Regional Transit Long-Range Plan Update
System Access Issue Paper (Draft)
401 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104-2826
Sys tem Acc ess Iss ue Pape r ( Dra ft)
Contents
1 Executive Summary --- 1
2 Long-Range Plan Update: System Access --- 3
2.1 Purpose of this issue paper --- 3
2.2 Issue paper overview --- 3
2.3 Long-Range Plan comments on system access --- 3
3 Existing Access-related Guidance --- 5
3.1 Sound Transit access policies, programs, guidelines, and standards --- 5
3.1.1 Sound Transit design criteria for passenger facilities --- 5
3.1.2 Sounder Stations Access Study report --- 8
3.2 Current system access development and funding --- 8
3.2.1 Park-and-ride facilities --- 8
3.2.2 Paratransit vehicle bays --- 9
3.2.3 Individuals with disabilities—self-driver --- 9
3.2.4 Pick-up and drop-off zones --- 9
3.2.5 Bus service --- 9
3.2.6 Pedestrian and bicycle access --- 10
3.2.7 Americans with Disabilities Act accessibility --- 10
3.3 Direction for access improvements --- 11
3.3.1 2005 Long-Range Plan and ST2 --- 11
3.3.2 Federal Transit Administration --- 11
3.3.3 Station typology --- 12
3.3.4 Consideration of access priority --- 13
3.4 Other access guidelines and studies—local and federal --- 13
4 Importance of Effective System Access --- 14
4.1 Park-and-ride efficiency --- 14
4.2 Local bus access --- 15
4.3 First and Last Mile conditions for pedestrians and bicycles --- 15
4.4 Rider pick-ups and drop-offs --- 16
4.5 Reducing the cost of access--- 16
5 How Transit Agencies Address Access --- 17
5.1 Station access planning tools --- 20
5.2 Mode of access data--- 20
5.3 Station typology --- 21
5.4 Access programs and funding of other transit systems --- 22
5.4.1 Bay Area Rapid Transit --- 22
5.4.2 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority --- 22
5.4.3 Denver Regional Transit District --- 22
5.4.4 Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon --- 22
ii | Octob er , 2 0 1 4
6 Future System Access Planning by Sound Transit --- 24
6.1 Recent access-related initiatives by Sound Transit --- 24
6.1.1 North Link, Northgate Pedestrian Bridge --- 24
6.1.2 South Link, Angle Lake Station, park-and-ride with future conversion --- 25
6.1.3 Lynnwood Link Extension station area walk/bike shed analysis --- 25
6.1.4 Parking pricing pilot project --- 26
6.1.5 Non-motorized connectivity analysis; evaluating pedestrian and bicycle access to transit --- 26
6.2 Mode of access priorities --- 27
6.3 Addressing access from planning through operations --- 28
6.3.1 Long-Range Plan --- 28
6.3.2 System planning --- 28
6.3.3 Corridor planning --- 31
6.3.4 Preliminary engineering --- 32
6.3.5 Final design --- 33
6.3.6 Built and Operating Stations --- 33
6.4 Funding mechanisms for delivery of access projects --- 34
6.4.1 Access improvement eligibility --- 35
7 Conclusions --- 37
7.1 Key conclusions --- 37
7.2 Potential access-related changes --- 38
8 References --- 40
Figures
Figure 1. Range of access modes by station typology --- 12Tables
Table 1. Summary of possible system access planning and programming --- 2Table 2. Summary of Sound Transit access policies, guidelines, and studies --- 6
Table 3. Simplified station access typology and characteristics --- 12
Table 4. Summary of current access guidelines and studies from other organizations --- 13
Table 5. Approaches to station access—highlights from TCRP case studies and additional follow-up --- 18
Table 6. Station location type and primary arrival modes --- 20
Table 7. Average station access mode share by station type --- 21
Table 8. Planning and design methodology for system access at key stages in project development --- 29
Sys tem Acc ess Iss ue Pape r ( Dra ft)
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act BART Bay Area Rapid Transit CIP capital improvement program EIS environmental impact statement FTA Federal Transit Administration GIS geographic information system HCT high-capacity transit
LRT light rail transit
MOU memorandum (or memoranda) of understanding PE/ED preliminary engineering/engineering design PSRC Puget Sound Regional Council
SDOT Seattle Department of Transportation
SEIS supplemental environmental impact statement SEPA Washington State Environmental Policy Act TCRP Transportation Cooperative Research Program TNC transportation network companies
TOD transit-oriented development TRB Transportation Research Board
TriMet Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation
Sys tem Acc ess Iss ue Pape r ( Dra ft)
1
Executive Summary
This issue paper presents information regarding system access and how Sound Transit’s planning and design efforts could better achieve the agency’s goals and objectives, including making cost-effective access
investments to attract ridership. Highlights from this issue paper and direction on potential changes for the 2014 Long-Range Plan Update are summarized in Table 1.
Development of high-capacity transit (HCT) in the central Puget Sound region will provide high-quality mobility options for residents, workers, and visitors. The success of public transportation can often be limited by poor access to the system; for example, “first and last mile” access by bicycling and walking, as well as access by local transit and private vehicles. More effective system access can help achieve key outcomes, such as attracting ridership, reducing the cost of access, achieving sustainability goals, and contributing to
community health.
An assessment of existing access-related guidance was carried out for this issue paper to determine oppor-tunities for improving access to Sound Transit’s HCT system. This assessment was based on Sound Transit’s current System AccessPolicy, past practices relating to access planning and design, and direction from design criteria and guidelines for Link, Sounder, and ST Express passenger facilities. The paper also includes an assessment of how access to the HCT system is funded. Typically, the access provided by park-and-ride facilities is budgeted as a capital investment programmed with the station, while access provided for relatively smaller pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access may be limited or difficult to define in early stages of project planning. Pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access items have typically been identified during the design of a station and within any roadways reconstructed with the station design, but not beyond. While park and ride access is crucial to many Sound Transit riders, an added focus on access by more sustainable modes including bicycling, walking and transit early in project planning has the potential to attract riders at a lower cost to many future transit stations.
Assessments of access improvements to attract HCT riders could be conducted at all stages of project planning and development and refined in more detailed engineering phases. Such analyses could be informed by station area typologies like those presented in this issue paper. These typologies recognize that HCT station areas differ in their land use, the street network, and the availability of local transit service.
Further information regarding possible approaches to future system access planning and design was based in part on the experience of other transit systems. Of particular importance to this issue paper is how mode of access by station typology could address access relative to local conditions. Such information also sets the stage for consideration of potential mode of access into the future as the region seeks to develop transit-supportive communities.
Page 2 | Octob er, 2 0 1 4
Table 1. Summary of possible system access planning and programming
No. Current approach Possible Improvements
1. Mode of access—Planning and programming of access improvements occurred for existing Sounder stations as part of ST2. Current design criteria and guidelines list priorities for providing convenience and directness of routing at a station. The priority for Link is: pedestrian, paratransit, bicycle, bus service, drop off/pick-up modes, and the lowest priority is given to park-and-ride access. This priority has not been formalized in the early phase of project planning.
Identify opportunities for emphasizing pedestrian, paratransit, and bicycle access, as well as accommodating feeder bus service, at HCT stations, recognizing the need to maximize ridership. Address parking and implement parking management at some stations.
Work with jurisdictions to identify projects in their bicycle and pedestrian plans that improve station access and could be considered for incorporation into ST’s projects during development and design.
Communicate with bus transit agencies during system planning to anticipate layover and paratransit needs. Continue to regularly collect data on mode of access and use the data to support a shift to attracting riders who ride transit, bike or walk to stations.
2. Focus of station access planning and design—Under Sound Move and ST 2, access planning and design have generally occurred during alternatives analysis using concept designs and during preliminary engineering.
In concert with the revised focus of access planning and design, identify costs associated with all aspects of system access at all major stages of project development. The Long-Range Plan and agency policies provide guidance for access planning and programming to begin during system planning. Consider using station typologies. Develop a methodology during system planning to program access improvements to encourage walking, bicycling, and riding transit to stations.
3. Costing of access elements—Cost estimates for access are prepared for the station program. The cost of providing access for unique conditions or opportunities surrounding the station may be an add-on to the project with the cost addressed via project budget amendments. The scope control policy guides this process.
With programmed access funds in place, capture opportunities for access improvements in partnership with local jurisdictions and agencies during the corridor planning and preliminary design phase. Particular attention should be paid to needed to improvement at station areas for disabled accessibility.
4. Implementation of planned access —Access
improvements that are programmed (e.g. existing Sounder Stations during ST2), and expectations on the part of local jurisdictions and other parties, are further studied and defined during project development.
At each stage of project planning and development, identify a hand-off to the next stage. This hand-off should include key assumptions and expectations as well as
documentation of direction and agreements between Sound Transit and other parties.
5. Flexibility of station access—Project planning and development can last more than 15 years. Thus, the station area characteristics influencing access elements could change substantially between system planning and project opening.
At each stage of project development, review the station area typology to determine potential changes in access features or priorities.
Sys tem Acc ess Iss ue Pape r ( Dra ft)
2
Long-Range Plan Update: System Access
Sound Transit is updating its Long-Range Plan for high-capacity transit (HCT) projects and services in the central Puget Sound region. As part of the update, a variety of access issues are being considered that will provide direction for Sound Transit’s next system plan.
2.1
Purpose of this issue paper
This issue paper is part of a series of papers prepared to inform the Sound Transit Board in its decision-making on the Regional Transit Long-Range Plan Update. The System Access Issue Paper addresses the following topics:
Current Sound Transit System Access Policy (2013a), current practices relating to system access, and building upon successes
Comparable transit agencies’ policies and approaches to enhancing system access, attracting additional riders to HCT stations, and reducing the cost of access
The importance of system access to achieve Sound Transit’ goals
A potential methodology for planning, programming, and funding of system access needs during development of the next System Plan
An approach to considering access at key steps in HCT project development, and access enhancement project eligibility criteria
Potential access policy changes for the Long-Range Plan Update
2.2
Issue paper overview
In preparing this issue paper it is recognized that Sound Transit has existing policies and design criteria that provide direction for system access. This current direction is recognized in the development of potential approaches to future access considerations as documented in Section 6 of this paper. The framework for the issue paper also recognizes both constraints and opportunities relating to system access, particularly with regard to maximizing ridership potential at both existing and future HCT stations, potential costs, scope control, project schedules, and complexities of collaborative efforts with local jurisdictions, transit partners and other parties.
2.3
Long-Range Plan comments on system access
The Sound Transit Board will update the region’s Long-Range Plan after preparing the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). During the formal scoping comment period, one of the themes that emerged was a desire for improved access to HCT stations, taking all modes into consideration.
There were a number of system access-related themes, including the following:
Improved transit connections
Page 4 | Octob er, 2 0 1 4
Serving populations equitably and concentrating on serving those areas with the highest ridership potential
In June 2014, Sound Transit issued the Draft SEIS, initiating a 45-day public comment period that extended from June 13, 2014 to July 28, 2014. Over 500 submissions (including letters, emails, comment cards, and verbal statements) were received by Sound Transit. The themes were similar to those that emerged from the scoping comments. The most frequently cited access concern was a lack of access, including available parking at transit stations. There was also interest in improved access that would reduce the need to park at stations; examples include feeder bus service, improved pedestrian facilities in surrounding neighborhoods, and closer spacing of stations.
Sys tem Acc ess Iss ue Pape r ( Dra ft)
3
Existing Access-related Guidance
Table 2 provides an overview of existing access-related guidance for Sound Transit. There are several sources of guidance relating to system access, including Sound Transit’s System Access Policy and language in the agency’s design criteria on access features. There is also external guidance such as the Americans with
Disabilities Act and recent direction from the Federal Transit Administration. Any guidance on system access should recognize that station areas have varying land use conditions ranging from very dense downtowns to suburban low-density communities.
Station area typologies, further described in Section 3.3.3, could potentially guide the provision of access modes for various land use conditions. The following sections further describe access-related guidance.
3.1
Sound Transit access policies, programs, guidelines, and standards
Sound Transit adopted a System Access Policy in 2013, Resolution No. R2013-03. The System Access Policy (Sound Transit 2013a) establishes a broad framework for Sound Transit’s support, management, and investment in infrastructure and facilities to provide access to its transit services. Sound Transit may make system access-related investments in its own transit facilities or in access infrastructure such as signage, and systems that are designed to effectively connect Sound Transit services with surrounding communities. The System Access Policy
establishes general criteria to assess and prioritize potential access-improvement projects based on ridership, total cost of ownership or total lifecycle cost to Sound Transit, Sound Transit and local jurisdiction plans and planning documents, and public input.
The 2013 System Access Policy also introduces parking management strategies as a tool to increase the efficiency of park-and-rides and increase access and ridership to high-capacity transit (HCT). , In 2014 Sound Transit completed a six-month permit parking pilot at the Mukilteo Station, the Issaquah Transit Center, the Sumner Station, and the Tukwila International Boulevard Station. The pilot provided hundreds of transit riders with assurance of parking during the busy morning rush while also providing Sound Transit with valuable data and customer input about pros and cons of a potential parking permit program. In another parking management program, Sound Transit customers will be able to use web and mobile applications to check availability of parking spaces in real-time at park-and-ride facilities. The apps will also suggest alternate parking locations if the preferred park-and-ride facility is full. By early 2015, this information will be available at the Puyallup Station, the Federal Way Transit Center, the South Everett Freeway Station, and the Auburn Station.
In addition to the System Access Policy and follow-up management programs, several Sound Transit documents provide design guidelines and standards relating to system access. Recent access-related studies also provide methodologies for evaluating access and prioritizing improvements. These documents are summarized below and in Table 2.
3.1.1 Sound Transit design criteria for passenger facilities
The LinkDesign Criteria Manual (Sound Transit 2013b) presents the most current statement of access priority for station planning and design. Pedestrians, paratransit, and bicycles are the highest priority in designing for convenience and directness of routing to stations, and park-and-rides are the lowest in the priority. Other Sound Transit design standards and guidelines address design of access at stations, accessibility design guidelines, and signage.
Page 6 | Octob er, 2 0 1 4
Table 2. Summary of Sound Transit access policies, guidelines, and studies
Document Overview ST access guidance
Resolution No. R2013-03— Attachment A: System Access Policy (Sound Transit 2013a)
Establishes a framework for Sound Transit’s support and management of, and investment
in, infrastructure and facilities to provide customer access to its transit services. Policy on parking management applies to both existing and new park-and-rides. Provides guidance on access improvements in cooperation with local jurisdictions and transit partners
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Program Strategic Plan Update (Sound Transit 2014b)
The Sound Transit TOD Program Strategic Plan, completed in 2010, introduced the adopted policy framework for the TOD work program within the larger context of Sound Transit’s mission: implementation of regional high-capacity transit as detailed in Sound Move (1996), and Sound Transit 2 (2008). Changes in this Plan update include additional attention to the role of TOD in long-range and project planning.
TOD goals emphasize non-motorized access to trains and buses to increase ridership.
Link Design Criteria Manual
(Sound Transit 2013b) Design guidelines and standards for Link stations. Guidance for all modes Designer should recognize any planned and existing pedestrian and bicycle routes within one-quarter mile of the station
Includes ADA accessibility standards Design Standards and
Guidelines for Sound Transit Projects: Sounder & ST Express Passenger Facilities (Sound Transit 2013c)
Guiding principles address prioritization of park-and-ride capacity improvements, non-motorized access to stations, bicycle parking, accessibility of bus transfers, bus layover space, and opportunities for joint investments with communities.
Detailed guidelines for each mode
Designer should recognize any planned and existing pedestrian and bicycle routes within one-quarter mile of the station
Design Review Checklist provided Includes ADA accessibility standards Sounder Stations Access
Study (Sound Transit 2012a)
Presents a thorough analysis for each mode of access to and from Sounder stations. Deficiencies are identified, including barriers to pedestrian access, a pedestrian and bicycle connectivity assessment within a 15-minute walk and bike shed, bicycle parking capacity, transit capacity at the station, vehicle and local network capacity, and park-and-ride capacity. Evaluation of improvements included factors such as cost per rider, ridership, leveraged investments, travel time and reliability, partnership potential, and environment.
Specific station area improvements identified Access Deficiency Assessment identified needs within 15-minute walk/bike sheds
Sounder Stations Access Study— Appendix E: Sound Transit Access Tool (Sound Transit 2012b)
The tool is used to evaluate potential access improvements that could increase future ridership on Sounder service beyond that already forecast for the system, with shifts in mode of access and land use. The Mode of Access Tool was adapted from the TCRP B-38 Tool to the specific needs of Sound Transit.
Evaluation of new ridership associated with access improvements
Parking Pricing Study
(Sound Transit 2010a) Evaluation of parking pricing strategies to better manage Sound Transit parking facilities for commuters and local jurisdictions. Better management would increase availability of parking for transit riders, and thus access to HCT from the park and ride.
Improve access to HCT for park-and-ride users Maximize benefits from investment
Potential benefit of parking revenue for other modes Bicycle Policy (Sound
Transit 2010b) Provides policies for bringing bikes on Sound Transit vehicles, guidelines for bicycle equipment at stations, and guidelines for planning, designing, and funding bicycle access. Guidelines for bicycles at ST facilities and on vehicles Planning and design in partnership within ½ mile of stations
Sys tem A cc ess Iss ue Pape r ( Dra ft)
Table 2. Summary of Sound Transit access policies, guidelines, and studies (continued)
Document Overview ST access guidance
Accessibility Design Guidelines (Sound Transit 2009 )
Design guidelines provide direction for the design of all aspects of an HCT station to
ensure the station provides ADA accessibility. Detailed guidelines provided for all aspects of ADA accessibility Regional Transit
Long-Range Plan (Sound Transit 2005)
The goal is to contribute to the region’s economic vitality—transit provides “gateways” that increase access to jobs, education, and other community resources and enhance the region’s ability to move goods and services.
Page 17 states “This will include making improvements within one-quarter mile radius of each station for safe and easy transit, pedestrian, and bicycle access. Sound Transit will build such facilities after consulting with the local jurisdiction (s)”
System-Wide Signage Design Manual (Sound Transit 2004a)
The emphasis in this document is “Accessibility for All” and addresses wayfinding for all
Page 8 | Octob er, 2 0 1 4
Access is designed into each project almost exclusively within the station footprint and for any roadways that are reconstructed with the project. This ensures that the project is designed and constructed within budget and generally produces a stronger cost effectiveness rating for the Federal Transit Administration’s New Starts grant criteria, assuming that the station location and design have the greatest potential to affect ridership.
3.1.2 Sounder Stations Access Study report
The Sounder Stations Access Study was conducted for Sound Transit from 2010 to 2012 and published in
September 2012 (Sound Transit 2012a). This study presents a detailed analysis for each mode of access to and from Sounder stations. The following elements are included in the study:
A rider survey was conducted at each station to determine mode of access, including drive, drop-off, carpool, feeder transit, bike, and walk.
Relevant local area plans were briefly summarized.
A field review was conducted and observations were documented.
An “Access Deficiency Assessment” was reported for each station. “Deficiencies” that could discourage ridership included, for example, barriers to pedestrian access.
A pedestrian and bicycle connectivity assessment within a 15-minute travel shed was conducted that assessed bicycle parking capacity, transit capacity at the station, vehicle and local network capacity, and park-and-ride capacity.
An evaluation of improvements was conducted and included factors such as cost per rider, ridership, leveraged investments, travel time and reliability, partnership potential, and environmental criteria.
Potential improvements at each station were identified based on the data and analysis. Improvements that scored well included expanded drop-off/pick-up areas, a pedestrian bridge, sidewalks, bike lanes,
additional bike racks, trails, and parking pricing.
3.2
Current system access development and funding
The planning, funding, and design by Sound Transit for various modes of system access are summarized in the following sections. These modes include those that are programmed with an HCT station and those that are identified during preliminary engineering and environmental assessments for the project. In current practice, the package of access elements identified during system planning represents broad station elements such as platforms, plazas, and park-and-ride facilities. The station components and any park-and-ride facilities are placeholders used to establish an initial project budget, while setting the stage for subsequent project development. Representative cost estimates that occur during system planning are at a high level for potential corridor alignments and stations. Any access-related cost elements are usually limited to the station footprint.
3.2.1 Park-and-ride facilities
Park-and-ride facilities are an important access feature, particularly in outlying and low-density areas. These areas do not usually have high concentrations of frequent local bus routes or high-density residential
developments that would result in effective local bus and walk/bicycle access to the stations. The number of park-and-ride stalls is based in part on mode of access estimates from the travel forecasting model, site-related factors such as availability of land for a facility, and local planning policies.
Sys tem Acc ess Iss ue Pape r ( Dra ft)
Park-and-ride facilities have been included in project design and associated budgets during system planning and at subsequent phases of project development. As such, park-and-ride facilities and related access roads are included in the project footprint and accounted for in key phases of project development. Vehicular access to support park-and-ride facilities is also addressed early in the design process and can sometimes result in reconstruction of adjacent roadways and nearby intersections impacted by park-and-ride traffic.
3.2.2 Paratransit vehicle bays
Station access by paratransit vehicles used by persons with disabilities is a key consideration in station design. The Link Design Criteria Manual (2013b) identifies paratransit as the second priority for providing convenience and directness of routing at stations. Accordingly, paratransit bays have been developed concurrently with station design. The paratransit bay is typically located adjacent to the station plaza and as close as possible to the station entrance. However, the space for paratransit bays is often constrained by the site dimensions and location of the station access roads. Sound Transit design criteria and guidelines do not currently address the number of paratransit bays.
3.2.3 Individuals with disabilities—self-driver
At HCT stations, parking for persons with disabilities who drive to the station can be provided on a surface park-and-ride lot adjacent to, or as near as possible to, the station entrances. Parking for persons with disabilities can also be provided within a park-and-ride garage.
3.2.4 Pick-up and drop-off zones
It is desirable to locate pick-up and drop-off zones as close as possible to station entrances. Drop-off and pick-up may occur along curb space or in a park-and-ride facility located within the station area. In practice, drop-off often occurs wherever drivers perceive it as most convenient. Pick-up also occurs within park-and-ride facilities where the driver waits for the arriving passenger. These passenger pick-ups usually occur in the p.m. period when park-and-ride spaces become more available for short-term use.
Two additional factors could affect future provision of pick-up/drop-off facilities at HCT stations. If Sound Transit charges for parking, this could limit the availability of parking stalls for short-term use. Also, emerging ridesharing modes such as transportation network companies (TNC) could make use of more extensive pick-up/drop-off facilities at HCT stations. While several coordination and regulatory issues would need to be addressed, these TNCs could become major contributors to HCT station access.
3.2.5 Bus service
Bus service to HCT stations requires active and layover bus zones. “Active” bays are for in-service bus routes and are used by transit riders to board vehicles. Layover zones are provided in station areas for bus routes terminating at the station. Active bus bays can be on-street or off-street with off-street bays usually being located within transit centers.
The necessary number of active and layover bus bays is based on service integration plans prepared by affected bus transit agencies. These plans identify routes that will be serving the station along with charac-teristics such as frequencies and associated bus volumes in the peak hour. These volumes provide a basis for estimating bus zone requirements at the station—both active and layover. In practice, the service integration plans are used to estimate the number of active and layover spaces during preliminary engineering.
Page 1 0 | Octobe r, 2 0 1 4
constraints may pose challenges to achieving the desired number of bus bays. As noted above, an earlier involvement by local bus systems in station facility design could help provide direction on local transit access features as well as coordination with other access modes.
3.2.6 Pedestrian and bicycle access
Encouraging riders to access transit facilities on foot or by bicycle can be a lower-cost approach to increase ridership. However, a lack of local connectivity and safety often creates barriers to walking and bicycling. In practice, pedestrian and bicycle access has been incorporated in station design and in any reconstructed roadways in the vicinity of the station. These are features that provide connections between station entrances and access modes. During the environmental assessment phase, there is rarely a negative environmental impact due to pedestrian and bicycle volume generated by the project beyond the station and reconstructed roadways. Therefore, access improvements that would improve connectivity or safety of facilities to nearby activity centers are usually not included in the station scope.
Sound Transit design criteria and guidelines for Link, Sounder, and ST Express passenger facilities include language on station access. Site design constraints often result in the need for design decisions to prioritize certain modes over others. To address mode of access priorities and/or conflicts, a standard for prioritizing modes is included in Sound Transit’s design criteria and standards for passenger facilities. The highest priority for station site design, for convenience and directness of routing, is given to pedestrians while the lowest priority is given to park-and-ride access. This is a flexible priority list that guides decision-making in order to meet agency policy and goals. In practice, the programmed access elements of HCT stations have been receiving the highest priority because they are considered as integral elements of the program. Also, major capital facilities near the station, such as a park and ride, can determine roadway improvements, intersection design, and intersection mitigation. For these considerations, they are included in the station’s funding. HCT stations can generate a high volume of walk-related transfers between rail station entrances and bus zones, park-and-ride facilities, and pick-up/drop-off locations. This pedestrian volume determines sidewalk widths and bus shelter capacity. Roadways reconstructed with the project can incorporate wider sidewalks if the roadway is widened and rechannelized to accommodate vehicular traffic. However, a wide sidewalk and bus shelters may require additional right-of-way that is not accounted for in cost estimates until mid-way through preliminary design and environmental assessments for HCT stations.
Bicycle facilities include both access to the station and secure bicycle parking. Sound Transit evaluates the availability of bicycle parking and may make adjustments in the availability of racks, cages, lockers, etc. as needed. Future facilities may include reserved space in the station footprint where bicycle parking can be added to meet demand. The assessment of potential bicycle-related demand can use a bicycle estimating methodology. Sound Transit currently estimates future bicycle-related demand at four percent of the anticipated autumn PM peak-hour station ridership to determine demand for bicycle facilities at HCT stations.
3.2.7 Americans with Disabilities Act accessibility
The federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires accessibility for people with disabilities and mandates accessible design. Sound Transit documents that establish design guidelines to meet ADA requirements are summarized in Table 2. ADA requirements are adhered to throughout the design process. Planning and design for pedestrian access improvements in older areas lacking in ADA compliance may be an additional cost factor for a project.
Sys tem Acc ess Iss ue Pape r ( Dra ft)
3.3
Direction for access improvements
While Section 3.2 describes current access modes at HCT stations and an overview of how this access is developed, expanded access in the form of improvements beyond the station footprint or at existing stations could be considered. For the purposes of this issue paper, access improvements are defined as those
improvements that have the potential to attract more riders to HCT. Access improvements could go beyond the surrounding roadways reconstructed with the station as well. While Sound Transit’s System Access Policy
addresses considerations for access improvements in cooperation with project partners, there are currently no adopted planning and programming procedures to identify and budget for these types of access enhancement projects. The following sections further describe current Sound Transit guidance relating to access
improvements.
3.3.1 2005 Long-Range Plan and ST2
The 2005 LRP states that, “Sound Transit works with local public transportation agencies, communities, and local governments to place and design transit facilities that easily fit with and improve local community plans. This will include making improvements within one-quarter-mile radius of each station for safe and easy transit, pedestrian, and bicycle access. Sound Transit will build such facilities after consulting with the local jurisdiction(s).” In addition, the Design Standards and Guidelines for Sound Transit Projects: Sounder & ST Express Passenger Facilities (Sound Transit 2013c) states in Section 3.2.1 that, “The designer should recognize any planned and existing pedestrian and bicycle routes within one-quarter mile of the station. Connections between these routes and the facility should be identified in access design.”
Potential bicycle access improvements are further directed by Sound Transit’s Bicycle Policy (2010b). Section 4.6 states, “Sound Transit works in partnership with interested parties to plan for and fund design,
construction and maintenance of bicycle access facilities within a one-half mile radius of facilities served by Sound Transit, within established Sound Transit project scopes of work and budgets.”
Following the 2005 Long-Range Plan, a budget for access improvements was included in ST2. This budget item would have created a System Access Program to make investments. However, the access budget was eliminated during the most recent recession when Sound Transit’s estimated revenue stream was severely reduced, and several major capital projects were deleted, deferred or truncated.
Without a funding source, Sound Transit does not have the ability to capture opportunities for partnership projects except when a significant project is brought to the Sound Transit Board as a scope increase with a request for additional project budget. Examples of these requests include the Northgate Pedestrian Bridge over I-5 to provide access to the Northgate Station of North Link and the Overlake Village pedestrian-bicycle bridge over SR 520 to provide access the East Link station. Smaller, yet meaningful projects, such as a gap in the sidewalk system that would better connect an activity center to a station, also do not have a funding source.
3.3.2 Federal Transit Administration
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) issued a Final Policy Statement on the Eligibility of Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Under Federal Transit Law (Federal Register Vol. 76, NO. 161, August 2011). The purpose of the notice was to simplify the process for determining where a pedestrian or bicycle improvement qualifies for FTA funding. The policy statement defines a radius around a public transportation stop or station within which FTA will consider pedestrian and bicycle improvement to have a de facto functional relationship to
Page 1 2 | Octobe r, 2 0 1 4
funds. The establishment of this de facto functional relationship provides an opportunity for access improvements to be eligible projects for funding under the many competitive grant programs of FTA.
3.3.3 Station typology
Potential access improvements should recognize that locations of HCT stations have varying features or typologies and associated access characteristics. Station typologies provide a general indication of the attributes and access/egress mode characteristics associated with the different station areas. A station typology could allow transit agencies to better adapt access decisions to the needs of individual stations by allowing evaluation criteria or goals to vary by station type.
In practice, stations will seldom correlate with only a single station typology. Instead, most stations will share the characteristics of multiple types. Station typology provides a concept used to recognize the mix of modes that transit riders generally use to access various types of station areas, from central business districts to suburban low density areas.
For purposes of discussion in this issue paper, the TCRPs simplified station typology model can be applied to existing and future stations in the Sound Transit district, as shown in Table 3. Figure 1 shows the range of access modes for the simplified station access typology.
Table 3. Simplified station access typology and characteristics
Station area type Examples
Access characteristics Pedestrian and bicycle
facilities Supporting transit network Parking facilities
Central Business
District Westlake Station, Bellevue Transit Center High-quality network; good connectivity High-level bus network at stations; some are intermodal facility/ transit hubs
No off-street parking Urban—medium to
high density Othello Station, Mt. Baker, Roosevelt Station High-quality network; good connectivity Higher-level local bus connections No/limited off-street parking Suburban
low-density Tukwila International Boulevard Station, NE 145th Station
Limited connectivity, some
high-volume roadways Some local and regional bus connections Some off-street parking or park-and-ride available Terminal stations Angle Lake Station,
Lynnwood Transit Center More difficult connections Some local regional bus connections especially during peak periods, employer shuttles, opportunities to truncate and integrate service
Park-and-ride emphasis
Special conditions Mukilteo Station (ferry),
SeaTac/Airport Station Limited connectivity with emphasis on special facility Some local/regional bus connections Limited off-street parking may be available
“Special conditions” station types may vary across this spectrum.
Sys tem Acc ess Iss ue Pape r ( Dra ft)
3.3.4 Consideration of access priority
As noted in Section 3.2, the current priority for HCT station design emphasizes pedestrian, paratransit, and bicycle access at the highest level when designing for convenience and directness of routing, and park-and-ride access at the lowest level. However, in practice, the design process often addresses the programmed access first, usually vehicular access to the station such as park-and-ride or local bus facilities. In system planning, park-and-ride facilities or off-street bus zones tend to be considered first because they have space requirements and add significant cost to stations, and thus have programmed funding.
A more comprehensive and inclusive approach to access could be developed that would address funding for potential access needs for all modes. The station typology would be applied to recognize the mix of access to be provided for stations, including access needs in areas still lacking in pedestrian-accessible land uses that support HCT ridership. The remaining sections of this issue paper provide further information on a potential approach for system access, including comparable efforts by other large HCT systems.
3.4
Other access guidelines and studies
—
local and federal
In addition to Sound Transit policies and guidelines, a number of local, regional, and federal sources have conducted studies or provide guidance on access, as described in Table 4. These policies, guidelines, and studies provide potential direction for approaches to access improvements, particularly in regard to joint efforts between Sound Transit and other organizations.
Table 4. Summary of current access guidelines and studies from other organizations
Document Overview Access enhancement
Growing Transit Communities
Strategy, Final Draft (PSRC 2013) Includes four foundation strategies: a regional and local framework for partnerships; strategies to attract housing and employment growth; strategies to provide affordable housing choices; and strategies to increase access to opportunity.
Area profiles prepared to understand HCT station potential
Checklist of improvements Guidelines for Providing Access to
Public Transportation Stations, TCRP Report 153 (TRB 2012)
Provides design guidelines for each mode and a checklist of improvements at the approach to a station and within the station environment.
Potential improvements identified
Final Policy Statement on the Eligibility of Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements (FTA 2011)
Defines a radius around a public transportation stop or station within which FTA will consider pedestrian and bicycle improvements to have a de facto functional relationship to public transportation.
Pedestrian radius is one-half mile
Bicycle radius is 3 miles Keeping Seattle Moving: Planning
around Light Rail stations (SDOT 2014a)
Web page presenting the city’s neighborhood station area planning for existing and future high-capacity transit stations. Includes profile sheets of concept-level station area planning.
Includes changes in zoning, land development patterns, station area profiles and market analysis Non-Motorized Connectivity
Analysis; Evaluating Pedestrian and Bicycle Access to Transit (King County Metro/Sound Transit 2014)
Assesses potential and priority locations where improvements can increase walk/bike access to bus stops and major routes in King County Regional Growth Centers, as well as Sound Transit stations and transit centers.
Tool for assessing a range of potential pedestrian and bicycle access improvements
Page 1 4 | Octobe r, 2 0 1 4
4
Importance of Effective System Access
This section identifies many of the issues involved with improving system access, as well as methods to provide more effective system access with demand management strategies.
Central to the discussion of system access is Sound Transit’s Sustainability Plan, (Sound Transit 2011). Long-term ridership targets in the plan include:
Expanding transit services, ridership and market share
Improving pedestrian, bicycle, rideshare and connecting transit access at all Sound Transit stations and facilities
A quality transit system is an essential element to creating healthier communities. Sound Transit’s Sustainability Plan supports healthy, diverse, transit-oriented communities. Access improvements that would add, improve, or connect to bicycle and pedestrian facilities could increase physical activity and provide opportunities to improve health. Transit encourages riders to walk as a part of their daily routine, helps reduce crash rates, improves air quality, and can reduce isolation. Commuting by light rail is linked to weight loss—and light-rail commuters are about 80 percent less likely to become obese over time. The median time public transit users spend walking each day is 19 minutes, which is close to the daily walking time of 22 minutes recommended by the Centers for Disease Control (FTA 2014).
Quality transit systems also promote quality communities. Communities with a quality transit system are more equitable. The Puget Sound Regional Council’s Growing Transit Communities Strategy (PSRC 2013) has defined a vision for “equitable transit communities” as follows: equitable transit communities are mixed-use, transit-served neighborhoods that provide housing and transportation choices and greater social and
economic opportunity for current and future residents. Although access is generally addressed near HCT stations, there is potential for an HCT system to support community and economic development within a larger context of neighborhoods and businesses.
4.1
Park-and-ride efficiency
Park-and-ride facilities and drop-off/pick-up are important elements in attracting riders to many existing HCT stations, those under design or construction, and stations included in potential future expansion under the next phase of Sound Transit’s system planning. Park-and-ride facilities are typically located in low-density suburban locations. Many of Sound Transit’s park-and-ride locations are at or over capacity before 8:00 a.m. The Sumner Sounder station park-and-ride has been observed full by 5:40 a.m. and Puyallup by 5:23 a.m. The Federal Way park-and-ride is typically full by 7:45A.M.(WSDOT 2014). This competition for park-and-ride
spaces limits transit access to only those riders who can arrive at the earliest hours. In July 2013, the Sound Transit Board approved a pilot program to test several strategies of manage parking more efficiently, which would help customers access public transit.
Future system planning could include added park-and-ride capacity at existing HCT stations and new stations. Effective access involving park-and-ride could also include pricing, reservation of HOV spaces, and other management strategies as follow-up to recent (2014) Sound Transit pilot programs that allow more customers to make use of limited available parking. Parking fees could help defray the high initial capital costs of
providing parking. Parking management strategies can also accomplish complementary goals such as spreading passenger loads later into the morning, thus lowering operating costs by requiring fewer vehicles and drivers at the peak of service. Seeking opportunities to provide at least some parking outside the station
Sys tem Acc ess Iss ue Pape r ( Dra ft)
footprint, or working with jurisdictions and private entities to plan for parking near stations, could preserve opportunities for more direct access by other access modes
4.2
Local bus access
For some future Sound Transit stations, local bus service has the potential to bring the greatest number of riders to stations. Local bus provides access to the station for population and employment concentrations that are at greater distances from stations. New HCT alignments and stations could present opportunities to integrate with local bus service to reduce duplication of service and serve the station. Local bus agencies may also need to adjust service to address demand for routes at HCT stations.
This potential need for local bus service adjustment and associated facilities in HCT station areas could take on more importance as a result of future bus/rail integration efforts. The recently published report: Getting there together: Transit Integration Report (King County Metro/Sound Transit 2014) included several approaches for future transit service integration. These integration efforts would make use of potential future HCT expansion and resulting bus service access at HCT stations.
Local transit also provides the network connectivity to maximize opportunities for riders to access the HCT system, particularly for those who are transit-dependent. Transportation 2040 (PSRC 2010) recognizes that the Puget Sound region’s transit-dependent populations are growing. These populations include an increase in elderly residents who are outliving their ability to drive. Also, the region’s low-income population rose from 20 percent in 2008 to 24 percent in 2011, which implies a greater need for transit service for those without access to automobiles.
Effective and safe walking conditions can also increase bus access at HCT stations. In some cases, there may be considerable distances between bus stops, both on- and off-street, and station entrances. Properly addressing walk connections between HCT and local bus will complement overall system access to achieve higher transit ridership.
To help recognize local bus needs, participation by local bus providers could occur early in project develop-ment, including system planning. While determination of specific station locations would not occur until after system planning, input from the local bus systems can help provide direction for an early identification of local bus access needs at the corridor level.
4.3
First and Last Mile conditions for pedestrians and bicycles
In their efforts to increase ridership, public transportation agencies have developed a focus on the access conditions for the “first and last mile” of a rider’s trip to and from an HCT station. Factors affecting walk and bike access include the presence and quality of sidewalks or bike lanes, as well as the connectivity with and distances between residential or business locations and station entrances. Population and employment concentrations within a safe, comfortable, and convenient walking and biking distance from the station offer the greatest opportunity to generate walking and bicycling access to stations without incurring major costs typically associated with more capital-intensive access modes.
New methodologies using geographic information system (GIS) data sources have been recently developed for evaluating non-motorized connectivity and population and employment accessible within travel sheds. These methodologies have been applied to prioritizing potential station locations along new alignments, identifying potential non-motorized access improvements, prioritizing access improvements at existing
Page 1 6 | Octobe r, 2 0 1 4
Connectivity Analysis; Evaluating Pedestrian and Bicycle Access to Transit (King County Metro/Sound Transit 2014) and the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Program Strategic Plan Update.
4.4
Rider pick-ups and drop-offs
Paratransit, pick-up/drop-off, and taxi service involve access using a variety of modes other than the basic walk, bike, bus, and park-and-ride modes. Advancement in technology may enable new methods of efficient system access currently not covered by the System Access Policy (Sound Transit 2013a). The role of technology in access is being addressed in a separate issue paper that reviews innovative approaches and new rider technologies. For example, space requirements for drop-off/pick-up modes at HCT stations could change significantly with emerging transportation network companies.
4.5
Reducing the cost of access
A variety of system access modes have been provided and will continue to be provided by Sound Transit at HCT stations. However, key factors such as cost constraints, environmental effects associated with park-and-ride facilities, and Sound Transit support for land use that complements HCT, provide incentives for lower cost approaches to system access. Accommodating a pedestrian or cyclist at a station is often less expensive than accommodating a driver because cyclists and pedestrians rely largely on existing infrastructure.
Pedestrian and bicycle improvements may be relatively inexpensive and beneficial to a large number of transit riders. Furthermore, in station areas where TOD occurs, the mix of uses and development scale can further support bicycle and pedestrian access modes at little or no cost to Sound Transit.
Some very beneficial pedestrian and bicycle improvements could have high costs but may still be desirable in order to overcome barriers such as limited-access freeways. Examples include the pedestrian/bicycle bridge at State Route 410 serving the Sumner Sounder Station and the proposed pedestrian/bicycle bridge over
Interstate 5 between the Northgate Station and North Seattle Community College.
In comparison, park-and-ride facilities can be costly to construct. Structured (garage) parking costs about $25,000 to $35,000 per stall, and surface parking costs $10,000 per stall. Sound Transit also pays operations costs to maintain the park-and-ride facilities it owns, in contrast to pedestrian and bicycle facilities that are owned and maintained by local jurisdictions. Parking fees could compensate to some degree for the cost of constructing, operating and maintaining parking facilities. Also, seeking opportunities to share the costs of parking facilities or nearby parking owned by other agencies, jurisdictions and private entities can provide transit access to riders who depend on cars for the last mile.
Park and rides at stations can also limit the space available for bus bays and restrict potential TOD. Many drivers are willing to walk some distance to the station if safe and convenient parking is provided, and there is a reasonable guarantee of available off-site parking (WSDOT 2014). Sound Transit has begun to develop designs for park-and-rides that could transition to TOD to address the near term needs for park-and-ride and the long-range goals of the agency to reduce dependency on auto access.
Information in Section 5 of this paper provides examples on how other HCT systems in North America have approached access planning and funding. Section 6 provides a potential approach on how Sound Transit can provide flexibility relating to access planning and funding in future HCT station development.
Sys tem Acc ess Iss ue Pape r ( Dra ft)
5
How Transit Agencies Address Access
This section provides findings on how system access has been addressed by other transit agencies. Information in this chapter is largely informed by research conducted by the Transportation Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) of the Transportation Research Board. Research results were documented in
TCRP Report 153: Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations (TRB 2012).
The case studies described in the TCRP Report 153provide examples of organizational processes and elements of station access planning at 11 transit agencies. The case studies identified nine primary components of station access programs:
Local station area context—The station’s setting affects successful outcomes. Factors include transit characteristics, land use, market demand, and connectivity of the sidewalk system.
Collaboration with local and regional stakeholders—Collaboration and cooperation are essential and should include bus service providers, local jurisdictions, and stakeholder groups.
Local and private concerns—Compromise and flexibility are often needed, and in some cases the transit agency may need to redirect its efforts to other settings.
Station access planning guidelines—Formal station access planning guidelines help drive station access planning and decision-making but should be flexible enough to adapt to the context around particular stations.
Data requirements—Planning decisions can be informed by data on existing access patterns, supply side factors (e.g. existing bus services), and spillover impacts such as parking or congestion.
Predictive and analytical tools—Tools can help identify demand and trade-offs in access planning.
Short- and long-term cycles in station access planning—Established stations need periodic reviews and new stations can benefit from consideration of the long-term context of the station.
Performance tracking and evaluation—Data can be collected on performance of station designs and access services.
Station area development—Transit-oriented development (TOD) provides transit riders and can be considered in conjunction with station access planning.
Highlights of detailed case studies from the 11 agencies included in the TCRP Report 153 are provided in Table 5. The following are several access-related features from these case studies that could provide direction:
Access-related guidelines have been developed by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), which has tradition-ally relied on park-and-ride as a major access mode. The Regional Transit District in Denver has also prepared transit access guidelines.
Mode of access hierarchies have been established by BART, the Denver Regional Transit District (RTD), Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet), and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (also known as WMATA or Metro).
Page 1 8 | Octobe r, 2 0 1 4
Table 5. Approaches to station access—highlights from TCRP case studies and additional follow-up Agency
Approach by access mode
Walk Bicycle Feeder bus Auto park-and-ride
Sound Transit1 Access priority in HCT station design criteria, pedestrians highest
Financial support for pedestrian facilities have been provided at some HCT stations at later stages of project development, but not in initial system planning
Bicycle facilities at all stations, bicycles allowed on vehicles
Financial support for bicycle facilities have been provided at some HCT stations at later stages of project development, but not in initial system planning
Local bus routes adjust to serve new stations. Local bus systems develop integrated service plans at proposed new stations during PE/ED.
Parking permit pilot project began in 2014, results to be published in 2015. Real-time parking space availability pilot under development.
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)— San Francisco
Walk access target (systemwide) was 24.0% in 2005 and 24.5% in 2010
Bicycle parking programs are designed to encourage leaving bikes at origin stations
Bike lockers are rented by the day due to low utilization of annual rentals
Bike stations provided at 3 BART stations
BART relies on local bus systems and shuttle services to feed stations
Fare systems are not currently coordinated
Paid parking began with monthly reserved parking
23 stations have daily parking fees from $2.00 to $6.502
Parking pricing resulted in minimal impacts on ridership
Arrival times at stations were spread
Massachusetts Bay Transporta-tion Authority (the “T”)
Aims to segregate pedestrian paths from bus movements
Americans with Disability Act issues are typically the most important consideration
Improving bicycle parking by constructing bicycle storage cages at some stations
Some transit vehicles restrict carrying-on bicycles
Improve the intermodal transfer experience as allowed by State of Good Repair projects
Increases in parking fees at commuter rail stations have decreased parking demand but not total boardings
Parking improvements being advanced are those advocated and supported by the local
communities Regional Transit
District—Denver Provides local jurisdictions with guidance on pedestrian improvements in station area
Standards include bicycle parking at all stations even if no park-and-ride is present
300 bike lockers with 65-75% lease rates
Several stations have bike-sharing stations
Local bus routes adjust to serve
new light rail stations Collects parking data weekly using license plate technology
Uses 85% utilization as a standard for when to evaluate parking expansion
Experimenting with a pricing system that allows drivers to reserve close-in spaces until 10 a.m.
Sys tem Acc ess Iss ue Pape r ( Dra ft)
Table 5. Approaches to station access—highlights from TCRP case studies and additional follow-up (continued)
Agency
Approach by access mode
Walk Bicycle Feeder bus Auto park-and-ride
TriMet—Portland,
OR Provides short, direct pedestrian connections to surrounding uses
Minimizes walls or barriers between transit centers and the community
Published the TriMet Pedestrian Network Analysis Report (2011) with recommendations for pedestrian access improvements
Allows bicycles on light rail vehicles; issues with overcrowding
Forecasts volume of high rates of bicycle parking demand at new stations along the light rail line to Milwaukie and incorporates these needs into the design
Minimizes the amount of spaces dedicated to buses at stations to maximize space for TOD
Favors on-street bus stops instead of off-street transit centers
Reduced parking to accommodate TOD at several stations
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Moving from station site design focus to a station catchment area focus (access sheds)
Customers want bike parking that is easier to use and more secure than bike racks
Pursuing grants with partners to fund regional bike sharing
Private shuttle buses increasing in importance
34 stations offer paid reserved parking to better manage parking
Provides kiss-and-ride waiting areas
Reallocating some parking to car-sharing vehicles
1Source: Sound Transit 2014d
Page 2 0 | Octob er, 2 0 1 4
– The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) has identified goals to increase pedestrian and bicycle access shares of total station access as well as a capital program to achieve this increase.
5.1
Station access planning tools
A tool for estimating rider benefits of access improvements was developed along with the research in TCRP Report 153. The “Station Access Planning Tool” is a spreadsheet-based planning tool taking the user through the estimation and evaluation of ridership and access mode splits, the testing of alternatives, and a rough cost-benefit evaluation. The instructions are in Appendix C of TCRP Report 153. This tool was applied during the Sounder Station Access Study (Sound Transit 2012a).
As described previously in Section 3, new methodologies using GIS data sources have been developed for evaluating non-motorized connectivity and population and employment accessible within travel sheds. These methodologies have been applied to prioritizing potential station locations along new alignments, identifying potential non-motorized access improvements, prioritizing access improvements at existing stations, and identifying station areas with TOD potential. Sound Transit studies and projects using this new methodology include the recent Sound Transit HCT corridor studies, the King County Metro/Sound Transit Non-Motorized Connectivity Analysis, and the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Program Strategic Plan Update.
5.2
Mode of access data
Mode of access data provides a baseline for station siting and planning for access investments to increase ridership. As part of the TCRP research effort, transit agencies’ mode of access to HCT stations were reviewed and compared. The research indicated that several factors can affect mode of access, such as the relative size of the park-and-ride to total ridership, density of population and employment within one-half mile of a station, the connectivity and quality of the pedestrian environment, and the frequency of local transit service.
These factors can be considered by Sound Transit as part of system planning and subsequent phases of project development. Table 6 shows the basic relationship between station location, population density, and primary arrival modes with examples of station types provided for the Sound Transit service district. Table 6. Station location type and primary arrival modes
Location type Typical distance from city center (miles) density (people/square mile) Typical net residential Primary arrival modes1
Central business district
(downtown Seattle) 0—2 NA Pedestrian
Central city
(downtown Bellevue) 2—10 8,000—20,000 Pedestrian Bus
Inner suburbs (Tukwila) 10—15 4,000—6,000 Park-and-ride
Bus
Outer suburbs (Sumner) 15—25 2,500—4,000 Park-and-ride
Exurbia (Sammamish) Over 25 Varies Park-and-ride
Source: TRB 2012
1 Primary arrival modes indicate how the majority of riders access the station, although most stations will attract at least some from all access modes.
Sys tem Acc ess Iss ue Pape r ( Dra ft)
TCRP Report 153 also presented a compilation of mode of access by station type with results shown in Table 7. Typologies 1, 2, and 3 (Urban Commercial, High-Density Urban Neighborhood, and Medium-Density Neighborhood, respectively) lack parking or have limited park-and-ride facilities. The walk access at station types 1, 2, and 3 is from 72 percent to 82 percent. Typologies 3 through 14 include off-street parking, in some cases dedicated and-ride lots. The walk access and auto access at stations with park-and-ride facilities varies significantly due to a wide variety of characteristics at stations located in suburban and urban areas.
Table 7. Average station access mode share by station type
No. Station type
Average access mode percentage
Walk Bicycle Feeder bus (drop-off) Auto Auto (park-and-ride)
1 Urban commercial 82% 1% 10% 2% 5%
2 High-density urban neighborhood 72% 2% 14% 4% 10%
3 Medium-density urban neighborhood 80% 1% 9% 4% 7%
4 Urban neighborhood with parking 35% 3% 21% 10% 31%
5 Historic transit village 25% 1% 3% 17% 53%
6 Suburban TOD 32% 2% 13% 14% 39%
7 Suburban village center 30% 2% 16% 12% 40%
8 Suburban neighborhood 29% 1% 11% 13% 46%
9 Suburban freeway 10% 1% 12% 12% 65%
10 Suburban employment center 29% 3% 25% 9% 36%
11 Suburban retail center 30% 2% 19% 11% 39%
12 Intermodal transit center 27% 1% 36% 6% 30%
13 Special event/campus 55% 2% 24% 6% 13%
14 Satellite city 7% 6% 12% 16% 59%
Source: TRB 2012
5.3
Station typology
A station typology can allow transit agencies to better adapt access decisions to the needs of individual stations by allowing evaluation criteria or goals to vary by station type. Station types provide a general indi-cation of the attributes and access/egress mode characteristics of different station areas. In practice, stations will seldom correlate with only a single station type. Instead, most stations will share
characteristics of multiple types. For purposes of this issue paper, the TCRP simplified station typology model can be applied to existing and future stations in the Sound Transit district, as shown in Table 2 in Section 3 of this issue paper.
It should be recognized when that, using station typologies for system access planning and design, characteristics of station areas can change over time. A station area that is currently suburban with primarily park-and-ride access could gradually evolve into a more urbanized area that would support walk and bicycle access. The Alameda LRT Station in Denver, Colorado, is one example of this transition. This station is being reinvented with the development of three acres of parking and right-of-way next to the station into an affordable residential TOD and transit plaza as part of the Regional Transit District’s TOD
Page 2 2 | Octob er, 2 0 1 4
to the Alameda Station. The lost parking is expected to be absorbed by excess capacity at the nearby Broadway LRT station.
5.4
Access programs and funding of other transit systems
A review of peer agencies indicates that access beyond the station is, in general, the responsibility of local jurisdictions and local transit agencies. Seven agencies stood out during peer review of their work on access to their HCT system. A summary of their funding policy and approach is presented below.
5.4.1 Bay Area Rapid Transit
For the first time, BART’s annual budget, as identified in the 2015 Preliminary Budget Memorandum, has recommended the funding of access improvements. An increase in parking fees will fund these upgrades and improvements at stations. The 2015 proposed funds are $5.99 million, $4.30 million of which comes from the increase in parking revenue.
BART has collected data on mode of access and adopted goals relating to access priorities. Between 1998 and 2010, BART aimed to increase walk mode share from 23% in 1998 to 24% in 2004 and 24.5% by 2010. Similarly, mode share for bike, transit, and drop-off were targeted to increase by 1% to 3.5%. Riders accessing the system by driving alone were targeted to decrease from 38% to 31%. Follow-up studies have not been published regarding whether the mode of access goals have been achieved.
5.4.2 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
WMATA established funding for bicycle and pedestrian access to rail stations through a grant authorized by Congress in 2008. One key provision was that one percent of capital dollars must go to transit enhancements, which include pedestrian and bicycle improvements as well as bus shelters and other projects.
Currently, $6.6 million is available in funding for bike and pedestrian access over the next five years of the agency’s capital improvement program or CIP. WMATA’s board has adopted a goal of tripling the bike access mode share percentage at stations from its current level of 0.7% to 2.1% by 2020. The agency is also committed to increasing the pedestrian access mode share and will work toward providing direct connections and safe crossings for pedestrians. A new feature of the programming process is that local governments can elect to “reimburse” Metro for specific projects located in their jurisdictions or could incorporate bike and pedestrian projects into joint development plans or their own transportation projects near rail stations.
5.4.3 Denver Regional Transit District
The Denver Regional Transit District budgeted for improvements in 2013 that varied from walkway and bus access improvements to full-depth concrete bus pads within roadways. Another category of funding, “Local Government Requests,” included approximately $127,000 in 2013 expenditures. A multi-agency design commit
