|
ABSTRACT
Data was collected on several light rail
stations in the downtown area of Sacramento. For each station information about
the number and type of ‘services’ (i.e. walk-in businesses such as
restaurants, banks and theaters) that are within ¼ mile and ½ mile radius
from the light rail stations was inputted into a GIS. An online telephone
directory was used to search for certain types of ‘services’ within the
area code of the light rail stations. The point of this exercise was to see
what types of services are within walking distance from the various light
rail stations. Analysis was then done to compare the number and type of
services available to particular stations. Other information, like relative
usage of each station was also inputted and compared to the location of
services. Further analysis was then done to compare the relative usage of a
transit station against the distance that a particular service is from the
station. A positive correlation between the number and type of services
around a light rail station and usage of that light rail station was
determined.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The state of California is well known worldwide as a place where most
people use personally operated vehicles as their overwhelmingly most
popular choice for personal transportation. In fact the use of the
automobile has increased the mobility of residents of the state and has helped
allow unprecedented economic expansion for the state over the past half-century.
However, over-reliance on this sole mode of transportation has had several side
effects that are beginning to have significant negative affects on the travel
patterns, quality of life and productivity of Californians. Specifically,
traffic congestion, air pollution and its associated health effects are
worsening while open space and agricultural lands are disappearing. Trying to decrease congestion by building
more and higher capacity roads will only increase the negative environmental
and health effects that we are now experiencing. If current patterns continue,
inter-city transport will also become increasingly congested since the
California Department of Transportation reports that the statewide highway
system is nearly complete and additional new highways will not be built due
to the increasing cost of land and litigation from property owners and
community groups. The Department also reports that the automobile
population is increasing at a rate that is faster than population growth. On top of this is the projection that by
the year 2020 California will have an additional 11-16 million residents. “Consequently,
the total number of annual ‘vehicle miles traveled’ in California is
expected to increase from 296 billion miles in 2000 to 400 billion miles by
2020, a 33% increase” (Statewide TOD Study). If current land use patterns
are followed then the negative effects described above will be greatly
magnified.
Combating this trend are two notable
pieces of legislation: the California
Transit Villages Act of 1994 and the Transportation Congestion Relief
Program. The Transit Villages Act (TVA) aims to assist the establishment of
so-called “transit-villages” near high capacity rail and bus transit
stations within the state. The TVA provides for cities and
counties to prepare special “Transit Village” planning districts around
major existing or planned transit stations. The act stipulates that transit
villages should be mixed-use, and it establishes that transit village plans
are eligible for transportation funding. The other major piece of legislation to consider is the Transportation
Congestion Relief Program which provides direct funding to transit
operators for expanding transit service, creating carpool lanes and other activities
that can be determined to reduces traffic congestion in the state.
An encouraging trend can be seen in the period from 1990 to
the year 2000 as the state government of California spent approximately $14
billion on transit, which is credited for encouraging significant increases
in transit ridership during the same period. In fact, transit usage in the state is increasing 40% faster
than the national average (Statewide TOD Study). Even though these numbers
are substantial there is still a need to further maximize the state’s investment
in public mass transportation (especially during times of budgetary constraints).
To better assist in the process of maximizing the positive
effects of transit dollars, information and tools are needed to encourage
and implement anti-sprawl and congestion “smart growth” practices that tend
to increase ridership. One
important and notable smart growth strategy to consider is called ‘transit-oriented
development’ (TOD). A statewide study about TOD in California was recently
completed by the California Department of Transportation titled, “Statewide
Transit-Oriented Development Study: Factors for Success in California”. The technical advisory committee for the
study devised this definition of transit-oriented development:
“Moderate to higher density development located within
an easy walk of a major transit stop generally with a mix of residential,
employment and shopping opportunities designed for pedestrians without
excluding the auto. TOD can be the redevelopment or construction of one or
more buildings, designed to facilitate increased transit ridership.”
- TOD
Study’s Technical Advisory Committee
This particular land use
strategy helps to manage growth and add mobility and increased lifestyle
choices for residents by reducing the need to use the personally operated
automobile for transportation. TOD aims to make transit a safe, practical
and pleasant transportation choice so that congestion pressures can be
reduced while at the same time providing an enhanced ‘sense of community’
for residents and productive retail sales for the area.
METHODS
One of the major hurdles to overcome in implementing transit-oriented
development is the current disconnect that exists between land use choices
and where transit providers choose to place bus and rail stations. In order
to show the positive effects on ridership that certain types of land use
can have around transit stations, I created a GIS map of the downtown area
of Sacramento, California that graphically shows the location of certain
types of retail and similar businesses along with the usage of several
light rail stations.
The components of this GIS
map include:
Streets.shp -- This ArcGIS shapefile was downloaded
as a TIGER file from ESRI's website (ESRI is the software maker which
produces ArcGIS). The zip file for Sacramento County streets was downloaded,
unzipped it and then renamed.
Services.shp – This is a
shapefile that was created using ArcGIS ArcCatalog. Using ArcMap I edited
the shapefile and created points for each of the businesses that are in
walking distance from the stations after looking up their addresses on
Yahoo! Yellowpages. I also simulanteously populated the attribute table
with the names, phone numbers, and addresses of the businesses from Yahoo!
Yellowpages.
 Service information:
Name of business
Type of business
Phone number
Address
This feature can be used by transit riders to locate business
by proximity to station and can be used by planners to measure transit usage
vs. proximity.
Light Rail Station.shp --
This is from another shapefile that was created using ArcCatalog. I
populated the attribute table with information from Sacramento Regional
Transit's website and from contacting staff at RT. I was able to determine
the station locations from looking at a Central City Map that was at
sacrt.com.
 Name of station
Boardings
Alightings (deboardings)
Abbreviated schedule
# of connecting buses
This feature can be used by transit riders for schedule information
and can be used by planners to help measure usage vs. service proximity vs.
number of connecting bus routes.
Light Rail line.shp -- This
is part of a rail shapefile that I obtained from the California Department
of Transportation's ITMS GIS database. I selected the part of the statewide
shapefile for the downtown Sacramento area and exported this to a new
shapefile. The resulting line shapefile was displaced almost a full block
to the East -- there was no north or south displacement (this displacement
was carried over from the original shapefile). So I had to edit the shapefile
using the Editor utility in ArcMap. Before that, I used the Geoprocessing
Wizard utility of ArcGIS to merge all the lines in this shapefile
together.
RESULTS
and ANALYSIS
This first screenshot of the GIS application shows the study area, the
light rail line, the stations and surrounding services. The stations are
represented by histogram bars that indicate the relative number of
boardings and alightings at each of the downtown stations. Note the heavy
usage of the light rail station in the upper left (St. Rose of Lima Park
station) and the dramatically lower usage for the station that is second
from the left (13th Street station). Also note the number and
type of services that exist around St Rose station vs 13th Street
station. The green circle around each station defines a 100-meter radius.
This second image shows
several different radii around each of the light rail stations at 100, 200,
300 and 400 meter distances. Note the increasing number and types of ‘services’
around St Rose of Lima Park station compared to the relatively fewer numbers
seen around the other stations.
This final image shows the number of connecting bus routes to each of
the downtown stations. The largest number is represented by the tall bar
located at St Rose station (20 routes). Smaller numbers of connecting bus
routes are indicated at Capital station and 8th and O station (5
routes each), and 16th Street station (4 routes) and Cathedral
Square (1 route – which is the free motorized trolley). The four routes of
16th street station helps to explain the higher than expected
usage of this station compared to the adjacent 13th Street
station (which has a greater number of adjacent “services”).
CONCLUSION
Note
the correlation between the number and type of services around light rail
stations and the relative usage of those stations. The only two stations
that significantly do not follow this pattern are fourth from the right (8th
and O station) and just below St Rose station (Capital station). Other land
use choices are probably at work here. For example the 8th and O
light rail station is next to a podium-style roof-top pedestrian plaza
which is built on top of partially underground offices. Also, one part of Capital
station is a relatively narrow sidewalk next to a parking garage. The width
of Capital Mall avenue may also act as a barrier to pedestrians.
A visually significant positive effect
on transit usage was found between the number and type of services surrounding
the station. An associated influence was found between the number of connecting
bus routes and station usage was indicated.
More data and a lager sample area
is needed in order to perform meaningful statistical analysis. This project
could also be expanded to include more transit information for general use
along with including more types of transit friendly ‘services’.
References:
Terry
Parker et al, Statewide Transit-Oriented Development Study: Factors for
Success in California. Californian Department of Transportation, 2002
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/tod.htm
Sacramento Regional Transit website:
http://www.sacrt.com/
Michael Cassidy of Sacramento Regional Transit
Yahoo! Yellowpages
http://yp.yahoo.com/
California Department of Transportation ITMS GIS
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/oasp/itms/ITMS
Brochure.pdf
ESRI
http://www.esri.com/data/online/tiger/
|