MAPC_TOD_Report_06_14_12

7/31/2019 MAPC_TOD_Report_06_14_12

1/36

Gowing Station AeasThe Vaiety and Potentia o Tansit Oiented Deveopment in Meto Boston

Metropolitan Area Planning CouncilJune, 2012

7/31/2019 MAPC_TOD_Report_06_14_12

2/36

Authors:Tim Reardon, Meghna Dutta

MAPC Contributors: Jennier Raitt, Jennier Riley, Christine Madore, Barry Fradkin, Holly St. Clair

Advisor: Stephanie Pollack, Dukakis Center or Urban & Regional Policy at Northeastern University

Graphic design: Jason Fairchild, The Truesdale Group

Funded by the Metro Boston Consortium or Sustainable Communities and the Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization with support rom theDukakis Center or Urban and Regional Policy at Northeastern University. Thanks to the Metro Boston Transit Oriented Development Finance Advi-sory Committee or their participation in this eort.

Visit www.mapc.org/TOD to download this report, access the data or each station, or use our interactive map o station areas.

Cover Photos (L to R): Waverly Woods, Hamilton Canal Lots, Station Landing, Bartlett Square Condos, Atlantic Whar.

Photo Credits: Cover (L to R): Ed Wonsek, DBVW Architects, 75 Station Landing, Maple Hurst Builders, Anton Grassl/EstoInside (Top to Bottom): Pg1: David Steger, MAPC, SouthField; Pg 2: Oaktree Greenline Project www.oakdev.com; Pg 3: www.bruceTmartin.com,

Anton Grassl/Esto; Pg 8: MAPC; Pg 14: Boston Redevelopment Authority; Pg 18: Federal Realty; Pg 19: www.bruceTmartin.com; Pg 22: Payton Chungickr, David Steger; Pg 23: MAPC, Boston Redevelopment Authority; Pg 24: www.bruceTmartin.com, Maple Hurst Builders; Pg 25: 75 Station Land-ing, 2008 Asian CDC Competition Team; Pg 26: Beacon Communities LLC, Beal + Street-Works Development LLC; Pg 27: Cli Boehmer, Oaktree Green-

lin Project, MAPC; Pg 28: MA Pictometry, Legacy Place-Dedham, MA; Pg 29: The Seaport at Cordage, Southeld; Pg 30: MAPC; Pg 31: Lincoln Station

Tabe o Contents

1 Gowing Station Aeas: Executive Summay

3 Intoduction

4 The Divesity o Meto Boston Station Aeas7 The Many Sizes and Shapes o TOD in Meto Boston

9 A Station Aea Typoogy o Meto Boston

14 Estimating the Potentia o TOD in Meto Boston

19 Concusion

20 Matix o Station Aea Types and TOD Potentia

22 Station Aea Type Summaies

7/31/2019 MAPC_TOD_Report_06_14_12

3/36

1

Gowing Station Aeas: Executive Summay

Tansit oiented deveopment has been a age pat o Bostons gowth since the eaiesthose-dawn aiways. In act, we ive in a uniquey tansit-oiented egion, whee 25% ohousing units and 37% o empoyment is within a ha-mie o a apid tansit o commute aistation. Now Meto Boston is expeiencing a new wave o gowth nea tansit, with hundedso esidentia and commecia deveopments undeway and moe on the hoizon. Cities andtowns ae ceating station aea pans and updated zoning to unock deveopment potentia;the MBTA is accepting poposas o majo deveopments on pime T-owned paces; stateagencies ae using tansit poximity as a citeia o pioitizing inastuctue o housingesouces; and the deveopment community is nding a stong maket o esidentia andcommecia space nea the T.

There are good reasons or this burgeoning interest in Transit OrientedDevelopment (TOD.) New growth near transit stations can help reduce

congestion, improve aordability, bolster the Ts bottom line, and satisythe growing demographic preerence or transit proximity. MAPCs

regional plan MetroFuture sees TOD as a key ingredient or a sustainable,equitable, and prosperous region. But with over 250 rapid transit andcommuter rail stations in the MBTA system, there is no one-size-ts-allapproach to TOD. Downtown Boston, streetcar suburbs, gateway cities,

and village centers all present distinct and complementary opportuni-ties or growth near transit.

The regions TOD activity reects this diversity: within a hal mile oMBTA stations there are over 30,000 housing units and 45 million square

eet o commercial space planned or under construction, ranging romhigh-rise ofce towers and small-scale inll to entirely new transit dis-tricts and compact townhouse communities. Growing station areas are

poised to be a major ocus o the regions residential and commercialdevelopment over the coming 25 years.

While TOD holds great promise, the sheer number and diversity otransit stations complicates eorts to plan or TOD at a regional level,

to prioritize inrastructure investments and incentives, or to evaluatespecic development proposals. A better understanding o this diversitywill support context-sensitive policies to achieve the ull potential o

TOD. In response to this need, the Metropolitan Area Planning Councilhas developed a new station area typology that denes ten distincttypes, ranging rom the Metro Core stations o Downtown Boston to

Undeveloped stations in quiet country suburbs.

The Transit Station Area Types, illustratedon the ollowing page, are distinguished by

their population and employment density,transit service type, land use, demographics,

and travel behavior. In addition to this inor-mation about existing conditions, the typesalso reect nature and magnitude o devel-opment that could occur over the coming

decades. Some station area types are morelikely to see small-scale inll development oradaptive reuse that reinorces or strength-

ens the existing abric and character o thestation area. Other types are amenable tolarge-scale transormational development

that creates entirely new urban districts.

The benets o TOD dier widely acrossthese types. Around many stations, thedensity and diversity o land use contributes

to high transit ridership and low auto use.But in low-density, auto-oriented stationareas, proximity to transit has a more limited

impact on travel patterns. This distinctionis relevant to the many housing, economic,and transportation programs that use transit

proximity to prioritize unding, incentives, orinvestments.

7/31/2019 MAPC_TOD_Report_06_14_12

4/36

2

Based on current development

proposals, existing land use, andredevelopment opportunities,MAPC estimates that transit station

areas could accommodate morethan 76,000 new housing units

and space or more than 130,000new jobs by 2035: nearly one-thirdo projected housing unit growthregionwide and more than hal o projected job growth. Achieving this level o growth

would yield substantial benets as compared to a more dispersed growth scenario: ewervehicle miles travelled, lower housing and transportation costs, increased economicvitality, and higher transit ridership: more than 60,000 commute trips per weekday, not to

mention non-work trips. Additional ridership would also bolster the MBTAs are revenue,but only i the system has the capacity to transport those additional riders. I lack o transitcapacity becomes a constraint on TOD, growth might shit to more auto-oriented locations

(creating more congestion); residents will drive more; and employers may simply decide tolocate in other regions or states.

While the development pipeline is strong, there is a need to pick up the pace. From 2000 2010, the region added more than 15,000 new housing units near transit. This demon-

strates strong demand, but the rate o housing development needs to double in order toachieve the ull potential o TOD in the region.

The transit station area typology can help advance equitable and sustainable TOD in avariety o ways:

Housing, economic development, and inrastructure programs can use the typology to

establish unding criteria that reect both local conditions as well as regional TOD goals.

Analysis o TOD nancing needs and the design o potential new TOD nance prod-ucts can acknowledge the distinct station area types and the dierent nance/market

conditions that exist in each one.

Technical assistance rom MAPC and other partners can be targeted to station areas

with strong potential or TOD but ew developments in the pipeline.

Municipalities and stakeholders can use the analysis to evaluate specic developmentproposals against the range o densities and project attributes appropriate or the sta-

tion area type.

The MBTA can use the analysis o TOD potential to plan or capacity expansion or to

evaluate the potential development impacts o service changes.

All o the data developed or this report can be downloaded or viewed with our interac-tive data viewer at www.mapc.org/TOD

7/31/2019 MAPC_TOD_Report_06_14_12

5/36

3

Intoduction

Imagine you ae iding on a subway o commute ai tain, somewhee in the MBTAs 3,200squae mie sevice aea. You aive at a station and the doo opens. Whee ae you? TheFinancia Distict o a taditiona town cente? A busting uban neighbohood o a quietpak-and-ide station? A steetca subub o a sububan industia pak?

The communities served by the MBTA are as diverse as the region itsel,and the real estate development that is occurring near these stations

is similarly diverse, not to mention substantial: there are over 30,000housing units and 45 million square eet o commercial space plannedor under construction near transit, ranging rom high-rise ofce towers

and small-scale inll developments to entirely new transit districts andcompact townhouse communities. This new wave o Transit OrientedDevelopment (TOD) is no accident. Recognizing the signicant benets

that result rom TOD (see page 8), cities and towns have been busy creat-ing station area plans and updating their zoning to unlock development

potential; the MBTA is actively soliciting proposals or development onprime T-owned parcels near stations; state agencies are using transitproximity as a criteria or prioritizing inrastructure or housing resources;and the development community is nding a strong market or TOD

both residential and commercialacross the region.

Despite this interest, there has been little eort to characterize theTOD opportunities that exist across the MBTA system, to estimate the

magnitude o development that

might be accommodated overthe coming decades, or to tailorpolicies that reect the diversity o

TOD opportunities in the region.With more than 250 stations in allcorners o the region, no one ap-

proach will be applicable every-where. There are common princi-ples and characteristics that dene

successul TOD (see sidebar), butthe application o these principlesdepends on community context.

Some stations already have a verystrong ridership base, a mix o uses,complete pedestrian inrastruc-

ture, diverse housing choices, and

human-scale urban design. Others stationareas lack key ingredients, such as density

or land use diversity, and thereore do notgenerate the kinds o benets that transitproximity can coner (high transit rider-

ship, low auto usage, strong tax revenues,and a diversity o residents.) TOD canreinorce andwhere necessaryremedi-

ate these existing conditions to enhancethe perormance o station areas. A better

understanding o how these conditionsand opportunities vary across the regionwill help decision makers crat policies andmake investments that support sustain-

able and equitable TOD.

This report seeks to ll that gap throughan analysis o more than 280 existing andproposed subway, trolley, bus rapid tran-

sit, or commuter rail stations in Metro Bos-ton to determine their existing conditions,planned development, and prospects or

development. Based on this analysis andreview o similar eorts elsewhere, MAPChas also identied ten dierent station

area types in the region.

This work was initiated or an eortunded by the Metro Boston Consortiumor Sustainable Communities to develop

new TOD nancing tools or the region,but the typology has broader applicationor policy creation, resource allocation,

and evaluation o specic developmentproposals.

Principles o TOD

Research across the U.S. has identieda set o common characteristics o TOD

that are correlated with better transpor-tation perormance, greater economicreturn, and improved social equity.

A diversity o land uses, including em-ployment and common destinations

Higher levels o density appropriateto the community context

A mix o housing options and dedi-cated housing aordability

Intermodal connectivity (pedes-trian and bicycle connections, othertransit)

Green inrastructure and open space

Low parking requirements and alter-natives to car ownership (e.g., Zipcar)

High quality urban design and senseo place

7/31/2019 MAPC_TOD_Report_06_14_12

6/36

4

The Divesity o Meto Boston Station Aeas

Our study area includes 283 xed guideway MBTA stations1, including149 subway , trolley, or bus rapid transit stops; 119 commuter rail-only

stations; and 15 proposed stations along the Green Line Extension orthe South Coast Rail2. A map o all station areas with labels can be ound

inside the back cover o this report. For purposes o this analysis, stationareas are based on a 1/2 mile radius around the station, though someboundaries were adjusted to account or water bodies or other barriers.Principal data sources or our analysis include the U.S. Census (popula-

tion & housing), American Community Survey (income and commutemode), InoGroup (employment), MBTA (ridership), and MassGIS (landuse), among others.

The data immediately demonstrate that we live in a transit-oriented

region. The mile station areas constitute just 5% o the regions landarea but include 25% o its housing units, and 37% o total employ-ment (470,000 housing units and 880,000 jobs). However, the amount

o existing development around transit stations varies dramatically. Onemeasure o development is intensity, the combined population and em-ployment within the station area. Since some station areas include large

areas o open space, ocean, or otherwise unavailable land, we havecalculated the normalized intensitywhich is population and jobs dividedby acreage in developed land uses. Station areas also vary in the type

o development. Some are predominantly residential; others are majoremployment centers. The mixo a station area is the ratio o workers tototal intensity in the station area. A value near 1.0 indicates relatively

more employment, and a values close to 0.0 indicate predominatelyresidential areas.

The map on the opposite page shows the normalized intensity anddevelopment mix or transit station areas in the region. Not surprisingly,

the highest intensities are ound in the Inner Core, where there are 31stations with intensities o over 100 persons per developed acre. Theinset shows that the development mix becomes increasingly employ-

ment-heavy toward the hub o the system. The lowest intensities onthe core subway system are ound in the moderate density residentialneighborhoods along the Green Line Riverside Branch and the Red

Line in Milton, and in underutilized commercial/industrial areas such asAssembly Square, Wellington, and Revere. Beyond Route 128, station

areas vary considerably, ranging rom higher-density (50 100 peracre) urban stations with balanced development to moderate-density

suburban areas and very low-density areas with ewer than 10 personsper developed acre.

Since one o the undamental goals o TOD is to increase transit rider-ship and reduce vehicle miles travelled (VMT), it is also important toassess the transportation perormance o existing stations. Transit

proximity alone does not assure sustainable transportation patterns,especially where densities are low and destinations are ew. The map onpage 6 shows the daily VMT per household or each station area, with

larger circles indicating higher mileage. (For comparison, the averagedaily VMT or all o Metro Boston is 49 miles per day.) The patterns hereare nearly the inverse o the intensity in Map. The lowest VMT (

7/31/2019 MAPC_TOD_Report_06_14_12

7/36

5

7/31/2019 MAPC_TOD_Report_06_14_12

8/36

6

7/31/2019 MAPC_TOD_Report_06_14_12

9/36

7

The Many Size and Shapes o TOD in Meto Boston

The good news about TOD is that thee is a consideabe amount o it aeadyundeway in Meto Boston. MAPCs Deveopment Database incudes inomationon 391 deveopment pojects in the station aeas competed o in constuctionas o Januay 2011, compising neay 15,000 housing units and 15 miion squaeeet o commecia o oce space. The Database aso incudes inomation about210 pojects panned o poposed, compising 27,000 housing units and moethan 27 miion squae eet o commecia and oce space. The divesity o thesepojects is compaabe to the vaiety o station aeas themseves.

TOD projects completed over the past decade range rom small townhouse developments in a villagecenter to high-rise ofce towers in Boston. In act, the regions largest real estate development eorts un-derway are transit oriented, including Assembly Row (Somerville), SouthField (Weymouth & Rockland), and

Seaport Square (Boston.) These transormative projects are creating entirely new districts around transitstations, oten with a new or recongured street grid and creation o an entirely new public realm. In themost densely developed areas, TOD builds upward through ofce or residential tower development, such

as Atlantic Whar, the Liberty Mutual home ofce (Back Bay), 45 Province Street (Downtown Crossing), orthe Watermark (Kendall Square.) In urban neighborhoods and city & town centers beyond the hub o thesystem, TOD oten occurs through inll on individual vacant or underutilized parcels or through adaptive

reuse o historic buildings, with dozens o examples underway rom Arboretum Place (Forest Hills) to StonePlace (Melrose) and 30 Haven (Reading.) Less commonly, growth near transit occurs on previously undevel-oped land, including small-scale single amily subdivisions or stand-alone multiamily residential develop-

ment.

There are many actors that contribute to the success o TOD. As noted previously, proximity to transitis not alone sufcient to reap the possible transportation benetsnew development must be pro-grammed, designed, and managed to enable and promote sustainable transit and equitable growth.

Unortunately, not all development near transit ullls the promise. High-end residential development with

abundant parking in urban areas may contribute to the displacement o long-time transit-dependent resi-dents without generating much transit ridership. Low-density single-amily or townhouse development

near commuter rail stations may preclude the mix o uses that helps reduce auto usage. Multiamily hous-ing that happens to be near commuter rail but no other destinations may drive up transportation costs orresidents, resulting in unaordable housing and transportation costs.

7/31/2019 MAPC_TOD_Report_06_14_12

10/36

8

The Benets o Transit Oriented Development

Transit oriented developmentdone right in the right placecreatesbenets or local communities and the broader region:

Reduced vehicle miles travelled and greenhouse gas emis-sions. Households living near transit tend to own ewer cars and driveless than households who lack transit access, even ater controlling orincome, neighborhood density, and other actors. Not only do residentstake transit instead o driving, they also benet rom the greater densityo destinations that tend to exist around transit stations. As a result, thereare ewer cars on the road and less congestion or people who are driving.

Increased housing and transportation afordability. The cost o living is a major burden to many Metro Boston households and adeterrent to attracting more workers to the region. In Metro Boston, the average household spends 28% o its income on housing and anadditional 20% on transportation. As a result o the greater accessibility described above, households in transit station areas spend less otheir income on transportation, especially i they can get by with one or zero vehicles instead o two.

Expands housing choices and prevents displacement. National research demonstrates a growing consumer preerence or hous-ing units near transit, and some o the regions astest growing demographic groupsHispanics and seniorsdemonstrate a preerenceor transit-accessible locations. More housing near transit is needed to meet this growing demand and to prevent displacement o low-and moderate income amilies living in transit-rich neighborhoods as real estate prices rise.

Supports economic development. Employers both large and small are increasingly recognizing the value o locating in transit-accessible locations that also eature a variety o housing and destinations o interest to their workers. Firms at the hub o the system haveaccess to a labor market o more than hal a million workers living near subway or commuter rail lines. Major employers such as Google,Liberty Mutual, Novartis, Vertex, and others are in the midst o major expansion eorts at the core o the transit system. Many retail andservice establishments also choose to locate near transit stops where they have access to a large commuter market.

Increases transit ridership and are revenue. Development near transit can help to improve the MBTAs bottom line by increasingridership and are revenue. To the extent that increased ridership can be accommodated without additional service requency, new rider-ship will directly benet the Ts are recovery ratio, which is currently at 35%. Revenue rom the sale or lease o MBTA land near transit canalso improve the systems bottom line.

Improves health. TOD osters greater physical activity as people walk to transit and nearby destinations; increased transit usage mayalso result in ewer auto accidents and less air pollution as compared to a scenario with less transit access.

Reduces sprawl and land consumption. By providing more compact housing choices, generally on redeveloped land near destinations,TOD helps the region to meet its housing needs while consuming less open space. MAPCs MetroFuture regional plan anticipates that placing60% o new housing near transit would help preserve 115,000 acres o land as compared to a more dispersed Current Trends scenario.

7/31/2019 MAPC_TOD_Report_06_14_12

11/36

9

A Station Aea Typoogy o Meto Boston

The geat divesity o station aeas in the egion means that a singe appoach to TOD wi not wok eveywhee.Howeve, it is cea that many stations shae simia attibutes, chaenges, and oppotunities and may benetom simia stategies, investments, and design appoaches. A amewok o undestanding the difeent typeso TOD paces wi hep pubic poicy, panning activities, and poject design.

Many regions elsewhere in the U.S. have developed TOD or station areatypologies to help inorm and organize their TOD eorts. Most com-

monly, these typologies utilize a ramework developed by the Centeror Transit Oriented Development, which denes general categories ostation areas based on existing intensity (population + employees) and

development mix (ratio o workers to total employment.) However, thisapproach does not account or other actors that distinguish stationareas, such as service type or community context; and it does not incor-

porate any analysis o planned growth or development potential.

The Station Area Typology or Metro Boston described here seeks to

classiy stations into specic categories based on their existing condi-tions and the nature and magnitude o development that they might

accommodate over the coming decades. Based on this analysis, MAPChas identied ten station area types, described below and shown onthe map on Page 11. A matrix with summary data or each station

area type appears on Pages 20 & 21; ollowed by a one-page detaileddescription o each station type and descriptions o selected stationson pages 22 - 31.

Metro Core: Subway, trolley, and Silver Line station areas in or near

Downtown Boston and adjacent high density employment and institu-tional centers. These stations have the greatest number o boardings,

highest existing intensity, and highest intensity o planned develop-ment.

Seaport / Airport: Areas around Silver Line and Blue Line stations in the

Seaport District and at Logan Airport, with low- to moderate intensities,residents, large amounts o surace parking and underutilized land, veryew current residents, and capacity or transormative redevelopment.

Neighborhood Subway: Subway and trolley station areas in predomi-

nately residential, moderate-density, transit neighborhoods throughoutthe Inner Core; new development in these station areas is likely to occurthrough parcel-by-parcel inll and redevelopment.

Transormational Subway: Subway station areas with potential ortransormative change through district-scale land development projects

involving the redevelopment o multiple city blocks and the creation onew street networks; some stations have specic development projectsalready proposed, while others demonstrate similar attributes but have

no current development proposals.

Urban Gateway: Station areas in or adjacent to the downtown o Re-gional Urban Centers, with a moderate-intensity balance o residentialand commercial development and a large population o low income

residents, served by commuter rail or subway and oten unctioning as a

hub or local MBTA or regional transit authority bus service.Town & Village: Commuter rail station areas in mixed-use town centers,business districts, or villages, ranging rom outlying Boston neighbor-

hoods to suburban downtowns and small village centers.

Commerce Park: Commuter rail station areas in existing ofce or indus-

trial parks or adjacent to major institutional employers outside Boston;many eature large park & ride acilities.

Suburban Transormation: Suburban commuter rail station areas likelyto experience transormative TOD through a major planned develop-

ment or redevelopment.

Trolley Suburb:Trolley station areas, mostly in Newton and Milton,that are considerably less dense than other subway station areas, withhigher income, higher VMT, and lower transit commute mode share

than Neighborhood Subway stations.

Undeveloped: Isolated commuter rail stations in low-intensity, high-income suburban areas with very ew nearby destinations, incompletepedestrian inrastructure, and large areas o vacant undeveloped land.

7/31/2019 MAPC_TOD_Report_06_14_12

12/36

10

The gure on this page shows how these sta-

tion area types compare based on their currentnormalized intensity and development mix,depicting the same variability that is apparent

on thge map on Page 5 with the addition o thestation area type. While there is considerableoverlap among some o the station area types,

they are also distinguished rom one another bya number o actors not depicted on the chart.Other actors used to distinguish the station area

types include:

Community Type: This MAPC-dened typol-ogy summarizes a wide variety o inorma-tion about municipalities, including recent

growth rates, demographics, housing stock,land use, and other attributes that relate touture growth. For example, stations in the

downtowns o the Regional Urban Centers

were identied as a distinct station typegiven the many characteristics shared by

these communities.

Transit service availability: some station

areas are served by a single mode or line;others may have multiple service types,may serve as hubs or local bus service, or

may be within walking distance o other stations, providing a va-riety o transit options that contributes to more sustainable travelpatterns.

Planned or potential development: We identied station areasthat are anticipated to experience substantial growth based onprojects under construction, specic development proposals, or

existing conditions amenable to major development. These arethe Seaport, Transormational Subway, and Suburban Transorma-tion station areas.

Household income, transit mode share, and household VMT: Thesemeasure the sustainability and equity perormance o transit sta-

tion areas. For example, the trolley suburb stations have similarservice type and land use to many Neighborhood Subway stations,but much higher income, lower transit usage, and higher VMT.

Land use and impervious suraces: Station areas with extensivecommercial and industrial land uses (based on MassGIS land use

data) and large amounts o surace parking may be more support-ive o substantial TOD than predominately residential areas.

Nearby employment and destinations: the number o employees,the number o establishments, and the WalkScore o a given sta-tion area indicate the mix o destinations that contribute to transit

usage and lower VMT. For example, the number o establishmentsand the WalkScore was used to help distinguish the smallest Town& Village stations rom Undeveloped station area that include a

handul o commercial uses.

In consultation with the TOD Finance Working Group o the MetroBoston Consortium or Sustainable Communities, MAPC reviewed initial

station area categories and assignments and adjusted them where nec-essary to develop types that exhibit both quantitative rigor and utilityor planning and development purposes.

1

10

100

1,000

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Intensity

(Employment+Population)

PerDevelopedAcre

Mix(employment/(employment + population))

Transit Station Area Mix and Intensity

Metro Core

Seaport / Airport

Neighborhood Subway

Transformational Subway

Trolley Suburb

Urban Gateway

Town & Village

Commerce Park

Suburban Transformation

Undeveloped

Source: MassGIS, InfoGroup, MAPC Analysis

Data are for 1/2 mile non-exclusive station areas

7/31/2019 MAPC_TOD_Report_06_14_12

13/36

11

7/31/2019 MAPC_TOD_Report_06_14_12

14/36

12

7/31/2019 MAPC_TOD_Report_06_14_12

15/36

13

Following this hybrid quantitative/qualitative approach to station

classication, MAPC conrmed the typology through the use o LatentClass Analysis (LCA), a statistical technique that is used to nd groupsin multivariate categorical data. Based on the data listed above, the

LCA returned nine station area classes. More than 200 station areas(70%) were clustered in seven classes strongly consistent with theMAPC typology. The other two classes included a mix o Commerce

Park, Suburban transormation, Undeveloped, and Seaport stations thatare difcult to classiy based solely on the station area statistics. Thisexercise conrmed that our hybrid approach to station area typology is

consistent with a strictly quantitative classication system.

The snapshots on the acing page depict the diversity o land use thatexists around typical stations in each type, ranging rom the ully-developed commercially-oriented Metro Core stations to the pre-

dominately residential Trolley Suburbs and Undeveloped stations. Inconjunction with the data that underlie our analysis, these snapshotsbegin to illustrate the range o opportunities that exist or TOD and the

goals that might be established or dierent station area types. Neigh-

borhood Subway, Urban Gateway, and Town & Village station areasare already transit-oriented communities, and uture growth should

reinorce and ampliy this orientation by maximizing density appropri-ate to the context, establishing pro-transit parking policies, upgradingpedestrian inrastructure, and adding destinations that complement

the transit availability.

Our analysis o transportation metrics also indicates those stationareas where new development near transit might notully achieve thedesired benets. In the high-income, low-transit usage Trolley Suburbs

and Undeveloped Station areas, the travel behavior o new residentsand employees is likely to be only marginally better than many non-

transit areas, due to the low density o land uses, the lack o destina-tions, and high vehicle ownership. Only with very intensive eorts tobuild at signicantly higher densities, add additional destinations, and

promote low auto ownership will TOD in these station areas result inmore sustainable transportation patterns. The Commerce Park stationareas may present substantial opportunities or new growth, but small-

scale changes are not sufcient to correct the auto-oriented nature othese locations that discourage commuters rom taking transit. In orderto generate substantial ridership and change travel patterns, these

station areas require large-scale redevelopment eorts that restructurethe urban orm o these areas to a much higher-density, mixed-use,pedestrian-oriented district.

Finally, it is important to recognize that this is a dynamic system that

may change over time: a Commerce Park might experience a trans-ormation, and over time the Seaport will grow to look more like theMetro Core.

7/31/2019 MAPC_TOD_Report_06_14_12

16/36

14

Estimating the Potentia o TOD in Meto Boston

Given a amewok o oganizing the divese contexts and oppotunities oTOD in the egion, the next question might be: how much can these stationscontinue to gow ove the next 25 yeas, and what woud be the coective im-pact o this potentia TOD? A bette undestanding o the deveopment poten-

tia acoss difeent station aea types and pats o the system can hep to guidethe aocation o inastuctue esouces o technica assistance. Undestandingthe amount o deveopment that might occu aound stationsand the tansitideship that might esutis aso citica to ensuing that the tansit systemhas the capacity to seve that new demand.

MAPCs regional plan MetroFuture identies transit areas as key growthlocations established numeric objectives or TOD based on the regionalgrowth model. The objectives call or 66% o new development within a

mile o xed route service, a broader denition o transit-oriented, bothgeographically and type o service (xed route includes bus service.)

As a result, the development potential estimated by this study is notdirectly comparable, but supplements the MetroFuture objectives with

greater geographic specic-ity, improved data, and detailed methods.

MAPC estimates the TOD Potential or each station in the study areabased on the station area typology, inormation about land use and

development constraints, and inormation about development proj-

ects already proposed or planned. Our estimates are based on detailedassumptions about the amount o land that might be developed or

redeveloped and the intensity and mix o new growth.

The gure on this page illustrates key inputs used or a typical stationarea. For each station, MAPC calculated the ollowing metrics:

Acreage in commercial, industrial, and residential land use catego-ries, including the estimated surace parking area

Acreage o vacant, potentially developable land

Intensity and mix o existing development

Acreage, intensity, and mix o developments planned, completed,or underway

For each land use type, we dened actors or the percent o the area

that might be developed or redeveloped over the next 25 years as wellas the intensity and mix o development. Standard actors were estab-lished or each station area type based on recent/planned development

consistent with TOD principles. Results or each station were evaluatedand adjusted values were applied where necessary to reect station-specic conditions or development projects proposed or underway. The

elements o the TOD potential estimation and average assumptions aredescribed on the ollowing page.

7/31/2019 MAPC_TOD_Report_06_14_12

17/36

15

Commercial Redevelopment: the amount o rede-

velopment or adaptive reuse o existing commer-cial land; expressed as a percent o commercialacreage (not including surace parking), generally

ranging rom 2 15%. Higher actors are appliedwhere employment densities are low.

Other Developed Redevelopment: redevelop-ment or adaptive reuse o other developed land

uses such as transportation uses, junkyards,etc.; expressed as a percent o land acreage (notincluding surace parking.) Generally 0% - 2%, but

higher in transormational areas.

Parking Reuse: the creation o housing or com-mercial uses on existing surace parking lots;expressed as a percent o parking area, generally

ranging rom 5 25%. Higher rates applied inareas with extensive parking or low employment

density.Greenfeld Development: Development on previ-

ously undeveloped land; expressed in terms opercent o developable land (excludes wetlands,open space, most developed land uses, and trans-

portation corridors.)

TOD Potential Intensity: the intensity o new development (either rede-velopment or greeneld), expressed in terms o population + employ-ment per acre; generally a minimum o 50 (equivalent to 20 housing

units per acre or a oor-area ratio o 0.5), though may be much higherbased on existing density or intensity o proposed developments in the

station area (i known).TOD Development Mix: the balance o population and jobs in the new

development, expressed in terms o employment share o intensity.Based on the mix o existing development but modied based on spe-cic development proposals.

Residential Densifcation: increase in housing unit density in existing

neighborhoods, through inll development, teardowns, subdivisiono single amily home to multiamily, or creation o accessory units; ex-pressed as a percent increase in housing unit density, generally ranging

rom 2 4%. Value range derived rom densication patterns observed2000 2010.

MAPC developed standard assumptions or each station type, basedon literature review, proessional judgment, and existing plans. Thesestandard assumptions were augmented by a station-by-station review

and comparison to proposed and planned projects in MAPCs Develop-ment Database. Where indicated by this review, station-specic assump-tions were applied to account or unique opportunities, constraints, and

existing development proposals. We did not actor in the density limits

o existing zoning because o the lack o regionwide zoning data andbecause much o the TOD that occurs in the region is permitted through

special permits, variances, and programs such as 40R and 40B. Table 3summarizes the aggregate development/ redevelopment assumptionsand the resulting change in station area intensity.

Estimating TOD Potential: Average Station Area Development Factors

Station Area Type

% o

Commercial &

Parking Area

Redeveloped

Existing

Intensity per

Developed

Acre

TOD Potential

Intensity (per Acre

o Commercial

Redevelopment)

Housing Density

Increase,

Existing

Neighborhoods

TOD Mix

(ratio o

workers:

intensity)

Metro Core 8% 300 369 1% 0.58

Seaport / Airport 17% 116 171 2% 0.76

Neighborhood

Subway15% 62 82 2% 0.19

Transormational

Subway28% 48 127 3% 0.39

Trolley Suburb 9% 23 58 3% 0.20

Urban Gateway 10% 43 84 3% 0.26

Town & Village 8% 20 68 3% 0.24

Commerce Park 16% 20 52 2% 0.64

Suburban Transor-

mation36% 8 93 4% 0.28

Undeveloped 10% 9 41 3% 0.14

All Station Areas 14% 81 110 2% 0.43

7/31/2019 MAPC_TOD_Report_06_14_12

18/36

16

7/31/2019 MAPC_TOD_Report_06_14_12

19/36

17

Based on this analysis, MAPC estimates there is potential or develop-ment o 76,000 housing units and enough commercial space to accom-

modate 133,000 jobs in the mile station areas by the year 2035. Thislevel o development would accommodate 31% o regional housing unitdemand projected by MAPC and neighboring regional planning agen-

cies over the same period and 58% o employment growth. Not surpris-ingly, more than two-thirds o the TOD would be in the Inner Core, butTOD can also make a substantial contribution to the housing supply in

Maturing Suburbs and Regional Urban Centers, comprising 20% - 40%o projected growth or those Community Types. The table on this pageshows the acreage, housing units, and employment that could be gener-

ated through commercial/industrial redevelopment, greeneld develop-ment, and residential densication. The vast majority o TOD potentialexists on land that is already developed. Only in the Undeveloped

station areas and the Town and Village stations does greeneld develop-ment constitute a substantial increment o new development. Residen-tial densicationsmall-scale inll, accessory apartments, or conversion

o single-amily homes to multi-amily structuresmight account ornearly 15% o all housing unit growth near transit, especially in the Sub-way Neighborhoods, Town & Village stations, and Urban Gateways.

We have a long way to go to reach this potential. MAPC

compared the estimated TOD potential to recent devel-opment in the station area as documented by Census2000 and 2010 housing unit count. The chart on this

page demonstrates that the rate o housing unit produc-tion in transit station areas over the last ten years must

double in order to achieve the ull potential o TOD . Metro

Core, Neighborhood Subway, Town & Village, and Com-merce Park station areas have been growing more rap-idly, and continuation o recent trends might achieve 50

80% o TOD potential. Understandably, recent growthin the Seaport and Transormational Subway has beenvery slow compared to the estimates. O greatest

concern are the Urban Gateway station areas, which ex-perienced no net change in housing unit counts aroundtransit over the past ten years, but which are targeted

or nearly 8,000 housing units in the coming decades.While the trolley suburb stations are the only type that

might exceed the estimated TOD potential by 2035,the low transit commute share and high VMT aroundthese stations means that this development might not

necessarily generate the sustainable transportation patterns that are a

key goal o TOD.

Station Area Ty pe Commercial/I ndus trial

RedevelopmentGreenfeld Development

Residential

Densifcation

Total

Acres

Housing

Units

Employ-

ment

Total

acres

Housing

Units

Employ-

ment

Housing

Units

Metro Core 150 8,190 36,510 - - - 680

Seaport / Airport 140 3,680 17,250 - - - 160

Neighborhood Subway 380 9,670 8,420 10 180 120 3,490

Transormational Subway 590 18,540 33,830 30 240 290 1,330

Trolley Suburb 50 580 1,360 - - - 510

Urban Gateway 250 5,770 7,710 - - - 1,770

Town & Village 260 5,090 5,850 7 0 870 1,330 2,670

Commerce Park 250 1,300 9,550 50 100 610 150

Suburban Transormation 280 6,360 7,710 40 100 180 50

Undeveloped 90 1,000 1,340 180 3,220 910 310

All Station Areas 2,430 60,180 129,530 380 4,780 3,830 11,120

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Metro

Core

Seaport

/Airp

ort

Neigh

borhoo

dSubwa

y

Transfor

matio

nalS

ubwa

y

Trolle

ySub

urb

Urba

nGate

way

Town

&Villa

ge

Comm

ercePark

Subu

rbanT

ransfo

rmati

on

Undevelop

ed

Recent Housing Development vs. TOD Goals by Station Type

Housing Unit Change, 2000 - 2010

Trends Extended

TOD Goal

Source: Census, MAPC Analysis

7/31/2019 MAPC_TOD_Report_06_14_12

20/36

18

Fortunately, the development pipeline indicates that change is inthe air. MAPCs Development Database includes inormation on over

33,000 housing units being planned, permitted, or built as o March2011. On the commercial side, there are active development proposalsand construction projects underway with a combined capacity o over

90,000 jobs, mostly in the Metro Core, Transormational Subway, andSeaport station areas. Not all o those development proposals maycome to ruition, but they demonstrate that our estimates o sub-

stantial development potential are consistent with market demand inthose station types.

In other station types, our estimates are ar ahead o the demonstratedmarket interest; there are development plans on the table or just 30%

o the potential housing units and jobs in Neighborhood Subway sta-tion areas; 15% o potential growth at Commerce Park stations; and 10%o potential growth in Town & Village stations.

MAPC also estimated the ridership that might result rom this new

development, i occupants o the TOD had the same travel patterns ascurrent residents and workers. Using journey-to-work data rom the2006 2010 American Community Survey (or place o residence) and

the 2000 Census (or place o employment), we estimate that new de-velopment near transit might generate 63,000 one way commute tripson an average weekday, equivalent to 4.5% o current weekday rider-

ship. However, this should be considered a low estimate, because itdoes not ully account or the changes in transit mode choice that mayresult rom new TOD, especially in areas o transormative development

(e.g., South Weymouth), areas where transit service has been introducedsince 2000 (Silver Line, Greenbush) or is still proposed (Green LineExtension, Fairmount, South Coast Rail, Assembly Square). Nor does it

include the many non-commute trips that will result rom new housingand destinations near transit. Nevertheless, this estimate demonstratesa need to plan or increased demand, especially near the hub o the

system which encompasses the greatest potential or new employmentnear transit: Metro Core stations might see an additional 29,000 trips

daily as a result o new employment, with an equivalent number in theSeaport and Transormational Subway stations.

Coupled with other demographic and economic actors driving in-creased transit ridership, the new demand could exceed the availablecapacity o the existing system, with simply not enough trains to carry

the potential riders. The need to expand capacity o the system to servethis new ridership is the subject o a companion report released by theUrban Land Institute and authored by Stephanie Pollack o the Dukakis

Center or Urban and Regional Policy, Hub and Spoke: Core Transit Con-gestion and the Future o Transit and Development in Greater Boston. Overthe next year, MAPC will be developing population and employment

projections or the region that will be used or regional travel demandmodeling which should help to pinpoint possible transit congestionissues and assess the impact o potential improvements. Ensuring

adequate capacity and levels o service on the MBTA system is criticalto achieving the potential o TOD and its economic, environmental, andsocial benets or all o Metro Boston.

21,400

1,900

4,800

1,300 1,7003,900

100

12,700

2,9005,900

8,500 4,000

2,200

16,200

1,1004,700

10,700

600

2,100400

-

1,600 4,400

100

36,600

300

6,200

2,700

2,800

5,700

3,600

9,700

9,400

500

5,400 8,2002,100

4,400

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Metro

Core

Seaport

/Airp

ort

Neigh

borhoodS

ubwa

y

Transfor

matio

nalS

ubwa

y

Trolle

ySub

urb

Urba

nGate

way

Town&

Villa

ge

Comm

erceP

ark

Subu

rban

Tran

sform

ation

Undevelop

ed

TOD Housing and Employment:Underway, Planned, and Potential, by Station Area Type

Additional Housing Unit Potential

Housing Units Planned/Underway

Additional Employment Potential

Employment Planned/Underway

7/31/2019 MAPC_TOD_Report_06_14_12

21/36

19

Concusion

Whie thee is no one-size-ts-a appoach to TOD in Meto Boston, many stations shae simia attibutes, cha-enges, and oppotunities and may benet om simia stategies, investments, and design appoaches. Thetansit station aea typoogy descibed in this epot povides a new amewok o context-sensitive TOD poicy,panning, and investments. Ou anaysis o the TOD capacity aound each station aea aso demonstates that

gowing station aeas ae positioned to be a signicant component o the egions gowth and deveopmentove the coming decades. I this potentia is eaized, it wi bing geat benets, incuding highe tansit ideship,ess congestion, moe housing choice and geate economic vitaity. The chaenges to achieving this utue aetwo-od: acceeating the pace o TOD, and ensuing the continued existence o a obust tansit system that cansuppot utue deveopment.

Specic applications o the station area types and TOD potential describedhere might include:

State housing and economic development programs that usetransit proximity as one o the criteria can use this analysis to

develop context-sensitive programs that recognize the dierent

types o station areas, the dierent transportation perormance othose station areas, and the types o development that are appro-

priate or those areas. Incentives and unding should be targetedto locations and proposals with the most substantial capacity andthe greatest potential to achieve sustainable travel patterns.

Regional agencies and advocates can use the station area typesto develop communication tools, model regulation, case studies,

and other tools that will help to advance implementation o TOD-supportive policy at the local level.

Municipalities should develop station area plans that maximize

the potential o TOD and should establish zoning and land usecontrols consistent with the scale and character o the TOD appro-priate or their station area. Land use controls should discourage

or prohibit development at lower densities, higher parking ratios,and with less aordable housing.

The MBTA should consider potential ridership resulting rom newTOD when conducting service planning to ensure that capacity issufcient and should maintain or enhance service where neces-

sary to support signicant TOD projects.

The station area types and TOD potential can be used to establishbenchmarks or density, mix, and housing aordability against

which development propos-als can be evaluated. Thesemetrics can be used or scor-

ing individual developmentproposals against the range o

anticipated scale and style ogrowth in similar station areas.

State agencies and reviewers

can consider the station areatypes during environmentalreview and should encourage

project proponents to developprojects consistent with theirtype.

Proponents o aordable housing in suburban locations near tran-sit should consider that household transportation costs are still

likely to be higher in those locations than in high-density urbansettings.

Developers can use the analysis and station area data or prospect-

ing and initial assessment o development opportunities in stationareas similar to those where they are currently working.

7/31/2019 MAPC_TOD_Report_06_14_12

22/36

20

Station Area Typology Matrix

Metro Core Seaport / Airport Neighborhood Subway Transormational Subway Trolley Suburb

Service TypeSubway, Commuter Rail,

MBTA busSubway (Silver Line) Subway, MBTA bus Subway, MBTA bus service

Green Line/Red Line trolley,

some MBTA bus

Normalized Intensity

(Average, all stations)184 37 47 40 20

Development Mix(Average, All Stations) 0.65 0.85 0.23 0.40 0.31

Normalized Intensity &

Development Mix

Median Household Income $57,800 $52,800 $63,100 $50,200 $99,600

Average WalkScore 94 67 84 77 66

Transit Commute Mode Share 27% 31% 36% 34% 19%

Average Daily Household VMT 20 N/A 25 29 44

Estimated Household

Transportation Cost$8,450 $11,050 $10,400 $11,050 $14,300

Land Use

TOD Potential Normalized Intensity 424 127 119 123 104

TOD Mix 0.58 0.76 0.19 0.39 0.20

TOD Housing in Development

Pipeline70% 100% 27% 53% 54%

TOD Jobs in Development Pipeline 99% 94% 33% 63% 53%

7/31/2019 MAPC_TOD_Report_06_14_12

23/36

21

Urban Gateway Town & Village Commerce Park Suburban Transormation Undeveloped

Commuter Rail, oten MBTA or

RTA bus hubs

Commuter Rail, some MBTA or

RTA bus

Commuter Rail, limited MBTA

busCommuter Rail Commuter Rail

32 16 16 7 7Total workers and residents per devel-

oped acre in station area.

0.41 0.36 0.71 0.56 0.31 Ratio o workers to total intensity. (0=residential; 1= employment centered.)

$48,300 $88,300 $74,300 $85,500 $99,600

84 73 55 41 32 Source: Walkcore.com

10% 11% 7% 7% 7%Percent o resident workers using transit

or commuting (Source: ACS 2006-10)

39 52 70 54 69Based on Annual vehicle mileage data

or 2005-07(Source: MassGIS)

$14,300 $16,250 $16,250 $17,550 $17,550Source: Center or Neighborhood

Technology

Commercial

High Density Residential

Low Density Residential

Developed Other

Vacant Developable

Vacant Undevelopable

110 97 48 68 52Residents and workers per acre o

potential new TOD

0.26 0.24 0.64 0.28 0.14 Development Mix o potential new TOD

28% 4% 1% 67% 1%Percent o potential housing units in

construction or planned.

62% 18% 17% 50% 6%Percent o potential commercial square

ootage in construction or planned.

7/31/2019 MAPC_TOD_Report_06_14_12

24/36

22

Meto CoeThe Metro Core sta-tions areas comprise

the largest employ-ment cluster in Metro

Boston, with morethan 400,000 em-ployees working near43 subway, trolley,

and Silver Line sta-tion areas in or nearDowntown Boston

and adjacent employ-ment and institution-al centers (Kendall

Square, LongwoodMedical Area, Boston Medical Center, Harvard Square.)

These station areas are characterized by very high intensityo existing development (average o 180 persons per devel-oped acre, but ranging as high as 400 in Downtown Boston)and an employment-dominated mix. The density o stations

is high, and most locations are within walking distances omultiple nearby stations served by multiple lines or modes.By virtue o their location at or near the hub o the MBTA

system, these stations have the greatest access to potentialtransit commuters and the best potential or very high com-mute mode shares.

New development in Metro Core station areas includes 20+

story ofce or residential towers in Downtown Boston, mid-rise mixed use development in the South End, Fenway,and Kendall Square; and institutional expansion o hospitals and universities at the Longwood Medical Area, BUMedical Center, Kendall Square, and Harvard Square. Over 6.2 million square eet o new development has been

completed in the last two years or is nearing completion, with an additional 9.8 million square eet o develop-ment being planned or permitted. There has also been substantial housing growth in the Metro Core, predomi-nately in the orm o luxury condominiums or apartments or residents seeking proximity to downtown amenities.

High land values make it challenging to develop aordable housing, so linkage payments or community benetagreements that support housing construction elsewhere in Boston or Cambridge are critical to expanding hous-ing choice.

IllUSTrATIVE STATIONS

Kendall Square is home to a apidygowing custe o high-tech, biotech, and

inomation-eated ms, not to mentionthe Massachusetts Institute o Technoogy.Neay a miion squae eet o oce andr&D space have come on ine in the astyea aone, with moe than 2 miion addi-tiona squae eet and hundeds o hous-ing units in the advanced panning stages.

Newton Street is typica o stations onWashington Steet in the South End. Sinceintoduction o the Sive line, substan-tia esidentia deveopment and majo

expansion o the Boston Medica Centeand associated institutions have occued.Po-tansit paking poicies and dedicatedafodabe housing (o payments in ieuo units) ae citica to peseving housingoppotunities o ow income esidentsand maximizing tansit usage amongweathie new esidents.

Brigham Circle is one o a ha-dozenstations that seve the longwood Medi-ca Aea, with ove 32,000 empoyees

and thousands moe contactos, stu-dents, and patients visiting the aea on adaiy basis. Ove 2 miion squae eet oeseach, educationa, and medica acii-ties have been competed in the past twoyeas o ae neaing competion, with anequivaent amount in the panning phase.

7/31/2019 MAPC_TOD_Report_06_14_12

25/36

23

Seapot / AipotThe Seaport Districtis unparalleled in

Metro Boston or themagnitude o TOD in

the works. Currentlycharacterized by largeamounts o suraceparking, vacant land,

underutilized build-ings, and trans-portation acilities,

development planswill transorm thisarea into a high-den-

sity mixed-use urbanneighborhood comparable to the stations o the Metro Core.

This area has seen dramatic growth since introduction o theSilver Line service began in 2004. There are currently at least

35,000 jobs and 23,000 residents in these station areas, butnormalized intensity is moderate to low due to the extensiveunderutilized developed land area. (40 persons per devel-

oped acre.)

There are numerous large-scale redevelopment proposalsplanned or the Seaport District, including residential, ofce,retail, and hotel components; and potential or improvement

o Logan Airport acilities and development o surrounding Massport real estate.


The Courthouse station in the Seapotseves the agest deveopments paned

o pojected o the aea. At Fan Pie,moe than 540,000 squae eet o o-ce and etai space (One Maina Dive)is compete and 1 miion squae eet aeunde constuction o the headquateso Vetex.

Fan Pie is dwaed by Seapot Squae,which as poposed woud incude 3.2miion squae eet o oce, etai, andinstitutiona space, 500 hote ooms, and2,500 housing units.

Whie not yet maniest in specic deve-opment poposas, the Boston redeveop-ment Authoitys maste pan o the 100Aces (nea the Giette aciity) identiesthe potentia o an additiona 2.8 miionsquae eet o oce and etai, 800 hoteooms, and 2,300 housing units. Eventhough constuction o these maste pansmay take many yeas and coud be scaedback somewhat ove time, they demon-state the capacity and maket inteest odeveopment in the aea.

7/31/2019 MAPC_TOD_Report_06_14_12

26/36

24

Neighbohood SubwayNeighborhoodSubway station

areas are oundthroughout Boston,

Cambridge, andthe surroundingStreetcar Suburbsand Regional Urban

Centers. These 63station areas aremoderate den-

sity, predominatelyresidential urbanneighborhoods,

ranging rom Rox-bury to Wollaston,

Davis Square, and Brookline Village. They are also home tolarge populations o low-income and transit dependentpopulations. The median household income across thesestation areas averages $63,000, but in about one third o

the station areas that gure is below $50,000.

These stations are generally well-perorming comparedto the region, with high transit ridership and low VMT: 36%o workers take transit and household VMT averages 25

miles per day (hal o the regional average.) New develop-ment takes the orm o parcel-scale inll, adaptive reuse,or small-scale land assembly and redevelopment. 58% o

the land area is in residential uses; intensication o thoseareas may occur through inll, conversion o single-amilyto multiamily, adaptive reuse, or accessory apartments.

The housing market in these station areas is growing stronger, and with increased demand or housing comes the

potential or displacement o low-income, minority, immigrant, and transit-dependent populations. Furthermore,i new residents have higher auto ownership rates and lower transit utilization rates, the transportation benetso TOD will not be ully realized. In these areas it is especially critical to establish housing and parking policies that

will help to maintain a diverse and transit-oriented community.


Adjacent to Ashmont Station on the redline in Docheste is The Cauth, a mixed

use TOD eatuing 74 afodabe entaunits and 42 maket-ate homeowneshipunits in a six stoy buiding atop 10,000squae eet o etai space. Thee ae 85beow-gade paking spaces (0.75 spacespe unit) the type o po-tansit pakingpoicy that pomotes ow vehice owne-ship and high tansit usage.

Aso within the Ashmont station aea isBandino Fams, a sma in deveopmentwith 16 condominiums, 32 paking spaces,and ony two units afodabe to ow-in-come esidents. In contast to the Cauth,the chaacteistics o this deveopment donot pomote ow auto usage o peventdispacement.

The neighbohoods aong the Oangeline om Jackson Square to GreenStreet have expeienced consideabedeveopment ove the past ten yeas,though a combination o community de-veopment copoation (CDC) initiativesas we as o-pot deveopes. At Jack-son Squae, a oca CDC ecenty compet-ed 270 Cente Steet, with 30 afodabeunits (incuding 15 units o extemey owincome househods), 6,000 sq. t. o etai,and ony 13 paking spaces. At 225 CenteSteet, the st phase o Jackson Squaeedeveopment is unde constuction.

At Geen Steet station, the BatettSquae deveopment (13 condominiums,2 afodabe units, 20 paking spaces,and 4,300 squae eet o etai) is neaing

competion.

7/31/2019 MAPC_TOD_Report_06_14_12

27/36

25

Tansomationa SubwayThese subwayand rapid transit

station areas havethe potential or

transormativechange throughdistrict-scale TODthat involves the

redevelopment olarge land parcels,the creation o new

street networks,and substantial im-provements to the

urban realm. Theseareas are likely

to see more than1,500 new residentsor employees, anincrease o at least

15% over the existing intensity. Some station areas aredominated by a single district-scale project such as StationLanding (Wellington), North Point (Lechmere), or Assembly

Row (Assembly Square). In other cases the transormationmay be driven by a critical mass o individual developments,such as at Oak Grove, Forest Hills, or Melnea Cass/Dudley

Square. The disposition o publicly owned land is oten a key element o these transormations, and the guidelinesor development that accompany such disposition are critical to ensuring sustainable and equitable TOD.

Some o the stations in this type do not have specic development projects in the pipeline, but exhibit similarcharacteristics (extensive surace parking, low-intensity land uses, municipal/state/MBTA land) and demonstrate

high capacity or redevelopment and inll.

There are a number o challenges that accompany transormational development projects: establishing a pe-

destrian-oriented urban realm and minimizing auto accommodation is critical to maximizing transit usage, butmay be difcult when there are large trip generators such as ofce or retail uses that will necessarily attract someautos. Integrating TOD into the surrounding neighborhoods may prove difcult, either as a result o physical bar-

riers or dierences in scale. Finally, it is important to ensure opportunities or local tradesmen and entrepreneursto participate in the construction and retail opportunities o the development, which may be dominated by largecontractors and national retail tenants.


located at the Wellington stop on theOange line, Station landing is a New

Ubanist, mixed-use deveopment that in-cudes neay 600 housing units, 125,000squae eet o etai and commecia uses,and 160,000 squae eet o oce space.The deveopment shaes a 1,900 spacepaking gaage with the MBTA and Zip-cas ae avaiabe on-site.

The Brickbottom stop on the poposedGeen line Extension in Somevie woudpovide apid tansit access to ove 80aces o industia and undeutiized and

in Bickbottom and Inne Bet potions oSomevie. The City o Somevie antici-pates this aea coud accommodate moethan 8 miion squae eet o commeciadeveopment in an aea that woud havediect tansit connections to DowntownBoston and Noth Station. Notaby, inconjunction with the economic deveop-ment panning o Bickbottom the cityo Somevie is aso activey panning ohousing poduction and pesevation oafodabe housing to maintain oppotuni-

ties o existing Somevie esidents.

At the North Quincy stop on the red line,neay one-th o the station aea is usedo suace paking, compising moe than90 aces o pavement. redeveopment othe MBTA paking coud ceate moe than200 housing units whie bette integatingthe station into the suounding businessdistict. Ove the ong tem, edeveop-ment o the suounding commeciaaeas coud tansom this neighbohood.

7/31/2019 MAPC_TOD_Report_06_14_12

28/36

26

Uban GatewayThese station areasare ound in the

heart o RegionalUrban Centers such

as Quincy, Malden,Lowell, Brockton,Beverly, Gloucesterand Framingham.

They provide con-nections to Bostonvia commuter rail

and, in the caseo Malden andQuincy, rapid tran-

sit service. Manystations are also the

local hub or MBTAor Regional TransitAuthority bus ser-vice. The two dens-

est station areas inthis type could be

served by proposed MBTA expansion via the Urban Ring

(Chelsea) or the Blue Line extension (Lynn.)

While these stations are in downtown areas, the land useintensities are oten lower than the Neighborhood Subwaystations, and the mix o uses is more even, ranging rom

.30 to .60. Most o these downtowns are home to largecommunities o low-income, minority, and oreign bornresidents; the average median income is just $48,000.

TOD may take the orm o gradual parcel-scale revital-

ization (Chelsea), major adaptive reuse opportunities (Lowell), or transormative district-scale redevelopment(Quincy Center). Unortunately, the real estate market and economy in many o these station areas is particularlyweak, and the development pipeline is small compared to our estimated potential or growth. While rising prices

and displacement could eventually become an issue in these communities, stimulating the housing and retailmarket is the principal concern.


In Downtown Haverhill, thee have beenthee majo convesions o ome actoy

buidings to esidentia deveopment im-mediatey adjacent to the MBTA commut-e ai station: the Codovan (146 housingunits, incuding 40% afodabe and ivewok spaces); the Hayes buiding (57units), and Hame Mi lots (305 units.)The citys 40r Smat Gowth Zoning dis-tict is a key too in expediting deveop-ment nea the station.

Malden Center has seen the deveopmento ove 300 housing units and 300,000

squae eet o oce and etai uses ovethe past decade. The potentia o utuedeveompent is stong with the disposi-tion o the City Ha site diecty acossom the T station now being panned aswe as deveopment o the age NSTArsite southeast o the station.

The Quincy Center station aea is onthe vege o undegoing a tansoma-tion though a $1.2 biion pubic pivatepatneship to ceate 1.6 miion squaeeet o etai, oce, and medica space,800 housing units, 200 hote ooms, anda competey econgued downtownsteetscape.

7/31/2019 MAPC_TOD_Report_06_14_12

29/36

27

Town & ViageThese station areasare located in busi-

ness districts, tradi-tional town centers,

and village centersserved by commut-er rail, includingbusiness districts in

the outer reacheso Boston (HydePark, Roslindale),

villages in New-ton and Belmont,suburban town

centers, and small village centers in Developing Suburbs.

These station areas vary considerably in the amount oexisting development nearby, but they occupy the mid-low intensity range between subway neighborhoods and

the undeveloped station areas, generally ranging rom10 to 30 persons per acre. The mix generally ranges rom.20 to .50, reecting the presence o retail businesses and

other destinations that characterize these areas. With aew exceptions, each station area has at least 100 businessestablishments and more than 1,000 workers within the

mile area. A WalkScore o greater than 50 (somewhatwalkable) also helps to distinguish these stations rom theUndeveloped stations with even ewer destinations.

Large parking areas and low-intensity commercial usescreate conditions or parcel-scale reuse or small-scale landassembly. These station areas may also be prime oppor-tunities or the creation o aordable housing in transpor-

tation-efcient suburban locations where transportationcosts will be less burdensome. However, redevelopmentin these station areas oten aces substantial permitting

challenges as a result o local opposition to higher densities, reduced parking requirements, pedestrian-orienteddesign, and housing development. The use o as-o-right zoning and permitting tools such as 40R Smart GrowthZoning is critical to help manage this opposition, and public engagement and scenario planning techniques can

help to mitigate local concerns.


Diecty acoss the steet om the Man-chester commute ai station, 10 & 12

Summe Steet incudes 22 afodabehousing units in one o the egions mostexcusive communities. Deveoped by theMancheste Housing Authoity, the siteaso incude 17 maket ate condominiumsand 5,000 squae eet o etai space.Ceated though a iendy 40B pocess,this deveopment demonstates that com-pact, afodabe housing can be hamoni-ousy integated into sma viage centesand business disticts.

Steps om the commute ai patom Indowntown Reading, thee ae 53 hous-ing units and 20,000 squae eet o etaispace cuenty unde constuction at30 Haven Steet. This is the st pojectceated though the towns DowntownSmat Gowth Byaw (a 40r distict) andincudes 11 afodabe units and 75 unde-gound paking spaces.

A ecent MAPC panning efot identiedsignicant oppotunities o deveopmentaoung the Weymouth Landing/EastBraintree station, incuding the potentiao a muti-stoy mixed-use deveopmenton a vacant site whee a stand-aonedug stoe with dive-though has beenpoposed. As a esut o this panningefot, both towns updated thei zoningto encouage mixed use deveopment.Baintees new zoning equies just 0.75paking spaces pe housing unit.

7/31/2019 MAPC_TOD_Report_06_14_12

30/36

28

Commece PakThis station areatype includes

suburban com-muter rail stations

within or adjacentto auto-orientedofce or industrialparks (Mishawum,

Dedham CorporateCenter, QuincyAdams), institu-

tions (Brandeis,Monserrat/BeverlyHospital), or enter-

tainment destina-tions (Foxborough.)

Residential usescomprise a minor-ity o the develop-ment mix and land

use at most stationareas. There is extensive surace parking and some stationsalso contain large MBTA park and ride acilities.

These station areas are generally characterized by dis-

persed, pedestrian-unriendly land use patterns and areoten isolated rom the surrounding community. Further-more, transit service is generally structured to convey commuters rom the station to Boston, not to acilitate

reverse commutes. In 2000, only 2% o workers in these station areas took transit to work.The greatest potential TOD at these sites might be achieved through large scale mixed-use redevelopmentsuch as is proposed or the Suburban Transormation stations on the next page. The replacement o the currentlow-intensity industrial development with a higher-density mix o residential and commercial uses would create

additional housing opportunities, and might generate the critical mass o employment needed to support reversecommute and local bus service.


Adjacent to the Newburyport station, theMBTA is cuenty seeking to dispose o 11

aces o and o mixed use deveopment.The site is situated within an industiaaea o 144 aces, with imited connectiv-ity to suounding business disticts oesidentia aeas. Tansit access at this sitewi be good, but a much age deveop-ment with a substantia mix o destina-tions is necessay to pomote tanspota-tion sustainabiity.

Dedham Corporate Center contains a mixo and uses that ae not we integated.

Neaby commecia uses incude a sto-age aciity, nusing home, motes, andthe legacy Pace iestye cente. Theeae two 40B deveopments totaing 585units ocated immediatey adjacent to thestation.

MAPC ecenty identied the Forge Parkindustia zone as a egionay-signicantPioity Deveopment Aea though theI-495 Compact pocess. The industiaaea ies in eativey cose poximity tothe station, but pedestian impovementsand othe amenities ae needed to sovethe ast mie pobem at this ocation.

7/31/2019 MAPC_TOD_Report_06_14_12

31/36

29

Sububan Tansomation

These suburban station areas are likely to experiencetransormative change through a major development or

redevelopment proposal that will add 1,000 or more resi-dents or jobs to a given location.

These station areas are currently undeveloped or substan-tially underutilized, with normalized intensities o 2 14

persons per acre. They have large amounts o vacantdevelopable land or commercial and industrial areas thatcan be redeveloped. Development plans generally include

a mix o residential and commercial uses, and applicationo TOD principles to varying degrees. I done right, theseareas can be models o suburban TOD or other communi-

ties in Metro Boston, especially Commerce Park stations.As with the Transormational Subway stations, the primarychallenges here include maintaining a pedestrian-oriented urban scale, promoting low auto ownership, creating

economic opportunities or a diversity o entrepreneurs, and nding the nancing or such enormous projects.


SouthFied is the name o the enomousmixed use edeveopment o the omenava ai station adjacent to the SouthWeymouth commute ai station. Withmoe than 3,800 housing units pannedand up to 2 miion squae eet o com-mecia space, this is the agest singedeveopment outside o the Inne Coe.It can be a mode to othe deveopmentsbecause it eatues a mix o housing typesin a new ubanist setting that pomotespedestian mobiity.

Adjacent to the Plymouth commute aistation, Codage Pak is a 45-ace sitewith a Smat Gowth Zoning Distict thatcan accommodate 675 housing units anda vaiety o oce and commecia usesthough edeveopment o histoic wate-ont mi buidings.

7/31/2019 MAPC_TOD_Report_06_14_12

32/36

30

Toey SububsThese areas,adjacent to trolley

stations in Newtonand Milton, have

transit service com-parable to manyNeighborhoodSubway stations

but are consider-ably less dense andwealthier. Only a

handul o thesestations have land

use intensities o more than 25 persons per acre, and resi-

dential densities are generally 3 10 units per acre. Withan average household income o $100,000 annually, only

19% o workers use transit and HH VMT averages 44 milesper day.

Commercial land uses immediately surrounding the stationarea are very constrained (about 10% o the land area)),posing challenges to signicant redevelopment. Intensi-

cation o existing residential areas is likely to occur throughsubdivision o land or buildings, estate development, orinstitutional expansion.


The proposed Route 16 station at the termi-nus o the Green Line Extension is surroundedby a small amount o commercial and indus-trial development in an otherwise residentialneighborhood. As part o a planning processor the station, MAPC identied the opportu-nity or new housing and commercial develop-ment that would provide increased housingoptions or the neighborhoods senior andlow-income residents while also increasing thediversity o destinations available to house-holds.

Adjacent to the Red Line Milton stationis Milton Landing, a 73-unit condominiumbuilding developed on the site o a burned-down rerigeration acility. Created through aPlanned Unit Development zoning, the build-ing includes 85 below-grade parking spacesor residents; 40% o the site was turned into apublic park and marina.

7/31/2019 MAPC_TOD_Report_06_14_12

33/36

31

UndeveopedThese station areasinclude commuter

rail station areaswith very little sur-

rounding develop-ment, ew nearbydestinations, andlarge areas o va-

cant undevelopedland. The averageintensity is just 7

persons per acre,and the averagemix is .30. Even

those station areaswhere employment is in the majority, there are ewer than 100 establish-

ments in the station area. On average, 60% o the station area is undevel-oped land, and commercial uses average just 6% o the land area.

These stations areas are also home to the wealthiest transit-adjacent residents in the region and those least likelyto use transit. Average household income is over $100,000, only 7% o workers use transit, and the average house-hold drives 69 miles per day. These stations could experience small-scale redevelopment or greeneld develop-

ment, but such TOD may have limited transportation benets given the isolation and poor local accessibility othese stations. With average household transportation costs exceeding $17,000 per year, even subsidized housingin these locations would still result in unaordable housing + transportation costs or most low- or moderate-

income residents.


The development around the Lincoln com-muter rail station is an example o community-driven housing and economic developmentnear transit. A 71-acre parcel was subdivided,and 16 acres were used or a 125-unit aord-able housing development and a small retailplaza with a supermarket, post ofce, andother services. The remaining land was putinto conservation.

7/31/2019 MAPC_TOD_Report_06_14_12

34/36

32

7/31/2019 MAPC_TOD_Report_06_14_12

35/36

7/31/2019 MAPC_TOD_Report_06_14_12

36/36

mapc.org/TOD

Documents

MAPC_TOD_Report_06_14_12