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

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.

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

47 fare collections as well as platform boarding and alighting are frequently used to reduce dwell times at stops.1 4. Light-rail transit (LRT): Light-rail vehicles run singly or in short trains on tracks in various right-of-way environ- ments, including mixed-flow surface streets, dedicated lanes with grade crossings, and fully grade-separated dedicated facilities.1 5. Heavy-rail/rapid transit (HRT): Heavy-rail transit pro- 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 to 50,000 passengers per hour at high speeds and excellent service reliability. Cars are generally designed to carry 90 to 150 people each in comfort, and up to double that in “crush load” conditions. The trains are typically very long compared to LRT, up to 8 to 11 cars depending on their size. To reduce dwell times and increase service speeds, HRT sys- tems have fare collections in the stations, as well as high- level station platforms and more doors per car than other vehicles to speed boarding and alighting.1 6. Commuter rail: Commuter rail provides service between a metropolitan area’s suburban areas and its main CBD. It usually shares tracks with other railroad traffic (freight and intercity passenger) and so can suffer from delays due 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 design are comparable to HRT or LRT, but the route dis- tances are often longer, ranging between 15 and 30 miles. Table 5-1 suggests the most appropriate transit mode choices (based on their operating speeds) for each new paradigm corridor type. Transit Line Speed/Time Cost The higher the speed a transit line sustains, the better it will perform compared to automobile travel times and the more riders it will attract. Maximum operating speeds depend on several factors including station spacing, vehicle design speed, vehicle design acceleration, vehicle braking rates, station dwell times, signal densities, and train densities. In general, the op- erating speeds for each mode can be summarized as shown in Table 5-2. Table 5-3 suggests the most appropriate transit mode choices for each new paradigm corridor type. Corridor-Level Characteristics The old paradigm called for selecting a corridor where transit could effectively compete head-to-head with its freeway neighbor. The new paradigm calls for selecting a corridor where separate travel markets can be carved out for transit and the freeway—where each can have a competitive advantage. Corridor characteristics that support the establishment of these mode-segregated travel markets include the selection of a transit-receptive travel market, clustered destinations and employment centers, a favorable jobs/housing distribution, corridorwide parking pricing and supply management, and a corridor alignment within the region that serves a stable and reliable set of travel patterns. 1Pushkarev, B. and J. Zupan, 1971. Public Transportation and Land Use Policy. Don Mills, Ontario: Indiana University Press. Transit-Oriented Corridor Qualities Park-and-Ride Access Corridor Qualities Transit-Optimized/Freeway Constrained Corridor Qualities High-capacity/fixed-capital- asset transit modes • Heavy rail • Light rail Low-cost and automobile-access transit modes • Commuter rail • Bus rapid transit High-speed/automobile-access transit modes • Commuter rail • Heavy rail Table 5-1. Transit mode/type new paradigm characteristics. Mode Average Speed (Miles per Hour) Bus1 12.6 Bus Rapid Transit (Freeway) 2 20 - 30 Bus Rapid Transit (Arterial)2 8 - 9 Commuter Rail1 31.5 Heavy Rail1 20.4 Light Rail1 15.5 Sources: 2 - TCRP 90: Bus Rapit Transit. Vol. 1, p. 23. 1 - American Public Transportation Association, http://www.apta.com/research/stats/service/speed.cfm Table 5-2. Transit average operating speeds by mode.

48 Transit-Receptive Travel Market Transit markets are often broken down into two groups: 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, performance, and convenience of doing so are favorable. We refer to these two groups collectively as a transit-receptive market. For the most part, the more transit-receptive the travel market is within the corridor, the more successful the transit line will be at attracting riders. Transit-receptive markets can be identified in demographic terms. The following demographic characteristics are generally associated with high-transit-usage markets:2 • Zero-vehicle households • African American, non-Latino • Asian, Pacific Islander • Latino • Renters • One-vehicle households • Females In addition, the following demographic groups have been identified as holding promise for developing as a base for future transit use:3 • Zero-vehicle households with incomes greater than $15,000 (1989) • College- or graduate-school-educated • High-school-educated aged 17–29 • Immigrants • Aged 65+ Park-and-ride access new paradigm facilities are likely to thrive in corridors where there are an abundance of transit- choice riders. Because choice riders are more likely to switch modes when travel conditions favor it, they will provide the flexible travel market receptive to intermodal transfers. How- ever, since park-and-ride access corridors are often unfriendly for pedestrians, such systems are not favorable for transit- dependents who usually cannot afford an automobile and therefore cannot flexibly switch modes when travel condi- tions favor it. A successful transit-oriented multimodal corridor is more likely to favor transit-dependent riders while still offering adequate access and performance to the “choice” riders. These corridors offer pedestrian-friendly access to stations and, therefore, may flourish in transit-dependent-rich environ- ments. Table 5-4 suggests the most appropriate travel markets for each new paradigm corridor type. Clustered Destinations and Employment Clustered destinations (particularly employment centers) that concentrate trip ends within easy walking distance of tran- sit stations generally encourage non-automobile and transit use. Typically, the automobile congestion that occurs in concentrated CBDs discourages driving. Table 5-5 suggests the most appropriate destination and employment cluster choices for each new paradigm corridor type. Jobs/Housing Distribution This factor primarily describes the distribution and con- centrations of land uses at the corridor level. Several researchers Transit-Oriented Corridor Qualities Park-and-Ride Access Corridor Qualities Transit-Optimized/Freeway Constrained Corridor Qualities Local access-oriented or lower-speed transit modes • Heavy rail • Light rail • Bus rapid transit Automobile-competitive/higher- speed transit modes • Heavy rail • Commuter rail • Bus rapid transit • Express bus (as transitional transit mode until BRT can be developed) Automobile-competitive/higher- speed transit modes • Heavy rail • Commuter rail Table 5-3. Transit line speed new paradigm characteristics. 2TCRP Report 27: Building Transit Ridership, 1997, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, p. 22, Table 15. 3TCRP Report 28: Transit Markets of the Future, 1998, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, p. 36, Table 16.

49 have developed accessibility measures4, 5 and measures of corridor-level jobs-housing balance.6 Others have focused on the presence of a CBD along the transit corridor, setting minimum thresholds for heavy rail, light rail, commuter rail, and bus transit services according to CBD size.1, 7 Research suggests that a corridor with employment and residential destinations spread throughout the corridor will encourage more balanced, efficient travel flows on its trans- portation systems.8 Another important aspect is to keep traffic contained within “travelsheds” (collections of trip origins and destinations) that minimize lateral and cross- corridor movements—the type of flows for which there tends to be the fewest available road facilities, often leading to suburban congestion, trip circuity, and the forced funnel- ing of traffic onto the few available cross-town connectors, such as ring roads. Travelsheds can be effectively contained using corridor-level land use controls that limit employment 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 paradigm corridor depends on the existing conditions of the corridor and which new paradigm typology category best describes it (see Table 5-6). Corridor Parking Management Parking availability and cost are important factors in deter- mining transit market share, both at the station level and for the corridor as a whole. Transit ridership can be enhanced through a coordinated system of land use and parking controls Transit-dependent-rich market Transit choice-rich market Transit receptive market Transit-Oriented Corridor Qualities Park-and-Ride Access Corridor Qualities Transit-Optimized/Freeway Constrained Corridor Qualities Table 5-4. Transit-receptive travel market new paradigm characteristics. • Distributed nodes maximize activities served along entire route • Clustered mixed-use destination(s) at many locations along corridor • Clustered destinations at limited number of station areas • Clear distinction between residential stations and destination stations • Hybrid corridors with clustered destinations on one side of freeway capacity constraint location (bottleneck) and clustered residential stations on the other Transit-Oriented Corridor Qualities Park-and-Ride Access Corridor Qualities Transit-Optimized/Freeway Constrained Corridor Qualities Table 5-5. Clustered destinations and employment new paradigm characteristics. 4Ferrell, C. “Home-Based Teleshoppers and Shopping Travel: Do Teleshoppers Travel Less?” Transportation Research Record 1894, 2004, pp. 241–248. 5Cervero, R. “Paradigm Shift: From Automobility to Accessibility Planning.” Urban Futures 22: 9–20, 1997. 6Cervero, R. & M. Duncan. “Which Reduces Travel More: Jobs-Housing Balance or Housing-Retail Mixing?” Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 72, No. 4, 2006, pp. 475–490. 7Levinson, H. “Modal Choice and Public Policy in Transportation,” Engineering Issues: Journal of Professional Activities, Vol. 99, No. 1, January 1973, pp. 65–75. 8Cervero R. & M. Duncan, 2006. “Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs-Housing Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing?” Journal of the American Planning Association, Volume 72, Issue 4 December 2006, pages 475–490. Balanced jobs and housing in corridor (jobs clustered in station areas but dispersed along corridor) Jobs clustered in destination station/CBD and low in other stations Jobs clustered near stations on the CBD side of the freeway bottleneck and few jobs near stations on the other side Transit-Oriented Corridor Qualities Park-and-Ride Access Corridor Qualities Transit-Optimized/Freeway Constrained Corridor Qualities Table 5-6. Jobs/housing distribution new paradigm characteristics.

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

51 nearby Blue Line that serves downtown Los Angeles (roughly 68,000 average weekday boardings).10 Thus, one of the chal- lenges for the Green Line and for other suburb-to-suburb (circumferential) alignment transit lines is the lack of an anchor (clustered destination) served by the line. Table 5-8 suggests the most appropriate metropolitan align- ments for each new paradigm corridor type. Transit Station-Level Characteristics The old paradigm called for building automobile-oriented stations with large park-and-ride lots. The new paradigm starts with those station areas and retrofits them to promote transit and nonmotorized access modes. The new paradigm employs planning and design concepts such as transit-oriented land use planning and urban design, coordinated transit and freeway access designs, and nonmotorized station access tools. Land Use and Urban Design Over the past 20 years or so, evidence has grown showing the influence of land use and urban design factors on travel behavior, and more specifically, mode choice. Cervero and Kockelman first defined and labeled three important character- istics of transit station areas as the 3-Ds—Density, Diversity, and Design.11 These are defined as follows: • Density: clustered trip origins (residential) and destinations (employment)1 around stations Wide Station Spacing with Transit Supportive Development, Park and Ride Other Rapid Transit Line BRT, LRT Distance Varies CBD Express Transit = In Freeway Corridor = Freeway Only = On Separate Alignment Outlying Major Activity Center (Optional) Crosstown Corridor (Optional) Free wa y Free way Figure 5-1. Metropolitan alignment concepts for new paradigm corridors. 10http://www.metro.net/news_info/ridership_avg.htm 11Cervero, R. & K. Kockelman. “Travel Demand and the 3 Ds: Density, Diversity, and Design,” Transportation Research D, 2, 3: 199–219, 1997. Transit-Oriented Corridor Qualities Park-and-Ride Access Corridor Qualities Transit-Optimized/Freeway Constrained Corridor Qualities • Radial alignment • Transit line serves more than one activity center along radial route (for example, each end of line serves a CBD). • Radial alignment • Circumferential alignment serving major automobile- oriented activity centers (such as Edge City office clusters or airports). • Radial alignment • Circumferential alignment serving major automobile- oriented activity centers (such as Edge City office clusters or airports). Table 5-8. Metropolitan alignment new paradigm characteristics.

52 • Diversity: mixed land uses providing a range of clustered, mutually supportive trip destinations • Design: transit- and pedestrian-friendly street networks and urban design (see Figure 5-2) Subsequent researchers12, 13 have added the following factors: • Distance: The shorter the walking distances between a transit station and surrounding land uses, the better. However, since a freeway facility’s negative externalities (that is, noise, air, and sight pollution) tend to depress pedestrian activities, maximizing distances between a free- way and station areas or effectively mitigating the negative impacts of the freeway are desirable as well. • Destinations: This factor was discussed in the Jobs/Housing Distribution section. An important outcome of transit-supportive land uses and urban design is to improve pedestrian access to high-capacity stations. This is particularly important in multimodal corridor station areas where connections to interchanging transit lines, park-and-ride facilities, and adjacent developments should be convenient, weather protected, and compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Table 5-9 suggests the most appropriate land use and urban design approaches for each new paradigm corridor type. Station Location Transit stations can be located within the freeway facility 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 close to it, requiring buses to travel onto nonfreeway surface streets or a dedicated road circulation system. (These options and how they may affect new paradigm corridor operations were discussed in Chapter 4.) Construction costs and operations for offset/adjacent stations can differ for bus rapid transit (BRT) and rail facilities. For buses, offset/adjacent stations can be less costly than in- median or adjacent stations since they do not require as much expensive retrofitting of the freeway facility and do not require additional ROW width to accommodate the stations: stations can be placed where land is readily available. However, offset stations require ROW acquisition from the freeway ROW to and from the station locations and, particu- larly in developed corridors with little vacant or inexpensive land, offset stations can cost more than retrofitting the free- way for in-median or adjacent placements. Offset stations typically increase service times because transit vehicles must exit and re-enter the mainline route. Offset stations can also be attractive for BRT as an incremental implementation step because they may incur fewer construction costs. More elab- orate in-median or adjacent stations can be built later if ridership demand warrants.14 However, new paradigm corridor transit lines must pene- trate major employment or activity centers, often leaving the freeway to do so. This penetration should be via off-street connections (grade-separated) but situations may require on- street stations and rights-of-way. Table 5-10 suggests the most appropriate station location choices for each new paradigm corridor type. Station Spacings As discussed in Chapter 4, station spacings are important in determining the speed of transit and the accessibility of transit riders to corridor land uses. Table 5-11 suggests the most appropriate station spacing approaches for each new paradigm corridor type. 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. 14TCRP Report 90, Volume 2, page 5–9. 12Ewing, R., and Cervero, R. (2001). Transportation Research Record 1780, “Travel and the built environment: A synthesis” pp. 87–114. 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.

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

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

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

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.

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

58 concept would work well in retrofitting suburban neigh- borhoods in the United States, where the hierarchical street networks that isolate residential neighborhoods force drivers to take large arterial streets by more circuitous routes. By replacing the barriers between adjacent neighborhoods with green connectors, more direct, dedicated pedestrian and bicycle paths can be made to encourage suburban residents to walk or cycle to their nearest stations. In Bogota, Colombia, the Transmilenio BRT line offers a fully realized vision of the potential for green connectors to facilitate nonmotorized access to new paradigm stations. The line’s exclusive bus lanes are primarily in the medians of arterial boulevard medians—an automobile-oriented envi- ronment with nonmotorized access challenges very similar to new paradigm facilities (see Figure 5-8). To provide pedestrian access to these in-median stations, almost half of the line’s 57 stations have pedestrian overpasses. Leading into these stations is a network of 130 miles of sidewalks and bikeways. These green connectors have yielded substantial results, with around 45 percent of all Transmilenio riders arriving at their stations by bike or by foot. The city’s long-range plans call for doubling the size of this green connector network over the next 30 years. These investments have paid off for the city of Bogota as a whole. In the 10 years since bikeways were in- troduced, cycling’s share of total trips has risen from less than 1 to roughly 4 percent.15 Table 5-14 suggests the most appropriate station access measures for each new paradigm corridor type. Summary and Conclusions Transit-oriented corridors: • High-capacity/fixed-capital-asset transit modes such as heavy rail, light rail and BRT • Transit-dependent-rich market • Concentrated station-area land uses: • Distributed nodes maximize activities served along entire route • Clustered mixed-use destination(s) at many locations along corridor • Balanced jobs and housing in corridor (jobs clustered in station areas but dispersed along corridor) • Limited parking supply and high cost of available parking within destination CBD • Radial metropolitan alignment with transit line serving more than one activity center along route • Transit-oriented land uses and urban design around stations • Stations located either adjacent or offset from freeway • Short station spacings • Long interchange spacings Source: Courtesy of Robert Cervero from “Green Connectors: Off-Shore Examples,” Planning, American Planning Association, May 2003, p. 27. Figure 5-7. Green connectors can provide enhanced non-motorized station access for new paradigm facilities. Source: Courtesy of Robert Cervero from “Green Connectors: Off-Shore Examples,” Planning, American Planning Association, May 2003, p. 25. Figure 5-8. Pedestrian access priorities for Bogota’s Transmilenio Bus Rapid Transit system.

59 • Ramp touchdowns located far from stations • Station access: – Intermodal stations only at terminal corridor locations and major freeway-to-freeway interchanges – Community-oriented station access modes – “Green connector” paths leading to stations Park-and-ride access corridors: • At least one large activity center or anchor, usually a CBD with high levels of employment • Direct access to the city center and other major “anchors” (This likely involves leaving the freeway to penetrate these areas) • Limited and costly parking in the CBD • Effective transit distribution in the CBD, preferably off- street • Constrained freeway capacity such as lane drops, route convergence, and travel barriers • Wide station spacing that permits high transit speeds • Good access to stations on foot, by car, and/or by public transport; a minimum number of freeway interchange ramps within walking distance of transit stations • A multimodal corridor that extends at least 10 miles and has at least eight residential “catchment” stations • Transit-supportive development in the environs of key stations • An interagency multimodal corridor overlay zone that can specify uses and densities and form guidelines and requirements Transit-optimized/freeway-constrained corridors: • Freeway bottleneck (lane drop or other capacity constraint) roughly mid-point in the corridor that gives transit a travel time advantage in CBD side of corridor. • Transit-oriented corridor qualities downstream of freeway bottleneck • Park-and-ride access corridor qualities upstream of freeway bottleneck • Intermodal stations only at terminal corridor locations and major freeway-to- freeway interchanges • Ramp touchdowns far from stations • Emphasis on community- oriented station access modes • “Green connectors” provided where possible to encourage nonmotorized station access • Most corridor stations are intermodal • Ramp touchdowns near stations • Large park-&-ride lots near station entrances • Kiss-&-ride zones near station entrances • Bus bays near station entrances • Downstream (non-CBD) side of freeway bottleneck: same qualities as Transit-Oriented Corridor • Upstream (non-CBD) side of freeway bottleneck: same qualities as Park-and-Ride- Access Corridor Transit-Oriented Corridor Qualities Park-and-Ride-Access Corridor Qualities Transit-Optimized/Freeway Constrained Corridor Qualities Table 5-14. Station design and access new paradigm characteristics.