Open Collections

UBC Graduate Research

All Aboard? Transit Oriented Development Opportunities Around Suburban Commuter Rail Stations Enns, Darren A. 2008

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
SCARP_2005_Grad_Project_Darren_Enns.pdf [ 33.97MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0107173.json
JSON-LD: 1.0107173+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0107173.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0107173+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0107173+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0107173+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0107173 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0107173.txt
Citation
1.0107173.ris

Full Text

ALL ABOARD?TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENTOPPORTUNITIES AROUND SUBURBAN COMMUTER RAIL STATIONSDarren EnnsSchool of Community and Regional Planning, U.B.C. All Aboard? Transit Oriented Development Opportunities Around Suburban Commuter Rail Stations by  DARREN A. ENNS B.A. (Geography), The University of British Columbia, 1999  A PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF  THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  MASTER OF ARTS (PLANNING)  in  THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES  School of Community and Regional Planning  We accept this project as conforming  to the required standard   .....................................................    .....................................................   THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  January 2005  ? Darren Enns Student, 2005  Acknowledgements  This report would never have come to fruition without the help and guidance of a number of individuals and organizations.   Many local governments, agencies and corporations were more than generous with providing GIS data and other technical assistance for little or no fees. In particular, Kathryn Devlin and Lynn Miranda at the City of Tukwila, Jennifer Ray at the City of Puyallup, Todd Butler with the City of Auburn, Donna Visnesky at the City of Renton, Charles Johnson with Pierce County GIS, Robert Ross and Richard Skelton with the District of Mission, Lionel Wong and John Fares at the City of Port Coquitlam, Henry Wong at the City of Coquitlam, Steve Shannon and Al Shamka at the City of Port Moody, Ian Chong with McElhanney Consult-ing, John Powers at Boeing Realty, Glen Leicester with TransLink and Denene Mills at Sound Transit. The prompt assistance of all of these people was integral to allowing this research to occur.  Members of the School of Community and Regional Planning at UBC also de-serve recognition for their direct and indirect assistance: Tony Dorcey, for provid-ing a steady hand at the tiller; Paul Rosenau for being an unrivalled example of work ethic and for representing a divergent point of view at SCARP; Dr. Lawrence Frank for his guidance as an employer and a professor and for teaching the im-portance of striving to ?prove the obvious?.  My supervisors, Messrs. Terry Lyster and Michael Larice. Terry Lyster was still ca-pable of providing a critical eye at extremely short notice, and presented a much needed practical critique honed by years of representing suburban constituents. Michael Larice refused to let this student falter, and continuously challenged me on an academic and personal level to dig deeper and think critically. I can think of no greater gift than that of having my horizons broadened.   Finally, I would like to extend a note of personal thanks to my parents Joanne and Stan Enns for their constant encouragement and unwavering support through my last 21 years of schooling. Teaching a child the value of learning is one of the greatest gifts a parent can give.   To my best friend Sandy, thank you for now and forever.  -Darren     Executive Summary INTRODUCTION  This report provides suburban communities which are adopting commuter rail technology with recommendations on how to maximize the potential for station area benefit. These recommendations were developed from a rigorous assess-ment of case studies, which used metrics based on Transit Oriented Develop-ment (TOD) to gauge the potential for station area development.   APPROACH The project overview is as follows:  1.  Start with providing an overview of Transit Oriented Development, its history and relevance to commuter rail;  2.  Examine the existing body of research around suburban station area development, Transit Oriented Development and commuter rail;  3.  Develop a methodology and a set of metrics to examine different case studies;  4.  Analyze the selected case studies using a defined and replicable set of methods;  5.  Determine the lessons learned from the case studies;  6.  Compile a set of recommendations for communities adopting com-muter rail.   The project selected case studies were in Seattle and Vancouver, with a total of six station areas examined; two in industrial suburbs, two in residential suburbs, and two in exurban locations. This matched pair approach was used to deter-mine if there were any similar lessons to be learned from like cities in different regions. The sampling methodology within each case study looked at station area land use, pedestrian environments, commercial activity, employment ac-tivity, and residential activity. The methodology also controlled for commuter rail technology and community type to ensure that similar communities served by similar rail systems were used as case studies.   RESULTS  The station area measures were analyzed, and the findings are synthesized under the Analysis Summary tab. Through analysis of the case study station areas, a list of recommendations was drawn up with each recommendation pertaining to a particular metric which was measured for (Figure E.1).   CONCLUSION  This report provides a set of recommendations which will assist local communi-ties who are looking to maximize the potential of new commuter rail station areas. It also analyzes the shortcomings of existing stations, offering communi-ties already serviced by commuter rail an assessment tool for their station ar-eas. The next steps for this area of research include looking at implementation strategy for communities, specifically an economic approach to station area redevelopment.   Table of Contents Chapter 1: Problem Statement  Introduction..........................................................................................................................................................................................................1.1 Temporality: Commuter Rail Today.........................................................................................................................................................................1.2 Why Commuter Rail?............................................................................................................................................................................................1.3 What is Transit Oriented Development?..................................................................................................................................................................1.4  Chapter 2: Existing Research  Introduction..........................................................................................................................................................................................................2.1 Transit Oriented Development Literature.................................................................................................................................................................2.2 Commuter Rail Literature.......................................................................................................................................................................................2.5 Suburban Station Area Literature............................................................................................................................................................................2.8  Chapter 3: Methodology Introduction..........................................................................................................................................................................................................3.1 Approach.............................................................................................................................................................................................................3.2 Case Study Selection: Regions................................................................................................................................................................................3.3 Regional Comparability Issues................................................................................................................................................................................3.7 Case Study Selection: Cities...................................................................................................................................................................................3.8 Case Study Selection: Community Profiling..............................................................................................................................................................3.9 Station Area Assessment......................................................................................................................................................................................3.15 Study Area:  Defining Spatial Extent..........................................................................................................................................................3.16 Land Use Inventory.................................................................................................................................................................................3.18 Land Use Mix.........................................................................................................................................................................................3.19 Residential Typologies.............................................................................................................................................................................3.20 Residential Densities...............................................................................................................................................................................3.21 Commercial Choice and Typology...........................................................................................................................................................3.22 Employment Centres...............................................................................................................................................................................3.23 Pedestrian Friendly Environments.............................................................................................................................................................3.24 Case Study Methods Summary.............................................................................................................................................................................3.25 Analyzing Methods..............................................................................................................................................................................................3.26   (Continued?) TABLE OF CONTENTS  Table of Contents Chapter 4: Analysis Introduction..........................................................................................................................................................................................................4.1 Case Study 1: Port Moody.....................................................................................................................................................................................4.2 Case Study 2: Tukwila.........................................................................................................................................................................................4.11 Case Study 3: Coquitlam.....................................................................................................................................................................................4.20 Case Study 4: Auburn.........................................................................................................................................................................................4.29 Case Study 5: Mission.........................................................................................................................................................................................4.38 Case Study 6: Puyallup........................................................................................................................................................................................4.47 Case Study Summaries........................................................................................................................................................................................4.56  Chapter 5: Lessons and Recommendations Introduction..........................................................................................................................................................................................................5.1 Maximizing Potential TOD Area.............................................................................................................................................................................5.2 Commercial Choice and Typology.........................................................................................................................................................................5.5 Employers and Employment Density........................................................................................................................................................................5.7 The Pedestrian Realm: Quality...............................................................................................................................................................................5.8 The Pedestrian Realm: Choice................................................................................................................................................................................5.9 The Pedestrian Realm: Use..................................................................................................................................................................................5.10 Recommendations Summary................................................................................................................................................................................5.11 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................5.12   Appendix 1: Transit Oriented Development Definitions  Appendix 2: All Land Use Data From Case Studies  Bibliography  List of Figures and Tables Chapter 1: Problem Statement  TOD Explanatory Diagram....................................................................................................................................................................................1.1 Commuter Rail Ridership 1994?2001 (Toronto, Ottawa and Vancouver).................................................................................................................1.2 LRT vs. Commuter Rail; Urban Form Implications.....................................................................................................................................................1.3 Calthorpe and Associates TOD Criteria..................................................................................................................................................................1.4  Chapter 3: Methodology West Coast Express Commuter Rail System.............................................................................................................................................................3.4 Seattle Sounder Commuter Rail System...................................................................................................................................................................3.5 Vancouver and Seattle?Systems Overview.............................................................................................................................................................3.5 Vancouver and Seattle Regional Comparison..........................................................................................................................................................3.6 National Highway System?Seattle.........................................................................................................................................................................3.7 National Highway System?Vancouver....................................................................................................................................................................3.7 Community Profiling?Variables Used.....................................................................................................................................................................3.9 Community Profiling?Results..............................................................................................................................................................................3.10 Community Profiling?Matched Pair 1: Tukwila and Port Moody.............................................................................................................................3.12 Community Profiling?Matched Pair 2: Auburn and Coquitlam...............................................................................................................................3.13 Community Profiling?Matched Pair 3: Puyallup and Mission.................................................................................................................................3.14 Case Study Methods Summary.............................................................................................................................................................................3.25  Chapter 4: Analysis Port Moody Overview Map....................................................................................................................................................................................4.2 Port Moody Study Area..........................................................................................................................................................................................4.3 Port Moody Walkshed...........................................................................................................................................................................................4.3 Port Moody Land Use............................................................................................................................................................................................4.4 Port Moody Commercial Choice and Typology........................................................................................................................................................4.5 Port Moody Housing Choice..................................................................................................................................................................................4.6 Port Moody Housing Density..................................................................................................................................................................................4.6 Port Moody Employment Density............................................................................................................................................................................4.7 Port Moody Street Section......................................................................................................................................................................................4.8 Port Moody Pedestrian Choice...............................................................................................................................................................................4.9 Port Moody Pedestrian Use....................................................................................................................................................................................4.9 Tukwila Overview Map........................................................................................................................................................................................4.11 Tukwila Study Area..............................................................................................................................................................................................4.12 Tukwila Walkshed...............................................................................................................................................................................................4.12 Tukwila Land Use................................................................................................................................................................................................4.13 Tukwila Commercial Choice and Typology............................................................................................................................................................4.14 Tukwila Housing Choice......................................................................................................................................................................................4.15 (Continued?.) LIST OF FIGURES + TABLES  List of Figures and Tables Tukwila Housing Density......................................................................................................................................................................................4.15 Tukwila Employment Density................................................................................................................................................................................4.16 Tukwila Street Section..........................................................................................................................................................................................4.17 Tukwila Pedestrian Choice...................................................................................................................................................................................4.18 Tukwila Pedestrian Use........................................................................................................................................................................................4.18 Coquitlam Overview Map....................................................................................................................................................................................4.20 Coquitlam Study Area.........................................................................................................................................................................................4.21 Coquitlam Walkshed...........................................................................................................................................................................................4.21 Coquitlam Land Use...........................................................................................................................................................................................4.22 Coquitlam Commercial Choice and Typology.......................................................................................................................................................4.23 Coquitlam Housing Choice.................................................................................................................................................................................4.24 Coquitlam Housing Density.................................................................................................................................................................................4.24 Coquitlam Employment Density............................................................................................................................................................................4.25 Coquitlam Street Section.....................................................................................................................................................................................4.26 Coquitlam Pedestrian Choice...............................................................................................................................................................................4.27 Coquitlam Pedestrian Use....................................................................................................................................................................................4.27 Auburn Overview Map........................................................................................................................................................................................4.29 Auburn Study Area..............................................................................................................................................................................................4.30 Auburn Walkshed...............................................................................................................................................................................................4.30 Auburn Land Use................................................................................................................................................................................................4.31 Auburn Commercial Choice and Typology............................................................................................................................................................4.32 Auburn Housing Choice......................................................................................................................................................................................4.33 Auburn Housing Density......................................................................................................................................................................................4.33 Auburn Employment Density................................................................................................................................................................................4.34 Auburn Street Section..........................................................................................................................................................................................4.35 Auburn Pedestrian Choice...................................................................................................................................................................................4.36 Auburn Pedestrian Use........................................................................................................................................................................................4.36 Mission Overview Map........................................................................................................................................................................................4.38 Mission Study Area..............................................................................................................................................................................................4.39 Mission Walkshed...............................................................................................................................................................................................4.39 Mission Land Use................................................................................................................................................................................................4.40 Mission Commercial Choice and Typology...........................................................................................................................................................4.41 Mission Housing Choice......................................................................................................................................................................................4.42 Mission Housing Density......................................................................................................................................................................................4.42 Mission Employment Density................................................................................................................................................................................4.43 Mission Street Section..........................................................................................................................................................................................4.44 Mission Pedestrian Choice...................................................................................................................................................................................4.45 Mission Pedestrian Use........................................................................................................................................................................................4.45 Puyallup Overview Map.......................................................................................................................................................................................4.47 Puyallup Study Area............................................................................................................................................................................................4.48 Puyallup Walkshed..............................................................................................................................................................................................4.48 Puyallup Land Use..............................................................................................................................................................................................4.49 Puyallup Commercial Choice and Typology..........................................................................................................................................................4.50 (Continued?)  List of Figures and Tables Puyallup Housing Choice.....................................................................................................................................................................................4.51 Puyallup Housing Density.....................................................................................................................................................................................4.51 Puyallup Employment Density...............................................................................................................................................................................4.52 Puyallup Street Section........................................................................................................................................................................................4.53 Puyallup Pedestrian Choice..................................................................................................................................................................................4.54 Puyallup Pedestrian Use.......................................................................................................................................................................................4.54  Chapter 5: Lessons and Recommendations Pedestrian Choice Per Acre vs. Actual TOD Area.....................................................................................................................................................5.3 Recommendations Summary................................................................................................................................................................................5.11  Chapter 1: Problem Statement Page 1.1 The goal of this report is to provide suburban communities which are adopting commuter rail technology with recommendations on how to maximize the po-tential for station area benefits, using Transit Oriented Development as a yard-stick of success. Transit Oriented Development is a theory developed in the United States intended to encourage urban development around transit nodes.   In order to achieve this goal, the project will:  1. Give an overview of Transit Oriented Development, its history and rele-vance to Commuter Rail; 2. Examine the existing body of research around suburban station area devel-opment, Transit Oriented Development and commuter rail; 3. Develop a methodology and a set of metrics to examine different case studies; 4.  Analyze the selected case studies using a defined and replicable set of methods; 5. Determine the lessons learned from the case studies; 6. Compile a set recommendations for communities adopting commuter rail.  This is a temporally relevant topic, as North America is currently engaged in an intensive investment in rail technology which has left many cities coping with the land use implications of adopting rail technology.   Past research in this field has focused either on technologies other than com-muter rail (such as light rail systems), or on urban station areas, thereby ne-glecting effects on suburban environments. This project fills a void by using an often ignored technology in commuter rail, and looking at its effects in subur-ban settings.  The approach taken here is to compare existing suburban station area devel-opment in Seattle and Vancouver, to determine if there are any similar lessons to be learned from like cities in different regions. Technology type and commu-nity type are controlled for through a rigorous evaluation system so that similar case studies are selected in each region. The measures of station area devel-opment used are derived out of the principles of TOD, a theory which has been applied in projects throughout the world. TOD theory is based on the idea that communities can alleviate transportation problems and increase tran-sit usage while creating a sense of place through the development of mixed-use, walkable urban centres focused around a mass transit node.   The predicted outcome is that due to the relatively low level of service provided by commuter rail, the best opportunities for a TOD development approach lie in stations which are within or adjacent to existing urban cores. The locations which will have the most difficult time developing according to TOD principles will be stations located in areas without an existing development node nearby, such as park and ride stations in industrial areas.  Fig. 1.1 An explanatory diagram from Peter Calt-horpe?s ?The Next American Metropolis?, which graphically describes the theory of Transit Oriented Development  CHAPTER 1: PROJECT STATEMENT Chapter 1: Problem Statement Page 1.2 1, there has been an increasing trend towards investing in public rail trans-portation2.   The Federal Transit Authority in the United States is currently funding 25 rail projects with another 52 waiting for engineering approvals, and an additional 142 in the preliminary study stage3. High profile rail projects have emerged in Minneapolis, Los Angeles, and Houston, with others located everywhere from Alaska to Alabama.   Proponents of rail transit point to its direct benefits, such as the ability to reduce traffic congestion, mitigate air pollution, and provide a better quality commute. There is also the argument that it creates beneficial side effects as well. For example, supporters suggest that rail transit  is a more economical transporta-tion investment than automobile infrastructure, that it can create better urban environments by allocating less land to the automobile, that it can create a node for development, and that it can act as a catalyst for station area eco-nomic development.   Both proponents and detractors agree that rail technologies have implications for station area development, some positive and some negative.  One technology whose land use implications have not been thoroughly ex-plored is that of commuter rail.   One type of rail technology seeing an increase in use throughout the United States and Canada is commuter rail. Both proponents and detractors of this technology agree that there are land use benefits and opportunities associated with the introduction of this technology, specifically around station areas.   While commuter rail transportation does not enjoy the same level of govern-ment spending as the automobile, consumer demand is nevertheless driving a surge in rail ridership. In 2000, U.S. commuter rail systems carried the most passengers since 1980, when ridership was first recorded. In Canada, com-muter rail traffic increased 33% between 1994 and 2001, and now carries over 46 million people per year. Toronto?s commuter rail network, the GO Train, is the 5th busiest public transit system in North America4.  While commuter rail transportation is seen as an alternative to the automobile for riders, it is viewed by policy makers as having many of the same benefits as other rail technologies. It is purported to be a method to reduce traffic conges-tion, lower transportation costs, increase air quality, and reduce energy use.   It is also purported to be a catalyst for development, particularly around sta-tions, and it is this claim which requires investigation.   1 Of the 38 billion dollars allocated in the 2005 US DOT budget towards ?improvements in trans-portation mobility?, 26 billion was allocated to highway improvements, while 8 billion was put towards transit (of which 1 billion was allocated to improving intercity rail services). 2 Between 1995 and 1996 alone, rail transit track was extended by over 9% in the United States  http://www.bts.gov/publications/north_american_transportation_in_figures/html/table_11_1.html  3 Federal Transit Authority  http://www.fta.dot.gov   4 http://www.cutaactu.on.ca/ 010,000,00020,000,00030,000,00040,000,00050,000,000Passengers19941995199619971998199920002001YearCommuter Rail Ridership 1994 - 2001Toronto, Ottawa and VancouverTable 1.1 Figure 1.4   Light Rail,  Salt Lake City   Figure 1.2  Commuter Rail,  Vancouver Figure1.3   Heavy Rail,  San Fransisco Figure 1.5   Monorail,  Japan Chapter 1: Problem Statement Page 1.3 WHY COMMUTER RAIL?  Commuter rail has unique impacts on the urban environment which are attribut-able to it being a unique technology. Some of the unique impacts of commuter rail on station area urban form are explored in Table 1.2.   For example, LRT systems are generally electric powered, which may or may not share a Right of Way with vehicles, they operate on fixed rails with a high station frequency, and generally carry a ?light? passenger load. Heavy Rail uses segre-gated ROW?s, has the ability to carry large passenger volumes, and is character-ized by high speeds. These systems have a lower station frequency, and will often use a ?Third Rail? power source, which is located at-grade. commuter rail, also called ?suburban rail?, is typified by service to / from a central city, has a repeat customer base, and is diurnal in nature with inbound service in the a.m. peak, and outbound in the p.m. peak.  Commuter rail is often used in conjunction with Light Rail and other transporta-tion systems as a technology which may support development which is focused around a transit node, known as Transit Oriented Development, or TOD.   ?A Transit-Oriented Development or TOD is a mixed-use com-munity within an average one-fourth-mile walking distance of a transit stop and core commercial area. The design, configura-tion, and mix of uses emphasize a pedestrian-oriented environ-ment and reinforce the use of public transportation. TODs mix residential, retail, office, open space, and public uses within comfortable walking distance, making it convenient for residents and employees to travel by transit, bicycle or foot, as well as by car.?   -Peter Calthorpe  While Light Rail and other technologies have been proven as successful foci for Transit Oriented Development, it is unclear whether or not Commuter Rail can serve  this purpose as well. This uncertainty is evident in current transit impact analysis, which is ambiguous regarding commuter rail?s ability to act as a mechanism for Transit Oriented Development1.   1. For example,  TransLink?s Northeast Sector project acknowledges challenges in TOD development around commuter rail, but at the same time purports that it can still be accomplished if ?sensitive design? is undertaken. Table 1.2 LRT vs. Commuter Rail; Urban Form Implications   Rapid Transit Commuter Rail Power Source At Grade Above Grade, or Internal Urban form outcome At grade power systems re-quire segregated ROW's, usu-ally elevated or tunneled Due to high travel speeds, fencing is sometimes a re-quirement along ROW's Service  Headways Max. 2 minutes Max. 15 minutes, only oper-ate during morning and after-noon peaks hours Urban form outcome High frequencies mitigate peaks in ridership patterns, impacting circulation patterns around stations Low frequencies and high peak volumes create dead environments before, be-tween and after peak periods Station Fre-quency Min. 2 km.'s apart (1.4 min-utes travel time apart) Min. 9 km.'s apart (8.5 min-utes travel time apart) Urban form outcome Multiple station locations may reinforce linear growth pat-terns along service route Infrequent stations create more opportunities for nodal development, and defined centres Station Types Pedestrian oriented, can also be transit hubs, kiss and rides or park and rides Primarily commuter orien-tated, usually kiss and ride or park and ride Urban form outcome Footprints are usually smaller, and may not require any at grade presence Footprints are usually large due to parking requirements, which may be mitigated through structured parking Surrounding  Environments High to medium density Medium to low density Urban form outcome These systems are often lo-cated within developed areas, dictating more redevelopment rather than greenfield devel-opment Often located in suburban centres, there are usually more opportunities for station area development due to low density attributes of previous development Chapter 1: Problem Statement Page 1.4 Figure 1.6 The concept of TOD  applied in older existing communities Table 1.3 Calthorpe and Associates TOD Criteria Locational and Spatial Criteria  1. The TOD site must be located either on an express transit sys-tem, with service on 10- to 15-minute headways, or on a feeder bus line network within 10 minutes transit travel time from the express transit system. 2. The TOD site must be located within an Urban Growth Bound-ary or Urban Policy Area. 3. TOD concepts can be applied to infill and redevelopment sites located in urbanized areas with existing uses.  4. TOD concepts can be applied to existing retail, office, and industrial sites by adding mixed-uses with structured parking on existing sur-face parking lots. 5. The TOD must not contain land further than 2,000 feet from a transit stop. The Secondary Area may contain land no further than one mile from the stop. 6. TOD concepts can be applied to infill and redevelopment sites located in urbanized areas with existing uses.  Chapter 2: Existing Research Page 2.1 CHAPTER 2: EXISTING RESEARCH  The existing research in the field of Commuter Rail as a TOD node is scarce. It is best to think about the research question (and therefore the literature analysis) as containing three parts.   The first is the issue of Transit Oriented Development: What is it, where did it come from, and what are its critiques? There is an abundance of literature re-garding TOD, however, the literature often isn't written with Commuter Rail as a focus, which is an obvious weakness. The authors cited here are those which have had a profound impact on TOD, or are authors who have a relationship between TOD and commuter rail.   The second area of literature is that pertaining to the use of Commuter Rail as the technology of choice for a TOD. This body of literature is quite limited, but very helpful for this project.    The third is station area analysis in suburban settings.   The literature analysis is important for this project, as it not only establishes what is already known, it analyzes how this existing literature relates to this project. In this chapter, this is accomplished through the use of ?Relevance Statements?, found at the end of every article summary. Understanding the relationship be-tween theory and practice is essential for any planner, and this literature analysis examines the theories which are guiding researchers in this field.    Fig. 2.1 The best known litera-ture around TOD eminated from architect Peter Calthorpe (Top) and transportation plan-ner Robert Cervero (Bottom)  Chapter 2: Existing Research Page 2.2 Chapter 2: Existing Research Page 2.3 Transit Villages in the 21st Century, Cervero, Robert and Bernick, Mi-chael, 1996.   Coming on the heels of Calthorpe?s book, these two authors explored the application of TOD in case studies around the world. Advocating an economically feasible, pedestrian friendly development program, this book also starts by looking back at transit villages of the past as justification for a return to this form of living.   The primary difference between Calthorpe?s TOD?s, new urbanist communities and the Transit Villages, is that Cervero and Bernick be-lieve that the transit station should be the focal point of the commu-nity. This differs from new urbanism which advocates more civic uses spread throughout the site to create hierarchical nodes, as well as TODs which typically had the transit node on one side of the develop-ment. The argument for this is that transit stations are often not just transportation entities, but economic and social hubs as well. Many of the arguments for Transit Villages are based around solving conges-tion rather than place-making, perhaps reflecting the author?s back-ground as a somewhat classical transportation planner.    Taking a metropolitan scale approach, Cervero draws on case studies from Scandinavia, Japan and North America to illustrate what he con-siders transit villages. The case studies addressing Commuter Rail are from Denmark, Sweden and New York. The applicability of European case studies is always a cause for suspicion in North America, and even New York must rank as continental to most Vancouverites, how-ever there are some transferable lessons from Cervero?s case studies.   Firstly, infill TODs in suburbia will often be viewed by residents as anathema to suburban living. Most suburbanites accept that they should have to drive to take transit, just as they have to drive for other functions. Second, park and rides are not only disincentives for devel-oping close to stations, they are often eagerly protected by transit agencies fearing loss of ridership. This raises the issue of parking as an essential design factor, which other authors also address. Third, Cervero is a staunch advocate of financial feasibility for TOD projects. He supports public private partnership whenever possible, and gives several salient examples of financing structures for TOD. This again reveals the authors analytical approach to the many problems which TOD attempts to solve, something which works both for and against him.       Relevance: Cervero?s case studies are selective, non-contextual, and are ?good examples?. His focus on the analytical and traffic congestion aspects of TOD is some-thing missing from Calthorpe?s work, as is his attention to the financial aspects of TOD. As a  transportation plan-ner, Cervero?s interest and approach is from the transit side, compared to Calthorpe, who approaches TOD from the design perspective. This juxtaposition is indicative of the struggle between land use planning and transporta-tion provision which occurs in may station areas, includ-ing those in the Seattle and Vancouver case studies this paper examines.  Chapter 2: Existing Research Page 2.4 CONCLUSION: Transit Oriented  Development Literature   Literature pertaining to TOD is quite extensive, so this section examined those authors which have been either a) instrumental in the growth of TOD as plan-ning theory, or b) have been used as a link between TOD and commuter rail.   Peter Calthorpe?s The Next American Metropolis is widely regarded as a semi-nal piece of literature in TOD history. His many plans and design criteria estab-lished quantifiable measures of what TOD was. This reliance on standards is also a shortcoming, preventing his ideas from adapting to local conditions. With regards to TOD around commuter rail station areas, which are often in the lowest density areas of an urban region, a TOD developed using Calt-horpe?s standards may not be as appropriate as in a more dense urban envi-ronment (i.e. an inner suburb).  Robert Cervero and Transit Villages in the 21st Century, approaches the ques-tion of TOD from a transportation angle. Using positive exemplars from a number of transportation systems, Cervero makes the case for TOD as an an-swer to suburban transportation woes first, and suburban place making and urban development comes second. This approach is indicative (not surpris-ingly) of many transportation service providers, who are more interested in the ?T? than the ?OD?. Understanding this approach is crucial for the case studies in this report, which also involve partnerships between local communities inter-ested in development opportunities, and transportation service providers, who are responsible for moving people.  Herman Huang?s paper broaches the idea that for TOD to occur, there must be an accommodating regulatory framework, as well as a healthy development market. This coincides with Cervero?s belief that the private sector is an essen-tial partner for any successful TOD. Huang also raises the issue of ?lag time?, the idea that there will be a temporal lag between transit service inception, and station area development. This is an interesting idea for the case studies exam-ined in this report, given that the Vancouver example is an older system than the Seattle one, which may provide confirmation of Huang?s theory.   Cervero and Huang?s research was based on light and heavy rail systems, while Calthorpe is less specific about the transportation system. There is how-ever, a body of research which focuses in on TOD and Commuter Rail. Chapter 2: Existing Research Page 2.5 COMMUTER RAIL LITERATURE   The existing literature pertaining to commuter rail station areas focuses in on the economic impacts. This largely is driven by the need for transportation ser-vice providers to prove to communities (often in U.S. courtrooms) that com-muter rail service will not deflate property values. The economic impact is im-portant for this project, as it may lend additional guidance to station location recommendations in the conclusion.   Transit?s Value-Added: Effects of Light and Commuter Rail Services on Commer-cial Land Values, Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael, 2001.  Cervero and Duncan (2002) looked at the effects of proximity to Light and Commuter Rail stations on Commercial Retail and Office property land values in the Bay area. This study was sponsored by the Urban Land Institute and the National Association of Realtors. The authors also looked at land capitalization around Interstate exchanges as a third comparative, to determine if vehicle infrastructure would have the same impacts on land prices as Light and Com-muter Rail stations. This was seen as a contrast to the existing research in the commercial field which focused on rental (not sale) rates, which was argued to be a less reliable measure of value, due to the hidden benefits involved in ten-ant incentives.   The hypothesis was that since Commuter Rail offers less mobility than heavy rail systems, the capitalization effects should also be more limited, and in fact lie somewhere between the values found for heavy and light rail stations. The au-thors used a comparative analysis, looking at values near Light Rail and Com-muter Rail stations, as well as Freeway interchanges. Their findings were that the most significant value accruals were within ? mile of commuter rail station locations, and that the greatest increase in land values was in existing business districts located near commuter rail stops. Their findings were as follows:        This study contrasted with many other previous studies, in that it suggested that significant capitalization effects could be realized from locating close to an LRT or commuter rail stop.   Relevance: This article indicates that there should be a large value accrual attributed to commercial parcels near the stations, and within existing business districts. Unfortunately, this pur-ported value increase would be difficult to determine in the Seat-tle and Vancouver Case Studies for two reasons. One is that the Vancouver and Seattle systems have been around for too short a  time to realize a significant number of sales transactions, which would be the primary basis for an analysis. Two, gaining prop-erty values from assessment data (another way of obtaining property values) would be impractical given the disparate nature of Washington State?s property assessment methodology.  Capitalization of Commercial Land Values Within Walking Distance of an LRT Station: 23%          Capitalization of Commercial Land Values in an Existing Busi-ness District Within ? Mile of a Commuter Rail Station: 120%         Chapter 2: Existing Research Page 2.6 Armstrong?s research revealed that it is difficult to isolate out negative effects produce by commuter rail from those produced by freight rail Chapter 2: Existing Research Page 2.7 Transit-Oriented Development in the United States: Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Federal Transit Admini-stration, 2004  This massive 600 page report by a group of researchers led by Cervero and the University of California (Berkeley) also included Parsons Brinkerhoff (Portland Office), Bay Area Economics (San Francisco) and the Urban Land Institute. Its goal is to provide a ?comprehensive assessment of the state of the practice and the benefits of transit-oriented development (TOD) and joint de-velopment throughout the United States?. This report is helpful for this project in that it explores Commuter Rail TOD?s as an entity unto themselves, recogniz-ing the disconnect which exists based on transportation technologies. It does so using case studies in the Chicago area, located along the METRA rail system.  The METRA system serves ten counties and three states, and has been operat-ing in one form or another since 1856. It was the first service to introduce bi-level passenger cars (1950), and has been operated under a regional um-brella structure (the Regional Transportation Authority) since 1974. Subse-quently, the communities it services were often real-estate ventures led by rail companies. The three case studies explored in this report are all communities incorporated in the 1880?s, which have had their downtowns experience decay during the 1960?s and 1970?s. Therefore, the TOD efforts here have focused on reinvestment and refurbishment of a concept that once existed, while the Seattle and Vancouver case studies have not had continuous rail service for the past 125 years.   The lessons for successful Commuter Rail TOD?s in suburban Chicago from this report were:  Sensitive station design. Refurbish existing stations, or locate new ones near downtowns. Parking lot parcels should be frag-mented, with station area parcels kept small to help instigate private investment;  Take your time. Returns on TOD plans are typically in the scale of 15 to 20 years; Leadership. Essential to the Chicago case studies was the pres-ence of a local champion throughout the plan period; Parking Management. Good parking facilities are required for these suburban TOD?s to succeed. Whenever possible, shared parking facilities should be built;  Supportive Real Estate Market. Bad traffic congestion and a shift in demographics helped provided the impetus for a shift in market demand towards higher density living.      Relevance: This report offered some insight into TOD and Com-muter Rail, with a depth which is rarely found in the TOD litera-ture. The Chicago area case studies used are not great for newer Commuter Rail systems, given that they are all located  in cities with a long history of commuter rail, and therefore have a better baseline to build from. Therefore, the lessons offered are more geared towards redevelopment, rather than new development. Where this lesson might be best applied in the Seattle and Van-couver case studies is around commuter rail stations which have a high degree of proximity to an existing, older downtown, such as Port Moody or Puyallup.  Chapter 2: Existing Research Page 2.8 Relevance: Moon?s discussions around lag time for station area development are important for the two systems studied in this report, given the five year separation in system ages between Seattle and Vancouver. The idea that land use composition var-ies with proximity to the CBD could also be compared against this studies findings, give that the case studies selected within Seattle and Vancouver represent inner, middle and outer sub-urbs.  Chapter 3: Methodology Page 3.1 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY  The methodology employed in this study will be a comparative case study analy-sis looking at similar suburban cities who had adopted commuter rail, in order to determine if any common lessons could be learned from multiple environments.  The independent variables which were controlled for were rail technology and community type. Controlling for community type was accomplished through a ?community profiling? process, which is explained in this chapter.  The dependant variable being measured was the commuter rail station areas. The methods for assessing station areas was developed by looking at the compo-nents of various Transit Oriented Development definitions. Selected station areas were then compared against their case study partners to see if similar lessons emerged.   The first half of this chapter addresses why the Seattle and Vancouver Regions were chosen, and how the potential case studies selected were determined. The second half addresses the methodology used to assess the station areas through the lens of Transit Oriented Development. The chapter concludes with a look at the data assessment process: how are the results to be analyzed, and how will lessons and recommendations be distilled?  Chapter 3: Methodology Page 3.2 ?No problem can stand the assault of sustained thinking?  -Voltaire Chapter 3: Methodology Page 3.3 CASE STUDY SELECTION: REGIONS  The role of Commuter Rail in North America varies greatly across the continent. Typically, east coast cities have a longer history of commuter rail than their west coast counterparts. Cities such as New York have had outstanding service for over a century. While Commuter Rail?s impact on land use on the eastern sea-board is well documented1, its role in influencing land use change on the younger, suburban west coast is not as well researched. Canadian cities, such as Toronto with the GO Trains, have relied on this technology for at least 35 years.  Conversely, west coast cities have made these investments more recently. In the United States, this has largely been due to a later age of development for these cities, which coincided with massive automobile infrastructure investment, notably the Eisenhower Interstate project. The impact on land use in these regions is that the urban form is more suburban, with lower densities, and reliant on the auto-mobile as the primary modal choice. Therefore, the role of Commuter Rail as a catalyst for land use change in the modern day west coast city would be very different than that of a similar technology in a New York commuter town in the 1800?s.   Two west coast regions which have chosen Commuter Rail systems in the last decade are Seattle and Vancouver.   As outlined, controlling for various parameters (Commuter Rail technology, Civic similarity) is integral to this type of research. These regions have a number of attributes which make for favorable comparisons.   Top.        Toronto ?GO Train? Centre.   New York suburban  Service Bottom.   Chicago elevated train 1. Urban Traffic, A Function of Land Use (Mitchell and Rapkin, Columbia University Press, 1954) was one of the first studies urging a comprehensive approach to transportation modeling; One which included examining social factors in transportation analysis.  Chapter 3: Methodology Page 3.4 (Fig. 3.1) 3.1 (Top) Vancouver ? West Coast Express 3.2 (Bottom)  Seattle ? Seattle Sounder Chapter 3: Methodology Page 3.5 SEATTLE SOUNDER  COMMUTER  RAIL SYSTEM (Fig. 3.2) CASE STUDY SELECTION: REGIONS Table 3.1 Seattle and Vancouver?Systems Overview Chapter 3: Methodology Page 3.6 SEATTLE VANCOUVER Regional Population 3,387,198 2,126,806 Land Area 17,807 sq. km. 12,802 sq. km. City Age 135 118 City Origins West coast railway terminus, commodi-ties port, fishing industry support centre, airplane manufacturing, military centre West coast railway terminus, commodi-ties port, gold rush distribution centre, timber harvesting and  processing Commercial Strengths Resource extraction headquarters in the past, now high tech oriented Resource extraction headquarters in the past, becoming high tech oriented National Role West coast secondary city West coast primary city International Role North American / Pacific gateway North American  / Pacific gateway Regional Role Commercial and transportation core Commercial and transportation core Cultural Origins Convergence of European settlers and Asian immigrants Convergence of European settlers and Asian immigrants Vancouver Seattle  Figure 3.3 (Top)         International District Figure 3.4 (Centre)    Pike Place  Public Market Figure 3.5 (Bottom)    Waterfront Figure 3.6 (Top)         Chinatown Figure 3.7 (Centre)    Granville Island Public Market Figure 3.8 (Bottom)    Waterfront Chapter 3: Methodology Page 3.7 REGIONAL COMPARABILITY ISSUES  There are comparability problems between the two regions in several areas which pertain to this project.   First, the Seattle region is characterized by a dual core with Tacoma creating a growth pole at the southern end of Puget Sound. This ?dual primacy? has re-sulted  in growth patterns between the two cities being influenced in two direc-tions (North and South), as opposed to one direction in Vancouver (East).  Second, the history of railroad development in the United States has meant that there is much more railway track1 per land area, which has significant impacts for modern commuter rail service providers.   In the past, small towns in the US would have been served by several railroads, all with their own unique right of ways and alignments. The result of this loca-tional diversity, is that today there are often several route alignment options for commuter rail, and subsequently several station location options, including a greater opportunity to locate stations close to an existing town centre. This is to be compared against the Canadian model where only two national rail com-panies were ever present, which predominantly served the agriculture and in-dustrial areas of a city. This is manifested in the commuter rail systems being examined in this report, where Seattle Sounder stations are located closer to existing town centres than the Vancouver stations. Disregarding Tukwila, the Seattle stations are typically 350 metres from the town centre, while the Van-couver station?s average proximity is 900 metres.  Third, Seattle has developed an extensive freeway system which serves a larger population and a larger area than that of Vancouver. This investment in auto-mobile infrastructure has a direct impact on commuter rail viability, as well as on suburban form which is generally more auto-oriented.    Another difference is that Canada has a long history of relying on government to provide public services (top down), where as the United States typically looks to the government as a service provider as the last resort (bottom up). This situation is manifested when investments in public services (such as transit) are necessary. The Canadian norm is for governments to authorize spending and  be held accountable at election time. The Washington state model for exam-ple, relies on onerous referenda which are often highly politicized events, and often ill-attended.  Finally, (and somewhat ironically after the last point), Seattle has a much higher number of regulatory agencies involved in transportation and land use than Vancouver. Seattle has over 5 different agencies providing transit services, 5 different regional governments, and twice as many municipalities per capita than Vancouver2.  There are comparability issues with all case study research programs. What must be remembered is that much of the existing research in this field has been making much more tenuous comparisons than the one presented here. These two cities are remarkably similar in history, are service by nearly identical com-muter rail systems, and are in the end more similar than either would like to admit. While there are comparability issues, they will have a minimal effect on this study.    1. There are over 280,000 kilometres of rail in the United States, compared with 77,000 kilometres in Canada   2. The Puget Sound region has 1 municipality for every 45,160 people, while the Vancouver area  has 1 municipality for every 96,636 people Figure 3.9 National Highway System ?Seattle Figure 3.10 National Highway System ?Vancouver Chapter 3: Methodology Page 3.8 nd largest city, and a recognizable core unto itself, as a suburban centre would be incorrect and not help in achieving the goals of this project.    After eliminating Seattle, Tacoma and Vancouver, there are seven potential Vancouver area cases remaining, and five Seattle area candidates. Therefore, a process was needed to determine how six station areas would be selected as case studies. This process which would require a thorough analysis of each potential site.   Thus, the task of creating ?Community Profiles? commenced.     Chapter 3: Methodology Page 3.9 CASE STUDY SELECTION:  COMMUNITY PROFILING  As the research was looking to compare like cities in different regions, there needed to be a set of controls established to ensure that similar communities were selected.   To determine what makes a community, and therefore enable us to compare one city against others, a list of variables was created which captured the numerous aspects with which a city can identify itself. These variables had to be as catholic as possible in order to represent the number of ways in which a city can be iden-tified.  For example, some cities are defined by their primary employers, such as Red-mond, WA being linked with Microsoft. Others are identified with transportation entities, such as SeaTac, WA or Port Moody, B.C.. Another example may be community identities based on natural features such as Delta, B.C., and another still could be historic settlement patterns (Ft. Langley, B.C.). The reality is that the identity of cities is often linked to more than just one of these potential aspects, and more than likely a combination of many.   The list of variables compiled was meant to triangulate across the spectrum of civic identifiers, using the  main tenets of sustainability (Economy, Society, Environment) as a guide.   The variables used would have to be relevant to every potential case study, so that similar data could be collected for each potential case study. The variables would have to examine issues relating to transportation and land use, as these were the guiding tenets of this research. And the list would have to address the  breadth of ways in which a city can be identified.   While the complete list of variables was quite comprehensive, those variables which were deemed likely to be used to define community identity were weighted more heavily than others.   Once data collection for these variables was complete, and a determination was made about the hierarchy of these variables, cities were compared against each other to see where similar characteristics occurred.   The city profiling exercise results are synthesized on the following pages. This illustrative display of the findings highlights many of the similarities which exist across the two case study regions.   Social Population Civic Identifiers Avg. Household Size  Median age of population # of Households  City Age (Incorporation Date) Regional Government Economic Median HH Income (CDN) % Difference between local and state / provincial median HH Income % Difference between local and regional  PSRC and GVRD) median HH Income Primary Employment Sectors # of Business # of People Per Business # of Households Per Business Environment LandUse Composition (In order) Driving Distance to Core in km.'s  Driving Time to Core in minutes Primary Landuse  Peak Res. Bldg. Decades Area (sq. km.'s) Pop. Density (pop / hectare) Commuter Rail Distance to Core (CBD) in km's  Commuter Rail Travel Time to Core (CBD) in minutes Commuter Rail Facility Charactersitics Facility Size / Cost? Facility Parking Parking Type Station Proximity (Observation) Station Proximity to municipal core (Km.) Variables Used in Community Profiling Chapter 3: Methodology Page 3.10 Chapter 3: Methodology Page 3.11 Chapter 3: Methodology Page 3.12  MATCHED PAIR 1: PORT MOODY AND TUKWILA Figure 3.11 Both Tukwila and Port Moody are home to deepwater ports and related industries Chapter 3: Methodology Page 3.13 Auburn and Coquitlam are single family residential suburbs with a large num-ber of families. They both have an average degree of proximity to the CBD by both vehicle and commuter rail. Given Coquitlam?s large area, some areas of the city would more likely be classified as inner suburbs vs. middle suburbs. The difference in station types are an interesting but not crucial difference. The population difference is large, but is to be expected given the high municipal fragmentation found in the Seattle area. The  population of the station?s service areas are probably quite similar, given the similar parking numbers at both stations. Household level attributes match up very well, as do the ratios be-tween commercial and residential activity. Neither of these communities are dominated by business uses, a fact Coquitlam has attempted to address by drafting policy which attracts employers.    MATCHED PAIR 2: COQUITLAM AND AUBURN  Figure 3.12 Auburn?s town centre includes  a public plaza decorated with large pieces of art... ...while Coquitlam?s does not. (Figure 3.13) Chapter 3: Methodology Page 3.14 Chapter 3: Methodology Page 3.15 STATION AREA ASSESSMENT  With the case study cities selected, the next step is to determine how to assess the effectiveness of commuter rail station areas in developing according to the prin-ciples of Transit Oriented Development. To assess this question, we need to re-turn to what the primary elements of a TOD are, determine what measures are most appropriate to assess the presence of these elements within the case study cities, and figure out what the best approach to conducting field work would be.  In order to guide the production of a measurement system, a list of sampling principles was identified. The goal of these principles was to provide a framework for developing measures. The sampling principles were as follows:  1. Consistent Methodology  In order to reduce variability of re-sults, it was preferable that the measurement standards used to analyze these criteria would be constant across all case studies.  2. Replicable Process  Whatever measurements were used would have to be replicable across all case studies. That means that the measures used would have to be applicable to all case study environments for purposes of validity.  3. Logistically efficient  With restrictions placed on the researcher in terms of time and budget, fieldwork for each case study must not exceed the budget for the research.  Looking at the various definitions for TOD (Appendix 1), it is evident that all sta-tion areas should contain a set of fundamental elements in order to be consid-ered TOD:  1. The presence of a transit stop, preferably on an inter-community mass transit system,  2. A mix of land uses within walking distance of the transit stop, including residential, retail and employment uses, and 3. A pedestrian friendly environment, including small blocks and pedestrian necessities such as sidewalks and seating.   The highlighted aspects of point 2 and 3 comprise the dependent variables which require measurement.   Since the presence of a transit stop was an independent variable which was con-trolled for already, we know that every case study has a station. All case studies would have a commuter rail node which would serve as the spatial focus for this research investigation.  Figure 3.14 Fieldwork would be needed to measure the attributes of the case study stations areas Chapter 3: Methodology Page 3.16 Figure 3.15 The spatial extent of a TOD must be a walkable distance. Chapter 3: Methodology Page 3.17 STUDY AREA: DEFINING SPATIAL EXTENT  The spatial extent of a TOD is now determined, and therefore the study area. However the ? mile and ? mile study areas are in reality only theoretical maxi-mums as they are ?crow fly? distances and not distance that can be traveled on the ground, or ?network? distances. This is because street networks can never stretch out for equal lengths in all directions.   One field of research which looks at this difference is found in the literature around ?ped-sheds?, short form for ?pedestrian walk sheds?. Pedestrian walk sheds show the actual walking distance from a point, using pedestrian networks found on the ground. To create a walk shed, pedestrian routes are mapped out from a central point (in this case a commuter rail station) to a finite distance (i.e. ? and ? mile distances). The area within these distances is the pedestrian walk shed. Street networks which have good connectivity (i.e. pedestrian friendly grids) will therefore have the largest walk sheds, while street networks with poor con-nectivity (i.e. cul-de-sac streets, or circuitous networks) will have smaller walk sheds.   The question for this study then becomes do we look at ? mile ?crow-fly? dis-tances, or ?network? distances? The answer is both. The reason for studying both is that the crow-fly distances represent a theoretical maximum for a TOD to fill. The network distance on the other hand, shows how the built form has actually developed. Therefore, the larger the area accessible by the ?network? distance, the more connectivity available to the pedestrian, and the more successful the station area has been at adhering to the principles of TOD.  Measure: This study will create study areas based on a ? mile and ? mile walking distance from the transit node. The study areas will look at both crow-fly distance and network distance, in order to determine how much of the potential TOD area is actually being utilized.  Figure 3.16 Disconnected streets re-duce pedestrian connectivity Chapter 3: Methodology Page 3.18 Measure: This study will make a first-hand inventory of land use in the study areas, in order to assess the presence of ?essential? TOD uses such as retail, residential, and employment centres. LAND USE INVENTORY  While there are many methodologies available to measuring land use mix, the first step was to conduct a basic inventory, which would provide an ?n? value. An inventory of land use at the sub-parcel level is one of the highest resolutions of data collection available for planning studies, and was the starting point for measuring mix.   There are many methods available for inventorying land use.   Zoning maps can be used, but they reflect desired land use as opposed to ac-tual land use. For example, an area zoned for commercial uses may allow eve-rything from a law office to a coffee shop. Also, zoning designations may not take into account uses which are legal, non-conforming uses (i.e. uses which do not conform to the zoning bylaw, but have been ?grandfathered? in). Zoning also doesn?t take into account those activities which are not legal, such as sidewalk flea markets, or unlicensed street vendors.   Another option is using tax assessment data. This type of data usually contains business name and type for commercial activity, as well as a measure of spa-tial extent (i.e. square feet). There are problems associated with this type of data as well. Assessment data is usually updated once a year at most so some data may be out of date. Another problem is that different assessment jurisdic-tions employ different assessment techniques which could lead to incompara-ble data. For this study, this point is exacerbated by the fact that Seattle local government?s each have their own independent, elected assessors, while in British Columbia there is only one provincial assessment body, which is inde-pendent of state control. Finally assessment data can be very limited in terms of access, as there are often concerns around use of property owner?s informa-tion, especially with regards to privacy.   A third option is an observed inventory. This would involve a researcher going into the field and recording land uses at an appropriate level. This creates an inventory which is at a resolution (i.e. parcel, sub-parcel) most appropriate for the researcher, and also results in data which is temporally current. The draw-backs are that it is possible that some land uses may be unattainable, due to issues such as being within private buildings, or been non-visible from the re-searchers vantage. A personal inventory is also a time consuming method, especially given a large study area.   The observed inventory process? benefits (temporal relevance, perceived accu-racy, relevant resolution) far outweigh its drawbacks. While time-consuming, it is also cost-effective, given the excess of spare time a graduate student pos-sesses.   In preparation for the land use mapping aspect of the case study assessment, air photos and cadastral base maps were acquired from case study municipali-ties to be used as base maps.   Figure 3.17 Land use maps are one way of displaying measured land use Chapter 3: Methodology Page 3.19 LAND USE MIX  While the inventory of land uses would give us a total number of land uses, a meas-ure of land use mix needs to be determined. The requirement for a mix of land uses in a TOD is focused on the three primary elements of residential, retail and employ-ment centres. The mix of land uses is important to ensure a high level of activity, and to provide retail and employment opportunities to residents.   A mix of residential uses is important, as it ensures that there is a wide diversity of housing types, which can subsequently attract a diverse population. This diversity of housing also allows people living in a neighbourhood to upsize or downsize their living situation based on their changing lifestyle (i.e. the idea of aging in place). There is also an economic argument for diversity of housing types. By providing a range of housing product, a developer can ensure that there is a measure of resil-iency built into projects.   A retail presence also lends to the idea of constant activity in an urban centre. Retail is also important for local residents, as it means that their daily shopping needs can be met within a walkable distance. This cuts down on vehicle miles traveled, and if designed with street orientation in mind can animate the streetscape with shoppers. Retail is also a use which contributes to the employment base of a TOD.   Employment is a required component of any Transit Oriented Development. The need for employment centres does not preclude non-office employment, such as light industrial uses or institutional uses. A measure of employment will also be nec-essary within the study areas.    Measuring mix is a difficult prospect however. Is the number of unique uses most important? The amount of activity generated by each use? There is no one method to define ?mixed use?, and certainly some station areas may have a successful mix-ture  of uses which would be failures in other situations. This difficulty should not preclude us from examining the mix of land uses. The difficulty in assessing this issue lends to a flexible approach, such as a qualitative narrative which describes the mix-ture of uses, and how they contribute, or take away from, the station area environ-ment. This qualitative narrative can build upon and explain the land use data col-lected during the inventory process.   For this project, the land use mix aspect of TOD will be examined through a qualita-tive narrative, examining the various uses present, and their positive or negative con-tribution to the TOD.  Measure: This study will present a qualitative assessment of land uses within the study area, based on observed land use mix.  Figure 3.18 The mix of land uses must include residen-tial, retail and employment centres. Chapter 3: Methodology Page 3.20 Figures 3.19, 3.20 and 3.21  Housing types include Single Family, Duplex, and Apartments Measure: This study will inventory housing types within the study area, as the first step in determining whether or not density is concentrated in station areas. The inventory of housing types will be supplemented with a qualitative description of multi-family buildings, which will clarify the housing distribution pattern.  Chapter 3: Methodology Page 3.21 RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES  Measuring housing density is far from a clear process. There are several den-sity measurement options available for use, but I will discuss those best suited for neighbourhood analysis. Those are Net Residential Parcel Density, Net Residential Density, and Gross Residential Density. The following is an explana-tion of these various measures:   Net Parcel Density   This is a measure of dwelling units per area (usually per acre), which uses the parcel edge as its boundary. This measure does not include public right-of-ways, such as streets or public infrastructure associated with residential uses, such as playgrounds. Additionally, this measure examines only those parcels which are residential or mixed-use. Because of the limited spatial definition of this measure, it typically returns higher density measures than the other meth-ods examined here. This method requires a high degree of knowledge about the neighbourhood, especially location of parcel boundaries.  Net Residential Density   Again, this is a measure of dwelling units per area, which looks only at residen-tial portions of a neighbourhood or city. The spatial edge used in this measure is the centre-line of adjacent streets, rather than the parcel line. This measure returns lower density measures than Net Parcel Density, as it incorporates unin-habited (hopefully) streets. This method requires a fair degree of data process-ing, as the researcher constantly needs to define the spatial extents of residen-tial areas.   Gross Residential Density  This is the easiest and most rudimentary measure of density. It is the measure of dwelling units over an area, and includes all land uses (residential or other), as well as all public right of ways. It requires a well defined spatial extent, and if it?s being used to compare different locations, the spatial extents should be constant across all examples. This is the easiest and quickest method to meas-ure density.  This study will use both gross residential density as well as net parcel density. By using both methods, a more clear picture of the housing inventory can be con-structed. For example, communities with low gross densities but high net densi-ties reflects a situation where units are probably concentrated in very dense housing types, but is a low amount of total housing. This is an example of how comparing between two measures can better inform us about the nature of the housing stock in these case studies.  Measure: This study will look at the gross and net densities of housing in the study areas, in order to see if higher density uses are located closer to station areas.  Figure 3.22 Apartments usually produce the highest densities of any housing type Chapter 3: Methodology Page 3.22 Figure 3.23 High fre-quency uses such as grocers are desirable in TOD areas Chapter 3: Methodology Page 3.23 EMPLOYMENT CENTRES  Employment centres are another measurable element of a Transit Oriented Develop-ment. Places of employment  offer retailers an increased customer base and these same people are a potential transit ridership base. As opposed to retail, employment centres are generally not an active part of the public realm as they do not require a ground-floor presence to attract customers. Employment centres can take many forms, from office buildings to industrial uses to institutional sites. Employment amounts can be measured in a number of ways.     One measure is employment density. This looks at the total number of employees per land unit and can be measured per acre or square foot. Per square foot meas-urements are more useful at the site level, while per acre measurements allow plan-ners to understand the impacts which certain businesses will have on a neighbour-hood scale. For example, a regional retail use may employ around 15 people per acre, while a high-rise office employs 115 people per acre. To determine these numbers for each discrete employment use, one needs to know the total land area dedicated to employment uses, as well as the number of employees on-site. This is very time-intensive when faced with a large study area, and not feasible for this pro-ject.  Another method is extrapolating this data using the largest employers in the area. This is not as rigid as the first method, but does provide an insight into the local em-ployment picture. For example, two of the largest discrete land uses in Tacoma are hospitals, therefore it is reasonable to assume that hospitals and health-care are prominent employers in the Tacoma area. This is a much easier methodology, and is fairly quick to accomplish in the study areas, given their relatively small land areas (500 acres). There are problems with such a methodology. For example, the five largest employers may not be indicative of the entire case study. If there are quite a few smaller employers, they will be overshadowed by a few large employers. This however, can be accounted for using a flexible assessment methodology, such as a qualitative discussion regarding employment in the station areas.   This study will look at the five largest employers within each case study area, and calculate an employment density for them, and use this number as a reflection of the employment density picture for the entire case study. Where needed, this will be sup-plemented by a qualitative discussion about additional employment centres which may be important to the station area, but are not accounted for.    Measure: This study will look at the employment densities of the larg-est employers in each study area, and use this measure as a com-parative analysis of the employment picture in each case study.  Figure 3.24 Office uses tend to generate high employment densities Chapter 3: Methodology Page 3.24 Figure 3.25 Pedestrian friendly environments help to encour-age people to walk  Chapter 3: Methodology Page 3.25 CASE STUDY METHODS SUMMARY  The following table summarizes the ten aspects of the station area environment to be measured:  Chapter 3: Methodology Page 3.26 Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.1 The Analysis section achieves two goals; the first is to synthesize the findings of the fieldwork in one place, while the second is to relate those findings to Transit Oriented Development (TOD).   This is accomplished on a case-by-case basis, starting with Port Moody and Tuk-wila, then moving on to Coquitlam and Auburn, and concluding with Mission and Puyallup. Presenting the data in this ?matched? format enables the reader to quickly draw comparisons between the similar city types, an approach which also includes a summary table at the end of the chapter.   Within each case study, the analysis is structured according to the ten method-ologies used at each site, found in the table on page 3.25. Each method is briefly summarized, the findings are discussed, and the relevance to Transit Ori-ented Development is explored. A complete catalogue of all collected data is found in the appendices.    The first two case studies represent inner suburbs, which have a significant indus-trial base. Port Moody and Tukwila both have deepwater ports, and Tukwila is well known as a regional transportation and commerce hub, being home to port infrastructure as well as airports and highways. The second set of case studies, Coquitlam and Auburn, represent middle-ring suburbs which are largely family communities. These case studies are both old agricultural communities which have matured into residential suburbs, with average household sizes approach-ing three people per household. The final two case studies are Puyallup and Mis-sion. These are exurban communities which have been on the periphery of urban areas, and are now becoming incorporated into their larger metropolitan areas as growth continues outwards. Traditionally agriculture and resource towns, these final two case studies have historic downtown areas established in the early parts of the 20th century.     Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.2 (L-R) 4.2 Port Moody?s historic rail station 4.3 West Coast Express Sta-tion 4.4 The Sonrisa project on St. John?s Street CASE STUDY PAIR: PORT MOODY AND TUKWILA  This first case study pair represent inner suburbs which contain strong industrial sectors and have the closest commuter rail stations to the CBD.  4.1 Port Moody?s many ?St.? streets aren't named after saints, but are rather due to a typo-graphical error which placed the ?St.? abbreviation before rather than after the street name Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.3 CASE STUDY AREA  This study area represents the theoretical catchment area of a Transit Oriented Development (TOD), which at its maximum should be a ten minute walk from the transit station. The study area was determined by drawing 400 metre (1/4 mile) and 800 metre (1/2 mile) rings around the Commuter Rail station, which represent five and ten minute walks respectively. The station is defined as the physical extent of the station building, rather than the property line. When these five and ten minute walk ?rings? overlap water bodies, the water areas are not considered part of the research area and are netted out.  In the case of Port Moody, the potential area which could be reached by a five minute walk contains 144 acres of land, while the potential area which could be reached by a five to ten minute walk contains 280 acres of land, for a total study area of 424 acres (139 acres of the study area are in Burrard Inlet, and are excluded).   However, these areas are arrived at based on a ?crow-fly? distance, and not an actual walking distance, which would rely on pedestrian networks such as side-walks and paths. As mentioned in the methodology section, this study would also examine the actual area reachable in a five and ten minute walk from the station. This was done by analyzing pedestrian networks, and determining which parcels could actually be reached by walking 400 meters from the sta-tion. In Port Moody?s case, a five minute walk allows the pedestrian to access 56 acres of land, while a 5 to 10 minute walk allows access to an additional 140 acres of land. This means the actual area accessible through a ten minute walk is 196 acres; Or out of a potential area reachable of 424 acres, only 46% can actually be reached by a ten minute walk.   The primary barrier to pedestrian accessibility is the railroad tracks which the West Coast Express commuter rail service uses. There is only one pedestrian crossing of these tracks within the study area, which limits accessibility to the land on the north side of the railroad. For example, to reach a parcel located 16 metres away from the station on the opposite side of the railway tracks, requires a 470 metre walk. This lack of connectivity does not conform to TOD principles, as it literally cuts off potential transit users from transit facilities and in this case retail activity as well. Maximizing pedestrian connectivity in station areas is essential to attracting customers  who might walk to transit.  Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.4 Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.5 COMMERCIAL CHOICE AND TYPOLOGY   According to TOD principles, commercial uses should be concentrated in the area closest to the station area. Commercial uses in the Port Moody case study comply with this principle, and as mentioned are focused along St. John?s Street. There are a total of 171 goods and service providers in the study area, and two out of three of those are within 400 metres (1/4 mile) of the commuter rail sta-tion. This concentration of retail appears to be very encouraging for Transit Ori-ented Development. However, when the type of retail is examined more closely, it is revealed that few of the tenants contribute to Transit Oriented Development.   The majority of the retail is not of the type which generates frequent trips (such as grocers, cleaners, produce stores, etc.). Only one in five commercial uses in the case study are high frequency uses. The remainder are low frequency uses in-cluding car dealers, automobile repair facilities, or tattoo parlors. In fact 16% of tenants exist solely to service automobiles, such as gas stations, auto repair facili-ties and car washes. These lower frequency uses also tend to be more auto-oriented in nature, as they don?t attract pedestrian walk-by traffic. While a pedes-trian might stop by a grocery store for some milk, it is unlikely that they would stop in at a tattoo parlor for a quick inking. These low frequency uses also tend to function primarily in the daytime. This means that once these shops close down, the area becomes deserted with the lone produce or convenience store sandwiched between four closed auto-body shops. This does not lend to an ac-tive round-the-clock environment for the pedestrian traffic which Transit Oriented Development is meant to generate in its retail core.    Uses in the 5 minute walk 'ring' (%) Uses in the 10 minute walk 'ring' (%) Total (%) Daily Uses 20 17.7% 15 25.9% 35 20.5%  Periodic Uses 93 82.3% 43 74.1% 136 79.5% Figure 4.5 Much of the commercial activity on St. John?s Street is auto-oriented Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.6 Gross Unit Densities*     5 minute walk 'ring' 10 minute walk 'ring' Total Study Area Total Units 373  Total Units 619  Total Units 992 Acres 143.8  Acres 279.6  Acres 423.4 UPA 2.6  UPA 2.2  UPA 2.3 Net Unit Densities*      5 minute walk 'ring' 10 minute walk 'ring' Total Study Area Total Units 373  Total Units 619  Total Units 992 Acres 20.31  Acres 58.46  Acres 78.77 UPA 18.4  UPA 10.6  UPA 12.6   Units % of Total Single Family 193 19.5%  Multi-Family 799 80.5% Duplex 20 (2.0%)  Quadplex 4 (0.4%)  Party Wall Townhouses 121 (12.2%)  Apartments 654 (65.9%) *Gross unit densities are housing units per total acreage   Net unit densities are units per residential parcel acre Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.7 EMPLOYMENT DENSITY   Employment centres, and more specifically employment densities, are important to Transit Oriented Development, as they represent potential destinations for transit riders. Areas with a high number of employees per acre are more attrac-tive to service by transit versus those which have low employment densities. Given the large industrial base of this case study, it might be expected that there would be a few large employers accounting for most of the jobs in the study area.   This is not the case, as there is only one large employer, the Flavelle Sawmill, located in the northwest of the study area which employs over 100 people. Heavy industrial uses such as sawmills tend to have low employment densities because of the large site sizes required for product production and storage. The bulk of employment in the case study is in small light industrial shops, public sec-tor institutions, and small commercial businesses.   The light industrial uses tend to have higher employment densities than heavy industry, but employ fewer people per acre than other uses, such as office or retail. In turn, these low employment density uses are difficult to serve by a single transit node, as employees are spread out over large areas. The largest public sector employers in the case study include two schools and a police station. The schools employ a large number of people but also occupy large sites, which re-duces employment densities. The police station has the type of employment den-sities associated with a small office, but again its large site area (due to a high number of on-site parking stalls) decreases employment density. The retail em-ployers along St. John?s street have some of the highest employment densities, especially the fast food restaurants. McDonalds for example employs 20 people per acre, ten times that of the sawmill.   These employment densities don?t come close to comparing with high density office numbers, which can generate 100+ employees per acre. The low employ-ment densities don't create a large pool of potential transit commuters, and makes transit service delivery difficult. Where employment densities are high, such as in CBD?s, transit can service many employers in a small area. Employer Employees (Peak) Area (Acres) Employees per Acre Flavelle Sawmill 60 33.11 1.81  Port Moody Middle School 70 11.01 6.36  Moody Elementary 35 3.81 9.19  Port Moody Police  Station 24 2.09 11.48  Crestwood             International Industries 8 0.61 13.11  McDonalds 8 0.42 19.05 Figure 4.6 Port Moody?s industrial uses tend not to have high employment densities Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.8  of the street is occu-pied by a curb which separates the public street from a private parking lot. This lot is angle parked, with a travel lane behind it. Finally, the parking lot edge is bounded by a one-storey masonry wall, home to an auto-body repair shop. The shop uses its on-site parking to store vehicles under repair, further adding to the unkempt nature of this area.  SECTION LOCATION Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.9 PEDESTRIAN CHOICE   Pedestrian environments should not only offer the necessities of sidewalks and protection from cars, they should also offer the pedestrian with choices. Having multiple pedestrian options is important, as it can create a higher level of acces-sibility for the pedestrian, and create a larger catchment area of potential pedes-trians.   Measuring choice in the case study was done by counting the pedestrian inter-sections in the case study, including lanes, pathways and pedestrian overpasses, then multiplying these intersections by the number of choices present. For exam-ple, a 3-way intersection has 3 potential choices for a pedestrian, while a 4-way intersection has 4. This was then factored into the land area available to come up with a measure of connectivity, pedestrian choices per acre.  Overall, the Port Moody case study had 0.54 choices per acre for pedestrians, although the five minute walk ?ring? had much more choice than the five to ten minute walk ?ring?. The inner ring?s 0.78 choices per acre is a reflection of its finer block pattern, which fades away as one moves further away from the com-muter rail station, dropping the pedestrian choices down to 0.41 choices per acre in the five to ten minute walk ring.   To put these numbers in context, one could look at downtown Portland (2.3 choices per acre), the Las Ramblas neighbourhood of Barcelona (3.03 connec-tions per acre) or Nihonbashi in Tokyo (5.3+ connections per acre)1.   PEDESTRIAN USE   Given the low level of pedestrian quality, and the comparative lack of pedestrian choice, it?s probably not surprising that pedestrian usage is also low. Pedestrian counts were taken in the station area in the a.m. prior to a train departure, and in the p.m. after commuter trains arrived. Since the Port Moody station has only two pedestrian exits, the sample was taken at the exit which best connected com-muters to the majority of residential units.   The pedestrian counts for Port Moody are especially pertinent for commuter rail, as the sample location serves only the rail station. Therefore all pedestrians counted are either walking to or from the rail station. While this sample location may not capture the true volume of traffic in the entire study area, it accurately portrays that traffic which is attributable to the commuter rail service. The low pedestrian volumes are a stark portrayal of how auto-oriented this commuter rail station actually is.   5 minute walk 'ring' 10 minute walk 'ring' Total Case Study 3-way Intersections 13 20 38  4-way Intersections 18 14 41           Connectivity Measure 111 116 278  Land Area 143.8 279.59 471.24  Pedestrian Choices Per Acre 0.77 0.41 0.59  Effective Sidewalk Width (m.) People per Hour A.M. Count 1.6 24  P.M.Count 1.6 6 1 Jacobs, Allan B. Great Streets MIT Press, 1995 Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.10 Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.11 CASE STUDY 2: TUKWILA  INTRODUCTION   Tukwila, an inner suburb of 17,000 people, is home to a large number of indus-trial and transport related companies. Tukwila is just south of Seattle, and its Du-wamish River was an early maritime commerce route in the region and today remains an active deepwater port. Tukwila is the closest stop to the CBD on the Seattle Sounder commuter rail system, only 25 minutes by train from Union Sta-tion. While Tukwila is well known for its myriad commercial uses, it lacks an iden-tifiable core or civic centre. Its residential base is also small when compared to the wealth of commercial activity which occurs in the city. It does have an active retail base, including a large node located at the Southcenter Mall, approxi-mately one mile west of the commuter rail station.    (Top to Bottom) Figure 4.7 Tukwila Sounder Station  Figure 4.8 State Route 181 Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.12 Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.13 LAND USE   The land uses in the Tukwila station area are a microcosm of the city as a whole. Commercial uses dominate the landscape, their locational attributes determined largely by transportation routes, while residential uses are almost non-existent.   Commercial activity in the station area is dominated by the hotel industry. With good connectivity to the Interstate system, and relatively close proximity to Sea-Tac Airport, hotels catering to the business traveler surround the station. No less than seven national hotel chains are located within the study area, with all of them on State Route 181. Boeing?s nearby offices also serve as a training centre for airline staff, furthering the demand for hotel space. West of the Green River, along Strander Boulevard, there is a number of industrial / busi-ness parks. These uses include small offices such as local newspapers and freight forwarders, as well as larger tenants such as distribution and logistics centres. The latter tenants again have located here because of good connec-tions to transportation systems. A major office use in the study area exists in the eastern portion, where Boeing?s commercial aircraft division is located on the now defunct Longacre?s horse racing site. This is a large office complex which is an important employer in the case study. Retail activity gains intensity as one moves west, towards the shopping centre. Retailers located along State Route 181 are limited to fast-food restaurants and other convenience type activity, while there are more medium-format retailers located west of the Green River, such as electronics goods stores and home improvement warehouses. The smaller scale retailers which are present within the case study are housed within a few strip mall developments.   Perhaps the most important land use is the vacant land occupying a vast por-tion of the case study area. As mentioned, this is the site of the old Longacre?s horse racing track, now partially used by the Boeing Corporation. The large areas of the backstretch and infield remain largely vacant however, and repre-sent a glaring void in the development of the Tukwila station area.    LAND USE MIX   The mix of land uses in this case study is limited. Commercial and office uses dominate, and there is a small light industrial presence, while residential par-cels can be counted on one hand. While this mix does offer some benefits (i.e. many local employers), it does not adhere to TOD principles in the station area.   The commercial activity along State Route 181 is dominated by the hotel in-dustry, which does little to attract local or regional residents. On the west side    of the Green River the commercial activity is primarily in the form of retailers, although with no residents with walking distance, it is a forgone conclusion that these uses are not pedestrian oriented.   The light industrial uses in the case study are located close to rail and highway infrastructure. The light industrial activity in the southwest increases as one leaves the case study area, as indicated by the density of railroads. The pocket of light industry near the commuter rail station includes rubber goods manufac-turing, auto fleet services and boat manufacturers.  Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.14 Uses in the 5 minute walk 'ring' (%) Uses in the 10 minute walk 'ring' (%) Total (%) Daily Uses 10 50.0% 4 13.3% 14 28.0%  Periodic Uses 10 50.0% 26 86.7% 36 72.0% Figure 4.9 Tukwila station area strip mall located at Strander Blvd. and State Route 181 Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.15 HOUSING CHOICE   Housing in the Tukwila case study is practically non-existent, with only four single family homes. Three residential parcels are located along the Green River, while one is on the edge of a light industrial area. While these four homes may be happy with their incredible level of transit service per capita, this lack of housing is not in accordance with TOD principles, and a matter which needs to be ad-dressed should Tukwila pursue a complete Transit Oriented Development plan in the station area.    Tukwila has many constraints to residential development as a community, includ-ing its large industrial land base, and the high number of freeway corridors which bisect it. This case study is representative of this, as it is home to two major rail-ways, an elevated Interstate and a busy State Route. While parcels along the idyl-lic Green River could offer an excellent opportunity for residential infill, it would seem that local market conditions have a predilection towards commercial ten-ants rather than residential uses.   HOUSING DENSITY   Needless to say, residential densities hardly even register, with an overall gross UPA of 0.008, or one home for every 125 acres.   Gross Unit Densities*   5 minute walk 'ring' Total Units 4 Acres 143.50 UPA 0.028   10 minute walk 'ring' Total Units 0 Acres 369.12 UPA 0   Total Study Area Total Units 4 Acres 496.58 UPA 0.008  Units % of Total Single Family 4 100.00%  Multi-Family 0 0.00% Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.16 Figure 4.10 Vacant office stock in the study area, lo-cated west of the Green River Employer Employees (Peak) Area (Acres) Employees per Acre Comfort Suites 12 6.25 1.92  Porter Seal 3 1.51 1.99  Courtyard by Marriot 6 2.90 2.07  Best Western (Southcenter) 20 6.03 3.32  Lowes Home  Improvement 75 9.16 8.19  Kinkos Regional Sales Office 13 1.12 11.61  Boeing Commer-cial Aircraft 1360 48.29 28.16 Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.17 PEDESTRIAN QUALITY   The pedestrian environment around the Tukwila station is an unconnected net-work of industrial streets. It is a bleak and barren pedestrian landscape domi-nated by exposed sidewalks, fast moving vehicular traffic, and chain link fencing.   The street section is taken along Longacres Way, the primary access point to the commuter rail station, approximately 240 metres (840 feet) from State Route 181. As mentioned, this used to be the only access to the community prior to the construction of a northeast connector to the Boeing facilities. The section area is flanked by vacant fields, guarded by chain link fencing. To access the station, one must pass under two railroad bridges, and the section is taken at a point between these two bridges. Large gravel buffers give way to parking pullouts, which are reserved as holding bays for busses.  Given the single use at the end of the street, traffic volumes are generally very low, with the occasional bus ac-cessing the bus loop located within the station parking lot.  SECTION LOCATION Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.18 5 minute walk 'ring' 10 minute walk 'ring' Total Case Study 3-way Intersections 6 11 17  4-way Intersections 1 4 5           Connectivity Measure 22 49 71  Land Area 143.5 369.12 512.62  Pedestrian Choices Per Acre 0.15 0.13 0.14  (Left to Right) Figures 4.11, 4.12 and 4.13 Longacres Way - Station entrance street looking east, south and west  Effective Sidewalk Width (m.) People per Hour A.M. Count 2.2 6  P.M.Count 2.2 6 Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.19 TUKWILA CASE STUDY - SUMMARY   Tukwila?s station area has some significant obstacles prohibiting it from being considered a Transit Oriented Development and any changes will require a long-term approach. Tukwila represents an example of the difficulties which face suburban communities attempting to adopt Transit Oriented Develop-ment, particularly those communities which lack an existing town centre or de-velopment node.   The potential TOD area is not only underutilized, it is split between two munici-pal jurisdictions creating administrative barriers to development of the station area. The lack of pedestrian connectivity arises from a number of factors in-cluding massive transportation infrastructure, such as railroads and highways, and an underdeveloped local street network. Additionally, the Green River represents a physical barrier which separates the station area from the retail activity to the west. One positive note is that recent street construction in the northeast has opened up large employment areas to pedestrian traffic, espe-cially from the commuter rail station. This trend seems destined to continue, with discussions underway on extending Strander Boulevard across the railroad tracks, which will help increase pedestrian connectivity.    Developed land in the study area is dominated by commercial and light indus-trial uses. The commercial activities near the station are mainly hotel uses, while those further to the west are larger retailers. Only a few commercial uses are local serving, and those that are depend on customers accessing their ser-vices by automobile. One of the most dominant land uses in the study area is the vacant and undeveloped parcels of the old Longacres racetrack. This un-derdeveloped area represents an excellent future opportunity for intensification, but is currently a void in the station area landscape. The glaring lack of resi-dential uses is another missing aspect of Transit Oriented Development.   Housing choice and density in the case study is non-existent, with the entire housing stock consisting of four single family homes. Housing, which can drive retail and local office activity, is a fundamental attribute of Transit Oriented Development. Unfortunately, with a low population and lack of a civic core, the Tukwila example is handicapped in this area from the start. Without a local population to utilize the service, the station is dependent on vehicle commuters, or alternatively becoming an employment destination of its own.  The ability for the station area to act as an employment node is uncertain. Most employers in the area have extremely low employment densities, with the lowest belonging to the hotel uses which surround the station. An exception is the Boeing office complex, home to over 1,300 employees at significant em-ployment densities. With the impending construction of a 8,800 square metre    (94,000 sq. ft.) Federal Reserve office just south of the Boeing facility, employ-ment densities may soon become high enough that the station could develop into a role as a destination for, rather than a source of, commuter traffic.   The pedestrian realm is extremely compromised by low connectivity, and the low quality pedestrian environment is comparable to an industrial park, not the vibrant commercial areas which are meant to exist in Transit Oriented Devel-opments. The few streets which do exist in the station area have to circumvent massive freeway and railway infrastructure,  often subjecting the pedestrian to unsavory experiences. When the pedestrian emerges from a world of railway bridges and freeway underpasses, they find themselves on an exposed arterial with none of the amenities that are necessary in a pedestrian environment. There is little on-street parking, or other buffers from traffic, and large building setbacks strand the pedestrian in a hostile no-man?s land. Pedestrian use of the area is almost non-existent, with no homes to walk from and no retail to walk to.   Tukwila?s current failure as a Transit Oriented Development should be seen within a long term context of opportunity. Beneath the vacant tracts of land and poor pedestrian environment, there lies a strategic opportunity to develop this site according to TOD principles, or at least as a transit commuter destination.  Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.20 Figure 4.15 Coquitlam Station Entrance Feature Figure 4.14 Coquitlam Station      CASE STUDY PAIR: COQUITLAM AND AUBURN  The second case study pair represents primarily residential suburbs which are located midway along the commuter rail route. Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.21 CASE STUDY AREA    Coquitlam?s station is located at the interchange of the Lougheed and Barnet Highways, major highways connecting the eastern suburbs with the remainder of the lower mainland. These highways see heavy traffic volumes throughout the day and often suffer from severe congestion. The station itself is a park and ride facility with a large surface parking lot and a major bus exchange. The railroad divides the retail area from the residential neighbourhoods of Harbour Village to the southwest and Meadowbrook to the southeast. The potential area which could be reached by a five minute walk contains 159 acres of land, while the potential area which could be reached by a five to ten minute walk contains 402 acres of land, for a total study area of 561 acres.    The Coquitlam station area is yet another example of poor station area pedes-trian connectivity. From the Coquitlam station, a five minute walk accesses a mere 17 acres of land, while a five to ten minute walk allows access to an ad-ditional 168 acres of land. Therefore, the actual area which is reachable in a ten minute walk is only 185 acres out of a potential 561 acres, or 33% of the potential TOD area.    The reason that a five minute walk can access only a small area, while a five to ten minute walk can access a reasonably large area is quite simple. Connec-tivity is excessively low around the station area, while it improves somewhat further away. The lack of connectivity can be attributed to a number of factors, many of them recurring from the Tukwila case study. Firstly, the railroad tracks present a barrier to movement, and are only crossable in two locations; one along Mariner Way and the other along Lougheed Highway. The Mariner Way crossing is an elevated overpass accessed by a lengthy ramp, the latter exag-gerating the walking distance across the railroad tracks. Another barrier to pe-destrian connectivity is the presence of highways, which prohibit movement across them. The Lougheed and Barnet highways are not on the same scale as the Seattle area Interstates, but their four to six lane widths, concrete medians and fencing ensure that pedestrians can only cross the street at specified points. Pedestrian movement is subsequently limited to major intersections, such as those at Pinetree and on Johnson Street.    Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.22 Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.23 COMMERCIAL CHOICE AND TYPOLOGY   The Coquitlam case study has a large number of retailers within the case study area, although this promising situation does little to contribute to Transit Ori-ented Development in the case study as much of the retail uses are ?periodic? in nature, and most are located far away from the public realm.  Commercial uses in the Coquitlam case study are almost absent from the imme-diate station area, as they are concentrated in retail areas in the five to ten min-ute walk ring. There are a total of 475 goods and service providers in the study area, and 195 (41%) of those are located within the Coquitlam Town Centre mall. Most of these are destination type uses, including shoe stores, clothing stores and department stores. However, in addition to the numerous ?periodic? retailers located within the mall, one quarter of all ?daily? retail uses are also lo-cated there. This internalization of retail activity is not in line with TOD principles as it takes activity off the street and places it within private facilities, a transition which should raise significant questions about the privatization of public space.    In addition to the mall, there are also at least six large grocery stores in the study area, with several serving as anchors for smaller retailers such as florists, coffee shops and delis. Grocery stores represent a coveted type of retail use for a Tran-sit Oriented Development, as they create a large number of trips, and therefore activity. Unfortunately, most case study residents in Coquitlam cannot walk to these uses, and instead rely on automobile trips to access food stores. This does not conform with the principles of TOD, as the large amount of parking needed for these cars creates large surface parking lots, and the high volume of automo-bile traffic takes away from the quality of the pedestrian realm..    Uses in the  5 minute    walk 'ring' (%) Uses in the 10 minute walk 'ring' (%) Total (%) Daily Uses 10 50.0% 117 25.7% 127 26.7%  Periodic Uses 10 50.0% 338 74.3% 348 73.3% Figure 4.16 Coquitlam Centre Mall?s Winter 2004 advertising campaign Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.24 Units % of Total Single Family 704 47.2%  Multi-Family 788 52.8% Duplex 8 (0.6%)  Party Wall Townhouses 153 (10.2%)  Stacked Townhouses 66 (4.4%)  Apartments 561 (37.6%) Gross Unit Densities*     5 minute walk 'ring' 10 minute walk 'ring' Total Study Area Total Units 255  Total Units 1237  Total Units 1492 Acres 159.3  Acres 402.2  Acres 561.6 UPA 1.6  UPA 3.1  UPA 2.7 Net Unit Densities*       5 minute walk 'ring' 10 minute walk 'ring' Total Study Area Total Units 255  Total Units 1237  Total Units 1492 Acres 54.4  Acres 154.5  Acres 208.93 UPA 4.7  UPA 8.0  UPA 7.1 *Gross unit densities are housing units per total acreage   Net unit densities are units per residential parcel acre Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.25 EMPLOYMENT DENSITY   There is no single large employer in the case study area. While Coquitlam Cen-tre Mall employs over 2,700 people in total, it is reasonable to assume that these employees are dispersed amongst the mall?s 200+ tenants, and that at most only half of this number may be present at the mall site at any given time.   The retail activities which dominate this case study do achieve fairly high employ-ment densities, especially when compared to the industrial uses seen in the two earlier case studies. Future Shop, with its 60 employees per acre, has particularly high numbers, which when combined with a sales force working on commission ensures that their customers always have a store associate close at hand. The grocery stores with between 10 and 15 employees per acre are also important employers, especially given the high number of grocery stores and their typically large sizes.   The lack of office uses limits the role of the Coquitlam case study as an employ-ment destination. The low employment densities in this case study are not surpris-ing, as Coquitlam has made headlines recently by changing land use policies to attract employers to their town centre, including residential density bonuses.    Employer Employees (Peak) Area (Acres) Employees per Acre Rona 45 4.46 10.09  Superstore 100 8.80 11.36  Safeway 40 3.40 11.76  Dufferin Long Term Care Facility 40 3.22 12.42  The Bay 75 5.33 14.07  Save on Foods 100 6.80 14.71  Future Shop 100 1.68 59.68 Figure 4.17 Coquitlam?s retail area is not a high-density employment centre Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.26 SECTION LOCATION Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.27 PEDESTRIAN CHOICE   Coquitlam has a mediocre level of connectivity, with 0.5 choices per acre for pedestrians. This may seem like a high number, given the small pedestrian walk-sheds, and the use of a ?superblock? model in the mall area. In fact, the connec-tivity is lowest in the area closest to the station, with the five minute walk ring hav-ing a connectivity measure of 0.4. This low level of connectivity immediately sur-rounding the station area is the main reason for the small pedestrian walksheds.  The 0.52 choices per acre in the outer ring is a mediocre level of connectivity, and is enhanced by the use of lanes within the single family areas. Lanes greatly increase the potential routes available to pedestrians, and contribute to the over-all walkability of a neighbourhood. The use of lanes is surprising in a neighbour-hood of this vintage (1960?s ? 1970?s), given the preference for cul-de-sacs and curvilinear streets. Where cul-de-sacs are employed in this case study, there is often a pedestrian connection through to adjoining streets which helps to in-crease pedestrian connectivity.    PEDESTRIAN USE   Once again, this case study exhibits a low quality pedestrian environment, with limited pedestrian connectivity. The pedestrian usage was again low, but not as low as in other case studies. Measuring at the primary intersection of Pinetree and Lougheed Highway, morning pedestrian counts exhibited no significant use, while the p.m. peak had 21 people over a ten minute period. The majority of these were shoppers from the mall accessing the bus loop, which is located across Lougheed Highway next to the rail station. It is somewhat ironic that this case study has the highest pedestrian usage numbers, despite pedestrians having to contend with zero buffering from highway traffic, excessively long signal cycles, and a low quality pedestrian environment. High use pedestrian environments should be high quality environments, a criteria not just of Transit Oriented Devel-opment but a fundamental aspect of good urban design.  5 minute walk 'ring' 10 minute walk 'ring' Total Case Study 3-way Intersections 16 48 64  4-way Intersections 4 16 20           Connectivity Measure 64 208 272  Land Area 159.34 402.23 561.57  Pedestrian Choices Per Acre 0.40 0.52 0.48  Effective Sidewalk Width (m.) People per Hour A.M. Count 1.8 12  P.M.Count 1.8 126 Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.28 Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.29 CASE STUDY 4: AUBURN  INTRODUCTION   The city of Auburn is located 35 kilometres from Seattle, and has a population of approximately 45,000 people. The city lies in a fertile valley, which provided the agricultural base from which it grew. While the city started as a farming commu-nity, it is now home to a large residential population as well as a strong industrial base. Auburn is a 34 minute train ride from Seattle, or a 30 - 40 minute drive. The Auburn station is located adjacent to the community?s historic downtown, and its mixed-use parking structure also contains a pedestrian overpass across the tracks.      Top. 4.18 Vacant indus-trial land Middle. 4.19 Downtown retail area  Bottom. 4.20 Station area  public art Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.30 Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.31 LAND USE   There are a number of land uses in the Auburn case study which contribute towards the ideals of Transit Oriented Development, including a number of commercial uses within close proximity to the station area. In fact, the Auburn case study represents the best arrangement of land uses for a Transit Oriented Development of any of the communities studied in this project due to a number of pre-existing conditions.   Auburn?s downtown area is home to a large amount of commercial activity and remains the primary retail node in the immediate area. This keeps shop-pers coming into the area, and contributes to a very active downtown core. A good example of retail activity triggering pedestrian activity is the Auburn Safe-way, a 5,100 square metre (~55,000 sq. ft.) store which generates a high number of customer trips. Thanks to good connectivity with an adjacent retail high street, many of the Safeway customers stay in the downtown area to shop at smaller retailers, visit local caf??s, or conduct business.    Industrial uses in the Auburn case study are concentrated to the north, espe-cially in the area between the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern ? Santa Fe railroad tracks. The industrial tenants range from smaller manufacturing sites to large distribution centres and include large national companies such as U.S. Gypsum. While the locational decisions of these industries are not based on TOD theory, there are many positives which come out of this situation. The interstitial space between two closely bunched transportation corridors (especially railways) is all too often a void. The Tukwila case study for example, has absolutely no development in a very similar area. In the Auburn situation, the industrial uses have achieved a location which benefits them, while the city has avoided the presence of a land use ?vacuum? in their downtown.    The main residential area in the case study is east of the retail area, and is pri-marily single family. Multi-family housing in the station area is scattered throughout, and there is no significant residential density cluster to speak of.    LAND USE MIX   The largest omissions in this case study?s land uses are residential uses. With such a large amount of commercial activity and highly walkable downtown, it is disappointing that there is no significant residential presence in the Auburn core. Not only is there a large amount of retail, the downtown environment is for the most part a high amenity environment with a good level of civic invest-ment in the public realm including planting, lighting, and a number of well maintained civic plazas. Unfortunately, with no local residential base to utilize     this environment, the investment is somewhat wasted at the end of every busi-ness day when the downtown becomes dormant.  Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.32 Uses in the 5 minute walk 'ring' (%) Uses in the 10 minute walk 'ring' (%) Total (%) Daily Uses 36 33.3% 38 24.4% 74 28.0%  Periodic Uses 72 66.7% 118 75.6% 190 72.0% Figure 4.21 Auburn?s W. Main Street Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.33 HOUSING CHOICE   There are 454 single family homes in the case study, as well as 411 multi-family dwellings, the latter being primarily apartments. Unfortunately, the multi-family product in this case study is not arranged in a TOD-complimentary fashion, but rather is in clusters located throughout the study area.   TOD principles would have multi-family housing located adjacent to commercial areas, and concentrated near the station area. By locating next to commercial uses, multi-family housing can act as a buffer between larger scale commercial buildings and single family residential areas. When located close to a transit sta-tion, it creates a large potential transit ridership base for commuter rail service. A concentration of residential density can also animate the environment with pe-destrian traffic, as opposed to dispersing multi-family housing, which subse-quently abandons this opportunity. This is what has happened in the Auburn case study, where apartment buildings are peppered throughout the study area. There are some mixed use units in the historic downtown area but little of this is new construction.   With regards to the smaller scale multi-family, 18 of the 28 duplex units are lo-cated adjacent to one another in the southeast of the case study, rather than being integrated into single family areas. This obviously reduces the locational choices of duplex residents. Single family units are primarily on small lots, with house construction dating mainly from pre-war to the 1950?s and 1960?s. Most single family residential areas are also accessible by lanes, increasing pedestrian connectivity within these areas.     HOUSING DENSITY   The overall densities for the Auburn case study are low, with a gross UPA of 1.52. This low level of density is a reflection of the high amount of non-residential land, and where there are residential uses, a large degree of single family housing. The low intensity of residential activity is confirmed by the net residential density measure, which reflects a UPA of below 10 for the entire case study. It should be remembered that the net parcel density measure employed here returns the highest density figures of any density methodology, so the 9.6 UPA number can be considered as the highest figure of density measurable in this case study.     A positive note is that densities decline further away from the commuter rail sta-tion area, a key principle of Transit Oriented Development.   Units % of Total Single Family 454 52.5%  Multi-Family 411 47.5% Duplex 28 (3.2%)  Triplex 12 (1.4%)  Townhouses 22 (2.5%)  Apartments 349 (40.3%) Gross Unit Densities*      5 minute walk 'ring' 10 minute walk 'ring' Total Study Area Total Units 308  Total Units 557  Total Units 865 Acres 164.04  Acres 404.73  Acres 568.77 UPA 1.88  UPA 1.38  UPA 1.52         Net Unit Densities*       5 minute walk 'ring' 10 minute walk 'ring' Total Study Area Total Units 308  Total Units 557  Total Units 865 Acres 25.15  Acres 64.55  Acres 89.7 UPA 12.2  UPA 8.6  UPA 9.6 *Gross unit densities are housing units per total acreage   Net unit densities are units per residential parcel acre Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.34 Employer Employees (Peak) Area (Acres) Employees per Acre Norplex Plastics 6 6.76 0.89  U.S. Gypsum 50 7.70 6.49  West Auburn    High School 33 4.77 6.92  Washington     Elementary School 50 4.34 11.52  Safeway 45 3.48 12.93  Auburn Regional Medical Center 391 7.26 53.86  Post Office 105 1.81 58.01 Figure 4.22 Auburn?s Regional Medical Center is a major employer within the case study Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.35 PEDESTRIAN QUALITY   The pedestrian quality of Auburn?s station area is extremely varied. It has high quality streetscaping in the commercial and civic areas as well as single family areas, but is in poor shape in industrial sectors and multi-family areas.   The street section location is the primary access street to the commuter rail sta-tion, and also serves as an indirect connection with the retail areas along Au-burn Way. The street is flanked on the south side by a gravel parking lot, and on the north by a restaurant. This short street of 250 metres (820 feet) termi-nates to the west with a public plaza and the clock tower of the commuter rail station building. The street makes use of on-street parking as a buffer for pe-destrians as well as pedestrian bulges at the intersection of A St. SW and 1st St. SW. The travel lanes are both ~3.5 metres (~11?6?) wide, and not terribly over-designed when compared to some of the other case studies in this pro-ject, even though this street does accommodate a high volume of bus traffic. One interesting note is that the use of concrete for many of the streets in this    case study (as opposed to the asphalt used in the other case studies) detracts from pedestrian quality through a marked increased in noise and vibrations. The north side of the street offers pedestrians shelter under fabric awnings, while the south side of the street is bordered by a gravel parking lot, containing vehicles in various states of repair.  SECTION LOCATION Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.36 5 minute walk 'ring' 10 minute walk 'ring' Total Case Study 3-way Intersections 26 49 75  4-way Intersections 28 42 70           Connectivity Measure 190 315 505  Land Area 164 404.73 568.73  Pedestrian Choices Per Acre 1.16 0.78 0.89 Figure 4.23 Auburn?s streets offer high quality public amenities, including planting, lighting, and textured pavement.   Effective Sidewalk Width (m.) People per Hour A.M. Count 1.8 0  P.M.Count 1.8 0 Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.37 AUBURN CASE STUDY - SUMMARY   Auburn?s station area is well on its way to meeting the definition of a Transit Oriented Development, and with an increased residential presence in this  community, could be amongst one of the better examples studied in this pro-ject.   Auburn currently utilizes close to half of its potential TOD area, hampered by particularly poor connectivity across State Route 18. Fortunately, there is very little residential and retail activity south of the highway, so the lack of connec-tivity across it is not as crucial as it could be. However this lack of connectivity does segregate retail and residential uses which exist in the southeast from the rest of the case study area, a common and unfortunate side-effect of freeway infrastructure.   Land uses in the Auburn case study area of an excellent mix of residential and retail uses distributed in a manner which contributes to Transit Oriented Devel-opment. Not only is much of the commercial activity pedestrian friendly, it is concentrated within a five minute walk of the station area. Also, a strong diver-sity of tenants includes both ?periodic? and ?daily? uses rather than one or the other. While many of the ?periodic? tenants are dependant upon automobile traffic, they are concentrated along a major arterial rather than in downtown pedestrian environments. Industrial uses are sandwiched between rail corridors, a location which is all to often a development void in communities. This pro-vides an employment base for this case study while not detracting from the pedestrian experience.   Housing choice in the case study remains somewhat limited, with less than 1,000 total units split between single family residential and apartments. There are less than 70 multi-family units of other typologies, which reduces the ap-peal to families and other tenants who might favour ground-oriented product over traditional apartments. The low level of housing choice is exacerbated by the low overall densities, which have a major impact on Auburn?s success as a Transit Oriented Development.  The lack of housing density is an impediment to Auburn?s station area meeting the principles of Transit Oriented Development. Gross densities for the case study are 1.5 units per acre, half that of most of the other case studies. This is caused by a lack of multi-family developments in the case study area, as well as a significant amount of underdeveloped and industrial land. In built-out residential areas, parcel level densities are much better, with a parcel density of 12 UPA in the station area dropping down to 8.6 UPA in the outer portions of the case study. The reason for the higher parcel densities, especially when there is so little multi-family development, lies in the small lot single family ar   eas which generally have lot sizes of 540 square metres (5,800 sq. ft. or 45? x 132?). The difference in gross and net UPA?s tells us that there isn't a significant  residential population in this case study, but where people are living they are willing to live in higher density environments (or at least higher density accord-ing to suburban standards).  The ability for local employers to support transit is varied. We have seen in other case studies how light industrial uses have trouble generating high enough employment densities to warrant transit. This holds true in Auburn as well where industrial tenants employ less than 10 employees per acre. However Auburn is in the enviable position of having a large, high-density employer in the Regional Medical Center. With many spin-off employers (i.e. clinics, doc-tors offices) associated with it, the hospital may play a role as an employment ?anchor? much the same way as a grocery store supports adjacent retail.    The pedestrian realm in the Auburn case study is of high quality in the key commercial areas around the station, but is left lacking in the small but impor-tant multi-family areas. Industrial areas have the same sub-standard streets as found in similar precincts in the other case studies. Streets in the station area have been improved through the use of lighting and planting as well as the use of textured materials in some commercial areas. Well-used on-street parking acts as an important buffer for pedestrians and there is a good deal of pedes-trian amenities including seating and an excellent public art program. Taking away from this encouraging example of a high quality pedestrian realm is its underutilization. Pedestrian usage in the case study remains low, especially in the station area. The park and ride aspect of the station facility does not inject any pedestrian animation into the streetscape and with a limited local residen-tial base there are not many locals on the streets after closing time.   Auburn meets many of the criteria of Transit Oriented Development, notably land use mix and arrangement, pedestrian quality, and high density employers. However, its lack of a station area residential population means that much of the city?s investment in the urban public realm is sacrificed.  Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.38 st Avenue.   CASE STUDY PAIR: MISSION AND PUYALLUP  These case studies represent peripheral communities which are on the edge of their respective metropolitan regions and have strong ties to primary industry. Figure 4.24 Mission?s Commuter Rail Station Figure 4.25 Mission?s N. Railway Ave Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.39 CASE STUDY AREA   The study area of 800 metres (1/2 mile) around the commuter rail station en-compasses a portion of the Fraser River, which was not included in the study. In Mission?s study area the first ring of 400 metres (1/4 mile) encompasses 162 acres, while the potential area which could be reached by a five to ten minute walk contains 338 acres of land, for a total study area of 500 acres.   These ?crow-fly? distances are not an indication of the actual area accessible by five and ten minute walks. The actual area accessible by a five minute walk from the Mission station is 93 acres, while a five to ten minute walk accesses an additional 209 acres, for a total pedestrian walk shed area of 302 acres. Therefore, the actual area accessible through a ten minute walk encompasses 60% of the potentially accessible area. This represents a very good TOD ?efficiency rating? compared to the other case studies.   Freeways have provided the major barrier to pedestrian mobility in other case studies. Mission however, does a good job of integrating one of its freeways    (The Lougheed Highway) into their existing street system. This is done through the use of a one way couplet in their downtown, which while encouraging fast moving traffic in the downtown, avoids the massive impacts which elevated freeways produce in urban areas. Another potential barrier to pedestrian movement is the railroad. Pedestrian accessibility across the railroad tracks in Mission is overcome at two points. Firstly at the station itself through the use of a pedestrian overpass, and secondly at Murray Street via a vehicular overpass. However, in the southwest of the case study, where industrial uses dominate the landscape, railroad infrastructure creates more barriers to pedestrian ac-cessibility, barriers which are not overcome as effectively as in the immediate station area.       Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.40 st Avenue, a one-way street running east-west which is also Mission?s historic commercial district. About one in three of these uses is local serving, including a number of caf?s and restaurants. This commercial high street has some mixed use developments including local serving offices, and a limited amount of multi-family residential. There are however no large retailers in the down-town or recently established retail. The most important retail activity for down-town Mission is not on 1st Avenue, but rather 1.5 kilometres (1 mile) to the west at the Junction Centre, a 23,000+ square metre (250,000+ square feet) facil-ity, euphemistically labeled an ?unenclosed shopping centre? by its owner Rio-Can REIT. This strip mall development and adjacent satellite projects have greatly reduced the importance of 1st Avenue and other existing retail areas. The residential area of Mission begins one block north of 1st Avenue, and con-tinues north throughout the case study. Multi-family uses are located in the 1st Avenue area, as well as in the southeast of the study area. These two multi-family areas are mainly apartment buildings and townhouses, as well as a few senior?s facilities. The multi-family developments scattered throughout the sin-gle family areas are mainly in the form of duplexes and triplexes.   LAND USE MIX   The mix of multi-family development and commercial activity in the 1st Avenue area is very much in keeping with TOD principles. Not only do these develop-ments bring more people to the downtown area and keep it an active and vi-brant area, they also create a buffer between single family housing and busy commercial areas. Unfortunately the large multi-family component to the southeast is somewhat separated from the retail core, and would be better sited closer to the downtown core. With the 1st Avenue commercial core under continued assault from peripheral retail developments, any additional popula-   tion in the downtown core is desirable.   The industrial base of Mission is an important employment base for the com-munity, as well as a source of employment and tax revenue for the city. The separation of industrial and residential uses is accomplished by the railroad, which isolates many of the negative externalities associated with industrial uses such as truck traffic and noise. Mission does a good job of keeping industrial uses out of retail areas, while ensuring that retail uses are present in industrial areas. The latter is important, as it ensures that industrial employees have ac-cess to local serving retail such as restaurants, while also encouraging indus-trial-oriented retail. Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.41 COMMERCIAL CHOICE AND TYPOLOGY   Commercial uses in the Mission station area comply with the principle that there should be a concentration of commercial uses within a five minute walk of the station area. Eight out of ten commercial uses in the Mission case study are lo-cated within the afore mentioned five minute walk, with the remaining commer-cial activity found primarily in the waterfront area, catering to marine and indus-trial customers. While this distribution of commercial activity appears to be very encouraging for Transit Oriented Development, it is recent retail projects located outside of the case study, particularly at ?The Junction? shopping centre, which have the most importance for Transit Oriented Development in Mission.   While the downtown Mission houses most of the case study?s retail, it is not a high quality retail environment. There are few new retail businesses, no large anchor stores, and a high number of vacancies. While the decline in Mission?s downtown commercial core is due to a number of factors, competition from pe-ripheral retail centres is undoubtedly a key. At 23,000+ square metres (250,000+ square feet), ?The Junction? shopping centre represents at least the equivalent of half of downtown Mission?s total retail space. Add to this a ~9,300 square metre (~100,000 square feet) Canadian Superstore further west, and its easy to see people aren?t shopping in downtown Mission anymore. As more and more retailers locate in peripheral Mission, the prospect for adhering to TOD principles in downtown Mission gets smaller and smaller. Any one of the several anchor stores in these peripheral developments could have provided a crucial influx of shoppers to the downtown core. Instead, peripheral developments, both residential and retail, are slowly transforming Mission?s historic downtown into a vacuum.     Uses in the 5 minute walk 'ring' (%) Uses in the 10 minute walk 'ring' (%) Total (%) Daily Uses 39 29.3% 7 25.9% 46 28.8%  Periodic Uses 94 70.7% 20 74.1% 114 71.3% Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.42 Units % of Total  Single Family 627 51.56%   Multi-Family 589 48.44%  Duplex 50 (4.1%)   Quadplex 8 (0.7%)   Townhouses 28 (2.3%)   Apartments 503 (41.4%)  Gross Unit Densities*      5 minute walk 'ring' 10 minute walk 'ring' Total Study Area Total Units 305  Total Units 911  Total Units 1216 Acres 162.3  Acres 337.4  Acres 499.7 UPA 1.9  UPA 2.7  UPA 2.4 Net Unit Densities*       5 minute walk 'ring' 10 minute walk 'ring' Total Study Area Total Units 305  Total Units 911  Total Units 1216 Acres 24.37  Acres 109.57  Acres 133.94 UPA 12.5  UPA 8.3  UPA 9.1 *Gross unit densities are housing units per total acreage   Net unit densities are units per residential parcel acre Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.43 EMPLOYMENT DENSITY   Mission is an unlikely candidate as an employment centre TOD, as overall em-ployment densities are currently low and not likely to increase in the future. The largest employer in the Mission case study is the Clarke Group Sawmill which has approximately 175 people on-site at peak period. However, this heavy in-dustrial use has a low employment density of 8.3 people per acre because of its large site size. The Meeker log sorting operation has an even lower employment density due to a large site size coupled with a non-labour intensive operation.   The light industrial uses in the case study tend to have higher employment densi-ties than heavy industry, but still employ very few people per acre. VIP Soaps, a detergent manufacturer, employs a mere 3.2 people per acre. Civic and institu-tional employers such as Mission Central Elementary and the Leisure Centre em-ploy between 1 and 5 people per acre, which is again not very high. Department store retailers such as Fields and Liquidation World have moderate employment densities, but their low number of total employees make them unimportant as employment generators. At the other end of the spectrum, the Bellevue Hotel represents a relatively dense employer, with 69 employees per acre. While this number is a statistical outlier, it is credible given the Hotel?s multiple activities, including a restaurant, liquor store, and the roughest bar this side of Whonnock.    The employment densities in Mission are quite low, and with a lack of large of-fice employers or other high density employers, this seems unlikely to change. While there may be potential for more jobs in Mission?s industrial area, they would not likely be at employment densities which could support transit service. Employer Employees (Peak) Area (Acres) Employees per Acre Meeker Log Sort 8 43.54 0.2  Leisure Centre 14 11.74 1.2  VIP Soaps 35 11.00 3.2  Mission Central Elementary 34 7.54 4.5  Liquidation World 10 1.45 6.9  Clarke Group  Sawmill 175 21.09 8.3  Fields Department Store 4 0.25 16.0  Tim Hortons 8 0.45 17.8  Bellevue Hotel 20 0.29 69.0 Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.44 st Avenue. The station area pedestrian environment is somewhat diminished by the fast-moving traffic on N. Railway Avenue which runs parallel to the station.   The street section is along Welton Street, a street connecting the 1st Avenue retail area and the Commuter Rail station. While Welton Street is a minor street in Mission?s downtown, it is still a good example of the numerous streets (Horne St., James St., Grant St.) which connect residential and commercial areas with the commuter rail station. Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of these streets are their massive overdesign. While the street does see bus traffic, 25 foot travel lanes are wide enough to accommodate three busses, not just one. Overly wide street widths are also present on N. Railway Avenue, which contribute to higher vehicle travel speeds, as does the single-loaded nature of    N. Railway. This overdesign is exaggerated by the low overall pedestrian usage of the downtown which creates the perception that the streets are bigger than they really are. Shelter for pedestrians is limited, with the occasional awning, while buffering from passing traffic is quite good due to the angle parking, which provides a 3.8 metre (12 foot) separation between pedestrians and passing vehicles.  SECTION LOCATION Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.45 PEDESTRIAN CHOICE   Pedestrians in the Mission case study had 0.83 choices per acre, with pedestrian choice slightly higher in the five minute walk ?ring?. This number is amongst the highest of all the case studies examined, but is still very low for a Transit Oriented Development. The comparatively high measure of pedestrian choice is due mainly to the fine grained street network in the commercial and residential areas which contain small blocks, and a high number of intersections. Another factor which increases pedestrian choice in the Mission case study is the inconsistent use of lanes and alleys. Where they are present, they offer pedestrians an in-creased number of options when walking.     PEDESTRIAN USE   With a moderate quality pedestrian environment and relatively low density resi-dential component, pedestrian usage may be expected to be low. It is low in ab-solute numbers, although when compared to the other case studies it is among the best. The pedestrian use sample was taken at the same location as the street section along Welton Street. While the pedestrians in the morning are exclusively commuter rail users, most of the afternoon pedestrians are retail users including a large number of children accessing a martial arts school on N. Railway Ave-nue. Very few of the commuter rail users walk up Welton to the retail area on 1st Avenue. What is interesting is that Welton Street turns into an informal kiss-and-ride parking lot prior to the train?s arrival, as does N. Railway Avenue. Coupled with the fast moving traffic on N. Railway, this creates a dangerous situation, with pedestrians running across the busy N. Railway to get picked up.       5 minute walk 'ring' 10 minute  walk 'ring' Total Case Study 3-way Intersections 17 46 63  4-way Intersections 22 34 56           Connectivity Measure 139 274 413  Land Area 162.28 337.38 499.66  Pedestrian Choices Per Acre 0.86 0.81 0.83  Effective Sidewalk Width (m.) People per Hour A.M. Count 2.13 12  P.M.Count 2.13 126 Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.46 st Avenue by pedestrians and on-street parking. On. N Railway Avenue however, which the rail station fronts onto, wide lane widths and a single-loaded street-wall contribute to excessively fast vehicle speeds.      The Mission case study?s ability to function as a Transit Oriented Development is largely limited by peripheral developments which are removing residents and shoppers from the station area, which is also Mission?s historic downtown. While there may exist alternative retail opportunities for 1st Avenue, its future as Mission?s primary daily shopping centre looks poor. The outflow of retailers and people to alternative locations places Mission?s path to becoming a Tran-sit Oriented Development in reverse. Looking at its case study partner of Puyal-lup, one can see both similarities and differences in how exurban communities have used transit integration as a method with which to deal with rapid growth.  Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.47 CASE STUDY 6: PUYALLUP  INTRODUCTION   The city of Puyallup was founded as an agricultural centre and still retains its ag-ricultural identity to the present day. Located near the south end of Puget Sound, the community is well known for its annual state fair which draws thousands of visitors to the state fairgrounds, located just past the southern edge of the case study area. Puyallup?s current 36,000 residents are more likely to be commuters rather than farmers however, and the city?s large household size reflects its ap-peal to families.   Puyallup?s commuter rail station is located close to the primary downtown inter-section of Meridian St. and Main St., the former being Puyallup?s primary com-mercial high street. Meridian St. is a partner with 3rd Street SE in a one-way cou-plet road system which runs through the downtown core, with more auto-oriented commercial activity located along 3rd Street SW, and a more walkable environ-ment on Meridian Street.   Top to Bottom 4.26 Main St. W in station area   4.27 Puyallup commuter rail station 4.28 Downtown retail district / Meridian St.  Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.48 Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.49 LAND USE   The land uses in Puyallup are focused on the primary arterials, specifically Me-ridian Street which serves as a structural spine for the community. Commercial uses congregate around Meridian Street, while multi-family and single family residential uses are concentrated in surrounding neighbourhoods.   Retail and commercial uses in the Puyallup case study are focused along Me-ridian Street, and continue to the north along State Route 167, which leads to Tacoma. Retail activity along Meridian Street is dominated by small storefronts (including many ?daily? type retailers) many of which are in historic buildings, while the retail uses along State Route 167 are dominated by car dealers and other auto-oriented tenants. While Meridian Street is a busy vehicle thorough-fare, on-street parking and pedestrian amenities ensure that it is still a pleasant pedestrian environment in line with TOD principles. This quality does not ex-tend to the more auto-oriented areas, where large building setbacks and ex-posed sidewalks create unpleasant pedestrian situations. The multi-family areas of the case study are located throughout the case study, with a number of du-plex, triplex and fourplex units integrated into single family neighbourhoods. The triplexes and fourplexes are often located on street corners, distributing their building mass along two axes. Apartment uses have no particular geo-graphic concentration, although most are within 400 metres (1/4 mile) of the commercial activity along Meridian Street. While not strictly in line with TOD principles, this distribution of housing density minimizes reliance on the auto-mobile for everyday retail trips. Civic uses within the case study are not located along high value arterials, but are found either just off of the commercial strip. These civic uses include a library, schools, a stadium, and a police station. The Puyallup case study?s industrial base is very small, with a concentration located along the railway corridor along Main Street. The industrial uses do not extend on to Meridian Street, as they are buffered by a single commercial building which fronts onto the high street.    LAND USE MIX   The mix of land uses within the Puyallup case study contributes positively to-wards meeting the principles of Transit Oriented Development. Of particular note is the integration of residential and commercial uses. The grid street net-work allows for a gradient of uses between the primary commercial street and single family residential neighbourhoods, by using civic and multi-family devel-opments as a buffer. Multi-family units are integrated very effectively into single family neighbourhoods, primarily through the use of effective scale. The mix of duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes means an increased amount of housing choice for tenants, within a housing type that is more appropriate for the local neighbourhood than an apartment block.  Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.50   TOD principles encourage commercial uses to be concentrated close to the sta-tion area, especially those which are local serving. Commercial uses in the Puy-allup case study comply with the first part of this principle, as approximately 6 out of 10 retailers are located within a five minute walk of the station. There are a total of 257 independent goods and service providers in the study area, primarily located along the Meridian Street corridor. However when the type of retail is examined more closely, we see that the majority of commercial tenants are low-frequency uses which contribute less to Transit Oriented Development than more high-frequency tenants.    The majority of the retail in the Puyallup case study is of the ?periodic? type, which generates a low frequency of trips. Some examples of these retailers in this case study include car dealers and auto repair facilities. Only one in five commercial uses in the case study are high frequency uses. ?Daily? uses within the case study include a Safeway grocery store, banks, and several convenience stores. One interesting aspect of Meridian Street?s retail is the wealth of antique type stores, which most likely have a sub-regional customer base. When coupled with the downtown?s historic appearance, it could be suggested that the retail nature of Meridian Street is becoming a caricature of itself, attracting people to buy an-tique goods in an authentically antique environment rather than using Meridian Street as a functioning ?daily? retail node.   The total number of uses in the Puyallup case study is higher than that of its counterpart Mission, which may reflect the more positive nature of Puyallup?s retail core. However, Puyallup is in a similar situation as Mission having recently seen a large amount of large format retail locate outside the downtown core. While this has not affected Puyallup?s downtown to the same extent as its case study partner, it is not an encouraging sign for Meridian Street retailers.  Puyallup?s Meridian Street   Uses in the 5 minute walk 'ring' (%) Uses in the 10 minute walk 'ring' (%) Total (%) Daily Uses 32 21.9% 24 21.6% 56 21.8%  Periodic Uses 114 78.1% 87 78.4% 201 78.2% Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.51 HOUSING CHOICE   Housing in the Puyallup case study offers a fairly good level of choice, with one out of three housing units in the multi-family category while the remaining units are single family (detached) homes.   Within the multi-family sector there is a decent mix of unit types, thanks largely to the use of smaller multi-family housing types within the single family areas such as duplexes and triplexes. Not only does this smaller product type appeal to families in this case study, ground-oriented product such the triplexes are also attractive housing options for seniors. With many of these units assuming a ?rancher? housing style, they offer a high degree of mobility within the unit as well as a small yard. Integrating these units into single family areas ensures that there are no senior?s ?ghettoes? created, an all too common practice in suburban com-munities.   The outlook for housing choice in the case study area remains uncertain. There is a limited amount of new development within the study area, especially close to Meridian Street. New multi-family projects are located northeast of the case study, as well as south of the case study area along Meridian Street. These pro-jects are significantly removed from the downtown core, and are outside a ten minute walk from both the station and retail areas.    HOUSING DENSITY   Overall gross densities for the study area remain low, with an average of 2.6 gross units per acre (UPA) in the entire study area. This low number can be attrib-utable to the fact that single family units are the dominant housing typology, cou-pled with a large land base dedicated solely to commercial activities. Looking at the net parcel density figures confirms this. The net densities tell us that even when we look solely at residential parcels, we see that they are developed at lower densities, reflecting the dominance of single family housing types. A posi-tive note is that the net densities decline away from the commuter rail station area, due to the presence of apartment uses near the commercial core.      Units % of Total Single Family 1062 67.47%  Multi-Family 512 32.53% Duplex 84 (5.3%)  Triplex + Fourplex 47 (3.0%)  Townhouses 96 (6.1%)  Apartments 285 (18.1%) Gross Unit Densities*     5 minute walk 'ring' 10 minute walk 'ring' Total Study Area Total Units 386  Total Units 1188  Total Units 1574 Acres 185.0  Acres 419.0  Acres 604.0 UPA 2.09  UPA 2.84  UPA 2.61         Net Unit Densities*      5 minute walk 'ring' 10 minute walk 'ring' Total Study Area Total Units 386  Total Units 1188  Total Units 1574 Acres 51.7  Acres 188.9  Acres 240.7 UPA 7.5  UPA 6.3  UPA 6.5 *Gross unit densities are housing units per total acreage   Net unit densities are units per residential parcel acre Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.52 Employer Employees (Peak) Area (Acres) Employees per Acre Public Library 12 3.06 3.92  Kalles Junior High 80 15.73 5.09  Vancouver Door 30 3.12 9.62  Puyallup KIA 25 2.12 11.79  Puyallup Senior High 140 10.02 13.97  Safeway 30 1.88 15.96  Police Station 40 0.59 67.80 Puyallup?s police department is a major employer down-town, and has one of the younger forces in the state. Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.53 PEDESTRIAN QUALITY   The pedestrian environment of the Puyallup station area consists primarily of well maintained commercial streets, which create pleasant pedestrian experi-ences throughout. It has a consistent nature throughout the downtown, pro-vides good separation from vehicle traffic, while buildings frame the street-scape in a consistent and well thought out manner.  The street section location is on W. Stewart Avenue, which the station is ac-cessed from, less than one block from the commercial hub of Meridian Street. It is a good example of commercial streets in the station area. There are side-walks on both sides of the street, both of which are separated from traffic flow by street trees and on-street parking. This combination of vegetation and park-ing is well maintained, and when combined with a strong fa?ade creates a very comfortable walking experience. On the south side of the street, the sidewalk is bordered by a chain link fence separating the pedestrian from a parking lot.    The travel lanes are both 4 metres (13 feet) wide, which more than accommo-date station area bus traffic, but not overdesigned to the degree found in the other case studies. The on-street parking is limited to customers of local stores, rather than commuter rail users who park in a separate lot. This reduces the potential for conflict with local businesses, many of whom are concerned about losing parking to transit users.  SECTION LOCATION Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.54 5 minute walk 'ring' 10 minute walk 'ring' Total Case Study 3-way Intersections 71 102 173  4-way Intersections 44 58 102           Connectivity Measure 389 538 927  Land Area 185.01 419.02 604.03  Pedestrian Choices Per Acre 2.10 1.28 1.53  Effective Sidewalk Width (m.) People per Hour A.M. Count 4.4 0  P.M.Count 4.4 6 Chapter 4: Analysis Page 4.55 PUYALLUP CASE STUDY - SUMMARY   Puyallup?s station area has nearly all of the attributes expected of a Transit Ori-ented Development, with a good quality pedestrian environment, effective mix of land uses, and a large residential component within a ten minute walk of the commuter rail station.    Puyallup utilizes nearly 80% of its potential TOD area, which may be as close as is physically possible in a gridded street network. The breadth of this con-nectivity is largely due to the lack of freeway infrastructure in the downtown, coupled with good connectivity across the railroad tracks in the case study area. Where blocks become bigger, such as in the north of the case study around the car dealerships, the walkable area becomes reduced.    Land uses in the Puyallup case study represent an excellent mix of residential and commercial uses, distributed in a manner which contributes to Transit Ori-ented Development. A large portion of the retail activity is located along the Meridian Street corridor, a highly walkable street which is easily accessed from adjoining residential neighbourhoods. A good diversity of tenants includes both ?periodic? and ?daily? uses, although the ?periodic? uses do account for almost three out of four commercial tenants. The ?periodic? tenants which are present are more likely to be reliant on vehicle traffic, and as such they are concen-trated on more automobile-friendly streets rather than in the highly walkable downtown area. The industrial uses which are present in the case study are shielded from the downtown retail area, mitigating the negative effects associ-ated with industrial uses within retail environments (as seen in Port Moody).   Housing choice in the case study remains promising, with over 1,600 total units divide between single family units and several different multi-family ty-pologies, the latter accounting for two out of every three housing units. The multi-family units consist of a variety of typologies, including good variety within the ground-oriented realm such as duplexes and triplexes. In fact, over half of the multi-family units are non-apartment housing types, which increases appeal to families and seniors who might favour ground-oriented product over traditional apartments.   Housing density in the Puyallup case study is in generally good shape com-pared to the other case studies. Gross densities for the case study are 2.6 units per acre, the highest of all the case studies. This is due to a small parcel size within the single family areas as well as a relatively high number of multi-family housing units. Another contributing factor to high housing densities is the lack of non-residential land uses within the case study, which drives the gross den-sity measures up. Comparing the gross densities with the net densities we see that residential units are of a higher density closer to the station area, in    accordance with TOD principles. Overall net densities of 6.5 UPA illustrate the predominance of smaller lot single family development, which average around 6.6 UPA in net density.    The ability for local employers to support transit is not good. The employment base in Puyallup is concentrated in small retailers, which do not have employ-ment densities supportable by transit. There is also no industrial base, a land use which acts as an employment generator in other case studies. Office uses are local serving, such as law offices, accountants, etc? Again, these uses do not generate large employment densities. Unlike in other case studies there is not a large institutional or public sector use to generate employment, although the 140 employees of Puyallup Senior High School are arguably an exception. However, there are no other employers as large as the High School, and the outlook for a large regional employment centre locating within this highly de-veloped urban centre seems unlikely.   The pedestrian realm in the Puyallup case study is of high quality in station area, particularly in the commercial areas, but its underutilization by commuter rail traffic is a troubling problem which comes up yet again. Streets in the sta-tion area provide good protection for pedestrians from heavy vehicle and bus traffic. This is achieved primarily through the use of street trees and on-street parking. A high number of crosswalks and other pedestrian amenities turn the busy Meridian Street into a pleasant downtown high street, although this peters out towards the north end of this street. The park and ride aspect of the station facility detracts from the pedestrian environment by injecting very few pedestri-ans into the streetscape, while at the same time acting as a large generator for vehicle traffic.   Puyallup is a good example of a well-established community doing a good job of accommodating commuter rail according to many of the criterion of Transit Oriented Development. Of particular note is its excellent station area pedes-trian environment and mix of land uses within close proximity to the station. Puyallup has a promising future as a Transit Oriented Development, as long as it can keep property investment concentrated in its downtown core.   Chapter 5: Lessons and Recommendations Page 5.1 CHAPTER 5: LESSONS  AND RECOMMENDATIONS   The case study analysis has produced a number of issues for consideration. Some of these issues are specific to a single case study pairing, while others ex-tend across all case studies. Distilling a list of recommendations from these les-sons will help serve as a guide for future commuter rail projects, particularly those looking to maximize the potential benefits for station areas in suburban communities. The recommendations are listed in the same order as is used in the case study analysis.   This will start with looking at TOD potential in these case studies, and how future communities might take the fullest advantage of a station area?s potential when selecting station sites. The next aspect of Transit Oriented is land use and land use mix. Many of the station areas had land use mixes which appeared to help contribute to Transit Oriented Development, but in fact were not as positive as first thought. Recommendations for this section might entail how to identify neighbourhoods which can contribute to achieving, rather than detract from Transit Oriented Development. Commercial choice and type are measurable aspects of Transit Oriented Development which have been constant across all case studies. While the measured ratios between ?daily? and ?periodic? commer-cial uses are not as high as TOD principles would dictate, there are a limited range of options available to change this situation. With respect to housing choice and density, there are a number of lessons from the case studies. This ranges from the relevance of having no housing in a station area (Tukwila) to having restricted housing choice in a station area (Port Moody). The examination of employment densities in this report offers some clues toward how a transit ori-ented employment centre might best be identified and capitalized on. Finally, a look at the joint issues of pedestrian quality and choice, and how all the vari-ables studied can influence pedestrian usage. Chapter 5: Lessons and Recommendations Page 5.2 th and 6th out of all 6 case studies. The suburban residential communities had a range of 33% in Coquitlam to 53% in Auburn, while the exurban communities of Mis-sion and Puyallup scored the highest, realizing between 60% and 78% of their TOD potential. The ability of these communities to realize their TOD potential was largely a function of how they dealt with barriers in the community (i.e. freeways and railways), and how they designed their street system. Communi-ties which exhibited a high degree of pedestrian choice in their street networks were the same communities which took best advantage of their TOD areas, subsequently creating large pedestrian walk sheds. Some communities, such as Auburn, had a relatively high amount of pedestrian choice in their street sys-tem, but the street network was bisected by freeways which lowered the TOD potential measure.     The recommendation is to remove or modify barriers to transportation in order  to better facilitate pedestrian circulation. Many of the barriers mentioned, such as railways and freeways, can be treated through micro-improvements and / or macro-improvements.  Micro-improvements are those localized design measures which would improve pedestrian circulation. These might take the form of pedestrian overpasses, or small stiles to allow people to cross a raised railroad bed, or installing signal-ized pedestrian crosswalks across busy streets. These need not be massive capital investments, as illustrated by Figure 5.1, a wooden stile over the Arbu-tus rail corridor in Vancouver.  Macro level improvements would address structural change in the pedestrian network, specifically across major barriers. Some examples might be a strategic plan for the redevelopment of the street network in the station area, something which might take 30 years. Another example of a macro level alteration could be the eventual elimination of freeway infrastructure from suburban city cen-tres. Again this is a long term goal which would contribute to improving pedes-trian connectivity in station areas.                     Figure 5.1 A wooden stile over the Arbutus  railroad corridor in Vancouver, B.C. Chapter 5: Lessons and Recommendations Page 5.3 Recommendation 2: Station alignment decisions should take into account the level of street network connectivity around potential station sites.  The positive effects which stations can have on their surrounding environments can only occur if stations are connected with those environments. The compari-son of TOD potential and pedestrian choice (Figure 5.2) illustrates the impor-tance of having a well connected street network in the station area. When ex-amining alignment and siting options of future stations, it would be advisable to take advantage of areas where there is either an existing fine-grained street network, or the potential for such a network to be constructed.  This would require potential station area assessments to look at localized pe-destrian circulation networks, with the goal of capitalizing on existing well con-nected networks. Potential station areas which have been built-out using a dis-connected street network are probably the most difficult to change or adapt, and are therefore unappealing as station locations. Underdeveloped station areas which have large amounts of vacant or easily redeveloped land (i.e. parking lots), may represent the best ?opportunity? locations for retrofitting exist-ing station areas, should they require an increased level of pedestrian connec-tivity.     LAND USE   Primary Findings:  a. Station area land uses all contained the necessary land use components of TOD, except in Tukwila which lacked a residential component; b. Surface parking and other uses which create large building setbacks re-strict the integration and mixing of land uses; c. Linear retail zones are extremely effective at maximizing residential integra-tion with retail areas; d. Employment generating uses are underrepresented in all case studies, save for Tukwila.  RECOMMENDATIONS:  3. Stations should continue to locate within mixed-use areas which contain residences, workplaces and shopping opportunities;   4. Managing parking is crucial. Large surface parking lots create poor pedes-trian environments and reduce the accessibility and visibility of retailers; 5. Extending retail along linear axes maximizes its integration with surround-ing residential uses, and should be encouraged. Recommendation 3: Stations should continue to locate within mixed-use areas which contain residences, workplaces and shopping opportunities.   All the stations in these case studies, except for Tukwila, were situated within mixed-use neighbourhoods which were comprised of residential uses, work-places, and retailers. The presence of these basic land uses is essential to meeting the requirements of Transit Oriented Development. Whenever possi-ble, future station locations should look for potential sites which have these land uses in substantial quantities within a walkable ten-minute distance.   This is an especially poignant recommendation for commuter rail, as it often operates on right-of-ways which service industrial areas, making industrial area stations an easy and inexpensive option for transit service providers. This should be avoided, as we have seen that most industrial areas lack many of the attributes which make for an active station area, including significant em-ployment centres.          Pedestrian Choice per Acre vs. Actual TOD area0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%TCPyAuMiPCommunityTO00.20.40.60.811.21.41.61.8PTOD Quotient Ped. ChoicesPer AcreTOD AreaRealized (%) Ped. ChoicesPer AcreFigure 5.2 Pedestrian Choice per Acre vs. Actual TOD area Chapter 5: Lessons and Recommendations Page 5.4 Figure 5.3 Auburn Station?s Parkade Figure 5.4 Coquitlam?s Surface Parking Figure 5.6 Equal sized areas of retail land use have vastly different levels of interaction with their surrounding neighbourhoods. The Puyallup retail street on the bottom has twice the linear circumference of the Coquitlam mall on the top, and therefore twice the level of interaction. Figure 5.5 A Kiss-and-Ride Chapter 5: Lessons and Recommendations Page 5.5 COMMERCIAL CHOICE AND TYPOLOGY   Primary Findings:  a. Commercial choice was constant across all case studies, with between 20% to 30% of activity of the ?daily? type, and the remainder of a more infrequent nature.  RECOMMENDATION:  6. A greater proportion of ?daily? retail uses should be encouraged by in-creasing local residential and employment densities (i.e. the drivers behind those ?daily? services).  The measure of commercial choice was one category which produced near homogenous results across all case studies. As a percentage of all goods and services, ?daily? uses made up between 20% to 30% of the total, with a low of 22% in Puyallup and a high of 29% in Mission. This constant result was doubly impressive given the diversity in retail form seen across the case studies.  The concentration of ?daily? type uses advocated by TOD principles reflects the desire to create vibrant commercial centres which attract people to visit on a frequent basis. Retail uses which are ?periodic? in nature generally won?t gener-ate as many trips, and therefore won?t generate the vibrancy associated with ?daily? uses. Because retail quantity and type are directly linked to population, the low concentration of ?daily? uses within all of the case studies can largely be viewed as a function of low residential densities. A larger population base would create an impetus for additional retail uses, especially ?daily? retail.   The recommendation here is to encourage the driving factors which create and support retail activity, as opposed to forcing high-frequency retail uses into station areas. While there are a number of proactive solutions that could be taken to confront this problem (i.e. stricter zoning controls on land which en-courage high frequency land uses), these are politically unpalatable and likely to send a negative message to the development community. Encouraging the creation of a local population base will drive the demand for more retail activ-ity, particularly local-serving retail such as grocery stores and coffee shops, which also tend to be high-frequency uses.        HOUSING CHOICE AND DENSITY  Primary Findings:  a. Residential densities are low in all case studies, well below the prescribed minimums of TOD definitions; b. Housing choice is limited within these case studies, and is dominated by single family housing stock.  RECOMMENDATIONS:  7. Proactive upzoning of residential parcels around stations is a simple ap-proach to densification which can result in redevelopment of lower density neighbourhoods, and subsequently increased property values for existing residents;   8. Housing choice may be increased through a flexible approach towards zoning (such as comprehensive zoning areas) as well as encouraging ad-aptation and densification of existing dwellings.                         Figure 5.7 This quad-plex is an unassuming approach to suburban densification  Chapter 5: Lessons and Recommendations Page 5.6 Chapter 5: Lessons and Recommendations Page 5.7 EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYMENT DENSITY   Primary Findings:  a. All case studies lacked significant employment bases, with only one (Tukwila) having a strong outlook as an employment base.  RECOMMENDATION:  9. Incentive based programs and policies should be implemented in order to attract employment generating uses to station areas.  All the case studies lack significant employment bases, and with the exception of Tukwila, have no strong prospects for attracting large employers to the sta-tion areas. Most employment in the case studies is found in the retail sector or in light industrial operations, neither of which produce large employment den-sities.  The opportunity for creating additional employment bases is exacerbated by larger scale regional trends towards the exuburbanization of the office market, especially in the field of low-cost suburban business parks, which tend to locate on the periphery of suburban cities. Office uses are important because they represent high density employment nodes. Suburban business parks are cru-cial, because they are usually located in industrial areas rather than suburban downtowns, and remove employment uses from both the CBD and suburban town centres. Tukwila may actually be in a position to capitalize on this trend. As a suburban community with a large stock of inexpensive industrial land, it is an attractive market for office tenants looking to relocate out of the CBD and into the suburbs. While this type of move usually is a headache for transit pro-viders (a more dispersed employment base is harder to serve with transit), the Tukwila case study has the unique attribute of a fixed transit system. The litera-ture on Transit Oriented Development has often pointed to the necessary syn-ergy between a conducive market and the policy environment for creating Transit Oriented Development, and should not be ignored in this study area.  For the other suburban centres, attracting employment uses such as regional offices, is a harder task. These station areas should focus on creating land use regulations which create barriers to peripheral office development, while offer-ing incentive schemes to locate in town centre areas. Incentive based programs could take the form of FSR exemptions for employment creating uses, or bo-nuses for developers who attract employment generating uses. Coquitlam, a case study which has almost all of its employment uses concentrated in retail activity, has already taken such an approach by rewarding developers with residential density bonuses if they can attract employment generating tenants to      their town centre. While it is too early to tell if Coquitlam?s approach will be successful, it is encouraging that local governments are recognizing the need to be proactive in creating market conditions as opposed to responding to market forces.                     Figure 5.8 Incentive based ap-proaches to attracting employers are preferable  to regulating  Chapter 5: Lessons and Recommendations Page 5.8  Primary Findings:  a. Stations located adjacent to pedestrian oriented retail areas have the high-est quality streetscapes; b. Stations located within auto-oriented commercial areas or industrial areas have low quality pedestrian environments.  RECOMMENDATION:  10. Locating stations next to existing pedestrian oriented areas creates a situa-tion where local businesses act as stewards of the pedestrian environment, ensuring there is a high level of pedestrian quality.  The three aspects of pedestrian realm quality, choice and use are key to meet-ing TOD principles of pedestrianism. A high quality pedestrian realm increases the likelihood that pedestrians will feel comfortable in this environment. A large degree of pedestrian choice means that people will be able to access to the transit node, as well as other key uses within their community, in an easy and efficient manner. A large amount of pedestrian usage animates the streetscape and creates many positive side effects.   The station areas which exhibited the highest quality pedestrian areas were those adjacent to retail and commercial districts. Puyallup, Mission and Auburn all had good quality pedestrian environments, which were probably more re-lated to the presence of local businesses rather than the station itself. Where local business are reliant on street exposure, as well as walk-by traffic, they are more likely to have a keen interest in maintaining the quality of the street envi-ronment, specifically the pedestrian realm.  An anomaly in this is the Coquitlam case study. With the largest amount of commercial and retail activity of any case study within walking distance of the station area it might be expected that Coquitlam would exhibit one of the high-est quality pedestrian environments. This is not the case however due to the form the retail assumes. The mall environment places emphasis on the quality of indoor spaces, while its outdoor realm is focused on efficient parking sys-tems for vehicles. This creates a low quality pedestrian realm which is ironically, the most used of any case study.  In station areas which are adjacent to, or surrounded by business and com-mercial activity which are less reliant on pedestrians, the quality of the street-scape deteriorates. The best examples of this are in Tukwila and Port Moody. In Tukwila, the hotel uses which surround the station area have no reason to    be concerned about the condition of local sidewalks. Their guests are unlikely to walk to the hotel, and once there guests have nothing to walk to. Port Moody?s station, with its good proximity to the retail corridor along St. John?s Street, should have a high quality pedestrian realm. However, since most of the retail activity in the station area is auto-related, there is little impetus to up-grade the street environment. Port Moody?s pedestrian realm ends up assuming many of the characteristics of an industrial area, rather than a commercial node.                              Figure 5.9 High quality street-scapes such as this one in Au-burn are thanks in part to the presence of local businesses who desire a high quality environment for their customers. Chapter 5: Lessons and Recommendations Page 5.9 THE PEDESTRIAN REALM; CHOICE Primary Findings:  1. Pedestrian networks are difficult to retrofit in built-out communities; 2. Stations which have been located adjacent to ?traditional? town centres exhibit the highest degree of pedestrian choice; 3. Underdeveloped station areas represent an excellent opportunity for creat-ing a street network with a high degree of pedestrian choice.  RECOMMENDATION:  11. Station alignment decisions should take into account the level of street network connectivity around potential station sites (Same as Recommenda-tion 2).  Providing pedestrians with options during their trip increases the convenience and the appeal of walking as a mode choice. The level of pedestrian connec-tivity is largely a function of street network design, which is often related to the age of the community. Communities constructed during periods when the automobile was less important for travel (i.e. pre-war) tend to have higher de-grees of pedestrian connectivity than those constructed in more recent years. This holds true within the case study communities.  The station areas of Auburn, Puyallup and Mission are all adjacent to the origi-nal townsites of these communities, which used fine-grained street patterns and which had a high degree of pedestrian connectivity. Port Moody is one of the older case studies as well, however its attempt to rationalize its at-grade rail-road crossings through a single overpass has greatly reduced pedestrian con-nectivity, particularly to the waterfront. This is the primary reason why Port Moody?s pedestrian connectivity is below that of Auburn, Puyallup and Mission.  The Coquitlam station area is a much younger area, developed primarily in the 1970?s and 1980?s. The station area has a very low level of pedestrian choice, reflecting its regional shopping role, and subsequent need to accommodate vehicles through surface parking lots. Its level of connectivity would be much lower were it not for the use of alleys and lanes in the single family residential areas.        Tukwila?s station area, with a stunted street network, has an extremely low level of pedestrian choice. Its large parcels and undeveloped street system limit pe-destrian choice to a few major arterials. The positive aspect of this situation is that the Tukwila station area is a veritable blank canvas, with an excellent op-portunity to create a rich pedestrian environment as there is only a minimal amount of existing development.                  Chapter 5: Lessons and Recommendations Page 5.10  Primary Findings:  1. Pedestrian realm usage was very low in all case studies, pointing towards commuter rail users being unlikely to walk to or from the station area; 2. The study did not reveal an expected link between pedestrian realm usage and pedestrian realm quality or choice, although this may be due to a limited sampling methodology.  RECOMMENDATION:  None.  There were extremely low pedestrian usage numbers in all case studies, includ-ing some with no measurable use at all. It would be hoped that pedestrian environments which have a high degree of pedestrian choice and are of a high quality would also be high use. The data collected in this study does not indi-cate that this is the case. A linkage between pedestrian quality and pedestrian usage did not emerge, with poor quality station areas (i.e. Coquitlam) having the highest amount of usage. A relationship which might have more pertinence is that between pedestrian usage and density. Station areas with higher resi-dential densities would be expected to exhibit a higher degree of pedestrian usage. Again, this does not pan out, with no real link showing up between density and pedestrianism. While this link isn't established in this project, it can be assumed that this is probably due to the combination of low residential den-sities, and an overly small sample size for pedestrian usage.   However, the sample size for the pedestrian usage measure was very focused in scope. The sampling locations, and methodology of measuring pedestrian flow before commuter trains departed in the morning, and after they arrived in the afternoon, was intended to focus on the pedestrian volumes created by the transit node. Isolating out non-commuter rail pedestrian traffic (i.e. midday pedestrian usage) may produce deflated numbers, and give a misleading rep-resentation of overall pedestrian use in these case studies, however it accu-rately shows the minimal impact commuter rail has on the pedestrian network in these communities.           There is no recommendation for pedestrian usage, as increased pedestrian usage is something which will emerge when station areas adopt the other rec-ommendations listed in this section. With a large local population, well con-nected pedestrian network, an easily accessible local retail base, and a high quality streetscape, pedestrian usage will act as an emergent property of a sta-tion area which is planned according to the principles of Transit Oriented De-velopment.                            Figure 5.10 Increased pedestrian usage will emerge from bringing together all the necessary components of a TOD in station areas. Chapter 5: Lessons and Recommendations Page 5.11 RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY Chapter 5: Lessons and Recommendations Page 5.12 Figure 5.11 This study has scratched the surface of commuter rail station area development issues, and is a good starting point for further research in the field.  For more information on this report, or to order additional copies, please contact Darren Enns at:    darren@fivecornersplanning.com www.fivecornersplanning.com  t. 604.761.3667  Appendix 1: TOD Definitions APPENDIX 1: TOD DEFINITIONS  This Appendix is a reference tool which illustrates the different manners in which Transit Oriented Development (TOD) is defined and applied by various researchers, planners and government agencies.   Appendix 1: TOD Definitions Appendix 1: TOD Definitions Transit Oriented Development (TOD); Calthorpe and Associates  Largely viewed as the father of TOD, Peter Calthorpe?s ?The Next American Metropolis? of 1993 advocated a fundamental change in the patterns of community building to respond to the growth crisis in US cities. Calthorpe was a founder of the Congress for New Ur-banism, and many of his TOD designs reflect new urbanist leanings.  The book presents 24 of Calthorpe's regional urban plans, in which towns are organized so that residents can be less dependent upon their cars and can walk, bike, or take public transportation between work, school, home, and shopping.   The primary tenets of Calthorpe?s model is a Greenfield, suburban development served by a transit station connecting the community to a larger metropolitan core. He prescribes an urban form which concentrates growth within 1/4 mile of the station area (equivalent to a 5 minute walk), with a secondary area containing lower density development.    Calthorpe?s book and other articles spell out a well defined set of metrics for what is considered TOD development. These are grouped into ?Location Criteria? which pertains to the station location, and ?Site Criteria? which discusses the attributes of the surround-ing area.    Location Criteria  1. The TOD site must be located either on an express transit system, with service on 10- to 15-minute headways, or on a feeder bus line network within 10 minutes transit travel time from the express transit system. 2. The TOD site must be located within an Urban Growth Boundary or Urban Policy Area, with growth areas served by an express transit system or within 10 minutes transit travel time along a feeder bus line. TODs in urban growth areas may be surrounded by Secondary Areas. 3. TOD concepts can be applied to infill and redevelopment sites located in urbanized areas with existing uses.  4. TOD concepts can be applied to existing retail, office, and industrial sites by adding mixed-uses with structured parking on existing surface parking lots.  Site Criteria  1. In Urban Growth Areas, TOD sites must be at least 40 acres and no more than 160 acres in size. 2. Infill and redevelopment sites must be at least 20 acres and no more than 160 acres in size. Sites with the minimum acreage must be at least 80% vacant or developable. 3. The TOD must not contain land further than 2,000 feet from a transit stop. The Secondary Area may contain land no further than one mile from the stop. 4. Regardless of the number of property owners, the TOD application must consist of a comprehensive TOD Development Plan or Appendix 1: TOD Definitions Appendix 1: TOD Definitions IBI Group; Urban Land Consultants (Vancouver, B.C.)  The IBI group is a consultant engaged in TOD projects in Canada and throughout the world.  IBI?s view of TOD is that of ?Integrated Community Design?, design which integrates transportation and land use planning, as well as other elements such as market demands, environmental constraints, architecture, urban design, and community input into a seamless planning process.  IBI also sees TOD as an opportunity for interdisciplinary convergence between the traditional disciplines involved in transportation and urban planning. This process focused approach seems likely to yield positive external benefits, such as increased communication and understanding between the engineering and design schools of planning.      The primary principles of TOD according to IBI are:  1. Interconnected Streets 2. Compact Development 3. Mixed Land Uses 4. Pedestrian Friendliness 5. Natural Open Space 6. Public Realm 7. Commercial Centre  IBI?s secondary principles of TOD are:  1. Smaller City Blocks 2. Mixed-Use building types 3. Architectural variety 4. Narrow and Calmed Streets 5. Street Facing Buildings 6. Relaxed Parking Standards 7. Bicycle Friendly Streets 8. Market Acceptance 9. Sustainability Appendix 1: TOD Definitions Appendix 2: Collected Land Use Data APPENDIX 2: COLLECTED LAND USE DATA FROM CASE STUDIES Appendix 2: Collected Land Use Data  Accountant40099Accountant40099Antique Store40099Arcade40099Art Gallery40099Art Gallery40099Art Store40099Auto Glass Repair40099Auto Parts Sales40099Auto Parts Sales40099Auto Repair40099Auto Repair40099Auto Repair40099Auto Repair40099Auto Repair40099Auto Repair40099Auto Repair40099Auto Repair40099Auto Repair40099Auto Repair40099Auto Repair40099Bedwares40099Bicycle Retailer40099Brake Repair40099Caf?40099Caf?40099Car Dealer40099Car Dealer40099Car Wash40099Caterer40099Cheque Cashing40099Chiropractor 40099Chiropractor 40099Clothing Manufacturer40099Convenience Store40099Copy Store40099Craft Store40099Dance School40099Dance School40099Deli40099Deli40099Donut Shop40099Fast Food Restaurant40099Fast Food Restaurant40099Fast Food Restaurant40099Fieldhouse40099Financial Services40099Fireplace Store40099Florist40099Furniture Refinishing40099Furniture Store40099Furniture Store40099Garden Furniture Retailer40099Gas Station40099Gas Station40099Gas Station40099Gym40099Gym40099Hair Salon40099Hair Salon40099Hair Salon40099Hair Salon40099Hair Salon40099Housewares Store40099Insurance Sales40099Insurance Sales40099Laundromat40099Liquor Store40099Locksmith40099Lumber Supply Store40099Marine Repair40099Marine Repair40099Martial Arts Academy40099Martial Arts Academy40099Mattress Store40099Medical Lab40099Motorsports Dealer40099Motorsports Dealer40099Muffler Repair40099Museum40099Office Supply Store40099Oil and Lube40099Party Supplies Store40099Pet Groomer40099Pet Groomer40099Pet Store40099Pet Training40099Physiotherapist40099Physiotherapist40099Pizza Delivery40099Pizza Delivery40099Pizza Delivery40099Pool40099Restaurant40099Restaurant40099Safety Equipment Dealer40099Safety Equipment Dealer40099Sailing Club40099Scrap Metal40099Goods and / or Services Type5 minute walk ring or 10 minute walk ringDaily UsePeriodic UseAppendix 2: Collected Land Use Data Sign Maker40099Sporting Goods 40099Sporting Goods Manufacture40099Sports Memoribilia Dealer40099Sports Training40099Steel Fabricator40099Steel Fabricator40099Steel Fabricator40099Toner Supply Store40099Tool Rental40099U Brew40099Used Appliance Sales40099 Vacuum Retailer40099Vetrinarian40099Accountant80099Antique Store80099Bank80099Caf?80099Caf?80099Caf?80099Car Dealer80099Car Dealer80099Car Dealer80099Chiropractor 80099Church80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Computer Store80099Consignment Store80099Day Spa80099Deli80099Dentist80099Dentist80099Doctor80099Dollar Store80099Dollar Store80099Drycleaner80099Fast Food Restaurant80099Financial Services80099Florist80099Gift Store80099Hair Salon80099Hair Salon80099Hair Salon80099Hair Salon80099Hobby Store80099Housewares80099Law Office80099Legion80099Goods and / or Services Type5 minute walk ring or 10 minute walk ringDaily UsePeriodic UseMartial Arts Academy80099Martial Arts Academy80099Massage Therapy Clinic80099Motorsports Dealer80099Office Supply Store80099Pet Groomer80099Post Office80099Printer80099Pub80099Realty Office80099Restaurant80099Restaurant80099Restaurant80099Shoe Repair80099Sporting Goods 80099Tanning Salon80099Tattoo Parlour80099Tire Store80099Toy Store80099Tutoring Service80099Tutoring Service80099Tutoring Service80099Goods and / or Services Type5 minute walk ring or 10 minute walk ringDaily UsePeriodic UsePORT MOODY CASE STUDY; GOODS AND SERVICES CHARACTERISITCS Appendix 2: Collected Land Use Data  Bank40099Cheque Cashing400???????99Fast Food Restaurant40099Fast Food Restaurant40099Fast Food Restaurant40099Fast Food Restaurant40099Gas Station40099Hair Salon40099Hotel40099Hotel40099Hotel40099Hotel40099Hotel40099Hotel40099Insurance Sales40099Limousine Service40099Military Recruitment 40099Pub40099Restaurant40099Restaurant40099Restaurant40099Restaurant40099Shipping Supply Store40099Sign Maker40099Welding Supply Store40099 Amusement Park80099Appliance Store80099Bank80099Bank80099Bank80099Bank80099Building Supply Store80099Building Supply Store80099Car Dealer80099Craft Store80099Electronics Store80099Electronics Store80099Engraving Store80099Equipment Rental80099Financial Services80099Furniture Rental 80099Furniture Store80099Goods and / or Services Type5 minute walk ring or 10 minute walk ringDaily Use Periodic UseGrocery Wholesaler80099Hair Salon80099Health Products Store80099Hotel80099Medical Lab80099Office Supply Store80099Office Supply Store80099Paint Store80099Physiotherapist80099Printer80099Printer80099Sign Maker80099Trailer Rental80099Trophy Store80099Goods and / or Services Type5 minute walk ring or 10 minute walk ringDaily Use Periodic UseAppendix 2: Collected Land Use Data COQUITLAM CASE STUDY; GOODS AND SERVICES CHARACTERISITCS Goods and / or Services Type5 minute walk ring or 10 minute walk ringDaily Use Periodic UseGoods and / or Services Type5 minute walk ring or 10 minute walk ringDaily Use Periodic UseAuto Body Repair40099Bank40099Bookstore40099Caf?40099Car Dealer40099Clothing Store40099Dentist40099Fast Food Restaurant40099Flooring Supply40099Grocery Store40099Lumber Yard40099Optometry Clinic40099Pub40099Restaurant40099Restaurant40099Restaurant40099Restaurant40099Tanning Salon40099Toner Supply Store40099Yoga Studio40099Accountant80099Accountant80099Adult Video Store80099Art School 80099Art Store80099Art Store80099Auto Body Repair80099Auto Body Repair80099Auto Parts Sales80099Auto Parts Sales80099Auto Repair80099Auto Repair80099Auto Repair80099Auto Repair80099Auto Repair80099Auto Repair80099Bakery80099Bank80099Bank80099Bank80099Bank80099Bank80099Bank80099Bank80099Bank80099Bookstore80099Bookstore80099Brake Repair80099Brake Repair80099Butcher80099Butcher80099Caf?80099Caf?80099Caf?80099Caf?80099Caf?80099Caf?80099Caf?80099Caf?80099Caf?80099Caf?80099Caf?80099Caf?80099Caf?80099Candy Store80099Candy Store80099Car Dealer80099Car Rental80099Car Rental80099Career Counselling 80099Cellular Phone Store80099Cellular Phone Store80099Cellular Phone Store80099Cellular Phone Store80099Cellular Phone Store80099Cellular Phone Store80099Cellular Phone Store80099Chiropractor 80099Chiropractor 80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Appendix 2: Collected Land Use Data  Goods and / or Services Type5 minute walk ring or 10 minute walk ringDaily Use Periodic UseGoods and / or Services Type5 minute walk ring or 10 minute walk ringDaily Use Periodic UseClothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Computer Repair80099Computer Repair80099Computer Repair80099Convenience Store80099Cosmetics Store80099Cosmetics Store80099Cosmetics Store80099Cosmetics Store80099Cosmetics Store80099Counselling Service80099Counselling Service80099Craft Store80099Craft Store80099Day Spa80099Day Spa80099Day Spa80099Day Spa80099Day Spa80099Day Spa80099Deli80099Dentist80099Dentist80099Dentist80099Dentist80099Dentist80099Dentist80099Dentist80099Dentist80099Dentist80099Dentist80099Dentist80099Dentist80099Dentist80099Dentist80099Denturist80099Department Store80099Department Store80099Department Store80099Department Store80099Diet Service80099Diet Service80099Diet Service80099Diet Service80099Doctor80099Doctor80099Doctor80099Doctor80099Doctor80099Doctor80099Doctor80099Doctor80099Doctor80099Doctor80099Doctor80099Doctor80099Doctor80099Doctor80099Doctor80099Doctor80099Doctor80099Doctor80099Doctor80099Doctor80099Doctor80099Appendix 2: Collected Land Use Data COQUITLAM CASE STUDY; GOODS AND SERVICES CHARACTERISITCS Goods and / or Services Type5 minute walk ring or 10 minute walk ringDaily Use Periodic UseGoods and / or Services Type5 minute walk ring or 10 minute walk ringDaily Use Periodic UseDoctor80099Doctor80099Doctor80099Dollar Store80099Dollar Store80099Dollar Store80099Dollar Store80099Drugstore80099Drugstore80099Drycleaner80099Drycleaner80099Drycleaner80099Drycleaner80099Electronics Store80099Electronics Store80099Electronics Store80099Electronics Store80099Engraving Store80099Entertainment Ticket Sales80099Esthetician80099Esthetician80099Esthetician80099Eyewear Store80099Eyewear Store80099Eyewear Store80099Eyewear Store80099Fast Food Restaurant80099Fast Food Restaurant80099Fast Food Restaurant80099Fast Food Restaurant80099Fast Food Restaurant80099Fast Food Restaurant80099Fast Food Restaurant80099Fast Food Restaurant80099Fast Food Restaurant80099Fast Food Restaurant80099Fast Food Restaurant80099Fast Food Restaurant80099Fast Food Restaurant80099Fast Food Restaurant80099Fast Food Restaurant80099Fast Food Restaurant80099Fast Food Restaurant80099Financial Services80099Financial Services80099Financial Services80099Financial Services80099Fitness Equipment80099Florist80099Florist80099Foreign Exchange80099Framing Store80099Framing Store80099Framing Store80099Furniture Store80099Furniture Store80099Furniture Store80099Gas Station80099Gas Station80099Gas Station80099Gas Station80099Gift Store80099Gift Store80099Greeting Card Store80099Greeting Card Store80099Grocery Store80099Grocery Store80099Grocery Store80099Gym80099Gym80099Gym80099Hair Salon80099Hair Salon80099Hair Salon80099Hair Salon80099Hair Salon80099Hair Salon80099Hair Salon80099Hair Salon80099Hair Salon80099Hairdressing School80099Home Brewing Supplies80099Housewares80099Housewares80099Housewares80099Housewares80099Housewares80099Housewares80099Housewares80099Housewares80099Housewares80099Housewares80099Housewares80099Insurance Sales80099Insurance Sales80099Insurance Sales80099Insurance Sales80099Insurance Sales80099Jewerelly Store80099Jewerelly Store80099Appendix 2: Collected Land Use Data Goods and / or Services Type5 minute walk ring or 10 minute walk ringDaily Use Periodic UseJewerelly Store80099Jewerelly Store80099Jewerelly Store80099Jewerelly Store80099Jewerelly Store80099Jewerelly Store80099Jewerelly Store80099Jewerelly Store80099Jewerelly Store80099Jewerelly Store80099Jewerelly Store80099Jewerelly Store80099Jewerelly Store80099Jewerelly Store80099Jewerelly Store80099Karaoke Bar 80099Laundromat80099Law Office80099Law Office80099Law Office80099Law Office80099Light Industrial80099Light Industrial80099Light Industrial80099Light Industrial80099Light Industrial80099Light Industrial80099Light Industrial80099Light Industrial80099Light Industrial80099Light Industrial80099Liquor Store80099Liquor Store80099Lottery Sales80099Lottery Sales80099Martial Arts Academy80099Massage Therapy Clinic80099Massage Therapy Clinic80099Medical Lab80099Medical Lab80099Medical Lab80099Medical Product Store80099Music School80099Music Store80099Newstand80099Newstand80099Newstand80099Notary Public80099Notary Public80099Office Supply Store80099Oil and Lube80099Optometry Clinic80099Optometry Clinic80099Optometry Clinic80099Optometry Clinic80099Optometry Clinic80099Paint Store80099Paint Store80099Paint Store80099Pet Groomer80099Pet Store80099Pharmacy80099Photo Store80099Photo Store80099Physiotherapist80099Physiotherapist80099Pizza Delivery80099Pizza Delivery80099Pizza Delivery80099Post Office80099Printer80099Produce Store80099Produce Store80099Produce Store80099Produce Store80099Realty Office80099Realty Office80099Realty Office80099Recruitment Services80099Restaurant80099Restaurant80099Restaurant80099Restaurant80099Restaurant80099Restaurant80099Restaurant80099Restaurant80099Restaurant80099Restaurant80099Restaurant80099Restaurant80099Restaurant80099Restaurant80099Restaurant80099Restaurant80099Restaurant80099Restaurant80099Restaurant80099Restaurant80099Restaurant80099COQUITLAM CASE STUDY; GOODS AND SERVICES CHARACTERISITCS Appendix 2: Collected Land Use Data COQUITLAM CASE STUDY; GOODS AND SERVICES CHARACTERISITCS Goods and / or Services Type5 minute walk ring or 10 minute walk ringDaily Use Periodic UseGoods and / or Services Type5 minute walk ring or 10 minute walk ringDaily Use Periodic UseRestaurant80099Restaurant80099Restaurant80099Restaurant80099Restaurant80099Restaurant80099Restaurant80099Restaurant80099Seafood Store80099Shipping Supply Store80099Shoe Repair80099Shoe Repair80099Shoe Store80099Shoe Store80099Shoe Store80099Shoe Store80099Shoe Store80099Shoe Store80099Shoe Store80099Shoe Store80099Shoe Store80099Shoe Store80099Shoe Store80099Shoe Store80099Shoe Store80099Sign Maker80099Sporting Goods80099Sporting Goods80099Sporting Goods80099Sporting Goods80099Sporting Goods80099Sporting Goods80099Sporting Goods80099Sporting Goods80099Tailor80099Tailor80099Tanning Salon80099Tea Store80099Television Repair80099Tire Store80099Tire Store80099Toner Supply Store80099Toy Store80099Travel Agency80099Travel Agency80099Travel Agency80099Travel Agency80099Travel Agency80099Travel Agency80099Tutoring Service80099Tutoring Service80099Tutoring Service80099Tutoring Service80099Tutoring Service80099Tutoring Service80099Tutoring Service80099Tutoring Service80099Tutoring Service80099Tuxedo Rental80099 Vacuum Retailer80099Vetrinarian80099Vetrinarian80099Video Rental80099Video Rental80099Video Rental80099Video Rental80099Vitamin Store80099Vitamin Store80099Vitamin Store80099Vitamin Store80099Vitamin Store80099Vitamin Store80099Vocational Training80099Vocational Training80099Vocational Training80099Yoga Studio80099Appendix 2: Collected Land Use Data  Accountant40099Antique Store40099Antique Store40099Auto Parts40099Auto Parts40099Auto Repair40099Auto Repair40099Auto Repair40099Auto Repair40099Auto Repair40099Auto Repair40099Bank40099Bank40099Bank40099Bank40099Bank40099Bank40099Bookstore40099Building Supply Store40099Bulk Fuel Sales40099Bulk Fuel Sales40099Caf?40099Caf?40099Caf?40099Caf?40099Caf?40099Child Care Centre40099Coffee Shop40099Coffee Shop40099Coin Shop40099Computer Repair40099Consignment Goods40099Convenience Store40099Convenience Store40099Convenience Store40099Counselling Service40099Dance School40099Deli40099Dentist40099Dentist40099Denturist40099Doctor40099Esthetician40099Esthetician40099Goods and / or Services Type5 minute walk ring or 10 minute walk ringDaily Use Periodic UseEyeware Store40099Farm Equipment Retailer40099Farm Supply Store40099Financial Services40099Financial Services40099Financial Services40099Financial Services40099Frame Store40099Furniture Store40099Gas Station40099Gift Store 40099Gift Store 40099Gift Store 40099Grocery Store40099Hair Salon40099Hardware Store40099Hobby Store40099Hospital40099Housewares40099Internet Caf?40099Irrigation Retailer40099Jewellery Store40099Juice Bar40099Law Office40099Law Office40099Locksmith40099Massage Therapy40099Medical Clinic40099Medical Clinic40099Medical Clinic40099Medical Clinic40099Musical Instrument Store40099Notary Public40099Optometrist40099Pawnshop40099Pet Store40099Photo Store40099Photo Store40099Plumber40099Post Office40099Post Office40099Printer40099Printer40099Pub40099Pub40099Appendix 2: Collected Land Use Data Goods and / or Services Type5 minute walk ring or 10 minute walk ringDaily Use Periodic UseGoods and / or Services Type5 minute walk ring or 10 minute walk ringDaily Use Periodic UseAUBURN CASE STUDY; GOODS AND SERVICES CHARACTERISITCS Pub40099Pub40099Pub40099Pub40099Restaurant40099Restaurant40099Restaurant40099Restaurant40099Restaurant40099Restaurant40099Senior High School40099Tailor40099Theatre40099Toy Store40099Upholsterer40099 Vacuum Store40099Vocational Training40099Welding Supply Store40099Window Glass Store40099Accountant80099Appliance Rental80099Auto Parts80099Auto Parts80099Auto Parts80099Auto Repair80099Auto Repair80099Auto Repair80099Auto Repair80099Bank80099Bank80099Bank80099Bookstore80099Bookstore80099Bookstore80099Caf?80099Caf?80099Caf?80099Car Dealer80099Car Dealer80099Car Wash80099Car Wash80099Ceramic Goods80099Cheque Cashing80099Chiropractor 80099Church80099Church80099Church80099Church80099Church80099Church80099Clothing Store80099Clothing Store80099Cobbler80099Coffee Shop80099Coffee Shop80099Coffee Shop80099Convenience Store80099Convenience Store80099Convenience Store80099Counselling Service80099Dairy Processing80099Dance School80099Deli80099Dentist80099Dentist80099Dentist80099Dentist80099Dentist80099Dentist80099Dentist80099Denturist80099Doctor80099Doctor80099Doctor80099Doctor80099Doctor80099Doctor80099Doctor80099Doctor80099Doctor80099Doctor80099Doctor80099Doctor80099Doctor80099Doctor80099Dollar Store80099Dollar Store80099Dollar Store80099Donut Shop80099Drycleaner80099Appendix 2: Collected Land Use Data  Goods and / or Services Type5 minute walk ring or 10 minute walk ringDaily Use Periodic UseDrycleaner80099Drycleaner80099Embroidery Store80099Esthetician80099Eyeware Store80099Fast Food Restaurant80099Fast Food Restaurant80099Fast Food Restaurant80099Financial Services80099Financial Services80099Florist80099Florist80099Funeral Home80099Gas Station80099Gas Station80099Gas Station80099Gas Station80099Gift Store 80099Gift Store 80099Gym80099Gym80099Gypsum Plant80099Hair Salon80099Hair Salon80099Hair Salon80099Hair Salon80099Hair Salon80099Hair Salon80099Hair Salon80099Hair Salon80099Hair Salon80099Hotel80099Housewares80099Insurance Sales80099Insurance Sales80099Internet Caf?80099Jewellery Store80099Labour Service80099Law Office80099Law Office80099Law Office80099Law Office80099Law Office80099Law Office80099Law Office80099Legion80099Lighting Store80099Martial Arts Academy80099Medical Clinic80099Medical Clinic80099Office Products80099Paint Store80099Photo Store80099Physiotherapist80099Physiotherapist80099Physiotherapist80099Pizza Delivery80099Printer80099Pub80099Realty Office80099Realty Office80099Realty Office80099Rental Hall80099Restaurant80099Restaurant80099Restaurant80099Restaurant80099Restaurant80099Restaurant80099Restaurant80099Restaurant80099Restaurant80099Restaurant80099Restaurant80099Sewing Store80099Shoe Store80099Shoe Store80099Stove Sales80099Tailor80099Television Repair80099Tire Sales80099Tire Sales80099Tobbacoist80099 Vocational Training80099Yoga Studio80099Appendix 2: Collected Land Use Data MISSION CASE STUDY; GOODS AND SERVICES CHARACTERISITCS Goods and / or Services Type5 minute walk ring or 10 minute walk ringDaily Use Periodic UseAntique Store40099Auto Repair40099Auto Repair40099Auto Repair40099Auto Repair40099Auto Repair40099Auto Repair40099Auto Repair40099Auto Repair40099Bank40099Bank40099Bank40099Billiards Hall40099Bookstore40099Bowling Alley40099Butcher40099Butcher40099Caf?40099Caf?40099Caf?40099Car Dealer40099Car Dealer40099Car Dealer40099Car Dealer40099Car Dealer40099Ceramics Store40099Cheque Cashing40099Clothing Store40099Clothing Store40099Clothing Store40099Consignment Store40099Consignment Store40099Consignment Store40099Convenience Store40099Convenience Store40099Convenience Store40099Convenience Store40099Craft Store40099Craft Store40099Dance School40099Dance School40099Day Spa40099Dentist40099Dentist40099Goods and / or Services Type5 minute walk ring or 10 minute walk ringDaily Use Periodic UseDentist40099Department Store40099Department Store40099Dollar Store40099Dollar Store40099Drycleaner40099Electronics Repair40099Esthetician40099Eyeware Store40099Fast Food Restaurant40099Fast Food Restaurant40099Financial Services40099Financial Services40099Financial Services40099Fireplace Store40099Flooring Supply40099Florist40099Frame Store40099Frame Store40099Fuel Wholesaler40099Funeral Home40099Gas Station40099Gift Store40099Gift Store40099Hair Salon40099Hair Salon40099Hair Salon40099Hair Salon40099Hardware Store40099Hotel40099Hydroponics Supply40099Insurance Sales40099Janitorial Supply40099Jewellery Store40099Landscape Supply40099Laundromat40099Law Office40099Lingerie Store40099Liquor Store40099Liquor Store40099Lumber Supply Store40099Martial Arts Academy40099Motorsports Dealer40099Motorsports Dealer40099Motorsports Dealer40099Appendix 2: Collected Land Use Data  Goods and / or Services Type5 minute walk ring or 10 minute walk ringDaily Use Periodic UseGoods and / or Services Type5 minute walk ring or 10 minute walk ringDaily Use Periodic UseMusic School40099Notary Public40099Optometrist40099Pawnshop40099Pawnshop40099Pawnshop40099Pawnshop40099Pet Groomer40099Pizza Delivery40099Pizza Delivery40099Pizza Delivery40099Post Office40099Printer40099Printer40099Pub40099Pub40099Realty Office40099Realty Office40099Realty Office40099Restaurant40099Restaurant40099Restaurant40099Restaurant40099Restaurant40099Restaurant40099Restaurant40099Restaurant40099Restaurant40099Restaurant40099Restaurant40099Restaurant40099Shoe Repair40099Shoe Repair40099Sporting Goods40099Sporting Goods40099Sporting Goods40099Tanning Salon40099Tattoo Parlour40099Tire Store40099Tire Store40099Tool Sales40099 Vacuum Retailer40099Vetrinarian40099Vitamin Store40099Auto Repair80099Auto Repair80099Auto Repair80099Bakery80099Bed and Breakfast80099Caf?80099Chiropractor 80099Convenience Store80099Esthetician80099Fireplace Store80099Grocery Store80099Gym80099Hair Salon80099Hair Salon80099Hair Salon80099Hair Salon80099Hydroponics Supply80099Marine Gas Station80099Marine Hardware80099Mattress Store80099Pet Food Store80099Photo Developing80099Pizza Delivery80099Printer80099Realty Office80099Tanning Salon80099Upholstery Service80099Appendix 2: Collected Land Use Data PUYALLUP CASE STUDY; GOODS AND SERVICES CHARACTERISITCS Goods and / or Services Type5 minute walk ring or 10 minute walk ringDaily Use Periodic UseGoods and / or Services Type5 minute walk ring or 10 minute walk ringDaily Use Periodic UseAccountant40099Accountant40099Antique Store40099Antique Store40099Antique Store40099Antique Store40099Antique Store40099Antique Store40099Antique Store40099Antique Store40099Auto Parts40099Auto Parts40099Auto Parts40099Auto Parts40099Auto Parts40099Auto Repair40099Auto Repair40099Auto Repair40099Auto Repair40099Bakery 40099Bank40099Bank40099Bank40099Bank40099Bank40099Bookstore40099Bulk Fuel Sales40099Caf?40099Caf?40099Caf?40099Caf?40099Candy Store 40099Car Dealer40099Car Dealer40099Car Dealer40099Car Dealer40099Car Dealer40099Catering Service40099Catering Service40099Cheque Cashing40099Church40099Church40099Church40099Church40099Church40099Church40099Clothing Store40099Cobbler40099Coffee Shop40099Coffee Shop40099Computer Repair40099Consignment Goods40099Consignment Goods40099Convenience Store40099Convenience Store40099Convenience Store40099Convenience Store40099Counselling Service40099Counselling Service40099Craft Store40099Dance School40099Day Spa40099Dentist40099Dentist40099Dentist40099Doctor40099Donut Shop40099Esthetician40099Esthetician40099Eyeware Store40099Fast Food Restaurant40099Fast Food Restaurant40099Fast Food Restaurant40099Financial Services40099Financial Services40099Financial Services40099Financial Services40099Financial Services40099Financial Services40099Financial Services40099Flooring Store40099Florist40099Frame Store40099Funeral Home40099Funeral Home40099Gas Station40099Gift Store 40099Gift Store 40099Glass Store40099Appendix 2: Collected Land Use Data  Goods and / or Services Type5 minute walk ring or 10 minute walk ringDaily Use Periodic UseGoods and / or Services Type5 minute walk ring or 10 minute walk ringDaily Use Periodic UseGym40099Gym40099Hair Salon40099Hair Salon40099Hair Salon40099Hair Salon40099Hair Salon40099Hair Salon40099Hair Salon40099Harp Store40099Hobby Store40099Hotel40099Insurance Sales40099Jewellery Store40099Jewellery Store40099Law Office40099Law Office40099Law Office40099Law Office40099Law Office40099Legion40099Library40099Locksmith40099Martial Arts Academy40099Massage Therapy40099Medical Equipment Sales40099Motorsports Dealer40099Musical Instrument Store40099Musical Instrument Store40099Pawnshop40099Pet Store40099Photography Studio40099Post Office40099Printer40099Printer40099Pub40099Public Washrooms40099Realty Office40099Realty Office40099Realty Office40099Realty Office40099Realty Office40099Rental Hall40099Rental Hall40099Restaurant40099Restaurant40099Restaurant40099Restaurant40099Restaurant40099Restaurant40099Restaurant40099Second Hand Store40099Sporting Goods40099Theatre40099Tire Sales40099 Vacuum Store40099Yoga Studio40099Antique Store80099Auto Parts80099Auto Parts80099Auto Repair80099Building Supply Store80099Caf?80099Car Dealer80099Car Dealer80099Car Dealer80099Car Dealer80099Car Dealer80099Car Dealer80099Car Dealer80099Car Dealer80099Car Dealer80099Car Dealer80099Car Dealer80099Car Dealer80099Car Dealer80099Car Dealer80099Car Wash80099Car Wash80099Chiropractor 80099Chiropractor 80099Church80099Church80099Church80099Church80099Church80099Church80099Church80099Church80099Church80099Appendix 2: Collected Land Use Data PUYALLUP CASE STUDY; GOODS AND SERVICES CHARACTERISITCS Goods and / or Services Type5 minute walk ring or 10 minute walk ringDaily Use Periodic UseGoods and / or Services Type5 minute walk ring or 10 minute walk ringDaily Use Periodic UseChurch80099Church Community Centre80099Coffee Shop80099Coffee Shop80099Convenience Store80099Convenience Store80099Convenience Store80099Convenience Store80099Convenience Store80099Convenience Store80099Counselling Service80099Dentist80099Dentist80099Dentist80099Dentist80099Dentist80099Doctor80099Doctor80099Doctor80099Doctor80099Doctor80099Doctor80099Doctor80099Doctor80099Doctor80099Dollar Store80099Driving School80099Drycleaner80099Drycleaner80099Drycleaner80099Electronics Store80099Embroidery Store80099Equipment Rental80099Esthetician80099Fast Food Restaurant80099Fast Food Restaurant80099Financial Services80099Financial Services80099Financial Services80099Flooring Store80099Flooring Store80099Florist80099Florist80099Gas Station80099Gas Station80099Gas Station80099Gas Station80099Gas Station80099Grocery Store80099Hair Salon80099Hair Salon80099Hair Salon80099Hair Salon80099Heating Supply Store80099Insurance Sales80099Liquor Store80099Medical Clinic80099Medical Clinic80099Medical Equipment Sales80099Moving Company80099Museum80099Music School80099Office Equipment80099Optometrist80099Pharmacy80099Pizza Delivery80099Printer80099Realty Office80099Realty Office80099Rental Hall80099Restaurant80099Restaurant80099Restaurant80099Shoe Store80099Sporting Goods80099Tanning Salon80099Tutoring Service80099 Video Rental80099 Bibliography BIBLIOGRAPHY  Armstrong, Robert J. Jr. (1994). Impacts of Commuter Rail Service as Reflected in Single-Family Residential Property Values. Transportation Research Record, 1466, 88-98.   Calthorpe, Peter (1993). The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, American Dream. New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press.   Cervero, Robert (1996). Transit Villages in the 21st Century. New York, NY: Mc-Graw Hill.   Cervero, Robert (1991). Land Uses and Travel at Suburban Activity Centers. Transportation Quarterly, 45, 479-491.   Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (November, 2001). Transit?s Value-Added: Effects of Light and Commuter Rail Services on Commercial Land Values. Unpub-lished.   Cervero, Robert and Landis, John (1993). Assessing the Impacts of Urban Rail Transit on Local Real Estate Markets Using Quasi-Experimental Comparisons. Transpor-tation, 27A, 13-22.  Chicago Transit Authority; Prepared by Lohan Associates. (1996). Guidelines for Transit-Supportive Development. Chicago, Illinois: Author.   Derailed Development. Hansen, Rick and Hopkins, John (2003, December 12). Puget Sound Business Journal, p. 31  Federal Transit Administration. (2002). Appendix A: New Starts Project Profiles. Retrieved August, 2004, from http://www.fta.dot.gov/library/policy/ns/ns2003/appendixatoc.html   Federal Transit Administration. (2002). Appendix B: Additional Studies and Projects. Retrieved August, 2004, from http://www.fta.dot.gov/library/policy/ns/ns2003/appendixbtoc.html   Bibliography SmartGrowth.htm  Knoblauch, Richard, Pietrucha, Martin and Nitzburg, Marsha (1996). Field Studies of Pedestrian Walking Speed and Start-Up Time. Transportation Research Record, 1538.  METRA; Prepared by S.B. Friedman and Company. (July, 2000). Metra Rail Service and Residential Development Study. Chicago, Illinois: Author.   METRA; Prepared by S.B. Friedman and Company. (No Date). Approaches: Residential Development Near Commuter Rail Stations. Chicago, Illinois: Author.   METRA; Prepared by Camiros Ltd. and Valerie S. Kretchmer Associates, Inc. (No Date). Strategies: Local Economic Benefits of Commuter Rail Stations for Communities and Businesses. Chicago, Illinois: Author.   METRA; Prepared by Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission. (No Date). Guidelines: Land Use in Commuter Rail Station Areas. Chicago, Illinois: Author.   METRA; Prepared by Camiros Ltd. and Valerie S. Kretchmer Associates, Inc. (December, 1994). Local Economic Impacts in Commuter Rail Station Areas: Recommen-dations for Reinforcing the Commuter / Merchant Interface. Chicago, Illinois: Author.   METRA; Prepared by T.Y. Lin International / Bascor and Fish, Doron & Associates, Inc. (June, 2000). METRA Case Studies: Transit Oriented Development Concepts for Selected Potential Station Areas. Chicago, Illinois: Author.   Moon, Henry (June, 1990). Land use around suburban transit stations. Transportation, 17, 67-88  Old Lines Inspire New Rail Plans. Mackie, John (2004, July 15). The Vancouver Sun, p. B2 Bibliography Porter, Douglas R. (1997). Transit-Focused Development. Washington, D.C.: Federal Transit Administration.   Regional Transportation Authority. (No Date). Fostering Transit-Oriented Development in Northeastern Illinois. Chicago, Illinois: Author.   Regional Transportation Authority; Prepared by Gruen Gruen & Associates, Inc. (June, 1997). The Effect of CTA and METRA Stations on Residential Property Values. Chicago, Illinois: Author.   Regional Transportation Authority & South Suburban Mayors and Managers Association (Decmber 14, 1998). Tools For Development., Workshop Proceedings. Un-published  Shelton, David and Lo, Anthony (2003). Transit-Oriented Development in the Seattle, WA, USA, Area. ITE Journal, 46-51.   Sound Transit; Prepared by Adolfson Associates, Inc. (June, 1998). Tacoma-to-Seattle Commuter Rail: Environmental Assessment. Seattle, WA: Author.   Transportation Research Board. (2004). Transit-Oriented Development in the United States: Experiences, Challenges and Prospects. Washington, D.C.: Author.    TransWeb. (No Date). A New Planning Template for Transit-Oriented Development. Retrieved September, 2004, from http://transweb.sjsu.edu/TODHTML/TOD_v2.htm     

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
China 38 0
United States 29 0
Germany 8 0
Japan 4 0
France 2 0
Canada 1 0
Malaysia 1 0
City Views Downloads
Beijing 21 0
Zhengzhou 17 0
Unknown 15 0
Washington 6 0
Ashburn 5 0
San Francisco 4 0
Mountain View 3 0
Coral Gables 2 0
Lewes 2 0
Pasadena 1 0
Dresden 1 0
Redmond 1 0
Jacksonville 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.310.1-0107173/manifest

Comment

Related Items