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 20
Table 17-7 Office and Residential Site Mode Shares in the Vicinity of Washington
Metrorail Stations by Concentric Area Type
Mode Share (Percent)
Survey Metropolitan Bus and Walk and
Coverage Area Location Metrorail CRR Auto Other
Commute trips Washington CBD 63% 12% 21% 5%
to selected
Inside the Beltway 21 9 66 6
office workplace
sites Outside the Beltway 8 3 89 0
All trips by resi- Washington CBD 50% 6% 18% 26%
dents of
Inside the Beltway 43 6 39 14
selected
residential sites Outside the Beltway 31 1 62 6
Source: WMATA (2006a).
Demographic differences among the three concentric Washington region area types were not
examined, but trip origins and destinations were. The sharp drop-off in commute trip transit
shares at offices from 75 percent at the CBD sites to 11 percent outside the Beltway is ascribed in
part to increasing dispersion of commute trips with added distance from the center of the region,
resulting in fewer trips aligned with Metrorail or other high quality transit services, and in
part to other factors such as lower parking costs--if any--in the suburbs and especially outer
suburbs. The lesser drop-off in transit shares for all trips by residents of residential sites from
56 percent in the CBD to 32 percent outside the Beltway is attributed in large measure to the drop-
off with increasing distance from the center in travel to the CBD with its intensive transit service
and high parking costs (WMATA, 2006a). In considering Washington-area results presented here
and elsewhere, it is well to remember that the Nation's Capital has a unique advantage in
attracting commuters to transit because of the huge federal employment base in the region's
central core.
Response to TOD by Land Use Mix
The term "transit oriented development" is generally reserved for projects with a mix of land uses.
Of the 117 TODs identified by stakeholders surveyed as part of TCRP Project H-27, approximately
85 percent were described as being some form of mixed use (Cervero et al., 2004). Projects may be
vertically mixed, horizontally mixed, or both. In other words, different floors may have
different uses, or different uses may be housed in separate buildings, or both. Mixed-use projects
may have residential, office, retail, entertainment, hotel, or other components.
Mixed Use Overall
Table 17-8 offers perspectives on TOD as differentiated by degree of land use mix. Traveler
response to TOD is influenced by the type and quantity of uses present, a relationship examined
further within this chapter's "Underlying Traveler Response Factors" section under "Land Use and
Site Design."
17-20
OCR for page 21
Table 17-8 Perspectives on TOD as Differentiated by Degree of Land Use Mix
Less-Diverse TOD Project More-Diverse TOD Project
Transit Unless the TOD is a shopping Peak-period travel is likely to be oriented
Markets complex, it is likely that peak- around commuter trips, but possibly more
period (commuter) transit travel, balanced by direction, and some land uses,
mainly in one direction, will such as shopping and entertainment, may
predominate. generate off-peak transit trips.
Travel Tenants are more likely to require Tenants are more likely to find at least some
Needs vehicle travel to satisfy daily needs. of their needs can be met without requiring
out-of-project travel. Substitution of walk
trips is thus facilitated.
Parking Proximity to transit may lead to Possibility for higher project transit mode
Requirements higher project transit mode shares shares and walk mode of access to transit
than for non-TOD development shares, coupled with potential for shared
and correspondingly lower parking among uses, may lead to lower
development parking requirements. overall parking requirements than for less-
diverse TOD or non-TOD centers.
Auto Need/desire to own and use a car Walking is a likely mode for the short
Ownership may be higher in a less diverse distance travel allowed by a more diverse
context than in a more diverse context. This may lead to a reduced
context. requirement for automobile ownership.
Most available literature on travel behavior impacts of land use mix has not focused specifically
on TODs, but instead on suburban mixed-use centers and traditional neighborhood development
(TND). Chapter 15, "Land Use and Site Design," provides comprehensive coverage of the subject
of traveler response to land use mix in these more general contexts. In Chapter 15 see "Diversity
(Land Use Mix)" within the "Response by Type of Strategy" section.
It is probably reasonable to infer that just as suburban mixed-use centers have greater internal
trip capture than traditional suburban office or residential developments, a diverse, mixed-use
TOD would have greater internal trip capture than a less diverse TOD. In turn, it follows that
TOD that enables its occupants to address daily needs within the project would likely result in
fewer automobile trips per person and lower automobile ownership rates than a less-diverse
TOD.
Evaluation by WMATA of their "2005 Development-Related Ridership Survey" covering
individual developments near Washington Metrorail stations led to the following qualitative
conclusion: "At the overall site level, survey results showed that high-density, mixed-use
environments with good transit access generated higher shares of transit and walk trips--
especially midday trips from and visitor trips to office sites, than those areas dominated by a single
use" (WMATA, 2006a). Four of five studies examined in Chapter 15 found some degree,
generally quite modest, of positive quantitative relationship between land use mix and
transit mode share. One study found no definitive association. See "Land Use Mix and
17-21
OCR for page 22
Transit Use"--"Mix and Mode Choice" within the "Diversity (Land Use Mix)" subsection, includ-
ing Table 15-22 and Figure 15-5.
Chapter 15 explicitly addresses effects of land use mix on the propensity to choose walking for
mode of access to nearby transit stations. As discussed there, a mode of access modeling effort
focused on BART HRT stations in the San Francisco Bay Area (Parsons Brinckerhoff et al., 1996b)
indicated a strong positive relationship between rail station walk access choice and existence of
mixed land use. A similarly strong relationship was identified, this a negative one, between auto
access choice and greater mix. See "Land Use Mix and Transit Use"--"Mix and Means of Transit
Access" under "Diversity (Land Use Mix)" in Chapter 15.
Table 17-9 presents characteristics and traveler responses for selected examples of mixed-use TOD
projects. The available travel demand data for these projects is of the "snapshot" variety, leaving
extrapolation from findings provided or referenced in Chapter 15 as the better source of quantita-
tive assessments useful for projecting mixed-use impacts relative to impacts of undiversified land
use.
Most TOD and station-area development studies to date have looked at travel characteristics asso-
ciated with specific land use types. Accordingly, the following subsections highlight traveler
response to residential, office, retail, and hotel uses, in turn.
Residential
Developments adjacent to transit stations that are focused on residential use offer enhanced oppor-
tunity for residents to accomplish peak-period commuter trips using transit, if the workplace is
transit accessible, and also to conduct off-peak activities using transit. Off-peak and other non-
work activities in particular may also be met by walking, especially if convenience retail is located
nearby.
The University of California at Berkeley "Ridership Impacts of Transit-Focused Development in
California" study collected surveys for nearly 900 California households from 27 apartment and
condominium projects, each 75 units or more, located within 1/2 mile of a rail transit station. (This
study will hereinafter be referred to as the "1992 California transit-focused development study"
recognizing that while publication occurred in 1993, the data were mostly obtained in 1992.) While
this study looked at projects near rail transit stations, it did not examine TOD specifically. Across
all projects, the study found average commute mode shares as follows: 73.0 percent drive a car,
5.0 percent ride in a car, 15.0 percent use rail transit, 2.2 percent use bus transit, 2.7 percent walk,
and 2.0 percent use another mode. Note that this particular study sometimes reports on all transit
use (rail and bus in the example above) and sometimes, mostly in location-specific analyses,
reports only on use of a selected rail transit mode or modes.
17-22
OCR for page 23
Table 17-9 Examples of Mixed-Use TOD Projects
Location a Development Mix Situation Travel Impact
Ballston Station Area 5,914 residential units The Ballston area has The walk mode share of
Arlington, VA Office: 5,721,000 sf transformed from an access/egress for the
1960-2002 Retail: 840,000 sf automobile-oriented close- station in 2002 was 67%
Hotel: 430 rooms in suburb into a full- of about 22,000 average
fledged TOD since the HRT daily entries plus exits
Metrorail station opened in (Cervero et al., 2004;
1979, supported by strong Harrington, 2006).
planning. Retail activity in Case study, "Arlington
Ballston is bolstered by an County, Virginia, Transit
enclosed destination Oriented Development
shopping mall located Densities," provides
within walking distance. additional findings.
Village Green 250 condominiums The Village Green project is Of all downtown
Arlington Heights, IL Office: 17,000 sf located in downtown residents (inclusive of
2001 Retail: 53,000 sf Arlington Heights, near the Village Green project),
commuter railroad station. 17% report Metra as
A big grocery store is also their primary commute
within walking distance. mode, versus 7% for all
One of several downtown of Arlington Heights
redevelopment projects. (Cervero et al., 2004).
Mockingbird Station 211 apartments This $105 million project is Parking requirement
Dallas, TX Office: 140,000 sf located on a 10-acre site 4 reduction of 27% was
2000 Retail: 180,000 sf b miles from the CBD via allowed for shared use
LRT, adjacent to SMU and parking. About 10% of
the North Central patrons are reported to
Expressway. A full service arrive by transit (Boroski
grocery store is within 5 et al., 2002; Ohland,
minutes on foot. 2004).
Hazard Center 120 condominiums Constructed on formerly No quantitative travel
San Diego, CA Office: 300,000 sf industrial land, this data given. The
1997 Retail: 136,000 sf development on the supermarket has been
Hotel: 300 rooms Mission Valley LRT line has observed to serve
gradually grown into a customers from other
horizontally-mixed, mixed- rail stations (Cervero et
use center. Pedestrian- al., 2004).
friendly design encourages
living, working, and
shopping within the self-
contained community.
Notes: a Date(s) indicate time of implementation for the development mix indicated.
b Figure includes retail, restaurants, and entertainment uses.
sf = square feet.
Sources: As indicated in the "Travel Impact" column.
17-23
OCR for page 24
Two findings were highlighted by the researchers. First, the automobile remains a dominant com-
muter mode among station-area residents. Second, transit mode shares are higher for station-area
commuters than the overall 1990 Census data averages that were used for comparison. Table 17-10
shows some of the comparisons made between survey results for station area residents and the
combined weighted average of 1990 Census data for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose
Combined Statistical Area (CSA), Sacramento Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), and San Diego
MSA. By way of background, it should be noted that station area residents reported smaller house-
holds than the broader-area Census (1.89 versus 2.71 people per household) along with fewer
vehicles (1.53 versus per household) (Cervero, 1993).
Table 17-10 Surveyed Station Area Transit Commute Mode Share Versus 1990 Census
Project Location Station Broader Area 1990 Census Data Comparison
Area Survey Comparative Comparison Area Mode(s)
System Mode Mode Share Mode Share Used Included
BART HRT 32.1% 5.0% BART Service Area a Urban rail
Caltrain CRR 36.6% 1.7% San Mateo County Commuter rail
Sacramento LRT 18.2% 2.4% Sacramento MSA All transit
San Diego LRT 14.2% 3.3% San Diego MSA All transit
SCCTA LRT 7.0% 3.0% Santa Clara County All transit b
Notes: a Average over Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco Counties
b SCCTA survey mode share is for LRT, but all transit modes are used for Census
comparison because LRT began operating in 1991, after the 1990 Census.
Source: Cervero (1993).
A binomial-logit rail transit choice model was estimated using the survey data for station area
residents. The model gives the probability that a station-area resident would choose transit for a
commute trip given the values of the included attributes. It does not speak to the question of why
station-area residents make different use of transit than non-station-area residents. Although
specific to the San Francisco Bay Area, the results have general interest. The model indicates that,
given residence location within 1/2 mile of a station, workplace parking policy and workplace
location are then the top two predictors of mode choice. Other important factors are the number
of vehicles available for use by household members, employer provision of transit subsidies, and
availability of a company car at the worksite (Cervero, 1993). Figure 17-1 illustrates rail transit
choice probabilities obtained using a selection of sample attribute values.
The 1992 California transit-focused development study also compared the station-area work-trip
rail transit mode share obtained from a household survey conducted by the metropolitan planning
organization (MPO) to the rail transit mode share reported in the 1990 Census for broader areas.
The focus on rail transit use, to the exclusion of bus transit use, may overemphasize the difference
in overall transit use for some locations. Table 17-11 highlights the degree to which station-area
residents reported use of rail transit in higher proportions than citywide residents (Cervero, 1993).
17-24
OCR for page 25
Figure 17-1 Sensitivity to parking, destination, and vehicles available of commute trip rail mode
choice by San Francisco Bay Area station-area residents
Note: Reflects the setting of all other predictor values to zero, i.e., employer provides no transit expense
assistance, employer provides no company car.
Residence location within 1/2 mile of a rail station is a given.
Source: Based on Handbook author calculations using model as specified by Cervero (1993).
The 2003 California TOD travel characteristics study obtained survey responses from 624
households in 26 station-area residential projects (representing a 13 percent response rate) and
compared the results to data from the 2000 Census, selected to represent areas beyond walking
distance of the station. The chosen projects were all "intentionally developed as TODs" and
located within 1/2 mile (deemed to represent walking distance) of a non-CBD transit station with
a rail service headway of 15 minutes or less (Lund, Cervero, and Willson, 2004a).5 This method of
selection does not address the degree or nature of land use mix in the station area overall. It only
means that the selected "projects" (apartments or other housing) were residential, similar in this
respect to the 1992 California study, and were presumably planned with some version of TOD
objectives in mind.
5 Service frequency is the number of buses or trains per hour or day, while the headway is the time interval
between buses or trains. Passengers arriving randomly will, if the transit service is reliable, have a waiting
time which averages one-half the headway.
17-25
OCR for page 26
Table 17-11 San Francisco Bay Area Comparisons of Station-Area and Citywide Work-Trip
Rail Transit Shares
Work-Trip Rail Transit Mode Share
System (Mode)
and Location Station-Area Residents a Citywide b
BART (HRT)
Pleasant Hill 46.7% 16.0%
Fremont 12.9% 2.7%
Union City 27.5% 3.8%
Hayward 25.7% 4.4%
San Leandro 27.7% 6.1%
Oakland 10.0% 6.1%
Caltrain (CRR)
San Mateo 26.2% 2.8%
SCCTA (LRT) c
San Jose 7.0% 3.6%
Notes: a Based on 1993 Metropolitan Transportation Commission survey results from 1992-93
allocated according to city jurisdiction.
b 1990 journey-to-work Census statistics. These data have not been adjusted to account for
any housing-type or demographic differences between station areas and non-station areas,
and exclude workers who work at home.
c San Jose statistics in each column are presented for rail and bus transit modes combined.
(All modes are used because LRT service began in 1991, after the 1990 Census.)
Source: Cervero (1993).
A geographic information system (GIS) was then used by the 2003 study to identify and extract the
Census data for a "donut" around each station representing the area between 0.5 and 3.0 miles of
the surveyed project's rail station. Table 17-12 displays the composite findings. Overall, the
reported residential project work-trip transit mode share averaged 27 percent versus 7 percent for
residents within the respective "donut" areas. Looked at another way, public transit use for the
commute trip for TOD project residents--expressed as mode shares--averaged four times the tran-
sit share in surrounding areas beyond easy walking distance. The study also compared against
commute mode shares in the surrounding city, finding surveyed project resident transit shares to
be five times those for the city as a whole (Lund, Cervero, and Willson, 2004a).
17-26
OCR for page 27
Table 17-12 Residential Project Versus Surrounding Area Transit Commute Mode Shares
Project 1/2 to 3 Mile Percentage
Buildings Sample Mode "Donuts" around Point
Project Setting Surveyed Mode Region Size Share Rail Station a Difference
Pleasant Hill 4 HRT S.F. b 176 45% 13% +32%
S. Alameda County 4 HRT S.F. 177 38% 2% +36%
Long Beach 2 LRT L.A. 60 3% 11% -8%
Mission Valley 2 LRT S.D. 185 13% 6% +7%
Caltrain Commuter Rail 3 CRR S.F. 121 17% 5% +12%
Total, with Weighted Average Percentages: c 719 27% 7% +20% d
Notes: a Mode share for dwelling units within donut of rail stations from 2000 Census.
b Region Key: S.F.--San Francisco, L.A.--Los Angeles, S.D.--San Diego.
c Weighted average is based on project size; the weighting is applied to both project shares
and shares for dwelling units within the station donuts.
d Recomputed by Handbook authors.
Sources: Lund, Cervero, and Willson (2004a).
The 2003 California TOD travel characteristics study also determined project mode of access
shares. Over 90 percent of the station area residents surveyed reached their neighborhood rail sta-
tion by walking (Lund, Cervero, and Willson, 2004a). Although this particular study did not sur-
vey mode of access shares from outside of the TOD projects for comparison, it is known from other
surveys that walk access shares decrease markedly and motorized travel access shares increase
steadily with distance of a residence from its station. For Chicago CRR examples see Tables 17-26
and 17-27 within the "Underlying Traveler Response Factors"--"Land Use and Site Design"--
"TOD-Supportive Design"--"Walking Distance and Transit Access/Egress Modes" subsection.
For HRT see Figure 3-3, "Mode of access for commute trips from home to all BART stations," found
in Chapter 3, "Park-and-Ride/Pool," under "Related Information and Impacts"--"Usage
Characteristics of Park-and-Ride/Pool Facilities"--"Mode of Access"--"Bay Area Rapid Transit
(BART)." Additional mode of access details from the 2003 California TOD travel characteristics
study are presented in the upcoming "Response to TOD by Primary Transit Mode" subsection.
Mention should be made, in connection with heavily residential TOD examples, of developments
built as TODs that may meet their non-transit development objectives well but have not produced
substantial transit ridership. The apartments in Long Beach, California, that are included in Table
17-12, are an example. None of the commute trips reported by 60 survey respondents used the LRT
line on which the apartments were situated and the overall public transit mode share, at 3 percent,
was barely over a quarter that of the surrounding area. The low transit share was made up for in
travel demand management terms, however, by high rates of walking. The transit share explana-
tion may likely be found in the reasons given by residents for why they chose the location. Their
primary selection criteria, in this somewhat economically depressed area, were housing afford-
ability and quality rather than location near transit (Lund, Cervero, and Willson, 2004a).
17-27
OCR for page 28
Early and less complete evidence suggests another example might be the Whisman Station TOD
in Mountain View, California, located within the high-cost-housing market of Silicon Valley.
Average station-area income was almost $112,000 in 2000. With the TOD core one-half to
two-thirds developed, and excellent pedestrian connectivity within 1/4 mile of the station, daily
LRT boardings at Whisman were only 90 in 2000 and 94 in 2002. The 2000 U.S. Census turned up
no commute trip transit use (Schlossberg et al., 2004). The 500-unit residential community is one
of four TODs in Mountain View created with the dual objectives of creating densities supportive
of enhanced transit service utilization and easing the city's imbalance of more jobs than housing.
The small-lot and row houses sold quickly (Thompson, 2002). Whisman Station lies within walk-
ing distance or a short drive of the high-tech Mountain View Triangle employment area. It appears
the residential TOD may have met a local non-transit-oriented housing need that was stronger than
the demand for homes well positioned for transit use.
The two examples provided above appear to be extreme cases, but the 2003 California TOD travel
characteristics study does offer this general conclusion: "In most cases, [the surveyed California]
households are moving to the TODs for the housing stock rather than the transit access; the
exception to this is the BART [HRT] system, where residents are most likely to report `access to
transit' as their primary reason for moving. These priorities are also reflected in residents' reported
travel patterns: transit use is much higher among residents living near BART stations" (Lund,
Cervero, and Willson, 2004a).
Some TOD residential developments, most notably examples focused on households for whom
auto ownership may be difficult, have tipped the balance toward transit users by building
provision of free transit passes for residents into the financial structure. See, for example, the
Seattle area TODs described below under "Response to TOD by Primary Transit Mode"--
"Traditional Bus"--"King County, Washington." Provision of free transit for TOD residents is also
further discussed under "Parking Pricing and Transit Support" within the "Related Information
and Impacts" section.
Office
Office development has strong peak-period travel demand as workers arrive and depart the
facilities at similar times. It also generates midday travel demand as workers run errands, attend
meetings, serve customers, and get lunch. Transit-oriented office centers enable building-to-building
travel by walking, and easy connections to other activity centers via transit, offering the potential
to capture a portion of trips that would otherwise be made by automobile.
The 1992 California transit-focused development study surveyed more than 1,400 employees
at 18 worksites within about 1/2 mile of rail transit and found that on average workers near
rail stations were 2.7 times more likely to commute by rail than the average worker in the
cities studied. The surveyed worksites were located in the San Francisco Bay Area (HRT and
CRR), Santa Clara County (LRT), Sacramento (LRT), and San Diego (LRT). As with the
transit-focused housing portion of the study, a binomial-logit model of modest predictive
abilities was estimated to provide additional insight into the factors influencing rail transit
choice by workers employed near rail stations. Fewer vehicles available at home, residence
location in a BART-served city, workplace parking availability constraints, and pricing of
parking appeared to be the most powerful positive influences on rail transit choice for this
17-28
OCR for page 29
population of workers. Having a workplace within 500 feet of a rail station, as compared to 500
to 3,410 feet from a station, was also a boost. (Surveyed worksites ranged from 50 to 3,410 feet
from a rail station.) Other helpful factors included the availability of an employer transit subsidy,
a longer commute distance, and few midday trips needed. Figure 17-2 illustrates the rail transit
choice probabilities that are obtained with the model by using a selection of sample attribute
values (Cervero, 1993).
Figure 17-2 Sensitivity to parking, origin, and vehicles available of commute trip rail mode choice by
San Francisco Bay Area station-area workers
Note : Non-named predictor variable values are held constant across scenarios (no employer transit
allowance, commute distance is 14.7 miles, 0.9 parking spaces per employee, one midday trip for
every two workers, workplace is less than 500 feet from rail station).
Source: Based on handbook author calculations using model as specified by Cervero (1993).
The 2003 California TOD travel characteristics study found higher total transit commute shares
among station-area office workers (18.8 percent) as compared with the surrounding Census MSA
workers (5.1 percent). This study received completed surveys from 877 workers at a total of ten
worksites (see Tables 17-19, 17-20, and 17-21 for survey locations). Surveyed workers indicated an
average door-to-door commute time of 69 minutes. This was longer than the average commute
length reported in surveys of station-area residents (55 minutes), suggesting that station-area
offices draw from a large commuter shed (Lund, Cervero, and Willson, 2004a).
17-29
OCR for page 30
WMATA's "2005 Development-Related Ridership Survey," in addition to obtaining worker com-
mute information at 17 sites, also obtained midday trip information. Interviews of visitors were
allowed at 13 of the sites. Site locations relative to HRT service ranged from directly at a
Washington Metrorail station exit to 3,000 feet away, just over 1/2 mile. Both TODs and conven-
tional development were included. Regional location ranged from the Washington CBD to outside
the Capital Beltway. Table 17-13 displays the mode choice results.
Table 17-13 Office Site Mode Shares in the Vicinity of Washington Metrorail Stations for
Various Trip Categories
Mode Share (Percent)
Survey Trip Category Bus and Walk and
Population or Purpose Metrorail CRR Auto Other
Workers Commute trip 25% 9% 62% 6%
Workers Midday trips 25 3 43 28
Visitors All office visits 16 7 [sic] 60 22
Midday trips Work related 33% 3% 55% 9%
by workers Personal business 20 3 49 28
Meal or snacks 16 3 29 53
Shopping 21 5 54 20
Education 36 9 52 3
Recreation 26 0 44 30
Other 21 2 63 15
Source: WMATA (2006a).
The 34 percent overall site average transit mode share for worker commute trips surveyed in 2005
was nearly double the transit share obtained in comparable 1989 office surveys.6 In contrast, the
overall 2005 site average of 45 percent transit for all trips by residents at residential sites was little
changed from 1989 (WMATA, 2006a).
Retail
Table 17-14 lists travel mode shares based on intercept surveys of patrons at five retail centers
in Northern and Southern California. The 1992 California transit-focused development study
looked at three large San Francisco Bay Area shopping centers sited within 0.25 miles of a
BART Station: San Francisco Shopping Centre (SFCentre) in the city of San Francisco, El
Cerrito Plaza in El Cerrito, and Bayfair Mall in Oakland. While SFCentre is located in the
6 While there are factors that make an increase in station area office worker transit shares logical, such as the
preponderance of residential-oriented rather than office-oriented station areas among new stations added,
the observation that shares doubled over time should be interpreted cautiously. As previously noted, the
shares obtained are averages of surveyed sites, not area averages. Differences in which sites were surveyed
between 1987 and 2005 may contribute significantly to the change in average office worker mode share noted.
17-30
OCR for page 31
heart of the downtown retail district, where parking is expensive, El Cerrito and Bayfair are more
traditional enclosed shopping malls surrounded by free parking. SFCentre has a direct portal con-
nection to BART.
Table 17-14 Mode Shares for Traveling to Station-Area Retail Centers
Percent of El Cerrito El Cerrito Hollywood Fashion
Trip by: SFCentre Bayfair (1992) (2004) Highland Valley
Drive Car 17.5% 56.9% 64.0% 49.3% 50.9% 65.2%
Ride Car 6.9 15.1 10.7 19.7 6.7 20.0
Rail Transit 20.8 18.8 6.6 11.7 16.6 7.2
Bus 13.0 4.4 4.0 2.2 15.4 5.6
Walk 31.8 3.5 12.2 14.8 10.3 1.6
Other 10.0 1.3 2.5 2.2 0.2 0.3
Sources: Cervero (1993) and Lund, Cervero, and Willson (2004a).
Only 47 percent of SFCentre patrons arriving by BART had a vehicle available that they could
have used for the trip, compared to more than 75 percent at the other two centers. The study did
not report vehicle availability for bus transit riders. The proportion of patrons choosing rail tran-
sit to access the station-area shopping centers increased with the length of the trip. For very short
trips, less than 1 mile, walking was the predominant travel mode (Cervero, 1993; Cervero et al.,
2004).
The 2003 California TOD travel characteristics study looked at three shopping centers near rail
transit stations in three cities: the Bay Area's El Cerrito Plaza (also surveyed in the earlier study),
the Hollywood/Highland Complex in Los Angeles, and San Diego's Fashion Valley Complex.
A total of 1,237 patrons were surveyed. Vehicle availability was again a factor in the use of rail
transit to access retail: only 39 percent of respondents arriving by rail indicated that they had a
vehicle available for the trip. This study, like the earlier one, did not report vehicle availability
for bus transit users (Lund, Cervero, and Willson, 2004a).
Across both California studies, the highest retail center transit shares were those for the centers in
downtown San Francisco and downtown Hollywood: 34 percent (and 32 percent walk) for
SFCentre and 32 percent (with 10 percent walk) for Hollywood & Highland. Both centers are
served by direct connections to HRT plus intensive conventional bus service. The suburban retail
center transit shares, excluding the older El Cerrito survey, range from 23 percent at BART
HRT-served Bayfair to 13 percent at LRT-served Fashion Valley, averaging 17 percent (Cervero,
1993; Lund, Cervero, and Willson, 2004a).
A 1986 survey in Ottawa, Canada, found a 61 percent transit share at the Rideau Centre in the
Ottawa core. The Rideau Centre location is served by all Ottawa Transitway BRT routes.
Other Ottawa area shopping centers, not on the busway in 1986, had transit shares of 9 to 22 per-
cent. In the 1990s, with all these centers either on the Transitway system or served by
Transitway routes, transit mode shares are reported to have reached at least 25 to 30 percent.
Of particular interest is the suburban St. Laurent shopping center, located roughly two-thirds
of the way out the East Transitway. The shopping mall is layered in between the busway
station (below) and its feeder and connecting bus station (above) and in addition is connected
17-31
OCR for page 32
with other land uses. In 1986, before opening of the transitway, the transit mode share was
16 percent. With BRT in operation, the transit share has been reported as 32 percent (Parsons
Brinckerhoff, 1996a) and "30 percent... for shoppers" (Rathwell and Schijns, 2002).7
WMATA's "2005 Development-Related Ridership Survey" conducted interviews at 5 retail,
5 hotel, and 4 entertainment sites at various distances up to or slightly over 1/2 mile from
Washington Metrorail HRT stations. These sites are located both in TODs and in conventional
development. All are outside the Washington CBD but inside the Capital Beltway. Table 17-15
displays the mode choice results. Overall average transit mode shares for the interviewed
populations at these three uses were found to be fairly closely grouped at 37 percent (rail and bus)
for retail, 32 percent for entertainment (movie theaters), and 31 percent for hotel (WMATA, 2006a).
The average retail site transit share may be elevated relative to the entertainment and hotel sites
because of including retail employees but is definitely boosted by personal business purpose trips.
Retail site transit shares for individual trip purposes are provided in the lower half of Table 17-15.
Table 17-15 Retail, Hotel, and Entertainment Site Mode Shares in the Vicinity of
Washington Metrorail Stations
Mode Share (Percent)
Survey Population Bus and Walk and
Site Land Use or Trip Purpose Metrorail CRR Auto Other
Retail Patrons and employees 29% 8% 36% 27%
Entertainment Moviegoers 26 6 57 11
Hotel Guests and visitors 27 4 38 31
Retail Shopping trips 17% 8% 38% 37%
Retail Dining trips 13 3 44 40
Retail Personal business trips 43 9 38 10
Retail Work and other trips 34 6 25 35
Source: WMATA (2006a).
Hotels
About 12 percent of the TODs identified in TCRP Project H-27 included a hotel component
(Cervero et al., 2004). Depending on the context, many hotel guests may not have use of a
personal automobile during their stay. This potentially increases the pool of customers for
7
Some caution should be exercised in use of these Ottawa statistics, as the "after" transit mode shares are from
different original sources and likely differing survey methodologies compared to the "before" shares. Note
that the 1986 transit shares are almost certainly computed as a percentage of motorized trips, excluding non-
motorized travel (walking, etc.) from the denominator, which "inflates" the transit shares relative to the
California and WMATA share computations made on the basis of all trips (motorized and non-motorized).
The "after" Ottawa shares are likely also computed using motorized travel only. The 1986 data apparently
encompass all purposes of travel to the retail areas, not just shopping trips, while purposes covered by the
"after" observations are mostly unspecified.
17-32
