TOD Could Help Alleviate Road Congestion (Market Analysis)

If past building trends in Northwest Arkansas continue, the current two-county estimated population of 390,000 may grow to 700,000 or more by the year 2030.

Transportation planners continue to work on the Northwest Arkansas 2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan to accommodate this projected population.

At a recent transportation meeting, a local planning director stated that it will be impossible to solve our region’s current and future congestion problems with road building projects alone.

Urban mobility studies by the Texas Transportation Institute support this statement by showing that new and improved roads can help slow the rate of congestion growth but does not reverse it.

So the draft long-range plan recommends that the region undertake a “transportation alternatives analysis” that would look at transportation options other than the automobile along with innovative transportation demand management strategies.

One concept, known as “Transit Oriented Development” (TOD), is one such strategy that shows promise in helping to reduce automobile trips and congestion.

The basic concept of TOD seems simple enough. TOD is compact, walkable development occurring within one-half mile of a transit stop.

In general, TODs include a mix of uses, such as housing, shopping, employment, and recreational facilities within a design that puts a high priority on accommodating transit, pedestrians and bicycles.

Besides providing direct access to transit, TODs can offer a variety of destinations close to one another, making it possible to move around without exclusive reliance on a car.

If possible, TODs should incorporate an attractive public area — such as streets with trees, outdoor seating and plazas — to encourage pedestrian activity.

A study prepared by the California Department of Transportation points out that there are many benefits associated with TODs including:

Quality of life: “Quality of life” is often used to represent a host of factors that collectively describe a good place to live. It includes concepts such as safe neighborhoods, access to jobs and recreation, a sense of community, ease of getting around, and moderate cost of living.

Increased mobility choice: Because of their pedestrian orientation, mix of uses, and access to transit, TODs increase the number and proportion of all trips made by transit, walking, and cycling.

Reduced congestion: To the extent that TOD allows more people to use transit, walk, and bicycle, it reduces road and highway congestion.

Conservation of land and open space: By concentrating development, TOD helps to curtail sprawl, which protects open space.

Health benefits: By providing more opportunities for walking and bicycling, TODs offer direct health benefits—significant at a time when obesity has become a national epidemic, fueled partly by the sedentary lifestyle associated with sprawl.

Enhanced sense of community: Research suggests that residents in suburban sprawl neighborhoods feel no strong “sense of community.” TOD, however, provides and emphasizes public space that affords residents spending opportunities for face-to-face contact.

Economic and social benefits: TOD can lower housing costs and reduce household transportation spending.

Jobs-housing balance: A jobs-housing imbalance occurs when jobs are located far from housing. Bringing jobs, housing, and services closer together and linking them with transit helps mitigate this mismatch.

Redevelopment opportunities: TOD can combine public and private investment, so that scarce public funds can be used most efficiently and effectively.

Proponents of Transit Oriented Development maintain that people living within walking distance of public transit can reduce their transportation costs considerably by becoming a one-car family and driving less.

Lower transportation costs, according to TOD advocates, can offset the higher housing costs of living in an urban neighborhood as shown in the diagram below.

Indeed, a 2002 study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics suggested that the average family spends $7,000 per year for each vehicle it owns. (Transit advocates also point out that hidden costs of driving would make this figure much higher, but the driver does not immediately pay for these costs.)

Urban neighborhoods tend to have high housing costs but lower transportation costs. Current mortgage assessments only consider housing costs and treats automobile ownership as a financial asset rather than a liability, encouraging homebuyers to choose automobile-dependent locations. Higher density, location efficient development creates a more neutral housing market.

Even though there may be many benefits with TOD, there are also many obstacles to their development. Neighborhood groups usually oppose high-density developments that might attract more traffic.

Local development codes around transit stations usually favors low-density, auto-oriented uses. Mixed-use, higher density projects with reduced amounts of parking (such as in TOD) can significantly increase risks for developers and financers.

TOD can be more costly, and can be subject to more regulations and more complex local approval processes, as compared to conventional automobile oriented development. Lenders typically have concerns about financing mixed-use projects or those with lower parking ratios as with TOD.

When planners consider the long-range challenges of transportation in Northwest Arkansas, they might be safe to assume there is no “magic bullet” that will solve all problems of traffic congestion, safety, and related quality-of-life issues.

Transit Oriented Development as with other alternatives, may be a good idea, but it must be evaluated in context with many factors.

For this reason, planners and public officials need to develop a big-picture view to understand the many relationships between elements such as transportation modes, land uses, population trends, and future resources.

A transportation alternatives analysis, as recommended by the region’s long-range plan, should adopt such a comprehensive approach.