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
