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 44
44
designed, and constructed. Under this framework, an effort with comparative travel times for freeway and transit to reach
is made to account for how a corridor is given or has taken their corridor destinations, encouraging peak-period mode
on multimodal features. Here, we propose a continuum that shifting. Sidewalks, paths, and bicycle routes might be added
distinguishes between the degree to which a multimodal cor- to the existing surface street network to encourage more non-
ridor has developed as a result of an explicit intention or is automobile circulation along the corridor and non-automobile
the incidental result of a series of planning and investment connections between modes.
decisions over time. Another important option along this continuum is the
To the degree that the multimodal features of facilities-- transit retrofit approach. Located near the incrementally
transit and freeways--are designed by intention and at the planned side of the scale, a transit retrofit project involves the
same time, we refer to them as concurrently planned. To the addition of a transit line to a pre-existing freeway facility
degree that the multimodal features of corridors arise over (such as in the case of Denver's T-REX/I-25 corridor) and
time, organically or as a result of incremental measures, they its surrounding corridor. This approach is distinguished by
are referred to as incrementally planned (see Figure 4-7). the high costs involved in redesigning and reconstructing
At one end of this continuum is the concurrently planned the freeway facility (or its immediate environment) relative
multimodal corridor. A hypothetical, pure example of such a to the purely opportunistic/incremental approach described
corridor is one where all transportation facilities were planned, above, but its costs are relatively low compared to the inten-
designed, and built at the same time and in a coordinated tionally planned system described above. Typically, the designs
fashion. In this way, the full performance potential of the of capital-intensive transit systems (historically rail but increas-
multimodal system can be realized, with each mode both ingly bus rapid transit) are driven more by short-term cost-
supplementing and complementing the others in a coordinated minimization through retrofitting than long-term ridership
whole. The surrounding land use context within the corridor development-maximization principles.
could also develop in response to this coordinated multimodal Also falling in the midrange of the continuum are multi-
system, ideally providing an optimized transportation and modal facilities where the plans for and the reality of their
land use interface. operations and constructions diverge over time. Planned facil-
At the other end of the continuum is the incrementally ities can become obsolete, or conflicting plans developed by
planned multimodal corridor. Here, each corridor component different stakeholders (for example, transit agencies, freeway
has been designed and built in an incremental fashion. In this departments, or local land use authorities) can result in sub-
extreme case, there will be few if any functional connections optimal operations and outcomes.
between the various modes running in the corridor--transit, Table 4-9 suggests how this tradeoff can serve the purposes
freeway, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities will all operate of developing a new paradigm corridor to have market seg-
relatively independently with few transfers between systems mentation and an optimized corridor orientation.
and in an uncoordinated fashion. Gradually, incremental
(and often inexpensive) connections will be made between
Summary and Conclusions
the modes to create a more cohesive and coordinated multi-
modal corridor system. Shuttles may be set up to run between The key to planning, designing, building, and operating a
freeway park-and-ride lots and transit stations to encourage successful new paradigm multimodal corridor is to provide
intermodal transfers. Traffic information management sys- segmented, distinct travel markets within the corridor that each
tems may be installed along the freeway to provide motorists mode can serve. Segmented multimodal corridor markets can
Concurrently Planned Incrementally Planned
Planned & Constructed at Same Time Planned and Built at Different Times
Highly Coordinated or Combined Agencies Incremental Approach to Coordination
High Potential Aggregate Cost Savings High Potential for Cost Savings
High Potential for Complementary Performance
Figure 4-7. The multimodal planning continuum.
OCR for page 45
45
Table 4-9. Intentional versus incremental transit routing tradeoff
outcomes.
Concurrently Planned Incrementally Planned
Market Segmentation High level of segmentation Intermodal transfers/Transit
possible as congestion relief to freeway
Corridor Orientation Transit-oriented Automobile-oriented
generally be classified as having either a transit or auto- · Transit-oriented versus automobile-oriented urban form
mobile orientation. This chapter identifies the following · Local access versus intermodal transfer stations
tradeoffs that can be made when planning a new paradigm · In-median and adjacent versus offset freeway alignment
corridor: · Supplementary versus complementary transit and freeway
service
· Transit corridor accessibility versus operating speed · Fixed versus flexible transit routing
· Freeway accessibility versus operating speed · Incremental versus concurrent corridor planning
· Freeway capacity versus transit ridership approaches
