multimodality connectivity to brt: analysis of metro orange line
DESCRIPTION
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.TRANSCRIPT
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.
MULITIMODALITY CONNECTIVITY OF BRT 3
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
MULITIMODALITY CONNECTIVITY OF BRT 4
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
MULITIMODALITY CONNECTIVITY OF BRT 5
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
MULITIMODALITY CONNECTIVITY OF BRT 6
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).
MULITIMODALITY CONNECTIVITY OF BRT 7
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.
MULITIMODALITY CONNECTIVITY OF BRT 8
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
MULITIMODALITY CONNECTIVITY OF BRT 9
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.
MULITIMODALITY CONNECTIVITY OF BRT 10
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.
MULITIMODALITY CONNECTIVITY OF BRT 11
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.
MULITIMODALITY CONNECTIVITY OF BRT 12
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.
MULITIMODALITY CONNECTIVITY OF BRT 13
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
MULITIMODALITY CONNECTIVITY OF BRT 14
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).
MULITIMODALITY CONNECTIVITY OF BRT 15
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
MULITIMODALITY CONNECTIVITY OF BRT 16
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
MULITIMODALITY CONNECTIVITY OF BRT 17
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.
MULITIMODALITY CONNECTIVITY OF BRT 18
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.
MULITIMODALITY CONNECTIVITY OF BRT 19
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
MULITIMODALITY CONNECTIVITY OF BRT 20
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.