Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 71


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 70
70 lead role in developing multimodal corridors, some of the most experienced and available staff from partner agencies to prominent examples of multimodal corridors in the United work on the new paradigm project can keep the best corridor States owe their success to the efforts of local governments. plans on a shelf gathering dust. A lack of available real estate Chicago provides a clear example of how successful city in the corridor can prevent a new paradigm project from and county governments can be when they have the will and achieving its intended land use aims. are given the authority. Early in the 20th century, planners Conflicting priorities. New paradigm project partners often had envisioned a "west side superhighway," along the Con- have many competing projects, constituencies, and agen- gress Street corridor. In 1939, the City of Chicago created the das among them and within their own organizations. Local Department of Subways and Superhighways, a multimodal governments, in particular, face these conflicts when the planning and operations agency with a mandate to build this project corridor runs through other local government juris- facility, later to be named the Eisenhower Expressway, as a dictions as well. In these cases, it can be difficult to reach combined freeway and rapid transit facility.23 The success of consensus on development priorities in the corridor. this early multimodal corridor project suggests that local Ineffective regulations. New paradigm projects, particularly governments can take the lead role in these projects, but they those that seek to dramatically reshape corridor urban form must be given the authority and resources to carry out their and circulation patterns, can fail to meet expectations unless mission. local governments are either willing to coordinate and Similarly, the success of Washington DC's Orange Line/ share their land use or planning powers with other partner I-66 corridor, which has the highest transit ridership of any agencies, or cede those powers to a corridor- or regional-level multimodal corridor researched here, is due in no small part to agency. Often, a change in regulations is needed to facilitate the active participation and influence of Arlington County's this cooperation or consolidation of powers. local government. These agencies fought to have the Orange Controversial issues. Existing controversies within and Line diverge from its in-median alignment along I-66 and between communities and governments can thwart a new travel at a half-mile distance to the south through its planned paradigm project, particularly if the project imposes costs commercial centers. By influencing the right-of-way choice on one constituency and offers benefits to another. New for the transit line in this multimodal corridor, they were able paradigm project partners need to thoroughly understand to coordinate the land uses for the corridor as well, creating one the political landscapes of each corridor jurisdiction and of the most successful examples of a transit-oriented multi- invest the time and resources necessary to compensate for modal corridor in the United States. these issues. Therefore, public outreach efforts that engage project partners in meaningful dialog with local commu- nities are central to any successful new paradigm project. Interagency and Intermodal Successful outreach efforts require real commitment from Cooperation and Collaboration project partner agencies to a process of open and honest, Getting a multimodal corridor built is one thing, but build- two-way communication with the community. If the flow ing a successful, balanced, and coordinated new paradigm of information is one-way, with partner agencies simply corridor requires a unique combination of collaboration, telling the community what their plans are without listening flexibility, and single-minded tenacity on the part of the to the community's concerns, values, and desires, multi- project's stakeholders. There are many causes of a lack of modal projects are likely to find increasing public opposition. coordination between local governments, transit agencies, Successful outreach efforts will also work to engage the USDOT, and state DOTs that need to be taken into account attention of the media as a means to communicate to as when undertaking a new paradigm project. These include wide an audience as possible and as an additional source of information on how the community is responding to the Limited resources. Even the best of intentions to coordinate new paradigm project. When public outreach is done right, among new paradigm corridor partners can be thwarted by a new paradigm project will (1) face less community oppo- a lack of financial, staff, or real estate resources. A lack of sition and fewer legal disputes that may delay the project financial resources can prevent the planning and construc- and increase costs and (2) be more successful in the long tion of station access facilities and services such as green term at serving the corridor and its communities. connectors and neighborhood shuttles and the acquisition Administrative procedures and obstacles. Although the of intelligent transportation system infrastructure that can barriers to project development imposed by governmental facilitate freeway-to-transit intermodal transfers. A lack of administrative procedures are often viewed in a negative light (and sometimes derided as "red tape"), typically there 23 McClendon, D., Encyclopedia of Chicago, "Expressways," http://www. were good reasons why these laws and administrative pro- encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/440.html cedures were adopted. Often, they are the manifestations

OCR for page 70
71 of hard-won compromises that should be understood and Since multimodal corridors are often designed to take respected. Once the underpinnings of these procedures are advantage of existing freeway rights-of-way as a means to add understood, alternative and less onerous forms of admin- high-capacity transit, effective collaboration between state istrative oversight can often be identified that still meet the DOTs (who own and operate most freeway facilities in the spirit and intentions of existing procedures while remov- United States), transit agencies, and MPOs (to name a few) ing many of the impediments they pose to new paradigm is critically important. In the case of the Harbor Freeway project development. Land use controls that work to sep- Transitway project, the state's DOT (Caltrans) worked closely arate uses are a good example. Zoning codes that work to with their regional and local corridor partners to help design, separate uses are intended to prevent pollution, vehicular build, and operate the facility. This included a corridorwide traffic and other negative externalities from one use affecting approach to managing the transportation systems, with another, but also tend to encourage the use of automobiles attention paid to the corridor's arterial operations. In an while suppressing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit activities. effort to balance demand and capacity throughout the cor- Form-based codes that regulate the relationships between ridor, Caltrans has worked with the corridor's local govern- building facades and the public realm instead of tradi- ments to identify and obtain funding for arterial operations tional zoning methods that regulate uses can help encour- improvements, including bus priority signals to improve age pedestrian-oriented mixed-use development in a new local bus operations.26 paradigm corridor. In Arizona, the state's DOT (ADOT) was a prime mover in developing the Casa Grande Accord, an agreement between The Critical Role of State Governments the state and its MPOs on how to share ISTEA transportation in New Paradigm Projects revenues. ADOT led the development of this agreement as a negotiation process and based allocations on long-range Beyond these basic reasons why effective collaboration strategic planning and comprehensive planning principles, is necessary, state DOTs can also play the role (along with rather than by fiat.27 While other states have struggled to USDOT) of the high-level arbiter among stakeholders, and effectively coordinate and foster cooperation among the state when done properly, as a leader in formulating a vision of DOT and the MPOs, ADOT representatives surveyed cited multimodal coordination at the policy level and as the agency cooperation among these groups as a strength, and specifically leading big-picture multimodal planning efforts.24 States play an important role in encouraging effective mentioned the Casa Grande Accord as the framework upon partnerships in new paradigm corridor projects. Carlson and which this cooperative environment has been built.14 King (1998) identified certain common, key factors in states The successes of ADOT illustrate the paradox of ISTEA's that allow local governments to successfully engage in inter- influence on state DOTs, particularly with regard to flexible jurisdictional cooperation: funding. As of 1998, 7 years after the passage of ISTEA, a survey of state DOTs asked if they believed ISTEA had Coordinated financial incentives to encourage local govern- accomplished the objective of making federal funding more ment cooperation flexible for multimodal projects. Forty-three percent said it Support for inter-agency collaboration by state officials had not.13 It appears that while ISTEA created opportunities Public recognition in the state and the corridor that the for state DOTs to use highway funds for multimodal projects, state has land use and transportation problems that re- it also took control of some of these funds away from state quire inter-jurisdictional solutions22 DOTs and gave it to MPOs. As a result, if state DOTs made a conscious choice to embrace the multimodal vision and use State legislation can help other new paradigm project stake- highway funds for nonhighway projects, it would be most holders to collaborate, but research suggests that whether a state effective to do so as part of a collaborative effort with their has such legislation or not, the willingness of a local government MPO partners, as illustrated by ADOT's successes. to partner with the DOT on corridor access management and land use issues is a critical factor determining the success of corridor planning efforts.25 Right-of-Way Planning and Acquisition: Legal and Institutional Issues 24Peyrebrune, H. L., "Multimodal Aspects of Statewide Transportation Planning," Transportation Research Board, National Cooperative Freeway Research Program New paradigm multimodal corridors can be designed, Synthesis of Practice 286, Washington DC: National Academy Press, 2000, 3. owned, and operated in various ways, by a diverse collection 25Vanka1, S., S. Handy & K. Kockelman. "State-local Coordination in Managing Land Use and Transportation Along State Highways," Manuscript Number UP/ 2003/022238, http://www.ce.utexas.edu/prof/kockelman/public_html/JUPD, 26 Interview with Frank Quon, Caltrans, 11/12/09. InteragencyCoop.pdf 27 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/statewide/fcariz.htm

OCR for page 70
72 of project stakeholders. A transit guideway (bus, rail) could At the local level, many transit agencies have property or be installed by dedicating an additional lane, reconfiguring sales taxes that fund transit capital and operating expenses. lanes to add a transitway, operating on shoulders or in the However, the legislation authorizing the tax often restricts the median, operating on above-grade guideways in highway use of the funds. airspace, or even operating below the surface in tunnels under the highway ROW. Alternatively, the transit ROW could be Institutional and Funding Considerations adjacent to but not part of the highway ROW. Stations could Relating to Multimodal Corridor Projects be on-line in medians, shoulders, air rights, or subsurface, or could be off-line with dedicated access ways to the transitway. There are a number of institutional challenges inherent to successfully coordinating the funding of multimodal corridors Often, the quality and form of partnerships between new that derive from the coordination of two or more modes and paradigm stakeholders will play an important role in deter- their respective administrative requirements: mining the way a high-capacity transit line is added to an existing freeway corridor. Mode-specific funding. Although there is some flexibility Design, ownership, and operation and maintenance func- in using highway funds to fund transit planning and vice tions can be handled in a variety of ways. For example, the versa and some highway trust fund programs have an highway agency (state, county, or local) could run the multi- explicit transit focus, taking advantage of this flexibility modal facility. Alternatively, the highway agency could own requires considerable time and expertise and risks a loss of the highway ROW and the transit operator the transit ROW, transparency. with each agency having responsibility for its own property, Mode-specific regulations. Because there are separate pro- operations, and maintenance. Or the property could be owned cedures and regulations for funding highway and transit by the highway agency, which could grant a right of passage projects, any multimodal project that includes significant for a term of years or could provide a permanent easement to capital investment in both highway and transit infrastructure the transit operator. In some states and regions, it might be must navigate two distinct processes. advantageous to form a special district or joint powers agency Mode-specific project review. Aspects of the review process to plan, operate, and maintain the facilities, separating these affect transit and highway projects differently; these may tend activities from ownership per se. to stall funding and approval for one mode in a multimodal Stations also could be owned and operated by various corridor, while the others proceed on a more advanced parties, from state, regional, or local government agencies, track. to the private sector. The best solution will depend on the State, regional, and local project participation and per- context, including public private partnership legislation and the formance. Various considerations affect the state and local availability of contracting approaches, such as build-operate- levels. States tend to delegate transit planning to the local transfer. and regional levels, and because capital investments in Legal issues associated with new paradigm multimodal cor- transit are fewer and farther between, staff experience in ridors can be federal, state, or local. At the federal level, a working through the administrative process may be thinner. major issue is the "color of money" problem: while there are Furthermore (and as discussed previously), requests for New Starts funds have outstripped supply, and most of many different funding opportunities for multimodal corri- the projects approved for funding receive less than half dors, there are many strings attached, limiting how funds can of the needed amount. This is compared to the Highway be spent, directing who has to approve the expenditures, and Trust Fund, which has traditionally provided 90 percent so on. While many funds can be transferred to other categories, of construction costs for the interstate system.6 Coordi- there are complex mechanisms for such swaps. nating a transit funding process and a highway funding The various states also have legal restrictions on how trans- process places a premium on flexible funding, but because portation funds can be spent. Some limit highway funds to the flexible sources of funding are more limited, this poses highway uses. Others allow state highway funds to be used a constraint on the magnitude of any request that depends only for specified uses with regard to other modes. (For ex- on flexible funding. Thus, there will likely be considerable ample, California restricts use to fixed guideways.) Some differences between state, regional and local project stake- states disallow or restrict uses of excess right-of-way, a move holders in terms of their abilities to acquire the necessary that may reduce opportunities for joint development. States approvals and funding commitments for multimodal cor- also have enacted laws governing access to HOV lanes and ridor projects. New paradigm project partners need to be design standards for various facilities. These laws can restrict aware of these differences and share burdens and talents context-sensitive designs that are not "by the book." among stakeholders.