The Need for Transit Oriented Development

“Transit-Oriented Development” (TOD) is the cornerstone of sustainable development activities in the 21st Century.  TOD stands in sharp contrast to Auto-Oriented development, or what has become the basic model of suburban development since World War II.  In that model, a family lives close to a highway and has 2 cars, at least one of which is used to travel to work in a central business district on a daily basis.  Traffic, pollution and infrastructure needs follow. 

TOD is part of the Principles of Intelligent Urbanism (PIU).  Intelligent Urbanism covers a wide range of principles, from environmental concerns to historical preservation to appropriate use of technology in building materials.  One of the most important principles in the PIU is simply called conviviality.  Conviviality covers a place for the individual, for friendship and social interaction, for the household, the neighborhood and the community at large.  So, no matter what we do, we never lose sight of the importance of the neighborhoods that make our
communities great.

TOD is a little closer to the streets and a lot more specific that PIU.  Where PIU doesn’t look to minimize the use of the automobile, I think it is safe to say that TOD does.  TOD looks to connect people that live within a certain walkable distance from a transit hub (Metro North or even the Pulse Point in our case) to their jobs via that hub.

TOD in its perfect form would have a high density mixed use living environment within that distance … let’s call it a half mile.  As we move away from that node, the density decreases.  Of course, we don’t live on a featureless plain, so our surroundings would influence the design of our model city.  Distances, travel times, both on foot or by vehicle all play an important part in people’s decision on where to live and thus influence this model.

If you were living 100 years ago and you thought about railroads and water, you thought about industry.  Factories were almost exclusively built a very short distance from one or both of these resources.  Flash forward to the present day and railroads and water mean housing.  People like to live near the water and they also like proximity to the trains for commuting.

So, take a factory that may have been built a while ago.  The industry has gone away, but the building remains, vacant and a target for vandals, with large open areas that were once used for storage.  What if we allow the conversion of such a property into a mixed use development?

In this way, we make housing for those who need it, adding to the stock of affordable housing by building to the appropriate density.  Second, we try to attract people who will potentially not own cars, or at least not rely on their cars as a primary mode of transport, and instead use the train to get to work.  We can, if we keep the mix of uses correct, create a place where some people will live and also work.  Small shops, offices and other non-residential uses are very appropriate for this type of development and will create an aura that can tie in well to the rest of the community. 

The idea is that some may live, work or both in the same place, while others may live there, but use one or more forms of responsible public transport options to commute to work. Development along West Avenue should fall into this scenario; in the long run a truly mixed use development will offer potential for all of these uses and allow commuters to use buses to get to the . 

It’s unrealistic to think that we can eliminate our reliance on automobiles overnight.  In the long run, breaking the cycle is the only way.  If we can enculturate the young when they are at the point of having their first apartment and more than likely able to commute via train, we can get people to think of other alternatives than cars and that is a good thing.  The fact that we can bring vibrancy back to our urban areas is just the icing on the cake.

Dave McCarthy is a candidate for Common Council in District E.  His web site is www.electmccarthy.com