Transit-Oriented Development in the Inner City: A Delphi Survey

This s~’udy presents the results of a three-round Delpht survey that focased on issves and opporfumt~es r lated to transtt-oriented evelopment (TOD) m US inner ct~es. The survey queried a panel of 25 experts about he yahoos goals and ob]ectrves of the practzce of FOD, as well as the precondations and constraints urrounding such development in econormcally disadvantaged ar~ of the tuner city Staring from a w~de range of responses, the paneI was eventually able, through t e Delpht process, to focus on spec~ftc issues and propose a concrete set of strategms for the implementation of TODs Ir~oductMn Economic development of depressed tuner-city areas has long been a goal of IocaI government and city planning. In the 1980s, there was co~iderable debate regarding the optimal allocation and planned investment of private resources in nmer-city neighborhoods that can tngger private economic activity and attendant jobs and tax revenues (VCltherspoon 1982). In partlcutar, transportation investments, often utilizing state and federal funds, were wewed as capable of iaducmg posltave change and development in derelict J_uuer-eity areas (Cervero 1987). Over the Iast decade, city planners and transit officials have promoted the idea of using rail transit stations as instruments of development. Many planners and deslgners have enthusiastically espoused a transit-oriented transformation 76 Journal of Fublic Trans~ortanon in urban form. Writings about TeD have prohferated (Calthorpe 1990, 1992, Katz 1994, Berniek and Cervero 1997). TODs are defined as n~xed-use come mumties within a q~mrter-mile radius of a raiI station. Their design configuration and land uses emphas/ze a pedes~an-oriented envtronment and reinforce the use of public transportation, k mi× of resldenlaaI, retail, off/c% open space, and public uses are arranged m comfortable proximity, making at possible for residents and workers to travel by translt, bicycle, or foot (Cal~.horpo 1993). Such development Is often described as a "village" surrounding the transit stop, where a core commerclal rea provides space for offices and retail. This vasion is about an altemaave way of life supported by a higher density, pedes~anfiiendly, and transit-contingent urban environment. Transit villages have been described as tools for revltal/zfilg U.S. inner cities (Bermck I996). In their book Transit HlIages for the 21st Century, Bermck and Cervero 0997, pp. 9-10) argue that: The transtt vdlage offers afresh new approach to stunuIatmg economzc growth tn mner-ci~y neighborhoods served by ratl .... Combining transit vdlage piannmg w~th aggressive programs to improve the social and physical infrastructure of neighborhoods can provtde a formula for progressive change .... Transtt villages can be ~mportant catalysts to community rebugdmg Such enthusiasm notwzthstandmg, substantial social, economic, and insdtutmnal borders pen~ist. Many of the obstacles are rooted in the segregated social ecology ofU.S, citaes. Inner-city neighborhoods that have often been segmented by freeway development, are now experiencing a new "intrusion," as fLxed rail lines have to traverse them to link suburban centers with the downtown (Loukaitou-Sidens and Banerjee 2000). These areas suffer from a long b/story of dtsmvestment and neglect. Fear of crime, drugs, gang% and nolence dominate pubhc perception. h there a future for "transit villages"----so far considered mainly in the context of middleand upper--class suburban settings--along the inner-city corridors? What are the constraints andpotentials for implementing ’rOD around inner-clty transit stations? Journal of Public Transportation 77 RaN Transit and Economic Development: Literature Review A htemturc review to respond to the previous questions prondes some coatradletory arguments. Studies of the 1970s and early 1980s have typically found that trausportation investments may have some smatl effects on economic development, but only if certain precon~tSo~ are present. Knight and Trygg (1977) have argued that for substantial lad-use m~pacts to occur m the vidnity of a railway station, four factors need to exist sh~aultaneousiy: 1. local government policles supportive of development; 2. a growing regional economy; 3 avaflabLhty of developable laud around stations, and 4 pomtive physical character~shcs of the station area (good locat!on, compatible land uses, etc.). G6mez-tb~a~ez (1985, po 349) reported that merchants and developers located near hght raft lines in San Diego, Calgary, and Edmonton found them to be rather nn~ruportaut factors for buduess activity or development derisions He argued that for a rail system to produce sxgmficant development arouud station areas three con&aous need to be met. I. The rail system produces a significant knprovement mtransportation service query and accessibility. 2. The me~opo~itan area Is gro~ug 3. There is supportwe local zoning. I~ght (1980) claimed that the avail~ble evidence did not show that American and Cana&an rail rapid transit investments had had any major effects on urbma structure or economic deveIoDment On the other hand, in a comprehe, we study of hght r~ transit systems in the Umted States and Canada, Cervero (1984) concluded that the economac ~hnulus of hght rail on urban form can be mDderately high when accompanied by a strong regional economy, a prodevelopment policy orientation, zoning, taxation, and joint development incenfives~ as w~ll as physic~ ~.mprovements that enhance aesthetics and pedestrian access and create hospitable station sett~_UgSo 78 Journal of Public Transportation In a study of the anpacts of urban raft transit on local real estate markets in two of the fastest-growing cities in the Umted States in the !980s, Atlanta and Wasldngton DC, Cervero and Landis (i993) found that tht," raft systems had a poslttve impact on station real estate markets. These impacts included higher rents, lower vacancy rates, and higher densxfies in office btuldmgs around station areas (Cervero 1994). In the late 1980s and 1990s, the debate about the effe~tweness of transit investments in inducing economic development was revimted The New Urbanist movement advocated physical layouts, called "pedestrian pockets:’ where light rail transit was an integral element of the urban form (Kelbaugh 1989, Calthorpe 1993; Katz 1994). The force of these ideas and ~Jaetr promise of urban revitahzation corwmeed many city planners. Since 1990, much-touted design guldehne,,i have sought to shape TeD in the City of San Diego and in Sacramento County (Calthorpe 1990, 1992). In 1993, the most automobtleoriented city m the nation, Los Angeles, formulated guiding princlples for statton-area development (City of Los Angeles Plarm~g Department 1993). TeD is a major oomponertt of Los Angeles’s long-term growth strategy, as the city’s new General Plan calls for directing 75 percent of aU new development onto 5 percent of its land, mostly around rail stataons and bus stops (Chu and Cu.eciss 1995). In I994, the CalLforma legtslature enacted a transit vdlage bill to promote such planning efforts In the I990s, the subject of TeD found both academac proponents and critics. Proponents (Beraick I996, Bermck and Cervero 1997) tended emphasize the oppo:tur&ies for TeD and transit village development. They noted the growing w Jimg-r~ess of transit agencms and local governments to matiate joint developme,nt projects near raft st~ttons, receptive poheios and legislation for coordinating transxt and land-use decisions, and demographic growth of populalaoa groupe (the elderly, young professionals without ct~tlren, etc.) that are prate canchdates for TeD hying (’Bermck and Cervero 1997, pp 138-139). Skeptics have mostly emphasized barriers such as local institutional obstacles (]3earner a~ad Crane 1998), as weU as the behavior of p6vate land Journal of Pubhc Transportateon 79 markets. They have pinpointed the fact that, despite the enthusiasm, resldenttal TOD a~vaty has been rare m practice (Boamet and Crane 1998) Examining ma inner-city line in Los Angeles, Louka~tou-Sldens and Banerjee (2000) found no evldence that it had promoted revitalization and growth m the adjacent neighborhoods They argued that the New Urbax6st’s romantic image of a transformed irmer city staMz m stark contrast ,ruth the decay, unemployment, poverty, and crime that charactertze these neighborhoods (Loukmtou-S1deris and Banerjee 1996, 2000). Despite the rhetoric about the potential of New Urbanism to revitahze stark tuner-city areas, the few implemented examples of New Urbamst plartning are located in outlying suburban areas or have been designed as resort towns that are typically devold of transxt There has been, however, a notable exceptmn ha the works A $100 million redevelopment ~s currently under constructmn around the Fmltvale BART statmn that will bring a mixture of housing, shops, offices, senior center, ctx[d care facihtleS, hbrary, and commumty centers to this low-income Oaldand neighborhood (Wadtmwani 1999). The Fruitvale development is the result of intense commumty actwism by the Spamsh Speaking Unity Cotuactl, a Iocal commtmity group that was able to attract extensive funding 5:om the pubIic sector (Federal Transportation Authority, Housing and Urban Development, Hea!th and Human Servmes) and private foundatmns (I-Iewlett, 1trine, Ford) (Bermck 1996). Is the Fruitwale exampie paradigmatic for ttungs to come, or is it a umque case that is malikely to be reputed elsewhere* What are the prospects for TOD in America’s itmer cities9 In addressing this issue, this artlcle reports on a Delphi marvey of tmowledgeable transportation planning experts The Delphi Research Concept The Delphi teclimque was developed by Norman DaIkey and OlafHeknaer of Rand Corporation in the early 1950s as a means of systematic group judgment CRawitz 1991). According to Linstone and Taroff (t975, p. 3), Delpki a "method for structuring a group commtmication process so that the process is effective m altowing a group of indiwduals, as a whole, to deal with a complex problem." The behef is that the group’s judgment w~tl have more vah&ty, 8O Journal of Pubhc T,~ansportation and will be more complete and accurate than iachvidual points of Wew (Dalkey 1972). Use of a Delphl survey is appropriate when there is lack of.consensus or agreement regarding the nature of a problem or the components, which must be included in a sucoessful soIutaon (Rawitz 1991). The Delphi technique has been emptoyed ma variety of differeat contexts, as its rehanoe on httmanjudgmerit makes it useful ia decisionand policy-making situations (Cavalli-Sforza et al. I982). The goal of the Delptu technique is to bring informed consensus, or at least to deltueate, clarify, and define erdsting opinions and views (’Hemck Cramer 1991). This is aclueved by aa iterative process in the fomi of two to four rounds of questions. In the f’~t round, the panel responds to the questions posed by the researche.rs, who, m tara, use statistical measures to .~nmam~e the panel’s responses. The summaries are fed back anonymously to the panel for the second and subsequent rounds in these roun&, experts are asked to reconsider their resportses based on t_he information provided to them by the results of the previous round. The goal of the iterative process is "to obtain a convergence of responses to each quest’ton. Such convergence wou?d be indicated by the decrease in the measures of chspersion for the responses and by stability of the distributton of the responses to each question" (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1982, p. 12). The Delpta process possesses several strength. It: , reduces the effect of dorrduant mdiwduals, by preserving anonynfity md eliminating face-to-faoe comr~unicafion (Dalkey 1972); ̄ enables the creation of a heterogeneous group for problem solving (Rawltz 1991); , encourages "exhanst~ve search" of issues and optuions; and ̄ allows for a better opportuaity to reach consensus CRawitz 1991). In terms of weaknesses, the method pools out extreme wews, as consenms is reached by averaging. In addition, the quality of the findings can be affected by a poor (or not representative) selection of the panel, and It/a poor summary, analysis, and report of the results of each round. Journal of Pubhc Transportatzon The study reported in this article employed a panel of 25 inchviduats who had knowledge and experience in the field of TeD ’ Panel members were 1dentiffed by me2.us of four criteria: I. posmen at a umversity m the field of trausportatmn pla ning and/or real estate and economic development (7 participants); 2. leading posztion m a public sector agency involved in TeD (6 participants); 3. tending position in a private sector company that has been invol’~d as consultants or developers in TeD (7 participants); and 4. leading potation in a nonprofit organizatton or community group that has been involved in TeD (5 participants)3 The 25 panel members were from sxx dzffemut states (Califorma, Iilmms, Massachusetts, Missouri, Oregon, Pennsylvania) and the District of Columbia, but they have been in revolved inTOD plan~ing, design, development, or research for projects in a much wider geographical spectrum.3 Ymdaviduals who had leading roles in thetr organization (chrectors, managers, principals, project managers, senior associates) were sought from the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. This yielded 20 male and 5 female respondents. The racial/cutrural breakdown of the panel was: whate, 20; Aflxcan-American, 1; Latino, 1, Asian, I; and undeclared, 2. While this is certainly not a balanced sample in terms of race or gender, it may be quite representative of the sociodemographics of the group that ten~ to acquire leading positions in the TOD field. Findings and Discussion During the fast round of the Delphi process, participants were told that: The stua’y seeks to examine TOD m two different ways. It wdI look at the various goals and objectives underlimng the practiee of rOD and will also examine Che means and problems ef its implementation. We are particuIarly focusing on TODs in North American tuner-city areas, and we want to identify the relevant issues, objectives, opportunities, and constraints surrounding such development By inner city, we mean the economically disadvantaged areas that lie between the downtown &stn’ct and a czty’s suburbs. 82 Journal of Pubhc Transportation Panel members were asked to respond to four open-ended questions: I. What are the most urtportant goals of TeD? 2 What are the most important objectives of TeD in nmer-city areas? 3 What are the most ~,portant precondations for successfuITOD in imler-c~ty areas? 4. What are the most important barriers to inner-city development? The f~t round yielded vanous responses from the panel (Table I) and showed that the concept of TeD is loaded with a variety of expeetutions that include economic (e g., generate revenue for the translt authority, the developer, the community), environmental (air quahty, sustalnabthty, reduction of sprawl, ener~ conserva~on), social (choice, mob~ty, aecessibility, socxal interaction), and planning (land-use/transportation coordination, regional hnkages) goals. Participants stated that, in addltion to these goals, inner-city TODs skould promote commumty econormc development~ enlmuce safety, create jobs, increase the value of the residential market~ reinforce prior public investment, attract more retailers, provide affordable housing, effectively 1ink the inner clty with other parts of the metropolitan area, and combat mner-c~ty decline° Participants listed an array of preconditions for successful ~uner-clty TODs that mcluded econonnc and market-related factors (federal and state funding, private sector interest, pubhc/pfvate partnerships, and good economic climate), regatatory/mst~tut~onai factors (collaboration and coordination among different public agencies, proactlve plznnlug departments mad transit agencies, political supl?ort, and commumty involvement), as well as urban form and transit eharacterlst~cs conducive to TeD The hst of responses to the iast question was the Io ngest---an in&cation of how difficult it is to estabIl~h TODs m U S inner cities. Participants discussed a wide spectrum ofbarfiers to suctl development, mcI~ dang economic, social, ~nd institutional constraints. The first round did not invoIve any prioritization of responses. [-Iowever, in the second round, the panel was asked to select and rank the 10 items they felt were the mo.~t important per questlon. Responses that reeexved a very low score were eliminated, q~as reduced the range of answers considerably (Table 2) In tins round, three experts~all from academia~felt strongly that the TeD concept could not be successful m achleving its goals or significantly influJournal of Pubhc Tr~r~portat~on 83