Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study:
Central & McDowell, 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 & McDowell, 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 & McDowell
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 McDowell 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 McDowell.
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

Photo Source: Google Maps

4

Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study

Central & McDowell
Country
Club
Park
Tapestry on
Central

Ashland
Place

Willo
Encanto

Alvarado

Coronado

Roosevelt

F.Q. Story

Garfield

Central & McDowell

5

A

Introduction

The light rail stop at Central and McDowell is the
tenth stop from the northernmost end of the Metro
rail line. Central and McDowell is located just north
of the sunken Interstate 10 and is comprised of the
Phoenix Art Museum, the central branch of the
Phoenix public library, a park, small commercial
spaces, and vacant land. The immediate area has
two historic neighborhoods: Willo and Roosevelt.
The area is located in City of Phoenix Council
District 7 and the Central Village Planning District.
The half-mile area is bounded by Palm Lane to the
North, Interstate 10 to the South, 3rd Avenue to
the West, and 3rd Street to the East. A portion of Willetta and Central
the City of Phoenix Transit Oriented Zoning Overlay
District One (TOD-1) is located within the half-mile
area (see Figure 2.1).

Burton Barr Central LIbrary

First Congregational UCC

Interstate 10 Overpass
6

Cancer Survivors Pocket Park

Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study

3rd St

Alvarado

Central Ave

1st Ave

3rd Ave

Palm

Coronado

McDowell Rd

Willetta

I-10 Freeway
Figure 2.1: Aerial Photograph of 1/2 Mile Area, Central and McDowell
light rail

1/2 mile target area

light rail stop

TOD-1 Overlay Zone

Central & McDowell

7

B

Neighborhood Demographics

E Catalina Dr

W Merrell St

E Verde Ln

N Edgemere St

N Dayton St

N 3rd St

N 13th St

E Washington St

N 13th St

N 6th St

N 4th St

N 12th St

E Monroe St

N 13th St

1141

E Van Buren St

t

114301

E Polk St

N 13th St

W Monroe St

Transit Oriented
Development
Neighborhood
Study St
E Adams
St
W Adams

113202

t

W Monroe St

E Diamond St

E Garfield St
E Garfield St
E McKinley St

E Polk St
N 4th St

8

1131

N 2nd St

W Van Buren St

113203

E Roosevelt St

Tract 1130

N 1st Ave

N 2nd Ave

Tract 1118

I- 10

E Portland St

W McKinley
Map,
Central St
and McDowell
N 4th Ave

ley St
W McKin
Figure
2.2: Census Tract
W Pierce St
G target area
1/2 mile
W Fillmore St ran
d
W Taylor St
A
ve
W Polk St

E Willetta St

E Moreland St

N 1st St

W Roosevelt St
N 6th Ave

N 8th Ave

N 9th Ave

W Portland St

N 1st Dr

1130

W Moreland St

W Latham St

1129

E Lynwood St E Brill St

E Willetta St

W Willetta St

W Portland St

E McDowell Rd

St

W Lynwood St

E Coronado Rd

N 11th St

W McDowell Rd

E Palm Ln
N 10th St

W Almeria Rd

1117
N Dayton St

W Coronado Rd

N Alvarado Rd

N Central Ave

N 11th Ave

W Granada Rd

N 3rd St

E Monte Vista Rd

W Palm Ln

I- 10

E Oak St

N 9th St

1118

W Holly St

W Culver St

E Sheridan St

E Vernon Ave

N 8th St

W Lewis Ave

W Encanto Blvd

W Monte Vista Rd

E Virginia Ave

W Wilshire Dr

N 3rd Ave

N 5th Ave

N 7th Ave

N 15th Ave

W Cambridge Ave
West Virginia Ave

W Vernon Ave

W Holly St

E Roanoke Ave

E Thomas Rd
N 7th St

W Thomas Rd
W Edgemont Ave
W Windsor Ave

1106

E Earll Dr

N 6th St

N 13th Ave

W Catalina Dr

1119
N 13th Ave

1105

N 5th St

ll Dr
W Ear

N 5th St

1104

W Manor Dr

graduate or professional degree, compared to 8.3
percent for the City of Phoenix. The target area
is 84.5 percent white and 4.9 percent black, with
14.9 percent identifying as Hispanic. Compared to
the City of Phoenix, residents in the half-mile target
area are less likely to be homeowners and have
lower median household incomes. Their average
Compared to demographics for the City of Phoenix, travel time to work is 17.3 minutes, compared to
the target area is highly educated, with 52.9 percent 24.4 minutes for the City of Phoenix (see Tables
of the population
having a bachelor’s Sdegree
or 2.1-2.3). E Mulberry Dr
W Flower St
r t
e
w
lo
F
W population has a
higher. In fact, 18.6 percent of the
E Monterey Way
N 2nd Ave

The half-mile area is located within two census
tracts: Tract 1118 and 1130 (see Figure 2.2).
Statistics for the half-mile target area at Central and
McDowell were obtained from the Environmental
Systems Research Institute (ESRI), Community
Analyst Data Service.

Educational Attainment, Population Age 25 and Older
City of Phoenix

Tract 1118

Tract 1130

Target Area

Not a High School Graduate

19.0%

7.2%

21.2%

13.0%

High School Graduate or GED

26.1%

15.9%

21.1%

11.4%

Some College

22.8%

30.4%

18.6%

17.9%

Associates Degree

7.2%

4.0%

5.0%

4.8%

Bachelor’s Degree

16.6%

25.3%

24.2%

34.3%

Graduate or Professional Degree

8.3%

17.8%

9.9%

18.6%

% HS Graduate or higher

81.0%

93.4%

78.8%

87.0%

% Bachelor’s Degree or higher

24.9%

43.1%

34.1%

52.9%

2010 American
Community Survey,
1-Year Estimates

2010 American Community Survey, 5-Year
Estimates

American Community
Survey 2005-2009, provided by ESRI

Table 2.1: Educational Attainment, Population age 25 and older, Central and McDowell
Race/Ethnicity
City of Phoenix

Tract 1118

Tract 1130

Target Area

White

65.9%

84.2%

79.5%

84.5%

Hispanic (any race)

40.8%

15.8%

17.1%

14.9%

Black/African American

6.5%

4.4%

6.6%

4.9%

Asian

3.2%

1.7%

1.6%

1.7%

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander

0.2%

0.1%

0.3%

0.3%

American Indian/Alaska Native

2.2%

0.9%

2.5%

0.9%

Two or more races

3.6%

3.0%

4.1%

2.6%

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 McDowell
Note: Columns do not total 100%

Miscellaneous Demographics
City of Phoenix

Tract 1118

Tract 1130

Target Area

1,445,632

3,487

1,895

651

Median Household Income

$47,831

$50,000

$27,364

$40,468

Poverty Rate (Individuals)

22.5%*

6.2%**

23.2%**

NA

Homeowner Occupied

57.6%

64.5%

26.2%

50.1%

Public Transportation to Work

3.1%*

8.4%**

3.9%**

3.4%***

Mean Travel Minutes to Work

24.4*

19.3**

23.2**

17.3***

Population

U.S. Census Bureau,
2010 Summary File 1,
provided by ESRI
*2010 American
Community Survey,
1-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

Table 2.3: Miscellaneous Demographics, Central and McDowell
Central & McDowell

9

Occupied

2000-2004

142 (12.0%)

361 (17.2%)

67 (19.9%)

25 (7.4%)

1990-1999

100 (8.5%)

384 (18.3%)

35 (10.4%)

21 (6.3%)

1980-1989

49 (4.2%)

210 (10.0%)

31 (9.2%)

4 (1.2%)

1970-1979

26 (2.2%)

135 (6.4%)

23 (6.8%)

0

0

50 (2.4%)

7 (2.1%)

0

NA

NA

Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study

N 9th St

S 9th St

N 6th St

Occupied

74 (22.0%)

10

N Dayton St

N 6th St

N 5th St

N 4th St
N 4th St

N 3rd St

E Lincoln
St
Renter-

50 (14.9%)

Table 2.4: Year Householder Moved Into Unit, Central and McDowell

E Washington St

Tract 1130 St
E Jefferson

962 (45.8%)

2003

E Monroe

S 7th St

1142

E Polk

E Van Bure

862 (73.1%)

Median Year Moved In

N 10th St

N Alvarado Rd
N 2nd St

Target Area

St
W LincolnOwner-

113202
E Polk St

2005 or later

1969 or earlier

E Dia

E Garfield
E Garfield St
E McKinley St

S 4th St

114302
All Occupied Units

All Occupied Units

S 3rd St

Tract 1118

11320

E Roosevelt St

S 1st St

W Jackson St

I- 10

E Portland St

1141
Tract 1118

W Madison St

E Willet

E Moreland St

N 1st St

N 1st Dr

mile target
St area
Jefferson
W 1/2

Year Householder Moved into Unit

Tract 1130

E Lynwood St E Brill St

Figure 2.3: Census TractEMap,
Central and
Adams St
McDowell

S 7th Ave

S 11th Ave

S 15th Ave

N 2nd Ave

W Monroe St

W Adams St

114301

E McDowell Rd

1131
N 1st Ave

W Monroe St

E Coronado Rd

W McKinley St
N 4th Ave

N 6th Ave

N 8th Ave

N 9th Ave

Unless otherwise noted, all data for the target area
come from the 2005-2009 American Community
W Van Buren St
Survey, 5-Year Estimates (ESRI).

1130

1117

E Palm L

E Willetta St

Willetta St
Similar to the larger census tracts, homeWvalues
in
W Culver St
the target area are fairly high, with 56.8 percent
eland St
I- 10
valued at $300,000 or more (Table
2.6). The W Mor
W Latham
St and
target area is split in half between
renters
W Portland
W Portland St
homeowners (see Table 2.7), with 45.8
percent St
of
W Roosevelt St
the housing stock being single-family, attached or
detached.

St
W McKinley
Pierce Stfor census
For the following tables, allWstatistics
G
Fillmore St ra
nd
tracts 1130 and 1118 comeWfrom
the 2006-2010
W Taylor St
A
ve
American Community Survey, 5-Year
Estimates.
W Polk St

N 3rd St

E Monte Vista Rd

W Lynwood St

1129

E Oak St
N 8th St

N 3rd Ave

1118

N 11th Ave

N 13th Ave

1119

E Sheridan St

E Vernon Ave

N 11th St

In the target area around the Central and McDowell
W Lewis Ave
light rail station 36 percent of residents have lived
W
Vernon
Ave
there ten years or more, with a median year moved
W Encanto Blvd
in of 2003 (see Table 2.4). Census tract 1130 has
a large number of studio or one-bedroom housing
W Monte Vista Rd
units compared to census tract 1118 (56.5 percent
W Holly St
St
Holly
W
compared to 26.9 percent) (Table 2.5). The tract
Palm Ln
also has a much higher renter rate Wthan
both
W Granada Rd
census tract 1118 and the target area (75.7 percent
W Coronado Rd
compared to 42.9 percent and 49.9 percent
W Almeria Rd
respectively). Only 29 percent of the housing stock
W McDowell Rd
in tract 1130 is single-family, attached or detached.

E Virginia Ave

W Wilshire Dr

N Dayton St

West Virginia Ave

N 7th St

W Cambridge Ave

N Central Ave

N 7th Ave

N 15th Ave

Housing Characteristics

E Roanoke Ave

E Thomas Rd

N 5th St

W Edgemont Ave
W Windsor Ave
N 5th Ave

h Ave

C

W Thomas Rd

1140

Number of Bedrooms
Tract 1130

Tract 1118

Target Area

None

10.8%

4.3%

*

1

45.7%

22.6%

*

2

25.7%

46.8%

*

3

11.2%

24.5%

*

4

3.5%

1.7%

*

5+

3.2%

0

*

Table 2.5: Number of Bedrooms, Central and McDowell
*Data not available

Housing Values
Tract 1130
$0-99,999

Tract 1118

Target Area

0

0

0

$100-149,999

34 (11.8%)

110 (9.2%)

19 (9.0%)

$150-199,999

14 (4.9%)

149 (12.4%)

13 (6.2%)

$200-299,999

54 (18.8%)

182 (15.2%)

59 (28.0%)

$300,000+

185 (64.5%)

763 (63.3%)

120 (56.8%)

$353,900

$338,500

NA

Median Home Value

Table 2.6: Owner-Occupied Housing Values, Central and McDowell
Vacancy and Tenure
Tract 1130

Tract 1118

Target Area*

Homeowner Vacancy Rate

22.0%

0%

1.6%

Rental Vacancy Rate

9.0%

5.6%

5.9%

Owner with a Mortgage

19.3%

38.7%

34.2%

Owner Free and Clear

5.0%

18.4%

15.9%

Renter

75.7%

42.9%

49.9%

Tract 1130

Tract 1118

Target Area

Single Family, attached or detached

411 (29.0%)

1087 (45.7%)

192 (45.8%)

Multi-Family, 2-19 units

410 (28.9%)

627 (26.3%)

166 (39.6%)

Multi-Family, 20 or more units

569 (40.0%)

626 (26.3%)

61 (14.6%)

30 (2.1%)

40 (1.7%)

0

1420 (100%)

2380 (100%)

419 (100%)

Vacancy

Tenure (all occupied units)

Table 2.7: Vacancy and Tenure, Central and McDowell

*Source: 2010 U.S. Census, Summary File 1 (ESRI)

Units in structure

Mobile Home
TOTAL

Table 2.8: Units in Structure, Central and McDowell
Central & McDowell

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 & McDowell

13

LIHTC are awarded in Arizona by the Arizona
Department of Housing. A project can be awarded
points for “Transit Oriented Design” if it is located
within specified distances of a Frequent Bus Transit
System or a High Capacity Transit Station. This
includes within a half mile (2,640 feet) straight
line radius of all existing light rail transit stations in
Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa.7

Employer Assisted Housing8

Employer-assisted housing is one way the private
sector can contribute to affordable housing. By
providing housing allowances or other monetary
forms of assistance, employers can help attract
and maintain employees who would otherwise
live too far away to reasonably commute daily.
Businesses hoping to locate—or already located—
within the TOD Overlay Zone and surrounding
areas can provide assistance to workers in order to
encourage them to locate near the business and
within the community.

7 Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program 2012 Qualified
Allocation Plan. http://www.azhousing.gov/azcms/uploads/REPORTS/2012%20QAP%20FINAL%201-6-12.pdf.
8 http://www.aztownhall.org/pdf/93rd_background_report.pdf
page 73-74.

REACH Illinois Employer-Assisted Housing for public school
teachers in Chicago
Source: http://reachillinois.org

Employer-assisted housing options are widely
varied, ranging from providing designated housing
at reduced cost through a non-profit partner,
offering direct monetary contributions toward
housing costs or other expenses such as discounted
transit passes, to providing options such as housing
counseling assistance. There are various resources
or strategies for companies to establish a program
that works for them including tax benefits and nonprofit partnerships that allow for the non-profit
to provide services to employees based on a taxexempt contribution from the employer. Additional
options may be available through local government
and non-profit organizations.

Rendering of an employer-assisted housing development in Seattle, Washington
Source: Seattle Children’s Hospital
14

Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study

Haddon Township, NJ is part of the “Live Where You Work” Program which offers low-interest mortgages and down-payment
assistance to encourage people to live close to their place of employment
Source: http://www.haddontwp.com

An example of employer-assisted housing comes
from Seattle, where the University of Washington
and Seattle Children’s Hospital are partnering to
develop 184 housing units in Seattle’s University
district, an urban neighborhood that serves
university students. Aligned with the principles of
the larger University District Livability Partnership
which aims to encourage a walkable, mixed-use
neighborhood near a planned light rail station, the
project is believed to be one of the first employersponsored housing developments in the city since
the early 20th century. According to the initial
proposal, approximately 20 percent of the units
will be made available to residents earning less
than 75 percent of the area median income, and
employees of both the university and hospital will
be given first priority to lease available units.9

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
10
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.
9 Pyrne, Eric. 2011. “UW, Seattle Children’s Hospital Plan to Build

Employee Housing.” The Seattle Times (Dec 20). http://seattletimes.
nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2017058160_childrens21.
html.
10 http://www.aztownhall.org/pdf/93rd_background_report.

CLTs can utilize HOME and CDBG funds and other
sources of government funding as well as private
Central & McDowell

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.11 They
offer ongoing support for homebuyers through
homebuyer education and homeownership
counseling. Newtown currently has one single
family home within walking distance of a light rail
stop and is interested in exploring the feasibility of
developing a condominium CLT as part of transit
oriented development.

Land Banking

Land banking is the practice of purchasing land
for future resale and can allow for the acquisition
and retention of tax-foreclosed property by a
designated public authority. Often used as a method
for acquiring run-down, vacant structures and/or
land otherwise susceptible to speculators, land
banking can be used to promote the development
of affordable housing units. In Atlanta, the Land
Bank Authority gives development priority to
agencies seeking to develop affordable housing.
Many options are available under Land Banks,
and they can assist in balancing the needs of the
community.12

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.13

Property Tax Abatement Programs

Property tax abatement programs are designed to
prevent displacement of low and very low income
households due to increasing property taxes. These
programs take different forms across the country to
focus on different income and age brackets. Many
states have provisions for the elderly, but others
also include a wide-range of low and very low
income households (see Table 2.9 for examples).
In addition, property tax abatement programs can
be used to support affordable housing development
on vacant or underutilized sites along transit
corridors by reducing costs for developers through
a limited property tax exemption. For example, the
Portland (Oregon) Transit Oriented Development
(TOD) Property Tax Abatement was established
to support high density housing and mixed-use
developments affordable to a broad range of the
general public on vacant or underutilized sites
along transit corridors whose design and features
encourage building occupants to use public transit.
13 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
11 http://newtowncdc.org.
12 Land Bank Authorities. 2008. Online: http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/bestpractice008.pdf.

16

Source: http://www.buyersagentportland.com

Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study

The exemptions support TOD projects by reducing
operating costs through a ten-year maximum
property tax exemption. See the following website
for more information: http://www.portlandonline.
com/phb/index.cfm?c=53036.

Summary

In many cases, timing can be a critical aspect in
creating an effective affordable housing strategy
within a mixed-income housing component as
part of TOD. Recognizing the projected need of the
Metro light rail corridor (~3,700 new mixed-income
housing units per light rail station area through
2040)14 and working to provide a framework to
address this need will provide for the greatest
opportunities. For example, a local government or
nonprofit agency may acquire property in a transit
area prior to a significant rise in property values.
This can be done through the use of several of the
programs described above and can allow for the
creation of housing without the added expense
of increased property costs. Targeting of vacant,
abandoned, or blighted properties in the area
can contribute to this effort. According to a 2012
study, in 2011 there were 32 acres of vacant land in
the target area around the Central and McDowell
14 BAE Urban Economics. 2012. “TOD Mixed-Income Housing
Market Demand Study.” Online: wwwbae1.com.

Encore on Farmer Street between 6th and 7th Streets, Tempe
Arizona, offers low-income housing for seniors 55 and older.
Source: http://www.raillife.com

station, making the area a prime target for the
aforementioned programs.15 Developers and
others interested in creating affordable housing
opportunities should contact the Phoenix Housing
Department or the Arizona Department of Housing
for more information.
15 Kittrell, Katherine. 2012. “Vacant Land Value Impacts: Comparing Phoenix Metro Light Rail Station Areas.” Paper presented to
the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 91st
Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C.

Property tax Abatement Programs
Location
Who it helps
What it does
Tucson, AZ • Low-income
• Reimburses qualifying residents for the difference
residents (80% AMI)
between their property tax rate and that of the larger city
within designated
Rio Nuevo District
Portland,
• Developers
• Reduces operating costs for a maximum of 10 years
OR
through property tax exemptions
• Encourages development of new housing opportunities
on vacant/underutilized land or through improvement to
some qualifying existing structures
• Requires low-income housing set-asides for all complexes
• Encourages new low-income housing opportunities
Table 2.9: Property Tax Abatement Programs
Sources:
Tucson: City of Tucson. Rio Nuevo Neighborhoods Property Tax Assistance Program. 2008. Brochure
Portland: http://www.portlandonline.com/phb/index.cfm?c=53036
Central & McDowell

17

E Sheridan St

N Centr

E Vernon Ave

E Hoover Ave
Housing and Transportation Affordability

N Alvarado Rd

W Almeria Rd

T = 28.4%

T = 29.8%

H = 17.1%
T = 28.2%

T = 29.2%

W Culver St

N 5th St

T = 28.0%

E Willetta St
N 2nd St

H = 36.6%

Willetta St

T = 27.9%

N 1st St

H = 34.3%

McDowell Rd

H = 18.8%

W Lynwood St

W Moreland St

H = 55.9%

E Coronado Rd

E Culver St

E Lynwood St

Papago Fwy
Papago Fwy

W Latham St

T = 25.5%

T = 25.9%

Ave

light rail

1/2 mile target area

t

H = 20.1%

E Portland St

Source: CNT.org H+T Affordability Index
Accessed April 2012
t

e

Figure 2.4: Housing and Transportation Cost as a
Percentage of Income, Central and McDowell

E Willetta St

reland St

Affordable Housing: 30% and Less

h

T = 27.1%

W Portland St

H = 21.5%
W Portland St
N 1st Dr

H = 19.0%

H = 31.4%

E Brill St

T = 27.1%

E Moreland St

I- 10

Unaffordable Housing: Greater than 30%

Defining Housing + Transportation
Affordability

According to the Center for Neighborhood
Technology, less than one in three American
Housing costs factored as a percent of income has communities (28 percent) are affordable for typical
widely been utilized as a measure of affordability. regional households when transportation costs are
Traditionally, a home is considered affordable considered along with housing costs (“affordable”
when the costs consume no more than 30 percent means that housing and transportation costs
16
of household income. In the half-mile area around consume no more than 45 percent of income).
the Central and McDowell station, using this In fact, on average households in auto-dependent
measure of affordability those living west of Central neighborhoods spend 25 percent of their income
Avenue spend on average more than 30 percent of on transportation, whereas households in walktheir income on housing, and thus their housing is able neighborhoods with good transit access
and a mix of housing, jobs, and shops spend just
considered unaffordable (see Figure 2.4).
9 percent.17 These are referred to as “location
However, housing and transportation costs
together make up the two largest expenses for
most households, so measures of affordability
should also consider costs for transportation.
18

16 Center for Neighborhood Technology. 2012. “National Index
Reveals Combined Housing and Transportation Affordability Has
Declined Since 2000.” Online: http://www.cnt.org.
17 Center for Transit-Oriented Development. 2009. “Mixed-Income
Housing Near Transit: Increasing Affordability With Location Ef-

Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study

N 10th St

H = 37.8%

E Granada Rd

N 10th St

W Coronado Rd

Palmcroft Dr

N 9th Ave

N 1st Ave

Pa

SE

W Granada Rd

E Palm Ln

N 9th St

T = 29.4%

H = 38.2%

t

W Palm Ln

Rd

E Monte Vista

T = 29.0%

N Alvarado Rd

W Holly St

Encanto Dr SE

Central Ave

W Cypress St

H = 41.9%

E Oak St

E Oak St

N 9th St

W Encanto Blvd

N 7th Pl

W Vernon Ave

N 3rd

th Ave

N

E

W Lewis Ave

E Sheridan St

N Centr

th Ave

W Vernon Ave

N 3rd

N

W Lewis Ave

E Vernon Ave
E Hoover Ave

W Encanto Blvd

E Oak St
N Alvarado Rd

E Oak St

H+T=
71.3%

W Almeria Rd

H+T=
66.2%

H+T=
67.3%

E Granada Rd

H+T=
85.7%

E Coronado Rd

H+T=
45.3%

Osborn Rd
E Willetta St

W Culver St

W Moreland St

E Culver St

E Brill St

E Willetta St

Papago Fwy
Papago Fwy

t

H+T=
47.2%

W Portland St

H+T=
47.4%

W Portland St
N 1st Dr

H+T=
46.1%

H+T=
56.9%

Ave

e

light rail

1/2 mile target area

Affordable H+T: 45% and Less

Source: CNT.org H+T Affordability Index
Accessed April 2012
t

Figure 2.5: Combined Housing and Transportation
Cost as a Percentage of Income, Central and McDowell

E Portland St

h

W Latham St

Unaffordable H+T: Greater than 45%

efficient” neighborhoods because they require less In fact, the entire target area is over the 45 percent
time, money, and greenhouse gas emissions for figure, with those residents west of Central paying
residents to meet their everyday travel needs.18
almost two-thirds of their household income
on housing and transportation. Note that these
Figure 2.5 shows what happens to “affordability” figures are averages and depend heavily upon
when transportation costs are taken into account public transit use; the more an individual uses
along with housing. In our target area, those public transportation for their travel needs, the
homes that were “affordable” in Figure 2.4 become more affordable their neighborhood becomes.
unaffordable when transportation costs are
included. 19
See Appendix A for Housing + Transportation
Affordability maps for the entire region as well as
ficiency.” Online: http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/uploa
an explanation of the Center for Neighborhood
ds/091030ra201mixedhousefinal.pdf.
18 Center for Neighborhood Technology. 2012. “http://www.cnt.
Technology’s
Housing
and
Transportation
org/tcd/location-efficiency.
Affordability
Index.
19 The statistics provided for Figures 2.4 and 2.5 follow the Center
for Neighborhood Technology’s recommendations for using the
regional moderate household for comparison when the median
income of the target area is less than 80 percent of the regional typical median income. In this case, the regional typical median income

is $54,713 and the median income for our half-mile target area is
$40,468.

Central & McDowell

reland St

N 7th Pl

E Moreland St

I- 10

N 9th St

H+T=
64.6%

Willetta St

E Lynwood St

19

N 9th St

H+T=
63.5%

N 5th St

H+T=
46.6%

W Lynwood St

N 2nd St

N 9th Ave

Palmcroft Dr

W Coronado Rd

Rd

E Monte Vista

E Palm Ln

N 1st St

Pa

SE

W Granada Rd

N 1st Ave

W Palm Ln

N Alvarado Rd

W Holly St

Encanto Dr SE

Central Ave

W Cypress St

W Earll Dr

E Earll Dr

N Country Club Dr

N 5th Ave

N 6th Ave

W Earll Dr

N 1st Pl

F

W Earll Dr

Public Transit

W Avalon Dr

N 8th Ave

W Catalina Dr

Light Rail Ridership

2 0 .5 4 %

W Catalina Dr

E Catalina
Dr
Household
Transportation
Costs

On average, transportation costs constitute the
E Verde Ln
E Country Club Dr
second largest household expenditure (after
housing) for households
across the country.22 Figure
E Thomas Rd
e
2.6 demonstrates that households in the half-mile
nt Av
em o
E dg
E
target area pay, on average, between
per
E Roanoke $948-968
Ave
E Roanoke Ave
month
on transportation.

N 1st Ave

N 2nd St

figures provided by MetroW Merrell
light Strail
indicate that 856,664 individuals got on and off
W Thomas
at the Central and McDowell Station
in Rd
2011. In
fact, between April 2009 and April 2011, ridership
W Edgemont Ave
W Edgemont Ave
increased at the Central and McDowell
station by
96%.20
W Windsor Ave
N 6th Ave

Ridership
W Verde Ln

1 5 .9 8 %

E Windsor Ave

W Cypress St

W Holly St

Encanto Dr SE

$968/mo

$1,008/mo

$11,539/yr
$962/mo

Osborn Rd

$997/mo

W Culver St

E Culver St

W Moreland St

E Lynwood St

Papago Fwy
Papago Fwy

E Brill St
E Willetta St

t

$11,032/yr
$919/mo

E Moreland St

$10,356/yr
$863/mo

$876/mo

Ave

e

20

1/2 mile target area

<$11,000/yr

$11,000 - $12,000/yr

Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study

Source: CNT.org H+T Affordability Index
Accessed April 2012
t

Figure 2.6: Annual and Monthly Transportation Cost
per Household, Central and McDowell
light rail

E Portland St

N 1st Dr

W Portland St

$10,515/yr
W Portland St

reland St

N 7th Pl

W Latham St

h

I- 10

$12,000 - $13,000/yr

$13,000+/yr

N 10th St

E Willetta St

N 1st St

$954/mo

$948/mo

N 9th St

$11,448/yr

N 5th St

$11,379/yr

W Lynwood St
Willetta St

$12,091/yr

E Coronado Rd

N 10th St

E Granada Rd

N 9th St

W Almeria Rd

$11,619/yr

N 2nd St

Palmcroft Dr

W Coronado Rd

N Alvarado Rd

N 1st Ave

Pa

SE

W Granada Rd

Central Ave

$1,005/mo

$920/mo

N 9th St

$11,887/yr

E Palm Ln

$12,064/yr

$11,038/yr

Rd

E Monte Vista

$991/mo

W Palm Ln

N 9th Ave

N 8th St

E Hoover
Ave
22 Center
for Neighborhood
Technology. 2012. “National Index
Reveals
Combined
Housing and Transportation Affordability
E Oak St Has
E Oak St
Declined Since 2000.” Online: http://www.cnt.org.
N Alvarado Rd

th Ave

20 BAE Urban Economics. 2012. “TOD Mixed-Income Housing
Market Demand Study.” Online: www.bae1.com.
W Encanto
21 Environmental Systems Research
InstituteBlvd
(ESRI) forecasts for
2010 based on US Bureau of the Census, 2000.

$11,968/yr

N 7th St

N Central Ave

N 3rd St

N 5th Ave

N 3rd Ave

N 8th Ave

N 7th Ave

N 8th Ave

W Cambridge
Ave
E Cthese
In spite of these increasing
numbers,
data for the The use of public transit can greatly reduce
ambrid
ge A v
E Virginia Cir
residents of the half-mile area show low ridership monthly transportation costs. Currently, rates e
West Virginia Ave
E Virginia Ave
.8 5 %
rates. 3.4 percent report using2 public
for the2 9Metro
light rail or1 5local
bus are $1.75 per
9 . 3 4 %transportation
.4 1 %
E Woodward Dr
to get to work, 9.6Wpercent
ride; $3.50 per day; or a 31-day pass for $55.00. In
Wilshire Dr walk to work, and 68.7
21
percent drive alone to work.
addition
to special rates for ASU students, Metro
E Ashland Ave
W Lewis Ave
E Sheridan
St
also offers a reduced rate
for youth,
seniors (age
Epersons
Vernon Avewith a disability, and Medicare card
65+),
W Vernon 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 McDowell area. Figure 2.7 demonstrates the
available bus lines near the light rail station as of
April 2012. Currently there are four bus routes
in the area: Routes 0, 17, 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
individual can enter their travel date, start and end as monthly sessions at the Disability Empowerment
points, how far they are willing to walk, and their Center.24
preference for light rail, bus or express bus routes,
and their trip will be mapped for them.23 Metro
24 http://www.valleymetro.org/transit_education/community_outreach/

Palm
3rd St

Central Ave

3rd Ave

1st Ave

23 http://trips.valleymetro.org/pages/full_trip.

Coronado

McDowell Rd

17

GL

Willetta

0
512

I-10 Freeway
Figure 2.7: Area Bus Routes and Transit Centers, Central and McDowell
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:
0,17, 512 Express Service, Grand Avenue Limited (GL), METRO Light Rail

Central & McDowell

21

Studies around Light Rail

A common fear surrounding the introduction of
mass transit systems is the potential increase in
crime it may bring. In Atlanta, Georgia, opposition
to extending MARTA rail and bus lines into
surrounding suburbs was strongly influenced by
the fear that crime would increase in these areas.27
In reality, most studies of crime and light rail have
found either a decrease in crime or no change after
the opening of the station. In Charlotte, North
Carolina, researchers measured crime statistics
before and after the opening of the Charlotte light
rail line. They found that light rail did not increase
crime around the stations and in fact, property
crimes decreased.28
25 Saad, Lydia. 2010. “Nearly 4 in 10 Americans Still Fear Walking
Alone at Night.” Gallup. Online: http://www.gallup.com.
26 Federal Bureau of Investigations. 2010. “Uniform Crime Reports.” Online: www.fbi.gov.
27 Poister, Theodore H. 1996. “Transit-Related Crime in Suburban
Areas.” Journal of Urban Affairs 18(1):63-75.
29 Billings, Stephen B., Suzanne Leland, and David Swindell. 2011.
“The Effects of the Announcement and Opening of Light Rail
Transit Stations on Neighborhood Crime.” Journal of Urban Affairs.
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 McDowell 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
29 Sandag. 2009. “Understanding Transit’s Impact on Public Safety.”
Online: www.sandag.org.

Encanto
7th St

This fear of crime contrasts sharply with federal
crime statistics revealing that crime has actually
been decreasing and is now at its lowest level in
recent history. Federal Bureau of Investigation
Statistics show that U.S. crime rates are down in
every category: From 2001-2010 violent crimes are
down 13.4 percent and property crimes are down
13 percent.26

In San Diego, California, the San Diego Association
of Governments analyzed crime patterns before
and after the implementation of light rail as well as
a comparison of neighborhoods with and without
a transit station. They found that the presence of
transit did not lead to more neighborhood crime.29

Central Ave

One of the goals of transit-oriented development
is to create walkable, bikeable communities
where the public can safely utilize the surrounding
amenities. In order for communities to succeed as
sustainable places, it is necessary to address issues
of perceived safety. The ADOH target area survey
found that residents within the one-half mile area
surrounding the selected light rail stations identified
crime as their primary concern. This is consistent
with a recent national Gallup poll revealing that
four in ten Americans fear walking alone at night.25

7th Ave

G

Crime and CPTED Principles

McDowell Rd

Roosevelt
Figure 2.8: Approximate One Square Mile Area of
Crime Data, Central and McDowell

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

communities. The transition into a TOD community
serves as an ideal time for integration of these
concepts.
Although there are many approaches to CPTED
including the number of concepts, the evaluation
of their effectiveness, and so forth, five main
concepts are most commonly utilized:

• Natural Surveillance
One of the ways that transit-oriented development
can contribute towards lower crime rates is through
• Natural Access Control
creating more “eyes on the streets,” based on the
principle that the greater the risk of being seen or
• Territorial Reinforcement
challenged, the less likely people are to commit a
crime. There are several principles that landlords,
• Maintenance and Management
property owners, business owners, and developers
can follow in order to reduce crime and disorder
• Activity Support
on their respective properties. These principles are
known collectively as “Crime Prevention Through
These five CPTED principles and examples of how
Environmental Design,” or CPTED.
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.
CPTED principles can be integrated into existing
Central & McDowell: Local Number of Crimes 2006-2011

600

Light Rail
Construction

500
400
300
200
100
0

2006

2007

2008

2009

Figure 2.9: Local Number of Crimes 2006-2011, Central and McDowell
property crime

violent crime

2010

2011*

Source: Phoenix Police Department
Data Received December 2011
*Data Through October 2011

Central & McDowell

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 & McDowell

25

Pedestrian and bicycle mobility and safety are
significant components of creating successful
TOD. In the 2002 General Plan, the City of Phoenix
identified the need to encourage pedestrianoriented development and to increase bicycle
connections in the city.

lanes, number of vehicles, and curb radius (larger
curb radii encourage drivers to turn faster around
corners). The checklist also includes questions
such as: Does the area have adequate bicycle
lanes, designated bicycle routes, and multi-use
paths? Are there sidewalks present, and if so, in
what condition? Are there marked crosswalks
at and between intersections, and what type of
crossing signals are present?

Evaluation tools

A task force formed by the Safe Routes to
School Program of the Arizona Department of
Transportation has created an Active School
Neighborhood Checklist (ASNC) to be used as a
tool for assessing school sites’ walkability and
bikeability.30 This tool can be used to evaluate
any neighborhood or TOD area on issues of bike
and pedestrian safety. The checklist includes
items such as: speed limits, number of traffic

Central Ave

1st Ave

3rd Ave

30 http://www.azdot.gov/srts/PDF/Documents_Active_School_
Neighborhood_Checklist.pdf.

Palm

3rd St

In the half-mile area around Central and McDowell
there are four 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.

Alvarado

H

Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety

Coronado

McDowell Rd

Willetta

I-10 Freeway
Figure 2.10: Pedestrian/Bike Map of 1/2 mile Area, Central and McDowell
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
<http://www.
tempe.gov/
Tim/>

Phoenix
Phoenix Metro
Bicycle Club
<http://pmbcaz.
org/>

Arizona Bicycle
Tempe Bicycle
Club
Action Group
http:\\www.
<http://www.
azbikeclub.com
biketempe.org/>

Mesa
City of Mesa,
Mesa Rides!
Program
<http://www.
mesaaz.gov/
mesarides/>

State/Maricopa
Coalition of Arizona Bicyclists
<http://www.cazbike.org/>
ADOT Bicycle/Pedestrian Program
<http://azbikeped.org/>
Maricopa DOT Bicycle Program
<http://www.mcdot.maricopa.gov/bicycle/bike-program.htm>
Maricopa Kids Coalition
<http://www.maricopa.gov/PublicHealth/Programs/SafeKids>
Maricopa Safe Routes to School
<http://www.maricopa.gov/publichealth/Programs/SRTS>
Metro
<http://www.valleymetro.org>

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).

2.11 delineates several methods of track crossing
warning mechanisms in use at light rail stations
across the country.

The Federal Highway Administration provides
a detailed list of relevant bicycle and pedestrian
safety information.31 Additional resources include
materials to help guide officials in designing systems
that are safe and comply with regulations.32

Light Rail Bicycle Safety Devices

Effective designation of rail lines and crossings
can substantially increase pedestrian safety. Table
31 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/ped_transit/ped_transguide/
32 http://katana.hsrc.unc.edu/cms/downloads/PedRSA.reduced.
pdf

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
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
A bicyclist crosses the Interstate 10 overpass
Central & McDowell

27

One of the goals of TOD is to improve the health of
residents by encouraging an active lifestyle. Studies
show that individuals who use public transit are
more likely to achieve the Surgeon General’s
recommendation of thirty minutes of moderate
physical activity per day.33 The incorporation of
open green space to encourage physical activity is
a crucial element in any TOD plan.

The largest park in the half-mile area is Margaret
T. Hance Park, a 32 acre park featuring an Irish
Cultural Center and Japanese Friendship Garden.
In June 2012 Phoenix officials agreed to pursue
plans to turn the park into a “signature park” with
expanded amenities.

The 2002 Phoenix General Plan34 indicates several
goals and policies aimed at the creation of more
open spaces and parks throughout the city. The
TOD Zoning Overlay District One35 calls for a
minimum 5% open space for multifamily, mixed
use, and commercial development; in general, the
district also encourages the maximum use of open
space.

Area Parks

As indicated in Figure 2.11, there are twelve parks
within the two-mile area surrounding the Central
and McDowell station, including two parks within
the half-mile target area.

7th Ave

Encanto
Park

Monterey
Park
1 mile

2 mile
Country Club
Oval
12th St

7th St

Encanto
Executive
Golf Course

Central Ave

Thomas

15th Ave

I

Open Space/Parks/Plazas

Coronado
Park

1/2 mile

Margaret T. Hance Park, Phoenix, Arizona
Source: www.bridgeandtunnelclub.com

Vacant Land Potential

Any TOD plan for the half-mile area surrounding
Central and McDowell 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 two of the
vacant lots near the light rail station at Central and
McDowell.

McDowell
Townsend
Park
Portland Parkway
Hu-O-Te
Park

Margaret T.
Hance Park

d
an
Gr

Roosevelt
Park
Civic Space
University
Park
Park
Van Buren
Heritage
Woodland Parkway
Square

I-10 Papago Fwy

ue

en
Av

Verde
Park

Figure 2.11: Area Parks, Central and McDowell
33 Tucson Move. 2011. May/June 1(2):60.
34 Phoenix General Plan: Recreation Element. 2002. http:\\phoenix.
gov/planning/gprec.pdf.
35 662 Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One
(TOD-1). 2009. http:\\www.codepublishing.com/az/phoenix/
framless/index.pl?path=../html/PhoenixZ06/PhoenixZ0662.
html#662.

28

Vacant lot east of Central Avenue

Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study

Figure 2.12 shows that there are a number of
vacant parcels to the northwest of the station area.
In addition, there is considerable surface parking
that could be redesigned to accommodate open
green space.
Several strategies may be considered, including
the creation of plazas, pocket parks, and joint-use
agreements with schools.

Palm

3rd St

Alvarado

Central Ave

1st Ave

3rd Ave

Vacant lot near the light rail station at Central and McDowell

Coronado

McDowell Rd

Willetta

I-10 Freeway
Figure 2.12: Open Space Potential, Central and McDowell
light rail

light rail stop

vacant land

surface parking lots

Source: Drachman Institute
April 2012

Central & McDowell

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 McDowell 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 & McDowell

31

J

Area Schools

E Thomas Rd

2 Mile

E Virginia Ave

11
²
15
²

W Encanto Blvd

E Sheridan St
E Oak St

1 Mile

N Mitchell St

N 3rd Ave

N 5th Ave

W Edgemont Ave

N 7th Ave

within two miles of the light rail stop, six of which
are high schools (five public and one private). Of
the seventeen schools, ten are public charter
schools, four are public schools, and three are
private schools.

Central Ave

A concern for families with children moving into
a TOD area is the availability and quality of area
schools. There are four schools in the half-mile
target area at Central and McDowell (see Figure
2.13). Altogether there are seventeen schools

N 7th St

School Availability

E Monte Vista Rd

1/2 Mile
1
3

W Palm Ln

²

N 3rd St

² ²
12

10
²

5
²

E Coronado Rd

16 McDowell Rd
²

4
²

E Willetta St

2
²

6
²

N 15th Ave

E Palm Ln

E Portland St

13
²

light rail
32

public school

private school

Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study

E Fillmore St
E Taylor St

N 5th St

N 1st St

Figure 2.13: Area Schools, Central and McDowell

E McKinley St
E Pierce St

17
²
N 3rd St

N 4th Ave

N 2nd Ave

²
N 6th Ave

N 9th Ave

N 10th Ave

N 12th Ave

N 14th Ave

7
²

E Diamond St

E Garfield St

14
²

N 2nd St

8
²

9

E Roosevelt St

E Polk St
E Van Buren St

Source: Drachman Institute
May 2012
public charter/magnet school

specialty school

�

List of Local Schools
•

within 1/2 mile of stop

1. Arizona Academy of Science and Technology
1875 N. Central Ave.
Public K-8 (Charter)
117 students in 2010
73.5% free/reduced lunch
488 reading score (6th grade)
367 math score (6th grade)
2. Arizona School for the Arts
1313 N. 2nd Street
Public 5-12 (Charter)
592 students
0.5% free/reduced lunch
765 reading score (10th grade)
553 math score (10th grade)
3. Ralph Waldo Emerson Elementary
School
915 E. Palm Lane
Public K-6
13th percentile statewide
512 students in 2010
6.6% free/reduced lunch
15.2:1 student teacher ratio
33.5 full time teachers
501 reading score (6th grade)
401 math score (6th grade)
4. Suns-Diamondback Education Academy
1505 N. Central Ave
Public 10-12
182 students
67.6% free/reduced lunch
20.2:1 student teacher ratio
9 full time teachers

•

Within 1 Mile of Stop

5. Genesis Academy
525 E. McDowell Rd
Public 9-12 (Charter)
11th percentile statewide
176 students in 2010
79% free/reduced lunch
665 reading score (10th grade)
457 math score (10th grade)
6. Kenilworth Elementary School
1210 N. 5th Ave
Public Pre K-8
29th percentile statewide
561 students in 2010
1.2% free/reduced lunch
16.5:1 student teacher ratio
34 full time teachers
501 reading score (6th grade)
387 math score (6th grade)

•

within 2 miles of stop

7. Arizona Call-a-Teen Center for Excellence
649 N. 6th Ave
Public 9-12 (Charter)
15th percentile statewide
117 students in 2010
97.4% free/reduced lunch
671 reading score (10th grade)
458 math score (10th grade)
8. Career Success High School
301 W. Roosevelt
Public 9-12 (Charter)
9th percentile statewide
89 students in 2010
51.7% free/reduced lunch
661 reading score (10th grade)
455 math score (10th grade)
9. Children First Academy
374 N. 6th Ave
Public K-8 (Charter)
1st percentile statewide
291 students in 2010
96.6% free/reduced lunch
475 reading score (6th grade)
371 math score (6th grade)
10. The Family School
1127 W. McDowell Road
Private Pre K-5
64 students in 2010
13:1 student teacher ratio
11. Khalsa Montessori Elementary School
2536 N 3rd St
Public K-6 (Charter)
99th percentile statewide
571 reading score (6th grade)
470 math score (6th grade)
168 students in 2010
16.7% free or reduced lunch
12. Metropolitan Arts Institute
1700 N. 7th Ave.
Public 7-12 (Charter)
82nd percentile statewide
250 students in 2010
2% free/reduced lunch
733 reading score (10th grade)
501 math score (10th grade)
13. Montessori Reed School
909 N. 1st St.
Private Pre K-4
32 students in 2010
10:1 student teacher ratio
Information on all schools obtained from
schooldigger.com, accessed April 2012

14. Phoenix Union Bioscience High School
512 E. Pierce St.
Public 9-12
92nd percentile statewide
247 students in 2010
65.6% free/reduced lunch
13.7:1 student teacher ratio
739 reading score (10th grade)
525 math score (10th grade)
15. 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
16. Summit High School
728 E. McDowell Road
Public 9-12 (Charter)
9th percentile statewide
362 students in 2010
88.1% free/reduced lunch
659 reading score (10th grade)
457 math score (10th grade)
17. University Public School
735 E. Fillmore St.
Public K-10 (Charter)
674 students in 2010
84.6% free/reduced lunch
510 reading score (6th grade)
419 math score (6th grade)
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

Central & McDowell

33

Office
Tower

$

Palm

3rd St

the area. According to data compiled by the
Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI),
there are 167 businesses in the half-mile area, 62.3
percent of which are service-related (See Table
2.12). There are no food stores in the half-mile
target area.

Central 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
surrounding the Central and McDowell station is
dominated by vacant land and surface parking,
there is a mix of retail and services available in

Alvarado

K

Area Amenities

Coronado
Phoenix Art
Museum

$

Phoenix
Theatre

McDowell Rd

Willetta

Phoenix
Public
Library

Papago Fwy

Figure 2.14: Area Amenities, Central and McDowell
light rail
retail
health/fitness
34

light rail stop
office

1/2 mile area

auto services
hotel/lodging

Source: Drachman Institute
April 2012

buildings

$ bank/money services
library

parking garage

church/religious

museum/cultural

Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study

hospital

surface parking

health and fitness

gas

restaurant/dining

vacant
grocery
school

Businesses in Half-Mile Area by Service Industry Codes
Number

Percent

Agriculture & Mining

3

1.8%

Construction

3

1.8%

Manufacturing

3

1.8%

Transportation

2

1.2%

Communication

3

1.8%

Utility

1

0.6%

Wholesale Trade

2

1.2%

Retail Trade

17

10.2%

Home Improvement

2

General Merchandise

0

Food Stores (Includes Grocery Stores)

0

Auto Dealers, Gas Stations, Auto Aftermarket

0

Apparel & Accessory Stores

1

Furniture & Home Furnishings

2

Eating & Drinking Places (Includes “Fast Food”)

8

Miscellaneous Retail

4

Finance, Insurance, Real Estate

17

Banks, Savings, & Lending Institutions

5

Securities Brokers

2

Insurance Carriers & Agents

4

Real Estate, Holding, Other Investment Offices

6

Services

104

Hotels & Lodging

1

Automotive Services

1

Motion Pictures & Amusements

5

Health Services

13

Legal Services

26

Education Institutions & Libraries

6

Other Services

52

10.2%

62.3%

Government

4

2.4%

Other

8

4.7%

Total

167

100%

Table 2.12: Half-Mile Area Business Summary,
Central and McDowell

Source: Business data by Infogroup,
Omaha NE, 2012, compiled by ESRI
Accessed April 2012

Central & McDowell

35

L

Central and McDowell Area Summary

General

Central and McDowell is a mixed-use area with
residential, retail, and offices located in the halfmile surrounding the light rail stop. The target area
is bounded by Palm Lane to the North, Interstate
10 to the South, 3rd Avenue to the West, and 3rd
Street to the East.

Neighborhood Demographics and
Housing Characteristics

Compared to demographics for the city of Phoenix,
target area residents are more likely to have a
bachelor’s degree or higher, are less likely to be
homeowners, and have lower median incomes.
The target area is 14.9 percent Hispanic, compared
to 40.8 percent for the City of Phoenix.36
In the target area around the Central and McDowell
light rail station 36 percent of residents have lived
there ten years or more, with a median year moved
in of 2003. Home values in the target area are fairly
high, with 56.8 percent valued at $300,000 or more.
The target area is split in half between renters and
homeowners, with 45.8 percent of the housing
stock being single-family, attached or detached.

Property Values

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
McDowell those living west of Central Avenue
typically spend more than 30 percent of their income
on housing and are thus considered unaffordable.
When factoring in transportation costs, the entire
half-mile area becomes unaffordable (housing and
transportation costs consume 45 percent or more
of total household income).38

Public Transit

Public transit ridership at the Central and McDowell
light rail station has increased by 96 percent since
April 2009.39 Ridership numbers provided by Metro
indicate that over 800,000 people got on and off
at the station in 2011. In spite of these numbers,
ridership figures for the residents of the half-mile
target area are low, with 3.4 percent reporting
that they use public transit to get to work.40 On
average, residents in the target area pay between
$948-$968 per month on transportation.41

Crime

Consistent with statistics from across the country,
property values have risen since the introduction
of light rail, and the largest increases are found
closest to station areas.37 There are a number
of programs that may be pursued in order to
preserve and develop affordable housing and to
assist existing low-income homeowners in the
area. These may include Low Income Housing Tax
Credits, Community Land Trusts, Employer Assisted
Housing Programs, and property tax abatement
programs.

The ADOH target area survey found that residents
identified crime as one of their primary concerns,
yet statistics show that crime has not increased in
station areas since the introduction of Metro light
rail.42 Consistent with studies across the country,
crime in the target area has been decreasing and is
now at its lowest level in recent history. There are
several principles that landlords, property owners,
business owners, and developers can follow in order
to reduce crime and disorder on their respective
properties; collectively these are known as “crime
prevention through environmental design”

36 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Summary File 1, provided by Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), Community Analyst Data
Service.
37 Golub, Aaron, Subjrajit Guhathakurta, and BharathSollapuram.
2011. “Light Rail Economic Impact Analysis: Task 1 Final Report to
the Maricopa Association of Governments.”

38 Center for Neighborhood Technology, Housing and Transportation Affordability Index. Accessed April 2012.
39 BAE Urban Economics. 2012. “TOD Mixed-Income Housing
Market Demand Study.” Online: wwwbae1.com.
40 Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) forecasts for
2010 based on US Bureau of the Census, 2000.
41 Center for Neighborhood Technology, Housing and Transportation Affordability Index. Accessed April 2012.
42 City of Phoenix Police Department. 2011.

36

Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study

or CPTED. They include: natural surveillance,
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 McDowell there
are four 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.43 Of particular concern are speed limits
and traffic, the presence of bicycle lanes and
designated bicycle routes, and sidewalk conditions
and crosswalks.

Open space/plazas/parks

There are twelve parks in the two-mile area
surrounding the station, including two parks within
the half-mile target area. There are a number of
vacant parcels 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 joint-use 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
seventeen schools located within two miles of the
Central and McDowell light rail station. Ten of the
seventeen are charter schools and three are private
schools. There are approximately 167 businesses in
the target area, 10.2 percent of which are retail,
10.2 percent are finance, insurance, or real estate,
and 62.3 percent are service-related.44 There are
no food stores in the half-mile area.
43 See Appendix B.
44 Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), Business
Analyst Data Service.

Central & McDowell

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