Click for next page ( 111


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 110
Travel Findings for Individual Portland, Oregon, Area TODs Situation. Portland, Oregon, both the city and the metropolitan area, provide a uniquely supportive policy environment for TOD and other transit adjacent development. In central Portland, the downtown plan adopted in 1972 in concert with the circulation and parking policy of 1975 imposed limits on provision of central business district (CBD) parking and delineated transit improvements including Portland's 1978 bus mall through the heart of downtown. (More details on downtown policy implementation are provided in the "CBD Parking Supply Management in Portland, Oregon" case study of Chapter 18, "Parking Management and Supply.") At the state level, Oregon's growth management law of 1973 called for local governments to do their planning in conformance with state objectives. An improved means for accomplishing coor- dinated transportation system and regional development planning was afforded by creation in 1978 of Metro, the regional MPO. Adoption of a "Transportation Planning Rule" in 1991 aided implementation of and refined state objectives, calling for per-capita car travel reductions and more emphasis on transit and non-motorized travel. Regionally, Metro's Region 2040 plan of 1995 supports concentration of two-thirds of new employment and one-third of residential develop- ment in transit station areas and corridors. In the words of TCRP Synthesis 20, published in 1997, "Portland appears to have replaced Toronto, Canada, as a regional model for transit-focused development." Portland's initial LRT line opened midway in the development of this institution framework, while its westward extension, newer lines, and the downtown Portland streetcar, were inaugurated as the more recent institutional building blocks were placed and policy matured. Action. In 1986, the 15-mile Eastside LRT line opened between suburban Gresham and downtown Portland. During LRT design, the transit agency, Tri-Met, fostered a cooperative venture of itself, Metro, and the three involved local jurisdictions to assess station access needs, develop station- area plans, and change zoning ordinances in support. Station locations were refined and park-and- ride lot spaces were scaled back to 1,917 total. Of the 30 stations, 12 are in suburban and outer Portland areas (Gresham and Burnside), 3 are closer in along I-84, 4 are in the Lloyd District's east- ward expansion of downtown Portland, and 11 (functionally 8, due to twins occasioned by one- way street operation) are in the traditional downtown. The value of new development adjacent to the line was tallied at the 1996 10th anniversary of LRT service as $78 and $68 million in Gresham and Burnside, respectively, $1 million along I-84, $767 million in the Lloyd District, and $396 mil- lion in downtown. Development along the Eastside LRT has been primarily infill. The 18-mile Westside LRT, in con- trast, was built out into greenfields in the hope and expectation that major development would fol- low. Opened in 1998 with 20 new stations, the Westside LRT is operated together with the Eastside LRT as Tri-Met's "Blue Line." The outer Hillsboro segment, given the extraordinary venture into matching land use policy with transportation investment, received federal funding only with the pre-condition that Metro's Region 2040 plan be adopted and supported by local entities. Analysis. Several TODs along the Blue Line have had their associated travel studied. The other Portland LRT lines and downtown streetcar are too recent for much empirical evaluation. Studies from which TOD-specific findings were drawn for this case study are 17-110

OCR for page 110
highlighted in Table 17-48 with identification of the individual TODs, transit-adjacent develop- ments, and/or TOD station areas examined. In addition to the TOD-specific studies, both the inter- play of LRT and growth management in Portland and development along the Eastside LRT overall have been examined by various authors. Full study identification is provided under "Sources" at the end of the case study. Study-specific analysis methodologies are identified below in connec- tion with the relevant findings. Table 17-48 Site-Specific Portland Area TOD Travel Analyses Schloss- Charles TOD Mode berg et al. Lapham Switzer Podob- and Barton Dill (PSU/ (Specific Dwellings a) (Segment) (MTI) (PSU) (PSU) nik (CPI) TransNow) Gresham Central Town LRT (E) Center (G. C. Apts.) Russellville Commons LRT (E) Center Commons LRT (E) Lloyd Center LRT (E) The Merrick Apts. LRT (E) Stadium Apartments LRT (W) Beaverton Central LRT (W) Beaverton Creek LRT (W) (LaSalle Apts.) Elmonica LRT (W) Quatama Village Apts. LRT (W) Orenco (Club 1201) LRT (W) Belmont Dairy Apts. Bus Belmont Dairy Bus Townhomes Notes: LRT sites, all on Tri-Met's "Blue Line," are listed in geographic order, east to west. Segment code "E" designates Eastside and "W" designates Westside. a The "Specific Dwellings" in parentheses refer to survey sites in the Lapham research. Individual developments surveyed in the Dill research are identified in Table 17-53. Results. A Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) study examined development within 1/4 and 1/2 mile of stations serving the Gresham Central, Lloyd Center, Beaverton Central, and Orenco Station TODs. Included in all calculations were not only the TOD development, but also all other development, new and pre-existing, within the specified radius. A pedestrian catchment area analysis was conducted assuming the sidewalk and walkway system to be adequately represented computationally by the year 2000 street network. On this basis it was estimated that only 21 to 57 percent of the area within a 1/4 mile radius around the four stations could actually be reached within a 1/4 mile walk. Worst by this walkability measure was the Beaverton Central area, characterized by suburban infill development and a very limited street network at the station itself. Best was Gresham Central Town Center and vicinity, a pre-existing traditional neighborhood development site. 17-111

OCR for page 110
The walkability analysis was repeated excluding pedestrian-hostile street types from the network. With this refinement it was estimated that 0 to 54 percent of the area within a 1/4-mile radius could be reached within a 1/4-mile walk along pedestrian-friendly streets. Again, lowest ranked was Beaverton Central, where walking anywhere from the station requires passing alongside major roads. Gresham Central and vicinity likewise proved best for pedestrian-friendly station access. Not much better than Beaverton Central was Orenco Station and vicinity, a partially built-out greenfield development site, at 26 percent including all streets and 16 percent excluding major roads from the calculation. The Lloyd District, a primarily office/commercial area located like Gresham on a traditional grid, was next best to Gresham at 47 percent including all streets and 30 percent excluding major roads. Results calculated at 1/2 mile were roughly comparable. MTI compared commute mode shares between 1990 and 2000 on the basis of Census data cover- ing households within 1/2 mile of each station. Table 17-49 presents the results. For Gresham Central and Lloyd Center, 1990 falls four years after opening of LRT service, and shifts in mode shares between 1990 and 2000 were modest on the whole. Of some note is the 23 percent increase in non-motorized mode share for Lloyd Center residents, which may be attributable to further evo- lution of the primarily office and commercial Lloyd District TOD. For Beaverton Central and Orenco, 1990 represents the "before LRT" condition. Interestingly, bus as well as LRT shares increased at both stations between 1990 and 2000, presumably reflecting enhanced bus service con- nectivity that came with LRT and TOD development. Table 17-49 Commute Mode Changes in Four Station Areas Now Encompassing TODs TOD Area Station Car Bus Train Bike or (Time to CBD) Year Share Share Share Walk Other Gresham Central 1990 83.8% 1.9% 2.1% 6.6% 5.6% (46 minutes) 2000 85.1% 3.1% 3.2% 6.5% 2.1% Lloyd Center 1990 51.0% 25.5% 2.6% 17.4% 3.5% (16 minutes) 2000 50.5% 20.8% 3.1% 21.4% 4.2% Beaverton Central 1990 81.2% 7.5% 0.0% 6.5% 4.8% (21 minutes) 2000 72.8% 12.1% 5.1% 5.9% 4.2% Orenco 1990 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% (37 minutes) 2000 86.5% 2.5% 4.9% 2.4% 3.7% Notes: "Time to CBD" is the LRT running time to Pioneer Square (not including walk or wait time), derived from http://www.trimet.org/schedule/ (Webpages accessed June 29, 2005). Pioneer Square is central to the traditional CBD whereas Lloyd Center is the easternmost (outermost) station in the "new downtown" Lloyd District. The MTI study also compared 1990 and 2000 socio-demographic characteristics within 1/2 mile of each TOD-serving station analyzed. Selected findings are presented in Table 17-50, along with equivalent data for the Portland Tri-County Region overall. Racial and ethnic diversity increases in the areas now encompassing TODs have either paralleled or exceeded regional diversity increases. Age distribution changes differ from regional changes to the extent that regional decreases in the 18-44 age group were countered with increases in 17-112

OCR for page 110
three out of four TOD areas, while changes in TOD area age 45-64 percentages were mixed rela- tive to the region, and retirement-age populations dropped faster than regionally in the Eastside TOD areas. Household size changes were small and mixed, while average household incomes rose somewhat less in the TOD areas than in the region, except for a sharper income increase around Lloyd Center. The one shift found universally in all four areas now featuring TODs was a drop in average age, ranging from 1.4 to 7.1 years and averaging 3.4 years, at a time when the regional average age increased by 4.6 years. Especially given that TOD populations were diluted by other transit adjacent populations in this analysis, the findings suggest that a relatively younger clientele is attracted to Portland's TOD housing. Table 17-50 Socio-Demographic Changes in Four Station Areas Now Encompassing TODs TOD Pop. Non- His- Ages Ages Ages Ages HH HH Station Year Density White panic 0-17 18-44 45-64 65+ Size Income Gresham 1990 2,496 6% 7% 26% 42% 15% 17% 2.4 $25,426 Central 2000 3,338 22% 21% 25% 46% 17% 12% 2.5 $32,357 Lloyd 1990 2,045 15% 1% 5% 43% 7% 45% 1.4 $21,700 Center 2000 3,784 21% 5% 7% 56% 18% 19% 1.7 $32,303 Beaverton 1990 3,284 14% 4% 19% 53% 14% 14% 2.1 $28,768 Central 2000 4,065 28% 22% 21% 51% 16% 12% 2.3 $36,728 Orenco 1990 477 3% 2% 28% 44% 23% 5% 2.8 $44,912 2000 1,747 20% 7% 27% 53% 17% 3% 2.6 $61,777 Tri-County 1990 382 9% 3% 25% 45% 18% 12% 2.5 $37,604 Region 2000 470 17% 8% 25% 42% 23% 10% 2.5 $49,676 Notes: Population density is persons/sq. mile. Household (HH) size and annual household income are averages. Lloyd Center is predominantly office and commercial. A Portland State University (PSU) student research project examined TODs from a different per- spective, looking at 8 individual apartment and townhome complexes within TODs and smaller transit adjacent developments to determine their trip generation relative to the norm. Although some approximations had to be made in the taking of these counts, it would appear that the observed vehicle trip rates were mostly below--in some cases very substantially below--the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates for the applicable land use types. Gresham Central Apartments in the PM peak period were a notable exception, with somewhat more vehicle trips than the ITE rates. If the 1-hour rates from the observations as reported are increased by 5 to 10 percent to reflect peaking within the peak period, then 3 more of the 16 cases fall very close to the ITE rates. These are Club 1201Orenco in the PM, and Belmont Dairy Apartments in both AM and PM periods. The comparisons without such adjustment are provided in the final two columns of Table 17-51. Person trip rates were surveyed for transit users and for persons who appeared to be walking or biking to their ultimate destinations. These are also shown in Table 17-51. While the vehicle and walk/bike trip rates varied substantially among developments, the four-hour AM plus PM transit trip generation generally fell within the narrow range of 0.22 to 0.28 transit 17-113

OCR for page 110
trips per dwelling unit. The two TOD components served by bus rather than LRT were within this same range. Outliers were Russellville Commons on the Eastside LRT, where the 1/4- to 1/2-mile distance from the station of the occupied units may have contributed to the lower 0.17 per unit four-hour rate (although the walk distance was not unique), and Gresham Central Apartments, where especially heavy PM peak period LRT and bus transit usage pushed the rate up. Walk trip rates were somewhat but not entirely related to presence of attractions in the immediate vicinity. At the time of the investigations, just three of the residential complexes had onsite commercial use (Stadium, LaSalle, and Belmont Dairy Apartments). Not noted in the project analysis was the circumstance that the four developments with non-motorized trip rates exceeding 0.20 four-hour AM plus PM walk/bike trips per dwelling unit are the only four with the broader accessibility afforded by siting on pre-existing traditional urban street grids. Table 17-51 Observed TOD and Transit Adjacent Housing Trip Rates per Occupied Unit Apartment Complex Peak Vehicle Transit Walk/Bike Total Vehicle ITE Rate (Transit, Parking Ratio) Period (2 hour) (2 hour) (2 hour) (2 hour) Trips/Hr. Veh./Hr. Gresham Central Apts. AM 0.39 0.08 0.09 0.55 0.20 0.30 (Eastside LRT, 1.5) PM 0.87 0.25 0.12 1.24 0.44 0.39 Russellville Commons AM 0.60 0.11 0.04 0.74 0.30 0.51 (Eastside LRT, 0.95) PM 0.89 0.06 0.10 1.06 0.45 0.62 Stadium Apartments AM 0.12 0.11 0.17 0.40 0.06 0.30 (Westside LRT, 0.6) PM 0.23 0.17 0.23 0.61 0.12 0.39 LaSalle Apartments AM 0.67 0.15 0.02 a 0.84 0.34 0.51 (Westside LRT, 1.8) PM 0.86 0.08 0.03 a 0.97 0.43 0.62 Quatama Village Apts. AM 0.52 0.11 0.00 0.63 0.26 0.51 (Westside LRT, 1.8) PM 0.97 0.13 0.00 1.10 0.49 0.62 Club 1201, Orenco AM 0.71 0.10 0.06 0.87 0.36 0.44 (Westside LRT, 1.8) PM 1.00 0.15 0.10 1.25 0.50 0.54 Belmont Dairy Apts. AM 0.56 0.14 0.22 0.93 0.28 0.30 (Bus, 1.5) PM 0.69 0.11 0.26 1.06 0.35 0.39 Belmont Dairy Town- AM 0.67 0.08 0.19 0.94 0.34 0.44 Homes (Bus, 1.0 b) PM 0.92 0.14 0.28 1.33 0.46 0.54 Notes: Parking ratios are expressed in spaces per dwelling unit. Observed vehicle trip rates are expressed in vehicles per dwelling unit, whereas observed transit and walk/bike trip rates are expressed in person trips per unit. The two-hour totals are a mix. The computed one-hour vehicle trip rate is a peak-period average rather than actual peak hour. ITE rates are for the actual peak hour. a Thought to have been undercounted because of difficulties in observing internal activity. b With an option to pay for additional parking spaces. More . . . Three studies addressed the vital question of whether and in what way TOD residents had changed their modes of travel as a result of relocating to the TOD environment. The two earlier studies, one of Center Commons and one of Orenco Station, involved TODs that happen to be less than optimally located with respect to their LRT stations. Center 17-114

OCR for page 110
Commons is a 1/4-mile walk from the NE 60th Avenue station, which is below street grade along the far side of the I-84 freeway. It is, however, more directly served by frequent bus service. The developed and occupied portion of Orenco Station, when surveyed in 2001, was separated from its LRT station by undeveloped greenfields traversed by a single boulevard with pedestrian amenities. A 10- to 15-minute walk was required for station access. The surveyed Center Commons apartment units are mostly below-market-rate subsidized hous- ing, with a majority of units specifically for seniors, whereas the surveyed Orenco Station homes were "pricey" individual dwellings. A 16-question survey mailed to individual Center Village apartment units at Center Commons elicited a 39 percent response rate, providing a sample of 96 respondents. The complex then being barely two years old, only 4 percent of respondents had been living there over two years, and 24 percent had been there less than six months. A fraction over 75 percent of respondents reported their current annual income as being below $25,000 per annum. The income ranges inquired about did not lend themselves to computation of an average, and none was reported, but it would appear to lie in the lower end of the $2,000 to $2,500 per month range. Never leaving home for work was reported by 49 percent of Center Commons residents, consis- tent with the large number self-identified as retired. Some retirements apparently coincided with moving in, as only 37 percent reported never leaving home for work at their prior residence. Mode shares reported for both work and non-work purpose trips, before and after moving to Center Commons, are shown in Table 17-52. The very high transit mode shares are obviously reflective of the lower income status of Center Commons residents, but irrespective of that, TOD residency appears to have either directly facilitated higher transit use or made possible lifestyle changes which led to higher transit use. Choice of the transit mode increased by 48 to 60 percent, depending on trip purpose, while driving alone dropped by 21 to 24 percent. Both work and non-work trips from home tended to be shorter overall at the Center Commons location, although the proportion of work trips under 5 miles in length declined, probably the reason for reduced incidence of walking to work. Frequency of travel for all purposes declined somewhat. A reduction in number of autos owned was reported by 69 percent, versus only 2 percent increas- ing their auto ownership. In the "after" condition of living at Center Commons, zero-car own- ership stood at 38 percent, a 42 percent increase. The top four reasons reported for moving into Center Commons were, in descending order of frequency: newness/design, close to transit, affordability, and location. Table 17-52 Travel Mode Shares Before and After Moving to Center Commons Carpool or Trip Category Drive Alone Other LRT or Bus Bike or Walk Work Trips, Prior Residence 56% 4% 31% 9% Work Trips, TOD Residence 44% 7% 46% 3% Non-Work Trips, Prior Residence 59% 16% 20% 5% Non-Work Trips, TOD Residence 45% 16% 32% 6% Orenco Station residents were surveyed in 2001 by means of in-person interviews. The weekend door-knocking survey approach resulted in a survey completion success rate of 17-115

OCR for page 110
44 percent of all contacts attempted. Comparable surveys were completed in 2000 and 2002, respec- tively, in Northeast and Southwest Portland neighborhoods. The Southwest neighborhood provides the better basis of comparison for travel demand evaluation purposes, as the Northeast neighborhood is both within the downtown area and one of the poorest neighborhoods in Portland. Median household monthly incomes were found to lie in the range of $5,000 to 5,500 within Center Commons, $3,500 to $4,000 in the Southwest neighborhood, and $2,000 to $2,500 in the Northeast neighborhood. Six percent of Orenco Station households reported less transit use (bus and rail) than in their pre- vious neighborhood, 25 percent reported no change, and 69 percent reported more transit use. In the more typical Southwest Portland suburban-style neighborhood, corresponding findings were 26 percent less transit use, 55 percent no change, and 18 percent more. Northeast Portland results were in between. Comparing the neighborhoods in terms of current commute mode, however, it was clear that Orenco Station residents 18 years of age and older relied heavily on single-occupant vehicle commuting. The survey identified Orenco Station commute modes as 75 percent single- occupant vehicle (always) and 18 percent transit (always), with the remainder carpooling, bicycling, walking, using different modes from day to day, or other. Residents in the Southwest Portland neighborhood reported 71 percent single-occupant motor vehicle and 18 percent transit, while residents in the closer-in and substantially lower income Northeast neighborhood reported 66 percent single-occupant motor vehicle and 20 percent transit. The Southwest neighborhood's lower single-occupant percentage relative to Orenco Station appears to be balanced out by a five- percentage-points higher carpool, bike, and walk commute share (11 percent total), which one might guess is more related to higher use of motor vehicles for carpooling than any propensity to walk more in that conventional suburban neighborhood. Indeed, the Orenco Station analysis suggests substantial success in fostering pedestrian-based consumption of goods and services with the impressive network of sidewalks and pathways within the TOD. Orenco Station survey interpreter Dr. Podobnik of Lewis and Clark College notes, "The fact that most of the Orenco Station residents who were surveyed report using mass transit two or less times per week should not detract from the fact that this is an incremental improvement over what they are likely to have been doing in another suburban neighborhood." A different perspective is taken by the Cascade Policy Institute evaluators of Orenco Station, who decry various aspects of the development including its placement at a distance from the LRT station, and take the statistics reported by others to conclude that LRT is not shown to be an essential feature of the TOD. They conclude, "Few local residents use light rail, and those who do arrive at the station primarily by driving the short distance from their homes." Orenco Station 2005 transit usage data is provided below in discussion and in Tables 17-53 and 17-54. The Orenco Station 2001 survey also examined outcomes relative to the Northeast and Southwest neighborhoods on non-transportation dimensions. The research indicates "an unusually high level of social cohesion within the community" and "extremely high satisfaction ratings given [in response to the] community's physical design . . ." To some extent final judgment on these aspects probably should be reserved pending comparable analysis of the broader Orenco development and its ultimately more diverse array of housing types. Meanwhile, it is of interest to note that for Orenco's initial residents, "pedestrian friendly" and "close to transit" were the seventh and eighth most frequently listed reasons for liking Orenco Station out of over 20 reasons given. The first through sixth reasons all related to 17-116

OCR for page 110
various community layout and design aspects, including "town center," while the least frequently listed reasons were a broad mix. The third and more recent Portland area study that includes examination of resident travel mode changes associated with moving into a TOD-like environment is the research conducted for the TransNow Center. It employed a variety of survey questions contained within self-administered questionnaires distributed at 8 separate developments located at 4 LRT stations. The 8-page survey, with the aid of incentives, achieved a 43 percent response rate at the Merrick Apartments surveyed in March 2005 on the Eastside LRT Blue Line and 24 to 33 percent response rates at the 7 Westside Blue Line developments surveyed in October 2005. By way of introduction, Table 17-53 lists the sites studied and presents selected basic demographic and transportation survey question results. The 8 residential developments cover the span from apartments (The Merrick) built with TOD program funding in Portland's Lloyd District extension of downtown, to the original award-winning Orenco Station suburban TOD complex, to a typical suburban tract development with sidewalks that now benefits from a transit-and-commercial-adjacent location. In some cases certain features generally regarded as important for TOD were very limited or incomplete, for example, on-site or adjacent pedestrian-friendly retail stores and--in one instance--sidewalk to the LRT station. 17-117

OCR for page 110
Table 17-53 Demographic and Travel Characteristic Averages and Shares Self-Reported for Eight Residential TOD and Transit-Adjacent Developments Persons Median Vehicles Walk Primary LRT LRT Type of per HHold per Time Commute Commuters Station/ Development House- Income Age 16+ to LRT Mode is Walking Complex Complex hold Category Person (min.) Transit a to Station b Convention Center Station The Central area 1.3 $35,000- 0.9 n/a c 28% 100% Merrick apartments 49,999 Beaverton Central Station Beaverton Apartments 1.6 $75,000- 1.1 1.7 33% 100% Round and offices 99,999 Elmonica/SW 170th Ave Station Arbor Attached and 2.1 $50,000- 0.9 Station townhomes 74,999 4.4 30% 76% Elmonica Condomini- 2.0 $35,000- 1.0 Station ums 49,999 Orenco/NW 231st Ave Station Arbor Detached and 2.4 $75,000- 0.9 5.5 25% 90% Homes townhomes 99,999 Orenco Various single 2.0 $75,000- 0.9 Station family, retail 99,999 10.3 (same) Condomini- 1.7 $75,000- 1.0 23% 69% ums, retail 99,999 Club Condomini- 1.5 $35,000- 0.9 6.7 1201 ums 49,999 Sunset Conventional 2.6 $50,000- 1.0 12.0 23% (insufficient Downs single family 74,999 data) Notes: a Primary mode share. b Mode of Access Share c Question not asked. Distance approximately 600 ft. with one main street to cross (roughly 2 to 3 minutes with crossing delay and walking at 3 to 4 miles per hour). Overall demographic and travel findings covering the 8 TOD and transit-adjacent residential developments include the following: Households in the surveyed TODs tended to be smaller than the average (see Table 17-53, third column, and compare with 2.3 for Portland overall and the west suburbs averages of 2.4 for Beaverton and 2.8 for Hillsboro), with few or no children. Certain TODs have attracted older adults. 17-118

OCR for page 110
Survey respondents represent a population that is basically not transit-dependent (see Table 17-53, fifth column). Transit commuting from the 8 TOD and transit-adjacent residential developments is roughly double to triple sub-regional averages (see Table 17-53, seventh column, and compare with 15 percent for Portland overall, 8 percent for Beaverton, and 7 percent for Hillsboro). Roughly 5 to 15 percent of individual TOD area survey respondents use transit at least once a week for travel to non-work destinations, with TOD features apparently affecting the non-work travel mode choice. Transit primary mode share was found to be apparently unaffected by either residential devel- opment physical features or variations in average walk access time to transit within the 1- to 12-minute range, but walk times do affect the access mode used to get to the station (see Table 17-53, sixth, seventh, and eighth columns). Even for TOD resident commuters, parking pricing at their workplace or school--probably in combination with employment area physical features typical of destinations with priced parking--strongly increases their propensity to commute via transit. A majority of survey respondents claim more use of transit and walking and less driving in their TOD or transit-adjacent neighborhood than at their prior residence (see discussion below and Table 17-54). A vehicle was disposed of "because of the characteristics of the neighborhood" by 13 percent of respondents, while 2 percent claimed to have added a vehicle because of neighborhood characteristics. "Good public transit service" was ranked 8th overall out of 34 reasons for selecting housing in the developments studied. Higher-ranking reasons had to do with housing and neighborhood quality, appearance, cost, and safety. The Portland study for TransNow included an analysis of the usual commute mode at the prior residence in comparison with the usual commute mode at the current, station-area residence, both reported in the 2005 surveys. Summary results for all modes are presented in Table 17-54. The researchers note that there could possibly be a survey response bias whereby transit users were more likely to respond than others. 17-119

OCR for page 110
Table 17-54 Primary Commute Modes, Before and After TOD and Transit-Adjacent Residency, for Eight Residential Developments on Portland's Blue Line LRT Primary Commute Old Commuting Mode Current Commuting Mode Mode Category Number Share Number Share Drove alone or carpool 153 71.8% 123 57.7% Rail transit 11 5.2% 44 20.7% Bus transit 6 2.8% 4 1.9% Multiple transit modes 4 1.9% 6 2.8% Walk 10 4.7% 15 7.0% Bike 3 1.4% 3 1.4% Multiple modes 26 12.2% 18 8.5% Total 213 100.0% 213 100.0% Note: Unexpanded combined survey results are given in the "Number" columns. The detailed modal breakouts and walk/bike data are drawn from unpublished information. Statistical significance has been reported only for the overall transit versus auto mode shifts. The use of all forms of public transit for commuting increased from a 9.9 percent transit share to a 25.4 percent share, a 156 percent increase. Likewise the use of walking and bicycling for commuting increased from 6.1 percent to 8.4 percent, a 38 percent increase. In the case of transit commuting, the gain was achieved through a shift from non-transit to transit of roughly five commuters for every one who shifted from transit to non-transit, with 2 out of 3 prior rail and bus transit users continuing to use a transit mode, mostly the MAX LRT in the "after" condition. Correspondingly, use of an auto for commuting--counting in "multiple mode" responses-- decreased from 84.0 percent to 66.2 percent after the move into a surveyed TOD or other transit- adjacent development, a 21 percent decrease. Sources: Porter, D., "Transit-Focused Development." TCRP Synthesis 20 (1997). Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., "Transit and Urban Form." Vol. 2, Part IV, TCRP Report 16. Washington, DC (1996b). Arrington, G. B., Beyond the Field of Dreams: Light Rail and Growth Management in Portland. Tri-Met, Portland, OR (September, 1996). Schlossberg, M., Brown, N., Bossard, E., and Roemer, D., Using Spatial Indicators for Pre- and Post- Development Analysis of TOD Areas: A Case Study of Portland and the Silicon Valley. MTI Report 03-03, Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose, CA (2004). Lapham, M., Transit Oriented Development--Trip Generation & Mode Split in the Portland Metropolitan Region. Portland State University, Portland, OR (March, 2001). Switzer, C. R., The Center Commons Transit Oriented Development: A Case Study, Master of Urban and Regional Planning field area paper, Portland State University, Portland, OR (Fall, 2002). Podobnik, B., The Social and Environmental Achievements of New Urbanism: Evidence from Orenco Station. Department of Sociology, Lewis and Clark College, Portland, OR (November 2, 2002). Charles, J. A., and Barton, M., The Mythical World of Transit Oriented Development--Light Rail and the Orenco Neighborhood, Hillsboro, Oregon. Cascade Policy Institute, Portland, OR (April, 2003). Dill, J., Portland State University. Email to the Handbook authors and attachment "Old Primary Commute Mode [vs.] Current Primary Commute Mode Crosstabulation." Portland, OR (October 4 and 6, 2006a). Dill, J., Travel and Transit Use at Portland Area Transit-Oriented 17-120