Transit-oriented development in the Montreal metropolitan region: developer's perceptions of supply barriers.
Feldman, Sarah ; Lewis, Paul ; Schiff, Rebecca 等
Abstract
Transit-oriented development (TOD) is an urban planning concept often proposed as a solution to suburban sprawl. The majority of research on TOD is descriptive, though some research has examined the impact of TOD on travel behaviour. A recent theory of TOD production proposes that the rarity of completed TOD projects in North America is due to either a weak consumer demand, or a variety of supply barriers. Despite the level of policy attention to TOD in Canadian cities, there is a paucity of research on TOD in these cities, and no research that attempts to address supply and demand barriers. This study examined the perspective of land developers regarding supply barriers to TOD in the Montreal metropolitan region. In contrast to previous North American studies, findings indicate that structural barriers are a principal obstacle to the supply of TOD. A lack of suitable land, an insufficient supply of suburban transit service, and a lack of a common definition of TOD are the major obstacles to TOD production in this context. The significance of these issues suggests further investigation of structural and other barriers to TOD in the Canadian context.
Keywords: transit-oriented development, alternative development, supply, barriers, developer, Montreal
Resume
Le developpement axe sur le transport en commun (transit-oriented development ou TOD) est un concept urbanistique souvent propose comme solution a l'etalement urbain. La majorite des recherches sur ce concept sont plutot descriptives, mais quelques etudes examinent l'impact des projets de TOD sur les comportements en transport. Une theorie recente sur la production du TOD propose que la rarete de projets acheves an Amerique du nord est le resultat d'une faible demande des consommateurs ou d'une variete de barrieres a l'offre. Malgre le degre d'attention accorde au TOD dans les politiques des villes canadiennes, il y a une absence marquee de recherche sur TOD dans ces villes, et aucune recherche qui vise a analyser la demande et les barrieres a l'offre. Cette etude a examine la perspective des promoteurs immobiliers quant aux barrieres a l'offre de TOD dans la region metropolitaine de Montreal. Contrairement aux autres etudes nord americaines, les resultats indiquent que les barrieres structurelles sont l'obstacle principal a l'offre de TOD. Un manque de terrains, l'offre insuffisante de services de transport en commun et l'absence d'une definition commune du TOD sont les obstacles majeurs a la production de TOD dans ce contexte. L'importance de ces questions suggere la poursuite des enquetes sur les barrieres structurelles et autres barrieres au TOD dans le contexte canadien.
Mots cles: developpement axe sur le transport en commun, TOD, developpement alternatif, offre, barriere, promoteur immobilier, Montreal
Introduction
The concept of transit-oriented development (TOD) is frequently cited in the field of urban planning as a normative response to a panoply of problems presented by traditional suburban development. The most commonly accepted definition of TOD is one proposed by Calthorpe:
A TOD is a mixed-use community within an average 2,000 foot walking distance of a transit stop and a core commercial area. TODs mix residential, retail, office, open space and public uses in a walkable environment, making it convenient for residents and employees to travel by transit, bicycle, foot or car (Calthorpe 1993, p.56).
Advocates of TOD believe in its capacity to reduce automobile dependence, halt suburban sprawl and improve residents' quality of life (Bernick and Cervero 1997; Cervero 1998). Despite the purported benefits, few examples of true TOD have been built in Canada and, more broadly, in North America. Many cases claiming to be TOD have been criticized as actually representing TAD or "transit adjacent development," implying that the level of integration with the transit station is weak and the project lacks the density and mixed uses necessary to support the necessary level of activity (Transportation Cooperative Research Program 2002). We must thus ask ourselves: if there are so many advocates of this concept, why do we not see more recently completed examples?
Supporters of TOD have produced an abundance of descriptive studies in order to encourage the supply of these real estate products (Bernick and Cervero 1997; Porter 1997; Porter 1998; Belzer and Autler 2002; Calgary 2004; Ditmar and Ohland 2004; Jacobson and Forsyth 2008). The majority of other research has concentrated on the impacts of these developments on travel behaviour (Handy 1992; Frank and Pivo 1994; Cervero and Radish 1995; Kitamura, Mokhtarian et al. 1997; Boarnet and Crane 2001; Cervero and Duncan 2002; Handy, Cao et al. 2005; Hendricks 2005; Renne 2005; Schwanen and Mokhtarian 2005). Despite a growing body of research, the results of this line of inquiry remain inconclusive and, in recent years, some investigators have questioned the pertinence of this approach.
Recently, a new theory of TOD has criticized travel behaviour studies, refuting the assumption that it is necessary to demonstrate the mobility benefits of TOD in order to justify new projects (Levine, Inam et al. 2000; Inam, Levine et al. 2004; Levine and Inam 2004; Levine 2005; Levine and Frank 2007). Travel behaviour research, they assert, is founded on the premise that it is necessary, in order to demonstrate the capacity of TOD, to modify travel behaviour in order to justify government programs' support of TOD. These studies thus presume that the free market is incapable of supplying such real estate products without government intervention. Following this logic, a new theory of TOD production proposes that the low number of completed TOD projects in North America is the result of certain supply barriers which impede the regular functioning of the free market, rather than the result of the incapacity of the free market to deliver these products without public-sector intervention (Levine and Inam 2004; Levine 2005).
It is argued that a variety of supply barriers could be responsible for delaying TOD projects, fundamentally modifying their substance, or even entirely impeding their completion. According to Levine, public sector intervention would be required to eliminate most of these obstacles, certain of which are created by the public sector itself. The public sector should not, however, need to stimulate the demand for TOD or to incite developers to respond to this demand. Rather, the majority of developers simply want the public sector to provide a supportive framework for their projects (Levine 2005).
This theory of TOD production also re-evaluates the self-selection phenomenon, which has long been seen as a factor that biases travel behaviour research. Studies of the impact of TOD on travel behaviour have grappled with the possibility that many who choose to live in TOD environments were more predisposed to non-automobile modes of transportation (i.e. the "self-selectors") and thus the impacts of the development cannot be wholly assigned to the characteristics of the environment itself (Bagley and Mokhtarian 2002; Handy, Cao et al. 2005; Schwanen and Mokhtarian 2005). Levine suggests that the existence of such a population that, though it wishes otherwise, cannot live in a neighbourhood that provides better access to public transit, serves to support his theory of a latent demand for these environments and the potential for obstacles in the supply chain that hinder their provision. Levine, Inam and Torng (2005) refer to the logic behind this research into development barriers as a "choice-based rationale" as it places the emphasis on the right of consumers to choose the type of neighbourhood in which they live and on the right of developers to choose the type of neighbourhood they produce.
While several studies have been conducted on this topic in the United States, there is no previous research into the barriers to supply of TOD in a Canadian context. There has, however, been a significant amount of attention to the TOD concept in policy documents related to the planning and development of the largest Canadian municipalities, including Montreal, Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver (City of Calgary 2004; Canadian Urban Transit Association 2004; Junca-Adenot 2006a; Junca-Adenot 2006b; City of Ottawa 2007; Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation 2009; City of Hamilton 2010; City of Edmonton 2012; City of Edmonton 2012; Communaute metropolitaine de Montreal 2012; Government of Ontario 2012). This documentation, however, is focused on providing policy direction, design guidelines and descriptive case studies and does not provide any critical or scholarly analysis of the TOD concept. Previous research has indicated that Canadian cities are fundamentally different from U.S. cities in terms of their urban form and the level of regulatory authority wielded by local government (England and Mercer, 2006). The paucity of scholarly research, and the potential significance of barriers to TOD, suggests further investigation of supply and other barriers in the Canadian context.
Study Area
The Montreal metropolitan region lends itself to a study of TOD because of its extensive transit network and variety of innovative development projects in recent years. Although a number of these new projects have applied the principles of TOD, little analysis has been done of either their success in achieving their intent or the challenges faced in the development process.
The Communaute metropolitaine de Montreal (CMM) was formed in 2001 as a regional governance body with a variety of areas of responsibility, including creation and implementation of a regional planning and development framework. In 2005, the CMM adopted its first Regional Planning and Development Framework (Projet de schema metropoltain d'amenagement et de developpement of PSMAD). In this first framework document, the CMM noted the growing interest in multifamily housing, the shrinking market share of single-family housing and a new tendency of residential growth being constricted towards the centre of the region. It concluded that these tendencies underline a possibility to rethink urban planning in terms of certain new planning theories, such as Smart Growth, New Urbansim and TOD (Communaute metropolitaine de Montreal 2005). A new Plan metropoltain d'amenagement et de developpement (Metropolitan Plan for Planning and Development or PMAD) was adopted by the CMM Council in 2012. The first objective under the first of three major orientations of the PMAD is to "Orient 40% of household growth around access points to the structuring metropolitan network of public transportation" and the three criteria supporting this objective describe the appropriate location, density targets and planning for TOD (Communaute metropolitaine de Montreal 2012, p.10). The TOD concept has thus clearly found on-going support through policy statements at the regional level.
In recent years the TOD concept has also been embraced in the City of Montreal's highest order urban planning document, the Plan d'urbanisme. A major orientation of the Plan d'urbanisme is to create "structuring transportation networks that are efficient and well integrated into the urban fabric". A subsequent objective is thus to "consolidate and add value to land in relationship to existing and projected transportation networks" (Ville de Montreal 2005, p.33). One of the actions proposed in order to meet this objective is to "support urbanisation that favours use of public transit" (Ville de Montreal 2005, p.43). In order to meet these objectives, the City proposes to favour mixed-use development within 500 meters of certain transit stations, metro stations and transit corridors.
Outside of the boundaries of the City of Montreal, municipalities and the development industry have clearly demonstrated some level of interest for TOD style development. Over, the past decade, two TOD projects have been developed along the suburban radial train network, as indicated in Figure 1.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Given this context, development of new TOD in Montreal can benefit from the supportive policies of the City of Montrears Plan d'urbanisme and the CMM's PMAD and the lessons learned in the examples of the two suburban TOD developments. On the other hand, there are two factors which create significant barriers to the development of TOD. The first factor is a result of the CMM's mandate which allows for suburban municipalities to request land to be excluded from the agricultural zone. The second factor stems from the CMM's observations in the PSMAD relative to the availability of greenfield land and projected growth rates (Communaute metropolitaine de Montreal 2005). The tendency of the Agence metropolitaine de transport (AMT) (1) to view suburban train stations as opportunities for park-and-ride lots rather than integrating development projects creates additional impediments to TOD.
Methodology
In order to examine the importance of demand and supply barriers, it is necessary to understand the perspective of the various actors involved in land development: financial institutions, elected officials, municipal and provincial administrators, residents and land developers. Given that land developers are the sole actors in this list who interact both with the demand and supply of real estate products, they can provide a particularly unique perspective. The present study concentrated on the perspective of developers in an effort to explore their perceptions of the barriers to supply of TOD in the Montreal metropolitan region.
Participants were initially drawn from the list of members of the Provincial Home Builders' Association of Quebec (PAHBQ), which encompasses the majority of major housing builders in the region. From this list, the sample was determined randomly in order to avoid introducing a discrimination error in the research. While many home builders are also involved in the land development process, some land developers do not engage in any building construction and so are not members of this association. Also, the PAHBQ list does not contain information concerning the size or types of products offered by each company. To engage participants with a broader range of experience, we also utilised a snowball sampling technique where interviewees provided recommendations for other potential participants who could introduce variation into the sample. In addition, certain developers known for developing innovative products were added to the sample in order to assure the inclusion of companies with experience with TOD-style projects.
Two studies of supply and demand for TOD (Levine and Inam 2004; Transportation Cooperative Research Program 2004), both of which were conducted in the United States, used a questionnaire to gather developers' opinions on TOD. Although a questionnaire can lead to a larger sample size, it presupposes a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved. A more qualitative approach was thus chosen for this study because research on TOD in the Montreal region is still in an exploratory phase and all of the relevant factors are not well known. A semi-structured interview format was used due to its value as a method of data collection when <'a researcher knows enough about a phenomenon or the domain of inquiry to develop questions about the topic in advance of interviewing, but not enough to be able to anticipate the answers" (Richards and Morse, 2007, pp. 94). This approach provided room for in-depth, complex responses and the tailoring of the predetermined questions in an effort to explore their perceptions of the barriers to supply of TOD in the Montreal metropolitan region. Interview questions were arranged along several themes: the respondent's company's size and target market, familiarity with TOD, perception of demand, perception of supply barriers, availability of land, experiences with government regulation, financing methods and public reaction.
The majority of land surrounding urban transit (subway) stations has already been developed for several decades and embodies many characteristics of TOD. As such, this research focused on TOD along the suburban rail network operated by the Agence metropolitaine de transport (AMT). The majority of participants selected are active in suburban areas in proximity to these suburban rail lines and participants were not asked to comment on development surrounding the urban subway stations.
Results and Discussion
The final sample consisted of fifteen residential developers and builders representing a diversity of company sizes and product types. Participants included several developers producing innovative projects on both the north and south shores and in downtown Montreal, as well as the developers of one of the aforementioned TOD projects. Several participants focus solely on home building while others were active in the entire land development process. The majority of participants are active in the suburban areas, within the metropolitan region, but outside of the more urban areas on the island of Montreal. Our findings revealed concerns related to structural barriers and other unique barriers to TOD.
Supply Barriers
A supply barrier is a condition that complicates the ability of a developer or builder to put a real estate product on the market. Such a barrier does not need to completely block the completion of a project; it can simply cause delays or impose an important modification of the plan, thereby affecting the project's ability to achieve its intended goals or its financial viability. The existence of a certain supply barrier can thus discourage the developer from pursuing a type of project that is susceptible to this obstacle. We utilised a comprehensive review of TOD-related research produced by the Transportation Cooperation Research Board as a basis for classifying the various types of supply barriers as fiscal/financial, political, organizational and structural (Cervero, Bernick et al. 1994; Cervero 2002). Levine's research into the impacts of land use controls and zoning on the supply of TOD leads us to add a fifth category: regulatory barriers (Belzer and Autler 2002; Levine 2005). Since this research did not identify significant organizational barriers, the following discussion focuses on the remaining four categories of supply barriers.
Regulatory Barriers
In the context of this research, it was not possible to identify any regulatory barriers specific to TOD. Nevertheless, government regulations were clearly a source of frustration for developers, and this frustration is evidently more elevated for companies that tend to pursue alternative projects. Higher density or mixed-use projects thus potentially confront regulatory barriers more frequently than a traditional project. The nature of these barriers, however, is not specific to TOD projects.
Many developers described the delays caused by the provincial government and municipalities in development projects. However, the responses also suggest that developers generally prefer to work without any regulatory requirements. It is thus difficult to distinguish complaints of an abusive use of regulation from complaints resulting from a simple desire to escape all forms of regulation. For example, some participants expressed frustration with the role played by the Minister of Sustainable Development, the Environment and Parks since the adoption of the Law on Environmental Quality which requires environmental impact studies for any project which may have an impact on a fragile habitat or threatened species (Government of Quebec 2008). While one would not wish to discredit these complaints, it seems clear that these types of regulations are essential for natural resource conservation. It is interesting to note that some respondents recognized the value of these types of regulations, and were simply critical of the lengthy delays, and resultant elevated financial risk, that these processes introduce into their project planning. It thus appears complaints about regulatory barriers can underline the necessity of a better effort of the government to clearly explain their requirements and expedite impact studies.
Financial Barriers
Financial barriers were discussed by some as a subset of regulatory barriers. Participants mentioned regulatory delays as negatively impacting project financing for all types of projects. Additional comments suggest, however, that this should not be a major obstacle for a company that is stable and capable of adequately planning their projects. The participants also noted that the type of company that would work on a TOD project would likely be both very healthy financially and well equipped to plan such a project. That being said, this level of financial independence is rare in the case of smaller companies that are primarily builders and not land developers. As a result, regulatory delays can have a significant impact on builders' decisions to work on alternative projects.
The interviews confirmed the claim in the literature that TOD is more costly to produce. This is partially due to the costs of constructing denser housing types. The responses also align with the proposition of Burchell and Listokin (2001) that TOD incurs additional expenses beyond those associated with density, such as producing an aesthetically pleasing architectural and landscape design. While costs may be higher, we propose that this should only be an obstacle if consumers are unwilling to absorb higher prices.
Political Barriers
Public opposition appears to constitute a major obstacle to any type of development, with some participants having experienced opposition to higher density projects. Of particular interest was the participants' claim that the level to which public opposition impacts development is related to the level of public influence over elected officials, which tends to be quite high. Our findings indicate that, to advance their own agendas, local politicians sometimes take strategic advantage of the public participation process. This type of political obstacle has not, however, be previously identified in the literature on barriers to TOD.
In contrast to these barriers, political situations can also work to support development. For example, one participant noted that when the municipality is convinced of the quality of a project it will do what it can to convince the public. Thus, the public would not be a true barrier to a good development project if the developer and the municipality work together to communicate their vision. Some participants suggested that a developer who is able to cooperate and communicate with the municipality and the local population will not have difficulties in attaining project approval. On the other hand, some suggested that establishing this spirit of cooperation is not always straightforward, particularly if the municipality fears the public reaction. Political will appears to be an essential element for the creation of innovative projects. While the results of this study do not allow for a comparison of the degree of opposition to denser projects with opposition in general, it is clear that political opposition can create a significant obstacle to all types of development in the Montreal region. In this sense, the study reinforces Filion and McSpurreffs conclusions on the influence of NIMBY sentiments on the coordination of transit and higher density development in Toronto (2007).
Structural Barriers
While regulatory, financial, and political barriers were of concern, developers spoke most strongly of the significance of structural barriers to TOD development. Interviewees pointed to three significant structural barriers: land scarcity; absence of good sites near transport; and poor supply of transit. The frequency that these factors were mentioned and the importance accorded to them by participants strongly indicate that structural barriers are a much more influential factor than previously acknowledged in the literature. While much attention has been given to regulatory barriers (Levine 2005) and financial barriers (Leinberger 2001; Leinberger 2007), the findings suggests that structural barriers take precedence.
Land Scarcity
The major structural barrier to development, the growing rarity of buildable land, is the direct result of a variety of contextual factors at play in the Montreal region, including demographic growth, the recent housing boom and regulations protecting land from development in the agricultural zone. The perceived lack of land in the metropolitan outskirts was attributed to the perception that the majority of undeveloped land outside of the protected agricultural zone often has environmental constraints. Participants noted that land without such constraints is typically at the end of the water and sewer network, and so the developer must plan for additional infrastructure. Despite the frequency with which land scarcity was mentioned, participants generally found that the pressure towards densification is still relatively low. Given that government policies which protect natural features and agricultural land are certainly defensible, it would be difficult assign blame to the provincial and regional governments for enacting regulatory regimes that contribute to the growing rarity of buildable land. Also, while land scarcity may be an obstacle to development in general, it can also contribute to densification efforts that are favourable TOD.
Absence of Good Sites Near Transit
Growing scarcity of land is not independently an obstacle to TOD and, in certain circumstances, the pressure generated by this situation can push for territorial densification. Seen in a wider context, however, a growing scarcity of land creates a related obstacle specific to TOD because a general lack of land must translate into a more serious lack of land near transit stations. This lack of available land is aggravated by the fact that TOD requires not only available land, but good quality land in proximity to transit.
Participants claimed that, in the Montreal suburbs, few sites near transit are of good quality and are available for development or redevelopment. There is little greenfield land and the ability to redevelop industrial land near transit stations is limited by the fact that the sites near train stations are often occupied by park-and-ride lots. In this sense, areas surrounding transit stations in the Montreal suburbs are not planned in a TOD perspective but rather continue to be based on a model of car-oriented transit (St. Amour 2008). This supports the theory of Belzer and Autler (2002) according to which the planning of park-and-ride around transit stations is in direct conflict with TOD creation. Instead of being an obstacle to development, however, this situation of transit stations surrounded by industrial lands and park-and-ride stations could be considered an opportunity for revitalization.
Another obstacle influencing the quality of land near transit is the station location. While placing a station in the centre of an older village node can increase the potential of benefiting from existing commercial and community dynamics, these locations are often constrained by the capacities of existing infrastructure to accommodate higher densities. Available land near transit stations often also faces the constraints of soil contamination and high land prices, thereby making them less attractive sites for development unless financial or other incentives are provided.
The scarcity of developable land around transit stations thus appears to be a major obstacle to TOD development in the Montreal region. There are certainly some sites in the Montreal region that could present an opportunity to create TOD, and some of the more visionary developers interviewed were aware of these cases. It does, however, seem clear that the number of opportunities to develop around transit stations is quite limited, which reduces the possibility to create a true "transit metropolis" as promoted by Cervero (1998).
Poor Supply of Transit
Land development can be described principally as an opportunistic trade. Voluntary creation of TOD by developers thus requires the presentation of one of the fundamental advantages to TOD: transit service. The responses demonstrate that the current supply of transit in the Montreal suburbs is too weak to support TOD creation. As one participant stated: Fundamentally, developers are opportunists. The day that there will be a super-efficient train that leaves from ... somewhere not very far (from downtown) ... and brings you in a very quick fashion downtown, you will have clients who will go there. Who will want to go there instead of taking their car and travelling a lot. Sort of like an opportunity for the developer. It is certain that developers will go there.
In terms of the current suburban train network, the same participant stated that "... the schedules are not very adequate and the equipment is a bit run down" and added that: TOD functions. In any case, the few that I have seen are a form of success. But I think that public transit, to say that TOD is at its full capacity or its full ... that it is at its highest point, and that we use it at its maximum ... it will take a transport service that is more adequate.
The participants in this study thus clearly reflected the statement that "for high residential density to translate, as intended, into additional public transit use, it must be juxtaposed with quality transit services--that is, services that are competitive with the car in terms of speed and comfort" (Filion and McSpurren 2007, p.501).
The insufficient supply of transit is not, however, solely determined by the level of service, but can also be explained by the network structure in the context of current trends in trip origins and destinations. One participant expressed a disinterest in developing around the suburban train line because the network only brings users to downtown Montreal, while many of his clients travel between suburban communities. In this sense, the growing complexity of suburban mobility patterns is not supported by the Montreal radial transit structure. We suggest, however, that the low transit service levels in the suburbs do not pose a true barrier to the creation of TOD style development. The success in the creation of the Mont-Saint-Hilaire and Sainte-Therese TOD projects clearly demonstrates the possibility of creating a TOD around a train station with a low level of transit service. The effectiveness of these projects in modifying travel behavior, however, remains to be seen.
Other Factors Influencing the Supply of TOD
Our research also revealed some barriers not easily classified into existing categories of supply barriers and which are not clearly identified in the literature on barriers to TOD. These unique barriers centered around: lack of understanding of the TOD concept; demand as a supply barrier; and the importance of vision.
Developers' Ignorance of TOD
One of the most striking results of the interviews was the general lack of understanding of the TOD concept. Belzer and Autler (2002) have previously identified the lack of a universal working definition of TOD as a major challenge, but this has not received as much attention in the literature as have regulatory and financial barriers. In our study, participants who were familiar with TOD did not always have accurate definitions, whereas other participants had no knowledge of the concept. This is worth noting given that it seems impossible for a developer to independently produce a type of development that satisfies all of the criteria of a true TOD without a clear understanding of the terra. One potential reason for developers' ignorance of TOD is that they haven't been previously exposed to the concept by another actor, such as a municipal planning department. The lack of familiarity with the concept is clearly a fundamental obstacle to TOD development in the Montreal region.
Another interesting dimension to this ignorance of TOD is that many participants were unable to comment on the availability of land around transit stations. This seems logical, given that the majority of developers are generally preoccupied with the balance between the price of land and land quality, of which transit proximity is only one component. This reinforces the proposition that developers are essentially reactive. This is contrasted against more visionary developers that will identify all sites that respond to their company's philosophy, such as sites near transit
The Demand for TOD
It is a fair assumption that few real estate developers would pursue a project unless a significant demand for the product is apparent. We can thus consider demand as a type of supply barrier that takes precedence over all the other types of barriers. Four sources of information are generally used to establish the demand for TOD: socio-demographic trend analysis, housing preference surveys, studies comparing housing preferences with housing choice and studies of real estate developers' perceptions (Levine, Inam et al. 2005; Levine and Frank 2007). While our research was focused primarily on supply-side barriers, participants were asked to offer their subjective perspective on the consumer demand for TOD.
Developers generally were skeptical that the baby boomer generation would desire to leave their homes for denser housing types and, if they were to do so, that transit access would be a significant factor influencing location choice. In terms of the echo generation, developers did think that these individuals would be interested in denser housing types, but that this demand would diminish once young couples started to have children or contemplated their second home. While a more rigorous survey or demographic analysis would permit us to draw stronger conclusions, the subjective perceptions of developers provide a preliminary indication of demand-side factors from the perspective of the sole actors directly involved in both the supply and demand side of real estate development.
The Importance of Vision
Aside from the size of their company, the research revealed a few attributes that distinguish the type of developer that can create a TOD: vision, willingness to take risks, patience, and an ability work in partnership with the municipality. The vision of the developer seems to be the most significant characteristic because it is the initial source of inspiration to pursue innovative products. As one participant stated, to create an innovative development project, "It takes someone with the taste to do this. It takes someone with vision" Another developer explained that the vision of his company is to offer more than just housing, stating: I don't think we sell two by fours. We also don't sell square feet. We sell a lifestyle. A way to live and a way to be ... that the person feels as good as possible in the environment that we offer them. The philosophy (of our company) is to work in this sense.
Beyond simply having a vision, one participant also noted that developers must also be capable of adapting to a continually evolving context: "Every developer must adapt, rapidly". The same participant also affirmed that a developer of an innovative project must also be able to take risks: So we took a risk. We created definitely an urban plan in a suburban setting. And, to be honest with you, the market studies we did and the builders that we talked to in Montreal were very sceptical that this could work. So we had to put our money where our mouth was and start doing the work and showing that it could work.
Another developer of an innovative project in the outskirts of the region stated: But this will become urban with time. That's what we have to tell ourselves. If we don't create the architecture, the urbanism ... if we don't create the need, if we don't create the destination we will tell ourselves forever, 'well, no, that isn't done: You have to be daring. You have to be capable of taking risks. We will change our way of doing things. We will bring people to buy what we are looking to sell. Which is the case now. And there we learn that, yes, this works. It's a risk.
From these statements we see that in addition to having a vision, a developer of innovative projects must be able to take risks and adapt to evolving circumstances. One of the participants also added that patience is a critical attribute for any development and qualified this statement by saying that this patience is even more important in a "concept project" such as a TOD project. The last necessary quality of a developer working on innovative projects is a willingness to work in partnership with government. This perspective, shared by a number of participants, is best summarized by one statement: "You must see the municipalities as partners and the (Minister of) Environment as a partner, and not as an adversary."
From the numerous statements made in this regard, we conclude that the vision, willingness to take risks, patience, and an ability work in partnership with the municipality are fundamental characteristics of a developer required in order to produce TOD style development. This raises a fundamental question of whether or not enough developers satisfying these characteristics are active in the Montreal region in order to support the creation of a true network of TOD. While the present study is not capable of answering this question, it does suggest that TOD development could be limited due to the small number of development companies that satisfy these requirements.
Conclusions
The results of this study indicate that Levine's suggestion to soften regulations in order to permit the market to produce TOD might not have the desired effect in the Montreal region. Essentially, TOD would not be created without an intervention of the public sector because of the existence of structural barriers that limit developers' interest in pursuing TOD projects. The weak demand, the lack of developable land near suburban train stations and the insufficient supply of transit service are major obstacles to TOD that cannot be resolved without a greater contribution from government actors.
Certain public sector interventions could break through these barriers. However, a willingness to intervene directly to address these top three barriers is not currently apparent, despite the promotion of the TOD concept in various municipal and regional planning documents. In this sense, we draw a similar conclusion to studies of the context of urban dispersion and Smart Growth in Toronto which suggest that, despite sustained commitment to the concept of smart growth in planning documents, the ability to achieve desired integration of transit and intensified land uses would require large investment in transit and a strong, lasting land use regulations requiring intensification at transit nodes (Filion and McSpurren 2007).
The interest of the public sector in promoting TOD is doubtlessly linked to the public interest in these projects, that is to say the economic, social and environmental benefits for society. A proof of the capacity of TOD to control urban sprawl, contribute to sustainable mobility and improve quality of life is thus essential. This suggests that the necessity of travel behaviour studies cannot be discounted.
While these conclusions must be limited to the case of Montreal, the study does suggest that future studies in other cities should more thoroughly investigate the influence of structural barriers. Future studies should also consider the role of unique partnerships between municipal government, transit agencies, developers and builders and the importance of visionary developers in producing unique developments.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) and the Observatoire SITQ du developpement urbain et immobilier of the Institut d'urbanisme at the Universite de Montreal.
References
Agence metropolitaine de transport. 2006. Rapport d'activites 2006. Agence metropolitaine de transport. Montreal.
Bagley, M. N. and P. L. Mokhtarian. 2002. The impact of residential neighborhood type on travel behavior: A structural equations modeling approach. The Annals of Regional Science 36: 279-297.
Belzer, D. and G. Autler. 2002. Transit Oriented Development: Moving from Rhetoric to Reality. The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy and the Great American Station Foundation.
Bernick, M. and R. Cervero. 1997. Transit Villages in the 21st Century. New York: McGraw Hill.
Boarnet, M. G. and R. Crane. 2001. Travel by Design: The Influence of Urban Form on Travel. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burchell, R. W. and D. Listokin. 2001. Linking Vision With Capital: Challenges and Opportunities in Financing Smart Growth. Arlington, VA: Research Institute for Housing America.
Calthorpe, P. 1993. The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American Dream. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation. 2009. Transit-Oriented Development (TOD): Canadian Case Studies. Ottawa, Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Canadian Urban Transit Association. 2004. Transit-Oriented Development: Smart Growth in Action. Toronto: Canadian Urban Transit Association.
Cervero, R. 1998. The Transit Metropolis: A Global Inquiry. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Cervero, R., M. Bernick, et al. 1994. Market Barriers and Opportunities to Transit-Based Development in California. UCTC No.223. Berkeley, University of California, Berkeley Transportation Center.
Cervero, R. and M. Duncan. 2002. Residential Self-Selection and Rail Com muting: A Nested Logit Analysis. University of California Transportation Centre. Berkeley: Institute of Urban and Regional Development.
Cervero, R. and C. Radish. 1995. Travel Choices in Pedestrian Versus Auto Oriented Neighourhoods. University of California Transportation Centre. Berkeley: Institute of Urban and Regional Development.
City of Calgary. 2004. Transit Oriented Development: Best Practices Handbook. Department of Land Use and Policy Planning. Calgary: City of Calgary.
City of Edmonton. 2012. City Policy C565: Transit Oriented Development. Sustainable Development Department.
City of Edmonton. 2012. Transit Oriented Development Guidelines. Sustainable Development and Transportation Services Departments.
City of Hamilton. 2010. Transit Oriented Development Guidelines for Hamilton. Public Works Department and Economic Development Department.
City of Ottawa. 2007. Transit-Oriented Development Guidelines. Planning, Transit and the Environment Department.
Communaute metropolitaine de Montreal. 2005. Cap sur le monde : Pour une region metropolitaine de Montreal attractive--Projet de schema metropolitain d'amenagement du territoire. Communaute metropolitaine de Montreal.
Communaute metropolitaine de Montreal. 2012. Guide d'amenagement pour les aires de TOD. Montreal.
Communaute metropolitaine de Montreal. 2012. Plan metropolitain d'amenagement et de developpement de Montreal.
Ditmar, H. and G. Ohland. 2004. The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit-Oriented Development. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
England, K., and J. Mercer. 2006. Canadian Cities in Continental Context: Global and Continental Perspectives on Canadian Urban Development. In Canadian cities in transition: Local through global perspectives, ed. T. Bunting and P. Filion, 24-39. Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Filion, E and K. McSpurren. 2007. Smart Growth and Development Reality: The Difficult Co-ordination of Land Use and Transportation Objectives. Urban Studies 44(3): 501-523.
Frank, L. D. and G. Pivo. 1994. Impacts of mixed use and density on three modes of travel: single occupant vehicle, transit and walking. Transportation Research Record 1466: 44-52.
Government of Ontario. 2012. Transit-Supportive Guidelines. Ministry of Transportation.
Government of Quebec. 2008. Loi sur la qualite de l'environnement. L.R.Q., chapitre Q-2.
Handy, S. 1992. Regional Versus Local Accessibility: Neo-Traditional Development and Its Implications for Non-work Travel. Built Environment 18(4): 253-267.
Handy, S., X. Cao, et al. 2005. Correlation or causality between the built environment and travel behaviour: Evidence from Northern California. Transportation Research Part D 10: 427-444.
Hendricks, S. J. 2005. Impact of Transit Oriented Development on Public Transportation Ridership. National Center for Transit Research, Center for Urban Transportation Research,. Tampa, University of South Florida.
Inam, A., J. Levine, et al. 2004. Production of alternative development in American suburbs: two case studies. Planning Practice and Research 19(2): 211-217.
Jacobson, J. and A. Forsyth. 2008. Seven American TODs: Good practices for urban design in Transit-Oriented Development projects. Journal of Transportation and Land Use 1 (2): 38.
Junca-Adenot, F. 2006a. Mont-Saint-Hilaire : le Village de la Gare. Projet URBATOD. Montreal, Universite du Quebec a Montreal.
Junca-Adenot, F. 2006b. Ville de Sainte-Therese : le redeveloppement d'un secteur. Projet URBATOD. Montreal, Universite de Quebec a Montreal.
Kitamura, R., P. L. Mokhtarian, et al. 1997. A micro-analysis of land use and travel in five neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation 24(2): 125-158.
Leinberger, C. B. 2001. Financing Progressive Development. Washington, The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.
Leinberger, C. B. 2007. Back to the Future: The Need for Patient Equity in Real Estate Development Finance. Washington: The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program.
Levine, J., Ed. 2005. Zoned Out: Regulations, Markets and Choices for Transporation and Metropolitan Land-Use. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.
Levine, J. and L. D. Frank. 2007. Transportation and land-use preferences and residents' neighborhood choices: the sufficiency of compact development in the Atlanta region. Transportation 34: 255-274.
Levine, J. and A. Inam. 2004. The Market for Transportation-Land Use Integration: Do developers want smarter growth than regulations allow? Transportation (31): 409-427.
Levine, J., A. Inam, et al. 2000. Innovation in Transportation and Land Use as Expansion of Household Choice. Conference of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning. Atlanta, GA.
Levine, J., A. Inam, et al. 2005. A Choice-Based Rationale for Land Use and Transportation Alternatives: Evidence from Boston and Atlanta. Journal of Planning Education and Research 24:317-330.
Morse, J. M. and L. Richards. 2002. Read Me First for a User's Guide to Qualitative Methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Porter, D. R. 1997. Transit-Focused Development: A synthesis of transit practice. T. C. R. Program. Washington, D.C., Transportation Research Board.
Porter, D. R. 1998. Transit-Focused Development: A Progress Report. Journal of the American Planning Association 64(4): 14.
Renne, J. L. 2005. Transit-Oriented Development: Measuring benefits, analyzing trends, and evaluating policy. Urban Planning and Policy Development. New Brunswick, New Jersey, Rutgers. PhD: 243.
Schwanen, T. and P. L. Mokhtarian. 2005. What if you live in the wrong neighborhood? The impact of residential neighborhood type dissonance on distance traveled. Transportation Research Part D 10:127-151.
St-Amour, S. 2008. Pas facile pour une banlieue de prendre le virage TOD. Courrier Laval. Laval. 16 mars 2008.
Transportation Cooperative Research Program. 2002. Transit-Oriented Development and Joint Development in the United States: A Literature Review. Transit Cooperative Research Program Research Results Digest No. 52, Transportation Research Board of the Federal Transit Administration.
Transportation Cooperative Research Program. 2004. Transit-Oriented Development in the United States: Challenges, Prospects and Opportunities. Transportation Cooperative Research Program Report 102, Transportation Research Board of the Federal Transit Administration.
Ville de Montreal. 2005. Plan d'urbanisme. Mise en valeur du territoire et du patrimoine, Division d'urbanisme. Ville de Montreal.
Sarah Feldman
Planning & Development Services
Strathcona County
Paul Lewis
Institut d'urbanisme
Universite de Montreal
Rebecca Schiff
Division of Community Health & Humanities Faculty of Medicine
Memorial University of Newfoundland
Notes
(1) The Agence metropolitaine de transport (AMT) is a transportation organisational authority inthe Montreal region responsible for regional suburban train services.
