Dr. Richard Willson; FAICP; Department of Urban and Regional Planning; Cal Poly Pomona

1. TOD Version 2.0: Lessons Learned and
Trends in California TOD
Going to San Bernardino: A Symposium on Intermodal Transit
Stations and Transit-Oriented Design
Jack R. Widmeyer Transportation Research Conference
Leonard Transportation Center
Dr. Richard Willson, FAICP
Department of Urban and Regional Planning
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona

2. Transit-oriented development
► Transit-focused development
► Higher densities
► Mixed land uses
► Interconnected streets and sidewalks
► Human scale design
► TOD … the intersection of good transit planning
and good community development planning

3. TOD Version 1.0
► On fixed rail (BART, San Diego
Trolley, LA rail)
► On station property and within
¼ mile
► Vertical mixed use concepts
(Fruitvale Village, Oakland)
► Economic challenges related to
parking

4. Version 1.0 Successes
► Mature transit systems and TOD
networks (BART)
► Progressive policy support: parking
pricing, design, TDM, etc.
(Sacramento)
► Integration with preexisting land
use/transit strategy (Vancouver, BC)
► Pent up demand for high quality,
transit-adjacent housing

5. Version 1.0 Weaknesses
► Use of inexpensive ROW with poor
integration – TOD/TAD “islands”
► Transit connectivity and service frequency
► Mixed-use; housing market dynamics
► Counter incentives, e.g., free plentiful
parking, road expansion

6. What is wrong with this donut hole?

7. California TOD Study
► Travel Characteristics of Transit-Oriented Development
in California (2004)
 Comprehensive study of TOD sites throughout California
 Lund, Cervero and Willson
 Report available on line at
http://www.csupomona.edu/~rwwillson/
► Sites studied:
 Light rail: San Diego Trolley, Los Angeles Blue Line, San
Jose VTA, Sacramento
 Heavy rail: Los Angeles Red Line, BART
 Commuter rail: San Diego Coaster, LA Metrolink, Caltrain
► Separate study of Pasadena Gold Line
► No Inland Empire sites, no BTOD

8. Travel behavior impacts vary…
Transit Commute Mode Share (Rail and Bus)
100
90
80
70
Total trips (%)
60
44.9
50 37.8
40 26.5
30 17.4
20 13.8 13
5.4 5.8 3.3 6.6 4.2 4.8
10
0
All Residential BART: Pleasant BART: S. LA Metro: Long SD Trolley: Caltrain
Sites Hill Alameda Cnty Beach Mission Valley Commuter
Surveyed Sites Surrounding City

9. TOD Version 2.0
► What can we learn from three decades of
experience?
► What will the next generation of TOD look
like?

10. Best practice - transit service
► From Brown and Thompson (2009) study of
transit agencies:
 Adopt a multidestination vision for regional
transit;
 Use rail transit as the system backbone with
high quality connecting bus
 Recognize non-CBD travel market; serve
regional activity centers, non-work trips
 Encourage and ease transfers

11. Best practice - land use and
community development
► Coordinated station area planning – transit
agency, local jurisdiction
► Parking – supply, pricing, management
► Vertical mixed use to the extent feasible
► Brownfield development/redevelopment
► Multimodal accessibility – walk, bike, transit,
shuttle, car

12. Trends
► Bus and commuter rail TOD
► Smart Growth aligns with climate change
agenda (Ewing – Growing Cooler)
► Network effects as transit expanded (LA)
► Transit service improvements – (OCTA 30
minute service goal; local connectors)
► More brownfield sites (outdated retail)

13. Supporting factors
► Policy– AB 32, SB 375
► Financial – state bond funds
► Demography – aging population; work at
home; variety of housing types
► Cultural changes re: automobility
► Return of traffic congestion (sorry)
► Energy prices + climate change regulation

14. Hazards/Impediments
► Economic downturn
 Pace of development
 Land use mix
►Retailfeasibility
►Project phasing – back to horizontal mixed use?
► Community backlash against density
 Overselling – area vs. regional congestion
 Lesser impacts of suburban TOD
► Failure to reform local plans and ordinances

15. Coherent planning frameworks
► SACOG RTP – transit vision
► SCAG - Blueprint planning
► BART – access plans and
station area plans
► Caltrain – access policy
► LA Metro – Red Line joint
development
► Anaheim – local plans

16. Commuter rail TOD
► Anaheim ARTIC multimodal facility
 Transition from commuter rail to HSR
 Broaden from journey to work
 Linkage with Platinum Triangle TOD
 District-based shared parking potential
► Vista
Canyon Ranch proposal,
Santa Clarita
 Relocation of station for optimal design integration
 Alignment with pockets of suburban density
 Leveraging unmet retail demand

17. Bus TOD
► El Monte Transit Village
 Design integration of bus terminal facility
 Frequent headways and fast bus travel times to
Union Station
 Shared parking/pricing
 Multi-agency agreements
 Affordable housing

18. Widen TOD market area with access
► Widen TOD market area with
station access planning (Caltrain)
► Walk/bike trips
► Subscription shuttles
► Neighborhood electric vehicles

19. Development on station property
► Replacingcommuter parking with TOD
► BART methodology – fiscal analysis
► Impact on development feasibility
► MacArthur station case – 600 to 300
commuter spaces

20. Parking regulation, pricing, and
management
► On-street parking management
in TOD development areas and
surrounding neighborhoods
► Parking cash out/charges at the
workplace
► Parking unbundling/charges at
residences
► Demand-based minimum
parking requirements

21. Inland Empire Research
► Information on bus and commuter rail TOD
 Trip generation, parking demand, transit
demand
► IE study of those living near bus and
Metrolink service
► Study area selection – ideas welcomed