Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 34
34 ronment qualities. The same goes for corridors themselves. successes, transforming both land uses and transportation The characteristics and travel patterns within each corridor can facilities into the desired end-state over time. vary considerably. To succeed and thrive in a freeway corridor, transit must adapt to these variations. The Old and New Two of the best-performing transit lines running in multi- Paradigms Compared modal corridors do just that--they are designed to change their alignments and station access characteristics depending The key difference between the old and the new paradigms on their surroundings. Chicago's Kennedy/Blue Line corridor involves the role of the freeway in corridor travel. The interstate carries nearly 60,000 daily boardings, while Washington was originally designed to serve long-haul, interstate trips. DC's Orange Line/I-66 corridor carries roughly 139,000 daily However, as the interstate model evolved over time, interstate boardings. Both owe their success in no small part to the hybrid freeways became the infrastructure of choice for intraurban approach system planners took to designing the alignment of travel as well, often displacing transit services into playing these transit lines. Both corridors are split into two halves: a supplementary, congestion-reliever role to their freeway an upstream segment (from the line terminus to roughly the counterparts. midpoint of the corridor) with the transit line and its stations There are important differences between the old and new placed in the median or adjacent to the freeway, and a down- paradigms. Both in terms of their inherent goals and tangible stream segment (roughly from the midpoint of the corridor benefits, the new paradigm offers improved performance and to the CBD) with the line and its stations offset from the efficiencies when compared to the old paradigm. The new freeway. paradigm seeks to restore freeways to their originally intended For each of these multimodal corridors, their transit lines role as long-distance, intercity, and interstate facilities, and and nearby freeways are designed in tune with their sur- provide opportunities for transit to again be the preferred rounding contexts. In more suburban environments, further intraurban mode. Other key distinctions include the multi- from the regional CBD, park-and-ride access designs are more modal goals inherent in each paradigm, their environmental appropriate, as are transit-oriented designs for more urban effects, and the technological, institutional, and planning environments closer in. Designing a successful new paradigm techniques and models they employ. Table 3-1 summarizes corridor requires that the transportation facilities match the these differences. surrounding land uses and travel patterns--either existing Table 3-2 provides an overview of the differences in plan- or planned. Once a successful new paradigm corridor is ning, design, and operational approaches between the old and established, then incremental changes can build on these new paradigms. Table 3-1. Comparison of the benefits and goals of the "old" and "new" paradigms. Goals and Benefits Characteristics Old Paradigm New Paradigm Multimodal Goals Corridor Modal Focus Automobile Dominated Multimodal Coordination Supplementary Complementary Freeway Travel Markets Short- and Long-Haul Trips Long-Haul/Interurban Trips Served Transit Travel Markets Either Short- or Long-Haul Short-Haul/Intraurban Trips Served Trips Design Focus Vehicle Throughput Person Throughput Congestion Congestion Relief Reduced Automobile Use Travel Benefits Enhanced Mobility Enhanced Accessibility Freight Increased Capacity Long-Haul/Interurban Focus Environment Environmental Benefits Reduced Congestion-Caused Reduced Emissions through Mode Emissions Shift to Transit Land Use Automobile-Oriented Transit-Oriented Near Stations through Coordinated Corridor Land Use Controls and Policies Station Access Automobile Access Pedestrian/Transit Access

OCR for page 34
35 Table 3-1. (Continued). Institutions and Planning Institutional Coordination Highway Department Lead Multimodal Agency Partnerships Planning Focus Responds to Forecasted Travel Shapes Future Pop. & Travel Demands Growth Planning Approach Ad Hoc Design of Transit in "Intentional" Multimodal Design Corridor Implementation Transit Right-of-Way "Leftover" ROW in Freeway · Possible Freeway Lane (ROW) Corridor Conversion for Transit · "Intentional" Multimodal Design New Technologies Goal Freeway Capacity · Modal Coordination Maximization · Maximize Person Capacity Tools · Vehicle Detection · Electronic Fare Payment · Ramp Metering · Multimodal Traveler Information · Traffic Management Center · Parking Applications · Freeway Demand · Coordinated Multimodal Pricing Management · Coordinated Multimodal · Incident Management Incident Management · Congestion Pricing · Corridor-Level Parking Management Table 3-2. Approaches to planning, design and operations for old and new paradigm corridors. Characteristics Old Paradigm New Paradigm Motivations for Planning Reacting to economic growth Proactive planning for economic, and community and community, and environmental goals environmental impacts Setting Priorities Moving vehicles Moving people and freight Assessing Needs Capacity Reliability Throughput Reduced delay times Travel time costs Accessibility Business logistics Economic competitiveness Analysis Approaches Individual modes and facilities End-to-end trips focusing on multiple modes and the connections between them Planning Processes Emphasis on individual Balanced approach to meeting local, jurisdictions regional, state, and national transportation needs