MTI Report 04-03
The
Development Strategies, Location Decisions, and Travel Characteristics along a
New Rail Line in the
April 2005
Dr. Hollie
Lund
Dr. Richard W. Willson
a publication of the
Mineta Transportation Institute
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was a collaborative effort
by a team of researchers and university students. The authors would like to
thank the following persons for their efforts and suggestions: Researcher
Daniel Evans,
Additional thanks to MTI staff, including Research Director Trixie Johnson, Research and Publications Assistant Sonya Cardenas, Graphic Designer Shun Nelson, Webmaster Barney Murray, and Editorial Associates Irene Rush and Catherine Frazier for editing and publishing assistance.
Table of Contents
The Gold Line and Its Station Areas 15
Overview of Residential Surveys 29
Demographic Characteristics 30
Residential Location Choices 39
Comparison to Prior Commute Behavior 48
Analyses of Variance in Transit Ridership 49
Overview of Interview Findings 57
Property Managers and Marketing 78
Conclusion and Policy Recommendations 83
List of Figures
Map of Pasadena Gold Line and its rail stations 15
Gender of survey respondents 31
Race/ethnicity of survey respondents 31
Number of persons living in respondent's household 32
Availability of vehicles in respondent's household 33
Number of years that respondent has lived at current residence 34
Occupation of respondent (self-reported) 34
Respondents' approximate household income (after taxes) 35
Share of respondents who work (or attend school) away from home 36
Transportation options available at TOD residents' place of work or school 37
Respondents' perceptions of the local transportation environment 38
Respondents' attitudes toward three dimensions of automobile travel 39
Top three factors considered when moving to current TOD residence 40
Housing and transportation-related location factors by station area(s) 41
Transit commuting frequencies for all surveyed TOD residents combined 42
Primary modes of travel for reported main trips (all TODs) 43
Primary modes of travel by station area(s) 44
Parking price and availability at destination (vehicle trips only, n=304) 45
Primary trip purposes for reported main trips (all TODs) 46
List of Tables
Summary of data collection efforts by station area 10
Key demographic, social, economic and housing
characteristics for
one-third mile radius around station area 25
Gold Line survey response rates by station area(s) 30
Comparison of prior and current commute modes for surveyed TOD residents 48
ANOVA in transit ridership: limited household vehicle availability 49
ANOVA in transit ridership: office or professional occupations 50
ANOVA in transit ridership: annual household income of $15,000 or less 50
ANOVA in transit ridership: respondents over the age of 65 51
ANOVA in transit ridership: recently moved into station area 52
ANOVA in transit ridership: moved into station area for transit accessibility 53
ANOVA in transit ridership: moved into station area for highway access 53
ANOVA in transit ridership: moved into station area for cost of housing 54
ANOVA in transit ridership: moved into
station area for type or
quality of housing 54
ANOVA in transit ridership: commute vs. nonwork travel 55
ANOVA in transit ridership: trips that involve additional stops 55
ANOVA in transit ridership: Los Angeles trip destinations 56
ANOVA in transit ridership: Pasadena trip destinations 56
Summary of developer interviews 60
General perceptions of TOD in the Gold Line corridor 63
Effects on land acquisition, market potential, financing, design, and parking 67
City approvals and future valuations 74
Executive Summary
Overview
A study recently prepared for Caltrans
(Travel Characteristics of Transit-Oriented Development in
To take a more comprehensive approach to the study and
understanding of rail station development within the
Research Context
The Pasadena Gold Line extends from
Union Station, the Southern California rail and bus transit hub located at the
northern edge of downtown Los Angeles, to Sierra Madre Villa on the east side
of Pasadena. The Gold Line intersects the cities of Los Angeles, South
Pasadena, and Pasadena and travels through a wide range of environments, from
L.A.'s Chinatown, to upscale neighborhoods of South Pasadena and the Old Town
area of Pasadena, to suburban employment centers on the east end. The total
travel time (according to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Agency
[LACMTA], the operating transit agency) is 36 minutes. The line has 13
stations, including the terminal points at Union Station and Sierra Madre
Villa. Because this study concentrates on suburban and infill development, as
detailed below, data collection is limited to TODs outside the central
The Gold Line carried 17,018 weekday riders as of July 2004, approximately one-half the forecasted ridership. The total ridership of the Long Beach Blue Line is significantly higher, but weekend ridership on both the Gold Line and the Blue Line is relatively strong.
Study
Purposes
The first purpose of this study is to examine the early travel behavior outcomes of Gold Line TODs and identify TOD design and policy features that contribute to success. The project methodology is consistent with that used in Travel Characteristics of Transit-Oriented Development in California to allow comparisons to results elsewhere in the state and to complete the creation of a baseline for future Gold Line or statewide studies. The study methodology is also similar to studies done on this subject in the early 1990s. 3
The second purpose of this study is to understand the factors behind the TOD boom in the Gold Line corridor. Unlike the previous studies, this research includes interviews with key developers and property managers operating in Gold Line station areas. In these surveys, they discuss their understandings of the influence of rail transit accessibility on development, to identify both encouragements and impediments to TOD.
The project has the following policy implications:
It provides an information base that can enhance station-area and access planning for the Gold Line. This can help cities decide on the development densities and land-use combinations that are most appropriate for specific station areas.
It informs planning for extensions to
the Gold Line, one that will proceed to East Los Angeles (anticipated to open
in 2009), and the other that is proposed to proceed east, well into the
It assists developers in assessing opportunities and designing sites.
By comparing these data to
information about other rail lines in
Literature Review
In 1992, Robert Cervero conducted a statewide study of travel
behavior among Californians who live or work near rail stations. 4 Because
the BART system is the most developed rail system in the state, the research
focused primarily on the Bay Area, but some sites from Southern California and
Both studies come to three similar conclusions:
Ridership is (on average) around five times higher among people who live or work near rail stations compared to surrounding areas.
The likelihood of a person's using transit is influenced by characteristics not only of the trip origin, such as density and distance to station, but also at the trip destination, such as parking costs and bus connectivity.
Distance to the station is more critical than land-use mix or local design elements in predicting transit use--in other words, a person who lives or works close to a rail station and wants to use transit is not likely to be deterred by an unfriendly pedestrian environment.
The follow-up study also concluded that although overall transit ridership had not increased significantly, BART was finally achieving its TOD ridership expectations. Both of these studies help us to understand residents' and office workers' reactions to rail access and provide a strong basis for future longitudinal studies of travel behavior along California's rail lines, but neither provided insight into station-area development processes nor examined a new rail line. These are the primary research gaps being served by this study of Gold Line station areas.
TOD Implementation
Two other
The nonridership advantages of TOD can counteract some of these
barriers if they coincide with local goals. A rail station's ability to
leverage development opportunities, for example, can help to revitalize
distressed areas or downtowns and increase the use of vacant areas. 8 TODs
also provide improved opportunities for housing, particularly in areas
suffering from a housing crisis. 9 In
TODs and Travel Behavior
Past research on travel characteristics within TODs strongly
indicates a link between physical factors, such as density and transit
accessibility, and increased transit ridership. 11 TOD implementation,
however, does not always result in increased transit ridership, and the roles
of demographics, transportation investments, and other policies and development
strategies need to be considered. For example, the Blue Line has the highest
ridership of
Transportation infrastructures can also inhibit ridership, in spite of investments in TOD and rail. For example, rail networks are often oriented toward central business districts, despite the decentralization of regions and a loss of jobs in downtown areas. 13 This can reduce the use of rail for commuting purposes. A study in 2002 attributes lower-than-expected modal shifts (from automobiles to transit) to parallel developments in automobile and transit infrastructure. This study concludes that transit ridership will not occur at the desired levels as long as similar investments are being made in automobile infrastructure. 14 This observation has been noted by several other studies. 15 Parking supply and pricing--especially in suburban areas, where parking is often oversupplied and constituents are less supportive of priced or reduced parking to facilitate TOD 16 --is also a significant deterrent to transit ridership among residents and users of TOD. 17
Finally, it is becoming apparent that household location choice
and residents' attitudes toward transit access play an important role in TOD
travel behavior. A longitudinal travel diary study of residents in the
By taking a combined quantitative-qualitative case-study approach
to understanding TOD, this research not only expands on our current
understanding of TOD implementation, travel behavior, and residential location,
but also explores and identifies connections among these factors and raises new
questions for future study. This research also expands on the existing research
by specifically targeting TOD along a new rail line--research that will be
increasingly important as
Research Methodology
This report presents findings from three related but distinct
data collection efforts. First, residents living within one-third of a mile of
a Gold Line rail station were surveyed regarding travel behavior and
residential location. The sampling unit for these surveys is the multi-unit
building; sites were limited to infill and suburban locations outside of
downtown
The second data collection effort consisted of qualitative interviews with developers and property managers of residential TOD buildings in Gold Line station areas. These buildings do not necessarily overlap with the residential survey sites because many were not yet occupied and some were not completed at the time this research was conducted. Interviewees were identified using a snowball sample technique, in which public sector informants provided contacts in the Gold Line development community.
Finally, data on each station area were compiled through secondary data sources and site evaluations. Quantitative assessments of the station area population and housing characteristics were compiled from 2000 U.S. Census data, and the local pedestrian environment was assessed quantitatively through site evaluations (see See Appendix C: Pedestrian Evaluation WorksheetSee Appendix C: Pedestrian Evaluation WorksheetAppendix C). These data were used for comparison purposes and to improve our understanding of the household survey and interview findings.
Research Objectives
There were three primary objectives for this project:
To understand property developers' and managers' perceptions of
and responses to development opportunities within new
To evaluate station-area residents' responses to the new rail access in terms of travel behavior and location decisions
To provide a more complete data set for future studies of how travel choices, location decisions, and property management decisions within station areas change over time.
Selection of Survey Sites
As noted above, interviewee subjects were identified through a
snowball sample technique, beginning with public sector informants. Identifying
potential survey sites required extensive legwork. The first task in selecting
sites for study was to create a list of multi-unit buildings located within
one-third mile of the Gold Line stations. To increase our range of potential
sites and to recognize the significant variation in development patterns across
the station areas, buildings of all sizes were considered. (This is different
from the previous studies, where buildings were limited to 50 units or more in
order to make the most efficient use of resources.) Students in a senior
Community Planning Studio class in the Department of Urban and Regional
Planning initiated this task, conducting field reconnaissance on all Gold Line
stations. After the students listed potential sites, a research assistant
refined and narrowed the list based on additional criteria. It was important
that the selected sites represent a range of housing affordability; sites in
the cities of
All sites were located within walking distance (one-third of a mile) of a rail station, except in the case of Sierra Madre Villa (the terminal station), where we had to extend out to a 1-mile radius to find suitable multi-unit buildings.
Household
Surveys
The quantitative assessment of travel behaviors and location decisions was conducted through self-administered questionnaires. Travel behavior questions were the same as those used in the statewide Caltrans study, but supplemented by questions related to residential location decisions and perceptions of the new rail station access.See Jonathan Levine, et al., Land Use and Transportation Alternatives: Constraint or Expansion of Household Choice, Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) Report 01-19. San Jose, CA: San Jose State University, 2002. See Appendix A for the survey instrument.
The following are the primary research questions of the resident surveys:
Does residential location near the Gold Line increase the probability of transit use in work and nonwork trips, as compared to transit-mode share in the surrounding city? To what degree does location in a TOD bring about a change in travel behavior (versus relocation of prior transit users)?
What is the influence of other factors, such as the service qualities of competing modes, demographic characteristics, policy features, and neighborhood attributes?
What factors influence residential location in a TOD? How did travel behavior differ from the previous residence to the current one?
Surveys were sent to all residential units within each building. The questionnaire included a cover letter describing the project and giving instructions for completing the survey; a letter of endorsement from the mayor of Pasadena for Pasadena surveys or the councilman for the city of Los Angeles for the Los Angeles surveys; and a prepaid, preaddressed envelope. The first mailing was sent in early June, and follow-up survey packages were sent to all nonrespondents three weeks later.
Two additional strategies were used to increase response rates. First, everyone who returned a completed questionnaire was eligible for a raffle drawing with two $500 cash prizes. Second, surveys were translated into Spanish and there was a notice at the top of the introductory letter informing potential respondents (in Spanish) of how to obtain a Spanish-language survey. The survey team received only three requests for Spanish surveys; none of these was returned. The resulting overall response rate is 13.9 percent. The survey instrument is provided in Appendix A.
Key
Participant Interviews
Inquiries into the development and management responses to new rail access were conducted through oral interviews with project developers and property managers operating within Gold Line station areas. The following are the primary research questions for the developer and property manager surveys:
How does the Gold Line influence the market for TOD in the entire corridor?
How did proximity to the Gold line affect a specific TOD project, considering factors such as planning, design, development economics, financing, development entitlements, and marketing?
We selected developers that represent
the range of development conditions along the Gold Line. Neighborhoods vary
from residential districts with a small-town feeling to urban-scale mixed-use
areas. We generated our list of interview targets by talking with planners who
worked at LACMTA, the city of
An interview guide was developed to ensure that consistent questions were asked of respondents. The questions were open-ended, allowing the respondent to explain the situation as he or she sees it. (See Appendix B for a copy of the interview guide.) The primary objectives of the developer interviews were to gain insights into how light-rail transit station proximity influenced development practices and to discover planning issues that support or impede the continuation of TOD in the corridor. For each developer, Web research was completed on project characteristics and a telephone interview was conducted with a senior manager directly involved in the development. Each interview took about 30 minutes.
The Gold Line and Its Station Areas
The Pasadena Gold Line extends from
Union Station in downtown
Source: Metropolitan Transportation Authority (http://www.mta.net)
Map of Pasadena
Among the best-known TODs in the corridor is
The following overviews illustrate the wide range of population, housing, and development characteristics along the Gold Line corridor. These overviews are based on data from the 2000 U.S. Census (see Table 2 on page 25) and site observations, and are presented here from west to east.See U.S. Census data for the one-third-mile radii around station areas were compiled using the LandView 6 program produced by the U.S. Census Bureau. Land View 6 estimates population characteristics within a radius "by tallying Census 2000 data for those block [group] points whose coordinates fall within the circle defined by the radius." Data are derived from Summary Files 1 and 3 of the 2000 U.S. Census. The surveyed TOD sites are described briefly.
Southwest Museum
The
Most of the housing stock consists of one-unit buildings and structures that were built prior to 1960. Of the occupied housing units, 58 percent are rental, and nearly 60 percent of residents had moved into their current residence within the past five years (as of 2000). The overall densities are 10,918 persons per square mile and 3,850 housing units per square mile. Immediately next to the station is a day-care facility in a historic structure that was developed to take advantage of Gold Line proximity.
Three TOD sites or buildings were included in this study: two
along
Evaluations of the pedestrian
environment between each of the sites and the rail station reveal that routes
are relatively safe from traffic, with sidewalks on both sides of the street
for the entire route and crosswalks and signals at every intersection, but they
do not rate well in terms of comfort, aesthetics, or sense of safety. None of
the block faces has more than one street tree or street light; there are no
benches or other furniture; landscaping is sporadic; and graffiti, trash, and
bars on windows were common.
Highland Park
The housing stock is quite diverse in
terms of the number of units per building (38 percent are single-unit, 41
percent have 2 to 19 units, and 21 percent have 20 units or more) and the age
of the structures (18 percent were built between 1980 and 1994, 27 percent
between 1960 and 1979, and 55 percent before 1960). As of 2000, the station
area was not characterized by new development: No structures were built between
1995 and 2000. Eighty percent of the occupied housing units are rentals, and
nearly 60 percent of the population moved into their current residence within
the past five years (from 1995 to 2000). Portions of the station area are under
a historic overlay zone and a TOD ordinance. The station is one block from the
busy main street of the commercial district,
Unfortunately, household addresses were
successfully obtained for only one (15-unit) building in this station area.
Even with a 13 percent response rate, this provided only two surveys. These
surveys are clustered with
The pedestrian environment surrounding
the
Mission
The Mission station area is located in
the old town area of
Nearly one-half of the housing stock consists of one-unit dwellings, and two-thirds of the housing structures were built prior to 1960. Sixty-three percent of occupied housing units were rentals as of 2000, and 61 percent of all residents (including renters and owners) moved to their current residence between 1995 and 2000. The community is in the path of a planned extension of the 710 Freeway, but has participated with others opposed to the freeway in preventing its construction. Some in the community saw the Gold Line as an alternative to freeway building.
Ten TOD sites or buildings were
surveyed within the
The station has no public parking yet and only one connecting bus
route. However, LACMTA has teamed up with a TOD developer to fund public
station parking in a TOD next to the station, which is under construction. The
two
Fillmore
Primarily comprising medical and hospital services, Fillmore's station area has the lowest population density as of 2000 (3,279 persons per square mile). City planners saw this corridor as being appropriate for biotechnology research and development, but that development has been slow in occurring. The station area also has a low share of young children (just 4 percent of the total population); the highest educational attainment among the studied station areas, with 38 percent of the adult population earning a bachelor's degree or higher; and a high share of single-person households (58 percent). Fillmore's racial and ethnic make-up is quite diverse, with Asian persons representing 15 percent of the population, Black or African American persons comprising 12 percent, and Hispanic or Latino comprising 19 percent. Fillmore has the highest share of single-occupancy-vehicle (SOV) commuters (87 percent) and the lowest share of carpool commuters (1 percent). Only 5 percent of the station-area population commuted by transit in 2000.
Fillmore has few total housing units (664) compared to the other nine station areas. One-third of these units are located in large multi-unit buildings (20 units or more), and just 22 percent are single-unit dwellings. Fillmore also has a high share of renters (80 percent) and newer residents (70 percent moved in between 1995 and 2000). The Fillmore station has 160 public parking spaces and five connecting bus routes.
Four TODs were surveyed in the Fillmore Station. All sites are located close to one another, along South Marengo Avenue, about 0.2 mile southeast of the station. Two were built in the early 1960s, two in the early 1980s, and one is a condominium complex. Sizes range from 12 to 30 units per building. The pedestrian routes have average to excellent landscaping (ranging from 3 to 5 on the subjective 5-point ranking), and there was no evidence of trash, graffiti, vacant buildings, or barred windows. Although there is little retail nearby and only one street tree and street light per block face, it was a fairly pleasant route overall.
Del
Del Mar is similar to Fillmore in several ways: low population density (4,388 persons per square mile), few children under 5 years of age (4 percent of the population), high educational attainment (29 percent have a bachelor's degree or higher), a large share of single-person households (62 percent), and a relatively diverse ethnic composition (10 percent Black or African American, 11 percent Asian, 28 percent Hispanic). It also has a large majority of workers (80 percent) who commute by SOV and few (2 percent) who carpool. However, this station area is going through substantial change, with construction of the Del Mar Station TOD surrounding the station. The completed project will include public parking for the Gold Line and the restoration of the Santa Fe Depot train station.
The size of
Four large buildings (80 to 150 units)
were surveyed in the
Memorial
Park
The Memorial Park station area is located at the northern edge of
historic Old Pasadena. It has a low population density and few young children,
but has a higher share of seniors than Fillmore and
The most interesting aspect of the Memorial Park station area, however, is that 29 percent of its working population walks to work. This is not surprising given the transit- and walking-dependent population (Memorial Park has more low-income households, elderly persons, and households with no vehicles than any other station area), but this behavior also appears to be supported by Memorial Park's central location in Pasadena's mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly environment.
The large majority of housing units (82
percent) near the Memorial Park station are located in buildings with 20 or
more units. As of 2000, this station area had the largest share of recent
development, with 24 percent of its housing structures constructed between 1995
and 2000. This percentage drops to just 5 percent in the station areas with the
next largest shares of recent development (Fillmore and
Only two sites were surveyed within the
Memorial Park station area. One of these (
With a major TOD built directly above the station and several TODs located within one-quarter-mile east of the station, the pedestrian environment in and around the Memorial Park station was one of the strongest of all the TODs studied. Landscaping was excellent, with nearly every block face along each of the routes ranking either a 4 or 5, and there was no evidence of trash, graffiti, vacant buildings, or barred windows. Street trees and lights were not over-abundant (only one street tree and light per block face on average), but intersection wait times were rarely more than 30 seconds.
Lake
The Lake station area has much higher
densities than the three
Building sizes are fairly well distributed across single-unit dwellings, small multi-unit buildings, and large buildings (20 or more units). The area had received some recent development as of 2000, but nearly all the housing structures were built before 1995: 24 percent between 1980 and 1995, 30 percent between 1960 and 1979, and 42 percent before 1960. As with nearly all the studied station areas, the large majority of residents (85 percent) are renters, and more than half moved into their current residence between 1995 and 2000.
These demographics have to be understood in terms of the role that the 134 Freeway plays in bifurcating the station area. The area to the south of the station is high-density office and new residential units, while the area to the north of the station is a more traditional residential neighborhood with a lower income profile. The station itself in located in the freeway median, below street level.
Four TODs were surveyed within the
Residents living to the north or south
have a substantial walking distance to reach the station. As with the rest of
the stations to the east, this station has a harsher station platform
environment, related to noise and safety issues associated with being in a
freeway median. As the most westerly of the three stations located along
Interstate 210, conditions along the walking routes probably varied the most of
any of the stations examined, with landscaping ranging from 1 to 5 and
intersection wait times ranging from no wait time to 60 seconds. Newer sites in
this area, including
Allen
The Allen station area has the
second-highest population density (after
The majority of the housing stock (as
of 2000) was built before 1960, with just 3 percent built from 1995 to 2000.
The station area has a higher share of single-family dwellings (63 percent of
all housing units), and a lower share of renters (57 percent) relative to most
other station areas. As in other station areas, the majority of Allen's
residents had moved in within the last 5 years (as of 2000). The Allen station
has the most residential neighborhood feel of all the stations. South of the
station, a large cluster of automobile repair shops are interspersed with the
residential development.
The three TODs surveyed in the Allen station area are all located along North Allen and all are condominiums. Two of the sites were built in the early 1970s and consist of 75 units each; the third was built in 1989 and has just 10 units. The Allen station has no parking and four connecting bus routes.
Walking south along
Sierra
Madre Villa
In spite of their physical separation
at opposite ends of the Gold Line, the residents and housing stock around
Sierra Madre Villa are quite similar to that of the
Sierra Madre Villa's housing stock is almost entirely composed of older, single-family dwellings: 88 percent of the housing units are one-unit (attached or detached) buildings, and more than three-quarters of the housing stock was constructed before 1960. This is the only station area with more owners than renters (60 percent and 40 percent respectively), and the only one where more than half of all residents had lived in their place of residence for more than 5 years as of 2000. This housing stock coexists with major employment centers and a big box retail outlet.
Six multi-unit TODs were identified and
surveyed in the Sierra Madre Villa station area: one on
Because of the lack of multi-unit
housing within walking distance of the Sierra Madre Villa station, the selected
sites are all 0.6 to 0.7 mile from the station--by far the longest walking
distance of any residential buildings that we examined. The five sites on
Overview of Residential Surveys
This chapter summarizes the results of the residential surveys conducted at TODs in the Gold Line corridor.
Response Rates
Surveys were distributed to 1,595 multifamily housing units located within one-third mile of Gold Line stations. Each survey respondent was asked to provide detailed information on up to three "main" trips for a predetermined day of the week. (In order to collect as much information as possible on commute travel, and to remain consistent with the previous statewide studies, weekend days were not included.) A trip is defined in the survey instrument as "one direction of travel (for instance, from home to work or from work to the grocery store or from a restaurant to home)." Respondents determine which trips constitute a "main" trip, but are asked to include at least one direction of their travel to work or school if they made a work or school trip during their recorded day of travel.
A total of 221 surveys were
successfully completed and returned, for an overall response rate of 13.9
percent. Response rates were highest (30.1 percent) in the
The 14 percent response rate achieved is slightly higher than that of the 2003 statewide TOD study. Caution must be exercised in drawing interpretations from individual stations because of low numbers of responses. The station groupings shown in Table 3 are the greatest degree to which results can be disaggregated.
Demographic
Characteristics
The following demographic characteristics of the respondents are discussed below: age, gender, and ethnicity; household size; vehicle availability; length of residency; occupation; and household income.
Age, Gender, and Ethnicity
Survey respondents have a mean age of 41.4 years (n=185, SD=14.92), with a range in ages from 18 to 81. Just over one-half of respondents (53 percent) are female (see Figure 2). The majority of respondents are white, non-Hispanic (62.2 percent), followed by similar shares of Asian and Hispanic residents (16.7 percent and 14.8 percent, respectively). Black or African American and Other ethnicities (including Pacific Islander and American Indian) comprise the smallest share, with each representing less than 5 percent of the total surveyed population (see Figure 3).
Race/ethnicity
of survey respondents
Compared to the station area
population as a whole, Latino or Hispanic residents are significantly
underrepresented among survey respondents. This is likely because of the small
number of surveys received from the
Household Size
The large majority of station-area
respondents (81.4 percent) live in small, one- or two-person households (see
Figure 4). This is higher than the regional average of 50.3 percent, but is to
be expected given that this study (and station-area development) focuses on
higher-density apartment and condominium units. Fewer than 10 percent of
respondents live in four- or five-person households, and no respondent reported
a household size larger than five persons, indicating that relatively few
families with children lived in the projects we surveyed. The results for the
Gold Line are consistent with statewide results (81.4 percent in one- or
two-person households in the Gold Line study and 83.2 percent in the
Vehicle Availability
More than 70 percent of respondents' households have one vehicle available for each person of driving age (see Figure 5). Nearly one-quarter of the households have more than one vehicle per driver, and only 6 percent have fewer than one vehicle per driver. (The comparable statewide TOD level is 10.8 percent.) In other words, only a small percentage of the surveyed residents have some degree of transit dependency in their household. Although one might expect station areas to attract households with no cars or fewer cars, the respondent income data (see page See Household Income) indicates that these households have the economic resources to own an automobile. Over the long run, transit planners hope that the Gold Line, other transit services, and walk/bike opportunities lead to lower levels of automobile ownership. Adjustments in vehicle ownership happen slowly, only after a household determines that alternative transportation is sufficient. Therefore, it would be appropriate to resurvey these buildings in five years to determine if automobile ownership levels change. The level of automobile ownership is important because it is directly related to the level of parking requirement, which in turn affects housing affordability.
Length of
Residency
The mean length of residency for surveyed respondents is 4.1 years (n=220, SD=5.66; see Figure 6). Nearly 15 percent have lived at their current residence for more than 10 years (with a maximum of 30 years), while 75.9 percent have moved into their current residence in the past 5 years. Nearly 44 percent moved into their residence in 2003 or 2004. This means that most survey respondents lived in their current residence prior to 2003--more than six months before the Gold Line opened. There has, therefore, been little opportunity for households that are predisposed to using transit to filter into the units. On the other hand, for those residents who lived in the study buildings before and after the Gold Line, we can reliably attribute a change in travel mode to transit to the presence of the Gold Line.
Occupation
The largest share of survey respondents (41 percent) classifies their current occupation as "professional" (see Figure 7). This is much higher than the region as a whole, where only 14 percent of the population works in professional occupations. The next largest occupation groups are unemployed and retired persons (16 percent), and persons in managerial and administrative positions (15.6 percent). The most underrepresented occupations in the surveyed population are labor (1.0 percent), which was combined with "other" occupations in Figure 7, and service (1.9 percent).
Household
Income
Household incomes among the survey
respondents are fairly evenly distributed (see Figure 8), with small
concentrations in the $30,001 to $60,000 and $100,001 to $150,000 ranges. This
distribution is similar to that of the greater
Workplace Characteristics
Respondents' work locations and workplace transportation options are discussed below.
Work Location
Of the surveyed respondents, 87
percent travel to their place of work or to attend school, with only 1 percent
able to work or attend school entirely from home (see Figure 9). The remainder
of the surveyed population (12 percent) is either unemployed or retired and not
attending school. The majority of commutes are to
Workplace
Transportation Options
Figure 10 shows the workplace
transportation programs offered by employers. The most common option is free
parking, a disincentive to transit use. (Note that the availability of free
parking in the survey is less than the national average.) Providing a financial
advantage for automobile commuting works against the convenience and
stress-reducing effect of rail transit. Only 15.3 percent of respondents
indicated that their employer helps pay for transit. Given the investment made
in transit in
Attitudes and Perceptions
Respondents' perceptions of the local transportation environment and their attitudes toward transportation in general are discussed below.
Perceptions of
Local Transportation Environment
The large majority of station-area
residents rate their neighborhood as a good or excellent place to walk and use
transit (80 and 74 percent respectively, see Figure 11). This is a positive
response for a region that is sometimes considered not friendly to walking and
transit. All the communities along the Gold Line corridor have well-developed
pedestrian facilities, a long history of transit service, and clusters of
development. More than half the respondents, however, rate their neighborhood
as a good or excellent place to drive, with an additional 32 percent rating the
driving environment as "acceptable." This suggests that although the
TODs have strong walking and transit environments, they are relatively friendly
to automobiles. Furthermore, although there is severe congestion in the
Attitudes
Toward Transportation in General
To examine the link between individual attitudes toward automobile travel and actual travel behavior, survey respondents were asked to report the extent to which they agree or disagree with three attitudinal statements. These statements (presented in Figure 12) were replicated from Jonathan Levine's (2002) study of transportation alternatives and household choice.
More than one-third of respondents report that they are uncomfortable driving under certain conditions (such as long distances, nighttime, or unfamiliar routes), 74 percent think that their household would benefit from reduced car dependency, and only 22 percent believe that the government should devote more transportation money to expanding roads and highways relative to public transit expenditures. This portrays a population that is generally favorable to public transit and other nonautomobile modes.
Residential Location Choices
Based on the top three factors that respondents reportedly considered when moving to their current station-area residence, people were most likely to move into the current Gold Line corridor because of the neighborhood quality (72 percent), the cost of housing (61 percent), and the type or quality of housing (57 percent). Thirty-seven percent moved to their current residence for improved access to shops and other services, and 18 percent moved for improved highway access. Only 22 percent of respondents reported "access to transit" as one of their top three reasons for moving to the station area (see Figure 13).
Top three
factors considered when moving to current TOD residence
The need for housing and the
attractiveness of these northeast
Figure 14 shows how the responses
varied by station grouping. Transit was most frequently noted as a factor in
the Allen/Sierra Madre Villa (25 percent) and Southwest Museum/Highland
Park/Mission groupings (23 percent). None of the projects surveyed has been
built recently, so many of the longer-term respondents in those projects may be
referring to bus transit availability when they made their location decision.
However, the Allen/Sierra Madre station areas are end-of-the-line station
areas, where the Gold Line offers a significant accessibility advantage to
likely destinations. The
Housing and
transportation-related location factors by station area(s)
Highway access is most frequently
identified by
Travel Behavior Overview
Three aspects of the respondents' travel behavior are discussed below: transit commuting frequency; their primary mode of travel for their three main trips; and trip chaining on their three main trips.
Transit
Commuting Frequency
When asked how often they usually use
transit for commuting, nearly 15 percent report that they commute by transit
every day, and 4 percent use it two to three times per week (see Figure 15).
More than 75 percent never or rarely use transit for commuting. Nearly 30
percent of station-area residents statewide use transit every day, so the Gold
Line results are lower than the average. However, the results are impressive
when compared to other light-rail station areas in that study. In only its
first six months of operations, the Gold Line respondents report that they use
transit every day more frequently than
Transit
commuting frequencies for all surveyed TOD residents combined
The other aspect of light-rail use is those who use the system less than daily. Another 10.7 percent of Gold Line respondents use transit for commuting at times, and at least once a month. This part-time option would be reflected in lower total vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
Primary Modes
of Travel for "3 Main Trips"
"Main trips" refer to one
direction of travel only, and include work and nonwork travel. Nearly 15
percent of respondents' main trips for their reported day of travel are by
transit: 11.7 percent by rail, and 3.1 percent by bus (see Figure 16). This
level, while lower than the California TOD average, exceeds the level of
transit use found in the
.
Primary modes
of travel for reported main trips (all TODs)
Survey respondents indicate that 7.5 percent of trips are by bicycle or foot. This level exceeds the average found in the California TOD survey. It also exceeds the level of walking and biking found in more mature heavy-rail transit systems, such as the BART Pleasant Hill and Alameda County TODs. The quality of the pedestrian environment is reinforced by responses summarized in Figure 11, where 80 percent of respondents rated their neighborhood as a good place to walk.
More than three-quarters of the trips
reported by respondents are by automobile (with 67 percent in single-occupancy
vehicles and 10 percent in carpools). Although lower than normal levels of
automobile use in
Across the individual station areas or clusters of station areas, transit ridership is highest among residents who live near the eastern end of the rail line, within the Sierra Madre and Allen station areas (see Figure 17). These station areas, however, have the lowest rates of bicycling and walking trips, resulting in a mode split for automobile travel that is almost identical to the mean. These station areas have a more suburban style of development, with lower density, fewer mixed uses, and automobile-oriented urban design. The Gold Line has made a big difference in commuting behavior in these communities--the residents within one-third of a mile of the station reported only a 3 percent transit share in 2000, before the Gold Line was operational. In our survey, station-area respondents report a 20.4 percent transit share for their main trips (work and nonwork).
Primary modes
of travel by station area(s)
At the other end of the spectrum,
residents near the
The Memorial Park station, which is directly below one of the projects surveyed, has perhaps the best integration into the urban area. It has the second-highest level of transit use of the groupings. The level of transit use is more than twice as large as that reported in the 2000 census for the journey to work (8 percent).
Two of the larger projects surveyed
demonstrate how location and design can affect levels of transit use. The
The Fillmore/Del Mar TOD respondents
reported a level of transit use more than twice as high as that for station-area
journey-to-work trips in 2000. The Southwest Museum/Highland Park/Mission
results show higher transit shares than the journey-to-work average reported in
the 2000 census. However, there is considerable variation--
As Figure 18 illustrates, free parking
competes with transit for many of the survey respondents who currently
drive--particularly at destinations outside of
Primary trip purposes for reported
main trips (all TODs)
Figure
20 provides a breakdown of trip purposes by station area(s). Commute travel is
reported most frequently toward the eastern end of the rail line (near Sierra
Madre and Allen), and least frequently in the westernmost stations, closer to
downtown
Trip Chaining on "3 Main Trips"
Only 12 percent of all reported main trips included additional stops, or "trip chaining" (see Figure 21). Trip chaining is more common on nonwork trips (24 percent include additional stops) than work trips (only 6 percent include additional stops). The emerging mixed-use and commercial clusters along the Gold Line are making transit more practical when trip chaining is involved. For example, the Southwest Museum station has an immediately adjacent day care center; there is a drug store at the Fillmore station, and downtown Pasadena has a wide variety of retail shops and services.
Comparison to Prior Commute Behavior
To better understand the impact that moving to a TOD has on an individual's commute behavior, respondents were asked to provide information not only on their current commute patterns but also their typical commute patterns at their previous residence and workplace. Table 4 shows a complex pattern of mode shifting when individuals move to a station area. One would expect shifts from auto commuting to transit, but if the TOD location also offers good freeway access, the opposite could take place. Keep in mind that some of these residents moved to the station area before the Gold Line was operational.
The data in Table 4 show a net shift toward transit (11.1 percent shifting from automobile to rail or bus, and 4.7 percent shifting from rail or bus to automobile). Compared to the California TOD data set, these shifts are similar in terms of shifts from automobile to transit, but there is a lower level of shifting from transit to automobile among the Gold Line respondents. The Gold Line results show that a shift toward transit occurred when survey respondents moved into their current units. One cannot assume that the Gold Line caused all these mode changes, because some respondents may have deliberately selected these locations because they had a predisposition to use transit, but the Gold Line and the available development near stations made possible these shifts toward greater transit use.
Concerning walking, biking, and carpooling, the responses show that the shift toward and away from these modes was roughly equal. No net shift toward walking, biking, and carpooling was reported.
Analyses of Variance in Transit Ridership
In the following two sections, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) is used to test the hypothesis that two population groups (for example, males and females) demonstrate equal mean levels of rail use (no bus) or overall transit use (rail and bus). All ANOVA are conducted at the trip level (n=477), based on the primary mode used for each of the respondents' three main trips. All analyses are conducted at the 95 percent confidence level. Note that ANOVA are also conducted for bus use only, but are not presented separately because of the small number of bus trips (n=15); they are noted in the discussion, however, if the direction of the relationship is opposite from that found with rail transit. Because primary trip modes are entered as dummy variables (1, 0), the reported mean values can be interpreted as mode share (for example, a mean of 0.74 equals a mode share of 74 percent).
Please note that in this section, all n values reflect the number of trips, not respondents.
Demographic Variables
Demographic variables discussed below are vehicle availability, occupation, household income, age and gender, and households with children.
Vehicle Availability
Station-area residents living in households with fewer than one vehicle per driver-age person are significantly more likely to use transit (rail and/or bus) than those in households with at least one vehicle per driver (see Table 5).
|
ANOVA in transit ridership: limited household vehicle availability |
|||||||
Occupation
Station-area residents employed in office or professional occupations are significantly more likely (at the 90 percent level) to use rail and significantly less likely (at the 99 percent level) to use bus transit, resulting in a nonsignificant difference in overall transit use (see Table 6). This is noteworthy because the largest majority of station-area residents (41 percent) work in professional occupations. Residents employed in sales and service occupations are less likely to use all forms of transit, suggesting that these workplaces may not be well-served by the existing transit network, although the differences are not significant.
|
ANOVA in transit ridership: office or professional occupations |
|||||||
Household Income
Low-income respondents (those living in households with an income of $15,000 or less) are significantly more likely to use bus transit but less likely (at a nonsignificant level) to use rail transit (see Table 7). The difference in overall transit use is significant, with low-income respondents more likely to use transit, but these relationships suggest that the destinations of lower-income households (such as service-sector employment) may not be adequately served by rail networks. Higher-income individuals generally choose transit if its overall performance characteristics are superior to the automobile; lower-income individuals often are more constrained in their travel choices.
|
ANOVA in Transit ridership: annual household income of $15,000 or less |
|||||||
Age and Gender
Gold Line station area residents over the age of 65 are significantly more likely to use transit as their primary mode of travel than are residents age 65 or younger, although the difference in rail use (after removing bus ridership) is not significant (see Table 8). It is possible that older travelers feel less comfortable driving and thus more inclined to use other forms of travel, although this does not explain the nonsignificant difference in rail use. Female travelers (n=246) are less likely to use rail and more likely to use bus transit than are male travelers (n=223); these relationships, however, are not significant at the 95 percent confidence level.
Households with Children
Station-area residents with one or more children under the age of 16 in the household (n=84) are more likely to use rail and less likely to use bus transit compared to households with no children (n=393), but neither difference is significant at the 95 percent confidence level. The lack of significant variation may be a result of the study's focus on commute trips, which typically do not involve children unless they are being dropped off or picked up along the way. This does not appear to be the case here, however, because only 6 percent of commute trips involved additional stops.
Residential Location Variables
Length of residency and location choice factors are discussed below.
Length of Residency
Station-area residents who moved into their current residence in 2003 or 2004 (within 9 months before or after Gold Line service began) are significantly more likely to use rail transit compared to those who moved before 2003 (Table 9). Their likelihood of using bus transit, however, is somewhat lower than that of more established residents (although not at a significant level), resulting in a nonsignificant difference in overall transit use. Station-area residents who have lived in their current residence for more than 10 years (n=63) are more likely to use all forms of transit compared to residents of 10 years or less (n=412), but only the difference in bus use is significant. The phenomenon of longer-term residents having a greater likelihood of using transit was also found in the California TOD study. In that study, residency over 5 years increased the likelihood of using transit by a factor of two. Newer residents were more likely to drive alone, carpool, or walk.
|
ANOVA in transit ridership: recently moved into station area |
|||||||
Location Choice Factors
Station-area
residents who identified "access to transit" as one of their top
three residential location factors were significantly more likely to use
transit (rail and/or bus) as their primary commute mode (see Table 10). This
reflects the self-selection idea that has been raised in the literature, which
argues that those moving into TODs are not average households but those who
have a predisposition to use transit and are looking for a transit-friendly
location. Therefore, one cannot assume that all households would respond in a
similar manner. However, because transit-friendly locations are hard to come by
in
|
ANOVA in transit ridership: moved into station area for transit accessibility |
|||||||
Similarly, station-area residents who cited "access to highways" as a primary reason for moving to the station area are significantly less likely to use transit (see Table 11). The difference in overall transit use, however, is only significant at the 90 percent confidence level, and the difference in rail transit alone is nonsignificant.
|
ANOVA in transit ridership: moved into station area for highway access |
|||||||
Rail use is significantly lower among those who cited housing cost, or the type or quality of housing, as one of their top three reasons for moving to their current residence (see Table 12 and Table 13). This relationship also holds true for bus and overall transit use, but the difference in bus ridership is not significant. This finding is important because of the high share of respondents (more than 80 percent) who reported at least one of these housing factors as a primary motivation for moving to their current location, compared to the low share (less than 25 percent) who reported "access to transit." This distribution of location choice factors does not differ among residents who moved in 2003 or 2004.
Trip Characteristics
Commute versus nonwork travel, trip chaining, and trip destinations are discussed below.
Commute vs. Nonwork Travel
Commute trips (to or from work or school) are significantly more likely to involve rail (p < 0.05) and significantly less likely to involve bus (p < 0.01), resulting in a nonsignificant difference in overall transit use (see Table 14). This suggests that the Gold Line is adequately serving employment locations (at least those of station-area residents, who are predominantly employed in office and professional occupations), while nonwork destinations are better served by bus transit.
Trip Chaining
Trips that include additional stops are significantly less likely to involve rail transit as the primary mode of travel (see Table 15). This relationship reverses in the case of bus travel, with bus trips being more likely to involve additional stops, resulting in a nonsignificant difference in overall transit use. Trip chaining tends to penalize transit ridership because of the difficulty of coordinating transit service with multiple trip destinations. This penalty could be minimized as walkable retail, service, and other opportunities become more fully integrated into Gold Line station areas.
|
ANOVA in transit ridership: trips that involve additional stops |
|||||||
Trip Destinations
Downtown
Overview of
Interview Findings
Unlike the experience of Los Angeles' Blue Line, where TOD was slow to materialize,See Loukaitou-Sideris and Banerjee the Gold Line corridor already has a substantial amount of transit-oriented development in place. To better understand the development side of TOD, we interviewed developers, property managers, and other contacts concerning their perceptions on the relationship of the Gold Line to development activity. The key observations from these interviews are summarized in the tables and commentaries below.
Developer Perspectives
The following are key observations from developers involved in Gold Line TOD:
There
is a high level of TOD activity in housing and mixed-use development in the
corridor. This activity is supported by a growing cohort of infill developers
who specialize in urban settings, transit connections, and more complicated
projects that involve private/public partnerships. The driving factor behind
this trend is the need for housing of all types, and affordable housing, in the
Density and affordable housing issues are closely linked. Many elected officials are seeking affordable housing in TOD, but the density required to achieve such affordable housing supply can be problematic to local communities concerned about too much change and traffic impacts.
Proactive
public planning and political leadership advance TOD: General plans and
specific plans have built community consensus in preparation for light-rail
development. Local consensus on focusing development was tied to the benefits
of TOD in preserving single-family neighborhoods. In
TOD
in the city of
Although the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority does not have land-use authority, its role in TOD has been significant, in planning an alignment that had development potential, acquiring and disposing of land for development, providing grant resources, and partnering with local cities. Planning for a transit line is critical: It is a one-time event in which planners and engineers can create development opportunities (for example, sensitive design and land acquisition) or destroy them (for example, poor bus interface and station design).
Light-rail station access has both functional and symbolic value to development. Developers have varying assessments of how the Gold Line affects land values. Most developers indicate that rail access is a part of a complex matrix of factors that determine land value. Often the availability of an entitled infill development housing parcel outweighs another factor, given the difficulty of acquiring infill sites in built-up areas. Developers' assessments of how the Gold Line will affect VMT and automobile ownership vary; most have not radically changed their parking practice. However, light rail makes sense to elected officials, community members, and developers, and it supports many local and regional objectives.
Developers need experience and examples before they will
consider meaningful reductions in parking supply. Leasing agents must be
convinced that they can market projects with less parking and/or unbundled
parking. Because of the level of development occurring in the Gold Line
corridor, experience and precedents are quickly being built, which may yield
project refinements in the next generation of Gold Line TODs. Developers spend
as much as $30,000 per space on parking, so an oversupply of parking drives up
the cost of housing and/or reduces profitability. Examples of lower parking
supply and unbundling exist in downtown
Project planning, design, construction, and sales can be better integrated. Projects can get locked into developers' or cities' rules of thumb that inhibit innovations in areas such as parking supply and pricing. The developers interviewed had different structures and objectives, ranging from build and hold to the fee-developer model. Forums are needed that bring together public and private sectors and the different functions within those sectors, such as market professionals, designers, and lenders, or city planning, housing, and public works officials. Activities related to the upcoming Railvolution and Congress for New Urbanism conferences, as well as local symposia and university projects, have provided opportunities for these dialogues.
The
study did not include real estate market assessment, but during the interviews,
developers revealed information about the general market for residential uses
in the corridor. It appears that both rental and for-sale apartments are in
demand across the corridor. A high level of activity is occurring now, but apartment
construction was slow in the early 1990s, so the 10-year average rate of unit
construction is not as high as it might seem. Rents for the type of luxury
apartments being built are in the range of $2.25 per square foot. According to
Alex Wong of Trammel Crow, that rent justifies wood frame construction but is
not sufficient to justify concrete or steel construction. The design
implication of this is that five stories is the maximum building height with
wood frame construction. According to
Table 18 summarizes the development projects studied and explains their relevance. Projects range from high-end projects developed with no interaction with LACMTA to complex projects on former LACMTA land with affordable housing. Table 19 summarizes the developers' general perceptions of TOD potential in the corridor. Responses concerning the effect of the Gold Line on the real estate market range from indicating that is was a causal factor in the project to rail access being one of many desirable location features. Rail seemed to be most important to projects that were testing the market in an area without similar models (the Lincoln Heights project, because of the lack of new housing construction in that area, and the Pinnacle at Sierra Madre Villa, because of a lack of luxury apartments that far east of downtown Pasadena).
The common response on the best-suited real estate products for the Gold Line corridor was dense projects. The predominant market for density is residential uses, reflecting the strength of the residential market and relative weakness of office markets at this time. Some projects have a mix of rental and for-sale units.
Developers learn about TOD through outlets such as the Urban Land Institute (ULI), special-purpose conferences, visits to other places, and peer relationships. Because TOD is still a relatively new area, respondents indicated that there is not an agreed-upon set of information sources.
The developers interviewed have a positive impression of the Gold Line. None commute on it regularly, but most have ridden it for business or recreational trips. They believe it provides a pleasant experience. Most of the issues they raise are similar to those noted in media reports--noise issues and the travel speed of the train.
|
Pinnacle at Sierra Madre Villa www.ci.pasadena.ca.us/planninganddevelopment/developmentprojects/plwtc.asp |
Sierra Madre Villa |
Involves historic preservation, 12 affordable units, received variance for reduced parking. Was MTA property. |
||||
|
220 North Lake Avenue, |
106 for-sale condos, 5 live/work spaces, 9,200 sq. ft. ground-floor retail. 800 feet from station. |
Testing condominium market. In areas with policy questions about housing versus office/retail. |
||||
|
Mill Creek Development, |
Planning |
Likely to be apartments and condos on two sites. 3,100 feet from station. |
Project 0.6 mile from station, at edge of station-area influence. |
|||
|
Completed |
Olson Company |
48 for-sale units, built at 80 units per acre. ~2500 feet from station (across the street). |
||||
|
|
Urban
Partners, |
Dan Rosenfelt |
347 units, 20,000 square feet retail, 1,200 parking spaces. Built around station. |
Large complex TOD, received design awards, involves historical preservation of train station. GL goes through middle of the site. Was MTA property. |
||
|
Stewart Proffitt |
For-sale housing and 6,000 square feet of retail. ~500 feet from station. |
|||||
|
|
67 units, loft and duplex, 5,000 square feet retail. Across the street from station. |
Model for gaining community acceptance, sensitivity to neighborhood and historical resources; partnership with LACMTA on parking. |
||||
|
|
Palisades Develop-ment Group |
Project example outside traditional view of influence area of station. |
||||
|
Lincoln Heights TOD http://www.multihousingnews.com/multihousing/search/search_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000557253 |
533 units in 4 phases; senior affordable, family apartments, condos, retail. Adjacent to station. |
Urban Los Angeles setting, first large L.A. site on Gold Line; diverse project; working with nonprofit service provider; tax credits for affordable housing; child care proposed. |
||||
|
Responses concerning TOD in the Southern California region, including Gold Line, Red Line, and Blue Line |
||||||
|
(No specific current project; did Pottery Barn project
on |
N/A |
N/A |
||||
Table 20 summarizes some of the specifics of the projects studied and their relationship to the Gold Line. Most of the projects are under construction, having proceeded through land acquisition and entitlements while the Gold Line was in the final construction process. There was a period of uncertainty about whether the Gold Line would be built when construction was shifted to a joint powers authority, so it is not surprising that a high level of activity occurred when it was clear that the project would be completed. The housing market was robust during this period, which spurred development.
Most respondents believe they paid
some premium for land because it was near a transit stop. However, they found
it difficult to attribute a particular impact solely to Gold Line proximity. In
most cases, the Gold Line was one of several attractive features about the
site, with others including freeway accessibility and
Developers' responses about how the
Gold Line affected the market analysis for the project varied. Some developers
said the project type and characteristics were not affected by the Gold Line,
but that the project was defined by the demand for urban housing in
In three cases, land for the TOD was purchased by LACMTA as part of the development of the Gold Line project. LACMTA then issued requests for proposals and conveyed the land to the developers. Developers expressed general satisfaction with the LACMTA process and praised LACMTA leadership in this area. One developer said that future agreements should include performance timelines so that projects are built in a reasonable time frame. The other critical issue is station planning and design, because rail construction may provide unique opportunities to acquire land and design access facilities and parking in a way that is supportive of TOD.
Proximity to a rail transit station did not influence selection of the project architect in most cases. The primary orientation of most developers was optimizing the unit type, mix, design, and amenities. Only where a project was directly over a station did developers indicate that they would bring in more specialized TOD expertise.
Responses on parking were varied. Some
developers built fewer spaces than code (with variances); one did so at the
invitation of the city (Pinnacle). Others, especially for-sale units, built
above code. Those developers relied on their sense of market demands and the
perspective of their marketing and leasing professionals. Since the Gold Line
was not a proven rail system, there was a tendency to be conservative on
parking supply issues. One apartment developer indicated that in hindsight,
they had slightly overbuilt the parking for the project (Alexan). In
higher-cost areas of downtown
Some projects had high expenditures on parking because that parking was in underground garages that cost up to $30,000 per space (Del Mar Station, Mission Meridian project). Building conventional amounts of parking next to transit stations has disadvantages: It increases building cost, reduces housing affordability, and does not provide a disincentive to automobile ownership in station areas. However, it is clear that developers will be cautious about underbidding parking because it will affect the marketability of their project. In addition, the strong market for housing in this corridor may have enabled them to overbuild parking while still producing a profitable project. Consistent city policies can encourage lower parking supplies if developers have the assurance that competing projects will not be allowed to overbuild parking and receive a competitive advantage.
In the cases reviewed here, most city requirements recognize that less parking should be built in TOD housing, either directly in specific plan or zoning provisions, or with a willingness to consider variances.
Most developers planned to follow the conventional practice of bundling parking with rent or the sale of the condominium. The problem with this practice is that it creates no economic disincentive to automobile ownership. Tenants might as well continue to own cars as long as spaces are free. This practice is common in the market area.
The interviews identified a notable
exception to this practice. The developers of the
Other developers were queried about the unbundled parking concept. Most had not considered it and often indicated that project marketing and leasing professionals influenced this issue. Generally, they do not want to deviate from standard practice in the market area. Since TOD represents a form of housing with different transportation attributes, this adherence to standard practice is an impediment to change. Cities may want to engage the marketing and leasing professionals in their area in discussions of innovative ways to structure leases and parking. Another possibility is for the developer to involve the marketing and leasing professional more fully during the project planning and design process. More coordination might produce early ideas on leasing structures that would affect the parameters of the project, such as parking supply. When that does not happen, it seems likely that parking will be overbuilt. If that is locked in before marketing and leasing professionals are involved, they have little option but to offer the parking free, using it as a competitive amenity.
Strong market demand for housing has
made many of these projects possible, but a public policy played an important
role in supporting TOD. In most cases, cities anticipated the Gold Line project
and developed general plan, specific plans, or zoning code provisions that
allowed TOD to occur. Some projects required only design review; others
required variances. In one case, the city invited the developer to request a
variance from parking requirements (Pinnacle). In most cases, a full
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was not required. No particular impediments
were identified, although several developers noted that design review can be a
lengthy process. Most developers believed that transit accessibility played an
important role in their ability to secure development entitlements, either as
in current plans, and an ability to gain variances, and/or an impetus to
counter opposition to growth. In
There are several stations where no
development has taken place, such as
Developers indicate that the role of
station access is more influential in planning decisions than in determining
market demand. Other government programs have also supported TOD. For example,
the
Several developers discussed
impediments to development unrelated to city approvals. For infill projects,
soil contamination is an issue. The developer of the
Overall, the developers expected that the Gold Line proximity of their sites will support greater valuations of those properties over a 20-year time period compared to a site without such transit access. All indicated that it was difficult to estimate what that advantage would be, since the Gold Line is so new. Table 21 summarizes developer comments on city approvals and future valuations.
Property
Managers and Marketing
Once a project is complete, property managers shape the success of TODs in supporting transit. With property manager backing, residential TODs can foster a self-selection process in which residents who intend to use transit are attracted to the units and choose to stay longer than those who do not use transit. We interviewed five property managers in the Gold Line corridor to learn about operational issues and the importance of the Gold Line in their marketing approaches and in the lives of their tenants. The following summarizes the key observations:
Most property managers use Gold Line access in their marketing materials. The use of rail for nonwork purposes is noted, as well as the tradition journey-to-work function. The primary marketing emphasis, however, is the quality of the housing and the quality of the neighborhood.
Several operational issues were worked out by LACMTA during the initial operating period. Notable were the loudness of crossing bells, which has been modified in terms of volume and duration, and brake squeal by the train cars.
Gold Line access is not a determining factor in most tenants' locational decisions, although many property managers reported anecdotes about tenants who used the rail.
Gold Line use tightly relates to demographics, job type, and location.
Systematic studies of the travel patterns of residents are not generally done.
Table 22 identifies the property managers interviewed and summarizes project characteristics. One project is not identified because the respondent requested anonymity.
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
a Information not available; property manager requested
anonymity.
|
||||
Table 23 summarizes the ways that
transit access affects project marketing and operations. Most property owners
use light-rail proximity in their marketing materials, but other attributes of
the location are more important, for example, employment and recreation/cultural
opportunities in downtown
We obtained two sets of marketing
materials to see how the Gold Line was portrayed. The materials for the
In contrast, the Archstone Pasadena
project, located on
The Southern California Association of
Governments indicates that traffic congestion will worsen over the next 20
years. These station-area projects were opened at a time when congestion annoys
many residents, but congestion levels for the type of trips corridor residents
take are not yet that severe. The automobile is a faster travel mode for almost
all trips in the corridor, especially since many of those trips are on surface
streets and/or avoid the most congested highway facilities in the region.
However, increasing congestion in this travel corridor will change the travel
time balance between driving and other modes and will improve transit
ridership. These projects will have a strong accessibility advantages.
Marketing materials can target potential transit riders more aggressively,
highlighting transit-friendly demographics and lifestyle factors. As indicated
by the developer of the Madison Walk project, targeted marketing to
high-potential markets, such as downtown
Conclusion and Policy Recommendations
The household surveys and key participant interviews both suggest that TOD along the Gold Line is heading in the right direction. The paragraphs that follow summarize our key conclusions and offer a series of policy recommendations.
Conclusions
In terms of travel behavior, residents living within Gold Line station areas already exhibit encouraging levels of transit use, in spite of the fact that the Gold Line has been a transportation choice and a part of residents' location and travel decision making for only a short time. The 15 percent transit share for main trips is a significant improvement over existing transit levels in most areas of the corridor. Although ridership is lower than that of TOD residents in heavy-rail systems such as BART, it is quite good for light rail in this context. The Gold Line has performed better in capturing transit trips from TOD than Long Beach (along the Blue Line) or San Diego's Mission Valley (along San Diego's Trolley line)--two other light-rail systems in California.
In terms of development,
If the goal is not only to increase transit ridership but also to reduce automobile dependency, the 7.5 percent level of pedestrian and bicycling activity is encouraging. This level of walking and bicycle use exceeds that in many comparison areas and suggests that the corridor is beginning to succeed as a mixed-use area. Reinforcing this is the finding that linked trips (trips for more than one purpose) do not discourage transit use, as is usually the case.
Policy
Recommendations
Four policy and development issues emerged as deserving of additional attention: the provision of affordable housing within station areas; encouraging transit-oriented (as opposed to transit-adjacent) housing projects; identifying an appropriate mix of residential, employment, and other land uses; and revising current parking policies.
Housing affordability is an important
element of TOD because transit ridership is lower when TODs attract affluent,
automobile-oriented residents. Affordable housing in a TOD is likely to provide
greater transit ridership for a wider range of trip purposes, to better meet
the needs of transportation-disadvantaged populations, and also may require
fewer parking spaces. Although
Among new projects, ridership varies considerably across those projects that are built close to (but not oriented toward) the rail stations, and those that capitalize on the rail access, such as Holly Street Village, built directly over the Memorial Park station. The former projects are achieving lower transit shares than the more transit-oriented projects or those that predated the Gold Line. This may be partially attributed to the fact that many new residents are moving into Gold Line station areas because of housing-related factors rather than transit accessibility, but it also suggests that design makes a difference. New TODs directly over pedestrian-oriented stations have a greater transit share than projects located blocks away from stations that are less pedestrian friendly (for example, located in the middle of the freeway).
While demand for rental and for-sale
housing outweighs all other land uses, cities have questions about the types of
TOD land uses that should be encouraged. There is tension in
Cooperation is needed among cities, developers, property managers, and project leasing agents on parking policy. Although there is progress in reducing supplies and unbundling parking spaces from rents or sales price, most projects still give away parking spaces and do not create an economic incentive for tenants to reduce automobile ownership. Reducing automobile ownership is critical to achieving many public and private objectives, the most prominent of which is to decrease the cost of housing. Flex-car programs that provide a car for occasional use are a promising way to make reduced car ownership less inconvenient for TOD residents.
Although Gold Line ridership is below
expectations, all the rail lines in
appendix
c: pedestrian evaluation worksheet
Endnotes
Hollie Lund, Robert Cervero, and Richard W. Willson, Travel Characteristics of Transit-Oriented Development in California, Sacramento, CA: State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), final report (2004).
Terry Parker, et al., Statewide Transit-Oriented Development
Study: Factors for Success in California ,
Robert Cervero, Ridership Impacts of Transit-Focused Development in California, Monograph 45, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California: Berkeley, CA., 1993; Val Menotti and Robert Cervero, Transit-Based Housing in California: Profiles, Working Paper 639, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California: Berkeley, CA, 1995.
Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris and Tridib Banerjee, "The Blue Line blues: Why the vision of transit village may not materialize despite impressive growth in transit ridership," Journal of Urban Design, 5(2)(2000): 101-125.
Marlon G. Boarnet and Nicholas S.
Compin, "Transit-oriented development in
G. B. Arrington, "Reinventing the American Dream of a Livable Community: Light Rail and Smart Growth in Portland," paper presented at the 8th Joint Conference on Light Rail Transit Investment for the Future, Transportation Research Board: Washington, D.C., 2000; Michael Bernick and Robert Cervero, Transit Villages for the 21st Century , New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997; Cervero; Lund, Cervero, and Willson.
Eric J. Miller and Amer Shalaby,
"Evolution of personal travel in
Gregory L. Thompson and Thomas G. Matoff, "Keeping up with the Joneses: Radial vs. multidestinational transit in decentralizing regions," Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(3)(2003): 296-312.
Mohsin Sarker, et al., "Impact of transportation infrastructure development on modal choice," Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 128(2)(2000): 59-76.
M.E. Smith and G.E. Schoener,
"Testing for significant induced trip making and travel in Providence,
Rhode Island," Transportation
Research Record 673 , TRB, Washington, D.C. (1978):152-57; Earl R.
Ruiter, et al., "The vehicle-miles of travel-urban highway supply
relationship," NCHRP
Research Result Digest 127 , National Cooperative Highway Research
Program, TRB, Washington, D.C., 1980; Harry S. Cohen, "Expanding
metropolitan highways: Implications for air quality and energy use. Appendix B:
Review of empirical studies of induced traffic," TRB Special Rep. 245,
TRB,
Richard W. Willson, "The Role of
Parking Policy in Transit Oriented Development," paper presented at the
2004 Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning conference,
Kevin J. Krizek, "Residential relocation and changes in urban travel: Does neighborhood-scale urban form matter?" Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(3)(2003): 265-281.
Jonathan Levine, et
al., Land Use and Transportation Alternatives: Constraint or Expansion of
Household Choice, Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) Report 01-19.
Interviews were conducted with Art Cueto, LACMTA; Marsha Rood and Brian League, City of Pasadena; and Gerald Gubitan, Planning Deputy for Councilman Reyes, City of Los Angeles.
Data obtained from
city of
U.S. Census data for the one-third-mile radii around station areas were compiled using the LandView 6 program produced by the U.S. Census Bureau. Land View 6 estimates population characteristics within a radius "by tallying Census 2000 data for those block [group] points whose coordinates fall within the circle defined by the radius." Data are derived from Summary Files 1 and 3 of the 2000 U.S. Census.
Average daily boardings for January 2004 were 14,543 on Saturdays and 12,195 on Sundays, compared to 15,393 on weekdays. Information from the MTA Website: www.mta.net/news_info/ridership/ridership_avg.htm, accessed January 2005.
Bibliography
Arrington,
G.B. "Reinventing the American Dream of a Livable Community: Light Rail
and Smart Growth in
Bernick, Michael, and Robert
Cervero. Transit Villages for the 21st Century.
Boarnet, Marlon G. and Nicholas
S. Compin. "Transit-oriented development in
Cervero, Robert. Ridership
Impacts of Transit-Focused Development in
Cervero, Robert., et. al.
Transit Oriented Development in
Cohen, Harry S. "Expanding
metropolitan highways: Implications for air quality and energy use. Appendix B:
Review of empirical studies of induced traffic." TRB Special Rep. 245,
TRB,
Dunphy, Robert T.
"Widening the roads: Data gaps and philosophical problems." Transportation
Research Circular 481, Transportation Research Board (1998),
Goodwin, Phil B. "Empirical evidence on induced traffic: A review and synopsis." Transportation, 23(1) (1996): 35-54.
Hansen, Mark. "The traffic inducement effect: Its meaning and measurement," Transportation Research Circular 481, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1998: 7-15.
Hansen, Mark and Yuanlin Huang.
"Road supply and traffic in
Hills, Peter J. "What is induced traffic?" Transportation, 23(1)(1996): 5-16.
Krizek, Kevin J. "Residential relocation and changes in urban travel: Does neighborhood-scale urban form matter?" Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(3)(2003): 265-281.
Levine, Jonathan, et.
Loukaitou-Sideris, Anastasia and Tridib Banerjee. "The Blue Line blues: Why the vision of transit village may not materialize despite impressive growth in transit ridership." Journal of Urban Design, 5(2)(2000): 101-125.
Menotti, Val and Robert
Cervero. Transit-Based Housing in
Miller, Eric and Amer Shalaby.
"Evolution of personal travel in
Parker, Terry, et al. Statewide Transit-Oriented Development
Study: Factors for Success in
Ruiter, Earl R., et al.
"The vehicle-miles of travel-urban highway supply relationship," NCHRP Research Result Digest 127
, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, TRB,
Sarker, Mohsin, et. al. "Impact of transportation infrastructure development on modal choice." Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 128(2)(2002): 59-76.
Smith, M.E., and G.E. Schoener. "Testing for significant induced trip making and travel in Providence, Rhode Island," Transportation Research Record 673 , Transportation Research Board, Washington, D. C., 1978:152-57.
Thompson, G., and T. Matoff. "Keeping up with the Joneses: Radial vs. multidestinational transit in decentralizing regions." Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(3)(2003): 296-312.
Willson, Richard W. "The
Role of Parking Policy in Transit Oriented Development." Paper presented
at the 2004 Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning conference.
About the Authors
Hollie
Lund
Hollie Lund, Ph.D., is an assistant
professor of urban and regional planning at
Richard
W. Willson
Richard W. Willson, Ph.D., AICP, is
department chair and professor of urban and regional planning at
Peer Review
Research projects begin with the approval of a scope of work by the sponsoring entities, with in-process reviews by the MTI Research Director and the project sponsor. Periodic progress reports are provided to the MTI Research Director and the Research Associates Policy Oversight Committee ( RAPOC ). Review of the draft research product is conducted by the Research Committee of the Board of Trustees and may include invited critiques from other professionals in the subject field. The review is based on the professional propriety of the research methodology.