Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study:
Central & Osborn, Phoenix, Arizona
On the Move
One in an eight-part series of reports for use in
a Sustainable Communities and Transit Oriented
Development Public Education Project
Prepared for The Arizona Department of Housing
ADOH
Arizona
Department
of Housing
Prepared by
Drachman Institute
College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
The University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona
July 2012
Central and Thomas, Phoenix, Arizona
ii
Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study
Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study:
Central & Osborn, Phoenix, Arizona
On the Move
One in an eight-part series of reports for use in a Sustainable Communities and Transit Oriented
Development Public Education Project
Prepared for
The Arizona Department of Housing
July 2012
By
Kelly Eitzen Smith, PhD, Sociologist
Kayla Truss, Architecture Student
Erin Besold, Planning Graduate Student
David Corcoran, Planning Graduate Student
Marilyn Robinson, Project Director
Drachman Institute
College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
R. Brooks Jeffery, Director
Marilyn Robinson, Associate Director
The Drachman Institute is the research-based outreach arm
of the College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
(CALA) at The University of Arizona. The Institute is dedicated
to environmentally-sensitive and resource-conscious planning
and design with a focus on underserved and vulnerable
communities. As an interdisciplinary collaborative, we
engage students, staff, faculty, and citizens to work towards
making our communities healthier, safer, more equitable, and
more beautiful places to live. We embrace a service-learning
model of education serving the needs of communities while
providing an outreach experience for students. This model is
a fundamental educational goal consistent with the mission
of CALA and The University of Arizona.
All photos, renderings, drawings, charts, GIS layers, or other
content were generated by Drachman Institute staff and
students unless otherwise noted. Some electronic files have
been provided by Maricopa Association of Governments and
Metro Light Rail. The contents of this report reflect the views
of Drachman Institute which is responsible for the facts and
accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not
necessarily reflect the official views or policies of METRO or
MAG and have not been approved or endorsed by them.
The Drachman Institute acts as a nexus between community
needs and the College’s skills and knowledge in architecture,
landscape architecture, and planning with a specific focus on
sustainable affordable housing, design-build, community and
neighborhood planning, and historic preservation.
iii
State Hwy 51
Camelback
Squaw Peak Fwy
!
aw
Squ
Osborn
k
Pea
!
Fw
Thomas
y
!
State Hwy 51 N 20th St
Phoenix
McDowell
!
12th St
State Hwy 143
Loop 202
o
ric
Ma
State Hwy 143
xpy
hokam E
xpy Ho
ka m E
Hoho
US Hwy 60 I- 10
!
pa
Fw
y
Maricopa Fwy I- 10
0
iv
0.75
1.5
3 Miles
Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study
US Hwy 60
Contents
Project Introduction
Central & Osborn
A.
Area Introduction
B.
Neighborhood Demographics
C.
Housing Characteristics
D.
Property Values and Affordable Housing
E.
Housing and Transportation Affordability
F.
Public Transit
G.
Crime and CPTED Principles
H.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety
I.
Open Space/Parks/Plazas
J.
Area Schools
K.
Area Amenities
L.
Central and Osborn Area Summary
Project Summary
Appendices
A. Center for Neighborhood Technology:
Housing and Transportation Affordability
Index
B.
Active Neighborhood Transit Checklist
y
State Hwy 202 Loop 202 State Hwy 202
48
y
in Fw
unta
o
M
Red
State Hwy 101
Red Mountai
n Fw
46
Price Fwy
Tempe
Price Fwy
State Hwy
101 Pima F
wy Pima Fw
y
3
5
6
8
10
12
18
20
22
26
28
32
34
36
38
McClintock
!
!
Price
Sycamore
!
Mesa
v
Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona
2
Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study
Project Introduction
In the last few years, rising transportation costs,
long commutes, congested roadways, and
increasing pollution have led to a growing demand
for public transportation options and cleaner, more
walkable communities.1 In cities across the country
there has been an unprecedented effort towards
transit-oriented development (TOD) to support this
growing demand. TOD is defined as compact/dense
development within walking distance (up to 1/2
mile) of public transportation. This development
contains a mix of uses: mix of housing types, jobs,
shops, restaurants, and entertainment. The goal of
TOD is walkable, sustainable communities for all
ages and income levels. Some of the benefits of
TOD include the efficient use of land, energy, and
resources, cleaner air, and lower transportation
costs for families.2
In 2011, the Drachman Institute contracted with the
Arizona Department of Housing (ADOH) to develop
a public education project about sustainable
communities and transit-oriented development
along the Metro Light Rail in Phoenix, Tempe, and
Mesa, Arizona. The Drachman Institute conducted
both primary and secondary research in order to
develop the education materials. In August 2011,
the Drachman Institute assisted ADOH with a
survey of a random sample of residents living within
a one-half mile area around eight stops along the
Metro Light Rail.4 The survey addressed potential
concerns and benefits of living along the light rail
as well as knowledge about new development. The
findings from the survey were used in conjunction
with existing local and national studies to direct
the gathering of secondary research on issues
surrounding TOD such as crime, property values,
While there has been a growing demand across open space, area schools, and bike/pedestrian
the country for TOD, one of the barriers that city safety.
planners must face is the unwillingness of some
local residents to support some of the components The following is one of an eight-part series of
of TOD. In particular, residents may have concerns reports created for selected light rail station areas.
about changes in property values, crime, and This report presents a neighborhood analysis and
overburdened infrastructure (such as area schools, TOD issues for the half-mile area surrounding the
roads, and other services).3
Metro light rail station at Central and Osborn. A
Project Summary is included to provide base
information for all of the eight light rail stations
covered in this series.
1 Smith, John Robert and Alia Anderson. 2010. “Changing Federal
Policy in the U.S. to Promote Livable Communities.” PTI (September/October). www.reconnectingamerica.org.
2 www.reconnectingamerica.org.
3 Machell, Erin, Troy Reinhalter, and Karen Chapple. 2009. “Building Support for Transit-Oriented Development: Do CommunityEngagement Toolkits Work?” Center for Community Innovation.
http://communityinnovation.berkeley.edu.
4 The eight light rail stations included in this project were designated by the Arizona Department of Housing. They include: Central
and Camelback; Central and Osborn; Central and Thomas; Central
and McDowell; Washington and 12th Street; Apache and McClintock; Apache and Price; and Main and Sycamore.
Introduction
3
4
Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study
Central & Osborn
Woodlea
!
Phoenix
Country
Club
Campus
Vista
Encanto
La
Hacienda
Country
Club
Park
Willo
Central & Osborn
5
A
Introduction
The light rail stop at Central and Osborn is the
seventh stop from the northernmost end of the
Metro rail line. Central and Osborn is mostly
comprised of office towers, hotels, parking lots,
a regional mall, strip malls, and vacant land with
very little retail or housing located in the half-mile
surrounding the light rail stop. The area is located in
City of Phoenix Council District 4, Maricopa County
District 3, and the Encanto Village Planning District.
The half-mile area is bounded by Clarendon
Avenue to the North, Earll Drive to the South, 3rd
Avenue to the West, and 3rd Street to the East. The
half-mile area is located within the City of Phoenix
Transit Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD1) (see Figure 2.1).
The immediate area has active neighborhood
associations including the Midtown Museum
District Neighborhood Association and the Phoenix
Central Neighborhood Association.
Office building by the Central and Osborn rail station
Osborn just west of 3rd Street
Light rail tracks at Central and Osborn
6
Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study
3rd St
Central Ave
2nd Ave
3rd Ave
Clarendon
Weldon
Columbus
Mitchell
Osborn Rd
Lexington
Monterey
Earll
Figure 2.1: Aerial Photograph of 1/2 Mile Area, Central and Osborn
light rail
1/2 mile target area
light rail stop
TOD-1 Overlay Zone
Central & Osborn
7
B
Neighborhood Demographics
The half-mile area is located within one census having a bachelor’s degree or higher. In fact,
tract: Tract 1105 (see Figure 2.2). Due to 24.6 percent of the population has a graduate or
geographic changes in the 2010 Decennial Census, professional degree, compared to 8.3 percent for
the most recent demographic data for tract 1105 the City of Phoenix. The target area is 73.3 percent
comes from the 2005-2009 American Community white and 9.2 percent black, with 19.2 percent
Survey, 5-Year Estimates. The most recent statistics identifying as Hispanic. Compared to the City of
W Mariposa
E Mariposa
St in the half-mile target area
available for the half-mile target
areaStat Central Phoenix,
residents
W Pierson St
E Pierson
St
and Osborn were obtained from the Environmental are
less likely
to be homeowners
and have higher
E Pierson
St
W Elm St
W Elm St
median
household
incomes.
Their
average travel
Systems Research Institute
(ESRI),
Community
W Highland Ave
E Highland Ave
Analyst Data Service. Compared
to demographics time to work is 19.3 minutes, compared to 24.4
W Coolidge St
for the City of Phoenix, the target area is highly minutes for the City of Phoenix as a whole (see
ve
W Minnezona Ave
lA
educated, with 50.0 ppercent
Tables 2.1-2.3).
d Csrpopulation
r anthe
Gof
bel
E Minnezona Ave
N 12th St
N 12th Pl
W Manor Dr
N Manor Dr E
N 11th St
E Sheridan St
E Vernon Ave
Tract 1105
1118
W Holly St
E Oak St
E Monte Vista Rd
W Granada Rd
W Coronado Rd
W Almeria Rd
E Coronado Rd
TransitWOriented
Development Neighborhood Study
McDowell
Rd
1130
1117
E Palm Ln
E Granada Rd
E Coronado Rd
E McDowell Rd
E Lynwood St
E Willetta St
113203
N 13th St
E Ashland Ave
N 12th St
N 3rd Ave
W Lewis Ave
E Virginia Ave
N Edgemere St
West Virginia Ave
W Wilshire Dr
N Dayton St
E Roanoke AveE Roanoke Ave
E Windsor Ave
N 11th St
N 11th Ave
N 13th Ave
N 10th Pl
E Verde Ln
W Palm Ln
1129
N 9th Pl
E Catalina Dr
N 9th St
W Cambridge Ave
W Lynwood St
1106
E Earll Dr
Figure 2.2: Census
TractBlvd
Map, Central and Osborn
W Encanto
8
N 8th St
E Mulberry Dr
N 8th St
W Windsor Ave
W Monte Vista Rd
E Whitton Ave
E Thomas Rd
W Edgemont Ave
W Holly St
N Longview Ave
N 6th St
E Osborn Rd
N 1st Pl
W Catalina Dr
1119
1/2 mile target area
N 7th St
1105
W Thomas Rd
N 7th Ave
N 4th St
E Mitchell Dr
W Merrell St
W Edgemont Ave
N 5th St
E Weldon Ave
E Amelia Ave
E Columbus Ave
r
W Earll D
W Avalon Dr
E Indian School Rd
N 9th Pl
St
108601
N 6th St
N 2nd Ave
N 2nd Ave
N 4th Ave
r
W Flowe
W Earll Dr
N 11th Ave
N 5th Ave
N 6th Ave
N 8th Ave
N 13th Ave
W Flower St
W Ver de Ln
NW
W Osborn Rd
N 1st Ave
e
Av
N 11th Ave
1104
E Glenrosa Ave
Parker Row
N 4th St
h
W Indian School Rd
1087
N 3rd St
N 6th Dr
4t
W Monterosa St
ve
N 12th A
N 15th Ave
N 1 4th A
ve
108901
108801
E Campbell Ave
E Turney Ave
N 2nd Pl
W Montecito Ave
Redwine
W Turney Ave
108602
E Roma Ave
N 2nd St
W Roma Ave
N Central Ave
N 12th D
r
W Campbell Ave
N 1st Ave
am
al
W C d Can
n
a
Gr
N 3rd St
108802
108902
1076
N 8th Pl
1075
N 9th St
1074
Educational Attainment, Population Age 25 and Older
City of Phoenix
Tract 1105#
Target Area
Not a High School Graduate
19.0%
12.6%
8.0%
High School Graduate or GED
26.1%
24.5%
17.7%
Some College
22.8%
22.6%
20.5%
Associates Degree
7.2%
6.7%
4.0%
Bachelor’s Degree
16.6%
17.6%
25.4%
Graduate or Professional Degree
8.3%
16.9%
24.6%
% HS Graduate or higher
81.0%
87.4%
92.0%
% Bachelor’s Degree or higher
24.9%
33.6%
50.0%
2010 American
Community Survey, 1-Year
Estimates
2005-2009 American
Community Survey 5-Year
Estimates
2005-2009 American Community
Census, provided by ESRI
Table 2.1: Educational Attainment, Population age 25 and older, Central and Osborn
Race/Ethnicity
City of Phoenix
Tract 1105#
Target Area
White
65.9%
71.2%
73.3%
Hispanic (any race)
40.8%
21.9%
19.2%
Black/African American
6.5%
8.0%
9.2%
Asian
3.2%
8.0%
4.0%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
0.2%
0.0%
0.3%
American Indian/Alaska Native
2.2%
6.6%
3.2%
Two or more races
3.6%
1.9%
3.2%
U.S. Census Bureau, 2010
Summary File 1, provided by
ESRI
2005-2009 American
Community Survey 5-Year
Estimates
U.S. Census Bureau, 2010
Summary File 1, provided by
ESRI
Table 2.2: Race/Ethnicity, Central and Osborn
Note: Columns do not total 100%
Miscellaneous Demographics
City of Phoenix
Tract 1105#
Target Area
1,445,632
2,895
370
Median Household Income
$47,831
$33,802
$52,543
Poverty Rate (Individuals)
22.5%*
23.5%
NA
Homeowner Occupied
57.6%
19.9%
36.7%
Public Transportation to Work
3.1%*
3.9%
1.5%**
Mean Travel Minutes to Work
24.4*
16.6
19.3**
U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Summary File 1, provided by ESRI
*American
Community Survey 2010, 1 Year
Estimates
2005-2009 American
Community Survey 5-Year
Estimates
U.S. Census Bureau, 2010
Summary File 1, provided by ESRI
**ESRI forecasests for 2010 based
on 2000 Census
Population
Table 2.3: Miscellaneous Demographics, Central and Osborn
# Due to geographic changes in the 2010 Decennial Census, for all tables, the most recent data available for Census Tract 1105 comes from
the 2005-2009 American Community Survey.
Central & Osborn
9
N 6th St
N 4th St
N 5th St
N 3rd St
1087
10860
N 2nd Pl
Parker Row
West Virginia Ave
W Wilshire Dr
W Lewis Ave
E Virginia Ave
E Ashland Ave
1118
Tract 1105
E Oak St
E Monte Vista Rd
W Holly St
N 11th Ave
N 13th Ave
W Granada Rd
Target Area
W Coronado Rd
WOwnerAlmeria Rd
RenterOccupied
Occupied
W McDowell Rd
(40.0%)
113092
53 (23.0%)
1589 (54.9%)
W Lynwood44
St(19.1%)
2000-2004
926 (32.0%)
W Willetta 12
St (5.2%)
1990-1999
244 (8.4%)
13 (5.7%)
1980-1989
83 (2.9%)
8 (3.5%)
0
1970-1979
43 (1.5%)
4 (1.7%)
0
1969 or earlier
10 (0.3%)
0
0
Median Year Moved In
NA
Table 2.4: Year Householder Moved Into Unit, Central and Osborn
10
E Coronado Rd
Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study
2006
1117
E Palm Ln
E Granada Rd
E Coronado Rd
E McDowell Rd
E Lynwood St
11320
E Willetta St
0
N 9th St
N 3rd Ave
1/2 mile target area
W Palm Ln
Year Householder
Moved into Unit
1129
N 11th St
E Sheridan St
E Vernon Ave
Figure 2.3: Census Tract Map, Central and Osborn
W Encanto Blvd
W Monte Vista Rd
2005 or later
N 9th Pl
E Roanoke AveE Roanoke Ave
E Windsor Ave
4 (1.7%)0.25
N 11th St
N 7th Ave
W Cambridge Ave
N Dayton St
W Windsor Ave
All Occupied Units
N 10th Pl
N 7th St
E Thomas Rd
W Edgemont Ave
W Holly St
Tract 1105
1106
E Verde Ln
N 8th St
N 11th Ave
N 1st Pl
W Merrell St
1119
E Whitton Ave
N 3rd St
1105
N 9th Pl
N 8th St
E Weldon Ave
E Amelia Ave
N 9th St
N 4th St
E Indian School Rd
W Thomas Rd
For the following tables, all statistics for census
W Edgemont Ave
tract 1105 come from the 2005-2009 American
Community Survey (the latest available). Unless
otherwise noted, data for the target area are
from the 2005-2009 American Community Survey,
compiled by the Environmental Systems Research
Institute (ESRI).
E Cam
E Glenrosa
N 6th St
N 2nd Ave
N 4th Ave
N 6th Ave
N 5th Ave
NW
N 1st Ave
e
Av
N 8th Ave
E Minnezona Ave
The target area is largely comprised of multiE Columbus Ave
family units, with only 6.7 percent of the housing
E Mitchell Dr
stock being single-family attached or detached.
W Osborn Rd
E Osborn Rd
This is similar to the larger census tract area,
E Mulberry Dr
Flower
St
where 86 percent of the housing unitsWare
multir St
e
w
lo
F
W
family. Within census tract 1105, 88.7 percent of
W Earll
the homes have 2 bedrooms or less. The area
is Dr W Earll Dr
E Earll Dr
largely comprised of renters, with 80.1 percentWofAvalon Dr
W Catalina Dr
E Catalina Dr
residents in the census tract renting
their
home.
W Ver
de Ln
1104
10860
E Turney Ave
Redwine
h
N 13th Ave
E Highland Ave
E Roma Ave
N 2nd St
N 6th Dr
4t
N 11th Ave
ve
N 12th A
N 15th Ave
N 1 4th A
ve
108901
108801
N Central Ave
In the target area around the Central and Osborn
W Turney Ave
station a small proportion of residents have lived in
W Montecito Ave
their home for ten years or more (see Table 2.4). In
fact, the median year that the householder moved
in (for both homeowners and renters) is 2006. In
W Montero
both the immediate area and the larger
census
sa St
W Indian School Rd
tract (see Figure 2.3), the homeowner vacancy
rate is significantly higher than the rental vacancy
rate (for example, 26.4 percent compared to 7.7
percent for the target area).
N 2nd Ave
N 12th D
r
ve
Csr W Minnezona Ave
lA
Gr and
bel
p
m
l
a
a
W Campbell Ave
W C d Can
n
a
Gr
W Roma Ave
N 1st Ave
C
108902
Housing Characteristics
108802
Highland Ave
W Coolidge St
0.5
Number of Bedrooms
Tract 1105
Target Area
None
7.9%
*
1
40.3%
*
2
40.5%
*
3
9.6%
*
4
1.6%
*
5+
0
*
*Data Not Available
Table 2.5: Number of Bedrooms, Central and Osborn
Housing Values
Tract 1105
Target Area
$0-99,999
48 (8.3%)
14 (17.3%)
$100-149,999
79 (13.7%)
14 (17.3%)
$150-199,999
163 (28.2%)
18 (22.2%)
$200-299,999
185 (32.1%)
26 (32.1%)
$300,000+
102 (17.7%)
9 (11.1%)
$199,300
$169,531
Median Home Value
Table 2.6: Owner-Occupied Housing Values, Central and Osborn
vacancy and Tenure
Tract 1105
Target Area*
Homeowner Vacancy Rate
27.1%
26.4%
Rental Vacancy Rate
20.6%
7.7%
Owner with a Mortgage
16.5%
27.9%
Owner Free and Clear
3.4%
8.5%
Renter
80.1%
63.6%
Vacancy
Tenure
Table 2.7: Vacancy and Tenure, Central and Osborn
*Source: 2010 U.S. Census Summary File 1 (ESRI)
Units in structure
Tract 1105
Target Area
Single Family, attached or detached
549 (14.0%)
26 (6.7%)
Multi-Family, 2-19 units
1616 (41.2%)
217 (55.8%)
Multi-Family, 20 or more units
1755 (44.8%)
146 (37.5%)
TOTAL
3920 (100%)
389 (100%)
Table 2.8: Units in Structure, Central and Osborn
Central & Osborn
11
D
Property Values and Affordable Housing
A primary concern residents may have about
TOD is the impact on property values in the area.
Consistent with studies across the country, a study
conducted in 2011 at Arizona State University
found that property values have risen since the
introduction of the light rail.1 The study utilizes
property value information from the W.P. Carey
repeat sales database to analyze the impact of
distance from light rail on property values during
five distinct phases of light rail development and
operation. For single family, condominium, and
commercial properties, the study found that
property values have increased over time; however,
the largest increases were found near the light rail
stations. The impact to property value diminishes
the further away from the station a property is
located.
The study also addressed the impact of the City
of Phoenix Transit Oriented Development Overlay
Zone on property values and found a greater
increase in value in areas with this TOD designation.
Increased property values lead to an increase in
property taxes; as the taxes continue to rise with
property values, some businesses and residents
may find themselves priced out of a neighborhood.
This is a real concern as median household incomes
decreased by 14.6 percent in the city of Phoenix
between 2000 and 2009.2
Additionally, as the
Phoenix area has been impacted by the economic
recession and foreclosure crisis, a growing number
of families and individuals find themselves in need
of more affordable housing. As property values
increase around transit stations the cost of housing
often will displace those in need of more affordable
options. Those who may choose to live adjacent
to light rail in order to reduce their transportation
costs may be unable to find housing they can afford
unless special efforts are made to ensure housing
for a range of income levels.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
While the term “affordable housing” has several
definitions, many associate the term with housing
for “low income” people or even “public housing.”
The US Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), which provides subsidies for
housing including public housing, uses the term
in referring to housing for households earning 80
percent or less of the area median income (AMI).
A more general use of the term is in reference to
housing, including rent or mortgage, taxes, and
utilities, that doesn’t cost more than 30 percent of
the total household income.
Tapestry Luxury Condominiums, Central and Encanto Blvd.
Phoenix, Arizona
Source: http://raillife.com
1 Golub, Aaron, Subjrajit Guhathakurta, and BharathSollapuram.
2011. “Light Rail Economic Impact Analysis: Task 1 Final Report to
the Maricopa Association of Governments.”
12
According to a 2011 market demand study
conducted by BAE Urban Economics, there is
significant demand for mixed-income TOD housing
along the Metro light rail. On average, they predict
a market demand of approximately 3,700 new
housing units per light rail station area through
2 BAE Urban Economics. 2012. “TOD Mixed-Income Housing
Market Demand Study.” Online: wwwbae1.com.
Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study
2040. In terms of affordable housing, they project
that in the next thirty years there will be a need for
more than 100,000 new affordable TOD housing
units in Phoenix, Mesa, and Tempe to meet the
needs of those earning 80 percent or less of the
area median income.3
the group’s goal is to leverage different funding
sources and capitalize on partnerships to provide
equitable transit-oriented development along the
light rail corridor. Ultimately, SCWG hopes to more
closely integrate housing and transportation policy
to provide for more effective TOD strategies.
Communities across the country have addressed
the need for TOD housing affordability in various
ways. The methods utilized depend heavily upon
the regulations within that state, the needs of the
community, and the opportunities available prior
to the rise in prices. The following sections present
examples of some strategies used to promote the
integration of affordable housing opportunities in
Mercantile Square in Denver, Colorado is a mixed-use space
a TOD plan.
with a bookstore, restaurant, office space, and affordable
rental housing funded through LIHTC.
Source: Denver Urban Renewal Authority
Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC)
LIHTC is a competitive tax credit that developers can
use to raise capital for the acquisition, rehabilitation,
or construction of affordable housing. LIHTC is the
single largest source of funds for the preservation
of existing affordable housing nationwide.5 States
are required by HUD to give preference to projects
that provide for the lowest income families and
will remain affordable for the longest period
of time. Funds are allocated to State agencies
This affordable housing complex in Berkeley, California
through the IRS, and funds are then awarded to
serves seniors with household incomes less than 30%, 50%,
developers. Forty-six states provide incentives for
or 60% of the area median income.
the preservation of affordable housing in their
Source: bbiconstruction.com
competitive LIHTC programs. Qualifying projects
Sustainable Communities Fund
must meet State-identified goals as well as the
In Maricopa County, the Local Initiatives Support
following federal requirements:6
Corporation (LISC) in conjunction with the
• Must be a residential property
Sustainable Communities Working Group (SCWG)
• Must control rent/utilities in low-income units
recently established a fund to provide assistance
based on one of two possible low income
to transit-oriented development projects including
occupancy threshold requirements
affordable housing and related amenities near
•
Restrict rent/utilities in low-income units
light rail stations in Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa.4
• Rent and income restrictions will be in place a
The Fund is anticipated to reach $50 million dollars
minimum of 30 years.
worth of various resources for the area. Partnered
with other organizations in Maricopa County, 5 Enterprise Community Partners. 2010. “Preserving Affordable
3 BAE Urban Economics. 2012. “TOD Mixed-Income Housing
Market Demand Study.” Online: wwwbae1.com.
4 http://www.lisc.org/phoenix/images/what_we_do/asset_upload_
file963_15918.pdf.
Housing Near Transit: Case Studies from Atlanta, Denver, Seattle
and Washington, D.C. Online: http://preservingaffordablehousingneartransit2010.pdf.
6 Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2012. Online:
http://www.hud.gov.
Central & Osborn
13
LIHTC are awarded in Arizona by the Arizona
Department of Housing. A project can be awarded
points for “Transit Oriented Design” if it is located
within specified distances of a Frequent Bus Transit
System or a High Capacity Transit Station. This
includes within a half mile (2,640 feet) straight
line radius of all existing light rail transit stations in
Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa.7
Employer Assisted Housing8
Employer-assisted housing is one way the private
sector can contribute to affordable housing. By
providing housing allowances or other monetary
forms of assistance, employers can help attract
and maintain employees who would otherwise
live too far away to reasonably commute daily.
Businesses hoping to locate—or already located—
within the TOD Overlay Zone and surrounding
areas can provide assistance to workers in order to
encourage them to locate near the business and
within the community.
7 Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program 2012 Qualified
Allocation Plan. http://www.azhousing.gov/azcms/uploads/REPORTS/2012%20QAP%20FINAL%201-6-12.pdf.
8 http://www.aztownhall.org/pdf/93rd_background_report.pdf
page 73-74.
REACH Illinois Employer-Assisted Housing for public school
teachers in Chicago
Source: http://reachillinois.org
Employer-assisted housing options are widely
varied, ranging from providing designated housing
at reduced cost through a non-profit partner,
offering direct monetary contributions toward
housing costs or other expenses such as discounted
transit passes, to providing options such as housing
counseling assistance. There are various resources
or strategies for companies to establish a program
that works for them including tax benefits and nonprofit partnerships that allow for the non-profit
to provide services to employees based on a taxexempt contribution from the employer. Additional
options may be available through local government
and non-profit organizations.
Rendering of an employer-assisted housing development in Seattle, Washington
Source: Seattle Children’s Hospital
14
Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study
Haddon Township, NJ is part of the “Live Where You Work” Program which offers low-interest mortgages and down-payment
assistance to encourage people to live close to their place of employment
Source: http://www.haddontwp.com
An example of employer-assisted housing comes
from Seattle, where the University of Washington
and Seattle Children’s Hospital are partnering to
develop 184 housing units in Seattle’s University
district, an urban neighborhood that serves
university students. Aligned with the principles of
the larger University District Livability Partnership
which aims to encourage a walkable, mixed-use
neighborhood near a planned light rail station, the
project is believed to be one of the first employersponsored housing developments in the city since
the early 20th century. According to the initial
proposal, approximately 20 percent of the units
will be made available to residents earning less
than 75 percent of the area median income, and
employees of both the university and hospital will
be given first priority to lease available units.9
Land Trusts
10
Land trusts allow for the acquisition and retention
of land and structures to be held for future use.
Land acquired through the private land trust model
allows for land to be utilized for numerous purposes,
including affordable housing. A Community Land
Trust (CLT), however, is primarily dedicated to the
long-term preservation of affordability, especially
9 Pyrne, Eric. 2011. “UW, Seattle Children’s Hospital Plan to Build
Employee Housing.” The Seattle Times (Dec 20). http://seattletimes.
nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2017058160_childrens21.
html.
10 http://www.aztownhall.org/pdf/93rd_background_report.
in regard to housing. The CLT is administered by
a private, non-profit organization but often works
in conjunction with the local government. After
acquisition, the CLT continues to own the land and
leases it, at a minimal rate, to the owners of the
physical improvements on the land.
The long-term goal of affordability is achieved
through several tactics. First, if the homeowner
elects to sell the home, the CLT has the right of first
refusal for the property. Second, the resale price
reflects only the value of the home since the land
is held separately; the CLT may have guidelines in
place to control appreciation of the home value.
This allows for greater long-term affordability of
the home that does not expire.
CLT provides one method to acquire land and
structures for affordable housing that would
otherwise be susceptible to speculation. Acquiring
properties near existing and proposed transit
lines will help preserve the affordability of that
property and make it available for affordable
housing development—either in the present or
at a future time when resources may be more
readily available. Additional benefits of the CLT
model include preventing the displacement of lowincome residents as well as greater local control of
the land.
CLTs can utilize HOME and CDBG funds and other
Central & Osborn
15
sources of government funding as well as private
donations. In partnership with local governments
and nonprofit organizations, the goal for community
affordable housing can be furthered. For example,
Newtown Community Development Corporation
is a Tempe-based nonprofit organization that
operates a community land trust program to
provide access to homeownership for homebuyers
that are priced out of the housing market.11 They
offer ongoing support for homebuyers through
homebuyer education and homeownership
counseling. Newtown currently has one single
family home within walking distance of a light rail
stop and is interested in exploring the feasibility of
developing a condominium CLT as part of transit
oriented development.
Land Banking
Land banking is the practice of purchasing land
for future resale and can allow for the acquisition
and retention of tax-foreclosed property by a
designated public authority. Often used as a method
for acquiring run-down, vacant structures and/or
land otherwise susceptible to speculators, land
banking can be used to promote the development
of affordable housing units. In Atlanta, the Land
Bank Authority gives development priority to
agencies seeking to develop affordable housing.
Many options are available under Land Banks,
and they can assist in balancing the needs of the
community.12
and fewer parking spaces within a complex if
certain conditions are met; in this case, the
condition would relate to the number of units
reserved for affordable housing. Some states have
found inclusionary zoning methods to be most
effective. For more information on zoning and
other regulatory measures see the City of Phoenix
Planning Department.13
Property Tax Abatement Programs
Property tax abatement programs are designed to
prevent displacement of low and very low income
households due to increasing property taxes. These
programs take different forms across the country to
focus on different income and age brackets. Many
states have provisions for the elderly, but others
also include a wide-range of low and very low
income households (see Table 2.9 for examples).
In addition, property tax abatement programs can
be used to support affordable housing development
on vacant or underutilized sites along transit
corridors by reducing costs for developers through
a limited property tax exemption. For example, the
Portland (Oregon) Transit Oriented Development
(TOD) Property Tax Abatement was established
to support high density housing and mixed-use
developments affordable to a broad range of the
general public on vacant or underutilized sites
along transit corridors whose design and features
13 http://phoenix.gov/PLANNING/index.html
Regulatory Measures
In addition to property acquisition, regulatory
measures can be put in place to promote the
development of affordable housing. Density
bonuses and other techniques can promote the
inclusion of affordable units within larger projects.
Inclusionary zoning requires that a certain number
of units be available for low-to-moderate income
households. This is often used in conjunction with
density bonuses or reduced parking requirements,
which allow for a developer to build more units
11 http://newtowncdc.org.
12 Land Bank Authorities. 2008. Online: http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/bestpractice008.pdf.
16
Source: http://www.buyersagentportland.com
Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study
encourage building occupants to use public transit.
The exemptions support TOD projects by reducing
operating costs through a ten-year maximum
property tax exemption. See the following website
for more information: http://www.portlandonline.
com/phb/index.cfm?c=53036.
Summary
In many cases, timing can be a critical aspect in
creating an effective affordable housing strategy
within a mixed-income housing component as
part of TOD. Recognizing the projected need of the
Metro light rail corridor (~3,700 new mixed-income
housing units per light rail station area through
2040)14 and working to provide a framework to
address this need will provide for the greatest
opportunities. For example, a local government or
nonprofit agency may acquire property in a transit
area prior to a significant rise in property values.
This can be done through the use of several of the
programs described above and can allow for the
creation of housing without the added expense
of increased property costs. Targeting of vacant,
abandoned, or blighted properties in the area
can contribute to this effort. According to a 2012
study, in 2011 there were 18 acres of vacant land
14 BAE Urban Economics. 2012. “TOD Mixed-Income Housing
Market Demand Study.” Online: wwwbae1.com.
Encore on Farmer Street between 6th and 7th Streets, Tempe
Arizona, offers low-income housing for seniors 55 and older.
Source: http://www.raillife.com
in the target area around the Central and Osborn
station, making the area a prime target for the
aforementioned programs.15 Developers and
others interested in creating affordable housing
opportunities should contact the Phoenix Housing
Department or the Arizona Department of Housing
15 Kittrell, Katherine. 2012. “Vacant Land Value Impacts: Comparing Phoenix Metro Light Rail Station Areas.” Paper presented to
the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 91st
Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C.
Property tax Abatement Programs
Location
Who it helps
What it does
Tucson, AZ • Low-income
• Reimburses qualifying residents for the difference
residents (80% AMI)
between their property tax rate and that of the larger city
within designated
Rio Nuevo District
Portland,
• Developers
• Reduces operating costs for a maximum of 10 years
OR
through property tax exemptions
• Encourages development of new housing opportunities
on vacant/underutilized land or through improvement to
some qualifying existing structures
• Requires low-income housing set-asides for all complexes
• Encourages new low-income housing opportunities
Table 2.9: Property Tax Abatement Programs
Sources:
Tucson: City of Tucson. Rio Nuevo Neighborhoods Property Tax Assistance Program. 2008. Brochure
Portland: http://www.portlandonline.com/phb/index.cfm?c=53036
Central & Osborn
17
l Dr
E Earll Dr
N 10th St
N 10th St
N 9th Pl
E Catalina Dr
E Verde Ln
Source: CNT.org H+T Affordability IndexE
E
Accessed April 2012 dgemont Ave
E Roanoke Ave
Roanoke
Affordable Housing: 30%Eand
Less Ave Unaffordable Housing: Greater than 30%
Ave
should also consider costsE Windsor
for transportation.
E Virginia Cir
Housing costs factored
as a percent of income has
W Wilshire Dr
widely been utilized as a measure of affordability.
Traditionally, a home is considered
W Lewis Ave affordable
when the costs consume no more than 30 percent
Vernon Ave
of household income. In theWhalf-mile
area around
the Central and Osborn station, using this measure
W Encanto Blvd
of affordability the area is considered affordable,
with households spending on average between
16.0 and 25.6 percent of their income on housing
(see Figure 2.4).
N 8th Ave
bridge
16 Center for Neighborhood Technology. 2012. “National Index
Reveals Combined Housing and Transportation Affordability Has
Declined Since 2000.” Online: http://www.cnt.org.
Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study
Ave
E Virginia Ave
According to the Center for Neighborhood
Technology,
less than one in three American
E Ashland Ave
communities (28 percent)
are affordable
for typical
E Sheridan
St
regional
households
when transportation costs are
E Vernon
Ave
considered along with housing costs (“affordable”
E Hoover Ave
means that housing and transportation costs
E Oak St
E Oak St
consume
no more than 45 percent of income).16
E Alvarado Rd
In fact, on average households in auto-dependent
neighborhoods spend 25 percent of their income
on transportation, whereas households in walkable neighborhoods with good transit access
E Woodward Dr
W Wilshire Dr
However, housing and transportation costs
together make up the two largest expenses for
most households, so measures of affordability
E Cam
N 10th St
W Cambridge Ave
N 9th St
W Windsor Ave
Club Dr
Thomas Rd
N 1st
N 3rd Ave
1/2 mile target area
N 5th Ave
N 9th St
H = 27.2
T = 22.5%
W Catalina Dr
N
N 10th St
N 2nd Ave
N 8th St
N 7th St
E Flower St
T = 22.5%
E Cheery Lynn Rd
Defining Housing + Transportation
West Virginia Ave
Affordability
N 8th Ave
H = 22.6
T = 21.5%
r
aD
for more information.
N 8th Ave
Ave
E Mitchell Dr
E Mulberry St
H = 20.5%
T = 20.9%
Figure 2.4: Housing and Transportation Cost as a
Percentage of Income, Central and Osborn
W Edgemont Ave
18
N 6th St
N 5th St
N 3rd St
Osborn Rd
W Merrell St
light rail
N 8th St
N 4th St
N 2nd St
T = 21.5%
E Whitton Ave
N Richland St
lin
T = 24.0%
N 8th St
a ta
WC
W Earl
H = 20.5%
H = 16.0%
8th Ave
N 9th Av
St
H = 20.2%
E Weldon Ave
E Lexington Ave
n Rd
eery Lyn
N 6th Ave
W Ch
E Weldon Ave
H = 25.6%
T = 21.5%
nt Ave
E Clarendon Ave
W Weldon Ave
erry D r
wer
W Flo
T = 22.4%
nola
Central Ave
T = 20.4%
N 4th Ave
N 7th Ave
N 8th Ave
N 5th Ave
H = 17.5%
W Mulb
H = 16.1%
lia Ave
W Clarendon Ave
N 10th Ave
T = 22.1%
W India
N 6th Ave
H =28.6%
E Indian School Rd
W Amelia Ave
N 6th Ave
W
Shodes Cir
N
W
Housing and
Transportation Affordability
W Indian School Rd
Scattergood
W Monterosa St
Red
e
Av
St
NW
Av
e
e
Av
N 6th Dr
h
h
5t
E
6t
h
N 6th Ave
W Chee
a ta
WC
ry Lynn
H+T=
36.9%
N 9th Pl
N 10th St
E Weldon Ave
E Whitton Ave
Osborn Rd
E Mitchell Dr
E Mulberry St
H+T=
43.1%
Ave
H+T=
44.0%
N 7th St
N 3rd St
H+T=
42.0%
E Flower St
E Earll Dr
H+T=
49.7%
r
aD
8th Ave
W Catalina Dr
E Catalina Dr
N 3rd Ave
1/2 mile target area
N 1st
Figure 2.5: Combined Housing and Transportation
Cost as a Percentage of Income, Central
and Osborn
W Edgemont Ave
N
H+T=
44.1%
E Cheery Lynn Rd
l Dr
W Windsor Ave
N 9th St
N 8th St
N 6th St
E Clarendon Ave
W Merrell St
light rail
nt Ave
E Weldon Ave
E Lexington Ave
Rd
N 10th St
N 4th St
N 2nd St
Central Ave
N 2nd Ave
N 4th Ave
H+T=
47.0%
t
wer S
W Earl
lin
W Weldon Ave
erry D r
W Flo
N 9th Av
nola
N 5th St
N 10th Ave
H+T=
37.9%
W Mulb
H+T=
38.5%
lia Ave
W Clarendon Ave
N 5th Ave
N 7th Ave
N 8th Ave
W India
N 6th Ave
H+T=
50.6%
E Indian School Rd
W Amelia Ave
N 6th Ave
W
N 8th St
W Indian School Rd
Shodes Cir
NW
Scattergood
W Monterosa St
NW
Av
e
St
Red
e
Av
e
Av
N 6th Dr
h
h
5t
6t
h
E Verde Ln
Clu
Thomas Rd
Source: CNT.org H+T Affordability Index
E
Accessed April 2012 Edgemon
E Roanoke Ave
Roanoke Ave
Affordable H+T: 45% andELess
Unaffordable H+T: Greater than 45%
Housing Near Transit: Increasing Affordability With Location Efficiency.” Online: http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/uploa
ds/091030ra201mixedhousefinal.pdf.
18 Center for Neighborhood Technology. 2012. “http://www.cnt.
org/tcd/location-efficiency.
19 The statistics provided for Figures 2.4 and 2.5 follow the Center
for Neighborhood Technology’s recommendations for using the
regional typical household for comparison when the median income
of the target area is not less than 80 percent of the regional median
income. In this case, the regional typical median income is $54,713
and the median income for our half-mile target area is $52,543.
Central & Osborn
19
N 9th St
N Richland St
N 8th St
N 5th Ave
N 8th Ave
N 8th Ave
N 8th Ave
Ave
and a mix of housing, jobs, and shops spend just The other three sections EofWindsor
the target
area remain
W Cambridge Ave
E Cam
17
bridge
9 percent. These are referred to as “location affordable as households
do
not
spend,
on average,
Ave
E Virginia Cir
efficient”
neighborhoods
because
they
require
less
over
45
percent
of
their
income
on
housing
and
West Virginia Ave
E Virginia Ave
time, money, and greenhouse gas emissions for E Woodward
transportation.
Note
that
these
figures
are
averages
Dr
W Wilshire
residents to meet
theirDreveryday travel needs.W18Wilshire and
depend heavily upon public transit use; the
Dr
E Ashlandan
Ave individual uses public transportation
more
W Lewis Ave
E Sheridan St
Figure 2.5 shows what happens to “affordability” for their travel needs, the
more affordable their
E Vernon Ave
when transportation costs are
taken
neighborhood becomes.
W Vernon
Ave into account
along with housing. In our target area, the
E Hoover Ave
W Encanto
northwest quadrant become
unaffordable
when See
Appendix
A for Housing + Transportation
Blvd
E Oak St
E Oak St
19
Rd
transportation costs are included.
Affordability maps forE Alvarado
the entire
region as well as
an explanation of the Center for Neighborhood
17 Center for Transit-Oriented Development. 2009. “Mixed-Income Technology’s
Housing
and
Transportation
F
Public Transit
Affordability Index.
Light Rail Ridership
Household Transportation Costs
W Montecito Ave
$12,426/yr
N 10th
N 10th St
N 10th St
N 10th St
N 9th Pl
N 10th St
$12,312/yr
$1,026/mo
E Catalina Dr
E Verde Ln
N 1st
N 3rd Ave
1/2 mile target area
W Edgemont Ave
<$11,000/yr
$11,000 -E$12,000/yr
Roanoke Ave
Transit Oriented
Development
Neighborhood Study
W Cambridge
Ave
th Ave
N 8th St
N 6th St
E Flower St
r
aD
N
N 8th Ave
$980/mo
E Earll Dr
W Catalina Dr
West Virginia Ave
$11,758/yr
E Cheery Lynn Rd
l Dr
W Windsor Ave
Ave
E Mitchell Dr
E Mulberry St
$1,028/mo
Figure 2.6: Annual and Monthly Transportation Cost
per Household, Central and Osborn
20
N 8th St
N 4th St
Osborn Rd
N 3rd St
$979/mo
E Whitton Ave
Thomas
RdCNT.org
Source:
Club Dr
H+T Affordability Index
Accessed April 2012E Edgemo
nt Av
$12,000 -
E Roanoke Ave
$13,000/yr
E Windsor Ave
E Virginia Cir
$13,000+/yr
E Cam
th St
N 6th Ave
$11,750/yr
W Merrell St
light rail
$1,092/mo
E Weldon Ave
$12,331/yr
$1,036/mo
$13,107/yr
N 7th St
t
wer S
W Earl
E Weldon Ave
E Lexington Ave
8th Ave
N 9th Av
N 2nd St
$978/mo
Rd
ry Lynn
W Chee
lin
a ta
WC
Central Ave
N 2nd Ave
N 4th Ave
$11,740/yr
nt Ave
E Clarendon Ave
W Weldon Ave
erry D r
W Flo
$1,023/mo
nola
N 5th St
N 10th Ave
$931/mo
W Mulb
$12,270/yr
lia Ave
W India
N 5th Ave
N 7th Ave
N 8th Ave
N 6th Ave
W Amelia Ave
$11,177/yr
N 9th St
NW
$1,006/mo
22 Center for Neighborhood Technology. 2012. “National Index
Reveals Combined
Housing
andRdTransportation Affordability Has
E Indian
School
Declined Since 2000.” Online: http://www.cnt.org.
W Clarendon Ave
N 6th Ave
$12,067/yr
Shodes Cir
e
Av
Av
20 BAE Urban Economics.
e 2012. “TOD Mixed-Income Housing
NW
Market Demand Study.” Online:
www.bae1.com.
21 Environmental Systems
Research
Institute
(ESRI) forecasts for
W Indian
School
Rd
2010 based on US Bureau of the Census, 2000.
Scattergood
h
4t
e
Av
N 6th Dr
E Montecito Ave
The use of public transit can greatly reduce these
monthly transportation costs. Currently, rates
for the Metro light rail or local bus are $1.75 per
St
E Midway
ride;
$3.50
per day; Park
or aer 31-day
pass for $55.00.
In
E Devonshire
Ave
Row
addition to special rates for ASU students, Metro
also offers a reduced rate for youth, seniors (age
N Central Ave
N 2nd Dr
N 9th Ave
e
N
h
5t
W
6t
h
N 2nd Av
In spite of these increasing numbers, data for the
W Glenrosa Ave
W Glenrosa
Ave ridership
residents of the half-mile area
show low
N
rates. 1.5 percent report Wusing
public transportation
M
o
to get to work, 19.3 percentntewalk
to work, and 71.4
ro
sa
21
W Mackenzie
Dr drive alone to work.
St
percent
W Monterosa St
Redwine
N 2nd Ave N 2nd Ave
N 2nd Dr
N 5th Ave
N 8th Ave
W Montecito Ave
On average, transportation costs constitute the
second largest household expenditure (after
Grand Canal
22
housing) for households across the country. Figure
E Roma Ave
2.6 demonstrates that households in the half-mile
target area pay, on average, between $978-1,038
per month on transportation.
E Turney Ave
N 1st Ave
N Valerie Pl
Ridership figures provided by Metro light rail
indicate
that 461,500 individuals
got on and off
l
ell Ave
ana
dC
n
a
at the Central and Osborn station in 2011. In fact,
Gr
Roma Ave
between April 2009 and WApril
2011, ridership
increased at the Central and Osborn station by
W Turney Ave
8%.20
bridge
Ave
E Virginia Ave
e
65+), persons with a disability, and Medicare card and their trip will be mapped for them.23 Metro
holders. Children under five ride for free. The also offers commuting alternatives like a carpool
reduced rate for a 31-day pass is $27.50.
matching service, and vanpool for groups of 6-15
commuters.
Local Public Transit
Metro also provides detailed instructions on
how to safely ride the light rail or bus. The Metro
school outreach program offers free classroom
presentations about the Metro transit system as
well as field trips using the bus, light rail, and LINK
bus systems.
There are also multiple bus options in the Central
and Osborn area. Figure 2.7 demonstrates the
available bus lines near the light rail station as of
April 2012. Currently there are three bus routes in
the area: Routes 0, 512, and Grand Avenue Limited.
The full bus transit map can be found on the Metro
website at http://www.valleymetro.org/planning_
your_trip/bus_rail_link/.
Metro’s community outreach program also offers
public presentations to any group that is interested
in transit education such as new residents and
refugees. They also offer mobility training for
senior citizens and persons with a disability, as well
as monthly sessions at the Disability Empowerment
Center.24
23 http://trips.valleymetro.org/pages/full_trip.
24 http://www.valleymetro.org/transit_education/community_out-
Clarendon
3rd St
Central Ave
3rd Ave
The Metro website contains many tools to help
riders understand the transit system. For example,
Metro offers an online trip planner where an
individual can enter their travel date, start and end
points, how far they are willing to walk, and their
preference for light rail, bus or express bus routes,
Mitchell
Osborn Rd
GL
0
512
Pierson
Railroad
Figure 2.7: Area Bus Routes and Transit Centers, Central and Osborn
light rail TC transit center
light rail stop
sheltered bus stop
unsheltered bus stop
park-and-ride
17 local bus route
512 express bus route
1/2 mile area is served by routes:
0, 512 Express Service, Grand Avenue Limited (GL), METRO Light Rail
Central & Osborn
21
Studies around Light Rail
A common fear surrounding the introduction of
mass transit systems is the potential increase in
crime it may bring. In Atlanta, Georgia, opposition
to extending MARTA rail and bus lines into
surrounding suburbs was strongly influenced by
the fear that crime would increase in these areas.27
In reality, most studies of crime and light rail have
found either a decrease in crime or no change after
the opening of the station. In Charlotte, North
Carolina, researchers measured crime statistics
before and after the opening of the Charlotte light
rail line. They found that light rail did not increase
crime around the stations and in fact, property
crimes decreased.28
reach/.
25 Saad, Lydia. 2010. “Nearly 4 in 10 Americans Still Fear Walking
Alone at Night.” Gallup. Online: http://www.gallup.com.
26 Federal Bureau of Investigations. 2010. “Uniform Crime Reports.” Online: www.fbi.gov.
27 Poister, Theodore H. 1996. “Transit-Related Crime in Suburban
Areas.” Journal of Urban Affairs 18(1):63-75.
29 Billings, Stephen B., Suzanne Leland, and David Swindell. 2011.
“The Effects of the Announcement and Opening of Light Rail
Transit Stations on Neighborhood Crime.” Journal of Urban Affairs.
22
Local Statistics
Locally, crime statistics for the greater Phoenix
area indicate that crime has decreased as it has
across the nation. Furthermore, data provided
by the Phoenix Police Department indicate that
crime has not increased in station areas since the
introduction of the Metro light rail.
The Phoenix Police Department provided crime
statistics for the one square mile area surrounding
the Central and Osborn light rail station (see Figure
2.8). Figure 2.9 demonstrates that crime has in
fact decreased significantly in the area between
2006 and October of 2011. The data obtained from
00(0):1-17.
29 Sandag. 2009. “Understanding Transit’s Impact on Public Safety.”
Online: www.sandag.org.
Indian School
7th St
This fear of crime contrasts sharply with federal
crime statistics revealing that crime has actually
been decreasing and is now at its lowest level in
recent history. Federal Bureau of Investigation
Statistics show that U.S. crime rates are down in
every category: From 2001-2010 violent crimes are
down 13.4 percent and property crimes are down
13 percent.26
In San Diego, California, the San Diego Association
of Governments analyzed crime patterns before
and after the implementation of light rail as well as
a comparison of neighborhoods with and without
a transit station. They found that the presence of
transit did not lead to more neighborhood crime.29
Central Ave
One of the goals of transit-oriented development
is to create walkable, bikeable communities
where the public can safely utilize the surrounding
amenities. In order for communities to succeed as
sustainable places, it is necessary to address issues
of perceived safety. The ADOH target area survey
found that residents within the one-half mile area
surrounding the selected light rail stations identified
crime as their primary concern. This is consistent
with a recent national Gallup poll revealing that
four in ten Americans fear walking alone at night.25
7th Ave
G
Crime and CPTED Principles
Osborn Rd
Thomas
´
Figure 2.8: Approximate One Square Mile Area of
Crime Data, Central and Osborn
Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study
the Phoenix Police Department is reflective of the
statistics reported annually to the FBI. It contains
categories for violent crime (homicide, rape,
robbery, and aggravated assault) and property
crime (burglary, larceny/theft, automobile theft,
and arson). The reduction in crime around the light
rail station is consistent with studies conducted
around the country.
Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design
during the planning phase of an area; however,
CPTED principles can be integrated into existing
communities. The transition into a TOD community
serves as an ideal time for integration of these
concepts.
Although there are many approaches to CPTED
including the number of concepts, the evaluation
of their effectiveness, and so forth, five main
concepts are most commonly utilized:
• Natural Surveillance
One of the ways that transit-oriented development
can contribute towards lower crime rates is through
• Natural Access Control
creating more “eyes on the streets,” based on the
principle that the greater the risk of being seen or
• Territorial Reinforcement
challenged, the less likely people are to commit a
crime. There are several principles that landlords,
• Maintenance and Management
property owners, business owners, and developers
can follow in order to reduce crime and disorder
• Activity Support
on their respective properties. These principles are
known collectively as “Crime Prevention Through
These five CPTED principles and examples of how
Environmental Design,” or CPTED.
to utilize them in practice are explained in detail on
CPTED design principles are typically implemented the following pages 24-25.
Central and osborn: Local Number of Crimes 2006-2011
900
Light Rail
Construction
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2006
2007
2008
2009
Figure 2.9: Local Number of Crimes 2006-2011, Central and Osborn
property crime
violent crime
2010
2011*
Source: Phoenix Police Department
Data Received December 2011
*Data Through October 2011
Central & Osborn
23
• Natural surveillance
As previously mentioned, more “eyes on the street”
increases a criminal’s perception of being caught
and thus deters crime. Natural surveillance can be
supported through the use of fences instead of solid
walls to promote visibility through areas. Increased
lighting allows for greater nighttime visibility. The
installation of benches and other gathering places
encourages the use of public spaces.
Photo 1: Windows and balconies provide “eyes and ears” for
areas of potential unwanted activities.
• Natural access control
Natural access control refers to the means by which
one enters and exits a space. The flow of traffic
through a space is directed, and opportunities for
quick or unexpected entry or exit are low. This
concept promotes appropriate and legitimate use
of space. Natural access control can take the form
of fences and doors or gates, but it can also utilize
other landscaping elements such as vegetation and
sidewalks to create a natural flow through the area.
Entrances and exits are selectively placed so as to
promote visibility both from outside and within the
space.
Photo 2: Raised wall area serves as a defined access control
to the shops and apartments above; Photo 3: Planters serve
as natural access control for pedestrians and prevent vehicles
from coming too close to the building.
• Territorial Reinforcement
Territorial reinforcement refers to, in part, the
definition of public and private space. If disrepair
and poor landscaping confuse lines between a
private property and a public open space, the lack
of territorial reinforcement may invite unwanted
activity. Territorial reinforcement builds on the
idea that people will protect what they feel to be
their own. The creation of quality public spaces
will promote a sense of community ownership and
encourage users to protect their space. Territory
may be reinforced through signage, fencing, and
landscape elements. In design concepts, the
incorporation of elements that a community
identifies with will lend to the creation of pride in a
community space.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Photo 4: Community bulletin board creates a sense of community; Photo 5: Bench area is a clear definition of public space;
Photo 6: Personalized signage creates a sense of ownership for the community
24
Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study
• Maintenance and Management
An area that is not well-maintained does not
communicate pride or ownership and may signal a
lack of supervision on the site. An area that is wellmaintained and cared for indicates frequent use
of the site, and also encourages the appropriate
use of the site. This is particularly an issue with
vacant or abandoned properties. Frequent upkeep
of landscape maintains a clean appearance on the
site and prevents the creation of visual barriers and
hiding places. Maintaining the physical elements
of the site (such as fixing broken windows) prevents
the perception of non-use. Selection of materials in
the design phase should give preference to those
that are easiest to maintain and most resistant to
vandalism. For example, porous materials should
be sealed or have anti-graffiti coating.
7
Photos 7 & 8: Well maintained areas create a sense of safety
and show that the property is cared for. The painted mural
serves to discourage graffiti.
8
• activity support
Without individuals using the site, the other
principles of CPTED lose their strength. It is
important to encourage use of the site, especially
during non-work hours. The common scenario
today consists of individuals leaving their homes
to go to work; while at work, their homes remain
empty and very few people are around to act as
natural surveillance. After leaving work to return
home, their work areas are now vacant and lack
natural surveillance.
9
The TOD model of encouraging mixed-use
development allows for use at all hours of the day.
Examples of this include mixing housing, work, and
retail options within close proximity or even in the
same building.
Sidewalk patios for restaurants and cafes as well
as more windows on a building frontage provides
for greater visibility and more “eyes on the street.”
Open spaces could also be used to host organized
community events.
Image Credits
1: www.pwcgov.org; 2: www.pegasusnews.com; 3: www.pwcgov.org;
4: Drachman Institute; 5: http://estudarque.blogspot.com 6: Drachman Institute; 7: www.pwcgov.org; 8: Drachman Institute; 9: www.
ebbc.org/vrf; 10: www.mass.gov
10
Photos 9& 10: Vibrant urban spaces attract people which
can aid in natural surveillance and deter unwanted activities.
Central & Osborn
25
Pedestrian and bicycle mobility and safety are
significant components of creating successful
TOD. In the 2002 General Plan, the City of Phoenix
identified the need to encourage pedestrianoriented development and to increase bicycle
connections in the city.
lanes, number of vehicles, and curb radius (larger
curb radii encourage drivers to turn faster around
corners). The checklist also includes questions
such as: Does the area have adequate bicycle
lanes, designated bicycle routes, and multi-use
paths? Are there sidewalks present, and if so, in
what condition? Are there marked crosswalks
at and between intersections, and what type of
crossing signals are present?
Evaluation tools
A task force formed by the Safe Routes to
School Program of the Arizona Department of
Transportation has created an Active School
Neighborhood Checklist (ASNC) to be used as a
tool for assessing school sites’ walkability and
bikeability.30 This tool can be used to evaluate
any neighborhood or TOD area on issues of bike
and pedestrian safety. The checklist includes
items such as: speed limits, number of traffic
In the half-mile area around Central and Osborn
there are seven striped pedestrian crossings and
bike lanes on 3rd Avenue and 3rd Street (see Figure
2.10). To further evaluate the area in terms of bike
and pedestrian safety around transit, please see
Appendix B: The Active Transit Neighborhood
Checklist (ATNC). This is an abbreviated checklist
modifed from the ASNC that is centered around
transit rather than schools.
Central Ave
2nd Ave
3rd Ave
30 http://www.azdot.gov/srts/PDF/Documents_Active_School_
Neighborhood_Checklist.pdf.
Clarendon
3rd St
H
Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety
Columbus
Osborn Rd
Monterey
Earll
Figure 2.10: Pedestrian/Bike Map of 1/2 mile Area, Central and Osborn
light rail
26
striped pedestrian crossing
light rail stop
Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study
bicycle lane
Resources for Bicyclists and Pedestrians
Tempe
Tempe in
Motion
Phoenix
Phoenix Metro
Bicycle Club
Arizona Bicycle
Tempe Bicycle
Club
Action Group
http:\\www.
Mesa
City of Mesa,
Mesa Rides!
Program
State/Maricopa
Coalition of Arizona Bicyclists
ADOT Bicycle/Pedestrian Program
Maricopa DOT Bicycle Program
Maricopa Kids Coalition
Maricopa Safe Routes to School
Metro
Table 2.10: Bicycling Resources
resources
There are numerous bicycle groups that promote
both walkability and ease of bicycling throughout
the Phoenix area and Maricopa County (see Table
2.10).
The Federal Highway Administration provides
a detailed list of relevant bicycle and pedestrian
safety information.31 Additional resources include
materials to help guide officials in designing systems
that are safe and comply with regulations.32
Effective designation of rail lines and crossings
can substantially increase pedestrian safety. Table
31 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/ped_transit/ped_transguide/.
32 http://katana.hsrc.unc.edu/cms/downloads/PedRSA.reduced.
pdf.
2.11 delineates several methods of track crossing
warning mechanisms in use at light rail stations
across the country.
Light Rail Bicycle Safety Devices
Type
Active Warning
Devices
Device/Method of Warning
Low-rise flashing pedestrian sign
Fencing
Bells/other noises
Passive Warning
Devices
Lit signs for nighttime safety
Signage
Warning on ground
Channelization devices (such as gates)
Other
Considerations
Change in ground texture--physical
and/or visual--to indicate upcoming
change
Location of gate arms in relation to
pedestrian platform (provides enough
space for pedestrians)
Selection of method based on collision
experiences at that stop
Visibility from all angles of approach
Pedestrian volumes and peak flows
Provide warning at each track if there
are multiple tracks
Table 2.11: Light Rail Bicycle Safety Devices
Signage along the Phoenix Sonoran Bikeway
Route
Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for
Streets and Highways. Part 10. 2003. http://safety.fhwa.
dot.gov/xings/collision/twgreport/index.htm#a6
Central & Osborn
27
One of the goals of TOD is to improve the health of
residents by encouraging an active lifestyle. Studies
show that individuals who use public transit are
more likely to achieve the Surgeon General’s
recommendation of thirty minutes of moderate
physical activity per day.33 The incorporation of
open green space to encourage physical activity is
a crucial element in any TOD plan.
The 2002 Phoenix General Plan34 indicates several
goals and policies aimed at the creation of more
open spaces and parks throughout the city. The
TOD Zoning Overlay District One35 calls for a
minimum 5% open space for multifamily, mixed
use, and commercial development; in general, the
district also encourages the maximum use of open
space.
and Osborn station, and no parks within the halfmile target area.
The two largest parks in the area are Encanto
and Steele Indian School parks. Encanto features
a lagoon, a swimming pool, and two municipal
golf courses. Steele Indian School Park offers a
playground, two half-court basketball courts and
sand volleyball courts. Monterey park offers lighted
softball, volleyball, and soccer fields.
Area Parks
7th St
Central
As indicated in Figure 2.11, there are three parks
within the two-mile area surrounding the Central
7th Ave
I
Open Space/Parks/Plazas
Indian School
Steele
Indian
School
Park
2 mile
1 mile
1/2 mile
Osborn
Thomas
Encanto
Park
Steele Indian School Park, Phoenix, Arizona
Source: City of Phoenix
Vacant Land Potential
Any TOD plan for the half-mile area surrounding
Central and Osborn should consider redeveloping
existing land to increase the amount of usable
green space in the area.
Monterey
Park
Figure 2.11: Area Parks, Central and Osborn
33 Tucson Move. 2011. May/June 1(2):60.
34 Phoenix General Plan: Recreation Element. 2002. http:\\phoenix.
gov/planning/gprec.pdf.
35 662 Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One
(TOD-1). 2009. http:\\www.codepublishing.com/az/phoenix/
framless/index.pl?path=../html/PhoenixZ06/PhoenixZ0662.
html#662.
28
One of the numerous parking lots in the
Central & Osborn area
Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study
The pictures to the right and on the previous page
demonstrate two of the many surface parking lots
near the light rail station at Central and Osborn.
Figure 2.12 shows that there are also a number of
vacant parcels to the northeast of the station area.
Several strategies to increase green space may be
considered, including the creation of plazas, pocket
parks, and joint-use agreements with schools.
Clarendon
3rd St
Central Ave
2nd Ave
3rd Ave
Vacant parking lot near the light rail station at Central and
Osborn
Weldon
Columbus
Mitchell
Osborn Rd
Lexington
Monterey
Earll
Figure 2.12: Open Space Potential, Central and Osborn
light rail
light rail stop
vacant land
surface parking lots
Source: Drachman Institute
April 2012
Central & Osborn
29
• plazas
Public plazas are urban open spaces that can
serve a multitude of functions. They may provide
a public gathering space, accommodation for local
farmer’s markets or arts and crafts fairs, a home
for public art structures, and settings for recreation
and relaxation. Plazas should inject local character
and flavor and provide adequate seating and shade
for the hot desert climate. They also provide added
security for the surrounding buildings by increasing
public use.
2
Photo 1: Yavapai County Courthouse Plaza, Prescott, Arizona.
Source: www.planning.org; Photo 2: Memorial Union Plaza
adjacent to the student union at Arizona State University,
Tempe, Arizona. Source: Studio Ma
1
• pocket parks
Pocket parks are urban open spaces at a very small
scale, usually a few parcels or smaller in size. They
may include play areas for children, small meeting
areas, or spaces for relaxing. Pocket parks provide
much needed greenery in the urban landscape.
4
3
Photo 3: Pocket Park in South Bend, Indiana. Source:
keepsouthbendneautiful.files.wordpress.com
Photo 4: Pocket Park at Arizona Ave and Chandler Blvd,
Chandler, Arizona. Source: Landscapeforms
Photo 5: Pocket Park in Logan, Ohio. Source: logantowncenter.
com
30
5
Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study
• joint-use agreements
Leading public health authorities recommend
sharing existing school and community recreational
facilities to promote physical activity. This can be
done when schools open up their grounds to the
community after school hours, or through specific
joint-use agreements between organizations. In
March 2012, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed
SB 1059 which prevents schools from being held
liable for injuries sustained by recreational users
of outdoor school grounds, excluding swimming
pools and other aquatic features. In the half mile
target area at Central and Osborn there are several
schools where such agreements could be pursued
(see page 32).
7
The photos above and below show before and after
shots of a facility benefitting the community under
a joint-use agreement. The Tucson middle school
has a joint use agreement with City of Tucson Parks
and Recreation to open up their school grounds
after school hours. Another joint-use agreement
exists between the school and Community Gardens
of Tucson (a local non-profit) to operate the schoolcommunity garden. Local community members
can now subscribe to garden plots and have open
access to the garden.
6
The above photo is an example of a junior high
school in Tucson, Arizona that opened up their track
and Energi Systems equipment to the community
after school hours. Located in a high risk area with
few recreational opportunities, the school has
become a park for the local residents to enjoy. It
includes picnic areas, benches, exercise stations,
an athletic field, and plenty of space to walk or run
for exercise.
Photo 6: Flowing Wells Junior HIgh School, Tucson Arizona
Photo 7: Doolen Middle School Garden Before
Photo 8: Doolen Middle School Garden After
Source for Photos 6-8: Drachman Institute
8
Central & Osborn
31
School Availability
e
ll Av
nal
pbe nd Ca
m
a
a
C
r
G
W
W Turney Ave
W Indian School Rd
2 Mile
7
²
E Turney Ave
4
²
E Devonshire Ave
E Indian School Rd
1 Mile
E Fairmount Ave
N 7th Ave
N 15th Ave
9
²
N 3rd Ave
W Glenrosa Ave
of which are high schools (three public and one
private). There is one private specialty school in the
area that serves K-12 special needs children. The
remaining four schools are either K-8 or K-6, three
public and one small private Montessori school.
Central Ave
A concern for families with children moving into
a TOD area is the availability and quality of area
schools. There are no schools in the half-mile
target area at Central and Osborn (see Figure 2.13).
However, there are nine schools located between
one and two miles from the light rail stop, four
N 12th St
J
Area Schools
1
²
1/2 Mile
E Whitton Ave
2
²
N 7th St
Osborn Rd
8
²
W Thomas Rd
E Thomas Rd
W Edgemont Ave
3
²
Figure 2.13: Area Schools, Central and Osborn
light rail
32
public school
private school
Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study
5
²
E Virginia Ave
6
²
E Sheridan St
Source: Drachman Institute
May 2012
public charter/magnet school
specialty school
�
List of Local Schools
•
within 1/2 mile of stop
•
within 1 mile of stop
•
within 2 miles of stop
No Schools within 1/2 Mile of Stop
No Schools within 1 MIle of Stop
1. Clarendon School
1225 West Clarendon
Public K-8
434 students in 2010
85.9% free/reduced lunch
16.2:1 student teacher ratio
26.7 full time teachers
510 reading score (6th grade)
423 math score (6th grade)
2. Encanto School
1426 West Osborn Rd
Public K-8
644 students in 2010
85.7% free/reduced lunch
17.2:1 student teacher ratio
37.2 full time teachers
444 reading score (3rd grade)
352 math score (3rd grade)
3. Khalsa Montessori Elementary
School
2536 N 3rd St
Public K-6 (Charter)
99th percentile statewide
519 reading score (3rd grade)
406 math score (3rd grade)
168 students in 2010
16.7% free or reduced lunch
4. Montessori Children’s School
516 W Bethany Home Rd
Private Elementary K-3
47 students in 2010
8.5 full time teachers
3:1 student teacher ratio
5. North High School
1101 E Thomas Rd
Public 9 – 12
63rd percentile statewide
704 reading score (10th grade)
497 math score( 10th grade)
2505 students in 2010
75.2% free or reduced lunch
18.9:1 student teacher ratio
132.2 full time teachers
6. St. Marys High School
2525 N 3rd St
Private 9 – 12
709 students in 2010
19.4:1 student teacher ratio
36.5 full time teachers
7. Southwest Education Center
4433 N 7th St
Private 1 – 12 (Special Education)
42 students in 2010
7:1 student teacher ratio
6 full time teachers
8. Teacher Preparation Charter High
School
1202 W Thomas Rd
Public 9 – 12 (Charter)
50th percentile statewide
700 reading score (10th grade)
483 math score (10th grade)
78 students in 2010
1.3% free or reduced lunch
Notes: All test scores for public schools
are based on the 2011 AIMS (Arizona’s
Instrument to Measure Standards).
10th Grade Math and Reading Scores:
Scale 0-800
• State Mean Scaled Math
Score=501.09
• State Mean Scaled Reading
Score=711.72
8th Grade Math and Reading Scores:
Scale=0-600
• State Mean Scaled Math
Score=434.79
• State Mean Scaled Reading
Score=527.07
6th Grade Math and Reading Scores:
Scale 0-600
• State Mean Scaled Math
Score=412.64
• State Mean Scaled Reading
Score=515.19
3rd Grade Math and Reading Scores:
Scale 0-500
• State Mean Scaled Math
Score=370.95
• State Mean Scaled Reading
Score=461.52
9. Tumbleweed Transitional Learning
Center
950 West Indian School Rd
Public 9 – 12
3rd percentile statewide
665 reading score (10th grade)
438 math score (10th grade)
51 students in 2010
94.1% free or reduced lunch
23.1:1 student teacher ratio
2.2 full time teachers
Information on all schools obtained from
schooldigger.com, accessed April 2012
Central & Osborn
33
$
show that this mall is currently in foreclosure.
According to data compiled by the Environmental
Systems Research Institute (ESRI), overall there are
393 businesses in the half-mile target area (see
Table 2.12).
Central Ave
$
Office Tower
2nd Ave
3rd Ave
A goal of successful transit-oriented development
is to offer a mix of services and amenities within
walking distance of public transit. The largest
retail space within the half-mile around Central
and Osborn is Park Mall, the first shopping
mall in Phoenix. The mall houses several eating
Office Tower
establishments and other businesses. Public
records
Clarendon
3rd St
K
Area Amenities
Weldon
Security Title
Plaza
$
Columbus
Meridian
Bank Tower
$
Mitchell
Phoenix
Financial
Center
Osborn Rd
300
Tower
Lexington
Great
American
Tower
Monterey
$
Earll
Park Central
Mall
SCF Tower
Source:
Drachman Institute
April 2012
Figure 2.14: Area Amenities, Central and Osborn
light rail
retail
light rail stop
office
health/fitness
34
1/2 mile area
auto services
hotel/lodging
buildings
$ bank/money services
restaurant/dining
Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study
surface parking
parking garage
bar/night life/adult
gas
vacant
grocery
Businesses in Half-Mile Area by Service Industry Codes
Number
Percent
Agriculture & Mining
2
0.5%
Construction
3
0.8%
Manufacturing
8
2.0%
Transportation
5
1.3%
Communication
7
1.8%
Utility
0
0.0%
Wholesale Trade
6
1.5%
Retail Trade
39
9.9%
Home Improvement
1
General Merchandise
1
Food Stores (Includes Grocery Stores)
4
Auto Dealers, Gas Stations, Auto Aftermarket
2
Apparel & Accessory Stores
1
Furniture & Home Furnishings
3
Eating & Drinking Places (Includes “Fast Food”)
16
Miscellaneous Retail
11
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate
52
Banks, Savings, & Lending Institutions
15
Securities Brokers
7
Insurance Carriers & Agents
10
Real Estate, Holding, Other Investment Offices
20
Services
225
Hotels & Lodging
3
Automotive Services
8
Motion Pictures & Amusements
6
Health Services
36
Legal Services
62
Education Institutions & Libraries
6
Other Services
13.2%
57.3%
104
Government
24
6.1%
Other
22
5.6%
Total
393
100%
Table 2.12: Half-Mile Area Business Summary,
Central and Osborn
Source: Business data by Infogroup,
Omaha NE, 2012, compiled by ESRI
Accessed April 2012
Central & Osborn
35
L
Central and Osborn Area Summary
General
Central and Osborn is a mixed-use area with
residential, retail, and offices located in the halfmile surrounding the light rail stop. The target area
is bounded by Clarendon Avenue to the North,
Earll Drive to the South, 3rd Avenue to the West,
and 3rd Street to the East.
Neighborhood Demographics and
Housing Characteristics
Compared to demographics for the City of
Phoenix, target area residents are more likely to
have a bachelor’s degree or higher, are less likely
to be homeowners, are more likely to use public
transportation, and have higher median incomes.
The target area is 19.2 percent Hispanic, compared
to 40.8 percent for the City of Phoenix.36
In the target area around the Central and Osborn
station a small proportion of residents have lived
in their home for ten years or more. The target
area is largely comprised of multi-family units, with
only 6.7 percent of the housing stock being singlefamily attached or detached. This is similar to the
larger census tract area, where 86 percent of the
housing units are multi-family.
Property Values
Consistent with statistics from across the country,
property values have risen since the introduction
of light rail, and the largest increases are found
closest to station areas.37 There are a number
of programs that may be pursued in order to
preserve and develop affordable housing and to
assist existing low-income homeowners in the
area. These may include Low Income Housing Tax
Credits, Community Land Trusts, Employer Assisted
Housing Programs, and property tax abatement
programs.
36 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Summary File 1, provided by Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), Community Analyst Data
Service.
37 Golub, Aaron, Subjrajit Guhathakurta, and BharathSollapuram.
2011. “Light Rail Economic Impact Analysis: Task 1 Final Report to
the Maricopa Association of Governments.”
36
Housing and Transportation
Affordability
Using the common measure of affordability that
housing costs not exceed 30 percent of household
income, the half-mile target area around Central
and Osborn is considered affordable. When
factoring in transportation costs, the northwest
quadrant in the area becomes unaffordable as
residents are paying, on average, more than 45
percent of their household income on housing and
transportation.38
Public Transit
Public transit ridership at the Central and Camelback
light rail station has increased by eight percent
since April 2009.39 Ridership numbers provided by
Metro indicate that over 460,00 people got on and
off at the station in 2011. In spite of these numbers,
ridership figures for the residents of the half-mile
target area are low, with 1.5 percent reporting
that they use public transit to get to work.40 On
average, residents in the target area pay between
$978-1,038 per month on transportation.41
Crime
The ADOH target area survey found that residents
identified crime as one of their primary concerns,
yet statistics show that crime has not increased in
station areas since the introduction of Metro light
rail.42 Consistent with studies across the country,
crime in the target area has been decreasing and is
now at its lowest level in recent history. There are
several principles that landlords, property owners,
business owners, and developers can follow in order
to reduce crime and disorder on their respective
properties; collectively these are known as “crime
prevention through environmental design”
or CPTED. They include: natural surveillance,
38 Center for Neighborhood Technology, Housing and Transportation Affordability Index. Accessed April 2012.
39 BAE Urban Economics. 2012. “TOD Mixed-Income Housing
Market Demand Study.” Online: wwwbae1.com.
40 Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) forecasts for
2010 based on US Bureau of the Census, 2000.
41 Center for Neighborhood Technology, Housing and Transportation Affordability Index. Accessed April 2012.
42 City of Phoenix Police Department. 2011.
Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study
natural access control, territorial reinforcement,
maintenance and management, and activity
support.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety
In terms of bicycle and pedestrian safety, in the
half-mile area around Central and Osborn there
are three seven striped pedestrian crossings and
two dedicated bike lanes. The Arizona Department
of Transportation has created an Active Transit
Neighborhood Checklist (ATNC) to be used as a
tool for assessing the walkability and bikeability
of an area.43 Of particular concern are speed limits
and traffic, the presence of bicycle lanes and
designated bicycle routes, and sidewalk conditions
and crosswalks.
Open space/plazas/parks
There are three parks in the two-mile area
surrounding the station, but no parks within the
half-mile target area. There are a number of vacant
parcels and numerous surface parking lots near
the station area providing potential for increasing
usable green space. Strategies to be considered are
the creation of plazas, pocket parks, and joint-use
agreements with area schools. In support of jointuse agreements, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer
recently signed SB 1059 which prevents schools
from being held liable for injuries sustained by
recreational users of outdoor school grounds after
school hours.
Area Schools and Amenities
In terms of area services and amenities, there are
nine schools located within two miles of the Central
and Osborn light rail station, four of which are high
schools. There are approximately 393 businesses in
the target area, 57.3 percent of which are servicerelated, with four food stores.44
43 See Appendix B.
44 Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), Business
Analyst Data Service.
Central & Osborn
37
38
Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study
Project Summary
Project Summary
39
Project Summary
Housing and transportation are the two largest
expenses in American household budgets. In 2009, the
US Departments of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) and Transportation (DOT) created a partnership
with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
help improve access to affordable housing, more
transportation options, and lower transportation costs
while protecting the environment in communities
around the country. They compiled a set of “Livability
Principles” to guide their efforts toward this end with
transit-oriented development listed as a strategy
to support existing communities. Today, in addition
to serving as criteria for securing various sources
of funding, these Principles are frequently used by
jurisdictions and organizations to help define their goals
for community development:
Provide more transportation choices
Develop safe, reliable, and economical transportation
choices to decrease household transportation costs,
improve air quality, and promote public health.
Promote equitable, affordable housing
Expand location- and energy-efficient housing choices
for people of all ages, incomes, races, and ethnicities
to increase mobility and lower the combined cost of
housing and transportation.
Enhance economic competitiveness
Improve economic competitiveness through reliable
and timely access to employment centers, educational
opportunities, services, and other basic needs by workers, as well as expanded business access to markets.
Support existing communities
Target funding toward existing communities-through
strategies like transit-oriented, mixed-use development and land recycling- to increase community
revitalization and the efficiency of public works investments and safeguard rural landscapes.
Value communities and neighborhoods
Enhance the unique characteristics of all communities
by investing in healthy, safe, walkable neighborhoodsrural, urban, or suburban.
Transit-oriented development is a key strategy to
creating sustainable communities, that is, communities
with the capacity to endure over time. In sum,
“Sustainable communities are places that have a
variety of housing and transportation choices, with
destinations close to home. As a result, they tend to
have lower transportation costs, reduce air pollution
and storm water runoff, decrease infrastructure costs,
preserve historic properties and sensitive lands, save
people time in traffic, be more economically resilient
and meet market demand for different types of housing
at different price points. Rural, suburban, and urban
communities can all use sustainable communities
strategies and techniques to invest in healthy, safe and
walkable neighborhoods, but these strategies will look
different in each place depending on the community’s
character, context, and needs.” (The Partnership for
Sustainable Communities, 2012, emphasis added).1
In order to work towards sustainable transit-oriented
communities, residents and property owners must
be knowledgeable about existing conditions and
community needs. The following tables provide
additional data and summary of the existing conditions
in the eight station areas included in this series of
Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Studies.
The overall goal is to provide information for residents,
property owners, and business owners in the areas
surrounding the light rail stations so that they will be
better informed participants in the changes that are and
will be taking place in their neighborhoods. We believe
these changes toward transit-oriented development
can lead to more livable and sustainable communities
that will provide healthier, safer, more equitable and
more beautiful places to live.
Coordinate and leverage federal policies and
investment
Align federal policies and funding to remove barriers to
collaboration, leverage funding, and increase accountability and effectiveness of all levels of government to
plan for future growth, including making smart energy
choices such as locally generated renewable energy.
1 http://www.sustainablecommunities.gov.
40
Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study
Central &
McDowell
Washington
& 12th St
Palm
Van Buren
South
Area
Boundaries:
West
Highland
Earll
Virginia
I-10
Jackson
Main &
Sycamore
Central &
Thomas
Earll
Apache &
Price
Central &
Osborn
Clarendon
Apache &
McClintock
Central &
Camelback
Colter
North
Randall/
Orange
Orange/
Victory
Aragon
Railroad
Railroad
Railroad
Dobson
Longmore
3rd Ave
3rd Ave
3rd Ave
3rd Ave
10th St
Una
S-bound
Price
3rd St
3rd St
3rd St
3rd St
14th St
Bonnie
Evergreen
East
Table 3.1: Area Boundaries: These boundaries apply to all data below except as noted.
Central &
Camelback
Central &
Osborn
Central &
Thomas
Central &
McDowell
Washington
& 12th St
Apache &
McClintock
Apache &
Price
Main &
Sycamore
Source: 2005 - 2009 American Community Survey
5.0%
15.2%
6.9%
7.1%
38.9%
38.5%
20.4%
12.0%
Not a H.S. Grad
9.3%
8.0%
6.0%
13.0%
23.9%
29.6%
25.5%
26.6%
HS Grad
9.5%
17.7%
17.8%
11.4%
20.8%
20.0%
24.4%
23.0%
Some College
29.4%
20.5%
18.2%
17.9%
23.6%
34.0%
24.5%
26.3%
Associates Degree
14.4%
4.0%
11.5%
4.8%
7.1%
5.3%
6.4%
4.8%
Bachelor’s Degree
20.9%
25.4%
24.5%
34.3%
13.6%
5.6%
13.7%
14.9%
Graduate or Prof Degree
16.6%
24.6%
21.8%
18.6%
10.1%
6.7%
5.5%
4.8%
% H.S. Grad or Higher
90.7%
92.0%
94.0%
87.0%
76.1%
70.4%
74.5%
73.4%
% B.A. or higher
37.5%
50.0%
46.3%
52.9%
24.7%
12.3%
19.2%
19.7%
1-19 minutes
54.3%
61.0%
46.9%
62.8%
59.0%
48.4%
36.8%
28.5%
20-29 minutes
30.5%
32.2%
38.3%
20.2%
21.3%
14.5%
20.7%
22.8%
30-39 minutes
10.5%
5.1%
9.2%
9.3%
5.9%
9.7%
25.8%
27.2%
40-59 minutes
4.5%
1.2%
2.5%
7.4%
8.0%
23.3%
14.4%
15.5%
60+ minutes
0.2%
0.4%
3.6%
0.3%
6.1%
3.6%
2.3%
6.0%
Public Transportation to
Work
8.6%
1.5%
6.7%
0.9%
13.7%
28.2%
2.5%
7.4%
# Single-Family Units
223
26
96
192
104
111
130
128
# Multi-Family Units
452
363
92
227
525
107
625
60
% Households in Poverty
Education
Travel Time to Work
Table 3.2: Data Summary, 2005-2009 American Community Survey
Project Summary
41
Central &
Camelback
Central &
Osborn
Central &
Thomas
Central &
McDowell
Washington
& 12th St
Apache &
McClintock
Apache &
Price
Main &
Sycamore
Source: Census 2012 Summary File 1
Population
748
370
303
651
1,751
1,553
2,288
582
# Households
415
248
159
377
632
640
1,049
182
# Housing Units
558
512
223
433
705
786
1,174
197
Avg. Household Size
1.79
1.54
1.91
1.72
2.01
2.4
2.17
3.17
% Households with Children
19.8%
8.5%
15.1%
12.2%
16.6%
24.5%
23.5%
42.3%
Vacancy Rate*
25.6%
51.6%
28.7%
12.9%
10.4%
18.6%
10.6%
7.6%
% Owner Occupied
38.8%
36.4%
56.0%
50.1%
19.0%
20.1%
21.0%
70.9%
White
75.6%
73.3%
77.6%
84.5%
57.5%
58.8%
55.1%
63.2%
Hispanic (any race)
25.0%
19.2%
22.1%
14.9%
38.8%
40.2%
32.9%
52.2%
Black/African American
5.6%
9.2%
5.9%
4.9%
16.2%
4.2%
9.2%
2.8%
Asian
2.1%
4.0%
2.0%
1.7%
4.2%
8.7%
3.6%
2.2%
Native Hawaiian/
Pacific Islander
0.1%
0.3%
0.0%
0.3%
0.1%
0.3%
1.0%
0.0%
American Indian/
Alaska Native
3.2%
3.2%
1.7%
0.9%
4.5%
4.1%
10.4%
3.8%
Two or more races
4.5%
3.2%
4.3%
2.6%
2.8%
4.2%
5.0%
5.0%
Male
53.3%
50.8%
53.1%
52.5%
57.7%
54.4%
50.0%
50.2%
Female
46.7%
49.2%
46.9%
47.5%
42.3%
45.6%
50.0%
49.8%
0-19
19.6%
9.2%
14.6%
12.7%
15.1%
24.9%
25.9%
33.1%
20-29
15.7%
26.6%
15.5%
16.7%
21.6%
33.7%
37.9%
15.0%
30-44
24.7%
29.6%
26.8%
25.6%
24.7%
21.0%
16.7%
19.0%
45-64
29.3%
23.1%
33.8%
33.7%
28.8%
15.9%
14.4%
23.8%
65+
10.7%
11.9%
10.2%
10.8%
9.7%
4.4%
5.1%
9.3%
39.3
35.6
41.3
42
38.1
27.1
25
31.5
Median Household
Income
$36,581
$52,543
$45,502
$40,468
$22,757
$30,279
$41,116
$47,076
Avg. Household
Income
$50,516
$63,970
$64,545
$62,423
$41,395
$40,380
$48,296
$52,874
Per Capita Income
$26,150
$41,370
$34,927
$36,354
$24,993
$16,669
$21,368
$16,224
Race
Gender
Age**
Median Age
Income
Table 3.3: Data Summary, Census 2010 Summary File 1
*For Vacancy rate by Tenure (homeowner versus renter) please see Table 2.7, page 11.
**Millenial Generation: Born after 1980 (age 18-29 in 2010); Generation X: Born 1965-1980 (age 30-45 in 2010); Baby
Boomers: Born 1946-1964 (age 46-64 in 2010); Silent Generation: Born 1928-1945 (age 65+ in 2010) (Source: Pew Social Science Research Center, 2012).
42
Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study
Housing Affordability
(<30% of Household
Income)
Housing + Transportation
Affordability
(<45% of Household
Income)
Avg Transportation Costs
N. of Camelback
affordable affordable
unaffordable
Main &
Sycamore
Apache &
Price
Apache &
McClintock
Washington
& 12th St
Central &
McDowell
Central &
Thomas
Central &
Osborn
Central &
Camelback
Source: Center for Neighborhood Technology 2012
West of
Central
unaffordable
affordable affordable affordable
unaffordable
unaffordable
Area n. of
Main and e.
of Sycamore
unaffordable
$9351046/mo
$1,018/
mo
$10941129/mo
unaffordable
northwest
quadrant
unaffordable
southern
half unaffordable
unaffordable
West of
12th unaffordable
$9571036/mo
$9781038/mo
$9541040/mo
$948968/mo
$880983/mo
affordable
Table 3.4: Data Summary, Center for Neighborhood Technology 2012
829,377
856,664
Metro Bus Options
(routes)
4 Routes:
0, 39, 50,
GL
3 Routes:
0, 512, GL
4 Routes: 4 Routes:
0, 29, 512, 0, 17, 512,
GL
GL
Main &
Sycamore
Central &
McDowell
461,500
Apache &
Price
Central &
Thomas
526,677
Apache &
McClintock
Central &
Osborn
METRO Light Rail
Ridership (total on/off in
2011)
Washington
& 12th St
Central &
Camelback
Source: METRO 2012
146,067
679,702
572,063
1,930,831
4 Routes:
1, 512, 3,
12
1 Route:
40
2
Routes:
40, 511
7 Routes: 30,
40, 45, 96,
104, AZ Ave
Link, Main
St. Link
Table 3.5: Data Summary, Metro 2012
Central &
Camelback
Central &
Osborn
Central &
Thomas
Central &
McDowell
Washington
& 12th St
Apache &
McClintock
Apache &
Price
Main &
Sycamore
Source: Miscellaneous
# Parks (within 2 miles)
3
3
2
12
12
6
5
4
# Schools (within 2 miles)
15
9
12
17
13
8
6
5
# Businesses**
198
393
444
167
94
51
20
74
Acres of vacant land
(2011)*** (within 1 mile)
21
18
21
32
7
17
1
42
Table 3.6: Data Summary, Miscellaneous
**ESRI, 2012.
***Kittrell, Katherine. 2012. “Vacant Land Value Impacts: Comparing Phoenix Metro Light Rail Station Areas.” Paper
presented to the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 91st Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C.
Project Summary
43
44
Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study
Appendices
A. Center for Neighborhood Technology: Housing and
Transportation Affordability Index
B. Active Transit Neighborhood Checklist
Appendices
46
48
45
A
Center for Neighborhood Technology: Housing and Transportation Affordability Index
Figure A.1: Regional Housing Costs as a Percentage of Income
Unaffordable Housing: Greater than 30%
Affordable Housing: Less than 30%
Figure A.2: Regional Housing + Transportation Costs as a Percentage of
Income
Unaffordable H+T: Greater than 45%
46
Source: www.cnt.org
Accessed July 2012
Affordable H+T: Less than 45%
Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study
Source: www.cnt.org
Accessed July 2012
Center for Neighborhood
Technology
Estimates. Per capita income is calculated as
median household income divided by average
The Drachman Institute utilized data analyses by household size.
the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT)
to create housing and transportation affordability • Average Household Size
maps for each station area. Figures A.1 and A.2 Average household size is the “Total Population in
show housing and transportation affordability Occupied Housing Units by Tenure” and “Tenure”
for the region. As indicated in Figure A.2, when to define the universe of occupied housing units.
transportation costs are included, many areas of
the region become unaffordable (residents are • Average Commuters per Household
paying 45 percent or more of their income on Average commuters per household is calculated
housing and transportation).
using the total number of workers age sixteen
and older who do not work at home and means of
The following information (taken from the CNT transportation to work.
website) provides a brief explanation of their
methods and data. For more detailed information
Independent variables:
on the Housing and Transportation Affordability
Neighborhood Characteristics
Index, see http://htaindex.cnt.org/.
The Housing and Transportation Affordability Index
(H&T Index) was constructed to estimate three
dependent variables (auto ownership, auto use,
and transit use) as functions of eleven independent
variables (median income, per capita income,
average household size, average commuters per
household, residential density, gross density,
average block size, intersection density, transit
connectivity, transit access shed, and employment
access). The H&T Index was constructed at the
Census block group level using the 2009 American
Community Survey 5-year estimates as the primary
dataset.
Dependent variables:
Transportation costs
Three components of transportation behavior
(auto ownership, auto use, and transit use) are
combined to estimate the cost of transportation.
Independent variables:
Household Characteristics
• Household Income
• Household Density
Residential density represents household density
of residential areas, in contrast to population
density on land area. Gross density is calculated as
total households divided by total land acres.
• Street Connectivity and Walkability
Street connectivity and walkability are calculated
through average block size and intersection density.
• Transit Access
Transit access is measured through General Transit
Feed Specification (GTFS) data collected and created
by the Center for Neighborhood Technology. As of
February 2012, CNT has compiled station and stop
data for bus, rail, and ferry service for more than 75
percent of all metropolitan and micropolitan areas
in the United States.
• Employment Access
The Employment Access Index calculates both
the quantity and distance to all employment
destinations, relative to any given block group.
Median household income is obtained from
the 2009 American Community Survey, 5-Year
Appendices
47
B
Active Transit Neighborhood Checklist
The following Active Transit Neighborhood Checklist (ATNC) is adapted from the Active School
Neighborhood Checklist (ASNC) that was created by the Safe Routes to School Program of the Arizona
Department of Transportation. The ATNC is a tool for assessing walkability and bikeability around transit.
To see the full ASNC go to http://www.azdot.gov/srts/PDF/Documents_Active_School_Neighborhood_
Checklist.pdf.
How to Complete This Checklist
In order to properly complete this checklist you must use a team approach. A broad range of answers are
required, so you should have at least four (4) members on your team, all from different disciplines – not
all from one discipline. Below are the recommended disciplines that your team should include:
Groups:
1. Technical/engineering
• Traffic, transportation, or civil engineer
from the city or county of the proposed/
existing school
2. School (if transit serves students)
• Principle or assistant principle (mandatory
member)
• School nurse
• PTA, PTO, booster club (highly advisable
member)
3. Health
• County health department representative
• State department of public health
representative
• Other health/wellness professional
On what dates does your team meet?
4. Community
• Other parent representatives (if transit
serves students)
• Other community partners
5. School district (if transit serves students)
• Transportation coordinator
• Risk management director
• School health advisory council member
6. City/policy
• Transportation, transit, or public works
department representative
• City bicycle and pedestrian coordinator
• Planning department representative
• Police officer
________________________________________________
Your ATNC Team (also indicate from which group 1-6 above)
Member: __________________
Group ___
Signature: __________________
Title: _______
Member: __________________
Group ___
Signature: __________________
Title: _______
Member: __________________
Group ___
Signature: __________________
Title: _______
Member: __________________
Group ___
Signature: __________________
Title: _______
Member: __________________
Group ___
Signature: __________________
Title: _______
Member: __________________
Group ___
Signature: __________________
Title: _______
48
Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study
Speed Limits
The speed at which vehicles travel directly affects the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists. The faster the
speed, the greater the risk that a car-pedestrian crash will injure the pedestrian. Circle ‘Y’ or ‘N’ in each
of the four speed limit categories listed -- you should have a total of FOUR ANSWERS.
30 or Less
35
40-45
Add your 4
Answers Here
50 or Higher
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
3
0
1
2
0
1
-5
2
Traffic Lanes
Circle ‘Y’ or ‘N’ in each of the traffic lane categories listed – you should have a total of FOUR ANSWERS.
2- Lane
Streets
3-4 Lane
Streets
5- Lane
Streets
Streets with
More than 6
Lanes
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
2
0
1
1
-5
1
-6
1
Add your 4
Answers Here
Curb Radius
Larger curb radii can encourage drivers to drive faster, which can be challenging to pedestrians. Circle an
answer for Small, Medium, AND Large categories – a total of THREE ANSWERS.
Small Radius
(Less than or equal to 20 feet)
Medium Radius
(21-39 feet)
Large Radius
(Greater than or equal to 40 feet)
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
2
0
0.5
1
-2
2
Add your 4
Answers Here
Number of Vehicles
In neighborhoods with fewer, slower vehicles, people are more likely to start – or continue -- walking and
cycling to transit locations.
Number of
Vehicles per Day
Fewer than 2,000
Vehicles per Day
2,000 - 5,000
Vehicles per Day
More than 5,000
Vehicles per Day
0
2
1
Points:
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
These are simply “safe places on which to walk and bike”. If neighborhoods surrounding a transit stop
have these facilities, transit users, including pedestrians and cyclists, have a safer environment.
Bike Lanes
Points:
Designated Bike Lanes
Points:
Multi-Use Paths
Points:
Prevalent
Present in Some Cases
Not Present
0
2
1
Prevalent
Present in Some Cases
Not Present
1
0.5
0
Prevalent
Present in Some Cases
Not Present
2
0.5
0
Part 1 Subtotal ________ points (out of 25 points)
Transfer these points to ‘Scoring Your Neighborhood and Transit Sites’ section.
Appendices
49
B
Active Transit Neighborhood Checklist (cont.)
Sidewalks
Sidewalks
Prevalent on
Both sides of the
street
Present in some
cases
-- or -Sometimes on
only one side of
the street
No sidewalks
2
1
-2
Good
Acceptable
Poor
Few or no cracks,
buckled or missing
sections
Some cracks,
buckled or missing
sections
Badly neglected
and in need of
maintenance
1
0
-1
Prevalent
Present in some
cases
No marked
crosswalks
2
1
-1
Points:
Condition of
Sidewalks
Points:
Marked Crosswalks at Intersections
Marked
Crosswalks at
intersections
Points:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Curb Ramps
If there are neither ‘2 per corner’ nor ‘1 per corner’ ADA ramps,
Award -2 points
Is the ‘2 per corner’ ADA ramp design used?
Award this many points (circle only one):
All intersections
Is the ‘1 per corner’ ADA ramp design used?
Award this many points (circle only one):
All intersections
3
Most intersections Some intersections
2
2
1
Most intersections Some intersections
1
0.5
None
0
None
0
You should have two answers (circles) above.
Pedestrian Crossing Signals
Pedestrian crossing
signals at traffic
signals
Points:
“Countdown
pedestrian signals” at
traffic signals
Points:
Prevalent
Present at some
intersections
Not present
2
1
-1
Prevalent
Present at some
intersections
Not present
1
0.5
0
Part 2 Subtotal ________ points (out of 13 points)
Transfer these points to ‘Scoring Your Neighborhood and Transit Sites’ section.
50
Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study
Pedestrian Walkability
Are there obstacles that limit the mobility of
wheelchairs (trash receptacles, newspaper boxes, or
landscaping)?
No
Some
Prevalent
2
1
-1
No
Some
Prevalent
0
1
2
Do bus/rail stops provide route information and
maps?
No
Some
Prevalent
0
1
2
Are bus stops well connected to the surrounding
sidewalk system?
No
Some
Prevalent
0
1
2
No
Some
Prevalent
0
1
2
Yes
No
2
0
Are access ways to transit facilities well lit?
Are there shade trees?
Do bus stops offer protection from sun, rain, etc.?
Part 3 Subtotal ________ points (out of 12 points)
Transfer these points to ‘Scoring Your Neighborhood and Transit Sites’ section below.
Scoring Your Neighborhood and Transit Sites
Part 1 Subtotal ________ points (out of 25 points)
Part 2 Subtotal ________ points (out of 13 points)
Part 3 Subtotal ________ points (out of 12 points)
Grand total ________ points (out of 50 points)
Appendices
51