DOCSLIB.ORG

The Third Crossing

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Third Crossing The Third Crossing A Megaproject in a Megaregion www.thirdcrossing.org Final Report, February 2017 Transportation Planning Studio Department of City and Regional Planning, University of California, Berkeley Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the Department of City and Regional Planning (DCRP) at the College of Environmental Design (CED) at UC Berkeley, the University of California Transportation Center and Institute of Transportation Studies (ITS), UC Berkeley for support. A special thanks also goes to the helpful feedback from studio instructor Karen Trapenberg Frick and UC Berkeley faculty and researchers including Jesus Barajas and Jason Corburn. We also acknowledge the tremendous support and insights from colleagues at numerous public agencies and non-profit organizations throughout California. A very special thanks goes to David Ory, Michael Reilly, and Fletcher Foti of MTC for their gracious support in running regional travel and land use models, and to Professor Paul Waddell and Sam Blanchard of UrbanSim, Inc. for lending their resources and expertise in land use modeling. We also thank our classmates Joseph Poirier and Lee Reis; as well as David Eifler, Teresa Caldeira, Jennifer Wolch, Robert Cervero, Elizabeth Deakin, Malla Hadley, Leslie Huang and other colleagues at CED; and, Alexandre Bayen, Laura Melendy and Jeanne Marie Acceturo of ITS Berkeley. About Us We are a team of 15 graduate students in City Planning, Transportation Engineering, and Public Health. This project aims to facilitate a conversation about the future of transportation between the East Bay and San Francisco and in the larger Northern California megaregion. We are part of the Department of City and Regional Planning in the UC Berkeley College of Environmental Design, with support from the University of California Transportation Center and The Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. Michael Alston, MCP/MS 2016 Kate Beck, MCP/MPH 2018 Jordan Brooks, MCP/MS 2017 Anne deBoer, MCP 2017 Teddy Forscher, MCP/MS 2016 Alex Garbier, MCP/MS 2017 Yiyan Ge, MCP/MS 2016 Thomas Gonzales, MCP 2017 Dov Kadin, MCP 2017 Evan Knopf, MCP 2017 Ryan Reeves, MCP 2017 Travis Richards, MCP/MPH 2017 Henry Hyokyung Ryu, MCP 2017 Peter Smith, MCP 2017 Paul Sohn, MCP/MS 2016 Instructor: Professor Karen Trapenberg Frick CY PLAN 218, Transportation Planning Studio, Fall 2016 Department of City and Regional Planning, University of California, Berkeley 2 Table of Contents Cover Page .................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Acknowledgements 2 About Us 2 Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Figures and Tables .................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................................ 9 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................. 13 A Megaproject in a Megaregion 13 Scope of Analysis 14 Research Design 14 Key Considerations ............................................................................................................................................................... 17 Social Equity 17 Accessibility and Connectivity 19 Land Use Planning Coordination 20 Climate Change Mitigation 21 Resilience and Adaptation 22 Policy Context and Current Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 23 Policy Context 23 Additional Agencies and Authorities 26 Land Use and Growth 27 Land Use Planning Efforts 32 Transportation Network and Operations 33 Sea Level Rise and System Resilience 42 Public Health 46 Historical Context .................................................................................................................................................................. 49 Megaprojects Defined 49 A History of San Francisco Bay Crossings 49 Social Equity Case Studies of Transportation Megaprojects 58 3 Social Equity Opportunities .............................................................................................................................................. 62 Approach 62 History of Equity and Transportation Infrastructure Projects 63 Accessibility to Employment Opportunities 63 Gentrification and Displacement 64 Policy Context 65 Making the Case for Active Equity 67 Community Involvement 67 Co-Benefits 71 Project Governance ............................................................................................................................................................... 77 Consideration of Project Circumstances 78 Governance Structure Alternatives 78 Governance Structure Recommendations 84 Equity & Governance 87 Risk Management and Independent Project Oversight ......................................................................................... 90 Megaprojects and Risk Management in Practice 90 Recent California State and Federal Legislation on Megaproject Risk Management 93 Risk Identification and Application to a Third Crossing 97 Performance Metrics ......................................................................................................................................................... 101 Social Equity 102 Accessibility and Connectivity 103 Resilience and Adaptation 104 Climate Change Mitigation 105 Land Use Planning Coordination 106 System Performance 107 Alternative Development ................................................................................................................................................ 109 Alternative 1: New Opportunities (BART) 110 Alternative 2: Critical Needs (BART) 113 Alternative 3: Connecting the Megaregion (Standard Rail) 116 4 Alternative 4: Performance Pricing (No Third Crossing) 120 Alternatives Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................ 124 Social Equity Analysis 124 Accessibility and Connectivity Analysis 127 Land Use Planning Coordination Analysis 129 Climate Change Mitigation 132 Resilience and Adaptation Analysis 133 Model Methodology 135 Funding and Financing ..................................................................................................................................................... 141 Introduction 141 Improving Cost Estimation Accuracy 141 Equity Concerns in Fundraising & Revenue Distribution 144 Funding Scenarios 144 Federal Sources 145 State Sources 148 Local Sources 149 Case Studies 158 Conclusion: Funding and Financing Key Recommendations 164 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................................. 166 Bibliography ......................................................................................................................................................................... 168 Appendices ............................................................................................................................................................................ 188 Appendix A: Transbay Crossing Reports and Resources - Annotated Bibliography .............................. 189 Appendix B: MTC’s Communities of Concern definition for Plan Bay Area 2040 .................................... 198 Appendix C: Additional Data on Transbay Travel Patterns .............................................................................. 199 Appendix D: Performance Metric Sources & Methodology ............................................................................... 202 Appendix E: Land Use Outputs for Various Model Runs compared to Control Run ............................... 204 5 Figures and Tables Figures Figure 1: Demolition for the cypress freeway in West Oakland ........................................................................ 18 Figure 2: Priority Development Areas .......................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 3: Comparison of Disadvantaged Communities and Communities of Concern ............................. 25 Figure 4: Existing job density in 2012. ......................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 5: Existing household density in 2012 ........................................................................................................... 29 Figure 6: Homeownership rate as percentage of population .............................................................................. 30 Figure 7: Population percentage change in urban areas (over 1000 people per sq. mile) ..................... 31 Figure 8: Daily commuters crossing boundary of the nine-county Bay Area, 2013 .................................. 32 Figure 9: Passenger rail and highway infrastructure serving the greater Bay Area region ..................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • THIS STAFF REPORT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO.: 8 for the MEETING OF: April 19, 2007 TRANSBAY JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY BRIEF DESCRIPT
    THIS STAFF REPORT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO.: 8 FOR THE MEETING OF: April 19, 2007 TRANSBAY JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY BRIEF DESCRIPTION: This staff report provides the status of a planning feasibility study for a future pedestrian connection tunnel between the Transbay Transit Center and the BART/MUNI Metro stations on Market Street. SUMMARY: The TJPA is conducting a study of the feasibility and estimated construction cost for a new pedestrian connection tunnel along one of the following four alternative alignments. • Beale Street (Alternative 1) • Fremont Street (Alternative 2) • First Street (Alternative 3) • Ecker Place (Alternative 4) Estimated construction costs vary for each alignment, with the Beale Street and Ecker Place alignments expected to cost less than the Fremont Street or First Street alignments due to the shorter total length of the tunnel structures. There is currently no funding identified for inclusion of the pedestrian connection tunnel in Phase 1 of the Transbay Transit Center Program. Consequently, it remains a “design option” that would be implemented during the Caltrain Downtown Extension project in Phase 2 of the Transbay Transit Center Program, as originally envisioned in the Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR). If adequate funding is secured, construction of the pedestrian connection tunnel appears technically feasible along any of the four alignments studied. A study report with input from City and regional stakeholders is planned for consideration by the TJPA Board at its May 2007 meeting. REPORT: FEIS/EIR Consideration of a Pedestrian Connection Tunnel The Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) that was adopted during the preparation of the FEIS/EIR included a “design option” for a pedestrian connection tunnel below Fremont Street between the train mezzanine level of the new Transit Center and the mezzanine level of the existing BART/MUNI Metro Embarcadero Station, as part of the Caltrain Downtown Extension Project.
    [Show full text]
  • California State Rail Plan 2005-06 to 2015-16
    California State Rail Plan 2005-06 to 2015-16 December 2005 California Department of Transportation ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor SUNNE WRIGHT McPEAK, Secretary Business, Transportation and Housing Agency WILL KEMPTON, Director California Department of Transportation JOSEPH TAVAGLIONE, Chair STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER JEREMIAH F. HALLISEY, Vice Chair GOVERNOR BOB BALGENORTH MARIAN BERGESON JOHN CHALKER JAMES C. GHIELMETTI ALLEN M. LAWRENCE R. K. LINDSEY ESTEBAN E. TORRES SENATOR TOM TORLAKSON, Ex Officio ASSEMBLYMEMBER JENNY OROPEZA, Ex Officio JOHN BARNA, Executive Director CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 1120 N STREET, MS-52 P. 0 . BOX 942873 SACRAMENTO, 94273-0001 FAX(916)653-2134 (916) 654-4245 http://www.catc.ca.gov December 29, 2005 Honorable Alan Lowenthal, Chairman Senate Transportation and Housing Committee State Capitol, Room 2209 Sacramento, CA 95814 Honorable Jenny Oropeza, Chair Assembly Transportation Committee 1020 N Street, Room 112 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear: Senator Lowenthal Assembly Member Oropeza: On behalf of the California Transportation Commission, I am transmitting to the Legislature the 10-year California State Rail Plan for FY 2005-06 through FY 2015-16 by the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) with the Commission's resolution (#G-05-11) giving advice and consent, as required by Section 14036 of the Government Code. The ten-year plan provides Caltrans' vision for intercity rail service. Caltrans'l0-year plan goals are to provide intercity rail as an alternative mode of transportation, promote congestion relief, improve air quality, better fuel efficiency, and improved land use practices. This year's Plan includes: standards for meeting those goals; sets priorities for increased revenues, increased capacity, reduced running times; and cost effectiveness.
    [Show full text]
  • Sediment Transport in the San Francisco Bay Coastal System: an Overview
    Marine Geology 345 (2013) 3–17 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Marine Geology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/margeo Sediment transport in the San Francisco Bay Coastal System: An overview Patrick L. Barnard a,⁎, David H. Schoellhamer b,c, Bruce E. Jaffe a, Lester J. McKee d a U.S. Geological Survey, Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center, Santa Cruz, CA, USA b U.S. Geological Survey, California Water Science Center, Sacramento, CA, USA c University of California, Davis, USA d San Francisco Estuary Institute, Richmond, CA, USA article info abstract Article history: The papers in this special issue feature state-of-the-art approaches to understanding the physical processes Received 29 March 2012 related to sediment transport and geomorphology of complex coastal–estuarine systems. Here we focus on Received in revised form 9 April 2013 the San Francisco Bay Coastal System, extending from the lower San Joaquin–Sacramento Delta, through the Accepted 13 April 2013 Bay, and along the adjacent outer Pacific Coast. San Francisco Bay is an urbanized estuary that is impacted by Available online 20 April 2013 numerous anthropogenic activities common to many large estuaries, including a mining legacy, channel dredging, aggregate mining, reservoirs, freshwater diversion, watershed modifications, urban run-off, ship traffic, exotic Keywords: sediment transport species introductions, land reclamation, and wetland restoration. The Golden Gate strait is the sole inlet 9 3 estuaries connecting the Bay to the Pacific Ocean, and serves as the conduit for a tidal flow of ~8 × 10 m /day, in addition circulation to the transport of mud, sand, biogenic material, nutrients, and pollutants.
    [Show full text]
  • Transbay Temporary Terminal : Project Fact Sheet
    Transbay Temporary Terminal PROJECT FACT SHEET Temporary Terminal The Transbay Joint Powers Authority (TJPA) continues to make exciting progress toward building the Transbay Transit Center, the “Grand Central of the West.” Groundbreak- ing commenced in December 2008 for the Temporary Terminal that will serve bus pas- sengers while the new Transit Center is un der construction. ➤ SPEAR STREET ➤ ➤ ➤ ➤ HOWARD STREET MAIN STREET ➤ Temporary Temporary Terminal Rendering + Terminal Site ➤ BEALE STREET ➤ ➤ Sign-up for Notices ➤ The TJPA is committed to mitigating traffic impacts during ➤ FOLSOM STREET the course of construction. However, traffic disruptions are FREMONT STREET expected throughout the course of the project. ➤ In order to stay informed on our progress, upcoming community meetings and potential street closures, please ➤ ➤ sign up to receive email alerts and to join our project mailing list at www.temporaryterminal.org Map of Project Area + PROJECT TIMELINE December 2008 Summer 2010 Fall 2010 Late Fall 2010 2012 2017 2018 Temporary Terminal Temporary Terminal construction completed. Demolition SamTrans Construction Construction Construction Groundbreaking. of East Loop and Golden of the of the of the Caltrain Greyhound, AC Transit, MUNI and WestCAT (Phase II of Gate Transit Caltrain Transbay Downtown Lynx operations move to the Temporary Temporary move to the Downtown Transit Rail Extension Terminal. Terminal) Temporary Rail Center to be to be Begin demolition of Transbay Terminal; completed. Terminal. Extension to completed. completed. construction of new Transit Center begins. begin. Temporary Terminal to close. For more information, please visit: www.temporaryterminal.org 06.10 PROJECT FACT SHEET Frequently Asked Questions Transbay Transit Center Rendering + WHAT IS THE TEMPORARY TERMINAL? The Temporary Terminal is the temporary replacement bus facility that will serve bus passengers while the new, multi-modal Transbay Transit Center is under construction.
    [Show full text]
  • Samtrans Service Plan Final Recommendations
    SamTrans Service Plan Final Recommendations May 2013 Table of Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................................................i Introduction ..................................................................................................................1 Plan Background ..........................................................................................................3 Plan Framework ...........................................................................................................6 Service Plan Development .......................................................................................10 SamTrans Service Plan ..............................................................................................21 Next Steps ...................................................................................................................31 Appendix A: SamTrans Service Plan Route Recommendations ...........................................A-33 Appendix B: SamTrans Service Plan Route Maps ................................................................... B-38 Appendix C: Outreach Summaries ............................................................................................C-91 2 | SAMTRANS SERVICE PLAN - MAY 2013 Acknowledgments Board of Directors 2013 Project Team Carole Groom, Chair April Chan, Executive Officer, Planning & Jeff Gee, Vice Chair Development Jerry Deal Chuck Harvey, Deputy CEO Rose Guilbault Douglas Kim, Director, Planning Shirley Harris
    [Show full text]
  • Frequently Asked Questions Updated February 26, 2021 Alta Way
    Frequently Asked Questions Updated February 26, 2021 Alta Way Grading Permit The Marin County Community Development Agency’s Planning Division (CDA) is a regulatory agency responsible for implementing State and local land use laws through the entitlement process. While the CDA is not the permitting authority for a Grading Permit, we prepared this informational document to provide responses to questions that we have received about the Alta Way Grading Permit application. 1. Why is the project not considered a “Subdivision”? Response: The Marin County Development Code defines a subdivision, in part, as follows: “The division, by any subdivider, of any unit or portion of land shown on the latest equalized Marin County Assessment Role as a unit or contiguous units…”. The project applicant is not proposing to create additional, new lots. The proposal will provide access to a number of existing lots that were created by a prior subdivision map (Map of Garden Valley Park Subdivision 1, filed for record on October 9, 1919 in Volume 5 of Maps at page 4 in the Office of the Recorder, Marin County Records). The applicant proposes to “merge” or combine 8 of the existing lots into 4 lots. As a “merger” involves the combination of existing units of land rather than a division of a unit or units of land, a merger is not considered a subdivision under the County Code and the State Subdivision Map Act. Therefore, the provisions for subdivisions do not apply to the proposed project. The applicant has applied to the CDA to merge the lots described above.
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment C: Index of Transformative Projects & Strategies Submitted Project Names May Have Been Updated Slightly Since Submission
    METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS PROJECT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT Attachment C: Index of Transformative Projects & Strategies Submitted Project names may have been updated slightly since submission. Incomplete submissions were omitted from this list. Not all projects shown met the criteria for the Transformative Projects competition. Transformative Projects Aerial Tram Lines (San Francisco to North Bay and East Bay) Air Shuttle Network (Livermore to Central Valley) BART First/Last Mile Gondola Services Drone Delivery Network Dumbarton Gondola Line Electric Vertical Take Off and Landing Aircraft and Ports Flying Car Transit Network Mountain View International Airport Aerial Oakland/Alameda Gondola Network Regional Helicopter Network Automated Bus and Rail Service + Frequency Increase Autonomous TNC Service in Urban Areas AV Shuttle Circulators AV Shuttle System AV Shuttle System for BART Station Areas Autonomous Benicia Autonomous Bus Network Technologies Contra Costa Autonomous Shuttle Program I-80 Corridor Overhaul Mountain View AV Shuttle System AV Shuttles at Rockridge and 12th St BART Stations BART Evening Frequency Increase BART Extension from Civic Center to Ocean Beach BART Extension from E. Santa Clara to Eastridge Transit Center BART Extension from Santa Clara to Tasman Drive BART Extension from Hayward to Millbrae BART Extension from Millbrae to San Jose (x4) BART Extension from Millbrae to Santa Clara BART Extension from Milpitas to Martinez (via I-680) BART Extension from Milpitas to
    [Show full text]
  • Transbay Transit Center, San Francisco
    CITY OF LAGUNA NIGUEL GATEWAY SPECIFIC PLAN Transit-Oriented Development Case Studies Prepared for City of Laguna Niguel 27781 La Paz Road Laguna Niguel, California 92677 Prepared by PBS&J 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Los Angeles, California 90025 November 2007 Contents CASE STUDIES Introduction.................................................................................................................................1 CASE STUDY 1 Downtown Arlington Heights, Illinois......................................................................................3 CASE STUDY 2 Del Mar Station, Pasadena.....................................................................................................7 CASE STUDY 3 EmeryStation, Emeryville, CA............................................................................................... 11 CASE STUDY 4 North Hollywood Commercial Core ................................................................................... 17 CASE STUDY 5 Rail Station District, Santa Ana............................................................................................ 21 CASE STUDY 6 Grossmont Transit Station, La Mesa ................................................................................... 25 CASE STUDY 7 Pleasant Hill BART Transit Village ...................................................................................... 29 CASE STUDY 8 Rincon Hill Area Plan, San Francisco .................................................................................. 33 CASE STUDY 9 Transbay Transit
    [Show full text]
  • 5901 Christie Avenue | Emeryville, California
    5901 Christie Avenue | Emeryville, California FOR LEASE HOME HIGHLIGHTS FLOOR PLANS LOCATION Charlie Sweeney 555 12th Street, Suite 1400 +1 510 267 6021 Oakland, CA 94607 [email protected] main +1 510 465 8000 LIC #01987199 fax +1 510 465 1350 cushmanwakefield.com Cushman & Wakefield Copyright 2015. No warranty or representation, express or implied, is made to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained herein, and same is submitted subject to errors, omissions, change of price, rental or other conditions, withdrawal without notice, and to any special listing conditions imposed by the property owner(s). As applicable, we make no representation as to the condition of the property (or properties) in question. 5901 Christie Avenue Emeryville, CA HOME HIGHLIGHTS FLOOR PLANS LOCATION Property Highlights • Panoramic Bay Views • Mixture of Creative Office Space and Traditional Office Space • HVAC • Recent Interior and Exterior Improvements Amenities • Free on site parking • Freight and passenger elevators • Excellent Emeryville location, adjacent to the Public Market and walking distance to many restaurants, health & fitness facility and retail amenities • Immediate access to I-80/I-580 for convenient access to San Francisco, downtown Oakland and the East Bay thoroughfare • Property Management on-site • 24-7 Building Security and Tenant Access Available Suites Suite 208 | ±2,261 SF | $3.00 - $3.25 FSG 5901 Christie Avenue Emeryville, CA HOME HIGHLIGHTS FLOOR PLANS LOCATION 2nd Floor Plan Suite 208 | ±2,261 SF Highlights • 6 Private Offices • Large Conference Room • Kitchen Charlie Sweeney 555 12th Street, Suite 1400 +1 510 267 6021 Oakland, CA 94607 [email protected] main +1 510 465 8000 LIC #01987199 fax +1 510 465 1350 cushmanwakefield.com Cushman & Wakefield Copyright 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • A Strategy to Improve Public Transit with an Environmentally Friendly Ferry System
    A Strategy to Improve Public Transit with an Environmentally Friendly Ferry System Final Implementation & Operations Plan July 2003 San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority Dear Governor Davis and Members of the California Legislature: After two years of work, the San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Finally, as the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) Authority (WTA) is delivering an Implementation and Operations details, this system is environmentally responsible. Plan. It is a viable strategy to improve Bay Area public transit with an environmentally friendly ferry system. It is a well- From beginning to end, this plan is built on solid, conservative thought-out plan calling for a sensible transportation investment. technical data and financial assumptions. If the State of California It shows how the existing and new individual ferry routes can adopts this plan and it is funded, we can begin making expanded form a well-integrated water-transit system that provides good water transit a reality. connections to other transit. The current economy makes it tough to find funds for new When you enacted Senate Bill 428 in October 1999, the WTA programs, even those as worthy as expanded Bay Area water was formed and empowered to create a plan for new and expanded transit. The Authority understands the economic challenges it water transit services and related ground transportation faces and is already working hard to overcome that hurdle. terminal access services. It was further mandated that the Today, the Authority’s future is unclear, pending your consideration. Authority must study ridership demand, cost-effectiveness But the prospects for expanded Bay Area water transit — and and expanded water transit’s environmental impact.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Area Regional Rail Plan, Chapter 7
    7.0 ALTERNATIVES DEFINITION & Fig. 7 Resolution 3434 EVALUATION — STEP-BY-STEP Step One: Base Network Healdsburg Sonoma Recognizing that Resolution 3434 represents County 8 MTC’s regional rail investment over the next 25 Santa years as adopted first in the 2001 Regional Trans- Rosa Napa portation Plan and reaffirmed in the subsequent County Vacaville 9 plan update, Resolution 3434 is included as part Napa of the “base case” network. Therefore, the study Petaluma Solano effort focuses on defining options for rail improve- County ments and expansions beyond Resolution 3434. Vallejo Resolution 3434 rail projects include: Marin County 8 9 Pittsburg 1. BART/East Contra Costa Rail (eBART) San Antioch 1 Rafael Concord Richmond 2. ACE/Increased Services Walnut Berkeley Creek MTC Resolution 3434 Contra Costa 3. BART/I-580 Rail Right-of-Way Preservation County Rail Projects Oakland 4. Dumbarton Bridge Rail Service San 1 BART: East Contra Costa Extension Francisco 10 6 3 2 ACE: Increased Service 5. BART/Fremont-Warm Springs to San Jose Daly City 2 Pleasanton Livermore 3 South Extension BART: Rail Right-of-Way Preservation San Francisco Hayward Union City 4 Dumbarton Rail Alameda 6. Caltrain/Rapid Rail/Electrification & Extension San Mateo Fremont County 5 BART: Fremont/Warm Springs 4 to Downtown San Francisco/Transbay Transit to San Jose Extension 7 Redwood City 5 Center 6 & Extension to Downtown SF/ Mountain Milpitas Transbay Transit Center View Palo Alto 7. Caltrain/Express Service 7 Caltrain: Express Service Sunnyvale Santa Clara San San Santa Clara 8 Jose 8. SMART (Sonoma-Marin Rail) SMART (Sonoma-Marin Rail) Mateo Cupertino County 9 County 9.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Downtown San Francisco Expanding Downtown’S Capacity for Transit-Oriented Jobs
    THE FUTURE OF DOWNTOWN SAN FRANCISCO EXPANDING DOWNTOWN’S CAPACITY FOR TRANSIT-ORIENTED JOBS SPUR REPORT Adopted by the SPUR Board of Directors on January 21, 2009 Released March 2009 The primary author of this report were Egon Terplan, Ellen Lou, Anthony Bruzzone, James Rogers, Brian Stokle, Jeff Tumlin and George Williams with assistance from Frank Fudem, Val Menotti, Michael Powell, Libby Seifel, Chi-Hsin Shao, John Sugrue and Jessica Zenk SPUR 654 Mission St., San Francisco, California 94105 www.spur.org SPUR | March 2009 INDEX Introduction ________________________________________________________________________ 3 I. The Problem: Regional job sprawl and the decline of transit-served central business districts _ 6 II. The Solution: The best environmental and economic response for the region is to expand our dynamic, transit-served central business districts _______________________________________ 16 III. The Constraints: We are running out of capacity in downtown San Francisco to accommodate much new employment growth _______________________________________________________ 20 The Zoning Constraint: Downtown San Francisco is running out of zoned space for jobs. 20 The Transportation Constraint: Our regional transportation system — roads and trains — is nearing capacity at key points in our downtown. 29 IV. Recommendations: How to create the downtown of the future __________________________ 39 Land use and zoning recommendations 39 Transportation policy recommendations: Transit, bicycling and roadways 49 Conclusion _______________________________________________________________________ 66 The Future of Downtown San Francisco 2 INTRODUCTION Since 1990, Bay Area residents have been driving nearly 50 million more miles each day. Regionally, transit ridership to work fell from a high of 11.4 percent in 1980 to around 9.4 percent in 2000.
    [Show full text]