Breaking the Automobile Addiction: A Vision for Transit-Oriented Development in Seattle

Abstract

Cities have recognized the need to shift to a more walkable, transit-friendly urban form to reduce reliance on the personal automobile. Since the concept of transit-oriented development (TOD) was coined by Peter Calthorpe in the late 1980s, it has become a buzzword–along with walkability and pedestrian scale–used in virtually all visioning plans, comprehensive plans, and master plans, yet the implementation of these concepts in the United States is poor at best. Conflicting priorities, differing demands, or a disregard for context-specific solutions often result in projects that do not achieve the stated goals. Developments continue to cater to the automobile and little incentive exists to encourage different behavior. This research aims to identify and explore the best examples of how other U.S. cities have successfully integrated TOD into existing communities, and compare these to completed and planned developments in the Seattle metropolitan area. This thesis compares TOD projects in three other states (California, Colorado, and Oregon) with three projects in Seattle, Washington. The comparison focuses on the degree to which certain physical characteristics typically associated with walkable and transit-oriented developments–density, proximity and diversity of businesses or services, and demand management of automobiles (namely parking)–are present in Seattle and how those characteristics are prioritized to meet specific needs of the project area. By understanding how to balance the TOD elements with the needs of the neighborhood through a case study exercise, recommendations can be provided to guide future TOD in Seattle and other U.S. cities to achieve a reduction in automobile reliance, and an increase in walking, cycling, and public transportation use. There is no single recipe for a successful TOD development. The most successful TODs are those that balanced the TOD elements to respond to the needs and existing elements of the neighborhood depending on its characteristics and context. For example, TOD in urban areas should prioritize vehicle demand management strategies while taking advantage of the existing density and destinations. Suburban retail center environments should prioritize building up a stock of dense residential housing but may rely on the adjacent destinations and services that already exist in the area. Working within the existing urban context and applying TOD elements in ways that correspond with the character of the neighborhood offers the best foundation to drive change in the urban environment.