Tonight is an important meeting for the future of Oakland’s Upper Broadway area, which the city wants to turn into a mixed-use retail district to finally bring some sales tax revenue back to the city. From the project’s website:
Oakland has long been one of the nation’s largest underserved trade areas for comparison goods… Oakland currently exports 75% of its potential sales in this category or roughly $1 billion in sales every year to neighboring communities. This loss translates into $10 million in sales tax revenue and 10,400 retail jobs. While the City has many fine merchants, it lacks many larger retailers and a critical mass of retail selection. This dearth of retail options discourage residents from shopping locally. This directly diminishes Oakland’s tax base that supports road maintenance, clean parks, and functional city services.
The Upper Broadway Strategy estimates that potential development of this 50 acre section of Broadway could result in approximately 1 million square feet of retail space and 834-1761 residential units with estimated revenue generating floor area of 2.37 million square feet with the potential to create $3 million annually in sales tax revenue.
I am all for this project (Alternative 1–Urban Mixed-Use Retail is by far the best option), but if you go to the meeting tonight (I can’t), please ask this question:
How is it consistent with the city’s goals of sustainability and affordability when the plan calls for as many as 8,357 parking spaces and 2:1 residential parking ratios? Is it really feasible to expect the city to contribute $50 million in parking subsidies to cover the excessive costs of so many parking spaces? Or should the city be pursuing an alternative which cuts costs to the city, developers, commercial tenants, and residents, such as a streetcar?
($40,000 per space x 8,357 parking spaces=$334.28 million worth of parking… Cutting that figure by just 15% would generate $50 million for a streetcar–almost enough to cover the costs of an Upper Broadway-Jack London Square line)
Over the summer I spent a lot of time working with Oakland’s zoning code at my job at the Port of Oakland. Zoning laws are inherently dull, but they have an enormous influence on shaping cities–San Francisco’s zoning code limits cheap housing options by restricting in-law units, Richmond’s zoning code reinforces the city’s unsafe streets by outlawing mixed-use buildings, Alameda’s zoning code encourages sprawl and hinders the city’s neighborhood commercial centers by not permitting any housing smaller than a duplex, etc. Oakland’s zoning code isn’t all that progressive, either, but what I want to focus on in this post is how Oakland presents itself to visitors and tourists through its hotel zoning policy.
Oakland has an interesting layout of hotels, motels, and inns. The vast majority of Oakland’s hotels are within the Downtown, Jack London Square, and Airport areas, with a small corridor of cheaper hotels along MacArthur in North Oakland. What’s most striking is that there are no hotels in Rockridge, Grand Lake/Lakeshore, and Piedmont Ave, and only two motels in Temescal. Check out the map below:
Much of Oakland’s hotel placement is due to the city’s strict hotel zoning laws. Here’s what Oakland’s municipal code states regarding hotels:
17.102.370 Conditional use permit for hotels and motels.
A. Use Permit Criteria for Hotel and Motel Uses. A conditional use permit for hotel and motel uses may be granted only upon determination that the proposal conforms to the general use permit criteria set forth in the conditional use permit procedure in Chapter 17.134, to any and all applicable use permit criteria set forth in the particular individual zone regulations, and to all of the following additional use permit criteria:
1. That the proposal is located in downtown, along the waterfront, near the airport, or along the I-880 freeway, and/or in an area with a concentration of amenities for hotel patrons, including restaurant, retail, recreation, open space and exercise facilities, and is well-served by public transit;
2. That the proposal considers the impact of the employees of the hotel or motel on the demand in the city for housing, public transit, and social services;
3. That the proposal is consistent with the goal of attracting first-class, luxury hotels in downtown, along the waterfront, near the airport, or along the I-880 freeway which provide:
a. A minimum of one hundred (100) sleeping rooms;
b. A full service restaurant providing three meals per day; and
c. On-site recreational amenities, which may include an exercise room, swimming pool, and/or tennis courts.
What this policy essentially says is that Oakland wants to attract big full-service chain hotels either in the city’s blandest areas (Hegenberger and the 880 corridor) or works in progress (Downtown and Jack London Square). Meanwhile, smaller and mid-sized hotels are not allowed in the city whatsoever, and hotels in neighborhoods such as Rockridge, Temescal, Piedmont Ave, Grand Lake/Lakeshore are strongly discouraged (these areas could probably not support big hotels, anyway). The question becomes: are these really the best places that Oakland can show visitors? Should Oakland really be promoting big hotels in boring and unattractive areas like Hegenberger or Downtown while outlawing hotels in the neighborhoods that make the city truly unique? Hotels of any size should be encouraged at least in Rockridge, which is very well served by public transit and has a vibrant commercial corridor, and probably in other neighbrohoods as well. I want Jack London Square to become a real destination just as much as anybody, but right now if I were a tourist in Oakland, I would be bored and disappointed if I was staying there.
Big hotels in sub-par areas seems to be a standard practice in the Bay Area, between Fisherman’s Wharf, Powell St., the Berkeley Marina, etc, but I still feel like Oakland could do better. The last thing I’d want to see is a bunch of big hotels ruin Oakland’s most successful neighborhoods, but having a few small and mid-sized locally-owned hotels would add to the vitality of Oakland’s most walkable neighborhoods. A more open hotel policy that draws people into Oakland’s authentic neighborhoods would contribute to the city’s economic vitality and better showcase all that Oakland has to offer.
Recently, I ran across an old 1993 copy of Bart’s “Guide to Public Transportation From Bart” buried in a closet in my house. I would have been three years old at the time this map was published, so I can’t exactly bring much experience to the table as to what transit was like in 1993. But, from a 2009 perspective, there’s a lot of interesting stuff in these maps–AC Transit only ran four Transbay routes, Bart still had commuter buses, and transit agencies actually had money and ran a lot more bus routes. It’s also notable that there is hardly any mention of Caltrain, the Peninsula, and the South Bay.
Check out the links below to big scans of the maps:
(For 2009 maps, click here for AC Transit, here for Muni, and here for Bart)
An old Bart commuter bus, probably one of the most underrated Bart programs.
16 years later, how far have we come, and how far do we still have to go?
Bart has spent a whole lot of money on its Dublin-Pleasanton, North Concord/Pittsburg-Bay Point, and SFO/Millbrae extensions, but these extensions have really not had much of an effect on promoting transit-oriented development or improving ridership–the Dublin-Pleasanton station has attracted a decent number of riders, but required a costly 12.5 mile extension for just two stations, North Concord/Martinez, San Bruno, and South San Francisco make up three of the five lowest ridership stations in the Bart system (under 3,000 daily riders), and Millbrae has attracted only 25% (4,150) of its projected 16,500 riders by 2010. Meanwhile, some of the fastest growing stations in the Bart system in the last decade–MacArthur, Lake Merritt, 16th & Mission, and Balboa Park–have received hardly any investment for much-needed capacity and station access improvements, and Bart’s stations in Downtown San Francisco have continued to be at capacity with no signs of relief. No infill stations have been built within the gaps in the urban core, and system compatibility has worsened (the guide explains how Bart riders get a 25 cent transfer credit to cover half of most bus agencies 50 cent fare; 16 years later, the transfer credit remains 25 cents while fares have skyrocketed to $2).
It’s interesting to note that after over a decade, Bart is considering getting back into the commuter bus business as a cheaper alternative to the Livermore and eBart extensions. It seems like Bart is slowly realizing that it can’t just burn money anymore like it has the past 15 years, and in this disastrous financial environment, it is going to have to reconsider some of its worst cost-benefit projects (it might be too late for the OAC, however). One thing that Bart does have going for itself is the branding, so getting back into the commuter bus business with nice, wifi-enabled buses could really be a great asset for Bay Area transit.
In the end, while transit agencies in 1993 had a lot more money for more bus routes and big extensions, we really didn’t get a whole lot out of the past 16 years. Nevertheless, we can count on these maps looking a whole lot different 16 years from now in 2025, with high speed rail, Caltrain electrification, East Bay BRT, Geary and Van Ness BRT, Smart, Bart to San Jose (if built by 2025?), and numerous other projects which will better tie in the Peninsula and the South Bay into the rest of the Bay Area. I think we have also seen a shift in transportation planning from access to performance, given the emphasis now on capturing a greater mode share and improving efficiency versus serving the greatest land area. While this shift has improved overall service, it hasn’t been great for low-density, transit-dependent, low-income communities (see Richmond’s transit network in 1993 vs. 2009).
Anyway, looking through these maps was an insightful window into the past, and I highly recommend that you check them out. Enjoy!
Old Oakland could use a few tips from Denver's Laramier Square (above)
[The conclusion of a series on urban design in Colorado]
Over the past two weeks I’ve looked at a number of innovative urban planning policies in Colorado, and how these policies have help fostered healthier, more vibrant cities. Now I’m going to switch back to the Bay Area and look at what we can learn from Colorado. Below are five lessons that the Bay Area can take away from Colorado:
Lesson 1: Invest in Pedestrians
Across Colorado you’ll find great pedestrian infrastructure–be it Boulder’s Pearl Street Mall or Denver’s artistic pedestrian bridges–but the same cannot be said for the Bay Area. Palo Alto’s University Avenue and Berkeley’s Center Street are logical starting points when it comes to pedestrian malls–both have been the subject of recent proposals for a Boulder-esque treatments due to their popular commercial districts and their current poor handling of cars, bikes, and pedestrians. San Francisco has also began to give trial runs for temporary pedestrian plazas, and there’s no reason a pedestrian mall couldn’t work in the Mission or North Beach as well. One place where I cannot see a pedestrian mall working is Downtown Oakland (I wouldn’t really consider City Center a true pedestrian mall) but half-malls on excessively wide streets could be just as good. Pedestrian malls can turn good commercial districts into regional destinations and create stronger, more exciting neighborhoods.
A half-pedestrian mall in Denver's LoDo district. Two of the four lanes on this street were converted to pedestrian space with a negligible effect on traffic.
Lesson 2: Why Not Experiment with [Free] Transit Malls?
Denver’s 1.2 mile 16th St. Transit Mall generates a whopping 63,000 daily riders and 6% of Denver’s sales tax revenue (tell that to SF merchants who will try to kill a project over a single parking space). A car-free Market Street with a free shuttle/free transit zone would do wonders for mobility in Downtown San Francisco, and a SoMa and perhaps a Chinatown/Union Square Transit Mall could save the city billions of dollars. Rather than the 2 billion dollar Central Subway, a SoMa Transit Mall provide a good connection betwen Caltrain and Downtown while encouraging more economic investment at as much as 1/8th of the cost. If extended to Chinatown and North Beach, San Francisco could have 100,000 people riding on the mall daily. Obviously, there would be a lot of street access issues that would have to be dealt with, but when the alternative is 2 billion dollars, Denver’s option looks pretty good.
Colorado’s culture of activity is a self-propagating phenomenon that is drawing more and more people toward biking and walking in their daily lives. Coloradoans have come to expect walkable, bikeable neighborhoods with nice street trees and plenty of recreational opportunities, and the “if you build it, they will come” effect holds true when you look at the enormous ridership return experienced by Boulder, Fort Collins, and Denver after their moderate investments in bicycle infrastructure. Bay Area cities need to pursue comprehensive bicycle networks that at least makes every non-arterial street attractive for bicycling. This means 90% of the streets in Berkeley should have Fort Collins’ “bicycle friendly street” signs, and Oakland should look to turn excess road capacity in Downtown and the entire city into new wide bike lanes.
Lesson 4: Redevelopment Needs a Holistic Approach
The reinvestment and redevelopment of LoDo, Central Platte Valley, and other areas in Denver have been great succeses because of the comprehensive approach taken by the city of Denver and developers. These areas are truly pedestrian oriented, creating a true sense of place that is essential for any good neighborhood. If you give people a reason to walk around and enjoy their neighborhood, they will walk around and enjoy it. If you use the bottom floor for a parking garage, as is the common practice in many new Oakland, Emeryville, and San Francisco developments, then people will not be as active, neighborhoods will not be as safe, and cities will not be as vibrant.
Lesson 5: Be Bold
Bay Area cities are very conservative when it comes to urban planning, balking at any large-scale proposal which would create transit-oriented and pedestrian-oriented streets. 30 years ago, Denver and Oakland would have looked one in the same, but Denver’s ability (as well as Fort Collins’ and Boulder’s abilities) to revitalize its downtown in the last 30 years has push it far ahead. What makes Denver, Boulder, and Fort Collins successful is the bold choices they’ve made (and continue to make) when it comes to reclaiming streets from cars and pursuing projects which put the neighborhood before the driver. This is not a matter of advocating change for the sake of change–there are real issues at stake and our decisions to stick to the status quo costing us billions and billions of dollars. Bart to San Jose (7+ billion), the Central Subway (almost 2 billion), the Oakland Airport Connector (half a billion), and a multitude of other projects of questionable merit could be done for a fraction of the cost if we made innovative choices to use more cost-effective technology (such as a functional light rail or commuter rail system) or dedicate a small amount of streetspace to transit.
Lastly, consider this:
For 6.2 billion dollars, Denver will revolutionize its transit system with 140 miles of new light rail, commuter rail, and BRT by 2015. In comparison, Bart will spend more money on its 16 mile San Jose extension alone, which will not be completed until after 2025. Something has to change in Bay Area transit planning. We are being ripped off.
Conclusion:
Colorado today is a truly unique laboratory for innovative policies in urban planning. While Denver, Boulder, and Fort Collins tend to not get much credit for their urbanism, I hope that this series has given their efforts a little justice. I strongly recommend visiting these cities to see the potential of bicycling, pedestrian malls, nature, and redevelopment can have.
Along with a new Bart Station in the San Antonio district of Oakland, the $522 million appropriated to the Oakland Airport Connector could do wonders to transform Oakland with a streetcar network. Oakland is the perfect city for a streetcar system–more so than any other city in the Bay Area, Oakland is a collection of individual neighborhoods, each of which with its own clearly-defined center. The majority of these neighborhoods are within less than three miles of the Downtown transportation hub and hotels, but by and large they remain disconnected from one another.
The idea of a streetcar network in Oakland is not a new one–many of Oakland’s neighborhoods were streetcar suburbs built around the Key System in the first half of the 20th century. More recently, Bart studied the possibility of a streetcar linking Downtown Oakland with Jack London Square, but it came up inconclusive since many of the options were either too limited, way too complicated, or both. Within the blogging world, SFCityscape has made a good crack at a more developed streetcar network, but what I propose is a much more comprehensive system that would reshape a diverse array of neighborhoods in Oakland.
-New streetcar lines always, always, get more passengers than the bus routes they replace.
-The upfront costs are higher for streetcars than buses–but that is more than made up over time in lower operating and maintenance costs.
-There is a compelling “coolness” and “newness” factor attached to streetcars.
-Streetcars feel safer from a crime point of view.
-Buses are noisy. By comparison, streetcars are virtually silent.
-Low floors are standard, for easy-on easy-off curbside boarding. Wide doors allow passengers to enter or exit quickly. So streetcar stops take less time than buses.
-Streetcars create more walkable streets. This is because streetcars, as mentioned above, are more attractive to riders than buses, which in turns prompt to more mass transit usage in general, which in turns prompts to more walking–a virtuous cycle that creates more attractive city streets.
-You know exactly where a streetcar is going – but have you ever tried looking at a bus route map?
-Perhaps the most over looked and significant difference between street cars and buses is permanence. You’ll notice that development will follow a train station, but rarely a bus stop. Rails don’t pick up and move any time soon. Once a trolley system is in place, business and investors can count on them for decades. Buses come and go.
While Human Transit recently questioned the performance benefits of streetcars vs. buses, I’d argue that an improved bus system could never achieve the same transformations as a new streetcar system for Oakland. Streetcars attract a wide range of people to ride transit–including those who refuse to ride buses in the first place–along with significant reinvestment into the urban core which would otherwise not take place. A streetcar network is exactly what Oakland needs: a catalyst to create safer, more livable communities through both infill development and reinvestment into the existing framework of the city. With this proposal, Oakland could finally become an interconnected city rather than a disjointed collection of neighborhoods.
The Concept
I propose a four line, 14-mile streetcar network to tie Oakland together:
I also made a few extra modifications to the existing system, such as BRT or Rapid bus corridors for the 1R, 51 (not pictured), 57, and the San Antonio Bart feeder bus (labeled 11R), as well as extending the 40 (AC Transit’s third-highest ridership line) through West Oakland to Emeryville, and adding a limited service for it (giving a much-needed Emeryville-West Oakland-Downtown-East Oakland connection). In addition, this proposal would allow the elimination of the 18 line, and parts of the 12, 14, 19, and 59 lines (the latter two already slated to be cut).
The streetcar network doesn’t necessarily follow the lines with the highest ridership volume–I’m leaving the San Pablo, Telegraph-International, and Webster/Posey tube lines for BRT/Rapid Buses. I tried to connect as many neighborhoods as possible within the confines of a good streetcar network–each line is approximately 25 minutes and would have 8-9 minute headways (the Orange Line, which is a one-way clockwise circulator, would run every 10 minutes). Overlayed with current and future BRT corridors (not to mention Bart lines), the streetcar network would have a diverse ridership base and wide range of uses, connecting (just to name a few):
-Oak to Ninth (Red and Blue Lines, 72R)
-Rockridge (Blue Line, 51R)
-Glenview (Green Line, 57R, NL, 11R)
-San Antonio i.e. Merritt, Cleveland Heights, Ivy Hill (Green Line, 1R BRT, 40/40L, 11R, 57R, NL)
-Chinatown (Red Line, Green Line, Orange Line, 1R BRT, 51R)
-West Oakland i.e. Oak Center (Green Line, NL, 40/40L)
-Temescal (Blue Line, 1R BRT, 51R)
-Grand Lake/Lakeshore (Red Line, 57R, NL)
And keep in mind other integral neighborhoods, such as Laurel, Dimond, central Temescal, and Fruitvale will be connected with the Rapid Bus/BRT system as well.
Note: one of the essential aspects of the Oakland streetcar network is that the streetcars should be modern low-floor vehicles (i.e. Portland or European style). San Francisco already has vintage PCC cars, and Oakland needs to forge its own identity. Modern streetcars provide better service, and would help reshape Oakland’s image into a 21st Century city.
San Francisco's Vintage PCC cars are beautiful, but Oakland needs to redefine its own identity with a more modern image.
Economic Development
A streetcar network can work wonders for revitalizing a city. Merchants and property owners in Jack London square have been practically begging for a streetcar for years now, since the neighborhood is just barely out of the reach of the Bart system. This desire for a streetcar system to generate economic activity is not without precedent: Portland’s four mile streetcar has generated a 6,363% return on the initial 55 million dollar investment: approximately $3.5 billion in new investment into 10,000 new housing units and 5,000,000 sq. feet of office and hotel space in just eight years. At 14 miles, the potential for approximately $10 billion in new investment into 35,000 new units along with substantial office, hotel, and retail space in under 10 years would work wonders for Oakland. Other cities have experienced similar results–Seattle’s line attracted 2,000 new housing units even before the line opened!
Portland's 4 mile, $55 million streetcar line has generated $3.5 billion in new investment
As streetcar systems expand throughout the country, America is finally getting back into the streetcar manufacturing business. An American-made fleet of streetcars for Oakland could bring jobs to struggling automobile factories in Fremont or Milpitas, or even a new factory in Oakland or Richmond.
What if streetcars could be manufactured in the East Bay?
The Red Line in the Waterfront/Produce District would have the most similar impact to Portland, creating a thriving transit-oriented neighborhood virtually from scratch. The Red Line would also provide the impetus for an economic boom in the Grand Lake/Lakeshore/Adams Point area, which in spite of its success has still not achieved the necessary safety and vitality of a good urban neighborhood. The Blue Line could transform the Broadway corridor into a thriving urban boulevard from Jack London Square to the Auto Row and beyond. It would also give Rockridge a better connection to the rest of Oakland. Both the Red and Blue Lines would play a huge role in facilitating the growth at Oak-to-Ninth devleopment (and avert a traffic disaster that would otherwise result). The Green Line would be more of a revitilization line (except for pockets of TOD by the West Oakland Bart station and Lakeside areas) which could take dense but automobile-dependent neighborhoods in West Oakland and east of Lake Merritt and turn them into safer, transit-oriented neighborhoods. It would also be great for Glenview, an original streetcar suburb. The Orange line would tie Downtown together and be a big boost to the Lakeside and Chinatown neighborhoods. All in all, a streetcar network would spur billions in reinvestment into Oakland and facilitate cross-neighborhood economic activity and an increase in tourism.
Note: in any proposal like this, the potential negative effects on neighborhoods, such as gentrification, must be considered. Some areas, such as the Park Blvd corridor east of the Lake, are already built out and dense enough to support a streetcar line, so redevelopment shouldn’t be a priority. Others, such as West Oakland, should have clear growth plans and strict guidelines on the type of housing that could be built, emphasizing mixed-income housing and at least 1/3 of the units under market rate (projects that strengthen the neighborhood framework, such as the Fruitvale Bart station TOD, should be encouraged). Ensuring that Oakland stays affordable for everyone will need to be a priority as redevelopment occurs, but I think that there is enough potential land to be redeveloped (particularly in Jack London Square, the Produce District/Waterfront, Oak to Ninth, and along Broadway) that supply should keep up with demand and no bubble should occur.
Ridership
Eight years after opening, ridership on Portland’s four mile streetcar line has tripled from 4,000 to 12,000 daily riders. My conservative estimates for Oakland’s daily ridership are:
Line 2009 2020
Blue 7,000 14,000
Green 3,500 6,500
Red 2,500 7,000
Orange 1,000 2,500
Total 14,000 30,000
A key component of attracting and increasing ridership is making the system easy to use. Fare machines should be located at stops to pay for tickets in advance, and the system should be fully integrated into AC Transit and have easier Bart transfers. I also think that a free-fare zone, such as Portland’s, should be explored (or at least make the Orange Line free with no transfer). The system could also have color-coded streetcars to make riding the streetcar as simple and user-friendly as possible.
Color-coded streetcars would make the system both attractive and easy to use
Cost
At $15-35 million per mile, a 14 mile network (subtracting overlap) would cost $250-450 million. Parts of the system will be able to piggy-back off of the Telegraph-International BRT, and the option is there to give the Blue Line a dedicated right of way (which would put the cost on the higher end). In many cities, public-private partnerships able developers to pick up a portion of the cost in exchange for development rights. The system could also be built in phases. To break down the costs into individual segments (assuming 25 million/mile, and in order of construction):
Blue Line…..125 million (+$30 to $50 million for dedicated lane if necessary)
Green Line…..136 million
Red Line…..62 million (half of the tracks already built)
Orange Line…..22 million (40% of tracks already built, only one track required)
Total…..345 million
So, for those of you counting, we’ve got (cost, 2020 ridership):
Therefore, a complete streetcar system, multiple Rapid Bus lines, and a San Antonio Bart station could be built for the same price as the Oakland Airport Connector while potentially attracting 10 times the riders and completely transforming Oakland.
Conclusion
With this proposal for a 14-mile streetcar system, Oakland would become America’s streetcar capital. At $345 million, a streetcar network would induce billions of dollars in investment and reduce emissions, oil consumption, and traffic congestion in Oakland. Most of all, a streetcar network would tie together Oakland into a unified city, reinvigorating Oakland’s economy and creating safer, more livable neighborhoods.
I’ve discussed before how the Oakland Airport Connector will waste half a billion dollars to serve only 1,000 new riders, but I thought I’d float a more practical alternative to using the money: a new station in the San Antonio district in East Oakland. Bart stretches nearly three miles between the Lake Merritt and Fruitvale Stations without a stop, passing one of the densest districts in the East Bay–approximately 30,000 people in just a little over one square mile. The Bart Station Profile Survey shows this gap beautifully:
The Bart Station Profile Study demonstrates the lack of riders in the San Antonio District in Oakland. Courtesy of Transbay Blog
The triangle-looking hole in Bart service stretches from 14th Ave to Fruitvale Ave, suggesting that most people who live in the area either drive or take AC Transit to get around. Yet, Bart passes over a lot in this stretch, particularly serving the 14th Ave and 23rd Ave business districts and The station could go at either 14th Ave, an at-grade Bart line adjacent to an overbuilt road intersection with plenty of room for redesign:
Even though the biggest hole in Bart ridership is along 23rd Ave, 14th Ave station would probably attract more riders, being on a larger corridor with connections to Highland Hospital and Glenview. It is also likely a more practical option because there is more space around the station (even for some parking?). But how many riders could a 14th Ave station attract? Let’s take a look at some similar stations:
Station
Daily Ridership (FY 08)
Estimated Population Density (persons/sq. mile)
Rockridge
5,168
8,118
MacArthur
7,559
13,605
Ashby
4,522
15,877
Fruitvale
7,479
17,622
Glen Park
7,633
19,999
16th St. Mission
10,907
28,035
24th St. Mission
12,500
45,911
San Antonio
???
24,074
I intentionally selected stations that, like San Antonio, are locally-based and would have a low level of outside commuters. I selected the adjacent census tracts that make up no more than two square miles surrounding the given stations, and tried to be as consistent as possible, but granted, this is a subjective and not scientific method. It is also important to note that Fruitvale attracts a number of commuters from Alameda, so its ridership numbers are a little inflated. Nevertheless, this analysis yields significant results.
The San Antionio district is nearly as dense as the 16th St. and Mission station in San Francisco, and more dense than the areas surrounding the Ashby, MacArthur, Fruitvale, Rockridge, and Glen Park stations. Similar East Bay stations attract a minimum of 4,500 daily riders and a maximum of 7,500 daily riders. I would argue that, because of the higher density of the district and the potential to reach even farther into Glenview and even Montclair, a San Antionio station would attract between 6,000 and 8,000 daily riders if it were built today, and potentially even more after transit-oriented development and growth in the area (keep in mind, this is my realistic estimate, and a [fantastical] BART estimate would probably be in the 15,000 range by 2020 or something like that). For an infill station to immediately be in the top 15 stations out of the 43 in the Bart system, that’s pretty damn good.
So how much would all of this cost? Well, the West-Dublin-Pleasanton station currently under construction costs 80 million dollars, which includes a 1200 space parking garage (probably 20-35 million in itself). The optional Irvington infill station on the Warm Springs extension would cost about 95 million if built. I’d say 100 million is a reasonable conservative estimate on the cost of a Bart station, but it could be as low as 70 million since parking structures wouldn’t be necessary. There is also the option for an additional Amtrak station that would probably cost another 15 million or so (a brand new station in Hercules will be constructed for 45 million, but a simple add-on shouldn’t be nearly that much). An intermodal station could serve as an important transfer point to Bart while adding more riders as Capitol Corridor expands in the future.
Therefore, for 70-115 million dollars, Bart could immidiately add another 6,000-8,000 riders (and potentially 10,000 by 2020) and provide service to a dense and extremely underserved district in Oakland. This station would be one of the easiest ways for Bart to reinvest in the urban core and truly promote smart growth, and best of all, it would be just 1/5-1/7 the cost while attracting 6-8 times the initial riders. The Bart Board needs to face reality: if they’re truly trying to serve East Oakland (as they claimed in the OAC debate) and control sprawl, then fill the three mile gap in San Antonio with a station.
***UPDATE***
1. I talked to my friend Tom Radulovich, who is on the Bart Board of Directors, and he said that the idea for a station at 8th Ave had been floated in the 1990s with the preliminary estuary planning, but nothing ever became of it. I added it as a third alternative on the map above. It has many advantages, including easier access to the Oak to 9th development, and tons of room for TOD (since the Bart and UP facilities there are more or less unnecessary and can be moved). However, it is currently an industrial area without a whole lot of room for infill and redevelopment, and it’s farther away from the 12th St. and International business corridors. It also does not have as direct of transit access as the 14th Ave (or 23rd Ave) corridors, and is closer to the Lake Merrit station, so it really would serve new development more than the existing San Antionio area.
2. Tom also said he requested that studies be completed to analyze the impacts of infill stations at Albany, San Antionio, and 30th & Mission, but nothing ever came of them (bureaucracy at its finest).
3. I was in the area today, so I made a quick stop to check out the 14th Ave Burger King area again. The immediate area is primarily industrial, and I had forgotten how poor the pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure is. Currently, there really isn’t enough of a neighborhood to support a station (compared to Fruitvale) and most users would likely travel to the station by bus. Still, there’s a lot of potential for a feeder BRT line along 14th Ave., and I think some traffic calming and infill development could strengthen the 14th & International area.
Lots and lots of space for a station...
...But there isn't exactly a thriving neighborhood to back it up.
So the question is, how would you bring much-needed Bart service to an area that has no infrastructure or neighborhood framework to currently support it? The good news is that at least there’s some sort of neighborhood (and still a very high density to support a station). After all, Bart has built stations and TOD in much worse locations with much lower ridership.
A recent post at the Transbay Blog reminded me of one of the biggest sources of blight and misuses of land in the Bay Area: surface parking in Downtown Oakland. Of the 51 public Downtown lots, 24 are surface lots. Yet, surface parking accounts for less than 15% of parking in the area (private surface lots, such as AC Transit’s, are not accounted for here). The merits of parking garages are debatable (I think they are overdeveloped and a waste of money, but many retailers would beg to differ) and deserves a separate post, but I think everybody can agree that when assessing the economic potential of land in such a transit-rich and up-and-coming area (see projects such at the Uptown development), charging 50 cars $10 per day doesn’t exactly do much for anybody.
Douglass Parking is responsible for most of the blight, especially in its great wall of surface parking which surrounds the Gold Coast neighborhood , one of the highest-density areas in Oakland. Not only is this land underused, it serves as a significant barrier between the Gold Coast and the restaurants and shops on 17th and 19th streets, discouraging walking (especially at night) through the ghost-town of empty parking lots.
The point is, Downtown Oakland should not resemble a strip mall. Luckily, there are numerous infill projects in the pipline to make better use of this land and connect the Gold Coast and other affected areas with one another. But, there is still a lot of room for improvement. If I was working in the Oakland Planning Dept., this would be my number one priority to remake downtown into a truly urban environment with a unified set of neighborhoods.
