Abstract:
The relationship between transit-oriented development (TOD) and light-rail transit is not well understood. Two aspects of the relationship are explored. The first is whether locating a significant amount of future growth in a rapidly growing, sprawling metropolis, within a walking distance of light-rail stations, actually would make a noticeable difference in transit patronage. The second is whether the conventional notion of village-like, residential TODs could accomplish the objective of locating a significant amount of new development near light-rail stations, and if not, what types of development could accomplish the objective. To address both questions, a direct-demand model is used to test four growth scenarios that accommodate an additional 100,000 population and 50,000 jobs in a sprawling region (Sacramento) that already has 1 million persons and 500,000 jobs, of which fewer than 10% initially are located in the downtown area. In all four scenarios (none of which represent the planning process in Sacramento), the existing location of population and employment does not change. What changes is how the newcomers are accommodated. In the sprawl scenario, all growth occurs on the edges of the developed region. In the TOD-Light scenario, about 20,000 jobs and 30,000 people are accommodated in 15 neighborhood TODs and the balance on the fringes. In the TOD-Heavy scenario, all of the new employment and a minority of the new population are accommodated in 15 TODs, three of which contain 33,000 jobs. In the downtown alternative, half of the added jobs locate in the downtown and half locate in TODs. Results indicate that sprawl, TOD-Light, TOD-Heavy, and downtown scenarios would increase daily linked trips by 9%, 50%, 69% and 203%, respectively. However, none of the alternatives would reduce automobile use by much. Results indicate that job-development patterns make a difference for transit ridership. Residential patterns are less important. Also, results show that, whereas being close to suburban jobs will increase transit patronage, the managers of suburban retail and suburban centers still will look to the automobile for most of their customers. The implication is that if light-rail transit use is to grow, light-rail transit should serve mainstream retailing and commercial developments in the suburbs - not niche, boutique-like centers. Another implication is that light-rail has to go where mainstream retailing and commercial activity, and its attendant parking, is economically feasible from the point of view of developers. Developers will not come to light-rail transit. The small-village model of a TOD offers little for transit. The Mission Valley extension of the San Diego Trolley is a better model for the future.
Supplemental Notes:
This paper is available on the CD-ROM, Light Rail: Investment for the Future, 8th Joint Conference on Light Rail Transit.
