Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors (2011)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

97 An important concept of the new paradigm is that multi- modal corridors will encourage sustainable regional growth patterns. New paradigm corridors hold promise for supporting a diversity of land use and travel markets and allowing indi- vidual users and communities more seamless transitions from a freeway- and automobile-dependent pattern toward more sustainable ones. The pursuit of these goals does not require a revolution in the practices of transportation and land use planning to become a reality. Most of the concepts required to make the shift are fairly well established; particularly when considering the physical and spatial challenges to planning and designing multimodal corridors. Fortunately, transportation and land use planners have devoted a considerable amount of time and effort over the past quarter century to refining the tools and concepts applicable to conventional planning problems. As a result, it is possible to identify various conventional planning con- cepts and tools that support and encourage development of a mix of activities and land uses along a corridor which in turn can justify and support new paradigm infrastructure investments. New Paradigm Physical and Spatial Planning Challenges As with any form of infrastructure, the geography, topog- raphy and built form of a region pose tangible limitations to (and opportunities for) the successful placement and opera- tions of multimodal corridors. Physical and spatial factors can raise the costs of implementation or diminish the ultimate patronage of the multimodal facilities. Such actions include technical design challenges to engineering and the ability to design seamless integration of the various modes of trans- portation in a corridor. Furthermore, spatial challenges arise from the regional distribution of activities, the influence of other transportation facilities, and the configuration of individual districts comprising station and interchange catchment areas. The effects of the physical and spatial environments can be differentiated based on scale. The spatial features that make a potential corridor attractive at a regional scale (for example, dense and heterogeneous development patterns) are often associated with conditions at the scale of physical design that can restrict options for alignment and station placement. At a regional scale, the spatial structure of a region largely determines the market opportunities for corridor development. At the physical design (small) scale, the physical dimensions of obtainable rights-of-way dictate feasible alignments and station and interchange options and influence selection of transit technology once a particular corridor is identified as having multimodal potential. Each intermediate geographic scale is the focus of a specific stage in the planning and design lifecycle of a multimodal project. Regional Planning Concepts Background regional patterns of land use, demographics, and travel are a major determinant of success for new para- digm corridor implementation and performance. These have historically and will continue to play an important role in determining whether one or more multimodal corridors can be supported and what configuration is best for a particular corridor. For the new paradigm it is important that regional factors be considered above and beyond conventional thresh- olds applied to justify transit. Transit Thresholds Generally, transit line planning and design efforts have relied on planning thresholds or rules-of-thumb, intended to ensure A P P E N D I X C Applying Conventional Planning Concepts Toward a New Paradigm

98 a sufficient level of patronage.1, 2, 3 As a result, transit lines are conventionally anchored by major activity centers because bigger and more compact activity centers generally are asso- ciated with higher levels of patronage. Conventional standards identifying threshold size and density requirements are closely associated with the develop- ment of rail transit infrastructure in the last quarter of the 20th Century. Updated assumptions about sensitivity to service characteristics, road congestion, and fuel cost may lower some of the minimum standards for population and employment densities, but these thresholds still provide a useful first-order test to assess the strength of potential can- didates for multimodal investments. It is significant that most thresholds were developed when fuel prices were stable or falling relative to incomes and when decentralization was increasing in most urban centers. As a result, the cost-effectiveness of transit use has been constrained during periods of low fuel cost automobile use. Recent trends in transit use following the volatility in fuel prices should lead to a revaluation of some of these thresholds. Alternative Fundamental Considerations Accepting that strict thresholds are no longer appropriate tests for the viability of multimodal corridors, other regional characteristics should be explicitly considered for their influ- ence on the planning and successful development of multi- modal corridors. These are as follows: • The corridor must include employment and housing whether segregated at separate ends or accumulated as mixed-use areas of sufficient density and scale to generate continuous and balanced two-way travel patterns. • The core areas and inner rings of large metropolitan areas of a size exceeding historic thresholds for transit service1 should be built-out, with limited vacant or otherwise avail- able land for assembling a right-of-way, let alone for easy land development to begin the task of reshaping regional growth patterns. • The relative spatial distribution of people and activities around the urban center(s) of a region may be a more significant barrier to new paradigm investments than the absolute thresholds established in the post-World War II era to screen transit projects for market feasibility. • Existing suburban activity centers often are not large enough or designed in a transit-friendly manner to sup- port a high-capacity transit line because they typically lack a critical mass of activities to attract work trips, yet may generate automobile congestion at levels that discour- age pedestrian, bicycle, and park-and-ride activities. • Sections of freeway corridors that tend to have largely low- density residential, industrial, or even agricultural uses present both opportunities and barriers to the successful introduction of a high-capacity transit line. While an underdeveloped corridor offers the opportunity to buy land for a transit line right-of-way and stations at a low price, they also offer low-quality transit markets to support it. Influences Versus Thresholds Consideration of regional characteristics should not simply replace one set of rigid rules with another. Although it is true that cities without strong radial patterns and without large, dense urban centers can be hard-pressed to justify multi- modal corridor development, a decentralized region is not an impossible barrier to successful multimodal corridor development. The Los Angeles Green Line/Century Freeway Corridor is an example of a successful project within a dis- persed, polynucleated region. Although it does not directly serve a large activity center and runs in a circumferential pattern relative to the region’s largest CBD, downtown Los Angeles, the transit line serves a respectable 43,000 riders per day. Its success can be attributed to specific attention to high-quality feeder service. That service effectively addresses the decentral- ized nature of individual station areas which could be con- sidered an insurmountable impediment from a conventional perspective. Reorienting Regional Development Momentum. Ex- emplary successes such as the LA Green Line arise from spe- cific efforts to overcome the inertia of background regional pat- terns. Although this inertia currently presents an obstacle, the hope of the new paradigm is that a focused set of planning and market forces that provide segmented travel markets matched to each mode can promote the success of all modes. It is important to note that, once established, regional development patterns tend to be repeated and reinforced in the future. A region’s transportation and land development decisions are important tools in reinforcing or, with determined action, reforming these patterns. Our contemporary experience is that regions consisting of a constellation of small- and medium-sized communities are likely to have their investment decisions guided by these poly- nucleated growth patterns. Over the last half of the 20th century, 1Pushkarev, B. & J. Zupan, 1971. Public Transportation and Land Use Policy. Don Mills, Ontario: Indiana University Press. 2“MTC Resolution 3434 Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Policy For Regional Transit Expansion Projects,” July 27, 2005, http://www.mtc.ca. gov/planning/smart_growth/tod/TOD_policy.pdf 3Demery, L., J. W. Higgins & M. D. Setty, “Traffic Density Thresholds for Rail Transit: A Retrospective,” Special Report No. 2, February 15, 2005, http://www. publictransit.us/ptlibrary/specialreports/sr2.trafficdensityretrospective.pdf.

99 market forces, regulatory processes, and traveler preferences have adapted to, and in due course, driven these land use patterns making low density and decentralized growth the expected norm in most of the United States. The objective of adopting a new paradigm is to stimulate and leverage changes in market, regulatory, and user practices by taking advantage of opportunities to first complement the currently exhausted regional structure of passenger trans- portation and land use with multimodal services and, over time, replace parts of it with robustly multimodal and transit- oriented features that support sustainable economic and lifestyle choices. Regional/Strategic Planning Approaches. Many metro- politan areas have embraced the goal of better organizing development to make individual communities and their whole region more livable and sustainable. New paradigm, multi- modal freeway corridors can help to achieve these broader development objectives. An important element of a strategic approach is that regional spatial patterns should be leveraged to advance multimodal development. It should be recognized that the congestion resulting from regional growth is the feedback generated by a metropolitan system, indicating the strain generated by prevailing trends in land use, activity, and circulation patterns. This congestion tells planners that current trends are not sustainable and that redirection is in order. Effective regional planning requires strategies to accommodate and, in some cases, encourage growth and other shifts in development patterns. This creates opportunities to explore the role multimodal alternatives have in deliberately focusing land use and eco- nomic development activity around high-capacity transporta- tion infrastructure. The key is to identify the means by which resources and other benefits can be systematically extracted from growth pressures to help cover the long-term environmental and financial costs of that growth. A corollary expectation is that this creates an incentive to minimize those long-term costs. A strategic approach to multimodal development seeks to organize such value capture on a regional scale. The benefit for the region is in better environmental and fiscal outcomes, and the direct benefit for infrastructure development is a sounder basis for attracting investment and justifying subsidies. This possibility makes the new paradigm multimodal corridor concept attractive as a means to capture and manage regional growth and travel congestion simultaneously. The background arrangement of activity centers and their relationships to existing transportation facilities often seems to preclude transit investments. However, the possibility of developing multimodal capacity proactively, as an encour- agement to future transit-supportive development, should be considered in the context of financial and institutional considerations. From this point of view, the decision-making process should take a regional perspective on how much growth is likely to occur in potential corridors and, given that growth, whether it is possible and desirable (for example, from a sustainability perspective) to focus so as to maximize the use and viability of one or more multimodal corridors. At a strategic level, particular attention is warranted for tools that enhance cost- and revenue-sharing, market making, and other linkages on a regional scale. Corridor Planning Concepts From a land use perspective, a successful corridor is one that achieves vitality by attracting an effective mix of employment, housing, retail, and recreational activities. This generates travel and, with success, comes congestion. At its root, corridor planning boils down to managing tradeoffs between mobility, accessibility, and economic and social development. Transpor- tation infrastructure of a multimodal corridor can effectively unify the communities along its length, providing similar mobility options throughout and essentially democratizing access. It also lays the foundation for the economic and social interaction among communities with disparate incomes, lifestyles, activity patterns, and levels of mobility. Near the urban core, a radial corridor is characterized by a dense street grid, various modal opportunities, congested roadways, multiple travel path options, and the need for frequent modal transfers. Modifications to built form and transportation infrastructure are constrained by high land prices and multiple claims on the character of the urban space. Freeway access in dense areas can be minimal with isolated, single off- or on-ramps separated by blocks, whereas transit access can be dense and even redundant in areas of concen- trated activity. Moving away from the urban core, metropolitan space, land uses, travel behavior, and economic activities are more often influenced by the capacity of the freeway facilities. The built environments surrounding freeways tend to be dominated by the structures and land uses that are needed to support freeway travel and access. High-capacity freeways often require large, complex ramp and interchange structures that allow high- speed, high-capacity transitions between surface streets and freeways (for example, see Figure C-1). Wide, high-capacity freeways often influence street and urban design patterns well beyond their immediate areas. High-capacity surface streets are often needed to feed traffic from the corridor’s outlying areas to the freeway facility as well. Wide arterial streets often connect to or parallel freeway facilities. Larger, wider freeways also influence corridor land uses. Large freeways will often dominate their corridors, with

100 development patterns arranged to minimize automobile congestion by separating uses, providing ample parking, and lowering built densities. Junctions between freeways and major arterials commonly become focal points for major commercial centers. Usually pedestrian and transit access is difficult. Corridor access management is important to better manage existing roadways. It also can be applied in multi- modal freeway corridors. Roadway options include adjusting interchange locations and configurations, ramp metering, and access spacing. For transit, opportunities include station placement, pedestrian connections, feeder bus service, and park-and-ride facilities. Designs and mix will vary among locations. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) suggests five key factors to consider when making tradeoffs among access, mobility, and social and economic factors. These are: citizen participation, design, economic development, financing, and governance. In each instance, a premium is placed on collab- oration between corridor stakeholders.4 Successful collabora- tion depends on identifying common goals and values among stakeholders, but the jurisdictions that constitute a corridor may seem not to have much in common. The corridor-planning process provides a forum and a framework for collaborative planning, but the disparate interests of near urban and far suburban communities that reside along a corridor can lead to conflict. Cases of successful corridor planning are most often based on a process of compromise. An important spatial basis for this compromise can be coordination of the activity and growth potential of individual corridor station and inter- change areas. Access Points as Coordinated Markets Access point land use and built form has significant implications for corridor performance and development. The spacing of access points can define, and in some ways constrain, corridor performance, but some limitations also present opportunities. The long-standing view is that a corridor is best for transit where land uses are segregated with a large activity center (such as a downtown) at one end and a series of largely high-density residential centers located at station areas along the corridor. In adopting a new paradigm, multimodal cor- ridors can succeed by adopting a strategic approach in which the spacing and land use character of interchange and station area are coordinated across the corridor to optimize long-term patronage potential. Since freeways define the structure of most U.S. metro- politan areas, a challenge is to successfully identify opportu- nities along the existing or planned freeway network that can support a new paradigm corridor. In regions with a large metropolitan core, these opportunities will consist of network extensions to planned or growing suburban and exurban activity centers. These extensions (or radii) can be the basis for a more compact corridor of future growth along new paradigm rights-of-way. In polynucleated regions, this challenge can be met by identifying high-growth nodes (activity centers) that can support increased activities near network junctions (access points such as interchanges and transit stations). Such corridors will not tend to be “straight line shots.” A key here is to exploit tradeoffs between long-spaced free- way access points (interchanges) that leave some communities without access and dense freeway access (interchanges) that lead to congestion and unreliable freeway performance. Taking advantage of these tradeoffs, opportunities emerge to move the corridor toward more balanced multimodalism by intro- ducing transit access at key locations and clustering corridor growth at these points to stimulate patronage and transit- supportive activity patterns. Freeway facilities with large interchange spacings optimize speed and reduce congestion bottlenecks by reducing the amount of merging and weaving that occurs at these access points. They also tend to have a lighter impact on their sur- roundings since they do not attract as much surface street traffic (going to and from the freeway), do not require the same magnitude of high-capacity supporting surface streets, and do not generate the same magnitude of automobile- oriented development as facilities with short distances between interchanges. Generally, land values fall as distance from an interchange increases, with the result that a dense pattern of interchanges will result in denser (although typically still automobile-oriented) land uses along the corridor. This has clear implications for the mix of uses as well, so that high-revenue commercial Source: Google Earth Figure C-1. Los Angeles Metro Rosa Parks Station area. 4Federal Transit Administration, Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Af- fairs, “Keys to Corridor Planning,” June 2007.

101 destinations crowd out other uses. Since similar uses generate similar travel patterns, this amplifies peaks in trip generation and congestion. Sparse freeway access creates an opportunity because travel markets between interchanges are underserved and land use markets can be immature. Once it is established that the corridor is the preferred location for growth to concentrate in a region, these underserved areas become attractive for new transit service along the corridor and new transit-oriented development. Automotive travel can be served more modestly with parallel arterials, and local circulation can be planned around high-quality bus service and non-motorized trans- portation facilities. In most metropolitan areas, the accumulation of dense freeway access points has created a failure in the transportation system. From the perspective of multimodal development this failure is an opportunity because the resulting degradation in the level and reliability of private automobile mobility stimulates demand for a transit component within congested freeway corridors. More congested nodes can be singled out for transit-oriented development; improvements to bus feeder service and start-up investments in BRT can prove to be effective near-term measures. Over time, these areas can be encouraged to become denser with more transit-oriented development along the corridor supporting additional invest- ments in transit service. On the basis of demographics and geography, some zones will likely maintain their automobile-oriented character while others will be aggressively developed as transit-oriented areas. As regional growth proceeds and congestion effects accumu- late over time, supportive policies should be in place to allow low-density nodes to transform themselves, providing more opportunities for density and mix of use on the land use side and increasing transit service options to include new access points on the transportation side. Right-of-Way and Design Considerations Right-of-way must be acquired for the construction of transportation facilities, and topography and land uses will constrain the options and opportunities. The grade, curvature, and cross-sectional dimensions of each component, as well as the degree of offset (or conversely, co-alignment) of right-of- way reserved for each direction of each mode, will dictate the cost of a corridor alternative.5, 6 The dimensions of the right-of-way are affected significantly by the level of co-alignment between the transit component and the roadway. All together, a minimal urban freeway ROW will be roughly 60 feet.6 Levinson recommends 12 feet in TCRP Report 90 for each dedicated bus lane (for a total of 24 feet), 28 feet for a center or set of side platforms (at station locations), and an additional 8 feet for two barriers between the freeway and the bus-way, totaling an additional 60 feet.7 The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) recommends roughly 80 feet of ROW to provide adequate width for a double-track rail line and station plat- forms,6 although rail lines such as that seen in the median of the Dan Ryan Expressway in Chicago use a ROW as narrow as 60 feet. Cost, equity, and environmental concerns are the secondary impediments that can also limit options. Preliminary designs that involve an accumulation of minor deviations from co- alignment (often due to a mature built environment) pose significant design challenges. Heavy rail cars, typically faster and with more carrying capacity, require more right-of-way. Vehicles traveling at higher speeds require smoother grade transitions. These factors have repercussions on corridor performance and marketability. The development of higher- performance light rail vehicles may mitigate some speed benefits of heavy rail, but there are tradeoffs in capacity. Multimodal concepts making effective use of BRT effectively circumvent these concerns and, even when ultimately travel demand community preferences are for fixed-rail options, BRT can provide a flexible first phase of multimodal corridor service. Elevated, At-grade, or Underground? Co-alignment of the transit and freeway components of a facility where the freeway facility was designed and built first, typically occur only as a result of the subsequent conversion of existing shoulder, median, or travel lane capacity. The feasibility of retrofitting a freeway facility with transit is greatly enhanced if the freeway is at-grade because elevated freeway structures require complex and extensive structures to support them—structures that typically would complicate retrofitting for transit. Tunneled and trenched freeways have similar limitations. When a new freeway is built, it can (and should) be designed to allow a future transit facility. Platforms Along with conventional transit planning standards and objectives, multimodal stations and station areas should be 5Parkinson, T. & I. Fisher, “Rail Transit Capacity,” Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 13, Washington D.C.: National Academy Press, 1996. 6American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 1994 7Levinson, H. et al., TCRP Report 90: Bus Rapid Transfer; Voume 1: Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2003.

102 designed to emphasize their role in maximizing user travel and lifestyle options. As such, a new paradigm should provide exemplary ADA access and accommodation. For the corridor to be attractive, access points (stations and interchanges) need to emphasize acceptable proximity to desired activities. Design factors are important in this regard since the benefits of reducing the perceived time cost of access is disproportionately larger than improvements in actual cost.8, 9 Benefits in access time are valued more than bene- fits in line haul travel time. Designers of multimodal facilities and supportive environments should recognize that con- venience is not necessarily synonymous with line-haul cor- ridor travel speed. Practical Planning Tools Many approaches applicable to any kind of infrastructure project are particularly critical to the success of new paradigm projects. It should be recognized that the success of new par- adigm multimodal project development depends in part on how deftly advocates can use conventional planning tools to overcome obstacles to multimodal investments. The experience documented in several multimodal freeway corridor case studies demonstrates that the actions of key individuals can be the difference between success and failure in guiding a multimodal corridor project to completion and that these leaders typically rely on the same tools available in most contexts in order to achieve their objectives. General guidance would be to • Use routine processes to advance a region’s multimodal potential, • Focus on quality design and service, • Identify potential linkages, sharing, and trades, • Prioritize access area land uses and connectivity, • Identify flexible and incremental multimodal opportunities. Use Routine Processes to Advance a Region’s New Paradigm Potential In the course of normal corridor planning all options should be on the table, and planning organizations should routinely incorporate multimodal alternatives in corridor plans and corridor management plans (see Table C-1). It is important that early in the project conceptualization and planning process, project champions lay the ground- work for consideration of new paradigm projects. In many instances, an effective environmental review process has given project participants a golden opportunity to conduct outreach. Development of multimodal facilities combines a wide range of skill sets and brings together actors who do not always interact. Advantages result from delegating staff to collabo- rate in project-focused institutions where the mission of de- veloping the corridor can be prioritized and communications and decision making made more efficient. Federal and state agencies are aware of the complications inherent in planning and deploying major infrastructures and encourage specific practices to address these.10, 11, 12 Focus on Quality Design and Service Providing a mix of differentiated transportation services allows travel benefits to be experienced more seamlessly across travel sub-markets. When access points (interchanges and transit stations) are designed to be good fits with the community they reside in, this contributes to the identity and acceptance of the corridor. Single-mode access points, whether interchanges, platforms, or other structures, should address design challenges arising from the convergence of multiple streams of traffic in a small area (see Table C-2). Good design can offset or eliminate negative outcomes and perceptions about accessing and transferring along the corridor. Identify Potential Linkages, Sharing, and Trades Linkages are institutionalized relationships and connec- tions among stakeholders around issues common to them (see Table C-3). Relying on and fostering linkages gives multimodal corridors promise as a potential foundation of balanced and sustainable regional growth. Economic growth and demographic changes not only bring considerable benefits to a region but also incur significant economic, environmental, and social costs. Under the new paradigm, each multimodal corridor can help organize that 8Kato, Hironori & Axhausen “Value of Travel Time Savings Incorporating the Value of Access,” Presented at the First International Time Use Observatory Workshop, Santiago De Chile, 2009. 9Metz, David “The Myth of Travel Time Savings,” Transport Reviews, Volume 28, Issue 3, London, 2008. 10FHWA, ACTION: SEP-15 Application Process, Memorandum, October 14, 2004, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/contracts/101404.cfm 11AASHTO, “Transportation Invest in our Future—Accelerating Project Delivery” http://www.transportation1.org/tif7report/why_trans.html 12APTA Recommendations on Federal Public Transportation Authorizing Law http://www.apta.com/gap/legissues/authorization/Documents/apta_ authorization_recommendations.pdf

103 Tool/Approach Use Relevance for Multimodal Corridor Development Common Area of Application Corridor Plans …document and evaluate comprehensive alternatives for corridor circulation and land use. Build political support for specific project alternatives. …allow for direct comparison between multimodal and other corridor options and recommendation of alternatives and action items to pursue multimodal investment. Highlight the ways multimodal alternatives provide benefits beyond highway expansion – only projects. Alternatives Analysis; Policy Implementation Corridor Management Plans …identify and evaluate specific options for detailed design and management for operational improvements …can bring focus to changes that will improve multimodal performance or enhance the long-term potential of a corridor for major investments in multimodal infrastructure System Management; Alternatives Analysis; Policy Implementation Integrated Planning and Environmental Review …allows for the simultaneous completion of studies and documentation required to complete long-range plans and obtain clearances. …provides a basis for identifying preferred multimodal alternatives and establishing the environmental costs and benefits in light of other alternatives. Fast-Track Project Delivery Programmatic Agreements …pre-establish compliance for defined categories of project based on pre- negotiated conditions among review agencies. …provide a model for the rapid review of multimodal projects conforming to predetermined characteristics. Programmatic agreements offer the possibility of institutionalizing the benefits of multimodal projects with respect to regulatory review. Fast-Track Project Delivery Table C-1. Applying routine planning tools to new paradigm corridor development. Tool/Approach Use Relevance for Multimodal Corridor Development Common Area of Application Congestion Roadway Pricing/ Off-peak Transit Discounts …provides system users with monetary feedback on the variable cost of system use at different times. …establishes direct financial links between roadway and peak transit use and the expansion of multimodal capacity. Allows users to manage their own mobility in light of alternative activity and travel patterns. Corridor Finance/ Management Schedule-Free Transit Service …facilitates user trip planning and improves travel time reliability by implementing high frequency service on key corridors and establishing headways rather than arrival and departure times …provides a model for dependable transit service appropriate to “final- phase” high-intensity multimodal corridor development. Provides an incremental improvement option with high-patronage rapid bus transit Transit Service Planning User Information Systems …facilitates user trip planning and travel response by supplying real-time information on sources of delay or changes in travel options …supports informed mode choice and real-time mid-trip mode transfer decisions to better exploit the reliability benefit of the multimodal system. Intelligent Transportation Systems; Corridor Management Smart Fare/Toll Collection …minimizes system access and transfer penalty by allowing convenient payment of fares and tolls seamlessly across modes and operators. …promises to eliminate an impediment to mode transfer through integration of payment of fares, tolls, and parking fees. This maximizes traveler utility of the corridor by allowing mode switching Intelligent Transportation Systems; Transit Service Planning Vehicle Sharing …provides automobile access to non owners …encourages multimodal patronage by eliminating transit dependence as a liability along the corridor and maximizing flexibility and choice for corridor use. Transportation Demand Management Table C-2. Encouraging quality multimodal designs and service.

104 growth and minimize the associated costs. By definition, multi- modal corridors are collaborative, multi-jurisdictional, and multidisciplinary endeavors, so they provide an opportunity for comprehensive planning. The corridor concept provides a planning framework for maintaining the regional benefits and minimizing many of the costs, and, in fact, a portion of the benefits to pay the costs. There should be a greater likelihood that linkages can be established precisely because multimodal corridor projects bring together more stakeholders than do other projects. This can support the aggregation of local funding, sharing the planning burden, and trading of local rights and resources within a regionally defined framework. Prioritize Access Area Land Use and Connectivity Regional policies that support compact development will enhance transit orientation, and these policies must be Tool/Approach Use Relevance for Multimodal Corridor Development Common Area of Application Land Costs Underwriting …provides public leverage to private partners in the acquisition and consolidation of land. …has proven a valuable tool for assembling suitable parcels for high- density development in transit station areas. Transit-Oriented Development Tax Exempt Bonds …are attractive because they off set some of the risk carried by investors, allowing for lower financing costs. …can facilitate regionwide participation in corridor development through bond initiatives. Corridor Finance; Transit-Oriented Development Tax Increment Financing …seeks to capture value of future tax revenues flowing from development to finance the infrastructure that development requires. …monetizes the expected benefit of multimodal development in supporting sustainable growth and links this to the funding requirements to let such investment happen. Corridor Finance; Transit-Oriented Development Joint Development …encompasses isolated agreement and broad authority for cost and/or revenue sharing arrangements between transit agencies or local governments and private developers. …formalizes the connections between the project participants and private interests that drive land use and activity patterns toward transit- supportive mixes and densities. Transit-Oriented Development Transferable Development Rights …allows property owners in controlled or restricted development low-density areas to benefit from the sale of their development rights to high-density areas with high development pressure. …creates a market mechanism for focusing and organizing regional growth patterns along sustainable multimodal growth “armatures.” Regional Growth Management Transportation Benefit Districts …allow for communities to be assessed to finance transportation improvements. …provide a basis for individual communities to achieve desired corridor access conditions on the front end of project development and a model for funding infrastructure corridor wide. Corridor Finance Capital Funding Transfers …include grants and other funds awarded from one government body to another to fund capital improvements, meeting mutual planning goals. …allow regional and higher level bodies to incentivize the participation of local governments and eliminates a hurdle where inter-jurisdictional infrastructure partnerships are not workable for legal or administrative reasons. Corridor Finance; Transit-Oriented Development Tax Credits …are awarded to individuals and developments satisfying beneficial criteria, e.g. project density and mix of activities. …provide incentives for private market decisions to establish land use and activity trends to support multimodal patronage and performance. Transit-Oriented Development Special Districts …are territorial government entities organized to be independent of cities and counties. Enabling legislation can empower special districts to undertake planning functions, redevelopment, and even assess fees and taxes. …provide a model for designating an entire corridor as a regional special district with corridor-specific, multimodal planning and fiscal policies and implementation power. Transit-Oriented Development Table C-3. Tools to maximize linkages.

105 applied at station areas to help the corridor evolve, station by station, toward multimodal success (see Table C-4). A goal of the corridor may be to reduce the prevalence of automobile- supportive infrastructure (for example, parking) over time as the market will bear these changes. Converting some parking areas to transit-oriented development may be pos- sible. New or redeveloped areas in the vicinity of stations could incorporate context-sensitive designs that emphasize walkability. Identify Flexible and Incremental Multimodal Opportunities Flexible and gradual development of multimodal freeway facilities may be desirable in some cases. This is particularly so when resources are limited or markets are underdeveloped. In these cases, provisions should be made for developing the multimodal potential of corridors, flexibly and/or in stages over time (see Table C-5). Tool/Approach Use Relevance for Multimodal Corridor Development Common Area of Application Planning Grants …enable states, MPOs and other regional bodies to support regional goals by providing funding for planning efforts that fall outside the normal range of activities conducted at the local level. By targeting the funding to compact transit-oriented development near key stations, corridor planners acquire leverage over local land use and activity patterns even when there is no inter-jurisdictional authority. Fast-Track Project Delivery; Livability Planning Overlay Zones …provide additional specificity to guide development within planning areas. For multimodal corridors, overlay zoning can guide station areas toward density, mix of uses, and design features that improve access. …can force the development around corridor access points to fit a profile consistent with the market objectives of the corridor as a whole and specifically to achieve desired mix and density at planned transit-oriented locations along the corridor. Transit-Oriented Development Density Bonuses …allow developers to respond to strong demand by increasing unit densities and floor area ratios above normal limits …can induce the development around corridor access points for planned transit-oriented locations along the corridor. Transit-Oriented Development Connective Design .. improves access among commercial and residential locations in the access areas, reducing or eliminating automobile dependence for neighborhood trips. … supports automobile independence and enhances the marketability of multimodal corridor access points. Transit-Oriented Development Table C-4. Encouraging supportive land uses around multimodal projects. Tool/Approach Use Relevance for Multimodal Corridor Development Common Area of Application Express and Limited Bus Service … combines travel on segments of freeway and parallel arterial facilities, maximizing HOV and transit priority infrastucture. …can support constituencies for transit service in undeveloped and growing markets, including low-density land use environments. Transit Service Planning Bus Bridges …provide connections between other modes, including fixed-rail transit systems or ferry systems, expanding the market for transit use. …can revive demand for existing transit services and support significant improvement in regional automobile free mobility for minimal investment. Transit Service Planning Demonstration Bus Rapid Transit …allows for proof of concept demonstration of the viability of multimodal connections for limited investment. …can spur interest in permanent multimodal alternatives on subject corridor and alternate corridors and places multimodal alternatives on list of viable options for regional mobility needs. Transit Service Planning Table C-5. Encouraging flexible and incremental multimodal options.

106 Investments in small-scale and flexible multimodal facilities will weigh the tradeoffs of construction investments against the actual or expected benefits of operational accommodations to maximize corridor performance. Construction investments in incrementally achieved multimodal facilities will be limited to specific portions of the corridor that can be funded through pre-existing programs addressing regional congestion man- agement, context sensitivity, or transportation enhancement objectives. An obvious impediment to success arises from limited experience with planning and implementing multimodal projects. A benefit of flexible approaches is that there is an opportunity to develop the proficiency of planners and managers as they develop the skills and relationships required for successful collaboration. A second benefit is that incre- mental approaches support routine evaluation and course correction if the costs and benefits of outcomes do not meet expectations.