Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study:
Apache & Price, 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 & Price, 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 & Price
A.
Area Introduction
B.
Neighborhood Demographics
C.
Housing Characteristics
D.
Property Values and Affordable Housing
Housing and Transportation Affordability
E.
Public Transit
F.
Crime and CPTED Principles
G.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety
H.
Open Space/Parks/Plazas
I.
Area Schools
J.
K.
Area Amenities
Apache and Price Area Summary
L.
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
While there has been a growing demand across
the country for TOD, one of the barriers that city
planners must face is the unwillingness of some
local residents to support some of the components
of TOD. In particular, residents may have concerns
about changes in property values, crime, and
overburdened infrastructure (such as area schools,
roads, and other services).3
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.
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,
open space, area schools, and bike/pedestrian
safety.
The following is one of an eight-part series of
reports created for selected light rail station areas.
This report presents a neighborhood analysis and
TOD issues for the half-mile area surrounding
the Metro light rail station at Apache and Price.
A Project Summary is included to provide base
information for all of the eight light rail stations
covered in this series.
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
Apache & Price
Torre
Molinos
Los
Brisas
Apache & Price
5
A
Introduction
The light rail stop at Apache and Price is two miles
from Arizona State University and therefore less
impacted by market forces related to the university.
The area includes a variety of housing options,
from lower-density suburban single-family lots to
higher density apartments. The area is located in
City of Tempe Council District and City of Mesa
Council District 3.
The light rail stop is physically located at Apache
Boulevard and George Dr., and the half-mile area is
bounded by E. Victory Drive to the North, railroad
tracks to the South, southbound Price Road to
the West, and S. Evergreen Drive to the East. A
portion of the City of Tempe and the City of Mesa
Transportation Overlay District is located within
the half-mile area (see Figure 2.1).
Apartment complex near Apache and Price
A local business near Apache and Price
Area park near Apache and Price
Apache and 101 Freeway
Northern boundary of the half-mile target area
6
Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study
Evergreen
Lebanon
George Dr
S Price
Price Fwy/101
S Price
Victory
Don Carlos
McArthur
Apache Blvd/Main St
Railroad
Figure 2.1: Aerial Photograph of 1/2 Mile Area, Apache and Price
light rail
1/2 mile target area
light rail stop
Tempe-TOD District
Mesa-TOD Corridor Area
Apache & Price
7
B
Neighborhood Demographics
The half-mile area is located within two census
tracts: Tracts 3193, and 4213.01 (see Figure 2.2).
Due to geographic changes in the 2010 Decennial
Census, the most recent data available for census
tract 4213.01 come from the 2005-2009 American
Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates. Statistics
for the half-mile target area at Apache and Price
were obtained from the Environmental Systems
Research Institute (ESRI), Community Analyst Data
Service.
Compared to demographics for the City of Tempe,
the target area is more racially and ethnically
diverse, with 55.1 percent of the population being
white, 9.2 percent black, and 32.9 percent Hispanic
(compared to 72.6 percent white, 5.9 percent
black, and 21.1 percent Hispanic in the City of
Tempe). Compared to the City of Tempe, residents
in the half-mile target area are far less likely to
be homeowners (21.0 percent compared to 44.5
percent in the City of Tempe) (see Tables 2.1-2.3).
Figure 2.2: Census Tract Map, Apache and Price
1/2 mile target area
8
Tract 3193
Tract 4213.1
Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study
Educational Attainment, Population Age 25 and Older
City of Tempe
Tract 3193
Tract 4213.01#
Target Area
Not a High School Graduate
10.5%
19.4%
28.6%
25.5%
High School Graduate or GED
16.2%
23.9%
23.0%
24.4%
Some College
24.4%
28.9%
24.4%
24.5%
Associates Degree
7.2%
7.5%
4.2%
6.4%
Bachelor’s Degree
25.8%
6.8%
16.0%
13.7%
Graduate or Professional Degree
15.9%
9.5%
3.9%
5.5%
% HS Graduate or higher
89.5%
80.5%
71.4%
74.5%
% Bachelor’s Degree or higher
41.7%
12.7%
19.9%
19.2%
2005-2009 American
Community Survey
5-Year Estimates
2005-2009 American
Community Survey,
provided by ESRI
2010 American Community Survey, 1-Year
Estimates
Table 2.1: Educational Attainment, Population age 25 and older, Apache and Price
Race/Ethnicity
City of Tempe
Tract 3193
tract 4213.01#
Target Area
White
72.6%
62.3%
82.7%
55.1%
Hispanic (any race)
21.1%
40.7%
48.3%
32.9%
Black/African American
5.9%
5.4%
4.9%
9.2%
Asian
5.7%
4.8%
1.3%
3.6%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
0.4%
0.5%
0.0%
1.0%
American Indian/Alaska Native
2.9%
4.0%
5.6%
10.4%
Two or more races
3.9%
4.0%
2.2%
5.0%
2005-2009 American
Community Survey
5-Year Estimates
U.S. Census Bureau, 2010
Summary File 1, provided
by ESRI
U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Summary File 1
Table 2.2: Race/Ethnicity, Apache and Price
Note: Columns do not total 100%
Miscellaneous Demographics
City of Tempe
Tract 3193
tract 4213.01#
Target Area
Population
161,719
2,420
8,025
2,288
Median Household Income
$49,188
$39,254
$34,464
$41,116
Poverty Rate (Individuals)
26.1%*
38.8%*
17.1%
NA
Homeowner Occupied
44.5%
42.2%
35.4%
21.0%
Public Transportation to Work
4.8%*
1.4%*
5.5%
2.4%**
Mean Travel Minutes to Work
20.1*
21.6*
27.0
20.9**
2005-2009 American
Community Survey
5-Year Estimates
U.S. Census Bureau, 2010
Summary File 1, provided
by ESRI
**ESRI forecasts for 2010
based on 2000 Census
U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Summary File 1
*2010 American Community Survey, 1-Year
Estimates
Table 2.3: Miscellaneous Demographics, Apache and Price
# Due to geographic changes in the 2010 Decennial Census, for all tables, the most recent data available for Census Tract 4213.01 comes
from the 2005-2009 American Community Survey.
Apache & Price
9
C
Housing Characteristics
In the target area around the Apache and Price
station 11 percent of residents have lived in their
home for ten years or more (see Table 2.4). In
both the immediate area and the larger census
tracts (see Figure 2.3), the rental vacancy rate is
significantly higher than the homeowner vacancy
rate (for example, 10.1 percent compared to 0.9
percent for the target area).
The target area is largely comprised of multi-family
units, with only 15.7 percent of the housing stock
being single-family attached or detached. In both
census tracts and the target area there is a small
proportion of mobile home units (see Table 2.8).
Similar to the larger census tracts, the target area
is largely comprised of renters, with 79 percent of
residents renting their home.
For the following tables, all statistics for census
tract 3193 come from the 2006-2010 American
Community Survey. All data for census tract
4213.01 come from the 2005-2009 American
Community Survey (the latest available). Unless
otherwise noted, data for the target area are
from the 2005-2009 American Community Survey,
compiled by the Environmental Systems Research
Institute (ESRI).
Figure 2.3: Census Tract Map, Apache and Price
1/2 mile target area
Tract 3193
Tract 4213.1
Year Householder Moved into Unit
Tract 3193
Tract 4213.01
All Occupied Units
All Occupied Units
OwnerOccupied
RenterOccupied
2005 or later
529 (53.8%)
1215 (42.8%)
12 (1.7%)
346 (49.1%)
2000-2004
193 (19.6%)
1131 (39.9%)
19 (2.7%)
250 (35.5%)
1990-1999
69 (7.0%)
254 (8.9%)
13 (1.8%)
5 (0.7%)
1980-1989
126 (12.8%)
23 (0.8%)
44 (6.2%)
0
1970-1979
54 (5.5%)
57 (2.0%)
11 (1.6%)
0
1969 or earlier
13 (1.3%)
158 (5.6%)
5 (0.7%)
0
NA
NA
Median Year Moved In
Table 2.4: Year Householder Moved Into Unit, Apache and Price
10
Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study
Target Area
2006
Number of Bedrooms
Tract 3193
Tract 4213.01
Target Area
None
0.6%
3.1%
*
1
16.6%
29.4%
*
2
33.7%
36.6%
*
3
47.7%
22.9%
*
4
1.5%
6.1%
*
5+
0
2.0%
*
Tract 3193
Tract 4213.01
Target Area
$0-99,999
145 (41.5%)
119 (11.9%)
45 (42.9%)
$100-149,999
66 (18.9%)
368 (36.7%)
20 (19.0%)
$150-199,999
77 (22.1%)
239 (23.8%)
27 (25.7%)
$200-299,999
61 (17.5%)
263 (26.2%)
13 (12.4%)
0
15 (1.5%)
0
$120,500
$152,600
NA
Table 2.5: Number of Bedrooms, Apache and Price
*Data not available
Housing Values
$300,000+
Median Home Value
Table 2.6: Owner-Occupied Housing Values, Apache and Price
Vacancy and Tenure
Tract 3193
Tract 4213.01
Target Area*
0
3.9%
0.9%
5.2%
12.6%
10.1%
Owner with a Mortgage
20.7%
28.6%
13.2%
Owner Free and Clear
14.7%
6.8%
7.8%
Renter
64.5%
64.6%
79.0%
Tract 3193
Tract 4213.01
Target Area
Single Family, attached or detached
449 (41.5%)
1209 (37.6%)
130 (15.7%)
Multi-Family, 2-19 units
390 (36.1%)
1445 (44.8%)
474 (57.0%)
Multi-Family, 20 or more units
139 (12.9%)
414 (12.9%)
151 (18.2%)
Mobile Home
103 (9.5%)
151 (4.7%)
76 (9.1%)
1081 (100%)
3219 (100%)
831 (100%)
Vacancy
Homeowner Vacancy Rate
Rental Vacancy Rate
Tenure (all occupied units)
Table 2.7: Vacancy and Tenure, Apache and Price
*Source: 2010 U.S. Census, Summary File 1 (ESRI)
Units in structure
TOTAL
Table 2.8: Units in Structure, Apache and Price
Apache & Price
11
D
Property Values and Affordable Housing
A primary concern residents may have about
TOD is the impact on property values in the area.
Consistent with studies across the country, a study
conducted in 2011 at Arizona State University
found that property values have risen since the
introduction of the light rail.1 The study utilizes
property value information from the W.P. Carey
repeat sales database to analyze the impact of
distance from light rail on property values during
five distinct phases of light rail development and
operation. For single family, condominium, and
commercial properties, the study found that
property values have increased over time; however,
the largest increases were found near the light rail
stations. The impact to property value diminishes
the further away from the station a property is
located.
The study also addressed the impact of the City of
Tempe Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone
on property values and found a greater increase in
value in areas with this TOD designation.
Increased property values lead to an increase in
property taxes; as the taxes continue to rise with
property values, some businesses and residents
may find themselves priced out of a neighborhood.
This is a real concern as median household incomes
decreased by 8.4 percent in the City of Tempe
between 2000 and 2009.2
Additionally, 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 stations the cost of housing
often will displace those in need of more affordable
options. Those who may choose to live adjacent
to light rail in order to reduce their transportation
costs may be unable to find housing they can afford
unless special efforts are made to ensure housing
for a range of income levels.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
While the term “affordable housing” has several
definitions, many associate the term with housing
for “low income” people or even “public housing.”
The US Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), which provides subsidies for
housing including public housing, uses the term
in referring to housing for households earning 80
percent or less of the area median income (AMI).
A more general use of the term is in reference to
housing, including rent or mortgage, taxes, and
utilities, that doesn’t cost more than 30 percent of
the total household income.
Tapestry Luxury Condominiums, Central and Encanto Blvd.
Phoenix, Arizona
Source: http://raillife.com
1 Golub, Aaron, Subjrajit Guhathakurta, and BharathSollapuram.
2011. “Light Rail Economic Impact Analysis: Task 1 Final Report to
the Maricopa Association of Governments.”
12
According to a 2011 market demand study
conducted by BAE Urban Economics, there is
significant demand for mixed-income TOD housing
along the Metro light rail. On average, they predict
a market demand of approximately 3,700 new
housing units per light rail station area through
2 BAE Urban Economics. 2012. “TOD Mixed-Income Housing
Market Demand Study.” Online: wwwbae1.com.
Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study
2040. In terms of affordable housing, they project
that in the next thirty years there will be a need for
more than 100,000 new affordable TOD housing
units in Phoenix, Mesa, and Tempe to meet the
needs of those earning 80 percent or less of the
area median income.3
Communities across the country have addressed
the need for TOD housing affordability in various
ways. The methods utilized depend heavily upon
the regulations within that state, the needs of the
community, and the opportunities available prior
to the rise in prices. The following sections present
examples of some strategies used to promote the
integration of affordable housing opportunities in
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. Ultimately, SCWG hopes to more
closely integrate housing and transportation policy
to provide for more effective TOD strategies.
Mercantile 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
Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC)
LIHTC is a competitive tax credit that developers can
use to raise capital for the acquisition, rehabilitation,
or construction of affordable housing. LIHTC is the
single largest source of funds for the preservation
of existing affordable housing nationwide.5 States
are required by HUD to give preference to projects
that provide for the lowest income families and
will remain affordable for the longest period
of time. Funds are allocated to State agencies
This affordable housing complex in Berkeley, California
through the IRS, and funds are then awarded to
serves seniors with household incomes less than 30%, 50%,
developers. Forty-six states provide incentives for
or 60% of the area median income.
the preservation of affordable housing in their
Source: bbiconstruction.com
competitive LIHTC programs. Qualifying projects
Sustainable Communities Fund
must meet State-identified goals as well as the
In Maricopa County, the Local Initiatives Support
following federal requirements:6
Corporation (LISC) in conjunction with the
• Must be a residential property
Sustainable Communities Working Group (SCWG)
• Must control rent/utilities in low-income units
recently established a fund to provide assistance
based on one of two possible low income
to transit-oriented development projects including
occupancy threshold requirements
affordable housing and related amenities near
•
Restrict rent/utilities in low-income units
light rail stations in Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa.4
• Rent and income restrictions will be in place a
The Fund is anticipated to reach $50 million dollars
minimum of 30 years.
worth of various resources for the area. Partnered
with other organizations in Maricopa County, 5 Enterprise Community Partners. 2010. “Preserving Affordable
3 BAE Urban Economics. 2012. “TOD Mixed-Income Housing
Market Demand Study.” Online: wwwbae1.com.
4 http://www.lisc.org/phoenix/images/what_we_do/asset_upload_
file963_15918.pdf.
Housing Near Transit: Case Studies from Atlanta, Denver, Seattle
and Washington, D.C. Online: http://preservingaffordablehousingneartransit2010.pdf.
6 Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2012. Online:
http://www.hud.gov.
Apache & Price
13
LIHTC are awarded in Arizona by the Arizona
Department of Housing. A project can be awarded
points for “Transit Oriented Design” if it is located
within specified distances of a Frequent Bus Transit
System or a High Capacity Transit Station. This
includes within a half mile (2,640 feet) straight
line radius of all existing light rail transit stations in
Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa.7
Employer Assisted Housing8
Employer-assisted housing is one way the private
sector can contribute to affordable housing. By
providing housing allowances or other monetary
forms of assistance, employers can help attract
and maintain employees who would otherwise
live too far away to reasonably commute daily.
Businesses hoping to locate—or already located—
within the TOD Overlay Zone and surrounding
areas can provide assistance to workers in order to
encourage them to locate near the business and
within the community.
7 Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program 2012 Qualified
Allocation Plan. http://www.azhousing.gov/azcms/uploads/REPORTS/2012%20QAP%20FINAL%201-6-12.pdf.
8 http://www.aztownhall.org/pdf/93rd_background_report.pdf
page 73-74.
REACH Illinois Employer-Assisted Housing for public school
teachers in Chicago
Source: http://reachillinois.org
Employer-assisted housing options are widely
varied, ranging from providing designated housing
at reduced cost through a non-profit partner,
offering direct monetary contributions toward
housing costs or other expenses such as discounted
transit passes, to providing options such as housing
counseling assistance. There are various resources
or strategies for companies to establish a program
that works for them including tax benefits and nonprofit partnerships that allow for the non-profit
to provide services to employees based on a taxexempt contribution from the employer. Additional
options may be available through local government
and non-profit organizations.
Rendering of an employer-assisted housing development in Seattle, Washington
Source: Seattle Children’s Hospital
14
Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study
Haddon Township, NJ is part of the “Live Where You Work” Program which offers low-interest mortgages and down-payment
assistance to encourage people to live close to their place of employment
Source: http://www.haddontwp.com
An example of employer-assisted housing comes
from Seattle, where the University of Washington
and Seattle Children’s Hospital are partnering to
develop 184 housing units in Seattle’s University
district, an urban neighborhood that serves
university students. Aligned with the principles of
the larger University District Livability Partnership
which aims to encourage a walkable, mixed-use
neighborhood near a planned light rail station, the
project is believed to be one of the first employersponsored housing developments in the city since
the early 20th century. According to the initial
proposal, approximately 20 percent of the units
will be made available to residents earning less
than 75 percent of the area median income, and
employees of both the university and hospital will
be given first priority to lease available units.9
Land Trusts10
Land trusts allow for the acquisition and retention
of land and structures to be held for future use.
Land acquired through the private land trust model
allows for land to be utilized for numerous purposes,
including affordable housing. A Community Land
Trust (CLT), however, is primarily dedicated to the
long-term preservation of affordability, especially
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 organization but often works
in conjunction with the local government. After
acquisition, the CLT continues to own the land and
leases it, at a minimal rate, to the owners of the
physical improvements on the land.
The long-term goal of affordability is achieved
through several tactics. First, if the homeowner
elects to sell the home, the CLT has the right of first
refusal for the property. Second, the resale price
reflects only the value of the home since the land
is held separately; the CLT may have guidelines in
place to control appreciation of the home value.
This allows for greater long-term affordability of
the home that does not expire.
CLT provides one method to acquire land and
structures for affordable housing that would
otherwise be susceptible to speculation. Acquiring
properties near existing and proposed transit
lines will help preserve the affordability of that
property and make it available for affordable
housing development—either in the present or
at a future time when resources may be more
readily available. Additional benefits of the CLT
model include preventing the displacement of lowincome residents as well as greater local control of
the land.
CLTs can utilize HOME and CDBG funds and other
sources of government funding as well as private
Apache & Price
15
donations. In partnership with local governments
and nonprofit organizations, the goal for community
affordable housing can be furthered. For example,
Newtown Community Development Corporation
is a Tempe-based nonprofit organization that
operates a community land trust program to
provide access to homeownership for homebuyers
that are priced out of the housing market.11 They
offer ongoing support for homebuyers through
homebuyer education and homeownership
counseling. Newtown currently has one single
family home within walking distance of a light rail
stop and is interested in exploring the feasibility of
developing a condominium CLT as part of transit
oriented development.
Land Banking
Land banking is the practice of purchasing land
for future resale and can allow for the acquisition
and retention of tax-foreclosed property by a
designated public authority. Often used as a method
for acquiring run-down, vacant structures and/or
land otherwise susceptible to speculators, land
banking can be used to promote the development
of affordable housing units. In Atlanta, the Land
Bank Authority gives development priority to
agencies seeking to develop affordable housing.
Many options are available under Land Banks,
and they can assist in balancing the needs of the
community.12
Regulatory Measures
certain conditions are met; in this case, the
condition would relate to the number of units
reserved for affordable housing. Some states have
found inclusionary zoning methods to be most
effective. For more information on zoning and
other regulatory measures see the City of Tempe
Planning Department.13
Property Tax Abatement Programs
Property tax abatement programs are designed to
prevent displacement of low and very low income
households due to increasing property taxes. These
programs take different forms across the country to
focus on different income and age brackets. Many
states have provisions for the elderly, but others
also include a wide-range of low and very low
income households (see Table 2.9 for examples).
In addition, property tax abatement programs can
be used to support affordable housing development
on vacant or underutilized sites along transit
corridors by reducing costs for developers through
a limited property tax exemption. For example, the
Portland (Oregon) Transit Oriented Development
(TOD) Property Tax Abatement was established
to support high density housing and mixed-use
developments affordable to a broad range of the
general public on vacant or underutilized sites
along transit corridors whose design and features
encourage building occupants to use public transit.
13 http://www.tempe.gov/index.aspx?page=102.
In addition to property acquisition, regulatory
measures can be put in place to promote the
development of affordable housing. Density
bonuses and other techniques can promote the
inclusion of affordable units within larger projects.
Inclusionary zoning requires that a certain number
of units be available for low-to-moderate income
households. This is often used in conjunction with
density bonuses or reduced parking requirements,
which allow for a developer to build more units
and fewer parking spaces within a complex if
11 http://newtowncdc.org.
12 Land Bank Authorities. 2008. Online: http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/bestpractice008.pdf.
16
Source: http://www.buyersagentportland.com
Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study
The exemptions support TOD projects by reducing
operating costs through a ten-year maximum
property tax exemption.
See the following website for more information:
http://www.portlandonline.com/phb/index.
cfm?c=53036.
Summary
In many cases, timing can be a critical aspect in
creating an effective affordable housing strategy
within a mixed-income housing component as
part of TOD. Recognizing the projected need of the
Metro light rail corridor (~3,700 new mixed-income
housing units per light rail station area through
2040)14 and working to provide a framework to
address this need will provide for the greatest
opportunities. For example, a local government
or nonprofit agency may acquire property in a
transit area prior to a significant rise in property
values. This can be done through the use of several
of the programs described above and can allow
for the creation of housing without the added
expense of increased property costs. Targeting of
vacant, abandoned, or blighted properties in the
Encore on Farmer Street between 6th and 7th Streets, Tempe
Arizona, offers low-income housing for seniors 55 and older.
Source: http://www.raillife.com
area can contribute to this effort. Developers and
others interested in creating affordable housing
opportunities should contact the City of Tempe
Community Development Department, the Phoenix
Housing Department or the Arizona Department of
Housing for more information.
14 BAE Urban Economics. 2012. “TOD Mixed-Income Housing
Market Demand Study.” Online: wwwbae1.com.
Property tax Abatement Programs
Location
Who it helps
What it does
Tucson, AZ • Low-income
• Reimburses qualifying residents for the difference
residents (80% AMI)
between their property tax rate and that of the larger city
within designated
Rio Nuevo District
Portland,
• Developers
• Reduces operating costs for a maximum of 10 years
OR
through property tax exemptions
• Encourages development of new housing opportunities
on vacant/underutilized land or through improvement to
some qualifying existing structures
• Requires low-income housing set-asides for all complexes
• Encourages new low-income housing opportunities
Table 2.9: Property Tax Abatement Programs
Sources:
Tucson: City of Tucson. Rio Nuevo Neighborhoods Property Tax Assistance Program. 2008. Brochure
Portland: http://www.portlandonline.com/phb/index.cfm?c=53036
Apache & Price
17
wood Dr
E Victory Dr
H = 23.7%
T = 28.7%
nD
r
W Dora St
H = 24.6%
T = 30.9%
E Village Antigua Apartment
Park
ile Home
Cibola Mo
b
S Roosevelt Rd
Evergreen Village
al
Ca
n
T = 26.5%
RdH+T Affordability Index
W Broadway
Source:
CNT.org
Accessed April 2012
d
1/2 mile target area
H = 22.5%
W Birchwood Ave
Figure 2.4: Housing and Transportation Cost as a
Percentage of Income, Apache and Price
light rail
is
n
Apache Blvd/Main St
Te
m
Evergreen Apartment
ar
tm
Ap
pe
Te
m
Al
ex
an
E Riviera Village Apartment
S Indian Bend Rd
15.98%
no
N
yll
Ph
il L
W Ella St
pe
Price Fwy
E Cedar St
an
E Orange St
E McArthur Dr
E Wildermuth Dr
Sh
ua
Q
E Don Carlos Ave
E Don Carlos Ave
T = 29.8%
T = 30.5%
S
E Randall Dr
H = 23.5%
H = 14.8%
S Clark Dr
E Randall Dr
t
E Lemon St
E Maryland Dr
en
E Howe Ave
S Siesta Ln
S Lola Ln S Lola Ln
E Orange St
ta Ln
S River Dr
E 10th St
S Sies
T = 28.0%
N May
H = 23.5%
S Cotton
Vida
Price Fwy
esta
State Hwy 101
E Qu
E Laird St
S Lebanon Ln
E Questa Vida
George Dr
r
E
Housing and Transportation Affordability
Affordable Housing: 30% and Less
Unaffordable Housing: Greater than 30%
Defining Housing + Transportation
Affordability
Housing costs factored as a percent of income
has According to the Center for Neighborhood
29.85%
29.34%
15.41%
widely been utilized as a measure of affordability. Technology,
less than one in three American
Traditionally, a home is considered affordable communities (28 percent) are affordable for typical
when the costs consume no more than 30 percent regional households when transportation costs are
of household income. Using this measure, the half- considered along with housing costs (“affordable”
mile area around the Apache and Price station means that housing and transportation costs
is considered affordable, as residents spend on consume no more than 45 percent of income).15
average less than 30 percent of their incomeN/A
on In fact, on average households in auto-dependent
N/A
housing (see Figure 2.4).
neighborhoods spend 25 percent of their income
on transportation, whereas households in walkHousing and transportation 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
15 Center for Neighborhood Technology. 2012. “National Index
costs for transportation.
Reveals Combined Housing and Transportation Affordability Has
Declined Since 2000.” Online: http://www.cnt.org.
18
Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study
H+T=
52.4%
nD
r
E Village Antigua Apartment
n
W Dora St
W Ella St
N May
H+T=
55.5%
Park
ile Home
S Roosevelt Rd
Cibola Mo
b
Ca
n
pe
Te
m
Evergreen Village
Apache Blvd/Main St
H+T=
49.0%
Rd
W Broadway
Source:
CNT.org H+T Affordability Index
Accessed April 2012
d
1/2 mile target area
Ph
is
yll
il L
W Birchwood Ave
Figure 2.5: Combined Housing and Transportation
Cost as a Percentage of Income, Apache and Price
light rail
N
E McArthur Dr
Evergreen Apartment
Ap
pe
Te
m
Al
ex
an
E Riviera Village Apartment
S Indian Bend Rd
15.98%
no
E Orange St
al
H+T=
53.3%
Price Fwy
E Cedar St
an
ua
Q
E Don Carlos Ave
E Don Carlos Ave
E Wildermuth Dr
Sh
S Lebanon Ln
E Victory Dr
ar
tm
S Clark Dr
H+T=
45.4%
S
E Randall Dr
t
E Lemon St
E Randall Dr
E Laird St
en
E Howe Ave
S Siesta Ln
H+T=
45.1%
S Lola Ln S Lola Ln
E Orange St
ta Ln
S River Dr
10th St
E Maryland Dr
wood Dr
S Sies
H+T=
51.5%
S Cotton
Vida
Price Fwy
esta
State Hwy 101
E Qu
George Dr
r
E Questa Vida
Affordable H+T: 45% and Less
Unaffordable H+T: Greater than 45%
9 percent.16 These are referred to as “location
efficient” neighborhoods because they require less
time, money, and greenhouse gas emissions for
residents to meet their everyday travel needs.17
and depend heavily upon public transit use; the
more an individual uses public transportation
for their travel needs, the more affordable their
neighborhood becomes.
Figure 2.5 shows what happens to “affordability”
when transportation costs are taken into account
along with housing. In our target area, those
homes that were “affordable” in Figure 2.4 become
unaffordable when transportation costs are
included.18 Note that these figures are averages
See Appendix A for Housing + Transportation
Affordability maps for the entire region as well as
an explanation of the Center for Neighborhood
Technology’s
Housing
and
Transportation
Affordability Index.
16 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.
17 Center for Neighborhood Technology. 2012. “http://www.cnt.
org/tcd/location-efficiency.
18 The statistics provided for Figures 2.4 and 2.5 follow the Center
for Neighborhood Technology’s recommendations for using the
regional moderate household for comparison when the median income of the target area is less than 80 percent of the regional median
income. In this case, the regional typical median income is $54,713
and the median income for our half-mile target area is $41,116.
Apache & Price
19
F
Public Transit
Light Rail Ridership
Household Transportation Costs
Ridership figures provided by Metro light rail
indicate that 572,063 individuals got on and off
at the Apache and Price station in 2011. In fact,
between April 2009 and April 2011, ridership
increased at the Apache and Price station by 64%.19
On average, transportation costs constitute the
second largest household expenditure (after
housing) for households across the country.21
Figure 2.6 demonstrates that households in the
half-mile target area pay, on average, $1,018 per
month on transportation.
In spite of these increasing numbers, data for the
residents of the half-mile area show low ridership
rates. 2.4 percent report using public transportation
to get to work, 2.0 percent walk to work, and 81.7
percent drive alone to work.20
The use of public transit can greatly reduce these
monthly transportation costs. Currently, rates
for the Metro light rail or local bus are $1.75 per
ride; $3.50 per day; or a 31-day pass for $55.00. In
addition to special rates for ASU students, Metro
also offers a reduced rate for youth, seniors (age
65+), persons with a disability, and Medicare card
19 BAE Urban Economics. 2012. “TOD Mixed-Income Housing
Market Demand Study.” Online: www.bae1.com.
20 Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) forecasts for
2010 based on US Bureau of the Census, 2000.
S
$11,755/yr
Sh
an
$980/mo
no
nD
r
E Village Antigua Apartment
$1,061/mo
<$10,000/yr
Park
ile Home
Cibola Mo
b
S Roosevelt Rd
Evergreen Village
Ca
n
al
Apache Blvd/Main St
pe
W Birchwood Ave
$898/mo
Source: CNT.org H+T Affordability Index
W Broadway Rd
Accessed April 2012
d
20
1/2 mile target area
$12,727/yr
$10,775/yr
Figure 2.6: Annual and Monthly Transportation Cost
per Household, Apache and Price
light rail
W Dora St
W Ella St
Te
m
Ap
pe
Te
m
Al
ex
an
E Riviera Village Apartment
n
N May
S Lebanon Ln
George Dr
$1,018/mo
S Indian Bend Rd
15.98%
il L
$12,219/yr
E Wildermuth Dr
E Cedar St
E Orange St is
yll
Ph
N
E McArthur Dr
ar
tm
S Clark Dr
$1,021/mo
E Don Carlos Ave
E Don Carlos Ave
Price Fwy
$12,249/yr
ua
Q
E Victory Dr
Evergreen Apartment
E Lemon St
E Randall Dr
t
mo
S Siesta Ln
E Howe Ave
E Randall Dr
E Laird St
en
S River Dr
S Lola Ln S Lola Ln
9/yr
ta Ln
E Orange St
S Sies
$952/mo
E 10th St
E Maryland Dr
wood Dr
$11,428/yr
S Cotton
Vida
Price Fwy
esta
State Hwy 101
E Qu
r
E Questa Vida
21 Center for Neighborhood Technology. 2012. “National Index
Reveals Combined Housing and Transportation Affordability Has
Declined Since 2000.” Online: http://www.cnt.org.
$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 also offers commuting alternatives like a carpool
reduced rate for a 31-day pass is $27.50.
matching service, and vanpool for groups of 6-15
commuters.
Local Public Transit
There are also bus options in the Apache and Price
area. Figure 2.7 demonstrates the available bus
lines near the light rail station as of April 2012.
Currently there are two bus routes in the area:
Routes 40 and 511 Express Service. The full bus
transit map can be found on the Metro website at
http://www.valleymetro.org/planning_your_trip/
bus_rail_link/.
Metro also provides detailed instructions on
how to safely ride the light rail or bus. The Metro
school outreach program offers free classroom
presentations about the Metro transit system as
well as field trips using the bus, light rail, and LINK
bus systems.
Metro’s community outreach program also offers
public presentations to any group that is interested
The Metro website contains many tools to help in transit education such as new residents and
riders understand the transit system. For example, refugees. They also offer mobility training for
Metro offers an online trip planner where an senior citizens and persons with a disability, as well
individual can enter their travel date, start and end as monthly sessions at the Disability Empowerment
points, how far they are willing to walk, and their Center.23
preference for light rail, bus or express bus routes,
and their trip will be mapped for them.22 Metro
Lebanon
23 http://www.valleymetro.org/transit_education/community_outreach/.
George Dr
Victory
Don Carlos
McArthur
Evergreen
S Price
S Price
Price Fwy/101
22 http://trips.valleymetro.org/pages/full_trip.
511
40
Apache Blvd/Main St
Railroad
Figure 2.7: Area Bus Routes and Transit Centers, Apache and Price
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, 511 Express Service, METRO Light Rail
Apache & Price
21
Studies around Light Rail
A common fear surrounding the introduction of
mass transit systems is the potential increase in
crime it may bring. In Atlanta, Georgia, opposition
to extending MARTA rail and bus lines into
surrounding suburbs was strongly influenced by
the fear that crime would increase in these areas.26
In reality, most studies of crime and light rail have
found either a decrease in crime or no change after
the opening of the station. In Charlotte, North
Carolina, researchers measured crime statistics
before and after the opening of the Charlotte light
rail line. They found that light rail did not increase
crime around the stations and in fact, property
crimes decreased.27
24 Saad, Lydia. 2010. “Nearly 4 in 10 Americans Still Fear Walking
Alone at Night.” Gallup. Online: http://www.gallup.com.
25 Federal Bureau of Investigations. 2010. “Uniform Crime Reports.” Online: www.fbi.gov.
26 Poister, Theodore H. 1996. “Transit-Related Crime in Suburban
Areas.” Journal of Urban Affairs 18(1):63-75.
29 Billings, Stephen B., Suzanne Leland, and David Swindell. 2011.
“The Effects of the Announcement and Opening of Light Rail
Transit Stations on Neighborhood Crime.” Journal of Urban Affairs.
00(0):1-17.
22
Local Statistics
Locally, crime statistics for the greater Phoenix
area indicate that crime has decreased as it has
across the nation. Furthermore, data provided
by the Phoenix Police Department indicate that
crime has not increased in station areas since the
introduction of the Metro light rail.
The Tempe Police Department provided crime
statistics for the one square mile area surrounding
the Apache and Price light rail station (see Figure
2.8). Figure 2.9 demonstrates that crime has in
fact decreased significantly in the area between
2006 and October of 2011. The data obtained from
the Tempe Police Department is reflective of the
statistics reported annually to the FBI. It contains
28 Sandag. 2009. “Understanding Transit’s Impact on Public Safety.”
Online: www.sandag.org.
University
May
This fear of crime contrasts sharply with federal
crime statistics revealing that crime has actually
been decreasing and is now at its lowest level in
recent history. Federal Bureau of Investigation
Statistics show that U.S. crime rates are down in
every category: From 2001-2010 violent crimes are
down 13.4 percent and property crimes are down
13 percent.25
In San Diego, California, the San Diego Association
of Governments analyzed crime patterns before
and after the implementation of light rail as well as
a comparison of neighborhoods with and without
a transit station. They found that the presence of
transit did not lead to more neighborhood crime.28
George Dr
One of the goals of transit-oriented development
is to create walkable, bikeable communities
where the public can safely utilize the surrounding
amenities. In order for communities to succeed as
sustainable places, it is necessary to address issues
of perceived safety. The ADOH target area survey
found that residents within the one-half mile area
surrounding the selected light rail stations identified
crime as their primary concern. This is consistent
with a recent national Gallup poll revealing that
four in ten Americans fear walking alone at night.24
River
G
Crime and CPTED Principles
Apache Blvd
Broadway
Figure 2.8: Approximate One Square Mile Area of
Crime Data, Apache and Price
Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study
categories for violent crime (homicide, rape,
robbery, and aggravated assault) and property
crime (burglary, larceny/theft, automobile theft,
and arson). The reduction in crime around the light
rail station is consistent with studies conducted
around the country.
Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design
One of the ways that transit-oriented development
can contribute towards lower crime rates is through
creating more “eyes on the streets,” based on the
principle that the greater the risk of being seen or
challenged, the less likely people are to commit a
crime. There are several principles that landlords,
property owners, business owners, and developers
can follow in order to reduce crime and disorder
on their respective properties. These principles are
known collectively as “Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design,” or CPTED.
CPTED design principles are typically implemented
during the planning phase of an area; however,
CPTED principles can be integrated into existing
communities. The transition into a TOD community
serves as an ideal time for integration of these
concepts.
Although there are many approaches to CPTED
including the number of concepts, the evaluation
of their effectiveness, and so forth, five main
concepts are most commonly utilized:
•
Natural Surveillance
•
Natural Access Control
•
Territorial Reinforcement
•
Maintenance and Management
•
Activity Support
These five CPTED principles and examples of how
to utilize them in practice are explained in detail on
the following pages 24-25.
Apache and Price: Local Number of Crimes 2006-2011
600
Light Rail
Construction
500
400
300
200
100
0
2006
2007
2008
2009
Figure 2.9: Local Number of Crimes 2006-2011, Apache and Price
property crime
violent crime
2010
2011*
Source: Tempe Police Department
Data Received June 2012
Apache & Price
23
• Natural surveillance
As previously mentioned, more “eyes on the street”
increases a criminal’s perception of being caught
and thus deters crime. Natural surveillance can be
supported through the use of fences instead of solid
walls to promote visibility through areas. Increased
lighting allows for greater nighttime visibility. The
installation of benches and other gathering places
encourages the use of public spaces.
Photo 1: Windows and balconies provide “eyes and ears” for
areas of potential unwanted activities.
• Natural access control
Natural access control refers to the means by which
one enters and exits a space. The flow of traffic
through a space is directed, and opportunities for
quick or unexpected entry or exit are low. This
concept promotes appropriate and legitimate use
of space. Natural access control can take the form
of fences and doors or gates, but it can also utilize
other landscaping elements such as vegetation and
sidewalks to create a natural flow through the area.
Entrances and exits are selectively placed so as to
promote visibility both from outside and within the
space.
Photo 2: Raised wall area serves as a defined access control
to the shops and apartments above; Photo 3: Planters serve
as natural access control for pedestrians and prevent vehicles
from coming too close to the building.
• Territorial Reinforcement
Territorial reinforcement refers to, in part, the
definition of public and private space. If disrepair
and poor landscaping confuse lines between a
private property and a public open space, the lack
of territorial reinforcement may invite unwanted
activity. Territorial reinforcement builds on the
idea that people will protect what they feel to be
their own. The creation of quality public spaces
will promote a sense of community ownership and
encourage users to protect their space. Territory
may be reinforced through signage, fencing, and
landscape elements. In design concepts, the
incorporation of elements that a community
identifies with will lend to the creation of pride in a
community space.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Photo 4: Community bulletin board creates a sense of community; Photo 5: Bench area is a clear definition of public space;
Photo 6: Personalized signage creates a sense of ownership for the community
24
Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study
• Maintenance and Management
An area that is not well-maintained does not
communicate pride or ownership and may signal a
lack of supervision on the site. An area that is wellmaintained and cared for indicates frequent use
of the site, and also encourages the appropriate
use of the site. This is particularly an issue with
vacant or abandoned properties. Frequent upkeep
of landscape maintains a clean appearance on the
site and prevents the creation of visual barriers and
hiding places. Maintaining the physical elements
of the site (such as fixing broken windows) prevents
the perception of non-use. Selection of materials in
the design phase should give preference to those
that are easiest to maintain and most resistant to
vandalism. For example, porous materials should
be sealed or have anti-graffiti coating.
7
Photos 7 & 8: Well maintained areas create a sense of safety
and show that the property is cared for. The painted mural
serves to discourage graffiti.
8
• activity support
Without individuals using the site, the other
principles of CPTED lose their strength. It is
important to encourage use of the site, especially
during non-work hours. The common scenario
today consists of individuals leaving their homes
to go to work; while at work, their homes remain
empty and very few people are around to act as
natural surveillance. After leaving work to return
home, their work areas are now vacant and lack
natural surveillance.
9
The TOD model of encouraging mixed-use
development allows for use at all hours of the day.
Examples of this include mixing housing, work, and
retail options within close proximity or even in the
same building.
Sidewalk patios for restaurants and cafes as well
as more windows on a building frontage provides
for greater visibility and more “eyes on the street.”
Open spaces could also be used to host organized
community events.
Image Credits
1: www.pwcgov.org; 2: www.pegasusnews.com; 3: www.pwcgov.org;
4: Drachman Institute; 5: http://estudarque.blogspot.com 6: Drachman Institute; 7: www.pwcgov.org; 8: Drachman Institute; 9: www.
ebbc.org/vrf; 10: www.mass.gov
10
Photos 9& 10: Vibrant urban spaces attract people which
can aid in natural surveillance and deter unwanted activities.
Apache & Price
25
Evaluation tools
A task force formed by the Safe Routes to
School Program of the Arizona Department of
Transportation has created an Active School
Neighborhood Checklist (ASNC) to be used as a
tool for assessing school sites’ walkability and
bikeability.30 This tool can be used to evaluate
any neighborhood or TOD area on issues of bike
and pedestrian safety. The checklist includes
In the half-mile area around Apache and Price
there are five striped pedestrian crossings and four
designated bike lanes (see Figure 2.10). To further
evaluate the area in terms of bike and pedestrian
safety around transit, please see Appendix B: The
Active Transit Neighborhood Checklist (ATNC).
This is an abbreviated checklist modifed from the
ASNC that is centered around transit rather than
schools.
George Dr
S Price
S Price
Price Fwy/101
29 www.bicycling.com/ride-maps/featured-rides/18-tempe-az.
30 http://www.azdot.gov/srts/PDF/Documents_Active_School_
Neighborhood_Checklist.pdf
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 questions
such as: Does the area have adequate bicycle
lanes, designated bicycle routes, and multi-use
paths? Are there sidewalks present, and if so, in
what condition? Are there marked crosswalks
at and between intersections, and what type of
crossing signals are present?
Victory
Evergreen
The Tempe Transportation Overlay District
(amended in 2006) supports development
standards that enhance and promote bicycling
and pedestrian activity 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 coutry.29
Lebanon
H
Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety
Don Carlos
McArthur
Apache Blvd/Main St
Railroad
Figure 2.10: Pedestrian/Bike Map of 1/2 mile Area, Apache and Price
light rail
26
striped pedestrian crossing
Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study
light rail stop
bicycle lane
Resources for Bicyclists and Pedestrians
Tempe
Tempe in
Motion
Phoenix
Phoenix Metro
Bicycle Club
Arizona Bicycle
Tempe Bicycle
Club
Action Group
http:\\www.
Mesa
City of Mesa,
Mesa Rides!
Program
State/Maricopa
Coalition of Arizona Bicyclists
ADOT Bicycle/Pedestrian Program
Maricopa DOT Bicycle Program
Maricopa Kids Coalition
Maricopa Safe Routes to School
Metro
Table 2.10: Bicycling Resources
Resources
There are numerous bicycle groups that promote
both walkability and ease of bicycling throughout
the Tempe area and Maricopa County (see Table
2.10).
The Federal Highway Administration provides
a detailed list of relevant bicycle and pedestrian
safety information.31 Additional resources include
materials to help guide officials in designing systems
that are safe and comply with regulations.32
31 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/ped_transit/ped_transguide/.
32 http://katana.hsrc.unc.edu/cms/downloads/PedRSA.reduced.
pdf.
Effective designation of rail lines and crossings
can substantially increase pedestrian safety. Table
2.11 delineates several methods of track crossing
warning mechanisms in use at light rail stations
across the country.
Light Rail Bicycle Safety Devices
Type
Active Warning
Devices
Device/Method of Warning
Low-rise flashing pedestrian sign
Fencing
Bells/other noises
Passive Warning
Devices
Lit signs for nighttime safety
Signage
Warning on ground
Channelization devices (such as gates)
Other
Considerations
Change in ground texture--physical
and/or visual--to indicate upcoming
change
Location of gate arms in relation to
pedestrian platform (provides enough
space for pedestrians)
Selection of method based on collision
experiences at that stop
Visibility from all angles of approach
Pedestrian volumes and peak flows
Provide warning at each track if there
are multiple tracks
Table 2.11: Light Rail Bicycle Safety Devices
Bike lane on Apache Boulevard
Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for
Streets and Highways. Part 10. 2003. http://safety.fhwa.
dot.gov/xings/collision/twgreport/index.htm#a6
Apache & Price
27
One of the goals of TOD is to improve the health of
residents by encouraging an active lifestyle. Studies
show that individuals who use public transit are
more likely to achieve the Surgeon General’s
recommendation of thirty minutes of moderate
physical activity per day.33 The incorporation of
open green space to encourage physical activity is
a crucial element in any TOD plan.
and Price station, and one park within the half-mile
target area.
Esquer Park is one of the few skate parks in the
greater Phoenix area that allows BMX bikes in
addition to skateboards and rollerblades. The park
also offers a splash playground, pictured below.
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 Transportation Overal District supports this
through requiring each station area to provide for
open space throughout the corridor, utilizing pocket
parks, retention ponds, plazas, rooftop gardens,
and other forms of public open space. Guildines
for pedestrian and bicycle pathways encourage the
use of shade and other amenities (such as benches
and water fountains) to encourage the use of these Esquer Park, Tempe, Arizona
spaces.
Vacant Land Potential
Area Parks
As indicated in Figure 2.11, there are five parks
within the two-mile area surrounding the Apache
1/2 mile
Esquer
Park
Main
Connolly
Field
nal
e Ca
Alameda
1 mile
p
Tem
Broadway
Selleh
Park
8th St
2 mile
Any TOD plan for the half-mile area surrounding
Apache and Price should consider using existing
vacant land to increase the amount of usable green
space in the area. The pictures below and on the
following page demonstrate two vacant parcels
near the light rail station at Apache and Price.
Sycamore
University
Escalante
Park
Alegre
Park
Apache
Dobson
Price Fwy
Rio Salado Pkwy
McClintock
I
Open Space/Parks/Plazas
Daumler
Park
8th Ave
Figure 2.11: Area Parks, Apache and Price
33 Tucson Move. 2011. May/June 1(2):60.
28
Vacant land, McArthur Drive
Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study
As indicated in Figure 2.12, there are numerous
surface parking lots as well as several vacant
parcels in the station area.
Several strategies may be considered to increase
green space, including the creation of plazas, pocket
parks, and joint-use agreements with schools.
Victory
Evergreen
Lebanon
George Dr
Price Fwy/101
Price Rd
Price
Vacant land near Apache and Price
Don Carlos
McArthur
Apache Blvd
Railroad
Figure 2.12: Open Space Potential, Apache and Price
light rail
light rail stop
vacant land
surface parking lots
Source: Drachman Institute
April 2012
Apache & Price
29
• plazas
Public plazas are urban open spaces that can
serve a multitude of functions. They may provide
a public gathering space, accommodation for local
farmer’s markets or arts and crafts fairs, a home
for public art structures, and settings for recreation
and relaxation. Plazas should inject local character
and flavor and provide adequate seating and shade
for the hot desert climate. They also provide added
security for the surrounding buildings by increasing
public use.
2
Photo 1: Yavapai County Courthouse Plaza, Prescott, Arizona.
Source: www.planning.org; Photo 2: Memorial Union Plaza
adjacent to the student union at Arizona State University,
Tempe, Arizona. Source: Studio Ma
1
• pocket parks
Pocket parks are urban open spaces at a very small
scale, usually a few parcels or smaller in size. They
may include play areas for children, small meeting
areas, or spaces for relaxing. Pocket parks provide
much needed greenery in the urban landscape.
4
3
Photo 3: Pocket Park in South Bend, Indiana. Source:
keepsouthbendneautiful.files.wordpress.com
Photo 4: Pocket Park at Arizona Ave and Chandler Blvd,
Chandler, Arizona. Source: Landscapeforms
Photo 5: Pocket Park in Logan, Ohio. Source: logantowncenter.
com
30
5
Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study
• joint-use agreements
Leading public health authorities recommend
sharing existing school and community recreational
facilities to promote physical activity. This can be
done when schools open up their grounds to the
community after school hours, or through specific
joint-use agreements between organizations. In
March 2012, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed
SB 1059 which prevents schools from being held
liable for injuries sustained by recreational users
of outdoor school grounds, excluding swimming
pools and other aquatic features. In the half mile
target area at Apache and Price there are several
schools where such agreements could be pursued
(see page 32).
7
The photos above and below show before and after
shots of a facility benefitting the community under
a joint-use agreement. The Tucson middle school
has a joint use agreement with City of Tucson Parks
and Recreation to open up their school grounds
after school hours. Another joint-use agreement
exists between the school and Community Gardens
of Tucson (a local non-profit) to operate the schoolcommunity garden. Local community members
can now subscribe to garden plots and have open
access to the garden.
6
The above photo is an example of a junior high
school in Tucson, Arizona that opened up their track
and Energi Systems equipment to the community
after school hours. Located in a high risk area with
few recreational opportunities, the school has
become a park for the local residents to enjoy. It
includes picnic areas, benches, exercise stations,
an athletic field, and plenty of space to walk or run
for exercise.
Photo 6: Flowing Wells Junior HIgh School, Tucson Arizona
Photo 7: Doolen Middle School Garden Before
Photo 8: Doolen Middle School Garden After
Source for Photos 6-8: Drachman Institute
8
Apache & Price
31
J
Area Schools
School Availability
A concern for families with children moving into
a TOD area is the availability and quality of area
schools. There is one private school (grades 2-12) in
the half-mile target area at Apache and Price (see
Figure 2.13). In total there are six schools located
S Siesta Ln
il R
d
W 3rd Pl
Qu
a
S Siesta Ln
W1
S Bala Dr
ve
W 8th Ave
Holiday Ln
S Roosevelt Rd
ood Dr
S Cottonw
nd
Be n
y
u
a
lid y R
Ho lida
o
H
S Valencia
Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study
rado
private school
l Do
Figure 2.13: Area Schools, Apache and Price
Se
d
E Bishop Dr
nR
S Bala Dr
e
gre
ve r
SE
E Concorda Dr
st A
W Broadway Rd
E Broadmor Dr
public school
W 2nd St
1
²
E Palmcroft Dr
Dr
adow
E Me
E
Loma Vista Dr
E Loma V
ista Dr
E Bishop Dr
E Alameda Dr
n
il L
S San Jose
E Cedar St
6
²
4
5 ²
²
W 3rd St
W 2nd Pl
1/2 Mile
S George Dr
S Clark Dr
W University Dr
Apache Blvd
E Wildermuth Dr
E Broadway Rd
32
St l
6th th P
5
W
W
Holiday Trl
kford
Roc
2
²
E Encanto Dr
light rail
W Decatur St
ua
Q
E 10th St
E Lemon St
S Martin Ln
S Bonnie Ln
S Kachina Dr
E Howe Ave
r
W Dartmouth St
1 Mile
r
E Don Carlos Ave
en D
Asp
th
ou
E University Dr
ida
E Orange St
²
Da
rtm
2 Mile
W Devonshire St
St
S 5th Pl
esta
V
E 10th St
3
Illinois
E 6th St
S River D
E Qu
E Hayden Ln
W
Price
R ive
r Dr
E 5th St
S Siesta Ln
S Smith Rd
S Perry Ln
6th St
E
W 8th St
E Rio Salado Pkwy
S Industrial Dr
E
between one and two miles from the light rail stop,
five of which are public schools. With the exception
of the private school in the half-mile area, there
are no high schools within two miles of the light
rail stop at Apache and Price.
Source: Drachman Institute
May 2012
public charter/magnet school
specialty school
�
List of Local Schools
•
within 1/2 mile of stop
•
within 1 mile of stop
1. The Aces-East
1515 S. Indian Bend Road
Private 2-12
106 students in 2010
10.6:1 student teacher ratio
2. Flora Thew Elementary School
2130 E. Howe Avenue
Public K-6
29th percentile statewide
448 reading score (3rd grade)
357 math score (3rd grade)
550 students in 2010
8.7% free/reduced lunch
15:1 student teacher ratio
•
within 2 miles of stop
3. Children First Academy
1938 E. Apache Boulevard
Public K-8 (Charter)
2nd percentile statewide
502 reading score (6th grade)
383 math score (6th grade)
199 students in 2010
98.5% free/reduced lunch
4. Connolly Middle School
2002 E. Concorda Dr.
Public 6-8
51st percentile statewide
857 students in 2010
9.8% free/reduced lunch
15.3:1 student teacher ratio
56 full time teachers
520 reading score (8th grade)
426 math score (8th grade)
5. Curry Elementary School
1974 E. Meadow Drive
Public K-5
31st percentile statewide
438 students in 2010
5.7% free/reduced lunch
15.9:1 student teacher ratio
447 reading score (3rd grade)
358 math score (3rd grade)
6. Intervention Learning Program
2228 S. Country Club Way
Public 6-8
6.3:1 student teacher ratio
29 students in 2010
10.3% free or reduced lunch
486 reading score (8th grade)
391 math score (8th grade)
Notes: All test scores for public schools
are based on the 2011 AIMS (Arizona’s
Instrument to Measure Standards).
10th Grade Math and Reading Scores:
Scale 0-800
• State Mean Scaled Math
Score=501.09
• State Mean Scaled Reading
Score=711.72
8th Grade Math and Reading Scores:
Scale=0-600
• State Mean Scaled Math
Score=434.79
• State Mean Scaled Reading
Score=527.07
6th Grade Math and Reading Scores:
Scale 0-600
• State Mean Scaled Math
Score=412.64
• State Mean Scaled Reading
Score=515.19
3rd Grade Math and Reading Scores:
Scale 0-500
• State Mean Scaled Math
Score=370.95
• State Mean Scaled Reading
Score=461.52
Information on all schools obtained from
schooldigger.com, accessed April 2012
Apache & Price
33
K
Area Amenities
Victory
Evergreen
Lebanon
Institute (ESRI), there are 20 businesses in the halfmile area around Apache and Price, one of which is
a food store, and eight of which are service related.
(See Table 2.12).
George Dr
Price Rd
Price Fwy/101
Price
A goal of successful transit-oriented development
is to offer a mix of services and amenities within
walking distance of public transit. According to data
compiled by the Environmental Systems Research
Don Carlos
McArthur
Apache Blvd
Railroad
Figure 2.14: Area Amenities, Apache and Price
light rail
auto services
34
light rail stop
grocery
1/2 mile area
hotel/lodging
Source: Drachman Institute
April 2012
buildings
surface parking
warehouse/storage facility
Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Study
vacant
health/fitness
retail
Businesses in Half-Mile Area by Service Industry Codes
Number
Percent
Agriculture & Mining
1
5.0%
Construction
1
5.0%
Manufacturing
1
5.0%
Transportation
0
0.0%
Communication
0
0.0%
Utility
0
0.0%
Wholesale Trade
1
5.0%
Retail Trade
4
20%
Home Improvement
0
General Merchandise
0
Food Stores (Includes Grocery Stores)
1
Auto Dealers, Gas Stations, Auto Aftermarket
1
Apparel & Accessory Stores
0
Furniture & Home Furnishings
1
Eating & Drinking Places (Includes “Fast Food”)
1
Miscellaneous Retail
0
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate
3
Banks, Savings, & Lending Institutions
0
Securities Brokers
0
Insurance Carriers & Agents
0
Real Estate, Holding, Other Investment Offices
3
Services
8
Hotels & Lodging
0
Automotive Services
2
Motion Pictures & Amusements
0
Health Services
2
Legal Services
0
Education Institutions & Libraries
1
Other Services
3
15.0%
40.0%
Government
0
0.0%
Other
1
5.0%
Total
20
100%
Table 2.12: Half-Mile Area Business Summary,
Apache and Price
Source: Business data by Infogroup,
Omaha NE, 2012, compiled by ESRI
Accessed April 2012
Apache & Price
35
L
Apache and Price Area Summary
General
The light rail stop at Apache and Price is two
miles from Arizona State University and therefore
less impacted by market forces related to the
university. The area includes a variety of housing
options, from lower-density suburban single-family
lots to higher density apartments. The light rail
stop is physically located at Apache Boulevard and
George Dr., and the half-mile area is bounded by E.
Victory Drive to the North, railroad tracks to the
South, southbound Price Road to the West, and S.
Evergreen Drive to the East.
of light rail, and the largest increases are found
closest to station areas.35 There are a number
of programs that may be pursued in order to
preserve and develop affordable housing and to
assist existing low-income homeowners in the
area. These may include Low Income Housing Tax
Credits, Community Land Trusts, Employer Assisted
Housing Programs, and property tax abatement
programs.
Housing and Transportation
Affordability
Using the common measure of affordability that
housing costs not exceed 30 percent of household
income, the target area around Apache and Price is
Compared to demographics for the City of Tempe, considered affordable as residents typically spend
the target area is more racially and ethnically less than 30 percent of their income on housing.
diverse, with 55.1 percent of the population being However, when factoring in transportation costs,
white, 9.2 percent black, and 32.9 percent Hispanic the area becomes unaffordable (housing and
(compared to 72.6 percent white, 5.9 percent transportation costs consume 45 percent or more
black, and 21.1 percent Hispanic in the City of of total household income).36
Tempe). Compared to the City of Tempe, residents
in the half-mile target area are far less likely to Public Transit
be homeowners (21.0 percent compared to 44.5 Public transit ridership at the Apache and Price
percent in the City of Tempe).34
light rail station has increased by 64 percent since
Neighborhood Demographics and
Housing Characteristics
April 2009.37 Ridership numbers provided by Metro
In the target area around the Apache and Price indicate that over 572,063 people got on and off
station 11 percent of residents have lived in their at the station in 2011. In spite of these numbers,
home for ten years or more. In both the immediate ridership figures for the residents of the half-mile
area and the larger census tracts the rental vacancy target area are low, with 2.4 percent reporting that
rate is significantly higher than the homeowner they use public transit to get to work.38 On average,
vacancy rate (for example, 10.1 percent compared residents in the target area pay $1,018 per month
to 0.9 percent for the target area).
on transportation.39
The target area is largely comprised of multi-family
units, with only 15.7 percent of the housing stock
being single-family attached or detached. The
target area is largely comprised of renters, with 79
percent of residents renting their home.
Property Values
Consistent with statistics from across the country,
property values have risen since the introduction
34 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Summary File 1, provided by Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), Community Analyst Data
Service.
36
Crime
The ADOH target area survey found that residents
35 Golub, Aaron, Subjrajit Guhathakurta, and BharathSollapuram.
2011. “Light Rail Economic Impact Analysis: Task 1 Final Report to
the Maricopa Association of Governments.”
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
identified crime as one of their primary concerns,
yet statistics show that crime has not increased in
station areas since the introduction of Metro light
rail.40 Consistent with studies across the country,
crime in the target area has been decreasing and is
now at its lowest level in recent history. There are
several principles that landlords, property owners,
business owners, and developers can follow in order
to reduce crime and disorder on their respective
properties; collectively these are known as “crime
prevention through environmental design”
or CPTED. They include: natural surveillance,
natural access control, territorial reinforcement,
maintenance and management, and activity
support.
Area Schools and Amenities
In terms of area services and amenities, there are
six schools located within two miles of the Apache
and Price light rail station. The only high school in
the area is a private high school (grades 2-12). There
are approximately 20 businesses in the target area,
including one food store and eight service-related
businesses.42
Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety
In terms of bicycle and pedestrian safety, in the
half-mile area around Apache and Price there
are five striped pedestrian crossings and four
designated bike lanes. The Arizona Department
of Transportation has created an Active Transit
Neighborhood Checklist (ATNC) to be used as a
tool for assessing the walkability and bikeability
of an area.41 Of particular concern are speed limits
and traffic, the presence of bicycle lanes and
designated bicycle routes, and sidewalk conditions
and crosswalks.
42 Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), Business
Analyst Data Service.
Open space/plazas/parks
There are five parks in the two-mile area
surrounding the station and one park within the
half-mile target area. There are a number of vacant
parcels and considerable surface parking near the
station area, providing potential for increasing
usable green space. Strategies to be considered are
the creation of plazas, pocket parks, and joint-use
agreements with area schools. In support of jointuse agreements, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer
recently signed SB 1059 which prevents schools
from being held liable for injuries sustained by
recreational users of outdoor school grounds after
school hours.
40 City of Phoenix Police Department. 2011.
41 See Appendix B.
Apache & Price
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
The Drachman Institute utilized data analyses by
the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT)
to create housing and transportation affordability
maps for each station area. Figures A.1 and A.2
show housing and transportation affordability
for the region. As indicated in Figure A.2, when
transportation costs are included, many areas of
the region become unaffordable (residents are
paying 45 percent or more of their income on
housing and transportation).
The following information (taken from the CNT
website) provides a brief explanation of their
methods and data. For more detailed information
on the Housing and Transportation Affordability
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.
Estimates. Per capita income is calculated as
median household income divided by average
household size.
• Average Household Size
Average household size is the “Total Population in
Occupied Housing Units by Tenure” and “Tenure”
to define the universe of occupied housing units.
• Average Commuters per Household
Average commuters per household is calculated
using the total number of workers age sixteen
and older who do not work at home and means of
transportation to work.
Independent variables:
Neighborhood Characteristics
• 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
Dependent variables:
February 2012, CNT has compiled station and stop
Transportation costs
data for bus, rail, and ferry service for more than 75
Three components of transportation behavior
percent of all metropolitan and micropolitan areas
(auto ownership, auto use, and transit use) are
in the United States.
combined to estimate the cost of transportation.
Independent variables:
Household Characteristics
• Household Income
• 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