Model TOD Zoning Ordinance (PDF, 3.7 MB) - Reconnecting America

More documents

Recommendations

Info

June 29, 2001 ■ Model Transit-Oriented District Overlay Zoning Ordinance2.7 Transit investment generally brings positive localand regional impactsWhile transit may not currently yield profitable revenues in a market such as that of the U.S., itsoverall public and private benefit can be measured through the positive externalities created as aresult of investment in the system. A recent report completed by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. onbehalf of the American Public Transit Association (APTA) found that private businesses wouldrealize a gain in sales roughly 3 times the public sector investment in transit capital andoperations i.e., a $10 million in transit investment results in a $30 million gain in sales. PThe APTA study also identifies a multiplier effect over time, observing that business output andpersonal income are positively impacted by transit investment, growing rapidly over time. Thesetransportation user impacts i.e., increased mobility for employees and decreased travel expensesdue to a mode shift from automobiles to transit create savings to business operations, and increasethe overall efficiency of the economy, positively affecting business sales and household incomes.The study reports that for each $10 million in investment in the short run (during year one), asustained program of transit capital investment will generate an increase of $2 million in businessoutput and $0.8 million in personal income. Over the long term (during year 20), these benefitsincrease to $31 million and $18 million for business output and personal income respectively.Transit capital and operating investment generates personal income and business profits that alsoproduce positive fiscal impacts. The study estimates that on average, a typical state/localgovernment could realize a 4 to 16 % gain in revenues due to the increases in income andemployment generated by investments in transit. These gains cannot be viewed as a return oninvestment, but as an added economic benefit beyond the provision or improvement of transitservice.3. ConclusionThe monetary and fiscal economic benefits identified here are only one part of the greater socialwelfare benefit, or quality of life, that comes with transit. Many of the public and collateral gainssuch as reduced crime are more difficult to measure but nonetheless drive the discussionregarding quality of life. Transit-Oriented Developments will only help to improve theeffectiveness of transit and the ridership levels which can justify continued transit investment. Atthe same time, as the case studies discussed previously and in the following chapter show, TODsthemselves bring localized public and private benefits that are both direct and indirect.PCambridge Systematics.Page 14 ■Chapter II ■ Valley Connections
Model Transit-Oriented District Overlay Zoning Ordinance ■ June 29, 2001III.Case StudiesThe following case studies have been assembled to highlight efforts in other communities thatmay serve as examples for future efforts in Phoenix, Mesa, and Tempe. These case studies werechosen to highlight efforts by communities to develop plans for TODs, and the efforts of transitagencies, local jurisdictions, and private developers to implement TODs. The case studies werealso chosen for the jurisdiction’s similarity in density and character to Phoenix, Mesa, andTempe. Below is a comparison of Case Study densities in relation to those of the ValleyCommunities.Table 1: Comparison of Community DensitiesCITYDENSITY A(People/sq. mi.)Mountain View, CA....................................................5,578Tempe..........................................................................3,598San Diego, CA.............................................................3,546Denver, CO..................................................................3,162Atlanta, GA..................................................................2,996Mesa ............................................................................2,732Phoenix .......................................................................2,635Hillsboro, OR ..............................................................2,134A“City Profiles,” Yahoo! Real Estate, 19 March 2001,.Valley Connections ■ Chapter III ■ Page 1
Page 4 and 5: June 29, 2001 ■Model Transit-Orie
Page 10 and 11: June 29, 2001 ■ Model Transit-Ori
Page 20 and 21: June 29, 2001 ν Model Transit-Orie
Page 57 and 58: Model Transit-Oriented District Ove
Page 73 and 74:
Model Transit-Oriented District Ove
Page 75:
Page 78 and 79:
June 29, 2001 ■Model Transit-Orie
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151:
show all

Model TOD Zoning Ordinance (PDF, 3.7 MB) - Reconnecting America

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?