Traditional neighborhoods and commuting in the San Francisco Bay area

Abstract

Neo-traditional designs, proponents argue, reduce dependency on the automobile and provide attractive environments for walking, bicycling, and transit riding. This paper explores the extent to which this proposition holds for seven traditional neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area that evolved around early streetcar services. Matched-pair comparisons of modal shares and trip generation rates for work trips are made between these neighborhoods and newer auto-oriented suburbs, controlling for the effects of income and, to a lesser extent, existing bus service levels. Pedestrian/bicycle modal shares and trip rates tended to be considerably higher, in some cases five time as high, in transit-oriented than in the paired auto-oriented neighborhood. Transit neighborhoods also averaged around 70 more daily transit work trips per 1,000 households than auto-oriented neighborhoods, though trip rates varied considerably among neighborhood pairs. Higher residential densities were also found to have a proportionately greater impact on transit commuting in transit-oriented than in auto-oriented neighborhoods. The paper concludes that in order to yield significant transportation benefits, neo-traditional development must be coordinated with larger regional planning efforts and public policy initiatives to reduce automobile dependency.