Replacement Parking for Joint Development:
An Access Policy Methodology
Prepared by: Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP
Prepared for: BART Departments of Planning and Real Estate
Date: April 18, 2005
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 1
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Introduction 2
BART Context 2
Problems 3
The Ridership Loss Issue 4
The Process for Developing this Methodology 5
Chapter 2. Proposed Principles to Guide Replacement Parking 6
Chapter 3. A Methodology for Access/ Replacement Parking Analysis 9
Step 1. Summarize key policy and context issues 9
Step 2. Build scenarios 11
Step 3. Evaluate scenarios 13
Step 4. Select preferred strategy and write specifications 19
Chapter 4. Case Studies 20
Introduction to Case Studies 20
Concord Case Study 22
Del Norte Case Study 33
MacArthur Case Study 42
San Leandro Case Study 52
Chapter 5. Conclusions and Next Steps 61
Conclusions 62
Next Steps 64
Appendix A: Synopsis of Guidance from Existing Policies 65
Appendix B: Spreadsheets for Methodology 66
Appendix C: Case Study Spreadsheet Calculations 67
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 2
Chapter 1. Introduction
This report suggests a method for developing access and replacement parking strategies for
BART’s Joint Development Program. The sections that follow summarize the context for this
issue, identify problems associated with current replacement parking practice, propose general
principles for access/ replacement parking, and recommend an access/ replacement parking
methodology.
The approach taken here leaves room for different station- level solutions. Station context, joint
development strategy, and BART system objectives have a bearing on access/ replacement
parking approaches. The use of performance- based principles is a departure from the uniform
nature of the current 1: 1 replacement practice. The methodology takes into account issues such
as ridership, fiscal health, access mode split, system capacity, supporting Comprehensive Station
Plans, and local and regional context. The method relies on BART staff, in collaboration with
local cities, transit agencies, and developers, in generating and evaluating alternative
access/ replacement parking scenarios for recommendation to the BART Board.
The approach has been developed in consideration of the replacement parking questions likely to
be faced at the Concord, El Cerrito del Norte, MacArthur, and San Leandro stations. These
stations were identified by BART staff as typifying the variety of replacement parking
circumstances. The report uses these stations as prototypes for testing the methodology.
BART Context
BART is a major land owner in the Bay Area. Moreover, its land assets are in strategic, high
value locations in their respective communities. Land that is currently devoted to parking
generates revenue from the fares paid by auto access commuters. The parking itself frequently
does not generate revenues, and in fact creates operating costs for BART. BART’s land assets
can generate additional revenue for BART, either through parking charges, additions to parking
supply, ground rents from joint development, or a combination of these elements. The key to
unlocking this revenue potential is to find creative access/ replacement parking solutions that are
“ win- wins” for BART, local communities and other stakeholders.
Issues concerning access and replacement parking should be viewed from a long- term
perspective since they affect the use of BART land assets, BART operations, and ridership.
Looking forward twenty years, the following issues are likely to be influential:
• Recovery of ridership to the levels seen in 2001 and even greater growth. Roadway
congestion will provide an increasing travel time advantage to BART in the future. This
higher ridership may tax BART’s line haul and access capacity but strongly supports
regional objectives.
• Increased use of parking management techniques at BART stations, ranging from
reserved parking programs, to real time information systems, to parking charges.
• Increased interest in transit- oriented development, driven by changes in demographics,
consumer preferences, land shortages, and planning efforts for livable communities.
• Need for stable, unrestricted revenue sources to augment fare and grant revenues.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 3
In sum, the coming twenty years are likely to be much different than the previous period. Hard
choices will be needed to allocate BART land resources to parking or to station area
development.
BART has a long- standing practice of requiring 1: 1 replacement parking. The 1984 Station Area
Development Policy seeks an economic return from joint development, over and above
replacement parking. It allows for parking goals on a line segment rather than station- by- station
basis ( see Appendix A). The 2003 Strategic Plan Access Management and Improvement
Strategies allows for variation from 1: 1 replacement: “ parking… could be increased or reduced to
achieve higher ridership in the context of overall station area development and access planning.”
The intention was that specific guidance on access targets and other implementation issues
would be developed under the Access policy. Finally, replacement parking is an important issue
for local and regional governments concerned about land use, community development, and
transportation conditions.
Problems
A systematic method is needed to address replacement parking questions in the broader context
of a multimodal access policy. Such a method would respond to the following problems:
• The 1: 1 replacement parking practice is an impediment to many joint development
projects. There are many requests for exceptions. Uncertainty about the policy may
impede development. The replacement parking issue and the value capture issue appear
to be linked, but strict replacement provisions are only one way of capturing value.
• Replacement parking for projects can cost $ 20 - $ 30 million. Often, private and/ or public
resources are not sufficient to fund replacement parking, which prevents otherwise
desirable joint development projects from being implemented. At many stations,
insistence on full replacement parking will delay joint development for many years.
Furthermore, it is unlikely that external funding will become available for replacement
parking on a widespread basis.
• The current replacement parking practice is out of step with BART’s policy direction
because it is focused on only one access mode ( those who drive and park) and it is not
performance based.
• Replacement parking requirements could be specified in the Comprehensive Station
Plans and access plans, but they require a more detailed methodology to support policy
and they would require a collaborative solution with each local land use authority.
• Quantified access targets exist only at the system level; more specific guidance to access
priorities on a station or line basis is not yet available. In the meantime, BART’s Real
Estate department needs guidance for moving forward with development solicitations and
the Access Department seeks more specifics on the targets for parking, bike lockers, bus
bays, etc. needed at each station.
• Currently, the land on which BART parking sits generates operating costs for BART
( parking) but no direct return, except for reserved spaces, the long- term parking program,
and daily paid parking in the West Bay. There is a substantial opportunity cost in
devoting this land to a use that generates no direct return, as compared to the land rent
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 4
that a development project could generate. ( Of course, one must recognize the fares
generated by those who park.) It should also be recognized that parking has a substantial
revenue generating potential in high demand areas, as evidenced by the rate charged in
some private parking facilities next to BART stations.
The Ridership Loss Issue
A key issue with not fully replacing BART parking is the possibility of ridership loss. By way of
introduction, assume one acre of surface parking is eliminated in favor of joint development. As
a surface parking lot, one acre provides 124 spaces. That number of spaces might create 136
daily boardings at that station under the assumptions reviewed in later sections. If half of these
boardings are lost because BART riders are unable/ unwilling to find an alternative BART access
mode, then BART would lose 68 daily boardings or 136 daily rides ( assuming two daily trips per
station boarding). If the surface parking is replaced by residential development at 60 units per
acre, then those residents would generate 66 rides per day under the assumptions reviewed later.
Therefore, unless densities are high and alternative BART access modes are convenient, pure
residential replacement of surface parking is likely to result in a modest ridership loss.
The scenario described above is not a reason to reject scenarios that involve less than 1: 1
replacement parking. Usually the question is not either/ or, parking or development, but what
level of replacement parking is appropriate. Applying a density that is acceptable to the
community to an entire surface parking lot, combined with partial replacement parking, will
produce ridership gains. New access programs can also retain a higher share of BART riders. In
addition, there are other significant benefits to joint development, such as generating ground rent
for BART, securing capital improvements for BART, generating new riders during the mid- day,
creating a safer, more secure station environment, etc. There are also system capacity benefits,
because joint development has demand patterns that have a lesser share of peak period travel, in
contrast to the sharp peak produced by commuters seeking the available parking spaces early in
the peak period. 1 On the other hand, even though most BART spaces do not generate revenue
for BART at this time, they will also become increasingly valued in the future, as the ratio of
spaces to riders declines. The existing inventory of parking may be able to generate significant
additional revenue in the future.
Access/ replacement parking decisions interact with joint development feasibility in numerous
ways. For example, reducing the burden of replacement parking might make a joint
development feasible with partial replacement parking and therefore lead to a development that
otherwise would not be possible. The net effect would be ridership gain. Alternatively, an
increase in development intensity might create project revenues that permit full replacement
parking and ridership gain.
1 The California TOD report indicates that close to 50% of work trip commutes by BART TOD residents occurred
after 9: 00 AM ( Table 5- 10, page 50).
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 5
Process for Developing this Methodology
The issue of replacement parking affects multiple departments within BART ( Planning, Real
Estate and Access) as well as local cities, developers, transit operators, and the community. This
methodology was developed in a sequential manner that incorporated the views of those
constituents. First, principles to guide replacement parking issues were discussed by BART
managers representing the affected internal departments. Then input was sought from four cities
that would serve as test cases for the methodology. In August 2004, informational meetings
were held with planning staff from the cities of Concord, Oakland, El Cerrito, and San Leandro.
Finally, input was sought from developers, cities, transit operators, community members,
funding partners, and elected officials in a series of workshops organized as part of the BART’s
Joint Development Policy Review panel.
The general reaction has been support for BART moving toward a new approach to replacement
parking. Some of the themes that emerged in the discussion include the following. First,
replacement parking decisions affect many stakeholders and require an approach that involves
those multiple stakeholders. The approach taken here is to develop a tool to support BART
working with those stakeholders rather than produce a single “ right” answer in isolation. A
second theme that emerged was the importance of gaining local community support for both
joint development and replacement parking, and learning that there is variation in the community
“ starting points” for considering these issues across the region. Finally, an important concern is
coordinating these decisions with transportation plans of other entities, such as bus operators and
providers of alternative access modes. Expectations about future station access by modes other
than driving and parking are an important factor in the methodology. Ideally, use of this
methodology would spur the development of station specific access targets or other forms of
station access direction that BART could develop in conjunction with local partners.
The methodology is intended to assist in assessing replacement parking and joint development
scenarios that are typical in BART’s service area. If there are proposals that involve different
land uses than those examined here ( residential, retail, and medical office) the methodology can
be augmented to include other land uses or joint development circumstances.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 6
Chapter 2. Proposed Principles to Guide Replacement Parking
Tables 1 and 2 suggest principles to guide decisions about access and replacement parking. They
are elaborated in the methodology that follows. The principles are presented as process
principles ( Table 1) and outcome principles ( Table 2). They are intended to provide a structured
way of evaluating access/ replacement parking scenarios.
Table 1. Process Principles
Process Principles Discussion
1. BART will consider replacement parking as an
integral element of BART’s system- and station-area
access policy.
Access policy/ replacement parking strategy for a station
depends on the characteristics of the station and line segment,
BART system capacity, community goals, etc. At the broadest
level, access/ replacement parking decisions should help carry
out Strategic Plan policies.
2. In considering access and replacement parking
arrangements, BART seeks the creativity of the
development community, local transit partners,
and the support of the local community.
One- for- one replacement provides no opportunity for
innovative access/ replacement parking arrangements that trade
costs and risks of different types. For example, alternative
access improvements might provide a greater level of access
and ridership in situations where replacement parking is very
expensive.
3. Decisions on access and replacement parking
should provide transparency and predictability to
all parties in the development process.
The one- for- one replacement policy is clear and well
understood. However, recent exceptions have begun to
diminish this clarity. Any new approach should provide
transparency, so that stakeholders can understand how
decisions are made, and predictability, so the development
community and local communities can make long- term plans.
Table 2 ( next page) suggests outcome principles to guide access/ replacement parking decisions.
Although these principles are not weighted or prioritized, increasing ridership is the most clearly
articulated principle from Strategic Plan and Access Framework documents.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 7
Table 2. Outcome Principles
Outcome Principles Discussion
1. The net effect of any access/ replacement
parking decision should be to increase BART
ridership.
This report develops a process for assessing the net ridership
impact of a variety of access/ replacement parking scenarios.
This principle flows from the Strategic Plan’s “ Land Use and
Quality of Life” Goal 1 ( maximize transit ridership) and
“ Customer Experience” Goal 2 ( maximize access, convenience,
ease of use).
2. Access/ replacement parking decisions should
support the fiscal health of BART.
There are multiple ways in which this can occur, such as fare
revenue, ground rent, revenue from parking charges, or
reductions in BART’s operating costs. See the Strategic Plan’s
“ Financial Health” Goal 2 ( financial base).
3. Access/ replacement parking decisions
should, taken as a whole, support BART’s goal
of gradually reducing the share of station access
by those who drive alone and park.
In increasing the number of riders within walking distance, large
scale joint development will decrease the drive alone share at
most stations. The key policy question is the degree to which
station parking will continue to be accommodated. Because of
the magnitude of the expected ridership growth, a continued
decrease in the share of those who drive to BART and park may
still mean that the actual number of parking spaces may
increase. See the Strategic Plan’s “ Transit Travel Demand”
Goal 3 ( 10% shift in access modes) and BART’s Access
Targets.
4. Access/ replacement parking decisions should
support the long- term management of BART’s
system and station capacity, recognizing that
long- term growth in ridership will put pressure
on all access modes.
BART needs to consider the ramifications of access/ replacement
parking decisions over the long term, because expected growth
in ridership will put pressure on all access modes. BART
should preserve its ability to respond to changes in
transportation and land use conditions. Congestion pressure is
likely to lead to a greater shift to transit use and non- automobile
access. On the other hand, parking resources will be in high
demand and able to generate more economic return than they do
today. Managing the use of BART parking also provides a
direct way of managing system demand ( e. g., all- day versus
mid- day spaces). BART should develop station- level access
forecasts and targets in support of this methodology. See
Strategic Plan “ Transit Travel Demand” section ( off- peak,
reverse commute travel; supporting transit- oriented
development).
5. Access/ replacement parking decisions should
contribute to achievement of the priorities
established in Comprehensive Station Plans
( CSP), access targets, capacity, and joint
development strategies as they are developed. 2
Station area development and joint development is most
effective when it is broadly supported by BART’s policies. For
example, some stations might be a high priority for parking
while others are appropriate for a transition to non- automobile
access. Successful joint development requires that projects be
financially feasible after all mitigation requirements are applied.
See Strategic Plan’s “ Land Use and Quality of Life” Goals 1
and 2 ( TOD strategies).
2 The land use element of the CSP summarizes provisions from locally adopted land use plans. They do not
introduce a land use plan around a station that differs from what is locally adopted. Proposed changes to station land
are developed in collaboration with the local authority. Therefore, the land use elements of the CSPs are consistent
with the local plans criterion discussed in Outcome Criterion 6.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 8
Table 2. Outcome Principles ( continued)
Outcome Principles Discussion
6. Access/ replacement parking decisions should
have the effect of encouraging context-appropriate
and well- designed joint
development projects that have the support of
local cities and community groups around
stations. They should be supported by
modifications in local requirements to support
TOD.
Since land use and local circulation is the purview of local
government, access/ replacement parking decisions should
produce developments that address their concerns while
enhancing long- term value capture for BART. Recognizing
community preferences can improve the quality of TOD
projects. In turn, local ordinance provisions regarding minimum
parking requirements, mixed- use development, and density
should support replacement parking decisions. See Strategic
Plan’s “ Land Use and Quality of Life: Goals 1 and 2 ( TOD
strategies).
7. Access/ replacement parking decisions should
support regional objectives concerning growth
management, housing provision, housing
affordability, transit ridership, traffic
congestion reduction, air quality, water quality,
etc.
Transit- oriented development supports most of the regional
objectives concerning the growth management, housing,
transportation, and the environment. See Strategic Plan’s “ Land
Use and Quality of Life: Goals 1 and 2 ( TOD strategies).
The methodology anticipates that there may be additional criteria that apply to specific station
areas and allows for that possibility. An example issue is that the parking resources of a station,
while currently generating little revenue from parking charges, might have the potential to
generate significant revenue from parking in the future. Reducing the BART parking inventory
at such a station may have the effect of precluding that revenue generation in the future. Of
course, if the demand for parking is high enough, there would be a justification for acquiring
additional land and constructing additional parking at that time. If this is an issue at a particular
station, a criterion addressing lost revenue potential of priced parking could be introduced.
Similarly, if a station had particular environmental justice issues relating to access to BART, an
environmental justice criterion could be included.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 9
Chapter 3. A Methodology for Access/ Replacement Parking Analysis
The tasks, tables and checklists that follow propose a process for BART staff in developing
recommendations concerning access and replacement parking for joint development projects.
This process is also intended to provide developers and other stakeholders with an indication of
the way BART will approach these issues on a site specific basis.
Step 1. Policy and context issues
Step 2. Build scenarios
Step 3. Evaluate scenarios
Step 4. Select preferred strategy and write specifications
Step 1. Summarize key policy and context issues
The first tasks are to collect the information shown in Table 3 for the station in question and
conduct an assessment of replacement parking issues as shown in Table 4. As part of this
process, an inventory of other types of access improvements, such as bus, shuttle, taxi, drop- off,
car share or ridesharing should be developed.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 10
Table 3. Station Information Profile
Category Characteristic Condition
Station type
Transportation function
Station weekday ridership ‘ 04 ( exits)
Average weekday round trip fare paid from station
Weighted average service density
Station
characteristics
Station draw
Station area Population w/ in ½ mile
characteristics Employment w/ in ½ mile
BART parking
Parking utilization @ 1 PM
Reliance on parking ( number of BART spaces per
weekday rider)
Parking
Other parking- related access issues, e. g., overflow
parking
Transit
Shuttles
Pedestrian
Carpooling
Other access
modes
Bicycle
BART Plans Access plan?
Comprehensive Station Plan?
City Plans
Transit Operator Plans
Status of development solicitation
A variety of BART data sources would be used to provide information on station characteristics.
Census tabulations provide station area characteristics and could be supplemented with local
data. The most recent information on trip making for those who drive to the station is the
addresses of people who participate in the BART reserved parking program. A map showing the
distribution of these addresses indicates the station “ draw” and the possibilities for shifting
parking demand to other stations. This data might have bias in that those who participate in this
program may have a higher average income than all of those who park at BART stations. A
second data source for this information is the 1998 BART patron survey, which shows access
patterns of all station patrons. When this survey is replicated it will provide an updated
measurement of the draw of each station. When a joint development is proposed, there are
opportunities to require station specific surveys of station access modes.
Regarding parking, an example of an “ other parking- related access issue” might be the
availability of underused surface or structure parking in the station area, or available land that
might provide parking in a more efficient manner than the BART station- area parcels.
Additional station area information may be appropriate for display in Table 3, such as distance to
major collector streets and freeways and a congestion rating for the station area. This
information could be produced as part of BART Access Plans or city/ developer studies of access.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 11
Table 4. Replacement Parking Possibilities
Issue Status
Is station parking fully utilized?
Is nearby, non- BART parking fully utilized?
Can replacement parking be provided off- site
or using shared parking arrangements?
Can parking demand be shifted to other
stations?
Are there possibilities for replacement parking
funding from other parties ( e. g., grant funds,
redevelopment)?
What is city perspective on deviation from 1: 1
replacement parking?
What other planning issues exist?
What is the parking management readiness in
the station area, i. e., cities and property owners
have spillover prevention programs ready ( e. g.,
permits, meters, time limits)?
Each of the replacement parking possibilities may require elaboration. For example, if shared
parking is possibile, the analysis should consider the degree of control over the parking by
BART, the allocation of revenues and expenses, and operations and management. It may be that
some types of parking are not suited for sharing with commuter parking ( e. g., residential
parking) while others are a better fit ( e. g., movie theatre parking).
From this information, the analyst would then summarize the top five policy context issues for
the station, in rank order. Table 5 would summarize the station and joint development context. A
key element for BART is assessing whether local partners ( cities, transit operators, etc.) are
willing to make decisions that will support the replacement parking scenario being considered by
BART.
Table 5. Top Five Station Policy and Context Issues
Issue Relevance to the Access/ Replacement Parking
From this analysis, BART staff, working with the local land use jurisdiction, would determine if
there are additional criteria that should be used in the evaluation of access/ replacement parking
alternatives. Those criteria would be added to Table 9.
Step 2. Build scenarios
The method proposed here involves building a series of development and access/ replacement
parking scenarios. The first step is to summarize the general parameters of the joint development
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 12
proposal. The parameters would be based on assessments of market demand in the station area,
developers’ proposals, city plans and regulations, and BART’s broader station objectives.
Table 6 would be used to summarize key information on development size and parking for the
joint development project. This can be done in two ways. First, the same joint development
project could be assumed under all access/ replacement parking scenarios. By holding
development size constant, one can isolate the effect of the different access/ replacement parking
scenarios. Alternatively, the scenarios may include different development and
access/ replacement parking scenarios. The latter process may be more realistic since
replacement parking alternatives affect development feasibility, site design and many other
factors ( e. g., a relaxed replacement parking obligation might free up more site area and local
traffic capacity for housing). Conversely, permitting more development intensity will create a
higher level of financial return for the developer, which in turn would make more resources
available for replacement parking.
The scenarios may also involve different approaches to parking for the joint development itself,
stemming from assumptions about changes in automobile ownership and travel associated with
households living near transit. The category “ parking spaces provided for joint development”
would reflect any assumed adjustments to standard city code requirements. Note that these
tables do not include traffic impact analysis— it is assumed this information would be provided
through separate studies by the city and the developer. It is important to note, however, that
adjustments to standard trip generation rates may be appropriate given assumptions about
parking supply, pricing and the mixed- use nature of the scenarios.
This methodology suggests that three scenarios be developed for testing, but this is not intended
as a rigid procedure. Depending on circumstances, between two and five scenarios might be
developed. The idea is to have interaction between BART departments, and between BART and
city partners, the development community and local transit providers in creating scenarios. It is
likely that there would be multiple iterations in creating these scenarios and plenty of trial runs to
converge on a set of scenarios that are both realistic and innovative.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 13
Table 6. Joint Development Scenarios
Existing
Condition
Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
Size of development parcel
# units residential ( rental)
# units for sale housing
Retail ( sf)
Other land use ( sf)
# of BART parking spaces on
development site
Unused spaces at BART station
assumed to be available for those
displaced by development
Off- site replacement of BART
spaces ( in station area)
BART patron parking resources at
another station area ( BART or non-
BART facilities)
Parking spaces provided for joint
development
BART parking spaces shared with
the joint development
Total non- shared spaces provided
( BART + joint development)
Parking charges on the BART
parking
New transit/ shuttle programs
New carpool program/ incentives
New walk/ bike programs
New on- street parking management
programs ( e. g., permit or time
limits)
Other access improvements
Economic issues
Local barriers to TOD and how they
are addressed
Step 3. Evaluate scenarios
Having built three development and access/ replacement parking scenarios, the next step is to
evaluate those scenarios against the proposed principles. The first task is to assess ridership
effects, according to ridership loss/ gain by changes in existing station parking, and ridership gain
associated with the joint development project and other factors. Appendix B provides
spreadsheets for trip generation from joint development, ridership impact from parking pricing,
and ridership impact from changes in station parking supply.
The steps used in estimating ridership from the joint development include building
assumptions about trip rates from the ITE Trip Generation rates, then dividing trips into work
and non- work trip purposes, and then applying a mode split assumption to those trips. This
yields the number of BART trips expected from the joint development. The spreadsheets allow
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 14
for the use of locally preferred methods. For example, if a city prefers to use 7th Edition trip
generation rates ( instead of the 6th Edition) they can easily be adjusted. If local data exists that
suggest different rates, or different mode splits, those can be applied as well. 3 The reliance on
adjustment factors to ITE rates point out the need for TOD- specific trip generation rates that can
be matched to station characteristics. It is hoped that future research initiatives will provide this
data for the Bay Area.
The percent of BART capture is derived primarily from the Travel Characteristics of TOD in
California report, with adjustments noted when station conditions differed from the project
studied in that report. TOD trip generation and mode split is an area where expert judgment is
needed, because the impact of development near stations can vary significantly ( e. g., there is a
large difference in automobile and transit trips between a true TOD with significant transit use
versus what is often termed as a “ transit adjacent development” that is located next to transit but
has little functional relationship).
The steps used in estimating the impact of parking charges are based on the parking conditions
at the station. If station parking is 90% full by 9: 00 AM, it is assumed that latent demand would
replace riders who stopped using BART because of parking charges. If parking is not 90% full
by 9: 00 AM, the methodology applies an elasticity to the combined fare and parking charge to
estimate the number of boarders potentially lost. The methodology then asks the analyst to
consider likely shifts to other BART access modes and estimate the expected ridership loss. Key
assumptions in this methodology are the elasticity and the percent of potentially lost BART
riders who find another access mode. 4
The steps used in estimating the impact of changes in parking supply are based on the parking
conditions that exist at the station. If there are unused spaces at 9: 00 AM that exceed the amount
of the parking space reduction, there is no net reduction. If there is a net reduction or increase,
the methodology considers space turnover, persons per car, and potential diversion to other
BART access modes in estimating impact on ridership loss ( or gain).
3 The trip generation rate used for apartments is 6.63 trip ends per unit, which when divided between work and non-work
trips ( at a 25/ 75 split), produces 1.65 work trips per unit. One might expect at least two work trip ends per
household, if each household included a worker. The following describes some reasons why this is not supported by
the data.
• TOD households, like apartment households, are smaller than average ( 83.2% of households in the Travel
Characteristics of TOD in California study were between 1 and 2 persons, compared to 58.1% in the
comparison cities). Smaller households have fewer workers, fewer work trips, and fewer total trips.
• Not all households have a worker ( age, employment status). For example, Travel Characteristics of TOD in
California asked respondents to be the primary worker in the household, but 6.1 percent of respondents did
not report a work trip as one of their three main trips.
• Among household workers, some work at home ( about 4 percent in the Bay Area).
• Among household workers, not all workers who work outside the home make a trip on a given day
( absenteeism, vacations, alternative work schedules, part- time work). ITE rates measure actual trip
generation on a specific day, not the potential generation if everyone who worked took a work trip that day.
Further research is needed on TOD trip generation rates. The effect of this methodology is to be conservative about
estimating the possible ridership gains from joint development. This is a prudent position given the state of research
on this subject. Should additional trip generation studies become available, they can easily be incorporated into the
methodology.
4 The case studies use the station access mode split identified in the 1999 BART Station Profile Study as a basis for
estimating shift to other access modes.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 15
The assessment of ridership and parking impacts must be based on assumptions about the control
of spillover parking. If on- street parking regulations do not prevent spillover parking, impacts
could occur and should be assessed. In those situations, the analysis may recommend parking
spillover control measure as part of the scenario ( e. g., permit parking programs, parking time
limits, etc.).
Table 7 would be used to summarize the results of these analyses. The scenarios express the
change from the existing conditions. There is opportunity in this methodology to incorporate
local data, if for example, a developer commissioned access studies and to develop refinements
to the processes or assumptions in the ridership impact procedures.
Table 7. Joint Development Ridership Impact
Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
Weekday riders associated with
joint development
Quantitative Quantitative Quantitative
Change in weekday riders
associated with parking/ access
programs
Quantitative Quantitative Quantitative
Net impact on BART boardings Quantitative Quantitative Quantitative
Estimated effect on drive alone
share at station
Qualitative Qualitative Qualitative
The next step is to understand the impacts of the scenario on BART’s fiscal position. Note that
this does not consider the fiscal issues of other entities, such as cities or bus operators. It is
assumed that they would do their own analyses as they enter into negotiations with BART
over joint development strategies. A city’s calculations would consider issues such as effects
on property and sales taxes, user fees, demands for services, etc. Of course, the replacement
parking issue may be approached by BART and the city as a collaborative effort – e. g., applying
both ground rent and tax increment to the issue. Bus operators would want to consider revenues
and costs associated with tapping a new bus access market. BART would engage these other
entities in discussions regarding their own fiscal analysis so that any assumptions that BART
makes about development approvals, transit service assumptions, etc. are reasonable.
Table 8 suggests the range of BART fiscal issues that should be addressed ( a spreadsheet in
Appendix B provides the details). They include the fare revenue impact of changes in station
ridership5, revenue from parking charges6, revenue from ground rent associated with a change in
replacement parking policy, and revenue from partnerships/ external grants.
The change in ground rent is the increase in payment possible to BART because of the
developer’s reduced expenditure on replacement parking. The method used to estimate this
number is to make an estimate of fair market land value and subtract the capital cost of
5 Daily ridership is converted to annual ridership using a factor of 296 recommended by BART. Revenue calculated
as gross annual fare times 0.9 to account for discount fares, per BART.
6 BART Access Department recommends a capital cost of $ 147.50 per space for parking/ add fare machines and
signs, and collection. This capital cost is annualized using a 0.15 factor. Operating costs, including collection,
enforcement and O& M is assumed to be 10% of revenue for monthly reserved program and 30% of revenue for
daily paid parking.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 16
replacement parking. The residual is then multiplied by the BART ground lease guideline of 10
percent to estimate ground rent. This approach assumes development feasibility and normal
developer profit without the replacement parking obligation. The ground rent revenue does
not include BART’s participation in other revenue streams or the greater level of ground
rent that is possible if higher development intensities are permitted or the impact of
reduced parking requirements for the joint development itself. More detailed market
demand and pro forma feasibility analyses are required to identify the total ground rent and other
revenue stream implications of each scenario.
The spreadsheet also allows the analyst to provide assumptions on parking capital costs and the
annualization factor. Table 8 can also account for changes in BART’s operating costs, for
parking7 and other direct BART capital or operating access expenditures ( e. g., running a new
bike program). If shifts to other access modes such as bus service are assumed in the estimations
of parking pricing or supply reductions, the costs of added service should be calculated if
capacity does not presently exist on those modes. Finally, maintenance costs associated with a
shift from surface parking to parking structures should be added to Table 8. All data reported in
Table 8 represent the change from existing conditions.
Table 8. BART Fiscal Checklist
Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
Fares from net change in
station riders
Parking charges ( net)
Ground rent associated with
change in replacement
parking
Annual revenue
factors
Annualized value of external
grant/ partnership support for
parking development
Change in operating costs for
BART parking
( maintenance, security)
New operating costs for
BART service
BART part. in operating
costs for new access modes
Annual cost factors
BART participation in
annualized cost of access
capital improvements
Net annual impact ( sum of revenues and costs)
This process includes qualitative analysis of four other factors as shown in Table 9: long term
BART capacity, the degree to which the scenario supports BART’s plans, the degree to which
7 Parking operating costs are estimated at $ 353 per year for surface spaces and $ 537 per year for structures, based on
BART data inflated to 2004 dollars. The methodology accounts for parking operating costs associated with the
change in the number of BART parking spaces and any shift from surface to structure parking ( which increases the
per space operating cost).
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 17
the scenario supports local partnerships for context- appropriate development, and the degree to
which the scenario supports regional goals.
With regard to long- term BART line- haul capacity, the cost of added riders is zero if capacity
exists on the lines serving the station to accommodate the joint development ridership without
additional capital or operating cost. This is justified for many existing stations because: 1)
current ridership is below peak levels of the late 1990s, indicating physical capacity exists, and
2) the CA TOD study indicates that almost 50% of BART TOD commuters commute after 9: 00
AM, suggesting that significant joint development ridership demand will be outside the peak
period. Of course, there may be circumstances where joint development does necessitate
improvements to line or station capacity. Under these circumstances, these costs should be
estimated and included based on BART’s capacity studies and engineering estimates.
There are also issues associated with long- term station access capacity that should be
considered. For example, by doing a sensitivity analysis on the access mode shift that would be
required by growth in ridership, changes in parking supply, and changes in bus access to the
station, BART could analyze the implications of the scenarios for the ability to deliver people to
the station over the long term. The long- term prospect for bus service to stations is a particularly
significant issue given changes in the funding and service priorities of bus transit providers. This
analysis may raise issues concerning the value of retaining surface parking so that at some future
point BART could provide more station parking by constructing a structure. This question
should be addressed in terms of the opportunity cost of retaining land in surface parking and the
possibilities for adding parking or other access capacity outside BART’s parcels ( using a joint
powers authority, for example).
With regard to support for BART plans, staff would review the CSP, Access Plans and other
BART policy guidance to evaluate the scenarios. Information would be needed on the relation of
station opportunities to the surrounding area and other stations. Possibilities for partnerships
involving joint power authorities should be considered if they offer opportunities to better locate
station area parking and other land uses.
With regard to local goals, local partnerships and support, staff would review the local general
plan, specific plans, redevelopment plans, ordinances, and capital improvement strategies to
make a determination in consultation with the city. In some cases, the city may be reviewing and
updating a concept plan or specific plan, which provides an opportunity to raise and resolve
access/ replacement parking issues. This element also involves examining local partnership
opportunities, such as shuttle initiatives. Issues of local street capacity, street classification,
existing and projected Level of Service, costs of street improvements, and local parking issues
are all highly relevant to the evaluation of the scenarios. From BART’s perspective, if
significant barriers to TOD exist, such as certain density limitations or excessive parking
requirements, the methodology should assess the prospects of reducing or eliminating them.
The final qualitative evaluation criterion concerns regional goals. Staff would evaluate the
scenarios in terms of the degree to which they support regional goals concerning growth
management, transit ridership, air quality, housing, environmental justice, etc.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 18
Table 9: Summary Evaluation Matrix
Criterion Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
Ridership: net annual ridership
impact ( from Table 7)
Revenues and costs: net annual
impact, $/ year ( from Table 8)
Station access mode: change in
drive alone % ( from Table 7)
Long- term BART capacity
( line haul, station, and station
access)
BART plans: support access
plan and capacity analysis from
Comprehensive Station Plans,
access targets, joint development
goals ( qualitative)
Local goals: Context- appropriate
and well- designed; local support,
partnerships, reduce TOD
barriers ( qualitative).
Regional goals: e. g., provision
of housing, housing affordability,
congestion, air quality, etc.
( qualitative)
Other station- specific criteria
Other station- specific criteria
Rating schemes can be used to convert the quantitative information to rating scales so that all
principles are compared on an equal basis ( e. g., all information could be rated “+”, “ no effect”,
or “-”). However, this loses the precision in the quantitative principles, and that precision might
be the critical information in distinguishing between scenarios. Given that the methodology will
likely be used collaboratively with decision making bodies and local cities, the presentation
method shown in Table 9 provides an open and detailed form of presentation that is best suited to
that use.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 19
Step 4. Select preferred strategy and write development specifications
Based on the analysis in Table 9, BART staff, working with local jurisdictions, would
recommend a joint development and access/ replacement parking scenario. The joint
development and access/ replacement parking scenario could then be clearly communicated in
request for proposals. Clearly, there is interaction between access/ replacement parking strategies
and the form of the joint development proposal, so multiple iterations of the evaluation method
are likely. Because of the complex interplay of factors that affect a joint development, it is not
suggested that a scoring system be developed. Rather, the display of evaluation results shown on
Table 9 can be used as a basis for staff and Board discussions about innovative and effective
access/ replacement parking decisions. Detailed market demand and pro forma feasibility studies
would be needed to determine with precision the amount of ground rent and other revenues
BART should expect from joint development projects. In addition, BART needs a good sense of
what the future holds for bus access to the station.
As mentioned, cities, other transit agencies, and other partners would develop their own
evaluations. For example, if joint development is made possible on a site that formerly was
surface parking, the city will receive property tax returns that otherwise might not have been
possible. There may be important changes to be accounted for in sales taxes, bed taxes and other
taxes, as well as changes in cost for city services and infrastructure upgrades. Similarly, a bus
operator may be able to tap a new market by virtue of a program that improved bus access.
Alternatively, if the bus provider plans service reductions because of budget constraints, that
would have be factored into the evaluation. Since one of BART’s goals in joint development is
to collaborate with cities and other parties, the idea proposed here is a sharing of information
about each party's respective assessments.
In the past, the replacement parking question has been a critical factor in determining the
feasibility of joint development. If this issue is resolved through the evaluation procedure
proposed here, there may be more attention devoted to other factors that are acting as barriers,
such as local code- required parking, restrictions on mixed uses, height restrictions, density
restrictions, use of standard ITE trip generation rates in traffic impact analysis, and local code
issues related to roadway widths, pedestrian facilities, and other factors. In addition,
stakeholders emphasized the importance of including transit agencies in this process, as
uncertainty exists about future service levels.
Based on this evaluation, BART staff would develop negotiation objectives in collaboration with
the local jurisdiction that would be included in requests for proposals and would be the basis for
negotiations with developers and other parties. It may also be that the process alerts BART,
cities and other parties to other planning efforts or new programs or services that are needed
before joint development can proceed. As appropriate, this methodology could be shared with
developers and local partners as part of an iterative process of project definition. Provisions
would be memorialized in development agreements, and those that are ongoing, such as
operating access modes, could be written as covenants on the project title.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 20
Chapter 4. Case Studies
Introduction to Case Studies
Access/ replacement parking strategy should vary across BART stations, depending on local
circumstances. This section explores the characteristics of four stations being used to test this
methodology: Concord, El Cerrito del Norte, MacArthur, and San Leandro.
The comparison shown on Table 10 indicates that although the four stations have similar
ridership levels, there is significant variation in their reliance on parking. MacArthur, with an
urban context and high pedestrian access levels, generates almost 10 trips per day per parking
space, while San Leandro generates around four trips per day per parking space. The
proportional ridership effect of less than full replacement parking would be less at a station such
as MacArthur. Stations with a higher level of transit service, such as El Cerrito del Norte,
provide greater access options to any patrons who lose a parking space. There are also
differences in the level of BART service and the density of the surrounding areas, with
MacArthur and San Leandro having higher levels of BART service. Regarding density,
MacArthur stands out with a high population density, while El Cerrito del Norte has a lower-than-
average employment density.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 21
Table 10. Comparison of Cases
Concord El Cerrito del
Norte
MacArthur San Leandro
Station type* Suburban center Urban
neighborhood
Urban
neighborhood
Suburban center
Transportation
function
Destination and
origin
Origin Origin and
destination
Origin and
destination
Station ridership
( exits)**
5,140 7,258 6,028 4,790
Station
characteristics
Weighted average
service density***
7.6 trains/ hr 14 trains/ hr 23 trains/ hr 21.6 trains/ hr
Population w/ in ½
mile**
Station area 4,977 6,206 9,531 7,761
characteristics
Employment w/ in
½ mile**
5,324 1,711 5,619 5,434
BART
parking*****
2,367 2,198 603 1,234
Parking utilization
@ 1 PM*****
90% 100% 100% 100%
Reliance on
parking ( space per
rider)
0.46 0.31 0.10 0.26
Percent transit
access****
9% 27% 20% 15%
Percent
walk/ bike****
13% 13% 31% 20%
Parking and
access
Other access issues North Concord
and Concord
have parking
available
Station
functions as a
terminal station
because of
freeway access
Significant
shuttle service
from employers;
security issues
exist
Limited regional
street access
Trends Future changes that
affect
access/ parking
City plans call
for denser,
clustered
development
Possible rail
transit
extensions in
this corridor
Possibility to
link MacArthur
supply with
West Oakland
supply
Would be
impacted by
proposed San
Jose service
* From station spreadsheet prepared by the Center for Transit Oriented Development, dated 7/ 29/ 04
** From station spreadsheet prepared by F& P Associates, dated 8/ 2/ 04
*** Tabulations provided by BART staff.
**** From BART Station Profile Study, BART Office of External Affairs, August 1999.
***** From BART Stations- Parking Facility Occupancy Survey, Wilbur Smith Associates, April 20- May 6, 2004.
The sections that follow apply the methodology to each of the four case study stations.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 22
Concord Case Study
Overview
The Concord station is a former end- of- the- line station on the C Line. BART now provides two
stops beyond the Concord station. Pressure on Concord’s parking facilities has been moderated
by the addition of additional parking resources at North Concord and Pittsburg/ Bay Point. This
is the only case study station where the parking does not fill completely. Some of the parking is
located more than ¼ mile from the BART faregates, which may be a deterrent to its use.
The city and BART are interested in joint development but the replacement parking issue has
been an impediment to progress. For example, the Avalon Bay proposal ( a response to a BART-issued
RFP) called for full ground rent and partial tax increment contribution to fund
replacement parking.
There are many possibilities for cooperation/ coordinated planning at this station. One possibility
is linking the development of BART’s southernmost parking lot and the nearby City police
parking facility. Also, the city owns a large parcel next to BART’s land that could be
coordinated with an RFP. Finally, the nearby Bank of America has a large parking facility that
might provide a shared parking opportunity.
The City has endorsed an urban concept for downtown. The new General Plan removes some
planned road widenings in support of pedestrian access. The main focus for retail uses is the
nearby Todos Santos Plaza, not the station area. The downtown area has parking time limits but
no parking charges. Figures 1 provides an image of the prospective joint development site.
Figures 2 and 3 show the station and parking areas. Tables 11 and 12 and Figure 4 summarize
station context, access, and replacement parking circumstances.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 23
Figure 1. Concord Joint Development Site
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 24
Figure 2. Concord Station and Parking Area ( north portion)
Figure 3. Concord Station and Parking Area ( south portion)
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 25
Table 11. Concord Station Context
Category Characteristic Condition
Station type* Suburban center
Transportation function Destination and Origin
Station weekday ridership ‘ 04
( exits)**
5,140
Average weekday round trip fare paid
from station
$ 6.66
Weighted average service density*** 7.6 trains per hour
Station
characteristics
Station draw A one mile radius from station, with a corridor running
east- south- east from station for approximately 6 miles
Station area Population w/ in ½ mile** 4,977
characteristics Employment w/ in ½ mile** 5,324
BART parking***** 2,367 ( of which 854 is in garage)
Parking utilization @ 1 PM***** 90%
Reliance on parking ( number of
BART spaces per weekday rider)
0.48
Parking
Other parking- related access issues Pressure on station parking was somewhat reduced
when service was extended and Concord was no longer
an end- of- the- line station.
Transit**** Station transit access is 9%. Clayton Road and
Monument Road corridors are the station’s busiest bus
lines. County Connections is considering service
reductions in the station area. BART, City, and MTC
have invested in intermodal improvements at the
station.
Shuttles Bank of America and other employers have shuttles.
Pedestrian**** Station pedestrian access is 11%. Seeking better
pedestrian access on Oak Street and across Monument
from new development.
Other access
modes
Bicycle**** Station bicycle access is 2%. Bicycle access growth
potential identified as “ medium” and bicycle parking
improvement identified as “ medium”.
BART Plans Access plan? No
Comprehensive Station Plan No
City Plans Strategic Plan adopted
Transit Operator Plans Not known.
Status of development solicitation City and BART are conducting discussions with
developers to assess their interest and the feasibility of
development; considering reauthorizing solicitation.
* From station spreadsheet prepared by the Center for Transit Oriented Development, dated 7/ 29/ 04
** From station spreadsheet prepared by F& P Associates, dated 8/ 2/ 04
*** Tabulations provided by BART staff.
**** From BART Station Profile Study, BART Office of External Affairs, August 1999.
***** From BART Stations- Parking Facility Occupancy Survey, Wilbur Smith Associates, April 20- May 6, 2004, updated by
Wilbur Smith for Concord 10/ 04.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 26
Figure 4 shows the home address of people participating in the reserved parking program. This
provides a current assessment of the station’s draw among automobile drivers. This distribution
does not necessarily represent all drivers to the station, because it captures only those who
choose to participate in the reserved parking program.
Figure 4. Station Draw for Concord Station ( reserved parking participants)
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 27
Table 12. Concord Replacement Parking Possibilities
Issue Status
Is station parking fully
utilized?
Monitoring data indicate 90% occupancy as of 10/ 04. The Mesa Street lot never
fills. It is estimated that 229 parking spaces are available. Some of these spaces are
more than ¼ mile from the station faregates.
Is nearby, non- BART
parking fully utilized?
No known.
Can replacement parking
be provided off- site or in
shared arrangements?
There are may be opportunities to shift the location of replacement parking between
BART parcels, city land, and private development. If properly designed, there are
opportunities for shared parking with new residential developments ( e. g., visitor
spaces are shared).
Can parking demand be
shifted to other stations?
North Concord station has capacity ( currently 926 spaces are available at 1: 00 PM).
City officials indicated that roadway capacity improvements would be needed to
fully serve station ( road through Naval Weapons Base). The cost of the road is
estimated at $ 14 million. City is concerned about North Concord access and
spillover at Concord. Trip origins from the 1998 survey indicate that most riders
who drive to the Concord station would have to backtrack to park at the North
Concord station, which limits the potential of this strategy. Using North Concord
also involves extra fare and extra travel time. Planned patron surveys will shed
light on the commuting shed of each of these stations.
Are there possibilities for
replacement parking
funding from other parties
( e. g., grant funds,
redevelopment)?
Possible use of tax increment funds. No grant funds pending or currently available.
What is the city perspective
on deviation from 1: 1
replacement parking?
General approach in GP calls for dense, walk- oriented development. City wants to
encourage cluster development and increase pedestrian activity. City staff is
concerned about spillover parking but is interested in exploring less than 1: 1
parking.
What other planning issues
exist?
Station area is redevelopment project area. Station has shifted in function from an
end- of- the- line station to a mid- line station.
What is the parking
management readiness in
the station area, i. e., does
city and property owners
have spillover prevention
programs ready ( e. g.,
permits, meters, time
limits)?
Parking time limits are used in the downtown area. Parking permit program
( permitting four- hour parking without permit) exists in residential areas adjacent to
the station. Parking pricing is not used, in on- street or off- street facilities. Parking
pricing might be of concern because of competition with areas providing free
parking. There might be concerns about parking charges at the BART station,
because of spillover issues. When station was the end of the line, spillover parking
extended up to one mile from the station.
Taking into account the information provided on Tables 11, 12 and Figure 4, Table 13 presents
the top five station policy and context issues, in rank order. This provides a concise summary of
the policy and context issues.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 28
Table 13. Top Five Concord Policy and Context Issues
Issue Relevance to the Access/ Replacement Parking
1) Possibilities exist for coordinated development in
the station area, with the City and major land
owners.
Coordinated parking provision and shared parking are
possible if BART and other property owners act in concert.
An example is the parcel used by the Police Station, which is
adjacent to a long narrow BART surface parking lot. This
can provide improvements in land use allocation, urban
design, and efficient provision of parking.
2) The Mesa Street parking lot area does not
currently fill on a daily basis. Although this lot is
not commuters’ first choice for parking location, it
does represent a parking inventory that could be
used if less than full replacement parking occurs.
Parking demand can be shifted from potential BART
development sites immediately adjacent to the station to the
southern lot.
3) Presence of major employers in station area. There is a possibility for improved station area shuttle
systems. Employer shuttles can also provide accessibility to
the community ( example Kaiser shuttle at MacArthur).
4) Pedestrian access is good for a suburban station;
joint development and adjacent transit- oriented
development could increase the pedestrian
orientation of the station.
Pedestrian improvements should be a high priority for access
improvements, e. g., Oak Street and from new development
across Monument ( Galindo) Boulevard.
5) There is underutilized parking at North Concord
station.
Creates possibility for shifting demand to North Concord
through differential pricing. However, many Concord
parkers would have to double back to reach North Concord.
The city has expressed concerns about the adequacy of
roadway access to North Concord.
Scenario Assumptions
The following summarizes the assumptions used in developing three scenarios for development,
access and replacement parking. The Avalon Bay development proposal provided an
information source for development scenarios, in terms of development intensity and
development- provided parking. These assumptions are detailed in Table 14.
• Development site is approximately 7.8 acres on the north/ west side of the station,
displacing 532 surface parking spaces.
• Scenario A ( Conservative): 420 units, all at 1.5 parking spaces per unit. Full replacement
parking. No daily parking charges.
• Scenario B ( Moderate): 487 units, four story buildings, 370 @ 1 parking space per unit,
117 @ 1.5 parking spaces per unit. 75% replacement parking. Sufficient excess capacity
exists in the Mesa lot to accommodate the loss of spaces.
• Scenario C ( Aggressive): 615 units, five story buildings, 463 @ 1 parking space per unit,
152 @ 1.5 parking spaces per unit. 50% replacement parking. $ 1 per day parking
charges on 75% of all station parking spaces, existing reserved parking program
continues, $ 50,000 annual contribution to shuttle bus partnership, and a one- half million
dollar BART contribution to pedestrian improvements in the station area. Sufficient
excess capacity exists in the Mesa lot to accommodate 229 of the 266 lost spaces.
Scenario C creates an effective loss of 37 spaces.
• All scenarios assume 5,000 square feet of retail without any dedicated parking.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 29
Table 14. Concord Station Joint Development and Access/ Replacement Parking Scenarios
Existing
Condition
Scenario A: Conservative,
100% replacement
Scenario B: Moderate,
75% replacement, use
existing unused parking
Scenario C: Aggressive, 50%
replacement, use existing
unused parking, ped., shuttle
improvements
# units residential ( rental) 0 420 487 615
Retail ( sf) 0 5,000 5,000 5,000
# of BART parking spaces provided on
development site
532 532 399 266
Parking spaces for joint development 630 546 691
BART parking spaces shared with the
joint development
0 0 50
Total non- shared spaces built ( BART +
joint development)
1,162 945 957
Parking charges on the BART parking
$ 0, $ 42/ mo. on
29 reserved
$ 0, $ 42/ mo. on 29 reserved $ 0, $ 42/ mo. on 29 reserved $ 42/ mo. on 29 reserved; $ 1/
day on 1,576 BART spaces
New transit/ shuttle programs None None BART contributes $ 50,000 per
year to shuttle consortium.
New walk/ bike programs
None None Ped. linkages to Monument
Blvd. BART provides $ 0.5
million in partnership
New on- street parking management
programs ( e. g., permit or time limits)
None None Expand permit parking
program to prevent spillover
Economic issues Full replacement parking may
require all ground lease
revenue and a portion of tax
increment.
Developer saves $ 1.99
million in parking
construction @ $ 15k per
space. More units increase
potential ground rent.
Developer saves $ 3.99 m. in
parking construction @ $ 15k
per space. Even more units
increase potential ground rent.
Local barriers to TOD and how they are
addressed
Improved financial
performance of project.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 30
Table 15 summarizes the ridership impacts of the three scenarios. No ridership impact is
predicted from not fully replacing parking in Scenarios B because unused spaces in the Mesa
street southern BART lot are available for those displaced by the joint development. Scenario C
is almost the same.
Scenarios A and B show ridership gains that are associated with the transit trips from the joint
development. Scenario C shows a parking- related ridership decrease because of $ 1 per day
parking charge on 75% of the spaces, but overall there is a ridership gain because of the joint
development. This parking- related ridership loss occurs because the current parking lot is not
full, meaning that they are not likely latent replacements for any rider discouraged by the
introduction of parking charges.
Table 15. Concord Joint Development Ridership Impact
Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
Weekday riders associated with
joint development
478 551 691
Change in weekday riders
associated with BART parking and
access
0 0 ( 172)
Net impact on BART boardings 478 551 519
Reduction in drive alone share Least Middle Most
Table 16 summarizes the fiscal impacts of the three scenarios.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 31
Table 16. Concord Fiscal Checklist ( change from existing condition)
Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
Fares from net change in
riders $ 423,721 $ 488,889 $ 460,368
Parking charges ( net)
$ 0
$ 0
$ 251,923
Ground rent associated with
change in replacement
parking8
$ 136,362 $ 335,862 $ 535,362
Annual revenue
factors…
Annualized value of external
grant/ partnership support
$ 0 $ 0 $ 0
BART parking operating
costs ( maint., security,) 9
($ 98,197) ($ 26,693) $ 44,810
New operating costs for
BART service
$ 0 $ 0 $ 0
BART part. in operating
costs for new access modes
$ 0 $ 0 ($ 50,000)
Annual cost
factors…
BART part. in access capital
improvements ( annualized)
$ 0 $ 0 ($ 50,000)
Net annual impact ( sum of revenues and costs) $ 461,886 $ 798,058 $ 1,192,463
Table 17 shows the summary results of the three scenarios. All three show positive outcomes as
compared to the status quo. The availability of spaces in the Mesa lot makes all scenarios
attractive. Scenarios A and B produce more ridership, significant revenue gains for BART, a
shift toward non- auto access, and fit well with the plans of BART, local cities and regional
entities. Scenario C produces the highest annual revenue to BART--$ 1,192,463. Note that the
analysis does not fully represent the difference in ground rent across the three scenarios. The
greater development intensity of Scenario C would produce a higher net operating income, which
when capitalized, would provide greater ground rent. In that respect the estimates for Scenario C
are conservative. Detailed market feasibility and pro forma analyses are needed to more
accurately forecast ground rent.
8 This is ground rent associated with changes in parking requirements only. It does not reflect additional ground rent
associated with the higher development intensities of some scenarios or other forms of revenue participation.
9 Scenarios B and C show a positive cash flow for parking operating costs because the reduced parking supply saves
BART the annual operating costs for those spaces.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 32
Table 17: Concord Summary Evaluation Matrix
Criteria Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
Ridership: net annual ridership
impact ( from Table 15)
478 551 519
Revenues and costs: net annual
impact, $/ year ( from Table 16)
$ 461,886 $ 798,058 $ 1,192,463
Station access mode: reduction
in drive alone share ( from Table
15)
Least Middle Most
Long- term BART capacity
Retains land in surface
parking, which provides
flexibility in the future.
Stakeholders concerned
about future bus service.
Retains land in surface
parking, which provides
flexibility in the future.
Stakeholders concerned
about future bus service.
Retains land in surface
parking, which provides
flexibility in the future.
Stakeholders concerned
about future bus service.
BART Plans: support
Comprehensive Station Plans,
access targets, joint development
goals.
No CSP or Access plan
for this station.
No CSP or Access plan
for this station.
No CSP or Access plan
for this station.
Local goals: Context- appropriate
and well- designed; local support,
partnerships, reduce TOD
barriers ( qualitative).
Supports city objectives. Supports city objectives. Supports city objectives.
City may have concern
with spillover parking,
but low $ 1 parking fee
reduces spillover
potential.
Regional goals: e. g., provision
of housing, housing affordability,
congestion, air quality, etc.
( qualitative)
Least support for non-auto
modes, but
continues regional park
and ride function.
Balanced between
scenarios A and C
Most support for TOD
transition.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 33
Del Norte Case Study
Overview
The Del Norte station is located in the City of El Cerrito, second from the end- of- the- line of the
R line. Because of its relationship to freeways, however, the station functions in part as an end-of-
the- line station. Figure 5 shows the context of the Del Norte station.
Joint development at the Del Norte station has been hampered by the economic effects of a
requirement for underground replacement parking and limits on the density permitted for joint
development. The community view is split on the transit station and joint development— some
people do not like the area being a transit hub while others think that city improvement can be
focused at the station. The more promising joint development scenarios involve a relocation of
part of BART parking across San Pablo Avenue, but parcel availability is uncertain.
Figure 5. Del Norte Station Context
The Del Norte station configuration is shown on Figure 6 below. Tables 18 and 19 summarize
station context, access, and replacement parking circumstances.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 34
Figure 6. Del Norte Station
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 35
Table 18. Del Norte Station Context
Category Characteristic Condition
Station type* Urban neighborhood
Transportation function Origin
Station weekday ridership ‘ 04
( exits)**
7,258
Average weekday round trip fare paid
from station***
$ 5.44
Weighted average service density*** 14 trains per hour
Station
characteristics
Station draw A two mile radius around the station, plus a
corridor along the I- 80, through Hercules and
Vallejo.
Station area Population w/ in ½ mile** 6,206
characteristics Employment w/ in ½ mile** 1,771
BART parking***** 2,198, 1,300 of which are in a garage
Parking utilization @ 1 PM***** 100%
Reliance on parking ( number of
BART spaces per weekday rider)
0.31
Parking
Other parking- related access issues Serves as de facto terminus of the Richmond Line.
Transit**** Station transit access is 27%. Served by AC
Transit, Golden Gate Transit, WestCAT, and
Vallejo Transit. Enhanced express/ shuttle service
on I- 80 corridor could alter access modes. Would
benefit from improved bus service in
neighborhoods east of the station and improved
intermodal functioning.
Shuttles Not a lot of shuttle services.
Pedestrian**** Station pedestrian access is 12%. Quality of
access rated as poor in CSP, except for Ohlone
Greenway, a north- south bicycle and pedestrian
way. San Pablo Avenue is a barrier. City recently
completed a pedestrian, bicycle, and disabled
persons access plan.
Other access
modes
Bicycle**** Station bicycle access is 1%. 28 bicycle lockers
and 128 racks. Bicycle access growth potential
identified as “ medium” and bicycle parking
improvement identified as “ medium”.
Additional data
sources
Real estate feasibility Sedway Group analysis of replacement parking
feasibility for joint developments.
BART Plans Access plan? Yes.
Comprehensive Station Plan Yes.
City Plans Update Design Guidelines adopted, Development
concept created. City will be considering zoning
code revisions that may change parking
requirements, density, and height limits in the
station area.
Transit Operator Plans Not known.
Status of development solicitation New solicitation anticipated in the future.
* From station spreadsheet prepared by the Center for Transit Oriented Development, dated 7/ 29/ 04
** From station spreadsheet prepared by F& P Associates, dated 8/ 2/ 04
*** Tabulations provided by BART staff.
**** From BART Station Profile Study, BART Office of External Affairs, August 1999.
***** From BART Stations- Parking Facility Occupancy Survey, Wilbur Smith Associates, April 20- May 6, 2004.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 36
Figure 7 shows the home address of people participating in the reserved parking program. This
provides a current assessment of the station’s draw among automobile drivers. This distribution
does not necessarily represent all drivers to the station, because it captures only those who
choose to participate in the reserved parking program.
Figure 7. Station Draw for Del Norte Station ( reserved parking participants)
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 37
Table 19. Del Norte Replacement Parking Possibilities
Issue Status
Is station parking fully utilized? Monitoring data indicate 100% full at 1: 00 pm.
Is nearby, non- BART parking
fully utilized?
No, adjacent paid parking lot not fully occupied.
Can replacement parking be
provided off- site or in shared
arrangements?
Developer proposals indicate that 1: 1 replacement parking makes joint
developments infeasible, even if BART contributes all ground rent and the city
contributes tax increment. Previous development solicitation was not
successful. Developer initially wanted replacement of parking in underground
facilities, which adds cost. Underground parking is complicated by high water
table and bedrock. Relocation of BART parking examined during developer’s
most recent development proposal and adopted by the City in Design Guideline
Update study. Off- site location encumbered by revenue- generating lease in
favor of the property owner.
Can parking demand be shifted
to other stations?
Proposal has merits but land may be difficult to acquire.
Richmond is unlikely because of relationship to freeways and access patterns.
Commuters could continue on to El Cerrito Plaza, but that would increase local
traffic impacts.
Are there possibilities for
replacement parking funding
from other parties ( e. g., grant
funds, redevelopment)?
Measure C funds may be available to improve parking or transit improvements
in the station area. Tax increment funds could be available
What is city perspective on
deviation from 1: 1 replacement
parking?
Willing to consider if makes joint development possible. City asked BART to
consider less than 1: 1 replacement.
What other planning issues
exist?
Density and height limits are restrictive; station area is redevelopment project
area. BART is asking for increase in density and removal of height restriction.
What is the parking
management readiness in the
station area, i. e., does the city
and property owners have
spillover prevention programs
ready ( e. g., permits, meters,
time limits)?
Permit parking programs are effectively controlling spillover. El Cerrito Plaza
station lost 1,000 informal spaces when mall construction occurred with very
little negative impact because of the effectiveness of those programs.
Taking into account the information provided on Tables 18, 19 and Figure 7, Table 20 presents
the top five station policy and context issues, in rank order. This provides a concise summary of
the policy and context issues.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 38
Table 20. Top Five Del Norte Policy and Context Issues
Issue Relevance to the Access/ Replacement Parking
1) Balance between facilitating mixed- use station
area development and ensuring sufficient park- and-ride
capacity to serve the station’s large commuter
shed.
The station functions as an end- of- the- line station for many
commuters, and this role will likely continue in the future.
2) Restrictions on density can undermine financial
feasibility of development.
BART wants to ensure that joint development is of sufficient
density and generates positive returns.
3) Spillover parking is well managed. Pricing strategies can be implemented with less concern
about spillover issues.
4) Underground replacement parking is
prohibitively expensive and difficult from an
engineering standpoint.
Relocating replacement parking across San Pablo Avenue
provides economies. However, the land is encumbered with
lease revenues in favor of property owner.
5) Commuting market seems well- suited for
commuter bus and shuttle services.
Improvements in bus and shuttle access from outlying
communities could reduce demand on station parking. Key
asset is the HOV lane on the I- 80 corridor and priority off-ramp
in the station area. Questions exist about future bus
service.
Assumptions
The Del Norte scenarios ( shown on Table 21) are based on the following assumptions.
• All scenarios replace BART parking in a structure across San Pablo Avenue. The cost
per structured space ($ 17,500) includes land acquisition costs. All scenarios also include
a $ 500,000 capital contribution to pedestrian improvements on San Pablo Avenue.
• Scenarios A and B ( Conservative): 462 units ( 270 @ 1.25 parking spaces per unit, 62 @
2.0 parking spaces per unit, and 130 @ 1.75 parking spaces per unit). This project
includes 270 rental units @ 84 units per acre and 192 for- sale @ 30 units per acre.
Scenario A involves 100% parking replacement and Scenario B involves 75% parking
replacement. Scenario B has a $ 1 daily parking charge on 50% of spaces, with the
existing reserved parking program continuing.
• Scenario C ( Moderate): 624 units with 1.5 spaces per unit. Involves modification of city
density cap to permit 65 units per acre. 50% replacement parking. Scenario C has a $ 1
daily parking charge on 75% of spaces, with the existing reserved parking program
continuing.
• All scenarios assume 20,000 square foot retail, parked at 3 parking spaces per 1,000
square feet.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 39
Table 21. Del Norte Station Scenarios
Existing
Condition
Scenario A:
Conservative, full
replacement off BART site
Scenario B:
Conservative, 75% rep.
off- site, shared parking,
parking charges
Scenario C: Moderate 50%
replacement off- site, shared
parking, parking charges
# units residential ( rental) 0 270 270 624
# units for sale housing 0 192 192 0
Retail ( sf) 0 20,000 20,000 20,000
# of BART parking spaces on site 898 0 0 0
Off- site replacement of BART spaces ( in
station area)
898 674 449
Parking spaces for joint development 749 749 996
BART parking spaces shared with the
joint development
100 100
Total development spaces ( BART
replacement + joint development, not
counting shared spaces)
1,647 1,423 1,445
Parking charges on the BART parking
$ 0, $ 42 per month
on 111 reserved
$ 0, $ 42 per month on 111
reserved
$ 42 per month on 111
reserved; $ 1 per day on
1,009 BART spaces
$ 42 per month on 111
reserved; $ 1 per day on 1,648
BART spaces
New transit/ shuttle programs
Study demand patterns for
added service
Study demand patterns for
added service
Study demand patterns for
added service
Other access improvements Shift of parking to west side
of San Pablo requires
reconfiguration of San
Pablo. Assumes $ 500k
BART contribution
Shift of parking to west
side of San Pablo requires
reconfiguration of San
Pablo. Assumes $ 500k
BART contribution
Shift of parking to west side of
San Pablo requires
reconfiguration of San Pablo.
Assumes $ 500k BART
contribution
Economic issues Sedway analysis concludes
that this alternative is not
feasible
Saves developer $ 3.9
million @ $ 17.5k per
spaces.
Saves developer $ 7.9 million
if one site reduction is $ 17.5k
per space.
Local barriers to TOD and how they are
addressed
High on- site parking costs. High on- site parking
costs.
High on- site parking costs,
Density limits.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 40
Table 22 summarizes the ridership impacts of the three scenarios. Scenarios A and B show
ridership gains that are associated with the transit trips from the joint development. Scenario C
shows the smallest ridership gain.
Table 22. Del Norte Weekday Ridership Impact Summary
Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
Ridership impact of joint
development
644 644 821
Ridership impact of change in
BART parking supply
0 ( 301) ( 603)
Ridership impact of parking charge
programs
0 0 0
Ridership of other access programs 0 0 0
Net impact on BART boardings 644 343 219
Reduction in drive alone share Least Middle Most
Table 23 summarizes the fiscal impacts of the three scenarios.
Table 23. Del Norte Fiscal Checklist ( change from existing condition)
Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
Fares from net change in
riders $ 466,397 $ 248,574 $ 158,485
Parking charges ( net)
$ 0 $ 175,703 $ 263,474
Ground rent associated with
change in replacement
parking ( assuming $ 30/ sf) 10
($ 418,472) ($ 222) $ 418,028
Annual revenue
factors
Annualized value of external
grant/ partnership support
$ 0 $ 0 $ 0
BART parking operating
costs ( maint., security,)
($ 165,753) ($ 45,326) $ 75,639
New operating costs for
BART service
$ 0 $ 0 $ 0
BART part. in operating
costs for new access modes
$ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Annual cost factors
BART part. in access capital
improvements ( annualized)
($ 50,000) ($ 50,000) ($ 50,000)
Net annual impact ( sum of revenues and costs)
($ 167,828) $ 328,729 $ 865,626
Table 24 shows the summary results of the three scenarios. The scenarios show the variety of
tradeoff in seeking improvement beyond the status quo. Scenario A produces the most ridership
but a net negative fiscal impact. Scenario C produces a modest ridership gain and the highest
10 Note: this is ground rent associated with changes in parking requirements only. It does not reflect additional
ground rent associated with the higher development intensities of some scenarios or other forms of revenue
participation.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 41
annual revenue to BART--$ 865,626. One of the areas of greatest need for additional information
is the prospects for future bus service to the station. The scenarios that involve the larger
reductions in BART station parking are more vulnerable to service reductions and/ or a lack of
increases in bus service. Higher parking charges than tested here could fund other access
programs, such as improved bus access along the I- 80 corridor.
Table 24: Del Norte Summary Evaluation Matrix
Criteria Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
Ridership: net annual ridership
impact ( from Table 22)
644 343 219
Revenues and costs: net annual
impact, $/ year ( from Table 23)
($ 167,828) $ 328,729 $ 865,626
Station access mode: reduction
in drive alone share ( from Table
22)
Least Middle Most
Long- term BART capacity
Reduces land available
for future parking, if
needed.
Reduces land available
for future parking, if
needed. Reliant on bus
transit providers offering
additional service.
Reduces land available
for future parking, if
needed. Most reliant on
bus transit providers
offering additional
service.
BART Plans: support
Comprehensive Station Plans
and access targets.
Maintains support for
station’s role as a
commuter- oriented “ end
of the line” station.
Concern about low
density of housing.
Balances BART
objectives to serve
commuters and support
development of a mixed
use center. Concern
about low density of
housing.
Support the evolution of
the station area toward a
mixed use center, and
transition to non- auto
access.
Local goals: Context- appropriate
and well- designed; local support,
partnerships, reduce TOD
barriers ( qualitative).
Supports city objectives.
Might have greatest
community acceptance,
because full replacement
occurs.
Supports city objectives. Appears to most
strongly support the
direction city policy is
taking, although requires
changes in permitted
density.
Regional goals: e. g., provision
of housing, housing affordability,
congestion, air quality, etc.
( qualitative)
Least support for non-auto
modes, but
continues regional park-and-
ride function.
Offers a balance
between Scenarios A
and C.
Most support for TOD
transition, but least
support for regional-park-
and ride function.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 42
MacArthur Case Study
Overview
MacArthur is a centrally located station on the K line in the City of Oakland. Resolving
access/ replacement parking issues is urgent at the MacArthur station because a developer has
been selected for a joint development project. This station is the most urban setting of those
being tested, with a relatively low level of existing BART parking and high levels of use of
alternative access modes. Community views on replacement parking are mixed. Figure 8 shows
the surface parking lot that comprises a large part of the joint development site.
Figure 8. MacArthur Joint Development Site
There are possibilities for shifting MacArthur’s parking demand to new facilities at the West
Oakland station, but adding parking in that area would likely be opposed by the local
community. The methodology can be used to analyze such a scenario, but a scenario that
relocates parking is not included in this analysis. It should also be noted that MacArthur Transit
Community Partners LLC ( MTCP), the developer of the site, has not suggested or endorsed the
features of the scenarios.
A site plan of the MacArthur station configuration and parking is shown in Figure 9 that follows.
Tables 25 and 26 and Figure 10 summarize station context, access, and replacement parking
circumstances. Note that the total development concept encompasses about 10 acres, which
includes some privately- owned parcels that will need to be acquired for the project. However,
the financial analysis presented here is based on an assumed parcel size of 259, 200 square feet,
the area of the BART surface parking lot.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 43
Figure 9. MacArthur Station
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 44
Table 25. MacArthur Station Context
Category Characteristic Condition
Station type* Urban neighborhood
Transportation function Origin and destination
Station weekday ridership ‘ 04
( exits)**
6,028
Average weekday round trip
fare paid from station***
$ 4.86
Weighted average service
density***
23 trains per hour
Station
characteristics
Station draw**** Generally within a one mile radius of the station, with a bias
to the southeast along the 580 corridor
Station area Population w/ in ½ mile** 9,531
characteristics Employment w/ in ½ mile** 5,619
BART parking**** 603
Parking utilization @ 1
PM*****
100%
Reliance on parking ( number
of BART spaces per weekday
rider)
0.10
Parking and
access
Other parking- related access
issues
Private parking providers at West Oakland charge $ 6 per day,
indicating strong market demand. However, West Oakland
station serves a broader commuter shed, has greater train
frequency, etc.
Transit****
Station transit access is 20%. Proposals for BRT may affect
site design and access.
Shuttles Emeryville and Emery- Go- Round travel will increase over
time ( BID funded shuttle system). Employer- provided
shuttles are used ( e. g., from medical cluster)
Pedestrian**** Station walk access is 27%. Crime issues exist for
pedestrians. Pedestrian improvements are underway on 40th
Street
Carpooling Developer reports that casual carpooling in the neighborhoods
around that station creates parking demand in those
neighborhoods.
Other access
modes
Bicycle**** Station bicycle access is 4%. BART Bicycle plan rates
station as having “ high” bicycle access growth potential and
“ high” priority for bicycle parking improvements.
Data sources Trip origins of those using
MacArthur station
Developer may fund intercept survey.
BART Plans Access Plan? Scheduled for completion by June 2005.
Comprehensive Station Plan? Scheduled for completion by June 2005.
City Plans Redevelopment Plan adopted.
Transit Operator Plans Not known.
Status of development solicitation Developer negotiations underway.
* From station spreadsheet prepared by the Center for Transit Oriented Development, dated 7/ 29/ 04
** From station spreadsheet prepared by F& P Associates, dated 8/ 2/ 04
*** Tabulations provided by BART staff.
**** From BART Station Profile Study, BART Office of External Affairs, August 1999.
***** From BART Stations- Parking Facility Occupancy Survey, Wilbur Smith Associates, April 20- May 6, 2004.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 45
Figure 10 shows the home address of people participating in the reserved parking program. This
provides a current assessment of the station’s draw among automobile drivers. This distribution
does not necessarily represent all drivers to the station because it captures only those who choose
to participate in the reserved parking program.
Figure 10. Station Draw for MacArthur Station ( reserved parking participants)
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 46
Table 26. MacArthur Replacement Parking Possibilities
Issue Status
Is station parking fully utilized? Monitoring data indicate 100% full at 1: 00 pm.
Is nearby, non- BART parking fully
utilized?
Yes.
Can replacement parking be provided
off- site or in shared arrangements?
Possible shared use in joint development – grocery store
Can parking demand be shifted to
other stations?
Technically possible in the West Oakland station area, but there would be
community resistance to moving parking there. West Oakland has a
greater train frequency and better freeway access.
Are there possibilities for replacement
parking funding from other parties
( e. g., grant funds, redevelopment)?
May be CMA funds in the future.
What is city perspective on deviation
from 1: 1 replacement parking?
City would consider. City has well developed community participation
tradition. The community is split between requiring replacement and
moving away from BART station area parking.
What other planning issues exist? Community preferences vary, but the general preference is for
residentially- oriented development with neighborhood serving retail.
What is the parking management
readiness in the station area, i. e., does
the city and property owners have
spillover prevention programs ready
( e. g., permits, meters, time limits)?
Spillover is occurring ( on- street parking on MacArthur, Martin Luther
King and 40th Street). Some neighbors are complaining about spillover;
city is prepared to institute a permit system.
Taking all these context issues together, Table 27 summarizes the top five policy and context
issues.
Table 27. Top Five MacArthur Policy and Context Issues
Issue Relevance to the Access/ Replacement Parking
1) Station has an urban context and low dependency
on parking for ridership.
Potential ridership loss associated with non- replacement of
parking is less than suburban stations.
2) Joint development proposal has a wider variety of
land uses than other stations.
Increases potential for shared parking between joint
development uses and between the joint development and
BART.
3) Community sentiment on replacement parking is
mixed, with some community members seeking
more BART parking and others wanting to decrease
BART parking.
Community processes will need to engage the community in
discussions about which vision for the station is desired.
4) Station has the highest walk share of the cases
studied, despite a location in the middle of an
elevated freeway and station visibility issues.
Station has potential for more walk access as pedestrian
improvements are provided and joint development and
station area development produces more walk trips.
5) The West Oakland station provides a more
attractive auto intercept point than the MacArthur
station.
Potential for replacing some MacArthur parking at West
Oakland exists, but would require community buy- in.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 47
Assumptions
The following assumptions have been made in developing the MacArthur scenarios. They are
detailed in Table 28.
• BART development parcel size is 259,200 square feet.
• Scenarios A and B ( conservative): 575 units @ 1.125 parking spaces per unit, 41,000
square feet of retail @ 4 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet, 14,000 square feet of
medical uses @ 3 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet, and 4,500 square feet of
community facilities with no parking. Scenario A has 100% replacement parking and
Scenario B has 50% replacement parking. 11 Scenario B has a $ 1 per day parking charge
on 50% of the spaces; existing reserved parking program continues.
• Scenario C ( aggressive): 650 units @ 1.125 parking spaces per unit, 103,000 square feet
of retail @ 4 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet, 60,000 square feet of medical @ 3
parking spaces per 1,000 square feet, and 6,000 square feet of community facilities with
no parking. Scenario C has 50% replacement parking. 12 Those spaces are offered at $ 3
per day, replacing the reserved parking program. Scenario C assumes that a $ 180,000 per
year matching fund is offered by BART to stimulate additional private shuttle or AC
Transit service. This number is based on a 25% reduction in Emery- Go- Round headways
at $ 60 per vehicle hour. The scenario also includes a $ 1 million contribution to a
relocation of the bus transfer facility.
11 Note that if replacement parking was decreased by 50%, the developer may be able to increase the density of
neighborhood supporting and income producing uses in the project, potentially increasing riders, revenue, taxes, etc.
The scenario shown here is conservative in that it does not reflect those potential additional revenues. Further
negotiation between the developer, the City and BART would be required to determine what, if any, density increase
would be allowed, and more detailed market feasibility and pro form analysis would be needed to estimate
additional revenue.
12 Same as previous footnote.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 48
Table 28. MacArthur Station Scenario Working Assumptions
Existing
Condition
Scenario A:
Conservative, full
replacement
Scenario B: Conservative,
50% on- site replacement,
shared parking
Scenario C: Aggressive, 50% on-site
replacement, , shared
parking, access imp.
# units residential ( rental) 0 287 287 325
# units for sale housing 0 288 288 325
Retail ( sf) 0 41,000 41,000 103,000
Medical office ( sf) 14,000 14,000 60,000
Community ( sf) 4,500 4,500 6,000
# of BART parking spaces on- site 603 603 302 302
Parking spaces for joint development 853 853 1,323
BART parking spaces shared with the
joint development
0 100 200
Total non- shared spaces ( BART + joint
dev.— Scen. C includes W. Oakland)
1,456 1,155 1,625
Parking charges on the BART parking at
station
$ 0, $ 63 per
month on 119
reserved
$ 0, $ 63 per month on
119 reserved
$ 63 per month on 119
reserved; $ 1 per day on 151
spaces
$ 3 per day at on all spaces
New transit/ shuttle programs
None None Relocated bus transfer facility.
Improved AC Transit or private
shuttle service.
New walk/ bike programs
Site design provides a
new diagonal pedestrian
access to station and
better station visibility
Site design provides a new
diagonal pedestrian access
to station and better station
visibility
Site design provides a new
diagonal pedestrian access to
station and better station visibility
Economic issues Would save the developer
$ 4.5 million if parking costs
are $ 15k per space.
Would save the developer $ 4.5
million if parking costs $ 15k per
space.
Local barriers to TOD and how they are
addressed
Improves pedestrian
access.
Improves pedestrian access. Improves pedestrian access.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 49
Table 29 summarizes the ridership impacts of the three scenarios. Scenario A shows robust
increases in ridership, with Scenario B showing a smaller increase because of 50% replacement
of BART parking. Scenario C shows the largest increase because the larger joint development
compensates for the loss of riders associated with 50% parking replacement.
Table 29. MacArthur Weekday Ridership Impact Summary
Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
Ridership impact of joint
development
962 962 1,636
Ridership impact of change in
BART parking supply
0 - 324 - 324
Ridership impact of parking charge
programs
0 0 0
Ridership of other access programs 0 0 100
Net impact on BART boardings 962 638 1,411
Reduction in drive alone share Least Middle Most
Table 30 summarizes the fiscal impacts of the three scenarios. Scenario C generates roughly
twice the net annual revenue for BART than Scenario A, despite that fact that BART provides
$ 180,000 in annual operating assistance to bus/ shuttle systems and a $ 1 million capital
contribution toward a redesigned bus facility. Also note that Scenario A involves a negative
ground rent, indicating that full allocation of all ground rent is not sufficient to pay for the cost of
replacement parking.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 50
Table 30. MacArthur Fiscal Checklist
Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
Fares from net change in
riders $ 622,810 $ 412,759 $ 913,448
Parking charges ( net)
$ 0 $ 24,141 $ 77,243
Ground rent associated with
change in replacement
parking ( assuming $ 30/ sf) 13
($ 126,900) $ 326,100 $ 326,100
Annual revenue
factors
Annualized value of external
grant/ partnership support
$ 0 $ 0 $ 0
BART parking operating
costs ( maint., security,)
($ 111,302) $ 50,522 $ 50,522
New operating costs for
BART service
$ 0 $ 0 $ 0
BART part. in operating
costs for new access modes
$ 0 $ 0 ($ 180,000)
Annual cost factors
BART part. in access capital
improvements ( annualized)
$ 0 $ 0 ($ 100,000)
Net annual impact ( sum of revenues and costs)
$ 384,609 $ 813,552 $ 1,087,313
Table 31 shows the summary results of the three scenarios. All three show positive outcomes as
compared to the status quo. Scenario A produces an estimated negative ground rent, but the
overall fiscal impact is positive because the increased fare revenue more than overcomes the
negative ground rent. Scenario B produces a more positive fiscal outcome, although ridership
gain is the smallest of the three scenarios. Scenario C shows the potential of higher parking
charges, other access improvements, and aggressive development plans in producing the greatest
overall benefits in terms of ridership, revenues, and urban planning outcomes.
13 Note: this is ground rent associated with changes in parking requirements only. It does not reflect additional
ground rent associated with the higher development intensities of some scenarios or other forms of revenue
participation.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 51
Table 31: MacArthur Summary Evaluation Matrix14
Criteria Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
Ridership: net annual ridership
impact ( from Table 29)
962 638 1,411
Revenues and costs: net annual
impact, $/ year ( from Table 30)
$ 384,609 $ 813,552 $ 1,087,313
Station access mode: reduction
in drive alone share ( from Table
29)
Least Middle Most
Long- term BART capacity
No land left at station
for future BART use.
No land left at station
for future BART use.
No land left at station
for future BART use.
BART Plans: support
Comprehensive Station Plans
and access targets.
Mixed- use nature of
project provides broad
ridership base.
Mixed- use nature of
project provides broad
ridership base.
Supports the evolution
toward a mixed use
center and transition to
non- auto access.
Local goals: Context- appropriate
and well- designed; local support,
partnerships, reduce TOD
barriers ( qualitative).
Supports city objectives. Supports city objectives. Supports city objectives,
although requires
agreement with West
Oakland neighborhood.
Regional goals: e. g., provision
of housing, housing affordability,
congestion, air quality, etc.
( qualitative)
Least support for non-auto
modes, but still
creates mixed- used
TOD.
Balanced between
scenarios A and C.
Most support for TOD
transition.
14 Per previous footnote 11, the ridership and revenue could be greater if development intensity is increased further
in response to lower replacement parking requirement.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 52
San Leandro Case Study
Overview
The San Leandro station is a mid- corridor station on the A line, in the City of San Leandro.
There are a wide variety of joint development options for San Leandro that depend on the scale
of the development and the participation of other property owners. The city is seeking the
revitalization of Central San Leandro through its Strategic Plan. The community is concerned
about spillover parking and the level and type of growth. Figure 11 shows the surface parking
lot being considered for joint development.
Figure 11. BART Surface Parking Lot
BART has authorization to release an RFP. In the absence of an agreement on a larger
development program and partnership structure, the scenario used for testing is a modest project
involving the 2.2 acre BART parking lot on the east side of San Leandro Boulevard. Figures 12
and 13 show the BART station and parking area— the development site in question is the
rectangular lot at the top of Figure 12.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 53
Figure 12. San Leandro Station, North Portion
Figure 13. San Leandro Station, South Portion
Tables 32 and 33 and Figure 14 ( next two pages) summarize station context, access, and
replacement parking circumstances for San Leandro.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 54
Table 32. San Leandro Station Context
Category Characteristic Condition
Station type* Suburban center
Transportation function Origin and destination
Station weekday ridership ‘ 04
( exits)**
4,790
Average weekday round trip fare paid
from station***
$ 5.28
Weighted average service density*** 21.6 trains per hour
Station
characteristics
Station draw**** Most weekday home origins come from a 1– 1.5
mile radius of the station
Station area Population w/ in ½ mile** 7,761
characteristics Employment w/ in ½ mile** 5,434
BART parking***** 1,234
Parking utilization @ 1 PM***** 100%
Reliance on parking ( number of
BART spaces per weekday rider)
0.26
Parking
Other parking- related access issues City’s plans seek an expansion of BART parking
in a structure on BART’s land immediately west of
the station, with parking charges on new stalls.
Relocation would facilitate city redevelopment
plans. Overflow parking is occurring on private
property ( illegally), along Martinez Street, and
other on- street locations.
Transit**** Station transit access is 15%. AC Transit may
implement a BRT project.
Shuttles Shuttle to West San Leandro business district uses
an assessment district. Interest in evaluating
neighborhood shuttle.
Pedestrian**** Station pedestrian access is 18%. West Estudillo
Avenue is being improved for better access to
downtown. Also plans for improving West Juana
Avenue and Alvarado Street. The Union Pacific
right of way could be used to improve pedestrian
access to residential areas and future development
Other access
modes
Bicycle**** Station bicycle access is 2%. Bicycle access
growth potential identified as “ medium” and
bicycle parking improvement identified as “ high”.
The Union Pacific row improve bicycle access to
residential areas and future development.
BART Plans Access plan? Yes
Comprehensive Station Plan? No
City Plans Strategic Plan adopted
Transit Operator Plans Not known.
Status of development solicitation Authorized to issue solicitation
* From station spreadsheet prepared by the Center for Transit Oriented Development, dated 7/ 29/ 04
** From station spreadsheet prepared by F& P Associates, dated 8/ 2/ 04
*** Tabulations provided by BART staff.
**** From BART Station Profile Study, BART Office of External Affairs, August 1999.
***** From BART Stations- Parking Facility Occupancy Survey, Wilbur Smith Associates, April 20- May 6, 2004.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 55
Figure 14 shows the home address of people participating in the reserved parking program. This
provides a current assessment of the station’s draw among automobile drivers. This distribution
does not necessarily represent all drivers to the station, because it captures only those who
choose to participate in the reserved parking program.
Figure 14. Station Draw for San Leandro Station ( reserved parking participants)
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 56
Table 33. San Leandro Replacement Parking Possibilities
Issue Status
Is station parking fully
utilized?
Monitoring data indicate that parking is 100% full at 1: 00 pm.
Is nearby, non- BART
parking fully utilized?
Yes.
Can replacement parking
be provided off- site or in
shared arrangements?
There are multiple options for replacement parking, depending on which property
owners might participate in a joint development. These options apply to
constructing new parking facilities, sharing existing parking facilities, and creating
new joint use facilities.
Can parking demand be
shifted to other stations?
Shifting parking between Bay Fair and San Leandro is a possibility that should be
explored. The concept would require the interest and participation of property
owners at Bay Fair. Issues of liability is shared parking would have to be
addressed. Shifting parking to the Coliseum station is another possibility, given the
geographic distribution of permit parking at San Leandro.
Are there possibilities for
replacement parking
funding from other parties
( e. g., grant funds,
redevelopment)?
Land around station is a redevelopment project area. No grant funds pending.
What is city perspective on
deviation from 1: 1
replacement parking?
Current view is that there is not enough BART parking. The expectation is that city
council would require 1: 1 replacement or even greater than 1: 1 replacement ( an
augmentation to total station parking supply). Perceptions about parking in the
station area are shaped by neighborhood parking issues related to a condominium
development.
What other planning issues
exist?
Lack of resolution of how other property owners might participate in station
area development adds uncertainty. The existing Union Pacific railroad tracks
hamper the ability to develop joint development proposals to the west side of
the station.
What is the parking
management readiness in
the station area, i. e., does
the city and property
owners have spillover
prevention programs ready
( e. g., permits, meters, time
limits)?
Spillover is currently a problem, on- street ( where there is not a permit parking
program) and off- street in some vacant land parcels. This has created issues
with neighbors and safety issues ( e. g., cars parked too close to the railroad
tracks). The city has precedent for permit parking, but only around high
schools. Permit parking requires neighborhood initiation. There is
neighborhood sensitivity because an existing condominium is putting pressure
on on- street parking.
Table 34 draws from the information presented above in summarizing the top five policy and
context issues for San Leandro.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 57
Table 34. Top Five San Leandro Policy and Context Issues
Issue Relevance to the Access/ Replacement Parking
1) Coordinated property owner approaches to
parking could yield efficiencies and opportunities
for shared parking.
Current scenario is development of a 2.2 acre site that does
not provide such opportunities.
2) City does not currently have permit parking
around station. Spillover parking potential is a
concern.
Permit parking programs in neighborhoods are needed before
more aggressive parking approaches are possible.
3) Some stakeholders want increased BART parking
to be a requirement of a joint development.
Financial burden of exceeding 1: 1 replacement is large and
may prohibit development.
4) There is good potential for additional pedestrian
access.
Future joint development and city projects might consider
jointly implementing pedestrian improvements.
5) Most station users live relatively close to the
station.
Local shuttles have good potential.
Assumptions
Although a variety of development scenarios are possible for San Leandro, the far reaching ones
require the participation of private land owners. Given that there is not a pending partnership for
a multi- parcel strategy, the San Leandro scenarios examine a development on one part of the
BART parking lot. Some access/ replacement parking strategies will not be appropriate until the
spillover concern is addressed through parking management tools. The City’s Strategic Plan calls
for more than 1: 1 replacement of BART parking, with parking charges on the additional spaces.
Because the city is concerned about parking spillover issues, parking charges were not included
in any of the scenarios. Should the city develop parking control measures to assure appropriate
control of spillover, parking charges could be considered in future scenarios. The following
assumptions are detailed in Table 35.
• Parcel size is 95,832 square feet, located on the BART surface lot on the east side of San
Leandro Boulevard.
• Use development concept from the Central San Leandro/ BART Area Revitalization
Strategy for units on the 2.2 acre BART parking surface lot.
• Scenarios A and B ( Conservative): 132 units, 1.5 parking spaces per unit, no retail.
Scenario A has 110% replacement parking while Scenario B has 90% replacement
parking. No daily parking charge assumed.
• Scenario C ( Moderate): 200 units @ 1.5 parking spaces per unit, no retail. Scenario C
has 80% replacement parking. No daily parking charge assumed.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 58
Table 35. San Leandro Station Scenarios Working Assumptions
Existing Condition Scenario A:
Conservative, 110%
replacement
Scenario B:
Conservative, 90%
replacement
Scenario C:
Moderate, 80%
replacement
Units per acre 0 60 60 90
# units residential ( rental) 0 132 132 200
# of BART parking spaces on- site 341 375 307 273
Parking spaces for joint development 198 198 300
Total non- shared spaces ( BART + joint
development)
573 505 573
Parking charges on the BART parking
$ 0, $ 42 per month on 226
reserved.
$ 0, $ 42 per month on 226
reserved.
$ 0, $ 42 per month on 226
reserved.
$ 0, $ 42 per month on 226
reserved.
New transit/ shuttle programs
None None New neighborhood shuttle
services.
New walk/ bike programs
West Estudillo Avenue
improvements, other
streetscape improvements.
West Estudillo Avenue
improvements, other
streetscape improvements.
West Estudillo Avenue
improvements, other
streetscape improvements.
New on- street parking management
programs ( e. g., permit or time limits)
City considering charging
for long- term parking
along Martinez Street.
City considering charging
for long- term parking
along Martinez Street.
City considering charging
for long- term parking
along Martinez Street.
Economic issues Costs developer an extra
$ 0.5 million @ $ 15k per
space.
Saves developer $ 0.5
million @ $ 15k per space.
Saves developer $ 1.0
million @ $ 15k per space.
Local barriers to TOD and how they are
addressed
Parking requirement
increases barriers.
Would require local
permit parking.
Would require local
permit parking.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 59
Table 36 summarizes the ridership impacts of the three scenarios. Scenario A provides the
biggest boost to ridership because the joint development is combined with 110% replacement
parking. Scenarios B and C show smaller ridership increases. In all cases, the scale of impact is
minor because the amount of development is relatively small.
Table 36. San Leandro Weekday Ridership Impact Summary
Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
Ridership impact of joint
development
145 145 219
Ridership impact of change in
BART parking supply
75 - 49 - 99
Ridership impact of parking charge
programs
0 0 0
Ridership of other access programs 0 0 0
Net impact on BART boardings 220 95 121
Reduction in drive alone share Minor Minor Minor
Table 37 summarizes the fiscal impacts of the three scenarios. All the scenarios involve a
negative parking- related ground rent, meaning that the cost of replacement parking exceeds the
value of the ground rent expected at fair market value. Under such circumstances, another entity
( such as a redevelopment agency) could contribute to replacement parking costs to make the
ground rent a positive cash flow for BART. Scenarios A and B produces a negative fiscal
impact. Scenario C is close to neutral, but still negative and well within the range of error.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 60
Table 37. San Leandro Fiscal Checklist
Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
Fares from net change in
riders $ 154,394 $ 67,067 $ 84,783
Parking charges ( net)
$ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Ground rent associated with
change in replacement
parking 15
($ 251,046) ($ 149,046) ($ 98,046)
Annual revenue
factors
Annualized value of external
grant/ partnership support
$ 0 $ 0 $ 0
BART parking operating
costs ( maint., security,)
($ 81,221) ($ 44,683) ($ 26,384)
New operating costs for
BART service
$ 0 $ 0 $ 0
BART part. in operating
costs for new access modes
$ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Annual cost factors
BART part. in access capital
improvements ( annualized)
$ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Net annual impact ( sum of revenues and costs)
($ 177,873) ($ 128,641) ($ 39,646)
Table 38 shows the summary results of the three scenarios. The scenarios produce negative
financial results from BART’s perspective. It shows that modestly scaled development, when
burdened with the obligation of full parking replacement, does not pencil out. Since substantial
development opportunities exist in the broader station area, it is preferable to prepare a more
comprehensive development solicitation that includes adjacent properties.
15 Note: this is ground rent associated with changes in parking requirements only. It does not reflect additional
ground rent associated with the higher development intensities of some scenarios or other forms of revenue
participation.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 61
Table 38: San Leandro Summary Evaluation Matrix
Criteria Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
Ridership: net annual ridership
impact ( from Table 36)
220 95 121
Revenues and costs: net annual
impact, $/ year ( from Table 37)
($ 177,873) ($ 128,641) ($ 39,646)
Station access mode: reduction
in drive alone share ( from Table
36)
Minor Minor Minor
Long- term BART capacity
Retains BART land in
surface parking, which
provides flexibility in
the future.
Retains BART land in
surface parking, which
provides flexibility in
the future.
Retains BART land in
surface parking, which
provides flexibility in
the future.
BART Plans: support
Comprehensive Station Plans
and access targets.
Scale of development is
small. Greater than 1: 1
replacement parking is
not consistent with
BART access targets.
Scale of development is
small.
Scale of development is
small.
Local goals: Context- appropriate
and well- designed; local support,
partnerships, reduce TOD
barriers ( qualitative).
Consistent with local
plans.
Small scale of
development per local
plans.
Small scale of
development per local
plans.
Regional goals: e. g., provision
of housing, housing affordability,
congestion, air quality, etc.
( qualitative)
110% replacement not
supportive of regional
initiatives.
Limited effect. Limited effect.
Report prepared by Richard Willson, Ph. D. AICP, Transportation Consultant Date: 4/ 18/ 05 Page 62
Chapter 5. Conclusions and Next Steps
Conclusions
This report presents a set of principles and a methodology for consideration by BART in making
decisions on access and replacement parking for joint development projects. The intention is to
indicate BART’s priorities in making these decisions, but to allow for variation depending on
specific station conditions. Given that joint development projects are pursued in collaboration
with local cities and other parties, the methodology provides a way of displaying and sharing
information about the performance of joint development and replacement parking/ access
scenarios. It is intended to further collaborations and partnerships with those parties.
Four stations are used as case studies. The scenarios shown do not exhaust the possibilities for
the stations, nor should they be construed as particular recommendations. Rather, the case
studies are used to test and refine the methodology and to shed light on promising
access/ replacement parking decisions. More detailed analysis is required to effectively
collaborate with local jurisdictions transit operators and others in specifying development
solicitation terms and entering into development agreements.
The following insights have been gained in using the methodology.
• Joint development projects can produce a substantial stream of revenue from increased
fares and ground rent. Finding creative access/ replacement parking arrangements can
make joint development feasible and unlock this revenue source. This reliable,
unrestricted cash flow can support BART’s capital and operating needs and it can enable
BART to contribute to partnerships to improve bus/ shuttle access and provide capital for
access improvements. The results show that leaving BART land resources in surface
parking involves a substantial opportunity cost.
• Small scale development with a developer obligation for full replacement parking often
produces a negative ground rent, requiring a subsidy from other sources. The increase in
parking operating costs associated with a shift toward structured parking ( versus surface
parking) further burdens these scenarios.
• Scenarios that involve less than full replacement parking, alternative access
improvements, and parking charges produce the