Click for next page ( 34


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 33
on-site retail and services as well as for transit services to other activity centers. Results of WMATA's survey of Washington region station-area hotel patron transit shares are presented immediately above, in conjunction with Table 17-15. In addition, the 2003 California TOD travel characteristics study included a small-sample survey of hotel patrons and employees at two station-area hotels: the Embassy Suites at BART's Pleasant Hill Station and the Doubletree Hotel at the San Diego Trolley's Hazard Center Station. Data on 111 commute trips made by hotel workers were collected. At Pleasant Hill, 25 percent of the 84 hotel worker commute trips reported were by BART HRT. At the Hazard Center hotel, 25 of the 27 commute trips reported were accomplished using LRT. Overall, about 47 percent of total hotel worker commute trips reported used transit service (41 percent rail, 6 percent bus). The rest drove (51 percent), carpooled (1 percent), or walked (1 percent). The hotel patron survey was collected from 44 guests. Of the guests who responded, 14 percent arrived without a car--on the hotel shuttle, in a taxi, or by bus. No respondents using rail were captured, but the survey was taken before the BART extension to the San Francisco airport was open. Of the 24 percent of respondents who were arriving from the nearest airport, 70 percent came with a rental car. Over half of the surveyed guests (53 percent) reported using rail transit at some point during their stay and 30 percent reported rail transit as their "usual" mode of travel. For business, 39 percent of guests used rail transit; for shopping/errands, 26 percent used it; and for entertainment, 30 percent used it. Of the 47 percent of respondents who reported no rail transit use, only 10 percent said that they were unaware of the service. The other 90 percent stated that they had no interest in using rail transit (45 percent), the service was inconvenient (30 percent), or they did not know enough about the service to use it (15 percent) (Lund, Cervero, and Willson, 2004a). Response to TOD by Primary Transit Mode This subsection explores the traveler response to TOD as differentiated by type of primary transit mode serving the project. Table 17-16 highlights the defining characteristics of each of the five major modes covered--heavy rail (rail rapid) transit (HRT/Metro), light rail transit (LRT), commuter railroad (CRR), bus rapid transit (BRT), and traditional bus. The table also presents some perspectives on each major mode with respect to TOD. Most of what is considered TOD in the United States has been constructed at rail transit stations. The stakeholder survey conducted as part of TCRP Project H-27 identified 117 TODs. Of that total, 37 percent were located at HRT stations, 31 percent at LRT stations, and 22 percent at CRR stations, for a total of 90 percent at rail stations. Only 8 percent of total responses were for TODs located near bus facilities only. Just under 2 percent were at ferry terminal transportation centers offering over-water commuter connections to Seattle's downtown (Cervero et al., 2004). Heavy Rail Transit Heavy Rail Transit (HRT/Metro) serves dense travel markets oriented primarily toward major city CBDs. Some of the largest TOD projects in the United States are associated with HRT stations. HRT typically operates all day at relatively high frequencies. Suburban HRT stations tend to have significant park-and-ride demand, creating a challenge in balancing the desire to develop station-area property and the desire to serve drive-access transit riders. 17-33

OCR for page 33
Selected examples are examined below and other examples appear in other parts of this "Response by TOD Dimension and Strategy" section. Table 17-16 Perspectives on TOD as Differentiated by Primary Transit Mode Mode Typical Attributes Considerations Examples Heavy Rail Motorized cars draw power Large investment in HRT leads Atlanta, GA Transit from a third rail and operate to very extensive station-area Chicago, IL (HRT) on exclusive right-of-way with planning. High service levels San Francisco, CA no at-grade crossings. Off- and traffic-free operation attract Washington, DC board fare payment at or substantial proportions of verified by fare gates. transit-using TOD residents. Special challenge with HRT suburban stations is finding balance with vast numbers of park-and-ride spaces. Light Rail Motorized cars draw power LRT stations tend to be smaller Dallas, TX Transit from overhead wires and scale and more closely spaced Denver, CO (LRT) operate on some or all non- than HRT. Park-and-ride use Portland, OR exclusive right-of-way with at- can be a challenge. Substantial San Diego, CA grade crossings. Off-board investment is required to build fare payment verified by LRT, sparking similar levels of random ticket inspection. planning attention as HRT. Commuter Railroad cars motorized or Not all systems offer off-peak San Francisco, CA Railroad pushed/pulled by a service or weekend service. Chicago, IL (CRR) locomotive. Often share tracks Notable TOD projects are most New York - New or corridor with freight trains. associated with seven-day Jersey Ticket purchase verified by service and peak period on-board conductor. headways of 20 minutes or so. Park-and-ride is an important CRR rider market. Bus Rapid Premium bus service BRT systems involving special Boston, MA Transit including: special vehicles, vehicles, dedicated lanes, and Pittsburgh, PA (BRT) exclusive right-of-way frequent seven-day service can Ottawa, Canada segments, signal priority, logically have the same TOD upgraded waiting areas. possibilities as LRT. Park-and- Various fare payment methods ride can be a significant land employed including off-board. use near berthing areas. Traditional Scheduled, fixed-route local High-frequency traditional bus Boulder, CO Bus and express bus services. services (at least four vehicles Renton, WA Predominantly on-street per hour) can offer the potential running; may operate on to support TOD. Also, bus lines special facilities. On-board play a supportive role at most fare payment. rail TODs. 17-34

OCR for page 33
Arlington, Virginia. Arlington, Virginia, has two Metrorail HRT corridors, one extending to the west of Washington, DC, and the other to the south. The case study, "Arlington County, Virginia, Transit Oriented Development Densities," looks further at the western corridor. TCRP Project H-27 assembled and analyzed a time series database of development and ridership for the period from 1985 through 2002 for seven of the Arlington stations, Rosslyn through Ballston along the western corridor and the Pentagon City and Crystal City Stations of the south corridor. None of these inner-suburban stations has park-and-ride parking. As development increased in the corridors, so too did rail station usage. The researchers estimated three models. The opportunity to use time-series data limited the number of explanatory variables that could be examined. The first two models were simple bivariate regressions of development level versus station boardings and alightings. The third is a two-stage least squares estimation that incorporates a transit service measure, HRT passenger capacity per day (Cervero et al., 2004). The simple regressions exhibit good correlation but do not in themselves demonstrate causality. The fact that the two-stage ridership model, incorporating transit service and other measures, ascribes about half as much effect to station area development--compared to the simple regressions--suggests that leaving out pertinent non-development factors leads to overstating the role of development. The effect ascribed to development in the enhanced two-stage model is, however, still quite substantial. This enhanced model indicates that each 1,000 additional spaces of passenger capacity passing through a station each day is associated on average with 210 additional passengers.8 For each 1,000 additional dwelling units along with 1,000 additional spaces of passenger capacity over 500 new boardings or alightings are estimated. Also, each 1,000 square feet of office and commercial space is estimated to engender nearly 500 new boardings or alightings (Cervero et al., 2004). Note that the additional ridership associated with added rail service and the additional ridership estimated in connection with new housing are not additive, as service effects are included in the housing-related estimate. Bus ridership time series data have not been assembled, but it is worthy of note that significant bus use is also observed in the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor. In 2002, average weekday bus passengers at the transit hubs at Ballston and Rosslyn totaled 16,300 and 4,370, respectively (Leach, 2004).9 These volumes compare to 2002 average weekday Metrorail passengers at these same stations of 22,430 and 29,630, respectively, as calculated at twice boardings (WMATA, 2002). Walking is the predominant method of access and egress at both of these stations: 67 percent at Ballston and 70 percent at Rosslyn (Harrington, 2006). There are high volumes of pedestrians crossing streets several blocks away from the Metro station entrances. 8 Passenger capacity was calculated at 4 passengers per square meter of available railcar space (Cervero et al., 2004). It is reasonable to assume that a significant portion of the passenger capacity increase was reflected in improved service frequency and its associated attractiveness, and that growing passenger volumes in the peak direction (primarily in-commuting from residences served by the Metrorail line) were a major impetus for the service increases. Although the researchers do not so state, there is thus a certain logic to the decision to asso- ciate capacity increase effects with numbers of dwelling units (rather than office/commercial space) in the enhanced model. The estimates produced by the enhanced two-stage model are in terms of average daily boardings and exits, i.e., Metrorail passenger trips either entering or exiting the system at an Arlington TOD station. 9 The Handbook authors presume that these bus passenger volumes are boardings plus alightings and that persons transferring between bus and Metrorail are counted as both bus and as rail passengers. 17-35

OCR for page 33
Most significant is that the transit service and mix of uses have supported the development growth with only a relatively modest increase in traffic volumes on the local and arterial streets in the corridor. Only Interstate 66 (which passes near the corridor) has experienced large traffic growth--it primarily functions as a regional facility rather than as a local substitute for Wilson Boulevard, the avenue beneath which the Metrorail runs (Burwell and Dittmar, 2002). California HRT. The 2003 California TOD travel characteristics study surveyed residents and workers at a total of 36 residential and office projects in selected rail station areas on HRT, LRT, and CRR lines. The researchers did not report aggregated responses in a manner that provides averages or totals by individual public transit mode. Instead, the survey results were aggregated by rail line segment for those segments with surveyed projects from which adequate responses were received (Lund, Cervero, and Willson, 2004a). Table 17-17 presents a summary of station-area resident responses for projects on the five such rail line segments. Two of the segments are served by HRT. The table also presents an all-data summary including projects not encompassed by the reported rail segments. Table 17-18 presents a summary of station-area worker responses for office projects on a different set of rail line segments, six in all and three of them HRT, as well as an all-data summary. Table 17-19 gives an overview of the 13 HRT station-area residential and office projects surveyed on the line segments that were reported on individually. Similarly, overviews of the seven LRT and four CRR projects on line segments reported on are given in Tables 17-20 and 17-21, respectively. HRT station-area residents had substantially higher transit commute mode shares than those of residents in LRT or CRR station areas. Higher transit shares relative to LRT or CRR were also found in most instances of HRT station-area resident non-work mode shares and station area workplace commute mode shares. However, the findings are not only a reflection of the transit mode involved but also of the selection of survey locations. Relevant survey location attributes influencing the results include the travel market context of each location and rail line segment; the specific transit service attributes such as hours provided, frequency, and accessibility; and the individual respon- dents who chose to answer the survey, including their socio-economic characteristics. Although very suggestive, the findings should not be taken as solely reflecting inherent differences among travel modes. Moreover, the inherent differences that are reflected pertain only to the particular manifestations of HRT, LRT, and CRR--including contrasts among these rail modes--that are found in the California context. As illustrated previously in Table 17-12, the Pleasant Hill and South Alameda County HRT station-area projects achieve resident commute trip transit mode shares 32 and 36 percentage points higher, respectively, than immediately surrounding areas. Among HRT-using resident commuters, 96 percent in Pleasant Hill and all of the survey respondents in the South Alameda County sites reported walking as their mode of access to their station. The 2003 California surveys did allow estimation of the aggregate mode shifts which occurred when households moved into TODs along BART HRT from their prior residence, but only for the subset of survey respondents who changed workplace location when making their move. Within this subset, some 18 percent of respondents reported shifting from driving alone or carpooling to HRT, while about 14 percent reported shifting from rail or bus transit to driving alone or carpooling. This produced a net estimated shift of 4 percent of respondents to transit, equivalent to a 4 percentage points increase in the transit mode share. HRT in Los Angeles was not separately examined because of limited data, but was analyzed within a larger group of California rail systems associated with less than a percentage point 17-36

OCR for page 33
increase in transit mode share for households moving into TODs and changing workplace (Lund, Cervero, and Willson, 2004a). Further information is provided in the "Overall Mode Shifts from Before to After TOD Residency" subsection under "Related Information and Impacts"--"Pre- and Post-TOD Travel Modes." Table 17-17 Summary of California Station-Area Resident Responses HRT LRT CRR All Pleasant Alameda Long Mission Grand Attribute Hill County a Beach Valley Caltrain Total b Commute Mode Share Single-occupant vehicle 49% 57% 88% 81% 77% 66% Carpool 4 5 5 4 5 5 Rail transit 44 37 0 11 16 24 Bus transit 1 1 3 2 2 2 Other (includes walk/bike) 2 1 3 2 1 2 Number of responses 176 177 60 185 121 877 Non-Work Mode Share Single-occupant vehicle 71% 53% 63% 68% 72% 61% Carpool 11 27 23 25 19 26 Rail transit 9 8 0 3 5 5 Bus transit 6 6 0 2 0 3 Other (includes walk/bike) 4 6 13 2 4 5 Number of responses 86 64 60 135 75 486 Employer Programs c Allows flexible hours 61% 51% 35% 53% 61% 54% Lets me work at home 20 18 7 16 24 17 Provides a car for day use 5 1 3 8 2 4 Helps pay for transit 20 17 14 13 20 16 Free parking at work 52 55 97 69 75 65 Helps pay for car commute 11 6 11 12 2 8 Number of responses 66 82 29 77 51 361 Statistics Projects surveyed 4 4 2 2 3 26 Stations surveyed 1 4 2 2 3 23 Overall survey response rate 13% 15% 16% 19% 10% 13% Notes: a "Alameda County" includes Fremont, Hayward, South Hayward, and Union City projects. b Includes responses from residents living in station areas at locations on rail lines with insufficient responses to list separately. c Station-area residents were asked which programs were provided by their employer. More than one response was permitted. Source: Lund, Cervero, and Willson (2004a). 17-37

OCR for page 33
Table 17-18 Summary of California Station-Area Worker Responses HRT LRT CRR All Walnut Creek / Holly- Mission Sacra- Grand Attribute Berkeley Fremont wood Valley mento Anaheim Total a Commute Mode Share Single occupant vehicle 45% 79% 84% 85% 52% 85% 68% Carpool 5 3 4 12 15 8 10 Rail transit 25 14 8 2 15 5 12 Bus transit 14 4 0 1 14 2 7 Other (includes walk/bike) 12 1 4 1 4 2 3 Number of responses 104 110 51 210 286 67 853 Midday Trip Mode Share Automobile 8% 47% 50% 49% 31% 97% 40% Rail transit 2 3 0 0 3 0 2 Bus transit 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 Other (includes walk/bike) b 89 50 50 49 63 3 58 Number of responses 83 60 34 140 218 37 580 Employer Programs c Allows flexible hours 81% 56% 22% 76% 69% 47% 67% Lets me work at home 32 20 0 19 18 15 19 Provides a car for day use 8 0 0 20 10 0 10 Helps pay for transit 39 9 19 17 61 8 33 Free parking at work 33 77 89 83 25 87 57 Helps pay for car commute 2 7 5 10 4 10 6 Number of responses 93 98 37 199 272 60 780 Statistics Projects surveyed 1 2 2 1 2 1 10 Stations surveyed 1 2 2 1 2 1 10 Overall survey response rate 24% 21% 6% 26% 32% 11% 20% Notes: a Includes responses from workers at station-area locations on rail lines with insufficient responses to list separately. b Midday "other" trips were all between 97 and 100 percent walk and less than 3 percent bike or miscellaneous travel modes. c Station-area workers were asked which programs were provided by their employer. More than one response was permitted. Source: Lund, Cervero, and Willson (2004a). 17-38

OCR for page 33
Table 17-19 HRT Sites Surveyed in the 2003 California TOD Travel Characteristics Study Parking Surrounding Supplies Density Dist. to Walking On At Pop. Jobs HRT Station Project Station Route Site Station per per Project Site Size a (feet) b Quality c (Ratio) d (Spaces) Acre e Acre e S.F. BART (10-15 min. headway) Berkeley Great Western Building f 400 emp. 137 A 1.6 0 23.65 20.64 Fremont Mission Wells 225 DU 2,367 C 1.3 940 9.68 5.32 Fremont Office Center f 300 emp. 915 A 2.1 2,026 13.57 8.04 Hayward Atherton Place Condos 83 DU 534 B 2.0 1,439 14.08 7.49 Pleasant Hill Coggins Square 87 DU 1,014 C 1.0 2,557 9.13 5.19 Iron Horse Lofts 54 DU 1,441 C 1.9 2,557 9.16 5.15 Park Regency 892 DU 1,319 B 1.0 2,557 9.26 5.07 Wayside Plaza 59 DU 1,640 B n/a 2,557 9.14 5.17 South Hayward Archstone Barrington Hill 188 DU 592 B 1.1 1,220 10.91 2.61 Union City Verandas Apartments 282 DU 930 B 1.0 1,196 10.24 3.53 Walnut Creek California Plaza f 1,200 emp. 1,318 C 0.7 1,989 8.13 10.73 L.A. Metro (10 min. headway) Hollywood/Highland TV Guide Hollywood Ctr. f 350 emp. 710 B 1.7 0 24.05 15.69 Hollywood/Western 5161 Lankershim f 600 DU 1,730 C 1.1 0 20.63 6.03 Notes: a Project size measures: for residential--dwelling units (DU), for office--employees (emp.). b Most direct walking path from building entrance (or center of development) to nearest ticket machine at nearest station. c Walking path evaluated for pedestrian safety, utility, and comfort/aesthetics as follows: A = Excellent, B = Good, C = Fair. d Parking ratio measures: for residential--spaces per unit, for office--spaces per employee. e Surrounding densities for the 1 mile radius from the site (not the rail station); two sites within the same station area may thus have different "surrounding density" figures. f Indicates station-area office site. All others are station-area residential sites. Source: Lund, Cervero, and Willson (2004a and 2004b). 17-39

OCR for page 33
Light Rail Transit Light rail transit (LRT) is typically used in somewhat less dense travel markets than HRT. Service is normally provided all day at reasonably short headways and with augmented frequency during peak periods. LRT may experience traffic delays where signal priority and exclusive rights-of-way are not available. Chapter 7, "Light Rail Transit," covers traveler response to LRT lines, systems, and service overall. LRT stations tend to be spaced closer together than HRT stations. Coupled with relatively lower LRT line volumes and capacities, the dispersal of passenger boarding over more stations tends to support use of smaller scale parking facilities. The result is, that while there is still a tension between the use of the station as a park-and-ride facility and the use of the station as a develop- ment site, the tension may not be as great as with HRT. Closer station spacing also allows station differentiation, focusing major park-and-ride activity on stations other than those with primary TOD or traditional neighborhood emphasis. An example of this particular approach with no park-and-ride facility at the TOD station was covered above under "Response to TOD by Regional Context"--"Suburban TODs"--"Downtown Plano Station, Texas." Portland, Oregon, and California examples of LRT-oriented TODs in various contexts are examined below. Portland, Oregon. Portland has promoted TOD around LRT stations as a way to manage growth and to leverage investment in public infrastructure. Several of the TODs along Portland's "Blue- Line" LRT have been examined in various studies. The case study, "Travel Findings for Individual Portland, Oregon, Area TODs" presents various findings for roughly a dozen LRT transit-adjacent developments, TODs, and TOD groupings. Among the findings presented in the case study is an analysis of street connectivity standing in as a surrogate for pedestrian access to the stations. In the four station areas examined, only an estimated 21 to 57 percent of the land area within a 1/4-mile radius could actually be reached within a 1/4-mile walk (Schlossberg et al., 2004). Among 8 TOD and transit-adjacent apartments and townhome complexes surveyed for trip generation, 2-hour peak period transit trips per occupied unit ranged from 0.06 to 0.25, averaging 0.12, while walk/bike trips ranged from 0.00 to 0.28, averaging 0.12 per 2-hour period. These ranges and averages cover both AM and PM peak period observations, 16 in all. Corresponding vehicle trip generation rates ranged from 0.12 to 1.00 per occupied unit, averaging 0.67 per 2-hour period (Lapham, 2001). At the below-market-rate Center Village apartments in the Center Commons TOD, residents reported a 46 percent increase on average in the use of bus and rail transit for the work commute, a 15 percentage points increase in transit mode share between their prior and new residence (from 31 to 46 percent). The corresponding change in use of transit for non-work trips was a 60 percent increase (12 percentage points, from 20 to 32 percent transit) (Switzer, 2002). At groupings of transit-adjacent projects at four stations that encompass mostly market-rate TODs on the newer Westside component of the Blue Line LRT, use of all forms of transit for the work commute was found to be over 150 percent above the transit mode choice at the prior residence. Once again, the average increase was about 15 percentage points (actually close to 16), but in this case from 10 to over 25 percent transit. Reported walk mode share averages for transit access ranged from around 70 to 75 percent for an average walk of 17-40

OCR for page 33
4 to 10 minutes up to 100 percent for a 2- to 3-minute average walk. Survey respondents were, on the whole, not a transit-dependent population (Dill, 2006a and b). California LRT. Travel mode shares and employer attributes found for projects near rail stations on certain individual California LRT line segments were reported above for station-area residents and workers in Tables 17-17 and 17-18, respectively. Table 17-20 gives an overview of the seven LRT station-area residential and office projects surveyed on the three line segments that researchers reported on individually. Table 17-20 LRT Sites Surveyed in the 2003 California TOD Travel Characteristics Study Parking Surrounding Supplies Density Dist. to Walking On At Pop. Jobs LRT Station Project Station Route Site Station per per Project Site Size a (feet) b Quality c (Ratio) d (Spaces) Acre e Acre e Sacramento LRT (15 min. headway) 8th and K Street Dept of Conservation f 450 emp. 165 A 2.6 0 9.04 37.62 Watt/Manlove California Center f 700 emp. 1,042 B 1.6 n/a 8.22 3.50 L.A. Metro Blue Line (10 min. headway) Long Beach Transit Mall Pacific Court Apts 145 DU 620 B 1.2 0 23.89 19.10 Pacific at 5th Street Bellamar Apts 160 DU 605 A 1.3 0 23.45 18.90 San Diego Trolley (15 min. headway) Fenton Parkway Archstone Mission Valley 736 DU 80 A 1.9 0 4.10 5.51 Union Square Condos 121 DU 150 A 2.5 1,000 7.19 10.90 Hazard Center Mission Valley Heights f 800 emp. 2,440 C 1.1 1,000 8.18 7.99 Notes: a Project size measures: for residential--dwelling units (DU), for office--employees (emp.). b Most direct walking path from building entrance (or center of development) to nearest ticket machine at nearest station. c Walking path evaluated for pedestrian safety, utility, and comfort/aesthetics as follows: A = Excellent, B = Good, C = Fair. d Parking ratio measures: for residential--spaces per unit, for office--spaces per employee. e Surrounding densities for the 1 mile radius from the site (not the rail station); two sites within the same station area may thus have different "surrounding density" figures. f Indicates station-area office site. All others are station-area residential sites. Source: Lund, Cervero, and Willson (2004a and 2004b). 17-41

OCR for page 33
The LRT examples from the 2003 California TOD travel characteristics study appear to be strongly affected by individual site conditions. As shown in Table 17-17, resident transit commute shares encountered were 3 percent (Long Beach) and 13 percent (Mission Valley). Worker transit commute shares (Table 17-18) were 3 percent (Mission Valley) and 29 percent (Sacramento). The Long Beach and Mission Valley station-area projects were found to have resident commute trip transit mode shares, respectively, that are 8 percentage points below and 7 percentage points above those of immediately surrounding areas (Table 17-12) (Lund, Cervero, and Willson, 2004a). The Long Beach apartment housing involved may represent one of those instances mentioned earlier where the housing development has met a need but that need is not transit oriented. The station-area resident walk access mode share for the Mission Valley segment, the only LRT segment with enough observations to support a station mode-of-access computation, is the lowest observed in the California study at 84 percent walk. The remaining 16 percent is, however, divided between bicycle access and bus access, such that the reported station access modes are 100 percent non-auto. Residents of LRT station areas were found to have distinctly more modest transit commute mode shares and corresponding non-work shares than residents of HRT station areas. The relationship was less strong for LRT station-area workplace commute mode shares, but on average the LRT shares were still lower than for HRT. Limitations in these comparisons are discussed above under "Heavy Rail Transit"--"California HRT." Sample sizes from the 2003 California surveys did not allow the LRT mode to be separated out when estimating the aggregate mode shifts exhibited by households moving into rail-based TODs. Survey responses for LRT in Sacramento, Santa Clara County, Los Angeles, and San Diego were therefore combined with responses for CRR from the San Francisco Peninsula and responses for both CRR and HRT from the Los Angeles region. This combined group of California rail-based TODs was estimated to have been associated with less than a percentage point increase in transit mode share for households moving into TODs and also changing workplace (Lund, Cervero, and Willson, 2004a). The large difference between the mode shift results for Portland LRT-based TODs and the California rail-based TODs is discussed under "Related Information and Impacts"--"Pre- and Post-TOD Travel Modes"--"Overall Mode Shifts from Before to After TOD Residency." Commuter Railroad Commuter railroad (CRR) service connects suburban residents to center city employment, usually over longer distances than other rail transit modes. CRR services generally operate on historic railroad alignments. CRR is generally marked by relatively low service frequencies and in many cases has limited service hours. Nevertheless, in a few jurisdictions, notably the Chicago and New York/New Jersey metropolitan areas, CRR carries passenger volumes approaching HRT levels observed elsewhere (APTA, 2004). Typically commuter rail TOD is in the form of predominantly residential projects focused on bringing commuters to within walking distance of a station. Most suburban CRR stations feature park-and-ride facilities and a few offer peak-period connecting bus or van service. Chapter 8, "Commuter Rail," provides general coverage. 17-42

OCR for page 33
Chicago, Illinois. A 2002 origin-destination Metra passenger survey and corresponding develop- ment information were used to arrive at rail transit trip generation rates for three projects near Metra CRR stations. The two more-TOD-like projects had similar rail trip generation rates, higher than the less-TOD-like Burnside project at Hickory Creek, as follows: The Railway Plaza development has 417 residential units adjacent to the Route 59 Station. This development has a grid street pattern that connects to, and is oriented toward, the station. Here, the analysis indicated that 219 survey day Metra riders live in the development for a trip generation rate of 53 riders per 100 households. A comparable CRR passenger trip generation rate of 55 riders per 100 households was esti- mated for the two five-story buildings (55 units) making up the Spring Avenue Station devel- opment about 700 feet from the Stone Avenue Station. This development is integrated into an existing grid street pattern. The Burnside Station development is located 1.5 blocks from the Hickory Creek station on the Rock Island Line. The 160 townhouses in this development, although near the train stop, are not oriented towards the station. Based on the survey, 62 Metra riders live there for a rail tran- sit trip generation rate of 39 riders per 100 households (Metra, 2004). Although these useful CRR trip generation findings are suggestive of an effect on ridership of dif- fering station area development design characteristics, there are other possible explanations for the differences in the estimated generation rates. These include the fact that the Route 59 and Stone Avenue Stations are on a different Metra line in a different sector of the Chicago region than the Hickory Creek Station. South Orange, New Jersey. The Gaslight Common apartments were built adjacent to New Jersey Transit's Sloan Street station. The station itself was renovated in 1995 to include commuter-oriented retail shops and sit-down restaurants. The development pushed the envelope on acceptable suburban density with 200 apartments on approximately 5.25 acres. Reportedly, many residents are young professionals who work in Manhattan and moved to the complex because the station offers direct service to Midtown. An indication of the typical life-stage of the residents is the developer's observation that there are only three households with school-age children. Some 65 percent of the residents commute to work using mass transit and vehicle ownership is a low 1.35 per unit (Cervero et al., 2004; Marchetta, 2003). California CRR. Travel mode shares and employer attributes for projects near rail stations on reported-on CRR segments were presented for station-area residents and workers in Tables 17-17 and 17-18, respectively, introduced in the "Heavy Rail Transit" subsection. Table 17-21 gives an overview of the three CRR station-area residential projects and one office project surveyed on the two line segments reported on individually. Only one of those segments, along the San Francisco Peninsula's Caltrain line, is covered from the perspective of station-area residents and only one segment is covered from the perspective of station-area workers. As with the other station areas surveyed, Long Beach excepted, the commuter rail station-area residents had a higher transit (bus and rail) mode share for work trips (17 percent) than their counterparts in the surrounding area as derived from the 2000 Census (5 percent). These findings were tabulated in Table 17-12. Home-to-station mode of access was not reported on, but was apparently on the order of 90 percent walk. 17-43

OCR for page 33
Table 17-21 CRR Sites Surveyed in the 2003 California TOD Travel Characteristics Study Parking Surrounding Supplies Density Dist. To Walking On At Pop. Jobs CRR Station Project Station Route Site Station per per Project Site Size a (feet) b Quality c (Ratio) d (Spaces) Acre e Acre e S.F. Caltrain Broadway Northpark Apts 510 DU 1,194 C 0.96 100 7.02 9.52 San Antonio Crossings 359 DU 1,066 A n/a 199 14.70 9.69 Palo Alto Palo Alto Condos 101 DU 1,791 B 1.0 388 8.47 11.44 L.A. Metrolink Anaheim Stadium Towers f 600 emp. 2,700 B 1.6 400 2.91 16.75 Notes: a Project size measures: for residential--dwelling units (DU), for office--employees (emp.). b Most direct walking path from building entrance (or center of development) to nearest ticket machine at nearest station. c Walking path evaluated for pedestrian safety, utility, and comfort/aesthetics as follows: A = Excellent, B = Good, C = Fair. d Parking ratio measures: for residential--spaces per unit, for office--spaces per employee. e Surrounding densities for the 1 mile radius from the site (not the rail station). f Indicates station-area office site. All others are station-area residential sites. Source: Lund, Cervero, and Willson (2004a and 2004b). Caltrain CRR station-area residents who took the train to work reported walking from their desti- nation station to access their workplace in lower proportion than their counterparts using HRT or LRT (71 percent for CRR versus about 80 percent for HRT/LRT). This lower walk share at the workplace end of the trip is likely an artifact of workplace station placement, most particularly the peripheral location of the San Francisco downtown terminal, leading many riders to transfer to local transit services in lieu of walking (Lund, Cervero, and Willson, 2004a). This finding is not likely associated with place-of-residence TOD design or placement in any significant way. It reflects a railroad terminal placement circumstance affecting many CRR systems, although typi- cally to a somewhat lesser degree. Bus Rapid Transit Bus rapid transit (BRT) has the potential to carry large passenger volumes through suitable corridors. Specialized vehicles and off-board fare collection can reduce dwell times. Further- apart stop spacing compared to traditional bus services and the granting of vehicle priority through special lanes, exclusive rights-of-way, and/or traffic signal priority can provide travel time advantages. Chapter 4, "Busways, BRT and Express Bus," provides coverage of 17-44

OCR for page 33
traveler response to this mode of public transportation and also includes information on busway and BRT development impacts not specific to TODs. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. The 37-mile Transitway carries approximately 200,000 passengers daily, including about 10,000 people on 190 buses during the peak hour. Approximately 70 percent of downtown commuters use the Transitway. The system uses a network of on-street bus lanes (located in the central area), expressway lanes, and 16 miles of busways. Between 1988 and 1996, 3,211 residential units and 4.7 million square feet of commercial and institutional development were constructed around its stations (Levinson et al., 2003). A comparison of two mixed-use neighborhoods, one with a Transitway station and one without, showed that the neighborhood served by the Transitway had a higher transit mode share. The two neighborhoods, Tunney's Pasture and Confederation Heights, share similar bus service, land-use, and household income profiles. In addition to lacking a Transitway station, Confederation Heights is located slightly further from the Ottawa downtown, which may account for some of the differ- ence in transit share. A comparison was also made between transit mode share at two universities served by the Transitway and at one that is not. Similar to the results of the neighborhood compar- ison, the university campuses served by the Transitway had a higher transit mode share (Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., 1996a). These comparisons are set forth in Table 17-22. Table 17-22 Transit Mode Shares for Selected Ottawa-Carleton Locationsa As a Destination As an Origin 6-9 AM 3-6 PM Mixed-Use Neighborhoods Tunney's Pasture b 47% 49% Confederation Heights 29% 31% Universities University of Ottawa b 68% 50% Algonquin College (Woodroffe Campus) b 51% 44% Carleton University 38% 40% Notes: a The 1986 transit share of all motorized trips (i.e., walking and cycling are excluded from the denominator) for all trip purposes. b Location is directly served by a BRT station. Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. (1996a). U.S. Busways and BRT. Travel data for TODs located along U.S. busways and BRT has not been encountered. Basic service, ridership, and development parameters for two U.S. BRT facilities are summarized here to offer an indication that results for TOD focused on major BRT installations may potentially be equivalent to those for TOD along LRT. The Silver Line in Boston, Massachusetts, is a next-generation BRT line. The complete line is to have two underground sections and one street-level section. The street-level section, which operates on a dedicated lane, opened as Phase I in July 2002. Phase II, an underground segment, opened in December 2004. It connects the downtown South Station intermodal hub 17-45

OCR for page 33
to the South Boston Waterfront, otherwise known as the Seaport. Special buses capable of carrying about 100 passengers traverse the transitway. Approximately three minute headways apply during the peak hour. Once buses reach the Seaport, many use existing streets, highways, and tunnels to reach a variety of destinations. The 1.1 mile tunnel has stations at South Station, the new Federal Courthouse, and the World Trade Center. Plans exist for further large-scale, high-density redevelopment around each of these new stations (MBTA, 2004a; MBTA, 2004b; Levinson et al., 2003). Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, has three exclusive right-of-way busways featuring all-stops and express service to downtown. The most heavily used is the Martin Luther King, Jr. (East) Busway. A 2.3 mile, four-station extension to the original 6.8-mile, six-station line opened in June 2003. The original facility carried some 28,000 weekday riders, including suburban routes that utilize the facility, or about 5,400 riders in 110 standard and articulated buses in the morning peak hour, peak direction. None of the original stations were constructed with on-line park-and-ride facilities, but the four new stations bring a total of 800 spaces adjacent to the East Busway. From 1983 to 1996, 42 developments--new construction or renovations--are reported to have been implemented within a six minute walk (1,500 feet) of the original East Busway. These include retail, residential, and office projects, not all of them necessarily oriented towards the busway. East Busway ridership has remained steady while the overall region has experienced a population and bus system ridership decline (Chang et al., 2004; Levinson et al., 2003; Wohwill, 2004). Traditional Bus Traditional local bus service acts as an important link to TOD regardless of whether or not it is the primary transit mode serving the location. It nearly always plays at least a supportive role at rail-centered TODs. In cases of TODs where bus is the dominant transit mode, multiple services tend to converge on the same location. Otherwise, especially in suburban contexts, traditional bus service may not operate at frequencies sufficient to serve as a catalyst for TOD. Under most circumstances, frequencies of fewer than four buses per hour effectively eliminate traditional local bus service from consideration for all but dependent or particularly loyal riders, especially if schedules are unreliable. Coverage of traveler response to different levels of traditional bus service is provided in Chapter 9, "Transit Scheduling and Frequency," and Chapter 10, "Bus Routing and Coverage." Boulder, Colorado. TOD has been implemented around traditional bus service in Boulder. One Boulder Plaza is such a project, situated on the two blocks between the downtown transit center and a thoroughfare featuring a high-ridership, high-frequency bus service. The project is a mix of new construction and renovation, including infill on a pre-existing surface parking lot. The approximate make up of the project is 310,000 square feet of commercial space (office, retail, and restaurant), 75 high-end residential units, and 360 underground parking spaces. Additional parking is also available nearby. All individuals employed in the project have access to free bus passes and enclosed bicycle storage (Cervero, et al., 2004; City of Boulder, 2001; One Boulder Plaza, 2005a; One Boulder Plaza, 2005b). While project-specific figures on travel impacts are not available, data from a survey of the pedestrian mall one block away highlights the importance of these amenities. On the mall 11 percent of city of Boulder resident survey respondents were found to have arrived by bus, 15 percent by bicycle, and 25 percent by walking. Among these same city of Boulder resident respondents, 17-46

OCR for page 33
about 38 percent reported having a bus pass and 82 percent of those who arrived by bus had used the pass (RRC Associates, 2004). King County, Washington. Two suburban King County, Washington bus-oriented TOD develop- ments were completed circa 2000, both located at transit centers. One, the Village at Overlake Station, is at the Overlake Transit Center in Redmond, located behind strip development. The other, Metropolitan Place, is part of a larger TOD complex at the Renton Transit Center. These developments are described in Table 17-23 (Shelton and Lo, 2003; Prince et al., 2003). Creation of viable TODs at these locations was greatly facilitated by King County Metro bus service restruc- turing and expansion with emphasis on shifting toward a "hub and spoke" route system for sub- urban and outlying city of Seattle areas. Quantification of bus service changes and ridership outcomes immediately pre-TOD, particularly for the initial half of Metro's "Six-Year Transit Development Plan 1996-2001," is found in the Chapter 10 case study, "Service Restructuring and New Services in Metropolitan Seattle." The case study focuses especially on the service "hub" located at the Renton Transit Center. Table 17-23 Two King County Bus Transit Oriented Developments Village at Overlake Station Metropolitan Place Location Redmond, WA Renton, WA Former use Surface park-and-ride lot Downtown auto sales lots New uses 536 space parking garage 240 space parking garage 308 rental housing units 90 rental housing units 2,400 sq ft child care facility 4,000 sq ft ground-level retail Affordable All units are priced to be affordable to At least half the units are priced to be Housing households earning 60 percent of area's affordable to households earning Component median income and 30 units are 80 percent of the county's median wheelchair accessible. income. Parking Integrated two-level parking structure. Integrated two-level parking structure. 150 spaces are reserved for park-and-ride 90 spaces are for resident use at all during the day. times. 150 spaces are leased by transit agency for park-and-ride; 30 of these are available for residents or visitors during non-commuter hours. Transit Adjacent to major bus transfer center. Bus transfer center is across the street. Buses operate at least 80 feet from units. Metal and glass awning on building to shield residents from noise and fumes. Incentives All residents receive a free bus pass. One free bus pass per unit. Other Pedestrian improvements also made. Source: Shelton and Lo (2003). Although full surveys of the Overlake and Renton apartment residents have not been published, some information is available. The Overlake Station development is a mixed-use, 17-47