Transit Use at Transit-Oriented Developments in Portland, Oregon, Area

Jennifer Dill

Many regions throughout the United States are turning to various smart LITERATURE REVIEW growth concepts, including transit-oriented development (TOD), to address a variety of concerns. Public agencies in the Portland, Oregon, Because modern transit-oriented neighborhoods are relatively new, region were early adopters of policies to promote TOD. More than there are few published empirical studies that measure the actual 300 residents of TODs near four rail stations in the Portland area were travel behavior of residents. Instead, many researchers have examined surveyed about their travel behavior. The neighborhoods were selected the difference in travel patterns between traditional and suburban to represent a range of styles of TODs while controlling for income. neighborhoods, often by using neighborhoods built before WWII All the TODs surveyed were market-price units, most of them for sale, as a proxy for TOD features. Those studies are well documented generally marketed to higher-income households. None of the neighbor- elsewhere in the literature. The few published studies of modern hoods completely satisfies agreed-on standards for good TODs: higher TODs that do exist have consistently shown higher rates of transit density, good land use mix, pedestrian friendly, and close to transit. The use for commuting, usually compared to citywide rates. Many of the research found that households in the neighborhoods tend to be smaller researchers note that rates of transit commuting by TOD residents than in the surrounding cities and often are without children. The res- are affected by factors related to the work site, including location idents of the surveyed TODs are not transit dependent, although they and parking pricing. Some studies have also found lower transit use did commute by transit at a significantly higher rate than residents city- for noncommute travel. wide. The physical features and locations of the TODs did not appear Lund et al. conducted a large-scale study of TODs in California in to affect levels of transit commuting but did influence access mode to 2003, including 26 residential developments (1). They concluded that the station and transit use for noncommute travel. Distance to a rail sta- “TODs throughout California are providing a significant ridership tion and parking pricing were important factors in commute mode bonus” (2, p. 253). More than one-quarter (26.5%) of the TOD res- choice. Respondents also reported using transit more than they had at idents regularly commuted on transit, compared to 5.4% in the sur- their previous residences. rounding cities. However, Lund et al. found significant differences between developments, ranging from 3.3% to 44.9% transit com- Many regions throughout the United States are turning to various mute mode share. This finding led the authors to emphasize the smart growth concepts, including transit-oriented development (TOD), important role of local and regional patterns and motivations for to address problems of traffic congestion, suburban sprawl, livabil- moving to TODs. They also found that the “physical attributes of the ity, affordable housing, climate change, and other concerns. Public station area . . . have relatively little influence on transit usage agencies in the Portland, Oregon, region were early adopters of poli- compared to the attributes of the destinations, particularly the avail- cies to promote TODs. The region’s long-range growth plan relies ability and price of parking and workplace policies” (2, p. 254). on increased density near rail transit. Implementation strategies They also found that TOD residents did not use transit much for include targeted subsidies and tax incentives for TODs. Although nonwork travel. Portland was an early adopter of these policies, only a handful of In an earlier study of California TODs, Bernick and Cervero found studies have attempted to collect evidence that they are working. that the share of all trips made by rail ranged from 2% to 79%; the With many TODs recently completed in the Portland region, this is overall rate was 15% (3). The share of commute trips made by transit a good time to empirically test the effects of this increasingly pop- ranged from 7% to 47%. TOD residents on average were fives times ular form of development on travel behavior. This paper presents more likely to take rail transit to work than workers living in the the results of surveys of residents of several TODs in the Portland surrounding city. Bernick and Cervero found that the two most area. The findings focus on answering two questions: (a) To what important factors influencing whether a person commuted by rail extent do TOD residents use transit for commuting and other trip were parking pricing at work and whether the work destination was in purposes, and (b) Do levels of transit use vary with the physical San Francisco. A 2002 survey of residents living near light rail stations features of a TOD? in Santa Clara Valley found that 19% of respondents used light rail and 4% used the bus to get to work at least 1 day a week (4). Sixty percent of the respondents never used rail or used it less than 1 day Nohad A. Toulan School of Urban Studies and Planning, Portland State University, a month. Smaller shares of residents used rail for nonwork trips than P.O. Box 751, Portland, OR 97207-0751. [email protected]. commuting. Surveys conducted in the late 1980s of residents near rail stations in the Washington, D.C., area found that the share of work Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, trips made by rail ranged from 18% to 63%. More recent surveys in No. 2063, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 159–167. Arlington County, Virginia, found a 39% transit commute share, DOI: 10.3141/2063-19 about three times higher than the county (5).

159 160 Transportation Research Record 2063

There are a few studies of Portland-area TOD residents. A survey Four developments were located near the Orenco/NW 231st MAX of residents of Orenco Station, a New Urbanist TOD in Hillsboro, station. Orenco Station, which is the largest master-planned commu- Oregon, found that 18% always commuted by transit and 69% claimed nity on the MAX system, has received numerous awards and often to use transit more than in their previous neighborhood (6). A survey is pointed to as a successful TOD, although that has been contested of residents of Center Commons, a TOD in the city of Portland, found (11, 12). The development includes a variety of for-sale housing and that 46% of the residents’ work trips and 32% of nonwork trips were 60,000 ft2 of retail and commercial space. The retail uses include made on transit (7). These shares were higher than the residents a grocery store, a large home and kitchen store, a national coffee reported for their previous residence. chain, and several restaurants and small shops. The development has many New Urbanist design features (e.g., front porches, small lots, and small setbacks). Within Orenco Station there are also small offices METHODOLOGY (e.g., dentists, real estate) and liveÐwork townhomes with office space on the bottom floor. Although Orenco Station includes a mix Site Selection Process of land uses, higher density housing, and a nice pedestrian environ- ment, it is not very close to the MAX station. The southern edge of There is some debate about how to define a TOD, although there the development is just over 0.25 mi from the station. Some of the are four generally agreed-on physical elements: density, land use homes are more than 0.5 mi (straightline distance) from the station. mix, pedestrian friendliness, and close proximity to transit (5, 8Ð10). Further to the east and south of Orenco Station are the Club 1201 The seven developments selected satisfy all four elements to varying condominiums. Most of these units are within 0.25 mi of the station degrees. The variation allows examination of questions about the and the retail area in Orenco Station. South of the station is the Arbor contribution of each element toward one measure of success— Gardens development, which includes a variety of for-sale housing but mode choice, particularly transit use. All but one of the develop- no commercial uses. These homes also employ many New Urbanist ments are located near one of three stations on the Westside light design features, including a pleasant pedestrian environment. All rail MAX line: Orenco/NW 231st Avenue, and Elmonica/SW 170th three of these developments (Orenco Station, Club 1201, and Arbor Avenue, in Hillsboro and Beaverton Central in Beaverton, Oregon Gardens) were conceived after the MAX station was planned, and (Figure 1). Both cities are suburbs of Portland, although they are transit accessibility was used in marketing. In contrast, the fourth also home to large employers. During the morning peak, MAX development, Sunset Downs, precedes MAX and was not marketed trains stop at these stations every 6 to 8 min for a 30- to 40-min as a transit-accessible place to live. The homes, however, are as ride to downtown Portland. Off-peak service is at 15-min headways. close to MAX as most of those within Orenco Station and now have Tables 1 and 2 provide a summary of the characteristics of the retail uses within walking distance. The style of homes is primarily developments. single-story ranch, typical of U.S. suburbs of the 1980s.

FIGURE 1 MAX stations near survey sites. Dill 161

TABLE 1 Summary of Housing Characteristics

Average Home Recent Sales Housing Type Dates Built Size (range) Price Range

OrencoÐNW 231st MAX Station Orenco Station Detached 1997Ð2003 1,560 ft2 $121,200Ð townhomes (664Ð2,525) 800,000 2-, 3-, 4-plexes condos Club 1201 Condos 2000 1,160 ft2 $89,900Ð (696Ð1,646) 198,000 Arbor Gardens Detached 2002Ð2004 1,830 ft2 $163,900Ð townhomes (1,511Ð2,544) 347,620 Sunset Downs Detached 1980Ð1996 1,670 ft2 $149,900Ð (1,246Ð2,334) 280,000 Elmonica MAX Station Arbor Station 2-, 3-plexes 2004 1,520 ft2 $149,000Ð townhomes (1,147Ð2,887) 265,000 Elmonica Station Condos 2004Ð2005 Not available Not available Condominiums Beaverton Central MAX Station Beaverton Round Condos 2003 1,100 ft2 $165,000Ð (722Ð1,968) 304,000 Convention Center MAX Station Merrick Apartments 2004 (509Ð930) $800Ð1,500 per month rent

SOURCE: Metro’s Regional Land Information System (RLIS), 2005.

The two developments near the Elmonica Station have housing mentary school. The Arbor Station development includes attached similar to Orenco Station and Arbor Gardens. They have two of the homes from the developer of Arbor Gardens. These homes are about required TOD features—proximity to transit and higher density—but 0.25 mi from the station. The Elmonica Station Condominiums are lack an attractive mix of land uses and good pedestrian environment. across the MAX parking lot from the station. The pedestrian envi- At the time of the survey, there were few retail and commercial land ronment connecting the condominiums to MAX is excellent. The uses nearby—a deli, a restaurant, a barber shop, and a warehouse-style pedestrian connection from Arbor Station is direct but lacks sidewalks discount store. A large amount of land around the station is devoted on part of the route. to public uses, including the MAX parking lot, a storage and main- The final Westside TOD included in this research is another tenance area for MAX trains, a park with baseball fields, and an ele- development that has received a lot of positive and negative attention—

TABLE 2 Summary of TOD Characteristics

Proximity: Land Use Mix: Selection Distance from Homes of Commercial Uses and Pedestrian to MAX Station Distance from Homes Friendliness

OrencoÐNW 231st MAX Station

1 1 Orenco Station > ⁄4 to > ⁄2 mi Very good Very good

1 Club 1201 ∼ ⁄4 mi Very good Very good

1 1 Arbor Gardens < ⁄4 to ⁄2 mi Good Very good

1 1 Sunset Downs > ⁄4 to ⁄2 mi Very good Very good Elmonica MAX Station

1 Arbor Station ∼ ⁄4 mi Poor FairÐgood Elmonica Station 1 Condominiums < ⁄4 mi Poor FairÐgood Beaverton Central MAX Station Beaverton Round Adjacent Very good FairÐgood Convention Center MAX Station Merrick ∼600 ft Very good FairÐgood 162 Transportation Research Record 2063 the Round at Beaverton Central (aka Beaverton Round). The original The eight-page survey form included questions about commuting plan for the Round included eight buildings surrounding a new MAX at the respondent’s current and former residence, nonwork travel station, including residential, office, and retail uses. The project has modes during different times of the year (good and bad weather), the faced numerous financial and technical difficulties. Three of the importance of various factors in housing choice, sense of community, buildings were complete and occupied at the time of this research. travel and mobility preferences, and attitudes, vehicle ownership, All are within 100 ft of the MAX station. One includes three floors of and demographics. To improve validity and allow for comparisons condominiums with ground-floor retail. The second building includes to other research efforts, the instrument included some questions offices, and the third includes a fitness club and office space. Retail from two other research efforts: the research by Lund et al. on TODs uses within the development are limited to a few restaurants and the in California (1) and the study by Handy et al. of neighborhoods in fitness center. The density and style of the development is in sharp California (13). The cover letter explained that any adult who shared contrast to the surrounding area, which is typical of many auto- in the decision making for the household and who participated in oriented suburbs. There is a significant amount of commercial land selecting his or her current residence could complete the survey. All within 0.5 mi of the station, including many stores and restaurants. survey packets included a $3 gift card to a national coffee chain as However, their design is auto oriented, with large parking lots, an incentive. With management cooperation, the Merrick survey making the area less pedestrian friendly. packets were placed under the door of each occupied apartment, and Finally, one eastside development was included—the Merrick. a box was placed in the office for return of the surveys. The Westside The Merrick was not in the original research plan. However, the surveys were mailed and included business-reply envelopes for development received funding from Metro’s TOD program, and returning the surveys. Both phases included a reminder postcard and the agency was interested in surveying residents. This provided an a second mailing to nonrespondents. opportunity to expand the original research design. The Merrick is The survey was mailed to 918 households in the Westside; 57 were a five-story building with retail space on the ground floor, 185 rental returned as undeliverable or vacant. The survey was delivered to apartments above, and parking below. The apartments are marketed 150 occupied apartments in the Merrick. In total, 323 surveys were as luxury apartments with amenities such as a fitness center. The returned completed. The response rate (based on the number of Merrick is about 600 ft from the Convention Center MAX station. The surveys sent minus those not delivered) for the sites on the Westside station is only a few stops from downtown Portland. The surrounding was 29%, ranging from 24% to 33% for each development. For the neighborhood is auto oriented, with several parking lots and drive- Merrick, the response rate was 43%. through restaurants. However, there are sidewalks throughout the area, and the grid street pattern makes destinations accessible. In the larger area there are many employment sites, including 6- to 12-story office FINDINGS buildings, the Convention Center, two large indoor arenas, and a large regional shopping mall. Demographics

The demographics of the respondents vary somewhat among the Survey Development and Distribution developments (Table 3). Most of the respondents lived in households without children, resulting in relatively small households. According The surveys were conducted in two phases. The first phase included the to the 2000 census, the average household size was 2.8 in Hillsboro, Merrick and was completed in March 2005. The second phase included 2.4 in Beaverton, and 2.3 in Portland—all higher than the surveyed the Westside developments and was completed in October 2005. In the TODs located in those cities. smaller developments a survey was sent to every household (a 100% The respondents were predominantly female. This likely indicates sample). In the larger developments (Orenco Station, Club 1201, and that women were more likely to complete the survey in households Arbor Gardens), half the households were selected randomly. having both a male and a female adult. At least 17% of the respon-

TABLE 3 Respondent Demographics

Average # % in Household Vehicles per People per with People % 65 or % Median Income Person 16 Household Under 16 Older Female (category) or Older n

Orenco Station: 2.0 10 20 61 $75,000Ð99,999 0.9 51 single family Orenco Station: 1.7 4 19 63 $75,000Ð99,999 1.0 27 multifamily Club 1201 1.5 4 17 70 $35,000Ð49,999 0.9 23 Arbor Gardens 2.4 36 6 68 $75,000Ð99,999 0.9 67 Sunset Downs 2.6 33 14 81 $50,000Ð74,999 1.0 21 Arbor Station 2.1 19 7 56 $50,000Ð74,999 0.9 15 Elmonica Station 2.0 23 0 77 $35,000Ð49,999 1.0 26 Condominiums Beaverton Round 1.6 8 0 39 $75,000Ð99,999 1.1 13 Merrick 1.3 1 7 50 $35,000Ð49,999 0.9 73 Dill 163 dents from Orenco Station and Club 1201 were 65 or older; only 10% residents (23%) reflects the proximity of the building to a major of adults in the city of Hillsboro where those TODs are located were employment area and may explain the lower transit use (28%), com- 65 or older in 2005. Income levels at all developments are relatively pared to the developments further from downtown. The high rate of high, which was not surprising. None of the developments include walking for Sunset Downs may be a result of the small sample size affordable housing components, and all were marketed and priced and response bias. Residents of Sunset Downs are within 1 mi of a for the higher end of the housing market. The residents of these devel- large Intel facility, although so are other residents of Orenco Station. opments were not transit dependent; on average, there was almost The high rates of transit use may reflect some self-selection in or more than one vehicle per person of driving age. responses: people using transit may have been more likely to respond Because most of the homes surveyed were built after the 2000 to the survey. The 2000 census data for the block group that includes census, it is difficult to compare the respondents to the census to Orenco Station indicates that 13% of the workers regularly commuted see how well the respondents represent the population. The only to work by using transit. However, the block group included data from developments in which any homes were completed before the 2000 two large apartment complexes and other residences further from the census were Sunset Downs (all homes built before 2000), the Orenco MAX station than the sites surveyed. Block group data are not yet Station single-family homes (just under half built before 2000), and available for the 2005 ACS. Club 1201 (all units completed in 2000). The census blocks cover- The longer distance to the MAX station for Orenco Station residents ing these neighborhoods were compared to the survey respondents does not appear to affect rates of commuting by MAX. However, who moved to the development before the 2000 census. There were the distance does appear to affect how respondents get to the MAX some differences. For example, a higher share of respondents from station. Many of the Orenco Station MAX commuters drove or Orenco Station and Club 1201 were over 64 years old (20% and got a ride to the station (31%), compared to only 10% of the Arbor 17%, respectively), compared to the corresponding census blocks Gardens MAX commuters and 12% of the Elmonica Station area (11% and 9%, respectively). On the other hand, the share of respon- MAX commuters. None of the Beaverton Round or Merrick residents dents living in households with three or more people was about the drove or got rides to the station. same as in the census. It is unclear whether the differences are because Parking pricing at the work or school site appears to have a signif- of changes in the population as the development was completed or icant effect on commute mode. About one-quarter of the respondents true differences between the respondents and the population. overall would have to pay to park at work or school. Of these, 52% regularly commute by transit, compared to 17% of the respondents who have free parking. For the suburban locations, transit commut- Transit Use ing among respondents with free parking at work is still higher than transit commuting in the city overall. Of the respondents with free Commuting parking living in the TODs in Hillsboro, 18% commuted by transit, compared to 7% in the 2005 ACS. The corresponding number for Overall, 26% of respondents used transit for a majority of their Beaverton respondents was 14%, compared to 9% from the ACS. commute trips, with rates at each development ranging from 18% to The distance between work or school and a MAX station correlated 33% (Table 4). This is higher than for the cities of Hillsboro (7%), with whether the respondent commuted by transit. A drop-off in Beaverton (9%), and Portland (13%), where the TODs are located, transit commuting occurred when the work or school location was according to the 2005 American Community Survey (ACS). The more than 15 min from the MAX station (Figure 2). If people walk differences between the developments in rates of commuting by an average of 3 mph, a 15-min walk is 0.75 mi. This is longer than the transit or private vehicle were not statistically significant. However, often-cited 0.25-mi or 0.5-mi rule for locating near transit stations. there were significant differences in the share of residents walking to Overall, 70% of the commuters using MAX walked from the station work once a week or more. The high level of walking for Merrick to work or school and 15% used a bus.

TABLE 4 Commute Modes

Commutes Primary Primary Walks to by MAX Commute Commute Mode Work Once Once a Week Mode Is Is Drive Alone a Week or or More (%) Transit (%) or Carpool (%) More (%) n

All developments 35 26 58 11 235 Orenco Station 40 26 55 4 47 Club 1201 29 18 65 18 17 Arbor Gardens 33 25 65 6 48 Sunset Downs 31 23 62 23 13 Elmonica Station: Condos 43 30 60 3 37 and Arbor Station Beaverton Round 42 33 58 0 12 Merrick 30 28 51 23 61 Significant difference No No No Yes between developments? (chi-square, p < .05)

NOTE: Table includes only respondents who work or go to school outside of the home. The two developments near Elmonica station are combined because of the small sample sizes and similar commute patterns. 164 Transportation Research Record 2063

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

Percent commuting by transit 15

10

5

0 5 min or less 6–10 min 11–15 min 16–20 min 21–30 min Over 30 min Estimated walking time from MAX to work/school

FIGURE 2 Transit commuting and walking distance from MAX to work or school.

Noncommute Travel Changes in Travel Mode

Commuting typically represents far less than half of all personal One objective of public policies to promote TODs is to increase travel trips, although it has historically been a focus of transportation transit ridership by encouraging people to switch from driving to and transit planning because of its predictability and consistency. transit. Many of the survey respondents indicated that they made this One question is whether TODs might influence mode choice for switch. Of those who commuted before and after moving to their noncommute trips. The survey included a series of questions asking current home, nearly 20% indicated that they used to travel primarily how often the respondent used transit to various nonwork or school by nontransit modes (includes car, walk, and bike) and now commute destinations “in a typical month with good weather” and “during primarily by transit (Table 5). About 4% made the switch in the other wetter, colder weather.” The good weather results are shown here, direction, from transit to nontransit, for a net change of about 16%. although there were not significant differences between the good The Club 1201 and Orenco Station residents exhibited the lowest and the wetter, colder weather responses for transit use. Overall, the rate of switching from nontransit to transit, although the differences respondents are not using transit as often to get to noncommute between the neighborhoods are not statistically significant. Overall, destinations from home, compared to commuting. In most cases, of the 44 regular MAX commuters responding, 59% had primarily less than one-quarter of the respondents used transit to get to any commuted by car, alone or in a carpool, 25% had used transit, 11% type of noncommute destination once a week or more in good had used multiple modes (including at least one nontransit mode), weather (Figure 3). In contrast, 29% to 43% of the residents took and 5% walked. MAX to work or school once a week or more. The use of transit For overall travel, a majority of respondents at all TODs claim to use for noncommute travel is higher at the stations closer to downtown transit more, and large shares also claim to walk more and drive less. Portland. For example, nearly 30% of Merrick residents used tran- Respondents were asked to “think about your current daily travel and sit for shopping, dining, or personal-services travel once a week your daily travel when you lived at your previous residence not long or more. A trip from the Merrick to downtown on MAX would before you moved. We would like to know about how your travel take less than 15 min. In addition, the station nearest the Merrick has changed, for whatever reason. Please answer for your own travel is within the Fareless Square zone, allowing for a free trip to down- only.” These results are shown in Table 6. Respondents were also town. Rates of transit use for noncommute travel are second high- asked, “Approximately how many miles do you drive in a typical week est among respondents of the Beaverton Round and Elmonica (including weekends)?” The averages are also shown in Table 6. Station TODs, which are closer to downtown than the remaining Some of the respondents indicated that they own fewer vehicles TODs (Figure 1). because of their new residence. Respondents were asked if the number Dill 165

50

Shopping, dining, or services 45 Any noncommute destination Commute to work or school

40

35

30

25

20

15 % using transit weekly to destination category 10

5

0 Orenco Station Club 1201 Arbor Gardens Sunset Downs Elmonica Station Beaverton Round The Merrick

FIGURE 3 Percent of residents taking transit to noncommute versus commute destinations once a week or more. Note that question regarding noncommute destinations asked about travel in both good weather and wetter, colder months; good-weather data are presented in figure.

of vehicles in their household changed “as a result of the characteris- CONCLUSIONS tics of your current neighborhood.” Overall, 76% said that “moving to this place has had no impact on the number of vehicles available The survey collected data from more than 300 residents near four in my household,” and 13% said that, “I/we got rid of a vehicle because different light rail stations in the Portland, Oregon, region. The neigh- of the characteristics of the neighborhood.” However, 2% claimed borhoods were selected to represent a range of types of TODs while to have added a vehicle because of the neighborhood. There were no controlling somewhat for income (through housing styles and prices). significant differences between the neighborhoods. None of the developments completely satisfy the generally agreed-on

TABLE 5 Changes in Commute Mode Between Transit and Nontransit

Switched from Continued Continued Switched from Nontransit Commuting Commuting by Transit to to Transit by Transit Nontransit Nontransit (%) (%) Modes (%) (%) n

All developments 19 6 71 4 213 Orenco Station 14 11 71 5 59 Club 1201 7 13 67 13 15 Arbor Gardens 17 7 70 7 46 Sunset Downs 18 9 73 0 11 Elmonica Station: Condos 26 3 71 0 31 and Arbor Station Beaverton Round 17 8 67 8 12 Merrick 26 0 74 0 54

NOTE: Differences between neighborhoods not significant. 166 Transportation Research Record 2063

TABLE 6 Changes on Travel Modes Compared to Previous Residence and Weekly Miles Driven

Uses Transit Walks More Drives Less Avg. Weekly More Now (%) Now (%) Now (%) Miles Driven n

All neighborhoods 64 51 61 113 315 Orenco Station 70 61 66 112 79 Club 1201 52 48 52 157 23 Arbor Gardens 58 64 47 106 66 Sunset Downs 40 60 62 144 20 Elmonica Station: Condos 61 29 61 133 41 and Arbor Station Beaverton Round 77 15 77 125 13 Merrick 71 47 68 85 73 Significant difference No Yes No No between neighborhoods? (p < 0.05)

standards for good TODs: higher density, good land use mix, pedes- residents are transit dependent. Most of the surveyed households trian friendly, and close to transit. The Orenco Station development had about one car per person of driving age. However, parking price comes closest, but it is farther from the MAX station than many and proximity between work and a rail station do matter. Respondents TOD advocates recommend. The Elmonica Station developments with free parking at work or school or who had a walk of more than are much closer to MAX but lack the land use mix and pedestrian 15 min between work or school and a rail station were less likely to amenities. Beaverton Round is a mixed-use urban oasis in the middle commute by transit. These findings imply that land use policies to of auto-oriented suburbia. concentrate employment near rail stations and limit parking supply The overall response rate for the Westside neighborhoods was (which should increase prices) are important to increasing transit use 29%, which is good for a mail-out survey. However, there is still from TODs. a likelihood of response bias. People who favor alternative modes Third, the features and location of the TODs appear to affect levels (transit, walking, and bicycling) may have been more likely to respond. of noncommute transit use, not transit commuting behavior. There People with very busy and complex schedules, which may also include was no significant difference between the TODs in the share of fewer transit riders, may be less likely to respond. In addition, older, people regularly commuting by transit. The only difference regarding retired adults often are more likely to complete surveys. These types commuting was how people accessed the transit station near their of biases are inherent in most survey research and must be acknowl- home. Residents of Orenco Station, who live further from a station than edged when interpreting results. However, if any response bias is the other neighborhoods (except Sunset Downs), were more likely to consistent across the neighborhoods, comparisons between neigh- drive or be dropped off at the station than to walk. Few respondents borhoods should not be significantly affected. Despite the limitations, took transit to noncommute destinations on a regular basis. In most several conclusions can be made on the basis of the survey findings. cases, less than one-quarter of the respondents used transit to non- These conclusions have policy implications for public agencies. The commute destinations on a weekly basis. The main exception was the findings are also consistent with other TOD research. Merrick, which is within a short transit ride of downtown Portland. First, some of the TODs appear to be attracting smaller households, Transit use for noncommute trips was also higher at the TOD near the usually without children, and households with adults age 65 and Beaverton Central MAX station, about a 25-min ride from downtown, older. In most of the TODs, the surveyed households averaged two compared to the Orenco/NW 231st station, which is 40 min from or fewer persons. Response bias may account for some of this dif- downtown Portland on MAX. In addition, service from the Merrick ference. However, the finding is consistent with the style of housing and Beaverton Central is more frequent, as more than one line serves provided. Except for Sunset Downs, all the single-family housing those stations. Finally, transit service between the Merrick and down- units have small yards, which may be unattractive to many families town Portland is free. The implication of these findings is that transit with children. The amenities and walkability of some of the TODs and land use planning agencies should not expect high rates of transit may be attracting older adults. The finding that TODs may attract use for noncommute purposes from TODs located on the suburban smaller and older households complements two major demographic fringe, where destinations with a dense concentration of nonwork trends in the United States—the aging of the baby boomers and a attractors are 30 min away or more via transit. decline in household size. Conversely, if agencies want to provide Finally, TOD residents claimed to be using transit more than housing in TODs for all types of households, attention must be paid they had in their previous residences. Overall, nearly 20% of the to how to design them to meet the needs of families with children. commuters switched from nontransit to transit modes and 4% did Although large yards may be inconsistent with the TOD objective the opposite, for a net of about 16%. At least half the respondents of higher density, for some families well-placed and well-designed in all the recently built TODs (excluding Sunset Downs) claimed to parks may be an attractive substitute. be using transit more, and more than 10% claimed to have gotten Second, respondents commuted by transit at significantly higher rid of a car because the live in the TOD. Response bias may over- rates than residents citywide. Twenty-five percent of the respondents state these findings. In addition, the higher use of transit and the of the TODs in Hillsboro and Beaverton commuted primarily by changes in modes are likely due in part to self-selection. Many transit, compared to 10% of workers surveyed in the 2000 census residents of the TODs, particularly those who commute by transit, in those cities. The transit commuting rates are not high because the placed a high importance on transit and walking accessibility when Dill 167 choosing their homes. However, about one-quarter of the respon- 4. Godbe Research & Analysis. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Author- dents stated that access to transit was not an important factor in ity Survey of Residents. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, choosing their homes. Of these respondents, 53% said that they San Jose, Calif., 2003. 5. Cervero, R., G. B. Arrington, J. Smith-Heimer, and R. Dunphy. TCRP were using transit more, compared to their previous residence. Report 102: Transit-Oriented Development in the United States: Expe- Moreover, even if self-selection explains a large share of the effects riences, Challenges, and Prospects. Transportation Research Board of on mode choice, this should not detract from the finding that these the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004. developments are providing a desired housing option that facilitates 6. Podobnik, B. The Social and Environmental Achievements of New Urbanism: Evidence from Orenco Station. Lewis and Clark College, such choices. Portland, Ore., 2002. 7. Switzer, C. R. The Center Commons Transit Oriented Development: A Case Study. School of Urban Studies and Planning, Portland State ACKNOWLEDGMENTS University, Portland, Ore., 2002. 8. Dittmar, H., and G. Ohland. (eds.) The New Transit Town. Island Press, The research was funded by Portland State University, Metro, and Washington, D.C., 2004. 9. Dow, A. Metro Transit-Oriented Development Program: Improving the Transportation Northwest (TransNow) Regional Center under the Accountability Through Enhanced Measures of Service Efforts and sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation University Accomplishments. In A Report by the Office of the Auditor, Metro, Transportation Center Grant Program. Several students assisted in Portland, Ore., 2001. this research, including Matt Lasky, Sumi Malik, Lesley Barewin, 10. Dunphy, R. T., and D. R. Porter. Manifestations of Development Goals in Transit-Oriented Projects. In Transportation Research Record: Journal and Warren Greaser. A report on the full project results, including of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1977, Transportation Research the survey instrument, is available at www.transnow.org/publication/ Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 172Ð179. final-reports/. 11. Community Building Sourcebook. TriMet, Portland, Ore., 2005. 12. Bae, C.-H. C. Orenco Station, Portland, Oregon: A Successful Transit Oriented Development Experiment? Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 56, No. 3, 2002, pp. 9Ð15. REFERENCES 13. Handy, S., X. Y. Cao, and P. Mokhtarian. Correlation or Causality Between the Built Environment and Travel Behavior? Evidence from 1. Lund, H., R. Cervero, and R. Willson. Travel Characteristics of Transit- Northern California. Transportation Research Part D, Transport and Oriented Development in California (Final Report). California Department Environment, Vol. 10, No. 6, 2005, pp. 427Ð444. of Transportation, Sacramento, 2004. 2. Lund, H., R. W. Willson, and R. Cervero. A Re-evaluation of Travel The contents of this report reflect the views of the author, who is responsible for Behavior in California TODs. Journal of Architectural and Planning the facts and the accuracy of the data presented. Research, Vol. 23, No. 3, 2006, pp. 247Ð263. 3. Bernick, M., and R. Cervero. Transit Villages for the 21st Century. The Public Transportation Planning and Development Committee sponsored McGrawÐHill, New York, 1996. publication of this paper.