National Academies Press: OpenBook

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

Chapter: Appendix D - Existing Multimodal Corridor Case Studies

« Previous: Appendix C - Applying Conventional Planning Concepts Toward a New Paradigm
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Existing Multimodal Corridor Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14579.
×
Page 107
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Existing Multimodal Corridor Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14579.
×
Page 108
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Existing Multimodal Corridor Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14579.
×
Page 109
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Existing Multimodal Corridor Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14579.
×
Page 110
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Existing Multimodal Corridor Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14579.
×
Page 111
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Existing Multimodal Corridor Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14579.
×
Page 112
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Existing Multimodal Corridor Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14579.
×
Page 113
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Existing Multimodal Corridor Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14579.
×
Page 114
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Existing Multimodal Corridor Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14579.
×
Page 115
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Existing Multimodal Corridor Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14579.
×
Page 116
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Existing Multimodal Corridor Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14579.
×
Page 117
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Existing Multimodal Corridor Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14579.
×
Page 118
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Existing Multimodal Corridor Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14579.
×
Page 119
Page 120
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Existing Multimodal Corridor Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14579.
×
Page 120
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Existing Multimodal Corridor Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14579.
×
Page 121
Page 122
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Existing Multimodal Corridor Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14579.
×
Page 122
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Existing Multimodal Corridor Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14579.
×
Page 123
Page 124
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Existing Multimodal Corridor Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14579.
×
Page 124
Page 125
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Existing Multimodal Corridor Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14579.
×
Page 125
Page 126
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Existing Multimodal Corridor Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14579.
×
Page 126
Page 127
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Existing Multimodal Corridor Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14579.
×
Page 127
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Existing Multimodal Corridor Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14579.
×
Page 128
Page 129
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Existing Multimodal Corridor Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14579.
×
Page 129
Page 130
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Existing Multimodal Corridor Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14579.
×
Page 130
Page 131
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Existing Multimodal Corridor Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14579.
×
Page 131
Page 132
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Existing Multimodal Corridor Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14579.
×
Page 132
Page 133
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Existing Multimodal Corridor Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14579.
×
Page 133
Page 134
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Existing Multimodal Corridor Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14579.
×
Page 134
Page 135
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Existing Multimodal Corridor Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14579.
×
Page 135
Page 136
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Existing Multimodal Corridor Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14579.
×
Page 136
Page 137
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Existing Multimodal Corridor Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14579.
×
Page 137
Page 138
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Existing Multimodal Corridor Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14579.
×
Page 138
Page 139
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Existing Multimodal Corridor Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14579.
×
Page 139
Page 140
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Existing Multimodal Corridor Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14579.
×
Page 140
Page 141
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Existing Multimodal Corridor Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14579.
×
Page 141
Page 142
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Existing Multimodal Corridor Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14579.
×
Page 142
Page 143
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Existing Multimodal Corridor Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14579.
×
Page 143
Page 144
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Existing Multimodal Corridor Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14579.
×
Page 144
Page 145
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Existing Multimodal Corridor Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14579.
×
Page 145

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.

107 To understand the characteristics of multimodal highway corridors, how they function, and what the best configurations might be for future deployments, this study surveyed existing multimodal highway corridors. The survey focused mostly on those within the United States. The following criteria were used to screen and select these case studies: • Access-limited highway facility (freeway) • High-capacity transit facility (heavy, light, or commuter rail transit, or bus rapid transit) • Transit and highway should run roughly parallel and be no more than one-half mile apart Data collection on existing multimodal highway corridors was performed using a combination of web searches, discus- sions with team members, and input from the project’s panel members. Multimodal Corridors in the United States Los Angeles Region The Los Angeles urbanized area has a population of about 12 million, of which more than 10 million live in Los Angeles County and 4 million reside within the city of Los Angeles. Employment in the 20 square mile central business district exceeds 200,000. Many daily travelers are served by extensive freeway and public transit systems. The area has more than 40 miles of bus and rail transit lines located in or alongside freeways, although about half of the mileage is also used by car and van pools. Most of the 20-mile Green Line LRT is in the median of the Century Freeway (I-110). Some three miles of the 14-mile Gold Line LRT are in the median of the Foothills Freeway (I-210). The 12-mile San Bernardino Transitway (buses and three-person car pools) operates within the median or alongside the I-10 freeway. An 11-mile Transitway (for buses and car pools) is elevated over the Harbor Freeway. These facilities are important complements to the rail and bus rapid transit systems; the regional HOV and freeway network serves the second largest urban region in the United States. Los Angeles Harbor Freeway (I-110)/ Harbor Transitway Corridor Limits From: Artesia Transit Center To: 37th Street Transitway Station Context and Project Development History In the mid-1970s, Southern California’s Regional Transit District (SCRTD), California Department of Transporta- tion (Caltrans), and other regional transportation agencies began to study the prospects for a regional rapid transit system that would include both bus and rail options along major regional transportation corridors. In 1976, the U.S. Depart- ment of Transportation (US DOT) approved $11.08 million for studying these options, with most of those funds (about $7.8 million) allocated to Caltrans to study freeway transit and highway-related alternatives. As the decade progressed, inter- est in freeway corridor transit options, in particular those involving bus rapid transit along freeway facilities, intensified. In 1978, Caltrans and SCRTD selected two high-priority cor- ridors, the Harbor Freeway and Santa Ana corridors. After study and community outreach, the Harbor corridor transit- way project was selected based in part on the low costs of construction estimated for the project and the lack of any significant neighborhood opposition in the corridor to the proposed project.1 In 1980, Caltrans completed a Draft Initial A P P E N D I X D Existing Multimodal Corridor Case Studies 1Interview with Frank Quon, Caltrans, 11/12/09.

108 Study/Environmental Assessment for the Harbor Freeway Cor- ridor. Five years later, the final EIS was complete, the adminis- trative hurdles had been overcome, and the project was ready for construction.2 But more delays were in the offing, as federal funding constraints led Caltrans to recommend that the tran- sitway project (which would involve the construction of ele- vated bus lanes over the existing Harbor Freeway) be delayed.3 By 1989, funding had been secured and construction began on the Harbor Transitway.4 Caltrans was identified as the lead agency, but the partnership included SCRTD, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and others. No joint powers agreements or other new project-specific agencies were formed for the project.5 Construction was largely complete by 1996 and the official opening of the Transitway to buses and carpoolers occurred on June 26th 1996.6 Design Features Carpool and transit lanes were installed in a separate road- way as part of rebuilding the Harbor Freeway Interstate 110. The lanes extend about 11 miles, and seven bus stations are provided at key intersecting roads. Two HOV lanes are pro- vided each direction from Martin Luther King Boulevard to Interstate 105; single lanes run between that point and State Route 91 in each direction. The transitway right-of-way, which primarily runs down the median of the Harbor Freeway, was already owned by Caltrans,7 so very little land acquisition was required. The two-lane transitway is generally elevated above the general purpose lanes. This elevated alignment was specif- ically chosen in order to minimize the environmental im- pacts on the corridor’s neighborhoods.8 Stations In general, transit stations on the Harbor Freeway are con- sistent in their design with all but the Artesia Station (located adjacent to the freeway/transitway) located in the freeway median. Since there are no sound barriers between the station platforms and the adjacent freeway lanes (see Figure D-1), bus riders waiting on the platforms endure very noisy condi- tions (70 to 90 decibels).9 As buses approach the stations they cross over so that bus doors are alongside the station plat- forms.10 Buses entering stations are given the right-of-way. Pedestrian access to the Transitway’s stations is difficult, in part due to their placement within the freeway right-of-way, but further compounded by inadequate signage. Improved signage would better direct and encourage pedestrians to venture into the automobile-dominated freeway environment. Therefore, many people in the Transitway corridor may not be aware of the existence of these stations, let alone how to access them. This lack of pedestrian signage is in stark contrast to the ample number of signboards indicating directions to the automobile driver for the 110 Freeway.11 Pedestrians are further discouraged from accessing the stations from surrounding neighborhoods due to narrow and unsafe station-area side- walks. According to a study of the Transitway’s design and how it affects patronage, “. . . most of the stations look empty and forlorn, and provide little chance for people to interact with each other,” and, “The waiting areas are not accommodated with sufficiently attractive features or amenities, such as art, sculptures, or landscaping.”12 2Banerjee, T., et al., “Highway Oriented Transit System: A Comprehensive Land Use/Transportation Strategy to Improve Transit Service Delivery A Case Study of (I-110) Harbor Transitway Stations,” METRANS Transportation Center, April 30, 2001. 3Trombley, W. “El Monte Busway Is Rousing but Solitary Success in L.A,” Los Angeles Times, September 26, 1985. http://articles.latimes.com/1985-09-26/ news/mn-1357_1_el-monte 4Feldman, P. “Harbor Freeway Double-Decking Gets Under Way,” Los Angeles Times, April 20, 1989. http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/66438055. html?dids=66438055:66438055&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&da te=Apr+20%2C+1989&author=PAUL+FELDMAN&pub=Los+Angeles+Times +%28pre-1997+Fulltext%29&desc=Harbor+Freeway+Double-Decking+Gets+ Under+Way&pqatl=google 5Interview with Frank Quon, Caltrans, 11/12/09. 6Simon, R. “Street Smart; High Rolling; New Elevated Roadway Offers Fast, Quiet Ride Above Harbor Freeway,” Los Angeles Times, June 26, 1996. 7Interview with Frank Quon, Caltrans, 11/12/09. 8Interview with Frank Quon, Caltrans, 11/12/09. Source: Courtesy of METRANS Transportation Center. Figure D-1. 37th Street Station in the median of the I-110 Freeway/Harbor Transitway. 9Banerjee, T., et al., “Freeway Bus Station Area Development: Critical Evaluation and Design Guidelines—A Case Study of (I-110) Harbor Transitway Stations,” METRANS Transportation Center, Metrans Project 00-12, July 1, 2005. 10Note: if buses also had doors on the left side, the crossing could be eliminated and the operation simplified. 11Ibid, Banerjee, T., et al., 2005. 12Ibid, Banerjee, T., et al., 2005, p. 5-1

109 Operations Buses using the Transitway include six LA Metro and two Orange County Express bus routes. City of Gardena and City of Torrance buses also operate on sections of the Transitway. As with other busways, various routes use portions of the Transitway and then disperse to other communities in the region. The land use is heavily commercial and industrial at either end of the Transitway with some residential land use in between. Metro Routes 444, 446, 447, 450, and 460 use most of the Transitway. Route 445 uses the Transitway and the HOV lanes; it runs from Exposition Park to San Pedro. Orange County Express bus lines 701 and 721 go from Huntington Beach and Fullerton, respectively, to downtown Los Angeles on the Harbor Transitway. Service is concentrated in peak periods. Buses running along the Transitway include Orange County Transit bus lines and six LA Metro Express buses. The bus running times for the facility total 19 minutes—resulting in an average speed of 35 miles per hour (mph). Patronage • 4,100 average weekday boardings (estimated for study corridor) on the Transitway.13 • Highway I-110: – 298,000 vehicle-trips per weekday (estimated for study corridor) on I-110. – 387,400 person-trips per weekday (estimated for study corridor) on I-110. Several factors contribute to the low bus ridership: (1) the freeway and Transitway are located in a “gore” between major population concentrations; (2) the stations are relatively inaccessible to pedestrians or transferring patrons; (3) the station environment is isolated and is noisy from the passing freeway traffic; (4) service frequency varies widely throughout the day; and (5) the Blue Line light rail line is located nearby, runs parallel to the Transitway, runs more frequently, and costs less to use. A survey of patrons in 2005 found that the top five prob- lems they faced using the Harbor Transitway were (1) Ir- regular and unreliable frequency of bus service, with roughly 41 percent of respondents picking it as the primary difficulty; (2) Poor noise protection at the station, with 28 percent of respondents selecting this as a major problem; (3) Poor station area maintenance came in as the third biggest problem (25%); (4) The presence of trash at the sta- tions (22.%); and (5) The presence of homeless people at the stations (17%).14 Benefits Buses using the Transitway average 35 mph. This speed substantially exceeds the 15 to 20 mph express bus speeds achieved on city streets. Los Angeles Green Line/Century Freeway Corridor Limits From: Norwalk Station To: Redondo Station Context and Project Development History The Green Line was built as a precondition for building the Century Freeway (I-105) and was part of the consent decree signed by Caltrans in 1979. It serves the communities of Manhattan Beach, El Segundo, Hawthorne, Lynwood, South Gate, Los Angeles, and Norwalk. While the Century Freeway was established in plans as early as 1958, the changing development patterns of the Los Angeles region meant that the freeway’s path would have to cut through established suburban neighborhoods. The freeway’s right-of-way from Norwalk to El Segundo travels through traditionally minority and poor neighborhoods such as Hawthorne, Inglewood, and Downey. While many of the freeways previously constructed in the Los Angeles region could take advantage of ample and inexpensive land—often right-of-way from the recently defunct Interurban transit system—the Century Freeway would come to represent the future of freeway construction in the region in terms of the obstacles faced, the political fights that would occur, and the bargains that would be struck.15 Beginning in 1958, the California Division of Highways (which later changed its name to Caltrans) proposed and studied six alternate alignments for the freeway, all within a few blocks of each other. In the mid-1960s, a preferred alignment was selected and property owners along the proposed path began to receive notices of their evictions. However, one family living in the path of the proposed freeway chose to fight the plan in court. They were soon joined by the City of Hawthorne (which would be bisected by the proposed 13Ridership is for Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Agency (LA MTA) bus only. Data for Orange County Transportation Agency (OCTA) buses that run along this facility could not be obtained. 14Ibid, Banerjee, T., et al., 2005. 15Ellars, M. S. “Never Again: The Century Freeway,” March 31, 1998, accessed on August 26, 2009, http://msenet.org/three/shell/chambers/century.txt.

110 alignment), the Sierra Club (which claimed that the region’s air quality would worsen once the freeway was completed, not improve as the State’s Environmental Impact Statement asserted), and the NAACP as co-litigants. In 1972, their lawsuit succeeded in winning an injunction against the project and a court order to conduct a more thorough Environmental Impact Statement. After 7 years of study, all parties signed a consent decree that would allow the project to continue, with modifications. Not until 1981, when several amendments were signed to the consent decree, did construction begin anew. These critical amendments included the inclusion of the light rail line down the median of the freeway and the conversion of the planned freeway lanes from eight “mixed-flow” to six with two high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes.16 Construction on the Green Line began in 1987 and when completed in 1995, cost $718 million dollars.17 Since opening, the following three criticisms have been leveled against the Green Line: • Lack of Connections to Major Activity Centers: The line was constructed in a circumferential alignment to down- town Los Angeles, meaning it does not serve the region’s largest activity center. It also skirts the Los Angeles Inter- national (LAX) Airport and relies on a shuttle service to take passengers from the nearest station to the terminals.18 Although originally planned (and partially constructed) to connect with LAX, there were concerns that the overhead lines of the rail would interfere with the landing paths of airplanes. Furthermore, the owners of parking lots surrounding LAX were fearful that the train would create competition, since there is ample free parking at numerous points along the Green Line. When the project was con- ceived in the 1970s, the defense industry employed thou- sands in the corridor cities of El Segundo and Redondo Beach, but these businesses suffered large contractions and layoffs, depriving the transit line of a reliable ridership base.19 • Inadequate Project Justification: The project was origi- nally conceived in the 1970s in response to opposition to the proposed Century Freeway’s route which was planned to pass through established urban communities. The route would require the acquisition and demolition of hundreds of homes and businesses. Opponents of the project filed law- suits to block the freeway. As part of a 1979 court-mandated consent decree, the Green Line was part of a compromise between the state and the freeway opponents.20 However, critics of the project argued that the Green Line was not justified as a stand-alone transit project and was unduly placed as a higher priority compared to other regional transit projects as part of a political bargain to build the Century Freeway. However, Green Line project propo- nents saw it as an opportunity to build both projects at the same time, at a lower total cost.21 • Poor Design of Freeway Median Stations: The Green Line has nine stations located in the median of the Century Freeway, creating aesthetic and physical discouragements for transit riders to use them. High noise, airborne dirt and particulate matter levels on the platforms are generated by the adjacent freeway travel lanes. The long walks to the platforms from bus stops, park-and-ride lots, and adjacent communities often include flights of stairs and multiple ramps or bridges that cross over or under freeway travel lanes and other structures. These conditions are generally thought to discourage transit ridership.22 Design Features The 20-mile 14-station Green Line opened in 1995. Some 16 miles and 9 stations are located in the median of the Century Freeway (I-105 between Hawthorne and I-605). The fully grade-separated line interchanges with the Harbor Transitway and with the Blue Line LRT between downtown Los Angeles and Long Beach. Stations Center-island high-platform stations are provided within the freeway median. There are about 6,700 park-and-ride spaces along the Green Line, of which about 5,500 are at stations along I-105. The largest facilities are at the Norwalk Station (with 2,050 spaces) and the Imperial Station (with 975 spaces). Operations The Green Line operates a single service from 4:30 A.M. to 12:30 A.M. the following day. A fleet of 34 Light Rail Vehicles (LRVs) is used. Trains run at maximum headways of about 7 minutes during peak periods and headways up to 20 minutes during off-peak periods. The end-to-end travel time for the 20-mile line is 35 minutes. The high operating speeds of 16Ibid, Ellars, M. S. 17Mieger, D., Chu, C., “The Los Angeles Metro Green Line: Why Are People Rid- ing the Line to Nowhere”, Compendium of Technical Papers, 86th Annual Meet- ing, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., January 2007. 18Mieger, D., Chu, C., “The Los Angeles Metro Green Line: Why Are People Rid- ing the Line to Nowhere”, Compendium of Technical Papers, 86th Annual Meet- ing, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., January 2007. 19http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Green_Line_%28LACMTA%29 20Mieger, D., Chu, C., “The Los Angeles Metro Green Line: Why Are People Rid- ing the Line to Nowhere”, Compendium of Technical Papers, 86th Annual Meet- ing, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., January 2007. 21Mieger, D., Chu, C., “The Los Angeles Metro Green Line: Why Are People Rid- ing the Line to Nowhere”, Compendium of Technical Papers, 86th Annual Meet- ing, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., January 2007. 22Mieger, D., Chu, C., “The Los Angeles Metro Green Line: Why Are People Rid- ing the Line to Nowhere”, Compendium of Technical Papers, 86th Annual Meet- ing, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., January 2007.

111 about 38 miles per hour are a result of the wide 1.5 mile station spacing. Patronage • 37,000 average weekday boardings (estimated for study corridor) on the Green line. • century freeway: – 258,000 vehicle-trips per weekday (estimated for study corridor) on I-105. – 335,400 person-trips per weekday (estimated for study corridor) on I-105. Ridership on the Green Line has grown steadily from an average of 13,650 weekday boardings in 1996 to 37,490 riders in 2006. This growth is attributed to a strong feeder bus network, high operating speeds, and connectivity with the Blue Line23. A review of Fiscal 2006–2007 rail passenger weekday activ- ity by station indicates the following: • The largest eastbound boardings are at Imperial/Wilmington [Blue Line Connection (3,160)] and Aviation (2,560). • The largest westbound boardings are at Imperial/Wilmington (5,200) and I-605/I-105 (3,880). • The largest eastbound alightings are at Imperial/Wilmington (5,270) and I-605/I-105 (4,110). • The largest westbound alightings are at Imperial/Wilmington (3,220) and Aviation (3,000). Some highlights of rider surveys are as follows: A. Income less than $15,000 40% $15000–$50,000 40% Over $50,000 20% B. Car Availability 37% C. A.M. Peak Hour: See Table D-1. Benefits The corridor scores high in providing a multimodal facility within a combined right-of-way, and it has substantially reduced travel times by public transportation. Assessment The line has had little land use impact—even where it crosses the Blue Line. Access to stations is difficult. The line comes close to, but does not directly serve, the Los Angeles Inter- national Airport. The line’s eastern terminus is 2 miles short of the heavily used Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs Metrolink Station where several Metrolink commuter rail lines operate. Thus, the line has no major anchor—usually a prerequisite for rail transit development. Some contend this is a train “from nowhere to nowhere.” However, the line’s surprisingly high ridership levels have been attributed to • A strong bus feeder network providing a steady supply of transit riders, • The survival and partial rebound of the defense and aero- space industry (it was estimated to have the 10th largest employment concentration in the LA metropolitan area, with 54,000 jobs in 2004) in the corridor after the initial post-Cold War collapse, and • High running speeds and a direct connection to the Blue Line that facilitates train-to-train transfers for riders trav- eling to downtown Los Angeles.24 The Green Line, however, is important in several aspects from a “New Paradigm” perspective. It is the only crosstown (circumferential) multimodal corridor in North America. While it does not have any major land use anchor, it shows that high speeds and good connections to radial rapid transit lines can attract riders. Los Angeles Gold Line/I-210 Corridor Limits From: Mission Station To: Chinatown Station Context and Project Development History The 13.7-mile $740 million Gold Line was placed in ser- vice July, 2003. The 13-station line runs from Union Station 23Mieger, D., Chu, C., “The Los Angeles Metro Green Line: Why Are People Rid- ing the Line to Nowhere”, Compendium of Technical Papers, 86th Annual Meet- ing, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., January 2007. Access/ Egress Mode Access Egress Bus 43% 45% Car 28% 5% Walk 15% 28% Blue Line 12% 19% Other 2% 3% Total 100% 100% Source: Los Angeles Metro Table D-1. A.M. peak hour access/egress by mode for the Green Line. 24Mieger, D., Chu, C., “The Los Angeles Metro Green Line: Why Are People Riding the Line to Nowhere”, Compendium of Technical Papers, 86th Annual Meeting, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., January 2007.

112 at the eastern edge of downtown Los Angeles to Sierra Madre Villa. Several extensions are in progress or are being planned: • An Eastside extension connecting Union Station to Lit- tle Tokyo, Boyle Heights, and East Los Angeles is sched- uled to open by the end of 2009. There will be twin 1.7- mile tunnels with two underground stations on this extension. • A Foothills Freeway extension from the terminus on the east side of Pasadena to the City of Azusa is in the final design stage (2008). Opening is reportedly scheduled for 2010. • A planned extension to Montclair is scheduled for 2010. This segment would be entirely above ground with a small portion in the median of I-210. The initial concept for the Gold Line was to connect it via subway to the Blue Line LRT, thereby providing several stops in downtown Los Angeles, and allowing through service between Pasadena and Long Beach. In contrast, the connection to East Los Angeles under construction will still require trans- fers at Union Station to the Red Line subway. As part of an initiative in 1980 to pass a half-cent sales tax increase to fund county transportation projects (Proposi- tion A), the Los Angeles County Transportation Commis- sion (LACTC) presented a plan to the voters for a regional network of rail transit lines, including a line from down- town Los Angeles to Pasadena. In 1992, the LACTC (having merged with the Los Angeles Regional Transit District to form the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transpor- tation Authority [LACMTA]), acquired a 38-mile-long BNSF right-of-way from Los Angeles to Claremont (pass- ing through Pasadena). Construction of the line began in 1994 and was scheduled for completion by 2001, but the project was halted in 1995 due to cost overruns, engineer- ing complications, and charges of favoritism in the award- ing of contracts by LACMTA. To reduce costs, a station (Avenue 51 at Highland Park) was eliminated and a stan- dard design for all stations was implemented (with the ex- ception of a few designated “landmark” stations which were deemed tourist “gateways”). During this period, serious consideration was given to eliminating the Pasadena Blue Line (later to be renamed as the Gold Line) altogether. However, the cities of Pasadena, South Pasadena, and Los Angeles campaigned to keep the project alive, and State Senator Adam Schiff pushed through a bill that created the Pasadena Blue Line Construction Authority (PBLA) in 1999 that created a stand-alone construction agency charged with the completion of the project. The PBLA completed construction of the line to Pasadena in 2003, on time and under budget, at which time they transferred ownership and operational duties to LACMTA.25 Design Features The Gold Line mainly occupies the former BNSF right-of- way including a small portion of street running. Five miles with three stations—Lake, Allen, and Sierra Madre Villa— are located in the median of the eight-lane Foothills Freeway (I-10). The freeway and LRT line run in trench alignments through Pasadena. Stations Center-island stations are located in the freeway median. Each station is uniquely designed. For example, at the Lake Station, large scale black-and-white photo portraits of people are laminated within glass at the mezzanine level. At the Allen Station, paper cutouts and metal grillworks enhance the station entry. At the Sierra Madre Villa Station, the line’s current northern terminus, large-scale photo portraits of porcelain enamel street panels are suspended above the stairway access to platform areas. About 5,000 parking spaces are provided along the Gold Line of which 3,000 are at Union Station. Along the I-210 multi- modal section, there are 950 spaces at the Sierra Madre Villa Station and 100 at the Lake Station. Each of the three stations has connecting bus service. An intermodal transportation hub at the Sierra Madre Station is connected to the parking area and trains. Operations The Gold Line uses about 25 articulated light-rail vehicles. Each train car seats 76 passengers and has a rush-hour schedule design capacity of 144 passengers, including standees. The line operates three-car trains. Service operates from about 4 A.M. to 2 A.M. the next day. Trains run at 10-minute intervals during rush hours, 12-minute intervals midday, and 15- to 20-minute intervals during evening hours. One-way running time for the 13.7 mile trip is 36 minutes. Speeds average 23 miles per hour. Patronage • 21,500 average weekday boardings (estimated for study corridor) on the Gold Line. • State Route 210: – 186,000 vehicles per weekday (estimated for study cor- ridor) on State Route 210. – 241,800 vehicles per weekday (estimated for study cor- ridor) on State Route 210. 25http://www.publicartinla.com/Metroart/GoldLine/history.pdf

113 Benefits The Gold Line provides convenient and reliable access to many destinations en route. To build the Gold Line and capitalize on the benefits it has brought, the Pasadena Con- struction Authority was created. The Authority hopes to recoup roughly $30 million of the costs of building the line by developing excess land acquired during construction.26 A number of TOD projects have been proposed or built since this line’s opening, including Avenue 57 and Del Mar, in station areas within the City of Pasadena.27 Los Angeles El Monte Busway/San Bernardino (I-10) Freeway Corridor Limits From: El Monte Bus Terminal To: Union Station Context and Project Development History The I-10 (San Bernardino) Freeway corridor largely oc- cupies former Pacific Electric Interurban rail right-of-way between El Monte and downtown Los Angeles. The busway has one-way bus lanes built in the median strip or alongside the freeway, which are separated from the general-purpose traffic lanes by concrete barriers or a buffer lane with traffic posts. Downtown distribution is provided via city streets— Broadway inbound and the Spring Street contra-flow bus lane outbound. The busway was jointly developed by the Southern Cali- fornia Rapid Transit District (SCRTD) (now the Los Ange- les County MTA) and the California Department of Trans- portation in conjunction with the widening of the freeway. The 11-mile busway opened as a bus-only facility in 1972; its development costs were $57 million. A one-mile, $18- million extension into downtown Los Angeles opened in 1989. The busway was originally intended for bus-only op- erations and operated as such from 1973 to 1974, but was opened to vehicles with three or more occupants during the 68-day 1974 SCRTD strike. In 1976, the facility was opened to authorized carpools of three or more occupants from 6–10 A.M. and 3–7 P.M. After the strike ended, the use by carpools continued.28 In 1999, the State Legislature revised the state’s vehicle code to provide for an 18-month experiment that allowed two- person carpools. The reduction was in effect from January 1, 2000, to June 30, 2001. As a direct result, the number of people moved on the busway dropped. Many carpoolers previously forced to triple up moved to two-person car- pools. This increased traffic on the roadway and substan- tially increased congestion. As a result of the congestion, speeds on the busway dropped from 65 mph (105 km/h) before the experiment to 20 mph (32 km/h) during the experiment, while speeds in the mixed-flow lanes did not change significantly paradoxically making the busway slower than the regular lanes.29, 30 As a result of public out- rage, Assembly Bill 769 was passed in July 2000 that was an emergency measure to terminate the experiment during peak hours. After June 30, 2001, carpools again required a minimum 3 occupants per vehicle. Design Features The busway, when built, was the most complete busway in the United States with on-line stations, park-and-ride facilities, and feeder bus lanes. It includes a 5-mile barrier- separated segment and a 7-mile segment with a 10.5-foot-wide striped pavement buffer. The 6.6-mile section between El Monte and the Long Beach Freeway is located in the freeway median. A 20-foot railroad track and opening is maintained in the median and flanked by a median walk, a 17-foot busway, a 3-foot flexible post every 50 feet, a 10-foot common shoulder, and then four freeway lanes. A 3.8-mile section adjacent to the freeway between Mission Road and the Long Beach Freeway consists of a 54-foot two- way busway with 12-foot lanes, an 8-foot right shoulder, and a 4-foot left shoulder in each direction separated by a barrier. Contra-flow lanes exist west of the California State Univer- sity, Los Angeles, to the Santa Ana/San Bernardino Freeway interchange. The transposed operations facilitates access to and from the busway and allows common station platforms. Stations Three major on-line bus stations are located at El Monte, the university, and a large hospital complex. Five park-and- ride lots along the busway provide 2,425 spaces. The 2,100 space El Monte Station park-and-ride, the largest facility, is connected to the transitway by a bus-only ramp. A circular island platform provides convenient transfer between express and local (feeder) bus lines. 26Cervero, R., S. Murphy, C. Ferrell, N. Goguts, and Y. Tsai. Transit Oriented De- velopment in America: Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects. Transit Cooper- ative Research Program, Report No. 102., p. 333. 27Ibid, p. 413. 28http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Monte_Busway 29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Monte_Busway 30Turnbull, K. “Effects of Changing HOV Lane Occupancy Requirements: El Monte Busway Case Study,” FHWA-OP-03-002, June 2002. http://www.itsdocs. fhwa.dot.gov/JPODOCS/REPTS_TE/13692.html

114 LACMTA and Foothills Transit buses operate on the transitway. Seven express bus routes make 200 weekday trips along the 12-mile (19 km) transitway. One-way bus running time is 17 minutes resulting in operating speeds of more than 40 miles per hour. Patronage • 7,000 average weekday boardings (estimated for study cor- ridor) on the transitway. • Interstate 10: – 221,000 vehicles per weekday (estimated for study corridor) on Interstate 10. – 287,300 person-trips per weekday (estimated for study corridor) on Interstate 10. The San Bernardino (I-10) Freeway Transitway was initially restricted to buses only when it opened in 1973. The number of buses using the lanes and the ridership increased significantly during the first few years of operation and then grew slowly. Ridership increased from 1,000 to 14,500 passengers during the initial bus-only operating period; between 50 and 70 percent of the riders during this period previously drove alone31. The average daily bus ridership was 18,000 in 1994 and 19,400 in 1996, despite the introduction of Metrolink Rail service into the corridor. MTA reports daily boardings of 18,000 (as of 2001). The park-and-ride facility at the El Monte terminal was filled to capacity in the first few years, and the lack of parking space appears to have inhibited bus ridership growth. The number of peak-hour buses increased from 76 in 1998 to 84 in 200032; buses carried 2,750 passengers and 2,950 pas- sengers, respectively33. These numbers exceed the people carried per general occupancy lane. As a result during the peak hour (as of 1998), buses accounted for 17 percent of the total person movement, carpools 26 percent, and the remaining 57 percent were single-occupant cars in the four general purpose freeway lanes. This is contrasted with daily patronage estimates listed above that suggest a more modest 2 percent bus mode share of person-trips in this corridor. Benefits Busway users (with 3 or more person carpools) experience a significant speed advantage over travelers using the mixed- flow freeway lanes during peak periods. A 12-mile peak-hour trip required 48 minutes using mixed-flow lanes as compared with 17 minutes by a three-person car pool or bus trip. Denver Region Denver is the major center of the Rocky Mountain area with an urbanized area population of more than two million. Its central business district employment approximates 120,000, and CBD floor space approximates 24 million square feet. I-25, the major North-South expressway, has a major spur, I-225 to Aurora. Much commercial and residential development has located along both these interstate routes in southeast and eastern Denver, including the Denver Tech Center with an employ- ment that exceeds 50,000. Their junction has been reported as one of the busiest in the United States. RTD light rail began revenue service on October 7, 1994. RTD’s first light rail line, the Central Corridor, runs from 30th Avenue and Downing through the Five Points Business District and downtown Denver, by the Aurora campus, then along railroad right-of-way to I-25 and Broadway. There are three park-and-rides on the Central Corridor light rail line. The I-25 and Broadway Station Park-and-Ride provides 1,050 parking spaces. Alameda Station Park-and-Ride opened in August 1996 and has 287 spaces. The adjacent Broadway/ Marketplace provides 221 spaces. The 30th and Downing Sta- tion Park-and-Ride has 27 parking spaces.34 Denver T-REX/I-25 Corridor Limits From: Lincoln Station To: I-25/Broadway Station Context and Project Development History The Southeast Transportation Expansion Project (T- REX) line extends along the west side of reconstructed I-25 to Lincoln, with a short spur in the median of I-225 to Au- rora (see Figure D-2). LRT lines to Union Station and to 16th Street in the eastern part of the CBD link both trunk lines with the City Center. These are viewed as the Central Corridor. The multimodal segment of this corridor consists of roughly 17 miles of a 19-mile line completed in 2006 for a cost of $1.67 billion. The project was delivered ahead of schedule and has had over a full year of operation. 31Levinson H. S., Zimmerman S., et al, TCRP 90 Bus Rapid Transit, Vol. 1 Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit Appendix C (CD), Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. 2003. 32St. Jacques K., and Levinson H. S., TRCP Report 26 Operational Analysis of Bus Lanes on Arterials, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., 1991. 33Turnbull K. F., Levinson H. S., Pratt R. H., TCRP 95 Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes, Chapter 2—HOV Facilities, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2006. 34www.rtd-denver.com/Projects/Fact_Sheets/CCLRT_Facts.pdf

115 The T-REX project includes park-and-ride facilities at all the stations and RTD operates feeder bus service throughout the station areas as well. Six distinct light rail lines use portions of the segment; these provide limited service over some portions. The Denver region had been considering fixed guideway transit since the 1970s. Prior to the development of light rail, Denver’s downtown had declined over time and LRT could be seen as both an effort to reduce congestion and pro- vide increased capacity to stimulate growth in the downtown. Anecdotal observations indicate that today, downtown Denver has been revitalized and is flourishing, suggest- ing that the value of T-REX and its predecessor light rail projects should be evaluated not just in terms of how well they have competed with nearby freeways and mitigated congestion, but also as a tool for encouraging the growth of downtown. The beginnings of the T-REX project can be traced to a 1992 study by the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) that found that congestion levels on the freeway would soon bring gridlock most of the day. Specifically, the study found that local bus service travel times were about twice that of cars in the corridor, while express bus travel times were closer to cars. Local buses were subject to the same congestion as cars and were further delayed by fre- quent passenger stops. The study also voiced the concerns of the corridor’s employers who said that the inadequacy of effective and affordable transportation services there made it difficult to recruit and retain employees.35 This was in contrast to the projections of planners that 150,000 new jobs would be added in the downtown area and the huge Denver Tech Center over the next 20 years, further increasing the prospects for gridlock. The study recommended two capac- ity enhancements to accommodate this anticipated growth: the widening of the corridor’s freeways and the develop- ment of a high-capacity transit line along the freeway’s alignment.36 In April 1995, The Colorado Department of Transporta- tion, Denver’s Regional Transit District, and DRCOG com- missioned the Southeast Corridor Major Investment Study (MIS), which sought the best solutions to the corridor’s congestion problems.37 The study included partners with in- terests in the corridor, including Arapahoe and Douglas counties along with the cities of Denver, Aurora, and Green- wood Village. Perhaps due in part to this wide variety of in- terests involved in the study, the initial MIS was largely transit-oriented in its recommendations, which included light rail, pedestrian/bicycle facility improvements, enhanced Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures, intelligent transportation system (ITS) measures, and rela- tively minor highway improvements such as acceleration and deceleration lanes and wider shoulders. Somewhat to the disappointment of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and CDOT, no highway-widening measures were recommended and the four lead agencies agreed that the MIS placed too much emphasis on transit.38 According to Cal Marsalla, RTD’s director, “We looked at ways to break down the highway vs. transit rivalry and started looking at mobility,” and, “Let’s look at highway and transit as coordi- nated pieces of a comprehensive strategy to maximize mo- bility in a project with limited available right of way. We set our sights on a project that was a win-win (proposition) for both transit and highway. What emerged was the T-REX project.”39 Source: Colorado Department of Transportation, T-REX Fact Book. Figure D-2. The T-REX Corridor looking north toward the Tech Center and Downtown Denver. 35Metro Denver/Colorado, T-REX Fact Book, http://www.metrodenver.org/ files/documents/transportation-infrastructure/highways/Trans_HWY_T-REX FactBook.pdf 36Accessed 8/27/09, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_T-REX_Project_%28 TRansportation_EXpansion%29 37Civil Engineering News- Spotlight on Building The Future-T-REX project, http://www.cenews.com/article.asp?id=1314 38Civil Engineering News- Spotlight on Building The Future-T-REX project, http://www.cenews.com/article.asp?id=1314 39US Department of Transportation, Environmental Review Toolkit, ‘Trans- portation Expansion (T-REX) Multi-Modal Transportation Project’ http:// www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/strmlng/casestudies/co.asp

116 The persistence of this partnership team paid off many times throughout the history of this project. In 1997, a small sales tax increase put on the ballot by RTD to finance construction of six new rail lines failed, despite the passage of a similar measure the year before. Lauren Martens, an environmental organizer who helped lead a successful 2004 ballot initiative, suggested two reasons why the 1997 transit plan and its associated sales tax measure failed to pass. First, she said the 1997 transit plan was not clear about the proposed projects’ costs and planned routes. Second, a politically prominent, libertarian, free-market RTD board member opposed the 1997 proposal, which Mr. Martens said confused voters. The project partners learned from this setback and concluded that future efforts needed to be based on a detailed set of project plans with costs and line routes clearly stated in combination with a vigorous public outreach campaign. Transit advocates also worked to elect RTD board members who would support light rail and other mass transit improvements, and the following year (1998), they were successful in electing a transit-friendly board. The business community was also an active project partner. In 1999, the Denver Chamber of Commerce led the effort to form a grassroots coalition of civic groups and elected leaders known as the Transit Alliance—an organization that would play a critical role in building the political support for future transit funding initiatives. It did this by recruiting local elected leaders from more than 30 communities to endorse the plan, recruiting thousands of volunteers, convening hundreds of public meetings, and distributing informational materials to metro Denver residents.40 These efforts to bridge the gap between highway and tran- sit interests also yielded a revised Major Investment Study that combined highway widening (with up to seven lanes in each direction) with fixed rail transit improvements—a mix that all the project partners could support. This cross- agency collaborative structure and the multimodal, widely supported plans that it produced would yield additional benefits in June 1999 when the state’s voters passed Refer- endum A, allowing CDOT to borrow money based on fed- eral funds for the T-REX project that the state had not yet approved.41 These partnering efforts only intensified as time went on. CDOT, RTD, FHWA and the Federal Transit Admin- istration (FTA) signed a “Partnering Agreement” to work on the project. The agreement established four primary goals: • Minimize inconvenience to the community, motorists, and public. • Meet or beat the total program budget of $1.67 billion. • Provide a quality project. • Meet or beat the project’s operational deadline of June 30, 2008. Collaboration among the partners was further institution- alized by the formation of a Policy committee and a Technical committee, staffed by citizens from the jurisdictions within the project corridor with appropriate policy and technical back- grounds. The Policy Committee monitored project progress relative to the overall public agency decision-making processes. The Technical Committee monitored the project’s planning, engineering, and environmental issues and helped develop the project alternatives.42 Design Features Stations are uniquely designed; their canopies are simple, functional, and attractive. Covered pedestrian bridges connect stations with parking facilities and adjacent developments. The most unique design feature is the integration of an LRT flying junction with the SR4 freeway interchanges between I- 25 and I-225. Stations There are eleven center island stations along I-25 and two along I-225. The stations will eventually accommodate four-car trains. Parking facilities are provided at all stations. The largest parking structure at the Lincoln (terminal) station contains 1,734 spaces. The RTD also operates feeder bus service to most stations. Operations In the service plan for Denver’s six initial lines, Routes C and D link Union Station and 16th Street in downtown Denver with Littleton. T-REX Lines E and F connect the city center with Lincoln. Line H connects downtown Denver with Nine-Mile Road. Line G connects Lincoln with Nine-Mile Road. Eighty-foot articulated LRT cars—at a cost of $2.4 mil- lion per car, which can hold 120 people each—run in one to three car trains. North of the flying junction there are 10 trains and 28 cars per hour. On I-25 south of this junction there are 6 trains and 17 cars. Speeds average up to 30 mph between 16th Street in downtown Denver and the outer terminals. Since this involves several miles of street running, the actual speeds along I-25 and I-225 are considerably higher. 40Denver University Colorado Economic Futures Panel ‘Paying for Transporta- tion’, http://www.du.edu/economicpanel/article/five_033005.html 41Denver University Colorado Economic Futures Panel ‘Paying for Transporta- tion’, http://www.du.edu/economicpanel/article/five_033005.html 42US Department of Transportation, Environmental Review Toolkit, ‘Trans- portation Expansion (T-REX) Multi-Modal Transportation Project’ http://www. environment.fhwa.dot.gov/strmlng/casestudies/co.asp

117 Patronage • Light Rail Line: – 22,500 average weekday boardings (estimated for study corridor) on the light rail line – 2,602 riders peak-hour direction. • Interstate 25: – 208,000 vehicles per weekday (estimated for study cor- ridor) on Interstate 25 – 270,400 person-trips per weekday (estimated for study corridor) on Interstate 25 Trains carry about 18 percent of the 12,427 peak-hour pas- sengers in this corridor. However, on a per-lane basis, the trains actually carry more people. Benefits The multimodal corridor has dramatically reduced con- gestion and improved mobility in Southeast Denver. It has also given travelers a viable choice of mode. While the freeway lanes are operating at about 75 percent of capacity during peak hours, there is a much greater capacity reserve on the LRT lines. The project has dramatically shortened travel times over the whole length of the corridor. While traffic was stop-and-go all day before the project, the corridor has not reverted to a more typical A.M. and P.M. peaking pattern. The harsh winter weather Denver experiences has turned out to work to the advantage of the light rail line in this corridor, since the train offers better travel time reliability than the highway.43 “What we’ve built so far already has influenced where businesses locate, where housing is built, where people decide to live and how they get to work,” said Joe Blake, the president of the Metro Denver Chamber of Commerce.44 The City of Denver has taken bold steps to encourage transit-oriented development around its rail stations. Blueprint Denver pro- vides a new transit mixed use (TMU-30) zoning designation that allows FARs of up to 5-to-1, and parking requirements for areas close to light-rail stations are slashed 25 percent.45 TOD zoning policies such as these were first adopted by the City of Denver along the northern part of the T-REX corridor, but now have been adopted by cities up and down the line.46 The expansion of Denver’s light rail system has brought substantial benefits to downtown Denver, with office rents along the transit mall leasing at a premium of 8 to 16 percent higher than those off the mall during the early 2000s.47 Several station areas in the T-REX corridor have also benefited from TOD development, including Dry Creek Station, where a pedestrian bridge east of the station is encouraging the development of new high-density residential developments, and the Arapahoe Station Office Project, which was completed in 2008.48 The simultaneous construction of the roadway and LRT facilities reportedly saved $300 to $500 million in construction costs.49 Denver Central/I-25 Corridor Limits From: I-25/Broadway Station To: Union Station Context and Project Development History The Central Corridor line runs parallel to I-25 from its junction with I-225, south of downtown Denver. The line runs along a pre-existing freight rail line, and there are generally very few direct street connections to the freeway’s interchanges. The stations will eventually accommodate four-car trains. Parking facilities are provided at all stations. The largest parking structure at the Lincoln (terminal) station contains 1,734 spaces. The RTD also operates feeder bus service to most stations. Cost $116.5 million50 Design Features Stations are uniquely designed; their canopies are simple, functional, and attractive. Covered pedestrian bridges connect stations with parking facilities and adjacent developments. Stations There are three park-and-ride lots on the Central Corridor light rail line. The I-25 & Broadway Station park-and-ride provides 1,050 parking spaces and serves as a major intermodal transfer station. Alameda Station’s park-and-ride lot opened in August 1996 and has 287 spaces. The adjacent Broadway/ Marketplace provides 221 spaces. The 30th and Downing Station park-and-ride has 27 parking spaces.51 43Interview with Larry Warner, CDOT, December 15, 2008. 44Denver University Colorado Economic Futures Panel ‘Paying for Transporta- tion’, http://www.du.edu/economicpanel/article/five_033005.html 45Ibid Cervero et al., p. 69. 46Interview with Larry Warner, CDOT, December 15, 2008. 47Ibid, p. 163. 48Interview with Larry Warner, CDOT, December 15, 2008. 49Public Roads, September, October, 2007. 50http://www.rtd-denver.com/Projects/Fact_Sheets/CCLRT_Facts.pdf 51http://www.rtd-denver.com/Projects/Fact_Sheets/CCLRT_Facts.pdf

118 Operations North of the I-225/I-25 interchange there are 10 trains and 28 cars per hour. On I-25 south of this junction there are six trains and 17 cars. Speeds average up to 30 mph between 16th Street in down- town Denver and the outer terminals. Since this involves several miles of street running, the actual speeds along I-25 and I-225 are considerably higher. Patronage • Light Rail Line: – 17,900 average weekday boardings (estimated for study corridor) on the Central Line. – 3,853 peak-hour direction on the Central Line. • Interstate 25: – 208,000 vehicles per weekday (estimated for study cor- ridor) on Interstate 25. – 270,400 person-trips per weekday (estimated for study corridor) on Interstate 25. San Francisco Bay Area The San Francisco urbanized area, has a population that exceeds 3,000,000. Employment is concentrated in down- town San Francisco (340,000) and Oakland (65,000). The area is served by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) that links San Francisco with the East Bay areas. BART routes from Richmond, Pittsburgh/Bay Point Dublin/Pleasanton and Fremont converge in Oakland, and a single line through the transbay tunnel connects them with San Francisco, Daly City and Millbrae (Figure D-3). Sections of each line are within or adjacent to freeway corridors. The 104-mile, 43-station BART system began operation September 18, 1972, and has been progressively expanded since then. The present weekday system ridership approxi- mates 350,000. There are more than 47,000 parking spaces at BART stations. Many stations are served by AC Transit and other bus systems. Key design features for the BART system include the following: Track Gauge 5-feet 6-inches Maximum Speed 80 mph Maximum Gradient 4% Minimum Curve Radius 394 feet Maximum Train 10 cars Station Platform Length 700-feet Car Dimensions 75-feet± by 10-feet 4-inches Passenger Capacity per car About 64–72 seats, 150 crush load San Francisco Daly City Line/I-280 Corridor Limits From: Daly City Station To: Glen Park Station Context and Project Development History The trunk line including the subway under Market Street in San Francisco was opened to Daly City in 1972. By 2002, it was extended to the San Francisco International Airport (although this section is not part of our study corridor). The heart of the BART system—the most important link in binding the Bay Area as a cohesive, urban region—is the underwater transbay tube. The idea was first proposed in the early 1900s by Francis “Borax” Smith—the builder of the region’s first interurban transit network known as the Key System. This early twentieth century transit network connected by ferry transfer to downtown San Francisco prior to the construction of the San Francisco Bay Bridge and once the bridge was complete, the Key System had regular trans-bay trains running across the lower deck of the Bay Bridge. This system is credited with helping to develop San Francisco’s East Bay counties (Alameda and Contra Costa) into an urban and suburban outgrowth of San Francisco. But, by the 1950s the entire system had been dismantled in favor of automobiles and buses and the explosive growth of highway construction. It is no coincidence that much of BART’s current coverage Source: Courtesy of the Bay Area Rapid Transit District. Figure D-3. San Francisco BART’s system map.

119 area was once served by the Key System’s streetcar and inter- urban trains.52 After World War II, the San Francisco Bay Area experienced a population boom. While the Bay Area had developed largely along a network of transit lines and interconnected ferries, the construction of the region’s bridge system (i.e., the Golden Gate, San Francisco-Oakland, and Richmond-San Rafael bridges) in the pre-war period set the stage for the rapid expansion of the region’s urban footprint, facilitated by the automobile. The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system was an idea born from informal gatherings of business and civic leaders from around the Bay Area. In 1946, the region’s leaders could already see the day rapidly approaching where growth would outstrip the capacity of the current bridge system. Congestion was already mounting. An Army-Navy review board concluded in 1947 that additional capacity would soon be needed in the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge corridor. They recommended an underwater tube exclusively carrying high-speed trains—the very idea that would be built for the BART system.53 The Army-Navy recommendations were quickly adopted and expanded on by the region’s leaders. This process was dis- tinguished by its “grassroots” public participation. Hundreds of meetings were held around the Bay Area to encourage local citizens to participate in the planning of BART system routes and station locations. Meanwhile, on the technical side of the project, engineers were designing a system that would revolutionize rapid transit in the United States, ushering in an era where trains would be designed to compete head-to-head with the automobile, often paralleling freeway rights-of-way. With wide station spacings in suburban areas where BART would compete directly with freeways, the system’s electric trains would run on grade-separated right-of-ways, reaching maximum speeds of 75–80 mph, and average 45 mph. The California State Legislature formed the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District in 1957, which included San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, and San Mateo counties. Interestingly, because Santa Clara County opted instead to first concentrate on developing its expressway system, they opted out of the BART system. This decision would set the stage for the automobile-led development of the South Bay Area—a pattern that Santa Clara’s leaders would try to reverse 20 years later with the development of their own light rail system, largely parallel to and competing with their freeways and expressways.54 The final plan was completed and submitted to the supervisors of the five BART district counties for approval by 1961, which included a line running through the Daly City study corridor, extending south into San Mateo County and terminating in Palo Alto.55 However, San Mateo’s supervisors (representing the county directly south of San Francisco) chose to withdraw from the district, citing the high costs of a new system and their concerns that BART would compete directly with their existing Southern Pacific commuter trains. Marin County followed soon there- after. As a result, the Daly City Line would terminate at the San Francisco-San Mateo County border until the 1990s when it was extended south to Colma and eventually (in 2003) to the San Francisco International Airport (in San Mateo County). The BART plans were finally approved by the voters of the three remaining participating counties in November 1962.56 The following criticisms of the BART system and its design have been leveled: 1. BART Originally Seen as a Low-Cost Alternative to Freeways: The system’s original planners and designers underestimated the costs of the system. 2. Direct Competition with Automobiles and the Free- way System: The system was designed to provide high- speed, high-comfort, high-style, and direct service to downtown destinations that would provide it a compet- itive edge compared to the automobile and the freeway system. These design goals led to a series of tradeoffs that have led to BART’s underperformance in ridership. Some of the key tradeoffs made were a design with long station spacings, emphasizing line-haul speed over acces- sibility to and from local stations, right-of-way alignments along major (often freeway) travel corridors, which sacri- ficed direct access to activity centers, a heavy/fixed-rail design that was extremely expensive, and no capacity to bypass stations preventing express service trains, among others. 3. An Emphasis on In-Vehicle and In-Station Comfort as Opposed to Ease of Station Access: Station design and quality of in-vehicle service are high, but studies have shown that the rider experiences ease of station access as far more important than time spent in the stations or vehicles.57 52Accessed 08/29/09, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Bay_Area_ Rapid_Transit 53Accessed 08/29/09, http://www.bart.gov/about/history/index.aspx 54Accessed 08/29/09, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Bay_Area_ Rapid_Transit 55Accessed 08/29/09, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Bay_Area_ Rapid_Transit 56Accessed 08/29/09, http://www.bart.gov/about/history/index.aspx 57Webber, M., The BART Experience—What Have We Learned?, October 1976, No. 26, Institute of Urban and Regional Development and the Institute of Trans- portation Studies, University of California, Berkeley.

120 Operations The service pattern is more complex than those in other multimodal corridors. The section of line from Daly City to downtown San Francisco and West Oakland has week- day trains to and from Pittsburg, Dublin, Richmond, and Freemont. On weekday nights and weekends the Richmond and Freemont trains do not operate. During rush hours, 20 trains per hour operate each way. During weekdays, 16 trains per hour operate each way. During weeknights, six trains per hour operate each way. Some trains begin or end at Daly City, others at the San Francisco-Oakland Interna- tional Airport or Millbrae. Travel time to Embarcadero from Daly City is 18 minutes. Patronage • 50,900 average weekday boardings on the Daly City Line. • Interstate 280: – 194,000 vehicles per weekday on Interstate 280. – 252,200 person-trips per weekday on Interstate 280. Benefits The Daly City Line provides direct service from the San Francisco International Airport to downtown San Francisco, downtown Oakland, and many East Bay destinations. Accord- ing to research on BART’s impacts on regional and local urban form, land use changes associated with BART have been largely limited to downtown San Francisco and Oakland and a hand- ful of suburban stations. In this study corridor, few land use changes have occurred.58 San Francisco East Bay (BART) Pittsburg/ Bay Point Line/S.R. 24 Corridor Limits From: Pleasant Hill Station To: MacArthur Station Context and Project Development History The East Bay BART line runs from north of downtown Oakland to the suburban community of Pittsburg. Service from MacArthur BART to Concord BART stations commenced in May of 1973. In 1996 service was extended to Pittsburg Bay Point. The line runs for roughly 17 miles in the median of State Route 24 and Interstate 980 (see Figure D-3). This line provides a commuter alternative to I-680 be- tween Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek and an alternative to State Route 24 (the parallel freeway in this study corridor) to cross the east bay hills to State Route 24 which is capac- ity-constrained by the Caldecott Tunnel. East Bay traffic destined for San Francisco can travel through Oakland and use the San Francisco Bay BART tube as an alternative to the Bay Bridge. Operations Service is provided from Pittsburg/Bay Point to Oakland, downtown San Francisco, and the San Francisco International Airport. Trains run from about 4 A.M. to midnight. Service is at 15-minute intervals 6 A.M. to 7 P.M., and at 20-minute intervals at other times. Additional trains run every 15 minutes between Pleasant Hill and San Francisco for 2 hours in the morning rush-hour period and 2 hours during the evening rush. This translates into a 7.5 minute headway south of Pleasant Hill. Travel times to the Embarcadero in San Francisco are about 38 minutes from Pleasant Hill and 53 minutes from Walnut Creek. Patronage • 57,100 average weekday boardings (estimated for study corridor) on the Pittsburg/Bay Point Line. • State Route 24: – 157,000 vehicles per weekday (estimated for study cor- ridor) on State Route 24. – 204,100 person-trips per weekday (estimated for study corridor) on State Route 24. Benefits This line provides an attractive commuter alternative to I-680 between Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek and an alter- native means to cross the East Bay hills to State Route 24, the parallel freeway route, which is capacity-constrained by the Caldecott Tunnel. East Bay traffic destined for San Francisco can travel through Oakland and use the San Francisco BART Transbay Tube as an alternative to the Bay Bridge. San Francisco East Bay (BART) Dublin Line/ I-580 Corridor Limits From: Dublin Station To: Bay Fair Station Context and Project Development History The 12.5-mile Dublin BART line was opened as a branch of the Pleasanton Fremont Line in 1997 to provide a tran- 58Cervero, R. & J. Landis. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice Volume 31, Issue 4, July 1997, Pages 309–333.

121 sit alternative for commuters traveling between the Bay Area and the Tri-Valley Area as well as communities east of the Altamont Pass. Large-scale planned developments in- cluding East Dublin and the Hacienda Business Park were developed in coordination with longstanding plans for the extension of BART. The Dublin Corridor consists of three stations along the Dublin/Pleasanton Line. Two of the stations are situated in the median of Interstate 580. The rail line was extended east from the existing Fremont/Richmond line and began oper- ation in 1997. Currently the Dublin/Pleasanton Line provides direct service to downtown San Francisco and the San Francisco International Airport (SFO), and to downtown Oakland via transfer. The terminal station at Dublin/Pleasanton was planned for mixed-use development at the time of construction and has since become the focus for concentrated residential and retail uses. This station accounts for 49 percent of the station entries along the corridor with virtually all of the traffic on the corridor segment originating at or destined for locations beyond the segment. Design Features The Dublin Line meets the Richmond-Fremont Line at the Bay Fair transfer station. Two stations—one at Castro Valley, and another at Dublin/Pleasanton—are located within the median of I-80. Stations Each of the two stations has a single center island platform. The terminal station at Dublin was planned for mixed-use de- velopment at the time of construction and has since become the focus for concentrated residential and retail uses. This sta- tion accounts for 49 percent of the station entries along the corridor with virtually all of the traffic on the corridor segment originating at or destined for locations beyond the segment. Operations The Dublin/Pleasanton Line provides direct service to San Francisco and Daly City, and to downtown Oakland and the San Francisco International Airport on the Penin- sula via transfer. Service operates from about 4 A.M. to midnight. Weekday trains run every 15 minutes from about 5 A.M. to 7 P.M. and about 20 minutes at other times. Travel time from Dublin to the Embarcadero Sta- tion in downtown San Francisco is 45 minutes. Running time for the 12.5 miles between the Dublin/Pleasanton and Bay Fair stations (the beginning and end-points of our study corridor) is 15 minutes. This translates into a 50-mph speed. Patronage • 19,900 average weekday boardings (estimated for study corridor) on the Dublin/Pleasanton Line. • Interstate 580: – 198,000 vehicles per weekday (estimated for study cor- ridor) on Interstate 580. – 257,400 person-trips per weekday (estimated for study corridor) on Interstate 580. Benefits The Dublin/Pleasanton Line brings the physically sepa- rated East Bay communities into a reasonable commuting time to major East Bay and downtown San Francisco em- ployment centers. It has also fostered development in the Dublin/Pleasanton area. San Jose Guadalupe/S.R. 87 & 85 Corridor Limits From: Santa Teresa Station To: St. James Station Context and Project Development History The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority operates a 42-mile, 62-station system. The system, which has two main routes and a two-station spur serves an urbanized area popu- lation that exceeds 1.5 million and a central business district employment of about 52,000 (Figure D-4). LRT speeds aver- age 20 miles per hour. Line 900 is the three-stop Almaden-Ohlane/Chynoweth shuttle. It runs in the Almaden Expressway. Line 401 runs from the Alum Rock Transportation Cen- ter in East San Jose to Santa Teresa. It operates about 10 miles in the median of California Routes 87 and 85. There are 36 stops. Line 902 runs from the Mountain View multimodal transit center to Winchester. It uses a portion of the South- west Expressway. The Guadalupe Corridor consists of a portion of the Santa Clara VTA Light Rail line 901 that runs from Alum Rock Sta- tion through the downtown and on to Santa Teresa Station. Service from the downtown to Tasman Station was included from the initial opening of the LRT system in 1987. The cor- ridor includes about 10 miles and 10 stations in the freeway median. A Guadalupe Parkway (State Route 87) connection be- tween Downtown San Jose and the present day US 101 was first built as an arterial road in the 1960s. In the 1970s, grad- ual conversion of this surface roadway to a grade-separated

122 freeway facility was undertaken and continued for the next 30 years. The four-level interchange of 87 with I-280 built in the early 1970s was the first step in this conversion and the structure replaced an old downtown neighbor- hood in the process. The freeway was extended north to Taylor Street (at the northern edge of San Jose’s down- town) and completed in the 1980s. The southern part, from I-280 to Highway 85, was opened to Almaden Expressway in 1992 and to Highway 85 in 1993. This segment—the longest section of the route’s freeway—was built in tandem with the parallel Guadalupe light rail line. The rest of the highway’s freeway section was built over the next 15 years, with its northern terminus at Highway 101 completed in 1992, and the replacement of all grade-level intersections with freeway grade separations and six lanes completed in the northern section in 2004 and the final ramps at the Sky- port interchange opening in 2005. The widening of the southern segment, from Taylor Street to Highway 85, to six lanes was completed in 2007. The Guadalupe light rail line was first opened in 1987, with the extension to south San Jose (in the study corridor) opening in 1991—99 days ahead of schedule.59 The system has been expanded since its opening in 1987. Source: Courtesy Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Figure D-4. San Jose/Santa Clara Valley light rail system map. 59Bertini, R. L. and Doña, R. D. “Light Rail Transit Design in a Changing Econ- omy: Adversity and Opportunity in Santa Clara County.” Compendium of Technical Papers, Institute of Transportation Engineers, District 6 Annual Meet- ing, Portland, Oregon, 1994, pp. 269–274.

123 Design Features The Guadalupe corridor is double-tracked and primarily runs down the center-median of S.R. 87 and S.R.85, where trains reach a top speed of 55 mph. However, as it approaches and enters downtown San Jose, it transitions to a surface street alignment, parallel to the freeway and speeds drop to 10 mph in the downtown transit mall and a maximum of 35 mph along city streets. Trackways are fully grade-separated from vehicular and pedestrian traffic.60 Stations Low-floor articulated cars are used to provide level boarding. This involved reconstructing stations on the Guadalupe (Alum Rock-Santa Teresa) Line and all three stations on the Almaden line during 2008. Island stations are provided in freeway medians. They are served by three sets of doors on each LRV. Operations Service operates 7 days each week from roughly 4 A.M. to 1 A.M. Service frequencies are as follows: 15 minutes dur- ing peak periods; 30 minutes otherwise. Patronage • 6,600 average weekday boardings (estimated for study corridor) on the Guadalupe Corridor Line. • State Route 87: – 140,000 vehicles per weekday (estimated for study corridor) on State Route 87. – 182,000 person-trips per weekday (estimated for study corridor) on State Route 87. In 2007, there were 6,600 boardings along the multimodal section, and 21,000 along the entire Alum Rock-Santa Teresa Line. A 2006 survey of VTA’s riders found that 39 percent of the riders made one-way trips also using a bus or train, 81 percent of these riders did not use more than 2 buses or trains, and 62 percent of the riders had no other means of travel. Other key findings were as follows: • 48% of weekday trips were made during rush hours, 44% midday, 6% evenings, and the remainder late nights. • 65% of the riders (2006) had no car available, 19% had an automobile available, and 16% had an automobile, but found it inconvenient. • 46% of the residents lived in an apartment or condominium. • The trip purposes were work (36%), school or college (15%), shopping (11%), and other (19%). Riders of the VTA system accessed the light rail system’s stations by the modes shown in Table D-2. Excluding the downtown stations, boardings are weighted toward Santa Teresa Station, which had 1,296 boardings per day compared to a median of 438 boardings for the other (non downtown) stations on the line. This reflects the con- siderable A.M. peak park-and-ride traffic at the end points of the line. Benefits The multimodal corridor was reported to have about 60,000 jobs within walking distance of stations and 150,000 residents when the line first opened. Portland MAX Airport/I-84 Red Line Corridor Limits From: Cascades MAX Station To: Rose Quarter TC MAX Station Context and Project Development History Portland’s 43-mile, three-route MAX light rail system serves an urbanized area population of over 1.6 million and a down- town employment of 105,000. Weekday ridership exceeds 80,000. The MAX Red Line runs from the Portland Inter- national Airport to downtown Portland and Beaverton. This line overlaps the Blue Line between the Beaverton and the Gate- way Stations (see Figure D-5). The initial segment of the Blue Line opened in 1986 and was developed in conjunction with the widening of I-84. 60Ibid, Bertini, R. L. and Doña, R. D. Table D-2. Station access/egress by mode for VTA riders. Mode To Station From Station Walk 71% 73% Bus 12% 13% LRT 6% 4% Drive 4% 3% Bike 3% 3% CalTrain 1% 1% Other/unknown 3% 3% Total 100% 100% Source: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, “2005-2006 On-Board Passenger Survey: Final Report,” October 2006.

124 Source: Courtesy TriMet. the airport, including a 2.5-mile segment along or within the median of I-205, opened in September 2001. On both the Red and Blue Lines, park-and-ride facilities are provided at two stations—the Parkrose/Sumner Transit Center and the Northeast Gateway/99th Street Transit Center. Except for a short segment that cuts through an industrial area along the Columbia River, the corridor sustains a band of mixed and commercial uses as it winds through a predominantly resi- dential grid from the airport to the Downtown. The Banfield Expressway, later to become Interstate 84, was planned and built in 1955 as the first link in a Portland region freeway network. It was Oregon’s first freeway and it runs east-west, from Portland to Troutdale.61 The Mt. Hood Freeway was planned as an extension to I-84 running from the Willamette River to SE 122nd Street. This plan called for the freeway to cut through established city neighborhoods and triggered a “freeway revolt” in Portland in the late 1960s and early 1970s, leading to its even- tual cancellation. Politicians and light rail advocates fought for and won the right to use the funds for these freeway projects on other projects, including the construction of the MAX Light Rail system.62 The Oregon Department of Transportation’s (ODOT’s) role in developing Portland’s MAX light rail system is emblematic of pressures and conflicts for DOTs to change their roles and approaches to transportation planning, both within these agencies and from outside. For the first time in its history, ODOT appointed a citizens’ advisory Figure D-5. Portland MAX system map. Source: Photo by “Cacophony” Figure D-6. Portland’s Red Line runs adjacent to Interstate 84 (Banfield Freeway). 61http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_84_%28Oregon%29 62http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Hood_Freeway A four-mile section of the Blue Line is located on the north side of the freeway (see Figure D-6). Except for a short segment that cuts through an industrial area along the Columbia River, the corridor sustains a band of mixed and commercial uses as it winds through a pre- dominantly residential grid from the airport to the down- town. The Portland MAX Red Line runs from the Portland Inter- national Airport to Downtown Portland. The extension to

125 committee for a regional transportation project—the Ban- field corridor study (the corridor that would become the MAX Blue and Red Lines). ODOT appointed several citi- zen activists to the committee, showing that a progressive approach to multimodal and multi-stakeholder planning was beginning to take hold within the agency. But as the preliminary engineering study evaluating alternatives for the Banfield Corridor was nearly complete in 1976, the light rail option was dropped from consideration, citing rider- ship forecasts that said the bus alternatives would attract more riders than light rail. Many of the Portland-area’s pro- transit supporters continued to press for consideration of light rail as an alternative to widening and extending the freeway. As 1976 came to a close, ODOT’s citizens’ advisory com- mittee and others successfully negotiated to reinstate light rail as an official alternative.63 Costs • Original Blue Line Cost: $214 million • Widening I-84 Cost: $107 million Design Features The combined Blue-Red Line between the Northeast Gateway and Beaverton Station is double tracked, except for the one-way operations on Morrison and Yamhill Streets in downtown Portland. There is a single-track loop flyover to the Blue Line and the I-84–I-205 Westbound ramp. There is also a single track on the approach to the Airport Station. Trains run both alongside and within the median of I-205; the median reservation was provided when the freeway was built. Both single-tracked sections are designed to allow 10- minute headways when needed. Stations The Gateway-99th Street Station, located in the environs of the I-84 and I-205 interchange, is designed to facilitate transfers between the Red and Blue Lines. The station has three tracks and three platforms. The eastern track (with both a side and a center island platform) serves trains head- ing to downtown Portland. The center track serves Red Line trains heading to the airport. A side platform serves eastbound trains to Gresham. The Green Line along I-205 to Clackamas County, scheduled to open in September 2009, will also use this station. Operations Tri-Met’s MAX system uses 90-ft articulated low-floor cars. LRVs run in two-car trains because of the short 200-foot blocks in downtown Portland. Service is provided from about 4 A.M. to midnight. Red Line trains run every 15 minutes. Blue Line trains run in 5- to 6-minute intervals in the rush hours, every 15 minutes at other times. During rush hours, about 15 trains run each way along I-84 to the west of the Gateway-99th Street Station. Red Line travel times from the airport to the Gateway-99th Street Station are 18 minutes. Travel times to Pioneer Square in downtown Portland are 38 minutes. Patronage • 7,100 average weekday boardings (estimated for study corridor) on the Red Line. • Interstate 84: – 150,000 vehicles per weekday (estimated for study cor- ridor) on Interstate 84. – 195,000 person-trips per weekday (estimated for study corridor) on Interstate 84. Benefits The Red Line brings the airport within easy reach of a large part of the Portland Area. Some have indicated that the East Side LRT Lines have spawned $2 billion in development or redevelopment.64 Houston Northwest/U.S. 290 Corridor Limits From: Northwest Station To: Northwest Transit Center Context and Project Development History The Houston urbanized area has a population of approx- imately three million people, of which about 1.8 million live in the city. In 1999, the central business district (CBD) employed approximately 150,000 and about 28 percent of the CBD employees used public transport during peak periods. The Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO) has a bus fleet of about 1,400 vehicles. Systemwide 63Thompson, G. L., “How Portland’s Power Brokers Accommodated the Anti-Freeway Movement of the Early 1970s: The Decision to Build Light Rail,” Business and Economic History: On-Line, Vol. 3, 2005, http://www.thebhc.org/ publications/BEHonline/2005/thompson.pdf 64http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastside_MAX

126 average weekday ridership (July, 2001) was about 330,000. The metropolitan area is characterized by the low-density development that is typical of most southwestern cities. The area has flat terrain and there are relatively few barriers to travel. An extensive radial-circumferential freeway system has been developed and progressively improved over the years. The Houston High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) system is shown in Figure D-7. It is the longest barrier-separated HOV system in the United States. The lanes operate on four free- ways: the Gulf (I-45) South, Southwest (US-59 South), North (US-59 North) and Northwest (US-290 West). The existing system comprises almost 100 miles. The HOV lanes operate weekdays in the inbound direction between 5 A.M. and 11 A.M., and in the outbound direction between 2 and 8 P.M. During the “peak of the peak period,” carpools have been limited to 3+ occupants on several of the freeways. Houston Metro provides express bus service in these lanes during the peak periods. Collectively, the region’s six HOV facilities serve about 140,000 people each weekday. During the morning peak hour, they carry about 25,000 people, and of these about 10,500 (40 percent) are bus passengers. The HOV lanes are supported by an extensive system of park-and-ride lots and transit centers. Four transit centers have been established with direct access to five HOV lanes. All transit centers and 10 of the 32 park-and-ride lots have direct, grade-separated connectors to an HOV lane. Collectively, the lots provide more than 30,000 spaces. Access to and from the ramps is provided by • Slip ramps connecting with the freeway main lines • “Wishbone” ramps connecting with freeway frontage roads Source: Courtesy of Christof Spieler and CTC METRO. Figure D-7. Houston’s HOV and BRT System map.

127 • “T-ramps” connecting with park-and-ride lots • Standard ramps connecting with surface streets • Special bus/HOV ramps connecting with downtown streets TranStar, a high-tech traffic and emergency management center (a State, County, City, and Metro joint facility) con- trols the HOV lanes through a series of variable message signs. TranStar is linked by fiber-optic cable to closed-circuit tele- vision cameras (CCTV) monitoring the freeways for traffic flow, as well as being linked to the computerized traffic signals on arterial roadways and freeway feeder streets. METRO’s buses feed traffic information to TranStar, while getting congestion updates in return. The 290 Corridor consists of a dedicated busway in the median of U.S. 290. It is one of six designated HOV corridors serving downtown Houston. Each of the three stations outside the downtown are served by park-and-ride lots. Four bus routes serve the corridor, with substantial differences in schedule and frequency and minor difference in the path of travel through the downtown. The 290 Corridor extends about 13.5 miles.65 In the early 1970s, Houston’s private transit operator was purchased by a newly formed public transit authority. To gain public support and funding for the new agency, a long- range transit plan was developed. The plan proposed an exten- sive regional rail and HOV system. In 1973, a ballot measure was put forward to the voters to establish the Houston Area Rapid Transit Authority, using the long-range transit plan as its primary selling point. Even though the Houston City Council and an array of community leaders supported the measure, it was defeated at the polls, sending the City back to the drawing board. In 1974, the City purchased the ailing private bus company and established the Office of Public Trans- portation (OPT) as its new home. While the rail alternatives did not garner enough support, the City and the OPT were confident of the public’s support of the bus system and ini- tiated efforts to upgrade it. To fill the high-capacity, rapid transit needs identified in the long-range plan, the OPT began working closely with the State’s Highway Department (THD, later to be renamed, TxDOT). The expressed goal of this partnership was to explore and implement congestion-reducing projects, particularly those involving the greater use of buses, vanpools, and carpools. THD wanted to improve travel conditions on the region’s freeways while OPT wanted to rebuild the image of the bus system by finding methods to move buses through congested traffic. This HOV/BRT-focused partnership gave OPT the opportunity to quickly implement an improved transit system for the area and start to build a reputation as an effective agency. Moreover, OPT was able to establish a positive image with the public by working with THD and quickly implement- ing a set of popular HOV/BRT proposals while distancing themselves in the public’s mind from their previously expressed desire to develop a regional rail transit system. Meanwhile, OPT (and its successor agency, METRO) continued to push for a rail system, but with limited success.66 The partnership focused early on the potential for free- way HOV lanes to achieve these goals—a relatively new idea at the time. They obtained a federal Service and Meth- ods Demonstration (SMD) grant to study this option. The study recommended a contraflow lane demonstration project on the North (I-45 North) Freeway, a corridor with high levels of peak-period, peak-direction congestion. While this proposal planned to take away a freeway lane of travel the contraflow lane was created by taking the inside lane from the off-peak direc- tion of travel. In this way—taking away a lane during the peak period from the excess capacity in the non-peak direction— the demonstration project avoided public criticism.67 Once the demonstration project got underway, use of the contraflow lane exceeded projections. Roughly 8,000 people (bus riders and vanpoolers) used the lane every day during the first year—a performance level that nearly exceeded the number of people in the two adjacent mixed-flow freeway lanes. Later, in 1981, a 3.3-mile concurrent flow lane section was added upstream from the entrance to the contraflow lane. With this improvement, patronage on the HOV lane increased to 15,000 a day.68 Following these successful pilot tests, the THD and OPT partnership went on to develop a comprehensive network of bus rapid transit HOV lanes around the Houston region, in- cluding the U.S. 290 corridor. The development and opera- tion of this network was guided by and dependent on a series of formal and informal agreements between the two agencies. These agreements set out clear and balanced re- sponsibilities for each of the partners. The THD was respon- sible for construction management, engineering, and in- spection of the facilities while OPT administered the funds 65Turnbull K. F., Levinson H. S., Pratt R. H., TCRP 95 Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes, Chapter 2—HOV Facilities, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2006. 66In 1973, voters defeated the initial HARTA referendum, which included devel- opment of a significant heavy rail system. A subsequent bond referendum, which also included a major rail element, was defeated in 1983. A 1988 plan, which in- cluded rail, an expanded HOV system, local bus service, and a general mobility program to fund roadway improvements, was approved. The rail component never moved forward, however., Turnbull, p. 30. 67Turnbull, K. F., “Houston Managed Lanes Case Study: The Evolution of the Houston HOV System,” Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, 2003, p. 7. 68Turnbull, K. F., “Houston Managed Lanes Case Study: The Evolution of the Houston HOV System,” Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, 2003, p. 8.

128 for contractor payments and reimbursement of THD. Fol- lowing on the demonstration project successes, the voters approved a measure to create the Metropolitan Transit Au- thority of Harris County (METRO) and dedicated a 1% local sales tax to fund it. This success, in stark contrast to the previous ballot measure that failed in 1973, was in part due to the new Regional Transit Plan that identified the projects METRO would pursue using its new funding source. This plan included HOV facilities in most freeway corridors as well as rail transit.69 The institutional arrangements that governed the design, construction, and operations of Houston’s HOV/bus rapid transit network evolved over time. After the successful demonstration project and the establishment of METRO as OPT’s successor agency, subsequent HOV/BRT projects were guided by formal agreements between METRO and TxDOT. These agreements and the subsequent projects were initially established using a two-stage process. Once a project was ready to be scheduled, a construction agreement was developed that spelled out each agency’s share of the design and construction costs, the contracting agency, and the responsibilities for construction management, engineering, and inspections. For the first few projects, these construction agreements were detailed and comprehensive, not only spelling out construc- tion phase responsibilities, but also detailing maintenance and operational roles. While this approach may have helped build confidence in the partnership for the member agencies, including operational and maintenance agreements in the construction documents forced the partnership to maintain these bulky construction documents as active files well after construction was complete—an administrative headache. As time progressed and different personnel became involved in developing these construction, maintenance and opera- tions agreements, each new agreement brought changes and improvements. While these improvements speak well of the partnership’s flexibility and willingness to improve, the aging and compli- cated construction documents resulted in confusion within the partnership as to their roles and responsibilities for HOV/BRT segments built at different times. As a result, peri- odic reviews were necessary to determine which partner was responsible for operations and maintenance for different seg- ments.70 These problems were eventually solved by the de- velopment of a Master Operation and Maintenance Agree- ment for all HOV/BRT segments in 1988. This agreement superseded all previous agreements and established a consis- tent set of roles and responsibilities for the partners across all HOV/BRT segments in the Houston area. The Master Agreement also changed the roles of the two partner agencies. While previous agreements made METRO responsible for signs, control devices, and electrical power on the HOV/BRT rights-of-way while TxDOT was responsible for maintaining pavement, barriers, and supporting structures, the Master Agreement gave METRO a greater role in day-to-day opera- tions, making them responsible for all aspects of operations, enforcement, eligibility and safety on the HOV/BRT facilities. This greater role for METRO allowed TxDOT to step back from day-to-day operations while maintaining its policy and administrative partnership in running the system. To facilitate this policy-level partnership, the Master Agreement created a formal Management Team, composed of TxDOT and METRO staff responsible for preparing rules, regulations, operating manuals, and operational plans. The Management Team meets monthly.71 Just as important are the informal arrangements between the project partners. Strong working relationships between individual staff members are based on trust and respect. These relationships have led to the ongoing use of informal working groups with staff from both agencies. These informal ties have helped smooth the coordination of the design, devel- opment, and operations of the HOV/BRT system and have led to a more efficient and effective partnership.72 In response to peak-period traffic congestion on the free- way system, and right-of-way restrictions in many corridors, a system of HOV lanes, with peak-period express bus service, has been implemented over the last three decades. In September, 2008, four HOV lanes (two in each direction) opened on the Katy Freeway. The lanes are separated by a barrier median and operate at all times. They are the first high-occupancy toll lanes on Houston’s radial freeways. Design Features The HOV lane in the Northwest Freeway—like other one-lane, barrier-separated reversible lanes—is about 20.5 feet wide to allow passing of disabled vehicles. The HOV lane (and its continuation via the Katy Freeway) provides direct access to downtown Houston. 69Turnbull, K. F., “Houston Managed Lanes Case Study: The Evolution of the Houston HOV System,” Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, 2003, p. 8. 70Turnbull, K. F., “Houston Managed Lanes Case Study: The Evolution of the Houston HOV System,” Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, 2003, p. 27. 71Turnbull, K. F., “Houston Managed Lanes Case Study: The Evolution of the Houston HOV System,” Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, 2003, pp. 27–28. 72Turnbull, K. F., “Houston Managed Lanes Case Study: The Evolution of the Houston HOV System,” Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, 2003, p. 28.

129 Stations There are four stations along the Transitway with almost 4,000 parking spaces. The stations are off line and are connected by special T ramps to the Transitway. Operations Four express bus routes serve the corridor. Each route runs express from the Houston CBD to an off-line station where it terminates. There are substantial differences in schedule and frequency, and minor differences in paths of travel through downtown. Service is provided by 45-foot, 57-seat over-the-road coaches. These coaches provide a high degree of comfort. However, single-door operation and on-board fare collection slow passenger boarding in downtown Houston during the evening peak period. The HOV lane substantially reduced travel times for buses and car/vanpools. While freeway travel averages 24 mph during most morning and evening rush hours, HOV lane traffic operates between 50 and 55 mph, saving those who use the lane anywhere from 12 to 22 minutes per trip. The travel time savings have been 14 minutes for a 13.5 mile trip—about 1 minute per mile. Patronage • 6,400 average weekday boardings (estimated for study corridor) on the busway. – A.M. Peak Period: 2,350 passengers – P.M. Peak Period: 2,500 passengers • U.S. 290: – 243,000 vehicles per weekday (estimated for study corridor) on U.S. 290. – 315,900 person-trips per weekday (estimated for study corridor) on U.S. 290.73 Benefits Before and after usage comparisons for the Northwest Freeway are shown in Table D-3. Although the total number of transit riders is very low, there were substantial increases in the number of bus trips, bus riders, and total persons moved in the corridors in percentage terms. Sacramento North Line/ S.R. 160 & I-80 Corridor Limits From: Watt/I-80 Station To: Globe Avenue Station Context and Project Development History The 42-mile Sacramento Regional Transit District Light Rail system serves the northern, eastern, and southern sub- urbs (see Figure D-8). The system serves an urbanized area of population of about 1.4 million and a central business district of 65,000. The system uses a broad variety of alignments, in- cluding freeway medians, abandoned railroad rights-of-way, and street running in the central area. Weekday daily board- ings are approximately 50,000. There are about 7,500 park- and-ride spaces along the three lines. The Sacramento North light rail line forms a multimodal corridor between the central area and Watt/I-80 station. It is located in the median of the State Route 160 Bridge over the American River for roughly 0.4 miles. It then occupies about 4.5 miles that were made available by the withdrawal and re- location of the Interstate 80 freeway. The next 1.2 miles run in the median of Interstate 80 for three stations as it proceeds northeast of downtown. Service on the light rail line began in 1987. The corridor extends through residential areas east of downtown. Park-and-ride lots are provided at all study cor- ridor stations except Globe and Royal Oak. The balance of the I-80 median between the Watt/I-80 and Watt/I-80 West stations that is not dedicated to the rail tracks and platforms provides park-and-ride parking. About 2,000 parking spaces are available along the multimodal corridor. Sacramento’s North Line (sometimes known as the Gold Line) was the first light rail line to be built in Sacramento and opened in 1987. This segment was an 18.3 mile route between 73Turnbull K. F., Levinson H. S., Pratt R. H., TCRP 95 Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes, Chapter 2—HOV Facilities, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2006. Table D-3. Summary of before and after A.M. peak-direction Houston Northwest Freeway and HOV lane data. Pre-HOV (1987) Post-HOV (1996) % Increase Pre-HOV (1987) Post-HOV (1996) % Increase Peak-Hour 270 850 251% 6,140 9,538 55% Peak-Period 605 1,545 155% 17,450 23,962 37% Bus Passenger Boardings Total Passenger-Boardings Source: Turnbull, K.F., et al., TCRP 95 Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes, p. 2-13.

130 Watt/I-80 Station and downtown Sacramento. Built at a cost of $176 million (in 1987-equivalent dollars), including the cost of vehicles and maintenance and storage facilities, much of the line was originally single-tracked, though in the 1990s, nearly all of its length was converted to double-track. While the line was built mostly within an existing railroad right- of-way, it also used structures of the abandoned I-80 free- way bypass projects—the highway facilities the North Line effectively replaced after a citizen’s “freeway revolt” halted these projects.74 And just as citizen activism brought these I-80 bypass projects to a halt, the light rail system was built in part as a result of advocates encouraging their elected leaders and gov- ernment agency staff to consider, plan, and then build the sys- tem. One prominent organizer pushed politicians to get be- hind the idea and get it funded. Following directly on the successes of the “freeway revolt” in Orangevale which suc- cessfully stopped the freeway bypass construction plans, pro- transit supporters organized the first meeting of the Sacra- mento chapter of the Modern Transit Society in 1975, with the proposal to pursue a light rail project as a prominent item on the agenda. During the same period, the City and County of Sacramento formed a joint Northeast Area Transportation Task Force to study the alternatives for using the I-80 bypass corridors, now that the freeway alternatives had been aban- doned. At that same time, a federal law—passed in response to the “freeway revolts” taking place around the country— changed the financing picture for the light rail project by allowing areas affected by proposed freeway projects to veto those projects and propose alternative transportation proj- ects that would use those funds.75 Other non-governmental stakeholders provided key impetus to the light rail project, including the local chapter of the American Lung Association, which worked with transit advocates to organize the earliest public meetings of the newly formed, Northeast Area Transportation Task Force.76 Planning and public outreach for the light rail option contin- ued through the late 1970s, and culminated in County Measure “C,” a 1979 Regional Transit District-sponsored ballot measure to raise funds for transit operations (1⁄4 cent from the State gas tax). Perhaps due partially to the economic and political times, and perhaps due in part to a lack of consensus in the region on the future of light rail, Measure C failed with only 44 percent of the vote. A second measure was placed on the ballot in Novem- ber of the same year—a funding mechanism for the projects identified in the Northeast Corridor Study. These transit- oriented projects included the official withdrawal from the I-80 Source: Courtesy Sacramento Regional Transit District Figure D-8. Sacramento Regional Transit District’s Light Rail system map. 74http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Line_%28Sacramento_RT%29 75Hultgren, R. “How It Happened: The Development of Sacramento’s Light Rail,” 1982, http://www.friendsoflightrail.org/history/documents/How%20It%20 Happened.pdf 76Hultgren, R. “How It Happened: The Development of Sacramento’s Light Rail, 1982, http://www.friendsoflightrail.org/history/documents/How%20It%20 Happened.pdf”

131 freeway bypass projects, a set of transit improvements, and a series of multimodal transit centers.77 A shake-up at the Regional Transit District led to the re- placement of the general manager and all but one of the agency’s Board of Directors. The new board hired a new general manager, widely perceived as pro-light rail. Encour- aged by these changes, MTS conducted a community petition campaign for light rail. This campaign attracted wide-ranging support from forty-six community organizations.78 By 1981, the Sacramento City Council voted eight-to-one in favor of light rail for the Folsom Corridor and the North- east Corridors. After a parallel effort by local congressional representatives as well as Sacramento’s mayor and other legislators, the U.S. Department of Transportation and the State of California approved funding for the project. Shortly thereafter, a Joint Powers Agreement between Sacramento City, Sacramento County, Regional Transit, and Caltrans created the Sacramento Transit Development Agency (STDA) as the agency tasked to build the light rail system.79 Once completed and operational, the line became very popular, and in response, RT built two new stations at 39th and 48th streets that opened in 1995. In 1998, a 2.3-mile extension to the Mather Field/Mills station was opened and in 2004, a further extension to Sunrise station was opened.80 Design Features Many sections of the line and other lines are single track with passing siding. The line is double-track where it occupies the abandoned freeway right-of-way; it uses several structures that were built for the abandoned freeway. A passing siding is provided at the Globe Station81. Trains operate on-street through central Sacramento. Most private rights-of-way, including all single-track sections, have three-aspect (red, yellow, and green) automatic block signals. Stations Low-platform stations are provided. Double-track sec- tions on private rights-of-way use island platforms. Sta- tions are 320 feet long and can accommodate four-car 80-ft-long trains. Almost all stations have senior/disabled platforms that are accessed by ramps or lifts. Each station is equipped with at least one fare vending machine. All sta- tions have telephones and most have lighted shelters82. Other amenities include comfortable seating, landscaping, bicycle racks, lockers, and information kiosks. There are 700 parking spaces provided at the two northern stations— Watt/I-80 West and Watt I-80. Many stations have bus access. Operations Service is provided daily from about 4 A.M. to midnight. The North Line is routed via the South Line to Meadowview, as the “Blue Line.” Trains run via a one-way street couplet through downtown Sacramento. Trains run at 15-minute intervals throughout the day, and at 30-minute intervals during evenings and weekends. Three- to four-car trains run during rush hours. Single-car trains op- erate during late evenings and mornings on Sunday. The large number of single-track operations (which are gradually being reduced) limits intervals between trains to at least 15 min- utes. Each two-direction car can seat 64 people. The 79-foot 6-inch cars can carry 80 standees, and the 84-foot cars can carry 113 standing passengers. The maximum speeds are 55 miles per hour. The travel time between Watt—I-80 and Meadowview is 38 minutes each way. A proof-of-payment fare structure is used. Patronage • 6,400 average weekday boardings (estimated for study corridor) on the North Line. – There are almost 5,000 daily boardings and alightings at the Watt I-80 terminal station. • Interstate 80: – 146,000 vehicles per weekday (estimated for study corridor) on Interstate 80. – 189,900 person-trips per weekday (estimated for study corridor) on Interstate 80. Benefits The LRT Line has substantially reduced travel times. It is estimated that the travel times between Watt—I-80 and Meadowview have been reduced from roughly 60 to 38 min- utes. Partly as a result of system expansion, LRT ridership has grown substantially. 77Hultgren, R. “How It Happened: The Development of Sacramento’s Light Rail, 1982, http://www.friendsoflightrail.org/history/documents/How%20It%20 Happened.pdf” 78Hultgren, R. “How It Happened: The Development of Sacramento’s Light Rail, 1982, http://www.friendsoflightrail.org/history/documents/How%20It%20 Happened.pdf” 79Hultgren, R. “How It Happened: The Development of Sacramento’s Light Rail, 1982, http://www.friendsoflightrail.org/history/documents/How%20It%20 Happened.pdf” 80http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Line_%28Sacramento_RT%29 81Matoff, T. G., “Regional Rail in a Low-Density Center”, Transportation research Record No. 1433, Public Transit, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1994. 82http:/www.sacrt.com/lightrail.stm

132 Atlanta North-South Line/ Route 400 Corridor Limits From: Medical Center Station To: Civic Center Station Context and Project Development History The Atlanta urbanized area has a population of about four million and continues to grow rapidly. Its central business district has over 16 million square feet of commercial office space. I-70 and I-75 converge into a common north-south freeway on each side of the central area, where it interchanges with I-20. The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) operates north-south and east-west rapid transit lines that cross at Five Points in the heart of downtown Atlanta. The 48-mile, 38-station system shown in Figure D-9 serves more than a quarter-million passengers each weekday. A 3-mile section of the North Line centered on the Buckhead station is located in the median of six-lane Georgia 400—a toll freeway that opened in 1993. Atlanta’s North Line is the longest branch of the MARTA rail system extending 15.1 miles from Five Points to North Springs. The overall Atlanta Route 400/North-South Line study corridor includes sections of State Route 400 and Interstate 84 that run parallel to MARTA’s North-South Line. The study segment begins at the north side of downtown Atlanta at the Civic Center Station where Peachtree Street crosses I-85. It ends at the Medical Center Station, just south of the Route 400/Route 19 interchange—a total distance of roughly 11.4 miles. Route 400 north of the study corridor Source: Public Domain, Courtesy Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority Figure D-9. Atlanta’s rail system map.

133 (north of I-285) was completed in 1979 and the connection south of I-285 connecting to I-85 was completed in 1993. The North-South Line—including the stations along the study corridor segment—opened during the period from 1982 to 1984. The section north of Buckhead is the newest part of the system. The Buckhead, Medical Center, and Dunwoody stations opened in June 1996, the Sandy Springs and North Springs stations opened in December 2000. The corridor includes Lindbergh station—the second busiest station in the MARTA system—a transit-oriented development on a 47-acre site combining office towers, retail, restaurants, and parking structures constructed on MARTA-owned land. For the length of the study corridor, the rail line runs in the median of or directly adjacent to the corridor freeway for roughly half the corridor distance and is off set (within 0.5 mile) from the freeway for the other half. Following right on the heels of San Francisco’s BART initiative, Atlanta’s rapid transit proposals first surfaced in the early 1950s with the publication of a series of regional planning reports. Initiated by Atlanta’s Metropolitan Planning Commission (MPC), these reports primarily focused on free- way planning to accommodate the rapid post-war expansion of the Atlanta metro area. But these early reports also openly questioned whether increased highway construction could ever meet future transportation demands in the region. With this, MPC began to study the potential for a regional rapid transit system, while the Georgia Highway Department contin- ued to assert that highways would be an adequate solution.83 Momentum continued to build through the 1960s, as three additional planning reports—including MPC’s regional comprehensive plan—pushed for a 60-mile rapid transit system serving five counties at a cost of roughly $215 million. Like the vision for BART and the San Francisco Bay Area, two of these three reports saw rapid transit as a tool for shaping the future urban form of the Atlanta region and promoting the region as the premier urban region in the southeastern United States. The third report was more modest in its ambitions and called for a $59 million first phase of a regional system with a 16-mile starter-line. This report would find support from Atlanta’s business community and in 1961 the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce established a rapid transit steering committee, including the president of the Atlanta Transit System. This group worked with the MPC to publicize and advocate for this proposal with the public. Civic organi- zations and business groups met to discuss the initiative. Meanwhile, Atlanta mayor William Hartsfield appointed a rapid transit committee to work with the MPC to lobby members of the Georgia General Assembly on behalf of the project. This two-pronged approach—the Chamber of Commerce working with public outreach, and the Rapid Transit Committee/MPC team building support among politicians—paid off in 1962 when the Georgia legislature created the Metropolitan Atlanta Transit Study Commission (MATSC).84 But this was one step short of a full-fledged, regional rapid transit agency, something that would be needed if planning, financing, engineering and construction were to ever get started—something that would require a state constitutional amendment. In 1962, this amendment went before the state’s voters, and while DeKalb and Fulton counties (in the Atlanta metro area) approved it, the rest of the state’s counties voted against it. In retrospect, it appears that the amendment was written too broadly. For example, the amendment did not specify the composition of the agency or whom it would be answerable to, but rather, stated the general nature of its powers (taxing, eminent domain, and expenditure of public funds). As a result, it appears that the state’s voters feared they were being asked to pay for Atlanta’s rail system. Opposition also appeared from the pro-highway lobby within the state, partic- ularly the trucking industry that sought to maintain funding for the currently planned highway system.85 During this time, MATSC had not been idle. At the end of 1962, they published a regional rapid transit plan that called for a 66-mile system with 42 stations, with an emphasis on feeder buses and park-and-ride facilities for five counties in the Atlanta metro area. They quickly kicked off a publicity campaign for the plan, forming a committee with the mandate to build support for financing the proposed rapid rail system. Meanwhile, campaigning at the state level continued as well, and in 1964 a measure to form a regional transit agency was put before the voters—this time, only in the five metropoli- tan Atlanta counties where the system would operate. This measure passed and in 1965 the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) Act was approved by the state legislature. MARTA was officially formed in January 1966.86 MARTA published their own plan for the regional rapid rail system in 1967, and while it was slightly smaller than the planned MATSC system (54- instead of 66-miles) it was also estimated to cost $190 million more. This gave an opening to anti-MARTA forces, and Robert Somerville—the head of the Atlanta Transit System and a former member of the Chamber of Commerce’s rapid transit steering committee—put forth a counterproposal. Instead of the proposed rapid rail system, he planned a 32-mile regional rapid bus system estimated to cost 84http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Atlanta_Rapid_Transit_Authority_ history 85http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Atlanta_Rapid_Transit_Authority_ history 86http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Atlanta_Rapid_Transit_Authority_ history 83http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Atlanta_Rapid_Transit_Authority_ history

134 $52 million. This plan gained political popularity and momen- tum and soon became a viable alternative in the public eye.87 MARTA moved quickly to reduce the size and costs of their proposed rail system to meet this challenge. In 1968 they proposed a 40-mile system, but the plan was published only a few months before a referendum to fund MARTA’s capital programs went before the voters. There are several reasons why it failed, but some of the more prominent explanations include • The continuing controversy over the choice of rail or bus rapid transit; • The lack of guaranteed federal funding for the system gave conservatives a reason to claim the plan was financially irresponsible; • The proposed use of property taxes to fund MARTA alien- ated low income and suburban voters; • A perception by suburban voters that the system would be a greater benefit to the city of Atlanta; • Complaints that local officials and Atlanta’s black commu- nity had not been included in the planning and would not receive adequate service; and • MARTA’s publicity for the plan had been too rushed and poorly executed.88 After the referendum went down, MARTA regrouped and worked to address these issues directly and build greater political support for the proposed system. They worked to enlist support from organized labor, sought out local and African-American representatives to participate in planning the system, modified service plans to provide better service to African American communities, and changed the property tax funding proposal to a 1% sales tax.89 A second funding referendum went before the voters in 1971, this time including rapid busways in key corridors to attract those who supported the rapid bus plan. While voters in DeKalb and Fulton counties approved the referendum, Clayton and Gwinnett counties voted it down by substantial margins (only 23% and 21% voted in favor, respectively). It was thought that voters in these counties were reacting negatively to the plan since it only included nine miles of rail line in both counties, total.90 In 1971 MARTA purchased the Atlanta Transit System for $12.8 million, and in 1975, the Urban Mass Transportation Administration allocated $600 million to MARTA for the system’s construction. Groundbreaking took place that same year.91 In 1981, the North-South Line opened from Garnett to North Avenue, followed by the opening of the expansion to the Arts Center in 1982 and the section between Lindbergh Center and Brookhaven opened in 1984. Finally, the section between Buckhead and Dunwoody stations (including a stretch in the Georgia 400 freeway median) opened in 1996.92 Design Features Horizontal and vertical alignments are designed for 70 mph maximum train speeds. Stations Center island stations are attractively designed. The enclosed portion of the Lindbergh Center station has colored glass panels in the ceiling, which cause interesting lighting effects in the morning. Vertical access is ADA compliant, and direct access is provided to nearby developments and parking facilities. A large parking garage at the North Springs terminal station has its own access ramps to and from the Route 400 Expressway. Benefits The North corridor has experienced considerable land development as a result of market forces and the improved road and rail access. Major commercial developments include those found in the vicinity of the Lindbergh and Buckhead Stations. Washington D.C. Orange Line/I-66 Corridor Limits From: Vienna/GMU Station To: Foggy Bottom Station Context and Project Development History The Washington D.C. Urbanized Area has a population that exceeds four million and a central area employment of more than 300,000. The region is served by a five-route Metro rail system that carries 600,000 people each day. It is also served by the Shirley (I-395) HOV reversible median roadway that serves large numbers of express bus passengers. The Metro Orange Line linking downtown DC to Northern Virginia87http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Atlanta_Rapid_Transit_Authority_ history 88http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Atlanta_Rapid_Transit_Authority_ history 89http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Atlanta_Rapid_Transit_Authority_ history 90http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Atlanta_Rapid_Transit_Authority_ history 91http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Atlanta_Rapid_Transit_Authority_ history 92http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Atlanta_Rapid_Transit_Authority_ history

135 was completed and opened in June, 1986. It runs along the median of I-66 for the portion serving Fairfax county and half of its stretch through Arlington County. In Arlington, I-66 carries commuter traffic and also provides the connection to Virginia 267, the Dulles Airport Access Road. Along the line, Vienna/Fairfax-GMU serves as the access point for 9,900 morning entries while Foggy Bottom has 10,000 A.M. exits. Rosslyn station immediately west of the Potomac has balanced A.M. entries and exits with 4,800 enter- ing and 6,800 exiting in the morning. The rapid post-war suburbanization of metropolitan Washington D.C. created a host of interstate transit service challenges. Like many regions, its automobile-dependent suburbs were increasingly hard to serve with transit. However, in and around DC, the difficulties of regional transit service were compounded by the many private transit companies serv- ing DC, Virginia, and Maryland that were regulated by separate public utilities commissions while inter-jurisdictional trips were regulated by the federal Interstate Commerce Commis- sion. This patchwork of regulatory control meant that sub- urban commuters often faced an uncoordinated set of sched- ules, fares, and routes.93 So while other regions considering regional rapid rail systems—San Francisco and Atlanta—faced similar problems of serving dispersed suburbs and uncoordi- nated transit service providers, the DC region developed an ambitious plan to create a unified transit agency that would cross state lines. During the 1950s, when Eisenhower’s Federal-Aid Highway Act (1956) set the stage for the automobile to play the leading role in shaping urban form across the nation, these policies were echoed by Congress’s National Planning Commission’s Mass Transportation Plan for DC, calling for a network of 329 miles of highways to carry the bulk of the region’s traffic. And while this network included a rapid rail network as well, the 33-miles planned for this system was small in comparison to the emphasis placed on highways—priorities that encour- aged DC’s own freeway revolt. John F. Kennedy’s election in 1960 gave further impetus to the pro-transit supporters, when he replaced the national experts who had been in charge of planning DC’s freeway expansions with local transit advo- cates who had opposed the highway-oriented plan. When he assumed office, Kennedy established a new planning agency— the National Capital Transportation Agency (NCTA)—for the region. The NCTA worked through much of the 1960s to expand the size and role of the planned rapid rail system in regional transporation. In 1967, partially as a result of Presi- dent Lyndon B. Johnson’s emphasis on locally driven plan- ning, local officials convinced Congress to turn over DC metro planning to a locally run agency—the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), which would develop plans for a 98-mile regional system, estimated to cost $1.828 billion. When adjusted for inflation, the system would eventually cost $3.8 billion, drawing recent criticisms as an ex- ample of a “mega-project” that subjected tax-payers to cost- overruns and underperformance. Counter-arguments point out that WMATA’s metro system is incredibly successful at at- tracting ridership and has been effective as a replacement to the freeway “mega-project” originally planned by Congress.94 The I-66/Orange Line corridor provides a microcosm of the larger highway versus transit debate in the Washington D.C. region and the rest of the country during the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. Prior to World War II, Arlington County, through which the corridor runs just west of the District, served primarily as a bedroom community. But the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) published a plan that set the stage for a comprehensive transformation of the corridor in 1961—a plan that called for dense developments along major trans- portation corridors, reserving wedges between those corri- dors for less dense development. The Orange Line Corridor was one such area designated for dense employment and resi- dential growth.95 A 1962 NCTA report provided the vision for these changes where rapid rail in the corridor would be the transportation glue that would bind the corridor together and attract NCPC’s planned growth. NCTA’s report also set the design specifics for the rapid rail system as a whole that would eventually come to fruition in this and several other of the region’s corridors— minimizing costs by routing suburban extensions as surface lines along freeway rights-of-way.96 And it appears that if the plan was carried out to the letter, then the Orange Line would have been routed along I-66 in its entirety, but the govern- ment of Arlington County had plans for dense residential and commercial development roughly a mile to the south of I-66. By 1966, the County and NCTA had agreed to route the first few miles of the Orange line along Wilson Boulevard (where the high-density commercial and apartment developments were planned) instead of the low-density residential areas along I-66. Once the line was west of this planned high-density area, the Orange Line would rejoin I-66 to reduce costs of align- ment as it ran into Fairfax County.97 However, in the District, stakeholders were often split in terms of geography, with sub- urban Virginia and Maryland residents favoring the freeway- 94Schrag, Z. M. “Thinking Big: Lessons from the Washington Metro,” Trans- portation Research News, March-April 2007, National Academies, pp. 18–20. 95Schrag, Z. M. “The Great Society Subway: A History of the Washington Metro,” Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006, p. 222. 96Schrag, Z. M. “The Great Society Subway: A History of the Washington Metro,” Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006, p. 223. 97Schrag, Z. M. “The Great Society Subway: A History of the Washington Metro,” Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006, p. 224. 93Schrag, Z. M. “The Great Society Subway: A History of the Washington Metro,” Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006, p. 96.

136 heavy plan, and District residents favoring the plan for rapid rail that would replace many of the freeway system’s links. As the 1960s progressed, it became clear that a compromise was needed since the District was not going to allow freeways within its borders and the suburban freeways would be cut off from the region’s core employment center. In 1968, WMATA publicly stated that the philosophy that transit could sub- stitute for highways was unworkable. The agency’s general manager stated for the record that WMATA, “has consistently maintained that rapid rail transit is a supplement to and not a substitute for alternative modes of transportation,” promising that the vast majority of the system’s passengers would access its stations via bus or car.98 This appears to have helped to circum- vent the suburban/urban political impasse. In 1968, WMATA put forth a bond initiative on the ballot to fund the construc- tion of the rail system. Voters in both states approved the funding by a 72 percent landslide. Federal funding for WMATA’s construction was secured in 1969 from Congress. The corridor would be developed as a multimodal facility, with Metrorail running in the median of a reduced, four-lane I-66 freeway.99 Service on the Orange Line began on November 20, 1978 (temporarily), between National Airport and New Carrollton. When the line from Rosslyn to Ballston–MU was completed a year later, trains began following its current route rather than going south to National Airport. The line was completed on June 7, 1986, when it was extended by four stations to Vienna/ Fairfax-GMU.100 Design Features The Orange Line is designed for 70 mph top speeds. With an average spacing of 3 miles between stations, trains speeds are high. The space occupied by the tracks, stations, and buffers is about 65-feet wide. Interstate 66 is designated as an HOV-2-only facility between the Washington, DC, Beltway and the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge during peak periods. The entire eastbound (inbound) roadway is HOV-2 during the AM peak period, and the entire westbound (outbound) roadway is reserved for HOV-2 during the PM peak. Stations Center island stations are located within a right-of-way of about 65 feet. The stations can accommodate eight-car 75-foot trains. Metro Bus and Fairfax County buses serve the stations, and special areas are provided for passenger boarding and alighting. The 9,600 parking spaces located at stations in the multimodal corridor account for an average of 4.5 passenger boardings per space. Operations Orange Line trains run at frequent intervals from early morning to late evening. There is no overnight service. The trains join the Blue Line between the Rosslyn and Stadium- Armory stations and then proceed to New Carrollton. About 300 cars operate across the Potomac River from Virginia dur- ing the 6:30–9:30 morning peak period. Occupancy averages 90 percent. Travel times from Vienna to Ballston (the sta- tion East of East Falls Church) are 15 minutes. The average speed is 36 mph. Patronage • 139,400 average weekday boardings (estimated for study corridor) on the Orange Line. • Interstate 66: – 98,000 vehicles per weekday (estimated for study corri- dor) on Interstate 66. – 127,400 person-trips per weekday (estimated for study corridor) on Interstate 66. The Vienna/Fairfax terminal station serves as the access point for 9,900 morning entries. Rosslyn Station on the combined Orange and Blue Lines, immediately west of the Potomac River has balanced entries and exits; 4,800 enter, and 6,800 exit in the morning. Foggy Bottom has 10,000 A.M. exits. Benefits The multimodal corridor carries roughly 8,800 people in the AM and PM peak hour directions across the Capi- tal Beltway. Metro Rail carries slightly more people than the freeway lanes. The use of the rail line is more than three times as productive as the freeway on a per lane basis. The Arlington County zoning ordinance encourages commer- cial and high-density residential development around sta- tions between Rosslyn and Ballston. In recent years, develop- ment has begun to occur around stations in the multimodal corridor. Chicago Region The Chicago Urbanized Area—one of the nation’s largest— has more than 8.5 million residents. The City’s central busi- ness district (the Loop) has over 120 million square feet of commercial floor space, and its employment exceeds 350,000. It is served by an extensive commuter rail system, and a 90-mile 138-station rail rapid transit (heavy rail) system (Figure D-10). 98Schrag, Z. M. “The Great Society Subway: A History of the Washington Metro,” Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006. 99http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_66 100http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Line_%28Washington_Metro%29

137 The City of Chicago and the Chicago Transit Authority pioneered the development of multimodal freeway-rapid transit corridors. There are rail lines in the Eisenhower, Ryan, and Kennedy Expressways. Chicago Blue Line/Eisenhower Expressway Corridor Limits From: Forest Park Station To: LaSalle Station Context and Project Development History The I-290 Eisenhower Expressway multimodal corridor extends from the Chicago Center business district to Forest Park. The Blue Line opened on June 22, 1958, replacing the former Garfield Park elevated that had operated since 1905. The rapid transit line connects with the Congress-Dearborn- Milwaukee subway through the Loop, and with the rapid transit line to Logan Square, Jefferson Park, and O’Hare In- ternational Airport. The first 6 miles are located in the me- dian of the eight-lane freeway, and the next 3 miles are lo- cated along the south side of the (6-lane) freeway. There are 11 stations in this multimodal corridor. Construction of the Blue (Congress) route and its connec- tion to the subway was financed by the City of Chicago. About $2 million was derived from the sale of revenue bonds being serviced by subway rental paid by the Chicago Transit Author- ity. An additional $25 million came from a general obligation Source: Courtesy Chicago Transit Authority Figure D-10. Chicago’s rail transit system map.

138 issue101. The city made $12 million available for equipment, to be repaid by the CTA. The city’s opening brochure indi- cates that “the use of the median strip has made possible construction cost distribution of one-fifth for the transit to four-fifths for expressway facilities.”102 Design Features The expressway and transit line are located below grade for about the first 6 miles. They are flanked by continuous frontage roads that provide local access. North-south streets cross over the freeway at about quarter-mile intervals (see Figure D-11). The median is wide enough to allow future expansion to four tracks for the first 4.5 miles, and to three tracks for the rest of the route. The initial design provided a ramp from the median to connect with the Douglas Park (now Pink) line that was used for many years. There is also a third track for switching trains in the eastern section of the rail line. Stations Center Island station platforms are 600 feet long and canopied. Access to each station is from the middle of cross- street bridges by a gently sloping ramp. The major stations are located between two cross street bridges one quarter mile apart, with an access ramp from each street bridge. An entrance building (about 42 by 21 feet) at each cross-street bridge con- tains fare collection equipment. Access to stations is provided by intersecting CTA and suburban bus routes. There are more than 1,000 parking spaces at the Forest Park terminal. Operations The initial operating plan had alternate trains serving the Douglas (Pink) and Congress (Blue) branches. As ridership patterns changed, the Pink Line trains were rerouted to the nearby Lake Street elevated structure, and a single Blue Line service runs to the Forest Park Terminal. Because the O’Hare Line has heavy ridership, alternate trains are terminated in the CBD during rush hours. Trains run in the subway in the central area and continue to O’Hare International Airport. The CTA provides 24-hour service. Trains run every 7 to 8 minutes from about 6 A.M. to midnight, with longer head- ways during overnight hours. Trains have eight cars between 6 A.M. and 6 P.M. and four cars at other times. Cars are 48 feet long; they are 8 feet and 9 inches wide at platform level, and 9 feet and 4 inches wide at waist level. Patronage A 1960 study of the passenger use of the Blue Line showed that trains accounted for 28 percent of the peak-hour peak- direction passenger flow west of the Douglas junction and 57 percent east of the junction. Corresponding figures were 18 and 36 percent for a 24-hour period103. • 20,000 average weekday boardings (estimated for study corridor) on the Blue Line. • Interstate 290: – 196,100 vehicles per weekday (estimated for study cor- ridor) on Interstate 290. – 254,900 person-trips per weekday (estimated for study corridor) on Interstate 290. Weekday station boardings in 2008 for the Blue Line are shown in Table D-4 Benefits While it is difficult to identify a direct causal relationship between the transit line’s presence and land development ac- tivities in the corridor, several notable trip attractors have continued to expand during the period of this line’s opera- tion. The Chicago Circle Campus of the University of Illinois is located along the Blue Line, a short distance to the east of the multimodal corridor. The Cook County Medical Center, located near the line, continues to expand. 101Chicago Transit—History and Progress, Chicago Transit Authority, Public In- formation Department, Chicago, Illinois, Undated. 102Krambles, G. and Peterson, A., CTA at 45, George Krambles Scholarship Fund, Chicago, Illinois 1993. Source: Courtesy of Jeremiah Cox/SubwayNut.com Figure D-11. Chicago’s Eisenhower Expressway and the Blue Line at Racine Station. 103Source: Chicago Transit Authority, also Gunlock, V. E.; Chicago’s Rail Rapid Transit Line in the Congress Expressway. Presented at the annual convention of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Boston, Massachusetts, November 1960.

139 Chicago Red Line/Dan Ryan Expressway Corridor Limits From: 95th Street Station To: Cermak/Chinatown Station Context and Project Development History Figure D-10 shows the relationship of this multimodal cor- ridor to the rest of Chicago’s rapid transit system. The Dan Ryan Expressway opened in 1962. The rail line opened in the median in 1969. The expressway (I-90/I-94) has 14 express lanes along with continuous frontage roads between 27th and 65th streets. It provides eight lanes south of 67th Street. The total cost of the expressway has been cited as $300 mil- lion. Total cost of the rapid transit line was reported to be about $38 million plus another $19.5 million for new cars. The rapid transit line opened September 1969. Two-thirds of the construction costs were covered by a federal grant. The line was built to relieve the then-overlooked Jackson Park and Englewood lines and to extend 4 miles further south. There are nine stations along the 10.5-mile-long line. The Chicago Transit Authority Red Line is located in the me- dian of I-90, the Dan Ryan Expressway from south of Cermack/ Chinatown Station to its terminus at 95th Street station. The Dan Ryan Expressway was completed to 95th Street in 1962. The section of the Red Line to 95th street opened in 1969. A plurality of station entries (13,449) takes place at the end point of the line at 95th Street. The median number of entries is 3,722. This indicates the line has a strong role in serving park-and-ride traffic and a strong automobile orientation overall. The land use along the line is varied, with several sta- tions surrounded by transitional uses. Comiskey Park, the home of the Chicago White Sox, is located at the 35th Street/ Sox station. Design Features The Dan Ryan Expressway and rapid transit lines are below street grade. The rail line connects with both the South Side Elevated and the State Street subway. A storage yard is located south of 95th Street within the interchange area between I-94 and I-57 to the south of 95th Street. Trains run on continu- ously welded rails supported by reinforced concrete ties, with the rails cushioned by stone ballast. Stations Wide visibility and a high level of illumination character- ize station areas. Fare collection equipment and turnstiles are of stainless steel. Escalators supplement stairs. Use of steel and glass affords maximum visibility from adjacent streets and highways. Self-service infrared radiant heaters are located at windbreaks on the platforms. Patron conveniences include high illumination lighting and a translucent canopy. Board- ing platforms accommodate eight-car trains. Off-street bus transfer facilities are provided at the 95th Street terminal and at the 69th Street station; there are bus bridges at each station over the expressway traffic lanes. Both are heavily used stations. An off-street bus loop is also pro- vided at the Cermak Road station. Operations Dan Ryan trains operated between 95th Street and the Harlem-Lake Station from 1969 through 1993. Trains ran on the east (Wabash) and north (Lake Street) sides of the down- town Loop. However, the ridership imbalance between the heavy (Ryan) and light (Lake) lines, and between the heavy (Howard) and light (Englewood-Jackson) lines became in- creasingly pronounced. Therefore, since February, 1993, the Dan Ryan trains have been through routed via the State Street subway to Howard Street on the city’s north side. Trains run 24 hours daily and consists of eight cars from about 5 AM to 11 PM and four cars at other times. Trains run every 4 to 5 minutes during rush periods and every 7 to 8 min- utes during midday and early evening. Service is at 15-minute intervals overnight. Running times were initially cited as 26 minutes between 95th Street and downtown Chicago. Cur- rent schedules show running times of about 25 minutes for the 10.5-mile distance. Patronage • 42,500 average weekday boardings (estimated for study corridor) on the Red Line. • Dan Ryan Expressway: Table D-4. Average station boardings Eisenhower (Congress) Blue Line average—January– September 2008. Station Passengers Forest Park 4,535 Oak Park 1,807 Austin 2,026 Cicero 1,241 Pulaski 1,527 Kedzie-Homan 1,908 Western 1,430 Medical Center 2,761 Racine 1,656 Total along Expressway 19,952 U.I.C. Halsted 3,674 Clinton 2,926 Blue Line Total 26,552 Source: Chicago Transit Authority.

140 – 239,100 vehicles per weekday (estimated for study cor- ridor) on the Dan Ryan Expressway. – 311,700 person-trips per weekday (estimated for study corridor) on the Dan Ryan Expressway. Benefits The Ryan Line has dramatically reduced travel times. A re- built Comiskey Park, the home of the Chicago White Sox, is located at the 35th Street Sox Station. The Dan Ryan Red Line has carried as many as 16,000 people through the maximum load point in a single hour on a single track. In 1987, almost 11,000 people per hour were carried. 2008 figures suggest 7,300. These numbers vastly exceed the number of people carried per general-purpose travel lane. Chicago Blue Line/Kennedy Expressway (I-90) Corridor Limits From: O’Hare Station To: Grand-Blue Station Context and Project Development History The John Fitzgerald Kennedy Expressway, opened in 1962, connects downtown Chicago with the Illinois Toll Road on the northwest side of the urban area. The southern section, which carries both I-90 and I-94, was located along Metro’s northwest rail line to minimize community impacts. It has four travel lanes each way, plus two reversible lanes within the median area. The western (I-90) section has three lanes in each direction; a short spur (I-190) connects with O’Hare In- ternational Airport. The long-established Milwaukee Avenue elevated and sub- way line on Chicago’s northwest side was initially extended from its Logan Square terminal to Jefferson Park. The 5-mile extension, which includes a short subway and operates in the center of the expressway, opened in 1970. It cost about $50 million (excluding the costs for 150 new cars). The rapid transit line was subsequently extended to River Road Febru- ary 1983; a three-track terminal at O’Hare International air- port opened in September 1984. The median operation in- cludes about 11 miles of route with eight stations. The Kennedy Corridor runs along a historical rail right- of-way along I-90 to the northwest of Chicago. This corri- dor provides the most direct link between O’Hare Interna- tional Airport and downtown Chicago. The corridor is co-aligned with the METRA Northwest Union Pacific sub- urban rail line that runs adjacent to the Freeway. The por- tion of the Blue Line, which is offset from I-90, runs along North Milwaukee Avenue, a commercial and mixed-use strip that cuts across the predominantly residential grid of Northwest Chicago. Design Features The southern parts of the rapid transit line and freeway are on an elevated embankment. The section west of I-94 is below grade. There is a short tunnel into the O’Hare International Airport. The two-track line has a third track in the median to the west of the initial terminus at Jefferson Park. This track was used for storage of up to 108 cars, plus a two-track inspection facility when the line was extended to O’Hare, a 12-car Rose- mont inspection stop and 260-car capacity yard were fitted into previously unused segments between expressway ramps. Stations Center island stations are located about 1 mile apart on the initial section. Stations on the extension to O’Hare are spaced about 2 miles apart; these stations have stairways, elevators, and escalators and comply with ADA standards. Bus routes were revised to connect with the stations. At the Jefferson Park station, there is an off-street bus terminal. A pedestrian way connects this terminal with the rapid transit station and the adjacent METRA commuter rail sta- tion. Off-street parking facilities are provided at three outly- ing stations. There are about 800 spaces at the Rosemont sta- tion, 1,636 at the Cumberland station, and 50 at the Harlem station. Daytime rates range from $2.00 to $3.00. Operations Blue Line trains operate between O’Hare and downtown Chicago 24 hours a day. They are through-routed with the Eisenhower service. During rush periods, alternate trains terminate in downtown. Trains are eight cars long from about 5:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M., and four cars long at other times. They run every 3 to 5 minutes during the rush hours, and 7 to 8 minutes at other times. Overnight service is less frequent. The major portion of the new line is designed for speeds of 70 miles per hour. The actual maximum operating speed is 58 miles per hour. The running time between O’Hare and the Loop is 44 to 48 minutes. Patronage • 74,358 average weekday boardings (estimated for study corridor) on the Blue Line. • Kennedy Expressway: – 292,000 vehicles per weekday (estimated for study cor- ridor) on the Kennedy Expressway. – 379,600 person-trips per weekday (estimated for study corridor) on the Kennedy Expressway.

141 The maximum load point on the Blue Line (September 2008) approximated 12,000 people per hour in the busiest di- rection. It is estimated that the maximum load point (one- way) in the multimodal section is 4,000 people per hour. Benefits The Blue Line operating in the median dramatically re- duced transit travel times to O’Hare International Airport. The 45-minute time to the Loop during rush hours is compet- itive with driving. It also provides convenient travel for airport workers. The line to O’Hare was CTA’s first extension into rel- atively undeveloped land in more than half a century. It has resulted in commercial development at the Cumberland and Rosemont stations. New Haven Line/I-95 Corridor Limits From: New Haven Station To: New Rochelle Station Context and Project Development History The I-95 New Haven Corridor consists of Interstate 95 and the Metro North Railroad New Haven Line and runs along roughly 60 miles of a historical rail right-of-way that has extended from New York City to Boston for more than 150 years. (Passenger service along portions of this line is also provided by the Shoreline East Line and Amtrak, but the ser- vice characteristics of those operations are not included here.) Although running on a legacy right-of-way, the Metro North Railroad (which includes the New Haven line) is at its peak in terms of service, providing a record 80 million trips in 2007. The I-95 New Haven Corridor is a regional system, as there are distinct business districts in New Haven, Bridge- port, and Stamford in addition to New York City. Bridge- port station includes access to the ferry terminal serving Long Island. Design Features The New Haven Line generally has four tracks between New Haven and Grand Central Terminal in New York City. It is fully grade-separated from all crossroads and streets. The railroad is electrified by 11,000-volt alternating current be- tween New Haven, Connecticut, and Pelham, New York, and by 650-volt direct current between Pelham and Grand Cen- tral Terminal. Most service is provided by multiple-unit trains. Amtrak leaves the New Haven Line at New Rochelle and reaches Pennsylvania Station, New York City, via the Hell Gate Bridge. Stations There are 30 stations along the New Haven main line. Most stations have side platforms that serve the outer two tracks. The Stamford, New Haven, and New York City’s Grand Cen- tral and Harlem stations have multiple platforms. Overhead or below-track pedestrian connections are provided. Major stations have bus access. More than 20,000 off-street parking spaces are provided at or near stations. Operations Metro North trains on the New Haven Line operate on a “zone express” basis during peak hours. Three tracks are often provided in the heavy direction of travel. During off-peak hours, local trains between Stamford and New York City alter- nate with New Haven to New York trains that run express be- tween Stamford and New York City, each on an hourly basis. Each weekday, 115 westbound trains enter Grand Central Ter- minal, and 60 westbound trains enter Stamford. During the 8 A.M. to 9 A.M. rush hour, 21 westbound trains enter Grand Central and about 11 enter Stamford. Faster trains average 40 to 45 mph. Frequently they pass motorists on I-95 in the heavy direction of travel during rush hours. Patronage • 86,500 average weekday boardings (estimated for study corridor) on the New Haven Line. • Interstate 95: – 152,100 vehicles per weekday (estimated for study cor- ridor) on Interstate 95. – 197,700 person-trips per weekday (estimated for study corridor) on Interstate 95. Benefits The combined rail and road access in this multimodal cor- ridor have contributed to increased office development in Stamford, Greenwich, and several other towns. Stamford has emerged as the major office center of Connecticut. Multimodal Corridors Outside the United States Auckland (New Zealand) Northern Busway/Northern Motorway (SH 1) Corridor Limits From: Akoranga Station To: Albany Station Park-and-Ride Context and Project Development History Auckland’s 6.8-mile five-station Northern Busway system links the North Shore with the center of Auckland (Fig-

142 ure D-12). The busway, opened in February 2008, is a coop- erative venture of the Auckland Regional Transit Authority and the North Shore and Auckland City Council. It is the first step of a planned improved bus transit system that links the urban population of 368,000 with the City Center. The 1.67 square mile central business district has 65,000 jobs and, 10,000 residents; there are 73,000 entrants during the A.M. peak hours. The cost of the busway has been estimated at NZ $290 to 294 million—NZ $210 million for the busway con- struction and NZ $84 million for stations. Design Features The two-lane busway runs roughly 4 miles along the east side of the Northern Motorway. Bus-only lanes connect the busway to the Harbour Bridge (see Figure D-13). The new Es- monde Interchange facilitates the transition from the busway Source: Courtesy New Zealand Transport Agency Figure D-12. Auckland, New Zealand’s Northern Busway map.

143 to bus lanes. The busway is designed for possible future con- version to light rail transit. Stations Four of the five stations are located along the busway. The busway system includes elevators, electronic signs, audio as- sistance posts, and 24-hour video monitoring. Many park- and-ride spaces are provided at the Albany and Constellation stations. Operations Initially, there will be a bus at a station about every 3 minutes. Patronage The busway is forecast to carry 250 buses an hour and take an estimated 2,400 cars off the road during peak periods. Benefits It is anticipated that the busway will reduce peak-hour travel times from about 1 hour to 30 minutes. Beijing (China) Southern Axis Busway Corridor Limits From: Demaozhuang Station To: Qianmen Station Context and Project Development History Beijing, China’s capital, has a population of about 14 mil- lion. The urban area and its surroundings are served by a grow- ing number of rail transit and BRT lines. As Beijing continues to expand at a rapid pace, residents are increasingly settling in the suburbs, leaving their city-center neighborhoods and their walkable, bikeable commutes behind as well. While most of Beijing’s transportation improvement investments have been focused on expanding roads and parking lots for cars, most of the people remain dependent on public transportation. BRT is seen as a cost-effective solution to these challenges. Design Features Beijing’s 10-mile, 17-station BRT line in the center of the Southern Axis Freeway opened in 2006 (Figure D-14). It links eight residential areas with a total population of 200,000 and four commercial areas in the city’s southern districts. The 59-foot-long buses are equipped with an electronic stop announcement system and air conditioning, which most regular city buses do not have. The buses’ low entry step al- lows access for wheelchairs, a feature that Beijing only re- cently began incorporating into city transport. Stations Stations are located in the median of the road where the bus- way runs. Stations are connected to the sidewalks at the road’s outer edges via overpasses and cross-street intersections.104 Source: Courtesy Scoop.co.nz and Transit New Zealand. Figure D-13. Auckland, New Zealand’s Northern Busway parallels the Northern Motorway (SH 1). Source: Courtesy The Energy Foundation. Figure D-14. Beijing’s Southern Axis BRT. 104Matsumoto, N. “Analysis of policy processes to introduce Bus Rapid Transit systems in Asian cities from the perspective of lesson-drawing: cases of Jakarta, Seoul, and Beijing”, http://www.docstoc.com/docs/2370895/Analysis-of-policy- processes-to-introduce-Bus-Rapid-Transit.

144 Operations Service is provided by 59-foot-long articulated buses equipped with low entry steps, electronic stop announce- ments, and air conditioning. Fare collection is done at a ticket counter at the entrance to each station. Tickets are sold man- ually by salesclerks, instead of through salesclerks. One ticket costs a flat rate of two Yuan (25 cents)—roughly two-thirds the cost of a subway ticket.105 Patronage In its first 2 months in service, this BRT line attracted over- whelming ridership, with an average of about 80,000 daily passengers. While officials originally expected a peak flow of roughly 150,000 daily passengers to occur in 2007, passengers neared 130,000 on the third day of operations.106 Benefits One-way travel times are reported as 37 minutes compared to the previous 1-hour journey. Brisbane (Australia) South East Busway Context and Project Development History Brisbane’s 10.5-mile-long South East Busway system is perhaps the first side-running rapid transit facility along an urban freeway. It complements an extensive commuter rail system in serving the 1.8 million people living in the Brisbane metropolitan area, of which half reside in the city. Brisbane’s central business district employment is about 60,000. The South East Busway opened between September 2000 and mid-2001 after 5 years of planning, design, and commu- nity liaison. It is a key component of Queensland Transport’s plan for a fully integrated multimodal transport system. The Inner Northern Busway connects with the South East Busway at the central Queen Street bus station. The Northern, East- ern, and Boggs Road busways are under development. The South East Busway extends from the Brisbane CBD to the southern suburb of Eight Mile Plain, adjacent to the South East Freeway. Some 8 miles with six stations are alongside the South East Expressway. The A$400 million busway includes 10 attractively designed stations and a bus operations center that employs modern ITS technology. It traverses a highly developed urban area in a constrained corridor. Over half of Brisbane Transport bus routes use some part of the busway. The busway includes surface and tunnel operations on exclu- sive rights-of-way. Users include Brisbane Transit and subur- ban bus operators who are under the bus operations center con- trol. Priority lanes connect with the southern busway terminus. Design Features The two-lane busway is located along one side of the six- lane South East Freeway, through much of the corridor. The cross section between stations consists of two 11.5-foot-wide travel lanes. Bypass lanes are provided at stations to enable ex- press buses to pass buses making stops. A 1.6-foot-wide barrier with a fence separates two 11.5-foot-wide travel lanes. These lanes are flanked by two 9.8-foot-wide lanes for stopped buses. The entire Busway envelope, including station platforms, occu- pies 69 feet right-of-way. There are 6,560 feet of elevated road- way and 5,345 feet of tunnel. There are 140 security cameras are linked to CCTV monitors at the busway operations center. Stations The ten attractively designed busway stations at key nodes (six are located along the freeway) serve major activity cen- ters; they allow buses to serve low-density communities, col- lect passengers on local roads, and then join the busway for a congestion-free trip to the city center. The stations have extensive monitoring surveillance and communications capability and provide real-time informa- tion. Each station provides the visual “signature” for the bus rapid transit service. Stations are unattended and are open 24-hours each day. Each station provides facilities for passengers to safely access buses arriving and departing from two platforms. Pedestrian overpasses enable passengers from between sta- tion platforms to cross the busway, and fences preclude at- grade crossings of the busway. Busway station design is a key component of the Busway system. Each station forms a significant part of the adjacent landscape. The strong horizontal lines of station elements (that is, roof structures) and an emphasis on slender steel de- tailing and sizes produces sensitive structures and minimized visual and environmental impacts on surrounding areas. Operations Busway service is provided to two separate areas in the Central Business District (CBD). City Expresses serve the South Bank Cultural Centre and Queen Street. The Rockets serve Queen Street and Riverside. Overlaid on these BRT services is a complex array of services that make various stops along the Busway. More than 100 scheduled routes and 2,300 individual bus services use a portion of the Busway on a typ- ical weekday morning. Service frequencies range from 1 to 6 minutes during peak hours, 5 to 15 minutes on weekdays, 5 to 30 minutes on Sundays, and 10 to 60 minutes after 8:00 P.M. 105Matsumoto, N. “Analysis of policy processes to introduce Bus Rapid Transit systems in Asian cities from the perspective of lesson-drawing: cases of Jakarta, Seoul, and Beijing”, http://www.docstoc.com/docs/2370895/Analysis-of-policy- processes-to-introduce-Bus-Rapid-Transit. 106http://peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2690

145 Patronage Busway ridership for the core services between the CBD and Eight Mile Plains increased 42 percent between May and October 2001—the first 6 months that the complete busway was open. During this period, some 9.6 million passengers were carried. The first entire year it carried 17.7 million passengers, excluding special events and the opening weekend. Daily boardings are approximately 60,000. The City of Brisbane indicates that the busway can carry 11,000 people per hour in each direction during the peak hour. Reported peak direction volumes were up to 9,500 per hour just outside the central area. The busway carries more people in the peak hour than the adjacent gen- eral-purpose freeway travel lanes. Benefits The South East Busway is an extension of the rapid transit system provided by City Train. It links major destinations, im- proves bus-rail and bus-bus transfers, and results in transit travel times that are more competitive with driving, particu- larly during peak hours. The South East Busway is a showplace of state-of-the-art technology and modern architecture. Some 375,000 (annual) private vehicle trips were converted to pub- lic transport. Property values have increased as much as 20 percent in some communities located near the Busway. Research sug- gests that property values increased two to three times as much in communities located within 6 miles of the Busway as compared with those located at greater distances.

Next: Appendix E - Glossary of Terms »
Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 145: Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors presents strategies for planning, designing, building, and operating multimodal corridors—freeways and high-capacity transit lines running parallel in the same travel corridors.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!