7 Transit and Transit-Oriented Development
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
This chapter contains three main sections. Part A reviews public transit in the US, traditional and nontraditional transit modes, the link between public transit, land use, and transportation planning, and how policies affect public transit within urban areas. Part B discusses sustainable transit and explains the process of performance and management in transportation planning and the importance of performance management and its measures. Part C focuses on transit-oriented development (TODs) as a key planning concept recognized in the last two decades of public transit planning in the US. Finally, this section provides an example of a research study regarding the effects of TODs on trip generation and parking demand by considering a case study in Dallas, TX.
CHAPTER TOPICS
- Public Transit
- Public Transit Service, Modes, and Characteristics
- Planning for Sustainable Transit
- Transit-Oriented Development
- Conclusion
- Quiz
- Glossary
- Acronyms
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Learning Objectives
- Define the main modes of public transit and related characteristics.
- Discuss associations between urban form, land use, and public transit.
- Recognize the elements and importance of sustainable public transit
- Define what is Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and identify TOD’s land-use and transportation integration challenges and opportunities.
INTRODUCTION
Public transportation systems play a crucial role in urban travel worldwide. By providing accessible and convenient transit options, communities can increase mobility and transportation equity. However, public policy and investment in the US, since the end of World War 2 have favored private transportation systems over public mass transit. Today, high quality transit service that effectively competes with cars is most feasible in cities that early on invested in robust transit services and that over time developed strong transit-friendly land-use planning and finance systems. New digital technologies enabling ride-hailing and shared mobility services have begun to compete for unmet demand for transit mobility as a complement as well as a substitute for transit trips, raising both challenges and opportunities for the future of public transit in American cities. High traffic congestion choaking freeways is prompting cities and metropolitan planning organizations to consider transit not only for mobility, but also for orienting new development patterns towards multimodal accessibility along transit networks. In this respect, transit-oriented development (TOD), a planning perspective for integrating land development and transit, is making inroads among transit agencies, municipalities, and real-estate markets as a more sustainable strategy for transportation and urban development.
Part A of this chapter presents an overview of public transit, different transit modes, their characteristics and ridership trends. It also compares traditional and nontraditional transit modes highlighting findings of research on the role played by ride-hailing and shared mobility services either complementing or competing with transit. Part B highlights the role of public transit in planning for sustainable transportation. Part C, dedicated to transit-oriented development (TOD) features promising practices in implementing TOD as well as critiques. Finally, this section provides TOD data from Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) and exercises for practicing and applying this chapter’s ideas and concepts.
PART A: PUBLIC TRANSIT
Public transport is an important feature of cities especially for the realization of their social, environmental and economic sustainability, and development planning goals (Van Lierop et al., 2018). Public transit systems are complex systems with many public and private stakeholders including passengers, operators, the community at large, and local jurisdictions, the latter typically with control over street rights-of-way (ROW). Throughout the world, governments typically subsidize or fully provide public transit. Small cities in some European countries like Belgium and Luxembourg provide transit for free. However, governments subsidize most public transit and regulate fare rates. Likewise, the construction of transit facilities such as terminals are often subsidized by value-capture taxes collected from property owners surrounding the station when property values increase due to the new transportation facility (aka tax-increment financing (TIF)). This chapter presents an introduction to transit in the U.S., discusses transit modes, transit service metrics, transit ridership characteristics, the benefits of and challenges to transit sustainability, and transit-oriented development (TOD).
Public Transit in the US
Public transit in the U.S. traditionally refers to large-capacity passenger vehicles and services usually under government ownership. This was made possible by the passage of the Urban Mass Transportation Act in 1964 and the creation of the Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA), which facilitated the federally funded acquisition of private transit providers that had historically dominated the industry. With the advent of the Interstate Highway System and the prevalence of automobile travel in the 1960s, transit ridership, which had peaked in the 1940s, declined precipitously, and the Act helped funnel federal dollars to cities and regional entities to buy out of rail and bus companies as seen in Figure 7.1. However, as subsequent federal funding transportation shortfalls have also affected public transit (see Chapter 1), public-private partnerships have emerged to make up for the deficits and transit agencies have increasingly contracted out to the private sector new and expanded services (Schneider & Davis, 2006). In this context, the emergence of shared mobility is blurring the traditional boundaries of public transit as cities and transit agencies procure Federal Transit Administration (FTA) grants to partner with shared mobility operators in the provision of micro-transit services (see Box 7. 1 and Box 7.2).
Media 7.1 FTA History. usdotfta. (2023, August 29). FTA history part 1 [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOI79eLD6QA
Box 7.1 Shared Mobility FAQs: Eligibility Under FTA grant programs
In response to increasing interest from the transit industry in partnering with on-demand, shared mobility services such as ride-hailing companies, the FTA has identified FAQs about funding eligibility under federal public transportation law for FTA grant programs.
(Federal Transit Administration, FTA 2016, n.p.) https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/shared-mobility-faqs-eligibility-under-fta-grant-programs
Are micro-transit services eligible?
Yes. If these services offer shared rides and are open to the general public, these services would be considered public transportation and generally would be eligible. Services that do not meet the definition of public transportation may be eligible as ADA paratransit, as a job access and reverse commute project, or as an alternative to public transportation. A transit agency may contract for eligible micro-transit services; however, the law generally does not permit private firms to be eligible to receive FTA funds as a direct recipient or subrecipient.
Box 7.2 Arlington, Texas Expands On-Demand Micro-Transit Citywide.
On-demand, ride-hailing transit services are no longer just for short journeys in a designated service area. One Texas city is expanding its door-to-door offerings citywide.
Arlington, a city of 400,000 residents squarely between Dallas and Fort Worth, will soon expand an existing on-demand transit service to become perhaps the first in the nation to rely on a service that does not use fixed routes or large buses like most cities.
The city will be served by about 70 shared shuttle-like vehicles provided by Via, which will operate like a single-passenger ride-hailing service.
(Government Technology, January 22, 2021, n.p.). https://www.govtech.com/fs/arlington-texas-expands-on-demand-micro-transit-citywide.html
As with car sharing, a recipient may provide for the integration of transit services with micro-transit through the design and construction of an eligible capital project. For example, information about these services can be integrated into electronic signage that stream data to applications as part of an infrastructure project in order to provide the consumer with more transportation options.
Transit Service and Use
According to the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), in 2022, more than 6,800 organizations provided public transportation in the U.S. among these, around 4,580 were non-profit providers of most public transportation. Of the reporting agencies, 945 were urban, and 1308 were rural (APTA, 2023). Forty-five percent of all Americans have no access to public transit while analyses show that traveling by public transit is 10 times safer than traveling by car. Of all transit riders in the U.S., 71% are commuters and 7% travel to school. Also, more than two-thirds of riders walk to a transit stop to access transit. This is important because scholars have shown that the mode of transportation to and from public transit, or the first/last mile stretch, is an important component of the transit trip that due to issues of safety, lack of pedestrian connectivity, and other obstacles, often becomes a main barrier to riding public transit (Kåresdotter et al., 2022). Among the four main public transit service categories (bus, demand response, rail and other) reported by APTA, demand-response is a rapidly growing mode of travel and transit agencies looking to expand their service are engaging with micro-transit operators, like Uber and Lift and other transit network companies (TNCs) for testing new first/last mile mobility pilots (APTA, 2023).
Ridership
Buses have been the most used form of public transportation in the U.S. in terms of trips. The transit industry measures transit ridership in unlinked passenger trips and defines a “trip” as any time a passenger boards a transit vehicle (including transfers). In 2020, according to APTA (2023, p. 10), there were a total of 5.97 billion unlinked passenger trips resulting in a 40% drop from 2019. Of these trips more than half were done by bus.
The COVID pandemic had a strong impact on office commuters using rail, who during the lockdown worked from home. Although every transit mode suffered declines in ridership due to the pandemic, in 2020, “roadway modes such as bus and demand response made up 58.1 percent of trips taken, the highest level since 2007” (APTA, 2023, p. 10). However, according to Dickens and Kahana (2022), by 2022, ridership rebounded at various degrees depending on the city and type of transit (see Figure 7.2).
Transit Service
Industry metrics for public transit service are distance in miles and time in hours that vehicles are in circulation providing service to the public. For the year 2020 APTA reported a total of 4.33 billion vehicle revenue miles (VRM) of service equivalent to 292.2 million vehicle revenue hours (VRH) of service. These two criteria are critical transit service metrics that indicate respectively the distance (miles) traveled by public transportation vehicles while in service and the duration (hours) of the service (APTA 2023, p. 13). Figure 7.3 displays the record for these measures from 2000 to 2020. A steady slight increase per year can be seen abruptly interrupted by a drop after 2019 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. (APTA, 2023).
Ridership and Service by Transit Mode
FTA and APTA reports on service by transit mode (see section Modes of Public Transit) offer information on the shares of all US public transportation accounted by the most used transit modes (bus, demand response, rail and other) as well as measures of ridership (unlinked trips and passenger miles) and of service (vehicle revenue miles, and vehicle revenue hours) as shown in Figure 7.4. Because bus passengers take many shorter trips and buses travel at lower speeds than the other modes, buses typically account for the largest shares of vehicle revenue hours (over 50% in 2020) but for smaller shares of all US passenger miles (about 40% in 2020). Rail on the other hand, accounts for large shares of longer trips (52% of passenger miles in 2022), but relatively smaller percentages of total US transit service (24% of vehicle revenue miles and 17% of vehicle revenue hours for 2020). Due to rail’s fewer stops, faster speed, averaging 19.9 miles per hour for heavy rail and 38 miles per hour for commuter rail, passengers using these modes tend to take longer trips. Buses on the other hand, service central cities and suburbs, make frequent stops, and travel at an average speed of 12 miles per hour. Buses’ average trip length is between 1.8 and 5 miles (APTA, 2023).
PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE, MODES, AND CHARACTERISTICS
For most transit, more service frequency (vehicles per hour) is a desirable service attribute, the more vehicles per hour at the transit stop, the shorter the waiting time for passengers. Transit headway, a related concept, refers to the time or distance between vehicles in a transit network. If a bus stops every half hour at the station or stop, the service has a 30-minute headway. Table 7.1 displays levels of transit service (LOS) in terms of headway and frequency according to the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (TCQSM). From a passenger perspective, the high frequency of service at LOS A and B makes consulting a transit timetable or schedule unnecessary, at LOS B passengers need to consult a timetable, while at LOS F, the waiting time between transit vehicles makes the service unattractive. From the operator’s perspective, the feasibility of high-quality service (LOS A to C) is associated with high urban densities along the transit corridor—the area surrounding the route. As shown on Table 7.1, 15 dwelling units per net acre is the threshold at which light rail transit (LRT) and bus rapid transit (BRT) is still feasible due to potential ridership along the route. At lower densities, bus service is feasible but service frequency declines with diminishing density. One hour is the maximum headway for bus service. However, assuming that the bus or rail vehicle is on schedule, smart phone apps providing real-time information of transit arrivals permit passengers to better plan their transit journey minimizing wait time and making transfers. These space-time transit characteristics are important considering that as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau, the average one-way travel time to work by bus was 47 minutes in 2019 and 27.6 minutes by car.
|
Note: Adapted from Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (Brinkerhoff, 2013, pp. 5-4, 5-5).
|
||||
|
Level of Service (LOS) |
Avg. Headway (min) |
Vehicles/ hour |
Passenger Perspective |
Operator Perspective |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
A |
< 5 |
12 |
Very convenient, no need to consult timetables. |
Feasible for bus or rail service in very high-density (high ridership) corridors, and where routes converge to serve a major activity center. |
|
B |
5-10 |
12-6 |
Frequent service, no need to consult timetables. |
Feasible on high-density corridors with bus or rail service, and where routes converge to serve a major activity center. Short headways needed for circulator routes to be able to compete with walking and bicycling. Exclusive rights of way desirable. |
|
C |
11-15 |
5-4 |
Relatively frequent but need to consult timetables to minimize waiting time. Maximum desirable time to wait if bus/train missed. |
Feasible in higher-density corridors (e.g., 15 dwelling units/net acre for bus service, routes with strong anchors on both ends, and park-and-ride-based peak- period commuter bus service. Limit at which LRT or BRT is feasible. |
|
D |
16-30 |
3-2 |
Must adapt travel to the timetable; often passenger’s less-than-optimal arrival or departure times. |
Feasible in moderate-density corridors (e.g., 7 dwelling units/net acre for bus service). Typical commuter rail headway; longest commuter bus headway |
|
E |
31-59 |
>2-1 |
Must adapt travel to the timetable; often passenger’s less-than-optimal arrival or departure times. |
Feasible in low-to-moderate density corridors (e.g., 5-6 dwelling units/net acre) |
|
F |
60 |
1 |
Minimal service level to meet basic travel needs. Must adapt travel to the timetable; often passenger’s less-than-optimal arrival or departure times. |
Potentially feasible at densities as low as 4 dwelling units/net acre, depending on ability to subsidize service. Maximum headway for fixed- route bus service. |
|
— |
> 60 |
|
Undesirable for urban transit service. |
Consider some form of demand-responsive transit to provide service that better meets passengers’ travel needs. |
Public transit services on land and water can be categorized according to their speed, key function in the transportation network, types of trips, operating costs, and environmental impacts. The tables below summarize these characteristics for local and regional modes of public transit. Table 7.2 displays those of traditional, large vehicle urban and regional transit, while Table 7.3 does it for less traditional and emerging forms like micro-transit. These estimates are based on North American data (Ennis, 2010; Gonzales, et al., 2019; Kumar & Moilov, 1991; Kay, et al., 2011; Schiller & Kenworthy, 2018; Tillakaratne, et al., 2011).
|
Urban and Regional Transit Scale of Service |
Average speed |
Key function & type of trip |
Operating costs |
Environmental impacts
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Bus Local to regional |
6 – 16 mph |
Local and feeder to faster modes trips, more frequency, more riders |
$100-1100K per bus; $100-$150 per hour |
Exhaust and CO2 from old vehicles |
|
Bus rapid transit (BRT) Local to regional |
6-25 mph varies by station spacing |
City-suburban trips, long urban corridors, more frequency more riders |
$500 – 1,500K per bus; $150 + per hour |
Modest noise/air pollution |
|
Street cars and trolleys Local |
6 – 20 mph |
More frequency, more riders, may enter pedestrian zone |
$ 2- 5M per car; $175 + per train hour |
Noise varies, no local pollution |
|
Light rail (LRT) Local to regional |
7 -33 mph varies by station spacing |
Longer urban-suburban trips; good peak commute capacity |
$3-5M per car; $125-300 per train hour |
No local air pollution |
|
Heavy rail rapid transit or Metro (subway, elevated, separated right of way) Regional |
19–37 mph varies by station spacing |
All types of trips; suburb to city & transregional, all-day operation |
$2-3Mper car; $265 per train hour |
No local air pollution, noise when overhead. |
|
Intercity bus or coach Regional |
50 mph |
Trips between cities & small towns |
$400-700K, $100 + per hour |
High pollution if diesel |
|
Intercity rail Regional |
60-120 mph |
Trips between cities & small towns, competes with intercity bus; substitute for some car trips |
$ 3M per car |
Minor pollution if diesel, no pollution if electric |
|
High-speed rail (HSR) Regional |
120-220 mph varies by station spacing |
Substitute for car and airplane trips of 200 to 600 miles |
$40M + per train |
No air pollution, significant noise |
|
Ferries Waterways interconnecting land terminals |
20-24 mph |
Commute, recreation, roadway connection, national park access trips |
$1-1.5M per year least cost; varies by vessel category |
High pollution if diesel |
|
Note: Adapted by authors from (Kay, et al., 2011; Schiller & Kenworthy, 2018; Tillakaratne, et al., 2011). |
||||
Bus and Rail
The discussion surrounding the advantages and drawbacks of bus versus rail, the two predominant forms of public transit (Ben-Akiva, 1973; Brown & Thompson, 2009; Guerra, 2022; Jacques et al.,2013), is substantial. Rail transit services are often thought to attract more choice riders—those who opt for transit as a preference rather than out of necessity—because of rail’s higher operating speeds, dedicated corridors, and superior service quality. However, the need for dedicated rail services and infrastructure means that rail transit generally has more significant land-use impacts, influencing development patterns along rail corridors and, consequently, urban form.
Examining Tables 7.1 and 7.2, it is evident that whether light or heavy, rail transit's dedicated right of way (ROW) and its high capital and operating costs position it as a costly alternative, feasible primarily in relatively dense cities where current and future ridership can justify the investment. Despite these challenges, transit-oriented development (TOD)—discussed further below—planned and promoted along transit corridors holds considerable potential for achieving economic, environmental, and social sustainability goals, though not without potential issues of gentrification and displacement (Chapple & Loukaitou-Sideris, 2019; Currie, 2006; Litman, 2015). Proponents of light rail transit (LRT) emphasize the TOD experience of cities like Portland, OR, San Jose and San Diego, CA and Charlotte, NC as benefitting from LRT investment over buses.
Heavy rail is typically grade separated above and/or below ground like Washington DC’s Metro. It includes commuter rail/regional train downtowns and suburbs (e.g., the TRE between Fort-Worth and Dallas or Caltrain between San Francisco and southern suburbs). Heavy rail has the highest capacity cars and longer trains. Depending on the frequency and number of trains on a line, typical capacity lines can range from 36,000 passengers per hour per direction to more than 70,000 passengers per hour in Hong Kong and other East Asian cities.
Bus transit, in contrast to rail and bus rapid transit (BRT), operates without fixed routes offering greater flexibility through local service with frequent stops and as a feeder to rail systems. Additionally, its capital and operating costs are more economical, providing access to a broader array of activities. Bus services, as shown in the previous section, are also more feasible in low-density areas, demanding less physical and spatial accommodation compared to rail.
Bus rapid transit (BRT) may run on exclusive right of way offering express service (skipping stops along a route) and rely for speed on priority signalization coordinated with the city’s traffic signals at street intersections. Given lower infrastructural capital costs, BRT proponents underscore its greater feasibility over LRT offering a comparable level of service and being more adaptable to American polycentric urban regions. Most US mid-size cities offer a BRT service (e.g., Dallas downtown to Red Bird Transit Center using highways and express/HOV lanes). The highest capacity BRT systems have been developed in Latin American cities such as the TransMilenio in Bogota, Colombia (2.19 million passengers/day), Mexico City’s Metrobus (1.24 million passengers/day) and Rede Integrada de Transporte in Curitiba, Brazil (0.721 million passengers/day) according to Global BRT Data 2023.
From an equity standpoint, there’s a preference for expanding bus services over rail due to the tendency of rail investments to increase property values, displace low-income communities, and predominantly serve high-income choice riders. Bus transit, on the other hand, is less likely to trigger gentrifying effects and better serves low-income riders.
Given the backdrop of diminishing federal transportation funds, a significant policy debate revolves around the allocation of funding for public transit, weighing the merits of bus versus rail services (Litman, 2015). This longstanding debate is expected to persist as concerns about transit service equity gain prominence in planning and policy circles. Based on insights from New York City and other intensively transit-served cities in the US, where regardless of income, race, and ethnicity, people consistently choose bus and rail service when it is competitive in time and cost with automobiles (Schweitzer, 2017; Guerra, 2022), some analysts conclude that the most cost-effective strategy directs investments toward dense urban cores where transit is already widespread and existing patronage is likely to grow.
| Urban and Regional Transit Scale of Service | Average Speed | Key Function & Type of Trip | Operating Costs | Environmental Impacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Monorails; Funiculars Local | 30 – 40 mph; 10 – 12 mph | Trips in corridors and connectors in tourist/business districts and airports or other transit terminals. | $0.6 – 1.5M per vehicle; $175+ per train hour | No air pollution, significant noise at high speed. |
| Vanpool services, Local and intercity | 30 – 70 mph; Uses HOV lanes | Mostly for commuting trips. | $5.30 per trip and $0.30 per passenger mile | Less air pollution than drive-alone congestion, GHGs, and noise. |
| Paratransit (Senior citizens and people with disabilities), Local and intercity | 13 to 25 mph network speed | ADA trips to medical facilites and essential destinations | $19.89 vehicle per hour; $0.50 vehicle per mile | Less air pollution than drive-alone congestion, GHGs, and noise. |
| Micro-transit (TNCs: e.g., Uber, Lyft, etc.), Local | 11 mph in congestion to 70 mph in freeway | Transferring ADA passengers to TNC, reduces cost to transit agency by 40% | $6.85 minimum to $18.05 average cost of a trip | Contribute to congestion, air pollution, GHGs, and noise. |
| Note: Estimates based on North American data (Ennis, 2010; Gonzales, et al., 2019; Kumar & Moilov, 1991; Schiller & Kenworthy, 2018). | ||||
Non-Traditional Transit
Various non-traditional transportation modes, such as monorails, vanpooling, and paratransit—the latter primarily for ADA accessibility in the U.S.—have been employed in numerous American cities. They serve as supplements (like transit feeders) or complements to traditional transit, filling gaps in bus or rail service networks. The recent rise of Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) and ride-hailing services has broadened transit options in cities all over the world, introducing flexible alternatives without fixed routes or schedules (Pereira, Herszenhut, Saraiva, & Farber, 2024). This not only enhances the role of these new services as supplements or complements to traditional transit but also positions them as potential substitutes for conventional transit trips (Qiao & Yeh, 2023). The future of public transit in conjunction with ride-hailing depends on the extent to which the latter contributes to shared mobility rather than to more individual, solo travel.
Media 7.2 TED Archive. (2018, May 21). Transforming transport with shared mobility: Sandra Phillips [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qaWTeJ_AFY
The widespread use of smartphones has facilitated the rise of mobility services that complement public transit (see also the chapter on Technology in this text). These shared mobility options, such as vanpools, paratransit, and demand-response or micro-transit, are filling the transportation gaps between traditional public transit (like buses and trains). They address the first/last mile needs of densely populated urban cores, typically well-served by public transit, and those of low-density suburbs with limited or no public transit options.
Early research by Feigon and Murphy in 2016 suggested that integrating new shared modes, including car and ridesharing, bike sharing, and scooter sharing, could help decrease solo driving and increase transit use. This encouraged cities and transit agencies to explore public-private partnerships and new business models that integrate mobility, information, and payment app services. Nonetheless, recent research in Toronto, Canada indicated that ride-hailing services like Uber and Lyft serve as both a supplement (27% of all trips) and a substitute (31% of all trips) for traditional transit, competing with it. On the other hand, in situations or areas where transit quality is low (e.g., infrequent) or the supply is limited, ride-hailing can act as a transit complement (constituting about 25% of all trips), potentially addressing gaps in the transit network. However, the research highlights disparities in usage, with high-income households more likely to utilize ride-hailing services. Notably, ride-hailing services with wheelchair accessibility, a requirement in Toronto, positively contributed to the mobility of passengers with disabilities by maintaining a mandated average wait time of 11 minutes between ride-hail and pick-up for all types of passengers (Young and Farber, 2020). Despite these positive aspects, the record of ride-hailing services in reducing the number of circulating cars and greenhouse gas emissions is still limited. Only a small percentage (15%) of ride-hailing trips are shared, and of these, only half involve a truly shared trip with more than one passenger (Young, 2020).
Media 7.3 UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies. (2020, November 6). The effects of ride hailing on urban transportation [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMLlpNszO6E
SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION VIA PUBLIC TRANSIT
As previously mentioned, economy, environment, and social equity are the three main tenets of sustainability, a concept also applicable to public transport. Public transport is one of the critical building blocks of sustainable transportation. (Refer to Chapter 9, Sustainable Transportation) Multimodal transportation combining public transit with supplementary modes holds the potential to significantly improve mobility and accessibility and can help realize several social, environmental, economic, and policy objectives (Miller et al., 2016).
This means that various surface and underground public transportation modes can effectively connect with other green building methods fostering synergies with green urban planning practices (Schiller & Kenworthy, 2010). For instance, a well-designed bus system that connects with walking and cycling pathways can encourage transit riders to walk or bike to bus stops. Sustainable transport, in general, can be assessed based on three key factors:
-
- The impacts of transportation projects and infrastructure on different communities.
- The reduction of traffic and the resulting health and environmental benefits.
- The rate of increased awareness and participation within society (Schiller & Kenworthy, 2010).
Box 7.3 Definition of Sustainable Transportation.
- allows the basic access needs of individuals and societies to be met safely and in a manner consistent with human and ecosystem health, and with equity within and between generations.
- is affordable, operates efficiently, offers choice of transport mode, and supports a vibrant economy.
- limits emissions and waste within the planet’s ability to absorb them, minimizes consumption of non-renewable resources, limits consumption of renewable resources to the sustainable yield level, reuses and recycles its components, and minimizes the use of land and the production of noise.
From the Centre for Sustainable Transportation (AASHTO, 2024)
The Toronto-based Center for Sustainable Transportation defined sustainable transport as a mobility option that meets individuals’ basic and intergenerational needs equitably, is affordable and efficient, offers diverse options, and minimizes waste and emissions and the consumption of non-renewable energy resources. In this regard, public transit, as well as active transportation options, emerge as the most sustainable transportation modes (see Figure 7.5).
Land use and transportation are inextricably linked. Consequently, effective land-use planning and appropriate zoning play crucial roles in promoting transit ridership by encouraging population density, employment concentration, and a diverse range of land uses in close proximity to public transportation routes.
The U.S. concept of smart growth encapsulates the principles of sustainable transportation and underscores the significant interplay between land use and transportation. This interdependence has a profound influence on shaping the physical development of communities, impacting the quality of life, human health, and the environmental and open space quality of cities. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 2023), the following four key land use and transportation strategies depicted in Figure 7.6 can advance sustainable transportation: 1. Smart & Sustainable Street Design; 2. Parking Management; 3. Transit Oriented Development (TOD).; and 4. Sustainable Transportation Planning.
- Smart and sustainable street design: traditional street design has long prioritized building street capacity for the fast movement of motorized vehicles. In contrast, smart and sustainable street design takes into account broader aspects of street life, including safety, walkability, cycling feasibility, the viability of retail spaces, transit accessibility, and the overall economic vitality and resilience of the community. This approach acknowledges that parking and street design substantially influences the levels of pollutants from transportation, the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff, and the generation of heat islands.
- The integration of planning for complete streets and context-sensitive design is another strategy for smart and sustainable street design that offers a compelling alternative to conventional methods (see the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Context Sensitive Solutions (https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-11/documents/rp036.pdf). This approach revolves around designing streets that effectively accommodate both motorized and active modes of transportation while respecting the environmental and cultural characteristics of the context (like community character, street tree canopies, or open space). The design process is characterized by collaborative decision-making involving all stakeholders.
- Transit-oriented development (TOD) is a planning and design approach for creating walkable communities that are connected by transit reducing reliance on private vehicles. This is achieved through compact development around transit stations with a mix of land uses including housing, office spaces, shopping, restaurants, and entertainment. TODs offer mobility options beyond the automobile potentially lowering households’ transportation costs and raising transit ridership. Research shows that compared to previous generations, young adults in the US are opting for housing options in neighborhoods where the transit supply (mean transit index) is greater as illustrated in Figure 7.7 (Brown, Blumenberg, Taylor, Ralph, & Voulgaris, 2016).
- Parking policies and management have traditionally favored large off-street parking standards, an obstacle to compact and sustainable development. Conventional zoning codes require large swaths of surface parking that impede walkability, increase pedestrian distances as well as heat islands. They also render the redevelopment of older areas both spatially and financially prohibitive. Relaxing off-street parking requirements as well as pricing parking spaces in certain locations, are some of the strategies needed to overcome the oversupply of parking in urban areas.
- Sustainable transportation planning integrates environmental planning at both local and regional scales of land use and transportation planning. It requires a comprehensive, long-term perspective regarding the economic (future growth and development) and environmental quality (air, water, and other resources) impacts of transportation decisions. This approach entails a thorough evaluation of how transportation projects will influence future growth and development, including their implications for long-term economic and environmental objectives. Additionally, this planning approach assesses the consistency of timelines between transportation infrastructure projects and those related to development and redevelopment initiatives. EPA 2023 asserts that regional transportation models, future land use scenarios, and constant evaluation using performance measures are some of the tools that planners can use for integrating land use and transportation (EPA, 2023).
Media 7.4 Planetizen Courses. (2021, January 29). What is transit oriented development? [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R84ABNRnQpU
Media 7.5 City Beautiful. (2022, April 30). Transit Oriented Development, Explained [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYsqWIGyRVk
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) is defined as high-density to moderate-density, compact, and mixed-use development clustered around transit stations serviced by a rail or bus transit service network, TOD has emerged as a response to the problem associated with the dominance of automobiles in the United States. With the increasing congestion of urban interstate highways there has been a growing recognition of the need for a more integrated approach to land use and transportation, one that includes transit. This shift has made TOD an appealing urban development strategy in many American cities (Chappel & Loukaitou-Sideris, 2019; Renne & Appleyard, 2019).
However, in our prevailing car-centric cities, the promotion of public transit in the US still faces many hurdles but also opportunities and lessons that can be drawn from American and international experiences of cities with robust transit and TOD systems. In “Transforming Cities with Transit,” Suzuki, Cervero and Iuchi (2013) underscore the relevance of global best-case examples of transit-oriented metropolises for cities both in the global North and South that are investing in and expanding into high-capacity transit systems including bus rapid transit (BRT). Though the intended audience is cities of the Global South and the examples, drawn from the Global North (e.g., Copenhagen in Denmark, Stockholm in Sweden, Ottawa in Canada, Washington D.C. in the US, and Singapore among others) may not be directly transferable given differences in socioeconomic conditions, land markets, public-private financing partnerships and planning cultures of each city, region and country (see Figure 7.8), the principles derived from a deep study of these best-case examples are relevant to any city. A strong integration of transit and land development is a fundamental premise of recommendations for sustainable cities of the future. At the macro-level these recommendations involve metropolitan-governance strategies that influence land use and land development. At the micro level, strategies focus at the neighborhood scale on profoundly transforming the development patterns surrounding the TOD transit stations.
Media 7.6 UN-Habitat Worldwise. (2014, April 22). Robert Cervero, Transforming Cities with Transit [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgd8tWIMhbs
TOD Strategies for Integrating Transit and Urban Development
Closely aligned with the ideas on planning for transportation presented in Chapter 2 in this volume, the principles for transit and land-use integration derived from the global best-practices cases researched by Suzuki, Cervero, and Iuchi (2013, p. 14-23) and further explained by Professor Cervero in the video can be summarized as:
Macrolevel strategies:
- Vision and strategic plan. All the cases studied had a cogent, long-term vision of how the city would grow, assigning a clear role to transit investments and policy in realizing the vision and desired urban form. The vision was accompanied with a (statutory) land use and transportation strategic plan sensitive to real-estate markets, fiscally sound, and socially inclusive.
- Regional governance. Behind the vision and plan, a regional governance structure or authority for intermunicipal cooperation empowered with oversight and the capacity to finance the land-use and transit integration projects. Municipal administrations in the cases had strong political and economic buy-in of the strategic plan and vision which helped overcome entrenched parochial interests.
- Policies that reduce car incentives such as free or low-cost parking and low tolls and subsidized fuel or energy costs.
- Discouraging “induced travel demand” through supply-side expansion of highway and street capacity for addressing congestion. This approach increases mobility in the short run but worsens traffic congestion in the long run. Alternatively, land-use-transportation integration through transit and TOD is more effective in responding to congestion though it necessitates strong institutional and political backing.
City-level strategies:
- Creating higher densities along transit-served corridors to ensure adequate ridership, number of trips, and transit viability.
- Placemaking or urban design that combine densities with diverse land uses (housing, offices, shopping, services, parks, etc.) resulting in high-quality, transit-friendly pedestrian places. Placemaking that offers public spaces and meaningful origins and destinations within the TOD neighborhood and to and from TODs encourages nonmotorized travel and increases transit use.
- Leverage TOD. For significant land-use shifts to occur with TOD investment, these preconditions are necessary:
-
- Nearby private or public sector land development activity reacting to market opportunity.
- Available developable land.
- Strong regional demand for new growth.
- Supportive government policies including tax incentives, infrastructure investment, and community participatory planning.
- Implementation tools that combine both regulatory and incentive-based tools—often requiring enabling legislation by higher levels of government such as:
-
- Establishing a redevelopment authority with power of tax increment financing and eminent domain for land assemblage and acquisition.
- Power and ability to consolidate land and finance infrastructure improvements around major transit stations.
- Streamlined development review and fast-tracking permitting of TOD projects.
- TOD design guidelines for efficient and transit friendly land-use design and placemaking.
- Maximizing accessibility via high-quality transit services that are reasonably on time and frequent to be competitive with the automobile; providing high pedestrian and bicycle first/last mile connectivity offering seamless connections to and from stations and surrounding activities, including bikeways and pedways along “green connectors.”
TOD promotion and implementation strategies:
- Create TOD typologies and prototypes that respond to the local context, particularly in cities with little history of TOD.
- Combine TOD with transportation demand management (TDM) measures such as congestion pricing and parking controls.
- Aim for inclusive TODs by addressing displacement and gentrification via aggressive affordable housing policies and developer incentives for building affordable housing near transit stops.
Financial models:
- Macrolevel financial models aligned with a city-wide or metropolitan vision for global competitiveness. Functional regional transit systems linking high-quality TODs constitute regional economic strategies attractive to firms and employers and employees of knowledge-based firms with preferences for livability and quality of place.
- Microlevel financial models rely on value capture as a source of revenue for building the stations, acquiring tracks and vehicles as well as building the public place and street amenities within the half-mile pedestrian shed around stations. Selling development rights to the private sector is another source of revenue used by transit agencies to finance affordable housing and amenities.
Media 7.7 Braustin Homes. (2022, January 26). Transit Oriented Development with Peter Calthorpe: Double Wide Dudes podcast. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKeaifCqdTw
Box 7.4 A Brief History of TOD.
The notion that transit could influence development patterns was not novel when the idea of Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) was introduced by Peter Calthorpe in the late 1980s. The roots of transit-oriented development can be traced back to the streetcar era (1890-1930). During this period, electric streetcars replaced horse-drawn trolleys for transporting workers within cities and spurred the creation of streetcar suburbs on the outskirts of core cities.
In this era, streetcars played a pivotal role in suburban development. Railroad companies, streetcar operators, and developers partnered to construct housing and residential neighborhoods along streetcar lines radiating from city centers into the periphery, establishing suburbs at their endpoints. These outer-city streetcar suburbs featured a mix of multifamily and single-family housing, along with nearby commercial and other amenities strategically located at intersections of streets and tracks. This development concept inspired Ebenezer Howard’s rail-connected satellite towns or garden cities and influenced the subsequent adaptation of garden cities to mostly residential garden suburbs in the American landscape. However, by the 1920s, the shift from transit to cars as the primary mode of transportation was well underway. By the 1950s, the Depression, World War II, and the growing prevalence of automobiles and trucks, led to disinvestment in transit, gradually transforming new urban development into auto-oriented development (Carlton, 2007).
Despite the Urban Mass Transit Act (UMTA) of 1964 and subsequent federal acts, which aimed to revive and provide support for transit services in metropolitan areas, transit systems struggled to attract sufficient demand and ridership. They relied heavily on extensive public subsidies in a market dominated by cars as the preferred means of transportation. To generate revenue, transit agencies turned to leasing their land, partnering with private developers in a practice known as “joint transit development” (JTD), which gained attention as a financial tool for inducing development and transit ridership (Gillen, 1989). However, as JTD proved insufficient to boost patronage for public transit, in the 1980s, transit agencies shifted their focus to promoting a development type that encouraged pedestrian activity and land uses supportive of transit, such as office spaces and mixed-use development. This new approach was termed “transit-supportive development” (Cervero, 2004). These ideas aligned with the neo-traditional neighborhood design movement, which advocated for active transportation and reducing vehicle miles traveled. Subsequent research empirically confirmed the association between the built environment and transit usage, revealing that higher densities correlate with increased transit ridership.
Peter Calthorpe new urbanist architect, researcher, and advocate of the relationship between urban design and transit usage, promoted the concept of the “pedestrian pocket” as the foundation of the next American “transit metropolis” (Calthorpe, 1993). He proposed design guidelines for implementing this concept at the neighborhood scale around transit stations and to foster walkability and public transit usage. This neighborhood-scale design centered on compact mixed-use development around transit stations sited along a transit network, ultimately came to be known as “transit-oriented development,” with Peter Calthorpe recognized as its originator.
One methodology for measuring the degree of “TOD-ness” defined as “the orientation of land use towards the use of transit” (Singh et al., 2017, p. 96) see Table 7.4. Singh and his colleagues developed an index intended to quantify the TOD-ness of each area station for comparing each station area and identifying the TOD-ness factors needing special intervention for improvement. They applied this index to the transit lines serving the city region of Arnhem and Nijmegen in the Netherlands. They first asked stakeholders to rank the TOD-ness criteria in order of importance and then used the rankings to weight the indicators. The results of analysis provided an overall regional assessment of the TOD-ness factors needing improvement for each city’s transit lines and for all individual transit station areas.
|
Criteria |
Indicator |
Criteria |
Indicator |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Urban densities (per square kilometer (sq/km) |
|
Ridership Higher ridership = higher TOD-ness |
|
|
Land use diversity Higher values of entropy = higher land use diversity and higher TOD-ness |
|
User-friendly transit system “more eyes on the station space.” |
|
|
Design of urban space for walking and cycling |
|
Access & accessibility |
|
|
Level of economic development |
|
Parking at station Balanced supply/ demand: large parking lots discouraged; sufficient parking for Park-and-ride. |
|
|
Note: Adapted from Singh et al., 2017. |
|||
Transit-Oriented Displacement
Policies and zoning regulations incentivize denser “smart growth” patterns to reduce sprawl, yet the attractiveness to private investment also frequently leads to upscaling in neighborhoods, particularly for historically underinvested communities of color (Chappel & Loukaitou-Sideris, 2019). Students are encouraged to visit the website, http://www.urbandisplacement.org to examine case studies of a number of cities where the introduction of TOD in the form of new transit stations and compact development has also spurred changes in adjacent neighborhoods and communities. Key research in this area suggests that TOD can lead to displacement, and simultaneously in some situations where there is a failure to create more higher-density new housing the LACK of well-positioned TOD with affordable housing units, may generate even greater displacement effects due to rapidly accelerating costs (Chappel & Loukaitous-Sideris, 2019). Thus, TOD itself is not the solution or the cause of the problem of gentrification and displacement, but rather the specific policies that favor private markets over community dividends and affordable housing tend to replicate the unfair housing policies of the past, especially for minority communities with longstanding structural inequities as described in box 7.7 (Chappel & Loukaitous-Sideris, 2019).
Box 7.5 Transit-oriented displacement or community dividends?
Housing prices are rising in California and many other states, burdening low- income residents and threatening them with displacement. The majority of transit neighborhoods, not only in California but also in the United States as a whole, have actually failed to attract significant new development. Because of our market- driven urbanism— perhaps enabled by the naiveté of early smart growth scholars and advocates— we have failed to plan strategically and adopt significant incentives as other countries have. Should the failure to densify continue, displacement may well accelerate. In other words, even if TOD leads to displacement in some contexts, lack of TOD may lead to even more displacement. Future research will need to address systematically this counterfactual of what happens without new construction. Certainly, our findings suggest it is problematic— but ironically, there may not yet be enough new development around transit in California to analyze this fully.
Can TOD provide a solution to this crisis, then? We view TOD as an opportunity for the concentration of higher- density new housing, but only if bonuses for higher densities around transit stations guarantee no net loss of affordable units and no displacement— direct, indirect, or exclusionary— of low- income tenants. Perhaps the most appropriate neighborhoods for TOD, then, are the more affluent neighborhoods around the world, which are only becoming more segregated (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development 2018). At the same time, municipalities should require affordability from new TOD by tying different tiers of density increases to the building of prespecified percentages of affordable housing units. Lastly, but very importantly, local communities, especially those that historically have been victimized by unfair housing policies, should be part of any discussion about increasing densities and incentivizing new development in their neighborhoods. Only then will we make TOD part of the solution, not the problem, offer community dividends to all, and dismiss the fear of transit- oriented displacement.
TOD is not the last word, however, since transit itself is undergoing a transformation. Technological shifts are leading to the rise of low- and zero- emission vehicles, raising questions about whether there is even a need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through significant changes in land use and transportation (a.k.a. smart growth). Moreover, as autonomous vehicles become more common, we may see a shift in investment in the coming years. Speculation about driverless electric cars has ranged from a concern with how they might increase inequality to assertions that they may be more equitable than current transit systems (Litman 2014). California remains the global laboratory for understanding the implications of these choices. We cannot know the future, but the past has taught us that we will need to be proactive to protect existing communities from rapid, often unjust, change in the technological, social, and economic landscapes.
Chapple, K. & Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (2019). Transit-oriented displacement or community dividends? Understanding the effects of smarter growth on communities. MIT Press. Pp. 271-272. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11300.001.0001
A Case of TOD in the Dallas Fort-Worth Area
In the Dallas-Fort Worth region, the North Central Texas Council of Government (NCTCOG) is responsible for measuring and collecting TOD data at the parcel level within a half-mile radius of transit stations. It does this to inventory, maintain, plan, and evaluate TOD in the area. NCTCOG has adopted TOD standards and design guidelines from the Urban Land Institute’s Pedestrian & Transit-Oriented Design and the Institute of Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) and uses three major criteria to identify potential TOD sites namely, Location (half-mile radius from a rail station), Timing (development that took place within the time frame of the transit station planning stage), and Form /Density (density and minimal setback of building necessary for providing a pedestrian-friendly urban form). The latter criterion includes historic buildings retrofitted for TOD.
Table 7.5 shows the criteria used by NCTCOG to evaluate and assign a TOD-ness score to each identified TOD development site. Each of the seven criteria was scored a1, 2, or 3, and the scores were summed up to generate a total TOD score. Representative illustrations of a 1, 2, or 3 score can be found in Scoring TOD Examples. The total TOD score of each development around a station can be found on the TOD map by clicking on the yellow square representing a TOD’s specific development. A box opens and displays a score for each criterion and the total TOD score. Check out also DFW’s Walkable TOD Districts in the TOD Map or visit DART to find DARTable Gems .
| TOD Design Criteria | Description and Scoring Rubric |
|---|---|
|
3: meets all noted elements of a design criterion 2: meets some elements of a design criterion 1: meets a few or none of the elements of a design criterion. |
|
| Façade and Architecture | Articulation and texture of physical elements are dynamic and human-scaled Multiple windows/transparency Generally, not fenced off |
| Streetscapes | Wide sidewalks Limited driveway interruptions Sidewalk is buffered by trees/landscaping in context to roadway Has street trees, lighting, and vertical elements Good streetscape on most sides of development with pedestrian access |
| Entrances | Entrances are oriented to the station or pedestrian paths Create multiple points of access to the building as needed Have visible paths of entry Pedestrian entrance is easy to find and architecturally distinct from rest of façade |
| Setbacks | Minimal setbacks Setback area used for enhanced pedestrian experience appropriate to context |
| Parking Design | Off-street parking is garage parking or behind building/screened from pedestrian street frontages Not occupying large portion of lot Driveways present minimal pedestrian conflict |
| Connectivity and Sidewalks | Connected to station Sidewalks are continuous around the development and connect to pedestrian entrances Connect to the existing adjacent pedestrian network Free from barriers and significant quality issues Developments include safe crossing infrastructure for pedestrians, where possible |
| Density | Generally, 3 stories or more Estimated FAR is generally greater than or equal to 1 |
| Note: Adapted from North Texas TOD Inventory (https://www.nctcog.org/trans/plan/land-use/tod/tod-data-products) | |
This chapter provided a comprehensive overview of American public transit centering on traditional transit modes—bus and rail—and emerging ones, like ride-hailing services. In the US, buses carry the largest number of passengers making short trips, while rail carries the largest number of long-trip passengers. Levels of transit service are an important indicator of the quality of transit in terms of frequency and headways from the passenger’s view, but from the operator’s view, ridership is crucial for providing a high-quality service, typically more feasible in high-density urban areas. The ongoing controversy between investing on rail or bus must be seen against the backdrop of declining federal funding for transit and increasing reliance on local and state taxes since only a portion of the cost is covered by passenger fares. Hence, public transit provision in the US is a political issue subject to the ballot box. However, as traffic congestion and climate change impact the quality of life in American cities, transit and transit-oriented development (TOD) have rallied support as a sustainable mode of transportation within a new land use and transit planning paradigm for accommodating future growth. The final section of this chapter briefly discusses the history of TOD and highlights lessons obtained from best case examples as well as a critique of TODs. It concludes with a case study of DART’s TODs and three practice exercises using this information.
QUIZ
Chapter 7 quiz
GLOSSARY
Active modes of transportation include public transportation, walking, or biking.
Bus-rapid transit (BRT): A high-quality bus-based transit system that delivers fast and efficient service that may include dedicated lanes, busways (FTA 2024c, n.p.)
Coach: A car with wheels. It can come in stagecoaches and horse-drawn carriages transporting people, their belongings, and mail. A separate luggage area below the passenger compartment is a standard feature of modern motor coaches, which are always high-floor buses.
Commuting trip: refers to a recurring daily travel from home to work or school.
Eminent domain: is the legal authority of a government to take private property for public use, with compensation provided to the property owner.
First/last mile “is the beginning or end of an individual transit trip. When walking access to and from a transit stop or station is inconvenient or impossible, other solutions can improve access to transit” (N-CATTb, n.d.)
Light rail transit (LRT) is a kind of passenger urban rail transportation that combines tram and metro elements. (Wikipedia, n.d.)
Macrolevel financing in transit projects involves large-scale funding strategies and mechanisms at the regional or governmental level to support transit infrastructure and operations. This type of financing encompasses funding sources such as federal grants, state subsidies, regional taxes, bonds, and public-private partnerships.
Microlevel finance in transit projects refers to the funding mechanisms and strategies at the local level, typically involving transit agencies, municipalities, or private investors. Sources of this type of financing can include local taxes, tax-increment financing, user fees on rental cars and TNCs, special assessments, developer contributions, etc.
Micro-transit is an on-demand service used as a complement to fixed route service, providing transportation during time periods or in geographic regions poorly served by regular fixed route service. It is more expensive to operate than fixed route transit and often charges a premium fare, but its flexibility provides a good customer experience in hard-to-serve areas (N-CATT, n.d.).
On-demand transit service “leverages transit networks and operations, real-time data, connected travelers, and cooperative Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) to provide “on-demand” mobility, which means that mobility supply and demand from riders are managed through real-time communications” (N-CATTb, n.d.).
Paratransit in North America is a service that “supplements fixed-route transit by providing individualized rides without fixed routes or timetables . . . it may consist of a taxi or small bus that will run along a more or less defined route and then stop to pick up or discharge passengers or of a fully on-demand response service. The most flexible paratransit systems offer on-demand call-up door-to-door service from any origin to any destination in a service area. In addition to public transit agencies, paratransit services may be operated by community groups or not-for-profit organizations, and for-profit private companies or operators” (Wikipedia, n.d.).
Public-private partnership (PPP) is a long-term contract between a government agency and a private firm involving private capital financing of building, construction, management or services of public facilities and infrastructure for transportation, water and sewage, schools, etc. The government pays back the private partner’s investment and profit through tax revenues or user fees.
Ride-hailing service is “a type of ridesharing that allows customers requesting a ride for one or two passengers to be paired in real-time with others traveling along a similar route” (N-CATTb, n.d.).
Right-of-way (ROW): A type of easement reserved over the land for transportation purposes, such as a street, a highway, public sidewalks, etc.
Shared mobility “is the shared use of a vehicle, bicycle, or other mode, an innovative transportation strategy that enables users to gain short-term access to transportation modes on an “as-needed” basis” (Shaheen et al., 2015).
Sustainable transportation “refers to the technological and nontechnological solutions and measures aimed at reducing the adverse effects connected to mobility at both local and global scales. [It] encompasses solutions and measures that range from reduced demand for transport, to the use of energy efficient transport modes, from the reduction of emissions in densely inhabited areas, to the reduction of the global scale environmental footprint (Chirieleison and Rizzi, 2023).
Tax-increment financing (TIF) “is a local government value capture revenue tool that uses taxes on future gains in real estate values within an area known as a TIF district to pay for infrastructure improvements. TIF creates funding for public or private projects by allowing entities to borrow against future increases in property-tax revenues (FHWA, 2021).
Tram is a type of railroad car that operates on tramway lines on public metropolitan streets, some of which have segregated right-of-way parts. (Wikimili, n.d.).
Transit corridor generally refers to a linear area defined by the service route of any public transit mode– heavy or light rail, bus, streetcar or trolley.
Transportation demand management (TDM) involves strategies to reduce or shift travel demand to improve transportation by optimizing the utilization of transportation infrastructure while promoting sustainable and efficient travel patterns. TDM often includes measures such as promoting public transit, carpooling, telecommuting, flexible work schedules, cycling, walking, and implementing congestion pricing or parking management schemes.
Transit headway is “the time interval between vehicles moving in the same direction on a particular route” (FTAb 2024, n.p.).
Transit modes are public transportation means supporting passenger mobility by land, water or air. They include buses, light rail, subways, cable cars, commuter trains, street cars and trolleys, ferries and water taxis, vanpool services, paratransit etc.
Transit network companies (TNCs) “a company that provides transportation services using a technology-enabled platform that connects customers with drivers using their personal vehicles, on-demand, real-time, and curb-to-curb service” (N-CATTb, n.d.).
Transit timetable provides information on transit services’ arrival and departure times at specific locations.
Transit-dedicated right-of-way is an exclusive right-of-way from which all other motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic, mixed and cross, is excluded.
Transit-oriented development (TOD) is a place where transit and development intersect to create transit-served dense, walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods. “When done right, TOD leads to more equitable communities” (FTA 2024d).
Unlinked passenger trip counts a trip as every time a passenger boards and alights a transit vehicle or transfers to another vehicle. A person who makes a trip and transfers to a second vehicle takes two unlinked passenger trips.
Vehicle revenue miles (VRM) “The miles that vehicles are scheduled to or actually travel while in revenue service. Vehicle revenue miles include layover / recovery time [and exclude:]deadhead; operator training; vehicle maintenance testing; and other non-revenue uses of vehicles” (FTA 2024, n.p.).
Vehicle revenue hours (VRH) “The hours that vehicles are scheduled to or actually travel while in revenue service. Vehicle revenue hours include Layover / recovery time [and exclude:]deadhead; operator training; vehicle maintenance testing; and other non-revenue uses of vehicles” (FTAb 2024, n.p.).
REFERENCES
AASHTO (2024). “Sustainability overview.” Center for Environmental Excellence, AASHTO. Retrieved February 19, 2024 (https://environment.transportation.org/education/environmental-topics/sustainability/sustainability-overview/).
APTA. (2012). Quantifying and Reporting Transit Sustainability Metrics.
APTA. (2021). Public transportation facts. American public transportation association. https://www.apta.com/news-publications/public-transportation-facts/
APTA (2022) APTA 2021 Public Transportation Fact-Book, American Public Transportation Association. Retrieved February 19, 2024, https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/APTA-2021-Fact-Book.pdf
APTA (2023) APTA 2022 Public Transportation Fact-Book, American Public Transportation Association. Retrieved February 19, 2024, https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/APTA-2022-Public-Transportation-Fact-Book.pdf.
Ben-Akiva, M. (1973). Structure of passenger travel demand models. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.
Birenbaum, G. (2021). The bipartisan infrastructure bill provides historic funding for transit. It’s not enough. VOX. https://www.vox.com/22621793/public-transit-funding-bipartisan-infrastructure-bil
Brinckerhoff, Parsons. (2013). Transit capacity and quality of service manual, Washington, D.C. Transportation Research Board.
Brown, A. E., Blumenberg, E., Taylor, B. D., Ralph, K. & Voulgaris, C. T. (2016). A taste for transit? Analyzing public transit use trends among youth. Journal of Public Transportation, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.5038/2375-0901.19.1.4
Brown, J. R., & Thompson, G. L. (2009). Express bus versus rail transit: How a marriage of mode and mission affects transit performance. Transportation Research Record, 2110(1), 45–54.
Calthorpe, P. (1993). The next American metropolis: Ecology, community, and the American dream. Princeton Architectural Press.
Carlton, I. (2007). Histories of transit-oriented development: perspectives on the development of the TOD concept. Institute of Urban and Regional Development, UC-Berkeley (Working Paper 2009-02).
Cervero, R. (1984). Journal report: Light rail transit and urban development. Journal of the American Planning Association, 50(2), 133–147.
Cervero, R. (2004). Transit-oriented development in the United States: Experiences, challenges, and prospects (Vol. 102). Transportation Research Board.
Chapple, K. & Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (2019). Transit-oriented displacement or community dividends? Understanding the effects of smarter growth on communities. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11300.001.0001
Chirieleison, C., Rizzi, F. (2023). Sustainable transportation. In Idowu, S.O., Schmidpeter, R., Capaldi, N., Zu, L., Del Baldo, M., Abreu, R. (eds) Encyclopedia of sustainable management. Springer, Cham. https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-031-25984-5_134
CTOD (2013) Planning for TOD at the regional scale: The big picture. The Center for Transit-Oriented Development. World Transit Research. https://www.worldtransitresearch.info/research/3943
Currie, G. (2006). Bus transit-oriented development—Strengths and challenges relative to rail. Journal of Public Transportation, 9(4), 1–21.
Curtis, C., Renne, J. L., & Bertolini, L. (2009). Transit-oriented development: Making it happen. Ashgate. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315550008
Daganzo, C. F., & Ouyang, Y. (2019). Public transportation systems: Principles of system design, operations planning and real-time control. World Scientific.
Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. (2010). Travel and the built environment: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(3), 265–294.
Deskant, S. (2021). Arlington, Texas, expands on-demand micro-transit citywide. GovTech. Retrieved February 19, 2024 (https://www.govtech.com/fs/Arlington-Texas-Expands-On-Demand-Micro-Transit-Citywide.html).
Dickens, M. and Kahana, D. (2022, September) APTA public transportation ridership update, September 2022. American Public Transportation Association. https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/APTA-POLICY-BRIEF-Transit-Ridership-09.28.2022.pdf
Dittmar H., and Poticha S. (2004). Defining transit-oriented development: The new regional building block. In Dittmar H. and Ohland G. (Eds.), The new transit town: Best practices in transit-oriented development. Island Press.
Ennis, M. (2010). Washington Policy Center for Transportation, https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/library/docLib/completevanpoolpb.pdf
Feigon, S. and C. Murphy (2016). Shared mobility and the transformation of public transit. Transportation Research Board. https://doi.org/10.17226/23578
FHWA (2021) Value capture: Tax increment financing. Federal Highway Administration. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/pdfs/value_capture/value_cap_faq_tif_march_2021.pdf
FTA (2024) Shared mobility FAQs: Eligibility under FTA Grant Programs, Federal Transit Administration. Retrieved February 19, 2024 (https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/shared-mobility-faqs-eligibility-under-fta-grant-programs).
FTA. (2024b). Glossary. Federal Transit Administration, National Transit Database. Retrieved February 19, 2024, https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/national-transit-database-ntd-glossary#V
FTA (2024c) Bus rapid transit. Federal Transit Administration. Retrieved February 19, 2024, https://www.transit.dot.gov/research-innovation/bus-rapid-transit
FTA (2024d) Transit-oriented development. Federal Transit Administration. Retrieved February 19, 2024, https://www.transit.dot.gov/TOD
FTA. (2021). U.S. Department of Transportation Announces Key Priorities, Funding for Public Transportation Under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Federal Transit Administration (FTA). https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/news/us-department-transportation-announces-key-priorities-funding-public-transportation
FTA. (2024). Glossary. Federal Transit Administration, National Transit Database https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/national-transit-database-ntd-glossary#V
Gillen, Lori. 1989. Moving towards joint development: The economic development-transit partnership. National Council for Urban Economic Development.
Global BRTData. Retrieved February 19, 2024 (https://brtdata.org/).
Gonzales, E. J., Sipetas, C. and Italiano, J. (2019). Optimizing ADA paratransit operation with taxis and rideshare programs. Massachusetts Department of Transportation. Retrieved February 19, 2024 (https://www.mass.gov/doc/optimizing-ada-paratransit-operations-with-taxi-and-ride-share-programs-0/download).
Guerra, E. (2022). What the heck is a choice rider? A theoretical framework and empirical model. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 15(1), 165–182.
Hahn, J.-S., Kim, D.-K., Kim, H.-C., & Lee, C. (2013). Efficiency analysis on bus companies in Seoul city using a network DEA model. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 17(6), 1480–1488.
Jacques, C., Manaugh, K., & El-Geneidy, A. M. (2013). Rescuing the captive [mode] user: An alternative approach to transport market segmentation. Transportation, 40(3), 625–645.
Kang, C.-C., Khan, H. A., Feng, C.-M., & Wu, C.-C. (2017). Efficiency evaluation of bus transit firms with and without consideration of environmental air-pollution emissions. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 50, 505–519.
Kåresdotter, E., Page, J., Mörtberg, U., Näsström, H., & Kalantari, Z. (2022). First Mile/Last Mile Problems in Smart and Sustainable Cities: A Case Study in Stockholm County. Journal of Urban Technology, 29(2), 115–137. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2022.2033949
Kay, M., Mannheim, D., Miller, K. and Dyer, M. (2011). Ferry lifecycle cost model for federal land management agencies: User’s guide. John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. Retrieved February 19, 2024, https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/9549
Kumar, A. and Moilov, M. (n.d.). Vanpools in Los Angeles. Transportation Research Record 1321, https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/trr/1991/1321/1321-015.pdf
Litman, T. (2015). Evaluating public transit benefits and costs. Victoria transport policy institute Victoria, BC, Canada.
Litman, T. A. (2014). Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions. Victoria: Victoria Transport Policy Institute. https://vtpi.org/avip.pdf
Miller, P., de Barros, A. G., Kattan, L., & Wirasinghe, S. (2016). Public transportation and sustainability: A review. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 20(3), 1076–1083.
N-CATT. (n.d.). Microtransit: What is it and why use it? Factsheet. N-CATT. Retrieved February 20, 2024, from https://n-catt.org/guidebooks/microtransit-what-is-it-and-why-use-it-factsheet/
Nafi, S., Furlan, r., Grosvald, M., Al-Matwi, R., & Marthya, K. L (2021). Transit-oriented development in Doha: The case of the Al Sadd neighborhood and Hamad Hospital Metro Station. Designs, 5(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/designs5040061
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2018). Divided Cities: Understanding Intra- urban Inequalities. OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264300385-en.
Pereira, R. H. M., Herszenhut, D., Saraiva, M., & Farber, S. (2024). Ride-hailing and transit accessibility considering the trade-off between time and money. Cities, 144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104663
Qiao, S., & Yeh, A. G. (2023). Is ride-hailing competing or completing public transport? A perspective from affordability. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 114.
Renne, J. L., & Appleyard, B. (2019). Twenty-five years in the making: TOD as a new name for an enduring concept. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(4), 402–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X19882073
Saelens, B. E., & Handy, S. L. (2008). Built environment correlates of walking: A review. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 40(7 Suppl), S550.
Schiller, P.L., Bruun, E.C., and Jeffrey R. Kenworthy, J.R. Book reviews. Natural Resources Forum, 34(4), 335–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-8947.2010.01336.x
Schiller, J. R. and Kenworthy, P. L. (2017). An introduction to sustainable transportation: Policy, planning and implementation (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Schiller, J. R. and Kenworthy, P. L. (2010). An introduction to sustainable transportation: Policy, planning and implementation (1st ed.). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2022.103533
Schneider, M., & Davis, J. (2006). Public-Private partnerships in public transportation: Policies and principles for the transit industry, FTA Document. Retrieved February 19, 2024, from https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/public-private-partnerships-public-transportation-policies-and-principles-transit-industry
Shaheen, S., Chan, N., Bansal, A., & Cohen, A. (2015). Shared mobility: definitions, industry developments, and early understanding | Transportation Sustainability Research Center. https://tsrc.berkeley.edu/publications/shared-mobility-definitions-industry-developments-and-early-understanding
Sheth, C., Triantis, K., & Teodorović, D. (2007). Performance evaluation of bus routes: A provider and passenger perspective. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 43(4), 453–478.
Singh, Y. J., Lukman, A., Flacke, J., Zuidgeest, M., & Van Maarseveen, M. (2017). Measuring TOD around transit nodes-Towards TOD policy. Transport Policy, 56, 96–111.
Suzuki, H., Cervero, R., & Iuchi, K. (2013). Transforming cities with transit: Transit and land-use integration for sustainable urban development. World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/12233
Schweitzer, L. (2017). Chapter 8. Mass Transit. In Hanson, S., & Giuliano, G. (Eds.) (2017). The geography of urban transportation (Fourth Edition), New York: The Guilford Press.
Thilakaratne, R.S., Wirasinghe, S. C., & Hubbell, J. (2011). Analysis of flows and speeds of urban transit systems for consideration of modal transition in a corridor. WIT Transactions on the Built Environment, 116, 251–262. https://doi.org/10.2495/UT110221
usdotfta. (2023, August 29). FTA history part 1 [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOI79eLD6QA
US EPA (2013). Smart Growth and Transportation. Retrieved February 19, 2024 (https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/smart-growth-and-transportation).
Van Lierop, D., Badami, M. G., & El-Geneidy, A. M. (2018). What influences satisfaction and loyalty in public transport? A review of the literature. Transport Reviews, 38(1), 52–72
Wikipedia (n.d.) Paratransit. Retrieved February 19, 2024, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paratransit
Wahnschafft, R. (2010). An introduction to sustainable transportation: Policy, planning, and implementation – by Preston L. Schiller, Eric C. Bruun, and Jeffrey R. Kenworthy: Book reviews.
Whiteaker, J., & Caon, V. (2022). What killed public transport in the US? Invest Monitor. https://www.investmentmonitor.ai/features/what-killed-public-transport-in-the-us/?cf-view&cf-closed&cf-closed
Young, M. (2020). UC In Brief: The effects of ridehailing on urban transportation. Davis Institute of Transportation Studies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMLlpNszO6E
Young, M. and Farber, S. (2019). The who, why, and when of uber and other ride-hailing trips: An examination of a large sample household travel survey. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 119:383–92. doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2018.11.018.
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) is a place where transit and development intersect to create transit-served dense, walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods. “When done right, TOD leads to more equitable communities” (FTA 2024d).
Transit modes are public transportation means supporting passenger mobility by land, water or air. They include buses, light rail, subways, cable cars, commuter trains, street cars and trolleys, ferries and water taxis, vanpool services, paratransit etc.
Ride-hailing service is “a type of ridesharing that allows customers requesting a ride for one or two passengers to be paired in real-time with others traveling along a similar route” (N-CATTb, n.d.).
Shared mobility: This term is used for any mode that is not privately owned and may be rented sequentially or shared simultaneously. Rental cars, bikeshare, or ride-hail services could all be considered shared mobility. The introduction of applications (Apps) on smartphones and mobile devices has facilitated the increased use of shared mobility modes.
Sustainable transportation “refers to the technological and nontechnological solutions and measures aimed at reducing the adverse effects connected to mobility at both local and global scales. [It] encompasses solutions and measures that range from reduced demand for transport, to the use of energy efficient transport modes, from the reduction of emissions in densely inhabited areas, to the reduction of the global scale environmental footprint (Chirieleison and Rizzi, 2023).
Right-of-way (ROW): A type of easement reserved over the land for transportation purposes, such as a street, a highway, public sidewalks, etc.
Tax-increment financing (TIF) “is a local government value capture revenue tool that uses taxes on future gains in real estate values within an area known as a TIF district to pay for infrastructure improvements. TIF creates funding for public or private projects by allowing entities to borrow against future increases in property-tax revenues (FHWA, 2021).
Public-private partnership (PPP) is a long-term contract between a government agency and a private firm involving private capital financing of building, construction, management or services of public facilities and infrastructure for transportation, water and sewage, schools, etc. The government pays back the private partner’s investment and profit through tax revenues or user fees.
On-demand transit service “leverages transit networks and operations, real-time data, connected https://uta.pressbooks.pub/oertransportationpoliciesandhistory/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=glossarytravelers, and cooperative Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) to provide “on-demand” mobility, which means that mobility supply and demand from riders are managed through real-time communications” (N-CATTb, n.d.).
Transportation Network Companies (TNCs): Organizations that link drivers utilizing their vehicles with clients via an internet platform (such as a smartphone app) to provide planned transportation services for payment (FHWA, 2016).
Unlinked passenger trip counts a trip as every time a passenger boards and alights a transit vehicle or transfers to another vehicle. A person who makes a trip and transfers to a second vehicle takes two unlinked passenger trips.
Vehicle revenue miles (VRM) “The miles that vehicles are scheduled to or actually travel while in revenue service. Vehicle revenue miles include layover / recovery time [and exclude:]deadhead; operator training; vehicle maintenance testing; and other non-revenue uses of vehicles” (FTA 2024, n.p.).
Vehicle revenue hours (VRH) “The hours that vehicles are scheduled to or actually travel while in revenue service. Vehicle revenue hours include Layover / recovery time [and exclude:]deadhead; operator training; vehicle maintenance testing; and other non-revenue uses of vehicles” (FTAb 2024, n.p.).
Transit headway is “the time interval between vehicles moving in the same direction on a particular route” (FTAb 2024, n.p.).
Transit timetable provides information on transit services’ arrival and departure times at specific locations.
Transit corridor generally refers to a linear area defined by the service route of any public transit mode– heavy or light rail, bus, streetcar or trolley.
Light rail transit (LRT) is a kind of passenger urban rail transportation that combines tram and metro elements. (Wikipedia, n.d.)
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT): High-capacity public transportation system utilizing buses, often in dedicated lanes or roadways and with other priority design features and frequent service to improve speed and efficiency (“Bus rapid transit,” 2024).
Coach: A car with wheels. It can come in the shape of stagecoaches and horse-drawn carriages that transport people, their belongings, and mail. A separate luggage area situated below the passenger compartment is a standard feature of modern motor coaches, which are always high-floor buses.
Transit-dedicated right-of-way is an exclusive right-of-way from which all other motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic, mixed and cross, is excluded.
Bus-rapid transit (BRT): A high-quality bus-based transit system that delivers fast and efficient service that may include dedicated lanes, busways (FTA 2024c, n.p.)
Commuting trip refers to a recurring daily travel from home to work or school.
Paratransit in North America is a service that “supplements fixed-route transit by providing individualized rides without fixed routes or timetables . . . it may consist of a taxi or small bus that will run along a more or less defined route and then stop to pick up or discharge passengers or of a fully on-demand response service. The most flexible paratransit systems offer on-demand call-up door-to-door service from any origin to any destination in a service area. In addition to public transit agencies, paratransit services may be operated by community groups or not-for-profit organizations, and for-profit private companies or operators” (Wikipedia, n.d.).
Active modes of transportation include public transportation, walking, or biking.
Eminent domain is the legal authority of a government to take private property for public use, with compensation provided to the property owner.
Macrolevel financing in transit projects involves large-scale funding strategies and mechanisms at the regional or governmental level to support transit infrastructure and operations. This type of financing encompasses funding sources such as federal grants, state subsidies, regional taxes, bonds, and public-private partnerships.
Microlevel finance in transit projects refers to the funding mechanisms and strategies at the local level, typically involving transit agencies, municipalities, or private investors. Sources of this type of financing can include local taxes, tax-increment financing, user fees on rental cars and TNCs, special assessments, developer contributions, etc.
