Corridor planning is in vogue. It's a scale that resonates because of its function in the transit planning process, it's more manageable than regional interjurisdictional land use planning processes, and it fits well with local land use regulations and overlays. But we are still coming to grips with what it means.
Dena identified corridor types from a transit and TOD perspective, thinking about regional connectivity and its impact on the development market. Jeff presented an initial look at what the impact of different transit modes on property values might be, and Bruce talked about what it takes to revitalize strip development.
The common theme that ran through all three presentations was that the answer is still not quite within our grasp. We can't quite isolate the real estate impact, perhaps in part because those decisions are made in response to so many other inputs beyond solely transit. We don't have a silver bullet for revitalizing the strip. It's a combination of design, density, diversity, distance, demographics, and perhaps even (d)history--sorry, couldn't turn that one into a 'd'.
So where are we? The corridor remains a very fruitful scale for long-range planning decision-making and policy-making. Getting things right takes a lot of effort, since solutions need to be tailored to local contexts, but, in the end, this is the scale of transportation and land use coordination where we need to get things right so that we don't waste all of our energy in hand-wringing over every individual site. What I'm not sure about is how the feedback loop works in linking the corridors back up to the region.