Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

CP 218 - MacArthur BART - Temescal - Final presentation

790 views

Published on

NORTH OAKLAND COMMUNITY ANALYSIS: CONNECTING COMMUNITY & PROVIDING A TRANSPORTATION VISION
FOR THE FUTURE

Published in: Government & Nonprofit
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

CP 218 - MacArthur BART - Temescal - Final presentation

  1. 1. NORTH OAKLAND COMMUNITY ANALYSIS CONNECTING COMMUNITY PROVIDING A TRANSPORTATION VISION FOR THE FUTURE
  2. 2. SECTION I INTRODUCTION
  3. 3. INTRODUCTION | KEY QUESTIONS • Who are we? • Who is this research for? • What will we be talking about today?
  4. 4. STUDY AREAS
  5. 5. COMMUNITY ASSETS Learning from the Fruitvale experience Activating the MacArthur BART Station Leveraging the Temescal Commercial Core
  6. 6. GUIDING QUESTIONS How do we improve the transportation network • To serve existing and anticipated residents and businesses? • To create a pleasant efficient and safe multimodal neighborhood and corridor?
  7. 7. PLANS SB 375/AB32: • Reduce GHG emissions by connecting land uses with transportation Priority Development Area • MacArthur Transit Village Complete Streets • Redesign and repaving of Telegraph Avenue
  8. 8. MARKET “Bay Area nears record levels of employment” November 8, 2014 “Oakland’s promise as solution to Bay Area’s housing crunch” June 27, 2014 “Hot Oakland neighborhood Temescal lands another apartment project” December 2, 2014
  9. 9. HOT ISSUES • What are impacts of Complete Streets on parking? • Will current building pattern create congestion without supporting additional retail (groceries) • Bikers are unhappy with bike lanes
  10. 10. METHODOLOGY Plan Bay Area Development Pipeline TOD Literature Surveys Interviews Site Visits Traffic Counts Business Data Census Data
  11. 11. MAP OF STUDY AREA Priority development area boundaries, survey locations, and transportation studies
  12. 12. PRESENTATION 1. Introduction 2. Built Environment 3. Community Travel Patterns 4. Parking 5. Street Network 6. Conclusions 7. Solutions
  13. 13. LESSONS FROM FRUITVALE 1. Local involvement improves outcomes 2. Rigid area plans may neglect existing travel 3. Pedestrian and transit-oriented designs work 4. Population growth propels development
  14. 14. GOALS FOR MACARTHUR STATION AREA Residents • Support existing residents while developing without displacement Commerce • Promote local-serving businesses Mobility • Enable a multi-modal lifestyle Connectivity • Foster inter- and intra-neighborhood connections Growth • Accommodate new residents and promote planned growth
  15. 15. SECTION II BUILT ENVIRONMENT
  16. 16. BUILT ENVIRONMENT | KEY QUESTIONS We wanted to understand the existing built environment: • What is MacArthur BART like? Is it a community asset? • What are the projections for growth? • Where is the residential development? How dense? • Where is the commercial development? What types • What’s missing from the study sites? Are essential businesses present?
  17. 17. MACARTHUR BART
  18. 18. ZONING AND PROJECTED BUILDOUT CURRENT CONDITIONS (2014) PROJECTED BUILDOUT (2032) Population: 13,280 Population: 18,600 - 23,400
  19. 19. POPULATION PROJECTIONS
  20. 20. FORECLOSURES 2007-2011 West Side 90 foreclosures 27% of parcels East Side 21 foreclosures 12% of parcels
  21. 21. WEST SIDE DISINVESTMENT “The west side of the neighborhood is desperately in need of revitalization”
  22. 22. MACARTHUR STATION 600 units and 42,500 square feet of retail development
  23. 23. PERCEPTIONS More than 50% of merchants interviewed think that MacArthur Station will help their businesses. (+) More people makes the neighborhood more vibrant, event if they don’t patronize businesses (-) Concerned about traffic and parking management
  24. 24. RETAIL, SERVICES, AND RESTAURANTS
  25. 25. WHAT IS MISSING? We asked area shoppers what they wish were in the neighborhood.
  26. 26. GROCERY STORES Just out of reach.
  27. 27. KEY TAKEAWAYS • MacArthur BART Station is not a destination • New development in the pipeline on the east side with many foreclosures and vacancies on the west • Demand for grocery stores from residents, shoppers, and merchants
  28. 28. SECTION III COMMUNITY TRAVEL PATTERNS
  29. 29. COMMUNITY TRAVEL PATTERNS | KEY QUESTIONS • How do residents and visitors get around? • Are there opportunities to shift modes? • Are most shoppers local? Are they coming from far away? • Are shopping nodes connected? Or, do we see division between Temescal and the MacArthur BART station area? • How will these patterns change with more growth
  30. 30. RESIDENTS | INTERNAL TRIP CAPTURE Residents were more than 5 times as likely to leave the neighborhood for groceries, school, and clothing shopping Most common trips within the area: • Restaurant (56%) • Coffee shop (53%) • A friend’s house (42%) • Pharmacy/drugstore (38%) Most common trips outside the area: • Groceries (89%) • Work (69%) • Bank (58%)
  31. 31. Bike, 13% Other, 2% Other, 4% Bike, 20% 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% RESIDENTS | MODE SHARE Bike, 15% BART, 1% BART, 25% BART, 38% Drive alone, 52% Drive alone, 15% Drive alone, 29% Drive with someone, 18% Drive with someone, 24% Drive with someone, 2% Walk, 13% Walk, 5% Walk, 8% Bus, 3% Bus, 9% Bus, 3% 0% Grocery (n=181) School (n=55) Work (n=143) MODE SHARE
  32. 32. RESIDENTS | BIKES ● 79% of residents have access to a bike ● 25% of residents reported using bikes for either groceries, work, or school trips ● Residents on east and west sides of freeway both have access to bikes ● Residents of all incomes use bikes; highest usage was found in lowest income brackets
  33. 33. SHOPPERS | SURVEY DAY MODE SHARE 87% of merchants think that the majority (> 50%) of shoppers drive BART 16% Bus 11% Walk 27% Drive with friends or family /get dropped off Drive alone Bicycle 4% 22% 13% Multi 6% Other 1%
  34. 34. BART 13% Bus 10% Walk 25% Multi 10% Drive with friends or family /get dropped off Bicycle 10% 11% Drive alone 21% SHOPPERS | USUAL MODE SHARE
  35. 35. Local 56% Regional 44% SHOPPERS | LOCAL VS. REGIONAL
  36. 36. Multi, 10% Drive alone, 10% Multi, 2% Carpool /get dropped off, 16% Drive alone, 16% Walk, 52% Walk, 25% Multi, 9% Carpool /get dropped off, 18% Drive alone, 28% Walk, 8% Bicycle, 16% Bicycle, 9% Bicycle, 9% Bus, 8% Bus, 10% BART, 9% Bus, 12% BART, 14% BART, 19% Study Area Zip Bordering Regional SHOPPERS | LOCAL VS. REGIONAL
  37. 37. $393 $367 $317 $297 $170 $164 $141 SHOPPERS | WHO ARE THE SPENDERS? $450 $400 $350 $300 $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 $- Bus Multi Walk Bicycle Drive alone BART Drive with friends or family /get dropped off Chart Title
  38. 38. Multi, 12 Multi, 10 Carpool /get dropped off, 11 Drive alone, 11 Walk, 27 Bicycle, 8 Bus, 12 BART, 30 Carpool /get dropped off, 15 Drive alone, 37 Walk, 32 Bicycle, 16 Bus, 12 BART, 1 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% MacArthur BART Area Temescal SHOPPERS | MODE SHARES AT NODES
  39. 39. Drive alone 51% Carpool/dropped off 5% BART 11% Walking 9% Bus 0% Biking 13% Multi- Alternative 7% Multi-Drive 4% EMPLOYEES | COMMUTE How employees typically get to work
  40. 40. Drop off & Taxi 15% BART STATION ACCESS PATTERNS Source: Fehr & Peers, 2008 Walk 29% Transit 39% Bicycle 7% Drive 10%
  41. 41. KEY TAKEAWAYS • Residents are multimodal • Merchants think shoppers drive to stores, but shoppers mostly use alternative modes • Shoppers are mostly local • Bus riders spend the most per month • Temescal and MacArthur BART shopping areas are disconnected • Employees drive to work • Commuters access MacArthur BART via non-auto modes
  42. 42. SECTION IV PARKING
  43. 43. PARKING | KEY ISSUES • How much parking exists? • Where is there parking? • Is there enough? Is there too much? • How is parking being used?
  44. 44. Excellent 20% Don't know/No response 15% MERCHANT PERCEPTIONS Merchant perceptions of quality of shopper parking Good 6% Fair/Poor 59%
  45. 45. INVENTORY | ON-STREET SPACES INVENTORY SPACES BY BLOCK
  46. 46. PARKING | REGULATION ZONING REGULATIONS
  47. 47. THURSDAY 10-12PM SATURDAY 12-2PM OCCUPANCY AND TURNOVER Thursday 10-12pm and Sunday 12-2pm
  48. 48. Strongly Disagree 3% N/A PARKING | EMPLOYEES “I usually find parking during work.” Strongly Agree 26% Agree 54% Neutral 3% Disagree 8% 6%
  49. 49. Free Free Paid Paid PARKING | WHERE EMPLOYEES PARK 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 On Street Off Street
  50. 50. KEY TAKEAWAYS • Parking is plentiful, but poorly managed • Regulations are disjoined and ineffective
  51. 51. SECTION V STREET NETWORK
  52. 52. STREET NETWORK | KEY ISSUES • How does the proposed Complete Streets design perform with future transportation demand in 2017 and 2032 across different modes? • What barriers exist to the walkability of the area?
  53. 53. WHAT IS COMPLETE STREETS? • Two through lanes of car traffic with one left-turn lane • Buffered bike lane • Some transit islands and bus-only space for stops
  54. 54. VISSIM MODEL SCENARIOS No action • 2017 base • 2032 growth Transit-oriented development • Current infrastructure • Complete Streets Mode Shares 2032 - model a Cars 78% Bikes 6% Peds 10% Bus 6% Cars 66% Peds 17% Bikes 10% Bus 7% Mode Shares 2032 - model b
  55. 55. CURRENT & NO ACTION CONDITIONS 2014 Telegraph Ave & { 51st St Telegraph Ave & 52nd St Shattuck Ave 2017 1,029 trips are generated during the PM peak from PDA project buildout Bad intersections, especially on Telegraph Ave 2032 Poorly performing network → Need to shift modes • 30% of vehicles cannot enter the network • 80% increase in average bike delay
  56. 56. MODE SHIFT AND INFRASTRUCTURE 2032 scenario with existing infrastructure
  57. 57. CITYWIDE MODE SHIFTS Multinomial Logit Model Built to incorporate bicycle relevant variables. Used to test effect on mode share of the home to work or school tours. Data California Household Travel Survey Variables • Bike lanes • Topography • Speed limits • Time • Cost • Distance • Household size
  58. 58. 7.20% 7.00% 6.80% 6.60% 6.40% 6.20% 6.00% No Action Lanes and Sharrows (Design Option 1) (Pessimistic) Cycle Tracks and Lanes (Design Option 2) BIKE MODE SHARE PERCENTAGES
  59. 59. COMPLETE STREETS | POSITIVE IMPACTS • Complete Streets Design supports bike and ped mode shift. • Bike delay is reduced by 25% from 250 to 195 seconds • Average speed of cars reduces from 12.6 mph to 11.3, a 10% decrease
  60. 60. COMPLETE STREETS | NEGATIVE IMPACTS • Complete Streets can only handle 92% of anticipated TOD vehicular traffic in 2032 • 2 min increase in average bus delay from current delay
  61. 61. UNADDRESSED ISSUES 50% of through-bikers take Shattuck. Are they being considered?
  62. 62. UNDERPASSES | 45TH STREET
  63. 63. UNDERPASSES | 42ND STREET
  64. 64. UNDERPASSES | 40TH STREET
  65. 65. UNDERPASSES | 40TH STREET
  66. 66. UNDERPASSES | MACARTHUR BLVD
  67. 67. Neighborhood Safety Neighborhood Safety Underpasses Underpasses 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 East West UNDERPASSES | RESIDENT PERCEPTIONS
  68. 68. Frequently Occasionally Rarely Never Frequently Occasionally Rarely Never 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% East West UNDERPASSES | RESIDENT USAGE
  69. 69. PEDESTRIAN WAYFINDING TOO HIGH FOR PEDESTRIANS TO LOW/SMALL FOR CARS
  70. 70. STREET NETWORK | KEY TAKEAWAYS • Complete Streets plan supports biking and walking, but it is not enough to avoid congestion from population growth • Complete Streets plan results in increased delay for cars and buses • Bike travel patterns through Telegraph Ave & 46th and Telegraph Ave & 40th are not considered in the Complete Streets plan • Underpasses are neglected and require design focus
  71. 71. SECTION VI CONCLUSIONS
  72. 72. CONCLUSIONS | RESIDENTS Goal: Support existing residents while developing without displacement ● Current policies do not reduce displacement pressure from future development. ● There is evidence of sustained disinvestment on the west side of the freeway.
  73. 73. CONCLUSIONS | COMMERCE Goal: Promote locally serving businesses ● Most businesses are disproportionately located in the north and east. ● Essential services, like grocery stores, are missing from the area. ● There is an opportunity for future business development near MacArthur BART.
  74. 74. CONCLUSIONS | MOBILITY Goal: Enable a multimodal lifestyle ● Current residents are multimodal, but visitors to the neighborhood are more car dependent. ● The June 2014 Complete Streets Design narrowly supports bicycle and pedestrian activity on Telegraph Avenue, and the plan does not support transit. ● Parking is not being managed strategically.
  75. 75. CONCLUSIONS | CONNECTIVITY Goal: Foster inter- and intra-neighborhood connections ● The design of the street network is fragmented for bicycles and pedestrians. ● The June 2014 Complete Streets Design does not address most of the significant barriers to a connected street network. ● There are patterns of disconnection in the area: East vs. West and Temescal vs. MacArthur BART.
  76. 76. CONCLUSIONS | GROWTH Goal: Accommodate and promote planned growth and new residents ● Existing policies and public investments are insufficient to spur development at the level called for by Plan Bay Area. ● A continuation of historical growth trends is not significant enough to catalyze transformative change in mode shift.
  77. 77. SECTION VII DESIGN AND POLICY SOLUTIONS
  78. 78. RESIDENTS
  79. 79. Use planned and currently vacant commercial spaces for business types demanded by residents, local shoppers, merchants, e.g. a neighborhood-scale grocery store RESIDENTS
  80. 80. RESIDENTS Study anti-displacement housing policies, such as foreclosure assistance program and financial literacy programs
  81. 81. COMMERCE
  82. 82. COMMERCE Invest in new pedestrian wayfinding to point to existing business types between MacArthur BART and Temescal (e.g. sidewalk signs, neighborhood map at MacArthur Station)
  83. 83. COMMERCE Explore expanding the existing Temescal Business Improvement District (BID) or creating a new BID on the west side of the freeway
  84. 84. MOBILITY
  85. 85. MOBILITY | TDM Actively promote mode shift by developing transportation demand management incentives and parking management techniques (e.g. GoBerkeley campaign)
  86. 86. MOBILITY | TRANSIT Explore transit improvements, such as dedicated bus lane, a combined bus and bike lane, queue jump lanes, transit signal priority, bulb outs
  87. 87. MOBILITY | BIKES Actively promote a mode shift by investing in bike facilities
  88. 88. MOBILITY | PARKING ● Change parking minimums to maximums along the major corridors ● Consider relocating metered parking on Telegraph to shared off-street lots, in the underpasses, and on side streets ● Introduce shared parking for visitors (shoppers and/or employees), such as partnership with churches with large lots to provide long-term off-street parking
  89. 89. CONNECTIVITY
  90. 90. CONNECTIVITY Redesign underpasses, including new street lighting and pedestrian-friendly signal timing
  91. 91. UNDERPASSES | MACARTHUR BLVD
  92. 92. UNDERPASSES | 42ND STREET
  93. 93. UNDERPASSES | 45TH STREET
  94. 94. GROWTH Incentivize market development at densities similar to that of MacArthur Station around MacArthur BART and corridor
  95. 95. GROWTH Invest in making MacArthur BART a place, e.g. pedestrianize 40th Street, develop a park, develop new space for retail
  96. 96. 40TH STREET REDESIGN
  97. 97. 40TH STREET REDESIGN
  98. 98. Wide, well-lit walkway under overpass Path to 41st Shared Street More activity Less noise Green Open Space 40TH STREET | WALKING Easier crossing
  99. 99. Bike box Dismount area and raised crossing of transit lane Shared Street Curb protected Bike parking cycle track 40TH STREET | BICYCLING Cycle-activated crossing
  100. 100. Transit / taxi / delivery access only Eastbound stop Westbound stop Connection Sheltered waiting area for bus, taxi & shuttles 40TH STREET | TRANSIT to 1 / 1R Transit information screens
  101. 101. Small-format grocery Loading Areas New Retail under Overpass Food Stands MacArthur TOD 40TH STREET | RETAIL Existing Retail
  102. 102. Open space Murals along north wall and lighting under overpass Cafe / biergarten Street art Green plaza & art “Gateway” sculpture 40TH STREET | PLACEMAKING
  103. 103. 40TH STREET | PLACEMAKING
  104. 104. SMALL STEPS | 40TH STREET San Francisco, Flickr user: niallkennedy
  105. 105. CONNECTING A COMMUNITY AND PROVIDING A TRANSPORTATION VISION FOR THE FUTURE NORTH OAKLAND COMMUNITY ANALYSIS
  106. 106. CP 218 | TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO THANK YOU!
  107. 107. ¡EXTRA SLIDES!
  108. 108. BART STATION ACCESS Origins of those walking to BART Source: Fehr & Peers, 2008 88% of station users originate their trip within 2 miles of the station 29% of station users walk to station 58% of those originate within a ½ mile of station 12% of auto trips to station originate within a ½ mile of station
  109. 109. AN ASIDE ABOUT RETAIL “Bajos Puentes” project, Mexico City Angled Parking
  110. 110. AC TRANSIT REROUTES 40th St & MLK Way MacArthur Blvd & Frontage Angled Parking Today After re-route WB buses turn left EB buses proceed straight 57 & C turn left 31 turns right
  111. 111. AC TRANSIT REROUTES Origins of BART patrons accessing station via transit Angled Parking
  112. 112. AC TRANSIT REROUTES Origins of BART patrons dropped off at station Angled Parking

×