International Transportation (69) 1 | 2017 14 Public transit and land use decisions Review of guidebooks for transit agencies Public transportation, transport planning, passenger transportation The integration of public transit and land use planning in large cities and metropolises is still widely insufficient, at least in the Federal Republic of Germany. As a consequence, the potential of transit-oriented land use could be more fully exploited in order to maximize the benefits for traffic and the environment. This situation clearly needs to be corrected. This can be achieved by re-positioning transit agencies in the processes of deciding how to use land, creating a better orientation of the land use development that incorporates the backbone systems of public transit, taking advantage of innovative financing options, and, last but not least, acknowledging expected changes in future mobility patterns. Andreas Kossak I nitiated by the Verband Deutscher Verkehrsunternehmen (VDV, Engl.: Association of German Transit Companies), a group of experts met to discuss the topic of transit and town planning. The results of the assembly were published in an article entitled “Integration of Town Planning and Transit for Lively Cities” in the VDV’s journal (Der Nahverkehr) in 2016. The article’s subtitle clearly expresses the demand that transit issues should be duly considered in strategic urban and traffic planning processes [1]. The integration of urban and transportation planning has been a topic of teaching and research at German technical universities since the 1960s. Although issues in transportation planning, including public transportation, have been approached academically, they have not been fully addressed or translated into practice. This has been due, in part, to the lack of interest or cooperation of many transportation industry stakeholders. However, in light of the expected changes in mobility conditions and behaviors, a continuation of this situation could not only weaken but even significantly endanger the role of the public transit in urban transportation systems. “Mobility researchers” or “Future researchers” often are more or less selfappointed and inadequately qualified to address the complex issues of public transit, due to a lack of educational background and professional experience. They have been talking idly for years about an impending, drastic change in mobility conditions. In particular, they have also been forecasting a world in which people will more or less exclusively rely on shared self-driving cars. As such, most of their scenarios fail to include mention of classical public transportation [2]. In contrast, independent experts and renowned research institutes worldwide have assigned a much more positive and meaningful role to future models of public transportation in cities and metropolitan Photo: Pixabay STRATEGIES Urban Development Urban Development STRATEGIES International Transportation (69) 1 | 2017 15 areas [3]. In particular, they expect that urban and regional rail systems will even assume more dominant roles as backbones of passenger transportation systems, provided that public transit agencies and entities responsible for urban and transportation planning react appropriately to the anticipated changes. Addressing the complex task of fully exploiting the potential of future options that favor public transit and improve traffic and environmental conditions in cities and metropolitan areas primarily involves the following: • determining the kind and extent of involvement of transit agencies in planning regional and urban passenger transport, • planning the intensity and extent of transit-oriented development (TOD), and • strengthening the financial basis of public transit. Remarkably, several guidebooks, memorandums, and papers that deal with these complex considerations have been recently published by Federal Administrations, by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies of Sciences, and the American Public Transit Administration (APTA). All of these publications were based on intensive research. Although the respective histories of public transit in the US in Europe differ in numerous aspects, the facts and recommendations documented in the U.S. publications are more or less directly transferable to European transit systems. A survey of selected issues covered in the latest publications is provided in the following. Linking public transit and town planning Sponsored by the U.S. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in the framework of the TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), the “Guidebook for Transit Agencies: Linking Transit Agencies and Land Use Decision Making” was published in the fall of 2016 [4]. The guidebook presents explicitly stated, basic tenets, such as: • “Land use decisions play a key role in shaping the long-term success of virtually every transit system.” • “Organizations other than transit agencies hold the responsibility and authority for integrating land use and transit”. The guidebook emphasizes how “...transit agencies can influence the framework for those stakeholders to routinely make transit-supportive land use decisions”. In this regard, it also calls attention to crucial requirements for successful planning. For example, transit agencies “…need to be invited to the table (i. e., to participate in the land use decision-making process)” and they “...need the tools to be influential players when they arrive at the table”. To this end, the authors explicitly state that the goal of the guidebook is to promote “...effective transit and land use decision-making by providing the transit agencies with the right set of tools to be effective at the decisionmaking table”. This is accomplished by providing answers to the following questions: • “What can transit agencies do to become more meaningful participants in land use decision-making? ” • “When and how is it worthwhile for transit agencies to get involved? ” The guidebook outlines the following five preconditions for success: • a supportive transit agency board, • a designated transit agency staff person with technical competency, • a coordination process, • a common understanding or language, and • a transit-supportive community. The guidebook offers a wide range of tools and tips related to these issues. In this context, the guidebook explicitly refers to the fact that even though transit authorities (in the US) do not have the jurisdictional authority to ensure that land use decisions are transit-supportive, they have multiple possibilities to “proactively engage…major stakeholders and the general public to achieve the desired land use outcome”. Furthermore, the following key tools for “enhancing the communication and coordination” among the different stakeholders are discussed: • Partnering: This includes early and sustained communication, formal and informal processes of engaging transit agencies in the decision-making processes, encouraging cities to incorporate transit considerations during their development review processes, and establishing working groups, workshops, and educational programs. • Publishing strategic guidebooks: This includes developing region-specific handbooks, guidebooks, and/ or websites related to transit-supportive development, thereby highlighting the importance of interagency communication, collaboration, and coordination. • Articulating costs and benefits: Here, all stakeholders (e.g., local governmental land use planners and private developers) should be informed about and fully understand the service and operational issues related to land use decisions, the benefits of and need for transit, or the relationship between transit and land use decisions. The guidebook presents four case studies that illustrate how the successful application of the above-mentioned five “preconditions for success” has been implemented in real-life situations involving public transit. In particular, the potential of urban rail systems to enhance and/ or intensify transitoriented development becomes clear in the following two cases: • improvements made along existing rail lines in New Jersey and, • the introduction and expansion of a modern streetcar system as a method to redevelop a district adjacent to the downtown area of Portland, Oregon. In the Portland streetcar project case study, it is explained how town and transportation planners in the early 1970s systematically approached and pursued changing an automobile-centered transit situation to one based on a modern light rail system (LRT) in the Portland metropolitan area. In order to visualize what the consequences of a continued and automobile-oriented transit policy would look like, a photo montage was created to show how Portland’s skyline would look with six 40-story parking facilities added to it. According to local authorities’ estimates, these facilities would have been necessary if the former automobilefocused transportation policy had been maintained and allowed to expand. Instead, a previously existing, multistory parking garage in the downtown area was pulled down, and the land was used to create a very attractive public square (Pioneer Square, see figure 1). Since then, Portland’s new “living-room” has enjoyed immense popularity, and it has received highest US awards for architecture, urban design, and public art [5]. All light-rail lines of the metropolitan area are connected to one another around the square. Following the short versions of the case studies (full versions are attached at the end of the guidebook), the key interaction points and activities at the various geographic planning scales (e. g., regional, municipal, county, corridor, sub-area/ district, and site) are explained. As well, the specific challenges of cooperating with the various partners involved in land use decision-making processes (e. g., metropolitan planning organizations, state government, philanthropic organizations, non-profit community organizations, and private developers) are described. STRATEGIES Urban Development International Transportation (69) 1 | 2017 16 In a special attachment, the importance of the five “key features of the built environment …that strongly influence the use of public transit” is discussed. Termed the “5 Ds”, these include: • Density (of land use), • Diversity (mix of land use), • Design (of the transportation-infrastructure around the transit systems, especially with respect to walking and cycling), • Destination accessibility (connections to the main urban activity centers or “places”), and • Distance to transit (relation between concentrations of land use and urban rail system stops or attractive bus services). Transit-oriented development (TOD) Since Portland decided to revamp its public transportation system in the 1970s, the concept of TOD has gradually received more attention from urban and regional planners all over the US. In Portland, the decision to adopt TOD policy into urban planning was based on the results of a public referendum. Since then, transportation systemand land use-planning in major US cities and metropolitan areas has increasingly focused on urban rail systems [6]. Over the recent years, the introduction of bus rapid transit (BRT) systems has also been discussed. A BRT system includes streets with dedicated bus lines, attractive bus services with relatively few stops, high travel speeds, separate right-ofways for bus traffic, design features, and equipment similar to those used for light railbased systems, at least at the main stations. The U.S. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has also begun to focus more intensively on TOD-based transportation systems. In a recent and frequently advanced FTA memorandum, the principle of TOD is characterized as follows [7]: “Transit oriented development … creates compact, mixed-use communities near transit where people enjoy easy access to jobs and services. Well-done TOD connects transit to desirable places to live, work and visit like entertainment venues, parks, retail, restaurants, an improved pedestrian environment and diverse housing choices”. In particular, the memorandum emphasizes how focusing on growth around transit stations can capitalize on public investments in transit and create many benefits, including: • increased use and associated revenue gains for transit systems, • revitalization of neighborhoods, • greater supply of affordable housing, • economic returns to surrounding land owners and businesses, • reduction of traffic congestion, and • more safety for pedestrians and cyclists. TOD-activities are promoted by the FTA with “technical assistance”, “financial support of pilot-projects” and “training programs”. Such assistance is described in a comprehensive TCRP report entitled “Transit-Oriented Development in the United States: Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects”, which was published in 2004 [8]. In the US, TOD is currently the subject of interesting public scientific discussions and disputes regarding different issues. For example, one issue concerns the question of whether the focus should be on development-oriented transit (DOT) instead of on transit-oriented development [9, 10]. Another topic of debate is whether it may be more economically feasible to base TOD on BRT-systems than on urban rail systems (e. g., the LRT) [10, 11]. The answer to the first question is primarily rooted in the different phases of urban or regional development. Whereas TOD primarily aims to develop urban and regional structures and traffic conditions, DOT involves introducing certain processes that will improve existing urban structures so that they create the conditions for providing attractive transit. For example, DOT has been described as a way to create and connect urban highlights: “Transit revival requires regional and systematic integration of transit planning and place-making initiatives that moves beyond incremental transit oriented development” [9, 10]. Regarding the choice of whether to implement BRT or LRT, on the one hand, it is important to consider the basic principle: “Mass transit needs mass to be successful. Low transit ridership and underutilized capacity make public transit infrastructure unsustainable.” On the other hand, compared to bus systems, the economic benefits of properly designed urban rail systems considerably outweigh the construction and operation costs. Furthermore, they are much more stable and represent more attractive infrastructural backbones of the land use patterns. Owing to these considerations, it has become a more desirable and accepted practice to take advantage of the so called “value capture” approach for financing transit infrastructure and operations, especially in the US. Co-financing of public transit by way of value capture In the framework of the TCRP, in August 2016 the U.S. TRB published the pre-version of a guidebook entitled Guide to Value Capture Financing for Public Transportation Projects [12]. In the introduction, the importance of public transit as a key element of transportation infrastructure for communities as well as local and regional economies across the US is emphasized. However, the guidebook also points out that a large number of transit projects are “…underfinanced, leading to suboptimal service, long-deferred maintenance and failure to realize desirable projects”. Instead of calling for more federal or state subsidies based on the general tax rev- Figure 1. Pioneer Square in Portland, Oregon (left); light rail car and streetcar stopping at a transit mall (right). Photos: Kossak Urban Development STRATEGIES International Transportation (69) 1 | 2017 17 enues (as in Germany), value capture mechanisms are proposed to be the most adequate and effective ways to secure financing for infrastructure development projects. According to the report, value capture “... is the public recovery of a portion of increased property value created as a result of public infrastructure investment.” Some common value capture mechanisms are discussed in detail, for example: • impact fees, • joint development / public private partnerships (PPP), • land value taxation, • negotiated exactions, • parking fees, • sale or leasing of air rights, • sales tax and special assessment districts, • station naming rights, and • tax increment financing. The reason for compiling the guidebook is described as follows: “The guide ... has been developed to provide transit agencies, local governments, developers, and others with insight regarding value capture as a funding strategy for public transport projects”. The titles of the book’s chapters are as follows: • Conditions Necessary for Value Capture • Local Economic and Market Considerations • Regulatory Considerations • Articulating the Business Case • Development Risks • Creditworthiness, Finance, and Funding • Institutional Capacity and Partnership • Overcoming TOD Complexity and Risk • Case Studies (to demonstrate attributes of successful value capture finance projects) The six case studies refer to the following projects: • Boston Landing Station, Boston, MA • Denver Union Station, Denver, CO • Hong Kong Mass Transit Railway Corporation • Kansas City Streetcar, Kansas City, MO • Portland Streetcar, Portland, OR (see figure 2) • Dulles Metrorail, Washington DC region An impressive example of how co-financing can be implemented to cover operating costs for the complete public transit system of a metropolitan area can be seen in the Portland, Oregon transit project. According to the 2016 annual report of the Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet), 60 % of the operating costs are covered by “payroll and other tax revenue”. The dominant contribution from these sources allows fare tariffs to be kept low, thus making the use of public transit more attractive. Conclusions The chronically insufficient involvement of public transit agencies in the urban and transportation planning of cities and metropolitan regions as well as the anticipated changes in boundary conditions and mobility behavior, especially in the urban transportation sector, require short-term actions in order to be able to maintain and/ or create lively cities. Such actions include: • positioning transit agencies more prominently in land use decision-making processes, • taking full advantage of TOD, and • using value-capture mechanisms to cofinance public transit projects and cover operating costs so that good service can be provided and maintained. Numerous guidebooks, white papers, and memoranda about this topic have recently been published in the US. They represent rich resources for information about the necessary activities involved in developing public transit systems. Such information can help to promote and ensure a strong and viable future for public transit in European cities and metropolitan areas. ■ REFERENCES  [1] Deutsch, V. et. al.: Integration von Stadtplanung und ÖPNV für lebenswerte Städte; Der Nahverkehr 4, 2016.  [2] Kossak, A.: Werden autonome Autos die städtischen Bahnsysteme überflüssig machen? ; ETR - Eisenbahntechnische Rundschau 5, 2016.  [3] Kossak, A.: Autonome Autos und der ÖPNV - Bedrohen autonome Autos den klassischen ÖPNV? ; Der Nahverkehr 3, 2015.  [4] Transportation Research Board, U.S. National Academies of Sciences: Linking Transit Agencies and Land Use Decision Making: Guidebook for Transit Agencies; TCRP-Report 182, Washington, DC, 2016.  [5] Kossak, A.: Integration von Nahverkehr und Kunst - Das Public Art Program der Stadtbahn Portland im US-Staat Oregon; Internationales Verkehrswesen 3, 2015, p.68-71.  [6] Kossak, A.: Transit Oriented Development und Value Capture - Investitionsimpulse und Wertsteigerungen als Folge des Baus von Stadtbahnen; ETR - Eisenbahntechnische Rundschau 3, 2016.  [7] U.S. Federal Transit Administration: Transit Oriented Development; Memorandum, June 28, 2016.  [8] Transportation Research Board, U.S. National Academies of Sciences: Transit-Oriented Development in the United States: Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects; TCRP Report 102, Washington, DC, 2004.  [9] Fan, Y. (2016, 02 May). The future of U.S. transit is in regional placemaking (Part I) [Web log post]. Retrieved from ps: / / globaltransitblog.wordpress.com/ 2016/ 05/ 02/ the-future-of-u-s-transit-is-inregional-place-making-part-i/ [10] Fan, Y. (2016, 08 June). The future of U.S. transit (Part II): Historical and contemporary development-oriented transit [Web log post]. Retrieved from https: / / globaltransitblog.wordpress. com/ 2016/ 06/ 08/ the-future-of-u-s-transit-is-in-regional-placemaking-part-ii/ [11] McMahon, J.: Bus rapid transit spurs development better than light rail or streetcar; Forbes, 15 September, 2013. [12] Transportation Research Board, U.S. National Academies of Sciences (Publ.): Guide to Value Capture Financing for Public Transportation Projects; Washington, DC, August 2016. [13] TriMet: 2016 Annual Report; Portland, OR, 2017. Andreas Kossak, Dr.-Ing. Kossak Research and Consulting, Civil Engineering Lab, Hamburg (DE) drkossak@aol.com Figure 2. Map of transportation system development charge projects in Portland, OR (left); A Portland streetcar (right). Source left: [12]; photo right: Kossak)