DOCSLIB.ORG

Transportation, Social and Economic Impacts of Light and Commuter Rail in Metropolitan Areas URL

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA/TX-10/0-5652-1 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date TRANSPORTATION, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF November 2008 LIGHT AND COMMUTER RAIL Published: September 2009 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Jeffrey C. Arndt, Curtis Morgan, John H. Overman, Terry L. Clower, Report 0-5652-1 Ph.D., Bernard L. Weinstein, Ph.D., and Michael Seman, M.S 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System 11. Contract or Grant No. College Station, Texas 77843-3135 Project 0-5652 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Texas Department of Transportation Technical Report: Research and Technology Implementation Office September 2007-August 2008 P.O. Box 5080 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Austin, Texas 78763-5080 15. Supplementary Notes Project performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. Project Title: Transportation, Social and Economic Impacts of Light and Commuter Rail in Metropolitan Areas URL: http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-5652-1.pdf 16. Abstract While transportation impacts are often masked by heavy growth in corridor traffic and latent travel demand, modeling enables measuring the real transportation impacts of rail projects. Rail transit is both safe and environmentally friendly. Rail systems expand mobility and reduce household investment in transportation. However, as regions implement rail systems, they must take care to consider the full range of rider impacts so that environmental justice issues do not emerge. The largest body of research relates to the economic impact of rail. These impacts are strongest in station areas, as access to rail increases property value on nearby property. The positive impact of rail on property values does not hold true for property directly adjacent to the rail line however. State Departments of Transportation have played a variety of roles in rail development, ranging from funding initial planning and operating services. TxDOT has authority to participate in rail development but no funding has been appropriated by the legislature. TxDOT could more actively participate in commuter rail projects if the agency was afforded greater flexibility in application of funds and the right to own rolling stock. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Light Rail, Commuter Rail, Intercity Rail, Economic No restrictions. This document is available to the Development public through NTIS: National Technical Information Service Springfield, Virginia 22161 http://www.ntis.gov 19. Security Classif.(of this report) 20. Security Classif.(of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 140 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized TRANSPORTATION, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF LIGHT AND COMMUTER RAIL by Jeffrey C. Arndt Research Scientist Texas Transportation Institute Curtis Morgan Assistant Research Scientist Texas Transportation Institute John H. Overman Associate Research Scientist Texas Transportation Institute Terry L. Clower, Ph.D. Associate Director Center for Economic Development and Research University of North Texas Bernard L. Weinstein, Ph.D. Director Center for Economic Development and Research University of North Texas and Michael Seman, M.S. Research Associate Center for Economic Development and Research University of North Texas Report 0-5652-1 Project 0-5652 Project Title: Transportation, Social and Financial Impacts of Light and Commuter Rail in Metropolitan Areas Performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration November 2008 Published: September 2009 TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas 77843-3135 DISCLAIMER This research was performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official view or policies of the FHWA or TxDOT. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The United States Government and the State of Texas do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project was conducted in cooperation with TxDOT and FHWA. The authors acknowledge the assistance of Project Director Stephen Endres, P.E, and Program Coordinators William Hale, P.E., and Maribel Chavez, P.E. Serving as members of the Project Advisory Committee, Wilda Won, Charles Airiohuodion, and Curtis Loftis, P.E., of TxDOT, and Stephen Salin provided valued guidance and input. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Figures ................................................................................................................. x List of Tables ................................................................................................................. xi SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ............................................... 1 Background ................................................................................................................. 1 Light and Commuter Rail ............................................................................................ 2 Heavy Rail ............................................................................................................... 2 Light Rail ................................................................................................................ 2 Commuter Rail ........................................................................................................ 3 SECTION 2: LIGHT AND COMMUTER RAIL IMPACTS .......................................... 5 Federal Transit Authority (FTA) and Rail Impacts ....................................................... 5 New Starts/Small Starts ........................................................................................... 5 Before and After Studies .......................................................................................... 8 Rail Impacts: Typology and General Findings ........................................................... 11 Impact Typologies ................................................................................................. 11 Increased Transit Ridership and Decreased Automobile Traffic ............................. 12 Congestion Impacts ............................................................................................... 12 Cost Effectiveness ................................................................................................. 13 Road and Parking Cost Savings ............................................................................. 13 Consumer Financial Impacts .................................................................................. 13 Safety Impacts ....................................................................................................... 13 Energy and Emission Reductions ........................................................................... 14 Economic Benefits ................................................................................................. 14 Other Benefits ....................................................................................................... 14 Rail Impacts: Project Plans and Reports..................................................................... 15 Economic and Developmental Impacts .................................................................. 17 DART Rail Case Study: Hedonic Modeling .......................................................... 17 DART Rail Case Study: Matched Pairs .................................................................. 19 DART Transit Oriented Development Impacts ...................................................... 19 Commuter Rail and Economic Impacts .................................................................. 21 Summary ................................................................................................................... 22 SECTION 3: RAIL AND THE ROLE OF DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION .................................................................................. 23 Relevant State DOT Roles ......................................................................................... 23 State Operated Transit –Transit as a Core DOT Function ....................................... 24 Statewide Rail Agency........................................................................................... 24 State DOT Rail Division ........................................................................................ 25 State-Level Rail Passenger Program ...................................................................... 25 Regional Transit Districts and Authorities ............................................................. 25 Regional Rail Authorities ...................................................................................... 25 Interstate Authorities ............................................................................................. 26 Regional Mobility Authorities ..............................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Brooklyn Transit Primary Source Packet

    Brooklyn Transit Primary Source Packet

    BROOKLYN TRANSIT PRIMARY SOURCE PACKET Student Name 1 2 INTRODUCTORY READING "New York City Transit - History and Chronology." Mta.info. Metropolitan Transit Authority. Web. 28 Dec. 2015. Adaptation In the early stages of the development of public transportation systems in New York City, all operations were run by private companies. Abraham Brower established New York City's first public transportation route in 1827, a 12-seat stagecoach that ran along Broadway in Manhattan from the Battery to Bleecker Street. By 1831, Brower had added the omnibus to his fleet. The next year, John Mason organized the New York and Harlem Railroad, a street railway that used horse-drawn cars with metal wheels and ran on a metal track. By 1855, 593 omnibuses traveled on 27 Manhattan routes and horse-drawn cars ran on street railways on Third, Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Avenues. Toward the end of the 19th century, electricity allowed for the development of electric trolley cars, which soon replaced horses. Trolley bus lines, also called trackless trolley coaches, used overhead lines for power. Staten Island was the first borough outside Manhattan to receive these electric trolley cars in the 1920s, and then finally Brooklyn joined the fun in 1930. By 1960, however, motor buses completely replaced New York City public transit trolley cars and trolley buses. The city's first regular elevated railway (el) service began on February 14, 1870. The El ran along Greenwich Street and Ninth Avenue in Manhattan. Elevated train service dominated rapid transit for the next few decades. On September 24, 1883, a Brooklyn Bridge cable-powered railway opened between Park Row in Manhattan and Sands Street in Brooklyn, carrying passengers over the bridge and back.
  • Naylor Road Metro Station Area Accessibility Study

    Naylor Road Metro Station Area Accessibility Study

    Naylor Road Metro Station Area Accessibility Study Pedestrian and Bicycle Metro Station Access Transportation Land-Use Connection (TLC) National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission May 2011 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Study Overview ............................................................................................................................................. 4 Study Process ............................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Background .................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Planning Context and Past Studies ............................................................................................................................................... 7 Existing Conditions and Challenges ............................................................................................................. 10 Public Outreach .........................................................................................................................................................................
  • Metropolitan Transportation Authority New York City

    Metropolitan Transportation Authority New York City

    CASE STUDY Metropolitan Transportation Authority New York City In 2019, Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) released a tender to Shared Mobility providers to develop a new scalable and sustainable on-demand transit proposal. At a glance Liftango was engaged by the MTA for a The MTA network comprises the nation’s simulation service to predict the uptake largest bus fleet and more subway and for an implemented on-demand service. commuter rail cars than all other U.S. Liftango’s simulation technology was transit systems combined. The MTA’s provided to MTA as a benchmark to operating agencies are MTA New York City measure the realism and efficiency of Transit, MTA Bus, Long Island Rail Road, tender proposals from shared mobility Metro-North Railroad, and MTA Bridges and providers. Essentially, enabling MTA to Tunnels. make an educated decision on whom they should choose as their on-demand provider. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority is North America’s largest transportation network, serving a population of 15.3 million people across a 5,000-square-mile travel area surrounding New York City through Long Island, southeastern New York State, and Connecticut. 01 The Problem MTA needed to provide a one of the largest growing As MTA’s first time launching better transport solution sectors in the next five to ten this type of project, there to the people of New York years. The census shows was some risk surrounding City’s outer areas. Why? that a number of people are launch. By engaging Liftango, Existing bus services being leaving for work between 3-6 the aim was to mitigate risk, less frequent than a subway pm and therefore returning simulate possible outcomes service or completely during the overnight period.
  • Union Station Conceptual Engineering Study

    Union Station Conceptual Engineering Study

    Portland Union Station Multimodal Conceptual Engineering Study Submitted to Portland Bureau of Transportation by IBI Group with LTK Engineering June 2009 This study is partially funded by the US Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. IBI GROUP PORtlAND UNION STATION MultIMODAL CONceptuAL ENGINeeRING StuDY IBI Group is a multi-disciplinary consulting organization offering services in four areas of practice: Urban Land, Facilities, Transportation and Systems. We provide services from offices located strategically across the United States, Canada, Europe, the Middle East and Asia. JUNE 2009 www.ibigroup.com ii Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................... ES-1 Chapter 1: Introduction .....................................................................................1 Introduction 1 Study Purpose 2 Previous Planning Efforts 2 Study Participants 2 Study Methodology 4 Chapter 2: Existing Conditions .........................................................................6 History and Character 6 Uses and Layout 7 Physical Conditions 9 Neighborhood 10 Transportation Conditions 14 Street Classification 24 Chapter 3: Future Transportation Conditions .................................................25 Introduction 25 Intercity Rail Requirements 26 Freight Railroad Requirements 28 Future Track Utilization at Portland Union Station 29 Terminal Capacity Requirements 31 Penetration of Local Transit into Union Station 37 Transit on Union Station Tracks
  • Light Rail Transit (LRT)

    Light Rail Transit (LRT)

    Transit Strategies Light Rail Transit (LRT) Light rail transit (LRT) is electrified rail service that operates in urban environments in completely exclusive rights‐of‐way, in exclusive lanes on roadways, and in some cases in mixed traffic. Most often, it uses one to three car trains and serves high volume corridors at higher speeds than local bus and streetcar service. Design and operational elements of LRT include level boarding, off‐board fare payment, and traffic signal priority. Stations are typically spaced farther apart than those of local transit services and are usually situated where there are higher population and employment densities. MAX Light Rail (Portland, OR) The T Light Rail (Pittsburgh, PA) Characteristics of LRT Service LRT is popular with passengers for a number of reasons, the most important of which are that service is fast, frequent, direct, and operates from early morning to late night. These attributes make service more convenient—much more convenient than regular bus service—and more competitive with travel by automobile. Characteristics of LRT service include: . Frequent service, typically every 10 minutes or better . Long spans of service, often 18 hours a day or more . Direct service along major corridors . Fast service Keys reasons that service is fast are the use of exclusive rights‐of‐way—exclusive lanes in the medians of roadways, in former rail rights‐of‐way, and in subways—and that stations are spaced further apart than with bus service, typically every half mile (although stations are often spaced more closely within downtown areas). Rhode Island Transit Master Plan | 1 Differences between LRT and Streetcar Light rail and streetcar service are often confused, largely because they share many similarities.
  • Pentagon City Metro Station Second Elevator Transportation Commission

    Pentagon City Metro Station Second Elevator Transportation Commission

    Pentagon City Metro Station Second Elevator Transportation Commission July 01, 2021 Pentagon City Metro Station Second Elevator • BACKGROUND: The Pentagon City Metrorail station is one of the highest in terms of ridership among stations in Northern Virginia,. • Provides access to multiple retail, government, and commercial office buildings, and is a transfer point for regional and local transit buses and numerous private bus services. • Construction of a new second elevator Intersection of S Hayes and S 12th Streets on the north side of the passageway corresponds to the new second New Elevator Existing elevator being in the general area of Elevator the pedestrian path for people crossing S. Hayes Street. July 01, 2021 Pentagon City Metro Station Second Elevator Project Scope: • The second elevator will eliminate the need to cross six (6) lanes of traffic, two parking lanes, and a bike lane to reach the elevator on the east side of S. Hayes Street. • Improves ADA access and access for passengers with strollers and luggage. • Provide redundancy, in accordance with current WMATA design criteria, when one of the elevators is out of service for any reason. July 01, 2021 Pentagon City Metro Station Second Elevator Construction Phase: On January 25, 2021, Arlington County received two (2) bids • The low bidder, W.M. Schlosser Company, Inc. was awarded the contract on April 19, 2021 for $6.4 mil. • The County and Procon (CM), will work together with the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) to ensure construction is performed
  • Bus and Shared-Ride Taxi Use in Two Small Urban Areas

    Bus and Shared-Ride Taxi Use in Two Small Urban Areas

    Bus and Shared-Ride Taxi Use in Two Small Urban Areas David P. Middendorf, Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company Kenneth W. Heathington, University of Tennessee The demand for publicly owned fixed-route. fixed-schedule bus service are used for work and business-related trips to and was compared with tho demand for privately owned shared-ride taxi ser­ within CBDs and for short social, shopping, medical, vice in Davenport. Iowa, and Hicksville, New York, through on-board and personal business trips. surveys end cab company dispatch records and driver logs. The bus and In many small cities and in many suburbs of large slmrcd·ride taxi systems in Davenport com11eted for the off.peak-period travel market. During off-peak hours, the taxis tended to attract social· metropol.il;e:H!:i, l.lus~s nd taxicabs operate within tlie recreation, medical, and per onal business trips between widely scattered same jlu·isclictions and may compete for the same public origins and destinations, while the buses tended 10 attract shopping and transportation market. Two examples of small commu­ personal business trips to the CBD. The shared-ride taxi system in Hicks· nities in which buses and ta.xis coexist are Davenport, ville, in addition to providing many-to·many service, competed with the Iowa, and Hicksville, New York. The markets, eco­ counlywide bus system as a feeder system to the Long Island commuter nomic characteristics, organization, management, and railroad network. In each study area, the markets of each mode of public operation of the taxicab systems sel'Ving these commu­ transportation were similar.
  • Intercity Bus Transportation System and Its Competition in Malaysia

    Intercity Bus Transportation System and Its Competition in Malaysia

    Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.8, 2011 Intercity Bus Transportation System and its competition in Malaysia Bayu Martanto ADJI Angelalia ROZA PhD Candidate Masters Candidate Center for Transportation Research Center for Transportation Research Faculty of Engineering Faculty of Engineering University of Malaya University of Malaya 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Fax: +603-79552182 Fax: +603-79552182 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Raja Syahira RAJA ABDUL AZIZ Mohamed Rehan KARIM Masters Candidate Professor Center for Transportation Research Center for Transportation Research Faculty of Engineering Faculty of Engineering University of Malaya University of Malaya 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Fax: +603-79552182 Fax: +603-79552182 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Abstract : Intercity transportation in Malaysia is quite similar to other countries, which involve three kinds of modes, namely, bus, rail and air. Among these modes, bus transportation continues to be the top choice for intercity travelers in Malaysia. Bus offers more flexibility compared to the other transport modes. Due to its relatively cheaper fare as compared to the air transport, bus is more affordable to those with low income. However, bus transport service today is starting to face higher competition from rail and air transport due to their attractive factors. The huge challenge faced by intercity bus transport in Malaysia is the management of its services. The intercity bus transport does not fall under one management; unlike rail transport which is managed under Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad (KTMB), or air transport which is managed under Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad (MAHB).
  • Park-And-Ride Study: Inventory, Use, and Need

    Park-And-Ride Study: Inventory, Use, and Need

    Park-and-Ride Study: Inventory, Use, and Need For the Roanoke and New River Valley regions Contents Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Study Area ................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 3 Existing Facilities ............................................................................................................................. 4 Performance Measures ................................................................................................................... 9 Connectivity ................................................................................................................................ 9 Capacity ....................................................................................................................................... 9 Access ........................................................................................................................................ 12 General Conditions ................................................................................................................... 13 Education .....................................................................................................................................
  • Metrorail/Coconut Grove Connection Study Phase II Technical

    Metrorail/Coconut Grove Connection Study Phase II Technical

    METRORAILICOCONUT GROVE CONNECTION STUDY DRAFT BACKGROUND RESEARCH Technical Memorandum Number 2 & TECHNICAL DATA DEVELOPMENT Technical Memorandum Number 3 Prepared for Prepared by IIStB Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc. 6161 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33126 December 2004 METRORAIUCOCONUT GROVE CONNECTION STUDY DRAFT BACKGROUND RESEARCH Technical Memorandum Number 2 Prepared for Prepared by BS'R Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc. 6161 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33126 December 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 2.0 STUDY DESCRiPTION ........................................................................................ 1 3.0 TRANSIT MODES DESCRIPTION ...................................................................... 4 3.1 ENHANCED BUS SERViCES ................................................................... 4 3.2 BUS RAPID TRANSIT .............................................................................. 5 3.3 TROLLEY BUS SERVICES ...................................................................... 6 3.4 SUSPENDED/CABLEWAY TRANSIT ...................................................... 7 3.5 AUTOMATED GUIDEWAY TRANSiT ....................................................... 7 3.6 LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT .............................................................................. 8 3.7 HEAVY RAIL ............................................................................................. 8 3.8 MONORAIL
  • Travel Characteristics of Transit-Oriented Development in California

    Travel Characteristics of Transit-Oriented Development in California

    Travel Characteristics of Transit-Oriented Development in California Hollie M. Lund, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Urban and Regional Planning California State Polytechnic University, Pomona Robert Cervero, Ph.D. Professor of City and Regional Planning University of California at Berkeley Richard W. Willson, Ph.D., AICP Professor of Urban and Regional Planning California State Polytechnic University, Pomona Final Report January 2004 Funded by Caltrans Transportation Grant—“Statewide Planning Studies”—FTA Section 5313 (b) Travel Characteristics of TOD in California Acknowledgements This study was a collaborative effort by a team of researchers, practitioners and graduate students. We would like to thank all members involved for their efforts and suggestions. Project Team Members: Hollie M. Lund, Principle Investigator (California State Polytechnic University, Pomona) Robert Cervero, Research Collaborator (University of California at Berkeley) Richard W. Willson, Research Collaborator (California State Polytechnic University, Pomona) Marian Lee-Skowronek, Project Manager (San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit) Anthony Foster, Research Associate David Levitan, Research Associate Sally Librera, Research Associate Jody Littlehales, Research Associate Technical Advisory Committee Members: Emmanuel Mekwunye, State of California Department of Transportation, District 4 Val Menotti, San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit, Planning Department Jeff Ordway, San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit, Real Estate Department Chuck Purvis, Metropolitan Transportation Commission Doug Sibley, State of California Department of Transportation, District 4 Research Firms: Corey, Canapary & Galanis, San Francisco, California MARI Hispanic Field Services, Santa Ana, California Taylor Research, San Diego, California i Travel Characteristics of TOD in California ii Travel Characteristics of TOD in California Executive Summary Rapid growth in the urbanized areas of California presents many transportation and land use challenges for local and regional policy makers.
  • Walking Toward Metro Stations: the Contribution of Distance, Attitudes, and Perceived Built Environment

    Walking Toward Metro Stations: the Contribution of Distance, Attitudes, and Perceived Built Environment

    sustainability Article Walking toward Metro Stations: the Contribution of Distance, Attitudes, and Perceived Built Environment Mohammad Paydar 1,* , Asal Kamani Fard 2 and Mohammad Mehdi Khaghani 3 1 Escuela de Arquitectura Temuco, Facultad de Humanidades, Universidad Mayor, Av. Alemania 281, Temuco 4780000, Chile 2 Academic Researcher, Universidad Católica del Maule, San Miguel 3605, Talca, Chile; [email protected] 3 Department of Urban Studies, Apadana Institute of Higher Education, Shiraz 7187985443, Iran; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 17 September 2020; Accepted: 16 November 2020; Published: 9 December 2020 Abstract: Walking as an active means of travel is important as a sustainable mode of transport. Moreover, the level of walking in the surrounding areas of metro stations would contribute to maintaining the minimum rate of physical activity and, therefore, inhabitants’ general health. This study examined the impacts of walking attitude, walking distance, and perceived built environment on walking behavior for reaching the metro stations in Shiraz, Iran. Three metro stations were selected and a quantitative approach was used to examine the objectives. It was found that the average walking distance is less than the average in developed countries, such as the United States. People walked more when there was a shorter distance between their starting points and the metro stations. The contribution of walking attitudes and several built environment attributes to walking behavior was demonstrated. Finding the contribution of aesthetic attributes, such as accessibility to parks and housing types of the starting points of the walking trips, to walking for transport are taken into account as the novelties of this study.