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 34
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 35
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 36
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 37
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 38
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 39
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 40
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 41
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 42
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 43
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 44
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 45
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 46
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 47
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
