DOCSLIB.ORG

US 101 SOUTH Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
US 101 SOUTH Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan US 101 SOUTH Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan US 101 SOUTH Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan APPROVED BY: I accept this Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan for the US 101 South Corridor as a document informing the regional transportation planning process. ACCEPTED BY: Approval Recommended by: Acknowledgments Caltrans Brian Johnson, Associate Transportation Planner Zachary Chop, Associate Transportation Planner Fredrick Schermer, Associate Transportation Planner MTC Therese Trivedi, Assistant Planning Director Adam Noelting, Principal Planner/Analyst VTA Casey Emoto, Deputy Director, Mobility & Project Development Marcella Rensi, Deputy Director, Programming & Grants Amin Surani, Principal Transportation Planner Eugene Maeda, Senior Transportation Planner C/CAG Sean Charpentier, Program Director Susy Kalkin, Transportation Programs Specialist SMCTA Joe Hurley, Director, Transportation Authority Program SamTrans and Caltrain Peter Skinner, Manager, Grants and Fund Programming SamTrans Millie Tolleson, Principal Planner SFCTA Eric Cordoba, Deputy Director for Capital Projects Mike Tan, Administrative Engineer Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................ i Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Caltrans Policy Development .............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Senate Bill 1 and the Solutions for Congested Corridors Program ..................................................... 1 1.3 US 101 South Corridor Planning.......................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Document Structure............................................................................................................................ 3 1.5 Stakeholders ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Chapter 2: Corridor Goals, Objectives and Performance Measures ............................................................. 5 Chapter 3: Corridor Overview ....................................................................................................................... 9 3.1 Corridor Limits .................................................................................................................................... 9 3.2 Route Significance ............................................................................................................................. 12 3.3 Route Designations ........................................................................................................................... 12 3.4 Demographics ................................................................................................................................... 13 3.5 Commute Patterns and Trip Generators .......................................................................................... 15 3.6 Smart Mobility Framework, Regional Transportation Plan & Communities of Concern .................. 16 3.7 Environmental Considerations and Sea Level Rise ........................................................................... 28 Chapter 4: Multimodal Facilities ................................................................................................................. 31 4.1 Transit Services ................................................................................................................................. 31 4.2 Park-and-Ride Facilities ..................................................................................................................... 37 4.3 Private Commuter Shuttle Services .................................................................................................. 39 4.4 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ....................................................................................................... 40 4.5 Transportation Systems Management and Operations .................................................................... 46 4.6 Transportation Demand Management ............................................................................................. 50 4.7 Broadband ......................................................................................................................................... 50 4.8 Freight Network, Facilities and Trip Generators ............................................................................... 54 Chapter 5: Freeway Performance ............................................................................................................... 56 5.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 56 5.2 Future Operating Conditions and Alternatives ................................................................................. 75 Chapter 6: Public Outreach ....................................................................................................................... 100 6.1 Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Plan 2040 ..................................................................... 100 6.2 San Mateo Countywide Transportation Plan 2040 ......................................................................... 100 6.3 San Francisco Transportation Plan 2040 ......................................................................................... 101 6.4 Plan Bay Area 2040 ......................................................................................................................... 102 6.5 Plan Bay Area 2050 ......................................................................................................................... 102 6.6 Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan ............................................................................................................ 102 6.7 US 101 Mobility Action Plan ............................................................................................................ 103 6.8 US 101 Express Bus Feasibility Study .............................................................................................. 103 6.9 Silicon Valley Express Lanes Program ............................................................................................. 104 6.10 San Mateo US 101 Managed Lanes Project .................................................................................. 104 Chapter 7: Recommended Strategies ....................................................................................................... 106 7.1 Project Lists ..................................................................................................................................... 106 7.2 Project Evaluation ........................................................................................................................... 139 List of Tables Table ES-1. MTC Top 50 Congested Locations for US 101 South in 2017 .................................................... iii Table 2-1. US 101 South CMCP Goals, Objectives and Performance Measures ........................................... 6 Table 3-1. US 101 South CMCP Segments .................................................................................................. 10 Table 3-2. US 101 South Route Designations .............................................................................................. 13 Table 3-3. Demographic Data of US 101 South Corridor ............................................................................ 14 Table 3-4. Commute Choice by Mode ........................................................................................................ 15 Table 3-5. Place Type Descriptions ............................................................................................................. 19 Table 3-6. Transportation Strategies Examples .......................................................................................... 19 Table 3-7. Environmental Consideration for the US 101 South Corridor ................................................... 28 Table 3-8. US 101 Highway Centerline Miles Vulnerable to Sea Level Rise ................................................ 29 Table 4-1. Caltrans Owned Park-and-Ride Facilities ................................................................................... 38 Table 4-2. Other US 101 Park-and-Ride Facilities ....................................................................................... 38 Table 4-3. Planned Park-and-Ride Facilities ................................................................................................ 39 Table 4-4. Origins and Destinations of Private Commuter Shuttles by County .......................................... 40 Table 4-5. Other ITS/TOS Elements ............................................................................................................. 48 Table 5-1. 2015 AADT.................................................................................................................................. 58 Table 5-2. Bottlenecks ................................................................................................................................. 60 Table 5-3. Congestion Locations in HOV Lanes ..........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • State Storeno Mall Name Store Type 2015 Sales 2014 Sales Variance
    Variance State StoreNo Mall Name Store Type 2015 Sales 2014 Sales Inc/(Dec) % Inc/(Dec) TX 83 NorthPark Center In-Line 1,472,766.00 1,363,984.00 108,782.00 7.98% SC 135 Coastal Grand Mall In-Line 1,151,631.67 1,113,877.31 37,754.36 3.39% TX 20 Barton Creek Square Shopping Center In-Line 1,096,658.41 1,083,499.33 13,159.08 1.21% CA 8 Westfield Valencia Town Center In-Line 1,071,022.26 1,087,795.83 (16,773.57) -1.54% TX 19 Baybrook Mall In-Line 1,025,120.43 1,055,953.79 (30,833.36) -2.92% AZ 125 Park Place Mall In-Line 950,664.23 946,527.12 4,137.11 0.44% TN 48 Wolfchase Galleria In-Line 923,588.32 867,012.22 56,576.10 6.53% TX 55 Stonebriar Centre In-Line 876,800.55 815,558.37 61,242.18 7.51% CA 126 Westfield Galleria at Roseville In-Line 869,168.30 754,757.11 114,411.19 15.16% CO 167 Cherry Creek Shopping Center In-Line 868,959.85 835,887.13 33,072.72 3.96% CO 61 Park Meadows Center In-Line 831,157.07 800,397.91 30,759.16 3.84% AZ 28 Arrowhead Towne Center In-Line 771,406.64 656,746.72 114,659.92 17.46% CA 39 Westfield University Towne Center In-Line 738,949.33 573,464.00 165,485.33 28.86% CA 35 The Promenade at Temecula In-Line 733,268.27 666,557.65 66,710.62 10.01% KY 78 Mall St.
    [Show full text]
  • The Highway Starts at Home
    UC Berkeley Charlene Conrad Liebau Library Prize for Undergraduate Research Title Housewives Save the City from the "Cement Octopus"! Women's Activism in the San Francisco Freeway Revolts, 1955-1967 Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/36s587v3 Author Germain, Justin Publication Date 2017-04-01 Undergraduate eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Housewives Save the City from the “Cement Octopus”! Women’s Activism in the San Francisco Freeway Revolts, 1955 - 1967 by Justin Matthew Germain A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Bachelor of Arts Requirements in History, the University of California, Berkeley December 2nd, 2016 101 Advisor: Peter Sahlins Academic Advisor: David Henkin 1 Table of Contents Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................... 3 List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 4 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Part 1: Men, Women, and Space ................................................................................................... 12 Postwar Plans for Prosperity .................................................................................................... 12 Masculinity and the Downtown ................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Storeno State Mall Name FBC Store Type YTD Sales # Units Sold
    Dec-19 StoreNo State Mall Name FBC Store Type YTD Sales # Units Sold # Receipts Units/Receipt Avg $ Receipt 1 CA The Shops at Mission Viejo Sam Guagliardo In-Line 579,475.02 12,413 10,379 1.20 $55.83 2 FL Dadeland Mall Chris Canada Kiosk 330,047.29 8,743 6,763 1.29 $48.80 4 FL Coconut Point Chris Canada In-Line 271,663.12 6,748 4,911 1.37 $55.32 5 PA Ross Park Mall Chris Canada In-Line 566,328.52 19,179 12,353 1.55 $45.85 6 CA South Bay Galleria Sam Guagliardo In-Line 216,941.59 5,432 4,355 1.25 $49.81 7 CT Westfield Trumbull Chris Canada Kiosk 279,730.18 16,039 11,910 1.35 $23.49 8 CA Westfield Valencia Town Center Sam Guagliardo In-Line 1,236,192.29 12,843 9,950 1.29 $124.24 9 PA Millcreek Mall Chris Canada In-Line 413,278.37 11,326 8,633 1.31 $47.87 10 CA The Mall of Victor Valley Sam Guagliardo Kiosk 396,509.02 11,596 8,639 1.34 $45.90 11 CA Antelope Valley Mall Sam Guagliardo In-Line 437,148.76 10,733 8,811 1.22 $49.61 12 FL Altamonte Mall Chris Canada In-Line 302,632.40 7,629 6,833 1.12 $44.29 13 NM Cottonwood Mall David Holland In-Line 139,928.50 5,898 4,006 1.47 $34.93 14 NM Coronado Center David Holland Kiosk 443,210.18 19,211 13,753 1.40 $32.23 15 FL The Falls Chris Canada In-Line 258,320.20 5,906 4,499 1.31 $57.42 16 FL Edison Mall Chris Canada Kiosk 354,239.65 12,014 9,353 1.28 $37.87 17 FL Boynton Beach Mall Chris Canada In-Line 18 FL Melbourne Square Mall Chris Canada Kiosk 315,866.19 7,161 5,834 1.23 $54.14 19 TX Baybrook Mall David Holland In-Line 980,316.56 18,848 14,975 1.26 $65.46 20 TX Barton Creek Square Shopping
    [Show full text]
  • 1645 Pacific Avenue Project
    DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1645 Pacific Avenue Project PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE NO. 2007.0519E STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2008102012 Draft EIR Publication Date: NOVEMBER 18, 2009 Draft EIR Public Hearing Date: DECEMBER 10, 2009 Draft EIR Public Comment Period: November 18, 2009 – JANUARY 2, 2010 Written comments should be sent to: Environmental Review Officer | 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400 | San Francisco, CA 94103 DATE: November 18, 2009 TO: Distribution List for the 1645 Pacific Avenue Project FROM: Bill Wycko, Environmental Review Officer SUBJECT: Request for the Final Environmental Impact Report for the 1645 Pacific Avenue Project (Planning Department Case No. 2007.0519E) This is the Draft of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 1645 Pacific Avenue project. A public hearing will be held on the adequacy and accuracy of this document. After the public hearing, our office will prepare and publish a document titled “Comments and Responses” that will contain a summary of all relevant comments on this Draft EIR and our responses to those comments. It may also specify changes to this Draft EIR. Those who testify at the hearing on the Draft EIR will automatically receive a copy of the Comments and Responses document, along with notice of the date reserved for certification; others may receive a copy of the Comments and Responses and notice by request or by visiting our office. This Draft EIR together with the Comments and Responses document will be considered by the Planning Commission in an advertised public meeting and will be certified as a Final EIR if deemed adequate. After certification, we will modify the Draft EIR as specified by the Comments and Responses document and print both documents in a single publication called the Final EIR.
    [Show full text]
  • San Clemente, California on 52 Acres Upon Completion of All Phases
    Home to Orange County’s only California Welcome Center - San Clemente Outlets at San Clemente, Orange County’s first coastal outlet shopping experience, Grand Opened November 2015. A village of classic Spanish Colonial-style architecture overlooking the Pacific Ocean welcomes you to A Beautiful Way To Save .This highly anticipated project will ultimately include a freestanding 125-room hotel and will encompass more than 500,000 square feet San Clemente, California on 52 acres upon completion of all phases. Phase 1, nearly 350,000 square feet, features national brand retailers with a variety of dining options, ranging from quaint eateries to family-style fare. This affluent area is among the highest ranking in the Nation in buying power, household retail spending, and concentration of households with annual incomes over $100,000. Outlets at San Clemente spans the entire distance between two off-ramps along the I-5 freeway with over 200,000 AADT and is anticipated to become a Southern California landmark. Join our first and only ocean-facing outlet shopping and dining destination today! TENANTS INCLUDE: ASICS Hurley Skechers Blaze Pizza Le Creuset SlapFish Restaurant Bowlology Levi’s Outlet Store Starbucks Calvin Klein LOFT Outlet Sun Diego Boardshop Carter’s babies and kids Luggage Factory Sunglass Hut Chico’s Outlet Nautica Swarovski Cole Haan New Balance Factory Store Tillys Columbia Sportswear Nike Factory Store Tommy Hilfiger Converse Factory Store OshKosh B’gosh Under Armour Daisy Shoppe Panera Bread Van Heusen | IZOD Golf Eddie Bauer Planet Beauty Vans Outlet Flip Flop Shops PUMA Outlet White House | Black Market Guess Factory Store Rockwell’s Bakery & Cafe Zales Outlet H&M Ruby’s Diner Zumiez Ocean View Restaurant Opportunities Available LOCATION SHOPPING CENTERS WITHIN 50 MILES OF San Clemente, California OUTLETS AT SAN CLEMENTE I-5, between Avenida Pico and Avenida Vista Hermosa, AERIAL DRIVING DISTANCE DISTANCE APPROX.
    [Show full text]
  • Interstates/Highways to Boulevards Research
    Lorem ipsumInterstates/Highways to Boulevards dolor sit amet, Research Cum eu mollis numquam, ut veri iisque pro. Magna animal et sit, purto etiam errem an eos. Vel magna pertinacia at, ex est nonumy dolorem, ei qui paulo torquatos quaerendum. Pri erroribus referrenturThe ex.CoPIRG Foundation and groups counter to the widening Est te populoof the semper, Central harum semper70 id project his, ad qui illumhave reformidans.referenced Est duis consectetuer highway at.-to - Unum putantboulevard minimum conversions no cum, eu quot delenitiin their vim. Debitis argument maiorum for quo ei. urban Pri prompta freeway euismod inermisremoval id, no legimus. Below incorrupte are mei, hinc examples primis nostro of no highw per. ays that have been Nam modusconv melioreerted to boulevards or removed, as well as projects that cu. Ut dolore noster has, alterum corrumpit percipitur duo ne, eam te summo nostrudare under debate scriptorem. Blandit principesand have not been removed. patrioque an sed. Scripta persius cu ius, an duo numquam fabulas periculis. Vidit mentitum et per, in mel solet partiendo. Ius in autem corpora luptatum, ad vix option blandit, pri tale viderer molestie ad. Mazim quodsi lucilius ne nec. Tollit scriptorem vel ea, eu mei erat voluptaria, eos ei tale equidem. Ex eos facilis sadipscing. Cu quis fuisset prodesset quo, mel cu enim mentitum, ad vix dissentiunt consequuntur. Est etiam luptatum vulputate no, nonumy delectus scaevola cu est. Meis nobis necessitatibus ad vix. Quo invenire praesent laboramus et, ne duo meis tempor ullamcorper.
    [Show full text]
  • Alabama Arizona California Colorado
    Last modified: 6/20/2020 Stay up to date here on our boutiques as they reopen. With most locations working under adjusted hours, we encourage you to visit each boutique page linked below or call ahead to confirm hours of operation. You can even place your orders by phone, and we will prepare them for pick-up. It will be so good to see you! Alabama Fillmore Santa Anita San Francisco, CA Arcadia, CA (415)-563-6600 (626)-254-9981 The Summit Birmingham, AL Fashion Island Broadway Plaza (205) 967-3364 Newport beach, CA Walnut Creek, CA (949)-718-0928 (925)-939-3356 Arizona Victoria Gardens University Town Centre La Encantada Rancho Cucamonga, CA San Diego, CA Tucson, AZ (909)-646-9103 (858)-638-8160 (520) 299-1728 EL PASEO Gardens Irvine Spectrum Biltmore Fashion Park Palm Desert, CA Irvine, CA Phoenix, AZ (760)-568-3375 (949)-450-0502 (602) 224-0293 Desert Hills Outlet Galleria at Roseville Scottsdale Quarter Cabazon, CA Roseville, CA Scottsdale, AZ (951)-849-3740 (916) 786-9314 (480) 425-3526 Topanga Waterside Scottsdale Fashion Square Canoga Park, CA Marina del Rey, CA Scottsdale, AZ (818)-704-9410 (310) 822-1902 (480) 607-4478 Brea Mall Century City Brea, CA Los Angeles, CA California (714)-672-9131 (310) 843-9754 The Commons at Calabasas Stanford Shopping Centre Citadel Outlets Calabasas, CA Palo Alto, CA Commerce, CA (818) 222-0169 (650)-328-1875 (323)-516-6430 Arden Fair South Coast Plaza Valencia Town Centre Sacramento, CA Costa Mesa, CA Valencia, CA (916)-564-9848 (714)-557-2059 (661) 481-0063 Glendale Galleria Shops at Mission Viejo
    [Show full text]
  • FILE NO. 121084 RESOLUTION NO. 1 [Freeway Agreement
    FILE NO. 121084 RESOLUTION NO. 9,/-/3 1 [Freeway Agreement - California Department of Transportation - State Highway Route 101, South Van Ness Avenue to Golden Gate Avenue] 2 3 Resolution adopting a freeway agreement with the California Department of 4 .. Transportation (Caltrans) for a portion of State Highway Route 101 from South Van 5 Ness Avenue to Golden Gate Avenue; and authorizing official acts related thereto. 6 7 WHEREAS, On April 21, 1954, the California Transportation Commission adopted the 8 Central Freeway extension of Route 101 from Interstate 80-Route 101 interchange to Turk 9 Street into the State Highway System and declared it a freeway; and 10 WHEREAS, On February 7, 1955, the California Department of Transportation 11 (Caltrans) and City and County of San Francisco entered into a Freeway Agreement 12 concerning portions of this State Highway; and 13 WHEREAS, On October 17, 1989, the Loma Prieta Earthquake severely damaged 14 parts of the elevated concrete Central Freeway structure; and 15 WHEREAS, After the earthquake, the State undertook the following actions related to 16 the Central Freeway: bracing of the double deck portion of the structure from Mission Street to 17 Fell and Oak Street ramps to provide interim seismic support in 1990; demolition of the 18 northern portion of the freeway from approximately Fell and Oak Streets leading to the 19 Franklin and Gough Street ramps in 1992; removal of the upper deck of the structure in 1996 20 to improve seismic stability; and seismic retrofit of the remaining lower deck
    [Show full text]
  • The Race to Seismic Safety Protecting California’S Transportation System
    THE RACE TO SEISMIC SAFETY PROTECTING CALIFORNIA’S TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Submitted to the Director, California Department of Transportation by the Caltrans Seismic Advisory Board Joseph Penzien, Chairman December 2003 The Board of Inquiry has identified three essential challenges that must be addressed by the citizens of California, if they expect a future adequately safe from earthquakes: 1. Ensure that earthquake risks posed by new construction are acceptable. 2. Identify and correct unacceptable seismic safety conditions in existing structures. 3. Develop and implement actions that foster the rapid, effective, and economic response to and recovery from damaging earthquakes. Competing Against Time Governor’s Board of Inquiry on the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake It is the policy of the State of California that seismic safety shall be given priority consideration in the allo- cation of resources for transportation construction projects, and in the design and construction of all state structures, including transportation structures and public buildings. Governor George Deukmejian Executive Order D-86-90, June 2, 1990 The safety of every Californian, as well as the economy of our state, dictates that our highway system be seismically sound. That is why I have assigned top priority to seismic retrofit projects ahead of all other highway spending. Governor Pete Wilson Remarks on opening of the repaired Santa Monica Freeway damaged in the 1994 Northridge earthquake, April 11, 1994 The Seismic Advisory Board believes that the issues of seismic safety and performance of the state’s bridges require Legislative direction that is not subject to administrative change. The risk is not in doubt. Engineering, common sense, and knowledge from prior earthquakes tells us that the consequences of the 1989 and 1994 earthquakes, as devastating as they were, were small when compared to what is likely when a large earthquake strikes directly under an urban area, not at its periphery.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Impacts of San Francisco's Freeway Demolition
    Freeway Demolition and Economic Regeneration in San Francisco TRANSform Scotland Is Transport Good for Your Wealth? April 22, 2002 Andrew Nash, P.E. Presentation Outline • Loma Prieta Earthquake • Embarcadero Freeway • Central Freeway • Economic Impacts • Lessons Learned TRANSform Scotland 4-22-2002 2 Loma Prieta Earthquake October 17, 1989 • Earthquake Strength: 7.1 Richter Scale • Epicenter: About 70 miles south of San Francisco • Serious Damage to Transportation Infrastructure: – SF Bay Bridge: Closed, Repaired, Re-opened (one Month) – Oakland Cypress Freeway: Collapsed, Demolished, Replaced – SF I-280 Freeway: Damaged – Repaired – SF Embarcadero Freeway: Damaged – SF Central Freeway: Damaged TRANSform Scotland 4-22-2002 3 SFOBB West Approach Project Site Hayward Fault San Andreas Loma Fault N E Prieta Epicenter W S TRANSform Scotland 4-22-2002 4 San Francisco Earthquake Recovery Repair Transportation System = Highest Economic Priority But … Recognized as Unique Opportunity to Address San Francisco’s “Freeway Mistakes” TRANSform Scotland 4-22-2002 5 Who Decides? • Freeways owned by California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) • Citizens of San Francisco: Well Organized and Politically Astute … on BOTHBOTH SIDES!SIDES! • Multiple City Agencies • Ultimately Required State Legislature and Federal Highway Administration Approvals TRANSform Scotland 4-22-2002 6 Embarcadero Freeway • Built mid-1950s as Part of Planned Freeway along SF Waterfront • Led to 1960s San Francisco Freeway Revolt • Several Previous Attempts to Remove Freeway
    [Show full text]
  • Sep 0 5 1985
    -MAIN PLACE: A LOOK AT A MULTI-USE REDEVELOPMENT by David K. Cole Bachelor of Science University of Illinois 1976 SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEGREE MASTER OF SCIENCE IN REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT AT THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SEPTEMBER, 1985 C) David K. Cole 1985 The Author hereby grants to M.I.T. permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly copies of this thesis document in whole or in part. 7) ... Signature of Author David K. Cole Department of Architecture August 15, 1985 Certified by James McKellar Associate Director of Education Center for Real Estate Development The s's Supervisor Accepted by Lawrence S. Bacow Chairman Interdepartmental Degree Program in Real Estate Development tAASSACHUSETTS INSTiTUTE OF TECHINOLOGY SEP 0 5 1985 LUBRAFIES Room 14-0551 77 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 Ph: 617.253.2800 MITLibSries Email: [email protected] Document Services http://Iibraries.mit.eduldocs DISCLAIMER OF QUALITY Due to the condition of the original material, there are unavoidable flaws in this reproduction. We have made every effort possible to provide you with the best copy available. If you are dissatisfied with this product and find it unusable, please contact Document Services as soon as possible. Thank you. The images contained in this document are of the best quality available. Main Place: A Look at a Multi-Use Redevelopment by David K. Cole Submitted to the Department of Architecture on August 16, 1985 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Real Estate Development.
    [Show full text]
  • From Elevated Freeways to Surface Boulevards: Neighborhood, Traffic, and Housing Price Impacts in San Francisco
    146 From Elevated Freeways to Surface Boulevards: Neighborhood, Traffic, and Housing Price Impacts in San Francisco Robert Cervero, Junhee Kang, and Kevin Shively Department of City and Regional Planning University of California, Berkeley Working Paper prepared for University of California Transportation Center December 2007 147 ABSTRACT Freeway “deconstruction” marks an abrupt shift in urban policy. Priorities are shifting away from designing cities to enhance mobility toward promoting economic and environmental sustainability, livability, and social equity. This paper investigates the neighborhood, traffic, and housing price impacts of replacing elevated freeways with surface boulevards in two notable yet different corridors of San Francisco: Embarcadero along the city’s eastern waterfront and Central Freeway/Octavia Boulevard serving a predominantly residential neighborhood west of downtown. A combination of informant interviews, literature reviews, and statistical analyses are used in examining neighborhood, traffic, and housing impacts of these two roadway conversions. The research shows freeway conversions generally lead to gentrification of once-declining neighborhoods, although public policies like affordable housing mandates can temper displacement effects. In general, operational and improvements to surface streets along with enhanced transit services and walking environments have accommodated considerable shares of former freeway traffic so as to avoid the traffic nightmares that were predicted when grade-separated freeways were removed. Empirical evidence on residential sales transactions reveals that the dis-amenity effects of proximity to a freeway have for the most part given way to amenity benefits once roadways are converted to nicely landscaped multi-way boulevards. We conclude that freeway-to- boulevard conversions, a form of urban re-prioritization that gives more emphasis to neighborhood quality and less to automobility, have yielded net positive benefits without seriously sacrificing transportation performance.
    [Show full text]