Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study: Apache & McClintock, Tempe, 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: Apache & McClintock, Tempe, 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 Apache & McClintock 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. Apache and McClintock 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 Apache and McClintock. A Project Summary is included to provide base information for all of the eight light rail stations covered in this series. 1 Smith, John Robert and Alia Anderson. 2010. “Changing Federal Policy in the U.S. to Promote Livable Communities.” PTI (September/October). www.reconnectingamerica.org. 2 www.reconnectingamerica.org. 3 Machell, Erin, Troy Reinhalter, and Karen Chapple. 2009. “Building Support for Transit-Oriented Development: Do CommunityEngagement Toolkits Work?” Center for Community Innovation. http://communityinnovation.berkeley.edu. 4 The eight light rail stations included in this project were designated by the Arizona Department of Housing. They include: Central and Camelback; Central and Osborn; Central and Thomas; Central and McDowell; Washington and 12th Street; Apache and McClintock; Apache and Price; and Main and Sycamore. Introduction 3 4 Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study A M C T M L B P M H A Apache & McClintock 5 A IÄãÙʗç‘ã®ÊÄ One mile from the eastern edge of Arizona State University (ASU), the half-mile area surrounding the light rail stop at Apache and McClintock includes a variety of housing op ons, retail services, and a police substa on. The proximity to ASU makes this a heavily travelled bicycle corridor. The area is located in City of Tempe Council District and Maricopa County District 1. The half-mile area is bounded by E. Randall/Orange to the North, railroad tracks to the South, S. Una Avenue to the West, and S. Bonnie Lane to the East. A por on of the City of Tempe Transporta on Overlay District is located within the half-mile area (see Figure 2.1). There are a mix of housing op ons at Apache and McClintock The immediate area has ac ve neighborhood associa ons including the Alegre Community Neighborhood Associa on, the Don Carlos Neighborhood Associa on, the Hudson Manor Neighborhood Associa on, and the University Heights Neighborhood Associa on. The Dhaba Indian Cuisine on Apache Boulevard The Metro bus travels down McClintock Apache Boulevard Police Substa on 6 Luxury student apartments, Apache Boulevard Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study Apartment 13th St McClintock Dr BuƩe Una Orange Don Carlos 12th St Apache Blvd Hudson Williams Cedar Railroad Figure 2.1: Aerial Photograph of 1/2 Mile Area, Apache and McClintock light rail 1/2 mile target area light rail stop Transporta on Overlay District Apache & McClintock 7 h Rd Smith SS Pri ce Fwy Pr y d Dr E Palmcroft m Drr D Tract 3192 Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study S Price Rd S Cou untr n y Club Way S Holbrook Ln E Apartment 319403 Dr D Tract 3191.2 S Cottttto on nw wo oo S Perry r Ln S Ha a cienda Dr S McClintock Dr SE Elm m Stt EA Apartme tm n nt S Los Lo os Feliz Dr S Cedarr St y Pl S Stanley d Rd ce R SR Rurall Rd E Cedar St Dr 8 E Wildermuth ld r Dr r aD E Concorda r Dr o rd r onc D C n E e sp Dr s E Bishop Dr EA Dr dow sta Dr a Vis n Mea E o E Lom l y Ga E Drr D l me E Alameda Figure 2.2: Census Tract Map, Apache and McClintock 1/2 mile target area 3192 n Dr lea r e EV E Howe w Av Ave ve no d 0 h Stt E 10th EO Orange n St an Sh r Dr mo 3195 roa E Apache c Bllv vd EW Willia am ms St E Broadway y Rd EB Dr da D E Concorda v s Ave Carlos E Don Ca 319102 e nt en me rtm art pa Ap EA E Palmcroft m Dr Hayden Ln EH E Lemon St E Hall Stt E Ce edar a St E 6th St S Dr D r Viista del Cerro EV E Orange g St Kachina Dr SK th Pl Kenneth SK E Spence A Ave ve v e E 8th St ve S Una Ave 319101 S Dorr sey Ln Ln E Unive v rsity i Dr E 5th S St Ln ola SL S Te errace Rd 3184 S Clark E 3rd rd St S Siesta Compared to demographics for the City of Tempe, the target area is more racially and ethnically diverse, with 40.2 percent iden fying as Hispanic compared to 21.1 percent for the City of Tempe. Residents in the half-mile target area are less likely to be homeowners (20.2 percent compared to 44.5 percent) and have lower median incomes than the City of Tempe as a whole. In the target area 70.4 percent of residents age twenty-five and older have a high school degree, and 12.3 percent have a bachelor’s degree or higher (see Tables 7.1-7.3). SS Siesta Ln n The half-mile area is located within two census tracts: Tracts 3191.02 and 3192 (see Figure 2.2). Due to geographic changes in the 2010 Decennial Census, the most recent demographic data for Tracts 3191.02 and 3192 come from the 2005-2009 American Community Survey, 5-Year Es mates. Sta s cs for the half-mile target area at Apache and McClintock were obtained from the Environmental Systems Research Ins tute (ESRI), Community Analyst Data Service. v r Dr Rive SR B N›®¦«ÊÙ«Êʗ D›Ãʦك֫®‘Ý E—瑃ã®Êă½ AãヮÄÛÄã, PÊÖ罃ã®ÊÄ A¦› 25 ƒÄ— O½—›Ù C®ãù Ê¥ ã›Ã֛ Tك‘ã 3191.02# Tك‘ã 3192# TƒÙ¦›ã Aٛƒ Not a High School Graduate 10.5% 16.9% 18.8% 29.6% High School Graduate or GED 16.2% 17.1% 26.0% 20.0% Some College 24.4% 23.9% 20.4% 34.0% Associates Degree 7.2% 5.9% 7.3% 5.3% Bachelor’s Degree 25.8% 19.4% 18.9% 5.6% Graduate or Professional Degree 15.9% 16.8% 8.6% 6.7% % HS Graduate or higher 89.5% 83.1% 81.2% 70.4% % Bachelor’s Degree or higher 41.7% 36.3% 27.5% 12.3% 2010 American Community Survey, 1-Year Es mates 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Es mates 2005-2009 American Community Survey, provided by ESRI Table 2.1: Educa onal A ainment, Popula on age 25 and older, Apache and McClintock Rƒ‘›/Eã«Ä®‘®ãù C®ãù Ê¥ ã›Ã֛ Tك‘ã 3191.02# Tك‘ã 3192# TƒÙ¦›ã Aٛƒ White 72.6% 74.9% 80.5% 58.8% Hispanic (any race) 21.1% 26.7% 41.4% 40.2% Black/African American 5.9% 2.7% 5.1% 4.2% Asian 5.7% 16.8% 3.0% 8.7% Na ve Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% American Indian/Alaska Na ve 2.9% 1.7% 5.1% 4.1% Two or more races 3.9% 1.9% 1.8% 4.2% U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Summary File 1 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Es mates U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Summary File 1, provided by ESRI Table 2.2: Race/Ethnicity, Apache and McClintock Note: Columns do not total 100% M®Ý‘›½½ƒÄ›ÊçÝ D›Ãʦك֫®‘Ý C®ãù Ê¥ ã›Ã֛ Tك‘ã 3191.02# Tك‘ã 3192# TƒÙ¦›ã Aٛƒ Popula on 161,719 10,708 3.471 1,553 Median Household Income $49,188 $25,517 $33,377 $30,279 Poverty Rate (Individuals) 26.1%* 43.7% 26.3% NA Homeowner Occupied 44.5% 8.0% 26.6% 20.2% Public Transporta on to Work 4.8%* 9.9% 12.5% 3.2** Mean Travel Minutes to Work 20.1* 19.9 25.5 20.6** U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Summary File 1 *2010 American Community Survey, 1-Year Es mates 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Es mates U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Summary File 1, provided by ESRI **ESRI forecasts for 2010 based on 2000 Census Table 2.3: Miscellaneous Demographics, Apache and McClintock # Due to geographic changes in the 2010 Decennial Census, for all tables, the most recent data available for Census Tracts 3191.02 and 3192 come from the 2005-2009 American Community Survey. Apache & McClintock 9 C HÊçݮĦ C«ƒÙƒ‘ã›Ù®Ýã®‘Ý In the target area around the Apache and McClintock sta on a small propor on of residents (14 percent) have lived in their home for twenty years or more (see Table 2.4). The majority of residents in the target area (60.5 percent) moved into the area a er 2005. Census tract 3191.02 also has a high renter rate of 92 percent, perhaps explained by the proximity to Arizona State University. SS Siesta Ln n h Rd Smith SS y Club Way S Holbrook Ln E Cedar St Dr os Feliz Dr o E Wildermuth ld r Dr n no E Broadway y Rd 3192 an Sh e nt en me rtm art pa Ap EA Stt EA Apartme tm n nt E Ce edar a St S McClintock Dr EW Willia am ms St E Howe w Av Ave ve Pri ce Pr S Cottttto on nw wood Dr O S Ha acien E Apache c Bllv vd 319102 E Apartment S Cedarr St y Pl S Stanley v s Ave Carlos E Don Ca E Lemon St E Hall Stt 0 h Stt E 10th EO Orange n St S th Pl Ke nneth SK Hayden Ln EH Kachina Dr SK Dr D r Viista del Cerro EV E Orange g St n aL E Spence A Ave ve v e E 8th St ve S Una Ave 319101 S Dorr sey L Ln n E Unive v rsity i Dr ol SL S Te erra For the following tables, all sta s cs for census tracts 3191.02 and 3192 come from the 2005-2009 American Community Survey (the latest available). The target area is almost evenly split between Unless otherwise noted, data for the target area single-family and mul -family housing. This is are from the 2005-2009 American Community different from the larger census tract areas, where Survey, compiled by the Environmental Systems just 13 percent and 24.3 percent of the housing Research Ins tute (ESRI). is single family, a ached or detached. The target area is largely comprised of renters, with almost 80 percent of residents ren ng their home. Figure 2.3: Census Tract Map, Apache and McClintock 1/2 mile target area Tract 3191.2 Tract 3192 Y›ƒÙ HÊçݛ«Ê½—›Ù MÊò›— ®ÄãÊ UÄ®ã Tك‘ã 3191.02 Tك‘ã 3192 All Occupied Units All Occupied Units OwnerOccupied RenterOccupied 2005 or later 2709 (64.9%) 1678 (48.3%) 27 (13.5%) 94 (47.0%) 2000-2004 1064 (25.5%) 1378 (39.7%) 11 (5.5%) 27 (13.5%) 1990-1999 296 (7.1%) 257 (7.4%) 13 (6.5%) 0 1980-1989 65 (1.6%) 64 (1.8%) 21 (10.5%) 0 1970-1979 15 (0.4%) 21 (0.6%) 0 7 (3.5%) 1969 or earlier 25 (0.6%) 73 (2.1%) 0 0 NA NA Median Year Moved In TƒÙ¦›ã Aٛƒ Table 2.4: Year Householder Moved Into Unit, Apache and McClintock 10 Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study 2006 NçЛ٠ʥ B›—ÙÊÊÃÝ Tك‘ã 3191.02 Tك‘ã 3192 TƒÙ¦›ã Aٛƒ None 3.6% 2.8% * 1 35.8% 30.1% * 2 42.7% 49.0% * 3 12.9% 16.2% * 4 3.5% 1.9% * 5+ 1.4% 0 * Tك‘ã 3191.02 Tك‘ã 3192 TƒÙ¦›ã Aٛƒ $0-99,999 64 (19.2%) 320 (34.6%) 0 $100-149,999 47 (14.1%) 154 (16.7%) 6 (8.2%) $150-199,999 55 (16.5%) 280 (30.3%) 26 (35.6%) $200-299,999 107 (32.1%) 169 (18.3%) 34 (46.6%) $300,000+ 60 (18.0%) 0 7 (9.6%) Median Home Value $200,400 $142.600 $210,227 Table 2.5: Number of Bedrooms, Apache and McClintock *Data not available HÊçݮĦ Vƒ½ç›Ý Table 2.6: Owner-Occupied Housing Values, Apache and McClintock Vƒ‘ƒÄ‘ù ƒÄ— T›Äçٛ Tك‘ã 3191.02 Tك‘ã 3192 TƒÙ¦›ã Aٛƒ* Homeowner Vacancy Rate 25.7% 5.5% 0.2% Rental Vacancy Rate 8.0% 11.8% 18.6% Owner with a Mortgage 5.3% 20.8% 13.1% Owner Free and Clear 2.7% 5.8% 7.0% Renter 92.0% 73.4% 79.9% Tك‘ã 3191.02 Tك‘ã 3192 TƒÙ¦›ã Aٛƒ Single Family, a ached or detached 649 (13.0%) 1014 (24.3%) 111 (50.9%) Mul -Family, 2-19 units 2932 (58.9%) 2364 (56.7%) 88 (40.4%) Mul -Family, 20 or more units 1283 (25.8%) 471 (11.3%) 19 (8.7%) 114 (2.3%) 311 (7.4%) 0 0 17 (0.4%) 0 4978 (100%) 4177 (100%) 218 (100%) Vacancy Tenure (all occupied units) Table 2.7: Vacancy and Tenure, Apache and McClintock *Source: 2010 U.S. Census, Summary File 1 (ESRI) UÄ®ãÝ ®Ä ÝãÙç‘ãçٛ Mobile Home Boat, RV, Van, etc. TOTAL Table 2.8: Units in Structure, Apache and McClintock Apache & McClintock 11 D PÙÊ֛Ùãù Vƒ½ç›Ý ƒÄ— A¥¥Êٗƒ½› HÊçݮĦ 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 introduc on of the light rail.1 The study u lizes property value informa on from the W.P. Carey repeat sales database to analyze the impact of distance from light rail on property values during five dis nct phases of light rail development and opera on. For single family, condominium, and commercial proper es, the study found that property values have increased over me; however, the largest increases were found near the light rail sta ons. The impact to property value diminishes the further away from the sta on a property is located. The study also addressed the impact of the City of Tempe Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone on property values and found a greater increase in value in areas with this TOD designa on. Increased property values lead to an increase in property taxes; as the taxes con nue 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 8.4 percent in the City of Tempe between 2000 and 2009.2 Addi onally, as the Tempe 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 sta ons the cost of housing o en will displace those in need of more affordable op ons. Those who may choose to live adjacent to light rail in order to reduce their transporta on 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 defini ons, 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 u li es, that doesn’t cost more than 30 percent of the total household income. Tapestry Luxury Condominiums, Central and Encanto Blvd. Phoenix, Arizona Source: h p://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 sta on 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 Communi es across the country have addressed the need for TOD housing affordability in various ways. The methods u lized depend heavily upon the regula ons within that state, the needs of the community, and the opportuni es available prior to the rise in prices. The following sec ons present examples of some strategies used to promote the integra on of affordable housing opportuni es in a TOD plan. 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. Ul mately, SCWG hopes to more closely integrate housing and transporta on policy to provide for more effec ve TOD strategies. Mercan le Square in Denver, Colorado is a mixed-use space with a bookstore, restaurant, office space, and affordable rental housing funded through LIHTC. Source: Denver Urban Renewal Authority LÊó IđÊÛ HÊçݮĦ Tƒø Cٛ—®ãÝ (LIHTC) LIHTC is a compe ve tax credit that developers can use to raise capital for the acquisi on, rehabilita on, or construc on of affordable housing. LIHTC is the single largest source of funds for the preserva on of exis ng affordable housing na onwide.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 me. 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 incen ves for or 60% of the area median income. the preserva on of affordable housing in their Source: bbiconstruc on.com compe ve LIHTC programs. Qualifying projects SçÝヮă½› CÊÃÃçÄ®ã®›Ý Fçė must meet State-iden fied goals as well as the In Maricopa County, the Local Ini a ves Support following federal requirements:6 Corpora on (LISC) in conjunc on with the • Must be a residen al property Sustainable Communi es Working Group (SCWG) • Must control rent/u li es 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 ameni es near • Restrict rent/u li es in low-income units light rail sta ons in Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa.4 • Rent and income restric ons will be in place a The Fund is an cipated to reach $50 million dollars minimum of 30 years. worth of various resources for the area. Partnered with other organiza ons 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. Apache & McClintock 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 Sta on. This includes within a half mile (2,640 feet) straight line radius of all exis ng light rail transit sta ons in Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa.7 EÃÖ½Êù›Ù AÝÝ®Ý㛗 HÊçݮĦ8 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 a ract 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: h p://reachillinois.org Employer-assisted housing op ons are widely varied, ranging from providing designated housing at reduced cost through a non-profit partner, offering direct monetary contribu ons toward housing costs or other expenses such as discounted transit passes, to providing op ons 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 contribu on from the employer. Addi onal op ons may be available through local government and non-profit organiza ons. Rendering of an employer-assisted housing development in Sea le, Washington Source: Sea le 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: h p://www.haddontwp.com An example of employer-assisted housing comes from Sea le, where the University of Washington and Sea le Children’s Hospital are partnering to develop 184 housing units in Sea le’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 sta on, the project is believed to be one of the first employersponsored housing developments in the city since the early 20th century. According to the ini al 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 LƒÄ— TÙçÝãÝ10 Land trusts allow for the acquisi on and reten on of land and structures to be held for future use. Land acquired through the private land trust model allows for land to be u lized for numerous purposes, including affordable housing. A Community Land Trust (CLT), however, is primarily dedicated to the long-term preserva on of affordability, especially in regard to housing. The CLT is administered by 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. a private, non-profit organiza on but o en works in conjunc on with the local government. A er acquisi on, the CLT con nues 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 tac cs. 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 apprecia on of the home value. This allows for greater long-term affordability of the home that does not expire. CLT provides one method to acquire land and structures for affordable housing that would otherwise be suscep ble to specula on. Acquiring proper es near exis ng and proposed transit lines will help preserve the affordability of that property and make it available for affordable housing development—either in the present or at a future me when resources may be more readily available. Addi onal benefits of the CLT model include preven ng the displacement of lowincome residents as well as greater local control of the land. CLTs can u lize HOME and CDBG funds and other sources of government funding as well as private Apache & McClintock 15 dona ons. In partnership with local governments and nonprofit organiza ons, the goal for community affordable housing can be furthered. For example, Newtown Community Development Corpora on is a Tempe-based nonprofit organiza on 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 educa on 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. LƒÄ— BƒÄ»®Ä¦ certain condi ons are met; in this case, the condi on would relate to the number of units reserved for affordable housing. Some states have found inclusionary zoning methods to be most effec ve. For more informa on on zoning and other regulatory measures see the City of Tempe Community Development Department.13 PÙÊ֛Ùãù Tƒø Aƒã›Ã›Äã PÙʦكÃÝ 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). Land banking is the prac ce of purchasing land for future resale and can allow for the acquisi on In addi on, property tax abatement programs can and reten on of tax-foreclosed property by a be used to support affordable housing development designated public authority. O en used as a method on vacant or underu lized sites along transit for acquiring run-down, vacant structures and/or corridors by reducing costs for developers through land otherwise suscep ble to speculators, land a limited property tax exemp on. For example, the banking can be used to promote the development Portland (Oregon) Transit Oriented Development of affordable housing units. In Atlanta, the Land (TOD) Property Tax Abatement was established Bank Authority gives development priority to to support high density housing and mixed-use agencies seeking to develop affordable housing. developments affordable to a broad range of the Many op ons are available under Land Banks, general public on vacant or underu lized sites and they can assist in balancing the needs of the along transit corridors whose design and features encourage building occupants to use public transit. community.12 13 http://www.tempe.gov/index.aspx?page=102. R›¦ç½ƒãÊÙù M›ƒÝçÙ›Ý In addi on to property acquisi on, 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 o en used in conjunc on 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: h p://www.buyersagentportland.com Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study The exemp ons support TOD projects by reducing opera ng costs through a ten-year maximum property tax exemp on.See the following website for more informa on: h p://www.portlandonline. com/phb/index.cfm?c=53036. SçÃÃÙù In many cases, ming can be a cri cal aspect in crea ng an effec ve 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 sta on area through 2040)14 and working to provide a framework to address this need will provide for the greatest opportuni es. 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 crea on of housing without the added expense of increased property costs. Targe ng of vacant, abandoned, or blighted proper es in the area can contribute to this effort. According to a 2012 study, in 2011 there were 17 acres of vacant land in the target area around the Apache and McClintock 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: h p://www.raillife.com sta on, making the area a prime target for the aforemen oned programs.15 Developers and others interested in crea ng affordable housing opportuni es should contact the Phoenix Housing Department or the Arizona Department of Housing for more informa on. 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. PÙÊ֛Ùãù ãƒø Aƒã›Ã›Äã PÙʦكÃÝ Lʑƒã®ÊÄ W«Ê ®ã «›½ÖÝ W«ƒã ®ã —Ê›Ý 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 opera ng costs for a maximum of 10 years OR through property tax exemp ons • Encourages development of new housing opportuni es on vacant/underu lized land or through improvement to some qualifying exis ng structures • Requires low-income housing set-asides for all complexes • Encourages new low-income housing opportuni es Table 2.9: Property Tax Abatement Programs Sources: Tucson: City of Tucson. Rio Nuevo Neighborhoods Property Tax Assistance Program. 2008. Brochure Portland: h p://www.portlandonline.com/phb/index.cfm?c=53036 Apache & McClintock 17 E T = 23.6% S Kenneth Pl T = 27.9% T = 28.0% E 12th St E Randall Dr H = 17.6% T = 27.5% T = 28.6% E Hudson Dr E Williams St H = 20.0% T = 28.4% E 10th St E Hayden Ln E Don Carlos Ave H = 25.4% S Oak St H = 20.0% S Gary Dr E Lemon St H = 20.6% T = 24.0% Don Carlos Ave S Butte Ave H = 18.1% S Una Ave E Orange St H = 23.5% Apache H = 14.8% T = 30.5% S Clark Dr T = 25.0% E 8th St S Martin Ln T = 28.2% S Hazelton Ln H = 21.9% E Kirkland L E Apartment H = 28.4% McClintock HÊçݮĦ ƒÄ— TكÄÝÖÊÙãƒã®ÊÄ A¥¥Êٗƒ®½®ãù E Cedar St E Apartment E Apartment E Encanto Dr H = 21.9% T = 25.5% Figure 2.4: Housing and Transporta on Cost as a Percentage of Income, Apache and McClintock light rail 1/2 mile target area H = 23.7% T = 28.7% Source: CNT.org H+T Affordability Index Accessed April 2012 Affordable Housing: 30% and Less Unaffordable Housing: Greater than 30% D›¥®Ä®Ä¦ HÊçݮĦ + TكÄÝÖÊÙãƒã®ÊÄ A¥¥Êٗƒ®½®ãù Housing costs factored as a percent of income has widely been u lized as a measure of affordability. Tradi onally, a home is considered affordable when the costs consume no more than 30 percent of household income. Using this measure, the half-mile area around the Apache and McClintock sta on is considered affordable, as residents spend on average less than 30 percent of their income on housing (see Figure 2.4). According to the Center for Neighborhood Technology, less than one in three American communi es (28 percent) are affordable for typical regional households when transporta on costs are considered along with housing costs (“affordable” means that housing and transporta on costs consume no more than 45 percent of income).16 In fact, on average households in auto-dependent neighborhoods spend 25 percent of their income on transporta on, whereas households in walkHousing and transporta on costs together make able neighborhoods with good transit access up the two largest expenses for most households, and a mix of housing, jobs, and shops spend just so measures of affordability should also consider 16 Center for Neighborhood Technology. 2012. “National Index costs for transporta on. Reveals Combined Housing and Transportation Affordability Has Declined Since 2000.” Online: http://www.cnt.org. 18 Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study E Don Carlos Ave H+T= 45.1% E 12th St Apache E Hudson Dr H+T= 45.4% H+T= 48.3% S Martin Ln S Butte Ave E Randall Dr H+T= 54.0% E Williams St E 10th St S Clark Dr S Kenneth Pl H+T= 47.9% E Lemon St S Gary Dr H+T= 44.7% Don Carlos Ave S Oak St H+T= 41.7% S Una Ave E Orange St E Hayden Ln H+T= 51.5% S Hazelton Ln E 8th St E Kirkland L E Apartment H+T= 46.9% McClintock H+T= 56.6% E Cedar St E Apartment E Apartment E Encanto Dr H+T= 47.4% Figure 2.5: Combined Housing and Transporta on Cost as a Percentage of Income, Apache and McClintock light rail 1/2 mile target area Affordable H+T: 45% and Less 9 percent.17 These are referred to as “loca on efficient” neighborhoods because they require less me, money, and greenhouse gas emissions for residents to meet their everyday travel needs.18 Figure 2.5 shows what happens to “affordability” when transporta on costs are taken into account along with housing. In our target area, those homes that were “affordable” in Figure 2.4 become unaffordable when transporta on costs are included.19 In fact, the northwest quadrant of the 17 Center for Transit-Oriented Development. 2009. “Mixed-Income Housing Near Transit: Increasing Affordability With Location Efficiency.” Online: http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/uploa ds/091030ra201mixedhousefinal.pdf. 18 Center for Neighborhood Technology. 2012. “http://www.cnt. org/tcd/location-efficiency. 19 The statistics provided for Figures 2.4 and 2.5 follow the Center H+T= 52.4% Source: CNT.org H+T Affordability Index Accessed April 2012 Unaffordable H+T: Greater than 45% target area is well over the 45 percent figure (54.0 percent). Note that these figures are averages and depend heavily upon public transit use; the more an individual uses public transporta on for their travel needs, the more affordable their neighborhood becomes. See Appendix A for Housing + Transporta on Affordability maps for the en re region as well as an explana on of the Center for Neighborhood Technology’s Housing and Transporta on Affordability Index. 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 median income. In this case, the regional typical median income is $54,713 and the median income for our half-mile target area is $30,279. Apache & McClintock 19 F P琽®‘ TكÄÝ®ã L®¦«ã Rƒ®½ R®—›ÙÝ«®Ö HÊçݛ«Ê½— TكÄÝÖÊÙãƒã®ÊÄ CÊÝãÝ Ridership figures provided by Metro light rail indicate that 679,702 individuals got on and off at the Apache and McClintock sta on in 2011. In fact, between April 2009 and April 2011, ridership increased at the Apache and McClintock sta on by 47%.20 On average, transporta on costs cons tute the second largest household expenditure (a er housing) for households across the country.22 Figure 2.6 demonstrates that households in the half-mile target area pay, on average, between $935-1,046 per month on transporta on. In spite of these increasing numbers, data for the residents of the half-mile area show low ridership rates. 3.2 percent report using public transporta on to get to work, 3.5 percent walk to work, and 51.3 percent drive alone to work.21 The use of public transit can greatly reduce these monthly transporta on costs. Currently, rates for the Metro light rail or local bus are $1.75 per ride; $3.50 per day; or a 31-day pass for $55.00. In addi on to special rates for ASU students, Metro also offers a reduced rate for youth, seniors (age 65+), persons with a disability, and Medicare card 20 BAE Urban Economics. 2012. “TOD Mixed-Income Housing Market Demand Study.” Online: www.bae1.com. 21 Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) forecasts for 2010 based on US Bureau of the Census 2000. S Gary Dr $9,692/yr $11,398/yr S Kenneth Pl $950/mo $11,219/yr $935/mo $11,703/yr Apache $975/mo S Oak St $808/mo E Randall Dr E Don Carlos Ave E 12th St E Hudson Dr $11,306/yr E Williams St $942/mo E 10th St $12,549/yr $1,046/mo S Clark Dr E Lemon St $952/mo E Hayden Ln S Martin Ln $793/mo S Butte Ave Don Carlos Ave $9,513/yr S Una Ave E Orange St $11,428/yr E Apartment $844/mo E Kirkland L S Hazelton Ln E 8th St $961/mo McClintock $10,128/yr $11,527/yr 22 Center for Neighborhood Technology. 2012. “National Index Reveals Combined Housing and Transportation Affordability Has Declined Since 2000.” Online: http://www.cnt.org. E Cedar St E Apartment E Apartment E Encanto Dr $10,344/yr $862/mo Figure 2.6: Annual and Monthly Transporta on Cost per Household, Apache and McClintock light rail 20 1/2 mile target area <$10,000/yr $11,755/yr $980/mo Source: CNT.org H+T Affordability Index Accessed April 2012 $10,000 - $11,000/yr Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study $11,000 - $12,000/yr >$12,000 holders. Children under five ride for free. The Metro also provides detailed instruc ons on reduced rate for a 31-day pass is $27.50. how to safely ride the light rail or bus. The Metro school outreach program offers free classroom presenta ons about the Metro transit system as Lʑƒ½ P琽®‘ TكÄÝ®ã Figure 2.7 demonstrates that there is one available well as field trips using the bus, light rail, and LINK bus line in the Apache and McClintock area. The bus systems. full bus transit map can be found on the Metro website at h p://www.valleymetro.org/planning_ Metro’s community outreach program also offers public presenta ons to any group that is interested your_trip/bus_rail_link/. in transit educa on such as new residents and The Metro website contains many tools to help refugees. They also offer mobility training for riders understand the transit system. For example, senior ci zens and persons with a disability, as well Metro offers an online trip planner where an as monthly sessions at the Disability Empowerment individual can enter their travel date, start and end Center.24 points, how far they are willing to walk, and their preference for light rail, bus or express bus routes, and their trip will be mapped for them.23 Metro also offers commu ng alterna ves like a carpool matching service, and vanpool for groups of 6-15 commuters. 24 http://www.valleymetro.org/transit_education/community_outreach/. Orange Don Carlos Apartment McClintock Dr BuƩe Una 23 http://trips.valleymetro.org/pages/full_trip. Apache Blvd Hudson 40 Williams Cedar Railroad Figure 2.7: Area Bus Routes and Transit Centers, Apache and McClintock 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: 40, METRO Light Rail Apache & McClintock 21 Sã痮›Ý ƒÙÊçė L®¦«ã Rƒ®½ A common fear surrounding the introduc on of mass transit systems is the poten al increase in crime it may bring. In Atlanta, Georgia, opposi on 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 a er the opening of the sta on. In Charlo e, North Carolina, researchers measured crime sta s cs before and a er the opening of the Charlo e light rail line. They found that light rail did not increase crime around the sta ons 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 Lʑƒ½ Sãƒã®Ýã®‘Ý Locally, crime sta s cs for the greater Phoenix area indicate that crime has decreased as it has across the na on. Furthermore, data provided by the Phoenix Police Department indicate that crime has not increased in Phoenix sta on areas since the introduc on of the Metro light rail. The Tempe Police Department provided crime sta s cs for the one square mile area surrounding the Apache and McClintock light rail sta on (see Figure 2.8). Figure 2.9 demonstrates that property crime decreased significantly in the area between 2006 and 2009, and increased between 2009 and 2011. The data obtained from the Tempe Police Department is reflec ve of the sta s cs reported 29 Sandag. 2009. “Understanding Transit’s Impact on Public Safety.” Online: www.sandag.org. University Apache Blvd Smith This fear of crime contrasts sharply with federal crime sta s cs revealing that crime has actually been decreasing and is now at its lowest level in recent history. Federal Bureau of Inves ga on Sta s cs 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 Associa on of Governments analyzed crime pa erns before and a er the implementa on of light rail as well as a comparison of neighborhoods with and without a transit sta on. They found that the presence of transit did not lead to more neighborhood crime.29 McClintock Dr One of the goals of transit-oriented development is to create walkable, bikeable communi es where the public can safely u lize the surrounding ameni es. In order for communi es 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 sta ons iden fied crime as their primary concern. This is consistent with a recent na onal Gallup poll revealing that four in ten Americans fear walking alone at night.25 Dorsey G CٮÛ ƒÄ— CPTED Pٮđ®Ö½›Ý Broadway Figure 2.8: Approximate One Square Mile Area of Crime Data, Apache and McClintock Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study annually to the FBI. It contains categories for violent crime (homicide, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) and property crime (burglary, larceny/ the , automobile the , and arson). CٮÛ Pٛò›Äã®ÊÄ T«ÙÊ禫 EÄò®ÙÊÄÛÄヽ D›Ý®¦Ä One of the ways that transit-oriented development can contribute towards lower crime rates is through crea ng more “eyes on the streets,” based on the principle that the greater the risk of being seen or challenged, the less likely people are to commit a crime. There are several principles that landlords, property owners, business owners, and developers can follow in order to reduce crime and disorder on their respec ve proper es. These principles are known collec vely as “Crime Preven on Through Environmental Design,” or CPTED. CPTED design principles are typically implemented during the planning phase of an area; however, CPTED principles can be integrated into exis ng communi es. The transi on into a TOD community serves as an ideal concepts. me for integra on of these Although there are many approaches to CPTED including the number of concepts, the evalua on of their effec veness, and so forth, five main concepts are most commonly u lized: • Natural Surveillance • Natural Access Control • Territorial Reinforcement • Maintenance and Management • Ac vity Support These five CPTED principles and examples of how to u lize them in prac ce are explained in detail on the following pages 24-25. ƒÖƒ‘«› ƒÄ— ё½®Äãʑ»: Lʑƒ½ NçЛ٠ʥ CÙ®Ã›Ý 2006-2011 Light Rail ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Figure 2.9: Local Number of Crimes 2006-2011, Apache and McClintock property crime violent crime 2011 Source: Tempe Police Department Data Received June 2012 Apache & McClintock 23 • Nƒãçك½ ÝçÙò›®½½ƒÄ‘› As previously men oned, more “eyes on the street” increases a criminal’s percep on 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 ligh ng allows for greater nigh me visibility. The installa on of benches and other gathering places encourages the use of public spaces. Photo 1: Windows and balconies provide “eyes and ears” for areas of poten al unwanted ac vi es. • Nƒãçك½ ƒ‘‘›ÝÝ ‘ÊÄãÙʽ 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 opportuni es for quick or unexpected entry or exit are low. This concept promotes appropriate and legi mate use of space. Natural access control can take the form of fences and doors or gates, but it can also u lize other landscaping elements such as vegeta on and sidewalks to create a natural flow through the area. Entrances and exits are selec vely 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. • T›ÙÙ®ãÊÙ®ƒ½ R›®Ä¥Êّ›Ã›Äã Territorial reinforcement refers to, in part, the defini on 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 ac vity. Territorial reinforcement builds on the idea that people will protect what they feel to be their own. The crea on 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 incorpora on of elements that a community iden fies with will lend to the crea on of pride in a community space. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Photo 4: Community bulle n board creates a sense of community; Photo 5: Bench area is a clear defini on of public space; Photo 6: Personalized signage creates a sense of ownership for the community 24 Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study • Mƒ®Äã›ÄƒÄ‘› ƒÄ— MƒÄƒ¦›Ã›Äã 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 par cularly an issue with vacant or abandoned proper es. Frequent upkeep of landscape maintains a clean appearance on the site and prevents the crea on of visual barriers and hiding places. Maintaining the physical elements of the site (such as fixing broken windows) prevents the percep on of non-use. Selec on 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 an -graffi coa ng. 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 graffi . 8 • ƒ‘ã®ò®ãù ÝçÖÖÊÙã 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. A er 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 op ons within close proximity or even in the same building. Sidewalk pa os 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 a ract people which can aid in natural surveillance and deter unwanted ac vi es. Apache & McClintock 25 The Tempe Transporta on Overlay District (amended in 2006) supports development standards that enhance and promote bicycling and pedestrian ac vity and safety. Currently, three percent of Tempe residents bike to work and in 2012, Bicycling Magazine ranked Tempe as the 18th Best Bike City in the country.30 Eòƒ½çƒã®ÊÄ ãÊÊ½Ý A task force formed by the Safe Routes to School Program of the Arizona Department of Transporta on has created an Ac ve School Neighborhood Checklist (ASNC) to be used as a tool for assessing school sites’ walkability and bikeability.31 This tool can be used to evaluate any neighborhood or TOD area on issues of bike In the half-mile area around Apache and McClintock there are three striped pedestrian crossings and two 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 Ac ve Transit Neighborhood Checklist (ATNC). This is an abbreviated checklist modifed from the ASNC that is centered around transit rather than schools. McClintock Dr BuƩe Una 30 http://www.bicycling.com/ride-maps/featured-rides/18-tempeaz 31 http://www.azdot.gov/srts/PDF/Documents_Active_School_ Neighborhood_Checklist.pdf and pedestrian safety. The checklist includes items such as: speed limits, number of traffic lanes, number of vehicles, and curb radius (larger curb radii encourage drivers to turn faster around corners). The checklist also includes ques ons such as: Does the area have adequate bicycle lanes, designated bicycle routes, and mul -use paths? Are there sidewalks present, and if so, in what condi on? Orange Don Carlos Apartment H B®‘ù‘½› ƒÄ— P›—›ÝãÙ®ƒÄ Sƒ¥›ãù Apache Blvd Hudson Williams Cedar Railroad Figure 2.10: Pedestrian/Bike Map of 1/2 mile Area, Apache and McClintock light rail 26 striped pedestrian crossing Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study light rail stop bicycle lane R›ÝÊçّ›Ý ¥ÊÙ B®‘ù‘½®ÝãÝ ƒÄ— P›—›ÝãÙ®ƒÄÝ T›Ã֛ Tempe in MoƟon P«Ê›Ä®ø Phoenix Metro Bicycle Club Arizona Bicycle Tempe Bicycle Club AcƟon Group h p:\\www. M›Ýƒ City of Mesa, Mesa Rides! Program Sãƒã›/MƒÙ®‘Êփ CoaliƟon of Arizona Bicyclists ADOT Bicycle/Pedestrian Program Maricopa DOT Bicycle Program Maricopa Kids CoaliƟon Maricopa Safe Routes to School Metro Table 2.10: Bicycling Resources ٛÝÊçّ›Ý There are numerous bicycle groups that promote both walkability and ease of bicycling throughout the Tempe area and Maricopa County (see Table 2.10). The Federal Highway Administra on provides a detailed list of relevant bicycle and pedestrian safety informa on.32 Addi onal resources include materials to help guide officials in designing systems that are safe and comply with regula ons.33 Effec ve designa on of rail lines and crossings can substan ally increase pedestrian safety. Table 32 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/ped_transit/ped_transguide/. 33 http://katana.hsrc.unc.edu/cms/downloads/PedRSA.reduced. pdf. 2.11 delineates several methods of track crossing warning mechanisms in use at light rail sta ons across the country. L®¦«ã Rƒ®½ B®‘ù‘½› Sƒ¥›ãù D›ò®‘›Ý Tù֛ Ac ve Warning Devices D›ò®‘›/M›ã«Ê— Ê¥ WƒÙĮĦ Low-rise flashing pedestrian sign Fencing Bells/other noises Passive Warning Devices Lit signs for nigh me safety Signage Warning on ground Channeliza on devices (such as gates) Other Considera ons Change in ground texture--physical and/or visual--to indicate upcoming change Loca on of gate arms in rela on to pedestrian pla orm (provides enough space for pedestrians) Selec on 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 mul ple tracks Table 2.11: Light Rail Bicycle Safety Devices Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. Part 10. 2003. h p://safety. wa. dot.gov/xings/collision/twgreport/index.htm#a6 A Bicyclist crosses 8th Street Apache & McClintock 27 One of the goals of TOD is to improve the health of residents by encouraging an ac ve lifestyle. Studies show that individuals who use public transit are more likely to achieve the Surgeon General’s recommenda on of thirty minutes of moderate physical ac vity per day.34 The incorpora on of open green space to encourage physical ac vity is a crucial element in any TOD plan. and McClintock sta on, and no parks within the half-mile target area. Creamery Park is located at 8th Street and S. Una Avenue and includes a dog park, picnic area, and playground. Hudson park is located at Cedar Street and Spence Avenue and offers a splash playground, trail, and volleyball and basketball courts. Tempe’s General Plan 2030 (adopted in 2003) recognizes the need for open space by calling for the provision of a greater number of parks while also acknowledging the need to more fully evaluate the current capacity of the park system. The Transporta on Overlay District supports this through requiring each sta on area to provide for open space throughout the corridor, u lizing pocket parks, reten on ponds, plazas, roo op gardens, and other forms of public open space. Guidelines for pedestrian and bicycle pathways encourage the use of shade and other ameni es (such as benches and water fountains) to encourage the use of these Creamery Dog Park spaces. Source: h p://phoenix.org/phoenix-area-dog-parks Aٛƒ PƒÙ»Ý University Price Fwy McClintock As indicated in Figure 2.11, there are six parks within the two-mile area surrounding the Apache 5th St Creamery Park Escalante Park Apache Hudson Park Broadway Dorsey I OÖ›Ä Sփ‘›/PƒÙ»Ý/P½ƒþƒÝ Alameda Meyer Park Selleh Park Alameda Connolly Field Figure 2.11: Area Parks, Apache and McClintock 34 Tucson Move. 2011. May/June 1(2):60. 28 Genuine Peace Mosaic Bench, Hudson Park, Tempe Source: h p://www.redgage.com Vƒ‘ƒÄã LƒÄ— PÊã›Ä㮃½ Any TOD plan for the half-mile area surrounding Apache and McClintock should consider using exis ng vacant land to increase the amount of Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study usable green space in the area. As indicated in Figure 2.12 and shown in the aerial photograph to the right, there are mul ple surface parking lots and several vacant parcels in the sta on area. Several strategies may be considered to increase green space, including the crea on of plazas, pocket parks, and joint-use agreements with schools. Orange McClintock Dr Una Aerial Photograph, Apache and McClintock Don Carlos 12th St Apache Blvd Hudson Williams Cedar Railroad Figure 2.12: Open Space Poten al, Apache and McClintock light rail light rail stop vacant land Source: Drachman Ins tute April 2012 surface parking lots Apache & McClintock 29 • Ö½ƒþƒÝ Public plazas are urban open spaces that can serve a mul tude of func ons. They may provide a public gathering space, accommoda on for local farmer’s markets or arts and cra s fairs, a home for public art structures, and se ngs for recrea on and relaxa on. Plazas should inject local character and flavor and provide adequate sea ng 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, Presco , 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 • Öʑ»›ã ÖƒÙ»Ý 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 mee ng 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: keepsouthbendneau ful.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 • ¹Ê®Äã-çݛ ƒ¦Ù››Ã›ÄãÝ Leading public health authori es recommend sharing exis ng school and community recrea onal facili es to promote physical ac vity. This can be done when schools open up their grounds to the community a er school hours, or through specific joint-use agreements between organiza ons. In March 2012, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed SB 1059 which prevents schools from being held liable for injuries sustained by recrea onal users of outdoor school grounds, excluding swimming pools and other aqua c features. In the half mile target area at Apache and McClintock there are several schools where such agreements could be pursued (see page 32). 7 The photos above and below show before and a er shots of a facility benefi ng the community under a joint-use agreement. The Tucson middle school has a joint use agreement with City of Tucson Parks and Recrea on to open up their school grounds a er 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 a er school hours. Located in a high risk area with few recrea onal opportuni es, the school has become a park for the local residents to enjoy. It includes picnic areas, benches, exercise sta ons, an athle c 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 A er Source for Photos 6-8: Drachman Ins tute 8 Apache & McClintock 31 J Aٛƒ S‘«ÊÊ½Ý S‘«Êʽ Aòƒ®½ƒ®½®ãù A concern for families with children moving into a TOD area is the availability and quality of area schools. There is one school in the one-mile area at Apache and McClintock (a public charter school serving grades kindergarten through eight) (see Figure 2.13). In total, there are eight schools Roc E Figure 2.13: Area Schools, Apache and McClintock public school private school Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study S Siesta Ln E Encanto Dr r dmor D S Kachina Cir 7 ² n Dr Gaylo E Cedar St E en Asp Dr 6 ² 2 3 ² ² Dr adow E Me E Loma Vista Dr E Bishop Dr E Palmcroft Dr E Broadmoor Dr E Concorda Dr S Bala Dr ista E Verlea Dr E Bishop Dr S Elm St l e Rd S Terrac ey P tanl aV Dr E Broa E Wildermuth Dr S Bala Dr S Kachina Dr E Cedar St Apache Blvd S Siesta Ln E Williams St S Martin Ln ry Dr E Hudson Dr 4 ² E Lemon St 1 E Palmcroft Dr E Alameda Dr 32 R ive r Dr kford ² E Howe Ave S Clark Dr S Gary Dr E 12th St SS om EL E 10th St 1/2 Mile 5 ² E Loma Vista Dr esta Vida E Orange St E Don Carlos Ave E Lemon St E Apartment ndo Dr E Redo E Broadmor Dr E Concorda Dr E 6th St E 10th St E Hayden Ln S Ga S Kenneth Pl E Cedar St E Apartment E Qu E 8th St S Cedar St E Spence Ave 1 Mile E Kirkland Ln E Lemon St 8 ² light rail E 5th St S Shannon Dr S Dorsey Ln E Center Ln S Siesta Ln S Smith Rd S Perry Ln t E 6th S r S Terrace Rd 2 Mile E University Dr E Lemon St E Broadway Rd E Rio Salado Pkwy S River D McClintock Dr S Industrial Dr located within two miles from the light rail stop. Only one of those schools is a high school, and it is a very small charter school (10 students in 2010). Three of the remaining schools are elementary schools, and three are middle schools serving grades six through eight. E Alameda Dr Source: Drachman Ins tute May 2012 public charter/magnet school specialty school L®Ýã Ê¥ Lʑƒ½ S‘«ÊÊ½Ý • ó®ã«®Ä 1/2  Ê¥ ÝãÊÖ No Schools within 1/2 Mile of Stop • ó®ã«®Ä 1  Ê¥ ÝãÊÖ 1. Children First Academy 1938 E. Apache Boulevard Public K-8 (Charter) 2nd percen le statewide 502 reading score (6th grade) 383 math score (6th grade) 199 students in 2010 98.5% free or reduced lunch • ó®ã«®Ä 2 î½›Ý Ê¥ ÝãÊÖ 2. Connolly Middle School 2002 E. Concorda Dr. Public 6-8 51st percen le statewide 507 reading score (6th grade) 407 math score (6th grade) 857 students in 2010 9.8% free/reduced lunch 15.3:1 student teacher ra o 3. Curry Elementary School 1974 E. Meadow Drive Public K-5 31st percen le statewide 438 students in 2010 5.7% free/reduced lunch 15.9:1 student teacher ra o 447 reading score (3rd grade) 358 math score (3rd grade) 4. Flora Thew Elementary School 2130 E. Howe Avenue Public K-6 29th percen le statewide 550 students in 2010 8.7% free/reduced lunch 15:1 student teacher ra o 448 reading score (3rd grade) 357 math score (3rd grade) 5. HumaniƟes and Science High School- Tempe 1105 E. Broadway Road Public 9-12 (Charter) 10 students in 2010 0% free or reduced lunch 6. IntervenƟon Learning Program 2228 S. Country Club Way Public 6-8 486 reading score (8th grade) 391 math score (8th grade) 29 students in 2010 10.3% free or reduced lunch 7. Meyer Elementary School 2615 S. Dorsey Lane Public K-5 23rd percen le statewide 454 reading score (3rd grade) 344 math score (3rd grade) 409 students in 2010 9.5% free or reduced lunch 15.5:1 student teacher ra o 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 8. New School for the Arts Middle School 1216 E. Apache Boulevard Public 6-8 (Charter) 63rd percen le statewide 518 reading score (6th grade) 408 math score( 6th grade) 71 students in 2010 4.2% free or reduced lunch Notes: All test scores for public schools are based on the 2011 AIMS (Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards). 10th Grade Math and Reading Scores: Scale 0-800 • State Mean Scaled Math Score=501.09 • State Mean Scaled Reading Score=711.72 8th Grade Math and Reading Scores: Scale=0-600 • State Mean Scaled Math Score=434.79 • State Mean Scaled Reading Score=527.07 Information on all schools obtained from schooldigger.com, accessed April 2012 Apache & McClintock 33 Research Ins tute (ESRI), there are 51 businesses in the half-mile area, 33.3 percent of which are service-related (See Table 2.12). McClintock BuƩe Una A goal of successful transit-oriented development is to offer a mix of services and ameni es within walking distance of public transit. According to data compiled by the Environmental Systems Orange StraƩon K Aٛƒ AÃ›Ä®ã®›Ý Don Carlos 12th St pe t $ Apache Tempe Police Department Williams Hudson Cedar Railroad Tracks Figure 2.14: Area Ameni es, Apache and McClintock light rail retail light rail stop office emergency services 34 1/2 mile area Source: Drachman Ins tute April 2012 buildings surface parking auto services $ bank/money services grocery hotel/lodging Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study parking garage bar/night life/adult restaurant/dining vacant church/religious warehouse/storage facility BçݮěÝÝ›Ý ®Ä Hƒ½¥-M®½› Aٛƒ ù S›Ùò®‘› IėçÝãÙù Cʗ›Ý NçЛ٠P›Ù‘›Äã A¦Ù®‘ç½ãçٛ Ι M®Ä®Ä¦ 0 0.0% CÊÄÝãÙç‘ã®ÊÄ 2 3.9% MƒÄ祃‘ãçٮĦ 1 2.0% TكÄÝÖÊÙãƒã®ÊÄ 3 5.8% CÊÃÃçÄ®‘ƒã®ÊÄ 1 2.0% U㮽®ãù 0 0.0% W«Ê½›Ýƒ½› Tك—› 3 5.8% R›ãƒ®½ Tك—› 14 27.5% Home Improvement 0 General Merchandise 2 Food Stores (Includes Grocery Stores) 3 Auto Dealers, Gas Sta ons, Auto A ermarket 1 Apparel & Accessory Stores 0 Furniture & Home Furnishings 1 Ea ng & Drinking Places (Includes “Fast Food”) 3 Miscellaneous Retail 4 F®ÄƒÄ‘›, IÄÝçكđ›, R›ƒ½ EÝãƒã› 8 Banks, Savings, & Lending Ins tu ons 3 Securi es Brokers 0 Insurance Carriers & Agents 0 Real Estate, Holding, Other Investment Offices 5 S›Ùò®‘›Ý 17 Hotels & Lodging 1 Automo ve Services 1 Mo on Pictures & Amusements 2 Health Services 1 Legal Services 0 Educa on Ins tu ons & Libraries 1 Other Services 11 15.7% 33.3% GÊò›ÙÄÛÄã 1 2.0% O㫛٠1 2.0% TÊヽ 51 100% Table 2.12: Half-Mile Area Business Summary, Apache and McClintock Source: Business data by Infogroup, Omaha NE, 2012, compiled by ESRI Accessed April 2012 Apache & McClintock 35 L Aփ‘«› ƒÄ— M‘C½®Äãʑ» Aٛƒ SçÃÃÙù G›Ä›Ùƒ½ One mile from the eastern edge of Arizona State University (ASU), the half-mile area surrounding the light rail stop at Apache and McClintock includes a variety of housing op ons, retail services, and a police substa on. The proximity to ASU makes this a heavily travelled bicycle corridor. The half-mile area is bounded by E. Randall/Orange to the North, railroad tracks to the South, S. Una Avenue to the West, and S. Bonnie Lane to the East. N›®¦«ÊÙ«Êʗ D›Ãʦك֫®‘Ý ƒÄ— HÊçݮĦ C«ƒÙƒ‘ã›Ù®Ýã®‘Ý Compared to demographics for the City of Tempe, the target area is more racially and ethnically diverse, with 40.2 percent iden fying as Hispanic compared to 21.1 percent for the City of Tempe. Residents in the half-mile target area are less likely to be homeowners and have lower median incomes than the City of Tempe as a whole. In the target area 70.4 percent of residents age twentyfive and older have a high school degree, and 12.3 percent have a bachelor’s degree or higher. area. These may include Low Income Housing Tax Credits, Community Land Trusts, Employer Assisted Housing Programs, and property tax abatement programs. HÊçݮĦ ƒÄ— TكÄÝÖÊÙãƒã®ÊÄ A¥¥Êٗƒ®½®ãù Using the common measure of affordability that housing costs not exceed 30 percent of household income, the target area around Apache and McClintock is considered affordable. When factoring in transporta on costs, the en re target area becomes unaffordable (housing and transporta on costs consume 45 percent or more of total household income).36 P琽®‘ TكÄÝ®ã Public transit ridership at the Apache and McClintock light rail sta on has increased by 47 percent since April 2009.37 Ridership numbers provided by Metro indicate that over 679,000 people got on and off at the sta on in 2011. In spite of these numbers, ridership figures for the residents of the half-mile target area are low, with In the target area around the Apache and McClintock 3.2 percent repor ng that they use public transit sta on a small propor on of residents (14 percent) to get to work.38 On average, residents in the have lived in their home for twenty years or more. target area pay between $935-1,046 per month on The majority of residents in the target area (60.5 transporta on.39 percent) moved into the area a er 2005. The target area is almost evenly split between single-family and mul -family housing. The target area is largely comprised of renters, with almost 80 percent of residents ren ng their home. PÙÊ֛Ùãù Vƒ½ç›Ý Consistent with sta s cs from across the country, property values have risen since the introduc on of light rail, and the largest increases are found closest to sta on areas.35 There are a number of programs that may be pursued in order to preserve and develop affordable housing and to assist exis ng low-income homeowners in the 35 Golub, Aaron, Subjrajit Guhathakurta, and BharathSollapuram. 2011. “Light Rail Economic Impact Analysis: Task 1 Final Report to the Maricopa Association of Governments.” 36 CٮÛ The ADOH target area survey found that residents iden fied crime as one of their primary concerns. There are several principles that landlords, property owners, business owners, and developers can follow in order to reduce crime and disorder on their respec ve proper es; collec vely these are known as “crime preven on through environmental design” or CPTED. They include: natural surveillance, natural access control, 36 Center for Neighborhood Technology, Housing and Transportation Affordability Index. Accessed April 2012. 37 BAE Urban Economics. 2012. “TOD Mixed-Income Housing Market Demand Study.” Online: wwwbae1.com. 38 Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) forecasts for 2010 based on US Bureau of the Census 2000. 39 Center for Neighborhood Technology, Housing and Transportation Affordability Index. Accessed April 2012. Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study territorial reinforcement, maintenance management, and ac vity support. and B®‘ù‘½› ƒÄ— P›—›ÝãÙ®ƒÄ Sƒ¥›ãù In terms of bicycle and pedestrian safety, in the half-mile area around Apache and McClintock there are three striped pedestrian crossings and two designated bike lanes. The Arizona Department of Transporta on has created an Ac ve Transit Neighborhood Checklist (ATNC) to be used as a tool for assessing the walkability and bikeability of an area.40 Of par cular concern are speed limits and traffic, the presence of bicycle lanes and designated bicycle routes, and sidewalk condi ons and crosswalks. OÖ›Ä Ýփ‘›/Ö½ƒþƒÝ/ÖƒÙ»Ý There are six parks in the two-mile area surrounding the sta on, but no parks within the half-mile target area. There are several vacant parcels and considerable surface parking near the sta on area, providing poten al for increasing usable green space. Strategies to be considered are the crea on of plazas, pocket parks, and joint-use agreements with area schools. In support of jointuse agreements, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer recently signed SB 1059 which prevents schools from being held liable for injuries sustained by recrea onal users of outdoor school grounds a er school hours. Aٛƒ S‘«ÊÊ½Ý ƒÄ— AÃ›Ä®ã®›Ý In terms of area services and ameni es, there are eight schools located within two miles of the Apache and McClintock light rail sta on. There are approximately 51 businesses in the target area, three of which are food stores, 27.5 percent are retail, 15.7 percent are finance, insurance, or real estate, and 33.3 percent are service-related.41 40 See Appendix B. 41 Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), Business Analyst Data Service. Apache & McClintock 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