This thesis examines the topic of transit-oriented development (TOD) and its evolution in the United States since the rise of public transportation systems in the late-19th century. Using the work of modern day TOD scholars and organizations, this thesis presents the various definitions of transit-oriented development and examines the characteristics designers and developers of TODs should strive towards in order to “create places that function differently than conventional development” (Dittmar 22 2004).
Using the work of urban historians and theorists, this thesis relates the characteristics of successful transit-oriented developments back to time-tested urban design and planning ideas and theories. This will help to show that TOD should not be viewed as a utopian concept, but as a real world solution to the issues urban regions face today, including sprawling and placeless suburban communities, long and laborious commutes along congested highways, and automobile-oriented neighborhoods and developments.
Transit-oriented development will also be traced through time from its inception in late-19th century streetcar suburbs all the way to its place in city planning processes today. By understanding the early concepts of “development-oriented transit” and the subsequent rise, fall, and re-emergence of transit systems and transit-oriented communities in the United States, this thesis hopes to show how transit-oriented development is not a new development scheme, but one that has evolved from historic urban neighborhood development patterns.
This thesis will use a case study analysis process to examine the successes and failures of modern day TODs that have been built in the past two decades in various urban and suburban placetypes throughout the United States. Using evaluation categories developed by Hank Dittmar and Shelley Poticha in The New Transit Town, this thesis will examine the successes and shortcomings of five TODs: (1) Fruitvale Village in Oakland/San Francisco, California, (2) Downtown Arlington Heights outside of Chicago, Illinois, (3) Orenco Station outside of Portland Oregon, (4) Addison Circle outside of Dallas, Texas, and (5) Englewood CityCenter outside of Denver, Colorado.
The case studies will show that there is an issue within the planning and design realm of using the term TOD too loosely to describe any development around transit stations. True TODs should be “transit places,” where transit has a great influence on the physical character of the TOD. Likewise, there needs to be a clearer differentiation between New Urbanist developments near transit and TODs. While there are many similarities between the two, the incorporation of transit throughout the design and development process is extremely important to TOD. And lastly, the case studies will show that the role of the process and actors within TOD planning, design, and implementation can vastly alter the final outcome of TODs. The process must be carefully monitored to make sure that major decisions that impact the final character of a TOD are not ultimately compromising the potential for successful transit-oriented development.