Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors (2011) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Appendix B - Evidence on the Patronage Impacts of Multimodal Corridors
Appendix B - Evidence on the Patronage Impacts of Multimodal Corridors
Pages 79-96
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 79... ...
They are • Multimodal corridor coordination • Transit-oriented corridor urban form • Transit-oriented station access • High transit operating speeds (where appropriate) • Constrained freeway capacity Although there are several ways to evaluate the patronage performance of multimodal corridors, the total patronage of both the transit and freeway facilities gives an indication of how well these two modes are working together as a multimodal system to facilitate travel along the corridor.
|
From page 80... ...
List of study multimodal corridors and key performance measures.
|
From page 81... ...
A linear regression line drawn on this graph indicates that if there is a statistically valid relationship between these variables, it is not linear. Multimodal Corridor Coordination Median Int = erchange Spacing Median Station Spacing− Additional exploratory analysis of these data showed that the relationship between multimodal coordination and corridor patronage is not linear.
|
From page 82... ...
24) were also excluded since their freeway capacity constraints give their transit lines an operational advantage that masks the benefits of complementary coordination.
|
From page 83... ...
If transit patronage success always came at the expense of freeway patronage, then we would expect to see increasing transit patronage as freeway patronage decreases. But while we see cases with large transit ridership values -- cases such as the Washington DC Orange Line, the Chicago Blue Line/ Kennedy Expressway, and San Francisco's Pittsburg/Bay Point Line corridors -- these cases do not have consistently lower freeway patronage levels.
|
From page 84... ...
These findings confirm expectations that high-capacity and high-speed transit lines attract more patronage, even in multimodal corridors. Clearly, freeways do not always make a corridor inhospitable to transit.
|
From page 85... ...
N W Sa c. N or th Li n e H ar bo r Tr a n si tw a y HRT HRT HRT HRT HRT HRT HRTLRT HRT HRT BRT BRT BRTLRT LRT LRT LRT LRTCR Multimodal Corridor D a ily T ra n si t P at ro n a ge HRT = Heavy Rail Transit LRT = Light Rail Transit CR = Commuter Rail BRT = Bus Rapid Transit Figure B-6.
|
From page 86... ...
Corridor Orientation and Transit Ridership The performance of a multimodal corridor's transit line also depends on its relationship to its surrounding environment. We refer to this transit-environment relationship as corridor orientation, comprised of two components: corridor urban form and corridor station access.
|
From page 87... ...
A combination of residential density, mixed uses, pedestrianoriented design, and a large CBD make this one of the most transit-oriented multimodal corridors in the United States. Table B-4 compares the urban form measures values for the Daly City Line corridor and the median values of the study corridors.
|
From page 88... ...
Analysis of Chicago's three multimodal corridors suggests that CBD size does not guarantee transit line ridership. Chicago's dominant CBD helps the Blue Line/Kennedy Expressway corridor to attract the second-largest number of transit riders of any multimodal corridor transit line studied, but does not help the Blue Line/Eisenhower Expressway corridor place in the top five.
|
From page 89... ...
Ridership/ Component Measure Study Median Value Denver T-REX Value Transit Line Ridership (Daily Boardings) 20,070 23,000 Corridor Transit Commuter Mode Share 15% 6% Density (DUs/Ac.)
|
From page 90... ...
While the Green Line's station areas have roughly 10 percent commuter mode share Ridership/ Component Measure Study Median Value Pittsburg-Bay Point Value Transit Line Ridership (Daily Boardings) 20,070 57,110 Corridor Transit Commuter Mode Share 15% 25% Density (DUs/Ac.)
|
From page 91... ...
Comparison of transit line patronage and corridor urban form for the Los Angeles Green Line and Harbor Transitway corridors. Theoretical Component Component Variable Freeway Ramps Impede Pedestrian Station Access but Enhance Automobile Access Number of Freeway Ramps that Touch Down within ¼-Mile of Stations per Corridor Station Freeway Facility Negative Externalities Average Distance from Corridor Stations to Freeway Facility Park-&-Ride Lots Impede Pedestrian Station Access but Enhance Automobile Access Average Number of Park-&-Ride Spaces per Corridor Station Bus Access to Stations Average Number of Bus Lines Serving Stations per Corridor Station Table B-9.
|
From page 92... ...
Figure B-10. Transit ridership is higher when there are fewer freeway ramps near stations.
|
From page 93... ...
Ridership/ Component Measure Study Median Value Eisenhower Value Transit Line Patronage (Daily Boardings) 23,500 24,000 Corridor Transit Commuter Mode Share 15% 24% Average Number of Ramps per Station 2.8 2.8 Station to Freeway Dist.
|
From page 94... ...
Ridership/Component Measure Study Median Value T-REX Value Transit Line Patronage (Daily Boardings) 23,500 23,000 Corridor Transit Commuter Mode Share 15% 6% Average Number of Ramps per Station 2.8 3.1 Station to Freeway Dist.
|
From page 95... ...
Based on our review and analysis of the case studies, the research team has identified the following desirable attributes for multimodal corridors: • Complementary multimodal coordination between transit and freeway facilities • Transit-oriented land development around key stations that is readily accessible from station platforms • At least one large activity center or anchor, usually a CBD with high levels of employment Ridership/ Component Measure Study Median Value Pittsburg-Bay Point Value Transit Line Patronage (Daily Boardings) 23,500 57,000 Corridor Transit Commuter Mode Share 15% 25% Average Number of Ramps per Station 2.8 2.5 Station to Freeway Dist.
|
From page 96... ...
While it appears that a multimodal corridor need not possess the best qualities and quantities of each of these factors to perform well, it seems that there are optimal combinations of these qualities that lead to superior performance. It is intriguing to consider an optimal multimodal corridor system that combines, for example, a capacity constrained freeway, a large CBD, transit-oriented corridor urban form and station access, and high transit operating speeds.
|
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.