TheRole of TransitinCreating Livable Metropolitan Communitiesonlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_22-a.pdf · TheRole of TransitinCreating Livable Metropolitan Communities

TheRole ofTransit in Creating LivableMetropolitan Communities

Transit Cooperative Research ProgramSponsored byThe Federal TransitAdministration

Transportation ResearchBoard

National Research Council

TCRP Report 22

TC

RP

Report 22

The R

ole of Transit in C

reating Livable Metropolitan C

omm

unitiesT

RB

TCRP OVERSIGHT AND PROJECTSELECTION COMMITTEE

CHAIRMICHAEL S. TOWNESPeninsula Transportation Dist. Comm.

MEMBERSSHARON D. BANKSAC TransitLEE BARNESBarwood, Inc.GERALD L. BLAIRIndiana County Transit AuthoritySHIRLEY A. DeLIBERONew Jersey Transit CorporationROD J. DIRIDONIISTPSSANDRA DRAGGOOCATALOUIS J. GAMBACCINISEPTADELON HAMPTONDelon Hampton & AssociatesKATHARINE HUNTER-ZAWORSKIOregon State UniversityALAN F. KIEPPERParsons Brinckerhoff, Inc.PAUL LARROUSSEMadison Metro Transit SystemROBERT G. LINGWOODBC TransitGORDON J. LINTONFederal Transit AdministrationDON S. MONROEPierce TransitPATRICIA S. NETTLESHIPThe Nettleship Group, Inc.ROBERT E. PAASWELLThe City College of New YorkJAMES P. REICHERTReichert Management ServicesLAWRENCE G. REUTERMTA New York City TransitPAUL TOLIVERKing County DOT/MetroLINDA WATSONCorpus Christi RTAFRANK J. WILSONNew Jersey DOTEDWARD WYTKINDAFL-CIO

EX OFFICIO MEMBERSWILLIAM W. MILLARAPTARODNEY E. SLATERFHWAFRANCIS B. FRANCOISAASHTOROBERT E. SKINNER, JR.TRB

TDC EXECUTIVE DIRECTORFRANK J. CIHAKAPTA

SECRETARYROBERT J. REILLYTRB

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 1997

OFFICERS

Chair: David N. Wormley, Dean of Engineering, Pennsylvania State UniversityVice Chair: Sharon D. Banks, General Manager, AC TransitExecutive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board

MEMBERS

BRIAN J. L. BERRY, Lloyd Viel Berkner Regental Professor, Bruton Center for Development Studies,University of Texas at Dallas

LILLIAN C. BORRONE, Director, Port Commerce, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PastChair, 1995)

DAVID BURWELL, President, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, Washington, DCE. DEAN CARLSON, Secretary, Kansas Department of TransportationJAMES N. DENN, Commissioner, Minnesota Department of TransportationJOHN W. FISHER, Joseph T. Stuart Professor of Civil Engineering, Director, ATLSS Engineering Research

Center, Lehigh UniversityDENNIS J. FITZGERALD, Executive Director, Capital District Transportation Authority, Albany, NYDAVID R. GOODE, Chair, President and CEO, Norfolk Southern CorporationDELON HAMPTON, Chair and CEO, Delon Hampton & AssociatesLESTER A. HOEL, Hamilton Professor, Civil Engineering, University of VirginiaJAMES L. LAMMIE, Director, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc., New York, NYBRADLEY L. MALLORY, Secretary of Transportation, Pennsylvania Department of TransportationROBERT E. MARTINEZ, Secretary of Transportation, Commonwealth of VirginiaJEFFREY J. MCCAIG, President and CEO, Trimac Corporation, Calgary, Alberta, CanadaMARSHALL W. MOORE, Director, North Dakota Department of TransportationCRAIG E. PHILIP, President, Ingram Barge Co., Nashville, TNANDREA RINIKER, Deputy Executive Director, Port of SeattleJOHN M. SAMUELS, Vice President—Operating Assets, Consolidated Rail CorporationWAYNE SHACKELFORD, Commissioner, Georgia Department of TransportationLESLIE STERMAN, Executive Director, East-West Gateway Coordinating Council, St. Louis, MOJOSEPH M. SUSSMAN, JR East Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, MITJAMES W. VAN LOBEN SELS, Director, California Department of Transportation (Past Chair, 1996)MARTIN WACHS, Director, University of California Transportation Center, BerkeleyDAVID L. WINSTEAD, Secretary, Maryland Department of Transportation

EX OFFICIO MEMBERS

MIKE ACOTT, President, National Asphalt Pavement AssociationROY A. ALLEN, Vice President, Research and Test Department, Association of American RailroadsJOE N. BALLARD, Chief of Engineers and Commander, U.S. Army Corps of EngineersANDREW H. CARD, JR., President and CEO, American Automobile Manufacturers AssociationTHOMAS J. DONOHUE, President and CEO, American Trucking AssociationsFRANCIS B. FRANCOIS, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation

OfficialsDAVID GARDINER, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyJANE F. GARVEY, Federal Highway Acting Administrator, U.S. Department of TransportationALBERT J. HERBERGER, Maritime Administrator, U.S. Department of TransportationT. R. LAKSHMANAN, Director, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Department of TransportationGORDON J. LINTON, Federal Transit Administrator, U.S. Department of TransportationRICARDO MARTINEZ, National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, U.S. Department of TransportationWILLIAM W. MILLAR, President, American Public Transit AssociationJOLENE M. MOLITORIS, Federal Railroad Administrator, U.S. Department of TransportationDHARMENDRA K. (DAVE) SHARMA, Research and Special Programs Administrator, U.S. Department of

TransportationBARRY L. VALENTINE, Acting Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S.DOT

TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM

Transportation Research Board Executive Committee Subcommittee for TCRPDAVID N. WORMLEY, Pennsylvania State University (Chair)SHARON D. BANKS, AC TransitDENNIS J. FITZGERALD, Capital Dist. Transportation Authority, Albany, NYLESTER A. HOEL, University of VirginiaGORDON J. LINTON, U.S. Department of TransportationROBERT E. SKINNER, JR., Transportation Research BoardJAMES W. VAN LOBEN SELS, California Department of Transportation


The nation’s growth and the need to meet mobility,environmental, and energy objectives place demands on publictransit systems. Current systems, some of which are old and in needof upgrading, must expand service area, increase service frequency,and improve efficiency to serve these demands. Research isnecessary to solve operating problems, to adapt appropriate newtechnologies from other industries, and to introduce innovations intothe transit industry. The Transit Cooperative Research Program(TCRP) serves as one of the principal means by which the transitindustry can develop innovative near-term solutions to meetdemands placed on it.

The need for TCRP was originally identified in TRB SpecialReport 213—Research for Public Transit: New Directions,published in 1987 and based on a study sponsored by the UrbanMass Transportation Administration—now the Federal TransitAdministration (FTA). A report by the American Public TransitAssociation (APTA), Transportation 2000, also recognized the needfor local, problem-solving research. TCRP, modeled after thelongstanding and successful National Cooperative HighwayResearch Program, undertakes research and other technical activitiesin response to the needs of transit service providers. The scope ofTCRP includes a variety of transit research fields including plan-ning, service configuration, equipment, facilities, operations, humanresources, maintenance, policy, and administrative practices.

TCRP was established under FTA sponsorship in July 1992.Proposed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, TCRP wasauthorized as part of the Intermodal Surface TransportationEfficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). On May 13, 1992, a memorandumagreement outlining TCRP operating procedures was executed bythe three cooperating organizations: FTA, the National Academy ofSciences, acting through the Transportation Research Board (TRB),and the Transit Development Corporation, Inc. (TDC), a nonprofiteducational and research organization established by APTA. TDC isresponsible for forming the independent governing board,designated as the TCRP Oversight and Project Selection (TOPS)Committee.

Research problem statements for TCRP are solicited periodicallybut may be submitted to TRB by anyone at any time It is theresponsibility of the TOPS Committee to formulate the researchprogram by identifying the highest priority projects. As part of theevaluation, the TOPS Committee defines funding levels andexpected products.

Once selected, each project is assigned to an expert panel,appointed by the Transportation Research Board. The panels prepareproject statements (requests for proposals), select contractors, andprovide technical guidance and counsel throughout the life of theproject. The process for developing research problem statements andselecting research agencies has been used by TRB in managingcooperative research programs since 1962. As in other TRB activ-ities, TCRP project panels serve voluntarily without compensation.

Because research cannot have the desired impact if products failto reach the intended audience, special emphasis is placed ondisseminating TCRP results to the intended end users of theresearch: transit agencies, service providers, and suppliers. TRBprovides a series of research reports, syntheses of transit practice,and other supporting material developed by TCRP research. APTAwill arrange for workshops, training aids, field visits, and otheractivities to ensure that results are implemented by urban and ruraltransit industry practitioners.

The TCRP provides a forum where transit agencies cancooperatively address common operational problems. The TCRPresults support and complement other ongoing transit research andtraining programs.

TCRP REPORT 22

Project H-4D FY’93ISSN 1073-4872ISBN 0-309-06057-5Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 96-61982

© 1997 Transportation Research Board

Subject AreasPlanning and Administration Public Transit

NOTICE

The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the Transit CooperativeResearch Program conducted by the Transportation Research Board with theapproval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. Suchapproval reflects the Governing Board’s judgment that the project concerned isappropriate with respect to both the purposes and resources of the NationalResearch Council.

The members of the technical advisory panel selected to monitor this project andto review this report were chosen for recognized scholarly competence and withdue consideration for the balance of disciplines appropriate to the project. Theopinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agencythat performed the research, and while they have been accepted as appropriateby the technical panel, they are not necessarily those of the TransportationResearch Board, the National Research Council, the Transit DevelopmentCorporation, or the Federal Transit Administration of the U.S. Department ofTransportation.

Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the technical panelaccording to procedures established and monitored by the TransportationResearch Board Executive Committee and the Governing Board of the NationalResearch Council.

Special Notice

The Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, the TransitDevelopment Corporation, and the Federal Transit Administration (sponsor ofthe Transit Cooperative Research Program) do not endorse products ormanufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because theyare considered essential to the clarity and completeness of the project reporting.

Published reports of the


are available from:

Transportation Research BoardNational Research Council2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20418

and can be ordered through the Internet athttp://www.nas.edu/trb/index.html

Printed in the United States of America

This report will be of interest to individuals seeking to improve the liv-ability of their communities and to those concerned with the role publictransportation can play in pursuing this goal. The report combines guidelinesand case studies to provide a comprehensive approach for improving com-munity livability and transit ridership in the United States. It is directedtoward a broad range of individuals and groups in the public and privatesectors associated with community, business, and civic organizations, includ-ing public transportation providers, local and metropolitan governments,community groups, and private businesses.

A livable community is something that everybody wants, but it does notmean the same thing to all people. There is some agreement on the characteris-tics of “livability” or quality of life, such as safe and healthy neighborhoods;sustainable employment; adequate housing, retail and community services;positive image; sense of community; and neighborhood-based cultural andrecreational opportunities. Transit can be integral to making communitiesmore livable by providing access to goods and services and can support attain-ment of complementary community goals in other investment areas as well.

The objective of TCRP Project H-4D, The Role of Transit in Creating LivableMetropolitan Communities, was to explore the relationship between transit andlivable communities. The research team—lead by Project for Public Spaces,Inc., and supported by its subcontractors (the International Downtown Asso-ciation, the National Association of Neighborhoods, TransManagement, Inc.,The Urban Partnership, and the Urban Mobility Corporation)—explored a“place-making” approach where a local community, working in partnershipwith a transit agency, plans and implements neighborhood-scale projects andprograms that are mutually supportive of community livability and transitridership goals.

The final report from this research provides considerable informationand guidance. The report’s 12 chapters are divided into three major parts asfollows:

• Part I. Overview and Context. The first two chapters of the report definethe concept of livability and the impact of transportation on livability.These chapters also describe federal support for transit and livable com-munity initiatives, the “place-making” approach to livability, and trans-portation strategies that impact livability.

• Part II. Roles of Transit in Creating Livable Communities. In conduct-ing this project, the research team met with numerous people in manycommunities throughout the United States to examine diverse examples

FOREWORDBy Staff

Transportation ResearchBoard

of how public transportation supports and enhances community livabil-ity. This research, documented and presented in Chapters 3 through 9,includes “examples,” which briefly summarize the experience of the indi-vidual communities, and more lengthy case studies. More specifically,the examples and case studies are organized by the following topics:

— Creating places for community life,— Using transit as a catalyst for downtown and neighborhood renewal,— Creating opportunities for entrepreneurship and local economic devel-

opment,— Improving safety and amenity,— Making communities accessible and convenient, and— Shaping community growth.

The use of examples and case studies provides practical concepts anddemonstrates how public transportation can meaningfully contribute to thelivability of metropolitan communities.

• Part III. Implementation. Chapters 10 through 12 provide a guide toimplementation by describing the importance of a community-basedprocess for creating livable communities. (This process involves earlyparticipation in transportation planning and partnerships with publicand private organizations implementing transportation and communityprojects.) Part III then describes specific planning, design, and manage-ment strategies for livable places and concludes with suggested nextsteps to increase awareness of livability-oriented transit programs.

This report is a valuable resource for executives, decisionmakers, man-agers, and planners from transit systems, local governments, communityorganizations, MPOs, the FTA, the FHWA, and other public and privateorganizations involved with public transportation and community livability.

In addition to the final report, a video was prepared by the researchteam. The video provides an overview of key attributes of livable communi-ties and shows how transit systems contibute to community vitality. Thevideo is available from the American Public Transit Association. Inquiriesregarding the video should be addressed to:

TCRP DisseminationAmerican Public Transit Association

1201 New York Avenue, N.W.Washington, DC 20005

FAX: (202)898-4019Internet: http://www.apta.com/tcrp

1 SUMMARY

Part I Overview and Context5 CHAPTER 1 Introduction

What is “Livability”?, 5Concerns About Community Livability, 5A Place-Making Approach to Livability, 6Transit and Place-Making, 7

Opportunities for Communities, 7Opportunities for Transit, 8

Federal Support for Transit and Livable Communities, 8About This Report, 9

10 CHAPTER 2 The Impact of Transportation on LivabilityA Role for Transportation as a Player in Building Communities, 10Transportation Strategies Impacting Livability, 11

Transit Strategies, 11Design-Oriented Strategies, 11Service-Oriented Strategies, 11“Traffic-Calming” Strategies, 12Transportation and Land-Use Strategies, 13

Conclusions, 14

Part II Roles of Transit in Creating Livable Communities17 CHAPTER 3 Introduction and Approach to Case Studies

Case Study Selection Criteria, 17Research Approach, 18

Background Research, 18Focus Groups, 18Case Study Interviews, 19Detailed User Case Study Evaluations, 19Telephone Surveys of Selected Model Projects, 19Preparation of Case Studies, 20

Livability Issues Presented, 20

21 CHAPTER 4 Creating Places for Community LifeIntroduction, 21

Overview of Community Strategies, 21Role of Transit, 22

Examples, 23Portland, OR: Tri-Met’s MAX Station Anchors Saturday Market, 23Boston, MA: Health Clinic Becomes Visible and Provides Accessible

Community Service at Roxbury Crossing T-Station, 23Tucson, AZ: Downtown Saturday Night—Transit Center Becomes

Focal Point for Downtown Revitalization Event, 24Corpus Christi, TX: Staples Street Bus Transit Center—Using

Public Art to Inspire Community Ownership of a Transit Facility, 25Case Studies, 25

Case Study 4-1: Portland, OR: Pioneer Courthouse Square Transit Key in Creating the City’s “Living Room,” 25

Case Study 4-2: Woodbridge Station, NJ: Creating a Sense of Place at a Commuter Rail Station, 29

Case Study 4-3: Shady Grove Metro Station, MD: KidStop Child Care Center Helps Make a Community “Family-Friendly,” 33

35 CHAPTER 5 Transit as a Catalyst for Downtown and NeighborhoodRenewal

Introduction, 35Overview of Community Strategies, 35Role of Transit, 36

Example, 37Transit Malls: Successes and Failures, 37

Case Studies, 38Case Study 5-1: Somerville, MA: Davis Square Transit Station—

Subway Extension Spurs Neighborhood Rejuvenation, 39

CONTENTS

Case Study 5-2: Los Angeles Neighborhood Initiative: Rebuilding Disinvested Neighborhood “Main Streets” from the Bus Stop Up, 42

Case Study 5-3: Chicago, IL: The Green Line—Using Transit Stations to Spur Reinvestment in Distressed Inner City Neighborhoods, 45

51 CHAPTER 6 Creating Opportunity for Entrepreneurship and EconomicDevelopment

Introduction, 51Overview of Community Strategies, 51Role of Transit, 52

Examples, 53Washington, DC: Union Station—Local Business Opportunities at

Revitalized Intermodal Station, 53New York, NY: Columbus Circle Market—Subway Station Plaza as

Place for Economic Opportunity, 54Chicago, IL: A Public/Private Joint Venture to Create Local Retail

Opportunities at Transit Stations, 54Chicago, IL: Suburban Job-Link Connects Jobs and People, 56

Case Studies, 56Case Study 6-1: Boston, MA: Downtown Crossing—Transit and

Pedestrian Improvements Create Setting for Urban Marketplace, 56Case Study 6-2: Chicago, IL: Union Station—Local Businesses Thrive

in Redeveloped Historic Station, 59Case Study 6-3: St. Louis, MO: The Wellston MetroLink/Cornerstone

Partnership—Light Rail Service Linking Mobility withOpportunity, 62

65 CHAPTER 7 Improving Safety and AmenityIntroduction, 65


Examples, 67Baltimore, MD: Howard Street Mall—Koban Police Booth Improves

Community and Transit Security, 67New York, NY: Improved Subway Stations Enhance Perception of

Security, 68California Bus Transfer Centers: A Study of Safety, Security, and

Community Context, 69Case Studies, 70

Case Study 7-1: Tucson, AZ: Tohono Tadai Transit Center—New Environment Transforms Transit Experience in Area of

Suburban Sprawl, 71Case Study 7-2: New York, NY: Station Manager Program—A Place-

Oriented Approach to Subway Station Management, 73Case Study 7-3: New York, NY: Port Authority Bus Terminal—

A Comprehensive Approach Yields Security Benefits for Terminal and Times Square Neighborhood, 77

Case Study 7-4: Portland, OR: Tri-Met’s Rider Advocate Program—On-Board Services Improve Transit and Community Security, 81

84 CHAPTER 8 Making Communities Accessible and ConvenientIntroduction, 84Overview of Community Strategies and Role of Transit, 84Examples, 86

Santa Monica, CA: The Big Blue Bus—Convenient and Accessible City Bus Service Builds Livability and Transit Ridership, 86

Kids Kab: Reducing the Need for Parent Chauffeuring, 86New Jersey Transit WHEELS Program: Experimenting with Flexible

Service to Serve Local Mobility Needs, 87Case Studies, 88

Case Study 8-1: Aspen, CO: City Shuttles—Community Develops Plan to Reduce Traffic Congestion and Increase Mobility, 88

Case Study 8-2: Los Angeles, CA: The DASH Watts Shuttle—Community-Scaled Transit Links Neighborhood Destinations, 91

Case Study 8-3: Meridian, MS: Union Station—Train Station Becomes Community Transportation Hub, 94

97 CHAPTER 9 Shaping Community GrowthIntroduction, 97


Example, 99Arlington County’s Rosslyn-Ballston Metrorail Corridor: Using Transit

to Shape Growth and Create Community, 99Case Studies, 100

Case Study 9-1: Boulder, CO: GO Boulder—New Transit Services Key to Meeting Local Environmental Goals, 100

Case Study 9-2: Seattle,WA: Local Initiative for Neighborhood Circulation (LINC)—Neighborhood Transit System Channeling

Community Growth, 104Case Study 9-3: Corpus Christi, TX: Staples Street Bus Transfer Station

and the Downtown Trolley—Transit Reorganization Sets Stage for Downtown and Neighborhood Renewal, 107

Part III A Guide for Implementation113 CHAPTER 10 The Community-Based Process for Creating Livable

CommunitiesOpportunities for Community Involvement in Current Transit Planning

Processes, 113Public Participation: Going Beyond “Requirements,” 114

Strategy No. 1: Focus on Place-Making, 115Strategy No. 2: Step-By-Step Implementation, 115Strategy No. 3: Developing Effective Transit/Community

Partnerships, 117Case Studies, 118

Case Study 10-1: Tucson, AZ: Old Pueblo Trolley—Volunteers Revive Historic Trolley Line, 118

Case Study 10-2: Oakland, CA: BART Fruitvale Transit Village—Using Transit to Leverage Funding for Community Development, 121

Case Study 10-3: New Jersey Transit Station Renewal Program—Creating Partnerships with Community, 127

Case Study 10-4: Boston, MA: South Station—Transit-Private Developer Partnership Transforms Historic Station, 131

Case Study 10-5: Wilmington, DE: Wilmington Infrastructure Studies—Intergovernmental-Private Sector Partnership to Promote Enhanced

Livability and Economic Development, 134Case Study 10-6: Denver, CO: The 16th Street Transitway—Twenty

Years of Public-Private Partnership and Reinvestment, 136

140 CHAPTER 11 Planning, Design, and Management Strategies for LivablePlaces

About Place Performance Evaluation, 140Developing the Vision, 141Livable Places: A Conceptual Model, 142Strategies for Creating Livable Places, 143

Uses and Activities, 143Comfort and Image, 143Access and Linkages, 144Sociability, 145

Putting It All Together, 148

149 CHAPTER 12 Conclusions and Next Steps

151 APPENDIX A Bibliography and Related Literature

157 APPENDIX B A Review of Livability Research

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS STAFFROBERT J. REILLY, Director, Cooperative Research ProgramsSTEPHEN J. ANDRLE, Manager, Transit Cooperative Research ProgramDIANNE S. SCHWAGER, Senior Program OfficerEILEEN P. DELANEY, Managing EditorKAMI CABRAL, Production EditorHILARY FREER, Assistant Editor

PROJECT PANEL H-4DJ. BARRY BARKER, TARC, Louisville, KY (Chair)G.B. ARRINGTON, TRI-MET, Portland, ORJOANNE DENWORTH, Pennsylvania Environmental Council, Philadelphia, PAHANK DITTMAR, Surface Transportation Policy Project, Washington, DCFRED DUCCA, FHWA, Washington, DCAL EISENBERG, American Institute of Architects, Washington, DCNAOMI LEDE, Texas Southern University, Houston, TXJEROME M. LUTIN, New Jersey Transit Rail Link Division, Newark, NJARABELLA MARTINEZ, Spanish-Speaking Unity Council, Oakland, CACHRISTIE McGETRICK, CM Research, Little Rock, ARLOUIS H. PINKNEY, Maryland DOTMARILYN SKOLNICK, Port Authority Transit, Monroeville, PAEDWARD THOMAS, FHWA Liaison RepresentativeJAMES A. SCOTT, TRB Liaison Representative

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This was produced by Project for Public Spaces, Inc.(PPS). The PPS Project Team included Fred I. Kent, III, Prin-cipal Investigator; Stephen Davies, Co-Principal Investiga-tor and Project Director; Cynthia Abramson, Project Man-ager; and Gisela Bichler, Erika Hanson, Larry Lund,Kathleen Madden, Shirley Secunda, Maria Ting, and MegWalker.

PPS was joined in this endeavor by the following experts intransit and community livability: Richard Bradley, ExecutiveDirector of the International Downtown Association; RicardoByrd, Executive Director of the National Association of Neigh-borhoods; Sarah Campbell, Partner in TransManagement, Inc.;Ellen McCarthy, President of The Urban Partnership; and C. Kenneth Orski, President of the Urban Mobility Corporation.

SUMMARY This report describes transit’s increasingly important role in improving thelivability of communities.

Concerns about livability affect every community: inner cities, suburbs,small towns, and rural areas. The report explores a “place-making” approachwhere a local community, working in partnership with a transit agency,plans and implements neighborhood-scale projects and programs that aremutually supportive of community livability and transit ridership goals.

Part I of this report describes the place-making approach to livability andexplores the relationships between transportation and livability that are keysto understanding the case studies.

In Chapter 2, the role of transportation in building communities throughtransit programs, strategies to “calm” traffic in residential and commercialneighborhoods, and a new understanding of the relationship between trans-portation and land use is explored.

Part II of the report—Chapters 3 through 9—presents examples and casestudies of transit facilities and services that achieve community livabilitygoals; the role played by communities, transit agencies, municipal agenciesand authorities, and the federal government is also discussed. Each chapter inPart II has two sections: (1) an introduction with highlighted example projectsand (2) case studies. Chapter 3 describes the selection criteria for case studiesand the research approach used in collecting the data and background infor-mation for the case studies.

Livability topics covered in Chapters 4 through 9 include transit’s role inthe following:

• Creating places for community life,• Acting as a catalyst for the renewal and revitalization of neighborhoods

and entire downtowns,• Creating opportunities for entrepreneurship and local economic devel-

opment,• Making communities safer and more comfortable,

THE ROLE OF TRANSIT IN CREATING LIVABLE

METROPOLITAN COMMUNITIES

• Making connections between neighborhoods, downtowns, and com-munity destinations more accessible and convenient, and

• Shaping community growth.

Part III of the report is a guide to implementation. Chapter 10 outlines aseries of model partnerships created between communities and transit agen-cies, a specific process for developing such partnerships, and steps to followfor involving communities in the planning, design, and management of transitprojects and other livability initiatives. Chapter 11 provides a checklist ofdesign, management, and transit strategies and how they can be used toaddress specific local problems as part of a place-making process.

Chapter 12 concludes by offering the next steps in this evolving partner-ship between transit and communities.

A bibliography and related literature and the results of research conductedto define livability, as well as actual livability studies, are found in Appen-dixes A and B, respectively.

2

Part I

Overview and Context

This page left intentionally blank.

A revolution is going on today in American commu-nities. Citizens are discovering that by working inpartnership with government, they can reshape theirneighborhoods and downtowns into vital, attractive,comfortable—and more livable—places.

A potent tool has emerged in this movement, onethat is an important but still largely unrecognized cat-alyst for improving community life. That tool is trans-portation. Transportation facilities and networks arenatural focal points for the kinds of activities that helprestore a positive sense of community. This expandedrole for transportation started with transit and hasnow spread to traffic planning.

This report is based on a year-long research effort toidentify examples of best practices and provide concreteevidence of how transit can be a contributing force inachieving greater livability in all communities. Fol-lowing a brief overview of the role played by trans-portation in community life, case studies arepresented in which transit serves to foster livability.To assist in applying this process to other communi-ties, a process for planning and implementingimprovements, whereby transit agencies work in part-nership with communities, is also presented.

WHAT IS “LIVABILITY”?

Bookstores today are filled with guides to “the bestplaces to live in America.” Using census statistics,weather data, broad community surveys, and a rangeof other methods, researchers found when people say“livability,” they mean clean air and water, safestreets, positive race relations, affordable homes,quality public schools, greenery and open space,uncongested roads, and low taxes, among otherthings. (A detailed discussion of methods used todefine livability and their findings appears inAppendix B.) Indeed, the avid interest in livabilitytoday seems to have emerged because people are

increasingly recognizing the unlivable aspects of theplaces where they live, work, and spend recreationaltime.

People express their strongest concerns about thelivability of their communities when referring toproblems encountered on a daily basis. For example,they talk about difficulty crossing streets and feelingthreatened by automobile traffic. They grieve aboutthe replacement of distinctive local structures withsterile and characterless architecture. They complainabout a lack of parks to sit or stroll in and the dearthof scenic vistas. They lament the disappearance ofcenters where people once came together and tookpart in activities such as shopping, mailing letters,eating out, going to the theater, catching a train orbus, visiting the library, or meeting friends. Theseconcerns reflect an underlying sense of isolation anderosion of community life. The result is more andmore people are feeling a loss of community as wellas a lack of control over and connection to theirchanging local environment.

Even though “livability” is difficult to define, peopleare able to apply it as a concept to their own commu-nity and way of life. Striving for livability puts theunlivable aspects of communities into clear focus andhelps channel local energies into projects and programsthat address daily livability problems. The case studiespresented in this report clearly show how this processworks: how communities set priorities for improvinglivability and establish programs that address commu-nity needs, problems, and visions for betterment.

CONCERNS ABOUTCOMMUNITY LIVABILITY

People everywhere are concerned about the livabil-ity of their communities. Specifics cited include safetyand fear of crime, easy access to jobs, availability andaffordability of housing, diminishing environmental

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

5

quality, educational quality, race relations, runawaygrowth, and traffic congestion.

Concern about livability is not confined to neighbor-hoods in large inner cities: it exists in suburbs, smalltowns, and even in the smallest villages. This concernis expressed by residents of cities losing population aswell as by city dwellers in booming regions. It comesup in poor and wealthy communities alike, and amongpeople of varied ages and backgrounds. It is clear thatAmericans are facing a national livability dilemma.

Transportation strongly impacts community livabil-ity concerns. People are beginning to realize that

designing cities and suburbs to accommodate theautomobile has often diminished, not improved,quality of life. Intrusive roads have created barriersthat disrupt communities and erode their physicaland social cohesion. At the same time, public trans-portation options are often viewed as inadequatealternatives. As a result, many communities end upwith transportation networks that simply passthrough them, without responding to communityneeds, relating to their surroundings, or reflectinglocal character.

A PLACE-MAKING APPROACHTO LIVABILITY

. . . Places have an impact on our sense of self, our sense ofsafety, the kind of work we get done, the ways we interactwith other people, even our ability to function as citizens ina democracy. In short the places where we spend time affectthe people we are and can become. [1]

—Tony Hiss, The Experience of Place

The two concepts of community and place are inseparable.‘Place’ is the vessel within which the ‘spirit’ of communityis stored; ‘Community’ is the catalyst that imbues a loca-tion with a ‘sense’ of place. The two are not divisible. Youcannot have community without place; and a place withoutcommunity is a location. A group of people with a sharedconcern but not a shared place is an interest group, not acommunity. [2]

—Donovan Rypkema

Urbanists focus on the micro before wrestling with themacro and understand that, in reality, the macro onlychanges for the better in micro steps . . . Innovation andingenuity are the prevailing characteristics. Perseverancein the face of naysayers and determination in the face ofobstacles are prerequisites. Step by step, essential and nat-ural growth follows and spreads until larger areas prosperover time. [3]

—Roberta Gratz, The Living City

This report explores a place-making approach tolivability, an approach that involves assessing theconcerns and needs of a local community and thenusing this assessment to make improvements to themany places in that community. Because this ap-proach focuses on “places,” it can apply to any com-munity, regardless of differences in socioeconomicstatus, demographic makeup, or even geographiclocation.

Discussions about livability are often too broad orattempt to cover too large a geographic area to lead tothe development of practical strategies that addresslocal community concerns. Making communities livablethrough a place-making approach connects the con-cept of livability to the specific places used by peoplein communities. It begins at a scale that a communityfinds both manageable and relevant: a small area

6

Figure 1-1. Peachtree Street in suburban Atlanta, GA, lacksa sense of place. (Credit: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

Figure 1-2. Livable places bring people together. (Credit:Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

around where people live or work, one that is probablyno larger than a downtown or a neighborhood. When“closer to home” problems are defined, residents of anarea are not only better able to identify priorities, butthey are also more likely to become involved in aplace’s improvement.

Communities are usually composed of many smallareas, and improvement to specific places can cumula-tively produce success on a broader scale. This place-making approach thus provides a way for municipalagencies and transit operators, which operate on ametropolitan or regional level, to take steps towardaddressing a community’s livability goals.

While place-making does include design strategies,design is only a part of it. Many places have beenimproved through better provision of municipal ser-vices without any physical changes at all. Improvingthe maintenance and management of a public space,upgrading security, or establishing a special-events orvending program are all strategies for improving aplace without making design changes. The develop-ment of special management districts to oversee suchactivities, funded by special assessments agreed to byproperty owners, has flourished across the country inboth large cities and small towns as more local orga-nizations have begun to take responsibility for ensur-ing that their commercial districts are safe, attractive,clean, active, and comfortable.

TRANSIT AND PLACE-MAKING

There is a kind of mass transit cities used to be very richin . . . the kind that is part of the fabric of the city itself,doesn’t just go overhead and take people whoosh, but linksall kinds of places within the city and that’s the kind of

mass transit we need to reconstitute . . . In a really healthycity, it’s something that knits the whole thing together . . .

—Jane Jacobs [4]

When you have this train running down the middle of thestreet every 3 1⁄ 2 min, you don’t believe there’s going to bemurder and robbery and violence.

—Alec Keefer, Architectural Conservancy of Ontario [5]

A focus on place-making can bring the ridershipgoals of the transit agency and the livability goals ofthe community together. For transit operators, thismeans that each decision made to provide service,locate a station or stop and maintain that stationshould be made in the context of how transit can con-tribute positively to the experience of that place.Mobility options must be developed and improved inresponse to expressed as well as observed communityneeds. These transportation options also must beregarded as a set of alternatives (cars, buses, trains,vans, bicycles, walking) that fit into a community’sbroader vision as well as its self-image. When there isno existing community-based vision, transit plannersshould be prepared to insist that one be developed orlearn to facilitate its development. Regardless of whoguides this process, transit decisions should be madeso as to complement and help realize a community’svision and plans.

Opportunities for Communities

Case studies in this report demonstrate how transitservices and facilities are already contributing to thelivability of metropolitan communities throughoutthe United States—although clearly much more can

7

Figure 1-3. A revitalized street corner in downtown NewHaven, CT, features amenities and activities of a successful“place.” (Credit: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

Figure 1-4. Harvard Square, in Cambridge, MA, is not only a world renowned “place” but also a transit hub serv-ing both residents and tourists. (Credit: Project for PublicSpaces, Inc.)

be done in many more communities. This report pre-sents projects that involve communities, not just in apro forma “approval” process, but in assuming afundamental role transforming transit stations, andeven bus stops, into community focal points. Transitagencies are establishing facilities like day care andsenior centers as part of transit facilities. Transit isbeing integrated into downtowns in a visible andpositive manner, through the creation of centralizedtransfer centers and specially designed streets thathelp stimulate economic development. New, flexible,neighborhood van systems now exist that cater tothe needs of residents who find existing public tran-sit to be inaccessible or inconvenient. Many of thenew light rail systems around the country havebrought new riders aboard—sometimes many morethan expected—and have successfully changed tran-sit’s image and use in automobile dominant citieslike St. Louis and Denver.

Although the process for developing projects ofthis type is not new, recognition of the relationshipbetween transit and the needs of communities and ofthe importance of a process that facilitates transit’sresponse to these needs is new. Community groupsare rediscovering the value of services offered bytrains, buses, and community shuttles and areembarking on projects that expand their use. Moreimportantly, they are recognizing how transit ser-vices and facilities can enhance the livability of adowntown or a neighborhood. Although many pro-jects are small or still in the planning stages, researchfor this report revealed that this community-oriented approach to addressing livability throughtransit is gaining momentum and that passion anddedication for community projects is waiting to betapped.

However, obstacles still exist. The public, commu-nity organizations, and local governments do notalways understand the connection between transitand livability. Most quality-of-life studies show thattransportation in general is not currently a primarydetermining factor in influencing where peoplechoose to live. Transit agencies themselves, therefore,need to recognize that the services they provide andfacilities they create can have an enormous, positiveimpact on the livability of the neighborhood placesthey serve.

Opportunities for Transit

Historically, transit has been the central organizingfeature around which communities were built andfunctioned. Today, transit needs a new direction if itis to continue to function effectively in metropolitanareas designed around the car. This challenge is par-

ticularly critical in areas outside the northeasternUnited States and other major transit cities. However,the long-term decline in transit ridership, even incities like New York, shows that this problem is notgeographically limited.

To ensure its own future, transit must become morevisible and connected to people’s lives and the lives ofthe communities it serves. A transformation isrequired, much like the recent turn-around in the field of urban policing. Cities like New York, St. Louis,and Seattle have experienced extraordinary decreasesin crime, largely because of the return of the “cop onthe beat” and “community policing,” where police,citizens, and communities work together to reducecrime and improve the quality of life. This has com-pletely changed the way police departments provideservices and the way communities and police interactwith one another.

While contributing toward the livability of a com-munity is an admirable goal in itself, it is important toemphasize that there are other important benefits ofthis approach for transit agencies. Community build-ing is an important and visible public business: theresult can be tangible projects to which local officialscan point with pride, thereby helping to build futuresupport for transit. Working directly with communi-ties, especially people who only occasionally use tran-sit, helps to build a broader constituency of supportfor transit as well. Making transit better serve theneeds of a community can translate not only into newtransit riders, but a force that can lobby for funding toexpand and improve service.

Finally, direct economic benefits also can accrue toa transit agency when it develops its facilities andproperties to incorporate uses and activities—rangingfrom cafes to post offices—that generate income whileproviding a much needed service to transit patrons.Although such benefits are routinely considered partof major rail investments, they are often overlookedby the nation’s bus operators who handle most oftoday’s transit riders.

A community-based approach for transit works. Ina day when many focus on the limits and constraintsof transit, there are reasons to be optimistic about thefuture role of transit in communities. The key isenabling transit agencies to recognize and value theirrelevance in people’s lives and to encourage morecommunities to work in partnership with transitagencies.

FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR TRANSITAND LIVABLE COMMUNITIES

Many of the activities described in this reportwould not have been possible without the support of

8

the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) LivableCommunities Initiative and the Intermodal SurfaceTransportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991. By fos-tering new approaches to applying transportation inthe service of community life, both are bringing aboutpositive changes.

The FTA’s Livable Communities Initiative hasprovided major funding and support for projectsaround the country, including many presented in thisreport. The FTA’s Livable Communities Initiative has15 capital demonstration projects underway. It also issponsoring a series of transportation-based townmeetings and developing an innovative travelingexhibition promoting a holistic approach to transit,including a video for display at conferences, work-shops and symposia across the United States. TheFTA also is writing a guidebook for livable communi-ties and is developing guidelines for public/privatepartnerships around its facilities. Growing Smart is aplanning document being produced by the Depart-ment of Housing and Urban Development in partner-ship with FTA, Environmental Protection Agency,and American Planning Association. It will signifi-cantly update examples of model United States devel-opment and planning guidelines to combat sprawland promote transit-oriented development. In 1996,the initiative focused on evaluating projects under-way in order to document the benefits of community-sensitive transit.

ISTEA, which has fundamentally redirected trans-portation policy, was also instrumental in many of theprojects presented here. ISTEA has expanded localdiscretion for transportation investment decisions,including the diverting of highway funds into transit,pedestrian, and bicycle projects. ISTEA has also man-dated greater public participation in decision making,encouraging investment in projects that link transitfacilities to their communities and in projects thatenhance livability through transit.

This report arrives at the moment when the U.S.Department of Transportation has committed itself toa new initiative, the National Partnership for Trans-portation and Livable Communities. This partnershipbrings together public and private nonprofit entitiesas well as foundations to advance the place of trans-portation (transit and highway) as a tool for creatinglivable communities. This will be achieved througheducation and outreach, research and information

exchange, and technical assistance and demonstrationprojects.

ABOUT THIS REPORT

This report is divided into three parts.Part I, the Overview, describes the place-making

approach to livability and explores the relationshipsbetween transportation and livability that are keys tounderstanding the case studies presented in the report.

Part II presents the specific ways in which transitcan support the livability of communities, usingextensive case studies as examples.

Part III is a practical guide to implementation,including a planning process and helpful suggestionson implementing the process. Case studies of partner-ships involving transit agencies with city govern-ments, community organizations and privatedevelopers are also presented to show the numerousways programs and projects can be implemented.

The Appendixes A and B, respectively, contain a bib-liography and related literature and the results of thein-depth research conducted on livability and qualityof life and what these mean to communities.

A video was produced in conjunction with thisreport that presents an overview of the case studiescovered and the planning, decision making, and place-making approaches outlined in the report. This video isintended to be used to assist communities in imple-menting projects and programs similar to thosedescribed in this report. (See Foreword for availability.)

ENDNOTES

1. Tony Hiss, The Experience of Place, Alfred A. Knopf, NewYork, New York (1990) p.1.

2. Donovan Rypkema, “Place, Community, and EconomicDevelopment,” a talk delivered at the AnnualConference of the National Trust for HistoricPreservation in St. Louis (September 29, 1993) as quotedin Roberta Gratz, The Living City, p.iii.

3. Roberta Gratz, The Living City: How America’s Cities AreBeing Revitalized by Thinking Small in a Big Way, ThePreservation Press, Washington, DC (1994) pp.ii–iii.

4. Gratz, p.xxiii.5. Alfred Holden, “Why Toronto Works,” Planning

Magazine, American Planning Association, Chicago,Illinois (March 1995) p.6.

9

Transportation plays a role in almost everyone’sdaily life. It is intrinsically woven into the fabric ofour existence, encompassing not only how we getfrom place to place, but also how we conduct ourdaily routines and the choices we make about whatwe do. Getting to work, school, or appointments, run-ning errands, shopping, socializing and recreationalpursuits are among the many things we do that areaffected by the kinds of transportation available (or notavailable) to us. Location of transportation facilities,design of streets and sidewalks and even placement ofon-street parking can make all the difference in howwe experience these day to day endeavors.

Because transportation is so tied to our daily lives,it provides a perfect opportunity to address the liv-ability concerns of our communities. For example,when train stations, bus stops or transfer facilities arecentrally situated, easy to reach, with convenient con-nections, they make it simple to get where we’regoing, without having to drive. Ample sidewalks andsafe-to-cross streets also simplify our lives by givingus opportunities to walk, bicycle or stroll to our desti-nations while being able to look around, mingle withothers and take part in all kinds of other activities,like shopping, eating, and entertainment.

Transportation can also enhance the quality of thegeneral living environment when it responds to people’s needs. When transit facilities provide pleas-ant waiting places with comfortable seating, con-genial food service, clean restrooms, helpful signageand other amenities in lively, attractive surroundings,they become important places in their communitiesthat people can enjoy. Similarly, streets designed tothe scale of people, with colorful plantings, pleasingstreet furniture and positive activities, offer environ-

ments where people can feel safe, relaxed and free tosavor life around them.

What’s more, when transportation is people-oriented,it can help build communities and restore communitylife. It can provide the accessibility and exposure thathelps develop business. It can allow for entrepreneurialopportunities by molding public spaces and trans-portation facilities that can nurture start-up enter-prises. It can spur the identity and cohesiveness thatbring communities together and help them grow andbecome safer and more attractive.

A ROLE FOR TRANSPORTATION AS A PLAYER IN BUILDING COMMUNITIES

For transportation to play an effective role inimproving the livability of communities, it mustbecome more of an integral part of community lifeand have a more direct link to the idea of “place.”This view of transportation, as a catalyst for strength-ening community life in the United States, also callsfor a new way of measuring the success of transporta-tion facilities.

In the case of streets and roads, the idea of trans-portation as a catalyst for community livability goesbeyond the movement of vehicles as the sole bell-wether of success to encompass the comfort andsafety of pedestrians and bicyclists as well as theaccommodation of alternative mobility options tomeet the varying needs of different individuals withinthe community. It also includes requirements for anattractive, inviting, more human-scale street environ-ment that reflects, preserves and enhances a commu-nity’s unique personality, provides opportunities forpeople to come together and is supportive of local

CHAPTER 2

The Impact of Transportation on Livability

Transportation is at the core of everything.—Roberta Gratz, The Living City [1]

10

11

businesses. This translates into commercial and resi-dential areas where traffic moves more slowly instreets that are not excessively wide and are betterconnected to adjacent uses, in terms of scale, func-tion and design. It also sets the stage for wellmarked pedestrian crosswalks, light cycles that aretimed for walkers, not just drivers, convenient on-street parking, public amenities, attractive landscap-ing and management practices that increase theflexibility of existing roadway space to accommodatedifferent kinds of uses at different times.

In the case of transit facilities, such as those pre-sented in this report, this idea extends beyond systemoperations. It includes serving passengers’ preferencesand needs and focusing on how transit facilities canact as catalysts for regenerating surrounding commu-nities as well as on how they can serve as centers ofcommunity life. This translates into transit facilitiesthat are conveniently located in downtowns ratherthan on the outskirts of town. It also has resulted instations and transfer centers that look inviting, areeasily accessible on foot, provide amenities, andencourage local businesses to supply on-premiseservices, or to take part in local activities. It has createdfacilities like bus and trolley stops that are combinedwith other community uses that spur improvements tosurrounding areas and create centers of activity. In thecase of transit services, it has meant a new flexibility inproviding alternative transit options such as smallscale van and circulator systems.

TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIESIMPACTING LIVABILITY

Three overall transportation strategies that impactlivability are explored below. They are transit strategies,traffic-calming strategies, and transportation and land-use strategies. Of these, only case studies of transitstrategies are presented in this report. [2]

Transit Strategies

Transit strategies that help create livable communi-ties are presented in this report, with Part II devotedto presenting many specific examples and case stud-ies of how transit makes an impact. Strategies fall intotwo basic categories: design-oriented strategies andservice-oriented strategies. Although they can be dis-cussed separately, they very often work together.

Design-Oriented Strategies

Bus, light rail, heavy rail, and subway stops havethe potential to be centers of community life. Design-

oriented strategies enhance the comfort and conve-nience of transit users, while having a positive impacton the surrounding area. With proper design andincentives, transit stops can attract a variety of activi-ties and uses (like retail, community services, andspecial events) which increase the sense of securityand help create an incubator for small retailers andentrepreneurs from the local community.

Acting as a stimulus for commercial redevelopmentand neighborhood renewal, the stop or station can con-tribute toward the livability of an entire neighborhoodarea. Examples of these design-oriented strategies areredesign of bus and trolley stops to support adjacentretail uses; introduction of improved public spacesaround a commuter rail station; and creation of trans-portation centers and intermodal terminals that serveas catalysts for neighborhood-scale development.

Service-Oriented Strategies

Service-oriented strategies are essentially transit ser-vices that increase mobility within a neighborhoodarea. For the purposes of this study, service-orientedstrategies that only target special user groups (like spe-cial vans to transport the elderly or people with disabil-ities to specific social services) were excluded. Thefocus is on services that are currently available to thegeneral public (including these special user groups) toimprove livability through better mobility and access.

Service-oriented strategies include transit shuttlesand connectors, which link residential neighbor-hoods with commuter rail and rapid transit stations;circulators and trolleys, which enable shoppers, visitors and office workers to move more freely aboutthe central business district; and neighborhood-based

Figure 2-1. This bus shelter in Portland, OR, is one of manyamenities provided on this successful downtown transitmall. (Credit: Tri-Met, Portland)

transportation services. Introduction of these localtransportation services helps support the goals ofneighborhood livability by facilitating internal circu-lation to local destinations not well served by regulartransit services. These new services carry residents toand from homes to jobs, shops, and local services:they transport the elderly to medical appointments,take children of working parents to day care centersand schools, serve the disabled, and transport resi-dents to community-based social services. In metro-politan areas served by rail transit or regional busservices, small vans shuttle neighborhood residentsto the nearest stations, providing convenient accessto economic, educational, cultural, and recreationalopportunities offered by the region.

While all these service-oriented strategies have thepotential to add to community convenience and liv-ability, it is important to remember that their effec-tiveness depends on their management. This includes,for example, efficient scheduling along with provid-ing scheduling information, coordination of connec-tions, user orientation, vehicle maintenance, andsensitive and responsive personnel.

“Traffic-Calming” Strategies

The impact of both design- and service-orientedkinds of transit improvements will be reduced, how-ever, unless streets or roads also support communitycharacter and needs. Streets and roads can knit com-munities together and enhance the character andidentity of the places where they pass. They canbecome symbols of pride for a community, have aconsiderable economic impact on local businesses and

help create strong and viable community centers. Inother words, improving the livability of streets is notjust a pedestrian, vehicle traffic, bicycle, or transitissue—all must be considered together. It is importantto balance all of the functions on a street so that theyserve users. This balanced approach to the use ofstreets has come to be known as “traffic calming.”

Traffic calming is a term that emerged in Europe todescribe the practice of slowing down cars, but notnecessarily banning them, as they move through com-mercial areas and residential neighborhoods. The ben-efit for pedestrians, transit riders, and bicyclists is thatcars now drive at speeds that are safer and more com-patible with walking and bicycling. Buses no longerhave to vie for limited space and access. There is, infact, a kind of equilibrium achieved among all of theuses of a street so no one mode can dominate at the

12

Figure 2-2. This historic style “trolley” bus links a downtownterminal in Corpus Christi, TX, with local attractions. Sincethe “trolley” was initiated, ridership has increased signifi-cantly. (Credit: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

Figures 2-3 and 2-4. European experience with traffic calming is very extensive; this town is one of hundreds inDenmark that have redesigned their residential and com-mercial streets to make them more pedestrian-friendly(Figure 2-3). In the United States, cities like San Bernardino,CA, have begun traffic calming efforts of their own, in thisexample by introducing diagonal parking (Figure 2-4).(Credit: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

expense of another. The objective of traffic calmingtherefore necessitates a change in the role and goals oftraffic engineers who traditionally have been asked tomove traffic as efficiently and quickly as possible.

Traffic calming also requires an understanding ofnew techniques: one based on traffic-managementstrategies, the other on physical design. Traffic-management strategies include issuance of center-citypasses, truck restrictions, signalization systems, trans-portation system management, parking management,traffic-reduction ordinances, car and fuel taxation,and speed limits. Traffic-calming design techniquescreate physical impediments to speeding, such asroad narrowed lanes for vehicles, undulations in theroadway, crosswalks raised to sidewalk level, and ele-ments that create pinch points or gateways to a street.Because a wide and straight street with perfect visibil-ity is most conducive to speeding, these and othersimilar approaches are intended to alter driver per-ception and encourage slower speeds.

In general, well-conceived traffic-calming programsaddress the broad issues of a street and go well beyondvehicle concerns to enhance pedestrian, bicycle, andtransit activities. For example, a sidewalk can bewidened at an intersection to create a larger space fora bus stop shelter and seating. This wider sidewalkalso reduces the width of the street for pedestrianswho are crossing. The bus no longer has to pull in andout of traffic to pick up or drop off passengers,thereby speeding service, although momentarilydelaying traffic. If the crosswalk is raised to sidewalklevel, drivers are further encouraged to drive at lowerspeeds. Perhaps an adjacent business is created (or anewsstand located) to serve transit riders. All of thesestrategies work together, therefore, to create a balanceof uses at that corner.

Transportation and Land-Use Strategies

Where and how Americans live has changedalmost completely in the past 50 years. Fifty yearsago, there was little suburban sprawl. People lived insmall towns near cities, or they lived in cities ortowns themselves. Compact, dense development wascreated by, and continued to be supported by, anextensive network of public transportation. Fiftyyears ago, even Los Angeles had its “Red Car” trolleysystem, which is now gone. During the first half ofthe twentieth century, people marveled at the growthof cities. This has paled by comparison with thegrowth during the second half of the century.

This massive transformation of cities, suburbs, andtowns has been paralleled by unprecedented eco-nomic prosperity and growth. Yet it is clear that this

transformation has not been without its costs. The“American Dream” of spread-out, free-rangingdevelopment has come home to roost in places thatlack human scale or identity, and with serious damage,if not downright destruction, to the central locales andneighborhoods that have long given people their com-munal focus and sense of belonging.

Much of this sprawling development has beenrelated to land-use policies that favor low density andcomplete separation of residential and commercialuses. In the long run, if lasting and effective trans-portation improvements that act as a permanent, pos-itive force for livability are to be achieved, then theymust take place within the context of an overall land-use policy designed to further the preservation and

13

Figure 2-5 and 2-6. Aerial views of Harvard Square inCambridge, MA (Figure 2-5) and suburban Los Angeles,CA (Figure 2-6) illustrate dramatically the differencebetween traditional and contemporary land-use patternsand transportation networks. (Credit: Project for PublicSpaces, Inc.)

revitalization of dense, lively town centers as well asthe creation of new nodes near public transportation.Such a policy can nurture initiatives that clusteractivities around transit hubs, provide opportunitiesfor short commutes and easy walking, promote alter-native transit use and avoid the wastes of energy,land, and the environment that sprawl creates.

There is considerable existing literature on thesubject of how macroscale land-use patterns andurban form encourage or discourage transit-orientedcommunities. This literature describes the principles(such as “The Ahwahnee Principles”) of changingthe way American suburbs are structured to encour-age more dense, transit-oriented communities. The“neotraditional” communities movement is animportant lead in this effort. (See, for example, LandUse Strategies for More Livable Communities, by TheLocal Government Commission, Sacramento, CA.)The TCRP also has completed major research towardthis effort (TCRP Report 16, “Transit and UrbanForm”).

Fortunately, there are encouraging signs today of abroadening perspective, a growing awareness of therole of transit in the development process and in thecreation of livable communities. A growing recogni-tion of the importance of land use broadens the dis-cussion further. Transportation planners increasinglyview transportation and land use as complementarycomponents of the larger metropolitan system. Nowthe question transportation planners often ask is: howcan communities be designed to provide a better

environment for pedestrians, bicyclists and transitriders, and thus reduce automobile dependence?They also may ask: how can more opportunities andactivities be provided within closer distances, andthus reduce total travel? Transportation planners areimplicitly asking: how can accessibility be enhancedby changing land-use patterns rather than only byexpanding the transportation system?

CONCLUSIONS

The case studies that follow in Part II show how thetransit strategies discussed above are being used incommunities throughout the United States and howthey are succeeding at fostering greater livability. Eachof these strategies has its own specific applications inresponse to specific local issues and opportunities, andall of them are not necessarily applicable in all cases.In many cases, however, a combination of strategiesare at work, which demonstrate the intrinsic relation-ship between transportation and community life.

ENDNOTES

1. Roberta Gratz, The Living City, p.xviii.2. In 1997, additional research will be completed to docu-

ment specific case studies of management strategies,which enhance streets so that they too contribute to com-munity livability goals and support more efficient, effec-tive, and convenient transit operations.

14

Part II

Roles of Transit in CreatingLivable Communities

This page left intentionally blank.

This chapter describes the many ways that transitcurrently helps to create livable metropolitan commu-nities. Case studies, which describe in detail the origin,planning process, overall strategy, and assessment ofeach program exemplify specific roles. The researchteam has organized the case studies according to specific livability issues in order to reinforce the connection between transit strategies and broadercommunity goals.

The case studies are not meant to illustrate everypossible program and role that transit can play, rather,they are indicative of types of projects. The researchteam has attempted to provide a variety of innovativecase studies representing different geographic areas,transit operating environments, transit ridership lev-els, and types of transit modes. Most of the projectsconform to the overall place-making framework that ispresented in Chapter 1, that is, they entail a high levelof community involvement in design, planning, andimplementation through some kind of communitypartnership. Because most projects fulfill more thanone community livability goal, the introduction toeach chapter cross-references case studies from othersections of the report that are relevant to the livabilityissues under discussion.

CASE STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA

The case studies presented in the report wereselected according to the following criteria:

• They demonstrate a link between transit and commu-nity livability objectives. Case studies illustrate“best practices” in one or all of the followingways and transit is a key component of theseefforts:– Active community involvement in planning

process;– Integration of facility or system as part of larger

community development or improvement strat-

egy—encouraging a high level of accessibilitywith less auto-dependence;

– Facility design, amenities, elements, public ser-vices and activities that respond to transit userand community needs;

– Innovative implementation strategies, throughcommunity-based, public-private partnerships;and

– Innovative management strategies forsecurity, maintenance, and other operations.

• There is considerable transferability to other places inthe United States. The examples included in thesite visits and case studies will illustrate initia-tives or objectives that other communities couldpursue and achieve. Indeed, it is important thatreaders interested in a specific geographic areaor transit mode consult all the case studies,because there are “generic” aspects of all ofthem that may have bearing on a specific localsituation.

• Different locations throughout the United States, aswell as different sizes and types of communities andtransit systems, are included. The examples willshow that the concept of transit contributing tolivable communities can be effectively pursued,regardless of geography or type of transit service.Examples include both suburban areas and innercity communities, as well as downtowns andneighborhoods, large cities and small. Examplesalso provide a range of transit strategies, includ-ing place-oriented strategies and service-orientedstrategies.

• A range of budgets is represented. The case studies illustrate short-term, small-scale effortsthat have had an impact, as well as major andcostly capital programs and redevelopmentprojects. Even many of the major, expensiveprograms had components that were in-expensive and were implemented in a shortperiod of time.

CHAPTER 3

Introduction and Approach to Case Studies

17

• Transit has had an impact. Case studies clearlyshow how and why transit was critical toimproving livability.

• Transit and land-use policies are linked. The rela-tionship between transit and supportive land-use policies is important and is illustrated,especially in Chapter 9, “Shaping CommunityGrowth.”

• Transit investment is performed differently because acommunity is already livable. Case studies demon-strate how communities benefit from customer-focused transit services and investments andhow transit benefits from livable communitiesthrough increased ridership, more positive pub-lic image, and better use of facilities.

• Obstacles have been overcome. Transit innovationsoften face many internal as well as externalobstacles and barriers. In nearly every projectcovered, obstacles had to be overcome, whichinfluenced the nature of the final outcome andmade a project or program even stronger.

• Practitioners will find useful information andinsights. The transit industry and local communi-ties are primary audiences for the researchresults. Consequently, they should benefit fromthe information and be able to use it to improvecommunities and local transit services quicklyand easily.

RESEARCH APPROACH

Research for this study was accomplished througha series of site visits to ten communities to observeand document actual projects and programs that havebeen implemented, as well as to discuss projects withinnovative planning processes where implementationis in process. The following communities wereselected:

• Boston, Massachusetts;• Boulder, Colorado;• Chicago, Illinois;• Corpus Christi, Texas;• Los Angeles, California;• New York City/New Jersey*;• Oakland, California;• Portland, Oregon;• Tucson, Arizona; and• Suburban Washington, DC.

* Statewide programs of New Jersey Transit

For each site, the research team accomplished thefollowing activities.

Background Research

In preparation for the site visit, the research teamconducted telephone interviews to identify innova-tive local programs and potential participants for the focus group discussion. In addition, PPS col-lected background planning reports, program evaluation studies, and current relevant socioeco-nomic data.

Focus Groups

PPS facilitated focus group meetings with localtransit, transportation and community developmentofficials to describe projects and programs takingplace elsewhere in the country. This gave local offi-cials more information about what was happeningelsewhere, as well as an opportunity to discuss spe-cific local livability concerns and projects and servicesthat exist or are needed in their communities. Each ofthe focus groups was different; while the same typesof people were invited to each group (a mix of publicand private sector representatives as well as peoplefrom local community organizations and advocacygroups) and the same slide show was presented, thediscussion varied greatly according to local issues andthe interests of those attending.

The following specific topics were discussed duringthe focus groups:

• Perceptions of livability: what are the commu-nity’s key livability issues?

• Community development and improvementactivities that have been implemented over thepast decade that were designed to improve thelivability of the community.

• Relationship between the transit agency andother community development activities andorganizations.

• Transit strategies implemented related toenhancing livability and responding to customerneeds, and what worked and what did not work;strategies that are in the planning process.

• If strategies were successful, where and how theyworked, including the extent of communityinvolvement in the planning process and thetypes of ongoing relationships and complemen-tary actions initiated between transit and com-munity development activities.

• Applicability of local successes to other locali-ties. What was special or unique about theseefforts?

• What still needs to be done and how this reportcould be of help.

18

Case Study Interviews

From each focus group site, specific projects wereselected, and these are highlighted in this report. Inaddition, detailed interviews were conducted withtransit staff and local community development officialsresponsible for the project or program. The purpose ofthe interviews was to obtain answers to the followingquestions:

• What prompted the project or program? Was there aparticular opportunity you were taking advantage of,or a particular problem you were trying to solve?

• Where did the ideas originate? Within the transit orga-nization? If so, in which department(s)? Outside theorganization? If outside, was it another agency? If so,which one? A community group? Other? Was the pro-gram or project part of a larger redevelopment orimprovement strategy for the area?

• How was the decision made to go ahead with the pro-gram? What was the process used? How long did ittake? Was there a reason why a specific location wasselected for the project/program? How was thisdecided?

• What was the public process used (workshops, publichearing, focus groups, etc.)? Was the process success-ful in obtaining community input and support?

• What role did other organizations or governmentagencies (such as community development, tourism,land-use planning, etc.) play? Was it a collaborativeeffort or an effort primarily of the transit agency?

• Who funded the project start-up? Were there othercomplementary activities or components to the projectthat came from other sources? Who funded these activ-ities?

• Who operates or manages the program/project? (Is itpublic? private? public-private?) What is the relation-ship to the transit agency? What does operation andmanagement entail? (maintenance? security? market-ing?) How much does it cost to operate/manage ? Whopays these operational costs?

• What obstacles did you face in implementing the pro-gram? Were these obstacles primarily within the transitagency or outside or both? Was the role of the transitagency different for this project/program than for itsusual activities? If so, has this role carried over intoother projects or programs?

• How did you overcome these obstacles? Do obstaclesstill exist? Who within the transit agency has been mostinstrumental in dealing with obstacles?

• Did you set a goal to describe what you wanted toachieve with these changes? Do you think you weresuccessful in achieving your goals? What is left to bedone? Have the goals been changed or refined overtime?

• What has been the response from customers/usersabout the program? Do you have any demographicinformation about users? Surveys of users or commu-nity? Ridership/usage information? Other impacts,

such as increase in retail sales or decrease in vacancyrates? Job creation? New real estate development? Morepedestrian traffic in area? How has the image of thetransit agency changed as a result of the program?

• What would you do differently if you were startingover?

• Is your experience transferable to other transit agenciesor communities? Do you have suggestions for how wemight distribute the results of this research so thatother communities might benefit from your experi-ence?

• Is there anyone else we should talk to?

Detailed User Case Study Evaluations

In three cities (Woodbridge, NJ; Portland, OR; andCorpus Christi, TX) a series of systematic data collec-tion efforts was undertaken to study people’s actualuse and perceptions of specific transit facilities.(The exact methodology used in each case studywas tailored to the particular project, althoughmethods for all case studies were consistent to allowcross comparisons.) In addition to the materials col-lected during the site visits, detailed user studiesincluded the following activities:

• Additional interviews with transit operating staff(drivers, maintenance workers, and ticketagents); local officials; representatives of down-town or neighborhood associations and mer-chant associations; and other key individuals.When appropriate, interviews were conducted ina focus-group format.

• Behavioral observations of activities within andaround the facility during the course of at leastone full day, including the types of activity(waiting, eating, and socializing), the type ofuser (age, sex, and so forth), and the location ofthat activity. These observations and studies ofactivity patterns at the facility were evaluated todetermine general types of uses and users.

• On-site surveys of users of the facility, nearbybusinesses and residents. PPS has developed andtested survey forms, which were used to solicitperceptions about a facility, frequency of use,general demographic information, and sugges-tions for improvement.

Telephone Surveys of Selected Model Projects

To supplement the information collected during thesite visits, the research team conducted telephone sur-veys of projects that were of substantial interest and

19

value to the study, but for which a site visit was notwarranted or possible. Telephone surveys of the fol-lowing cities were conducted:

• Aspen, Colorado;• Denver, Colorado;• Meridian, Mississippi;• St. Louis, Missouri;• Wilmington, Delaware; and• Seattle, Washington.

Preparation of Case Studies

Using the information collected, draft case studieswere prepared. When necessary, additional inter-views were conducted to obtain more information orto obtain the viewpoint of another person or organi-zation within the community. Draft case studies alsowere circulated to the local contacts listed on eachcase study for comment and to check the accuracy offacts. These comments have been integrated into thefinal case studies presented in this report.

LIVABILITY ISSUES PRESENTED

To present the case studies, the research teamfocused on six major livability issues. These livabilityissues are not, however, meant to be an exhaustive list and are also not intended to imply that there arenot other issues of concern to communities. Rather,these livability issues are ones that were important tocommunity studies and ones in which transit played akey role in addressing.

These are the six livability themes presented in thisreport.

Creating places for community life: Transit cansupport places—public spaces, streets and build-ings—helping to enliven their usage and makingthem centers for a range of community activities.

Serving as a catalyst for downtown and neighbor-hood renewal: Transit can serve as a key force in there-vitalization of neighborhoods and center cities.

Creating opportunity for entrepreneurship and economic development: Transit can help create new businesses and improve access to jobopportunities.

Improving safety and amenity: Transit can helpmake communities safer, in part by making themmore comfortable and attractive.

Making communities accessible and convenient:Transit services and facilities can be tailored to meetcommunity needs to provide a viable alternative tothe automobile.

Shaping community growth: Transit can be a key component of efforts aimed at reducing sprawland encouraging development of mixed-use centers.

Each chapter contains an introduction, whichbriefly presents the nature of the specific livabilityissue and how communities are addressing the con-cern. The specific roles of transit are then presented,cross-referencing case studies from other chapterswhere appropriate. (Case study names are shown initalics in the text.) Each chapter includes (1) briefexamples, which summarize particularly relevantprojects, and (2) more detailed case studies.

20

INTRODUCTION

One of the continuing themes in livability and qual-ity of life studies is the issue of “sense of place.” Thecombined impacts of sprawl, urban neglect and disin-vestment, traffic, and city budget constraints have ledto a situation in which we have few common placesthat bring people together and serve as a focal pointfor community life.

This was not always the case. Once, almost everyplace in a community—whether it was a downtownor a public library—served that goal. Today, manyeconomic centers are located in suburban areas wherepedestrian life tends to be nonexistent except in pri-vately owned, legally restrictive shopping centers. Asa result, there are few locations where a variety ofpeople can come into contact with each other in a pos-itive and inviting public environment.

In older cities, where spaces once thrived, publicplaces have been decimated by the same economicand social forces. “As more and more private space iscreated,” PPS staff wrote in a recent op-ed piece in theLos Angeles Times, “true public spaces are under in-creasing pressure to accommodate the cultural diver-sity of Los Angeles and to survive economically. . . .Malls cannot replace the traditional town square.” [2]The result in small towns, suburbs, and cities alike is alack of what can be broadly described as “places forcommunity life.”

Overview of Community Strategies

There is new interest today in reversing thistrend. Communities are working on a variety of“places” where people can come together. Theseplaces include public spaces—such as centralsquares, waterfront promenades, and parks—aswell as traditional, stand-alone public institutionslike libraries, schools, museums, public markets,and city halls. All of these traditional uses are beingreconsidered in cities across the country and arebecoming more multipurpose community-gatheringspots.

Pioneer Square in Portland, Oregon, is one of the firstin a new generation of public squares. No longer justpassive green spaces, these squares are designed to be programmed and used by the public. In fact, theinfrastructure for such uses is built in, and the spaceshave management entities in charge of them to ensuretheir effective use.

Streets as important community public spaces arealso being addressed. The impact of traffic, in particu-lar, on inhibiting pedestrian activity and makingspaces less hospitable for community activities wasdiscussed in Chapter 2. Indeed, without effective traf-fic control in the future, it will be difficult to createmore places for community life.

Finally, there are some more subtle design issuesrelated to the goal of creating centers for people.

CHAPTER 4

Creating Places for Community Life

The road is now like television, violent and tawdry. The landscape it runs through is littered withcartoon buildings and commercial messages. We whiz by them at fifty-five miles an hour and for-get them, because one convenience store looks like the next. They do not celebrate anythingbeyond their mechanistic ability to sell merchandise. We don’t want to remember them. We didnot savor the approach and we were not rewarded upon reaching the destination, and it will bethe same next time, and every time. There is little sense of having arrived anywhere, becauseeveryplace looks like noplace in particular.

—James Kunstler, The Geography of Nowhere [1]

21

Public art and special amenity features, for example,also contribute to a “sense of place,” as well as topeople’s use and enjoyment of public spaces. Artistsare now much more involved in street and publicspace projects where they actually create publicamenities—lights, benches, and other features—rather than stand-alone sculptures. Many spaces areactivated with temporary rather than permanentinstallations, or by art which invites public participa-tion and comment. All of this helps to reinforce thegoal of creating places that reflect the values and her-itage of a community.

Role of Transit

Because transit brings people to a location, it in-fluences the use and activity of these spaces and,indeed, transit is instrumental in making them workeffectively. Transit can enhance destinations, helpingto create community places by supporting existingspaces, as well as providing a place for new activi-ties and services. A transit facility need not be just aplace for transportation but can also become a set-ting for community interaction and a place thataccommodates a diversity of people.

Because transit stops come in all shapes, sizes, andlevels of use, there are abundant ways that transit cansupport places for community life. The transit ser-vices and facilities mentioned below are discussed inthis report.

Linking transit to existing public places is the sim-plest, and probably the most obvious and commonstrategy. Transit agencies usually plan their stops sothat they correspond to destinations like a mainsquare or a public library or school. The case study for

the Watts Shuttle in Los Angeles, however, shows howthe main transit system for the city did not adequatelyserve local, neighborhood destinations; the new shut-tle now does.

There is a difference between providing a transitstop at a public place and making that stop truly inte-gral to it. Pioneer Square in Portland, Oregon, is one ofthe premier examples in the country where transit isintegrated into a public square known as “Portland’sLiving Room.” Indeed, the two were designed at thesame time. At a larger scale, Union Station in Chicagoand South Station in Boston, both major commuter rail,bus, and Amtrak stations, have been revitalized tobecome focal points to the surrounding downtownareas.

Transit centers constitute a broadly defined strategyin which a bus stop, bus terminal, or train stationbecomes more than just a place for transportation. Forexample, Woodbridge Station in Woodbridge, New Jersey,was a well-used commuter rail station but was con-sidered to be a maintenance burden by the transitagency and in a state of disrepair. Its case studyshows how spaces around rail stations offer manypositive opportunities for the surrounding commu-nity: train stations can become centers of communitylife, be welcoming gateways, and provide places forinformation about local attractions.

By creating places where people come together,transit centers can create focal points for a variety ofactivities, as well as links to the larger regional transitsystem. It is possible, for example, that a bus transfercenter could include a staging area for employee com-muter vans, a terminal for a local neighborhood circu-lator, and a taxi stand. Such centers are planned forLINC in Seattle.

Serving as a neighborhood focus, the center canact as a catalyst for neighborhood-scale joint devel-opment. With proper design and incentives, transitcenters can attract a variety of activities and serviceestablishments, such as open-air fresh produce mar-kets (see Chapter 6), coffee shops, newsstands, videostore rentals, branch bank offices, heath clinics, andday care centers (e.g., KidStop Child Care Center,Shady Grove Metro Station, Rockville, Maryland.)Staples Street Station in Corpus Christi is designed toaccommodate future small-scale retail.

These types of uses need not be permanent. InTucson, the downtown transit center is used twice amonth as the center stage for “Downtown SaturdayNight.” In Portland, the Portland Saturday Market,which is served by a Metropolitan Area Express(MAX) light rail line stop in the center of the market,is a vibrant weekend attraction and a parking lot dur-ing the week.

22

Figure 4-1. Harvard Square T-Station, Cambridge, MA, is acommunity gathering place. (Credit: Project for PublicSpaces, Inc.)

ENDNOTES

1. James Kunstler, The Geography of Nowhere, Simon &Schuster, New York, New York (1993) p.131.

2. Fred I. Kent and Stephen C. Davies, “Hello, City Walk:But Can It Replace a Town Square?” Los Angeles Times(August 1, 1993).

EXAMPLES

Portland, OR: Tri-Met’s MAX Station AnchorsSaturday Market

For 20 years, the Portland Saturday Market hasbrought thousands of shoppers every weekend to theold warehouse district in downtown Portland,Oregon. As the largest craft market in continuousoperation in the country, the market has not only revi-talized the district around it, but has created thou-sands of jobs. The market features over 200 vendorsevery Saturday and Sunday from March throughDecember, and offers a wide variety of products:household wares, jewelry, furniture, sculpture—allmade and sold by local artists. Adding to the festivityof the place are food vendors and live entertainment.

When the market first opened, it was located underthe Burnside Bridge next to Ankeny Park because itoffered protection from Portland’s unpredictableweather. Today, the market has expanded from thislocation, so that vendors extend across the street andinto adjacent open areas. Several warehouse buildingsnow feature craft shops indoors.

The MAX light rail line, which began running in1986, includes a stop right in the center of the market.When MAX was originally proposed, organizers of

the Saturday Market opposed the project because theyfeared that the presence of trains would cut the marketin two and destroy the pedestrian environment. Aftercareful planning work and attention to detail by Tri-Met,the system operator, exactly the opposite happened.

The result is a place where transit could not be moreintegrated; indeed it becomes part of the vitality of themarket. Moreover, it brings hundreds of customers tothe market and increases transit ridership. In a surveythe research team conducted of people waiting for thetrain, the market was the main reason people were rid-ing the train. In addition, market vendors surveyedbelieved MAX was very important to their businesses,so not surprisingly the market is prominently adver-tised in the trains themselves. The Portland SaturdayMarket has been enhanced as a community institution.

Boston, MA: Health Clinic BecomesVisible and Provides AccessibleCommunity Service at Roxbury CrossingT-Station

The Health Station at Roxbury Crossing T-Station is run by the Whittier Street Neighborhood HealthCenter, which in 1993 moved into a space adjacent tothe Orange Line subway station. The Roxbury Stationis one of many newly built or renovated stationsalong the Orange Line, completed as part of theSouthwest Corridor project (see Case Study 5-1). Aspart of its renovation program, the Massachusetts BayTransportation Authority (MBTA) built space forretail into its new stations.

The T-Station location, the newest of three run by theWhittier Street Neighborhood Health Center, is used

23

Figures 4-2 and 4-3. Portland, OR, Saturday Market. The Portland Saturday Market is the largest craft market in continuousoperation in the United States. The market is served by the MAX light rail and transforms a downtown parking lot adjacent toa transit stop into a community center every weekend. (Credit: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

for the Center’s “Healthy Stop” community educationand outreach programs, which aim to prevent sub-stance abuse and teach good parenting skills; Women,Infants and Children (WIC) and optometry services arealso offered.

The Whittier Street Neighborhood Health Center iscurrently investigating additional MBTA property tohouse an “urgent care” out-patient, walk-in center. Itis anticipated that many of the patients who visit theemergency center will come by train. This new spacewill have entrances leading directly into the stationand out onto Main Street.

One difficulty that the operators of the centerdescribe is a lack of visibility because the buildingdoes not open directly into the station. In addition,working with the state and city authorities to buildout their space was time consuming and occasionallyfrustrating. Overall, the operators of the HealthStation feel that their location adjacent to the T-Station, centrally positioned on a main street, hasbeen good for business, particularly in terms ofattracting people from the community for the healthscreenings and polls they conduct.

Tucson, AZ: Downtown Saturday NightTransit Center Becomes Focal Point forDowntown Revitalization Event

The Tucson Arts District Partnership, Inc. (TADP)is a 5-year-old arts organization created to develop

and manage the Tucson Arts District, a cultural dis-trict intended to better serve the arts community andrevitalize downtown Tucson. One of the TADP’s mostsuccessful programs is “Downtown Saturday Night,”an arts and events series produced in collaborationwith Sun Tran, the transit agency of the City ofTucson. The “main stage” of the series is at theRonstadt Transit Center on the first and thirdSaturdays of each month.

Downtown Saturday Night functions as a community-wide arts district open house that attractsthousands of Tucson residents and visitors alike to thebus transit center for concerts, dance performances,theater, archery demonstrations, midnight basketball,and socializing. In addition to these events, adjacentshops, cafes and galleries stay open late to serveevent-goers.

The Ronstadt Transit Center, built in 1991 at a costof $6 million, is located near the Amtrak station andairport buses serving seniors, students, and com-muters traveling through the downtown corridor. TheRonstadt Transit Center was not originally designedas a venue for events and performance; utilities andother equipment were added to the facility after it wasbuilt. Because Sun Tran bus service at Ronstadt stopsat 8 p.m. on Saturdays, however, there is no conflict inusage. A new strategy is now needed so that peoplecan take the bus to Ronstadt to participate in the spe-cial events held there.

24

Figure 4-4. Health Station at Roxbury Crossing. By inte-grating a public health center into a subway station, theWhittier Street Neighborhood Health Center at RoxburyCrossing in Boston is able to reach and serve more of thepeople who require their services. The subway stationentrance is located at the far left of the photograph. (Credit:Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

Figure 4-5. Tucson, AZ, Downtown Saturday Night. On thefirst and third Saturday nights of the month, the RonstadtBus Transit Center in downtown Tucson becomes a centerstage and a venue for performances, concerts, and othercommunity events. (Credit: Jerry Ferrin Photography)

Corpus Christi, TX: Staples Street BusTransit Center Using Public Art to InspireCommunity Ownership of a Transit Facility

You hear all those clichés about community involvementand sense of ownership, but here, it became a reality. It wasa great thing to be part of.

—Ed Gates, artist

Active participation in the public art-makingprocess can help a community develop a sense ofownership about its local transit facilities. TheRegional Transit Authority and project architect andplanners of the Staples Street bus transit facilitywanted to integrate the transit facility into the com-munity. Under the guidance of a local artist—whohad a budget of $25,000—residents produced 1,500hand-painted ceramic tiles, which have been incorpo-rated into the Staples Street bus transit facility (seealso Case Study 9-3).

Tiles decorate the facility’s entrance arch, bases ofcolumns, benches, planters, light fixtures, and tele-phone booths. The Staples Street bus transit centerwas the recipient of a 1995 Presidential DesignAchievement Award and is featured in a recent jointpublication of the U.S. DOT and FTA regarding art-in-transit projects.

CASE STUDIES

Cases studies illustrate different aspects of howtransit can create places for community life. Althoughthe projects deal in different types of transit (bus, light

rail, commuter rail, and subway), each one involvedexpanding the traditional role of a transit stop into aplace for a variety of community activities.

Case Study 4-1: Portland, OR: Pioneer Courthouse Square Transit Key in Creating the City’s “Living Room”

Case Study 4-2: Woodbridge Station, NJ: Creatinga Sense of Place at a Commuter Rail Station

Case Study 4-3: Shady Grove Metro Station, MD:KidStop Child Care Center Helps Make aCommunity “Family-Friendly”

It’s not just about transit. It’s about a city.—PPS focus group participant

Building rail lines is not an end in itself. The Portland storyis more about community building than light rail building.MAX has been an effective means to the end of a livablecommunity. What the community is interested in is livabil-ity. We enjoy great support for transit and land use becausethey are the tools we use to achieve a livable community.

—G.B. Arrington, Director, Strategic Planning,Tri-Met [1]

Pioneer Square respects the street. It respects the city.—William H. Whyte

SUMMARY

The creation of this public space in downtownPortland cannot be separated from the fundamentalrole played by Tri-Met, the city’s transit agency.Planned concurrently with the new MetropolitanArea Express (MAX) light rail system, Pioneer Squarewas an idea that dated back to the 1950s when the sitewas a parking lot. Tri-Met leveraged its funding fortransit stops and an information center and helped tomake the Square financially possible.

With extraordinary public support, the Square wasbuilt to be “Portland’s living room,” a center for thelife of the city. Funded in part by the residents ofPortland, the Square has continued its tradition of citi-zen participation with thousands of communityevents held during the past decade. With the openingof the light rail system in 1986, Pioneer CourthouseSquare became both the city center and the bustlinghub of transit for buses and light rail, as well as themain information center for Tri-Met.

25

Figure 4-6. Corpus Christi Staples Street Bus TransitCenter. Local artist, Ed Gates, worked with more than1,500 members of the community to create hand-paintedtiles which decorate this new downtown transit facility.(Credit: Corpus Christi Regional Transportation Authority)

Case Study 4-1Portland, OR: Pioneer Courthouse Square TransitKey in Creating the City’s “Living Room”

PLANNING PROCESS

The Pioneer Square site has served many purposes.Once home to Portland’s first public school, it becamethe Hotel Portland in 1883—the place to stay and thecenter of downtown life. In the early 1950s, the hotelwas razed and became a parking lot for the adjacentdepartment store. Although the idea of making theparking lot a public square was discussed at that time,it was not seriously considered until 1969, when thedepartment store proposed a 10-story parking garageon the site. The Portland Planning Commission, afterseveral heated public hearings, denied the permit forthe garage and recommended that a public square bebuilt instead, with other peripheral sites chosen asalternative sites for garages.

The parking garage crisis initiated a planning dia-logue between the city and the business communityabout the future of the downtown area itself. In 1972,Portland adopted its innovative downtown plan—theplan that served for more than 20 years as the guidingvision for the city. This plan contained a strong trans-portation component: reducing reliance on the auto-mobile, increasing use of transit, and setting strictlimits on the amount of parking in the downtown.Coupled with the establishment of an urban growthboundary for the region and efforts to promote pedes-trian orientation downtown, the stage was set for therebirth of the declining city core.

It is not coincidental that one of the first major projects resulting from the plan was the Portland Mall,a largely federally funded transit mall, which extendsover 20 blocks on two parallel streets and providescomfortable waiting areas in attractive shelters, up-to-the-minute transit information, and easy transfersbetween lines. For the downtown, it provides anattractive brick promenade with trees and amenitiesfor shoppers and downtown office workers.

Pioneer Courthouse Square itself was seen as oneof the key projects of the plan, a space that wouldcomplement the new investment in the transit mall.Luckily, the square was being planned at the sametime as the new MAX light rail system and Tri-Met, atri-county transportation agency, saw the opportu-nity to leverage its construction budget for light railstops and a central information center to help unifythe square. Not only did this funding make thesquare economically possible, but the coordination ofthe two design processes created a seamless designfor the square, which integrates transit with largercommunity goals.

The planning and design of the square took manyinteresting twists and turns that left an imprint on thefinal product. While there was general consensus thatthe square should become a “people place,” an activeplaza rather than a passive park, and that it should bebuilt with private as well as public support, a designcompetition was needed to give these public goals a

26

Figures 4-7 and 4-8. Case Study 4-1. Portland’s Pioneer Courthouse Square, nicknamed “Portland’s Living Room,” is both acentral square and the bustling hub of bus and light rail service. (Credit: C. Bruce Forster, Figure 4-7 and Project for PublicSpaces, Inc., Figure 4-8)

tangible form. The rules for this competition statedthat the square should do the following:

• Respond to its location as a major transfer/infor-mation point—the focus of a region;

• Provide unrestricted pedestrian access and gen-eral visibility from surrounding streets—open onall sides with no more than one-third of thesquare covered;

• Have a unified design concept, with multifunctional-functional spaces, commercialuses (like a cafe), which support the design pro-gram, and places of refuge, interest, and informa-tion for users; and

• Recognize the significance of Portland’s history.

A two-step competition process was implemented:an open competition (to which 162 entries were sub-mitted) from which five finalists were selected andpaid a modest fee to produce a more detailed design.This process allowed the public to see a variety ofways that the square could be designed and how tran-sit stops could be integrated into it. Options presentedranged from glass conservatories to fir groves towater gardens; transit shelters were free-standing,incorporated into arcades, and left virtually bare ofamenities.

The winning team, led by Will Martin, consisted ofPortland natives. More than a group of architects, theteam included a writer, a historian, and two artists.Will Martin himself was a painter, sociologist,humorist, historian, and inventor.

The square took 5 years to build and overcamemany obstacles that threatened to prevent its comple-tion. Concerns about the design, lack of funding, andfears of uncontrolled activities on the square shapedthe final product considerably. An extensive fundrais-ing campaign raised $1.7 million from the commu-nity. The design was modified, but its initial integritywas retained despite pressures for greater modifica-tions. An innovative management program was setup to oversee maintenance, security, and events in thesquare.

The square had its grand opening in 1984. It wasnot until 1986, however, that the square was trulycomplete, with the opening of MAX light rail transitservice connecting downtown to the eastern suburbs.A westside line is now nearing completion, whichshould increase use of the square as a transit hub. Anew north-south line in the planning stages will sharethe existing transit mall along the square with busesand cars. Over the past decade, both MAX and thesquare have become virtually synonymous with therevitalization of Portland as a city and its new identityas a livable community.

STRATEGY

Design. The design of the square—with its brick-paving and historic elements—complements otherprojects like the transit mall. It fills an entire blockdowntown, lending it great visibility. Throughoutdowntown—on the transit mall, at the square, alongthe MAX line—there is an evident commitment toquality which goes beyond the functionality of thetransit routes. Portland is walkable: sidewalks havebeen widened and many street amenities and artadded. The overall result is that the square is inte-grated into everything around it.

Transit facilities are carefully integrated into theoverall design. Columns and ledges under a glasscanopy form the waiting area for light rail. MAX’sstop on the square is heavily used; in fact, it has thehighest ridership of any MAX stop, with 2,500 dailyboardings. Pioneer Square also features infrastructurethat allows it to be used for a wide variety of eventsand activities. Because of sloping topography, thesquare features a series of crescent-shaped stepswhich form a natural amphitheater. The square is thesite of hundreds of small and large events each year,many of which have already become Portland tradi-tions, such as the following:

• The nation’s tallest Christmas tree with 8,000lights and 12,000 carolers;

• Peanut Butter & Jam lunchtime jazz concerts;• Festival of Flowers, an artist’s design constructed

in flowers;• Series of children’s hands-on activities “Kid-

sational”; and• Festa Italiana and other ethnic food and music

festivals.

Tucked under the amphitheaters are the Tri-Metinformation center, restrooms, a travel bookstore, andthe management offices for the square. Above, thereis a pavilion structure with a successful cafe. A smallarea is devoted to pushcart vendors. These businessesbring income to offset the management of the squareand encourage activity on a regular basis even whenevents are not underway.

Finally, architectural elements symbolizing historyand themes of Portland abound in the square, in-cluding the original gates from the Portland Hotel,plaques about the history of Portland, and a columnwith the “rose city” motif. These elements add to thespecial character of the square.

Management Program. The nonprofit corporation thatmanages the square has contributed significantly to itssuccess. A paid staff, including a full director and staff

27

assistants, works under the direction of a board com-posed of community members, business leaders, and acommissioner from the Parks Department. The man-agement coordinates its own events and issues per-mits for events by others; oversees maintenance andsecurity, including hiring of its own security guards;supervises vending and retail tenants; raises funds forthe square; and handles public relations, includingpromotional activities and a monthly newsletter.

FUNDING

The square was built with a variety of funds. Thetotal project cost was $6.8 million, with financing pro-vided by the Portland Development Commission, TaxIncrement Funds; federal grants from the Urban MassTransportation Administration (now the FederalTransit Administration) and the Heritage Con-servation and Recreation Services (now defunct); thecity of Portland; and the adjacent local departmentstore.

Another key source of funds was the communityitself. When the construction of the square was threat-ened by a lack of money, the Friends of PioneerCourthouse Square, a nonprofit advocacy group, tookon the challenge of raising the needed $1.7 million. Inorder to raise the money, some 60,000 paving bricksfor the square were imprinted with sponsor names(“Bake Your Name in Brick”). The 200 volunteers whosold the bricks not only successfully raised funds, but also helped create a built-in constituency for thesquare. A second campaign to “sell” design elementsin the square (from the amphitheater to drinkingfountains) yielded more than $1 million. One indica-tion of the community support amassed for the project: architects, artists, and volunteers arrivedunannounced and painted a full-scale plan of thesquare over the parking lot asphalt, even covering theattendant shack and an abandoned 1960 Ford sedan.

The annual budget for the management of thesquare is about $623,000. Funds are contributed bythe city ($240,000); fees, membership, and fundraising($60,000); and income from retail businesses makes upabout one-third of the budget. The remaining fundscome from sponsored events and rental charges. Themanagement organization is currently conducting afundraising campaign for square repairs, solicitinggovernment, private, and foundation donations tocomplete a $1 million repair and restoration project.

OVERCOMING OBSTACLES

After the winning design was selected from thecompetition, it almost was not built. The design was

criticized, particularly by a downtown businessgroup that wanted the square to be covered. Thegroup suggested rejecting federal funds and startingover. Covering the square reflected more than just cli-mactic concerns; the main question was whether ornot the square would become a haven for anti-socialactivities. To address this issue, the Pioneer SquareManagement Advisory Committee was established toreview the design. In the committee’s debates, itbecame clear that the issue was not the design itself,but the activities that would take place in the square.The committee’s report—critical to the success ofPioneer Square—outlined the management programfor the square to establish a mechanism for overseeingactivities and events, provide maintenance and secu-rity, and ensure the square lived up to its potential.

There was also a lack of funding to complete thesquare as designed. It took the coordinated participa-tion of the transit agency and the community itself to make the square possible. As G. B. Arrington,Director of Strategic Planning for Tri-Met, has stated,“Pioneer Square is a wonderful example of what youget when you think of a transportation investmentfirst as the means to the end of a livable community.By turning over our station budget, we helped makethe square real and got a station in Portland’s livingroom. Pioneer Square is the most important block in the state because it’s where everything comestogether, it’s a symbol of our revitalized downtown,it’s the first place you take out-of-town guests, and it’sthe centerpiece of our bus and rail system.”

IMPACT AND ASSESSMENT

Portland’s transit programs and the square are con-sidered success stories both locally and nationally.The square attracts thousands of people downtownfor its events and activities. As a focal point for com-munity celebration, this generates a great deal of positive publicity for downtown as radio, TV, andnewspapers cover the activities. The square hasbecome the primary retail location downtown asbuildings have been refurbished and new businessesopened. It is heavily used by tourists and residents.

There is a strong symbiotic relationship between thesquare and transit. The square gives a visible center totransit, makes the events and activities accessible andconvenient, and increases ridership on the buses andlight rail. A survey of transit users and businessesaround the square conducted in 1995 by the researchteam showed generally positive ratings about thedesign of the transit stop, except for the amount ofseating, safety during the evening, and the number oftelephones. Businesses said that while the stop was

28

“somewhat important” to their own businesses, it was“important” or “very important” to the overall area asa place to do business.

Fears that the square would be the scene for anti-social activities never materialized, although therehave been problems about which businesses and tran-sit users are still concerned. Still, the managementorganization is ever-vigilant in addressing securityissues as they arise. This has benefits for transit aswell: Tri-Met users surveyed in 1994 reported that“personal safety when waiting for the bus or MAX”was one of the most important factors in decidingwhether to use the system.

The investment in transit and public improvementsdowntown, which was based on the 1972 plan, hasrevitalized the downtown. There has been an increasein downtown jobs from 50,000 in 1975 to over 86,000today. Air quality has actually improved and trafficcongestion has not increased because nearly 40% ofthe downtown work trips are on public transit. A 1984study estimated that without transit, six 42-story park-ing structures would have to be built and two morelanes to every highway coming downtown wouldneed to be added. Development near the square itselfhas included a new shopping center, Pioneer Place, aswell as many new retail stores and shops.

Why has it worked here? Portland’s citizenry havea sense of common purpose, a commitment to qualityand a perseverance that keeps Portlandites anchoredto their city. People who developed the original visionare still around to see it from a different perspective.As one commentator put it: “Portland may welldepart from the norm in metropolitan growth. Thesense of common purpose, the easy communicationamong the area’s leaders, and the long-standing con-viction that Oregonians should conserve the good life,even at the sacrifice of some self-interest, pointtoward an outcome at variance with that in LosAngeles and most other American cities.” [2]

CONCLUSIONS

Pioneer Courthouse Square, with its transit activi-ties, is the product of a visionary process and is now asymbol of the city’s livability. The process of creatingthe square—the public debates, the fundraisingprocess, the grand opening—all worked to involve thebroader community. Transit provided key fundingand continues to bring people to the square anddowntown as a whole. Building on the positive start,with an effective management organization runningit, the square has become the city’s place of pride anda focal point for all kinds of community activities. Therevitalization of the downtown is testimony to thesquare’s profound impact on the livability of Portland.

ENDNOTES

1. G. B. Arrington, “Beyond the Field of Dreams: Light Railand Growth Management in Portland,” Tri-Met (March1995) p.8.

2. Philip Langdon, “How Portland Does It,” AtlanticMonthly (November 1992) p.141.

When is a railroad station not a railroad station? When itis in Woodbridge, because it becomes a very important partof the community . . .

—NJ DOT Commissioner Frank J. Wilson

This train station is about the public, is about our citizens;it is about using our train station to attract people to ourdowntown community.

—James McGreevey, Mayor, Woodbridge Township

What we did differently with this project, for openers, wasto look at this station as a part of the community and most,if not all, of the effort was to try to create more of a sense ofplace here, a sense of community, and a sense of location.We also tried to tie the station into the surrounding areas . . . and to broaden out the reach of the station . . .

—Rick Richmond, Assistant Executive Director,NJ Transit Department of Engineering

SUMMARY

The 1995 renovation of the commuter train station inWoodbridge, New Jersey, provided New Jersey Transit(NJ Transit) with the opportunity to do more than justroutine physical improvements to a station building.NJ Transit viewed the project as an opportunity to usetransit to make a significant difference in the commu-nity. Woodbridge was sorely in need of work: the“train station” was nothing but a graffiti-filled, dimlylit tunnel in the side of a railroad viaduct overgrownwith weeds. Here was also the chance to try out abroader approach to station improvement; the Mayorof Woodbridge Township and other local leaders wereeager to try to integrate the station into the town.

The project, one of five pilot projects of NJ Transit’sStation Renewal program (see Case Study 10-3),involved the renovation of existing facilities, the con-struction of a new entrance to the train station and theaddition of amenities to better serve NJ Transit users.More significant, however, was the planners’ effort toenhance the role and visibility of the station in thetown, while improving pedestrian access from Main

29

Case Study 4-2Woodbridge Station, NJ: Creating a Sense ofPlace at a Commuter Rail Station

Street, thereby creating a sense of place at the stationwhere previously there had been none. In addition,the station project complemented a streetscape anddowntown revitalization project underway inWoodbridge.

PLANNING PROCESS

Although the renovation of the deteriorated trainstation was a major goal of the Woodbridge renewalproject, L. Richard Mariani, Manager of PassengerFacilities of NJ Transit and the Project Director,sought to build a stronger connection between the sta-tion and the downtown area in order to efficientlyexpedite the project as well as build alliances with thetownship and local businesses.

The Woodbridge Train Station is located a fewblocks from the heart of downtown Woodbridge,New Jersey. Woodbridge is the fifth largest city inNew Jersey with a population of about 93,000 inhabi-tants, and it is the oldest original township in thestate. The station’s intermodal role is ensured becauseit is also within a few hundred yards of the NewJersey Turnpike (Interstate 95) and is served by sev-eral bus routes. The station serves a major commuterline: the North Jersey Coast Line. Before the recentimprovements were made, approximately 1200 com-muters passed through the station every weekday.Most riders commute into New York City, about a 40-min ride. Many passengers arriving at Woodbridgetransfer to buses to reach a popular destination, theWoodbridge Center Mall, one of the largest indoorshopping malls on the East Coast.

The station building at Woodbridge is at the far endof an elevated viaduct and had little visibility either

from the street or from the adjacent downtown area(i.e., the station cannot be seen from Main Street). Thiswas deemed detrimental to NJ Transit’s ability toattract additional riders, and to efforts on the part ofWoodbridge businesses to attract train passengers tostop and shop on their way to or from the station. Theplatform and station building are reached by a tunneland stairway at the north end—serving as the mainentrance and providing access from Pearl and PoillonStreets—and by a stairway from Green Street at thesouth end. Before the improvements, the only visiblepresence of the station at the street-level main en-trance was two enormous advertising billboardsflanking the gaping hole of the tunnel. The minimaldesign of the station and its total lack of presencecompelled one passenger to remark before the reno-vation, “You can’t even tell you’re at a train station.”

Information was collected through surveys of pas-sengers, NJ Transit employees and adjacent retailersregarding their concerns about the station and sug-gestions for improving its design and function.Parking, circulation, seating placement, stationupkeep and patterns of use at the station throughoutthe day were also observed. A series of recommenda-tions for design improvements was developed basedon this input.

Transit users and local retailers who were ques-tioned expressed a need for additional retail servicesat the station and in the surrounding area. Thus, retailopportunities were included in the new design in theform of two kiosks flanking the Pearl Street entranceto be leased by NJ Transit to local businesses for useas newsstands, concessions or other businesses.

While planning work was underway, the Down-town Woodbridge Merchants Association was creat-ing a special improvement district to implement a

30

Figures 4-9 and 4-10. Case Study 4-2. The goal of the Woodbridge Station Renewal project, shown here before and afterrenovation of the facility, was to create a “sense of place” for the station and to make it more appealing to and function betterfor transit passengers. (Credit: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

streetscape project along Main Street and to helporganize downtown events. The streetscape enhance-ments included brick-paver sidewalks and the instal-lation of historic light fixtures and benches alongMain Street to Pearl Street. As part of the planningprocess, NJ Transit worked with the township toselect the same light fixtures to be installed at thetrain station. In addition, the brick pavers, whichwere to end at Main and Pearl Streets, were continuedalong Pearl to the entrance of the train station.

STRATEGY

Partnerships. Creating a new identity for the station,and undertaking a major renovation in an era of bud-get cuts and personnel shortages, relied on forging anew relationship with the surrounding community.Mr. Mariani stretched the funding further and got thejob done faster because he orchestrated a partnershipbetween NJ Transit, the township, the DowntownWoodbridge Merchants Association and other organi-zations. These partnerships gave the community a newstake in its train station that had never before existed.

Using funds from NJ Transit, the Township agreedto take control of the street-level portion of the con-struction project. While NJ Transit retained responsi-bility for the overall design and policy, WoodbridgeTownship took over the implementation of thedesign, preparing final design and construction docu-ments and managing the construction process. NJTransit used state rail crews and its own contractorsto implement the improvements to the platform level,and had the New Jersey Department ofTransportation (NJDOT) repair the three commuterparking lots. The township also worked with NJTransit to improve parking at the station.

Design Strategies. Design focused on elements thatwould enhance the presence of the station and link itto the surrounding area. To create a strong presenceat Woodbridge Station, canopies were constructed toextend out over the tunnel entrances. The primaryentrance was flanked by two small buildingsdesigned for lease to local entrepreneurs, the side-walk area was enlarged, and a canopy was added tothe Poillon Street entrance. New amenities introducedat the entrance included historic-style benches, newtrash receptacles, a historic-style clock, telephones,bike racks, and new cases that display both scheduleand community information. On the platform, NewJersey Transit added new benches, informationkiosks, telephones, and trash receptacles. The plat-form station building was renovated, air conditioningwas added, and the restrooms were refurbished. Theparking lots were cleaned, repaved, and restriped; the

trees were thinned out between the platform and theparking lot to provide better visibility to the elevatedplatform from the street.

Clear directional signage was added at the exits toPearl and Poillon Streets and a local artist created a sta-tion map showing transit, business, and cultural infor-mation. NJ Transit painted “Welcome to Woodbridge”on the trestle over Main Street to match the merchantsassociation’s typeface and colors. This sign also directspeople to the station and its parking lots.

Passenger safety was enhanced by improvingaccess paths, parking lots, and lighting around thestation, and by improving the Main Street crosswalk.Trees and vegetation were pruned throughout the sta-tion area to improve sightlines. A closed-circuit televi-sion (CCTV) system records activity at the station onvideo tape. New vendors will also contribute to pas-senger comfort and security.

While the township agreed to repave Poillon Street,NJ Transit strengthened linkages to the surroundingstreets and parking lots. All paths and sidewalks wererepaved, including those leading to Main Street, withthe same brick pavers used downtown. Along thewalkway running parallel to the elevated railroadviaduct, a landscaped strip was planted with climbingvines and lined with the same historic-style lamp-posts used on Main Street.

Parking Lots. Two NJ Transit lots were in disrepairand dimly lit. One was located some distance awayon the other side of Main Street from the station. Atthe same time, township vehicles were parked in atownship lot next to an historic park adjacent to thestation and employees walked across Main Street tothe Town Hall. This created friction between thetownship and civic groups who desired to use thepark for events.

The solution was simple: swap the two lots.Convenience for transit customers and townshipemployees was enhanced and 250 fewer pedestrianscross busy Main Street each day. This also freed thetownship lot for evening and weekend events whentransit customers typically vacate the lot.

FUNDING

NJ Transit and the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundationeach contributed $50,000 toward the station renewalprogram, which covered all the costs of the planningstudies, completed by Project for Public Spaces, forthe five pilot station projects, and which helped toleverage project funds. To implement the Woodbridgeproject, NJ Transit applied for and received its firstTransportation Enhancement Project grant underISTEA, which provides funding for transportation

31

projects not previously targeted for federal support.ISTEA provided $463,000 and NJ Transit added$503,000 in New Jersey Transportation Trust Fundsfor the work at grade level. NJ Transit added an addi-tional $200,000 in state Transportation Trust Funds,which were used for the platform-level and parkinglot improvements and for benches, trash receptacles,lighting, display cases, new restrooms, and repainting.

The township had the time to facilitate the projectbut lacked the funding. Empowering local officialswith greater influence gained commitment to the pro-ject’s success. In December 1993, NJ Transit executedan agreement with Woodbridge Township commit-ting $966,000 for the final design, engineering, andconstruction of the grade-level improvements. Thisincluded $463,000 in FTA Enhancement funds and$503,000 in New Jersey Transportation Trust Funds.

NJ Transit also used innovative ways to ensure ahigher standard of maintenance at the station: park-ing fees collected by the Downtown WoodbridgeMerchants Association from the commuter lots willbe dedicated to station maintenance, with a smallamount going to help the downtown. In addition, alocal restaurateur, interested in converting an oldfreight house next to the parking lot into a micro-brewery, agreed to maintain a 180-ft-long strip oflandscaping in return for use of a small number of theparking spaces for his customers in the evenings, aftercommuting hours, and on weekends.

By contracting with the NJDOT to perform the park-ing lot improvements, rather than by going throughthe usual procurement process, NJ Transit was able toreduce its cost for this part of the project by 70 percentand complete the parking lots in a fraction of the time,minimizing disruption to transit users.


Commuters and townspeople surveyed in 1995about their newly renovated station were clearlypleased with the changes. They believe that their NJTransit station is a much more handsome and com-fortable facility: 87 percent of the passengers ques-tioned rated their overall impression of the station aseither good or excellent, whereas only 45 percent haddescribed it as good before the renewal. Passengersno longer complain about the poor maintenance, graf-fiti, and vandalism in and around the station. Theysaid that the station is cleaner, better managed, andmuch safer than it was before. The improvements andamenities that commuters said they would like to see,such as more seating, better lighting, more tele-phones, and improved signage and schedule informa-tion have been provided. A shortage of parking

continues to be an issue, despite the addition of morespaces. Now that the station’s image has improved,more people from surrounding towns appear to bedriving to Woodbridge to take the train. Many com-muters may also be taking advantage of the free park-ing, since New Jersey Transit has not yet imposedparking fees.

NJ Transit is negotiating with potential retailers torent the two kiosks flanking the entrance to the sta-tion. Most commuters expressed the desire to have aconvenient place to buy coffee and newspapers in themorning. A retail presence will help provide a greatersense of security and activate Pearl Street, perhapsattracting customers for neighboring merchants whileproviding a needed service for commuters.

Despite the effort to make the station accessiblefrom Main Street, and vice versa, downtown retailershave not seen an increase in customers on their way toor from the station. (Most businesses are not openearly or late enough to accommodate commuters.) Theoverall impression of the station has improved, how-ever, and it is clearly seen as an asset to the town. The station has gained some attention outsideWoodbridge as well: the Woodbridge RenovationProject received a 1995 Excellence in DowntownDevelopment award from Downtown New Jersey,Inc., and one of “America’s 25 Best EnhancementProjects” at the 1996 National TransportationEnhancements Conference. The project was also a cat-alyst in shifting NJ Transit toward an organizationalculture that produces more projects of this kind. Arecent memo from the Chief Engineer of Engineering& Constructing emphasized how critical it is to under-stand how a facility works at all hours of the day andnight, how people approach and leave the station, andhow they behave while there. This directive, in effect,implements the vision embodied by ISTEA.

NJ Transit now views the transit ride as only part ofthe customer’s total experience and has developed anew and broader vision for the improvement of its sta-tion facilities. As Mr. Mariani describes it, “The qualityof the whole experience is made up of the sum of alltransportation segments. If any one segment is badenough, customers may abandon the whole experi-ence, causing ridership to suffer on all the segments.”


As part of the Station Renewal Program process,project planners had recommended community meet-ings for NJ Transit that would provide a better oppor-tunity for both professionals and citizens to collaboratebefore design alternatives were developed. Thisapproach was not incorporated into the planning

32

process for the Woodbridge improvements because ofa lack of interest on the part of the Township at thetime. Indeed, Mr. Mariani now believes that morecommunity meetings would have helped to build trustand to show the community that NJ Transit was “ontheir side.” Obtaining more community support fromthe very beginning, he believes, would have helpedstreamline the implementation of the project and theapprovals process, resulting in a better project.

CONCLUSIONS

To a community, a train station can be more thanjust a building or a place to wait before leaving town.If conceived in an appropriate manner, it can be asimportant to a community’s livability as a library, acity hall, or a town square. When this larger purposeis realized, people become proud of and care for thesestations, and the beneficiaries are transit, passengers,community residents, and local businesses.

The Woodbridge Station Renewal project illustratesthat in order to make long-lasting and effectiveimprovements to a transit facility, a project mustfocus on more than a just the building and its ameni-ties. Attention must be given to enhancing the facil-ity’s connections to its surrounding area and to de-veloping innovative ways to manage and maintainboth the station and its environs. In Woodbridge, NJTransit was able to form partnerships within theTownship Merchants Association, which enabled thetransit agency and its facility to play a larger role inthe community while gaining needed assistance in theimplementation of the project. Woodbridge Stationnow has a valued presence in the community.

SUMMARY

In an attempt to make mass transit commuting moreconvenient, attractive and “family-friendly,” transitagencies have begun partnerships with cities to de-velop a creative solution: locating child care centers attransit terminals. This allows working parents to drivestraight to the station, park their cars at a park-and-ridelot, drop off their kids at the child care center and takethe train to work. Picking up their kids at the end of theday is equally easy. One such center—KidStop Child

Care Center—opened in September 1993 at the ShadyGrove Metrorail station in Montgomery County,Maryland. The day care center now serves both transitriders and community residents and is one of the mostsought after facilities in the area.

PLANNING PROCESS

The establishment of the KidStop Child Care Centerinvolved a unique public-private partnership involv-ing the transit operator (Washington MetropolitanArea Transit Authority [WMATA]), MontgomeryCounty government, and a group of corporate spon-sors. These interests formed the Foundation forWorking Families, a nonprofit organization devotedto helping private employers fund facilities for childand elder care on behalf of their employees. Boardmembers include representatives of local businessesand public agencies.

The concept of combining child care centers andpublic transportation began when a 1987 task forceidentified commuters’ side trips for child care as amajor barrier to the use of public transit by workingparents. In response to the task force recommenda-tions, the county began to research a pilot location fora transit-related child care center. After identifyingShady Grove as an ideal location, the county ap-proached the foundation to begin the process of rais-ing funds for the facility.

In 1991, the Board of Directors of WMATA ap-proved a demonstration program that encouraged theestablishment of child care centers at other Metrofacilities and extended invitations to each of the localgovernments in the Washington, DC, region to submitproposals for establishing child care centers at Metrofacilities. Montgomery County was the first to takeadvantage of this opportunity. WMATA agreed tolease the land to the county government for a periodof 30 years at a FTA, which had endorsed the pro-gram. (Land acquired with federal funds may ordi-narily only be used “for transit purposes.”) Under anagreement with the county, the foundation assembledfunds and supervised the development of the designand construction of the center. After the facility wascompleted, the foundation donated the building tothe county government. Construction began inAugust 1994 and the center opened May 15, 1995.

STRATEGY

The center is a free-standing building of approxi-mately 20,000 sq ft situated within a 3-min walkingdistance of the Shady Grove Metro-Rail station. It is astate-of-the-art facility, with an outdoor play area and

33

Case Study 4-3Shady Grove Metro Station, MD: KidStop ChildCare Center Helps Make a Community“Family-Friendly”

modern playground equipment. The center has capac-ity for 106 children, ranging in age from 6 weeksthrough school age, and provides care for mildly sickchildren. Children’s Discovery Centers of America,Inc., was selected to operate the child care center. Thecompany, founded in 1983, operates 215 centersaround the country and is one of the nation’s largestproviders of child care services.

FUNDING

The cost of construction totaled approximately $1.5million. The state of Maryland agreed to match con-tributions up to $750,000, including $20,000 of in-kind contributions. The city of Gaithersburg and areabusinesses, led by IBM and L’Oreal, contributed$438,000, and the county government granted$288,700 toward the match. Forty-two spaces weresold in advance to corporate employers whose contri-butions were used to pay for the facility’s construc-tion, and priority enrollment period extends to 10years. At least half of the center’s spaces are availableto the public. Parents pay market rate tuition feesestablished by the operator.


The center is currently operating at full capacityand has a waiting list that extends into summer 1996.While there are several other day care centers in thevicinity, KidStop, because of its physical facilities andexcellent staff, remains one of the most sought-aftercenters in the area.

The child care center fulfills multiple objectives.The transit authority benefits because the center helpsto attract new transit users. Approximately 25 percentof the Center’s patrons commute by Metro daily andanother 15 percent use the Metro occasionally. Theremaining 60 percent work in the Shady Grove area.

The county benefits because each transit trip meansone fewer car in the peak period on Rockville Pike,the most congested arterial corridor in lower Mont-gomery County. But the biggest beneficiaries are thecommuters. Instead of having to drive their childrento day care centers near their homes and then con-tinue their trips to work by automobile, they nowdrop off their children at KidStop, park at the stationparking lot and take the train to work.

CONCLUSIONS

For parents who rely on mass transit to get towork, dropping their children off at an out-of-the-way child care center and stopping on the way hometo pick them up can make commuting seem like afull-time job. Child care is often cited as a major rea-son that commuters are unable to take transit towork. The KidStop Child Center addresses the liv-ability of the Rockville area by combining two ser-vices needed by many families: child care and publictransit. This results in a simpler and faster trip.KidStop’s location at the transit station also meansthat children are never more than a 30-min train ridefrom the parents’ downtown offices, a considerationthat also weighs heavily in parents’ choice of a day-care location.

34

INTRODUCTION

Across the United States, the impact of post-warsuburban growth has wreaked havoc on once thrivingdowntowns and urban neighborhoods. Downtowns,which only a few decades ago acted as centers of com-munity life, have become empty and devoid of activ-ity as businesses closed or moved to the outskirts oftowns and cities. Many inner city neighborhoodshave likewise declined, losing local business.

The redevelopment programs of the 1960s and 1970s,in many cases, were the wrong approach, furtherundermining an urban infrastructure that tookdecades to develop. As development and investmentshifted to suburban areas accessible primarily by thecar, public transit lost its ability to provide convenientand low-cost travel. Transit and the renewal of down-towns and neighborhoods are inextricably related.


Most successful renewal programs for downtownsand neighborhoods are holistic and go to the heart ofthe community’s livability goals. These programs typi-cally seek to restructure local economies so that areabusinesses can compete successfully with suburbanchain retail centers and find their own special, prof-

itable niche. This often means developing specialstrategies for recruiting, leasing, and promoting retailjust as the suburban competition does. Public spacescan be upgraded—not just made more attractive butfunctional and usable for pedestrians, vehicles, andtransit riders. Older buildings can be reused creatively.Developments of appropriate scale can create a newfocus for activities and be a catalyst for economic revi-talization. Often, it is a community’s culturalresources, which remain in the city center, that can actas an important draw. The visual arts, theater, music,museums, and libraries can directly contribute to acity’s economy while enriching residents’ lives andattracting visitors.

Moreover, most success stories have come throughintense local community initiatives that have mobi-lized resources and leveraged all kinds of investmentsin a step-by-step process to revitalize local businesses,stabilize and enhance neighborhoods, and rebuild asense of community.

Whether it be a downtown or neighborhood, bring-ing back the vitality of “Main Street” is often the firststep—although in severely distressed neighborhoods,this also means bringing back the neighborhoodsthemselves. “Main Street” is the business center aswell as the emotional heart of most communities.Therefore, focusing revitalization strategies in the

CHAPTER 5

Transit as a Catalyst for Downtown andNeighborhood Renewal

What is it that makes people feel so strongly about [Main] street, and so exhilarated when itmay come back to life? To be sure, it has something to do with its historic buildings or attrac-tive public square or its general physical appearance. But Main Street was and is more thanjust bricks and mortar, more than just another shopping center. It is the traditional center of acommunity, a center not defined so much geographically or architecturally as it is socially . . .It is . . . a place for activities of all kinds, for all kinds of people.

—Project for Public Spaces, What Do People Do Downtown, 1981. [1]

35

center can help establish a base for the revitalizationof the surrounding community.

Crime, litter, and deteriorated conditions in cities,or the perception of these problems, keep peopleaway. Special strategies for managing public spaces,often with private sector support, can be developed toimprove a downtown’s image.

Finally, problems of traffic congestion, parking,pedestrian flow, and efficient mass transit are com-mon concerns most cities share. Communities canwork with the city to reduce vehicular traffic(ridesharing programs, reducing parking subsidies,managing parking for short-term retail shoppers,implementing flextime, and encouraging use of publictransit).

Role of Transit

Much of transit’s impact comes from its drawingpedestrians to an area, which helps enliven adjacentuses and support business. By alleviating traffic pres-sure on streets, transit can help make an area moreattractive and pedestrian friendly—a major goal inmost downtown revitalization programs. In manycases illustrated in this report, transit has acted as theprimary catalyst for community participation indowntown and neighborhood renewal programs andfor the coordination and cooperation among publicand private sectors, city agencies, transit authorities,and the community.

Transit service is essential to the functioning of mosturban neighborhoods and downtowns. As a result, avariety of specific strategies have been developed tosupport the livability of downtowns and neighbor-hoods, including design and planning strategiesrelated to transit facilities as well as special services

designed to enhance mobility. (Note: as in the previ-ous chapter, cities and projects in italics are featured incase studies in this report.)

Transit malls, that is, streets transformed to givepriority access to buses and enhanced waiting areasfor bus patrons, represent the most visible changeover the past 20 years in the thinking about how bestto integrate transit effectively into a major downtownarea and in understanding the inherent problems andopportunities. For example, in Chicago, the transitmall is being removed, while in Portland, Oregon, itcontinues to be successful and will soon be aug-mented by a new light rail transit line. Denver’sSixteenth Street Mall is generally regarded as a success,although the streetscape design has not proved asfunctional as Portland’s. While not technically a transitmall because it has no bus traffic, Boston’s DowntownCrossing is of the same generation as most other tran-sit malls and clearly facilitates access to subway stations for thousands of passengers.

One of the most important aspects of transit mallsis the significant role played by the transit stop.Transit malls gave designers the opportunity todesign shelters and amenities to make bus patrons apart of the life of the downtown. The Los AngelesNeighborhood Initiative is using donated kiosks and busshelters from an advertising company to make busstops centers of community life and focal points forneighborhood commercial district renewal. Tucson’sTohono Tadai Transit Center—although larger inscale—has elaborate amenities for users, includingair-cooled benches.

On a large scale, transit rail stations (light rail, sub-way, and commuter) and bus transfer centers or ter-minals have also taken on new importance forcommunities. The case studies of Davis Square,Somerville, Massachusetts, and the Green Line, Chicago,illustrate the actual impact of new and renovatedsubway stations on the development of entire down-town revitalization programs. Other case studies dis-cuss the design and integration of light rail into adowntown (Pioneer Square, Portland); the develop-ment of a new commuter rail station (WoodbridgeStation, New Jersey); the creation of new pedestrianspace around existing subway stations (DowntownCrossing, Boston); and the design of new bus transfercenters (Tohono Tadai, Tucson and Staples StreetStation, Corpus Christi).

Downtown circulators and shuttles are anotherstrategy used to enable shoppers, visitors, and officeworkers to move more freely about the central businessdistrict, thereby contributing to downtown economicvitality and reducing traffic congestion. These circula-tors and shuttles are often sponsored by local chambersof commerce, downtown business organizations, and

36

Figure 5-1. Downtown Portland, OR. (Credit: Project forPublic Spaces, Inc.)

merchants associations as a promotional program,because experience has shown ridership is generallylow. Denver’s Sixteenth Street Mall was the first large-scale demonstration of the use of free, electric busshuttles, which connect passengers to two bus termi-nals at either end of the mall. As a transportationcorridor, the mall achieves a much better balancebetween buses and people than if standard diesel buseswere used. In Aspen, a downtown shuttle circulatesalong the main downtown street.

In a number of cities, trolley service—like Tucson’sOld Pueblo Trolley—link redeveloping urban areaswith tourist attractions such as sports stadiums,convention halls, restaurant districts, and shoppingcenters. In Corpus Christi, rubber wheeled-versions oftrolleys are used to provide convenient travel aroundthe downtown and to connect to the main bus termi-nal. These old-fashioned-style trolleys recall down-town historic architecture and often become a touristattraction in their own right, while allowing cities toavoid building costly transportation systems forshort-haul, intracity trips.

On a neighborhood scale, many communities havedeveloped special shuttles, discussed in the casestudies of Boulder, Colorado; Aspen, Colorado; andWatts, Los Angeles. These shuttles serve downtownsand neighborhood commercial areas as well as thebroader community.

ENDNOTE

1. Project for Public Spaces, Inc., “What Do People DoDowntown: How to Look at Main Street Activity,”National Trust for Historic Preservation (1991) p.3.

EXAMPLE

Transit Malls: Successes and Failures [1]

The mall took the excitement out of State Street.—Elizabeth Hollander,

Chicago’s former planning commissioner.

The buses would line up, one after another, like a herd, withtheir diesel fumes.

—Adrian Smith, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill

Since people don’t drive on State, they forget it’s here.—Carmen Rocha, store sales manager

As Mayor, I have found it difficult to find out whose ideathis was in the first place.

—Richard Daley, Mayor of Chicago

—As quoted in “Chicago Gives Pedestrian Mall theBoot” (New York Times, February 1, 1996.)

Minneapolis constructed the first transit mall in theUnited States in 1967, and it was soon hailed as anational example of urban public space. Considered abold and innovative move in its day, Nicollet Mallsuccessfully generated almost $50 million in down-town development within 3 years. The mall wasunique because it included not just amenities forpedestrians, but a serpentine roadway that allowedcity buses to circulate along the street. Nicollet, a pop-ular destination at the time, became a combinationbus terminal and shopping street.

Nicollet Mall was copied in many other cities acrossthe United States: Philadelphia, Portland, Oregon,Denver, and Chicago, to name the most well-known.Their construction was encouraged by federal fundingfrom the Urban Mass Transportation Administration(now the FTA). As with pedestrian malls, the limita-tions of the approach became more apparent as theyears went on. The basic problem was the size and thefumes of buses, which are not generally compatiblewith pedestrian strolling, sitting, and window shop-ping. Bus waiting areas become the major amenityfocus on a transit mall. As a result, the transit func-tions of the street seem to dominate at the expense ofother activities.

In nearly every city where they have been built,transit malls are being rethought or have been alteredfrom their original concept. In Chicago, a totalredesign of the State Street Mall is underway to returnit to a mixed-traffic street without trucks. Sidewalkshad been widened beyond what was needed and, as aresult, were underused. Under the new proposal,

37

Figure 5-2. When Chicago’s State Street was closed toautomobiles to create a transit mall, users complained thatthe street had become little more than a bus loading andunloading zone. Vehicular traffic is now being reintro-duced, along with transit and pedestrian improvements,which will create a better balance of activities on this majorshopping street. (Credit: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

sidewalks will be narrowed, although they will stillcontain extensive amenities. The idea is that busesmixed with traffic are less dominant than buses alone.

Even Minneapolis has rebuilt the Nicollet Mall,although it has not changed its essential mix of func-tions. The problem with the mall was partly physical;it was in a state of disrepair as elements graduallywore out. Users in surveys complained about busfumes and lack of bicycle access. Nicollet was nolonger a major shopping street. The development itspurred removed activity on the street, because a second-level skywalk system was developed thatessentially elevated retail activity above the street.The system, which does not connect directly toNicollet Mall, now connects some 35 blocks.

The redesign of Nicollet Mall did not address itsfunctional problems. Although the Nicollet Mallincluded plans by 1994 for smaller, electric-poweredvehicles to reduce bus fumes, bicycle access has notbeen improved. Plans to connect the mall to the sky-walks, which might have improved access, werescrapped. Kate Christianson, a Minneapolis writeron design issues, wrote that while some changeshave made the mall “friendlier,” it also “seems spir-itless . . . The overall passivity of the redesign is allthe more painful because the mall originally swirledin excitement.” [2]

On a positive note for transit malls, Portland,Oregon’s bus mall has successfully integrated tran-sit, automobiles, and pedestrians. Although transit-oriented, the mall has always allowed one lane ofvehicle traffic on it. The mall is attractively laid outwith very well-designed bus waiting areas and sim-ple street amenities (e.g., benches, informationkiosks, and plantings) along it, as well as well-placedpublic art. The placement and design of amenities isoften poorly understood by designers; in the case ofPortland, however, amenities are usable and placedaccording to function. Because of the design of thesestreet amenities, the mix of traffic, and the excellentmaintenance and street management program, theMall is the most successful of all those constructed.(See also Case Study 4-1.)

Learning from the experience in other cities,Rochester, New York, sought to create a mixed-usetraffic street, with appropriate priority for buses.Originally conceived as a pure transit mall, the MainStreet project was rethought to allow more diverseuse and access. The street was reduced from six lanesto four, with the curb lanes given over to buses only.Parking and delivery were removed (the latterremains a problem), while sidewalks were widened toprovide more space for pedestrian amenities and buswaiting facilities. While the street is well-used bypedestrians, it must compete with a skywalk system.In addition, retail activity has declined with the clos-

ing of a major department store, so it is difficult toassess the impact of the approach taken.

In Sacramento, California, and Memphis,Tennessee, light rail systems have been installed inthe center of former pedestrian malls. While this canbe seen as an improvement (because light rail, whichis not diesel powered, is more pedestrian-friendlythan buses), it does not usually operate with great fre-quency; and the center of the street still seems devoidof activity. Because of the tracks, having appropri-ately located crossings and well-designed access tolight rail stations and platforms for people onwheeled conveyances, such as bicycles and wheel-chairs, is very important.

In Portland, Oregon, a light rail transit system hascontinued to set records in terms of passenger use.This system, separate from Portland’s bus mall butintersecting it, has been very effectively integratedinto the downtown area. MAX is a 15-mile route thatconnects the downtown area to the suburbs, and,once it reaches downtown, becomes a part of thedowntown street network. One of the strengths of thesystem is that the modal mix in which it operateschanges according to the block. In general, it runs onmixed-traffic streets, but still discourages a greatamount of private vehicle use. Where mixed trafficdoes occur, space for vehicles is limited, and on cer-tain streets shared space is allocated to pedestriansonly. Sidewalks have been widened slightly to accom-modate small waiting areas. The trains, while long,are quiet and relatively unobtrusive, but clearly oper-ate in street space rather than a pedestrian mall.Public spaces downtown, including Pioneer CourthouseSquare, are enlivened by the system’s presence, notdominated by it. It is an example in which transit,pedestrian, and vehicle uses are balanced.

ENDNOTES

1. Excerpted and updated from Project for Public Spaces,Inc., “The Effects of Environmental Design on theAmount and Type of Bicycling and Walking,” NationalBicycling and Walking Study, FHWA Case Study No. 20,Federal Highway Administration (April 1993) pp.10–12.

2. Christianson, Kate, “Nicollett Mall Redux,” InlandArchitect (March/April 1991).

CASE STUDIES

Case studies illustrate how transit is contributing tothe renewal of downtowns and neighborhoods inthree cities. While the projects are geographicallydiverse and involve different of modes of transit, theyillustrate the importance of integrating transit facili-ties into downtowns and neighborhoods so that theycan act as true catalysts for neighborhood renewal:

38

Case Study 5-1: Somerville, MA: Davis Square TransitStation Subway Extension Spurs Neighborhood Rejuvenation

Case Study 5-2: Los Angeles Neighborhood Initiative:Rebuilding Disinvested Neighborhood “Main Streets”from the Bus Stop Up

Case Study 5-3: Chicago, IL: The Green Line Using Transit Stations to Spur Reinvestment inDistressed Inner City Neighborhoods

The subway was to be there for the community, not thecommunity for the subway.

—Lee Auspitz, Member of Davis Square Task Force

SUMMARY

Davis Square, a principal commercial center inSomerville, Massachusetts, has experienced a remark-able renaissance with the extension of the Red Linesubway from Cambridge in the early 1980s. Thisextension included construction of a new transit sta-tion in the center of the square. The city of Somervillecapitalized on development of the new station, fromits earliest planning stages, as a catalyst for revitalizingthe square by promoting new commercial develop-ment and sponsoring other physical improvements,while working to maintain its traditional urban char-acter. These public improvements have also catalyzedprivate reinvestment in the square’s adjoining residen-tial areas. The success of the redevelopment efforts arelargely attributed to close cooperation between themany stakeholders in the process. These stakeholdersincluded the city, local businesspeople and residents,the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority(MBTA), and numerous federal and commonwealthagencies.

PLANNING PROCESS

Davis Square, once a thriving commercial center,experienced a gradual decline in the post-World War IIera. Between 1970 and 1980, the city of Somerville lost2,000 jobs and the population dropped from 89,000 to77,000, a 13 percent decline. Manufacturing, wholesale,and retail businesses left the area. According to a plan-ning study completed in 1980, Davis Square suffered

from a lack of competitiveness among merchants, traf-fic congestion, inadequate parking, and an increas-ingly deteriorated physical environment.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, plans to expandthe highway system in the Boston area met with stiffprotest from community groups and local officialsopposed to the massive land-takings required forhighway construction. At the same time, Boston-arearesidents realized that public transportation wasmore practical than the automobile for commutingwithin Boston and from its outlying areas. GovernorSargent responded to this opposition in 1970, bysigning a moratorium on highway constructionwithin Route 128, a highway that encircles Boston,and setting up the Boston Transportation PlanningReview to examine transportation plans for theBoston area.

In 1970, the Cambridge City Council urged theMBTA to seriously consider the extension of the RedLine, originally built in 1912, beyond Harvard Squareas an alternative to a proposed highway. The routewas to run from Harvard Square north throughCambridge to Arlington. However, in 1973,Somerville residents, businesspeople and public offi-cials—realizing the economic benefits that a train andbus station would bring to their community—launched a petition and letter writing campaign to theMBTA requesting that the extension be routedthrough Davis Square. In addition, Somerville wasproviding 5 percent of the MBTA’s budget, and with-out any subway station within its borders, Somervilleresidents felt that their transit service was unequal totheir contribution. In contrast, the town of Arlington,concerned about traffic congestion, opposed theextension of the Red Line into its boundaries and itstermination at Arlington Heights. As a result, the RedLine now terminates at Alewife, in North Cambridge.

39

Figure 5-3. Case Study 5-1. Davis Square, the business dis-trict in Somerville, MA, was revitalized with the introductionof subway service. (Credit: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

Case Study 5-1Somerville, MA: Davis Square Transit StationSubway Extension Spurs NeighborhoodRejuvenation

In 1977, while the Red Line extension was in theplanning stage, the Somerville Office of Planning and Community Development (OPCD) and theMetropolitan Area Planning Council put together thefirst Davis Square urban design and business study.That same year, the Davis Square Task Force wasformed, composed of local business owners, residentsand local officials, to act as a citizens’ advisory commit-tee regarding the revitalization plans and to address amajor concern that was dividing the community on thetype and extent of development. One faction was push-ing for a major redevelopment project that wouldinclude the creation of an indoor shopping mall, whilemany local residents favored minimal change to theneighborhood. The OPCD commissioned outside con-sultants to study potential land use, including officeand retail uses, traffic, parking and other issues. Alongwith input from the Task Force, the studies resulted inthe Davis Square Action Plan, adopted in 1982. The pri-mary goal of the Plan was to use the new Red Line sta-tion as a cornerstone for redevelopment, strengtheningDavis Square as a viable shopping district while pre-serving the residential character of the neighborhood.

STRATEGY

The city of Somerville and the Davis Square TaskForce initiated many projects to accompany the RedLine extension, using the redevelopment, especially ofempty parcels, to build the type of community thatthey had envisioned:

• Streetscape improvements with funds from theFederal Highway Administration’s UrbanSystems Program, including street reconstruc-tion, sidewalk widening, new lighting, fences,and planting.

• The renovation of Kenney Park at the corner ofGrove Street and Highland Avenue.

• Storefront and facade improvements with a grantfrom the city’s Community Development BlockGrant entitlement. With the grant, the city paidfor one-half of the facade work on eligible prop-erties and provided design assistance throughthe OPCD landmark constitutional decisionallowing the removal of all billboards from DavisSquare, initially, and then from the city of Bostonas a whole. In 1995, a local bank established itsown Storefront Improvement Program, availableto Davis Square businesses.

• Designation of Davis Square as a commercial arearevitalization district (CARD), which allowedmajor commercial developments to use IndustrialRevenue Bond (IRB) financing through theMassachusetts Industrial Finance Administration

(MIFA). With IRB financing, the owners of theErrico building were able to renovate 6,000 sq ft of retail and office space and add 12,000 sq ft ofnew space.

• The construction of additional public parking, insmall lots, throughout the Davis Square area.

• The construction of the Ciampa Manor ElderlyHousing development on College Avenue. (Localresidents favored residential over commercialdevelopment at this prime site, a gateway toDavis Square.)

• Planning and site development for the BuenaVista project, a $10 million, 100,000-sq-ft office andretail complex, which includes a public parkingstructure. An Urban Development Action Grantprovided $1.7 million toward the initial develop-ment costs. This project was completed in 1991.

Private development efforts included the renova-tion of former manufacturing buildings and depart-ment stores in the Davis Square area to provideadditional office and retail space. A locally owned,community-oriented bank was encouraged to con-struct a new building in the area and the old tele-phone building was converted into a drug andconvenience store.

A bicycle path connects Davis Square to the towns ofArlington and Lexington, and bus stops, used by theMBTA and the Tufts University van service, connectlocal residents to the subway line. The subway stationis also within walking distance of the large Alewifestation parking garage. The streetscape improvementssurrounding the Davis Square Station were designedto enhance the pedestrian access to the station and

40

Figure 5-4. Case Study 5-1. This plan of Davis Squareshows the integration of the subway stations into the CBD,as well as the pedestrian improvements connecting thetransit stations to the adjacent residential and commercialdistricts. (Credit: Carol R. Johnson Associates, Inc.)

local businesses, and to slow traffic, while giving thecommercial area a more coherent appearance.

The MBTA developed the plaza linking the two sta-tion entrance buildings, built on an old railroad rightof way, and continued a greenway along the right ofway as far as Alewife. The plaza is designed to serve asthe center of Davis Square, providing a gathering placeand a center for activities and outdoor entertainment.The MBTA’s Red Line extension qualified it to receivestate percent-for-art funds. One percent of the cost ofconstructing the new headhouses was used to commis-sion the figurative sculptures, some representing localcitizens, that adorn the plaza. In addition, tilesdesigned by neighborhood children were installed inthe station and a large sculpture was commissioned tohang over the tracks. The public art projects fit in withthe city’s goal of creating a community place; a placewhere residents could feel a sense of ownership.

At Mayor Capuano’s recommendation in 1995, thecity’s Office of Housing and Community Development(OHCD), with input from the Task Force, engaged aconsultant to improve Davis Square Plaza/Statue Parkand make it more attractive as a gathering place. Thecity will provide new and upgraded amenities for theplaza, such as improved lighting, and new furniture,landscaping and flag poles, and the MBTA will replacethe station’s long skylight. The existing barrel-vaulted,plexiglass skylight extending across the plaza,obscures the view of adjacent stores and is out of scalewith the neighboring buildings. A new, lower skylightof more durable materials is being planned to illumi-nate the station, while serving as a performance stageon the plaza level.

City agencies are also working with theMassachusetts Highway Department (MHD) to add asecond bicycle path through the square, with new bikeracks near the station, and to improve bike connec-tions to neighboring communities. Other communitygroups such as the Somerville Bicycle Committee andthe Friends of the Bikeway are involved in the process.In addition, a new substation for the city’s communitypolicing program, which includes police on bicycles, isbeing created within one of the station buildings. Thecontinuing success of this project can be attributedboth to the interagency cooperation between theMBTA, Mass Highway, and the city of Somerville andto the ongoing involvement of the Davis Square TaskForce and other community groups.


During the planning stages, the resident members ofthe Davis Square Task Force struggled to keep DavisSquare from becoming overdeveloped. According toLee Auspitz, a long-time member of the task force,

local residents (who at the time wielded more powerthan the business interests on the task force) had atfirst opposed the subway extension, fearing that itwould “ruin the neighborhood.” Preserving a stable,residential environment was their primary goal andthey fought to prevent Davis Square from becomingjust another regional shopping mall. If they had tohave a subway then “the subway was to be there forthe community, not the community for the subway.”

While local businesses pushed for an increase inparking, residents thought more parking would lead tothe disintegration of the urban fabric of the neighbor-hood. “Park and Ride” and even “kiss and ride” drop-offs were discouraged. As a result, no facilities forcommuter parking are provided today in DavisSquare. The task force fought long and hard to keepDavis Square pedestrian-oriented, even helping todefeat a mayor who favored large-scale commercialredevelopment of the area and the construction of largeparking structures.

The task force also encouraged the MBTA to mini-mize its intervention in the neighborhood; while theMBTA had initially planned to demolish 64 housesand businesses, it ultimately removed only 4 houses.The Task Force and local citizens, through varioustactics, were able to convince the MBTA to accommo-date the needs of the community in the design andplanning of the station and throughout the long anddisruptive construction phase. Goody Clancy’s proj-ect architect was a resident of Davis Square himselfand worked closely with local citizens to integrate thestation buildings into the existing fabric with as littledisruption as possible.


The Davis Square MBTA Station and associatedimprovements have significantly transformed DavisSquare. The new brick and granite paving, upgradedlighting, and facade improvements have given theplaza and surrounding streets a fresh, well-maintainedappearance. The plaza is replete with such amenitiesas public art, seating, a new tree canopy, and granitebollards to prevent vehicular access and to delineatethe plaza’s edges. The plaza is principally used as acentral square by residents who sit, watch, rest fromshopping or exercise, or wait for the next bus. Theplaza also functions as a meeting place and as a “frontyard” for adjoining businesses. Annual communityevents such as ArtBeat, sponsored by the SomervilleArts Council, are staged there. Periodically, the plazais used for public speaking.

Today, Davis Square flourishes and has recentlyexperienced an influx of new restaurants, theaters,and entertainment-related businesses. The Somerville

41

Theater, a historic landmark in the square, is capitaliz-ing on the square’s improvements as well as its prox-imity to transit. Its monthly programs, which includelive as well as film performances, attract a regionalaudience and enjoy renewed patronage. Its restora-tion and reconstruction, scheduled for 1996, reflectsfavorably on the square’s recent improvements.

Davis Square is also host to new commercial officespace. Since 1988, two substantial office buildingstotaling approximately 170,000 sq ft have been com-pleted and are at 100 percent occupancy. Buildingtenants include a major regional community healthcare provider, a medium-sized architectural firm, andheadquarters for a local bank. Also, the square hosts anumber of start-up businesses.

Taken together, these activities add vitality to thesquare, both during and after traditional businesshours. Undoubtedly, the transit improvements havecontributed significantly to the square’s overallhealth. The transit station has made it possible forpeople to reach the square without bringing cars intothe densely settled area. Rent control was abolishedrecently in the neighboring communities ofCambridge, Boston, and Brookline, and the affordablehousing available in Somerville, combined withaccess to its good public transit, has made it an attrac-tive place for people to live. Other factors thatincreased the square’s attractiveness include changesin living preferences and increased private trans-portation costs, which bolster support for public tran-sit use.

The Red Line Extension, Land Use Study, prepared in1988 by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council,analyzed the changes in land use and commercial andresidential development 5 years after the completionof the extension. The report states, “Davis Squareappears to have passed the turning point on its way torecovery. Businesses in the square, old and new alike,are generally thriving and public confidence is high.The Red Line clearly . . . helped to stimulate this revi-talization, but it was clearly accomplished only by acooperative effort of the municipality, local merchants,and the residents of Davis Square.” [1] Specifically, thereport states that businesses near the station showincreased sales and office and retail uses rose by 10percent.

CONCLUSIONS

Davis Square has been revitalized and is a thrivingdowntown area, not just because of the transitinvestment and improved access, but because of theenergy and commitment of the city, businesses, theMBTA, and residents. Working together, the transitstation served as a catalyst for a range of cooperative

programs that have breathed new life into the dis-trict and made the city of Somerville more livable.The tremendous community effort to preserve theneighborhood’s character paid off: Davis Square isremarkable in its coherence and urban texture. Asthe residents had hoped, the area still has the narrowstreets, the small scale and the densely built fabricthat made it unique and that now contribute to itssuccess.

SOURCE

Metropolitan Area Planning Council, Red Line Extension,Land Use Study (1988).

ENDNOTE

1. Metropolitan Area Planning Council, Red Line Extension,Land Use Study (1988) p.32.

LANI is a vision that touches everyone who encounters it.It is like a pallette of paints allowing each neighborhood todesign its colors, textures, and uses. Government is there toprovide the paint, but only the community can compose thepicture.

—Deputy Mayor Rae James

My dream for LANI is that it becomes a national model forrevitalizing and sustaining neighborhoods through com-munity empowerment.

—Richard J. Riordan, Mayor of Los Angeles

SUMMARY

The Los Angeles Neighborhood Initiative (LANI),sponsored by Mayor Richard Riordan, is undertakinga 30-month demonstration project that seeks to pro-vide an economic stimulus to eight transit-dependentneighborhoods through community planned trans-portation improvements, housing, and commercialrehabilitation, and development. Incorporated in1994, LANI has established community organizationsin each neighborhood and provided technical sup-port, training, and funding for demonstration projectsaround transit facilities.

In December 1994, local organizations completedwork plans, describing programs and projects to be

42

Case Study 5-2Los Angeles Neighborhood Initiative: RebuildingDisinvested Neighborhood “Main Streets” fromthe Bus Stop Up

implemented. In 1995, they hired design consultantsand began construction of the initial demonstrationprojects. Projects vary greatly from neighborhood toneighborhood, but all share a common focus on busstops as centers of community life. In addition, LANIhas encouraged other ongoing efforts in neighbor-hoods and has served as a catalyst for communityparticipation and action. At the end of the 2-yeardemonstration period, local organizations will havethe capacity to become permanent vehicles for com-munity revitalization.

PLANNING PROCESS

LANI has its roots in the Los Angeles riots of April1992, when it was evident that rioters, in the words ofthe original LANI proposal, “had no feeling of owner-ship or caring about what happened to their neighbor-hoods. Residents felt disconnected, and in many casesthey were.”

In addition to a lack of connection between peopleand their neighborhoods, the neighborhood mainstreets—even in stable, middle-class neighborhoods—looked abandoned. Transit service was inadequate forlow-income areas in which more than 20 percent ofhouseholds in auto-dependent Los Angeles have nocar. Moreover, transit stops are virtually invisible.They are situated on narrow sidewalks with fewamenities, just inches away from speeding traffic. Thestops are, as one resident put it, “humiliating placesto wait.”

Rather than simply take a city initiated “triage”approach to neighborhood renewal, the Mayor’sOffice of the City of Los Angeles developed the con-cept for LANI, whereby with a minimum of financialsupport coupled with dedicated technical assistance,neighborhoods would be empowered to address theirown economic opportunities. Moreover, it was impor-tant not merely to plan communities, but actually toimplement projects that establish linkages betweenother programs in communities and build in the self-reliance necessary to continue these efforts.

After encouragement from the United StatesSecretary of Transportation, the Mayor’s Office pre-pared a proposal in January of 1994, which identifiedthe overall scope of LANI and the eight neighbor-hoods to be included. City council members weresolicited to nominate neighborhoods in their districts,and city staff and planning consultants evaluated proj-ects to identify those with the greatest chance for suc-cess. Each of the project sites selected was situatedalong a significant bus or rail corridor (four adjacentto Metrorail light rail stations) with a substantialtransit-dependent population and, while several ofthe area main streets were underused, there was a

demand for new affordable housing and neighbor-hood retail. Moreover, the projects all had existingcommunity organizations and some level of planningwork already in place; these were considered to be themain ingredients for short-term success. The citycouncil representative for the district had to endorseLANI, identify the appropriate community groups,and provide continued leadership and cooperationwith that local group.

Within 6 months of its conception, LANI became areality. A board of directors with diverse back-grounds in real estate development, transportation,urban planning, finance, labor law, communications,and community organization was established and anexecutive director hired. Funding commitments wereobtained from the FTA and local public and privatesources. Eight “Recognized CommunityOrganizations” (RCOs) were set up, composed ofcommunity members representing businesses, com-mercial property owners, residents, and institutions.

In another 6 months, each of the eight RCOs hadcompleted a project work plan that defined specificphysical improvements, such as transit and pedestrianamenities, to be implemented in 1995. They also devel-oped longer-term programs to revitalize the neighbor-hood main streets, create jobs, and assist youth. Thework plans identified goals and prioritized needsdetermined by community meetings, outreach, andprevious planning work. Organization and decision-making structures were developed and the scope ofwork for designers of the initial projects outlined.

Throughout 1995, efforts focused on implementa-tion: hiring consultants, developing specific plans,reviewing plans and proposals with city agencies forapproval, bidding, and beginning construction.Meanwhile, RCOs pursued other nonconstructionactivities, like holding special events and installingbanners that gave tangible evidence of the LANIproject.

STRATEGY

The LANI strategy has several important, intercon-necting components:

Community Participation and Ownership. LANI isbased on the substantial involvement of local resi-dents, businesses, and property owners. The RCOshave substantial independence and are responsiblefor implementation of their own projects and pro-grams, with financial support and guidance from theLANI board. Methods of participation have varied byproject, but include diverse representation on theRCO Board, community workshops, and outreach toexisting institutions and organizations.

43

Leveraging Public and Private Resources. LANI seeksto leverage its own limited resources with other local,state, and federal programs, both public and private.This strategy is critical in concentrating rather thandiffusing scarce financial resources. LANI has beensuccessful in obtaining in-kind donations as well. Forexample, bus shelters and information kiosks for allthe neighborhoods were provided by GannettOutdoor. This private company donated $250,000 andagreed to maintain the shelters and kiosks for 3 years.

One advantage of pursuing eight projects concur-rently is that LANI is able to help streamline approvalprocesses through various city agencies. For instance,the Los Angeles city council contributed to the LANIprogram by waiving more than $150,000 in permit fees.

Short-Term Catalytic Projects. Critical to the successof LANI is that it did not merely plan for long-term

visions, but produced concrete results during the firstyear of the program. Each community has determinedfor itself which of the best first projects will lead toother projects and programs in the future. Projectssuch as the installation of new bus stops and informa-tion kiosks help make the commercial streets moreattractive and build a sense of cooperation within theneighborhoods. These are the short-term effortsunderway in the eight neighborhoods:

• Tree plantings using volunteers from a conserva-tion organization, with refreshments provided bylocal businesses.

• New historic light fixtures, installed on a trialbasis.

• A training program for youth in gardening andlandscape maintenance, operated by a localsenior center.

• Installation of banners with a special banner-raising ceremony.

• A jazz festival to celebrate the importance of jazzin the African American community.

• Development of an “art park” next to a bus stop,with trees, sculpture displays, and a communitymural.

• A community garden on a vacant lot run by at-risk youth, an important first step to creating afarmer’s market where the community can buyproduce and at-risk youth can earn employment.

Building Long-Term Local Capacity. LANI’s strategy isto produce self-reliant programs that have the capac-ity—in terms of organization, finance, leadership andtechnical skills—to carry on the work in the future. Itis anticipated that future programs will be sustainedthrough special neighborhoods improvement districts,which can finance streetscape improvements, publicspace management activities, and business develop-ment efforts. Community development corporationscan also help sustain programs by supporting affordablehousing. It is hoped that local business associationswill be developed as well.

FUNDING

The core of the funding for the Los Angeles LANIcomes from the FTA Livable Communities program,which provides $250,000 in support to each neigh-borhood through the Los Angeles MetropolitanTransportation Authority (MTA). Contributions fromthe FTA/MTA have totaled $2.3 million. MTA alsoprovides free office space overhead for LANI.

Meanwhile, the city of Los Angeles has contributed$800,000. This includes the $115,000 that the city coun-cil approved for the program start-up and administra-

44

Figure 5-7 and 5-8. Case Study 5-2. As part of the LosAngeles Neighborhood Initiative (LANI), residents worktogether making transit stops centers for community(before—Figure 5-7). This bus stop in North Hollywood wastransformed and integrated into an “art park,” which will bethe site for a cafe, art displays, and community events(after—Figure 5-8). (Credit: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

tive expenses. Since the initial contribution, the major-ity of the city’s money has gone directly to the eightneighborhoods where LANI operates. (The county ofLos Angeles helped fund LANI as well, $200,000 wasapproved by the state ballot for county transit storesand 138 transit shelters.)

Local neighborhoods have also been successful inobtaining donations, such as meeting refreshments,flyer printings, and meeting spaces. Local businesseshave donated trees and private companies havedonated legal, accounting, and design services. Ofcourse, much of the implementation of projects relieson community volunteers.

For example, Leimert Park, one LANI neighborhood,has leveraged more than $1 million in local govern-ment money to fund various aspects of its demonstra-tion project; $600,000 was contributed by the CityDepartment of Parks and Recreation to upgrade thelocal park; $285,000 was donated by the CommunityRedevelopment Authority to pay for needed streetwork, including adding decorative paving and bumpouts; and $400,000 was granted by the local city counciloffice for re-striping and improving lighting in parkinglots and adding landscaping. In addition, a mixed-useretail/office development project has been attracted tothe area and has purchased land.

As noted above, each neighborhood group ispreparing a plan for sustaining the program. LANIwill also continue to seek federal, state, and local sup-port for implementation of demonstration projects.


LANI implemented a process to overcome obstaclesbefore they arose. In May 1995, LANI arranged a 2-day forum during which each of the eight designengineers presented their plans to a panel composedof representatives from the City Department ofTransportation, MTA, and the Departments of PublicWorks, Safety, Streets and Lighting, and others. Thisstreamlined the planning process because each neigh-borhood did not have to seek separate approvals fromeach agency. During the two days of deliberation,concessions were made and compromises reached.For example, the NOHO (North Hollywood) commu-nity agreed to the widening of Magnolia Street as atrade-off for streetscaping and amenities.

The bureaucratic hurdles involved in leveragingfunding tied to other city initiatives have been diffi-cult to overcome, however. Currently, LANI has asecond round of FTA funding and an ISTEA grant isstill pending.

Local obstacles exist in each of the project areas aswell. For example, the Highland Park site is withinthe overlay of a historic district that prohibited the

use of angle parking. Also, some design engineershave developed plans that are simply not feasible tobuild. People within the organizations themselveshave been working hard, however, to overcome theseobstacles as well as to gain consensus among diver-gent groups so that they can move forward withimplementation.


So far, a number of project areas have been success-ful in attracting additional funding for improvements.These design and planning efforts have also served toboost efforts to organize merchants into local mer-chants associations. In Leimert Park, communitydevelopment block grant funds will be used to hire aconsultant to develop a nonprofit organization tomanage and administer the new merchant’s associa-tion and to coordinate other efforts aimed at attract-ing further funding.

In addition, many communities have gone a stepfurther in their design process and have created plansfor the next stage of development, so that when fundsare identified, communities have plans ready forimplementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Although still in its early stages, LANI has com-bined many key ingredients: community involve-ment, a focus on creating places along corridors thatare unappealing to pedestrians, and short-term, visi-ble projects, all focused on transit. In the next year,the true test will be weighing the impact of the firstphase of plans and seeing how neighborhoods takethe next step toward making their communities morelivable and transit-friendly.

We started with a pie in the sky notion and now there is a$300 million investment . . .

—Doug Farr, Project Architect

The Green Line took neighborhoods and businesses, innercity and suburban residents, and city government andtransit operators and made them realize that they hadsomething in common.

—Jackie Leavy, Executive Director,Neighborhood Capital Budget Group

45

Case Study 5-3Chicago, IL: The Green Line Using Transit Stations to Spur Reinvestment in Distressed Inner City Neighborhoods

We have given a terrific shot in the arm to the City andcommunities, but it will be a long time before the CTAreaps its rewards with increased ridership.

—Ken Domier, CTA Service Planning.

All that is happening in the area are dividends from invest-ments that people have been making for a long time. TheGreen Line has created the synergy which is pulling it alltogether.

—Ken Govas, Industrial Council of Northwest Chicago

SUMMARY

One month after the Green Line was actually createdby re-routing and re-connecting several legs of CTA’srapid transit system into a new configuration, newlyinstalled President Robert Belcaster of the CTAannounced that he was considering permanently clos-ing the line, replacing it with express bus service, andredirecting passengers to two parallel commuter trainlines. The community, seeing this as yet another poten-tial disinvestment in already distressed neighbor-hoods, rallied forces and organized into a broad-basedcommunity coalition. This coalition developed the con-cept of using transit to create a series of redevelopmentprojects within easy walking distance of stations on theline. The idea was not just to reopen transit service, butto use the transit infrastructure as a community assetto create employment opportunities in neighborhoodswhere unemployment was among the highest in thecity and to attract new residents, developing the vasttracks of open, vacant land into vital and safe newneighborhoods.

The campaign to save the Green Line was successful.The line was rebuilt during a 2-year, $323 million reha-bilitation project and is slated to resume operations inMarch or April 1996. Just as important, the citizens’campaign to save the Green Line has subsequently ledto a renaissance of interest in the neighborhoods,which have also been designated a federal empower-ment zone. While efforts are only starting, there is newinterest and commitment to rebuilding neighborhoodsfrom the bottom up—an investment that would not betaking place with such vigor and excitement had theGreen Line not been saved.

PLANNING PROCESS

When the Green Line was constructed in the 1890s,it ran through the center of a vital urban district—with both industrial and residential neighborhoods—and served as an important link to downtownChicago. However, the area declined after World WarII in a classic pattern of flight to the suburbs, influx ofpoor minorities seeking housing, and 1950s styleurban renewal. The riots in 1968 sent the district into

a downward spiral, decreasing the number of peopleand housing units in the area by 50 percent and moreby the 1990s.

As the neighborhood declined, so did transit service.Twelve stations were closed until there were fewaccess points for the community. Between the mid-1970s and 1993 there was a 60 percent decline in rider-ship (from 72,000 in 1976 to about 27,000 weekdayriders in 1994) with the elevated structure and stationsin dire need of repair. Travel time increased almost 100percent as trains slowed on the deteriorated tracks.

The planning process for saving the Green Linebegan with the formation of the Lake Street ElCoalition a community network representing busi-ness and residents, as well as citizen action groups.Spearheaded by the Neighborhood Capital BudgetGroup (NCBG), the coalition included West Side andSouth Side residents and communities, industry andbusiness leaders and leaders of suburban Oak Park,with the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT)providing technical assistance. These communitygroups collected nearly 20,000 petition signatures and lobbied elected officials. NCBG, a city-wide orga-nization dedicated to increasing public investment inneighborhoods, staffed the coalition.

Recognizing the coalition’s goal of using the GreenLine as a catalyst for neighborhood revitalization, theCNT encouraged the coalition to work with the archi-tectural firm of Doug Farr and Associates to create aprototype plan for one station. The Pulaski stop onthe west leg of the Green Line was selected to serve asan example of a strategy to be replicated all along thetransit corridor because an active local developmentcorporation existed to help drive the process. Farr andAssociates working with CNT staff developed a“Sustainable Kit of Parts” through a series of six com-

46

Figure 5-5. Case Study 5-3. A typical Green Line Station,Chicago, IL, before renovation. (Credit: Project for PublicSpaces, Inc.)

munity meetings facilitated by NCBG. Communitymembers identified specific local assets in their neigh-borhood (libraries, housing, shops and parks) andhow these elements could be improved. Over the sixmeetings, a plan emerged for the neighborhood thatreflected the concerns identified at the meeting. Theplan included a new transit station flanked by a com-mercial strip with retail services; a 24-hour drug store;intensified housing development on vacant land; aday care center; and special programs to improvesecurity and retain industry.

In July 1993, the Green Line Coalition and NCBGheld a press conference to unveil the “CommunityGreen Line Initiative” to demonstrate the economicpotential of communities all along the Green Line andthe value of rebuilding the transit corridor. This initia-tive provided a model for determining what the airquality benefits of transit-oriented development wouldbe for the communities adjacent to the Lake/Pulaskiand Washington Park Green Line stations.

One month later, in August 1993, the CTAannounced that the line would be reconstructed at acost then estimated at $300 million. The CTA did notraise any new grants for this program, but reallocatedcapital improvement moneys from other projects.Practical considerations played a role as well, as theCTA might have had to repay the federal governmentalmost as much money if it had closed the line beforethe expiration of the 40-year time limit, after receivingfederal grants for infrastructure repairs. In addition,the CTA is required to reduce bus emissions to meetfederal Clean Air Act requirements.

In December 1994, there was another momentousannouncement: the CTA Green Line would be thespine of a new federal empowerment zone (EZ) forChicago, one of six in the nation. The inclusion of theGreen Line corridor in the designation was not a coin-cidence but was a direct reflection of the citizen activ-ity in the area, plus the fact that the Green Line itselfprovided a strong geographic identity for the zoneand that all the census tracts in the transit corridormet the federal poverty guidelines for EZ programeligibility. The federal EZ program will provide $100million in social service block grants in addition to taxincentives to encourage investment and job creationin the area. The state and city have added to thisfinancial commitment, and the private sector hascommitted $2 billion in investment.

As the Green Line reconstruction began, planningwork continued in the neighborhoods. The NCBG con-ducted a year-long job planning effort for four addi-tional neighborhoods (other than the Pulaski stationarea) and published “Putting Neighborhoods on theRight Track” in January 1995. In addition, the city ofChicago and the CTA asked the Urban Land Institute

(ULI), a nonprofit education and research organizationthat deals with land use development, to assemble apanel of experts to assess the market for a mix of usesaround each station, develop underlying planning anddesign considerations, and identify the role of the cityand the CTA in implementing the vision. The panelconvened for one week in June 1995 and focused ontwo neighborhoods as examples. One of these stations,California/Lake Station, is presented below as a typi-cal strategy that other stations will follow.

STRATEGY

The principal strategy of the program, and certainlythe key goal of the CTA, is to reopen the transit line,provide access, and build new ridership although thetransit agency expects that it will take years before anyreal gain in ridership can be measured. The commu-nity is leveraging this project to achieve many livabil-ity goals by involving and empowering thecommunity to attract business and housing investmentthat serves current community residents. While eachneighborhood along the line has its own particular

47

Figure 5-6. Case Study 5-3. Proposed design concepts forthe renovated California/Lake Station and station area plan.(Credit: Urban Land Institute)

problems and objectives, the goals presented in the ini-tial plans for the Pulaski Station give some idea of therange of livability issues the communities hope can beaddressed by this transit project:

• Improve public safety;• Increase pedestrian access to transit and commu-

nity services;• Rebuild neighborhood density through infill and

new housing;• Increase jobs and employment for community

residents;• Rebuild the neighborhood economy via retail

and commercial revitalization;• Revitalize open space; and• Expand neighborhood capacity to implement the

project in partnership with the CTA, city, andlocal organizations.

The result of all this activity along the Green Lineis that many groups need to take responsibility forimplementation. The CTA views its role as openingthe line and the stations in 1996. It is taking an activerole in station development at two larger stations thatare being planned as retail/transit centers or “superstations,” and where they may also own more land.For the rest of the line, the CTA’s position is thatcommunity development groups, the city, and theprivate sector must take the lead, although the CTAis available to provide guidance and to conduct suchactivities as training workshops for community peo-ple. For example, the CTA has funded the AfricanAmerican Leadership Program to provide training onthe development process. Both NCBG and CNT havecontinued to provide community-based organiza-tions with planning assistance. The city of Chicagohas been funded to carry out a Congestion MitigationAir Quality (CMAQ) Demonstration Project on theGreen Line, and Chicago’s Regional TransportationAuthority has formed a transit-oriented developmentclearinghouse as well as funding roundtable discus-sions on these topics.

One example of a local project is presented below.

Example Strategy: The California/Lake Station

The California/Lake Station was one of two stationsinvestigated in depth by the ULI panel and is furtheralong in implementation than most of the other pro-jects because there had already been several revitaliza-tion programs in place in the area. This station is anarea that is both industrial and residential. The KinzieIndustrial Corridor is a 675-acre industrial district thatabuts the station, with more than 13,000 workers (3,000of whom are within 1 ⁄2 mi of the station).

Transit Service. The ULI panel suggested that theCTA establish short distances between stations on theGreen Line, so as to provide complementary servicewithout competing with the parallel Blue Line, whichoffers express service. Competing bus service couldalso be eliminated. Stations located roughly 1 ⁄2-miapart reinforce transit-oriented development poten-tials and emphasize the community investment goalsof the Green Line project.

Developing Communities. Because population has beendeclining and there is a vast amount of open land, theenvironment along the Green Line looks devastated.The troubled Henry Horner Homes Chicago HousingAuthority public housing project discourages new resi-dential development. Until the Green Line project, how-ever, residents and industrial advocates did not workclosely together. This transit program has united thetwo in pursuing the revitalization of the neighborhood.

Because the aggregate buying power of the neighbor-hood is currently so low, the ULI panel recommendedthat the neighborhoods focus on building owner-occupied homes (single- and two-family houses aswell as townhouse units) and increasing residentialdensity targeted to mixed-income groups.Neighborhood convenience stores and other commer-cial development around the station should followonce population and income are increased.

There are already projects in the works. The city ofChicago plans to demolish or radically reconfigure theHenry Horner Homes. About 40 privately built, single-family infill homes are under construction and another50 are planned under a city-sponsored program, “NewHomes for Chicago,” which reduces the purchase priceof houses by providing low-cost land. The industrialdistrict is one of the city’s “Model Industrial Corridors,”a program seeking to expand existing and recruit newindustrial uses in the area. The Kinzie IndustrialDevelopment Corporation, which runs the oldest andlargest “business incubator” in the country, will begreatly enhanced by the recent EZ designation, and itssubstantial tax incentives for business investment andexpansion.

The ULI panel also recommended establishing spe-cial overlay zones to provide guidelines for the designof new development and streetscape improvements,which are also needed to reinforce neighborhooddevelopment goals and to upgrade the image of thearea. As a small first step, banners announcing the EZnow line neighborhood streets.

Station Area. The ULI panel recommended creatinga small “transit plaza” adjacent to the station linedwith small retail establishments as they become feasi-ble. Unfortunately, the CTA’s design for the new sta-

48

tion is not oriented in the right direction (because theCTA does not own the land ideal for the plaza); thestation itself was criticized for its mundane appear-ance. The panel suggested a new station with a plazaand civic identity. “The station should celebrate theneighborhood. Perhaps it should honor . . . a neigh-borhood pastor . . . A standout station and stationarea plaza will encourage pedestrian traffic, one of thekey elements of a transit-oriented development.” [1]Unfortunately, this level of community input appearsto have come too late in the process, and it is unlikelythat such a station will be built.

Transit service, new development, and improvedstation areas are being addressed in other areas aswell. However, the level of promise and commitmentvaries greatly, usually dependent on the extent oflocal initiative.

FUNDING

Funding for the initial pilot planning work to savethe Green Line was done by nonprofit organizationsthrough their general support funds, although someadditional foundation grants were received by theCNT. Additional planning funds were obtainedthrough federal ISTEA funds, with matching fundsfrom the CTA and the city of Chicago communitydevelopment block grants, but these have not yetbeen spent.

The Community Green Line Initiative’s model fordetermining air quality benefit was used by the CTAto qualify for $10.5 million in federal CMAQ funds tobuild and renovate the Lake Pulaski and WashingtonPark transit stations. The model enabled the city toprove that each of these two facilities would decreasethe number of automobile trips in their respectiveareas by 10 percent.

Funding for the reconstruction of the Green Lineand stations totaling now about $350 million was pro-vided by the CTA through its capital budget. The EZis a project of the federal government and includesextensive investments, as described above.


The obstacles to this project have been and remainconsiderable. Initially, the CTA was seen as an obstacleand became the object of an intense political campaign.Jackie Leavy, Executive Director of the NeighborhoodCapital Budget Group, wrote in an op-ed piece in TheChicago Tribune, “We collected tens of thousands ofpetition signatures, held scores of community meetingsand press conferences, analyzed the CTA and the city’scapital budgets, pored over RTA documents, took CTA

President Robert Belcaster on a train ride and per-suaded three powerful Illinois congress people to joinhim. Throughout the campaign, we involved local andstate legislators and neighborhood manufacturers, andunited city residents with suburban neighbors . . . InApril, 1993, on the congressional tour of the Green Linethat we organized, CTA said it had no money for theline. Four months later, we won.” [2]

The Coalition for the project also faced financialproblems in terms of supporting planning activitiesfor the project. However, they were successful inobtaining ISTEA (CMAQ) funds and FTA LivableCommunities Initiatives for one station with the cityof Chicago’s Department of Planning andDevelopment acting as sponsor. Thus, the broad-based approach ultimately helped lead to more fund-ing for the project.

Now the obstacles are more practical: how toimplement this ambitious, costly project, which willtake years. The ULI panel focused on this problemand made seven basic recommendations:

1. Public sector subsidies must leverage private,market-driven investments.

2. Public sector resources must be made early andtargeted to produce visible results—not spreadevenly over the entire line.

3. Master plans for each project must be developedand adopted.

4. The operation of the Green Line should empha-size short- and middle-haul trips and not com-pete with the Blue and Red Line longer haulservices. Local competing bus service should bedropped. The whole line should be renamed togive it a new image.

5. Station designs should be modified so they sup-port local economic development goals.

6. Transit should see itself as a tool in the revital-ization process.

7. Successful station revitalization will be driven byincreasing the number of people who live in thearea, not by commercial development alone.

One obstacle has arisen as a result of the project’ssuccess in changing the perception of the area: vacantland that has been long dormant is now being pur-chased and held for speculative reasons and ownersof land slated for inclusion in these development proj-ects have either refused to sell or demanded manytimes the fair market value for the land. To put an endto the delays caused by property owners—at theLake/Pulaski site in particular—the city stepped inand designated the site as a “redevelopment area,”which enabled it to take control of the propertythrough “eminent domain.”

49

The CTA was criticized in the ULI report, whichstated that “the perception, if not the reality, seems tobe that the decisions about station closings andimprovements have been unilateral, with little noticegiven to those affected by the decisions.” [3]Moreover, ULI recommended that “the CTA has aresponsibility to be an active partner with DPD (CityDepartment of Planning and Development) in incor-porating transit service in a coordinated planningapproach . . . The panel believes there presently aredegrees of fragmentation in the development decisionprocess that occasionally leave the communitybehind; this situation should be changed through theestablishment of an inclusive planning process thatserves as a basis for resource allocation, priorities, andultimate investment decisions.” [4]

According to David Chandler, of the CNT, theCTA has made progress in developing a more inclu-sive public participation process and in understand-ing its role in the economic development of theneighborhoods it serves; these changes in the organi-zation’s “culture” have permeated the hierarchy ofthe CTA.


The most visible impact of this program—thereopening of the Green Line—occurred in May 1996.(CTA President Robert Belcaster resigned 2 daysbefore the line reopened, citing reasons unrelated tohis tenure as president.) The impact of the Green Linehas gone beyond the physical reconstruction of thetransit line to include a reassessment of the future ofthe neighborhood itself.

The tangible results today include a massive infu-sion of funds and programs, mainly through the fed-eral EZ, which grew directly out of the movement tosave the transit line. Another visible result is the activ-ity, commitment, and new resolve of many existingand recently formed community organizations andbusiness groups, working with the city. The GreenLine seems to be providing a focus for joint action andcooperation that has, in many respects, left the transitagency itself in almost a secondary role. Oddlyenough, people interviewed for this study com-mented that had the CTA not considered closing theline, very little of what has happened over the past 2years could or would have taken place. As is so oftenthe case, a crisis mobilizes the community into realiz-ing that they must take the future of their communityinto their own hands.

Currently, the CNT is working with several com-munity development corporations to develop com-prehensive and feasible development plans for a

two-block area around the Washington Park andLake/Pulaski stations. In addition, the NCBG, CNT,and several West Garfield Park community organiza-tions (Bethel New Life, most notably) have formed ajoint venture to implement the plan for their areausing the Lake/Pulaski station as a commercialanchor for the development. This joint venture also isassembling land for commercial and housing devel-opments and is constructing housing units on anincremental basis.

CONCLUSIONS

The “coalition” for the Green Line is not a mono-lithic entity. It is diverse geographically as well as interms of business and residents. Its success willdepend on the energy of local organizations to main-tain the momentum and to attract resources from thecity and others to solve its own problems. Still,people remark that, just a few years ago, organiza-tions that were active tended to work in isolation.Now, there is a more holistic approach to addressingthe livability needs of this very needy district. TheGreen Line project is a model for combining commu-nity development and transit-oriented developmentstrategies to achieve revitalization goals where thekey to success is the improvement of public transitaccess.

SOURCES

Olsen, Laura, Transit-Oriented Communities, published byMobility Partners, 1400 16th Street, NW, Suite 300,Washington, DC 20036 (1994).

Neighborhood Capital Budget Group, Community GreenLine Planning Project: Putting Neighborhoods on the RightTrack (1994).

Urban Land Institute, The New Green Line, Chicago, Illinois:Recommendations for Transit-Oriented Redevelopment ofNeighborhoods Along Chicago’s Rehabilitated Green Line “L”,Urban Land Institute (1995).

Center for Neighborhood Technology, Opportunities inNeighborhood Technology: Community Green Line Initiative(no date).

ENDNOTES

1. Urban Land Institute, The New Green Line, Chicago, Illinois(1995) p.32.

2. Chicago Tribune (February 6, 1994).3. Urban Land Institute, The New Green Line, Chicago, Illinois

(1995) p. 42.4. Ibid., p.47.

50

INTRODUCTION

Jobs are a prime livability issue, evidenced by theirprominent ranking in most livability surveys and bythe fact that employment was mentioned by partici-pants at almost every focus group session. Whileindividuals are concerned with finding stable employ-ment at fair wages and municipalities with keepingemployers from moving and closing plants andoffices, finding opportunities for inner city, lower-skilled and minority workers is especially critical.Often the opportunities in metropolitan regions are inthe suburbs, many of which are experiencingunprecedented growth, but one needs a car to takefull advantage of them.

There is also growing awareness that small busi-nesses are responsible for most job growth in thiscountry and that communities can achieve substantialeconomic growth by nurturing local entrepreneurs,that is, people who produce and/or sell needed prod-ucts and services on a small scale. Although localentrepreneurs start small, with the proper incentives,work environment, and management, they can growto become major contributors to a community’s eco-nomic development.


More and more, communities are developing pro-grams to support and encourage the development andexpansion of small local businesses, ranging fromsmall manufacturing operations to high-tech firms.Local governments, economic development organiza-tions, and national leaders alike have developed inno-vative strategies to search for entrepreneurs and toprovide them with the support they need to getstarted, such as subsidizing work space, offering tech-nical assistance and business training, and relaxingordinances that ban certain types of enterprises, suchas open-air selling. Often assistance is provided in aspecific facility, such as a vacant factory building,where so-called “business incubators” offer newlyformed businesses or retailers space in designatedfacilities where they can receive on-site technical assis-tance, favorable financing and management supportservices that they otherwise could not afford. Thesefacilities frequently offer job-training programs as well.

In many inner cities, these programs are initiated oraugmented by the establishment and designation ofstate and federal government “enterprisecommunity” and “empowerment zones,” which

CHAPTER 6

Creating Opportunity for Entrepreneurship and Economic Development

I urge you to consider three very important goals: First, we must recognize the importance oflinking economic, physical, and human development to successfully build viable communitiesand create new opportunities for the disadvantaged. Second, we should encourage the widest cit-izen participation possible, since no plan is successful that does not have the full support of localcitizens and community leaders. And third, we must work to enhance the environment and cul-ture for urban residents in order to create a revived sense of community spirit that will lead to amore prosperous and livable community.

—Henry Cisneros, former Secretary, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

51

strive to address a broad range of community needs—jobs, safety, affordable housing, schools, transporta-tion—through community-based, comprehensive,strategic planning. Part of the package includes tech-nical planning and design assistance to communities,the provision of tax and other financial incentives toencourage businesses to relocate to these needy areas,funding to increase public transit service and accessto communities, and funding to implement thesestrategic plans.

Local private-public partnerships also use manycreative financial strategies to assist promising busi-nesses that may not yet be able to obtain conventionalfinancing or to make it attractive for an establishedbusiness to locate in a specific area. Many also spon-sor a wide variety of job-training programs.

Strategies for building local economies also includesupporting retail businesses in neighborhood anddowntown commercial districts. Public-private part-nerships and downtown associations have manytypes of programs to assist businesses with financing,design, merchandising and promotion. The conceptof “retail management” applies techniques devel-oped at suburban malls to strengthen downtownbusiness activities, such as creating merchants’ andproperty owners’ associations, and establishing mas-ter lease agreements to coordinate leasing, storehours, merchandising practices, recruitment, andexpansion.

At the smallest scale of retail enterprise, there hasalso been a resurgence in vendors who operate inde-pendently or in public markets. Public and open-airfarm and craft markets, for example, provide afford-able space and on-site management assistance for

producers of local food products and non-food items,while stimulating local community development.PPS’s recent book, Public Markets and CommunityRevitalization, documents the variety of opportunitiesfor and impacts of markets. [1]

Role of Transit

Transit facilities attract people every day, and noone should underestimate the value of foot traffic forbusinesses. Transit brings customers to support andpromote local businesses of all sizes. Moreover, transitsupports business development by providing accessfor employees, especially transit dependent popula-tions who can take advantage of job-training and edu-cational opportunities if they are made accessible.

By taking advantage of foot traffic, transit facilitiescan become mixed-use developments, which providea variety of retail and shopping opportunities. Thelarger transit facilities, like Washington andChicago’s Union Station, and Boston South Station,attract tens of thousands of people annually—manyof whom come to dine and shop and do not eventake the train. In Chicago, most of the food busi-nesses are locally owned and operated. The designand merchandising standards are state-of-the-artand an overall appearance of quality is maintained,in dramatic contrast to the condition of these stationsbefore redevelopment.

Even for smaller transit facilities, there is potentialfor small business development. New Jersey Transit’sStation Renewal Program is developing passenger ser-vice centers, with satellite operations of businesseslike bakeries, dry cleaners, delicatessens, florists, andshoe repair, which operate satellite stores and vend-ing carts at transit stops during the busiest times ofday. They are also developing “concierge” programswhere one or more people contract with local busi-nesses to act as an intermediary between transit cus-tomers and their shops. In the mornings, a conciergecollects from passengers their dry cleaning, undevel-oped film, shoes to be repaired, keys to be made, andso forth, and distributes these items to the appropriatemerchants. Before the evening rush, the conciergeretrieves these items and distributes them to passen-gers when they return to the transit facility.

Other forms of small business development includevending programs, like Downtown CrossingMarketplace in Boston, the Columbus Circle Market inNew York City, and Pioneer Square in Portland, whichfeatures a cafe, flower and food vendors, and a branchof a local bookstore. Vending areas can also beindoors. One of the successful retail areas in UnionStation in Washington, DC, is a vending area (whichactually looks more like the ground floor of a depart-ment store) with local businesses selling quality

52

Figure 6-1. St. Louis’s Wellston Metrolink Station has not only become a new transit hub for the community, butalso has stimulated the development of a job training and business incubation center in the abandoned WagnerElectric Factory Building. (Credit: Project for PublicSpaces, Inc.)

crafts. The Port Authority Bus Terminal’s renovationprogram began with an experimental vending cartprogram operated by a minority entrepreneur.

Transit has also been a catalyst for renewal ofdowntown and neighborhood commercial districts, aspresented in Chapter 5. Transit agencies have takenspecific steps to support local businesses. InWoodbridge, NJ, New Jersey Transit hired an artist todesign maps and guides to the town’s businesses andservices, which are displayed on train platforms. NJTransit also works with local retailers, especiallythose located in or next to a facility, to provide sched-ule and fare information to their commuter customersand even to sell parking permits (NetherwoodStation, Plainfield, NJ). The entire Denver Partnershipprogram is built around the joint support for transitand for downtown businesses, creating a successfulenvironment for both. While all retail merchants donot necessarily believe a transit station or facility neartheir stores helps bring them business (see the exam-ple on transit malls in Chapter 5, for example), thosewhom we surveyed in Portland and Corpus Christidid believe that transit service had benefited the areaoverall and made it a very good place to do businessbecause transit was effectively integrated into thedowntown environment.

Finally, in Chicago, one of the original partners in theGreen Line Initiative, was one of the largest industrialincubators in the country—recognizing that businessincubators and job-training programs require effectivetransit access. This area has also been designated a fed-eral EZ as a direct result of the community’s action tosave and revitalize the Green Line. In St. Louis, a part-nership has been established to create a job-trainingcenter and business incubator in an abandoned factorycomplex, adjacent to Wellston Station, a new light railstation. Another jobs strategy takes the oppositeapproach: Jobs Link in Chicago shuttles workers fromthe inner city to the suburbs where jobs are moreprevalent but for which transit access is inadequate.

ENDNOTE

1. Spitzer, Theodore Morrow et al., Public Markets andCommunity Revitalization, Project for Public Spaces, Inc.,and the Urban Land Institute (1995).

EXAMPLES

Washington, DC: Union Station Local Business Opportunities at Revitalized Intermodal Station

Union Station in Washington, DC, is a bustlingfacility serving 50,000 daily Amtrak travelers,

Maryland Area Railway Commuter (MARC) riders,Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority(WMATA) Metro riders, tourist bus passengers, taxi-cabs, office workers, and area residents. With trainsand subways infusing the station with people in regu-lar intervals, Union Station pulsates with life. Indeed,the transit function is essential to the success of thestation. The Metro (i.e., subway) stop is the secondbusiest in the city, serving office workers at lunch (thestation has its own lunchtime rush hour), Amtrak passengers, visitors and tourists going to the CapitolBuilding and nearby museums, as well as employeesof the area (including Capitol Hill and other federaloffices). Like South Station in Boston, Union Station hasbecome a neighborhood central square where peoplefeel safe shopping, eating, and meeting friends;indeed, the station is the second largest tourist attrac-tion in Washington.

Union Station, which is owned by the U.S.Department of Transportation, was redeveloped bythe nonprofit Union Station RedevelopmentCorporation (USRDC) and is managed by LaSallePartners, a private management firm that holds a 99-year lease on the station and is the leaseholder for thestation’s many retail tenants. While the USRDC wasresponsible for bringing in private developers, restor-ing the train station and all of its historic elements,LaSalle replaced the government in handling day-to-day operations of the station, including maintenance(24 hours/day cleaning) and security. In addition, themanagement firm sponsors seasonal events andactivities such as “Taste of the Nation,” an annualculinary festival that help to finance other commu-nity events. LaSalle also runs an innovative socialservice referral program for the homeless with freetransport to area shelters and food donation servicebetween station restaurants and local homelessfacilities.

Retail sales at Union Station reached $70 million in1995 and, at the current growth rate of 5 percent peryear, are projected to top $101 million in 1996—$70million more than the $35 million projected when thestation reopened in 1988. The 600,000 sq ft of retailspace is 95 percent leased and 99 percent occupied bystores that are or will reflect the retail specialty. Therecurrently are 140 retail tenants at the station rentingan average of 1,000 sq ft each. Retailers must conformto strict design criteria: 85 percent of each storefrontmust be transparent; fluorescent and neon lightingare not permitted; signage is controlled; and buildingmaterials must be in keeping with the historic style ofthe architecture.

Union Station also provides opportunities for start-up businesses. The station’s East Hall has been com-pletely given over to movable, mahogany counter-height retail kiosks where vendors hold leases for as

53

few as 60 days and up to 12 months. The East Hallkiosk program allows vendors to try out new mer-chandise, experiment with new marketing ideas, andfocus on seasonal products while incurring very littlefinancial risk or having to make a long-term commit-ment. Some businesses that were incubated in theEast Hall and have moved into permanent retail spacein the main station area. Vendors in the East Hallinclude artists, craftspeople, and mom-and-pop-typebusinesses, several of which are minority enterprises.Between 1,200 and 1,500 new jobs have been createdwithin the station itself.

New York, NY: Columbus Circle MarketSubway Station Plaza as Place for Economic Opportunity

The Columbus Circle site is a boon to business and not onlyhas sustained the Market and its vendors but has allowed itto grow. The new covered entrance to the station made thatentrance more attractive to people and has helped to drawmore people to the Market.

—Alan Boss, Market Manager

The Columbus Circle Market is located at the plazaentrance to the Columbus Circle subway station, oneof the busiest in New York City, and in front of theNew York Coliseum (the city’s old convention center)and one of the offices of the MetropolitanTransportation Authority (MTA). The subway stationis a major hub, serving as a transfer between fourlines and as a major station for Manhattan’s west side.

The market, which opened in May 1995, was con-ceived by the MTA Real Estate Division to take

advantage of the tens of thousands of commuters,office workers, tourists, and area residents who fre-quent the station. When the city’s new conventioncenter opened, usage of the Coliseum dropped andmuch of the plaza was underutilized despite theheavy usage of the subway station. Homeless peoplecamping in plaza nooks and crannies became moreand more of a problem. The market was introduced to add positive activity and to make the homelessactivity less prevalent.

The contract to operate the market for the MTA wasawarded to a group that also operates antique andflea markets throughout Manhattan and that orga-nizes the Central Park South craft market for theDepartment of Parks and Recreation each year. TheColumbus Circle Market functions 10 months peryear (closing after Christmas and reopening in mid-March) and accommodates 55 vendors: 16 at tables ina large tent, 30 around the tent (weather permitting)and 9 in permanent kiosks that have been retrofittedwith electricity and running water. While the kiosksare leased annually to vendors of food and merchan-dise, such as clothing, flowers, jewelry and rugs, themajority of vendors rent space in or around the tenton a day-to-day basis, particularly if they are transientor can’t afford to pay in advance. On Tuesdays andThursdays during the summer, the daily spaces arerented to farmers.

The Columbus Circle Market has been successfulboth as an economic and retail incubator and as amethod for replacing negative activity with a posi-tive use.

Chicago, IL: A Public/Private Joint Ventureto Create Local Retail Opportunities at Transit Stations

Taking advantage of blighted retail space at transitstations can benefit transit operators, improve thelivability of the neighborhood around the stationand provide local jobs. In 1993, the nonprofitEdgewater Development Corporation andCombined Properties Management, a for-profitleasing and management company, joined togetherto create the Edgewater Redevelopment Group(ERG) which undertook to rehabilitate and re-leasethe commercial properties owned by the ChicagoTransit Authority (CTA) that were under or adjacentto four intermodal elevated (El) transit stations along the Red Line. ERG’s goals for the project wereto introduce transit-oriented retail at the Red Line

54

Figure 6-2. Interior of Union Station, Washington, DC,Grand Concourse. Nearly all 600,000 sq ft of retail spaceis currently leased. (Credit: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

stations and to encourage private commercialinvestment in the area, in hopes of turning thecommunity around.

The ERG was able to secure an interest-free loan of$500,000 from the CTA to accomplish the work, whichhas included the rehabilitation of the facades andlighting of 21 stores in the area. The ERG oversaw theprivate-sector rehabilitation work, encouraged theCTA to maintain other parts of their property (stationentrances, etc.), and developed a transit/commuter-oriented tenant mix. The businesses, 70 percent ofwhich are minority business enterprises, are locatednext to station entrances and at staircase entrances.

The retail mix was designed to provide many goodsand services to commuters, including newsstands,coffee carts, dry cleaners, ATMs, and a foreign cur-rency exchange.

The majority of original tenants have remained,the properties are nearly 100 percent leased and theprogram has begun to provide a revenue stream forthe ERG. The project represents significant commer-cial reinvestment in the area which, according toproject manager Marty Goldsmith, usually lags farbehind residential reinvestment, making it more dif-ficult to revitalize a neighborhood and create a morelivable place.

55

Figure 6-3. A lively depiction of New York City’s Columbus Circle Market by artist K. Jacobsen adorns the interiors of sub-way cars and invites transit passengers to stop and shop.

Chicago, IL: Suburban Job-Link ConnectsJobs and People

We are consciously trying to open up the suburbs as a placeof work for the inner-city poor, instead of granting themaccess only to job opportunities around the corner.

—Mark Hughes, Director, Bridges to Work

Access to jobs is a major challenge for low-incomeinner-city residents. In cities like Chicago, St. Louis,Detroit, and Milwaukee, two-thirds of the new jobscreated between 1980 and 1990 were located outsidecity cores. The city of Denver alone lost 13,000 jobsduring this time while its suburbs gained 184,000 jobs.The amount of office space now located in exurbanareas has more than doubled, to 57 percent in the past20 years. This includes manufacturing, retail, servicefirms, and offices.

While an increasing number of entry-level jobs areavailable that pay a living wage and offer full bene-fits, they are located in distant suburbs. The risingunemployed inner-city work forces remain cut offfrom these opportunities simply because of a lack oftime-saving and cost-efficient transportation.Bridging this gap is the goal of nonprofit groups likeSuburban Job-Link, a 4-year, $25 million program. Itis funded jointly by private foundations and the pub-lic sector to promote reverse commuting in citiesacross the United States. Job-Link minivans collectworkers in downtown locations and transport them,free of charge, to jobs as far away as adjacent coun-ties. Job-Link also operates training centers wherepeople are tested, trained, and matched with particu-lar jobs. Chicago Job Oasis, a service of Suburban Job-Link, has chosen to concentrate on a targeted clusterof distressed communities in the West Side where it has successfully trained and placed more than 200 residents in $6.00 to $8.00/hour jobs in DuPageCounty.

While the program has been successful thus far,according to Job Oasis Director David Boyd, “longcommutes, unfamiliar job cultures and difficultyadjusting to ethnically diverse workplaces lead someto drop out.”

CASE STUDIES

Clearly, many opportunities exist for transit facilitiesand agencies to support local businesses and transit-related enterprises and to provide quality service totheir customers, increasing transit’s positive impacton its passenger communities. Case studies showwhere transit, working in partnership with local com-munities and businesses, has achieved just this.

Case Study 6-1: Boston, MA: Downtown Crossing Transit and Pedestrian Improvements Create Setting forUrban Marketplace

Case Study 6-2: Chicago, IL: Union Station Local Businesses Thrive in Redeveloped Historic Station

Case Study 6-3: St. Louis, MO: The Wellston MetroLink/Cornerstone Partnership Light Rail Service Linking Mobility with Opportunity

The vending marketplace has become so essential down-town. It has done a lot to increase the draw of the area, andis an important stream of income for the DowntownCrossing Association. We turn this income into programswhich improve and enhance the district as a whole.

—Bethany Kendall, President, Downtown Crossing Association

SUMMARY

Boston’s Downtown Crossing is both a retail and atransit center for downtown Boston. Home to Filene’s,Filene’s Basement and Macy’s department stores aswell as hundreds of smaller, thriving businesses,Downtown Crossing is a major shopping destination.Transit improvements constructed in the late 1970s,combined with a major expansion of the subway lines

56

Figure 6-4. Suburban Job-Link. David Boyd, Vice Presidentin charge of training (left), greets a job seeker from Chicagoas he arrives at Suburban Job-Link’s Job Oasis inBensenville, IL. (Credit: Suburban Job-Link)

Case Study 6-1Boston, MA: Downtown Crossing Transit and Pedestrian Improvements Create Setting for Urban Marketplace

and an increase in ridership, have helped to create theDowntown Crossing Marketplace, a vending pro-gram which enlivens the area, creates jobs, and sup-ports the ongoing activities of a managementorganization working to improve the downtown.

PLANNING PROCESS

In 1966, the MBTA published its visionary“Program for Mass Transit,” which set the stage for amajor expansion of the rail transit system and a mora-torium on highway construction within the Route 128“Beltway” that surrounds Boston. In 1973, to meetfederal air-quality standards, the city instituted afreeze on public parking spaces. Between 1970 and1990, the number of route miles on the subway system was doubled with the construction of the newOrange Line and the Red Line extension (see CaseStudy 5-1).

The hub of the transit system is DowntownCrossing, the site where all the subway lines converge.A major retail center, the area was very congested inthe 1970s as buses, cars, and pedestrians—includingsome 60,000 daily riders of the “T” subway stations—competed for the same space along Washington Street.Recognizing that the environment for shoppers andtransit riders was clearly overcrowded, the city ofBoston initiated a program in 1977 to developDowntown Crossing as an “auto-restricted zone.”With funding from the federal Urban Mass Trans-portation Administration (now FTA), a series of pro-posals were studied to eliminate auto traffic on maindowntown streets in favor of improved access forpedestrians, buses, and subway transit riders.

While previous attempts to restrict auto accessdowntown had failed because of merchant opposi-tion, this proposal succeeded in part because businesspeople had seen the success of the new Faneuil HallMarketplace with its ample and lively pedestrian-friendly design. Through a complex 3-year planningprocess consisting of meetings, hearings, and behind-the-scenes negotiations, the Mayor’s office was able toorchestrate consensus on a plan that provided for apedestrian mall on Washington Street and a reroutingof car and bus traffic around this largely pedestriancenter.

Downtown Crossing opened in fall 1979 with a newlook: wide brick sidewalks and pedestrian amenities.An evaluation conducted by PPS in 1980 found thatthe area, in general, was vital and popular. However,not all of the public spaces were working as well asthey could; in fact, by removing cars and creatingmore pedestrian space than ever before, there weremany places that were underused. PPS then madesuggestions for rearranging amenities and developing

a management program to sponsor activities toenliven the area. A 1982 report included additionalideas for specific programs, such as a vending pro-gram, to help further activate the downtown and raiserevenues for the management of the district.

STRATEGY

The Downtown Crossing Association, which wasestablished to implement these programs, opened itsDowntown Crossing Marketplace in 1983. Today, themarketplace features 75 “on-street retailers” with, astheir brochure describes, “an international display ofquality merchandise and a variety of delicious snacksand treats. You’ll find ethnic wares, flowers and bal-loons, Boston souvenirs, men’s, women’s, and chil-dren’s accessories and cheerful, friendly pushcartvendors.” Vendors are spread throughout theDowntown Crossing area, which generally extendsbetween the major “T” stations. Over the years, thevendor spots next to the “T” stations have becomevalued locations for vendors selling impulse items,produce, and flowers to subway travelers.

While the marketplace is managed on a day-to-daybasis by a private financial partner, the DowntownCrossing Association oversees quality control, trouble-shoots problems, and assists with various cityapprovals. The association also retains the rights tothe program.

Over the past decade, the vending program hascontinued to evolve. Regulations have been modified,the private operator has been changed, and merchant

57

Figure 6-5. Case Study 6-1. Vendors liven up the sidewalksand T-station entrances throughout downtown Boston. TheDowntown Crossing program acts as both a retail and tran-sit center and supports the ongoing activities of a downtownmanagement organization. (Credit: Project for PublicSpaces, Inc.)

outreach continues to ensure that a balance betweenvendor requirements, street ambiance, and retailerneeds are met. The association has used the proceedsfrom the marketplace to conduct activities that drawshoppers to the area and make the area safer andmore attractive for all visitors, including transit rid-ers. Activities have included a summer concert series,holiday lights, new trash barrels, a marketing pro-gram, and banners.

FUNDING

In 1979, funding for the construction of DowntownCrossing came largely from federal transportationfunds from the Urban Mass TransportationAdministration (now FTA).

As noted above, the marketplace is not just self-sustaining; it generates income for the DowntownCrossing Association. While the exact figures are pro-prietary, vendors pay from $200 to $1000 per month,depending on their location. About 40 to 50 vendorsoperating 75 carts participate in the program. Start-upfunding (including purchasing push carts, etc.) wasprovided by the private financial partner.


The vending marketplace was not easy to establish.Merchants were concerned about the visual appear-ance of the vendors as well as potential competition.The association itself did not want to manage the dailyoperation of the marketplace, nor could it afford thestart-up costs of purchasing push carts. A managementpartnership with a private operator was set up, withthe association sharing revenues and providing qualitycontrol oversight. Strict regulations were set up gov-erning merchandise type and quality, cart design, ven-dor dress, and even a “returns” policy. To preventdirect competition, merchants have absolute controlover vendors in front of their stores. Only 25 percent ofthe vendors can sell food, and then it must be hand-held food that doesn’t compete with area restaurants.


Boston’s Downtown Crossing is a place where thepositive impacts of transit can be seen first hand. Theextensive investment in new subway lines in the1970s and 1980s resulted in a dramatic increase in rid-ership—up 20 percent over the past 20 years. About50 percent of all commuter trips to the center ofBoston today are by transit, and the subway linesthemselves are operating at near peak capacity.

This investment in the transit system has continuedto feed the economic vitality of Downtown Crossing.

Moreover, by taking advantage of the new space cre-ated by transit improvements and the flow of transitriders, the Downtown Crossing Association has cre-ated a program so successful that it is the main sourceof financial support for the association itself. Thecity’s Parks Department has even copied the programaround other transit stops, including the downtownstation in Boston Common. Despite its successes, the

58

Figure 6-6. Case Study 6-1. Downtown Crossing promo-tional brochure. (Credit: Downtown Crossing Association)

program requires constant attention to maintain qual-ity control.

The marketplace has created hundreds of jobs andcreated the opportunity for people to start businessesat low costs. There is a core of 20–30 vendors whohave more or less established permanent businesses “a la carte.” While the association has not kept detailedstatistical information about the program, vendorsrange from recent immigrants to frustrated corporateexecutives. One cart was started by a refugee fromCambodia who sold intricate carvings. The profits putthe vendor through MIT, and today the family stilloperates the cart. Another vendor started with a cartand then moved into permanent space in the newlyrenovated South Station (see Case Study 10-4).

CONCLUSIONS

The Downtown Crossing Marketplace, whichbegan as a transit and pedestrian improvement proj-ect, has helped maintain Downtown Crossing as apremier shopping destination in Boston. The market-place has contributed to the livability of the city bycreating hundreds of jobs, enlivening the downtown,and supplying a creative financing method, whichsupports programs to improve attractiveness, vitality,and overall business climate in the district.

SOURCES

Cambridge Systematics, Boston Auto-Restricted Zone Demonstration Project, U.S. Department ofTransportation (1979).

Cambridge Systematics, Downtown Boston Transportation Plan, U.S. Department ofTransportation (1995).

SUMMARY

From 1989 through 1991, Chicago’s historic UnionStation underwent a $37 million renovation that trans-formed it into one of the most modern and attractiverail passenger facilities in the country. Chicago UnionStation, on the west side of Chicago’s Loop, is the city’sbusiest commuter rail station, handling 23 million com-muters and 2.3 million Amtrak customers annually.

Prior to the renovation, Amtrak, which owns thestation through a subsidiary company (ChicagoUnion Station Company), believed that the poor con-dition of the station impacted its business by makingpart of the rail passengers’ travel experience a nega-tive one. Amtrak saw an opportunity to use theremodeled station as a way to promote train traveland make the station the activity center of the WestLoop area once again.

Amtrak worked with a local developer to redevelopthe station. One of the key components of this pro-gram was a complex of restaurants and food retailersto serve the 25 million train customers and 65,000office workers within walking distance of the station.The food service retailers, who generally wereselected from among the best of Chicago, were skepti-cal about being able to sell to an audience whom theyhad little experience serving. However, the results interms of sales have exceeded even optimistic projec-tions and the station is praised by passengers andpublic alike—a new center for the West Loop.

PLANNING PROCESS

Historically, Chicago Union Station was thenational train hub for all transcontinental trips and alltrain passengers traveling coast-to-coast changedtrains there. It became famous for its Great Hall wait-ing lounge and Fred Harvey’s Red Lion restaurant.

Union Station is located at the western edge ofChicago’s downtown area. The area had been a transi-tion zone between the downtown high-rise officebuildings and mid-rise warehouses and factories thatsurrounded the Loop. As warehouses and factorieshave left, this area has been transformed into residen-tial and office space. Since the 1980s, the West Loophas become the “hot” real estate market for new high-rise office buildings as more tenants wanted to becloser to the commuter train stations and cheaperparking.

Within a 10-min walk of Union Station are almost20 million sq ft of office space with an estimated day-time population of close to 65,000. Above the stationis the 222 South Riverside office building with 1.1 mil-lion sq ft of office space and a daytime office popula-tion of more than 3,000 workers.

Chicago Union Station is the second busiest railwaystation in the United States with 23 million com-muters annually. On an average workday, some85,000 Metra commuters—which represent almost 10percent of all downtown workers—use the station.Chicago is the central hub for the country whereabout 1,000 of the more than 6,000 daily Amtrak trainriders change trains going from coast-to-coast. Thescheduling of these trains provides for a minimum

59

Case Study 6-2Chicago, IL: Union Station Local Businesses Thrive in Redeveloped Historic Station

layover of 3 hours between trains, providing time fortravelers to buy food and goods outside the com-muter rush hours.

In 1970, the passenger concourse building wasdemolished to construct the 35-story 222 RiversidePlaza Building. The new building was part of a 3.4-million-sq-ft Gateway complex of offices built on rail-road air rights overlooking the Chicago River. Thenew station under 222 Riverside Plaza was strictlyutilitarian and had unpainted concrete block wallsand exposed concrete flooring finishes. The GreatHall of the station, which is on the National Registryof Historic Places, was left untouched.

When Daniel Burnham designed the station in1914, he anticipated a 16-story office buildingaround the Great Hall. However, because of variousdelays, the station was not finished until the GreatDepression and only nine floors of the office portionwere built.

In the later part of the 1980s, Chicago Union Stationissued a request for proposals to developers for theredevelopment of the station and the adjacent GreatHall building. Chicago Union Station awarded U.S.Equities Reality, Inc., of Chicago the right to develop1.2 million sq ft of office space cantilevered in twin tow-ers over the Great Hall along with the restoration of theGreat Hall and the passenger service facilities beneath222 Riverside. Ironically, the plans for constructing theoffice building along with adding 180,000 sq ft of retailspace in the Great Hall area again fell through becauseof the recession in 1989 when developers could nolonger obtain financing for new office buildings.

When the office portion of the development did notproceed, Chicago Union Station did not abandon theproject. Rather, it pursued a new strategy with U.S.Equities Realty to redevelop the portion of the station

constructed in 1970. Lund & Associates, from Chicago,served as the retail planning consultant on the project.

The extensive retail space originally proposed forthe new office building was scaled back to the mezza-nine area of the 1970 annex, to be divided into manyindependently operated food businesses. Whennational food chains proved disinterested, the focusshifted to existing, independently owned food busi-nesses from the city of Chicago. Union Station foundthis option especially appealing because it wouldallow the station to be marketed as a unique destina-tion, rather than a generic airport-like retail mall.

STRATEGY

The strategy of this project was to bring new life tothe historic station, building on its extraordinaryarchitecture and developing services, amenities, retail,and food service that appeal to today’s customers:Amtrak passengers, suburban commuters, and thenearby office population.

Retail and Food Service. The mezzanine level of the1970 wing was completely reconfigured to takeadvantage of the flow of commuters for which it is the primary entrance. New escalators were added toconnect the mezzanine to the main floor whereAmtrak passengers wait during their layover.

Approximately 21,000 sq ft of food service was cre-ated. Although there is a small 2,400-sq-ft McDonald’sand newsstands that are chain operations, all theother food businesses are locally owned and oper-ated—most with well-known, local reputations forquality and value. Many are minority or womanowned. (McDonald’s, which is Chicago-based, was a

60

Figure 6-8. Case Study 6-2. Union Station in Chicago is ahustling commercial center which features locally ownedand operated businesses, serving 23 million commutersannually. (Credit: Larry Lund)

Figure 6-7. Case Study 6-2. Chicago’s historic UnionStation is at the center of a revitalizing office district. (Credit:Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

kind of insurance policy and was selected because itwas so popular.) Businesses include Connie’s Pizza,Biff’s Headhouse Diner & Tap, Clark Street Deli,Dock’s Great Fish, and others.

Businesses have tailored their services and productto the station. Even McDonald’s provides specialattention to Amtrak customers: games for the childrenand televisions that show cartoons on Saturday morn-ings and sporting events later in the day. McDonald’sis designed in the rail motif with the same colorscheme as the station. McDonald’s also sells railroadand Amtrak souvenirs, helping to achieve a specialambiance for customers.

Passenger Amenities. The main or concourse levelwas also completely reconfigured for Amtrak passen-gers. Attractive new restrooms and comfortable pas-senger lounges were built on the concourse level. Anairline-club like facility was constructed for first classpassengers, a children’s play area, and two “ziosks,”small rooms for rent for rest, respite, and retreat.

Design. The historic section of the station wasrestored. The adjacent Great Hall waiting area waspainted and the ceiling illuminated. The brass lightfixtures were restored and the wooden benchesrefinished. The limestone exterior of the building wascleaned and illuminated.

The 1970 wing, a desolate design at best, was com-pletely redone using a subtle art deco style reminis-cent of the grand railway stations of the past.Concrete block walls were covered in honed northernbluff dolomite with verde tinos marble trim; and thebare tile floors were done in a polychrome terrazzowith brass and stainless accent strips.

Marketing. Union Station has undertaken an exten-sive program to market the station as a unique localattraction. For example, it began showcasing its foodestablishments through the “Taste of Chicago” pro-gram, which provides area workers, train customersand visitors alike with a chance to experience Chicago’sfinest culinary treats. It has served to further establishChicago Union Station as a special place in the WestLoop area.

FUNDING

Of the $37 million for the renovation, $7 millioncame from Metra, the commuter rail service, and $30million was financed through the operating funds ofthe Chicago Union Station Company. While busi-nesses at the station are successful and contribute tooperating income, the retail is viewed more as an“amenity that pays for itself,” something that makes a

substantial contribution to the overall environment of the station. In addition, operating costs haveincreased since the renovation: marble being morecostly to maintain than bare concrete.


In 1990, the Chicago Union Station Companyissued requests for qualifications for food service andrestaurant operators looking for a single operator forthe entire mezzanine level. While discussions contin-ued with several national and local food operators,none delivered a proposal with food programmingand economic structuring that would deliver the qual-ity of service the Chicago Union Station Companywanted for this facility.

When the plan then shifted from seeking a singleoperator to finding several food service operators totake individual spaces on the mezzanine level, many“site selectors” for national restaurant operators werecontacted about the opportunities for opening anoperation at Union Station. The problem was thatmany of these site selectors had no experience withand a generally negative image of train stations. Evenannual pedestrian traffic counts of 25 million did notseem to impress site selectors who were more inter-ested in whether or not stores could be seen frompassing automobiles. The value of foot traffic was notconsidered primarily because their site-selection crite-ria did not address it. It was this attitude that movedUnion Station into an approach with local businesses.

Even this option was not without problems.American retailers, too, have lost the tradition of leas-ing at train stations and have few notions on how toservice train customers. Many of those contactedabout the opportunities at Union Station were uncon-vinced that they could operate a successful businessat the station, despite the high foot traffic on the mez-zanine level, proximity to the train waiting lounges,and large nearby office population.

To successfully lease the space, Chicago UnionStation had to provide very low base rents for busi-nesses and take a percentage of sales after a certainthreshold was achieved. To lower the base rents evenfurther, they increased the percentage as salesincreased: the more sales, the higher the percentage.In return for lower base rent, Chicago Union Stationnow receives from some tenants as much as 24 per-cent of sales when sales volumes reach certain thresh-olds. This rent is in addition to common area chargesto cover maintenance and promotion of retail.

In the beginning, Union Station also allowed somebusinesses to try the space as an experiment. One ofChicago’s premier restaurateurs was skeptical abouthow successful the station would be for his new

61

Corner Bakery concept. U.S. Equities convinced himto open a small temporary 110-sq-ft stall. After report-edly generating sales of $5,000 a day in bread, hesigned a lease for 2,000 sq ft of retail space.


The facility clearly appeals to all of the intendedcustomers. By 1994, the station’s food retailers weregenerating more than $12.5 million in sales annually,which is about $600 per sq ft of rentable area. Thesesales figures rank the station as one of the better retaillocations in the country. Because of the percentagerental structure, Union Station has also benefited fromthis success.

For example, McDonald’s is now generating morethan $2 million in sales in 2,400 sq ft. It had negotiatedclauses that permitted closing the store if sales werebelow $300,000 annually and thought, at best, itwould do $1.2 million. McDonald’s is now payingsubstantial percentage rent and regrets that it doesnot have more space.

Retail is so successful that there is now a lack ofadequate seating at the station, which is limiting foodsales. Chicago Union Station has responded byadding more tables and one retailer, the CornerBakery, now provides seating outside the store front.A lack of space in the eating areas for people carryingluggage remains a problem.

Finally, the station has had a very positive impacton the West Loop area. Leasing in office towers in thevicinity of the station is reported to be easier thanbefore. While rental rates are not higher than else-where, the station is considered to be a positive fea-ture for the area—not just because it providesconvenient commuter access, but because it is animportant amenity for the district.

CONCLUSIONS

Chicago Union Station now provides a clean,bright, and safe environment where people at allhours can come for meals and entertainment, as wellas to catch the train. Because of the redevelopment,Chicago Union Station has again become the center ofactivity for the West Loop area. Both Amtrak andMetra commuter rail customers now experience thecomfort of a well-designed station, while the city ofChicago benefits from a new public amenity.

Union Station, once a faded shadow of its formerglory, is again a center of vitality in downtownChicago. While providing increased services for mil-lions of transit passengers, the station provides signif-icant opportunity for local businesses—a refreshingalternative to the standard chains so pervasive acrossAmerica today.

MetroLink will not just make St. Louis a more livable com-munity and not just clean up the environment. It will ful-fill our most important national goal—to provide a higherstandard of living for our citizens

—Congressman Richard Gephardt

What this project seeks to accomplish is truly amazing. It isour hope and belief that this facility will become a model forthe region and nation of how to help disadvantaged youthfind long-term, productive jobs through quality trainingand education programs.

—Buzz Westfall, St. Louis County Executive

Transit is the catalyst for development—it can help makethings happen.

—Frank Sparicio, chairman of Urban Land Institute panel commissioned to make recommendations

for the new MetroLink stations.

[This initiative] is creating an aura of economic promisenot felt in Wellston in years . . . MetroLink’s success andridership numbers have exceeded even the most optimisticexpectations.

—Buzz Westfall, as quoted in St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial.

SUMMARY

In 1993, St. Louis opened its new light rail line,which connects downtown St. Louis, East St. Louis,and Lambert International Airport. One of the sys-tem’s stations is located in the inner-city communityof Wellston, a distressed area with a 500,000 sq ft,vacant industrial building near the station. Toincrease ridership at the Wellston station, improvetransit access, generate activity at the station andrevitalize Wellston economically, the EconomicCouncil of St. Louis County, the Bi-State Develop-ment Agency (BSDA, a transit agency), Arts inTransit and the East-West Gateway CoordinatingCouncil are partnering to transform the area aroundthe Wellston station into a vibrant mobility centerthat will include the Cornerstone Partnership’s state-of-the-art manufacturing training center underdevelopment by the county. This initiative is beingimplemented through a collaboration among govern-ment agencies, nonprofit organizations, communityresidents, and businesses to bring mobility andeconomic opportunity together. It is hoped that thiseffort will foster economic revitalization in thismixed-use industrial, commercial, and residentialneighborhood.

62

Case Study 6-3St. Louis, Missouri: The WellstonMetroLink/Cornerstone Partnership Light Rail Service Linking Mobility with Opportunity

The education and business incubation center willbe located in a vacant industrial complex. A child carecenter is also planned. In addition, a range of siteimprovements and streetscape enhancements sur-rounding the station area have also been planned toconnect the station with the development activitiesaround it.

PLANNING PROCESS

The tragic 1992 slaying of an 11-year-old boy play-ing near the remains of the Wagner Electricmanufacturing site focused community attention onthe need to revitalize this desolate, unsafe area ofWellston. Deeded to St. Louis County in 1983,Wagner Electric had been reduced to a series of crum-bling buildings—very visible from the new light railline and station—in anticipation of redevelopmentplans that never materialized. The site is composed offive industrial buildings and over 500,000 sq ft ofvacant space spread out over 24 acres contiguous toWellston station.

The Wellston neighborhood has an unemploymentrate 2.5 times the regional average, as jobs havesteadily moved from the city center to the suburbs. In addition, violence in the area has worsened. Toaddress these problems, the Economic Council of St. Louis County created the Cornerstone Partnershipto provide job-training for young adults and newskills for laid-off workers. The Wagner Electric com-plex will be the site for all of the programs. The initia-tive is modeled after Detroit’s highly successful“FOCUS: Hope” project whose students work as subcontractors to the auto industry.

The Wellston MetroLink station provides access tothe light rail line, to two bus routes (the Page and thePage Express) and to an adjacent commuter parkand ride. When the station opened, ridershipexceeded all projections, and it became clear that thestation could better serve the community by connect-ing the Cornerstone Partnership complex and adja-cent areas with the Wellston MetroLink Station.BSDA/Arts in Transit received a LivableCommunities grant from FTA to begin addressingthese issues.

Project partners have organized a series of focusgroup sessions to facilitate community visioning.Community involvement has also included a townmeeting and public participation using a VisualPreference Survey (VPS) to provide a better under-standing of community concerns related to station-area improvements. In addition, the Urban LandInstitute convened a panel in September 1995 toexamine specific development opportunities in threestations, including Wellston.

Objectives of the overall project include thefollowing:

• Increasing use of the park and ride,• Beautification of the surrounding area,• Enhancing station safety and security,• Providing better access to job-training and educa-

tional opportunities,• Increasing employment opportunities in the

immediate area,• Encouraging community pride, and• Providing a child care/community services facility.

Planning, rehabilitation, and transformation of station-area enhancements and the Wagner Electriccomplex have involved intragovernmental coopera-

63

Figures 6-9 and 6-10. Case Study 6-3. The recently com-pleted Wellston Station with the Wagner Electric Factory inthe background (Figure 6-9). Members of the communityparticipated in a planning process to identify the features tobe included at the station (Figure 6-10) and a plan to linkthe station to the Wagner factory, which will be redevelopedas a job training and business incubator center. (Credit: Bi-State Development Agency)

tion and public and private agency support. Projectpartners include the following:

• U.S. Department of Commerce,• Department of Transportation-FTA,• Economic Council of St. Louis County,• Bi-State Development Agency/Arts in Transit,• East-West Gateway Coordinating Council,• City of Wellston, and• Community residents.

STRATEGY

The strategy for the project has two main components.

Cornerstone Job-Training Facility at the WagnerElectric Site (the Partnership). The focal point of thisproject is renovation of the former Wagner Electricmanufacturing site and its transformation by theEconomic Council of St. Louis County into a state-of-the-art regional educational and manufacturing train-ing facility. The first phase of development is slatedfor completion in fall 1996. At that time, a remedialeducation program and a manufacturing training pro-gram will begin. Forty leaders from the business,labor, manufacturing, governmental, and educationalcommunities were selected by the County EconomicCouncil to develop the curriculum, with RankenTechnical and the St. Louis Community College pro-viding initial training. In addition to housing theabove institutions, the first building to be renovatedwill also include an enterprise center and a manufac-turing incubator. The latter will target minority start-up firms and focus on job outreach to link minoritybusinesses to jobs on site.

Wellston Station Site Improvements. Proposed siteimprovements to the Wellston station and its sur-roundings include improved sidewalks and lighting,landscaping, public art installation, resurfacing ofroads serving the park-and-ride lot, new signage, bicycle racks, and information on services offered atthe Cornerstone Partnership complex. The station areawill not only be a transportation center; the plans alsoinclude a child care center. In addition, the projectpartners are considering developing a police substa-tion and a small retail/convenience store. Shuttlevans, which will provide MetroLink riders with accessto local Wellston businesses, will also be purchasedthrough the FTA Livable Communities grant.

FUNDING

In August 1994, the Economic Council of St. LouisCounty secured a $4.5 million renovation grant fromthe U.S. Department of Commerce to fund the first

phase of the facility’s construction. The NationalCenter for Manufacturing Sciences is contributing anadditional $1.5 million in training equipment. Theproject site was donated to St. Louis County byWagner Electrical in 1983.

Design improvements to the Wellston Metrolinkstation area are being funded by the FTA. The esti-mated total cost is $956,000. Financial commitmentsby FTA total $764,800, and those by BSDA and thecounty total $191,200.


Synergy of this transit-based community revitaliza-tion effort has been slowed somewhat by the physicalattributes of the surrounding area: vacant lots andbuildings in disrepair abound in the area. Also, initia-tive organizers are challenged to find additional pub-lic resources to attract private investment to the area.Aside from these problems, no major obstacles havebeen encountered thus far.


Because the buildings have not yet been renovated,no new tenants or businesses have moved in. Theanticipated benefits, however, include improved accessand expanded activity at the station and increasedtransit ridership due to increased economic activity.Landscaping, better access, and improved transmissionof information will all enhance the overall atmosphereand appearance of the station for riders and nearbyresidents and retailers. Thus far, the feedback andinvolvement of local organizations, merchants, andresidents has been enthusiastic and positive.

CONCLUSIONS

This project demonstrates the successful partneringof a transit agency with a county economic develop-ment organization, a metropolitan planning organiza-tion and community residents. The partnershipenabled the creation of a transit facility, which will actas a catalyst for the economic development andimproved livability of a very distressed inner citycommunity. Understanding that such an effortrequires the participation of many players, BSDA, theEconomic Council of St. Louis County, and the East-West Gateway Coordinating Council have obtainedfunding from local, county and federal governmentsources and secured the commitment of a range oflocal and national partners. The project’s multidisci-plinary focus—which involves job creation, voca-tional training, mobility, intermodality, adaptivereuse, and the economic revitalization of a depressedarea—is a laudable model of a transit-based commu-nity development initiative.

64

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, people’s fear for their personalsafety has become an overriding issue in communi-ties of nearly all sizes and types across the country.In focus groups conducted for this study, it wasalmost always the first issue mentioned. Indeed, fearof crime is not an isolated problem but impacts allaspects of public life. People’s fears can affect wherethey choose to shop, work, or locate a business. Thiscan lead to the more serious urban problems ofphysical deterioration, disinvestment, and popula-tion loss.

The issue of security goes beyond dealing withactual crime, however. “Crime is a barometer of socialdisorganization,” says Lawrence M. Friedman, anhistorian of criminal justice. He and other criminolo-gists argue that the civil rights progress of the 1960sallowed the black middle class to move from the inner-city thereby removing an important force for socialcontrol. Combined with the flight of manufacturingjobs and increased drug use in communities, theresult was an unprecedented crime wave. [2]

Safety is also a perceptual problem: in fact, peopleoften report feeling unsafe in areas where the actualcrime rate is low. Factors such as uncollected litter,graffiti, people loitering, and dark streets with littlenighttime activity can translate very quickly into theperception that an area is unsafe. A less obvious fac-tor is the destruction of places in communities, as dis-cussed in Chapter 4. When people frequent publicspaces less often, avoid walking down streets becauseof traffic, and begin to retreat into privately run shop-

ping malls and their own homes; all of this affects theperception of security.

Because of these interconnections, the issue of secu-rity needs to be addressed with other livability issues,like downtown and neighborhood renewal, job cre-ation, and other social problems, for example, whichhelp treat some of the underlying causes of crime, notjust the symptoms. In addition, how comfort andamenity are connected with the issue of security isemphasized. The design and use of spaces and build-ings have substantial impact on security, affectingboth crime rates and the perception of crime. Forinstance, a parking lot located in a secluded area orthe rear of a park may be a staging area for crime,because there are no surrounding commercial estab-lishments to generate other activity. Many strategiescan be used to reduce the opportunities for crime thatare inherent in the structure of the buildings and thelayout of the public spaces of a locality as well as toreduce perceptions of danger. The underlyingphilosophy of this approach is that when spaces areusable with amenities and activities that attract arange of people, they also will become safer places.


Traditionally, improving security has meantincreasing the number of police or construction ofbuildings that looked and functioned like fortresses:with interior spaces that could be monitored andaccess that could be controlled. These methods, how-ever, failed to stem the surge of crime throughout the

CHAPTER 7

Improving Safety and Amenity

The central question in the debate about how to decrease crime should not be: how many morepolice are needed?—instead, it should be: how do we create communities where people feel safe,comfortable, and empowered to get involved . . .?

—Kathleen Madden, “A Cry for Community” [1]

65

1970s and 1980s. Because of this failure, new strategicapproaches were developed and tried—the benefits ofwhich are now being felt across the country. As a rule,however, there is no one strategy that works. A com-prehensive approach that addresses all aspects of asecurity problem seems to have the most impact.

The most important new strategy (although somewould say it is actually an old one) is communitypolicing. With this approach, police no longer justpatrol neighborhoods in their cars and respond toreports of crime. Police become actively involved insolving specific crime problems in a community andseek to establish a sense of order and control. Thisinvolves the return of foot patrols, which help tomake people feel more secure and help to deal withthose seemingly petty crimes (like graffiti or loudradios) that contribute to people’s sense of disorder—so called “quality-of-life” crimes. Police in diversecities like New York, St. Louis, and Seattle also workclosely with community organizations and constantlyevaluate crime data to understand where crime isoccurring and why. Programs are then developed tostop crime: these programs can address a variety ofsmall and large issues, from removing a telephonethat is used by drug dealers to a raid on a “crackhouse.”

The results have surprised even hardened policein these cities. In New York City, there has been a 40percent decline in homicides in 2 years; in Seattle,the rate dropped 32 percent last year and 18 percentin St. Louis. The New York Times reports that NewYorkers are now saying that the city is safer, show-ing perceptions are catching up with reality. [3]Studies have shown that the police are also reportingthat they have higher morale, greater job satisfac-tion, and a more favorable attitude toward citizens;citizens also indicate more favorable opinion of thepolice. [4]

Police foot patrols are not the only way to achieve asense of order. Depending on the context, a food ven-dor, a maintenance worker, a nearby store owner, andan information kiosk attendant can all provide infor-mal surveillance of a space and be able to respond tosecurity problems. PPS has found that public spacesthat have a designated manager in charge of them alsobecome safer and less prone to anti-social activities.

So-called “environmental design security” involvesstrategies to create new spaces and buildings, or retro-fit existing ones, so that they become naturally self-policing. One goal is to make existing spaces visiblefor surveillance by police and other users who estab-lish a management presence. For example, designstrategies for improving perceptions of security mightinvolve trimming shrubbery for greater visibility, relo-cating parking from remote places, or reorientingbuildings from an inward focus to the street by addingvisible ground level activities, such as retail.

With environmental design security, it is importantto make a space or place not just more visible: it needsto be an attraction as well. Activities and amenitiesthat attract people help keep it busier and safer.Improvements need not include physical designchanges, but can be limited to programming activi-ties. For example, noontime classical music or jazzconcerts in a downtown park can attract office work-ers and displace loitering, drug dealing, or the pres-ence of anti-social activities.

One of the better examples of successful activity pro-gramming and environmental design security is asmall vest-pocket park in Rockefeller Center in NewYork City. This park was not actively used by down-town workers and had become a center for drug deal-ing. A redesign and management plan for the parkrecommended adding new seating, a cafe, and vendorsand increasing the visibility of the park from the street,while also instituting a regular program of events andentertainment. The use of the park has increased three-fold, with more elderly and women users, and thedrug dealing was completely eliminated.

Cumulatively, this range of security strategies hasproven to be effective in reducing crime in a step-by-step process of reclaiming and reinvigorating space.However, the sign of true success, which will takeyears of effort, will not be just one or two buildings orspaces that are safe havens, but an entire neighbor-hood that is both safe from actual crime and a safe-feeling place for its community.

Role of Transit

Security is a major concern of transit operators,reflecting concerns of transit passengers while theywait at stops or stations and on the transit vehicleitself. Efforts to improve security can benefit the

66

Figure 7-1. Downtown Crossing, Boston, MA. (Credit:Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

broader community around the stops or stations aswell as along the routes on which the transit modeproceeds. Efforts to bring activity to stations and tomake transit facilities more comfortable and attractivealso have security benefits for communities.

Transit agencies have developed security ap-proaches for different situations, which improve secu-rity for both the transit facility and the area around it.Many of the strategies have been developed in placeswhich have had chronic, severe problems, such asNew York City.

Since most transit agencies do not have their ownextensive security forces, most have relied on envi-ronmental design strategies and a management pres-ence to reduce crime and increase the perception ofsafety. One of the reasons for creating bus transferfacilities, such as Tohono Tadai Transit Center in Tucsonand Staples Street Station in Corpus Christi, is to bringpeople together in a comfortable, attractive, infor-mally superviseable area. For example, in Tucsonthere is a staffed information center. These projectscontrast with bus transfer centers in other cities thathave been placed in isolated locations with little if anyon-site management and that often are closed even-ings and weekends. In such cases, ironically, transitagencies did not want to provide amenities for pas-sengers because of security and maintenance reasons.However, the introduction of these amenities hasnot been a problem in Corpus Christi and Tucson, infact they have served as a positive influence.

On a larger scale, South Station in Boston, once anunpleasant terminal with security problems, has beentransformed through its renovation, which includesretail activities and movable tables and chairs in themain waiting area. These and other strategies helpreduce undesirable activities in that station. In NewYork City, surveys of passengers showed that justimproving the overall environment of the subway sta-tion (which included special off peak waiting areasand better views from token booth to the platform)increased perception of security dramatically(although actual crime was always quite low.)

Clearly, one of the goals of The Green Line in Chicagoand Wellston Station in St. Louis, both located in dis-tressed areas, is to bring activity to the stations to helpimprove perceptions of security. Indeed, the Wellstonproject was initiated in part because of a specificcrime. In Woodbridge Station, Woodbridge, New Jersey,surveys conducted after a new station improvementshowed that passengers do feel more secure.

Community policing approaches have also beenused in transit facilities. Baltimore’s new “koban,” afree-standing police booth/kiosk near the light railand bus stops in downtown, has already served as adeterrent to crime. On an informal basis, vendors atDowntown Crossing in Boston also provide “eyes on the

street” to augment conventional police. PioneerCourthouse Square in Portland has its own private secu-rity force to oversee the square, which includes themost used stop on the MAX light rail line; in this case,the transit agency is able to provide security by coop-erating with the management of the square. In NewYork City, the Station Managers Program establishes onemanager in charge of a station who is able to handleall concerns and coordinate with police, providingbetter services and improving cooperation with surrounding communities.

One of the innovative programs to provide securityon buses has been the Rider Advocate Program inPortland. This program addresses problem behaviorand security problems by having paid workers ridethe buses, help customers, and assist the bus driverswith maintaining control. A related program, calledNight Stop, allows passengers to request a stop closerto their destination, even if it is not an official stop. InWatts, security problems related to gangs occurred onthe shuttle buses. The problem has ceased as a resultof the Los Angeles Department of Transportationworking with parents and local community groups.

The concept of comprehensive security is best illus-trated by the Port Authority Bus Terminal in New YorkCity. This program combines community policing,environmental design security, and the establishmentof a management presence to reverse a long history ofsecurity problems in this facility. The management ofthe bus terminal also works closely with surroundingcommunity organizations, resulting in a dramaticdecrease in crime inside and outside the terminal.

ENDNOTES

1. Kathleen Madden, “A Cry for Community,” PlanningCommissions Journal (Fall 1994) p.16.

2. Clifford Krauss, “Now, How Low Can Crime Go?,” TheNew York Times (January 28, 1996) Week in Review, p.5.

3. Clifford Krauss, “City Is Safer, Rising Number of PeopleSay,” New York Times (January 14, 1996) p.27.

4. PPS, Managing Downtown Public Spaces, p.8.

EXAMPLES

Baltimore, MD: Howard Street Mall Koban Police Booth Improves Communityand Transit Security

What Officer Dwight Thomas likes best about hisnew assignment at the Howard Street Koban is thatnow he has the opportunity to meet people other thansuspected criminals. He has also become a visiblesymbol of community policing, where police workclosely with communities to improve livability and

67

quality of life. Officer Thomas is the first police officerin that city to be assigned to the 10-ft by 10-ft air-conditioned koban, which was purchased from theCity of Kyoto, Japan, at a cost of $150,000 and installedin May 1995. The koban is equipped with bulletproofglass and a restroom and soon will have a refrigeratorand closed-circuit television cameras, which willmake it possible for on-duty officers to monitor alarge area.

The booth is located mid-way along the HowardStreet light rail transit mall at the corner of EastLexington Street, one block south of a booming publicmarket in what was once the city’s premier down-town shopping center. Today, only the empty artdeco department stores, like the one opened by theHutzler brothers in the late 1800s, provide visitorswith a clue as to what the area once was and, as manyhope, will become again.

Providing an on-site security presence 7 days aweek, 24 hours per day is one way of making the areasafer for transit riders and attracting new shoppersand visitors. Modeled and named after similar struc-tures used by police in Japan, the koban functions asa police substation and home base for bicycle patrolofficers. It also places officers among the people theyserve and protect and encourages a broader role forpolice in neighborhoods and in communityredevelopment. It was the Eisenhower Foundationthat introduced U.S. city police chiefs to the idea ofkoban and other community policing techniquesduring a 1988 trip to Japan. The idea was quicklyadopted in Philadelphia, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, and San Juan, Puerto Rico, where it appears

to be as popular with police officers as it is with thepublic.

Since the koban opened in Baltimore, officers saycrimes that were previously quite common, such aspurse snatching and shoplifting, have decreased dra-matically. There are similar findings in two othercities with kobans: Philadelphia and San Juan. Thesecities have experienced, respectively, a 24 percent and35 percent drop in crime in areas where the kobanwas introduced. Officer Thomas says that he now hastime to chat with people, give directions, and answerquestions about local retail and transit services andthe koban itself. Asked how he liked the koban sys-tem, Thomas replied, “I told the (Baltimore City)Police Commissioner that if it got any better, I wouldpay him!”

SOURCE

Janofsky, Michael. “Police are Stationed at Center of Actionin Japan-Style Booths,” The New York Times and a per-sonal interview with Officer Thomas.

New York, NY: Improved Subway StationsEnhance Perception of Security

The perception that New York was “unsafe” and“unlivable” was symbolized in the late 1970s by thedecay of the city’s subway system. As part of a mas-sive reinvestment in the system beginning in the1980s, however, many stations have been rehabili-tated with new finishes, lights, amenities, andentrance treatments. In 1991, the MetropolitanTransportation Authority (MTA) New York CityTransit began to survey transit customers alongthe 1/9 line, which services South Ferry and theStatue of Liberty ferry docks in lower Manhattanand stretches to upper Manhattan, terminatingin the Bronx. The purpose of the survey wasthree-fold:

• To evaluate the effect that this station rehabilita-tion and modernization program has had onoverall customer satisfaction and perceptions ofpersonal safety when using the system;

• To determine whether customer ratings ofstation improvements are affected only by actualuse of an upgraded station or also by seeingimprovements at stations they are not specifi-cally using;

• To measure the effectiveness of line-specificrehabilitation efforts on customer perceptions in

68

Figure 7-2. Officer Dwight Thomas stands outside of hisKoban on Baltimore’s Howard Street Mall. Officer Thomassaid that what he likes most about his post is the chance tomeet and interact with visitors to the area. (Credit: Projectfor Public Spaces, Inc.)

order to determine the relationship betweenconcentrated improvement efforts, investment,and customer satisfaction ratings.

Starting in November 1991, Gallup, Inc., interviewedmore than 1300 riders of the 38 stations along the 1/9line by telephone as to their sense of personal safetyand security in these rehabilitated and modernizedstations and in the system overall. Respondents ratedthe 1/9 line higher than the subway system generally:6.8 out of 10 for the 1/9 line and 5.4 for the entiresystem. In other words, the survey showed that a sub-stantial number of station improvements concen-trated along one line can raise customer approvalratings significantly. The survey results also indicatedthat the more extensive the improvements at aparticular station, the higher customers rated it interms of their sense of personal safety. In addition,the higher the rating of a particular station overall, thehigher its rating for personal safety. For every pointthe overall station rating improved, the personal secu-rity rating increased by half a point. While the entiresystem received a personal security rating of 4.2, therating for 1/9 service was 6.7.

Another significant finding was that the MTA NewYork City Transit’s station rehabilitation programhas had a significantly greater impact on customerapproval and satisfaction than the Authority’s moremodest repainting and upgrade programs. The up-grading of stations did not affect passengerperceptions noticeably.

California Bus Transfer Centers: A Study of Safety, Security, and Community Context

In 1992, the Regional Transportation Authority(RTA) of Corpus Christi, Texas began to redesign its system to create a series of bus transfer centers.The RTA wanted to create operationally functionaltransfer centers that were user-friendly and con-tributed to improving the community around them. A special concern of the RTA was safety andsecurity.

To find out more about bus transfer centers andother passenger facilities that were considered to be“state of the art,” the RTA’s Project Manager visitedand evaluated recently constructed bus transfer cen-ters throughout California, where such centers arecommon. At present, there exist very few design crite-ria that can be used to develop these facilities in sucha way that they become public spaces that attract rid-ers to public transportation and are integrated intotheir communities. The kind of research that has beenconducted on this subject is generally of a technicalnature. It does not tend to look at users’ needs as thebasis for creating positive transit environments orevaluate how such facilities can act as catalysts forenhancing rather than detracting from the areas inwhich they are located.

The RTA, working with PPS, set up a special ratingsystem to evaluate these facilities according to suchfeatures as architectural sensitivity to neighboringbuildings, connection to the surrounding community(both physical and visual), amenities, availability ofinformation regarding bus service, sense of safety andsecurity, circulation and passenger flow, passengercomfort, existence of complementary on-site uses,maintenance, management of the facility, and busoperations. Of more than 20 facilities reviewed in thisresearch, all functioned at a high level operationally.However, only one had amenities and other attributessufficient to creating a user-friendly environment forpassengers. Most of the state-of-the art transportationfacilities lacked even the most basic amenities, such asadequate seating, lighting, and restrooms, usuallybecause of concerns about operations, maintenance,security, and abuse.

Often, there was no attendant or security provideron the premises, particularly on weekends. In somecases, there was not even a structure that peoplecould identify as a specific place to wait or rest. Therewas usually no place to buy food, enjoy a cup of cof-fee, or learn about scheduled community events andactivities. Many of these bus transfer centers wereinaccessible, located away from areas of community

69

Figure 7-3. This image of the recently renovated BroadStreet subway station in New York City illustrates the suc-cess of the MTA’s decade-long station rehabilitation efforts.(Credit: MTA New York City Transit and John Tarantino,architect)

activity, either at isolated suburban sites or in urbanlocales removed from town centers.

In some communities, bus transfer centers had anegative reputation because of the perception thatthey fostered drug dealing, vandalism, and vagrancy.As a result, many of the transfer centers had been cutoff from surrounding areas by walls or wide streets,or had been built outside of city centers. In an attemptto make them vandal-proof, many were built withoutthe amenities that passengers needed.

Other transit authorities use a “timed transfer”mechanism to minimize transfer waiting time and, intheory, improve ridership. With this system, almostno time is spent waiting for buses at a given facility.Many operations people have focused on reducingtrip time through timed transfer operation which, bydefinition, compromises the ability of the bus transfercenter to act as a catalyst for neighborhood activity.Timed transfer conflicts with attempts to create anactive, bustling “people place” where security isenhanced with efforts to address the real amenityneeds of passengers at bus transfer facilities. Timedtransfer also may not adequately provide for passen-ger safety during emergency situations, such asextreme weather conditions, and traffic problemsduring which passengers could find themselvesstranded until bus service resumes. Generally, thisimportant issue is not being addressed by the transitindustry.

Using the California research as a guide primarilyfor what not to do, the Corpus Christi RTA undertookthe process of transforming bus waiting areas inCorpus Christi into places of community pride andactivity. The challenge was to take existing waitingareas and, by transforming them into community

assets, enhance surrounding businesses and boostridership. This project is presented in Case Study 9-3.

CASE STUDIES

Projects and programs illustrate how both environ-mental design security and community policing canincrease perceptions of safety and reduce actual crime.In this way, transit facilities can contribute to the im-provement of safety and security in a surroundingneighborhood or district:

Case Study 7-1: Tucson, AZ: Tohono TadaiTransit Center New Environment Transforms TransitExperience in Area Suburban Sprawl

70

Figure 7-4. Bus transfer centers like this one in LagunaHills, CA, do little to make transit comfortable or appealingto passengers. (Credit: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

Figures 7-5 and 7-6. Transit Centers in Tucson, AZ (Figure7-5) and San Rafael, CA (Figure 7-6) feature user-friendlyamenities: Tucson’s Ronstadt Center includes cooling towers and creates a landscaped oasis in the middle ofdowntown; the cafe at San Rafael provides seating andrefreshments to waiting passengers. (Credit: Project forPublic Spaces, Inc.)

Case Study 7-2: New York, NY: Station ManagerProgram A Place-Oriented Approach to Subway StationManagement

Case Study 7-3: New York, NY: Port AuthorityBus Terminal A Comprehensive Approach Yields SecurityBenefits for Terminal and Times SquareNeighborhood

Case Study 7-4: Portland, OR: Tri-Met’s RiderAdvocate Program On-Board Services Improve Transit andCommunity Security

As the system develops, you begin to expand and create[transit centers] with art and with the community.

—Jill Merrick, Project Manager, Tohono Tadai Transit Center

SUMMARY

The Tohono Tadai Bus Transit Center is the thirdand latest such facility built by the City of Tucson andSun Tran in Tucson, Arizona. This center, like the RoyLaos and Ronstadt Centers that preceded it, weredesigned to consolidate many individual bus stops tomake it safer and more convenient for passengers toride and transfer. Tohono Tadai is a very attractive,comfortable bus transit center that has successfullyand creatively used good design and artwork tocreate a transit facility that is comfortable for allusers—adults as well as children, people who havedisabilities as well as people who do not.

Tohono Tadai means “desert roadrunner” in the lan-guage of the Tohono O’odham nation, the area’s earlyinhabitants. Located in suburban northwest Tucson, inthe center of an expanding retail corridor, TohonoTadai covers 3.5 acres adjacent to an amusement cen-ter and the Tucson Mall, a destination with offices,shopping, and restaurants. Opened in December 1994,Tohono Tadai is the first bus transit center in the Stateof Arizona built to fully meet ADA specifications.

PLANNING PROCESS

Before Sun Tran built its transit centers, bus ridershad to wait at isolated, poorly designed, badly lit bus

shelters situated next to wide, heavily traffickedstreets. Crossing streets to transfer buses was danger-ous, even at intersections. In addition, large numbersof bus shelters strung along the city’s major roadwaysadded to the visual clutter and sense of sprawl, andlarge numbers of people waiting for buses alongmajor roads increased the public’s negative percep-tion that transit was not working and that bus servicewas not reliable. This was particularly true in thedowntown, where all bus routes passed. The largenumbers of buses circulating through the central busi-ness district and the large numbers of passengerswaiting on sidewalks throughout the area actuallyreduced bus efficiency and increased travel time.

Sun Tran’s goals for this project were as follows:

• Increase passenger safety by consolidating busstops and reduce the numbers of people crossingbusy streets to board buses;

• Improve operating efficiency of the buses;• Enhance transit’s image in the community;• Link public transportation to all modes such as

bicycle, pedestrian and automobile (140 busescarry bicycle racks on the front);

• Provide coordinated transfers and route synchro-nization for passenger convenience;

• Provide a central information area for passengersthat includes route maps and schedules, personaltrip planning and information;

• Design transit centers accessible to persons withdisabilities with amenities such as covered wait-ing areas, public telephones, and rest rooms; and

• Create attractive, convenient, comfortable, andsafe waiting and transfer areas.

The Tohono Tadai site was selected to supportgrowth to the northern and northwestern parts of thecity, reduce operation ‘dead head’ miles, and supportthe number of buses already traveling along Stone andWetmore Streets. Sun Tran has sited its new bus transitcenters in each of the city’s four sections: Ronstadtdowntown, Roy Laos in the south, Tohono Tadai in thenorth, and a future facility will be located in the east.Sites are selected based on feasibility studies and fed-eral environmental guidelines including operationalcharacteristics, land costs, and adjacent uses. For eachnew center, the city and Sun Tran look at and rate amultitude of sites based on system location, environ-mental history, air quality issues, traffic flows, and soon and then narrow the selection down to three to fivepriority sites. Then, an in-depth analysis is performedfollowed by appropriate environmental work. After asite is selected, the land is acquired and a preliminarydesign is developed. The final design process for theTohono Tadai Center included a simulation by busoperators at the Pima County Fairgrounds.

71

Case Study 7-1Tucson, AZ: Tohono Tadai Transit Center New Environment Transforms Transit Experiencein Area of Suburban Sprawl

The Tohono Tadai site was preferred because of itsproximity to a family amusement center and theTucson Mall—a major shopping destination—andbecause it acts as the gateway to the new northwestcommunities. The owners of the Tohono Tadai prop-erty were the developers of the Tucson Mall. Sun Tran

and the city worked in close coordination with them.In addition, focus groups composed of persons withdisabilities provided input and suggestions foramenities that would meet ADA requirements andfeatures that would help riders with visual, hearing,and ambulatory disabilities using the facility. Ideasfrom architects, artists, traffic consultants, bus drivers,and people with disabilities were incorporated intothe project’s design, and artists were included on thedesign team from the beginning. Community groupswere involved as advisors on the project throughoutthe design stages. Tohono Tadai was designed andbuilt by city architects who had an understanding oftransit operations and the needs of the transit users.

Management of the facility is a cooperative effort:Tucson Mall provides a presence, the city handlesmaintenance, and Sun Tran takes care of landscapingand maintenance through outside contracts.

STRATEGY

The center operates from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. weekdays,9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. onSundays. There are 6,000 boardings per day through12 bus bays for seven bus routes.

The city’s 3-mile linear park system, which wasdesigned for use by cyclists, pedestrians, and horse-back riders, runs along the transit corridor and adja-cent to the center. Tohono Tadai also features shaded,cooled waiting areas, public rest rooms, WestminsterChimes in the clock tower, two play areas, drinkingfountains, public art, vending machines, bike racksand lockers, and CCTV for security. A cooling towersituated under the center sends cooled evaporated airinto the pipes installed behind the benches. Attentionalso has been paid to meeting the needs of personswith disabilities. There is a textured platform aroundthe facility, signage, benches constructed with roundedges and a 2 percent pavement grade. All signage isin Grade #2 Braille and speakers are in place at eachbus bay to announce information updates andschedule changes. A two-way amplified speakersystem at the central information booth and a flashingred light at each bus stop direct attention to digitalsign boards for passengers who are hearing impaired.For patrons in wheelchairs, there is a 34-in. counter atthe central information booth, accessible publicphones and vending machines, and restroomsequipped with motion-sensored toilets and sinks.

The design of Tohono Tadai is striking and pro-vides an appealing oasis in an area where there ismoderate pedestrian activity. The center’s theme is“urban grid meets river and mountain,” which isillustrated in the use of blue-colored concrete to

72

Figures 7-7 and 7-8. Case Study 7-1. Tohono Tadai, the firstcompletely ADA accessible transit facility in Arizona, isreplete with artworks, children’s play areas, a fully mannedinformation booth and air-cooled benches. (Credit: Sun Tran)

symbolize the river, tan concrete for the mountains,and the urban grid represented in purple. Theinterplay of the natural and built environments issymbolized by the sculptural elements into two 200-sq-ft play areas and the 16 banners displayed on lightpoles around the perimeter that depict bothancient/natural icons and their modern/manmadeparallels. The play areas were designed and con-structed by artists to entertain and educate childrenand adults about the Sonoran desert environment.Sculptures, which are set in soft, rubberized groundcovering to allow for safe climbing, include a gianthorny toad about to roll over or be rolled over by agiant bulldozer in mosaic tile, a large desert tortoise,and a set of enlarged ceramic-tile alphabet buildingblocks in both English and Spanish.

FUNDING

The total cost of the project was $4.2 million; 80 per-cent was funded by the FTA.


Few if any obstacles to the transit center arose fromthe community or other city agencies. This may bedue in part to the fact that Sun Tran is managedthrough a contract with the city. As a result, partner-ships between Sun Tran and the city transportationplanning office are strong. Furthermore, this level ofcooperation has been cited by Sun Tran and cityplanners as the reason they have been able to designand build such attractive and innovative bus transitcenters.

However, Sun Tran has acknowledged the need toestablish partnerships with private sector groups inorder to fully integrate their centers into the commu-nities they serve and provide much needed retail ser-vices. The challenge facing Sun Tran is to establishthese partnerships with the private sector to encour-age the development of retail, commercial, and com-munity uses around its new and existing facilities.


The center has transformed a parking lot into anattractive bus waiting environment that is an extra-ordinary improvement for passengers. However,because the center closes early, it is difficult for ridersto reach destinations (like the Tucson Mall) after6 p.m. by transit.

Although the center serves the Tucson Mall, 70 per-cent of passengers arriving at the Tohono Tadai trans-

fer to other buses. Therefore, while better serving itstransit-dependent riders, it would appear that SunTran has been less successful in luring mall patronsout of their cars. However, it is a new facility and thisis estimated to improve use in the future. Finally,Tucson’s bus transit centers have no passenger-related retail; this represents an untapped opportu-nity for the development of these kinds of services.

CONCLUSIONS

With the completion of its three transit centers, SunTran has been able to provide riders with safe, comfort-able, and convenient places to wait and transfer and toenhance the transit experience for riders. The innova-tive elements and features included at Tohono Tadaiare worthy of consideration by other transit authoritiesas models for the design of future transit centers thatact as focal points in suburban areas. Through suchfacilities, transit agencies can improve the livability ofcommunities by making them more accessible andconvenient, as well as safe and comfortable.

For the first time . . . I feel as though some government-related agency is conveying a message to the public that . . .you are trying to serve your customers.

—New York City subway rider

SUMMARY

The New York City subway system, one of thelargest in the world, has undergone a transformationin the past decade. With the investment of billions ofdollars, subway cars have been purchased, stationsrenovated, and visible signs of decay—such asgraffiti—have been removed.

The Station Manager Program was established inJune 1990 to address a nagging and common com-plaint of subway customers that “no one was incharge” at the stations. Under previous managementpractices, MTA New York City Transit, which runsthe system, had separate divisions responsible forspecific tasks in each station: maintenance, crimeprevention and response, repairs, and so on werehandled by different divisions. While efficient insome regards, there was little coordination between

73

Case Study 7-2New York, NY: Station Manager Program A Place-Oriented Approach to Subway StationManagement

divisions and some difficulty responding to specificproblems.

The Station Manager Program takes a more “place-oriented” as well as more personal approach tomeeting customer needs by putting a single, visible,front-line individual in charge of a station, who isresponsible for coordinating all station activities andproviding a safe, clean, customer-friendly stationenvironment. The station manager also serves as apoint person for the community and participates incommunity organizations. Modeled after a similarprogram in the London Underground, the stationmanagers work directly with support divisions toimprove station conditions. They respond quickly tocustomer concerns and are flexible problem solvers.

PLANNING PROCESS

The Station Manager Program—the brainchild ofthen MTA New York City Transit President, AlanKiepper—started with five station managers super-vising 19 stations throughout the system, but hasexpanded every year since 1990. In setting up the pro-gram, the MTA New York City Transit held eventsand meetings to reach out to local community or-ganizations, such as community boards and busi-ness improvement districts, to find out what theirconcerns were.

Based on this outreach, the goals of the StationManager Program were established as follows:

• Better customer service through personal inter-action;

• More control of the station environment throughthe coordination and monitoring of operationsconcerning cleaning, security, repair of defects,passenger flow, revenue activities, and other sta-tion quality issues;

• The use of the team approach to coordinate theactivities of all the operating divisions concernedwith stations;

• Improved staff supervision at the station level;and

• Improved community relations through partici-pation at community board and other publicmeetings.

Station managers are encouraged to develop theirown programs in response to the needs of their com-munities. For example, Maria Branch, the StationManager at the Broadway East New York station inBrooklyn, participated with the New York CityPolice in a national “night out.” This programencourages members of a community to spend a

“night out” participating in local events to showcommunity solidarity in the fight against crime. Ms.Branch provided tours of her facility and refresh-ments for young people in order to show them thatthe subway station was an important part of theircommunity and that vandalism and crime in the sta-tion ultimately affects them.

Stations are selected for inclusion in the programbased on a number of criteria, including passengervolume, complexity of service, transfer locations,physical conditions, community locations, and specialfeatures. Recently renovated stations are oftenincluded to ensure the continued high quality ofmaintenance. Grand Central Station and Times Squarewere two of the first stations to enter the program.

STRATEGY

Ultimately, the Station Manager Program isplanned to reach all 3.5 million daily subwaycustomers using the transit system’s 468 stations. TheMTA New York City Transit currently has 58 stationmanagers in charge of 252 stations, which impact atleast 80 percent of customers systemwide.

Each station manager handles as many as sevenstations, although a few handle only one large stationcomplex. Managers in turn answer to district stationmanagers, each responsible for about 50 stations.(Before the program was initiated, behind-the-scenestation superintendents were in charge, but noton site.)

By using a team approach to management, thestation managers coordinate all station activities toachieve a sense of order, improved maintenance,cleanliness, turnstile availability, and public addresssystems, and a decrease in fare evasions. They closelysupervise the staff at their stations, including tokenclerks and cleaners. A recent reorganization hasgiven the station managers more direct control ofmaintenance and repair personnel.

Managers have a clear presence in their stations.They frequently stand where they can be seen bycustomers, particularly during rush hours, and theywear bright orange vests. A photo of the stationmanager is prominently displayed near the tokenbooth. Other nearby signs indicate when themanager has office hours in the station. Duringoffice hours, they stand in fare control areas, interactwith customers, provide information, and listen toproblems.

Station managers work closely with communityorganizations, public officials, and private developerson an ongoing basis. For example, Gerald Lane,previously the station manager for the Herald SquareStation, developed a task force with local businesses,

74

such as Macy’s and A&S, and with the Port AuthorityPolice and Transit Police to increase security duringthe holiday season. The station managers also workclosely with the New York City Police precinct intheir communities. Managers will notify the localprecinct captains if they have special security needsat their stations.

Other station managers, in conjunction with theircommunities, have held exhibits or sponsored activi-ties at their stations. For example, local schools havedisplayed student artwork in conjunction with pro-grams that stations sponsor to increase children’srespect for their stations. In another case, a Brooklyndistrict station manager and the station manager ofthe Borough Hall Station arranged with Project Helpto hold an exhibit and event at the station aimedat helping single mothers obtain counseling, jobtraining, and jobs.

Station managers also deal directly with retailtenants in their stations. The real estate department ofthe MTA leases the spaces, but the station managersdeal with tenant problems and requests and issue violations when necessary.

FUNDING

Funding for the program comes from the overallMTA New York City Transit budget, made up of tran-sit fares and state and municipal funds. The budgetincludes the cost of the station managers themselves,their supervisors, and maintenance support activitiesand personnel under the direct supervision of the sta-tion managers. The program budgets were $22 mil-lion, $22.6 million, and $19.8 million, in 1994, 1995,and 1996, respectively. In 1994, the program wasextended to include 252 stations and 62 station man-agers. Recent budget cuts have expanded the numberof stations per manager so that 58 managers are nowresponsible for 252 stations.

The Division of Stations received a $20,000 grantfrom the Ford Foundation to help publicize theStation Manager Program. With this grant, a videoabout the program was produced and stationmanagers made public appearances.

Because of recent budget cuts, the program cannotbe expanded to more stations, but the efficiency ofthe program will continue to be improved and thestation managers’ role will be re-evaluated to makethem even more effective. The managers’ direct con-trol of maintenance work is proving to be very cost-effective: the MTA New York City Tranist hasrecently seen a significant increase in productivityamong maintenance and cleaning personnel and adecrease in maintenance costs.


Carol Meltzer, the Chief Station Officer, mentionedthat one of the most significant obstacles in establish-ing and implementing the program in the early yearswas the Transit Police. They were initially reluctant towork with the managers to solve problems in andaround the stations or grant any authority to the sta-tion managers, whom they viewed as “civilians” indealing with security issues. This problem has beenlargely overcome as the local precincts have learnedto interact with the station managers, and the man-agers have learned to work with the police. The sup-port of the top commanders in the Transit Police wasessential in breaking down conflicts and establishinggood relationships. Positive relationships continuedas the Transit Police merged with the New YorkPolice Department.

Cost is another obstacle that continues to threatenthe existing program and future plans for itsexpansion. The program will not be extended to morestations in 1996, as originally planned.


There has been an overwhelmingly positiveresponse to the Station Manager Program, includ-ing many letters of praise. Also, customer commentand feedback about the Station Manager Program, as collected through surveys conducted by MTANew York City Transit’s department of customerservice, have been positive. Graffiti at managed sta-tions has decreased, and fare collection and refusecollection is more successfully accomplished at thesestations.

The following data indicate the program’s success.Station Cleanliness. A sample number of stations

are surveyed monthly on a 1 (dirty) to 4 (clean) scale.The 3-year average of stations in the program(1991–1993) was 3.33, while the average for stationsoutside the program was 3.09. The MTA New YorkCity Transit’s infrastructure department has createddedicated teams that work solely at stations withstation managers. The response time to infrastruc-ture and maintenance problems, therefore, is muchfaster at managed stations because they have, ineffect, their own staff—within a manager’s purview—to service the stations.

Fare Evasion. From 1992 to 1993, the percentage offare evasions per day measured at stations in the pro-gram was 1.98 percent, while the percentage at sta-tions not in the program was 4.19 percent.

The MTA New York City Transit has received com-mendations for some of their customer service initia-tives and favorable mention in the New York Times

75

76

Figures 7-9 and 7-10. Case Study 7-2. New York City transit customers know when and where they can find their StationManagers by consulting the weekly calendar posted in each of the stations they manage. The program’s philosophy isshared with customers through a brochure as well. (Credit: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.)

and other newspapers. In 1992, the program won anAmerican Public Transit Association (APTA) awardand in 1993, the program was among the top twentyfinalists for the Ford Foundation ManagementInnovation Awards program. This prompted VicePresident Al Gore to recognize the achievements ofthe program in a letter to the MTA New York CityTransit.

CONCLUSIONS

The Station Manager Program represents a newapproach to subway station management and to theway the stations relate to their surrounding commu-nity. While the start-up costs of the program weresignificant, the MTA New York City Transit believesthe program is already paying off in terms of (a) sav-ings in maintenance costs and (b) increases in rider-ship at the stations with managers. But the primarygoal of the program has always been to better serve

customers, and by all indications the customers andthe surrounding communities are indeed pleased. Theprogram has changed the nature of the subway froma faceless bureaucracy to stations run by real peoplewho can solve problems—both inside and around astation. As a result, surrounding communities havefound new partners in addressing security and otherlivability issues in their neighborhoods.

SOURCE

Carol Meltzer, “The Station Manager Program: A Study inManagement Innovation,” (1994).

We wanted to have customers feel that the Port Authoritywas in charge of the building, not that the building was incharge of us.

—Ken Philmus, Manager, Port Authority Bus Terminal

Finally we have a safe, convenient place where people candrop in and spend a little money.

—George Marlin, Executive Director, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey [1]

SUMMARY

The Port Authority Bus Terminal (PABT) is thelargest commuter bus terminal in the country, con-necting major subway lines as well as housing morethan 225 intercity bus platforms serving 185,000 pas-sengers per day. The Bus Terminal, located on 42ndStreet near Times Square, was reconstructed in thelate 1970s, in part to reverse a perceived decline in theterminal and the area around it. This effort largelyfailed to achieve its goal. By the mid-1980s, the termi-nal was plagued with significant criminal activity andhomelessness, with people actually living in the ter-minal. In addition, the interior of the terminal wasconfusing and unattractive, with insufficient servicesand amenities for passengers.

In 1991, the Port Authority created an in-house taskforce to completely revamp the terminal from both adesign and a management perspective. A comprehen-sive improvement program was initiated, includingOperation Alternative, a social service outreach and

77

Case Study 7-3New York, NY: Port Authority Bus Terminal A Comprehensive Approach Yields SecurityBenefits for Terminal and Times SquareNeighborhood

Figures 7-9 and 7-10. (continued)

referral program; a community policing programwithin the terminal; modifications to public spacesto minimize nooks and crannies; new amenities forusers including upgraded restrooms, a public addresssystem, and information booths; and improvedretail.

In addition, the terminal management has become amore active participant in redevelopment and neighbor-hood activities in the area around the terminal. Themanager of the facility is on the board of directors ofnine community-based organizations and works closelywith their community development projects.

The impact of these changes has been significant,and patrons have noticed the difference, as demon-strated by increasing positive perceptions duringrecent customer surveys. Also, in 31 ⁄2 years, 33,000referrals for homeless people were made. Sales persquare foot of retail space have doubled. Crime in theterminal and surrounding area has been greatlyreduced as well.

PLANNING PROCESS

The security problems at the Port Authority BusTerminal did not emerge overnight, but began in thelate 1950s—reflecting, in part, the decline of the TimesSquare area in general. By the mid-1980s, however,the terminal was in a near-crisis situation. The “crack”epidemic hit hard and the terminal provided a placefor dealers and users to use drugs, hide, make deals,and use the public facilities. This problem was exacer-bated by other concurrent trends: the overall reces-sion in the economy; the closing of psychiatrichospitals and the release of patients with nowhere togo; and court decisions making it illegal to remove aperson from a facility simply for loitering.

In many ways, the terminal was an ideal place forthese illegal activities. It was an immense facility oper-ating on six levels with two separate wings, with morethan 225 bus gates serving 7,000 buses a day, multipleentrances, and a generally dismal environment. Amajor renovation and expansion of the facility in theearly 1980s worsened the situation by making it evenmore difficult to control public space. Other seeminglysmall elements—like the number, location, and billingprocedures for public telephones—were major con-tributors to security problems.

Officials of the Port Authority of New York andNew Jersey, operators of the terminal, realized thatthey had to respond to increasing public demandsto improve the terminal. Not only were patron per-ceptions poor, but retail revenue from the scores ofshops and restaurants in the terminal was decreas-ing. An effort to reclaim public spaces—using push-cart vendors to fill empty or misused spaces on the

main floor of the terminal—proved successful.However, Port Authority Officials realized that itwas necessary to take a comprehensive approach tosecurity, looking at all aspects of the design andmanagement of the facility.

Project goals were as follows:

• To reduce fear of crime and actual crime andimprove perception of security;

• To minimize niches and corners that accommo-date the homeless and develop an effective socialservice program that would offer people alterna-tives and allow police to enforce rules;

• To improve the atmosphere of the bus terminal;and

• To increase marketability of retail spaces andimprove the retail services provided in thestation.

78

Figures 7-11 and 7-12. Case Study 7-3. The vending pro-gram introduced by the Port Authority at its 42nd Street busterminal was one of the first steps taken to improve securityat the facility; in combination with other efforts, there hasbeen a 50% drop in crime at the terminal. (Credit: Projectfor Public Spaces, Inc.)

A task force, consisting of Port Authority staff fromdifferent divisions and consultants like PPS, wasassembled to evaluate the use of public areas. This taskforce took the first intensive look at all aspects of theterminal, including design, management, security,social services, retail, circulation, amenities, ticketing—in short, all aspects of the terminal that affected publicuse. By looking at the terminal from this perspectivethe task force was able to understand how the differentfeatures and management practices at the terminal con-tributed to security problems and how to address them concurrently.

A report was prepared outlining the 100 recom-mendations of the task force. The recommendationsincluded both short- and long-term recommendationsand lower cost as well as higher cost items.

STRATEGY

The comprehensive scope of the strategy that hasbeen implemented over the past 4 years makes itdifficult to summarize. Many small changes togetherhave had a big impact. The highlights of the programare as follows.

Operation Alternative. Operation Alternativeinvolved strict enforcement of PABT rules whileproviding social service alternatives to needy indi-viduals. While there had been social serviceproviders in the terminal before, they tended notto work closely with the police. Under this program,terminal rules are clearly posted throughout thestation. If a Port Authority Police officer sees some-one in violation of the rules (under police unionrules, the police must make the first contact) andappears to need or asks for help, he or she isreferred to an on-site assessment center to be sentto the appropriate treatment facility. If someonerefuses to comply with stated Port Authority rules,officers have three alternatives: remove the personfrom the building, issue a summons, or arrestthe individual.

PABT also has partnerships with outside social ser-vice agencies, which provide referrals through theassessment center from 7 a.m. to 1 a.m. seven daysper week. They provide access to a range of services,including drug and alcohol treatment, employmenttraining, medical assistance, and permanent andtemporary housing. Individuals referred by policeare interviewed, assessed, and assigned a counselor.Operation Alternative then transports peopleto appropriate services with a van provided bythe PABT.

Community Policing. Operation Alternative hasallowed the police to revamp the way they hadpreviously provided services in the terminal. Basedon the community policing model, police patrols aremore evident within the terminal and different policebecome familiar with specific areas of the terminal—a kind of indoor “beat cop.” Police are even posted inhigh visibility areas during rush hour as a means ofreassuring patrons and establishing a high-profilepresence. Restroom attendants have continued to pro-vide a security presence, an effort that began beforethe comprehensive plan was developed.

Design Improvements. Unused and misused spacewas redesigned in an attempt to eliminate so-called“criminogenic areas”: dark corners, poorly lit corri-dors, and other problematic areas that contributed tothe unsafe atmosphere of the bus terminal. The designchanges included renovating public restrooms, usingsmaller pillars (because pillars obstruct view) andbrighter lighting, painting, and repairing floors. Atticspaces where homeless people had been living weresealed. Also, the Port Authority now plays classicalmusic on its interior sound systems. This has yieldedmuch positive public comment and seems to con-tribute to the overall ambiance of the terminal.

Retail Improvements. In addition, design changeswere made to change poorly used areas into mixed-use, revenue-generating retail locations and makespaces more naturally self-policing. Efforts have beenconcentrated on making retail much more invitingand approachable and on expanding retail use intounderutilized public spaces.

As part of the comprehensive plan, a phased retaildevelopment strategy with a space-by-space retailplan was prepared to allow retail changes to be madeas leases end. Ideas ranged from small kiosks to a golfdriving range, a sports bar, pro shop, and learningcenter. Recommendations were also made to improvestorefront design and merchandising.

A vending cart operation, previously noted, wasstarted on the main level of the terminal. This pro-gram made the terminal more attractive by pro-viding a service for patrons and reducing nooksand corners where security problems occurred,especially at the entrances to the terminal from thestreet and the subway.

One of the terminal’s success stories was the leas-ing of two vacant spaces near the central staircase toAu Bon Pain, a light food retailer, and Timothy’s cof-fee, an upscale coffee shop. These locations havebecome their respective chains’ highest grossing retailspaces and have actually helped improve the sales ofbusinesses around them.

79

Late Hours Management. The terminal is far toolarge for the number of people using it late at night.To reduce the potential for undesired activity duringthese hours, bus service is consolidated during non-peak hours so that commuters wait together. Manyrestrooms are closed in off-peak hours as well. Allindividual gates are closed at 10 p.m. and bus oper-ations move to gates with common concourses.At 1 a.m. daily, all gates are closed except for thelower level of the north wing, which stays openall night.

Telephone Fraud Prevention. One of the more curioussecurity problems in the terminal was rampant illegalinternational telephoning. Long lines of people wait-ing to purchase cheap illegal international calls (fromdealers using stolen credit cards) clogged the stationwith illegitimate activity. Numerous telephones wereremoved and the remaining phones were replacedwith so-called “smart phones,” which make interna-tional and incoming calls impossible. This producedperhaps the most visible, quickest change in the ter-minal: overnight, the street phone call vendorsdisappeared.

Community Outreach and Participation. Because thehealth of the neighborhood and the terminal are soclosely interrelated, the manager of the terminal hasbecome actively involved in community activities,serving on the board of organizations such as theMayor’s Midtown Committee, the 42nd StreetRedevelopment Corporation (in charge of the TimesSquare redevelopment project), and the 9th AvenueAssociation, a business group. The Port Authorityworks on various problems with these organizationsopening up lines of communication and benefitingthe terminal and the neighborhood as a whole.

Efforts of these and other groups, especially theredevelopment of 42nd Street, have complementedthe efforts by the Port Authority to improve the ter-minal. With the help of the business improvementdistrict (BID), which sponsors private securityguards to patrol streets and sanitation staff to sup-plement city forces, crime has dropped 41 percent inthe area between 1993 and 1995. The cleanliness rat-ing improved from 54 percent to 96 percent, accord-ing to the Mayor’s monthly cleanliness survey of thearea, as reported by Gover Howell, Director ofPublic Safety for the Times Square BID. In addition,illegal peddling and low-level drug dealing havedramatically decreased in the neighborhood.

The number of PABT customers rating the areaaround the bus terminal as “good or very good” grewfrom 7 percent in 1991 to 12 percent in 1993 and to 15percent in 1994.

FUNDING

The economics of the bus terminal may seemdaunting, but many of the program components canbe tailored to smaller facilities. Some of the programsimplemented did not increase costs at the PortAuthority, but simply involved a different deploy-ment of existing resources. In addition, investment incapital improvements and retail have resulted inincreased revenues to the terminal.

The operating budget for the Port Authority BusTerminal is about $45 million per year, plus about$10 million in capital improvements. Approximately25 percent of the operating budget is spent on secu-rity. Some of the maintenance costs of the facility alsohave security benefits: staffing the restrooms, forexample, costs about $3 million annually. The con-tract for social service referrals is approximately$750,000.


The comprehensive approach to security meant anew way of operating the terminal, along with a sub-stantial investment of funds for new programs. Bothwere obstacles in their own way. The cooperation ofpolice staff was crucial to the success of the changesand Operation Alternative represented a significantdeparture from generally accepted policing methods.

Furthermore, the task force, in working to developthe initial recommendations, attempted to be concil-iatory and collaborative, but the very nature of itswork involved organizational changes that manyresisted.


The Port Authority regularly collects informationabout patron perceptions, retail data, and use of thefacility by the homeless. The following data indicatethat the project has been successful:

• Operation Alternative has been successful inreferring and relocating the homeless to theproper facilities and agencies and had a tremen-dous effect on safety levels at the terminal. Thehomeless population has been dramaticallyreduced. In 31⁄2 years, Operation Alternativemade 33,000 referrals. However, a few problem-atic individuals remain. In 1991, 43 percent ofcustomers surveyed complained about these peo-ple, but by 1994 they were a problem to only 15percent of terminal users.

80

• Criminal activity throughout the terminal hasdecreased by half, with serious crime down evenmore. The dramatic reductions of specific crimesare listed below.

Number in Number in Type of Crime 1988 1994Robbery 502 148Assault 292 191Rape 18 3Pickpocket 416 136Loitering 227 61Drug-Related 1216 651

Sales per square foot have increased from $388 to$659 between 1990 and 1994. Revenue per square footalso increased, from $50 in 1990 to $67 in 1994. Grosssales from the Port Authority rose from $27.14 millionin 1992 to $37.13 million in 1994.

Annual commuter surveys show that public percep-tions of the bus terminal have become very favorable.The 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994 surveys showed signifi-cant improvements in perceptions about security andsocial issues. Specifically, customer rating of “safetyinside the terminal” as “good to very good” more thandoubled from 20 percent in 1991 to 52 percent in 1994;“safety in restroom facilities” increased from 12 per-cent in 1991 to 26 percent in 1994; “the police effective-ness” rating jumped from 28 percent in 1991 to 51percent for both 1993 and 1994. The overall experienceof using the bus terminal was rated “good to verygood” by 67 percent of customers in 1993 (the first timethe question was asked) and by 76 percent in 1994.

The surrounding district is clearly being revitalized.The Walt Disney Company has committed to the42nd Street redevelopment project and will be reno-vating a historic theater and participating in openinga new hotel. Other entertainment companies are fol-lowing. The Times Square BID is upgrading the clean-liness and security in the neighborhood from West40th to West 53rd Streets and from 6th to 8thAvenues.

CONCLUSIONS

The Port Authority Bus Terminal has been trans-formed from a transit terminal plagued by securityproblems to one which is becoming an anchor for therevitalizing Times Square district. There is generalpublic acknowledgment that the terminal and theneighborhood are more livable.

The most important lesson learned in this multiyearprocess of revitalizing a transportation facility is thataddressing all problematic situations was necessary to

clean up the terminal. Efforts by the Port Authorityhave addressed all aspects of problems in the termi-nal, both perceived and actual. Working with the sur-rounding neighborhood has contributed to upgradinga troubled area.

ENDNOTE

1. Claudia H. Deutsch, “A Former Haven of Sleaze Is Nowa Refuge of Retail,” New York Times (March 17, 1996)p.11.

The Rider Advocate [program] is one of the first attempts ofTri-Met to address collaborative relationships that improvetransit. We see it as an innovative partnership: customerservice on wheels. These are people who are hired fromwithin their own community and who have a commitmentto their own neighborhood.

—Peg Caliendo, Marketing and Community Safety, Tri-Met

We commend Robert and David for their quick thinkingand rapid response that helped save a life. This effort illus-trates Rider Advocates’ important role on Tri-Met and inthe community.

—Ben Priestly, Executive Director, Northeast Coalition of Neighborhoods

SUMMARY

The Tri-County Metropolitan TransportationDistrict of Oregon (Tri-Met) “Rider Advocate” pro-gram was established in 1994 in response to anexpressed need by communities in northeast Portlandfor an ongoing security presence on Tri-Met buses.The Rider Advocate program is a community-basedpartnership between Tri-Met and the NortheastCoalition of Neighborhoods that enlists members ofthe community to serve as extensions of Tri-Met’scustomer-relations efforts.

A major goal of the program is to reduce anti-social behavior on the buses in order to encourageridership. Rider advocates talk with patrons, distrib-ute brochures, and give out transit as well as social-service information. Rider advocates assist both newand regular riders and help Tri-Met personnel main-tain a pleasant environment for passengers. The pro-gram has helped solve problems on this specific line

81

Case Study 7-4Portland, OR: Tri-Met’s Rider Advocate ProgramOn-Board Services Improve Transit andCommunity Security

while providing personalized service to customers.With the approval of funds from Americorps, theprogram will be expanded in 1996 to include addi-tional bus lines serving other neighborhoods.

PLANNING PROCESS

Tri-Met created the Rider Advocate program in theaftermath of two shootings in October 1993 on boardthe #4 Fessenden bus line in northeast Portland. Im-mediately after the incidents, Tri-Met posted armedguards on the buses in this neighborhood. Thecommunity complained that this solution was notacceptable, stating that “it wasn’t how they saw them-selves” and that people from the community shouldbe hired to do the job instead.

Through a series of meetings with Tri-Met, thecommunity proposed the idea of having individualsfrom the surrounding community riding the eight buslines that service northeastern Portland to be trouble-shooters and provide a security presence. Tri-Metcontracted with the Northeast Coalition of Neigh-borhoods (NCN), one of Portland’s 90 volunteer-run neighborhood associations, to implement theproject, which also is responsible for the hiring,training, and deployment of nine full-time rideradvocates and a coordinator, all of whom receive fullhealth and other employee benefits. Rider advocatescomprise part of Tri-Met’s customer servicedivision and live in the 13 northeast coalition neighborhoods.

When the program began in 1994, Tri-Met’s goalsincluded the following:

• Enhancing customer relations, including boost-ing customer confidence in using transit;

• Reducing the occurrence of criminal and anti-social behavior on buses; and

• Enhancing customer knowledge of the Tri-Metsystem.

STRATEGY

The NCN offers technical services to 13 neighbor-hood associations and is funded by the city’s Office ofNeighborhood Associations (ONA), a bureau createdto act as a liaison between the citizens of Portland andtheir elected officials. The ONA, in turn, oversees thework of seven neighborhood program offices, whichhelp neighborhoods with community development,crime prevention, land-use assistance, and neighbor-hood organizing. When Portland’s communities facespecific problems, a structure of grass roots commu-nity organizations already exists. No groups had to be

mobilized to address the problem because they werealready officially recognized and, as such, it was easyfor Tri-Met to work with them.

Rider advocates were originally assigned to thenortheast in response to specific criminal incidents.The northeast business and retail center, however, isalso Tri-Met’s second highest ridership area, on bothlight rail and bus. Advocates alight and board manytimes each day in order to cover a variety of busesalong all eight bus lines and four connecting lineswithin the coalition’s neighborhood boundaries. Theyare equipped with radios, which allow them to reachboth 911 and Tri-Met in case of emergency. Rideradvocates travel in pairs and board buses (and somelight rail trains) weekdays beginning at 1:30 p.m., thetime of daily school dismissals. At this time of day,the advocates ride the lines that service the area’sschools, ensuring that students are well-behaved onbuses and at bus stops. They are also given free busand movie passes with which they reward thoseyoungsters displaying appropriate behavior whenothers around them are “acting up.”

The advocates themselves are between the ages of 30 and 55; most are African American and two are women. They are charged with talking to and developing relationships with passengers, and giv-ing out information on NCN social services, jobtraining, and neighborhood-watch groups in thearea. Rider advocates are trained to deal with diffi-cult people. Passengers are encouraged to ask theirrider advocate for help or for information about localpoints of interest, community programs, or Tri-Metservices.

82

Figure 7-13. Case Study 7-4. Americorps Transit SafetyAdvocate Jason Earl talks with passengers aboard Tri-Met’sMAX light rail train in Portland, OR. Americorps volunteershave augmented the ranks of Portland’s Rider Advocates.(Credit: Tri-MET)

FUNDING

The ONA funds seven neighborhood coalitions,which oversee the work of 90 volunteer-run neighbor-hood associations such as the NCN. The RiderAdvocate program is funded by Tri-Met on a yearlycontract and costs about $284,000 to administer andoperate. The advocates themselves are paid$8.50/hour through funds transferred to the NCN.

The County District Attorney proposed and re-ceived an Americorps grant to hire 10 transit advo-cates in a companion to the Rider Advocate program.The transit advocates will ride other bus and light raillines in the city and on the downtown transit mall.


The primary obstacle facing the program is that it isboth labor-intensive and expensive to operate; approx-imately two-thirds of program money funds labor andabout one-third is used for administrative expenses.

Also, bus drivers have expressed concern that rideradvocates may be monitoring them and reportingtheir mistakes.


No major incidents have occurred on routes servedby rider advocates since the advent of the program. Inaddition, in the past year, rider advocates saved thelife of a woman who was suffering a stroke whilewaiting at a bus stop and returned a lost 3-year-old,alone at a stop, to his home.

On-board surveys of passengers on the #4 bus linewere conducted specifically to see how perceptions ofsafety and comfort have improved. Passenger knowl-

edge of the Rider Advocate program as well as theirexperience with advocates caused people to rate Tri-Met higher across the board. Passengers who hadseen advocates gave Tri-Met more “excellent” ratingsthan respondents who had not; passengers com-mented that the Rider Advocate program was a“great idea” and stated that advocates gave out businformation and directions, assisted passengers withdisabilities and helped maintain order on the buses.

In early 1996, a process to evaluate the success ofthe program began, which includes interviews withthe following people in order to determine whether ornot the program goals are being adequately met, howeffectively the program is operating, and whatchanges might be needed to increase the program’seffectiveness:

• Bus operators on all lines that the rider advocatesfrequent;

• Administrators of the advocate program;• Tri-Met Dispatch and Road Operations;• Representatives from the Portland Police Bureau

Tri-Met Transit Unit; and• Representatives from the rider advocates them-

selves.

CONCLUSIONS

The Rider Advocate program began as a safety andsecurity program. It has evolved, however, into acommunity effort to encourage appropriate behavioraboard transit. In addition, rider advocates see whatproblems and issues are facing drivers and passen-gers and can share this information with Tri-Met,thereby making transit safer and more comfortablefor passengers, while improving community security.

83

TheRole of TransitinCreating Livable Metropolitan Communitiesonlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_22-a.pdf · TheRole of TransitinCreating Livable Metropolitan Communities

Documents