Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study: Central & Thomas, 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 & Thomas, 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 & Thomas 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 Thomas 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 Thomas. 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 & Thomas Phoenix Country Club Campus Vista La Hacienda ! Country Club Park Willo Encanto Ashland Place Tapestry on Central Alvarado Central & Thomas Coronado 5 A Introduction The light rail stop at Central and Thomas is the eighth stop from the northernmost end of the Metro rail line. Central and Thomas is mostly comprised of office towers, hotels, parking lots, a regional mall, strip malls, and vacant land. There is a large hospital facility (St. Joseph’s) in the immediate area. The area is located in City of Phoenix Council Districts 4 and 7 and the Encanto Village Planning District. The half-mile area is bounded by Earll Drive to the Thomas and 3rd Street North, Virginia Avenue to the South, 3rd Avenue to the West, and 3rd Street to the East. A portion of the City of Phoenix Transit Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1) is located within the half-mile area (see Figure 2.1). The immediate area has active neighborhood associations including the Midtown Museum District Neighborhood Association and Willo Neighborhood Association. Thomas and Central 3rd Avenue and Edgemont Thomas and 3rd Avenue 6 Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study 3rd St Central Ave 2nd Ave 3rd Ave Earll Catalina Thomas Rd Roanoke Virginia Figure 2.1: Aerial Photograph of 1/2 Mile Area, Central and Thomas light rail 1/2 mile target area light rail stop TOD-1 Overlay Zone Central & Thomas 7 B Neighborhood Demographics N 12th St N 12th Pl N Manor Dr E N 11th St N 10th Pl N 9th Pl N 8th St W Holly St E Oak St E Monte Vista Rd W Granada Rd W Almeria Rd E Coronado Rd W McDowell Rd W Lynwood St W Willetta St 1130 Tract 1105 1117 E Palm Ln E Granada Rd E Coronado Rd E McDowell Rd E Lynwood St 113203 E Willetta St Tract 1118 Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study N 12th St 1118 W Coronado Rd N Dayton St E Sheridan St E Vernon Ave N Edgemere St E Ashland Ave N 13th St N 11th Ave N 9th St E Virginia Ave N 11th St W Lewis Ave W Encanto Blvd 1/2 mile target area N Longview Ave N 6th St E Roanoke AveE Roanoke Ave E Windsor Ave Figure 2.2: Census Tract Map, Central and 0Thomas0.25 8 N 6th St E Verde Ln West Virginia Ave W Wilshire Dr N 3rd Ave N 7th Ave N 4th St E Catalina Dr N 9th St N 11th Ave E Earll Dr W Palm Ln 1129 W Manor Dr N 1st Pl W Cambridge Ave W Holly St 1106 E Thomas Rd W Edgemont Ave W Monte Vista Rd E Whitton Ave E Mulberry Dr W Thomas Rd W Windsor Ave N 13th Ave E Osborn Rd W Merrell St 1119 N 7th St 1105 W Earll Dr W Avalon Dr W Catalina Dr W Edgemont Ave N 5th St E Mitchell Dr W Earll Dr W Verde Ln N 4th St N 2nd Ave N 2nd Ave St E Columbus Ave N 9th Pl r W Flowe E Weldon Ave E Amelia Ave N 8th St W Flower St 108601 E Indian School Rd N 3rd St N 5th Ave N 4th Ave N 6th Ave N 8th Ave N 13th Ave NW W Osborn Rd N 1st Ave e Av N 11th Ave 1104 E Glenrosa Ave Parker Row N 2nd Pl h W Indian School Rd 1087 Redwine N 6th Dr 4t W Monterosa St ve N 12th A N 15th Ave N 14th A ve 108901 108801 E Turney Ave N 2nd St W Turney Ave W Montecito Ave N Central Ave N 1st Ave N 12th D r N 3rd St N 8th Pl The half-mile area is located within two census of the population having a bachelor’s degree or tracts: Tracts 1105 and 1118 (see Figure 2.2). higher. In fact, 23.6 percent of the population has a Due to geographic changes in the 2010 Decennial graduate or professional degree, compared to 8.3 Census, the most current demographics available percent for the City of Phoenix. The target area for tract 1105 come from the 2005-2009 American is 77.6 percent white and 5.9 percent black, with Community Survey, 5-Year 22.1 percent identifying as Hispanic. The target 1076 1074Estimates. Statistics for 1075 the half-mile target area at Central and Thomas area is similar to the City of Phoenix in terms of W Mariposa St E Mariposa St W Pierson St E Pierson St and median household income. were obtained from the Environmental Systems Ehomeownership Pierson St W Elm St Elm St Their average travel time to work is 17.5 minutes, Research Institute W(ESRI), Community Analyst Data W Highland Ave 108802 E Highland Ave compared to 24.4 minutes for the City of Phoenix Service. 108902 W Coolidge St 108602 e v as a whole (see Tables 2.1-2.3). Csr W Minnezona Ave lA Grand bel E Minnezona Ave p am nal Compared to demographics of Phoenix, W Campbell Ave W C for E Campbell Ave Ca the City nd a r E Roma Ave G W Roma Ave the target area is highly educated, with 46.3 percent 0.5 1 Miles Educational Attainment, Population Age 25 and Older City of Phoenix Tract 1105# Tract 1118 Target Area Not a High School Graduate 19.0% 12.6% 7.2% 6.0% High School Graduate or GED 26.1% 24.5% 15.9% 17.8% Some College 22.8% 22.6% 30.4% 18.2% Associates Degree 7.2% 6.7% 4.0% 11.5% Bachelor’s Degree 16.6% 17.6% 25.3% 24.5% Graduate or Professional Degree 8.3% 16.9% 17.8% 21.8% % HS Graduate or higher 81.0% 87.4% 93.4% 94.0% % Bachelor’s Degree or higher 24.9% 33.6% 43.1% 46.3% 2010 American Community Survey, 1-Year Estimates 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 2010 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates 2005-2009 American Community Survey, Provided by ESRI Table 2.1: Educational Attainment, Population age 25 and older, Central and Thomas Race/Ethnicity City of Phoenix Tract 1105# Tract 1118 Target Area White 65.9% 71.2% 84.2% 77.6% Hispanic (any race) 40.8% 21.9% 15.8% 22.1% Black/African American 6.5% 8.0% 4.4% 5.9% Asian 3.2% 8.0% 1.7% 2.0% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% American Indian/Alaska Native 2.2% 6.6% 0.9% 1.7% Two or more races 3.6% 1.9% 3.0% 4.3% 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 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Summary File 1, provided by ESRI Table 2.2: Race/Ethnicity, Central and Thomas Note: Columns do not total 100% Miscellaneous Demographics City of Phoenix Tract 1105# Tract 1118 Target Area 1,445,632 5,164 3,487 303 Median Household Income $47,831 $33,802 $50,000 $45,502 Poverty Rate (Individuals) 22.5%* 23.5% 6.2%** NA Homeowner Occupied 57.6% 19.9% 64.5% 56.6% Public Transportation to Work 3.1%* 3.9% 8.4%** 4.2%** Mean Travel Minutes to Work 24.4* 16.6 19.3** 17.5** U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Summary File 1, provided by ESRI *2010 American Community Survey, 1-Year Estimates 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Summary File 1, provided by ESRI **2010 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Summary File 1, provided by ESRI **ESRI forecasts for 2010 based on 2000 Census. Population Table 2.3: Miscellaneous Demographics, Central and Thomas # 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 & Thomas 9 108601 N 2nd Pl Parker Row N 7th St E Mitchell Dr N 12th St N 11th St E Whitton Ave N 12th Pl E Columbus Ave N 10th Pl N 8th St E Weldon Ave E Amelia Ave N 9th St N 4th St E Indian School Rd N 9th St N 8th St N 3rd Ave N 11th St N 11th Ave N 13th Ave N 12th St E Ashland Ave N Edgemere St N Dayton St N 7th Ave W Wilshire Dr W Lewis Ave E Sheridan St For the following tables, all statistics for census E Vernon Ave tract 1105 come from the 2005-2009 American W Encanto Blvd E Oak St 1118 1117 Community Survey (the latest available). All 1119 data E Monte Vista Rd for census tract 1118 come from the 2006-2010 W Monte Vista Rd W Holly St W Holly St American Community Survey. Unless otherwise W Palm Ln E Palm Ln noted, data for the target area are from the 2005W Granada Rd E Granada Rd W Coronado Rd E Coronado Rd 2009 American Community Survey, compiled by E Coronado Rd W Almeria Rd the Environmental Systems Research Institute W McDowell Rd E McDowell Rd (ESRI). E Lynwood St W Lynwood St 1129 1130 W Willetta St E Willetta St 113203 Figure 2.3: Census Tract Map, Central 0 0.25 and Thomas 0.5 1/2 mile target area Tract 1105 Tract 1118 Year Householder Moved into Unit Tract 1105 Tract 1118 All Occupied Units All Occupied Units OwnerOccupied RenterOccupied 2005 or later 1589 (54.9%) 962 (45.8%) 35 (20.2%) 53 (30.6%) 2000-2004 926 (32.0%) 361 (17.2%) 24 (13.9%) 15 (8.7%) 1990-1999 244 (8.4%) 384 (18.3%) 20 (11.6%) 7 (4.0%) 1980-1989 83 (2.9%) 210 (10.0%) 15 (8.7%) 2 (1.2%) 1970-1979 43 (1.5%) 135 (6.4%) 2 (1.2%) 0 1969 or earlier 10 (0.3%) 50 (2.4%) 0 0 NA NA Table 2.4: Year Householder Moved Into Unit, Central and Thomas 10 W Manor Dr N 3rd St N 1st Pl N 11th Ave N 9th Pl The target area is almost equally divided between W Osborn Rd Rd 1105 E Osborn 1106 single-family and multi-family homes, with 1104 49.2 E Mulberry Dr W Flower St r St W Flowe percent of the housing stock being single family, either attached or detached (see Table 2.8). The W Earll Dr W Earll Dr E Earll Dr housing characteristics of the target area are W Avalon Dr W Catalina Dr E Catalina Dr similar to census tract 1118. In comparison, W Verde Lnin W Merrell St E Verde Ln census tract 1105, 86 percent of the housing stock W Thomas Rd E Thomas Rd W Edgemont Ave is multi-family. The target area is also split between W Edgemont Ave E Roanoke AveE Roanoke Ave W Windsor Ave renters and homeowners, with 44 percent renting E Windsor Ave W Cambridge Ave their home. West Virginia Ave E Virginia Ave Median Year Moved In N Longview Ave E Glenrosa Ave N 9th Pl Redwine 1087 N 2nd St N 1st Ave N 2nd Ave E Turney Ave N 6th St N 4th Ave N 5th Ave N 6th Ave N 8th Ave N 11th Ave N 13th Ave NW W Indian School Rd ve N 12th A In the target area around the Central and Thomas station a small proportion of residents have lived in 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. N 2nd Ave W Monterosa St 108801 e Av N 6th Dr 108901 N 15th Ave N 1 4th A ve Housing Characteristics N Central Ave st Ave W Montecito Ave h 4t C W Roma Ave W Turney Ave Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study Target Area 2006 1 Mil Number of Bedrooms Tract 1105 Tract 1118 Target Area None 7.9% 4.3% * 1 40.3% 22.6% * 2 40.5% 46.8% * 3 9.6% 24.5% * 4 1.6% 1.7% * 5+ 0 0 * Tract 1105 Tract 1118 Target Area $0-99,999 48 (8.3%) 0 0 $100-149,999 79 (13.7%) 110 (9.2%) 4 (4.2%) $150-199,999 163 (28.2%) 149 (12.4%) 13 (13.5%) $200-299,999 185 (32.1%) 182 (15.2%) 10 (10.4%) $300,000+ 102 (17.7%) 763 (63.3%) 70 (72.9%) $199,300 $338,500 $363,235 Table 2.5: Number of Bedrooms, Central and Thomas *Data not available Housing Values Median Home Value Table 2.6: Owner-Occupied Housing Values, Central and Thomas Vacancy and Tenure Tract 1105 Tract 1118 Target Area* Homeowner Vacancy Rate 27.1% 0% 11.2% Rental Vacancy Rate 20.6% 5.6% 7.0% Owner with a Mortgage 16.5% 38.7% 45.3% Owner Free and Clear 3.4% 18.4% 10.7% Renter 80.1% 42.9% 44.0% Tract 1105 Tract 1118 Target Area Single Family, attached or detached 549 (14.0%) 1087 (45.7%) 96 (49.2%) Multi-Family, 2-19 units 1616 (41.2%) 627 (26.3%) 29 (14.9%) Multi-Family, 20 or more units 1755 (44.8%) 626 (26.3%) 63 (32.3%) 0 40 (1.7%) 7 (3.6%) 3920 (100%) 2380 (100%) 195 (100%) Vacancy Tenure (all occupied units) Table 2.7: Vacancy and Tenure, Central and Thomas *Source: 2010 U.S. Census, Summary File 1 (ESRI) Units in structure Mobile Home TOTAL Table 2.8: Units in Structure, Central and Thomas Central & Thomas 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 & Thomas 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.1 Employer Assisted Housing2 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. 1 Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program 2012 Qualified Allocation Plan. http://www.azhousing.gov/azcms/uploads/REPORTS/2012%20QAP%20FINAL%201-6-12.pdf. 2 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.3 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 4 otherwise be susceptible to speculation. Acquiring Land Trusts Land trusts allow for the acquisition and retention properties near existing and proposed transit of land and structures to be held for future use. lines will help preserve the affordability of that Land acquired through the private land trust model property and make it available for affordable allows for land to be utilized for numerous purposes, housing development—either in the present or including affordable housing. A Community Land at a future time when resources may be more Trust (CLT), however, is primarily dedicated to the readily available. Additional benefits of the CLT long-term preservation of affordability, especially model include preventing the displacement of lowin regard to housing. The CLT is administered by income residents as well as greater local control of the land. 3 Pryne, 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. 4 http://www.aztownhall.org/pdf/93rd_background_report. CLTs can utilize HOME and CDBG funds and other sources of government funding as well as private Central & Thomas 15 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.1 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.2 Regulatory Measures 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.3 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 encourage building occupants to use public transit. 3 http://phoenix.gov/PLANNING/index.html 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 and fewer parking spaces within a complex if 1 http://newtowncdc.org. 2 Land Bank Authorities. 2008. Online: http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/bestpractice008.pdf. 16 Source: http://www.buyersagentportland.com Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study 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)4 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 21 acres of vacant land in the target area around the Central and 4 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 Camelback station, making the area a prime target for the aforementioned programs.5 Developers and others interested in creating affordable housing opportunities should contact the Phoenix Housing Department or the Arizona Department of Housing for more information. 5 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 & Thomas 17 H = 20.5% T = 21.5% T = 21.5% erry D r E Mulberry St E Lexington Ave t wer S E Flower St W Catalina Dr H = 16.0% W Windsor Ave H = 29.3% W Cambridge Ave T = 23.7% E Catalina Dr H = 20.5% T = 22.8% E Verde Ln T = 22.5% E Roanoke Ave H = 29.9% T = 22.7% E E dg E Roanoke Ave E Windsor Ave E Virginia Cir N 8th Ave West Virginia Ave H = 15.4% T = 21.5% W Wilshire Dr W Lewis Ave Club Dr Thomas Rd W Edgemont Ave N 1st N 3rd Ave T = 20.9% H = 33.1% H = 27.2 T = 22.5% r aD Ashland Ave E Sheridan St T = 23.6% E Virginia Ave E Hoover Ave W Encanto Blvd Figure 2.4: Housing and Transportation Cost as a Percentage of Income, Central and Thomas light rail 1/2 mile target area Affordable Housing: 30% and Less Defining Housing + Transportation Affordability Housing costs factored as a percent of income has widely been utilized as a measure of affordability. Traditionally, a home is considered affordable when the costs consume no more than 30 percent of household income. Using this measure, the halfmile area around the Central and Thomas station is considered affordable, as residents spend on average less than 30 percent of their income on housing (see Figure 2.4). However, in the southeast and southwest quadrants, residents are very close to the 30 percent figure. Housing and transportation costs together make up the two largest expenses for most households, 18 E Oak St E Oak St Source: CNT.org H+T Affordability Index E Alvarado Rd Accessed April 2012 Unaffordable Housing: Greater than 30% so measures of affordability should also consider costs for transportation. According to the Center for Neighborhood Technology, less than one in three American communities (28 percent) are affordable for typical regional households when transportation costs are considered along with housing costs (“affordable” means that housing and transportation costs consume no more than 45 percent of income).1 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 1 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 t Ave H = 35.8% E Vernon Ave W Vernon Ave emon N 10th St lin E Earll Dr N 3rd St a ta WC l Dr 8th Ave N 9th Av T = 22.4% W Earl E Cheery Lynn Rd Central Ave H = 16.1% N 6th Ave Rd ry Lynn W Chee N 9th St W Flo H = 22.6 T = 21.5% N Richland St W Mulb E Mitchell Dr Ave N 8th St N 10th Ave Housing and Transportation Affordability E Whitton Ave N 5th St H = 25.6% N 3rd St E T = 20.4% N 4t T = 22.1% t wer S l Dr N 5th St E Earll Dr W Catalina Dr E Catalina Dr H+T= 43.1% E Verde Ln H+T= 52.1 W Cambridge Ave E Roanoke Ave H+T= 52.6% E E dg E Roanoke Ave E Windsor Ave H+T= 36.9% W Wilshire Dr Ashland Ave E Sheridan St E Virginia Ave E Hoover Ave W Encanto Blvd Figure 2.5: Combined Housing and Transportation Cost as a Percentage of Income, Central and Thomas light rail 1/2 mile target area E Oak St Affordable H+T: 45% and Less and a mix of housing, jobs, and shops spend just 9 percent.2 These are referred to as “location efficient” neighborhoods because they require less time, money, and greenhouse gas emissions for residents to meet their everyday travel needs.3 E Oak St Source: CNT.org H+T Affordability Index E Alvarado Rd Accessed April 2012 Unaffordable H+T: Greater than 45% are included.4 In fact, the southeast and southwest quadrants of the target area are well over the 45 percent figure. Note that these figures are averages and depend heavily upon public transit use; the more an individual uses public transportation for their travel needs, the more affordable their neighborhood becomes. Figure 2.5 shows what happens to “affordability” when transportation costs are taken into account along with housing. In our target area, those See Appendix A for Housing + Transportation Affordhomes that were “affordable” in Figure 2.4 ability maps for the entire region as well as an explabecome unaffordable when transportation costs nation of the Center for Neighborhood Technology’s Housing and Transportation Affordability Index. 2 Center for Transit-Oriented Development. 2009. “Mixed-Income Housing Near Transit: Increasing Affordability With Location Efficiency.” Online: http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/uploa ds/091030ra201mixedhousefinal.pdf. 3 Center for Neighborhood Technology. 2012. “http://www.cnt.org/ tcd/location-efficiency. t H+T= 59.4% E Vernon Ave W Vernon Ave emon E Virginia Cir West Virginia Ave W Lewis Ave Clu Thomas Rd W Edgemont Ave N 1st N 3rd Ave H+T= 36.9% H+T= 49.7% 4 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 $45,502. Central & Thomas 19 N 9th St Dr W Windsor Ave N 8th Ave N 3rd St E Cheery Lynn Rd N Richland St lina H = 22.6 T = 21.5% E Flower St N 3rd St N 6th Ave W Earl E Mitchell Dr Ave E Mulberry St n Rd eery Lyn a ta WC H+T= 56.8% T = 21.5% E Whitton Ave E Lexington Ave 8th Ave N 9th Av H+T= 38.5% N 4t erry D r W Flo W Ch T = 21.5% H = 20.5% N 8th St W Mulb H = 25.6% Central Ave N 10th Ave T = 20.4% ecito Ave $12,331/yr Thomas Rd $12,423/yr $1,040/mo $1,035/mo E E dg E Roanoke Ave E Windsor Ave $980/mo Ashland Ave W Lewis Ave $12,901/yr $1,075/mo E Sheridan St E Virginia Ave E Vernon Ave E Hoover Ave W EncantoTransportation Blvd Monthly Figure 2.6: Annual and per Household, Central and Thomas 1/2 mile target area <$11,000/yr Cost E Oak St $11,000 - $12,000/yr Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study t Ave E Virginia Cir $11,755/yr W Wilshire Dr emon E Oak St Source: CNT.org H+T Affordability Index Accessed April 2012 E Alvarado Rd $12,000 - $13,000/yr $13,000+/yr N 10th St E Roanoke Ave $12,475/yr W Cambridge Ave Club Dr N Richland St W Windsor Ave E Verde Ln $1,028/mo W Vernon Ave 20 N 10th St E Catalina Dr W Edgemont Ave N 1st N 3rd Ave $1,026/mo N 3rd St $11,443/yr $12,312/yr West Virginia Ave light rail N 10th St N 9th St N 8th St E Earll Dr N 8th St l Dr $954/mo N 8th Ave N 8th St N 6th St N 5th St E Cheery Lynn Rd W Catalina Dr $1,083/mo N 4th St Rd ry Lynn Dr na ta l i $12,990/yr Ave E Flower St 8th Ave N 9th Av a WC t wer S W Earl nt Ave E Mulberry St E Lexington Ave Central Ave $1,023/mo N 6th Ave W Chee lia Ave T = 21.5% Reveals Combined Housing and Transportation Affordability Has Declined Since 2000.” Online: http://www.cnt.org. erry D r W Flo The use of public transit can greatly reduce these monthly transportation costs. Currently, rates Clarendon for the Metro light rail orElocal busAveare H$1.75 per = 20.2% T = 24.0% E Weldon Ave ride; $3.50 per day; or a 31-day pass for $55.00. In E Weldon Ave addition to special rates for ASU students, Metro also offers a reduced rate for youth, seniors (age E Whitton Ave = 20.5%with a disability, and Medicare card 65+),Hpersons T = 21.5% E Mitchell Dr H = 22.6 7 Center for Neighborhood Technology. 2012. “National Index N 3rd St N 2nd Ave N 4th Ave N 5th Ave N 7th Ave N 8th Ave N 6th Ave W Mulb N 2nd St N 6th Ave NW nola T = 21.5% 5 BAE Urban Economics. 2012. “TOD Mixed-Income Housing Market Demand Study.” Online: www.bae1.com. 6 Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) forecasts for 2010 based on US Bureau of the Census, 2000. $12,270/yr Scattergood e Av W India N 10th St Household Transportation Costs On average, transportation costs constitute the second largest household expenditure (after 7 W Indian at the Central and Thomas housing) forEhouseholds School Rdstation in 2011. In Indian School Rdacross the country. Figure fact, between April 2009 and April 2011, ridership 2.6 demonstrates that households in the half-mile W Amelia Ave increased at the Central and Thomas station by target area pay, on average, between $954-1,040 22%.5 per month on transportation. In spite of these increasing numbers, data for the residents of the half-mile W Clarendon area Ave show low ridership rates. 4.2 percent report using public transportation W Weldon Ave to get to work, 5.7 percent walk to work, and 68.2 percent drive alone to work.6 H =28.6% H = 17.5% T = 22.1% T = 20.4% H = 25.6% N 10th Ave E Devonshire Ave Parker Row N 9th St N 6th Dr e Av h 5t W h 4t St W Monterosa St 6t h Ridership figures Metro light rail Av provided by e NW indicate that 829,377 individuals got on and off E Midway St N 9th Pl a N 10th St ro s Shodes Cir te e Light Rail Ridership W Mackenzie Dr Redwine on N Central Ave M N N 9th Ave Public Transit W Glenrosa Ave N 2nd Dr N W N 2nd Av F W Glenrosa Ave E Montecito Ave holders. Children under five ride for free. The reduced rate for a 31-day pass is $27.50. also offers commuting alternatives like a carpool 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 Thomas 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, 29, 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 The Metro website contains many tools to help in transit education such as new residents and riders understand the transit system. For example, refugees. They also offer mobility training for Metro offers an online trip planner where an senior citizens and persons with a disability, as well sessions at the Disability Empowerment individual can enter their travel date, start and end as monthly 9 Center. points, how far they are willing to walk, and their preference for light rail, bus or express bus routes, and their trip will be mapped for them.8 Metro 9 http://www.valleymetro.org/transit_education/community_outreach/. Earll 3rd St Central Ave 3rd Ave 2nd Ave 8 http://trips.valleymetro.org/pages/full_trip. Catalina Thomas Rd 29 GL 0 Roanoke 512 Virginia Figure 2.7: Area Bus Routes and Transit Centers, Central and Thomas 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: 0,29, 512 Express Service, Grand Avenue Limited (GL), METRO Light Rail Central & Thomas 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.12 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.13 10 Saad, Lydia. 2010. “Nearly 4 in 10 Americans Still Fear Walking Alone at Night.” Gallup. Online: http://www.gallup.com. 11 Federal Bureau of Investigations. 2010. “Uniform Crime Reports.” Online: www.fbi.gov. 12 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. 00(0):1-17. 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 Thomas 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 the Phoenix Police Department is reflective of the statistics reported annually to the FBI. It contains 14 Sandag. 2009. “Understanding Transit’s Impact on Public Safety.” Online: www.sandag.org. Osborn 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.11 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.14 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.10 7th Ave G Crime and CPTED Principles Thomas Rd Encanto Figure 2.8: Approximate One Square Mile Area of Crime Data, Central and Thomas Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study 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 One of the ways that transit-oriented development can contribute towards lower crime rates is through creating more “eyes on the streets,” based on the principle that the greater the risk of being seen or challenged, the less likely people are to commit a crime. 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. These principles are known collectively as “Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design,” or CPTED. 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 • Natural Access Control • Territorial Reinforcement • Maintenance and Management • Activity Support These five CPTED principles and examples of how CPTED design principles are typically implemented to utilize them in practice are explained in detail on during the planning phase of an area; however, the following pages 24-25. Central & Thomas: Local Number of Crimes 2006-2011 700 Light Rail Construction 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 Figure 2.9: Local Number of Crimes 2006-2011, Central and Thomas property crime violent crime 2010 2011* Source: Phoenix Police Department Data Received December 2011 *Data Through October 2011 Central & Thomas 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 & Thomas 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.15 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 Thomas there are seven striped pedestrian crossings and three designated bike lanes (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 1st Ave 3rd Ave 15 http://www.azdot.gov/srts/PDF/Documents_Active_School_ Neighborhood_Checklist.pdf 3rd St H Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Earll Catalina Thomas Rd Roanoke Virginia Figure 2.10: Pedestrian/Bike Map of 1/2 mile Area, Central and Thomas 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.16 Additional resources include materials to help guide officials in designing systems that are safe and comply with regulations.17 Effective designation of rail lines and crossings can substantially increase pedestrian safety. Table 16 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/ped_transit/ped_transguide/. 17 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 & Thomas 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.18 The incorporation of open green space to encourage physical activity is a crucial element in any TOD plan. Encanto park is a large 222-acre park that offers a lagoon, swimming pool, and two municipal golf courses. Monterey park offers a playground, picnic areas, lighted soccer and softball fields, and volleyball courts. The 2002 Phoenix General Plan19 indicates several goals and policies aimed at the creation of more open spaces and parks throughout the city. The TOD Zoning Overlay District One20 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. Area Parks As indicated in Figure 2.11, there are two parks within the two-mile area surrounding the Central and Thomas station, and no parks within the halfmile target area. Osborn 2 mile 12th St 7th St Central Indian School 7th Ave 15th Ave I Open Space/Parks/Plazas 1 mile 1/2 mile Encanto Park, Phoenix, Arizona Source: www.city-data.com Vacant Land Potential Any TOD plan for the half-mile area surrounding Central and Thomas should consider using existing vacant land to increase the amount of usable green space in the area. The pictures below and on the following page demonstrate a surface parking area and vacant Thomas Monterey Park Encanto Park McDowell Figure 2.11: Area Parks, Central and Thomas 18 Tucson Move. 2011. May/June 1(2):60. 19 Phoenix General Plan: Recreation Element. 2002. http:\\phoenix. gov/planning/gprec.pdf. 20 662 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 Surface parking on 2nd Avenue Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study parcel near the light rail station at Central and Thomas. As indicated in Figure 2.12, there are numerous surface parking lots as well as several vacant parcels in the station area. Several strategies may be considered to increase green space, including the creation of plazas, pocket parks, and joint-use agreements with schools. Earll 3rd St 2nd St Central Ave 3rd Ave 1st Ave Vacant lot near Central & Thomas Catalina Thomas Rd Roanoke Virginia Figure 2.12: Open Space Potential, Central and Thomas light rail light rail stop vacant land surface parking lots Source: Drachman Institute April 2012 Central & Thomas 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 Thomas 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 & Thomas 31 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 W Glenrosa Ave target area at Central and Thomas (see Figure 2.13). However, there are twelve schools located between one and two miles from the light rail stop, six of which are high schools (five public and one private). The remaining schools are either K-8 or K-6. E Devonshire Ave Central Ave E Indian School Rd 4 ² 5 ² E Whitton Ave E Osborn Rd 1 Mile 12 ² 1/2 Mile ² Thomas Rd 9 W Edgemont Ave W Encanto Blvd W Palm Ln 32 E Sheridan St 8 ² 3 ² 10 ² 7 ² W McDowell Rd Figure 2.13: Area Schools, Central and Thomas light rail E Virginia Ave N 3rd Ave 1 ² 2 ² 6 ² 2 Mile E Fairmount Ave N 3rd St N 7th Ave N 15th Ave W Indian School Rd N 12th St School Availability N 7th St J Area Schools public school private school Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study 11 ² 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 No Schools within 1/2 Mile of Stop 1. 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 2. 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 • within 2 miles of stop 3. Arizona Academy of Science and Technology 1875 N. Central Avenue Public K-8 (Charter) 488 reading score (6th grade) 367 math score (6th grade) 117 students in 2010 73.5% free/reduced lunch 4. 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) 5. 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) 6. The Family School 1127 W. McDowell Rd Private K-5 64 students in 2010 13:1 student teacher ratio 1 full time teacher 7. Genesis Academy 525 E. McDowell Rd Public 9-12 (Charter) 11th percentile statewide 665 reading score (10th grade) 457 math score (10th grade) 176 students in 2010 79% free or reduced lunch 8. Metropolitan Arts Institute 1700 N. 7th Ave Public 7-12 (Charter) 82nd percentile statewide 733 reading score (10th grade) 501 math score (10th grade) 250 students in 2010 2% free or reduced lunch 9. 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 10. Ralph Waldo Emerson Elementary School 915 E. Palm Lane Public PK-6 13th percentile statewide 501 reading score (6th grade) 401 math score (6th grade) 512 students in 2010 6.6% free or reduced lunch 15.2:1 student teacher ratio 33.5 full time teachers 11. Summit High School 728 E. McDowell Rd Public 9-12 (Charter) 50th percentile statewide 659 reading score (10th grade) 457 math score (10th grade) 362 students in 2010 1.3% free or reduced lunch 12. 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 Information on all schools obtained from schooldigger.com, accessed April 2012 Central & Thomas 33 K Area Amenities services available in the area. According to data compiled by the Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), there are 444 businesses in the half-mile area, 58.8 percent of which are servicerelated (See Table 2.12). $ Office Tower 3rd St 2nd St Central Ave Park Central Mall 1st 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. While the area near the Central and Thomas station is dominated by surface parking, there is a mix of retail and Earll SCF Tower $ Office Tower St. Joseph’s Hospital & Medical Center Phoenix Corporate Center Catalina $ Office Tower $ St. Joseph’s Hospital & Medical Center Children’s Health Center Office Tower Office Tower Thomas Rd Office Tower 2800 Tower Roanoke Central Towers $ 2700 Tower $ 2600 Tower Virginia Source: Drachman Institute April 2012 Figure 2.14: Area Amenities, Central and Thomas light rail light rail stop retail office hotel/lodging 34 1/2 mile area buildings $ bank/money services restaurant/dining beauty school Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study surface parking gas parking garage health/fitness vacant hospital Businesses in Half-Mile Area by Service Industry Codes Number Percent Agriculture & Mining 0 0.0% Construction 7 1.6% Manufacturing 6 1.4% Transportation 4 0.9% Communication 7 1.6% Utility 0 0.0% Wholesale Trade 11 2.4% Retail Trade 43 9.7% Home Improvement 5 General Merchandise 1 Food Stores (Includes Grocery Stores) 3 Auto Dealers, Gas Stations, Auto Aftermarket 1 Apparel & Accessory Stores 0 Furniture & Home Furnishings 1 Eating & Drinking Places (Includes “Fast Food”) 24 Miscellaneous Retail 8 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 63 Banks, Savings, & Lending Institutions 14 Securities Brokers 11 Insurance Carriers & Agents 13 Real Estate, Holding, Other Investment Offices 25 Services 261 Hotels & Lodging 2 Automotive Services 9 Motion Pictures & Amusements 3 Health Services 40 Legal Services 82 Education Institutions & Libraries 6 Other Services 14.2% 58.8% 119 Government 19 4.2% Other 23 5.2% Total 444 100% Table 2.12: Half-Mile Area Business Summary, Central and Thomas Source: Business data by Infogroup, Omaha NE, 2012, compiled by ESRI Accessed April 2012 Central & Thomas 35 L Central and Thomas Area Summary General Central and Thomas is a mixed-use area with residential, retail, and offices located in the halfmile surrounding the light rail stop. The half-mile area is bounded by Earll Drive to the North, Virginia Avenue to the South, 3rd Avenue to the West, and 3rd Street to the East. Neighborhood Demographics and Housing Characteristics Housing and Transportation Affordability Using the common measure of affordability that housing costs not exceed 30 percent of household income, in the target area around Central and Thomas those living south of Thomas typically spend almost 30 percent of their income on housing. When factoring in transportation costs, the area south of Thomas becomes unaffordable (housing and transportation costs consume 45 percent or more of total household income).23 Compared to demographics for the City of Phoenix, target area residents are more likely to have a bachelor’s degree or higher. Residents of the target Public Transit area are similar to City of Phoenix residents in Public transit ridership at the Central and Thomas terms of homeownership and median income. The light rail station has increased by 22 percent since target area is 22.1 percent Hispanic, compared to April 2009.24 Ridership numbers provided by Metro 40.8 percent for the City of Phoenix.21 indicate that over 800,000 people got on and off at the station in 2011. In spite of these numbers, The target area is almost equally divided between ridership figures for the residents of the half-mile single-family and multi-family homes, with 49.2 target area are low, with 4.2 percent reporting percent of the housing stock being single family, that they use public transit to get to work.25 On either attached or detached. The target area is also average, residents in the target area pay between split between renters and homeowners, with 44 $954-1,040 per month on transportation.26 percent renting their home. 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.22 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. 21 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Summary File 1, provided by Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), Community Analyst Data Service. 22 Golub, Aaron, Subjrajit Guhathakurta, and BharathSollapuram. 2011. “Light Rail Economic Impact Analysis: Task 1 Final Report to the Maricopa Association of Governments.” 36 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.27 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, 23 Center for Neighborhood Technology, Housing and Transportation Affordability Index. Accessed April 2012. 24 BAE Urban Economics. 2012. “TOD Mixed-Income Housing Market Demand Study.” Online: wwwbae1.com. 25 Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) forecasts for 2010 based on US Bureau of the Census, 2000. 26 Center for Neighborhood Technology, Housing and Transportation Affordability Index. Accessed April 2012. 27 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 Thomas there are seven striped pedestrian crossings and three designated 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.28 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 two 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 considerable surface parking 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 twelve schools located within two miles of the Central and Thomas light rail station. Six of the twelve are either private or public high schools. There are approximately 444 businesses in the target area, three of which are food stores, 9.7 percent are retail, 14.2 percent are finance, insurance, or real estate, and 58.8 percent are service-related.29 28 See Appendix B. 29 Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), Business Analyst Data Service. Central & Thomas 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