Homes on Track

RPA identified 96 locations where minor investments and new regulations could unlock TOD potential in the near term. Additional catalytic investments and regulatory changes could unlock potential for another 133 locations in the mid-term. Case studies demonstrate how the classification system could be used to inform the scope of a planning effort, the allocation of infrastructure-related grants or development loans, and shape policy intended to facilitate more transit-oriented development across the region.

Why TOD?

Transit-oriented development (TOD) offers many advantages, contributing to sustainable and vibrant urban communities. At its core, TOD strategically integrates residential, commercial, and recreational spaces around public transportation hubs, promoting access to employment opportunities and reducing reliance on private vehicles. Overall, transit-oriented development presents a holistic and forward-thinking solution to urban and regional planning, addressing housing needs, mitigating environmental issues, and improving the quality of life for residents.

More compact and diverse forms of development largely depend on the availability and access to public transportation. At the same time, more density enables and justifies more significant investments in transit infrastructure and service. This virtuous cycle helps reduce dependency on private vehicles – a significant source of pollution and environmental degradation – and is a critical factor in enabling the economic and cultural success of metropolitan areas worldwide.

TOD emphasizes directing infrastructure investments and land use regulations toward developing dynamic and livable spaces that prioritize the well-being of residents rather than merely facilitating their movement. It is a reorientation away from auto-oriented modes and towards housing abundance around public transit networks that foster livable communities, improved environments, and more robust economies.

The commuter rail network serving the tri-state area is by far the most extensive in the United States, with over 390 stations and a combined annual ridership of almost 170 million. Based on yearly passenger miles, the entire transit network in the region is more than four times larger than LA’s metro area, which ranks second in the nation.

But the extensive transit network remains an underutilized resource that can be leveraged to increase needed housing stock and residents’ access to jobs. There are some examples of successful TOD, but they do not exist in proportion to the scale of the network. Despite the growing recognition of the advantages of TOD and some successful examples in the region, many communities still face challenges in providing sufficient housing at scale and in a coordinated manner with public transportation.

Growing Housing Needs

Housing development within the New York - New Jersey - Connecticut region has been insufficient to meet the needs of its residents. As housing supply has become constrained, available homes for workers, young people, and low and moderate-income households have declined. The region’s failure to build enough homes has resulted in overcrowded apartments, increasing homelessness, and rents and home prices rising faster than income and inflation.

New York State, in particular, has allowed locally controlled restrictive zoning to remain unchecked. New York stands alone among its peer states (i.e, coastal states with high housing costs and healthy regional economies) in giving its local governments nearly unlimited authority over land use and housing production. An analysis from the Eviction Lab at Princeton University quantified how difficult it is to build under the zoning codes of different cities and towns. It concludes that New York ranks second among the most restrictive metropolitan areas in the country, only behind the Washington D.C. metro area. A more recent compilation of zoning regulations on Long Island – which RPA supported – shows that apartment buildings are prohibited on more than 96% of the zoned land in Nassau and Suffolk Counties. In comparison, single-family housing can be built on 89% of the land on an as-of-right basis. The lack of housing production and the enormous disparities between the city and its suburbs result from New York State having the most exclusionary zoning in the region.

Compelling recent evidence indicates that new construction in diverse environments has the effect of reducing or limiting rent increases, not only across an entire region but typically for apartments close to the newly constructed developments. This has been most recently observed in Minneapolis, where transformative land use reforms have been adopted in the last decade, and as a result, rent growth has been much lower compared to the rest of the state. Moreover, the buildings favored by TOD can introduce various housing types, allowing for a wider range of more affordable options and helping reduce housing cost burdens. The New York Housing Conference estimated that households in downstate New York suburbs could realize up to $1,400 in monthly reduced costs by prioritizing multi-family buildings, including condos and co-ops, over single-family homes.

Adopting ambitious land use reforms and enforcing and improving regional housing planning efforts will be key to addressing insecurity and constraints in supply. But simply building more housing is not enough. Where we build has significant environmental, economic, and equity implications. Communities with good access to opportunities and jobs – typically places with existing infrastructure and transit service – should contribute most of the new housing construction to meet regional needs.

Advancing the policies that would augment density and curb sprawl can also bring further economic gains for localities in the form of new jobs and greater business activity. A recent analysis by the RPA for Suffolk County found that during the construction phase, infrastructure and real estate investments – enabled by a dozen TOD planning initiatives – created more than 15,000 total jobs, $1.4 billion in labor income, $1.7 billion in GDP, and $2.7 billion in economic outputs for the county. Throughout Suffolk County, TOD planning efforts significantly boosted the building sector and continue to strengthen the foundation for long-term prosperity.

Aside from the economic benefits of abundant and affordable housing, individual household transportation costs are typically reduced when a TOD approach is prioritized. Areas with higher population density tend to experience increased transit ridership and, therefore, a decrease in household transportation costs. On the contrary, households in low-density, single-use, auto-centric developments far from urban centers will likely face higher transportation expenses. These households cover more extensive distances, predominantly utilize automobiles for trips and lack viable alternative options. Consequently, they might own a greater number of vehicles compared to individuals residing in transit- or pedestrian-centric neighborhoods, resulting in notably higher transportation expenditures.

The policy implication is that localities can enhance transit ridership and minimize household transportation expenses by implementing planning initiatives to augment density along transit networks and curb urban sprawl. Initiatives such as infill development, downtown revitalization, mixed-use development, pedestrian enhancements, multi-modal planning, and the implementation of complete streets – all consistent with the principles of TOD – can either raise density or induce changes in land use that promote walking and transit use.

These transportation and land-use policies have also led to significant loss of natural resources. New York State lost over 68,000 acres of forest land from 2001-2019, most (94%) attributable to car-dependent suburban sprawl. TOD and infill development can be effective strategies for land conservation. By using already developed land within urban and suburban areas, infill development can reduce the pressure on undeveloped land, preserve open spaces like wetlands, forests, and wildlife habitats, and help maintain the beauty of existing rural areas.

TOD, infill, and compact forms of development can also promote efficient land use by taking advantage of existing infrastructure, which reduces the cost of new infrastructure, thereby using land more effectively. Studies have found that the cost of building infrastructure and providing services is proportionate to how far apart homes are located. It has also been estimated that urban sprawl costs the U.S. economy more than $1 trillion each year.

Efficiencies compound in a favorable way when cities grow in more compact patterns. As more housing units are built along a road or sewer line, the capital cost of infrastructure and services per home decreases. This has been demonstrated by calculating the costs of infrastructure per capita and looking at the correlation between travel distances and the cost of providing services such as transportation, education, water, and solid waste. Consistent findings demonstrate that the cost of infrastructure and administering services increases directly to how far apart homes are spaced.

It is a valid concern that waste, water, and school systems might be stressed when handling an influx of residents or workers; however, the long-term efficiencies derived from more compact growth will reduce the costs of providing and maintaining public infrastructure. TOD can be a smarter path for long-term growth and management.

One of the main issues raised in local communities is the anticipated impact of new development on a given school district. Evidence suggests these concerns are unfounded. Research examining school enrollment numbers in New Jersey shows that, on average, large single-family homes or other low-rise developments add the most school children per unit. Smaller units, which comprise most mid- and high-rise developments, add significantly fewer. Another study that examined multi-family developments in Long Island concluded that new development is not necessarily a driving factor in school districts experiencing increasing enrollment but represents a net positive financial benefit to the school districts in which they are situated. Additional population should not be perceived as a burden but as a benefit. Growth can invigorate a local economy, increase pedestrian presence on sidewalks, enhance safety, and ultimately make cities and suburbs more attainable for working and middle-class residents—whose sustained presence is crucial for the long-term well-being and prosperity of the region.

Study Area

To identify near and long-term opportunities for TOD, RPA staff started by analyzing the existing conditions of commuter rail stations in the New York and New Jersey sections of the tri-state metropolitan region. The Connecticut section of the region was not included due to limitations in land use and parcel-level data availability. For the purposes of this research, we divided the study area based on two distinct criteria:

• Six geographic subregions defined by counties:

  • New York City (New York, Kings, Queens, Bronx, Richmond counties)

  • Long Island (Nassau and Suffolk counties)

  • Lower Hudson Valley (Westchester, Rockland, Putnam counties)

  • Mid Hudson Valley (Dutchess, Orange, Sullivan, Ulster counties)

  • New Jersey Metro Core (Bergen, Hudson, Essex, Union, Middlesex, Somerset, Morris, Passaic counties)

  • New Jersey Metro Periphery (Sussex, Warren, Hunterdon, Mercer, Monmouth, Ocean counties)

• Proximity to Manhattan’s Central Business District (CBD):

  • Urban Core (0-10 miles)

  • Suburban (10-30 miles)

  • Exurban (30-60 miles)

  • Outer (beyond 60 miles)

To conduct the TOD classification system, we examined all 355 commuter rail stations in the study area served by Long Island Rail Road (LIRR), Metro-North Railroad (MNR), and New Jersey Transit (NJT), and the characteristics within ½ mile radius of each station.

The existing conditions study involves a detailed analysis across four distinct categories:

• Mobility, which focuses on movement and transportation

• Built form, which delves into residential density, diversity, and land use mix

• Environment, which encompasses sewer infrastructure and flood risk areas

• Underutilized land, which uses metrics to identify property that is yet to reach its highest and best use and has infill development potential

Mobility

The metrics in this section focus on accessibility and transit service, providing insight into the robustness of the public transportation system, better connectivity, safe pedestrian movement, and reduced car dependency, which are essential components for successful TOD. To study these components, we examined a set of indicators such as travel time to the Central Business District (CBD), access to employment, last-mile connections, and transit frequency. Some of these metrics can change over time, with the quality of transit service subject to funding operations. Other metrics evaluated in this category included walking accessibility to rail stations, and vehicular miles traveled.

The region encompasses a vast area from the urban core to the exurban periphery, resulting in a wide range of travel times to the CBD, extending from a few minutes up to 2 hours and longer. Outside the five boroughs, the three subregions bordering New York City–Long Island, Lower Hudson Valley, and NJ Metro Core–have the largest share of stations with 30 to 60-minute commute times to the CBD, accounting for 51%, 69%, and 47% of the total stations in each subregion respectively. As we move farther from the urban core, most Mid Hudson Valley and NJ Metro Periphery stations have commute times exceeding 60 min to the CBD.

The analysis also factored in the average walking time to reach each station from anywhere within its half-mile radius area. Walk time largely depends on the grid network configuration and the size of neighborhood blocks surrounding each station. As a result, average walking times are shorter with more uniform grid patterns (more common in the urban core) and longer in places with suburban dead-end roads (also known as cul-de-sac streets). Not surprisingly, New York City stations are the most walkable, averaging 7 minutes, while the ones in Mid Hudson Valley and Long Island are the least walkable, with an average of 16 and 11 minutes, respectively.

Built Form

The intensity and composition of land use in a given area indicates the likely scale and programming of potential future development. Places with greater land use mix and moderate to high residential densities are generally better suited for near-term TOD opportunities. Other relevant physical characteristics shaping development include building types, lot cover, block size, street grid configuration, transit service, and urban infrastructure availability and quality.

Residential densities in the region vary greatly, ranging from one or two dwelling units per acre (du/ac) in the outskirts to hundreds of units per acre for some stations in the central business district (CBD) and urban core. The areas that have an average of 11 or more units per acre are considered to be high-density, and those between five and 11 units per acre or less than five are considered moderate and low densities, respectively.

New York City is an exception, with an average of 66 units per acre and 95% of its stations above 11 du/ac. The inner suburbs account for two-thirds of the high and moderate-density stations, with Lower Hudson Valley and NJ Metro Core leading with 38% and 31% high-density stations, respectively. In contrast, Long Island has only 12% high-density stations. In NJ Metro Periphery, 60% of the stations have high and moderate densities, while Mid Hudson Valley has only 17%.

The comparison between residential densities and travel time to the CBD reveals interesting insights. The data shows that the density rate quickly increases with shorter travel but levels out after one hour or more – similar to the correlation between jobs and CBD travel time noted above. Additionally, there is a moderate correlation between density and travel time in the inner suburbs, but the stations in NJ Metro Core show a six times stronger correlation when compared to those in Long Island. This means that residential densities in the inner suburbs of NJ Metro Core are more responsive to jobs and Manhattan access than those in Long Island, where densities remain relatively low regardless of their proximity to the CBD or the number of jobs accessible.

Residential dwelling units by housing type are categorized as single-family attached & detached, multifamily 2-4 units & 5 or more units; their distribution provides insights into the scale and built form of subregions. The Lower Hudson Valley region has the most even distribution of housing types; most units are in multifamily buildings (5 or more units), followed by single-family detached, single-family attached, and multifamily 2-4 units. On the other hand, New York City has the lowest share of single-family detached housing and dominates the share of units in large multifamily buildings. However, New York City lacks the ​‘Missing Middle’ housing type (moderately sized 2-4 unit buildings). Except for Lower Hudson Valley, all other subregions have the largest share of units in the form of single-family detached structures and the lowest share of missing middle structures.

The land use diversity indicator measures the mix of land uses in station areas and is expressed through the Shannon Index. New York City has the highest percentage of stations classified as high diversity of land use, with 50%, while the Mid-Hudson Valley has the lowest at only 11%. The Lower Hudson Valley and NJ Metro Core have 70% of their stations showing high and moderate land use diversity distributed equally, with the remaining 30% having low diversity. On the other hand, Long Island and NJ Metro Periphery have 25% of their stations classified as high diversity, with 34% and 44% having moderate and low diversity, respectively. These findings suggest the potential for a greater mix of land use in some station areas, particularly in the Mid Hudson Valley, Long Island, and NJ Metro Periphery.

RPA analysis in Policy Choices and Housing Permits in the Region further examines the disparity in residential building types within subregions. It shows that Long Island and Mid Hudson Valley have experienced a decline in the rate of housing permits due to zoning restrictions, while NJ Metro Core has been increasingly driving housing growth in the region due largely to pro-housing policies and programs.

Environment

The Environment category focuses on climate-related risks like flooding and the environmental impact of insufficient wastewater treatment capacity. Indicators such as access to sewer infrastructure and areas at risk in the FEMA 100-year floodplain are considered in the study to assess potential environmental impacts.

The analysis of sewer infrastructure provides valuable insights into the extent of households’ access to this critical resource, which, in most instances, is essential for both development and increased residential density. The data reveals a significant disparity in sewer access across different subregions and stations. While all stations in New York City have high access, Mid Hudson Valley has the fewest stations with high access. On the other hand, NJ Metro Periphery has most stations classified as high access, shortly followed by NJ Metro Core and Lower Hudson Valley. Long Island and Mid-Hudson Valley have the lowest shares, with only 55% and 28% of stations, respectively, having reported high sewer access.

It is worth noting that the FEMA 100-year floodplain comprises areas that are susceptible to both coastal and riverine flooding, with a 1% chance of flooding in any given year. As per the analysis, the Lower and Mid Hudson Valley areas account for a substantial share of stations with high and moderate acres of land within the floodplain, amounting to over three-quarters (84-94%) of the total stations. Likewise, the Metro Core in New Jersey has 25% of the total stations with high and moderate acres of land, whereas Metro Periphery has 28% and 44%, respectively. In addition, New York City and Long Island collectively have 34% and 24% of the overall stations with high and moderate acres of land within the floodplain, respectively.

Underutilized Land

Stations in New York and New Jersey are surrounded by approximately 74,000 acres of underutilized land, an area equivalent to the surface area of Manhattan and Brooklyn combined. Indicators such as unbuilt lot cover and vacant land were studied to identify underutilized land with high development potential. A screening process was conducted to eliminate natural areas, parkland, cemeteries, and non-buildable lots that are oddly shaped and small.

Unbuilt lot cover is the area of a parcel without any buildings or structures. This indicator helps identify a diverse range of infill developments within residential, commercial, civic institutions, and surface parking lots. Most of the unbuilt lot area is concentrated in stations located in Long Island and NJ Metro Core. Long Island holds the highest share of stations with high (45%) and moderate (44%) amounts of unbuilt lot cover. In New Jersey, Metro Core and Metro Periphery collectively have over two-thirds of stations with high and moderate amounts of unbuilt lot cover (72% and 80%, respectively).

Vacant land, described as undeveloped parcels with no use, was also considered to assess the development potential of station areas. With an average of 10 acres of vacant land per station, NJ Metro Periphery leads with the majority of its stations (52%) classified as having relatively high amounts of vacant land, while Mid Hudson Valley has the least (11%).

TOD Types

RPA developed a data-driven framework that classifies and visualizes the many aspects of land use and transportation interactions in the region’s rail station areas. After analyzing the existing conditions of commuter rail station areas, RPA selected the most relevant indicators in determining suitable conditions for TOD and created a scoring system to estimate opportunity levels by location.

RPA identified 96 locations where investments and new regulations could unlock TOD potential in the near term. Additional catalytic investments and regulatory changes could unlock potential for another 133 locations in the mid-term. The classification system is meant to inform and support TOD-related policy decisions in two ways:

• Investments: Inform the level of planning support and infrastructure funding needed to make each station area fully transit-oriented. Classifying stations can help prioritize where and when to make investments, determine the type of local and state grants that are most appropriate, and guide the timing and scale of those investments.

• Regulations: Identify places where more flexible land use regulations and/or streamlining procedures would enable more housing near transit. Many locations have appropriate physical and transportation-related characteristics to support TOD, but their potential is severely limited by restrictive regulations. This approach can help identify places where relief from environmental review and land use procedures, including zoning, could unlock development potential.

The goal of most TOD strategies and policies should be to prioritize the transformation of areas with programmatic investments and regulatory changes into thriving districts with improved travel behavior, community support, and physical transformation. To be truly effective, regulatory changes and investments should generally be targeted toward transit communities with some existing local strengths that can support TOD. Other areas that lack such strengths can still benefit from investments and long-term plans for TOD. However, in such cases, investments must be carefully targeted and monitored to ensure their full value is captured over time.

By evaluating the built form, mobility, infrastructure, and other characteristics of transit communities, we can identify where and what resources could be allocated and where there is a need to adopt regulatory reforms to achieve the most significant impact. Based on this, RPA defined TOD Types in categories that range from near to longer-term opportunities:

• Near-Term: These represent the most ​“TOD-ready” commuter station areas. Most of these stations are in urban neighborhoods or adjacent to existing compact suburban downtowns and village centers. These locations already have most of the physical and mobility attributes that influence ridership and successful TOD. At the same time, stations in this category tend to be surrounded by significant amounts of underutilized land, presenting infill opportunities. Some of these locations need regulatory relief to enable their full TOD potential. Others might be transforming more slowly and could benefit from proactive measures that can help prime development activity.

• Mid-Term: In most cases, particularly in the suburbs, these locations could be described as auto-oriented downtowns and village centers. Other locations in this category, typically neighborhoods in urban areas, might have the right physical attributes to support TOD but lack sufficient underutilized land with infill potential. These areas offer some foundation for supporting TOD but need more substantial public-sector help, such as targeted investments in infrastructure (i.e, sidewalks or last-mile transit connection), to fully catalyze private investments.

• Long-Term: Most stations in this category could be described as auto-oriented commercial and transportation nodes or park & ride stations. While these areas tend to have significant amounts of underutilized land, they lack other key physical and mobility features needed for successful TOD. Consequently, these should be the lowest priority areas for investments and regulatory changes. However, this does not mean that efforts should not be advanced; investments and long-term plans can be made, but they need to be carefully targeted and monitored to capture their full value.

The variables examined in this report can help identify areas most suited for catalytic changes through regulatory reforms and investments. By modeling urban form, mobility, environment, and underutilized land characteristics, the TOD Types capture growth potential and transit supportiveness. However, these types are only indicative of TOD potential based on physical, transportation, and potential development characteristics. Each station area is unique, and some may be more or less primed for TOD than the types suggest based on local factors such as previous or ongoing planning activity, strong developer interest, or community and political consensus.

The spatial distribution of TOD Types – based on proximity to Manhattan’s Central Business District – follows a concentric pattern. Near-term opportunity areas are largely concentrated in the urban core and inner suburbs. Stations in the urban core are overwhelmingly classified as having Near and Mid-Term opportunities, with very few ​“Long-term” stations. The inner suburbs account for the largest number of stations, with 203 in total, but also the greatest range of types, with an almost equal share of stations classified as having Near, Mid, and Long-term TOD opportunities. Finally, Long-term opportunities are more common in the outer suburbs and rural parts of the region.

A total of 96 stations in the region are classified as having ​“Near Term” TOD opportunities. With 71 located in the inner suburbs, ​“Near Term” opportunities are largely concentrated in the counties of Nassau and Westchester in New York and in Bergen, Essex, and Union counties in New Jersey. Three ​“Near Term” opportunity locations are located along the western boundary of Suffolk County. An additional 18 stations classified as ​“Near Term” opportunities are located within the urban core, including New York City’s outer boroughs, the city of Newark, and Bergen County in New Jersey. The remaining six ​“Near Term” opportunity stations are located in the outer rings of the region, including Poughkeepsie, Mount Kisko, Spring Valley, and Suffern in the Hudson Valley, and Mt. Arlington, Somerville, Princeton Jct, and Asbury Park in New Jersey.

There are a total of 133 stations classified as having ​“Mid Term” TOD opportunities. These stations are more evenly distributed throughout the region, with a significant presence in the urban core, inner suburbs, and outer rings. Suburbs in Long Island and northern New Jersey have the highest number of ​“Mid Term” stations. This concentration is followed by New York City and Lower Hudson Valley. There are another 130 stations classified as ​“Long Term” opportunities, most of which are located in the peripheral parts of the region.

Scoring System: Transit Orientation and Underutilized Land

The TOD Types classify transit communities based on two key variables: relative transit orientation and underutilized land. These variables were chosen to capture growth potential and transit supportiveness through modeling urban form, mobility, environment, and underutilized land characteristics.

The Transit Orientation Score indicates how supportive the surrounding physical environment is for transit-supportive uses, including density, mix of uses, mobility, and environmental characteristics. The transit orientation measure is a composite of the following elements describing a station’s TOD-supportive characteristics:

• Built Form: Includes residential density (number of dwelling units per acre on parcels currently used for residential purposes) and land use diversity (mix of uses based on the acreage of different use classifications).

• Mobility: Includes the number of jobs available within a 45-minute commute (using intermodal forms of transit) and walking time to the station (based on grid network configuration and size of neighborhood blocks)

• Environment: Factors the number of acres of land affected by the FEMA 100-year floodplain and the number of households with access to sewer infrastructure

The Transit Orientation Score ranges from low (transit adjacent, typically auto-oriented) to medium (transit related) to high (transit-oriented and walkable).

The Underutilized Land Score provides a measure of growth potential based on the amount of undeveloped land and growth projections. Area and dimensional lot characteristics largely define the future land use program of new development and what are considered to be achievable development types in terms of infill strategies and urban design features. This score also factors population and job projections through the year 2040 from RPA’s post-COVID scenarios, indicating potential market demand.

• Underutilized land: Includes acres of parcels classified as vacant land (according to property tax records) and acres of unbuilt lot area

• Growth Rates: Offers an indication of potential market demand based on population and job projections through the year 2040 from RPA’s post-COVID scenarios

The Underutilized Land Score ranges from low (mostly built out) to medium (moderate infill options) to high (vacant land and significant infill opportunities).

Merging the Two Scores

While some station areas have high development potential and high transit orientation scores, others may be strong on one measure but moderate or limited on the other. The performance of each transit community against these measures has important implications on the scope of investments and regulatory reforms intended to promote TOD.

To create the TOD Types, RPA overlaid the two scores in a matrix where the underutilized land score was placed along the horizontal axis and the transit orientation score on the vertical one. Characterization of transit orientation and development potential levels were then defined on three equal group intervals to denote high, moderate, or low scores (tertiles). Based on the scores and matrix configuration, individual stations were clustered into the near to longer-term opportunities described in the previous section.

Design Study 1: Near-Term

As described previously, station areas categorized as near-term have the most immediate potential for successful TOD due to their physical and mobility characteristics. With a transit orientation score of 6 out of 12 and an underutilized land score of 5 out of 6, this specific station is a strong prospect to become a transit-oriented location quickly. Although the transit orientation score is slightly above the regional average, it falls into the near-term opportunity category due to its much higher underutilized land score. The built form, transportation, and infrastructure characteristics are not optimal but sufficient to support TOD. What makes this station a clear near-term opportunity location is the significant amount of developable land available.

Scores of Design Study 1:

• Transit Orientation Score: 6 (out of 12 max)

• Underutilized Land Score: 5 (out of 6 max)

Planning Interventions:

Most stations in this category are in need of relatively minor enhancements. Increasing pedestrian and bike right-of-way has a profound impact on the feeling of safety and walkability within the community, thus leading to less car dependence and more social & physical connectivity. Clearer wayfinding is an important element of micro-mobility, and signage should be clearly marked. In addition to helping visitors, wayfinding can support placemaking and help establish town identity. Some of the physical interventions, like new plazas and pedestrian connections, will require mapping and zoning actions that enable and incentivize them.

While the development of mixed-use areas will create new gathering spaces, current community anchors can be enhanced through plazas and downtown revitalization. As these planning interventions are realized, infill development can take place simultaneously as long as underlying land use and zoning regulations allow for it. Forward-looking land use and zoning policies can shape more vibrant and inclusive TOD communities. To create them, land use and zoning policies need to be updated to provide more flexible dimensional criteria, higher densities, and reduced parking requirements. These new rules can be adopted in the form of a floating zone, overlay, or special district. In some cases, state legislation can also help streamline regulatory barriers. With these changes in place, a wide range of building types and configurations, including accessory dwellings, duplexes, and multifamily buildings, can be developed on vacant sites, brownfields, underutilized surface parking, or parcels with significant amounts of unbuilt lot cover.

Design Study 2: Mid-Term

Station areas categorized as mid-term will require more investments and regulatory changes in order to support successful TOD. This study focuses on a specific area with a transit orientation score of 6 out of 12 and a underutilized land score of 2 out of 6. It is categorized as mid-term for having a regional average transit orientation score and a slightly lower underutilized land score. The underutilized land score consists of a comparably high growth rate but a lower amount of developable land than the near-term station areas.

Scores of Design Study 2:

• Transit Orientation Score: 6 (out of 12 max)

• Underutilized Land Score: 2 (out of 6 max)

Planning Interventions:

In order to make the area ready to support TOD, mid-term stations generally need additional interventions than the elements mentioned for near-term stations. This includes more costly interversions such as mapping new streets to expand connectivity networks, adding pedestrian rail crossings, expanding utility infrastructure to undeveloped blocks, adaptive reuse of underperforming commercial buildings, and creating compact retail hubs. Mapping new streets and adding crossings creates a network of smaller blocks, which increases walkability and accessibility in relation to the station. In this design study, the undeveloped area, industrial zone, and excessive surface parking adjacent to the station are all in need of cross streets, which better connect the existing neighborhoods as well as create the underlying fabric for new developments on those plots of land. Smaller planning interventions, such as improving the station’s shelter and adding wayfinding, are also key to the success of TOD.

New development will rely on these improvements. Residential, mixed-use, and adaptive reuse types of buildings will activate the community. There should be a critical focus on providing public space and plazas, which enable physical activity, social connection, and can support local businesses. Larger developments should be focused near the rail line, smaller townhouses closer to the existing single-family neighborhoods, and congruous accessory dwelling units can be added to private yards. New regulations that facilitate development can be adopted through a new special district or master plan. Development can take place on existing parking lots, industrial sites, and undeveloped land.

Design Study 3: Long-Term

Station areas categorized as long-term are not immediately conducive for TOD and may have a lower potential for development. In most cases, these can be considered ​“transit-adjacent”. These locations have existing conditions in need of the largest scope of interventions before they can support transit-oriented development. Investments and long-term plans can be made, but they need to be carefully targeted and monitored.

This specific study area received a low transit orientation score of 3 out of 12 and a low underutilized land score of 2 out of 6. The area consists primarily of single-family housing with one main street separated from the station. Station areas in this category may have some developable land and fair public transportation, but as in this case, they tend to lack sufficient wastewater infrastructure, walkability, and a well-connected street network. This station area is also susceptible to coastal and riverine flooding.

Scores of Design Study 3:

• Transit Orientation Score: 3 (out of 12 max)

• Underutilized Land Score: 2 (out of 6 max)

Planning Interventions:

These areas should be improved by the same means as short-term and mid-term, but first need large-scale infrastructural investments to support growth. This includes coastal and riparian flood management, increasing sewer connections and capacity, and improving connections within the irregular street network. Flood infrastructure can improve waterfront recreational usage and enhance placemaking. New plazas are proposed as anchor points for the route between the station and the compact main street. While not shown in this example, other long-term stations could require structured parking facilities, which can be challenging to finance and design.

These improvements ensure that the station area can support TOD with utilities and ensure safety during extreme weather events and a changing climate over the long haul. Once sewered and planned, development can begin on empty lots through adaptive reuse, or after the demolition of underutilized/dilapidated buildings. Development should be sited away from flood-prone areas. For long-term station areas, master planning is an important step forward in creating a transit-oriented community.

Sociodemographic Conditions

To understand how TOD opportunity aligns with the racial and income composition of neighborhoods adjacent to stations and with the ETOD practices that can best advance more equitable access to affordable housing, jobs, and amenities, RPA examined the station areas based on their sociodemographic and zoning conditions. We classified stations based on two groups representing diverging characteristics, each with different policy implications.

Restrictive, segregated, and affluent neighborhoods that meet all three of the following criteria:

• Restrictive: Regulated by zoning that severely limits or does not allow multifamily buildings around station areas

• Segregated: The population living around the area is majority white (50% or more)

• Relatively Affluent: The median income of the neighborhoods surrounding the station is higher than the metropolitan area’s average

Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAP). Which meet the following criteria:

• Racial Concentration: Have a non-white population of 50 percent or more

• Poverty: Poverty rate is three or more times than the average poverty rate for the metropolitan area (38.4% or more)

Over 39% of all stations (139 out of 355) are classified as restrictive, segregated, and affluent neighborhoods. A much lower number of stations, approximately 3.6% (13 out of 355), fall in the category of racially concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAP). A majority of station areas do not meet the criteria for either group and are labeled as ​“other” (198 out of 355 stations). Some stations classified as ​“other” might meet one of the conditions above, but not all; neighborhoods could be relatively affluent but not restrictive in their zoning, or show a high percentage of non-white population but a relatively low poverty rate.

Station areas classified as restrictive, segregated, and affluent neighborhoods are most common in the inner suburbs (81 out of 203 stations in the suburban ring). More than half (51%) of the stations in Long Island fall in this category (50 out of 98 stations). Similarly, in Lower Hudson Valley and NJ Metro Core, 50% and 37% of stations fall into this group, respectively. Most stations that meet the definition of racially concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAP) are found in New York City (8 stations or 19%). The remaining five stations in this category are located in Mid-Hudson Valley and New Jersey.

TOD Types and Zoning

The following charts examine how zoning regulations and the two sociodemographic groups relate to the TOD Types described in the previous sections of this report.

Restrictive zoning is predominant in both states; only 39% of all stations have zoning that is generally friendly towards multifamily development. The remaining 61% has zoning that severely limits or does not allow multifamily buildings around station areas. We also compared zoning restrictiveness against the TOD Types developed for this report. This shows that 67 stations have appropriate physical and mobility attributes and significant underutilized land for successful TOD but are regulated by restrictive zoning that limits or fully prohibits multifamily buildings. These patterns are very similar across both states. However, in New Jersey, stations in the Mid-term category tend to be more evenly distributed across levels of zoning restriction.

Near and Mid-Term stations classified as restrictive in zoning, segregated, and affluent are largely concentrated in the inner suburbs (54%, or 44 out of 81 stations). In Long Island and NJ Metro Core, the majority of stations in this sociodemographic group are considered Near and Mid-Term locations (58% and 50%, respectively). On the contrary, Long-term stations classified as restrictive, segregated, and affluent are most common in Mid-Hudson Valley and NJ Metro Periphery (100% and 50%, respectively).

The thirteen stations in neighborhoods that meet the definition of racially concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAP) are all Near or Mid-Term TOD types. Half of such stations in New York City are Near-Term and the other half are Mid-Term. The two other Near-Term stations in this sociodemographic group are found in the NJ Metro Core and the Mid-Hudson Valley.

Policy Implications for ETOD

Housing and ETOD policy implications are different for each of the two sociodemographics groups described above. Zoning and land use reforms are particularly needed in locations that are considered restrictive, segregated, and affluent. On their own, programmatic incentives, coming in the form of state or federal grants, will be ineffective in changing restrictive zoning practices. Instead, targeted intervention from the state government that establishes minimum zoning requirements and streamlines procedures to facilitate new development is needed and appropriate. On the other hand, efforts that bring TOD in places that are considered racially concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAP) might benefit most from investment and physical improvements. However, prioritizing subsidies to develop deep levels of affordable housing and adopting tenant protection measures in such locations is key to ensuring existing residents can enjoy the benefits of TOD in the future.