Some lessons learned from our work in TOD as well as some case study examples.

1. LESSONS LEARNED FROM TOD PROJECTS
Gregg Logan, Melina Duggal | November 2010

2. DEFINING TOD
 Mixed–use community (e.g. residential, retail, office, civic, park) within
+/- 2000-ft walk to transit stop
 Walkable environment
 Convenient for multimodal travel for residents and employees
Lindbergh City Center TOD: 30-
acre mixed-use development in
Atlanta; transit components
include intermodal transfers to
bus, taxi, and kiss ride; two bus
facilities, MARTA station
modifications, transit police
facility, parking facilities. A
functional urban community that
promotes the use of mass
transit. Phase One 270,000
SF / 160 units of condominiums
and apartments, 120,000 SF /
300 room hotel, 1,200,000 SF of
office space and 330,000 SF of
retail space. Pedestrian and
transportation connections and
the integration of public
greenspace. A place to live,
work, shop and be entertained
in a pedestrian-scaled, urban
environment.
Pictured: Lindbergh MARTA Station and TOD, Atlanta Georgia
RCLCO worked with the City of Atlanta, MARTA, and BellSouth on the development
1

3. PROPERTY VALUES
NEW TRANSIT DRIVES INVESTMENT, INCREASES PROPERTY VALUES
Original cost:$54M
Catalyzed Investment:
$3.8B
Multiplier: 74X
SOURCE: Reconnecting America
2

4. PROPERTY VALUES
VALUE CURVE FROM TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT
Research shows average value increases of
between 5% and 45% and more.
3

5. TOD DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGES
• Multiple property owners with different interests
• Difficult and costly property acquisition / assembly
• Cost / integration of structured parking
• Often substantial infrastructure requirements
• Environmental site issues need cleanup
• Local opposition to density
 Long-term, complicated, often controversial requires
collaboration between public and private sector
4

6. DEFINING THE OPPORTUNITY
MARKET, PRODUCTS, FINANCIAL, FISCAL, ECONOMIC
• Land Area: How much land, what are the opportunities and
constraints (topo, access, environmental, improvements, …)?
• Market Demand: Based on economic/demographic outlook,
competitive picture, what is the unmet demand for space
(residential, retail, office, hospitality, industrial, …)?
• Financial Feasibility: How do projected revenues stack up against
development costs, what subsidies are required, what impact can
be expected on land values relative to current values?
• Fiscal and Economic Impact: Considering higher tax revenues
but also higher cost of public services, what is the net fiscal
impact (benefit) over the next 10, 20, 30 years relative to what’s
there? How many jobs will be created?
• Program and Phasing: How do market demand and financial
feasibility translate into a logical program and phasing plan for
the next 10, 20, 30 years?
5

7. CASE STUDY
EXPERIENCE IN CHARLOTTE
• Projects:
• Provision of Market and Economic Guidance into Allocations of Future Growth in
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina for the Charlotte Department of Transportation
• Long-term transportation planning, helping Charlotte DOT) was understand the share of future
growth that could be shifted over the next 25 years, via proactive policies, to locations more easily
served by mass transportation corridors, and existing transportation infrastructure. December
2004.
• Market and Build-out Analysis for the Third and Fourth Ward for the Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Planning Commission and Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS)
• Provided market guidance relative to the Third and Fourth Ward neighborhoods in context of the
planned Multi-Modal Station (MMS) between these two urban neighborhoods and the need to plan
appropriately around the station. December 2004.
• Charlotte North Corridor TOD Station Analysis for The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning
Commission and CATS
• Provided market guidance into future development potential at each station area along the
planned North Corridor Light Rail Transit line.
• Assisted in selections of alternative station(s) or corridor alignment(s) opportunities as well as
assisted planners and other government entities in planning long-term for development around
each station location. January 2006.
6

8. DEFINING THE OPPORTUNITY
WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED
• All TODs are not the same
• Market potential around stations is still market-driven
• E.g. retail still needs good auto access
• More successful in the “favored” corridor of growth
• Certain land uses are more compatible with TOD than others
• However, TOD can change demographic and market patterns
• Pricing premiums for office and residential uses
• Reduced parking – cost saving possibilities
• High public sector expectations versus difficulty to serve all target markets
• Station design and integration
• Policies are not always in place that would allow for TOD-style development
7

9. CHARLOTTE EXAMPLE
SOURCE: CATS
8

10. CHARLOTTE EXAMPLE
SOURCE: CATS
9

11. CHARLOTTE EXAMPLE
SOURCE: CATS
10

12. IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN –
NOT FOR THE INEXPERIENCED
Public Partner: Private Partner:
• Resolve land assembly • Apply real estate experience
• Acquire/contribute land • Take development risk
• Get sites development ready
• Fund development
• Secure infrastructure funding
 TIF (property, sales, hotel tax) • Construct buildings
 CFD/BID • Lease/sell space
 Parking revenue bonds • Operate properties
 Government leases
• Accelerated entitlement – “greentaping”
• Continued public involvement
• Invest in placemaking: landscaping,
lighting, signage
• Manage partnerships with private
sector
• Assist with property management
• Programming
11

13. IMPACT OF TRANSIT COULD HAVE MORE IMPACT ON
ENERGY SAVINGS THAN “GREEN BUILDING”
Growth in Land Consumption Exceeds Population
Growth in Metro Areas with Population > 1 million
1950-1990
34 Metro Areas 245%
92%
Atlanta 973%
325%
Washington 431%
161%
Baltimore 290%
63%
Philadelphia 273%
45%
Cincinnati 251% Urbanized Area Growth
49%
St. Louis 219% Pop. Growth
39%
Pittsburgh 206%
10%
Detroit 165%
34%
Boston 158%
24%
New York 137%
31%
Buffalo 133%
7%
Chicago 124%
38%
Cleveland 112%
21%
0% 200% 400% 600% 800% 1000% 1200%
SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report Our Built and Natural Environments: A Technical Review of the Interactions
Between Land Use, Transportation, and Environmental Quality
12

14. RCLCO NATIONAL TOD EXPERIENCE
Project
CHARLOTTE LRT STATION AREA ANALYSES – FOUR
CORRIDORS
Charlotte, North Carolina
• Identified development potential for each station area along four
corridors planned for LRT, BRT, and potential commuter rail
• Evaluated land use intensities and potential development timing for
station areas
HOUSTON INTERMODAL TRANSIT FACILITY
Houston, Texas
• Worked with the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County
(Houston Metro) and Ehrenkrantz, Eckstut & Kuhn Architects (EEK)
• Envisioned and tested the market and financial feasibility of the
development program for the future hub of Houston transit
• Helped create a deal structure that would be beneficial to all, taking
into account available public financing mechanisms and the
qualitative needs of each of the parties
13

15. RCLCO NATIONAL TOD EXPERIENCE
Project
CITY OF ATLANTA AND THE METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID
TRANSIT AUTHORITY (MARTA)
Atlanta, Georgia
• Worked for the City of Atlanta, MARTA, & developer CARTER
• Created an economic, land use and development plan for the area
around the Lindbergh MARTA station
• Conducted economic analysis, examining economic conditions and
Lindbergh’s role relative to economic growth trends; development
program
DC STREETCAR
Washington, D.C
• Projected the outcome of implementing a streetcar by analyzing the
effects of transit investment to the New York Avenue Metro Station
in D.C, the Portland, OR Streetcar, and the Seattle, WA Streetcar
• Studied economic growth in Portland, OR and Seattle, WA, and
applied property value percentage increases to properties along the
proposed H Street streetcar corridor in Washington, D.C.
14

16. RCLCO NATIONAL TOD EXPERIENCE
Project
ORLANDO AND TAMPA REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT CENTERS
ANALYSIS
“CONNECTING FOR GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT”
Central Florida
• Completed a Metro Center analysis for all of Central Florida
• Understood regional growth trends and how they impact the location
of future jobs
• Analyzed the impact of transit on potential future Metro Cores
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE PARK AND INNOVATION WAY
Orange County, Florida
• Studied impact of future commuter, light rail, and BRT
• Quantified potential impact of transit
• Programmed communities based upon future transit opportunities
• Analysis of DOT requirements for TOD and their impact
• Considered the impact of an MMTD on the projects
15

17. SUMMARY – TOD IS RESHAPING URBAN AREAS
WHILE COMPLEX, A RICH AREA FOR DEVELOPMENT
16