil-lage, and it may be difficult to attract retail because theland costs will not allow for rents that are in keepingwith those of other developments in the area.

Beyond the technical and funding issues are com-munity issues. The issue of the closing of East 12thStreet has been partially resolved with the new siteplan, although the issue of the type and density ofnew housing to be constructed at the site has been along-standing point of contention. Some communitymembers were exposed to a variety of types of afford-able housing and ways in which they have been inte-grated into different communities through a series ofslides, which were presented at one of the communitysite planning meetings. While it is clear to many peo-ple that the Unity Council and other nonprofit devel-opers are responsible builders and landlords, they areafraid that the proposed up-zoning around transithubs in the new general plan will encourage outside

126

private developers to come into these areas and con-struct very dense, structurally poor housing for low-income renters who do not have a stake in thehousing or the community.

The community is concerned that building newhousing will exacerbate the already overcrowdedpublic schools of the area. Residents and other stake-holders are concerned with the low level of owneroccupancy and the current housing market. The UnityCouncil will not be able to address all these fears, butit believes that some of these will be mitigated once itis able to develop the housing element in more detail.

IMPACT AND ASSESSMENT

Through the use of a community-based planningprocess, the community has reached agreement on aconceptual site plan as well as on the design programfor the East 14th Street renovation and facadeimprovement component of the project.

Because the Fruitvale Transit Village project has not yet been implemented, the greatest impact of thisproject thus far is as a national model for planning community-based, transit-oriented developments. Itis a model for demonstrating how communities, espe-cially those with economically and ethnically diversepopulations, can use transit projects to achieve com-munity economic revitalization and development.

When fully implemented, BART anticipates 40 per-cent more people will leave their cars at home to takepublic transit from this station. More than 750 jobswill be created and retail sales and income willincrease as will property values. More than 250 unitsof affordable housing, including nursing homes forsenior citizens, will be built and the physical environ-ment will be greatly improved by the new construc-tion and facade improvement program. The area willbe safer as a result of increased numbers of people inthe area during the day and evening. The city willbenefit from the recognition that it has succeeded inrevitalizing one of the most seriously blighted, eco-nomically depressed neighborhoods in the city andfrom increased sales and property taxes.

CONCLUSIONS

From a $185,000 planning grant, the Unity Counciland its partners have been able to leverage nearly $17million to fund the development and construction ofthe Fruitvale BART Transit Village and all of the com-munity and social service facilities to be housedthere—uses which will make a substantial contribu-tion to the livability of the neighborhood. The Unity

Council in general, and Arabella Martinez, its ChiefExecutive Officer, in particular, are given credit formobilizing and maintaining the broad communitybase of support for the Fruitvale BART development,which represents a model for the integration of trans-portation, land use, economic development, and com-munity development. The development and con-struction funds the Fruitvale BART Transit Village hasreceived attests to the success of its planning strategyand ability to bring together and sustain a coalition of public and private sector groups to work with a community in order to realize its vision.

SOURCES

Olsen, Laura and Chris Bender, Mobility Partners Case Study:Transit-Oriented Communities, Surface TransportationPolicy Project, Washington, DC.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Transactions,Oakland, CA (October 1993).

The most important thing we did differently was we

worked in partnership with a lot of people and organiza-tions locally that we don’t always work with.

—Rick Richmond, Director,NJ Transit Department of Engineering

[Woodbridge Station] is more than a railroad station; it isan example of how people in a community can invest inthat community and make it a rallying point of how vitalthe community is. Through this project, we recognize we’rea vital part of the community we serve.

—NJ DOT Commissioner Wilson

SUMMARY

Despite significant investment in New JerseyTransit’s (NJ Transit) 158 passenger facilities over thepast 15 years, many of the rehabilitated stations havebeen vandalized and have become deterioratedbecause of poor maintenance and a lack of on-sitemanagement and/or sufficient operating funds.Efforts to rehabilitate these stations also were hin-dered by the poor quality of the adjacent environmentand lack of maintenance resources. Many stations andtheir environs were perceived as unsafe by NJ Transitcustomers, and only a few stations had the kind of

127

Case Study 10-3New Jersey Transit Station Renewal ProgramCreating Partnerships with Community

passenger-oriented amenities that commuters want,such as a newsstand or a concession with hot coffeeand breakfast food. Some did not have sheltered out-door seating areas and a number of station buildingshad been closed by NJ Transit or rented to other non-transit-related businesses. Clearly, there had to be abetter way.

In 1991, a concept for a station renewal programdesigned to address these issues was developedthrough discussions between NJ Transit and Projectfor Public Spaces, Inc. (PPS). The goals of the programwere to improve the condition, appearance, uses, and,most important, the management of its commuter railstations to serve passengers more effectively, promotepublic transit, and act as a catalyst for economicdevelopment in the communities in which they arelocated. This program has employed an innovative,community-based approach to guide NJ Transit in itsongoing station renewal efforts.

PLANNING PROCESS

Five train stations were evaluated during the courseof the program, including Bradley Beach, Maplewood,Netherwood (in Plainfield), Rahway, and Woodbridge(see Case Study 4-2). Each station offered a uniqueopportunity for making improvements that not onlywould help increase ridership, but would better inte-grate these stations into their communities and createsustainable partnerships between NJ Transit and eachcommunity. The five stations represented a cross-section of station types and environments, including atourist location (Bradley Beach), a suburban station ina residential/business district (Maplewood), a historicstation in a depressed urban center (Netherwood), astation with a high volume of passenger use(Rahway), and a station at the confluence of majorhighways and train lines in New Jersey (Woodbridge).

The planning process used in each community con-sisted primarily of meetings with communities andNJ Transit management; detailed observations of pas-senger use at stations at various times; surveys oftrain passengers; interviews with nearby retailers;informal discussions with ticket agents during peakand off-peak times; and studies of where peoplewaited for trains, where they were picked up anddropped off, and what routes passengers used toenter and leave each station. In the survey, peoplewere questioned about their general impression of thestation, about types of retail and other services for thestation, about other kinds of activities for the stationand the surrounding area, and about their primarytransportation needs and concerns. All of this infor-mation helped to create a clear picture of how eachstation was currently used and perceived.

In addition, community meetings were held to gainadditional insight and share findings and observationswith passengers, local residents, merchants, and cityrepresentatives. Participants identified their mostpressing needs and concerns for each station and madesuggestions for improvements to station buildings andadjacent areas. These meetings were arranged by NJTransit in conjunction with representatives from eachcity and with local organizations, such as merchantassociations.

The following common issues and problem areaswere identified.

Lack of On-Site Management of Station Buildings andAdjacent Areas. At several stations, there was wide-spread concern among passengers that stations wereunsafe and, in most of the communities studied, thatthe stations were poorly maintained. This perceptionwas created by several overlapping aspects of the sta-tion surroundings, including boarded up and closedstation buildings, poor maintenance of buildings andgrounds, inadequate lighting of platforms and park-ing lots, litter, and graffiti. The combination of theseproblems had a major impact on passengers’ sense ofsafety and security and detracted from the surround-ing areas as well.

Most of the train stations operated by NJ Transitdid not have regular on-site management. BradleyBeach and Netherwood lacked a management pres-ence altogether. At many stations, people who pro-vided transit-related information or sold tickets,refreshments, newspapers, and other items were onlyat the station for limited hours. At other times, thestations were closed and no active amenities wereoffered. Although general station maintenance wasprovided, small-scale maintenance and cleaning wasnot done on a regular basis. This gave stations theappearance of being uncared for and unmanaged.

According to NJ Transit, constricted operating bud-gets have limited management and regular mainte-nance of stations, station buildings, parking lots, andadjacent areas. It was also difficult for NJ Transit toimplement even minor, yet highly visible improve-ments. Another approach was needed, therefore, to guarantee the management and maintenance ofthese stations in a manner that serves the needs ofpassengers, communities, and NJ Transit.

Underutilization of Station Buildings for Passenger andCommunity Use. Many of NJ Transit’s station build-ings lacked clear identities as train stations and didnot provide adequate levels of service to passengers.Lack of attention to the historic character of the build-ings, poor visual and difficult physical access, absenceof identifying station signage, and lack of visual and

128

physical connections between stations and their com-munities contributed to this lack of identity and senseof place. Furthermore, many of the station buildingshave been adapted for other purposes (e.g., banks,real estate or physicians’ offices). While this hassolved some maintenance problems for NJ Transit, italso resulted in facilities whose transportation rolewas subsumed by the prominence of the tenant use.

Lack of Community Input into the Station Design Pro-cess. The station design process typically used by NJTransit and other transit agencies in developing plansfor new and rehabilitated stations was neither com-munity- nor user-based. Rather, concepts were firstdeveloped by the transit agency, and communitieswere asked to react and give input.

STRATEGY

NJ Transit’s lack of success with a typical planningapproach made it clear that a new way of designingand managing stations and working with local com-munities was necessary. The current system workedneither for NJ Transit nor for communities. Opportu-nities for stations to become integral to the vitality oftheir communities and catalysts for economic andcommunity revitalization were being overlooked.

Community-Based Design Process for Project Develop-ment. Through the process used in the five communi-ties, NJ Transit learned that community involve-ment and participation, from the start of the designprocess through the implementation of stationimprovements, are key elements of a successfulbroad-based approach to station design and areessential to the development of community supportfor transit projects. Such an approach focuses on anunderstanding of the important and often disparateissues and needs within each community and relieson information gathered through station observa-tions, interviews and community input to helpdesign station improvements.

By establishing a program of uses for the stationbefore the concept design is developed, appropriate,mutually acceptable, and beneficial uses evolve. Also,the community has the opportunity to share responsi-bility for ongoing maintenance and management ofthe station and the adjacent public spaces.

Public/Private Community Partnerships. The NJ TransitStation Renewal Program is an initiative in which indi-vidual communities share responsibility for designingand implementing station improvements as well as forongoing maintenance and management of stations

129

Figures 10-10 through 10-12. Case Study 10-3,Woodbridge Train Station, Woodbridge, New Jersey. Thegoal of this project shown here, before (Figure 10-10) andafter renovation (Figure 10-11), was to create a “sense ofplace” for the station and to make the station more appeal-ing to and function better for transit passengers. NJ Transitworked with the Township to turn this railroad trestle into amessage of welcoming for the town and the transit facilityas well. (Credit: NJ Transit Corporation)

and adjacent public spaces. Moreover, activities suchas supplementing existing security services, retail leas-ing, and coordination of customer and communityinformation is provided by communities in partner-ship with NJ Transit. Implementing such an effortenables NJ Transit to draw on a community’s vastarray of economic, creative, and human resources.

In this approach, communities have a major impacton the quality of the station environment. Some of thespecific activities that have been undertaken by NJTransit in partnership with communities at its com-muter rail stations include the following:

• Working with the community to define issuesand potential solutions and implement changesat the Woodbridge and Netherwood commuterrail stations.

• Providing maintenance for the station building(excluding major capital improvements). At theMaplewood station, local artists repainted a mu-ral in the passenger tunnel. At Netherwood, a ma-jor neighborhood group is organizing a project at a local middle school in which students willpaint murals on the tunnel walls and adjacentbuildings.

• Working with residents of the Maplewood com-munity to maintain station landscaping aroundtheir rail station. In Netherwood, a local commu-nity group entered a partnership with the HomeDepot to fund and install flower planters on thestation platforms. The group also helps maintainlandscaping.

• Evaluating the need and providing for the infor-mational and amenity needs of the community atthe stations. An artist was commissioned by NJTransit to create a decorative map at the Wood-bridge Station of all retail, community, and recreational points of interest in the town.

• Developing a program of community social andcultural activities and events for public spacesadjacent to train stations. Several of NJ Transit’sother stations have been the site of “First Night”family-oriented New Year’s Eve celebrations forthe past 2 years; in addition, a weekly farmer’smarket takes place at and under the East Orangetrain station during that city’s free summer jazzconcerts, and weekly farmer’s markets at theBernardsville station creates activity at the station each Saturday during the summer.

Passenger Service Center Programs Using ExistingStation Buildings. When NJ Transit seeks to attractvendors and businesses to its stations, it looks first tobusinesses in the immediate vicinity before solicitinginterest from national chains or retailers from other

townships. In this way, local businesses are not forcedto compete with out-of-town operations and are pro-vided with additional retail outlets and a larger cus-tomer base, which helps them and adds to theeconomic vitality of the town as well. Train stationsalso are appropriate centers for incubator-retail activ-ity, where small vendors or emerging retailers aregiven an opportunity to market goods and services orto try out new product lines.

As this program was being developed, the ideaemerged that NJ Transit could encourage retailers ora “concierge” to run “passenger service centers.”These centers are intended to make available to pas-sengers the services and products of local businesses,either by providing retail spaces at stations as satellitebusiness opportunities for local retailers, or through a concierge program in which the goods and servicesof local businesses would be sold by a concierge at the station, an on-site manager who contracts withlocal businesses to sell goods and services on theirbehalf, such as film and dry cleaning drop-off. Thisprogram is in the process of being implemented inMaplewood.

FUNDING

The plan for the NJ Transit Station Renewal Pro-gram, including station improvement concepts for fivestations, was funded jointly by NJ Transit and theGeraldine R. Dodge Foundation. The Dodge Founda-tion is concerned about revitalization of communitiesin the state and provided a planning grant to Projectfor Public Spaces, Inc. In the long term, NJ Transitplans to partially fund managerial activities at stationsthrough an income stream generated from selectedparking fees dedicated to this purpose. These fundscan then be deposited into a fund administered by alocal entity (e.g., a downtown or merchants’ associa-tion or nonprofit organization) responsible for stationmanagement and under contract to NJ Transit.

Station management projects will continue to befunded at NJ Transit by New Jersey TransportationTrust Funds, FTA capital funds, including ISTEAenhancement funds, and private funds. For example,the $2.1 million Netherwood Station Renewal Project,which is really a coordinated set of separate projectsand funding sources, is a combination of grants to NJTransit from the FTA (ISTEA), State TransportationTrust Funds; grants to the city of Plainfield from theFederal Highway Administration, FTA/State of NewJersey (ISTEA) and Urban Enterprise Zone Authority;and private developer funding (for station tenant).

In the short term, the community volunteer groupsand city governments contribute time, project support

130

and implementation assistance as well as re-prioritizetheir own improvement plans so they are coordinatedwith those of the station renewal project. In the longterm, the coordinated set of improvements and atten-tion to the station and adjacent public spaces by apartnership of interest generates a viable, livable com-munity capable of sustaining itself.

OVERCOMING OBSTACLES

This project changed the way NJ Transit views andmanages its facilities. Change is usually difficult, par-ticularly within a bureaucracy. While several NJTransit managers were extremely supportive andexcited about the community-based process to im-prove the train stations, others were skeptical andeven uncooperative and went so far as to view thisapproach as subversive. The ultimate success of theWoodbridge project, which was the first to be com-pleted, has done much to build confidence in the community-based approach to station renewal in theeyes of NJ Transit engineers.

IMPACT AND ASSESSMENT

The approach used in the NJ Transit StationRenewal Program greatly facilitated project implemen-tation. With strong local support and a creative vision,these projects were selected for implementation by NJTransit over others proposed. All of the improvementsrecommended for the Woodbridge station have beenimplemented. NJ Transit has received a design awardfrom the Downtown New Jersey Association and hasbeen nominated for an American Planning Associationdesign award (see Case Study 4-2). The exterior restora-tion of Netherwood Station has been completed andwork has begun on the parking lot and park redesign.A retail tenant is in negotiation to create a cafe in thestation. In Maplewood, the concierge program isunderway and landscaping and tunnel improvementshave been made to the station by the local businessassociation. At Rahway, a new station design has beenaccepted and construction is underway. The city andNJ Transit are moving forward to develop a conceptplan to turn the plaza in front of the station into a large,urban central square.

NJ Transit has continued to work in partnershipwith these five communities on project implementa-tion. In addition, NJ Transit staff has begun to under-stand the larger role that transit plays in communitiesand the importance of obtaining community involve-ment early in the project design process. This ap-proach will be used in the redesign of future stations,such as Red Bank and Perth Amboy.

CONCLUSIONS

By jointly developing and implementing stationimprovement plans with communities, NJ Transit hasdemonstrated that stations can have active, publiclyoriented uses and programs that contribute to the liv-ability of the community. As projects are completed,security is improved, station revenues are increased,riders are attracted and stations can begin to act ascatalysts for economic development in the surround-ing areas. The partnership concept is necessary inorder to manage and maintain train stations so thatthey can meet these ambitious goals and ensure thecommitment of the community to sustaining the vitality and livability of the station area.

Railroads tend to build cities—whereas cars tend to destroythem. That’s because a railroad system concentrates life andactivity around its stations.

—Robert Campbell, The Boston Globe,Tuesday, November 21, 1989

[We all] began to realize what a wonderful place this is andhow much better it is for all of our customers. We had bet-ter work well together because it is in our mutual interest.”

—Jim Wright, project manager

SUMMARY

South Station serves as a gateway to Boston’s revi-talized financial and retail center. The station is themultimodal transportation hub for the MassachusettsBay Transportation Authority (MBTA) CommuterRail, Red Line Subway service, long distance inter-and intra-city buses, and Amtrak’s Northeast Corri-dor train service. Slated for demolition in the 1970s to make way for the new headquarters of an engi-neering firm, South Station was saved when the HeadHouse (main building) was listed on the NationalRegister of Historic Places and was renovated as aresult of increasing transit ridership during the 1980s.It is now the second busiest transportation center inNew England.

South Station reopened in 1989 after undergoingmajor renovation, the concept for which has success-fully transformed a rundown terminal plagued with

131

Case Study 10-4Boston, MA: South Station Transit-Private Developer PartnershipTransforms Historic Station

security problems into an active public amenity andfocal point for the area around it. The renovation wasfunded through a three-way private-public partner-ship among the MBTA, the owner of the Station;Amtrak, an anchor tenant; and Beacon South StationAssociates (BSSA). Beacon Management Companymanages the facility today.

PLANNING PROCESS

South Station, a neoclassical revival-style buildingpredating Grand Central and the old Penn Station inNew York City, was dedicated on New Year’s Eve1898. For the next several decades, it was the busiestrailroad station in the country, serving nearly 40 mil-lion passengers annually. By the 1960s, however,South Station was dilapidated and virtually unused.While saved from demolition in the 1970s, the stationcontinued to function as a train facility both forAmtrak and commuter rail and had only one workingelevator and one open staircase. In addition, the thirdfloor had been closed after a fire and the fifth floorwas completely abandoned. The desolate facility hadbecome a haven for the homeless, which only servedto exacerbate its negative image.

Restoration of the structure, which was performedby the MBTA, began in 1983 and was completed in1989 under the Northeast Corridor ImprovementProject. Funded by the federal government, this $4.4billion program paid for the renovation of Amtraktrain stations from Washington, DC, to Boston,Massachusetts.

The station was renovated in order to act as a cata-lyst for further development of the South Station/FortPoint Channel area; add an integral part to the city’spatchwork of streets, parks, and public spaces; enablethe MBTA to better meet the public’s needs and toimprove transportation service; and create a marketsquare and public gathering place where peoplecould comfortably meet, eat, shop, and mix.

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) hiredthe firm of DeLeuw Cather/Parsons to do conceptualdesigns for the entire transit corridor. Each stationthen sent out its own requests for proposals (RFPs) toselect local designers for each part of the project, in-cluding station buildings, track beds, and platforms.Design fees were paid by the FRA directly to the localdesigners. As owners of South Station, the MBTA wasinvolved in the design and worked with the localarchitect to build out the concourse, platforms, andtracks. At this point, the MBTA advertised for adeveloper manager to build out the concession andtenant floor. Beacon Management was selectedthrough an RFP process. The specific developmentand management responsibilities were divided

between the MBTA and Beacon and were put into a65-year lease agreement.

STRATEGY

South Station handles about 36,000 passengers perday and runs 210 commuter and 27 Amtrak trainsdaily. About 1,000 passengers take Greyhound busesand 37,000 passengers use the Red Line subway eachday. A new bus terminal is being constructed as partof the South Station Transportation Center.

Management. While the station is still run by theMBTA, Beacon Management Company develops andimplements the merchandising plan for South Stationand currently performs retail tenant management, theleasing of retail and office space and planning of spe-cial events. The company is also responsible for day-to-day management, maintenance, and security at thefacility. Beacon Management Company hires andsupervises maintenance staff and handles all publicrelations, including producing and distributing posters,brochures, and advertising of all station events.

Design. South Station is a five-story structure, thefacade of which is Stony Creek granite and features 16ionic columns. It was built as a double-deck stationwith 28 tracks. Two wings extend out from each sideof a center section. The restaurant has coffered ceil-ings and the station has terrazzo floors, retail, a foodhall, a grand concourse that is 300 ft long and 45 fthigh, 125,000 sq ft of office space, and 25,000 sq ft ofretail space.

Before the station renovation, the longer east wing,which ran along Summer Street, was torn down to

132

Figure 10-13. Case Study 10-4. Boston’s South Station,Boston, MA, has become a venue for community and cul-tural events and fund-raisers as well as a transit stationserving 36,000 passengers each day. (Credit: BeaconSouth Station Associates)

make way for Stone and Webster, an engineering firm,to construct their new headquarters. Originally, thefirm had planned to demolish the entire station beforelandmark designation saved the building. The smallerwest wing also had been partially destroyed. As partof the renovation, the MBTA made the two wings thesame length and joined the ends with a glass wall; thisserved to create a new, larger concourse area.

Other unique design features include the only re-maining double three-legged, hand-wind clock mech-anism in New England, in the style of London’s BigBen. There is an eagle with an 8-ft wing span atop thestation building. Much of the interior is mahoganyand polished brass. As part of the historic restoration,original gas lights and station signage were alsorestored.

Beacon Management created standards for kioskdesign, signage, and facades. They built four kiosks inthe grand concourse, which camouflage ventilationshafts. Eight wooden benches conjure up images ofhistoric train station decor. Additionally, more than25 tables with chairs are located in the grand con-course and substantial seating is provided in the foodcourt mezzanine.

Community Services and Events. More than 50 eventsper year are hosted by the Beacon ManagementCompany at South Station. On a daily basis, there areexhibits, concerts, fund-raisers, performers, musi-cians, ballroom dancing, family-oriented program-ming, and health-related activities such as bloodpressure testing. These events draw more than 50,000people annually and help to support the station’s 20retailers. The community has been actively involvedin running and advertising community-oriented special events and activities at the station.

Retail. Some 14,000 sq ft of retail space at SouthStation currently are occupied by 20 food, gift, andservice providers. The retail mix reflects a wide vari-ety of commuter-oriented services, which make SouthStation a convenient place for passengers to shop andreinforces the station’s role as the “market square” forthe area. Retailers include a florist, an accessory store,a bank, cafes, bakeries, a photo lab, trolley tours fortourists, a newsstand, a bookstore, and several localand national bars and restaurants.

Security. Security was not a design issue for the ren-ovated station, as evidenced by the fact that there arenow many more doors than before. Security has beenimproved primarily through the increased presenceof several types of security personnel at the station.Boston City police patrol the exterior of the station,MBTA police have jurisdiction inside the station facil-

ity, Amtrak security handles the platform areas andtrains, and the local private security forces, hired andsupervised by the Beacon Management Company,monitor the station concourse and waiting areas.However, few security problems were cited at SouthStation; the large numbers of people using the stationevery day (50,000 total; between 3,000 and 5,000 areaworkers come to South Station daily for lunch alone)help create an active, safe environment. Later in theevening, security personnel ask people in the waitingroom to show a purchased train or bus ticket.

FUNDING

South Station cost $100 million to restore. The FRAcontributed $30 million, the FTA provided $10 mil-lion, and the remaining $60 million was fundedthrough state bonds. In addition, Beacon Manage-ment spent approximately $25 million to develop the interior of the station, including the retail kiosks,seating, and so forth. Management and events pro-gramming are partially funded under tenant leases,including fundraising events to benefit the station,rental of the station to groups for private events, andby the MBTA’s budget. Special events are paid for bysponsors and raise money for specific communitycauses (such as the Children’s Museum). Profits, afterall costs, are split evenly between BeaconManagement and the MBTA.

OVERCOMING OBSTACLES

Multiagency partnerships can be unwieldy to han-dle, at least initially, if partners experience difficultyin sharing control. In the case of South Station, onepartner oversaw station restoration (the MBTA),another manages the facility (Beacon Management),and both the MBTA and Amtrak run trains through it. This sort of arrangement can create design andmaintenance difficulties, but they can be avoided ifthe people coordinating and overseeing the projectunderstand all the key issues. Had the private devel-oper/manager been brought on board sooner, the sta-tion build-out would have been more streamlinedand cost-efficient because they would have had moreinput into the design and been better able to shape theretail and public areas, which they now lease, man-age, and maintain. However, the partners at SouthStation have developed a good working relationship.

Financing also was difficult due to a complicatedground lease. In addition, the station has become sopopular as a community gathering place that oftentimes there is not enough space to accommodate thenumber and size of activities that occur there.

133

IMPACT AND ASSESSMENT

Once somewhat isolated by its location, the revital-ization of this part of downtown Boston has createdmore than 6 million sq ft of office space in the areasurrounding the station. Because South Station wasin place, it provided a central focal point for the areaand new developments have taken place around thestation.

In 1990, the restoration of South Station was recog-nized by the Boston Preservation Alliance as the BestLarge Scale Project and by Building Design andConstruction as the Best Reconstruction project. In1991, it was named the best Historical CommercialRehabilitation project by the National CommercialBuilders Council. South Station received a MeritAward in 1993 in the International Council ofShopping Center’s MAXI Awards ceremony for com-munity programming and received the 1995International Building of the Year Award from theBuilding Owners and Managers Association.

Working with a private developer on the projecthas been so effective that the MBTA has privatizedthe management of South Station’s new bus terminalover the train yards and contracted with BeaconManagement Company for these services.

CONCLUSIONS

Through a public-private partnership, the MBTA hasbeen able to create a transit facility that is integratedinto and serves the downtown Boston community andprovides innovative management and security strate-gies. These goals were achieved through the expansionof amenities and services at the station, which havehelped transform South Station into a major activitycenter and contributed to the livability of the neighbor-hood, the downtown, and the city as a whole.

SUMMARY

The Wilmington studies are a series of planningand design projects in the city of Wilmington,Delaware, intended to promote a balanced transporta-tion system in the city giving full consideration to allmodes of travel; to promote livability in downtown

Wilmington and adjacent districts by providing a bet-ter connection between development, transportation,and public spaces; and to promote additional residen-tial and commercial development in the city as aresult of these proposed environmental and trans-portation enhancements.

The Wilmington studies include the following specific projects:

• A multimodal downtown circulation study;• Four downtown gateway enhancement projects;• Four residential traffic-calming and environmen-

tal enhancement projects;• Two neighborhood retail district environmental

enhancement projects;• One major corridor design project;• A transit center design project;• Three intersection safety projects;• One industrial development access project; and• A signage program for downtown and adjacent

districts.

All of these projects are being carried out under aninnovative partnership among the transit agency, thecity, the state transportation agency and the MPO.

PLANNING PROCESS

Downtown Wilmington is a typical U.S. city inmany ways. Bounded both to the north and the southby rivers, the downtown is further defined by a majorarterial street on the east and Interstate 95 on the west.With a shift of retail to the suburbs, the downtown,slightly more than 1 sq mi in size, has become primar-ily an office center, with more than 40,000 workers.The downtown has a small and weak retail core andseveral in-town residential rowhouse neighborhoods.

As in many cities, changes have been made over thelast 40 years to the downtown to accommodate moreand more vehicle capacity. Streets have been con-verted from two directional to one direction andmany have been widened. Large surface parking lotshave replaced aging residential and commercial struc-tures to provide more parking for office workers.Superblocks have been created. Not surprisingly, overtime, the downtown has become less transit, pedes-trian, and bicycle friendly and more oriented towardprivate vehicles. In addition, the greatly modified tra-ditional grid system does not even function very wellin connecting vehicles with all desired destinationswithin the downtown.

In 1995, the Wilmington Area Planning Council(WILMAPCO), the designated MPO for the Wil-mington region, the city of Wilmington, and the Dela-ware Department of Transportation (DelDOT), en-

134

Case Study 10-5Wilmington, DE: Wilmington Infrastructure Studies Intergovernmental-Private Sector Partnership to Promote Enhanced Livability and Economic Development

tered into a partnership to enhance the environment ofdowntown Wilmington and adjacent residential andcommercial corridors. The goal of the partnership is topromote the livability of the downtown and adjacentareas through the provision of a balanced transporta-tion system that promotes a higher level of pedestrian,bicycle, and transit activities.

There are major jurisdictional overlaps related tothe Wilmington studies. DelDOT, the owner andoperator of a number of the streets downtown and inadjacent neighborhoods, serves as the operator of thetransit system and as the primary source of trans-portation funding in the region. WILMAPCO is aregional planning agency that produces the regionallong-range transportation plan and transportationimprovement programs that guide funding. The cityof Wilmington government regulates development inthe study areas and also controls some potential fund-ing. A program to substantially change the infrastruc-ture and transportation services supporting down-town and adjacent districts requires a high level ofcooperation among these institutions.

The Wilmington studies would not have proceededhad these agencies not undergone internal reorganiza-tion first. Specifically, WILMAPCO, as part of its long-range transportation-planning process, identified theneed to reinvest and reinvigorate existing communi-ties, a substantial policy change from existing trans-portation and land-use development trends. DelDOT,the operator of the state’s road network and transit sys-tem, has recently gone through an extensive reorgani-zation and reorientation as a result of a change inagency leadership. Historically, DelDOT, like manyother state DOTs, was focused on new road construc-tion, with less emphasis on maintaining the integrity ofthe existing system or promoting a balanced trans-portation system. As a result, the state entered the early

1990s with a very limited transit program and almostno investments in pedestrian or bicycle systems.

The city of Wilmington, in an effort to improve itsimage and the quality of its business district and adja-cent neighborhoods, initiated a citywide environmen-tal enhancement planning program to create urbandesign guidelines and streetscape concepts for a num-ber of key gateways and corridors in the city. The cityplans to implement future plans through a series ofdemonstration projects funded through the regionaltransportation improvement program process andthrough a city capital improvements bond issue.

All of these very positive efforts to rethink publicinvestments in urban environments at all levels ofgovernment are coalescing into a coordinated invest-ment strategy for the city of Wilmington. The organi-zational structure of the Wilmington studies providesone of the key linkages between these initiatives.

In addition to this partnership, a broader steeringcommittee, which oversees the progress of these proj-ects, was organized. In addition to representatives ofthe three partners, the committee includes representa-tives of community groups, the business community,and special interest groups like the Delaware Green-ways. The steering committee provides policy guid-ance and oversight for individual projects as theymove through the planning and design phases. Thesteering committee had a significant role in amend-ing the list of projects and project scopes to be in-cluded in the Wilmington studies. As a result of thiscommittee’s input, one major study corridor was substituted for another and project study boundarieswere modified for several projects.

The organization for the Wilmington studies alsohas included the formation of a technical committee toprovide technical guidance, coordination, and inputinto individual projects. For some projects, such as themultimodal downtown circulation study, the technicalcommittee is central to the development of viable alter-natives to be presented to the steering committee. Thetechnical committee is composed of senior staff plan-ners and engineers from the city, DelDOT, DelawareTransportation Corporation (DTC), WILMAPCO, andconsultants. With this structure, a partnership is estab-lished both at the policy level and the technical level,which is proving to be very important in building andmaintaining support for the projects.

STRATEGY

These Wilmington studies focus on developingrecommendations for improving the downtownenvironment and creating opportunities for newdevelopment through transportation enhancements.Specific recommendations will be made for the tran-sit system, bicycle routes, pedestrian environment,

135

Figure 10-14. Case Study 10-5. Community meeting,Wilmington, DE. (Credit: Wilmington Area Planning Council)

and street configurations as means to enhance thelivability of the downtown and the region.

Based on many meetings and community outreach,consensus formed around the importance of begin-ning with the multimodal downtown circulationstudy and phasing in the other projects. A consultantteam was selected in December 1995 to begin workon this study. The multimodal downtown circulationstudy is structured as an intensive 7-month planningprocess that will include a series of four workshopcycles with the various committees and the public.

Although the time frame for completion of all plan-ning and design work associated with the Wilming-ton studies is 15 to 18 months, particular emphasis will be given to early action items that can be im-plemented quickly and at a moderate cost. This is intended to build credibility and support for the project’s longer term recommendations.

FUNDING

Planning and design efforts related to all of theWilmington studies are anticipated to be well in excessof $1 million (exclusive of staff time from the agencypartners). Final estimates are not available becausesome project teams have not yet been selected and as aresult, scopes have not been finalized.

Funding for the planning studies comes from allthree partners. For example, for the multimodaldowntown circulation study, the city of Wilmingtonhas funded an urban design consultant to establishurban design guidelines and streetscape concepts forthe downtown; WILMAPCO, in turn, has funded con-sultant work for partnership coordination, public out-reach, and an economic development assessment.DelDOT is funding the consultant team conductingthe transportation assessment. This pooling of fundsalso supports the development of multiagency partnerships.

Funds have not yet been set aside for implemen-tation of project recommendations, although threefunding tracks have been discussed. First, once proj-ect planning recommendations have been made,these projects are eligible for funding through the TIPprocess, which uses state and federal program funds.A second potential source of project funding is a capital bond issue to be floated by the city of Wil-mington in 1996. A third source of funding beingexplored for specific projects is the business commu-nity. Downtown Wilmington has a large corporatepresence for a city of its size and there is a long his-tory of corporate support for streetscape, parks, androad improvements adjacent to their buildings down-town.

OVERCOMING OBSTACLES

A number of institutional obstacles have been over-come to create an effective partnership. Most of theprograms now being planned in a coordinated man-ner initially originated as independent projects of thethree partners, with different but overlapping sets ofstakeholders and technical consultants. A lack of co-ordination among the city, DelDOT and the MPO(which has the potential mechanism for funding)could have led to significant problems. For example,the city could go ahead with design plans for streetswithout input from the MPO and DelDOT. Likewise,DelDOT (the agency responsible for detailed planningand design for street, walkway, and transit improve-ments in the city) was formerly able to proceed with-out coordinating its efforts with the city and the MPO.This approach would have resulted in conflicting pro-grams and counterproductive investment. Poor com-munication and institutional resistance to shareddecision making were overcome through an ongoingseries of intra-agency coordinating sessions whereeach agency presented its plans and issues. The lim-ited pool of infrastructure funds played a major rolein bringing all parties to the table.

CONCLUSIONS

Effective communication and coordination betweenvarious levels of government on a targeted urbanplanning and investment strategy, which coordinatestransit and transportation issues, is difficult to achievebut essential to producing positive results. Prior to the establishment of the Wilmington studies planningprocess, agency efforts were proceeding indepen-dently and were often at cross-purposes. Now, thecumulative impact of a coordinated multiagencyinvestment plan in a targeted area is likely to pro-duce greater tangible results with broader impact onthe livability of Wilmington than had each agencyproceeded alone.

Over the years, the mall has been the constant—growing inuse and importance—as the downtown changes around it.

—Richard Bradley, President,International Downtown Association

136

Case Study 10-6Denver, CO: The Sixteenth Street TransitwayTwenty Years of Public-Private Partnershipand Reinvestment

SUMMARY

Denver’s 16th Street Transit Mall—a mile-longtransit way and public promenade lined with trees,shops, and restaurants—serves as a transit andpedestrian thoroughfare and demonstrates how atransit partnership can help create a livable metro-politan area. Exemplifying elements of innovativetransportation services, high-quality design, andattention to management detail, the mall is an inte-gral part of downtown Denver, nationally known asone of the most attractive and economically viablecity centers in the country. The Downtown DenverBusiness Improvement District, originally called the16th Street Mall Management District, is a public/private partnership that maintains the mall. Over45,000 transit passengers use the mall daily and45,000 pedestrians walk portions of the mall.

PLANNING PROCESS

The original concept for the downtown mall wasdeveloped in the early 1970s when downtown busi-ness advocates detected the same decline in retailsales experienced in other U.S. center cities. At thesame time, the Regional Transportation District (RTD)was investigating methods to alleviate congestion,caused in part by downtown bus circulation, whileimproving the efficiency of its transportation services.In 1976, Downtown Denver, Inc. (DDI), a private-sector business association, joined the RTD and cityofficials to conduct feasibility studies for a combinedpedestrian and transit way mall along 16th Street.

In August 1977, the architectural firm of I.M. Peiand Associates of New York, consultants hired byRTD, unveiled a model for a 13-block 16th Street Mallwith bus transfer centers at each end. The entire 80-ftright of way would be dedicated to a pedestrian andtransit path, flanked by retail shops. Within the“new” right of way, sidewalks would be widenedand rebuilt with gray and red granite slabs. A 22-ft,extensively landscaped pedestrian area down thecenter of the street would divide two 10-ft lanes forspecially designed shuttle buses. Except at cross-streets, all nonemergency vehicles would beexcluded from the mall.

The plan received the enthusiastic support of mostbusinesses, which saw in the proposal a way to createan attractive, pedestrian-oriented activity center thatwould entice people downtown and revitalize retailactivity. An economic benefit study estimated thenew mall would increase sales by 7.5 percent to 10percent and that gains would be higher if the mallwas properly maintained and managed.

Construction of the mall began in February 1980 and the 13-block transitway, the project’s centerpiece,opened in October 1982. Patterned granite blocksreplaced former street and sidewalk surfaces. Maturelocust and oak trees, water fountains, special lightingfixtures, benches, and planters were all part of the uni-fied design to enhance pedestrian use and enjoyment.

STRATEGY

There are two essential dimensions to the mall’seffectiveness: the transit way with its free shuttle sys-tem, and the property owner assessment program,which privately maintains the mall.

Express, intercity, and regional bus routes wererevised to terminate at the two transfer facilitiesrather than travel through the streets of the CBD topick up and unload passengers. Twenty-six free-fare,custom-designed shuttle buses distribute passengersalong the mall at 70-second intervals during peakperiods, and at 3.5-min cycles during off-peak hours.This shuttle bus fleet has become a mile-long “hori-zontal elevator,” serving downtown users 7 days a week.

The lower downtown Market Street Station, anunderground, 10-stall bus transfer facility as well asnew, aboveground headquarters for RTD, was com-pleted in 1983. A year later, the Civic Center Stationopened, incorporating a 9-stall bus transfer facilityand underground parking garage.

To provide a broad array of supplemental mainte-nance, security, repair, programming, and marketingservices required by a facility such as the mall, thedowntown interests initiated in 1978 an amendment to

137

Figure 10-15. Case Study 10-6. The 16th Street Transitwaywas built and is maintained by a public/private partnershipwhich also has been instrumental in promoting new develop-ment in the downtown. (Credit: The Denver Partnership, Inc.)

the city charter authorizing a special mall benefit dis-trict to pay for the care, management, and operation ofthe mall. The 16th Street Mall Management District(MMD) policy was set by a five-member board, com-posed of property owners, appointed by the mayorand headed by the city’s manager of public works. TheDistrict was staffed by the Downtown DenverPartnership, which was created to manage DDI andthe MMD according to the terms of a managementagreement. Assisting the board is an advisory groupof representatives from RTD, Downtown DenverPartnership, the city council, the police department,and various downtown business and residential com-munities. The mall’s shuttle bus service and transferstations are operated and funded separately by RTD.

Twenty years after its initial conception, theDenver transit mall is still part of conversationsabout the future of the downtown and the city. In1992, when the original enabling legislation for theMall Management District expired, a lengthydebated raged around issues as fundamental as thecontinued existence of the maintenance district. Theoutcome was the establishment of the DowntownDenver Business Improvement District, a self-taxingauthority, which included a larger area of the down-town (while still focusing on the mall). The idea ofmall management grew into the idea of downtownmanagement.

The BID was expanded to include 130 blocks, orany property within four blocks of the 16th StreetMall. The BID now includes all of the lower down-town historic district, up to the southern boundary ofCoors Field. The BID today provides the followingmall enhancing services:

• Sidewalk area and transit way washing andsweeping;

• Trash pickup and removal;• Landscaping and maintenance of trees and

seasonal flowers;• Lighting, electrical, and plumbing services;• Granite paver maintenance and repair;• Graffiti removal;• Snow removal;• Banners, public art, mall use permits, and man-

agement of sidewalk vending programs;• BID management and administration;• District-wide marketing, publicity, communica-

tion, and promotion;• District-wide business retention and recruitment

programs;• District-wide support of city security services;

and• Special-events programming.

FUNDING

When the new mall was proposed, it received theblessing of the Urban Mass Transportation Adminis-tration (UMTA, now FTA), which approved federalfunding for 80 percent of the construction cost, withthe balance provided by the RTD. UMTA agreed withRTD that the mall’s shuttle buses and transfer facili-ties would significantly improve accessibility to andwithin downtown as well as increase transit capacityand efficiency.

Capital costs for the entire project totaled $76.1 mil-lion, including $29 million for mall construction and$5.1 million for the initial fleet of 19 shuttle buses. Theremaining budget provided for the construction oftwo transfer stations and renovation of the RTDadministration building.

The $70 million public investment in the transitway leverages a $2 million annual assessment on pri-vate property (totaling $20 million to date) to helpmaintain and guide activities on the mall. The dis-trict’s budget is raised through an annual assessmentof district property owners. The assessment is calcu-lated against land area and 5 percent of building areabased on proximity to the mall, and currently rangesfrom 10 cents to 56 cents per square foot of land.

OVERCOMING OBSTACLES

The formation of the transit and pedestrian corri-dor was supported by the city, building owners andmangers, retail and hoteliers, and downtown residents.

In the past several years, however, major discus-sions have focused on issues related to developmentpolicies and the use of public incentives to supportnew economic activity along the mall, particularly to support retail uses that have been negatively im-pacted by the loss of downtown department stores.The appearance and marginal use of many of thebuildings is a growing concern. As the economy ofthe center city changes, as new entertainment andsports facilities expanded at one end of the mall, tra-ditional retail and office use began to decline. Theresult of the debate has been the decision to supportthe construction of a convention center, hotel andentertainment retail complex to help anchor the eastend of the mall and to upgrade the attractiveness ofthis area.

The 13 year-old mall is also undergoing a signifi-cant capital improvement program to renovate and, attimes, replace trash receptacles, street signs, maps andlight fixtures. The BID is dedicating significant fundsto this program. In addition, RTD is accepting propos-

138

als for newly designed and built shuttle vehicles toreplace the current ones.

IMPACT AND ASSESSMENT

While the Downtown Mall Management Districtinitially included only those properties between 14thand 20th Streets, in 1984 it was expanded to encom-pass approximately 865 property owners within a130-block area of downtown.

The mall’s unified design and creative solution forsuccessfully combining pedestrian and transit usershas received national acclaim. Major national retailershave been attracted to the mall, led by the two-blocklong, three-story Shops at Tabor Center, developed byan affiliate of the Rouse Company of Columbia, MD.

Moreover, the management district has been able tomake many improvements, including reducing crimeon a continuing basis. For example, in the last 3 yearscrime has been reduced by 17 percent, and now the

downtown is considered to be one of the safest areasin Denver.

CONCLUSIONS

Today, downtown Denver is undergoing a dra-matic resurgence. In the last 3 years, $500 million inpublic and private money has been reinvested in thedowntown and an additional $250 million is plannedto be invested in the next several years. While it is difficult to attribute this success exclusively to the pe-destrian transitway, clearly many of these major in-vestments are taking shape around the 16th StreetMall. Because the transitway has proved that it is aneffective transportation link, it has laid the basis forthe new cultural and entertainment economy in thecity. Because of its dynamic nature, the 16th StreetMall continues its function as downtown’s spine andcivic open space, serving as a host, a beacon, and anentertainer for its diverse array of users and visitors.

139

As the case studies demonstrate, there are manysimple and practical planning, design, and manage-ment strategies used by communities to enhance theirlivability. This chapter presents a process for develop-ing these strategies as well as examples of typical proj-ects and programs that can be developed to address aspecific need or problem, including the following:

• Ways to identify whether or not a place is success-ful, using on-site observations and visual clues;

• Different methods for measuring and systemati-cally identifying these problems;

• A summary of model design, management, andtransit-related approaches that can be tried; and

• References to relevant case studies from thisreport.

This checklist is not intended to be all-encompass-ing, but rather to serve as a starting point for a community-based planning process. It can be used by professionals and lay people alike; professionalplanners may find it especially useful in developingmore detailed plans and design proposals.

ABOUT PLACE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

People often ask, “How can we avoid repeatingpast mistakes and build transit facilities that con-tribute rather than detract from the livability of ourcommunities?” This section describes one method:“Place Performance Evaluation” (PPE). PPE is a seriesof tools that professionals and community memberscan use to measure the overall performance of anexisting place (e.g., a bus stop, a train station waitingroom, or the site of a future bus transfer center) usingspecific “livability” criteria.

Evaluation of the issues particular to a place can beundertaken through a variety of techniques. Theseinclude systematically observing and recording activi-ties at relevant locations, conducting special inter-views with community members to elicit ideas andopinions, distributing community surveys to gatherinput on a variety of issues, and, in some cases, takingtime-lapse film and still photographs to illustrateissues of concern. When communities actually takepart in collecting data, there often is a significantincrease in the quality of information collected andthe level of involvement in project implementation.Users of a place have a great deal of valuable personalexperience and knowledge, even though they maynever have observed or thought about how others use it. [1]

Evaluation tools include the following.

Systematic Observations. Observation is the best wayto learn how a place is used, whether the place is asmall neighborhood bus stop or a train station usedby thousands of people each day. However, transitplanners often focus on operational efficiency—forwhich there is generally much data—without examin-ing how transit facilities are actually being used. Theresult is that issues of operational efficiency instead of issues of customer comfort and use become the primary criteria used in transit planning.

Systematic observation techniques are simply toolsthat help focus casual observations and help docu-ment issues or problems that might be overlooked.These techniques also enable an observer to quantifywhat would otherwise be regarded as intuition oropinion, contributing to a better understanding of thefull extent or severity of a particular problem.Observation techniques include behavior mapping,where an observer records the location and type ofactivities taking place as well as information about

CHAPTER 11

Planning, Design, and Management Strategiesfor Livable Places

140

users at regular intervals throughout the day andover a period of time, pedestrian counts of majorroutes and “tracking” routes or paths taken by usersthrough a space. Time-lapse filming is a more sophis-ticated tool that can be used to collect this type ofinformation, which also has the advantage of being aneffective means of presenting results.

In general, observation techniques help to define,in real terms, how transit can contribute to the liv-ability of a community. For example, when judgingthe performance of a specific bus stop, or makingsure that it is situated in the proper and mostconvenient location for current and future riders, one would be able to answer questions such as thefollowing:

• How easy is it to get to and from the bus stop tothe surrounding neighborhood?;

• Are there places to sit in the shade if it is a hotclimate; does it look inviting and attractive; arepeople waiting comfortably?;

• Is the area “busy”—with activity either at oraround the stop or in areas near to the transitstop?; and

• Do people speak to each other or interact witheach other; do they seem to know each other orrecognize friends?

Surveys and Interviews. In addition to observing howa place is being used, understanding people’s percep-tions is also important, particularly the perception ofpeople who do not use a place. The main objective inmeasuring people’s perceptions should be to find outwhat people like and dislike about a place and howthey think it could be improved. Qualities such ascleanliness, safety, and availability of amenities suchas food, newspapers, and restrooms can be rated bytransit users if they are asked about a specific placewith which they are familiar. These questions shouldalso be posed to area businesses and other adjacentuses, as well as to people living and working in theimmediate vicinity.

For the non-users of a place, the questions must bedifferent and should address why they do not use aplace and what, if anything, could be done to encour-age them to use it. A similar approach is used if aplace does not yet exist, such as a new transit facility.Surveying non-users is in many ways more complexthan observing or surveying an existing place.However, with today’s computer technology, it is notdifficult to conduct mail or telephone surveys andtabulate the results.

Finally, interviews should also be conducted withkey individuals and representatives of organizationswho could play a role in implementing a project or

program. These interviews are especially importantas the first step toward building effective, ongoingpartnerships.

Focus Groups. In many situations, small focus groupsessions or informal discussions with targeted audi-ences (such as seniors, students, merchants, or a com-bination of groups) can be especially useful in theearly, exploratory stages of a project before detailedobservations and surveys are undertaken. Throughthese open, informal discussions, which can be guidedby the same questions that are used for a survey, peo-ple talk and share their ideas about existing projectsand programs with others. This invariably leads tonumerous creative ideas for improvements that peopleand organizations can cooperatively undertake.

Community Workshops. Large community meetingsare also useful, when properly managed, not only toinvolve people, hear what they have to say andresolve conflicts, but to challenge people to raise theirexpectations. To elicit the creativity of the community,to stretch perspectives and encourage bolder think-ing, examples from other cities should be sought todemonstrate possibilities that stir people’s imagina-tions. These examples can also stimulate thought anddiscussion about additional issues and potential solu-tions that can be put into action, which is usuallymost effectively accomplished in smaller focusgroups. These groups can then report their findings tothe larger reassembled workshop.

DEVELOPING THE VISION

Qualitative and quantitative information about theuse of places that is gained from observations, meet-ings, and surveys can then be combined with infor-mation about demographics, transit ridership, andmarket research information. Together, all this infor-mation provides a picture of the broad range of issuesthat need to be addressed in planning a transit facilityor service so that it contributes to the livability of thecommunity that surrounds it. Some of the issues willdirectly impact transit, while others will not. Anunderstanding and commitment to dealing with bothtransit and community issues provides an opportu-nity to develop important working relationships withcommunity organizations, many of which may nothave worked with a transit agency before. The resultof this process is a vision: ideas for the program, goalsof the community, and organizations or individualpartners who should be kept informed and involved,very often through some kind of task force or work-ing group, and the “tasks” to be accomplished.

141

LIVABLE PLACES:A CONCEPTUAL MODEL

Based on its own research as well as quality of liferesearch, Project for Public Spaces, Inc., has devel-oped a simple graphic that describes a model for eval-uating the attributes of livable places. These attributesreflect the common issues that people tend to identifywhen they talk about livability in their communities,and include tangible, statistical aspects as well as theintangible qualities that people feel toward a place ora neighborhood. These attributes, which are pre-sented in Figure 11-1, fall into two categories:

• Key Attributes of places are the componentswhich, based on livability research, are essentialingredients of a place: uses and activities, com-fort and image, access and linkages, and sociabil-ity. These general criteria arise again and againwhen people talk about the problems and needsof their communities.

• When people describe their communities, theyuse words like “safe,” “fun,” “charming,” and

“welcoming.” These words describe theIntangible Qualities of communities that relate tospecific types of attributes.

An important consideration in developing thismodel was not making value judgments as to the rela-tive importance of different attributes to different com-munities. Rather, it is up to each community to chooseits own priorities. Different socioeconomic situations,living conditions, and political context make eachcommunity unique. A community is also in the posi-tion to determine the scale of improvement, that is,whether a project or program should be initiated at a“place” versus in a larger neighborhood context.

This model can be extended to include other issues.For example, one of the challenges in creating livableplaces is the general lack of communication betweendifferent city agencies, professions, and interestgroups responsible for a place. This model helps toidentify groups (chambers of commerce, block asso-ciations, and so on) associated with specific attri-butes that could be approached to participate in aproject.

142

Figure 11-1. This diagram depicts the principal attributes people want in their communities. (Diagram by Project for PublicSpaces, Inc.)

STRATEGIES FOR CREATINGLIVABLE PLACES

Each of the following sections presents a differentattribute from Figure 11-1.

Uses and Activities

“Uses and Activities” are the basic building blocksof any place: they include all the reasons why peoplecome to an area. The types of land uses or activitieshelp determine what makes a place in a communityspecial or unique. Uses and activities do not necessar-ily have to be inside a structure; public spaces, too,can accommodate a variety of activities.

Very often, transit uses and functions operate sepa-rately from other community activities. For example,many bus transfer terminals located in isolated areashave no other use than providing access to otherbuses. In this situation, where there is little or noother activity taking place, it is less likely that transitis a factor in enhancing livability, other than provid-ing mobility. However, if the bus terminal is morecentrally located, and there is a place where one canbuy a newspaper, get a snack, visit a farmer’s market,or window shop, then the transit use will be con-tributing to the overall activity and livability of that area.

Visible Signs . . .. . . of Success

❏ Many different types of activities are occurring.❏ Many different kinds of people and different age

groups are using a place (children, elderly,families).

❏ Activities are not necessarily related to a specificfacility or a planned event.

❏ There are several “choices” of things to do, and itis easy to go from one choice to another.

. . . of Problems

❏ Spaces are empty of people for all or part of theday.

❏ Security problems are evident (broken windows,graffiti, vandalism).

❏ Buildings are vacant or underutilized.❏ Uses are isolated from each other or cannot be

seen.❏ Spaces are too small and congested for the num-

ber of transit riders present.

Ways of Measuring

❏ Record the number and type of activities at dif-ferent times of the day and of the week.

❏ Survey the community or space users about theirperceptions of current uses and activities andwhat they would like to see there in the future.

❏ Inventory existing land-use patterns to deter-mine what activities are present or missing.

Approaches . . .. . . to Design

❏ Create a public space that can be programmedfor a variety of uses.

❏ Provide amenities that support desired activities.❏ Provide specific uses and activities in adjacent or

nearby structures.

. . . for Management

❏ Program community events and activities, suchas markets and local festivals.

❏ Develop strategies to lease empty buildings tohelp revitalize an area.

. . . for Transit

❏ Make a transit stop the central feature of a place.❏ Develop easy transfers between buses or modes

of transportation.❏ Provide amenities for transit patrons.❏ Provide information about attractions in the area.❏ Designate a liaison from a transit agency to coor-

dinate with users in the area.❏ Train on-site transit personnel (such as ticket

agents) to provide information about uses andactivities in the areas adjacent to a facility.

Selected Case Study References

• Green Line Initiative, Chicago• Pioneer Courthouse Square, Portland, Oregon• Woodbridge Station, New Jersey• KidStop, Shady Grove Metro Station, Maryland• Davis Square, Somerville, Massachusetts• Downtown Crossing, Boston, Massachusetts

Comfort and Image

“Comfort and Image” reflect the subjective experi-ences of people as they use a place. Issues like safetyand cleanliness are often uppermost in people’s minds.Other issues are less consciously acknowledged,

143

although people are absorbing tremendous amounts of“data” being projected by the environment: scale, char-acter of buildings, sense of safety, and “charm.” Peoplebecome aware of other specific aspects, however, likethe need for a bench when they want to sit down.

Transit patrons are concerned about comfort andimage during their entire experience: from the timethey enter a station and board a vehicle until theyreach their final destination. For this reason, issues ofsecurity and cleanliness to a community also affecttransit riders. How a transit agency manages its facili-ties affects a broader area. In the same way, transitfacilities can increase comfort in an area; for example,benches used by bus riders can also be used by shop-pers if they are in a location convenient for both. Or,an attractive, pleasantly scaled transit facility can contribute to the attractiveness of a whole area.

Visible Signs . . .. . . of Success

❏ Spaces are clean and free of litter.❏ Seating is located near other activities.❏ Users have a choice of places to sit or use, either

in the sun or shade; appropriate weather protec-tion is also offered.

❏ Antisocial activities are not able to dominate useof a space.

❏ Someone seems to be in charge.

. . . of Problems

❏ Few places exist for people to sit.❏ The environment generally appears unattractive

or unsafe.❏ Buildings or spaces lack human scale.❏ Litter and other signs of lack of maintenance are

evident.❏ Poor environmental (air, water, etc.) quality

exists.❏ No one is obviously in charge.❏ There is a lack of weather protection.

Ways of Measuring

❏ Review actual crime statistics and complaints.❏ Survey people’s perception of an area (safety,

attractiveness, and cleanliness).❏ Analyze actual use of amenities such as seating.

Approaches . . .. . . to Design

❏ Upgrade the physical appearance of a place withimproved materials.

❏ Add public amenities (seating, telephone, andwaste receptacles).

❏ Provide information (for transit facility and sur-rounding area).

❏ Create community-oriented public art.❏ Restore or renovate existing buildings.❏ Add trees and landscaping.

. . . to Management

❏ Provide special security programs, such as com-munity policing.

❏ Increase security presence through uses andactivities, or by having someone in charge of thearea.

❏ Upgrade maintenance, including both dailycleaning as well as preventive maintenance ofphysical facilities.

. . . for Transit

❏ Ensure customer-friendly operations on and offtransit vehicles.

❏ Initiate special security services for transit riders.❏ Establish cooperative efforts with local commu-

nities and police.❏ Reorganize organizational structure to create sta-

tion and transit terminal managers.

Selected Case Study References

• Tohono Tadai Transit Center, Tucson, Arizona• Station Managers Program, New York City• Port Authority Bus Terminal, New York City• Los Angeles Neighborhood Initiative, Los Angeles,

California• Rider Advocate Program, Portland, Oregon

Access and Linkages

Transportation “access and linkages” are ways toconnect places in communities. A successful neigh-borhood allows access to and linkages betweenplaces: a variety of options for people to get from oneplace to another (that is by walking, transit, bike, orcar). Or, said another way, a successful place has avariety of ways to get to it (not just by car).

Access and linkages also refer to how well a spe-cific place, like a transit facility, connects to theimmediate area around it, and the ability of people tocirculate within that place and to reach different uses.There is a qualitative component to access as well:access is affected by other factors, including physical

144

elements (a continuous row of stores along a street ismore interesting and generally safer to walk alongthan a blank wall or empty lot) as well as perceptual(ability of people to see a transit stop from adistance).

Visible Signs . . .. . . of Success

❏ People can easily walk to the place; they are notdarting between moving cars to get to the busstop.

❏ The interior of the place or transit stop is visiblefrom the outside.

❏ Sidewalks lead to and from adjacent areas,allowing for convenient pedestrian access.

❏ Occupants of adjacent buildings use the place.❏ Continuity of street-level for uses makes for a

pleasant walking environment.❏ A variety of transportation options provide

access (transit, car, and bicycle).

. . . of Problems

❏ Traffic is congested or fast-moving, acting as abarrier to pedestrians crossing the street.

❏ Bicycles are infrequently used as a way of access.❏ People are walking in the street or along areas

not paved as sidewalks.❏ Pedestrian-oriented uses (such as storefronts) are

discontinuous, creating an unpleasant walkingenvironment.

❏ There is insufficient parking.

Ways of Measuring

❏ Conduct observations, counts, and tracking ofpedestrian circulation within and around a place.

❏ Record the location and finish treatment of side-walks and number of curb cuts to determinesuitability for walking.

❏ Map the area (to determine which uses generatepedestrian activity).

❏ Survey pedestrians to determine attitudes andpatterns.

❏ Survey the broader community to determinehow and why different modes of transportationare used.

❏ Conduct parking turnover studies to determineefficiency of use.

❏ Conduct traffic studies to determine level of useduring the day and, the week, as well as occu-pancy of vehicles.

Approaches . . .. . . to Design

❏ Widen sidewalk or provide sidewalk extensionsat crosswalks, better balancing pedestrian useswith other uses of street (vehicles, transitvehicles, bicycles, and deliveries).

❏ Construct more clearly marked or more conve-niently located crosswalks.

❏ Make accommodations for bicycle users (bikelanes, lockers, and storage racks).

❏ Infill vacant lots with structures and uses to create continuity of pedestrian experience.

❏ Balance on-street parking with other uses.

. . . to Management

❏ Change traffic signalization or street utilizationto improve pedestrian access.

❏ Improve utilization of parking through changesin enforcement or regulation.

. . . for Transit

❏ Establish neighborhood shuttle or circulatorvehicles.

❏ Adjust or expand route locations and schedules.❏ Create intermodal centers, allowing transfers

between transportation modes.❏ Establish services for special users (children,

teenagers, and the elderly).

Selected Case Studies

• Pioneer Courthouse Square, Portland, Oregon• Davis Square, Somerville, Massachusetts• Wellston Station, St. Louis, Missouri• Aspen City Shuttles, Aspen, Colorado• Watts Shuttle, Los Angeles, California• GO Boulder, Boulder, Colorado• LINC, Seattle, Washington• Staples Street Station, Corpus Christi, Texas

Sociability

Because neighborhoods are social places, theattribute of “sociability” is a crucial component of anygood community place. When people meet friends,see and greet their neighbors or even feel comfortableinteracting with strangers, they tend to feel a strongersense of place or sense of attachment to theircommunity.

This is generally a difficult quality to achieve aroundtransit facilities, because the type of activity (waiting

145

146

Figures 11-2 and 11-3. Proposed LINC Neighborhood Transit Center (Figure 11-2) and proposed development near a his-toric station in San Bernardino, CA (Figure 11-3) illustrate place-making principles. (Credit: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

147

Figures 11-2 and 11-3. (continued)

for a bus or train) is not often a social experience; inaddition, the vehicles themselves can create barriers tothe sociable use of a space, through noise, fumes, andso forth. However, successful transit stops that inte-grate other uses and activities help to create an envi-ronment where socializing can naturally take place.

Visible Signs . . .. . . of Success

❏ People use the place (or facility) regularly bychoice.

❏ Users know each other by face or by name.❏ “Triangulation” occurs (an event occurs causing

strangers to talk to each other).❏ People bring their friends and relatives to see the

place or they point to one of the elements withpride.

❏ People are taking pictures; many photo opportu-nities are available.

❏ Strangers make eye contact; people smile anddisplay affection.

❏ There is a mix of ages and ethnic groups thatgenerally reflects the community at large.

❏ People tend to run into someone they know.❏ People tend to pick up litter when they

see it.

. . . of Problems

❏ People do not interact with other users of theplace.

❏ There is a lack of diversity of people using aplace.

Ways of Measuring

❏ Record people’s use and behavior at differenttimes of the day, week, and year.

❏ Record the location of activities.❏ Survey people about perceptions of a place.❏ Identify the number of people who volunteer to

help or just assume responsibility for a particulararea.

Approaches . . .. . . to Design

❏ Develop public gathering places to accommo-date a variety of community activities.

❏ Arrange amenities to encourage social inter-action (groupings of seating, moveable seating,etc.).

❏ Provide a variety of uses in adjacent buildings toattract a diversity of people.

. . . to Management

❏ Stage special events and activities to draw people.❏ Encourage community volunteers to assist with

improvements or maintenance of a place.

. . . for Transit

❏ Integrate transit stations into spaces wheresocializing and community activities takeplace.

❏ Design facilities so that there is room for socialactivities to occur.

Selected Case Study References

• Pioneer Courthouse Square, Portland, Oregon• Downtown Crossing, Boston, Massachusetts• Davis Square, Somerville, Massachusetts• South Station, Boston, Massachusetts• Staples Street Station, Corpus Christi

PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER

To create livable places in communities requires thatmany physical aspects of place be orchestrated at thesame time as the planning process described in Chapter10, which, as has been seen, is equally important to thefinal results. Each of the case studies has “put it alltogether” in different ways. The two examples shownhere apply place-making strategies to two very differ-ent com-munities: LINC in Seattle (see Case Study 9-2)and a historic train station in San Bernardino.

ENDNOTE

1. Two publications by Project for Public Spaces are espe-cially useful in understanding and applying differentobservation and survey techniques. They are What DoPeople Do Downtown and User Analysis for Park Planningand Design. Both are available for purchase through PPSat 153 Waverly Place, New York, NY 10014.

148

Historically, transit has played a crucial role inadvancing the livability of American communities.For nearly a century, until the late 1950s and early1960s, transit was a potent force in spurring the devel-opment of communities and shaping community life,as well as providing the connections within commu-nities that brought people together. Increased empha-sis on automobile travel changed this situation.However, as the case studies show, transit is oncemore fostering communities where people can cometogether in a hospitable and livable environment.

History, however, is not exactly repeating itself.The old horse-drawn and electric trolley cars of thepast now have a modern, more comfortable counter-part in light rail. Technology is not the only thing thathas changed. Communities today face new chal-lenges, conditions, and needs. As the programs pre-sented demonstrate, innovative approaches can knittogether communities and restore their livability—when they are designed in response to local needsthrough a partnership process that links transit agen-cies with the communities they serve.

Recent changes in federal transportation planningprocesses are very supportive of this new partnershiprole. While obstacles remain, all of the initiatives pre-sented were able to overcome these obstacles toachieve improvements in transit and communitylivability that, in many cases, exceeded expectations.

The chapters—each presenting different livabilitythemes—offer evidence of the potential for this ap-proach to enhance many different facets of commu-nity life. They show the powerful role that transit canplay in the creation of livable communities by doingthe following:

Creating Places for Community Life. Livable commu-nities are communities where people socialize andcome together, which reinforce a sense of commonpurpose and establish centers for public life. Transitfacilities are themselves activity focal points. The tran-

sition from transit stop to public space involves link-ing together activities that already take place or couldtake place in most communities.

Acting as a Catalyst for Downtown and NeighborhoodRenewal. Livable communities are communities thathave accessible and convenient commercial centersthat support a community economically and socially.Commercial districts in downtowns and neighbor-hoods have traditionally been among the most impor-tant destinations for transit services. It is not acoincidence that the economic decline of these dis-tricts has been mirrored in the decrease in transit rid-ership across the United States. At the same time,transit facilities—whether they are simple bus stopsor major stations—can act as “ground zero” for therebirth and revitalization of downtowns and neigh-borhoods.

Creating Opportunity for Entrepreneurship andEconomic Development. Livable communities are com-munities that offer economic opportunity to all citi-zens. Transit brings the foot traffic necessary tosupport small businesses and provides access to jobs.In today’s society dominated by retail chains in farflung suburban locations, support for small, indepen-dently owned businesses and entrepreneurs is essen-tial for the long-term economic growth of mostcommunities.

Improving Safety and Amenity. Livable communitiesare communities where people no longer fear for theirpersonal safety and feel comfortable in a public envi-ronment. With the loss of places where people feelcomfortable has come the perception by many thattransit facilities are places to fear and avoid, eventhough statistically they are usually safe and virtuallyfree of crime. As a perceptual problem, the solution to crime cannot be separated from other livability is-sues and, in particular, from the need to create an en-

CHAPTER 12

Conclusions and Next Steps

149

150

vironment where people feel comfortable and safe.Making transit facilities an asset and an amenity is animportant step in improving safety.

Making Communities Accessible and Convenient.Livable communities are communities where peoplehave a variety of transportation alternatives. Thebasic mobility function of transit is, indeed, inte-gral to the livability of a community. Special ser-vices and approaches are emerging to enable transitto serve a community more effectively and ef-ficiently, while encouraging new land-use pol-icies that center around transit as a fundamentalchoice.

Shaping Community Growth. Livable communities are communities where growth enhances com-munity life, not destroys it. Mismanaged growtherodes all aspects of a community: its access-ibility and convenience, its centers of public life, its sense of safety and amenity. Transit can act as afocal point for reorganizing urban growth and creat-ing mixed-use centers. It can also be an essentialcomponent of new land-use policies that set thestage for future, more livable places for people tolive and work.

This report presents a compelling picture of whathas been accomplished across the United States. Itreveals the common threads that can link these sepa-rate themes into a more holistic vision of transit’s rolein enhancing community livability. The case studiesand examples are presented in order to stimulate othercommunities throughout the United States to under-take similar innovative transit programs to addresstheir own particular livability needs. At the same time,the work in the communities that the case studies havepresented is by no means finished. Most of the projectspresented, exemplary as they are, could be improvedor built upon to generate even greater community im-

provement—whether it be minor design modificationsor a major new development.

What must be done now is to raise widespreadawareness of the viability of these programs asspringboards for rekindling the kinds of comfort,activity, and convenience that enhance communitylife. The programs described herein can act as a bea-con for future initiatives, along with other livability-oriented transit programs taking place that still needto be investigated. In addition, other, untried transitinnovations must be applied, tested, and evaluated,and those already in place have to be tried in othersettings and situations.

Clearly, what is needed is a broad campaign toadvance such efforts and integrate the community part-nership approach into the way transit agencies plan,design, and build transit. In fact, this approach needs to be applied to transportation planning in general. It is hoped that communities and transit agencies alikewill find this report a useful tool in this vital effort.

Figure 12-1. The Big Blue Bus, Santa Monica, CA, circa1955. (Credit: The Big Blue Bus)

I. GENERAL REFERENCES ON LIVABILITY

Alexander, Christopher et al. A New Theory of Urban Design.Oxford University Press, New York, New York (1987).

———. A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction.Oxford University Press, New York, New York (1977).

Appleyard, Donald. Livable Streets. University of CaliforniaPress, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California (1981).

———. The Street Livability Study. San Francisco Departmentof City Planning, San Francisco, California (1970).

Blake, P. Form Follows Fiasco: Why Modern Architecture Hasn’tWorked. Little Brown, Boston, Massachusetts (1977).

Brambilla, Roberto and Gianni Longo. A Handbook forPedestrian Action. Institute for Environmental Action (1977).

———. For Pedestrians Only: Planning Design and Manage-ment of Traffic Free Zones. Whitney Library of Design, New York, New York (1977).

———. The Rediscovery of the Pedestrian. Whitney Library ofDesign, New York, New York (1977).

———. Banning the Car Downtown. Whitney Library ofDesign, New York, New York (1977).

———. American Urban Malls. Whitney Library of Design,New York, New York (1977).

Calthorpe, Peter. The Next American Metropolis: Ecology,Community, and the American Dream. PrincetonArchitectural Press, New York, New York (1993).

Crowhurst-Lennard, Suzanne H. and Henry L. Lennard.Livable Cities-People and Places: Social and Design Principlesfor the Future of the City. Gondolier Press, Southampton,New York (1986).

———. Public life in Urban Places: Social and ArchitecturalCharacteristics Conducive to Public Life in European Cities.Gondolier Press, Southampton, New York (1984).

Cutter, Susan L. Rating Places: A Geographer’s View onQuality of Life. The Association of American Geographers,Washington, DC (1985).

Downs, Anthony. New Visions for Metropolitan America. TheBrookings Institution, Washington, DC (1994).

Duany, Andres and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk. Town andTown-Making Principles. Rizzoli, New York, New York(1991).

Edmondson, Brad. “Alone in the Car.” American Demo-graphics. 16, 6 (June 1994) pp. 44–49.

Engwicht, David. Reclaiming Our Cities and Towns: BetterLiving with Less Traffic. New Society Publishers,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (1993).

Firey, Walter. Land Use in Central Boston. HarvardUniversity Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts (1947).

Fleming, Ronald Lee and Laurie A. Haldeman. On CommonGround: Caring for Shared Land from Town Common toUrban Park. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press,Cambridge, Massachusetts (1982).

Fleming, Ronald Lee and Renata von Tscharner. PlaceMakers: Public Art That Tells You Where You Are.Townscape Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1981).

Francis, Carolyn and Clare Cooper Marcus. People Places:Design Guidelines for Urban Open Space. Van NostrandReinhold, New York, New York (1990).

Francis, Mark et al. Community Open Spaces: GreeningNeighborhoods Through Community Action and LandConservation. Island Press, Washington, DC (1984).

Francis, M. “Designing Landscapes with CommunityParticipation and Behavioral Research.” LandscapeArchitecture Forum. 2 (1981) pp. 14–21.

Gans, Herbert J. “The Human Implications of CurrentRedevelopment and Relocation Planning.” Journal of theAmerican Institute of Planners, XXV (1959) pp. 15–26.

Gehl, Jan. Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. VanNostrand Reinhold, New York, New York (1987).

———. Pedestrians. Arkiekten, Copenhagen (1968).Gratz, Roberta Brandes. The Living City: How America’s Cities

Are Being Revitalized by Thinking Small in a Big Way. ThePreservation Press, Washington, DC (1994).

Hayward, Richard and Sue McGlynn. Making Better Places:Urban Design Now. Butterworth Architecture, Oxford,England (1993).

Hemmens, George. The Structure of Urban Activity Linkages:An Urban Studies Research Monograph. University of NorthCarolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina (September 1966).

Hiss, Tony. The Experience of Place. Alfred A. Knopf, NewYork, New York (1990).

Holden, Alfred. “Why Toronto Works.” Planning Magazine.American Planning Association, Chicago, Illinois (March1995) pp. 4–10.

Jacobs, Allan B. Great Streets. Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1993).

———. Looking at Cities. Harvard University Press,Cambridge, Massachusetts (1985).

APPENDIX A

Bibliography and Related Literature

151

Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities.Random House, New York, New York (1961).

Katz, Peter. The New Urbanism: Toward an Architecture ofCommunity. McGraw-Hill, New York, New York (1994).

Koenig, J. G. “Indicators of Urban Accessibility: Theory andApplication.” Transportation (1980) pp. 145–172.

Kunstler, James. The Geography of Nowhere. Simon &Schuster, New York, New York (1993).

Langdon, Philip. A Better Place to Live: Reshaping theAmerican Suburb. University of Massachusetts Press,Amherst, Massachusetts (1994).

Linday, Nancy. “It All Comes Down to a Comfortable Placeto Sit and Watch.” Landscape Architecture. 68, 6 (1987) pp. 492–497.

Lowe, Marcia D. Alternatives to the Automobile: Transport forLivable Cities. Worldwatch Paper 98. WorldwatchInstitute, Washington, DC (1990).

Lynch, Kevin. The Image of the City. Massachusetts Instituteof Technology Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1960).

McNulty, Robert et al. Return of the Livable City in America.Partners for Livable Places. Acropolis Books, Washington,DC (1986).

Meyers, Dowell. “Building Knowledge about Quality of Lifefor Urban Planning.” Journal of the American PlanningAssociation. 54, 3 (Spring 1988).

Miller, Thomas and Michelle Miller. Citizen Surveys: How toDo Them, How to Use Them, What They Mean. InternationalCity/County Management Agency, Washington, DC(1991).

Montgomery, Roger. “Center of Action.” In Cities Fit to LiveIn and How We Can Make Them Happen, ed. WalterMcQuade, Macmillan, New York, New York (1971) pp.69–78.

Moudon, Anne Vernez. Public Streets for Public Use.Columbia University Press, New York, New York (1987).

Nelessen, Anton Clarence. Visions for a New American Dream:Process, Principles, and an Ordinance to Plan and DesignSmall Communities. Edward Brothers, Ann Arbor,Michigan (1994).

New Jersey State Planning Commission. Communities ofPlace: The New Jersey State Development and RedevelopmentPlan. New Jersey (July 1992).

Newman, Oscar. Defensible Space. Collier Books, New York,New York (1973).

———. Community of Interest. Anchor Press/Doubleday,Garden City, New York (1980).

Pierce, Robert M. “Rating America’s Metropolitan Areas.”American Demographics. 7, 7, (July 1985) pp. 20–25.

Preeman, N. ed. International Experiences in Creating LivableCities. University of Waterloo, Canada (1981).

Rabianski, Joseph. “How to Specify a Quality of LifeStudy.” Industrial Development: A Geo-Economic Review, 34(February 1989).

Ramati, R. How to Save Your Own Street. Doubleday,Dolphin Books, Garden City, New York (1981).

Rudofsky, Bernard. Streets for People: A Primer for Americans.Anchor Press/Doubleday, Garden City, New York (1969).

Stern, Robert A. M. Pride of Place: Building the AmericanDream. Houghton Mifflin/American Heritage, Boston,Massachusetts (1986).

Sucher, David. City Comforts: How to Build an Urban Village.City Comfort Press, Seattle, Washington (1995).

Tanghe, Jan et al. Living Cities. Pergamon Press, Oxford,England (1984).

Taylor, Humphrey. “Evaluating Our Quality of Life.”Industrial Development., 156, 2, (March/April 1987).

Taylor, L., ed. Urban Open Spaces. Cooper-Hewitt Museum,New York, New York (1979).

Weissman, Steve and Judy Corbett. Land Use Strategies forMore Livable Places. The Local Government Commission,Sacramento, California (May 1992).

Whyte, William H. City: Rediscovering the Center. Doubleday,New York, New York (1988).

———. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. The Conserva-tion Foundation, Washington, DC (1980).

II. TECHNICAL REFERENCES:TRANSPORTATION, LAND USE,AND TRANSIT FACILITIES

American Public Transit Association. Building Better Commu-nities . . . Coordinating Land Use and Transit Planning:Sourcebook. Washington, DC (1994).

Andrle, Stephen J. et al. “Security Considerations in theDesign and Operation of Rapid Transit Stations.”Transportation Research Record 760, TRB, NationalResearch Council, Washington, DC (1980).

Bernick, Michael et al. Transit-Based Development in theUnited States: A Review of Recent Experiences. Universityof California at Berkeley, Institute of Urban andRegional Development, Berkeley, California (March1994).

Bernick, Michael and Thomas J. Kirk Transit Villages:Opportunities and Strategies. University of California atBerkeley, Institute of Urban and Regional Development,Berkeley, California (January 1994).

Blomquist, Glenn C. et al. “New Estimates of Quality of Lifein Urban Areas.” The American Economic Review (March1988).

Booz-Allen and Hamilton, Inc. Site Planning: Interim Report.(June 1994).

Box, Paul C. The Location and Design of Bus TransferFacilities. Institute of Transportation Engineers,Technical Council Committee 5C-1A, Washington, DC(February 1992).

Bradley, Richard and Laura Briggs. Transportation for LivableCommunities: A Powerful New Approach to TransportationPolicy. Business Transportation Council, Washington, DC(1993).

California Environmental Protection Agency. The Land Use-Air Quality Linkage: How Land Use and Transportation AffectAir Quality. California, Air Resources Board, Office of AirQuality and Transportation Planning (1994).

Cervero, Robert. Ridership Impacts of Transit-FocusedDevelopment in California. University of California atBerkeley, Institute of Urban and Regional Development,Berkeley, California (November 1993).

——— and Mark Dunzo. An Assessment of Suburban-Targeted Transit Service Strategies in the United States.

152

153

University of California, Transportation Center, Berkeley,California (October 1993).

Dueker, K. et al. The Portland Mall Impact Study. U.S. Depart-ment of Transportation, Urban Mass TransportationAdministration, Washington, DC (1982).

Everett, City of. Community Image Reference Report. Everett,Washington (July 1992).

Fisher, Kimberly M. Transit-Oriented Design. ULI ResearchWorking Paper Series No. 635. The Urban Land Institute,Washington, DC (June 1994).

Fruin, John J. Pedestrian Planning and Design. MetropolitanAssociation of Urban Designers and EnvironmentalPlanners, New York, New York (1971).

Holtzclaw, John. “Using Residential Patterns and Transit toDecrease Auto Dependence and Costs.” NaturalResources Defense Council, San Francisco, California(June 1994).

Kulash, W. et al. Traditional Neighborhood Development: Willthe Traffic Work? Real Estate Research Consultants,Washington, DC (1990).

Local Government Commission. Land Use Strategies for MoreLivable Places. Sacramento, California (June 1, 1992).

Loukaitou-Sideris, Anastasia. Retrofit of Urban Corridors:Land Use Policies and Design Guidelines for Transit-FriendlyEnvironments. University of California, TransportationCenter, Berkeley, California (1993).

Maryland Department of Transportation. Access by Design:Transit’s Role in Land Development. Mass TransitAdministration, Baltimore, Maryland (September 1988).

New Jersey Transit. Planning for Transit-Friendly Land Use: AHandbook for New Jersey Communities. New Jersey Transit,New Jersey (June 1994).

Olsen, Lauren, “Surface Transportation Policy Project.”Transit-Oriented Communities. Mobility Partners CaseStudy. Washington, DC (1994).

Pushkarev, Boris and Jeffrey Zupan. Urban Space forPedestrians. Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge,Massachusetts (1975).

San Bernardino, City of and San Bernardino AssociatedGovernments et al. On Trac Workbook: The Region isMoving on Rail. Proceedings from Two RegionalWorkshops. (June 1994).

San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board.Designing for Transit: A Manual for Integrating PublicTransportation and Land Development in the San DiegoMetropolitan Area. San Diego, California (July 1993).

SNO-TRAN. Creating Transportation Choices Through Zoning:A Guide for Snohomish County Communities. WashingtonState (October 1994).

Urban Land Institute. Transit-Oriented Design: Working Paper#635. ULI, Washington, DC (June 1994).

U.S. Department of Transportation. Developing Community-Sensitive Transit. The Federal Transit AdministrationLivable Communities Initiative, Washington, DC (1996).

———. Guidelines for Transit-Sensitive Suburban Land UseDesign. Urban Mass Transportation Administration,Office of Technical Assistance and Safety, Washington,DC (July 1991).

———. A Guide to Metropolitan Transportation PlanningUnder ISTEA: How the Pieces Fit Together. Federal

Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administra-tion, Washington, DC (1995).

———. The Impact of Various Land Use Strategies on SuburbanMobility. Federal Transit Administration, Office ofTechnical Assistance and Safety, Washington, DC(December 1992).

———. The Way to Go: The Benefits of Quality Design inTransportation. Office of the Secretary of Transportation,Washington, DC (April 1983).

———. Transit Access and Land Value. Federal TransitAdministration, Office of Technical Assistance andSafety, Washington, DC (September 1993).

———. Transit Station Area Joint Development: Strategies forImplementation. Urban Mass TransportationAdministration, National Technical Information Service,Washington, DC (February 1976).

———. Transit-Supportive Development in the United States:Experiences and Prospects. Federal Transit Administration,Washington, DC (December 1993).

———. Transportation for Older Americans: Issues and Optionsfor the Decade of the 1980’s. Office of the Secretary ofTransportation, Washington, DC (April 1993).

III. PPS PUBLICATIONS AND VIDEOS

Bus Transfer Center Study. Working Paper.Calming Traffic: Reclaiming Communities. Working Paper.Designing Effective Pedestrian Improvements in Business

Districts. American Planning Association, Chicago,Illinois (1982).

Downtown Rochester New York, Main Street Transit andPedestrian Improvements. Rochester-Genesse RegionalTransportation Authority, New York (1983).

Five Station Subway Modernization. (1981).Grand Central Subway Station Pedestrian Study. (1980).Improving How A Street Works for All Users: Pedestrian

Movement Analysis. (1986).On the Street Where You Live: Innovative Ideas for Improving

Design and Controlling Traffic in NYC Neighborhoods. (1983).One Penn Plaza: Public Space Evaluation and Recommendations.

(1984).Managing Downtown Public Spaces. Chicago, American

Planning Association (1984) 76 pp.National Bicycling and Walking Survey, FHWA Case Study #20:

The Effects of Environmental Design on the Amount and Typesof Bicycling and Walking. The Federal HighwayAdministration, Washington, DC (1992).

Pedestrian Corridor and Major Public Open Space, DesignGuidelines, City of Bellevue, Washington. The CorridorProperty Owners Committee in cooperation with theBellevue Downtown Association, Washington (1981).

Port Authority Bus Terminal Renovation Program: PublicRestrooms Recommendations (February 1991).

Port Authority Bus Terminal Renovation Program: Retail andEntrance Recommendations (February 1991).

Port Authority Bus Terminal Renovation Program: Ticket Plaza(December 1990).

Providence, RI: Kennedy Plaza Project. Pedestrian Problemsand Opportunities. (1980).

Public Markets and Community Revitalization. Co-publishedwith Urban Land Institute. Washington, DC/New York(1995).

Rebuilding American Community. (1988).South Bronx Transportation Planning Project: Crames Square.

(1982).Station Renewal Program (5 Stations, 5 individual reports

along with master report). New Jersey Transit StationRenewal Advisory Committee, New Jersey (1993).

Streets for All Users. U.S. Department of Transportation,Washington, DC (1986).

Streetscape—A Guide to the Design and Management ofPedestrian Amenities in Downtowns and NeighborhoodCommercial Districts. (1987).

The Role Transportation Planning, Engineering and FacilitiesCan Play in Building Communities and Enhancing EconomicDevelopment. (1993).

Waiting for the Bus. Film about bus shelters and how theywork. (1982).

What Do People Do Downtown? How to Look at Main StreetActivity. (January 1981).

IV. ADDITIONAL SOURCES

Al-Mosaind, M. A. et al. “Light Rail Transit Stations andProperty Values: A Hedonic Price Approach.” Paperpresented at the 72nd Annual Meeting of theTransportation Research Board, Washington, DC (1992).

American Automobile Association. New Sensible Transpor-tation Options for People, Traffic Calming. Tag and Oregon(1993).

“And the Winner Is,” American Demographics. 9, 1 (January1987) p.14.

Anthony, K. H. “Public and Private Space in Soviet Cities.”Landscape. 23, 2 (1979) pp. 20–25.

Antoniou, J. Planning for Pedestrians. Eno Foundation forTransportation, Incorporated, Westport, Connecticut(1982).

Appleyard, D. “Motion Sequence and the City.” In TheNature and Art of Motion, edited by G. Kepes. Bearzilie,New York (1965).

Appleyard, D., K. Lynch, and J. Myer The View from theRoad. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,Massachusetts (1964).

Arrington, G. B. Portland’s Light Rail: A Shared Vision forTransportation and Land Use. Tri-Met, Portland, Oregon(1992).

Ashcroft, Norman and Albert E. Scheflen People Space: TheMaking and Breaking of Human Boundaries. Anchor, GardenCity, New York (1976).

Barker, R. G. and P. Schoggen Qualities of Community Life.Fossey-Bass, San Francisco, California (1973).

Barney and Worth, Inc. et al. Evaluation of Banfield Light RailTransit Station Area Planning Program: Summary Report forTri-Met. Portland, Oregon (1993).

Bates, John W. and J. Dewel Lawrence “Transit Marketing:A Strategic Approach.” Transportation Quarterly. 40, 4(October 1986) pp. 549–558.

Becker, Franklin D. “A Class-Conscious Evaluation: GoingBack to the Sacramento Mall.” Landscape Architecture. 64, 1(1973) pp. 448–457.

Bedarida, F. and A. Sutcliffe. “The Street in the Structureand Life of the City.” Journal of Urban History. 6, 4 (August1980) pp. 379–396.

Bernick, M. and M. Carroll. A Study of Housing Built Near RailTransit Stations: Northern California Experiences. Institute ofUrban and Regional Development, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley, WP-546, Berkeley, California (1991).

Black, J. T. et al. Downtown Office Growth and the Role of PublicTransit. Urban Land Institute, Washington, DC (1982).

Bremes, S. and W. Dean. The Pedestrian Revolution: Streetwithout Cars. Vintage, New York, New York (1975).

Brindle, Ray. “Never Mind the Width—Feel the Quality!”Australian Planner. 27, 3 (September 1989) pp. 19–28.

Brooks, H. et al. Public Private Partnership: New Opportunitiesfor Meeting Social Needs., American Academy of Arts andSciences, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1984).

Callow, J. “Impacts of Transit Facilities on Land Use.” ITEJournal (January 1992) pp. 37–39.

Cervero, Robert et al. Transit Joint Development in the UnitedStates. Institute of Urban and Regional Development,Berkeley, California (August 1992).

Connecticut Department of Transportation. The Down-town Hartford Transportation Project: Public/PrivateCollaboration on Transportation Improvements. CambridgeSystematics, Incorporated, Cambridge, Massachusetts(July 1983).

Davis, Otto and Norman J. Johnson. “The Jitneys: A Studyof Grassroots Capitalism.” Journal of Contemporary Studies.7, 1 (Winter 1984).

Eckert, Ross and George Hilton. “The Jitneys.” Journal ofLaw and Economics (October 1972).

Federal Transit Administration. The Impact of Various LandUse Strategies on Suburban Mobility. Washington, DC(December 1992).

———. Transit-Based Residential Developments in the UnitedStates. Washington, DC (March 1994).

———. Transit-Supportive Development in the United States.Washington, DC (December 1993).

Forkenbrock, D. J. et al. Transit-Related Joint Development inSmall Cities: An Appraisal of Opportunities and Practice.University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa (July 1990).

Gamble, H. B. “Patterning Cities and Change: Choices and Implications.” In Special Report 183: Transportationand Land Development Conference Proceedings, TRB,National Research Council, Washington, DC (1978) p. 38.

Garvin, Glen. “Flouting the Law, Serving the Poor.” Reason(June/July 1985).

Hall, Peter and Carmen Hass-Klau. Can Rail Save the City?Gower, Vermont (1985).

Hart, R. Children’s Experience of Place. Irvington Press, NewYork, New York (1978).

Hirten, J. E. Innovation Is Needed in Thinking about Transpor-tation as it Relates to Urban Development Values. NationalAssociation of Housing and Redevelopment Officials,Washington, DC (May 1974).

154

155

Jackson, N. and L. Earvin. Perceptions of Transit-LinkedDevelopment in Minority Neighborhoods: Three Case Studies.Clark College Southern Center for Studies in PublicPolicy, Atlanta, Georgia (January 1981).

Kellis, M. “Transportation Links Unemployed CityResidents with Training and Jobs.” CommunityTransportation Reporter, 6, 4 (October 1989) pp. 8–9.

King, Joe J. R. “Adequacy of Transportation in MinorityCommunities for Handicapped, Low Income and ElderlyGroups.” Transportation Quarterly. 41, 2 (April 1989) pp.247–261.

Komblatt, H. B. “Smaller Scale Joint Development: SanDiego Trolley.” In State-of-the-Art Report 2, TRB, NationalResearch Council, Washington, DC (1985) pp. 108–110.

Lin, Ben C. “Transportation Improvement Districts.” UrbanLand (June 1987) pp. 32–33.

Lovely, M. E. Public Transit and Downtown Development.Urban Land Institute Washington, DC (November 1979).

“Measuring the Quality of Life.” The Futurist. 20, 3(May–June 1986) pp. 58–59.

Middleton, W. The Time of the Trolley. Kalmbach Publishing,Milwaukee, Wisconsin (1967).

Nelessen, Anton Clarence. Visions for a New American Dream:Process, Principles, and an Ordinance to Plan and DesignSmall Communities. Edwards Brothers, Ann ArborMichigan (1994).

Neuwirth, R. “Economic Impacts of Transit on Cities.”Transportation Research Record 1274, TRB, NationalResearch Council, Washington, DC (1990) pp. 142–149.

1000 Friends of Oregon. The LUTRAQ Alternative/Analysis ofAlternatives: An Interim Report. Portland, Oregon (October1992).

“Opportunistic Vans are Running Circles Around CityBuses.” The Wall Street Journal (July 24, 1991).

Orski, C. Kenneth. “Transportation as if People Mattered.”Practicing Planner (March 1979).

Owen, W. Combining Transportation and CommunityDevelopment. Eno Transportation Foundation forTransportation, Incorporated, Westport, Connecticut(1982).

———. The Accessible City. The Brookings Institute.Washington, DC (1972).

Parker, T.C. “Community Involvement and Planning forTransit.” Transit, Land Use & Urban Form. University ofTexas at Austin Center for Study of AmericanArchitecture, Austin, Texas (1988).

Plowden, Stephen. Towns Against Traffic. Andre Deutsch,London, England (1972).

Priest, D. E. and J. L. Walsh-Russo. “Land Use Trends andTransit Operations.” In Special Report 110: FutureDirections of Urban Public Transportation, TRB, NationalResearch Council, Washington, DC (1983).

“Private Minibus Services in Miami.” Private Sector Briefs. 4,2 (November 1991).

Pushkarev, Boris and Jeffrey M. Zupan. Public Trans-portation and Land Use Policy. Indiana University Press,Bloomington, Indiana (1977).

Read, Brendan B. “Illegal but Working” Mass Transit(November/December 1991).

Roberts, John. Pedestrian Precincts in Britain. TEST, London,England (1981).

Teal, Roger F. “Privatization of Urban Transit: The LosAngeles Jitney Experience.” Transportation, 13 (1966) pp. 5–22.

Tolley, Rodney, ed. The Greening of Urban Transport.Bellhaven Press, London, England (1990).

TCRP Synthesis of Information Related to Transit Problems:Transit-Focused Development. TRB, National ResearchCouncil, Washington, DC (1997).

Untermann, R. K. “Adapting Neighborhoods for Walkingand Bicycling.” Accommodating the Pedestrian. VanNostrand Reinhold, New York, New York (1984).

Urban Mobility Corporation. The Miami Jitneys. Reportprepared for the Federal Transit Administration. (April 1994).

Van der Ryn, Sim and Peter Calthorpe. SustainableCommunities. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, California(1986) p. xiii.

Webber, M. “The BART Experience: What Have WeLearned?” Public Interest, 12, 3 (1976) pp. 79–108.

V. RELATED TCRP PUBLICATIONSAND PROJECTS

Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc. TCRP Report 2: Applicability ofLow-Floor Light Rail Vehicles in North America. TRB,National Research Council, Washington, DC (1995).

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. TCRP Report 20: Measuring andValuing Transit Benefits and Disbenefits. TRB, NationalResearch Council, Washington, DC (1996).

Crain & Associates, Inc., TCRP Report 14: InstitutionalBarriers to Intermodal Transportation Policies and Planning inMetropolitan Areas. TRB, National Research Council,Washington, DC (1996).

Korve, Hans W. et al. TCRP Report 17: Integration of LightRail into City Streets. TRB, National Research Council,Washington, DC (1996).

Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. TCRP Report16: Transit and Urban Form. TRB, National ResearchCouncil, Washington, DC (1996).

Texas Transportation Institute. TCRP Report 19: Guidelinesfor Location and Design of Bus Stops. TRB, NationalResearch Council, Washington, DC (1996).

TCRP Project A-13: Light Rail Service: Pedestrian and VehicularSafety.

TCRP Project B-7: Strategies to Assist Local TransportationAgencies in Becoming Mobility Managers.

TCRP Project B-8: Effective Methods of Marketing TransitServices to Business.

TCRP Project B-9: Market Segmentation Strategies to IncreaseTransit Ridership.

TCRP Project B-10: Role of Passenger Amenities and TransitVehicle Characteristics in Building Ridership.

TCRP Project B-11: Customer-Defined Transit Service Quality.TCRP Project F-6: Guidelines for the Effective Use of Uniformed

Transit Police/Security Personnel.

156

TCRP Project G-1: Information Technologies—State-of-the-ArtApplications for Transit Properties.

TCRP Project H-3: Policy Options to Attract Auto Users toPublic Transportation.

TCRP Project H-4A: Strategies for Influencing Choice of UrbanTravel Mode.

TCRP Project H-4B: Transit Markets of the Future—TheChallenge of Change.

TCRP Project H-4E: Sustainable Transportation.TCRP Project H-8: Using Public Transportation to Reduce the

Economic, Social, and Human Costs of Personal Immobility.TCRP Project H-10: The Costs of Sprawl—Revisited.

From the research conducted for this study, thereseem to be three different schools of thought onquality-of-life research, research that actually reflectsthe approaches of different disciplines (economists,sociologists, and geographers) who have conductedthe research.

THE STATISTICAL APPROACH

One school of thought states that quality of life canbe measured statistically through variables availablefrom census data, climate information, economicmeasurements, demographics, and other governmentstatistics. For example, one team of economists devel-oped a sophisticated model using census data on cli-mate, environmental, and urban conditions to rate 253 urban counties. Their highest ranked: Pueblo,Colorado; Norfolk, Virginia; and Denver-Boulder,Colorado. Their lowest ranked: Birmingham, Alabama;Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and St. Louis, Missouri. [1]

Many popular publications have taken this sameapproach to quality of life: rating and comparing hun-dreds of towns and cities across the United States.With names like Places Rated Almanac: Your Guide toFinding the Best Places to Live in America, these booksappeal to Americans looking for that greener grass orcorporations thinking about relocating to a more“livable city.” Unfortunately, comparisons betweencities are based solely on the variables an authorselects, which are subjectively weighed relative toother factors. Even with more sophisticated models,the results of such approaches are questionable,because the statistics selected for analysis ultimatelypre-determine the outcome.

Not surprisingly, different authors have come upwith radically different ratings for the same cities.“Comparing the rankings of some cities in PlacesRated with those in the National Metropolitan AreaStudy is like comparing dirt to diamonds: The ranking

for Midland, Texas shot up from 258 in Places Rated to1 in the new survey. Rochester, Minnesota, jumpedfrom 200 to 7 overall. These results are so encouragingthat the city plans to incorporate them in a marketingprogram for the area . . .” [2]

Of course, the volatility of these factors should war-rant suspicion about their value—although people incommunities (especially those given low marks) takethem quite seriously. The authors of Places Ratedreport, “We get a lot of mail about our book. Some ofit ticking.” [3]

This outpouring of community pride, whether thecity is rated high or low, shows that there is a greatdeal more to livability than a collection of statistics,and that community perceptions need also to be con-sidered. For example, in the 1987 Places Rated, Austinwas given a very low rating for climate; however,surveys of residents of Austin show that people donot dislike their climate. [4] In addition, as one authorpointed out about these rating systems, “Is climatemore or less important than the number of jobs, theemployment level, in the community? In practice,researchers usually give each factor the same weight.This is the most unrealistic but most convenient thingto do. These factors are not equally important in themind of the individual.” [5]

THE PERCEPTUAL APPROACH

The realization that quality of life can vary accord-ing to “the mind of the individual” has led to the nextmost common approach to studying communitylivability: surveys that ask people to actually rate qual-ity of life in their own city or region. As one analystpointed out, these surveys are more useful because“Quality of life means different things to differentpeople . . . (It) is in the eye of the beholder.” [6] Surveysof this type have been done in hundreds of communi-ties, as well as on a national level. In a cross section of

APPENDIX B

A Review of Livability Research

157

Americans asked to define quality of life, in fact, themain response was “getting good things, living well,and enjoying peace, security, and happiness.” [7]

While it is hard to argue with these principles,city-specific surveys are more useful because they canform a basis for understanding how people rank differ-ent factors about livability. For example, in a study byDonald Appleyard, San Francisco residents were askedto state what was most important to them when choos-ing a street to live on. “The two most dominant con-cerns were “cleanliness” (86%) and “crime” (86%). . . .(The extremely high emphasis on “cleanliness” and“appearance” was further confirmed by widespreadmention of “neighbors keeping up property” (78%),“attractive appearance” (74%) and “greenery”(71%). . . . It was much higher than mention of socialor economic qualities. Access to public transport (79%)was the third most common priority. This was consid-ered substantially more important than other aspectsof access. Of these others, “good walking conditions”was followed by “access to shops” and “parks.”Access to parks, sixteenth on the list, was very muchlower than expected. . . . Of the traffic-related emis-sions, “minimal air pollution” (75%) was the fourthpriority overall, while “peace and quiet” was thetenth, followed by “safety from traffic.” [8]

“What people want from a residential and streetenvironment,” Appleyard concludes, “may be secu-rity, peace and quiet, comfort, cleanliness, attractiveappearance, privacy, territorial control, convenience,good parking, street life, neighborliness, or otheramenities. Expectations can significantly affect per-ceptions and satisfaction. . . . The more affluent arelikely to be more critical of their streets because theyknow of other choices, whereas lower-income groupsmay be satisfied with what they have.” [9]

In a larger survey of New York State residents, peo-ple were asked to rank the importance of differentfactors in helping a person decide where to live. [10]“Not surprisingly, the sample of New Yorkers choseeconomics as the most significant feature of the placethey would like to live, followed by climate, crime,housing, education, health care and environment,recreation, transportation, and finally, the arts.” [11]

Surveys of community perception of livability havebeen compiled into a unique publication that com-pares 261 separate surveys that evaluated both localgovernment services and quality of community lifethroughout the United States. Published by theInternational City Managers Association, this book,Citizens Surveys: How to Do Them, How to Use Them,What They Mean, by Thomas Miller and MicheleMiller, standardizes the results of these surveys sothat future studies would have a benchmark forcomparison. [12]

Miller and Miller asked what distinguishes a com-munity whose residents gave high marks to quality oflife in the community. What they found is that “Thecommunity where quality of life is more likely to berated high is the one that has outcommuters (is asuburb), has between 10,000 and 250,000 residents,has lower crime rates, has residents with higherincomes and more education, and provides good services as evaluated by the residents themselves.Almost half of the variation in ratings of communityquality can be explained by a community’s size, per-ceived level of local government service, wealth, andproximity to a metro employment center.” [13]However, Miller and Miller could not find a correla-tion between general perceptions of quality of life in acommunity and the rankings of specific city services.

From the 261 surveys, Miller and Miller developedwhat they call “percent to maximum” norms for dif-ferent categories of quality of life. In other words,they adjusted the findings of different surveys (whichused different types of rankings), so that results couldbe compared. A city conducting a new survey cantherefore see how it compares with other cities askingthe same question. A few examples follow:

Quality of City 76.8 PTM*

Parks 72.3Police 71.8Education/Schools 69.4Safe Community 68.1Transit/Bus System 61.9Planning 57.5Traffic and Light Timing 55.9Shopping Opportunity 54.8

*Percent to maximum

The overall evaluation of community servicesshowed that the average rating was 67.2. It is impor-tant to note that transit/bus systems are typicallyrated significantly lower by residents than otherservices, such as parks, police, and schools (perhapsbecause so few people across the United States usetransit on a regular basis).

One of the conclusions that one can draw from thiswork is that, as one reviewer noted, “Most peopletend to like what they have and the places in whichthey live, wherever they live. Most Americans thinkthat the quality of life which they enjoy is better thanthat of other people living in other parts of thecountry.” [14]

A 1995 “Quality-of-Life Poll” conducted by theRegional Plan Association and the Quinnipiac CollegePolling Institute compared quality of life issues in theNew York City region with Atlanta, Dallas-FortWorth, Seattle, and Los Angeles. It is interesting tonote that there is virtually no difference in opinion

158

159

between the five cities about the “very importantissues” to quality of life. A minimum of 80% of thosesurveyed in all the cities said these issues were cleanair and water, safe streets, race relations, and qualitypublic schools. A minimum of 50% (and usually atleast 60%) said greenery and open space, sense ofcommunity, uncongested roads and highways, andlow state and local taxes.

Perhaps more revealing, however, was the responseto a question about the “one or two things you likeabout your local community.” In all five cities—aminimum of 45% responded, “a strong community”;20–30% responded, “access or convenience”; and lessthan 15% said, “low crime,” “environment,” or“recreation or culture.” Indeed, this strong apprecia-tion about “sense of community” as well as “accessand convenience” is one that can provide support fornew thinking about how transit initiatives need to bemore closely allied with efforts that build a “sense ofcommunity.” [15]

Despite their value, surveys of quality of life havetheir limitations. The way that quality-of-life ques-tions are asked will determine the type of response.Many quality-of-life surveys, for example, focus moreon “personal well-being”: family life, job satisfaction,salary, recreational opportunities, etc. They do not askabout “shared community factors. . . . which aredrowned out” by a focus on people’s personal lives.For example, one survey in Austin that asked about“your quality-of-life” and another one that askedabout “Austin’s quality-of-life” yielded significantlydifferent results. In the personal well-being survey,quality-of-life satisfaction was increasing; in the citysurvey, it was declining. [16]

Another limitation: quality of life measured at thecitywide scale will not reflect variations within onecity. What is valued in one neighborhood may not beof importance in another. Indeed, people often feelmore positive about their own neighborhood thanabout the city as a whole.

For example, in New York City, the Common-wealth Foundation asked a random sampling of New Yorkers about their perceptions on “quality oflife” in New York (this predates the Regional Plansurvey mentioned above). The survey evaluated thecity on scores of issues ranging from safety, to airquality, to appearance, to general subjects like “as aplace to raise a family.” While it may not come as agreat shock to most non-New Yorkers, perceptionsabout the city were extremely negative. Two-thirdsrated New York City as “negative” as a place to live,and only one-third said “positive.” Other negativefactors were extremely high: safety on the street (88%negative), cost and quality of housing (85%), streetcleaning and garbage collection (67%), and so on.

Only 21% were “positive” about New York City as aplace to raise a family. [17]

What is interesting, however, is the difference inthese perceptions compared with surveys PPS hasconducted in individual New York City neighbor-hoods. For example, in a survey conducted in 1991 ofresidents of the Sutton area, located on the Upper EastSide of Manhattan, only 17% rated safety and securityas the most important neighborhood improvement and6% rated cleanliness and garbage collection as the mostimportant. Most people felt safe both during the day(96%) and in the evening (67%). [18] While the Suttonarea is regarded as one of the most desirable neighbor-hoods in the city, the difference between the surveyscannot be explained simply by demographics or loca-tion. Indeed, the issue is that people feel more positiveabout the place that they know and are familiar withthan with the city as a whole.

This is borne out in the responses to many otherPPS surveys, which show that people generally feelsafe in places they use. For example, in BelmontShores, California, 79.1% of residents considered theirshopping district safe during the day, and 52.1% felt itwas safe during the evening. 67.9% of BrooklynHeights residents felt that safety on Montague Streetwas good during the day, 25.7% felt it was fair, and80.5% thought it was good or fair in the evening. InHoboken, New Jersey, 80% deemed downtown safetygood or excellent in the day, while 67% felt the sameabout safety at night. In Springfield, Massachusetts,53.5% of surveyed pedestrians gave safety during theday a “good” rating, 36.8% said it was fair, and 60.3%said evening safety was good or fair. [19]

Perceptions of quality of life are clearly not fixed,and can almost be viewed as a kind of “moving tar-get.” “For example,” one researcher writes, “an easycommute to work and easy access to the workplacecan change as growth brings the traffic congestionthey tried to escape five years ago.” [20]

Finally, quality-of-life surveys may not adequatelyaccount for why people feel as they do. Factors influ-encing livability are often at a very small scale, andpeople may not be conscious of how these almost triv-ial aspects of their daily lives influence them—especially if the livability survey focuses on broadissues at the citywide scale. In his introduction to aseries of papers published in The City Journal aboutQuality of Life in New York City, noted urban analystRoger Starr writes:

Cities should be comfortable places. People should beable to expect good things from the cities where theylive, trivial as well as major things: a cheerful wavefrom a neighbor, the replacement of their garbage cancovers by the refuse collectors, a prompt and pleasantride—perhaps even a seat—on the bus or subway, a

good education for their children, an unbroken lock ontheir front door. All of these simple hopes combine amajor expectation: that life will be increasingly fruitfulin the future because its essence, the quality of life,will continue to improve.

In an uncomfortable city, by contrast, people expectbad things to happen: to find trash deposited on thesidewalk in front of their homes, to be subjected to theverbal assault of a mugger, to discover that their carstereo has been stolen, to face constant reminders ofpoverty and depression. All too often, this is the imagepeople have of New York today.

The term “quality of life” has come into common useas the impression continues to spread that in big cities,and perhaps above all in New York, the specific cir-cumstances the term comprises are in fact gettingworse not better. A deterioration in the quality of lifeaffects people in subtle ways. One may fear auto theftbecause one’s best friend’s car has been stolen—orbecause the garbage collector has made a mess of thesidewalk in front of one’s home. If the city doesn’t careabout one aspect of its citizens’ lives, they infer, it prob-ably doesn’t care about others. Thus, poor garbage col-lection implies careless policing, inadequate schoolingsuggests the deterioration of the city’s infrastructure,official tolerance of aggressive panhandling hints thatcitizens are vulnerable to theft or violence.

In an almost subliminal way, urban residents sensethe connection between signs of deterioration theyglimpse around them and the potential for other kindsof harm. . . . Understanding precisely what causes thepublic to perceive such decay is essential if the govern-ment and other organizations are to establish rationalpriorities for making the city more comfortable. [21]

PLACE-BASED APPROACH

Although people’s perceptions about quality of lifeenhance understanding of the purely statisticalapproach, geographers and many urban experts alikeargue that there is still something missing: an ap-proach to defining quality of life and livability thatincludes people’s often deep attachment to the placeswhere they live and work. This spotlight on “place”and desire for “strong community” adds anotherdimension to understanding quality of life, a dimen-sion that actually helps bring the whole discussioninto clearer focus.

Susan Cutter, a geographer, perhaps summed it upbest when she wrote: “A geographical definition ofquality of life incorporates the concept of individualwell-being but focuses more on places rather thanindividuals. . . . From a practical standpoint, geo-graphical quality of life is the measurement of theconditions of place, how those conditions areexperienced and evaluated by individuals, and therelative importance of each of these to the individ-ual.” [22] This approach avoids value judgment as towhether a place is the “best” or the “worst” andrecognizes that “everyplace is different and has goodand bad attributes.” [23]

This approach to livability involves holistic under-standing of a place: concrete, quantifiable, and statisti-cal measurements as well as people’s perceptionsabout the place. Cutter suggests that “The art—science to some—of evaluating quality of life in aplace involves two states: a goal state and anappraisal state.” Goals are what people would like tohave in a place, while appraisals measure what isactually there. Quality of life is the “measured”difference between the two. These measurementsmust take into consideration objective measurements(climate, socioeconomic data, etc.) as well as the moresubjective attachment that people have to places:What is the image of the place? What experiences dopeople associate with a place? How do they feel aboutit? As Cutter writes, “Often, our individual image of aplace overtly or covertly biases our evaluation ofquality of life found there.” [24]

Social ecologists take this approach further toexplain how human activities are influenced by thephysical space or place in which they occur as well ashow neighborhoods become locations for groups ofpeople and their activities. As early as 1946, observerslike Walter Firey were exploring the implications ofthese factors—especially the sentimental values peo-ple associate with places. He writes of his research inBoston where he discovered that “land can be put touneconomic and even dis-economic uses—all becausecertain values have become attached to a locality andhave in that way found symbolic representation.” [25]He continues:

Boston, more than most other cities, has a great manyhistoric sites which serve as “reminders” of its civicidentity. The presence of old colonial dwellings, ven-erable cemeteries, ancient public buildings, hallowedchurches, and distinctive neighborhoods exerts a defi-nite civic-building influence upon the residents of acommunity. Out of such an influence emerges thekind of sentiments upon which real citizen participa-tion depends—loyalty, a feeling of belongingness,and a purposefulness that goes beyond individualambitions. Boston needs these sentiments. Throughthem it can win the interest and support of its peoplein civic improvements. Without them it can onlyappeal to the varied special interests of pressuregroups to accomplish its objectives. Sentiment is oneof the surest community-building forces that any citycan have . . . No city or metropolitan plan would becomplete which overlooked this. [26]

Herbert Gans, a sociologist and urban planner,studied a Boston neighborhood a decade later while itwas in the midst of massive redevelopment. Ganswrites that the social and community networks areessential to the neighborhoods being disrupted.“Since relocation procedures do not allow for thetransfer of the social system, the shock of the reloca-

160

tion process itself is likely to affect negatively anumber of people who have never lived anywhereexcept in the West End, and where social and emo-tional ties are entirely within the neighborhood.” [27]Unfortunately, he was absolutely right.

George Hemmens adds a third dimension to therelationship between spaces and activity—that oftime. He indicates that people’s decisions as towhether or not to undertake an activity (like shop-ping) are influenced by the location of the activity aswell as the time of day and the length of time anactivity takes. This model brings into clearer focus therole that transportation plays. “If facilities for a partic-ular activity are relatively inaccessible that activitywill likely be performed infrequently. And it may bethat an activity will have a longer duration whenaccess is difficult than when access is easy.” [28]

The interrelationship between places and activitiesmakes the place-based approach to livability a practi-cal tool: it allows people to take concrete steps toimprove their lives by improving the places wherethey live and work. As one city planning researcherDowell Myers suggests, “planners, local officials, andinterest group leaders must negotiate knowledgeabout local quality of life.” [29] He recommends a“community trend” approach that stresses that qual-ity of life is part of an ongoing development processand that encourages participation of local citizens aspart of the “negotiation” process. “The data thatresult form a realistic description of the community’squality of life, broadly enough based that all seg-ments of the community can accept it as a basis forsubsequent decision making.” [30]

The place-based approach also recognizes that hereis an interactive relationship between places and peo-ple, and that places influence us in ways we are oftennot aware. Tony Hiss, in The Experience of Place, put itthis way: “These places have an impact on our senseof self, our sense of safety, the kind of work we getdone, the ways we interact with other people, evenour ability to function as citizens in a democracy. Inshort the places where we spend our time affect thepeople we are and can become.” [31]

Livability of Places: Literature Review

Over the last three decades, during which time con-cerns about livability have grown, there has emergeda new understanding of how people experience andperceive places in their communities. This literaturealso focuses on specific measures that can be taken toimprove the livability of important places in commu-nities: streets and sidewalks, parks, plazas, and thepublic environment. Much thought has also beengiven to the role of communities in making their pub-lic environments work more effectively.

An early such observer was Jane Jacobs, who, in1961, wrote the remarkable The Death and Life of GreatAmerican Cities. Her works opened people’s eyes tothe complexity of their surroundings, and the fact thatenvironment does influence how we think about anduse our communities. Until her book, most descrip-tions about cities lamented their ills and evils: density,poverty, crime. Urban planners were often moreinterested in how to tear it down through redevelop-ment, rather than build it up. Ms. Jacobs was inter-ested in celebrating the city and studying “how citieswork in real life, because this is the only way to learnwhat principles of planning and what practices inrebuilding can promote social and economic vitalityin cities, and what practices and principles willdeaden these attributes.” [32]

Ms. Jacobs explained what many, if not most, peoplewho lived in cities already knew: that cities were aplace of great melting pots of social interaction, andthat they were largely safe and supportive places tolive. She did not achieve this argument, however, ingreat sweeping generalizations, but in startling detailbased simply on seeing how all types of public spacesand places actually work for people. For example, shewrote about the sidewalk: “A good city street neigh-borhood achieves a marvel of balance between itspeople’s determination to have essential privacy andtheir simultaneous wishes for differing degrees of con-tact, enjoyment or help from the people around. Thisbalance is largely made up of small, sensitively man-aged details, practiced and accepted so casually thatthey are normally taken for granted.” [33]

Other journalists, urban analysts, and researchers—many without formal training—have further con-tributed to the understanding of the livability ofcommunities and those “taken for granted” influencesof which Jane Jacobs wrote. Many, like JamesKunstler lament the loss of sense of place caused bysuburban sprawl. Others discuss more broadly thevalue of public places: “Cities were invented to facili-tate exchange of information, friendship, materialgoods, culture, knowledge, insight, skills and also theexchange of emotional, psychological and spiritualsupport . . . if we are to grow into our fullest potential,we need what other people can give us . . . mutualenrichment . . .” [34]

Still others, like William H. Whyte, have focusedon what makes places in cities work and offer sug-gestions for how they can be better designed or man-aged to be more effective places for people. Mr.Whyte, an early pioneer of studying how people usepublic spaces, quantified many of Ms. Jacobs’ obser-vations and developed criteria for creating success-ful, well-used public spaces. He pioneered the use oftime lapse filming and systematic observations, andhis contribution was to describe how the design of

161

public spaces actually determines whether peoplewill use a space or not. Mr. Whyte is highly critical ofarchitects who design spaces to be seen but not used.He has said that it is difficult to design a public spacethat will not be used by people, but what is remark-able is how often this has been accomplished. [35]Mr. Whyte’s books go on to elaborate on the success-ful ingredients for a public space that works for peo-ple: amenities, shade, activity generators like foodservice, visible access to the street, and so on.

The need for communities to define their ownproblems and priorities in terms of improving livabil-ity clearly makes it essential that the community beactively involved. Indeed, the livability literaturestresses the importance of involving communities in a step-by-step process of renewal of places andspaces—a process where “micro” changes cumula-tively add up to “macro” results in their improve-ment and development. Roberta Gratz, in The LivingCity, goes beyond the concept of the importance ofpublic space to community life to discuss the processof change that has worked to rebuild places as heartsof community. She writes that change should beginwith the community itself, often in small steps andwrites about “urbanism” as the art of understandingthe city. Urbanists, who “understand and practicethat art . . . learn how a city works through intimatecontact with it. Experience, observation, commonsense, and human values are fundamental to anurbanist’s view of city issues. Urbanists focus on themicro before wrestling with the macro and understandthat, in reality, the macro only changes for the better inmicro steps. . . . Innovation and ingenuity are the pre-vailing characteristics. Perseverance in the face ofnaysayers and determination in the face of obstaclesare prerequisites. Step by step, essential and naturalgrowth follows and spreads until larger areas prosperover time. Any look, therefore, at rebirth of citiesinevitably spotlights areas rebuilt from the bottom upby citizen activists, urbanists whether residents, busi-ness people, design professionals, or small develop-ers who understand what makes a real place work,who are the ones actively involved and getting thingsdone.” [36]

In addition to research and publications that focuson the design process and design elements of places,there has been, over the past decade, a new under-standing of the value of management of public spacesas a tool for changing public perceptions. PPS’s ownwork, Managing Downtown Public Spaces, was devel-oped for downtown organizations to take on a largerrole in terms of maintenance, security, public events,marketing and promotion, and public-space ameni-ties. The development of management districts,funded by special taxes that are agreed to by propertyowners, has flourished across the country in both

large cities and small towns as more and more localorganizations take responsibility for making suretheir commercial districts are safe, attractive, clean,active, and comfortable. Many of these districts, likethe Grand Central Partnership around Grand CentralTerminal in New York City, include important transitand transportation facilities.

There are many, many more examples of livabilityof place research: Donald Appleyard’s seminal workon creating livable residential streets; ChristopherAlexander’s innovative “patterns” for making morehumane environments; Mark Francis’ and ClareCooper Marcus’ guidelines for all kinds of urbanopen spaces; Anton Nelessen’s “visual preference”methods to help communities decide what characterand design elements they want in their public envi-ronment; Anne Vernez Moudon, Allan Jacobs, andRaquel Ramati’s separate books on achieving greatcommercial streets. All of these writers—as well asother researchers in the field of environment andbehavior—essentially support the same conclusion:that our public environment and spaces greatly influ-ence how we use our communities and perceivethem—the extent to which we socialize, are economi-cally successful, and even work together on sharedactions and activities.

Project for Public Spaces Researchon Places

Project for Public Spaces, founded in 1975, has alsoconducted a great deal of the work in this field toreveal the perceptions and interactions of people inthe public places they customarily use. An outgrowthof Mr. Whyte’s “Street Life Project,” PPS has studiedhow people use public spaces and what they need inorder to feel comfortable in public environments inmore than 500 communities throughout the UnitedStates and abroad. PPS accomplishes this by gather-ing information through time-lapse filming, system-atic behavioral observations, customized interviews,and user-oriented surveys.

With these tools, PPS examines people’s uses andactivities, experiences and opinions of the small-scale, site-specific places intrinsic to the fabric ofurban neighborhoods, such as plazas, street cornersand transit stops, as well as impressions of wholeneighborhoods, such as downtowns, residential, andcommercial districts. The comments elicited in sur-veys and interviews not only help PPS determine the kinds of improvements people require and wantin these places, but they also provide important cluesto what people consider essential for making theircommunities livable.

162

Attitudes about what makes an area livable mayvary from place to place in response to divergent con-ditions like climate, as when in Corpus Christi, Texas,84% of people surveyed at a bus stop cited shade asimportant for a new bus transfer center. Nonetheless,PPS has found that many “wish lists” are surprisinglysimilar in hundreds of questionnaires answered bydiverse communities. For example, food stores andservices appear to be highly desirable to communityresidents: 69% indicated they shop in theGreenmarket at a plaza on 9th Avenue and West 57thStreet in Manhattan, and 96% of people surveyed atthe Corpus Christi bus stop wanted a place to buysnacks and drinks. Of those surveyed in Pittsfield,Massachusetts, the following were either desirable orvery desirable downtown: 55% said more butchers,bakeries, and other food stores, 57% said more ethnicfood restaurants, and 81% said more moderatelypriced restaurants. In Tucson, Arizona, 23.4% thoughtthat food (eat-in and take-out) businesses wereneeded downtown.

Similarly, greenery and park environments are indi-cated to be in demand in communities as different asRed Hook in Brooklyn, New York, where 59% of thosesurveyed favored a waterfront park and 45% suggestedchildren’s playgrounds for a neighborhood pier, andManhattan’s Upper East Side Sutton Place community,where 45.9% of surveyed residents felt more trees,flowers, greenery, and children’s play areas wouldimprove the area’s plazas. Again, in surveys of thatsame Sutton community (very urban) and the vastlydifferent suburban Belmont Shores in Long Beach,California, vehicular traffic problems, such as conges-tion, noise, and vehicle speeds were rated by both asthe most important area for improvement. Anotherneed often mentioned is for entertainment, such asmovies, theater, concerts, and nightclubs, in surveys ofcommunities ranging from 81.2% in Springfield,Massachusetts, to 43.2% in Tucson, Arizona, to 51% inMontague Street in Brooklyn Heights, New York.

Not surprisingly, security comes up often, althoughsometimes it is not as high a priority as might beexpected because people already feel safe in familiarareas. For example, in a survey of the Upper East SideManhattan area between 59th and 96th Streets, havinga secure/safe neighborhood was ranked highest inimportance by 58.4% and at the Corpus Christi busstop, 44% of those interviewed suggested a securityguard for the new bus transfer center. Cleanliness alsois cited frequently, like in Red Hook, Brooklyn, whereit was a concern of 64% of surveyed residents, and inPittsfield, Massachusetts, where making downtowncleaner and more attractive was the second mostdesirable improvement of surveyed pedestrians.Another prevalent concern is parking, for example, of

those surveyed, parking was a concern to 36% inHoboken, New Jersey, 29% in Pittsfield, Massa-chusetts, 25.8% in Tucson, Arizona, and 17.1% of merchants in Brooklyn Heights. [37]

Out of such suggestions and expressed needsemerges a pattern of broader livability issues, such ascomfort, convenience, accessibility, social opportuni-ties, safety, activity, and relaxation. People have avision, in their own minds, about what a place shouldbe; it becomes a fairly easy task for them to suggestways that the place could change to better meet withtheir ideal view of it. What is amazing is that there isso much consensus within communities, despite differ-ences in age, income, and other demographic factors.

ENDNOTES

1. Glenn C. Blomquist et al., “New Estimates of Quality ofLife in Urban Areas,” The American Economic Review(March 1988) pp. 98 and 102.

2. “And the Winner is,” American Demographics, Vol. 9, No. 1 (January 1987) p. 14.

3. Susan L. Cutter, Rating Places: A Geographer’s View onQuality of Life, The Association of AmericanGeographers, Washington, DC (1985) p. 68.

4. Dowell Myers, “Building Knowledge about Quality ofLife for Urban Planning,” Journal of the American PlanningAssociation, Vol. 54, No. 3 (Spring 1988) pp. 347–358.

5. Joseph Rabianski, “How to Specify a Quality of LifeStudy.” Industrial Development: A Geo-Economic Review,Vol. 34 (February 1989) p. 118.

6. Humphrey Taylor, “Evaluating Our Quality of Life,”Industrial Development. Vol. 156, No. 2, (March/April1987) p. 1.

7. Ibid.8. Donald Appleyard, Livable Streets, University of

California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California,(1981) pp. 50–51.

9. Ibid., pp. 34–35.10. Robert M. Pierce, “Rating America’s Metropolitan

Areas,” American Demographics, Vol. 7, No. 7 (July 1985)p. 23.

11. Ibid.12. Thomas Miller and Michele Miller, Citizen Surveys: How

to Do Them, How to Use Them, What They Mean.International City/County Management Agency,Washington, DC (1991) p. 126.

13. Ibid.14. Taylor, p. 2.15. Regional Plan Association and Quinnipiac College

Polling Institute, The Quality of Life Poll. Regional PlanAssociation, New York, New York (1995) no pagenumbers.

16. Myers, p. 355–356.17. Commonwealth Foundation, Survey of New York City

Residents (September 17, 1993).18. Project for Public Spaces, Inc., Sutton Area Quality of Life

Survey, New York, New York (1990).

163

164

19. Project for Public Spaces Surveys and Reports: BelmontShore Area Resident Survey, Long Beach, California(1990); Brooklyn Heights Resident Survey, Brooklyn, NewYork (1987); Civitas Upper East Side Residents Survey,New York, New York (1985); Coffey Street Pier UrbanDesign Study, Brooklyn, New York (1988); Corpus ChristiCity Hall Bus Stop Survey, Corpus Christi, Texas (1992);Downtown Tucson Survey, Tucson, Arizona, (1988);Hoboken Retail & Business Improvement Project, Hoboken,New Jersey (1985); Pittsfield Resident, Pedestrian,Merchant Surveys, Pittsfield, Massachusetts (1985);Sheffield Plaza Survey, New York, New York (1990);Springfield Visions, Springfield Massachusetts, 1989; andSutton Area Quality of Life Survey, New York, New York(1990).

20. Rabianski, p. 119.21. “Quality of Life in New York City,” The City Journal,

Manhattan Institute (Spring 1992) pp. 2–3.22. Cutter, pp. 1–2.23. Ibid., p. iii.24. Ibid., p. 2.25. Walker Firey, Land Use in Central Boston, Harvard

University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1947)p. 325.

26. Ibid., p. 331.27. Herbert J. Gans, “The Human Implications of Current

Redevelopment and Relocation Planning,” Journal of theAmerican Institute of Planners, XXV (1959) pp. 20–21.

28. George C. Hemmens, The Structure of Urban ActivityLinkages: An Urban Studies Research Monograph,University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NorthCarolina (September 1966) p. 45.

29. Myers, p. 352.30. Ibid., p. 357.31. Tony Hiss, The Experience of Place, Alfred A. Knopf, New

York, New York (1990) p.1.32. Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities,

Random House, New York, New York (1961) p.4.33. Ibid., p. 59.34. David Engwicht, Reclaiming Our Cities & Towns: Better

Living with Less Traffic, New Society Publishers,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (1993) p. 17.

35. William H. Whyte, City: Rediscovering the Center,Doubleday, New York, New York (1988) p. 109.

36. Roberta Gratz, The Living City: How America’s Cities AreBeing Revitalized by Thinking Small in a Big Way, ThePreservation Press, Washington, DC (1994) ii–iii.

37. Survey data is from aforementioned PPS surveys.

The Role ofTransit inCreatingLivable

Metropolitan Communities

COMFORT AND IMAGEthe subjective experiences of using a place,

such as safety and cleanliness.

ACCESS AND LINKAGES

USES AND ACTIVITIESwhy people come to an area and what makes

a place in a community special or unique.

WHAT MAKES A LIVABLE PLACE?

SOCIABILITYthe qualities that make a good place

to meet people and create a sense of

community.

Concerns about livability are shared by every type of community, in inner

cities, small towns, and rural areas.This handbook explores how communities

are working in partnership with transit agencies on locally initiated

projects and programs to create livable “places” and build transit ridership.

Creating Places for Community Life

Pioneer Square in Portland, Oregon, has

become Portland’s “living room”

as well as the hub of the light rail and

bus system.

A Jazz Festival and Community Market are

weekly events at the NJ Transit East Orange

Train Station, East Orange, New Jersey.

Transit can support the creation of places—

public spaces, streets and buildings—helping

to enliven their usage and making them centers

for a wide range of community activities.

r

Catalyst for Downtown and Neighborhood Renewal

Residents work together on small

projects, like tree planting and

transit improvements, as part of

the Los Angeles Neighborhood

Initiative (LANI).

Davis Square in Somerville, Massachusetts,

has undergone major revitalization since the

opening of a subway station in the late 1980’s

and the introduction of attractive public space

improvements.

Transit can serve as a key force in the revitalization

of neighborhoods and center cities.

lic S

pace

s, In

c.

Downtown Crossing in

Boston, a central transit hub

served by all major subway

lines, is the heart of the

downtown retail district and

features a vibrant market-

place with pushcart vendors.

An abandoned factory com-

plex adjacent to the Wellston

light rail station in St. Louis is

getting new life as a business

incubator and job training

center.

Creating Opportunityfor Entrepreneurship and

Economic DevelopmentTransit can help create new

businesses and improve

access to job opportunities.

on, S

t. Lo

uis

Pos

t-

Improving Safety and AmenityTransit can help make communities safer, in part by making

them more comfortable and attractive.

New York City has initiated a station manager program to help keep

stations clean and safe, as well as improve customer service.

In Portland, Oregon, transit amenities have contributed

to the revitalization of downtown.

In cities ranging from

Aspen, Colorado, to

Seattle, Washington,

small shuttle buses are

providing more flexible and

convenient service to

communities.

Making CommunitiesAccessible and Convenient

Transit services and facilities can be tailored to meet

community needs while providing a viable alternative

to the private car.

Shaping Community GrowthTransit can be a key component of efforts aimed

at reducing sprawl and encouraging development

of mixed use centers.

New bus transfer centers

in Corpus Christi not

only improve service for

customers but provide

a focal point for

developing stronger

districts around them.

Pho

tos:

Car

ter A

llen,

Pho

togr

aphy

Tucson’s Tohono Tadai

transfer center is one of a

series of facilities intended

to improve amenities and

safety for passengers

and improve links to

surrounding communities.

Volunteers initiated and largely

implemented the rebuilding of

the Old Pueblo Trolley in Tucson

by restoring cars, laying track,

and operating the carsó

connecting a university to a

revitalizing commercial district

and developing a new tourist

attraction for the city.

Denver celebrates the opening of

its Sixteenth Street Transit Mall in

1982, built and operated by a

unique public private partnership

that has helped to guide the

dramatic resurgence of downtown.

Implementation ThroughPartnerships

Photo: Downtown Denver Partnership

Community groups and transit agencies have found that

by working in partnership, they can improve the livability

of their community and increase transit ridership.

THE TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD is a unit of the National Research Coun-cil, which serves the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. Itevolved in 1974 from the Highway Research Board, which was established in 1920. The TRB incor-porates all former HRB activities and also performs additional functions under a broader scopeinvolving all modes of transportation and the interactions of transportation with society. The Board’spurpose is to stimulate research concerning the nature and performance of transportation systems, todisseminate the information that the research produces, and to encourage the application of appro-priate research findings. The Board’s program is carried out by more than 400 committees, task forces,and panels composed of more than 4,000 administrators, engineers, social scientists, attorneys, edu-cators, and others concerned with transportation; they serve without compensation. The program issupported by state transportation and highway departments, the modal administrations of the U.S.Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the developmentof transportation.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distin-guished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of sci-ence and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter grantedto it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal gov-ernment on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Acad-emy of Sciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the NationalAcademy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in itsadministration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciencesthe responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering alsosponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research,and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of theNational Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policymatters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to theNational Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal governmentand, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. KennethI. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 toassociate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purpose of furtheringknowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policiesdetermined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both theNational Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to thegovernment, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administeredjointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. William A.Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.

Abbreviations used without definitions in TRB publications:

AASHO American Association of State Highway OfficialsAASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation OfficialsAPTA American Public Transit AssociationASCE American Society of Civil EngineersASME American Society of Mechanical EngineersASTM American Society for Testing and MaterialsFAA Federal Aviation AdministrationFHWA Federal Highway AdministrationFRA Federal Railroad AdministrationFTA Federal Transit AdministrationIEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics EngineersITE Institute of Transportation EngineersNCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research ProgramNCTRP National Cooperative Transit Research and Development ProgramNHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationSAE Society of Automotive EngineersTCRP Transit Cooperative Research ProgramTRB Transportation Research BoardU.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation