Accessibility of
 Proposed Bay Area
Rail Transit Extensions:
  An Evaluation of Opportunities
for Transit-Oriented Development



                     Kevin Fang
       California Polytechnic State University

                  Presentation to the
Jack R. Widmeyer Transportation Research Conference
     California State University – San Bernardino
                 November 6, 2009
Presentation Outline

 Study Background/Purpose

 Methodology

 Accessibility Results

 Policy Implications
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
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
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
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
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
Systemwide Accessibility Increases




  A                  B                   C
 568.10             669.50             673.31

          +17.8%              +0.6%----------

                   +18.5%--
Increases by Sub-Regional Area Type
                                   Central City   Central City   Inner Ring     Outer Ring
                                      CBD          Non-CBD         Suburb        Suburbs



                   A       B
Share 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
Accessibility         Average Accessibility Index by Network Configuration

of 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
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
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
Implications: Site
TOD Opportunities
 One possible
  interpretation:
   (Index A + Index B +
    Index C) * (1 - % Low
    Density Residential)




                            Source: ESRI Shaded Relief Basemap, MTC
Implications: Prioritization of Extensions
1. 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 stations


2. Caltrain-Downtown SF    1 station will generate 2 percent
                            of systemwide accessibility


3a. Dumbarton Rail         Lacks major job centers along/near line
                           Connectivity provides limited travel time
                            benefits to major job centers


3b. eBART                  Lacks major job centers along/near line
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

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

  • 1.
    Accessibility of ProposedBay Area Rail Transit Extensions: An Evaluation of Opportunities for Transit-Oriented Development Kevin Fang California Polytechnic State University Presentation to the Jack R. Widmeyer Transportation Research Conference California State University – San Bernardino November 6, 2009
  • 2.
    Presentation Outline  StudyBackground/Purpose  Methodology  Accessibility Results  Policy Implications
  • 3.
    Study Background  Seriesof 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  Determinehow 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 Accessibilityand 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 anaccessibility 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-RegionalArea Type Central City Central City Inner Ring Outer Ring CBD Non-CBD Suburb Suburbs A B Share 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 Configuration of 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 AccessibilityGeneration 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: Site TOD Opportunities One possible interpretation: (Index A + Index B + Index C) * (1 - % Low Density Residential) Source: ESRI Shaded Relief Basemap, MTC
  • 14.
    Implications: Prioritization ofExtensions 1. 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 stations 2. Caltrain-Downtown SF  1 station will generate 2 percent of systemwide accessibility 3a. Dumbarton Rail  Lacks major job centers along/near line  Connectivity provides limited travel time benefits to major job centers 3b. eBART  Lacks major job centers along/near line
  • 15.
    Conclusions  Accessibility isjust 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