How We Should Think About Transit-Oriented Development
TOD gets talked about a LOT, but what makes it good?
Transit-oriented development has got to be one of the hottest topics in urbanism in the past 20 years, and yet, I’d argue the average person still doesn’t really know what TOD really means.
The assumption I imagine people have when they hear “transit-oriented development” is quite possibly townhouses served by a bus route — but, since I know you’re serious, you’re probably thinking at least a little more high density.
The thing is, the scale and quality of such development still varies widely: 5-over-1s — apartment buildings with a concrete ground floor and 5 wood frame floors on top — are a good example of the type of building that has been built along many higher order transit routes in the US, from BRT services all the way up to very high capacity ones like BART. I think the issue here is that 5-over-1s are accepted because they are seen as good enough, but I also get the sense that transit advocates are also worried about congestion on transit caused by TOD; this should not be a concern, and it either means you need more transit service on existing routes, new routes, or alternative mobility options. Even a reasonable frequent bus route has a lot of capacity, and the average apartment building just does not house that many.
That said, there is probably a case to be made that the level of density most American cities build around major rapid transit infrastructure probably should be of sufficient density to move the needle on ridership, since rail tends to be the only mode that gets consistently passable service in the US. Ironically, Canada, where density and very high density tends to be much more common, needs it less, because most cities have a reasonably good feeder transit network that isn’t seen as only for the downtrodden. Keeping in mind the above points, you can build enough density to materially impact transit ridership, but it probably requires a large number of towers (10-15+ reasonably large and concentrated not 2 or 3).
However, I actually think density is not the most important factor in the quality of a TOD — there are a number of factors I would consider more important, of course assuming some reasonable minimum density.
For one, TODs actually need to be near transit, and the closer the better: I generally think being within a ten-minute walk is a good metric for whether transit will be truly convenient for trips. That being said, being located directly adjacent to or even on top of a transit station means that the time cost of using transit even for short trips is reduced significantly, and this can drive more ridership.
Now, while being close the transit is key, a development should also have a convenient and high quality connection. The quality of connections is frequently undervalued, especially in North America outside of large cities (though some like Calgary and Minneapolis do ok). A poor connection will increase the perceived time to connect, and may also have other negatives or positives that will impact transit use. For example, a dedicated walking path direct to the station is preferred to needing to take a more circuitous route, while less road crossings or crossings of smaller roads is better than more, larger crossings. In my eyes, the best kind of connection is a direct interior connection from station to development, either via direct overbuild, underground passageway, or over bridge. Some argue that direct connections between facilities hurt the public realm by reducing eyes on the street and the like, but I personally think this is mostly a matter of design, and the benefits of direct connections outweigh the negatives of a reduction in street traffic. A direct connection allows someone to travel to their destination in complete comfort especially in hot or cold climates, and I see this as key to competing with cars, which often get direct underground access to various destinations in urban areas, providing near continuous climate control.
It’s also important that the design of development does not turn its back on transit, and instead embraces it, and like with all metrics, this is not binary. A development with a blank wall facing public transit with activation and businesses on different frontages and awkward pedestrian connections is worse than one with a windowed wall and slightly more activation. The gold standard is likely something like the “Shops at New West” mall in New Westminster, BC (a suburb of Vancouver), where the SkyTrain station is fully embedded within the development, and wrapped by multiple levels of retail that can be directly accessed from the platforms.
Another key thing for a good TOD is low amounts of parking. This is important for many reasons: For one, parking is expensive to construct, so by taking advantage of the adjacent transit, developments can use funds in more productive, quality-of-life enhancing ways. At the same time, reducing parking reduces the load of vehicles on the neighbourhood streets, making them safer and thus encouraging walking, cycling, and socialization, and of course also transit use. Counterintuitively, parking is actually probably slightly less harmful to transit demand at developments that are closer to a transit stop, since transit will be a more competitive option.
Of course, on top of not having lots of car parking, a good TOD should encourage alternate forms of mobility, from the most basic walking — which can be aided by providing sheltered and direct connections in, out and around a development; to cycling — which benefits from dedicated storage and repair facilities, as well as slow streets and cycle tracks; and car shares — which can and should be electric and available to help reduce the need for much more harmful private cars.
Probably the last thing I really want to touch on, but something which may be the least appreciated thing people consider when looking for a place to live — and developers and planners also need to focus more on — is access to essentials. One of the most frustrating experiences when living car-free is having a place you frequently go, like a grocery or convenience store, be any significant distance away. Not only is the time it takes to travel there and back a pain, but in the case of substantial grocery shopping, it can also be quite the physical drudge. Thus, much like with transit, key amenities that people will need access to on a daily basis should be implemented at the core of a transit-oriented development, and they should also have extensive hours — reducing pressure to travel. This general point incorporates some of the considerations that went into the “15-minute city” trend, but I would actually argue you want to aim for more like 7.5 minutes and only to key essentials. Especially in smaller urban areas, locating all types of conceivable amenities within range of all citizens is impossible — but daily essentials are not.
Now, does density factor into these points? For sure! Higher density makes it easier to run a twenty-four hour grocery or convenience store on a pure numbers basis, and it also makes it easier to keep sidewalks and public spaces full of people late into the evening, increasing people’s comfort with walking. I think that beyond the base density, this simply becomes a multiplier though — highly dependent on the constituent elements of your TOD.
What elements of TOD should I cover next? Let me know in the comments!
The problem remains that some NIMBYs can make TOD impossible to implement. This video shows that example where plans for TOD at a new train station got derailed.
https://youtu.be/XBCNJQe6_ZQ
I livre in a popular neighborhood in Brooklyn, NY, a 10 minute walk from four subway stations on 5 lines. Great for me, but difficult for some older people. Two bus routes each run twice an hour in each direction, but sometimes they are nose to tail, like an elephant parade. Better connections to the subway would make a big difference.
North American cities should adopt the practice in Paris of having clear maps of bus stops and displats showing expected bus arrival times near subway exits. That helps greatly in deciding which bus to take, or to walk directly home, sometimes starting in a different direction from the bus stop.
I have been very impressed in Japan by coordination of local buses with train stopping times at regional rail stations. There is nothing worse in transit than exiting a train or subway in time to see the rear of a departring bus.