Light-Rail Transit Phoenix, Arizona - Providing Public

Light-Rail TransitPhoenix, ArizonaEconomic Development along the Planned Light-Rail Line

December 2–7, 2001An Advisory Services Panel Report

ULI–the Urban Land Institute1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.Suite 500 WestWashington, D.C. 20007-5201

An Advisory Services Panel Report2

ULI–the Urban Land Institute is a non-profit research and education organiza-tion that promotes responsible leadership in the use of land in order to enhance

the total environment.

The Institute maintains a membership represent-ing a broad spectrum of interests and sponsors awide variety of educational programs and forumsto encourage an open exchange of ideas and shar-ing of experience. ULI initiates research thatanticipates emerging land use trends and issuesand proposes creative solutions based on that re-search; provides advisory services; and publishesa wide variety of materials to disseminate infor-mation on land use and development.

Established in 1936, the Institute today has morethan 17,000 members and associates from 60 coun-tries, representing the entire spectrum of the landuse and development disciplines. Professionals rep-resented include developers, builders, property

owners, investors, architects, public officials,planners, real estate brokers, appraisers, attor-neys, engineers, financiers, academics, students,and librarians. ULI relies heavily on the experi-ence of its members. It is through member in-volvement and information resources that ULIhas been able to set standards of excellence indevelopment practice. The Institute has longbeen recognized as one of America’s most re-spected and widely quoted sources of objectiveinformation on urban planning, growth, and de-velopment.

This Advisory Services panel report is intendedto further the objectives of the Institute and tomake authoritative information generally avail-able to those seeking knowledge in the field ofurban land use.

Richard M. RosanPresident

About ULI–the Urban Land Institute

©2002 by ULI–the Urban Land Institute1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 500 WestWashington, D.C. 20007-5201

All rights reserved. Reproduction or use of the whole or anypart of the contents without written permission of the copy-right holder is prohibited.

ULI Catalog Number: ASP039Cover image photograph: City of Phoenix, Bob Rink; coverimage concept drawing: Valley Connections.

Phoenix, Arizona, December 2–7, 2001 3

The goal of ULI’s Advisory Services Programis to bring the finest expertise in the realestate field to bear on complex land useplanning and development projects, pro-

grams, and policies. Since 1947, this program hasassembled well over 400 ULI-member teams tohelp sponsors find creative, practical solutionsfor issues such as downtown redevelopment,land management strategies, evaluation of de-velopment potential, growth management, com-munity revitalization, brownfields redevelopment,military base reuse, provision of low-cost and af-fordable housing, and asset management strate-gies, among other matters. A wide variety of pub-lic, private, and nonprofit organizations havecontracted for ULI’s Advisory Services.

Each panel team is composed of highly qualifiedprofessionals who volunteer their time to ULI.They are chosen for their knowledge of the paneltopic and screened to ensure their objectivity.ULI panel teams are interdisciplinary and typi-cally include several developers, a landscapearchitect, a planner, a market analyst, a financeexpert, and others with the niche expertiseneeded to address a given project. ULI teamsprovide a holistic look at development problems.Each panel is chaired by a respected ULI mem-ber with previous panel experience.

The agenda for a five-day panel assignment is in-tensive. It includes an in-depth briefing day com-posed of a tour of the site and meetings with spon-sor representatives; a day and a half of hour-longinterviews of typically 80 to 100 key communityrepresentatives; and a day and a half of formulat-ing recommendations. Many long nights of discus-sion precede the panel’s conclusions. On the finalday on site, the panel makes an oral presentationof its findings and conclusions to the sponsor. Atthe request of the sponsor, a written report isprepared and published.

Because the sponsoring entities are responsiblefor significant preparation before the panel’s visit,including sending extensive briefing materials toeach member and arranging for the panel to meet

with key local community members and stake-holders in the project under consideration, partic-ipants in ULI’s five-day panel assignments areable to make accurate assessments of a sponsor’sissues and to provide recommendations in a com-pressed amount of time.

A major strength of the program is ULI’s uniqueability to draw on the knowledge and expertise ofits members, including land developers and own-ers, public officials, academicians, representativesof financial institutions, and others. In fulfillmentof the mission of the Urban Land Institute, thisAdvisory Services panel report is intended to pro-vide objective advice that will promote the re-sponsible use of land to enhance the environment.

ULI Project StaffRachelle L. LevittSenior Vice President, Policy and Practice

Mary Beth CorriganManaging Director, Advisory Services

Nancy Zivitz SussmanSenior Associate, Advisory Services

Jason BellPanel Coordinator, Advisory Services

Nancy H. StewartDirector, Book Program

David James RoseManuscript Editor

Betsy VanBuskirkArt Director

Martha LoomisDesktop Publishing Specialist/Graphics

Diann Stanley-AustinDirector, Publishing Operations

CeCe MinerWord Processor Specialist

About ULI Advisory Services


On behalf of ULI, the panel extends its sin-cere appreciation to the panel sponsors:the city of Phoenix and ULI Arizona, adistrict council of the Urban Land Insti-

tute. Patrick Grady, community and economic de-velopment director, and his staff worked tirelesslyto prepare for the panel’s week on site.

The briefing and its related materials, the tour,the interview schedule, and the support both be-fore the panel came on site and during the panel’sstay in Phoenix were exceptional and properlyprepared the panel for its work. Special thanksgo to Tamie Fisher and Marcus Muirhead, whoworked tirelessly to make sure the panel had allthat it needed.

Matt Crowe, chair of ULI Arizona, and his execu-tive committee are to be commended for havingthe foresight to work with the city on the impor-tant issue of light rail for the Central Valley.Sheila Hamilton, district council coordinator, pro-vided valuable assistance with panel logistics.

Finally, the panel would like to thank the morethan 100 citizens and community leaders who tookthe time to be interviewed by the panel and whoshared their visions for how light rail can be anasset to the community.

Acknowledgments


ULI Panel and Project Staff 6

Foreword: The Panel’s Assignment 7

Market Potential 9

Planning and Design 18

Transportation and Development 28

Implementation 32

Conclusion 39

About the Panel 40

Contents


Panel ChairFrank J. SparicioFounding PrincipalCRES–Corporate Real Estate StrategiesRumford, Rhode Island

Panel MembersMarta BorsanyiPrincipalThe Concord GroupSan Francisco, California

Fernando CostaPlanning DirectorCity of Fort Worth Planning DepartmentFort Worth, Texas

Robert DunphySenior Resident FellowULI–the Urban Land InstituteWashington, D.C.

Richard GalehousePrincipalSasaki AssociatesWatertown, Massachusetts

Kenneth H. HughesPresidentUC UrbanDallas, Texas

Richard W. MaineManaging PartnerLandmark Partners, LLCSimsbury, Connecticut

Alvin R. McNealManager, Joint DevelopmentWashington Metropolitan Area Transit AuthorityWashington, D.C.

Marilee A. UtterTransit-Oriented Development SpecialistRegional Transportation DistrictDenver, Colorado

Jack WierzenskiAssistant Vice President, Economic Development and Planning

Dallas Area Rapid TransitDallas, Texas

ULI Project DirectorMary Beth CorriganManaging DirectorAdvisory Services

ULI On-Site CoordinatorJennifer NaylorMeeting Coordinator

ULI Panel and Project Staff


Initially, the Central Phoenix/East Valley Light-Rail Transit project is a 20.3-mile, $1 billion railtransit project that traverses central and eastPhoenix and connects with Tempe and Mesa,

two adjoining municipalities. The project will linkPhoenix’s central business district, Phoenix SkyHarbor International Airport, Arizona State Uni-versity, community college campuses, and eventvenues that currently draw about 12 millionpeople per year from all over the region and, attimes, the United States, including facilities for theteams of the National Basketball Association, theNational Football League, Major League Base-ball, and the National Hockey League, as well asthe Phoenix Civic Plaza convention center, and anextensive array of museums and theaters. Theproject is scheduled to start construction in 2003and to open in 2006.

The sponsors asked the panel to evaluate poten-tial land uses around four light-rail stations alongthe planned transit line: Central Avenue andCamelback Road on the north end of the system,Washington/Jefferson streets at 22nd Street,Washington Street at 32nd Street, and Washing-ton Street at 40th Street. As is typical with ULIpanels, it is never easy to stay within the con-fines of the assignment, so the panel commentedon much more since it was necessary to look atbroader issues than just these four stations. Forthe rail line in general and for specific stationsalong the line, the panel looked at four broad is-sues as follows.

Market potential. The types of developmentattractive to light-rail ridership; opportunity anddemand for these uses; and trends likely to occuralong the corridor.

Planning and design. How to create a sense ofplace/identity that will be different; changes nec-essary in zoning and a range of standards; and theimpact within the stations’ zone of influence.

Foreword: The Panel’s Assignment

Development strategies. Ways to maximize oppor-tunities for development; options/scale of develop-ment; and priority stations.

Implementation. Public/private strategies for thecity to pursue and public incentives necessary toattract development from the private sector.

To tackle this assignment, the panel felt it wasnecessary to step back and look at the broad pic-ture of development and land use policies andpatterns that have influenced current conditions.Without question, Phoenix has welcomed growthand continues to do so—for years, it has been ator near the top of the list of the fastest-growingU.S. cities. However, land use patterns have beenrather free-form, with centers or areas develop-ing wherever growth has occurred. The result hasbeen a consistent pattern of low-rise, low-densityland use.

Before Phoenix’s downtown core had a chance todevelop as the single most powerful employmentcenter, there was a move to create other coreareas, including Uptown/Midtown, the Camelback

Location map.

160

180

180

191

191

191

191

60

60 60

60

70

89

89

89

89

89

89A

89A

93

93

95

160

89

89A

10

10

10

10

17

19

40

40

8Y U M A

A P A C H E

C O C H I S E

C O C O N I N O

G I L A

G R A H A M

GREEN- LEEM A R I C O P A

M O H A V E

N A V A J O

P I M A

P I N A L

S A N T A C R U Z

Y A V A P A I

L A P A Z

Tucson

ScottsdaleTempe Mesa

Phoenix

CA

LIFO

RN

IA

MEXICO

NEV

AD

A

NEW

MEX

ICO

UTAH

A R I Z O N A


Corridor, and other suburban locations, with theresult that higher densities are scattered intoseveral pockets with no significant high-densityresidential cores. Together with the city’s well-developed grid system of generously wide streets,growth has occurred without the significant con-gestion that typically causes people to pursue al-ternate forms of transportation.

Why light rail? From the panel’s perspective, thecommunity’s foresight is correct because it willtake three to five years or more to complete thesystem and even longer to measure its success.The panel sensed that expectations for the systemare very high; for it to succeed and be expandedand extended, great care must be given to theinitial phase. The opportunity to make this a suc-cessful and positive experience for riders beginsnow. The cogent words of Daniel Burnham, aturn-of-the-century architect/planner in Chicago,indirectly attest to this: “Make no little plans.They have no magic to stir men’s blood.”

Given the tragedy of September 11, 2001, and itsimpact on a variety of quality-of-life issues, theopportunity to review, for example, the light-railconnection to the airport is relevant. The airportis and will continue to be the economic enginespurring growth in the valley. Offering seamless,safe, and comfortable transportation to the plane,the light rail will experience a significant increasein ridership.

As to whether light rail will be a catalyst for eco-nomic development, the city can look to the expe-rience of other cities with existing systems. Inolder as well as newer systems, the average pre-miums in value for proximity to stations is 5 to 10percent over time. In Pasadena, California, wherelight rail will not be operative for almost twoyears, two major mixed-use developments havebeen completed at stations: a residential projectand a shopping mall/residential complex. Overtime, light rail can stimulate development, whichcan have a “snowball effect” on future develop-ment. The trick is to begin the process now—as itseems the city has—to bring all the tools that thepublic and private sectors have available to makethis a new beginning.

Panel members investi-gate development poten-tial at the future Camel-back and Central transitstop.


To assess potential opportunities for transit-oriented development (TOD) along therail corridor, the panel made the follow-ing assumptions:

• Market opportunities incorporate political real-ities.

• Economic growth will be slightly slower thanthat witnessed during last decade.

• Stations will be completed in 2006 and after.

• Light-rail developments and commuter-rail de-velopments have different characteristics.

To respond to questions about the market, thepanel used the following:

• Analysis of the economic environment.

• Site analysis.

• Analysis of market demand by product type.

• Assessment of competitive environment byproduct type.

Economic and Market OverviewThe following is a discussion of economic and mar-ket factors that will influence the success of TODalong the rail corridor.

DemographicsThe population of the Phoenix metropolitan mar-ket (Maricopa County) has increased dramaticallyover the last decade and is projected to continuegrowing at a dramatic pace through the next fiveyears. With a population of 3.1 million in 2001, themetropolitan area is projected to have a popula-tion of 3.4 million by the time the rail opens.

What supports and drives the need for the lightrail is not population growth alone but the densifi-cation of the population. While the overall popula-

tion density of the metropolitan area has in-creased over the last ten years, the densificationoccurred due to the shrinking size of the suburbanlot and to the addition of a third story to the sub-urban apartment complex. High-density residen-tial development in the urban core—the area thatis the focus of the panel’s study—added to theprocess of population densification as well.

The urban core provides further opportunities tocontinue this trend, since undeveloped land still isabundant along the Central Avenue corridor andthe Washington/Jefferson corridor offers a lot ofredevelopment opportunities. For the city to beable to respond to opportunities for densificationin the central core, land values and the cost ofconstruction in general will need to be brought inline with the prevailing rental structure.

Nationwide, even in areas where the system isused heavily by broad segments of the population,the average household income of the light-railuser is below that of the respective region. There-fore, the planned Phoenix light rail’s alignment islaid out appropriately: it travels through areas ofthe city where median household incomes are con-sistently below that of the metropolitan area. Assuch, the system will serve the very populationthat needs it most.

The population growth in the metropolitan areahas brought significant ethnic diversity. Manyneighborhoods along the light-rail alignment showhigh minority presence, which will provide oppor-tunities to integrate those residents into the laborforce and into the greater community as well. Be-cause many minority households are relativelycomfortable with high-density environments, theyare seen as significant new elements of the urbanlandscape.

Meanwhile, the aging of the population, with thebaby boom generation reaching the empty-neststage of life, also bodes well for the future of

Market Potential


Employment followed the population growth tothe suburbs, a trend throughout the nation, be-cause even with growth in central cores, the cen-tral business district (CBD) is not capturing itsfair share of the added employment to the metro-politan area. Yet, the panel learned from marketresearch and its interviews with communitymembers that much of the future employmentgrowth projected for the Phoenix metropolitanarea is assumed to occur along the light-rail align-ment, in Phoenix and Tempe.

Furthermore, existing employment is stronglyconcentrated along the light-rail route and theCentral Avenue corridor, in the downtowns ofPhoenix and Tempe, and at the airport and Ari-zona State University. As such, the planned align-ment touches on many of the current employmentcenters in addition to areas that have significantredevelopment opportunities: namely, empty par-cels along Central Avenue and the underdevel-oped Washington/Jefferson corridor.

The national trend toward a service economy isespecially pronounced in the Phoenix metropoli-tan area. In Phoenix, service jobs make up morethan 33 percent of the market and jobs in finance,insurance, and real estate (FIRE)—approximately8 percent of the employment, compared with thenational average of 30 percent and 5 percent,respectively.

Service jobs abound along the light-rail alignmentand at hotels, restaurants, the sports facilities,and the convention center. Professional serviceemployees, a significant element of the servicessector, and in FIRE, are office tenants and assuch represent the clientele for the Central Av-enue corridor and downtown office buildings.They also are potential future riders of the lightrail. The design and implementation of the light-rail system should be sensitive to the needs of theoffice tenants and office building owners. This willmake the area competitive with suburban officeconcentrations.

Real Estate MarketsTo understand the potential for TOD within thestudy area, several real estate markets ought tobe considered.

urban areas. Freed of the necessity to live onlarge suburban lots, desiring to participate in con-centrated cultural and entertainment activities,and having the ability to afford them, suburbanempty nesters have been moving into the nation’sdowntowns.

Population growth in general and growth in cer-tain segments of the population will contribute torepopulating the neighborhoods along the light-rail corridor. Such changes bode well for the fu-ture ridership of the light rail.

EconomyThe number of people employed in the metropoli-tan area exceeded 1.6 million in 2001, makingPhoenix, with 47 percent of its population work-ing, one of the most highly employed cities in thenation. Despite a gradual slowing in new job addi-tions since 1995, the area still added more than50,000 jobs last year. It is projected to add ap-proximately 160,000 more by the time the lightrail opens.

The Arizona Center pro-vides a pleasant retail ex-perience downtown.

Patrick Grady (left), direc-tor of community andeconomic developmentfor the city of Phoenix,and Matthew Crow, presi-dent and CEO of Gross-man Company Propertiesand chair of ULI Arizona—cosponsors of the panel—brief the panel on itsfirst day in Phoenix.


Residential Market. Population and employmentgrowth in Phoenix has generated significant de-mand for all types of real estate products, bothresidential and nonresidential. Yet, due to a verycompetitive building environment, even with sig-nificant appreciation over the last five years,Phoenix, among all major U.S. metropolitanareas, remains one of the most affordable residen-tial markets, with an average single-family homeprice of approximately $140,000 and with an aver-age rent below $700.

Phoenix in general and the neighborhoods alongthe light-rail route have the highest concentrationof attached dwellings in the metropolitan area.During the last few years, more than 1,000 at-tached units have been added in the Central Av-enue corridor and in downtown. Such concentra-tion is necessary for the success of light rail andshould be further encouraged along its alignment.Maintaining its fair share of the new residentialgrowth over the next few years, the area is pro-jected to add approximately 3,000 new attachedhousing units along the light-rail route.

Office Market. With its limited number of corpo-rate headquarters, the Phoenix metropolitan areanever has been a significant office market. Whilemetropolitan Denver has 55 square feet of officespace per resident and the Dallas Metroplex has79, metropolitan Phoenix has only 16. As officeusers serve local and regional clientele, over thelast few decades, office construction followed resi-dential growth to the suburbs. (It should be notedthat the trend in Phoenix is to develop suburbanoffice campuses and industrial flex office spacewith ample parking.)

In the 1960s, nearly 80 percent of the 12 million-square-foot office market was in the CBD. Cur-rently, only 28 percent—or 14 million of the total50 million square feet—is located there. While thephenomenon of losing share while still growing isnot unique to Phoenix, the growth in the city’sCBD has been especially slow. In addition, thepanel learned from market data and its interviewsthat, from time to time, many high-quality ten-ants have moved to the Camelback Road/24thStreet location.

The light-rail alignment services three major of-fice submarkets: downtown, Uptown, and Gate-way. They represent a total of 16.5 million squarefeet of office space, offering Class B and Class Aproducts in the range of $18 to $25 per squarefoot. Vacancies range from 12 percent at Gatewayto more than 14 percent in Uptown. The designand development of the light rail will need to beespecially office-friendly to reinforce, rather thanundermine, the competitive appeal of the affectedoffice concentrations.

Retail Market. Phenomenal population growth hasinduced a significant expansion of the retail realestate market. The amount of retail space percapita in Phoenix is one of the highest among U.S.metropolitan areas. Over the last five years, ap-proximately 2.5 million square feet of retail spacehas been added to the metropolitan market.

Besides new construction, several old centershave been repositioned to meet the changingneeds of their environment. As outlying areascatch up with demand and intown locations re-spond to the changing needs of their residents,projections for future expansion of the market arevery encouraging.

Despite its central location, the alignment of thelight rail offers limited destination retail services.The recently repositioned Chris-Town, now calledSpectrum Mall, turned into more of a communitythan regional-serving facility. The Phoenix andTempe downtowns’ destination establishmentsoffer goods and services more or less successfullyto a regional audience. High-quality destinationretail could turn this situation around and will bea key factor in the success of the light-rail system.

Palm-lined streets provideattractive approaches tofuture transit stops.


Market Characteristics of the Corridor

Because it encompasses such diverse market con-ditions, the Phoenix light-rail corridor is bestunderstood by looking at it in five separate seg-ments and then evaluating the strengths andweaknesses of each one. These segments are asfollows:

• Segment 1: 19th Avenue/Bethany Home Roadto Camelback/Central.

• Segment 2: Central Avenue/Midtown.

• Segment 3: Central Avenue/downtown.

• Segment 4: Washington/Jefferson/SeventhStreet to I-10.

• Segment 5: Washington/Jefferson/Airport.

The following is a description of each segmentalong with a list of its market strengths andweaknesses.

Segment 1: 19th Avenue/Bethany Home Road toCamelback/CentralThis segment, located along commercial streets,is complemented by comparatively dense well-established, suburban-type housing. Income lev-els and property values generally are lower alongthe 19th Avenue corridor. The segment includestwo stations offering major redevelopment oppor-tunities: the end of the line (19th Avenue andBethany Home Road), and Central Avenue andCamelback Road.

Market strengths:

• Surrounding residential density.

• Access to a large workforce.

The panel’s five studysegments along thePhoenix light-rail system.

19th

Ave

nue

23rd

Ave

nue

7510

7517

202

143

51

7510

Grand Canal

McDonald Drive

Stanford Drive

Camelback Drive

Maryland Avenue

Bethany Home Road

Missouri Avenue

Camelback Road

Indian School Road

Thomas Road

Encanto Boulevard Oak Street

McDowell Road

Washington Street

Thomas Road

24th

Str

eet

52nd

Str

eet7t

h S

tree

t

15th

Ave

nue

56th

Str

eet

16th

Str

eet

7th

Aven

ue

Cent

ral A

venu

e3r

d Av

enue

Jefferson Street

Roosevelt Street

12th

Str

eet

Arizona Canal

36th

Str

eet

32nd

Str

eet

Osborn Road

Campbell Avenue

KeyScheduled Light-Rail TransitScheduled Light-Rail Stops

Van Buren Street

44th

Str

eet

40th

Str

eet

Grand Avenue

S E G M E N T 5

S E G M E N T 4

S E G M E N T 3

S E G M E N T 2

S E G M E N T 1


• Direction of future line extension.

• Availability of large parcels of assembled land,including the Spectrum Mall and others.

• Proximity to freeway.

Market weaknesses:

• Perception of unsafe neighborhoods.

• Nonpedestrian environment.

• Haphazard commercial development.

Segment 2: Central Avenue/MidtownThis segment follows the historic downtown/up-town corridor of Phoenix and incorporates a largeemployment base, many cultural facilities, andseveral recent multifamily residential develop-ments, both for sale and for rent. The corridorbenefits from the adjacency of strong, establishedneighborhoods. The stations there offer an oppor-tunity for a variety of development types. Thesegment is expected to serve as both a significantpoint of origin and a destination for ridership.

Market strengths:

• Central location in metropolitan area.

• Heavy employment corridor.

• Proximity of high-end residential neighborhoods.

• Historical main street.

• Anchored by CBD.

• Cultural attractions.

• Parks and recreational facilities.

• Mixed-use environment.

• High vehicular counts.

• Availability of large land parcels.

• Freeway access.

• Fiber-optic capacity.

Market weaknesses:

• Lack of design continuity.

• Lack of amenities for residents within walkingdistance.

• Large inventory of outdated commercial build-ings.

• Low rents that do not support replacement costs.

• Inflated land values that restrict development.

Segment 3: Central Avenue/DowntownThe CBD is home to a workforce of more than30,000 people, one of the principal aggregations inthe region but modest when compared with othercomparably sized cities. There is about 5 millionsquare feet of office space in the vicinity of theCentral Avenue/downtown station, and the seg-ment also incorporates museums, theaters, sport-ing arenas, and convention facilities. It is viewedas a primary destination for ridership on thelight-rail line.

Market strengths:

• Comparatively large aggregation of workers.

• Regional amenities including BankOne Ball-park, America West Arena, symphony hall,museums, a science center, theaters, and a con-vention center.

• Proximity of government offices and courts.

• Large parcels of developable land.

• Ample parking.

• Good automobile access.

• Close proximity to the airport.

Market weaknesses:

• Physically large and spread-out urban core.

• Office-dominated area with little residential orretail space.

• Office users largely limited to government andfinance.

• Perception of traffic congestion.

Segment 4: Washington/Jefferson/SeventhStreet to I-10This segment is an important part of the connec-tor between the CBD and Tempe and the rest ofthe East Valley. Along the way, it accesses sev-eral commercial nodes, Phoenix Sky Harbor In-


ternational Airport, and some of the city’s oldestneighborhoods.

Market strengths:

• Proximity to CBD employment and activities.

• Availability of land.

• Favorable land prices.

• Strong access to regional and local road systems.

• Strong, active churches.

Market weaknesses:

• Nearby neighborhoods in disrepair.

• Poor reputation of school district.

• Small parcel sizes.

• Spotty land use pattern.

• Perceptions of crime.

Segment 5: Washington/Jefferson/AirportThis segment, which comprises a variety of landuses, fronts along Phoenix Sky Harbor Interna-tional Airport.

Market strengths:

• Excellent highway and road access.

• Proximity to the airport and to the jobs offeredthere.

• Historic neighborhoods.

• Large institutional employers.

• Large parcels of available land.

• Strong community spirit.

Market weaknesses:

• High land prices.

• Deteriorating building stock.

• Slum and blighted conditions.

• Perceived crime.

Transit-Oriented DevelopmentFor the purposes of this report, the panel definedTOD as compact, pedestrian-oriented villagesaround transit stations. These developments gen-erally lie within a five-minute walk of the transitplatform, comprise a mix of uses that supporttransit usage, encourage street-level activity, in-corporate public plazas, and rely on structured orbelow-grade parking.

As this type of development has spread through-out the country, some fundamental lessons aboutTODs have emerged.

• Every TOD is unique because the community,the location, and the market are unique. Uses,size, design, and economics all should work to-gether to compose a distinctive place.

• Like any other mixed-use development, TODssucceed only when there is market demand, in-frastructure, zoning, and capital. Transit aloneis not enough.

• In order to be economically feasible, TODsneed to be of a minimum size, generally nosmaller than five acres.

• Transit is supported best by multifamily resi-dential uses (condominiums and apartments,including both market-rate and affordableunits), offices with high employee counts (gov-ernment, schools, call centers), civic facilities(libraries, museums, churches, post offices),and entertainment uses (theaters, arenas, cine-mas, restaurants).

• Retail uses generally are the most difficultcomponent of transit villages, and focus on con-venience and service uses (e.g., coffeehouses,drugstores, video stores, cleaners, health clubs,food stores). These uses not only raise transitridership, but also decrease the need for moretrips by car.

• Transit villages are most successful when acritical mass of activity is created, when differ-ent types of people are brought to the stationthroughout the day, when they are carefullyconceived to be destination places in their own


right, and when transit is simply an additionalbenefit.

• A difficult type of development, TODs requirespecialized treatment by qualified developershaving successful experience with mixed-useprojects, patient capital, and substantial equity.Projects frequently cost more, necessitatemore capital upfront, and provide higher yieldsto developers over time.

• TODs have a track record of successfully intro-ducing new types of development into commu-nities and then leading the market as otherdevelopments emulate that success. This iscommon with new housing types, mixed-useproducts in particular.

Land values at transit stations generally benefitfrom their comparative density advantage, theambience of the development, and a reduced needfor cars. Precise research is difficult to procure,but conservative estimates indicate a stabilized 10to 20 percent value premium to real estate locatedwith easy access to the station.

Specific Station DevelopmentOpportunitiesThe panel considered potential development op-portunities in the vicinity of five proposed stops:Spectrum, Central Avenue at Camelback Road,Washington/Jefferson at 22nd and 24th streets,Washington at 32nd Street, and Washington at40th Street.

Spectrum (Formerly Chris-Town)End-of-line stations are extremely important tothe viability of light-rail lines because they gener-ally draw the largest riderships and provide sub-stantial parking reservoirs. As gateways to andanchors of the system, they establish the identityof the line and largely determine the overall qual-ity of the transit experience. If it is user-friendly,attractive, and pedestrian-oriented, transit be-comes an amenity that appeals to a broad groupsof riders. If transit is difficult to use and locatedin uncomfortable environments, however, rider-ship is discouraged.

The Spectrum terminus offers an unusual oppor-tunity because it is a large parcel owned by a na-tional developer. It already includes substantialretail space and important village-center ameni-ties such as a library and a community center inthe vicinity. The panel’s impression is that onlyminimal integration into the site and few gesturesto transit riders have been proposed. Spectrumwill pale in comparison to the Tempe experience ifthe developer and the city do not proactively lookfor ways to integrate the station into the projectand make it a dynamic, exciting place.

Any consideration of building over the street atthis station is misguided and should not be fur-ther considered. It is highly unlikely that Spec-trum, in its existing form, will comprise under-ground parking. To ask riders to walk a longdistance from the station to the mall hurts transitridership and ignores a tremendous opportunityfor the property owner.

Spectrum could benefit from a broader customerbase and increased attention the neighborhoodwill give it if the station is exciting and well con-ceived. It has enough land in vacant parking lotsto make possible a wholesale redesign and reposi-tioning timed to coordinate with and capitalize onthe opening of the line.

Central Avenue and Camelback RoadMembers of the community have identified thissite as having the potential to be the light-railcorridor’s “crown jewel” of development, and thepanel agrees. Of the five proposed stops underdiscussion, this will be the capture point for heavyridership and may offer the best long-term devel-opment opportunity. The entire intersection shouldbe master planned to strengthen connections withexisting projects and to leverage public invest-ment for maximum economic development.

The demographics of the area support housing, of-fices, restaurants, shopping, and entertainmentthere. This site potentially can resemble 57thStreet and Fifth Avenue in New York City, HydePark Corner in London, and Ronde Point on theChamps-Elysées in Paris. It will be the gatewayto Central Avenue and downtown. The city couldtake advantage of Central Avenue’s negative at-tributes-too long, too wide, no fun-and remake it


as a beautiful green street with lots of activity,restaurants, and stores unlike anything currentlyin Phoenix. The light rail, if done correctly, canserve as the catalyst for such a remake.

The tremendous opportunity at this location liesin the feasibility of mixed-use development thereand its ability to help offset the cost of infrastruc-ture. Assuming city acquisition of the face blockalong Camelback Road from Central Avenue toThird Avenue, there should be six to ten acres ofdevelopable land after the construction of neces-sary roads and infrastructure. This level of devel-opment supports several buildings in the four- toseven-story range totaling 600,000 square feet ofdevelopment.

Specifically, the panel suggests anchoring the cen-ter with a major shopping and entertainmentcomponent comprising 250,000 to 300,000 squarefeet of space. The neighborhood can support sub-stantial shopping and restaurants, a health club,nightclubs, and perhaps an art cinema or a dinneror neighborhood theater. Above this developmentwould sit 300 to 350 mid- to upper-end apart-ments, offering 1.5 parking spaces per unit andother appropriate amenities.

Over time, rental units could be converted toownership units, but experience in other TODshas shown that people are more willing to live in a new place when they can try it out on a rentalbasis first. Ironically, demand to purchase almostalways follows immediately.

Next, retail uses would “wrap” around the park-ing structures and provide ground-floor activity.Another 100,000 square feet in smaller floor plate

office space would strengthen the mix. Park-and-ride parking would share spaces with eveningentertainment uses, and overall parking ratioswould be about 20 percent less than those of sub-urban locations because of the rail access. A diag-onal underpass to the Uptown Plaza would pro-vide pedestrian access to grocery stores and othershopping, and, over time, to even more amenitiesin the transit village.

Washington/Jefferson at 22nd and 24th StreetsAs the entry point to the airport and the region’sbroadest transit network, this is another site withenormous short-term and long-term potential.With Sky Harbor’s heavy and growing volume,strong national and international presence, signif-icant access to downtown, and recent expansion,it will continue to be a major regional asset.

Light rail, buses, vans, taxis, Greyhound buses,tour buses, rental cars, and all other forms oftransportation will be conveniently located there.Moreover, access to I-10 and 24th Street affordsexcellent auto connections. The panel believesthis will be a powerful site.

Travelers and airport employees will constitute themajor ridership component, but over time a stand-alone business and office base also will contributeto the formation of an International CommerceCenter. On the parcel identified for the panel toreview, three to five business-serving hotels willbe four to seven stories tall—tall enough so thatlighted logos on the tops of buildings, easily visi-ble from the freeway, would be appropriate. Ho-tels there will need to contain restaurants, healthclubs, and service retail uses, which will in turnattract suburban mid-rise office buildings. Com-mercial development of about 1.5 million squarefeet of space is possible.

A key concern of the panel is the airport connec-tion for light-rail and other transit passengers.Ideally, transit riders should be able to checktheir bags at the station and then proceed easilyto the airport terminal. Even though security con-cerns must be dealt with, creating a seamlesstransfer is a critical factor in building ridership.Extending the people mover further up to theparcel north of Van Buren Street also is recom-mended to expedite development of the area.

The transit line will bringredevelopment opportuni-ties to retail strips suchas this one.


Washington at 32nd StreetIn contrast to the scale of the airport and the pro-posed commerce center, this station offers an op-portunity for a much smaller-scale town center.This would reinforce the efforts of the area’s long-time residents and build on the ethnic heritage ofthe community. The Wilson School, an elementaryschool, is a treasure that should be nurtured, andthe panel supports recent efforts for an expandedcomplex. A traditional town square could be anappropriate center supporting new infill housing,community services, and rejuvenated neighbor-hood retail uses.

Washington at 40th StreetThis station will be jump-started by the criticalmass already existing at the Gateway Corridorand Gateway Community College. Easy access to

the northeast area has fueled the developmentthus far, and it will continue to be an advantage.The station area site comprises about 15 acres,which, at the density of the current GatewayCorridor Development, supports about 250,000square feet of additional office development, prob-ably in two major buildings. Given the proximityof the college and the short distance by rail toTempe, student housing and apartments may beappropriate components of the mix. If so, suchresidential development would support a growingamount of restaurant and other retail uses.

Local and regional leaders have appropriatelyconceived the Central Phoenix/East Valleylight-rail transit project as a catalyst foreconomic development. Light rail has the

potential, in the long run, to influence the patternof land use in this rapidly growing region and totransform the areas within walking distance ofproposed transit stations into special places thatwill enrich regional urban life. The region’s prog-ress toward these goals is not inevitable, how-ever. It will depend, in large measure, on howeffectively the region addresses certain basicplanning and design issues.

Public Policies Affecting TODThe city of Phoenix and its regional partners areworking to establish consistent transportation,land use, and urban design policies that will pro-tect and enhance the region’s long-term invest-ment in light-rail transit. The panel commendsthe region’s public officials for their foresight inthis regard and strongly encourages the continua-tion of these efforts.

Transportation PoliciesIn Phoenix, as in any large urban area, the city’sinterest in facilitating automobile traffic oftenconflicts with the city’s interest in promotingpedestrian activity and the use of mass transit.How the municipality resolves this conflict willprofoundly influence the character of its built en-vironment and the vitality of its public spaces.

Today, Phoenix has one of the lowest rates oftransit ridership among major American cities.Phoenix also has a disturbingly low level ofpedestrian activity within its central core, a factthat appears to be attributable more to its lack ofpedestrian-friendly streets than to its desert cli-mate. One civic leader underscored this pointwith the comment, “We drive to Tempe in orderto walk.”


The panel recommends that the city take a bigstep toward rectifying this situation by clearlyand consistently assigning priority to pedestriansand transit riders within transit station areas,even if doing so marginally increases traffic con-gestion. More specifically, the city should desig-nate major streets connecting neighborhoods totransit stations as transit-oriented landscapedstreets that are characterized by high-qualitysidewalks, street trees, streetlights, and bike-ways. These streets would include several east-west routes along the Central Avenue corridor aswell as 22nd, 32nd, and 40th streets as they ap-proach the Washington Street line.

Another transportation issue involves the pro-vision of adequate parking at transit stations inorder to promote transit ridership and to protectadjoining neighborhoods from the adverse im-pacts of spillover parking. Parking is a criticalcomponent of transit station design, yet manycities underestimate the demand for station-areaparking. The demand will be particularly strongat peripheral stations—such as Camelback/ Central, Spectrum, and 40th Street/Washington—because they will tend to capture large numbersof inbound commuters.

The panel recommends that the city pursue astrategy of mixed-use development and sharedparking, whereby daytime and nighttime users of station-area parking facilities might share thesame parking spaces and thus reduce demand forthis expensive and inefficient use of urban land.Beyond the station areas, the city should encour-age use of existing park-and-ride lots and con-sider establishing some with convenient bus con-nections to the stations where none exist. Thecity also should reinforce its commitment to lightrail by discouraging the provision of excessiveparking in the downtown area and by pricing mu-nicipal parking facilities at market rates, so as not

Planning and Design


to subsidize automobile use at the expense of themass transit system.

The integration of transportation and land useplanning is critical to the sustainability of Phoe-nix’s economic growth, and it is essential to thesuccess of the light-rail transit system. The paneltherefore commends local and regional leaderswho are working to promote this coordination ofplanning functions. In particular, the panel com-mends the Phoenix Planning Commission for em-phasizing the integration of transportation andland use planning in the current update of Phoe-nix’s General Plan, and the panel urges other cityofficials to proceed accordingly.

The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG),as the region’s federally recognized transportationplanning agency, is to be commended for allocat-ing a high level of discretionary transportationfunds to the light-rail transit system. The panelencourages MAG to continue assigning priority tolight rail and, furthermore, to broaden its effortsby establishing innovative land use and transpor-tation joint venture programs. Such sustainabledevelopment programs have been used success-fully by other large regional planning agencies,such as the Metropolitan Transportation Commis-sion in the San Francisco Bay Area, the NorthCentral Texas Council of Governments in the Dal-las/Fort Worth Metroplex, and the Atlanta Re-gional Commission. Finally, but not least impor-tant, the city should integrate transportation andland use planning by preparing station area plansconcurrent with preliminary engineering for thelight-rail system.

Land Use PoliciesSpecific land use policies can reinforce, and inturn can be reinforced by, the region’s investmentin light rail. For example, light-rail stations canbe extremely effective catalysts for the develop-ment of compact, mixed-use village centers thatcreate a strong sense of community and reduceautomobile travel demand in accordance with thecity’s general plan. Station area planning also canprovide an impetus to promote the compatibilityof TOD with adjoining neighborhoods.

The city should use this planning process to de-marcate neighborhood boundaries more clearly

and to defend existing residential areas from in-trusion by incompatible commercial uses. Theproposed First Avenue extension is a good exam-ple of current efforts to delineate neighborhoodboundaries. The city should protect the residen-tial character of existing neighborhoods by usingtraffic-calming measures, such as speed bumps, todiscourage dangerous cut-through traffic; and byimplementing transportation management pro-grams, such as resident parking permits, to pre-vent nonresident parking.

The municipal zoning ordinance represents one ofthe city’s most important tools for implementingstation area land use plans. The panel supportsPhoenix’s initiative to establish interim overlayzoning districts for station areas to prohibit inap-propriate auto-oriented land uses and to preventfrontyard parking along light-rail corridors. Thisinterim measure is supported by the proposal todefine station areas by a radius of a quarter mileto 2,000 feet.

The panel also supports the city’s initiative towork with property owners and neighborhoodresidents in preparing station area plans, whichwill promote mixed-use development at densitiesthat will generate ridership for the transit sys-tem. The panel believes that the city should as-sign a greater sense of urgency to this planning

Transitions between theclose-in neighborhoodsand the commercial areasneed to be softened to at-tract riders to the transitstations.


process. The city should use station area plans asa means to prescribe specific public improvementsand to depict the desired arrangement of proposedbuildings and public spaces through illustrativesite plans.

Upon adoption of each station area plan, the cityshould proceed to create an appropriate replace-ment zoning district for the pertinent station area.Among other objectives, these zoning regulationsshould reduce off-street parking requirements fordevelopment within station areas. The panel doesnot recommend, however, the establishment of aregulatory cap on station area parking, as such alimitation could have the unintended effect of im-peding desirable development.

On a broader scale, the city should create an in-centive for station area development by limitinghigher-density development throughout the cityto appropriate station areas and village cores. Inthe past, the city’s tendency to grant generouszoning permission for development in widely scat-tered locations and the city’s emphasis on the im-provement of arterial streets and highways to

facilitate high-speed automobile traffic have com-bined to undermine efforts toward more orderlygrowth.

The municipality therefore should exercise its dis-cretion in assigning preferential zoning permis-sion to the Central Avenue corridor and to otherappropriate areas in accordance with the generalplan. The city also should reinforce its land useregulations with fiscal policies that focus its finan-cial resources on station areas and village cores.This strategy would enable Phoenix to take bet-ter advantage of existing streets, utilities, andother infrastructure while reducing the need forexpensive and inefficient infrastructure exten-sions into the city’s fringe areas.

Urban Design Policies

The panel commends the Regional Public Trans-portation Authority (RPTA) and its Urban De-sign Task Force on their work in formulatingappropriate guidelines for the design of transitstations. The panel concurs with the task force’sdefinition of urban design as “the art and scienceof making places for people” and, accordingly, rec-ommends that the city also establish detailed butflexible design guidelines for areas within walkingdistance of the stations. These guidelines shouldemphasize the creation of pedestrian-friendly en-vironments, the provision of public spaces andcommunity services, and connectivity to adjoiningneighborhoods.

Station area urban design guidelines, coupledwith a site plan review process that encouragesfull and meaningful citizen participation, can go along way toward creating exceptional places thatstimulate economic activity and social interactionaround transit stations. These special places canbe particularly important as oases along Washing-ton Street and other thoroughfares that are char-acterized by a high incidence of visual and envi-ronmental blight. San Diego and its MetropolitanTransit Development Board have established sta-tion area urban design guidelines that could serveas a good model for Phoenix to consider.

New transit stations needto be designed to fit intotheir surroundings yethave a character of theirown, such as this stationin Cleveland.

SASA

KI A

SSOC

IATE

S, IN

C.SA

SAKI

ASS

OCIA

TES,

INC.


Station Area DevelopmentOpportunitiesFor the purpose of analyzing the environmentsand development opportunities around variousstation areas, the planning and design team hasdivided the light-rail system into the same fivesegments that were used to analyze market po-tential. Each of these segments has a distinctset of physical characteristics and warrants asimilarly distinct approach to transit-orienteddevelopment.

Spectrum/19th Avenue to CamelbackRoad/Central Avenue (Segment 1): IntenseRedevelopmentThis segment includes four proposed stations, themost important of which—from the standpoint ofdevelopment opportunities—are Spectrum/19thAvenue and Camelback Road/Central Avenue. Thepanel recommends that the city take bold steps topromote intense redevelopment around these twostations. In particular, the city should use redevel-opment around the Bethany Home Road/19th Av-enue station as an opportunity to promote rein-vestment in Spectrum Mall so as to restore itshistoric role as a community-serving commercialhub, thereby stabilizing and revitalizing the di-verse neighborhoods that surround the mall.

The Camelback/Central station provides a differ-ent opportunity that takes advantage of Phoenix’s“100 percent corner” at the juncture of the city’stwo most prestigious streets. This intersection,including the transit station site at its southwestcorner, represents the city’s greatest opportunityto demonstrate the potential of light rail to stimu-late mixed-use development at densities that pro-mote transit ridership. At the same time, the re-development of this area will demand specialconsideration to the historic character of CentralVillage and other adjoining neighborhoods.

Central Avenue/Midtown (Segment 2):Neighborhood PreservationThe Midtown portion of Central Avenue, betweenCamelback Road and I-10, contains six proposedstations. The most important stations along thisstretch are located at Thomas and Central nearSt. Joseph’s Hospital and the McDowell/Centralstation within the Arts District.

3rd

Str

eet

Indian School Road

7th

Aven

ue

Grand Canal

Key Light-Rail AccessSegment 2 Rail StopsScheduled Light-Rail TransitAdjoining Residential Neighborhoods

7th

Str

eet

1st

Aven

ue

Roosevelt Street

Van Buren Street

3rd

Aven

ue

Camelback Road

Osborn Road

Campbell Avenue

7510

Neighborhood access tosegment 2 light-railstops.


In general, the Midtown area is characterizedby attractive but underdeveloped streetscapes,and by some of Phoenix’s most historic and desir-able neighborhoods. In promoting TOD aroundthe Midtown stations, the city should emphasizethe preservation of these neighborhoods and theestablishment of improved pedestrian connec-tions between those neighborhoods and the light-rail stations.

Central Avenue/Downtown (Segment 3): High-Density, Mixed-Use DevelopmentThe downtown area represents the hub of Phoe-nix’s light-rail transit system, where the CentralAvenue/First Avenue and Washington/JeffersonStreet corridors interconnect. This area containssix stations, two of which serve the governmentdistrict and another two serve the city’s major-league sports facilities and convention center.The downtown area provides significant oppor-tunities for high-density, mixed-use developmentwithin walking distance of major employers andattractions.

Washington/Jefferson/Seventh Street to I-10(Segment 4): Infill DevelopmentBetween Seventh Street and I-10 are located onlya pair of stations at 12th Street/Washington west-bound and 12th Street and Jefferson eastbound.Current market and environmental conditions sug-

gest that development opportunities in the nearterm probably will be limited to infill residential,commercial, and light-industrial development.

Washington/Jefferson/Airport (Segment 5): JobCreation and Community RevitalizationSome of the most interesting but most challeng-ing TOD opportunities are associated with thethree stations along the Washington/JeffersonStreet corridor that are located east of I-10 andnorth of Sky Harbor International Airport. Themost important station along this segment—andperhaps the most important in the entire light-rail system—is the 22nd Street/Washington sta-tion, which would benefit from a proposed people-mover connection to the airport. This station hasan extraordinary potential to generate transit rid-ership and to create jobs.

The 32nd Street/Washington station could spurrevitalization of the historic but distressed Wilsoncommunity, which represents one of the oldestand largest concentrations of Hispanic families inPhoenix. Gateway Community College, with its31-acre campus and 17,000 students, would gen-erate considerable ridership at the 40th Street/Washington station and would serve as a naturalpartner on transit-oriented development.

Station Area Development ConceptsThe appropriate design of station areas is a com-plex undertaking that demands extensive collabo-ration among public agencies, property owners,and neighborhood residents. The panel has pre-pared station area design concepts for four spe-cific station areas—not to prescribe specific solu-tions, but rather to suggest and illustrate ideasthat are consistent with recommended planningand design principles. Those principles are sum-marized as follows:

• Celebrate the unique features and communitysetting of each station.

• Define and defend adjoining residential neigh-borhoods.

• Create pedestrian-friendly “green streets.”

• Provide oasis destinations at light-rail stations.

Phoenix’s establishedneighborhoods need to bebuffered from the higherdensities that will resultalong some portions ofthe transit line.


• Turn Central Avenue into “Grand CentralAvenue.”

• Make the station designs special and unique.

• Develop village centers at neighborhood-servingstations.

• Build an Intermodal Commerce Center at SkyHarbor International Airport.

Camelback Road/Central Avenue StationThis site can accommodate approximately 600,000square feet of mixed-use development, includingresidential, neighborhood-serving retail, and pro-fessional office space in mid-rise (four- to seven-story) buildings. The panel’s design concept is tocreate a village center with a town square at theintersection of Camelback Road and Central Av-enue, and to connect the town square by a paseo orwalkway to a series of landscaped courtyards.

Access to the historic Central Village neighbor-hood is provided at two points on the south andwest sides of the site. A landscaped brick or tabby

wall with pedestrian access would buffer neighbor-hood residents from the proposed development.The town square is linked to Uptown Plaza by anunderground retail concourse. The plan places thelight-rail line along the south curb of CamelbackRoad and retains the existing alignment of thiseast-west street. The site would accommodate sur-face or structured parking for commuters. Thepanel recognizes that the city has studied severalalignment options for this station. While the pan-el’s plan places the rail along the south curb, italso will work with the adopted alignment.

22nd Street/Washington StationThis site consists of two tracts at the entrance toSky Harbor International Airport. A 12-acre par-cel between Washington and Jefferson streetswould contain an intermodal transportation cen-ter with access to an interstate highway and po-tential commuter rail as well as light rail and theairport. The adjoining 43-acre parcel would fea-ture a proposed International Commerce Center

Possible village center development scenario forCamelback and Centralarea.

Cent

ral A

venu

e

Camelback Road

7th

Aven

ue

1/4 M

ile

KeyExisting BuildingsRedevelopmentCourtyards and Open SpacePedestrian Connection (underground or overhead)Rail LineBuilding Space = 600,000 square feetBuilding Footprint = 275,000 square feet


with a mix of hotel, office, and travel-oriented re-tail uses.

32nd Street/Washington StationDevelopment around the 32nd Street/Washingtonstation would include a community-oriented tran-sit village connecting the historic Wilson commu-nity to the light-rail system. The village centerwould feature a traditional mercado or town square,and could host a variety of neighborhood-servingbusinesses and cultural institutions. The panel’sproposed plan envisions 32nd Street as a tradi-tional main street that would facilitate pedestrianactivity between the town square and the 32ndStreet/Washington station.

40th Street/Washington StationThis station would serve the growing GatewayCommunity College as well as the Gateway Cen-ter office campus to the east. With feeder bus ser-vice, the 40th Street/Washington station alsocould serve the community of Scottsdale. Transit-oriented development would include retail ser-vices to support the college and businesses eastof the site with Van Buren Street addresses. VanBuren would accommodate the growing demandfor office space around Gateway Center, and bus-inesses should locate directly on the street so asto promote pedestrian activity and the use ofmass transit.

Design ConceptsThe panel developed several concepts that needto be considered when the stations and the tran-

sit-oriented development surrounding them aredesigned. The following is a discussion of theseconcepts.

Define and Defend Existing NeighborhoodsTwo distinguishing characteristics of memorablecities are the character and the quality of theirdowntown residential neighborhoods. As such, inthe last decade, Phoenix has invested significantresources to encourage the creation of new down-town housing.

Yet within one-quarter to one-half mile of theproposed transit stations are beautiful residentialneighborhoods, many of them historic, which arethreatened by intense high-rise commercial devel-opment along the Central Avenue spine. Through-traffic to the Central Avenue commercial spine aswell as the lack of edge definition and buffers be-tween high-rise commercial buildings and garagesto adjoining single-family neighborhoods repre-sent serious nuisances and lessen the value ofthese neighborhoods.

The existing residential neighborhoods are a keysource of potential light-rail ridership. The panelrecommends that the city recognize the impor-tance of these neighborhoods to the proposedlight-rail system and that the existing deteriorat-ing nuisances be mitigated.

Create Green StreetsPhoenix’s arterial street system, which functionswell for moving vehicular traffic, presents a veryundesirable environment for pedestrians withinone-quarter to one-half mile of proposed light-rail

Access to light-rail stopsin segment 5.

Van Buren Street

Washington Street

48th

Str

eet

40th

Str

eet

32nd

Str

eet

143

202

Grand Canal

City

Lim

itKeyLight-Rail Access Segment 5 Rail StopsScheduled Light-Rail Transit Existing Residential Neighborhoods Educational Facility


stations. Safe, shaded, and beautiful pedestrianpaths to these stations are an essential elementof the planning for station areas.

The existing arterial street cross section places anarrow, unshaded sidewalk against the curb andalongside high-speed travel lanes. The panel rec-ommends that streets leading to transit stationsbe designated as “green streets” and that thepedestrian environments be enhanced signifi-cantly by using an existing vehicular travel lanefor widening sidewalks and by placing a land-scaped strip between the sidewalk and adjacenthigh-speed vehicular travel lanes.

Phoenix has a grand tradition of beautiful streets.Palm Lane, for example, is an attractive residen-tial street, and the new trail and bikeway systemalong 48th Street north of McDowell Road is awonderful amenity.

The “existing” and “proposed” photographs takenat Thomas Road and 40th Street illustrate howthe pedestrian environment along connectingstreets to the transit stations could be enhancedwith widened sidewalks, street lawns, andstreet trees.

Incorporate OasesIn response to Phoenix’s climate, as a way of cre-ating “place,” and as a means of distinguishing thecity’s light-rail system, the panel recommends thatgreen, shaded, and cool oases be created at eachtransit station wherever possible.

The courtyards at the Arizona Center, a local mer-cado, illustrate the beauty and benefits of an oasisenvironment that is green and shaded, with waterfeatures and comfortable seating for visitors.

Make Central Avenue “Grand Central Avenue”The panel recommends that the investment in in-frastructure on Central Avenue for light rail beused to create “Grand Central Avenue” by placingthe proposed light rail in a landscaped esplanadewith a turf floor and an allée of palms. The beforeand after photographs of Central Avenue showhow its character and quality could be changedby doing this. The proposed esplanade also wouldimprove pedestrian safety and, if properly land-scaped, could prove to be a magnet for potentialriders.

Employ High-Quality DesignThe panel recommends that Phoenix employhigh-quality design in station design, wayfinding,graphics, and landscape as illustrated in the ex-amples from Cleveland, Dallas, and San Fran-cisco. Clean, modern trains in beautiful, high-quality station settings not only will help toattract riders, but also will lessen long-term oper-ating costs.

Celebrate the Uniqueness of Each StationEach light-rail station is unique in its function andcommunity context. The panel recommends thatthe station area land use plans, connecting “greenstreets,” and the design of the stations them-selves reflect the stations’ unique function andcontext. The proposed stations in the Washing-ton/Jefferson corridor are a good illustration.

The proposed 22nd Street station, with its con-fluence of transportation modes, including thepotential for commuter rail there, is an excep-tional opportunity to create an internationalbusiness center. The market potential team hasidentified the station’s potential as a mixed-usecenter containing hotels, offices, and traveler-serving retail uses at this entrance to the SkyHarbor International Airport. The panel recom-mends that the proposed Sky Harbor people

“Oases” such as this oneat the Arizona Center canprovide a pleasant desti-nation for transit riders.


mover be extended north of Washington to thepotential development parcels between Wash-ington and Van Buren streets.

With its direct links to the Wilson School and thesurrounding neighborhood, the 32nd Street sta-tion is a community-serving station. A traditionalmain street could link this station along 32ndStreet to Van Buren, where it could be receivedby a town square at the Wilson School.

The 40th Street station will serve the GatewayCommunity College and the Gateway businesspark, and is the station best located to serve theScottsdale community with feeder bus service.

Create Village CentersThe large physical size of Phoenix has been miti-gated by organizing the city into a series of vil-lages. The proposed light-rail stations present anopportunity to create “village centers,” some of-

Right and far right: If therail line runs down thecenter of the avenue andwelcoming landscaping isprovided, the rail line willbecome an amenity to thebusinesses along it.

Right and below: Soften-ing the streetscape willprovide transit riders witha more comfortable andattractive experience.

ProposedExisting

ProposedExisting

ProposedExisting

SASA

KI A

SSOC

IATE

S, IN

C.SA

SAKI

ASS

OCIA

TES,

INC.

SASA

KI A

SSOC

IATE

S, IN

C.


fering community-serving retail uses and facilitieswithin them. The proposed station at CamelbackRoad and Central Avenue represents such an op-portunity. It is important to note that any plan forthis area needs to take into consideration the buf-fering of the adjacent neighborhood.

The panel recommends that a pedestrian-friendly,mixed-use village center featuring community-serving retail uses, professional offices, and hous-ing be developed at this station. The panel’s planillustrates a 13-acre site with a footprint of ap-proximately 275,000 square feet. In a three-storyconfiguration, the site could accommodate up to750,000 square feet.

The concept plan is organized around a series ofinterconnected landscaped pedestrian courtyards.A town square is shown at the intersection ofCamelback Road and Central Avenue and islinked to Uptown Plaza via an underground con-course. The village center is buffered from the ad-joining residential neighborhood while providingpedestrian connectivity from the south via FirstAvenue and from the west via Mariposa Street.

The concept plan also illustrates the potential ofmoving the light rail from the center of Camel-back Road to the south frontage property, whichhad been scheduled to be used for the widening ofCamelback Road. The village concept plan con-tains the planning and urban design characteris-tics that the panel recommends for the stationarea plans for Phoenix’s light-rail system:

• Integrated planning involving existing land useswithin one-half mile of the proposed stations.

• Mixed-use village center concept.

• Integration of the transit station into the villagecenter concept.

• Pedestrian-friendly environment.

• Protection of adjacent residential neighbor-hoods while providing controlled pedestrianconnectivity to and from the neighborhoods.

• Creation of a beautiful pedestrian destinationwith community-serving retail uses.

Planning and Design ConclusionsAmerica’s cities have rediscovered the value ofpedestrian-friendly environments in rebuildingcommunities. The panel’s recommendations urgethe Phoenix community to make choices about therelationship of the pedestrian to the automobileand about the creation of pedestrian-serving envi-ronments. The success of the proposed light-railsystem may well depend on these choices.


Public transit in Phoenix has been limited.Until recently, there has been no service atnight or on weekends. This would appearto be an unlikely setting for a major tran-

sit improvement.

On the other hand, there are signs of change inthe valley’s growth and transportation philosophy.A resurgent downtown and a greater focus on in-town living offer a growing market for a more ur-bane intown market serving people interested inhanging out at cafés and patronizing shops withinwalking distance, or riding transit to intown at-tractions. And increasing auto use has resulted ingrowing concerns over traffic congestion, air qual-ity, and livability.

Phoenix is one of the few U.S. regions experi-encing increasing—rather than decreasing—development density. Nowadays, there is greaterattention to creating meaningful transportationoptions as well as improving service to thosewithout cars.

With the building of a new transit system, the re-gion has embarked on a different course. It willbe incumbent upon the city to take advantage ofthe opportunities for TOD, as a means of capital-izing on public investment, creating special places,improving residents’ quality of life, increasingeconomic development, and presenting develop-ment opportunities for the private sector.

This section of the report presents developmentstrategies for the stations addressed as marketopportunities and planning and design targets, fol-lowed by some thoughts about how development-oriented transit can increase the transit system’sridership and revenues.

Station StrategiesSuccessful development strategies to promoteTOD include the following:

• Programming of strategic public improvementsto promote TOD.

• Enhanced land assembly for acquiring the nec-essary property for the stations and for ancil-lary development.

• A streamlined permitting process.

• Comprehensive and creative transit stationparking policies.

• Reduced or delayed development fees.

• Creative use and application of redevelopmentauthority.

• Maximizing available federal grant funds.

Though the proposed light-rail system comprises28 stations, the panel was asked to focus only onthe station sites at Central and Camelback andthose in the Washington/Jefferson Corridor.

Camelback Road and Central AvenueMarket studies show the potential for a signatureproject at this intersection of two main thorough-fares. This station is projected to be the thirdbusiest in the system, with three-quarters of theriders arriving by bus and most of the rest by car.The panel endorses what it heard from many localdevelopers: that this was one of the most signifi-cant stations and that it could have the best long-term development opportunities. It should bebranded as the “100 percent corner.”

A number of barriers, however, must be addressedin order to facilitate development at this location.They include environmental contamination, a non-conforming billboard, access problems, image is-sues, traditional zoning, pedestrian safety andconvenience, parking deficiencies, and conflictsbetween users of the transit station and users ofthe new development.

Transportation and Development


The public sector needs to assume a major rolein the urban design and the master plan of theentire intersection. In order to expand the influ-ence of the transit uses, good connections to allnearby properties must be created. For example,a pedestrian bridge or underground connection tothe opposite corner—and possibly to all corners—is recommended.

There are critical traffic-access restrictions thatmust be dealt with, too, including the prohibitedleft turn from northbound Central Avenue, whichcould reduce the access—and value—of a new de-velopment there. Visionary traffic engineeringsolutions are needed.

Consideration of the connection to the futuretransit line on Camelback Road needs quick at-tention, so that developers can have some assur-ance that transit expansions will increase thevalue of their investment. Associated street en-hancements and calmed traffic should help tomake this location an “action arterial unlike any-thing in Phoenix.”

The nonconforming billboard needs to be acquired,or incorporated into the development, in order toavoid site design constraints. Also, environmentalcleanup efforts now underway should be completedquickly to make a clean site available to developers.

As discussed earlier, the city should orchestratean area master plan that will encourage a mix ofuses that will support and extend the develop-ment on the transit property. The transit agencyshould conduct its land acquisition and site designto present the best opportunity for private devel-opment. The city should not withhold the neededfunds for this site, for the resulting project couldbe a signature destination development.

The applicable development strategies for thisstation require bold initiatives that take full ad-vantage of its location. The strategies that shouldbe emphasized now include the following: assem-bling land through the advance acquisition ofproperties; and establishing a city policy on park-ing at and near transit stations.

Washington/Jefferson CorridorOverall, the development of the light-rail systemin the Washington/Jefferson corridor offers Phoe-

nix an opportunity to recover real estate assetslong lost to decline and neglect. The panel be-lieves that TOD projects are sound attempts toleverage public investments and to maximize themarket potential of existing neighborhoods.

The development strategies call for capitalizing onthe future expansion of the Sky Harbor Interna-tional Airport connection. In addition, the strate-gies are intended to take full advantage of spin-offfrom the construction of a new rental car facilitythat will provide more than 1,600 parking spaces.

The corridor has image problems and weaknesses.Many small parcels there contain structures in se-rious disrepair, with a sizable number of absenteehomeowners. There also are several assets—theWilson School complex, Gateway Community Col-lege, Eastlake Park, and several well-establishedchurches with large congregations—that can seeddevelopment in the corridor.

Successful redevelopment in this corridor will re-quire a mix of favorable market and regulatoryconditions, some of which can be made possiblewith direct government intervention or incen-tives. The panel recommends that the city under-take a comprehensive planning process for the en-tire corridor as well as a specific land use plan foreach transit site.

The panel envisions thecorner of CamelbackRoad and Central Avenueas a new vibrant centerfor the neighborhood andthe city.


International Commerce Center at Washingtonand 22nd StreetThe suggested development strategies call forcapitalizing on the future expansion of PhoenixSky Harbor International Airport and the pro-posed modern automated people-mover system,which will provide a direct connection to the air-port from this station. In addition, the airportproposes to establish a new central rental car fa-cility, also offering a direct people-mover connec-tion to the airport. An opportunity exists to cre-ate a major intermodal transportation facility atthis location, including light rail, an express bus, a people mover, rental cars, and commuter rail.

This station will be a major node for airport func-tions and services, and for the development ofsites for several hotels, offices, and retail uses. Itis recommended that the city acquire sufficientland to provide for the transportation link, relatedparking, and associated airport-serving commer-cial development.

One concern is that despite the enormous oppor-tunity, the forecast for rail use at the time of thepanel projects a mere 300 riders by the year 2020.The airport connection has the potential to be oneof the largest stations, with a convenient transferto a people mover for employees and passengers.Transit planners and the airport staff should workclosely to make it happen.

32nd and Washington StreetsIn the panel’s opinion, this area seems neglected.Few riders are projected, considering currenttrends. As indicated above, the panel has identi-fied opportunities to create retail services nearthe center and to enhance existing ones.

Many plans and charrettes have been completed,including a recent study by the Herberber Centerfor Design Excellence at Arizona State Univer-sity, which appears to contain some excellent rec-ommendations. It is suggested that the city moveto implement some of these plans.

40th and Washington StreetsThe 40th and Washington station serves students,faculty, and staff of Gateway Community College,and the location will offer convenient access toTempe. The development strategies call for a mix-

ture of housing types that could serve students,employees, and others. Local-serving retail uses,small-scale professional offices, and possible R&Dfacilities are likely projects for the station.

The Transit ConnectionThere are many reasons for encouraging develop-ment around transit stations, the most importantof which are to improve the quality of the sur-rounding district and to support economic devel-opment. In addition, station area development cangenerate ridership, providing revenues to thetransit system. This is especially prudent transitmanagement and may reduce the level of publicinvestment needed for the system.

Although efforts are underway to reduce the costof the light rail’s construction, growth in ridershipwill reduce the effective cost per rider. Moreover,it will generate revenues without additional costs,reducing the operating cost burden.

As an example of how this might work in practice,a test of intensifying land uses along Central Av-enue was conducted recently. Adding 15,000 officejobs and 3,000 residential units, with no change inthe assumed transit service, was found to increasethe number of boardings at these stations by 28percent—a substantial gain achieved through landuse strategies. Downtown Phoenix and the Cen-tral Avenue corridor accounted for about one ofevery four transit riders in 1995, a share that isprojected to be similar in the future. There areabout twice as many transit riders along CentralAvenue as in downtown.

Providing good access to light rail is important.Walking is the preferred means of access to tran-sit, because it avoids the expense of a parkingspace or a bus trip, which represents a conve-nience for passengers and a saving for publicagencies. A fairly small share of riders—about 13percent—are projected to walk to the proposedlight rail.

However, stations with significant pedestrian ac-cess have the closest connection with adjacentland uses. Additional development at these sta-tions can potentially encourage rail riders withoutthe additional expense of buses or auto access.


The following stations are expected to account forabout 80 percent of those walking to transit, sopedestrian access is especially important. Notethat three are on Central Avenue. The followinglist is in order of decreasing ridership:

• McAllister/Orange

• Washington/Third

• Central/Roosevelt

• 19th/Camelback

• Third Street/Mill

• Apache/Dorsey

• Central/Campbell

• Central/Indian School Road.

Bus and auto access is especially critical, sinceabout half of all rail riders are expected to reachthe stations by bus, and one-third by car. Eightstations, two of which are end-of-line stations, account for 80 percent of those arriving by bus.The following list is in order of decreasing rider-ship:

• 19th Avenue/Bethany Home Road

• Main Street/Longmore

• Central/Camelback

• 19th Avenue/Camelback

• Central Station

• Central/McDowell

• Central/Washington

• Apache/McClintock.

Most of the light-rail riders arriving by automo-bile will park at five stations. Note that one is atCentral and Camelback. The following list is inorder of decreasing ridership:

• 19th Avenue/Bethany Home Road

• Main Street/Longmore

• Washington/40th Street

• Washington/Priest

• Central/Camelback.

Because most future rail riders are predicted toget to the station by bus or car, well-located andconvenient bus service, parking, and vehicle ac-cess are especially critical. Where appropriate, italso may be possible to reroute buses or to moveparking lots to improve development options. Suchopportunities should be sought out constantly, inthe interest of increasing transit ridership andproperty values and making nearby communitiesbetter.

Each station needs tohave unique features that give it a sense ofplace, such as this DARTstation.

SASA

KI A

SSOC

IATE

S, IN

C.

The proposed light-rail system, successfullyexecuted, could potentially provide the re-gion with an important new transportationoption for residents and a valuable new tool

to use land more efficiently while preserving itsunique desert environment. It is a serious effortto protect and enhance the region’s quality of life.

Dress for Success In preparation for the initiation of light-rail ser-vice in 2006, the city of Phoenix will tackle manyissues related to this new mode of travel. Eventhough the economic development benefits oflight rail seem apparent through the experiencesof other systems, the underlying purpose of theservice is to move people efficiently throughout a region.

Although it may not seem obvious initially, thebenefit of light-rail transit will be realized as themode is accepted and supported as the system ex-pands over the next decades. Therefore, it is im-portant that efforts in the years to come focus ona quality product when introducing station areas,designing stations, and integrating rail facilitiesinto the automobile and pedestrian environment.One should not focus too much attention on theeconomic development aspects of the light-rail in-vestment in the early stages.

The opening of 20 miles of light rail in Dallas inJune 1996 provides an example of the “if you buildit, they will come” philosophy. To date, the initial$865 million investment of the Dallas Area RapidTransit (DART) authority has generated morethan $1 billion in development at or near the sta-tions; none of this development had been initiatedprior to the opening. During these first years, thesystem has proven its effectiveness, beating open-ing projections of 32,000 riders a day to today’slevel of 40,000 riders per day. The economic devel-opment activity was spurred by the opening’s suc-

cess, with developers tending to wait to see be-fore believing it. Economic development followssuccess.

Prior to opening, Phoenix and the RPTA shouldfocus on the building blocks of a new service; sev-eral issues need particular attention.

ParkingIt is of utmost importance that the system pro-vide ample parking early on. Many new riderswill be choosing the park-and-ride option insteadof taking a bus. Phoenix currently has only fivestations with park-and-ride facilities, offering atotal of just 3,500 spaces. Conversely, nine of the22 stations in the DART system offer parking—approximately 6,500 spaces altogether. Moreover,DART is negotiating to acquire 150 spaces atits Cedars station, less than one mile outside ofthe CBD.

Neighborhood IssuesThe threat of through-traffic, as well as that ofcommuters’ parking in the neighborhoods, shouldbe addressed upfront with those communities de-veloping action plans in the event a station has anadverse impact on the community.

Median RunningWhen running alongside vehicular traffic, trainsmust be given priority to support improved traveltimes of transit. The benefit of trains is that theydo not have to sit in traffic—a great selling pointfor public transit.

Bus InterfaceThere must be a high level of coordination be-tween buses and the light rail; they must bejoined at the hip. The bus feeder system serves asthe backbone of all successful regional systems.The light rail allows the deployment of busesaway from a radial system, resulting in betteroverall transit coverage. However, the bus inter-face at rail stations, particularly at those in the


Implementation


median, must be designed to accommodate busesthrough improved pedestrian access. The bus isthe primary conduit in tying transit-dependentcommunities to the rail system.

Median PlatformsA platform in the median will require a designthat is TOD friendly—which represents extra ef-fort. Developers want to build at the platform,but its being separated by traffic lanes can beseen as a barrier if appropriate attention is notgiven to pedestrian amenities.

Light-Rail Development CoordinationThe city has done a good job of establishing therelationship between light rail and economic de-velopment around rail stations. However, thesegreat expectations may not materialize immedi-ately upon opening, thus creating negative publicsentiment, particularly within the business com-munity, for the city’s having oversold the benefitsof rail. Several efforts should be made over thenext years prior to opening to narrow the focuson development opportunities.

Agency CoordinationThe city of Phoenix should continue to supportthe TOD team that focuses on all aspects of sta-tion area development, from design issues tostructuring “the deal.” As mentioned previously,if similar patterns from other cities are followed,developer interest will lag behind until the lightrail proves its utility to development.

During this period, a joint development processshould be created. This will entail the cooperationof several departments: planning, economic devel-opment, finance, street transportation, publicworks, and legal. At this time, the role of theRPTA (which is designing and constructing theline) and whoever is operating the line also mustbe taken into account.

Upon opening, the operator may tend to opposeany physical modifications requested by a devel-oper. This may require additional coordination ifno lead entity controls both rail and developmentaround the rail stations.

For TOD to be successful, several issues and op-portunities need to be addressed. These includehow to handle unsolicited proposals and how tosolicit proposals (e.g., requests for qualifications,requests for proposals, and requests for letters ofinterest). The development process should iden-tify a lead agency and ideally a point person tohead the team and to develop a review process.Once the system is successful and developer in-terest appears, everyone wants to be a deal maker;therefore, time is well spent now to prepare forthis eventuality.

The process should address how the city will en-tertain developer interest. Many good ideas willcome that will never be seen again. In many cases,it is wise to set up a “one-stop shopping” effort.

It is important that whoever interacts with thedevelopment community be knowledgeable of allfacets of station area development. Developmentwill not survive on light-rail traffic alone; theremust be good vehicular and pedestrian accessas well.

Finally, there must be an overall understanding ofand consensus on the future, particularly from aregional perspective. Developers are interested inwhere future extensions are headed and knowingwhere new opportunities lie.

As Phoenix and the RPTA start wrestling withbudget constraints, hard choices will need to bemade regarding design issues throughout the sys-tem. A cooperative team should be set up to workout design issues as they come up. Until now, thelight rail has been looked upon at a macrolevel ofdetail. At the microlevel, however, issues will beidentified that should be consistently resolvedcitywide. Efforts must be coordinated, providingsystemwide consistency and setting precedent forfuture extensions.

Regional CoordinationWhere does the RPTA fit into the overall man-agement of the light-rail system and its ancillarydevelopment, or is its fate to serve three masters?One entity should take a leadership role as manybudget-driven issues come to the fore. Many goodideas, particularly those regarding property ac-quisition and station size, have been eliminated


erative effort between the city and the RPTAshould be undertaken to develop flexible stationarea plans that can be integrated into the final de-sign but that lend themselves to the desired de-velopment after the light rail is up and running.Even though a regional transit system relies onan efficient and dependable bus system, develop-ers building at station areas do not like them dueto their lack of appeal and the exhaust and noisethey generate. Furthermore, a station must beable to conform to new concepts and a rearrange-ment of bus access.

The city and the RPTA need to think outside thebox, to build coalitions both internally and exter-nally, and to network with the real estate com-munity. This is when having a point person whospeaks for the entire system would pay off, as heor she would depict the rail system as offering re-gional benefits.

If each entity has to operate on its own, it mayappear that there is no comprehensive approachto the future. As a project is developed, there willbe an interest in knowing how many additionalriders transit will bring to the project, and whenit will happen. Development takes time, particu-larly mixed-use ones; nothing related to light railhappens fast.

Expectations for great station area developmentalready seem high, and the development commu-nity appears supportive. However, support andinvestment are not necessarily the same thing.Unless Phoenix is an anomaly, developers therewill wait, possibly investing in property but hedg-ing their bets on any transit-oriented develop-ment. From now until the rail line’s opening, theparties involved should coordinate efforts to mar-ket and develop support from the start of con-struction through and beyond opening day.

Communication with the PublicDuring construction, there always will be a needfor immediate communication with the publicthrough the media and community newsletters.Expectations for the light-rail system’s successare high. Efforts should be made to ensure thatthese expectations are realistic, however. No mat-ter how much planning and design have gone into

due to budget constraints. It is important for ef-forts to be coordinated throughout the system,providing consistency and setting precedent forfuture extensions.

The city’s ability to use its condemnation powersin property acquisition can be used during theearly stages when acquiring parking, stagingareas, and substation locations. There should bea cooperative effort to identify sites, particularlystaging areas, that can serve in the future to lev-erage station area development.

As the system is designed, acquisition can be usedto assemble property at strategic station locations.It also is imperative that property at those sta-tions be identified as a priority for development,and not designed for primary use as a bus trans-fer facility or as a location for a substation. DART,for example, has a one-acre piece of land, withfrontage on a major arterial, valued at more than$30 a square foot, that is being used to accom-modate a substation. Such predicaments shouldbe avoided.

The early stages of design and strategic acquisi-tion of land can establish an atmosphere of coop-eration, with the city and the transit entity part-nering with a developer at those stations withdevelopment potential.

Communication StrategyAs inevitable tough decisions are approached, asingle governmental focus encompassing all agen-cies and communities is important for communica-tions. During construction, businesses, citizens,and motorists always will express concerns. Assuch, timely responses are imperative and mostoften need to be coordinated with the contractor.

All developers of light-rail systems can tell horrorstories about contractors being unresponsive toadjacent businesses and communities. The con-struction period is a time when excellent commu-nications can pay back dividends in the form ofpublic support, but response must be immediate,coordinated, and informative.

Coordination with the Development CommunityWhen dealing with the development community,there is a definite need to coordinate land use,transportation, and community facilities. A coop-


a project, there always will be events that, if notprepared for, can cause the public concern.

As station area plans are developed, the city mayconsider holding economic development confer-ences periodically. Such conferences are organizedto present the concepts to the public and to thedevelopment community and to generate interestin how the investment in infrastructure will payback as development ensues. This also is a goodtime to start tracking land value and demographicinformation. As the transit system matures, thisbase of information used to develop before andafter profiles can be one of the most powerfulmarketing tools.

It is important to develop marketing packages—an excellent information tool for the developmentcommunity and the general public—for all railstations in the system. They should describe thestation area, future zoning, demographics, im-provement districts, financing, redevelopmentzone classification, and any other information thatmay be relevant to a developer. Marketing pack-ages also are used extensively by the real estatecommunity when dealing with everything fromcorporate relocations to single-family relocations.Direct and convenient access to light rail is seenas an asset that can give a competitive edge whentrying to attract employees or to relocate a familythat comes from a transit-friendly place.

Finally, a regional vision should be developed andmarketed as it relates to transit. Now is the timeto market the 2006 alignment as the beginning ofgreater regional accessibility that affords the pub-lic choices and opportunities. An efficient and in-tegrated bus and rail system, supplemented withshuttles to entertainment centers, people moversto the airport, and opportunities for new develop-ment as nodes of activity are created, will presenta region that is forward thinking and headed intothe 21st century.

Financial StrategiesThe light rail, together with an improved feederbus system, offers the region’s cities an oppor-tunity to encourage new development in areaswhere schools, city roads, utilities, police and fireprotection, and other public services already are

in place. At the same time, it should reduce cities’need to fund the construction of public infrastruc-ture in new fringe locations.

Positioning cities to take full advantage of newTOD opportunities and also repositioning otherunderutilized areas affected by the light rail willrequire some changes in financial strategies.These changes can be considered because of pru-dent past fiscal management, evidenced by thestrength of each city’s credit rating. While main-taining fiscal prudence and the best possiblecredit rating is an important goal, the panel rec-ommends the following changes to the cities’ de-velopment policies:

• Emphasize TOD as the highest priority fornew development and redevelopment activity.

• Deemphasize the extension of new public infra-structure in fringe areas.

• Establish the criteria and standards withwhich TOD can qualify for public financial par-ticipation.

• Prioritize public funding based on the achieve-ment of specific goals for each station’s TODand the private sector’s willingness to enterinto a fair risk-sharing agreement for eachproject. The goal is to achieve a win-win finan-cial result for public and private participantsalike.

• Link and leverage local public and privatefunding with external sources of public and pri-vate funding, such as federal funding and in-vestment from companies outside the CentralValley.

Streetscapes, such as thisone in a neighborhoodnear Midtown, can helpmake the approaches totransit stations moreinviting.


• Either create a new authority or assign a senior official to integrate the city staff func-tions required to stimulate and guide the TODinitiative.

Absent these changes in financial strategies, it isunlikely that TOD projects simply will happen ontheir own. Each city must take the initiative byassuming responsibility for TODs at the light-railstations within its jurisdiction. Financing of re-lated public improvements must be an integralcomponent of TOD.

In light of experiences elsewhere, it is highlyprobable that the recommended changes will con-tribute significantly to the desired level of TODactivity. In the past, each city in the region hasdone this to varying degrees on a project-by-proj-ect basis. The panel now is urging that a highlyconcentrated effort be directed toward TOD.Through this process, the cities will increase useof existing public infrastructure as well as theirresidents’ use of public transit.

Following is a brief description of the financialmechanisms that can be used independently or incombination, depending on the specific nature ofeach station’s development. In compiling this list,the panel has taken into consideration best prac-tices used in other regions of the United States,as well as its understanding of practices that arespecific to the Phoenix region.

Existing MechanismsThe following finance mechanisms currently arein use in the Phoenix area for other projects andcan be applied to help encourage TOD around thetransit stations.

Redevelopment Area. Initially, a redevelopmentarea should be created to include each station sitealong the light-rail corridor. This designation en-ables the use of several mechanisms that follow.Criteria can be developed to establish preliminaryfeasibility before subsequent actions are taken atspecific stations.

Land Assemblage. With use of the redevelopmentarea designation, the respective cities should as-semble the land necessary for each station and itsspecific TOD. Eminent domain powers should beavailable to use as needed. Each city will need the

ability to write down the land cost for ultimate re-conveyance at certain stations.

Planning. Each site should be planned under thedirection of the city through an inclusive planningprocess, which must involve citizens from nearbyneighborhoods.

Brownfield Cleanup. The acquired sites must becleaned up either by the city or by its designeeand brought into environmental compliance fordevelopment purposes, if necessary.

City Retail Sales Tax Reimbursement. This provi-sion for sales revenues subject to city sales taxesshould be used to the extent the developmentgenerates qualified revenue sources.

City Capital Bond Improvement Program (CIP).

These programs should be used for the costs thatthe city incurs in off-site improvements and landacquisitions. Used judiciously on a TOD-specificbasis to promote early success of a project, anylong-term public capital of this nature would beexpected to be repaid from each TOD’s stabilizedoperating income.

Improvement Districts. Specifically designated im-provement districts should apply to light-rail sta-tion area improvements. They enable propertyowners to finance infrastructure within a publicright-of-way that benefits their property. Theseimprovements either are an enhancement of stan-dard city-financed improvements or are thosethat the city has determined must be the respon-sibility of the property owner. Such improve-ments may include pavement, curbs and gutters,sidewalks, decorative street lighting, landscaping,street furniture, and decorative walls (i.e., mu-rals). When completed and paid for by the city,projects within an improvement district result inan assessment to the property owner. These as-sessments are repaid over ten years with semi-annual payments of principal and interest. A lienis placed on each property with an outstandingassessment.

Government Property Lease Excise Tax (GLET).

State of Arizona property tax incentives areavailable in designated central city redevelop-ment areas. In such areas, real property may besubject to an excise tax, which is significantly


lower than a traditional property tax. This excisetax can be levied on government-owned propertyand on improvements that are leased for privatecommercial or industrial purposes.

One limitation of this incentive is that the citymust own the property and the improvements onit in order to levy the excise tax in lieu of prop-erty tax. Further, the city can provide a financialincentive in the form of an eight-year tax abate-ment only if the property is located within a sin-gle CBD in a redevelopment area. The programalso may be available outside of redevelopmentareas; however, the tax rate would be one andone-half times the rate applied within redevelop-ment areas.

In addition, existing provisions for the abatementof real property taxes should be utilized, as pro-vided through the GLET program. Abatementlaws allow for as much as 100 percent abatementfor up to eight years.

New MechanismsThere are at least two additional funding mecha-nisms that the city could use to help support TODalong the rail system. These tools have been usedsuccessfully in other parts of the county.

Tax Increment Financing (TIF). TIFs enable a cityto finance infrastructure improvements within adefined area (TIF zone). The improvements in-crease property values within the zone, which in-crementally increase tax revenues from the TIFarea. The city then uses the extra revenue to re-tire the cost of the improvements.

Although similar to the city retail sales tax reim-bursement, TIFs are not currently permissible inArizona. The region’s cities therefore should con-sider proposing state legislation to create TIFs,as they have proven to be a successful way to fi-nance public investment nationwide.

Transit Fund. In recent years, several cities havecreated funding mechanisms to provide gap fund-ing for projects in areas that are not attractive toprivate sector developers. Such mechanisms areintended to supplement self-generated and con-ventional funding sources.

Generally, they are established after a transitagency’s TOD program has completed a sufficientnumber of projects to generate lease revenue orsales proceeds to be used as a “starter fund.” Spe-cific project selection criteria are established, in-cluding the maximum amount of funds that can bemade available and payback requirements. In allcases, the developer must demonstrate a need,prove that funding is not available through con-ventional sources, and show that the proposedproject will benefit the implementation of thelocal comprehensive plan and will generate addi-tional riders for the transit system.

Example ApplicationEach aforementioned mechanism allows cities toleverage their resources while encouraging TODinitiatives by the private sector. To illustrate theapproach, panel members created a preliminarymodel of the TOD program proposed for the Cen-tral Avenue/Camelback Road light-rail stationdiscussed earlier in the report.

In this instance, $8 million in public sector fund-ing is leveraged on a one-to-nine ratio by $72 mil-lion of external private capital. An $80 millionproject is brought on the property tax rolls, whichon a stabilized basis is expected to generate ap-proximately $4 million of annual property taxesand city sales tax. The project will be of suchscale as to help create a major focal point for theuptown area of Central and Camelback.

To optimize the new development opportunitiesassociated with the light-rail line, the cities mustbe prepared to use all their various financingmechanisms to facilitate TOD projects. The objec-tive is to incentivize the best private sector de-

Amenities such as bicyclepaths along the roadwaysleading to transit stationsprovide additional accessoptions.


velopment companies to use the light-rail stationsto create and manage the highest-quality TODs.These transit stations will benefit the neighbor-hoods immediately surrounding them as well asthe city at large.

In exchange for their fundings, cities should ex-pect ultimate repayment of any longer-term fund-ings in addition to the receipt of new incrementalproperty and sales tax revenues. In addition, mu-nicipalities should expect savings to result fromthe reduced need to fund public improvements innew fringe locations.


The panel spent considerable time discussingthe feasibility of light rail in Phoenix as wellas what is needed to promote successfulreal estate development along the proposed

line. In all these discussions and deliberations, thefollowing common themes were evident:

• Some key stations will be the catalyst for TODin the region. They include Camelback Road/Central Avenue, downtown, and the stationsserving the area around the airport.

• Camelback Road/Central Avenue is the “100percent corner”—where a big impact can beeffected—and the adjacent neighborhood doesnot have to suffer because of it.

• There are several unique neighborhoods alongthe line. They should be viewed as an asset to

the system (and vice versa), not as a hindrance.Station planning and design need to incorpo-rate the uniqueness of these neighborhoods.

• Start early in the process to promote TOD inPhoenix. Do not have the “if we build it, theywill come” attitude. The process for promotingthe light-rail line and TOD needs to be clearand organized.

The panel believes that the city and the regionare well on their way to a successful system andlooks forward to returning to Phoenix for therail’s opening in 2006.

Conclusion

Focusing on redevelopment of urban cores andfirst-generation suburbs, Borsanyi has been ac-tively involved in a variety of assignments, someassociated with gaming venues, throughout theUnited States, including Richmond, Virginia; St.Louis, Missouri; and Santa Ana, California.

Fernando CostaFort Worth, Texas

Costa serves as planning director for the city ofFort Worth. Before moving to Texas in 1998, heserved for 11 years as planning director for thecity of Atlanta. He also served for 11 years as aplanner, a senior planner, and a planning directorfor the Middle Georgia Area Planning and Devel-opment Commission. He has extensive experiencein transportation and land use planning, includingthe formulation of public policy to promote transit-oriented development.

Costa is chair-elect of the American Planning As-sociation’s City Planning and Management Divi-sion and is a past vice chair of the Planning Ac-creditation Board, for which he continues to serveas a site visitor. His other memberships includethe boards of the Tarrant Area Food Bank; theAmon Carter, Jr., Downtown YMCA; and thelocal chapter of the National Conference for Com-munity and Justice.

Costa received degrees in civil engineering andcity planning from Georgia Tech and served as anofficer in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Hisprevious ULI panel assignments include those forKansas City, Kansas (1999), and Trenton, NewJersey (2000).

Robert DunphyWashington, D.C.

Dunphy is senior resident fellow of transportationat the Urban Land Institute, where he directs


Frank J. SparicioPanel ChairRumford, Rhode Island

Sparicio is founding principal of Corporate RealEstate Strategies, a consulting firm dealing pri-marily with the repositioning and disposition ofassets resulting from consolidations within the fi-nancial sector. Previously, he served as senior vicepresident of Fleet Boston, where he was responsi-ble for the bank’s corporate real estate assets.

Before joining Fleet Boston, Sparicio was respon-sible for all major real estate transactions as di-rector of corporate real estate for GTE, a positionin which one of his principal responsibilities in-volved the relocation of the company’s entire tele-phone operations to a new headquarters in LasColinas, Texas. Earlier, he served as an officer ofHarco, the Hartford Insurance Company’s real es-tate subsidiary.

A member of the Urban Land Institute for morethan 30 years, Sparicio has served as vice chair-man of its Corporate Real Estate Council. He alsohas served on a number of the Institute’s advisoryservices panel assignments.

Marta Borsanyi San Francisco, California

Borsanyi is a founder of the Concord Group, aNewport Beach, California–based real estate ad-visory firm that provides strategic advice on landuse issues and development. She has expertise inmarket, economic, and financial analyses associ-ated with existing properties as well as develop-mental opportunities.

Borsanyi has extensive experience in the evalua-tion of both residential and nonresidential proper-ties. She has participated in numerous projects inwhich identifying the highest and best mix of usesfor very large properties was the objective.

About the Panel


studies on transportation and land use and assistsin outreach efforts to business and government ondevelopment and transportation issues. He is theauthor of Moving Beyond Gridlock: Traffic andDevelopment, and he contributed to Transform-ing Suburban Business Districts and MakingSmart Growth Work, to be published in summer2002. Furthermore, he assisted in the develop-ment of land use criteria now being used as partof the federal approval process for new transitsystems.

Dunphy’s previous experience includes consulting,metropolitan transportation planning, and teach-ing. He is active in national committees of the In-stitute of Transportation Engineers, chairs thetransportation and land development committeeof the Transportation Research Board, and is amember of Lambda Alpha International, an hon-orary land economics society.

Richard GalehouseWatertown, Massachusetts

Galehouse is a principal and senior planner atSasaki Associates, Inc., in Watertown, Massachu-setts. Sasaki Associates is a multidisciplinary firmwith an international practice offering services inplanning, architecture, landscape architecture,civil engineering, interior design, and graphic de-sign. Since joining Sasaki in 1960, he has directedcomplex mixed-use urban, new community, re-sort, institutional, regional, and environmentalplanning and design projects.

Galehouse’s project work, writing, and speakinghave focused on urban and mixed-use develop-ment. He has been a guest lecturer and critic atcolleges, universities, and professional organiza-tions, and has provided expert testimony on vi-sual and environmental impact issues facing vari-ous communities.

Galehouse has been an active ULI member formore than 20 years, serving on its UDMUC andrecreation councils. He also has been a panelmember for various plan analysis sessions, andhas served as the planner/urban designer forULI’s Advisory Services Panel for Treasure Is-land in San Francisco, California; Downtown

Grand Forks, North Dakota; Downtown BoundBrook, New Jersey; and Hengelo in the Nether-lands. Moreover, he has written several articlesfor Urban Land Magazine, including “Measure-ments of Community,” which was published in theJune 1999 issue.

He received a bachelor’s degree in architecturefrom the University of Notre Dame and a mas-ter’s degree in city and regional planning from theHarvard University Graduate School of Design.

Kenneth H. HughesDallas, Texas

Since founding Kenneth H. Hughes Interests,Inc., in 1983 and UC URBAN in 1996, Hugheshas built developments comprising more than 1million square feet of office and shopping centerspace, both for his own investment portfolio aswell as for third-party investors.

Since the late 1960s, he has traveled extensivelyin Asia and Europe seeking tenants for projectsin the United States and Mexico. Having focusedon European fashion and merchandising, Hughesbrought to Texas such retailers as Guy Laroche,Courreges, Emanual Ungaro, Pierre Deux, LouisVuitton, Hermes, and others.

One of Hughes’s office/retail projects, 3311 OakLawn, won an American Institute of Architectsaward. Other awards include the 1989 ICSC An-nual Design Award for Pavilion Saks Fifth Av-enue, and Monitor Magazine’s 1992 Award forExcellence for the Plaza at University Park, Dal-las, among others. Furthermore, Hughes is thedeveloping partner in a large mixed-use project inDallas called Mockingbird Station, which won theBest Real Estate Deals award from Dallas Busi-ness Journal in 1997.

Hughes began his career with the Henry S. MillerCompany in Dallas and stayed with the companyfor 15 years. He eventually became executive vicepresident of the firm and a member of its board ofdirectors.

Hughes attended the University of Texas atAustin School of Architecture and the Cox Schoolof Business at Southern Methodist University. He

is a member of and serves in a leadership capacityin several professional and civic organizations. InWashington, D.C., he has been a trustee of theUrban Land Institute and chairman of its Dollarsand Centers of Shopping Centers. He currently ison the Institute’s policy and practice committee.

Hughes also has served on the board of directorsof the Real Estate Council in Dallas and has beena member of the advisory board of the Cox Schoolof Business and the Meadows School of the Artsat Southern Methodist University. At present, heserves on the board of the University of Texasat Austin School of Architecture and is the solebenefactor of the Kenneth H. Hughes TeachingExcellence program at the school.

Richard W. MaineSimsbury, Connecticut

Maine is a managing partner at Landmark Part-ners, Inc., which specializes in secondary marketpurchases of private equity interests in venturecapital, leveraged buyouts, and mezzanine andcommercial real estate. Prior to joining the firm,he was president of Hyperion Realty Advisorsand for 25 years held various investment depart-ment positions at Cigna, including serving as chiefinvestment officer.

Maine is a board member of the Local InitiativesSupport Corporation (LISC), where he chairs theexecutive and finance committee and also is chair-man of LISC’s affiliate, the Retail Initiative. He isa member of the Urban Land Institute, too. Lo-cally, Maine recently stepped down as a boardmember of the Knox Foundation. He is presidentof All Aboard! and also is a member of the financecommittee of the CRCOG Regional Transporta-tion Strategy.

Alvin R. McNealWashington, D.C.

McNeal oversees the public/private developmentprogram of the Washington Metropolitan AreaTransit Authority (WMATA), which includes 54transit-oriented joint development projects. Sinceits inception in 1974, the program has generated

more than $100 million; by 2003, that amount willincrease to about $150 million. In addition, theprogram’s projects have provided 60,000 newdaily riders to WMATA’s rail and bus systems,25,000 primary jobs, and several million dollars in new taxes to local jurisdictions.

McNeal has written articles on public/private de-velopment issues for local publications and haspresented papers at several local and nationalconferences. He has served on national advisorypanels on transit-related development in Dallas,Texas; Long Beach and San Francisco, California;St. Louis, Missouri; San Juan, Puerto Rico; Re-search Triangle (Raleigh, Durham, and ChapelHill), North Carolina; Baltimore, Maryland; SaltLake City, Utah; Miami, Florida; and Atlanta,Georgia.

McNeal holds a bachelor’s degree from NorthCarolina Central University and a master’s de-gree from the University of Cincinnati. He hasextensive postgraduate training in management,development financing, real estate negotiations,and real estate asset management.

Marilee A. UtterDenver, Colorado

Utter directs transit-oriented development forDenver’s Regional Transportation District (RTD).She is responsible for bringing land use and trans-portation together by fostering transit villages atrail and bus station sites throughout the region.

Utter’s background in public and private real es-tate has lead to nationally published articles andengagements focused on innovative approaches tocommunity redevelopment and urban issues. Herareas of expertise include mixed-use projects,public/private transactions, transit-anchored de-velopments, and large-scale master planning.

Utter’s projects of note include the redevelop-ment of a failed regional mall, Cinderella City,into a 1 million-square-foot, mixed-use transit-oriented town center; the redevelopment of a350,000-square-foot historic downtown depart-ment store, the Denver Dry Building, into hous-ing, retail, and office space; and the master plan



and zoning for 65 acres in Denver’s Central PlatteValley, transforming the urban rail yard into morethan 6 million square feet of commercial, residen-tial, and recreational uses.

Prior to her position at RTD, she was president of Citiventure Associates LLC, a real estate con-sulting firm; regional vice president for TrilliumCorporation, a real estate development company;director of asset management for the city andcounty of Denver; and vice president of WellsFargo Bank.

Utter holds a bachelor’s degree in mathematicsand French from Colorado Women’s College, amaster’s degree in business administration fromUCLA’s Anderson School, and a certificate instate and local public policy from Harvard’sKennedy School.

Her professional affiliations include the Counselorof Real Estate designation as well as membershipin the Urban Land Institute, the Colorado Uni-versity Real Estate Center, and the Congress forNew Urbanism. She also serves on the boards ofseveral community organizations, including theDenver Art Museum and the Metropolitan StateCollege of Denver Foundation.

Jack WierzenskiDallas, Texas

Wierzenski is the assistant vice president for eco-nomic development and planning for the DallasArea Rapid Transit (DART) system. He is re-

sponsible for developing and maintaining long-range strategies to take advantage of economicdevelopment opportunities around DART transitfacilities.

He represents the agency in initial contacts withthe development community and facilitates appro-priate transit-supportive development at light-rail stations, working with DART member citiesand with the development community. Wierzenskialso provides communication, education, and in-formation on transit-oriented development, eco-nomic development, and quality-of-life issues andacts as a liaison among developers, member cities,and various DART departments and staff to im-plement transit-oriented development and to max-imize the interface between transit and mixedland uses.

Wierzenski serves on the Rail-Volution Confer-ence Steering Committee and also is a memberof the American Institute of Certified Plannersand the Institute of Transportation Engineers.He received a bachelor’s degree in art from theUniversity of Minnesota and a master’s degree inurban and regional planning from Texas A&MUniversity.

Documents

Light-Rail Transit Phoenix, Arizona - Providing Public