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 70
park-and-ride parking detract from use of the walk mode of access by making parking easy, and walking less pleasant, with parking area "dead spaces" to navigate in reaching the station. Possible evidence supporting this observation, albeit circumstantial at best, is provided by a comparative study of two BART-served communities in the San Francisco East Bay area. The study found that 31 percent of Rockridge residents who used BART reached their station by walk- ing compared to 13 percent in Lafayette (Cervero and Radisch, 1995). The only significant con- tenders for an explanation were the more cohesive and direct pedestrian network in Rockridge, a traditional neighborhood development (TND), and the much larger quantity and expanse of park-and-ride parking in Lafayette, a conventional suburban development (CSD). Additional context is provided in Chapter 15, "Land Use and Site Design," under "Response by Type of Strategy"--"Site Design"--"Community Design and Travel Behavior"--"Paired TND and CSD Communities." BART has developed an access policy methodology in support of its relatively new practice of allowing less than one-for-one replacement of prior park-and-ride parking upon introduction of joint development TOD. Designed in large measure for evaluating options, it includes a quantita- tive process for assessing net ridership impacts of alternative parking replacement, access enhance- ment, and development scenarios. Drawing from sources ranging from the ITE Trip Generation manual to the 2003 California TOD travel characteristics study to special surveys, it allows esti- mated answers to questions such as how much density is necessary in a particular station area development project to generate more riders than the parking displaced. Policy methodology financial analyses indicate that in many cases, even if additional parking would generate more rid- ers than additional development, the net financial impact--including everything from fares to ground rents to parking maintenance--is better with more development and less parking. Some of the case studies have shown the financial return to actually go negative with one-for-one park- ing replacement (Willson, 2005). Analysis of options for residential and support-retail development at the South Hayward station, for example, have produced estimates of a net weekday ridership increase of 1,698 with 60 percent replacement of prior park-and-ride parking and 1,841 with 75 percent replacement. The estimated net annual financial impact, on the other hand, was a gain of $1,372,000 for 60 percent replacement versus only $776,000 for 75 percent replacement. There was an estimated financial loss for 100 per- cent replacement (Tumlin and Millard-Ball, 2006). Parking Pricing and Transit Support Parking pricing offers a mechanism to manage demand and maintain availability of constrained parking in TODs. Transit subsidies and other supportive policies can act as an incentive to transit use. Chapter 13, "Parking Pricing and Fees," provides overall coverage of the traveler behavior impacts of changes in pricing. Park-and-ride pricing is touched upon in Chapter 3, "Park-and-Ride/Pool," within the "Underlying Traveler Response Factors" section under the heading "User Costs and Willingness to Pay" and in the "Related Information and Impacts" section under "Parking Pricing at Park-and-Ride Facilities." Chapter 12, "Transit Pricing and Fares," includes coverage of traveler response to transit pass programs in the "Response by Type of Strategy" section under "Changes in Fare Categories"--"Unlimited Travel Pass Partnerships." Chapter 19, "Employer and Institutional TDM Strategies," ad- dresses a full range of transit supportive policies and other vehicle trip reduction strategies 17-70
OCR for page 71
in the context of Travel Demand Management (TDM) at the workplace. TOD-specific findings are provided below. Employer-Based Programs The 2003 California TOD travel characteristics study reported not only on mode shares of station- area residents and workers, but also the availability of various employer programs, including free workplace parking, transit subsidies, and flexible work hours. Employer program availability to survey respondents was tabulated within Table 17-17 and Table 17-18. The binomial-logit research model prepared using some of these data to predict transit mode share for station-area residents was presented and discussed in Table 17-30. That model found flexible work hours at a resident's workplace to be related to higher transit commute-mode shares, while free workplace parking and employer help with vehicle expenses dampened transit use. That research model did not address the surveyed workers within station areas, but the investi- gators also performed a correlation analysis between transit mode share and selected program availability that did to a limited extent. The correlation analysis results are set forth in Table 17-32. The correlations obtained for station-area residents provide additional support for the findings of the binomial-logit research model, although the relative importance of different workplace pro- grams is not quite the same. The one program examined in the case of station-area workers, tran- sit subsidy, was correlated with higher transit use as would be expected (Lund, Cervero, and Willson, 2004a). 17-71
OCR for page 72
Table 17-32 Employer Policies and Transit Mode Share of Station-Area Residents and Workers Work Trip Transit Mode Share Percentage For Persons For Persons With With Without Population Program Program Program Correlation a Station-Area Residents Employer transit subsidy 16.1% 40.3% 23.8% 0.158 Flex-time at work 53.7% 50.0% 2.8% 0.462 Free parking at work 64.5% 4.9% 44.9% -0.346 Employer car subsidy b 7.5% 1.3% 46.5% -0.421 Station-Area Workers Employer transit subsidy 32.7% 25.4% 4.7% 0.305 Flex-time at work c 66.7% Free parking at work c 56.6% Employer car subsidy b, c 6.1% Notes: a Transit use and the availability of a particular option were each coded as follows: 0 = no transit or no option, 1 = transit used or option available. b Employer pays tolls, fuel, or other commute costs. c Correlations and transit choice figures were not reported for station-area workers for these programs. Source: Lund, Cervero, and Willson (2004a). While it should be emphasized that causality is not addressed by the correlation analysis methodology, the broad conclusions suggested by the results appear reasonable. Nevertheless, a variety of external factors may be responsible for causing the magnitude of the relationships shown. Such factors include the location of the work site and the availability and quality of transit service provided. Free worksite parking, for example, may well be strongly associated with suburban locations and their less comprehensive transit services. Transit Pass Programs Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, Washington, are metropolitan areas that have experimented with providing transit passes to residents of new TODs. Portland's TOD Pass Program was developed to capture potential new riders among individuals changing either job or home location to the new TODs. It provided an inducement for non-riders to try transit and a further incentive for those already inclined toward transit use. The original TOD at Orenco, on the Westside LRT line, was one of the pilot pass program locations. Before the LRT opened to Orenco Station, about 30 percent of surveyed residents reported use of transit. The rail service and pass program commenced in September 1998. In May 1999, 83 percent of surveyed residents reported transit use. Included was a 22 percent increase in transit use for commuting. Although it is impossible to separate the ridership impact of the new rail service 17-72