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 98
98 Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations Exhibit 10-5. Parking spaces and passenger boardings for rapid transit and light rail transit lines (stations with parking in selected cities). Number Parking Spaces Parking Boardings City Year of per Boarding Spaces per Space Stations Passenger Heavy Rail Transit Atlanta 1990 17,700 9 0.1 0.4 2.3 13.6 Boston 2005/2006 17,500 15 0.1 0.5 1.8 8.3 Chicago 2000/2005 6,700 10 0.1 0.3 3.3 12.3 Cleveland 2005/2006 4,000 10 0.1 0.9 1.1 12.3 San 2003 47,100 29 0.1 1.1 0.8 10.2 Francisco Washington, 2000 58,200 33 0.1 0.7 1.5 16.9 DC. Light Rail Transit Boston 2005/2006 2,000 6 0.1 0.7 1.5 15.0 Cleveland 2005 820 1 1.2 0.9 Portland 2006 7,000 17 0.1 0.8 1.2 6.7 Source: Transit agencies At rapid transit stations that mainly rely on auto access, there are typically 2.0 boardings per parking space. Half of the stations with parking in the BART system have about 0.4 to 0.6 parking spaces per passenger boarding. Light rail stations display a wide range of parking spaces per boarding space. However, about half of the stations along TriMet's light rail lines in Portland have between 0.2 and 0.3 spaces per boarding. Planning Guidelines Planning, locating, and selecting park-and-ride facilities calls for assessing and balancing many factors. Sites should be located where there is good highway and transit access, strong rapid transit ridership potential, and locations perceived by passengers as secure. Facilities should be Exhibit 10-6. Parking spaces and passenger boardings at selected commuter rail stations. Daily Spaces per Boardings System Spaces Boardings Boarding per Space Boston (MBTA) (2005/6) North Station 10,418 24,738 0.4 2.4 South Station 21,758 43,879 0.5 2.0 Chicago (Metra) (2002) 85,563 149,187 0.6 1.7 a Toronto (Go Transit) 2006 27,180 46,670 0.6 1.7 a Sample of system Source: Transit agencies
OCR for page 99
Automobile Access and Park-and-Ride 99 located on level land of suitable size and shape with minimum environmental constraints, and their locations (and designs) should be acceptable to the surrounding community. Land should be available, development costs should be reasonable, and environmental impacts should be minimal. The following guidelines cover planning principles, regional location, site selection, facility size, and facility types and costs. The general planning process is covered in detail through the eight-step process described in Chapter 2. Planning Principles Several broad planning principles underlie site locations and selection. The following principles should be considered for any park-and-ride development at or near stations (58). · Locate transit station parking facilities at a sufficient distance from the city center, where access is good, adequate land is available, and environmental impacts are minimal. · Maximize the utilization of existing park-and-ride facilities and ensure that the viability of existing facilities is not threatened by a possible new facility. · Assess the merits of each potential parking location individually, taking into account the likely market and potential demand, as well as the physical, environmental, and cost characteristics of each site. · Construct facilities that will maximize usage, provide good access to rapid transit lines, and promote reverse commuting. · Support community integration of park-and-ride facilities, based on local community input. · Make provisions for the payment of parking fees that could be adopted initially or in the future. · Balance the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit passengers with the needs of auto mobiles. · Ensure the safety and security of all users. Regional Location The location of park-and-ride facilities in relation to the city center depends upon topographic features; traffic congestion and travel constraints; rapid transit route and station locations; and land type, density, availability, and costs (3). The following considerations should govern where park-and-ride facilities should be located: 1. Locate in advance of congestion. Park-and-ride facilities in combination with rapid transit lines generate the greatest use (and transit ridership) in travel corridors with the most intense traffic congestion (i.e., peak hour peak-direction freeway speeds of less than 30 to 35 miles per hour). Park-and-ride facilities should intercept motorists in advance of congestion and before points of major route convergence. Sites near junctions of radial transit lines and circumferential expressways or major arterial roads can tap a wide catchment area. Access should be upstream of major congestion points. An example is the large parking garage where Route 128/I-95 crosses the AMTRAK/MBTA Station in suburban Boston. 2. Locate sufficient distance away from the city center. Park-and-ride facilities should be located as far from the downtown area as practical to remove the maximum number of travelers (and VMT) from roadways during peak periods. They generally should be located at least 5 to 8 miles from the city center. They should be far enough away to compensate for the time spent changing travel modes. Increasing parking space on the fringes of the downtown area is not desirable since it could divert existing rapid transit riders from feeder transit service and non-motorized modes.
OCR for page 100
100 Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations 3. Serve low-density residential areas. Generally population densities in park-and-ride catchment areas should be less than 4,000 to 6,000 persons per square mile or about 4 to 5 dwelling units per net acre. 4. Serve multiple markets. Most rapid transit park-and-ride sites serve downtown travelers. However, there is a growing tendency to also serve other large activity centers along the rapid transit lines. The sites should be located between their catchment areas and major activity centers. Motorists will use facilities that can be easily accessed en route; but they are less likely to backtrack. 5. Locate in safe areas. Sites should be placed in areas that are perceived as safe by patrons. They should not be located in high-crime areas, or in settings that are considered unattractive by users. 6. Complement and reinforce land development. Park-and-ride facilities should be compatible with the surrounding environments. They should generally be placed in low-density areas. Large facilities--especially open-lot parking--should be limited or avoided in town centers, areas of high population and development density, and locations where transit-supportive uses are planned or encouraged around stations. Where garages are built, they should be carefully integrated with their surroundings. 7. Provide fast and frequent rapid transit service. Light and heavy rail rapid transit should operate at frequencies of 10 to 12 minutes or less during peak periods, while service frequen- cies up to 20 minutes are acceptable during midday hours. Headways of 20 to 30 minutes are acceptable for commuter rail service during commute hours. 8. Provide good roadway access. Facilities should be accessible and visible from nearby freeways and arterial roadways. Exhibit 10-7 gives some characteristics of reported "successful" parking lots along rail and BRT lines. The park-and-ride lots are generally located at least 10 miles from the CBD and most are fully occupied on weekdays. Site Selection Potential park-and-ride sites at a given rapid transit station should be evaluated in terms of availability, accessibility, visibility, physical feasibility, land use impacts, environmental compat- ibility, and development costs. Field surveys, analysis of aerial photography, and feedback from community stakeholders will be helpful in assessing and selecting specific sites. Land Use Compatibility Sites should be compatible with adjacent land uses and they should not adversely impact nearby areas. They should achieve a reasonable level of usage relative to development costs. Site selection should give priority (in order of importance) to: (1) land currently in parking use; (2) undeveloped or unused land in public ownership; (3) undeveloped private land; and (4) developed private land. Every effort should be made to place facilities whey they will be acceptable to neighboring areas; they should avoid environmentally sensitive areas. Large park-and-ride facilities generally should not be located in or near town centers or other major activity nodes, or in densely developed areas. This guideline allows high-density, TOD clusters at selected transit stops; separates commuter and local parking demands; and reduces development costs and station impacts. Sites should be of suitable size and shape to permit efficient design of access, parking, and passenger transfer facilities. Irregular or triangular sites should be avoided. Sites should be flat and well-drained so that grading, paving, and drainage can be provided at minimum expense. Soil should be able to support parking lot (or garage) construction. Difficult topography
OCR for page 101
Automobile Access and Park-and-Ride 101 Exhibit 10-7. Characteristics of some successful park-and-ride facilities. Urban Area Dallas, TX Miami, FL Philadelphia, PA Pittsburgh, PA Miami- Port Auth. of DART Dade, SEPTA Allegheny Co System Facility Trirail Golden Cornwells South Hills Mockingbird Glades Heights Village CBD 3 12 14 11 Distance (miles) Urban Edge 25 4 6 15 from: Highway 0.3 0.1 0.2 3 Commuter Rail, a LRT, freeway Mode Commuter Rail LRT Transit arterial bus HOV lane Service & arterial bus b 5 5 6 Frequency 15 c Park-and-Ride Lot Amenities S, L, K, B S, L, G, K S, L, G, R S, L, G, K, B Lot Capacity Spaces 750 n/a 1,600 1,000 Weekday Occupancy 750 750 725 1,000 d Other Corridor P&R Parking 3,000 None 922 2,200 a LRT = Light Rail Transit. b Peak period "frequency of transit" serving park-and-ride lot in minutes. c S=shelter, L=lighting, G = security guard, K=kiss-and-ride "drop-off" spaces, R = Restrooms, B = bicycle racks. d Total number of cars parked at other park-and-ride lots in the same corridor. Source: Urban Transportation Monitor (59 ) should be avoided. Sites should also be large enough to provide the desired number of park- ing spaces. Safety and Security Considerations Sites should be visible from approach roads. They should be selected, designed, and developed to allow convenient visual monitoring and to maximize security. Good pedestrian visibility is essential. Sites should have adequate frontage so that access points onto public roadways can be placed away from signalized intersections. Sites should be located in areas that are perceived as safe by users. Safety should be enhanced by providing illumination, eliminating obstacles to visibility, and providing emer- gency communications. Facility Size The size of a park-and-ride facility depends on estimated parking demands, transit service frequencies, street system capacity, availability of reasonably priced land, and environmental
OCR for page 102
102 Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations constraints. In general, more space is needed in low-density suburban areas where there is very little feeder bus or pedestrian traffic. Conversely, where space is limited, priority should be given to providing space for persons with disabilities, passenger drop-off (kiss-and-ride), and short-term parking for drivers waiting to pick-up passengers. Unduly large or small facilities generally should be avoided. Small lots will not provide enough space to justify frequent rapid transit service and may result in issues with spillover parking. Very large facilities may result in long walk distances, or underutilization which would be a poor use of funds and tend to create a negative image of the transit system. Suggested size ranges are as follows: · BRT park-and-ride lots do not need to be very large. Even small shared use lots sometimes work in the right setting. Generally lots should contain at least 250 spaces. An optimum size range is 400 to 700 spaces, although this will vary depending on demand. · Commuter rail and heavy rail transit facilities usually range from 500 to more than 2,500 spaces. In a few cases, lots and garages are larger. These facilities support frequent transit service and draw patrons from a large catchment area. Larger garages and lots may require a grade-separated access road system or involve very long walking distances. They may create congestion on approach roads. · To accommodate daily fluctuations in park-and-ride demand, stations should not average more than 95 percent occupancy over a typical month period wherever possible, to minimize impacts of spillover parking. A design use factor of 80 percent is desirable to allow for long- term growth at the station. Growth could be in the form of additional park-and-ride spaces, increased space for bus bays and shuttles, bicycle parking, or other uses. Spillover parking effects from excess demand can have negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. · Facilities should prioritize passenger drop-off and pick-up and handicapped parking. This is especially important for facilities with less than 250 spaces serving rail transit lines. Facility Types and Costs The choice of parking facility--open-lot parking or parking garage (structure) near rapid transit stations--normally depends upon land availability and cost, parking demands and facility capacity, opportunities for multi-use TODs, and environmental effects. Facility Types Parking lots are usually preferable where physical and environmental conditions permit. However, parking structures may be necessary under the following circumstances: · Open-lot parking space is insufficient to meet the anticipated park-and-ride demands and the available land for additional parking is insufficient to meet the demand. · Walking distances between the station entrances and the most remote parking spaces exceed about 600 feet. · The parking footprint must be limited for environmental or land availability reasons. · TOD is planned (or anticipated) adjacent to the station. · Land costs are high and a parking structure would be less expensive in terms of life cycle costs. Facility Costs Development costs for park-and-ride facilities should be kept to a minimum. Open-lot parking is generally less costly than garages. However, when land costs exceed about $50 per square foot, multi-level garages may be less costly. The development and operating costs of parking lots and structures were compared based on current operating experience. Typical unit costs for parking lots and structures are shown in
OCR for page 103
Automobile Access and Park-and-Ride 103 Exhibit 10-8. Typical unit costs for parking lot and garages (2010 costs). Surface Lot Structured Garage Underground Garage Land Costs range from $10 - $100+ per square foot or $3,500 - $35,000 per space. Construction $12 15 per $14,000 per space for $35,000 per space square foot or decks $4,200 5,250 per $17,000 per space for space. multi-level garages Source: Adapted from Transportation Planning Handbook, 3rd Edition (30 ) Exhibit 10-8. These costs are based on values cited in the ITE Transportation Planning Handbook, updated to 2010 (27). They assume 350 square feet per car. The effects of land and construction costs (exclusive of design, interest, and finance costs) are shown in Exhibit 10-9. For land values below $40 to $50 per square foot, surface parking lots are more economical than structures. Where land costs exceed about $100 per square foot, underground parking may be more economical than a surface lot. The specific lot versus garage trade-off points are provided in Exhibit 10-10. Note that while Exhibit 10-9 indicates that a 7-story structure is always most cost-efficient that a shorter structure, this will depend in reality on the total size of the facility. A taller structure built for a small number of vehicles will have a higher portion of floor space used for parking aisles and ramps, limiting the efficiency of building taller structures for small park-and-ride facilities. These trade-offs represent one point in time, and will change depending upon relative changes in lot and garage construction costs over time. In 1989, for example, the trade-offs between surface and structured parking ranged from $25 to $30 per square foot of land costs (42). Annual Cost Comparisons The comparative total annual costs for garages and lots provide additional guidelines. Develop- ment costs include land costs, design and construction costs, financing costs, and annual average debt service costs. Annual operating costs are then added to the debt service costs. Exhibit 10-9. Effects of land value on type of parking space (2010 costs). $45,000 $40,000 Underground Garage (Land and Construction Cost) $35,000 Total Cost per Space $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 Land Value per sq. ft.
OCR for page 104
104 Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations Exhibit 10-10. Land cost breakpoints for parking facility construction. Facility Break-even Land Cost (dollars/sq. foot) Surface Lot 50 2 Level garage 70 3 Level garage 52 4 Level garage 44 5 Level garage 42 7 Level garage 39 Below ground garage 85 Source: Computed The detailed steps are as follows: 1. Land costs per space are pro-rated based upon the number of levels. 2. A 15% engineering design cost is added to the construction cost per space. 3. The total development costs per space (1 and 2) are increased another 15% to reflect financing costs (e.g., interest during construction period). 4. The annual development costs depend on the anticipated life of the facility (e.g., 25 years) and the likely interest rate (5 percent). Calculations assume a 0.07 capital recovery factor. This factor was applied to obtain an estimate of the annual costs. 5. Annual operating costs per space were assumed as $600 per space for garages and $200 per space for lots. These values are suggested in the ITE Transportation Planning Handbook (the annual difference in operating cost was $400 per space). A second set of computations were performed based upon values used by the BART District; these values were $540/space/year for garages and $350/space for lots, a difference of $190 per space. 6. Computations were performed for surface lots, and 3-, 5-, and 7-level garages. The analysis equated the total annual lot and garage costs from which the break-even land costs were obtained. The resulting costs were divided by 350 to obtain the costs per square foot. The resulting analyses are shown in Exhibit 10-11. The minimum land costs needed for parking structures (including debt service) range from $55 per square foot for 7-level garages to $94$100 per square foot for 2-level garages (i.e., parking decks). Space Demand Estimates The amount of parking space that should be provided at any given location depends on its traffic potentials, street system capabilities, compatibility with adjacent land use, and the location of reasonably priced land. More parking space is generally needed in low-density suburban areas where pedestrian and feeder bus traffic is minimal. Where space is limited, priority should be given to kiss-and-ride patrons. End-of-line stations typically have larger catchment areas and need more parking. Outlying parking potentials should clearly recognize CBD growth patterns, constraints to increasing CBD parking supply, extension of rapid transit services into auto-oriented areas, and rapid transit ridership. Park-and-ride demand is inversely proportional to transit service levels within the market area, and the level of connectivity to the bus network. Station parking could begin as unpaid and transition to paid parking as needed to meter demand. Park-and-ride space requirements should be estimated for (1) the opening year, (2) a year when parking space usage and ridership has reached its potential (usually three to five years into the future), and (3) the design year (usually 20 years into the future).