Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors (2011) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Summary
Summary
Pages 1-9
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 1... ...
• Building and operating successful transit systems in multimodal corridors that attract high transit ridership and encourage livability and environmental sustainability • Transforming a corridor's land uses and activities to a more transit-oriented pattern. The old paradigm developed transit lines to compete directly with their freeway neighbors for long-haul corridor trips and as a congestion reliever service.
|
From page 2... ...
Transit-oriented multimodal corridors focus on maximizing transit line access to corridor land uses via nonautomobile modes while discouraging automobile access. • Market Segmentation through Constrained Freeway Capacity: Although often politically unpalatable, some multimodal corridors have developed divided travel markets by constraining the capacity of the freeway.
|
From page 3... ...
First, a transitoriented corridor can be built where the transit line is given the design, operating characteristics, and surrounding land use patterns that will effectively carve out a near-exclusive corridor travel market. 3 Goals and Benefits Characteristics Old Paradigm New Paradigm Multimodal Goals Corridor Modal Focus Automobile Dominated Multimodal Coordination Supplementary Complementary Freeway Travel Markets Served Short- and Long-Haul Trips Long-Haul/Interurban Trips Transit Travel Markets Served Either Short- or Long-Haul Trips Short-Haul/Intraurban Trips Design Focus Vehicle Throughput Person Throughput Congestion Congestion Relief Reduced Automobile Use Travel Benefits Enhanced Mobility Enhanced Accessibility Freight Increased Capacity Long-Haul/Interurban Focus Environment Environmental Benefits Reduced Congestion-Caused Emissions Reduced Emissions through Mode Shift to Transit Land Use Automobile-Oriented Transit-Oriented Near Stations through Coordinated Corridor Land Use Controls and Policies Station Access Automobile Access Pedestrian/Transit Access Institutions and Planning Institutional Coordination Highway Department Lead Multimodal Agency Partnerships Planning Focus Responds to Forecasted Travel Demands Shapes Future Pop.
|
From page 4... ...
As discussed in the research report, a new paradigm multimodal corridor would take one of three forms: • Transit-oriented multimodal corridors are designed to give transit a performance 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 are designed to provide high levels of automobile access within, and high transit speeds through, the corridor.
|
From page 5... ...
Segment - Freeway dominates corridor travel - Automobile-oriented land uses Freeway-Only Corridor - Freeway dominates corridor travel - Transit as congestion reliever - Automobile-oriented land uses - Long int.
|
From page 6... ...
The following is a list of critical tradeoffs that describe and determine the relative success of a multimodal corridor: • Transit corridor accessibility versus operating speed • Freeway accessibility versus operating speed • Freeway capacity versus transit ridership • Transit-oriented versus automobile-oriented urban form • Local access versus intermodal transfer oriented stations • In-median and adjacent versus offset freeway alignment • Supplementary versus complementary transit and freeway service • Fixed versus flexible transit routing • Incremental versus concurrent corridor planning approaches Evidence on the Patronage Impacts of Multimodal Corridors When transit and freeways compete with each other, the old paradigm resigned transit to take second place, serving as the overflow service to the freeway during peak congestion periods and suffering from low ridership. But analysis of existing multimodal corridors suggests transit does not need to play this role.
|
From page 7... ...
• Limited parking supply and high cost of available parking within destination CBD • Radial metropolitan alignment with transit line serving more than one activity center along route • Transit-oriented land uses and urban design around stations • Stations located either adjacent or offset from freeway • Short station spacings • Long interchange spacings • Ramp touchdowns located far from stations • Station access: – Intermodal stations only at terminal corridor locations and major freeway-to-freeway interchanges – Community-oriented station access modes – "Green connector" paths leading to stations Park-and-ride access corridors: • At least one large activity center or anchor, usually a CBD with high levels of employment • Direct access to the city center and other major "anchors" (This likely involves leaving the freeway to penetrate these areas) • Limited and costly parking in the CBD • Effective transit distribution in the CBD, preferably off-street • Constrained freeway capacity such as lane drops, route convergence, and travel barriers • Wide station spacing that permits high transit speeds • Good access to stations on foot, by car, and/or by public transport; a limited number of freeway interchange ramps within walking distance of transit stations • A multimodal corridor that extends at least 10 miles and has at least eight residential "catchment" stations • Transit-supportive development in the environs of key stations • An interagency multimodal corridor overlay zone that can specify uses and densities and form guidelines and requirements Transit-optimized/freeway constrained corridors: • Freeway bottleneck (lane drop or other capacity constraint)
|
From page 8... ...
Physical or spatial constraints pose tangible limitations to the successful placement and operations of multimodal corridors. These include • Regional urban structure • Right-of-way and footprint constraints Institutional barriers hinder the development of multimodal facilities that may otherwise meet spatial and financial requirements for success.
|
From page 9... ...
land uses • Developing access points as coordinated and mode-segmented travel markets Table S-2 provides an overview of the differences in planning, design, and operational approaches between the old and new paradigms. 9 Characteristics Old Paradigm New Paradigm Motivations for Planning Reacting to economic growth and community and environmental impacts Proactive planning for economic, community, and environmental goals Setting Priorities Moving vehicles Moving people and freight Assessing Needs ♦ Capacity ♦ Throughput ♦ Travel time costs ♦ Reliability ♦ Reduced delay times ♦ Accessibility ♦ Business logistics ♦ Economic competitiveness Analysis Approaches Individual modes and facilities End-to-end trips focusing on multiple modes and the connections between them Planning Processes Emphasis on individual jurisdictions Balanced approach to meeting local, regional, state, and national transportation needs Table S-2.
|
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.