Making Effective Fixed-Guideway Transit Investments: Indicators of Success (2014) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 69-253
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 69... ...
V O L U M E 2 Research Report
|
From page 70... ...
C O N T E N T S 2-1 Chapter 1 Introduction 2-2 1.1 Indicator-Based Methods 2-5 1.2 Historical Best Practices: Pushkarev and Zupan 2-6 1.3 FTA Investment Criteria 2-8 Chapter 2 Literature and Data Review 2-8 2.1 Previous Studies 2-9 2.2 Data 2-12 Chapter 3 Focus Groups: Phase I 2-12 3.1 Participants 2-13 3.2 Results 2-16 3.3 Conclusions 2-17 Chapter 4 Conceptual Framework 2-17 4.1 Defining Transit Project Success 2-18 4.2 Levels of Analysis 2-19 4.3 Identifying Indicators of Transit Project Success 2-21 4.4 Observation Set 2-28 Chapter 5 Quantitative Analysis Methods and Findings 2-30 5.1 Project-Level Models 2-33 5.2 System-Level Models 2-37 5.3 Estimating Uncertainty in Model Outputs 2-37 5.4 Input from Focus Groups: Phase 2 2-39 5.5 Response to Practitioner Input 2-42 5.6 Summary of Results and Comparison with Previous Studies 2-43 Chapter 6 Case Studies: Overview 2-44 6.1 Settings 2-44 6.2 Project Attributes 2-45 6.3 Indicator-Based Planning Methods 2-46 6.4 Potential Usefulness of the TCRP Project H-42 Method 2-48 6.5 Synopses 2-50 Chapter 7 Spreadsheet Tool: Technical Notes 2-51 Chapter 8 Conclusion 2-51 8.1 Implementation 2-52 References
|
From page 71... ...
2-1 C H A P T E R 1 This research report describes a method for estimating the likely success of proposed fixed-guideway rail projects. The method is more complex than typical indicator-based techniques used by transit agencies, but simpler than fourstep forecasting models, FTA analysis requirements, or other advanced evaluation methods.
|
From page 72... ...
2-2 quantitative analysis. The cases offered a reminder that other factors often weigh in project decisions, and that heuristic indicators will continue to play an important role.
|
From page 73... ...
2-3 thresholds by transit mode that projects are expected to meet before the MTC programs funds (Table 1.2)
|
From page 74... ...
2-4 Source: MTC and Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Figure 1.2.
|
From page 75... ...
2-5 along a transit corridor of 100 to 150 square miles required a minimum threshold of 12 dwelling units per residential acre along the corridor and 50 million square feet of non-residential space in the downtown. Light rail transit (LRT)
|
From page 77... ...
2-7 There has been interest in applying streamlined evaluation measures (or warrants) to FTA's project evaluation process, and MAP-21 specifically encourages the use of warrants.
|
From page 78... ...
2-8 C H A P T E R 2 TCRP Project H-42 began with a review of previous studies and a search for data sources to (1) ascertain relevant measures of success from varying definitions of what constitutes successful transit systems, and (2)
|
From page 79... ...
2-9 some researchers contest these two indicators. The presumed impact of household income might be influenced by the fact that fixed-guideway transit systems across the United States tend to serve commuters with higher average incomes, and minority status might merely be a proxy for other, unmeasured elements, such as transit dependence or captivity.
|
From page 80... ...
2-10 Indicator Data Source Data Notes Employment density and diversity; size of job centers Census, county business patterns, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) , Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
|
From page 81... ...
2-11 • Census blocks that are entirely composed of water should not have any demographic data (population, jobs, etc.) assigned to them, so they would not affect the analysis.
|
From page 82... ...
2-12 C H A P T E R 3 The study team carried out two rounds of focus groups and interviews with transit professionals and academics, to inform initial decisions about the research and to provide feedback on our initial results. In the first round, the researchers met with professionals in the transit industry to discuss basic concepts for framing the research, such as how to define a successful transit project, what factors have been examined in the past to help identify potentially successful projects, what factors would be useful for future informal alternatives analyses of transit projects, and what readily available data are currently used to support the incorporation of certain predictors of transit success.
|
From page 83... ...
2-13 Subsequent telephone interviews were held in July 2011 with: • Scott Rutherford, professor, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering at the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. • Steve Polzin, transit research program director, Center for Urban Transportation Research at the University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida.
|
From page 84... ...
2-14 Another potential measure suggested by one participant was the creation of a transit-friendly environment, which could reflect a project's success through "metrics that reveal an orientation toward transit activity and transit investment." One such metric might be the presence of "a high bike/ped mode share of all trips," which "provides a more comprehensive look -- a 24-hour set of outcomes." Other potential figures include the percentage of facilities that are usable by persons with disabilities ("as many ADA-oriented facilities as possible") or the percentage of children and senior citizen users, both reflecting adequate transit "accommodations for those who are not able to or shouldn't drive." 3.2.1.3 Cost-Benefit Analysis Many participants, especially those representing public transit agencies, saw the need for a quantifiable cost-benefit test to assess the success of a transit project.
|
From page 85... ...
2-15 Focus group participants and interviewees strongly emphasized that the success of a transit project is a function of its relative "cost savings versus taking a car," or essentially "how difficult it is to operate an automobile." The cost of automobile use can be measured in monetary terms: one financial cost that participants commonly mentioned was "the price of parking," more specifically, parking management programs that involved the "absence of free/heavily subsidized garages, and the absence of large lots." However, an interviewee pointed out that "a high price of auto[mobile travel]
|
From page 86... ...
2-16 happened in the past .
|
From page 87... ...
2-17 C H A P T E R 4 Numerous possible measures of transit investment success exist. After considering several alternatives, the TCRP Project H-42 team focused on transit ridership at the project and system levels, because these are strong direct measures of the benefits of transit, although they are by no means perfect or appropriate in all cases.
|
From page 88... ...
2-18 is expected to carry. Increases in system-wide patronage can also serve as a proxy for a project's mobility and accessibility benefits, as well as sustainability benefits such as reductions in automobile use, air pollutant emissions, and energy consumption, to the extent that increased system ridership indicates that more people are choosing to leave their cars at home and take transit instead.
|
From page 89... ...
2-19 Although project-level ridership is a fundamental component of a transit project's success, success should also be considered in the context of the entire regional transit system. Project-level ridership alone fails to account for possible shifts in modes between new transit projects and existing services such as parallel bus lines.
|
From page 90... ...
2-20 team considered several aspects of land use and built a set of variables that capture the characteristics that facilitate public transportation. It is readily observed that many big cities have fixedguideway transit but many small cities do not.
|
From page 91... ...
2-21 combined 2008 population of this subset of 18 metropolitan areas in the data set totaled 75.6 million people, representing one-quarter of the total U.S. population.
|
From page 92... ...
2-22 Table 4.3. Descriptive summary of metropolitan areas included in the analysis, 2002–2008.
|
From page 93... ...
2-23 Figure 4.1. 2008 annual fixed-guideway transit passenger-miles per person, by metropolitan area with fixed-guideway transit included in analysis.
|
From page 94... ...
2-24 Table 4.4. (Continued)
|
From page 95... ...
Figure 4.2. Fixed-guideway transit projects included in analysis.
|
From page 96... ...
2-26 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 Newark: Newark Elizabeth MOS-1 San Jose: Tasman West Chicago: Metra North Central San Jose: VTA Capitol Segment - Connected to Tasman East Portland: Portland Airport Max San Jose: Tasman East Salt Lake City: Medical Center Ext. San Jose: VTA Vasona Segment Chicago: Metra Southwest Corridor San Diego: Mission Valley East Baltimore: Three extensions Sacramento: Sacramento Folsom Corridor Eugene: Eugene EMX Sacramento: Mather Field Road Extension Salt Lake City: University Ext.
|
From page 97... ...
2-27 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 Chicago: Metra North Central San Jose: Tasman West Trenton: Southern New Jersey Light Rail Transit System Chicago: Metra Southwest Corridor Miami: South Florida Tri-Rail Upgrades Portland: Portland Airport Max Sacramento: Sacramento Folsom Corridor Baltimore: Three extensions San Jose: Tasman East San Jose: San Jose North Corridor San Diego: Mission Valley East San Jose: VTA Capitol Segment - Connected to Tasman East San Jose: VTA Vasona Segment Denver: Denver Southeast (T-REX) Dallas: North Central Denver: Denver Southwest Corridor Newark: Newark Elizabeth MOS-1 San Diego: Orange Line Baltimore: Central Line Sacramento: Mather Field Road Extension Portland: Portland Interstate MAX LRT Seattle: Seattle Central Link Light Rail Project Los Angeles: Green Line Los Angeles: Orange Line Sacramento: South Phase 1 San Diego: Blue Line Eugene: Eugene EMX Los Angeles: Pasadena Gold Line Sacramento: Sacramento Stage I Los Angeles: Long Beach Blue Line Cleveland: Cleveland Healthline Portland: Portland Westside/Hillsboro MAX Phoenix: Metro Light Rail Salt Lake City: North South Corridor Salt Lake City: Medical Center Ext.
|
From page 98... ...
2-28 C H A P T E R 5 The project team tested more than 140 different factors that might be expected to influence project-level ridership or system-level PMT on transit. Multiple regression analyses were conducted using the projects and cities for which the researchers had complete data.
|
From page 99... ...
2-29 predictors of success can be found in Appendix E For values of significant indicators for each of the 55 projects in the ridership model, see Appendix F
|
From page 100... ...
2-30 the interaction of residents and jobs near stations was found to be particularly important in conjunction with high parking costs. This measure captures the exponentially increasing value of a well-connected network of origins and destinations.
|
From page 101... ...
2-31 town parking rates are high and the project serves many jobs and residents, ridership tends to strongly increase. This interaction term contributes more than any other term to the fit of the ridership model.
|
From page 102... ...
2-32 centage of the variation in ridership that is explained by each variable. As shown in Figure 5.4, the interaction term by itself explains about 62 percent of variation; jobs within ½ mile of stations, another 20 percent; and variations in percent at grade, an additional 16 percent.
|
From page 103... ...
2-33 5.2 System-Level Models Another measure of the success of a transit project is its impact on the entire metropolitan-wide transit system. The research team's second set of analyses examined incremental changes in annual system-wide PMT on rail and bus.
|
From page 104... ...
2-34 pared to the value predicted by the final MSA-level model. For reference, the figure includes a black line representing a perfect prediction.
|
From page 105... ...
2-35 level model, contains employment data only from within ½ mile of fixed-guideway stations in the MSA. This model is applied in the spreadsheet tool.
|
From page 106... ...
2-36 it may also be likely that they already do so. As has been discussed, higher-income workers are less likely to choose to ride a city bus, but may find train or BRT service more appealing.
|
From page 107... ...
2-37 If it is assumed that increasing metropolitan population and an improving economy over those 5 years should have naturally resulted in increased bus service, bus service might hypothetically be allowed to stagnate when investments in rail were made. The data do not, however, strongly support the diversion of service hypothesis.
|
From page 108... ...
2-38 Telephone interviews were also conducted with three individuals who expressed interest during the mid-year meeting of TRB's Metropolitan Policy, Planning and Processes Committee (ADA20) : Mary Archer, Marin County (California)
|
From page 109... ...
2-39 5.5.1 CBD Employment Earlier work identified jobs in the CBD as an important indicator of transit use. This analysis uses jobs located within ½ mile of stations to predict transit use at both the project and the metropolitan level.
|
From page 110... ...
2-40 Variable Name Final Model CBD Test Models Defensible ½-mile 1-mile Census-Defined Catchment jobs 0.155 0.280*
|
From page 111... ...
2-41 each of which is associated with a set of codes developed for the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
|
From page 112... ...
2-42 thing which the team's review of prior research suggested has not been done systematically before. Similar to the original work of Pushkarev and Zupan as well as subsequent studies, the researchers for this study found that population density and employment density were highly predictive of transit ridership; unlike those studies, however, the researchers found that the combination of jobs, residents, and high parking cost or high road congestion is much more influential than any of those indicators on their own.
|
From page 113... ...
2-43 C H A P T E R 6 The research team conducted case studies of transit projects in six metropolitan areas, reviewing public reports and other materials, conducting site visits, and interviewing more than 50 transit planners, MPO officials, and consultants who had worked on the projects. The cases were used to help the researchers understand how transit planning decisions had been made and the nature of any indicator-based evaluations that had occurred.
|
From page 114... ...
2-44 were spent at FTA reviewing document archives and speaking with staff. Although case study settings and case study projects varied considerably, very similar indicator-based planning practices emerged across all the cases.
|
From page 115... ...
2-45 planning processes actually were across projects that varied by size, mode, and other features. All of the cases used very similar indicator-based methods to develop early transit plans and to quickly assess the potential for various proposals to be successful.
|
From page 116... ...
2-46 successful (Interviewee AA, in-person conversation, 8/7/12)
|
From page 117... ...
2-47 based on regressions of national data points and stated that they would likely rely instead on locally calibrated regional models (Interviewee AF, in-person conversation, 8/13/12; Interviewee AL, in-person conversation, 8/7/12)
|
From page 118... ...
2-48 The Eugene EmX BRT case suggests that planners of rail and bus fixed-guideway projects may consider the same measures of success. The researchers found that BRT planning leveraged many of the same indicator-based methods that were observed in HRT and LRT case studies.
|
From page 119... ...
2-49 Detailed case study write-ups are provided in Appendix I The write-ups explain how six distinct transit projects fit into their respective regions' transit systems and describe the planning processes that led to the ultimate project being chosen from the alternatives proposed during the planning process.
|
From page 120... ...
2-50 C H A P T E R 7 The research team combined the results of the modeling process with feedback from practitioners to create a spreadsheet tool that can be used to predict the transit use impacts of proposed fixed-guideway projects. To build the tool, the researchers selected spreadsheet-friendly versions of the project- and metropolitan-level models, incorporating recommendations from case study participants and the report's review panel.
|
From page 121... ...
2-51 C H A P T E R 8 The evaluation method proposed in TCRP Report 167 is not meant to replace existing processes of planning fixedguideway transit systems, but rather to provide additional information that is consistent for all regions in the United States. The indicators of success presented in this report are only the beginning.
|
From page 122... ...
2-52 Aizenman, N A Lot Riding on New Stations; Area Residents Hope Metro Brings Growth, Not Crime and Noise.
|
From page 123... ...
2-53 Cervero, R., and J Landis.
|
From page 124... ...
2-54 Guerra, E Valuing Rail Transit: Comparing Capital and Operating Costs to Consumer Benefits.
|
From page 125... ...
2-55 Small, K Project Evaluation, Chapter 5.
|
From page 126... ...
2-56 Walk Score. Transit Score Methodology.
|
From page 127... ...
A p p e n d i c e s Appendices A–J were prepared in conjunction with the final report. The TCRP Project H-42 Draft Spreadsheet Tool: Estimated Ridership and Cost of FixedGuideway Transit Projects provides the analytical model in Excel format.
|
From page 128... ...
A-1 Appendix A Data Source Review A-1 A.1 Data A-2 A.2 Internal Attributes A-4 A.3 Extensive Attributes A-9 A.4 Unconventional Data Sources A-12 A.5 External Attributes B-1 Appendix B Data Collection and Construction of Variables B-2 B.1 Measures of Transit Project Success B-3 B.2 Predictors of Transit Project Success: Metropolitan Area B-7 B.3 Predictors of Transit Project Success: Project-Level B-8 B.4 Additional Variables Considered c-1 Appendix C All Fixed-Guideway Transit Projects in the United States d-1 Appendix D Network Measures e-1 Appendix E Variables List F-1 Appendix F Fixed-Guideway Projects Included in Analysis G-1 Appendix G Model Technical Information H-1 Appendix H Focus Groups, Phase 2: Topic Responses i-1 Appendix I Detailed Case Study Write-Ups and Regional Profiles I-1 I.1 South Line (Charlotte, NC) I-10 I.2 North Central Corridor (Dallas, TX)
|
From page 129... ...
A-1 APPENDIX A: Data Source Review A.1 Data The measures and predictors of transit success addressed in the literature cover a range of transportation issues. Using these measures to evaluate transit systems requires a variety of quantitative datasets covering regions where fixed-guideway transit projects are proposed and delivered.
|
From page 130... ...
A-2 simulation)
|
From page 131... ...
A-3 become more crucial, however, as public-private partnerships are increasingly utilized to deliver mega-infrastructure projects and avoid cost overrun problems in the United States (Maze and Smadi 2003; Neumann and Markow 2004; Miller and Ibbs 2000; Flyvbjerg 2007; Flyvbjerg et al.
|
From page 132... ...
A-4 property, and sales tax amounts and percentages. These fare revenue and cross-subsidy attributes are very important for decision makers to understand because public funding resources not only help reduce the financial deficits of transit agencies but also extensively redistribute the internal costs of fixed-guideway transit systems between internal transit users and extensive social stakeholders based on the benefit principle and the ability-to-pay principle (Taylor 2004; Musgrave 1959)
|
From page 133... ...
A-5 Another social welfare measure of success is a fixed-guideway project's ability to decrease the negative effects on public health and safety of an auto-dependent society. In the United States, various databases on public health and safety are organized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
|
From page 134... ...
A-6 Although GIS systems enable a broad array of spatial data processing and analysis techniques, it is important to note that products derived through GIS applications are only as useful as the input data and the theoretical approach to understanding spatial relationships. In particular, GIS representations of population or employment are spatial averages of survey, forecast, or estimate data.
|
From page 135... ...
A-7 manual editing and data manipulation is often necessary before network analysis can be conducted with GIS shapefiles. There are different possible measures of network size or density.
|
From page 136... ...
A-8 with secondary data from state DOTs and metropolitan planning organizations. The other annual resource on urban mobility, the FHWA's Highway Statistics, covers a larger number of urbanized areas (more than 400 in 2009)
|
From page 137... ...
A-9 supplemental service buses for intercity rail and air carriers, intercity ferries, and transit or local ferries, but it does not attempt to cover every possible transit bus stop in every street block. Local information on feeder transit systems can be obtained in General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS)
|
From page 138... ...
A-10 • LA MTA Orange Line • Boston Silver Line • Eugene, Oregon, EmX Line • Cleveland Health Line • NY MTA NYCT Fordham Road, 34th St., and 1st/2nd Aves Lines • Pittsburgh The relatively recent arrival of BRT applications in the United States precludes the possibility of longitudinal analysis of its long-term measures of success. However, short-term before-and-after analysis can be performed for most extant systems using data on service features and ridership at one time point before implementation and another following commencement of BRT operations.
|
From page 139... ...
A-11 Parking supply can also serve as an important element of intermodal transit stations. Suburban fixed-guideway transit stations are often particularly dependent on parking capacity to facilitate commuter station access.
|
From page 140... ...
A-12 street facilities; street locations, lengths, widths and physical conditions; street amenities; topography; and intersection/network characteristics. The most common approach to measuring urban design characteristics is to compute the connectivity of local street networks within one-quarter- and/or one-half-mile of a fixed-guideway transit station using the U.S.
|
From page 141... ...
A-13 A.5.1 Urban Development Data Over the last decade, the demand for disaggregate data on urban development patterns has been growing in the United States, as the ability of transit-oriented development (TOD) to increase transit ridership, discourage urban sprawl, and promote economic development by densely locating a variety of property packages, business clusters, and residential communities around urban transit centers and along suburban transit corridors has been more importantly assessed as both the shortterm predictor of success and the long-term measure of success by federal, state, and local decision makers.
|
From page 142... ...
A-14 Generally, net price increases are estimated as the accessibility/agglomeration benefits generated by transit investments, and they are expected to help recover the upfront capital costs of fixedguideway transit systems. Property transaction records in the United States are provided by several private entities.
|
From page 143... ...
A-15 UrbanSim, PECAS, ILUTE, TRANUS, MEPLAN, and DRAM/EMPAL, are helping to shed light on predictors of long-term travel behavior and land use impact success. In their early stages, these large-scale simulation models had many deficiencies.
|
From page 144... ...
B-1 APPENDIX B: Data Collection and Construction of Variables This appendix provides a detailed description of the data and data sources used as measures and indicators or transit success at the project and metropolitan levels of analysis. We compiled data on fixed-guideway transit projects and metropolitan areas across the United States, including stationlevel, project-level, and regional-level information on ridership levels, agency operating costs, demographics, employment and population density, gross domestic product (GDP)
|
From page 145... ...
B-2 • Peak AM hour service frequency, average speed (various sources, 2011-2012, project) • Track grade (FTA Capital Cost Database and Google Earth, 2010, project)
|
From page 146... ...
B-3 In a UCTC-funded project, Guerra and Cervero (2011) probed the relationship between job and population densities around rail stations and various cost-effectiveness measures.
|
From page 147... ...
B-4 including job counts, unemployment figures, personal income levels, and GDP from 2000 through 2009. B.2.2 Catchment Area Demographics and Employment To determine the demographic characteristics around each transit project, we created "catchment areas" surrounding each project station and spatially applied to them Census 2000 and LEHD block-level data that fell within the designated area.
|
From page 148... ...
B-5 Once the catchment areas were complete, we assigned Census 2000 block and block group data to each station catchment area, including residential demographics such as age, race, and commute mode/duration and household information such as size, occupancy, tenure, income, and automobile ownership, based on the land area share of each block falling within the buffer. We similarly incorporated LEHD block-level data on job counts by employment location from 2002-2008, broken down by industry and income group.
|
From page 149... ...
B-6 where i is station i, j is station j in the same metropolitan area, Ei is the number of employment in the catchment of station i (zones 1, 2, and 3) , Ej is the number of employment in the catchment of station j (zones 1, 2, and 3)
|
From page 150... ...
B-7 Transportation Institute's (TTI) Annual Urban Mobility Report.
|
From page 151... ...
B-8 found using the FTA Capital Cost Database (Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc.
|
From page 152... ...
C-1 APPENDIX C: All Fixed-Guideway Transit Projects in the United States Note: This appendix is included in order to inform the reader about the fixed-guideway transit projects included in our modeling process. Projects were excluded when key data were unavailable, such as the LEHD data used to es mate employment near sta ons; data about parking cost in the CBD; and ridership, which we were some mes unable to procure by sta on from the relevant transit agency.
|
From page 153... ...
C-2 State City Project Name Mode Type Opening Year Routemiles Ridership Model Reason Excluded REX) FL Miami Metrorail HR Inial 1984 21 YES FL Miami South Florida Tri-Rail Upgrades CR Enhancement 2007 72 YES GA Atlanta North / South Line HRT Expansion 1981 22 YES GA Atlanta North Line Dunwoody Extension HRT Extension 1996 2 YES IL Chicago O'Hare Extension (Blue Line)
|
From page 154... ...
C-3 State City Project Name Mode Type Opening Year Routemiles Ridership Model Reason Excluded Light Rail Project CA Los Angeles MetroLink CR Ini al 1992 NO CA Los Angeles MetroLink Riverside Orange County Lines CR Expansion 1994 NO Ridership CA Los Angeles MetroLink Inland Empire Orange County Line CR Expansion 1995 NO Ridership CA Los Angeles MetroLink 91 Line CR Expansion 2002 NO Ridership CA San Diego Sprinter LRT Expansion 2008 NO Ridership CA San Diego Coaster CR Expansion 1995 NO Ridership CA San Francisco Muni J-Church Extension LRT Extension 1991 NO CA San Francisco Muni T-Third Extension LRT Expansion 2007 NO CA San Francisco BART Colma Extension HRT Extension 1996 NO CA San Francisco BART Pisburgh Bay Point Extension HRT Extension 1996 NO CA San Francisco BART Dublin Pleasanton Extension HRT Expansion 1997 NO CA San Jose Altamont Commuter Express CR Expansion 1998 NO Ridership CO Denver Central Plae Valley LRT Expansion 2002 NO CT New Haven Shoreline East CR Expansion 1990 NO Ridership DC Washington DC Addison (G) Blue Line HRT Expansion 1977 4 NO LEHD DC Washington DC Glenmont (B)
|
From page 155... ...
C-4 State City Project Name Mode Type Opening Year Routemiles Ridership Model Reason Excluded GA Atlanta Proctor Creek Branch HRT Expansion 1992 NO LEHD IL Chicago Metra UP West Corridor CR Rehab 2009 9 NO Ridership IL Chicago Green Line Rehabilitaon HRT Rehab 1996 NO MA Boston Southwest Corridor HRT Expansion 1987 5 NO LEHD MA Boston MBTA Worcester Line CR Extension 1994 NO LEHD MA Boston MBTA Old Colony Lines CR Expansion 1997 NO LEHD MA Boston MBTA Greenbush Line CR Expansion 2007 NO LEHD MA Boston South Boston Piers - Phase 1 BRT Expansion 2004 NO LEHD MD Balmore Owings Mills Extension HRT Extension 1987 NO MD Balmore Johns Hopkins Hospital Extension HRT Extension 1995 NO MN Minneapolis Northstar Line CR Expansion 2009 NO Timeframe MO St. Louis MetroLink LRT Inial 1993 NO MO St.
|
From page 156... ...
C-5 State City Project Name Mode Type Opening Year Routemiles Ridership Model Reason Excluded TN Nashville Music City Star CR Ini al 2006 NO TX Aus n Capital MetroRail CR Ini al 2010 NO Timeframe TX Dallas Northeast Extension LRT Extension 2002 NO TX Dallas Green Line LRT Expansion 2009 NO Timeframe TX Dallas Trinity Railway Express CR Expansion 1996 NO TX Dallas A-Train CR Expansion 2011 NO Timeframe TX Houston Houston METRO LRT Ini al 2004 NO UT Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub Extension LRT Extension 2008 NO UT Salt Lake City FrontRunner CR Expansion 2008 NO WA Seale South Lake Union Streetcar LRT Expansion 2007 NO WA Seale Sounder Commuter Rail CR Ini al 2000 NO WA Tacoma Tacoma Link LRT Ini al 2003 NO
|
From page 157... ...
D-1 APPENDIX D: Network Measures We calculated and tested measures of network connectivity by metropolitan area for both railway and highway networks, as described below. As noted in the report, we found that these measures tended not to be statistically significant with the inclusion of simpler indicators.
|
From page 158... ...
D-2 = e v • Gamma Index measures connectivity by evaluating the relationship between the number of observed links and the number of possible links. Values of gamma fall between 0 and 1, with a gamma value of 1 indicating a completely connected network.
|
From page 159... ...
D-3 average distance between neighbors in a hypothetical random distribution (our calculations are based on Euclidean distance)
|
From page 160... ...
E-1 APPENDIX E: Variables List Metropolitan-Level Models Project-Level Models Indicator Geographic Level Date Range Source Indicator Considered Observed Effect Considered Observed Effect (incl. endogenous vars)
|
From page 161... ...
E-2 Metropolitan-Level Models Project-Level Models Indicator Geographic Level Date Range Source Indicator Considered Observed Effect Considered Observed Effect (incl. endogenous vars)
|
From page 162... ...
E-3 Metropolitan-Level Models Project-Level Models Indicator Geographic Level Date Range Source Indicator Considered Observed Effect Considered Observed Effect (incl. endogenous vars)
|
From page 163... ...
E-4 Metropolitan-Level Models Project-Level Models Indicator Geographic Level Date Range Source Indicator Considered Observed Effect Considered Observed Effect (incl. endogenous vars)
|
From page 164... ...
E-5 Metropolitan-Level Models Project-Level Models Indicator Geographic Level Date Range Source Indicator Considered Observed Effect Considered Observed Effect (incl. endogenous vars)
|
From page 165... ...
E-6 Metropolitan-Level Models Project-Level Models Indicator Geographic Level Date Range Source Indicator Considered Observed Effect Considered Observed Effect (incl. endogenous vars)
|
From page 166... ...
E-7 Metropolitan-Level Models Project-Level Models Indicator Geographic Level Date Range Source Indicator Considered Observed Effect Considered Observed Effect (incl. endogenous vars)
|
From page 167... ...
E-8 Metropolitan-Level Models Project-Level Models Indicator Geographic Level Date Range Source Indicator Considered Observed Effect Considered Observed Effect (incl. endogenous vars)
|
From page 168... ...
E-9 Metropolitan-Level Models Project-Level Models Indicator Geographic Level Date Range Source Indicator Considered Observed Effect Considered Observed Effect (incl. endogenous vars)
|
From page 169... ...
E-10 Metropolitan-Level Models Project-Level Models Indicator Geographic Level Date Range Source Indicator Considered Observed Effect Considered Observed Effect (incl. endogenous vars)
|
From page 170... ...
E-11 Metropolitan-Level Models Project-Level Models Indicator Geographic Level Date Range Source Indicator Considered Observed Effect Considered Observed Effect (incl. endogenous vars)
|
From page 171... ...
E-12 Metropolitan-Level Models Project-Level Models Indicator Geographic Level Date Range Source Indicator Considered Observed Effect Considered Observed Effect (incl. endogenous vars)
|
From page 172... ...
E-13 Metropolitan-Level Models Project-Level Models Indicator Geographic Level Date Range Source Indicator Considered Observed Effect Considered Observed Effect (incl. endogenous vars)
|
From page 173... ...
E-14 Metropolitan-Level Models Project-Level Models Indicator Geographic Level Date Range Source Indicator Considered Observed Effect Considered Observed Effect (incl. endogenous vars)
|
From page 174... ...
E-15 Metropolitan-Level Models Project-Level Models Indicator Geographic Level Date Range Source Indicator Considered Observed Effect Considered Observed Effect (incl. endogenous vars)
|
From page 175... ...
E-16 Metropolitan-Level Models Project-Level Models Indicator Geographic Level Date Range Source Indicator Considered Observed Effect Considered Observed Effect (incl. endogenous vars)
|
From page 176... ...
E-17 Metropolitan-Level Models Project-Level Models Indicator Geographic Level Date Range Source Indicator Considered Observed Effect Considered Observed Effect (incl. endogenous vars)
|
From page 177... ...
E-18 Metropolitan-Level Models Project-Level Models Indicator Geographic Level Date Range Source Indicator Considered Observed Effect Considered Observed Effect (incl. endogenous vars)
|
From page 178... ...
E-19 Metropolitan-Level Models Project-Level Models Indicator Geographic Level Date Range Source Indicator Considered Observed Effect Considered Observed Effect (incl. endogenous vars)
|
From page 179... ...
F-1 APPENDIX F: Fixed-Guideway Projects Included in Analysis State City Project Name Mode Type Opening Year Routemiles Avg Daily Wkdy Ridership Capital Cost (M$2009) Staon-Area Employment StaonArea Populaon Daily CBD Parking AZ Phoenix Metro Light Rail LRT Ini al 2008 20 40,772 1,231 187,816 74,135 5 CA Los Angeles Long Beach Blue Line LRT Ini al 1990 45 79,349 1,658 185,178 180,511 15 CA Los Angeles Green Line LRT Expansion 1995 20 30,935 1,225 66,818 74,088 15 CA Los Angeles Pasadena Gold Line LRT Expansion 2003 14 23,681 1,022 102,982 105,065 15 CA Los Angeles Red Line (Segment 1)
|
From page 180... ...
F-2 State City Project Name Mode Type Opening Year Routemiles Avg Daily Wkdy Ridership Capital Cost (M$2009) Staon-Area Employment StaonArea Populaon Daily CBD Parking CA San Jose Tasman West LRT Expansion 1999 8 1,977 416 38,728 15,101 14 CA San Jose Tasman East LRT Expansion 2001 5 3,340 335 17,452 20,494 14 CA San Jose VTA Capitol Segment LRT Extension 2004 3 2,385 205 4,819 29,645 14 CA San Jose VTA Vasona Segment LRT Expansion 2005 5 3,848 374 29,902 38,766 14 CO Denver Central Corridor LRT Inial 1994 5 36,403 161 96,104 25,269 13 CO Denver Denver Southwest Corridor LRT Extension 1999 9 8,728 228 16,780 9,893 13 CO Denver Denver Southeast (T-REX)
|
From page 181... ...
F-3 State City Project Name Mode Type Opening Year Routemiles Avg Daily Wkdy Ridership Capital Cost (M$2009) Staon-Area Employment StaonArea Populaon Daily CBD Parking OR Portland Portland MAX Segment I LRT Ini al 1986 15 60,229 508 116,225 63,679 9 OR Portland Portland Westside/Hillsboro MAX LRT Extension 1996 18 34,223 1,320 64,900 54,053 9 OR Portland Portland Airport MAX LRT Expansion 2001 6 3,005 156 5,319 3,108 9 OR Portland Portland Interstate MAX LRT LRT Expansion 2004 6 7,992 333 16,343 18,279 9 PA Philadelphia SEPTA Frankford Rehabilita on HRT Enhancement 2005 5 45,103 1,186 24,336 110,510 24 TX Dallas S&W Oak Cliff and Park Lane LRT Extension 1997 20 46,713 1,137 145,557 68,864 6 TX Dallas North Central LRT Extension 2002 13 12,304 450 57,228 20,750 6 UT Salt Lake City North-South Corridor LRT Ini al 1998 15 31,405 412 74,476 27,619 12 UT Salt Lake City Medical Center Ext.
|
From page 182... ...
G-1 APPENDIX G: Model Technical Information The project-level ridership models were executed in Stata using the regress command. The coefficients were estimated using ordinary least squares and robust errors to account for clustering across metropolitan areas.
|
From page 183... ...
H-1 APPENDIX H: Focus Groups, Phase 2, Topic Responses The sections below provide more detail on responses to the following questions: • Would a spreadsheet tool as proposed be useful to you? In what circumstances might you use it?
|
From page 184... ...
H-2 conversations with local governments about station-area development plans/policies. A second small transit agency interviewee called the tool "just what we need." Another interviewee, from a large MPO, saw utility for scenario planning and noted that the regional model could not be used for everything.
|
From page 185... ...
H-3 Question: How can we make the handbook most useful to practitioners? The HGAC focus group said that their confidence in the tool's results would be greater if the handbook explained the inner workings of the spreadsheet tool and how it was validated.
|
From page 186... ...
I-1 I.1 South Line (Charlotte, NC) The South Line, now called the LYNX Blue Line, is a 9.6-mile, 15-station light rail project extending south from Uptown Charlotte (the city's central business district)
|
From page 187... ...
I-2 development with wedges of low-density single-family housing in between. In 1998, Mecklenburg County residents voted for a half-cent sales tax measure that was dedicated to implementing the region's 2025: Integrated Transportation and Land Use Plan (FTA and CATS 2003)
|
From page 188... ...
I-3 Though the South Corridor remains the only operating rail transit segment in Charlotte, a $1.2 billion extension of the South Corridor recently received federal funding and will double the extent of the rail system upon opening in 2017 (Spanberg 2012)
|
From page 189... ...
I-4 to decisions that undermined the quality of the South Corridor and contributed to its costly retrofit as the Blue Line is extended to northeast Charlotte. The selection of the South Corridor as Charlotte's first rail investment over the four other corridor options identified in the Centers and Corridors Concept Plan could be interpreted as a choice that optimally met the diverse interests of three stakeholder local departments -- CDOT, CATS, and Planning -- by addressing traffic concerns, selecting a viable route from a cost perspective, and aiding land use change.
|
From page 190... ...
I-5 In 1997, the City of Charlotte purchased 3.3 miles of disused rail property to preserve for future transit use.18 In 1998, the city council allocated $16.7 million to build along it a two-mile trolley line from Uptown Charlotte to Charlotte's Historic South End.19 It was intended to accommodate vintage trolley services and serve as a capital "down payment" on eventual light rail transit services. The Charlotte Trolley operation was embraced by the community and delineated a clear path forward for expanded rail services.
|
From page 191... ...
I-6 we did things which I think are pretty unique for transit agencies. We met [with the other departments]
|
From page 192... ...
I-7 The entire alignment was even shifted off the existing right-of-way in one circumstance to accommodate real estate development near a proposed station. Scallybark station and several hundred yards of track were located in the median of South Boulevard to provide access to land that was considered ripe for development by urban planners.
|
From page 193... ...
I-8 track ballast quality. As one planner put it, "We ended up coming up with a [plan]
|
From page 194... ...
I-9 mayor, a county commissioner, and the new chief executive of the transit agency.48 The mayor and county commissioner were from different political parties and took turns touting the project depending on the audience at their joint appearances.49 The mayor's focus was making sure the project was "driven by data, technical information, [and] the ability to really build our community.
|
From page 195... ...
I-10 I.2 North Central Corridor (Dallas, TX) The North Central Corridor, completed in 2002, is a rail extension of the original DART light rail starter system that opened in 1996.
|
From page 196... ...
I-11 In 1991, the Richardson Transit Center opened for bus park-and-ride and bus transfer operations.61 It would later become the Arapaho Center Station on the North Central Red Line. In 1992, the East Plano Transit Center opened just north of downtown Plano.
|
From page 197... ...
I-12 Figure I-2: Route Diagram for DART North Central Corridor, Dallas, Texas I.2.2 North Central Operations The North Central Corridor project is an extension to the DART Starter System. It connects to the system at Park Lane Station, two stations north of Mockingbird Station where the Blue Line splits with the Red Line to head northeast to Garland, TX.
|
From page 198... ...
I-13 approximately 20-minute headways. During the peak, the North Central Corridor service between downtown Dallas and Plano operates at an effective headway of 7.5 minutes due to the overlapping Orange Line and Red Line services.
|
From page 199... ...
I-14 The freight rail corridor paralleled U.S. Highway 75, which was high volume and over capacity.
|
From page 200... ...
I-15 to the rail corridor.79 Transit planners did not consider wading into the politics of advocating for station locations near Texas Instruments largely because their campuses were auto-oriented and were considered unlikely to generate ridership. Though DART planners did not explicitly measure the density of the projects at the time, they tacitly considered campus-style technology offices a low-density use that -- per their understanding of research on the topic of density and rail transit -- would not support light rail service.80 In spite of arguments to the contrary, the line was considered a park-and-ride-accessed facility for downtown office workers and only modestly as a service upgrade for transit-dependent bus riders.81 Station locations were set in the very earliest plans based largely on where the line intersected with major East-West arterial roadways and where physical geometries allowed for long linear station platforms.82 Such locations were typically strip commercial or light industrial uses that had coexisted with freight rail operations.
|
From page 201... ...
I-16 marketplace.89 Rail transit is also considered a prerequisite for being classified as a global city and the Dallas region has focused on its ability to build DART's light rail infrastructure when other Texas cities have failed to do so.90 Irrespective of ridership, Texas political leaders proudly focus on the fact that DART operates the longest light rail system in the country.91 Also irrespective of performance, DART and its regional partners are proud to be in the process of connecting their system to both of the region's major passenger airports.92 It would seem that in the eyes of many Dallas stakeholders the most important measure of success for the North Central Corridor extension -- and any other DART projects -- is that rail transit was ever built in unabashedly automobile-centric Dallas, Texas. I.2.4 Commuter Rail Insights – Trinity Railway Express The Dallas-Fort Worth region is also home to the successful Trinity Railway Express (TRE)
|
From page 202... ...
I-17 the longer, two-ended route could generate. The project benefited from having major downtown business districts at both ends of the line because bi-directional traffic could be generated.
|
From page 203... ...
I-18 I.3 EmX Phase I Bus Rapid Transit (Lane County, Oregon) The EmX Phase I project is a four-mile, 10-station bus rapid transit (BRT)
|
From page 204... ...
I-19 region's designated growth nodes was adopted in the long-range transport plan by Eugene, Springfield, Lane County, and LTD. The 2011 regional transport plan includes 61 miles of BRT in its fiscally constrained long-range project list (Central Lane MPO 2011)
|
From page 205... ...
I-20 observations greatly surpassed this prediction, with ridership hitting 6,600 per weekday by October of 2008. That year EmX reached a single-day ridership record of over 8,000 riders.109 Ridership declined by approximately 10% after proof of payment was required on the EmX route in September 2009, but it has since recovered.110 Service was provided free of charge until an offboard payment technology could be implemented (a larger order of fare collection machines was planned as part of the expansion of EmX services into north Springfield with the Gateway extension project)
|
From page 206... ...
I-21 that any enhanced bus corridor would be ready for conversion to light rail if demand supported the conversion. Advocates of bus focused their arguments against light rail on total cost and investment efficiency.
|
From page 207... ...
I-22 capacity constraints, ultimately led to the diminution of the project from the proposed 11 miles to the "backbone" four-mile segment between the two existing transit hubs. Once the four-mile alignment was selected, few alternatives were compared because it was an established route with existing bus stops located at critical intersections.126 The route was modified in only one instance, where Walnut Station was adjusted one block from the bus stop's original location to be adjacent to a vacant auto dealership and a former Oregon Department of Transportation yard that were both slated for redevelopment.
|
From page 208... ...
I-23 planner put it, "Operations cost are more important locally than capital costs. Operating burden is local and capital cost burden is partially taken on by [the state and federal governments]
|
From page 209... ...
I-24 I.4 Interstate MAX (Portland, OR) The Portland, Oregon, region, the 23rd most populous metropolitan area in the United States, operates a 50-mile MAX light rail system that was envied by several of our interviewees from much larger regions.
|
From page 210... ...
I-25 The FTA had already approved Metro's request to undertake alternatives analysis on the South/North Corridor in 1993, and light rail was selected as the locally preferred alternative in December of 1994 (Metro 1998)
|
From page 211... ...
I-26 majority of trains operate the full length of the current line, from Portland State University on the south side of downtown to the Expo Center terminus in North Portland. TriMet's planning model (run in 2000)
|
From page 212... ...
I-27 considerations for station locations focused on serving these centers and also aligning transfer points for bus patrons on cross-town routes along major East-West thoroughfares.148 Between downtown Portland and the Columbia River, both the South/North corridor and Interstate MAX projects were planned in two segments. One segment consisted of track from the Banfield project's existing downtown rail right-of-way to the Kaiser Hospital campus just northwest of the Interstate 5/Interstate 405 interchange.
|
From page 213... ...
I-28 Figure I-6: Segment 8: Kaiser to Expo Center149 As of 1994 evaluations, comparative characteristics of the two alignments suggest that the I-5 alternative was to be cheaper, faster, have higher ridership, and have fewer nuisance impacts on the neighborhood than the Interstate Avenue alignment. Table I-1: Summary Characteristics of Proposed Alignments (PMG 1998)
|
From page 214... ...
I-29 related to the shorter travel time along the I-5 route (two minutes shorter) that would make the service more attractive to Clark County, WA, residents as a commute alternative to downtown Portland.
|
From page 215... ...
I-30 it an attractive and a comfortable space for your daughter who is 16 years old? " While the region's ridership models did not account for perceived safety, planners had learned from experience on the Banfield line, Portland's first light rail line, that platform safety was a critical issue for light rail operations.
|
From page 216... ...
I-31 Business leaders formally requested a segment be built between downtown Portland and the Expo Center in March 1999 (City of Portland 1991)
|
From page 217... ...
I-32 transit operations along the Interstate Avenue alignment. That said, the changes allowed the transit project to be built where the community wanted it, without displacements, and within the available budget.
|
From page 218... ...
I-33 The project was envisioned and advocated by stakeholders in the western part of the Portland region.162 Due to low anticipated ridership relative to cost and alternative regional projects, the project was not initially supported by either the regional MPO or the rail transit agency.163 Before models were even run, Oregon Metro argued against the line because of the extremely low housing densities near the right-of-way. Regional funding equity drove the decision to move forward with planning and a downsizing of the project made it a justifiable investment.
|
From page 219... ...
I-34 I.5 University & Medical Center Extensions (Salt Lake City, UT) The 3.8-mile, seven-station extension of the Salt Lake City, Utah, TRAX light rail system connects the original starter line in downtown Salt Lake City to the University of Utah campus to the east.
|
From page 220... ...
I-35 Opened in December 1999, the 15-mile starter line from downtown Salt Lake City south to Sandy Civic Center was paid for largely from Interstate 15 reconstruction funds reallocated to the project soon after the Winter Olympic announcement.170 Ridership on the initial line quickly surpassed projections, and voters passed a quarter-cent sales tax to fund future transit expansion in November 2000, particularly the "West-East Line." Due to federal funding limitations and time constraints related to the 2002 Winter Olympics, the West-East Line was divided into four separate segments in 1999: the Airport Extension, the Downtown Loop, the University Line, and the Medical Center Extension of the University Line (FTA 2007)
|
From page 221... ...
I-36 branching to the west at Fashion Place West along the more recently opened Mid-Jordan extension to Daybreak Parkway. The Red Line runs seven days a week, from roughly 5AM to 12AM Monday through Saturday and from 9:30 a.m.
|
From page 222... ...
I-37 only to downtown Salt Lake City.175 Of particular interest to Utah planners in the early 1990s, the proposed line passed several Olympic venues located in downtown Salt Lake City and on the University of Utah campus, and 47% of Olympic lodging was located within the West-East Corridor. (Parsons 1999)
|
From page 223... ...
I-38 Future land use changes were also a consideration when planners evaluated which alignment they would recommend for the connection between downtown and the University of Utah. Planners generally evaluated potential land use changes based on local land use policies, but did not attempt to quantify the scale of real estate development that might have occurred because of the transit project (PBQ&D 1994)
|
From page 224... ...
I-39 employment and roadway capacity would not keep pace (Parsons 1999)
|
From page 225... ...
I-40 Interviewees believed the success of the FrontRunner service is its centrality in the valley, competitive travel times, and high frequency.191 The route is aligned with the long, linearlyconstrained valley geography that has defined the region's urban growth. The rails parallel an Interstate corridor.
|
From page 226... ...
I-41 I.6 Branch Avenue Extension (Washington, DC, Prince George's County, MD) The Washington, D.C., region, including the District of Columbia and parts of the states of Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia, is served by multiple modes of fixed-guideway transit.
|
From page 227... ...
I-42 was one of several segments considered worthy of further study and scheduled to be among the last segments constructed (WMATA 1993)
|
From page 228... ...
I-43 Post 1/25/01)
|
From page 229... ...
I-44 automobile. Surface park-and-ride facilities at each of the outlying stations were sized to accommodate 500 or 1,000 stalls according to the earliest plans (U.S.
|
From page 230... ...
I-45 alignment was proposed that followed the Rosecroft proposal for half its distance and then turned northeastward along Southern Avenue (the border between the District of Columbia and Maryland) to Suitland Parkway where the route followed the original Branch Avenue alignment to its terminus at Branch Avenue Station (S-Curve alignment)
|
From page 231... ...
I-46 Figure I-9: Alternative Alignments (Easternmost Infeasible Because of Navy Yard Station Location)
|
From page 232... ...
I-47 Among all of the issues discussed during the process, one could argue that the environmental and historical impacts were the most influential.212 The impacts on Navy Yard's historical structures, in addition to the environmental cleanup required at several sites within Navy Yard, were the impetus for discussing alignments outside of that defined by the 1967 plan. Later, when a toxic ash dump was found in the path of construction at the Elizabeth Hospital facility and when local environmental advocates became vocal about impacts to creeks, including Oxen Run Creek, the route was quickly altered again.
|
From page 233... ...
I-48 number of business and institutional takings, an important differentiator between the alternatives was the number of residential units that would be demolished. While other alignments would have required takings of greater acreage (including existing public parkland)
|
From page 234... ...
I-49 While early ridership estimates had been based on census track-level data and yielded very distinct ridership estimates, subsequent refinements contributed to model outputs that suggested the alternatives would experience similar ridership demand.223 Travel isochrones overlaid on detailed maps depicting individual single-family homes were used to recalculate the number of residents within stations' service areas. When input into the models, this impacted the Rosecroft alternative because of the limited roadway infrastructure that existed in the area.
|
From page 235... ...
I-50 Green Line from L'Enfant Plaza (the intersection with the Yellow/Blue Line) to Anacostia in 1985.
|
From page 236... ...
I-51 I.7 Regional Contexts The following section provides brief overviews of the regional contexts of each case study. I.7.1 Charlotte Region The Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA had an estimated 2011 population of 1.8 million.226 The region includes five counties in North Carolina and one in South Carolina, and covers almost 3,200 square miles.
|
From page 237... ...
I-52 GDP$232 and its 2011 population was estimated to be 6.56 million. The Dallas-Fort WorthArlington MSA contained 2,968,500 jobs in April 2012.233 The MSA includes the Dallas-PlanoIrving and Fort Worth-Arlington Metropolitan divisions and the Dallas-Plano-Irving MD contains 70% of the areas workforce.
|
From page 238... ...
I-53 Eugene and Springfield, the MSA's two primary cities, are located on opposite sides of the Willamette River, in the southernmost corner of the valley, surrounded by mountains on three sides. The centers of the two cities are separated by only four miles.
|
From page 239... ...
I-54 highways. Portland was the first American city to tear down an existing limited access freeway when, in 1974, Harbor Drive was demolished and replaced with a park, reconnecting the central business district with the riverfront.
|
From page 240... ...
I-55 Public transportation in the Salt Lake City region is provided by the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) , which operates bus, light rail and commuter rail routes throughout the entire region.
|
From page 241... ...
I-56 The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) is the region's dominant transit provider.
|
From page 242... ...
J-1 APPENDIX J: Data Sources A ribute Source Provider Measure / Predictor Year Coverage Smallest Unit 1. Costs 1a.
|
From page 243... ...
J-2 A ribute Source Provider Measure / Predictor Year Coverage Smallest Unit Na onal Transporta on Atlas Database (NTAD)
|
From page 244... ...
J-3 A ribute Source Provider Measure / Predictor Year Coverage Smallest Unit Public Transportaon Factbook (PTFB) American Public Transportaon Associaon (APTA)
|
From page 245... ...
J-4 A ribute Source Provider Measure / Predictor Year Coverage Smallest Unit American Community Survey (ACS)
|
From page 246... ...
J-5 A ribute Source Provider Measure / Predictor Year Coverage Smallest Unit 3c. Socioeconomic Diversity TOD Database Center for Transit-Oriented Development; Center for Neighborhood Technology Includes demographic informaon near transit staons 2000 (employment 20022008)
|
From page 247... ...
J-6 A ribute Source Provider Measure / Predictor Year Coverage Smallest Unit Na onal Dataset for Loca on Sustainability and Urban Form (5Ds & SLIs) Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University Accessibility measures for auto and transit travel 2009 Na onal Census Block Group Census Transporta on Planning Package (CTPP)
|
From page 248... ...
J-7 A ribute Source Provider Measure / Predictor Year Coverage Smallest Unit ESRI Updated Demographics ESRI Up-to-date demographic and household economic condion esmates Updated annually Naonal Census Block Group 5. Intermodal Characteriscs 5a.
|
From page 249... ...
J-8 A ribute Source Provider Measure / Predictor Year Coverage Smallest Unit Na onal Transporta on Atlas Database (NTAD)
|
From page 250... ...
J-9 A ribute Source Provider Measure / Predictor Year Coverage Smallest Unit 8. Urban Design 8a.
|
From page 251... ...
J-10 A ribute Source Provider Measure / Predictor Year Coverage Smallest Unit 9b. Business Locaon TOD Database Center for Transit-Oriented Development, Center for Neighborhood Technology Employment indicates business acvity near transit staons 2000 (employment 20022008)
|
From page 252... ...
J-11 A ribute Source Provider Measure / Predictor Year Coverage Smallest Unit 9d. Property Transacon RealQuest Professional The FirstAmerica CoreLogic All property transacon prices and other aributes Long-term (custom order)
|
From page 253... ...
Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.