Travel Characteristics of Transit-Oriented Development in California
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Travel Characteristics of Transit-Oriented Development in California Hollie M. Lund, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Urban and Regional Planning California State Polytechnic University, Pomona Robert Cervero, Ph.D. Professor of City and Regional Planning University of California at Berkeley Richard W. Willson, Ph.D., AICP Professor of Urban and Regional Planning California State Polytechnic University, Pomona Final Report January 2004 Funded by Caltrans Transportation Grant—“Statewide Planning Studies”—FTA Section 5313 (b) Travel Characteristics of TOD in California Acknowledgements This study was a collaborative effort by a team of researchers, practitioners and graduate students. We would like to thank all members involved for their efforts and suggestions. Project Team Members: Hollie M. Lund, Principle Investigator (California State Polytechnic University, Pomona) Robert Cervero, Research Collaborator (University of California at Berkeley) Richard W. Willson, Research Collaborator (California State Polytechnic University, Pomona) Marian Lee-Skowronek, Project Manager (San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit) Anthony Foster, Research Associate David Levitan, Research Associate Sally Librera, Research Associate Jody Littlehales, Research Associate Technical Advisory Committee Members: Emmanuel Mekwunye, State of California Department of Transportation, District 4 Val Menotti, San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit, Planning Department Jeff Ordway, San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit, Real Estate Department Chuck Purvis, Metropolitan Transportation Commission Doug Sibley, State of California Department of Transportation, District 4 Research Firms: Corey, Canapary & Galanis, San Francisco, California MARI Hispanic Field Services, Santa Ana, California Taylor Research, San Diego, California i Travel Characteristics of TOD in California ii Travel Characteristics of TOD in California Executive Summary Rapid growth in the urbanized areas of California presents many transportation and land use challenges for local and regional policy makers. Transit-oriented development (TOD) can respond to these challenges by supporting transit use and provided needed housing and other forms of development. TOD is generally considered to be moderate- to high-density mixed-use development located within an easy walk of a major transit stop. This study provides a 2003 measurement of travel behavior in California TODs. It supports recent efforts to develop information and policy recommendations that enhance the effectiveness of TOD development. It builds upon previous studies conducted in the early 1990s, and examines a range of potential rail users—residents, office workers, hotel employees and patrons, and retail patrons. Survey sites are all located in non-CBD locations, are within walking distance of a transit station with rail service headways of 15 minutes or less, and were intentionally developed as TODs. Surveys were conducted along each of California’s major urban rail systems, including the San Diego Trolley, San Diego Coaster, Los Angeles Blue and Red Lines, Los Angeles Metrolink commuter rail, San Jose VTA light rail, Caltrain commuter rail, the Bay Area Rapid Transit District, and Sacramento Light Rail. Additionally, the study collects detailed data on site and neighborhood factors that potentially affect the likelihood of using transit and models those factors in relationship to individual and project-level travel behaviors. Comparisons are also made to the 1990-era data in order to understand how travel behavior changes occur over time, as location decisions and mode choice adjust to the new transit accessibility and growing roadway congestion. This broad data collection effort is intended to facilitate a more comprehensive understanding of travel decisions within TODs and to stimulate further analysis and surveys by local jurisdictions, transit agencies, and regional planning entities. TOD Resident Findings TOD residents have high rates of transit use for their respective communities. The rates are higher than comparable regions, cities or adjacent areas. Residents living near transit stations are around five times more likely to commute by transit as the average resident worker in the same city. This is the same ratio as found in Cervero’s 1993 California TOD study. Table E-1 shows transit mode share for commute trips by station area residents, according to five station groupings. Table E-1: Commute Trip Mode Share, TOD Residents Percent of trips made by BART: BART: S. L.A. Metro: S.D. Trolley: Caltrain the following modes: All Sites Pleas’t Hill Alameda Cty Long Beach Mission Vly Commuter Vehicle 71.7 52.9 61.6 93.3 84.9 81.9 Transit 26.5 44.9 37.8 3.3 13.0 17.4 Other 4.1 2.3 0.6 0.6 2.2 0.8 N (Number of trips) 877 176 177 60 185 121 The table shows that rail use varies significantly by region and type of rail service. This is to be expected; some regions are in the midst of developing their rail networks, while others are farther along. In particular, the Bay Area’s more mature rail transit system and smart-growth initiatives support higher levels of transit use among TOD residents. The full report provides information on the station characteristics, demographics, employment characteristics, residential location, commuting costs, and transportation incentives for TOD sites. It reports on work trips, non-work trips, commuting times, trip length, and trip chaining. Rail iii Travel Characteristics of TOD in California transit shares for TOD residents are higher for the commute trip than for non-work travel. Over 90 percent of the surveyed rail commuters living near rail stations walked to the rail station. In terms of changes over time, there is not conclusive evidence that transit mode choice increased among TOD residents in the 1992 to 2003 period. Small increases in transit trips were measured, but they were not large enough to establish a statistically valid difference. Survey results did show that transit use is positively related to length of residency. Resident respondents indicated that housing attributes (cost or quality) were generally more important than rail transit accessibility in their decision to move to a TOD, suggesting that California’s housing affordability challenges play an important role in TOD housing demand (where units tend to be smaller and less expensive than their surrounding region). Indeed, the pattern of mode change that occurs when a resident moves to a TOD is complex, because TODs provide good accessibility of all kinds, not just rail transit. Survey respondents who had changed both work location and residential location indicated a variety of mode changes; 11.5 percent switched from automobile to rail transit, but an almost equal number switched from transit to automobile. Based on disaggregate models of transit ridership, TOD residents are more likely to use transit if there is less of a time benefit for traveling via highways (compared to transit), if there is good pedestrian connectivity at the destination, if they are allowed flexible work hours, and if they have limited vehicle availability. TOD residents are less likely to use transit if the trip involved multiple stops (or “trip chaining”), if there is good job accessibility via highways, if they can park for free at their workplace, and if their employer helps to pay vehicle expenses (such as tolls, fuel, etc.). Each of these results is consistent with travel behavior theory. Concerning the impact that distance from the rail station might have on transit share, the analysis did not reveal a negative sloping transit share gradient. Transit share was not sensitive to distance from the station for the TODs studied (all of which were within reasonable walking distance of the station). Physical design factors such as neighborhood design and streetscape improvements show some influence in predicting project-level differences, but have relatively minor influences on transit choice among individual station area residents. This suggests that while design elements are important, there is great variation across individuals. Within each TOD, there are likely to be some that place value on these elements while others are unlikely to be deterred, for instance, by poor landscaping or a lack of streetlighting as long as the transit is nearby. TOD Office Worker Findings Office workers in TOD projects also have higher rates of transit use than their surrounding areas, although the area of comparison for office workers is the region (or MSA) rather than the city since office sites are likely to draw employees from a larger area. Compared to workers in their surrounding region, TOD office workers are more than 3.5 times as likely to commute by transit, an increase from the 2.7 times ratio found in the 1993 study. Table E-2 shows transit mode share for commute trips by station area residents, according to six station groupings. iv Travel Characteristics of TOD in California Table E-2: Primary Commute Mode, TOD Office Workers Percent of trips made by BART BART: LA Metro: SD Trolley Sacram- Metrolink: the following modes: All Sites Berkeley Walnut Crk Hollywood Miss’n Vly ento LRT Anaheim Vehicle 77.8 50.0 81.8 88.2 96.3 66.7 92.6 Transit 18.8 38.5 17.2 7.8 2.9 29.0 6.0 Other 3.5 11.5 0.9 3.9 1.0 4.1 1.5 N (No. of trips) 853 104 110 51 210 286 67 Consistent with the findings of residents of TOD housing, there is substantial variation across TOD context and rail systems. However, in all cases, TOD transit shares for office worker commute trips significantly exceed the journey-to-work transit mode share in the surrounding region. There is also conclusive evidence that rates of transit use by office workers increased over the 1992 to 2003 period, unlike the finding for TOD residents. The rail/bus share increased from 14.3 percent in 1992 to 23.9 percent in 2003. (See full report for an explanation of this comparison). Employers continue to subsidize parking for employees, even when located in a TOD.