Introduction Transit Oriented Developments(TOD) have gained

Introduction
Transit Oriented Developments(TOD) have gained momentum in the recent past as an
answer to reduce sprawl and limit the associated use of private cars to get around. In
Los Angeles, a multitude of reasons have played a hand in the relative unpopularity of
public transit over private autos. Abundance of land and extensive transit lines led to
dispersed patterns of land development. A predominant suburban lifestyle and heavy
dependence on cars continue to have a bearing on the way the city functions and
thrives even to this day. But the troubling aspects of pollution, congestion and
sustainability of resources in the recent past have put a spotlight on this suburban way
of life.
One of the outcomes of suburban dispersion is over consumption of housing.
Cheaper land values in the outskirts and ease of transportation access encourage
people to seek locations to maximize their housing size. Larger buildings gobble up
more energy during construction, use up more materials and perpetually demand more
energy for day to day maintenance such as heating, air conditioning, cleaning and
landscaping. Utilizing energy efficient public and/or private transit options can reduce
the issue of energy consumption only to a partial degree. But when strategies for fuel
efficiency are combined with other components of land use and compact building types
it can have the added potential of reducing over-consumption of land and there by
conserve more energy.
In addition, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2001
report states that Los Angeles cannot meet the housing need to accommodate the
projected population growth for 2025 (SCAG 2001,Pg 33,34). The report estimates the
land available in three different scenarios, with varying degrees of limitations for
“developable land” (Table 3, Pg B). If current densities remain or even at 150% its
current density the land available cannot house the projected increase in population.
When issues of pollution and sustainability are juxtaposed against limitations of land
availability, there appears to be a real need for changes in planning and policies to
respond to these challenges. TOD’s are initiatives proposed by the planning authorities
to achieve compact and high density living in order to reduce the use of automobiles
In short Transit Oriented Development can be defined as compact developments
close to transit centers with a mixed use component that reduce the dependence on
cars for access by increasing public transit use and walkability in a given location.
Study Area
The Department of Regional Planning(DRP) has The Department of Regional Planning
has proposed TOD’s along the blue and Green Lines
Adjacent to the metro line
stations on Slauson, Florence and Firestone along the Blue line as well as Vermont and
Mariposa along the Orange line.
The Proposed locations were developed by creating Shape-files using DRP data and
maps showing the location.
Ridership along these lines varies considerably from one station to another. Ridership
varies from less than 5000 transit users at some stations to about 20,000. The graphs
indicate the relative ridership between stations.
Data for the number of transit users at each Station was collected from Metro. Spatial
Join was then used to compile ridership data and Station location. Aggregate fields was
used to calculate total daily loads at each station – combined north and south bound
daily volumes along
The DRP states that the purposes of the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay
District are to:

Encourage a mix of moderate and high density development within walking
distance of transit stations to increase transit ridership;

Create a pedestrian-friendly environment to encourage walking, bicycling and
transit use;

Provide an alternative to traditional development by emphasizing mixed use,
pedestrian oriented development;

Create a neighborhood identity that promotes pedestrian activity, human
interactions, safety and livability;

5. Encourage building reuse and infill to create higher densities;

6. Reduce auto dependency and roadway congestion by locating multiple
destinations and trip purposes within walking distance of one another;

7. Provide a range of housing options for people of different income levels and at
different stages of Life.
Analysis
Public Transit is promoted as a way to control Sprawl, limit the dependence on private
auto use and thereby improve quality of life. But Public Transit systems have provided
mixed results in terms of achieving these results.
So, what factors affect the use these transit lines?
What are the existing community patterns around these lines?
How does the composition of the surrounding community affect the use of transit? To
what degree do density, income and modes of travel influence ridership at these
locations?
Answering the above questions and indentifying qualities at the community level that
characterize the use of public transit systems can help us determine appropriate places,
if any for TOD interventions.
Density
Sufficient population density is critical for a successful public transit system to
generate enough passenger volume so as to be feasible. For public transit to thrive,
frequency of service and ease of interconnections between different parts of the city are
essential ingredients. Viability of a robust public transportation system is therefore
dependent on the critical mass of people patronizing transit. In addition, land use
manipulations such as high density zoning should be integrated with transportation
systems so as to be mutually supportive.
.Planning policies that encourage densification in transit centered areas and limit
development in areas farther away will act as pressure points to increase ridership.
Zoning Policies such as minimum parking requirement and allowable floor area ratio are
not conducive to boosting density in this location. Such policies need modifications to be
in line with the requisites of a successful public transportation system.
Median Income
Mode of Travel and Vehicle Ownership
Travel to work distances in auto-oriented cities of United States and Australia are
higher, about 14.7 and 12.6 kilometers as compared to European and Asian cities with
average distances of 10 and 7.9 kilometers respectively (Newman, Kenworthy 1999, Pg
103). Surprisingly, shorter distances do not translate to shorter commute times. In fact,
among cities within the United States, those that are auto-oriented have much shorter
commute times than public-transit-oriented cities such as New York and Chicago by
about 19 to 33 percent (Gordon, Richardson 1989, Pg 343). Spread of houses and jobs
across suburbs in auto-oriented cities have given impetus to this mode of transport.
Gordan and Richardson bring attention to another aspect of travel time. In
case of public transit, additional time is spent walking, biking and waiting and is more
tedious by a factor of four than time spent inside vehicles. But this is often a reflection of
insufficient transit lines, dispersed land development patterns and amenities not
conducive to walking, biking or waiting. This inconvenience factor could be the reason
for low ridership. This contention indicates that supporting infrastructure facilities need
to be in place for public transit to become desirable and less painful than
driving/parking. High infrastructure investments for autos at the cost of safe and
convenient sidewalks, bike lanes and lack of planning at the pedestrian scale prioritizes
the use of autos over other physically stimulating choices of mobility such as walking.
The map above shows percent who walk to work in this location. The greater the
percent, the better is the environment for walking the greater the potential for the
success of TOD developments. Similarly, the higher the inconvenience of parking the
lower is the percent of vehicle ownership.
Zoning Policies such as minimum parking requirement and allowable floor area
ratio are not conducive to boosting density. Such policies need modifications to be in
line with the requisites of a successful public transportation system and reduce reliance
on cars.
The new variable: Bus Stop Density
The analysis indicates that connectivity to multiple locations is the highest
determining factor for higher ridership. Proximity of bus stops signify that they are within
easy walking distance and there for there are opportunities available to reach various
locations and these factors are likely to increase the dependence on public transit for
getting around different places.
Percieved Density
Perceived Density as described by Eidlin is that while "standard density
measures the average amount of land around each resident of a city, perceived density
measures the average number of people around each resident of that city“.
Perceived density takes into account the clustering effect and measures, how
evenly or unevenly an area's population is spread out across its geographic area. This
is a more appropriate way to measure density since it accounts for the clustering of
people in a given location.
Perceived Density = Census tract Density * (Census tract Pop.)
Tot. Pop
Hot Spot Analysis
Conclusion
Based on the hot-spot analysis, the area with scores between 2 and 3 are most
appropriate for TOD developments. Two of the locations coincide with that proposed by
the Department of Regional Planning while the other three do not.
Primarily, TOD's take advantage of the economies of scale that denser
development’s can afford and decreases the incidence of pollution and over
consumption of resources.But TOD's viability hinges on appropriate supportive
amenities that make walking, biking or taking public transit a better experience than
driving alone in a car. Density has a strong bearing on sprawl but effecting density alone
is not sufficient to control sprawl. Los Angeles has a high density of per square mile, but
is also one of the highest auto users in the nation and low public transit shares. Hence,
specific local characteristics such as composition of neighborhoods, land use patterns,
should be incorporated in evaluating the success of TOD's.
Sources
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), The New economy and Jobs/Housing balance in Southern
California, 2001 report. Retrieved From: http://www.scag.ca.gov/Housing/pdfs/Balance.pdf
Eidlin, E. (2010). What density doesn't tell us about sprawl. Access Magazine, 37, 2-9.
Gordon, P., Kumar, A., Richardson, H. (1988). Beyond the journey to work. Transportation
Research Part A: General, 22(6), 419-426. Retrieved from
http://pdn.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MiamiImageURL&_cid=272678&_user=4423&_pii=01912607889
00453&_check=y&_origin=article&_zone=toolbar&_coverDate=30-Nov1988&view=c&originContentFamily=serial&wchp=dGLzVlVzSkzS&md5=9af4c547c596131d6319ba964c7e4422/1-s2.0-0191260788900453-main.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). P001 total population. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from
http://factfinder2.census.gov/main.html.
American Fact Finder
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), Los Angeles, CA
Newman, Peter and Jeffrey Kenworthy. 2006. “Urban Design to Reduce Automobile Dependence,” Opolis, 2(1): 3552. Retrieved From: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2b76f089#page-1
Bertaud, Alain. 2002. “Clearing the Air in Atlanta: Transit and Smart Growth or Conventional Economics?”
st.
December 31 Retrieved From: http://alain-bertaud.com/images/AB_Clearing_The_Air_in%20Atlanta_1.pdf.
Newman, Peter and Jeffrey Kenworthy. 1999. “The pattern of automobile dependence and global cities,” in
Sustainability and cities: Overcoming automobile dependence. Washington, DC: Island Press. Pages 68-127.
Gordon, Peter and Harry W. Richardson. 1989. "Gasoline Consumption and Cities: A Reply," Journal of the
American Planning Association, 55(3): 342-346. (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01944368908975421)
Black, Alan, John Pucher, Jeffrey M. Zupan, Peter W. G. Newman, and Jeffrey R. Kenworthy. 1990. "A Round
Robin on Urban Transportation and Choice," Journal of the American Planning Association, 56(1): 88-93.
(http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01944369008975748)
Newman, Peter W. G. and Jeffrey R. Kenworthy. 1992. "Is There a Role for Physical Planners?" Journal of the
American Planning Association, 58(3): 353-362.
(http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01944369208975814#preview)
Buehler, Ralph and John Pucher. 2011. “Sustainable Transport in Freiburg: Lessons from Germany’s Environmental
Capital,” International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 5: 43-70.
(www.policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/Freiburg_IJST_BuehlerPucher.pdf)
Model
Skills Used:
Inset Map
Creating custom Shapefiles For proposed TOD's by the DRP
Geocoding Rail Stations
Graduated Dot density
Geoprocessing, Spatial Join
Geoprocessing, Attributr Join
Aggregate fields
Rastersize
Reclassify
Hotspot Analysis