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-ŕ-vis other modes. Off-bus
OCR for page 47
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 48
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 49
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 50
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 51
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 52
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 53
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 54
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 55
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 56
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 57
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
