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 81
versus suburban non-TOD environments would presumably uncover more muted effects as com- pared to the fairly dramatic travel behavior comparisons summarized in Table 17-35. RELATED INFORMATION AND IMPACTS Household Characteristics Households in transit oriented developments (TODs) have exhibited different demographic and socioeconomic attributes than non-TOD households in several surveys. As was discussed above under the "Self-Selection of Residents" subsection, it appears that some of this difference is explained by common attributes of individual households that choose to live in TOD housing rather than being an effect of the TOD on households. It is difficult to completely generalize about the household characteristics of TOD because these characteristics are largely dependent on the type of projects included. A TOD containing a large proportion of one-bedroom apartments is going to attract smaller households than a TOD containing a large proportion of two- or three- bedroom apartments. An affordable housing development will attract different average incomes than a market-rate TOD. In general, smaller-than-average households appear to have been attracted to market-based TOD projects. These households tend to be engaged in white-collar occupations in greater proportions than average. The 2003 California TOD travel characteristics study found that young people (aged 18 to 35) represent a greater proportion of TOD residents than in the general population, com- posing 57 percent of TOD resident respondents as compared to 36 percent of Census respondents in survey area cities. Residents 36 to 50 years of age compose 25 percent of TOD residents versus 40 percent in the citywide figures and residents over 50 years of age compose 18 percent of the TOD respondents versus 25 percent in the citywide average. Other California comparisons between TOD survey respondents and citywide Census data are illustrated in Table 17-36, for station-area residents, and Table 17-37, for station-area office workers (Lund, Cervero, and Willson, 2004a). A city-wide comparison of Portland, Oregon, TOD versus non-TOD household size, income, and auto ownership characteristics was provided under "Response by TOD Dimension and Strategy"--"Response to TOD by Regional Context"--"City Center Versus Suburban TOD in Portland, Oregon." In the case study, "Travel Findings for Individual Portland, Oregon, Area TODs," somewhat diluted before-and-after-TOD demographic characteristics based on 1990 and 2000 station area Census data are presented in Table 17-50. The most remarkable finding, as discussed in the case study under "Results," was that the one demographic shift encountered within all four station areas examined was a decline in average age with introduction of TOD. The average age--even encompassing non-TOD residents within the station areas--dropped by between 1.4 and 7.1 years, even as the regional average age went up by 4.6 years (Schlossberg et al., 2004). On the other hand, as if to emphasize the variety in TODs, the subsidized housing Center Commons in Portland (see case study referenced above) attracted numerous retirees including a segment that apparently retired concurrent with their move (Switzer, 2002). This is not a coincidence, as one of the Center Commons apartment buildings is specifically for seniors (Dill, 2006a). 17-81
OCR for page 82
Discussions with developers of four Mountain View, California, TODs revealed that those Silicon Valley TODs seemed to be attracting three primary market segments, roughly divided into thirds: (1) young singles; (2) young couples, couples with infants, single parents, and parents with teenagers; and (3) more-senior empty nesters (Percey, 2003). Although the proportions vary, anecdotal and survey evidence from several TODs suggest that these groups are prime TOD housing candidates. Table 17-36 Household Characteristics of California Station-Area Residents Characteristics TOD Sites Surrounding City Percentage Distribution of Household Size 12 persons 83. 2% 58.1% 34 persons 13.7 28.6 5+ persons 3.0 13.2 Percentage Distribution of Household Income $30,000 or less 24.9% 30.0% $30,001 to $60,000 36.5 27.7 $60,001 to $150,000 35.7 34.5 Over $150,000 2.9 7.5 Percentage Distribution of Occupations Office/professional 69.7% 39.9% Craftsman/laborer 4.5 16.3 Sales service 13.9 37.5 Other 2.4 0.2 Not employed 9.4 6.1 Note: Surrounding city figures are based on 2000 Census. Source: Lund, Cervero, and Willson (2004a). 17-82