National Academies Press: OpenBook

Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations (2012)

Chapter: Chapter 3 - Insights from Transit Agencies

« Previous: Chapter 2 - Station Access Planning Tools and Process
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Insights from Transit Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14614.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Insights from Transit Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14614.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Insights from Transit Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14614.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Insights from Transit Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14614.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Insights from Transit Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14614.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Insights from Transit Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14614.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Insights from Transit Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14614.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Insights from Transit Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14614.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Insights from Transit Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14614.
×
Page 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Insights from Transit Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14614.
×
Page 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Insights from Transit Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14614.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Insights from Transit Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14614.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Insights from Transit Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14614.
×
Page 31
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Insights from Transit Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14614.
×
Page 32

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.

19 Eleven case studies provide insight into the strengths and weaknesses of station access planning. The case studies looked at the organizational process and elements of station access planning from two perspectives: (1) agency-wide policy perspectives and (2) the applications of those policies to specific stations. Exhibit 3-1 lists the case study transit agencies and the steps of the station access planning process, as defined in Chapter 2, that were addressed in each case study. The case studies include transit systems that are improving station access in long developed areas, relatively new rail transit systems transitioning from park-and-ride dependence to joint development opportunities, agencies with well-developed station access planning programs, and transit agencies with few access guidelines, but a willingness to work collaboratively with stakeholders. This chapter provides the policy and planning lessons learned from the case studies as well as key highlights specific to each case study. Appendix E provides the full case studies. Elements of Successful Station Access Planning The case studies identified nine primary areas that are considered by transit agencies as part of their station access programs: • Local station area context • Collaboration with local and regional stakeholders • Local and private concerns • Station access planning guidelines • Data requirements • Predictive and analytical tools • Short- and long-term cycle station access planning • Performance tracking and evaluation • TOD policy Local Station Area Context An important challenge is that both outcome and process success—particularly outcome success—depend substantially on a given station’s setting, defined as those external factors that affect the results but are subject to only limited control by the planning process. Contextual factors include: rapid transit and station characteristics; existing land use; available land; market demand; demographics; spacing, continuity, and connectivity of the pedestrian circulation system—including the presence of sidewalks; structure of the regional transportation network; patterns of congestion; and community politics, goals, and plans. C H A P T E R 3 Insights from Transit Agencies

20 Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations The context has the power to cause or impede success of the station access planning process and its outcomes. Practitioners must understand contextual characteristics in station access planning to set expectations at a realistic level, adapt the planning process and its results to fit the context, and address opportunities to influence the context itself where feasible. For example, restrictive zoning ordinances might be relaxed or modifications to the regional highway network may be introduced. Collaboration with Local and Regional Stakeholders The transit agency is the key participant in the cooperative station access planning effort. But as crucial as station access services are to the transit agency, it should plan the access with many other groups (see Exhibit 2-1 in Chapter 2) including roadway agencies and the private sector. Station access planning is a collaborative process that should include feeder bus service providers, local jurisdictions, and stakeholder groups. Collaboration and cooperation is essential. Rapid transit agencies must work with such partners, must engage in ongoing collaboration (because station access needs and the external factors that affect them are not static), and must be proactive in reaching out to partners, even those that may be disinterested in rapid transit access planning. These four steps are essential to balancing participant interests: 1. Develop strong and open relationships with (a) local governments and transit service pro- viders; (b) roadway agencies; (c) developers who may own and operate land near stations, or Case Study Agency Process Step 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BART LA Metro MARTA MBTA Metro-North NJ Transit OC Transpo RTD Denver Sound Transit TriMet WMATA Process Steps: 1. Identify the Need 2. Establish a Collaborative Environment 3. Develop Objectives and Principles 4. Establish Evaluation Criteria 5. Build a Rich Set of Appropriate Options 6. Predict Outcomes and Apply Criteria 7. Trade-offs, Negotiation, and Choice 8. Develop, Implement and Monitor Recommended Plan Exhibit 3-1. Case study topic area summary.

Insights from Transit Agencies 21 who may engage in development projects that will or could benefit the transit agency; and (d) residents and property owners in the station area. 2. Maintain these relationships. The best way to accomplish this depends on each situation’s needs and opportunities. The kinds of tactics that have brought success to the case study transit agencies include establishing interagency committees for sub-regions or specific stations; developing a stable group of access planning staff within the transit agency who become known to local leaders and are familiar with local values and issues; assigning transit agency personnel (rather than consultants) to spend time in the communities on access planning outreach; and assigning specific agency professionals the task of negotiating agreements with local govern- ments and developers. 3. Have appropriately skilled station access planning professionals. The people involved should have expertise in transit and traffic operations, parking, pedestrian design, and station design. The leaders of collaborative efforts must be skilled at communicating and collaborating with counterparts in other agencies, with members of the community, and with developers. They need substantial local knowledge, a thorough grounding in the transit agency mission, and familiarity with station access planning guidelines and policies. Station access planners working on TOD projects should know where their flexibility lies and should have some real power to negotiate a solution. An organizational structure where the station access planning decisions are made at the board level may make it more difficult to seize important opportunities. 4. Define and publicize the mission and goals of the transit agency in the context of local goals and values. Building the case with other local agencies that the regional mission can be attained while achieving—or at least respecting—local goals and values is critical to success. Local and private resistance to, or disinterest in, station access planning activities usually comes because these entities do not see rapid transit services—and therefore station access—as being relevant to their own needs. Making the case for transit while protecting and promoting local values is essential to get local buy-in to access planning goals and plans. That buy-in is necessary to provide the access services and arrangements required to deliver seamless services to riders, which, in turn, is essential if the transit agency is to achieve its mission. Addressing Local and Private Concerns While compromise is an essential feature of collaborative decision making, the research team observed cases where this simply doesn’t work. Some communities, developers, or land owners may not be willing to compromise to ensure reasonable and convenient station access for rapid transit passengers. For example, in Denver a commercial property owner opposed providing access to an adjacent light rail station. In that case, regional pressure led to compromise. In such cases, the transit agency may find success in negotiations, trade-offs, or compensation for the resisting entity. Flexibility in the application of adopted access guidelines may be required to allow this type of negotiation to reach a compromise. In some cases, it is in the best interest of the transit agency to redirect its efforts to other settings, potentially moving a station to an area with greater transit support. Station Access Planning Guidelines Several case study transit agencies have developed and used formal station access planning guidelines that provide a framework within which the access planning team operates. These guidelines, founded on the mission of the transit agency, typically define the priority access modes, which may be different in different locations. They state goal-driven criteria for station access planning and decision making. The criteria should explain why certain factors or features are important. Some guidelines have formal design standards (e.g., walking distances, replacement parking policy where TOD consumes a parking lot). The guidelines may start from established

22 Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations agency policies, but over time they are influenced by and updated on the basis of local experience (i.e., what has worked and what has not). The risk associated with station access planning guidelines is that they may be applied rigidly, ignoring the needs, values, and context around particular stations. Representatives from transit agencies with specific guidelines underscored the importance of flexibility. Guidelines should not be standards. They should define goals and criteria, but they should allow trade-offs among the collaborators so that reasonable station access services and facilities can be implemented. Data Requirements Comprehensive and timely data are an important input to the station access planning process. The necessary information will vary, whether an access at an existing station is to be improved or a new station is to be developed. Station access planning decisions benefit from information on existing access patterns (e.g., mode of access, origin locations, available travel options, perceptions of the access experi- ence, preference improved services). Such data traditionally come from collection and analysis of periodic intercept surveys. Recently, fare card data has been mined to understand home location (for registered fare cards) in relation to first station boarded to predict mode of access. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analyses of origin locations can give a useful picture of current patterns and potentials for improved services; Exhibit 3-2 shows an example of how BART maps the home locations of participants in its reserved parking program at stations. Archiving data is important to support trend analyses in the future. Surveys should examine access to and from home workplaces and other activities. For instance, roadside intercept/postcard surveys at freeway on-ramps can provide useful information on non-transit users. Station intercept surveys do not, however, provide information about potential riders who might not be using the rapid transit service. More expansive and costly data collection efforts are necessary to capture this market. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey and the associated Census Transportation Planning Products can provide an efficient means of understanding this broader market. However, detailed travel behavior can only come from more specialized surveys (e.g., the general household travel surveys that most MPOs collect, about once each decade). Most transit agencies obtain demographic and land use information for people and activities within a one-half to one-mile radius of the transit station. Car ownership and worker information is useful in assessing potential station ridership. Data assembly and collection activities should also address the supply side. This is especially important where the transit agency does not provide all of these services. Important data elements include the quantity and quality of bus services (both public and private), and the pricing and utilization of auto and bicycle parking. Many transit agencies (e.g., BART, WMATA) have an increasing number of shuttle services at outlying stations that serve remote employment centers and other major attractors. In many cases, these services are provided by private entities, making it difficult for transit agencies to track the services provided. Transit agencies that perform regular inventories of shuttle services and maintain contacts for each service are better positioned to implement access improvements (e.g., adjusting circulation for shuttle transfers at the station). Spillover impacts—parking, congestion, safety, and air quality—are another target for data collection because they have direct effects on community and private collaborators in the access planning process. Concerns about spillover impacts may bring local governments into the station access planning process.

Insights from Transit Agencies 23 Information should be assembled on roadway characteristics in the station environs. Desired information includes roadway geometry, traffic controls, traffic volumes by direction, and service levels. Predictive and Analytical Tools Predictive models are important to answer critical “if/then” questions in support of station access planning (e.g., to predict ridership for an access mode or parking response to pricing changes). Traditional models used for regional transportation planning may not be sufficiently sensitive or detailed enough to evaluate station access mode options. Several transit agencies use proprietary models usually developed by consultants. This is a critical gap in available tools, particularly given the important role that station access services play in the success of major capital investment in rapid transit systems. Some transit agencies have developed tools specifically for analyzing trade-offs involved in planning TOD, such as the consequences of relaxing parking requirements or changing the Source: Richard Willson Exhibit 3-2. Example of reserved parking program participant mapping for BART’s San Leandro Station.

24 Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations locations of parking. One example is BART, which has developed a spreadsheet tool to test the impacts of alternative station development scenarios, with an emphasis on assessing the trade-offs associated with providing commuter parking versus encouraging TOD. Financial impacts analyzed include changes in parking revenue and the ability of new development to pay for itself through rent. Thirteen model inputs are used, including current access mode shares, parking costs, elasticities, and land values. (This spreadsheet has not been published, but was obtained directly from BART.) How- ever, its relevant findings were incorporated into the spreadsheet tool developed by this research. A review of existing predictive and analytical tools is provided in Chapter 5, while Appendix C presents the high level planning tool developed as part of this research. Performance Tracking and Evaluation Collecting data on performance of station designs and access services is useful for providing a basis for evaluating projects, generating local learning, and developing success stories. Local learning has high value because such information generally has higher credibility—and often greater validity—than measures of outcomes achieved in other locations. RTD (Denver) maintains a database on park-and-ride lot activity in relationship to parking fees. This database allows the agency to understand if the parking fees are having the intended effect of shifting patronage from over-utilized to under-utilized lots, or diverting to other modes of access. In addition, RTD publishes an annual TOD Status Report describing its TOD projects and their success. This means collecting data to determine the outcomes from specific station access planning and TOD actions. Similarly, NJ Transit contracts with the Voorhees Transportation Center at Rutgers University to track and evaluate TOD near NJ Transit facilities. Evidence of success, as well as failures and actions to remedy them, can be the basis for future planning, discussion, and negotiation. This has proven useful not only for evaluating TOD projects, but also for promoting new TOD projects by showing examples and success models. Short- and Long-term Station Access Planning Station access planning is necessary for both existing and new rapid transit service. Established services need periodic reviews and continuous station access planning activities because markets and services change. Parking fills up, rapid transit ridership creeps up (or down), and needs for new access services or increased capacity arise. In addition to the changes on the transit system, the area surrounding stations can experience dramatic changes, often in the forms of increased density and traffic congestion in the station vicinity. A regular program of data collection can track these trends and lead to changes in the design of stations and access services. New rapid transit lines require a comprehensive assessment of opportunities, benefits, costs, and impacts. Considering the long-term context of a station while in the initial design phases gives the transit agency the ability to plan for shifts in station access modes over time. TriMet successfully used this strategy in the design of a transit center and surface park-and-ride lot that were in an undeveloped area when the station was opened. More than 10 years after the station opened, development intensified around the station. The station was redesigned to include a community college and workforce center; a portion of the park-and-ride space transitioned to shared use parking. Ridership generated from the development at the station more than offset the limited loss of parking. The planning process does not vary much among the different rapid transit modes: commuter rail, heavy rail, light rail, and bus rapid transit. Whatever the mode, rapid transit stations have similar needs, driven more by specific settings than by transit technology.

Insights from Transit Agencies 25 Station Area Development When rail transit was first developed, walk access was a primary mode to get to the station. Many stations were located right in the middle of small satellite city business centers, with limited parking access but strong walk access to homes, jobs, and shops. With the shift to a suburban automobile culture, transit stations began to shift away from walk access and place more emphasis on auto access. Recently it has been recognized that increasing the density of development around stations may be a cost-effective method of increasing transit ridership and reducing impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods and transportation network. TOD has become a leading station access planning tool. Planning for TOD is perhaps the most complex aspect of station access planning because it invariably involves several different entities with widely differing interests. Beyond the transit agency, these include local governments, the local community, and private developers. The agencies with the most active joint development programs (LA Metro, BART, and WMATA in the case studies conducted here) have found that agency-wide joint development policies are beneficial for negotiating solutions that help achieve agency goals. These policies define development requirements and procedures, and provide criteria for evaluating competing development proposals. The role of TOD in station access planning is discussed in depth in Chapter 11, TOD and Station Access. Improving Station Access Planning The case studies indicate that transit agencies have a wide variety of policy, process, and evaluation tools available to make informed decisions about station access. However, the degree to which industry best practices are adopted varies widely among transit agencies. Research shows five key gaps that can adversely affect the effectiveness of station access programs and should be addressed. 1. Collaborative values and skills. It is essential to engage a wide variety of stakeholders to develop effective station access solutions for rapid transit, as many improvements cannot be implemented by the transit agency alone. However, many transit agencies face community resistance in embracing transit stations and engaging in dialogue. Thus, there is a need for more proactive engagement practices within transit agencies to: (1) identify willing partners; (2) establish strong relationships with local jurisdictions; and (3) accept compromise when it is in the transit agency’s best interest to do so. 2. Timely and accurate data. Timely information on station access mode characteristics is essential for effective service and facility planning. Effective data collection for station access planning should include up-to-date information on the costs and usage of providing various access facilities (e.g., feeder transit, parking facilities, bike parking). In addition, periodic rider surveys to understand access patterns and modes at individual stations are desirable to identify rider preferences and to monitor trends. These datasets provide objective informa- tion for planning, decision making, and operations. While some agencies collect most or all of these data, many do not. In particular, many agencies have only anecdotal or outdated information on the access mode characteristics at individual stations, making evaluation of current and proposed access service difficult. 3. Methods and tools. Relatively few of the case study agencies have established evaluation methodologies or have tools to assess the impact of access improvements (e.g., estimating the effects of a particular TOD strategy on ridership). Regional travel demand models are not sensitive enough to local contexts in most cases to estimate access mode shares accurately, but few other options exist at present. Some agencies have developed rules of thumb, spreadsheet

26 Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations tools, or even proprietary ridership models (in the case of BART), but the lack of tools to answer many access-related questions remains. 4. Trained personnel. Effectively identifying and implementing access improvements requires transit agency staff with a thorough understanding of its agency goals, station access principles, process tools, and local context. Staff must be dedicated to dealing with station access issues and local stakeholders on a regular basis to achieve this level of understanding, and must have negotiation and compromise expertise. Staff knowledge of traffic engineering and land use planning is also desirable. 5. Resources to support implementation and operations. Adequate funding for access improvements is critical. Wherever possible, transit agencies should identify money for both capital improvements (e.g., parking expansion) as well as operating expenses (e.g., additional feeder transit service). Implementation funding should include resources to monitor program effectiveness in order to inform future decisions. The gaps identified above could be addressed in several ways. Some require action on the part of individual transit agencies, while others more likely require pooled actions on an industry level (e.g., APTA, TCRP research). Suggested guidelines follow: • Dedicate transit agency staff and funding to collect the data required to support station access decisions. Transit agencies should also explore opportunities to partner with other agencies on existing data collection efforts, such as contributing money to a regional household travel survey to address questions of transit station access. For instance, data mining of electronic fare payment cards is a cost-effective way to obtain rider information for agencies with automatic fare card systems. • Develop more comprehensive evaluation tools to predict outcomes of various access-related actions. Few transit agencies have objective tools to estimate parking demand, the effect of TOD on ridership, and cost-effectiveness of feeder buses. • Encourage professional development training. Transit agency staff at a variety of levels would be trained on both process and tools for station access planning. This would include emerging trends and best practices in station access planning, and community and stakeholder involve- ment techniques on transit operations. For instance, a National Transit Institute course focused on tools to improve access to transit stations may be valuable. • Identify dedicated funding for access improvements. For example, capital improvement bond measures can include station access planning and improvements, as was done with Sound Transit’s ST2 initiative. Capital development plans and designs for new rapid transit services and service extensions should include funding for station access infrastructure. Including station access planning into transit and regional planning documents (e.g., Transit Development Plans and Long Range Transportation Plans) provides the transit agency with “shovel-ready” projects should funding become available. • Encourage local community and transit agency buy-in early in the planning process for new stations to achieve consensus on the ultimate build-out of the station site. Insights from the Case Studies This section provides specific lessons learned from each of the eleven case studies. Appendix E provides detailed case study summaries. BART — San Francisco The Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) operates an extensive high-speed rapid transit system that connects downtown San Francisco with East Bay and Peninsula communities. The agency has developed station access guidelines. BART’s experiences with station access planning include the following:

Insights from Transit Agencies 27 • Developing station access guidelines provides value in supporting collaborative planning efforts. At the same time, guidelines must remain flexible to be successfully applied. • Timely data on access mode characteristics is critically important for effective service and facility planning. Periodic intercept surveys of access modes and preferences supports trend-tracking and provides objective information for planning and decision making. • It is important to address trade-offs between TOD and park-and-ride facilities from all perspectives (e.g., the developer, the transit agency, the local community). Balancing these interests may require subsidies. • Locally developed tools, such as BART’s Direct Ridership Model and Parking–TOD trade-off spreadsheet tool, are useful for predicting and analyzing access mode utilization in response to service and facility changes (1). • Rapid transit agencies need effective means of understanding and coordinating with other local transit agencies and shuttle service providers to assure riders receive seamless services. For shuttle services, it is important for agencies to have an inventory of where shuttles are located, and a contact person at each one. LA Metro — Los Angeles LA Metro operates a heavy rail transit line, three light rail lines, and a busway. In addition, express bus lines use the Harbor and Santa Monica Freeway transitways. This case study found that: • Access issues and improvement strategies are generally consistent across rapid transit modes, and Metro does not distinguish between rapid transit modes in their policies. This suggests that a transit agency’s station access planning will typically be consistent across rapid transit modes, with differentiation primarily a result of local context in individual station areas. • Bicyclists vary considerably in their characteristics and trip purposes. A variety of strategies and parking types are needed to encourage bicycle access to transit stations while minimizing the number of full-size (i.e., non-folding) bikes that are brought onto transit vehicles. Development of a Bicycle Strategic Plan has been important to Metro’s success in achieving this goal. • Joint development at transit stations need not reduce park-and-ride capacity. Metro has maintained—and sometimes increased—commuter parking by incorporating parking struc- tures in joint development projects. However, a subsidy is often required from the transit agency to achieve this goal. • Agencies with significant joint development opportunities benefit from standardized joint development policies, such as Metro’s Joint Development Policies and Procedures, which establish desired outcomes and evaluation criteria for proposed developments. • Successful joint development requires frequent interagency coordination, as joint develop- ment almost always requires approval from at least two agencies (the transit agency and the local jurisdiction) and often more, such as redevelopment agencies and state departments of transportation. • Adequate parking for transit riders is essential for ridership in many situations. When TOD takes place, more—rather than less—parking is provided. Parking reductions are made only where they will not inhibit ridership. • Good pedestrian access is essential. From an urban design perspective, the pedestrian access system should extend the “reach” of the station environment. MARTA — Atlanta MARTA has a two-route (plus branches) heavy rail transit system that focuses on the city center. Findings of this case study include: • Developing a station typology can allow agencies to better adapt policies to the needs of individual stations, by allowing evaluation criteria and/or goals to vary by stations type. For instance, MARTA varies its parking replacement requirements for TOD by station type.

28 Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations • It is often difficult in joint development projects to build an amount of parking that effectively balances preservation of park-and-ride ridership, provision of parking for new development, and the desire to create a walkable urban environment. • Neighborhood shuttle bus services are often more effective at improving feeder access to transit than re-routing longer-distance local bus routes to connect to stations. However, these shuttles are also more expensive to operate. • There are often opportunities for TOD even in systems with a historical emphasis on drive access. MBTA — Boston MBTA operates an extensive system of commuter rail, heavy rail, light rail, and bus rapid transit (BRT) services that have been progressively improved over the last century. Its case study shows that: • Even transit agencies with older infrastructure and a focus on asset management—rather than expansion—can find significant opportunities to improve access to stations. MBTA’s recent actions include improved bicycle and auto parking, improved bus connections, and searching for development opportunities. Between 2005 and 2010, the MBTA sold or leased rights for more than 50 TODs. • The success of many station access improvement strategies depends on both transit agency and local jurisdiction commitment, but local jurisdictions vary widely in their commitment to improving transit. Transit agency resources may most effectively be focused on those communities most interested in transit. • Data on existing access patterns and access mode shares are important even when a transit agency has no specific access mode targets (e.g., to inform modeling to predict parking demand at proposed stations). • Even in cases where parking fee increases result in lower parking demand, ridership may remain relatively constant, as many riders will switch to other access modes or find parking elsewhere rather than abandon the rapid transit mode. The attractiveness of the rapid transit mode is especially resilient in metropolitan areas with a large regional employment core and constrained (i.e., expensive and/or difficult to find) parking availability in the regional core. • The long-established policy has been to bring streetcars—and later buses—into elaborate inter- modal transfer stations. In recent decades, emphasis was also placed on providing park-and-ride at outlying heavy rapid transit and commuter rail stations, while still fostering pedestrian and transit access in built-up areas. • The planned Green Line extension to East Cambridge, Somerville, and Medford will rely on pedestrian use and transit access (2). Metro-North — New York and Connecticut Metro-North operates three commuter rail lines between Grand Central Terminal and sub- urban communities in New York State and Connecticut: • Commuter rail ridership on Metro-North’s New Haven, Harlem, and Hudson Lines has grown rapidly in recent decades creating parking shortages along all three lines. • Much parking along the lines is owned and operated by cities and towns. Some of the com- munities have long waiting lists for reserved parking spaces. • Metro-North, working with communities and Connecticut Transit, has expanded parking space at several stations in Connecticut. Major parking garages were built in New Haven, Bridgeport, South Norwalk, and Stamford, and a new parking facility is under construction in Fairfield. • Metro-North is as well-established a transit agency as any in the country, with many of its services nearly 150 years old. Yet even here, the transit agency increasingly sees the need to transition from its traditional focus on drive access and provide more comprehensive multi- modal access options at locations where space is constrained, especially in New York State.

Insights from Transit Agencies 29 • Many communities provide extensive bus service to stations. • Enhanced feeder bus service can effectively improve station access and increase ridership at many stations where parking is over-subscribed. Transit agencies that do not directly operate such services can still promote them through effective partnerships with local operators. A free shuttle bus connects the New Haven station with the city center—the focus of the local bus system—and with remote parking garages. • In some cases, such as Metro-North’s Hudson Rail Link, targeted improvements to feeder transit service can both increase ridership and cover operating expenses. Such a result, however, depends on a high-draw urban core (in this case midtown Manhattan), and may not be generally applicable to many other areas. • Metro-North’s experience adjusting operations of the Haverstraw–Ossining Ferry to achieve better results allowed it to operate the Newburgh–Beacon Ferry more effectively. This suggests that agency-wide station access guidance that summarizes and synthesizes past experience can enhance station access planning efforts, even at transit agencies that prize flexibility in planning. NJ Transit — New Jersey NJ Transit operates an extensive system of commuter rail lines that enter Manhattan or reach Hoboken. The agency also operates light rail lines along the Hudson River waterfront, in New- ark, and between Camden and Trenton. The commuter rail lines began more than a century ago and the Newark light rail is an upgraded, long-established streetcar line, while the other two light rail lines are more recent. This case study demonstrates that: • Guidelines and guidebooks for improving station access and encouraging transit-friendly development are important. However, such guidance will be most effective when supplemented by direct outreach and assistance to individual communities. • A comprehensive set of complementary station access improvements should be developed as part of any major improvement or expansion of rapid transit service. This work should include identifying locations for parking expansion and proactively working with local communities to prepare for and accommodate increased development pressure in station areas. • Timely data on station access mode characteristics is critically important for effective service and facility planning. Periodic intercept surveys of station access modes and preferences supports trend-tracking and provides objective information for planning and decision making. • Partnering with an independent organization to evaluate programs, as New Jersey has done with the Voorhees Transportation Center at Rutgers University for its Transit Village Initiative, provides an objective means to assess program effectiveness, document successes, and make refinements. • While transit agency and state programs are important, success in promoting TOD at a given station ultimately requires a local jurisdiction that is interested and committed. • Well-designed transit agency and statewide programs can be effective at promoting TOD, especially when they provide direct funding for improvements (particularly subsidies for constructing structured parking). • Transit agencies that serve a large number of jurisdictions should dedicate resources to working directly with individual communities that wish to foster TOD in specific station areas. OC Transpo — Ottawa OC Transpo has operated a heavily used busway system since the 1970s. Within the past decade, complementary rail transit service has been initiated. Results of this case study include the following: • Station access issues faced on BRT systems are, for the most part, the same as those faced by rail transit agencies, indicating that rapid transit mode is secondary to the local context in determining station access and ridership characteristics.

30 Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations • Agency consolidation reduces interagency coordination needs, and can result in significant efficiencies in planning and implementing station access improvements. In the case of OC Transpo, the transit agency was incorporated into the City of Ottawa’s government in 2001 as part of a regional consolidation of governments into a single central city government. • OC Transpo’s use of extensive public outreach to gauge reactions to potential service restruc- turing options showed the value of public outreach in alternatives evaluation. Outreach as part of Ottawa’s Transportation Master Plan showed that people were not opposed to additional transfers where connections were seamless and wait times very low. This result contributed to ongoing restructuring and simplification of service to focus less on local buses entering the busway and instead on having passengers transfer from local bus to BRT. • Established design principles, such as OC Transpo’s Light Rail Design Guidelines, allow station access planning and design to proceed more efficiently. • A comprehensive parking facilities needs study, such as OC Transpo’s Park-and-Ride Study should: (1) establish policy regarding locations where park-and-ride facilities are appropriate; (2) estimate future demand for additional parking; and (3) identify and screen potential park- and-ride facility locations. • Ottawa’s strong land use controls have required major developments to be located along its busway system. Several developments have direct pedestrian connections to busway stations. RTD — Denver The Regional Transportation District (RTD) operates light rail lines that connect downtown Denver with outlying areas in southwest and southeast suburbs. Much of the southeast line is located alongside I-25. This case study demonstrates that: • Developing station access guidelines helps support collaborative planning efforts. At the same time, the guidelines must remain flexible to be successfully applied. • Parking pricing can achieve many goals in addition to simply serving as a potential revenue source, including reducing the number of long-term (all-day and overnight) parkers, and shifting demand to facilities with unused capacity. • Successful joint development programs require flexibility to adjust to unique market conditions and other constraints at individual stations. • Maintaining an online TOD database, and preparing periodic summary reports, is a valuable method of documenting TOD in the region and making the case for additional TOD. • Establishing a permanent Transit Access Committee is a means to ensuring consistent access improvements and joint development projects throughout the system. • Direct pedestrian access between transit stations and adjacent development is critically important to both transit’s and the development’s success, yet some property owners still resist providing such access. Sound Transit — Seattle Sound Transit is a regional transit agency that operates a commuter rail line, a light rail line, a modern streetcar line, and regional bus service. County- and city-based transit agencies provide bus connections to many of Sound Transit’s services. Sound Transit’s station access planning experiences include the following: • Each community will have a different set of priorities and stakeholders that should be included in the public process. The City of Seattle’s Public Outreach Liaison (POL)—where neighbor- hood leaders are hired as part-time city employees—is one method to address this diversity of needs. • It is unrealistic and undesirable for transit agencies to consider stations in isolation from surrounding communities.

Insights from Transit Agencies 31 • Close coordination with the surrounding community and local jurisdiction is needed to implement new rapid transit service, particularly when the service does not rely heavily on park-and-ride. • Capital improvement programs targeted at improved station access should focus on more than simply increasing parking supply by addressing the diverse goals that individual communities have for their station areas. • Establishing policy to support bicycle access while minimizing the impacts of bicycles brought on-board transit vehicles is important in regions where bicycling is a significant and increasing mode of travel. • Transit agencies benefit from having evaluation criteria connected to agency-wide goals to assess potential station access improvements. TriMet — Portland TriMet’s light rail system extends in all directions from downtown Portland, Oregon. The system continues to be expanded and a commuter rail line opened in 2009. The TriMet case study shows that: • Effective public outreach on an individual capital project helps to build regional support for subsequent capital projects. TriMet believes that effective public outreach should start early and be based on grass-roots outreach. Successful public outreach means that formal public hearings are “non-events” because problems have already been resolved. • Public outreach may be more effective if not contracted to consultants. TriMet has its own community affairs staff to ensure that (1) staff truly represents the transit agency to the public and (2) to maintain continuity of staff throughout the project. • Having a strong relationship with local jurisdiction, institutions, and developers is critical to the long-term success of station access planning. For example, TriMet’s commitment extended to funding a project engineer at the City of Milwaukee to represent the city’s interests as part of planning for the Portland–Milwaukee light rail, since the city could not afford to add this staff member itself. This action clearly signaled to Milwaukee that addressing the city’s concerns was integral to the success of the project. • Transit stations and transit activity should be directly integrated into communities through station design and site plans. This commitment is seen in the design of many of TriMet’s stations. • With a regional commitment to providing non-auto access, especially transit-supportive land use, it is possible to develop a successful regional rail system that relies on park-and-ride access for only a small portion of ridership. • Reducing existing parking capacity to support TOD may require justifying the reduction to FTA if federal funding was used to construct the parking. WMATA — Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C.’s Metro system covers the entire metropolitan area and is the most heavily used U.S. heavy rail system after New York City. This case study shows that: • Developing station access guidelines provides value in supporting collaborative planning efforts. At the same time, guidelines must remain flexible to be successfully applied. • Timely data on access mode characteristics is critically important for effective service and facility planning. Periodic intercept surveys of access modes and preferences supports trend-tracking and provides objective information for planning and decision making. • Expanding parking facilities is expensive and requires land that may not exist in many cases. This observation suggests that agencies that expect ridership increases may need to focus on improvements to non-auto access to realize ridership growth.

32 Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations • Station-specific access studies, funded by either the transit agency or local jurisdictions, are valuable means of identifying and prioritizing access improvement options. • Transit agencies with significant joint development opportunities benefit from standardized joint development policies that establish desired outcomes and evaluation criteria for proposed developments. • Transit agency offices that are involved in access planning should be organized to ensure that access planning efforts will be coordinated internally and will provide a more effective process externally. Those involved in access planning at WMATA include planners, real estate, operations planning, rail and bus operations, plant maintenance, parking management, marketing, and government relations. • Transit agencies should consider the cost-effectiveness of access modes. WMATA is developing the analytical tools needed to determine the cost-effectiveness among access modes to set access- mode goals and make investments. • Transit agencies can proactively set mode share goals instead of passively calculate mode share projections. WMATA’s access mode share priorities are related to comparable goals established by member jurisdictions. • WMATA has a broad range of station access modes. Pedestrian access dominates in many densely developed areas. However, the system also has large parking garages that directly connect to the regional freeway system.

Next: Chapter 4 - Station Typology, Access Modes, and Access Policy Guidance »
Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 153: Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations is intended to aid in the planning, developing, and improving of access to high capacity commuter rail, heavy rail, light rail, bus rapid transit, and ferry stations. The report includes guidelines for arranging and integrating various station design elements.

The print version of TCRP Report 153 is accompanied by a CD-ROM that includes a station access planning spreadsheet tool that allows trade-off analyses among the various access modes--automobile, transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit-oriented development--for different station types. The appendices to TCRP Report 153 are also available on the CD-ROM.

The items contained in the CD-ROM are also available for download below.

In 2009 TRB released TCRP Web-Only Document 44: Literature Review for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations, which describes the results of the literature review associated with the project that developed TCRP Report 153.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!