Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 80


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 79
79 APPENDIX B Evidence on the Patronage Impacts of Multimodal Corridors This appendix presents evidence suggesting that transit and transit ridership in each corridor to evaluate how well each freeways can coexist and thrive in the same corridor. These transit line competes with its freeway neighbor. Transit's share findings also provide evidence to support the concepts and of total corridor patronage is a useful metric to see how well tools of the new paradigm, including separated corridor travel transit competes with the freeway. markets that can be achieved through complementary multi- Table B-1 shows the estimated total, freeway-only, transit- modal coordination, transit-oriented land uses and station only, and transit mode share of patronage in each multimodal access, constrained freeway capacity and, where appropriate, corridor studied. These data are used to evaluate how well high transit operating speeds. transit lines perform in multimodal corridors, whether and how transit and freeways can work together, and what corridor Total Corridor Performance: conditions help foster success for all modes. How Well Do Transit and Freeways Work Together? Multimodal Corridor Coordination Although some may believe that freeways and transit As discussed in previous chapters, coordination between the do not mix, analysis of existing multimodal corridors sug- various transportation facilities in a corridor can be achieved gests this is not always true. There are examples of transit by complementary or supplementary coordination. lines that thrive in the same corridors as freeways. These In complementary coordination, the transit and freeway corridors have varying combinations of characteristics that facilities are designed and operated to serve different travel can help the transit line compete effectively for patronage. markets, activity patterns, and land uses within the same They are corridor. A corridor with supplementary coordination has roughly equal station and interchange spacings. These corridors Multimodal corridor coordination put their freeway and transit components in direct competition Transit-oriented corridor urban form with each other for the same travel markets. Transit-oriented station access Two complementary coordination configurations were also High transit operating speeds (where appropriate) proposed in previous chapters: Constrained freeway capacity Transit-oriented complementary coordination has long Although there are several ways to evaluate the patronage performance of multimodal corridors, the total patronage of interchange spacings on its freeway component and relatively both the transit and freeway facilities gives an indication of how short station spacings on its transit line. Automobile-oriented complementary coordination has well these two modes are working together as a multimodal system to facilitate travel along the corridor. long station spacings on its transit facility and relatively However, focusing on total throughput can mask cases where short interchange spacings on its freeway component. one mode dominates the other--specifically, when freeways capture most of the corridor travel market. Therefore, while There are few real-world examples of transit-oriented our discussion of multimodal corridor performance begins complementary multimodal corridors, but there are cases where by looking at total patronage, we follow this by looking at sections of corridors have transit-oriented characteristics.

OCR for page 79
80 Table B-1. List of study multimodal corridors and key performance measures. Corridor Transit Freeway Estimated Daily Patronage ID Multimodal Corridor Mode Lanes Freeway Transit* Total %Transit 1 Atlanta North-South Line/Route 400 HRT 10 326,000 22,000 348,000 6% 2 Chicago Blue Line/Eisenhower Expwy. HRT 8 255,000 24,000 279,000 9% 3 Chicago Blue Line/Kennedy Expwy. (I-90) HRT 6 400,000 59,000 459,000 13% 4 Chicago Red Line/Dan Ryan Expwy. HRT 6 312,000 42,000 354,000 12% 5 Denver Central/I-25 LRT 6 270,000 18,000 288,000 6% 6 Denver TREX/I-25 LRT 6 270,000 23,000 293,000 8% 7 Houston Northwest/U.S. 290 BRT 6 316,000 6,000 322,000 2% 8 Los Angeles El Monte Transitway/I-10 BRT 8 287,000 7,000 294,000 2% 9 Los Angeles Gold Line/I-210 LRT 6 242,000 24,000 266,000 9% 10 Los Angeles Green Line/Century Freeway LRT 10 311,000 42,000 353,000 12% 11 Los Angeles Harbor Freeway (I-110)/Harbor Transitway BRT 6 387,000 4,000 391,000 1% 12 New Haven Line/I-95 CR 6 163,000 87,000 250,000 35% 13 Portland MAX Airport/I-84 Red Line LRT 6 195,000 7,000 202,000 3% 14 Sacramento North Line/S.R. 160 & I-80 LRT 6 70,000 6,000 76,000 8% 15 San Francisco Daly City Line/I-280 HRT 8 254,000 51,000 305,000 17% 16 San Francisco (BART) Dublin Line/I-580 HRT 8 257,000 20,000 277,000 7% 17 San Francisco (BART) Pittsburgh/Bay Point Line/S.R. 24 HRT 8 204,000 57,000 261,000 22% 18 San Jose Guadalupe/San Jose S.R. 87 & 85 LRT 6 182,000 7,000 189,000 4% 19 Washington D.C. Orange Line/I-66 HRT 6 127,000 139,000 266,000 52% Average 7 261,400 33,750 295,150 12% Source: TCRP H-36 Interim Report March 2009 Note: Transit patronage figures were typically available for entire lines and have been adjusted to represent travel within the study corridors (which are often portions of larger lines). * - Transit daily patronage estimated using daily boardings. The Benefits of Complementarity Fewer Station/Interchange Conflicts: By offsetting transit stations from freeway interchanges it is possible to increase Complementary corridors have several distinct advantages and diversify the "customer" base for travel along a given over supplementary corridors: corridor. Enhanced Potential for Transit-Oriented Development: Separated Corridor Travel Markets for Transit and Free- When interchanges and stations are separated, the auto- way: The combination of long interchange and short sta- mobile traffic associated with interchanges is removed from tion spacings (transit-oriented complementary) encour- transit station walking environments, allowing clustered, ages short- and medium-distance corridor travelers to use high-density, pedestrian-oriented development patterns to transit while long-distance travelers are encouraged to use the freeway. The combination of short interchange and long take root. station spacings (automobile-oriented complementary) en- courages long-distance corridor travelers to use transit while The Effects of Multimodal Coordination short- and medium-distance travelers are encouraged to on Corridor Patronage use the freeway. In both configurations, direct competition between the transit and freeway facilities is minimized. The performance of a corridor can be understood in many Competitive Transit Operating Speeds: When there are ways. For the purposes of this analysis it is not important fewer transit access points (stations) along congested cor- to establish results in terms of return on investment or the ridors, transit can operate at higher average speeds and relative performance of transit versus auto. Rather, a simple compete favorably with automobile trips in travel time and aggregate measure of person-trip throughput provides an travel-time reliability. adequate indicator of corridor performance. Increased Local Access for Transit and Increased Free- Based on a review of existing multimodal facilities in the way Speeds: Providing fewer freeway access points allows United States, corridors with complementary coordination for increased freeway speeds, higher flow rates, and tend to carry more total patrons. Most corridors that carry higher volumes. This can be supported by providing tran- more passengers either have a combination of long station sit alternatives for local trips, especially in or near more spacings and short interchange spacings, although in one case densely developed areas. it is the opposite.

OCR for page 79
81 Measuring Multimodal Coordination Additional exploratory analysis of these data showed that the relationship between multimodal coordination and corridor The following formula was used to construct a measure of patronage is not linear. A log-log model was fitted and graphed multimodal corridor coordination for the study corridors: in Figure B-2. Multimodal Corridor Coordination = By graphing the relationship between multimodal coordi- Median Interchange Spacing - Median Station Spacing nation and total corridor patronage (Figure B-2) a positive relationship is suggested (though not statistically proven due The higher the calculated value for a corridor; the more to an insufficient sample size) where complementary corridor complementary the freeway and transit services in the corridor, coordination is associated with more total corridor patronage. while the lower the value, the more supplementary the corridor. More detailed multivariate linear regression results are pre- By taking the absolute value of this calculation, this measure sented in Table B-2. The coefficient for multimodal coordi- does not distinguish between complementary corridors where nation score in predicting throughput was significant at the transit provides area coverage and the freeway emphasizes p = 0.05 level. operating speeds, and complementary corridors with the To further test this relationship, a series of additional reverse configuration. regressions were performed to determine to what extent the re- Figure B-1 provides a graph of multimodal coordination lationship is driven by either sensitivity to interchange spacing and total corridor patronage (daily freeway patrons plus daily or sensitivity to transit station spacing irrespective of comple- transit boardings) for each of our study corridors. A linear mentary multimodal access. For example, no statistically signif- regression line drawn on this graph indicates that if there is a icant correlation was identified for either the influence of inter- statistically valid relationship between these variables, it is not change spacing on freeway throughput without transit or the linear. relative influence of transit station spacing on transit ridership. Note: Commuter rail cases (i.e.; the New Haven Line/I-95 corridor) have been excluded since they tend to attract automobile and bus access riders from further distances from their stations than other transit modes. Transit-Optimized/Freeway Constrained cases (i.e.; Chicago Blue Line/Kennedy Expwy. (I-90), Washington D.C. Orange Line/I-66, and San Francisco East Bay (BART) Pittsburgh/Bay Point Line/S.R. 24) were also excluded since their freeway capacity constraints give their transit lines an operational advantage that masks the benefits of complementary coordination. Sacramento's North Line/S.R. 160 & I-80 was also excluded since the freeway sample txt point was along S.R. 160 where volumes are low. Figure B-1. Multimodal coordination and total corridor patronage-- linear regression line.

OCR for page 79
82 Note: Commuter rail cases (i.e.; the New Haven Line/I-95 corridor) have been excluded since they tend to attract automobile and bus access riders from further distances from their stations than other transit modes. Transit-Optimized/Freeway Constrained cases (i.e.; Chicago Blue Line/Kennedy Expwy. (I-90), Washington D.C. Orange Line/I-66, and San Francisco East Bay (BART) Pittsburgh/Bay Point Line/S.R. 24) were also excluded since their freeway capacity constraints give their transit lines an operational advantage that masks the benefits of complementary coordination. Sacramento's North Line/S.R. 160 & I-80 was also excluded since the freeway sample txt point was along S.R. 160 where volumes are low. Figure B-2. Complementary multimodal coordination is associated with improved corridor performance--log-log transformation. Table B-2. Log-linear regression model results predicting total corridor patronage (freeway & transit). Coefficients B Std. Error t-stat. Sig. (Constant) 10.046 1.12E+00 8.94 *** Natural Log of Multimodal Coordination 0.152 4.81E-02 3.16 ** Park-&-Ride Spaces per Station 0.000 8.89E-05 -2.63 * Average Ramps Touching Down w/in 1/4-Mile of Stations 0.102 6.30E-02 1.62 Total Freeway Lanes 0.031 2.70E-02 1.15 Heavy Rail Dummy (0=No, 1=Yes) -0.008 9.51E-02 -0.08 Housing Unit Density w/in 1/2-Mile of Stations 0.000 4.62E-05 -0.93 Natural Log of CBD Size (Sq. Ft. Office) 0.136 5.98E-02 2.28 * Notes: R-Square = 0.56 F-Sig. = 0.03 N = 16 *** = p < 0.01 ** = p < 0.05 * = p < 0.10

OCR for page 79
83 While the planning and design of multimodal facilities is If transit ridership always suppressed freeway patronage, more complicated than the planning or design of either transit we would expect that corridors with low transit ridership would or automobile facilities in isolation, the potential benefits of have consistently high levels of freeway patronage. This too, is doing so suggest that both can and should be planned and not the case, since the San Jose Guadalupe Line, the Portland designed in a coordinated and mutually beneficial fashion. MAX Red Line, and the Sacramento North Line all have very This analysis suggests that multimodal coordination may be low transit ridership and low-to-moderate freeway patronage. an important factor in planning successful new paradigm These findings suggest that the performance of transit and corridors. However, the lack of data and consequent inability freeways in multimodal corridors is not a zero-sum game, to perform a statistically valid analysis means that this concept where only one mode thrives, not both. requires further study. Other dynamics might also be at work, other ways that transit and freeways might be affecting each other when sharing a corridor. In most of the United States, the automobile is the Can Transit Thrive in Multimodal Corridors? dominant mode of travel. This could mean that while transit While it seems obvious that transit and freeways tend to does not take patrons from freeways, freeways may prevent conflict with each other's operations, there is no evidence that nearby transit lines from thriving. Figure B-4, where corridors they have to. The success of one does not mean the other are sorted by freeway patronage descending from left to right, must suffer. suggests this is not the case. Figure B-3 shows the estimated daily patronage for each If it were impossible for transit to successfully attract riders multimodal corridor studied, for both the freeway and tran- in a multimodal corridor, we would expect to see the lowest sit facility components. The cases in this figure are sorted with transit ridership cases on the left (where freeway patronage is decreasing freeway patronage estimates from left to right. the highest) and the highest transit ridership cases clustered If transit patronage success always came at the expense of on the right of Figure B-4. Since cases with high freeway freeway patronage, then we would expect to see increasing patronage appear on the left, we would expect to see low transit patronage as freeway patronage decreases. But while transit patronage cases on the left as well, with high transit pa- we see cases with large transit ridership values--cases such tronage cases clustered to the right of the graph where the cases as the Washington DC Orange Line, the Chicago Blue Line/ have low freeway patronage. This is not the case. Instead, high Kennedy Expressway, and San Francisco's Pittsburg/Bay Point transit ridership corridors appear to be spread evenly through- Line corridors--these cases do not have consistently lower out the graph, without reference to the patronage of their freeway patronage levels. adjacent freeway facilities. Total Daily Corridor Patronage (Transit + Freeway) 500,000 Transit 450,000 Freeway 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 BART Daly City Denver T-REX S.J.Guadalupe Hou. NW Orange Line New Haven Line BART Pitts. Line Chic. Red Line Eis. Blue Line LA Green Line LA Gold Line Atl. N.-S. Line BART Dub. Line Den. Cen. Line Port. Red Line Sac. North Line Ken. Blue Line El Monte Transitway Harbor Transitway 19 12 3 17 15 4 10 2 9 6 1 16 5 8 13 18 7 14 11 Multimodal Corridor Figure B-3. Transit success does not always mean low freeway patronage in multimodal corridor.

OCR for page 79
84 Total Daily Corridor Patronage (Transit + Freeway) 500,000 Transit 450,000 Freeway 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 BART Daly City Denver T-REX S.J.Guadalupe Hou. NW Ken. Blue Line Eis. Blue Line New Haven Line LA Gold Line Harbor Transitway Atl. N.-S. Line Chic. Red Line LA Green Line El Monte Transitway Den. Cen. Line BART Dub. Line Port. Red Line Orange Line Sac. North Line BART Pitts. Line 3 11 1 7 4 10 8 5 6 16 2 15 9 17 13 18 12 19 14 Multimodal Corridor Figure B-4. Freeway success does not always mean low transit patronage. More important, there are several cases where transit is performing transit lines are the New Haven (commuter high--both in absolute terms and in comparison to the rail) line, Chicago's Blue Line (Kennedy), and San Fran- neighboring freeway facilities. Figure B-5 shows the estimated cisco's BART Pittsburg/Bay Point Line. These findings daily transit ridership for the study multimodal corridors. confirm expectations that high-capacity and high-speed Three of the four corridors with the highest transit rider- transit lines attract more patronage, even in multimodal ship share some key characteristics. Washington DC's corridors. Orange Line/I-66 corridor has the best-performing transit Clearly, freeways do not always make a corridor inhospitable line (in terms of ridership) of any multimodal corridor to transit. Other factors that determine the success of each evaluated for this study. The second, third, and fourth best- facility at attracting patrons must be at work. 160,000 140,000 Daily Transit Patronage 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 BART Daly City Denver T-REX Port. Red Line S.J.Guadalupe Hou. NW Orange Line New Haven Line Ken. Blue Line BART Pitts. Line Chic. Red Line LA Green Line Eis. Blue Line LA Gold Line Atl. N.-S. Line BART Dub. Line Den. Cen. Line Sac. North Line El Monte Transitway Harbor Transitway 19 12 3 17 15 4 10 2 9 6 1 16 5 8 13 18 7 14 11 Multimodal Corridor Figure B-5. Transit line ridership in multimodal corridors.

OCR for page 79
85 160,000 HRT = Heavy Rail Transit LRT = Light Rail Transit 140,000 CR = Commuter Rail BRT = Bus Rapid Transit Daily Transit Patronage 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 BART Daly City Denver T-REX S.J.Guadalupe Hou. NW Ken. Blue Line Orange Line New Haven Line BART Pitts. Line Chic. Red Line LA Gold Line Eis. Blue Line Atl. N.-S. Line BART Dub. Line Den. Cen. Line Port. Red Line Sac. North Line El Monte Transitway Harbor Transitway LA Green Line HRT CR HRT HRT HRT HRT HRT LRT HRT LRT HRT HRT LRT LRT BRT LRT BRT LRT BRT Multimodal Corridor Figure B-6. Transit patronage and transit mode. The Effects of Transit Mode on Transit Ridership Angeles Gold Line all attract between 23,000 and 42,000 week- day boardings within the multimodal corridor sections of The operating characteristics of the transit line can play an each line. important role in determining transit ridership. For the sake BRT is often seen as a low-cost alternative to more capital- of brevity and ease of analysis, the type of transit mode in each intensive fixed-rail alternatives. One of the most important study corridor was used as a proxy to suggest their operating feature of BRT (unlike regular bus service) is that it runs on a characteristics. Therefore, in general it was assumed (as dis- cussed in Chapter 5) that heavy rail has the highest carrying dedicated, exclusive lane of travel, giving it a high level of capacities and operating speeds, followed by commuter rail, service reliability (since it does not compete for right-of-way light rail, and BRT. Figure B-6 confirms this point. with other modes) and speed. When running in mixed-flow The best-performing cases in terms of transit ridership are traffic, bus priority technologies (such as signal prioritiza- heavy rail transit (HRT), while the lowest-ridership cases are tion) are often used to improve travel times and provide a bus rapid transit (BRT) and light rail transit (LRT). Five of competitive edge to BRT vis--vis other modes in the corri- the top six transit ridership cases are HRT, while two of the dor. Off-bus fare collections as well as platform boarding and bottom five are LRT and the other three are BRT. alighting are frequently used to reduce dwell times at stops.1 These differences are partially due to the operating character- In addition to operational improvements, the cost of a BRT istics of the various transit modes (see discussion in Chapter 5 system can be about one-third that of a light rail system.2 This for further details). LRT vehicles run singly or in short trains makes BRT cost-feasible for somewhat less dense and smaller on tracks in various right-of-way environments, including central business district corridors than more capital-intensive mixed-flow surface streets, dedicated lanes with grade cross- rail systems. ings, and fully grade-separated dedicated facilities.1 Therefore, Consequently, BRT systems are often used in the United depending on the design of the right-of-way (grade-separated States as an alternative to more expensive fixed-rail options or mixed-flow), fare collection systems, station platforms, and are typically deployed in corridors where these other op- and station spacings, light rail systems can approach heavy tions are infeasible. Therefore, although BRT has proven ca- rail performance in terms of capacity and operating speeds. pable of performing at levels equal to fixed-rail in other coun- The flexible performance parameters of LRT can be seen tries, the locations where it has been implemented in the in several cases, where light rail lines attract riders at simi- United States have tended to limit its success at attracting rid- lar levels to heavy rail. Three cases stand out in this regard. ers at levels equal to fixed-rail alternatives. The Los Angeles Green Line, Denver's T-REX, and the Los 1 Pushkarev, B. and J. Zupan, 1971. Public Transportation and Land Use Policy. 2Leal, Monica T. & Robert L. Bertini, Bus Rapid Transit: An Alternative For Don Mills, Ontario: Indiana University Press. Developing Countries, http://web.pdx.edu/bertini/brt.pdf

OCR for page 79
86 These limitations are manifest in the patronage rankings of Transit-oriented corridors, on the other hand, are designed BRT multimodal corridors shown in Figure B-6. Three of the to maximize nonautomobile access to land uses and transit four-lowest ridership cases are BRT systems--Los Angeles's stations. Land uses are generally high-density with minimal El Monte Transitway and Harbor Transitway, and Houston's parking. Northwest/U.S. 290 corridor. In these three cases, BRT does Multimodal corridors are, by definition, neither purely not run in its own right-of-way, but shares HOV lanes with automobile- nor transit-oriented, but lie between the extremes automobiles. Therefore, when traffic congestion slows traffic of the corridor continuum, as shown in Fig. 4-1. Each point in the HOV lane, BRT suffers as well and cannot offer a travel along the multimodal corridor continuum has a different com- time premium compared to the freeway. bination of the critical facility design and surrounding land use It should also be mentioned that the operational character- factors that serve to optimize (or degrade) the capabilities of istics of each transit mode are not the only factors that deter- the corridor to function as a balanced, multimodal system. mine performance in a multimodal corridor. For example, As discussed previously, factors that support a multimodal HRT not only offers speed and capacity advantages (and thus transit-oriented corridor are those that maximize access to time competitiveness with the automobile-freeway system), transit stations by all modes of travel, but particularly by but in most cases studied here, HRT corridors tie into larger pedestrians. As a freeway facility will be running near it, a key regional transit networks that provide comparatively high challenge to creating an effective multimodal transit-oriented levels of regional rail accessibility. The HRT multimodal cor- corridor is to minimize the negative externalities of the vehic- ridor transit lines in San Francisco; Washington, DC; and ular traffic traveling to and from the freeway. Chicago feed into many destinations in each region's central Factors that support a multimodal automobile-oriented cor- city, providing the transit rider with wider spatial coverage ridor are similar to those typically used to describe a purely and higher regional connectivity/accessibility. These higher automobile-oriented corridor (see Fig. 4-1), and like the multi- levels of accessibility and connectivity give the transit lines modal transit-oriented corridor, its differences are mainly those that run in multimodal corridors additional performance of emphasis. Transit stations or stops are designed to maximize advantages. automobile access and parking. Park-and-ride lots dominate the immediate station environments, and high-capacity road connections between station areas and the freeway encourage Corridor Orientation and Transit Ridership peak-period commuters to reduce freeway congestion by park- The performance of a multimodal corridor's transit line ing their cars and transferring to transit. also depends on its relationship to its surrounding environ- ment. We refer to this transit-environment relationship as The Effects of Corridor Urban Form corridor orientation, comprised of two components: corridor urban form and corridor station access. Each component is Corridor urban form plays an important role in determining described in greater detail and analyzed in terms of its effects mode choice for corridor residents, visitors, and employees. on corridor performance below. The critical factors that describe urban form are discussed in Corridor orientation is described in Chapter 4 as a contin- Chapter 4. uum with two poles: transit- and automobile-orientation To measure the urban form orientation of each study (see Fig. 4-1). Automobile-oriented corridors are planned to corridor, several variables (see Table B-3) were chosen to rep- optimize automobile mobility over nonautomobile access. resent each of the four "D" factors. From these variables, Table B-3. Urban form corridor orientation index components. Theoretical Component Component Measure Density Housing Units per Square Mile Diversity Entropy Index (Jobs-Housing Balance) Design 4-Leg Intersections per Square Mile Corridor Clustered Destinations Sq. Ft. Office Space in CBD Note: Entropy (Diversity) index calculated as mixed-use entropy (within 1/2 mile of each station) = 1*{[i (pi) (ln pi)]/ln k}, where p = proportion of total land uses; k = category of land use (single-family housing units, multifamily housing units, retail/service employment, office employment, manufacturing/trade/other employment); ln = natural logarithm.

OCR for page 79
87 Note: Commuter rail cases (i.e.; the New Haven Line/I-95 corridor) have been excluded since they tend to attract automobile- and bus-access riders from further distances from their stations than other transit modes. Figure B-7. Transit-oriented urban form increases corridor transit patronage. factor analysis was performed, and a single urban form factor #2 Chicago Blue Line/Eisenhower Expressway score variable was created. #3 Chicago Blue Line/Kennedy Expressway The relationship between multimodal corridor urban form #4 Chicago Red Line/Dan Ryan Expressway and the percentage of station area commuters using transit #15 San Francisco Daly City Line/I-280 (see Figure B-7) suggests a positive relationship. Consistent #19 Washington D.C. Orange Line/I-66 with theory and the discussions above, the more transit-oriented the corridor urban form, the more riders the transit line attracts San Francisco's Daly City Line/I-280 offers a good example from its station neighborhoods (that is, within a half-mile of of a multimodal transit-oriented urban form corridor. A each station). However, as discussed earlier, caution should combination of residential density, mixed uses, pedestrian- be used when interpreting these graphs, since the low sample oriented design, and a large CBD make this one of the most size prevented more robust and statistically reliable testing. transit-oriented multimodal corridors in the United States. Figure B-7 also suggests the following five cases are the top Table B-4 compares the urban form measures values for performers, both in terms of running through corridors with the Daly City Line corridor and the median values of the study predominantly multimodal transit-oriented urban form and corridors. The Daly City values are all above the study median, attracting riders within a half-mile of their stations: with the CBD size substantially higher, suggesting that size of Table B-4. Urban form characteristics of the San Francisco Daly City/I-280 corridor. Component Measure Study Median Value S.F. Daly City Corridor Value Density (DUs/Ac.) 4.9 5.3 Diversity (Entropy Ind.) 0.85 0.86 Design (4-Leg Int./Ac.) 0.12 0.16 Destination (CBD Size) 42 mil. s.f. 110 mil. s.f.

OCR for page 79
88 160,000 120,000,000 Transit Daily Corridor Patronage (Transit + Freeway) CBD Size 140,000 HRT = Heavy Rail Transit 100,000,000 LRT = Light Rail Transit 120,000 CR = Commuter Rail Office Floorspace (SqFt) BRT = Bus Rapid Transit 80,000,000 100,000 80,000 60,000,000 60,000 40,000,000 40,000 20,000,000 20,000 0 0 El Monte Transitway Harbor Transitway Orange Line Ken. Blue Line Atl. N.-S. Line Den. Cen. Line BART Pitts. Line Chic. Red Line LA Green Line LA Gold Line Eis. Blue Line Denver T-REX Port. Red Line S.J.Guadalupe Sac. North Line BART Dub. Line BART Daly City Hou. NW HRT HRT HRT HRT HRT LRT LRT HRT LRT HRT HRT LRT LRT BRT LRT BRT LRT BRT 19 3 17 15 4 10 9 2 6 1 16 5 13 8 18 7 14 11 Multimodal Corridor Figure B-8. Transit patronage and central business district (CBD) size. a corridor's anchor plays a critical role in determining transit commuters to use both the transit and freeway facilities. ridership performance. Analysis of Chicago's three multimodal corridors suggests Review of other cases suggests that while CBD size is that CBD size does not guarantee transit line ridership. important in determining transit line ridership in multimodal Chicago's dominant CBD helps the Blue Line/Kennedy corridors, it does not guarantee it. Figure B-8 shows that while Expressway corridor to attract the second-largest number of none of the top five transit ridership cases have CBDs smaller transit riders of any multimodal corridor transit line studied, than 60 million square feet of office floor space, several cases but does not help the Blue Line/Eisenhower Expressway with moderate or low transit ridership have CBDs of equivalent corridor place in the top five. or greater sizes. When these corridors all serve the same, large CBD, what Chicago's multimodal corridors illustrate this point. Down- is different about the Blue Line/Eisenhower corridor that keeps town Chicago has one of the largest concentrations of office it from attracting the same ridership as the Blue Line/Kennedy floor space in the United States. This provides a large trip and the Red Line corridors? Table B-5 compares the transit attractor at the end of each study corridor that encourages ridership, the corridor's commuter mode share, and the Table B-5. Comparison of transit patronage and corridor urban form for Chicago's multimodal corridors. Ridership/Component Measure Eisenhower Kennedy Dan Ryan Transit Line Ridership (Daily Boardings) 20,070 59,390 42,460 Corridor Transit Commuter Mode Share 24% 28% 31% Density (DUs/Ac.) 4.7 7.4 5.3 Diversity (Entropy Index.) 0.61 0.91 0.86 Design (4-Leg Int./Ac.) 0.18 0.15 0.15

OCR for page 79
89 non-CBD urban form characteristics of each Chicago multi- planning, design, and construction, wherein transit facilities modal corridor. are designed and built in freeway corridors with the perfor- In terms of ridership performance, the Eisenhower corridor mance characteristics that allow them to compete with the free- underperforms its neighboring Chicago corridors, with less way facility on a travel time basis using automobile-oriented than half of the daily boardings of the Kennedy and Red Line multimodal coordination as the first step. Later, as conditions transit lines, and a lower commuter transit mode share for and resources permit, more transit-oriented land uses and residents living within a half-mile of its stations. operational characteristics can be introduced that will help The lower commuter transit mode share for the Eisenhower the transit line reach its full potential as part of a larger new line suggests that the urban form in this corridor is more paradigm corridor. automobile-oriented than its neighboring corridors. For the Therefore, our conception of the new paradigm does not most part, this appears to be the case, with housing densities discriminate against corridors with automobile-oriented and land use diversity (the amount of mixed use) substantially urban form; rather, we see them as opportunities to build lower in the Eisenhower than in the two other corridors. While cost-effective, automobile-oriented transit lines that can be the urban design (as measured by the number of four-legged slowly transformed into transit-oriented lines. There are intersections per acre within a half-mile of the corridor's several examples of automobile-oriented multimodal corridors stations) of the Eisenhower corridor appears to be somewhat that have successfully taken this crucial first step. more transit-oriented than either of its neighbors, all three Urban form in Denver's T-REX/I-25 corridor suggests a Chicago cases have intersection densities above the study decidedly automobile-oriented pattern, but its early success median of 0.11 four-legged intersection per acre. at capturing transit riders suggests this as a prime example of Therefore, while the Eisenhower corridor has development "step one" in the new paradigm evolution toward a transit- densities in its surroundings that are higher than many sub- oriented corridor (see Table B-6). urban corridors in this study, they are lower compared to its Ridership for this new light rail line is excellent considering neighboring Chicago multimodal corridors. So while its the fact that it is just over the study median (which includes densities are not adequate to provide high levels of walk-on many heavy rail lines that tend to attract higher ridership patronage, park-and-ride is not practical because many stations numbers) and is 26 percent higher than the median for study are too close to the city center and pedestrian security can be light rail lines. That T-REX's station areas have a very low a problem. (6 percent) transit commute mode share compared to the study It is reasonable to conclude that while a large CBD can help median of 15 percent suggests it draws most of its riders from create a successful, well-patronized transit line, the line will beyond the half-mile walking distance buffer--a distance at benefit from a transit-oriented urban form along the rest of the which most patrons are likely to use buses or automobiles to corridor as well. Although it would be best to build all multi- park-and-ride. modal facilities in corridors with transit-oriented urban form These ridership patterns are consistent with an automobile- characteristics, most freeway corridors in the United States-- oriented urban form pattern. The urban form metrics confirm where the lion's share of multimodal corridor opportunity this conclusion. Housing densities were among the lowest found sites exist--have decidedly automobile-oriented land uses in the study group, with less than one unit per acre (gross), and urban design qualities. substantially less than the study median of roughly five. The Therefore, as discussed in Chapter 3, we suggest that the corridor is also decidedly residential in character; with a new paradigm offers a two-step process of multimodal corridor diversity score less than one-quarter that of the study median. Table B-6. Transit patronage and urban form characteristics of the Denver T-REX/I-25 corridor. Ridership/ Component Measure Study Median Value Denver T-REX Value Transit Line Ridership (Daily Boardings) 20,070 23,000 Corridor Transit Commuter Mode Share 15% 6% Density (DUs/Ac.) 4.9 0.18 Diversity (Entropy Ind.) 0.85 0.19 Design (4-Leg Int./Ac.) 0.12 0.05 Destination (CBD Size in Office Space) 42 mil. s.f. 23 mil. s.f.

OCR for page 79
90 Table B-7. Transit patronage and urban form characteristics of the San Francisco Pittsburg-Bay Point Line/S.R. 24 corridor. Ridership/ Component Measure Study Median Value Pittsburg-Bay Point Value Transit Line Ridership (Daily Boardings) 20,070 57,110 Corridor Transit Commuter Mode Share 15% 25% Density (DUs/Ac.) 4.9 4.5 Diversity (Entropy Ind.) 0.85 0.85 Design (4-Leg Int./Ac.) 0.12 0.09 Destination (CBD Size in Office Space) 42 mil. s.f. 51 mil. s.f. In terms of urban design characteristics, the T-REX corri- legged intersection per acre compared to the study median dor is also decidedly automobile-oriented, with an average of 0.12. density of 0.05 intersection per acre compared to the study As this corridor continues to evolve, planning policies that median of 0.12. The size of Denver's CBD (roughly 23 million encourage TOD, the construction of infill stations along the square feet) and the fact that the line serves the Denver Tech corridor, and station access measures that encourage non- Center--an office park concentration south of the CBD-- automobile access could lead to this case reaching its full appears to make up for some of the automobile-oriented potential as a multimodal transit-oriented corridor. Anecdotal characteristics of the T-REX corridor, providing a relatively evidence suggests these changes are already underway at sev- strong anchor on which to build the light rail line's ridership. eral corridor stations.3 The line is also in a corridor that is growing in population. Determining successful transit line performance depends Given T-REX's surprisingly low residential densities and on which ridership performance measure is used. Transit line high ridership (with the Denver Tech Center as a major trip ridership counts--obtained from the transit agencies them- generator), it seems likely that the design feature that matters selves and adjusted to estimate the ridership along each study more than anything in a park-and-ride access corridor is the corridor segment--provide a measure that takes into account number of park-and-ride spaces it provides at its stations. riders no matter how far they traveled to reach the transit line, If Denver's T-REX corridor is an example of a nascent or by what mode they arrived there. park-and-ride access multimodal corridor with potential to The "Transit Commuter Mode Share" value offers a dif- evolve into a transit-oriented one, San Francisco's Pittsburg- ferent take on transit ridership success. This measure suggests Bay Point line/SR 24 offers an example of a more mature and how well the transit line competes with other modes in cap- successful automobile-oriented corridor already undergoing turing commuter trips in the corridor--in essence, the tran- some of the transformations into a more transit-oriented one. sit orientation--specifically within reasonable walking dis- Table B-7 shows the relevant transit ridership and urban tance of the corridor's stations (0.5 mile). form metrics. As a result, it can (and does) happen that a particular The corridor serves a combined 51 million square feet of transit line may attract high transit ridership numbers, while office space in the heart of the Bay Area--an important factor attracting a low share of the transit commuters within a half- determining the corridor's high transit commuter mode share mile of its stations. A comparison of Los Angeles's Green Line/ (25 percent), and suggesting that a substantial number of its I-105 and Harbor Transitway/I-110 corridors illustrates this 57,000 daily boardings are coming from within a half-mile point (see Table B-8). walking distance of its stations. The Green Line (LRT) serves roughly 42,000 daily boardings, As the corridor has developed over the last 36 years, the while the Harbor Transitway BRT line only serves roughly urban form of its stations' areas has become steadily more 4,000. However, the transit mode share within a half-mile of transit-oriented. Currently, housing densities and mixed- each line's stations tells a different story. While the Green Line's use are roughly equal to the study medians, suggesting the station areas have roughly 10 percent commuter mode share corridor is neither automobile- nor transit-oriented in terms of urban form. However, its urban design qualities (as suggested by the density of four-legged intersections) are still somewhat 3Cervero, R., et al. TCRP Report 102: Transit Oriented Development in America: automobile-oriented, with an average density of 0.09 four- Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects.

OCR for page 79
91 Table B-8. Comparison of transit line patronage and corridor urban form for the Los Angeles Green Line and Harbor Transitway corridors. Ridership/ Component Measure Green Line Harbor Transitway Line Ridership (Daily Boardings) 42,000 4,000 Transit Commuter Mode Share 10% 16% Density (DUs/Ac.) 7.2 24.7 Diversity (Entropy Ind.) 0.94 0.79 Design (4-Leg Int./Ac.) 0.11 0.10 Destination (CBD Size in Office Space) 42 mil. s.f. 42 mil. s.f. among its residents, the Harbor Transitway's station area modes. A high number of freeway ramps that touch down near residents have a 16 percent mode share. transit stations can impede pedestrian station access. Similarly, These seemingly contradictory results suggest that the Green the negative externalities of the freeway itself (for example, Line is more successful at attracting riders from beyond its noise and air pollution) near transit stations can discourage one-half mile station area radius, while the Harbor Transitway pedestrian activities. Finally, although park-and-ride lots is successful at helping to encourage transit mode share within encourage automobile access to transit stations, they tend to a half-mile of its stations, but does not attract riders from impede pedestrian access. beyond. Our analysis used the variables shown in Table B-9 to Part of the reason why the Harbor Transitway may be more represent the four components of corridor station access. successful in its immediate neighborhoods is the relatively Analysis of each variable individually, collectively as part of higher transit-orientation of its corridor's urban form. The factor-analysis-generated index scores, and as part of multi- Harbor Transitway corridor is substantially different from variate linear regression models found that the most important the Green Line corridor's urban form in only one urban station access variable affecting multimodal corridor transit form characteristic--residential density, where the Harbor ridership was the number of freeway ramps that touch down Transitway station areas are more than three times as dense within a quarter-mile of a station. as the Green Line's. So while encouraging transit-oriented Figure B-9 provides a graph of the average number of station area urban form can be an effective tool for encouraging freeway ramps that touch down within 1/4-mile of stations per station area ridership, it may not be sufficient to ensure high corridor station and the estimated transit line patronage transit line ridership. (daily transit boardings) for each of our study corridors. A linear regression line drawn on this graph indicates that if there is a statistically valid relationship between these variables, The Effects of Corridor Station Access it is not linear. Similar to urban form, corridor station access reflects the Further exploratory analysis of these data suggests that the design and operational elements within and near stations that relationship between corridor patronage and multimodal encourage either automobile access (automobile-oriented) or coordination may be non-linear. Figure B-10 illustrates this pedestrian- and other non-automobile access (transit-oriented) relationship, where the more freeway ramps there are near Table B-9. Corridor station access index components. Theoretical Component Component Variable Freeway Ramps Impede Pedestrian Station Number of Freeway Ramps that Touch Down Access but Enhance Automobile Access within -Mile of Stations per Corridor Station Freeway Facility Negative Externalities Average Distance from Corridor Stations to Freeway Facility Park-&-Ride Lots Impede Pedestrian Station Average Number of Park-&-Ride Spaces per Access but Enhance Automobile Access Corridor Station Bus Access to Stations Average Number of Bus Lines Serving Stations per Corridor Station

OCR for page 79
92 Figure B-9. Average ramps that touch-down within 1/4-mile of corridor stations and the estimated transit line patronage--linear regression line. Figure B-10. Transit ridership is higher when there are fewer freeway ramps near stations.

OCR for page 79
93 Table B-10. Transit patronage and station access characteristics of Chicago's Blue Line/Eisenhower Expressway corridor. Ridership/ Component Measure Study Median Value Eisenhower Value Transit Line Patronage (Daily Boardings) 23,500 24,000 Corridor Transit Commuter Mode Share 15% 24% Average Number of Ramps per Station 2.8 2.8 Station to Freeway Dist. 0.09 0.02 Park-&-Ride Spaces/Station 4420 81 Bus Lines/Station 6.2 3.3 corridor transit stations, the lower the patronage for the transit walk-access residents in its directly adjacent neighborhoods. line as a whole. However, its catchment area is limited because there are There are several case studies that illustrate the importance parallel rapid transit lines less than a mile to the north and of station access. Table B-10 compares the ridership and about 1.5 miles to the south. station access characteristics of the Eisenhower corridor with The placement of the Blue Line's stations in relation to the the median values of the study's cases. freeway facility discourages non-automobile access as well. While the urban form of the Eisenhower corridor is The average distance from the corridor's stations to the free- automobile-oriented, its station access characteristics tend way is roughly 0.02 miles--essentially directly adjacent to the to be more transit-oriented. This mismatch may be partially freeway and significantly lower than the median distance for responsible for this transit line's lower patronage levels than the rest of the study corridors of 0.09 miles. This relatively other Chicago area heavy rail lines. The corridor's stations have short separation distance serves to increase the negative impacts the lowest number of park-and-ride spaces of any study case. of the freeway on the transit line. Since park-and-ride spaces encourage automobile access to It is useful to contrast station access at the stations along the stations and discourage pedestrian, bicycle, and bus access, Eisenhower corridor to those along the Kennedy. Table B-11 this implies that the transit line is designed to primarily serve compares the patronage and station access characteristics of corridor trips for people living near the corridor's stations, the Kennedy and Eisenhower corridors in reference to the study rather than attracting automobile-to-transit transfers that often median values. originate further away. The success of the Kennedy corridor branch of the Blue Line That the corridor's stations have a lower-than-median at attracting transit patrons, both from within a half-mile walk- number of bus lines per station (3.2 versus 6.2 per station for ing distance of its stations and beyond, is partially due to the all study corridors) reinforces the impression that the Blue reinforcing and complementary effects of the corridor's transit- Line's stations in the Eisenhower corridor are designed to serve orientation, both in terms of urban form and station access. Table B-11. Transit patronage and station access characteristics of Chicago's Blue Line/Kennedy Expressway corridor. Ridership/ Component Measure Study Median Eisenhower Kennedy Value Value Value Transit Line Patronage (Daily Boardings) 23,500 24,000 59,000 Corridor Transit Commuter Mode Share 15% 24% 28% Average Number of Ramps per Station 2.8 2.8 2.6 Station to Freeway Dist. 0.09 0.02 0.20 Park-&-Ride Spaces/Station 420 81 166 Bus Lines/Station 6.2 3.3 5.1

OCR for page 79
94 While the median number of ramps that touch down On average, there are roughly three freeway ramps touch- within a quarter-mile of the corridor's stations is only slightly ing down within a quarter-mile of each station (slightly higher lower than that seen in the Eisenhower corridor and the study than the 2.8 study median), suggesting that the T-REX light cases as a whole, its stations are 10 times as far from its freeway rail line was designed to offload traffic from the freeway onto neighbor as in the Eisenhower corridor, and more than double transit. The average distance between stations and the freeway the distance seen in the study as a whole. is roughly 0.05 mile, well below the study average of 0.9. While While the number of park-and-ride spaces per station in the number of park-and-ride spaces per station in this corridor the Kennedy corridor is roughly double the number found (513) is below average compared to the study group (420), it at the typical Eisenhower corridor station, Kennedy's number is well above the median for study corridors that have light rail is less than half that typically seen in the study cases, suggesting transit (261), suggesting that for a light rail line, this corridor's this corridor's stations are designed to favor nonautomobile stations are highly automobile-oriented. The automobile- access. orientation of this corridor's stations complements and Furthermore, compared to the Eisenhower corridor, enhances the automobile-orientation of its corridor land uses, Kennedy corridor stations have been designed to encourage helping to make this new light rail line a ridership success. bus access. While the number of bus lines serving Kennedy The Pittsburg-Bay Point/S.R. 24 corridor's stations offer stations is slightly lower than the typical study station, it is a useful example of automobile-oriented stations within substantially higher than that seen in the Eisenhower corridor, an increasingly transit-oriented urban form context (see suggesting these stations have been designed to encourage Table B-13). Prominent in this assessment is the fact that bus access. the average number of park-and-ride spaces per station in Seen as a whole, station access design in the Kennedy this corridor is roughly 1,600--more than double the study corridor's stations are transit-oriented, thus reflecting and average of 420. The corridor's stations are also close to the reinforcing the transit-orientation of the corridor's land freeway (roughly 0.05 mile on average, compared to the uses. This impression is consistent with the Blue Line's his- study median of roughly 0.09), providing an attractive op- tory in this corridor, where the elevated line was built in the tion to freeway drivers to exit, quickly park, and complete late 1890s and the subway portions were built in the 1950s their trips via BART. and 1970s. Thus, these areas were designed for an era where While an automobile-oriented station access profile is the primary modes of station access were non-automotive. consistent with the corridor's history of automobile-oriented These characteristics help explain the disparities in patron- urban form patterns, the transit line would benefit from age performance between the Eisenhower and Kennedy measures to enhance the transit-orientation of its stations to corridors. match its transit-oriented urban form. The number of ramps Consistent with the automobile-orientation of its corridor per station is just below average and the number of bus lines land uses and its multimodal coordination (that is, its station per station is better than average, suggesting that the station spacings are longer than its interchange spacings), access to access orientation can be made to favor pedestrians and the T-REX line's stations are decidedly automobile-oriented transit relatively easily by consolidating or removing park- as well (see Table B-12). and-ride spaces. Table B-12. Transit patronage and station access characteristics of Denver's T-REX/I-25 corridor. Ridership/Component Measure Study Median Value T-REX Value Transit Line Patronage (Daily Boardings) 23,500 23,000 Corridor Transit Commuter Mode Share 15% 6% Average Number of Ramps per Station 2.8 3.1 Station to Freeway Dist. 0.09 0.05 Park-&-Ride Spaces/Station 420 513 Bus Lines/Station 6.2 3.9

OCR for page 79
95 Table B-13. Transit patronage and station access characteristics of San Francisco's Pittsburg-Bay Point Line/S.R. 24 corridor. Ridership/ Component Measure Study Median Value Pittsburg-Bay Point Value Transit Line Patronage (Daily Boardings) 23,500 57,000 Corridor Transit Commuter Mode Share 15% 25% Average Number of Ramps per Station 2.8 2.5 Station to Freeway Dist. 0.09 0.05 Park-&-Ride Spaces/Station 420 1,600 Bus Lines/Station 6.2 6.8 The Effects of Constrained Freeway Capacity of the freeway's capacity plays an important role in the story of the adjacent transit line's success. Where Highway 24 and Of the common threads found among the case studies, the BART line bore through the Oakland/Berkeley hills to reach constrained freeway capacity may be one of the most decisive the core Bay Area, the Caldecott Tunnel shrinks the freeway's factors in enabling transit to compete with the adjacent capacity from eight to six lanes. The center bore of the tunnel freeway. A constrained-capacity freeway has a substantial is reversible, so during commuting hours, the peak direction capacity bottleneck that creates congestion and causes delay. of flow always has four lanes of travel. However, the non-peak The bottlenecks found in this project are either caused by lane direction is reduced to two lanes, and as a result, there is drops where the number of freeway lanes is reduced or where always congestion and delay in both directions of travel the capacity of the freeway was designed and built intentionally during the A.M. and P.M. peak commute hours at the tunnel. to be lower than forecast demand. While this nonpeak direction capacity constriction does As discussed previously, Washington D.C.'s Orange Line/ not directly encourage peak direction use of the BART line, it I-66 Corridor is an excellent example of a corridor where the does restrict nonpeak direction flow, thus providing a direct freeway was purposely built as a capacity-restricted facility. incentive for nonpeak direction BART ridership and indirectly As part of the financing package from Congress to fund the promoting the general perception that BART is the more construction of the Orange Line, the Interstate was restricted hassle-free corridor alternative. to six lanes.4 This case sets an example of how freeway capac- ity restriction can substantially boost parallel transit line ridership and may also restrict total corridor throughput. As Summary a result, this corridor is the only case studied for this project The analysis of case studies of multimodal corridors in where the estimated transit mode share exceeds the estimated the United States for TCRP Project H-36 suggests that the freeway mode share. following factors contribute to the capability of transit lines The success of Chicago's Kennedy corridor stems from to effectively compete with and survive in a corridor with a several interlocking and mutually supporting factors. First, it freeway facility: a large CBD with limited and expensive park- has a heavy rail line, which provides fast, high-capacity transit ing, constrained freeway capacity, urban form, station access, service directly to downtown Chicago. This transit advantage multimodal coordination, and transit operating speeds. is complemented by the freeway's design, which has a relatively Based on our review and analysis of the case studies, the re- modest six lanes in its western portion, giving the rail line an search team has identified the following desirable attributes advantage during peak congestion hours on the freeway. This for multimodal corridors: capacity constraint allows the transit line to effectively compete with the freeway, garnering roughly 59,000 daily passenger Complementary multimodal coordination between tran- boardings in the corridor. sit and freeway facilities For San Francisco's Pittsburg/Bay Point corridor, as in the Transit-oriented land development around key stations case with Washington DC Orange Line/I-66, the restriction that is readily accessible from station platforms At least one large activity center or anchor, usually a CBD 4 Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_66, accessed March 1, 2009. with high levels of employment

OCR for page 79
96 Limited and costly parking in the CBD performance (that is, transit speeds). They are perhaps less Effective transit distribution in the CBD, preferably off- successful in enhancing pedestrian access to stations and in street achieving transit-oriented development. While it appears Constrained freeway capacity such as lane drops, route that a multimodal corridor need not possess the best qualities convergence, and travel barriers and quantities of each of these factors to perform well, it seems Good access to stations on foot, by car, and/or by public that there are optimal combinations of these qualities that lead transport. This includes a minimum number of freeway to superior performance. It is intriguing to consider an optimal interchange ramps within walking distance of transit stations multimodal corridor system that combines, for example, a capacity constrained freeway, a large CBD, transit-oriented The multimodal corridors examined in this study are corridor urban form and station access, and high transit generally successful in terms of transit riders carried and operating speeds.