TOD vs."TAD"

Interesting article (here), again found on the Reconnecting America database; by PB Placemaking about Transit-oriented Development along light and heavy rail lines, and true TOD's contrast with what they call T.A.D., or Transit-adjecent Development.

The article makes several points about successful TOD development.

• The TOD district has to be able to be successful without transit to be successful with transit access.


• A transit agency is often not the most efficient or effective group to create TOD, instead local municipalities are, who have the necessary development and political clout


• TODs are shaped by the transit mode, not just adjacent to it (they have buildings exits located towards transit stops, higher density of usage, limited parking, pedestrian-safe, etc...


• The TOD's transit station must be connected to the developing community, not just near it.


• Acknowledges (from several other sources) that transit affects development

It also depends, city-by-city, whether the TOD is forced, or planned for, by the supervising agency or it develops by market forces. Apparently several of the TOD projects surrounding DART stops in Dallas, were, unlike those in Portland or San Diego, not planned by DART, but instead put forth by developers. This is quite remarkable for a city that, like the rest of Texas, is known for a solid pro-auto design.

There are several other key points put forth by this report:

• Planning for the possibility of TOD along transit lines while building the transit system much increases the effectiveness of the resultant TOD


• TOD can enhance transit systems; it can add riders, increase property values, encourage federal funding, etc.


• True TOD is illegal in the U.S.; zoning ordinances do not allow for the densities, mix of uses, or reduced parking requirements of true TOD


• Market for TOD is real and increasing: locations next to LRT showed avg. land premiums of as great as 39% for residential and 52% for office