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
