Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 47


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 46
46 CHAPTER 5 The Design and Operational Characteristics of Success This chapter details the key characteristics of successful Jobs/housing distribution new paradigm corridors. Characteristics include transporta- Corridor parking management tion facility type, corridor-level design and urban form, and Metropolitan alignment station-level design and urban form. The selection of individual Station-level characteristics characteristics helps determine how the tradeoffs described in Land use and urban design Chapter 4 will be managed and in turn, helps define how the Station parking corridor will function--either as a transit-oriented, a park- Freeway ramp touchdown locations and-ride access, or a transit-optimized/freeway-constrained Station design and access alternatives multimodal corridor. Transportation Facility Type Characteristics Key Characteristics of New Paradigm Corridors Transit Vehicle Type/Mode Planning, design, and operational measures can give transit The performance and success of transit in a multimodal a performance advantage over its freeway neighbor and help corridor depends in part on the type or mode of transit system to secure a healthy level of transit patronage. The tradeoffs used. Each mode has its own attributes, and each will thrive identified in Chapter 4 are intended as generalities--ideas or stagnate depending on the way these factors fit into the and concepts that should be weighed and considered when corridor's surroundings. There is no single, widely accepted planning, designing, and operating a new paradigm corridor. system of classifying transit vehicle modes, but the following Each of these tradeoffs represents the aggregation of many categories are useful within this discussion of the new paradigm individual corridor choices and characteristics. The successful (see Appendix B for more detailed descriptions): development of a new paradigm corridor depends on the ability of politicians, planners, and engineers to identify the 1. Local bus: Single bus vehicles operating with a capacity of critical characteristics of the corridor being studied, deter- 35 to 50 seated passengers, operated along fixed routes, mine how to combine them and, in doing so, which tradeoff running in mixed-flow traffic along surface streets. options to select. 2. Express/rapid bus: Generally distinguished from local bus The key characteristics are listed below, followed by dis- service by the limited number of stops made along a fixed cussion of how they affect the tradeoffs discussed in Chapter 4, route. The route can be in a surface street in mixed-flow and ultimately, determine what type of new paradigm corridor traffic lanes either on a local surface street or a freeway. will take shape: Express buses can be fitted with signal priority technology to increase running speeds Transportation facility type 3. Bus rapid transit (BRT): The most important feature of Transit mode BRT is that it runs on a dedicated, exclusive lane of travel, Transit line speed/time cost giving it a high level of service reliability (since it does not Freeway design compete for right-of-way with other modes) and speed. Corridor-level characteristics Bus priority technologies (such as signal prioritization) A transit-receptive travel market are often used to improve travel times and provide a Clustered destinations and employment competitive edge to BRT vis--vis other modes. Off-bus

OCR for page 46
47 Table 5-1. Transit mode/type new paradigm characteristics. Transit-Oriented Corridor Park-and-Ride Access Corridor Transit-Optimized/Freeway Qualities Qualities Constrained Corridor Qualities High-capacity/fixed-capital- Low-cost and automobile-access High-speed/automobile-access asset transit modes transit modes transit modes Heavy rail Commuter rail Commuter rail Light rail Bus rapid transit Heavy rail fare collections as well as platform boarding and alighting riders it will attract. Maximum operating speeds depend on are frequently used to reduce dwell times at stops.1 several factors including station spacing, vehicle design speed, 4. Light-rail transit (LRT): Light-rail vehicles run singly or vehicle design acceleration, vehicle braking rates, station dwell in short trains on tracks in various right-of-way environ- times, signal densities, and train densities. In general, the op- ments, including mixed-flow surface streets, dedicated lanes erating speeds for each mode can be summarized as shown in with grade crossings, and fully grade-separated dedicated Table 5-2. facilities.1 Table 5-3 suggests the most appropriate transit mode choices 5. Heavy-rail/rapid transit (HRT): Heavy-rail transit pro- for each new paradigm corridor type. vides intraurban service running on exclusive, dedicated, fully grade-separated rights-of-way. Called "heavy" because of its large passenger capacity, HRT can generally carry up Corridor-Level Characteristics to 50,000 passengers per hour at high speeds and excellent The old paradigm called for selecting a corridor where service reliability. Cars are generally designed to carry transit could effectively compete head-to-head with its freeway 90 to 150 people each in comfort, and up to double that in neighbor. The new paradigm calls for selecting a corridor "crush load" conditions. The trains are typically very long where separate travel markets can be carved out for transit and compared to LRT, up to 8 to 11 cars depending on their size. the freeway--where each can have a competitive advantage. To reduce dwell times and increase service speeds, HRT sys- Corridor characteristics that support the establishment of tems have fare collections in the stations, as well as high- these mode-segregated travel markets include the selection of level station platforms and more doors per car than other a transit-receptive travel market, clustered destinations and vehicles to speed boarding and alighting.1 employment centers, a favorable jobs/housing distribution, 6. Commuter rail: Commuter rail provides service between corridorwide parking pricing and supply management, and a a metropolitan area's suburban areas and its main CBD. It usually shares tracks with other railroad traffic (freight corridor alignment within the region that serves a stable and and intercity passenger) and so can suffer from delays due reliable set of travel patterns. to these competing uses. Typically, commuter trains run less frequently than other forms of rail transit, often only during peak periods. Commuter rail equipment and system Table 5-2. Transit average operating design are comparable to HRT or LRT, but the route dis- speeds by mode. tances are often longer, ranging between 15 and 30 miles. Average Speed Mode (Miles per Hour) Table 5-1 suggests the most appropriate transit mode choices Bus 1 12.6 (based on their operating speeds) for each new paradigm Bus Rapid Transit (Freeway) 2 20 - 30 corridor type. Bus Rapid Transit (Arterial) 2 8-9 Commuter Rail 1 31.5 Transit Line Speed/Time Cost Heavy Rail 1 20.4 The higher the speed a transit line sustains, the better it will Light Rail 1 15.5 perform compared to automobile travel times and the more Sources: 1 - American Public Transportation Association, http://www.apta.com/research/stats/service/speed.cfm 1Pushkarev, B. and J. Zupan, 1971. Public Transportation and Land Use Policy. 2 - TCRP 90: Bus Rapit Transit. Don Mills, Ontario: Indiana University Press. Vol. 1, p. 23.

OCR for page 46
48 Table 5-3. Transit line speed new paradigm characteristics. Transit-Oriented Corridor Park-and-Ride Access Corridor Transit-Optimized/Freeway Qualities Qualities Constrained Corridor Qualities Local access-oriented or Automobile-competitive/higher- Automobile-competitive/higher- lower-speed transit modes speed transit modes speed transit modes Heavy rail Heavy rail Heavy rail Light rail Commuter rail Commuter rail Bus rapid transit Bus rapid transit Express bus (as transitional transit mode until BRT can be developed) Transit-Receptive Travel Market High-school-educated aged 1729 Immigrants Transit markets are often broken down into two groups: Aged 65+ transit-dependent riders, who are forced by economic or travel necessities to use transit, and transit-choice riders, who can use transit and are receptive to doing so as long as the pricing, Park-and-ride access new paradigm facilities are likely to performance, and convenience of doing so are favorable. thrive in corridors where there are an abundance of transit- We refer to these two groups collectively as a transit-receptive choice riders. Because choice riders are more likely to switch market. For the most part, the more transit-receptive the travel modes when travel conditions favor it, they will provide the market is within the corridor, the more successful the transit flexible travel market receptive to intermodal transfers. How- line will be at attracting riders. ever, since park-and-ride access corridors are often unfriendly Transit-receptive markets can be identified in demographic for pedestrians, such systems are not favorable for transit- terms. The following demographic characteristics are generally dependents who usually cannot afford an automobile and associated with high-transit-usage markets:2 therefore cannot flexibly switch modes when travel condi- tions favor it. A successful transit-oriented multimodal corridor is more Zero-vehicle households likely to favor transit-dependent riders while still offering African American, non-Latino adequate access and performance to the "choice" riders. These Asian, Pacific Islander corridors offer pedestrian-friendly access to stations and, Latino therefore, may flourish in transit-dependent-rich environ- Renters ments. Table 5-4 suggests the most appropriate travel markets One-vehicle households for each new paradigm corridor type. Females In addition, the following demographic groups have been Clustered Destinations and Employment identified as holding promise for developing as a base for Clustered destinations (particularly employment centers) future transit use:3 that concentrate trip ends within easy walking distance of tran- sit stations generally encourage non-automobile and transit Zero-vehicle households with incomes greater than $15,000 use. Typically, the automobile congestion that occurs in (1989) concentrated CBDs discourages driving. Table 5-5 suggests College- or graduate-school-educated the most appropriate destination and employment cluster choices for each new paradigm corridor type. 2TCRP Report 27: Building Transit Ridership, 1997, Transportation Research Board, Jobs/Housing Distribution Washington DC, p. 22, Table 15. 3TCRP Report 28: Transit Markets of the Future, 1998, Transportation Research This factor primarily describes the distribution and con- Board, Washington DC, p. 36, Table 16. centrations of land uses at the corridor level. Several researchers

OCR for page 46
49 Table 5-4. Transit-receptive travel market new paradigm characteristics. Transit-Oriented Corridor Park-and-Ride Access Transit-Optimized/Freeway Qualities Corridor Qualities Constrained Corridor Qualities Transit-dependent-rich market Transit choice-rich market Transit receptive market Table 5-5. Clustered destinations and employment new paradigm characteristics. Transit-Oriented Corridor Park-and-Ride Access Transit-Optimized/Freeway Qualities Corridor Qualities Constrained Corridor Qualities Distributed nodes Clustered destinations at Hybrid corridors with maximize activities limited number of station clustered destinations on served along entire areas one side of freeway capacity route constraint location Clear distinction between (bottleneck) and clustered Clustered mixed-use residential stations and residential stations on the destination(s) at many destination stations other locations along corridor Table 5-6. Jobs/housing distribution new paradigm characteristics. Transit-Oriented Corridor Park-and-Ride Access Transit-Optimized/Freeway Qualities Corridor Qualities Constrained Corridor Qualities Balanced jobs and housing Jobs clustered in destination Jobs clustered near stations on in corridor (jobs clustered in station/CBD and low in other the CBD side of the freeway station areas but dispersed stations bottleneck and few jobs near along corridor) stations on the other side have developed accessibility measures4, 5 and measures of traffic contained within "travelsheds" (collections of trip corridor-level jobs-housing balance.6 Others have focused origins and destinations) that minimize lateral and cross- on the presence of a CBD along the transit corridor, setting corridor movements--the type of flows for which there minimum thresholds for heavy rail, light rail, commuter rail, tends to be the fewest available road facilities, often leading and bus transit services according to CBD size.1, 7 to suburban congestion, trip circuity, and the forced funnel- Research suggests that a corridor with employment and ing of traffic onto the few available cross-town connectors, residential destinations spread throughout the corridor will such as ring roads. Travelsheds can be effectively contained encourage more balanced, efficient travel flows on its trans- using corridor-level land use controls that limit employment portation systems.8 Another important aspect is to keep land uses (trip destinations) to locating in designated cen- tral business districts at the terminal ends of a new paradigm corridor. The choice of an ideal jobs/housing distribution for a new 4Ferrell, C. "Home-Based Teleshoppers and Shopping Travel: Do Teleshoppers paradigm corridor depends on the existing conditions of the Travel Less?" Transportation Research Record 1894, 2004, pp. 241248. corridor and which new paradigm typology category best 5Cervero, R. "Paradigm Shift: From Automobility to Accessibility Planning." describes it (see Table 5-6). Urban Futures 22: 920, 1997. 6Cervero, R. & M. Duncan. "Which Reduces Travel More: Jobs-Housing Balance or Housing-Retail Mixing?" Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 72, Corridor Parking Management No. 4, 2006, pp. 475490. 7Levinson, H. "Modal Choice and Public Policy in Transportation," Engineering Parking availability and cost are important factors in deter- Issues: Journal of Professional Activities, Vol. 99, No. 1, January 1973, pp. 6575. 8Cervero R. & M. Duncan, 2006. "Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: mining transit market share, both at the station level and for Jobs-Housing Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing?" Journal of the American the corridor as a whole. Transit ridership can be enhanced Planning Association, Volume 72, Issue 4 December 2006, pages 475490. through a coordinated system of land use and parking controls

OCR for page 46
50 Table 5-7. Corridor parking management new paradigm characteristics. Transit-Oriented Corridor Park-and-Ride Access Corridor Transit-Optimized/Freeway Qualities Qualities Constrained Corridor Qualities Parking turnover Parking turnover Parking turnover optimized optimized for dense optimized for access to for access to transit facility land uses transit facility at non-CBD in upstream (non-CBD) side stations of freeway bottleneck Parking supplied privately and/or Ample parking supply in Ample parking supply in through shared-use non-CBD station areas non-CBD (upstream of agreements freeway bottleneck) station Variable pricing for areas Parking supply parking spaces management, variable Variable pricing for parking pricing, and Limited parking supply spaces coordinated transit and high cost of available feeder service to the parking within destination Limited parking supply and line-haul transit facility CBD high cost of available parking within destination Limited parking supply CBD and high cost of available parking within destination CBD throughout the corridor that encourage transit-oriented devel- Metropolitan Alignment opment and discourage inexpensive, plentiful parking.9 The position of the corridor and the travel markets it serves Parking poses a classic double-edged sword problem for new within the larger metropolitan context play an important role paradigm corridors: it reinforces the automobile orientation in determining new paradigm success. Often, capital-intensive of station areas and access points, but in most low-density transit systems (such as heavy and light rail systems) have been settings, parking is necessary to encourage transit riding and designed and built along radial corridors, serving a large central to ensure viable commercial activities. At the station level, business district at one end and more dispersed, suburban ori- park-and-ride lots surrounding stations can encourage com- gins and destinations radiating out from the center city. Radial muter ridership on the transit line, but often do so at the alignments are intended to take advantage of peak-period com- expense of off-peak riders who might travel to a station that muting patterns. has dense, mixed-use land uses near the station. If the main In existing multimodal corridors, the best radial alignment destination/CBD served by the transit line also has ample designs have the transit line running down or near the free- and inexpensive parking, transit mode share tends to be low. way facility for most of the length of the corridor, but once it There should be some flexibility in setting parking codes nears the CBD, the freeway circumvents the CBD while the to acknowledge potential vehicle trip reductions from TOD transit line diverges from the freeway and enters via surface and integrated, multimodal development. If parking is over- streets, or in a grade-separated right-of-way (see Figure 5-1). supplied, the die may be cast, setting the area on a course to Although this alignment makes sense from a ridership becoming a full-fledged, park-and-ride access multimodal perspective, increasingly dispersed land use patterns in U.S. corridor. metropolitan areas suggest that the radial alignments will not Accordingly, it is important to view parking as malleable and be able to effectively serve the increasingly suburb-to-suburb even transitional, providing a form of "land banking" where travel patterns. Suburb-to-suburb transit system alignments park-and-ride lots can be developed later into high-density, are rare in the United States. One notable example is the Green transit-oriented uses. This places a premium on parking place- Line in Los Angeles, California, which provides cross-town con- ment, design, controls, and management. Table 5-7 suggests nections between the communities of Norwalk and Redondo the most appropriate parking management approaches for Beach. The main activity center served by this line is the Los each new paradigm corridor type. Angeles International Airport (LAX), but LAX is not directly served by the line: a shuttle must be taken from the Airport/LAX 9 station to the airport. Hess, D. (2001), "The Effects of Free Parking on Commuter Mode Choice: Evidence from Travel Diary Data," Lewis Center for Public Policy Studies, UCLA Ridership on the Green Line is substantial (roughly (www.sppsr.ucla.edu/lewis/WorkingPapers.html). 42,000 average weekday boardings), but low compared to the

OCR for page 46
51 Other Rapid Transit Line BRT, LRT Crosstown Corridor (Optional) Wide Station Spacing ay with Transit Supportive Freew Development, Park and Ride y ewa Fre CBD Outlying Major Activity Center (Optional) Distance Varies Express Transit = In Freeway Corridor = On Separate Alignment = Freeway Only Figure 5-1. Metropolitan alignment concepts for new paradigm corridors. Table 5-8. Metropolitan alignment new paradigm characteristics. Transit-Oriented Corridor Park-and-Ride Access Corridor Transit-Optimized/Freeway Qualities Qualities Constrained Corridor Qualities Radial alignment Radial alignment Radial alignment Transit line serves more Circumferential alignment Circumferential alignment than one activity center serving major automobile- serving major automobile- along radial route (for oriented activity centers (such oriented activity centers (such example, each end of line as Edge City office clusters or as Edge City office clusters or serves a CBD). airports). airports). nearby Blue Line that serves downtown Los Angeles (roughly land use planning and urban design, coordinated transit and 68,000 average weekday boardings).10 Thus, one of the chal- freeway access designs, and nonmotorized station access tools. lenges for the Green Line and for other suburb-to-suburb (circumferential) alignment transit lines is the lack of an Land Use and Urban Design anchor (clustered destination) served by the line. Table 5-8 suggests the most appropriate metropolitan align- Over the past 20 years or so, evidence has grown showing ments for each new paradigm corridor type. the influence of land use and urban design factors on travel behavior, and more specifically, mode choice. Cervero and Transit Station-Level Characteristics Kockelman first defined and labeled three important character- istics of transit station areas as the 3-Ds--Density, Diversity, The old paradigm called for building automobile-oriented and Design.11 These are defined as follows: stations with large park-and-ride lots. The new paradigm starts with those station areas and retrofits them to promote Density: clustered trip origins (residential) and destinations transit and nonmotorized access modes. The new paradigm (employment)1 around stations employs planning and design concepts such as transit-oriented 11 Cervero, R. & K. Kockelman. "Travel Demand and the 3 Ds: Density, Diversity, 10 http://www.metro.net/news_info/ridership_avg.htm and Design," Transportation Research D, 2, 3: 199219, 1997.

OCR for page 46
52 Source: Southworth, M. & E. Ben-Joseph, 2003. Streets and the Shaping of Towns and Cities. Washington, DC: Island Press. Courtesy of Michael Southworth and Peter Owens. Figure 5-2. The evolution of street patterns since 1900 shows how street designs adapted to the needs of the automobile over time. Diversity: mixed land uses providing a range of clustered, streets or a dedicated road circulation system. (These options mutually supportive trip destinations and how they may affect new paradigm corridor operations Design: transit- and pedestrian-friendly street networks and were discussed in Chapter 4.) urban design (see Figure 5-2) Construction costs and operations for offset/adjacent stations can differ for bus rapid transit (BRT) and rail facilities. Subsequent researchers12, 13 have added the following factors: For buses, offset/adjacent stations can be less costly than in- median or adjacent stations since they do not require as much Distance: The shorter the walking distances between a expensive retrofitting of the freeway facility and do not require transit station and surrounding land uses, the better. additional ROW width to accommodate the stations: stations However, since a freeway facility's negative externalities can be placed where land is readily available. (that is, noise, air, and sight pollution) tend to depress However, offset stations require ROW acquisition from the pedestrian activities, maximizing distances between a free- freeway ROW to and from the station locations and, particu- way and station areas or effectively mitigating the negative larly in developed corridors with little vacant or inexpensive impacts of the freeway are desirable as well. land, offset stations can cost more than retrofitting the free- Destinations: This factor was discussed in the Jobs/Housing way for in-median or adjacent placements. Offset stations Distribution section. typically increase service times because transit vehicles must exit and re-enter the mainline route. Offset stations can also An important outcome of transit-supportive land uses and be attractive for BRT as an incremental implementation step urban design is to improve pedestrian access to high-capacity because they may incur fewer construction costs. More elab- stations. This is particularly important in multimodal corridor orate in-median or adjacent stations can be built later if station areas where connections to interchanging transit lines, ridership demand warrants.14 park-and-ride facilities, and adjacent developments should However, new paradigm corridor transit lines must pene- be convenient, weather protected, and compliant with the trate major employment or activity centers, often leaving the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Table 5-9 suggests freeway to do so. This penetration should be via off-street the most appropriate land use and urban design approaches for connections (grade-separated) but situations may require on- each new paradigm corridor type. street stations and rights-of-way. Table 5-10 suggests the most appropriate station location choices for each new paradigm corridor type. Station Location Transit stations can be located within the freeway facility Station Spacings median; on the side of the freeway, separated by a barrier from the flow of traffic in the case of freeways; or off the freeway but As discussed in Chapter 4, station spacings are important close to it, requiring buses to travel onto nonfreeway surface in determining the speed of transit and the accessibility of transit riders to corridor land uses. Table 5-11 suggests the 12 most appropriate station spacing approaches for each new Ewing, R., and Cervero, R. (2001). Transportation Research Record 1780, "Travel and the built environment: A synthesis" pp. 87114. paradigm corridor type. 13Moore, T., P. Throsnes, and B. Appleyard, The Transportation/Land Use Connection, American Planning Association. Planning Advisory Service, Report 546 (Chicago; www.planning.org), 2007. 14 TCRP Report 90, Volume 2, page 59.

OCR for page 46
53 Table 5-9. Land use and urban design new paradigm characteristics. Transit-Oriented Corridor Park-and-Ride Access Corridor Transit-Optimized/Freeway Qualities Qualities Constrained Corridor Qualities High density Low-density Upstream (non-CBD) side of freeway bottleneck: High diversity (mixed-use) Low diversity (segregated uses) Low-density Pedestrian-scale urban design Automobile-oriented urban Low diversity automobile- design oriented urban design on Short walking distances to upstream (non-CBD) side of station Short driving distances freeway bottleneck (times) to station Short driving distances (times) to station Downstream (CBD) side of freeway bottleneck: High density High diversity (mixed-use) Pedestrian-scale urban design Short walking distances to station Interchange Spacings access. This traffic can turn a transit- and pedestrian-oriented neighborhood into an automobile-oriented one. Proximity As discussed in Chapter 4, interchange spacings are impor- between freeway, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities in a tant in determining the amount of congestion on the freeway single corridor brings both advantages and disadvantages. Ad- and, as a result, its vehicular operating speeds as well. Table vantages result from the ease of transfer between modes. Dis- 5-12 suggests the most appropriate interchange spacing ap- advantages result from conflicts between each mode's access proaches for each new paradigm corridor type. nodes (for example, stations and interchanges). The place- ment of freeway ramps in relation to transit station areas can help reduce these conflicts (see Figure 5-3). Freeway Ramp Touchdown Locations Multimodal transit-oriented stations minimize the amount Vehicular traffic traveling to and from the freeway facility of freeway-related automobile traffic near stations by placing along surface streets through a transit-oriented neighborhood freeway ramps as far away as possible. Freeway ramps designed has a disruptive effect on nearby transit operations and station to disperse vehicular traffic and keep it at a distance from station Table 5-10. Station location new paradigm characteristics. Transit-Oriented Corridor Park-and-Ride Access Corridor Transit-Optimized/Freeway Qualities Qualities Constrained Corridor Qualities Either adjacent or offset from Either in-median or adjacent Upstream (non-CBD) side of freeway stations stations freeway bottleneck: stations either adjacent or in median Downstream (CBD) side of freeway bottleneck: stations either adjacent or offset

OCR for page 46
54 Table 5-11. Station spacing new paradigm characteristics. Transit-Oriented Corridor Park-and-Ride Access Corridor Transit-Optimized/Freeway Qualities Qualities Constrained Corridor Qualities Short station spacings Long station spacings Upstream (non-CBD) side of freeway bottleneck: High density of stations Low density of stations for for maximum corridor maximum transit speeds Long station spacings area coverage Long station spacings Low density of stations for Short station spacings combined with short maximum transit speeds combined with long interchange spacings interchange spacings (automobile-oriented Supplementary or (transit-oriented complementary coordination) complementary coordination complementary coordination) Downstream (CBD) side of freeway bottleneck: Short station spacings High density of stations for maximum corridor area coverage Short station spacings combined with long interchange spacings (transit- oriented complementary coordination) areas can effectively segment a multimodal corridor into transit- the transit stations to facilitate and encourage the maximum oriented nodes around stations and more automobile-oriented amount of intermodal transfer between freeway and transit. areas near ramps. Due in part to the added automobile traffic around them, these Alternatively, multimodal automobile-oriented nodes are transit stations are often nearly devoid of pedestrian activities, designed to maximize automobile access to transit stations. except for the areas between park-and-ride lots and the transit As a result, freeway access points are often placed close to station platforms. Table 5-12. Interchange spacing new paradigm characteristics. Transit-Oriented Corridor Park-and-Ride Access Corridor Transit-Optimized/Freeway Qualities Qualities Constrained Corridor Qualities Long interchange spacings Short interchange spacings Upstream (non-CBD) side of for low corridor freeway bottleneck: accessibility Short interchange spacings Low density of High density of interchanges interchanges for maximum for maximum corridor area High density of interchanges freeway speeds coverage for maximum corridor area coverage Downstream (CBD) side of freeway bottleneck: Long interchange spacings Low density of interchanges for maximum freeway speeds

OCR for page 46
55 More Dispersed ramps Ramps Ramps Ramps far from stations Separated cars & pedestrians Station Ra Ramps Market Segmentation Concentrated ramps Ramps near stations Cars vs. pedestrians St Station Ram Ramps Less Figure 5-3. The placement of freeway ramps and its effects on station functions. Table 5-13 suggests the most appropriate freeway ramp stations within (in-median) or immediately adjacent to the touchdown locations for each new paradigm corridor type. freeway to encourage freeway-to-transit transfers. For all intermodal and in-median stations, weather protection and climate controls are preferable to give pedestrians walking to Station Design and Access Alternatives and from the stations an extra incentive to use transit. The design of stations and their surroundings play an In-median intermodal bus station designs and operating important role in determining both the attractiveness of using plans sometimes require buses to cross over each other so doors the transit line as well as the modes travellers choose. can open onto a central platform. This crossover can present operational and safety issues and should be avoided if possible. Intermodal Station Design A bus crossover can be eliminated where buses have doors on both sides, and where side platforms are used. As discussed in the context of multimodal corridors, inter- Figure 5-4 illustrates an in-median intermodal station modal stations are designed to attract park-and-ride, kiss-and- design. However, the potentially unsafe design shown here ride, and bus feeder patrons. In new paradigm corridors, these with bus lane crossovers can be avoided with the use of buses stations are best placed at the terminal end of the transit line with driver-side doors. to attract automobile transfers from the freeway and at any In some cases, circumstances may favor placement of an freeway-to-freeway or large arterial-to-freeway interchanges intermodal station at some distance from the freeway. In these along the spine of the corridor. cases, it is best to place the station adjacent to a major arterial Intermodal stations are designed with large park-and-ride street with easy access to the freeway interchange ramps. lots or parking structures, kiss-and-ride, and bus bays all Figure 5-5 illustrates an intermodal station design for an close to the station entrances. It is generally best to place these offset/non-adjacent freeway location. Table 5-13. Freeway ramp touchdown location new paradigm characteristics. Transit-Oriented Corridor Park-and-Ride Access Corridor Transit-Optimized/Freeway Qualities Qualities Constrained Corridor Qualities Ramp touchdowns distant Ramp touchdowns near stations Upstream (non-CBD) side of from stations freeway bottleneck: ramp touchdowns near stations Downstream (CBD) side of freeway bottleneck: ramp touchdowns distant from stations

OCR for page 46
Source: Courtesy Washington State Department of Transportation and IBI Group, I-405 South Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Pre-Design, Final Report. Figure 5-4. Conceptual in-median station and park-and-ride--plan view. Source: Courtesy Washington State Department of Transportation and IBI Group, I-405 South Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Pre-Design, Final Report. Figure 5-5. Conceptual transit center and park-and-ride--plan view.

OCR for page 46
57 Source: Based on an interpretation of a similar graphic from Cliff Chambers' "Community-Oriented Transit," developed for AC Transit, August 27, 2004. P. 1-4. Figure 5-6. Community-oriented transit station access options. Other Models of Motorized Station Access otherwise seem a totally automobile-oriented environment. Here, we can draw on the ideas and accomplishments from In general terms, motorized access modes are best suited other countries. One of the most promising ideas of late, for intermodal stations that provide easy access to the freeway so-called green connectors, has been extremely successful at interchange ramps to ease transfers between the facilities, attracting large numbers of nonmotorized transit riders to substantial park-and-ride and bus bays, and kiss-and-ride travel to stations from long distances. facilities located near the station entrances. However, there In Europe and Latin America, planners have been experi- are effective and realistic motorized access options that do not menting with developing networks of perpendicular, grade- depend on park-and-ride or kiss-and-ride access. Figure 5-6 separated bikeways and paths that lead to the nearest high- illustrates four categories of community-oriented motorized access options that help move station areas away from a capacity transit station (see Figure 5-7). dependence on park-and-ride access toward a more transit- To encourage green connectors, transportation planning and oriented relationship between stations and their surrounding financing should prioritize nonmotorized mode improve- neighborhoods. ments to station areas. There is perhaps no better example Community-based station access options include fixed-route of successful nonmotorized station access planning than shuttles, dial-a-ride/taxi services, community service shuttles, in The Netherlands, where nonmotorized modes account for and route-deviation bus and shuttle services. 62 percent of all station access trips.15 This enviable achieve- ment is the result of both concerted policy mandates favoring nonmotorized planning and a widely shared nonmotorized Nonmotorized Station Access: "Green Connectors" ethos. The transportation planning and financing priorities of the country reflect this emphasis. In Delft and Groningen, The old paradigm has dominated suburban transit sta- over half of the city transportation budgets go to bicycle and tion access planning over the past 50 years. In the case of pedestrian facilities. When we compare this to the less-than- San Francisco's BART, roughly 75 percent of suburban station one percent of U.S. municipal transportation funds that go to patrons are park-and-riders.15 In low-density, suburban envi- nonmotorized modes, the differences between U.S. and Dutch ronments, this approach makes sense: automobiles dominate station access travel patterns become understandable. the travel markets for both short- and long-haul trips. A key These national and municipal priorities have on-the-ground challenge for the new paradigm involves encouraging patrons to consequences in terms of station area designs. In Houten-- access stations using transit, bicycles, or by foot in what would a new town about halfway between Amsterdam and Utrecht-- mixed-use areas and the central train station are all connected by a network of direct, exclusively nonmotorized greenways. 15 Cervero, R. "Green Connectors: Off-Shore Examples," Planning, American Cars are forced to take more indirect routes to reach these Planning Association, May 2003. destinations, often backtracking to reach an outer ring. This