The Los Angeles Times takes a hard look at transit-oriented developments (TODs) and concludes that they don’t change people’s travel habits. Local officials say TODs will revitalize neighborhoods without adding to congestion, but the Times finds that “there is little research to back up the rosy predictions.”
The paper cites one study that “showed that transit-based development successfully weaned relatively few residents from their cars.” Two reporters from the paper itself spent two months interviewing TOD residents and reached the same conclusion: “only a small fraction of residents shunned their cars during morning rush hour.”
I emailed one of the reporters to find out what study they were referring to. They were kind enough to send me the paper, which was by Robert Cervero of U.C. Berkeley and two planning professors from Cal State in Pomona.
The study found that TOD residents are five times more likely to use transit than other people in the same city. But the researchers concluded this was mostly due to “self selection,” that is, that people who want to use transit choose to live in TODs. Just the fact that someone lives in a TOD does not make them use transit significantly more than they would otherwise.
The study found the smallest bump in transit ridership in Los Angeles, with the largest being for TODs along the BART line in the east San Francisco Bay Area. San Diego TODs did not do very well either.
Most children who suffer from cerebral palsy experience difficulty performing simple functions, such as sildenafil buy in canada http://valsonindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Valson_Industry_Limited_Annual_Report_2019.pdf eating, moving, and speaking, due to damaged bones, muscles, and nerves. Every year, a number of males are targeted by this problem and face the most difficult alongside more capable erection that may last up until the peak from the valsonindia.com purchase cheap cialis sexual relations. Tribulus terrestris is widely used cialis generic viagra in alternative systems of medicines. Working in a Health Care A survey from erectiledoctor.com showed that men working in a clinical directory (such as medical services, food services ordering viagra online staff, health care etc.) more tend to prone with cardiovascular and ED issues.
The study correctly notes that there is nothing wrong with building transit-oriented developments to attract people who want to ride transit and to give them more opportunities to do so. Of course, no one objects to transit-oriented developments per se.
The objections are to the huge subsidies that cities are giving to these developments. As mentioned previously in the Antiplanner, transit is not necessarily more energy efficient than driving, nor does it necessarily reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So why should cities give hundreds of millions in subsidies to a tiny group of people who are willing to use transit?
Nor should cities willfully drive up housing costs to discourage people from living in their choice of housing so that people will live in transit-oriented developments instead. As the Times found, this is the least likely way to reduce congestion; if most people living in TODs still drive, concentrating them in a small area will only add to congestion.
Another “subsidy” that I suspect cities offer to TOD developers is a streamlined approval process. A developer who wants to subdivide a greenfield and build new housing may have to wait years to get all the approvals. But a developer willing to build a high-density TOD in an existing neighborhood may find planners rolling out the red carpet.
In any case, it is good to see a major newspaper take a skeptical look at one of the latest planning fads.
If the transit system doesn’t have enough destinations, you can’t expect high ridership figures, it’s that simple. And in an expansive, multinodal metro area like Los Angeles, that is of utmost importance.
I think I’ve cited this Cervero paper here, as I have it. Nonetheless, the brush used to paint TODs might not be coated with paint; rather, a particular type of oil is likely the substance, because the conclusion holds for some parts of LA, depending on your goals, but not elsewhere (as the paper details).
The LAT also points out (and some do not) that ~40% of the “studied” TOD residents were NOT driving (borne out by the paper Randal linked to that said Transit use by TOD residents varies across transit system and station area characteristics, but in all cases exceeds comparison areas. On average, transit shares for TOD residents exceed the surrounding city by a factor of 4.9. Transit shares for TOD residents are higher for the commute trip than for non-work travel. ).
Much better than the suburbs, I’d say, as does Table E-1 in the paper Randal linked to. Implicit in the LAT is that when VMT charges and $6.00/gal gas hit us, TODs will become hot commodities, thereby giving people freedom of choice.
Also, familiarize yourselves with the demographic shift in the LAT passage: “You’re seeing in California a whole trend toward moving into more urban settings,” she said. “People like to walk around and go to a coffee shop, go to the movies. That is a very desirable way to live.” What does this mean? The amenity-seekers moved to the city. Imagine that. They didn’t want a production house on a 1/4 acre lot in a cul-de-sac.
Anyway, the policy conclusions start on page 127, and I recommend that people here familiarize themselves with them. Namely:
Lastly, let’s examine how the paper Randal linked to treats automobile subsidies:
Huh.
So, really, the broad brush conclusions given in this post about TODs are just random paint splatters.
DS
Trumbull,
The L.A. transit system has lots of destinations and lots of riders. The average resident rides transit 56 times per year, which is well above the national average for urban residents of 42 trips per year.
The question here is not the transit system but transit-oriented development. Contrary to DS, San Francisco’s system is not “more mature.” It is just that San Francisco has a concentrated job center, while Los Angeles doesn’t. Transit works best when it is a hub-and-spoke system with lots of jobs at the hub.
If “maturity” were the issue, then Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Chicago, and other older transit systems wouldn’t be losing so much market share to the automobile.
It is just that San Francisco has a concentrated job center, while Los Angeles doesn’t. Transit works best when it is a hub-and-spoke system with lots of jobs at the hub.
JK: Why would I want to work in a high density job center any more than live in a high density ghetto?
Thanks
JK
Contrary to DS, San Francisco’s system is not “more mature.â€Â
Hopefully Randall, CALTRANS/BART will publish the letter you send them, contradicting the authors (the people who do that for a living) of the paper you linked to; hopefully it will be in a medium that reproduces the graphs and data you send.
If they do, will you post it here?
DS
Randal,
Your suspicions are well founded. I have personally spoken to a developer about his TOD. Not being fan I questioned why he would want to play the game with the city. He admitted the only reason they went TOD was to get it through the planning process in a reasonable amount of time and with more cooperation from planning staff. He knew it wouldn’t really do anything as far as increasing transit use but it sure would help them in selling the project to liberal minded staffers in city hall.
One of the reasons I am skeptical of planning is the history of planners latching on to whatever planning idea is in fashion. Later, after a new trend is introduced, the planners seldom admit that mistakes were made. There’s no accountability for those mistakes.
I expect TOD to be one of those grand ideas that do little to improve transit use. At least planning staff feels warm and fuzzy while advocating such developments.
One of the reasons I am skeptical of planning is the history of planners latching on to whatever planning idea is in fashion. Later, after a new trend is introduced, the planners seldom admit that mistakes were made. There’s no accountability for those mistakes.
On some level, isn’t this the way of the world? Under ideal conditions, isn’t the best we can hope for that we act on the best available information at the time, knowing that we will probably know more in the future than we know now, and adjust accordingly? What alternative do you propose to acting on the latest ideas that are in fashion at the time? Are planners less likely than non-planners to acknowledge mistakes and be held accountable for them? Does acting on the best information available and then learning later that it was flawed count as a “mistake” that should have been avoided?
One of the reasons I am skeptical of American automakers is the history of executives latching on to whatever car idea is in fashion. Later, after a new trend is introduced, the executives seldom admit that mistakes were made. There’s no accountability for those cars in landfills and yards in rural America.
Or something.
One of the reasons I am skeptical of American mining is the history of entrepreneurs latching on to whatever mineral idea is in fashion. Later, after a new trend is introduced and the mine is abandoned to foul the receiving waters downstream, the executives seldom admit that mistakes were made. There’s no accountability for, say, cyanide in groundwater and streams.
I see a trend.
DS
“Are planners less likely than non-planners to acknowledge mistakes and be held accountable for them?”
D4P, can you give my one example where a planner acknowledged a mistake AND paid a real monitary price for it? Those of us in business pay very dearly for nearly all of our mistakes.
Well, I’m sure at least one planner in the history of planners has been fired, which probably counts as “paying a monetary price.” But if you mean something along the lines of “paying a fine”, I’m not aware of any such thing. More generally, I’m pretty sure people in all occupations make mistakes, and are typically not fined for them. Since when is that the norm? Why are planners hold to a different standard from other government employees, or even many employees in the private sector?
Perhaps you could give me an example of a mistake made by a planner that you think warrants a monetary penalty.
Much better than the suburbs, I’d say, as does Table E-1 in the paper Randal linked to. Implicit in the LAT is that when VMT charges and $6.00/gal gas hit us, TODs will become hot commodities, thereby giving people freedom of choice.
What if gas goes to $2 per gallon instead Dan?
On a project I did recently a planner made several mistakes (that I cought). Had I not spent hours poaring over code to prove the planner wrong, it would have cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars. There was absolutely no penalty for her mistakes. The closest thing I got to her acknowleging a mistake was an email that said “It appears you are probably correct”, no appology, no “I was mistaken”. I believe she has been promoted since then. Had I made the mistake of accepting the answer my architect got when he asked a question of the planners it would have had real and substantial costs. Her mistakes were free. Had an employee of mine made a mistake that cost my clients huge amounts of money they would have been fired.
Humans make mistakes. Planners are human. Ergo…
I don’t know the exact nature of the mistake your female planner made, but I’m hardly surprised that she made one. Planning (or shall I say, code enforcement, which sounds more appropriate in this case) is hard. Codes are big and unwieldy. They are not always clear and concise, and sometimes even have conflicting language. Other entities involved in enforcing laws (e.g. police, attorneys, judges, etc.) make mistakes too. It happens.
I would have to think that anyone who has ever looked at a site plan and the incredible amount of detail it contains would readily acknowledge the Herculean effort required to scrutinize every minute measurement, tree, sidewalk, etc. etc. etc. to ensure that they meet regulatory standards. There’s lots of room for error, and as far as I’m concerned, perfection on the part of planners (or anyone else) should be considered the rare exception, not the rule.
PS: Do you pay your employees more than public planners are paid, or do you just hold them to a higher standard?
PSS: Given the potential liability associated with government employees (or even elected officials) admitting mistakes, I wouldn’t generally expect them to. This is not unique to planning, nor is mistake-making itself.
PSSS: If you want to fire your employees for making mistakes, go ahead. But don’t expect to keep many around. People make mistakes: it’s what we do.
PSSSS: Where is it written that people should be punished for their mistakes?
I wonder if Planner Is in Current Planning who make mistakes in the developer’s favor ever get paid for their mistakes. Anyway,
Not that I condone our system, but our plan review is not all done in our department, as stormwater and landscape are done by Utilities, reflecting the complexity of development impacts in our area. My current big project is to create the initial plan to vastly simplify our Code to eliminate this kind of thing.
DS
Planning (or shall I say, code enforcement, which sounds more appropriate in this case) is hard. Codes are big and unwieldy.
Esp in OR, where M37 claims have paralyzed land-use planning. The experienced current planners are hammered or in another state.
DS
I know on a case-by-case basis that planners make mistakes (btw…I have seen literally dozens of mistakes if not hundreds in my years but have yet to see one in my favor…are they really “honest” mistakes?) but what about the mistakes that planners make that cost the citizens millions of dollars in lost time, potential income, or tax funds? Never a cost to the planners but lots of cost to the people.
Wow, johng. Certainly if you avoided hunnnndreds of thousands of dollars in costs, there must be others. Could be milllllyuns of dollars. I’m sure you got together with others and exposed this scandal to the press. Multiply your city by thouuuuusands and jeepers, there’s surely billlllyuns of dollars gone away. Surely you should expose this conspiracy.
DS