Around the nation, since the 1990s, there has been growing interest in concentrating new investment in close proximity to public transportation.

During the Clinton Administration the Federal Transit Administration (“FTA”) actively encouraged TOD. Through a program known as the “Livable Communities Initiative,” the Administrator of the FTA had the power to award discretionary grants to cities, counties, and public transit agencies to help fund the planning and construction of transit oriented development projects. While the funding available for the program was scant, there are several examples around the country of TOD projects that the Livable Communities Initiative helped.

Since Livable Communities funding was very limited, not all TOD projects received LCI money. TOD projects typically require a blend of financing sources, including municipal funds, private investment, grant funds and other federal transportation grants. Another federal transportation funding source is “CMAQ” – the “Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality” initiative first created under “ISTEA.” (ISTEA was the federal transportation program passed by Congress in 1991, and was succeeded by “TEA-21,” passed by Congress in 1998. For details on federal funding for transportation, go to www.bettertransit.com, and see the Campaign for Better Transit’s “Weary Traveler’s Guide” to federal transit funding)

Orlando, Florida developed a “Park and Play Center” at one of its municipal parking garages, with a child care center, covered walkways connecting to a Performing Arts Center, and city-funded free shuttles bus service to downtown centers of employment. The FTA funded 80% of the parking garage costs and land costs for the child care center.

In Boston, Massachusetts, along the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority’s Orange Line, you’ll find the Roxbury community. This area of Boston is populated by predominantly low-and-moderate income African Americans. A local non-profit organization, the Whittier Street Neighborhood Health Center opened a community “Health Station” adjacent to the Roxbury Crossing transit station. Roxbury Crossing is also bus stop for 10 bus lines. The FTA helped to fund the construction of the rail station.

In Oakland, California, a non-profit community organization, the Unity Council has been planning and advocating for a major transit oriented development project called the Fruitvale Transit Village, for nearly a decade. Over $30 million of a projected $100 million in new investment has already been secured.

Fruitvale is both a neighborhood name and a rail station name. The Bay Area Rapid Transit (or, “BART”) system had a barren 10-acre parking lot at the Fruitvale station. The community envisioned a mixed-use development, anchored by the BART transit station. The Unity Council hopes to build a “Transit Village” on that land, plus additional nearby acreage. The Transit Village will include a child development facility, a senior citizen activity and multipurpose center, a community resource center, a public library and community-operated health clinic, a pedestrian plaza and festival space, 47 new units of rental housing, and new or renovated retail stores and offices.

Groundbreaking took place in September 1999, and as of December 2002, 50% of the project has been constructed. Funding has come from the City of Oakland, BART, and a wide-ranging array of private investors and grants. For more details, go to the Unity Council’s website: www.unitycouncil.org/html/ftv.html.

The Urban Land Institute

The Urban Land Institute is another valuable source of information on transit oriented development and urban revitalization. Known as “ULI” and founded in 1936, it is an association of practitioners engaged in urban planning and real estate development from both the public and private sectors. Its mission: to “provide responsible leadership in the use of land in order to enhance the total environment.” In plain English, ULI researches and advises both private-sector real estate developers and government on land use planning and housing and commercial development in our cities. Its members have organized themselves into “district councils” in 40 major U.S. metropolitan areas.

In Chicago, local “notables” who have been active in ULI include Charles Shaw, who spearheaded the development of new mixed-income housing in Homan Square on the City’s West Side, and Robert Belcaster, a developer who served as the President of the Chicago Transit Authority (1992-1995). Most recently (2001), the City of Chicago sought ULI’s help in re-thinking City Hall’s approach to redeveloping a prime piece of Downtown Chicago real estate, the notorious “Block 37” on State Street.

ULI is headquartered in Washington, D.C., with a staff of 100 and an annual budget of $27 million. ULI has sponsored the publication of hundreds of reports, including scores of case studies about individual cities and their redevelopment challenges, as well as guidelines and recommendations on transit oriented development, urban design, and a movement known as “the New Urbanism” which has promoted a return to our cities and in-fill development in older urban neighborhoods.

In 1994-95 during the reconstruction of the CTA Green Line, the CTA, its Community Advisory Panel for the Green Line Rehab Project, and the City of Chicago invited the Urban Land Institute to provide an Advisory Services panel to help Chicago study the potential for transit oriented development along the Green Line. Their study affirmed what the Neighborhood Capital Budget Group--and the Community Green Line Coalition that NCBG organized—had said all along: Our neighborhood transit lines are lifelines along which the City should encourage the concentration of in-fill development of neighborhood shopping, employment, and affordable housing.

To order a copy of ULI’s report, Chicago’s New Green Line (1995), go to www.ULI org. You’ll also find a wide array of other related studies available through their on-line “Bookstore.”