Center for Transit-Oriented Development

Center for Transit-Oriented Development
Name	Center for Transit-Oriented Development
Formation	2005
Type	Research and advocacy organization
Headquarters	Los Angeles, California
Parent organization	Strategic Growth Council

Center for Transit-Oriented Development is a research and policy organization focused on coordinating land use and public transportation investments to promote compact, mixed-use development near transit stations. It operated as a collaboration among academic institutions, municipal agencies, and philanthropic foundations to influence urban planning, housing, and transportation policy across metropolitan regions. The organization engaged with practitioners from city governments such as Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, transit agencies like Bay Area Rapid Transit, and nonprofit groups including Smart Growth America and TransitCenter.

History

The center was established in 2005 with involvement from scholars affiliated with University of California, Berkeley, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and University of Southern California, alongside practitioners from Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York), and Chicago Transit Authority. Early collaborations included projects linked to the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Federal Transit Administration, and philanthropic support from entities such as the Ford Foundation and the Kresge Foundation. The center expanded through regional pilot efforts in the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles County, the Seattle metropolitan area, and the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, working with agencies like Sound Transit, Metropolitan Council (Minnesota), and WMATA.

Mission and Objectives

The center stated objectives aligned with planning institutions and policy initiatives championed by organizations such as Smart Growth America, Congress for the New Urbanism, and the Urban Land Institute. Its mission emphasized promoting transit-oriented development practices compatible with directives from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, federal transportation policy under the SAFETEA-LU reauthorization, and metropolitan growth strategies used by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (California). Goals included supporting local governments like the City of Los Angeles and counties such as King County, Washington to implement zoning reforms, station-area planning, and affordable housing strategies consistent with guidelines from the American Planning Association.

Research and Publications

The center produced technical reports, case studies, and toolkits drawing on methodologies used by scholars at Harvard University, Columbia University, Princeton University, and New York University. Notable publications referenced data sources such as the U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, and the National Transit Database, and were circulated alongside research from think tanks like the Brookings Institution and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Topics included land value capture approaches associated with projects like Hong Kong Mass Transit Railway and London Crossrail, parking reform influenced by examples from Portland, Oregon and Copenhagen, and affordable housing case studies akin to developments in Minneapolis and Boston.

Projects and Partnerships

The center partnered with municipal agencies including Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York), Chicago Department of Transportation, and regional planning bodies like the Southern California Association of Governments and the Metropolitan Council (Minnesota). International exchanges involved agencies such as Transport for London, Transport for Greater Manchester, and academic centers at Delft University of Technology and University College London. Projects encompassed station-area planning in corridors served by Orange Line (Los Angeles Metro), transit-oriented zoning pilots in San Francisco, and joint initiatives with nonprofits including Enterprise Community Partners and Habitat for Humanity to integrate affordable housing near transit.

Impact and Evaluation

Evaluations cited outcomes similar to those reported in studies by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, National Academy of Sciences, and the Urban Institute, noting changes in ridership patterns around corridors like Market Street (San Francisco) and the Blue Line (Los Angeles Metro). The center’s work influenced policies adopted by local councils in jurisdictions such as Seattle City Council, Los Angeles City Council, and the San Diego City Council, and helped shape funding programs coordinated with the California Department of Transportation and the New York State Department of Transportation. Independent assessments compared its recommendations to outcomes documented in cases like Arlington County, Virginia and Portland, Oregon.

Funding and Governance

Funding sources included foundation grants from the Ford Foundation, the Kresge Foundation, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, as well as contracts with federal agencies including the Federal Transit Administration and state departments such as the California Strategic Growth Council. Governance structures featured advisory boards with representatives from universities like University of California, Los Angeles and University of Southern California, transit agencies including Metrolink (California), and private-sector partners such as firms comparable to AECOM and Arup. Fiscal oversight and program management followed practices used by nonprofits registered similarly to Center for Neighborhood Technology.

Criticism and Controversies

Critiques echoed debates found in literature from the Brookings Institution, Urban Institute, and academic journals at Journal of the American Planning Association and Transport Reviews. Critics argued that transit-oriented development initiatives can drive displacement observed in neighborhoods like parts of San Francisco and Brooklyn, reproduce exclusionary outcomes discussed in analyses of gentrification in Washington, D.C. and London, and rely on modeling approaches challenged by researchers at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and University of California, Berkeley. Debates also referenced policy tensions with affordable housing mandates used in San Francisco and inclusionary zoning precedents in New York City.

Category:Urban planning organizations