LTC, Jack R. Widmeyer Transportation Research Conference, Going to San Bernardino A Symposium on Intermodal Transit Stations and Transit-Oriented Design, 11/06/2009, Kevin Fang

Uploaded on

Kevin Fang; California Polytechnic State University

Kevin Fang; California Polytechnic State University

More in: Design , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads


Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide


  • 1. Accessibility of Proposed Bay AreaRail Transit Extensions: An Evaluation of Opportunitiesfor Transit-Oriented Development Kevin Fang California Polytechnic State University Presentation to theJack R. Widmeyer Transportation Research Conference California State University – San Bernardino November 6, 2009
  • 2. Presentation Outline Study Background/Purpose Methodology Accessibility Results Policy Implications
  • 3. Study Background Series of proposed actions in MTC 2035 Transportation Plan Study focuses on extensions to the intra-region commuter and heavy rail network BART to Silicon Valley eBART Caltrain to Downtown SF Dumbarton Rail
  • 4. Study Purpose Determine how accessible these extensions/stations along extensions are Accessibility serves as surrogate for opportunities for transit-oriented development See how extensions enhance the overall accessibility of the entire regionwide network
  • 5. Why Study Accessibility and TOD? Shift the paradigm from Automobility Planning to Accessibility Planning (Cervero, 2000) Issues with the current auto-oriented transportation and land use Environmental Economic Preferential Social Subsidization of public transportation Take advantage of investments when they are made
  • 6. Methodology Calculate an accessibility index Compare relative accessibility of stations Explore accessibility changes with network expansion Index based off generalized gravity model Size of Attraction Accessibility = Distance Jobs surrogate as Size of Attraction Time based friction factor for Distance component
  • 7. Alternative Network C A B Configurations Accessibility compared from present to future through analysis of 3 Alternative Network Configurations A – Current Network: Trunk and Branch B – Future Network #1: Loop and Branches C – Future Network #2: Loop, Cross-Link, and Branches Source: ESRI Shaded Relief Basemap, MTC
  • 8. Systemwide Accessibility Increases A B C 568.10 669.50 673.31 +17.8% +0.6%---------- +18.5%--
  • 9. Increases by Sub-Regional Area Type Central City Central City Inner Ring Outer Ring CBD Non-CBD Suburb Suburbs A BShare of Growth 37.5% 32.7% 25.9% 4.0% B C 0.9% 2.0% 96.4% 0.7% A C 36.1% 31.6% 28.4% 3.8%  Accessibility growth favors central cities/inner suburbs
  • 10. Accessibility Average Accessibility Index by Network Configurationof New Lines A B C New stations on average 7.64 7.44 7.24 less accessible Average Accessibility Index and Ranks (out of 93) – Alt. C than existing stations eBART BART-Silicon Valley Index .52 Index 6.66 BART to Silicon Rank 84.9 Rank 39.3 Valley on Caltrain-Downtown. SF Dumbarton Rail average rank Index 2.62 Index .80 in upper half Rank 64 Rank 79.7 of stations
  • 11. Share of Accessibility Generation Share of Growth Share of Accessibility Generation Attributable To Line Full Existing A Build C A C BART 90.56% 77.06% 4.20% eBART -- 0.49% 3.16% BART-Silicon Valley -- 9.35% 59.82% Caltrain 9.44% 10.99% 19.36% Caltrain-Downtown SF -- 1.94% 12.41% Dumbarton Rail -- 0.16% 1.04% Caltrain-Downtown SF station is not particularly accessible to other stations, but shows value as a large activity center accessible to nearby stations
  • 12. Surrounding Land Use Surrounding land use can either support or be obstacle to TOD Right: Agglomerated map of General Plan Land Use Designations Surrounding Areas That Are Low Generalized Land Uses in Density Residential (1/2 Mile) the San Francisco Bay Area Source: ESRI Shaded Relief Basemap, MTC, ABAG
  • 13. Implications: SiteTOD Opportunities One possible interpretation: (Index A + Index B + Index C) * (1 - % Low Density Residential) Source: ESRI Shaded Relief Basemap, MTC
  • 14. Implications: Prioritization of Extensions1. BART-Silicon Valley  Will receive 50 percent of new systemwide accessibility  Jobs along line make it almost as important as entire Caltrain system in generating accessibility at other stations2. Caltrain-Downtown SF  1 station will generate 2 percent of systemwide accessibility3a. Dumbarton Rail  Lacks major job centers along/near line  Connectivity provides limited travel time benefits to major job centers3b. eBART  Lacks major job centers along/near line
  • 15. Conclusions Accessibility is just one, but a very important, factor for TOD. Sites with highest potential are within close proximity to major activity centers Connectivity promotes accessibility if provide time savings to major activity centers Society can change outcome of outlying, less assessable stations with plans to transform stations with low showing into major activity centers, e.g. Pleasanton, Walnut Creek, etc