<%BANNER%>

Using a Conflict Model to Determine Optimal Locations for Park-and-Ride Lots in Alachua County Based on Connectivity of ...

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042616/00001

Material Information

Title: Using a Conflict Model to Determine Optimal Locations for Park-and-Ride Lots in Alachua County Based on Connectivity of Road Networks, Population Characteristics and the Mix of Land Use of Surrounding Parcels
Physical Description: 1 online resource (98 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Alvarez, Jessica
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: connectivity, land, park, ride, transit, transportation, use
Urban and Regional Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Urban and Regional Planning thesis, M.A.U.R.P.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Using a Conflict Model to Determine Optimal Locations for Park and Rides in Alachua County Based on Connectivity of Road Networks, Populations Characteristics, and the Mix of Land Use of Surrounding Parcels The main purpose of this paper is to determine optimal locations for three types of park-and-ride lots throughout Alachua County. These types are: Urban Corridor, Peripheral, and Remote lots. Urban Corridor lots are characterized by being located along a major commuter corridor in an area, these types of sites are served by transit that is faster and more direct to the urban core. Peripheral lots are located at the fringe of an intensely developed, highly congested activity center. Finally remote lots are located outside the urban area in a rural or small town setting. These three elements are integrated into an opportunity surface across Alachua County. The most suitable areas for park-and-ride lots are along the corridors to the City of Alachua and the City of Newberry. The final recommended park-and-ride locations included: Oaks Mall Regional Shopping Center, Butler Plaza, Williston Shopping Center, Waldo Road and Northwood Village Shopping Center.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Jessica Alvarez.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.U.R.P.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Zwick, Paul D.
Local: Co-adviser: Steiner, Ruth L.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0042616:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042616/00001

Material Information

Title: Using a Conflict Model to Determine Optimal Locations for Park-and-Ride Lots in Alachua County Based on Connectivity of Road Networks, Population Characteristics and the Mix of Land Use of Surrounding Parcels
Physical Description: 1 online resource (98 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Alvarez, Jessica
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: connectivity, land, park, ride, transit, transportation, use
Urban and Regional Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Urban and Regional Planning thesis, M.A.U.R.P.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Using a Conflict Model to Determine Optimal Locations for Park and Rides in Alachua County Based on Connectivity of Road Networks, Populations Characteristics, and the Mix of Land Use of Surrounding Parcels The main purpose of this paper is to determine optimal locations for three types of park-and-ride lots throughout Alachua County. These types are: Urban Corridor, Peripheral, and Remote lots. Urban Corridor lots are characterized by being located along a major commuter corridor in an area, these types of sites are served by transit that is faster and more direct to the urban core. Peripheral lots are located at the fringe of an intensely developed, highly congested activity center. Finally remote lots are located outside the urban area in a rural or small town setting. These three elements are integrated into an opportunity surface across Alachua County. The most suitable areas for park-and-ride lots are along the corridors to the City of Alachua and the City of Newberry. The final recommended park-and-ride locations included: Oaks Mall Regional Shopping Center, Butler Plaza, Williston Shopping Center, Waldo Road and Northwood Village Shopping Center.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Jessica Alvarez.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.U.R.P.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Zwick, Paul D.
Local: Co-adviser: Steiner, Ruth L.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0042616:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 USING A CONFLICT MOD EL TO DETERMINE OPTI MAL LOCATIONS FOR PA RK AND RIDES IN ALACHUA COUNTY BASED ON CONN ECTIVITY OF ROAD NETWORKS, POPULATION S CHARACTERISTICS AN D THE MIX OF LAND US E OF SURROUNDING PARCELS By JESSICA S. ALVAREZ A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2010

PAGE 2

2 2010 Jessica S. Alvarez

PAGE 3

3 To my p arents

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to first thank my parents, for all the support they have given me throughout my seven year college experience. I would like to thank the members of my committee, Paul Zwick, Ruth Steiner, Douglas Robinson and Stan ley Latimer, for reading my thesis over and over again until I got it right. And an extra thank you to Dr. Zwick for the numerous sessions we had where he let me bounce ideas off of him and use his super computer to run analyse s that would have taken me d ays. I would also like to thank Stanley Latimer and Douglas Robinson for providing me not only professional experiences that have shaped my career goals, but for also encouraging me not to procrastinate and to get it done. Finally I would like to thank the Regional Transit System, for not only steering me towards a t ransit themed thesis but allowing me to work on this project during company time.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 8 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 12 City of Gainesville ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 13 Alachua County ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 16 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 21 Park and Ride Overview ................................ ................................ ......................... 21 Park and Ride Market Shed ................................ ................................ ................... 23 Connectivity ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 24 Population Density ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 25 Land Use ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 26 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 28 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 30 Element I: Connectivity ................................ ................................ ........................... 30 Element II: Population ................................ ................................ ............................. 33 Element III: Land Use Element ................................ ................................ ............... 35 Opportunity Model ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 37 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 49 Element I: Connectivity ................................ ................................ ........................... 49 Element II: Population ................................ ................................ ............................. 50 Element III: Land Use ................................ ................................ ............................. 52 5 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 81 Comparison with Bus Rapid Transit Park and Ride Lots ................................ ........ 81 Comparison with Department of Transportation Proposed Park and Ride Lots ..... 81 Comparison with the RTS Transit Development Plan Proposed Lots ..................... 82 Opportunity Model Suggested Park and Ride Lots ................................ ................. 83 6 CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 90

PAGE 6

6 APPENDIX A ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE ................................ ................................ .......... 92 B POINTS OF INTEREST ................................ ................................ .......................... 93 C DOR CODES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 94 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................... 96 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ............................ 98

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 1 Where Workers in the City of Gainesville Live, by City (2006) ........................... 16 1 2 Labor Force Statistics (2009) ................................ ................................ .............. 17 1 3 Where Alachua County Residents Work by City (2006) ................................ ..... 17 1 4 Where workers in Alachua County Live, by City (2006) ................................ ...... 18 3 1 Data Layers Used in the Connectivity Element ................................ ................... 31 3 2 Data Layers Used in the Population Element ................................ ..................... 33 3 3 Population Estimates for Cities within Ala chua County ................................ ...... 34 3 4 Data Layers Used in the Land Use Element ................................ ....................... 35 5 1 ................................ 83 5 2 ........ 83 5 3 lation Categories ........... 84 5 4 ............ 84

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 1 Alachua County Municipalities ................................ ................................ ............ 19 1 2 Alachua County Transportation Mobility Districts ................................ ............... 20 3 1 Element I Connectivity ................................ ................................ ...................... 39 3 2 Gainesville Multimodal and Park and Ride Study Corridors ............................... 40 3 3 City of Gainesville Regi onal Transit System Bus Stops ................................ ...... 41 3 4 City of Gainesville Regional Transit System Routes ................................ ........... 42 3 5 Element II Population ................................ ................................ ....................... 43 3 6 Alachua County 2008 Traffic Analysis Zones ................................ ..................... 44 3 7 Alachua County 2007 Employee Count ................................ .............................. 45 3 8 Element III Land Use ................................ ................................ ....................... 46 3 9 Major Trip Generators and I 75 Interchanges ................................ ..................... 47 3 10 Alachua County Parce l Land Use ................................ ................................ ....... 48 4 1 Opportunity Model ................................ ................................ .............................. 55 4 2 Connectivity Element Weights ................................ ................................ ............ 56 4 3 Road Network Suitability Component Models ................................ .................... 5 7 4 4 Road Network Suitability Model ................................ ................................ .......... 58 4 5 Public Transit Suitability Model Components ................................ ..................... 59 4 6 Public Transit Suitability Model ................................ ................................ ........... 60 4 7 Connectivity Suitability Model ................................ ................................ ............. 61 4 8 Urban Corridor Lots ................................ ................................ ............................ 62 4 9 Population Element Weights ................................ ................................ ............... 63 4 10 County Population Suitabili ty Component Models ................................ .............. 64 4 11 County Population Suitability Model ................................ ................................ ... 65

PAGE 9

9 4 12 City Population Suitability Component Models ................................ ................... 66 4 13 City Population Suitability Model ................................ ................................ ........ 67 4 14 Employee Population Suitability Component Models ................................ ......... 68 4 15 Employee Population Suitability Model ................................ ............................... 69 4 16 Population Suitability Model ................................ ................................ ................ 70 4 17 Remote Park a nd Ride Lots ................................ ................................ ............... 71 4 18 Population Element Weights ................................ ................................ ............... 72 4 19 Points of Interest Suitability Component Models ................................ ................ 73 4 20 Points of Interest Suitability Model ................................ ................................ ...... 74 4 21 Mix of Land Use Suitability Component Models ................................ ................. 75 4 22 Mix of Land Use Suitability Model ................................ ................................ ....... 76 4 23 Employment Locations Suitability Component Models ................................ ....... 77 4 24 Employment Locations Suitability Model ................................ ............................ 78 4 25 Land Use Suitability Model ................................ ................................ ................. 79 4 26 Peripheral Park and Ride Lots ................................ ................................ ........... 80 5 1 Bus Rapid Transit Feasibility Study Proposed Park and Ride Lots .................... 86 5 2 Department of Transportation Proposed Park and Ride Lots ............................. 87 5 3 RTS Transit Development Plan Proposed Park and Ride Lots .......................... 88 5 4 Recommended Park and Ride Lots ................................ ................................ ... 89

PAGE 10

10 Abs tract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning USING A CONFLICT MOD EL TO DETERMINE OPTI MAL LOCATIONS FOR PARK AND RIDE LOTS IN ALACHUA COUNTY BA SED ON CONNECTIVITY OF ROAD NETWORKS, POPULATION S CHARACTERISTICS AN D THE MIX OF LAND US E OF SURROUNDING PARCELS By Jessica S. Alvarez December 2010 Chair: Paul Zwick Co chair: Ruth Steiner Major: Urban and Regi onal Planning The Florida Department of Transportation defines several different types of park and ride sites, Urban Corridor, Peripheral, Urban Fringe, and Remote (Gainesville Multimodal Corridor and Park and Ride Study, pg. 227). For this study in parti cular the author looks at: Urban Corridor, Peripheral, and Remote lots. Urban Corridor lots are characterized by being located along a major commuter corridor in an area, these types of sites are generally served by transit that is faster and more direct t o the urban core. Peripheral lots are typically located at the fringe of an intensely developed, highly congested activity center. Finally remote lots are generally located outside the urban area in a rural or small town setting. The main purpose of this paper is to determine optimal locations for any of the three types of lots throughout Alachua County This was done by developing an opportunity model that consisted of three main elements: Connectivity, Population, and Land Use. Connectivity looks at the road network and public transit in an area. First it is determined how dense the road network is and next how frequent the bus service is to a

PAGE 11

11 particular area. The population element identifies where higher densities of people can be found based on the to tal number of people in an area as well as the type of employment they have. Lastly the opportunity model addresses the land use of an area it concentrates on the variety and percentage mix of different types of land uses within a quarter mile of each parc el within the county These three elements are then integrated into an opportunity surface across Alachua County. The final results of the park and ride analysis show that the most suitable area for a park and ride lot is along the corridors to the City of Alachua and the City of Newberry as well as within the city limits of Gainesville. The final recommended park and ride locations included: Oaks Mall Regional Shopping Center, Butler Plaza, Williston Shopping Center, Waldo Road and Northwood Village Shop ping Center

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION P ark and ride facilities have surface d as a practical option for reducing traffic congestion on urban roadways and for increasing the use of mass transportation systems (Noel, 1988, pg. 9) The concept of a park and r ide has been practiced for more than 50 years in the United States. Park and ride facilities permit commuters, traveling by private vehicle, to gather at a common site and transfer to higher occupancy vehicles (Noel, 1988, pg. 2) According to Bullard and Christiansen, by the late 1960s the concept of fringe parking was well institutionalized and more than 36 cities in the United States had an ongoing involvement in some form of park and ride activity (Noel, 1988, pg. 2) In 1968, the federal government be came invol ved in a two year study of park and ride facilities in accordance with the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1968 This involved t he federal government paying 50 percent of the cost of right of way acquisition and the construction of park and ride facil ities along the federal aid highway system. I n Woodbridge, New Jersey, a 12 acre site was the first facility funded under this act This led to the authorization of a permanent provision for funding fringe parking by the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1970 (No el, 1988, pg. 3) Interest among state and local governments in adopting a formal legislative process in regards to the planning, design, and implementation of park and ride facilities has risen from these federal provisions. Noel stated e authority for the involvement of local government has been the key to the successful development of park and ride in many urban areas (Noel, 1988, pg. 3)

PAGE 13

13 This paper establish es a methodology to be used to determine the optimal location for a park and r ide lot in Alachua County The main goal of creating park and ride lots in a region is to lower the number of vehicles using the whole transportation system (Gainesville Multimodal and Park and Ride Study, pg. 227). According to the Jacksonville Transport ation Authority Park and Ride Study some of the main benefits of park and ride lots include: User Cost Savings T he cost of using a free park and ride lot and purchasing a two way transit trip is less than driving a personal automobile to work. Travel Ti me Savings U sing the park and ride lot vs. the personal automobile has higher time savings, mostly dependent on variables like origin, congestion, and availability of parking. Peak Period Traffic Reduction Using the park and ride lot results in an incr ease in use of transit which results in a decrease in peak period traffic. Transit Ridership Increase The transit agency and the user experience savings with an increase in transit ridership. Auto Emissions Reduction T he use of transit at park and ride s results in a reduction of energy consumption and automobile based emissions. Mobility Enhancement The consumer is has more transit options if the park and ride lot is available. Transit System Improved Efficiency Park and ride s result in a higher rider ship rate per mile because their demand increases with more expanded service such as express and BRT routes, which allows for faster and more direct service for people farther out from the urban core. The following two sections will discuss the context t he City of Gainesville and Alachua County, in which t his study will take place City of Gainesville The C ity of Gainesville is approximately 62 square miles with a 2008 population of 117,687 persons (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 2008 American Community Survey ). When compared with the 2007 population estimates of 113,942 persons (U.S. Census

PAGE 14

14 Bureau, 2005 2007 American Community Survey) there was a growth of 3.3 percent in population within the City of Gainesville. In the City of Gainesville Comprehensive Plan there are many objectives and policies that emphasize not only supplying transportation to those who need it but also capturing new markets and becoming competitive with other forms of transportation which can be achieved with an adequate park and ride sy stem The Transportation Element within the City of Gainesville Comprehensive Plan states that one of its main and non motorized access to activity centers, communi ty facilities, and neighborhood 1). This reinforces the fact that the City of Gainesville needs to ensure access to major activity centers, which is important in terms of types of land uses found ne ar park and ride lots. A major transportation entity within the City of Gainesville is the Regional Transit System (RTS). For the past 31 years RTS has provided the public transportation in the City of Gainesville and the adjacent areas of Alachua County It has services an area of approximately 7 8 square miles and has an operating fleet more than 88 diesel buses (RTS Transit Development Plan FY2010 FY2019, pg. 3 1). partnership was formed between RTS and the University of Florida (U F) allowing unlimited access to the students T his has provided a significant positive impact on the ridership within the system as a whole. RTS had approximately 9 million riders during the 2009 fiscal year, with a majority of the routes surpassing more tha n 100,000 passengers (RTS Fiscal Year 20 09 Ridership by Route). The surge in growth of the system over the last 10 years has forced RTS to consider new alternatives in order to

PAGE 15

15 satisfy the demands of its riders. In the year 2020 the expected transit ser vice population within a mile from the fixed routes will be approximately 130,000 users (Transportation Mobility Element, pg. 52). Some of the main challenges that RTS faces are overcrowding on buses, on time performance, maintenance and operational cons traints, equity issues, system network design, and funding (RTS Transit Development Plan FY2007 FY2011 ). In 2002 the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) did an evaluation of ridership increases and found three key factors that positiv ely influenc ed ridership at RTS. T hese include service expansion to meet overall student demand, an unlimited agreement for UF students, and a downtown area land use policy directing developer support for pedestrians and transit (TCRP Research Digest 69, pg. 10). T wo types of transit groups are defined by RTS The first one is the traditional transportation disadvantaged group which is common for transit systems. This includes young people (< 18 years old), elderly people (>60 years old), disabled people, low income h ouseholds (<$10,000 annual incomes) and households with zero cars (RTS Transit Development Plan FY2007 FY2011, pg. I 9). The City of Gainesville also has a unique transportation market that consists of university students (between 18 25 years old), envir onmentalist, proponents of livable and sustainable communities, and University of Florida employees (RTS Transit Development Plan FY2007 FY2011, pg. I 9). According to the RTS Transit Development Plan FY2010 FY2019 in 2006, over 61 percent of the work ers within the City of Gainesville did not live within the city itself. These workers were commuting from neighboring cities, with Jacksonville and Alachua

PAGE 16

16 having the largest portions of this percentage (See Table 1 1) ( RTS Transit Development Plan FY2010 FY2019, pg 2 18) Table 1 1 Where Workers in the City of Gainesville Live, by City (2006) City of Residence 2006 Count 2006 Share Gainesville, FL 34,801 39.4% Jacksonville, FL 2,619 3.0% Alachua, FL 1,429 1.6% Newberry, FL 639 0.7% High Springs, FL 631 0.7% Deltona, FL 367 0.4% Lakeside, FL 312 0.4% Archer, FL 306 0.3% Palm Bay, FL 290 0.3% Casselberry, FL 258 0.3% All Other Locations* 46,631 52,8% *All other locations include unincorporated areas Sourc e : US Census Bureau LEHD Origin Destination Database Alachua County Alachua County is approximately 969 square miles with a 2008 population of 239,046 persons (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 2008 American Community Survey). This is a 1.2 percent increase from the 2007 pop ulation estimates of 236,308 persons (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005 2007 American Community Survey). A total of nine municipalities are located within the county, these include: Alachua Archer Gainesville Hawthorne High Springs Lacrosse Micanopy Newberr y and Waldo (See Figure 1 1). Alachua County has a lower unemployment rate than the state as a whole ( RTS Transit Development Plan FY2010 FY2019, pg. 2 4) (See Table 1 2). The major industries in Alachua County include education and healthcar e and the m ajor employment centers include UF and healthcare centers such as Shands, the Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and North Florida Regional Medical Center ( RTS Transit Development Plan FY2010 FY2019, pg. 2 19)

PAGE 17

17 Table 1 2 Labor Fo rce Statistics (2009) Area Civilian Labor Force Number Employed Number Unemployed Unemployment Rate Alachua County 131,599 123,979 7,620 7.4% Florida 9,181,000 8,373,000 808,000 10.8% Note : FloridaWorks as of June 2009 The 2006 Census Longitudinal Emplo yer Household Dynamics (LEHD) worker flow database indicates that 80.7 percent of the workers residing in Alachua County also work in Alachua County, with 62.3 percent working in the City of Gainesville (See Table 1 3) ( RTS Transit Development Plan FY2010 FY2019, pg. 2 13) Approximately 65.5 percent of the workers in Alachua County live outside of the City of Gainesville (See Table 1 4) ( RTS Transit Development Plan FY2010 FY2019, pg. 2 15). Table 1 3 Where Alachua County Resi dents Work by City (2006) City Count Share Gainesville, FL 62,983 62.3% Jacksonville, FL 3,503 3.5% Alachua, FL 2,656 2.6% Ocala, FL 1,370 1.4% Newberry, FL 991 1.0% Tallahassee, FL 801 0.8% Tampa, FL 615 0.6% High Springs, FL 554 0.5% Lake City, FL 529 0.5% Orlando, FL 389 0.4% All Other Locations* 26,745 26.4% All Total Jobs 101,136 100% *All other locations include unincorporated areas Note : US Census Bureau, LEHD Origin Destination Database The main focus of the transportation elements a nd policies within the Alachua County Comprehensive plan are, through specific site and design standards, to provide for interconnected, mixed use developments that are designed with the densities and intensities needed to support transit service, reduce p er capita greenhouse gas emissions and enable an individual to live, work, play and shop in a community without the need to rely on a motor vehicle for mobility. Alachua County has developed

PAGE 18

18 Transportation Mobility Districts (See Figure 1 2) that provide a n alternative to conventional transportation concurrency by encouraging future land use and transportation patterns that emphasize these principles. Table 1 4 Where workers in Alachua County Live, by City (2006) City Count Share Gainesville, FL 42,111 34.5 Jacksonville, FL 4,146 3.4% Alachua, FL 2,206 1.8% High Springs, FL 1,089 0.9% Newberry, FL 1,029 0.8% Lakeside, FL 586 0.5% Deltona, FL 545 0.4% Palm Bay, FL 493 0.4% Archer, FL 453 0.4% Ocala, FL 435 0.4% All Other Locations* 26,745 26.4% All Total Jobs 101,136 100% *All other locations include unincorporated areas Note : US Census Bureau, LEHD Origin Destination Database The City of Gainesville and Alachua County have the potential to make use of a park and ride system as long as it is connected effectively with the transit system. The model described in this project determines the optimal locations for park and ride lots in Alachua County in conjunction with the current transportation system

PAGE 19

19 Figure 1 1. Ala chua County Municipalities

PAGE 20

20 Figure 1 2. Alachua County Transportation Mobility Districts

PAGE 21

21 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The following chapter will give a b rief description of park and ride lots and their market sheds. It will also pr ovide an overview of the three general variables, Roadway Connectivity, Population Density and Land Use, being discussed in this study. Park and R ide Overview come from within 5 miles and more than 80 percent travel less than 10 miles to their TCRP Report 95, pg. 3 8). Most surveys indicate that between 40 and 60 percent of users previously comm uted by single occupant vehicle. S tudies of several park and ride facilit ies show that there is an average daily turnover rate of about 1.1 cars per parking space, with about 1.2 transit passengers per parked car, which translated to approximately 1.3 transit passengers per occupied parking space within a park and ride facility (TCRP Report 95, pg 3 9). The FDOT Gainesville Multimodal Corridor and Park and Ride Study identifies four type s of park and ride lots that could be found or expected within the S tate of Florida, these are as follows ( Gainesville Multimodal and Park and Ride Study pg. 227 228): Urban Corridor Lots These lots are located along a major commuter corridor within an urban area; they are typically served by express bus, urban rail, or commuter rail services. The trip origin patterns tend to be dispersed along or concentrated at one end of the corridor. They are most appropriate on roads with a level of service (LOS) of E or worse (See Appendix A for the level of service definitions) more than 2,000 dwelling units within 2 miles, and more than 10 miles f rom employment centers. Peripheral Lots Are located at the periphery or fringe of an intensely developed, highly congested activity center. The distances to the lot from activity centers is generally shorter than from other origins. Their standards inclu de congested or

PAGE 22

22 restricted access to an activity center circulation, having a major access route to the activity center, and having insufficient parking facilities in the area. Urban Fringe Lots Usually located at the fringe of urban development. The tri ps are more likely to originate outside of the urban area while destinations may be concentrated or dispersed within the urban area. The areas where fringe lots are found are g enerally not served by transit, having an arterial of 4 lanes or greater, an emp loyee concentration of more than 10,000, and they need to be within the vicinity of an urban area boundary and less than of a mile from a commuter route. Remote Lots Located outside of the urban area located near a rural or small town setting. Trip len gths for both home to lot and lot to work legs of the commute trip are much longer than lots of other types. They typically are 20 60 miles from the employment area, have more than 20,000 urban employees, and are centrally located in the service area and o ne mile from a commuter route. TCRP Report 95 identifies three similar lots with slight variations in definitions; these are (TCRP Report 95, pg 3 3 3 4): Peripheral Lots These lots are located on the edge of a downtown area or other major activity ce nter. The main purpose of these facilities is to expand the amount of parking available in the central area and intercept automobiles before they enter the congested core. The end result is that users generally make the larger portion of their trip by auto mobile and then use transit or walk for the last shorter segment. Suburban Lots These lots are located near the home origins of trips with t he destinations being typically concentrated in a central employment area. A major draw is the presence of concen trated employment along the transit lines or major corridors serving this lot Remote Lots These lots are generally situated in rural or small town settings. The trip lengths between the home and the lots tend to be much longer. The main goal of establ ishing park and ride lots in a region is to lower the number of vehicles using the whole transportation system (Gainesville Multimodal and Park and Ride Study, pg. 227). Some objectives of a park and ride lot as defined in the TCRP Report 95 are as follows (TCRP Report 95, pg. 3 2) : To increase availability of alternatives to driving alone, by providing travelers with the opportunity to readily transfer from low to high occupancy travel modes and vice versa.

PAGE 23

23 To concentrate transit rider demand to a level enabling transit service that could not otherwise be provided. To expand the reach of transit into low density areas. To offer a convenient, safe meeting point and parking location for car poolers and van poolers, to facilitate pool formation, and to su pport ridesharing in locations where sufficient demand might not otherwise occur for ridesharing to a common destination. To reduce vehicle miles of travel and possibly pollutant emissions. To shift parking away from the Central Business District and, to some extent, other dense activity centers. To relieve neighborhoods of uncontrolled informal parking caused by park and ride/pool activity occurring in the absence, or with insufficient capacity, of formal facilities. Park and Ride Market Shed Determini ng the market shed around a park and ride lot is important because it allows for the detailed description of the area around the facility and establishes how many users are drawn from the surrounding area to use the park and ride lot (TCRP Report 95, pg. 3 higher incomes and are inherently choice riders capable of readily electing to forsake 69). In a 2001 study of F and ride lot users it was found that approximatel y 50 percent of the users live within three miles of the lot and approximate ly 90 percent of the users live within 19 miles of the lot (TCRP Report 95, pg 3 31). When evaluating the market she d for a park and ride lot a variety of factors should be considered. These factors are grouped int o three categories: (1) to create a stronger demand for the park and ride facility; (2) to develop locations that simplify integration with the existin g commu nity; and (3) to minimize the overall cost (Faghri et al, 2002, pg.

PAGE 24

24 20). This study will try to achieve these factors through focusing on three variables in particular: Connectivity, Population Density and Land Use. Connectivity Connectivity is an extreme ly important factor when determining the optimal placement of a park and ride lot, because if the time getting to the park and ride lot added to the time it takes to change to an alternate mode of transportation is longer than just traveling straight to th e final destination, the park and ride lot will not be used as m uch (TCRP Report 95, pg. 3 33). In terms of developing a park and ride lot market shed the connectivity of a park and ride lot can contribute considerably to creating a stronger demand for the park and ride facility and minimizing the costs of a facility Some of the connectivity variables that have been measured in previous studies include: Level of Service (LOS) of Corridors It was found that corridors with severe traffic congestion, in pa rticular those operating at a LOS E or worse will have a higher potential for users than those lots found along free flowing corridors (TCRP Report 95 pg. 3 33). Access of Lot Park and ride lots that were difficult to access based on roadway connectiv ity were found to display reduced demand in comparison to facilities with quick and easy access (TCRP Report 95 pg. 3 34). Position Relative to Central Business District (CBD) Park and ride lots should be no closer than 4 to 5 miles and preferably 10 m i les from the CBD or activity center (Faghri et al, 2002, pg. 2 0). This provision reduces the potential for park and ride facilities to add to the traffic problem by being placed in the center of congestion, and creates a manageable transit ride for commut ers. Travel Characteristics Sites might be more suitable if they are situated in a position easily accessible by inbound trips (Faghri et al, 2002, pg. 20). This is probably because the first leg becomes the most convenient encouraging more use. Transit Service It is recommended that park and ride lots are within a quarter mile of existing or proposed transit lines. This is the typical distance a transit user will generally walk to use transit service. The optimal headway for any transit

PAGE 25

25 service near a park and ride lot is 15 minutes (Faghri et al, 2002, pg. 21). According to TCRP Report 95, and more hours of service perform better than facilities with lower transit facilities and fewer hours of servic 35). Multimodal Connections By providing b icycle, pedestrian, and handicap access to a park and ride lot the site becomes accessible to a more diverse group of poten tial customers (Faghri et al, 2002, pg. 22). In TCRP Report 95 three non density land use variables, accessibility, land use balance and land use integration were studied It was found th at accessibility, which measures the ease of access to activity sites at a traffic analysis zone local/re gional scale, proved to be the most influential non density land use variable with positive correlation with respect to the walk/bike mode choice and negative correlation in regards to the personal vehicle choice ( TCRP Report 95 pg. 15 50). If we apply th is principal to park and ride lots with increased ease of use we could find more people using these lots along with transit as their main mode choice. According to Tresidder, a more connected road system provides a greater number of route options and decre ases out of direction travel by providing more direct routes ( Tresidder, 2005, pg.3). In order to measure connectivity, h e suggests several different methods ( Tresidder, 2005, pg. 6): Intersection Density (number of real nodes per unit area/area) = Number of intersections per unit of area; a higher number would indicate more intersections. Street Density (total street length per unit of area/area) = Number of linear miles of street per square mile of land. Connected Node Ratio (number of real nodes/number of total nodes) = Number of street intersections divided by the number of intersections plus cul de sacs. Population Density The measure of population density that is found to have the strongest relationship with mode choice in correlation and regression a nalyses is average gross population

PAGE 26

26 density at trip origins and destinations (Frank and Pivo 1994 pg. 8). By increasing the density at the site surrounding the park and ride lot, the possibility for a larger market sh ed area population is amplified b y de veloping a location that integrates with the existin g community. However negative effects come with increased density, including less quick and convenient access to the park and ride site (TCRP Report 95, pg. 3 34). In order to maximize service are a popula tion park and ride lots should be placed as close as possible to potential users. Fradd and Duff ( 1989 ) demand for park and ride comes from population densities that are within a 5 mile thin a parabola that extends 10 miles upstream from the lot with a long chord measuring 10 performed by Burns in 1 979 found that approximately 90 percent of all park and ride users drive less than 16 miles to their park and ride lo t (Faghri et al, 2002, pg. 21). Land Use Land use is important to the market shed because it create s a stronger demand for the park and ride lot and can minimize costs associated with the facility Cervero quotes a report put out by Barton Aschman Associa use projects create opportunities for shared parking arrangements. The same parking used by office workers from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Mondays ~ Fridays can serve restaurant and theatre ervero 1996 pg. 362). This is important to park and ride lots because it maximizes the efficiency of the lot and justifies its construction. He found that a 3 percent increase in transit and ride sharing commutes could be found with a 10 percent increase in floor space devoted to retail commercial, and that buildings with mixed uses also averaged 3 percent more commutes by transit than buildings containing exclusively offices (Cervero 1996 pg.

PAGE 27

27 362). If a park and ride lot is placed along a corridor that provided access to such densities its use might be increased as well. It was also found that park and ride lot usage could be encouraged by locating them in areas with other businesses that supply the preferred services of the patrons (TCRP Report 95, pg. 3 34). Major trip generators and attractors contain the vast majority of jobs, shopping, government offices and other essential services needed by city residents (Transportation Mobility Element, pg. 54). In a recent TCRP Report, it was found that conce ntrated, adjacent development and balanced land use provided opportunity for households to meet daily needs with shorter automobile trips or by walking, bicycling, or taking tra nsit ( TCRP Report 95 pg 15 3). Greater land use mixes concentrated in an area are found to affect both work trips and daily needs trip and could be used to promote the use of a park and ride lot According to Andy Johnson transit access is affected by close vertical mixed use and retail plays an important role up to a quarter mile from transit service (Johnson 2003 pg. 21). The results of his research suggests there are three ways in which to increase transit ridership, first he suggests in areas close to the transit corridors to increase residential density, second he says to con centrate (within an eighth mile of transit corridors) a mix use development, and finally retail development should be at least within a quarter mile of transit lines (Johnson 2003 pg. 35). In a TCRP study it was suggest ed tion of residential and commercial development along transit lines and around transit facilities increases the number of opportunities that can conveniently be reached by transit, which in turn leads to higher levels of ridership, correspondingly increased service productivity and cost

PAGE 28

28 Report 95 pg 15 3). It was also compensatory park and ride spaces elsewhere, can re duce transit ridership by limiting 66). According to the paper Based Geographic Information System for Determining Optimal Location of Park and Fag hri and his fellow authors s ome site factors that should be considered when deciding the location include (Faghri et al, 2002, pg. 21 22) : R elocation of existing structures: It is recommended to avoid existing shopping centers, residential neighborhoods, or other buildings when choosing a park and ride site. Location in areas with compatible land uses: F acilities in areas with similar uses, such as suburban business centers or industrial districts, or areas with the possibility of joint usage are optimal (Riley and Maciasaac 1978) because c onstruction costs can exceed $3,000 per parking space (Niblett and Palmer 1993). Site expansion potential: Expansion is much less expensive than building new lots, and reduces negative nearby lot competition and s ites should be flexible enough to adapt to future park and ride and transit concepts (Riley and Maciasaac 1978). Summary Determining the market shed around a park and ride facility is important because it allows for the detailed description of the area around the facility and establishes how many users are drawn from the surrounding area to use the lot (TCRP Report 95, pg. 3 are inherently choice riders capable of readily elect ing to forsake transit if the mode is park and ride lot users found that within three miles of the lot approximately 50 percent of the users lived and within 19 miles of the lot approximately 90 percent of the users

PAGE 29

29 can be found (TCRP Report 95, pg 3 31). As said by TCRP Report 95 the best locations for park and ride lots are areas no closer than 5 miles and preferably 10 miles or more from t he activity center being served (TCRP Report 95, pg, 3 33). P ark and ride lots are largely used for commuting trips. As found in one study of 100 park and ride lots, the share of users at a specific lot making work, or work related trips, was found to range from 83 to 100 percent (TCRP Report 95, pg. 3 46). In order to encourage more potential users at a park and ride facility the non work trip need s to be attracted. T here are several reasons that non lot ravel mode most attractive for long trips destined to central areas, and non work travel typically involves trips that are shorter and more dispersed. Many non work trips occur outside peak travel periods, while many park and ride facilities are provided w ith transit service primarily designed to facilitate peak travel. Transit service tends to be less frequent during the midday, especially in the case of conventional express bus systems. Moreover, many park and ride facilities are full after the morning pe 48 ) If these issues are addressed in the siting of park and ride facilities the amount of potential users could be increased. Therefore throughout the following study variables attracting work trips and non work trips will be ta ken into account.

PAGE 30

30 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY The main focus of this project is to produce a suitability analysis of parcels deemed appropriate for use as a park and ride lot understood to be a measure of the relative us efulness of a land unit for some given The final product will be a n opportunity model that will identify the areas that provide an appropriate prospect for th e three different types of park and ride lots as defined by the F lorida Department of Transportation (FDOT): Urban Corridors, Peripheral, and Remote (As defined in Chapter 2) This opportunity model consist s of three elements : c onnect ivity, population, and land use. These are essential to the model because they are cruc ial components in a working transportation system. For the subsequent spatial analyses ArcGIS 9.3.1 is used with the following default parameters: A raster cell size of 30 m by 30m A raster mask of Alachua County. A raster extent of Alachua County. A geo metric interval classification is used for all suitability reclassifications A reclassification from 1 to 9 is assumed, with 9 being the most suitable. Element I: Connectivity The first element of the opportunity model deal s wi th the connectivity of the park and ride site. This is important because limited connectivity hinders the access of users to park and ride facilities and makes it more difficult and less cost effective to provide public tr ansportation to the site The main focus of the connectivity element is to identify sites that will be suitable for u rban c orridor l ots. These l ots are generally located along a major commuter corridor within an urban area T he trip origin patterns tend to be

PAGE 31

31 dispersed along or concentrat ed at one end of the corrido r, and the typical standards include a level of service of E or worse along the roadways it is adjacent to The connectivity element consist s of two categories: road network and public transit (See Figure 3 1) The data used to construct this surface is l isted in Table 3 1. Table 3 1 Data Layers Used in the Connectivity Element Data Layer Data Source Bus Stops City of Gainesville Regional Transit System (2009) Multimodal and Park and Ride Corridors FDOT Gainesville Multimodal Corridor and Park and R ide Study Routes City of Gainesville Regional Transit System (2009) Streets Dynamap Data The r oad network category will evaluate the distance from the defined Gainesville multimodal and park and ride corridors, the density of these defined corridors, t he dens ity of local roads and the distance to intersections within Alachua County The Gainesville Multimodal Corridor and Park and Ride study identifies seven major corridors that connect the outlying centers of Alachua County with the City of Gainesville (See Figure 3 2 ). T hey accommodate both local and long distance trips, and five of the seven corridors were identified as not being able to accommodate future (2020) traffic conditions (Gainesville Multimodal Corridor and Park and Ride Stu dy, pg. 3). The distance to these corridors are determined by performing a straight line distance spatial analysis which is a straight line distance measure from each raster cell center to cell center from the corridors The density of the seven corridors will be determi ned by creating a n attribute field that multiplies the number of lanes of the road way to the linear distance in miles of the road next a density spatial analysis will be performed on the layer T his calculates a magnitude per unit area from a feature usin g a kernel function to fit a smoothly tapered surface to eac h feature based on a populatio n I n this case the

PAGE 32

32 corridors will be the feature and the new field will be the population T he density of the local roads will be determined by performing a density spatial analysis on the Alachua County roads layer using the length in miles as the population as a note I 75 will be removed from this layer Finally the connectivity of intersections will be determined by performing a distance spatial analysis on all t he intersections within Alachua County. To identify intersections network analyst will be used to derive intersection nodes from the road network. The n these nodes will be intersected back with the road network and the count of roads connected to the inter section can be obtained Any intersection with a count of three or more roads connected to it will be used in the distance spatial analysis. For the public transit category the distance to existing and proposed bus routes and the density of frequency of a route at a bus stop will be used to measure connectivity The routes and bus stop i nventory used to perform the analysis was obtained from RTS and consists of their GIS data as of December 2009 (See Figure 3 3 and Figure 3 4 ). The existing routes used to perform the followin g analysis are made up of the city and c ampus RTS routes and the proposed routes consist of planned routes and express routes listed in Development Plan. A buffer of a quarter mile which represents the area users are likely to walk from, and three quarter miles which is the American Disabilities service area, is placed around the current route system. Anything within the quarter mile buffer is classified as a 9 which symbolize s very suitable A nything between the quarter mile and three quarter miles buffer is classified as a 5 which symbolize s semi suitable and everything else is classified as a 1 or unsuitable. This is repeated for the proposed bus routes analysis To determine the density of the bus route freque ncy in an area, the number of trips at each bus stop is

PAGE 33

33 calculated A t rip can be defined as each one way, inbound or outbound trip a route completes T hese bus stop points are then used to run a density spatial analysis with the frequency as the populati on Element II: Population The second element focuses on t he population of the study area This is important because a park and ride needs to be placed close to a population that will support its use. The main focus of the population element is to identif y r emote l ots. These lots are generally l ocated outside of the urban area located in a rural area or small town. For this reason the City of Gainesville is also removed from the raster mask which defines the study area, to exclude the areas within the cit y as suitable This element consists of t hree different categories. T he first is the total population of the county, the second is the populations of the individual municipalities within the county, and the third is the employment population (See Figure 3 5 ) The data used to construct this surface is listed in Table 3 2. Table 3 2. Data Layers Used in the Population Element Data Layer Data Source Vehicle Ownership United States Census Bureau (2000) Traffic Analysis Zones Metropolitan Transportation Pl anning Organization (2008) City Limits Florida Geographic Data Library Employment Data InfoUSA Data (2007) The total population evaluate s the population density of the county, the density of dwelling units per acre, and the density of car owners throug hout the county The population density of the county is determined by using Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) to establish the total population per acre (See Figure 3 6 ). This is done by removing water sources from the TAZs, than recalculating the areas and di viding the total population by

PAGE 34

34 the acreage. The n this layer is converted into raster form and reclassified to reflect higher densities with a higher suitability. This is repeated for the total number of dwelling units within a TAZ. The number of car owner s can be found in census blocks. To determine the density, the number of vehicles within a census block group are found and this is divided by the acreage of that particular census block group, giving the density of vehicles per acre This is converted int o a raster and reclassified to create a suitability surface. The city population calculates the distance from city boundaries and the density of the municipality populations. The distance from city boundaries is determined by performing a distance spatial analysis on the boundaries of all the municipalities defined by Alachua County. The density of city populations is determined by placing a centroid within the municipal boundaries Then this point is assigned the population value found through the US cens us (See Table 3 3 ) and an inverse distance weighted spatial analysis is performed on these points T his particular analysis determines cell values using a linearly weighted combination of a set of sample points, the city centroids, to interpolate a surface and the weight in this case is population. Table 3 3. Population Estimates for Cities within Alachua County City Population Employees Archer 1 229 408 Alachua 7 854 4 986 Gainesville 122 671 88807 Hawthorne 1 401 378 High Springs 4 739 1 619 LaCr osse 195 50 Micanopy 637 320 Newberry 4 787 1 671 Waldo 831 25

PAGE 35

35 The employee population focuses on the concentration of employees throughout the county. It determines the density of total employees (which includes industrial and other non transit suppor tive jobs), commercial employees and service employees. In order to determine this InfoUSA 2007 data (See Figure 3 7 ) is used to determine specific points of employment The n a density spatial analysis is run using separately the total, commercial, and se rvice employees as the population field. Element III: Land Use Element The third element assesses an area s land use This is important because the land use and land mix around a park and ride can encourage or discourage the use of a park and ride facilit y as discussed in Chapter 2 The main focus of this element is to identify wh ere it is appropriate to place p eripheral l ots. Peripheral lots are generally located at the periphery or fringe of activity center. The distances to the lot from the activity ce nters are generally shorter than from other origins. To begin the analysis a buffer is placed around Downtown Gainesville and UF of three quarters of a mile to exclude these activity centers from the a nalysis this buffer was chosen because it excludes any areas taken into account for transit activity This was done because D owntown Gainesville is a central business district and the University of Florida has its own parking policies in place. The land use element focuses on three different categories: poin ts of interest, mixed use areas, and empl oyment locations (See Figure 3 8 ). The data used to construct this surface is listed in Table 3 4 Table 3 4. Data Layers Used in the Land Use Element Data Layer Data Source Major Trip Generators Alachua County C omprehensive Plan Parcel Data Florida Department of Revenue (2009)

PAGE 36

36 The major trip generator category is calculated by generating the distance to major trip generators as defined by Alachua County, the City of Gainesville and RTS ( See Appendix B for a li st of all generators ) and distance to I 75 interchanges (See Figure 3 9 ). For the major trip generators a buffer of a quarter mile and three quarter miles is placed around each generator which is consistent with the walking and ADA boundaries used in tra nsit Anything within a quarter mile is classified as very suitable, anything between the quarter mile and three quarter mile buffer is semi suitable and everything else is labeled as unsuitable. For the I 75 interchanges a distance spatial analysis is ru n determining the straight line distance from every interchange; the closer the cell is to the interchange the higher the suitability. The mixed use category focuses on constructing a surface that identifies the highest diversity of land uses within an a rea. The entropy of land use calculates the percentage of a particular type of land use within a quarter mile of a parcel and takes into account its total acreage even if it is outside the quarter mile. This is done by pl acing a centroid on each parcel an d performing the Point to F eature function on every point, which determine s the parcel number of every centroid within a quarter mile. Th e n this is related back to the acreage and it is possible to draw percentages of each type of land use (residential, co mmercial, retail, governmental and institutional) within a quarter mile of each parcel. This percentage is then used in the following entropy equation : (p residential *log (p residential ) + p commercial *log (p commercial ) + p retail *log (p retail ) + p institutio nal *log (p institutional ) + p government *log (p government )). After each parcel is assigned an entropy value, t he output is converted into a raster and reclassified into a suitability surface. Next the variety of land use within a quarter mile of each parcel is found. This is done by first

PAGE 37

37 placing a centroid on each parcel and then performing a neighborhood statistic on the point file looking at the variety found within a quarter mile from each parcel centroid. This identifies the amount of different types of land uses found in that area. This is converted into a raster to add weight to the parcels with the highest land use mix around them. T he final criterion, employment opportunities evaluates the density and distance to retail and commercial parcels in Al achua County. The employment location describes where people are traveling to work. This suitability consists of a distance spatial analysis run to the commercial parcels and the retail parcels that are extracted from the Florida Department of Revenue parc els using the DOR codes to identify both the retail and commercial parcels ( Figure 3 10 ). For retail parcels DOR codes 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, and 39 are used. For commercial parcels DOR codes 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 24, and 29 are used ( See Appendix C for the list of DOR land use codes ) Within the DOR data the square footage is extracted for each building type, which is then used to perform a density spatial analysis on both retail and commercial parcels Opportunity Model The final step is to combine all of the suitability elements into an opportunity model. This is done by taking all the reclassifications previously made and combining them evenly weighted first within their categories and then evenly w eighted within their elements. The n each of these elements is reclassified from a scale of 1 to 3 with 3 being the most suitable. These three element s suitabilities are then combined using the equation: [connectivity] + 10*[land use] + 100*[population]. This produce s an opportunity surface that can be used to determine the appropriate locations for u rban c orridor

PAGE 38

38 p eripheral, and r emote l ots. The results of this opportunity model will be discussed in the following sections.

PAGE 39

39 F igure 3 1. Element I Connectivity Element I Connectivity Road Network Public Transit Distance to multimodal Corridor Density of Multimodal Corridor Density of Local Roads Distance to Current Bus Routes Density of Frequency of Bus Routes Distanc e to Proposed Bus Routes Distance to Intersections

PAGE 40

40 Figure 3 2 Gainesville Multimodal and Park and Ride Study Corridors

PAGE 41

41 Figure 3 3 City of Gainesville Regional Transit System Bus Stops

PAGE 42

42 Figure 3 4 City of Gainesville Regional Transit System Routes

PAGE 43

43 Figure 3 5. Element II Population Element II Population County Population City Population Densit y of Total Population per Acre Distance to City Boundary Density of City Population Density of Car Owners Density of Dwelling Units per Acre Employee Population Density of Total Employees Density of Commercial Employees Density of Service Employees

PAGE 44

44 Figure 3 6 Alachua County 2008 Traffic Analysis Zones

PAGE 45

45 Figure 3 7 Alachua County 2007 Employee Count

PAGE 46

46 Figure 3 8. Element III Land Use Element III Land Use Point s of Interest Mixed Use Distance to Major Trip Generators Distance to I 75 Interchanges Entropy of Land Uses within a mile Variety of Land Uses within a mile Employment Density of Retail Parcels (sq footage) Density of Commercial Parcels (sq footage) Distance to Commercial Parcels Distance to Retail Parcels

PAGE 47

47 Figure 3 9 Major Tri p Generators and I 75 Interchanges

PAGE 48

48 Figure 3 10 Alachua County Parcel Land Use

PAGE 49

49 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS This paper focuses on identifying areas within Alachua County tha t are appropriate for park and ride l ots. The following section illustrate s the results f ound through various suitability analysis performed on Alachua County. In total there were 16 individual variables examined within eight different categories and three different elements (See Figure 4 1). Element I: Connectivity The connectivity element identifies areas that provide easy access to a park and ride site for users and public transportation. This element was composed of two categories and seven components, within each category the components were combined to construct a category surface and then all of the categories were combined to construct an element surface, reference Figure 4 2 for the equal weights used within each category In Figure 4 3 The first two map s show the d ensity and distance to the multimodal and park and ride c orridor. The main purpose of these corridor analyses was to designate areas closer to the corridors with more lanes and longer length s which contributes to finer connectivity and larger capacity as a higher suitability As we examine the density map we see that SW 13 th /US 441 looks to have the highest suitability in regards to these requirements The street density suitability shows there is a high concentration of suitable areas along I 75 and with in the City of Gainesville and in the western part of the county, this is probably a result o f the longer length of I 75 as well as the higher concentration of road networks in the s e region s which could be a result of the fact this is where we find the

PAGE 50

50 lar ger municipalities. As for intersection densities the City of Gainesville dominates the map as suitable, though we can see patches of high er along some of the wider/longer corridors throughout the whole county The road network category combi multimodal and park and ride corridors as well as concentrated within the City of Gainesville (See Figure 4 4 ), with outliers of semi suitable areas at some of the other major intersections or on other major arterials. The public transit suitability model components can be found in Figure 4 5 They show that the current concentration of public transit activity is in or very close to the City of Gainesville. The future bus route system expands public tra nsportation to areas such as Newberry and Alachua, providing more service area and higher in these regions. This resulted in the public transit cate gory combined suitability showing higher suitabilities within the City of Gainesville and semi suitable areas in Newberry and Alachua, where express bus routes are proposed to run t o o ( See Figure 4 6 ). The final connectivity suitability model showed high within the City of Gainesville and along major arterials (See Figure 4 7 ) When this final suitability was converted into a n opportunity raster what is found is that Urban Corridor Lots are more appropriate within the City of Gainesville and along the major arterials of Newberry Road/University Avenue, 13 th Street/US 441, Archer Road, and Waldo Road (See Figure 4 8 ) Element II: Population of Gainesville that have the appropriate population to support park and ride facilities. This

PAGE 51

51 element consists of three cat egories and eight components, reference Figure 4 9 for the equal weights used to combine them. When examining the county population category components t he population and dwelling unit densities show that the population within Alac hua C ounty is concentrat ed in the western part of the county, with spurts of higher densities within all the municipalities throughout the region (See Figure 4 10 ) For the vehicle ownership there is a similar pattern to the west with the exception of fewer municipalities to the east showing higher suitabilities When combined the county population suitability has high er suitabilities within Alachua, Newberry, just outside of the City of Gainesville Boundaries, and out to the east we are seeing medium to high suitabilities in Hawt horne basically within a majority of the urban clusters (See Figure 4 11 ) The city population category suitability model components can be found in Figure 4 12 The city density suitability showed a pull towards higher populations in the western part of the county. This is where we find some of the larger municipalities Newberry and Alachua The city distance suitability also had a greater pull towards the west because there is a high clustering of cities in that area, Alachua, High Springs, Newberry a nd Archer, most of which have a substantial sized municipality boundary. Excluding the City of Gainesville, w hen combined the city population suitability demonstrated that the City of Alachua had the highest suitability with regards to population and size in Alachua County (See Figure 4 13 ) The employee population category suitability components models can be found in Figure 4 14 They show a higher concentration in the western part of the county as well,

PAGE 52

52 but what is interesting is that the higher densiti es flow along the major arterials leading to the cities of Alachua and Newberry as well as being concentrated within the cities It is also interesting to note the higher densities of commercial employment found in all of the outlying municipalities where as the service densities have higher concentrations with in or in close proximity to the la r ger municipalities Alachua and Gainesville Once combined the employee population shows higher populations within the cities of Alachua and High Springs and along the peripheral of Gainesville (See Figure 4 15 ) The large amounts of semi suitability aroun d Newberry should also be taken into account The final population s uitability shows the cities of A rcher, Newberry, Alachu a, and H igh Sp rings, as well as the peri phery of Gainesville as having the highest suitability compared to the other areas in Alachua County (See Figure 4 16 ). Once converted into an opportunity model the areas just west of the City of Gainesville, and within the cities of Newberry, Alachua and High Springs were shown to be the most suitable for Remote park and ride lots (See Figure 4 17 ). Element III: Land Use land use as well as activity centers that serve as maj or trip generators within Alachua County The reason these attributes were chosen because areas such as these will encourage the use of the park and ride for uses other than just getting to and from work, it would allow them to be used throughout the day r ather than just at peak hours This element consists of three categories and eight components, reference Figure 4 18 for the weights used to combine them.

PAGE 53

53 The points of interest suitability component models identified major trip generators and interchange s that would encourage the use of park and ride lots The points of interest distance suitability classifies areas within a quarter mile of a generator as suitable Figure 4 19 shows the re is a higher concentration of these points of interest within the Ci ty of Gainesville. The I 75 interchanges distance suitability captures areas that people from outside the county or traveling between cities might use and could use a park and ride to exit the interstate and hop on public transportation. The combined model showed the majority of t he high suitabilities along I 75 a n d just to the west of the City of Gainesville (See Figure 4 20 ). The mix of land use suitability component s were chosen to show where there was a high variety of land use. The variety of land use suitability showed where we could find different types of land uses clumped together. A reas within the City of Gainesville and along the major roadway corridors showed the greatest variety in land use (See Figure 4 21 ). This was also mirrored in the entro py of land use suitability conducted as well. The final mix of land use s uitability showed the highest suitabilities within the cities of Gainesviile, Alachua and High Springs, along with patches along the 13 th Street/US 441 and Newberry/University corrido rs (See Figure 4 22 ) The employment locations suitability components pinpoint where retail and commercial activities are taking place. The distance to retail and commercial parcels identifies exactly where these types of business can be found. In this ca se we see more commercial and retail activity in the western part of the county particularly along the corridors to Newberry and Alachua. The density of retail and commercial gives an approximation of the impact each individual store is since it is based o n the square

PAGE 54

54 footage of the buildings, typically buildings with higher square footage draw more customers and have more employees. In this case retail parcels tend to have higher square footage than commercial, and there seems to more of a pull towards hig her square footage to the north along the 13 th Street/US 441 c orridor to Alachua (See Figure 4 23 ). The combined employment location suitability showed higher suitabilities within Alachua and 13 th Street/US 441 corridor leading to it, but it is also interes ting to note that each of the municipalities centers shows high suitabilities with regards to employment locations (See Figure 4 24 ). The final land use suitability had particularly high values in Alachua, Jonesville, Micanopy and on the outer limits of the city of Gainesville (See Figure 4 25 ). Once converted to an opportunity model the most appropriate areas for a Peripheral park and ride lot were in the City of Gainesville near the Oaks Mall and to the North near the Northwood Village Shopping Center a nd in the City of Alachua (See Figure 4 26 ).

PAGE 55

55 Figure 4 1. Opportunity Model Opportunity Model Connectivity Population Road Network Public Transportation County Population City Population Land Use Points of Interest Mix of Land Use Employment Locations Distance to Multimodal Corridors Density of Multimodal Corridors Density of Local Roads Distance to Intersections Distance to Current Bus Routes Distance to Proposed Routes Density of Frequency of Bus Routes Employee Population Density of Total Population per Acre Density of Car Ownership Density of Dwelling U nits per Acre Distance to City Boundary Density of City Population Density of Total Employees Density of Service Employees Density of Retail Employees Distance to Major Generators Distance to I 75 Interchanges Entropy of Land Use Variety of Land Use Distance to Commercial Parcels Dist ance to Retail Parcels Density of Commercial Parcels (sq ft) Density of Retail Parcels (sq ft)

PAGE 56

56 Figure 4 2. Connectivity Element Weights Connectivity Road Network (50%) Public Transit (50%) Distance to Multimodal Corridor (25%) Density of Multimodal Corridor (25%) Density of Local Roads (25%) Distance to Current Bus Routes (33.3%) Density of Frequency of Bus Routes (33.3%) Distance to Proposed Bus Routes (33.3%) Distance to Intersections (25%)

PAGE 57

57 Figure 4 3. Road Network Suitability Component Models

PAGE 58

58 Figure 4 4. Road Network Suitability Model

PAGE 59

59 Figure 4 5. Public Transit Suitability Model Components

PAGE 60

60 Figure 4 6. Public Transit Suitability Model

PAGE 61

61 Figure 4 7. Connectivity Suitability Model

PAGE 62

62 Figure 4 8. Urban Corridor Lots

PAGE 63

63 Figure 4 9. Popu lation Element Weights Population County Population (33.3%) City Population (33.3%) Density of Total Population (33.3%) Distance to City Boundary (50%) Density of City Population (50%) Density of Car Owner s (33.3%) Density of Dwelling Units (33.3%) Employee Population (33.3%) Density of Total Employees (33.3%) Density of Commercial Employees (33.3%) Density of Service Employees (33.3%)

PAGE 64

64 Figure 4 10. County Population Suitability Component Models

PAGE 65

65 Figure 4 11 County Population Suitability Model

PAGE 66

66 Figure 4 12. City Population Suitability Component Models

PAGE 67

67 Figure 4 13. City Population Suitability Model

PAGE 68

68 Figure 4 1 4. Employee Population Suitability Component Models

PAGE 69

69 Figure 4 15. Employee Population Suitability Model

PAGE 70

70 Figure 4 16. Population Suitability Model

PAGE 71

71 Figure 4 17. Remote Park and Ride Lots

PAGE 72

72 Figure 4 18. Population Element Wei ghts Land Use Points of Inte rest (33.3%) Mixed Use (33.3%) Distance to Major Trip Generators (50%) Distance to I 75 Interchanges (50%) Entropy of Land Uses (50%) Variety of Land Uses (50%) Employment (33.3%) Density of Retail Parcels (25%) Dens ity of Commercial Parcels ( 25% ) Distance to Commercial Parcels (25%) Distance to Retail Parcels (25%)

PAGE 73

73 Figure 4 19 Points of Interest Suitability Component Models

PAGE 74

74 Figure 4 20 Points of Interest Suitability Model

PAGE 75

75 Figure 4 21 Mix of Land Use Suitability Component Models

PAGE 76

76 Figure 4 22 Mix of Land Use Suitability Model

PAGE 77

77 Figure 4 23 Employment L ocations Suitability Component Models

PAGE 78

78 Figure 4 24 Employment Locations Suitability Model

PAGE 79

79 Figure 4 25 Land Use Suitability Model

PAGE 80

80 Figure 4 26 Peripheral Park and Ride Lots

PAGE 81

81 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION The opportunity model showed numerous locations that we re appropriate for Park and ride l ots throughout Alachua County. When compared with the potential park and ride locations identified by the City of Gainesville Regional Transit System and the Department of Transportation, similarities between the two recom mendations were apparent Comparison with Bus Rapid Transit Park and Ride Lots Comparing the opportunity model with the park and ride lots being proposed for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) it was found that a majority of the BRT proposed park and ride lots lie w ithin the regions being classified as suitable areas by the opportunity model (See Figure 5 1). Considering that a BRT system generally needs major arterials to operate on the ir designated bus only lanes, the best type of lot for that situation would most likely be an Urban Corridor Lot. Re examining the BRT p roposed lots three out of the six are located within close proximity or on top of areas designated as suitable for Urban Corridor Lots. Some areas that seem to be neglected in the se proposed lots is th e corridor along 13 th street/US 441 as well as the corridor along E University Avenue just past Main S treet Recommendation s for the BRT park and ride lot s might include one in the vicinity of NW 13 th Street at NW 23 rd Boulevard or NW 13 th Street at NW 39 t h Avenue, both are major intersection s and would provide good connectivity and mixed use within the site for a transit hub Comparison with Department of Transportation Proposed Park and Ride Lots Examining the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) proposed park and r ide l ots (See Figure 5 2) it was found that a bulk of these lots are located in outlying

PAGE 82

82 areas of the City of Gainesville within the surrounding municipalities. The majority of these park and ride lots come with a suggestion of express b us service running between them and the City of Gainesville. One of the F these suggestions is to improve the traffic flow on the major a rterials into the City of Gainesville which has reached a failing level of service in many ar eas The lots that would be most appropriat e in the s e situation s would be the remote and peripheral lots. Comparing the opportunity model with the F DOT proposed park and ride lots, e ight out of the ten lots can be found within or in close proximity to the areas suggested by the opp ortunity model as park and ride lots, in particular the remote and peripheral lot designations The lots not included within the opportunity model were the ones located with in the cities of Archer and Waldo. Two area s that seem to be neglected in the proposal that could be deemed appropriate are within the City of Micanopy along US 441, which has a high suitability for a peripheral lot and near Jonesville along Newberry Road which has a high suitability for both remote and periph eral lots. Comparison with the RTS Transit Development Plan Proposed Lots Comparing the opportunity model with park and ride lots proposed in the RTS TDP four out of five of the proposed park and ride lots were found in a suitable region (See Figure 5 3) The park and ride lot not considered suitable by the opportunity model was the one found on E University Avenue outside the City of Gainesville limits When reviewed further against the opportunity model the location of this park and ride lot could be vas tly improved by moving it west along E University Avenue closer to SE 43 rd Street. This would provide the lot with more surrounding population which could enhance its use.

PAGE 83

83 The other four lots suggested by the TDP seem appropriately placed since each is fo und in a suitable area for park and ride lots. Since the TDP looks at various variables to determine these optimal locations, including but not limited to: travel behavior, demographics population, land use and roadway consideration ( RTS Transit Developmen t Plan FY2010 FY2019 pg. 105). It seems appropriate that the remaining four proposed park and ride lots should fall in areas that were deemed suitable for two different type s of park and ride lots. Opportunity Model Suggested Park and Ride Lots Based o n the opportunity model created five locations were identified that could serve as optimal park and ride locati ons (See Figure 5 4), though other locations should not be discounted based on these recommendations. The following sites were chosen based on th and ride lots. Tables 5 1 through 5 4 illustrate the average suitabilities found in the vicinity of the recommended areas. Table 5 1. Recommended Location s Av erage Suitability by Variable Location Connectivity Population Land Use Butler Plaza 7.6 5 5.11 5.934 Northwood Plaza 7.00 1.04 6.95 Oaks Mall 7.51 1.00 8.42 Waldo Road 8.00 1.00 7.80 Williston Plaza 6.28 1.00 6.62 Table 5 2. Recommended Location s Average Suitability by Connectivity Categories Location Public Transit Roadway Butler Plaza 7.78 7.622 Northwood Plaza 7.00 7.99 Oaks Mall 7.99 7.45 Waldo Road 8.00 8.00 Williston Plaza 5.69 7.50

PAGE 84

84 Table 5 3. Recommended Location s Average Suitabil ity by Population Categories Location County Pop ulation City Pop ulation Employee Population Butler Plaza 6.707 1.000 8.98 Northwood Plaza 1.04 1.04 1.07 Oaks Mall 1.01 1.00 1.00 Waldo Road 1.00 1.00 1.00 Williston Plaza 1.03 1.00 1.00 Table 5 4. Re commended Location s Average Suitability by Land Use Categories Location Points of Interest Mix of Land Use Employment Butler Plaza 5.952 5.878 6.776 Northwood Plaza 7.47 7.20 7.12 Oaks Mall 8.40 8.43 9.00 Waldo Road 7.00 8.60 8.00 Williston Plaza 9.0 0 4.47 8.00 The Northwood Village Shopping Center and the Butler Plaza park and ride lots were already suggested in previous plans. These locations were kept in the recommended park and ride sites because they have high densities of residential and comme rcial around the area which would allow them to be excellent peripheral lots, their locations also allow for good accessibility into the sites. The sites on Waldo Road and at the Williston Shopping Center are two new park and ride lot recommendations. The Williston Shopping Center was chosen because it I 75 was also important because if placed correctly the site will be visible from I 75 which will encourage use. The Waldo Road site was chosen because of its location along the urban corridor preference, which would also increase use through visibility, and in connection with higher land use compatibilities (or peripheral lot suitabilities) being located in the area a s well.

PAGE 85

85 Finally the location at Oaks Mall has been previously suggested and is always highly encouraged, the recommended site would be recommended would be located just off of I 75 on the southside of Newberry Road, giving it high visibility and making it easily accessible to inbound trips. Based on the conflict model this location was chosen because it is located in close proximity to all three types of lots, making it the closest for being suitable for any type of park and ride.

PAGE 86

86 Figure 5 1. Bus Rapid Transit Feasibility Study Proposed Park and Ride Lots

PAGE 87

87 Figure 5 2. Department of Transportation Proposed Park and Ride Lots

PAGE 88

88 Figure 5 3. RTS Transit Development Plan P roposed Park and Ride Lots

PAGE 89

89 Figure 5 4. Recommended Park and Ride Lots

PAGE 90

90 CHAPTER 6 CO NCLUSION This study set out to determine optimal locations for any of the three types of lots Urban Corridor, Remote and Peripheral, throughout Alachua County The final outcome rendered five potential park and ride lot locations: Northwood Village Shoppi ng Center, Butler Plaza, Waldo Road, Williston Shopping Center and the Oak s Mall. If the model was to be improved upon some recommendations would be to use roadway level of service within the urban corridor analysis, to include access to bike routes and trails, to consider existing park and ride competition, and to use the capture rate as a parameter. The analysis could also be extended to include populations of unincorporated areas as well as take into account future roadway capacity projects. Some alter ations that could be made would be to the buffers used to exclude the City of Gainesville, Downtown Gainesville and the University of Florida depending on the target audience these could be extended or shortened to accommodate. Other factors that might be taken into consideration are to include site and economic characteristics Site characteristics would include the impact on local community of the project, the number of parking spaces that would be needed, the expansion potential of the facility and even perhaps the parking security. Economic characteristics might include the cost, ease of acquisition, and the development costs of the land. As well as what might be some of the user cost and time travel saving associated with the site. In conclusion, t his opportunity model is success ful because when compared with other proposed park and ride plans this model had 81% (or 17 out of 21) in common with them. This opportunity model is useful because it references multiple variables

PAGE 91

91 when trying to propose new pa rk and ride lot locations. It also allows for more alternative locations of park and ride facilities with varying level of suitability making the process more subjective to the area and circumstances that might arise.

PAGE 92

92 APPENDIX A ROADWAY LEVEL OF SER VICE Level of Service Description A F ree flow conditions. Individual users are virtually unaffected by the presence of others in the traffic stream. Freedom to select desired speeds and to maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely high. The general leve l of comfort and convenience provided to drivers is excellent. B A llows speeds at or near free flow speeds, but the presence of other users in the traffic stream begins to be noticeable. Freedom to select desired speeds is relatively unaffected, but there is a slight decline in the freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream relative to LOS A. C S peeds at or near free flow speeds, but the freedom to maneuver is noticeably restricted (lane changes require careful attention on the part of drivers). The ge neral level of comfort and convenience declines significantly at this level. Disruptions in the traffic stream, such as an incident (for example, vehicular accident or disablement), can result in significant queue formation and vehicular delay. In contrast the effect of incidents at LOS A or LOS B are minimal, and cause only minor delay in the immediate vicinity of the event. D C onditions where speeds begin to decline slightly with increasing flow. The freedom to maneuver becomes more restricted and drive rs experience reductions in physical and psychological comfort. Incidents can generate lengthy queues because the higher density associated with this LOS provides little space to absorb disruption in the traffic flow. E R epresents operating conditions at Even minor disruptions to the traffic stream, such as vehicles entering from a ramp or vehicles changing lanes, can cause delays as other vehicles give way to allow such maneuvers. In general, maneuverability is extremely li mited and drivers experience considerable physical and psychological discomfort. F D escribes a breakdown in vehicular flow. Queues form quickly behind points in the roadway where the arrival flow rate temporarily exceeds the departure rate, as determined s capacity Vehicles typically operate at low speeds in these conditions and are often required to come to a complete stop, usually in a cyclic fashion. The cyclic formation and dissipation of queues is a key characterization of LOS F. Sour ce: The Highway Capacity Manual

PAGE 93

93 APPENDIX B POINTS OF INTEREST Name Type Name Type Archer Road/34th Street Activity Center Oaks Mall Regional Shopping Center Shopping Archer Road/Tower Road Activity Center Gainesville Mall Shopping Eastgate Activit y Center Westgate Plaza Shopping Eastside Activity Center Gainesville Shopping Center Shopping Jonesville Activity Center Hunter's Crossing Shopping North Main Street/53rd Avenue Activity Center Millhopper Shopping Center Shopping Springhills Activity Center Williston Plaza Shopping Tower Road/24th Avenue Activity Center Northwood Village Shopping Center Shopping Williston Road/13th Street Activity Center Food Lion Shopping Gainesville Regional Airport Airport Pearl of Micanopy Shopping Santa Fe Col lege Education Grove Park Grocery Shopping University of Florida Education Millers Super Value Food Store Shopping Shands Hospital Hospital Tim s Fast Nickel Shopping North Florida Regional Medical Center Hospital Fast Track Foods Shopping Veterans Adm inistration Hospital Hospital Radha Indian Groceries Shopping Matheson Historical C en t e r Museum Harvey's Market Shopping Harn Museum of Art Museum Publix Supermarkets Shopping Natural History Museum Museum Sun Store Shopping Civil Courthouse Public Win n Dixie Shopping Criminal Courthouse Public Golden Foods Incorporated Shopping Health Department Service Specialty Foods Unlimited Shopping Family Services Service Community Grocery Store Shopping Florida Department of Children and Families Service Saf eway Property Insurance Shopping Tacachale Center Service

PAGE 94

94 APPENDIX C DOR CODES Use Code Category Use Code Category Residential 0000 Vacant Residential Industrial 4000 Vacant Industrial 0100 Single Family 4100 Light manufacturing 0200 Mobile Hom es 4200 Heavy industrial 0300 Multi family >= 10 units 4300 Lumber yards, sawmills 0400 Condominia 4400 Packing plants (fruit, vegetable and meat) 0500 Cooperatives 4500 Canneries, bottlers and brewers distilleries, wineries 0600 Retirement Hom es 4600 Other food processing 0700 Miscellaneous Residential 4700 Mineral processing, cement plants, refineries 0800 Multi family < 10 units 4800 Warehousing, terminals 0900 Undefined Commercial 4900 Open storage Commercial 1000 Vacant commercia l Agricultural 5000 Improved agricultural 1100 Stores, one story 5100 Cropland soil capability 1200 Mixed use 5200 Cropland soil capability 1300 Department Stores 5300 Cropland soil capability 1400 Supermarkets 5400 Timberland 1500 Regional S hopping Centers 5500 Timberland 1600 Community Shopping Centers 5600 Timberland 1700 Office buildings, one story 5700 Timberland 1800 Office buildings, multi story 5800 Timberland 1900 Professional service buildings 5900 Timberland 2000 Airp orts 6000 Grazing land soil capability 2100 Restaurants, cafeterias 6100 Grazing land soil capability 2200 Drive in Restaurants 6200 Grazing land soil capability 2300 Financial institutions 6300 Grazing land soil capability 2400 Insurance compa ny offices 6400 Grazing land soil capability 2500 Repair service shops 6500 Grazing land soil capability 2600 Service stations 6600 Orchard Groves, Citrus, etc. 2700 Auto sales, auto repair and storage 6700 Poultry, bees, tropical fish, rabbits, etc. 2800 Parking lots, mobile home parks 6800 Dairies, feed lots 2900 Wholesale outlets 6900 Miscellaneous agricultural Institutional 3000 Florist, greenhouses 3100 Drive in theaters, open stadiums *Some definitions were truncated 3200 En closed auditoriums 3300 Nightclubs, cocktail lounges, bars 3400 Enclosed arenas 3500 Tourist attractions 3600 Camps 3700 Race tracks; horse, auto or dog 3800 Golf courses, driving ranges 3900 Hotels, motels Industrial

PAGE 95

95 Use Code Category Use Code Category Institutional 7000 Vacant Institutional Miscellaneous 9000 Leasehold interests (government owned property leased by a non governmental lessee) 7100 Churches 9100 Utility, gas and electricity, telephone and telegraph locally assessed railroads, water and sewer service, pipelines, canals, radio/television communication 7200 Private schools and colleges 9200 Mining lands, petroleum lands, or gas lands 7300 Privately owned hospitals 9300 Subsurface rights 7400 H omes for the aged 9400 Right of way, streets, roads, irrigation channel, ditch, etc. 7500 Orphanages, other non profit or charitable services 9500 Rivers and lakes, submerged lands 7600 Mortuaries, cemeteries, crematoriums 9600 Sewage disposal, soli d waste, borrow pits, drainage reservoirs, waste lands, marsh, sand dunes, swamps 7700 Clubs, lodges, union halls 9700 Outdoor recreational or parkland, or high water recharge subject to classified use assessment. 7800 Sanitariums, convalescent and re st homes 9800 Centrally assessed 7900 Cultural organizations, facilities Government 9900 Acreage not zoned agricultural Government 8000 Undefined 8100 Military *Some definitions were truncated 8200 Forest, parks, recreational areas 830 0 Public county schools include all property of Board of Public Instruction 8400 Colleges 8500 Hospitals 8600 Counties (other than public schools, colleges, hospitals) including non municipal governments 8700 State, other than militar y, forests, parks, recreational areas, colleges, hospitals 8800 Federal, other than military, forests, parks, recreational areas, hospitals, colleges 8900 Municipal, other than parks, recreational areas, colleges, hospitals

PAGE 96

96 LIST OF REFERENCE S Barnum, D. T., McNeil, S., & Hart, J. (2007). Comparing the Efficiency of Public Transportation Subunits Using Data Envelopment Analysis. Journal of Public Transportation 10 2nd ser., 1 16. Bekhor, S., & Elgar, A. (2007). Investent in Mobility by Car as an Explanatory Variable for Market Segmentation. Journal of Public Transportation 10 2nd ser., 17 32. Blackstad, L., Cain, A., & Hamer, P. (n.d.). Provision of Park and Ride Facilities for Bus Rapid Transit Systems (Rep. No. CUTR 522 01 1). Bos, I. D., Van der Heijden, R. E., Molin, E. J., & Timmermans, H. J. (2004). The choice of park and ride facilities: an analysis using a context dependent hierarchical choice experiment. Environment and Planning 36 1673 1686. doi: 10.1068/a36138 Carr, M. H ., & Zwick, P. D. (2007). Smart Land use Analysis: The LUCIS model Redlands, CA : ESRI Cervero, R. (1996). Mixed Land Uses and Commuting: Evidence from the American Housing Survey. Trans Res. A 30 (5), 361 377. Retrieved December 1, 2009, from ScienceDir ect. City of Gainesville, Planning Division. (n.d.). Comprehensive Plan Retrieved December 1, 2008, from http://www.cityofgainesville.org/GOVERNMENT/CityDepartmentsNZ/PlanningDe partment/ComprehensivePlan/ City of Gainesville Regional Transit System ( 2007). City of Gainesville Regional Transit System Transit Development Plan FY2007 FY2011 City of Gainesville Regional Transit System (2009). City of Gainesville Regional Transit System Transit Development Plan FY2010 FY2019 City of Gainesville Re gional Transit System (2008). RTS Fisc al Year 2008 Ridership by Route Faghri, A., Lang, A., Hamad, K., & Henck, H. (2002). Intergrated Knowledge Based Geographic Information System for Determining Optimal Location of Park and Ride Facilities. Journal o f Urban Planning and Development 18 41. Florida Department of Transportation, District 2. (n.d.). Gainesville Mulitmodal Cooridor and Park and Ride Study Florida Department of Transportation, Public Transit Office. (n.d.). T Best Nothing but the Best for Transit Planning and Ridership Forecasting

PAGE 97

97 "Florida Geographic Data Library Data Download." Florida Geographic Data Library Retrieved September 1, 2009 from http://www.fgdl.org/download/index.html Frank, L. D., & Pivo, G. (n.d.). Impacts of Mixed Use and Density on Utilization of Three Modes of Travel: Single Occupant Vehicle, Transit, and Walking (Publication No. 1466). Furth, P. G., Mekuria, M. C., & Sanclemente, J. L. (2007). Parcel Level Modeling to Analyze Transit Stop Location Changes. Jour nal of Public Transportation 10 2nd ser., 73 92. GIS Geographic Information Systems. (n.d.). City of Gainesville Retrieved December 1, 2008, from http://www.cityofgainesville.org/ GIS Maps Gateway. (n.d.). Alachua County Retrieved December 1, 200 8, from http://maps.alachuacounty.us/ Transportation Research Board. (2000). Highway Capacity Manual Washington, D.C.: National Research Council. Jacksonville Transit Authority. (n.d.). Guidelines for Transit Oriented Development (p. 50). Jacksonvill e Transit Authority. (2009). Park and Ride Study Johnson, A. (2003). Bus Transit and Land Use: Illuminating the Interaction. Journal of Public Transportation 6 (4). Kuzmyak, J., & Pratt, R. H. (2003). Land Use and Site Design (Rep. No. 95). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Noel, E. C. (1988). Park and Ride: Alive, Well, and Expanding in the United States. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 114 (1), 2 13. Peng, Z., Groff, J. N., & Dueker, K. J. (n.d.). An Enterprise GIS Database D esign for Agency Wide Transit Applications. URISA Journal Retrieved November 23, 2008, from http://urisa.org/Journal/protect/vol11no1/agencywidetransit.htm Stanley, R. G., & Hyman, R. (n.d.). Evaluation of Recent Ridership Increases (Vol. 69) (USA, Fede ral Transit Administration, TCRP Research Results Digest). Tresidder, M. (2005). Using GIS to Measure Connectivity: An Exploration of Issues (Unpublished master's thesis). Portland State University.

PAGE 98

98 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Jessica Alvarez is a Florida na tive that has been a resident of the City of Gainesville for seven years Coursework for her bachelor degree s in anthropology and business introduced her to the cultural aspects related to the variables chosen for this study Coursework for her first maste transportation technicalities related to park and ride lots. graduate education she worked as a teaching assistant within the Urban and Regional Planning Department for the Intr oductory Geographic Information System s class. The knowledge gained through this experience was applied to the methodology in this study. The author is currently working at the Regional Transit System (RTS) in Gainesville, FL. Specializing in transporta tion planning; this knowledge was also applied to this study. This park and ride study will be continued and expanded at RTS in order to produce a final document that can be incorporated into a product appropriate for use at RTS for the locating of park an d ride lots.