Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors (2011)

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.

TRANSPORTAT ION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2011 www.TRB.org T R A N S I T C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M TCRP REPORT 145 Research sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration in cooperation with the Transit Development Corporation Subscriber Categories Administration and Management • Public Transportation Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors Christopher E. Ferrell Michael Carroll Bruce Appleyard David Reinke Senanu Ashiabor Richard Dowling DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC. Oakland, CA Herbert S. Levinson Wallingford, CT Elizabeth Deakin Berkeley, CA Robert Cervero Berkeley, CA

TCRP REPORT 145 Project H-36 ISSN 1073-4872 ISBN 978-0-309-21318-9 Library of Congress Control Number 2011928182 © 2011 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the Transit Cooperative Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The members of the technical panel selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the Transit Cooperative Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM The nation’s growth and the need to meet mobility, environmental, and energy objectives place demands on public transit systems. Current systems, some of which are old and in need of upgrading, must expand service area, increase service frequency, and improve efficiency to serve these demands. Research is necessary to solve operating problems, to adapt appropriate new technologies from other industries, and to intro- duce innovations into the transit industry. The Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) serves as one of the principal means by which the transit industry can develop innovative near-term solutions to meet demands placed on it. The need for TCRP was originally identified in TRB Special Report 213—Research for Public Transit: New Directions, published in 1987 and based on a study sponsored by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration—now the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). A report by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), Transportation 2000, also recognized the need for local, problem- solving research. TCRP, modeled after the longstanding and success- ful National Cooperative Highway Research Program, undertakes research and other technical activities in response to the needs of tran- sit service providers. The scope of TCRP includes a variety of transit research fields including planning, service configuration, equipment, facilities, operations, human resources, maintenance, policy, and administrative practices. TCRP was established under FTA sponsorship in July 1992. Pro- posed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, TCRP was autho- rized as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). On May 13, 1992, a memorandum agreement out- lining TCRP operating procedures was executed by the three cooper- ating organizations: FTA, the National Academies, acting through the Transportation Research Board (TRB); and the Transit Development Corporation, Inc. (TDC), a nonprofit educational and research orga- nization established by APTA. TDC is responsible for forming the independent governing board, designated as the TCRP Oversight and Project Selection (TOPS) Committee. Research problem statements for TCRP are solicited periodically but may be submitted to TRB by anyone at any time. It is the responsibility of the TOPS Committee to formulate the research program by identi- fying the highest priority projects. As part of the evaluation, the TOPS Committee defines funding levels and expected products. Once selected, each project is assigned to an expert panel, appointed by the Transportation Research Board. The panels prepare project state- ments (requests for proposals), select contractors, and provide techni- cal guidance and counsel throughout the life of the project. The process for developing research problem statements and selecting research agencies has been used by TRB in managing cooperative research pro- grams since 1962. As in other TRB activities, TCRP project panels serve voluntarily without compensation. Because research cannot have the desired impact if products fail to reach the intended audience, special emphasis is placed on dissemi- nating TCRP results to the intended end users of the research: tran- sit agencies, service providers, and suppliers. TRB provides a series of research reports, syntheses of transit practice, and other support- ing material developed by TCRP research. APTA will arrange for workshops, training aids, field visits, and other activities to ensure that results are implemented by urban and rural transit industry practitioners. The TCRP provides a forum where transit agencies can cooperatively address common operational problems. The TCRP results support and complement other ongoing transit research and training programs. Published reports of the TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet at http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transporta- tion Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individu- als interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

CRP STAFF FOR TCRP REPORT 145 Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Crawford F. Jencks, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs Dianne Schwager, Senior Program Officer Jeffrey Oser, Senior Program Assistant Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Hilary Freer, Senior Editor TCRP PROJECT H-36 PANEL Field of Policy and Planning Jerome M. Lutin, Holland, PA (Chair) Edward A. Beimborn, University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI A. Ray Chamberlain, Fort Collins, CO David Fogel, Metropolitan Transportation Authority—Metro-North Railroad, New York, NY Susan Mary Harrington, California DOT, Sacramento, CA Todd Hemingson, Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, TX Carol L. Ketcherside, Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority, Phoenix, AZ James M. Ritchey, Jr., Georgia Regional Transportation Authority, Atlanta, GA Robert “Bob” Romig, RPR Consulting Group, LLC, Tallahassee, FL Samuel N. Seskin, CH2M Hill, Portland, OR Jannet Thoms, First Data Corporation, Atlanta, GA Larry Warner, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Denver, CO Bruce Goldberg, FTA Liaison Robert Owens, FTA Liaison Spencer Stevens, FHWA Liaison Arthur L. Guzzetti, APTA Liaison Martine A. Micozzi, TRB Liaison Jennifer A. Rosales, TRB Liaison C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S

TCRP Report 145: Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors presents strategies for planning, designing, building, and operating multimodal corridors—freeways and high-capacity transit lines running parallel in the same travel corridors. This report will be of interest to urban and transportation planners and policy- makers in large urban areas. The objectives of this research were to (1) evaluate the potential for rehabilitating and reconstructing portions of interstate freeways and similar freeways in urbanized areas of the United States as multimodal transportation facilities and (2) develop strategies to plan and implement these facilities. These facilities might be better used, if the facilities offered pas- senger mobility by multiple modes and were better integrated into communities. The new paradigm emphasizes building transit lines and supporting pedestrian and bicycle facilities with the following goals: • Enhancing corridor transportation capacity and performance without adding freeway capacity, by building and operating transit lines (including bus rapid transit, light rail, heavy rail, and commuter rail); • Building and operating successful transit systems in multimodal corridors that attract high transit ridership and encourage livability and environmental sustainability; and • Transforming a corridor’s land uses and activities to a more transit-oriented pattern. As discussed in the research report, a new paradigm multimodal corridor would take one of three forms: • Transit-oriented multimodal corridors, which are designed to give transit a perfor- mance advantage in serving short- and medium-length trips, while the freeway is given a performance advantage for serving long-haul corridor trips. • Park-and-ride access multimodal corridors, which are designed to provide high levels of automobile access within, and high transit speeds through, the corridor. • Transit-optimized/freeway-constrained multimodal corridors, which are designed to give transit a performance advantage in the corridor by constraining the capacity and performance of the freeway. The new paradigm for multimodal corridors offers insights into how freeways and transit can be structured to effectively carve out travel market niches where modes can work together and thrive in a corridor. F O R E W O R D By Dianne Schwager Staff Officer Transportation Research Board

C O N T E N T S 1 Summary 10 Chapter 1 Multimodal Corridors—An Overview 10 Research Goals and Objectives 10 A New Paradigm for Building and Operating Multimodal Corridors 10 Our Deteriorating Interstates—The Opportunity 11 Freeways and Transit—Inherent Conflicts and Potential Solutions 12 What Is a Multimodal Corridor? 12 Why Build a Multimodal Corridor? 13 The Old Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors 13 A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors—Segmented Travel Markets 16 Conclusions: The Evolution of Multimodal Corridors Over Time 17 Chapter 2 The History of Multimodal Corridors 17 The Historical Evolution of Multimodal Corridors 21 A Brief History of Multimodal Project Funding 24 Conclusions: History as Context—History in Context 26 Chapter 3 Existing Multimodal Corridors—What Can We Learn from Them? 26 Types of New Paradigm Multimodal Corridors 31 Corridor Evolution 34 The Old and New Paradigms Compared 36 Chapter 4 Managing Multimodal Tradeoffs—Structuring Corridor Competition and Integration 36 Multimodal Corridor Design and Operational Tradeoffs 44 Summary and Conclusions 46 Chapter 5 The Design and Operational Characteristics of Success 46 Key Characteristics of New Paradigm Corridors 58 Summary and Conclusions 60 Chapter 6 The Institutional Landscape for Multimodal Corridors in the United States 60 New Institutional Relationships 70 Interagency and Intermodal Cooperation and Collaboration 73 Summary and Conclusions: How to Turn Stakeholders into New Paradigm Project Partners 74 Chapter 7 Lessons and Conclusions 74 Transit-Oriented Multimodal Corridors 74 Park-and-Ride-Access Multimodal Corridors 75 Transit-Optimized/Freeway-Constrained Multimodal Corridors

76 Appendix A Multimodal Corridors Table 79 Appendix B Evidence on the Patronage Impacts of Multimodal Corridors 97 Appendix C Applying Conventional Planning Concepts Toward a New Paradigm 107 Appendix D Existing Multimodal Corridor Case Studies 146 Appendix E Glossary of Terms Note: Many of the photographs, figures, and tables in this report have been converted from color to grayscale for printing. The electronic version of the report (posted on the Web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.