The Power of Transit-Oriented Development

Back in the late 1970s, when Washington’s Metrorail system first
began operating in Arlington County, Virginia, the future of Arlington
and other old, inner suburbs was far from certain. Across the Potomac,
the District of Columbia was suffering from depopulation, rapidly
rising crime rates, and serious fiscal difficulties.

3760052394_3a4a1356a0.jpgBallston Metro station, Arlington Co. Photo: Point Images/Flickr

Meanwhile,
on the other side of Arlington, Fairfax County was enjoying a stunning
period of growth. People were flocking by the hundreds of thousands to
Fairfax’s sprawling residential subdivisions, and employment centers
popped up and grew rapidly around freeway interchanges.

The future looked as though it belonged to Fairfax County, and
Arlington’s decision to target development around its new Metro
stations seemed quixotic and anachronistic.

But now, with
the benefit of 30 years of hindsight, Arlington seems to have been
extraordinarily foresighted in its decision to grow around Metro. From
2000 to 2008, Arlington’s population grew by 10 percent — all of it
infill development, and a remarkable achievement for an inner suburb.

Even more remarkably, this growth has led to a negligible impact on local traffic. Daniel Malouff, author of the BeyondDC blog, reported
this week on a meeting with Arlington’s Department of Transportation,
at which officials recounted some numbers that had emerged from
research on the effects of county development choices.

Among the remarkable statistics:

1.
Auto traffic counts in the Pentagon City area are level today compared
with counts from 1975. Despite all the development that has occurred
there in that time frame, including construction of one of the region’s
largest and busiest shopping malls, there has been no measurable
increase in traffic congestion.

2. [One thousand] units of urban-format TOD housing generates fewer
auto trips per day than a single suburban-format McDonalds or 7-11. You
can build 1,000,000 square feet of residential TOD and generate less
congestion than 2,000 square feet of auto-oriented retail.

Arlington
has very nearly maximized the development potential of available land
around Metro stations, but it’s looking to create new transit access
for its communities by building a streetcar line
along one of the county’s busier thoroughfares (and running along its
busiest bus routes). Already, denser, walkable, and mixed-used
developments are replacing older strip malls on the planned line.

And
of course, Fairfax County has been busily working to reverse its
approach to transit and development, its streets and highways having
bogged down under the weight of constant congestion.

Back
when Metro was originally built, Fairfax did not attempt to lobby for
routing through population centers, opting instead for a cheaper
alignment along the median of I-66 (for the Orange Line), and along
existing rail right of way (for the Blue Line). Stations were almost
exclusively surrounding by parking; riders would nearly all arrive by
car.

These decisions have proven difficult to reverse
engineer, but Fairfax County has been trying. Along the I-66 corridor,
the county is encouraging such transit-oriented development as can be
accommodated. In Springfield (on the Blue Line), a large, walkable
redevelopment plan has been slowly making its way forward despite the
difficult economic situation.

But the biggest shift is occurring elsewhere. Fairfax County and the state of Virginia recently
won federal funding for a new extension of the Metrorail system, to be
run through the densest portion of the county at Tysons Corner.

The
Silver Line will be used as a framework around which to completely
remake Tysons into a dense, walkable downtown. The area may ultimately
be home to over 100,000 people, and an employment center to rival
downtown Washington.

The rest of the country will be
watching. Tysons represents one of the most ambitious attempts to
reengineer a suburban employment and retail center into a pedestrian
friendly mini-city, fit for residents as well as workers.

Of
course, the opportunities to make these kinds of changes are extremely
limited. Very few heavy rail systems have been built in the past half
century. Commuter rail and light rail systems are increasingly common
in growing cities, but federal funding has simply not been made
available for new lines on the necessary scale, and the federal
government has not made transit-oriented development a priority in
choosing where and how to allocate transportation dollars.

This
is an inexcusable missed opportunity given transit-oriented
development’s record of accommodating population growth without
contributing to new congestion. Hopefully it is one Congress will
address when it gets around to crafting a new transportation bill.

  • lsm

    Would we in LA County had to go as far as Fairfax County, VA to see the folly of automobile driven development.

  • DJB

    This is a neat story and I strongly agree that transit-oriented development (TOD) makes a lot more sense (based on the values I’m trying to promote) than low-density automobile oriented development.

    However, we shouldn’t gloss over the fact that the traffic reducing properties of TOD are hotly debated. These are entirely dependent on the actual behavior of people who live in TOD, which in turn is based on things like the quality of the overall transit system (e.g. does the transit system go conveniently to a particular TOD dweller’s particular job) and individual preferences. In Washington DC, the transit system (at least from a casual visitor’s perspective) is excellent. This is not so much the case in LA (although we’re getting there).

    TOD probably reduces per capita vehicle kilometers traveled (hey, why the hell don’t we use the metric system?) everywhere, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it will always reduce overall vehicle traffic (since TOD often adds density). Once you get to a point of TOD ubiquity and quality transit however, TOD makes vehicle traffic practically irrelevant (e.g. Manhattan).

    I think TOD advocates should be prepared to argue for TOD even if it is forecast to increase vehicle traffic. The argument that it will reduce vehicle traffic is seductive because many people hate vehicle traffic, but people can easily be convinced that dense TOD developments will increase vehicle traffic.

    The argument has to be thicker. I say TOD is worth it, even if it increases overall vehicle traffic in the short-to-medium run, because it gives people more transportation options, reduces per capita environmental impacts, and sows the seeds of a brighter future where cars truly feel optional for a majority of people.

  • Marcotico

    Good points DJB, also keep in mind that it has to be coupled with a change in parking policy. So that you don’t build TOD with two spaces per apt. unit. De-coupling parking or parking maximums instead of minimums, also make density more attractive for developers.

  • Good points DJB, also keep in mind that it has to be coupled with a change in parking policy. So that you don’t build TOD with two spaces per apt. unit. De-coupling parking or parking maximums instead of minimums, also make density more attractive for developers.
    ————-

    Which is why I pick on the “Transit Oriented Development” that we see around a lot of Metro projects. Solair has two spaces per apartment and that’s before we consider the parking for the retail or for visitors. That’s not “transit oriented” it’s “transit adjacent.

  • DJB

    I agree that parking policy has to change to promote less vehicle parking, priced vehicle parking and vehicle parking configured in a way that wastes less land.

    This raises an interesting question. Should we be pushing for parking maximums, or just for abolishing parking minimums (the thing Shoup argues for)? Some other option? Either way, how do you address community concerns about building things without “enough” parking? If the strategy is maximums, how much parking is too much? What if developers say their projects won’t pencil out without more parking than you want to let them build?

    By the way, why aren’t there off-street parking requirements for bikes in more places? What if just 5% of the land dedicated to vehicle parking in the U.S. were dedicated to bikes? It boggles the mind.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

STREETSBLOG USA

Arlington, Virginia: Livable By Design

|
It’s clear you have arrived on the sustainable transportation scene when the president of the League of American Bicyclists asks if you are the new Amsterdam. Yes, Arlington, Virginia is a rising star in the livable cities movement. And new Census data is bearing out the Washington suburb’s reputation as a mid-Atlantic biking and transit […]

DC Region Thinks Bigger for Bike-Sharing

|
Metro DC has a vision for a regional network of shared bicycle infrastructure, one that would connect not only Arlington and Washington, but Alexandria, College Park and Fairfax County. The region has applied for $12 million from the federal TIGER II program to expand its soon-to-be-launched Capital Bikeshare program to serve the wider DC area. […]
STREETSBLOG USA

What If Washington Never Built Metro?

|
Rail~Volution 2011 marks the first time since 2002 that this conference for all things transit and smart growth has taken place in the nation’s capital. When it comes to livability, Washington and neighboring Arlington County have some great stories to share with the rest of the country. At the heart of the region’s success is, […]