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 123
TOD and Station Access 123 Exhibit 11-10. Commercial parking reductions granted at selected TODs. Location Land Use Parking Reduction Pacific Court (Long Beach, CA) Retail 60% Uptown District (San Diego, CA) Commercial 12% Rio Vista West (San Diego, CA) Retail/Commercial 15% Pleasant Hill (CA) Office 34% Pleasant Hill (CA) Retail 20% Dadeland South (Miami, FL) Office 38% City of Arlington (VA) Office 48%-57% Lindbergh City Center (Atlanta, GA) Speculative Office 19% Lindbergh City Center (Atlanta, GA) Retail 26% Lindbergh City Center (Atlanta, GA) Single Tenant Office Towers 29%-70% Portland (OR) Suburbsa General Office 17% a Portland (OR) Suburbs Retail/Commercial 18% a Note: Calculated relative to maximums specified in Metro's Title 2 Regional Parking Ratios. Source: Statewide TOD Study (28 ) center, (2) high-density residential and commercial areas with good pedestrian access, (3) long-established outlying business districts, and (4) locations of strong cultural or historic interest, where the existing urban fabric should be enhanced. Examples include 125th Street in Manhattan; the Red Line through Cambridge, Massachusetts; and the Blue and Orange Lines through Arlington County, Virginia. 8. Provide Developments With Appropriate Parking. Most outlying rapid transit rail stations provide extensive park-and-ride space at suburban stations. The spaces are usually open-lot parking. When TOD is provided at or adjacent to these stations, careful review of parking demand is required. Travel modes to TOD office and retail typically rely less on driving than other suburban developments (25). More rather than less parking generally should be provided to accommodate the increased use. This is sometimes achieved by converting open-lot parking into structured parking. Sometimes a new parking garage is built for the planned developments. Cost-sharing policies are desirable. The Urban Land Institute, for example, suggests more parking, particularly a new parking structure connecting to the station boarding platform (26). Some communities have granted commercial parking reductions at selected TODs. Reported examples are given in Exhibit 11-10. In 2005, about 70 percent of the transit agencies with replacement policies reported requiring one-for-one replacement (or more) of station parking lost to TOD construction (27). Several transit agencies, including BART and WMATA, now allow park-and-ride space reductions upon introduction of TOD (29). Comparisons of TOD and Park-And-Ride TOD can be a complement or an alternative to park-and-ride. The key considerations include the size, location, and density of TOD and the surrounding areas. Comparisons should include public cost and ridership impacts. Considerations include: · Large office and mixed-use complexes located close to rapid transit stations can attract new riders, provided the service is direct and convenient. The CBDs of many large cities are prime
OCR for page 124
124 Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations examples, as are some other outlying TODs (e.g., Lloyd District in Portland, Oregon; Mall of America in Bloomington, Minnesota, and Silver Spring, Maryland). High development densities, coupled with limited and expensive parking, are conducive to rapid transit ridership. This is also the case for some major outlying TODs. · Typical TODs can sometimes create additional ridership when there is no change in transit parking space, or where the existing park-and-ride spaces are under-utilized. · Where TOD reduces fully utilized park-and-ride space, the TOD ridership gain usually does not offset the ridership loss from transit parking reductions. · Park-and-ride facilities require public investments to build and operate the parking space. Sometimes part (or all) of this investment can be recovered from parking charges. In contrast, TOD usually requires little, if any, public costs; it can also generate tax revenues for the neigh- boring community. Costs Illustrative costs for park-and-ride facilities were derived from information published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. They are expressed in both cost per space and costs per thousand feet of ground area. Exhibit 11-11 shows the key assumptions. Exhibit 11-12 shows the estimated costs for surface lots, above-grade parking structures, and below-grade parking structures. Both construction and operating costs are indicated. The annual average debt service is based on a 4 percent interest rate and a 30-year service life. Longer debt service (amortization) periods would reduce these annual costs slightly. Riders The number of rapid transit riders generated by park-and-ride facilities and TOD depend upon the amount of parking space and TOD provided, the trips generated per space or square foot of development, the likely number of passengers per vehicle, and the likely rapid transit capture rates. Ridership estimates also can be based on the experience at stations elsewhere along the line. Exhibit 11-11. Key assumptions for parking facility development (2010 dollars). Construction Costs (2008-10) Lot $4,200 5,250 per space Garage $14,000 17,000 per space Underground $25,000 35,000 per space Capital Recover Factor 4% over 30 years = 0.05783 Annual Operating Costs Lot $100-130 per space Garage $800 per space Underground $1,000 per space Parking Space Size Urban lot 300 square feet Suburban lot 400 square feet Garage 300 square feet Source: Transportation Planning Handbook (30 )
OCR for page 125
TOD and Station Access 125 Exhibit 11-12. Estimated annual parking costs per thousand square feet of ground area. Total Annual Annual Total Spaces/ Parking Type capital capital operating annual 1,000 sq ft costs costsa costs Costs Surface Lot Urban 3.3 $11,550 $668 $330 $998 Suburban 2.5 $12,500 $723 $330 $1,053 Above-Grade Structure 2 levels 6.6 $92,400 $5,343 $10,623 $15,966 4 levels 14.2 $198,000 $11,450 $22,010 $33,460 6 levels 19.8 $316,800 $18,320 $34,160 $52,480 Underground 1 level 3.3 $82,500 $4,771 $8,021 $12,792 2 levels 6.6 $198,000 $11,450 $18,050 $29,500 3 levels 9.7 $346,500 $20,038 $29,938 $49,976 Bus Bay 0.2 $200,000 $11,570 $6,158 $17,728 Bike Parking 20 $4,000 $231 $731 $962 Note: Excludes land costs a 4% over 30 years Source: Transportation Planning Handbook (30 ) The comparative analysis is keyed to the trip generation and ridership per 1,000 square feet of effective ground floor area. The rapid transit boardings and alightings per 1,000 square feet of ground floor area for each type of land user can be estimated as follows: R=X×V×N×O×P where: R =rapid transit riders per day per 1,000 square feet of development; X =proportion of area available for development; V =vehicle trip ends per 1,000 square feet of ground floor space; O =people per automobile; P =rapid transit capture rate (% of TOD patrons using rapid transit); and N =number of floors or levels. Trip Rates and Vehicle Occupancies Examples of automobile trip ends (origins plus destinations) for residential, retail, office, and park-and-ride uses are shown in Exhibit 11-13. The residential and commercial uses are based on Institute of Transportation Engineers' trip generation rates; the "effective" rates for these uses assume that part of the ground floor (or area) would be devoted to parking that would serve the TOD. These rates are a guide; agencies can modify them to reflect specific local conditions. The table also shows suggested car occupancies ranging from 1.0 to 1.3 people per vehicle that may be assumed for various uses. In practice, occupancies will vary by time of day.
OCR for page 126
126 Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations Exhibit 11-13. Vehicle and passenger trip ends per day per thousand square feet of ground area. Vehicle trip Use ends/day/1,000 Passenger trip ends/day/1,000 square feet for square feet various car occupancies Vehicle Occupancy 1.1 1.2 1.3 Office 11 12.1 13.2 14.3 Retail 43 47.3 51.6 55.9 Residential 46 4.4 6.6 4.8 7.2 5.2 7.8 Park-and- 5 6.6 5.5 7.3 6 7.9 6.5 8.6 Ride Source: ITE trip generation data for office, retail, residential. Park-and-Ride: 2.5-to-3.5 spaces/1,000 square feet times 2 trips per space Proportion Riding Rapid Transit Park-and-ride trips are oriented to the rapid transit line. Trips to and from retail, residential, and office uses would likely come from several directions, hence the proportion would be less (typically 10 to 20 percent). However, very large office complexes could likely attract 25 percent or more of generated trips from transit. Some people live close to the rapid transit line to reach large city centers. In these cases, higher transit mode splits are likely. Therefore, transit agencies should base percentages on actual experience. Illustrative Effects Illustrative rapid transit ridership effects of TOD and park-and-ride at outlying stations are shown in Exhibit 11-14. The values give the estimated number of transit riders per 1,000 square feet of ground area. Estimates are provided for park-and-ride (lot or garage), and residential, office, and retail developments. Exhibit 11-14 shows that 1,000 square foot of development could generate approximately five to seven daily riders if dedicated to park-and-ride, while 1,000 square feet of retail would generate slightly higher transit ridership. Per square foot, residential and office development are likely to generate significantly fewer riders than would an equivalent amount of park-and-ride. High-rise residential or office development could generate more ridership than park-and-ride space, if sufficient demand existed to justify high-rise development. There are of course many important reasons for providing TOD, other than ridership. TOD can improve the character of an area, make it more cohesive, and possibly attract economic Exhibit 11-14. Estimated weekday transit ridership for various land uses. Daily passenger trip Daily Estimated proportion Land Use ends per thousand transit by line-haul transit square feet a riders Office 12 14 0.20 2.4 2.8 Retail 47 56 0.15 7 8.4 Residential 4.4 7.2 0.20 0.9 1.4 Park-and-Ride 5.5 7.3 1.0 5.5 7.3 a Assumes vehicle occupancy of 1.2 persons per vehicle.
OCR for page 127
TOD and Station Access 127 development to an area. But it, too, will require some parking, and it generally should not be viewed as a replacement of needed parking space. As described here, transit agencies must decide how to use the land around their stations. The trade-offs between parking and development are complicated and largely depend on external factors, such as parking demand and the development market. Still, transit agencies can evaluate opportunities in terms of costs and ridership. Exhibit 11-15 illustrates the ridership potential of parking and development opportunities for a hypothetical one-acre site. Exhibit 11-15. Example development options for 1-acre site adjacent to transit station. Cost per Potential rider (2010 daily Development type a Size dollars) b ridership Parking c Surface lot 144 spaces $191.01 164 riders 2-level garage 287 spaces $1,038.57 328 riders 4-level garage 575 spaces $1,294.18 655 riders 2-level underground garage 287 spaces $1,805.41 328 riders d g Residential 0.5 FAR 22 housing units $- 22 riders 1.0 FAR 44 housing units $- 52 riders 2.0 FAR 87 housing units $- 105 riders 3.0 FAR 131 housing units $- 196 riders 4.0 FAR 174 housing units $- 261 riders 5.0 FAR 218 housing units $- 327 riders Officee 0.5 FAR 65 employees $- 20 riders 1.0 FAR 131 employees $- 39 riders 2.0 FAR 261 employees $- 78 riders 3.0 FAR 392 employees $- 118 riders 4.0 FAR 523 employees $- 157 riders 5.0 FAR 653 employees $- 196 riders Retail f 0.5 FAR 21.8 ksf $- 109 riders 1.0 FAR 43.6 ksf $- 218 riders 2.0 FAR 87.1 ksf $- 436 riders a Notes: Assumes sufficient market demand for all parking and development types. b Parking costs assume $3,500 per space for a surface lot, $20,000 per space for a garage, and $35,000 per space for underground. c Parking calculations assume 350 square feet per parking stall, 1 vehicle parked per day, with 1.2 vehicle occupancy, and 2 boardings per rider. d Residential calculations assume 1,000 square feet per unit, 10 trips per day per unit, and a 10-15% transit capture (increasing with density). e Office calculations assume 3 workers per 1,000 square feet, 2 trips per day per worker, and a 15% transit capture. f Retail calculations assume 50 daily trips per 1,000 square feet and a 10% transit capture. g FAR = Floor Area Ratio Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. and Peter Martin