therole of transitincreating livable metropolitan communitiesthese chapters also describe federal...

TheRole ofTransit in Creating LivableMetropolitan Communities

Transit Cooperative Research ProgramSponsored byThe Federal TransitAdministration

Transportation ResearchBoard

National Research Council

TCRP Report 22

TC

RP

Report 22

The R

ole of Transit in C

reating Livable Metropolitan C

omm

unitiesT

RB

TCRP OVERSIGHT AND PROJECTSELECTION COMMITTEE

CHAIRMICHAEL S. TOWNESPeninsula Transportation Dist. Comm.

MEMBERSSHARON D. BANKSAC TransitLEE BARNESBarwood, Inc.GERALD L. BLAIRIndiana County Transit AuthoritySHIRLEY A. DeLIBERONew Jersey Transit CorporationROD J. DIRIDONIISTPSSANDRA DRAGGOOCATALOUIS J. GAMBACCINISEPTADELON HAMPTONDelon Hampton & AssociatesKATHARINE HUNTER-ZAWORSKIOregon State UniversityALAN F. KIEPPERParsons Brinckerhoff, Inc.PAUL LARROUSSEMadison Metro Transit SystemROBERT G. LINGWOODBC TransitGORDON J. LINTONFederal Transit AdministrationDON S. MONROEPierce TransitPATRICIA S. NETTLESHIPThe Nettleship Group, Inc.ROBERT E. PAASWELLThe City College of New YorkJAMES P. REICHERTReichert Management ServicesLAWRENCE G. REUTERMTA New York City TransitPAUL TOLIVERKing County DOT/MetroLINDA WATSONCorpus Christi RTAFRANK J. WILSONNew Jersey DOTEDWARD WYTKINDAFL-CIO

EX OFFICIO MEMBERSWILLIAM W. MILLARAPTARODNEY E. SLATERFHWAFRANCIS B. FRANCOISAASHTOROBERT E. SKINNER, JR.TRB

TDC EXECUTIVE DIRECTORFRANK J. CIHAKAPTA

SECRETARYROBERT J. REILLYTRB

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 1997

OFFICERS

Chair: David N. Wormley, Dean of Engineering, Pennsylvania State UniversityVice Chair: Sharon D. Banks, General Manager, AC TransitExecutive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board

MEMBERS

BRIAN J. L. BERRY, Lloyd Viel Berkner Regental Professor, Bruton Center for Development Studies,University of Texas at Dallas

LILLIAN C. BORRONE, Director, Port Commerce, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PastChair, 1995)

DAVID BURWELL, President, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, Washington, DCE. DEAN CARLSON, Secretary, Kansas Department of TransportationJAMES N. DENN, Commissioner, Minnesota Department of TransportationJOHN W. FISHER, Joseph T. Stuart Professor of Civil Engineering, Director, ATLSS Engineering Research

Center, Lehigh UniversityDENNIS J. FITZGERALD, Executive Director, Capital District Transportation Authority, Albany, NYDAVID R. GOODE, Chair, President and CEO, Norfolk Southern CorporationDELON HAMPTON, Chair and CEO, Delon Hampton & AssociatesLESTER A. HOEL, Hamilton Professor, Civil Engineering, University of VirginiaJAMES L. LAMMIE, Director, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc., New York, NYBRADLEY L. MALLORY, Secretary of Transportation, Pennsylvania Department of TransportationROBERT E. MARTINEZ, Secretary of Transportation, Commonwealth of VirginiaJEFFREY J. MCCAIG, President and CEO, Trimac Corporation, Calgary, Alberta, CanadaMARSHALL W. MOORE, Director, North Dakota Department of TransportationCRAIG E. PHILIP, President, Ingram Barge Co., Nashville, TNANDREA RINIKER, Deputy Executive Director, Port of SeattleJOHN M. SAMUELS, Vice President—Operating Assets, Consolidated Rail CorporationWAYNE SHACKELFORD, Commissioner, Georgia Department of TransportationLESLIE STERMAN, Executive Director, East-West Gateway Coordinating Council, St. Louis, MOJOSEPH M. SUSSMAN, JR East Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, MITJAMES W. VAN LOBEN SELS, Director, California Department of Transportation (Past Chair, 1996)MARTIN WACHS, Director, University of California Transportation Center, BerkeleyDAVID L. WINSTEAD, Secretary, Maryland Department of Transportation

EX OFFICIO MEMBERS

MIKE ACOTT, President, National Asphalt Pavement AssociationROY A. ALLEN, Vice President, Research and Test Department, Association of American RailroadsJOE N. BALLARD, Chief of Engineers and Commander, U.S. Army Corps of EngineersANDREW H. CARD, JR., President and CEO, American Automobile Manufacturers AssociationTHOMAS J. DONOHUE, President and CEO, American Trucking AssociationsFRANCIS B. FRANCOIS, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation

OfficialsDAVID GARDINER, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyJANE F. GARVEY, Federal Highway Acting Administrator, U.S. Department of TransportationALBERT J. HERBERGER, Maritime Administrator, U.S. Department of TransportationT. R. LAKSHMANAN, Director, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Department of TransportationGORDON J. LINTON, Federal Transit Administrator, U.S. Department of TransportationRICARDO MARTINEZ, National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, U.S. Department of TransportationWILLIAM W. MILLAR, President, American Public Transit AssociationJOLENE M. MOLITORIS, Federal Railroad Administrator, U.S. Department of TransportationDHARMENDRA K. (DAVE) SHARMA, Research and Special Programs Administrator, U.S. Department of

TransportationBARRY L. VALENTINE, Acting Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S.DOT

TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM

Transportation Research Board Executive Committee Subcommittee for TCRPDAVID N. WORMLEY, Pennsylvania State University (Chair)SHARON D. BANKS, AC TransitDENNIS J. FITZGERALD, Capital Dist. Transportation Authority, Albany, NYLESTER A. HOEL, University of VirginiaGORDON J. LINTON, U.S. Department of TransportationROBERT E. SKINNER, JR., Transportation Research BoardJAMES W. VAN LOBEN SELS, California Department of Transportation


The nation’s growth and the need to meet mobility,environmental, and energy objectives place demands on publictransit systems. Current systems, some of which are old and in needof upgrading, must expand service area, increase service frequency,and improve efficiency to serve these demands. Research isnecessary to solve operating problems, to adapt appropriate newtechnologies from other industries, and to introduce innovations intothe transit industry. The Transit Cooperative Research Program(TCRP) serves as one of the principal means by which the transitindustry can develop innovative near-term solutions to meetdemands placed on it.

The need for TCRP was originally identified in TRB SpecialReport 213—Research for Public Transit: New Directions,published in 1987 and based on a study sponsored by the UrbanMass Transportation Administration—now the Federal TransitAdministration (FTA). A report by the American Public TransitAssociation (APTA), Transportation 2000, also recognized the needfor local, problem-solving research. TCRP, modeled after thelongstanding and successful National Cooperative HighwayResearch Program, undertakes research and other technical activitiesin response to the needs of transit service providers. The scope ofTCRP includes a variety of transit research fields including plan-ning, service configuration, equipment, facilities, operations, humanresources, maintenance, policy, and administrative practices.

TCRP was established under FTA sponsorship in July 1992.Proposed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, TCRP wasauthorized as part of the Intermodal Surface TransportationEfficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). On May 13, 1992, a memorandumagreement outlining TCRP operating procedures was executed bythe three cooperating organizations: FTA, the National Academy ofSciences, acting through the Transportation Research Board (TRB),and the Transit Development Corporation, Inc. (TDC), a nonprofiteducational and research organization established by APTA. TDC isresponsible for forming the independent governing board,designated as the TCRP Oversight and Project Selection (TOPS)Committee.

Research problem statements for TCRP are solicited periodicallybut may be submitted to TRB by anyone at any time It is theresponsibility of the TOPS Committee to formulate the researchprogram by identifying the highest priority projects. As part of theevaluation, the TOPS Committee defines funding levels andexpected products.

Once selected, each project is assigned to an expert panel,appointed by the Transportation Research Board. The panels prepareproject statements (requests for proposals), select contractors, andprovide technical guidance and counsel throughout the life of theproject. The process for developing research problem statements andselecting research agencies has been used by TRB in managingcooperative research programs since 1962. As in other TRB activ-ities, TCRP project panels serve voluntarily without compensation.

Because research cannot have the desired impact if products failto reach the intended audience, special emphasis is placed ondisseminating TCRP results to the intended end users of theresearch: transit agencies, service providers, and suppliers. TRBprovides a series of research reports, syntheses of transit practice,and other supporting material developed by TCRP research. APTAwill arrange for workshops, training aids, field visits, and otheractivities to ensure that results are implemented by urban and ruraltransit industry practitioners.

The TCRP provides a forum where transit agencies cancooperatively address common operational problems. The TCRPresults support and complement other ongoing transit research andtraining programs.

TCRP REPORT 22

Project H-4D FY’93ISSN 1073-4872ISBN 0-309-06057-5Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 96-61982

© 1997 Transportation Research Board

Subject AreasPlanning and Administration Public Transit

NOTICE

The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the Transit CooperativeResearch Program conducted by the Transportation Research Board with theapproval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. Suchapproval reflects the Governing Board’s judgment that the project concerned isappropriate with respect to both the purposes and resources of the NationalResearch Council.

The members of the technical advisory panel selected to monitor this project andto review this report were chosen for recognized scholarly competence and withdue consideration for the balance of disciplines appropriate to the project. Theopinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agencythat performed the research, and while they have been accepted as appropriateby the technical panel, they are not necessarily those of the TransportationResearch Board, the National Research Council, the Transit DevelopmentCorporation, or the Federal Transit Administration of the U.S. Department ofTransportation.

Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the technical panelaccording to procedures established and monitored by the TransportationResearch Board Executive Committee and the Governing Board of the NationalResearch Council.

Special Notice

The Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, the TransitDevelopment Corporation, and the Federal Transit Administration (sponsor ofthe Transit Cooperative Research Program) do not endorse products ormanufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because theyare considered essential to the clarity and completeness of the project reporting.

Published reports of the


are available from:

Transportation Research BoardNational Research Council2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20418

and can be ordered through the Internet athttp://www.nas.edu/trb/index.html

Printed in the United States of America

This report will be of interest to individuals seeking to improve the liv-ability of their communities and to those concerned with the role publictransportation can play in pursuing this goal. The report combines guidelinesand case studies to provide a comprehensive approach for improving com-munity livability and transit ridership in the United States. It is directedtoward a broad range of individuals and groups in the public and privatesectors associated with community, business, and civic organizations, includ-ing public transportation providers, local and metropolitan governments,community groups, and private businesses.

A livable community is something that everybody wants, but it does notmean the same thing to all people. There is some agreement on the characteris-tics of “livability” or quality of life, such as safe and healthy neighborhoods;sustainable employment; adequate housing, retail and community services;positive image; sense of community; and neighborhood-based cultural andrecreational opportunities. Transit can be integral to making communitiesmore livable by providing access to goods and services and can support attain-ment of complementary community goals in other investment areas as well.

The objective of TCRP Project H-4D, The Role of Transit in Creating LivableMetropolitan Communities, was to explore the relationship between transit andlivable communities. The research team—lead by Project for Public Spaces,Inc., and supported by its subcontractors (the International Downtown Asso-ciation, the National Association of Neighborhoods, TransManagement, Inc.,The Urban Partnership, and the Urban Mobility Corporation)—explored a“place-making” approach where a local community, working in partnershipwith a transit agency, plans and implements neighborhood-scale projects andprograms that are mutually supportive of community livability and transitridership goals.

The final report from this research provides considerable informationand guidance. The report’s 12 chapters are divided into three major parts asfollows:

• Part I. Overview and Context. The first two chapters of the report definethe concept of livability and the impact of transportation on livability.These chapters also describe federal support for transit and livable com-munity initiatives, the “place-making” approach to livability, and trans-portation strategies that impact livability.

• Part II. Roles of Transit in Creating Livable Communities. In conduct-ing this project, the research team met with numerous people in manycommunities throughout the United States to examine diverse examples

FOREWORDBy Staff

Transportation ResearchBoard

of how public transportation supports and enhances community livabil-ity. This research, documented and presented in Chapters 3 through 9,includes “examples,” which briefly summarize the experience of the indi-vidual communities, and more lengthy case studies. More specifically,the examples and case studies are organized by the following topics:

— Creating places for community life,— Using transit as a catalyst for downtown and neighborhood renewal,— Creating opportunities for entrepreneurship and local economic devel-

opment,— Improving safety and amenity,— Making communities accessible and convenient, and— Shaping community growth.

The use of examples and case studies provides practical concepts anddemonstrates how public transportation can meaningfully contribute to thelivability of metropolitan communities.

• Part III. Implementation. Chapters 10 through 12 provide a guide toimplementation by describing the importance of a community-basedprocess for creating livable communities. (This process involves earlyparticipation in transportation planning and partnerships with publicand private organizations implementing transportation and communityprojects.) Part III then describes specific planning, design, and manage-ment strategies for livable places and concludes with suggested nextsteps to increase awareness of livability-oriented transit programs.

This report is a valuable resource for executives, decisionmakers, man-agers, and planners from transit systems, local governments, communityorganizations, MPOs, the FTA, the FHWA, and other public and privateorganizations involved with public transportation and community livability.

In addition to the final report, a video was prepared by the researchteam. The video provides an overview of key attributes of livable communi-ties and shows how transit systems contibute to community vitality. Thevideo is available from the American Public Transit Association. Inquiriesregarding the video should be addressed to:

TCRP DisseminationAmerican Public Transit Association

1201 New York Avenue, N.W.Washington, DC 20005

FAX: (202)898-4019Internet: http://www.apta.com/tcrp

1 SUMMARY

Part I Overview and Context5 CHAPTER 1 Introduction

What is “Livability”?, 5Concerns About Community Livability, 5A Place-Making Approach to Livability, 6Transit and Place-Making, 7

Opportunities for Communities, 7Opportunities for Transit, 8

Federal Support for Transit and Livable Communities, 8About This Report, 9

10 CHAPTER 2 The Impact of Transportation on LivabilityA Role for Transportation as a Player in Building Communities, 10Transportation Strategies Impacting Livability, 11

Transit Strategies, 11Design-Oriented Strategies, 11Service-Oriented Strategies, 11“Traffic-Calming” Strategies, 12Transportation and Land-Use Strategies, 13

Conclusions, 14

Part II Roles of Transit in Creating Livable Communities17 CHAPTER 3 Introduction and Approach to Case Studies

Case Study Selection Criteria, 17Research Approach, 18

Background Research, 18Focus Groups, 18Case Study Interviews, 19Detailed User Case Study Evaluations, 19Telephone Surveys of Selected Model Projects, 19Preparation of Case Studies, 20

Livability Issues Presented, 20

21 CHAPTER 4 Creating Places for Community LifeIntroduction, 21

Overview of Community Strategies, 21Role of Transit, 22

Examples, 23Portland, OR: Tri-Met’s MAX Station Anchors Saturday Market, 23Boston, MA: Health Clinic Becomes Visible and Provides Accessible

Community Service at Roxbury Crossing T-Station, 23Tucson, AZ: Downtown Saturday Night—Transit Center Becomes

Focal Point for Downtown Revitalization Event, 24Corpus Christi, TX: Staples Street Bus Transit Center—Using

Public Art to Inspire Community Ownership of a Transit Facility, 25Case Studies, 25

Case Study 4-1: Portland, OR: Pioneer Courthouse Square Transit Key in Creating the City’s “Living Room,” 25

Case Study 4-2: Woodbridge Station, NJ: Creating a Sense of Place at a Commuter Rail Station, 29

Case Study 4-3: Shady Grove Metro Station, MD: KidStop Child Care Center Helps Make a Community “Family-Friendly,” 33

35 CHAPTER 5 Transit as a Catalyst for Downtown and NeighborhoodRenewal

Introduction, 35Overview of Community Strategies, 35Role of Transit, 36

Example, 37Transit Malls: Successes and Failures, 37

Case Studies, 38Case Study 5-1: Somerville, MA: Davis Square Transit Station—

Subway Extension Spurs Neighborhood Rejuvenation, 39

CONTENTS

Case Study 5-2: Los Angeles Neighborhood Initiative: Rebuilding Disinvested Neighborhood “Main Streets” from the Bus Stop Up, 42

Case Study 5-3: Chicago, IL: The Green Line—Using Transit Stations to Spur Reinvestment in Distressed Inner City Neighborhoods, 45

51 CHAPTER 6 Creating Opportunity for Entrepreneurship and EconomicDevelopment

Introduction, 51Overview of Community Strategies, 51Role of Transit, 52

Examples, 53Washington, DC: Union Station—Local Business Opportunities at

Revitalized Intermodal Station, 53New York, NY: Columbus Circle Market—Subway Station Plaza as

Place for Economic Opportunity, 54Chicago, IL: A Public/Private Joint Venture to Create Local Retail

Opportunities at Transit Stations, 54Chicago, IL: Suburban Job-Link Connects Jobs and People, 56

Case Studies, 56Case Study 6-1: Boston, MA: Downtown Crossing—Transit and

Pedestrian Improvements Create Setting for Urban Marketplace, 56Case Study 6-2: Chicago, IL: Union Station—Local Businesses Thrive

in Redeveloped Historic Station, 59Case Study 6-3: St. Louis, MO: The Wellston MetroLink/Cornerstone

Partnership—Light Rail Service Linking Mobility withOpportunity, 62

65 CHAPTER 7 Improving Safety and AmenityIntroduction, 65


Examples, 67Baltimore, MD: Howard Street Mall—Koban Police Booth Improves

Community and Transit Security, 67New York, NY: Improved Subway Stations Enhance Perception of

Security, 68California Bus Transfer Centers: A Study of Safety, Security, and

Community Context, 69Case Studies, 70

Case Study 7-1: Tucson, AZ: Tohono Tadai Transit Center—New Environment Transforms Transit Experience in Area of

Suburban Sprawl, 71Case Study 7-2: New York, NY: Station Manager Program—A Place-

Oriented Approach to Subway Station Management, 73Case Study 7-3: New York, NY: Port Authority Bus Terminal—

A Comprehensive Approach Yields Security Benefits for Terminal and Times Square Neighborhood, 77

Case Study 7-4: Portland, OR: Tri-Met’s Rider Advocate Program—On-Board Services Improve Transit and Community Security, 81

84 CHAPTER 8 Making Communities Accessible and ConvenientIntroduction, 84Overview of Community Strategies and Role of Transit, 84Examples, 86

Santa Monica, CA: The Big Blue Bus—Convenient and Accessible City Bus Service Builds Livability and Transit Ridership, 86

Kids Kab: Reducing the Need for Parent Chauffeuring, 86New Jersey Transit WHEELS Program: Experimenting with Flexible

Service to Serve Local Mobility Needs, 87Case Studies, 88

Case Study 8-1: Aspen, CO: City Shuttles—Community Develops Plan to Reduce Traffic Congestion and Increase Mobility, 88

Case Study 8-2: Los Angeles, CA: The DASH Watts Shuttle—Community-Scaled Transit Links Neighborhood Destinations, 91

Case Study 8-3: Meridian, MS: Union Station—Train Station Becomes Community Transportation Hub, 94

97 CHAPTER 9 Shaping Community GrowthIntroduction, 97


Example, 99Arlington County’s Rosslyn-Ballston Metrorail Corridor: Using Transit

to Shape Growth and Create Community, 99Case Studies, 100

Case Study 9-1: Boulder, CO: GO Boulder—New Transit Services Key to Meeting Local Environmental Goals, 100

Case Study 9-2: Seattle,WA: Local Initiative for Neighborhood Circulation (LINC)—Neighborhood Transit System Channeling

Community Growth, 104Case Study 9-3: Corpus Christi, TX: Staples Street Bus Transfer Station

and the Downtown Trolley—Transit Reorganization Sets Stage for Downtown and Neighborhood Renewal, 107

Part III A Guide for Implementation113 CHAPTER 10 The Community-Based Process for Creating Livable

CommunitiesOpportunities for Community Involvement in Current Transit Planning

Processes, 113Public Participation: Going Beyond “Requirements,” 114

Strategy No. 1: Focus on Place-Making, 115Strategy No. 2: Step-By-Step Implementation, 115Strategy No. 3: Developing Effective Transit/Community

Partnerships, 117Case Studies, 118

Case Study 10-1: Tucson, AZ: Old Pueblo Trolley—Volunteers Revive Historic Trolley Line, 118

Case Study 10-2: Oakland, CA: BART Fruitvale Transit Village—Using Transit to Leverage Funding for Community Development, 121

Case Study 10-3: New Jersey Transit Station Renewal Program—Creating Partnerships with Community, 127

Case Study 10-4: Boston, MA: South Station—Transit-Private Developer Partnership Transforms Historic Station, 131

Case Study 10-5: Wilmington, DE: Wilmington Infrastructure Studies—Intergovernmental-Private Sector Partnership to Promote Enhanced

Livability and Economic Development, 134Case Study 10-6: Denver, CO: The 16th Street Transitway—Twenty

Years of Public-Private Partnership and Reinvestment, 136

140 CHAPTER 11 Planning, Design, and Management Strategies for LivablePlaces

About Place Performance Evaluation, 140Developing the Vision, 141Livable Places: A Conceptual Model, 142Strategies for Creating Livable Places, 143

Uses and Activities, 143Comfort and Image, 143Access and Linkages, 144Sociability, 145

Putting It All Together, 148

149 CHAPTER 12 Conclusions and Next Steps

151 APPENDIX A Bibliography and Related Literature

157 APPENDIX B A Review of Livability Research

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS STAFFROBERT J. REILLY, Director, Cooperative Research ProgramsSTEPHEN J. ANDRLE, Manager, Transit Cooperative Research ProgramDIANNE S. SCHWAGER, Senior Program OfficerEILEEN P. DELANEY, Managing EditorKAMI CABRAL, Production EditorHILARY FREER, Assistant Editor

PROJECT PANEL H-4DJ. BARRY BARKER, TARC, Louisville, KY (Chair)G.B. ARRINGTON, TRI-MET, Portland, ORJOANNE DENWORTH, Pennsylvania Environmental Council, Philadelphia, PAHANK DITTMAR, Surface Transportation Policy Project, Washington, DCFRED DUCCA, FHWA, Washington, DCAL EISENBERG, American Institute of Architects, Washington, DCNAOMI LEDE, Texas Southern University, Houston, TXJEROME M. LUTIN, New Jersey Transit Rail Link Division, Newark, NJARABELLA MARTINEZ, Spanish-Speaking Unity Council, Oakland, CACHRISTIE McGETRICK, CM Research, Little Rock, ARLOUIS H. PINKNEY, Maryland DOTMARILYN SKOLNICK, Port Authority Transit, Monroeville, PAEDWARD THOMAS, FHWA Liaison RepresentativeJAMES A. SCOTT, TRB Liaison Representative

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This was produced by Project for Public Spaces, Inc.(PPS). The PPS Project Team included Fred I. Kent, III, Prin-cipal Investigator; Stephen Davies, Co-Principal Investiga-tor and Project Director; Cynthia Abramson, Project Man-ager; and Gisela Bichler, Erika Hanson, Larry Lund,Kathleen Madden, Shirley Secunda, Maria Ting, and MegWalker.

PPS was joined in this endeavor by the following experts intransit and community livability: Richard Bradley, ExecutiveDirector of the International Downtown Association; RicardoByrd, Executive Director of the National Association of Neigh-borhoods; Sarah Campbell, Partner in TransManagement, Inc.;Ellen McCarthy, President of The Urban Partnership; and C. Kenneth Orski, President of the Urban Mobility Corporation.

SUMMARY This report describes transit’s increasingly important role in improving thelivability of communities.

Concerns about livability affect every community: inner cities, suburbs,small towns, and rural areas. The report explores a “place-making” approachwhere a local community, working in partnership with a transit agency,plans and implements neighborhood-scale projects and programs that aremutually supportive of community livability and transit ridership goals.

Part I of this report describes the place-making approach to livability andexplores the relationships between transportation and livability that are keysto understanding the case studies.

In Chapter 2, the role of transportation in building communities throughtransit programs, strategies to “calm” traffic in residential and commercialneighborhoods, and a new understanding of the relationship between trans-portation and land use is explored.

Part II of the report—Chapters 3 through 9—presents examples and casestudies of transit facilities and services that achieve community livabilitygoals; the role played by communities, transit agencies, municipal agenciesand authorities, and the federal government is also discussed. Each chapter inPart II has two sections: (1) an introduction with highlighted example projectsand (2) case studies. Chapter 3 describes the selection criteria for case studiesand the research approach used in collecting the data and background infor-mation for the case studies.

Livability topics covered in Chapters 4 through 9 include transit’s role inthe following:

• Creating places for community life,• Acting as a catalyst for the renewal and revitalization of neighborhoods

and entire downtowns,• Creating opportunities for entrepreneurship and local economic devel-

opment,• Making communities safer and more comfortable,

THE ROLE OF TRANSIT IN CREATING LIVABLE

METROPOLITAN COMMUNITIES

• Making connections between neighborhoods, downtowns, and com-munity destinations more accessible and convenient, and

• Shaping community growth.

Part III of the report is a guide to implementation. Chapter 10 outlines aseries of model partnerships created between communities and transit agen-cies, a specific process for developing such partnerships, and steps to followfor involving communities in the planning, design, and management of transitprojects and other livability initiatives. Chapter 11 provides a checklist ofdesign, management, and transit strategies and how they can be used toaddress specific local problems as part of a place-making process.

Chapter 12 concludes by offering the next steps in this evolving partner-ship between transit and communities.

A bibliography and related literature and the results of research conductedto define livability, as well as actual livability studies, are found in Appen-dixes A and B, respectively.

2

Part I

Overview and Context

This page left intentionally blank.

A revolution is going on today in American commu-nities. Citizens are discovering that by working inpartnership with government, they can reshape theirneighborhoods and downtowns into vital, attractive,comfortable—and more livable—places.

A potent tool has emerged in this movement, onethat is an important but still largely unrecognized cat-alyst for improving community life. That tool is trans-portation. Transportation facilities and networks arenatural focal points for the kinds of activities that helprestore a positive sense of community. This expandedrole for transportation started with transit and hasnow spread to traffic planning.

This report is based on a year-long research effort toidentify examples of best practices and provide concreteevidence of how transit can be a contributing force inachieving greater livability in all communities. Fol-lowing a brief overview of the role played by trans-portation in community life, case studies arepresented in which transit serves to foster livability.To assist in applying this process to other communi-ties, a process for planning and implementingimprovements, whereby transit agencies work in part-nership with communities, is also presented.

WHAT IS “LIVABILITY”?

Bookstores today are filled with guides to “the bestplaces to live in America.” Using census statistics,weather data, broad community surveys, and a rangeof other methods, researchers found when people say“livability,” they mean clean air and water, safestreets, positive race relations, affordable homes,quality public schools, greenery and open space,uncongested roads, and low taxes, among otherthings. (A detailed discussion of methods used todefine livability and their findings appears inAppendix B.) Indeed, the avid interest in livabilitytoday seems to have emerged because people are

increasingly recognizing the unlivable aspects of theplaces where they live, work, and spend recreationaltime.

People express their strongest concerns about thelivability of their communities when referring toproblems encountered on a daily basis. For example,they talk about difficulty crossing streets and feelingthreatened by automobile traffic. They grieve aboutthe replacement of distinctive local structures withsterile and characterless architecture. They complainabout a lack of parks to sit or stroll in and the dearthof scenic vistas. They lament the disappearance ofcenters where people once came together and tookpart in activities such as shopping, mailing letters,eating out, going to the theater, catching a train orbus, visiting the library, or meeting friends. Theseconcerns reflect an underlying sense of isolation anderosion of community life. The result is more andmore people are feeling a loss of community as wellas a lack of control over and connection to theirchanging local environment.

Even though “livability” is difficult to define, peopleare able to apply it as a concept to their own commu-nity and way of life. Striving for livability puts theunlivable aspects of communities into clear focus andhelps channel local energies into projects and programsthat address daily livability problems. The case studiespresented in this report clearly show how this processworks: how communities set priorities for improvinglivability and establish programs that address commu-nity needs, problems, and visions for betterment.

CONCERNS ABOUTCOMMUNITY LIVABILITY

People everywhere are concerned about the livabil-ity of their communities. Specifics cited include safetyand fear of crime, easy access to jobs, availability andaffordability of housing, diminishing environmental

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

5

quality, educational quality, race relations, runawaygrowth, and traffic congestion.

Concern about livability is not confined to neighbor-hoods in large inner cities: it exists in suburbs, smalltowns, and even in the smallest villages. This concernis expressed by residents of cities losing population aswell as by city dwellers in booming regions. It comesup in poor and wealthy communities alike, and amongpeople of varied ages and backgrounds. It is clear thatAmericans are facing a national livability dilemma.

Transportation strongly impacts community livabil-ity concerns. People are beginning to realize that

designing cities and suburbs to accommodate theautomobile has often diminished, not improved,quality of life. Intrusive roads have created barriersthat disrupt communities and erode their physicaland social cohesion. At the same time, public trans-portation options are often viewed as inadequatealternatives. As a result, many communities end upwith transportation networks that simply passthrough them, without responding to communityneeds, relating to their surroundings, or reflectinglocal character.

A PLACE-MAKING APPROACHTO LIVABILITY

. . . Places have an impact on our sense of self, our sense ofsafety, the kind of work we get done, the ways we interactwith other people, even our ability to function as citizens ina democracy. In short the places where we spend time affectthe people we are and can become. [1]

—Tony Hiss, The Experience of Place

The two concepts of community and place are inseparable.‘Place’ is the vessel within which the ‘spirit’ of communityis stored; ‘Community’ is the catalyst that imbues a loca-tion with a ‘sense’ of place. The two are not divisible. Youcannot have community without place; and a place withoutcommunity is a location. A group of people with a sharedconcern but not a shared place is an interest group, not acommunity. [2]

—Donovan Rypkema

Urbanists focus on the micro before wrestling with themacro and understand that, in reality, the macro onlychanges for the better in micro steps . . . Innovation andingenuity are the prevailing characteristics. Perseverancein the face of naysayers and determination in the face ofobstacles are prerequisites. Step by step, essential and nat-ural growth follows and spreads until larger areas prosperover time. [3]

—Roberta Gratz, The Living City

This report explores a place-making approach tolivability, an approach that involves assessing theconcerns and needs of a local community and thenusing this assessment to make improvements to themany places in that community. Because this ap-proach focuses on “places,” it can apply to any com-munity, regardless of differences in socioeconomicstatus, demographic makeup, or even geographiclocation.

Discussions about livability are often too broad orattempt to cover too large a geographic area to lead tothe development of practical strategies that addresslocal community concerns. Making communities livablethrough a place-making approach connects the con-cept of livability to the specific places used by peoplein communities. It begins at a scale that a communityfinds both manageable and relevant: a small area

6

Figure 1-1. Peachtree Street in suburban Atlanta, GA, lacksa sense of place. (Credit: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

Figure 1-2. Livable places bring people together. (Credit:Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

around where people live or work, one that is probablyno larger than a downtown or a neighborhood. When“closer to home” problems are defined, residents of anarea are not only better able to identify priorities, butthey are also more likely to become involved in aplace’s improvement.

Communities are usually composed of many smallareas, and improvement to specific places can cumula-tively produce success on a broader scale. This place-making approach thus provides a way for municipalagencies and transit operators, which operate on ametropolitan or regional level, to take steps towardaddressing a community’s livability goals.

While place-making does include design strategies,design is only a part of it. Many places have beenimproved through better provision of municipal ser-vices without any physical changes at all. Improvingthe maintenance and management of a public space,upgrading security, or establishing a special-events orvending program are all strategies for improving aplace without making design changes. The develop-ment of special management districts to oversee suchactivities, funded by special assessments agreed to byproperty owners, has flourished across the country inboth large cities and small towns as more local orga-nizations have begun to take responsibility for ensur-ing that their commercial districts are safe, attractive,clean, active, and comfortable.

TRANSIT AND PLACE-MAKING

There is a kind of mass transit cities used to be very richin . . . the kind that is part of the fabric of the city itself,doesn’t just go overhead and take people whoosh, but linksall kinds of places within the city and that’s the kind of

mass transit we need to reconstitute . . . In a really healthycity, it’s something that knits the whole thing together . . .

—Jane Jacobs [4]

When you have this train running down the middle of thestreet every 3 1⁄ 2 min, you don’t believe there’s going to bemurder and robbery and violence.

—Alec Keefer, Architectural Conservancy of Ontario [5]

A focus on place-making can bring the ridershipgoals of the transit agency and the livability goals ofthe community together. For transit operators, thismeans that each decision made to provide service,locate a station or stop and maintain that stationshould be made in the context of how transit can con-tribute positively to the experience of that place.Mobility options must be developed and improved inresponse to expressed as well as observed communityneeds. These transportation options also must beregarded as a set of alternatives (cars, buses, trains,vans, bicycles, walking) that fit into a community’sbroader vision as well as its self-image. When there isno existing community-based vision, transit plannersshould be prepared to insist that one be developed orlearn to facilitate its development. Regardless of whoguides this process, transit decisions should be madeso as to complement and help realize a community’svision and plans.

Opportunities for Communities

Case studies in this report demonstrate how transitservices and facilities are already contributing to thelivability of metropolitan communities throughoutthe United States—although clearly much more can

7

Figure 1-3. A revitalized street corner in downtown NewHaven, CT, features amenities and activities of a successful“place.” (Credit: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

Figure 1-4. Harvard Square, in Cambridge, MA, is not only a world renowned “place” but also a transit hub serv-ing both residents and tourists. (Credit: Project for PublicSpaces, Inc.)

be done in many more communities. This report pre-sents projects that involve communities, not just in apro forma “approval” process, but in assuming afundamental role transforming transit stations, andeven bus stops, into community focal points. Transitagencies are establishing facilities like day care andsenior centers as part of transit facilities. Transit isbeing integrated into downtowns in a visible andpositive manner, through the creation of centralizedtransfer centers and specially designed streets thathelp stimulate economic development. New, flexible,neighborhood van systems now exist that cater tothe needs of residents who find existing public tran-sit to be inaccessible or inconvenient. Many of thenew light rail systems around the country havebrought new riders aboard—sometimes many morethan expected—and have successfully changed tran-sit’s image and use in automobile dominant citieslike St. Louis and Denver.

Although the process for developing projects ofthis type is not new, recognition of the relationshipbetween transit and the needs of communities and ofthe importance of a process that facilitates transit’sresponse to these needs is new. Community groupsare rediscovering the value of services offered bytrains, buses, and community shuttles and areembarking on projects that expand their use. Moreimportantly, they are recognizing how transit ser-vices and facilities can enhance the livability of adowntown or a neighborhood. Although many pro-jects are small or still in the planning stages, researchfor this report revealed that this community-oriented approach to addressing livability throughtransit is gaining momentum and that passion anddedication for community projects is waiting to betapped.

However, obstacles still exist. The public, commu-nity organizations, and local governments do notalways understand the connection between transitand livability. Most quality-of-life studies show thattransportation in general is not currently a primarydetermining factor in influencing where peoplechoose to live. Transit agencies themselves, therefore,need to recognize that the services they provide andfacilities they create can have an enormous, positiveimpact on the livability of the neighborhood placesthey serve.

Opportunities for Transit

Historically, transit has been the central organizingfeature around which communities were built andfunctioned. Today, transit needs a new direction if itis to continue to function effectively in metropolitanareas designed around the car. This challenge is par-

ticularly critical in areas outside the northeasternUnited States and other major transit cities. However,the long-term decline in transit ridership, even incities like New York, shows that this problem is notgeographically limited.

To ensure its own future, transit must become morevisible and connected to people’s lives and the lives ofthe communities it serves. A transformation isrequired, much like the recent turn-around in the field of urban policing. Cities like New York, St. Louis,and Seattle have experienced extraordinary decreasesin crime, largely because of the return of the “cop onthe beat” and “community policing,” where police,citizens, and communities work together to reducecrime and improve the quality of life. This has com-pletely changed the way police departments provideservices and the way communities and police interactwith one another.

While contributing toward the livability of a com-munity is an admirable goal in itself, it is important toemphasize that there are other important benefits ofthis approach for transit agencies. Community build-ing is an important and visible public business: theresult can be tangible projects to which local officialscan point with pride, thereby helping to build futuresupport for transit. Working directly with communi-ties, especially people who only occasionally use tran-sit, helps to build a broader constituency of supportfor transit as well. Making transit better serve theneeds of a community can translate not only into newtransit riders, but a force that can lobby for funding toexpand and improve service.

Finally, direct economic benefits also can accrue toa transit agency when it develops its facilities andproperties to incorporate uses and activities—rangingfrom cafes to post offices—that generate income whileproviding a much needed service to transit patrons.Although such benefits are routinely considered partof major rail investments, they are often overlookedby the nation’s bus operators who handle most oftoday’s transit riders.

A community-based approach for transit works. Ina day when many focus on the limits and constraintsof transit, there are reasons to be optimistic about thefuture role of transit in communities. The key isenabling transit agencies to recognize and value theirrelevance in people’s lives and to encourage morecommunities to work in partnership with transitagencies.

FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR TRANSITAND LIVABLE COMMUNITIES

Many of the activities described in this reportwould not have been possible without the support of

8

the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) LivableCommunities Initiative and the Intermodal SurfaceTransportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991. By fos-tering new approaches to applying transportation inthe service of community life, both are bringing aboutpositive changes.

The FTA’s Livable Communities Initiative hasprovided major funding and support for projectsaround the country, including many presented in thisreport. The FTA’s Livable Communities Initiative has15 capital demonstration projects underway. It also issponsoring a series of transportation-based townmeetings and developing an innovative travelingexhibition promoting a holistic approach to transit,including a video for display at conferences, work-shops and symposia across the United States. TheFTA also is writing a guidebook for livable communi-ties and is developing guidelines for public/privatepartnerships around its facilities. Growing Smart is aplanning document being produced by the Depart-ment of Housing and Urban Development in partner-ship with FTA, Environmental Protection Agency,and American Planning Association. It will signifi-cantly update examples of model United States devel-opment and planning guidelines to combat sprawland promote transit-oriented development. In 1996,the initiative focused on evaluating projects under-way in order to document the benefits of community-sensitive transit.

ISTEA, which has fundamentally redirected trans-portation policy, was also instrumental in many of theprojects presented here. ISTEA has expanded localdiscretion for transportation investment decisions,including the diverting of highway funds into transit,pedestrian, and bicycle projects. ISTEA has also man-dated greater public participation in decision making,encouraging investment in projects that link transitfacilities to their communities and in projects thatenhance livability through transit.

This report arrives at the moment when the U.S.Department of Transportation has committed itself toa new initiative, the National Partnership for Trans-portation and Livable Communities. This partnershipbrings together public and private nonprofit entitiesas well as foundations to advance the place of trans-portation (transit and highway) as a tool for creatinglivable communities. This will be achieved througheducation and outreach, research and information

exchange, and technical assistance and demonstrationprojects.

ABOUT THIS REPORT

This report is divided into three parts.Part I, the Overview, describes the place-making

approach to livability and explores the relationshipsbetween transportation and livability that are keys tounderstanding the case studies presented in the report.

Part II presents the specific ways in which transitcan support the livability of communities, usingextensive case studies as examples.

Part III is a practical guide to implementation,including a planning process and helpful suggestionson implementing the process. Case studies of partner-ships involving transit agencies with city govern-ments, community organizations and privatedevelopers are also presented to show the numerousways programs and projects can be implemented.

The Appendixes A and B, respectively, contain a bib-liography and related literature and the results of thein-depth research conducted on livability and qualityof life and what these mean to communities.

A video was produced in conjunction with thisreport that presents an overview of the case studiescovered and the planning, decision making, and place-making approaches outlined in the report. This video isintended to be used to assist communities in imple-menting projects and programs similar to thosedescribed in this report. (See Foreword for availability.)

ENDNOTES

1. Tony Hiss, The Experience of Place, Alfred A. Knopf, NewYork, New York (1990) p.1.

2. Donovan Rypkema, “Place, Community, and EconomicDevelopment,” a talk delivered at the AnnualConference of the National Trust for HistoricPreservation in St. Louis (September 29, 1993) as quotedin Roberta Gratz, The Living City, p.iii.

3. Roberta Gratz, The Living City: How America’s Cities AreBeing Revitalized by Thinking Small in a Big Way, ThePreservation Press, Washington, DC (1994) pp.ii–iii.

4. Gratz, p.xxiii.5. Alfred Holden, “Why Toronto Works,” Planning

Magazine, American Planning Association, Chicago,Illinois (March 1995) p.6.

9

Transportation plays a role in almost everyone’sdaily life. It is intrinsically woven into the fabric ofour existence, encompassing not only how we getfrom place to place, but also how we conduct ourdaily routines and the choices we make about whatwe do. Getting to work, school, or appointments, run-ning errands, shopping, socializing and recreationalpursuits are among the many things we do that areaffected by the kinds of transportation available (or notavailable) to us. Location of transportation facilities,design of streets and sidewalks and even placement ofon-street parking can make all the difference in howwe experience these day to day endeavors.

Because transportation is so tied to our daily lives,it provides a perfect opportunity to address the liv-ability concerns of our communities. For example,when train stations, bus stops or transfer facilities arecentrally situated, easy to reach, with convenient con-nections, they make it simple to get where we’regoing, without having to drive. Ample sidewalks andsafe-to-cross streets also simplify our lives by givingus opportunities to walk, bicycle or stroll to our desti-nations while being able to look around, mingle withothers and take part in all kinds of other activities,like shopping, eating, and entertainment.

Transportation can also enhance the quality of thegeneral living environment when it responds to people’s needs. When transit facilities provide pleas-ant waiting places with comfortable seating, con-genial food service, clean restrooms, helpful signageand other amenities in lively, attractive surroundings,they become important places in their communitiesthat people can enjoy. Similarly, streets designed tothe scale of people, with colorful plantings, pleasingstreet furniture and positive activities, offer environ-

ments where people can feel safe, relaxed and free tosavor life around them.

What’s more, when transportation is people-oriented,it can help build communities and restore communitylife. It can provide the accessibility and exposure thathelps develop business. It can allow for entrepreneurialopportunities by molding public spaces and trans-portation facilities that can nurture start-up enter-prises. It can spur the identity and cohesiveness thatbring communities together and help them grow andbecome safer and more attractive.

A ROLE FOR TRANSPORTATION AS A PLAYER IN BUILDING COMMUNITIES

For transportation to play an effective role inimproving the livability of communities, it mustbecome more of an integral part of community lifeand have a more direct link to the idea of “place.”This view of transportation, as a catalyst for strength-ening community life in the United States, also callsfor a new way of measuring the success of transporta-tion facilities.

In the case of streets and roads, the idea of trans-portation as a catalyst for community livability goesbeyond the movement of vehicles as the sole bell-wether of success to encompass the comfort andsafety of pedestrians and bicyclists as well as theaccommodation of alternative mobility options tomeet the varying needs of different individuals withinthe community. It also includes requirements for anattractive, inviting, more human-scale street environ-ment that reflects, preserves and enhances a commu-nity’s unique personality, provides opportunities forpeople to come together and is supportive of local

CHAPTER 2

The Impact of Transportation on Livability

Transportation is at the core of everything.—Roberta Gratz, The Living City [1]

10

11

businesses. This translates into commercial and resi-dential areas where traffic moves more slowly instreets that are not excessively wide and are betterconnected to adjacent uses, in terms of scale, func-tion and design. It also sets the stage for wellmarked pedestrian crosswalks, light cycles that aretimed for walkers, not just drivers, convenient on-street parking, public amenities, attractive landscap-ing and management practices that increase theflexibility of existing roadway space to accommodatedifferent kinds of uses at different times.

In the case of transit facilities, such as those pre-sented in this report, this idea extends beyond systemoperations. It includes serving passengers’ preferencesand needs and focusing on how transit facilities canact as catalysts for regenerating surrounding commu-nities as well as on how they can serve as centers ofcommunity life. This translates into transit facilitiesthat are conveniently located in downtowns ratherthan on the outskirts of town. It also has resulted instations and transfer centers that look inviting, areeasily accessible on foot, provide amenities, andencourage local businesses to supply on-premiseservices, or to take part in local activities. It has createdfacilities like bus and trolley stops that are combinedwith other community uses that spur improvements tosurrounding areas and create centers of activity. In thecase of transit services, it has meant a new flexibility inproviding alternative transit options such as smallscale van and circulator systems.

TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIESIMPACTING LIVABILITY

Three overall transportation strategies that impactlivability are explored below. They are transit strategies,traffic-calming strategies, and transportation and land-use strategies. Of these, only case studies of transitstrategies are presented in this report. [2]

Transit Strategies

Transit strategies that help create livable communi-ties are presented in this report, with Part II devotedto presenting many specific examples and case stud-ies of how transit makes an impact. Strategies fall intotwo basic categories: design-oriented strategies andservice-oriented strategies. Although they can be dis-cussed separately, they very often work together.

Design-Oriented Strategies

Bus, light rail, heavy rail, and subway stops havethe potential to be centers of community life. Design-

oriented strategies enhance the comfort and conve-nience of transit users, while having a positive impacton the surrounding area. With proper design andincentives, transit stops can attract a variety of activi-ties and uses (like retail, community services, andspecial events) which increase the sense of securityand help create an incubator for small retailers andentrepreneurs from the local community.

Acting as a stimulus for commercial redevelopmentand neighborhood renewal, the stop or station can con-tribute toward the livability of an entire neighborhoodarea. Examples of these design-oriented strategies areredesign of bus and trolley stops to support adjacentretail uses; introduction of improved public spacesaround a commuter rail station; and creation of trans-portation centers and intermodal terminals that serveas catalysts for neighborhood-scale development.

Service-Oriented Strategies

Service-oriented strategies are essentially transit ser-vices that increase mobility within a neighborhoodarea. For the purposes of this study, service-orientedstrategies that only target special user groups (like spe-cial vans to transport the elderly or people with disabil-ities to specific social services) were excluded. Thefocus is on services that are currently available to thegeneral public (including these special user groups) toimprove livability through better mobility and access.

Service-oriented strategies include transit shuttlesand connectors, which link residential neighbor-hoods with commuter rail and rapid transit stations;circulators and trolleys, which enable shoppers, visitors and office workers to move more freely aboutthe central business district; and neighborhood-based

Figure 2-1. This bus shelter in Portland, OR, is one of manyamenities provided on this successful downtown transitmall. (Credit: Tri-Met, Portland)

transportation services. Introduction of these localtransportation services helps support the goals ofneighborhood livability by facilitating internal circu-lation to local destinations not well served by regulartransit services. These new services carry residents toand from homes to jobs, shops, and local services:they transport the elderly to medical appointments,take children of working parents to day care centersand schools, serve the disabled, and transport resi-dents to community-based social services. In metro-politan areas served by rail transit or regional busservices, small vans shuttle neighborhood residentsto the nearest stations, providing convenient accessto economic, educational, cultural, and recreationalopportunities offered by the region.

While all these service-oriented strategies have thepotential to add to community convenience and liv-ability, it is important to remember that their effec-tiveness depends on their management. This includes,for example, efficient scheduling along with provid-ing scheduling information, coordination of connec-tions, user orientation, vehicle maintenance, andsensitive and responsive personnel.

“Traffic-Calming” Strategies

The impact of both design- and service-orientedkinds of transit improvements will be reduced, how-ever, unless streets or roads also support communitycharacter and needs. Streets and roads can knit com-munities together and enhance the character andidentity of the places where they pass. They canbecome symbols of pride for a community, have aconsiderable economic impact on local businesses and

help create strong and viable community centers. Inother words, improving the livability of streets is notjust a pedestrian, vehicle traffic, bicycle, or transitissue—all must be considered together. It is importantto balance all of the functions on a street so that theyserve users. This balanced approach to the use ofstreets has come to be known as “traffic calming.”

Traffic calming is a term that emerged in Europe todescribe the practice of slowing down cars, but notnecessarily banning them, as they move through com-mercial areas and residential neighborhoods. The ben-efit for pedestrians, transit riders, and bicyclists is thatcars now drive at speeds that are safer and more com-patible with walking and bicycling. Buses no longerhave to vie for limited space and access. There is, infact, a kind of equilibrium achieved among all of theuses of a street so no one mode can dominate at the

12

Figure 2-2. This historic style “trolley” bus links a downtownterminal in Corpus Christi, TX, with local attractions. Sincethe “trolley” was initiated, ridership has increased signifi-cantly. (Credit: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

Figures 2-3 and 2-4. European experience with traffic calming is very extensive; this town is one of hundreds inDenmark that have redesigned their residential and com-mercial streets to make them more pedestrian-friendly(Figure 2-3). In the United States, cities like San Bernardino,CA, have begun traffic calming efforts of their own, in thisexample by introducing diagonal parking (Figure 2-4).(Credit: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

expense of another. The objective of traffic calmingtherefore necessitates a change in the role and goals oftraffic engineers who traditionally have been asked tomove traffic as efficiently and quickly as possible.

Traffic calming also requires an understanding ofnew techniques: one based on traffic-managementstrategies, the other on physical design. Traffic-management strategies include issuance of center-citypasses, truck restrictions, signalization systems, trans-portation system management, parking management,traffic-reduction ordinances, car and fuel taxation,and speed limits. Traffic-calming design techniquescreate physical impediments to speeding, such asroad narrowed lanes for vehicles, undulations in theroadway, crosswalks raised to sidewalk level, and ele-ments that create pinch points or gateways to a street.Because a wide and straight street with perfect visibil-ity is most conducive to speeding, these and othersimilar approaches are intended to alter driver per-ception and encourage slower speeds.

In general, well-conceived traffic-calming programsaddress the broad issues of a street and go well beyondvehicle concerns to enhance pedestrian, bicycle, andtransit activities. For example, a sidewalk can bewidened at an intersection to create a larger space fora bus stop shelter and seating. This wider sidewalkalso reduces the width of the street for pedestrianswho are crossing. The bus no longer has to pull in andout of traffic to pick up or drop off passengers,thereby speeding service, although momentarilydelaying traffic. If the crosswalk is raised to sidewalklevel, drivers are further encouraged to drive at lowerspeeds. Perhaps an adjacent business is created (or anewsstand located) to serve transit riders. All of thesestrategies work together, therefore, to create a balanceof uses at that corner.

Transportation and Land-Use Strategies

Where and how Americans live has changedalmost completely in the past 50 years. Fifty yearsago, there was little suburban sprawl. People lived insmall towns near cities, or they lived in cities ortowns themselves. Compact, dense development wascreated by, and continued to be supported by, anextensive network of public transportation. Fiftyyears ago, even Los Angeles had its “Red Car” trolleysystem, which is now gone. During the first half ofthe twentieth century, people marveled at the growthof cities. This has paled by comparison with thegrowth during the second half of the century.

This massive transformation of cities, suburbs, andtowns has been paralleled by unprecedented eco-nomic prosperity and growth. Yet it is clear that this

transformation has not been without its costs. The“American Dream” of spread-out, free-rangingdevelopment has come home to roost in places thatlack human scale or identity, and with serious damage,if not downright destruction, to the central locales andneighborhoods that have long given people their com-munal focus and sense of belonging.

Much of this sprawling development has beenrelated to land-use policies that favor low density andcomplete separation of residential and commercialuses. In the long run, if lasting and effective trans-portation improvements that act as a permanent, pos-itive force for livability are to be achieved, then theymust take place within the context of an overall land-use policy designed to further the preservation and

13

Figure 2-5 and 2-6. Aerial views of Harvard Square inCambridge, MA (Figure 2-5) and suburban Los Angeles,CA (Figure 2-6) illustrate dramatically the differencebetween traditional and contemporary land-use patternsand transportation networks. (Credit: Project for PublicSpaces, Inc.)

revitalization of dense, lively town centers as well asthe creation of new nodes near public transportation.Such a policy can nurture initiatives that clusteractivities around transit hubs, provide opportunitiesfor short commutes and easy walking, promote alter-native transit use and avoid the wastes of energy,land, and the environment that sprawl creates.

There is considerable existing literature on thesubject of how macroscale land-use patterns andurban form encourage or discourage transit-orientedcommunities. This literature describes the principles(such as “The Ahwahnee Principles”) of changingthe way American suburbs are structured to encour-age more dense, transit-oriented communities. The“neotraditional” communities movement is animportant lead in this effort. (See, for example, LandUse Strategies for More Livable Communities, by TheLocal Government Commission, Sacramento, CA.)The TCRP also has completed major research towardthis effort (TCRP Report 16, “Transit and UrbanForm”).

Fortunately, there are encouraging signs today of abroadening perspective, a growing awareness of therole of transit in the development process and in thecreation of livable communities. A growing recogni-tion of the importance of land use broadens the dis-cussion further. Transportation planners increasinglyview transportation and land use as complementarycomponents of the larger metropolitan system. Nowthe question transportation planners often ask is: howcan communities be designed to provide a better

environment for pedestrians, bicyclists and transitriders, and thus reduce automobile dependence?They also may ask: how can more opportunities andactivities be provided within closer distances, andthus reduce total travel? Transportation planners areimplicitly asking: how can accessibility be enhancedby changing land-use patterns rather than only byexpanding the transportation system?

CONCLUSIONS

The case studies that follow in Part II show how thetransit strategies discussed above are being used incommunities throughout the United States and howthey are succeeding at fostering greater livability. Eachof these strategies has its own specific applications inresponse to specific local issues and opportunities, andall of them are not necessarily applicable in all cases.In many cases, however, a combination of strategiesare at work, which demonstrate the intrinsic relation-ship between transportation and community life.

ENDNOTES

1. Roberta Gratz, The Living City, p.xviii.2. In 1997, additional research will be completed to docu-

ment specific case studies of management strategies,which enhance streets so that they too contribute to com-munity livability goals and support more efficient, effec-tive, and convenient transit operations.

14

Part II

Roles of Transit in CreatingLivable Communities

This chapter describes the many ways that transitcurrently helps to create livable metropolitan commu-nities. Case studies, which describe in detail the origin,planning process, overall strategy, and assessment ofeach program exemplify specific roles. The researchteam has organized the case studies according to specific livability issues in order to reinforce the connection between transit strategies and broadercommunity goals.

The case studies are not meant to illustrate everypossible program and role that transit can play, rather,they are indicative of types of projects. The researchteam has attempted to provide a variety of innovativecase studies representing different geographic areas,transit operating environments, transit ridership lev-els, and types of transit modes. Most of the projectsconform to the overall place-making framework that ispresented in Chapter 1, that is, they entail a high levelof community involvement in design, planning, andimplementation through some kind of communitypartnership. Because most projects fulfill more thanone community livability goal, the introduction toeach chapter cross-references case studies from othersections of the report that are relevant to the livabilityissues under discussion.

CASE STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA

The case studies presented in the report wereselected according to the following criteria:

• They demonstrate a link between transit and commu-nity livability objectives. Case studies illustrate“best practices” in one or all of the followingways and transit is a key component of theseefforts:– Active community involvement in planning

process;– Integration of facility or system as part of larger

community development or improvement strat-

egy—encouraging a high level of accessibilitywith less auto-dependence;

– Facility design, amenities, elements, public ser-vices and activities that respond to transit userand community needs;

– Innovative implementation strategies, throughcommunity-based, public-private partnerships;and

– Innovative management strategies forsecurity, maintenance, and other operations.

• There is considerable transferability to other places inthe United States. The examples included in thesite visits and case studies will illustrate initia-tives or objectives that other communities couldpursue and achieve. Indeed, it is important thatreaders interested in a specific geographic areaor transit mode consult all the case studies,because there are “generic” aspects of all ofthem that may have bearing on a specific localsituation.

• Different locations throughout the United States, aswell as different sizes and types of communities andtransit systems, are included. The examples willshow that the concept of transit contributing tolivable communities can be effectively pursued,regardless of geography or type of transit service.Examples include both suburban areas and innercity communities, as well as downtowns andneighborhoods, large cities and small. Examplesalso provide a range of transit strategies, includ-ing place-oriented strategies and service-orientedstrategies.

• A range of budgets is represented. The case studies illustrate short-term, small-scale effortsthat have had an impact, as well as major andcostly capital programs and redevelopmentprojects. Even many of the major, expensiveprograms had components that were in-expensive and were implemented in a shortperiod of time.

CHAPTER 3

Introduction and Approach to Case Studies

17

• Transit has had an impact. Case studies clearlyshow how and why transit was critical toimproving livability.

• Transit and land-use policies are linked. The rela-tionship between transit and supportive land-use policies is important and is illustrated,especially in Chapter 9, “Shaping CommunityGrowth.”

• Transit investment is performed differently because acommunity is already livable. Case studies demon-strate how communities benefit from customer-focused transit services and investments andhow transit benefits from livable communitiesthrough increased ridership, more positive pub-lic image, and better use of facilities.

• Obstacles have been overcome. Transit innovationsoften face many internal as well as externalobstacles and barriers. In nearly every projectcovered, obstacles had to be overcome, whichinfluenced the nature of the final outcome andmade a project or program even stronger.

• Practitioners will find useful information andinsights. The transit industry and local communi-ties are primary audiences for the researchresults. Consequently, they should benefit fromthe information and be able to use it to improvecommunities and local transit services quicklyand easily.

RESEARCH APPROACH

Research for this study was accomplished througha series of site visits to ten communities to observeand document actual projects and programs that havebeen implemented, as well as to discuss projects withinnovative planning processes where implementationis in process. The following communities wereselected:

• Boston, Massachusetts;• Boulder, Colorado;• Chicago, Illinois;• Corpus Christi, Texas;• Los Angeles, California;• New York City/New Jersey*;• Oakland, California;• Portland, Oregon;• Tucson, Arizona; and• Suburban Washington, DC.

* Statewide programs of New Jersey Transit

For each site, the research team accomplished thefollowing activities.

Background Research

In preparation for the site visit, the research teamconducted telephone interviews to identify innova-tive local programs and potential participants for the focus group discussion. In addition, PPS col-lected background planning reports, program evaluation studies, and current relevant socioeco-nomic data.

Focus Groups

PPS facilitated focus group meetings with localtransit, transportation and community developmentofficials to describe projects and programs takingplace elsewhere in the country. This gave local offi-cials more information about what was happeningelsewhere, as well as an opportunity to discuss spe-cific local livability concerns and projects and servicesthat exist or are needed in their communities. Each ofthe focus groups was different; while the same typesof people were invited to each group (a mix of publicand private sector representatives as well as peoplefrom local community organizations and advocacygroups) and the same slide show was presented, thediscussion varied greatly according to local issues andthe interests of those attending.

The following specific topics were discussed duringthe focus groups:

• Perceptions of livability: what are the commu-nity’s key livability issues?

• Community development and improvementactivities that have been implemented over thepast decade that were designed to improve thelivability of the community.

• Relationship between the transit agency andother community development activities andorganizations.

• Transit strategies implemented related toenhancing livability and responding to customerneeds, and what worked and what did not work;strategies that are in the planning process.

• If strategies were successful, where and how theyworked, including the extent of communityinvolvement in the planning process and thetypes of ongoing relationships and complemen-tary actions initiated between transit and com-munity development activities.

• Applicability of local successes to other locali-ties. What was special or unique about theseefforts?

• What still needs to be done and how this reportcould be of help.

18

Case Study Interviews

From each focus group site, specific projects wereselected, and these are highlighted in this report. Inaddition, detailed interviews were conducted withtransit staff and local community development officialsresponsible for the project or program. The purpose ofthe interviews was to obtain answers to the followingquestions:

• What prompted the project or program? Was there aparticular opportunity you were taking advantage of,or a particular problem you were trying to solve?

• Where did the ideas originate? Within the transit orga-nization? If so, in which department(s)? Outside theorganization? If outside, was it another agency? If so,which one? A community group? Other? Was the pro-gram or project part of a larger redevelopment orimprovement strategy for the area?

• How was the decision made to go ahead with the pro-gram? What was the process used? How long did ittake? Was there a reason why a specific location wasselected for the project/program? How was thisdecided?

• What was the public process used (workshops, publichearing, focus groups, etc.)? Was the process success-ful in obtaining community input and support?

• What role did other organizations or governmentagencies (such as community development, tourism,land-use planning, etc.) play? Was it a collaborativeeffort or an effort primarily of the transit agency?

• Who funded the project start-up? Were there othercomplementary activities or components to the projectthat came from other sources? Who funded these activ-ities?

• Who operates or manages the program/project? (Is itpublic? private? public-private?) What is the relation-ship to the transit agency? What does operation andmanagement entail? (maintenance? security? market-ing?) How much does it cost to operate/manage ? Whopays these operational costs?

• What obstacles did you face in implementing the pro-gram? Were these obstacles primarily within the transitagency or outside or both? Was the role of the transitagency different for this project/program than for itsusual activities? If so, has this role carried over intoother projects or programs?

• How did you overcome these obstacles? Do obstaclesstill exist? Who within the transit agency has been mostinstrumental in dealing with obstacles?

• Did you set a goal to describe what you wanted toachieve with these changes? Do you think you weresuccessful in achieving your goals? What is left to bedone? Have the goals been changed or refined overtime?

• What has been the response from customers/usersabout the program? Do you have any demographicinformation about users? Surveys of users or commu-nity? Ridership/usage information? Other impacts,

such as increase in retail sales or decrease in vacancyrates? Job creation? New real estate development? Morepedestrian traffic in area? How has the image of thetransit agency changed as a result of the program?

• What would you do differently if you were startingover?

• Is your experience transferable to other transit agenciesor communities? Do you have suggestions for how wemight distribute the results of this research so thatother communities might benefit from your experi-ence?

• Is there anyone else we should talk to?

Detailed User Case Study Evaluations

In three cities (Woodbridge, NJ; Portland, OR; andCorpus Christi, TX) a series of systematic data collec-tion efforts was undertaken to study people’s actualuse and perceptions of specific transit facilities.(The exact methodology used in each case studywas tailored to the particular project, althoughmethods for all case studies were consistent to allowcross comparisons.) In addition to the materials col-lected during the site visits, detailed user studiesincluded the following activities:

• Additional interviews with transit operating staff(drivers, maintenance workers, and ticketagents); local officials; representatives of down-town or neighborhood associations and mer-chant associations; and other key individuals.When appropriate, interviews were conducted ina focus-group format.

• Behavioral observations of activities within andaround the facility during the course of at leastone full day, including the types of activity(waiting, eating, and socializing), the type ofuser (age, sex, and so forth), and the location ofthat activity. These observations and studies ofactivity patterns at the facility were evaluated todetermine general types of uses and users.

• On-site surveys of users of the facility, nearbybusinesses and residents. PPS has developed andtested survey forms, which were used to solicitperceptions about a facility, frequency of use,general demographic information, and sugges-tions for improvement.

Telephone Surveys of Selected Model Projects

To supplement the information collected during thesite visits, the research team conducted telephone sur-veys of projects that were of substantial interest and

19

value to the study, but for which a site visit was notwarranted or possible. Telephone surveys of the fol-lowing cities were conducted:

• Aspen, Colorado;• Denver, Colorado;• Meridian, Mississippi;• St. Louis, Missouri;• Wilmington, Delaware; and• Seattle, Washington.

Preparation of Case Studies

Using the information collected, draft case studieswere prepared. When necessary, additional inter-views were conducted to obtain more information orto obtain the viewpoint of another person or organi-zation within the community. Draft case studies alsowere circulated to the local contacts listed on eachcase study for comment and to check the accuracy offacts. These comments have been integrated into thefinal case studies presented in this report.

LIVABILITY ISSUES PRESENTED

To present the case studies, the research teamfocused on six major livability issues. These livabilityissues are not, however, meant to be an exhaustive list and are also not intended to imply that there arenot other issues of concern to communities. Rather,these livability issues are ones that were important tocommunity studies and ones in which transit played akey role in addressing.

These are the six livability themes presented in thisreport.

Creating places for community life: Transit cansupport places—public spaces, streets and build-ings—helping to enliven their usage and makingthem centers for a range of community activities.

Serving as a catalyst for downtown and neighbor-hood renewal: Transit can serve as a key force in there-vitalization of neighborhoods and center cities.

Creating opportunity for entrepreneurship and economic development: Transit can help create new businesses and improve access to jobopportunities.

Improving safety and amenity: Transit can helpmake communities safer, in part by making themmore comfortable and attractive.

Making communities accessible and convenient:Transit services and facilities can be tailored to meetcommunity needs to provide a viable alternative tothe automobile.

Shaping community growth: Transit can be a key component of efforts aimed at reducing sprawland encouraging development of mixed-use centers.

Each chapter contains an introduction, whichbriefly presents the nature of the specific livabilityissue and how communities are addressing the con-cern. The specific roles of transit are then presented,cross-referencing case studies from other chapterswhere appropriate. (Case study names are shown initalics in the text.) Each chapter includes (1) briefexamples, which summarize particularly relevantprojects, and (2) more detailed case studies.

20

INTRODUCTION

One of the continuing themes in livability and qual-ity of life studies is the issue of “sense of place.” Thecombined impacts of sprawl, urban neglect and disin-vestment, traffic, and city budget constraints have ledto a situation in which we have few common placesthat bring people together and serve as a focal pointfor community life.

This was not always the case. Once, almost everyplace in a community—whether it was a downtownor a public library—served that goal. Today, manyeconomic centers are located in suburban areas wherepedestrian life tends to be nonexistent except in pri-vately owned, legally restrictive shopping centers. Asa result, there are few locations where a variety ofpeople can come into contact with each other in a pos-itive and inviting public environment.

In older cities, where spaces once thrived, publicplaces have been decimated by the same economicand social forces. “As more and more private space iscreated,” PPS staff wrote in a recent op-ed piece in theLos Angeles Times, “true public spaces are under in-creasing pressure to accommodate the cultural diver-sity of Los Angeles and to survive economically. . . .Malls cannot replace the traditional town square.” [2]The result in small towns, suburbs, and cities alike is alack of what can be broadly described as “places forcommunity life.”

Overview of Community Strategies

There is new interest today in reversing thistrend. Communities are working on a variety of“places” where people can come together. Theseplaces include public spaces—such as centralsquares, waterfront promenades, and parks—aswell as traditional, stand-alone public institutionslike libraries, schools, museums, public markets,and city halls. All of these traditional uses are beingreconsidered in cities across the country and arebecoming more multipurpose community-gatheringspots.

Pioneer Square in Portland, Oregon, is one of the firstin a new generation of public squares. No longer justpassive green spaces, these squares are designed to be programmed and used by the public. In fact, theinfrastructure for such uses is built in, and the spaceshave management entities in charge of them to ensuretheir effective use.

Streets as important community public spaces arealso being addressed. The impact of traffic, in particu-lar, on inhibiting pedestrian activity and makingspaces less hospitable for community activities wasdiscussed in Chapter 2. Indeed, without effective traf-fic control in the future, it will be difficult to createmore places for community life.

Finally, there are some more subtle design issuesrelated to the goal of creating centers for people.

CHAPTER 4

Creating Places for Community Life

The road is now like television, violent and tawdry. The landscape it runs through is littered withcartoon buildings and commercial messages. We whiz by them at fifty-five miles an hour and for-get them, because one convenience store looks like the next. They do not celebrate anythingbeyond their mechanistic ability to sell merchandise. We don’t want to remember them. We didnot savor the approach and we were not rewarded upon reaching the destination, and it will bethe same next time, and every time. There is little sense of having arrived anywhere, becauseeveryplace looks like noplace in particular.

—James Kunstler, The Geography of Nowhere [1]

21

Public art and special amenity features, for example,also contribute to a “sense of place,” as well as topeople’s use and enjoyment of public spaces. Artistsare now much more involved in street and publicspace projects where they actually create publicamenities—lights, benches, and other features—rather than stand-alone sculptures. Many spaces areactivated with temporary rather than permanentinstallations, or by art which invites public participa-tion and comment. All of this helps to reinforce thegoal of creating places that reflect the values and her-itage of a community.

Role of Transit

Because transit brings people to a location, it in-fluences the use and activity of these spaces and,indeed, transit is instrumental in making them workeffectively. Transit can enhance destinations, helpingto create community places by supporting existingspaces, as well as providing a place for new activi-ties and services. A transit facility need not be just aplace for transportation but can also become a set-ting for community interaction and a place thataccommodates a diversity of people.

Because transit stops come in all shapes, sizes, andlevels of use, there are abundant ways that transit cansupport places for community life. The transit ser-vices and facilities mentioned below are discussed inthis report.

Linking transit to existing public places is the sim-plest, and probably the most obvious and commonstrategy. Transit agencies usually plan their stops sothat they correspond to destinations like a mainsquare or a public library or school. The case study for

the Watts Shuttle in Los Angeles, however, shows howthe main transit system for the city did not adequatelyserve local, neighborhood destinations; the new shut-tle now does.

There is a difference between providing a transitstop at a public place and making that stop truly inte-gral to it. Pioneer Square in Portland, Oregon, is one ofthe premier examples in the country where transit isintegrated into a public square known as “Portland’sLiving Room.” Indeed, the two were designed at thesame time. At a larger scale, Union Station in Chicagoand South Station in Boston, both major commuter rail,bus, and Amtrak stations, have been revitalized tobecome focal points to the surrounding downtownareas.

Transit centers constitute a broadly defined strategyin which a bus stop, bus terminal, or train stationbecomes more than just a place for transportation. Forexample, Woodbridge Station in Woodbridge, New Jersey,was a well-used commuter rail station but was con-sidered to be a maintenance burden by the transitagency and in a state of disrepair. Its case studyshows how spaces around rail stations offer manypositive opportunities for the surrounding commu-nity: train stations can become centers of communitylife, be welcoming gateways, and provide places forinformation about local attractions.

By creating places where people come together,transit centers can create focal points for a variety ofactivities, as well as links to the larger regional transitsystem. It is possible, for example, that a bus transfercenter could include a staging area for employee com-muter vans, a terminal for a local neighborhood circu-lator, and a taxi stand. Such centers are planned forLINC in Seattle.

Serving as a neighborhood focus, the center canact as a catalyst for neighborhood-scale joint devel-opment. With proper design and incentives, transitcenters can attract a variety of activities and serviceestablishments, such as open-air fresh produce mar-kets (see Chapter 6), coffee shops, newsstands, videostore rentals, branch bank offices, heath clinics, andday care centers (e.g., KidStop Child Care Center,Shady Grove Metro Station, Rockville, Maryland.)Staples Street Station in Corpus Christi is designed toaccommodate future small-scale retail.

These types of uses need not be permanent. InTucson, the downtown transit center is used twice amonth as the center stage for “Downtown SaturdayNight.” In Portland, the Portland Saturday Market,which is served by a Metropolitan Area Express(MAX) light rail line stop in the center of the market,is a vibrant weekend attraction and a parking lot dur-ing the week.

22

Figure 4-1. Harvard Square T-Station, Cambridge, MA, is acommunity gathering place. (Credit: Project for PublicSpaces, Inc.)

ENDNOTES

1. James Kunstler, The Geography of Nowhere, Simon &Schuster, New York, New York (1993) p.131.

2. Fred I. Kent and Stephen C. Davies, “Hello, City Walk:But Can It Replace a Town Square?” Los Angeles Times(August 1, 1993).

EXAMPLES

Portland, OR: Tri-Met’s MAX Station AnchorsSaturday Market

For 20 years, the Portland Saturday Market hasbrought thousands of shoppers every weekend to theold warehouse district in downtown Portland,Oregon. As the largest craft market in continuousoperation in the country, the market has not only revi-talized the district around it, but has created thou-sands of jobs. The market features over 200 vendorsevery Saturday and Sunday from March throughDecember, and offers a wide variety of products:household wares, jewelry, furniture, sculpture—allmade and sold by local artists. Adding to the festivityof the place are food vendors and live entertainment.

When the market first opened, it was located underthe Burnside Bridge next to Ankeny Park because itoffered protection from Portland’s unpredictableweather. Today, the market has expanded from thislocation, so that vendors extend across the street andinto adjacent open areas. Several warehouse buildingsnow feature craft shops indoors.

The MAX light rail line, which began running in1986, includes a stop right in the center of the market.When MAX was originally proposed, organizers of

the Saturday Market opposed the project because theyfeared that the presence of trains would cut the marketin two and destroy the pedestrian environment. Aftercareful planning work and attention to detail by Tri-Met,the system operator, exactly the opposite happened.

The result is a place where transit could not be moreintegrated; indeed it becomes part of the vitality of themarket. Moreover, it brings hundreds of customers tothe market and increases transit ridership. In a surveythe research team conducted of people waiting for thetrain, the market was the main reason people were rid-ing the train. In addition, market vendors surveyedbelieved MAX was very important to their businesses,so not surprisingly the market is prominently adver-tised in the trains themselves. The Portland SaturdayMarket has been enhanced as a community institution.

Boston, MA: Health Clinic BecomesVisible and Provides AccessibleCommunity Service at Roxbury CrossingT-Station

The Health Station at Roxbury Crossing T-Station is run by the Whittier Street Neighborhood HealthCenter, which in 1993 moved into a space adjacent tothe Orange Line subway station. The Roxbury Stationis one of many newly built or renovated stationsalong the Orange Line, completed as part of theSouthwest Corridor project (see Case Study 5-1). Aspart of its renovation program, the Massachusetts BayTransportation Authority (MBTA) built space forretail into its new stations.

The T-Station location, the newest of three run by theWhittier Street Neighborhood Health Center, is used

23

Figures 4-2 and 4-3. Portland, OR, Saturday Market. The Portland Saturday Market is the largest craft market in continuousoperation in the United States. The market is served by the MAX light rail and transforms a downtown parking lot adjacent toa transit stop into a community center every weekend. (Credit: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

for the Center’s “Healthy Stop” community educationand outreach programs, which aim to prevent sub-stance abuse and teach good parenting skills; Women,Infants and Children (WIC) and optometry services arealso offered.

The Whittier Street Neighborhood Health Center iscurrently investigating additional MBTA property tohouse an “urgent care” out-patient, walk-in center. Itis anticipated that many of the patients who visit theemergency center will come by train. This new spacewill have entrances leading directly into the stationand out onto Main Street.

One difficulty that the operators of the centerdescribe is a lack of visibility because the buildingdoes not open directly into the station. In addition,working with the state and city authorities to buildout their space was time consuming and occasionallyfrustrating. Overall, the operators of the HealthStation feel that their location adjacent to the T-Station, centrally positioned on a main street, hasbeen good for business, particularly in terms ofattracting people from the community for the healthscreenings and polls they conduct.

Tucson, AZ: Downtown Saturday NightTransit Center Becomes Focal Point forDowntown Revitalization Event

The Tucson Arts District Partnership, Inc. (TADP)is a 5-year-old arts organization created to develop

and manage the Tucson Arts District, a cultural dis-trict intended to better serve the arts community andrevitalize downtown Tucson. One of the TADP’s mostsuccessful programs is “Downtown Saturday Night,”an arts and events series produced in collaborationwith Sun Tran, the transit agency of the City ofTucson. The “main stage” of the series is at theRonstadt Transit Center on the first and thirdSaturdays of each month.

Downtown Saturday Night functions as a community-wide arts district open house that attractsthousands of Tucson residents and visitors alike to thebus transit center for concerts, dance performances,theater, archery demonstrations, midnight basketball,and socializing. In addition to these events, adjacentshops, cafes and galleries stay open late to serveevent-goers.

The Ronstadt Transit Center, built in 1991 at a costof $6 million, is located near the Amtrak station andairport buses serving seniors, students, and com-muters traveling through the downtown corridor. TheRonstadt Transit Center was not originally designedas a venue for events and performance; utilities andother equipment were added to the facility after it wasbuilt. Because Sun Tran bus service at Ronstadt stopsat 8 p.m. on Saturdays, however, there is no conflict inusage. A new strategy is now needed so that peoplecan take the bus to Ronstadt to participate in the spe-cial events held there.

24

Figure 4-4. Health Station at Roxbury Crossing. By inte-grating a public health center into a subway station, theWhittier Street Neighborhood Health Center at RoxburyCrossing in Boston is able to reach and serve more of thepeople who require their services. The subway stationentrance is located at the far left of the photograph. (Credit:Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

Figure 4-5. Tucson, AZ, Downtown Saturday Night. On thefirst and third Saturday nights of the month, the RonstadtBus Transit Center in downtown Tucson becomes a centerstage and a venue for performances, concerts, and othercommunity events. (Credit: Jerry Ferrin Photography)

Corpus Christi, TX: Staples Street BusTransit Center Using Public Art to InspireCommunity Ownership of a Transit Facility

You hear all those clichés about community involvementand sense of ownership, but here, it became a reality. It wasa great thing to be part of.

—Ed Gates, artist

Active participation in the public art-makingprocess can help a community develop a sense ofownership about its local transit facilities. TheRegional Transit Authority and project architect andplanners of the Staples Street bus transit facilitywanted to integrate the transit facility into the com-munity. Under the guidance of a local artist—whohad a budget of $25,000—residents produced 1,500hand-painted ceramic tiles, which have been incorpo-rated into the Staples Street bus transit facility (seealso Case Study 9-3).

Tiles decorate the facility’s entrance arch, bases ofcolumns, benches, planters, light fixtures, and tele-phone booths. The Staples Street bus transit centerwas the recipient of a 1995 Presidential DesignAchievement Award and is featured in a recent jointpublication of the U.S. DOT and FTA regarding art-in-transit projects.

CASE STUDIES

Cases studies illustrate different aspects of howtransit can create places for community life. Althoughthe projects deal in different types of transit (bus, light

rail, commuter rail, and subway), each one involvedexpanding the traditional role of a transit stop into aplace for a variety of community activities.

Case Study 4-1: Portland, OR: Pioneer Courthouse Square Transit Key in Creating the City’s “Living Room”

Case Study 4-2: Woodbridge Station, NJ: Creatinga Sense of Place at a Commuter Rail Station

Case Study 4-3: Shady Grove Metro Station, MD:KidStop Child Care Center Helps Make aCommunity “Family-Friendly”

It’s not just about transit. It’s about a city.—PPS focus group participant

Building rail lines is not an end in itself. The Portland storyis more about community building than light rail building.MAX has been an effective means to the end of a livablecommunity. What the community is interested in is livabil-ity. We enjoy great support for transit and land use becausethey are the tools we use to achieve a livable community.

—G.B. Arrington, Director, Strategic Planning,Tri-Met [1]

Pioneer Square respects the street. It respects the city.—William H. Whyte

SUMMARY

The creation of this public space in downtownPortland cannot be separated from the fundamentalrole played by Tri-Met, the city’s transit agency.Planned concurrently with the new MetropolitanArea Express (MAX) light rail system, Pioneer Squarewas an idea that dated back to the 1950s when the sitewas a parking lot. Tri-Met leveraged its funding fortransit stops and an information center and helped tomake the Square financially possible.

With extraordinary public support, the Square wasbuilt to be “Portland’s living room,” a center for thelife of the city. Funded in part by the residents ofPortland, the Square has continued its tradition of citi-zen participation with thousands of communityevents held during the past decade. With the openingof the light rail system in 1986, Pioneer CourthouseSquare became both the city center and the bustlinghub of transit for buses and light rail, as well as themain information center for Tri-Met.

25

Figure 4-6. Corpus Christi Staples Street Bus TransitCenter. Local artist, Ed Gates, worked with more than1,500 members of the community to create hand-paintedtiles which decorate this new downtown transit facility.(Credit: Corpus Christi Regional Transportation Authority)

Case Study 4-1Portland, OR: Pioneer Courthouse Square TransitKey in Creating the City’s “Living Room”

PLANNING PROCESS

The Pioneer Square site has served many purposes.Once home to Portland’s first public school, it becamethe Hotel Portland in 1883—the place to stay and thecenter of downtown life. In the early 1950s, the hotelwas razed and became a parking lot for the adjacentdepartment store. Although the idea of making theparking lot a public square was discussed at that time,it was not seriously considered until 1969, when thedepartment store proposed a 10-story parking garageon the site. The Portland Planning Commission, afterseveral heated public hearings, denied the permit forthe garage and recommended that a public square bebuilt instead, with other peripheral sites chosen asalternative sites for garages.

The parking garage crisis initiated a planning dia-logue between the city and the business communityabout the future of the downtown area itself. In 1972,Portland adopted its innovative downtown plan—theplan that served for more than 20 years as the guidingvision for the city. This plan contained a strong trans-portation component: reducing reliance on the auto-mobile, increasing use of transit, and setting strictlimits on the amount of parking in the downtown.Coupled with the establishment of an urban growthboundary for the region and efforts to promote pedes-trian orientation downtown, the stage was set for therebirth of the declining city core.

It is not coincidental that one of the first major projects resulting from the plan was the Portland Mall,a largely federally funded transit mall, which extendsover 20 blocks on two parallel streets and providescomfortable waiting areas in attractive shelters, up-to-the-minute transit information, and easy transfersbetween lines. For the downtown, it provides anattractive brick promenade with trees and amenitiesfor shoppers and downtown office workers.

Pioneer Courthouse Square itself was seen as oneof the key projects of the plan, a space that wouldcomplement the new investment in the transit mall.Luckily, the square was being planned at the sametime as the new MAX light rail system and Tri-Met, atri-county transportation agency, saw the opportu-nity to leverage its construction budget for light railstops and a central information center to help unifythe square. Not only did this funding make thesquare economically possible, but the coordination ofthe two design processes created a seamless designfor the square, which integrates transit with largercommunity goals.

The planning and design of the square took manyinteresting twists and turns that left an imprint on thefinal product. While there was general consensus thatthe square should become a “people place,” an activeplaza rather than a passive park, and that it should bebuilt with private as well as public support, a designcompetition was needed to give these public goals a

26

Figures 4-7 and 4-8. Case Study 4-1. Portland’s Pioneer Courthouse Square, nicknamed “Portland’s Living Room,” is both acentral square and the bustling hub of bus and light rail service. (Credit: C. Bruce Forster, Figure 4-7 and Project for PublicSpaces, Inc., Figure 4-8)

tangible form. The rules for this competition statedthat the square should do the following:

• Respond to its location as a major transfer/infor-mation point—the focus of a region;

• Provide unrestricted pedestrian access and gen-eral visibility from surrounding streets—open onall sides with no more than one-third of thesquare covered;

• Have a unified design concept, with multifunctional-functional spaces, commercialuses (like a cafe), which support the design pro-gram, and places of refuge, interest, and informa-tion for users; and

• Recognize the significance of Portland’s history.

A two-step competition process was implemented:an open competition (to which 162 entries were sub-mitted) from which five finalists were selected andpaid a modest fee to produce a more detailed design.This process allowed the public to see a variety ofways that the square could be designed and how tran-sit stops could be integrated into it. Options presentedranged from glass conservatories to fir groves towater gardens; transit shelters were free-standing,incorporated into arcades, and left virtually bare ofamenities.

The winning team, led by Will Martin, consisted ofPortland natives. More than a group of architects, theteam included a writer, a historian, and two artists.Will Martin himself was a painter, sociologist,humorist, historian, and inventor.

The square took 5 years to build and overcamemany obstacles that threatened to prevent its comple-tion. Concerns about the design, lack of funding, andfears of uncontrolled activities on the square shapedthe final product considerably. An extensive fundrais-ing campaign raised $1.7 million from the commu-nity. The design was modified, but its initial integritywas retained despite pressures for greater modifica-tions. An innovative management program was setup to oversee maintenance, security, and events in thesquare.

The square had its grand opening in 1984. It wasnot until 1986, however, that the square was trulycomplete, with the opening of MAX light rail transitservice connecting downtown to the eastern suburbs.A westside line is now nearing completion, whichshould increase use of the square as a transit hub. Anew north-south line in the planning stages will sharethe existing transit mall along the square with busesand cars. Over the past decade, both MAX and thesquare have become virtually synonymous with therevitalization of Portland as a city and its new identityas a livable community.

STRATEGY

Design. The design of the square—with its brick-paving and historic elements—complements otherprojects like the transit mall. It fills an entire blockdowntown, lending it great visibility. Throughoutdowntown—on the transit mall, at the square, alongthe MAX line—there is an evident commitment toquality which goes beyond the functionality of thetransit routes. Portland is walkable: sidewalks havebeen widened and many street amenities and artadded. The overall result is that the square is inte-grated into everything around it.

Transit facilities are carefully integrated into theoverall design. Columns and ledges under a glasscanopy form the waiting area for light rail. MAX’sstop on the square is heavily used; in fact, it has thehighest ridership of any MAX stop, with 2,500 dailyboardings. Pioneer Square also features infrastructurethat allows it to be used for a wide variety of eventsand activities. Because of sloping topography, thesquare features a series of crescent-shaped stepswhich form a natural amphitheater. The square is thesite of hundreds of small and large events each year,many of which have already become Portland tradi-tions, such as the following:

• The nation’s tallest Christmas tree with 8,000lights and 12,000 carolers;

• Peanut Butter & Jam lunchtime jazz concerts;• Festival of Flowers, an artist’s design constructed

in flowers;• Series of children’s hands-on activities “Kid-

sational”; and• Festa Italiana and other ethnic food and music

festivals.

Tucked under the amphitheaters are the Tri-Metinformation center, restrooms, a travel bookstore, andthe management offices for the square. Above, thereis a pavilion structure with a successful cafe. A smallarea is devoted to pushcart vendors. These businessesbring income to offset the management of the squareand encourage activity on a regular basis even whenevents are not underway.

Finally, architectural elements symbolizing historyand themes of Portland abound in the square, in-cluding the original gates from the Portland Hotel,plaques about the history of Portland, and a columnwith the “rose city” motif. These elements add to thespecial character of the square.

Management Program. The nonprofit corporation thatmanages the square has contributed significantly to itssuccess. A paid staff, including a full director and staff

27

assistants, works under the direction of a board com-posed of community members, business leaders, and acommissioner from the Parks Department. The man-agement coordinates its own events and issues per-mits for events by others; oversees maintenance andsecurity, including hiring of its own security guards;supervises vending and retail tenants; raises funds forthe square; and handles public relations, includingpromotional activities and a monthly newsletter.

FUNDING

The square was built with a variety of funds. Thetotal project cost was $6.8 million, with financing pro-vided by the Portland Development Commission, TaxIncrement Funds; federal grants from the Urban MassTransportation Administration (now the FederalTransit Administration) and the Heritage Con-servation and Recreation Services (now defunct); thecity of Portland; and the adjacent local departmentstore.

Another key source of funds was the communityitself. When the construction of the square was threat-ened by a lack of money, the Friends of PioneerCourthouse Square, a nonprofit advocacy group, tookon the challenge of raising the needed $1.7 million. Inorder to raise the money, some 60,000 paving bricksfor the square were imprinted with sponsor names(“Bake Your Name in Brick”). The 200 volunteers whosold the bricks not only successfully raised funds, but also helped create a built-in constituency for thesquare. A second campaign to “sell” design elementsin the square (from the amphitheater to drinkingfountains) yielded more than $1 million. One indica-tion of the community support amassed for the project: architects, artists, and volunteers arrivedunannounced and painted a full-scale plan of thesquare over the parking lot asphalt, even covering theattendant shack and an abandoned 1960 Ford sedan.

The annual budget for the management of thesquare is about $623,000. Funds are contributed bythe city ($240,000); fees, membership, and fundraising($60,000); and income from retail businesses makes upabout one-third of the budget. The remaining fundscome from sponsored events and rental charges. Themanagement organization is currently conducting afundraising campaign for square repairs, solicitinggovernment, private, and foundation donations tocomplete a $1 million repair and restoration project.

OVERCOMING OBSTACLES

After the winning design was selected from thecompetition, it almost was not built. The design was

criticized, particularly by a downtown businessgroup that wanted the square to be covered. Thegroup suggested rejecting federal funds and startingover. Covering the square reflected more than just cli-mactic concerns; the main question was whether ornot the square would become a haven for anti-socialactivities. To address this issue, the Pioneer SquareManagement Advisory Committee was established toreview the design. In the committee’s debates, itbecame clear that the issue was not the design itself,but the activities that would take place in the square.The committee’s report—critical to the success ofPioneer Square—outlined the management programfor the square to establish a mechanism for overseeingactivities and events, provide maintenance and secu-rity, and ensure the square lived up to its potential.

There was also a lack of funding to complete thesquare as designed. It took the coordinated participa-tion of the transit agency and the community itself to make the square possible. As G. B. Arrington,Director of Strategic Planning for Tri-Met, has stated,“Pioneer Square is a wonderful example of what youget when you think of a transportation investmentfirst as the means to the end of a livable community.By turning over our station budget, we helped makethe square real and got a station in Portland’s livingroom. Pioneer Square is the most important block in the state because it’s where everything comestogether, it’s a symbol of our revitalized downtown,it’s the first place you take out-of-town guests, and it’sthe centerpiece of our bus and rail system.”

IMPACT AND ASSESSMENT

Portland’s transit programs and the square are con-sidered success stories both locally and nationally.The square attracts thousands of people downtownfor its events and activities. As a focal point for com-munity celebration, this generates a great deal of positive publicity for downtown as radio, TV, andnewspapers cover the activities. The square hasbecome the primary retail location downtown asbuildings have been refurbished and new businessesopened. It is heavily used by tourists and residents.

There is a strong symbiotic relationship between thesquare and transit. The square gives a visible center totransit, makes the events and activities accessible andconvenient, and increases ridership on the buses andlight rail. A survey of transit users and businessesaround the square conducted in 1995 by the researchteam showed generally positive ratings about thedesign of the transit stop, except for the amount ofseating, safety during the evening, and the number oftelephones. Businesses said that while the stop was

28

“somewhat important” to their own businesses, it was“important” or “very important” to the overall area asa place to do business.

Fears that the square would be the scene for anti-social activities never materialized, although therehave been problems about which businesses and tran-sit users are still concerned. Still, the managementorganization is ever-vigilant in addressing securityissues as they arise. This has benefits for transit aswell: Tri-Met users surveyed in 1994 reported that“personal safety when waiting for the bus or MAX”was one of the most important factors in decidingwhether to use the system.

The investment in transit and public improvementsdowntown, which was based on the 1972 plan, hasrevitalized the downtown. There has been an increasein downtown jobs from 50,000 in 1975 to over 86,000today. Air quality has actually improved and trafficcongestion has not increased because nearly 40% ofthe downtown work trips are on public transit. A 1984study estimated that without transit, six 42-story park-ing structures would have to be built and two morelanes to every highway coming downtown wouldneed to be added. Development near the square itselfhas included a new shopping center, Pioneer Place, aswell as many new retail stores and shops.

Why has it worked here? Portland’s citizenry havea sense of common purpose, a commitment to qualityand a perseverance that keeps Portlandites anchoredto their city. People who developed the original visionare still around to see it from a different perspective.As one commentator put it: “Portland may welldepart from the norm in metropolitan growth. Thesense of common purpose, the easy communicationamong the area’s leaders, and the long-standing con-viction that Oregonians should conserve the good life,even at the sacrifice of some self-interest, pointtoward an outcome at variance with that in LosAngeles and most other American cities.” [2]

CONCLUSIONS

Pioneer Courthouse Square, with its transit activi-ties, is the product of a visionary process and is now asymbol of the city’s livability. The process of creatingthe square—the public debates, the fundraisingprocess, the grand opening—all worked to involve thebroader community. Transit provided key fundingand continues to bring people to the square anddowntown as a whole. Building on the positive start,with an effective management organization runningit, the square has become the city’s place of pride anda focal point for all kinds of community activities. Therevitalization of the downtown is testimony to thesquare’s profound impact on the livability of Portland.

ENDNOTES

1. G. B. Arrington, “Beyond the Field of Dreams: Light Railand Growth Management in Portland,” Tri-Met (March1995) p.8.

2. Philip Langdon, “How Portland Does It,” AtlanticMonthly (November 1992) p.141.

When is a railroad station not a railroad station? When itis in Woodbridge, because it becomes a very important partof the community . . .

—NJ DOT Commissioner Frank J. Wilson

This train station is about the public, is about our citizens;it is about using our train station to attract people to ourdowntown community.

—James McGreevey, Mayor, Woodbridge Township

What we did differently with this project, for openers, wasto look at this station as a part of the community and most,if not all, of the effort was to try to create more of a sense ofplace here, a sense of community, and a sense of location.We also tried to tie the station into the surrounding areas . . . and to broaden out the reach of the station . . .

—Rick Richmond, Assistant Executive Director,NJ Transit Department of Engineering

SUMMARY

The 1995 renovation of the commuter train station inWoodbridge, New Jersey, provided New Jersey Transit(NJ Transit) with the opportunity to do more than justroutine physical improvements to a station building.NJ Transit viewed the project as an opportunity to usetransit to make a significant difference in the commu-nity. Woodbridge was sorely in need of work: the“train station” was nothing but a graffiti-filled, dimlylit tunnel in the side of a railroad viaduct overgrownwith weeds. Here was also the chance to try out abroader approach to station improvement; the Mayorof Woodbridge Township and other local leaders wereeager to try to integrate the station into the town.

The project, one of five pilot projects of NJ Transit’sStation Renewal program (see Case Study 10-3),involved the renovation of existing facilities, the con-struction of a new entrance to the train station and theaddition of amenities to better serve NJ Transit users.More significant, however, was the planners’ effort toenhance the role and visibility of the station in thetown, while improving pedestrian access from Main

29

Case Study 4-2Woodbridge Station, NJ: Creating a Sense ofPlace at a Commuter Rail Station

Street, thereby creating a sense of place at the stationwhere previously there had been none. In addition,the station project complemented a streetscape anddowntown revitalization project underway inWoodbridge.

PLANNING PROCESS

Although the renovation of the deteriorated trainstation was a major goal of the Woodbridge renewalproject, L. Richard Mariani, Manager of PassengerFacilities of NJ Transit and the Project Director,sought to build a stronger connection between the sta-tion and the downtown area in order to efficientlyexpedite the project as well as build alliances with thetownship and local businesses.

The Woodbridge Train Station is located a fewblocks from the heart of downtown Woodbridge,New Jersey. Woodbridge is the fifth largest city inNew Jersey with a population of about 93,000 inhabi-tants, and it is the oldest original township in thestate. The station’s intermodal role is ensured becauseit is also within a few hundred yards of the NewJersey Turnpike (Interstate 95) and is served by sev-eral bus routes. The station serves a major commuterline: the North Jersey Coast Line. Before the recentimprovements were made, approximately 1200 com-muters passed through the station every weekday.Most riders commute into New York City, about a 40-min ride. Many passengers arriving at Woodbridgetransfer to buses to reach a popular destination, theWoodbridge Center Mall, one of the largest indoorshopping malls on the East Coast.

The station building at Woodbridge is at the far endof an elevated viaduct and had little visibility either

from the street or from the adjacent downtown area(i.e., the station cannot be seen from Main Street). Thiswas deemed detrimental to NJ Transit’s ability toattract additional riders, and to efforts on the part ofWoodbridge businesses to attract train passengers tostop and shop on their way to or from the station. Theplatform and station building are reached by a tunneland stairway at the north end—serving as the mainentrance and providing access from Pearl and PoillonStreets—and by a stairway from Green Street at thesouth end. Before the improvements, the only visiblepresence of the station at the street-level main en-trance was two enormous advertising billboardsflanking the gaping hole of the tunnel. The minimaldesign of the station and its total lack of presencecompelled one passenger to remark before the reno-vation, “You can’t even tell you’re at a train station.”

Information was collected through surveys of pas-sengers, NJ Transit employees and adjacent retailersregarding their concerns about the station and sug-gestions for improving its design and function.Parking, circulation, seating placement, stationupkeep and patterns of use at the station throughoutthe day were also observed. A series of recommenda-tions for design improvements was developed basedon this input.

Transit users and local retailers who were ques-tioned expressed a need for additional retail servicesat the station and in the surrounding area. Thus, retailopportunities were included in the new design in theform of two kiosks flanking the Pearl Street entranceto be leased by NJ Transit to local businesses for useas newsstands, concessions or other businesses.

While planning work was underway, the Down-town Woodbridge Merchants Association was creat-ing a special improvement district to implement a

30

Figures 4-9 and 4-10. Case Study 4-2. The goal of the Woodbridge Station Renewal project, shown here before and afterrenovation of the facility, was to create a “sense of place” for the station and to make it more appealing to and function betterfor transit passengers. (Credit: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

streetscape project along Main Street and to helporganize downtown events. The streetscape enhance-ments included brick-paver sidewalks and the instal-lation of historic light fixtures and benches alongMain Street to Pearl Street. As part of the planningprocess, NJ Transit worked with the township toselect the same light fixtures to be installed at thetrain station. In addition, the brick pavers, whichwere to end at Main and Pearl Streets, were continuedalong Pearl to the entrance of the train station.

STRATEGY

Partnerships. Creating a new identity for the station,and undertaking a major renovation in an era of bud-get cuts and personnel shortages, relied on forging anew relationship with the surrounding community.Mr. Mariani stretched the funding further and got thejob done faster because he orchestrated a partnershipbetween NJ Transit, the township, the DowntownWoodbridge Merchants Association and other organi-zations. These partnerships gave the community a newstake in its train station that had never before existed.

Using funds from NJ Transit, the Township agreedto take control of the street-level portion of the con-struction project. While NJ Transit retained responsi-bility for the overall design and policy, WoodbridgeTownship took over the implementation of thedesign, preparing final design and construction docu-ments and managing the construction process. NJTransit used state rail crews and its own contractorsto implement the improvements to the platform level,and had the New Jersey Department ofTransportation (NJDOT) repair the three commuterparking lots. The township also worked with NJTransit to improve parking at the station.

Design Strategies. Design focused on elements thatwould enhance the presence of the station and link itto the surrounding area. To create a strong presenceat Woodbridge Station, canopies were constructed toextend out over the tunnel entrances. The primaryentrance was flanked by two small buildingsdesigned for lease to local entrepreneurs, the side-walk area was enlarged, and a canopy was added tothe Poillon Street entrance. New amenities introducedat the entrance included historic-style benches, newtrash receptacles, a historic-style clock, telephones,bike racks, and new cases that display both scheduleand community information. On the platform, NewJersey Transit added new benches, informationkiosks, telephones, and trash receptacles. The plat-form station building was renovated, air conditioningwas added, and the restrooms were refurbished. Theparking lots were cleaned, repaved, and restriped; the

trees were thinned out between the platform and theparking lot to provide better visibility to the elevatedplatform from the street.

Clear directional signage was added at the exits toPearl and Poillon Streets and a local artist created a sta-tion map showing transit, business, and cultural infor-mation. NJ Transit painted “Welcome to Woodbridge”on the trestle over Main Street to match the merchantsassociation’s typeface and colors. This sign also directspeople to the station and its parking lots.

Passenger safety was enhanced by improvingaccess paths, parking lots, and lighting around thestation, and by improving the Main Street crosswalk.Trees and vegetation were pruned throughout the sta-tion area to improve sightlines. A closed-circuit televi-sion (CCTV) system records activity at the station onvideo tape. New vendors will also contribute to pas-senger comfort and security.

While the township agreed to repave Poillon Street,NJ Transit strengthened linkages to the surroundingstreets and parking lots. All paths and sidewalks wererepaved, including those leading to Main Street, withthe same brick pavers used downtown. Along thewalkway running parallel to the elevated railroadviaduct, a landscaped strip was planted with climbingvines and lined with the same historic-style lamp-posts used on Main Street.

Parking Lots. Two NJ Transit lots were in disrepairand dimly lit. One was located some distance awayon the other side of Main Street from the station. Atthe same time, township vehicles were parked in atownship lot next to an historic park adjacent to thestation and employees walked across Main Street tothe Town Hall. This created friction between thetownship and civic groups who desired to use thepark for events.

The solution was simple: swap the two lots.Convenience for transit customers and townshipemployees was enhanced and 250 fewer pedestrianscross busy Main Street each day. This also freed thetownship lot for evening and weekend events whentransit customers typically vacate the lot.

FUNDING

NJ Transit and the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundationeach contributed $50,000 toward the station renewalprogram, which covered all the costs of the planningstudies, completed by Project for Public Spaces, forthe five pilot station projects, and which helped toleverage project funds. To implement the Woodbridgeproject, NJ Transit applied for and received its firstTransportation Enhancement Project grant underISTEA, which provides funding for transportation

31

projects not previously targeted for federal support.ISTEA provided $463,000 and NJ Transit added$503,000 in New Jersey Transportation Trust Fundsfor the work at grade level. NJ Transit added an addi-tional $200,000 in state Transportation Trust Funds,which were used for the platform-level and parkinglot improvements and for benches, trash receptacles,lighting, display cases, new restrooms, and repainting.

The township had the time to facilitate the projectbut lacked the funding. Empowering local officialswith greater influence gained commitment to the pro-ject’s success. In December 1993, NJ Transit executedan agreement with Woodbridge Township commit-ting $966,000 for the final design, engineering, andconstruction of the grade-level improvements. Thisincluded $463,000 in FTA Enhancement funds and$503,000 in New Jersey Transportation Trust Funds.

NJ Transit also used innovative ways to ensure ahigher standard of maintenance at the station: park-ing fees collected by the Downtown WoodbridgeMerchants Association from the commuter lots willbe dedicated to station maintenance, with a smallamount going to help the downtown. In addition, alocal restaurateur, interested in converting an oldfreight house next to the parking lot into a micro-brewery, agreed to maintain a 180-ft-long strip oflandscaping in return for use of a small number of theparking spaces for his customers in the evenings, aftercommuting hours, and on weekends.

By contracting with the NJDOT to perform the park-ing lot improvements, rather than by going throughthe usual procurement process, NJ Transit was able toreduce its cost for this part of the project by 70 percentand complete the parking lots in a fraction of the time,minimizing disruption to transit users.


Commuters and townspeople surveyed in 1995about their newly renovated station were clearlypleased with the changes. They believe that their NJTransit station is a much more handsome and com-fortable facility: 87 percent of the passengers ques-tioned rated their overall impression of the station aseither good or excellent, whereas only 45 percent haddescribed it as good before the renewal. Passengersno longer complain about the poor maintenance, graf-fiti, and vandalism in and around the station. Theysaid that the station is cleaner, better managed, andmuch safer than it was before. The improvements andamenities that commuters said they would like to see,such as more seating, better lighting, more tele-phones, and improved signage and schedule informa-tion have been provided. A shortage of parking

continues to be an issue, despite the addition of morespaces. Now that the station’s image has improved,more people from surrounding towns appear to bedriving to Woodbridge to take the train. Many com-muters may also be taking advantage of the free park-ing, since New Jersey Transit has not yet imposedparking fees.

NJ Transit is negotiating with potential retailers torent the two kiosks flanking the entrance to the sta-tion. Most commuters expressed the desire to have aconvenient place to buy coffee and newspapers in themorning. A retail presence will help provide a greatersense of security and activate Pearl Street, perhapsattracting customers for neighboring merchants whileproviding a needed service for commuters.

Despite the effort to make the station accessiblefrom Main Street, and vice versa, downtown retailershave not seen an increase in customers on their way toor from the station. (Most businesses are not openearly or late enough to accommodate commuters.) Theoverall impression of the station has improved, how-ever, and it is clearly seen as an asset to the town. The station has gained some attention outsideWoodbridge as well: the Woodbridge RenovationProject received a 1995 Excellence in DowntownDevelopment award from Downtown New Jersey,Inc., and one of “America’s 25 Best EnhancementProjects” at the 1996 National TransportationEnhancements Conference. The project was also a cat-alyst in shifting NJ Transit toward an organizationalculture that produces more projects of this kind. Arecent memo from the Chief Engineer of Engineering& Constructing emphasized how critical it is to under-stand how a facility works at all hours of the day andnight, how people approach and leave the station, andhow they behave while there. This directive, in effect,implements the vision embodied by ISTEA.

NJ Transit now views the transit ride as only part ofthe customer’s total experience and has developed anew and broader vision for the improvement of its sta-tion facilities. As Mr. Mariani describes it, “The qualityof the whole experience is made up of the sum of alltransportation segments. If any one segment is badenough, customers may abandon the whole experi-ence, causing ridership to suffer on all the segments.”


As part of the Station Renewal Program process,project planners had recommended community meet-ings for NJ Transit that would provide a better oppor-tunity for both professionals and citizens to collaboratebefore design alternatives were developed. Thisapproach was not incorporated into the planning

32

process for the Woodbridge improvements because ofa lack of interest on the part of the Township at thetime. Indeed, Mr. Mariani now believes that morecommunity meetings would have helped to build trustand to show the community that NJ Transit was “ontheir side.” Obtaining more community support fromthe very beginning, he believes, would have helpedstreamline the implementation of the project and theapprovals process, resulting in a better project.

CONCLUSIONS

To a community, a train station can be more thanjust a building or a place to wait before leaving town.If conceived in an appropriate manner, it can be asimportant to a community’s livability as a library, acity hall, or a town square. When this larger purposeis realized, people become proud of and care for thesestations, and the beneficiaries are transit, passengers,community residents, and local businesses.

The Woodbridge Station Renewal project illustratesthat in order to make long-lasting and effectiveimprovements to a transit facility, a project mustfocus on more than a just the building and its ameni-ties. Attention must be given to enhancing the facil-ity’s connections to its surrounding area and to de-veloping innovative ways to manage and maintainboth the station and its environs. In Woodbridge, NJTransit was able to form partnerships within theTownship Merchants Association, which enabled thetransit agency and its facility to play a larger role inthe community while gaining needed assistance in theimplementation of the project. Woodbridge Stationnow has a valued presence in the community.

SUMMARY

In an attempt to make mass transit commuting moreconvenient, attractive and “family-friendly,” transitagencies have begun partnerships with cities to de-velop a creative solution: locating child care centers attransit terminals. This allows working parents to drivestraight to the station, park their cars at a park-and-ridelot, drop off their kids at the child care center and takethe train to work. Picking up their kids at the end of theday is equally easy. One such center—KidStop Child

Care Center—opened in September 1993 at the ShadyGrove Metrorail station in Montgomery County,Maryland. The day care center now serves both transitriders and community residents and is one of the mostsought after facilities in the area.

PLANNING PROCESS

The establishment of the KidStop Child Care Centerinvolved a unique public-private partnership involv-ing the transit operator (Washington MetropolitanArea Transit Authority [WMATA]), MontgomeryCounty government, and a group of corporate spon-sors. These interests formed the Foundation forWorking Families, a nonprofit organization devotedto helping private employers fund facilities for childand elder care on behalf of their employees. Boardmembers include representatives of local businessesand public agencies.

The concept of combining child care centers andpublic transportation began when a 1987 task forceidentified commuters’ side trips for child care as amajor barrier to the use of public transit by workingparents. In response to the task force recommenda-tions, the county began to research a pilot location fora transit-related child care center. After identifyingShady Grove as an ideal location, the county ap-proached the foundation to begin the process of rais-ing funds for the facility.

In 1991, the Board of Directors of WMATA ap-proved a demonstration program that encouraged theestablishment of child care centers at other Metrofacilities and extended invitations to each of the localgovernments in the Washington, DC, region to submitproposals for establishing child care centers at Metrofacilities. Montgomery County was the first to takeadvantage of this opportunity. WMATA agreed tolease the land to the county government for a periodof 30 years at a FTA, which had endorsed the pro-gram. (Land acquired with federal funds may ordi-narily only be used “for transit purposes.”) Under anagreement with the county, the foundation assembledfunds and supervised the development of the designand construction of the center. After the facility wascompleted, the foundation donated the building tothe county government. Construction began inAugust 1994 and the center opened May 15, 1995.

STRATEGY

The center is a free-standing building of approxi-mately 20,000 sq ft situated within a 3-min walkingdistance of the Shady Grove Metro-Rail station. It is astate-of-the-art facility, with an outdoor play area and

33

Case Study 4-3Shady Grove Metro Station, MD: KidStop ChildCare Center Helps Make a Community“Family-Friendly”

modern playground equipment. The center has capac-ity for 106 children, ranging in age from 6 weeksthrough school age, and provides care for mildly sickchildren. Children’s Discovery Centers of America,Inc., was selected to operate the child care center. Thecompany, founded in 1983, operates 215 centersaround the country and is one of the nation’s largestproviders of child care services.

FUNDING

The cost of construction totaled approximately $1.5million. The state of Maryland agreed to match con-tributions up to $750,000, including $20,000 of in-kind contributions. The city of Gaithersburg and areabusinesses, led by IBM and L’Oreal, contributed$438,000, and the county government granted$288,700 toward the match. Forty-two spaces weresold in advance to corporate employers whose contri-butions were used to pay for the facility’s construc-tion, and priority enrollment period extends to 10years. At least half of the center’s spaces are availableto the public. Parents pay market rate tuition feesestablished by the operator.


The center is currently operating at full capacityand has a waiting list that extends into summer 1996.While there are several other day care centers in thevicinity, KidStop, because of its physical facilities andexcellent staff, remains one of the most sought-aftercenters in the area.

The child care center fulfills multiple objectives.The transit authority benefits because the center helpsto attract new transit users. Approximately 25 percentof the Center’s patrons commute by Metro daily andanother 15 percent use the Metro occasionally. Theremaining 60 percent work in the Shady Grove area.

The county benefits because each transit trip meansone fewer car in the peak period on Rockville Pike,the most congested arterial corridor in lower Mont-gomery County. But the biggest beneficiaries are thecommuters. Instead of having to drive their childrento day care centers near their homes and then con-tinue their trips to work by automobile, they nowdrop off their children at KidStop, park at the stationparking lot and take the train to work.

CONCLUSIONS

For parents who rely on mass transit to get towork, dropping their children off at an out-of-the-way child care center and stopping on the way hometo pick them up can make commuting seem like afull-time job. Child care is often cited as a major rea-son that commuters are unable to take transit towork. The KidStop Child Center addresses the liv-ability of the Rockville area by combining two ser-vices needed by many families: child care and publictransit. This results in a simpler and faster trip.KidStop’s location at the transit station also meansthat children are never more than a 30-min train ridefrom the parents’ downtown offices, a considerationthat also weighs heavily in parents’ choice of a day-care location.

34

INTRODUCTION

Across the United States, the impact of post-warsuburban growth has wreaked havoc on once thrivingdowntowns and urban neighborhoods. Downtowns,which only a few decades ago acted as centers of com-munity life, have become empty and devoid of activ-ity as businesses closed or moved to the outskirts oftowns and cities. Many inner city neighborhoodshave likewise declined, losing local business.

The redevelopment programs of the 1960s and 1970s,in many cases, were the wrong approach, furtherundermining an urban infrastructure that tookdecades to develop. As development and investmentshifted to suburban areas accessible primarily by thecar, public transit lost its ability to provide convenientand low-cost travel. Transit and the renewal of down-towns and neighborhoods are inextricably related.


Most successful renewal programs for downtownsand neighborhoods are holistic and go to the heart ofthe community’s livability goals. These programs typi-cally seek to restructure local economies so that areabusinesses can compete successfully with suburbanchain retail centers and find their own special, prof-

itable niche. This often means developing specialstrategies for recruiting, leasing, and promoting retailjust as the suburban competition does. Public spacescan be upgraded—not just made more attractive butfunctional and usable for pedestrians, vehicles, andtransit riders. Older buildings can be reused creatively.Developments of appropriate scale can create a newfocus for activities and be a catalyst for economic revi-talization. Often, it is a community’s culturalresources, which remain in the city center, that can actas an important draw. The visual arts, theater, music,museums, and libraries can directly contribute to acity’s economy while enriching residents’ lives andattracting visitors.

Moreover, most success stories have come throughintense local community initiatives that have mobi-lized resources and leveraged all kinds of investmentsin a step-by-step process to revitalize local businesses,stabilize and enhance neighborhoods, and rebuild asense of community.

Whether it be a downtown or neighborhood, bring-ing back the vitality of “Main Street” is often the firststep—although in severely distressed neighborhoods,this also means bringing back the neighborhoodsthemselves. “Main Street” is the business center aswell as the emotional heart of most communities.Therefore, focusing revitalization strategies in the

CHAPTER 5

Transit as a Catalyst for Downtown andNeighborhood Renewal

What is it that makes people feel so strongly about [Main] street, and so exhilarated when itmay come back to life? To be sure, it has something to do with its historic buildings or attrac-tive public square or its general physical appearance. But Main Street was and is more thanjust bricks and mortar, more than just another shopping center. It is the traditional center of acommunity, a center not defined so much geographically or architecturally as it is socially . . .It is . . . a place for activities of all kinds, for all kinds of people.

—Project for Public Spaces, What Do People Do Downtown, 1981. [1]

35

center can help establish a base for the revitalizationof the surrounding community.

Crime, litter, and deteriorated conditions in cities,or the perception of these problems, keep peopleaway. Special strategies for managing public spaces,often with private sector support, can be developed toimprove a downtown’s image.

Finally, problems of traffic congestion, parking,pedestrian flow, and efficient mass transit are com-mon concerns most cities share. Communities canwork with the city to reduce vehicular traffic(ridesharing programs, reducing parking subsidies,managing parking for short-term retail shoppers,implementing flextime, and encouraging use of publictransit).

Role of Transit

Much of transit’s impact comes from its drawingpedestrians to an area, which helps enliven adjacentuses and support business. By alleviating traffic pres-sure on streets, transit can help make an area moreattractive and pedestrian friendly—a major goal inmost downtown revitalization programs. In manycases illustrated in this report, transit has acted as theprimary catalyst for community participation indowntown and neighborhood renewal programs andfor the coordination and cooperation among publicand private sectors, city agencies, transit authorities,and the community.

Transit service is essential to the functioning of mosturban neighborhoods and downtowns. As a result, avariety of specific strategies have been developed tosupport the livability of downtowns and neighbor-hoods, including design and planning strategiesrelated to transit facilities as well as special services

designed to enhance mobility. (Note: as in the previ-ous chapter, cities and projects in italics are featured incase studies in this report.)

Transit malls, that is, streets transformed to givepriority access to buses and enhanced waiting areasfor bus patrons, represent the most visible changeover the past 20 years in the thinking about how bestto integrate transit effectively into a major downtownarea and in understanding the inherent problems andopportunities. For example, in Chicago, the transitmall is being removed, while in Portland, Oregon, itcontinues to be successful and will soon be aug-mented by a new light rail transit line. Denver’sSixteenth Street Mall is generally regarded as a success,although the streetscape design has not proved asfunctional as Portland’s. While not technically a transitmall because it has no bus traffic, Boston’s DowntownCrossing is of the same generation as most other tran-sit malls and clearly facilitates access to subway stations for thousands of passengers.

One of the most important aspects of transit mallsis the significant role played by the transit stop.Transit malls gave designers the opportunity todesign shelters and amenities to make bus patrons apart of the life of the downtown. The Los AngelesNeighborhood Initiative is using donated kiosks and busshelters from an advertising company to make busstops centers of community life and focal points forneighborhood commercial district renewal. Tucson’sTohono Tadai Transit Center—although larger inscale—has elaborate amenities for users, includingair-cooled benches.

On a large scale, transit rail stations (light rail, sub-way, and commuter) and bus transfer centers or ter-minals have also taken on new importance forcommunities. The case studies of Davis Square,Somerville, Massachusetts, and the Green Line, Chicago,illustrate the actual impact of new and renovatedsubway stations on the development of entire down-town revitalization programs. Other case studies dis-cuss the design and integration of light rail into adowntown (Pioneer Square, Portland); the develop-ment of a new commuter rail station (WoodbridgeStation, New Jersey); the creation of new pedestrianspace around existing subway stations (DowntownCrossing, Boston); and the design of new bus transfercenters (Tohono Tadai, Tucson and Staples StreetStation, Corpus Christi).

Downtown circulators and shuttles are anotherstrategy used to enable shoppers, visitors, and officeworkers to move more freely about the central businessdistrict, thereby contributing to downtown economicvitality and reducing traffic congestion. These circula-tors and shuttles are often sponsored by local chambersof commerce, downtown business organizations, and

36

Figure 5-1. Downtown Portland, OR. (Credit: Project forPublic Spaces, Inc.)

merchants associations as a promotional program,because experience has shown ridership is generallylow. Denver’s Sixteenth Street Mall was the first large-scale demonstration of the use of free, electric busshuttles, which connect passengers to two bus termi-nals at either end of the mall. As a transportationcorridor, the mall achieves a much better balancebetween buses and people than if standard diesel buseswere used. In Aspen, a downtown shuttle circulatesalong the main downtown street.

In a number of cities, trolley service—like Tucson’sOld Pueblo Trolley—link redeveloping urban areaswith tourist attractions such as sports stadiums,convention halls, restaurant districts, and shoppingcenters. In Corpus Christi, rubber wheeled-versions oftrolleys are used to provide convenient travel aroundthe downtown and to connect to the main bus termi-nal. These old-fashioned-style trolleys recall down-town historic architecture and often become a touristattraction in their own right, while allowing cities toavoid building costly transportation systems forshort-haul, intracity trips.

On a neighborhood scale, many communities havedeveloped special shuttles, discussed in the casestudies of Boulder, Colorado; Aspen, Colorado; andWatts, Los Angeles. These shuttles serve downtownsand neighborhood commercial areas as well as thebroader community.

ENDNOTE

1. Project for Public Spaces, Inc., “What Do People DoDowntown: How to Look at Main Street Activity,”National Trust for Historic Preservation (1991) p.3.

EXAMPLE

Transit Malls: Successes and Failures [1]

The mall took the excitement out of State Street.—Elizabeth Hollander,

Chicago’s former planning commissioner.

The buses would line up, one after another, like a herd, withtheir diesel fumes.

—Adrian Smith, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill

Since people don’t drive on State, they forget it’s here.—Carmen Rocha, store sales manager

As Mayor, I have found it difficult to find out whose ideathis was in the first place.

—Richard Daley, Mayor of Chicago

—As quoted in “Chicago Gives Pedestrian Mall theBoot” (New York Times, February 1, 1996.)

Minneapolis constructed the first transit mall in theUnited States in 1967, and it was soon hailed as anational example of urban public space. Considered abold and innovative move in its day, Nicollet Mallsuccessfully generated almost $50 million in down-town development within 3 years. The mall wasunique because it included not just amenities forpedestrians, but a serpentine roadway that allowedcity buses to circulate along the street. Nicollet, a pop-ular destination at the time, became a combinationbus terminal and shopping street.

Nicollet Mall was copied in many other cities acrossthe United States: Philadelphia, Portland, Oregon,Denver, and Chicago, to name the most well-known.Their construction was encouraged by federal fundingfrom the Urban Mass Transportation Administration(now the FTA). As with pedestrian malls, the limita-tions of the approach became more apparent as theyears went on. The basic problem was the size and thefumes of buses, which are not generally compatiblewith pedestrian strolling, sitting, and window shop-ping. Bus waiting areas become the major amenityfocus on a transit mall. As a result, the transit func-tions of the street seem to dominate at the expense ofother activities.

In nearly every city where they have been built,transit malls are being rethought or have been alteredfrom their original concept. In Chicago, a totalredesign of the State Street Mall is underway to returnit to a mixed-traffic street without trucks. Sidewalkshad been widened beyond what was needed and, as aresult, were underused. Under the new proposal,

37

Figure 5-2. When Chicago’s State Street was closed toautomobiles to create a transit mall, users complained thatthe street had become little more than a bus loading andunloading zone. Vehicular traffic is now being reintro-duced, along with transit and pedestrian improvements,which will create a better balance of activities on this majorshopping street. (Credit: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

sidewalks will be narrowed, although they will stillcontain extensive amenities. The idea is that busesmixed with traffic are less dominant than buses alone.

Even Minneapolis has rebuilt the Nicollet Mall,although it has not changed its essential mix of func-tions. The problem with the mall was partly physical;it was in a state of disrepair as elements graduallywore out. Users in surveys complained about busfumes and lack of bicycle access. Nicollet was nolonger a major shopping street. The development itspurred removed activity on the street, because a second-level skywalk system was developed thatessentially elevated retail activity above the street.The system, which does not connect directly toNicollet Mall, now connects some 35 blocks.

The redesign of Nicollet Mall did not address itsfunctional problems. Although the Nicollet Mallincluded plans by 1994 for smaller, electric-poweredvehicles to reduce bus fumes, bicycle access has notbeen improved. Plans to connect the mall to the sky-walks, which might have improved access, werescrapped. Kate Christianson, a Minneapolis writeron design issues, wrote that while some changeshave made the mall “friendlier,” it also “seems spir-itless . . . The overall passivity of the redesign is allthe more painful because the mall originally swirledin excitement.” [2]

On a positive note for transit malls, Portland,Oregon’s bus mall has successfully integrated tran-sit, automobiles, and pedestrians. Although transit-oriented, the mall has always allowed one lane ofvehicle traffic on it. The mall is attractively laid outwith very well-designed bus waiting areas and sim-ple street amenities (e.g., benches, informationkiosks, and plantings) along it, as well as well-placedpublic art. The placement and design of amenities isoften poorly understood by designers; in the case ofPortland, however, amenities are usable and placedaccording to function. Because of the design of thesestreet amenities, the mix of traffic, and the excellentmaintenance and street management program, theMall is the most successful of all those constructed.(See also Case Study 4-1.)

Learning from the experience in other cities,Rochester, New York, sought to create a mixed-usetraffic street, with appropriate priority for buses.Originally conceived as a pure transit mall, the MainStreet project was rethought to allow more diverseuse and access. The street was reduced from six lanesto four, with the curb lanes given over to buses only.Parking and delivery were removed (the latterremains a problem), while sidewalks were widened toprovide more space for pedestrian amenities and buswaiting facilities. While the street is well-used bypedestrians, it must compete with a skywalk system.In addition, retail activity has declined with the clos-

ing of a major department store, so it is difficult toassess the impact of the approach taken.

In Sacramento, California, and Memphis,Tennessee, light rail systems have been installed inthe center of former pedestrian malls. While this canbe seen as an improvement (because light rail, whichis not diesel powered, is more pedestrian-friendlythan buses), it does not usually operate with great fre-quency; and the center of the street still seems devoidof activity. Because of the tracks, having appropri-ately located crossings and well-designed access tolight rail stations and platforms for people onwheeled conveyances, such as bicycles and wheel-chairs, is very important.

In Portland, Oregon, a light rail transit system hascontinued to set records in terms of passenger use.This system, separate from Portland’s bus mall butintersecting it, has been very effectively integratedinto the downtown area. MAX is a 15-mile route thatconnects the downtown area to the suburbs, and,once it reaches downtown, becomes a part of thedowntown street network. One of the strengths of thesystem is that the modal mix in which it operateschanges according to the block. In general, it runs onmixed-traffic streets, but still discourages a greatamount of private vehicle use. Where mixed trafficdoes occur, space for vehicles is limited, and on cer-tain streets shared space is allocated to pedestriansonly. Sidewalks have been widened slightly to accom-modate small waiting areas. The trains, while long,are quiet and relatively unobtrusive, but clearly oper-ate in street space rather than a pedestrian mall.Public spaces downtown, including Pioneer CourthouseSquare, are enlivened by the system’s presence, notdominated by it. It is an example in which transit,pedestrian, and vehicle uses are balanced.

ENDNOTES

1. Excerpted and updated from Project for Public Spaces,Inc., “The Effects of Environmental Design on theAmount and Type of Bicycling and Walking,” NationalBicycling and Walking Study, FHWA Case Study No. 20,Federal Highway Administration (April 1993) pp.10–12.

2. Christianson, Kate, “Nicollett Mall Redux,” InlandArchitect (March/April 1991).

CASE STUDIES

Case studies illustrate how transit is contributing tothe renewal of downtowns and neighborhoods inthree cities. While the projects are geographicallydiverse and involve different of modes of transit, theyillustrate the importance of integrating transit facili-ties into downtowns and neighborhoods so that theycan act as true catalysts for neighborhood renewal:

38

Case Study 5-1: Somerville, MA: Davis Square TransitStation Subway Extension Spurs Neighborhood Rejuvenation

Case Study 5-2: Los Angeles Neighborhood Initiative:Rebuilding Disinvested Neighborhood “Main Streets”from the Bus Stop Up

Case Study 5-3: Chicago, IL: The Green Line Using Transit Stations to Spur Reinvestment inDistressed Inner City Neighborhoods

The subway was to be there for the community, not thecommunity for the subway.

—Lee Auspitz, Member of Davis Square Task Force

SUMMARY

Davis Square, a principal commercial center inSomerville, Massachusetts, has experienced a remark-able renaissance with the extension of the Red Linesubway from Cambridge in the early 1980s. Thisextension included construction of a new transit sta-tion in the center of the square. The city of Somervillecapitalized on development of the new station, fromits earliest planning stages, as a catalyst for revitalizingthe square by promoting new commercial develop-ment and sponsoring other physical improvements,while working to maintain its traditional urban char-acter. These public improvements have also catalyzedprivate reinvestment in the square’s adjoining residen-tial areas. The success of the redevelopment efforts arelargely attributed to close cooperation between themany stakeholders in the process. These stakeholdersincluded the city, local businesspeople and residents,the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority(MBTA), and numerous federal and commonwealthagencies.

PLANNING PROCESS

Davis Square, once a thriving commercial center,experienced a gradual decline in the post-World War IIera. Between 1970 and 1980, the city of Somerville lost2,000 jobs and the population dropped from 89,000 to77,000, a 13 percent decline. Manufacturing, wholesale,and retail businesses left the area. According to a plan-ning study completed in 1980, Davis Square suffered

from a lack of competitiveness among merchants, traf-fic congestion, inadequate parking, and an increas-ingly deteriorated physical environment.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, plans to expandthe highway system in the Boston area met with stiffprotest from community groups and local officialsopposed to the massive land-takings required forhighway construction. At the same time, Boston-arearesidents realized that public transportation wasmore practical than the automobile for commutingwithin Boston and from its outlying areas. GovernorSargent responded to this opposition in 1970, bysigning a moratorium on highway constructionwithin Route 128, a highway that encircles Boston,and setting up the Boston Transportation PlanningReview to examine transportation plans for theBoston area.

In 1970, the Cambridge City Council urged theMBTA to seriously consider the extension of the RedLine, originally built in 1912, beyond Harvard Squareas an alternative to a proposed highway. The routewas to run from Harvard Square north throughCambridge to Arlington. However, in 1973,Somerville residents, businesspeople and public offi-cials—realizing the economic benefits that a train andbus station would bring to their community—launched a petition and letter writing campaign to theMBTA requesting that the extension be routedthrough Davis Square. In addition, Somerville wasproviding 5 percent of the MBTA’s budget, and with-out any subway station within its borders, Somervilleresidents felt that their transit service was unequal totheir contribution. In contrast, the town of Arlington,concerned about traffic congestion, opposed theextension of the Red Line into its boundaries and itstermination at Arlington Heights. As a result, the RedLine now terminates at Alewife, in North Cambridge.

39

Figure 5-3. Case Study 5-1. Davis Square, the business dis-trict in Somerville, MA, was revitalized with the introductionof subway service. (Credit: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

Case Study 5-1Somerville, MA: Davis Square Transit StationSubway Extension Spurs NeighborhoodRejuvenation

In 1977, while the Red Line extension was in theplanning stage, the Somerville Office of Planning and Community Development (OPCD) and theMetropolitan Area Planning Council put together thefirst Davis Square urban design and business study.That same year, the Davis Square Task Force wasformed, composed of local business owners, residentsand local officials, to act as a citizens’ advisory commit-tee regarding the revitalization plans and to address amajor concern that was dividing the community on thetype and extent of development. One faction was push-ing for a major redevelopment project that wouldinclude the creation of an indoor shopping mall, whilemany local residents favored minimal change to theneighborhood. The OPCD commissioned outside con-sultants to study potential land use, including officeand retail uses, traffic, parking and other issues. Alongwith input from the Task Force, the studies resulted inthe Davis Square Action Plan, adopted in 1982. The pri-mary goal of the Plan was to use the new Red Line sta-tion as a cornerstone for redevelopment, strengtheningDavis Square as a viable shopping district while pre-serving the residential character of the neighborhood.

STRATEGY

The city of Somerville and the Davis Square TaskForce initiated many projects to accompany the RedLine extension, using the redevelopment, especially ofempty parcels, to build the type of community thatthey had envisioned:

• Streetscape improvements with funds from theFederal Highway Administration’s UrbanSystems Program, including street reconstruc-tion, sidewalk widening, new lighting, fences,and planting.

• The renovation of Kenney Park at the corner ofGrove Street and Highland Avenue.

• Storefront and facade improvements with a grantfrom the city’s Community Development BlockGrant entitlement. With the grant, the city paidfor one-half of the facade work on eligible prop-erties and provided design assistance throughthe OPCD landmark constitutional decisionallowing the removal of all billboards from DavisSquare, initially, and then from the city of Bostonas a whole. In 1995, a local bank established itsown Storefront Improvement Program, availableto Davis Square businesses.

• Designation of Davis Square as a commercial arearevitalization district (CARD), which allowedmajor commercial developments to use IndustrialRevenue Bond (IRB) financing through theMassachusetts Industrial Finance Administration

(MIFA). With IRB financing, the owners of theErrico building were able to renovate 6,000 sq ft of retail and office space and add 12,000 sq ft ofnew space.

• The construction of additional public parking, insmall lots, throughout the Davis Square area.

• The construction of the Ciampa Manor ElderlyHousing development on College Avenue. (Localresidents favored residential over commercialdevelopment at this prime site, a gateway toDavis Square.)

• Planning and site development for the BuenaVista project, a $10 million, 100,000-sq-ft office andretail complex, which includes a public parkingstructure. An Urban Development Action Grantprovided $1.7 million toward the initial develop-ment costs. This project was completed in 1991.

Private development efforts included the renova-tion of former manufacturing buildings and depart-ment stores in the Davis Square area to provideadditional office and retail space. A locally owned,community-oriented bank was encouraged to con-struct a new building in the area and the old tele-phone building was converted into a drug andconvenience store.

A bicycle path connects Davis Square to the towns ofArlington and Lexington, and bus stops, used by theMBTA and the Tufts University van service, connectlocal residents to the subway line. The subway stationis also within walking distance of the large Alewifestation parking garage. The streetscape improvementssurrounding the Davis Square Station were designedto enhance the pedestrian access to the station and

40

Figure 5-4. Case Study 5-1. This plan of Davis Squareshows the integration of the subway stations into the CBD,as well as the pedestrian improvements connecting thetransit stations to the adjacent residential and commercialdistricts. (Credit: Carol R. Johnson Associates, Inc.)

local businesses, and to slow traffic, while giving thecommercial area a more coherent appearance.

The MBTA developed the plaza linking the two sta-tion entrance buildings, built on an old railroad rightof way, and continued a greenway along the right ofway as far as Alewife. The plaza is designed to serve asthe center of Davis Square, providing a gathering placeand a center for activities and outdoor entertainment.The MBTA’s Red Line extension qualified it to receivestate percent-for-art funds. One percent of the cost ofconstructing the new headhouses was used to commis-sion the figurative sculptures, some representing localcitizens, that adorn the plaza. In addition, tilesdesigned by neighborhood children were installed inthe station and a large sculpture was commissioned tohang over the tracks. The public art projects fit in withthe city’s goal of creating a community place; a placewhere residents could feel a sense of ownership.

At Mayor Capuano’s recommendation in 1995, thecity’s Office of Housing and Community Development(OHCD), with input from the Task Force, engaged aconsultant to improve Davis Square Plaza/Statue Parkand make it more attractive as a gathering place. Thecity will provide new and upgraded amenities for theplaza, such as improved lighting, and new furniture,landscaping and flag poles, and the MBTA will replacethe station’s long skylight. The existing barrel-vaulted,plexiglass skylight extending across the plaza,obscures the view of adjacent stores and is out of scalewith the neighboring buildings. A new, lower skylightof more durable materials is being planned to illumi-nate the station, while serving as a performance stageon the plaza level.

City agencies are also working with theMassachusetts Highway Department (MHD) to add asecond bicycle path through the square, with new bikeracks near the station, and to improve bike connec-tions to neighboring communities. Other communitygroups such as the Somerville Bicycle Committee andthe Friends of the Bikeway are involved in the process.In addition, a new substation for the city’s communitypolicing program, which includes police on bicycles, isbeing created within one of the station buildings. Thecontinuing success of this project can be attributedboth to the interagency cooperation between theMBTA, Mass Highway, and the city of Somerville andto the ongoing involvement of the Davis Square TaskForce and other community groups.


During the planning stages, the resident members ofthe Davis Square Task Force struggled to keep DavisSquare from becoming overdeveloped. According toLee Auspitz, a long-time member of the task force,

local residents (who at the time wielded more powerthan the business interests on the task force) had atfirst opposed the subway extension, fearing that itwould “ruin the neighborhood.” Preserving a stable,residential environment was their primary goal andthey fought to prevent Davis Square from becomingjust another regional shopping mall. If they had tohave a subway then “the subway was to be there forthe community, not the community for the subway.”

While local businesses pushed for an increase inparking, residents thought more parking would lead tothe disintegration of the urban fabric of the neighbor-hood. “Park and Ride” and even “kiss and ride” drop-offs were discouraged. As a result, no facilities forcommuter parking are provided today in DavisSquare. The task force fought long and hard to keepDavis Square pedestrian-oriented, even helping todefeat a mayor who favored large-scale commercialredevelopment of the area and the construction of largeparking structures.

The task force also encouraged the MBTA to mini-mize its intervention in the neighborhood; while theMBTA had initially planned to demolish 64 housesand businesses, it ultimately removed only 4 houses.The Task Force and local citizens, through varioustactics, were able to convince the MBTA to accommo-date the needs of the community in the design andplanning of the station and throughout the long anddisruptive construction phase. Goody Clancy’s proj-ect architect was a resident of Davis Square himselfand worked closely with local citizens to integrate thestation buildings into the existing fabric with as littledisruption as possible.


The Davis Square MBTA Station and associatedimprovements have significantly transformed DavisSquare. The new brick and granite paving, upgradedlighting, and facade improvements have given theplaza and surrounding streets a fresh, well-maintainedappearance. The plaza is replete with such amenitiesas public art, seating, a new tree canopy, and granitebollards to prevent vehicular access and to delineatethe plaza’s edges. The plaza is principally used as acentral square by residents who sit, watch, rest fromshopping or exercise, or wait for the next bus. Theplaza also functions as a meeting place and as a “frontyard” for adjoining businesses. Annual communityevents such as ArtBeat, sponsored by the SomervilleArts Council, are staged there. Periodically, the plazais used for public speaking.

Today, Davis Square flourishes and has recentlyexperienced an influx of new restaurants, theaters,and entertainment-related businesses. The Somerville

41

Theater, a historic landmark in the square, is capitaliz-ing on the square’s improvements as well as its prox-imity to transit. Its monthly programs, which includelive as well as film performances, attract a regionalaudience and enjoy renewed patronage. Its restora-tion and reconstruction, scheduled for 1996, reflectsfavorably on the square’s recent improvements.

Davis Square is also host to new commercial officespace. Since 1988, two substantial office buildingstotaling approximately 170,000 sq ft have been com-pleted and are at 100 percent occupancy. Buildingtenants include a major regional community healthcare provider, a medium-sized architectural firm, andheadquarters for a local bank. Also, the square hosts anumber of start-up businesses.

Taken together, these activities add vitality to thesquare, both during and after traditional businesshours. Undoubtedly, the transit improvements havecontributed significantly to the square’s overallhealth. The transit station has made it possible forpeople to reach the square without bringing cars intothe densely settled area. Rent control was abolishedrecently in the neighboring communities ofCambridge, Boston, and Brookline, and the affordablehousing available in Somerville, combined withaccess to its good public transit, has made it an attrac-tive place for people to live. Other factors thatincreased the square’s attractiveness include changesin living preferences and increased private trans-portation costs, which bolster support for public tran-sit use.

The Red Line Extension, Land Use Study, prepared in1988 by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council,analyzed the changes in land use and commercial andresidential development 5 years after the completionof the extension. The report states, “Davis Squareappears to have passed the turning point on its way torecovery. Businesses in the square, old and new alike,are generally thriving and public confidence is high.The Red Line clearly . . . helped to stimulate this revi-talization, but it was clearly accomplished only by acooperative effort of the municipality, local merchants,and the residents of Davis Square.” [1] Specifically, thereport states that businesses near the station showincreased sales and office and retail uses rose by 10percent.

CONCLUSIONS

Davis Square has been revitalized and is a thrivingdowntown area, not just because of the transitinvestment and improved access, but because of theenergy and commitment of the city, businesses, theMBTA, and residents. Working together, the transitstation served as a catalyst for a range of cooperative

programs that have breathed new life into the dis-trict and made the city of Somerville more livable.The tremendous community effort to preserve theneighborhood’s character paid off: Davis Square isremarkable in its coherence and urban texture. Asthe residents had hoped, the area still has the narrowstreets, the small scale and the densely built fabricthat made it unique and that now contribute to itssuccess.

SOURCE

Metropolitan Area Planning Council, Red Line Extension,Land Use Study (1988).

ENDNOTE

1. Metropolitan Area Planning Council, Red Line Extension,Land Use Study (1988) p.32.

LANI is a vision that touches everyone who encounters it.It is like a pallette of paints allowing each neighborhood todesign its colors, textures, and uses. Government is there toprovide the paint, but only the community can compose thepicture.

—Deputy Mayor Rae James

My dream for LANI is that it becomes a national model forrevitalizing and sustaining neighborhoods through com-munity empowerment.

—Richard J. Riordan, Mayor of Los Angeles

SUMMARY

The Los Angeles Neighborhood Initiative (LANI),sponsored by Mayor Richard Riordan, is undertakinga 30-month demonstration project that seeks to pro-vide an economic stimulus to eight transit-dependentneighborhoods through community planned trans-portation improvements, housing, and commercialrehabilitation, and development. Incorporated in1994, LANI has established community organizationsin each neighborhood and provided technical sup-port, training, and funding for demonstration projectsaround transit facilities.

In December 1994, local organizations completedwork plans, describing programs and projects to be

42

Case Study 5-2Los Angeles Neighborhood Initiative: RebuildingDisinvested Neighborhood “Main Streets” fromthe Bus Stop Up

implemented. In 1995, they hired design consultantsand began construction of the initial demonstrationprojects. Projects vary greatly from neighborhood toneighborhood, but all share a common focus on busstops as centers of community life. In addition, LANIhas encouraged other ongoing efforts in neighbor-hoods and has served as a catalyst for communityparticipation and action. At the end of the 2-yeardemonstration period, local organizations will havethe capacity to become permanent vehicles for com-munity revitalization.

PLANNING PROCESS

LANI has its roots in the Los Angeles riots of April1992, when it was evident that rioters, in the words ofthe original LANI proposal, “had no feeling of owner-ship or caring about what happened to their neighbor-hoods. Residents felt disconnected, and in many casesthey were.”

In addition to a lack of connection between peopleand their neighborhoods, the neighborhood mainstreets—even in stable, middle-class neighborhoods—looked abandoned. Transit service was inadequate forlow-income areas in which more than 20 percent ofhouseholds in auto-dependent Los Angeles have nocar. Moreover, transit stops are virtually invisible.They are situated on narrow sidewalks with fewamenities, just inches away from speeding traffic. Thestops are, as one resident put it, “humiliating placesto wait.”

Rather than simply take a city initiated “triage”approach to neighborhood renewal, the Mayor’sOffice of the City of Los Angeles developed the con-cept for LANI, whereby with a minimum of financialsupport coupled with dedicated technical assistance,neighborhoods would be empowered to address theirown economic opportunities. Moreover, it was impor-tant not merely to plan communities, but actually toimplement projects that establish linkages betweenother programs in communities and build in the self-reliance necessary to continue these efforts.

After encouragement from the United StatesSecretary of Transportation, the Mayor’s Office pre-pared a proposal in January of 1994, which identifiedthe overall scope of LANI and the eight neighbor-hoods to be included. City council members weresolicited to nominate neighborhoods in their districts,and city staff and planning consultants evaluated proj-ects to identify those with the greatest chance for suc-cess. Each of the project sites selected was situatedalong a significant bus or rail corridor (four adjacentto Metrorail light rail stations) with a substantialtransit-dependent population and, while several ofthe area main streets were underused, there was a

demand for new affordable housing and neighbor-hood retail. Moreover, the projects all had existingcommunity organizations and some level of planningwork already in place; these were considered to be themain ingredients for short-term success. The citycouncil representative for the district had to endorseLANI, identify the appropriate community groups,and provide continued leadership and cooperationwith that local group.

Within 6 months of its conception, LANI became areality. A board of directors with diverse back-grounds in real estate development, transportation,urban planning, finance, labor law, communications,and community organization was established and anexecutive director hired. Funding commitments wereobtained from the FTA and local public and privatesources. Eight “Recognized CommunityOrganizations” (RCOs) were set up, composed ofcommunity members representing businesses, com-mercial property owners, residents, and institutions.

In another 6 months, each of the eight RCOs hadcompleted a project work plan that defined specificphysical improvements, such as transit and pedestrianamenities, to be implemented in 1995. They also devel-oped longer-term programs to revitalize the neighbor-hood main streets, create jobs, and assist youth. Thework plans identified goals and prioritized needsdetermined by community meetings, outreach, andprevious planning work. Organization and decision-making structures were developed and the scope ofwork for designers of the initial projects outlined.

Throughout 1995, efforts focused on implementa-tion: hiring consultants, developing specific plans,reviewing plans and proposals with city agencies forapproval, bidding, and beginning construction.Meanwhile, RCOs pursued other nonconstructionactivities, like holding special events and installingbanners that gave tangible evidence of the LANIproject.

STRATEGY

The LANI strategy has several important, intercon-necting components:

Community Participation and Ownership. LANI isbased on the substantial involvement of local resi-dents, businesses, and property owners. The RCOshave substantial independence and are responsiblefor implementation of their own projects and pro-grams, with financial support and guidance from theLANI board. Methods of participation have varied byproject, but include diverse representation on theRCO Board, community workshops, and outreach toexisting institutions and organizations.

43

Leveraging Public and Private Resources. LANI seeksto leverage its own limited resources with other local,state, and federal programs, both public and private.This strategy is critical in concentrating rather thandiffusing scarce financial resources. LANI has beensuccessful in obtaining in-kind donations as well. Forexample, bus shelters and information kiosks for allthe neighborhoods were provided by GannettOutdoor. This private company donated $250,000 andagreed to maintain the shelters and kiosks for 3 years.

One advantage of pursuing eight projects concur-rently is that LANI is able to help streamline approvalprocesses through various city agencies. For instance,the Los Angeles city council contributed to the LANIprogram by waiving more than $150,000 in permit fees.

Short-Term Catalytic Projects. Critical to the successof LANI is that it did not merely plan for long-term

visions, but produced concrete results during the firstyear of the program. Each community has determinedfor itself which of the best first projects will lead toother projects and programs in the future. Projectssuch as the installation of new bus stops and informa-tion kiosks help make the commercial streets moreattractive and build a sense of cooperation within theneighborhoods. These are the short-term effortsunderway in the eight neighborhoods:

• Tree plantings using volunteers from a conserva-tion organization, with refreshments provided bylocal businesses.

• New historic light fixtures, installed on a trialbasis.

• A training program for youth in gardening andlandscape maintenance, operated by a localsenior center.

• Installation of banners with a special banner-raising ceremony.

• A jazz festival to celebrate the importance of jazzin the African American community.

• Development of an “art park” next to a bus stop,with trees, sculpture displays, and a communitymural.

• A community garden on a vacant lot run by at-risk youth, an important first step to creating afarmer’s market where the community can buyproduce and at-risk youth can earn employment.

Building Long-Term Local Capacity. LANI’s strategy isto produce self-reliant programs that have the capac-ity—in terms of organization, finance, leadership andtechnical skills—to carry on the work in the future. Itis anticipated that future programs will be sustainedthrough special neighborhoods improvement districts,which can finance streetscape improvements, publicspace management activities, and business develop-ment efforts. Community development corporationscan also help sustain programs by supporting affordablehousing. It is hoped that local business associationswill be developed as well.

FUNDING

The core of the funding for the Los Angeles LANIcomes from the FTA Livable Communities program,which provides $250,000 in support to each neigh-borhood through the Los Angeles MetropolitanTransportation Authority (MTA). Contributions fromthe FTA/MTA have totaled $2.3 million. MTA alsoprovides free office space overhead for LANI.

Meanwhile, the city of Los Angeles has contributed$800,000. This includes the $115,000 that the city coun-cil approved for the program start-up and administra-

44

Figure 5-7 and 5-8. Case Study 5-2. As part of the LosAngeles Neighborhood Initiative (LANI), residents worktogether making transit stops centers for community(before—Figure 5-7). This bus stop in North Hollywood wastransformed and integrated into an “art park,” which will bethe site for a cafe, art displays, and community events(after—Figure 5-8). (Credit: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

tive expenses. Since the initial contribution, the major-ity of the city’s money has gone directly to the eightneighborhoods where LANI operates. (The county ofLos Angeles helped fund LANI as well, $200,000 wasapproved by the state ballot for county transit storesand 138 transit shelters.)

Local neighborhoods have also been successful inobtaining donations, such as meeting refreshments,flyer printings, and meeting spaces. Local businesseshave donated trees and private companies havedonated legal, accounting, and design services. Ofcourse, much of the implementation of projects relieson community volunteers.

For example, Leimert Park, one LANI neighborhood,has leveraged more than $1 million in local govern-ment money to fund various aspects of its demonstra-tion project; $600,000 was contributed by the CityDepartment of Parks and Recreation to upgrade thelocal park; $285,000 was donated by the CommunityRedevelopment Authority to pay for needed streetwork, including adding decorative paving and bumpouts; and $400,000 was granted by the local city counciloffice for re-striping and improving lighting in parkinglots and adding landscaping. In addition, a mixed-useretail/office development project has been attracted tothe area and has purchased land.

As noted above, each neighborhood group ispreparing a plan for sustaining the program. LANIwill also continue to seek federal, state, and local sup-port for implementation of demonstration projects.


LANI implemented a process to overcome obstaclesbefore they arose. In May 1995, LANI arranged a 2-day forum during which each of the eight designengineers presented their plans to a panel composedof representatives from the City Department ofTransportation, MTA, and the Departments of PublicWorks, Safety, Streets and Lighting, and others. Thisstreamlined the planning process because each neigh-borhood did not have to seek separate approvals fromeach agency. During the two days of deliberation,concessions were made and compromises reached.For example, the NOHO (North Hollywood) commu-nity agreed to the widening of Magnolia Street as atrade-off for streetscaping and amenities.

The bureaucratic hurdles involved in leveragingfunding tied to other city initiatives have been diffi-cult to overcome, however. Currently, LANI has asecond round of FTA funding and an ISTEA grant isstill pending.

Local obstacles exist in each of the project areas aswell. For example, the Highland Park site is withinthe overlay of a historic district that prohibited the

use of angle parking. Also, some design engineershave developed plans that are simply not feasible tobuild. People within the organizations themselveshave been working hard, however, to overcome theseobstacles as well as to gain consensus among diver-gent groups so that they can move forward withimplementation.


So far, a number of project areas have been success-ful in attracting additional funding for improvements.These design and planning efforts have also served toboost efforts to organize merchants into local mer-chants associations. In Leimert Park, communitydevelopment block grant funds will be used to hire aconsultant to develop a nonprofit organization tomanage and administer the new merchant’s associa-tion and to coordinate other efforts aimed at attract-ing further funding.

In addition, many communities have gone a stepfurther in their design process and have created plansfor the next stage of development, so that when fundsare identified, communities have plans ready forimplementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Although still in its early stages, LANI has com-bined many key ingredients: community involve-ment, a focus on creating places along corridors thatare unappealing to pedestrians, and short-term, visi-ble projects, all focused on transit. In the next year,the true test will be weighing the impact of the firstphase of plans and seeing how neighborhoods takethe next step toward making their communities morelivable and transit-friendly.

We started with a pie in the sky notion and now there is a$300 million investment . . .

—Doug Farr, Project Architect

The Green Line took neighborhoods and businesses, innercity and suburban residents, and city government andtransit operators and made them realize that they hadsomething in common.

—Jackie Leavy, Executive Director,Neighborhood Capital Budget Group

45

Case Study 5-3Chicago, IL: The Green Line Using Transit Stations to Spur Reinvestment in Distressed Inner City Neighborhoods

We have given a terrific shot in the arm to the City andcommunities, but it will be a long time before the CTAreaps its rewards with increased ridership.

—Ken Domier, CTA Service Planning.

All that is happening in the area are dividends from invest-ments that people have been making for a long time. TheGreen Line has created the synergy which is pulling it alltogether.

—Ken Govas, Industrial Council of Northwest Chicago

SUMMARY

One month after the Green Line was actually createdby re-routing and re-connecting several legs of CTA’srapid transit system into a new configuration, newlyinstalled President Robert Belcaster of the CTAannounced that he was considering permanently clos-ing the line, replacing it with express bus service, andredirecting passengers to two parallel commuter trainlines. The community, seeing this as yet another poten-tial disinvestment in already distressed neighbor-hoods, rallied forces and organized into a broad-basedcommunity coalition. This coalition developed the con-cept of using transit to create a series of redevelopmentprojects within easy walking distance of stations on theline. The idea was not just to reopen transit service, butto use the transit infrastructure as a community assetto create employment opportunities in neighborhoodswhere unemployment was among the highest in thecity and to attract new residents, developing the vasttracks of open, vacant land into vital and safe newneighborhoods.

The campaign to save the Green Line was successful.The line was rebuilt during a 2-year, $323 million reha-bilitation project and is slated to resume operations inMarch or April 1996. Just as important, the citizens’campaign to save the Green Line has subsequently ledto a renaissance of interest in the neighborhoods,which have also been designated a federal empower-ment zone. While efforts are only starting, there is newinterest and commitment to rebuilding neighborhoodsfrom the bottom up—an investment that would not betaking place with such vigor and excitement had theGreen Line not been saved.

PLANNING PROCESS

When the Green Line was constructed in the 1890s,it ran through the center of a vital urban district—with both industrial and residential neighborhoods—and served as an important link to downtownChicago. However, the area declined after World WarII in a classic pattern of flight to the suburbs, influx ofpoor minorities seeking housing, and 1950s styleurban renewal. The riots in 1968 sent the district into

a downward spiral, decreasing the number of peopleand housing units in the area by 50 percent and moreby the 1990s.

As the neighborhood declined, so did transit service.Twelve stations were closed until there were fewaccess points for the community. Between the mid-1970s and 1993 there was a 60 percent decline in rider-ship (from 72,000 in 1976 to about 27,000 weekdayriders in 1994) with the elevated structure and stationsin dire need of repair. Travel time increased almost 100percent as trains slowed on the deteriorated tracks.

The planning process for saving the Green Linebegan with the formation of the Lake Street ElCoalition a community network representing busi-ness and residents, as well as citizen action groups.Spearheaded by the Neighborhood Capital BudgetGroup (NCBG), the coalition included West Side andSouth Side residents and communities, industry andbusiness leaders and leaders of suburban Oak Park,with the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT)providing technical assistance. These communitygroups collected nearly 20,000 petition signatures and lobbied elected officials. NCBG, a city-wide orga-nization dedicated to increasing public investment inneighborhoods, staffed the coalition.

Recognizing the coalition’s goal of using the GreenLine as a catalyst for neighborhood revitalization, theCNT encouraged the coalition to work with the archi-tectural firm of Doug Farr and Associates to create aprototype plan for one station. The Pulaski stop onthe west leg of the Green Line was selected to serve asan example of a strategy to be replicated all along thetransit corridor because an active local developmentcorporation existed to help drive the process. Farr andAssociates working with CNT staff developed a“Sustainable Kit of Parts” through a series of six com-

46

Figure 5-5. Case Study 5-3. A typical Green Line Station,Chicago, IL, before renovation. (Credit: Project for PublicSpaces, Inc.)

munity meetings facilitated by NCBG. Communitymembers identified specific local assets in their neigh-borhood (libraries, housing, shops and parks) andhow these elements could be improved. Over the sixmeetings, a plan emerged for the neighborhood thatreflected the concerns identified at the meeting. Theplan included a new transit station flanked by a com-mercial strip with retail services; a 24-hour drug store;intensified housing development on vacant land; aday care center; and special programs to improvesecurity and retain industry.

In July 1993, the Green Line Coalition and NCBGheld a press conference to unveil the “CommunityGreen Line Initiative” to demonstrate the economicpotential of communities all along the Green Line andthe value of rebuilding the transit corridor. This initia-tive provided a model for determining what the airquality benefits of transit-oriented development wouldbe for the communities adjacent to the Lake/Pulaskiand Washington Park Green Line stations.

One month later, in August 1993, the CTAannounced that the line would be reconstructed at acost then estimated at $300 million. The CTA did notraise any new grants for this program, but reallocatedcapital improvement moneys from other projects.Practical considerations played a role as well, as theCTA might have had to repay the federal governmentalmost as much money if it had closed the line beforethe expiration of the 40-year time limit, after receivingfederal grants for infrastructure repairs. In addition,the CTA is required to reduce bus emissions to meetfederal Clean Air Act requirements.

In December 1994, there was another momentousannouncement: the CTA Green Line would be thespine of a new federal empowerment zone (EZ) forChicago, one of six in the nation. The inclusion of theGreen Line corridor in the designation was not a coin-cidence but was a direct reflection of the citizen activ-ity in the area, plus the fact that the Green Line itselfprovided a strong geographic identity for the zoneand that all the census tracts in the transit corridormet the federal poverty guidelines for EZ programeligibility. The federal EZ program will provide $100million in social service block grants in addition to taxincentives to encourage investment and job creationin the area. The state and city have added to thisfinancial commitment, and the private sector hascommitted $2 billion in investment.

As the Green Line reconstruction began, planningwork continued in the neighborhoods. The NCBG con-ducted a year-long job planning effort for four addi-tional neighborhoods (other than the Pulaski stationarea) and published “Putting Neighborhoods on theRight Track” in January 1995. In addition, the city ofChicago and the CTA asked the Urban Land Institute

(ULI), a nonprofit education and research organizationthat deals with land use development, to assemble apanel of experts to assess the market for a mix of usesaround each station, develop underlying planning anddesign considerations, and identify the role of the cityand the CTA in implementing the vision. The panelconvened for one week in June 1995 and focused ontwo neighborhoods as examples. One of these stations,California/Lake Station, is presented below as a typi-cal strategy that other stations will follow.

STRATEGY

The principal strategy of the program, and certainlythe key goal of the CTA, is to reopen the transit line,provide access, and build new ridership although thetransit agency expects that it will take years before anyreal gain in ridership can be measured. The commu-nity is leveraging this project to achieve many livabil-ity goals by involving and empowering thecommunity to attract business and housing investmentthat serves current community residents. While eachneighborhood along the line has its own particular

47

Figure 5-6. Case Study 5-3. Proposed design concepts forthe renovated California/Lake Station and station area plan.(Credit: Urban Land Institute)

problems and objectives, the goals presented in the ini-tial plans for the Pulaski Station give some idea of therange of livability issues the communities hope can beaddressed by this transit project:

• Improve public safety;• Increase pedestrian access to transit and commu-

nity services;• Rebuild neighborhood density through infill and

new housing;• Increase jobs and employment for community

residents;• Rebuild the neighborhood economy via retail

and commercial revitalization;• Revitalize open space; and• Expand neighborhood capacity to implement the

project in partnership with the CTA, city, andlocal organizations.

The result of all this activity along the Green Lineis that many groups need to take responsibility forimplementation. The CTA views its role as openingthe line and the stations in 1996. It is taking an activerole in station development at two larger stations thatare being planned as retail/transit centers or “superstations,” and where they may also own more land.For the rest of the line, the CTA’s position is thatcommunity development groups, the city, and theprivate sector must take the lead, although the CTAis available to provide guidance and to conduct suchactivities as training workshops for community peo-ple. For example, the CTA has funded the AfricanAmerican Leadership Program to provide training onthe development process. Both NCBG and CNT havecontinued to provide community-based organiza-tions with planning assistance. The city of Chicagohas been funded to carry out a Congestion MitigationAir Quality (CMAQ) Demonstration Project on theGreen Line, and Chicago’s Regional TransportationAuthority has formed a transit-oriented developmentclearinghouse as well as funding roundtable discus-sions on these topics.

One example of a local project is presented below.

Example Strategy: The California/Lake Station

The California/Lake Station was one of two stationsinvestigated in depth by the ULI panel and is furtheralong in implementation than most of the other pro-jects because there had already been several revitaliza-tion programs in place in the area. This station is anarea that is both industrial and residential. The KinzieIndustrial Corridor is a 675-acre industrial district thatabuts the station, with more than 13,000 workers (3,000of whom are within 1 ⁄2 mi of the station).

Transit Service. The ULI panel suggested that theCTA establish short distances between stations on theGreen Line, so as to provide complementary servicewithout competing with the parallel Blue Line, whichoffers express service. Competing bus service couldalso be eliminated. Stations located roughly 1 ⁄2-miapart reinforce transit-oriented development poten-tials and emphasize the community investment goalsof the Green Line project.

Developing Communities. Because population has beendeclining and there is a vast amount of open land, theenvironment along the Green Line looks devastated.The troubled Henry Horner Homes Chicago HousingAuthority public housing project discourages new resi-dential development. Until the Green Line project, how-ever, residents and industrial advocates did not workclosely together. This transit program has united thetwo in pursuing the revitalization of the neighborhood.

Because the aggregate buying power of the neighbor-hood is currently so low, the ULI panel recommendedthat the neighborhoods focus on building owner-occupied homes (single- and two-family houses aswell as townhouse units) and increasing residentialdensity targeted to mixed-income groups.Neighborhood convenience stores and other commer-cial development around the station should followonce population and income are increased.

There are already projects in the works. The city ofChicago plans to demolish or radically reconfigure theHenry Horner Homes. About 40 privately built, single-family infill homes are under construction and another50 are planned under a city-sponsored program, “NewHomes for Chicago,” which reduces the purchase priceof houses by providing low-cost land. The industrialdistrict is one of the city’s “Model Industrial Corridors,”a program seeking to expand existing and recruit newindustrial uses in the area. The Kinzie IndustrialDevelopment Corporation, which runs the oldest andlargest “business incubator” in the country, will begreatly enhanced by the recent EZ designation, and itssubstantial tax incentives for business investment andexpansion.

The ULI panel also recommended establishing spe-cial overlay zones to provide guidelines for the designof new development and streetscape improvements,which are also needed to reinforce neighborhooddevelopment goals and to upgrade the image of thearea. As a small first step, banners announcing the EZnow line neighborhood streets.

Station Area. The ULI panel recommended creatinga small “transit plaza” adjacent to the station linedwith small retail establishments as they become feasi-ble. Unfortunately, the CTA’s design for the new sta-

48

tion is not oriented in the right direction (because theCTA does not own the land ideal for the plaza); thestation itself was criticized for its mundane appear-ance. The panel suggested a new station with a plazaand civic identity. “The station should celebrate theneighborhood. Perhaps it should honor . . . a neigh-borhood pastor . . . A standout station and stationarea plaza will encourage pedestrian traffic, one of thekey elements of a transit-oriented development.” [1]Unfortunately, this level of community input appearsto have come too late in the process, and it is unlikelythat such a station will be built.

Transit service, new development, and improvedstation areas are being addressed in other areas aswell. However, the level of promise and commitmentvaries greatly, usually dependent on the extent oflocal initiative.

FUNDING

Funding for the initial pilot planning work to savethe Green Line was done by nonprofit organizationsthrough their general support funds, although someadditional foundation grants were received by theCNT. Additional planning funds were obtainedthrough federal ISTEA funds, with matching fundsfrom the CTA and the city of Chicago communitydevelopment block grants, but these have not yetbeen spent.

The Community Green Line Initiative’s model fordetermining air quality benefit was used by the CTAto qualify for $10.5 million in federal CMAQ funds tobuild and renovate the Lake Pulaski and WashingtonPark transit stations. The model enabled the city toprove that each of these two facilities would decreasethe number of automobile trips in their respectiveareas by 10 percent.

Funding for the reconstruction of the Green Lineand stations totaling now about $350 million was pro-vided by the CTA through its capital budget. The EZis a project of the federal government and includesextensive investments, as described above.


The obstacles to this project have been and remainconsiderable. Initially, the CTA was seen as an obstacleand became the object of an intense political campaign.Jackie Leavy, Executive Director of the NeighborhoodCapital Budget Group, wrote in an op-ed piece in TheChicago Tribune, “We collected tens of thousands ofpetition signatures, held scores of community meetingsand press conferences, analyzed the CTA and the city’scapital budgets, pored over RTA documents, took CTA

President Robert Belcaster on a train ride and per-suaded three powerful Illinois congress people to joinhim. Throughout the campaign, we involved local andstate legislators and neighborhood manufacturers, andunited city residents with suburban neighbors . . . InApril, 1993, on the congressional tour of the Green Linethat we organized, CTA said it had no money for theline. Four months later, we won.” [2]

The Coalition for the project also faced financialproblems in terms of supporting planning activitiesfor the project. However, they were successful inobtaining ISTEA (CMAQ) funds and FTA LivableCommunities Initiatives for one station with the cityof Chicago’s Department of Planning andDevelopment acting as sponsor. Thus, the broad-based approach ultimately helped lead to more fund-ing for the project.

Now the obstacles are more practical: how toimplement this ambitious, costly project, which willtake years. The ULI panel focused on this problemand made seven basic recommendations:

1. Public sector subsidies must leverage private,market-driven investments.

2. Public sector resources must be made early andtargeted to produce visible results—not spreadevenly over the entire line.

3. Master plans for each project must be developedand adopted.

4. The operation of the Green Line should empha-size short- and middle-haul trips and not com-pete with the Blue and Red Line longer haulservices. Local competing bus service should bedropped. The whole line should be renamed togive it a new image.

5. Station designs should be modified so they sup-port local economic development goals.

6. Transit should see itself as a tool in the revital-ization process.

7. Successful station revitalization will be driven byincreasing the number of people who live in thearea, not by commercial development alone.

One obstacle has arisen as a result of the project’ssuccess in changing the perception of the area: vacantland that has been long dormant is now being pur-chased and held for speculative reasons and ownersof land slated for inclusion in these development proj-ects have either refused to sell or demanded manytimes the fair market value for the land. To put an endto the delays caused by property owners—at theLake/Pulaski site in particular—the city stepped inand designated the site as a “redevelopment area,”which enabled it to take control of the propertythrough “eminent domain.”

49

The CTA was criticized in the ULI report, whichstated that “the perception, if not the reality, seems tobe that the decisions about station closings andimprovements have been unilateral, with little noticegiven to those affected by the decisions.” [3]Moreover, ULI recommended that “the CTA has aresponsibility to be an active partner with DPD (CityDepartment of Planning and Development) in incor-porating transit service in a coordinated planningapproach . . . The panel believes there presently aredegrees of fragmentation in the development decisionprocess that occasionally leave the communitybehind; this situation should be changed through theestablishment of an inclusive planning process thatserves as a basis for resource allocation, priorities, andultimate investment decisions.” [4]

According to David Chandler, of the CNT, theCTA has made progress in developing a more inclu-sive public participation process and in understand-ing its role in the economic development of theneighborhoods it serves; these changes in the organi-zation’s “culture” have permeated the hierarchy ofthe CTA.


The most visible impact of this program—thereopening of the Green Line—occurred in May 1996.(CTA President Robert Belcaster resigned 2 daysbefore the line reopened, citing reasons unrelated tohis tenure as president.) The impact of the Green Linehas gone beyond the physical reconstruction of thetransit line to include a reassessment of the future ofthe neighborhood itself.

The tangible results today include a massive infu-sion of funds and programs, mainly through the fed-eral EZ, which grew directly out of the movement tosave the transit line. Another visible result is the activ-ity, commitment, and new resolve of many existingand recently formed community organizations andbusiness groups, working with the city. The GreenLine seems to be providing a focus for joint action andcooperation that has, in many respects, left the transitagency itself in almost a secondary role. Oddlyenough, people interviewed for this study com-mented that had the CTA not considered closing theline, very little of what has happened over the past 2years could or would have taken place. As is so oftenthe case, a crisis mobilizes the community into realiz-ing that they must take the future of their communityinto their own hands.

Currently, the CNT is working with several com-munity development corporations to develop com-prehensive and feasible development plans for a

two-block area around the Washington Park andLake/Pulaski stations. In addition, the NCBG, CNT,and several West Garfield Park community organiza-tions (Bethel New Life, most notably) have formed ajoint venture to implement the plan for their areausing the Lake/Pulaski station as a commercialanchor for the development. This joint venture also isassembling land for commercial and housing devel-opments and is constructing housing units on anincremental basis.

CONCLUSIONS

The “coalition” for the Green Line is not a mono-lithic entity. It is diverse geographically as well as interms of business and residents. Its success willdepend on the energy of local organizations to main-tain the momentum and to attract resources from thecity and others to solve its own problems. Still,people remark that, just a few years ago, organiza-tions that were active tended to work in isolation.Now, there is a more holistic approach to addressingthe livability needs of this very needy district. TheGreen Line project is a model for combining commu-nity development and transit-oriented developmentstrategies to achieve revitalization goals where thekey to success is the improvement of public transitaccess.

SOURCES

Olsen, Laura, Transit-Oriented Communities, published byMobility Partners, 1400 16th Street, NW, Suite 300,Washington, DC 20036 (1994).

Neighborhood Capital Budget Group, Community GreenLine Planning Project: Putting Neighborhoods on the RightTrack (1994).

Urban Land Institute, The New Green Line, Chicago, Illinois:Recommendations for Transit-Oriented Redevelopment ofNeighborhoods Along Chicago’s Rehabilitated Green Line “L”,Urban Land Institute (1995).

Center for Neighborhood Technology, Opportunities inNeighborhood Technology: Community Green Line Initiative(no date).

ENDNOTES

1. Urban Land Institute, The New Green Line, Chicago, Illinois(1995) p.32.

2. Chicago Tribune (February 6, 1994).3. Urban Land Institute, The New Green Line, Chicago, Illinois

(1995) p. 42.4. Ibid., p.47.

50

INTRODUCTION

Jobs are a prime livability issue, evidenced by theirprominent ranking in most livability surveys and bythe fact that employment was mentioned by partici-pants at almost every focus group session. Whileindividuals are concerned with finding stable employ-ment at fair wages and municipalities with keepingemployers from moving and closing plants andoffices, finding opportunities for inner city, lower-skilled and minority workers is especially critical.Often the opportunities in metropolitan regions are inthe suburbs, many of which are experiencingunprecedented growth, but one needs a car to takefull advantage of them.

There is also growing awareness that small busi-nesses are responsible for most job growth in thiscountry and that communities can achieve substantialeconomic growth by nurturing local entrepreneurs,that is, people who produce and/or sell needed prod-ucts and services on a small scale. Although localentrepreneurs start small, with the proper incentives,work environment, and management, they can growto become major contributors to a community’s eco-nomic development.


More and more, communities are developing pro-grams to support and encourage the development andexpansion of small local businesses, ranging fromsmall manufacturing operations to high-tech firms.Local governments, economic development organiza-tions, and national leaders alike have developed inno-vative strategies to search for entrepreneurs and toprovide them with the support they need to getstarted, such as subsidizing work space, offering tech-nical assistance and business training, and relaxingordinances that ban certain types of enterprises, suchas open-air selling. Often assistance is provided in aspecific facility, such as a vacant factory building,where so-called “business incubators” offer newlyformed businesses or retailers space in designatedfacilities where they can receive on-site technical assis-tance, favorable financing and management supportservices that they otherwise could not afford. Thesefacilities frequently offer job-training programs as well.

In many inner cities, these programs are initiated oraugmented by the establishment and designation ofstate and federal government “enterprisecommunity” and “empowerment zones,” which

CHAPTER 6

Creating Opportunity for Entrepreneurship and Economic Development

I urge you to consider three very important goals: First, we must recognize the importance oflinking economic, physical, and human development to successfully build viable communitiesand create new opportunities for the disadvantaged. Second, we should encourage the widest cit-izen participation possible, since no plan is successful that does not have the full support of localcitizens and community leaders. And third, we must work to enhance the environment and cul-ture for urban residents in order to create a revived sense of community spirit that will lead to amore prosperous and livable community.

—Henry Cisneros, former Secretary, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

51

strive to address a broad range of community needs—jobs, safety, affordable housing, schools, transporta-tion—through community-based, comprehensive,strategic planning. Part of the package includes tech-nical planning and design assistance to communities,the provision of tax and other financial incentives toencourage businesses to relocate to these needy areas,funding to increase public transit service and accessto communities, and funding to implement thesestrategic plans.

Local private-public partnerships also use manycreative financial strategies to assist promising busi-nesses that may not yet be able to obtain conventionalfinancing or to make it attractive for an establishedbusiness to locate in a specific area. Many also spon-sor a wide variety of job-training programs.

Strategies for building local economies also includesupporting retail businesses in neighborhood anddowntown commercial districts. Public-private part-nerships and downtown associations have manytypes of programs to assist businesses with financing,design, merchandising and promotion. The conceptof “retail management” applies techniques devel-oped at suburban malls to strengthen downtownbusiness activities, such as creating merchants’ andproperty owners’ associations, and establishing mas-ter lease agreements to coordinate leasing, storehours, merchandising practices, recruitment, andexpansion.

At the smallest scale of retail enterprise, there hasalso been a resurgence in vendors who operate inde-pendently or in public markets. Public and open-airfarm and craft markets, for example, provide afford-able space and on-site management assistance for

producers of local food products and non-food items,while stimulating local community development.PPS’s recent book, Public Markets and CommunityRevitalization, documents the variety of opportunitiesfor and impacts of markets. [1]

Role of Transit

Transit facilities attract people every day, and noone should underestimate the value of foot traffic forbusinesses. Transit brings customers to support andpromote local businesses of all sizes. Moreover, transitsupports business development by providing accessfor employees, especially transit dependent popula-tions who can take advantage of job-training and edu-cational opportunities if they are made accessible.

By taking advantage of foot traffic, transit facilitiescan become mixed-use developments, which providea variety of retail and shopping opportunities. Thelarger transit facilities, like Washington andChicago’s Union Station, and Boston South Station,attract tens of thousands of people annually—manyof whom come to dine and shop and do not eventake the train. In Chicago, most of the food busi-nesses are locally owned and operated. The designand merchandising standards are state-of-the-artand an overall appearance of quality is maintained,in dramatic contrast to the condition of these stationsbefore redevelopment.

Even for smaller transit facilities, there is potentialfor small business development. New Jersey Transit’sStation Renewal Program is developing passenger ser-vice centers, with satellite operations of businesseslike bakeries, dry cleaners, delicatessens, florists, andshoe repair, which operate satellite stores and vend-ing carts at transit stops during the busiest times ofday. They are also developing “concierge” programswhere one or more people contract with local busi-nesses to act as an intermediary between transit cus-tomers and their shops. In the mornings, a conciergecollects from passengers their dry cleaning, undevel-oped film, shoes to be repaired, keys to be made, andso forth, and distributes these items to the appropriatemerchants. Before the evening rush, the conciergeretrieves these items and distributes them to passen-gers when they return to the transit facility.

Other forms of small business development includevending programs, like Downtown CrossingMarketplace in Boston, the Columbus Circle Market inNew York City, and Pioneer Square in Portland, whichfeatures a cafe, flower and food vendors, and a branchof a local bookstore. Vending areas can also beindoors. One of the successful retail areas in UnionStation in Washington, DC, is a vending area (whichactually looks more like the ground floor of a depart-ment store) with local businesses selling quality

52

Figure 6-1. St. Louis’s Wellston Metrolink Station has not only become a new transit hub for the community, butalso has stimulated the development of a job training and business incubation center in the abandoned WagnerElectric Factory Building. (Credit: Project for PublicSpaces, Inc.)

crafts. The Port Authority Bus Terminal’s renovationprogram began with an experimental vending cartprogram operated by a minority entrepreneur.

Transit has also been a catalyst for renewal ofdowntown and neighborhood commercial districts, aspresented in Chapter 5. Transit agencies have takenspecific steps to support local businesses. InWoodbridge, NJ, New Jersey Transit hired an artist todesign maps and guides to the town’s businesses andservices, which are displayed on train platforms. NJTransit also works with local retailers, especiallythose located in or next to a facility, to provide sched-ule and fare information to their commuter customersand even to sell parking permits (NetherwoodStation, Plainfield, NJ). The entire Denver Partnershipprogram is built around the joint support for transitand for downtown businesses, creating a successfulenvironment for both. While all retail merchants donot necessarily believe a transit station or facility neartheir stores helps bring them business (see the exam-ple on transit malls in Chapter 5, for example), thosewhom we surveyed in Portland and Corpus Christidid believe that transit service had benefited the areaoverall and made it a very good place to do businessbecause transit was effectively integrated into thedowntown environment.

Finally, in Chicago, one of the original partners in theGreen Line Initiative, was one of the largest industrialincubators in the country—recognizing that businessincubators and job-training programs require effectivetransit access. This area has also been designated a fed-eral EZ as a direct result of the community’s action tosave and revitalize the Green Line. In St. Louis, a part-nership has been established to create a job-trainingcenter and business incubator in an abandoned factorycomplex, adjacent to Wellston Station, a new light railstation. Another jobs strategy takes the oppositeapproach: Jobs Link in Chicago shuttles workers fromthe inner city to the suburbs where jobs are moreprevalent but for which transit access is inadequate.

ENDNOTE

1. Spitzer, Theodore Morrow et al., Public Markets andCommunity Revitalization, Project for Public Spaces, Inc.,and the Urban Land Institute (1995).

EXAMPLES

Washington, DC: Union Station Local Business Opportunities at Revitalized Intermodal Station

Union Station in Washington, DC, is a bustlingfacility serving 50,000 daily Amtrak travelers,

Maryland Area Railway Commuter (MARC) riders,Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority(WMATA) Metro riders, tourist bus passengers, taxi-cabs, office workers, and area residents. With trainsand subways infusing the station with people in regu-lar intervals, Union Station pulsates with life. Indeed,the transit function is essential to the success of thestation. The Metro (i.e., subway) stop is the secondbusiest in the city, serving office workers at lunch (thestation has its own lunchtime rush hour), Amtrak passengers, visitors and tourists going to the CapitolBuilding and nearby museums, as well as employeesof the area (including Capitol Hill and other federaloffices). Like South Station in Boston, Union Station hasbecome a neighborhood central square where peoplefeel safe shopping, eating, and meeting friends;indeed, the station is the second largest tourist attrac-tion in Washington.

Union Station, which is owned by the U.S.Department of Transportation, was redeveloped bythe nonprofit Union Station RedevelopmentCorporation (USRDC) and is managed by LaSallePartners, a private management firm that holds a 99-year lease on the station and is the leaseholder for thestation’s many retail tenants. While the USRDC wasresponsible for bringing in private developers, restor-ing the train station and all of its historic elements,LaSalle replaced the government in handling day-to-day operations of the station, including maintenance(24 hours/day cleaning) and security. In addition, themanagement firm sponsors seasonal events andactivities such as “Taste of the Nation,” an annualculinary festival that help to finance other commu-nity events. LaSalle also runs an innovative socialservice referral program for the homeless with freetransport to area shelters and food donation servicebetween station restaurants and local homelessfacilities.

Retail sales at Union Station reached $70 million in1995 and, at the current growth rate of 5 percent peryear, are projected to top $101 million in 1996—$70million more than the $35 million projected when thestation reopened in 1988. The 600,000 sq ft of retailspace is 95 percent leased and 99 percent occupied bystores that are or will reflect the retail specialty. Therecurrently are 140 retail tenants at the station rentingan average of 1,000 sq ft each. Retailers must conformto strict design criteria: 85 percent of each storefrontmust be transparent; fluorescent and neon lightingare not permitted; signage is controlled; and buildingmaterials must be in keeping with the historic style ofthe architecture.

Union Station also provides opportunities for start-up businesses. The station’s East Hall has been com-pletely given over to movable, mahogany counter-height retail kiosks where vendors hold leases for as

53

few as 60 days and up to 12 months. The East Hallkiosk program allows vendors to try out new mer-chandise, experiment with new marketing ideas, andfocus on seasonal products while incurring very littlefinancial risk or having to make a long-term commit-ment. Some businesses that were incubated in theEast Hall and have moved into permanent retail spacein the main station area. Vendors in the East Hallinclude artists, craftspeople, and mom-and-pop-typebusinesses, several of which are minority enterprises.Between 1,200 and 1,500 new jobs have been createdwithin the station itself.

New York, NY: Columbus Circle MarketSubway Station Plaza as Place for Economic Opportunity

The Columbus Circle site is a boon to business and not onlyhas sustained the Market and its vendors but has allowed itto grow. The new covered entrance to the station made thatentrance more attractive to people and has helped to drawmore people to the Market.

—Alan Boss, Market Manager

The Columbus Circle Market is located at the plazaentrance to the Columbus Circle subway station, oneof the busiest in New York City, and in front of theNew York Coliseum (the city’s old convention center)and one of the offices of the MetropolitanTransportation Authority (MTA). The subway stationis a major hub, serving as a transfer between fourlines and as a major station for Manhattan’s west side.

The market, which opened in May 1995, was con-ceived by the MTA Real Estate Division to take

advantage of the tens of thousands of commuters,office workers, tourists, and area residents who fre-quent the station. When the city’s new conventioncenter opened, usage of the Coliseum dropped andmuch of the plaza was underutilized despite theheavy usage of the subway station. Homeless peoplecamping in plaza nooks and crannies became moreand more of a problem. The market was introduced to add positive activity and to make the homelessactivity less prevalent.

The contract to operate the market for the MTA wasawarded to a group that also operates antique andflea markets throughout Manhattan and that orga-nizes the Central Park South craft market for theDepartment of Parks and Recreation each year. TheColumbus Circle Market functions 10 months peryear (closing after Christmas and reopening in mid-March) and accommodates 55 vendors: 16 at tables ina large tent, 30 around the tent (weather permitting)and 9 in permanent kiosks that have been retrofittedwith electricity and running water. While the kiosksare leased annually to vendors of food and merchan-dise, such as clothing, flowers, jewelry and rugs, themajority of vendors rent space in or around the tenton a day-to-day basis, particularly if they are transientor can’t afford to pay in advance. On Tuesdays andThursdays during the summer, the daily spaces arerented to farmers.

The Columbus Circle Market has been successfulboth as an economic and retail incubator and as amethod for replacing negative activity with a posi-tive use.

Chicago, IL: A Public/Private Joint Ventureto Create Local Retail Opportunities at Transit Stations

Taking advantage of blighted retail space at transitstations can benefit transit operators, improve thelivability of the neighborhood around the stationand provide local jobs. In 1993, the nonprofitEdgewater Development Corporation andCombined Properties Management, a for-profitleasing and management company, joined togetherto create the Edgewater Redevelopment Group(ERG) which undertook to rehabilitate and re-leasethe commercial properties owned by the ChicagoTransit Authority (CTA) that were under or adjacentto four intermodal elevated (El) transit stations along the Red Line. ERG’s goals for the project wereto introduce transit-oriented retail at the Red Line

54

Figure 6-2. Interior of Union Station, Washington, DC,Grand Concourse. Nearly all 600,000 sq ft of retail spaceis currently leased. (Credit: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

stations and to encourage private commercialinvestment in the area, in hopes of turning thecommunity around.

The ERG was able to secure an interest-free loan of$500,000 from the CTA to accomplish the work, whichhas included the rehabilitation of the facades andlighting of 21 stores in the area. The ERG oversaw theprivate-sector rehabilitation work, encouraged theCTA to maintain other parts of their property (stationentrances, etc.), and developed a transit/commuter-oriented tenant mix. The businesses, 70 percent ofwhich are minority business enterprises, are locatednext to station entrances and at staircase entrances.

The retail mix was designed to provide many goodsand services to commuters, including newsstands,coffee carts, dry cleaners, ATMs, and a foreign cur-rency exchange.

The majority of original tenants have remained,the properties are nearly 100 percent leased and theprogram has begun to provide a revenue stream forthe ERG. The project represents significant commer-cial reinvestment in the area which, according toproject manager Marty Goldsmith, usually lags farbehind residential reinvestment, making it more dif-ficult to revitalize a neighborhood and create a morelivable place.

55

Figure 6-3. A lively depiction of New York City’s Columbus Circle Market by artist K. Jacobsen adorns the interiors of sub-way cars and invites transit passengers to stop and shop.

Chicago, IL: Suburban Job-Link ConnectsJobs and People

We are consciously trying to open up the suburbs as a placeof work for the inner-city poor, instead of granting themaccess only to job opportunities around the corner.

—Mark Hughes, Director, Bridges to Work

Access to jobs is a major challenge for low-incomeinner-city residents. In cities like Chicago, St. Louis,Detroit, and Milwaukee, two-thirds of the new jobscreated between 1980 and 1990 were located outsidecity cores. The city of Denver alone lost 13,000 jobsduring this time while its suburbs gained 184,000 jobs.The amount of office space now located in exurbanareas has more than doubled, to 57 percent in the past20 years. This includes manufacturing, retail, servicefirms, and offices.

While an increasing number of entry-level jobs areavailable that pay a living wage and offer full bene-fits, they are located in distant suburbs. The risingunemployed inner-city work forces remain cut offfrom these opportunities simply because of a lack oftime-saving and cost-efficient transportation.Bridging this gap is the goal of nonprofit groups likeSuburban Job-Link, a 4-year, $25 million program. Itis funded jointly by private foundations and the pub-lic sector to promote reverse commuting in citiesacross the United States. Job-Link minivans collectworkers in downtown locations and transport them,free of charge, to jobs as far away as adjacent coun-ties. Job-Link also operates training centers wherepeople are tested, trained, and matched with particu-lar jobs. Chicago Job Oasis, a service of Suburban Job-Link, has chosen to concentrate on a targeted clusterof distressed communities in the West Side where it has successfully trained and placed more than 200 residents in $6.00 to $8.00/hour jobs in DuPageCounty.

While the program has been successful thus far,according to Job Oasis Director David Boyd, “longcommutes, unfamiliar job cultures and difficultyadjusting to ethnically diverse workplaces lead someto drop out.”

CASE STUDIES

Clearly, many opportunities exist for transit facilitiesand agencies to support local businesses and transit-related enterprises and to provide quality service totheir customers, increasing transit’s positive impacton its passenger communities. Case studies showwhere transit, working in partnership with local com-munities and businesses, has achieved just this.

Case Study 6-1: Boston, MA: Downtown Crossing Transit and Pedestrian Improvements Create Setting forUrban Marketplace

Case Study 6-2: Chicago, IL: Union Station Local Businesses Thrive in Redeveloped Historic Station

Case Study 6-3: St. Louis, MO: The Wellston MetroLink/Cornerstone Partnership Light Rail Service Linking Mobility with Opportunity

The vending marketplace has become so essential down-town. It has done a lot to increase the draw of the area, andis an important stream of income for the DowntownCrossing Association. We turn this income into programswhich improve and enhance the district as a whole.

—Bethany Kendall, President, Downtown Crossing Association

SUMMARY

Boston’s Downtown Crossing is both a retail and atransit center for downtown Boston. Home to Filene’s,Filene’s Basement and Macy’s department stores aswell as hundreds of smaller, thriving businesses,Downtown Crossing is a major shopping destination.Transit improvements constructed in the late 1970s,combined with a major expansion of the subway lines

56

Figure 6-4. Suburban Job-Link. David Boyd, Vice Presidentin charge of training (left), greets a job seeker from Chicagoas he arrives at Suburban Job-Link’s Job Oasis inBensenville, IL. (Credit: Suburban Job-Link)

Case Study 6-1Boston, MA: Downtown Crossing Transit and Pedestrian Improvements Create Setting for Urban Marketplace

and an increase in ridership, have helped to create theDowntown Crossing Marketplace, a vending pro-gram which enlivens the area, creates jobs, and sup-ports the ongoing activities of a managementorganization working to improve the downtown.

PLANNING PROCESS

In 1966, the MBTA published its visionary“Program for Mass Transit,” which set the stage for amajor expansion of the rail transit system and a mora-torium on highway construction within the Route 128“Beltway” that surrounds Boston. In 1973, to meetfederal air-quality standards, the city instituted afreeze on public parking spaces. Between 1970 and1990, the number of route miles on the subway system was doubled with the construction of the newOrange Line and the Red Line extension (see CaseStudy 5-1).

The hub of the transit system is DowntownCrossing, the site where all the subway lines converge.A major retail center, the area was very congested inthe 1970s as buses, cars, and pedestrians—includingsome 60,000 daily riders of the “T” subway stations—competed for the same space along Washington Street.Recognizing that the environment for shoppers andtransit riders was clearly overcrowded, the city ofBoston initiated a program in 1977 to developDowntown Crossing as an “auto-restricted zone.”With funding from the federal Urban Mass Trans-portation Administration (now FTA), a series of pro-posals were studied to eliminate auto traffic on maindowntown streets in favor of improved access forpedestrians, buses, and subway transit riders.

While previous attempts to restrict auto accessdowntown had failed because of merchant opposi-tion, this proposal succeeded in part because businesspeople had seen the success of the new Faneuil HallMarketplace with its ample and lively pedestrian-friendly design. Through a complex 3-year planningprocess consisting of meetings, hearings, and behind-the-scenes negotiations, the Mayor’s office was able toorchestrate consensus on a plan that provided for apedestrian mall on Washington Street and a reroutingof car and bus traffic around this largely pedestriancenter.

Downtown Crossing opened in fall 1979 with a newlook: wide brick sidewalks and pedestrian amenities.An evaluation conducted by PPS in 1980 found thatthe area, in general, was vital and popular. However,not all of the public spaces were working as well asthey could; in fact, by removing cars and creatingmore pedestrian space than ever before, there weremany places that were underused. PPS then madesuggestions for rearranging amenities and developing

a management program to sponsor activities toenliven the area. A 1982 report included additionalideas for specific programs, such as a vending pro-gram, to help further activate the downtown and raiserevenues for the management of the district.

STRATEGY

The Downtown Crossing Association, which wasestablished to implement these programs, opened itsDowntown Crossing Marketplace in 1983. Today, themarketplace features 75 “on-street retailers” with, astheir brochure describes, “an international display ofquality merchandise and a variety of delicious snacksand treats. You’ll find ethnic wares, flowers and bal-loons, Boston souvenirs, men’s, women’s, and chil-dren’s accessories and cheerful, friendly pushcartvendors.” Vendors are spread throughout theDowntown Crossing area, which generally extendsbetween the major “T” stations. Over the years, thevendor spots next to the “T” stations have becomevalued locations for vendors selling impulse items,produce, and flowers to subway travelers.

While the marketplace is managed on a day-to-daybasis by a private financial partner, the DowntownCrossing Association oversees quality control, trouble-shoots problems, and assists with various cityapprovals. The association also retains the rights tothe program.

Over the past decade, the vending program hascontinued to evolve. Regulations have been modified,the private operator has been changed, and merchant

57

Figure 6-5. Case Study 6-1. Vendors liven up the sidewalksand T-station entrances throughout downtown Boston. TheDowntown Crossing program acts as both a retail and tran-sit center and supports the ongoing activities of a downtownmanagement organization. (Credit: Project for PublicSpaces, Inc.)

outreach continues to ensure that a balance betweenvendor requirements, street ambiance, and retailerneeds are met. The association has used the proceedsfrom the marketplace to conduct activities that drawshoppers to the area and make the area safer andmore attractive for all visitors, including transit rid-ers. Activities have included a summer concert series,holiday lights, new trash barrels, a marketing pro-gram, and banners.

FUNDING

In 1979, funding for the construction of DowntownCrossing came largely from federal transportationfunds from the Urban Mass TransportationAdministration (now FTA).

As noted above, the marketplace is not just self-sustaining; it generates income for the DowntownCrossing Association. While the exact figures are pro-prietary, vendors pay from $200 to $1000 per month,depending on their location. About 40 to 50 vendorsoperating 75 carts participate in the program. Start-upfunding (including purchasing push carts, etc.) wasprovided by the private financial partner.


The vending marketplace was not easy to establish.Merchants were concerned about the visual appear-ance of the vendors as well as potential competition.The association itself did not want to manage the dailyoperation of the marketplace, nor could it afford thestart-up costs of purchasing push carts. A managementpartnership with a private operator was set up, withthe association sharing revenues and providing qualitycontrol oversight. Strict regulations were set up gov-erning merchandise type and quality, cart design, ven-dor dress, and even a “returns” policy. To preventdirect competition, merchants have absolute controlover vendors in front of their stores. Only 25 percent ofthe vendors can sell food, and then it must be hand-held food that doesn’t compete with area restaurants.


Boston’s Downtown Crossing is a place where thepositive impacts of transit can be seen first hand. Theextensive investment in new subway lines in the1970s and 1980s resulted in a dramatic increase in rid-ership—up 20 percent over the past 20 years. About50 percent of all commuter trips to the center ofBoston today are by transit, and the subway linesthemselves are operating at near peak capacity.

This investment in the transit system has continuedto feed the economic vitality of Downtown Crossing.

Moreover, by taking advantage of the new space cre-ated by transit improvements and the flow of transitriders, the Downtown Crossing Association has cre-ated a program so successful that it is the main sourceof financial support for the association itself. Thecity’s Parks Department has even copied the programaround other transit stops, including the downtownstation in Boston Common. Despite its successes, the

58

Figure 6-6. Case Study 6-1. Downtown Crossing promo-tional brochure. (Credit: Downtown Crossing Association)

program requires constant attention to maintain qual-ity control.

The marketplace has created hundreds of jobs andcreated the opportunity for people to start businessesat low costs. There is a core of 20–30 vendors whohave more or less established permanent businesses “a la carte.” While the association has not kept detailedstatistical information about the program, vendorsrange from recent immigrants to frustrated corporateexecutives. One cart was started by a refugee fromCambodia who sold intricate carvings. The profits putthe vendor through MIT, and today the family stilloperates the cart. Another vendor started with a cartand then moved into permanent space in the newlyrenovated South Station (see Case Study 10-4).

CONCLUSIONS

The Downtown Crossing Marketplace, whichbegan as a transit and pedestrian improvement proj-ect, has helped maintain Downtown Crossing as apremier shopping destination in Boston. The market-place has contributed to the livability of the city bycreating hundreds of jobs, enlivening the downtown,and supplying a creative financing method, whichsupports programs to improve attractiveness, vitality,and overall business climate in the district.

SOURCES

Cambridge Systematics, Boston Auto-Restricted Zone Demonstration Project, U.S. Department ofTransportation (1979).

Cambridge Systematics, Downtown Boston Transportation Plan, U.S. Department ofTransportation (1995).

SUMMARY

From 1989 through 1991, Chicago’s historic UnionStation underwent a $37 million renovation that trans-formed it into one of the most modern and attractiverail passenger facilities in the country. Chicago UnionStation, on the west side of Chicago’s Loop, is the city’sbusiest commuter rail station, handling 23 million com-muters and 2.3 million Amtrak customers annually.

Prior to the renovation, Amtrak, which owns thestation through a subsidiary company (ChicagoUnion Station Company), believed that the poor con-dition of the station impacted its business by makingpart of the rail passengers’ travel experience a nega-tive one. Amtrak saw an opportunity to use theremodeled station as a way to promote train traveland make the station the activity center of the WestLoop area once again.

Amtrak worked with a local developer to redevelopthe station. One of the key components of this pro-gram was a complex of restaurants and food retailersto serve the 25 million train customers and 65,000office workers within walking distance of the station.The food service retailers, who generally wereselected from among the best of Chicago, were skepti-cal about being able to sell to an audience whom theyhad little experience serving. However, the results interms of sales have exceeded even optimistic projec-tions and the station is praised by passengers andpublic alike—a new center for the West Loop.

PLANNING PROCESS

Historically, Chicago Union Station was thenational train hub for all transcontinental trips and alltrain passengers traveling coast-to-coast changedtrains there. It became famous for its Great Hall wait-ing lounge and Fred Harvey’s Red Lion restaurant.

Union Station is located at the western edge ofChicago’s downtown area. The area had been a transi-tion zone between the downtown high-rise officebuildings and mid-rise warehouses and factories thatsurrounded the Loop. As warehouses and factorieshave left, this area has been transformed into residen-tial and office space. Since the 1980s, the West Loophas become the “hot” real estate market for new high-rise office buildings as more tenants wanted to becloser to the commuter train stations and cheaperparking.

Within a 10-min walk of Union Station are almost20 million sq ft of office space with an estimated day-time population of close to 65,000. Above the stationis the 222 South Riverside office building with 1.1 mil-lion sq ft of office space and a daytime office popula-tion of more than 3,000 workers.

Chicago Union Station is the second busiest railwaystation in the United States with 23 million com-muters annually. On an average workday, some85,000 Metra commuters—which represent almost 10percent of all downtown workers—use the station.Chicago is the central hub for the country whereabout 1,000 of the more than 6,000 daily Amtrak trainriders change trains going from coast-to-coast. Thescheduling of these trains provides for a minimum

59

Case Study 6-2Chicago, IL: Union Station Local Businesses Thrive in Redeveloped Historic Station

layover of 3 hours between trains, providing time fortravelers to buy food and goods outside the com-muter rush hours.

In 1970, the passenger concourse building wasdemolished to construct the 35-story 222 RiversidePlaza Building. The new building was part of a 3.4-million-sq-ft Gateway complex of offices built on rail-road air rights overlooking the Chicago River. Thenew station under 222 Riverside Plaza was strictlyutilitarian and had unpainted concrete block wallsand exposed concrete flooring finishes. The GreatHall of the station, which is on the National Registryof Historic Places, was left untouched.

When Daniel Burnham designed the station in1914, he anticipated a 16-story office buildingaround the Great Hall. However, because of variousdelays, the station was not finished until the GreatDepression and only nine floors of the office portionwere built.

In the later part of the 1980s, Chicago Union Stationissued a request for proposals to developers for theredevelopment of the station and the adjacent GreatHall building. Chicago Union Station awarded U.S.Equities Reality, Inc., of Chicago the right to develop1.2 million sq ft of office space cantilevered in twin tow-ers over the Great Hall along with the restoration of theGreat Hall and the passenger service facilities beneath222 Riverside. Ironically, the plans for constructing theoffice building along with adding 180,000 sq ft of retailspace in the Great Hall area again fell through becauseof the recession in 1989 when developers could nolonger obtain financing for new office buildings.

When the office portion of the development did notproceed, Chicago Union Station did not abandon theproject. Rather, it pursued a new strategy with U.S.Equities Realty to redevelop the portion of the station

constructed in 1970. Lund & Associates, from Chicago,served as the retail planning consultant on the project.

The extensive retail space originally proposed forthe new office building was scaled back to the mezza-nine area of the 1970 annex, to be divided into manyindependently operated food businesses. Whennational food chains proved disinterested, the focusshifted to existing, independently owned food busi-nesses from the city of Chicago. Union Station foundthis option especially appealing because it wouldallow the station to be marketed as a unique destina-tion, rather than a generic airport-like retail mall.

STRATEGY

The strategy of this project was to bring new life tothe historic station, building on its extraordinaryarchitecture and developing services, amenities, retail,and food service that appeal to today’s customers:Amtrak passengers, suburban commuters, and thenearby office population.

Retail and Food Service. The mezzanine level of the1970 wing was completely reconfigured to takeadvantage of the flow of commuters for which it is the primary entrance. New escalators were added toconnect the mezzanine to the main floor whereAmtrak passengers wait during their layover.

Approximately 21,000 sq ft of food service was cre-ated. Although there is a small 2,400-sq-ft McDonald’sand newsstands that are chain operations, all theother food businesses are locally owned and oper-ated—most with well-known, local reputations forquality and value. Many are minority or womanowned. (McDonald’s, which is Chicago-based, was a

60

Figure 6-8. Case Study 6-2. Union Station in Chicago is ahustling commercial center which features locally ownedand operated businesses, serving 23 million commutersannually. (Credit: Larry Lund)

Figure 6-7. Case Study 6-2. Chicago’s historic UnionStation is at the center of a revitalizing office district. (Credit:Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

kind of insurance policy and was selected because itwas so popular.) Businesses include Connie’s Pizza,Biff’s Headhouse Diner & Tap, Clark Street Deli,Dock’s Great Fish, and others.

Businesses have tailored their services and productto the station. Even McDonald’s provides specialattention to Amtrak customers: games for the childrenand televisions that show cartoons on Saturday morn-ings and sporting events later in the day. McDonald’sis designed in the rail motif with the same colorscheme as the station. McDonald’s also sells railroadand Amtrak souvenirs, helping to achieve a specialambiance for customers.

Passenger Amenities. The main or concourse levelwas also completely reconfigured for Amtrak passen-gers. Attractive new restrooms and comfortable pas-senger lounges were built on the concourse level. Anairline-club like facility was constructed for first classpassengers, a children’s play area, and two “ziosks,”small rooms for rent for rest, respite, and retreat.

Design. The historic section of the station wasrestored. The adjacent Great Hall waiting area waspainted and the ceiling illuminated. The brass lightfixtures were restored and the wooden benchesrefinished. The limestone exterior of the building wascleaned and illuminated.

The 1970 wing, a desolate design at best, was com-pletely redone using a subtle art deco style reminis-cent of the grand railway stations of the past.Concrete block walls were covered in honed northernbluff dolomite with verde tinos marble trim; and thebare tile floors were done in a polychrome terrazzowith brass and stainless accent strips.

Marketing. Union Station has undertaken an exten-sive program to market the station as a unique localattraction. For example, it began showcasing its foodestablishments through the “Taste of Chicago” pro-gram, which provides area workers, train customersand visitors alike with a chance to experience Chicago’sfinest culinary treats. It has served to further establishChicago Union Station as a special place in the WestLoop area.

FUNDING

Of the $37 million for the renovation, $7 millioncame from Metra, the commuter rail service, and $30million was financed through the operating funds ofthe Chicago Union Station Company. While busi-nesses at the station are successful and contribute tooperating income, the retail is viewed more as an“amenity that pays for itself,” something that makes a

substantial contribution to the overall environment of the station. In addition, operating costs haveincreased since the renovation: marble being morecostly to maintain than bare concrete.


In 1990, the Chicago Union Station Companyissued requests for qualifications for food service andrestaurant operators looking for a single operator forthe entire mezzanine level. While discussions contin-ued with several national and local food operators,none delivered a proposal with food programmingand economic structuring that would deliver the qual-ity of service the Chicago Union Station Companywanted for this facility.

When the plan then shifted from seeking a singleoperator to finding several food service operators totake individual spaces on the mezzanine level, many“site selectors” for national restaurant operators werecontacted about the opportunities for opening anoperation at Union Station. The problem was thatmany of these site selectors had no experience withand a generally negative image of train stations. Evenannual pedestrian traffic counts of 25 million did notseem to impress site selectors who were more inter-ested in whether or not stores could be seen frompassing automobiles. The value of foot traffic was notconsidered primarily because their site-selection crite-ria did not address it. It was this attitude that movedUnion Station into an approach with local businesses.

Even this option was not without problems.American retailers, too, have lost the tradition of leas-ing at train stations and have few notions on how toservice train customers. Many of those contactedabout the opportunities at Union Station were uncon-vinced that they could operate a successful businessat the station, despite the high foot traffic on the mez-zanine level, proximity to the train waiting lounges,and large nearby office population.

To successfully lease the space, Chicago UnionStation had to provide very low base rents for busi-nesses and take a percentage of sales after a certainthreshold was achieved. To lower the base rents evenfurther, they increased the percentage as salesincreased: the more sales, the higher the percentage.In return for lower base rent, Chicago Union Stationnow receives from some tenants as much as 24 per-cent of sales when sales volumes reach certain thresh-olds. This rent is in addition to common area chargesto cover maintenance and promotion of retail.

In the beginning, Union Station also allowed somebusinesses to try the space as an experiment. One ofChicago’s premier restaurateurs was skeptical abouthow successful the station would be for his new

61

Corner Bakery concept. U.S. Equities convinced himto open a small temporary 110-sq-ft stall. After report-edly generating sales of $5,000 a day in bread, hesigned a lease for 2,000 sq ft of retail space.


The facility clearly appeals to all of the intendedcustomers. By 1994, the station’s food retailers weregenerating more than $12.5 million in sales annually,which is about $600 per sq ft of rentable area. Thesesales figures rank the station as one of the better retaillocations in the country. Because of the percentagerental structure, Union Station has also benefited fromthis success.

For example, McDonald’s is now generating morethan $2 million in sales in 2,400 sq ft. It had negotiatedclauses that permitted closing the store if sales werebelow $300,000 annually and thought, at best, itwould do $1.2 million. McDonald’s is now payingsubstantial percentage rent and regrets that it doesnot have more space.

Retail is so successful that there is now a lack ofadequate seating at the station, which is limiting foodsales. Chicago Union Station has responded byadding more tables and one retailer, the CornerBakery, now provides seating outside the store front.A lack of space in the eating areas for people carryingluggage remains a problem.

Finally, the station has had a very positive impacton the West Loop area. Leasing in office towers in thevicinity of the station is reported to be easier thanbefore. While rental rates are not higher than else-where, the station is considered to be a positive fea-ture for the area—not just because it providesconvenient commuter access, but because it is animportant amenity for the district.

CONCLUSIONS

Chicago Union Station now provides a clean,bright, and safe environment where people at allhours can come for meals and entertainment, as wellas to catch the train. Because of the redevelopment,Chicago Union Station has again become the center ofactivity for the West Loop area. Both Amtrak andMetra commuter rail customers now experience thecomfort of a well-designed station, while the city ofChicago benefits from a new public amenity.

Union Station, once a faded shadow of its formerglory, is again a center of vitality in downtownChicago. While providing increased services for mil-lions of transit passengers, the station provides signif-icant opportunity for local businesses—a refreshingalternative to the standard chains so pervasive acrossAmerica today.

MetroLink will not just make St. Louis a more livable com-munity and not just clean up the environment. It will ful-fill our most important national goal—to provide a higherstandard of living for our citizens

—Congressman Richard Gephardt

What this project seeks to accomplish is truly amazing. It isour hope and belief that this facility will become a model forthe region and nation of how to help disadvantaged youthfind long-term, productive jobs through quality trainingand education programs.

—Buzz Westfall, St. Louis County Executive

Transit is the catalyst for development—it can help makethings happen.

—Frank Sparicio, chairman of Urban Land Institute panel commissioned to make recommendations

for the new MetroLink stations.

[This initiative] is creating an aura of economic promisenot felt in Wellston in years . . . MetroLink’s success andridership numbers have exceeded even the most optimisticexpectations.

—Buzz Westfall, as quoted in St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial.

SUMMARY

In 1993, St. Louis opened its new light rail line,which connects downtown St. Louis, East St. Louis,and Lambert International Airport. One of the sys-tem’s stations is located in the inner-city communityof Wellston, a distressed area with a 500,000 sq ft,vacant industrial building near the station. Toincrease ridership at the Wellston station, improvetransit access, generate activity at the station andrevitalize Wellston economically, the EconomicCouncil of St. Louis County, the Bi-State Develop-ment Agency (BSDA, a transit agency), Arts inTransit and the East-West Gateway CoordinatingCouncil are partnering to transform the area aroundthe Wellston station into a vibrant mobility centerthat will include the Cornerstone Partnership’s state-of-the-art manufacturing training center underdevelopment by the county. This initiative is beingimplemented through a collaboration among govern-ment agencies, nonprofit organizations, communityresidents, and businesses to bring mobility andeconomic opportunity together. It is hoped that thiseffort will foster economic revitalization in thismixed-use industrial, commercial, and residentialneighborhood.

62

Case Study 6-3St. Louis, Missouri: The WellstonMetroLink/Cornerstone Partnership Light Rail Service Linking Mobility with Opportunity

The education and business incubation center willbe located in a vacant industrial complex. A child carecenter is also planned. In addition, a range of siteimprovements and streetscape enhancements sur-rounding the station area have also been planned toconnect the station with the development activitiesaround it.

PLANNING PROCESS

The tragic 1992 slaying of an 11-year-old boy play-ing near the remains of the Wagner Electricmanufacturing site focused community attention onthe need to revitalize this desolate, unsafe area ofWellston. Deeded to St. Louis County in 1983,Wagner Electric had been reduced to a series of crum-bling buildings—very visible from the new light railline and station—in anticipation of redevelopmentplans that never materialized. The site is composed offive industrial buildings and over 500,000 sq ft ofvacant space spread out over 24 acres contiguous toWellston station.

The Wellston neighborhood has an unemploymentrate 2.5 times the regional average, as jobs havesteadily moved from the city center to the suburbs. In addition, violence in the area has worsened. Toaddress these problems, the Economic Council of St. Louis County created the Cornerstone Partnershipto provide job-training for young adults and newskills for laid-off workers. The Wagner Electric com-plex will be the site for all of the programs. The initia-tive is modeled after Detroit’s highly successful“FOCUS: Hope” project whose students work as subcontractors to the auto industry.

The Wellston MetroLink station provides access tothe light rail line, to two bus routes (the Page and thePage Express) and to an adjacent commuter parkand ride. When the station opened, ridershipexceeded all projections, and it became clear that thestation could better serve the community by connect-ing the Cornerstone Partnership complex and adja-cent areas with the Wellston MetroLink Station.BSDA/Arts in Transit received a LivableCommunities grant from FTA to begin addressingthese issues.

Project partners have organized a series of focusgroup sessions to facilitate community visioning.Community involvement has also included a townmeeting and public participation using a VisualPreference Survey (VPS) to provide a better under-standing of community concerns related to station-area improvements. In addition, the Urban LandInstitute convened a panel in September 1995 toexamine specific development opportunities in threestations, including Wellston.

Objectives of the overall project include thefollowing:

• Increasing use of the park and ride,• Beautification of the surrounding area,• Enhancing station safety and security,• Providing better access to job-training and educa-

tional opportunities,• Increasing employment opportunities in the

immediate area,• Encouraging community pride, and• Providing a child care/community services facility.

Planning, rehabilitation, and transformation of station-area enhancements and the Wagner Electriccomplex have involved intragovernmental coopera-

63

Figures 6-9 and 6-10. Case Study 6-3. The recently com-pleted Wellston Station with the Wagner Electric Factory inthe background (Figure 6-9). Members of the communityparticipated in a planning process to identify the features tobe included at the station (Figure 6-10) and a plan to linkthe station to the Wagner factory, which will be redevelopedas a job training and business incubator center. (Credit: Bi-State Development Agency)

tion and public and private agency support. Projectpartners include the following:

• U.S. Department of Commerce,• Department of Transportation-FTA,• Economic Council of St. Louis County,• Bi-State Development Agency/Arts in Transit,• East-West Gateway Coordinating Council,• City of Wellston, and• Community residents.

STRATEGY

The strategy for the project has two main components.

Cornerstone Job-Training Facility at the WagnerElectric Site (the Partnership). The focal point of thisproject is renovation of the former Wagner Electricmanufacturing site and its transformation by theEconomic Council of St. Louis County into a state-of-the-art regional educational and manufacturing train-ing facility. The first phase of development is slatedfor completion in fall 1996. At that time, a remedialeducation program and a manufacturing training pro-gram will begin. Forty leaders from the business,labor, manufacturing, governmental, and educationalcommunities were selected by the County EconomicCouncil to develop the curriculum, with RankenTechnical and the St. Louis Community College pro-viding initial training. In addition to housing theabove institutions, the first building to be renovatedwill also include an enterprise center and a manufac-turing incubator. The latter will target minority start-up firms and focus on job outreach to link minoritybusinesses to jobs on site.

Wellston Station Site Improvements. Proposed siteimprovements to the Wellston station and its sur-roundings include improved sidewalks and lighting,landscaping, public art installation, resurfacing ofroads serving the park-and-ride lot, new signage, bicycle racks, and information on services offered atthe Cornerstone Partnership complex. The station areawill not only be a transportation center; the plans alsoinclude a child care center. In addition, the projectpartners are considering developing a police substa-tion and a small retail/convenience store. Shuttlevans, which will provide MetroLink riders with accessto local Wellston businesses, will also be purchasedthrough the FTA Livable Communities grant.

FUNDING

In August 1994, the Economic Council of St. LouisCounty secured a $4.5 million renovation grant fromthe U.S. Department of Commerce to fund the first

phase of the facility’s construction. The NationalCenter for Manufacturing Sciences is contributing anadditional $1.5 million in training equipment. Theproject site was donated to St. Louis County byWagner Electrical in 1983.

Design improvements to the Wellston Metrolinkstation area are being funded by the FTA. The esti-mated total cost is $956,000. Financial commitmentsby FTA total $764,800, and those by BSDA and thecounty total $191,200.


Synergy of this transit-based community revitaliza-tion effort has been slowed somewhat by the physicalattributes of the surrounding area: vacant lots andbuildings in disrepair abound in the area. Also, initia-tive organizers are challenged to find additional pub-lic resources to attract private investment to the area.Aside from these problems, no major obstacles havebeen encountered thus far.


Because the buildings have not yet been renovated,no new tenants or businesses have moved in. Theanticipated benefits, however, include improved accessand expanded activity at the station and increasedtransit ridership due to increased economic activity.Landscaping, better access, and improved transmissionof information will all enhance the overall atmosphereand appearance of the station for riders and nearbyresidents and retailers. Thus far, the feedback andinvolvement of local organizations, merchants, andresidents has been enthusiastic and positive.

CONCLUSIONS

This project demonstrates the successful partneringof a transit agency with a county economic develop-ment organization, a metropolitan planning organiza-tion and community residents. The partnershipenabled the creation of a transit facility, which will actas a catalyst for the economic development andimproved livability of a very distressed inner citycommunity. Understanding that such an effortrequires the participation of many players, BSDA, theEconomic Council of St. Louis County, and the East-West Gateway Coordinating Council have obtainedfunding from local, county and federal governmentsources and secured the commitment of a range oflocal and national partners. The project’s multidisci-plinary focus—which involves job creation, voca-tional training, mobility, intermodality, adaptivereuse, and the economic revitalization of a depressedarea—is a laudable model of a transit-based commu-nity development initiative.

64

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, people’s fear for their personalsafety has become an overriding issue in communi-ties of nearly all sizes and types across the country.In focus groups conducted for this study, it wasalmost always the first issue mentioned. Indeed, fearof crime is not an isolated problem but impacts allaspects of public life. People’s fears can affect wherethey choose to shop, work, or locate a business. Thiscan lead to the more serious urban problems ofphysical deterioration, disinvestment, and popula-tion loss.

The issue of security goes beyond dealing withactual crime, however. “Crime is a barometer of socialdisorganization,” says Lawrence M. Friedman, anhistorian of criminal justice. He and other criminolo-gists argue that the civil rights progress of the 1960sallowed the black middle class to move from the inner-city thereby removing an important force for socialcontrol. Combined with the flight of manufacturingjobs and increased drug use in communities, theresult was an unprecedented crime wave. [2]

Safety is also a perceptual problem: in fact, peopleoften report feeling unsafe in areas where the actualcrime rate is low. Factors such as uncollected litter,graffiti, people loitering, and dark streets with littlenighttime activity can translate very quickly into theperception that an area is unsafe. A less obvious fac-tor is the destruction of places in communities, as dis-cussed in Chapter 4. When people frequent publicspaces less often, avoid walking down streets becauseof traffic, and begin to retreat into privately run shop-

ping malls and their own homes; all of this affects theperception of security.

Because of these interconnections, the issue of secu-rity needs to be addressed with other livability issues,like downtown and neighborhood renewal, job cre-ation, and other social problems, for example, whichhelp treat some of the underlying causes of crime, notjust the symptoms. In addition, how comfort andamenity are connected with the issue of security isemphasized. The design and use of spaces and build-ings have substantial impact on security, affectingboth crime rates and the perception of crime. Forinstance, a parking lot located in a secluded area orthe rear of a park may be a staging area for crime,because there are no surrounding commercial estab-lishments to generate other activity. Many strategiescan be used to reduce the opportunities for crime thatare inherent in the structure of the buildings and thelayout of the public spaces of a locality as well as toreduce perceptions of danger. The underlyingphilosophy of this approach is that when spaces areusable with amenities and activities that attract arange of people, they also will become safer places.


Traditionally, improving security has meantincreasing the number of police or construction ofbuildings that looked and functioned like fortresses:with interior spaces that could be monitored andaccess that could be controlled. These methods, how-ever, failed to stem the surge of crime throughout the

CHAPTER 7

Improving Safety and Amenity

The central question in the debate about how to decrease crime should not be: how many morepolice are needed?—instead, it should be: how do we create communities where people feel safe,comfortable, and empowered to get involved . . .?

—Kathleen Madden, “A Cry for Community” [1]

65

1970s and 1980s. Because of this failure, new strategicapproaches were developed and tried—the benefits ofwhich are now being felt across the country. As a rule,however, there is no one strategy that works. A com-prehensive approach that addresses all aspects of asecurity problem seems to have the most impact.

The most important new strategy (although somewould say it is actually an old one) is communitypolicing. With this approach, police no longer justpatrol neighborhoods in their cars and respond toreports of crime. Police become actively involved insolving specific crime problems in a community andseek to establish a sense of order and control. Thisinvolves the return of foot patrols, which help tomake people feel more secure and help to deal withthose seemingly petty crimes (like graffiti or loudradios) that contribute to people’s sense of disorder—so called “quality-of-life” crimes. Police in diversecities like New York, St. Louis, and Seattle also workclosely with community organizations and constantlyevaluate crime data to understand where crime isoccurring and why. Programs are then developed tostop crime: these programs can address a variety ofsmall and large issues, from removing a telephonethat is used by drug dealers to a raid on a “crackhouse.”

The results have surprised even hardened policein these cities. In New York City, there has been a 40percent decline in homicides in 2 years; in Seattle,the rate dropped 32 percent last year and 18 percentin St. Louis. The New York Times reports that NewYorkers are now saying that the city is safer, show-ing perceptions are catching up with reality. [3]Studies have shown that the police are also reportingthat they have higher morale, greater job satisfac-tion, and a more favorable attitude toward citizens;citizens also indicate more favorable opinion of thepolice. [4]

Police foot patrols are not the only way to achieve asense of order. Depending on the context, a food ven-dor, a maintenance worker, a nearby store owner, andan information kiosk attendant can all provide infor-mal surveillance of a space and be able to respond tosecurity problems. PPS has found that public spacesthat have a designated manager in charge of them alsobecome safer and less prone to anti-social activities.

So-called “environmental design security” involvesstrategies to create new spaces and buildings, or retro-fit existing ones, so that they become naturally self-policing. One goal is to make existing spaces visiblefor surveillance by police and other users who estab-lish a management presence. For example, designstrategies for improving perceptions of security mightinvolve trimming shrubbery for greater visibility, relo-cating parking from remote places, or reorientingbuildings from an inward focus to the street by addingvisible ground level activities, such as retail.

With environmental design security, it is importantto make a space or place not just more visible: it needsto be an attraction as well. Activities and amenitiesthat attract people help keep it busier and safer.Improvements need not include physical designchanges, but can be limited to programming activi-ties. For example, noontime classical music or jazzconcerts in a downtown park can attract office work-ers and displace loitering, drug dealing, or the pres-ence of anti-social activities.

One of the better examples of successful activity pro-gramming and environmental design security is asmall vest-pocket park in Rockefeller Center in NewYork City. This park was not actively used by down-town workers and had become a center for drug deal-ing. A redesign and management plan for the parkrecommended adding new seating, a cafe, and vendorsand increasing the visibility of the park from the street,while also instituting a regular program of events andentertainment. The use of the park has increased three-fold, with more elderly and women users, and thedrug dealing was completely eliminated.

Cumulatively, this range of security strategies hasproven to be effective in reducing crime in a step-by-step process of reclaiming and reinvigorating space.However, the sign of true success, which will takeyears of effort, will not be just one or two buildings orspaces that are safe havens, but an entire neighbor-hood that is both safe from actual crime and a safe-feeling place for its community.

Role of Transit

Security is a major concern of transit operators,reflecting concerns of transit passengers while theywait at stops or stations and on the transit vehicleitself. Efforts to improve security can benefit the

66

Figure 7-1. Downtown Crossing, Boston, MA. (Credit:Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

broader community around the stops or stations aswell as along the routes on which the transit modeproceeds. Efforts to bring activity to stations and tomake transit facilities more comfortable and attractivealso have security benefits for communities.

Transit agencies have developed security ap-proaches for different situations, which improve secu-rity for both the transit facility and the area around it.Many of the strategies have been developed in placeswhich have had chronic, severe problems, such asNew York City.

Since most transit agencies do not have their ownextensive security forces, most have relied on envi-ronmental design strategies and a management pres-ence to reduce crime and increase the perception ofsafety. One of the reasons for creating bus transferfacilities, such as Tohono Tadai Transit Center in Tucsonand Staples Street Station in Corpus Christi, is to bringpeople together in a comfortable, attractive, infor-mally superviseable area. For example, in Tucsonthere is a staffed information center. These projectscontrast with bus transfer centers in other cities thathave been placed in isolated locations with little if anyon-site management and that often are closed even-ings and weekends. In such cases, ironically, transitagencies did not want to provide amenities for pas-sengers because of security and maintenance reasons.However, the introduction of these amenities hasnot been a problem in Corpus Christi and Tucson, infact they have served as a positive influence.

On a larger scale, South Station in Boston, once anunpleasant terminal with security problems, has beentransformed through its renovation, which includesretail activities and movable tables and chairs in themain waiting area. These and other strategies helpreduce undesirable activities in that station. In NewYork City, surveys of passengers showed that justimproving the overall environment of the subway sta-tion (which included special off peak waiting areasand better views from token booth to the platform)increased perception of security dramatically(although actual crime was always quite low.)

Clearly, one of the goals of The Green Line in Chicagoand Wellston Station in St. Louis, both located in dis-tressed areas, is to bring activity to the stations to helpimprove perceptions of security. Indeed, the Wellstonproject was initiated in part because of a specificcrime. In Woodbridge Station, Woodbridge, New Jersey,surveys conducted after a new station improvementshowed that passengers do feel more secure.

Community policing approaches have also beenused in transit facilities. Baltimore’s new “koban,” afree-standing police booth/kiosk near the light railand bus stops in downtown, has already served as adeterrent to crime. On an informal basis, vendors atDowntown Crossing in Boston also provide “eyes on the

street” to augment conventional police. PioneerCourthouse Square in Portland has its own private secu-rity force to oversee the square, which includes themost used stop on the MAX light rail line; in this case,the transit agency is able to provide security by coop-erating with the management of the square. In NewYork City, the Station Managers Program establishes onemanager in charge of a station who is able to handleall concerns and coordinate with police, providingbetter services and improving cooperation with surrounding communities.

One of the innovative programs to provide securityon buses has been the Rider Advocate Program inPortland. This program addresses problem behaviorand security problems by having paid workers ridethe buses, help customers, and assist the bus driverswith maintaining control. A related program, calledNight Stop, allows passengers to request a stop closerto their destination, even if it is not an official stop. InWatts, security problems related to gangs occurred onthe shuttle buses. The problem has ceased as a resultof the Los Angeles Department of Transportationworking with parents and local community groups.

The concept of comprehensive security is best illus-trated by the Port Authority Bus Terminal in New YorkCity. This program combines community policing,environmental design security, and the establishmentof a management presence to reverse a long history ofsecurity problems in this facility. The management ofthe bus terminal also works closely with surroundingcommunity organizations, resulting in a dramaticdecrease in crime inside and outside the terminal.

ENDNOTES

1. Kathleen Madden, “A Cry for Community,” PlanningCommissions Journal (Fall 1994) p.16.

2. Clifford Krauss, “Now, How Low Can Crime Go?,” TheNew York Times (January 28, 1996) Week in Review, p.5.

3. Clifford Krauss, “City Is Safer, Rising Number of PeopleSay,” New York Times (January 14, 1996) p.27.

4. PPS, Managing Downtown Public Spaces, p.8.

EXAMPLES

Baltimore, MD: Howard Street Mall Koban Police Booth Improves Communityand Transit Security

What Officer Dwight Thomas likes best about hisnew assignment at the Howard Street Koban is thatnow he has the opportunity to meet people other thansuspected criminals. He has also become a visiblesymbol of community policing, where police workclosely with communities to improve livability and

67

quality of life. Officer Thomas is the first police officerin that city to be assigned to the 10-ft by 10-ft air-conditioned koban, which was purchased from theCity of Kyoto, Japan, at a cost of $150,000 and installedin May 1995. The koban is equipped with bulletproofglass and a restroom and soon will have a refrigeratorand closed-circuit television cameras, which willmake it possible for on-duty officers to monitor alarge area.

The booth is located mid-way along the HowardStreet light rail transit mall at the corner of EastLexington Street, one block south of a booming publicmarket in what was once the city’s premier down-town shopping center. Today, only the empty artdeco department stores, like the one opened by theHutzler brothers in the late 1800s, provide visitorswith a clue as to what the area once was and, as manyhope, will become again.

Providing an on-site security presence 7 days aweek, 24 hours per day is one way of making the areasafer for transit riders and attracting new shoppersand visitors. Modeled and named after similar struc-tures used by police in Japan, the koban functions asa police substation and home base for bicycle patrolofficers. It also places officers among the people theyserve and protect and encourages a broader role forpolice in neighborhoods and in communityredevelopment. It was the Eisenhower Foundationthat introduced U.S. city police chiefs to the idea ofkoban and other community policing techniquesduring a 1988 trip to Japan. The idea was quicklyadopted in Philadelphia, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, and San Juan, Puerto Rico, where it appears

to be as popular with police officers as it is with thepublic.

Since the koban opened in Baltimore, officers saycrimes that were previously quite common, such aspurse snatching and shoplifting, have decreased dra-matically. There are similar findings in two othercities with kobans: Philadelphia and San Juan. Thesecities have experienced, respectively, a 24 percent and35 percent drop in crime in areas where the kobanwas introduced. Officer Thomas says that he now hastime to chat with people, give directions, and answerquestions about local retail and transit services andthe koban itself. Asked how he liked the koban sys-tem, Thomas replied, “I told the (Baltimore City)Police Commissioner that if it got any better, I wouldpay him!”

SOURCE

Janofsky, Michael. “Police are Stationed at Center of Actionin Japan-Style Booths,” The New York Times and a per-sonal interview with Officer Thomas.

New York, NY: Improved Subway StationsEnhance Perception of Security

The perception that New York was “unsafe” and“unlivable” was symbolized in the late 1970s by thedecay of the city’s subway system. As part of a mas-sive reinvestment in the system beginning in the1980s, however, many stations have been rehabili-tated with new finishes, lights, amenities, andentrance treatments. In 1991, the MetropolitanTransportation Authority (MTA) New York CityTransit began to survey transit customers alongthe 1/9 line, which services South Ferry and theStatue of Liberty ferry docks in lower Manhattanand stretches to upper Manhattan, terminatingin the Bronx. The purpose of the survey wasthree-fold:

• To evaluate the effect that this station rehabilita-tion and modernization program has had onoverall customer satisfaction and perceptions ofpersonal safety when using the system;

• To determine whether customer ratings ofstation improvements are affected only by actualuse of an upgraded station or also by seeingimprovements at stations they are not specifi-cally using;

• To measure the effectiveness of line-specificrehabilitation efforts on customer perceptions in

68

Figure 7-2. Officer Dwight Thomas stands outside of hisKoban on Baltimore’s Howard Street Mall. Officer Thomassaid that what he likes most about his post is the chance tomeet and interact with visitors to the area. (Credit: Projectfor Public Spaces, Inc.)

order to determine the relationship betweenconcentrated improvement efforts, investment,and customer satisfaction ratings.

Starting in November 1991, Gallup, Inc., interviewedmore than 1300 riders of the 38 stations along the 1/9line by telephone as to their sense of personal safetyand security in these rehabilitated and modernizedstations and in the system overall. Respondents ratedthe 1/9 line higher than the subway system generally:6.8 out of 10 for the 1/9 line and 5.4 for the entiresystem. In other words, the survey showed that a sub-stantial number of station improvements concen-trated along one line can raise customer approvalratings significantly. The survey results also indicatedthat the more extensive the improvements at aparticular station, the higher customers rated it interms of their sense of personal safety. In addition,the higher the rating of a particular station overall, thehigher its rating for personal safety. For every pointthe overall station rating improved, the personal secu-rity rating increased by half a point. While the entiresystem received a personal security rating of 4.2, therating for 1/9 service was 6.7.

Another significant finding was that the MTA NewYork City Transit’s station rehabilitation programhas had a significantly greater impact on customerapproval and satisfaction than the Authority’s moremodest repainting and upgrade programs. The up-grading of stations did not affect passengerperceptions noticeably.

California Bus Transfer Centers: A Study of Safety, Security, and Community Context

In 1992, the Regional Transportation Authority(RTA) of Corpus Christi, Texas began to redesign its system to create a series of bus transfer centers.The RTA wanted to create operationally functionaltransfer centers that were user-friendly and con-tributed to improving the community around them. A special concern of the RTA was safety andsecurity.

To find out more about bus transfer centers andother passenger facilities that were considered to be“state of the art,” the RTA’s Project Manager visitedand evaluated recently constructed bus transfer cen-ters throughout California, where such centers arecommon. At present, there exist very few design crite-ria that can be used to develop these facilities in sucha way that they become public spaces that attract rid-ers to public transportation and are integrated intotheir communities. The kind of research that has beenconducted on this subject is generally of a technicalnature. It does not tend to look at users’ needs as thebasis for creating positive transit environments orevaluate how such facilities can act as catalysts forenhancing rather than detracting from the areas inwhich they are located.

The RTA, working with PPS, set up a special ratingsystem to evaluate these facilities according to suchfeatures as architectural sensitivity to neighboringbuildings, connection to the surrounding community(both physical and visual), amenities, availability ofinformation regarding bus service, sense of safety andsecurity, circulation and passenger flow, passengercomfort, existence of complementary on-site uses,maintenance, management of the facility, and busoperations. Of more than 20 facilities reviewed in thisresearch, all functioned at a high level operationally.However, only one had amenities and other attributessufficient to creating a user-friendly environment forpassengers. Most of the state-of-the art transportationfacilities lacked even the most basic amenities, such asadequate seating, lighting, and restrooms, usuallybecause of concerns about operations, maintenance,security, and abuse.

Often, there was no attendant or security provideron the premises, particularly on weekends. In somecases, there was not even a structure that peoplecould identify as a specific place to wait or rest. Therewas usually no place to buy food, enjoy a cup of cof-fee, or learn about scheduled community events andactivities. Many of these bus transfer centers wereinaccessible, located away from areas of community

69

Figure 7-3. This image of the recently renovated BroadStreet subway station in New York City illustrates the suc-cess of the MTA’s decade-long station rehabilitation efforts.(Credit: MTA New York City Transit and John Tarantino,architect)

activity, either at isolated suburban sites or in urbanlocales removed from town centers.

In some communities, bus transfer centers had anegative reputation because of the perception thatthey fostered drug dealing, vandalism, and vagrancy.As a result, many of the transfer centers had been cutoff from surrounding areas by walls or wide streets,or had been built outside of city centers. In an attemptto make them vandal-proof, many were built withoutthe amenities that passengers needed.

Other transit authorities use a “timed transfer”mechanism to minimize transfer waiting time and, intheory, improve ridership. With this system, almostno time is spent waiting for buses at a given facility.Many operations people have focused on reducingtrip time through timed transfer operation which, bydefinition, compromises the ability of the bus transfercenter to act as a catalyst for neighborhood activity.Timed transfer conflicts with attempts to create anactive, bustling “people place” where security isenhanced with efforts to address the real amenityneeds of passengers at bus transfer facilities. Timedtransfer also may not adequately provide for passen-ger safety during emergency situations, such asextreme weather conditions, and traffic problemsduring which passengers could find themselvesstranded until bus service resumes. Generally, thisimportant issue is not being addressed by the transitindustry.

Using the California research as a guide primarilyfor what not to do, the Corpus Christi RTA undertookthe process of transforming bus waiting areas inCorpus Christi into places of community pride andactivity. The challenge was to take existing waitingareas and, by transforming them into community

assets, enhance surrounding businesses and boostridership. This project is presented in Case Study 9-3.

CASE STUDIES

Projects and programs illustrate how both environ-mental design security and community policing canincrease perceptions of safety and reduce actual crime.In this way, transit facilities can contribute to the im-provement of safety and security in a surroundingneighborhood or district:

Case Study 7-1: Tucson, AZ: Tohono TadaiTransit Center New Environment Transforms TransitExperience in Area Suburban Sprawl

70

Figure 7-4. Bus transfer centers like this one in LagunaHills, CA, do little to make transit comfortable or appealingto passengers. (Credit: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

Figures 7-5 and 7-6. Transit Centers in Tucson, AZ (Figure7-5) and San Rafael, CA (Figure 7-6) feature user-friendlyamenities: Tucson’s Ronstadt Center includes cooling towers and creates a landscaped oasis in the middle ofdowntown; the cafe at San Rafael provides seating andrefreshments to waiting passengers. (Credit: Project forPublic Spaces, Inc.)

Case Study 7-2: New York, NY: Station ManagerProgram A Place-Oriented Approach to Subway StationManagement

Case Study 7-3: New York, NY: Port AuthorityBus Terminal A Comprehensive Approach Yields SecurityBenefits for Terminal and Times SquareNeighborhood

Case Study 7-4: Portland, OR: Tri-Met’s RiderAdvocate Program On-Board Services Improve Transit andCommunity Security

As the system develops, you begin to expand and create[transit centers] with art and with the community.

—Jill Merrick, Project Manager, Tohono Tadai Transit Center

SUMMARY

The Tohono Tadai Bus Transit Center is the thirdand latest such facility built by the City of Tucson andSun Tran in Tucson, Arizona. This center, like the RoyLaos and Ronstadt Centers that preceded it, weredesigned to consolidate many individual bus stops tomake it safer and more convenient for passengers toride and transfer. Tohono Tadai is a very attractive,comfortable bus transit center that has successfullyand creatively used good design and artwork tocreate a transit facility that is comfortable for allusers—adults as well as children, people who havedisabilities as well as people who do not.

Tohono Tadai means “desert roadrunner” in the lan-guage of the Tohono O’odham nation, the area’s earlyinhabitants. Located in suburban northwest Tucson, inthe center of an expanding retail corridor, TohonoTadai covers 3.5 acres adjacent to an amusement cen-ter and the Tucson Mall, a destination with offices,shopping, and restaurants. Opened in December 1994,Tohono Tadai is the first bus transit center in the Stateof Arizona built to fully meet ADA specifications.

PLANNING PROCESS

Before Sun Tran built its transit centers, bus ridershad to wait at isolated, poorly designed, badly lit bus

shelters situated next to wide, heavily traffickedstreets. Crossing streets to transfer buses was danger-ous, even at intersections. In addition, large numbersof bus shelters strung along the city’s major roadwaysadded to the visual clutter and sense of sprawl, andlarge numbers of people waiting for buses alongmajor roads increased the public’s negative percep-tion that transit was not working and that bus servicewas not reliable. This was particularly true in thedowntown, where all bus routes passed. The largenumbers of buses circulating through the central busi-ness district and the large numbers of passengerswaiting on sidewalks throughout the area actuallyreduced bus efficiency and increased travel time.

Sun Tran’s goals for this project were as follows:

• Increase passenger safety by consolidating busstops and reduce the numbers of people crossingbusy streets to board buses;

• Improve operating efficiency of the buses;• Enhance transit’s image in the community;• Link public transportation to all modes such as

bicycle, pedestrian and automobile (140 busescarry bicycle racks on the front);

• Provide coordinated transfers and route synchro-nization for passenger convenience;

• Provide a central information area for passengersthat includes route maps and schedules, personaltrip planning and information;

• Design transit centers accessible to persons withdisabilities with amenities such as covered wait-ing areas, public telephones, and rest rooms; and

• Create attractive, convenient, comfortable, andsafe waiting and transfer areas.

The Tohono Tadai site was selected to supportgrowth to the northern and northwestern parts of thecity, reduce operation ‘dead head’ miles, and supportthe number of buses already traveling along Stone andWetmore Streets. Sun Tran has sited its new bus transitcenters in each of the city’s four sections: Ronstadtdowntown, Roy Laos in the south, Tohono Tadai in thenorth, and a future facility will be located in the east.Sites are selected based on feasibility studies and fed-eral environmental guidelines including operationalcharacteristics, land costs, and adjacent uses. For eachnew center, the city and Sun Tran look at and rate amultitude of sites based on system location, environ-mental history, air quality issues, traffic flows, and soon and then narrow the selection down to three to fivepriority sites. Then, an in-depth analysis is performedfollowed by appropriate environmental work. After asite is selected, the land is acquired and a preliminarydesign is developed. The final design process for theTohono Tadai Center included a simulation by busoperators at the Pima County Fairgrounds.

71

Case Study 7-1Tucson, AZ: Tohono Tadai Transit Center New Environment Transforms Transit Experiencein Area of Suburban Sprawl

The Tohono Tadai site was preferred because of itsproximity to a family amusement center and theTucson Mall—a major shopping destination—andbecause it acts as the gateway to the new northwestcommunities. The owners of the Tohono Tadai prop-erty were the developers of the Tucson Mall. Sun Tran

and the city worked in close coordination with them.In addition, focus groups composed of persons withdisabilities provided input and suggestions foramenities that would meet ADA requirements andfeatures that would help riders with visual, hearing,and ambulatory disabilities using the facility. Ideasfrom architects, artists, traffic consultants, bus drivers,and people with disabilities were incorporated intothe project’s design, and artists were included on thedesign team from the beginning. Community groupswere involved as advisors on the project throughoutthe design stages. Tohono Tadai was designed andbuilt by city architects who had an understanding oftransit operations and the needs of the transit users.

Management of the facility is a cooperative effort:Tucson Mall provides a presence, the city handlesmaintenance, and Sun Tran takes care of landscapingand maintenance through outside contracts.

STRATEGY

The center operates from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. weekdays,9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. onSundays. There are 6,000 boardings per day through12 bus bays for seven bus routes.

The city’s 3-mile linear park system, which wasdesigned for use by cyclists, pedestrians, and horse-back riders, runs along the transit corridor and adja-cent to the center. Tohono Tadai also features shaded,cooled waiting areas, public rest rooms, WestminsterChimes in the clock tower, two play areas, drinkingfountains, public art, vending machines, bike racksand lockers, and CCTV for security. A cooling towersituated under the center sends cooled evaporated airinto the pipes installed behind the benches. Attentionalso has been paid to meeting the needs of personswith disabilities. There is a textured platform aroundthe facility, signage, benches constructed with roundedges and a 2 percent pavement grade. All signage isin Grade #2 Braille and speakers are in place at eachbus bay to announce information updates andschedule changes. A two-way amplified speakersystem at the central information booth and a flashingred light at each bus stop direct attention to digitalsign boards for passengers who are hearing impaired.For patrons in wheelchairs, there is a 34-in. counter atthe central information booth, accessible publicphones and vending machines, and restroomsequipped with motion-sensored toilets and sinks.

The design of Tohono Tadai is striking and pro-vides an appealing oasis in an area where there ismoderate pedestrian activity. The center’s theme is“urban grid meets river and mountain,” which isillustrated in the use of blue-colored concrete to

72

Figures 7-7 and 7-8. Case Study 7-1. Tohono Tadai, the firstcompletely ADA accessible transit facility in Arizona, isreplete with artworks, children’s play areas, a fully mannedinformation booth and air-cooled benches. (Credit: Sun Tran)

symbolize the river, tan concrete for the mountains,and the urban grid represented in purple. Theinterplay of the natural and built environments issymbolized by the sculptural elements into two 200-sq-ft play areas and the 16 banners displayed on lightpoles around the perimeter that depict bothancient/natural icons and their modern/manmadeparallels. The play areas were designed and con-structed by artists to entertain and educate childrenand adults about the Sonoran desert environment.Sculptures, which are set in soft, rubberized groundcovering to allow for safe climbing, include a gianthorny toad about to roll over or be rolled over by agiant bulldozer in mosaic tile, a large desert tortoise,and a set of enlarged ceramic-tile alphabet buildingblocks in both English and Spanish.

FUNDING

The total cost of the project was $4.2 million; 80 per-cent was funded by the FTA.


Few if any obstacles to the transit center arose fromthe community or other city agencies. This may bedue in part to the fact that Sun Tran is managedthrough a contract with the city. As a result, partner-ships between Sun Tran and the city transportationplanning office are strong. Furthermore, this level ofcooperation has been cited by Sun Tran and cityplanners as the reason they have been able to designand build such attractive and innovative bus transitcenters.

However, Sun Tran has acknowledged the need toestablish partnerships with private sector groups inorder to fully integrate their centers into the commu-nities they serve and provide much needed retail ser-vices. The challenge facing Sun Tran is to establishthese partnerships with the private sector to encour-age the development of retail, commercial, and com-munity uses around its new and existing facilities.


The center has transformed a parking lot into anattractive bus waiting environment that is an extra-ordinary improvement for passengers. However,because the center closes early, it is difficult for ridersto reach destinations (like the Tucson Mall) after6 p.m. by transit.

Although the center serves the Tucson Mall, 70 per-cent of passengers arriving at the Tohono Tadai trans-

fer to other buses. Therefore, while better serving itstransit-dependent riders, it would appear that SunTran has been less successful in luring mall patronsout of their cars. However, it is a new facility and thisis estimated to improve use in the future. Finally,Tucson’s bus transit centers have no passenger-related retail; this represents an untapped opportu-nity for the development of these kinds of services.

CONCLUSIONS

With the completion of its three transit centers, SunTran has been able to provide riders with safe, comfort-able, and convenient places to wait and transfer and toenhance the transit experience for riders. The innova-tive elements and features included at Tohono Tadaiare worthy of consideration by other transit authoritiesas models for the design of future transit centers thatact as focal points in suburban areas. Through suchfacilities, transit agencies can improve the livability ofcommunities by making them more accessible andconvenient, as well as safe and comfortable.

For the first time . . . I feel as though some government-related agency is conveying a message to the public that . . .you are trying to serve your customers.

—New York City subway rider

SUMMARY

The New York City subway system, one of thelargest in the world, has undergone a transformationin the past decade. With the investment of billions ofdollars, subway cars have been purchased, stationsrenovated, and visible signs of decay—such asgraffiti—have been removed.

The Station Manager Program was established inJune 1990 to address a nagging and common com-plaint of subway customers that “no one was incharge” at the stations. Under previous managementpractices, MTA New York City Transit, which runsthe system, had separate divisions responsible forspecific tasks in each station: maintenance, crimeprevention and response, repairs, and so on werehandled by different divisions. While efficient insome regards, there was little coordination between

73

Case Study 7-2New York, NY: Station Manager Program A Place-Oriented Approach to Subway StationManagement

divisions and some difficulty responding to specificproblems.

The Station Manager Program takes a more “place-oriented” as well as more personal approach tomeeting customer needs by putting a single, visible,front-line individual in charge of a station, who isresponsible for coordinating all station activities andproviding a safe, clean, customer-friendly stationenvironment. The station manager also serves as apoint person for the community and participates incommunity organizations. Modeled after a similarprogram in the London Underground, the stationmanagers work directly with support divisions toimprove station conditions. They respond quickly tocustomer concerns and are flexible problem solvers.

PLANNING PROCESS

The Station Manager Program—the brainchild ofthen MTA New York City Transit President, AlanKiepper—started with five station managers super-vising 19 stations throughout the system, but hasexpanded every year since 1990. In setting up the pro-gram, the MTA New York City Transit held eventsand meetings to reach out to local community or-ganizations, such as community boards and busi-ness improvement districts, to find out what theirconcerns were.

Based on this outreach, the goals of the StationManager Program were established as follows:

• Better customer service through personal inter-action;

• More control of the station environment throughthe coordination and monitoring of operationsconcerning cleaning, security, repair of defects,passenger flow, revenue activities, and other sta-tion quality issues;

• The use of the team approach to coordinate theactivities of all the operating divisions concernedwith stations;

• Improved staff supervision at the station level;and

• Improved community relations through partici-pation at community board and other publicmeetings.

Station managers are encouraged to develop theirown programs in response to the needs of their com-munities. For example, Maria Branch, the StationManager at the Broadway East New York station inBrooklyn, participated with the New York CityPolice in a national “night out.” This programencourages members of a community to spend a

“night out” participating in local events to showcommunity solidarity in the fight against crime. Ms.Branch provided tours of her facility and refresh-ments for young people in order to show them thatthe subway station was an important part of theircommunity and that vandalism and crime in the sta-tion ultimately affects them.

Stations are selected for inclusion in the programbased on a number of criteria, including passengervolume, complexity of service, transfer locations,physical conditions, community locations, and specialfeatures. Recently renovated stations are oftenincluded to ensure the continued high quality ofmaintenance. Grand Central Station and Times Squarewere two of the first stations to enter the program.

STRATEGY

Ultimately, the Station Manager Program isplanned to reach all 3.5 million daily subwaycustomers using the transit system’s 468 stations. TheMTA New York City Transit currently has 58 stationmanagers in charge of 252 stations, which impact atleast 80 percent of customers systemwide.

Each station manager handles as many as sevenstations, although a few handle only one large stationcomplex. Managers in turn answer to district stationmanagers, each responsible for about 50 stations.(Before the program was initiated, behind-the-scenestation superintendents were in charge, but noton site.)

By using a team approach to management, thestation managers coordinate all station activities toachieve a sense of order, improved maintenance,cleanliness, turnstile availability, and public addresssystems, and a decrease in fare evasions. They closelysupervise the staff at their stations, including tokenclerks and cleaners. A recent reorganization hasgiven the station managers more direct control ofmaintenance and repair personnel.

Managers have a clear presence in their stations.They frequently stand where they can be seen bycustomers, particularly during rush hours, and theywear bright orange vests. A photo of the stationmanager is prominently displayed near the tokenbooth. Other nearby signs indicate when themanager has office hours in the station. Duringoffice hours, they stand in fare control areas, interactwith customers, provide information, and listen toproblems.

Station managers work closely with communityorganizations, public officials, and private developerson an ongoing basis. For example, Gerald Lane,previously the station manager for the Herald SquareStation, developed a task force with local businesses,

74

such as Macy’s and A&S, and with the Port AuthorityPolice and Transit Police to increase security duringthe holiday season. The station managers also workclosely with the New York City Police precinct intheir communities. Managers will notify the localprecinct captains if they have special security needsat their stations.

Other station managers, in conjunction with theircommunities, have held exhibits or sponsored activi-ties at their stations. For example, local schools havedisplayed student artwork in conjunction with pro-grams that stations sponsor to increase children’srespect for their stations. In another case, a Brooklyndistrict station manager and the station manager ofthe Borough Hall Station arranged with Project Helpto hold an exhibit and event at the station aimedat helping single mothers obtain counseling, jobtraining, and jobs.

Station managers also deal directly with retailtenants in their stations. The real estate department ofthe MTA leases the spaces, but the station managersdeal with tenant problems and requests and issue violations when necessary.

FUNDING

Funding for the program comes from the overallMTA New York City Transit budget, made up of tran-sit fares and state and municipal funds. The budgetincludes the cost of the station managers themselves,their supervisors, and maintenance support activitiesand personnel under the direct supervision of the sta-tion managers. The program budgets were $22 mil-lion, $22.6 million, and $19.8 million, in 1994, 1995,and 1996, respectively. In 1994, the program wasextended to include 252 stations and 62 station man-agers. Recent budget cuts have expanded the numberof stations per manager so that 58 managers are nowresponsible for 252 stations.

The Division of Stations received a $20,000 grantfrom the Ford Foundation to help publicize theStation Manager Program. With this grant, a videoabout the program was produced and stationmanagers made public appearances.

Because of recent budget cuts, the program cannotbe expanded to more stations, but the efficiency ofthe program will continue to be improved and thestation managers’ role will be re-evaluated to makethem even more effective. The managers’ direct con-trol of maintenance work is proving to be very cost-effective: the MTA New York City Tranist hasrecently seen a significant increase in productivityamong maintenance and cleaning personnel and adecrease in maintenance costs.


Carol Meltzer, the Chief Station Officer, mentionedthat one of the most significant obstacles in establish-ing and implementing the program in the early yearswas the Transit Police. They were initially reluctant towork with the managers to solve problems in andaround the stations or grant any authority to the sta-tion managers, whom they viewed as “civilians” indealing with security issues. This problem has beenlargely overcome as the local precincts have learnedto interact with the station managers, and the man-agers have learned to work with the police. The sup-port of the top commanders in the Transit Police wasessential in breaking down conflicts and establishinggood relationships. Positive relationships continuedas the Transit Police merged with the New YorkPolice Department.

Cost is another obstacle that continues to threatenthe existing program and future plans for itsexpansion. The program will not be extended to morestations in 1996, as originally planned.


There has been an overwhelmingly positiveresponse to the Station Manager Program, includ-ing many letters of praise. Also, customer commentand feedback about the Station Manager Program, as collected through surveys conducted by MTANew York City Transit’s department of customerservice, have been positive. Graffiti at managed sta-tions has decreased, and fare collection and refusecollection is more successfully accomplished at thesestations.

The following data indicate the program’s success.Station Cleanliness. A sample number of stations

are surveyed monthly on a 1 (dirty) to 4 (clean) scale.The 3-year average of stations in the program(1991–1993) was 3.33, while the average for stationsoutside the program was 3.09. The MTA New YorkCity Transit’s infrastructure department has createddedicated teams that work solely at stations withstation managers. The response time to infrastruc-ture and maintenance problems, therefore, is muchfaster at managed stations because they have, ineffect, their own staff—within a manager’s purview—to service the stations.

Fare Evasion. From 1992 to 1993, the percentage offare evasions per day measured at stations in the pro-gram was 1.98 percent, while the percentage at sta-tions not in the program was 4.19 percent.

The MTA New York City Transit has received com-mendations for some of their customer service initia-tives and favorable mention in the New York Times

75

76

Figures 7-9 and 7-10. Case Study 7-2. New York City transit customers know when and where they can find their StationManagers by consulting the weekly calendar posted in each of the stations they manage. The program’s philosophy isshared with customers through a brochure as well. (Credit: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

and other newspapers. In 1992, the program won anAmerican Public Transit Association (APTA) awardand in 1993, the program was among the top twentyfinalists for the Ford Foundation ManagementInnovation Awards program. This prompted VicePresident Al Gore to recognize the achievements ofthe program in a letter to the MTA New York CityTransit.

CONCLUSIONS

The Station Manager Program represents a newapproach to subway station management and to theway the stations relate to their surrounding commu-nity. While the start-up costs of the program weresignificant, the MTA New York City Transit believesthe program is already paying off in terms of (a) sav-ings in maintenance costs and (b) increases in rider-ship at the stations with managers. But the primarygoal of the program has always been to better serve

customers, and by all indications the customers andthe surrounding communities are indeed pleased. Theprogram has changed the nature of the subway froma faceless bureaucracy to stations run by real peoplewho can solve problems—both inside and around astation. As a result, surrounding communities havefound new partners in addressing security and otherlivability issues in their neighborhoods.

SOURCE

Carol Meltzer, “The Station Manager Program: A Study inManagement Innovation,” (1994).

We wanted to have customers feel that the Port Authoritywas in charge of the building, not that the building was incharge of us.

—Ken Philmus, Manager, Port Authority Bus Terminal

Finally we have a safe, convenient place where people candrop in and spend a little money.

—George Marlin, Executive Director, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey [1]

SUMMARY

The Port Authority Bus Terminal (PABT) is thelargest commuter bus terminal in the country, con-necting major subway lines as well as housing morethan 225 intercity bus platforms serving 185,000 pas-sengers per day. The Bus Terminal, located on 42ndStreet near Times Square, was reconstructed in thelate 1970s, in part to reverse a perceived decline in theterminal and the area around it. This effort largelyfailed to achieve its goal. By the mid-1980s, the termi-nal was plagued with significant criminal activity andhomelessness, with people actually living in the ter-minal. In addition, the interior of the terminal wasconfusing and unattractive, with insufficient servicesand amenities for passengers.

In 1991, the Port Authority created an in-house taskforce to completely revamp the terminal from both adesign and a management perspective. A comprehen-sive improvement program was initiated, includingOperation Alternative, a social service outreach and

77

Case Study 7-3New York, NY: Port Authority Bus Terminal A Comprehensive Approach Yields SecurityBenefits for Terminal and Times SquareNeighborhood

Figures 7-9 and 7-10. (continued)

referral program; a community policing programwithin the terminal; modifications to public spacesto minimize nooks and crannies; new amenities forusers including upgraded restrooms, a public addresssystem, and information booths; and improvedretail.

In addition, the terminal management has become amore active participant in redevelopment and neighbor-hood activities in the area around the terminal. Themanager of the facility is on the board of directors ofnine community-based organizations and works closelywith their community development projects.

The impact of these changes has been significant,and patrons have noticed the difference, as demon-strated by increasing positive perceptions duringrecent customer surveys. Also, in 31 ⁄2 years, 33,000referrals for homeless people were made. Sales persquare foot of retail space have doubled. Crime in theterminal and surrounding area has been greatlyreduced as well.

PLANNING PROCESS

The security problems at the Port Authority BusTerminal did not emerge overnight, but began in thelate 1950s—reflecting, in part, the decline of the TimesSquare area in general. By the mid-1980s, however,the terminal was in a near-crisis situation. The “crack”epidemic hit hard and the terminal provided a placefor dealers and users to use drugs, hide, make deals,and use the public facilities. This problem was exacer-bated by other concurrent trends: the overall reces-sion in the economy; the closing of psychiatrichospitals and the release of patients with nowhere togo; and court decisions making it illegal to remove aperson from a facility simply for loitering.

In many ways, the terminal was an ideal place forthese illegal activities. It was an immense facility oper-ating on six levels with two separate wings, with morethan 225 bus gates serving 7,000 buses a day, multipleentrances, and a generally dismal environment. Amajor renovation and expansion of the facility in theearly 1980s worsened the situation by making it evenmore difficult to control public space. Other seeminglysmall elements—like the number, location, and billingprocedures for public telephones—were major con-tributors to security problems.

Officials of the Port Authority of New York andNew Jersey, operators of the terminal, realized thatthey had to respond to increasing public demandsto improve the terminal. Not only were patron per-ceptions poor, but retail revenue from the scores ofshops and restaurants in the terminal was decreas-ing. An effort to reclaim public spaces—using push-cart vendors to fill empty or misused spaces on the

main floor of the terminal—proved successful.However, Port Authority Officials realized that itwas necessary to take a comprehensive approach tosecurity, looking at all aspects of the design andmanagement of the facility.

Project goals were as follows:

• To reduce fear of crime and actual crime andimprove perception of security;

• To minimize niches and corners that accommo-date the homeless and develop an effective socialservice program that would offer people alterna-tives and allow police to enforce rules;

• To improve the atmosphere of the bus terminal;and

• To increase marketability of retail spaces andimprove the retail services provided in thestation.

78

Figures 7-11 and 7-12. Case Study 7-3. The vending pro-gram introduced by the Port Authority at its 42nd Street busterminal was one of the first steps taken to improve securityat the facility; in combination with other efforts, there hasbeen a 50% drop in crime at the terminal. (Credit: Projectfor Public Spaces, Inc.)

A task force, consisting of Port Authority staff fromdifferent divisions and consultants like PPS, wasassembled to evaluate the use of public areas. This taskforce took the first intensive look at all aspects of theterminal, including design, management, security,social services, retail, circulation, amenities, ticketing—in short, all aspects of the terminal that affected publicuse. By looking at the terminal from this perspectivethe task force was able to understand how the differentfeatures and management practices at the terminal con-tributed to security problems and how to address them concurrently.

A report was prepared outlining the 100 recom-mendations of the task force. The recommendationsincluded both short- and long-term recommendationsand lower cost as well as higher cost items.

STRATEGY

The comprehensive scope of the strategy that hasbeen implemented over the past 4 years makes itdifficult to summarize. Many small changes togetherhave had a big impact. The highlights of the programare as follows.

Operation Alternative. Operation Alternativeinvolved strict enforcement of PABT rules whileproviding social service alternatives to needy indi-viduals. While there had been social serviceproviders in the terminal before, they tended notto work closely with the police. Under this program,terminal rules are clearly posted throughout thestation. If a Port Authority Police officer sees some-one in violation of the rules (under police unionrules, the police must make the first contact) andappears to need or asks for help, he or she isreferred to an on-site assessment center to be sentto the appropriate treatment facility. If someonerefuses to comply with stated Port Authority rules,officers have three alternatives: remove the personfrom the building, issue a summons, or arrestthe individual.

PABT also has partnerships with outside social ser-vice agencies, which provide referrals through theassessment center from 7 a.m. to 1 a.m. seven daysper week. They provide access to a range of services,including drug and alcohol treatment, employmenttraining, medical assistance, and permanent andtemporary housing. Individuals referred by policeare interviewed, assessed, and assigned a counselor.Operation Alternative then transports peopleto appropriate services with a van provided bythe PABT.

Community Policing. Operation Alternative hasallowed the police to revamp the way they hadpreviously provided services in the terminal. Basedon the community policing model, police patrols aremore evident within the terminal and different policebecome familiar with specific areas of the terminal—a kind of indoor “beat cop.” Police are even posted inhigh visibility areas during rush hour as a means ofreassuring patrons and establishing a high-profilepresence. Restroom attendants have continued to pro-vide a security presence, an effort that began beforethe comprehensive plan was developed.

Design Improvements. Unused and misused spacewas redesigned in an attempt to eliminate so-called“criminogenic areas”: dark corners, poorly lit corri-dors, and other problematic areas that contributed tothe unsafe atmosphere of the bus terminal. The designchanges included renovating public restrooms, usingsmaller pillars (because pillars obstruct view) andbrighter lighting, painting, and repairing floors. Atticspaces where homeless people had been living weresealed. Also, the Port Authority now plays classicalmusic on its interior sound systems. This has yieldedmuch positive public comment and seems to con-tribute to the overall ambiance of the terminal.

Retail Improvements. In addition, design changeswere made to change poorly used areas into mixed-use, revenue-generating retail locations and makespaces more naturally self-policing. Efforts have beenconcentrated on making retail much more invitingand approachable and on expanding retail use intounderutilized public spaces.

As part of the comprehensive plan, a phased retaildevelopment strategy with a space-by-space retailplan was prepared to allow retail changes to be madeas leases end. Ideas ranged from small kiosks to a golfdriving range, a sports bar, pro shop, and learningcenter. Recommendations were also made to improvestorefront design and merchandising.

A vending cart operation, previously noted, wasstarted on the main level of the terminal. This pro-gram made the terminal more attractive by pro-viding a service for patrons and reducing nooksand corners where security problems occurred,especially at the entrances to the terminal from thestreet and the subway.

One of the terminal’s success stories was the leas-ing of two vacant spaces near the central staircase toAu Bon Pain, a light food retailer, and Timothy’s cof-fee, an upscale coffee shop. These locations havebecome their respective chains’ highest grossing retailspaces and have actually helped improve the sales ofbusinesses around them.

79

Late Hours Management. The terminal is far toolarge for the number of people using it late at night.To reduce the potential for undesired activity duringthese hours, bus service is consolidated during non-peak hours so that commuters wait together. Manyrestrooms are closed in off-peak hours as well. Allindividual gates are closed at 10 p.m. and bus oper-ations move to gates with common concourses.At 1 a.m. daily, all gates are closed except for thelower level of the north wing, which stays openall night.

Telephone Fraud Prevention. One of the more curioussecurity problems in the terminal was rampant illegalinternational telephoning. Long lines of people wait-ing to purchase cheap illegal international calls (fromdealers using stolen credit cards) clogged the stationwith illegitimate activity. Numerous telephones wereremoved and the remaining phones were replacedwith so-called “smart phones,” which make interna-tional and incoming calls impossible. This producedperhaps the most visible, quickest change in the ter-minal: overnight, the street phone call vendorsdisappeared.

Community Outreach and Participation. Because thehealth of the neighborhood and the terminal are soclosely interrelated, the manager of the terminal hasbecome actively involved in community activities,serving on the board of organizations such as theMayor’s Midtown Committee, the 42nd StreetRedevelopment Corporation (in charge of the TimesSquare redevelopment project), and the 9th AvenueAssociation, a business group. The Port Authorityworks on various problems with these organizationsopening up lines of communication and benefitingthe terminal and the neighborhood as a whole.

Efforts of these and other groups, especially theredevelopment of 42nd Street, have complementedthe efforts by the Port Authority to improve the ter-minal. With the help of the business improvementdistrict (BID), which sponsors private securityguards to patrol streets and sanitation staff to sup-plement city forces, crime has dropped 41 percent inthe area between 1993 and 1995. The cleanliness rat-ing improved from 54 percent to 96 percent, accord-ing to the Mayor’s monthly cleanliness survey of thearea, as reported by Gover Howell, Director ofPublic Safety for the Times Square BID. In addition,illegal peddling and low-level drug dealing havedramatically decreased in the neighborhood.

The number of PABT customers rating the areaaround the bus terminal as “good or very good” grewfrom 7 percent in 1991 to 12 percent in 1993 and to 15percent in 1994.

FUNDING

The economics of the bus terminal may seemdaunting, but many of the program components canbe tailored to smaller facilities. Some of the programsimplemented did not increase costs at the PortAuthority, but simply involved a different deploy-ment of existing resources. In addition, investment incapital improvements and retail have resulted inincreased revenues to the terminal.

The operating budget for the Port Authority BusTerminal is about $45 million per year, plus about$10 million in capital improvements. Approximately25 percent of the operating budget is spent on secu-rity. Some of the maintenance costs of the facility alsohave security benefits: staffing the restrooms, forexample, costs about $3 million annually. The con-tract for social service referrals is approximately$750,000.


The comprehensive approach to security meant anew way of operating the terminal, along with a sub-stantial investment of funds for new programs. Bothwere obstacles in their own way. The cooperation ofpolice staff was crucial to the success of the changesand Operation Alternative represented a significantdeparture from generally accepted policing methods.

Furthermore, the task force, in working to developthe initial recommendations, attempted to be concil-iatory and collaborative, but the very nature of itswork involved organizational changes that manyresisted.


The Port Authority regularly collects informationabout patron perceptions, retail data, and use of thefacility by the homeless. The following data indicatethat the project has been successful:

• Operation Alternative has been successful inreferring and relocating the homeless to theproper facilities and agencies and had a tremen-dous effect on safety levels at the terminal. Thehomeless population has been dramaticallyreduced. In 31⁄2 years, Operation Alternativemade 33,000 referrals. However, a few problem-atic individuals remain. In 1991, 43 percent ofcustomers surveyed complained about these peo-ple, but by 1994 they were a problem to only 15percent of terminal users.

80

• Criminal activity throughout the terminal hasdecreased by half, with serious crime down evenmore. The dramatic reductions of specific crimesare listed below.

Number in Number in Type of Crime 1988 1994Robbery 502 148Assault 292 191Rape 18 3Pickpocket 416 136Loitering 227 61Drug-Related 1216 651

Sales per square foot have increased from $388 to$659 between 1990 and 1994. Revenue per square footalso increased, from $50 in 1990 to $67 in 1994. Grosssales from the Port Authority rose from $27.14 millionin 1992 to $37.13 million in 1994.

Annual commuter surveys show that public percep-tions of the bus terminal have become very favorable.The 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994 surveys showed signifi-cant improvements in perceptions about security andsocial issues. Specifically, customer rating of “safetyinside the terminal” as “good to very good” more thandoubled from 20 percent in 1991 to 52 percent in 1994;“safety in restroom facilities” increased from 12 per-cent in 1991 to 26 percent in 1994; “the police effective-ness” rating jumped from 28 percent in 1991 to 51percent for both 1993 and 1994. The overall experienceof using the bus terminal was rated “good to verygood” by 67 percent of customers in 1993 (the first timethe question was asked) and by 76 percent in 1994.

The surrounding district is clearly being revitalized.The Walt Disney Company has committed to the42nd Street redevelopment project and will be reno-vating a historic theater and participating in openinga new hotel. Other entertainment companies are fol-lowing. The Times Square BID is upgrading the clean-liness and security in the neighborhood from West40th to West 53rd Streets and from 6th to 8thAvenues.

CONCLUSIONS

The Port Authority Bus Terminal has been trans-formed from a transit terminal plagued by securityproblems to one which is becoming an anchor for therevitalizing Times Square district. There is generalpublic acknowledgment that the terminal and theneighborhood are more livable.

The most important lesson learned in this multiyearprocess of revitalizing a transportation facility is thataddressing all problematic situations was necessary to

clean up the terminal. Efforts by the Port Authorityhave addressed all aspects of problems in the termi-nal, both perceived and actual. Working with the sur-rounding neighborhood has contributed to upgradinga troubled area.

ENDNOTE

1. Claudia H. Deutsch, “A Former Haven of Sleaze Is Nowa Refuge of Retail,” New York Times (March 17, 1996)p.11.

The Rider Advocate [program] is one of the first attempts ofTri-Met to address collaborative relationships that improvetransit. We see it as an innovative partnership: customerservice on wheels. These are people who are hired fromwithin their own community and who have a commitmentto their own neighborhood.

—Peg Caliendo, Marketing and Community Safety, Tri-Met

We commend Robert and David for their quick thinkingand rapid response that helped save a life. This effort illus-trates Rider Advocates’ important role on Tri-Met and inthe community.

—Ben Priestly, Executive Director, Northeast Coalition of Neighborhoods

SUMMARY

The Tri-County Metropolitan TransportationDistrict of Oregon (Tri-Met) “Rider Advocate” pro-gram was established in 1994 in response to anexpressed need by communities in northeast Portlandfor an ongoing security presence on Tri-Met buses.The Rider Advocate program is a community-basedpartnership between Tri-Met and the NortheastCoalition of Neighborhoods that enlists members ofthe community to serve as extensions of Tri-Met’scustomer-relations efforts.

A major goal of the program is to reduce anti-social behavior on the buses in order to encourageridership. Rider advocates talk with patrons, distrib-ute brochures, and give out transit as well as social-service information. Rider advocates assist both newand regular riders and help Tri-Met personnel main-tain a pleasant environment for passengers. The pro-gram has helped solve problems on this specific line

81

Case Study 7-4Portland, OR: Tri-Met’s Rider Advocate ProgramOn-Board Services Improve Transit andCommunity Security

while providing personalized service to customers.With the approval of funds from Americorps, theprogram will be expanded in 1996 to include addi-tional bus lines serving other neighborhoods.

PLANNING PROCESS

Tri-Met created the Rider Advocate program in theaftermath of two shootings in October 1993 on boardthe #4 Fessenden bus line in northeast Portland. Im-mediately after the incidents, Tri-Met posted armedguards on the buses in this neighborhood. Thecommunity complained that this solution was notacceptable, stating that “it wasn’t how they saw them-selves” and that people from the community shouldbe hired to do the job instead.

Through a series of meetings with Tri-Met, thecommunity proposed the idea of having individualsfrom the surrounding community riding the eight buslines that service northeastern Portland to be trouble-shooters and provide a security presence. Tri-Metcontracted with the Northeast Coalition of Neigh-borhoods (NCN), one of Portland’s 90 volunteer-run neighborhood associations, to implement theproject, which also is responsible for the hiring,training, and deployment of nine full-time rideradvocates and a coordinator, all of whom receive fullhealth and other employee benefits. Rider advocatescomprise part of Tri-Met’s customer servicedivision and live in the 13 northeast coalition neighborhoods.

When the program began in 1994, Tri-Met’s goalsincluded the following:

• Enhancing customer relations, including boost-ing customer confidence in using transit;

• Reducing the occurrence of criminal and anti-social behavior on buses; and

• Enhancing customer knowledge of the Tri-Metsystem.

STRATEGY

The NCN offers technical services to 13 neighbor-hood associations and is funded by the city’s Office ofNeighborhood Associations (ONA), a bureau createdto act as a liaison between the citizens of Portland andtheir elected officials. The ONA, in turn, oversees thework of seven neighborhood program offices, whichhelp neighborhoods with community development,crime prevention, land-use assistance, and neighbor-hood organizing. When Portland’s communities facespecific problems, a structure of grass roots commu-nity organizations already exists. No groups had to be

mobilized to address the problem because they werealready officially recognized and, as such, it was easyfor Tri-Met to work with them.

Rider advocates were originally assigned to thenortheast in response to specific criminal incidents.The northeast business and retail center, however, isalso Tri-Met’s second highest ridership area, on bothlight rail and bus. Advocates alight and board manytimes each day in order to cover a variety of busesalong all eight bus lines and four connecting lineswithin the coalition’s neighborhood boundaries. Theyare equipped with radios, which allow them to reachboth 911 and Tri-Met in case of emergency. Rideradvocates travel in pairs and board buses (and somelight rail trains) weekdays beginning at 1:30 p.m., thetime of daily school dismissals. At this time of day,the advocates ride the lines that service the area’sschools, ensuring that students are well-behaved onbuses and at bus stops. They are also given free busand movie passes with which they reward thoseyoungsters displaying appropriate behavior whenothers around them are “acting up.”

The advocates themselves are between the ages of 30 and 55; most are African American and two are women. They are charged with talking to and developing relationships with passengers, and giv-ing out information on NCN social services, jobtraining, and neighborhood-watch groups in thearea. Rider advocates are trained to deal with diffi-cult people. Passengers are encouraged to ask theirrider advocate for help or for information about localpoints of interest, community programs, or Tri-Metservices.

82

Figure 7-13. Case Study 7-4. Americorps Transit SafetyAdvocate Jason Earl talks with passengers aboard Tri-Met’sMAX light rail train in Portland, OR. Americorps volunteershave augmented the ranks of Portland’s Rider Advocates.(Credit: Tri-MET)

FUNDING

The ONA funds seven neighborhood coalitions,which oversee the work of 90 volunteer-run neighbor-hood associations such as the NCN. The RiderAdvocate program is funded by Tri-Met on a yearlycontract and costs about $284,000 to administer andoperate. The advocates themselves are paid$8.50/hour through funds transferred to the NCN.

The County District Attorney proposed and re-ceived an Americorps grant to hire 10 transit advo-cates in a companion to the Rider Advocate program.The transit advocates will ride other bus and light raillines in the city and on the downtown transit mall.


The primary obstacle facing the program is that it isboth labor-intensive and expensive to operate; approx-imately two-thirds of program money funds labor andabout one-third is used for administrative expenses.

Also, bus drivers have expressed concern that rideradvocates may be monitoring them and reportingtheir mistakes.


No major incidents have occurred on routes servedby rider advocates since the advent of the program. Inaddition, in the past year, rider advocates saved thelife of a woman who was suffering a stroke whilewaiting at a bus stop and returned a lost 3-year-old,alone at a stop, to his home.

On-board surveys of passengers on the #4 bus linewere conducted specifically to see how perceptions ofsafety and comfort have improved. Passenger knowl-

edge of the Rider Advocate program as well as theirexperience with advocates caused people to rate Tri-Met higher across the board. Passengers who hadseen advocates gave Tri-Met more “excellent” ratingsthan respondents who had not; passengers com-mented that the Rider Advocate program was a“great idea” and stated that advocates gave out businformation and directions, assisted passengers withdisabilities and helped maintain order on the buses.

In early 1996, a process to evaluate the success ofthe program began, which includes interviews withthe following people in order to determine whether ornot the program goals are being adequately met, howeffectively the program is operating, and whatchanges might be needed to increase the program’seffectiveness:

• Bus operators on all lines that the rider advocatesfrequent;

• Administrators of the advocate program;• Tri-Met Dispatch and Road Operations;• Representatives from the Portland Police Bureau

Tri-Met Transit Unit; and• Representatives from the rider advocates them-

selves.

CONCLUSIONS

The Rider Advocate program began as a safety andsecurity program. It has evolved, however, into acommunity effort to encourage appropriate behavioraboard transit. In addition, rider advocates see whatproblems and issues are facing drivers and passen-gers and can share this information with Tri-Met,thereby making transit safer and more comfortablefor passengers, while improving community security.

83

84

INTRODUCTION

Much of what was stressed in the previous casestudies centers on the “destination” and the role thattransit can play in enhancing the communities wheretransit stops and stations are located. But thisapproach leaves out a fundamental goal of transit,which is to provide a convenient way for people toreach their destinations.

Many people in the United States have no optionbut to use a car to get from place to place. The designand planning of communities over the past decadesprecludes other options or makes them so inconve-nient that few people walk, ride a bike, or take publictransit. Even existing communities—older neighbor-hoods that had once been walkable and well-servedby public transit—have been negatively impacted byautomobiles so that, ironically enough, cars are nowrequired rather than optional.

Today, as participants in focus groups for thisstudy emphasized, people live complicated lives.With two working parents and the need to plan chil-dren’s activities, everyone seems to be going—as onefocus group participant put it—“from everywhere toeverywhere.” Those who cannot drive because of age,illness, or income are especially sensitive to the lack ofconvenience in their lives and their dependence onothers just to get around.

Overview of Community Strategiesand Role of Transit

Chapters 4 through 7 presented what communities,in general, are doing to improve livability before dis-cussing existing and potential transit roles. In the caseof concerns about access and convenience, transit isinseparable from overall community strategies.

While many people are tired of having to drive carsto do the simplest errand, of waiting in traffic jamsand of chauffeuring their kids from school to musiclessons, the automobile has clear advantages in termsof flexibility and comfort. In contrast, most transit sys-tems have been based on rigid routes and scheduling,especially rail systems. For reasons of economic prac-ticality, some destinations simply cannot be served orserviced as frequently as others.

However, new approaches are being tried to maketransit more flexible, comfortable, and convenient—not to replace the car, but to provide more viablealternatives that meet individual as well as commu-nity needs.

Land-use strategies (see also Chapter 2) to changethe design of communities so that they are more com-pact and, therefore, appropriate for a variety of trans-portation options have even been reported as a coverstory in Newsweek. As the article begins, “Most of usactually know what we want in a neighborhood—we

CHAPTER 8

Making Communities Accessible and Convenient

Americans are not irrationally car-crazed. We seem wedded to the automobile because policyafter government policy encourages us to be.

—Jessica Mathews in the Washington Post. [1]

Since the 1950’s, autocentric transportation policies at every level—federal, state, and local—have effectively destroyed transportation options for Americans. These policies have wiped outwalkable, older communities while preventing the creation of new ones.

—Richard Moe, President, National Trust for Historic Preservation. [2]

85

just don’t know how to get it, because developershave been building the wrong thing for 50 years.”[3] While somewhat overstated, it is true that thereis at least a debate going on today about land useand transportation that was less prominent a fewyears ago.

The goal of more progressive land-use strategies isto plan and design communities more compactly soresidents can walk, bike, or take a bus and not alwayshave to drive. There should be centers in a commu-nity where shops, schools, services, and other destina-tions are within walking distance of each other. Theproblem is that, at least for the present, very little newdevelopment provides such an alternative and estab-lished areas cannot be transformed overnight. As aresult, land-use strategies, as important as they are,represent a long-term approach.

Retrofitting traditional communities or re-establishing pedestrian and transit networks in com-munities that were built prior to auto-dominatedpolicies offers great potential for more immediateresults. Case studies of Pioneer Square in Portland;Davies Square in Somerville, Massachusetts; Woodbridge,New Jersey; the Los Angeles Neighborhood Initiative; andthe Green Line, Chicago are some of the key examplesof the impact of retrofitting to improve pedestrianand transit access.

Effective transit systems that simply offer conve-nient service at competitive prices also represent aneffective strategy. The Big Blue Bus in Santa Monica isone dramatic example of a bus system that providesconvenience and accessibility in a city that is part ofthe car-oriented culture of Los Angeles. Many of thecase studies presented here—such as Davis Square,

Somerville, MA; 16th Street Transitway, Denver; and GoBoulder, Colorado—are transit systems that offer con-venient service within neighborhoods, downtowns, orcommunities as a whole.

Another more specialized strategy has been thecreation of transit shuttles and connectors, shuttle busservices that connect residential neighborhoods withemployment centers. Some systems facilitate connec-tions with commuter rail and rapid transit stations.These transit shuttles and connectors are often spon-sored by developers and corporate employers, aloneor in partnership with transit agencies, and financingusually comes from a combination of rider fares,employer subsidies, grants and public subsidies.Other systems, like Chicago’s JobLink Corporation(see example in Chapter 6) takes inner city residentsto job-rich suburbs in subscription vans and buses.Still other programs provide employer-sponsoredshuttle buses from outlying regional bus and rail stations to office and industrial parks not served byregular transit. A variety of examples are provided inthis chapter.

Intermodal transit centers help improve the func-tioning of existing transit and improve linkagesbetween different modes of travel. Meridian,Mississippi is currently transforming its historic rail-road station for this specific role. Most of the casestudies presented in this report, however, have somesort of intermodal component to them: WellstonStation, St. Louis, combines local buses, shuttle vans,and light rail; Corpus Christi’s Staples Street Station isa bus transfer center that connects to a downtownrubber wheel trolley. LINC (Local Initiative for Neigh-borhood Circulation) in Seattle is in the process ofdeveloping neighborhood intermodal centers withconnections to regional buses and private taxis. TheWatts Shuttle feeds regional bus lines.

Neighborhood-based transportation services mayoffer the most potential to support the goals ofneighborhood convenience and accessibility. Casestudies include two very diverse communities—Watts, Los Angeles, and Aspen, Colorado—where newtransit services provide flexible service in smallerbuses to local destinations. These systems are viewedpositively by passengers because they offer moreoptions than larger buses. Just the same, muchremains to be learned about the long-term viability ofthese systems. Experimental demonstrations can behelpful in assessing their effectiveness, for example,the LINC Shuttle in Seattle was a 6-month pilot projectto test specific assumptions and evaluate publicresponse. In the future, such neighborhood trans-portation services can also create mini-centers of com-munity life, help generate new jobs and businesses,and improve access to a larger region.

Figure 8-1. The Tohono Tadai Center, Tucson, AZ, pro-vides a focal point for development near the Tucson Mall.(Credit: Steven Haines)

86

ENDNOTES

1. Quoted in Surface Transportation Policy Project Bulletin(June/July 1994) p.6.

2. Ibid., p.6–7.3. “Bye-Bye, Suburban Dream: 15 Ways to Fix the

Suburbs,” Newsweek (May 15, 1995).

EXAMPLES

Santa Monica, CA: The Big Blue BusConvenient and Accessible City BusService Builds Livability and TransitRidership

We want to make riding a bus an enjoyable experience, so that the passenger steps on a clean bus, meets a helpfuldriver, and rides to a destination he or she wants to reach.

—Bob Ayer, Assistant Director, Big Blue Bus

For 70 years, Santa Monica has taken an activeapproach to transit to assure that the city and itsnearby destinations are accessible and convenientfor residents. In 1923, the sparsely settled commu-nity offered an exclusive citywide bus franchise to aprivate bus operator that would establish bus routesspecified by the city. Within a few years, complica-tions arose and neither state-run railroad nor privatebus services were meeting the needs of SantaMonica’s residents. In an attempt to improve thesituation, the city bought buses and established itsown routes. Later, the local private company mergedwith the city’s Big Blue Bus (BBB). For almost 70years, the BBB has operated local main line bus ser-vice to Los Angeles County’s west side under localcontrol.

The BBB carries approximately 19 million passen-gers per year on 135 buses. With a fare of 50 cents (thenational average is 75 cents), the farebox recoveryratio is 46 percent compared to the U.S. transit systemaverage of 28 percent. More than half of the com-pany’s revenue (61 percent) comes from fares and therest (39 percent) from subsidy, which is precisely thereverse of the budget for Los Angeles County transit.Most important, the BBB received a rating of “favor-able” by 98 percent of its passengers. According toMr. Ayer, the favorable rating is a direct result ofefforts to keep the buses clean and ensure that they“look like something people want to ride,” ratherthan have people thinking “they don’t care.”

The BBB runs five lines to the University ofCalifornia, Los Angeles, and four lines to the beach,one line to downtown Los Angeles, and it operatesspecial monthly trips. The BBB takes input from the

community on a regular basis regarding its service;almost everyone in the city of Santa Monica liveswithin two blocks of a bus stop. As residential to com-mercial service has proved successful, the focus of theservice has evolved and is now geared toward linkingbusiness centers and providing point-to-point servicebetween the aerospace center, El Segundo, and SantaMonica. In fact, one experimental route provides“family seating” and videotaped entertainment foraerospace commuters.

The newest development for the BBB is a citywidestreet enhancement project along Main Street andPico Boulevard, which has marked a turning point forthe BBB. The city, the BBB, and local businesses arenow working together to enhance the community andtransit amenities.

Kids Kab: Reducing the Need for ParentChauffeuring

One of the community livability challenges formany parents is transporting children convenientlyand safely. Kids Kab is a privately operated transitservice for children, designed specifically to meet theneeds of busy working families. It offers individuallycustomized door-to-door transportation to and fromschool, after-school activities, doctor appointments,music lessons, and weekend social and sports events.

Figure 8-2. “For almost 20 years, Pico buses turnedaround in Ocean Park on a turntable. Celebrating its instal-lation in May 1934 are Finance Commissioner T.H. Plumer,Ocean Park amusement man Jesse Kramer and localbathing beauties.” (Credit: Santa Monica Library photocourtesy of the Big Blue Bus, as quoted in History of SantaMonica’s Big Blue Bus by Bob Ayer, City of Santa Monica,CA, 1992, pg. 19)

The service was created by Pamela Henderson, aworking mother of three children in Birmingham,Michigan. From its humble beginning in 1991, withthree vans and manual dispatching, the business hasexpanded into a far-reaching network of franchises in12 states that collectively carry 50,000 riders a month.The fast growth of Kids Kab—and numerous imita-tors—demonstrates that there is a market for cus-tomized transportation services focused on childrenand young teenagers.

The service is offered by subscription and on asingle-ride basis. In some communities, Kids Kabcarries students to and from classes at independentschools that do not have school bus transportation oftheir own. Peak demand occurs after school, withvans carrying children to sports activities, music anddance lessons, and dentist appointments. Weekendsare also periods of high demand for transportation tosports events, birthday parties, and dances.

Because safety and security are uppermost in par-ents’ minds, children are issued photo identificationcards that become their bus admission ticket.Children are not left unattended; they must be met atthe door by a parent or other pre-approved person.To allay parents’ fears of turning their children overto strangers, drivers are carefully screened with anemphasis on hiring parents, school bus drivers andretired neighbors living in the service area.

New Jersey Transit WHEELS Program:Experimenting with Flexible Service toServe Local Mobility Needs

When you ride our WHEELS you travel in comfort, andin the company of friends and neighbors. Without a worryabout weather, traffic, or wear and tear on your car, andthat means less wear and tear on you. So go ahead andlaugh, talk, sleep and relax, on NJ Transit WHEELS.It’s the way more and more people are getting around.

—From a NJ Transit promotional brochure

The New Jersey Transit WHEELS program is anexperimental program to test special transit servicesto serve local mobility needs not currently served by traditional buses. Funding from CMAQ has, since1993, made it possible every month for 138,000 peo-ple to travel to and from home, school, shopping,work, and commuter rail stations. The WHEELS pro-gram operates express service along a fixed routebetween residential areas and rail stations, office dis-tricts (corporate and industrial parks), and shoppingcenters statewide. Several routes pick up passengersat park-and-ride lots, bus terminals, hotels, and trainstations. Between two and four 20-passenger mini-buses service each route on weekdays.

The most successful of NJ Transit’s 19 WHEELSSuburban Transportation Services is the PrincetonJunction Rail Station-Lawrence route. The PrincetonJunction service is a flexible subscription service,which requires passengers to reserve their seats inadvance for a specific month, week, or day. The service operates every 30 min during weekday rushhours from 5 a.m. to 8 a.m. and from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30p.m. between the Princeton Junction Rail Station(along the Northeast Corridor Rail Line) in WestWindsor and residential neighborhoods in Lawrence(in Mercer County). Arrivals and departures arescheduled to coordinate with the trains. Fares rangefrom $1.40 one way to $49.00 for a monthly pass.

The shuttle service was introduced by NJ Transitas a way to solve the serious parking problem thatexists at the Princeton Junction rail station and toassist commuters traveling to destinations along the Northeast Corridor Rail Line. The service is operated by Mayflower Contract Services for NJTransit, which requires Mayflower to coordinatepassenger pickup requests closely with trainarrivals/departures.

Ridership has more than tripled—from 471 to1,968 in eight months—since the service began inAugust 1994. Brochures, Transit Days, free-ridecoupons, give-away items, and direct mail solicita-tion have been used to draw more riders to this service.

87

Figure 8-3. Brochure for Kids Kab, a privately operated trans-portation service for children, which provides transportation toand from after school activities. (Credit: Kids Kab)

88

CASE STUDIES

Case studies present three different communities:Aspen, Colorado, a wealthy resort community; Watts,a low-income neighborhood in Los Angeles; andMeridian, Mississippi, a small city. Each hasaddressed the goal of improved access and conve-nience in a different manner, but the community-initiated process has yielded transit programs in allthree communities that address the needs of residentsin a more effective manner:

Case Study 8-1: Aspen, CO: City Shuttles Community Develops Plan to Reduce Traffic Congestionand Increase Mobility

Case Study 8-2: Los Angeles, CA: The DASH Watts Shuttle Community-Scaled Transit Links NeighborhoodDestinations

Case Study 8-3: Meridian, MS: Union Station Train Station Becomes Community Transportation Hub

Aspen cannot build its way out of traffic problems anymorethan Los Angeles was able to solve its problems with everlarger and wider freeways. The community seeks to providea balanced, integrated transportation system for residents,visitors and commuters that reduces congestion andpollution.

—Aspen Area Community Plan, January 1993

SUMMARY

Aspen, Colorado, a charming, old mining townand world-famous ski resort, was plagued withtraffic congestion and a parking shortage untilrecently when a “pay-for-parking” program andincreased local transit services were introduced. This“carrot and stick” approach was the only way toconvince people to leave their cars at home, or atleast outside the business district, according to GaryGleason, the Marketing Director of the Roaring ForkTransit Agency (RFTA). While parking fees wereinstituted in early 1995 to discourage the use ofdowntown streets as free, long-term parking lots, aninexpensive demand-response van service and a freeshuttle from outlying park-and-ride facilities wereintroduced at the same time to provide alternativetransportation. Commuter service was alsoexpanded in terms of frequency and number ofexpress runs.The response has been overwhelminglypositive and there has been a substantial increase intransit ridership.

PLANNING PROCESS

Because tourism is Aspen’s economic engine, theRFTA and the local ski corporations have longprovided free bus service within the city andbetween the four ski areas as a service to visitors.Locals, commuters and tourists, however, stilltended to clog up the unmetered streets of Aspen,

Figure 8-4. NJ Transit WHEELS promotional brochure.(Credit: NJ Transit Corporation)

Case Study 8-1Aspen, CO: City Shuttles Community Develops Plan to Reduce TrafficCongestion and Increase Mobility

especially during the peak winter season. The full-time population of Aspen is only 6,000, but itexpands to as many as 30,000 during the wintermonths. In addition, 60 percent of the people whowork in Aspen live outside the city, primarilybecause of very high housing costs, and the full-timepopulation in the entire Roaring Fork River Valleyhas expanded to 30,000 in recent years. To serve thislarge commuter population, the RFTA provides busservice along Highway 82, the corridor through theRoaring Fork River Valley—the only means of enter-ing Aspen for most of the year. The parking fee program was intended to encourage even more ofthese commuters to take the bus. A new parking lotat the airport outside of town, serviced by anotherfree shuttle, was also built to encourage both com-muters and visitors to leave their cars outside ofAspen.

The pay-for-parking program, free shuttle buses,and other proposals for reducing congestion grewout of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP).Developing transportation alternatives was an im-portant theme of the AACP, a document intended to“revive the vitality that previously characterizedAspen,” while developing “a livable environment forthe community’s residents, employees, and visitors.”The AACP published in 1993, was the result of a 2-year, community-based process, led by citizen taskforces and professional consultants. Along withaction plans to revitalize the permanent residentcommunity by providing more affordable housing,promote sustainable development and maintaindesign quality, Aspen residents expressed the need,in the AACP’s “Transportation Action Plan,” to pro-vide transportation alternatives in order to reducetheir dependency on automobiles. The increase incommuter traffic caused by the displacement of theworkforce was described in the AACP as “degradingboth the air quality and the quality of life for bothresidents and visitors.” Aspen residents realized that“Aspen cannot build its way out of traffic problemsanymore than Los Angeles was able to solve its prob-lems with ever larger and wider freeways.”

The Transportation Action Plan proposed detailedsolutions that would do the following:

• Limit vehicle trips into Aspen,• Provide efficient valley-wide mass transit,• Alter land-use patterns,• Move people within and around the city without

automobiles,• Create a less congested downtown,• Enhance pedestrian mobility,• Improve bikeways, and

• Provide practical car storage facilities on the out-skirts of town.

The developers of the Transportation Action Planrecognized that locals and visitors alike would onlytake advantage of the parking facilities outside oftown if mobility within town, through frequent,accessible shuttle services, was enhanced. Likewise,the transit service would only be used if drivers werediscouraged from bringing their cars into town. Thus,each component of the Transportation Action Planwas dependent on the implementation of the othercomponents. Most of the steps outlined in theTransportation Action Plan were phased in between1992 and 1995.

89

Figures 8-5 and 8-6. Case Study 8-1. Downtown Aspen,CO (Figure 8-5) and the Rubby Park Transit Center (Figure 8-6). To overcome its traffic congestion and parkingshortage, the city of Aspen instituted a free shuttle servicethat ferries visitors and area employees from outlying park-and-ride facilities and bus stations into the downtown.Similar shuttles offer service from residentialneighborhoods. (Credit: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

A controversial plan by the Colorado Departmentof Transportation to bring a four-lane highway intoAspen was recently rejected by the community. Thecity of Aspen proposes to build, instead, a new two-lane parkway from the airport, with a light rail sys-tem running down the median, to replace the over-crowded two-lane highway. The new road, called“Alternative H,” would retain the historic characterof the “entrance to Aspen,” preserve open space,reduce the number of cars coming into town andforce vehicles to slow down as they enter.“Alternative H” would provide a more bicycle andpedestrian-friendly approach to entering the town,and it would have fewer hidden costs, such as theadditional parking garages needed for a four-lanehighway.

STRATEGY

The RFTA has expanded the range of choiceswithin the three types of transit service that it pro-vides in the Aspen area as follows.

City Buses. The service hours of the free circulatingbus system that has been operating for many yearswithin the city were increased; it now runs from 6:30 a.m. to 2:30 a.m., on four year-round routes andtwo additional seasonal routes, at 20- to 30-minintervals. New services recently added to supple-ment the bus system include: a “dial-a-ride” van ser-vice, seating 15, that circulates on a 15-min fixedroute— the service is free, but if the van picks uppassengers at their doors, the charge is $0.50; theGalena Street Shuttle, a free, seasonal downtowntrolley that runs north-south from the municipalparking structure through town to the AspenMountain gondola; and the Airport Park-and-RideShuttle, a free, seasonal service from a 350-car park-ing lot into the center of town, designed primarilyfor commuters.

Seasonal Bus Service. The local ski company paysfor ski-area shuttles that operate in winter. In thesummer, RFTA buses climb the winding road (nocars allowed) to the foot of the Maroon Bells, a spec-tacular group of high mountain peaks, for a fee of$5.00.

The Commuter Corridor to Glenwood Springs. TheRFTA provides 1.5 million passenger trips a year, pri-marily for commuters, on buses that run along theRoaring Fork River Valley. With the introduction ofpaid parking in Aspen, the level of commuter transit

service was doubled to encourage people to ridebuses by making them even more convenient.

The parking fee introduced in the downtown busi-ness district to encourage people to use the manytransit choices was only $1.00 per hour. But to make itequitable, and to counter the charge that only the richcould park in Aspen, parking was limited to 2 hours.Rather than individual meters, which were deemed tobe unsightly, “pay and display” meters, which dis-pense tickets to place in the windshield, wereattached to the historic-style lampposts at mid-blocklocations. Aspen also introduced the innovative ideaof “in-car” meters which can be purchased from thecity and credited with up to $500 of parking time, alsoin 2-hour increments.

FUNDING

The RFTA is funded by a 1 cent sales tax that wasraised recently to 11⁄2 cents to help fund the light railsystem. While the ski-area shuttles are paid for by theski company, the other free shuttles are paid for out ofthe regular operating budget of the RFTA. The costper ride is about $2.00, relatively low by industrystandards. The free service is perceived by the RFTAand the community as being critical to the success ofAspen as a comfortable and convenient resort desti-nation, as well as a means of encouraging residents toleave their cars at home. Parking revenues, collectedby the city of Aspen, go primarily toward the enforce-ment of parking restrictions, as well as to help pay forthe free park-and-ride shuttle service from the airportinto town.


The RFTA and the city of Aspen have faced theirshare of obstacles; changing long-established behav-ior patterns, particularly within a privileged popula-tion, has not been easy. In addition, maintaining thecharacter of a small town while coming up with big-city transportation solutions has, at times, createdproblems of scale.

The opposition to the parking fee proposal wasfierce: a “honk-in” was staged a month before the pro-gram was to take effect to protest the end to free park-ing. Thousands of cars, with horns blaring, circled CityHall on New Year’s Day for 25 min. Mayor JohnBennett stood outside City Hall with a sound levelmeter, greeting the protesters, and handing out prizesto the loudest horns. Nevertheless, the program wentahead and within 2 weeks of its inception even itsstaunchest opponents were calling it a resounding suc-

90

cess: the congestion was noticeably diminished andthe city was perceived to be more livable.


The parking fees have been remarkably successfulas a disincentive, motivating people to take the bus.Commuter ridership in the valley is up 35 percentfrom last year to this year and ridership in the city isup 23 percent. Parking occupancy has dropped from95 percent to 85 percent which has reduced vehiclemiles traveled and parking “trolling.” Average dailytraffic into Aspen has declined by 3 to 4 percent sincepaid parking was initiated.

CONCLUSIONS

Although Aspen, a wealthy resort town with hugeseasonal fluctuations in ridership, may have little incommon with most urban communities, its problemsof traffic congestion, degraded air quality, and ardu-ous commutes are familiar livability concerns. TheAspen community’s innovative solutions, introducedthrough a long citizen-participation process, can serveas models to other communities across the country.By carefully adapting urban-scale transit solutions tothe needs of a small town, the RFTA and the Aspencommunity are succeeding at preserving the qualityof life in the Aspen area while enhancing mobility.Transportation strategies, including improved transitand restraints on auto use, have made the area farmore livable.

SOURCE

Aspen Area Community Plan (January 1993).

I love being the director of a transportation program thatprovides such a wonderful service to a community I’velived in my entire life. The people who use the Watts shut-tle need it desperately and really depend on its services.

—Teddy Watkins, Watts Labor Community Action Committee

SUMMARY

The Los Angeles Department of Transportation(LADOT) began operating the local shuttle service inLos Angeles’ Watts neighborhood in September 1990as a transportation demonstration project, in responseto the community’s request for improved local transitservice. The initial program was so popular that ser-vice was expanded and a second route was consid-ered and added this year. DASH shuttles also operatewithin downtown Los Angeles, Pacific Palisades,Fairfax, Hollywood, Midtown, Crenshaw, Van Nuys,Warner Center, and southeast Los Angeles, for a totalof 17 communities throughout the city. Most shuttlesoperate 6 days per week with 20- to 45-min head-ways. For 25 cents, residents are connected by DASHshuttles to the key retail, recreational, and socialservice centers in their neighborhoods.

PLANNING PROCESS

Watts is an economically disadvantaged neighbor-hood in Los Angeles, an area that never fully recov-ered from the Watts riots in 1965. Since that time,there has been a great deal of investment in the area,especially in the form of community services, retail,and educational and health facilities. While the hos-pital, shopping center, and park had done much toimprove the livability of the neighborhood for resi-dents, many people were unable to reach thesedestinations. They were scattered throughout thecommunity and had limited public-access services.Residents approached their local councilwomanrequesting a solution to the problem—a fixed-routeshuttle bus service that would circulate throughoutthe neighborhood and connect residents to vitalcommunity centers.

The Mayor and City Council responded to the com-munity’s concerns by establishing a 1-year transporta-tion demonstration project to initiate shuttle service in the greater Watts community. The project wasfunded through Proposition Local Transit Assistancemoneys. In September 1990, two buses (with onebackup) began to travel a bi-directional route every 45 min.

Many groups joined together to plan and imple-ment the DASH shuttle service in Watts. Theyincluded the offices of the Mayor and two council-members and their Transportation Policy ReviewCommittee; representatives from LADOT and the LosAngeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority(LACMTA); local senior centers and civic associationsthat actively solicited both the City Council and theLADOT for neighborhood transit service; and the

91

Case Study 8-2Los Angeles, CA: The DASH Watts ShuttleCommunity-Scaled Transit Links Neighborhood Destinations

Watts Labor Community Action Committee(WLCAC), a nonprofit organization, which won thecompetitive contract to operate the service forLADOT.

STRATEGY

The Watts DASH Shuttle was approved by theMayor and City Council in 1989. LADOT staffworked with the WLCAC to identify the community’sactivity centers, and WLCAC helped the communitydevelop and propose the route it wanted to the CityCouncil. The route connects residents to the neighbor-hood’s most important destinations, including WillRogers Memorial Park, City Hall, the Post Office, theHealth Foundation, a hospital, a job and vocationalpreparation center, a social services facility, and twoplazas within the neighborhood’s retail and commer-cial corridor. It also connects to the 103rd Street andImperial Metro Blue Line Stations, a light rail operat-ing between downtown Los Angeles and the city ofLong Beach. The shuttle and municipal/city busesshare the same bus stops, which usually only consistof a bench and sign.

Now, with five shuttles (four in service and onespare), the service operates on 20-min headways from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays, and from 9 a.m. to6 p.m. on Saturdays. The fare is 25 cents, but seniorsand persons with disabilities ride free with an MTApass. Half of LADOT’s DASH buses now run on com-pressed natural gas or propane, which produce lesspollution than regular gas or diesel-powered buses.However, the current buses used in Watts are diesel-powered.

DASH is only one component of the regional MetroSystem. In addition to DASH, there is CommuterExpress bus service between downtown Los Angelesand residential neighborhoods, the battery-operatedSan Pedro Electric Trolley, and Cityride, a dial-a-ridevan and taxi service that serves seniors and personswith disabilities.

FUNDING

The DASH Watts demonstration project was ini-tially funded through City Proposition A funds,which the City Council appropriated for the Wattsprogram. Now the city is using a combination ofProposition A and C funds.

The monthly operating costs of the DASH Wattsaverage $34,000, which is paid to the WLCAC, thecity’s contract operator. Total fare revenue, at 25 centsper ride, averages $10,000 per month for DASH

Watts, which has the highest farebox ratio of all thetransit services operated by LADOT.


Problems and difficulties facing DASH Watts havebeen vandalism of its buses (rock throwing, in partic-ular) and gang-related problems. The WLCAC hasmounted a 31⁄2-year-long community outreach effortwith area schools, block associations, the local police,and the parents of students, to enlist their cooperationin changing the behavior of the offending gangs.Using funds from the city and Proposition C, a LosAngeles Police Department (LAPD) sergeant has beenassigned to address the security issues on communityDASH buses and often rides the route with passen-gers. In recent months, the problems have stoppedand no incidents have occurred on board the DASHbuses. As part of this security effort, and in coopera-tion with the LAPD, the WLCAC has instituted strictrules governing on-board behavior, and violation ofthese rules results in a perpetrator’s prompt removalfrom the bus.


In its second year of operation, the DASH Wattsfleet for Watts expanded from two to four vehiclesand carried 40 passengers per revenue hour, twiceLACMTA’s ridership standard. Two years later, in1994, ridership had increased to 48 passengers perhour. LADOT began planning a second route to servethe northern and western sections of the Watts com-munity; DASH Watts North was implemented thisyear. Today, 50,000 passengers ride the DASH Wattsshuttle each month giving it the highest ridership perhour and the lowest subsidy per passenger of all ofLADOT’s services.

CONCLUSIONS

The DASH Watts is vital to the livability of thistransit-dependent community. The shuttle connectspeople to the many social, medical, educational, andcommunity services that have been systematicallydeveloped for the benefit of Watts’ residents. In fact,introducing new social services into a communitywithout providing patrons with the means to accessthem makes the programs much less effective than ifa transit component were incorporated as part of theproject from the start. According to Teddy Watkins,Director of WLCAC, of the 100 DASH buses thatserve 20 routes systemwide, DASH Watts is the most

92

93Figure 8-7. Case Study 8-2. DASH Watts Brochure and service route showing how the routes serve many local destinations,including the post office, library, city hall, and social services. (Credit: Los Angeles Department of Transportation)

successful primarily because it connects transit-depen-dent people with the destinations they want to reach.

SUMMARY

Often referred to as a “child of the railroad,”Meridian was settled in 1859 along the Mississippi-Alabama border, at the junction of the Vicksburg andAlabama lines, and developed to accommodateemployees of the rail lines.

Although Meridian now serves the transportationneeds of nine surrounding counties, there are no tran-sit centers where passengers can catch the bus ortransfer from the train. The Union Station Multi-Modal Transfer Center is being planned to providethe predominantly low-income population with safe,reliable, and convenient access to buses and trainsand to link all major forms of transportation. Withnearly 30 percent of Meridian residents living belowthe poverty line and a median household income of$18,000 per year, efficient and accessible public transitis truly a necessity.

PLANNING PROCESS

The original Union Station was constructed jointlyby the Mobile & Ohio, the Southern, the Alabama &Vicksburg, the New Orleans, and the Northeasternrail lines. The station opened in August of 1906 andhad heavy rail traffic for the better part of the century,supporting 44 trains per day. Much of the originalstructure, including the central tower, was demol-ished by 1966, and all that remained was the easternwing of the passenger depot, which currently servesas a ticket area, office space, and waiting room with aseating capacity of 50. Since 1966, Meridian has nothad an adequate train station. Transit service isextremely fragmented, and people must travel all overtown to catch and transfer between trains, buses, andtaxis, creating disjointed and difficult transit access.

Many cite John Robert Smith, the mayor ofMeridian, as providing impetus for the project. JohnSmith developed a strong interest in building a cen-tral multimodal transportation center (MMTC) inMeridian in December 1990 when—while building amodel train set for his son—he researched the role ofrail in the development of the west. Since then, Mayor

Smith has expended considerable time and effort ingenerating interest in and educating the businesscommunity, municipal government, and citizensabout the need and benefits of a multimodal facilityfor Meridian, and its potential to serve as a tool foreconomic revival. The goals of the MMTC are notonly to centralize transportation services, but also tostimulate tourism by promoting the historic preserva-tion of this important railroad town and to act as acatalyst for downtown revitalization efforts.

The project began with feasibility studies in 1991,funded by the Meridian City Council. The city thencommissioned a team of architects and engineers todevelop a design. They held a series of town meetingsand discussion groups with community committees,key design professionals, citizens and railroad “buffs”to obtain community input and discuss conceptualdesigns. Based on this community input, the designteam developed conceptual drawings that outlinedthe major components of the MMTC. Implementationis expected in 1996.

STRATEGY

The Multi-Modal Transfer Center will occupy fourcity blocks. Six acres of this space has been donated bythe Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company andincludes the existing historic station structure. Thedesign of the Union Station Multi-Modal TransferCenter will resemble the original railroad depot thatoccupied the space in the 1900s. Construction is set tobegin in June of 1996 and should last approximately 18 months.

Center facilities will include the Union StationRailroad Museum, a landscaped area with memorialbrick pavers, a new terminal building attached to thesurviving portion of the depot, and areas for futureuse. A site for a farmers’ market and a landscapedpark area with a covered stage for festivals and othercity events are proposed.

The major transportation agencies that will haveoffices at the MMTC include the Meridian TransitSystem, Amtrak, Norfolk Southern Rail, Greyhoundand Trailways buses, and local taxis. The MeridianLauderdale County Partnership, an economic devel-opment agency that promotes tourism, economic andindustrial development, and employment, also plansto relocate its offices to the MMTC and to assumeresponsibility for managing the facility. Auxiliary ser-vices and retail uses planned for the MMTC includethe following:

• Conference rooms and convention activities;• A hospitality center with special-event ticket

sales;

94

Case Study 8-3Meridian, MS: Union Station Train Station Becomes CommunityTransportation Hub

95

Figure 8-8. Case Study: 8-3. This Union Station Patrons Club Membership form invites local residents to purchase a brick orhave their name inscribed on a plaque at this multimodal center being constructed at a historic train station. (Credit: City ofMeridian, Mississippi)

96

• Restaurants and a food court, lounge, and giftshop;

• A trolley link to CBD-area locations;• Historic train excursions;• An airport and Naval Air Station shuttle service;• Travel agencies and airline ticketing;• A tour bus operation;• A package express; and• A welcome center.

FUNDING

The city of Meridian has received $2.56 million inFederal Transportation Enhancement Funds for thepreservation of historic transportation structures toinitiate the project. A $30,000 FTA Sec. 8 PlanningGrant supported the intermodal terminal feasibilitystudy. Another $1.3 million was generated by aCertificate of Participation and state bonds that cov-ered the local match for design and engineering work.

In addition to public meetings, citizen involvementwas encouraged by the Union Station Patrons’ Club.Because of the strong railroad heritage, project devel-opers created the Patrons’ Club to encourage peopleto take ownership of the project. Engraved brickpavers identifying donors as “patrons” are being soldto raise money for the purchase of planters, benches,and other amenities not funded by the federal dollars,as well as to pave the walkways. To date, over 1,000bricks have been sold. Another fundraising programin place is the “sale” to corporate sponsors of the2,500 replicas of turn-of-the-century, Union Metallampposts to be installed at the MMTC. Funds fromthe lampposts will also go toward opening the rail-road museum at the station.

Robert West, an artist from Atlanta, has been com-missioned to paint an original work depicting the sta-tion as it was at the turn of the century. Proceeds fromthis limited edition print are being collected by theRailroad Historical Society and will also help to fundthe construction of the railroad museum.


Amtrak reported that for the period between Juneand December 1994, Meridian’s Union Station had

more than 9,000 boardings. However, Amtrak hassince reduced service from 7 to 4 days per week, andpassenger figures have dropped substantially fromapproximately 1,800 people per month to about 900.Similar figures are expected with the construction ofthe MMTC.

While some opposition surfaced among commu-nity members regarding the necessity of such a trans-fer center, the majority of citizens supported theeffort; support was reinforced by communityinvolvement.

Because this project was the first ISTEA project forthe state of Mississippi, completing the requisitepaperwork has proven to be a major obstacle. Theguidelines are new and unfamiliar to the state high-way department, the agency administering the fund-ing, which had little experience in implementinghistoric preservation projects.


Generating enthusiasm for a transportation projectinvolving rail was not difficult in this railroad cityand the success of the project thus far is attributable tothe participation of all those concerned throughoutthe process. The citizens of Meridian have becomemore aware of the benefits and importance of multi-modal facilities. Expectations of spin-off economicdevelopment and improved downtown developmentare high.

CONCLUSIONS

The success of the transfer center thus far has beendue to the early and continued involvement of gov-ernment leaders, property owners, the business com-munity, concerned citizens, and users. Sustaininginvolvement and developing a sense of public own-ership are of utmost importance in order for the proj-ect to be a success. Amtrak and the city of Meridianare hopeful that the project will reestablish the roleplayed by rail in America’s communities and pro-vide the people of Meridian with a transportationcenter that will greatly enhance their mobility andlivability.

INTRODUCTION

The issue of guiding growth is very often consid-ered the most important livability concern. Growthcan create opportunity, but it also can cause peopleconcern about the sustained livability of their commu-nities. Mismanaged growth erodes places for commu-nity life and pulls the economic and social rug outfrom under older downtowns and neighborhoods.Some critics argue that sprawl is a no-win situation:trapping low-income and minority families in inner-cities while creating a not-so-good-life in the traffic-ridden suburbs. Cities like Phoenix have doubled insize between 1970 and 1990 and even environmen-tally conscious Denver has increased 77 percent since1973, encompassing more than 550 sq mi. For this rea-son, the research team has included the issue of guid-ing growth as a separate chapter.


In a recent front page article in the Wall StreetJournal, Portland, Oregon, was praised for its regionalapproach to land use (“Portland Shows Nation’s CityPlanners How to Guide Growth,” December 26, 1995).

In the 1970s, Portland implemented an ambitious pro-gram that combined the establishment of an urbangrowth boundary with strategies to focus gowth indowntown and encourage transit use (see Case Study4-1). This initiative is considered integral to the eco-nomic success of the Portland region, its vital transitsystem, and high quality of life.

Communities that have chosen to take part in shap-ing their own growth have used a variety of strategiesto do so. Portland’s are typical: encouraging higherdensities; growing upward rather than outward; con-taining growth by prohibiting or limiting develop-ment outside of established boundaries; and develop-ing pedestrian-oriented residential and commercialneighborhoods.

While they are still the exception rather than therule, many communities have instituted detailedplans to direct and control growth. These plans—which are usually enforced through zoning ordi-nances—direct growth and establish specific landuses in designated areas. Emphasis is placed ondeveloping mixes of uses, rather than exclusionarysingle-purpose uses that generate more automobiletrips. This kind of planning can only be implementedwith foresight and is often difficult to initiate. Manycities have tried to adopt such plans, but have been

CHAPTER 9

Shaping Community Growth

[We are] at a crossroads. We can either take control of our growth and channel it in ways thatwill enhance our communities, or we can sit and watch unmanaged growth destroy the thingswe value [most about them.]

—Seattle 2014 Plan

All we have to do is look at Los Angeles to see how many people want to leave it because it’s asprawling, violent, congested, smoggy, unlivable city. So what are we [Coloradans] doing? Nota damn thing different than they did in LA.

—Dick Lamm, former Governor of Colorado about Colorado’s failure to pass growth management legislation. [1]

97

derailed by various interest groups and communitypressures.

Increasingly more common are situations wherecommunities prepare specific plans for large tracts ofland, such as redevelopment parcels, within existingcommunity boundaries. These plans are less threaten-ing to communities when they are prepared withextensive community input. In addition, these plansactually help to encourage development because proj-ects that comply with guidelines and regulations canproceed without delays, and developers are assuredthat neighboring projects will reinforce, not detract,from their own projects. By virtue of their specific reg-ulations, these plans also offer opportunities to shapedensities within areas and help make an area morepedestrian and transit friendly.

There is, today, strong interest in developing newmodels of suburbs that feature “neotraditional”communities—sometimes called “transit-orientedcommunities”—which re-create neighborhooddevelopment patterns more typical of the early part of this century. These design improvements ofteninclude grids of through streets, rather than curvingcul de sacs; smaller lots with garages off rear alleys;sidewalks and front porches. Because only a few ofthese communities have been constructed, and theseare located in exurban areas, their impact has probablybeen more on reshaping the orientation of planningand design professions than on shaping real growth.

Role of Transit

A major goal of guiding growth is to encourage theuse of public transit. As Portland illustrates, theinvestment in transit helps achieve the goal of reduc-ing sprawl and encouraging the development ofmixed-use centers. Transit can play a leading role,however, simply by initiating community discussionsabout growth and livability. A number of differenttransit strategies can be pursued.

Transit-oriented development (TOD) (also called“pedestrian pockets” or “transit villages”) is the termcommonly used to express new development con-structed around transit facilities. These facilities act as focal points for a community and are generallyaccompanied by higher densities of land use, with anemphasis on walking. The car becomes an optionrather than a necessity. Most of the discussion aboutTODs has been in the western and southern cities andin suburban areas; eastern cities, which grew up in the1940s, evolved a kind of natural TOD. Davis Square inSomerville, Massachusetts, did not have a subway stopuntil a decade ago, but it was originally developed as

a tight, urban neighborhood and the station had animmediate impact on the area. The Green Line Initiativein Chicago and Wellston Station in St. Louis areexamples of reintroducing TOD in an area where itexisted historically, but was essentially obliterated bymassive urban deterioration and urban renewal.Fruitvale in Oakland, California, is also applying theseprinciples to an older area, focusing on a parking lotadjacent to a rapid transit station built in the 1970s.

Transit service reorganization is another methodused to support growth concerns, often as part of amore comprehensive strategy. GO Boulder in Coloradois a program that includes special passes for busesand shuttles, as well as a variety of transportationmanagement programs—all intended to reduce theuse of the automobile and support community envi-ronmental goals. In Seattle, LINC is part of a broadcommunity effort to create “urban villages” as part ofa new regional strategy to direct growth; Aspen’sShuttle is also part of a broader development strategyfor the community. Corpus Christi’s transit programinvolves creation of bus transfer centers downtownand in neighborhoods to create strong centers ofactivity. Tucson has a similar program, for which theTohono Tadai Transit Center near Tucson Mall is animportant component.

Finally, new rail systems, have been used toencourage growth. In once car-oriented cities likeWashington, DC; San Francisco, CA; Portland, OR;and San Diego, CA; light and heavy rail systems havebegun to have a major impact on the shape andgrowth of the community. One example—Arlington,Virginia, a suburb of Washington, DC—is presentedhere. Unfortunately, such systems can be controver-sial. In Seattle, the light rail system was turned downby voters, in part because it would not serve many

98

Figure 9-1. Sprawling development in San Bernardino, CA.(Credit: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.).

communities: LINC is the alternative approach nowbeing pursued.

ENDNOTE

1. Wall Street Journal (December 26, 1995) p.1.

EXAMPLE

Arlington County’s Rosslyn-BallstonMetrorail Corridor Using Transit to Shape Growth and CreateCommunity

Arlington had the vision to understand the enviable posi-tion it occupied in the Washington metropolitan region andthen acted decisively to secure that position for future gen-erations. The county took full advantage of the significanttransit investment and planned for growth before it hap-pened and then, when the rail system was completed andthe market came of age, it was able to steer growth in thedirection of the plan.

—Robert Buchanan, Ballston Developer

Arlington County, in Northern Virginia, is adensely developed inner-ring suburb in the Wash-ington, DC, area. Occupying about 26 sq mi andlocated across the Potomac River from Washington,the county was largely built in the early part of the1900s as a bedroom community for federal workers indowntown Washington. Since World War II, thecounty experienced almost 30 years of steady officegrowth, fueled first by the growth of federal agenciesand more recently by the arrival of private firmsdoing business, directly or indirectly, with thegovernment.

That success was blurred, however, by what cameto be perceived as the darker side of growth. This isexemplified by the county’s experience with Rosslyn,the focus of the first spurt of post-war redevelop-ment, whose transformation from a tawdry ware-house district into a high-density urban office centerbecame the subject of much criticism. The absence ofnew residential construction discouraged retail andrestaurant development, causing the area to becomean “urban desert” at night. Also, a lack of openspaces and street-level stores, combined with theuncoordinated development of pedestrian and vehic-ular circulation systems, added to Rosslyn’s ratherunappealing image. Finally, speculation that neigh-borhoods surrounding Rosslyn would themselvesbecome targets for high-density development led to their deterioration.

Toward the end of the 1960s, Rosslyn became asymbol of what Arlington residents did not want to

see happen in the rest of the county. These attitudeswere fostered by the emergence of a broaderphenomenon—public questioning in ArlingtonCounty and elsewhere of the deleterious effects ofnew growth on the environment, the quality of life,and the viability of established neighborhoods. By theearly seventies, it could be no longer assumed thatcounty residents agreed—as they generally had in the1950s and 1960s—that growth was a desirable end initself. In this climate of opinion, it was clear thatfurther redevelopment of the Rosslyn-Ballstoncorridor, especially of the areas around Metrorailtransit stations, would require a new approach.

Well before Metro construction began, the county,anticipating both positive and negative economicand environmental impacts, began a process of sec-tor planning for station areas to take maximumadvantage of opportunities that the system offeredand to mitigate its undesirable effects. In general, the sector planning process involved a clear commit-ment to (1) accommodate growth stimulated by thetransit stations and a corresponding commitment tocontain development within designated transitimpact zones, (2) avoid undesirable spillover effectsbeyond these zones, and (3) preclude the kinds ofurban design shortcomings evident in Rosslyn’sredevelopment. Sector plans would encouragemixed-use development, focus on good architectureand urban design, reinforce the unique character ofeach station area, and clearly demarcate the high-density transit zones from surrounding low-densityresidential areas. Each of the five stations was toserve a unique function and have a well-definedidentity: Rosslyn as a major business and employ-ment center; Court House as a government andadministrative center; Clarendon as an urban village;Virginia Square as the focus for cultural, recrea-tional, and educational activities; and Ballston as anew downtown in central Arlington.

The planning effort for the five stations in the cor-ridor involved extensive public participation. It produced detailed sector plans for each affected station area, governed by the following common principles:

• Highest densities would be concentrated withinwalking distance of Metro stations, with buildingheights, densities and uses “tapered down” toexisting single-family residential neighborhoods.Within the Metro core areas, a mixture of office,hotel, retail, and high-rise residential develop-ment would be encouraged. Residential develop-ment would be a particularly high priority in allstation areas. This mixed-use approach, coupledwith common design criteria aimed at ensuring a

99

quality pedestrian environment, would ensurean active, vibrant core area.

• Existing single-family residences and most resi-dential communities would be preserved.Neighborhood conservation plans calling for theestablishment of buffer zones of relatively low-density development would be implemented.

• Commercial revitalization would come aboutprimarily as a function of redevelopment of thecore area and associated increases in residentialland-use density.

• Each station would feature integral pedestriancirculation systems connecting residential areas,commercial facilities, and Metro entrances, and astreetscape program focused on pedestrianamenities and landscaping.

• Adequate open space in the station areas in gen-eral, and the core areas in particular, would beobtained through a combination of county acqui-sitions and the site plan approval process.

As a result of these policies, the overwhelmingstate of the county’s commercial and residentialdevelopment between 1970 and 1994 has taken placein these corridors within 1/2 mi of a Metrorail sta-tion. This development includes 14,700 residentialunits, 21 million sq ft of office space, more than 6,000new hotel rooms, and 2.2 million sq ft of service anddestination retail. These designated transit hubs haveabsorbed 94 percent of the county’s new office devel-opment and more than 90 percent of its hotel andretail development. This concentration of intensemixed-use development has yielded a much higheruse of transit in this corridor than in other inner-suburb locations in the greater Washington region. As a result of the development pattern, several Metro-rail stations in this corridor have the highest daily boarding of any stations outside the district central-office core. In 1995, 77,400 daily boardings wererecorded at corridor stations (more than 150,000 tripsper day).

Nearly 19 percent of Arlington residents use pub-lic transportation on a daily basis and 42 percent relyon transit at least once a week. In addition, Ballston is a particularly attractive place to live for peoplewith disabilities as they can easily access all of theshops in the area, live in an accessible area, and usepublic transit.

Today, the challenge for Arlington County is toupgrade the pedestrian environments in these high-density development zones, to provide better connec-tivity to the transit stations and to adjacentneighborhoods, and to plan for still greater variety inthe land-use mix of corridor centers. These improve-ments will capitalize on the area’s high densities tomake it even more livable.

CASE STUDIES

Case studies show how three different communitiesin the west and south are incorporating transit as akey ingredient in a community growth and develop-ment plan:

Case Study 9-1: Boulder, CO: GO Boulder New Transit Services Key to Meeting LocalEnvironmental Goals

Case Study 9-2: Seattle, WA: Local Initiative for Neighborhood Circulation (LINC) Neighborhood Transit System Channeling CommunityGrowth

Case Study 9-3: Corpus Christi, TX: Staples Street BusTransfer Station and the Downtown Trolley Transit Reorganization Sets Stage for Downtown andNeighborhood Renewal

Together we can move transportation forward, one idea at atime.

—GO Boulder Brochure

Designing transportation alternatives to match people’sneeds, properly pricing the use of the auto, and ensuringgrowth pays its own way for transportation needs—theseare the policies our community has chosen to improve mobil-ity and preserve Boulder’s quality of life. GO Boulder’smission is to help us successfully implement these policies.

—Steve Pomerance, City Councilmember

SUMMARY

Boulder, home of the University of Colorado andgateway to Colorado’s Rocky Mountains NationalPark, enjoys a well-deserved reputation as one ofAmerica’s most livable communities. The city boaststhe largest municipally owned open-space system inthe nation, with more than 100 mi of paths and trailsand 80 mi of designated bikeways. This includes an11-mi, grade-separated path traversing the city alongBoulder Creek, which has become one of the bestknown examples of an imaginative recreational use ofan urban waterway. Boulder’s Pearl Street Mall,unlike many of its contemporaries built in the mid-1970s, has remained a vibrant, commercially success-ful pedestrian precinct.

A threat to Boulder’s livability comes from contin-ued growth and its associated traffic, the result of a job-

100

Case Study 9-1Boulder, CO: GO Boulder New Transit Services Key to Meeting Local Environmental Goals

housing imbalance that has brought hordes of newcommuters into the Boulder Valley. The city’s responsehas been to mount a series of actions intended to arrestthe slide toward gridlock. Boulder’s strategy can beheld out as a model of how a community can preserveits livability through alternative transportation.

PLANNING PROCESS

Boulder has a long-standing tradition of growthmanagement. In the mid-1970s, a citizen-led initiativeimposed an annual 2 percent cap on residentialgrowth, which the City Council subsequently madeprogressively more stringent. While the cap was suc-cessful in limiting growth within the city boundaries,it did not prevent leapfrog development in the sur-rounding communities, which grew at a rapid pacethroughout the 1980s and during the early 1990s.

In the meantime, Boulder continued to offer a wel-coming and attractive environment for clean, high-techindustry, which led to a robust expansion of employ-ment inside the city. The combination of these trendscreated a serious job-housing imbalance that is thesource of the present traffic problem. Boulder Valleyhas become a regional job center with a net inflow ofcommuter vehicles during the day. Of the total 510,000daily vehicle trips with destinations in the BoulderValley, 140,000—close to 30 percent—originate outsidethe valley. Regional land use-transportation forecastsestimate that traffic in the Boulder Valley will increasefrom 2.5 million to 4 million daily vehicle miles oftravel by the year 2020. With no plans for constructionof new roads in the foreseeable future, and with CBDparking capacity limited, Boulder’s citizens havebecome justifiably concerned about the effects of thesetrends on the quality of life in their community.

Boulder’s response has been to take an activestance. In 1989, the Boulder City Council adopted aTransportation Master Plan (TMP) with a goal ofshifting 15 percent of existing single-occupant vehicle(SOV) trips to other modes by 2010. To help imple-ment this goal, the council created GO Boulder, an“alternative modes” division within the city adminis-tration. Boulder is the only municipality in the nationto have created an operating unit devoted specificallyto promoting transportation alternatives.

The TMP had an extensive public outreach process.More than 70 stakeholder groups and organizationswere identified and invited to provide input. Theseincluded the Sierra Club, PLAN Boulder County, theEnvironmental Defense Fund, the Chamber ofCommerce, the League of Women Voters and variousneighborhood associations.

In November 1994, a city-sponsored initiative pro-posed a wide-ranging program of transit serviceimprovements, including more frequent service on

local and regional routes, a transit pass offeringunlimited access to bus service to all 80,000 down-town Boulder employees, and improved bicycle andpedestrian facilities. The $12.2 million/year TransitInitiative was to be funded through a combination oflocal taxes. The citywide referendum failed by a sub-stantial margin, the victim of a general anti-tax senti-ment and a belief that the measure was too narrowlyfocused on transit improvements.

STRATEGY

Following the failed referendum, the city pro-ceeded to mount an aggressive multi-pronged strat-egy using its regularly appropriated budget. Thestrategy has several elements as follows.

The ECO Pass. The main instrument of the campaignis the ECO Pass, an unlimited-use annual transit passfor use on the HOP Shuttle, sold through employers.The pass is offered at a deep discount: $35–$65/year,depending on the level of transit. Participating em-ployers, however, must purchase the pass for all theiremployees. The pass is provided to all university stu-dents for $12.00 per semester through an automaticcharge to their tuition bill. ECO pass is also marketedto high school students, residents of suburban hous-ing developments, and urban neighborhoods.

The “HOP” A Community Access Shuttle. To supple-ment the Regional Transit District (RTD) line haul andlocal service, the city of Boulder launched a local shut-tle service in October 1994. The objective of the serviceis to encourage residents, employees, students and vis-itors to use public transportation instead of their cars

101

Figure 9-2. Case Study 9-1. HOP Shuttle, Boulder, CO,functions as a local shuttle service to encourage residents,area employees, students, and visitors to leave their cars athome. One cannot “hop” on, however, without first purchas-ing an ECO pass, which is an unlimited-use annual transitpass. (Credit: GO Boulder).

102

Figure 9-3. Case Study 9-1. GO Boulder’s promotional materials and posters make their point in a clever and eye-catchingmanner. (Credit: GO Boulder).

during the day for trips such as shopping, lunch,errands and meetings, with the ultimate goal of per-suading people to leave their cars at home in the firstplace. The HOP shuttle connects Boulder’s three majoractivity centers: the CBD, the University of Colorado’smain campus, and the Crossroads Mall, a majorregional shopping center. The HOP operates week-days from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on 10-min headways, usingeight propane-fueled, 30-ft buses. Recently, nighttimeservice during the academic year was added at therequest of the University. One cannot hop a HOPshuttle without having purchased an ECO Pass—nofares are collected on the bus. HOP’s initial 6-monthridership goal of 2,000 daily riders was exceeded inthe first 6 weeks. The shuttle carries 3,000–4,000 ridersper day. The shuttle service is operated by a privatecontractor at an annual cost of $700,000, which iscovered through ECO Pass sales, with the citycontributing the rest from general operating funds.

Bicycle Facilitation. With more than 80 mi of desig-nated paths and bike lanes, Boulder is a bicycle-friendlycity par excellence. Bicycles are designated as “vehi-cles” and allowed to use vehicular roadways as well asdedicated bicycle paths and sidewalks. In the winter-time, snow clearance on bikeways is given the samepriority as on city streets. After a heavy snow fall, bike-ways are said to be often open to traffic before the city’sroadways. A large student population and an aggres-sive marketing program contribute to making Boulderthe second most bike-intensive community in thenation, with 12 percent of all trips made on bike (Davis,California, carries the top honors, with 14 percent).

Ridesharing. Carpools and vanpools constitute 24percent of Boulder’s total daily person miles and areactively promoted by the city in cooperation with theDenver Council of Governments. GO Boulder was thefirst city agency in the nation to receive federal fund-ing to buy vanpool vehicles used to support employeetransportation programs.

Residential Parking Permit Program. In 1986, inresponse to an increase in nonresident spillover park-ing in residential neighborhoods, the city developed aresidential parking permit (RPP) program. Residentsliving within the designated zone and businesseslocated within the zone are exempt from the on-streetparking restrictions after purchasing and displayingRPP permits in their vehicles. Everyone else isrestricted to 2-hour parking between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.on weekdays. Two RPP zones have been established.

Congestion Relief. By far the most ambitious andpotentially controversial initiative is Boulder’s con-gestion pricing project or, as Boulder’s officials prefer

to call it, “congestion relief” project. This projectexplores the technical, institutional, and political fea-sibility of using market-based measures to discourageautomobile use among Boulder’s residents, students,and workers. As part of its congestion relief initiative,the city will be exploring various strategies, rangingfrom voluntary employer-based transportationdemand management (TDM) programs to regulatory,ordinance-based programs and pricing measures suchas “smog fees,” congestion tolls, pricing of off-streetparking and taxes on private parking facilities. Thecongestion relief project, according to city officials,will carefully consider these issues with the help of anactive public outreach effort. The intent is to remainin step with public opinion and to shape a strategythat Boulder’s citizens will accept as reasonable andsupport politically.

The city of Boulder is currently updating its TMP.The 1995 TMP Update will be considered by the plan-ning board and the transportation advisory board,culminating with a city council review and adoptionin spring 1996. The transit portion of the plan reflectsfeedback from the failed public initiative. As part ofthis plan, the city is considering a new goal of reduc-ing SOV use to 25 percent and increasing ridesharingto 29 percent, transit use to 7 percent, and bicycle useto 15 percent.

FUNDING

GO Boulder’s operational funding is approximately$1.2 million per year. The budget is divided amongtransit, bicycle programs (20 percent), pedestrianimprovements and marketing/public information (25percent for each). Capital funding comes from a spe-cial capital budget. All of GO Boulder’s funding andmost capital transportation funding comes from salestax; a small portion of capital funding comes from adevelopment excise tax.

The city devotes 26 percent of its $4 million peryear capital transportation budget to the bicycle/pedestrian capital program. The congestion relief pro-ject is funded with a $492,000 grant under the FederalCongestion Pricing Pilot Program.


The biggest obstacle to overcome was the failure ofthe Transit Initiative. Through subsequent surveysand focus groups city officials attempted to gain anunderstanding of why the initiative had failed andwhat the community would like to see in the future. Itwas concluded that the initiative did not clearly com-municate the benefits of the additional transit ser-

103

vices, which were perceived by the public as “justmore big diesel buses running around empty.” Thefact that there were other competing tax increases onthe ballot did not help either.


The city’s aggressive promotion of alternativetransportation has paid off. The marketing campaignhas been highly successful: a total of 15,000 employ-ees and 25,000 students currently carry the ECO Pass.Since the introduction of the ECO Pass in 1989, transitridership has increased by 161 percent. Since theestablishment of the GO Boulder program in 1990,SOV trips have decreased, while transit and bicycleuse has increased. Boulder’s current modal split isone that most communities would look on with envy:

Mode 1990* (%) 1994* (%) Goal (%)

Single-Occupant Vehicles 47 44 25Multi-Occupant Vehicles 24 22 29Pedestrians 17 19 24Bicycles 10 11 15Transit 2 4 7

* Transportation Master Plan Update 2020, approved June 19, 1996, updatedJuly 16, 1996.

CONCLUSIONS

GO Boulder demonstrates the benefits of addressingcommunity livability and environmental goals togetherwith transportation facilities and services. Programs toreduce use of autos and increase use of transit, bicycles,and walking have worked because of the comprehen-sive approach taken. In addition, new transit servicesare tailored to community needs and the ECO Passmakes transit usage convenient and inexpensive. Theseprograms appear to be an effective base on which tobuild even greater transit ridership increases.

If we are really serious about cutting down on car trips,there needs to be some user-friendly, convenient type of ser-vice to get people around their neighborhoods and connectthem with the regional service.

––Dan Williams, Metro transit spokesman [1]

SUMMARY

For 6 months in 1995, residents of Ballard, a neigh-borhood in Seattle, participated in the trial run of anew, more flexible local transit system. They wereable to flag down a free minibus only minutes fromtheir homes that circulated frequently around thecommunity and linked them to the regional bus sys-tem. The shuttle dropped off passengers at their doorson the return trip. By moving people more efficientlyaround their neighborhoods, the city of Seattle andKing County/Metro, the Seattle transit authority,hoped to increase transit ridership and discourageshort, frequent, SOV trips. In addition, LINC (LocalInitiative for Neighborhood Circulation) was the firststep in a new, far-reaching transportation to replaceSeattle’s current radial-route system, focused ondowntown Seattle, with a system that links transithubs in neighborhood centers throughout the city,including downtown. The new three-tier transporta-tion plan, also called LINC, was developed to rein-force Mayor Norm Rice’s “urban village” scheme bymeeting the specific transportation needs of eachcommunity.

The Seattle Engineering Department (SED), withassistance from the King County/Metro, developedthe 6-month pilot project in Ballard to test the feasi-bility of this local transit service concept. While theexperiment was necessarily limited in scope and didnot entirely fit the needs of the community, it has setthe stage for both a new approach to transit andtransit-centered growth.

PLANNING PROCESS

The Seattle Transportation Plan. In 1991, the Wash-ington state legislature passed a Growth ManagementAct requiring all municipalities to develop 20-yearplans to project their future growth, define futureland-use patterns and develop local and regionaltransportation alternatives to accommodate thegrowth. In Seattle, as part of its Comprehensive Plan,Mayor Rice’s administration introduced the urban vil-lage concept as a means of channeling growth intospecific neighborhoods, both new and existing,thereby controlling future development. These urbanvillages would become nodes of activity that couldalso serve as transit centers throughout the city. Thetransportation component of the Seattle Compre-hensive Plan was developed to reinforce the urbanvillage idea by providing a network of limited-stoparterial buses throughout the Seattle area, connectingtransit hubs and taking people where they need to go,instead of largely providing radial service to and fromthe center city.

104

Case Study 9-2Seattle, WA: Local Initiative for NeighborhoodCirculation (LINC) Neighborhood Transit System ChannelingCommunity Growth

The design engineer who developed this pilotproject, Hiro Takahashi of the SED said he was motivated by the sight of “empty and half-emptybuses running around.” He had stopped using the bus system himself because he found itinconvenient.

Planners used the pilot study to do the following:

• Learn more about how a local bus service, usingsmall shuttles with frequent stops, would actu-ally work;

• Gain public input and gauge community accep-tance of alternative transit modes;

• Answer technical and operational questions asso-ciated with the development of new types ofservices;

• Identify institutional barriers associated with thedevelopment of new types of services; and

• Determine long-term costs of the LINC program.

The SED, with assistance from King County/Metro,developed a temporary, 6-month planning study totest the local transit service using Metro staff andequipment. Ballard, a waterfront community in north-west Seattle, was selected for the demonstration proj-ect because of the significant number of people whouse mass transit: many residents commute to down-town Seattle by express bus and students frequentlytravel by bus to the nearby university. Approximately1 sq mi in area, the neighborhood has a diverse, pri-marily middle-income population of about 10,000.The pilot program, which ran from May 6 to October31, 1995, did not replace or decrease any of the exist-ing transit services in Ballard.

An eight-member community advisory committeeof Ballard residents participated in the planningprocess for LINC. Three 1⁄ 2-day planning workshopswere held between October 1994 and January 1995 atwhich the committee helped to select the routes,made recommendations on how local transit use inthe community could be increased and providedinput on the overall design of the pilot program.Upon completion of the project, the committee helpedto evaluate its effectiveness.

The community was also involved in designing thelogo for the LINC vans. A “LINC Bus Design Con-test” was conducted in local schools in Ballard. Thecolorful, eye-catching design submitted by two highschool students was selected. For their efforts, the students received a $200 savings bond from a localbank as well as an award from Mayor Rice.

STRATEGY

The underlying concept for local LINC service isthat people only need to walk a block or two to astreet where they can catch a passing shuttle.Passengers do not have to stand at designated busstops to be picked up; they simply wave down thebus and it pulls over to the curb. Commuters on theirway home can get off the bus from downtown andgrab a shuttle home almost like they would a taxi.Thus, LINC is intended to provide service so frequentthat people can travel around their community with-out consulting bus schedules. This custom-tailored,local transit service is intended to provide the “miss-ing link” in the regional transportation system byserving the needs of the commuters and those making

105

Figures 9-4 and 9-5. Case Study 9-2. The Local Initiativefor Neighborhood Circulation (LINC) shuttle provides intra-neighborhood transportation service on smaller, morecommunity-friendly, vehicles. The local transit agencydeveloped refrigerator magnets (Figure 9-5) to market theservice to local residents. (Credit: LINC).

short trips within a neighborhood and by makingregional bus and rail services more accessible.

For the pilot study, the LINC service consisted of afleet of six 10-passenger vans operating on four differ-ent routes. The buses operated between 9 a.m. and 7p.m., Monday through Saturday, and between 9 a.m.and 5 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. The LINC ser-vice area covered approximately 2 sq mi. The routeswere selected to allow easy transfer to regular Metroroutes and to serve the business district of Ballard aswell as local parks and civic institutions. The onlyposted stop was at Bergen Place in the business district, where all routes terminated.

Two types of neighborhood service were tested: afixed-route circulator and a flexible routing service.The fixed routes operated vans every 30 min. Theflexible routing service dropped passengers anywherewithin a service area on their trips from the businessdistrict.

While SED was developing the LINC pilot program,Metro was investigating the design of the transitcenters that will serve as connecting points betweenthe local circulators and higher capacity transit lines.These transit hubs are intended to become activitynodes within neighborhood commercial centers.

FUNDING

The city of Seattle received a $500,000 FederalTransit Administration grant to pay Metro (the transitauthority) for the project on a fee-for-service-hourbasis. The funding was provided through the CentralPuget Sound Transportation Account.

The LINC service was free during the 6-month trialperiod. Start-up costs, from June 1994 through April1995, amounted to $70,619 and the operating costs forthe 6-month demonstration project came to a total of$538,134. This resulted in an average cost per passen-ger of $11.30, much higher than Metro’s latest esti-mate for regular bus service of $2.67 per passengerper trip in 1993.


Christopher Sims, the Project Manager of the LINCdemonstration program, and Harold Lewis, his coun-terpart at Metro, both regretted that more time couldnot be spent with the community while developingthe system. They emphasized the need for more com-munity involvement in the future and the importanceof educating the public about a new system such asthis. The community planning phase was inadequate,not only in providing the information needed, butalso in giving the community a sense of ownership ofthe system. Marketing the service to the public in

advance is critical in building acceptance for a newtransit service and this will be increased in the future.

Another difficulty was designing a system thatcould reach the entire community. Christopher Simsreported that the waterfront and marinas were not onthe routes and that residents and businesses in thisarea expressed displeasure in being excluded. TheLINC’s circular routes, although standard in manycommunities, did not correspond to the essentially lin-ear layout of the Ballard community.

One of the major obstacles encountered by SED wassimply running a transit system, because it is an engi-neering department not a transit provider. Althoughthe drivers and equipment were provided by Metro,SED engineers and staff lacked the experience, flexi-bility, and training to operate a system efficiently. Infuture demonstration projects, an interagency teamwill be formed from SED and Metro staff dedicated torunning the project.


The very fact that the LINC demonstration projecttested only one piece of the proposed three-tier pro-gram, without changes to the existing transit system,necessarily limited the scope of the experiment andthe information that could be gained from it. Regionalbus schedules were not changed to coincide withLINC shuttles; thus the ability to transfer smoothlyfrom a local to a regional transit system was limited.The inter-community component is not yet in placeand the transit centers where residents will transfer toregional buses are not yet built. Therefore, the pilotprogram could only be evaluated as a test of a localservice and not of the entire LINC concept.

According to surveys conducted in September 1995,and published in Metro’s evaluation report inJanuary, 1996, response to the LINC pilot projectwithin the Ballard community was very positive. Ofthe 718 passengers questioned, 78 percent were verysatisfied with LINC service and 88 percent were verysatisfied with the comfort of the vans. Passengercounts, tabulated by means of random and non-random sampling techniques, showed that theaverage daily number of weekday passengers for allfour LINC routes were 381 passengers in June and 277in September. The 27 percent drop may have beendue to the start of public school. The average week-day passengers per hour for all four routes was 6.3passengers/hour in June and 4.6 in September. Theaverage weekday passenger per hour was slightlyhigher for the fixed routes. LINC service appeared tohave no significant impact on regular Metro rider-ship; ridership on the six regular routes remainedconstant between summer 1994 and summer 1995.

106

Surveys revealed that the majority (65 percent) ofLINC riders were female and a large number (25 per-cent) were 65 years old or older. Fifty-seven percentof them did not work or volunteer outside of thehome. The passengers took an average of 6.01 trips aweek on LINC, but they said 44 percent of these tripswould have been walking trips had LINC not beenthere. Only 6 percent of the trips would have been“drive alone,” thus LINC did not appear to replaceSOVs as a means of transportation. In fact, for 72 per-cent of the trips, cars were not available. LINCappeared to serve primarily a non-working popula-tion without cars rather than commuters: only 3 per-cent of destinations mentioned were work related,while 71 percent were on their way home. The“flagging-down” option was not necessarilypreferred: only 25 percent of the rides started bywaving down a LINC van. There was also nopreference for one type of route over another.

Robert Mattson, the manager of the city’s neighbor-hood service center in Ballard, believed that manypeople liked using the minibuses because they werefree. In addition, they were perceived as being morecomfortable and more user-friendly than the typicalbus, especially since they were air-conditioned. Mr.Mattson also believes, that the system could havebeen integrated better into the community. Heobserved that the LINC system was not designed tomeet a specific demand; Ballard residents andbusiness owners did not seek the service, nor was thepresent bus system perceived as being inadequate. Inaddition, the nominal effort at citizen participationwas not enough to build a mandate for the LINCsystem in the community.

According to Mr. Mattson, several flaws, inherentin a flexible neighborhood circulator, were mentionedby the users. Because the outbound LINC shuttles hadno specific stops and could be flagged down, olderpeople had no convenient and comfortable place to sitand wait (and the vans were not always on schedule).Many residents were also slow to learn how to flagdown the minibus. Other complaints were due to thelimited scope of the experiment. Since the normallocal bus service was not suspended during the dura-tion of the test, residents of Ballard often found theredundancy confusing and inefficient. Many residentsbelieved the familiar bus service to be more conve-nient than the LINC shuttles on the inbound trips,although LINC was preferred on outbound tripsbecause it provided door-to-door service. Because thetransit center was not yet in place, LINC shuttle busespulled into an existing parking lot to meet theregional buses, thereby blocking parking spaces andcreating more congestion.

Metro has determined that three levels of transitwould be unaffordable, but it is still planning some

LINC-type, “level-3” services. Metro is working withthe city to provide permanent service (not just demon-stration projects) in western Seattle-King County. Thisservice is anticipated sometime in 1997. This will con-sist of modifying existing bus service rather than over-laying new service as was done in Ballard. From theexperience in Ballard, Metro has learned to allot moretime for working with the community and to involvecounty and city planning offices.

CONCLUSIONS

Although ridership was not high and many feel thatLINC was a failure because it did not get commutersout of their cars in the course of its 6-month trialperiod, two key lessons were learned. First, a newshuttle system should be integrated with other inter-community transit services to give passengers theability to transfer smoothly to the larger web of transitservice. Second, more time and resources are necessaryto develop and market the system to the community.

In March 1995, the Regional Transit Authority’sreferendum on a $6.7 billion regional rail transitsystem was defeated. Opponents criticized the plan forproposing to spend the bulk of the funds on regionalrail systems focused on downtown Seattle withoutimproving local service. The LINC concept placesmore emphasis on transit centers, thus creating a net-work of transit routes connecting the city’s neighbor-hoods, and provides a local transit service designed toaddress the livability needs of specific communities.

ENDNOTE

1. Seattle Post-Intelligencer (May 5, 1995).

The Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) has had aneed to develop a number of facilities in major public tran-sit areas. The agency determined that the greatest commu-nity benefit would be realized if these transit projects couldbe used to stimulate additional redevelopment in the areasaround the transit improvement. This has required that dif-ferent entities both public and private, work together toachieve this goal.

—Steve Ortmann, former Chief Development Officer,Regional Transportation Authority, Corpus Christi, TX

107

Case Study 9-3Corpus Christi, TX: Staples Street Bus TransferStation and the Downtown Trolley Transit Reorganization Sets Stage for Downtown and Neighborhood Renewal

SUMMARY

In 1995, the Corpus Christi Regional TransportationAuthority (RTA) opened a new bus transfer station onNorth Staples Street, close to downtown and acrossfrom the new City Hall, to serve as the major hub of a new system of transit centers around the city. Thenew station replaced a string of bus stops alongStaples Street, providing a more convenient and saferplace to change buses. But this station was also in-tended to create a node of activity that would attractnew business to a blighted neighborhood and helpsupport the revitalization of the downtown. CorpusChristi, Texas, like many mid-sized cities, has seen thevitality and economic base of its downtown drainedaway by massive retail and residential developmentin the suburbs, leaving corporate and public institu-tions as the only presence in what was once the heartof the city.

The Staples Street Station is part of an RTA strategyto develop transit centers that can help improve ser-vice, while acting as catalysts for growth and devel-opment. Other transit centers are currently beingplanned.

PLANNING PROCESS

Corpus Christi is located on the Gulf of Mexico,about 200 mi southwest of Houston. The populationof the city itself is 275,000, while the service area forthe RTA is about 300,000. About 5 percent of the city’stotal population is transit dependent. Since the retailand commercial activity has been dispersed to thesuburbs, primarily south of the city along a majorcommercial strip, Corpus Christi has evolved into acity without centers or corridors, making it more diffi-cult for public transit to serve its customers efficiently.Therefore, the RTA devised a transit center-basedapproach to supplement or even replace the bus stopsalong corridors. This new strategy places transit cen-ters where bus routes come together, thus potentiallycreating new nodes of retail or other activity, as wellas pleasant places to wait that are safer and more com-fortable than a typical bus stop. By rescheduling thebus system, the RTA has been able to bring as manyas 14 routes together (as at the Staples Street Station,the first transit center constructed), thus assemblingmany more transit users together in one spot, necessi-tating a larger facility than a simple bus stop.

When constructing new facilities and upgradingexisting ones, the RTA has tried to build a sense ofpride and ownership among transit users for theirfacilities through architectural design and public artthat express the character of the community. In

addition, the RTA has realized that by making thesurrounding community safer and more pedestrianfriendly, the overall experience of transit users isgreatly enhanced. In planning its transit center-basedsystem, the RTA not only developed design conceptsfor the new facilities but proposed other public andprivate improvements that could make an evengreater impact on the surrounding neighborhoods.

Community involvement, both in terms of devel-oping the design as well as in actual participation inthe project, was deemed critical to the Staples StreetStation’s success. As Steve Ortmann said, “It wasimportant for the community to sense that this wastheir project rather than a project that was imposedupon the community.” Transit users, local busi-nesses, and employees at nearby public agencieswere surveyed for their suggestions for the design ofthe new facility. A series of meetings was held withbusinesses and city staff—the bus station’s neigh-bors—to determine key issues that would enhancethe business environment around the station. Inaddition, numerous citywide public hearings wereheld to discuss the route and schedule changes neces-sitated by moving to a transit-based system. The pub-lic’s comments and ideas have been incorporated inmany of the changes as well as in the design of thebus station. It was also decided that a participatorypublic art project would be a strong mechanism for ensuring participation as well as ownership in theproject (see Chapter 4).

STRATEGY

Design Strategy. The station fronts squarely ontoStaples Street. It has a strong sidewalk “edge” andresembles a Spanish-style civic building with its tallclock tower and arched portals. The colorful tiles pro-duced by the public art project break up the expanseof stucco at the entry portal and at the bases of thecolumns. High metal roofs extend back, supported onsteel columns, providing the feel of a 19th centurytrain-shed structure. A central open space surroundedby trees in tiled planters is a focal point, intended fora future fountain or vending area. A small building atthe rear has a restroom and small eating area for busdrivers.

The station can accommodate as many as 5,000people a day, with benches and shelter for all.Phones, waste receptacles, and lighting are morethan adequate, but the station as yet provides norestroom facilities or enclosed waiting area for transitusers. Historic-style street lighting surrounds thebuilding, while a replica of a historic Corpus Christifixture, with globe luminaries, provides accent light-

108

ing. The bus station was designed with the idea thatsmall retail uses could be accommodated on its site:the front structure can be altered slightly to enclose

retail kiosks within its walls, and the open spacecould accommodate several vending carts. Theseopportunities have not been taken advantage of,although the RTA is now considering sponsoring avendor program.

Management Strategy. The transit center system hashelped to streamline some management approaches.For example, the street supervisors, who circulate incars to monitor bus operations, have found the trans-fer center system to be a more efficient way to checktheir routes; scheduling problems, breakdowns, emer-gencies, and other problems encountered within thebus system can be easily and closely followed.

Consolidating bus stops also makes patrolling themeasier. Corpus Christi police officers are able to patrolthe Staples Street Station on a random but frequentbasis. Officers do not merely cruise by in their cars, asat many transit facilities, but actually stand with thebus passengers, offering information and assistance,and discouraging the homeless from settling in orfrom harassing transit users.

The Downtown Trolley. Enhancements to the trans-portation system were also deemed an essentialcomponent of the overall project. Strengtheningdowntown connections to the new facility wouldenhance the operation of the facility and wouldimprove access throughout the downtown. Thus, a free downtown shuttle—a replica of an old trolley—was introduced, which operates every 10 min and provides an important link to the rest ofdowntown.

Pedestrian Improvements. The success of the StaplesStreet Station has encouraged the RTA to initiate twomore community-based planning efforts that arebeing funded by the Federal Transit Administration’sLivable Communities Project. A plan is being toimprove the pedestrian environment around theStaples Street Station and to link it to a nearby lowincome neighborhood, largely transit dependent,located on the other side of a major interstatehighway. The area around another bus transit center,the Six Points Station, located in a small commercialcenter in a residential community, is also beingtargeted for improvements that will help to create asense of place. Crosswalks are being added, traffic-calming measures are being introduced and land-scaping and lighting are being enhanced in order toimprove pedestrian access to the station, encouragemore pedestrian use, and help revitalize the localbusinesses.

109

Figures 9-6 through 9-8. Case Study 9-3. Once an emptyparking lot, the new Staples Street Station in Corpus Christi,TX, has become both a transportation node and a place forthe Corpus Christi community. Future plans include retailkiosks, a weekly “mercado” and improving the pedestrianenvironment and access to the center from adjacent neigh-borhoods. (Credit: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.).

FUNDING

The Corpus Christi RTA and its capital improve-ments are funded by a 1/2 percent sales tax. In thecompletion of the Staples Street Station, a FederalTransit Administration grant of $800,000 was used.FTA Livable Communities funding is being used tomake the pedestrian improvements to existing transitcenters.


The station currently handles 14 bus routes in 10slots, including the downtown trolley. Because of thetightness of the site, the bus area is smaller than isusually required for this number of bus routes. Thisnecessitated the rerouting and rescheduling of theentire system to be able to use the facility more effi-ciently, but the RTA considered this to be a sacrificeworth making in order to provide better service.


The new bus station has met the RTA’s goals ofproviding a safer and more comfortable place to waitand it appears to have had a positive effect on rider-ship: the RTA counted 3,000 people per day using themany separate bus stops at Staples and LeopardStreets in 1990; whereas, in 1995, 4,000 people per daypassed through the Staples Street Station. PPS con-ducted a survey to assess reactions to the new stationand its impact on the surrounding community andmade on-site observations. The following is a sum-mary of the results.

The new bus transfer center has become almost atown square or plaza not only because of the numberof people who pass through it, but also because itattracts other people who simply come there to “hangout.” This added benefit serves to make the placesafer and more secure. In the afternoon, when thelargest number of people were observed, the bus sta-tion had a festive feeling about it, with many peoplesocializing and meeting friends. Bus drivers who stopthere to wait for their riders also appear to be well-known by the passengers and often greet them, aswell as chat with their colleagues. Passengers sug-gested that this pleasant atmosphere could beenhanced with the simple addition of a food and bev-

erage cart and cafes or other retail opportunities sur-rounding the station, as well as by the addition ofsome simple entertainment.

Retail business in the area surrounding the StaplesStreet Station has not yet improved. Vacant store-fronts are numerous and the primary businesses inthe area continue to be bail bond establishments andpawn shops, although some of these appear to haverecently gone out of business. A convenience store,located across Staples Street and one block north ofthe station, is the only store in the vicinity that sellsfood and beverages, except for a small Mexicanrestaurant next door. The manager of the store saidthat more than 50 percent of his customers are transitriders from the bus station. Likewise, the Mexicanrestaurant attracts a large number of transit users.

Although there was no explicit strategy to improvethe retail activity in the area of the Staples StreetStation, there was the hope that a new bus stationacross the street from the new City Hall would have apositive influence on what was perceived to be ablighted neighborhood. Although no new retail useshave opened since the completion of the bus station,the number of people who pass through the stationeveryday cannot help but create a new market thatsurely will be tapped.

Transit users questioned at the Staples StreetStation were, for the most part, very pleased with thenew station and found that taking the bus was saferand more convenient than it used to be. The majorcomplaints expressed about the facility were the in-adequacy of shelter during heavy rain and wind, andthe lack of restroom facilities. In addition, many tran-sit users wait at the station as long as an hour andrequested food concessions at the station.

CONCLUSIONS

The RTA of Corpus Christi has found that by mak-ing people-friendly transit improvements, it can have alarger impact on the surrounding urban area, enhanc-ing the vitality of the urban environment and encour-aging economic activity. The Staples Street Bus Stationhas been well-received throughout the city of CorpusChristi and has been acclaimed around the country as a ground-breaking approach to the design of transitfacilities. Its success has spurred the agency to reachbeyond the boundaries of building a typical bus stop tothe larger goal of helping to reshape communities.

110

Part III

A Guide for Implementation

As the case studies in this report clearly show, thereis no single planning process that applies to all com-munities in which transit is seeking to support com-munity livability goals. Every community has its owncharacter, style of accomplishing tasks, and level ofcommunity interest. Moreover, legally mandatedplanning processes for transit agencies also vary ac-cording to such factors as state and local governmentrequirements, project size and scope, and fundingsources used.

Still, there are many common characteristics to thevarious processes used in planning and implement-ing the case-study projects, and it is these commoncharacteristics that are addressed in this chapter.Specifically, the case studies demonstrate the impactof a community-driven project, where communitieshave been given the opportunity—not just to respondto a plan—but actively to take part in identifyingissues, developing concepts, and evolving strategiesin a manner that taps their own experience. In thisway, they have become “owners” of projects and haveretained a sustained interest and stake in futureprogress.

In this process, many transit agencies have formedactive partnerships with community organizations.As the case studies in this report demonstrate, thisapproach can enhance resources—both human andfinancial—available to undertake projects: very often

a small transit investment can leverage other substan-tial local contributions of time and money.

Sometimes such a process has been instituted aftera previous approach failed because of communityopposition. While a community-based process maynot be always quicker, issues of community concernare identified early on, thus avoiding collapse of aproject at the end of the planning process or at thebeginning of construction, when delays becomeextremely costly.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR COMMUNITYINVOLVEMENT IN CURRENT TRANSITPLANNING PROCESSES

Recent changes in federal transit planning processesand policies are very supportive of community-based processes for creating livable communities. Acommunity-oriented planning and decision-makingprocess for transportation projects is, indeed, man-dated by law. The Intermodal Surface TransportationEfficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) is a landmark piece oflegislation, which recognizes that the InterstateHighway System is nearly complete and that moreemphasis needs to be placed on system preservationand efficiency rather than on new construction. ISTEAseeks to provide more local control over transportation

CHAPTER 10

The Community-Based Process for Creating Livable Communities

Livable communities do not simply happen. They are the by-product of a coordinated and par-ticipatory transportation and community planning process where transit decisions are made inconjunction with decisions on land use and other transportation investments. The principles oflivable communities can be instilled throughout the planning and project development process.

—“Planning, Developing, and Implementing Community-Sensitive Transit” (The FTA Livable Communities Initiative) [1]

113

114

decisions and encourages coordination among statesand metropolitan areas and among different forms oftransportation (pedestrian, bicycle, and transit uses—not just roads). ISTEA also emphasizes the importanceof community participation and involving key stake-holders in transportation planning including the pri-vate sector, local community groups, and othergovernment organizations.

This approach is also completely consistent withthe new Federal Highway Administration/FederalTransit Administration Interim Policy on PublicInvolvement. The policy, which grew out of ISTEA,calls for “promoting an active role for the public inthe development of transportation plans, programs,and projects from the early stages of the planningprocess through detailed project development.”

The responsibility for implementing ISTEA inmetropolitan areas, including public involvement,falls primarily on metropolitan planning organiza-tions (MPOs); outside of MPO boundaries, the re-sponsibility becomes one of the state department oftransportation. MPOs produce a long-range (20-year) transportation plan as well as transportationimprovement programs (TIPs), which describeprojects that are to be funded and implemented overa 3–5 year period. The development of both the long-range plan and the near-term improvementsoffers a base onto which community involvementand transit and livability partnerships can be built.Because TIPs are updated at least every 2 years, theyoffer an ongoing opportunity for involvement andparticipation.

Other opportunities for building community part-nerships arise when major projects (such as the con-struction of a new light rail system) requiring federalfunds are planned. Such projects may require a majorinvestment study (MIS) to evaluate the effectivenessof a variety of strategies to solve a specific transporta-tion problem, which can include different combina-tions of transportation modes. Like the TIP, the MISshould be a collaborative process involving a broadcross-section of the community.

Not all transit projects are funded under ISTEA andthere are many other contexts for transit planning rel-evant to improving community livability. Indeed,there has been a shift in funding away from the fed-eral government to state and local sources. Differentstates and cities have different requirements, al-though most large projects generally have some re-quirement for public participation or review. Smallprojects, such as new bus shelters or renovating atrain station, may have few, if any, “required” publicparticipation components.

In general, case studies were successful becausethey went beyond the minimum required level of

public participation from the outset—whether theproject was large or small, federally funded or not.Indeed, since many projects and programs pre-datedISTEA, the degree of public involvement is even morenoteworthy. The next section describes ways that thepublic participation process has been enhanced incommunities—resulting in the projects highlighted inthe case studies.

Note: For further information about transit planning processes,consult “A Guide to Metropolitan Planing under ISTEA: Howthe Pieces Fit Together” (available from the US Department ofTransportation, Publication No. FHWA-PD-95-031) and“Planning, Developing, and Implementing Community-SensitiveTransit” (The FTA Livable Communities Initiative, FederalTransit Administration, 1996).

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:GOING BEYOND “REQUIREMENTS”

Public participation does not necessarily mean thatcommunities are truly involved in a project or pro-gram especially if communities are asked to react to a plan rather than to help create and initiate conceptsfor improvement. Indeed, projects like FruitvaleTransit Village in Oakland, California were initiatedbecause the community reacted negatively to theoriginal project proposal by Bay Area Rapid Transit(BART). More common is the situation where projectsproceed, but do not achieve their true potential be-cause it is more difficult for people to be committed toprojects that are externally conceived and do not stemfrom the needs of their communities.

On the other hand, the case studies show that, if thecommunity is asked to define the problem from the

Figure 10-1. Meetings like this one held in San Bernardino, CA, are key to the process of involving communities in thetransit planning process and in generating ongoing commu-nity support for these projects. (Credit: Project for PublicSpaces, Inc.)

start rather than merely review a solution, the issuesof concern to the community can be addressed. Acommunity-based process, then, should include morethan just approval or review, but should grow out ofidentifying community needs from the outset.

From the case studies presented here, three keystrategies for enhancing the public participationprocess emerge again and again. These strategiesfocus on making places in communities more livableby forging community partnerships around thoseplaces and developing a step-by-step program ofenhancements. This approach is very supportive ofthe existing planning processes transit agencies arealready familiar with and practice. Making an extraeffort allows transit to expand limited resources andbuilds a constituency for transit by linking it withcommunity decision-making processes.

Strategy No. 1: Focus on Place-Making

As presented in Chapter 1, a place-making ap-proach to community livability seeks to focus com-munity participation around very specific issues toenhance quality of life in that place. Through thisapproach, people are encouraged to clearly defineissues, contribute ideas and develop agendas thataddress their concerns as well as encourage them toparticipate in implementing strategies to address suchquestions as the following:

• What works and does not work about this neigh-borhood or space? What problems exist?

• What would make it work better? What kind ofdesign improvements are needed? What types ofmanagement strategies should be introduced?

• How can transit support and enhance the activi-ties of the place?

Addressing these questions not only allows formore concrete discussions of livability, but alsoencourages communities to look at problems andopportunities holistically—rather than as a series ofseparate, unrelated projects developed by differentcity agencies or different professional groups.

The case studies show that creating holistic com-munities requires that specialists such as traffic en-gineers, transit operators, architects, and communitydevelopment officials work together towards thesame community improvement goals. Focusing onwhat is needed to make a place better and relying onthe input of those who use and experience that placeon a regular basis helps to guide this coordination.Indeed, many of the successful case studies hadarchitects and planners who approached the designfrom a community perspective, considered the

broader needs of a place, and acted more as problemsolvers and facilitators for community-identifiedissues. Pioneer Courthouse Square in Portland, Oregon,Davis Square in Somerville, Massachusetts, and GOBoulder, Boulder, Colorado, are examples of projectswhich grew out of such a holistic approach.

Chapter 11 describes in more detail the techniquesthat can be used for learning more about how a placeis currently used and perceived. This chapter alsoincludes a checklist that can be used by a transitagency or community organization as it undertakes acommunity-based planning process. In general, thesetechniques go beyond community meetings forobtaining input and may include (depending on thesize and scope of the project) detailed surveys of pub-lic opinion, focus groups, and brainstorming work-shops as well as actual studies of how a space or placeis used by people. Woodbridge Station, NJ; CorpusChristi Staples Street Station; and the Port Authority BusTerminal in New York City are all projects that involvedextensive on-site observations, surveys, and analysisas part of the process of developing recommendationsfor improvements.

Strategy No. 2:Step-by-Step Implementation

These short-term projects are not interim solutions,but stepping stones within a plan’s longer range con-text that can act as catalysts for change, while provid-ing immediate enhancement for communities. While

115

Figure 10-2. Strategy No. 1: Focus on Place-Making. ThePortland community was and continues to be involved indecisions regarding both the expansion of transit service inPortland and the function of Pioneer Courthouse Square.The Square was planned concurrently with the new light railsystem and was partially funded by the sale of bricks andother design elements (such as water fountains) to the public. (Credit: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

large-scale, capital-intensive projects still have theirrole, improvements that can be implemented quicklyprovide opportunities for immediately boosting pub-lic interest, morale, and use. These small projects alsoallow an idea or project to be tested in the field beforebeginning more widespread implementation. Forexample, LINC in Seattle began as a 6-month experi-ment to test public reaction and the Port Authority BusTerminal Revitalization Program in New York Citystarted as a vending cart program to understand howpositive uses might inhibit security problems.

The Los Angeles Neighborhood Initiative (LANI) proj-ects are all designed to be completed in 6–12 monthswith the concept of maximizing the effects of smallchanges. For example, instead of placing a bus shelterat a location where the bus happens to stop, LANIworks to coordinate it with other nearby amenities.The LANI approach is to work with a local businessto put out a vending cart with cold drinks, a mer-chant’s association to donate a bench, and the city toplant some trees. With these elements, a communitycreates a place where before there was none. BecauseLANI is working in several neighborhoods concur-rently, it is also able to organize many disparatesmaller projects under one program. The New JerseyTransit Station Renewal Program is taking a similarapproach to its commuter rail stations. The types of

changes adopted by NJ Transit communities dealwith a wide variety of place improvements: new seat-ing and amenities; economic uses such as public mar-kets, vendors and cafes; special events and ongoingspace programming; and so on. These changes can beseen, used, and enjoyed. By showing actual accom-plishments, these programs are sustaining communityinvolvement and support while creating opportunitiesto test and evaluate the effectiveness of improvements.

116

Figure 10-3. Strategy No. 2: Step-by-Step Implementation.NJ Transit hired an artist to create this lively map of theWoodbridge train station area which includes a directory oflocal businesses and accurately depicts each building in thedowntown. (Credit: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

Figures 10-4 and 10-5. Strategy No. 3: Developing EffectiveTransit/Community Partnerships. Volunteers, like this seniorcitizen in Portland, OR, can become involved in keeping tran-sit facilities and stops clean and well maintained (Figure 10-4)or a partnership can be established with a local merchantsor downtown association (Figure 10-5). Either way, moreand more communities across the country are partneringwith transit agencies to provide these important services.(Credit: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

While large capital construction projects require adifferent and more involved process (with more fed-eral requirements), small projects can be locally drivenand accomplished in-house with little governmentalintervention and, ironically, little required public participation. Clearly, however, these small projectsbenefit from increased public participation and com-munity partnerships, which increase the likelihood ofacceptance and implementation, as well as opening upopportunities for leveraging additional funding.

Strategy No. 3: Developing EffectiveTransit/Community Partnerships

Case studies in this chapter focus specifically onpartnerships between communities and public andprivate entities as a means to achieving a commu-nity’s vision. Community groups and transit agencieshave found that, by working together, they createbenefits beyond what a transit agency could do byitself and help to improve the livability of the entireneighborhood as a result.

The essential characteristic of a community partner-ship is that different government agencies, the privatesector, nonprofit groups, and citizens communicateand work together on an ongoing basis. The processof analyzing problems and developing solutionstogether encourages people to work with each otherin a constructive and creative manner. A momentumis achieved that would have been virtually impossiblehad people not been brought together to addresscommon concerns.

The working relationship developed during theplanning process can continue to function even after aplan is “complete” to guide future programs and proj-ects. To ensure that such a relationship is sustained,an ongoing organization and public-private commu-nity partnership is needed that is vested with anappropriate level of financial, technical, and manage-ment support. This enables community members tocontinue their involvement to implement their plan,develop new ideas, and further fulfill the commu-nity’s vision.

A community partnership structured around a placeshould be representative of the different interests orgroups of stakeholders who have some role in thatplace: businesses, government agencies, nonprofitorganizations, community groups, and so forth.Because every place is different, the composition andform of the community partnership will vary. The casestudies demonstrate different types of organizationalstructures, ranging from ad hoc advisory groups toelaborately structured public-private community part-nerships. It is for one structure to evolve into another,

for example: a small advisory committee can become aboard of directors for a permanent organization.

This approach suggests a different form of leader-ship in communities. A leader of a community part-nership needs to inspire the active participation ofpeople, but in a different manner than the moreexpected form of leadership, which tends to involveinspiration through force of personality or ideas. Forthis reason, a leader of a community partnership actsas a facilitator of ideas to ensure that every participantis heard in a fair and equitable manner.

Sustaining and Maintaining aCommunity Partnership

A transit agency participating in a community part-nership will need internal organizational support andflexibility. Very often, however, there are internalneeds—such as having to “fast-track” an importantproject—that transcend one department within anagency. The New Jersey Transit Station RenewalProgram, for example, has a project manager withinthe agency that shepherds the projects through thevarious internal bureaucracies.

It is clear that community partnerships also taketime, sustained energy, continual follow-up, andextensive communication with those involved toachieve desired results. The importance of communi-cating the visions to expand participation was oftenstressed by community leaders and transit agenciesalike, to allow a project to leverage additional energyand support. This is why most community partner-ships need strong staff support, usually from one orga-nization that takes the lead. This organization does notnecessarily have to be the transit agency. FruitvaleTransit Village in Oakland, California, is an example ofone community organization that has taken on thisresponsibility. In Wilmington, Delaware, an MPO hastaken on the role and the transit agency has benefitedgreatly from this community partnership effort.

Implementing Through Community Partnerships

The community partnerships presented have gener-ally operated as collaborations where decisions arereached by consensus, multiple viable options are iden-tified, processes are agreed to by parties, diverse per-spectives are legitimized, stakeholders are involved atthe earliest point, and there is free-flowing information.In addition, as seen in most of the successful projects,community partnerships provide an opportunity topool funding and resources and to share responsibilityfor implementation and ongoing management.

117

Community partnerships present opportunities forparticipants to be responsible for specific aspects of aproject and to identify new resources. During thevisioning process for each Los Angeles NeighborhoodInitiative project, neighborhoods were able to identifycomplementary funds to achieve greater communityimpact. Moreover, as projects proceeded, new re-sources emerged, including contributions of volun-teer or in-kind labor and materials. In Tucson, the OldPueblo Trolley took this approach to the extreme byusing community volunteers to restore a historic trol-ley line. The project obtained state funding only afteryears of effort.

Transit agencies themselves have resources valu-able to communities that are not always recognized.Pioneer Courthouse Square in Portland, Oregon, becamefinancially feasible because the transit agency couldcontribute funds to the construction of the squarebecause it was to be the hub of its new light rail sys-tem. Along the Green Line in Chicago the transit agencycontrols a considerable amount of underused land,which it plans to sell to generate additional incomefor the agency and ridership for the subway, whilehelping to rebuild communities along the route.

Finally, community partnerships open up newfunding sources that would not be available for atransit agency alone. Since funding sources also carrytheir own restrictions, skilled community partner-ships like Fruitvale Transit Village in Oakland havelearned to develop specific aspects of their projects so that they become eligible for those funds. Fund-raising campaigns—like selling bricks engraved witha donor’s name to help finance Pioneer CourthouseSquare—can also be planned from the start of aproject.

ENDNOTE

1. Livability Communities Initiative, “Planning,Developing and Implementing Community SensitiveTransit,” Federal Transit Administration (1996) p.7.

CASE STUDIES

Case studies in this chapter illustrate a variety ofcommunity partnership opportunities as well as plan-ning processes for different transit-livability programs.These processes include use of community volunteers(Tucson Old Pueblo Trolley) and extensive communityinvolvement and partnerships with grass-roots organi-zations (Fruitvale Transit Village). New Jersey TransitStation Renewal Program and the Denver Partnershiphave established strong links among transit, local gov-ernment, and the business community. In Wilmington,Delaware, a transit agency is working closely with theMPO to achieve broadbased improvements to the

downtown. Finally, South Station in Boston is an excel-lent example of a transit agency working with privatedevelopers to revitalize a historic train station.

Case Study 10-1: Tucson, AZ: Old Pueblo TrolleyVolunteers Revive Historic Trolley Line

Case Study 10-2; Oakland, CA: BART Fruitvale Transit Village Using Transit to Leverage Funding for Community Development

Case Study 10-3: New Jersey Transit Station Renewal ProgramCreating Partnerships with Community

Case Study 10-4: Boston, MA: South StationTransit-Private Developer Partnership Transforms Historic Station

Case Study 10-5: Wilminton, DE: Wilmington Infastructure Studies Intergovernmental-Private Sector Partnership to Promote Enhanced Livability and Economic Development

Case Study 10-6: Denver, CO: The 16th Street TransitwayTwenty Years of Public-Private Partnerships and Reinvestment

Don’t start a project like this unless you want to dedicateyour whole life to it.

—Eugene Caywood, President, Old Pueblo Trolley

The trolley helps people decide to come to Fourth Avenue.We hope it can become a practical, usable, everyday “hop on/hop off” means of transportation.

—Libby Stone, Executive Director,Fourth Avenue Business District

SUMMARY

In 1983, the Centennial Coordinator for theUniversity of Arizona came up with an idea: whynot restore trolley service to the University as part ofthe school’s centennial celebration? With this goal inmind, an all-volunteer group called Old PuebloTrolley began a 10-year odyssey to restore trolleyservice to downtown Tucson. Successfully achieved,although unfortunately missing the University’sCentennial by a decade, the first trolley to run alongFourth Avenue and University Boulevard in 60 yearstook its maiden voyage in May 1993. Old PuebloTrolley has purchased and restored vintage electricstreetcars and trolleys and their current fleet has

118

Case Study 10-1Tucson, AZ: Old Pueblo Trolley Volunteers Revive Historic Trolley Line

vehicles from Belgium and Japan as well as rehabili-tated trolleys from other parts of the United States.The entire effort, from track laying to trolley repair,was accomplished almost entirely by volunteers.Today, restored trolleys serve shoppers, visitors, and university students and brings office workers to lunch at the many cafes and restaurants alongFourth Avenue. The trolleys serve about 20,000 people per year.

PLANNING PROCESS

The first electric street car graced the streets of thensmall-town Tucson, Arizona, on June 1, 1906, as areplacement for horse-and mule-drawn streetcars.Service, which continued for the next 24 years, startedwith five double-truck, two-man electric streetcars thatthe Tucson Rapid Transit Company (TRT) purchasedfrom the Los Angeles Railway. The route ran to theUniversity of Arizona campus from downtown viaCongress, Stone Avenue, and Third Street (nowUniversity Boulevard) and a second route brought pas-sengers to Carillo Gardens via South, Fourth Avenue,Stone Avenue, and Seventeenth Streets—both routesserving shopping and residential neighborhoods. Overthe years, a total of 12 streetcars were used, which car-ried between 16 and 30 passengers each. In 1925, buseswere added and the routes expanded. In 1930, a peti-tion to permanently replace the streetcars with buseswas approved by the Tucson City Council. Rail street-car service ceased at midnight, New Year’s Eve, 1930.

The idea of restoring streetcar service to theUniversity of Arizona was promoted by Ruth Cross,the University’s Centennial Coordinator, as a way ofcelebrating the school’s 1985 centennial anniversary.An all-volunteer group called Bring Back the Trolley(later officially named Old Pueblo Trolley [OPT]) wasformed to realize Ms. Cross’s vision. The dozen mem-bers of Bring Back the Trolley (which became a non-profit corporation in September 1983) convinced thecity of Tucson and state of Arizona to do a feasibilitystudy in late 1983, which demonstrated that trolleyservice was both a feasible and useful addition to thecity’s public transit fleet. The report called for an 18-hour operating schedule with four trolleys along aroute between two major downtown destinations—theUniversity and the Convention Center. Unfortunately,the study and community support notwithstanding, atrolley bond issue was defeated in May 1984. The factthat OPT only had 2 months before the bond electionto promote the idea is the major reason given for itsdefeat.

Rather than signaling the end of this trolley initia-tive, it heralded its beginning. OPT’s membersdecided to continue the effort with the knowledgethat 17,000 “yes” votes had been received for the trol-

ley bond issue and that many other cities were under-taking similar efforts. A dramatically scaled back ver-sion was planned, which was to be accomplishedsolely with donations of money, materials, and vol-unteer labor. The strategy was to garner grass rootscommunity support, build partnerships with the merchants, property owners, and the Universityalong the proposed route, and start out small—with amanageable route and two trolleys.

In March 1985, OPT leased a historic streetcar fromthe Orange Empire Railway Museum (Perris,California) identical to TRT’s Car No. 10, the laststreetcar to operate in Tucson. Hauled to Tucson bytruck in time for the University of Arizona’s Centen-nial Founders Day Parade, the car took volunteers 8 years to restore to working order. The city’s secondstreetcar, which was originally built for Kyoto, Japan,was purchased in 1992 from the Osaka Hankai Elec-tric Tramway Company using funds from the stategrant (see funding).

119

Figures 10-6 and 10-7. Case Study 10-1. Tucson’s OldPueblo Trolley was rebuilt entirely by volunteers, who con-tinue to fundraise for its expansion as well as serve as con-ductors (Figure 10-6). Volunteers from the InternationalBrotherhood of Electrical Workers uncover the originalburied tracks (Figure 10-7). (Credit: Old Pueblo Trolley)

In September 1985, OPT won approval from thecity to build and operate a streetcar route betweenthe University’s main gates and the OPT car barn, abuilding located on Fourth Avenue and Eighth Streetthat OPT leased for $1.00 per year. OPT volunteersalso were permitted to work within the public rightof way and the city agreed to expose existing historictracks. Volunteers restored track salvaged from pre-vious road work projects. From 1985 through 1993,OPT volunteers, including members of the Inter-national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW),patched concrete, restrung overhead electrical wires,constructed track, and installed historic light poles.Operation of the OPT officially began May 17, 1993,on a 1.1-mi route along Fourth Avenue from the maingate of the University to OPT’s trolley barn.

During the first two tourist seasons, the trolleysoperated 7 days a week from November through Mayand on weekends the rest of the year, serving a widevariety of shops, restaurants, cafes, historic homes,and the University, and enhancing the retail activityalong the Fourth Avenue corridor. This year, trolleyshave only been able to maintain the summer sched-ule: Fridays from 6 p.m. to midnight, Saturdays from10 a.m. to midnight, and Sundays from noon to 6 p.m.

OPT’s long-term plans are the completion ofrestoration of two additional historic streetcars, ex-pansion of their route and service to the ConventionCenter through the Downtown Arts District and theRonstadt Transit Center, establishment of an ArizonaTransit museum and restoration facility at the carbarn, and recruitment of additional conductors, opera-tors, mechanics, and dispatchers.

STRATEGY

There are four elements of OPT’s strategy for gettinga trolley system up and running again.

Track and Overhead. Volunteers, working in collab-oration with the city’s traffic engineers, performed allthe track work, with members of the IBEW stringingthe overhead electrical wires. Old tracks buriedunder asphalt had to be uncovered and repaired andnew tracks laid. The city assisted in this effort by per-mitting volunteers to work in the public right of wayand by cooperating with OPT in salvaging rail forrestoration.

Vehicle Acquisition and Restoration. Because of itslimited funds and the fact that no original trolleysremain in Tucson, OPT has been necessarily resource-ful in its acquisition of streetcars. For example, theBrussels trolley had been shipped to Phoenix in 1980and became part of a restaurant project, which laterwent bankrupt. It was purchased at a bankruptcy sale

by Rod Wattis, who later donated it to OPT. The 1953Japanese trolley was purchased for very little from thetramway company in Osaka; however, the shippingcosts totaled almost $30,000. The first car obtained byOPT had languished on a lot at MGM studios where ithad been used in movies depicting Los Angeles in the1940s, then later had been outside at the OrangeEmpire Railway Museum until it was in need of totalrebuilding.

Operations. Volunteers continue to be recruited andtrained to operate trolleys and restore vehicles.Operators take a mandatory 60-hour training course,while conductors go through a 20-hour course. OPTprobably has the youngest conductor in the nation:Silas Montgomery, who is 11 years old.

Public Relations. OPT also publishes Trolley Tracks, aquarterly newsletter with news of the organization,updates on operation, and historical informationabout Tucson’s trolleys. OPT allows groups to charterits trolleys for educational trips, private parties, andother celebrations; the group is a member of both theArizona Historical Society and the Association ofRailway Museums.

FUNDING

The acquisition of streetcars, and everything to exca-vate the right of way, from cranes to crane operators,was donated or paid for through private contributions,support from the Fourth Avenue Merchants Asso-ciation and University Boulevard property owners.During the first 7 years of planning, OPT was able to raise a total of $200,000. However, in 1990, the OPTfaced a serious cash shortage, which threatened thesuccessful completion of the project. In June 1990, theArizona State Legislature allotted $500,000 in state lot-tery transportation funding to the OPT as a demon-stration light-rail project, thereby ensuring that theproject would come to fruition. OPT has applied forISTEA funds for service extensions and improvements,including extension of the tracks and construction of anew “turn-around.” It currently receives support from200 members nationally, local foundations and busi-nesses, in-kind contributions, and fares from passen-gers. OPT needs a permanent revenue stream to allowoperation when volunteers are not available. Coop-eration between the city, merchants, and propertyowners will be essential in making that happen.


The primary obstacles overcome by the OPT projectwere financial ones. Though it did not provide fund-ing, the city assisted in salvaging track and allowing

120

the work to occur in the first place. Permitting volun-teers to perform construction and electrical work onpublic city streets is truly remarkable. The state’s dis-bursement of $500,000 dollars in lottery funds to theproject at a crucial moment may not have occurredhad the project not come as far as it had workingsolely with donations and volunteer labor. However,keeping together a cadre of active and dedicated vol-unteers for an extended period of time is a labor-intensive effort. There is only so much that volunteersmay be able to accomplish. Fundraising, similarly, is afull-time job.

The trolley faced some physical obstacles as well.The height clearance allowed by the Southern PacificRailroad underpasses at the northern and southernends of Fourth Avenue is inadequate to allow the trol-ley cars to pass underneath. In addition, the grade ofthe road as it passes under the railroad is so steep thatthe trolleys do not have enough power to travel upthe slope, especially when full of passengers.However, the underpass, built in 1916, is due forrebuilding with the design request for proposalscheduled for 1996. Within 4 years, the new under-pass will be built, which will allow the OPT to con-tinue its route downtown to the Ronstadt TransitCenter and, eventually, to the Convention Center.


Since opening, OPT has served more than 60,000passengers traveling through the West Universityneighborhood and Fourth Avenue business district ontwo restored trolleys. OPT is a popular attraction fortourists and provides low-cost transportation for uni-versity students, shoppers, and area residents, mak-ing it easier for people to leave their cars at home.

According to Libby Stone, Executive Director of theFourth Avenue Business District, merchants withinthis business district are very glad that the trolleyexists, because the trolley helps draw tourists to thearea who spend money, while adding to the wholeconcept of Fourth Avenue as an eclectic shopping anddining district. Some believe, however, that the trolleyis treated too much like a “museum on wheels” or ahistoric piece, and not enough like a practical form ofeveryday transportation.

CONCLUSIONS

The OPT could not have succeeded had it not beenfor community involvement and cooperative partner-ships. The adage, “when the people lead, the leaderswill follow” is particularly relevant to the OPT project.It has sought and gained national (and international)recognition in an attempt to convince suburban-dwelling Tucsonians that a livable center city is a

viable place deserving their support and patronage.The dedication of the OPT members and volunteers isextraordinary and the success of the trolley is a tributeto their unflagging dedication and enthusiasm.

This project embodies the dreams of a community. Becauseof the dedication of citizens throughout the community andbecause of the dedication of Arabella Martinez, the dreamwill become a reality.

—former U.S. DOT Secretary Frederico Peña at the 1993MTC Transportation Awards Program

There are two strengths of this project that have made itsuccessful. One, SSUC mobilized neighborhood and politi-cal support from the onset of the project and two, they generated federal money to match private capital.

—Michael Bernick, BART Board of Directors

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) seesprojects like the BART pedestrian plaza as a way to usetransportation investments to serve larger communitygoals. It is probably the best example of bottoms-up transportation planning in the Bay Area. We need morecommunity-based groups that are willing to wade into thetransportation arena to advance projects.

—Ellen Griffin, MTC

While the Fruitvale BART project presents an unusualopportunity to do “cutting edge” transit-based develop-ment in an inner city setting, perhaps the most unique as-pect of the project is the grassroots origination of the proj-ect, and the collaborative approach to its planning. Theleading role played by SSUC in the project will ensure thata community-based, collaborative approach will be main-tained throughout the project and that community interestswill remain at the forefront of development considerations.

—Rich Bell, Unity Council Fruitvale BARTProject Manager

SUMMARY

The Fruitvale BART Transit Village development in Oakland, California, involves the conversion ofBART’s parking lots and adjacent public and privateproperties into a transit-based, mixed-use develop-ment and community center with a variety of attrac-tions and community services for this low-incomeneighborhood. The Spanish Speaking Unity Council(Unity Council), a 32-year-old, nonprofit communitydevelopment organization, is the developer of thisnational model of community-based transit planning.The new Fruitvale BART Transit Village has thepotential of being designated a “station-area redevel-opment district” under California law. The project

121

Case Study 10-2Oakland, CA: BART Fruitvale Transit VillageUsing Transit to Leverage Fundingfor Community Development

aims to increase transit ridership and employmentopportunities in the area, attract social service facilitiesand retail businesses, and generally improve the qual-ity of life and livability of the Fruitvale neighborhood.

The vision for the Fruitvale BART Transit Villageincludes the following:

• A pedestrian plaza connecting the BART stationwith the East 14th Street commercial district;

• Two parking structures containing retail storesand restaurants on the ground level and com-munity facilities on the second and third levelsfacing the pedestrian plaza;

• Other public and private agencies such as LaClinica de La Raza, a senior center, a child devel-opment center and the Unity Council’s head-quarters;

• Affordable housing, including housing for seniorcitizens;

• Additional retail on the private parcels;• An intermodal bus transfer facility behind the

BART station; and• Facade and street streetscape improvements

along the East 14th Street retail corridor.

Although this project has yet to be built, the exten-sive community planning and visioning processalready undertaken is perhaps one of the best exam-ples of its kind in the United States. With the help of a$6.6 million EZ grant, the Unity Council and its part-ners have more than $23,000,000 in funds for prede-velopment planning and for the construction of theFruitvale BART Transit Village. Funding sourcesinclude the city of Oakland, DOT/FTA, BART, theFord Foundation, the James Irvine Foundation, theWilliam and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Levi-Strauss Foundation, the BankAmerica Foundation,Citibank and the Departments of Housing and UrbanDevelopment and Health and Human Services.

PLANNING PROCESS

Oakland’s Fruitvale is primarily a low-incomeLatino, Asian, and African-American community. Fivemajor and several smaller nonprofit, grassroots com-munity and social service organizations have estab-lished themselves in the community. One of the oldestis the Unity Council, a community development corpo-ration whose mission is to reverse the deterioration ofthe neighborhood through a comprehensive programof physical, economic, and social development.

The Fruitvale Transit Village initiative got under-way in 1991, when two contradictory assessmentsstirred extensive debate about the future of the East

14th Street commercial district. While the University-Oakland Metropolitan Forum had identified this areaas a prime community development opportunity andrecommended integration of the commercial districtand the existing transit station, BART had proposedconstructing a multilevel parking facility on a siteadjacent to the Fruitvale station.

Seeing a new parking structure as offering little tobenefit to the community, the Unity Council took thelead in organizing a broad, community-based plan-ning process not only to develop alternatives to theparking structure, but also to conceive an overallvision for the project and a long-range plan for theFruitvale neighborhood. The Unity Council begandiscussions and hosted planning sessions with thecommunity out of which developed a proposal to cre-ate a pedestrian plaza linking the BART station withthe East 14th Street business district. In 1992, the cityprovided the Unity Council with a $185,000 planninggrant to further develop the project, marking thebeginning of the city’s commitment to the Fruitvaleneighborhood.

The Unity Council continued to work with the com-munity to formulate the neighborhood developmentplan and to meet with community leaders and repre-sentatives from BART and the city. It sponsored adesign charrette in which five major architecturalfirms developed alternative land-use plans that werereviewed at a community design symposium in May1993. Soon thereafter, the Unity Council established apublic-private partnership with BART and the city towork together to develop the transit village. It signeda memorandum of understanding with the two publicagencies and subsequently signed an exclusive nego-tiating agreement (ENA) with BART. It also com-pleted a market study, a financial feasibility study, aPhase I EIS, a Phase II toxic assessment for the seniorhousing project, and a preliminary traffic impact study.

In late 1994, the Unity Council consultants pre-pared design guidelines for East 14th Street, with theinvolvement of the merchants, property owners, andinterested residents. The city is likely to adopt theseas part of the revision of its general plan and specificneighborhood plan.

In February 1995, the Unity Council also selected anarchitectural firm to lead the community site-planningprocess. Three public meetings and several forumsaddressing specific development issues were heldwith special constituencies such as youth and seniorcitizens, as well as with the city, BART, and ACTransit. A consensus plan emerged from the discus-sions that proposed closing East 12th Street. Becauseof community concerns, however, a second plan wasdeveloped merely to narrow the street. The new planhas received positive feedback from the city, BART,

122

FTA, and a number of community groups that haveseen it and mitigates many of the environmentalimpacts of the consensus plan.

STRATEGY

In response to BART’s proposal to build a newparking structure for the Fruitvale station, the UnityCouncil and the Fruitvale community developed avision to do the following:

• Revitalize the area around their BART station;• Create a transit- and pedestrian-friendly urban

center for Fruitvale;• Integrate the BART station into the community

by creating a pedestrian-friendly link betweenBART and East 14th Street, housing, and existingcommunity facilities;

• Improve bus and pedestrian access to the stationas well as to the adjacent commercial district;

• Draw commercial activity to the area, particu-larly toward East 14th Street;

• Enhance the safety of residents and transit pas-sengers alike, particularly along East 14th Street;

• Introduce entrepreneurial and job opportunitiesinto the community by locating community ser-vices and commercial facilities at the site;

• Make street and facade improvements along East14th Street; and

• Build affordable housing to decrease overcrowd-ing, improve security in the area through an“eyes-on-the-street” approach and enhance retailsales in Fruitvale.

As proposed, the Fruitvale Transit Village willencompass 15 to 24 acres of BART land, adjacent citystreets and private properties and will cost approxi-mately $100 million to develop. Phase I will includethe intermodal bus transfer facility, two parkingstructures (one for BART and the other for the tenantsof the transit village), and the pedestrian plaza linkingthe BART station to the commercial district. Retailand community office space, a medical facility(Clinica de la Raza), a child care center, senior hous-ing and the Unity Council’s headquarters (housingother public and private agencies such as the LatinAmerican Library) will also be built in Phase I. PhaseII will include a supermarket, other retail uses andhousing. The first elements of Phase I to start con-struction will be the senior housing and child carefacilities in September 1996, after environmental clearance is received.

The Unity Council will initiate the facade and streetstreetscape enhancements in 1996. It will coordinate

its efforts with the city’s Office of EconomicDevelopment and Employment (OEDE) and itsNeighborhood Community Revitalization Program.The city has already installed historic-style streetlights, planted street trees, contracted with localartists to design and install an arch to span FruitvaleAvenue at the corner of East 14th Street, and initiateda facade improvement program using Americorpsvolunteers.

The Unity Council has established a communitydesign board that will make recommendations as towhich stores in the commercial corridor will get thefacelift. Given limited funds, decisions will be made inaccordance with guidelines that have been establishedto ensure that the facade improvement program com-plements the transit village. The Unity Council willhire a contractor and work with a crew of the East BayConservation Corps to do the work. It will providebusiness assistance to those property owners and mer-chants who want to make more improvements thanare possible with Unity Council and city funds. Theywill be provided assistance with putting togetherbusiness plans and loan packages to upgrade theirbusinesses as well as their buildings. The programalso includes an arts program that will hire localartists to produce a logo and banners with that logo toprovide an identity to Fruitvale. The work of localartists will be displayed in empty store fronts. All ofthis is part of a marketing plan to enhance the imageof Fruitvale and improve the business environment.

Construction of the other elements of Phase I isscheduled to begin in March 1997 and to reach com-pletion 18 months later. Construction of Phase II isscheduled to begin immediately after that and becompleted in the year 2001. After the transit village is finally built out, the Unity Council will focus onobtaining available, adjacent private parcels of landbeyond the transit village.

The BART ENA with the Unity Council will lead toa development implementation agreement when theUnity Council completes all the requirements of theENA. It will be the first time that BART has not issueda competitive request for proposal for bids for a joint-development project.

Controversial, unresolved issues, such as the type,location, and density of the proposed residentialunits, have been left open for discussion while otheraspects of the plan, where consensus has beenreached, have moved forward.

FUNDING

The key to the success of the Fruitvale TransitVillage initiative has been the ability of the UnityCouncil to attract funds from a range of sources to

123

124

Figures 10-8 and 10-9. Case Study 10-2. Proposed plans for the Fruitvale BART Transit Village, Oakland, CA, feature a central square, senior housing, day care facilitiesand residential units to replace a parking lot and existing transit station. Key to Figure 10-8: 1-Existing BART Station; 2-Bus Plaza; 3-Festival Plaza; 4-Parking Struc-ture; 5-Retail/Commercial; 6–12th Street; 7–34th Avenue; 8-Residential over Parking/Retail; 9-Retail; 10-Day Care Facility; 11-Senior Housing; 12-Surface Parking; 13-Playground; 14-Senior Center. (Credit: MV&P International and Legobreta Arquitectos)

fund the many elements of the transit village project.In 1992, the city awarded a $185,000 planning grant tothe Unity Council for planning the BART station arearedevelopment project. In 1993, former U.S. DOTSecretary Frederico Peña and FTA AdministratorGordon Linton gave the Metropolitan TransportationCommission (MTC) a $470,000 planning grant for theFruitvale project. To date, more than $23 million hasbeen raised or allocated by the Unity Council and itspartners, including the following:

• $6.234 million for the senior housing;• $780,000 for the pedestrian plaza;• $2.675 million for the intermodal bus transfer

center;• $2.250 million from the city of Oakland for a

multipurpose/senior center;• $1.869 million for predevelopment planning

from the city, FTA, and foundations;• $1.246 million for land assembly and relocation

from the city, Department of Health and HumanServices (Head Start), the Unity Council and LaClinica de La Raza; and

• $917,000 for the East 14th Street facade and streetstreetscape improvements from the city andHousing and Urban Development’s (HUD) HopeVI funds through the Oakland HousingAuthority.

Not included above are the staff costs of the city,BART, AC Transit, or La Clinica or the costs of thecity’s and BART’s environmental impact studies.Also, not included is the $45,000 raised by artistCarolyna Marks from local community organizations,corporations, foundations, and individuals to financethe creation of her “Peace Wall” for the Fruitvale sta-tion, made of 3,600 tiles painted by students, commu-nity groups, merchants, local politicians, celebrities,and BART officials.

There are pending grants and loans from federal,state, and local governments as well as foundationsand banks. This pending funding exceeds $10,000,000and is subject to completion of specific grant condi-tions prior to disbursement.

There are financial gaps for some of the specific ele-ments of the development, but most will be filled byborrowing from private lenders because projectionsshow that debt can be repaid from the income flowsfrom specific projects. A major financial gap of morethan $10,000,000 relates to the BART parking structure.The gap exists because BART has a “no parking fee”policy which means there is no income to service debt.This is being discussed with BART and the city’s redevelopment agency.

The Unity Council has used the transit village de-velopment to attract millions of dollars to the Fruit-vale community that might not have been forthcom-

125


ing without the transit initiative. This transit projecthas served to generate momentum and, most impor-tant, funding for a myriad of other community andeconomic development programs.


Inner city neighborhood redevelopment is a com-plex and extremely difficult undertaking. Privatedevelopers have usually shied away from such pro-jects because of the difficulties. Few communitydevelopment corporations have attempted to under-take a project of the scale of the Fruitvale BARTTransit Village.

The Unity Council has faced a number of chal-lenges and obstacles, and these have changed as thedevelopment advanced. The initial challenge was con-vincing BART, the city, and others that the FruitvaleBART Transit Village was not a dream. There werequestions about the Unity Council’s developmentcapacity and its ability to raise large sums of money.These concerns were legitimate because the UnityCouncil is a relatively small community developmentcorporation, had not been in the development busi-ness for a number of years, and did not have staffwith mixed-use and large-scale development experi-ence. These doubts have for the most part been over-come as the Unity Council has demonstrated itscapacity to raise substantial dollars. Particularlyimportant in changing perceptions were FTA’s plan-ning and HUD’s senior housing grants. The concernsabout the Unity Council’s development capacity have subsided as the Unity Council completed onetask after another and is now poised to begin con-struction on the senior housing. The concern aboutthe Unity Council’s development capacity has nowchanged to concerns about its implementation capac-ity. To mitigate this concern, the Unity Council isexploring the possibility of selecting a joint-venturepartner with financing and large-scale constructionexperience.

A second challenge has been finding resources tobuild the BART parking structure. Building the park-ing structure is critical as an integral element of thepedestrian plaza, plaza retail, and community facili-ties. Also, its construction in Phase I allows for thebuilding of the Phase II housing on BART land.Unfortunately, the capital improvement funds thatBART was going to invest in the Fruitvale parkingstructure were used to build a parking structure atanother station. The Unity Council initially thoughtthese funds were replaceable, but this may not be thecase. The Unity Council is discussing working with

BART and the redevelopment agency to address thismajor financial gap.

A third challenge has been environmental clearance.The Unity Council could not begin the final environ-mental clearance process until there was a final siteplan. The community site-planning process was exten-sive and time-consuming. The consensus site planwould have had substantial environmental impactsthat would have been costly to mitigate because of theclosing of East 12th Street for which there was alsosome community opposition. In addition, the amountof time needed to obtain environmental clearance forthe consensus plan might have jeopardized some ofthe funding for the transit village. The Unity Councildecided to develop an alternative site plan in whichEast 12th was narrowed, but not closed.

A related challenge has been the numerous andconflicting government rules, regulations, conditions,and timelines of the various grantors. DOT, HUD,and Health and Human Services (HHS) environ-mental clearance rules and processes are differentfrom each other. The city and the state of Californiaair quality requirements are different from the fed-eral National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)requirements.

Release of funding is also caught up with environ-mental clearance. The Unity Council has had to use itsscarce unrestricted dollars to cover property acquisi-tion until other funding is released.

The lack of funds has meant that the Unity Councilmissed the opportunity to land bank earlier in theplanning stage when there was still some skepticismabout the reality of the transit village. Now someproperty owners hope to make financial profits onproperties that were not salable 2 years ago. This hasraised the cost for the development of the transit vil-lage, and it may be difficult to attract retail because theland costs will not allow for rents that are in keepingwith those of other developments in the area.

Beyond the technical and funding issues are com-munity issues. The issue of the closing of East 12thStreet has been partially resolved with the new siteplan, although the issue of the type and density ofnew housing to be constructed at the site has been along-standing point of contention. Some communitymembers were exposed to a variety of types of afford-able housing and ways in which they have been inte-grated into different communities through a series ofslides, which were presented at one of the communitysite planning meetings. While it is clear to many peo-ple that the Unity Council and other nonprofit devel-opers are responsible builders and landlords, they areafraid that the proposed up-zoning around transithubs in the new general plan will encourage outside

126

private developers to come into these areas and con-struct very dense, structurally poor housing for low-income renters who do not have a stake in thehousing or the community.

The community is concerned that building newhousing will exacerbate the already overcrowdedpublic schools of the area. Residents and other stake-holders are concerned with the low level of owneroccupancy and the current housing market. The UnityCouncil will not be able to address all these fears, butit believes that some of these will be mitigated once itis able to develop the housing element in more detail.


Through the use of a community-based planningprocess, the community has reached agreement on aconceptual site plan as well as on the design programfor the East 14th Street renovation and facadeimprovement component of the project.

Because the Fruitvale Transit Village project has not yet been implemented, the greatest impact of thisproject thus far is as a national model for planning community-based, transit-oriented developments. Itis a model for demonstrating how communities, espe-cially those with economically and ethnically diversepopulations, can use transit projects to achieve com-munity economic revitalization and development.

When fully implemented, BART anticipates 40 per-cent more people will leave their cars at home to takepublic transit from this station. More than 750 jobswill be created and retail sales and income willincrease as will property values. More than 250 unitsof affordable housing, including nursing homes forsenior citizens, will be built and the physical environ-ment will be greatly improved by the new construc-tion and facade improvement program. The area willbe safer as a result of increased numbers of people inthe area during the day and evening. The city willbenefit from the recognition that it has succeeded inrevitalizing one of the most seriously blighted, eco-nomically depressed neighborhoods in the city andfrom increased sales and property taxes.

CONCLUSIONS

From a $185,000 planning grant, the Unity Counciland its partners have been able to leverage nearly $17million to fund the development and construction ofthe Fruitvale BART Transit Village and all of the com-munity and social service facilities to be housedthere—uses which will make a substantial contribu-tion to the livability of the neighborhood. The Unity

Council in general, and Arabella Martinez, its ChiefExecutive Officer, in particular, are given credit formobilizing and maintaining the broad communitybase of support for the Fruitvale BART development,which represents a model for the integration of trans-portation, land use, economic development, and com-munity development. The development and con-struction funds the Fruitvale BART Transit Village hasreceived attests to the success of its planning strategyand ability to bring together and sustain a coalition of public and private sector groups to work with a community in order to realize its vision.

SOURCES

Olsen, Laura and Chris Bender, Mobility Partners Case Study:Transit-Oriented Communities, Surface TransportationPolicy Project, Washington, DC.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Transactions,Oakland, CA (October 1993).

The most important thing we did differently was we

worked in partnership with a lot of people and organiza-tions locally that we don’t always work with.

—Rick Richmond, Director,NJ Transit Department of Engineering

[Woodbridge Station] is more than a railroad station; it isan example of how people in a community can invest inthat community and make it a rallying point of how vitalthe community is. Through this project, we recognize we’rea vital part of the community we serve.

—NJ DOT Commissioner Wilson

SUMMARY

Despite significant investment in New JerseyTransit’s (NJ Transit) 158 passenger facilities over thepast 15 years, many of the rehabilitated stations havebeen vandalized and have become deterioratedbecause of poor maintenance and a lack of on-sitemanagement and/or sufficient operating funds.Efforts to rehabilitate these stations also were hin-dered by the poor quality of the adjacent environmentand lack of maintenance resources. Many stations andtheir environs were perceived as unsafe by NJ Transitcustomers, and only a few stations had the kind of

127

Case Study 10-3New Jersey Transit Station Renewal ProgramCreating Partnerships with Community

passenger-oriented amenities that commuters want,such as a newsstand or a concession with hot coffeeand breakfast food. Some did not have sheltered out-door seating areas and a number of station buildingshad been closed by NJ Transit or rented to other non-transit-related businesses. Clearly, there had to be abetter way.

In 1991, a concept for a station renewal programdesigned to address these issues was developedthrough discussions between NJ Transit and Projectfor Public Spaces, Inc. (PPS). The goals of the programwere to improve the condition, appearance, uses, and,most important, the management of its commuter railstations to serve passengers more effectively, promotepublic transit, and act as a catalyst for economicdevelopment in the communities in which they arelocated. This program has employed an innovative,community-based approach to guide NJ Transit in itsongoing station renewal efforts.

PLANNING PROCESS

Five train stations were evaluated during the courseof the program, including Bradley Beach, Maplewood,Netherwood (in Plainfield), Rahway, and Woodbridge(see Case Study 4-2). Each station offered a uniqueopportunity for making improvements that not onlywould help increase ridership, but would better inte-grate these stations into their communities and createsustainable partnerships between NJ Transit and eachcommunity. The five stations represented a cross-section of station types and environments, including atourist location (Bradley Beach), a suburban station ina residential/business district (Maplewood), a historicstation in a depressed urban center (Netherwood), astation with a high volume of passenger use(Rahway), and a station at the confluence of majorhighways and train lines in New Jersey (Woodbridge).

The planning process used in each community con-sisted primarily of meetings with communities andNJ Transit management; detailed observations of pas-senger use at stations at various times; surveys oftrain passengers; interviews with nearby retailers;informal discussions with ticket agents during peakand off-peak times; and studies of where peoplewaited for trains, where they were picked up anddropped off, and what routes passengers used toenter and leave each station. In the survey, peoplewere questioned about their general impression of thestation, about types of retail and other services for thestation, about other kinds of activities for the stationand the surrounding area, and about their primarytransportation needs and concerns. All of this infor-mation helped to create a clear picture of how eachstation was currently used and perceived.

In addition, community meetings were held to gainadditional insight and share findings and observationswith passengers, local residents, merchants, and cityrepresentatives. Participants identified their mostpressing needs and concerns for each station and madesuggestions for improvements to station buildings andadjacent areas. These meetings were arranged by NJTransit in conjunction with representatives from eachcity and with local organizations, such as merchantassociations.

The following common issues and problem areaswere identified.

Lack of On-Site Management of Station Buildings andAdjacent Areas. At several stations, there was wide-spread concern among passengers that stations wereunsafe and, in most of the communities studied, thatthe stations were poorly maintained. This perceptionwas created by several overlapping aspects of the sta-tion surroundings, including boarded up and closedstation buildings, poor maintenance of buildings andgrounds, inadequate lighting of platforms and park-ing lots, litter, and graffiti. The combination of theseproblems had a major impact on passengers’ sense ofsafety and security and detracted from the surround-ing areas as well.

Most of the train stations operated by NJ Transitdid not have regular on-site management. BradleyBeach and Netherwood lacked a management pres-ence altogether. At many stations, people who pro-vided transit-related information or sold tickets,refreshments, newspapers, and other items were onlyat the station for limited hours. At other times, thestations were closed and no active amenities wereoffered. Although general station maintenance wasprovided, small-scale maintenance and cleaning wasnot done on a regular basis. This gave stations theappearance of being uncared for and unmanaged.

According to NJ Transit, constricted operating bud-gets have limited management and regular mainte-nance of stations, station buildings, parking lots, andadjacent areas. It was also difficult for NJ Transit toimplement even minor, yet highly visible improve-ments. Another approach was needed, therefore, to guarantee the management and maintenance ofthese stations in a manner that serves the needs ofpassengers, communities, and NJ Transit.

Underutilization of Station Buildings for Passenger andCommunity Use. Many of NJ Transit’s station build-ings lacked clear identities as train stations and didnot provide adequate levels of service to passengers.Lack of attention to the historic character of the build-ings, poor visual and difficult physical access, absenceof identifying station signage, and lack of visual and

128

physical connections between stations and their com-munities contributed to this lack of identity and senseof place. Furthermore, many of the station buildingshave been adapted for other purposes (e.g., banks,real estate or physicians’ offices). While this hassolved some maintenance problems for NJ Transit, italso resulted in facilities whose transportation rolewas subsumed by the prominence of the tenant use.

Lack of Community Input into the Station Design Pro-cess. The station design process typically used by NJTransit and other transit agencies in developing plansfor new and rehabilitated stations was neither com-munity- nor user-based. Rather, concepts were firstdeveloped by the transit agency, and communitieswere asked to react and give input.

STRATEGY

NJ Transit’s lack of success with a typical planningapproach made it clear that a new way of designingand managing stations and working with local com-munities was necessary. The current system workedneither for NJ Transit nor for communities. Opportu-nities for stations to become integral to the vitality oftheir communities and catalysts for economic andcommunity revitalization were being overlooked.

Community-Based Design Process for Project Develop-ment. Through the process used in the five communi-ties, NJ Transit learned that community involve-ment and participation, from the start of the designprocess through the implementation of stationimprovements, are key elements of a successfulbroad-based approach to station design and areessential to the development of community supportfor transit projects. Such an approach focuses on anunderstanding of the important and often disparateissues and needs within each community and relieson information gathered through station observa-tions, interviews and community input to helpdesign station improvements.

By establishing a program of uses for the stationbefore the concept design is developed, appropriate,mutually acceptable, and beneficial uses evolve. Also,the community has the opportunity to share responsi-bility for ongoing maintenance and management ofthe station and the adjacent public spaces.

Public/Private Community Partnerships. The NJ TransitStation Renewal Program is an initiative in which indi-vidual communities share responsibility for designingand implementing station improvements as well as forongoing maintenance and management of stations

129

Figures 10-10 through 10-12. Case Study 10-3,Woodbridge Train Station, Woodbridge, New Jersey. Thegoal of this project shown here, before (Figure 10-10) andafter renovation (Figure 10-11), was to create a “sense ofplace” for the station and to make the station more appeal-ing to and function better for transit passengers. NJ Transitworked with the Township to turn this railroad trestle into amessage of welcoming for the town and the transit facilityas well. (Credit: NJ Transit Corporation)

and adjacent public spaces. Moreover, activities suchas supplementing existing security services, retail leas-ing, and coordination of customer and communityinformation is provided by communities in partner-ship with NJ Transit. Implementing such an effortenables NJ Transit to draw on a community’s vastarray of economic, creative, and human resources.

In this approach, communities have a major impacton the quality of the station environment. Some of thespecific activities that have been undertaken by NJTransit in partnership with communities at its com-muter rail stations include the following:

• Working with the community to define issuesand potential solutions and implement changesat the Woodbridge and Netherwood commuterrail stations.

• Providing maintenance for the station building(excluding major capital improvements). At theMaplewood station, local artists repainted a mu-ral in the passenger tunnel. At Netherwood, a ma-jor neighborhood group is organizing a project at a local middle school in which students willpaint murals on the tunnel walls and adjacentbuildings.

• Working with residents of the Maplewood com-munity to maintain station landscaping aroundtheir rail station. In Netherwood, a local commu-nity group entered a partnership with the HomeDepot to fund and install flower planters on thestation platforms. The group also helps maintainlandscaping.

• Evaluating the need and providing for the infor-mational and amenity needs of the community atthe stations. An artist was commissioned by NJTransit to create a decorative map at the Wood-bridge Station of all retail, community, and recreational points of interest in the town.

• Developing a program of community social andcultural activities and events for public spacesadjacent to train stations. Several of NJ Transit’sother stations have been the site of “First Night”family-oriented New Year’s Eve celebrations forthe past 2 years; in addition, a weekly farmer’smarket takes place at and under the East Orangetrain station during that city’s free summer jazzconcerts, and weekly farmer’s markets at theBernardsville station creates activity at the station each Saturday during the summer.

Passenger Service Center Programs Using ExistingStation Buildings. When NJ Transit seeks to attractvendors and businesses to its stations, it looks first tobusinesses in the immediate vicinity before solicitinginterest from national chains or retailers from other

townships. In this way, local businesses are not forcedto compete with out-of-town operations and are pro-vided with additional retail outlets and a larger cus-tomer base, which helps them and adds to theeconomic vitality of the town as well. Train stationsalso are appropriate centers for incubator-retail activ-ity, where small vendors or emerging retailers aregiven an opportunity to market goods and services orto try out new product lines.

As this program was being developed, the ideaemerged that NJ Transit could encourage retailers ora “concierge” to run “passenger service centers.”These centers are intended to make available to pas-sengers the services and products of local businesses,either by providing retail spaces at stations as satellitebusiness opportunities for local retailers, or through a concierge program in which the goods and servicesof local businesses would be sold by a concierge at the station, an on-site manager who contracts withlocal businesses to sell goods and services on theirbehalf, such as film and dry cleaning drop-off. Thisprogram is in the process of being implemented inMaplewood.

FUNDING

The plan for the NJ Transit Station Renewal Pro-gram, including station improvement concepts for fivestations, was funded jointly by NJ Transit and theGeraldine R. Dodge Foundation. The Dodge Founda-tion is concerned about revitalization of communitiesin the state and provided a planning grant to Projectfor Public Spaces, Inc. In the long term, NJ Transitplans to partially fund managerial activities at stationsthrough an income stream generated from selectedparking fees dedicated to this purpose. These fundscan then be deposited into a fund administered by alocal entity (e.g., a downtown or merchants’ associa-tion or nonprofit organization) responsible for stationmanagement and under contract to NJ Transit.

Station management projects will continue to befunded at NJ Transit by New Jersey TransportationTrust Funds, FTA capital funds, including ISTEAenhancement funds, and private funds. For example,the $2.1 million Netherwood Station Renewal Project,which is really a coordinated set of separate projectsand funding sources, is a combination of grants to NJTransit from the FTA (ISTEA), State TransportationTrust Funds; grants to the city of Plainfield from theFederal Highway Administration, FTA/State of NewJersey (ISTEA) and Urban Enterprise Zone Authority;and private developer funding (for station tenant).

In the short term, the community volunteer groupsand city governments contribute time, project support

130

and implementation assistance as well as re-prioritizetheir own improvement plans so they are coordinatedwith those of the station renewal project. In the longterm, the coordinated set of improvements and atten-tion to the station and adjacent public spaces by apartnership of interest generates a viable, livable com-munity capable of sustaining itself.


This project changed the way NJ Transit views andmanages its facilities. Change is usually difficult, par-ticularly within a bureaucracy. While several NJTransit managers were extremely supportive andexcited about the community-based process to im-prove the train stations, others were skeptical andeven uncooperative and went so far as to view thisapproach as subversive. The ultimate success of theWoodbridge project, which was the first to be com-pleted, has done much to build confidence in the community-based approach to station renewal in theeyes of NJ Transit engineers.


The approach used in the NJ Transit StationRenewal Program greatly facilitated project implemen-tation. With strong local support and a creative vision,these projects were selected for implementation by NJTransit over others proposed. All of the improvementsrecommended for the Woodbridge station have beenimplemented. NJ Transit has received a design awardfrom the Downtown New Jersey Association and hasbeen nominated for an American Planning Associationdesign award (see Case Study 4-2). The exterior restora-tion of Netherwood Station has been completed andwork has begun on the parking lot and park redesign.A retail tenant is in negotiation to create a cafe in thestation. In Maplewood, the concierge program isunderway and landscaping and tunnel improvementshave been made to the station by the local businessassociation. At Rahway, a new station design has beenaccepted and construction is underway. The city andNJ Transit are moving forward to develop a conceptplan to turn the plaza in front of the station into a large,urban central square.

NJ Transit has continued to work in partnershipwith these five communities on project implementa-tion. In addition, NJ Transit staff has begun to under-stand the larger role that transit plays in communitiesand the importance of obtaining community involve-ment early in the project design process. This ap-proach will be used in the redesign of future stations,such as Red Bank and Perth Amboy.

CONCLUSIONS

By jointly developing and implementing stationimprovement plans with communities, NJ Transit hasdemonstrated that stations can have active, publiclyoriented uses and programs that contribute to the liv-ability of the community. As projects are completed,security is improved, station revenues are increased,riders are attracted and stations can begin to act ascatalysts for economic development in the surround-ing areas. The partnership concept is necessary inorder to manage and maintain train stations so thatthey can meet these ambitious goals and ensure thecommitment of the community to sustaining the vitality and livability of the station area.

Railroads tend to build cities—whereas cars tend to destroythem. That’s because a railroad system concentrates life andactivity around its stations.

—Robert Campbell, The Boston Globe,Tuesday, November 21, 1989

[We all] began to realize what a wonderful place this is andhow much better it is for all of our customers. We had bet-ter work well together because it is in our mutual interest.”

—Jim Wright, project manager

SUMMARY

South Station serves as a gateway to Boston’s revi-talized financial and retail center. The station is themultimodal transportation hub for the MassachusettsBay Transportation Authority (MBTA) CommuterRail, Red Line Subway service, long distance inter-and intra-city buses, and Amtrak’s Northeast Corri-dor train service. Slated for demolition in the 1970s to make way for the new headquarters of an engi-neering firm, South Station was saved when the HeadHouse (main building) was listed on the NationalRegister of Historic Places and was renovated as aresult of increasing transit ridership during the 1980s.It is now the second busiest transportation center inNew England.

South Station reopened in 1989 after undergoingmajor renovation, the concept for which has success-fully transformed a rundown terminal plagued with

131

Case Study 10-4Boston, MA: South Station Transit-Private Developer PartnershipTransforms Historic Station

security problems into an active public amenity andfocal point for the area around it. The renovation wasfunded through a three-way private-public partner-ship among the MBTA, the owner of the Station;Amtrak, an anchor tenant; and Beacon South StationAssociates (BSSA). Beacon Management Companymanages the facility today.

PLANNING PROCESS

South Station, a neoclassical revival-style buildingpredating Grand Central and the old Penn Station inNew York City, was dedicated on New Year’s Eve1898. For the next several decades, it was the busiestrailroad station in the country, serving nearly 40 mil-lion passengers annually. By the 1960s, however,South Station was dilapidated and virtually unused.While saved from demolition in the 1970s, the stationcontinued to function as a train facility both forAmtrak and commuter rail and had only one workingelevator and one open staircase. In addition, the thirdfloor had been closed after a fire and the fifth floorwas completely abandoned. The desolate facility hadbecome a haven for the homeless, which only servedto exacerbate its negative image.

Restoration of the structure, which was performedby the MBTA, began in 1983 and was completed in1989 under the Northeast Corridor ImprovementProject. Funded by the federal government, this $4.4billion program paid for the renovation of Amtraktrain stations from Washington, DC, to Boston,Massachusetts.

The station was renovated in order to act as a cata-lyst for further development of the South Station/FortPoint Channel area; add an integral part to the city’spatchwork of streets, parks, and public spaces; enablethe MBTA to better meet the public’s needs and toimprove transportation service; and create a marketsquare and public gathering place where peoplecould comfortably meet, eat, shop, and mix.

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) hiredthe firm of DeLeuw Cather/Parsons to do conceptualdesigns for the entire transit corridor. Each stationthen sent out its own requests for proposals (RFPs) toselect local designers for each part of the project, in-cluding station buildings, track beds, and platforms.Design fees were paid by the FRA directly to the localdesigners. As owners of South Station, the MBTA wasinvolved in the design and worked with the localarchitect to build out the concourse, platforms, andtracks. At this point, the MBTA advertised for adeveloper manager to build out the concession andtenant floor. Beacon Management was selectedthrough an RFP process. The specific developmentand management responsibilities were divided

between the MBTA and Beacon and were put into a65-year lease agreement.

STRATEGY

South Station handles about 36,000 passengers perday and runs 210 commuter and 27 Amtrak trainsdaily. About 1,000 passengers take Greyhound busesand 37,000 passengers use the Red Line subway eachday. A new bus terminal is being constructed as partof the South Station Transportation Center.

Management. While the station is still run by theMBTA, Beacon Management Company develops andimplements the merchandising plan for South Stationand currently performs retail tenant management, theleasing of retail and office space and planning of spe-cial events. The company is also responsible for day-to-day management, maintenance, and security at thefacility. Beacon Management Company hires andsupervises maintenance staff and handles all publicrelations, including producing and distributing posters,brochures, and advertising of all station events.

Design. South Station is a five-story structure, thefacade of which is Stony Creek granite and features 16ionic columns. It was built as a double-deck stationwith 28 tracks. Two wings extend out from each sideof a center section. The restaurant has coffered ceil-ings and the station has terrazzo floors, retail, a foodhall, a grand concourse that is 300 ft long and 45 fthigh, 125,000 sq ft of office space, and 25,000 sq ft ofretail space.

Before the station renovation, the longer east wing,which ran along Summer Street, was torn down to

132

Figure 10-13. Case Study 10-4. Boston’s South Station,Boston, MA, has become a venue for community and cul-tural events and fund-raisers as well as a transit stationserving 36,000 passengers each day. (Credit: BeaconSouth Station Associates)

make way for Stone and Webster, an engineering firm,to construct their new headquarters. Originally, thefirm had planned to demolish the entire station beforelandmark designation saved the building. The smallerwest wing also had been partially destroyed. As partof the renovation, the MBTA made the two wings thesame length and joined the ends with a glass wall; thisserved to create a new, larger concourse area.

Other unique design features include the only re-maining double three-legged, hand-wind clock mech-anism in New England, in the style of London’s BigBen. There is an eagle with an 8-ft wing span atop thestation building. Much of the interior is mahoganyand polished brass. As part of the historic restoration,original gas lights and station signage were alsorestored.

Beacon Management created standards for kioskdesign, signage, and facades. They built four kiosks inthe grand concourse, which camouflage ventilationshafts. Eight wooden benches conjure up images ofhistoric train station decor. Additionally, more than25 tables with chairs are located in the grand con-course and substantial seating is provided in the foodcourt mezzanine.

Community Services and Events. More than 50 eventsper year are hosted by the Beacon ManagementCompany at South Station. On a daily basis, there areexhibits, concerts, fund-raisers, performers, musi-cians, ballroom dancing, family-oriented program-ming, and health-related activities such as bloodpressure testing. These events draw more than 50,000people annually and help to support the station’s 20retailers. The community has been actively involvedin running and advertising community-oriented special events and activities at the station.

Retail. Some 14,000 sq ft of retail space at SouthStation currently are occupied by 20 food, gift, andservice providers. The retail mix reflects a wide vari-ety of commuter-oriented services, which make SouthStation a convenient place for passengers to shop andreinforces the station’s role as the “market square” forthe area. Retailers include a florist, an accessory store,a bank, cafes, bakeries, a photo lab, trolley tours fortourists, a newsstand, a bookstore, and several localand national bars and restaurants.

Security. Security was not a design issue for the ren-ovated station, as evidenced by the fact that there arenow many more doors than before. Security has beenimproved primarily through the increased presenceof several types of security personnel at the station.Boston City police patrol the exterior of the station,MBTA police have jurisdiction inside the station facil-

ity, Amtrak security handles the platform areas andtrains, and the local private security forces, hired andsupervised by the Beacon Management Company,monitor the station concourse and waiting areas.However, few security problems were cited at SouthStation; the large numbers of people using the stationevery day (50,000 total; between 3,000 and 5,000 areaworkers come to South Station daily for lunch alone)help create an active, safe environment. Later in theevening, security personnel ask people in the waitingroom to show a purchased train or bus ticket.

FUNDING

South Station cost $100 million to restore. The FRAcontributed $30 million, the FTA provided $10 mil-lion, and the remaining $60 million was fundedthrough state bonds. In addition, Beacon Manage-ment spent approximately $25 million to develop the interior of the station, including the retail kiosks,seating, and so forth. Management and events pro-gramming are partially funded under tenant leases,including fundraising events to benefit the station,rental of the station to groups for private events, andby the MBTA’s budget. Special events are paid for bysponsors and raise money for specific communitycauses (such as the Children’s Museum). Profits, afterall costs, are split evenly between BeaconManagement and the MBTA.


Multiagency partnerships can be unwieldy to han-dle, at least initially, if partners experience difficultyin sharing control. In the case of South Station, onepartner oversaw station restoration (the MBTA),another manages the facility (Beacon Management),and both the MBTA and Amtrak run trains through it. This sort of arrangement can create design andmaintenance difficulties, but they can be avoided ifthe people coordinating and overseeing the projectunderstand all the key issues. Had the private devel-oper/manager been brought on board sooner, the sta-tion build-out would have been more streamlinedand cost-efficient because they would have had moreinput into the design and been better able to shape theretail and public areas, which they now lease, man-age, and maintain. However, the partners at SouthStation have developed a good working relationship.

Financing also was difficult due to a complicatedground lease. In addition, the station has become sopopular as a community gathering place that oftentimes there is not enough space to accommodate thenumber and size of activities that occur there.

133


Once somewhat isolated by its location, the revital-ization of this part of downtown Boston has createdmore than 6 million sq ft of office space in the areasurrounding the station. Because South Station wasin place, it provided a central focal point for the areaand new developments have taken place around thestation.

In 1990, the restoration of South Station was recog-nized by the Boston Preservation Alliance as the BestLarge Scale Project and by Building Design andConstruction as the Best Reconstruction project. In1991, it was named the best Historical CommercialRehabilitation project by the National CommercialBuilders Council. South Station received a MeritAward in 1993 in the International Council ofShopping Center’s MAXI Awards ceremony for com-munity programming and received the 1995International Building of the Year Award from theBuilding Owners and Managers Association.

Working with a private developer on the projecthas been so effective that the MBTA has privatizedthe management of South Station’s new bus terminalover the train yards and contracted with BeaconManagement Company for these services.

CONCLUSIONS

Through a public-private partnership, the MBTA hasbeen able to create a transit facility that is integratedinto and serves the downtown Boston community andprovides innovative management and security strate-gies. These goals were achieved through the expansionof amenities and services at the station, which havehelped transform South Station into a major activitycenter and contributed to the livability of the neighbor-hood, the downtown, and the city as a whole.

SUMMARY

The Wilmington studies are a series of planningand design projects in the city of Wilmington,Delaware, intended to promote a balanced transporta-tion system in the city giving full consideration to allmodes of travel; to promote livability in downtown

Wilmington and adjacent districts by providing a bet-ter connection between development, transportation,and public spaces; and to promote additional residen-tial and commercial development in the city as aresult of these proposed environmental and trans-portation enhancements.

The Wilmington studies include the following specific projects:

• A multimodal downtown circulation study;• Four downtown gateway enhancement projects;• Four residential traffic-calming and environmen-

tal enhancement projects;• Two neighborhood retail district environmental

enhancement projects;• One major corridor design project;• A transit center design project;• Three intersection safety projects;• One industrial development access project; and• A signage program for downtown and adjacent

districts.

All of these projects are being carried out under aninnovative partnership among the transit agency, thecity, the state transportation agency and the MPO.

PLANNING PROCESS

Downtown Wilmington is a typical U.S. city inmany ways. Bounded both to the north and the southby rivers, the downtown is further defined by a majorarterial street on the east and Interstate 95 on the west.With a shift of retail to the suburbs, the downtown,slightly more than 1 sq mi in size, has become primar-ily an office center, with more than 40,000 workers.The downtown has a small and weak retail core andseveral in-town residential rowhouse neighborhoods.

As in many cities, changes have been made over thelast 40 years to the downtown to accommodate moreand more vehicle capacity. Streets have been con-verted from two directional to one direction andmany have been widened. Large surface parking lotshave replaced aging residential and commercial struc-tures to provide more parking for office workers.Superblocks have been created. Not surprisingly, overtime, the downtown has become less transit, pedes-trian, and bicycle friendly and more oriented towardprivate vehicles. In addition, the greatly modified tra-ditional grid system does not even function very wellin connecting vehicles with all desired destinationswithin the downtown.

In 1995, the Wilmington Area Planning Council(WILMAPCO), the designated MPO for the Wil-mington region, the city of Wilmington, and the Dela-ware Department of Transportation (DelDOT), en-

134

Case Study 10-5Wilmington, DE: Wilmington Infrastructure Studies Intergovernmental-Private Sector Partnership to Promote Enhanced Livability and Economic Development

tered into a partnership to enhance the environment ofdowntown Wilmington and adjacent residential andcommercial corridors. The goal of the partnership is topromote the livability of the downtown and adjacentareas through the provision of a balanced transporta-tion system that promotes a higher level of pedestrian,bicycle, and transit activities.

There are major jurisdictional overlaps related tothe Wilmington studies. DelDOT, the owner andoperator of a number of the streets downtown and inadjacent neighborhoods, serves as the operator of thetransit system and as the primary source of trans-portation funding in the region. WILMAPCO is aregional planning agency that produces the regionallong-range transportation plan and transportationimprovement programs that guide funding. The cityof Wilmington government regulates development inthe study areas and also controls some potential fund-ing. A program to substantially change the infrastruc-ture and transportation services supporting down-town and adjacent districts requires a high level ofcooperation among these institutions.

The Wilmington studies would not have proceededhad these agencies not undergone internal reorganiza-tion first. Specifically, WILMAPCO, as part of its long-range transportation-planning process, identified theneed to reinvest and reinvigorate existing communi-ties, a substantial policy change from existing trans-portation and land-use development trends. DelDOT,the operator of the state’s road network and transit sys-tem, has recently gone through an extensive reorgani-zation and reorientation as a result of a change inagency leadership. Historically, DelDOT, like manyother state DOTs, was focused on new road construc-tion, with less emphasis on maintaining the integrity ofthe existing system or promoting a balanced trans-portation system. As a result, the state entered the early

1990s with a very limited transit program and almostno investments in pedestrian or bicycle systems.

The city of Wilmington, in an effort to improve itsimage and the quality of its business district and adja-cent neighborhoods, initiated a citywide environmen-tal enhancement planning program to create urbandesign guidelines and streetscape concepts for a num-ber of key gateways and corridors in the city. The cityplans to implement future plans through a series ofdemonstration projects funded through the regionaltransportation improvement program process andthrough a city capital improvements bond issue.

All of these very positive efforts to rethink publicinvestments in urban environments at all levels ofgovernment are coalescing into a coordinated invest-ment strategy for the city of Wilmington. The organi-zational structure of the Wilmington studies providesone of the key linkages between these initiatives.

In addition to this partnership, a broader steeringcommittee, which oversees the progress of these proj-ects, was organized. In addition to representatives ofthe three partners, the committee includes representa-tives of community groups, the business community,and special interest groups like the Delaware Green-ways. The steering committee provides policy guid-ance and oversight for individual projects as theymove through the planning and design phases. Thesteering committee had a significant role in amend-ing the list of projects and project scopes to be in-cluded in the Wilmington studies. As a result of thiscommittee’s input, one major study corridor was substituted for another and project study boundarieswere modified for several projects.

The organization for the Wilmington studies alsohas included the formation of a technical committee toprovide technical guidance, coordination, and inputinto individual projects. For some projects, such as themultimodal downtown circulation study, the technicalcommittee is central to the development of viable alter-natives to be presented to the steering committee. Thetechnical committee is composed of senior staff plan-ners and engineers from the city, DelDOT, DelawareTransportation Corporation (DTC), WILMAPCO, andconsultants. With this structure, a partnership is estab-lished both at the policy level and the technical level,which is proving to be very important in building andmaintaining support for the projects.

STRATEGY

These Wilmington studies focus on developingrecommendations for improving the downtownenvironment and creating opportunities for newdevelopment through transportation enhancements.Specific recommendations will be made for the tran-sit system, bicycle routes, pedestrian environment,

135

Figure 10-14. Case Study 10-5. Community meeting,Wilmington, DE. (Credit: Wilmington Area Planning Council)

and street configurations as means to enhance thelivability of the downtown and the region.

Based on many meetings and community outreach,consensus formed around the importance of begin-ning with the multimodal downtown circulationstudy and phasing in the other projects. A consultantteam was selected in December 1995 to begin workon this study. The multimodal downtown circulationstudy is structured as an intensive 7-month planningprocess that will include a series of four workshopcycles with the various committees and the public.

Although the time frame for completion of all plan-ning and design work associated with the Wilming-ton studies is 15 to 18 months, particular emphasis will be given to early action items that can be im-plemented quickly and at a moderate cost. This is intended to build credibility and support for the project’s longer term recommendations.

FUNDING

Planning and design efforts related to all of theWilmington studies are anticipated to be well in excessof $1 million (exclusive of staff time from the agencypartners). Final estimates are not available becausesome project teams have not yet been selected and as aresult, scopes have not been finalized.

Funding for the planning studies comes from allthree partners. For example, for the multimodaldowntown circulation study, the city of Wilmingtonhas funded an urban design consultant to establishurban design guidelines and streetscape concepts forthe downtown; WILMAPCO, in turn, has funded con-sultant work for partnership coordination, public out-reach, and an economic development assessment.DelDOT is funding the consultant team conductingthe transportation assessment. This pooling of fundsalso supports the development of multiagency partnerships.

Funds have not yet been set aside for implemen-tation of project recommendations, although threefunding tracks have been discussed. First, once proj-ect planning recommendations have been made,these projects are eligible for funding through the TIPprocess, which uses state and federal program funds.A second potential source of project funding is a capital bond issue to be floated by the city of Wil-mington in 1996. A third source of funding beingexplored for specific projects is the business commu-nity. Downtown Wilmington has a large corporatepresence for a city of its size and there is a long his-tory of corporate support for streetscape, parks, androad improvements adjacent to their buildings down-town.


A number of institutional obstacles have been over-come to create an effective partnership. Most of theprograms now being planned in a coordinated man-ner initially originated as independent projects of thethree partners, with different but overlapping sets ofstakeholders and technical consultants. A lack of co-ordination among the city, DelDOT and the MPO(which has the potential mechanism for funding)could have led to significant problems. For example,the city could go ahead with design plans for streetswithout input from the MPO and DelDOT. Likewise,DelDOT (the agency responsible for detailed planningand design for street, walkway, and transit improve-ments in the city) was formerly able to proceed with-out coordinating its efforts with the city and the MPO.This approach would have resulted in conflicting pro-grams and counterproductive investment. Poor com-munication and institutional resistance to shareddecision making were overcome through an ongoingseries of intra-agency coordinating sessions whereeach agency presented its plans and issues. The lim-ited pool of infrastructure funds played a major rolein bringing all parties to the table.

CONCLUSIONS

Effective communication and coordination betweenvarious levels of government on a targeted urbanplanning and investment strategy, which coordinatestransit and transportation issues, is difficult to achievebut essential to producing positive results. Prior to the establishment of the Wilmington studies planningprocess, agency efforts were proceeding indepen-dently and were often at cross-purposes. Now, thecumulative impact of a coordinated multiagencyinvestment plan in a targeted area is likely to pro-duce greater tangible results with broader impact onthe livability of Wilmington than had each agencyproceeded alone.

Over the years, the mall has been the constant—growing inuse and importance—as the downtown changes around it.

—Richard Bradley, President,International Downtown Association

136

Case Study 10-6Denver, CO: The Sixteenth Street TransitwayTwenty Years of Public-Private Partnershipand Reinvestment

SUMMARY

Denver’s 16th Street Transit Mall—a mile-longtransit way and public promenade lined with trees,shops, and restaurants—serves as a transit andpedestrian thoroughfare and demonstrates how atransit partnership can help create a livable metro-politan area. Exemplifying elements of innovativetransportation services, high-quality design, andattention to management detail, the mall is an inte-gral part of downtown Denver, nationally known asone of the most attractive and economically viablecity centers in the country. The Downtown DenverBusiness Improvement District, originally called the16th Street Mall Management District, is a public/private partnership that maintains the mall. Over45,000 transit passengers use the mall daily and45,000 pedestrians walk portions of the mall.

PLANNING PROCESS

The original concept for the downtown mall wasdeveloped in the early 1970s when downtown busi-ness advocates detected the same decline in retailsales experienced in other U.S. center cities. At thesame time, the Regional Transportation District (RTD)was investigating methods to alleviate congestion,caused in part by downtown bus circulation, whileimproving the efficiency of its transportation services.In 1976, Downtown Denver, Inc. (DDI), a private-sector business association, joined the RTD and cityofficials to conduct feasibility studies for a combinedpedestrian and transit way mall along 16th Street.

In August 1977, the architectural firm of I.M. Peiand Associates of New York, consultants hired byRTD, unveiled a model for a 13-block 16th Street Mallwith bus transfer centers at each end. The entire 80-ftright of way would be dedicated to a pedestrian andtransit path, flanked by retail shops. Within the“new” right of way, sidewalks would be widenedand rebuilt with gray and red granite slabs. A 22-ft,extensively landscaped pedestrian area down thecenter of the street would divide two 10-ft lanes forspecially designed shuttle buses. Except at cross-streets, all nonemergency vehicles would beexcluded from the mall.

The plan received the enthusiastic support of mostbusinesses, which saw in the proposal a way to createan attractive, pedestrian-oriented activity center thatwould entice people downtown and revitalize retailactivity. An economic benefit study estimated thenew mall would increase sales by 7.5 percent to 10percent and that gains would be higher if the mallwas properly maintained and managed.

Construction of the mall began in February 1980 and the 13-block transitway, the project’s centerpiece,opened in October 1982. Patterned granite blocksreplaced former street and sidewalk surfaces. Maturelocust and oak trees, water fountains, special lightingfixtures, benches, and planters were all part of the uni-fied design to enhance pedestrian use and enjoyment.

STRATEGY

There are two essential dimensions to the mall’seffectiveness: the transit way with its free shuttle sys-tem, and the property owner assessment program,which privately maintains the mall.

Express, intercity, and regional bus routes wererevised to terminate at the two transfer facilitiesrather than travel through the streets of the CBD topick up and unload passengers. Twenty-six free-fare,custom-designed shuttle buses distribute passengersalong the mall at 70-second intervals during peakperiods, and at 3.5-min cycles during off-peak hours.This shuttle bus fleet has become a mile-long “hori-zontal elevator,” serving downtown users 7 days a week.

The lower downtown Market Street Station, anunderground, 10-stall bus transfer facility as well asnew, aboveground headquarters for RTD, was com-pleted in 1983. A year later, the Civic Center Stationopened, incorporating a 9-stall bus transfer facilityand underground parking garage.

To provide a broad array of supplemental mainte-nance, security, repair, programming, and marketingservices required by a facility such as the mall, thedowntown interests initiated in 1978 an amendment to

137

Figure 10-15. Case Study 10-6. The 16th Street Transitwaywas built and is maintained by a public/private partnershipwhich also has been instrumental in promoting new develop-ment in the downtown. (Credit: The Denver Partnership, Inc.)

the city charter authorizing a special mall benefit dis-trict to pay for the care, management, and operation ofthe mall. The 16th Street Mall Management District(MMD) policy was set by a five-member board, com-posed of property owners, appointed by the mayorand headed by the city’s manager of public works. TheDistrict was staffed by the Downtown DenverPartnership, which was created to manage DDI andthe MMD according to the terms of a managementagreement. Assisting the board is an advisory groupof representatives from RTD, Downtown DenverPartnership, the city council, the police department,and various downtown business and residential com-munities. The mall’s shuttle bus service and transferstations are operated and funded separately by RTD.

Twenty years after its initial conception, theDenver transit mall is still part of conversationsabout the future of the downtown and the city. In1992, when the original enabling legislation for theMall Management District expired, a lengthydebated raged around issues as fundamental as thecontinued existence of the maintenance district. Theoutcome was the establishment of the DowntownDenver Business Improvement District, a self-taxingauthority, which included a larger area of the down-town (while still focusing on the mall). The idea ofmall management grew into the idea of downtownmanagement.

The BID was expanded to include 130 blocks, orany property within four blocks of the 16th StreetMall. The BID now includes all of the lower down-town historic district, up to the southern boundary ofCoors Field. The BID today provides the followingmall enhancing services:

• Sidewalk area and transit way washing andsweeping;

• Trash pickup and removal;• Landscaping and maintenance of trees and

seasonal flowers;• Lighting, electrical, and plumbing services;• Granite paver maintenance and repair;• Graffiti removal;• Snow removal;• Banners, public art, mall use permits, and man-

agement of sidewalk vending programs;• BID management and administration;• District-wide marketing, publicity, communica-

tion, and promotion;• District-wide business retention and recruitment

programs;• District-wide support of city security services;

and• Special-events programming.

FUNDING

When the new mall was proposed, it received theblessing of the Urban Mass Transportation Adminis-tration (UMTA, now FTA), which approved federalfunding for 80 percent of the construction cost, withthe balance provided by the RTD. UMTA agreed withRTD that the mall’s shuttle buses and transfer facili-ties would significantly improve accessibility to andwithin downtown as well as increase transit capacityand efficiency.

Capital costs for the entire project totaled $76.1 mil-lion, including $29 million for mall construction and$5.1 million for the initial fleet of 19 shuttle buses. Theremaining budget provided for the construction oftwo transfer stations and renovation of the RTDadministration building.

The $70 million public investment in the transitway leverages a $2 million annual assessment on pri-vate property (totaling $20 million to date) to helpmaintain and guide activities on the mall. The dis-trict’s budget is raised through an annual assessmentof district property owners. The assessment is calcu-lated against land area and 5 percent of building areabased on proximity to the mall, and currently rangesfrom 10 cents to 56 cents per square foot of land.


The formation of the transit and pedestrian corri-dor was supported by the city, building owners andmangers, retail and hoteliers, and downtown residents.

In the past several years, however, major discus-sions have focused on issues related to developmentpolicies and the use of public incentives to supportnew economic activity along the mall, particularly to support retail uses that have been negatively im-pacted by the loss of downtown department stores.The appearance and marginal use of many of thebuildings is a growing concern. As the economy ofthe center city changes, as new entertainment andsports facilities expanded at one end of the mall, tra-ditional retail and office use began to decline. Theresult of the debate has been the decision to supportthe construction of a convention center, hotel andentertainment retail complex to help anchor the eastend of the mall and to upgrade the attractiveness ofthis area.

The 13 year-old mall is also undergoing a signifi-cant capital improvement program to renovate and, attimes, replace trash receptacles, street signs, maps andlight fixtures. The BID is dedicating significant fundsto this program. In addition, RTD is accepting propos-

138

als for newly designed and built shuttle vehicles toreplace the current ones.


While the Downtown Mall Management Districtinitially included only those properties between 14thand 20th Streets, in 1984 it was expanded to encom-pass approximately 865 property owners within a130-block area of downtown.

The mall’s unified design and creative solution forsuccessfully combining pedestrian and transit usershas received national acclaim. Major national retailershave been attracted to the mall, led by the two-blocklong, three-story Shops at Tabor Center, developed byan affiliate of the Rouse Company of Columbia, MD.

Moreover, the management district has been able tomake many improvements, including reducing crimeon a continuing basis. For example, in the last 3 yearscrime has been reduced by 17 percent, and now the

downtown is considered to be one of the safest areasin Denver.

CONCLUSIONS

Today, downtown Denver is undergoing a dra-matic resurgence. In the last 3 years, $500 million inpublic and private money has been reinvested in thedowntown and an additional $250 million is plannedto be invested in the next several years. While it is difficult to attribute this success exclusively to the pe-destrian transitway, clearly many of these major in-vestments are taking shape around the 16th StreetMall. Because the transitway has proved that it is aneffective transportation link, it has laid the basis forthe new cultural and entertainment economy in thecity. Because of its dynamic nature, the 16th StreetMall continues its function as downtown’s spine andcivic open space, serving as a host, a beacon, and anentertainer for its diverse array of users and visitors.

139

As the case studies demonstrate, there are manysimple and practical planning, design, and manage-ment strategies used by communities to enhance theirlivability. This chapter presents a process for develop-ing these strategies as well as examples of typical proj-ects and programs that can be developed to address aspecific need or problem, including the following:

• Ways to identify whether or not a place is success-ful, using on-site observations and visual clues;

• Different methods for measuring and systemati-cally identifying these problems;

• A summary of model design, management, andtransit-related approaches that can be tried; and

• References to relevant case studies from thisreport.

This checklist is not intended to be all-encompass-ing, but rather to serve as a starting point for a community-based planning process. It can be used by professionals and lay people alike; professionalplanners may find it especially useful in developingmore detailed plans and design proposals.

ABOUT PLACE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

People often ask, “How can we avoid repeatingpast mistakes and build transit facilities that con-tribute rather than detract from the livability of ourcommunities?” This section describes one method:“Place Performance Evaluation” (PPE). PPE is a seriesof tools that professionals and community memberscan use to measure the overall performance of anexisting place (e.g., a bus stop, a train station waitingroom, or the site of a future bus transfer center) usingspecific “livability” criteria.

Evaluation of the issues particular to a place can beundertaken through a variety of techniques. Theseinclude systematically observing and recording activi-ties at relevant locations, conducting special inter-views with community members to elicit ideas andopinions, distributing community surveys to gatherinput on a variety of issues, and, in some cases, takingtime-lapse film and still photographs to illustrateissues of concern. When communities actually takepart in collecting data, there often is a significantincrease in the quality of information collected andthe level of involvement in project implementation.Users of a place have a great deal of valuable personalexperience and knowledge, even though they maynever have observed or thought about how others use it. [1]

Evaluation tools include the following.

Systematic Observations. Observation is the best wayto learn how a place is used, whether the place is asmall neighborhood bus stop or a train station usedby thousands of people each day. However, transitplanners often focus on operational efficiency—forwhich there is generally much data—without examin-ing how transit facilities are actually being used. Theresult is that issues of operational efficiency instead of issues of customer comfort and use become the primary criteria used in transit planning.

Systematic observation techniques are simply toolsthat help focus casual observations and help docu-ment issues or problems that might be overlooked.These techniques also enable an observer to quantifywhat would otherwise be regarded as intuition oropinion, contributing to a better understanding of thefull extent or severity of a particular problem.Observation techniques include behavior mapping,where an observer records the location and type ofactivities taking place as well as information about

CHAPTER 11

Planning, Design, and Management Strategiesfor Livable Places

140

users at regular intervals throughout the day andover a period of time, pedestrian counts of majorroutes and “tracking” routes or paths taken by usersthrough a space. Time-lapse filming is a more sophis-ticated tool that can be used to collect this type ofinformation, which also has the advantage of being aneffective means of presenting results.

In general, observation techniques help to define,in real terms, how transit can contribute to the liv-ability of a community. For example, when judgingthe performance of a specific bus stop, or makingsure that it is situated in the proper and mostconvenient location for current and future riders, one would be able to answer questions such as thefollowing:

• How easy is it to get to and from the bus stop tothe surrounding neighborhood?;

• Are there places to sit in the shade if it is a hotclimate; does it look inviting and attractive; arepeople waiting comfortably?;

• Is the area “busy”—with activity either at oraround the stop or in areas near to the transitstop?; and

• Do people speak to each other or interact witheach other; do they seem to know each other orrecognize friends?

Surveys and Interviews. In addition to observing howa place is being used, understanding people’s percep-tions is also important, particularly the perception ofpeople who do not use a place. The main objective inmeasuring people’s perceptions should be to find outwhat people like and dislike about a place and howthey think it could be improved. Qualities such ascleanliness, safety, and availability of amenities suchas food, newspapers, and restrooms can be rated bytransit users if they are asked about a specific placewith which they are familiar. These questions shouldalso be posed to area businesses and other adjacentuses, as well as to people living and working in theimmediate vicinity.

For the non-users of a place, the questions must bedifferent and should address why they do not use aplace and what, if anything, could be done to encour-age them to use it. A similar approach is used if aplace does not yet exist, such as a new transit facility.Surveying non-users is in many ways more complexthan observing or surveying an existing place.However, with today’s computer technology, it is notdifficult to conduct mail or telephone surveys andtabulate the results.

Finally, interviews should also be conducted withkey individuals and representatives of organizationswho could play a role in implementing a project or

program. These interviews are especially importantas the first step toward building effective, ongoingpartnerships.

Focus Groups. In many situations, small focus groupsessions or informal discussions with targeted audi-ences (such as seniors, students, merchants, or a com-bination of groups) can be especially useful in theearly, exploratory stages of a project before detailedobservations and surveys are undertaken. Throughthese open, informal discussions, which can be guidedby the same questions that are used for a survey, peo-ple talk and share their ideas about existing projectsand programs with others. This invariably leads tonumerous creative ideas for improvements that peopleand organizations can cooperatively undertake.

Community Workshops. Large community meetingsare also useful, when properly managed, not only toinvolve people, hear what they have to say andresolve conflicts, but to challenge people to raise theirexpectations. To elicit the creativity of the community,to stretch perspectives and encourage bolder think-ing, examples from other cities should be sought todemonstrate possibilities that stir people’s imagina-tions. These examples can also stimulate thought anddiscussion about additional issues and potential solu-tions that can be put into action, which is usuallymost effectively accomplished in smaller focusgroups. These groups can then report their findings tothe larger reassembled workshop.

DEVELOPING THE VISION

Qualitative and quantitative information about theuse of places that is gained from observations, meet-ings, and surveys can then be combined with infor-mation about demographics, transit ridership, andmarket research information. Together, all this infor-mation provides a picture of the broad range of issuesthat need to be addressed in planning a transit facilityor service so that it contributes to the livability of thecommunity that surrounds it. Some of the issues willdirectly impact transit, while others will not. Anunderstanding and commitment to dealing with bothtransit and community issues provides an opportu-nity to develop important working relationships withcommunity organizations, many of which may nothave worked with a transit agency before. The resultof this process is a vision: ideas for the program, goalsof the community, and organizations or individualpartners who should be kept informed and involved,very often through some kind of task force or work-ing group, and the “tasks” to be accomplished.

141

LIVABLE PLACES:A CONCEPTUAL MODEL

Based on its own research as well as quality of liferesearch, Project for Public Spaces, Inc., has devel-oped a simple graphic that describes a model for eval-uating the attributes of livable places. These attributesreflect the common issues that people tend to identifywhen they talk about livability in their communities,and include tangible, statistical aspects as well as theintangible qualities that people feel toward a place ora neighborhood. These attributes, which are pre-sented in Figure 11-1, fall into two categories:

• Key Attributes of places are the componentswhich, based on livability research, are essentialingredients of a place: uses and activities, com-fort and image, access and linkages, and sociabil-ity. These general criteria arise again and againwhen people talk about the problems and needsof their communities.

• When people describe their communities, theyuse words like “safe,” “fun,” “charming,” and

“welcoming.” These words describe theIntangible Qualities of communities that relate tospecific types of attributes.

An important consideration in developing thismodel was not making value judgments as to the rela-tive importance of different attributes to different com-munities. Rather, it is up to each community to chooseits own priorities. Different socioeconomic situations,living conditions, and political context make eachcommunity unique. A community is also in the posi-tion to determine the scale of improvement, that is,whether a project or program should be initiated at a“place” versus in a larger neighborhood context.

This model can be extended to include other issues.For example, one of the challenges in creating livableplaces is the general lack of communication betweendifferent city agencies, professions, and interestgroups responsible for a place. This model helps toidentify groups (chambers of commerce, block asso-ciations, and so on) associated with specific attri-butes that could be approached to participate in aproject.

142

Figure 11-1. This diagram depicts the principal attributes people want in their communities. (Diagram by Project for PublicSpaces, Inc.)

STRATEGIES FOR CREATINGLIVABLE PLACES

Each of the following sections presents a differentattribute from Figure 11-1.

Uses and Activities

“Uses and Activities” are the basic building blocksof any place: they include all the reasons why peoplecome to an area. The types of land uses or activitieshelp determine what makes a place in a communityspecial or unique. Uses and activities do not necessar-ily have to be inside a structure; public spaces, too,can accommodate a variety of activities.

Very often, transit uses and functions operate sepa-rately from other community activities. For example,many bus transfer terminals located in isolated areashave no other use than providing access to otherbuses. In this situation, where there is little or noother activity taking place, it is less likely that transitis a factor in enhancing livability, other than provid-ing mobility. However, if the bus terminal is morecentrally located, and there is a place where one canbuy a newspaper, get a snack, visit a farmer’s market,or window shop, then the transit use will be con-tributing to the overall activity and livability of that area.

Visible Signs . . .. . . of Success

❏ Many different types of activities are occurring.❏ Many different kinds of people and different age

groups are using a place (children, elderly,families).

❏ Activities are not necessarily related to a specificfacility or a planned event.

❏ There are several “choices” of things to do, and itis easy to go from one choice to another.

. . . of Problems

❏ Spaces are empty of people for all or part of theday.

❏ Security problems are evident (broken windows,graffiti, vandalism).

❏ Buildings are vacant or underutilized.❏ Uses are isolated from each other or cannot be

seen.❏ Spaces are too small and congested for the num-

ber of transit riders present.

Ways of Measuring

❏ Record the number and type of activities at dif-ferent times of the day and of the week.

❏ Survey the community or space users about theirperceptions of current uses and activities andwhat they would like to see there in the future.

❏ Inventory existing land-use patterns to deter-mine what activities are present or missing.

Approaches . . .. . . to Design

❏ Create a public space that can be programmedfor a variety of uses.

❏ Provide amenities that support desired activities.❏ Provide specific uses and activities in adjacent or

nearby structures.

. . . for Management

❏ Program community events and activities, suchas markets and local festivals.

❏ Develop strategies to lease empty buildings tohelp revitalize an area.

. . . for Transit

❏ Make a transit stop the central feature of a place.❏ Develop easy transfers between buses or modes

of transportation.❏ Provide amenities for transit patrons.❏ Provide information about attractions in the area.❏ Designate a liaison from a transit agency to coor-

dinate with users in the area.❏ Train on-site transit personnel (such as ticket

agents) to provide information about uses andactivities in the areas adjacent to a facility.

Selected Case Study References

• Green Line Initiative, Chicago• Pioneer Courthouse Square, Portland, Oregon• Woodbridge Station, New Jersey• KidStop, Shady Grove Metro Station, Maryland• Davis Square, Somerville, Massachusetts• Downtown Crossing, Boston, Massachusetts

Comfort and Image

“Comfort and Image” reflect the subjective experi-ences of people as they use a place. Issues like safetyand cleanliness are often uppermost in people’s minds.Other issues are less consciously acknowledged,

143

although people are absorbing tremendous amounts of“data” being projected by the environment: scale, char-acter of buildings, sense of safety, and “charm.” Peoplebecome aware of other specific aspects, however, likethe need for a bench when they want to sit down.

Transit patrons are concerned about comfort andimage during their entire experience: from the timethey enter a station and board a vehicle until theyreach their final destination. For this reason, issues ofsecurity and cleanliness to a community also affecttransit riders. How a transit agency manages its facili-ties affects a broader area. In the same way, transitfacilities can increase comfort in an area; for example,benches used by bus riders can also be used by shop-pers if they are in a location convenient for both. Or,an attractive, pleasantly scaled transit facility can contribute to the attractiveness of a whole area.


❏ Spaces are clean and free of litter.❏ Seating is located near other activities.❏ Users have a choice of places to sit or use, either

in the sun or shade; appropriate weather protec-tion is also offered.

❏ Antisocial activities are not able to dominate useof a space.

❏ Someone seems to be in charge.

. . . of Problems

❏ Few places exist for people to sit.❏ The environment generally appears unattractive

or unsafe.❏ Buildings or spaces lack human scale.❏ Litter and other signs of lack of maintenance are

evident.❏ Poor environmental (air, water, etc.) quality

exists.❏ No one is obviously in charge.❏ There is a lack of weather protection.

Ways of Measuring

❏ Review actual crime statistics and complaints.❏ Survey people’s perception of an area (safety,

attractiveness, and cleanliness).❏ Analyze actual use of amenities such as seating.


❏ Upgrade the physical appearance of a place withimproved materials.

❏ Add public amenities (seating, telephone, andwaste receptacles).

❏ Provide information (for transit facility and sur-rounding area).

❏ Create community-oriented public art.❏ Restore or renovate existing buildings.❏ Add trees and landscaping.

. . . to Management

❏ Provide special security programs, such as com-munity policing.

❏ Increase security presence through uses andactivities, or by having someone in charge of thearea.

❏ Upgrade maintenance, including both dailycleaning as well as preventive maintenance ofphysical facilities.

. . . for Transit

❏ Ensure customer-friendly operations on and offtransit vehicles.

❏ Initiate special security services for transit riders.❏ Establish cooperative efforts with local commu-

nities and police.❏ Reorganize organizational structure to create sta-

tion and transit terminal managers.


• Tohono Tadai Transit Center, Tucson, Arizona• Station Managers Program, New York City• Port Authority Bus Terminal, New York City• Los Angeles Neighborhood Initiative, Los Angeles,

California• Rider Advocate Program, Portland, Oregon

Access and Linkages

Transportation “access and linkages” are ways toconnect places in communities. A successful neigh-borhood allows access to and linkages betweenplaces: a variety of options for people to get from oneplace to another (that is by walking, transit, bike, orcar). Or, said another way, a successful place has avariety of ways to get to it (not just by car).

Access and linkages also refer to how well a spe-cific place, like a transit facility, connects to theimmediate area around it, and the ability of people tocirculate within that place and to reach different uses.There is a qualitative component to access as well:access is affected by other factors, including physical

144

elements (a continuous row of stores along a street ismore interesting and generally safer to walk alongthan a blank wall or empty lot) as well as perceptual(ability of people to see a transit stop from adistance).


❏ People can easily walk to the place; they are notdarting between moving cars to get to the busstop.

❏ The interior of the place or transit stop is visiblefrom the outside.

❏ Sidewalks lead to and from adjacent areas,allowing for convenient pedestrian access.

❏ Occupants of adjacent buildings use the place.❏ Continuity of street-level for uses makes for a

pleasant walking environment.❏ A variety of transportation options provide

access (transit, car, and bicycle).

. . . of Problems

❏ Traffic is congested or fast-moving, acting as abarrier to pedestrians crossing the street.

❏ Bicycles are infrequently used as a way of access.❏ People are walking in the street or along areas

not paved as sidewalks.❏ Pedestrian-oriented uses (such as storefronts) are

discontinuous, creating an unpleasant walkingenvironment.

❏ There is insufficient parking.

Ways of Measuring

❏ Conduct observations, counts, and tracking ofpedestrian circulation within and around a place.

❏ Record the location and finish treatment of side-walks and number of curb cuts to determinesuitability for walking.

❏ Map the area (to determine which uses generatepedestrian activity).

❏ Survey pedestrians to determine attitudes andpatterns.

❏ Survey the broader community to determinehow and why different modes of transportationare used.

❏ Conduct parking turnover studies to determineefficiency of use.

❏ Conduct traffic studies to determine level of useduring the day and, the week, as well as occu-pancy of vehicles.


❏ Widen sidewalk or provide sidewalk extensionsat crosswalks, better balancing pedestrian useswith other uses of street (vehicles, transitvehicles, bicycles, and deliveries).

❏ Construct more clearly marked or more conve-niently located crosswalks.

❏ Make accommodations for bicycle users (bikelanes, lockers, and storage racks).

❏ Infill vacant lots with structures and uses to create continuity of pedestrian experience.

❏ Balance on-street parking with other uses.

. . . to Management

❏ Change traffic signalization or street utilizationto improve pedestrian access.

❏ Improve utilization of parking through changesin enforcement or regulation.

. . . for Transit

❏ Establish neighborhood shuttle or circulatorvehicles.

❏ Adjust or expand route locations and schedules.❏ Create intermodal centers, allowing transfers

between transportation modes.❏ Establish services for special users (children,

teenagers, and the elderly).

Selected Case Studies

• Pioneer Courthouse Square, Portland, Oregon• Davis Square, Somerville, Massachusetts• Wellston Station, St. Louis, Missouri• Aspen City Shuttles, Aspen, Colorado• Watts Shuttle, Los Angeles, California• GO Boulder, Boulder, Colorado• LINC, Seattle, Washington• Staples Street Station, Corpus Christi, Texas

Sociability

Because neighborhoods are social places, theattribute of “sociability” is a crucial component of anygood community place. When people meet friends,see and greet their neighbors or even feel comfortableinteracting with strangers, they tend to feel a strongersense of place or sense of attachment to theircommunity.

This is generally a difficult quality to achieve aroundtransit facilities, because the type of activity (waiting

145

146

Figures 11-2 and 11-3. Proposed LINC Neighborhood Transit Center (Figure 11-2) and proposed development near a his-toric station in San Bernardino, CA (Figure 11-3) illustrate place-making principles. (Credit: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

147


for a bus or train) is not often a social experience; inaddition, the vehicles themselves can create barriers tothe sociable use of a space, through noise, fumes, andso forth. However, successful transit stops that inte-grate other uses and activities help to create an envi-ronment where socializing can naturally take place.


❏ People use the place (or facility) regularly bychoice.

❏ Users know each other by face or by name.❏ “Triangulation” occurs (an event occurs causing

strangers to talk to each other).❏ People bring their friends and relatives to see the

place or they point to one of the elements withpride.

❏ People are taking pictures; many photo opportu-nities are available.

❏ Strangers make eye contact; people smile anddisplay affection.

❏ There is a mix of ages and ethnic groups thatgenerally reflects the community at large.

❏ People tend to run into someone they know.❏ People tend to pick up litter when they

see it.

. . . of Problems

❏ People do not interact with other users of theplace.

❏ There is a lack of diversity of people using aplace.

Ways of Measuring

❏ Record people’s use and behavior at differenttimes of the day, week, and year.

❏ Record the location of activities.❏ Survey people about perceptions of a place.❏ Identify the number of people who volunteer to

help or just assume responsibility for a particulararea.


❏ Develop public gathering places to accommo-date a variety of community activities.

❏ Arrange amenities to encourage social inter-action (groupings of seating, moveable seating,etc.).

❏ Provide a variety of uses in adjacent buildings toattract a diversity of people.

. . . to Management

❏ Stage special events and activities to draw people.❏ Encourage community volunteers to assist with

improvements or maintenance of a place.

. . . for Transit

❏ Integrate transit stations into spaces wheresocializing and community activities takeplace.

❏ Design facilities so that there is room for socialactivities to occur.


• Pioneer Courthouse Square, Portland, Oregon• Downtown Crossing, Boston, Massachusetts• Davis Square, Somerville, Massachusetts• South Station, Boston, Massachusetts• Staples Street Station, Corpus Christi

PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER

To create livable places in communities requires thatmany physical aspects of place be orchestrated at thesame time as the planning process described in Chapter10, which, as has been seen, is equally important to thefinal results. Each of the case studies has “put it alltogether” in different ways. The two examples shownhere apply place-making strategies to two very differ-ent com-munities: LINC in Seattle (see Case Study 9-2)and a historic train station in San Bernardino.

ENDNOTE

1. Two publications by Project for Public Spaces are espe-cially useful in understanding and applying differentobservation and survey techniques. They are What DoPeople Do Downtown and User Analysis for Park Planningand Design. Both are available for purchase through PPSat 153 Waverly Place, New York, NY 10014.

148

Historically, transit has played a crucial role inadvancing the livability of American communities.For nearly a century, until the late 1950s and early1960s, transit was a potent force in spurring the devel-opment of communities and shaping community life,as well as providing the connections within commu-nities that brought people together. Increased empha-sis on automobile travel changed this situation.However, as the case studies show, transit is oncemore fostering communities where people can cometogether in a hospitable and livable environment.

History, however, is not exactly repeating itself.The old horse-drawn and electric trolley cars of thepast now have a modern, more comfortable counter-part in light rail. Technology is not the only thing thathas changed. Communities today face new chal-lenges, conditions, and needs. As the programs pre-sented demonstrate, innovative approaches can knittogether communities and restore their livability—when they are designed in response to local needsthrough a partnership process that links transit agen-cies with the communities they serve.

Recent changes in federal transportation planningprocesses are very supportive of this new partnershiprole. While obstacles remain, all of the initiatives pre-sented were able to overcome these obstacles toachieve improvements in transit and communitylivability that, in many cases, exceeded expectations.

The chapters—each presenting different livabilitythemes—offer evidence of the potential for this ap-proach to enhance many different facets of commu-nity life. They show the powerful role that transit canplay in the creation of livable communities by doingthe following:

Creating Places for Community Life. Livable commu-nities are communities where people socialize andcome together, which reinforce a sense of commonpurpose and establish centers for public life. Transitfacilities are themselves activity focal points. The tran-

sition from transit stop to public space involves link-ing together activities that already take place or couldtake place in most communities.

Acting as a Catalyst for Downtown and NeighborhoodRenewal. Livable communities are communities thathave accessible and convenient commercial centersthat support a community economically and socially.Commercial districts in downtowns and neighbor-hoods have traditionally been among the most impor-tant destinations for transit services. It is not acoincidence that the economic decline of these dis-tricts has been mirrored in the decrease in transit rid-ership across the United States. At the same time,transit facilities—whether they are simple bus stopsor major stations—can act as “ground zero” for therebirth and revitalization of downtowns and neigh-borhoods.

Creating Opportunity for Entrepreneurship andEconomic Development. Livable communities are com-munities that offer economic opportunity to all citi-zens. Transit brings the foot traffic necessary tosupport small businesses and provides access to jobs.In today’s society dominated by retail chains in farflung suburban locations, support for small, indepen-dently owned businesses and entrepreneurs is essen-tial for the long-term economic growth of mostcommunities.

Improving Safety and Amenity. Livable communitiesare communities where people no longer fear for theirpersonal safety and feel comfortable in a public envi-ronment. With the loss of places where people feelcomfortable has come the perception by many thattransit facilities are places to fear and avoid, eventhough statistically they are usually safe and virtuallyfree of crime. As a perceptual problem, the solution to crime cannot be separated from other livability is-sues and, in particular, from the need to create an en-

CHAPTER 12

Conclusions and Next Steps

149

150

vironment where people feel comfortable and safe.Making transit facilities an asset and an amenity is animportant step in improving safety.

Making Communities Accessible and Convenient.Livable communities are communities where peoplehave a variety of transportation alternatives. Thebasic mobility function of transit is, indeed, inte-gral to the livability of a community. Special ser-vices and approaches are emerging to enable transitto serve a community more effectively and ef-ficiently, while encouraging new land-use pol-icies that center around transit as a fundamentalchoice.

Shaping Community Growth. Livable communities are communities where growth enhances com-munity life, not destroys it. Mismanaged growtherodes all aspects of a community: its access-ibility and convenience, its centers of public life, its sense of safety and amenity. Transit can act as afocal point for reorganizing urban growth and creat-ing mixed-use centers. It can also be an essentialcomponent of new land-use policies that set thestage for future, more livable places for people tolive and work.

This report presents a compelling picture of whathas been accomplished across the United States. Itreveals the common threads that can link these sepa-rate themes into a more holistic vision of transit’s rolein enhancing community livability. The case studiesand examples are presented in order to stimulate othercommunities throughout the United States to under-take similar innovative transit programs to addresstheir own particular livability needs. At the same time,the work in the communities that the case studies havepresented is by no means finished. Most of the projectspresented, exemplary as they are, could be improvedor built upon to generate even greater community im-

provement—whether it be minor design modificationsor a major new development.

What must be done now is to raise widespreadawareness of the viability of these programs asspringboards for rekindling the kinds of comfort,activity, and convenience that enhance communitylife. The programs described herein can act as a bea-con for future initiatives, along with other livability-oriented transit programs taking place that still needto be investigated. In addition, other, untried transitinnovations must be applied, tested, and evaluated,and those already in place have to be tried in othersettings and situations.

Clearly, what is needed is a broad campaign toadvance such efforts and integrate the community part-nership approach into the way transit agencies plan,design, and build transit. In fact, this approach needs to be applied to transportation planning in general. It is hoped that communities and transit agencies alikewill find this report a useful tool in this vital effort.

Figure 12-1. The Big Blue Bus, Santa Monica, CA, circa1955. (Credit: The Big Blue Bus)

I. GENERAL REFERENCES ON LIVABILITY

Alexander, Christopher et al. A New Theory of Urban Design.Oxford University Press, New York, New York (1987).

———. A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction.Oxford University Press, New York, New York (1977).

Appleyard, Donald. Livable Streets. University of CaliforniaPress, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California (1981).

———. The Street Livability Study. San Francisco Departmentof City Planning, San Francisco, California (1970).

Blake, P. Form Follows Fiasco: Why Modern Architecture Hasn’tWorked. Little Brown, Boston, Massachusetts (1977).

Brambilla, Roberto and Gianni Longo. A Handbook forPedestrian Action. Institute for Environmental Action (1977).

———. For Pedestrians Only: Planning Design and Manage-ment of Traffic Free Zones. Whitney Library of Design, New York, New York (1977).

———. The Rediscovery of the Pedestrian. Whitney Library ofDesign, New York, New York (1977).

———. Banning the Car Downtown. Whitney Library ofDesign, New York, New York (1977).

———. American Urban Malls. Whitney Library of Design,New York, New York (1977).

Calthorpe, Peter. The Next American Metropolis: Ecology,Community, and the American Dream. PrincetonArchitectural Press, New York, New York (1993).

Crowhurst-Lennard, Suzanne H. and Henry L. Lennard.Livable Cities-People and Places: Social and Design Principlesfor the Future of the City. Gondolier Press, Southampton,New York (1986).

———. Public life in Urban Places: Social and ArchitecturalCharacteristics Conducive to Public Life in European Cities.Gondolier Press, Southampton, New York (1984).

Cutter, Susan L. Rating Places: A Geographer’s View onQuality of Life. The Association of American Geographers,Washington, DC (1985).

Downs, Anthony. New Visions for Metropolitan America. TheBrookings Institution, Washington, DC (1994).

Duany, Andres and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk. Town andTown-Making Principles. Rizzoli, New York, New York(1991).

Edmondson, Brad. “Alone in the Car.” American Demo-graphics. 16, 6 (June 1994) pp. 44–49.

Engwicht, David. Reclaiming Our Cities and Towns: BetterLiving with Less Traffic. New Society Publishers,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (1993).

Firey, Walter. Land Use in Central Boston. HarvardUniversity Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts (1947).

Fleming, Ronald Lee and Laurie A. Haldeman. On CommonGround: Caring for Shared Land from Town Common toUrban Park. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press,Cambridge, Massachusetts (1982).

Fleming, Ronald Lee and Renata von Tscharner. PlaceMakers: Public Art That Tells You Where You Are.Townscape Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1981).

Francis, Carolyn and Clare Cooper Marcus. People Places:Design Guidelines for Urban Open Space. Van NostrandReinhold, New York, New York (1990).

Francis, Mark et al. Community Open Spaces: GreeningNeighborhoods Through Community Action and LandConservation. Island Press, Washington, DC (1984).

Francis, M. “Designing Landscapes with CommunityParticipation and Behavioral Research.” LandscapeArchitecture Forum. 2 (1981) pp. 14–21.

Gans, Herbert J. “The Human Implications of CurrentRedevelopment and Relocation Planning.” Journal of theAmerican Institute of Planners, XXV (1959) pp. 15–26.

Gehl, Jan. Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. VanNostrand Reinhold, New York, New York (1987).

———. Pedestrians. Arkiekten, Copenhagen (1968).Gratz, Roberta Brandes. The Living City: How America’s Cities

Are Being Revitalized by Thinking Small in a Big Way. ThePreservation Press, Washington, DC (1994).

Hayward, Richard and Sue McGlynn. Making Better Places:Urban Design Now. Butterworth Architecture, Oxford,England (1993).

Hemmens, George. The Structure of Urban Activity Linkages:An Urban Studies Research Monograph. University of NorthCarolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina (September 1966).

Hiss, Tony. The Experience of Place. Alfred A. Knopf, NewYork, New York (1990).

Holden, Alfred. “Why Toronto Works.” Planning Magazine.American Planning Association, Chicago, Illinois (March1995) pp. 4–10.

Jacobs, Allan B. Great Streets. Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1993).

———. Looking at Cities. Harvard University Press,Cambridge, Massachusetts (1985).

APPENDIX A

Bibliography and Related Literature

151

Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities.Random House, New York, New York (1961).

Katz, Peter. The New Urbanism: Toward an Architecture ofCommunity. McGraw-Hill, New York, New York (1994).

Koenig, J. G. “Indicators of Urban Accessibility: Theory andApplication.” Transportation (1980) pp. 145–172.

Kunstler, James. The Geography of Nowhere. Simon &Schuster, New York, New York (1993).

Langdon, Philip. A Better Place to Live: Reshaping theAmerican Suburb. University of Massachusetts Press,Amherst, Massachusetts (1994).

Linday, Nancy. “It All Comes Down to a Comfortable Placeto Sit and Watch.” Landscape Architecture. 68, 6 (1987) pp. 492–497.

Lowe, Marcia D. Alternatives to the Automobile: Transport forLivable Cities. Worldwatch Paper 98. WorldwatchInstitute, Washington, DC (1990).

Lynch, Kevin. The Image of the City. Massachusetts Instituteof Technology Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1960).

McNulty, Robert et al. Return of the Livable City in America.Partners for Livable Places. Acropolis Books, Washington,DC (1986).

Meyers, Dowell. “Building Knowledge about Quality of Lifefor Urban Planning.” Journal of the American PlanningAssociation. 54, 3 (Spring 1988).

Miller, Thomas and Michelle Miller. Citizen Surveys: How toDo Them, How to Use Them, What They Mean. InternationalCity/County Management Agency, Washington, DC(1991).

Montgomery, Roger. “Center of Action.” In Cities Fit to LiveIn and How We Can Make Them Happen, ed. WalterMcQuade, Macmillan, New York, New York (1971) pp.69–78.

Moudon, Anne Vernez. Public Streets for Public Use.Columbia University Press, New York, New York (1987).

Nelessen, Anton Clarence. Visions for a New American Dream:Process, Principles, and an Ordinance to Plan and DesignSmall Communities. Edward Brothers, Ann Arbor,Michigan (1994).

New Jersey State Planning Commission. Communities ofPlace: The New Jersey State Development and RedevelopmentPlan. New Jersey (July 1992).

Newman, Oscar. Defensible Space. Collier Books, New York,New York (1973).

———. Community of Interest. Anchor Press/Doubleday,Garden City, New York (1980).

Pierce, Robert M. “Rating America’s Metropolitan Areas.”American Demographics. 7, 7, (July 1985) pp. 20–25.

Preeman, N. ed. International Experiences in Creating LivableCities. University of Waterloo, Canada (1981).

Rabianski, Joseph. “How to Specify a Quality of LifeStudy.” Industrial Development: A Geo-Economic Review, 34(February 1989).

Ramati, R. How to Save Your Own Street. Doubleday,Dolphin Books, Garden City, New York (1981).

Rudofsky, Bernard. Streets for People: A Primer for Americans.Anchor Press/Doubleday, Garden City, New York (1969).

Stern, Robert A. M. Pride of Place: Building the AmericanDream. Houghton Mifflin/American Heritage, Boston,Massachusetts (1986).

Sucher, David. City Comforts: How to Build an Urban Village.City Comfort Press, Seattle, Washington (1995).

Tanghe, Jan et al. Living Cities. Pergamon Press, Oxford,England (1984).

Taylor, Humphrey. “Evaluating Our Quality of Life.”Industrial Development., 156, 2, (March/April 1987).

Taylor, L., ed. Urban Open Spaces. Cooper-Hewitt Museum,New York, New York (1979).

Weissman, Steve and Judy Corbett. Land Use Strategies forMore Livable Places. The Local Government Commission,Sacramento, California (May 1992).

Whyte, William H. City: Rediscovering the Center. Doubleday,New York, New York (1988).

———. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. The Conserva-tion Foundation, Washington, DC (1980).

II. TECHNICAL REFERENCES:TRANSPORTATION, LAND USE,AND TRANSIT FACILITIES

American Public Transit Association. Building Better Commu-nities . . . Coordinating Land Use and Transit Planning:Sourcebook. Washington, DC (1994).

Andrle, Stephen J. et al. “Security Considerations in theDesign and Operation of Rapid Transit Stations.”Transportation Research Record 760, TRB, NationalResearch Council, Washington, DC (1980).

Bernick, Michael et al. Transit-Based Development in theUnited States: A Review of Recent Experiences. Universityof California at Berkeley, Institute of Urban andRegional Development, Berkeley, California (March1994).

Bernick, Michael and Thomas J. Kirk Transit Villages:Opportunities and Strategies. University of California atBerkeley, Institute of Urban and Regional Development,Berkeley, California (January 1994).

Blomquist, Glenn C. et al. “New Estimates of Quality of Lifein Urban Areas.” The American Economic Review (March1988).

Booz-Allen and Hamilton, Inc. Site Planning: Interim Report.(June 1994).

Box, Paul C. The Location and Design of Bus TransferFacilities. Institute of Transportation Engineers,Technical Council Committee 5C-1A, Washington, DC(February 1992).

Bradley, Richard and Laura Briggs. Transportation for LivableCommunities: A Powerful New Approach to TransportationPolicy. Business Transportation Council, Washington, DC(1993).

California Environmental Protection Agency. The Land Use-Air Quality Linkage: How Land Use and Transportation AffectAir Quality. California, Air Resources Board, Office of AirQuality and Transportation Planning (1994).

Cervero, Robert. Ridership Impacts of Transit-FocusedDevelopment in California. University of California atBerkeley, Institute of Urban and Regional Development,Berkeley, California (November 1993).

——— and Mark Dunzo. An Assessment of Suburban-Targeted Transit Service Strategies in the United States.

152

153

University of California, Transportation Center, Berkeley,California (October 1993).

Dueker, K. et al. The Portland Mall Impact Study. U.S. Depart-ment of Transportation, Urban Mass TransportationAdministration, Washington, DC (1982).

Everett, City of. Community Image Reference Report. Everett,Washington (July 1992).

Fisher, Kimberly M. Transit-Oriented Design. ULI ResearchWorking Paper Series No. 635. The Urban Land Institute,Washington, DC (June 1994).

Fruin, John J. Pedestrian Planning and Design. MetropolitanAssociation of Urban Designers and EnvironmentalPlanners, New York, New York (1971).

Holtzclaw, John. “Using Residential Patterns and Transit toDecrease Auto Dependence and Costs.” NaturalResources Defense Council, San Francisco, California(June 1994).

Kulash, W. et al. Traditional Neighborhood Development: Willthe Traffic Work? Real Estate Research Consultants,Washington, DC (1990).

Local Government Commission. Land Use Strategies for MoreLivable Places. Sacramento, California (June 1, 1992).

Loukaitou-Sideris, Anastasia. Retrofit of Urban Corridors:Land Use Policies and Design Guidelines for Transit-FriendlyEnvironments. University of California, TransportationCenter, Berkeley, California (1993).

Maryland Department of Transportation. Access by Design:Transit’s Role in Land Development. Mass TransitAdministration, Baltimore, Maryland (September 1988).

New Jersey Transit. Planning for Transit-Friendly Land Use: AHandbook for New Jersey Communities. New Jersey Transit,New Jersey (June 1994).

Olsen, Lauren, “Surface Transportation Policy Project.”Transit-Oriented Communities. Mobility Partners CaseStudy. Washington, DC (1994).

Pushkarev, Boris and Jeffrey Zupan. Urban Space forPedestrians. Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge,Massachusetts (1975).

San Bernardino, City of and San Bernardino AssociatedGovernments et al. On Trac Workbook: The Region isMoving on Rail. Proceedings from Two RegionalWorkshops. (June 1994).

San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board.Designing for Transit: A Manual for Integrating PublicTransportation and Land Development in the San DiegoMetropolitan Area. San Diego, California (July 1993).

SNO-TRAN. Creating Transportation Choices Through Zoning:A Guide for Snohomish County Communities. WashingtonState (October 1994).

Urban Land Institute. Transit-Oriented Design: Working Paper#635. ULI, Washington, DC (June 1994).

U.S. Department of Transportation. Developing Community-Sensitive Transit. The Federal Transit AdministrationLivable Communities Initiative, Washington, DC (1996).

———. Guidelines for Transit-Sensitive Suburban Land UseDesign. Urban Mass Transportation Administration,Office of Technical Assistance and Safety, Washington,DC (July 1991).

———. A Guide to Metropolitan Transportation PlanningUnder ISTEA: How the Pieces Fit Together. Federal

Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administra-tion, Washington, DC (1995).

———. The Impact of Various Land Use Strategies on SuburbanMobility. Federal Transit Administration, Office ofTechnical Assistance and Safety, Washington, DC(December 1992).

———. The Way to Go: The Benefits of Quality Design inTransportation. Office of the Secretary of Transportation,Washington, DC (April 1983).

———. Transit Access and Land Value. Federal TransitAdministration, Office of Technical Assistance andSafety, Washington, DC (September 1993).

———. Transit Station Area Joint Development: Strategies forImplementation. Urban Mass TransportationAdministration, National Technical Information Service,Washington, DC (February 1976).

———. Transit-Supportive Development in the United States:Experiences and Prospects. Federal Transit Administration,Washington, DC (December 1993).

———. Transportation for Older Americans: Issues and Optionsfor the Decade of the 1980’s. Office of the Secretary ofTransportation, Washington, DC (April 1993).

III. PPS PUBLICATIONS AND VIDEOS

Bus Transfer Center Study. Working Paper.Calming Traffic: Reclaiming Communities. Working Paper.Designing Effective Pedestrian Improvements in Business

Districts. American Planning Association, Chicago,Illinois (1982).

Downtown Rochester New York, Main Street Transit andPedestrian Improvements. Rochester-Genesse RegionalTransportation Authority, New York (1983).

Five Station Subway Modernization. (1981).Grand Central Subway Station Pedestrian Study. (1980).Improving How A Street Works for All Users: Pedestrian

Movement Analysis. (1986).On the Street Where You Live: Innovative Ideas for Improving

Design and Controlling Traffic in NYC Neighborhoods. (1983).One Penn Plaza: Public Space Evaluation and Recommendations.

(1984).Managing Downtown Public Spaces. Chicago, American

Planning Association (1984) 76 pp.National Bicycling and Walking Survey, FHWA Case Study #20:

The Effects of Environmental Design on the Amount and Typesof Bicycling and Walking. The Federal HighwayAdministration, Washington, DC (1992).

Pedestrian Corridor and Major Public Open Space, DesignGuidelines, City of Bellevue, Washington. The CorridorProperty Owners Committee in cooperation with theBellevue Downtown Association, Washington (1981).

Port Authority Bus Terminal Renovation Program: PublicRestrooms Recommendations (February 1991).

Port Authority Bus Terminal Renovation Program: Retail andEntrance Recommendations (February 1991).

Port Authority Bus Terminal Renovation Program: Ticket Plaza(December 1990).

Providence, RI: Kennedy Plaza Project. Pedestrian Problemsand Opportunities. (1980).

Public Markets and Community Revitalization. Co-publishedwith Urban Land Institute. Washington, DC/New York(1995).

Rebuilding American Community. (1988).South Bronx Transportation Planning Project: Crames Square.

(1982).Station Renewal Program (5 Stations, 5 individual reports

along with master report). New Jersey Transit StationRenewal Advisory Committee, New Jersey (1993).

Streets for All Users. U.S. Department of Transportation,Washington, DC (1986).

Streetscape—A Guide to the Design and Management ofPedestrian Amenities in Downtowns and NeighborhoodCommercial Districts. (1987).

The Role Transportation Planning, Engineering and FacilitiesCan Play in Building Communities and Enhancing EconomicDevelopment. (1993).

Waiting for the Bus. Film about bus shelters and how theywork. (1982).

What Do People Do Downtown? How to Look at Main StreetActivity. (January 1981).

IV. ADDITIONAL SOURCES

Al-Mosaind, M. A. et al. “Light Rail Transit Stations andProperty Values: A Hedonic Price Approach.” Paperpresented at the 72nd Annual Meeting of theTransportation Research Board, Washington, DC (1992).

American Automobile Association. New Sensible Transpor-tation Options for People, Traffic Calming. Tag and Oregon(1993).

“And the Winner Is,” American Demographics. 9, 1 (January1987) p.14.

Anthony, K. H. “Public and Private Space in Soviet Cities.”Landscape. 23, 2 (1979) pp. 20–25.

Antoniou, J. Planning for Pedestrians. Eno Foundation forTransportation, Incorporated, Westport, Connecticut(1982).

Appleyard, D. “Motion Sequence and the City.” In TheNature and Art of Motion, edited by G. Kepes. Bearzilie,New York (1965).

Appleyard, D., K. Lynch, and J. Myer The View from theRoad. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,Massachusetts (1964).

Arrington, G. B. Portland’s Light Rail: A Shared Vision forTransportation and Land Use. Tri-Met, Portland, Oregon(1992).

Ashcroft, Norman and Albert E. Scheflen People Space: TheMaking and Breaking of Human Boundaries. Anchor, GardenCity, New York (1976).

Barker, R. G. and P. Schoggen Qualities of Community Life.Fossey-Bass, San Francisco, California (1973).

Barney and Worth, Inc. et al. Evaluation of Banfield Light RailTransit Station Area Planning Program: Summary Report forTri-Met. Portland, Oregon (1993).

Bates, John W. and J. Dewel Lawrence “Transit Marketing:A Strategic Approach.” Transportation Quarterly. 40, 4(October 1986) pp. 549–558.

Becker, Franklin D. “A Class-Conscious Evaluation: GoingBack to the Sacramento Mall.” Landscape Architecture. 64, 1(1973) pp. 448–457.

Bedarida, F. and A. Sutcliffe. “The Street in the Structureand Life of the City.” Journal of Urban History. 6, 4 (August1980) pp. 379–396.

Bernick, M. and M. Carroll. A Study of Housing Built Near RailTransit Stations: Northern California Experiences. Institute ofUrban and Regional Development, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley, WP-546, Berkeley, California (1991).

Black, J. T. et al. Downtown Office Growth and the Role of PublicTransit. Urban Land Institute, Washington, DC (1982).

Bremes, S. and W. Dean. The Pedestrian Revolution: Streetwithout Cars. Vintage, New York, New York (1975).

Brindle, Ray. “Never Mind the Width—Feel the Quality!”Australian Planner. 27, 3 (September 1989) pp. 19–28.

Brooks, H. et al. Public Private Partnership: New Opportunitiesfor Meeting Social Needs., American Academy of Arts andSciences, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1984).

Callow, J. “Impacts of Transit Facilities on Land Use.” ITEJournal (January 1992) pp. 37–39.

Cervero, Robert et al. Transit Joint Development in the UnitedStates. Institute of Urban and Regional Development,Berkeley, California (August 1992).

Connecticut Department of Transportation. The Down-town Hartford Transportation Project: Public/PrivateCollaboration on Transportation Improvements. CambridgeSystematics, Incorporated, Cambridge, Massachusetts(July 1983).

Davis, Otto and Norman J. Johnson. “The Jitneys: A Studyof Grassroots Capitalism.” Journal of Contemporary Studies.7, 1 (Winter 1984).

Eckert, Ross and George Hilton. “The Jitneys.” Journal ofLaw and Economics (October 1972).

Federal Transit Administration. The Impact of Various LandUse Strategies on Suburban Mobility. Washington, DC(December 1992).

———. Transit-Based Residential Developments in the UnitedStates. Washington, DC (March 1994).

———. Transit-Supportive Development in the United States.Washington, DC (December 1993).

Forkenbrock, D. J. et al. Transit-Related Joint Development inSmall Cities: An Appraisal of Opportunities and Practice.University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa (July 1990).

Gamble, H. B. “Patterning Cities and Change: Choices and Implications.” In Special Report 183: Transportationand Land Development Conference Proceedings, TRB,National Research Council, Washington, DC (1978) p. 38.

Garvin, Glen. “Flouting the Law, Serving the Poor.” Reason(June/July 1985).

Hall, Peter and Carmen Hass-Klau. Can Rail Save the City?Gower, Vermont (1985).

Hart, R. Children’s Experience of Place. Irvington Press, NewYork, New York (1978).

Hirten, J. E. Innovation Is Needed in Thinking about Transpor-tation as it Relates to Urban Development Values. NationalAssociation of Housing and Redevelopment Officials,Washington, DC (May 1974).

154

155

Jackson, N. and L. Earvin. Perceptions of Transit-LinkedDevelopment in Minority Neighborhoods: Three Case Studies.Clark College Southern Center for Studies in PublicPolicy, Atlanta, Georgia (January 1981).

Kellis, M. “Transportation Links Unemployed CityResidents with Training and Jobs.” CommunityTransportation Reporter, 6, 4 (October 1989) pp. 8–9.

King, Joe J. R. “Adequacy of Transportation in MinorityCommunities for Handicapped, Low Income and ElderlyGroups.” Transportation Quarterly. 41, 2 (April 1989) pp.247–261.

Komblatt, H. B. “Smaller Scale Joint Development: SanDiego Trolley.” In State-of-the-Art Report 2, TRB, NationalResearch Council, Washington, DC (1985) pp. 108–110.

Lin, Ben C. “Transportation Improvement Districts.” UrbanLand (June 1987) pp. 32–33.

Lovely, M. E. Public Transit and Downtown Development.Urban Land Institute Washington, DC (November 1979).

“Measuring the Quality of Life.” The Futurist. 20, 3(May–June 1986) pp. 58–59.

Middleton, W. The Time of the Trolley. Kalmbach Publishing,Milwaukee, Wisconsin (1967).

Nelessen, Anton Clarence. Visions for a New American Dream:Process, Principles, and an Ordinance to Plan and DesignSmall Communities. Edwards Brothers, Ann ArborMichigan (1994).

Neuwirth, R. “Economic Impacts of Transit on Cities.”Transportation Research Record 1274, TRB, NationalResearch Council, Washington, DC (1990) pp. 142–149.

1000 Friends of Oregon. The LUTRAQ Alternative/Analysis ofAlternatives: An Interim Report. Portland, Oregon (October1992).

“Opportunistic Vans are Running Circles Around CityBuses.” The Wall Street Journal (July 24, 1991).

Orski, C. Kenneth. “Transportation as if People Mattered.”Practicing Planner (March 1979).

Owen, W. Combining Transportation and CommunityDevelopment. Eno Transportation Foundation forTransportation, Incorporated, Westport, Connecticut(1982).

———. The Accessible City. The Brookings Institute.Washington, DC (1972).

Parker, T.C. “Community Involvement and Planning forTransit.” Transit, Land Use & Urban Form. University ofTexas at Austin Center for Study of AmericanArchitecture, Austin, Texas (1988).

Plowden, Stephen. Towns Against Traffic. Andre Deutsch,London, England (1972).

Priest, D. E. and J. L. Walsh-Russo. “Land Use Trends andTransit Operations.” In Special Report 110: FutureDirections of Urban Public Transportation, TRB, NationalResearch Council, Washington, DC (1983).

“Private Minibus Services in Miami.” Private Sector Briefs. 4,2 (November 1991).

Pushkarev, Boris and Jeffrey M. Zupan. Public Trans-portation and Land Use Policy. Indiana University Press,Bloomington, Indiana (1977).

Read, Brendan B. “Illegal but Working” Mass Transit(November/December 1991).

Roberts, John. Pedestrian Precincts in Britain. TEST, London,England (1981).

Teal, Roger F. “Privatization of Urban Transit: The LosAngeles Jitney Experience.” Transportation, 13 (1966) pp. 5–22.

Tolley, Rodney, ed. The Greening of Urban Transport.Bellhaven Press, London, England (1990).

TCRP Synthesis of Information Related to Transit Problems:Transit-Focused Development. TRB, National ResearchCouncil, Washington, DC (1997).

Untermann, R. K. “Adapting Neighborhoods for Walkingand Bicycling.” Accommodating the Pedestrian. VanNostrand Reinhold, New York, New York (1984).

Urban Mobility Corporation. The Miami Jitneys. Reportprepared for the Federal Transit Administration. (April 1994).

Van der Ryn, Sim and Peter Calthorpe. SustainableCommunities. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, California(1986) p. xiii.

Webber, M. “The BART Experience: What Have WeLearned?” Public Interest, 12, 3 (1976) pp. 79–108.

V. RELATED TCRP PUBLICATIONSAND PROJECTS

Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc. TCRP Report 2: Applicability ofLow-Floor Light Rail Vehicles in North America. TRB,National Research Council, Washington, DC (1995).

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. TCRP Report 20: Measuring andValuing Transit Benefits and Disbenefits. TRB, NationalResearch Council, Washington, DC (1996).

Crain & Associates, Inc., TCRP Report 14: InstitutionalBarriers to Intermodal Transportation Policies and Planning inMetropolitan Areas. TRB, National Research Council,Washington, DC (1996).

Korve, Hans W. et al. TCRP Report 17: Integration of LightRail into City Streets. TRB, National Research Council,Washington, DC (1996).

Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. TCRP Report16: Transit and Urban Form. TRB, National ResearchCouncil, Washington, DC (1996).

Texas Transportation Institute. TCRP Report 19: Guidelinesfor Location and Design of Bus Stops. TRB, NationalResearch Council, Washington, DC (1996).

TCRP Project A-13: Light Rail Service: Pedestrian and VehicularSafety.

TCRP Project B-7: Strategies to Assist Local TransportationAgencies in Becoming Mobility Managers.

TCRP Project B-8: Effective Methods of Marketing TransitServices to Business.

TCRP Project B-9: Market Segmentation Strategies to IncreaseTransit Ridership.

TCRP Project B-10: Role of Passenger Amenities and TransitVehicle Characteristics in Building Ridership.

TCRP Project B-11: Customer-Defined Transit Service Quality.TCRP Project F-6: Guidelines for the Effective Use of Uniformed

Transit Police/Security Personnel.

156

TCRP Project G-1: Information Technologies—State-of-the-ArtApplications for Transit Properties.

TCRP Project H-3: Policy Options to Attract Auto Users toPublic Transportation.

TCRP Project H-4A: Strategies for Influencing Choice of UrbanTravel Mode.

TCRP Project H-4B: Transit Markets of the Future—TheChallenge of Change.

TCRP Project H-4E: Sustainable Transportation.TCRP Project H-8: Using Public Transportation to Reduce the

Economic, Social, and Human Costs of Personal Immobility.TCRP Project H-10: The Costs of Sprawl—Revisited.

From the research conducted for this study, thereseem to be three different schools of thought onquality-of-life research, research that actually reflectsthe approaches of different disciplines (economists,sociologists, and geographers) who have conductedthe research.

THE STATISTICAL APPROACH

One school of thought states that quality of life canbe measured statistically through variables availablefrom census data, climate information, economicmeasurements, demographics, and other governmentstatistics. For example, one team of economists devel-oped a sophisticated model using census data on cli-mate, environmental, and urban conditions to rate 253 urban counties. Their highest ranked: Pueblo,Colorado; Norfolk, Virginia; and Denver-Boulder,Colorado. Their lowest ranked: Birmingham, Alabama;Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and St. Louis, Missouri. [1]

Many popular publications have taken this sameapproach to quality of life: rating and comparing hun-dreds of towns and cities across the United States.With names like Places Rated Almanac: Your Guide toFinding the Best Places to Live in America, these booksappeal to Americans looking for that greener grass orcorporations thinking about relocating to a more“livable city.” Unfortunately, comparisons betweencities are based solely on the variables an authorselects, which are subjectively weighed relative toother factors. Even with more sophisticated models,the results of such approaches are questionable,because the statistics selected for analysis ultimatelypre-determine the outcome.

Not surprisingly, different authors have come upwith radically different ratings for the same cities.“Comparing the rankings of some cities in PlacesRated with those in the National Metropolitan AreaStudy is like comparing dirt to diamonds: The ranking

for Midland, Texas shot up from 258 in Places Rated to1 in the new survey. Rochester, Minnesota, jumpedfrom 200 to 7 overall. These results are so encouragingthat the city plans to incorporate them in a marketingprogram for the area . . .” [2]

Of course, the volatility of these factors should war-rant suspicion about their value—although people incommunities (especially those given low marks) takethem quite seriously. The authors of Places Ratedreport, “We get a lot of mail about our book. Some ofit ticking.” [3]

This outpouring of community pride, whether thecity is rated high or low, shows that there is a greatdeal more to livability than a collection of statistics,and that community perceptions need also to be con-sidered. For example, in the 1987 Places Rated, Austinwas given a very low rating for climate; however,surveys of residents of Austin show that people donot dislike their climate. [4] In addition, as one authorpointed out about these rating systems, “Is climatemore or less important than the number of jobs, theemployment level, in the community? In practice,researchers usually give each factor the same weight.This is the most unrealistic but most convenient thingto do. These factors are not equally important in themind of the individual.” [5]

THE PERCEPTUAL APPROACH

The realization that quality of life can vary accord-ing to “the mind of the individual” has led to the nextmost common approach to studying communitylivability: surveys that ask people to actually rate qual-ity of life in their own city or region. As one analystpointed out, these surveys are more useful because“Quality of life means different things to differentpeople . . . (It) is in the eye of the beholder.” [6] Surveysof this type have been done in hundreds of communi-ties, as well as on a national level. In a cross section of

APPENDIX B

A Review of Livability Research

157

Americans asked to define quality of life, in fact, themain response was “getting good things, living well,and enjoying peace, security, and happiness.” [7]

While it is hard to argue with these principles,city-specific surveys are more useful because they canform a basis for understanding how people rank differ-ent factors about livability. For example, in a study byDonald Appleyard, San Francisco residents were askedto state what was most important to them when choos-ing a street to live on. “The two most dominant con-cerns were “cleanliness” (86%) and “crime” (86%). . . .(The extremely high emphasis on “cleanliness” and“appearance” was further confirmed by widespreadmention of “neighbors keeping up property” (78%),“attractive appearance” (74%) and “greenery”(71%). . . . It was much higher than mention of socialor economic qualities. Access to public transport (79%)was the third most common priority. This was consid-ered substantially more important than other aspectsof access. Of these others, “good walking conditions”was followed by “access to shops” and “parks.”Access to parks, sixteenth on the list, was very muchlower than expected. . . . Of the traffic-related emis-sions, “minimal air pollution” (75%) was the fourthpriority overall, while “peace and quiet” was thetenth, followed by “safety from traffic.” [8]

“What people want from a residential and streetenvironment,” Appleyard concludes, “may be secu-rity, peace and quiet, comfort, cleanliness, attractiveappearance, privacy, territorial control, convenience,good parking, street life, neighborliness, or otheramenities. Expectations can significantly affect per-ceptions and satisfaction. . . . The more affluent arelikely to be more critical of their streets because theyknow of other choices, whereas lower-income groupsmay be satisfied with what they have.” [9]

In a larger survey of New York State residents, peo-ple were asked to rank the importance of differentfactors in helping a person decide where to live. [10]“Not surprisingly, the sample of New Yorkers choseeconomics as the most significant feature of the placethey would like to live, followed by climate, crime,housing, education, health care and environment,recreation, transportation, and finally, the arts.” [11]

Surveys of community perception of livability havebeen compiled into a unique publication that com-pares 261 separate surveys that evaluated both localgovernment services and quality of community lifethroughout the United States. Published by theInternational City Managers Association, this book,Citizens Surveys: How to Do Them, How to Use Them,What They Mean, by Thomas Miller and MicheleMiller, standardizes the results of these surveys sothat future studies would have a benchmark forcomparison. [12]

Miller and Miller asked what distinguishes a com-munity whose residents gave high marks to quality oflife in the community. What they found is that “Thecommunity where quality of life is more likely to berated high is the one that has outcommuters (is asuburb), has between 10,000 and 250,000 residents,has lower crime rates, has residents with higherincomes and more education, and provides good services as evaluated by the residents themselves.Almost half of the variation in ratings of communityquality can be explained by a community’s size, per-ceived level of local government service, wealth, andproximity to a metro employment center.” [13]However, Miller and Miller could not find a correla-tion between general perceptions of quality of life in acommunity and the rankings of specific city services.

From the 261 surveys, Miller and Miller developedwhat they call “percent to maximum” norms for dif-ferent categories of quality of life. In other words,they adjusted the findings of different surveys (whichused different types of rankings), so that results couldbe compared. A city conducting a new survey cantherefore see how it compares with other cities askingthe same question. A few examples follow:

Quality of City 76.8 PTM*

Parks 72.3Police 71.8Education/Schools 69.4Safe Community 68.1Transit/Bus System 61.9Planning 57.5Traffic and Light Timing 55.9Shopping Opportunity 54.8

*Percent to maximum

The overall evaluation of community servicesshowed that the average rating was 67.2. It is impor-tant to note that transit/bus systems are typicallyrated significantly lower by residents than otherservices, such as parks, police, and schools (perhapsbecause so few people across the United States usetransit on a regular basis).

One of the conclusions that one can draw from thiswork is that, as one reviewer noted, “Most peopletend to like what they have and the places in whichthey live, wherever they live. Most Americans thinkthat the quality of life which they enjoy is better thanthat of other people living in other parts of thecountry.” [14]

A 1995 “Quality-of-Life Poll” conducted by theRegional Plan Association and the Quinnipiac CollegePolling Institute compared quality of life issues in theNew York City region with Atlanta, Dallas-FortWorth, Seattle, and Los Angeles. It is interesting tonote that there is virtually no difference in opinion

158

159

between the five cities about the “very importantissues” to quality of life. A minimum of 80% of thosesurveyed in all the cities said these issues were cleanair and water, safe streets, race relations, and qualitypublic schools. A minimum of 50% (and usually atleast 60%) said greenery and open space, sense ofcommunity, uncongested roads and highways, andlow state and local taxes.

Perhaps more revealing, however, was the responseto a question about the “one or two things you likeabout your local community.” In all five cities—aminimum of 45% responded, “a strong community”;20–30% responded, “access or convenience”; and lessthan 15% said, “low crime,” “environment,” or“recreation or culture.” Indeed, this strong apprecia-tion about “sense of community” as well as “accessand convenience” is one that can provide support fornew thinking about how transit initiatives need to bemore closely allied with efforts that build a “sense ofcommunity.” [15]

Despite their value, surveys of quality of life havetheir limitations. The way that quality-of-life ques-tions are asked will determine the type of response.Many quality-of-life surveys, for example, focus moreon “personal well-being”: family life, job satisfaction,salary, recreational opportunities, etc. They do not askabout “shared community factors. . . . which aredrowned out” by a focus on people’s personal lives.For example, one survey in Austin that asked about“your quality-of-life” and another one that askedabout “Austin’s quality-of-life” yielded significantlydifferent results. In the personal well-being survey,quality-of-life satisfaction was increasing; in the citysurvey, it was declining. [16]

Another limitation: quality of life measured at thecitywide scale will not reflect variations within onecity. What is valued in one neighborhood may not beof importance in another. Indeed, people often feelmore positive about their own neighborhood thanabout the city as a whole.

For example, in New York City, the Common-wealth Foundation asked a random sampling of New Yorkers about their perceptions on “quality oflife” in New York (this predates the Regional Plansurvey mentioned above). The survey evaluated thecity on scores of issues ranging from safety, to airquality, to appearance, to general subjects like “as aplace to raise a family.” While it may not come as agreat shock to most non-New Yorkers, perceptionsabout the city were extremely negative. Two-thirdsrated New York City as “negative” as a place to live,and only one-third said “positive.” Other negativefactors were extremely high: safety on the street (88%negative), cost and quality of housing (85%), streetcleaning and garbage collection (67%), and so on.

Only 21% were “positive” about New York City as aplace to raise a family. [17]

What is interesting, however, is the difference inthese perceptions compared with surveys PPS hasconducted in individual New York City neighbor-hoods. For example, in a survey conducted in 1991 ofresidents of the Sutton area, located on the Upper EastSide of Manhattan, only 17% rated safety and securityas the most important neighborhood improvement and6% rated cleanliness and garbage collection as the mostimportant. Most people felt safe both during the day(96%) and in the evening (67%). [18] While the Suttonarea is regarded as one of the most desirable neighbor-hoods in the city, the difference between the surveyscannot be explained simply by demographics or loca-tion. Indeed, the issue is that people feel more positiveabout the place that they know and are familiar withthan with the city as a whole.

This is borne out in the responses to many otherPPS surveys, which show that people generally feelsafe in places they use. For example, in BelmontShores, California, 79.1% of residents considered theirshopping district safe during the day, and 52.1% felt itwas safe during the evening. 67.9% of BrooklynHeights residents felt that safety on Montague Streetwas good during the day, 25.7% felt it was fair, and80.5% thought it was good or fair in the evening. InHoboken, New Jersey, 80% deemed downtown safetygood or excellent in the day, while 67% felt the sameabout safety at night. In Springfield, Massachusetts,53.5% of surveyed pedestrians gave safety during theday a “good” rating, 36.8% said it was fair, and 60.3%said evening safety was good or fair. [19]

Perceptions of quality of life are clearly not fixed,and can almost be viewed as a kind of “moving tar-get.” “For example,” one researcher writes, “an easycommute to work and easy access to the workplacecan change as growth brings the traffic congestionthey tried to escape five years ago.” [20]

Finally, quality-of-life surveys may not adequatelyaccount for why people feel as they do. Factors influ-encing livability are often at a very small scale, andpeople may not be conscious of how these almost triv-ial aspects of their daily lives influence them—especially if the livability survey focuses on broadissues at the citywide scale. In his introduction to aseries of papers published in The City Journal aboutQuality of Life in New York City, noted urban analystRoger Starr writes:

Cities should be comfortable places. People should beable to expect good things from the cities where theylive, trivial as well as major things: a cheerful wavefrom a neighbor, the replacement of their garbage cancovers by the refuse collectors, a prompt and pleasantride—perhaps even a seat—on the bus or subway, a

good education for their children, an unbroken lock ontheir front door. All of these simple hopes combine amajor expectation: that life will be increasingly fruitfulin the future because its essence, the quality of life,will continue to improve.

In an uncomfortable city, by contrast, people expectbad things to happen: to find trash deposited on thesidewalk in front of their homes, to be subjected to theverbal assault of a mugger, to discover that their carstereo has been stolen, to face constant reminders ofpoverty and depression. All too often, this is the imagepeople have of New York today.

The term “quality of life” has come into common useas the impression continues to spread that in big cities,and perhaps above all in New York, the specific cir-cumstances the term comprises are in fact gettingworse not better. A deterioration in the quality of lifeaffects people in subtle ways. One may fear auto theftbecause one’s best friend’s car has been stolen—orbecause the garbage collector has made a mess of thesidewalk in front of one’s home. If the city doesn’t careabout one aspect of its citizens’ lives, they infer, it prob-ably doesn’t care about others. Thus, poor garbage col-lection implies careless policing, inadequate schoolingsuggests the deterioration of the city’s infrastructure,official tolerance of aggressive panhandling hints thatcitizens are vulnerable to theft or violence.

In an almost subliminal way, urban residents sensethe connection between signs of deterioration theyglimpse around them and the potential for other kindsof harm. . . . Understanding precisely what causes thepublic to perceive such decay is essential if the govern-ment and other organizations are to establish rationalpriorities for making the city more comfortable. [21]

PLACE-BASED APPROACH

Although people’s perceptions about quality of lifeenhance understanding of the purely statisticalapproach, geographers and many urban experts alikeargue that there is still something missing: an ap-proach to defining quality of life and livability thatincludes people’s often deep attachment to the placeswhere they live and work. This spotlight on “place”and desire for “strong community” adds anotherdimension to understanding quality of life, a dimen-sion that actually helps bring the whole discussioninto clearer focus.

Susan Cutter, a geographer, perhaps summed it upbest when she wrote: “A geographical definition ofquality of life incorporates the concept of individualwell-being but focuses more on places rather thanindividuals. . . . From a practical standpoint, geo-graphical quality of life is the measurement of theconditions of place, how those conditions areexperienced and evaluated by individuals, and therelative importance of each of these to the individ-ual.” [22] This approach avoids value judgment as towhether a place is the “best” or the “worst” andrecognizes that “everyplace is different and has goodand bad attributes.” [23]

This approach to livability involves holistic under-standing of a place: concrete, quantifiable, and statisti-cal measurements as well as people’s perceptionsabout the place. Cutter suggests that “The art—science to some—of evaluating quality of life in aplace involves two states: a goal state and anappraisal state.” Goals are what people would like tohave in a place, while appraisals measure what isactually there. Quality of life is the “measured”difference between the two. These measurementsmust take into consideration objective measurements(climate, socioeconomic data, etc.) as well as the moresubjective attachment that people have to places:What is the image of the place? What experiences dopeople associate with a place? How do they feel aboutit? As Cutter writes, “Often, our individual image of aplace overtly or covertly biases our evaluation ofquality of life found there.” [24]

Social ecologists take this approach further toexplain how human activities are influenced by thephysical space or place in which they occur as well ashow neighborhoods become locations for groups ofpeople and their activities. As early as 1946, observerslike Walter Firey were exploring the implications ofthese factors—especially the sentimental values peo-ple associate with places. He writes of his research inBoston where he discovered that “land can be put touneconomic and even dis-economic uses—all becausecertain values have become attached to a locality andhave in that way found symbolic representation.” [25]He continues:

Boston, more than most other cities, has a great manyhistoric sites which serve as “reminders” of its civicidentity. The presence of old colonial dwellings, ven-erable cemeteries, ancient public buildings, hallowedchurches, and distinctive neighborhoods exerts a defi-nite civic-building influence upon the residents of acommunity. Out of such an influence emerges thekind of sentiments upon which real citizen participa-tion depends—loyalty, a feeling of belongingness,and a purposefulness that goes beyond individualambitions. Boston needs these sentiments. Throughthem it can win the interest and support of its peoplein civic improvements. Without them it can onlyappeal to the varied special interests of pressuregroups to accomplish its objectives. Sentiment is oneof the surest community-building forces that any citycan have . . . No city or metropolitan plan would becomplete which overlooked this. [26]

Herbert Gans, a sociologist and urban planner,studied a Boston neighborhood a decade later while itwas in the midst of massive redevelopment. Ganswrites that the social and community networks areessential to the neighborhoods being disrupted.“Since relocation procedures do not allow for thetransfer of the social system, the shock of the reloca-

160

tion process itself is likely to affect negatively anumber of people who have never lived anywhereexcept in the West End, and where social and emo-tional ties are entirely within the neighborhood.” [27]Unfortunately, he was absolutely right.

George Hemmens adds a third dimension to therelationship between spaces and activity—that oftime. He indicates that people’s decisions as towhether or not to undertake an activity (like shop-ping) are influenced by the location of the activity aswell as the time of day and the length of time anactivity takes. This model brings into clearer focus therole that transportation plays. “If facilities for a partic-ular activity are relatively inaccessible that activitywill likely be performed infrequently. And it may bethat an activity will have a longer duration whenaccess is difficult than when access is easy.” [28]

The interrelationship between places and activitiesmakes the place-based approach to livability a practi-cal tool: it allows people to take concrete steps toimprove their lives by improving the places wherethey live and work. As one city planning researcherDowell Myers suggests, “planners, local officials, andinterest group leaders must negotiate knowledgeabout local quality of life.” [29] He recommends a“community trend” approach that stresses that qual-ity of life is part of an ongoing development processand that encourages participation of local citizens aspart of the “negotiation” process. “The data thatresult form a realistic description of the community’squality of life, broadly enough based that all seg-ments of the community can accept it as a basis forsubsequent decision making.” [30]

The place-based approach also recognizes that hereis an interactive relationship between places and peo-ple, and that places influence us in ways we are oftennot aware. Tony Hiss, in The Experience of Place, put itthis way: “These places have an impact on our senseof self, our sense of safety, the kind of work we getdone, the ways we interact with other people, evenour ability to function as citizens in a democracy. Inshort the places where we spend our time affect thepeople we are and can become.” [31]

Livability of Places: Literature Review

Over the last three decades, during which time con-cerns about livability have grown, there has emergeda new understanding of how people experience andperceive places in their communities. This literaturealso focuses on specific measures that can be taken toimprove the livability of important places in commu-nities: streets and sidewalks, parks, plazas, and thepublic environment. Much thought has also beengiven to the role of communities in making their pub-lic environments work more effectively.

An early such observer was Jane Jacobs, who, in1961, wrote the remarkable The Death and Life of GreatAmerican Cities. Her works opened people’s eyes tothe complexity of their surroundings, and the fact thatenvironment does influence how we think about anduse our communities. Until her book, most descrip-tions about cities lamented their ills and evils: density,poverty, crime. Urban planners were often moreinterested in how to tear it down through redevelop-ment, rather than build it up. Ms. Jacobs was inter-ested in celebrating the city and studying “how citieswork in real life, because this is the only way to learnwhat principles of planning and what practices inrebuilding can promote social and economic vitalityin cities, and what practices and principles willdeaden these attributes.” [32]

Ms. Jacobs explained what many, if not most, peoplewho lived in cities already knew: that cities were aplace of great melting pots of social interaction, andthat they were largely safe and supportive places tolive. She did not achieve this argument, however, ingreat sweeping generalizations, but in startling detailbased simply on seeing how all types of public spacesand places actually work for people. For example, shewrote about the sidewalk: “A good city street neigh-borhood achieves a marvel of balance between itspeople’s determination to have essential privacy andtheir simultaneous wishes for differing degrees of con-tact, enjoyment or help from the people around. Thisbalance is largely made up of small, sensitively man-aged details, practiced and accepted so casually thatthey are normally taken for granted.” [33]

Other journalists, urban analysts, and researchers—many without formal training—have further con-tributed to the understanding of the livability ofcommunities and those “taken for granted” influencesof which Jane Jacobs wrote. Many, like JamesKunstler lament the loss of sense of place caused bysuburban sprawl. Others discuss more broadly thevalue of public places: “Cities were invented to facili-tate exchange of information, friendship, materialgoods, culture, knowledge, insight, skills and also theexchange of emotional, psychological and spiritualsupport . . . if we are to grow into our fullest potential,we need what other people can give us . . . mutualenrichment . . .” [34]

Still others, like William H. Whyte, have focusedon what makes places in cities work and offer sug-gestions for how they can be better designed or man-aged to be more effective places for people. Mr.Whyte, an early pioneer of studying how people usepublic spaces, quantified many of Ms. Jacobs’ obser-vations and developed criteria for creating success-ful, well-used public spaces. He pioneered the use oftime lapse filming and systematic observations, andhis contribution was to describe how the design of

161

public spaces actually determines whether peoplewill use a space or not. Mr. Whyte is highly critical ofarchitects who design spaces to be seen but not used.He has said that it is difficult to design a public spacethat will not be used by people, but what is remark-able is how often this has been accomplished. [35]Mr. Whyte’s books go on to elaborate on the success-ful ingredients for a public space that works for peo-ple: amenities, shade, activity generators like foodservice, visible access to the street, and so on.

The need for communities to define their ownproblems and priorities in terms of improving livabil-ity clearly makes it essential that the community beactively involved. Indeed, the livability literaturestresses the importance of involving communities in a step-by-step process of renewal of places andspaces—a process where “micro” changes cumula-tively add up to “macro” results in their improve-ment and development. Roberta Gratz, in The LivingCity, goes beyond the concept of the importance ofpublic space to community life to discuss the processof change that has worked to rebuild places as heartsof community. She writes that change should beginwith the community itself, often in small steps andwrites about “urbanism” as the art of understandingthe city. Urbanists, who “understand and practicethat art . . . learn how a city works through intimatecontact with it. Experience, observation, commonsense, and human values are fundamental to anurbanist’s view of city issues. Urbanists focus on themicro before wrestling with the macro and understandthat, in reality, the macro only changes for the better inmicro steps. . . . Innovation and ingenuity are the pre-vailing characteristics. Perseverance in the face ofnaysayers and determination in the face of obstaclesare prerequisites. Step by step, essential and naturalgrowth follows and spreads until larger areas prosperover time. Any look, therefore, at rebirth of citiesinevitably spotlights areas rebuilt from the bottom upby citizen activists, urbanists whether residents, busi-ness people, design professionals, or small develop-ers who understand what makes a real place work,who are the ones actively involved and getting thingsdone.” [36]

In addition to research and publications that focuson the design process and design elements of places,there has been, over the past decade, a new under-standing of the value of management of public spacesas a tool for changing public perceptions. PPS’s ownwork, Managing Downtown Public Spaces, was devel-oped for downtown organizations to take on a largerrole in terms of maintenance, security, public events,marketing and promotion, and public-space ameni-ties. The development of management districts,funded by special taxes that are agreed to by propertyowners, has flourished across the country in both

large cities and small towns as more and more localorganizations take responsibility for making suretheir commercial districts are safe, attractive, clean,active, and comfortable. Many of these districts, likethe Grand Central Partnership around Grand CentralTerminal in New York City, include important transitand transportation facilities.

There are many, many more examples of livabilityof place research: Donald Appleyard’s seminal workon creating livable residential streets; ChristopherAlexander’s innovative “patterns” for making morehumane environments; Mark Francis’ and ClareCooper Marcus’ guidelines for all kinds of urbanopen spaces; Anton Nelessen’s “visual preference”methods to help communities decide what characterand design elements they want in their public envi-ronment; Anne Vernez Moudon, Allan Jacobs, andRaquel Ramati’s separate books on achieving greatcommercial streets. All of these writers—as well asother researchers in the field of environment andbehavior—essentially support the same conclusion:that our public environment and spaces greatly influ-ence how we use our communities and perceivethem—the extent to which we socialize, are economi-cally successful, and even work together on sharedactions and activities.

Project for Public Spaces Researchon Places

Project for Public Spaces, founded in 1975, has alsoconducted a great deal of the work in this field toreveal the perceptions and interactions of people inthe public places they customarily use. An outgrowthof Mr. Whyte’s “Street Life Project,” PPS has studiedhow people use public spaces and what they need inorder to feel comfortable in public environments inmore than 500 communities throughout the UnitedStates and abroad. PPS accomplishes this by gather-ing information through time-lapse filming, system-atic behavioral observations, customized interviews,and user-oriented surveys.

With these tools, PPS examines people’s uses andactivities, experiences and opinions of the small-scale, site-specific places intrinsic to the fabric ofurban neighborhoods, such as plazas, street cornersand transit stops, as well as impressions of wholeneighborhoods, such as downtowns, residential, andcommercial districts. The comments elicited in sur-veys and interviews not only help PPS determine the kinds of improvements people require and wantin these places, but they also provide important cluesto what people consider essential for making theircommunities livable.

162

Attitudes about what makes an area livable mayvary from place to place in response to divergent con-ditions like climate, as when in Corpus Christi, Texas,84% of people surveyed at a bus stop cited shade asimportant for a new bus transfer center. Nonetheless,PPS has found that many “wish lists” are surprisinglysimilar in hundreds of questionnaires answered bydiverse communities. For example, food stores andservices appear to be highly desirable to communityresidents: 69% indicated they shop in theGreenmarket at a plaza on 9th Avenue and West 57thStreet in Manhattan, and 96% of people surveyed atthe Corpus Christi bus stop wanted a place to buysnacks and drinks. Of those surveyed in Pittsfield,Massachusetts, the following were either desirable orvery desirable downtown: 55% said more butchers,bakeries, and other food stores, 57% said more ethnicfood restaurants, and 81% said more moderatelypriced restaurants. In Tucson, Arizona, 23.4% thoughtthat food (eat-in and take-out) businesses wereneeded downtown.

Similarly, greenery and park environments are indi-cated to be in demand in communities as different asRed Hook in Brooklyn, New York, where 59% of thosesurveyed favored a waterfront park and 45% suggestedchildren’s playgrounds for a neighborhood pier, andManhattan’s Upper East Side Sutton Place community,where 45.9% of surveyed residents felt more trees,flowers, greenery, and children’s play areas wouldimprove the area’s plazas. Again, in surveys of thatsame Sutton community (very urban) and the vastlydifferent suburban Belmont Shores in Long Beach,California, vehicular traffic problems, such as conges-tion, noise, and vehicle speeds were rated by both asthe most important area for improvement. Anotherneed often mentioned is for entertainment, such asmovies, theater, concerts, and nightclubs, in surveys ofcommunities ranging from 81.2% in Springfield,Massachusetts, to 43.2% in Tucson, Arizona, to 51% inMontague Street in Brooklyn Heights, New York.

Not surprisingly, security comes up often, althoughsometimes it is not as high a priority as might beexpected because people already feel safe in familiarareas. For example, in a survey of the Upper East SideManhattan area between 59th and 96th Streets, havinga secure/safe neighborhood was ranked highest inimportance by 58.4% and at the Corpus Christi busstop, 44% of those interviewed suggested a securityguard for the new bus transfer center. Cleanliness alsois cited frequently, like in Red Hook, Brooklyn, whereit was a concern of 64% of surveyed residents, and inPittsfield, Massachusetts, where making downtowncleaner and more attractive was the second mostdesirable improvement of surveyed pedestrians.Another prevalent concern is parking, for example, of

those surveyed, parking was a concern to 36% inHoboken, New Jersey, 29% in Pittsfield, Massa-chusetts, 25.8% in Tucson, Arizona, and 17.1% of merchants in Brooklyn Heights. [37]

Out of such suggestions and expressed needsemerges a pattern of broader livability issues, such ascomfort, convenience, accessibility, social opportuni-ties, safety, activity, and relaxation. People have avision, in their own minds, about what a place shouldbe; it becomes a fairly easy task for them to suggestways that the place could change to better meet withtheir ideal view of it. What is amazing is that there isso much consensus within communities, despite differ-ences in age, income, and other demographic factors.

ENDNOTES

1. Glenn C. Blomquist et al., “New Estimates of Quality ofLife in Urban Areas,” The American Economic Review(March 1988) pp. 98 and 102.

2. “And the Winner is,” American Demographics, Vol. 9, No. 1 (January 1987) p. 14.

3. Susan L. Cutter, Rating Places: A Geographer’s View onQuality of Life, The Association of AmericanGeographers, Washington, DC (1985) p. 68.

4. Dowell Myers, “Building Knowledge about Quality ofLife for Urban Planning,” Journal of the American PlanningAssociation, Vol. 54, No. 3 (Spring 1988) pp. 347–358.

5. Joseph Rabianski, “How to Specify a Quality of LifeStudy.” Industrial Development: A Geo-Economic Review,Vol. 34 (February 1989) p. 118.

6. Humphrey Taylor, “Evaluating Our Quality of Life,”Industrial Development. Vol. 156, No. 2, (March/April1987) p. 1.

7. Ibid.8. Donald Appleyard, Livable Streets, University of

California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California,(1981) pp. 50–51.

9. Ibid., pp. 34–35.10. Robert M. Pierce, “Rating America’s Metropolitan

Areas,” American Demographics, Vol. 7, No. 7 (July 1985)p. 23.

11. Ibid.12. Thomas Miller and Michele Miller, Citizen Surveys: How

to Do Them, How to Use Them, What They Mean.International City/County Management Agency,Washington, DC (1991) p. 126.

13. Ibid.14. Taylor, p. 2.15. Regional Plan Association and Quinnipiac College

Polling Institute, The Quality of Life Poll. Regional PlanAssociation, New York, New York (1995) no pagenumbers.

16. Myers, p. 355–356.17. Commonwealth Foundation, Survey of New York City

Residents (September 17, 1993).18. Project for Public Spaces, Inc., Sutton Area Quality of Life

Survey, New York, New York (1990).

163

164

19. Project for Public Spaces Surveys and Reports: BelmontShore Area Resident Survey, Long Beach, California(1990); Brooklyn Heights Resident Survey, Brooklyn, NewYork (1987); Civitas Upper East Side Residents Survey,New York, New York (1985); Coffey Street Pier UrbanDesign Study, Brooklyn, New York (1988); Corpus ChristiCity Hall Bus Stop Survey, Corpus Christi, Texas (1992);Downtown Tucson Survey, Tucson, Arizona, (1988);Hoboken Retail & Business Improvement Project, Hoboken,New Jersey (1985); Pittsfield Resident, Pedestrian,Merchant Surveys, Pittsfield, Massachusetts (1985);Sheffield Plaza Survey, New York, New York (1990);Springfield Visions, Springfield Massachusetts, 1989; andSutton Area Quality of Life Survey, New York, New York(1990).

20. Rabianski, p. 119.21. “Quality of Life in New York City,” The City Journal,

Manhattan Institute (Spring 1992) pp. 2–3.22. Cutter, pp. 1–2.23. Ibid., p. iii.24. Ibid., p. 2.25. Walker Firey, Land Use in Central Boston, Harvard

University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1947)p. 325.

26. Ibid., p. 331.27. Herbert J. Gans, “The Human Implications of Current

Redevelopment and Relocation Planning,” Journal of theAmerican Institute of Planners, XXV (1959) pp. 20–21.

28. George C. Hemmens, The Structure of Urban ActivityLinkages: An Urban Studies Research Monograph,University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NorthCarolina (September 1966) p. 45.

29. Myers, p. 352.30. Ibid., p. 357.31. Tony Hiss, The Experience of Place, Alfred A. Knopf, New

York, New York (1990) p.1.32. Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities,

Random House, New York, New York (1961) p.4.33. Ibid., p. 59.34. David Engwicht, Reclaiming Our Cities & Towns: Better

Living with Less Traffic, New Society Publishers,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (1993) p. 17.

35. William H. Whyte, City: Rediscovering the Center,Doubleday, New York, New York (1988) p. 109.

36. Roberta Gratz, The Living City: How America’s Cities AreBeing Revitalized by Thinking Small in a Big Way, ThePreservation Press, Washington, DC (1994) ii–iii.

37. Survey data is from aforementioned PPS surveys.

The Role ofTransit inCreatingLivable

Metropolitan Communities

COMFORT AND IMAGEthe subjective experiences of using a place,

such as safety and cleanliness.

ACCESS AND LINKAGES

USES AND ACTIVITIESwhy people come to an area and what makes

a place in a community special or unique.

WHAT MAKES A LIVABLE PLACE?

SOCIABILITYthe qualities that make a good place

to meet people and create a sense of

community.

Concerns about livability are shared by every type of community, in inner

cities, small towns, and rural areas.This handbook explores how communities

are working in partnership with transit agencies on locally initiated

projects and programs to create livable “places” and build transit ridership.

Creating Places for Community Life

Pioneer Square in Portland, Oregon, has

become Portland’s “living room”

as well as the hub of the light rail and

bus system.

A Jazz Festival and Community Market are

weekly events at the NJ Transit East Orange

Train Station, East Orange, New Jersey.

Transit can support the creation of places—

public spaces, streets and buildings—helping

to enliven their usage and making them centers

for a wide range of community activities.

r

Catalyst for Downtown and Neighborhood Renewal

Residents work together on small

projects, like tree planting and

transit improvements, as part of

the Los Angeles Neighborhood

Initiative (LANI).

Davis Square in Somerville, Massachusetts,

has undergone major revitalization since the

opening of a subway station in the late 1980’s

and the introduction of attractive public space

improvements.

Transit can serve as a key force in the revitalization

of neighborhoods and center cities.

lic S

pace

s, In

c.

Downtown Crossing in

Boston, a central transit hub

served by all major subway

lines, is the heart of the

downtown retail district and

features a vibrant market-

place with pushcart vendors.

An abandoned factory com-

plex adjacent to the Wellston

light rail station in St. Louis is

getting new life as a business

incubator and job training

center.

Creating Opportunityfor Entrepreneurship and

Economic DevelopmentTransit can help create new

businesses and improve

access to job opportunities.

on, S

t. Lo

uis

Pos

t-

Improving Safety and AmenityTransit can help make communities safer, in part by making

them more comfortable and attractive.

New York City has initiated a station manager program to help keep

stations clean and safe, as well as improve customer service.

In Portland, Oregon, transit amenities have contributed

to the revitalization of downtown.

In cities ranging from

Aspen, Colorado, to

Seattle, Washington,

small shuttle buses are

providing more flexible and

convenient service to

communities.

Making CommunitiesAccessible and Convenient

Transit services and facilities can be tailored to meet

community needs while providing a viable alternative

to the private car.

Shaping Community GrowthTransit can be a key component of efforts aimed

at reducing sprawl and encouraging development

of mixed use centers.

New bus transfer centers

in Corpus Christi not

only improve service for

customers but provide

a focal point for

developing stronger

districts around them.

Pho

tos:

Car

ter A

llen,

Pho

togr

aphy

Tucson’s Tohono Tadai

transfer center is one of a

series of facilities intended

to improve amenities and

safety for passengers

and improve links to

surrounding communities.

Volunteers initiated and largely

implemented the rebuilding of

the Old Pueblo Trolley in Tucson

by restoring cars, laying track,

and operating the carsó

connecting a university to a

revitalizing commercial district

and developing a new tourist

attraction for the city.

Denver celebrates the opening of

its Sixteenth Street Transit Mall in

1982, built and operated by a

unique public private partnership

that has helped to guide the

dramatic resurgence of downtown.

Implementation ThroughPartnerships

Photo: Downtown Denver Partnership

Community groups and transit agencies have found that

by working in partnership, they can improve the livability

of their community and increase transit ridership.

THE TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD is a unit of the National Research Coun-cil, which serves the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. Itevolved in 1974 from the Highway Research Board, which was established in 1920. The TRB incor-porates all former HRB activities and also performs additional functions under a broader scopeinvolving all modes of transportation and the interactions of transportation with society. The Board’spurpose is to stimulate research concerning the nature and performance of transportation systems, todisseminate the information that the research produces, and to encourage the application of appro-priate research findings. The Board’s program is carried out by more than 400 committees, task forces,and panels composed of more than 4,000 administrators, engineers, social scientists, attorneys, edu-cators, and others concerned with transportation; they serve without compensation. The program issupported by state transportation and highway departments, the modal administrations of the U.S.Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the developmentof transportation.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distin-guished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of sci-ence and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter grantedto it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal gov-ernment on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Acad-emy of Sciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the NationalAcademy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in itsadministration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciencesthe responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering alsosponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research,and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of theNational Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policymatters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to theNational Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal governmentand, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. KennethI. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 toassociate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purpose of furtheringknowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policiesdetermined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both theNational Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to thegovernment, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administeredjointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. William A.Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.

Abbreviations used without definitions in TRB publications:

AASHO American Association of State Highway OfficialsAASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation OfficialsAPTA American Public Transit AssociationASCE American Society of Civil EngineersASME American Society of Mechanical EngineersASTM American Society for Testing and MaterialsFAA Federal Aviation AdministrationFHWA Federal Highway AdministrationFRA Federal Railroad AdministrationFTA Federal Transit AdministrationIEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics EngineersITE Institute of Transportation EngineersNCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research ProgramNCTRP National Cooperative Transit Research and Development ProgramNHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationSAE Society of Automotive EngineersTCRP Transit Cooperative Research ProgramTRB Transportation Research BoardU.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation

therole of transitincreating livable metropolitan communitiesthese chapters also describe federal...

Documents