TRANSIT VILLAGES
April 20, 2006
By Dianne Brake
The Northeast Corridor Rail Line represents millions of dollars of investment of federal and state taxpayers' money. Yet access to this significant piece of our public transit system is controlled by the local officials who have jurisdiction over the land and streets around each station.
The issue of local control comes up in suburban station areas where it makes sense to use the infrastructure and the land more efficiently by redeveloping the surface parking lots into Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs) or Transit Villages. Transit Villages are compact, amenity-rich, mixed-use centers that are designed to increase the use of transit as well as increase the benefits from the use of land.
Although the idea of Transit Villages is generally popular, it becomes locally controversial when a specific proposal is made that will change a particular neighborhood. These local issues have been well reported in the press, but there has been little analysis as to what the broader, statewide or regional interests may be in the redevelopment.
Certainly the interstate function of the Northeast Corridor Line is clear - this Boston to Washington line is the most heavily traveled in the country, since people find it an efficient way to get to cities where cars are a liability. It serves those cities well to allow more people to have access to this Line. The same is true statewide: there is great demand for access to New Jersey Transit's service on this Line. They have been trying to accommodate that demand by adding development around existing stations and adding a new station in the region between New Brunswick and Princeton Junction. Each proposal has faced local opposition.
Regionally, planners want to get as many people onto trains, busses or shuttles, who would otherwise be driving on Route 1 or local roads, which cannot accommodate the demand. Whether or not there are transportation options for these people has regional economic and environmental impacts.
These broader interests should be getting much more attention in the press. And so should the facts.
Opposition to Transit Villages is usually expressed in terms of worries about the cost of school children from housing and about the increase in congestion from added development. But the facts gleaned from the study of Transit Villages paint a different picture.
First, studies show that housing around stations attracts empty nesters and young adults. There are so many studies that show this, that Rutgers' school population calculator that is applied to development is being updated to reflect these facts. Second, there are studies that demonstrate that if new development were centered in compact, mixed-use centers at transit hubs, the growth in highway traffic congestion could be significantly reduced. Reductions could be as high as 60%, as shown in one study done for the Route 1 Corridor in 1991 by the Regional Planning Partnership.
One way to address the controversy over density is for local governments to apply Transfer of Development Rights, known as TDR. TDR allows the development rights from farmland and other open space, which is inappropriate for development, to be transferred into places like train station areas that can use the higher density to function better. Shifting density does not increase the overall amount of development in the town, gives landowners a return on their land, and can reduce auto-dependency and sprawl.
Another way to reduce controversy is to widen the discussion. Transit Villages as seen from a regional point of view can balance the local view and regional planning can help ensure good results.
First, looking at transit as a regional system can help officials to see the role their local station plays in the functioning of the transportation system today and how that role may change in the future.
Second, regional planning can establish regional growth targets for new jobs and housing in locations that will improve the region's prospects for a better quality of life in the future. Transit Villages can increase housing as well as transportation choice - something lacking in suburban areas. Using TDR will ensure that adding density and a mix of use at local stations will result in a decrease in density and development in other parts of the municipality, reducing auto-dependency, improving air quality and providing transportation options for those who don't drive.
And finally, regional planning for Transit Villages can integrate the land use and transportation aspects of growth. As we grow, we can get a better functioning transportation system instead of increasing congestion, pollution and delay on local and county roads and state highways.
Local controversy is almost always about the amount and density of development that is proposed around the station, but it is having more development at higher density that makes transit work.
In almost every case, the redevelopment of a train station, in which more
development is allowed, adds value to the existing neighborhoods: property
values
go up. And if the interests of the regional economy and the environment
and the efficiency
of public resources were considered in the local discussion, it
would be more likely that a decision will be made in which all levels of
interest will benefit.
Dianne Brake is the President of the Regional Planning Partnership, which has promoted growth management and urban and suburban redevelopment for over 35 years. RPP promotes both sound economic development and conservation through better land use planning and regional cooperation.