This video is sponsored
by Curiosity Stream. I'm standing in one of the most famous transit-oriented developments
in the United States. This is Orenco Station in the
Portland metropolitan area. Transit-oriented developments, or TODs, are high quality, mixed-use
developments near transit. Now, what makes Orenco Station so special? First of all, it's one of the earliest modern examples of a US community purposely
designed as a TOD, particularly a TOD along a
modern light rail system. The city of Hillsboro where Orenco Station is located had begun assembling parcels for a housing development in the 1980s and Oregon Metro, the
regional planning agency, identified the site as
a location for a station along its new west side light rail line. The station was built in
1998 and the first phase of the project was built
around this same time. It's also quite well known because it's not only a TOD,
but it's a New Urbanist TOD. One designed according to the principles of the Congress for the New Urbanism. It features walkable streets meant to foster social interactions, a turn of the last century design palette with front porches on houses and a mix of land uses
including retail and services. So did it live up to expectations? Is this a neighborhood
full of transit riders? Well, it's complicated. Initial studies showed
that transit ridership for commuting was higher
than the national average but pretty much the same as
the rest of the Portland area. People moved to Orenco
Station more for the upscale, walkable character than
the direct transit access. But the community is quite close to a large Intel office park. Many residents are Intel employees and you can't get there on light rail. Orenco Station has also grown considerably since those first studies were conducted. And most of the new development has been multi-family housing or
mixed-use development. Some as dense as six stories
like the stuff behind me. That's not bad. A more recent study found that Orenco Station
generates half the car trips expected of a typical suburb and requires about half
the parking spaces. A walkable neighborhood
with dense development and a variety of viable non-car options. It's easy to see why this
became a popular case study especially in the late
1990s and early 2000s. Since Orenco Station became
the early poster child for transit-oriented development, cities across the United
States have encouraged TODs near transit stations to reduce car trips and increase transit trips. Doing so can reduce carbon emissions and region-wide traffic.
Some pretty laudable goals. But do all TODs achieve this goal? And could you achieve these goals with a simple park and ride station? And could you achieve them
without transit at all? We'll answer those provocative questions after the bike bell. (bike bell rings) Orenco Station is a
great pioneering example of transit-oriented development but it's not the only model out there. In fact, on the other side of the country in Northern Virginia, TODs are an order of magnitude
more dense and impressive. The Washington DC Metro
Orange Line extends from Northern Virginia throughout the District and into Maryland. While the regional planners
were planning this route they purposely upzoned
parcels within a half mile, or walking distance, to
these new metro stations. They called it the "bullseye concept." They knew that there'd
be high demand for homes and offices near transit
and they wanted to encourage development there
to reduce traffic in the area. The plan was a massive success with 36 million square
feet of office space, 6 million square feet of
retail and 47,000 housing units near the seven Arlington County stations. Arlington County and
Orenco Station both prove that transit-oriented
development can work. But is it always a good idea or am I just cherry-picking
the best examples? The answer to both those
questions is a qualified yes. I'm showing you some amazing examples but the principles of TODs are sound. There are design choices that can maximize or limit their effectiveness in generating more transit trips, in reducing car trips. Not every TOD will have the same success as Orenco or Arlington. First of all, TODs need to ensure people can
get to the station quickly. This is done by building housing, offices and retail as close
to the station as possible. Arlington is a great example of this. People typically won't walk more than a half mile to reach quality transit so the area directly around
the station is critical. All of those people living
close won't be driving to the station. They'll be walking or maybe taking a bike. The built environment
needs to be designed to support active transportation. This means building a
complete sidewalk network with adequate lighting and amenities. Ideally, the building
should address the street. Perhaps with storefronts
or front doors to homes. The design of the station
area can also have an impact on the quality of the development. Stations shouldn't be surrounded by a mode of parking, but instead, of a public plaza and to
encourage people to walk there. This space should be the
center of the TOD community and be activated by things like events, farmers' markets, and outside dining. The land use mix has to be correct too. Some land uses like warehouses
are not a great match for TODs as job density is low. But not every station has to have a complete neighborhood mix. Some TODs can be focused on office uses while others can be more
residential in character. But residential TODs need to be on the same line as the office TODs so people can go to and from
work easily via transit. Sometimes the success of a TOD comes down to transit route choice. One example is broadening
a transit line along a major highway. Transit running in the
median essentially means that all the best sites for a TOD are taken up by lanes of traffic. And the next best land, distance-wise, is up against the highway. Running a line along one
side of a highway is better, but not by much. You end up with a 180 degree
station where all the TOD has to be on the same side of
the highway because a walk under the highway to get
to the station really kills any advantage of TODs. This is why the green line
in Portland doesn't have many TOD projects, but instead has resorted to
building park and ride lots. But wait! Are park and ride lots bad. They allow commuters
from far flung suburbs to take transit to their final destination. These facilities can reduce
vehicle miles traveled and confer some of the same traffic and environmental benefits
as having people live near the station in the first place. Is it better to simply
put up some parking lots near a station, particularly
in areas not conducive to TODs? At least one study has shown
that adding 100 parking spaces will generate more transit ridership than adding 100 housing units. And park and ride is an overall
better use of floor space if ridership is the goal. Why are we even talking about TODs then? Video over, right? Well, ridership isn't the
only metric that matters here. In some cases, the transit agency owns the
land that the TOD is built on and it would make more money developing it into housing or offices
than a park and ride. Those funds are often used to pay for the transit line or
future transit lines. And many cities are
experiencing a housing shortage. So building more units is
better for the city as a whole. Another issue with park and rides is that parking is often free
or extremely inexpensive. If parking isn't priced
according to the market value for the land and the
demand for the spaces, the park and ride amounts
to a significant subsidy provided to drivers. Often directly from a transit agency. And free parking can often fill up early at park and rides, often before 7:00 AM. Thus, they aren't even available
or useful to a large number of drivers. And when parking is
available, nobody needs it. Park and rides also detract
from the walkable environment that a good TOD fosters
and such development in the United States is scarce. It's a missed opportunity
to put a parking garage in a place where cities
could actually encourage dense development. The reality is that park and
rides have a specific role to play in transportation infrastructure. Some marginal land near
a transit station may be a perfect spot for a park and ride. And a park and ride facility
may be a good interim land use. Until development pressures
make selling the land to a real estate developer
a lucrative proposition. So, TODs are great, and
park and rides are okay. But what if cities could
achieve their greenhouse gas reduction targets and reduce traffic
congestion without having to spend all that money to
build new rail lines? One study of Transit New Jersey found that lower auto use and
ownership in TOD areas is not because people have access to
rail transit and use it more, but because housing is at a higher density and there are fewer
available parking spaces. These areas also have better
bus service that connects to rail stations and the bus
service is more important than the rail line when it comes to why people use their car less. What does this mean? This isn't an argument
against rail transit. Rail transit provides backbone
transportation services in dense regions and it's
incredibly necessary to have them. But, cities shouldn't just
consider dense development near rail stations, but
everywhere else as well. Cities should identify
other areas where TOD-style development could occur even
if there's no rail station and zone them in a way to
encourage dense development. These areas should have
fewer parking spaces, more regional employment,
smaller housing units, and solid bus access. All predictive of less car
use, according to the study. It's not a matter of this
or that, but this and that. Density and walkability near
rail transit and elsewhere. Developments like Orenco
Station may not have been this dense or walkable
without metro identifying it as a town center and anchored
by a light rail station. So in that way, TODs can help turn a suburban
site into something better. One subject we didn't
address yet is the value of the overall rail transit network. It's not the most important thing, as the New Jersey study suggests. But Portland has a ton of
cool rail transit projects, including Tilikum Crossing, a bridge that carries
all modes except cars. And the region's even considering a tunnel under the Willamette River in downtown Portland to
speed up transit there. I get into this topic in
detail in a bonus video over on Nebula. That video is one of the
many exclusive videos that I have posted there. And all the videos at Nebula are ad-free. There are dozens of
other thoughtful creators posting their ad-free videos
and bonus content there too. We're talking about creators
like Not Just Bikes, Real Life Lore, Wendover Productions, and Real Engineering. Nebula is great, but it's made even better thanks to our partnership with Curiosity Stream. Curiosity Stream is the source for high quality, engaging documentaries. They have so much city content on there that you'll never get bored. Including documentaries on Rio de Janeiro, New York City, Cape Town, and the planned city of Masdar. They're the perfect companions to the content on this channel. We have a deal where if you
sign up to Curiosity Stream using the link on screen,
you'll get Nebula for free. That's not a free trial, but free as long as you're
a Curiosity Stream member. And they're running a special deal where you can get the entire year for 26% off. That's less than $15 a year for
Curiosity Stream and Nebula. Signing up is a great way
of supporting this channel as well as the dozens of other creators working to make Nebula a success. Overall it's just a really good deal too. So go click on the link
on screen and get 26% off.
TLDW; TOD is a denser, low-to-mid rise development pattern that is denser and more mix-used than your traditional American suburb. The development pattern, despite being named "Transit-oriented", didn't make a significant impact on transit ridership in the area he was focusing on. However, it did reduce the amount of car trips and parking spaces needed to serve the area. People living there were closer to services like parks and schools; as well as being close to bigger businesses and local businesses so they could just walk or bike.
He later explained that other cities or implementing TOD without having a central transit hub like light or heavy rail.
The big takeaway imo is that the first step in building car independent places is not necessarily to improve public transit, but to build denser, mix-used walkable, bikeable areas. Then build transit on top of that. You could convince me that in LA it could be a chicken or the egg scenario since the existing land use is so sprawling.
I love this sub and hope this catches on strong. I just got from Mexico City. I want to move there so much. You can walk everywhere.
Probably important to note that "Transit-Oriented Development" and other terms like the "15-minute city" used to describe areas of medium-density, mixed use development near jobs, shopping, and amenities like parks, is nothing new.
You might as well call it "exactly how literally every human society has planned and organized it's communities and cities for all of human history with the notable exception of 1950-2020."