Citation
The Impact of transit oriented development on the surrounding community

Material Information

Title:
The Impact of transit oriented development on the surrounding community
Creator:
Shannon, Pat
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( Master of public administration)
Degree Grantor:
University of Colorado Denver
Degree Divisions:
School of Public Affairs, CU Denver
Degree Disciplines:
Public administration
Committee Chair:
Boylard, Wendy
Committee Members:
Propheter, Geoffrey

Notes

General Note:
Fall 2017

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
Copyright Pat Shannon. Permission granted to University of Colorado Denver to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
IMPACT OF TOD ON SURROUNDING COMMUNITY
The Impact of Transit Oriented Development on the Surrounding Community
Pat Shannon
University of Colorado Denver School of Public Affairs
This client-based project is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Public Administration in the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver Denver, Colorado
Fall
2017


IMPACT OF TOD ON SURROUNDING COMMUNITY
Capstone Project Disclosures
This client-based project was completed on behalf of The University Hills North Registered Neighborhood Organization and supervised by PUAD 5361 Capstone course instructor Wendy L. Bolyard, PhD, and second faculty reader Geoffrey Propheter, PhD. This project does not necessarily reflect the views of the School of Public Affairs or the faculty readers. Raw data were not included in this document, rather relevant materials were provided directly to the client. Permissions to include this project in the Auraria Library Digital Repository are found in the final Appendix. Questions about this capstone project should be directed to the student author.


IMPACT OF TOD ON SURROUNDING COMMUNITY i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary.....................................................................ii
Introduction..........................................................................1
Literature Review.....................................................................3
Methodology...........................................................................11
Results...............................................................................16
Discussion............................................................................20
Conclusion............................................................................25
References............................................................................26
Appendices............................................................................30
Appendix A - Recommendations...................................................31
Appendix B - University Hills North Boundary and Land Use Map..................32
Appendix C - The Test Group....................................................33
Appendix D - Control Group.....................................................34
Appendix E - List of U.S. Census Data Analysis Independent Variables...........35
Appendix F - Results of U.S. Census Data Analysis - Per Capita Income..........36
Appendix G - Results of U.S. Census Data Analysis - Median Property Value......37
Appendix H - Results of U.S. Census Data Analysis - Age........................38
Appendix I - Results of U.S. Census Data Analysis - Educational Attainment.....39
Appendix J - Results of U.S. Census Data Analysis - Population and Housing Density.42
Appendix K - Coding of Station Area Plan Goals.................................44
Appendix L - Station Area Plan Coded Goals Table...............................46
Appendix M - Station Area Plan Land Use Analysis Results.......................47


ii
IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
Executive Summary
University Hills North (UHN) is a neighborhood in Denver, Colorado and is home to the Colorado and Yale light rail stations. Most of the neighborhood is within one half mile of at least one of the two light rail stations, potentially placing new development in the neighborhood under the umbrella of transit oriented development (TOD). TOD is generally characterized by high-density residential and mixed-use development within a half mile of a rail station.
The University Hills North Registered Neighborhood Organization (RNO) acts as a liaison between UHN residents and the city. The RNO recognizes that with the two light rail stations, the neighborhood will most likely be a candidate for TOD planning in future comprehensive plans produced by the city. To make informed recommendations to the city for future planning documents, the RNO wanted to learn more about how TOD may impact the neighborhood. Three key potential changes were identified as areas of concern: demographics, property value, and land use.
To provide the RNO with an understanding of the potential impacts of TOD, this research compared changes in census data between the 2000 U.S. Census and the 2010 U.S. Census for a test group of census tracts that contain a rail station with TOD to those of a control group of census tracts that contain a rail station but no TOD. In addition, this research examined five official station area plans produced by the City and County of Denver, comparing land use prior to the publication of the station area plan to the same area’s land use in 2016.
This research found that out of 17 census categories analyzed representing population density, housing density, per capita income, property values, educational attainment and age, only census categories representing total families and housing density produced statistically significant results, indicating actual, non-random results. After examining changes in land use


Ill
IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
for the areas represented by a selection of official City and County of Denver station area plans, this research determined that there was little opportunity for changes in land use in UHN because of TOD. Based on these results, this research determined that the RNO should not expect significant short-term changes related to per capita income, property value and general demographics due to TOD. This research recommends that the RNO focus its efforts to work with the city to develop long-term goals that include improving the neighborhood in the context of its current land use, such as improving pedestrian and traffic safety.


IMPACT OF TOD ON SURROUNDING COMMUNITY
1
University Hills North (UHN) is a neighborhood in south east Denver, bordered by highway 1-25 to the north and east and arterial streets Yale Ave. and Colorado Blvd. to the south and west, respectively. Apart from a 45-acre portion of land within UHN that is part of unincorporated Arapahoe County, the neighborhood’s boarders make up Denver County census tract 53. According to the 2015 American Community Survey, the neighborhood has a population of approximately 1,405 residents with a per capita income of $30,674 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017). The neighborhood has a strong occupancy rate, with 676 of the total 729 housing units occupied in 2015 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017). The neighborhood is home to two senior living centers and about one third of the population is at least 65 years old (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017). The neighborhood is also home to one school, Denver Academy, as well as the Denver Islamic Society campus.
Currently, except for Denver Academy and the Denver Islamic Society, most of the interior of the neighborhood is comprised of, and zoned for, single family homes (see Appendix A) (Zoning, n.d.). The portion of the neighborhood along Colorado Blvd., zoned as a commercial corridor, is lined with small restaurants and shops; however, Colorado Blvd. is an extremely busy street and not particularly pedestrian friendly (Zoning, n.d.). The northern portion of the neighborhood has several large mixed-use buildings, most notably the Colorado Center, which is visible from 1-25. While there is some commercial and mixed-use activity, the neighborhood is primarily resident focused and considered somewhat of a hidden gem by its residents.
In 1999, Colorado voters approved bond issuances for the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the Regional Transportation District (RTD) to fund the massive Transportation Expansion (T-REX) project (RTD, 2016). Of the $1.67 billion total project budget, $879 million was allocated to light rail construction (RTD, 2016). The T-REX project


2
IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
broke ground in September 2001 and was completed five years later in September 2006 (RTD,
2016) . The new light rail stations built during the project opened in November 2006, including both the Yale Station and Colorado Station (RTD, 2016). Most of the neighborhood is within one half mile of at least one of the two stations, placing new construction in the realm of transit oriented development (TOD). TOD is a planning practice that is generally focused on high-density and mixed-use development centered on train stations (Bellas, 2016).
Recently, the UHN neighborhood has seen development surrounding the light rail stations. Current projects in UHN include a $10 million luxury apartment complex on Yale Ave. and a massive 450,000 square foot expansion to the Colorado Center (“Denver Crane Watch,”
2017) . The luxury apartment development, called Yale Street Station, will include 112 units and is less than a five-minute walk from Yale Station (“Denver Crane Watch,” 2017). The Colorado Center, which is described by its owners as “a premier transit oriented development,” is located across the street from Colorado Station and is currently home to two office buildings (Colorado Center, n.d.). The new expansion will bring a third tower to the complex, offering retail, office and residential space (“Denver Crane Watch,” 2017).
UHN is represented by the University Hills North Registered Neighborhood Organization (RNO), the client for this research. The UHN RNO, which has been in existence since 1978, is essentially a liaison between the neighborhood’s residents and the City and County of Denver (University Hills North Community, n.d.; RNOs & Statistical Neighborhoods, 2014). The city is required to discuss matters such as zoning amendments, marijuana retail store applications and liquor licenses with the RNO (RNOs & Statistical Neighborhoods, 2014). The RNO has been hopeful that the city will publish an official UHN area plan, a comprehensive plan that establishes long term goals and “functions as a guide for future land use and urban design,


3
IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
ensuring orderly and appropriate neighborhood development” (City and County of Denver, n.d.).
Although the city has not yet decided to create a UHN area plan, the RNO is optimistic that they
will be selected for an official area plan in the coming years.
Knowing that they are within a TOD zone, the RNO would like to be prepared for the future area plan with an understanding of how various components of TOD impact neighborhoods so that they can provide appropriate input to best represent the needs and desires of their residents. Based on conversations with the president of the UHN RNO, three variables have been identified as areas of concern for residents because of potential TOD: changes in demographics, higher property taxes due to increased property values, and changes to the physical environment.
The purpose of this research is to provide the UHN RNO with an understanding of the level of change that may be expected due to TOD based on the outcomes of previous TOD projects, both nationally and locally. This research examines changes in census data to find trends in demographic, property value and per capita income shifts related to TOD. This research determines trends in land use changes for similar Denver neighborhoods that have already been implemented because of TOD area planning. This research provides the RNO with information needed to make informed land use recommendations for the betterment of their neighborhood. This project begins with a review of the literature on the impacts of TOD, followed by an explanation of the methods used to conduct the research. The results of the research are revealed, with a subsequent discussion of the findings and recommendations to the RNO moving forward, finally ending with a conclusion summarizing the project.
Literature Review


4
IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
TOD came to prominence as both a policy and planning tool with Peter Calthorpe’s 1993
work The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American Dream. TOD allows residents who live outside of the urban downtown to easily access transportation, avoid congested highways and still have access to locations and activities throughout the metropolitan area (Ratner & Goetz, 2013). It creates walkable, connected neighborhoods that allow residents to easily access and tend to their daily needs (City and County of Denver, 2015).
The definition of TOD varies slightly throughout the literature, from Duncan’s (2011) definition of a walkable mixed-use development next to a transit station to the description offered by Jewitt (2016) of a planning strategy to increase residential and commercial development near train stations to decrease automobile use. This research will follow the definition set by Wood, Homer, Duncan and Valdez-Torres (2016), who defined TOD as “areas surrounding a transit stop where development is characterized by dense and mixed land use along with pedestrian-friendly infrastructure” (p. 76). Further, a transit stop will be considered a fixed-rail station, as opposed to bus stops that appear frequently throughout a region and generally do not encourage development (Rayle, 2015). While TOD is often assumed to be new development near a recently constructed train station, this is not a requirement. Rayle (2015) explains that, when constructed around an existing train station, TOD can include development that is “qualitatively different” from the structure it replaces or builds upon (p. 534).
The literature surrounding TOD regularly refers to transit adjacent development (TAD). TAD can be defined as “development occurring adjacent to a transit station that does not have the good pedestrian environment found in a TOD” (Duncan, 2011, p. 104). TAD has been characterized as suburban development located near train stations, and it has been found that 97% of development around train stations better fits TAD characteristics than those of TOD


5
IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES (Kamruzzaman et al., 2014). TAD often possesses one or more of the general characteristics of
TOD, such as land use diversity, street connectivity or public transport accessibility, but not the
complete set of characteristics that define TOD (Kamruzzaman et al., 2014).
There has been a great deal of research surrounding TOD in recent years, spanning numerous academic disciplines, including public policy, urban planning and environmental studies. While peer-reviewed academic journal articles from a variety of academic disciplines are incorporated into this research, all literature is read and reviewed from the perspective of public administration.
Property Values
TOD allows those living in suburban settings the opportunity to easily connect to the urban downtown, thus increasing the value of the land (Ratner & Goetz, 2013). Impending TOD makes some residents speculate as to what it will mean for their property values. Some are excited at the prospect of having a more valuable home that they can sell, while others worry about paying the rising property taxes. Although TOD was originally introduced as a planning method that would allow working families to live more affordably due to lower transportation expenses, research shows that much of TOD targets upper-class buyers and renters, producing luxury units that are not affordable for average Americans (Renne, Tolford, Hamidi & Ewing, 2016). It appears that TOD housing has become increasingly more popular in recent years, with a 45% growth in TOD rent collected between 2010 and 2015, compared to a 24% growth in TAD and 31% growth in “hybrid” areas with a mix of TOD and TAD (Renne et al., 2016). As of 2010, only 5% of Americans lived within a half mile of a fixed route train station, while 48% of all jobs in the United States were within a half mile of a station (Renne et al., 2016). Presently, the


6
IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
demand for TOD housing far outweighs the supply, resulting in housing prices that are simply
unattainable for many (Renne et al., 2016).
Train stations also increase the accessibility of the area in which they are located, incentivizing developers to more aggressively build retail and residential properties, therefore increasing the demand of the land (Bartholomew & Ewing, 2011). There has been research showing property values to decrease by .1% for every .1 miles from a train station (Chatman, Tulach & Kim, 2012). While there has been a fair amount of similar research highlighting trends related to property value and distance from train stations, Bartholomew and Ewing (2011) found that there are factors at play beyond proximity to stations that influence property values in TOD areas. Factors such as proximity to central business district, the type of rail service and development densities are all factors in home values around train stations (Bartholomew &
Ewing, 2011). For example, the values of homes near walk and ride stations were shown to increase by 5.4%, while those near park and ride stations decreased by 1.9% (Bartholomew & Ewing, 2011). Although well designed TOD will most likely include these factors, it is important to note that the addition of a train station alone will not necessarily increase property values.
Consumers are more likely to pay a premium in areas with above average density and interconnected streets (Bartholomew & Ewing, 2011; Duncan, 2011). In an analysis of property values along San Diego’s light rail system, Duncan (2011) found that proximity to train stations had no impact on home values in average settings; however, property values in higher density areas, specifically condominium prices, had a positive correlation with proximity to the stations. Similarly, Billings (2011) found that condominiums within a half mile of light rail stations in Charlotte, N.C. saw a price increase of 13.4%. Duncan (2011) found that condominium values


7
IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
decrease sharply with distance from stations in areas with a high density of street intersections
and a high population-serving job density. Duncan (2011) found that the premium for
condominiums in neighborhoods with good pedestrian orientation near a train station can be as
high as $20,000. The opposite is true for condominiums in areas with weak pedestrian
orientation, where values decrease with proximity to stations, with a discount of up to $15,000
(Duncan, 2011). Other factors, such as the presence of a highway in the same area as a train
station, have been shown to negatively impact the property values surrounding stations as well
(Debrezion, Pels & Rietveld 2007).
Property values are shown to increase significantly as the amount of commercial activity increases (Duncan, 2011). Debrezion et al. (2007) found that commercial properties within a quarter mile of a train station are more significantly impacted than residential properties in the same area. Their research showed an increase in sales or rent of commercial properties was about 12% greater than seen by the surrounding residential properties (Debrezion et al., 2007). Demographics
As property values and commercial activities in a neighborhood increase, it is no surprise that the general affluence of the area rises as well. Wood et al. (2016) found that there are a greater proportion of adults from all age groups with an annual income of at least $100,000 residing within TOD areas compared to the national average. A large portion of these high-income earners are younger adults in the first half of their careers (Wood et al., 2016). Most residents living within a half mile of a train station in 2000 were between the ages of 22 and 34 (Wood et al., 2016). As of the 2010 Census, that age range shifted slightly to 20 to 39, potentially indicating that many who lived in a TOD area in 2000 chose to stay (Wood et al., 2016). Most of those over 65 living in TOD areas were found to have annual incomes of less


8
IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
than $25,000, a potential issue for those on a fixed income who would like to age in place (Wood
et al., 2016).
Along with attracting younger and higher income earning residents, TOD often attracts college educated residents who have yet to start a family - demographics often associated with gentrification (Rayle, 2015). Rayle (2015) investigated gentrification and displacement around TOD, noting that there are disparities between the cries of advocates claiming that gentrification due to TOD will displace residents and findings from empirical research that do not support these claims. Rayle (2015), citing previous research, notes that there are at least two types of displacement. The first is direct displacement, which is displacement due to economic or physical reasons (Rayle, 2015). The second is exclusionary displacement, which occurs when factors such as higher housing costs discourage those with lower incomes from moving into housing that they may have otherwise considered (Rayle, 2015). Exclusionary displacement disrupts the normal resident turnover, gradually changing the neighborhood demographics (Rayle, 2015). Exclusionary displacement can also refer to a change in neighborhood social networks and political forces (Rayle, 2015). This can include businesses leaving the neighborhood as the resident demographic changes, being replaced by new businesses that cater to new, often higher socio-economic status, clientele (Rayle, 2015). Based on Rayle’s research, it is apparent that, while TOD may not lead to wide-scale, rapid direct displacement, gradual exclusionary displacement and neighborhood transformation is certainly possible.
Although a great deal of research has been dedicated to rising home values, demographic change, and the negative sides of neighborhood transformation, it is worth noting that TOD has the potential to improve certain aspects of the community. In a study of transit stations throughout Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, Kamruzzaman et al. (2014) found that those who


9
IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
live in TODs are more likely to connect with their neighbors and report stronger levels of trust
than those living in TADs. However, this may say more about TADs than TODs, as those living
in traditional suburbs also reported higher levels of connectivity and trust than those living in
TADs (Kamruzzaman et al., 2014). The study found that the environmental factors that the
researchers defined as composing TOD’s, such as density, land use diversity, street connectivity,
and public transport accessibility level, on their own do not improve neighborhood trust and
connectivity, and, in some cases, reduce social capital (Kamruzzaman et al., 2014).
Physical Environment
While the actual construction associated with TOD is driven by the private sector, proper land-use policy and zoning must be put in place for a TOD to be successful. The City and County of Denver (2014) produced its first TOD Strategic Plan in 2006, outlining the city’s plan to create “transit communities that are walkable, livable places that provide citizens with access to most of their daily needs” (p. 8). The City and County of Denver defines five TOD typologies: downtown, urban center, general urban, urban, and suburban (City and County of Denver, 2014). Interestingly, the two stations in UHN have very different typologies; Colorado Station is described as an urban center, while Yale Station is described as suburban (City and County of Denver, 2014). Urban centers are considered neighborhoods with a great deal of bicycle and pedestrian activity, made up of mid-rise multifamily housing and mixed-use commercial activity (City and County of Denver, 2014). Suburban neighborhoods are defined by the plan as areas with mainly single and two-family units with some commercial property along major arterial roads (City and County of Denver, 2014).
Regardless of the typology of the neighborhood, one of the driving forces that makes TOD popular is accessibility (Ratner & Goetz, 2013). This includes access by train to downtown


IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
10
and other commercial hubs, as well as access to the commercial and entertainment options surrounding the station (Ratner & Goetz, 2013). Per the Urban Land Institute (2015), 52% of Americans would prefer to live in an area where they could rely less on their cars. Between 2000 and 2010, Denver has seen the most growth for both commercial and mixed-use property in areas serviced by rail (Bhattachaijee & Goetz, 2016).
In a study of land-use in TODs along Denver’s light-rail system, Ratner and Goetz (2013) found that most development, both residential and non-residential, occurred closer to the central business district. Ratner and Goetz (2013) found that 15% of office development in the Denver area since 2000 has been TOD. They found that while housing development fell regionally between 2006 and 2009, residential TOD development continued to rise (Ratner & Goetz, 2013). The trends continue with retail, as 11% of all new retail development between 2000 and 2010 was TOD (Ratner & Goetz, 2013).
However, much like property value, commercial activity is not guaranteed to thrive simply due to the introduction of rail. For retail built around train stations to be successful, there needs to be a significant level of ridership (Schuetz, 2015). Schuetz (2015) found that stations that open in congested areas that are saturated with retail will most likely not have an impact on the area’s retail activity, however stations opening in more suburban neighborhoods may offer the opportunity for more new retail. If TOD is planned correctly and attracts major ridership, the commercial results can be significant as the number of restaurant, grocery stores and retail stores have been found to double in TOD areas compared to non-TOD (Wood et al., 2016).
The City and County of Denver has examined the feasibility of future development around each of its light rail stations. As part of its TOD Strategic Plan, the City and County of Denver (2014) created a TOD continuum to measure each station’s market readiness,


1
IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES development potential, and TOD characteristics. The city determined that Colorado Station is
medium-high in all three categories, while Yale station shows medium market readiness, low
development potential and medium-low TOD characteristics (City and County of Denver, 2014).
The city explains that Yale Station “has limited development potential, with small moves needed
to unlock any opportunities that exist near the station” (City and County of Denver, 2014, p. 41).
Denver has done well in forming a comprehensive TOD strategy, but special attention needs to
be paid to neighborhoods like UHN to ensure that TOD is developed correctly so that the
neighborhood will continue to thrive. The research questions and the methods used to answer
them are explained in the following section.
Methodology
From the literature and guidance from the client, seven research questions and corresponding hypotheses emerge. The research is designed to answer the research questions and test the hypotheses. These are:
Q1: Does TOD impact the median age of the surrounding neighborhood?
HI: The change in median age of residents in the TOD group will not equal the change in median age of residents in the non-TOD group.
Q2: Does TOD impact the number of residents with a graduate/professional degree in the surrounding neighborhood?
H2: The change in average number of residents with a graduate/professional degree in the TOD group will not equal the change in average number of residents with a graduate/professional degree in the non-TOD group.
Q3: Does TOD impact the per capita income of the surrounding neighborhood?


IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
12
Eb: The change in per capita income of residents in the TOD group will not equal the change in per capita income of residents in the non-TOD group.
Q4: Does TOD impact the median property value of homes in the surrounding neighborhood?
H4: The change in median property value in the TOD group will not equal the change in median property value in the non-TOD group.
Q5: Does TOD impact the population density of the surrounding neighborhood?
H5: The change on population density in the TOD group will not equal the change in population in the non-TOD group.
Q6: Does TOD impact the housing density of the surrounding neighborhood?
EE: The change in housing density in the TOD group will not equal the change in housing in the non-TOD group.
Q7: What changes in the physical environment can be expected because of TOD?
H7: There will be an increase in mixed-use, commercial and high-density housing in TOD areas in the City and County of Denver.
Analysis of U.S. Census Data
This research determines how TOD impacts the demographics, per capita income and median property values of census tracts throughout United States through a quantitative analysis of secondary data. For this research, TOD areas are defined as census tracts in which a rail station surrounded by TOD exists. Census tracts serve as the unit of analysis in this research.
This research examines how a test group of census tracts with rail stations surrounded by TOD changed between 2000 and 2010 compared to a control group of census tracts with rail stations but no TOD. This analysis examines data from the 2000 and 2010 U.S. Censuses as well as data from the 2008-2012 and 2011-2015 American Community Surveys (ACS).


IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
13
To form the test group, a universe of rail stations with TOD was compiled through examples of TOD used in numerous case studies, scholarly articles and websites (Center for Transit Oriented Development, 2013; Cervero, 2004; Jacobson & Forsyth, 2008; NHHS Rail Program, n.d.; van Lierop, Maat & El-Geneidy, 2017; Reconnecting America, 2009; Transit Oriented Development Institute, n.d.; Urban Land Institute, 2016; TOD Planning Studies, 2017). The census tract of each station area was determined and duplicate census tracts were eliminated. Out of the universe of TOD stations, 30 census tracts were selected for the test group. These tracts experienced TOD construction between 1990 and 2006 (see Appendix C). This time frame was selected to create a sample of TOD areas that were constructed within 10 years of 2000. No census tracts with TOD development after 2006 were selected to allow time for residential and business turnover prior to the collection of 2010 Census data.
The control group was formed by randomly selecting 30 light rail stations from metropolitan areas across the United Stations with similar population densities to Denver. The metropolitan areas in the pool include San Diego, Sacramento, Dallas, Charlotte, Portland and Phoenix. The names and locations of the stations were downloaded from the Center for Transit Oriented Development’s TOD Database (see Appendix D) (Center for Transit Oriented Development, 2017). The census tract of each station selected for the control group was identified and census tracts that were represented in the universe of TOD stations created for the test group were removed from the control group.
The 15 census categories used to compare the test and control groups served as the independent variables for this study (see Appendix E). The dependent variables in this study were the average or median census totals for each category. For each census category, data from the 2000 U.S. Census were compared to that of the 2010 U.S. Census. Data from the 2008-2012


14
IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
ACS or the 2011-2015 ACS were used for categories that did not have 2010 U.S. Census data.
All U.S. Census and American Community Survey data used in this research were retrieved from
the IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS) database (Manson,
Schroeder, Van Riper, & Ruggles, 2017).
Validity and Reliability
All data collected were entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The average percent change for each station from both the test and control groups was calculated for all census categories. Once all data were entered and changes calculated, a two-sample t-test assuming unequal variance was run for each respective census category to determine if there was a statistically significant difference between changes in test group census tracts and changes in control group census tracts. Each test revealed a p-value, which is used to determine statistical significance. If the t-test produced a p-value where p<0.05, the results were deemed statistically significant. Statistical significance indicates that the trends found between the two groups being compared are due to actual relationships between the variables, rather than simply occurring by chance.
Analysis of Station Area Plans
This research determines how TOD impacts the physical environment of UHN through a review of official neighborhood plans completed by the City and County of Denver. Since 1973, the City and County of Denver has completed and adopted 61 official area plans. Of the 61 completed and adopted plans, 11 were station area plans, focused exclusively on the area directly surrounding a transit station (Completed Plans, n.d.). Five of the 11 station area plans were selected for analysis: the Alameda Station Area Plan, the 38th and Blake Station Area Plan, the


IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
15
41st and Fox Station Area Plan, the Auraria West Station Area Plan and the Sheridan Station Area Plan.
These station area plans were selected for two reasons. First, they provided clear existing land use data. Second, these five stations area plans were created between 2008 and 2009, providing sufficient time for land use changes to occur. The station area plans focused on the area within a half mile of the stations, although the Sheridan Station plan only focused on the half mile radius east of the station, as directly to the west is the City of Lakewood.
This research analyzed changes in land use and measured the types and quantities of various land use categories surrounding light rail stations. For this research, the independent variables are the following land use categories: commercial/retail, entertainment/cultural, industrial, mixed-use, multi-unit residential, office, other/unknown, park/open space, parking, public/quasi-public, ROW/road, single-unit residential, trans/communications/utilities, and vacant. The dependent variable is the square footage of each variable in terms of percentage of the entire area.
This research compares “pre-plan” land use, often referred to as “existing” land use in the station area plans, to 2016 land use. Pre-plan land use is collected from each station area plan. The 2016 land use was gathered through data provided in the form of a GIS file by the City and County of Denver Community Planning and Development department (City and County of Denver, 2016). The 2016 land use data were collected via an open data request to the city and will be accessed using the QGIS 2.18 Las Palmas geographic information system application.
This research also examined the land use goals as listed in each station area plan and coded the goals based on the following categories: bicycle, connectivity, employment, encourage development, housing diversity, infrastructure improvements, land use, neighborhood


IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
16
connectivity, neighborhood identity, open space, accessibility, retail, safety, strengthen community, sustainability, and water quality.
The collected data were entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for analysis. This analysis determined how land use changed from pre-plan to 2016 by calculating the difference in land use for each category as a percentage of the entire area’s land use. It is important to note that the sample size for this analysis will be too small to determine statistical significance. The results of this analysis were used to make observations and to support recommendations made in response to the analysis of U.S. Census data.
Results
For this research, a test group of 30 census tracts that contain TOD surrounding at least one fixed rail station was compared to a control group of 30 census tracts with at least one rail station but no TOD. In total 12 states and the District of Columbia were represented by the census tracts in the two groups.
Per Capita Income
Based on the research of Wood et al. (2016) and Rayle (2015), it was expected that TOD would significantly increase per capita income. This research, however, was unable to find a statistically significant difference in the change in average per capita income between TOD and non-TOD areas from the 2000 U.S. Decennial Census to the 2008-2012 American Community Survey data.
The research found only a 12% difference in the average change in per capita income between the test and control group, with the average per capita income increasing by 13% in the test group and by 1% in the control group. Although the average change in per capita income for the 30 stations in the control group increased by 1%, the average per capita income for the


17
IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES control group decreased between the 2000 U.S. Census and the 2008-2012 American
Community Survey by $391.24, when adjusted to 2015 dollar values. Results of a two-sample t-
test assuming unequal variances produced a p-value of 0.09, signifying no statistical
significance. Due to these results, this research rejects the hypothesis that changes in median per
capita income of TOD areas are not equal to those of non-TOD areas with fixed rail stations.
Although no significant results are found when comparing the changes in per capita income between the test and control group, there was a statistically significant trend found when comparing only the 2008-2012 American Community Survey per capita income figures. The 2008-2012 American Community Survey average per capita income of stations in the test group, adjusted to 2015 dollar values, was $16,857.62 greater than that of the control group, with average per capita incomes of $42,696.40 and $25,838.78, respectively. A two-sample t-test assuming unequal variance comparing just the 2008-2012 American Community Survey per capita income data between the two groups produced a p-value of 0.001, confirming statistical significance.
Residential Property Value
The census tracts in the TOD group had an average change in median property value of 13% from the 2000 U.S. Census to the 2011-2015 American Community Survey, adjusted to 2015 dollar values. Changes in value within the test group was fairly substantial. Values ranged from a decrease of 55% to an increase of 140%. The control group had an average increase in median property value of 13%, adjusted to 2015 dollar values. The non-TOD group had a narrower range of changes in median property value, from a decrease of 43% to an increase of 107%. When comparing the changes in median property value between the TOD and non-TOD group, a two-sample t-test assuming unequal variances produced a p-value of 0.76, indicating


IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
18
that there is no statistically significant difference in changes in median property value between the TOD and non-TOD groups. Based on the results of the analysis, the research rejects the hypothesis that there will be a significant difference in the change in median property value between the TOD and non-TOD areas with fixed rail stations.
Age
To determine if TOD causes a shift in median age, this research examined the difference in median age for each station from the 2000 Census to the 2010 Census. Due to the increased density, entertainment options and ease of access to the downtown area often associated with TOD, it was believed that TOD would cause median age in the area to decrease. It was assumed that these attributes would attract younger residents, yet to start families, that may value these features more than older residents with families (Rayle, 2015). The results, however, show a 0.8% increase in the median age of residents the test group, compared to a 2.4% increase in control group. Results of a two-sample t-test assuming unequal variances produced a p-value of 0.69. Due to these results, this research rejects the hypothesis that TOD impacts changes in median age.
Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference in the change in the number of households with senior residents (age 65 and older) between the test group and control group, as there was only a 10% difference in average change. The test group saw an increase of 15% in the number of residents over 65 compared to the control group’s increase of 5%. A two-sample t-test assuming unequal variances produced a p-value of 0.31, showing no statistical significance. Educational Attainment
To further study potential demographic shifts caused by TOD, this research examined the changes in educational attainment in the test group and the control group. The results were


IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
19
consistent between the two groups for changes in residents with less than a 9th grade education through those with some college but no degree, with average changes ranging no greater than 8%. Interestingly, the control group saw greater average increases in residents with associate degrees compared to the test group, while the test group saw a greater increase in baccalaureate degrees and graduate/professional degrees. The test group saw an average increase of 132% in persons 18 years or over with a graduate/professional degree, compared with the average increase of 65% for stations within the control group. Despite seemingly large differences between the two groups’ average changes in residents with graduate/professional degrees, a two-sample t-test assuming unequal variances was run and no statistically significant results emerged. This research rejects the hypothesis that the change in average number of residents with a graduate/professional degree in the TOD group will not equal the change in average number of residents with a graduate/professional degree in the non-TOD group.
Density
To determine how density is impacted by TOD, this research examines the changes in total population, occupied housing units and vacant housing units. Results showed that the test group had statistically significant greater increases in total families, total occupied housing units and total vacant housing units when compared to the control group. Based on these findings, this research supports the hypothesis that TOD increases housing density in the surrounding area compared to non-TOD stations. Surprisingly, the results of a two-sample t-test assuming unequal variances testing the significance of the differences in average changes in total population between the two groups produced a p-value of 0.07, indicating no statistical significance. Due to these findings, the research rejects the hypothesis that TOD significantly changes population density compared to areas with rail stations but no TOD.


20
IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES Land Use
To determine how TOD impacts land use, this research examined five official Station Area Plans produced by the City and County of Denver, comparing pre-plan land use to 2016 land use. The station area plans selected were 38th and Blake St. Station Area Plan, 41st and Fox Station Area Plan, Alameda Station Area Plan, Auraria West Station Area Plan and Sheridan Station Area Plan.
Although the sample size was not large enough to test for statistical significance, inferences are made based on the analysis. The most drastic changes appear to happen in the area surrounding Alameda Station. The Alameda Station plan listed retail and employment as two of its goals and saw a commercial/retail space increase by 35.33% within the total land use of the area while industrial land use decreased by 32.47%. Across the five station areas, residential land use saw the greatest increase. Land dedicated to single family residential units increased by an average of 12.88%, while multi-unit residential land increased by 4.98%. The only station area that saw a decrease in single-unit residential and multi-unit residential was Alameda Station. The greatest overall decrease in land use was ROW/roads, which may indicate a better use of space; however, vacant land increased by 7.56% so it is possible that some of the land classified as ROW/roads in the station area plans was considered vacant in the 2016 land use data set.
Discussion
In this section, results for each research question are discussed individually. The discussion of each research question is followed by recommendations based on the results of the analysis. The discussion concludes with an explanation of the limitations of the research.
Per Capita Income


IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
21
The results of this research did not produce a statistically significant difference in per capita income between the TOD and non-TOD group. Although the differences in the groups were not enough to produce statistically significant results, the overall averages do show that the 2008-2012 ACS per capita income, adjusted to 2015 dollar values, in census tracts in the TOD group were about 65% greater than those in the non-TOD group. It should be noted that the 2008-2012 average per capita income for the TOD census tracts was greater than the national average of $28,930, as reported by the 2011-2015 ACS using 2015 dollar values, while those in the non-TOD group were about $3,000 below the national average (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017). Residential Property Values
The most surprising result produced by the research was the similarity in the changes in median residential property value between the two groups. After adjusting all dollar figures to 2015 values, the average increase in median property values was only 3% greater for census tracts with TOD stations. Both groups had 11 census tracts that saw a decrease in property values and each had one census tract with an increase in median property value greater than 100%. The TOD census tracts did have an average median property value reported by the 2011-2015 American Community Survey that was $42,686.67 greater than the non-TOD census tracts, but the average median property value for the TOD group as reported by the 2000 U.S. Census was $52,753.83 greater than the non-TOD group. Although the average change in median property value was slightly less than that of the TOD group, the non-TOD group decreased the gap in median property value between the two groups by over $10,000 between the 2000 U.S. Census and the 2011-2015 American Community Survey.
Age


IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
22
The research revealed that changes in age were not significantly different between the census tracts with TOD rail stations and those with non-TOD rail stations. Although the average age of the TOD group increased slightly less than that of the non-TOD group, the TOD group had a higher average age than the non-TOD group per the 2010 U.S. Census. A reason for this could be the significantly greater per capita income seen in the census tracts with TOD stations. Educational Attainment
When looking at the results of the analysis of the change in residents with graduate/professional degrees between the two groups, it may be surprising that statistically significant results did not emerge as there was a 67% greater increase in TOD group than the non-TOD group. However, it is important to note that there was an extreme outlier in the TOD group: the census tract that contains the NOMA Station in Washington D.C. saw an increase in residents with graduate/professional degrees of 1,527%. When this outlier is removed, the average increase in the TOD group drops from 132% to 84%. This is still 19% greater than the increase in the non-TOD group, but not nearly as drastic as the initial results appeared.
Density
The results of this analysis were somewhat surprising, with statistically significant differences between the TOD and non-TOD groups for total families, housing units occupied and housing units vacant, but not for the total population. Although the difference in changes in total population between the two groups were not statistically significant, the TOD group did see double the average population growth, with 22% average growth in population compared to the non-TOD group’s average increase of 11%.
That total occupied housing units increased at a statistically significant rate in the TOD group compared to the non-TOD group can almost be considered common sense. The overall


IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
23
premise of TOD is to create a higher density, more accessible community surrounding a rail station. While it was expected that this would attract younger residents that may not have families, it does make sense that as more housing comes available, families would fill a portion of the new units. Future research should also examine how the population of single adults and married adults without children changes in areas with TOD compared to the population of families.
Land Use
Currently, over two thirds of the UHN is comprised of single-unit residential structures. Based on the comparison of the existing land-use as shown in the station area plans and 2016 land use for Alameda Station, 38th and Blake Station, 41st and Fox station, Auraria West Station and Sheridan Station, the neighborhood should not expect a decrease in single family homes. The station areas that saw the greatest land use changes were those with a great deal of industrial, vacant and ROW/road land use. As of 2016, only 3.05% of UHN was vacant, 2.69% was ROW/road and 1.79% was industrial. Although it is possible for developers to purchase land from any land use category for redevelopment, with such a small amount of vacant, ROW/road and industrial property, there does not appear to be a great deal land available for immediate, widespread development.
Recommendations
Although changes are possible over time, the RNO should not expect drastic changes to the community in the short-term due to TOD. The research indicates that the neighborhood can expect an increase in housing density due to new development, which should come as no surprise with the current expansion of the Colorado Center and construction of the Yale Street Station apartments. While the neighborhood may experience an increase in per capita income, the


IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
24
increase should not be significantly greater with TOD than if the neighborhood saw no new development.
As the RNO continues to develop a plan for the neighborhood and eventually work with the City and County of Denver to create an official area plan, the RNO should focus on ways to improve the neighborhood in the context of its current land use. One way to shape the physical environment without altering land-use could be through zoning changes, particularly along the Colorado Boulevard commercial corridor. Building heights, building set-backs and other zoning requirements can be set to gradually change aesthetic character of the corridor as the neighborhood sees fit. One major area of concern that the neighborhood residents expressed at the UNO’s annual meeting that was not addressed in this research is safety, particularly traffic and pedestrian safety. The RNO should work with the city to develop a traffic plan that will minimize congestion and maximize pedestrian safety. Future research for the UHN RNO should examine trends in traffic incidents and crime surrounding rail stations, as safety is a major concern among residents in the neighborhood.
Limitations
A potential limitation of this research is the varying size of each census tract. Conclusions drawn by Chatman, Tulach and Kim (2012), Bartholomew and Ewing (2011), Billings (2011) and Duncan (2011) mainly focused on the standard half mile TOD radius. This research examined change around rail in terms of entire census tracts, many of which exceed the half mile radius that defines a TOD area, thus presenting a potential limitation to the research. In addition, the boundaries of census tracts can change over time, so the data reflected in the 2000 U.S. Census may cover a slightly different area than that in the 2010 U.S. Census and American Community Survey reports. An example is the census tract that contains LBJ/Skillman Station,


IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
25
which was used in the test group. This area was represented by Dallas County census tract 18504 in the 2000 U.S. Census and census tract 18506 in the 2010 U.S. Census and ACS reports. The reason that this research examined census tracts was two-fold. First, the area represented by the UHN RNO entirely comprises a single census tract, so this appeared to be an appropriate unit of measurement for the sake of comparison. Second, given the time and resource constraints of this research, using census tracts provided the greatest accessibility to the data needed to draw conclusions.
Another limitation is the use of data from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey report to analyze changes in median property value. The data used in these reports are drawn from self-reported surveys. Due to the nature of these surveys, it is possible that property owners may have inaccurately estimated their property value. Future research should examine property values as assessed by the county for each respective census tract. A final limitation is that all census tracts in Maricopa County, Arizona reported the same per capita income for both the 2000 U.S. Census and the 2008-2012 American Community Survey. Only one census tract was used from Maricopa County, but this may have impacted the per capita income results.
Conclusion
This research examined the impact of TOD on the community surrounding rail stations with TOD. The purpose of this research was to provide the UHN RNO with insight as to how they can expect TOD around Colorado Station and Yale Station to impact their neighborhood. It was expected that this research would find results consistent with exiting literature, such as increased property values, an increase in per capita income and a significant demographic shift. The results, however, indicate statistical significance only related to increased housing density due to TOD and limited opportunity for land use change.


26
IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
References
Bartholomew, K., & Ewing, R. (2011). Hedonic price effects of pedestrian-and transit-oriented development. CPL bibliography, 26(1), 18-34.
Bhattachaijee, S., & Goetz, A. R. (2016). The rail transit system and land use change in the Denver metro region. Journal of Transport Geography, 54, 440-450.
Billings, S. B. (2011). Estimating the value of a new transit option. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 41(6), 525-536.
Calthorpe, P. (1993). The next American metropolis: Ecology, community, and the American dream. Princeton architectural press.
Center for Transit Oriented Development. (2013). Intercity rail and transit-oriented development. U.S. Department of Transportation.
Center for Transit Oriented Development. (2013). National TOD Database [Data file]. Retrieved from https://toddata.cnt.org/index.php.
Cervero, R. (2004). Transit-oriented development in the United States: Experiences, challenges, and prospects (Vol. 102). Transportation Research Board.
Chatman, D. G., Tulach, N. K., & Kim, K. (2012). Evaluating the economic impacts of light rail by measuring home appreciation: A first look at New Jersey’s river line. Urban Studies, 49(3), 467-487.
City and County of Denver. (2014). Transit Oriented Development Strategic Plan. Denver, CO.
City and County of Denver. (2016). 2016 Land Use [Data file]. Retrieved via email from the City and County of Denver Community Planning & Development/Planning Services.


27
IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
City and County of Denver, (n.d.). Completed Plans. Retrieved on October 31, 2017, from
https ://www. denvergov.org/content/denvergov/en/ community-planning-and-development/planning-and-design/completed-plans.html.
Colorado Center, (n.d.). Colorado Center. Retrieved September 9, 2017, from http: //col oradocenter-denver. com.
Completed Plans, (n.d.). City and County of Denver. Retrieved September 10, 2017, from https ://www. denvergov. org/content/denvergov/en/ community-planning-and-development/planning-and-design/completed-plans.html.
Debrezion, G., Pels, E., & Rietveld, P. (2007). The impact of railway stations on residential and commercial property value: a meta-analysis. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 35(2), 161-180.
Denver Crane Watch. (2017). Denver Business Journal. September 9, 2017, from www.bizjournals.com/denver/maps/crane-watch.
Duncan, M. (2011). The impact of transit-oriented development on housing prices in San Diego, CA. Urban studies, 75(1), 101-127.
Jacobson, J., & Forsyth, A. (2008). Seven American TODs: Good practices for urban design in transit-oriented development projects. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 7(2).
Kamruzzaman, M., Wood, L., Hine, J., Currie, G., Giles-Corti, B., & Turrell, G. (2014). Patterns of social capital associated with transit oriented development. Journal of Transport Geography, 35, 144-155.
Manson, S., Schroeder, J., Van Riper, D., & Ruggles, S. (2017). IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System: Version 12.0 [Database]. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota. http://doi.Org/10.18128/D050.V12.0


IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
28
NHHS Rail Program. (2011). Transit-oriented development (TOD) success stories. Connecticut: New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Rail Program.
Ratner, K. A., & Goetz, A. R. (2013). The reshaping of land use and urban form in Denver through transit-oriented development. Cities, 30, 31-46.
Rayle, L. (2015). Investigating the connection between transit-oriented development and displacement: Four hypotheses. Housing Policy Debate, 25(3), 531-548.
Reconnecting America. (2009). Encouraging Transit Oriented Development. Phoenix, AZ: Reconnecting America.
Renne, J. L., Tolford, T., Hamidi, S., & Ewing, R. (2016). The cost and affordability paradox of transit-oriented development: A comparison of housing and transportation costs across transit-oriented development, hybrid and transit-adjacent development station typologies. Housing Policy Debate, 26(4-5), 819-834.
RNOs & Statistical Neighborhoods. (2014). University Hills North Community. Retrieved September 2, 2017, from http://www.uhnc.org/general-information/mos-statistical-neighborhoods.
RTD. (2016). Southeast Corridor Light Rail Line Project Overview. Retrieved October 31, 2017, from http ://www. rtd-denver. com/FF- SoutheastCorridor. shtml.
Schuetz, J. (2015). Do rail transit stations encourage neighbourhood retail activity?. Urban Studies, 52(14), 2699-2723.
Transit Oriented Development Institute, (n.d.). Retrieved July 2, 2017, from http://www.tod.org/projects.html.
TOD Planning Studies. (2017). In North Central Texas Council of Governments. Retrieved from http://www.nctcog.org/trans/sustdev/tod/planning.asp.


IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
29
University Hills North Community, (n.d.) University Hills North Community. Retrieved September 2, 2017, from http://www.uhnc.org/.
Urban Land Institute. (2015). America in 2015: A ULI Survey of Views on Housing,
Transportation, and Community. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Land Institute.
Urban Land Institute. (2016). Fiscal Impacts of Transit-Oriented Development Projects. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Land Institute.
U.S. Census Bureau (2011). Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/2010census/popmap/.
U.S. Census Bureau (2013). 2008-2011 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from https ://www. census .gov/censusexplorer.
U.S. Census Bureau (2017). 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/censusexplorer.
van Lierop, D., Maat, K., & El-Geneidy, A. (2017). Talking TOD: learning about transit-oriented development in the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 70(1), 49-62.
Wood, B. S., Horner, M. W., Duncan, M., & Valdez-Torres, Y. (2016). Aging Populations and Transit-Oriented Development: Socioeconomic, Demographic, and Neighborhood Trends from 2000 and 2010. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (2598), 75-83.
Zoning, (n.d.). City and County of Denver. Retrieved August 28, 2017, from https://denvergov.org/maps/map/zoning.


IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
30
Appendices
Appendix A - Recommendations.................................................31
Appendix B - University Hills North Boundary and Land Use Map................32
Appendix C - The Test Group..................................................33
Appendix D - Control Group...................................................34
Appendix E - List of U.S. Census Data Analysis Independent Variables.........35
Appendix F - Results of U.S. Census Data Analysis - Per Capita Income........36
Appendix G - Results of U.S. Census Data Analysis - Median Property Value....37
Appendix H - Results of U.S. Census Data Analysis - Age......................38
Appendix I - Results of U.S. Census Data Analysis - Educational Attainment...39
Appendix J - Results of U.S. Census Data Analysis - Population and Housing Density.42
Appendix K - Coding of Station Area Plan Goals...............................44
Appendix L - Station Area Plan Coded Goals Table.............................46
Appendix M - Station Area Plan Land Use Analysis Results.....................47


31
IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
Appendix A
Recommendations
As the RNO continues to move forward in its efforts to work with the City and County of Denver to develop an area plan, this research recommends that the RNO:
1. Focus on improvement to the neighborhood in the context of its current land use
2. Examine potential opportunities for zoning changes along the Colorado Boulevard commercial corridor
3. Conduct future research examining trends in crime and traffic safety surrounding rail stations
4. Conduct a traffic study to develop a plan to increase traffic and pedestrian safety, per the concerns of the residents at the 2017 Annual Meeting


IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
32
Appendix B
University Hills North Boundary and Land Use Map
'Agriculture'
'Commercial/Retall'
'Entertainment/Cultural'
'Industrial'
'Mixed-use'
'Multi-unit Residential’ 'Office'
‘Other/Unknown’ 'Park/Open Space' 'Parking'
'Publrc/Quasi-public"
'ROW/Road'
'Single-unit Residential’ Tran5/Cc>innV Utilities’ Two-unit Residential' 'Vbcant'


IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
33
Appendix C Test Group
NHGIS NHGIS
NHGIS Integrated Integrated Integrated
Station/TOD Community County Name State Name Code (2010)
LBJ/Skillman Station DALLAS COUNTY TX 18506
Plano Transit Village COLLIN COUNTY TX 31900
Russellville Commons MULTNOMAH COUNTY OR 8202
Forest-Jupiter DALLAS COUNTY TX 18501
Englewood City Center ARAPAHOE COUNTY CO 5700
Arverne by the Sea QUEENS COUNTY NY 96400
Fruitvale BART ALAMEDA COUNTY CA 406100
Oakland City Center/12th Street Station ALAMEDA COUNTY CA 403000
Shaker Square CUYAHOGA COUNTY OH 119502
Beaverton Creek MAX Station WASHINGTON COUNTY OR 31402
Center Commons MULTNOMAH COUNTY OR 1801
NOMA DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DC 8702
Rahway station UNION COUNTY NJ 35900
Stadium Station Apartments MULTNOMAH COUNTY OR 5200
Mt. Royal (University of Baltimore/MICA) BALTIMORE CITY MD 110200
Richland Hills Trinity Railway Express Station TARRANT COUNTY TX 101201
Arlington Heights Station COOK COUNTY IL 803300
Silver Spring BALTIMORE COUNTY MD 411303
South Orange Station ESSEX COUNTY NJ 19300
Rio Vista West SAN DIEGO COUNTY CA 9304
White Plains/Bank Street Commons WESTCHESTER COUNTY NY 9000
Cranford Crossing UNION COUNTY NJ 37200
Rockville Town Center MONTGOMERY COUNTY MD 700901
Santana Row SANTA CLARA COUNTY CA 506401
Mockingbird Station DALLAS COUNTY TX 300
Atlantic Station FULTON COUNTY GA 500
Collins Circle MULTNOMAH COUNTY OR 5500
Highlands Garden Village DENVER COUNTY CO 1701
Memphis Central Station SHELBY COUNTY TN 4300
City Center DC DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DC 5800


IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
34
Appendix D Control Group
NHGIS Integrated NHGIS Integrated NHGIS
Station County Name State Name Integrated Code
MCKINNEY @ SNEED DALLAS COUNTY TX 1800
24TH ST & JEFFERSON ST MARICOPA COUNTY AZ 113900
Cascades MAX Station MULTNOMAH COUNTY OR 7300
SW Park & Mill MULTNOMAH COUNTY OR 5600
Lloyd Center/NE 11th Ave MAX Station MULTNOMAH COUNTY OR 2402
Rockwood/E 188th Ave MAX Station MULTNOMAH COUNTY OR 9604
Gateway/NE 99th Ave TC MAX Station MULTNOMAH COUNTY OR 8100
Kenton/N Denver Ave MAX Station MULTNOMAH COUNTY OR 3801
NW Northrup & 22nd MULTNOMAH COUNTY OR 4900
N Killingsworth St MAX Station MULTNOMAH COUNTY OR 3501
NE 60th Ave MAX Station MULTNOMAH COUNTY OR 1801
SW Harrison Street MULTNOMAH COUNTY OR 5700
Expo Center MAX Station MULTNOMAH COUNTY OR 7202
E 102nd Ave MAX Station MULTNOMAH COUNTY OR 8202
EMPLOYEE PLATFORM AND LIGHT RAIL SACRAMENTO COUNTY CA 6300
12TH ST AND D ST SACRAMENTO COUNTY CA 500
R STAND 15TH ST SACRAMENTO COUNTY CA 1200
ROSEVILLE RD AND 1-80 SACRAMENTO COUNTY CA 7413
47th St Station SAN DIEGO COUNTY CA 3404
H Street Station SAN DIEGO COUNTY CA 12600
Lemon Grove Depot SAN DIEGO COUNTY CA 14400
Barrio Logan Station SAN DIEGO COUNTY CA 5000
Massachusetts Ave Station SAN DIEGO COUNTY CA 14200
Encanto/62nd St Station SAN DIEGO COUNTY CA 3004
La Mesa Blvd Station SAN DIEGO COUNTY CA 14601
32nd St/Commercial Station SAN DIEGO COUNTY CA 3901
Palomar Street Station SAN DIEGO COUNTY CA 13205
Middletown Station SAN DIEGO COUNTY CA 6100
Fair Complex/Hillsboro Airport MAX Stn WASHINGTON COUNTY OR 32404
Quatama/NW 205th Ave MAX Station WASHINGTON COUNTY OR 31609


IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
Appendix E
List of U.S. Census Data Analysis Independent Variables
35
The following census categories were used as independent variables in the analysis of U.S. Census Data to determine the impacts of TOD:
1. Per capita income in previous year
2. Median Property Value (Residential)
3. Persons: Total
4. Families: Total
5. Housing units: Occupied
6. Housing units: Vacant
7. Persons: 18 years and over ~ Less than 9th grade
8. Persons: 18 years and over ~ 9th to 12th grade, no diploma
9. Persons: 18 years and over ~ High school graduate, GED, or alternative
10. Persons: 18 years and over ~ Some college, no degree
11. Persons: 18 years and over ~ Associate degree
12. Persons: 18 years and over ~ Bachelor's degree 13.18 years and over ~ Graduate or professional degree
14. Persons: In households ~ 65 years and over
15. Median Age


IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
36
Appendix F
Results of U.S. Census Data Analysis - Per Capita Income
The below table details the average change in average per capita income value between the 2000 U.S. Census and the 2008-2012 ACS for both the test group and control group, as well as the p-value used to determine statistical significance. Results are deemed statistically significant when p<0.05.
Table F-l: Changes in Per Capita Income
2000: Average Per capita income in previous year 2008-2012: Average Per capita income in previous year % Change
TOD Group $38,013.41 $42,696.40 13%
Non-TOD Group $26,230.02 $25,838.78 1%
p-value 0.09
The below table details the results of a two-sample t-test assuming unequal variance comparing test group and control group the data recorded from the 2000 U.S. Census and the 2008-2011 ACS.
Table F-2: Changes in Per Capita Income two-sample t-test assuming unequal variance results
Per Capita Income
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
-0.089866503 0.010312282
Mean 0.142515576 0.007355699
Variance 0.144637423 0.031863726
Observations 29 29
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 40
t Stat 1.732499101
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.045444987
t Critical one-tail 1.683851013
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.090889973
t Critical two-tail 2.02107539


IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
37
Appendix G
Results of U.S. Census Data Analysis - Median Property Value
The below table details the average change in median property value between the 2000 U.S. Census and the 2011-2015 ACS for both the test group and control group, as well as the p-value used to determine statistical significance. Results are deemed statistically significant when p<0.05.
Table G-l: Changes in Median Property Value
2000 Median Property Value 2011-2015 Median Property Value % Change
TOD Group $279,679.27 $295,933.33 17%
Non-TOD Group $226,925.44 $253,246.67 14%
p-value________0.76
The below table details the results of a two-sample t-test assuming unequal variance comparing test group and control group the data recorded from the 2000 U.S. Census and the 2011-2015 ACS.
Table G-2: Changes in median property value two-sample t-test assuming unequal variance results
Median Property Value
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
-0.554468044 -0.43378545
Mean 0.192106653 0.16208286
Variance 0.158148645 0.115315166
Observations 29 29
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 55
t Stat 0.309182306
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.379175555
t Critical one-tail 1.673033965
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.758351111
t Critical two-tail 2.004044783


IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
38
Appendix H
Results of U.S. Census Data Analysis - Age
The below table details the average change in persons age 65 and older and median age between the 2000 U.S. Census and the 2010 U.S. Census for both the test group and control group, as well as the p-value used to determine statistical significance. Results are deemed statistically significant when p<0.05.
Table H-l: Changes in Average Persons Age 65 and Older and Changes in Median Age
2000: Average Persons: In households ~ 65 years and over 2010: Average Persons: In households ~ 65 years and over Average % Change 2000 - 2010 2000 Median Age 2010 Median Age % Change 2000-2010
TOD Group 417 445 15% 35.83 35.99 0.8%
Non-TOD Group 387 402 5% 31.87 32.52 2.4%
p-value 0.31 p-value 0.69
The below tables detail the results of a two-sample t-test assuming unequal variance comparing test group and control group the data recorded from the 2000 U.S. Census and 2010 U.S. Census.
Table H-2: Changes in people 65 and older two-sample t-test assuming unequal variance results 65 years and over
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
0.245082357 -0.120283019
Mean 0.151118142 0.050832547
Variance 0.227290327 0.049633341
Observations 29 29
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 40
t Stat 1.026260261
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.155467653
t Critical one-tail 1.683851013
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.310935306
t Critical two-tail 2.02107539
Table H-3: Changes in median age two-sample t-test assuming unequal variance results Median Age
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
-0.169354839 0.03654485
Mean 0.014465273 0.023561831
Variance 0.008370489 0.006112001
Observations 29 29
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 55
t Stat -0.407056313
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.342773255
t Critical one-tail 1.673033965
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.68554651
t Critical two-tail 2.004044783


IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
39
Appendix I
Results of U.S. Census Data Analysis - Educational Attainment
The below table details the average change in each category of educational attainment between the 2000 U.S. Census and the 2008-2012 ACS for both the test group and control group, as well as the p-value used to determine statistical significance. Results are deemed statistically significant when p<0.05.
Table 1-1: Changes in Educational Attainment
% Change 2000 U.S. Census - 2008-2012 American Community Survey
Less than 9th grade 9th to 12th grade, no diploma High school graduate, G ED, or alternative Some college, no degree Associate degree Bachelor's degree Graduate or professional degree
TOD Group -12% -32% 3% 26% 25% 64% 132%
Non-TOD Group -11% -30% 6% 18% 48% 59% 65%
p-score 0.88 0.90 0.83 0.54 0.37 0.78 0.25
The below tables detail the results of a two-sample t-test assuming unequal variance comparing test group and control group the data recorded from the 2000 U.S. Census and the
2008-2012 ACS.
Table 1-2: Changes in residents with less than 9th grade education two-sample t-test assuming unequal variance results
Table 1-3: Changes in residents with 9th to 12th grade, no diploma two-sample t-test assuming unequal variance results
Less than 9th grade
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
9th to 12th grade, no diploma
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
-0.5625 0.453125
Mean -0.10900893 -0.131466433
Variance 0.19252764 0.455070551
Observations 29 29
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 48
t Stat 0.15028224
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.440585843
t Critical one-tail 1.677224196
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.881171686
t Critical two-tail 2.010634758
-0.3875 -0.12873563
Mean -0.31626105 0.303606282
Variance 0.17854677 0.133935916
Observations 29 29
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 55
t Stat -0.121910241
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.451707223
t Critical one-tail 1.673033965
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.903414447
t Critical two-tail 2.004044783


IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
40
Table 1-4: Changes in residents with High school graduate, GED, or alternative education two-sample t-test assuming unequal variance results
High school graduate, GED, or alternative
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
-0.466843501 -0.311231394
Mean 0.051467126 0.075808595
Variance 0.169441714 0.195179921
Observations 29 29
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 56
t Stat -0.21708237
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.414466558
t Critical one-tail 1.672522303
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.828933117
t Critical two-tail 2.003240719
Table 1-6: Changes in residents with associate's degree two-sample t-test assuming unequal variance results
Associates' degree
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
0.153846154 0.537974684
Mean 0.257013147 0.475568723
Variance 0.537368588 1.165663795
Observations 29 29
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 49
t Stat -0.901881414
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.185765905
t Critical one-tail 1.676550893
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.37153181
t Critical two-tail 2.009575237
Table 1-5: Changes in residents with some college, no degree two-sample t-test assuming unequal variance results
Some college, no degree
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
0.404255319 -0.28013029
Mean 0.255487628 0.191570809
Variance 0.204000166 0.106113157
Observations 29 29
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 51
t Stat 0.618093162
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.269632256
t Critical one-tail 1.67528495
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.539264511
t Critical two-tail 2.00758377
Table 1-7: Changes in residents with bachelor's degree two-sample t-test assuming unequal variance results
Bachelor's degree
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
0.547222222 0.635294118
Mean 0.643154698 0.585554527
Variance 0.670085029 0.587849108
Observations 29 29
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 56
t Stat 0.276562837
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.391567007
t Critical one-tail 1.672522303
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.783134013
t Critical two-tail 2.003240719


IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
Table 1-8: Changes in residents with graduate/professional degree two-sample t-test assuming unequal variance results Graduate or professional degree
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
0.062 -0.383333333
Mean 1.368123204 0.687773757
Variance 8.652683985 1.304936852
Observations 29 29
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 36
t Stat 1.1610562
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.126630084
t Critical one-tail 1.688297714
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.253260167
t Critical two-tail 2.028094001


IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
42
Appendix J
Results of U.S. Census Data Analysis - Density
The below table details the average change in each category of population and housing density between the 2000 U.S. Census and the 2010 U.S. Census for both the test group and control group, as well as the p-value used to determine statistical significance. Results are deemed statistically significant when p<0.05.
Table J-l: Changes in Density
Total population Total Families Housing units: Occupied Housing units: Vacant
TOD Group 22% 20% 29% 145%
Non-TOD Group 11% 6% 9% 46%
p-value 0.07 0.03 0.0008 0.007
The below tables detail the results of a two-sample t-test assuming unequal variance comparing test group and control group the data recorded from the 2000 U.S. Census and the 2010 U.S. Census.
Table J-2: Changes in total population two-sample t-test assuming unequal variance results
Total Population
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
Table J-3: Changes in total families two-sample t-test assuming unequal variance results Families
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
0.265047233 -0.044221378 0.286898839 -0.05447471
Mean 0.220897921 0.110683831 Mean 0.202104672 0.065212424
Variance 0.075507882 0.030139872 Variance 0.074648939 0.037617002
Observations 29 29 Observations 29 29
Hypothesized Mean Hypothesized
Difference 0 Mean Difference 0
df 47 df 51
t Stat 1.826021899 t Stat 2.200157869
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.037101657 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.01617579
t Critical one-tail 1.677926722 t Critical one-tail 1.67528495
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.074203314 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.03235158
t Critical two-tail 2.011740514 t Critical two-tail 2.00758377


IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
43
Table J-4: Changes in total vacant housing units two-sample t-test assuming unequal variance results
Housing Units Vacant
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
Table J-5: Changes in total occupied housing units two-sample t-test assuming unequal variance results
Housing Units Occupied
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
1.974110032 0.421686747 0.35027027 -0.05
Mean 1.432445244 0.462696423 Mean 0.283162718 0.091603447
Variance 2.925445562 0.4767066 Variance 0.057810352 0.026264832
Observations 29 29 Observations 29 29
Hypothesized Mean Hypothesized
Difference 0 Mean Difference 0
df 37 df 49
t Stat 2.831270684 t Stat 3.557691285
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.003727359 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.00042093
t Critical one-tail 1.68709362 t Critical one-tail 1.676550893
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.007454717 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.00084186
t Critical two-tail 2.026192463 t Critical two-tail 2.009575237


IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
44
Appendix K
Coding of Station Area Plan Goals
38th and Blake Station
Goals as stated in station area plan Coding
Pedestrian and Bike Circulation - Connect Upper Larimer, Cole and River North neighborhoods to the station and each other with pedestrian paths and bicycle routes. Accessibility Bicycle
Vehicular Circulation - Move vehicles safely to the station, station parking lots and through the station area without jeopardizing safe pedestrian circulation. Safety
Storm Water Management - Address storm water management issues with sustainable, urban solutions for detention, conveyance and water quality that also serve to provide usable open space for the community. Water Open Sustainability Quality Space
Place Making - Utilize the station investment to strengthen existing diverse neighborhoods and create a new center for the community. Strengthen community
41st and Fox Station
Goals as stated in station area plan Coding
Improve pedestrian connections to the station, between neighborhoods, and along major corridors Accessibility
Create opportunities to add more housing for a variety of income Housing
levels, jobs and services to the station area diversity
Incorporate plazas, parks and open space into redevelopment areas Open Space
Capitalize on the station area's proximity to Downtown and location on the Gold Line and Northwest Rail corridors Connectivity
Balance the needs of new development and existing uses Encourage development
Alameda Station
Goals as stated in station area plan Coding
Place-making: Create safe, pleasant, varied and attractive station areas with a distinct identity. Safety
Rich Mix of Choices: Provide housing, employment, transportation and shopping choices for people of all ages, household types, incomes and lifestyles. Housing diversity Employment Retail
Location Efficiency: Place homes, jobs, shopping, entertainment, parks and other amenities close to the station to promote walking, biking and transit use. Connectivity
Value Capture : Encourage all stakeholders - residents, business owners, RTD and the city - to take full economic advantage of the amenities associated with enhanced transit services. Economic opportunities


IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
45
Portal to the Region: Understand and maximize the station's role as
an entry point to the regional transit network and as a safe,
pleasant and private place to live. Connectivity
Auraria West Station
Goals as stated in station area plan Coding
Place-Making - Improving the station's status as a destination Connectivity
Rich Mix of Choices - Offering safe, convenient and pleasant pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular access between the station, campus, downtown, and surrounding neighborhoods Safety Accessibility Bicycle
Location Efficiency - Considering reinvestment opportunities and Accessibility improvements within the planning area Land use
Value Capture - Ensuring investments add value to existing campus Economic
and surrounding land owners opportunities
Portal to the Region - Addressing existing and potential barriers Neighborhood
between the station and campus connectivity
Sheridan Station
Goals as stated in station area plan Coding
Create strong pedestrian connections between the light rail station and Colfax Avenue along Sheridan Boulevard Accessibility Connectivity
Protect and enhance the existing residential neighborhoods around the station by providing infrastructure improvements and new uses to increase the number of people living near the station and support new convenience retail uses. Infrastructure Improvements
Incorporate Lakewood Dry Gulch into the station design and bring new uses to its edge that will increase the number of people along the park and create a safer park environment Open Space Safety
Create a safe and convenient pedestrian environment in the station area by improving access along and across Sheridan Boulevard from 6th Avenue to 17th Avenue Safety Accessibility
Develop a station identity that reflects the best aspects of the surrounding neighborhoods and the Lakewood Dry Gulch amenity. Neighborhood identity
Provide pedestrian-priority solutions that increase safety at key streets and intersections. Accessibility


IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
46
Appendix L
Station Area Plans Coded Goals Table
Goals Alameda 38th and Blake 41st and Fox Auraria West Sheridan
Bicycle 1 1
Connectivity 2 1 1 1
Employment 1
Encourage development 1
Housing diversity 1 1
Infrastructure improvements 1
Land use 1
Neighborhood connectivity 1
Neighborhood identity 1
Open space 1 1 1
Accessibility 1 1 1 3
Retail 1
Safety 1 1 1 2
Strengthen community 1
Sustainability 1
Water quality 1


IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
47
Appendix M
Station Area Plan Land Use Analysis Results
Talbe M-l: Pre-Plan Land Use
Alameda 38th and Blake 41st and Fox Auraria West Sheridan
Commercial/Retail 1.60% 8.30% 13.54% 1.60% 4.52%
Entertainment/Cultural 1.50% 0.00% 0.00% 3.18% 0.00%
Industrial 44.40% 16.00% 12.87% 11.33% 0.00%
Mixed-use 1.40% 0.00% 0.86% 1.79% 0.20%
Multi-unit Residential 6.33% 7.00% 4.89% 0.00% 20.70%
Office 1.10% 0.90% 0.94% 1.79% 0.28%
Other/Unknown 3.10% 0.00% 0.23% 24.25% 0.00%
Pa rk/Open Space 2.30% 1.30% 1.73% 4.57% 9.07%
Parking 7.50% 2.10% 23.36% 19.09% 0.60%
Public/Quasi-public 1.50% 1.50% 0.77% 12.33% 2.20%
ROW/Road 0.00% 35.60% 22.46% 0.00% 27.14%
Single-unit Residential 12.10% 9.60% 8.45% 3.98% 32.61%
Trans/Comm/Utilities 13.60% 13.50% 0.00% 5.77% 0.00%
Vacant 3.60% 1.90% 9.90% 10.74% 2.68%
Table M-2: 2016 Land Use
Alameda 38th and Blake 41st and Fox Auraria Sheridan
Commercial/Retail 36.93% 4.88% 2.44% 3.43% 2.48%
Entertainment/Cu Itural 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.06% 0.00%
Industrial 11.93% 31.44% 13.41% 16.89% 0.00%
Mixed-use 2.84% 1.36% 0.89% 1.06% 1.24%
Multi-unit Residential 3.98% 13.28% 18.96% 2.37% 25.21%
Office 7.95% 1.63% 1.22% 2.90% 0.41%
Other/Unknown 0.00% 0.54% 0.11% 0.00% 0.00%
Pa rk/Open Space 0.00% 1.90% 1.11% 2.37% 1.24%
Parking 10.80% 6.23% 1.44% 7.65% 0.41%
Public/Quasi-public 1.14% 0.27% 0.78% 9.23% 0.41%
ROW/Road 2.84% 0.27% 1.11% 15.30% 0.00%
Single-unit Residential 6.25% 15.45% 45.01% 7.39% 57.02%
Trans/Comm/Utilities 6.82% 1.36% 3.66% 14.25% 0.83%
Vacant 8.52% 21.41% 9.87% 16.09% 10.74%


IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES
48
Table M-3: Change in Land Use (Difference)
Pre-Plan Land Use - 2016 Land Use
Alameda 38th & Blake 41st & Fox Auraria West Sheridan age
Commercial/Retail 35.33% -3 42% -11.10% 1.83% -2.04% 4.12%
Entertainment/Cultural -1.50% 0,00% 0.00% -2.12% 0.00% -0.72%
Industrial -32.47% 15 44% 0.54% 5.56% 0.00% -2 19%
Mixed-use 1.44% 1 36% 0.03% -0.73% 1.04% 0 63%
Multi-unit Residential -2.35% 6 28% 14.07% 2.37% 4.51% 4.98%
Office 6.85% 0 73% 0.28% 1.11% 0.13% 1.82%
Other/Unknown -3.10% 0 54% -0.12% -24.25% 0.00% -5.39%
Pa rk/Open Space -2.30% 0 60% -0.62% -2.20% -7.83% -2.47%
Parking 3.30% 4 13% -21.92% -11.44% -0.19% -5.22%
Public/Quasi-public -0.36% -1 23% 0.01% -3.10% -1.79% -1.29%
ROW/Road 2.84% -35 33% -21.35% 15.30% -27.14% -13 14%
Single-unit Residential -5.85% 5 85% 36.56% 3.41% 24.41% 12.88%
Trans/Comm/Utilities -6.78% -12 14% 3.66% 8.48% 0.83% -1 19%
Vacant 4.92% 19 51% -0.03% 5.35% 8.06% 7.56%


School of Public Affairs
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER
Form Name: Submission Time: Browser:
IP Address: Unique ID: Location:
capstone repository permission December 7, 2017 11:31 am Chrome 62.0.3202.94 / Windows 174.16.237.16 369835956
39.695098876953, -105.00240325928
Description Area
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS ELECTRONIC CAPSTONE REPOSITORY
Description Area Dear Capstone Author and Capstone Client:The Auraria Library
Digital Library Program is a nonprofit center responsible for the collection and preservation of digital resources for education.The capstone project, protected by your copyright, and/or created under the supervision of the client has been identified as important to the educational mission of the University of Colorado Denver and Auraria Library.The University of Colorado Denver and Auraria Library respectfully requests non-exclusive rights to digitize the capstone project for Internet distribution in image and text formats for an unlimited term. Digitized versions will be made available via the Internet, for on- and off-line educational use, with a statement identifying your rights as copyright holder and the terms of the grant of permissions.Please review, sign and return the follow Grant of Permissions. Please do not hesitate to call me or email your questions.Sincerely,Matthew C. MarinerAuraria LibraryDigital Collections ManagerMatthew.mariner@ucdenver.edu303.556.5817
Grant of Permissions
Description Area In reference to the following title(s):
Author (Student Name) Patrick Shannon
Title (Capstone Project Title) The Impact of Transit Oriented Development on the Surrounding Community
Publication Date Fall 2017
I am the: Client
Description Area As client of the copyright holder affirm that the content submitted is identical to that which was originally supervised and that the content is suitable for publication in the Auraria Library Digital Collections.


Description Area
This is a non-exclusive grant of permissions for on-line and off-line use for an indefinite term. Off-line uses shall be consistent either for educational uses, with the terms of U.S. copyright legislation's "fair use" provisions or, by the University of Colorado Denver and/or Auraria Library, with the maintenance and preservation of an archival copy. Digitization allows the University of Colorado Denver and/or Auraria Library to generate image-and text-based versions as appropriate and to provide and enhance access using search software.
This grant of permissions prohibits use of the digitized versions for commercial use or profit.
Signature
Your Name
Date
Dec 7, 2017
Email Address
ATTENTION
Description Area Grant of Permissions is provided to:
Auraria Digital Library Program / Matthew C. MarinerAuraria Libraryl 100 Lawrence | Denver, CO
80204matthew.mariner@ucdenver.edu303-556-5817


School of Public Affairs
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER
Form Name: Submission Time: Browser:
IP Address: Unique ID: Location:
capstone repository permission December 6, 2017 1:49 pm Chrome 61.0.3163.100 / Windows 7 104.129.200.115 369601329
39.752498626709, -104.99949645996
Description Area
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS ELECTRONIC CAPSTONE REPOSITORY
Description Area Dear Capstone Author and Capstone Client:The Auraria Library
Digital Library Program is a nonprofit center responsible for the collection and preservation of digital resources for education.The capstone project, protected by your copyright, and/or created under the supervision of the client has been identified as important to the educational mission of the University of Colorado Denver and Auraria Library.The University of Colorado Denver and Auraria Library respectfully requests non-exclusive rights to digitize the capstone project for Internet distribution in image and text formats for an unlimited term. Digitized versions will be made available via the Internet, for on- and off-line educational use, with a statement identifying your rights as copyright holder and the terms of the grant of permissions.Please review, sign and return the follow Grant of Permissions. Please do not hesitate to call me or email your questions.Sincerely,Matthew C. MarinerAuraria LibraryDigital Collections ManagerMatthew.mariner@ucdenver.edu303.556.5817
Grant of Permissions
Description Area In reference to the following title(s):
Author (Student Name) Patrick Shannon
Title (Capstone Project Title) The Impact of Transit Oriented Development on the Surrounding Community
Publication Date 12/4/2017
I am the: Author (student)
Description Area As copyright holder or licensee with the authority to grant copyright permissions for the aforementioned title(s), I hereby authorize Auraria Library and University of Colorado Denver to digitize, distribute, and archive the title(s) for nonprofit, educational purposes via the Internet or successive technologies.


Description Area
This is a non-exclusive grant of permissions for on-line and off-line use for an indefinite term. Off-line uses shall be consistent either for educational uses, with the terms of U.S. copyright legislation's "fair use" provisions or, by the University of Colorado Denver and/or Auraria Library, with the maintenance and preservation of an archival copy. Digitization allows the University of Colorado Denver and/or Auraria Library to generate image-and text-based versions as appropriate and to provide and enhance access using search software.
This grant of permissions prohibits use of the digitized versions for commercial use or profit.
Signature
Your Name Patrick Shannon
Date 12/6/2017
Email Address
ATTENTION
Description Area Grant of Permissions is provided to:
Auraria Digital Library Program / Matthew C. MarinerAuraria Libraryl 100 Lawrence | Denver, CO
80204matthew.mariner@ucdenver.edu303-556-5817


Full Text

PAGE 1

IMPACT OF TOD ON SURROUNDING COMMUNITY i The Impact of Transit Oriented Development on the Surrounding Community Pat Shannon University of Colorado Denver School of Public Affairs This client based project is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Public Administration in the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver Denver, Colorado Fall 2017

PAGE 2

IMPACT OF TOD ON SURROUNDING COMMUNITY i Capstone Project Disclosures This clientbased project was completed on behalf of The University Hills North Registered Neighborhood Organization and supervised by PUAD 5361 Capstone course instructor Wendy L. Bolyard, PhD, and second faculty reader Geoffrey Propheter, PhD . This project does not necessarily reflect the views of the School of Public Affairs or the faculty readers. Raw data were not included in this document, rather relevant materials were provided directly to the client. Permissions to include this project in the Auraria Library Digital Repository are found in the final Appendix. Questions about this capstone project should be directed to the student author.

PAGE 3

IMPACT OF TOD ON SURROUNDING COMMUNITY i Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... ii Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 Literature Review .......................................................................................................................... 3 Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 11 Results ........................................................................................................................................... 16 Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 20 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 25 References ..................................................................................................................................... 26 Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 30 Appendix A – Recommendations ............................................................................................. 31 Appendix B – University Hills North Boundary and Land Use Map ....................................... 32 Appendix C – The Test Group ................................................................................................. 33 Appendix D – Control Group ................................................................................................... 34 Appendix E – List of U.S. Census Data Analysis Independent Variables ................................ 35 Appendix F – Results of U.S. Census Data Analysis – Per Capita Income .............................. 36 Appendix G – Results of U.S. Census Data Analysis – Median Property Value ..................... 37 Appendix H – Results of U.S. Census Data Analysis – Age .................................................... 38 Appendix I – Results of U.S. Census Data Analysis – Educational Attainment ...................... 39 Appendix J – Results of U.S. Census Data Analysis – Population and Housing Density ........ 42 Appendix K – Coding of Station Area Plan Goals ................................................................... 44 Appendix L – Station Area Plan Coded Goals Table ............................................................... 46 Appendix M – Station Area Plan Land Use Analysis Results .................................................. 47

PAGE 4

ii IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES Executive Summary University Hills North (UHN) is a neighborhood in Denver, Colorado and is home to the Colorado and Yale light rail stations. Most of the neighborhood is within one half mile of at least one of the two light rail stations, potentially placing new development in the neighborhood under the umbrella of transit orient ed development (TOD). TOD is generally characterized by high density residential and mixed use development within a half mile of a rail station. The University Hills North Registered Neighborhood Organization (RNO) acts as a liaison between UHN residents and the city. The RNO recognizes that with the two light rail stations, the neighborhood will most likely be a candidate for TOD planning in future comprehensive plans produced by the city. To make informed recommendations to the city for future planning documents, the RNO wanted to learn more about how TOD may impact the neighborhood. Three key potential changes were identified as areas of concern: demographics, property value, and land use. To provide the RNO with an understanding of the potential impacts of TOD, this research compared changes in census data between the 2000 U.S. Census and the 2010 U.S. Census for a test group of census tracts that contain a rail station with TOD to those of a control group of census tracts that contain a rail station but no TOD. In addition, this research examined five official station area plans produced by the City and County of Denver, comparing land use prior to the publication of the station area plan to the same area’s land use in 2016. This research found that out of 17 census categories analyzed representing population density, housing density, per capita income, property values, educational attainment and age, only census categories representing total families and housing density produced statistically significant results, indicating actual, non random results. After examining changes in land use

PAGE 5

IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES iii for the areas represented by a selection of official City and County of Denver station area plans, this research determined that there was little opportunity for changes in land use in UHN because of TOD. Based on these results, this research determined that the RNO should not expect significant short term change s related to per capita income, property value and general demographics due to TOD. This research recommends that the RNO focus its efforts to work with the city to develop long term goals that include improving the neighborhood in the context of its curre nt land use, such as improving pedestrian and traffic safety.

PAGE 6

IMPACT OF TOD ON SURROUNDING COMMUNITY 1 University Hills North (UHN) is a neighborhood in south east Denver, bordered by highway I 25 to the north and east and arterial streets Yale Ave. and Colorado Blvd. to the south and west, respectively. Apart from a 45acre portion of land within UHN that is part of unincorpora ted Arapahoe County, the neighborhood’s boarders make up Denver County census tract 53. According to the 2015 American Community Survey, the neighborhood has a population of approximately 1,405 residents with a per capita income of $30,674 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017). The neighborhood has a strong occupancy rate, with 676 of the total 729 housing units occupied in 2015 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017). The neighborhood is home to two senior living centers and about one third of the population is at least 65 years old (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017). The neighborhood is also home to one school, Denver Academy, as well as th e Denver Islamic Society campus. Currently, except for Denver Academy and the Denver Islamic Society, most of the interior of the neighborhood is comprised of, and zoned for, single family homes (see Appendix A) (Zoning, n.d.). The portion of the neighb orhood along Colorado Blvd., zoned as a commercial corridor, is lined with small restaurants and shops; however, Colorado Blvd. is an extremely busy street and not particularly pedestrian friendly (Zoning, n.d.). The northern portion of the neighborhood has several large mixed use buildings, most notably the Colorado Center, which is visible from I 25. While there is some commercial and mixed use activity, the neighborhood is primarily resident focused and considered somewhat of a hidden gem by its reside nts. In 1999, Colorado voters approved bond issuances for the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the Regional Transportation District (RTD) to fund the massive Transportation Expansion (T REX) project (RTD, 2016). Of the $1.67 billion total project budget, $879 million was allocated to light rail construction (RTD, 2016). The T REX project

PAGE 7

2 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES broke ground in September 2001 and was completed five years later in September 2006 (RTD, 2016). The new light rail stations built during the project opened in November 2006, including both the Yale Station and Colorado Station (RTD, 2016). Most of the neighborhood is within one half mile of at least one of the two stations, placing new construction in the realm of transit oriented developme nt (TOD). TOD is a planning practice that is generally focused on highdensity and mixed use development centered on train stations (Bellas, 2016). Recently, the UHN neighborhood has seen development surrounding the light rail stations. Current projects in UHN include a $10 million luxury apartment complex on Yale Ave. and a massive 450,000 square foot expansion to the Colorado Center ( “Denver Crane Watch,” 2017). The luxury apartment development, called Yale Street Station, will include 112 units and is less than a five minute walk from Yale Station ( “Denver Crane Watch,” 2017). The Colorado Center, which is described by its owners as “a premier transit oriented development,” is located across the street from Colorado Station and is currently home to two office buildings (Colorado Center, n.d.). The new expansion will bring a third tower to the complex, offering retail, office and residential space ( “Denver Crane Watch,” 2017). UHN is represented by the University Hills North Registered Neighborhood Organization (RNO), the client for this research. The UHN RNO, which has been in existence since 1978, is essentially a liaison between the neighborhood’s residents and the Cit y and County of Denver (University Hills North Community, n.d.; RNOs & Statistical Neighborhoods, 2014). The city is required to discuss matters such as zoning amendments, marijuana retail store applications and liquor licenses with the RNO (RNOs & Statistical Neighborhoods, 2014). The RNO has been hopeful that the city will publish an official UHN area plan, a comprehensive plan that establishes long term goals and “functions as a guide for future land use and urban design,

PAGE 8

3 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES ensuring orderly and appropriate neighborhood development” ( City and County of Denver, n.d.). Although the city has not yet decided to create a UHN area plan, the RNO is optimistic that they will be selected for an official area plan in the coming years. K nowing that they are within a TOD zone, the RNO would like to be prepared for the future area plan with an understanding of how various components of TOD impact neighborhoods so that they can provide appropriate input to best represent the needs and desires of their residents. Based on conversations with the president of the UHN RNO, three variables have been identified as areas of concern for residents because of potential TOD: changes in demographics, higher property taxes due to increased property values, and changes to the physical environment. The purpose of this research is to provide the UHN RNO with an understanding of the level of change that may be expected due to TOD based on the outcomes of previous TOD projects, both nationally and locally. This research examines changes in census data to find trends in demographic, property value and per capita income shifts related to TOD. This research determines trends in land use changes for similar Denver neighborhoods that have already been im plemented because of TOD area planning. This research provides the RNO with information needed to make informed land use recommendations for the betterment of their neighborhood. This project begins with a review of the literature on the impacts of TOD, followed by an explanation of the methods used to conduct the research. The results of the research are revealed, with a subsequent discussion of the findings and recommendations to the RNO moving forward, finally ending with a conclusion summarizing the project. Literature Review

PAGE 9

4 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES TOD came to promine nce as both a policy and planning tool with Peter Calthorpe’s 1993 work The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American Dream . TOD allows residents who live outside of the urban downtown to easily access transportation, avoid congested highways and still have access to locations and activities throughout the metropolitan area (Ratner & Goetz, 20 13). It creates walkable, connected neighborhoods that allow residents to easily access and tend to their daily needs (City and County of Denver, 2015). The definition of TOD varies slightly throughout the literature, from Duncan’s (2011) definition of a walkable mixed use development next to a transit station to the description offered by Jewitt (2016) of a planning strategy to increase residential and commercial development near train stations to decrease automobile use. This research will follow the definition set by Wood, Horner, Duncan and Valdez Torres (2016), who defined TOD as “areas surrounding a transit stop where development is characterized by dense and mixed land use along with pedestrian friendly infrastructure” (p. 76). Further, a transit stop will be considered a fixed rail station, as opposed to bus stops that appear frequently throughout a region and generally do not encourage development (Rayle, 2015). While TOD is often assumed to be new development near a recently constructed train station, this is not a requirement. Rayle (2015) explains that, when constructed around an existing train station, TOD can include development that is “qualitatively different” from the structure it replaces or builds upon (p. 534). The literature surrounding TOD regularly refers to transit adjacent development (TAD). TAD can be defined as “development occurring adjacent to a transit station that does not have the good pedestrian environment found in a TOD” (Duncan, 2011, p. 104). TAD has been characterized as suburban development located near train stations, and it has been found that 97% of development around train stations better fits TAD characteristics than those of TOD

PAGE 10

5 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES (Kamruzzaman et al., 2014). TAD often possesses one or more of the general characteristics of TOD, such as land use diversity, street connectivity or public transport accessibility, but not the complete set of characteristics that define TOD (Kamruzzaman et al., 2014). There has been a great deal of research s urrounding TOD in recent years, spanning numerous academic disciplines, including public policy, urban planning and environmental studies. While peer reviewed academic journal articles from a variety of academic disciplines are incorporated into this research, all literature is read and reviewed from the perspective of public administration. Property Values TOD allows those living in suburban settings the opportunity to easily connect to the urban downtown, thus increasing the value of the land (Ratner & Goetz, 2013). Impending TOD makes some residents speculate as to what it will mean for their property values. Some are excited at the prospect of having a more valuable home that they can sell, while others worry about paying the rising property taxes. Although TOD was originally introduced as a planning method that would allow working families to live more affordably due to lower transportation expenses, research shows that much of TOD targets upper class buyers and renters, producing luxury unit s that are not affordable for average Americans (Renne, Tolford, Hamidi & Ewing, 2016). It appears that TOD housing has become increasingly more popular in recent years, with a 45% growth in TOD rent collected between 2010 and 2015, compared to a 24% growth in TAD and 31% growth in “hybrid” areas with a mix of TOD and TAD (Renne et al., 2016). As of 2010, only 5% of Americans lived within a half mile of a fixed route train station, while 48% of all jobs in the United States were within a half mile of a station (Renne et al., 2016). Presently, the

PAGE 11

6 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES demand for TOD housing far outweighs the supply, resulting in housing prices that are simply unattainable for many (Renne et al., 2016). Train stations also increase the accessibility of the area in which they are located, incentivizing developers to more aggressively build retail and residential properties, therefore increasing the demand of the land (Bartholomew & Ewing, 2011). There has been research showing property values to decrease by .1% for every .1 miles from a train station (Chatman, Tulach & Kim, 2012). While there has been a fair amount of similar research highlighting trends related to property value and distance from train stations, Bartholomew and Ewing (2011) found that there are factors at play beyond proximity to stations that influence property values in TOD areas. Factors such as proximity to central business district, the type of rail service and development densities are all factors in home values around train stations (Bartholomew & Ewing, 2011). For example, the values of homes near walk and ride stations were shown to increase by 5.4%, while those near park and ride stations decreased by 1.9% (Bartholomew & Ewing, 2011). Although well designed TOD will most likely include these factors, it is important to note that the addition of a train station alone will not necessarily increase property values. Consumers are more likely to pay a premium in areas with above average density and interconnected streets (Barth olomew & Ewing, 2011; Duncan, 2011). In an analysis of property values along San Diego’s light rail system, Duncan (2011) found that proximity to train stations had no impact on home values in average settings; however, property values in higher density areas, specifically condominium prices, had a positive correlation with proximity to the stations. Similarly, Billings (2011) found that condominiums within a half mile of light rail stations in Charlotte, N.C. saw a price increase of 13.4%. Duncan (2011) found that condominium values

PAGE 12

7 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES decrease sharply with distance from stations in areas with a high density of street intersections and a high populationserving job density. Duncan (2011) found that the premium for condominiums in neighborhoods with good pedestrian orientation near a train station can be as high as $20,000. The opposite is true for condominiums in areas with weak pedestrian orientation, where valu es decrease with proximity to stations, with a discount of up to $15,000 (Duncan, 2011). Other factors, such as the presence of a highway in the same area as a train station, have been shown to negatively impact the property values surrounding stations as well (Debrezion, Pels & Rietveld 2007). Property values are shown to increase significantly as the amount of commercial activity increases (Duncan, 2011). Debrezion et al. (2007) found that commercial properties within a quarter mile of a train station are more significantly impacted than residential properties in the same area. Their research showed an increase in sales or rent of commercial properties was about 12% greater than seen by the surrounding residential properties (Debrezion et al., 2007). Demog raphics As property values and commercial activities in a neighborhood increase, it is no surprise that the general affluence of the area rises as well. Wood et al. (2016) found that there are a greater proportion of adults from all age groups with an annual income of at least $100,000 residing within TOD areas compared to the national average. A large portion of these high income earners are younger adults in the first half of their careers (Wood et al., 2016). Most residents living within a half mile of a train station in 2000 were between the ages of 22 and 34 (Wood et al., 2016). As of the 2010 Census, that age range shifted slightly to 20 to 39, potentially indicating that many who lived in a TOD area in 2000 chose to stay (Wood et al., 2016). Most of those over 65 living in TOD areas were found to have annual incomes of less

PAGE 13

8 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES than $25,000, a potential issue for those on a fixed income who would like t o age in place (Wood et al., 2016). Along with attracting younger and higher income earning residents, TOD often attracts college educated residents who have yet to start a family – demographics often associated with gentrification (Rayle, 2015). Rayle (2015) investigated gentrification and displacement around TOD, noting that there are disparities between the cries of advocates claiming that gentrification due to TOD will displace residents and findings from empirical research that do not support these claims. Rayle (2015), citing previous research, notes that there are at least two types of displacement. The first is direct displacement, which is displacement due to economic or physical reasons (Rayle, 2015). The second is exclusionary displacement, which occurs when factors such as higher housing costs discourage those with lower incomes from moving into housing that they may have otherwise considered (Rayle, 2015). Exclusionary displacement disrupts the normal resident turnover, gradually changing the neighborhood demographics (Rayle, 2015). Exclusionary displacement can also refer to a change in neighborhood social networks and political forces (Rayle, 2015). This can include businesses leaving the neighborhood as the resident demographic changes, being replaced by new businesses that cater to new, often higher socio economic status, clientele (Rayle, 2015). Based on Rayle’s research, it is apparent that, while TOD may not lead to wide scale, rapid direct displacement, gradual exclusionary displacement and neighborhood transformation is certainly possible. Although a great deal of research has been dedicated to rising home values, demographic change, and the negative sides of neighborhood transformation, it is worth noting that TOD has the potential to improve certain aspects of the community. In a study of transit stations throughout Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, Kamruzzaman et al. (2014) found that those who

PAGE 14

9 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES live in TODs are more likely to connect with their neighbors and report stronger levels of trust than those living in TADs. However, this may say more about TADs than TODs, as those living in traditional suburbs also reported higher levels of connectivity and trust than those living in TADs (Kamruzzaman et al., 2014). The study found that the environmental factors that the researchers defined as composing TOD’s, such as density, land use diversity, street connectivity, and public transport accessibility level, on their own do not improve neighborhood trust and connectivity, and, in some cases, reduce social capital (Kamruzzaman et al., 2014). Physical Environment While the actual construction associated with TOD is driven by the private sector, proper land use policy and zoning must be put in place for a TOD to be successful. The City and County of Denver (2014) produced its first TOD Strategic Plan in 2006, outlining the city’s plan to create “transit communities that are walkab le, livable places that provide citizens with access to most of their daily needs” (p. 8). The City and County of Denver defines five TOD typologies: downtown, urban center, general urban, urban, and suburban (City and County of Denver, 2014). Interestingly, the two stations in UHN have very different typologies; Colorado Station is described as an urban center, while Yale Station is described as suburban (City and County of Denver, 2014). Urban centers are considered neighborhoods with a great deal of bicycle and pedestrian activity, made up of mid rise multifamily housing and mixed use commercial activity (City and County of Denver, 2014). Suburban neighborhoods are defined by the plan as areas with mainly single and two family units with some commercial property along major arterial roads (City and County of Denver, 2014). Regardless of the typology of the neighborhood, one of the driving forces that makes TOD popular is accessibility (Ratner & Goetz, 2013). This includes access by train to downtown

PAGE 15

10 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES and other commercial hubs, as well as access to the commercial and entertainment options surrounding the station (Ratner & Goetz, 2013). Per the Urban Land Institute (2015), 52% of Americans would prefer to live in an area where they could rely less on their cars. Between 2000 and 2010, Denver has seen the most growth for both commercial and mixed use property in areas serviced by rail (Bhattacharjee & Goetz, 2016). In a study of land use in TODs along Denver’s light rail system, Ratner and Goetz (2013) found that most development, both residential and nonresidential, occurred closer to the central business district. Ratner and Goetz (2013) found that 15% of office development in the Denver area since 2000 has been TOD. They found that while housing development fell regionally between 2006 and 2009, residential TOD development continued to rise (Ratner & Goetz, 2013). The trends continue with retail, as 11% of all new retail development between 2000 and 2010 was TOD (Ratner & Goetz, 2013). However, much like property value, commercial activity is not guaranteed to thrive simply due to the introduction of rail. For retail built around train stations to be successful, there needs to be a significant level of ridership (Schuetz, 2015). Schuetz (2015) found that stations that open in congested areas that are saturated with retail will most likely not have an impact on the area’s ret ail activity, however stations opening in more suburban neighborhoods may offer the opportunity for more new retail. If TOD is planned correctly and attracts major ridership, the commercial results can be significant as the number of restaurant, grocery stores and retail stores have been found to double in TOD areas compared to nonTOD (Wood et al., 2016). The City and County of Denver has examined the feasibility of future development around each of its light rail stations. As part of its TOD Strategic Plan, the City and County of Denver (2014) created a TOD continuum to measure each station’s market readiness,

PAGE 16

11 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES development potential, and TOD characteristics. The city determined that Colorado Station is medium high in all three categories, while Yale station shows medium market readiness, low development potential and medium low TOD characteristics (City and County of Denver, 2014). The city explains that Yale Station “has limited development potential, with small moves needed to unlock any opportunities that exist near the station” (City and County of Denver, 2014, p. 41). Denver has done well in forming a comprehensive TOD strategy, but special attention need s to be paid to neighborhoods like UHN to ensure that TOD is developed correctly so that the neighborhood will continue to thrive. The research questions and the methods used to answer them are explained in the following section. Methodology From the literature and guidance from the client, seven research questions and corresponding hypotheses emerge. The research is designed to answer the research questions and test the hypotheses. These are: Q1: Does TOD impact the median age of the surrounding neighborhood? H1: The change in median age of residents in the TOD group will not equal the change in median age of residents in the nonTOD group. Q2: Does TOD impact the number of residents with a graduate/professional degree in the surrounding neighborhood? H2: The change in average number of residents with a graduate/professional degree in the TOD group will not equal the change in average number of residents with a graduate/professional degree in the nonTOD group. Q3: Does TOD impact the per capita income of the surrounding neighborhood?

PAGE 17

12 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES H3: The change in per capita income of residents in the TOD group will not equal the change in per capita income of residents in the nonTOD group. Q4: Does TOD impact the median property value of homes in the surrounding neighborhood? H4: The change in median property value in the TOD group will not equal the change in median property value in the nonTOD group. Q5: Does TOD impact the population density of the surrounding neighborhood? H5: The change on population density in the TOD group will not equal the change in population in the non TOD group. Q6: Does TOD impact the housing density of the surrounding neighborhood? H6: The change in housing density in the TOD group will not equal the change in housing in the nonTOD group. Q7: What changes in the physical environment can be expected because of TOD? H7: There will be an increase in mixed use, commercial and high density housing in TOD areas in the City and County of Denver. Analysis of U.S. Census Data This research determines how TOD impacts the demographics, per capita income and median property values of census tracts throughout United States through a quantitative analysis of secondary data. For this research, TOD areas are defined as census tracts in which a rail station surrounded by TOD exists. Census tracts serve as the unit of analysis in this research. This research examines how a test group of census tracts with rail stations surrounded by TOD changed between 2000 and 2010 compared to a control group of census tracts with rail stations but no TOD. This analysis examines data from the 2000 and 2010 U.S. Censuses as well as data from the 20082012 and 20112015 American Community Surveys (ACS).

PAGE 18

1 3 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES To form the test group, a universe of rail stations with TOD was compiled through examples of TOD used in numerous case studies, scholarly articles and websites (Center for Transit Oriented Development, 2013; Cervero, 2004; Jacobson & Forsyth, 2008; NHHS Rail Program, n.d.; van Lierop, Maat & El Geneidy, 2017; Reconnecting America, 2009; Transit Oriented Development Institute, n.d.; Urban Land Institute, 2016; TOD Planning Studies, 2017). The census tract of each station area was determined and duplicate census tracts were eliminated. Out of the universe of TOD stations, 30 census tracts were selected for the test group. These tracts experienced TOD construction between 1990 and 2006 (see Appendix C). This time frame was selected to create a sample of TOD areas that were constructed within 10 years of 2000. No census tracts with TOD development after 2006 were selected to allow time for residential and business turnover prior to the collection of 2010 Census data. The control group was formed by randomly selecting 30 light rail stations from metropolitan areas across the United Stations with similar population densities to Denver. The metropolitan areas in the pool include San Diego, Sacramento, Dallas, Charlotte, Portland and Phoenix. The names and locations of the stations were downloaded from the Center for Transit Oriented Development’s TOD Database (see Appendix D) (Center for Transit Oriented Development, 2017). The census tract of each station selected for the control group was identified and census tracts that were represented in the universe of TOD stations created for the test group were removed from the control group. The 15 census categories used to compare the test and con trol groups served as the independent variables for this study (see Appendix E). The dependent variables in this study were the average or median census totals for each category. For each census category, data from the 2000 U.S. Census were compared to that of the 2010 U.S. Census. Data from the 20082012

PAGE 19

14 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES ACS or the 2011 2015 ACS were used for categories that did not have 2010 U.S. Census data. All U.S. Census and American Community Survey data used in this research were retrieved from the IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS) database (Manson, Schroeder, Van Riper, & Ruggles, 2017). Validity and Reliability All data collected were entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The average percent change for each station from both the test and control groups was calculated for all census categories. Once all data were entered and changes calculated, a two sample t test assuming unequal variance was run for each respective census category to determine if there was a statistically significant difference between changes in test group census tracts and changes in control group census tracts. Each test revealed a pvalue, which is used to determine statistical significance. If the t test produced a pvalue where p<0.05, the results were deemed statistically significant. Statistical significance indicates that the trends found between the two groups being compared are due to actual relationships between the variables, rather than simply occurring by chance. Analysis of Station Area Plans This research determines how TOD impacts the physical environment of UHN through a review of official neighborhood plans completed by the City and County of Denver. Since 1973, the City and County of Denver has completed and adopted 61 official area plans. Of the 61 completed and adopted plans, 11 were station area plans, focused exclusively on the area directly surrounding a transit station (Completed Plans, n.d.). Five of the 11 station area plans were selected for analysis: the Alameda Station Area Plan, the 38th and Blake Station Area Plan, the

PAGE 20

15 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES 41st and Fox Station Area Plan, the Auraria West Station Area Plan and the Sheridan Station Area Plan. These station area plans were selected for two reasons. First, they provided clear existing land use data. Second, these five stations area plans were created between 2008 and 2009, providing sufficient time for land use changes to occur. The station area plans focused on the area within a half mile of the stations, although the Sheridan Station plan only focused on the half mile radius east of the station, as directly to the west is the City of Lakewood. This research analyzed changes in land use and measured the types and quantities of various land use categories su rrounding light rail stations. For this research, the independent variables are the following land use categories: commercial/retail, entertainment/cultural, industrial, mixed use, multiunit residential, office, other/unknown, park/open space, parking, public/quasi public, ROW/road, single unit residential, trans/communications/utilities, and vacant. The dependent variable is the square footage of each variable in terms of percentage of the entire area. This res earch compares “preplan” land use, often referred to as “existing” land use in the station area plans, to 2016 land use. Pre plan land use is collected from each station area plan. The 2016 land use was gathered through data provided in the form of a GIS file by the City and County of Denver Community Planning and Development department (City and County of Denver, 2016). The 2016 land use data were collected via an open data request to the city and will be accessed using the QGIS 2.18 Las Palmas geographic information system application. This research also examined the land use goals as listed in each station area plan and coded the goals based on the following categories: bicycle, connectivity, employment, encourage development, housing diversity, infrastructure improvements, land use, neighborhood

PAGE 21

16 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES connectivity, neighborhood identity, open space, accessibility, retail, safety, strengthen community, sustainability, and water quality. The collected data were entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for analysis. This analysis determined how land use changed from pre plan to 2016 by calculating the difference in land use for each category as a percentage of the entire area’s land use. It is important to note that the sample size for this analysis will be too small to determine statistical significance. The results of this analysis were used to make observations and to support recommendations made in response to the analysis of U.S. Census data. Results For this research, a test group of 30 census tracts that contain TOD surrounding at least one fixed rail station was compared to a control group of 30 census tracts with at least one rail station but no TOD. In total 12 states and the District of Columbia were represented by the census tracts in the two groups. Per Capita Income Based on the research of Wood et al. (2016) and Rayle (2015), it was expected that TOD would significantly increase per capita income. This research, however, was unable to find a statistically significant difference in the change in average per capita income between TOD and nonTOD areas from the 2000 U.S. Decennial Census to the 20082012 American Community Survey data. The research found only a 12% difference in the average change in per capita income between the test and control group, with the average per capita income increasing by 13% in the test group and by 1% in the control group. Although the average change in per capita income for the 30 st ations in the control group increased by 1%, the average per capita income for the

PAGE 22

17 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES control group decreased between the 2000 U.S. Census and the 20082012 American Community Survey by $391.24, when adjusted to 2015 dollar values. Results of a two sample t test assuming unequal variances produced a pvalue of 0.09, signifying no statistical significance. Due to these results, this research rejects the hypothesis that changes in median per capita income of TOD areas are not equal to those of nonTOD areas with fixed rail stations. Although no significant results are found when comparing the changes in per capita income between the test and control group, there was a statistically significant trend found when comparing only the 20082012 American Community Survey per capita income figures. The 20082012 American Community Survey average per capita income of stations in the test group, adjusted to 2015 dollar values, was $16,857.62 greater than that of the control group, with average per capita incomes of $42,696.40 and $25,838.78, respectively. A two sample t test assuming unequal variance comparing just the 20082012 American Community Survey per capita income data between the two groups produced a pvalue of 0.001, confirming statistical significance. Residential Property Value The census tracts in the TOD group had an average change in median property value of 13% from the 2000 U.S. Census to the 20112015 American Community Survey, adjusted to 2015 dollar values. Changes in value within the test group was fairly substantial. Values ranged from a decrease of 55% to an increase of 140%. The control group had an average increase in median property value of 13%, adjusted to 2015 dollar values. The nonTOD group had a narrower range of changes in median property value, from a decrease of 43% to an increase of 107%. When comparing the changes in median property value between the TOD and nonT OD group, a two sample t test assuming unequal variances produced a pvalue of 0.76, indicating

PAGE 23

18 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES that there is no statistically significant difference in changes in median property value between the TOD and non TOD groups. Based on the results of the analysis, the research rejects the hypothesis that there will be a significant difference in the change in median property value between the TOD and non TOD areas with fixed rail stations. Age To determine if TOD causes a shift in median age, this research examined the difference in median age for each station from the 2000 Census to the 2010 Census. Due to the increased density, entertainment options and ease of access to the downtown area often associated with TOD, it was believed that TOD would cause median age in the area to decrease. It was assumed that these attributes would attract younger residents, yet to start families, that may value these features more than older residents with families (Rayle, 2015). The results, however, show a 0.8% increase in the median age of residents the test group, compared to a 2.4% increase in control group. Results of a two sample ttest assuming unequal variances produced a pvalue of 0.69. Due to these results, this research rejects the hypothesis that TOD impacts changes in median age. Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference in the change in the number of households with senior residents (age 65 and older) between the test group and control group, as there was only a 10% difference in average change. The test group saw an increase of 15% in the number of residents over 65 compared to the control group’s increase of 5%. A two sample ttest assuming unequal variances produced a pvalue of 0.31, showing no statistical significance. Educational Attainment To further study potential demographic shifts caused by TOD, this research examined the changes in educational attainment in the test group and the control group. The results were

PAGE 24

19 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES consistent between the two groups for changes in residents with less than a 9th grade education through those with some college but no degree, with average changes ranging no greater than 8%. Interestingly, the control group saw greater average increases in residents with associate degrees compared to the test group, while the test group saw a greater increase in baccalaureate degr ees and graduate/professional degrees. The test group saw an average increase of 132% in persons 18 years or over with a graduate/professional degree, compared with the average increase of 65% for stations within the control group. Despite seemingly large differences between the two groups’ average changes in residents with graduate/professional degrees, a two sample t test assuming unequal variances was run and no statistically significant results emerged. This research rejects the hypothesis that the change in average number of residents with a graduate/professional degree in the TOD group will not equal the change in average number of residents with a graduate/professional degree in the nonTOD group. Density To determine how density is impacted by T OD, this research examines the changes in total population, occupied housing units and vacant housing units. Results showed that the test group had statistically significant greater increases in total families, total occupied housing units and total vacant housing units when compared to the control group. Based on these findings, this research supports the hypothesis that TOD increases housing density in the surrounding area compared to nonTOD stations. Surprisingly, the results of a two sample t test assuming unequal variances testing the significance of the differences in average changes in total population between the two groups produced a pvalue of 0.07, indicating no statistical significance. Due to these findings, the research rejects the hypothe sis that TOD significantly changes population density compared to areas with rail stations but no TOD.

PAGE 25

20 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES Land Use To determine how TOD impacts land use, this research examined five official Station Area Plans produced by the City and County of Denver, comparing pre plan land use to 2016 land use. The station area plans selected were 38th and Blake St. Station Area Plan, 41st and Fox Station Area Plan, Alameda Station Area Plan, Auraria West Station Area Plan and Sheridan Station Area Plan. Although the sample size was not large enough to test for statistical significance, inferences are made based on the analysis. The most drastic changes appear to happen in the area surrounding Alameda Station. The Alameda Station plan listed retail and employment as two of its goals and saw a commercial/retail space increase by 35.33% within the total land use of the area while industrial land use decreased by 32.47%. Across the five station areas, residential land use saw the greatest increase. Land dedicated to single family residential units increased by an average of 12.88%, while multi unit residential land increased by 4.98%. The only station area that saw a decrease in single unit residential and multiunit residential was Alameda Station. The greatest overall decrease in land use was ROW/roads, which may indicate a better use of space; however, vacant land increased by 7.56% so it is possible that some of the land classified as ROW/roads in the station area plans was considered vacant in the 2016 land use data set. Discussion In this section, results for each research question are discussed individually. The discussion of each research question is followed by recommendations based on the results of the analysis. The discussion concludes with an explanation of the limitations of the research. Per Capita Income

PAGE 26

21 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES The results of this research did not produce a statistically significant difference in per capita income between the TOD and nonTOD group. Although the differences in the groups were not enough to produce statistically significant results, the overall averages do show that the 20082012 ACS per capita income, adjusted to 2015 dollar values, in census tracts in the TOD group were about 65% greater than those in the non TOD group. It should be noted that the 20082012 average per capita income for the TOD census tracts was greater than the national average of $28,930, as reported by the 20112015 ACS using 2015 dollar values, while those in the nonTOD group were about $3,000 below the national average (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017). Residential Property Values The most surprising result produced by the research was the similarity in the changes in median residential property value between the two groups. After adjusting all dollar figures to 2015 values, the average increase in median property values was only 3% greater for census tracts with TOD stations. Both groups had 11 census tracts that saw a decrease in property values and each had one census tract with an increase in median property value greater than 100%. The TOD census tracts did have an average median property value reported by the 20112015 American Community Survey that was $42,686.67 greater than the nonTOD census tracts, but the average median property value for the TOD group as reported by the 2000 U.S. Census was $52,753.83 greater than the nonTOD group. Although the average change in median property value was slightly less than that of the TOD group, the nonTOD group decreased the gap in median property value between the two groups by over $10,000 between the 2000 U.S. Census and the 20112015 American Community Survey. Age

PAGE 27

22 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES The research revealed that changes in age were not significantly different between the census tracts with TOD rail stations and those with nonTOD rail stations. Although the average age of the TOD group increased slightly less than that of the nonTOD group, the TOD group had a higher average age than the nonTOD group per the 2010 U.S. Census. A reason for this could be the significantly greater per capita income seen in the census tracts with TOD stations. Educational Attainment When looking at the results of the analysis of the change in residents with graduate/professional degrees between the two groups, it may be surprising that statistically significant results did not emerge as there was a 67% greater increase in TOD group than the nonTOD group. However, it is important to note that there was an extreme outlier in the TOD group: the census tract that contains the NOMA Station in Washington D.C. saw an increase in residents with graduate/professional degrees of 1,527%. When this outlier is removed, the average increase in the TOD group drops from 132% to 84%. This is still 19% greater than the increase in the non TOD group, but not nearly as drastic as the initial results appeared . Density The results of this analysis were somewhat surprising, with statistically significant differences between the TOD and nonTOD groups for total families, housing units occupied and housing units vacant, but not for the total population. Although the difference in changes in total population between the two groups were not statistically significant, the TOD group did see double the average population growth, with 22% average growth in population compared to the nonTOD group’s average increase of 11%. That total occupied housing units increased at a statistically significant rate in the TOD group compared to the non TOD group can almost be considered common sense. The overall

PAGE 28

23 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES premise of TOD is to create a higher density, more accessible community surrounding a rail station. While it was expected that this would attract younger residents that may not have families, it does make sense that as more housing comes available, families would fill a portion of the new units. Future research should also examine how the population of single adults and married adults without children changes in areas with TOD compared to the population of families. Land Use Curren tly, over two thirds of the UHN is comprised of single unit residential structures. Based on the comparison of the existing land use as shown in the station area plans and 2016 land use for Alameda Station, 38th and Blake Station, 41st and Fox station, Auraria West Station and Sheridan Station, the neighborhood should not expect a decrease in single family homes. The station areas that saw the greatest land use changes were those with a great deal of industrial, vacant and ROW/road land use. As of 2016, only 3.05% of UHN was vacant, 2.69% was ROW/road and 1.79% was industrial. Although it is possible for developers to purchase land from any land use category for redevelopment, with such a small amount of vacant, ROW/road and industrial property, there does not appear to be a great deal land available for immediate, widespread development. Recommendations Although changes are possible over time, the RNO should not expect drastic changes to the community in the short term due to TOD. The research indicates that the neighborhood can expect an increase in housing density due to new development, which should come as no surprise with the current expansion of the Colorado Center and construction of the Yale Street Station apartments. While the neighborhood may experience an increase in per capita income, the

PAGE 29

24 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES increase should not be significantly greater with TOD than if the neighborhood saw no new development. As the RNO continues to develop a plan for the neighborhood and eventually work with the City and County of Denver to create an official area plan, the RNO should focus on ways to improve the neighborhood in the context of its current land use. One way to shape the physical environment without altering land use could be through zoning changes, particularly along the Colorado Boulevard commercial corridor. Building heights, building set backs and other zoning requirements can be set to gradually change aesthetic character of the corridor as the neighborhood sees fit. One major area of c oncern that the neighborhood residents expressed at the RNO’s annual meeting that was not addressed in this research is safety, particularly traffic and pedestrian safety. The RNO should work with the city to develop a traffic plan that will minimize congestion and maximize pedestrian safety. Future research for the UHN RNO should examine trends in traffic incidents and crime surrounding rail stations, as safety is a major concern among residents in the neighborhood. Limitations A potential limitation of this research is the varying size of each census tract. Conclusions drawn by Chatman, Tulach and Kim (2012), Bartholomew and Ewing (2011), Billings (2011) and Duncan (2011) mainly focused on the standard half mile TOD radius. This research examined change around rail in terms of entire census tracts, many of which exceed the half mile radius that defines a TOD area, thus presenting a potential limitation to the research. In addition, the boundaries of census tracts can change over time, so the data reflected in the 2000 U.S. Census may cover a slightly different area than that in the 2010 U.S. Census and American Community Survey reports. An example is the census tract that contains LBJ/Skillman Station,

PAGE 30

25 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTE D DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES which was used in the test group. This area was represented by Dallas County census tract 18504 in the 2000 U.S. Census and census tract 18506 in the 2010 U.S. Census and ACS reports. The reason that this r esearch examined census tracts was two fold. First, the area represented by the UHN RNO entirely comprises a single census tract, so this appeared to be an appropriate unit of measurement for the sake of comparison. Second, given the time and resource constraints of this research, using census tracts provided the greatest accessibility to the data needed to draw conclusions. Another limitation is the use of data from the 20112015 American Community Survey report to analyze changes in median property value. The data used in these reports are drawn from self reported surveys. Due to the nature of these surveys, it is possible that property owners may have inaccurately estimated their property value. Future research should examine property values as asse ssed by the county for each respective census tract. A final limitation is that all census tracts in Maricopa County, Arizona reported the same per capita income for both the 2000 U.S. Census and the 2008 2012 American Community Survey. Only one census tract was used from Maricopa County, but this may have impacted the per capita income results. Conclusion This research examined the impact of TOD on the community surrounding rail stations with TOD. The purpose of this research was to provide the UHN RNO with insight as to how they can expect TOD around Colorado Station and Yale Station to impact their neighborhood. It was expected that this research would find results consistent with exiting literature, such as increased property values, an increase in per capita income and a significant demographic shift. The results, however, indicate statistical significance only related to increased housing density due to TOD and limited opportunity for land use change.

PAGE 31

26 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTE D DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES References Bartholomew, K., & Ewing, R. (2011). Hedonic price effects of pedestrian and transit oriented development. CPL bibliography , 26 (1), 1834. Bhattacharjee, S., & Goetz, A. R. (2016). The rail transit system and land use change in the Denver metro region. Journal of Transport Geography , 54, 440 450. Billings, S. B. (2011). Estimating the value of a new transit option. Regional Science and Urban Economics , 41(6), 525536. Calthorpe, P. (1993). The next American metropolis: Ecology, community, and the American dream . Princeton architectural press. Center for Transit Oriented Development. (2013). Intercity rail and transit oriented development . U.S. Department of Transportation. Center for Transit Oriented Development. (2013). National TOD Database [Data file]. Retrieved from https://toddata.cnt.org/index.php. Cervero, R. (2004). Transit oriented development in the United States: Experiences, challenges, and prospects (Vol. 102). Transportation Research Board. Chatman, D. G., Tulach, N. K., & Kim, K. (2012). Evaluating the economic impacts of light rail by measuring home appreciation: A first look at New Jersey’s river line. Urban Studies , 49(3), 467 487. City and County of Denver. (2014). Transit Oriented Development Strategic Plan . Denver, CO. City and County of Denver. (2016). 2016 Land Use [Data file]. Retrieved via email from the City and County of Denver Community Planning & Development/Planning Services.

PAGE 32

27 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTE D DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES City and County of Denver. (n.d.). Completed Plans . Retrieved on October 31, 2017, from https://www.denve r gov.org/content/denvergov/en/community planning anddevelopment/planning and design/completed plans.html. Colorado Center. (n.d.). Colorado Center . Retrieved September 9, 2017, from http:// coloradocenter denver.com. Completed Plans. (n.d.). City and County of Denver . Retrieved September 10, 2017, from https://www.denve r gov.org/content/denvergov/en/community planning anddevelopment/planning and design/completed plans.html. Debrezion, G., Pels, E., & Rietveld, P. (2007). The impact of railway stations on residential and commercial property value: a meta analysis. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics , 35(2), 161180. Denver Crane Watch. (2017). Denver Business Journal . September 9, 2017, from www.bizjournals.com/denver/maps/crane watch. Duncan, M. (2011). The impact of transitoriented development on housing prices in San Diego, CA. Urban studies , 48(1), 101127. Jacobson, J., & Forsyth, A. (2008). Seven American TODs: Good practices for urban design in transit oriented development projects. Journal of Transport and Land Use , 1(2). Kamruzzaman, M., Wood, L., Hine, J., Currie, G., Giles Corti, B., & Turrell, G. (2014). Patterns of social capital associated with transit oriented development. Journal of Transport Geography , 35, 144 155. Manson, S., Schroeder, J., Van Riper, D., & Ruggles, S. (2017). IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System: Version 12.0 [Database] . Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. http://doi.org/10.18128/D050.V12.0

PAGE 33

28 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES NHHS Rail Program. (2011). Transit oriented development (TOD) success stories. Connecticut: New Haven Hartford Springfield Rail Program. Ratner, K. A., & Goetz, A. R. (2013). The reshaping of land use and urban form in Denver through transit oriented development. Cities , 30, 31 46. Rayle, L. (2015). Investigating the connection between transitoriented development and displacement: Four hypotheses. Housing Policy Debate , 25(3), 531548. Reconnecting America. (2009). Encouraging Transit Oriented Development . Phoenix, AZ: Reconnecting America. Renne, J. L., Tolford, T., Hamidi, S., & Ewing, R. (2016). The cost and affordability paradox of transit oriented development: A comparison of housing and transportation costs across transit oriented development, hybrid and transitadjacent development station typologies. Housing Policy Debate , 26(4 5), 819 834. RNOs & Statistical Neighborhoods. (2014). University Hills North Community . Retrieved September 2, 2017, from http://www.uhnc.org/general information/rnos statis ticalneighborhoods. RTD. (2016). Southeast Corridor Light Rail Line Project Overview . Retrieved October 31, 2017, from http://www.rtd denver.com/FF SoutheastCorridor.shtml. Schuetz, J. (2015). Do rail transit stations encourage neighbourhood retail activity?. Urban Studies , 52(14), 26992723. Transit Oriented Development Institute. (n.d.). Retrieved July 2, 2017, from http://www.tod.org/projects.html. TOD Planning Studies. (2017). In North Central Texas Council of Governments . Retrieved from http://www.nctcog.org/trans/sustdev/tod/planning.asp.

PAGE 34

29 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES University Hills North Community. (n.d.) University Hills North Community . Retrieved September 2, 2017, from http://www.uhnc.org/. Urban Land Institute. (2015). America in 2015: A ULI Survey of Views on Housing, Transportation, and Community . Washington, D.C.: The Urban Land Institute. Urban Land Institute. (2016). Fiscal Impacts of Transit Oriented Development Projects . Washington, D.C.: The Urban Land Institute. U.S. Census Bureau (2011). Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010. Retrieved fr om https://www.census.gov/2010censu s/popmap/. U.S. Census Bureau (2013). 20082011 American Community Survey 5year estimates . Retrieved from https://www.c e nsus.gov/censusexplorer. U.S. Census Bureau (2017). 20112015 American Community Survey 5Year Estimates . Retrieved fr om https://www.census.gov/censusexplorer. van Lierop, D., Maat, K., & El Geneidy, A. (2017). Talking TOD: learning about transit oriented development in the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability , 10 (1), 49 62. Wood, B. S., Horner, M. W., Duncan, M., & Valdez Torres, Y. (2016). Aging Populations and Transit Oriented Development: Socioeconomic, Demographic, and Neighborhood Trends from 2000 and 2010. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (2598), 7583. Zoning. (n.d.). City and County of Denver . Retrieved August 28, 2017, from https://denvergov.org/maps/map/zoning.

PAGE 35

30 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES Appendices Appendix A – Recommendations ..........................................................................................31 Appendix B – University Hills North Boundary and Land Use Map ....................................32 Appendix C – The Test Group ...............................................................................................33 Appendix D – Control Group .................................................................................................34 Appendix E – List of U.S. Census Data Analysis Independent Variables .............................35 Appendix F – Results of U.S. Census Data Analysis – Per Capita Income ...........................36 Appendix G – Results of U.S. Census Data Analysis – Median Property Value ...................37 Appendix H – Results of U.S. Census Data Analysis – Age .................................................38 Appendix I – Results of U.S. Census Data Analysis – Educational Attainment ....................39 Appendix J – Results of U.S. Census Data Analysis – Population and Housing Density .....42 Appendix K – Coding of Station Area Plan Goals .................................................................44 Appendix L – Station Area Plan Coded Goals Table.............................................................46 Appendix M – Station Area Plan Land Use Analysis Results ...............................................47

PAGE 36

31 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES Appendix A Recommendations As the RNO continues to move forward in its efforts to work with the City and County of Denver to develop an area plan, this research recommends that the RNO: 1. Focus on improvement to the neighborhood in the context of its current land use 2. Examine potential opportunities for zoning changes along the Colorado Boulevard commercial corridor 3. Conduct future research examining trends in crime and traffic safety surrounding rail stations 4. Conduct a traffic study to develop a plan to increase traffic and pedestrian safety, per the concerns of the residents at the 2017 Annual Meeting

PAGE 37

32 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES Appendix B University Hills North Boundary and Land Use Map Colorado Station Denver Academy Unincorporated Arapahoe County Yale Station

PAGE 38

33 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES Appendix C Test Group Station/TOD Community NHGIS Integrated County Name NHGIS Integrated State Name NHGIS Integrated Code (2010) LBJ/Skillman Station DALLAS COUNTY TX 18506 Plano Transit Village COLLIN COUNTY TX 31900 Russellville Commons MULTNOMAH COUNTY OR 8202 Forest Jupiter DALLAS COUNTY TX 18501 Englewood City Center ARAPAHOE COUNTY CO 5700 Arverne by the Sea QUEENS COUNTY NY 96400 Fruitvale BART ALAMEDA COUNTY CA 406100 Oakland City Center/12th Street Station ALAMEDA COUNTY CA 403000 Shaker Square CUYAHOGA COUNTY OH 119502 Beaverton Creek MAX Station WASHINGTON COUNTY OR 31402 Center Commons MULTNOMAH COUNTY OR 1801 NOMA DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DC 8702 Rahway station UNION COUNTY NJ 35900 Stadium Station Apartments MULTNOMAH COUNTY OR 5200 Mt. Royal (University of Baltimore/MICA) BALTIMORE CITY MD 110200 Richland Hills Trinity Railway Express Station TARRANT COUNTY TX 101201 Arlington Heights Station COOK COUNTY IL 803300 Silver Spring BALTIMORE COUNTY MD 411303 South Orange Station ESSEX COUNTY NJ 19300 Rio Vista West SAN DIEGO COUNTY CA 9304 White Plains/Bank Street Commons WESTCHESTER COUNTY NY 9000 Cranford Crossing UNION COUNTY NJ 37200 Rockville Town Center MONTGOMERY COUNTY MD 700901 Santana Row SANTA CLARA COUNTY CA 506401 Mockingbird Station DALLAS COUNTY TX 300 Atlantic Station FULTON COUNTY GA 500 Collins Circle MULTNOMAH COUNTY OR 5500 Highlands Garden Village DENVER COUNTY CO 1701 Memphis Central Station SHELBY COUNTY TN 4300 City Center DC DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DC 5800

PAGE 39

34 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES Appendix D Control Group Station NHGIS Integrated County Name NHGIS Integrated State Name NHGIS Integrated Code MCKINNEY @ SNEED DALLAS COUNTY TX 1800 24TH ST & JEFFERSON ST MARICOPA COUNTY AZ 113900 Cascades MAX Station MULTNOMAH COUNTY OR 7300 SW Park & Mill MULTNOMAH COUNTY OR 5600 Lloyd Center/NE 11th Ave MAX Station MULTNOMAH COUNTY OR 2402 Rockwood/E 188th Ave MAX Station MULTNOMAH COUNTY OR 9604 Gateway/NE 99th Ave TC MAX Station MULTNOMAH COUNTY OR 8100 Kenton/N Denver Ave MAX Station MULTNOMAH COUNTY OR 3801 NW Northrup & 22nd MULTNOMAH COUNTY OR 4900 N Killingsworth St MAX Station MULTNOMAH COUNTY OR 3501 NE 60th Ave MAX Station MULTNOMAH COUNTY OR 1801 SW Harrison Street MULTNOMAH COUNTY OR 5700 Expo Center MAX Station MULTNOMAH COUNTY OR 7202 E 102nd Ave MAX Station MULTNOMAH COUNTY OR 8202 EMPLOYEE PLATFORM AND LIGHT RAIL SACRAMENTO COUNTY CA 6300 12TH ST AND D ST SACRAMENTO COUNTY CA 500 R ST AND 15TH ST SACRAMENTO COUNTY CA 1200 ROSEVILLE RD AND I 80 SACRAMENTO COUNTY CA 7413 47th St Station SAN DIEGO COUNTY CA 3404 H Street Station SAN DIEGO COUNTY CA 12600 Lemon Grove Depot SAN DIEGO COUNTY CA 14400 Barrio Logan Station SAN DIEGO COUNTY CA 5000 Massachusetts Ave Station SAN DIEGO COUNTY CA 14200 Encanto/62nd St Station SAN DIEGO COUNTY CA 3004 La Mesa Blvd Station SAN DIEGO COUNTY CA 14601 32nd St/Commercial Station SAN DIEGO COUNTY CA 3901 Palomar Street Station SAN DIEGO COUNTY CA 13205 Middletown Station SAN DIEGO COUNTY CA 6100 Fair Complex/Hillsboro Airport MAX Stn WASHINGTON COUNTY OR 32404 Quatama/NW 205th Ave MAX Station WASHINGTON COUNTY OR 31609

PAGE 40

35 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES Appendix E List of U.S. Census Data Analysis Independent Variables The following census categories were used as independent variables in the analysis of U.S. Census Data to determine the impacts of TOD: 1. Per capita income in previous year 2. Median Property Value (Residential) 3. Persons: Total 4. Families: Total 5. Housing units: Occupied 6. Housing units: Vacant 7. Persons: 18 years and over ~ Less than 9th grade 8. Persons: 18 years and over ~ 9th to 12th grade, no diploma 9. Persons: 18 years and over ~ High school graduate, GED, or alternative 10. Persons: 18 years and over ~ So me college, no degree 11. Persons: 18 years and over ~ Associate degree 12. Persons: 18 years and over ~ Bachelor's degree 13. 18 years and over ~ Graduate or professional degree 14. Persons: In households ~ 65 years and over 15. Median Age

PAGE 41

36 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES Appendix F Results of U.S. Census Data Analysis – Per Capita Income The below table details the average change in average per capita income value between the 2000 U.S. Census and the 20082012 ACS for both the test group and control group, as well as the pvalue used to determine statistical significance. Results are deemed statistically significant when p<0.05. Table F 1: Changes in Per Capita Income 2000: Average Per capita income in previous year 2008 2012: Average Per capita income in previous year % Change TOD Group $38,013.41 $42,696.40 13% Non TOD Group $26,230.02 $25,838.78 1% p value 0.09 The below table details the results of a two sample t test assuming unequal variance comparing test group and control group the data recorded from the 2000 U.S. Census and the 20082011 ACS. Table F 2: Changes in Per Capita Income two sample t test assuming unequal variance results Per Capita Income t Test: Two Sample Assuming Unequal Variances 0.089866503 0.010312282 Mean 0.142515576 0.007355699 Variance 0.144637423 0.031863726 Observations 29 29 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 df 40 t Stat 1.732499101 P(T<=t) one tail 0.045444987 t Critical one tail 1.683851013 P(T<=t) two tail 0.090889973 t Critical two tail 2.02107539

PAGE 42

37 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES Appendix G Results of U.S. Census Data Analysis – Median Property Value The below table details the average change in median property value between the 2000 U.S. Census and the 20112015 ACS for both the test group and control group, as well as the pvalue used to determine statistical significance. Results are deemed statistically significant when p<0.05. Table G 1: Changes in Median Property Value 2000 Median Property Value 2011 2015 Median Property Value % Change TOD Group $279,679.27 $295,933.33 17% Non TOD Group $226,925.44 $253,246.67 14% p value 0.76 The below table details the results of a two sample t test assuming unequal variance comparing test group and control group the data recorded from the 2000 U.S. Census and the 20112015 ACS. Table G 2: Changes in median property value two sample t test assuming unequal variance results Median Property Value t Test: Two Sample Assuming Unequal Variances 0.554468044 0.43378545 Mean 0.192106653 0.16208286 Variance 0.158148645 0.115315166 Observations 29 29 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 df 55 t Stat 0.309182306 P(T<=t) one tail 0.379175555 t Critical one tail 1.673033965 P(T<=t) two tail 0.758351111 t Critical two tail 2.004044783

PAGE 43

38 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES Appendix H Results of U.S. Census Data Analysis – Age The below table details the average change in persons age 65 and older and median age between the 2000 U.S. Census and the 2010 U.S. Census for both the test group and control group, as well as the p value used to determine statistical significance. Results are deemed statistically significant when p<0.05. Table H 1: Changes in Average Persons Age 65 and Older and Changes in Median Age 2000: Average Persons: In households ~ 65 years and over 2010: Average Persons: In households ~ 65 years and over Average % Change 2000 2010 2000 Median Age 2010 Median Age % Change 20002010 TOD Group 417 445 15% 35.83 35.99 0.8% Non TOD Group 387 402 5% 31.87 32.52 2.4% p value 0.31 p value 0.69 The below tables detail the results of a two sample t test assuming unequal variance comparing test group and control group the data recorded from the 2000 U.S. Census and 2010 U.S. Census. Table H 2: Changes in people 65 and older two sample t test assuming unequal variance results Table H 3: Changes in median age two sample t test assuming unequal variance results 65 years and over Median Age t Test: Two Sample Assuming Unequal Variances t Test: Two Sample Assuming Unequal Variances 0.245082357 0.120283019 0.169354839 0.03654485 Mean 0.151118142 0.050832547 Mean 0.014465273 0.023561831 Variance 0.227290327 0.049633341 Variance 0.008370489 0.006112001 Observations 29 29 Observations 29 29 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 df 40 df 55 t Stat 1.026260261 t Stat 0.407056313 P(T<=t) one tail 0.155467653 P(T<=t) one tail 0.342773255 t Critical one tail 1.683851013 t Critical one tail 1.673033965 P(T<=t) two tail 0.310935306 P(T<=t) two tail 0.68554651 t Critical two tail 2.02107539 t Critical two tail 2.004044783

PAGE 44

39 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES Appendix I Results of U.S. Census Data Analysis – Educational Attainment The below table details the average change in each category of educational attainment between the 2000 U.S. Census and the 20082012 ACS for both the test group and control group, as well as the pvalue used to determine statistical significance. Results are deemed statistically significant when p<0.05. Table I 1: Changes in Educational Attainment % Change 2000 U.S. Census 2008 2012 American Community Survey Less than 9th grade 9th to 12th grade, no diploma High school graduate, GED, or alternative Some college, no degree Associate degree Bachelor's degree Graduate or professional degree TOD Group 12% 32% 3% 26% 25% 64% 132% Non TOD Group 11% 30% 6% 18% 48% 59% 65% p score 0.88 0.90 0.83 0.54 0.37 0.78 0.25 The below tables detail the results of a two sample t test assuming unequal variance comparing test group and control group the data recorded from the 2000 U.S. Census and the 20082012 ACS. Table I2: Changes in residents with less than 9th grade education two sample ttest assuming unequal variance results Table I3: Changes in residents with 9th to 12th grade, no diploma two sample ttest assuming unequal variance results Less than 9th grade 9th to 12th grade, no diploma t Test: Two t Test: Two Sample Assuming Unequal Variances Sample Assuming Unequal Variances 0.5625 0.453125 0.3875 0.12873563 Mean 0.10900893 0.131466433 Mean 0.31626105 0.303606282 Variance 0.19252764 0.455070551 Variance 0.17854677 0.133935916 Observations Hypothesized Mean Difference 29 0 29 Observations Hypothesized Mean Difference 29 0 29 df 48 df 55 t Stat 0.15028224 t Stat 0.121910241 P(T<=t) one tail 0.440585843 P(T<=t) one tail 0.451707223 t Critical one tail 1.677224196 t Critical one tail 1.673033965 P(T<=t) two tail 0.881171686 P(T<=t) two tail 0.903414447 t Critical two tail 2.010634758 t Critical two tail 2.004044783

PAGE 45

40 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES Table I 4: Changes in residents with High school graduate, GED, or alternative education two sample ttest assuming unequal variance results Table I5: Changes in residents with some college, no degree two sample ttest assuming unequal variance results High school graduate, GED, or alternative Some college, no degree t Test: Two t Test: Two Sample Assuming Unequal Variances Sample Assuming Unequal Variances 0.466843501 0.311231394 0.404255319 0.28013029 Mean 0.051467126 0.075808595 Mean 0.255487628 0.191570809 Variance 0.169441714 0.195179921 Variance 0.204000166 0.106113157 Observations Hypothesized Mean Difference 29 0 29 Observations Hypothesized Mean Difference 29 0 29 df 56 df 51 t Stat 0.21708237 t Stat 0.618093162 P(T<=t) one tail 0.414466558 P(T<=t) one tail 0.269632256 t Critical one tail 1.672522303 t Critical one tail 1.67528495 P(T<=t) two tail 0.828933117 P(T<=t) two tail 0.539264511 t Critical two tail 2.003240719 t Critical two tail 2.00758377 Table I6: Changes in residents with associate's degree two sample ttest assuming unequal variance results Table I 7: Changes in residents with bachelor's degree two sample ttest assuming unequal variance results Associates’ degree Bachelor's degree t Test: Two t Test: Two Sample Assuming Unequal Variances Sample Assuming Unequal Variances 0.153846154 0.537974684 0.547222222 0.635294118 Mean 0.257013147 0.475568723 Mean 0.643154698 0.585554527 Variance 0.537368588 1.165663795 Variance 0.670085029 0.587849108 Observations Hypothesized Mean Difference 29 0 29 Observations Hypothesized Mean Difference 29 0 29 df 49 df 56 t Stat 0.901881414 t Stat 0.276562837 P(T<=t) one tail 0.185765905 P(T<=t) one tail 0.391567007 t Critical one tail 1.676550893 t Critical one tail 1.672522303 P(T<=t) two tail 0.37153181 P(T<=t) two tail 0.783134013 t Critical two tail 2.009575237 t Critical two tail 2.003240719

PAGE 46

41 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES Table I 8: Changes in residents with graduate/professional degree two sample ttest assuming unequal variance results Graduate or professional degree t Test: Two Sample Assuming Unequal Variances 0.062 0.383333333 Mean 1.368123204 0.687773757 Variance 8.652683985 1.304936852 Observations 29 29 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 df 36 t Stat 1.1610562 P(T<=t) one tail 0.126630084 t Critical one tail 1.688297714 P(T<=t) two tail 0.253260167 t Critical two tail 2.028094001

PAGE 47

42 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES Appendix J Results of U.S. Census Data Analysis – Density The below table details the average change in each category of population and housing density between the 2000 U.S. Census and the 2010 U.S. Census for both the test group and control group, as well as the pvalue used t o determine statistical significance. Results are deemed statistically significant when p<0.05. Table J 1: Changes in Density Total population Total Families Housing units: Occupied Housing units: Vacant TOD Group 22% 20% 29% 145% Non TOD Group 11% 6% 9% 46% p value 0.07 0.03 0.0008 0.007 The below tables detail the results of a two sample t test assuming unequal variance comparing test group and control group the data recorded from the 2000 U.S. Census and the 2010 U.S. Census. Table J 2: Changes in total population two sample t test assuming unequal variance results Table J 3: Changes in total families two sample t test assuming unequal variance results Total Population Families t Test: Two Sample Assuming Unequal Variances t Test: Two Sample Assuming Unequal Variances 0.265047233 0.044221378 0.286898839 0.05447471 Mean 0.220897921 0.110683831 Mean 0.202104672 0.065212424 Variance 0.075507882 0.030139872 Variance 0.074648939 0.037617002 Observations 29 29 Observations 29 29 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 df 47 df 51 t Stat 1.826021899 t Stat 2.200157869 P(T<=t) one tail 0.037101657 P(T<=t) one tail 0.01617579 t Critical one tail 1.677926722 t Critical one tail 1.67528495 P(T<=t) two tail 0.074203314 P(T<=t) two tail 0.03235158 t Critical two tail 2.011740514 t Critical two tail 2.00758377

PAGE 48

43 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES Table J 4: Changes in total vacant housing units two sample ttest assuming unequal variance results Table J 5: Changes in total occupied housing units two sample ttest assuming unequal variance results Housing Units Vacant Housing Units Occupied t Test: Two Sample Assuming Unequal Variances t Test: Two Sample Assuming Unequal Variances 1.974110032 0.421686747 0.35027027 0.05 Mean 1.432445244 0.462696423 Mean 0.283162718 0.091603447 Variance 2.925445562 0.4767066 Variance 0.057810352 0.026264832 Observations Hypothesized Mean Difference 29 0 29 Observations Hypothesized Mean Difference 29 0 29 df 37 df 49 t Stat 2.831270684 t Stat 3.557691285 P(T<=t) one tail 0.003727359 P(T<=t) one tail 0.00042093 t Critical one tail 1.68709362 t Critical one tail 1.676550893 P(T<=t) two tail 0.007454717 P(T<=t) two tail 0.00084186 t Critical two tail 2.026192463 t Critical two tail 2.009575237

PAGE 49

44 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES Appendix K Coding of Station Area Plan Goals 38th and Blake Station Goals as stated in station area plan Coding Pedestrian and Bike Circulation Connect Upper Larimer, Cole and River North neighborhoods to the station and each other with pedestrian paths and bicycle routes. Accessibility Bicycle Vehicular Circulation Move vehicles safely to the station, station parking lots and through the station area without jeopardizing safe pedestrian circulation. Safety Storm Water Management Address storm water management issues with sustainable, urban solutions for detention, conveyance and water quality that also serve to provide usable open space for the community. Sustainability Water Quality Open Space Place Making Utilize the station investment to strengthen existing diverse neighborhoods and create a new center for the community. Strengthen community 41st and Fox Station Goals as stated in station area plan Coding Improve pedestrian connections to the station, between neighborhoods, and along major corridors Accessibility Create opportunities to add more housing for a variety of income levels, jobs and services to the station area Housing diversity Incorporate plazas, parks and open space into redevelopment areas Open Space Capitalize on the station area’s proximity to Downtown and location on the Gold Line and Northwest Rail corridors Connectivity Balance the needs of new development and existing uses Encourage development Alameda Station Goals as stated in station area plan Coding Place making: Create safe, pleasant, varied and attractive station areas with a distinct identity. Safety Rich Mix of Choices: Provide housing, employment, transportation and shopping choices for people of all ages, household types, incomes and lifestyles. Housing diversity Employment Retail Location Efficiency: Place homes, jobs, shopping, entertainment, parks and other amenities close to the station to promote walking, biking and transit use. Connectivity Value Capture : Encourage all stakeholders – residents, business owners, RTD and the city – to take full economic advantage of the amenities associated with enhanced transit services. Economic opportunities

PAGE 50

45 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES Auraria West Station Goals as stated in station area plan Coding Place Making Improving the station’s status as a destination Connectivity Rich Mix of Choices Offering safe, convenient and pleasant pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular access between the station, campus, downtown, and surrounding neighborhoods Safety Accessibility Bicycle Location Efficiency Considering reinvestment opportunities and Accessibility improvements within the planning area Land use Value Capture Ensuring investments add value to existing campus and surrounding land owners Economic opportunities Portal to the Region Addressing existing and potential barriers between the station and campus Neighborhood connectivity Sheridan Station Goals as stated in station area plan Coding Create strong pedestrian connections between the light rail station and Colfax Avenue along Sheridan Boulevard Accessibility Connectivity Protect and enhance the existing residential neighborhoods around the station by providing infrastructure improvements and new uses to increase the number of people living near the station and support new convenience retail uses. Infrastructure Improvements Incorporate Lakewood Dry Gulch into the station design and bring new uses to its edge that will increase the number of people along the park and create a safer park environment Open Space Safety Create a safe and convenient pedestrian environment in the station area by improving access along and across Sheridan Boulevard from 6th Avenue to 17th Avenue Safety Accessibility Develop a station identity that reflects the best aspects of the surrounding neighborhoods and the Lakewood Dry Gulch amenity. Neighborhood identity Provide pedestrian priority solutions that increase safety at key streets and intersections. Accessibility Connectivity Portal to the Region: Understand and maximize the station’s role as an entry point to the regional transit network and as a safe, pleasant and private place to live.

PAGE 51

46 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES Appendix L Station Area Plans Coded Goals Table Goals Alameda 38th and Blake 41st and Fox Auraria West Sheridan Bicycle 1 1 Connectivity 2 1 1 1 Employment 1 Encourage development 1 Housing diversity 1 1 Infrastructure improvements 1 Land use 1 Neighborhood connectivity 1 Neighborhood identity 1 Open space 1 1 1 Accessibility 1 1 1 3 Retail 1 Safety 1 1 1 2 Strengthen community 1 Sustainability 1 Water quality 1

PAGE 52

47 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES Appendix M Station Area Plan Land Use Analysis Results Talbe M 1: Pre Plan Land Use Alameda 38th and Blake 41st and Fox Auraria West Sheridan Commercial/Retail 1.60% 8.30% 13.54% 1.60% 4.52% Entertainment/Cultural 1.50% 0.00% 0.00% 3.18% 0.00% Industrial 44.40% 16.00% 12.87% 11.33% 0.00% Mixed use 1.40% 0.00% 0.86% 1.79% 0.20% Multi unit Residential 6.33% 7.00% 4.89% 0.00% 20.70% Office 1.10% 0.90% 0.94% 1.79% 0.28% Other/Unknown 3.10% 0.00% 0.23% 24.25% 0.00% Park/Open Space 2.30% 1.30% 1.73% 4.57% 9.07% Parking 7.50% 2.10% 23.36% 19.09% 0.60% Public/Quasi public 1.50% 1.50% 0.77% 12.33% 2.20% ROW/Road 0.00% 35.60% 22.46% 0.00% 27.14% Single unit Residential 12.10% 9.60% 8.45% 3.98% 32.61% Trans/Comm/Utilities 13.60% 13.50% 0.00% 5.77% 0.00% Vacant 3.60% 1.90% 9.90% 10.74% 2.68% Table M 2: 2016 Land Use Alameda 38th and Blake 41st and Fox Auraria Sheridan Commercial/Retail 36.93% 4.88% 2.44% 3.43% 2.48% Entertainment/Cultural 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.06% 0.00% Industrial 11.93% 31.44% 13.41% 16.89% 0.00% Mixed use 2.84% 1.36% 0.89% 1.06% 1.24% Multi unit Residential 3.98% 13.28% 18.96% 2.37% 25.21% Office 7.95% 1.63% 1.22% 2.90% 0.41% Other/Unknown 0.00% 0.54% 0.11% 0.00% 0.00% Park/Open Space 0.00% 1.90% 1.11% 2.37% 1.24% Parking 10.80% 6.23% 1.44% 7.65% 0.41% Public/Quasi public 1.14% 0.27% 0.78% 9.23% 0.41% ROW/Road 2.84% 0.27% 1.11% 15.30% 0.00% Single unit Residential 6.25% 15.45% 45.01% 7.39% 57.02% Trans/Comm/Utilities 6.82% 1.36% 3.66% 14.25% 0.83% Vacant 8.52% 21.41% 9.87% 16.09% 10.74%

PAGE 53

48 IMPACT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ON COMMUNITIES age Table M 3: Change in Land Use (Difference) Pre Plan Land Use 2016 Land Use Alam eda 38th & Bl ake 41st & Fox Auraria West Sheri dan Commercial/Retail 35.33% 3. 42% 11. 10% 1.83% 2.04% 4. 12% Entertainment/Cultural 1.50% 0. 00% 0. 00% 2.12% 0.00% 0. 72% Industrial 32.47% 15. 44% 0. 54% 5.56% 0.00% 2. 19% Mixed use 1.44% 1. 36% 0. 03% 0.73% 1.04% 0. 63% Multi unit Residential 2.35% 6. 28% 14. 07% 2.37% 4.51% 4. 98% Office 6.85% 0. 73% 0. 28% 1.11% 0.13% 1. 82% Other/Unknown 3.10% 0. 54% 0. 12% 24.25% 0.00% 5. 39% Park/Open Space 2.30% 0. 60% 0. 62% 2.20% 7.83% 2. 47% Parking 3.30% 4. 13% 21. 92% 11.44% 0.19% 5. 22% Public/Quasi public 0.36% 1. 23% 0. 01% 3.10% 1.79% 1. 29% ROW/Road 2.84% 35. 33% 21. 35% 15.30% 27.14% 13. 14% Single unit Residential 5.85% 5. 85% 36. 56% 3.41% 24.41% 12. 88% Trans/Comm/Utilities 6.78% 12. 14% 3. 66% 8.48% 0.83% 1. 19% Vacant 4.92% 19. 51% 0. 03% 5.35% 8.06% 7. 56%

PAGE 54

Form Name: capstone repository permission Submission Time: December 7, 2017 11:31 am Browser: Chrome 62.0.3202.94 / Windows IP Address: 174.16.237.16 Unique ID: 369835956 Location: 39.695098876953, -105.00240325928 Description Area SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS ELECTRONIC CAPSTONE REPOSITORY Description Area Dear Capstone Author and Capstone Client:The Auraria Library Digital Library Program is a nonprofit center responsible for the collection and preservation of digital resources for education.The capstone project, protected by your copyright, and/or created under the supervision of the client has been identified as important to the educational mission of the University of Colorado Denver and Auraria Library.The University of Colorado Denver and Auraria Library respectfully requests non-exclusive rights to digitize the capstone project for Internet distribution in image and text formats for an unlimited term. Digitized versions will be made available via the Internet, for onand off-line educational use, with a statement identifying your rights as copyright holder and the terms of the grant of permissions.Please review, sign and return the follow Grant of Permissions. Please do not hesitate to call me or email your questions.Sincerely,Matthew C. MarinerAuraria LibraryDigital Collections ManagerMatthew.mariner@ucdenver.edu303.556.5817 Grant of Permissions Description Area In reference to the following title(s): Author (Student Name) Patrick Shannon Title (Capstone Project Title) The Impact of Transit Oriented Development on the Surrounding Community Publication Date Fall 2017 I am the: Client Description Area As client of the copyright holder affirm that the content submitted is identical to that which was originally supervised and that the content is suitable for publication in the Auraria Library Digital Collections.

PAGE 55

Description Area This is a non-exclusive grant of permissions for on-line and off-line use for an indefinite term. Off-line uses shall be consistent either for educational uses, with the terms of U.S. copyright legislation's "fair use" provisions or, by the University of Colorado Denver and/or Auraria Library, with the maintenance and preservation of an archival copy. Digitization allows the University of Colorado Denver and/or Auraria Library to generate imageand text-based versions as appropriate and to provide and enhance access using search software. This grant of permissions prohibits use of the digitized versions for commercial use or profit. Signature Your Name Patricia Ortiz Date Dec 7, 2017 Email Address ATTENTION Description Area Grant of Permissions is provided to: Auraria Digital Library Program / Matthew C. MarinerAuraria Library1100 Lawrence | Denver, CO 80204matthew.mariner@ucdenver.edu303-556-5817

PAGE 56

Form Name: capstone repository permission Submission Time: December 6, 2017 1:49 pm Browser: Chrome 61.0.3163.100 / Windows 7 IP Address: 104.129.200.115 Unique ID: 369601329 Location: 39.752498626709, -104.99949645996 Description Area SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS ELECTRONIC CAPSTONE REPOSITORY Description Area Dear Capstone Author and Capstone Client:The Auraria Library Digital Library Program is a nonprofit center responsible for the collection and preservation of digital resources for education.The capstone project, protected by your copyright, and/or created under the supervision of the client has been identified as important to the educational mission of the University of Colorado Denver and Auraria Library.The University of Colorado Denver and Auraria Library respectfully requests non-exclusive rights to digitize the capstone project for Internet distribution in image and text formats for an unlimited term. Digitized versions will be made available via the Internet, for onand off-line educational use, with a statement identifying your rights as copyright holder and the terms of the grant of permissions.Please review, sign and return the follow Grant of Permissions. Please do not hesitate to call me or email your questions.Sincerely,Matthew C. MarinerAuraria LibraryDigital Collections ManagerMatthew.mariner@ucdenver.edu303.556.5817 Grant of Permissions Description Area In reference to the following title(s): Author (Student Name) Patrick Shannon Title (Capstone Project Title) The Impact of Transit Oriented Development on the Surrounding Community Publication Date 12/4/2017 I am the: Author (student) Description Area As copyright holder or licensee with the authority to grant copyright permissions for the aforementioned title(s), I hereby authorize Auraria Library and University of Colorado Denver to digitize, distribute, and archive the title(s) for nonprofit, educational purposes via the Internet or successive technologies.

PAGE 57

Description Area This is a non-exclusive grant of permissions for on-line and off-line use for an indefinite term. Off-line uses shall be consistent either for educational uses, with the terms of U.S. copyright legislation's "fair use" provisions or, by the University of Colorado Denver and/or Auraria Library, with the maintenance and preservation of an archival copy. Digitization allows the University of Colorado Denver and/or Auraria Library to generate imageand text-based versions as appropriate and to provide and enhance access using search software. This grant of permissions prohibits use of the digitized versions for commercial use or profit. Signature Your Name Patrick Shannon Date 12/6/2017 Email Address ATTENTION Description Area Grant of Permissions is provided to: Auraria Digital Library Program / Matthew C. MarinerAuraria Library1100 Lawrence | Denver, CO 80204matthew.mariner@ucdenver.edu303-556-5817