Kevin Fang; California Polytechnic State University

1. 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

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 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 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: 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 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

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