Transit Cooperative Research Program RESEARCH RESULTS...

Transit Cooperative Research ProgramSponsored by the Federal Transit Administration

RESEARCH RESULTS DIGESTJune 1995--Number 7

Subject Areas: IA Planning and Administration and Responsible Senior Program Officer: Dianne S SchwagerVI Public Transit

An Evaluation of the Relationships BetweenTransit and Urban Form

This TCRP Digest summarizes the results of Phase I of TCRP Project H-I, "An Evaluation of the RelationshipsBetween Transit and Urban Form." The objectives of this phase were to 1) review the existing literature on transit

and urban form relations, 2) develop a framework to synthesize this knowledge, 3) identify gaps in current knowledge, and4) develop the research plan for the balance of the project. This Digest, which brings together the results of more than 30 years

of theoretical and practical examinations of transit and urban form relationships, provides a base of knowledge for futureplanning and decision making. The research plan will be implemented in Phase II. The Digest was prepared by

Robert Cervero, University of California, Berkeley and Samuel Seskin, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The study of transit and urban form relationships iscommanding wide attention in the 1990s. Transit operators,transportation and land-use planners, real estate developers,public officials, and concerned citizens should benefit fromthe information included in this Digest as they face manycritical decisions in the future. The following challengesare increasing the need for information on transit and urbanform relationships.

n The end of interstate highway construction,coupled with increased highway congestion, has led to theneed for new policies to manage travel demand.n For 2 decades, demand-management programs,

such as ridesharing and preferential parking, have shownboth their potential and their limitations for slowing thegrowth in vehicle trips. There is a need for adding newtools to the policy toolkit.n The inability of transit systems to enlarge market

share--despite investment in new technologies, marketingtechniques, and service enhancements--has created animperative for innovation. Land use is one promisingpolicy.n Cities and regions planning new rail systems or

expansions of their bus systems need documentation

of the densities and mix of uses that they must encourage toensure system viability.n Some transit agencies are rethinking joint

development as a strategy for enhancing revenue andridership. Staff need formulas and guidelines for the types,intensities, and characteristics of land uses that they oughtto encourage.n Clean Air Act requirements are forcing public

officials and planners to rethink ways to reduce vehicletrips and shift travel to other modes. Land-use policy showspromise for furthering these goals.n The encouragement explicit in ISTEA to consider

land use as a tool to manage demand has heightenedinterest and awareness in land use without furnishing dataon what land use can contribute.n Land development patterns continue to favor

automobiles, reducing the prospect for transit's financialsecurity and increasing the need to construct highwayimprovements in an environment in which suchimprovements take a decade or longer to complete.n Real estate developers continue to look for

guidance on formulas and guidelines for projects that willlead to approval in an increasingly difficult regulatoryenvironment. However, these developers need evidencethat the promises made by proponents of neotraditionalplans can be met.

_________________________

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARDNATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/trb/crp.nsf/All+Projects/TCRP+H-01

2

CONTENTS

1.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................... 1

Summary of Transit Impacts on Urban Form and Land Use............................................................................................... 3Summary of Urban Form and Land-Use Impacts on Transit Demand................................................................................. 5Summary of Interactive Impacts of Transit and Urban Form.............................................................................................. 5Summary of Research in Progress .................................................................................................................................... 5Conclusions and Implications for Future Research ............................................................................................................ 6

1.2 THE CHANGING URBAN FORM OF NORTH AMERICAN CITIES ...................................................................... 6

1.3 TRANSIT IMPACTS ON URBAN FORM AND LAND USE ...................................................................................... 6

Macrolevel Research........................................................................................................................................................ 6Early Subways and Urban Development ........................................................................................................................... 7Studies of New-Generation Rail Investments .................................................................................................................... 7Other Transit Technologies ............................................................................................................................................ 11International Insights ..................................................................................................................................................... 12Intermediate-Scale (Corridor/Activity Center/Station Area) Level ................................................................................... 15Downtown Impacts ........................................................................................................................................................ 15Impacts in Suburban Areas............................................................................................................................................. 15Light Rail ...................................................................................................................................................................... 17Impacts on Property Values and Rents............................................................................................................................ 18Institutional Issues of Station-Area Development ............................................................................................................ 19The State of Research .................................................................................................................................................... 19

1.4 URBAN FORM AND LAND-USE IMPACTS ON TRANSIT DEMAND .................................................................. 20

Macrolevel Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 20International Studies ...................................................................................................................................................... 23Intermediate-Scale: Corridors and Activity Centers......................................................................................................... 25Density and Travel Behavior .......................................................................................................................................... 25Mixed-Use Developments and Travel Behavior .............................................................................................................. 27Intermediate-Scale: Neighborhoods and Station Areas .................................................................................................... 31Transit Usage by Proximity to Stations ........................................................................................................................... 31Impacts of Traditional Designs....................................................................................................................................... 31Studies on Pedestrian Access.......................................................................................................................................... 35Design Guidelines.......................................................................................................................................................... 38Microlevel Analyses ...................................................................................................................................................... 39Conclusions................................................................................................................................................................... 39

1.5 INTERACTIVE IMPACTS OF TRANSIT AND URBAN FORM ............................................................................. 39

1.6 RESEARCH IN PROGRESS ...................................................................................................................................... 41

Transit Impacts on Urban Form and Land Use ................................................................................................................ 41Land-Use Impacts on Transit Demand............................................................................................................................ 44Interactive Impacts of Transit and Urban Form ............................................................................................................... 44

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................................................... 45

These Digests are issued in the interest of providing an early awareness of the research results emanating from projects in theTCRP. By making these results known as they are developed, it is hoped that the potential users of the research findings will beencouraged toward their early implementation. Persons wanting to pursue the project subject matter in greater depth may do sothrough contact with the Cooperative Research Programs Staff, Transportation Research Board, 2101 Constitution Ave., N W.,Washington, DC 20418

3

n Citizens, planners, andofficials continue to look for strategiesto halt and reverse the economicdecline of older communities. Theylook at rail transit as a policy to achievethis goal, but they lack information onthe types of policies and institutionsthat must accompany transit to lead toreinvestment.n Land-use planners see the

need to incorporate transit planninginto their long-range plans. To do thiswork, they need information on theways in which transit affects and isaffected by land use.n Transportation planners, in

turn, acknowledge the roletransportation plays in shaping urbanform but are uncertain about what toexpect from transit or how toincorporate the feedback fromtransportation to land use into theirmodels and plans.

Much has been written on thesesubjects, but there are only a few dozenempirical studies in the last 30 years onwhich to base conclusions about transitand urban form relationships. Thisdigest summarizes the significantaspects of this empirical work.

The focus on key empirical workleaves out a large body of literature thatfocuses on these relationships from atheoretical perspective. While selectedcitations of this kind have beenincluded in the bibliography (AppendixA), researchers do not intend thisliterature review to be an exhaustiveexamination of theoretical issues.

Further, there are a number ofpublications by local, state, andnational agencies that focus on transitand land-use relationships usingdescriptive statistics. Studies of thiskind include summaries of buildingpermit data for sites proximate to railstations. While several of the moresignificant analyses of these kinds havealso been included in the bibliography(Appendix A), citations included in thisliterature review are principally thosethat have used more rigorous analyticmethods to deal with cause and effectrelationships examined in this project.

While transit and urban forminfluence each other simultaneously,almost all empirical investigations todate have focused on only one directionof the relationship: either how transitinvestments affect urban form and landuse, or how densities, walkingenvironments, and other characteristicsof cities affect transit demand andtravel behavior. Accordingly, thisliterature review is organizedprincipally around these two traditionsof transit and urban form research. Inaddition, selections from the growingbody of knowledge on the interactiveeffects of transit and urban form arealso included.

Although the most attention todate has been given to heavy railtransit, this review summarizes findingsfor the full spectrum of transit modes,including bus, light rail transit, heavyrail, and commuter rail. Research hasbeen conducted at the following scales:macro (city/regional), intermediate(corridor/ activity center), and micro(station area/ neighborhood/site). Whilemuch of the literature cited in thisreview is drawn from a U.S. context,some of the more importantinternational studies are discussed aswell. Finally, this digest includes adiscussion of key research in progresswhose focus is closely related to transitand urban form, and from which usefulinformation is expected to result.

Past work on how transit affectsland use has generally been at a moremacroscale, while investigations onhow urban form, densities, and urbandesigns affect transit demand havegenerally been conducted at severalscales of analysis. Table 1 is a matrixthat cites the studies reviewed in thisproject that have been conducted ontransit and urban form relationships atdifferent scales of analysis. (SeeAppendix A for a completebibliography of studies reviewed in thisproject.)

Summary of Transit Impacts onUrban Form and Land Use

Thirty years of case studies andhistorical research have documentedthe role that transit has played in thegrowth

and development of cities andmetropolitan areas since the late 1800s.n Large portions of our older

cities have been shaped by streetcar andsubway lines. Transit no longer has theability to shape urban form the way itdid in the streetcar and subway erawhen transit vastly increased theportions of regions accessible todowntowns. Nonetheless, today's railtransit investments can strengthendowntowns while also encouragingdecentralization and multinucleation inthe suburbs.n Urban rail transit investments

rarely "create" new growth, but moretypically redistribute growth that wouldhave taken place without theinvestment.n In most metropolitan areas

with heavy and light rail systems, thegreatest land-use changes haveoccurred downtown, in the form ofredeveloped land and new office,commercial, and institutionaldevelopment. San Francisco,California; Toronto, Ontario;Washington, DC; Buffalo, New York;San Diego, California; and Portland,Oregon provide examples. Thestrengthening of downtowns stems inpart from the fact that downtowns arethe hubs of all rail systems.n New rail systems have also

been a force toward decentralization ofpopulation and employment, ratherthan toward urban containment. Largesubcenters or "edge cities," haveformed around stations in a number ofNorth American rail cities--WashingtonMetro: Balston, Bethesda, SilverSpring; Toronto: Scarborough, NorthYork; San Francisco: Walnut Creek,Concord; Atlanta: Lenox Square,Buckhead; Vancouver: Burnaby, NewWestminster; Miami: South Dadeland.n There have been fewer

changes in residential land uses than incommercial land uses as a result of railinvestments. Some apartmentconstruction has occurred nearsuburban rail stations in Washington,DC, Philadelphia, Toronto, SanFrancisco, San Diego, and other cities.There are a number of barriers tohigher density residential developmentnear rail stations, including community

TABLE 1 Selected literature: transit and urban form

A. The impact of transit on urban form

B. The impact of urban form on transit demand and travel behavior

5

opposition and weak markets formultifamily housing. However, there isevidence that accessibility to railbecomes capitalized into higherresidential land values.n The urban form and land-use

impacts of light rail, busways, andconventional bus transit have generallybeen weaker than those of heavy railsystems because the systems usuallyconfer less accessibility advantages, atleast relative to the main competition--the highway system.n In general, transit

investments and services are incapableby themselves of bringing aboutsignificant and lasting land-use andurban form changes without publicpolicies that leverage these investmentsand the pressure of such forces as arapidly expanding regional economy.Experiences in Europe and Canadaunderscore the importance of couplingrail investments with reinforcing localpolicies such as up-zoning aroundstations, supplemental acquisition, jointdevelopment of station-area land, andsituating publicly provided housingnear stations.

Summary of Urban Form and Land-Use Impacts on Transit Demand

Understanding how the densities,settlement patterns, land-usecompositions, and urban designs ofcities and neighborhoods influencetransit usage is of vital importance totransit planners and decision makers.Whether a future light rail extensionwill be a cost-effective investment orwhether headways should be increasedon a conventional bus route hingescritically on whether the builtenvironment and the people living andworking there will support thesechanges with their patronage.

n The key domestic study onthe influence of urban form on transitdemand (Pushkarev and Zupan)identified a set of relationships betweenresidential densities in transit corridorsand levels of travel patronage. Inaddition, significant relationships werefound between the size andextensiveness of employment centersand transit

patronage in corridors leading to theemployment centers. This researchfocused principally on the New Yorkmetropolitan area and was based ontravel data that is 20 to 30 years old.n Recently, regional planning

bodies have used simulation models toassess the impact of various growthscenarios on future travel behavior intheir regions. Most find thatconcentrating jobs and housing wherethey can be served by transit increasestransit mode shares and reduces vehiclemiles traveled, but these effects arediluted by the fact that two-thirds ormore of the forecast-year developmentis already in place.n International work has

documented strong relationshipsbetween urban densities and energyconsumption in metropolitan areas. Inaddition, European cities havesettlement patterns that aresubstantially denser and more mixed incharacter than American cities.Europeans also ride transit, walk, andbicycle more than Americans.n At an intermediate scale,

dense office and residential activitycenters generate larger numbers oftransit trips for work and nonworkpurposes than do less dense, auto-oriented suburban activity centers. Lessdense, less diverse suburban activitycenters generate far higher numbers ofvehicle trips and lower levels of autooccupancy, particularly when combinedwith abundant, free parking. Theinclusion of retail and service activitiesin traditional suburban officedevelopments can reduce autodependency.n Paired comparisons of pre-

war transit-oriented communities thatfeature in-neighborhood retail serviceand modified-grid streets with post-warauto-oriented planned subdivisionssuggest that transit-supportiveenvironments can induce more walkingand transit trips.n Residential density and

design influence travel behaviordirectly, but in a less powerful waythan the socioeconomic characteristicsof residents. Different types ofhouseholds live in dense and spaciousareas within metropolitan regions. InAmerican cities, affluent residents seekspace at the

metropolitan fringe, while in Europeancities, affluent residents often seekamenities and more central locations.n At the neighborhood and

station-area scale, transit has beenshown to draw pedestrian patrons fromup to 4,000 ft. Surveys in WashingtonDC, San Francisco, and elsewhereindicate significant transit tripgeneration rates from residentialdevelopment proximate to rail stations,especially for systems and regions inwhich both housing and employmentare found adjacent to transit.n Pedestrian travel in both

employment and residential areas canbe induced and pedestrian tripslengthened by the provision ofextensive and attractive pedestrianamenities.n Local jurisdictions and transit

agencies are increasingly developingdesign guidelines to supportalternatives to the automobile, butspecific features of successful transit-oriented site designs have yet to bedemonstrated empirically.

Summary of Interactive Impacts ofTransit and Urban Form

While it is acknowledged thattransit and urban form interact andinfluence each other simultaneously,these relationships are extremelydifficult to document withoutinteractive transportation and land-usemodels. Work done with an interactivemodel in Seattle suggests that regionalland-use patterns organized aroundmultiple centers and supported by high-capacity transit will generate areduction in automobile dependenceand an increase in transit utilization.Additional research is underway on thistopic.

Summary of Research in Progress

Important research is in progresson both the effects of transit on urbanform and the effects of land-usepatterns on transit demand. The impactsof transit on urban form are focusing onthe macroscale with updates of studieson the impacts of the second generation

6

of heavy rail systems on regional form.Work on the impacts of land use ontravel demand is going on at all scalesof development. One can expectincreases in knowledge in this area inthe next several years.

Conclusions and Implications forFuture Research

Several decades of researchregarding the influence of transit onurban and metropolitan form have ledto the emergence of some consensus onthe nature of this relationship. Incontrast, research on the ways in whichland use and urban form influencetravel behavior and transit patronage isa less settled question. Data on theinfluence of land use at the corridor andmetropolitan level are relatively out ofdate. Research on the effects of thebuilt environment at the site level ontravel behavior is incomplete.

1.2 THE CHANGING URBANFORM OF NORTH AMERICANCITIES

Metropolitan areas have grownand changed substantially during the30-year period of the studies reviewed.Because it is important to keep thesechanges in mind, an overview ofmonocentric and polycentric urbanforms is included herein.

The classical descriptive modelsof urban form are 1) the well-knownconcentric zone model (Park et al.1925) based on a solar system analogy;2) the sector model (Hoyt 1939) whereactivities follow dominanttransportation corridors; and 3) themultinuclei model (Harris and Ullmann1945) based on the premise thatactivities do not evolve around a singlecore but around many nodes. None ofthe three classical models is universallyapplicable, and all cities exhibitfeatures of each model rather than onefeature exclusively. More recently,urban geographers (Vance 1977,Muller 1981) have advanced an "urbanrealms" model based on the premisethat metropolitan areas are beingreorganized into a set of independent

centers, each with its own catchment orzone of influence. More popularaccounts of metropolitan growthtrends--such as Garreau's Edge City(1991), which chronicles theemergence of mini-cities on themetropolitan periphery--embrace theprinciple of "urban realms."

It has been the polycentric ormulticentered model of urban form thathas gained the most attention in recentyears. Schneider, in Transit and thePolycentric City (1981), was one of thefirst transportation analysts to study theemergence of large-scale suburbanactivity centers and their implicationsfor transit services. He advocated bothan intervention into urban land marketsto encourage more clustered, transit-serviceable development and newtransit investments in the. forms ofcenter-focused schedules andparatransit services, outer city transitterminals and internal circulationsystems. Cervero (1986, 1989)associated the trend toward suburbansubcentering with increasing regionalmobility problems, and called for abalance of land-use planning initiatives(e.g., transit-friendly site designs) andtransit service strategies (e.g., timed-transfer networks) to adjust to thesetrends. Thomson (1978) hasdistinguished some of the world'slargest multicentered metropolises interms of strong centers (e.g., London,Paris, Tokyo) or weak ones (e.g., LosAngeles).

A number of empirical studieshave documented the emergence ofsubcenters in the United States. Usingminimum thresholds for office andretail floor space and jobs, analystshave identified 13 subcenters in greaterWashington, DC (Garreau 1987; 1991),17 in greater Atlanta (Atlanta RegionalCommission 1985; Hartshorn andMuller 1986), and 22 in the Houstonarea (Rice Center 1987). In a nationalstudy, Cervero (1989) found 57 large-scale suburban employment centerslocated at least 5 radial mi from acentral business district (CBD) andcontaining over 2,000 full-time workersand over one million sq ft of officespace. Three separate studies of the LosAngeles area have

identified between 6 and 54 subcenters(Gordon et al. 1986; Heikkila et al1989; Giuliano and Small 1991).

While large suburban downtownsand edge cities have gained recentmedia attention, in many areas a farmore dispersed, less-structured form ofsuburban office development has takenform. In a study of six large U.S.metropolitan regions, Pivo (1990)concluded that most office jobs werelocated in small- and moderate-sized,low-intensity clusters along freewaycorridors. Pivo has described America'ssuburban structure as "The Net ofMixed Beads," an analogy to conveythe reality that office complexes in thesuburbs come in all shapes and sizes,some still true to the classic image oflow-density sprawl, some beginning tolook more like compact, high-densitycities (Chinitz 1993). For greater LosAngeles, Gordon et al. (1986) andGiuliano and Small (1991) have foundthat, except for several largeconcentrations, small-scale clusteringbest characterizes its form ofsubcentering. These findings suggestthat the decentralization process incontemporary urban America iscomplex and spans a continuumranging from scatteration or dispersal,on one extreme, to more orderlypolycentric forms on the other.

With transit systems designed ofnecessity to serve concentrations ofemployment and activities, themetropolitan decentralization processhas weakened transit's ability toconnect households with their worklocations. As transit reachesproportionally fewer people, it's abilityto influence urban form has lessened aswell, as discussed in the next section.

1.3 TRANSIT IMPACTS ONURBAN FORM AND LAND USE

Macrolevel Research

Streetcar Development and UrbanForm

Historical case studies providesome of the richest insights into theways

7

transit has shaped the structure andcharacter of American metropolises.Classic works by Warner (1962),Vance (1964), and Fogelson (1967)trace how the extension of electricstreetcar lines to suburbia around theturn-of-the-century led to massivedecentralization in Boston, the SanFrancisco Bay Area, and SouthernCalifornia. Streetcar suburbs not onlydefined the radial spines of large eastcoast and west coast metropolises, butalso allowed for the physical separationof home from work and of socialclasses (Schaeffer and Sclar 1980)..Middleton (1966, p. 44) has concludedthat

...more than any other development,the electric streetcars contributed tothe growth of the metropolitansuburbs. Population growth followedcar lines, and a new trolley lineextension invariably increases landvalues. Not infrequently, real estatesyndicates built electric railways justto promote their land developments.

As rail lines extended between1880 and 1920, population levels inU.S. cities of 10,000 people or moreincreased from 11 million to nearly 45million, or almost one-half of thenational total (Smith 1984). Urban railridership increased from 600 million to15.5 billion trips annually. Thedevelopment patterns of urban coresand nearby suburbs of many Americancities were irrevocably shaped bystreetcar lines over this period. Smerk(1967) estimated that as much as one-quarter of the U.S. population residedat that time in urban and suburban areaswhose spatial organization was shapedby the streetcar.

Based on a statistical analysis of28 U.S. metropolitan areas from 1890to 1910, Harrison (1978) found thateach additional mile of streetcar lineper capita was associated with a 3.2percent increase in the share of single-family housing for the regions. Thecity-shaping impacts of streetcars werefound to be short lived, however.Harrison and Kain (1974) found thatwhile streetcars had significant impactson urban spatial structure during the

pre-automobile era, by the 1950s railtransit had negligible impacts becauseof the dominance of the automobile-highway system. In a study of 49 U.S.metropolises over the 1920 to 1970period, for instance, Harrison and Kainfound increases in automobileregistrations had 3.5 times the effect onurban densities as increases in railtransit mileage and 12 times theinfluence as increases in bus in-servicemileage.

Early Subways and UrbanDevelopment

Residential and employmentdensities in New York City, Chicago,Philadelphia, and Boston clearly reflectthe results of rail transit expansionduring the first half of the 20th century.In all of these cities, rail transitinvestments were followed by dramaticincreases in downtown employmentdensities and the clustering ofresidential subdivisions aroundsuburban stations. Rail transit lines hadtheir greatest impact around stationareas located farthest from the citycenter, which had been previouslyundeveloped and unserved by publictransit. Impacts were fewer in areas thatwere already built up.

The effects of metros, or subways,on land development were studied asearly as 1930. In his review of thiswork, Boyce (1972) found that "thesubway reflects the condition of thearea through which it passes...If thedistrict is growing rapidly, the subwayaccelerates such growth; where it isstagnant, the values along the routechange little; where influences are suchas to cause land values to drop, thesubway fails to pull the area in questionfrom the slump it is experiencing."

The accessibility benefits of railtransit may influence development longafter the initial investment in transit.Recent office development along theHudson River waterfront in New Jerseyhas concentrated around pre-automobile era rail stations that provideaccess from many residential areas(Zupan 1993).

Studies of New-Generation RailInvestments

More recent macrolevel studieshave focused on heavy rail transit,since today this transit technologyprovides the largest incrementalincrease in regional accessibility andthus could be expected to have the mostmeasurable land-use impacts. The land-use impacts of new-generation systemsbuilt since 1960 in Atlanta, Montreal,San Francisco, Toronto, andWashington, DC have varied widely.Overall, impact studies of Bay AreaRapid Transit (BART) (Webber 1976;Dyett et al. 1979), the Lindenwold line(Boyce et al. 1972, 1976), andWashington Metrorail (Lerman et al.1978; Paget Donnelly 1982) found that,consistent with location theory,regional rail systems have been a forcetoward decentralization of bothpopulation and employment. Intercitycomparisons with "control" citieswithout regional rail systems suggestthese rail investments have probablyhad some "clustering" effects, leadingto perhaps a more polycentricmetropolitan form than would haveexisted had any of these rail transitsystems not been built (Hilton 1968;Meyer and Gomez-Ibanez 1981; Smith1984).

A recent examination of areaswithin ¼ mi of rail transit stations inthe Washington DC area (Green andJames 1993) suggests that heavy rail inWashington is responsible forincreasing the amount and scale ofdevelopment near rail stations. Theauthors made use of an existing land-use model of the metropolitan area andcreated a set of zones of ¼-mi radiusaround Washington Metropolitan AreaTransit Authority (WMATA) stations.They examined historic development(changes in employment) in thesesmall-area zones in order to determinewhether they were similar to patterns ofemployment change in the larger trafficanalysis zones of which they were apart. The larger zones were presumedto lack the kind of accessibility bypedestrians from transit stations that

8

would be required for the rail system toinfluence overall zonal attractiveness.

The authors concluded that astatistically significant differenceexisted between small-area zones andlarger ones, which can be attributed tothe presence of transit. They attributetheir findings to a use of a finer grainedlevel of analysis than is typical ofstation-area impact studies. They alsonote the importance of accessibility ofstation areas to high income residentsas being a significant cause of therelatively higher level of employmentgrowth. Lastly they found that thosestation areas surrounded largely byresidential uses were likely to generateless employment growth than stationareas whose environs were dominatedby nonresidential uses.

Toronto is often heralded as thebest North American example of railtransit's city-shaping abilities. Afrequently cited statistic is that duringthe early 1960s following the openingof Toronto's Yonge Street subway line,around one-half of high-rise apartmentsand 90 percent of office construction inthe city of Toronto was within a 5-minwalking distance of a train station(Heenan 1968). The subway not onlybrought about the development ofvacant or under used areas (somewithin a few miles from the citycenter), but it also recycled areas thatwere already built up. Stringent land-use controls and various pro-development forces (e.g., regionalgovernance that promoted coordinatedplanning) were largely responsible forintensive development aroundToronto's stations (Knight and Trygg1977). Besides complementary zoningand taxation policies, the consensus isthat a number of other conditions arenecessary for rail transit to exert astrong influence on urban form andland uses: a healthy regional economy,the availability of land that is easilyassembled and developed, a hospitablephysical setting (in terms of aesthetics,ease of pedestrian access, etc.) and theexistence of some automobileconstraints (such as parkingrestrictions) (Knight and Trygg 1977;

Dear 1975; Dingemans 1978). In thecase of Toronto, the consensus is thesubway was not the "single cause" ofobserved land-use changes, but rather avariety of economic, social, andpolitical factors combined to create aheavy and continuing demand for newcentral-city office space and apartments(Figure 1).

Canadian cities like Toronto havebeen at the forefront of planning forurban form shaped by transit. In 1976,Metropolitan Toronto published theMetroplan: Concept and Objectives,which explicitly called for thedevelopment of a hierarchical,multicentered urban form. Thesubcenters--downtown Toronto, twomajor outlying centers, and 13intermediate centers--would beinterconnected by various forms ofpublic transportation. The plan soughtto retain the preeminence of downtownToronto as the employment,commercial, cultural, and politicalcenter of the region. A subsequent planrevision in 1980, Official Plan for theUrban Structure, changed the numberof designated subcenters (adding fourintermediate-level ones) but retainedthe basic hierarchical subcenter goal. Inensuing years, Metropolitan Torontohas adopted a number of strategies toimplement the hierarchy plan,including the targeting of infrastructureinvestments in subcenters and zoningincentives that encourage densification.One strategy was to constructinstitutional buildings in ScarboroughTown Centre, one of the region's twosecond-tier centers, northeast ofdowntown Toronto. Along with densitybonuses and the opening of advancedlight rail transit services, these publicinvestments helped spawn otheractivities in Scarborough Town Centre.

Using cluster analysis thatincluded variables representing urbanform, location, and accessibility, Pivo(1993) recently confirmed the existenceof six types of office clusters inMetropolitan Toronto (Figure 2).Primary and Secondary transit clusterswere located within walking distance ofa subway station. Pivo found proximityto a subway station to be a strongerpredictor

of transit usage than either the densityor floorspace size of a center. Thissuggests that "transit service may bethe most important physical planningpolicy variable for encouraging transituse" (Pivo 1993, p. 44).

At about the same time asToronto, the Greater VancouverRegional District (GVRD) wasplanning for orderly multicenteredgrowth, culminating in the 1975 plancalled The Livable Region. Threeimportant elements of the plan were (1)to promote a balance of jobs andpopulation in each subregion; (2) tocreate regional Town Centres, resultingin a polycentric metropolis; and (3) tobuild a transit-oriented transportationsystem linking residentialneighborhoods, regional Town Centres,and major work areas. Figure 3 shows aperspective drawing of howVancouver's polycentric form wasintended to evolve from 1976 to 1986.The lifeline that would eventuallyconnect the Town Centres was theSkyTrain that opened in time for the1986 World Expo, which had a themeof advanced transportation systems. Asin Toronto, public control of land andzoning, as well as the siting of railinvestments and other infrastructure,became the primary means forimplementing the plan. Governmentofficials methodically put in placevarious incentives and regulations thatencouraged the concentration of asignificant portion of growth in offices,service employment, and cultural/entertainment facilities in a handful ofTown Centres, each slated forpopulations of 100,000 to 150,000. Onecenter, New Westminister, hastransformed from a declining,moribund waterfront to a transit villagewith new apartment towers and retailcomplexes.

Specific land-use planning toolswere used in Vancouver to capitalizeon the SkyTrain investment and targetgrowth into Town Centres. Commercialareas in major centers have limited orno setbacks, creating a pedestrian scale.In many Town Centres, off-streetsurface parking is not permitted,allowing for more intensive use of land.

Figure 3. Vancouver urban form, 1976 and 1986. (Source: Greater Vancouver Region District (1975)The Livable Region)

11

The cultural and institutionaldifferences between the United Statesand other countries were featured in amatched pair comparison of San Diego,California and Vancouver, BritishColumbia (Wilson and Anderson1993). The authors examined these twocities to identify differences in planningand implementation of transit-orienteddevelopment and concluded that therewere four preconditions for suchsuccessful development to occur. Theyincluded coordinated policy support forclustering development and transit,effective implementation tools, a pre-existing urban form and transportationsystem that supported transit, and analignment that enhanced developmentopportunities.

The authors attributed thedifferences in transit orienteddevelopment patterns that followed theintroduction of rail systems in each ofthese metropolitan areas to "underlyingpublic attitudes about planning andgovernment." They contrasted theCanadian political and social context,that they assert is supportive of transit-oriented development to the U.S.context, which is less supportive ofgovernment intervention into markets.They encourage U.S. planners to"assess the context in theircommunities as they consider thetransferability of Canadian TODstrategies."

Past work also suggests that railtransit investments do not stimulate realeconomic growth; rather they onlyinfluence where already-committedgrowth takes place. (All railinvestments, of course, induceconstruction-related employmentgrowth which, in the case of Buffaloand other areas with fairly stagnantregional economies, can be significant[Paaswell and Berechman 1981]).Conventional wisdom holds, then, thatall development impacts of rail transitare distributive--e.g., in favor of oneradial suburban corridor instead ofanother. There is less evidence, bycontrast, that transit investments causeshifts in population and employmentbetween downtowns and suburbs(Knight and Trygg 1977).

Other Transit Technologies

Few macrolevel impact studies ofother transit technologies have beenconducted to date. No substantial workon the effects of bus transit on urbanform could be found. The modernmotor bus is a flexible technology. Itneed not precede development becauseit can immediately serve developmentsof all types in all locations. Once a railline is installed, the likelihood of itspermanence or long life is great. Fixed-guideway investments signal apermanent infrastructure addition to thedevelopment community, thusprompting competition to exploit theaccessibility gains provided.Competition for sites with goodaccessibility leads to densification andpotentially agglomeration benefits.Without similar competition for sitesserved by bus transit, it follows thatimpacts of a new bus line on existingcorridor or metropolitan developmentwill be negligible.

The prospect of inducing realeconomic growth is often used tojustify new light rail investments inparticular. Claims for LRT investmentshave included stimulating communityrevitalization, job creation, economicdevelopment along specific corridors,and maintaining and sustaining denseurban centers whose vitality are beingsapped by auto-oriented development.Both Buffalo and Pittsburgh built LRTsystems in the 1980s in large part tohelp rejuvenate their respectivedowntown cores. A survey ofdevelopers in Buffalo conducted by theNiagara Frontier Transit Authorityfound that the transit system wasconsidered a positive influence for$650 million of new development inthe downtown (Neuwirth 1990).However, this development was alsoaffected by other public policydecisions and public investment. Themajor new downtown development islocated at a transit stop but would nothave occurred without the expenditureof federal dollars to assemble andpurchase the land for the project.

In Pittsburgh, planners and transitagency representatives have beenunable to identify any specific newdowntown development attributable tothe trolleys. However, a major negativeimpact of the Pittsburgh trolley hasbeen identified (Neuwirth 1990).Gimble's department store, which hadbeen directly located on the above-ground trolley line, went out ofbusiness. Store management claims thefact that the underground LRT linebypassed the store is partiallyresponsible for the store's loss ofbusiness and eventual closure.

Cervero's (1984) study of light railsystems in the U.S. predicted modestland-use impacts because most LRTlines follow abandoned rail rights ofway with minimal developmentpotential and also rely heavily on park-and-ride access. For the most part,studies show recent light railinvestments to have little land-useimpacts outside of downtown areas(San Diego Association ofGovernments 1984; Cervero 1985;Barney and Worth 1993).

In the case of San Diego's trolley,an evaluation 3 years after the system's1981 opening concluded that it was"not a major locational determinant"and that the "development and marketforces at work in Centre City and thetypical intense scale of developmenttend to overpower the trolley's role as afactor in development decision" (SanDiego Association of Governments1984, p. 44). The most significantrecent trolley-related land-use changesin San Diego outside of downtownhave been the clustering of residentialand mixed-use development nearseveral stations in La Mesa on the lineto El Cajon. Ridership surveys revealthat around 12 percent of work tripsmade by the residents of these projectsare by transit, nearly three times the1990 San Diego regional average forjourneys-to-work (Cervero 1993).

The nonrail transit technology thathas been examined most closely interms of land-use impacts is dedicated

12

busways. Knight and Trygg (1977)studied the land-use impacts of theShirley Highway Express Bus Service,the San Bernardino "El MonteBusway," the Blue Streak in Seattle,and the Blue Dash is Dade County,Florida. They concluded, tentatively,that "so far, the evidence availableindicates no land-use impactsattributable to busway systems,including some which comparefavorably in patronage to manycommuter rail lines" (Knight and Trygg1977, p. 177). In greater Washington,D.C., one study suggests that theShirley Highway HOV/Busway hasallowed many Washington employeesto reside farther away than they wouldhave without the dedicated lane (Meyerand Gomez-Ibanez 1980). Whileseveral suburban stations on Ottawa'sdedicated busway are surrounded bymid-rise apartments and offices,interviews with developers found thatthe growth would have occurredregardless and that the busway merelyaccelerated the timing of development(Bonsall 1985; Cervero 1986). In astudy of Houston's bus transitway,Mullins et al. (1989) found relativelyfew impacts--developers stated it hadno influence on their location choices,and before-and-after studies at park-and-ride lots near the transitway foundfew land-use conversions. Andalthough Biehler (1989, p. 96) contendsthat "there is no reason to think thatattractiveness to development isinherent in a specific mode," whetherexclusive busway or light rail transit,he fails to provide accounts ofdevelopment near any of Pittsburgh'sexclusive busways.

International Insights

Thomson's (1977) study of trafficin the world's largest cities found thatrail services were most successful inlarge national centers, like Paris andTokyo, that have strong central cores.Weak centered metropolises, likegreater Los Angeles and Houston, werefound to be far more auto dependent.

Several world cities stand out asstrongly rail oriented. One isStockholm. The greater Stockholm

region's urban form was stronglyshaped by a combination of strategicplanning and regional rail transitinvestment. Following World War II,Stockholm County government, whichowned over 70 percent of the region'sland, embarked on an urban spilloverplan, seeking to direct future populationand industrial growth to new townsconstructed around the same time as anew regional rail network. The aim wasto avoid a dormitory town environmentand to make satellites as self-containedand balanced (both socially and interms of jobs and housing) as possible(City of Stockholm 1992).Interestingly, Stockholm's new townsare far from balanced or self-contained--the majority of Stockholm's new townresidents work out of town and mostnew town workers reside elsewhere.With high levels of external commutingand large concentrations of housing andworkplaces near rail stations,Stockholm's new towns are naturalhavens for rail commuting (Cervero1993). Stockholm's built form--astrong, preeminent regional coreorbited by rail-served satellite centers--largely accounts for low automobiledependency. From a mobility andenvironmental standpoint, this hasmore than compensated for thetendency of Stockholmers to live andwork in separate communities (Figure4).

Two other strong-centered railmetropolises are Hong Kong andSingapore. Both are products of stronglocal planning controls. In both city-states, housing was developed over thepast 20 years with assumptionscontained in master plans that Metrocorridors would be a reality. Thus,many Hong Kong and Singaporeresidential densities were committedbefore subway construction.

Within a few years of the 1980opening of Hong Kong's regionalsubway, the 42-km system was turninga profit. Revenues from real estatedevelopment have helped keep thesystem in the black. Studies found theMetro generally enhanced land values,especially for residential and mixed-use

projects and where there wereperceptible gains in accessibility.Interestingly, densities were found todecline from up to 300 m from CBDstations and then rise again; majorcorporations that place a high premiumon spaciousness have tended tocongregate around CBD stationsleading to this peculiar U-shapeddensity gradient (Meakin 1990). Thisfinding likely reflects the influences ofcultural and institutional factors on rentgradients around rail transit nodes, notall of which are necessarily transferableto other countries.

Overall, studies show that metrosin Santiago, Chile; Mexico City,Mexico; and Sao Paulo, Brazil liketheir North American and Europeancity counterparts, have encouragedregional decentralization (Institution ofCivil Engineers 1990). In the case ofSantiago, Figueroa (1990) found thatthe metro relocated many poor to themetropolitan periphery whilemodernizing the inner city. This patternof settlement, with the affluent locatednearest the city center and the leastaffluent at the periphery, typifiesEuropean cities as well. Americancities, however, tend toward theopposite, furnishing additionalevidence of the role of cultural factorson development patterns.

One Brazilian city hassuccessfully influenced urban formwith an all-bus system. During the1970s, planners in Curitiba began toimplement an urban design structurethat emphasized linear growth alongstructural axes. Using various zoningtools and other land-use incentives,urban growth has been encouragedalong five main axes (see Figure 5).Each axis was designed as a "trinary"road system. The central road has tworestricted bus lanes in the middleflanked by two one-way local roads(Figure 6). On land sites along thestructural axes, buildings with totalfloor areas of up to six times the plotsize are permitted. This coefficientdecreases the farther a site is frompublic transport. This has encouragednew commercial developments outside

Figure 4. Evolution of the Stockholm region. (Source: City of Stockholm)

15

the central city, but along eachstructural axis, and high-densityresidential development near publictransport services. Today, Curitiba hasover 50 km of exclusive bus lanes. Thesystem averages 1.2 million passengersper day, or around 430 transit trips percapita annually, one of the highest ratesin the world (Rabinovitch 1993; Lerner1994).

In summary, noted sociologistHomer Hoyt (1939) observed over ahalf a century ago that "...urban form islargely a product of the dominanttransportation technology during acity's prevailing period of growth." Thecumulative body of research over thepast 50 years seems to support stronglythis supposition. However, evidence ispersuasive that fixed-guideway transitinvestments can shape urban formunder the right conditions. Theseconditions fundamentally include anintegrated approach to transitinvestment and development. Outsideof the United States, cities that havesuccessfully integrated transit and land-use planning do not create a dichotomybetween the influences of transit byitself on urban form and the influenceof transit in combination with publicpolicy. The two activities coincide toshape development as far as possible insupport of transit investment. Debate inthe United States hinges on whethertransit can influence development, as iftransit itself were not a publicinvestment on which an adequate returnwere required. When viewed as such aninvestment, the imperative to integrateland-use planning and development isclear, as are the benefits (in the form ofhigher levels of patronage). Thesections that follow elaborate on thesepoints.

Intermediate-Scale Corridor/ActivityCenter/Station Area) Level

Studies conducted at thesubregional (e.g., corridors and activitycenters) and station-area levels haveshed light on rail transit's impacts onurban densities, property values, andland-use composition.

Downtown Impacts

Within downtowns, rail transitinvestments have stimulatedredevelopment and brought life to oncemoribund commercial districts. BARTis credited with focusing much of SanFrancisco's downtown officeconstruction south of Market Street andrejuvenating inner-city Oakland.Outside of downtown, however,BART's land-use influences to datehave been inconsequential--except forseveral stations in the East Baysuburbs--because of such factors aslocal opposition to growth,downzoning, and the siting of stationsin freeway medians. Webber (1976) hasargued that, more fundamentally, thereason for BART's negligible land-useimpacts outside of downtowns stemsfrom its poor performance relative tothe automobile--it paralleled corridorswith excellent highways and providedno real increases in regionalaccessibility for a number of years aftercompletion.

Some of the more significantdowntown redevelopment impacts havebeen recorded with light rail and bus-mall systems. In downtown Buffalo, anumber of building restoration projectshave been completed near the light railline (Callow 1992) and the trolley wascredited with partially attracting over$600 million in investments downtown.In Portland, the downtown transit (bus)mall is viewed as the centerpiece ofdowntown redevelopment, helping totrigger such new investments asPioneer Place, a four-square-blockmixed-use complex. Arrington (1992,p. 19) speculates that light rail mighthave greater redevelopment impacts,dollar-for-dollar, than heavy railbecause LRT "...operates at the surfaceand offers visibility, penetrates thecommunity and is not separated from itlike heavy rail, which is down in a holeor up in the air, and is part of the urbanexperience--an amenity, a signature forthe area." Eager (1993) notes, however,that based on 1990 journey-to-workstatistics, the Portland Banfield rail hasmade a fairly minor contribution to thecity's travel

picture. Overall, transit's share of totaldaily trips is less than 3 percent in thePortland region, and the sharecontinued to decline throughout the1980s. Among work trips bysuburbanites, there was actually a 30percent decline in transit ridership inthe Portland region during the 1980s.As a stimulus to downtownredevelopment and as a complement toPortland's very pedestrian-friendlydowntown, the light rail system hasbeen an unequivocal success. As amobility factor within the region, itsrole has been minor.

Studies also show that light railand transit-mall investments cannotovercome the effects of a weak regionaleconomy. During periods of economicdownturns, studies found noredevelopment impacts in Edmontonand Calgary (Gomez-Ibanez 1985; Cityof Calgary 1983), Denver or Portlandduring the late 1970s. After the transit-mall opening, retail sales in Denver'small area dropped as a share of regionalsales while in Portland, off-malllocations saw larger increases incommercial rents than on-malllocations (Gladstone Associates 1982;Dueker et al. 1982).

Impacts in Suburban Areas

While some observers feel thattransit adds too little accessibilityoutside CBDs to influence urban form,others find that suburban areas havechanged because of transit. In someareas, commercial and multifamilydevelopment has clustered near transitstations. Generally, transit agencies andlocal jurisdictions must work with theprivate sector for this type ofdevelopment to occur because there area number of barriers to transit-supportive development. These barriersinclude community opposition tohigher densities or redevelopment,lender reluctance to finance new typesof projects, high costs of landassembly, and weak markets formultifamily housing (Cervero et al.1994).

16

Philadelphia--Lindenwold

Case studies of two communitiesnear the Lindenwold High-SpeedCommuter Rail line--one withsubstantial apartment development andthe other with almost none--found theseoutcomes were not influenced byproximity to the rail system, but ratherfactors like land availability, zoning,and local attitudes to growth (Boyce etal. 1972). Similar findings wereobserved for office and commercialdevelopment (Gannon and Dear 1972).Studies showed proximity to the High-Speed line was capitalized into higherland values, with the largest gainaccruing to residential sites farthestfrom downtown Philadelphia (Boyce etal. 1972). A subsequent study foundthese gains held over time, withproperties within the station-areacatchment increasing in value by about7 percent (Allen et al. 1986).

San Francisco BART

Smaller land value benefits havebeen recorded for BART, though mostBART studies were carried out toosoon after opening to gauge anystatistically significant impacts. Thelargest increases in land valuesoccurred prior to BART's operations,the result of station-area landspeculation; once services started,increases in land values stabilized andfor parcels beyond one mile of moststations fell to nearly zero (Dyett et al.1979).

Substantial office clustering hasoccurred at BART's Pleasant Hill,Walnut Creek, and Concord stations inrecent years, and efforts are underwayto build apartments on park-and-ridelots (to be replaced by parkingstructures) at several other stationsthrough joint developmentarrangements (Bernick and Carroll1991). To date, however, fewresidential projects have been built nearsuburban BART stations that could beconsidered high density even though atleast nine station areas have beenspecifically zoned for high or medium-density residential development. Somecommunities have explicitly

prohibited high-density housing in spiteof BART's presence.

A shortcoming of the originalBART Impact Study, conducted severalyears after the system's opening, wasthat it was premature to expect BARTto have exerted meaningful land-usechanges in such a short period of time.A "BART at 20" update study iscurrently under way (Deakin, Cervero,and Landis 1994). It is important torevisit BART's impacts on the builtenvironment because a premise of theentire project was that it wouldeventually lead to mini-communitiesmushrooming around suburban railstations, thus helping to create a moremulticentric, and thus ostensibly moresustainable, settlement pattern. Indeed,the $1 billion (1967 currency) property-tax bond issue that was sold to the BayArea public was based partly on theargument that BART would materiallyenhance quality of life in the region.

Between 1970 and 1990,residential population grew, onaverage, 65 percent faster in Bay Areacorridors not served by BART (I-680from Walnut Creek to Pleasanton,Highway 1 Marin corridor) than thoseserved by BART. Additionally,employment growth rates were 92percent higher outside of suburbanBART corridors than along thesuburban Concord and Fremont BARTlines. Moreover, density gradientsalong the Fremont and Richmond lineswere slightly flatter in 1990 than theywere in 1980. Overall, BART appearsto have done little to channel suburbanpopulation and employment growthover its first 20 years of operation.

As was found in the originalBART Impact Study, BART's majorinfluence on office construction hasbeen in downtown San Francisco,where around 40 million sq ft of officeinventory was added within 1/4 mi ofBART from 1975 to 1992. (Thiscompares to an addition of only 12million sq ft of office space elsewherein San Francisco over the same period.)Downtown Oakland added 4 million sqft of office space between 1975 and1992; most of this has been for

public buildings. The most significantoffice cluster in the suburbs has beenaround the Walnut Creek Station,which added 2.5 million sq ft of officespace between 1975 and 1992.However, this amount pales incomparison to the 22 million sq ft ofoffice space added to the I-680 corridorin the suburbs of Alameda and ContraCosta County. Overall, 35 million sq ftof office space was built in areasunserved by BART since BART's 1972opening, compared to only 9 million sqft within 1/2 mi of an East Bay BARTstation. The kinds of office functionsthat are most attracted to BARTstations are concentrated in the FIRE(finance-insurance-real estate) andnonbusiness service sectors.

Boston Red Line

The metropolitan area in Boston/Cambridge, Massachusetts, furnishesadditional evidence of the role ofcommunity attitudes and policies inshaping development near rail systems.The extension of the region's Red Linethrough the city of Cambridge in the1970s led to a review of station-areazoning in several Cambridgeneighborhoods. The decision of localofficials and citizens not to permithigher densities near transit ensuredthat new rail stations would serveexisting structures and bring about littlechange in station-area land use.

At the line's terminus, the Alewifestation experienced substantial officedevelopment. The area nearest the railstation was devoted to a large parkingstructure for inbound park-and-ridecommuters. While the officedevelopments do generate transitridership, the majority of work tripshave origins beyond the end of thetransit system and are largely served byautos.

There is some evidence that recentrail extensions in the Boston regionhave encouraged dispersal of originallydowntown functions and acceleratedthe pace at which back-office jobs have

17

decentralized. For example, theextension of the Orange Line north toMalden and Charlestown and the RedLine south to Quincy and Braintree hassupported new office and otherconstruction in these areas. Downtowninsurance companies and banking andfinance firms have relocated many oftheir back-office and clerical functionsin these suburbs. Although therelocation of back-office functions ispart of a general trend in manyindustries, the opening of new transitlines has played a crucial role in jobdispersal in the Boston region(Neuwirth 1990).

Washington, DC Metrorail

Over the past decade, the mostsubstantial rail-induced land-useimpacts outside of a U.S. downtowndistrict have been experienced aroundWashington Metrorail stations. High-rise mixed-use joint developmentprojects have sprung up at stations inBethesda, Silver Spring, and FriendshipHeights in Maryland, and Ballston,Pentagon City, and Crystal City innorthern Virginia. At Ballston, theextension of the Orange Line freed upland used previously for a bus transferfacility. The station became thecenterpiece of the Ballstonredevelopment program, culminated bythe Ballston Metro Center, a 28-storytower that includes office and retailspace, condominiums, and a hotel.WMATA, the regional transit agency,also receives air-rights lease income ofover $200,000 per year for the site(Cervero et al. 1992).

Between 1970-1976 (prior toMetrorail), 17 percent of high-densityresidential permits issued in theWashington region were located instation areas; between 1977-1980 afterMetrorail opened, 23 percent of thehigh-density units permitted werelocated in station areas. Even afterMetrorail, most of the higher-densityunits permitted in the region wereauthorized for construction in locationsoutside the influence of Metro stations(MWCOG 1982). Based on interviewswith real estate brokers and appraisers,several

studies have estimated that commercialland prices near Metrorail stationsincreased by around 100 percentseveral years after services began andas much as 400 percent in some locales(Damm et al. 1980; Rice Center forUrban Mobility Research 1987). InArlington, Virginia, residential valuesper sq ft were around $10 more forunits across the street from Metrorailstations than for units elsewhere(Rybeck 1981). A recent study of joint-development mixed-use projects atBethesda and Ballston also found thatthey commanded a $2 to $4 per sq ftrent premium relative to comparableprojects a block away from stations(Cervero et al. 1992). These findingsare consistent with those of Green andJames (1993), previously cited.

Atlanta MARTA

While Atlanta's MARTA has beencredited with stimulating office-commercial growth in the Arts Center,Buckhead, and Lenox Square areas,there has been far more officeconstruction and value added to landalong the I-285 freeway corridor (e.g.,Perimeter Center) (Davis and Holmes1985). Still, rents at Resurgens Plaza, a27-story office tower directly adjacentto MARTA's Lenox Station, were $3 to$5 higher in 1989 than at other officesof comparable leasing quality a blockaway (Cervero et al. 1992).

Some of the most significant land-useschanges in Atlanta occurred prior to theopening of the MARTA system. Thesechanges were mainly in the form ofhigh-rise office, residential, and mixed-use building downtown and on thenorth line parallel to Atlanta's premierthoroughfare, Peachtree Street (Potter1979). In the case of Atlanta's NorthPark development, MARTA'sproximity allowed an increase in thescale of the project, making higherdensities possible. At Lenox Park, theproximity of transit appears to haveaffected the mix of uses (Neuwirth1990). However, in both cases thedevelopments, although large, are onlya fraction of the total amount ofexisting

and planned development within thesubmarket areas. Within these areas,other commercial projects are beingbuilt with less obvious ties to MARTA.In Atlanta, rail transit seems to beexerting its biggest influence intransitional areas. In stagnant marketsnear rail stations, MARTA seemsinconsequential. On the other hand,some locations are so attractive, such asprestigious downtown areas, that transitis not a driving factor in developmentdecisions. It is the areas in between,where some elements are in place butsome encouragement is needed, thatMARTA seems to be exerting itsgreatest land-use influence.

MARTA has benefited in partbecause of Atlanta's buoyant economicgrowth during the 1980s and into the1990s. As noted previously, a healthyregional economy is perhaps the mostimportant prerequisite to the transit-induced development impacts--that is,there has to be growth for transitinvestments to channel. In the Atlantaregion, MARTA has been cited as afactor of growing importance in thelocational decisions of regionalheadquarters of major corporations aswell as back offices that staff largenumbers of clerical and technicalworkers. A significant part of Atlanta'srecent growth has resulted fromdecisions to locate such facilities in theregion, given MARTA's ability tomove workers to and from downtownand the airport. With its new terminalwithin the airport itself, MARTA nowoffers 20-min trips to downtown andmidtown locations.

Light Rail

In Baltimore, one study estimatedsome property value increases within2,000 ft of the light rail line, with thebulk of development activity occurringat both the downtown and suburbanterminuses (Rice Center for UrbanMobility Research 1987). Miami'sMetrorail has done little to induceinner-city redevelopment. The mostsignificant change has been theaddition

18

of the Datrans office-retail-hotel projectat the Dadelands South station, whichyields over $500,000 annually in leaserevenues to the Metropolitan DadeTransit Authority (Cervero et al. 1992).

San Diego's Trolley is commonlyrecognized as an important factor inmaintaining a viable downtown,however virtually no significant land-use impacts have been recorded on thesouthline to the Mexican border.Recently, several large-scale apartmentand mixed-use projects have been builtnear LRT stops in La Mesa. Based on amatched-pair comparison of propertiesserved and unserved by the Trolley, arecent study concluded that San Diego'sLRT had no measurable impacts onland values (VNI Rainbow AppraisalServices 1993). In a recently issuedreport in Portland, Oregon (Barney andWorth, et al. 1993), the author's notethat there has been significantdevelopment along Portland's BanfieldLRT line, but it has been concentratednear downtown. Assessed values ofstation-area properties have risen morequickly than countywide averages, butthe intensity of development aroundneighborhood station areas remainslow.

Impacts on Property Values andRents

If transit investments conferbenefits to surrounding properties, intheory this benefit should becomecapitalized into higher land values andrent premiums. One study concludedthat San Francisco's BART "had asmall but significant positive effect onthe price of single-family dwellings"(Blayney Associates 1978). This studyfound a positive effect on housingprices at 1,000 ft from BART stationsof between 0 and 4 percent, whichdiminished rapidly with increasingdistance from the station. In no case didthe BART effect extend beyond 5,000ft. Similar studies of Atlanta's MARTAsystem also concluded that transitstation proximity is beneficial toresidential values when stations aredesigned with sensitivity tosurrounding neighborhoods (Nelsonand McClesky 1990). A recent study ofMiami's

Metrorail found it had a negligibleimpact on residential property values,and impacts did not vary significantlyby distance from a station (Gatzlaff andSmith 1993).

The potential negative effects ofproximity to rail transit have likewisebeen studied. An opinion surveyconducted by Baldassare et al. (1979)found less preference for homes nearelevated BART stations. Burkhardt(1976) and Dornbush (1975) also notevalue decreases around BART becauseof such nuisances as noise andvibration, increased automobile traffic,and the perceived accessibility ofdifferent social classes and ethnicgroups to otherwise homogenousneighborhoods. Collectively, thesestudies suggest the land-value impactof rail investments to be highlylocalized.

In a recent analysis, done as partof the "BART at 20" study, thecapitalization effects of proximity ofsingle-family homes to BART as wellas several other California rail systemswere studied over a long-term timehorizon. (The original BART impactstudy was criticized for beingpremature in its evaluation of land-value impacts only a few years after thesystem's opening.) Landis et al. (1994)used a hedonic price model to show aselling price premium, which dependson location within the East Bay, forevery meter a home is closer to thenearest BART station.

Similar models for single-familyhomes near Sacramento and San DiegoLRT found no relationship betweenproximity to transit and market values.In the case of the San Jose LRT, thehedonic model showed that transitactually takes away value fromproperties that are located within easyreach of a station. Landis et al.speculate that the type of railtechnology and extensiveness of thesystem have some bearing on homevalues. BART, as an expansive systemthat operates modern trains that servemajor urban centers, seems to exertpositive influences on nearby single-family homes. As mainly single linesthat serve a limited number of

destinations, California's LRT lines, onthe other hand, have little impact onvalue. The modest land-value impactsof California's LRT contrast with thefindings of Al-Mosaind et al. (1993)that residences within walking distanceof a Portland LRT station commandedan 10.6 percent rent premium. Clearly,impacts appear very localized, turningheavily on the influences of other localfactors and perceptions.

Voith (1993) has provided recentevidence that CBD-oriented trainservices provide a housing valuepremium. Using data for suburbanPhiladelphia housing values for the1979-88 period, he found the valuepremium associated with SEPTA railservices increased dramatically duringthe 1980s, despite the rapid growth insuburban employment during thisperiod. The changes in the magnitudeof the premium correlated with changesin lagged employment growth in thecity of Philadelphia, but not withchanges in suburban employment,suggesting that the economicconditions in the central city are animportant determinant of the value ofsuburban housing with commuter railservice.

Likewise, Armstrong (1994)reports an increase in single-familyresidential values of about 6.7 percentin the Boston area if the residence is ina community with a commuter railstation. Distance to the station did notinfluence housing prices, althoughhousing within 200 ft of the line hadreduced values. This value reductionmay be related to freight service on thelines.

In terms of office rents, recentevidence from the "BART at 20"update study indicates that officebuildings closest to downtown SanFrancisco stations commend higheroffice rents at the Embarcadero andPowell Street stations. In the case of theMontgomery Street station, whichdirectly serves the Financial District,rents actually increase with distance toBART.

19

Fejarang (1994), however, foundthat commercial property values nearplanned Metro Rail corridors in the LosAngeles area appreciated faster thansimilar properties away from thecorridors during the 1980s when therail system was being planned anddeveloped. The market was apparentlyanticipating effects of the light rail, asresults were measured prior tooperation of the system.

The findings that accessibilityadvantages to rail transit get capitalizedinto higher rents and land valuesconflict with the general conclusionthat rail investments fail to induce realeconomic growth. If business andhousing costs are higher near transitstations, those living and working theremust be earning more to cover thehigher premium. It may be that transitis a necessary input into maintaining aviable downtown (e.g., agglomerationeconomies) and that without transitservices, investments in downtownswould shrink. As Voith (1993) hasargued, the fact that housing valuesrose sharply for properties near CBD-oriented rail lines in suburbanPhiladelphia, even when many jobswere heading to the King of Prussiaarea and other outlying job centers,suggests that transit is part of a largerurban dynamic, and any impacts thatare directly related to new transitservices may be considerablyoutweighed by the indirect impactsassociated with transit's contribution tothe health (or decline) of cities. One ofrail transit's "unmeasurable" benefitsmight very well be to help stave off theeconomic decline of some downtowncenters by providing an importantlifeline for sustaining agglomerationeconomies.

Institutional Issues of Station-AreaDevelopment

As noted in the section onmacrolevel analysis, Canadian,European, and South American citieshave been more successful in usingtransit as a tool to shape urban formthan U.S. cities have. There are anumber of

institutional and cultural factorscontributing to this success.

In Stockholm, Toronto,Vancouver, and Curitiba, land-use andtransportation decisions were made byregional planning bodies that had theability to use transit to shape regionaldevelopment patterns. In the U.S.,transit service is the responsibility oftransit agencies, and land-use planningis done by local governments. Transitagencies may want dense developmentnear stations, but the communities whocontrol the zoning may not. In addition,most transit-supportive developmentrequires more than the provision oftransit service and supportive zoning.Transit stations must be located in areasthat are conducive to development.This is often not the priority whenalignments are chosen (Cervero 1984,Lutz and Benz 1992). The transitagency, municipality, and developermust also work together to produce aviable project. Public involvement inland acquisition, the provision ofinfrastructure, and financing is oftenneeded for transit-supportivedevelopment to occur.

One of the reasons developmenthas clustered around transit stations incities like Stockholm and Toronto isthat local governments boughtconsiderable amounts of land that couldlater be leased or sold to developers.U.S. transit agencies cannot legallyacquire with federal funds land beyondwhat is needed for the transit system.There are some other mechanisms forland assembly, such as redevelopmentagencies in "blighted" areas, but ingeneral the only assembled land transitagencies have to offer is their park-and-ride lots.

The cost of providing neededinfrastructure for development can alsobe considerable. When an area is"blighted," a redevelopment agencymay have tools like tax incrementfinancing to generate revenue, but inmany instances no special revenuesources exist (Cervero et al. 1994).

Finally, experience in Californiasuggests that most large-scale

redevelopment projects need somepublic assistance with financing to beviable. Housing authorities maysubsidize below market housing units.Transit agencies or local developmentagencies may issue tax exempt ortaxable bonds and thereby share someof the risk in the project. The financialarrangements are often complex(Ciocca 1994; Cervero et al. 1994).

One proposal to overcome someof these institutional issues wasintroduced in the 1994 Californialegislative session. A Transit VillageDevelopment Act was proposed thatwould have allowed the use of landassembly and infrastructure financingpowers, similar to those forredevelopment agencies, to createtransportation-supportive developmentat rail stations. The measure did notpass (Cervero et al. 1994).

In Portland, Oregon, the transitagency is engaged in successfulcooperative planning with localjurisdictions for light rail station areas.These efforts are aided by stateregulations requiring local jurisdictionsto reduce auto use through land-useplanning. A number of relatively densetransit-oriented developments are beingplanned.

The State of Research

The bulk of empirical research ontransit's impacts on urban form wasconducted up to 20 years ago. Littlenew ground has been broken and fewnew pieces have been published in thepast decade--partly because federallysponsored research on transit and land-use impacts ended in the early 1980s. Itis perhaps also because of theconsistent and widely embracedconclusions of the research, bestsummarized by Knight and Trygg(1977), regarding the necessaryconditions for rail transit to influenceurban form and land uses. Updates ofimpact studies in the San Francisco BayArea and Atlanta are currently probingthe more recent impacts of thesesystems. Because the findings of theseupdates are pending,

20

complimentary insights into the transit-urban form dynamic can be gained byfocusing on how land uses and the builtenvironment shape transit demand andtravel behavior.

1.4 URBAN FORM AND LAND-USE IMPACTS ON TRANSITDEMAND

Macrolevel Analysis

American Studies

In the seminal study PublicTransportation and Land-Use Policy,(Pushkarev and Zupan 1977) developeda set of "land-use thresholds" that arenecessary to justify financially differenttypes of transit investments, based onintermodal comparisons of transit unitcosts and intercity comparisons oftransit trip generation rates (Figure 7).They found the key land-usedeterminants of transit demand to bethe size of a downtown (innonresidential floorspace), distance of asite to downtown, and residentialdensities. To justify a light rail line, forinstance, the authors concluded thatminimum residential densities of ninedwelling units per acre were needed toserve a downtown with at least 20million sq ft of nonresidentialfloorspace. Urban Rail in America byPushkarev, with Zupan and Cumella(1980), the sequel to PublicTransportation and Land-Use Policy,used the same concepts, but developedsix demand-based threshold criteria forfixed-guideway transit (rapid transit,light rail, automated people-movers).Each criteria was linked to residentialdensities and to downtownnonresidential floorspace.

The Pushkarev and Zupan findingsneed to be reviewed today since mostU.S. metropolitan areas aremulticentered, thus diminishing theimportance of the size of the CBD. Theuse of data from the New York Cityregion also limits the ability togeneralize the findings. Still, this workis the only systematic examination ofthese relationships in the United States.It is cited and used frequently infeasibility

studies of proposed rail projects.

In another cross-city comparisonof six U.S. metropolises (ranging insize from Springfield, Massachusetts tothe New York City region), Smith(1984) found that transit trips rose mostsharply when residential densitiesincreased from around 7 dwelling unitsto 16 dwelling units per acre. In thecase of greater New York, for instance,this residential density jump increasedaverage weekday transit trips perperson from 0.2 to 0.6 At residentialdensities of 100 dwelling units per acre,he found that each resident in the NewYork City region was averaging aroundone mass transit trip per day.

An earlier study concluded theopposite about the relationship betweendensity and transit usage. In aneconometric analysis of 1973Nationwide Personal TransportationSurvey (NPTS) data, Peat Marwick &Mitchell (1975) tested a number ofdemand functions in an attempt toestimate per capita passenger miles forboth bus and rail transit. The authorsconcluded that "...for both bus and railsystems, the explanatory variables ofaverage square miles per capita (theinverse of average population density),price, and headway were not sufficientto explain very much of the variationamong urbanized areas in the demandfor transit services." The studysuggested that socioeconomiccharacteristics of residents explainedfar more of the observed variation inmodal split.

A paper developed for theMontgomery County, Maryland,Planning Department (Levinson andKumar 1994) uses the 1990 NPTS toexamine relationships between densityand several indicators of travelbehavior, including mode choice, traveltime, and vehicle ownership. Althoughcritical of the thesis that density canexplain travel behavior, the authorsfound that relationships betweendensity and mode choice "are foundonly at densities greater than 10,000persons per square mile." Whileasserting that these densities are "hometo about 6 percent of

the American population," the authors'findings conform to those of Zupan andof Smith in terms of the range andthresholds of density that can beassociated with higher utilization oftransit. (The density of 10,000 personsper sq mi corresponds approximately toseven dwelling units per grossresidential acre.)

A macrolevel study of Americannew towns examined differences invehicle miles traveled (VMT) perhousehold. Part of the rationale for newcommunities has been the possibility ofreducing travel by the plannedjuxtaposition of complementary landuses. A comparison of travel behaviorin 15 new communities with fifteen"semi-planned" control suburbs showedno discernible reductions in VMT ortransit usage from planned designs,except in the category of recreationaltrips (Burby et al. 1974).

A cross-sectional analysis of therelationship between density,congestion, and mode choice in severaldozen American cities (Dunphy andFisher 1994) identified a weakrelationship between macrolevel urbanarea densities and several measures oftravel behavior. The findings may beexplained by reviewing the way inwhich the density measure was defined.Using overall MSA densities as anindependent variable, the researchersnoted that the U.S. metropolitan areawith the highest level of gross density(households per acre) was the LosAngeles metropolitan area. Given thefinding that Los Angeles outrankedNew York and all other cities in urbanarea densities, it is appropriate torethink measures of urban densities interms other than those used in theirpaper (e.g., in terms of corridors) inorder to understand the ways in whichdensities affect transit utilization.

As part of ongoing responsibilitiesfor regional transportation and land-useplanning, and in part because of theabsence of adequate empirical data onthe effects of land use on travelbehavior, a number of organizations

Figure 7. Transit modes suited to downtown size. (Source: Pushkarev and Zupan [1977])

22

have undertaken studies using travel-demand forecasting models to simulatethe effects of alternative land-usepatterns on highway and transitsystems. These efforts differ in theways they create scenarios to evaluateand in the set of attributes that vary.Among the entities conducting suchstudies are the Montgomery County,Maryland, Planning Department, theSouthern California Association ofGovernments, Orange CountyCalifornia Planning Department,Metropolitan Transit Commission andthe Association of Bay AreaGovernments in California's SanFrancisco Bay Area (ABAG 1990,1991), the Metropolitan Area PlanningCouncil in Boston Massachusetts, thePuget Sound Council of Governments(Seattle, Washington), the BaltimoreRegional Council of Governments, theMetropolitan Washington COG, NorthCentral Texas COG, and the DenverCOG.

Among these efforts is a studycompleted in New Jersey (MSMRegional Council 1991). For thisproject the researchers, supported bythe Federal Transit Administration ofthe U.S. Department of Transportation,developed a sketch plan version of aregional highway network on whichthey estimated the regionalconsequences of alternative regionalland-use plans and site-specific urbandesign improvements.

Significant effects on slowing thegrowth of trip generation and VMT,and a deterioration of highway speedswere documented. Incremental impactsof 30 percent on forecast growth intrips and 33 percent in forecast growthof VMT were shown to result from theimplementation of urban designmeasures in a context of suburbanactivity centers, strategically located inthe three-county region.

Montgomery County, Maryland,in the rapidly growing Washington, DCarea, projected the impacts of differentrates of growth, job and housingmixtures, and spatial patterns ofdevelopment on congestion. From their

modeling, they concluded that in thelong run, the pattern of development(clustered or dispersed), had moreinfluence on congestion than the rate ofgrowth or the job and housingmixtures. Dispersed origins anddestinations, regardless of otherassumptions, produced morecongestion, than clustered origins anddestinations. They also concluded thatthey could not eliminate congestioninduced by growth using only highwayconstruction, but needed to reducedependence upon the automobile byusing a combination of policies (e.g.,provision of alternative modes, pricing,etc.) to break the automobile habit anddevelop patterns that support transit use(MNCPPC, Montgomery CountyPlanning Department 1989).

In Baltimore, the RegionalCouncil of Governments used theirexisting forecasting model to simulatethe effects of three land-use scenarios.Each involved a different allocation ofresidential growth within the region'scounties and communities between1990 and 2010.

The "Concentrated GrowthScenario" assumed growth in allcounties and jurisdictions, including theCity of Baltimore. The "SprawlScenario" assumed a decline inpopulation in the City of Baltimore andrelatively more growth in suburbancounties and areas. The "Transit AccessScenario" assumed growth would occuronly in those zones and locationshaving transit accessibility, regardlessof jurisdiction.

The simulations suggested that thecentralized and the transit scenarioswould result in fewer vehicle tripsoverall, and in an increase ofapproximately 3 percent in nonautotrips throughout the region. Overallregional travel times and miles traveledwould decline by approximately thesame amount. Forecast air quality wasworst under the sprawl scenario. Theauthors noted that impacts in specificzones and jurisdictions were morevaried and significant.

The Metropolitan WashingtonCouncil of Governments undertook asimilar exercise in 1991. The Councildeveloped two alternatives to the 2010"Base Case" forecasts for the region.The "Balanced Scenario" involvedadding households to areas where thehighest growth in employment wasforecast for the period 1995-2010 andreducing households elsewhere. An 11percent shift in household locationsresulted in a 13 percent increase intransit work trips and a 10 percentdecrease in VMT per household, withan overall reduction in regional VMTof 4 percent.

The "Concentrated EmploymentScenario" further increased job growthin high transit use areas to double thelevel in the balanced scenario. Jobgrowth elsewhere was correspondinglyreduced. The redistribution of 23percent of regional job growth over thebalanced scenario resulted in a furtherincrease in transit work tripsregionwide of 5 percent, but VMT forthe region did not change significantly.

Neither the Baltimore nor theWashington, DC scenario involvedchanging the transportation network.By contrast, a set of simulations, inPortland, Oregon, focusing on thelargest suburban county in the region,involved changing both transportationand land use to the year 2010. Incontrast to the "Base Case"transportation and land-use plan, the"Bypass Alternative" involved theconstruction of a major freeway. The"Land Use/Transportation/Air Quality(LUTRAQ) Alternative" involved theconstruction of light rail transit linesand a different assignment ofhouseholds and jobs, focusing bothnear the rail lines.

Researchers developed a transit-oriented land-use plan for a 150-sq-miportion of the suburbs of Portland,Oregon. The land-use plan involved theassignment of households andemployment to traffic analysis zonesproximate to transit services (existingor proposed) at densities consistentwith regional

23

market conditions. The new land-useplan emphasized transit and pedestrian-friendly design measures at the site andneighborhood levels. The land-use planincluded a package of travel-demandmanagement measures including a$3.00 per day parking charge on worktrips and a provision of an employer-paid transit pass to employees in thestudy area.

The LUTRAQ Alternative for theyear 2010 generated a home-basedwork mode share of 20.2 percent fortransit in transit-oriented developmentareas. This compared favorably with a7.7 percent average mode split fortransit work trips in the study areaunder the no-action alternative and an8.8 percent mode split for the highway-oriented alternative (which did includesome additional transit). Looking notonly at the transit-oriented developmentsites, but also at the study area as awhole, the LUTRAQ alternative modesplit for home-based work trips ontransit was 12.8 percent.

Portland is a region with bothwestern and eastern U.S. city features,in terms of the patterns of developmentand the transit orientation. Two otherregions that have recently conductedsimilar analyses are more clearlywestern, in the sense that the vastmajority of development has occurredin the last 50 years. The effect of thisorientation is evident in both thealternatives developed, the choice oftravel behavior to be analyzed, and theresults of the simulations.

The North Central Texas Councilof Governments (Dallas/Fort Worth)developed three alternatives. The"Corridors" alternative focused growththrough 2010 into radial routes. The"Centers" alternative focused growthinto and near existing employmentcenters. The "Uncongested" alternativespread development to peripheral areaswhere highway and land capacityexisted.

The authors of the report notedthat the Corridors and the Centersalternatives resulted in 2 to 3 percent

more delay and 1 to 2 percent slowertravel speeds than the base case. TheUncongested alternative resulted in 7percent less vehicle hours of travel(VHT) and 5 percent higher travelspeeds than the base case. Data onVMT, trip length, mode split, and airquality were not presented in the report.

In Denver, the Denver RegionCouncil of Governments compared aCorridor plan to the base case RegionalTransportation Plan, which includes anew 100-mi radial rail system andcircumferential freeway. The Corridorplan involved concentratingemployment (but not households)within 1 mi of rail lines.

The simulations suggested nodifference in trips, trip length, VMT, orair quality between the alternatives,though transit patronage increased 27percent in the Corridor alternative (to10 percent of work trips and 5 percentof all trips). The authors noted thatemployment up to 1 mi from transitwas not located sufficiently to induce achange in mode choice, and thatshifting employment, but nothouseholds precluded effects on triplength and VMT.

In summary, recent work toanalyze the regional effects of land useon travel behavior indicate, for themost part, that measurable changes inbehavior can be associated withdifferent regional developmentpatterns, but that these effects arediluted by the magnitude of existingdevelopment relative to newdevelopment. With between 65 percentand 83 percent (depending on theregion and the alternative) of land usesin place for both the base year and theforecast year, the effects of alternativepatterns are muted. Further, with only afraction of the future developmentbeing allocated in a different fashionacross regional alternatives, impacts arefurther diminished.

Of course, local conditions, land-use patterns, transportation systems andmodels differ from region to region. Inaddition, the models themselves vary

widely in the degree to which they aresensitive to the demonstrated effects ofland-use density, mix, and amenities ontrip length and mode choice, and in theextent to which they model modechoice at all. Thus comparisons acrossregions are problematic, and results ofsome simulations are unreliable.Nevertheless, the simulations, as agroup, may be indicative of regionwideimpacts of land-use alternatives ontravel demand. Further work on modeldevelopment will improve thereliability of these regional forecasts incoming years.

International Studies

Several notable studies with aninternational focus have examined theimpacts of urban form on travelbehavior. Using internationalcomparisons of U.S., European, andAsian cities, Newman and Kenworthy(1989) found that U.S. cities likePhoenix and Houston averaged roughlyfour to five times as much fuelconsumption per capita as comparablesize European cities (Figure 8).Differences in petrol prices, incomes,and vehicle efficiency explain onlyabout half of these differences. What issignificant is urban structure: citieswith strong concentrations of centralhubs, and accordingly a betterdeveloped public transport system,have much lower energy use than citieswhere jobs are scattered. Newman andKenworthy also found a strongrelationship between density andenergy consumption withinmetropolitan areas (Table 2). For theNew York region, for instance,Manhattanites average 90 gallons offuel consumption per capita annually,compared to 454 gallons per capita inthe outer suburbs. This work has beenheavily criticized, however, notablyover the lack of statistical controls thataccount for other factors influencingfuel consumption, such as differencesin the fuel efficiencies of U.S. versusforeign fleets (Gordon and Richardson1989; Gomez-Ibanez 1991).Regardless, the analysis has spurredhealthy debate within public policy

25

circles about the appropriate role ofcentral planning versus market forcesin responding to pressingenvironmental and energy consumptionproblems.

In a 1988 article, Pucher comparedtransit modal splits for 12 countries inWestern Europe and North America.On average, European cities werefound to be on the order of 50 percentdenser with substantially more mixed-use neighborhoods than their Americancounterparts. Pucher found thepercentage of all trips made byautomobile to be more than double thatof the majority of Western Europeancountries, most of which have percapita incomes comparable to those inthe United States. America's 3.4percent national transit modal split forall trips was also around half that foundin European countries. Pucherattributed transit's success in Europe tosupportive urban development andautomobile taxation policies rather thantransit subsidies (Figure 9).

Based on an evaluation of newBritish towns, Potter (1984) presentsevidence that communities designed forgood transit access enjoy higherridership and more efficient services.Compared to two low-density, auto-oriented new towns (Milton Keynesand Washington) (Figure 10), twotransit-friendly communities (Runcornand Redditch) average per capita transitridership levels that are nearly 30percent higher (Table 3). They alsoenjoy far more frequent bus services atone-third the deficit per rider of theirauto-oriented new town counterparts.

Intermediate-Scale: Corridors andActivity Centers

Overview Studies

The emergence of suburbandowntowns and edge cities over thepast 2 decades has spawned a numberof investigations into how these builtenvironments influence travel behavior(Baerwald 1982; Long Island RegionalPlanning Board 1984; Cervero 19841986;

Orski 1985; Leinberger and Lockwood1986; Giuliano and Small 1990).Several other studies have looked at theimpacts of various land-use andphysical design features of activitycenters on travel behavior along anumber of dimensions, with a particularfocus given to impacts on transit usage.

In an analysis of suburban activitycenters in metropolitan Toronto, Pill(1983) found dense office andresidential subcenters like North Yorkand Scarborough to be vital inmaintaining multidirectional flows onthe regional rail transit network. Thesecenters were found to have capturednearly three times as many transit tripsfor work purposes and around twice asmany for shopping purposes as othernon-CBD locales in metropolitanToronto. Cervero (1986) documentedthe effects of rapid suburban officegrowth during the 1980s on travelbehavior, finding that most (low-density, single-use) campus-style officeparks with abundant free parkingaveraged transit modal splits under 2percent, a finding also confirmed byFulton (1986) in his analysis ofintersuburban commuting in the UnitedStates.

Several recent studies haveenriched our understanding of how thebuilt environments of suburban activitycenters influence travel behavior.Hooper's (1989) survey of six mixed-use activity centers across the UnitedStates found transit modal splits to beconsistently below 10 percent, althoughthere was considerable variation acrossindividual properties within centers(Tables 4A and 4B). In the case ofBellevue, Washington, for example, 37percent of workers carpooled and 12percent rode bus transit at an officeproject where parking restrictions andpricing were in place. At a nearbybuilding where parking was abundantand free, only 11 percent of workerseither shared rides or patronized transit.Cervero's (1991) statistical analysis oftravel characteristics to sites from theNational Cooperative HighwayResearch Program (NCHRP) suburbanactivity centers data set revealed thatbuilding

densities had the dominant influence onmodal splits, followed by land-usemixing and parking supplies.

In another study, Cervero (1989)classified America's largest suburbanactivity centers on the basis of the size,densities, land-use composition, andsite designs/amenities. The study foundall of these factors to be significantpredictors of transit modal choice, withdensities being the dominant factor.The incidence of ridesharing and transitusage was the highest in suburban worksettings with the largest retailcomponents. Earlier work of subcentersin the greater Houston area reachedsimilar conclusions about theimportance of mixed uses (Rice Centerfor Urban Mobility Research 1987).

A more recent study in theWashington, DC area found denser andmore mixed-use employment centers tobe more transit-dependent. Amongworkers with similar incomes, 55percent of those working in downtownWashington commuted by mass transit,compared to 15 percent of thoseworking in a suburban downtown(Bethesda) and only 2 percent of thoseworking in a suburban office park(Rock Springs Park) (Douglas 1992)(Figure 11).

Density and Travel Behavior

Several studies have focusedspecifically on the relationship betweenthe employment and commercialdensities at activity centers on travelbehavior. On balance, researchconsistently shows density to be one ofthe most important determinants oftransit modal choice.

Two recent studies of subregionsin the San Francisco Bay Areaunderscore the importance of urbandensities in influencing travel behavior.Using 1981 superdistrict data in theBay Area, Harvey (1990) found astrong negative exponentialrelationship between residentialdensities and the amount of vehiculartravel--a doubling of densities

Figure 9. National modal-split as percent of total trips. (Source: Pucher, Urban Travel Behavior asthe Outcome of Public Policy, 1988)

(a) Optimal structure for private motorized transport. Uniformly low-densityto reduce traffic intensity and random distribution of facilities to even-out loading on roads

(b) Optimal structure for public transport. Urban facilities located along corridorshence concentrating demand to maintain a high frequency service. Facilities locatedevenly along corridors to avoid peaks in loading. Increase in density towards publictransport route to minimize distances

Figure 10. Optimal urban structures for public and private transport. (Source: Potter, Stephen,"The Transport Versus Land Use Dilemma," Transportation Research Record 964, 1984)

27

TABLE 3 Key characteristics of the selected new towns (Source: Potter, Stephen, "The TransportVersus Land Use Dilemma," Transportation Research Record 964, 1984)

results in a 30 percent decline inVMT/household (Figure 12). Holtzclaw(1990) found a similar relationshipacross five Bay Area communities withsimilar income profiles--using datafrom smog-check odometer readingsand trip logs, Holtzclaw found thatresidents of a dense part of SanFrancisco logged, on average, onlyone-third as many miles on their privatevehicles each year as residents ofDanville, an East Bay suburb (Figure13). Both authors concluded that everydoubling of residential densitiesreduces annual VMT by 20 to 30percent.

Mixed-Use Developments and TravelBehavior

Cervero (1989) cited the land-usemix as an important factor in shapingemployee commuting behavior at 57large U.S. suburban activity centers.His analysis found that a substantialretail component increases transit andridesharing by around three percentagepoints for every 10 percent increase infloorspace devoted to retail andcommercial uses (Table 5). In acomprehensive study of mixed-use sitesin Colorado, the ITE Colorado SectionTechnical Committee on TripGeneration recommended reducing ITEpeak hour rates by 2.5 percent whenapplied to mixed-use developments.

A study of travel behavior at fiveregional shopping centers in California(JHK & Associates 1993) focuses onland-use mix in the vicinity of retailcenters, and the contribution that land-use mix makes to mode choice and tripgeneration at these destinations. Theresearchers surveyed a large sample ofshoppers at centers with different levelsof transit service and with differentsurrounding land uses. They concludedthat "a significant portion of thevariation found in travel mode toregional shopping centers can beexplained by the amount and regionalcoverage of public transit service andthe density and proximity of thesurrounding land uses." Theyconcluded that different packages oftravel-reduction measures, focusing onland-use mix and transit service, couldreduce trips by 5 to 7 percent to thesedestinations. The packages of measuresdid not include parking pricing, whichthe researchers concluded could furtherreduce vehicle trips by 10 percent, but"may have negative economic impact."

Job and housing balance has alsogained policy attention in recent yearsas a mixed-use development strategywhich could yield mobility dividends;however, evidence to date is scant. Inhis analysis of 57 U.S. activity centers,Cervero (1989) found that suburbanactivity centers with some on-sitehousing

averaged between 3 to 5 percent morecommute trips by walking, cycling, andtransit than centers without on-sitehousing. Nowlan and Stewart (1991)present evidence that reducing job andhousing imbalance can improvemobility along corridors to the centralcity core. They found that althoughsubstantial new office constructionoccurred in central Toronto between1975 and 1988, much of its impact onpeak-hour work trips entering the areawas offset by accelerated housingconstruction. Over half of downtownToronto housing additions wereoccupied by people working there, thusallowing mobility conditions tostabilize while office floorspace nearlydoubled (Figure 14).

Taking the other side in the debateover the merits of job and housingbalance as a tool in managing regionand mobility, Giuliano (1991, 1992)analyzed the location of jobs andhousing in a number of metropolitanareas and concluded that, "therelationship between job and housingbalance and commuting holds only invery general terms. While isolatedexamples of job and housingmismatches have been identified at thecommunity level, there is littleevidence suggesting that suchmismatches have significantly affectedcommuting patterns. Regulatorypolicies aimed at improving

TABLE 4A Characteristics of selected U.S. suburban activity centers (Source: Hooper [1989])

*The employment figures for the NCHRP centers include only workers associated with the office and retail space.**The Houston study did not focus directly on the travel characteristics of residents in the centers and so no counts of residentialunits were done. The figures given for Bellevue and Tysons Corner represent only those surveyed and not total units in thecenters.

TABLE 4B Work trip modal split--selected U.S. suburban activity centers(Source: Hooper [1989])

Note: Modal statistics were gathered for all of the centers through the administration of travel surveys However, the Houstonsurveys obtained only information on mode split for all trips, not just work trips. Therefore the information presented herefor the Houston centers is taken from 1980 Census journey-to-work data.

Figure 11. Modal shares for work trips, selected activity centers, Washington DC area (landscape).(Source: Douglas [1993])

Figure 12. Relation of residential density to VMT per resident San Francisco Bay Area. (Source: Harvey [1990])

This graph plots 1990 drive-alonecommuting shares versus residentialdensity of 33 superdistricts in the nine-county Bay Area. (The downtown SanFrancisco superdistrict was omitted. At130 dwellings per acre, it had thelowest share of work trips by solo-commuters in 1990--only 20 percent.)

The negative exponential functionimplied by the graph confirms whatothers have found--every doubling ofdensity is associated with a 25-30percent decline in drive-alonecommuting.

Figure 13. Influence of residentialdensities on drive-alone commutingSan Francisco Bay Area, 1990.(Source: Cervero [1993])

31

job and housing balance are thusunlikely to have any measurable impacton commuting behavior, and thereforecannot be justified as a trafficmitigation strategy."

While the debate over the meritsof job and housing balance has thusbeen inconclusive, it should be notedthat the concept may be applied atscales as small as individualdevelopments and as large as entiremetropolitan areas. Smaller scalesbecome synonymous with the conceptof mixed-use development, at whichscale the Cervero (1989) researchfindings apply. At the metropolitanscale, the merits of job and housingbalance continue to be debated.

Intermediate-Scale: Neighborhoodsand Station Areas

To date, three lines of researchhave been conducted at a neighborhoodscale on how land uses influence transittrip-making: (1) studies of transitmodal shares and ridership gradientsaround station areas; (2) the impacts oftraditional neighborhood developmentsand transit-oriented developments onridership; and (3) determinants ofpedestrian walking distances. Inaddition, transit agencies and localjurisdictions have been developingdesign guidelines to encourage transit-oriented development.

Transit Usage by Proximity toStations

In a study of ridership amonghousing and commercial developmentsnear four rail stations in Edmonton andToronto, Stringham (1982) foundtransit modal splits to be about 30percent higher for apartments than forsingle-family units. He also found the"walking impact zone" to be as far as4,000 ft from a station, a distance thatcan accommodate around 1,200 acresof development, sufficient to createstrong transit-oriented communities.

A study of ridership levels foroffice, residential, and hotel structuresnear Washington Metrorail stationsfound surprisingly high transit modalshares

for radial trips that paralleled the railsystem (JHK and Associates 1986,1989). For example, around 25 percentof those working at the Silver SpringMetro Center (near the Silver Springstation) patronized transit for worktrips. Modal shares varied significantlyby place of origin, however. If theworker was coming from Washington,DC, the transit modal share was 52percent whereas if the trip originated inMontgomery County the transit splitwas only 10 percent. The study alsofound a number of housing projectsnear suburban Metrorail stations wherethe transit modal splits exceeded 50percent, though in all cases this wasonly for work trips headed toWashington, DC or other places on theMetrorail line. Overall, the share oftrips by rail or bus transit declined byaround 0.65 percent for every 100-ftincrease in distance of a residential sitefrom a Metrorail station portal.

Both the Washington andCanadian studies found that transitmodal splits for offices located nearsuburban rail stations wereconsiderably lower than those ofresidences near the same stations,perhaps reflecting the availability ofsufficient parking at the suburbanbusinesses surveyed. For developmentsnear rail stations, JHK and Associates(1987, p. 1) concluded that "the mostsignificant factors affecting the percentof trips by transit are (1) the location ofthe site within the urban area and on therail system; and (2) the proximity of thebuilding to a Metrorail stationentrance." The origin and destinationpatterns of trips were found to becrucial--"poor transit accessibility ateither end of the trip results in poortransit ridership between those pairs (p.1)."

A recent examination of housingand office developments near railstations in California has confirmedand extended these earlier findings(Cervero et al. 1993). For housing nearrail stations, the principal determinantsof whether station-area residents willcommute by rail transit were found tobe the size (office and commercialsquare footage) of the destination andwhether parking fees

are exacted. In the Bay Area, 92percent of those living within 1/4-mi ofa BART station and heading to a job inSan Francisco where parking costs over$2 per day commute via rail transit. Ifthe workplace is in East Bay's majoremployment centers in Oakland,Berkeley, Walnut Creek, or PleasantHill (all served by BART) whereparking fees are exacted, the odds ofstation-area residents commuting byBART is 45 percent. For virtually anyother Bay Area workplace locationwhere parking is free, fewer than 2percent of station-area residentscommute via BART. Clearly, if transit-based housing is to reap mobility andenvironment dividends, it must bematched by transit-based officedevelopment and commercialclustering (Figure 15) and by pricingstrategies.

Figure 16 summarizes researchdone on ridership by proximity totransit stations. It appears that, all elsebeing equal, rail ridership potential isclearly related to station proximity.

Impacts of Traditional Designs

The second line of neighborhood-level research has sought to empiricallymeasure the extent to which traditionaland neotraditional neighborhooddesigns influence travel behavior.These are typically neighborhoods thateither grew around a streetcar orcommuter line system, or in the case ofnewer communities, are designed tofunction like older transit-basedneighborhoods. The central idea is tobuild suburban places that are lessdependent on the automobile and thatare attractive environments forwalking, ridesharing, and using transit.The neotraditional designs of AndresDuany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberkborrow many of the successfulelements of traditional communitieslike Princeton, New Jersey andAnnapolis, Maryland. Peter Calthorpe'sPedestrian Pocket scheme adopts manyof these same principles, though thecenterpiece of these projects is a railtransit station. Among the hallmarks ofthese transit-friendly environments area commercial core

32

TABLE 5 Comparison of workforce travel characteristics and areawide traffic volumes among suburban activitycenter groups (Source: Cervero [1989])

Variable DefinitionsSPEED Average travel speed for work trip in m.p.hVANSHARE Percentage of work trips in vanpoolsWALKSHARE Percentage of work trips by walkingDRIVEDIFF Drive alone work trip percentage minus regional drive alone percentageBUSRIDE Average weekday ridership of all bus runs serving SECARRIVALTIME Most frequently occurring time of arrival, a m peakDEPARTIME Most frequently occurring time of departure, p m peakADT Average daily directional traffic volume on main freeway or roadway serving SEC

________________________________________________________________________________

within walking distance of a majorityof residents, a well-connected(typically grid) street pattern, narrowstreets with curbside parking and back-lot alleys, mixed uses, and varyingdensities of housing (Lerner-Lam 1992;Bookout 1992; Beimborn andRabinowitz 1991).

Several empirical investigationshave sought to measure the degree towhich traditional communities affecttravel behavior, however these effortshave been hampered by the fact thatmost neotraditional communities arestill under construction or beingplanned. Thus work to date has focusedmainly on comparing travel behaviorbetween long-established traditionalcommunities and nearby 1960s-stylesuburban neighborhoods. Kulash et al.(1990) (Figure 17) demonstrated

theoretically how grid network designscan result in more direct routing ofvehicles in traditional suburbansubdivisions--a comparison of twocontrasting neighborhoods showedVMT could be reduced by 43 percentwith rectilinear street layouts. Morerecent simulations by Stone andJohnson (1992) and McNally and Ryan(1993) confirmed that grid networkscan reduce VMT and average triplengths, though they estimatedreductions in the 10 to 15 percentrange.

A study of San Francisco BayArea travel found a dramatic differencein mode choice between standardsuburban developments and traditional,pre-World War II neighborhoods withmixed uses and moderate to high

densities using1980 travel diary data(Fehr and Peers Associates 1992)(Figure 18). In traditionalneighborhoods, 23 percent of trips weremade on foot and 22 percent were bytransit. In comparison, suburbanresidents made only 9 percent of tripsby foot and 3 percent by transit. Afollow-up study of suburban villagecenters proposed for Stockton, CAestimated there would be 25 percentfewer daily automobile trips and 33percent less VMT in a communityutilizing the suburban village centerconcept. Another study, however,found no significant difference in theshare of walking trips to retail centersamong neotraditional versusconventional suburban neighborhoodsin Santa Clara County, CA (Handy1992).

Figure 14. Inbound trips and intra-cordon employment cumulative growth since 1975 Toronto CBD. (Source: Nowlan andStewart [1991])

Figure 15. Ridership and station access selected U.S. cities (landscape). (Sources: As noted)

Figure 16. Empirical evidence on ridership by distance. (Source: Cervero [1993])

Figure 17. Comparison of internal VMT in alternative residential development. (Source: Walter Kulash, TraditionalNeighborhood Development: Will the Traffic Work?, 1990)

35

White Mt. Survey Co. (1991)found evidence that trip generationrates of traditional developments aresubstantially below the norm. Usingtrip data compiled for two traditionalneighborhoods in Portsmouth, NewHampshire, the authors found theaverage daily traffic (ADT) generatedby these neighborhoods to be about 50percent lower than the ADT predictedby the Fifth Edition of the ITE TripGeneration Manual (Figure 19).

A recent study in MontgomeryCounty, Maryland, provides the bestinsights to date on the travelcharacteristics of traditionalneighborhoods that are served directlyby rail transit (MNCPPC 1992). Theauthors compared transit modal splitsbetween three transit-orientedtraditional neighborhoods (served bythe B&O commuter railroad or a trolleyline) and three nearby newerneighborhoods with a branching systemof streets designed for auto access. Thestudy found that residents of the transit-oriented communities patronized transitbetween 10 percent and 45 percent asmuch as residents of nearby auto-oriented neighborhoods (Figure 20).

Another recent study has furtherconfirmed these research findings. Inthe San Francisco Bay Area, residentsof traditional, pre-World War IIneighborhoods (with moderate-to-highdensities and grid streets) traveled bytransit 22 percent of the time, comparedto only 3 percent for those residing innearby 1960s style suburban tractdevelopments (Cervero 1993).

Similar differences were found inthe share of walking trips. Besidesproximity, this study matchedcommunities on the basis of householdincomes and transit service intensity,thus removing the influences of thesefactors.

With the exception of the last ofthe citations mentioned previously,none of the neighborhood studiescontrolled or attempted to control forother factors that are known toinfluence mode choice

such as income, age, workers perhousehold, persons per household orautomobile ownership. This constitutesa serious flaw in all of the empiricalresearch conducted to date on thisimportant subject.

For residential neighborhoods,some research suggests that theavailability of local retail centers canencourage more internal (i.e., withinneighborhood) walking trips forshopping purposes. In a comparison ofshopping trips made in traditionalneighborhoods versus those in moreauto-oriented ones in the San FranciscoBay Area, Handy (1992) found that thetraditional neighborhoods had higherrates of walking trips. Residents oftraditional neighborhoods averagedsimilar rates of auto travel to regionalshopping malls, however, suggestingthat walking trips might not havereplaced auto trips but rather havesupplemented them. Handy observedthat the destination choice for shoppingwas affected by both the number ofpossible destinations and theirproximity, as might be predicted by aconventional gravity model. Thissuggests that a more rigorous analyticalframework, which accounts for thenumbers, types, and locations of retailestablishments, is vital towardunderstanding the influence of land-usemix on mode choice in neighborhoods.

A recent study by Ewing et al.(1994) employed a gravity-likeexpression of accessibility incomparing work and nonwork travelbehavior in six communities of PalmBeach County, Florida. They foundlittle evidence that accessibility to retailaffected mode choice or vehicle-hourstraveled per person, and actually founda classic 1970s planned unitdevelopment neighborhood(Wellington) had the shortest shoppingand recreational trips because of amplestores and recreational facilities withinthe community.

Another study addressed theinfluence of mixed uses on work andshopping trips in the Seattle area, usingtravel diary surveys for several hundredurban residents (Frank 1994). Thesedata

were supplemented by density andland-use mixture variables for censustracts where survey respondentsresided. Researchers found mixed-useneighborhoods were most stronglycorrelated with walking trips to work,but rather surprisingly mixed-useenvironments had no influence onmode choice for shopping trips. Theuse of census tract-level data torepresent land-use compositions inneighborhoods and the entropy-baseddefinition of mixed uses might explainwhy the mixed-use variable had nostatistical significance.

Interest in the influence of land-use mixes is also finding its way intolarge-scale regional modelingprograms. Work for 1000 Friends ofOregon and Portland Metro has focusedon identifying land-use variables forinclusion in the region's travel demandmodels (1000 Friends of Oregon 1991).

Model development work forPortland Metro has led to theconfirmation of a statisticallysignificant relationship between land-use mix at the neighborhood level andautomobile ownership. The measure ofland-use mix that was tested was thenumber of retail jobs within 1 mi of thecentroid of traffic analysis zones in theregional travel-demand forecastingmodel. The inclusion of this measurereduced the difference betweenobserved automobile ownership ratesand forecast automobile ownershiprates at the zonal level in statisticallysignificant ways.

Studies on Pedestrian Access

A number of studies, besides thoseexamining ridership by walkingproximity to stations, have examinedfactors influencing walking behavior.Because all transit trips are linked tripsin the sense that walking is used tosome degree to access stops or stations,research on pedestrian behavior ishighly relevant. By default, transit-friendly environments must also bepedestrian-friendly.

In Urban Space for Pedestrians,Pushkarev and Zupan (1975) developed

Figure 18. Daily trip generation by all modes in the San Francisco Bay Area. (Source: Febr and Peers, 1992)

Figure 19. Actual counts vs. ITE trip generation projections for average dailytraffic, Portsmouth, New Hampshire. (Source: White Mt. Survey Co., City ofPortsmouth Traffic/Trip Generation Study 1991)

Figure 20. Workers taking transit in 1980 Montgomery County, MD. (Source: MNCPPC[1992])

38

relationships between land use andpedestrian travel demand for adowntown setting. The amount ofoffice, retail, residential and restaurantspace was considered as theindependent variable and the number ofpedestrians walking along block-faceswas the dependent variable.Relationships for midday and eveningpeak-period pedestrian traffic weredeveloped. The relationships closelymatched expected trip generation ratesfor the area developed independently.Proximity to transit entrances (eveningpeak) and the amount of pedestrianwalking space provided were also keyindependent variables. This reportdemonstrated the ability to developmeaningful travel-demand land-userelationships for pedestrian-scale travel.

Untermann (1984) has examinedAmericans' walking behavior closely.His research shows that most peopleare willing to walk 500 ft, 40 percentwill walk 1,000 ft, and only 10 percentwill walk half a mile. These figures donot specify purpose of the walk trip,however; for more crucial trips, such asto work, Stringham (1982) has shownacceptable walking distances to befarther. Both Untermann and Stringhamhave shown that acceptable walkingdistances can be stretched considerably(perhaps as much as doubled) bycreating pleasant, interesting urbanspaces and corridors. There is a needfor more systematic research in thisarea.

Untermann contends that 10 min,or 2,300 ft, is the maximum distanceAmericans are willing to walk, whileCanadians and Europeans are more aptto walk farther. Untermann's researchalso shows that transit passengers areless sensitive to walking distances asservice frequency increases.Additionally, demographics also hassome bearing on willingness to walk--research shows females, those withoutdriver's licenses, and young people aremore amenable to walking.

Studies of activity centers ingreater Houston underscore theimportance of pedestrian amenities aswell as the

land-use environment in influencingpedestrian behavior (Rice Center 1987;Cervero 1993). Downtown Houston hasfour times the employment density and23 percent more sidewalk footage per1,000 workers than Uptown, asuburban activity center 6 mi west ofdowntown. Compared to WestHouston's Energy Corridor, an axialstrip along the Katy Freeway corridordotted with office parks, downtownHouston is nearly 10 times as denseand averages 76 percent moresidewalks. Downtown Houston also hasskywalks and such pedestrian amenitiesas parks, civic plazas, benches, streetsculptures, and protection from theelements from overhangs and trees. Thebuilt environment is also moreinteresting downtown, consisting of anassortment of street-level shops,eateries, and storefronts. Conversely,walking in Uptown and the EnergyCorridor requires long waits at busyintersections, wading throughexpansive surface parking lots, andpassing indistinguishable urban spaces.As a consequence, walking/cyclingaccount for around 30 percent of alltrips (made outside of buildings) indowntown Houston, compared to 7percent in Uptown and only 1.9 percentin West Houston. The researchestimated that every 10 percentincrease in pedestrian amenities (e.g.,lineal ft of sidewalk, number ofbenches) is related to a 15 percentdecline in motorized trips.

Research for 1000 Friends ofOregon (1993) examined the role of thepedestrian environment at theneighborhood level in affectingvehicle-trip generation, mode choice,and VMT. The pedestrian friendlinessof neighborhoods was evaluated usingfour factors--topography, ease of streetcrossing, sidewalk connectivity, andstreet connectivity. A compositePedestrian Environmental Factor (PEF)was assigned to each zone in a regionalmodel. Multiple regression analysisshowed that increasing zonal PEF frombelow average to average would reducevehicle-trip generation per householdby 7 percent in that zone, aftercontrolling for household income, size,and auto ownership.

Design Guidelines

Local jurisdictions and transitagencies are increasingly developingdesign guidelines to promote transit-supportive development. Designguidelines are perhaps the most visibleand prevalent means used by transitagencies to inform and assist public andprivate development decisions.

In Oregon, a new rule in thestatewide land-use planning systemrequires local jurisdictions to changetheir comprehensive plans and zoningcodes to encourage walking, bicycling,and transit use. Local jurisdictions aretypically changing standards forbuilding access, parking lots, pedestrianwalkways, bicycle paths, and transitstation areas. Other cities such asSacramento and Toronto are alsodeveloping standards to orientdevelopment towards transit (Mooreand Thorsnes 1994).

About one-quarter of U.S. transitagencies have established designguidelines to encourage developmentthat supports transit, and more aredeveloping them (See Tables 6 and 7).Guidelines typically focus on one ormore of three core topics: land use(type, mix, density, and location ofuses), site design (siting of buildings,parking, pedestrian access, streetconfiguration), or the transit facility(transit centers, bus stops and turnouts,bus shelters, bike facilities, pavementand grading). Guidelines can provideinformation on transit supportivedevelopment and support coordinationbetween transit agencies, developers,local jurisdictions, and the public.

Design guidelines have, however,had little impact on actual developmentto date. Less than half of the transitagencies with design guidelines couldidentify projects that were influencedby their guidelines. Moreover, whenprojects were identified they usuallyincorporated only a modest degree ofdesign features such as benches at busstops or special drop-off lanes forbuses. Few examples of dense, mixed-used

39

centers that support transit use wereidentified. One problem is that transitagency guidelines are seldom bindingon development (Cervero 1993).

Microlevel Analyses

Few evaluations of transit demandhave been conducted at the individualsite/building level. The NCHRPsuburban activity centers data set hasyielded several studies that reveal thesensitivity of transit demand to buildingdensities, on-site services, and parkingsupplies (Hooper 1989; Cervero 1991).

Several site-level studies haveexamined what happens to commutingbehavior when downtown officeworkers are relocated to a suburbanwork location. Cervero and Landis(1992) found that transit modal splitsfell from 58 percent to 3 percent foroffice workers that were located fromdowntown San Francisco (well-servedby BART) to three suburban campuslocations (that were poorly served bybus). Similar work on office relocationimpacts in England (Wabe 1967;Daniels 1972, 1981) and Canada (Ley1985) found that commute distancestypically fell slightly after jobssuburbanized, however there was a farmore dramatic switch in commutingmodes, from public transit to theprivate automobile.

Conclusions

Understanding how the densities,settlement patterns, land-usecompositions, and urban designs ofcities and neighborhoods influencetransit usage is of vital importance totransit planners and decision makers.Whether a future light rail extensionwill be a cost-effective investment orwhether headways should be increasedon a conventional bus route hingescritically on whether the builtenvironment will support thesechanges. The seminal work on suchquestions by Pushkarev and Zupan(1977) has provided some guidance.Because of significant changes in thelandscape of urban American over

the past 20 years, most notably thesuburbanization of employment, thiswork needs to be updated. In addition,a number of other aspects of thisrelationship needs to be systematicallyexplored and synthesized.

1.5 INTERACTIVE IMPACTS OFTRANSIT AND URBAN FORM

Thus far, the citations in thisliterature review have focused onunidirectional impacts on transit andurban form. While acknowledging thattransit and urban form interact, theresearchers have found little empiricaldata of significance on this subject tofeature in this literature review.

At the same time, it must beacknowledged that the interactionsbetween transportation and land use area central issue among researcherstoday. A number of individuals andorganizations have developed andrefined experimental procedures--including interactive transportation andland-use models--to simulate theseinteractions. The state of the art ininteractive transportation and land-usemodeling is summarized best inWebster, et al. (1988) and Wegener(1994). Their work is summarized in1000 Friends of Oregon, Vol. 1 (1991).

While it is beyond the scope ofthis literature review to summarize ordescribe the various model systemsavailable to simulate the interactions oftransportation and land use, it isappropriate to note that a number ofmetropolitan organizations,universities, and nonprofitorganizations have undertaken and areconducting research into theseinteractions, using one or another of themodels described in the citationsmentioned. Metropolitan planningorganizations in U.S. cities such as LosAngeles, San Francisco, Chicago, NewYork, Seattle, San Diego, Phoenix,Washington DC, and elsewhere haveundertaken simulations as part of long-range regional and transportationplanning efforts in recent years.

One of the first efforts of this kindhas been undertaken by the PugetSound Council of Governments inSeattle, Washington (1990). Theproject, known as Vision 2020,involved analysis and comparison ofseveral long-range regionaltransportation and land-use plans in amanner similar to that of the MSM(1991) study previously cited (See alsoWatterson 1990). The Puget Soundwork compared and contrasted sixland-use and transportation packages.The results are shown in Table 8. Thetitles of each of the alternatives areindicative of their characteristics. The"existing plans" alternative involves theimplementation of existing land-useplans and regional transportationprojects (a mix of highways and transitsystem improvements). The "majorcenters" and "multiple centers"alternatives and the dispersed growthalternative represent clear choices forthe region in terms of density,nucleation, and activity mixing. The"preferred alternative" is a hybrid of themajor centers and multiple centersalternatives.

Using an interactive transportationand land-use model system, the PugetSound researchers forecast variations intransit mode split at peak hour from 5.6percent to 14.8 percent. Percentageincreases in transit ridership overcurrent levels varied from 20 percent to241 percent for the alternatives studied.The results provide evidence in supportof the hypothesis that interactionsbetween transportation investments andland development patterns at theregional scale may result in divergentoutcomes for regional transit patronage.

Recently Metro (1994a and1994b), the Portland, Oregon regionalgovernment, evaluated five differentland-use and transportation scenarios ina project known as Region 2040.Summary results are shown in Table 9.

The base case continues currenttrends of low-density, automobile-oriented suburban development formost growth. The urban area isexpanded by about 50 percentincluding 63,900 acres of

41

farmland (EFU for Exclusive Farm Usein Table 9). Growth Concept A, or"growing out," accommodates growthby expanding the metropolitan urbangrowth boundary by about 25 percentmostly on lands currently zoned forrural residential development. Somegrowth is concentrated in transitcorridors. Road improvements, threenew freeways, and a radial high-capacity transit system are included inthis scenario. Growth Concept B, or"growing up," accommodates growthwithout expanding the urban growthboundary. Instead both employmentand residential growth are concentratedin centers that support greater use ofwalking, bicycling, and transit. Nofreeway additions are built, some streetimprovements are made, but mosttransportation improvements are in thetransit network. Both radial and ringhigh-capacity transit are developed. InGrowth Concept C, or "satellite cities,"a third of regional housing andemployment growth occurs in existingcities outside the metropolitan urbangrowth boundary. The remainder isaccommodated by expanding the urbangrowth boundary modestly andconcentrating more growth in centersthan in Concept A. Concept C includesthe full range of transportationimprovements in Concept A plus high-capacity transit service to the satellitecities. Finally, after evaluating the basecase and growth concepts, arecommended alternative wasdeveloped.

The recommended alternativeconcentrates development in regionaland town centers plus transit corridorsand station areas. It includesconsiderable redevelopment and smalladditions to the urban growthboundary. Improvements are made inboth the transit and roadway system,with an emphasis on frequent-servicebus corridors and arterial street service.By concentrating growth where it canbe served by transit and connectingregional centers with frequent busservice, transit ridership is the highestof any alternative.

Besides simulation work, thedynamics of transit and urban form

relationships are revealed by what weknow about location behavior and howproximity to transit shapes ridership.As noted, those living near rail stationsare more likely to commute by transitthan those living farther away, allthings being equal. The reality,however, may be that all things are notusually equal. There is increasingevidence that one reason station-arearesidents are more inclined to usetransit is that they work downtown andin other locations well-served bytransit. Voith (1991) has found strongevidence of residential sorting based onemployment location in thePhiladelphia region. He estimated thatthe percentage of the labor force in acensus tract that work in the CBD is 12percent higher for tracts with SEPTAand PATCO commuter rail servicesnearby. Thus, transit and land-useinteractions are underscored by thetendency of those working in areas withgood transit service to chose to live inareas with good transit access. Thisinduces higher ridership, which in turnshould--over the long run--lead toimproved services (e.g., more frequentheadways). Finally this will induceeven more residents to search for homesites near transit stops.

The interactive nature of transitand urban form, while complex, canpotentially be conveyed through abalance of modeling work and carefullyconstructed empirical investigationsthat look at the joint influence of transiton residential location and ridership. Ata minimum, studies of simultaneousand lagged relationships require goodtimes-series data and often require theaddition of various statistical controls.The data and modeling requirementsfor probing transit and urban forminteractions can be considerable;however, the policy insights that can begained from such efforts can besubstantial.

1.6 RESEARCH IN PROGRESS

While significant and valuablework has been completed on transit andurban form relationships, a number ofimportant research projects arecurrently

in progress that will enhance further thestate of knowledge. This sectionreviews some of the more significantresearch now under way.

Transit Impacts on Urban Form andLand Use

Research is soon to begin on theupdate of the study by Knight andTrygg (1977) described in a previoussection of this report. This work willfocus on intermediate and macroscaleimpacts of transit on land use.Researchers are reviewing the 1977work to identify those criteria thateffectively indicate and measure theland-use patterns and the economicdevelopment benefits that result fromconstruction of fixed guideway transitfacilities. Research and data collectionfor the update of the Knight and Tryggstudy were initiated during Fiscal Year1994.

At the same time, work at themacroscale is underway throughupdates of studies conducted in the1970s on the impacts of heavy railsystems. In the San Francisco Bay area,the Atlanta region, and the Washington,DC metropolitan area, studies areplanned or are in progress to examinethe effects of the BART, MARTA, andWMATA systems, respectively. Theseefforts should shed light on the impactsof "new generation" rail investments onstation areas, corridors, and urban andregional form a generation after initialconstruction.

At the microscale of analysis, aresearch project is underway at theLincoln Institute of Land Policy,Cambridge, Massachusetts, to examinethe factors that contribute toresidential-location decision making.The key question in this study is theextent to which changes in employmentlocation trigger residential relocationsat the household level. This question iscentral to the validity of many land-usemodels currently employed bymetropolitan areas in the United States.Data from a sample of households inthe

TABLE 8 Puget Sound transportation systems performance by alternative (Source: PSCOG [1990])

TABLE 9 Region 2040--comparison of alternative--summary

* The base case did not have parking factors and pedestrian factors modeled consistent with the other growth concepts.

Source: Metro 1994b

44

Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan areahave been collected and are awaitinganalysis for this purpose.

Land-Use Impacts on TransitDemand

A key research project is wellunder way for the Federal HighwayAdministration whose purpose is toexamine the effects of site design at theworkplace on journey-to-work modechoice. A large sample of work sites insouthern California, for which journey-to-work data are available, have beenanalyzed for their urban design featuresthat contribute to pedestrian and transitfriendliness. These features are beinganalyzed for their ability to explainobserved variations in mode choice injourney to work, in tandem withdemand-management programs inplace at the employer level.

Also at the microscale, work byBruce Douglas of the TCRP researchteam is continuing in MontgomeryCounty, Maryland, where travel diariesare being collected for employees atsuburban work sites of varyingdensities and land-use characteristics,all located near rail stations. These datacould complement the available datafrom the southern California study byfocusing on rail-oriented work sites.(The southern California data focuseson bus- and auto-oriented sites.)Information on urban design features atthese Montgomery County sites isbeing assembled.

At the neighborhood scale, at leastthree ongoing studies are designed toexamine the role of density, mix, andamenities on travel behavior. In thestate of Washington, University ofWashington researchers have gathereddata about travel in several "traditional"neighborhoods (pre-1945) through atravel diary of a sample of residents. Avariety of travel behavior statistics forthis sample will be compared withnorms for the region as a whole(Washington State TransportationCommission 1993).

In California, a similar project isbeing conducted by the University ofCalifornia, Davis. Six neighborhoods inthe San Francisco Bay area are beingexamined, each differing in density,land-use mix, and income. Aggregatemeasures of household travel behaviorat the neighborhood level will becompared and contrasted in theseneighborhoods. The study is designedto build on prior work by Holtzclaw(1990). While data collection iscomplete, full data analysis awaits theinvolvement of other researchers.

Interactive Impacts of Transit andUrban Form

In addition to the interactivesimulation previously described (PugetSound Council of Governments 1990,Metro 1994a, 1994b), there are severalother examples of experimentalresearch under way to simulate theinteractions of transportation and landuse, emphasizing

the role of transit and transit supportiveland uses.

The principal effort is ongoing inthe Portland, Oregon metropolitan area.The LUTRAQ study, for 1000 Friendsof Oregon, will begin use of aninteractive land-use model to simulatethe effects of alternative transportationsystems and land-use plans on urbanform over a 40-year period. Threedifferent mixes of transportationinvestments (one emphasizing light railtransit and buses) will be modeled for a150-sq-mi suburban study area.Aggregate measures of travel behaviorwill be developed as a result of thesimulations for the study area as awhole. These measures will includeindicators of mode choice for varyingtrip purposes.

This study will also include anexplicit comparison of the results of asimulation using an interactivetransportation and land-use model witha simulation using a traditional travel-demand forecasting model in whichland use is specified as an input.Forecast travel behavior in the year2010 will be compared.

A number of similar exercisesmay be conducted by othermetropolitan planning organizations,transit agencies, and other groups in thenext few years. Many are based onmodel systems calibrated on actualtravel behavior in the region beingstudied. Work in this important areawill continue in the 1990s.

45

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The Impact of Transit on Urban Form

Allen, W. R. et al. The Impact of Rapid Transit onSuburban Residential Property Values and LandDevelopment: An Analysis of the Philadelphia High-SpeedLine. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania, WhartonSchool (1973).

Alonso, W. Location and Land Use: Toward a GeneralTheory of Land Rent. Cambridge, Harvard University Press(1964).

Al-Mosaind, M. A. et al. "Light-Rail Transit Stations andProperty Values: A Hedonic Price Approach."Transportation Research Record 1400. TransportationResearch Board, Washington, DC (1993) pp. 90-94.

Arlington County, Department of Community Planning,Housing and Development. Development in the MetroCorridors. Arlington, Virginia, DCPHD (1990).

Arrington, G. B. Portland's Light Rail: A Shared Vision forTransportation and Land Use. Portland, Oregon, Tri-Met(1992).

Armstrong, R. J., Jr. "Impacts of Commuter Rail Service asReflected in Single-Family Residential Property Values."Paper presented at the 73nd Annual Meeting of theTransportation Research Board (1994).

Baldassare, M., R. Knight, and S. Swan. "Urban Serviceand Environmental Stressor: The Impacts of the Bay AreaRapid Transit System on Residential Mobility."Environment and Behavior. Vol. 11, No. 4 (1979) pp. 125-41.

Barney and Worth, Inc. et al. Evaluation of Banfield LightRail Transit Station Area Planning Program: SummaryReport for Tri-Met. Portland, Oregon (1993).

Bernick, M. "The Bay Area's Emerging Transit-BasedHousing." Urban Land. (July 1993) pp. 38-41.

Bernick, M. and M. Carroll. A Study of Housing Built NearRail Transit Stations: Northern California Experiences.Berkeley, Institute of Urban and Regional Development,UC Berkeley, WP-546 (1991).

Biehler, A. "Exclusive Busways Versus Light Rail Transit:A Comparison of New Fixed-Guideway Systems." TRBSpecial Report 221. National Research Council,Washington, DC (1989).

Black, J. T. et al. Downtown Office Growth and the Role ofPublic Transit. Urban Land Institutes, Washington, DC(1982).

Blayney Associates. The Study of Property Prices andRents: BART Impact Study. Berkeley, MetropolitanTransportation Commission (1978).

Bonsall, J. A Bus for All Seasons. Ottawa, Ottawa-CarletonRegional Transit District (1985).

Boyce, D. The Impact of Rapid Transit on SuburbanResidential Property Values and Land Development.Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Commerce (1972).

Boyce, D. et al. The Impacts of Rapid Transit on SuburbanProperty Values and Land Development: Analysis of thePhiladelphia-Lindenwold High Speed Line. Philadelphia,University of Pennsylvania (1972).

Boyce, D. et al. "Impact of Rapid Transit on ResidentialProperty Sales Prices." Space, Location and RegionalDevelopment. London, Pion Press (1976) pp. 145-53.

Burkhardt, R. Summary of Research: Joint DevelopmentStudy. New York, Administration and Managerial ResearchAssociation (1976).

Calgary, City of. LR T Impact Study Part I. Home InterviewSurvey. Calgary, Transportation Department (1983).

Callow, J. "Impacts of Transit Facilities on Land Use." ITEJournal. (January 1992) pp. 37-39.

Cambridge Systematics. The Impacts of UMTA Programs-Case Studies of Four Urban Areas. Washington, DC,Urban Mass Transportation Administration (August 1988).

Cervero, R. "Light Rail Transit and Urban Development."Journal of the American Planning Association. Vol. 50,No. 2 (1984) pp. 133-47.

Cervero, R., M. Bernick, and J. Gilbert. MarketOpportunities and Barriers to Transit-Based Developmentin California. Berkeley, National Transit Access Center,University of California (1994).

Chicago Area Transportation Study. The O'Hare TransitExtension Before and After Analysis. (1986).

46

Ciocca, D. G. "Financing Transit Based Development inCalifornia." Paper presented to the Urban Land Institute,San Diego, California (April 1994).

Clark, W. and J. Burt. "The Impact of Workplace onResidential Relocations," Annals of the Association ofAmerican Geographers. Vol. 70 (1980) pp. 59-67.

Czamanski, S. "Effects of Public Investments On UrbanLand Values." Journal of American Institute of Planners.(July 1976) pp. 204-217.

Damm, D. et al. "Response of Urban Real Estate Values inAnticipation of the Washington Metro." Journal ofTransport Economics and Policy. (September 1980) pp.315-35.

Davis, E. et al. Transit-Linked Development: A Case Studyof Atlanta's MARTA System. Washington, DC, U.S.Department of Transportation (1985).

Deakin, E., R. Cervero, and J. Landis. BART at 20:Research Design. Berkeley, Institute of Urban andRegional Development (1994).

Dear, M. "Rapid Transit and Suburban Residential LandUse." Traffic Quarterly. Vol. 29, No. 2 (1975) pp. 223-42.

Dewees, D. "The Effect of a Subway on ResidentialProperty Values in Toronto." Journal of Urban Economics.Vol. 3 (1976) pp. 357-69.

Dingemans, D. "Rapid Transit and Suburban ResidentialLand Use." Traffic Quarterly. Vol. 32, No. 2 (1978) pp.289-306.

Donnelly, P. Rail Transit Impact Studies: Atlanta,Washington, San Diego. Washington, DC, Urban MassTransportation Administration (1982).

Dornbush, D. "BART-induced Changes in Property Valuesand Rents." Land Use and Urban Development Projects,Phase I, BART Impact Study. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Transportation and U.S. Department ofHousing and Urban Development (1975).

Dueker, K. et al. The Portland Mall Impact Study.Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Transportation,Urban Mass Transportation Administration (1982).

Dyett, M. et al. The Impact of BAR Ton Land Use andUrban Development: Interpretative Summary of the FinalReport.San Francisco, BART Impact Program, Prepared for U.S.Department of Transportation (1979).

Edner, S. M. and G. B. Arrington. Urban Decision Makingfor Transportation Investments - Portland's Light RailTransit Land. Washington DC, Urban Mass TransportationAdministration (March 1985).

Emerson, D. J., Office of Planning, UMTA. "A Frameworkfor Analyzing the Land Use and Urban DevelopmentImpacts of Fixed Guideway Transit Projects." (Presented atTRB Williamsburg Conf. on Transportation and EconomicDevelopment 1989).

Fejarang, R. A. "Impact of Property Values: A Study of theLos Angeles Metro Rail." (Paper presented at the 73ndAnnual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,Washington, DC, 1994).

Figueroa, O. "Santiago Metro: Integration and PublicTransport." Rail Mass Transit for Developing Countries.London, Thomas Telford (1990).

Folgelson, R. The Fragmented Metropolis: Los Angelesfrom 1850 to 1930. Cambridge, Harvard University Press(1967).

Gannon, C. and M. Dear. "Rapid Transit and OfficeDevelopment." Traffic Quarterly. Vol. 29 (1972) pp. 223-42.

Gatzlaff, D. H. and M. T. "The Impact of Miami Metrorailon the Value of Residences Near Station Locations." LandEconomics, Vol. 69, No. 1 (1993).

Gilpin, G. Results of the 1990 Transportation SystemsManagement Program. Pleasanton, California, City ofPleasanton, Planning Department (1992).

Giuliano, G. "Is Jobs Housing Balance a TransportationIssue?" Transportation Research Record 1305.Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC (1991)pp. 305-312.

Giuliano, G. "Land-use Impacts of TransportationInvestments: Highway and Transit." The Geography ofUrban Transportation. New York, Guilford Press, (1986)pp. 247-279.

Gladstone Associates. Economic Benefits Study: 16th StreetTransitway Mall: Denver, Colorado. Washington, DC, U.S.Department of Transportation, Urban Mass TransportationAdministration, Office of Planning Assistance (1982).

Gomez-Ibanez, J. A. "A Dark Side to Light Rail? TheExperience of Three New Transit Systems." Journal of theAmerican Planning Association. Vol. 51, No. 3 (1985) pp.337-51.

47

Gomez-Ibanez, J. A. "Transportation Policy as a Tool forShaping Metropolitan Development." Research inTransportation Economics. Vol. 2 (1985) pp. 55-81.

Green, R. D. and 0. M. James. Rail Transit Station AreaDevelopment: Small Area Modeling in Washington, DCArmonk, New York, M.E. Sharpe (1993).

Harrison, D. The Impact of Transit Systems on Land UsePatterns in the Pre-Automobile Era. Discussion Paper D78-21, Cambridge, Harvard University, Department of Cityand Regional Planning (1978).

Harrison, D. Transportation and the Dynamics of UrbanLand Use. Discussion Paper D78-22, Cambridge, HarvardUniversity, Department of City and Regional Planning(1978).

Harrison, D. and J. Kain. "Cumulative Urban Growth andUrban Density Functions." Journal of Urban Economics.Vol. 1 (1978) pp. 61-98.

Heenan, W. "The Economic Effect of Rapid Transit onReal Estate Development." The Appraisal Journal. Vol. 36(1968) pp. 212-24.

Hilton, G. "Rail Transit and the Pattern of Cities: TheCalifornia Case." Traffic Quarterly. Vol. 67 (1968) pp.379-93.

Hoover, E. The Location of Economic Activity. New York,McGraw-Hill (1948).

Institution of Civil Engineers. Rail Mass Transit forDeveloping Countries. London, Thomas Telford (1990).

ITE Technical Committee 6Y-38. Impacts of TransitFacilities on Land Use. Washington, DC, Institute ofTransportation Engineers (1992).

Isard, W. Location and Space Economy. Cambridge, MITPress (1956).

Knight, R. and L. Trygg. "Evidence of Land Use Impactsof Rapid Transit Systems." Transportation. 6 (1977) pp.231-47.

Landis, J., S. Guhathakurta, and M. Zhang. "Capitalizationof Transportation Investments into Single Family HomePrices: A Comparative Analysis of California TransitSystems and Highways." Berkeley, Institute of Urban andRegional Development, University of California, WorkingPaper, 619 (1994).

Larwin, T. LRT Impact on Real Estate Values. San Diego,MTDB (1992).

Lerman, A. et al. The Effect of the Washington Metro onUrban Property Values. Cambridge, MIT (1978).

Lerner, J. Curitiba: The Ecological Revolution. Curitiba,Jaime Lerner Institute (1993).

Lutin, J. and G. Benz. "Key Issues in Light Rail TransitStation Planning and Design." Transportation ResearchRecord 1361, Transportation Research Board, Washington,DC (1992) pp. 117-124.

Meakin, R. "Hong Kong's Mass Transit Railway: Vital andViable." Rail Mass Transit for Developing Countries.London, Thomas Telford (1990).

McGean, T. J. et al. Assessment of the San Diego Light RailSystem. Urban MassTransportation Administration,Washington, DC (November 1983).

Metropolitan Washington Council of Government(MWCOG). Trends Before Metrorail. Washington, DC,MWCOG (1982).

Metropolitan Washington Council of Government(MWCOG). "Metro: Before and After Program, AssortedMaterials and Reports." Washington, DC, MWCOG (1980-84).

Meyer, J. and J. A. Gomez-Ibanez. Autos, Transit, andCities. Cambridge, Harvard University Press (1981).

Meyer, M. "Economic Development Impacts of RailInvestments." Georgia Tech, (1989).

Middleton, W. The Time of the Trolley. Milwaukee,Kalmbach Publishing (1967).

Mullins, J. III et al. "Land Use Impacts of the HoustonTransitway System." Transportation Research Record1237, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC(1989) pp. 29-38.

Nelson, A. C. and S. J. McCleskey. "Improving the Effectsof Elevated Transit Stations on Neighborhoods."Transportation Research Record 1266. TransportationResearch Board, Washington, DC (1990) pp. 173-180.

Neuwirth, R. "Economic Impacts of Transit on Cities."Transportation Research Record 1274. TransportationResearch Board, Washington, DC (1990) pp. 142-149.

48

Paaswell, R. and J. Berechman. An Analysis of RapidTransit Investments: The Buffalo Experience. Washington,DC, Urban Mass Transportation Administration (notdated).

Page, J. A. et al. Catalog of Transit Station Impact CaseStudies. RSPA, U. S. Department of Transportation,Washington, DC (1983).

Pisarski, A. New Perspectives on Commuting. Washington,DC, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal HighwayAdministration (1992).

Rabinovitch, J. Environmental Innovation andManagement in Curitiba, Brazil. Washington, DC, TheInternational Bank For Reconstruction and Development,Urban Management Programme, Work Paper 1 (1993).

Rice Center for Urban Mobility Research. Assessment ofChanges in Property Values in Transit Areas. Houston,Rice Center (1987).

Rybeck, W. Metrorail Impacts on Washington Area LandValues. Washington, DC, Subcommittee on the City,Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs, U.S.House of Representatives (1981).

SANDAG. San Diego Trolley: The First Three Years. SanDiego (1984).

Schaeffer, K. and E. Sclar. Access for All: Transportationand Urban Growth. New York, Columbia University Press(not dated).

Shaw, J. "Transit-Based Housing and ResidentialSatisfaction: Review of the Literature and MethodologicalApproach." Transportation Research Record 1400.Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC (1993),pp. 82-89.

Smerk, G. "The Streetcar: Shaper of American Cities."Traffic Quarterly. (October 1967) pp. 134-46.

Spengler, E. Land Values in New York in Relation toTransit Facilities. New York, NYTA (1930).

Stockholm, City of. The Development of Stockholm,Stockholm (1989).

Transportation Research Board. "Light Rail Transit: NewSystem Successes at Affordable Prices." TRB SpecialReport 221. National Research Council, Washington, DC(1989).

U.S. Department of Transportation. Land Use Impacts ofRapid Transit: Implications of Rapid Transit. (December1977).

U.S. Department of Transportation. "Rail Transit ImpactStudies: Atlanta, Washington, San Diego." Urban MassTransportation Administration, U.S. Department ofTransportation (March 1982).

U.S. Department of Transportation. San Diego Trolley: TheFirst Three Years. Urban Mass TransportationAdministration, Washington, DC (November 1984).

Vance, J. E. Geography and Urban Evolution in the SanFrancisco Bay Area. Berkeley, Institute of GovernmentalStudies (1964).

Voith, R. "Changing Capitalization of CBD-OrientedTransportation Systems: Evidence from Philadelphia, 1970-1988." Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 33 (1993) pp.361-376.

VNI Rainbow Appraisal Service. Analysis of the Impact ofLight Rail Transit on Real Estate Values. Prepared for theMetropolitan Transit Development Board (1993).

Warner, S. B. Streetcar Suburbs. Cambridge, HarvardUniversity Press (1962).

Watterson, W. T. "Estimating Economic and DevelopmentImpacts of Transit Investments." Transportation ResearchRecord 1046. Transportation Research Board, Washington,DC (1985) pp. 1-9.

Webber, A. Theory of the Location of Industries. Chicago,University of Chicago Press (1929).

Webber, M. "The BART Experience: What Have WeLearned?" Public Interest. Vol. 12, No. 3 (1976) pp. 79-108.

Wilson, R. and J. Anderson. "Planning for Transit-OrientedDevelopment in San Diego and Vancouver, BritishColumbia." (Paper delivered at ACSP Annual Meeting,October 1993)

Wolpert, J. "Regional Economic Growth and HighwayCongestion." Woodrow Wilson School, PrincetonUniversity (1991).

Zimmerman, S. "UMTA and Major Investments:Evaluations Process and Results." Reported in TransitAdministration and Planning Research. TransportationResearch Record 1209. Transportation Research Board,Washington, DC (1989) pp. 32-36.

Zupan, J. Rail Transit as an Economic Development Tool.New Jersey Transit (1993).

49

The Impact of Urban Form on Transit Demand andTravel Behavior

Baerwald, T. "Land Use Change in Suburban Clusters andCorridors." Transportation Research Record 861,Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC (1982)pp. 7-12.

Beimborn, E. and H. Rabinowitz. Guidelines for TransitSensitive Suburban Land Use Design. Washington, DC,U.S. Department of Transportation (1991).

Bookout, L. "Neotraditional Town Planning." Urban Land,Vol. 51, No. 2 (1992) pp. 10-15.

Burby, R. et al. New Communities USA. Lexington,Massachusetts, Heath (1974).

California Air Resources Board. The Linkage BetweenLand Use, Transportation and Air Quality: Draft Report.Sacramento (June 1993).

Cervero, R. "Managing the Traffic Impacts of SuburbanOffice Growth." Transportation Quarterly. Vol. 51, No. 3(1984) pp. 533-550.

Cervero, R. "A Tale of Two Cities." Journal ofTransportation Engineering (1985).

Cervero, R. Suburban Gridlock. New Brunswick, NewJersey, Rutgers University Press (1986).

Cervero, R. America's Suburban Centers: The Land Use-Transportation Link. Boston, Unwin-Hyman (1989).

Cervero, R. "Land Uses and Travel at Suburban ActivityCenters." Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 45, No. 4 (1991)pp. 479-91.

Cervero, R. and J. Landis. "Suburbanization of Jobs and theJourney to Work: A Submarket Analysis of Commuting inthe San Francisco Bay Area." Journal of AdvancedTransportation. Vol. 26, No. 3 (1992) pp. 275-97.

Cervero, R. et al. Ridership Impacts of Transit-FocusedDevelopment in California. Berkeley, Institute of Urbanand Regional Development (1993).

Cervero, R. et al. Transit-Supportive Development in theUnited States: Experiences and Prospects. Berkeley,California, Institute of Urban and Regional Development(1993).

Cervero, R. "Transport Changes Generated byDecentralized Offices: A Second Survey." RegionalStudies. Vol. 15, No. 6 (1981) pp. 507-20.

Clark, J. The Effect of Urban Form on Travel Demand andTransportation Energy Consumption: TheoreticalConsiderations. Ph.D. Dissertation, University ofWashington (1976).

Daniels, P. "Transport Changes Generated byDecentralized Offices: A Second Survey." RegionalStudies. Vol. 15, No. 6 (1981) pp. 507-520.

Douglas, B. Comparison of Commuting Trends BetweenDowntown, Suburban Centers, and Suburban Campuses inthe Washington Metropolitan Area. Washington, DC,Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. (1992).

Dunphy, R. and D. Fisher. "Transportation, Congestion,and Density: New Insights." (Paper presented at the 73ndAnnual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,Washington, DC, 1994)

Dyett, M. "Site Design and Its Relation to Urban Form.Transportation, Urban Form, and the Environment." TRBSpecial Report 231. National Research Council,Washington, DC (1991) pp. 117-126.

Eager, W. "Accommodating Land Use and Transportation."Land Use In Transition. Washington, DC, The Urban LandInstitute (1993) pp. 32-37.

Edwards, J. and J. Schofer. "Relationships BetweenTransportation Energy Consumption and Urban Structure:Results of Simulation Studies." Transportation ResearchRecord 599. Transportation Research Board, Washington,DC (1976) pp. 52-59.

Ewing, R., P. Haliyr, and G. Page. "Getting Around aTraditional City, and Suburban PUD, and Everything In-Between." (Paper presented at the 73rd Annual Meeting ofthe Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC1994).

Federal Highway Administration. Edge City and ISTEA-Examining the Transportation Implications of SuburbanDevelopment Patterns. Searching for Solutions, PolicyDiscussion Series No. 7. Washington, DC (1992).

Fehr and Peers Associates. Metropolitan TransportationCommission Bay Area Trip Rate Survey Analysis. Oakland,Metropolitan Transportation Commission (1992).

50

Fehr and Peers Associates. Effect of Stockton's ProposedSuburban Village Center Development on Travel ModeChoice and Auto Use. Stockton, City of Stockton (1992).

Frank, L. "The Impacts of Mixed Use and Density on theUtilization of Three Modes of Travel: The Single OccupantVehicle, Transit, and Walking." (Paper presented at the73rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation ResearchBoard, Washington, DC, 1994)

Friedman, B. et al. The Effect of Neo TraditionalNeighborhood Design on Travel Characteristics.(Presented at the 1992 ITE District Annual Meeting,Anchorage, Alaska, July 1992).

Fulton, P. Changing Journey-to-Work Patterns: TheIncreasing Prevalence of Commuting Within Suburbs inMetropolitan Areas. (Paper presented at the AnnualMeeting of the Transportation Research Board,Washington, DC, 1986).

Giuliano, G. "Land Use Impacts of TransportationInvestments: Highway and Transit." The Geography ofUrban Transportation. New York, Guilford Press (1985).

Giuliano, G. and K. Small. Subcenters in the Los AngelesRegion. Berkeley, University of California, Center forTransportation, Working Paper (1990).

Gomez-Ibanez, A. "A Global View of AutomobileDependence." Journal of the American PlanningAssociation. Vol. 57, No. 3 (1991) pp. 376-79.

Gordon, P. and H. Richardson. "Gasoline Consumption andCities: A Reply." Journal of the American PlanningAssociation. Vol. 55, No. 2 (1989) pp. 342-45.

Hall, P. "Land-use Change and Transport Policy." HabitatInternational. Vol. 7 (3/4) (1983) pp. 67-77.

Handy, S. Regional Versus Local Accessibly: Implicationsfor Non-Work Travel. Doctoral Dissertation, University ofCalifornia, Davis, Institute of Transportation Studies(1992).

Handy, S. How Land Use Patterns Affect Travel Patterns:A Bibliography. CPL Bibliography 279, Chicago, Councilof Planning Librarians (1992).

Hanson, S. and M. Schwab. "Accessibility and IntraurbanTravel". Environment and Planning. H 19 (1987) pp. 735-748.

Harvey, G. Relation of Residential Density to VMT PerResident: Oakland. Metropolitan TransportationCommission (1990).

Holtzclaw, J. "Manhattanization versus Sprawl: HowDensity Impacts Auto Use Comparing Five Bay AreaCommunities." Proceedings of the Eleventh InternationalPedestrian Conference. Boulder, City of Boulder (1990)pp. 99-106.

Hooper, K. Travel Characteristics at Large-ScaleSuburban Activity Centers. Alexandria, Virginia, JHK &Associates, NCHRP Project 3-38(2), TransportationResearch Board, National Research Council (1989).

Hoyt, H. The Structure of Growth of ResidentialNeighborhoods in American Cities. Washington, DC, U.S.Government Printing Office (1939).

JHK & Associates. Analysis of Indirect Source TripActivity at Regional Shopping Centers. Prepared forCalifornia Air Resources Board, Report A132-094 (1993).

JHK & Associates. Development-Related Ridership SurveyI. Washington, DC, Washington Metropolitan Area TransitAuthority (1986).

JHK & Associates. Development-Related Ridership SurveyII. Washington, DC, Washington Metropolitan Area TransitAuthority (1989).

Kain, J. and R. Fauth. "The Effect of Urban Structure onAuto Ownership and Journey to Work Modes."Transportation Research Record 648, TransportationResearch Board, Washington, DC (1977) pp. 9-17.

Kulash, W. et al. Traditional Neighborhood Development:Will the Traffic Work? Washington, DC, Real EstateResearch Consultants (1990).

Leinberger, C. and C. Lockwood. "How Business isReshaping America". The Atlantic Monthly. (October 1986)pp. 43-51.

Lerner, H. "Curitiba's Transit Success." Berkeley, Instituteof Urban and Regional Development (1993).

Lerner-Lam, E. et al. "Neo-Traditional NeighborhoodDesign and Its Implications for Traffic Engineering." ITEJournal. January 1992) pp. 17-24.

Levinson, D. M. and A. Kumar. "Is Residential Density aTransportation Issue?" (Submitted to Urban Studies, 1993,Unpublished).

Levinson, H. and F. Wynn. "Effects of Density on UrbanTransportation Requirements." Highway Research Record.Vol. 2 (1963) pp. 38-64.

51

Ley, D. "Work-Residence Relations for Head OfficeEmployees in an Inflating Housing Market." UrbanStudies. Vol. 22, No. 1 (1985) pp. 21-38.

Long Island Regional Planning Board. The Journey toWork to Major Employment Centers. Hauppuage, NewYork, LIRPB (1984).

Maring, G. E. "Pedestrian Travel Characteristics." HighwayResearch Record 406. Washington, DC, Highway ResearchBoard (1972).

Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission(MNCPPC) and the Montgomery County PlanningDepartment. Comprehensive Growth Policy Study: APolicy Vision: Centers and Trails. Silver Spring, Maryland,MNCPPC (1989).

Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission.Transit and Pedestrian Oriented Neighborhoods. SilverSpring, MNCPPC (1982).

McNally, M. and S. Ryan. A Comparative Assessment ofTravel Characteristics of Neo-Traditional Developments.Irvine, University of California, Institute of TransportationStudies (1992).

Meyer, J. and J. Gomez-Ibanez. Autos, Transit and Cities.Cambridge, Harvard University Press (1981).

Moore, T. and P. Thorsnes. The Transportation Land UseConnection. Planning Advisory Service Report No.448/449. Chicago, American Planning Association (1994).

MSM Regional Council, The Impact of Various Land UseStrategies on Suburban Mobility: Final Report. Princeton,New Jersey (1991).

Neels, K. et al. An Empirical Investigation of the Effects ofLand Use on Urban Travel. Washington, DC, The UrbanInstitute (1977).

Newman, P. and J. Kenworthy. "Gasoline Consumptionand Cities: A Comparison of U.S. Cities with a GlobalSurvey." Journal of the American Planning Association.Vol. 55, No. 1 (1989) pp. 24-37.

Nowlan, D. and G. Stewart. "Downtown PopulationGrowth and Commuting Trips: Recent Experience inToronto". Journal of the American Planning Association,Vol. 65 (Spring 1991) pp. 165-182.

1000 Friends of Oregon. The LUTRAQ Alternative/Analysisof Alternatives: An Interim Report. Portland, Oregon(October 1992).

1000 Friends of Oregon. Making the Land UseTransportation Air Quality Connection, ModelingPractices, Vol.1. Portland, Oregon (October 1991).

Orski, K. "Suburban Mobility: The Coming TransportationCrisis?" Transportation Quarterly. Vol. 39, No. 2 (1985)pp. 283-96.

Peat Marwick and Mitchell. An Econometric Analysis ofPublic Transportation Planning Norms. Washington, DC,U.S. Department of Transportation (1975).

Perfater, M. A. and M. J. Demetsky. Pedestrian Attitudesand Behavior in Suburban Environments. Charlottesville,Virginia Highway and Transportation Research Council(December 1974).

Pill, J. "Emerging Suburban Activity Centers inMetropolitan Toronto." Journal of AdvancedTransportation. Vol. 17, No. 3 (1983) pp. 301-15.

Potter, S. "The Transport Versus Land Use Dilemma."Transportation Research Record 964. TransportationResearch Board, Washington, DC (1984) pp. 10-17.

Pucher, J. "Urban Travel Behavior as the Outcome ofPublic Policy." Journal of the American PlanningAssociation. Vol. 54, No. 3 (1988) pp. 509-20.

Pushkarev, B. and J. Zupan. Public Transportation andLand Use Policy. Bloomington, Indiana University Press(1977).

Pushkarev, B. and J. Zupan. Urban Rail in America.Bloomington, Indiana University Press (1980).

Pushkarev, B. and J. Zupan. Urban Space for Pedestrians.Cambridge, MIT Press (1975).

Recker, W. Empirical Analysis of Household ActivityPatterns: Final Report. Irvine, University of California,Institute of Transportation Studies (1980).

Rice Center for Urban Mobility Research. Houston's MajorActivity Centers and Worker Travel Behavior. Houston,Houston-Galveston Area Council (1987).

Richardson, H. and P. Gordon. "Counting Nonwork Trips-The Missing Link in Transportation, Land Use and UrbanPolicy." Urban Land. (September 1989) pp. 6-12.

52

Rutherford, S. et al. Land Use-Transportation Linkage:Working Paper. Washington State TransportationCommission (1991).

Schneider, J. B. and R. J. Beck. Reducing the TravelRequirements of the American City: An Investigation ofAlternative Urban Spatial Structure. Research Report No.73-1. Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Transportation(1973).

Smith, S. A. et al. "Planning and Implementing PedestrianFacilities in Suburban and Developing Rural Areas."NCHRP Report 294 A and 294 B. Washington, DC,Transportation Research Board, National Research Council(1987).

Smith, W. "Mass Transit for High-Rise, High-DensityLiving." Journal of Transportation Engineering. 110, 6(1984) pp. 521-35.

Stone, J. and C. Johnson. "Neo-Traditional Neighborhoods:A Solution to Traffic Congestion?" Site Impact TrafficAssessment Conference Proceedings. Paaswell, ed., NewYork, American Society of Civil Engineers (1992).

Stringham, M. "Travel Behavior Associated with LandUses Adjacent to Rapid Transit Stations." ITE Journal. 52,4 (1982) pp. 18-22.

Thomson, J. Great Cities and Their Traffic. London, PionPress (1977).

Untermann, R. et al. Linking Land Use and Transportation:Design Strategies to Serve HOV's and Pedestrians. Seattle,Washington State Transportation Commission (June 1991).

Untermann, R. "Adapting Neighborhoods for Walking andBicycling." Accommodating the Pedestrian. Van NostrandReinhold (1984).

Urban Engineers, Inc. Cross County Metro FeasibilityAssessment. Philadelphia, Southeastern PennsylvaniaTransportation Authority (May 1994).

Wabe, J. "Dispersal of Employment and the Journey toWork." Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. Vol.1, No. 3 (1967) pp. 345-61.

Washington State Transportation Commission, InnovationsUnit. Travel Patterns in Mixed Use Neighborhoods.Working Paper 93.6, Olympia, Washington (1993).

White Mountain Survey Co., Inc. City of PortsmouthTraffic/Trip Generation Study. Portsmouth, and Ossippee,New Hampshire (1991) pp. 479-91.

Interactive/Modeling

Anas, A. The Chicago Area Transportation-Land UseSystem Final Report. U.S. Department of Transportation.Springfield, Virginia (1983).

Anas, A. Residential Location Markets and UrbanTransportation. New York, Academic Press (1982).

Association of Bay Area Governments. Increasing TransitRidership and the Efficiency of Land Use WhileMaximizing Economic Potential. Working Paper 90-2(1990).

Association of Bay Area Governments. Assessing theFuture: A Sensitivity Analysis of Highway and RoadImprovements on Growth in the San Francisco Bay Area.Working Paper 91-4 (1991).

Alonso, W. Location and Land Use: Toward a GeneralTheory of Land Rent. Cambridge, Harvard University Press(1964).

Berechman, J. "Interfacing the Urban Land-use ActivitySystem and the Transportation System." Journal ofRegional Science. Vol. 16 (1976) pp. 183-194.

Berechman, J. and K. A. Small. "Modeling Land Use andTransportation: An Interpretive Review for Growth Areas."Environment and Planning. 20 (1988) pp. 1285-1309.

Cervero, R. et al. Transit Joint Development in the UnitedStates: A Review and Evaluation of Recent Experiences andan Assessment of Future Potential. Washington, DC, U.S.Department of Transportation (1992).

Crane, R. Access and Travel: On Trip Frequency and ModeSplit in the New Suburbs. Irvine, University of California(June 1993).

Cropper, M. and P. Gordon. "Wasteful Commuting: A Re-examination." Journal of Urban Economics. Vol. 29 (1991)pp. 2-13.

De Jong, G. C. and M. A. Bradley. Accessibility and theChoice of Residential Location and Workplace: Traffic andTransport Policy Between Rural And Urban Area, to anIntegral Approach on a Regional Level. The Hague,Transportation Planning Colloquium (1989).

53

Frank, L. A Guide to Literary Sources Pertaining to theInteractive Nature of Land Use, Urban Design, andTransportation. Seattle, University of Washington, Collegeof Architecture and Urban Planning (December 1991).

Gordon, P., H. Richardson, and H. Wong. "TheDistribution of Population and Employment in aPolycentric City: The Case of Los Angeles." Environmentand Planning A. Vol. 18 (1986) pp. 161-173.

Gordon, P., A. Kumar, and H. Richardson. "Congestion andCity Size." (Presented at the 10th Pacific Regional ScienceConference, Pusan, Korea, 1987).

Gordon, P., A. Kumar, and H. Richardson. "The SpatialJobs-Mismatch Hypothesis: Some New Evidence." LosAngeles, California, University of Southern California,School of Urban and Regional Planning (1987).

Gruen and Gruen Associates. "Changing Influences ofResidences on Employer Locations." San Francisco,Mimeo (1991).

Hamilton, B. "Wasteful Commuting." Journal of PoliticalEconomy. Vol. 90 (1982) pp. 1035-1063.

Hanson, S. and G. Pratt. "Reconceptualizing the LinksBetween Home and Work in Urban Geography: Review,Critique, Agenda." (Unpublished Paper) Clark University(1988).

Heilbrun, J. Urban Economics. Cambridge, HarvardUniversity Press (1981).

Isard, W. Location and Space-Economy. Cambridge, MITPress (1956).

Levinson, H. S. and H. E. Strate. "Land Use and EnergyIntensity." Transportation Research Record 812.Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, (1981).

Meyer, J., J. Kain, and M. Whol. The UrbanTransportation Problem. Cambridge, Harvard UniversityPress (1964).

Metro. Region 2040: Concepts for Growth. Portland,Oregon (1994a).

Metro. Region 2040: Recommended Alternative DecisionKit. Portland, Oregon (1994b).

Mills, E. Studies in the Structure of the Urban Economy.Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press (1972).

Muth, R. Cities and Housing. Chicago, Chicago UniversityPress (1969).

Potter, S. "The Transport Versus Land Use Dilemma."Transportation Research Record 964. TransportationResearch Board, Washington, DC (1985) pp. 10-17.

Prastacos, P. "Urban Development Models for the SanFrancisco Region: From PLUM to POLIS." TransportationResearch Record 1046. Transportation Research Board,Washington, DC (1985) pp. 37-44.

Puget Sound Council of Governments. Vision 2020 GrowthStrategy and Transportation Plan for the Central PugetSound Region: Final Environmental Impact Statement.Seattle, Washington (September 1990).

Putnam, S. H. The Interrelationship of TransportationDevelopment and Land Development, Vol. 1. Washington,DC, Federal Highway Administration (1976).

Putnam, S. H. Integrated Urban Models: Policy Analysis ofTransportation and Land Use. London, Pion Press (1983).

Putnam, S. H. "Urban Land Use and TransportationModels: A State of the Art Summary." TransportationResearch. Vol. 9 (1975) pp. 187-202 .

Ricardo, D. On the Principles of Political Economy andTaxation. London, J.M. Dent and Sons (not dated).

Schneider, J. Transit and the Polycentric City. U.S.Department of Transportation, Urban Mass TransportationAdministration, Seattle, University of Washington (1981)

Schneider, J. et al. Defining Urban Form/TransportationEnergy Relationships for Use in Planning TransportationEnergy Conservation Strategies in Urban Area. U.S.Department of Transportation, Seattle, University ofWashington (1983).

Scott, A. Metropolis: From Division of Labor to UrbanForm. Berkeley, University of California Press (1989).

Shortreed, J. H., P. May, and E. Dust. "The Effect of FutureTrends on Trip Patterns, Urban Commercial Structure, andLand Use." Transportation Research Record 1046.Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC (1985)pp. 50-58.

Simpson, W. "Workplace Location, Residential Location,and Urban Commuting." Urban Studies. Vol. 24 (1987) pp.119-128.

54

Small, K. and S. Song. "Wasteful Commuting: AResolution." Journal of Political Economy. (not dated).

Solow, R. "On Equilibrium Models of Urban Location."Essays in Modern Economics. Essex, Longman, Harlsow(1973).

Urban Land Institute. Market Profiles 1990. Washington,DC, Urban Land Institute (1990).

U.S. Department of Transportation. Urban Transportationand Land Use. Washington, DC, U.S. Department ofTransportation (1976).

Voith, R., "Transportation, Sorting and House Values."AREUEA Journal. Vol. 19, No. 2 (1991) pp. 117-137.

Von Thunen, J. Der Isolierte Staat in Beziebund aufLandwirtscahft und Nationalokonomie. Hamburg,Germany, F. Pethes (not dated).

Watterson, W. T. "Adapting and Applying Existing UrbanModels" DRAM and EMPAL in the Seattle Region."Journal of the Urban and Regional Information SystemsAssociation. (Fall 1990).

Webster, F.V. et al. "Urban Land Use and TransportationInteraction." Avebury, U.K., Interaction (1988).

Webster, F. V. and P. H. Bly. "Changing Pattern of UrbanTravel and Implications for Land Use and TransportStrategy." Transportation Research Record 125.Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC (1987)pp. 21-28.

White, M. "Urban Journeys Are Not 'Wasteful."' Journal ofPolitical Economy. Vol. 96 (1988) pp. 1097-1110.

Other References

Adams, J. "Residential Structure of Midwestern Cities."Annals of the Association of American Geographers. Vol.60 (1970) pp. 37-62.

Atlanta Regional Commission. Transportation Problemsand Strategies for Major Activity Centers in the AtlantaRegion.Atlanta Regional Commission (1985).

Chapin, F., E. Kaiser, and T. Godschalk. Urban Land UsePlanning. Urbana, University of Illinois Press (1994).

Chinitz, B. Metropolitan American in Transition:Implications for Land Use and Transportation Planning:Summary of Proceedings. Arlington, Virginia: LincolnLand Institute, Federal Highway Administration, andFederal Transit Administration (1993).

Garreau, J. "From Suburbs, Cities are Springing Up in ourBackyards." Washington Post. (March 8, 1987) pp. Al,A26-30.

Garreau, J. Edge City: Life on the Frontier. New York,Viking (1991).

Giuliano, G. and K. Small. "Subcenters in the Los AngelesRegion." Regional Science and Urban Economics. Vol. 5(1991) pp. 305-12.

Gordon, P., H. Richardson, and H. Wong. "TheDistribution of Population and Employment in aPolycentric City: The Case of Los Angeles." Environmentand Planning A. Vol. 18 (1986) pp. 161-73.

Harris, C. and E. Ullmann. "The Nature of Cities." TheAnnals of the American Academy of Political and SocialScience. Vol. 242 (1945) pp. 7-17.

Hartshorn, T. and P. Muller. Suburban Business Centers:Employment Implications. Washington, DC, EconomicDevelopment Administration (1986).

Hartshorn, T. Interpreting the City: An Urban Geography.New York, John Wiley and Sons (1992).

Heikkila, E., P. Gordon, J. Kim, R. Peiser, H. Richardson,and D. Dale-Johnson. "What Happened to the CBD-Distance Gradient? Land Values in a Polycentric City."Environment and Planning A. Vol. 21 (1989) pp. 221-32.

Hoyt, H. The Structure and Growth of ResidentialNeighborhoods in American Cities. Washington, DC,USGP (1939).

Muller, P. "Transportation and Urban Form: Stages in theSpatial Evolution of the American Metropolis." TheGeography of Urban Transportation. New York, GuilfordPress (1986) pp. 24-48.

Park, R., W. Burgess, and R. McKensie. The City. Chicago,University of Chicago Press (1925).

Pivo, G. "The Net of Beads: Suburban Office Developmentin Six Metropolitan Areas." Journal of the AmericanPlanning Association. 56, 4 (1990) pp. 457-69.

55

Schneider, J. Transit and the Polycentric City. Washington,DC, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal TransitAdministration (1981).

Schaeffer, K. and E. Sclar. Access for All: Transportationand Urban Growth. Baltimore, Penguin Books (1975).

Thomson, J. Great Cities and Their Traffic.Harmondsworth, England, Penguin Books (1978).

Vance, J. The Scene of Man: The Role and Structure of theCity in the Geography of Western Civilization. New York,Harper's College Press (1977)

.

Transit Cooperative Research Program RESEARCH RESULTS...

Documents

Transcript of Transit Cooperative Research Program RESEARCH RESULTS...