DOCSLIB.ORG

I-80 Integrated Corridor Mobility (ICM) Corridor System Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
I-80 Integrated Corridor Mobility (ICM) Corridor System Management Plan I-80 Integrated Corridor Mobility (ICM) Corridor System Management Plan Final Prepared by November 30, 2010 Interstate 80 Integrated Corridor Mobility Project Corridor System Management Plan FINAL By DKS Associates 1000 Broadway, Suite 450 Oakland, CA 94607 (510) 763-2061 November 30, 2010 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................. SEPARATE DOCUMENT 1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 PURPOSE AND NEEDS OF CSMP ................................................................................ 1 1.2 THE I-80 CSMP CORRIDOR .......................................................................................... 2 1.3 CORRIDOR TEAM .......................................................................................................... 5 1.4 EVALUATION FRAMEWORK ...................................................................................... 6 1.4.1 Forecasting Approach ................................................................................................. 6 1.4.2 Operational Analysis Approach.................................................................................. 6 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS.................................................................................................. 10 2.1 CORRIDOR DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................... 10 2.1.1 Freeway..................................................................................................................... 10 2.1.2 Arterials..................................................................................................................... 12 2.1.3 Transit ....................................................................................................................... 14 2.1.4 Freight Movement Trends......................................................................................... 21 2.1.5 Major Trip Generators .............................................................................................. 22 2.1.6 Existing ITS Infrastructure ....................................................................................... 23 2.1.7 Environmental Characteristics.................................................................................. 24 2.2 CORRIDOR PERFORMANCE...................................................................................... 26 2.2.1 Travel Demand Characteristics................................................................................. 26 2.2.2 Freeway Performance ............................................................................................... 35 2.2.3 Pavement Preservation.............................................................................................. 52 2.2.4 Arterial Performance................................................................................................. 55 2.2.5 Transit Performance.................................................................................................. 63 2.2.6 Bottlenecks................................................................................................................ 65 3 CONGESTION MITIGATION STRATEGIES & IMPROVEMENTS......................... 78 3.1 CANDIDATE STRATEGIES AND CONSTRAINTS................................................... 78 3.2 ROADWAY GEOMETRIC IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................... 79 3.3 SYSTEM MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS........................................................... 79 3.4 TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS........................................................................................ 80 3.5 NON-MOTORIZED MODE IMPROVEMENTS .......................................................... 81 3.6 DEMAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES................................................................. 82 3.7 TRAVELER INFORMATION ....................................................................................... 83 3.8 GOODS MOVEMENT POLICIES................................................................................. 84 3.8.1 Roadway Time of Day Restrictions.......................................................................... 85 3.8.2 Lane Restrictions ...................................................................................................... 85 3.8.3 Remote Transfer Sites............................................................................................... 85 4 NEAR-TERM (2015) CONDITIONS................................................................................. 86 I-80 Integrated Corridor Mobility Project ii November 30, 2010 Final CSMP 4.1 TRAVEL DEMAND TRENDS ...................................................................................... 86 4.1.1 Land Use ................................................................................................................... 86 4.1.2 Freeway Demands..................................................................................................... 86 4.1.3 Arterial Demands...................................................................................................... 87 4.1.4 Mode Choice............................................................................................................. 88 4.1.5 Transit Ridership....................................................................................................... 89 4.2 MOBILITY TRENDS ..................................................................................................... 90 4.2.1 I-80 Study Corridor................................................................................................... 90 4.2.2 I-80 Freeway Mainline.............................................................................................. 90 4.2.3 San Pablo Avenue..................................................................................................... 92 4.2.4 Freeway Safety Trends ............................................................................................. 94 4.3 POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS................................................................................... 95 4.3.1 2015 Assumed Baseline Improvements.................................................................... 95 4.3.2 I-80 ICM Project Improvements............................................................................... 95 4.3.3 ITS Improvements .................................................................................................... 99 4.4 EVALUATION ............................................................................................................. 100 4.4.1 Approach................................................................................................................. 100 4.4.2 Expected Benefits of the Project............................................................................. 100 4.4.3 Expected Return on Investment.............................................................................. 103 4.4.4 Operations and Maintenance Issues........................................................................ 105 5 INTERMEDIATE TERM IMPROVEMENTS............................................................... 106 5.1 POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS................................................................................. 106 5.2 EVALUATION ............................................................................................................. 108 5.2.1 Approach................................................................................................................. 108 5.2.2 Expected Benefits ................................................................................................... 108 5.2.3 Recommendations for Further Study...................................................................... 112 6 LONG-TERM (2035) CONDITIONS .............................................................................. 113 6.1 TRAVEL DEMAND TREND....................................................................................... 113 6.1.1 Land Use ................................................................................................................. 113 6.1.2 Freeway Demands................................................................................................... 113 6.1.3 Arterial Demands.................................................................................................... 114 6.1.4 Mode Choice........................................................................................................... 115 6.1.5 Transit Ridership..................................................................................................... 116 6.2 MOBILITY TRENDS ................................................................................................... 117 6.2.1 I-80 Study Corridor................................................................................................. 117 6.2.2 I-80 Freeway Mainline............................................................................................ 117 6.2.3 San Pablo Avenue................................................................................................... 119 6.2.4 Freeway Safety Trends ........................................................................................... 121 6.3 POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS................................................................................. 122 6.3.1 2035 Assumed Baseline Improvements.................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority
    Steering Committee Draft | Ocotber 2020 Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority Steering Committee Draft | Ocotber 2020 Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority Prepared By: 1625 Shattuck Avenue Suite 300 Berkeley, California 94709 510.848.3815 ORANGE COUNTY • BAY AREA • SACRAMENTO • CENTRAL COAST • LOS ANGELES • INLAND EMPIRE • SAN DIEGO www.placeworks.com Table of Contents List of Figures & Tables ii Executive Summary 3 1. Introduction 13 1.1 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Lifeline Transportation Program 13 1.2 CBTP Guidelines 14 1.3 2004 Richmond-Area CBTP 15 1.4 Current Richmond Area CBTP 15 1.5 COVID-19 and CBTP Development 17 2. Study Area Profile 18 2.1 Demographic Analysis 18 2.2 Transportation Patterns 24 2.3 Transportation Network 28 3. Previous Studies and Mobility Gaps 33 3.1 Local Studies 33 3.2 Countywide Studies 37 3.3 Current Studies 39 3.4 Thematic Mobility Challenges 40 4. Outreach and Engagement Summary 43 4.1 CBTP Advisor Groups 43 4.2 Outreach Strategy 44 4.3 Outreach Awareness 44 4.4 Outreach Results 46 4.5 Outreach Summary 54 5. Methodology and Recommendations 56 5.1 COVID-19 and CBTP Development 56 5.2 Evaluation Criteria 57 5.3 Evaluation Process 60 5.4 Recommended Projects and Plans 62 Appendix A Existing Conditions Report Appendix B Outreach Materials and Results Appendix C Recommendations Scoring Results Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan i Contra Costa Transportation Authority List of Figures
    [Show full text]
  • ACT BART S Ites by Region.Csv TB1 TB6 TB4 TB2 TB3 TB5 TB7
    Services Transit Outreach Materials Distribution Light Rail Station Maintenance and Inspection Photography—Capture Metadata and GPS Marketing Follow-Up Programs Service Locations Dallas, Los Angeles, Minneapolis/Saint Paul San Francisco/Oakland Bay Area Our Customer Service Pledge Our pledge is to organize and act with precision to provide you with excellent customer service. We will do all this with all the joy that comes with the morning sun! “I slept and dreamed that life was joy. I awoke and saw that life was service. I acted and behold, service was joy. “Tagore Email: [email protected] Website: URBANMARKETINGCHANNELS.COM Urban Marketing Channel’s services to businesses and organizations in Atlanta, Dallas, San Francisco, Oakland and the Twin Cities metro areas since 1981 have allowed us to develop a specialty client base providing marketing outreach with a focus on transit systems. Some examples of our services include: • Neighborhood demographic analysis • Tailored response and mailing lists • Community event monitoring • Transit site management of information display cases and kiosks • Transit center rider alerts • Community notification of construction and route changes • On-Site Surveys • Enhance photo and list data with geocoding • Photographic services Visit our website (www.urbanmarketingchannels.com) Contact us at [email protected] 612-239-5391 Bay Area Transit Sites (includes BART and AC Transit.) Prepared by Urban Marketing Channels ACT BART S ites by Region.csv TB1 TB6 TB4 TB2 TB3 TB5 TB7 UnSANtit
    [Show full text]
  • West Contra Costa/Albany Transit Wayfinding Plan
    FINAL WEST CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT ENHANCEMENT STRATEGIC PLAN and WEST CONTRA COSTA/ALBANY TRANSIT WAYFINDING PLAN Prepared for: West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee October 2011 Acknowledgements WCCTAC BOARD City of El Cerrito Janet Abelson, Vice Chair City of Hercules Donald Kuehne City of Pinole Roy Swearingen, Chair City of Richmond Courtland “Corky” Boozé City of Richmond Thomas Butt City of Richmond Jeff Ritterman City of San Pablo Genoveva Calloway AC Transit Joe Wallace BART Joel Keller WestCAT Tom Hansen Contra Costa County John Gioia WCCTAC STAFF Christina Atienza, Executive Director Linda Young John Rudolph Joanna Pollock WCCTAC WORKING GROUP City of El Cerrito Yvetteh Ortiz City of Hercules Robert Reber City of Pinole Winston Rhodes City of Richmond Chad Smalley, Hector Rojas, Steven Tam City of San Pablo Kanwal Sandhu, Adele Ho AC Transit Nathan Landau, Puja Sarna, Aaron Priven BART Diedre Heitman WestCAT Rob Thompson Contra Costa County Jamar Stamps MTC Jay Stagi CONSULTANT TEAM Fehr & Peers Nelson/Nygaard Bob Grandy (Project Manager) Linda Rhine Brooke DuBose (Deputy PM) Joey Goldman Matthew Ridgway Meghan Mitman Studio L’Image Ellen Poling Sue Labouvie Josh Peterman Max Heim Steve Rhyne Carrie Carsell Eisen Letunic Nikki Hervol Niko Letunic Nikki Foletta table of contents I Introduction II Study Locations III Community Participation IV Travel Demand Management & Parking Strategies V Richmond BART Transit Center Enhancement Strategies VI Richmond Parkway Transit Center Enhancement Strategies VII El Cerrito Del
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
    Marin County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Prepared by Caroline Peattie and Jessica Tankersley, Fair Housing of Marin For the Marin County Community Development Agency Approved by the Marin County Board of Supervisors on October 11, 2011 MMMARIN CCCOUNTY CCCOMMUNITY DDDEVELOPMENT AAAGENCY BBBRIAN C.C.C. CCCRAWFORD ,,, DDDIRECTOR FFFEDERAL GGGRANTS DDDIVISION October 28, 2011 Mr. Chuck Hauptman, Regional Director Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Region IX U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 600 Harrison Street, Third Floor San Francisco, California 94107 Subject: County of Marin Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Dear Mr. Hauptman: On October 11, 2011, the Marin County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, including an Implementation Plan. This was the culmination of a process of ten public hearings. I am pleased to provide you with the enclosed copies of both documents. A video of the Board of Supervisors hearing is posted on the County’s website at http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/BS/Archive/Meetings.cfm . Please let me know if you have any comments about these items. Sincerely, Roy Bateman Community Development Coordinator cc: Supervisor Judy Arnold Sharon Chan Brian Crawford Jeff Jackson K:\Analysis Of Impediments (AI)\AI & Implementation Documents\Analysis Of Impediments - Final Version As Approved By Bos October 11 2011\Transmittal To HUD.Docx/rb Mailing Address: 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 308, San Rafael, California 94903-4157 Office Location: 899 Northgate Drive, Room 408, San Rafael, California Telephone (415) 499-6698 - California Relay Service 711 - Fax (415) 507-4061 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In Marin County, it is unlawful to restrict housing choice on the basis of race, color, disability, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, sexual orientation, marital status, ancestry, age, and source of income.
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 Station Profiles
    2015 BART Station Profile Study Station Profiles – Non-Home Origins STATION PROFILES – NON-HOME ORIGINS This section contains a summary sheet for selected BART stations, based on data from customers who travel to the station from non-home origins, like work, school, etc. The selected stations listed below have a sample size of at least 200 non-home origin trips: • 12th St. / Oakland City Center • Glen Park • 16th St. Mission • Hayward • 19th St. / Oakland • Lake Merritt • 24th St. Mission • MacArthur • Ashby • Millbrae • Balboa Park • Montgomery St. • Civic Center / UN Plaza • North Berkeley • Coliseum • Oakland International Airport (OAK) • Concord • Powell St. • Daly City • Rockridge • Downtown Berkeley • San Bruno • Dublin / Pleasanton • San Francisco International Airport (SFO) • Embarcadero • San Leandro • Fremont • Walnut Creek • Fruitvale • West Dublin / Pleasanton Maps for these stations are contained in separate PDF files at www.bart.gov/stationprofile. The maps depict non-home origin points of customers who use each station, and the points are color coded by mode of access. The points are weighted to reflect average weekday ridership at the station. For example, an origin point with a weight of seven will appear on the map as seven points, scattered around the actual point of origin. Note that the number of trips may appear underrepresented in cases where multiple trips originate at the same location. The following summary sheets contain basic information about each station’s weekday non-home origin trips, such as: • absolute number of entries and estimated non-home origin entries • access mode share • trip origin types • customer demographics. Additionally, the total number of car and bicycle parking spaces at each station are included for context.
    [Show full text]
  • Ashby Station a M E BUCHANAN ST Y T a P K E U R S
    C A R L S O N B LV D EL CERRITO KENSINGTON KENYON AVE PURDUE AVE 72 RICHMOND ST T 580 A Sunset View R S I H N Environmental 71 I Little Farm B Cemetery T 72M U Y Education Center Comm. Ctr. R A Y V E & Library A 67 V BELOIT AVE C Inspiration Point 80 El Cerrito Plaza BART E 72R E N T R A Tilden 800 71 72 72M 79 G 67 WI L DC L A Regional T P C A Y R Park K BART N L AV E G R D R A 67 R D R N T I Merry-Go-Round C E Z FAIRMOUNT AVE Z L Y P 72 79 E A KEY ROUTE BLVD K 7 B L P I E R C E S T 72M G V A D C R O 72R L Lake Anza L I U N S A G S A T P V R 800 E O 65 N U SAN PABLO AVE C 65 Brazilian Room A E V S E T Sr. Ctr. E S O L A N O AV E 18 79 U ASTA RD G C L H Transit 7 I S ALBANY 18 D Tilden Park E Golf Course Information YMCA AV S U A I N V Eastshore M A R T E City Hall Library T State Park E R E C 65 Clubhouse V 67 A G S R I Z Z LY P Ashby Station A M E BUCHANAN ST Y 79 T A P K E U R S B O H L O N E AV E G E H E N RY S T D Library L T R N V 65 D Berkeley O Rec.
    [Show full text]
  • Smart Practices in Public Private Partnerships for Affordable Housing Development at Berkeley BART Stations
    Smart Practices in Public Private Partnerships for Affordable Housing Development at Berkeley BART Stations Matthew Ebert Goldman School of Public Policy University of California, Berkeley 14 May 2021 The author conducted this study as part of the program of professional education at the Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California at Berkeley. This paper is submitted in partial fulfillment of the course requirements for the Master of Public Policy degree. The judgements and conclusions are solely those of the author and are not necessarily endorsed by the Goldman School of Public Policy, by the University of California, or by any other agency. Table of Contents Executive Summary ...…………………………………………………….……………………. 3 I. Introduction …………………………………………………………….……………………. 4 II. Public Private Partnerships Definition …………………………………………………… 4 III. Background ………………………………………………………………………………… 5 A. Federal Housing Programs ………………………………………………………… 5 B. California Regulatory Environment …………………………….………………… 7 IV. PPP “Smart” Practices – Affordable Housing Finance …………………………………. 9 A. Affordable Housing Finance Basics ……………………………………………….. 9 B. Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program …………………………… 10 C. Criticisms of LIHTC ………………………………………………………………. 11 D Philanthropy in Affordable Housing Development …………………………….... 13 Philanthropy Basics ………………………………………………….……….. 14 Philanthropy Misunderstandings ……………………………………………. 14 Facebook - The Partnership for the Bay’s Future (PBF) ………...………… 15 PBF - Bay’s Future Fund …………………………………..………………… 15 PBF –
    [Show full text]
  • REQUEST for QUALIFICATIONS and PROPOSALS Historic Anitas
    REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS AND PROPOSALS Notice of Development Opportunity Historic Anitas Building: 920 Macdonald Ave. Macdonald Ave. and 11th St. - 1940’s Source: Online Archive of California City of Richmond, California Issued by the City of Richmond, CA City Manager’s Office, Development Services Submission Deadline: May 3, 2019 at 12:00 PM (PDT) City of Richmond, CA REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS AND PROPOSALS Notice of Development Opportunity 920 Macdonald Ave. City of Richmond, California City Council Mayor Tom Butt Vice Mayor Ben Choi Councilmember Nathaniel Bates Councilmember Demnlus Johnson III Councilmember Eduardo Martinez Councilmember Jael Myrick Councilmember Melvin Willis City Manager Carlos Martinez Stay updated on all Richmond Opportunity Sites: http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/OpportunitySites Request for Qualifications/Request for Proposals: 920 Macdonald Ave. 2 City of Richmond, CA Contents I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................... 4 II. NEIGHBORHOOD & COMMUNITY ASSETS............................. 6 III. SITE VISION...................................................................................... 21 IV. SITE AND PARCEL SUMMARY...................................................... 23 V. DEVELOPMENT TEAM SELECTION............................................ 29 VI. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS..................................................... 30 VII. SELECTION CRITERIA, PROCESS & SCHEDULE.................. 33 VIII. CITY NON-LIABILITY & RELATED MATTERS..................... 36 IX.
    [Show full text]
  • I Regional Oral History Office University of California the Bancroft
    i Regional Oral History Office University of California The Bancroft Library Berkeley, California CHARLES SEIM The Bay Bridge Oral History Project Interviews conducted by Sam Redman in 2012 Copyright © 2013 by the California Department of Transportation This series of interviews was funded through a contract with the Oakland Museum of California, the California Department of Transportation, the California Transportation Commission, and the Bay Area Toll Authority ii Since 1954 the Regional Oral History Office has been interviewing leading participants in or well-placed witnesses to major events in the development of Northern California, the West, and the nation. Oral History is a method of collecting historical information through tape-recorded interviews between a narrator with firsthand knowledge of historically significant events and a well-informed interviewer, with the goal of preserving substantive additions to the historical record. The tape recording is transcribed, lightly edited for continuity and clarity, and reviewed by the interviewee. The corrected manuscript is bound with photographs and illustrative materials and placed in The Bancroft Library at the University of California, Berkeley, and in other research collections for scholarly use. Because it is primary material, oral history is not intended to present the final, verified, or complete narrative of events. It is a spoken account, offered by the interviewee in response to questioning, and as such it is reflective, partisan, deeply involved, and irreplaceable. ********************************* All uses of this manuscript are covered by a legal agreement between the University of California and Charles Seim dated September 4, 2012. The manuscript is thereby made available for research purposes. All literary rights in the manuscript, including the right to publish, are hereby transferred to and reserved by The California Department of Transportation.
    [Show full text]
  • Mapping the Bay
    ABOVE & BELOW | EXHIBITION LESSONS Mapping the Bay. Instructions for Teachers This lesson is to be done in class before visiting the museum and uses a map of the Bay to orient students to the geography of the Bay Area. Make copies of the map for students. Explain that on the left side, there is a wide border— this is not land. Students should understand that the Pacific Ocean extends beyond that border. Before You Start With the Map In order to do this assignment you need a projection of the map or a larger copy or to draw what you need on the board. Most students will work best if they can see what you are directing them to place on the map. Make sure you circulate around the class to assist where necessary. You also might want to download or get a copy of a San Francisco Bay Area Map [baycityguide.com provides a map that is useful] and a map with the bridges that cross the bay. [Bay Area Toll Authority makes a map that is useful]. Allow time for students to look at the shape of bay and how it is formed. Ask students why it might be called a Bay—how the Bay might have been formed, etc. Mapping the Bay The lower left hand border is a good place to put a compass rose. Students should use the lower left hand corner to put a compass rose with the cardinal directions: North, South, East, West. After you have the directions identified, have students find and write in the east bay, north bay, and south bay.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Participation Meeting
    Business Outreach Committee (BOC) A Consortium of Bay Area Transportation Agencies *****PUBLIC NOTICE***** The BOC invites you to a meeting to advise the public of upcoming projects and to receive comments on our goal setting processes: Tuesday , April 12, 2016 From 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. at the Alameda County Transportation Commission* 1111 Broadway, Suite 800 Oakland, CA 94607 *directions are attached; public transportation is encouraged as parking is limited. Please click here to register! Your attendance is strongly encouraged. Please inform businesses that may not have received this notice. This meeting will provide the opportunity for members of the public to learn about upcoming transportation projects and provide input on the goal-setting process, specifically on the relative availability of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBEs) that are ready, willing and able to compete for U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) assisted contracts to be let by transportation agencies throughout the San Francisco Bay Area . Representatives from the agencies listed to the left will be presenting their agency’s upcoming contract opportunities The Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) will provide a special presentation on the Downtown San Francisco Ferry Terminal Expansion Project The BOC hereby notifies all interested parties that the agencies listed to the left are beginning the process of establishing annual overall goals for participation by DBEs in contracts and procurements which may be financed in whole or in part by the DOT for Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2017-2019. Directions to Alameda County Transportation Commission Alameda CTC 1111 Broadway, Suite 800 Oakland, CA 94607-4006 510.208.7400 510.893.6489 (fax) Alameda CTC is accessible by multiple transportation modes.
    [Show full text]
  • Bart at Twenty: Land Use and Development Impacts
    ffional Development BART@20: Land Use and Development Impacts Robert Cervero with research assistance by Carlos Castellanos, Wicaksono Sarosa, and Kenneth Rich July 1995 University of California at Berkeley - 1 BART@20: Land Use and Development Impacts Robert Cervero with Research Assistance by Carlos Castellanos, Wicaksono Sarosa, and Kenneth Rich This paper was produced with support provided by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the California State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) through the University of California Transportation Center. University of California at Berkeley Institute of Urban and Regional Development Table of Contents ONE: BART at 20: An Analysis of Land Use Impacts 1 1. INTRODUCTION 1 TWO: Research Approach and Data Sources 3 THREE: Employment and Population Changes in BART and Non-BART Areas 6 3.1. Population Changes 6 3.2. Employment Changes 3.3. Population Densities 15 3.4. Employment Densities 15 3.5. Summary 20 FOUR: Land Use Changes Over Time and by Corridor 21 4.1. General Land-Use Trends 23 4.2. Pre-BART versus Post-BART 25 4.3. Early versus Later BART 30 4.4. Trends in Non-Residential Densities 33 4.4. Summary 37 FIVE: Land-Use Changes by Station Classes 38 5.1. Grouping Variables 38 5.2. Classification 38 5.3. Station Classes 41 5.4. Trends in Residential and Non-Residential Growth Among Station Classes 44 5.5. Percent Growth in Early- versus Later-BART Years Among Station Classes 46 5.6. Trends in Non-Residential Densities Among Station Classes 46 SLX: Matched-Pair Comparisons of Land-Use Changes near BART Stations Versus Freeway Interchanges 51 6.1.
    [Show full text]