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 62
statistical evidence as to whether station proximity was causing lower automobile ownership or was attracting households with fewer autos to begin with. In any case, it was also noted that station- area households were smaller (1.7 people on average) than all households (2.4 people) (Boroski et al., 2002). These findings highlight the possibility that smaller average household sizes within station-areas explain some of the observed difference in household automobile ownership levels. Household size is indeed one of the variables found significant in the research model presented within Table 17-29, as it is in many operational auto ownership models. (See also "Household Characteristics" under "Related Information and Impacts.") Note that the influence of land use and site design on vehicle ownership is further examined in the case study, "Baltimore Region TOD and Smart Growth Analysis." The case study describes inves- tigations that found that while household size and income are highly important factors in vehicle ownership decisions, regional and local land use characteristics also play significant roles. The model elasticities presented in the case study suggest that household size and composition is the most important factor, with income next in importance, followed by non-trivial contributions by all three of the regional and local land use characteristics investigated. Transit Service Characteristics The traveler response to TOD will obviously be influenced by the service characteristics of the one or more public transit modes providing access to and from the location. TODs with better transit service characteristics would be expected to have higher transit ridership levels. In addition, some limited evidence suggests that such TODs are more likely to attract residents interested in making use of transit (Lund, Cervero, and Willson, 2004a). Among the important service characteristics are service coverage, hours of operation, frequency, travel time, fares, and perceptions of safety and security. Service coverage and hours of operation dictate which locations have transit access to and from a TOD and when. Coverage pertains to not only the areas served by the main transit line(s) at a TOD, but also the areas served by feeder and local bus connections. Enhanced feeder and local bus ser- vice can increase transit accessibility by providing fast connections to the trunk line transit service and also by providing direct connections between origins and destinations the main transit line does not serve. Effects of bus service coverage in general, not TOD-specific, are the subject of Chapter 10, "Bus Routing and Coverage." Extended hours of operation at acceptable service frequencies can make a transit service more sup- portive of TOD resident transit use and vehicle ownership reduction by better serving non-work travel and odd-hours commuting than a service primarily focused on peak hours. The limited amount of general-situation experiential data available on benefits of longer hours of operation is covered in Chapter 9, "Transit Scheduling and Frequency" (see "Service Hours Changes" under "Response by Type of Strategy"). Chapter 9 discusses the traveler response to transit frequency changes in depth. Transit service attractiveness is reduced by the long service headways (intervals between trains or buses) linked with low frequencies, especially if transfers are required. Service headways dictate how long the wait will be for a bus or train to or from a TOD or transfer point. The 17-62