Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations APPENDIX E DETAILED CASE STUDIES Revised Final Report 2011 Page E-1 Detailed Case Studies Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations TABLE OF CONTENTS Case Study Summary ............................................................................................................................... E-3 Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) .............................................................................................................. E-7 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) ........................................... E-21 Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) ................................................................ E-33 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) ..................................................................... E-41 Metro-North Railroad ............................................................................................................................. E-57 New Jersey Transit (NJT) ....................................................................................................................... E-67 OC Transpo .............................................................................................................................................. E-81 Regional Transit District Denver (RTD) ............................................................................................... E-93 Sound Transit ......................................................................................................................................... E-105 TriMet ..................................................................................................................................................... E-117 Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority (WMATA) ................................................................ E-129 Revised Final Report 2011 Page E-2 Detailed Case Studies Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations CASE STUDY SUMMARY This document summarizes the results of eleven case studies conducted as part of Task 9 and Task 12 of TCRP B-38: Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations. In total, more than 70 people were interviewed for the case studies, including staff from transit agencies, local jurisdictions, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), and state departments of transportation. Table 1 summarizes the interviewees for each case study. In addition, all eleven transit agencies were visited in person by members of the research team to collect data and better understand local conditions. Table 1 Summary of Case Study Interviewees Case Study Agency Interviewees BART Val Menotti, BART Tina Spencer, AC Transit Jeff Ordway, BART Kathy Kleinbaum, City of Oakland Kevin Hagerty, BART Kathy Livermore, City of San Leandro Maureen Wetter, BART Wendy Silvani, Emery-Go-Round Cory LaVigne, AC Transit LA Metro Alexander Kalamaros, Metro Lynne Goldsmith, Metro Ashok Kumar, Metro Tham Nguyen, Metro Stewart Chesler, Metro Walt Davis, Metro Jesse Simon, Metro Susan Harrington, Caltrans Robin Blair, Metro MARTA Ted Tarantino, MARTA Darryl P. Connelly, MARTA MBTA Joseph Cosgrove Metro-North Daniel O'Connell, Metro-North Linda Corcoran, Metro-North New Jersey Transit Vivian Baker, NJ Transit Cindy Solomon, City of Rahway RJ Palladino, NJ Transit John Hagerty, Town of Woodbridge Tom Marchwinski, NJ Transit Marta Lefsky, Town of Woodbridge Brent Barnes, NJ DOT OC Transpo Colin Simpson, City of Ottawa Chris Brouwer, City of Ottawa Colleen Connelly, City of Ottawa RTD Denver Jeff Becker, RTD Errol Stevens, RTD Bill Sirois, RTD Mac Callison, City of Aurora Jesse Carter, RTD O’Neill Quinlan, RTD Board (former) Robert Rynerson, RTD Mike Flarety, City of Englewood. Sound Transit Scott Kirkpatrick, Sound Transit Val Batey, Sound Transit Mike Williams, Sound Transit Mark Johnson, Sound Transit Leonard McGhee, Sound Transit Greg Walker, Sound Transit Rebecca Roush, Sound Transit Tony Mazzella, City of Seattle Kate Lichtenstein, Sound Transit Sara Robertson, City of Seattle Matt Shelden, Sound Transit Revised Final Report 2011 Page E-3 Detailed Case Studies Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations Case Study Agency Interviewees TriMet David Unsworth, TriMet Colin Maher, TriMet Eric Hesse, TriMet Tony Mendoza, Metro Jilian Detweiler, TriMet John Mermin, Metro Joe Recker, TriMet Wendy Hemmen, City of Milwaukie Young Park, TriMet WMATA John Magarelli, WMATA John Dittmeier, WMATA Mark Kellogg, WMATA Kristin Haldeman, WMATA Patrick Schmitt, WMATA Wendy Jia, WMATA Matthew Zych, WMATA Richard Stevens, Fairfax County Krys Ochin, WMATA Charles Kines, Montgomery County Robin McElherny, WMATA David Aspacher, Montgomery County Scott Peterson, WMATA Gary Erenich, Montgomery County The results of the case studies presented in this document will be used to inform the guidance developed through the TCRP B-38 research project, particularly through Task 10: Present Improved Methods. As such, overall conclusions drawn from the case studies are presented in the body of Task 10 Working Paper #4; this appendix simply presents the case studies themselves, without general discussion. Each case study is organized into five primary sections: Theme – This section briefly describes in two to three paragraphs the overall content and key messages of the case study. Lessons Learned – This section summarizes lessons derived from the case study that may be generalized to other agencies. The lessons learned will play a key role informing the results of Task 10. Background – This section provides information that is not necessarily-related to access, but that is important context for understanding the remainder of the case study. This section also provides a summary table of basic information for each case study (e.g., urban area size, total route miles, etc.). Process – This section provides detailed information regarding the transit agency’s access planning programs, policies, and actions. The section is organized around the 10- step process described for access planning in the Interim Report. However, the research team condensed the process to eight steps following initial review of the case study results, to more accurately reflect actual planning experiences. Figure 1 shows this 8- step process. Revised Final Report 2011 Page E-4 Detailed Case Studies Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations Step 1: Identify the Problem Step 2: Establish a Collaborative Environment Step 3: Develop Objectives & Principles Step 4: Establish Evaluation Criteria Step 5: Build a Rich Set of Appropriate Options Step 6: Predict Outcomes and Apply Criteria Step 7: Tradeoffs, Negotiation, and Choice Step 8: Implementation and Monitoring Figure 1 Access Planning Process Flow Chart No single case study covers all eight steps, to allow each case study to focus in more detail on specific aspects of a transit agency’s practices. Considered in total, however, the case studies comprehensively cover each step of the process shown in Figure 1. Table 2 summarizes the process steps covered for each case study. Revised Final Report 2011 Page E-5 Detailed Case Studies Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations Table 2 Case Study Topic Area Summary Case Study Process Step Transit Agency 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BART LA Metro MARTA MBTA Metro-North NJ Transit OC Transpo RTD Denver Sound Transit TriMet WMATA Example Applications – This section provides example applications for each transit agency, detailing how the agency’s process is applied in practice. While the process section of the case studies describe agency-wide practices, the case applications typically focus on specific stations at which access improvements have successfully been made. Background information is provided for each station, including summary statistics and an aerial with a half-mile buffer around the station highlighted, in addition to a detailed description of local access issues. NOTE: Unless otherwise noted, all images and photographs in the case studies are from the transit agency being studied. Revised Final Report 2011 Page E-6 Detailed Case Studies Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Using Policy and Data to Drive Access Decisions THEME Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) has one of the most well-developed transit station access planning programs in the United States. The program’s policy basis is the agency’s 2003 Station Access Guidelines, which identify an access hierarchy prioritizing low-cost, high-capacity modes (in order of priority: pedestrian, transit, bicycle, drop-off, and park-and-ride), and describe planning principles for each mode. This framework allows BART to effectively work with the numerous local jurisdictions, transit agencies, shuttle operators, and other stakeholders located within its service area, and to apply a consistent process to stations system wide. The policy framework is supported by an extensive data collection program and set of analysis tools. In particular, BART’s 1998 and 2008 Passenger Profile Studies provide a wealth of data, including access mode shares at each station and station-area economic profiles. These studies provide the data necessary to set realistic goals for serving access needs and shifting them