1 / 19

TCRP H-36 Reinventing the Interstate: A New ‘Paradigm’ for Multimodal Transportation Facilities

TCRP H-36 Reinventing the Interstate: A New ‘Paradigm’ for Multimodal Transportation Facilities. MICM Workshop Christopher Ferrell, Ph.D. Dowling Associates, Inc. Key Study Issues. Previous Research Has Established: Factors  Successful Transit Factors  Successful Highways

dennis
Download Presentation

TCRP H-36 Reinventing the Interstate: A New ‘Paradigm’ for Multimodal Transportation Facilities

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. TCRP H-36Reinventing the Interstate: A New ‘Paradigm’ for Multimodal Transportation Facilities MICM Workshop Christopher Ferrell, Ph.D. Dowling Associates, Inc.

  2. Key Study Issues • Previous Research Has Established: • Factors  Successful Transit • Factors  Successful Highways • Factors  Successful Multimodal Highway Corridors? • Study Goal: Develop “New Paradigm”! • Develop Multidisciplinary Approach

  3. “New Paradigm” Definition • Multimodal Facilities = Highways + Transit + Pedestrians + Bicycles • Corridor = Multimodal Facilities + Surrounding Land Uses • Multimodal Corridor “New Paradigm” = Optimized Combinations of Multimodal Facilities & Land Uses

  4. What Factors Influence Optimal Corridor Performance? • Transportation Facility & Alignment Factors • Modes Available • Facility Design Characteristics • Station & Corridor Factors • Land Use • Urban Design • Socio-Demographics

  5. Highways & Transit: Different Systems, Different Needs • How do we integrate non-auto modes into a highway environment? • How do we manage & mitigate conflicts between modes and factors?

  6. Facility Design & Alignment Opportunities • Highway design: • interchanges • ramps • lanes • grade/geometrics • Transit facility type and design: • Modes: • BRT, LRT, HRT, Commuter • Transit alignment choices: • median-running • side-running • elevated • tunnel • Transit station placement

  7. Facility Design & Alignment Constraints • Grade: • Max grade urban freeway ~ 6% • Max grade heavy rail ~ 4% • Available highway R.O.W (Width) • R.O.W. obstructions • Bridge placement and design • Tunnel placement and design

  8. Station vs. Corridor-Level Factors • Corridor-Level: • Accessible Destinations • Jobs/Housing Balance • Coordinated Parking • Pricing • Supply • Growth Controls • Station-Level: • The “4 Ds” • Density • Diversity • Design • Distance • Ramp Placement • Parking • Pricing • Supply

  9. Auto vs. Transit-Oriented Corridors Transit-Oriented Objective: Max. Non-Auto Access to Transit & Activity Centers Auto-Oriented Objective: Max. Auto Access to Individual Land Uses Corridor Continuum Multimodal Corridor Continuum Multimodal Transit-Oriented Objective: Emphasize Non-Auto Access to Transit Stations & Activity Centers Multimodal Auto-Oriented Objective: Emphasize Auto Access to Employment Centers & Transit Stations

  10. Auto vs. Transit-Oriented Multimodal Corridors Multimodal Transit-Oriented Multimodal Auto-Oriented Station-Level Factors • High Density • High Diversity (Mixed-Use) • Design (Pedestrian Scale) • Distance (Short Walk) • Ramps Far from Stations • Parking • Pricing • Supply (Min. Spaces & Park & Ride) Station-Level Factors • Low Density • Low Diversity (Separated Uses) • Design (Max. Auto Flow) • Distance (Short Drive) • Ramps Near Stations • Parking • Pricing • Supply (Max. Spaces & Park & Ride) Corridor-Level Factors • Clustered Employment • Low/Medium Density Residential Dispersed from Key Stations • Jobs/Housing Imbalance (Serve CBD) Corridor-Level Factors • Clustered Destinations • Jobs/Housing Balance • Coordinated Parking • Pricing • Supply • Growth Controls

  11. Corridor Typology

  12. Identifying Successful (and Unsuccessful) Multimodal Highway Corridors & Stations • S.F Bay Area’s Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Line • Denver Metro’s T-REX Corridor

  13. Transit-Oriented Multimodal Corridor Example: Rockridge BART • Notable Characteristics: • Elevated Tracks & Freeway • Vibrant Neighborhood Commercial Area • Park & Ride Lots Tucked Under Freeway • Pedestrian-Friendly Underpass: • Landscaping Masks Parking Lot • Artwork/Murals

  14. Auto-Oriented Multimodal Corridor Examples: Denver’s T-REX • Notable Characteristics: • Side-of-Freeway Alignment • Stations Often at Interchanges • Park & Ride Lots

  15. Multimodal Transit-Oriented Corridors (MTOCs): Dispersed Ramps = Dispersed Traffic

  16. Multimodal Auto-Oriented Corridors (MAOCs): Concentrated Ramps = Concentrated Traffic

  17. Multimodal Auto-Oriented Corridors (MAOCs): Denver’s T-REX Close-Up • Auto Access Priority • Ramps Close to Station • Park & Ride Lot Adjacent to Station • Few Ped-Oriented Land Use Opportunities

  18. Multimodal Transit-Oriented Corridors (MTOCs): BART’s Rockridge Close-Up

  19. Key Stakeholder Issues Questions • Multidisciplinary Approach is Required • Identify Needs of Key Stakeholders • Barriers to Developing Multimodal Corridor Systems • Useful Knowledge/Practice • Analytical Tools Development • Developing Political Support • Opportunities & Constraints for Partnerships • “Weaving” the Expertise of Organizations Together • Identification of Core Competencies • Desired Institutional Changes/Reform • Educational/Marketing Materials

More Related