TOD Research & Case Studies
Literature Review
Transit accessibility also maintains high influence on station area resident choices to travel by transit. In their TOD analysis, Arrington et.al. found that improved accessibility to transit increased ridership among Bay Area suburban TOD residents from 35% to 60%.14 Littman (2012) drew similar conclusions in his review of public transit benefits and costs, finding that more motorists would “drive somewhat less and choose alternative modes more if the alternatives were convenient, comfortable, and affordable.”15 The presence of multi-modal transportation options also influences the success of transit within TODs. Although the TODs are concentrated around transit, infrastructure must also adequately support the automobile, bicyclists, and pedestrians when designing and planning for transit-supportive development,16 as evidence shows TOD residents are much more likely travel by transit than by an automobile.17 Further research by Arrington et.al. also indicates that a significant proportion of TOD residents are derived from single-car or car-free households, emphasizing the importance for safe, efficient pedestrian-oriented infrastructure connections between the station area and near-by neighborhoods.18 The transit mode itself also provides influence on the mobility within a TOD Station Area and the ultimate performance of a particular TOD. Dittmar and Poticha (2004) set forth a general hierarchy of transit modes in their review of TOD across the U.S. They correlate rail modes more closely to higher density and larger scale development while bus-based modes (with lower frequencies) correspond to lower density/intensity development forms. This tendency towards rail-based TOD is due in part to the permanence of rail and the corresponding perceived reduction of risk for TOD investors.19 20 As noted by Littman (2012), “rail transit can be compared to a luxury vehicle: it costs more initially but provides higher quality service and greater long-run value.” 21 “Rail transit can only provide service to a limited number of stations. Those stations tend to stimulate more intense development, with increased density (residents, employees and business activity per acre), higher per capita transit ridership and walking trips, and lower per capita vehicle ownership and trips. Bus transit can serve more destinations, including some dispersed, suburban activity centers, but attracts fewer riders per capita, and by itself has little or no effect on land use patterns. Which will attract the most riders and be most cost effective depends on the circumstances: rail tends to attract more riders in the area it serves, but buses can directly serve more destinations over a larger area.”22 Bus-based TOD is a more recent focus of study, with a shorter track record of progress. However, as noted by Currie (2006), while bus transit has weaknesses regarding TOD versus rail, it nonetheless offers greater flexibility, adaptability, and cost-effectiveness, with BRT adding service frequency and transfers as strengths with regards to TOD.23 Bus-based TOD opportunities may provide land development programs with lower densities than rail-based TOD where desired by communities as well as provide interim steps to build ridership and establish transit-supportive land development patterns in advance of higher cost BRT or rail-based transit systems.24
December 2012
2-10
Florida TOD Guidebook