Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 95


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 94
94 Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations Park-and-ride facilities should be provided where one or more of the following factors apply: Population densities are too low to support frequent bus service (i.e., where rush hour con- nection headways exceed 15 minutes); The station catchment area is not served by local bus service; Locations are at least 5 to 8 miles from the city center; Locations are perceived as safe by patrons; Facilities are less costly to provide than special feeder bus service; Facilities are located near the confluence or terminal points of urban freeways; Suitable access from cross streets can be provided; and Freeway corridors are congested and park-and-ride facilities can be provided in advance of the congestion. Objectives Park-and-ride facilities should help promote the broader objectives of improving mobility and convenience of travelers, encouraging desirable land use and development, minimizing direct public expenditures for transportation, and minimizing adverse impacts on communities (3). They should: Increase the availability of alternatives to driving alone, by providing travelers with oppor- tunities to readily transfer from low- to high-occupancy travel modes and vice versa. This allows for a combination of different types of modes (i.e., not only autotransit, but also bicycletransit and so on). Concentrate transit rider demand to a level enabling rapid transit service that could not otherwise be provided. Without park-and-ride, transit service would be infeasible in many low-density areas. Expand the reach of rapid transit into low-density areas, thereby bringing more riders to premium transit services. In some situations, this has been known to induce ridership to the point that service has been increased. Reduce VMT, emissions, and energy consumption by enabling motorists to transfer to rapid transit lines. Reduce the demand for spillover parking. Permit CBD parking demands to be stabilized by providing viable alternative transportation to support economic development in the core. Prioritizing carpooling and van pooling for transit patrons may allow for more boardings with the same number of parking spaces. However, use of park-and-ride facilities as meeting locations for carpools and van pools reduces the amount of parking available for transit customers. Extent and Amount of Park-and-Ride Peak occupancies of 80 percent or more are common at park-and-ride facilities. The number of park-and-ride spaces that should be provided depends on both specific situations and public policy. Suburban commuter rail and heavy rail transit lines typically provide about one space for every two to three boarding passengers; light rail lines typically provide one space for every three to five boarding passengers. User and Usage Characteristics User and usage characteristics play an important role in facility planning, design, and operations. A description of salient characteristics follows.

OCR for page 94
Automobile Access and Park-and-Ride 95 User Characteristics Key travel characteristics of park-and-ride users are shown in Exhibit 10-2. This exhibit shows that most users were previously car drivers or passengers who mainly arrived by car, and traveled mainly to and from work on a daily basis. About half traveled 3 miles or less to the parking facility and most traveled more than 10 miles in total to their destinations, usually in the city center. Exhibit 10-3 shows the access characteristics for Metra commuter rail service in Chicago, including total parking capacity, parking demand, and access modes of arrival. This exhibit Exhibit 10-2. Travel characteristics of park-and-ride users. Number of a Characteristics Range (%) a Average Lots Previous mode of travel Drove alone 11 to 65 305 49.2 Carpool/van pool 5 to 28 303 23.2 Transit (bus or other) 5 to 49 304 10.4 Did not make trip 0 to 29 303 14.9 Arrival mode to facility Drove alone 38 to 91 146 72.6 Shared ride 3 to 36 146 11.0 Dropped off 0 to 31 117 11.1 Walked 0 to 21 132 4.4 Bus 0 to 10 132 1.3 Trip purpose Work or business 83 to 100 107 97.2 School 0 to 11 80 2.3 Other 0 to 17 80 0.5 Travel frequency (round trips per week) Three or less 2 to 15 101 6.6 Four 3 to 16 86 7.6 Five or more 71 to 93 86 86.8 Home-to-lot distance (miles) Three or less 6 to 74 163 46.4 Four to six 18 to 42 162 22.8 Six or more 8 to 69 162 29.2 Lot-to-destination distance (miles) Less than 10 0 to 100 190 6.9 10 to 30 0 to 100 190 63.2 30 or more 0 to 51 177 30.4 a The "average" values shown are weighted by the number of park-and-ride lots surveyed. Partial or missing data from certain studies may cause the percentages not to total 100. Source: Parking Management (43, 44 )

OCR for page 94
96 Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations Exhibit 10-3. Metra park-and-ride usage characteristics and mode of arrival. Station Distance to CBD (Miles) Overall 0-10 10-20 20-30 30+ System Weekday boardings (AM peak inbound) 1986 6,250 40,574 42,000 9,800 98,624 1994 7,938 44,226 46,494 14,742 113,399 Change 1986-94 1,688 3,652 4,494 4,942 14,775 Change 1986-94 27% 9% 11% 50% 15% Station parking capacity 1986 2,918 20,676 22,591 7,936 54,121 1994 3,824 24,047 28,134 12,296 68,301 Change 1986-94 906 3,371 5,543 4,360 14,180 Change 1986-94 31% 16% 25% 55% 26% Station parking use (observed) 1986 2,493 17,937 20,029 6,538 46,997 1994 3,079 19,647 25,631 10,525 58,882 Change 1986-94 586 1,710 5,602 3,987 11,885 Change 1986-94 24% 10% 28% 61% 25% Average parking space occupancy 1986 85% 87% 89% 82% 87% 1994 81% 82% 91% 86% 86% Mode of station access (1994) Drove alone 25% 43% 61% 71% 55% Walked 59% 34% 12% 6% 21% Dropped off 10% 13% 14% 14% 13% Carpool 3% 5% 6% 6% 6% Bus 2% 4% 5% 2% 4% Other 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Source: Ferguson (5 ) shows that parking demand steadily increased to fill the new parking capacity built between 1986 and 1994. Parking Supply and Use Park-and-ride facilities are often used to (or even beyond) their capacities. Exhibit 10-4 gives examples of parking space use for 20 commuter rail, heavy rail, and light rail systems in North America; 14 of the systems were occupied to at least 65 percent of their capacity, although overall utilization varies widely by agency indicating the importance of local factors in determining overall parking demand.

OCR for page 94
Automobile Access and Park-and-Ride 97 Exhibit 10-4. Examples of utilization of rail park-and-ride facilities. Number of Number of Parked Percent System (Year) Facilities Spaces Vehicles Capacity Commuter Rail Caltrain (1998) 34 4,125 3,210 78% Connecticut New Haven Line[s] a 14,258 12,056 85% 35 (1996) Go Transit Toronto (1998) 8 32,052 30,139 94% MARC Maryland/West Virginia 26 5,922 5,150 87% (1995) METROLINK Los Angeles (1999) 46 14,500 n/a 75% Sound Transit Puget Sound, b 5,982 5,264 88% 10 Washington (2010) TriMet Portland, Oregon (2010) c 699 280 40% 4 Virginia Railway Express (1995) d 3,901 2,411 62% 13 Heavy Rail Chicago Transit Authority (1998) a 6,506 5,15,500 7885% 15 Metrorail Miami (1993) 17 9,391 5,030 53% Metrorail Washington, DC (1995) a 38,137 34,195 90% 39 Southeastern PA Transp. Authority a 1,133 1,133 100% 3 (1993) Light Rail Buffalo (1995) 2 1,400 n/a 70% Calgary (1998) 11 7,354 7,126 97% Dallas Area Rapid Transit (1998) 8 4,190 n/a 86% Denver (2009) 20 11,739 8,517 73% Sacramento (1999) 9 4,120 n/a 55% San Diego Trolley (1999) 23 5,553 1,471 26% Santa Clara Valley Transp. Authority 21 6,471 1700 26% (2009) TriMet Portland, Oregon (2010) 23 9,606 5,261 55% Notes: n/a: Information not available except by inference based on the "Percent Capacity" values, which come from estimates or other derivations used by the reporting agencies. a Parking fee charged at several or all facilities b South Sounder line, includes adjacent and satellite lots c Includes the parking facility operated by the City of Wilsonville d Parking fee charged at several facilities in the survey year (fees since removed) Sources: TCRP Report 95 (2, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 ) Parking and Boarding Comparisons The number of boarding passengers per parking space, and the number of parking spaces per boarding at selected stations for heavy rail and light rail transit stations are shown in Exhibit10-5. Commuter rail stations are shown in Exhibit 10-6. At commuter rail stations, there are generally 0.4 to 0.6 parking spaces per boarding. At heavy rail and light rail transit stations, the wide range of parking spaces per boarding passenger reflects differing development densities, and reliance on walking, bus, and kiss-and-ride trips at individual stations.