Multimodality Connectivity to BRT: Analysis of Metro Orange Line

Running head: MULITIMODALITY CONNECTIVITY OF BRT 1

Multimodality Connectivity to BRT: Analysis of Metro Orange Line

Dorian Aguilar, Manuel Araujo, Jorge Martinez, Jose Palma, Liza Wright

California State University, Northridge

MULITIMODALITY CONNECTIVITY OF BRT 2

Abstract

The Metro Orange Line is a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system serves the region of San Fernando

Valley under the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority (LAMTA). The BRT is an

alternative for San Fernando Valley residents to travel less by car and more by public

transportation. Ridership is increasing, but most people living here are still using automobiles as

their form of transportation when it comes to daily travel (Callaghan and Vincent, 2007). The

purpose of this paper is to conduct an analysis of the current transportation infrastructure around

each station and if they promote multimodality. The areas of study were focused on population

density, infrastructure, and bus and taxi services. We analyzed if pedestrians, cyclists, taxis and

car users were connected to each station (Duarte and Rojas, 2012); and, recommended changes

that promote multimodality.


Introduction

The Metro Orange Line serves passengers in the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles.

The LAMTA (2012) pamphlet promotes the BRT service as an alternative travel mode to work,

school, shopping and entertainment. This type of BRT is distinguished to have completely

separate roadways for Metro Orange Line buses only, known as busways, (Giuliano and Hanson,

2004). The push for BRT for the San Fernando Valley was most likely influenced by the Federal

Transit Administration (FTA), who encouraged a cheaper alternative to Light Rail Transit (LRT)

that is more acceptable by the public, (Giuliano and Hanson, 2004). BRT’s are also built in a

shorter amount of time that can correlate with a cheaper price tag (Cain, Dando, Baltes,

Rodriguez & Barrios, 2007). As a result, the Metro Orange Line BRT was constructed and began

service in October 2005 and added an extension to Chatsworth in June 2012, approved by

LAMTA in 2012 (Callaghan and Vincent, 2007).Yet, Jane Choi (2013) from Los Angeles

Department of City Planning (LADCP), states that traffic continues to be a problem for the city

because of the lack of connections to maximize mobility. Hence, looking at other successful

BRT models might give us an idea of what can be done to improve mobility in the San Fernando

Valley and the Metro Orange Line.

The most recognizable BRT models are Curitiba and Bogotá which have been published

in technical manuals like ITDP (2007) or Embarq (2010). These manuals demonstrate BRT as an

ideal form of public transportation because of its flexibility, affordability, accessibility, and

overall positive impact with various cities around the world. Wright and Fulton (2005) consider

BRT, like that of Curitiba, to be a contributor to reducing greenhouse gases when implemented

correctly through policy. When planned correctly, BRTs are known to be an acceptable form of


transportation that brings in all types of passengers that feel safe and reliable taking BRT,

(Rickert, 2010). Duarte and Rojas (2012) analyzed both the Curitiba and Bogotá models and

noticed connectivity issues with other modes of transportation or known as

intermodal/multimodal connectivity issues, that are addressed to make BRTs even more

successful. This comparative analysis is vital to understanding how multimodality fairs on the

Metro Orange Line.

Multimodality is an important factor when understanding if stations are being well

connected with other forms of transportation (bike, walking, etc.) to ensure ridership for daily

trips (Duarte and Rojas, 2012). Duarte and Rojas (2012) evaluated each BRT’s stations to make

sure different modes of transportation could connect including access to bicycle parking and

accessibility for the disabled. With an understanding of multimodality, there is a need to know if

the Metro Orange Line promotes multimodality and how this can reach the City of Los Angeles’

goals of maximizing mobility, in the San Fernando Valley, giving people reliability to use other

forms of transportation (Choi, 2013).

The focus of this paper is to analyze the current transportation infrastructure around

stations of the Metro Orange Line BRT and to see if it promotes multimodality. We examine if

pedestrians, cyclists, taxis and car users are connected to each station and recommend changes

that promote better multimodality. The areas of study that were looked into were population

density, transportation infrastructure, and bus and taxi services.

Areas of Study

First, population density around each BRT station was looked into to see if there was

enough population to promote multimodalities. The Thomas Jefferson Planning commission,

advocates that population density and accessibility are essential components for excellent public


transportation (2011). Furthermore, “an important question when considering rail and rapid bus

transit is whether the community has the appropriate population density and land use patterns to

support such systems” (Thomas Jefferson Planning Commission, 2011). The successes of good

rail and bus rapid transit systems are attributed to issues that are commonly overlooked like

density, accessibility, land use and transportation planning (Thomas Jefferson Planning

Commission, 2011). It is important to learn if the each station serves the proper density that

supports and promotes multimodalities.

Transportation infrastructure was observed to see if the public environment was

favorable to various modes of transportation such as biking, walking and overall accessibility.

Additionally, “benefits to multimodal terminals, including; supporting and enhancing transit

usage, facilitating transfer between modes, clarifying the regional transit network, increasing

transportation options, [and] taking advantage of efficiencies, …” (TranSystem, 2012). Taking

this information into consideration, it is important for transportation infrastructure to promote

multimodalities that can garner strong multimodal access to each Metro Orange Line station. As

previously stated, research was conducted around the bus stations in order evaluate if multimodal

transportation infrastructure is supported.

Bus and taxi services were studied to see if they adequately served the bus stations. An

article by the Cape Cod Commission, argues that unreliable service routes hinders ridership, but

that should not be the reason not improve it (2011). Hence, if ridership is hindered then mostly

likely riders using shuttle services such as kiss-n-ride or taxi service will decline. “Traffic on

major roadways also delays many local buses… making them less dependable. Offering more

buses in a more dependable manner will improve rider mobility and encourage more people to


use transit services” (Cape Cod, 2011). A survey was conducted at each station to see if the

previously mentioned factors applied.

Multimodality at the Metro Orange Line BRT

Currently, commuters of the Orange Line can access the BRT at street level platforms at

all 18 stations. These platforms are more desirable compared to those which are elevated;

passengers must walk up steps to reach the platform in order to access a bus. Although, the

advantage of the Orange Line platforms, plus the infrastructure surrounding stations are key

intermodal elements when connecting commuters within the systems network (Duarte & Rojas,

2012, p.9), our research team assessed the infrastructure within a 100 meter radius of each station

to determine if the current infrastructure promotes multimodal transportation.

Methodology

In assessing the multimodalities of each Metro station, a survey of a 100 meter radius was

conducted assessing all sidewalks of the streets with access to stations, plus evaluating

connecting bus and taxi service to stations.

Data Collection

In our assessment process of each station, plus the infrastructure within the 100 meter

radius, data was entered into a table in order to determine the quality of infrastructure which

promotes and serves each station. Figure 1 was used to collect data, which was initially done by

Fabio Duarte and Fernando Rojas (2012).


Figure 1

Sidewalk assessment: In order to evaluate the walkability and/or if a sidewalk met the

American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, sidewalks to and from each Metro Orange

Line station were given a grade ranging from 1-5. A small description of each grade is shown in

Table 1 below and followed by further details of each.

Sidewalk 1-5 Grading Scale Scale Description

1 Non-paved sidewalk, slopping, uneven dirt or grass.

2 Paved sidewalk with intersections of grass lawn, dirt or an even dirt path.

3 Paved sidewalk, which has obstacles such as large cracks or elevations which can trip a person.

4 Paved leveled sidewalk no surface obstacles, without ADA complaint ramps at end of block.

5 Paved leveled sidewalk no surface obstacles, with ADA complaint ramps at end of block.

Table 1

Grade 1: According to the grading scale, when grading a sidewalk with a grade of 1, a

sidewalk would be non-existent. There would not be a pavement nor would it be walkable due to

holes, bumps, debris along the path or at an angel, as shown in Image 1.


Image 1: Grade 1. Non-paved sidewalk, slopping, uneven dirt or grass.

Grade 2: A grade of 2 is represented by a sidewalk which is a paved sidewalk with

possible intersections of grass lawns or dirt. This classification must be taken into account and

separated from a grade 1 due to the commonality in Los Angeles where some properties have a

paved sidewalk in front and others have dirt or grass lawn, as shown in Image 2.

Image 2: Grade 2. Paved sidewalk with intersections of a grass lawn or dirt.

Grade 3: Grade 3 is a paved sidewalk, which has obstacles such as large cracks or

elevations which can cause a person to trip or fall. The importance behind this grade is due to

injuries which can arise from falls, especially children and the elderly. Khambatta (2011, p. 3)

states, “…Americans who are 65 and over fall, and a third of the falls cause injuries requiring

medical treatment. The leading cause of injury deaths for those 65 and over are falls and about

half of those resulted in traumatic brain injuries.” With public health being a concern, sidewalks

of grades 2 and 3 are the most hazardous because they may seem walkable but can easily cause a


person to fall, especially when the impediment is small and non-intrusive which is often ignored,

shown in Image 3.

Image 3: Grade 3. Paved sidewalk with obstacles such as large cracks and/or elevations.

Grade 4 & 5: The two other grades of sidewalks are grade 4 and grade 5. Grade 4 is a

paved leveled sidewalk with no surface obstacles, without ADA compliant ramps at end of block,

shown in Image 4. Grade 5 is similar to the afford mention grade 4 sidewalk with the ADA

compliant ramps, but have a bump landing pad for sensing by the blind, shown in Image 5.

Image 4: Grade 4. Paved leveled sidewalk no surface obstacles, without ADA compliant ramps at end of block.


Image 5: Grade 5. Paved leveled sidewalk, no surface obstacles, with ADA complaint ramps at end of block.

Streets assessment: When evaluating streets our team looked for the availability of

bicycle paths, lanes, or to use as modes of travel to the Metro Orange Line stations. The Los

Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LAMTA 2012) defines the different types of

categories as the following:

Class 1: A class one bicycle path is one which is separated from automobile traffic with

its own corridor. Class one paths are usually found along current transit systems, rivers, parks,

and/or former train track corridors.

Class 2: The more commonly seen in Los Angeles is a class 2 bicycle lane. A class 2

bicycle lane is in a street with painted markings along the length of the street next to the parked

cars along the curb.

Class 3, sharrow: A sharrow is not a lane or a path. However, there are markings with

noticeable arrows pointing in the direction of traffic with a bicycle image beneath the arrows. A

sharrow is a sign to automobile traffic, informing them to share the road with bicyclists.

Cycle Track: Lastly, a cycle track is a lane within street traffic similar to a class 2 lane.

However, a cycle track is located between parked cars and the curb to insure safety from

automobiles.


Stations assessment: When conducting station assessments the team looked at parking

availability for automobiles and bikes at each station. In addition, areas for taxi and kiss-n-ride

drop off were considered in order to determine if such modes were being encouraged.

Bus Connections: The final evaluation of the Metro Orange Line stations was to

determine whether a station had connecting bus routes that transport passengers to and from each

station. If a station was connected to other buses or rail, the number of connections was

recorded.

Analysis of Results

Maps were created to visually represent each form of modality. The sidewalk grading

scale of 1-5 was created to understand the average sidewalk rating, using a 100 meter radius

around each station. Overall, the average sidewalk rating for all stations averaged out to a 3.64

rating. This states that the average sidewalks surrounding each Metro Orange Line stations were

not well maintained. The stations with the best rated sidewalks were the following: Warner

Center and Sepulveda. Both received a 4.5 rating or above based on condition of sidewalks. The

stations with the lowest ratings were the following: De Soto, Valley College, and Woodman.

These stations received a 2.8 rating or below based on sidewalk conditions. Even with the overall

low rating for all stations, they all provided adequate access for disabled individuals.

The highest percentage of bicycle usage occurs within the Pacific Region of the United

States (Giuliano and Hanson, 2004). With this new high bike use, Los Angeles needs to

incorporate infrastructure for this highly unused modality. A class 1 bike path runs parallel to the

Orange Line, but changes to a class 2 bike lane when going from the Canoga to Warner Center

Station, and then again from Valley College to the North Hollywood station (Figure 2). Class 2

bike lanes also intersect each station on the Metro Orange Line, providing adequate access.


Parking availability is essential for drivers willing to use effective public transportation.

Over half of the stations did not provide a parking lot for Metro Orange Line users (LAMTA,

2012). This discourages individuals to drive to stations, and instead could just drive to their

destination without the stress of finding a parking spot around the stations. With the absence of

parking lots at 10 of the 18 stations, shown in figure 2, the multimodality of personal vehicles is

seemingly low.

Figure 2

Bus and rail service is another important aspect in multimodality. Many individuals in the

San Fernando Valley do not have access to personal vehicles and must take advantage of

alternatives (US Census, 2010). All Metro Orange Line stations provide at least one connection

via bus line, shown in figure 3 (LAMTA, 2013). The two stations with the highest connectivity

are North Hollywood and Chatsworth. Chatsworth station offers rail service for commuters and

long distance travelers. North Hollywood station provides Metro Red Line (heavy rail) service.


Figure 3

The availability of designated taxi or kiss-n-ride drop-off areas were only found at the

North Hollywood and Chatsworth stations. Looking at the map created in figure 4, the large

circles represent stations with an area that could be used for this drop-off purpose, but are not

designated with signs. Although these are not as heavily used like other modalities, it is an

important factor in getting individuals to stations.

Figure 4


Another important factor worth looking at population density (Figure 5), because we can

start to visually see that over half of the Metro Orange Line stations are not located next to high

density areas (US Census Bureau, 2010).

Figure 5

Recommendations

Transit Oriented Development

Transit Oriented Development (TODs) signifies access and mobility to people of all ages

and abilities. Such development includes clustering of homes, jobs, shops, and services in close

proximity to rail stations, ferry terminals or bus stops offering access to frequent, high-quality

transit services. Compact development and mixing of different land uses, along with amenities

like pedestrian-friendly streets and parks are essential in TOD areas (Handy, 2005). Transit

Oriented Development does not mean that everyone should give up their automobile; it means

that residents are very likely to own fewer cars than those living far away from transit centers.

For this reason, TOD’s might also be thought of as “driving-optional” developments

(Woldeamanuel, 2013).


To be successful, TOD must serve a significant portion of trips by public transit, walking,

and biking, rather than by private automobile (Woldeamanuel, 2013). As John Renne states,

“The high-quality design of the Berkeley station of the Bay Area BRT, pedestrian and bicycle

accessibility, high-density and small street network in the Berkeley station precinct are all

characteristics of an ideal TOD” (2009). It is important to recognize the benefits of these

environment and healthier living practices.

TOD allows for an improvement of transit and walking/biking opportunities as well as

providing individuals with a chance to cut back on driving. But most importantly, it reduces the

amount of urban sprawl. Sustainable TODs also advocate the use of new methods and

technologies for creating livable urban places with sustainable land-use planning and pedestrian

space design in order to reduce climate impact, (Hsieh, 2012).

Road diets

Road diets are recommended on the streets leading to the Metro Orange Line Stations in

order to reduce traffic and enable a safe road for different types of transportation such as

walking, biking, or skateboarding. The "road diet," as Stout and Carriquiry explain (2006)

explain, generally converting a roadway one through lane in each direction and a two-way,

continuous left-turn lane. Road diets also create a reduction of vehicle lanes in order to create a

barrier on the street. These implementations are frequently suggested as a traffic calming

solution or to address left-turn related crashes on undivided four-lane urban roadways where

widening may not be an option (Stout and Carriquiry, 2006).

In further support of this finding, Stout and Carriquiry (2006) concluded that a number of

benefits can be realized from the conversion of urban four-lane undivided roadways to three-lane


cross sections in selected locations where physical or environmental constraints prohibit options

that involve widening. Benefits include; a 25% reduction in crash frequency per mile and a 19-

percent reduction in crash rate; a 34% reduction in the number of injury crashes as well as a

reduction in the severity of the crashes that do occur; reductions involving of age groups that are

traditionally at risk, those 25 and younger as well as those 65 and older; and lastly, a significant

reduction in the number of crash types related to left turns and stopped traffic.

Complete Streets

Complete Streets are designed and operated to enable safe access for all users. This

includes pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilities. Complete

Streets make it easy to cross the street, walk to shops, and bicycle to work. They allow buses to

run on time and make it safe for people to walk to and from train stations (Brozon, 2013).

The expansion of the sidewalk space onto the street means various benefits for

pedestrians and other modes of transportation. For instance, with more space, Shops and other

services can extend their services and create more social engagement. The extension of

sidewalks results as space for pedestrian activities. Some areas of TOD, bicyclists are not only

adequate in infrastructure, but also they are protected by parked cars rather than parked cars

being protected by bicycles (Brozon, 2013).

With increased civic engagement comes a decrease in public health issues. For instance,

the availability of different modes of transportation such as biking and walking both produce

healthier cities where the population have access to green spaces and cleaner air to breathe

compared to automobile designed streets (Brozon, 2013). Complete Streets also decrease obesity

rates, asthma rates among children, and other health issues in comparison to automobile

dependent societies (Woldeamanuel, 2013). It is important to recognize what is essential to


provide all these characteristics. Environmental, Social Equity, and Economics are the three key

components that need to be taken into consideration when developing a healthy city

(Woldeamanuel, 20013).

Conclusion

The current transportation infrastructure of the Metro Orange Line does not promote

multimodality with different modes of transportation like bicycling or walking. Achieving a

multimodal approach to every Metro station with different modes of transportation and access is

important for multimodal use in the San Fernando Valley, (Duarte and Rojas, 2012). Based on

previous analysis of results, parking is not a successful factor that needs better advertising by

Metro. This will ensure maximum use of parking lots and drop of zones. Low population

densities have left people further away from stations resulting in walking and cycling for longer

distances, (US Census 2010). This proves to show that there needs to be research on possible

areas of development around stations. Again, this does not encourage potential riders to use the

Metro Orange Line, because it is not well connected or accessible. Also, when looking at

different multimodal connection to the Metro Orange Line, current Los Angeles City Taxi policy

makes it difficult for a taxi ride to a viable option, (Taxi Services, n.d).

Further studies should look into frequency of routes for every Metro station. This is

another important factor in which multimodality can be promoted with other bus systems that is

in sync with the Metro Orange Line.

This paper has attempted to confirm that multimodality is an important key feature for

each station to encourage more people to use the Metro Orange Line Bus Rapid Transit system.


References

Bitterman, A. (2008). Bus rapid transit identity: An overview of current “branding” practice.

Journal of Public Transportation, 11(2), 19.

Brozen, Madeline. (Director). UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs. (2013). Double Tree by

Hilton Complete streets conference 2013, Los Angeles.

Cain, A., Darido, G., Baltes, M. R., Rodriguez, P., & Barrios, J. C. (2007). Applicability of

TransMilenio bus rapid transit system of Bogotá, Colombia, to the United States.

Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,

2034(1), 45-54.

Callaghan, L., & Vincent, W. (2007). Preliminary evaluation of Metro Orange Line bus rapid

transit project. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research

Board, 2034(1), 37-44.

Cape Cod. (2011). Cape Cod Regional Transportation. Retrieved from

http://www.capecodcommission.org/resources/transportation/rtp/2-3_Bus_08222011.pdf

Choi, J (2013). Transportation Planning and Sustainability: The Case of Los Angeles [PDF

Document] Retrieved from Lecture Notes Online Website:

http://moodle.csun.edu/file.php/44792/LADCP_CSUN_Presentation_Apr_13.pdf

Duarte, F., & Rojas, F. (2012). Intermodal Connectivity to BRT: A Comparative Analysis of

Bogotá and Curitiba. Journal of Public Transportation, 15(2).

Embarq. Modernizing public transportation. World Resources Institute, Washington, 2010.

Giuliano G. & Hanson, S.(Eds.).(2004). The geography of urban transportation. New York, NY:

The Guilford publications, Inc.

Handy, S. (2005). Smart growth and the transportation-land use connection: What does the

research tell us?. International Regional Science Review, 28(2), 146-167.


Hsieh, C., & u, K. (2012). Climate-sensitive urban design measures for improving the wind

environment for pedestrians in a transit-oriented development area. Journal of

Sustainable Development, 5(4), 46.

Khambatta, A. (2011, November 10). Pedestrian Infrastructure on the Public Right-of-Way:

Aging Pedestrians and Prioritizing Sidewalk Hazards Using the Ultra Light Inertial

Profiler (ULIP). Transportation Research Board. doi: 12-1439

LAMTA (Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority).. (2012, June). Metro bike map [Map]. In

Bike Metro. Retrieved March 14, 2013, from

http://www.metro.net/riding_metro/bikes/images/la_bike_map.pdf

LAMTA (Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority). (2013). Go Metro Map. Retrieved May

01, 2012 from http://www.metro.net/riding_metro/maps/images/rail_map.pdf

LAMTA (Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority). (2012). Metro Orange Line destination

guide [Pamphlet]. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority.

Renne, J. (2009). From transit-adjacent to transit-oriented development. Local Environment,

14(1), 1-15.

Rickert, T. (2010). Technical and operational challenges to inclusive Bus Rapid Transit: A guide

for practitioners. World Bank, Washington.

Stout, T., Pawlovich, M. , Souleyrette, R. , & Carriquiry, A. (2006). Safety impacts of "road

diets" in iowa. Institute of Transportation Engineers. ITE Journal, 76(12), 24.

Taxi Services.(n.d). City of Los Angeles. Retrieved May 14, 2013, from

http://www.taxicabsla.org/

TranSystem. (2012). Multimodal Terminals. Retrieved May, 12 2013 from


http://www.transystems.com/Home/Markets/Transit-and-Passenger-Rail/Multimodal-

Terminals.aspx

Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (2001). High Density Traffic Considerations.

Retrieved May, 12 2013 from http://www.tjpdc.org/transportation/report.asp?docID=24

U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.). American Factfinder: Los Angeles County, C.A. Retrieved April 25,

2013, from http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml

Vincent, W., & Jerram, L. C. (2006). The Potential for Bus Rapid Transit to Reduce

Transportation-Related CO~ 2 Emissions. Journal of Public Transportation, 9(3), 219.

Woldeamanuel, Mintesnot. (February 2013). Transportation Planning. URBS 480 Course. Cal

State University, Northridge.

Wright, L., & Fulton, L. (2005). Climate change mitigation and transport in developing nations.

Transport Reviews, 25(6), 691-717.

Wright, L., & Hook, W. B. (2007). Bus rapid transit planning guide. New York: Institute for

Transportation & Development Policy.

Date post:	03-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	manuel-araujo
View:	21 times
Download:	3 times

Multimodality Connectivity to BRT: Analysis of Metro Orange Line

Documents