FINAL REPORT
AN EVALUATION OF THE POTENTIAL
USE OF FEDERALLY OWNED LANDS
FOR PARK-N-RIDE FACILITIES
.ENVIRONMENT
PLANNING ENVIRONMENT INTERNATIONAL
-------
FINAL REPORT
AN EVALUATION OF THE POTENTIAL
USE OF FEDERALLY OWNED LANDS
FOR PARK-N-RIDE FACILITIES
PREPARED FOR
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX - SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
CONTRACT NO. PP5090560B
JANUARY 1976
PLANNING ENVIRONMENT INTERNATIONAL
A DIVISION OF ALAN M. VOORHEES & ASSOC.. INC.
1100GLENDON AVE.-LOS ANGELES.CALIFORNIA 90024
AMV REFERENCE 652000
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report has been prepared by Planning Envi-
ronment International, a division of Alan M.
Voorhees & Associates, Inc., in fulfillment of
Contract No. PP5090560B. The contents of this
report are reproduced herein as received from
the Contractor.
The findings, conclusions, and recommendations
are those of the Contractors and do not necessar-
ily reflect the views of the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Similarly, the authors are
solely responsible for the accuracy of statements
and interpretations contained herein.
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES iv
LIST OF TABLES
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . 2
Conceptual Framework . . . . 3
THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT PROCESS:
AN OVERVIEW . 7
TRANSIT PLANNING AND POTENTIAL DEMAND FOR
PARK-N-RIDE FACILITIES 13
Transportation Planning Agencies 13
Approaches to Park-n-Ride Facilities 15
IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL PARK-N-RIDE
FACILITIES ON FEDERALLY OWNED LANDS 21
Location of Potential Park-n-Ride Facilities 21
On-Site Investigations . . . 22
Summary of On-Site Investigations 49
SUMMARY 55
Other Environmental Considerations . 55
Planning Guidelines for Implementation . . . . 58
APPENDIX. SUMMARY OF MAJOR FEDERALLY OWNED
LANDS IN THE BAY AREA, BY AGENCY
AND LOCATION 60
ii ] .
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Flow Chart for Investigating the Potential Use of
Federal Lands for Park-n-Ride Facilities
2. Organizational Structure of Public Building Services
3. GSA Specifications for Site Investigation Report
4. Comparison of Utilities for an Auto Driver and a
Park-n-Ride Trip
Page
• 4
• 9
10
5. Location of Critical Parking Areas
6. Regional Transportation Corridors
7. Study Site Location Map
8. On-Site Investigations:
1 and
3, 4,
16
17
18
23
2 24
and5. . . • 25
26
27
16,
26
12,
and
15
9.
On-Site
Investigations:
Study
10.
On-Site
Investigations:
Study
11.
On-Site
Investigations:
Study
12.
On-Site
21, and
Investigations:
22
Study
13.
On-Site
Investigations:
Study
14.
On-Site
Investigations:
Study
15.
On-Site
Investigations:
Study
16.
On-Site
Investigations:
Study
17.
On-Site
Investigations:
Study
18.
On-Site
Investigations:
Study
19.
On-Site
Investigations:
Study
20.
On -Site
Investigations:
Study
21.
On-Site
Investigations:
Study
Study Sites
Sites
Site 6
Sites
Sites
Sites
Sites
Site
Site
Site
Site
Site
Site
Site
7 and 8
9, 11,
10, 13
14 and
17
18
19
20
23
24
25
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
22. Typical Hydrocarbon Emissions Patterns (LDV)
57
iv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. List of Federal Real Property Holding Agencies . . . 8
2. Federal Lanes with Potential for Use as Park-n-
Ride Facilities 50
3. Federal Agencies and Transit Operators Involved
in Potential Park-n-Ride Facilities 52
V
-------
ABSTRACT
The study presents a preliminary analysis of the potential use of Feder-
ally owned lands in the San Francisco region (Bay Area) for use as park-
n-ride facilities. During the conduct of the study, ten tasks were under-
taken, ranging from inventorying lands owned by the Federal government
and reviewing local transit development programs to reviewing the Fed-
eral land management process and conducting on-site field inspections
of the most promising sites.
In the establishment of evaluation criteria for the park-n-ride sites, an
analysis was made of the regional transportation corridors and location
of critical parking areas. Based to a large extent on accessibility to
transit services, 26 sites were identified for on-site field trips. Suita-
bility of the sites for park-n-ride facilities was evaluated as a function
of a variety of factors including physical features and layout, current
use and intensity of usage, convenient and ready access to the streets,
and proximity to transit services.
On the basis of the site visits, eight parcels were identified for more
detailed examination of the concept of using Federal lands for park-n-
ride facilities. In summary, some overall guidelines are presented for
implementing this concept, including consideration of other envirorimen-
tal and transportation objectives.
vi
-------
INTRODUCTION
This study presents an overview of the planning for park-n-ride facilities
in the San Francisco Region (also referred to as the Bay Area) and a pre-
liminary analysis of the potential use of Federal lands for such facilities.
Included in the analysis has been an inventory review of lands owned by
civil agencies of the Federal Government. The major sites and locations
have been summarized in the appendix. An important consideration
throughout the study has been the relation of potential sites to the Transit
Development Program prepared by the Metropolitan Transportation Com-
mission (MTC) 1 and existing transit services.
The locations examined in this investigation have been limited to “Fed-
erally owned lands.” Two other types of lands related to Federal activ-
ities have not been analyzed and may deserve consideration in a more
comprehensive evaluation. These are
o Federal lands owned by defense agencies
o Lands leased by Federal agencies
Federal lands used by defense agencies are rather extensive in the Bay
Area, but were regarded as generally unavailable for public purposes
such as park-n-ride facilities. A listing of these lands--their locations
and responsible defense agencies--is available from surveys conducted
• a
by the General Services Administration (GSA).
‘Metropolitan Transportation Commis sion, “Transit Development Pro-
gram,” May 1974.
2 See, for example, “Real Property Owned by the United States Depart-
ment of Defense (Military Functions), As of June 30, 1974,” prepared
by the General Services Administration, 1975.
-------
Lands leased by Federal agencies in the Bay Area are also quite signi-
ficant, but were beyond the scope of this investigation, It should be
noted, however, that leased lands do offer potential for use as park-n-
ride facilities. In discussions with GSA representatives, it was indi-
cated that it is possible for lease contracts to be renegotiated to provide
for site modifications that could accommodate park-n-ride facilities.
This issue is recommended for further investigation if it is determined
to be an appropriate and desirable Federal action.
BACKGROUND
Impetus for this investigation began in meetings of the San Francisco
regional Federal Executive Board (FEB) and a desire of the Federal
agencies to evaluate “actions” that could be taken by their respective
agencies to reduce energy consumption and improve air quality. In
particular, it was felt programs that Federal employees could partici-
pate in related to their travel patterns would be desirable. With this in
mind, it was decided to evaluate the potential use of Federally owned
lands for park-n-ride lots. In addition to developing a program for
Federal employees, another purpose of the program was to develop
positive ways of contributing to the region t s Transportation Control
Plan (TCP).
“Park-n-ride” refers to bus patrons driving their own vehicles to an
intermediate point and then leaving their cars to ride transit on to their
final destination. This should be distinguished from “kiss-n-ride” ac-
tivity, where commuters are chauffeured to a change-of-mode station
(e.g., bus, train, or rapid transit) by their spouses, kiss their spouses
goodbye, and board the transit vehicle as the spouses drive the family
cars back home. Basically, park-n-ride is an alternative means of ac-
complishing the feeder or collection function. In areas of low or medium
population density, where a high level of bus service (frequency and cov-
erage) is not practical, park-n-ride activity provides an alternative.
2
-------
If the remaining portion of the trip can be made on the bus with travel
time competitive with that of the automobile, then park-n-ride is a vi-
able alternative. It is especially attractive coupled with rapid transit
or express bus operations, particularly if the parking site is coincident
with the commencement of the nonstop, express portion of the route.
Experience to date with park-n-ride lots has shown a clear pattern of
higher use of auto mode to the bus in more sparsely populated areas.
It appears that the split or allocation between driver and passenger is
a more complex one relating to income, car ownership, and parking
availability, Wherever park-n-ride has been a significant factor, it has
been found to have an expanded service area well beyond that of the feeder
or collector bus system.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
The conceptual framework for investigating the potential use of Feder-
ally owned lands for park-n-ride facilities is shown in Figure 1 and con-
sists of 10 tasks. The emphasis of this study was on the collection and
synthesis of existing data and plans, with minimal quantitative analysis
of alternative plans or forecasts of usage, Judgmental analysis has been
used in defining the “areas of interest” for park-n-ride facilities.
The first task was the collection of an inventory of land owned by civil
agencies of the Federal Government. The information was provided by
the Space Management Division of Public Building Services, GSA. 2 This
‘Alan M. Voorhees & Associates, Inc., “Honolulu Park and Ride,”
August 1973. _______________ “Blue Streak Bus Rapid Transit Demon-
stration Proje ct , ” Seattle, Washington, March 1973.
2
General Services Administration, “Real Property Owned by United
States Government, As of June 30, 1974,” 1975.
3
-------
Collect Inventory
Review Regional Discuss Potential Review Federal
of Land Held by
Transit Develop- Park-Ride Pro-
Land Manage-
Civil Agencies of ment Program gram with Transit
the Federal ment Process
for the Bay Area Agencies
Government
11 1 I
Screen Inventory Locate ‘Region of
of Lots Less than Interest’ for Park-
o 5 Acre Ride Facilities
Identify Land Held by Civil
Agencies of Federal Govern-
ment Having Suitable Park-
Ride Facility Location
Conduct On-Site Investigation
of Suitable Location
Establish Park-Ride
Re-examine Location for Guidelines for Future
Development of Park- Land Acquisition
Ride Facilities
FIGURE 1. FLOW CHART FOR INVESTIGATING THE POTENTIAL
USE OF FEDERAL LANDS FOR PARK-N-RIDE
FACILITIES
4
-------
inventory was current as of June 1974. The information was then
screened to eliminate land parcels of less than 0.5 acres, since there
are many parcels of land owned by the Federal Government which are
very small. These include a large number of parcels owned by the Fed-
eral Aviation Administration (FAA) for communication purposes. Paral-
lel with this task was a review of the Transit Development Program pre-
pared by MTC for the nine-county Bay Area.’ This review concentrated
on identifying any plans for developing park-n-ride facilities and revealed
that the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) was the principal agency
interested in park-n-ride facilities.
As a separate task, interviews with the principal agencies involved in
transit operations were also conducted. These discussions revealed that
in San Mateo County there was considerable interest on the potential use
of park-n-ride satellites to feed the BART station at Daly City. However,
concern was expressed that, until the question was resolved of what to
do with the commuter railroad service on the Peninsula, there was little
prospect for implementing these satellite lots because of the likelihood
of attracting passengers away from this service.
Following this review and discussion, “areas of interest” were defined
which reflected those areas in which interest had been expressed re-
garding park-n-ride facilitie3. To these were added some regional lo-
cations where travel corridors converged (e.g., at the Bay bridges and
at change-of-mode locations such as the ferry terminals). Further ex-
pansion at BART stations beyond those already planned was not consid-
ered an “area of interest” because of discussions with the BART staff.
This issue is discussed in more detail later. The next task was to com-
pare the screened inventory of Federal land with the areas of interest
to determine suitable locations for park-n-ride facilities on Federally
owned land. This revealed 26 locations that were suitable. On-site
‘Metropolitan Transportation Commission, op cit .
5
-------
investigation of these sites was then conducted to determine if a park-
n-ride facility could be incorporated into the site. The results of these
investigations are reported later in this report, along with recommenda-
tions for those sites that appear to be especially attractive for detailed
study.
One further line of investigation was also followed. This involved a re-
view of the Federal land management process to identify ways in which
the potential for incorporating a park-n-ride facility into a piece of Fed-
eral land could be evaluated prior to the purchase of the site. In this
manner, any modification to the site could be evaluated before its pur-
chase. The next section discusses this process in more detail.
6
-------
THE FEDERAL, LAND MANAGEMENT PROCESS: AN OVERVIEW
There are Z9 Federal agencies that may hold real property (see Table
1). All other agencies must occupy leased property. GSA is the major
agency buying, selling, and leasing property for the Federal Govern-
ment, although it is not required that it exclusively handle all property
transactions. If a Federal agency wishes to dispose of Federal land, it
is brought to the attention of the Real Property Division of GSA, which
“screens” the property to see if it may be transferred to another agency
wishing to acquire land. If no alternative use can be found, then the
land is declared “excess” and disposed of through sale or by exchange
for an alternative piece of land that is desired by a Federal agency.
The purchase of new land is handled by the Space Management Division
of GSA. This division, together with the Real Property Division and
the Construction Management Division, comprise the Public Building
Services section of GSA as shown in Figure 2.
When land is purchased by the Acquisition Branch of the Space Manage-
ment Division, a Site Investigation Report is prepared by a project team
made up of a representative of the agency that will use the land, an ap-
praiser, architect, engineer, realty officer, and planner--all from GSA.
This team prepares a report following the general guidelines set out in
Figure 3. Guideline 6 states:
a. Local public transportation facilities and the
extent of use by the public, including a delineation
of principal routes and principal terminals from
which local transportation services emanate.
b. The availability, cost, and extent of use of
public parking facilities within or in proximity
to the delineated area. LI no area is delineated,
discuss the availability, cost, and extent of use of
such facilities in or in proximity to the general
area or preferred location for the proposed
building.
7
-------
TABLE 1. LIST OF FEDERAL REAL PROPERTY HOLDING AGENCIES’
1. American Battle Monuments Commission
2. Central Intelligence Agency
3. Corps of Engineers
4. Department of Agriculture
5. Department of the Air Force
6. Department of the Army
7. Department of Commerce
8. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
9. Department of Housing and Urban Development
10. Department of the Interior
11. Department of Justice
12. Department of Labor
13. Department of the Navy
14. Department of State
15. Department of Transportation
1 6. Department of the Treasury
17. Energy Research and Development Administration
1 8. Envir onrnental Protection Agency
19. Federal Communications Commis sion
20. General Services Administration
21. Government Printing Office
22. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
23. National Capital Housing Authority
24. National Science Foundation
25. Office of Economic Opportunity
26. Tennessee Valley Authority
27. U.S. Information Agency
28. U.S. Postal Service
29. Veterans Administration
1 This list does not include all agencies which may occupy or request
assignment of space.
8
-------
PUBLIC BUILDING
SERVICES (PBS)
I _
CONSTRUCTION SPACE REAL
MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT PROPERTY
DIVISION DIVISION DIVISION
riii L 1111 :JI
FIGURE 2. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF PUBLIC BUILD-
NG SERVICES
9
-------
GENERAL SERVI cES ADMINISTRATION
SPECIFICATIONS FOR GSA SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT
FORMAT ihe rcpsart shall bi. bound in book fashion in the left mnagln. in a durable caner with identification of the proteti for svhiih ih i ‘ii.
Investigation is being made un the (ave of ale cones The paper used sisall be or size S 10½ inches All puges shall be numbered c.insia tiliut ’
invludrntt all eshibirs I ails important headmg thall be shown in the Table of Contents The report shall contain tabulations schedniusisli’’
.ind orbit data necessary to set forth all the sire selection factors considered by the Site Investigation Team In order to Iattliraii rhttr unto iii
studs and rietew purposes maps photographs, and other cohabits Included In the addenda shall he placed in $ V. s II ‘.4 nih ensut’vpvs o hi, I.
hound tnr,i the teporl in hirok fashion in the left margin
OUTLINE Ti ’ priieslc uniformity (or GSA files the report will be dts-sded into four parts us oatlrnsd hel,,vv Wttlsin ilvest girls the orirlina vu ii
oti s iii thu isient tot the character and sire of she ptojecr and the commamry in which iris to be lovared nsa’ 1w sutli us ro till br addu list,
data in some vases and less data In others Genmally howeeer, all items must he considered by the Site tneesrtgarron leam md totliid,d in lii
i i port The omrssn’n of any item shall be enplasned in the report
PART I - INTRODUCTION
1 TITLE PAGE The Title Page shall include the same mformatlon
that is shown un the toner i e (I) the name of the prnject (2)
the same nf the cii ) manly and state
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
3 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL The letter of transmittal shall be
in hi term of a memorandum (tom the reaponstble GSA
Rvgo.nat Admietsrtaror to the Commissioner PBS It shall con-
tain the following rstormarton
a The purpose of the report
b The tdenttry of the project
n. The datelsl ‘in whmvh the site tnnesttgatton was node
d The identity of rhe three oorsrandrng potential sires recom-
mended by the Site Innesirgatton Team and the esrimaitil tilt,
satron, relocation and upettal preparation costs ol tat h un , ’ . 0
sites
a Tntal ansounr of foods ueatlable for sire niqotsirnin an,I it lv i
lion
The recommendations of the Regional Adintntsrr trot nil thu
iffecrinc dare of hot recommendations
g The signature of the Regional Admrnrsrtaior
4 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OR MAP The delunear id aica aunt)
and Federal buildings, esssc renters rhe central bavinu ss itt-iris I
of the city, urban renewal projects in neon the periptteru if hi
preferrud or delineated area and the three remomm mndid si usia
to he identified on this phnaograph or msg
PART II — FACTUAL DATA
5 ECONOMIC CHARACTERtSTI SOF THE CITY
a Putpulaimn and growth trends
h A destription of the economic base of the commanmay
Lmooonutc condtltons and data relating 10 the leeel of busrnets
i ttiett) in rhi’ tommarity tseladisg the rrnrsd and rate of
trove ih u .s declmnu. of rhat acrtetty
d lhe sire’ and locarton of the ceniral basmess dtstcscr, irs rare
il yriiwth itt detlini. and its direction and rate of eopansion (if
. 05) I
B COMMUNITY FACILITIES
a Lii i ii pohhu transgorsarmn facrlattes and the eateet of ant by
the poblae inejoding a delineation of pnocipal roasts arid pnnct
pal resnanalu from which local ttnntporsalarn eresces erronaie
b I he as-amIability coo and cstenr of use of pabhc parking facrl-
ties within or in prosirrriry to the delineated area If no area is
dvlioeated disuass the availability, cost and earenl of use of melt
taeilitaes in ot in proximity to the general urea or preferred loca
n .e [ itt the ptoposed botldsstg
7 COMMUNITY PLANNING
a Samonitee results of ssotrflcataan to and consalsaoon with
ptaonrog agencres and local elected officials for purpose of
ouotdtnaisng I ederal projects with denelopment pbos and pro-
grams isf the trait regain aed locality in which the project is so
he lutuated FPMR src lOt I ? 103)
h Zoning uitdioanccs and muster plans relating to the prefenred
or detanea ted atea and the possible effect of those ordinances and
plans on the proposed hotldteg ass respect to wthach heighi.
halk, off street parking rnqaaeemenis and developmeni or hi
general areas under consideration
e Core centers, extsttng under construction or phoned
d Major thoroughfares and highways in eststenie or tinder vi m
eltoelion which will have an effect on the urea which is yrelertcd
or has hers delineated as so acceproble location for the propiusud
budding
a Plans for rmprooeotcnt of eststrog major thoroughlatus tail
highways which will base an effeit on the area whiu h is prcltrsial
or delineared as an acceptable location for the proposed hatldtiu
Urban renewal gmjecls. private or pabl o costing tinder vittu
sreucrton or planned If a federally assisted urban renew 1 prols ir
within the preferred or delineated area is hemp plane d gree hi
slabs of the proposed project and the estimated da l i by w htt.h a
going urbao renewal project still come moro esisteoce as eodcnced
by a contrail berween the Local Redevelopment Aurhoitry and
the Government
B SITE REOU IREMENTS This shall be a statement of the specifit
strn requirements as trared in thu. Stic lneu.srtjtattito Dune, i i s v
tssoed hy rho Commissioner Pohhc tlorldinfs Service
9 THE SITE INVESTIGATION
a The dale on whuch she Sire Investigation Deecriec ve as isiua i i
b The date(t) on which ihe appropriate piibtrc notises aitilhiti
adeertiserrrents soliciting offers (if any) were tssasd
e. The dale(s) on which the Site lneesttgaston was condo-tail
d The name and official positron of each member if hi Stra
Investigation Team (Include members from other agtottcs)
• Total number of offered and unoflesed bitt potuotuit vii, ,
inspected by the site ream
GSA Ferns 5403 to. , a si
FIGURE 3. GSA SPECIFICATIONS FOR SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT
10
-------
PART III — ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
ID SYNOPSIS O F PROPERTIES OPPERED FOR 1N9’ECTION
In his sit iron It bc it port list he properises offered for inspec’
I tin stating he fnil,rsc mg liii each propert
• I i ii 111110
b Site dimensions and square area)
T’ltme ol olfirirris) - md the capacity in which he (they) acted
r i ttiaLin ihi ‘tIc r
d ‘ iii.. ii piirpiiried ow ncr(s)
• Actcrn 1 . price ii known
I Whither thc oftired silL 15 within the preferred or delineared
Ii SYNOPSIS OP UNOPFERED BUT POTENTIAL SITES IN-
SPECTED The loltowing tuformainto shall he ginen for each
hitii(’crIl ies(rs trill
• I O thltOil
b ‘si /c html osnrrs md square treat
nit it purported oss ncr(s)
d ‘ t tti liii priiprmis is within the preferred or deline tied sri i
12 EVALUATION OF SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS
Sit ,’ sit ill hi t va(imartd in trims of (a) aecersihilimy by the
ft iii iii liiitrtii Its into (hi accessibility by the agenty 5 cm
thus hi It pmihht tiansporratton nod by 2) nub (ci aecs 551
(ruin In tutihhi transportation iii low and muderaic income hons-
dl i i it ihilit of off street parhing, (ci orfet y for the I aciliiy
iiiil pit. i pctcoiinel fl nncmploymenl and (g) median tantily
miii ‘ .ini t i saiisft I 1) (1312 Where applicable the GSA Site
ii biridit will he ,ait(ieed and the conchunionn and ratings
ii i uit i trill ‘I hi upon Ft—alnatton will melude cirnwalt,tion
liii it (tilt ral agent it can ..pptoprialc
h Stilt ill/c results ol tonsultaiion with H UI) regarding anail
ihiltis it tots nd mndiratr rncorrtc housing for employees (GSA
I hitcr (‘(is 70($( (It
13 ELIMINATION OF UNDESIRABLE SITES
a S tahriLiiiuin (tint hi reasiins fur the ehmtnaninrn of un
it t cit Irk sitc. ‘(‘all hi prepared Sites hacing vmdat adverse
tat liii t nt us simth is tiro it too Ic, 100 imall, unfavorable lopog
nulls I iii usils unlavurrable surronndings, etc may he
giuuupi it ondcr hi ipprmupriate classiticaiton List each site nnder
mitt itci miii it sot tattoos as are reasons for tin eltmmalion
Ia SIt suet cst’pI hi three ouistandtrrg lotattons that meet the
iii iititnmmtti suit ncqimmtcnbe nts as stated in the Sire Inceitipal iun
llirtitm’c md arc In conformance with GSA policy in respei t
it o liutainumi if I tdcr 1 huildmgs as oaied in PRS P lbfIO SA
chit) h -s u t,mumaied flit three rerrtaintarg silts shalt he discussed in
dciail mdii rh i topic Recommended Suet
14 RECOMMENDED SITES. lath 0) the recommended riles shall
hc discussed in rc qseci to cisnformtls to sire specifications as set
oh in the Site lnvesi aiion Dirccrtne and conformity with
ISA prititu. in rtspect to the Incaiton of Fedctal hoddings The
natraline tunis rntng each of he recommended sties shall describe
thi d mcii ac ins . 1 ihc site is shape and iotal area sirens Irvin I
qcscntmmatcd cmist including seterunos dumugea. 1 any and
topographical chatac tcrtsi cs sod ttratl d si iiss ns hi ito i
recommended site is ai a loenlion or within an ma I ‘ ohtuh
cinsc offictats have espressed a preference ( Ss I nit I t i
Recommended Sites-Chaiaclerisitcs shuU he tonmptctcd hi iii h
rocomnateded ole and included as an eshihrt to Pair IS I lie
report Any conditions which wrIt result in the n peoutu iii
foods for rerutning walls roch encanattnn constiticiton iii
or relocairon of urdities demoltiion of siruciuies speit 1 . un
strucilon features rrs uired in the proposed huilding due mr tug
raphiol ftatnres or sob sorface condiiions slid) Ire enplain, d in
delail An eritmate as to the cost of performing ann urn all itt ui ’
wry wnrh cif thn type in cinencctton n itt the consir tic t ion ii)
propowd buddmg ni preparalion oi lie st Ir shall hi I tirnishi il
The most stgniftcaor adnantiges and dmsadiaotiges ‘ft i hot lie
recommended sites shall he ittstmtssed [ he discmisstotr it the ad
santagt s and d msadsaniagi s of each site nm-is cousmdci t hi fottou
iog as mitt as other appropriate taclois
a Project environmental imp itt cnatuntucin tfSA (ttcivt P1 15 I’
ttI9 S tI lt
h Ncifhhorhootl eouirminntvtti and li i c\usii ott oi uitutii t
ahk smrrhi noise it ott ohnosuuumuri’dors as to ctiuci ‘ui ‘rotc
o Sub ‘nif iii nod it it , . ’
d ‘the tr Inn if tsistinp ‘in rite inprovementc and rho ninth, r
of nwnc rs a nd/ot tcnanrs to he loi ared it hi pipE in it
qtimned
a Iimcalrorr in ichjlmuio to lIlt eenri.il hustiti ss ili ci i d nd ih.
irec l ton and lilt “I citimnili (decline) mt i hit irca
• Zomng and plannmg consrderatn.rmc it icing i si utitri nt 1 ftu ci
un the site and destgn of hi. htmtldtng
Special requoemen is of act fit us s si hii h sill ui tip the tttirlul
log (Piisit)flicc fault ttt I
h Public scoltment
I (nod plaIn csalttatmon
Ilisrorit proper oct vmlmuaiuutt
15 CORN I I_ATION the is litisi adi m i ui ’ toil tlis.rdn tnt fec of
the recetninended smict chill (it weiplmid thu i uuncithu I • t ton being
given rum all factors pirtiount to ttti cetuuiuuri us ot In dcrer
miomg lotal estirrnaled site tisis rIms. i ii its fits if oust ut I torlh
no GSA Form 1239 shall be cmrnsnhtri d togi t liii ‘cit h titi t st I
marrd rile acqaisit ton cost
16 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Indir (its head
rig rhe toocluston of t hi site reanm in necpei t to t lii t it o Si mind
and thtrd chotu c siti shall S .c staisd
17 APPROVAL BY REGIONAL COMMISSIONER PBS Thi
Hi gto nal f’omunisiaoner PllS shath indteatc ipprutna I ut rht tin
clunons and reeoutttnendaiions of the Sin lnneshrgatiu’n Icon hs
a( fining (its ngnatu IC no ihe iepmrri liii ii p.m cli ill hi torn aided
by the Regional Conimussuont r PNS to Ihc Nt cii toil u’sdtttitm istra
or for signarare and transmittal io tIme Cnmnt scion. r PItS
19 FORMAT FOR SITE SELECTION BY THE REGIONAL AD
MINISTRATOR The procedure outlinit l in mciii I ? lone slntt
he applicable t ccpr ihai the Regional Adutruictrmtuur cli ill tratie
rhe ore selc it Kin nd inch sUet tiun shalt hi ps is iii it In i sr ire
meet as iii rhc aarhmmirmis undi r whtch lit its
PART IV — EXHIBITS AND ADDENDA
tat toltnntng eihthmri appearing in rhn oidei as lisrod bolow
shiutitd he mottudrd m cuch Smic lnsrnsrmgaiion Repori In how
io’uances whuro a pubhc norien of as orient in eoedact a ole
un u sriyaun’o nay nor nsued. nt appaoprraie maps are noi and
atsk nit Ii iii ms n.a) hr c ricludud frium rhe rcpori provided ihe
mu ason t or ihi v siticoon is slated
I S uS top’ ill the Sin lnrcsmpaimn Dirccrioe issued by the) ituuirmis
uiiintr PBS
20 S cip if hi pshlit ooiuce andfor adnerriretoeni issued
2r I its otipstiih utt tilts of(errd as well as uinittfered him pomin
nit mitt nttied
22 ( ity i iansim tiuos map wah rccuumuiemdcil smtscmih iii it i d run bc
map
23 Cry visntng map wtth reeomun. ndtd sii.s it’ et,tcit u .n ihc hap
24 GSA Form 1239 Recommended Sites Charaitet r’tius and sum c
phemenral narrattie da n
35 Photographs of the ihiit rccomorundud ruts
26 Rcfercncts, idenmily of ptraons public rtcuurds antI iii i tt numirs
providing data ci htctm was metudu,d to hi rc piutr
27 fl lher apprutpnrate eshithits
GSA Fsrir, 1433 (Pat 2731 (RACeI
FIGURE 3 (Continued)
11
-------
It is in carrying out the investigation associated with this guideline that
the possibility of setting aside land for a park-n-ride facility could most
easily be addressed. It is therefore recommended that this guideline
be redrafted so as to more specifically address the potential for a park-
n-ride facility on the site being investigated. The rationale is that, even
if there are no currently available Federal lands suitable for the devel-
opment of park-n-ride facilities, at least a process would be established
to ensure that future acquisitions specifically address the possibility of
such a use.
12
-------
TRANSIT PLANNING AND POTENTIAL DEMAND FOR
PARK-N-RIDE FACILITIES
In an examination of the possible use of Federal lands for park-n-ride
facilities, the most important feature from a transportation perspective
is the consistency of any proposed facility or network of facilities with
the existing transportation system and plans covering the next 5- to 10-
year period. This section presents a brief summary of the Bay Area’s
transportation system and future plans for the region.
TRANSPORATION PLANNING AGENCIES
The main responsibility for regional transportation planning in the nine-
county Bay Area rests with MTC, which was created in 1971 by the
California Legislature. In June 1973, as part of its regional transpor-
tation planning activities, a regional plan was adopted by IvITC. 1 As
part of its periodic updating requirements, MTC prepared a Transit
Development Program in May 1974 to cover the period 1975 to 1984.2
This program formed part of the basis for this first update. Although
MTC is the designated regional transportation planning agency, there
are many other agencies responsible for transportation decisions in the
area. These include:
Federal Government
Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
State Government
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
‘Metropolitan Transportation Commis sion, “MT C Regional Transpor -
tation Plan,” June 1973.
2
__________ Transit Development Program,” May 1974.
13
-------
Regional Government
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)
Bay Area Air Pollution Control District (BAAPCD)
Transit Districts
Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District
(GGBHTD)
Mann County Transit District (MCTD)
Santa Clara County Transit District (SCCTD)
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit)
Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BARTD)
San Mateo Transit District
Transit Operations
San Francisco Municipal Railway
Santa Rosa
Vallejo
Napa
Transit service in the Bay Area has expanded greatly over the past few
years. The focus of this expansion has been the BART system, which
opened with the Fremont line in September 1972. This was followed by
the Richmond line in January 1973, the Concord line in May 1973, and
the Daly City line in November 1973. However, with this very visible
emphasis on BART, it would be incorrect to infer that transit service
in the Bay Area is a regionwide system. The multiple agencies cited
above result in a mixture of operations that are more or less self-
contained in nature. Due to this heterogeneity, it is difficult to iden-
tify a uniform policy which would be appropriate to the use of park-n-
ride facilities.
The only operator that extensively relies on park-n-ride facilities is
BART. In 1974, nearly 33 percent of all persons using BART were
park-n-ride passengers. All other operators in the region place con-
siderably less emphasis on the park-n-ride mode.’ The apparent
‘Bay Area Rapid Transit District, Department of Marketing and Re-
search, “Passenger Profile Study II,” January 1975.
14
-------
reason for this is that the park-n-ride mode is only viable for longer
interregional trips; since BART is the major supplier of interregional
transit service, use of the park-n-ride alternative is concentrated with
the BART service. The conclusion that park-n-ride is only viable for
longer trips appears intuitively correct, and it can be demonstrated
quantitatively by using the economic concept of “consumer utility,” which
expresses numerically the value or utility an individual places on a par-
ticu.lar modal alternative. The idea is that the higher the utility, the
more likely the individual is to choose a particular mode. Figure 4
shows how the rate of utility increase of the park-n-ride mode exceeds
the rate of increase of the auto mode for trips longer than 10 miles.
Hence, if the trip is longer than 10 miles, a person is becoming more
likely to choose the park-n-ride alternative than he is to choose an auto
for the entire trip. For trips less than 10 miles, the reverse is true;
in this case, likelihood of choosing the auto driver trip is increasing at
a faster rate than the park-n-ride trip. The travel market for which
park-n-ride is most viable, therefore, has the following characteristics:
o Relatively long trips
o Trips in congested corridors
o Trips to destinations that have high parking costs
These, then, were the criteria used in defining areas where park-n-
ride facilities would be most appropriate. These areas are shown in
Figure 5.
APPROACHES TO PARK-N-RIDE FACILITIES
To approach the overall locational issue of park-n-ride lots, it is neces-
sary to understand where the major regional transportation corridors
are located in the Bay Area. These are shown in Figure 6. In the estab-
lishment of a park-n-ride facility, there are three general ways such a
service may be provided. These are briefly discussed below:
15
-------
4
TOTAL DISTANCE OF TRIP (Miles)
FIGURE 4.
COMPARISON OF THE UTILITIES FOR AN AUTO DRIVER AND A PARK-
N-RIDE TRIP
I-
>-
I—
-J
U-
0
>(
w
0
z
3
2
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
-------
FIGURE 5. LOCATION OF CRITICAL PARKING AREAS
17
LEGEND
o TRANSPORTATION CONTROL PLAN
A SAN MATEO Co. LOCAL Bus TRANSIT
o MTC REPORT
Q BRIDGE TERMINUS
-------
FIGURE 6.
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS
Source: Metropolitan Trans portation Commis sion
18
-------
o In close proximity to major transit stations
o In satellite lots away from transit stations, with shuttle
service from the lot to the station
o In satellite lots away from transit stations, with a fixed-
route feeder system from the lot to the station
First, a lot may be located in close proximity to each of the 33 BART
stations, in which case a park-n-ride passenger driving to the nearest
DART station parks his car and uses BART to reach his final destina-
tion. This is the predominant type of service existing at present, with
over 5,000 transit passengers using this mode of access daily. The ma-
jority of these 5,000 passengers are commuters who park their cars at
the station all day, thus limiting the use of the parking facility for off-
peak passengers. It seems likely in the short to medium term that there
will be a transfer of emphasis from peak to off-peak usage. This would
be accomplished by peak-period commuters transferring to an expanded
transit feeder service, with the possibility of a complementary policy
on parking prices being used to reinforce this transfer. The rationale
for this approach is the belief that this is the most cost-effective approach
for expanding BART ridership. A feeder bus service using either fixed
routes, a shuttle service from satellite terminals, or a door-to-station
dial-a-ride service is cheapest on a passenger-mile basis during peak
periods, while in off-peak periods the park-n-ride alternative is seen
as being cheaper. Currently, BART estimates the cost of parking space
represents a subsidy of 75 cents per trip (assuming it is only used by
one vehicle during the day). Hence, if a feeder service could be pro-
vided for less than 37.5 cents per trip, the marginal cost of providing
a transit feeder service is superior to expanding the parking lot. As
new development occurs in the vicinity of BART stations, the opportu-
nity cost of the parking space will increase beyond 75 cents. Thus, the
marginal breakeven point for providing a transit feeder service will also
increase, and the trend to continue expanding the transit feeder service
will therefore continue.
19
-------
The second type of service is the satellite lot away from the primary
station, with a complementary small-vehicle shuttle between the lot
and the station using headways of less than 5 minutes. This would be
similar to the system operating at San Francisco International Airport.
It appears that if such a service can be shown to be cost-effective rela-
tive to other alternatives, it would have the greatest potential for using
Federal lands. The service would operate only during the peak periods,
with the vehicles providing a local dial-a-ride service during the off-
peak periods. The lots could utilize existing facilities such as shopping
centers, churches, and Federal facilities, would have a capacity between
10 and 50 vehicles per lot, and would be located within 2 to 4 miles of
the BART station. At present, this type of service is being investigated
in the Walnut Creek area and appears to have potential.
The third type of service is a derivative of the second, in that a satellite
terminal would be used, but it would be located 7 to 10 miles from the
BART station, and a fixed-route feeder system would be used with head-
ways between 10 and 15 minutes rather than a shuttle service. Again,
feeder service would probably be limited to the peak period. Such a
service probably has potential in the Dublin/Livermore area and in the
Pittsburg/Antioch area. The fixed-route service would replace the
shuttle service, since the cost of servicing the satellite terminal with
anything but a fixed-route service would be prohibitive.
In summary, then, there are three alternative types of transit service
that provide potential for using park-n-ride facilities. The most at-
tractive, from the perspective of utilizing Federal lands, are the al-
ternatives utilizing satellite terminals with fixed-route or shuttle serv-
ice to and from the BART system. The provision of such a service,
however, will involve coordination with the local transit operator, the
interregional operator--BART--and the owner of the park-n-ride
facility- -a Federal Government agency.
20
-------
IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL PARK-N-RIDE
FACILITIES ON FEDERALLY OWNED LANDS
As described in the introduction, the identification of potential park-
n-ride facilities began with an inventory of Federally owned lands. By
and large, this data was available from GSA. 1 From the raw inventory
data, information was compiled on lands owned in the nine-county Bay
Area. As stated previously, only civil agencies were considered to
avoid problems associated with defense clearances and accessibility.
To further screen the Federal land parcels, a 0.5-acre cutoff limit was
imposed to eliminate the many small parcels that are maintained by
Federal agencies. These were generally considered to be too small for
any significant park-n-ride facility conversion projects. The results
of the inventory task and preliminary screening are presented in tabu-
lar form in the appendix. The summary has been organized by county
and according to the Federal agency currently in possession of the prop-
erty. Additional information has also been provided on sizes of build-
ings on the land, general setting of the land parcel (i. e., urban, rural),
and the specific city in which each parcel is located.
LOCATION OF POTENTIAL PARK-N-RIDE FACILITIES
Following the inventory screening phase, information gleaned from dis-
cussions with the various transportation planning and transit operation
agencies was used to locate ? regions of interest” with Federally owned
land parcels. The overall purpose of this task was the identification of
land held by Federal agencies having a suitable location for park-n-ride
lots. No consideration was given to suitability, current use, or avail-
ability for the actual provision and conversion to such a use. Thus, the
‘See, for example, “Real Property Owned by United States Government,
As of June 30, 1974,” prepared by General Services Administration, 1975.
21
-------
overriding factors in these considerations were the regional transporta-
tion needs and ways in which park-n-ride lots strategically located could
provide a convenient means (and thereby an incentive) for change-of-
mode travel to transit. Figure 7 illustrates the general locations of 26
Federal parcels that generally satisfied the criteria established above.
From the figure, it can be seen that the sites are, to a large extent, dis-
persed over the entire region.
Having met the locational and size criteria, the next step in the investi-
gation was to assess the suitability of each location for potential conver-
sion to park-n-ride facilities. This task was completed with an on-site
visit to each of the 26 locations. Within this context, the suitability of
each site was evaluated as a function of a variety of factors, including:
o Physical features--terrain , grading, surface characteris-
tics, number of buildings on land parcel, and number of
parking spaces
o Current use--type of activity observed on land, especially
with respect to usage and availability of parking spaces
o Accessibility--convenient and ready access to the facility
and its parking spaces
o Proximity to transit services--the distance to transit serv-
ice, type of transit service, and frequency of service
The results of these site visits are summarized in the following section.
In addition to a detailed site map (Figures 8 through 21), a brief summary
of the on-site investigation is presented. (Note: The study site location
numbers correspond to those used in Figure 7.)
ON -SITE INVESTIGATIONS
To properly assess the potential for park-n-ride lots on the 26 parcels
selected as meeting the locational criteria, on-site investigations were
made of each location. A summary of the salient features of each parcel
is given below. The corresponding figures present the type and nature
of transit service available to each of these sites.
22
-------
FIGURE 7.
STUDY SITE LOCATION MAP
23
-------
TRANSIT SERVICE TO SELECTED STUDY SITES
STUDY SITE LOCATION
EXISTING BART ROUTE
SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD
A/C TRANSIT•
U...
•..
( )
GREYHOUND *
GOLDEN GATE TRANSIT
AVERAGE HEADWAY/MINUTES
* Existing Feeder Transit Routes
FIGURE 8. ON-SITE INVESTIGATIONS: STUDY SITES 1 AND 2
24
LEGEND
0
II!!IIHII
-------
41
2 S in it.
_ r 3 mTm4T C T
4 LQAStttj S I,
5 Liii ST.
I Nt iS ST
WJ IMAL41 CT
I
I
r c /1
1 J ii èN ’
\ 1/ L >
i\ ;: 1 ‘
7 -
. .,. >
\ S :, ‘
\
CT. lJ4AMSM
IN
t i ss,v
14
PU LIC 011W
00544 05
1 i.
CT
4
*
- •f 4 lN
, rv fr
4151% •
00
/
000t
#
TRANSIT SERVICE TO SELECTED STUDY SITES
LEGEND
0 STUDY SITE LOCATION •U U GREYHOUND *
EXISTING BART ROUTE GOLDEN GATE TRANSIT *
DiflUhli SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD ( ) AVERAGE HEADWAY/MINUTES
J’ ’,F A/C TRANSIT * Existing Feeder Transit Routes
y4
3
TTTY (IF
LVD, /
‘_g t Savf CT
4v 1 C T
—-t
—. — — - r ‘
) i <
‘\
II$ .
5100011.
\‘
r
L
FIGURE 9. ON-SITE rNVESTIGATIONS: STUDY SITES 3, 4 AND 5
25
-------
TRANSIT SERVICE TO SELECTED STUDY SITES
LEGEND
Q STUDY SITE LOCATION I•U U GREYHOUND
EXISTING BART ROUTE GOLDEN GATE TRANSIT
ffl flflI SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD ( ) AVERAGE HEADWAY/MINUTES
,+ j’ F A/C TRANSIT * Existing Feeder Transit Routes
FIGURE 10. ON-SITE INVESTIGATIONS: STUDY SITE 6
26
-------
LI
TRANSIT SERVICE TO SELECTED STUDY SITES
LEGEND
Q STUDY SITE LOCATION •SUU GREYHOUND *
EXISTING BART ROUTE GOLDEN GATE TRANSIT *
flflflflfl SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD ( ) AVERAGE HEADWAY/MINUTES
l’J’J’ A/C TRANSIT * * Existing Feeder Transit Routes
FIGURE 11. ON-SITE INVESTIGATIONS: STUDY SITES 7 AND 8
27
-------
r--SOUTII
/
TRANSIT SERVICE TO SELECTED STUDY SITES
LEGEND
Q STUDY SITE LOCATION U••I GREYHOUND’
EXISTING BART ROUTE GOLDEN GATE TRANSIT *
1111111111 SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD * ( ) AVERAGE HEADWAY/MINUTES
# A/C TRANSIT * ‘ Existing Feeder Transit Routes
FIGURE 12.
ON-SITE ]NVESTIGATIONS:
AND 22
STUDY SITES 9,
11, 12, 16, 21,
A/i
OT$ T fi
\
- ‘ SAN
1’
RAI CI1
* *
—
FR Ij 4
C01
LS
‘ ] j :
, °‘
IN
\
\ 7/
?
Q
TIR
‘
(
.
•
POINT
IIVSTER
A. MAR l ,
i
‘p
\ ‘
‘
P: : ‘ . \
,
—
I
CENTER
\BRU C’) . .
I
I ,
/
S
SOUTH N ’
—
*
\\
\ ,
SAN FRANCISCO
-
( ST RD
7 \ \
I \
\\
T V
.
SEAPLANE
HANSON
28
-------
‘7/JilL! 7 .
(41,4/ :y-i:-
TRANSIT SERVICE TO SELECTED STUDY SITES
LEGEND
0 STUDY SITE LOCATION UIUI GREYHOUND *
EXISTING BART ROUTE • . GOLDEN GATE TRANSIT *
1111111111 SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROADS ( ) AVERAGE HEADWAY/MINUTES
F A/C TRANSIT * * Existing Feeder Transit Routes
FIGURE 13. ON-SITE INVESTIGATIONS: STUDY SITES 10, 13, AND 26
29
-------
TRANSIT SERVICE TO SELECTED STUDY SITES
LEGEND
Q STUDY SITE LOCATION SUS U GREYHOUND *
EXISTING BART ROUTE GOLDEN GATE TRANSIT *
fliflhlill SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD ( ) AVERAGE HEADWAY/MINUTES
A/C TRANSIT ‘ * Existing Feeder Transit Routes
FIGURE 14. ON-SITE INVESTIGATIONS: STUDY SITES 14 AND 15
30
-------
TRANSIT SERVICE TO SELECTED STUDY SITES
LEGEND
Q STUDY SITE LOCATION ••• U GREYHOUND *
EXISTING BART ROUTE • . GOLDEN GATE TRANSIT
flflflflhI SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD * ( ) AVERAGE HEADWAY/MINUTES
fi # A/C TRANSIT * * Existing Feeder Transit Routes
FIGURE 15. ON-SITE JNVESTIGATIONS: STUDY SITE 17
ii > ‘,
31
-------
TRANSIT SERVICE TO SELECTED STUDY SITES
LEGEND
Q STUDY SITE LOCATION i• S GREYHOUND *
EXISTING BART ROUTE GOLDEN GATE TRANSIT
1111111111 SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD * ( ) AVERAGE HEADWAY MINUTES
ff A/C TRANSIT * Existing Feeder Transit Routes
FIGURE 16. ON-SITE INVESTIGATIONS: STUDY SITE 18
32
-------
4 S —1
ALVARAOO PANG
PG
I qp
‘N.
‘ “•%•
!\€€ INN’ 5
4 4
— 3 _ G
r
N t
V _____
€4
V
WALj N
_Nu,.I .
II I HIILST
N 1 s—;
FRAY AR
jW
NV !AY
4 MADISON NY .
FINNING
J Y A&AMFSA AV \
_____ ! AV ‘
14C A I N
s 4 i j
‘ N
‘Ri, L
\ INAG
FIGURE 17.
ON-SITE INVESTIGATIONS:
STUDY SITE 19
1314
N’ :’
- hi
MARM PA
= j. —/
—
— — J i
— .— - -- ..-- /
/1
t f/ ‘/
‘ s 3Y 1 / . ‘çj’ .‘
I- L
; 4GMhF NNN I ! j
% PL9
1 NTA 1
,mIIEM t
R R
- IC.LI —
=.
—
rc I f ? -
4 I %
AY%
c —
‘N
111111 A 4 !
).Sv
In cII I
I IN ( N
INIIUNV V
AR
/ ;I IEI;
t r-ri i
AN
AN
-u1
RNN LYNNIA . AN
t
NV.
UNVcINPON 1
mjj
I
Y
EMVLOFIIENT
IV. •
ii : i:J
‘J!I 5V___ *
‘ _ _ L IS
_:: AA ‘
OWN I AG.
€eiI N; J 1 AG ‘ A -
I CtNVITO 4
/IT1
L_L II I I
A S
N
AG
L ’ ’
V.
!I ic
‘I
AV
NNCHOLL/
NY.
ATfl
1AV
MAN LUTH eR
HTTmaI
WAUtR AA
: I: OVERFND :;;
NY.
I I I !I
‘ j i I
k ( i ‘) 1 I
N L.VD.
4 STA
A, BERG AG
— - BELL AN. INtL NVNSAF
- C T CT
ANVI l,
0
0
-N
—
L ‘ -./O/_ !!!! S
EAST
I SIAVYR AV / ‘V ‘\N “I. i SHORE
‘— X ’ IX t PARK
UNIVFVSITY iY ’ - -
YIFLDSTATION
TRANSIT SERVICE TO SELECTED STUDY SITES
LEGEND
Q STUDY SITE LOCATION SIU• GREYHOUND *
EXISTING BART ROUTE GOLDEN GATE TRANSIT *
UIflHhIII SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD * ( ) AVERAGE HEADWAY/MINUTES
9/’,F A/C TRANSIT ‘ * Existing Feeder Transit Routes
33
-------
TRANSIT SERVICE TO SELECTED STUDY SITES
LEGEND
Q STUDY SITE LOCATION lU UU GREYHOUND *
EXISTING BART ROUTE GOLDEN GATE TRANSIT *
1111111111 SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD * ( ) AVERAGE HEADWAY/MINUTES
A/C TRANSIT * * Existing Feeder Transit Routes
FIGURE 18. ON-SITE INVESTIGATIONS: STUDY SITE 20
34
-------
ILt;’
* tl).I1 ( [ N
.‘ F a’ ( ICAMW
l WY. 11 (0W
• f4
ci ! ‘ 5E’4
I . 1 OW I
—
Jj N i l
: i l
I E
!Il
NW . 1 10W
El
—
(‘; II
TRANSIT SERVICE TO SELECTED STUDY SITES
LEGEND
Q STUDY SITE LOCATION •• IU GREYHOUND *
EXISTING BART ROUTE GOLDEN GATE TRANSIT *
II I1IIIII SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD * ( ) AVERAGE HEADWAY/MINUTES
A/C TRANSIT * ‘ Existing Feeder Transit Routes
FIGURE 19.
ON-SITE ThWESTIGATIONS:
STUDY SITE 23
-
1 t
:1 j
Las
— J2
‘ I IS 4, .‘
I uv .0
# d 1
I I 1
J j ; :L:c*T;f:
1I I
I !
r
(0 1W
‘ -
I 1 1 L0W0WC 1 1
TNi
(
- ‘ 0
L_ . ’
U0
-
a’
•
°‘ ‘4
— 1(0
W
1I%ø s1.
‘
* J2
_0ROr: i
(0 C’MG’ •
I
, , 5
*
p1 “
AL
0 1
: *Tz 1 *Z *
-
- - — — —
C Y LIM
— - j
LIVERMORE
,l, \
,
( ‘0 lot 3 1W ii U.
—1 I 1’ .
S <
so 300ITACUM o S
l I * ’ N • fL ° _!
L I l lY — -
4.
. (
RUT C T
‘i .noi *v I
Ik1I
- (AMMo i
I - •
IV ‘ •.. 0 TM?M INS0PI lw
-______________ j
b Ill
a I ,-
I ..
AT L011
. .
r
-
- - -- - - - -1
RO 5iL RTSON ‘:• • ,-.
) LUMOIV! AUEY
°CJ. . IT:
L IMIT VIEW [ N ( TA l l O W 1
IN .
IV .
35
-------
TRANSIT SERVICE TO SELECTED STUDY SITES
LEGEND
Q STUDY SITE LOCATION USU S GREYHOUND *
EXISTING BART ROUTE • . GOLDEN GATE TRANSIT *
1111111111 SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD ( ) AVERAGE HEADWAY/MINUTES
J/ F A/C TRANSIT * * Existing Feeder Transit Routes
FIGURE 20. ON-SITE INVESTIGATIONS: STUDY SITE 24
36
-------
TRANSIT SERVICE TO SELECTED STUDY SITES
LEGEND
0 STUDY SITE LOCATION UIIU GREYHOUND *
EXISTING BART ROUTE GOLDEN GATE TRANSIT
flUliflU SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD ( ) AVERAGE HEADWAY/MINUTES
,F,l, A/C TRANSIT • Existing Feeder Transit Routes
FIGURE 21. ON-SITE Th VESTIGATIONS: STUDY SITE 25
37
-------
STUDY SITE 1 : Berkeley Post Office
2000 Allston Way, Berkeley
Currently, the Berkeley Post Office is served by 35 truck spaces, 8
vehicular spaces, and approximately 100 feet of curb space. However,
because the Post Office is located in a rather well-developed section of
Berkeley, there is very little potential for expanding the existing park-
ing lot facilities. With the exception of the curb parking, use of the
available space is restricted to government employees’ vehicles. Even
if this were not the case, the installation of a park-n-ride facility would
still be highly questionable; the available facilities are almost totally
utilized by government vehicles, not only for parking but also for maneu-
vering. Adjacent to the Post Office are two privately owned parking lots,
including the Hink’s parking structure (two levels, one block wide, 400
feet long) on the south side of Kittredge and a small “park-and-lock” lot
on the north side of Allston.
STUDY SITE 2 : Department of Agriculture Research Laboratory
800 Buchanan, Albany
The Department of Agriculture Research Laboratory employs approxi-
mately 400 persons and is served by a ground-level parking lot consisting
of approximately 3 10 parking stalls. Use of the lot is not limited, and
both employee and visitor parking is available at no cost. However, the
facility engineer, Mr. Gustafson, indicated that the administration would
not be very receptive to the idea of opening up the parking lot to the gen-
eral public. The primary reason for this reluctance is a stated fear that,
by allowing general use of the parking lot, the facility would be inviting
theft. In addition, he noted that the existing facilities are almost fully
utilized by employees and visitors, and that even during the current low
point in their employment the parking lot is still quite full. The research
laboratory grounds consist of a substantial amount of open space; however,
most of this land is landscaped, and the remainder is either used for agri-
culture experiments or reserved for future building sites. Mr. Gustafson
agreed that, if needed, more parking spaces could be provided. However,
he reiterated that the present parking lot adequately meets the needs of
the facility and that there would be very little interest in providing
38
-------
additional spaces for use by commuters. (Information on the number of
employees driving their vehicles to work can be obtained by contacting
Mr. Jack Meehan at the laboratory.) Bus service is provided by AC
Transit along Buchanan Road at regularly scheduled intervals.
STUDY SITE 3 : Veterans Administration Hospital
150 Muir Road, Martinez
The Veterans Administration Hospital in Martinez employs 909 persons
and serves inpatients, visitors, and outpatients. A total of 746 parking
stalls are available at the facility, 725 of which are generally occupied.
The parking lots are available to visitors, outpatients, employees, vol-
unteers, administrators, consultants, and inpatients--all at no cost.
According to Mr. Muggli, the Assistant Chief Engineer at the facility,
a recent survey has revealed that employees have formed approximately
40 carpools and that each carpool serves approximately 2. 2 persons.
In addition, 435 employees drive to work in single-occupant vehicles.
The hospital owns a substantial amount of vacant land adjacent to the
existing parking 1 t. Even though this land is not level, Mr. Muggli
estimates that, as a result of grading, it would be possible to add
another 400 spaces to this area. However, the hospital has recently
been considering using this land in a general expansion program, and
its availability for a parking lot is unclear. Another member of the
engineering department mentioned an alternative which apparently has
been considered--the construction of a structure on the existing parking
lot area. A structure would not only increase the number of parking
spaces available, but would also tend to deter crime and vandalism.
There is a substantial amount of vacant land surrounding the hospital;
however, this land is privately owned and generally inclined. Bus serv-
ice on the M line is provided by AC Transit, Monday through Friday, at
approximately 1-hour intervals.
STUDY SITE 4 : John Muir National Historic Site
Martinez
The John Muir National Historic Site is currently served by a ground-
level parking lot containing 14 parking stalls. Access to this lot is
39
-------
restricted to visitors only, and commuters are specifically prohibited.
According to the ranger in charge of the facility (Mr. P. J. Ryan), the
site, which is open to visitors 8 hours per day and 7 days per week,
serves approximately 25,000 persons per year. Thus, the existing
parking facilities are overtaxed, and there is a recognized need to ex-
pand these facilities. Mr. Ryan noted that there is currently serious
discussion of converting the lawn adjacent to the visitor center into an
additional parking lot. However, this lawn is only 75 feet long by 75
feet wide and therefore would not add much additional parking space.
The government is also contemplating the purchase of a vacant lot on
the opposite side of the street. This lot is sufficiently large to accom-
rnodate 75 to 100 additional vehicles. Finally, there is the remote
possibility of extending the existing parking lot into an apple orchard
located just below the Muir house. However, this alternative is not
being seriously pursued at this time because such a parking lot would
create a real eye-sore for visitors looking out the windows of the Muir
house. An AC Transit bus stop is located next to the visitor center and
is served by a line that connects directly with BART stations.
STUDY SITE 5 : Main Post Office
815 Court Street, Martinez
The Main Post Office in Martinez provides 23 parking spaces in addition
to curb street parking, and all of these spaces are currently being utilized
by government employees’ vehicles. The Post Office is located adjacent
to the Contra Costa County offices and is therefore situated in a highly
developed area. Thus, there is no vacant land immediately surrounding
the Post Office that could be converted to a park-n-ride lot. Transit
service is not easily accessible, making this site a highly unlikely candi-
date for a park-n-ride facility.
STUDY SITE 6 : Franklin Station Post Office
1351 Second Street, Napa
The Franklin Station Post Office provides 25 parking spaces in addition
to curb street parking, all of which is currently being utilized by govern-
ment employees’ vehicles. Access to the parking lot is restricted to
40
-------
government vehicles only. The Post Office is located in a well-developed
section of the Napa central business district and does not have much op-
portunity for expansion. In fact, there is no vacant land immediately
surrounding the Post Office that could potentially be converted into a
park-n-ride facility. Local transit service is provided in the area sur-
rounding the Post Office by Napa city buses; however, regional transpor-
tation is available through Greyhound or taxis.
STUDY SITE 7 : Federal Center
3840 Finley Avenue, Santa Rosa
The Federal Center is located approximately 1 mile off Highway 12
and immediately west of Highway 101. There are currently approxi-
mately 125 parking spaces, 75 to 85 of which are in general day-to-day
use. While parking is not specifically restricted, Mr. M. L. Dineen,
when contacted at the study site, noted that parking spaces are provided
for government employees and civilian persons on government business
only, and that use of the facilities by commuters would probably be pro-
hibited. There appears to be a considerable amount of vacant land
within the existing facility; however, Mr. Dineen was unable to provide
specific information regarding projected use of this land. He suggested
that this information could be more easily obtained from Mr. Richard
Nee, who is the building manager for the northern section of GSA and
whose offices are located in Oakland. Mr. Nee, when contacted at his
office, indicated that the land at the Santa Rosa facility is in a retention
category, which means that the government has no current plans for the
future of the facility. (Mr. Nee’s offices are located at 1515 Clay Street
in Oakland; telephone number 415/273-7386.) The site itself appears to
have a lot of potential. However, two major problems seem to exist:
(1) The government appears unwilling to allow general public access,
and (2) Current transit service is apparently nonexistent. Still, the
existing parking lot appears to be underutilized (weeds growing at some
of the more remote stalls, no sign of vehicular activity); this is borne
out by figures provided by Mr. Dineen.
41
-------
STUDY SITE 8 : Petaluma Post Office
Petaluma
The 25 parking stalls provided at the Petalurna Post Office are currently
being used by 28 government vehicles. This high occupancy rate results
from the fact that, in several cases, two small mail carriers share the
same parking stall. Nevertheless, it is obvious from these numbers that
the Post Office itself does not have any parking space available which it
can turn over to commuters. As at all Post Offices, access to the park-
ing lot is restricted to government employees and vehicles. This study
site is located in the downtown area of Petaluma and therefore is not
adjacent to any vacant land that could potentially be converted to a park-
n-ride facility. Bus service to the area is provided by Golden Gate
Transit Authority and is fairly accessible from the Post Office.
STUDY SITE 9 : Federal Supply Warehouse
1070 South San Mateo, South San Francisco
While parking space is not specifically provided at this facility, there
does exist the potential for parking in the storage yard itself (a paved
area with a perimeter of approximately 300 feet by 300 feet). Access
to the storage yard is controlled by a guard and also by a sign which
prohibits any public parking. The site is clearly visible to passers-by,
perhaps even from a nearby freeway overpass which is currently under
construction. Since there is very little material stored in the storage
yard, it does not appear that the site is currently being utilized to its
full extent. North of the facility, there is additional open space (approxi-
mately 200 feet by 125 feet) covered primarily by brush. Public trans-
portation does not appear to be currently available in the immediate
vicinity of the warehouse.
STUDY SITE 10 : Veterans Administration Hospital
795 Willow Road, Menlo Park
The Veterans Administration Hospital has many different ground-level
parking lots with a combined capacity of 650 to 700 vehicles. Between
70 and 80 percent of these parking stalls are currently being used for
42
-------
day-to-day hospital functions. Use of the parking facilities is reserved
for hospital-related trip purposes, and no parking charges are levied.
The hospital has quite a bit of open land, most of which is landscaped
and therefore probably not suitable for conversion to a park-n-ride
lot. Public transportation is provided by buses that run on Willow
Road at regularly scheduled intervals.
STUDY SITE 11 : Coast Guard Air Station
San Bruno
The Coast Guard Air Station is somewhat isolated from existing trans -
portation facilities, and access to the station is restricted by guards and
fences. Because of the problems associated with gaining access to this
station, the number of parking spaces actually available was undeter-
mined; however, there does appear to be a surplus of parking spaces
in the facility. In addition, there is a great deal of open space within
the facility that could serve as a parking lot; of course, the use of this
land depends on the access restrictions placed on the land by the Coast
Guard. It does not appear that there is currently any transit service
provided within the immediate vicinity of the station.
STUDY SITE 12 : Federal Records Center
San Brurio
The Federal Records Center provides 51 parking spaces, all of which
are required for its day-to-day operation. Parking is in two separate
areas, one for visitors and the other for employees. While all exist-
ing parking is being utilized, the site does contain a large amount of
irregularly landscaped vacant land totaling 60,000 to 100,000 square feet.
In addition, there is a great deal of vacant land adjacent to the site and
off the main thoroughfares; however, this land is somewhat obscured
from the view of the motorists on Highway 380 and Sheath. The exist-
ing parking lot does not utilize the available space in an optimum manner,
and redesign of the lot could result in quite a few more spaces. Public
transportation is not visibly available within the immediate vicinity of
the Federal Records Center.
43
-------
STUDY SITE 13 : Main Post Office
380 Hamilton, Palo Alto
The Main Post Office in Palo Alto provides a ground-level parking lot
with 22 stalls for its employees and government vehicles, in addition
to 9 stalls for general use located on the street. The Post Office is
located in a rather congested part of Palo Alto with a small total area,
so there is very little room for expansion of the existing parking facility.
Because of the high level of activity within the area, use of this lot for
a park-n-ride facility does not appear to be too practical. Bus trans-
portation is provided on Waverly at regularly scheduled intervals.
STUDY SITE 14 : St. Matthew Station Post Office
210 South Ellsworth, San Mateo
The St. Matthew Station Post Office provides 8 metered spaces on the
street and 8 employee parking stalls in a restricted ground-level area.
The facility is located in the downtown area of San Mateo, and space
appears to be at a premium. The congestion and high level of activity
that exist within this area make the facility an unlikely candidate for a
park-n-ride lot. Accessibility of the facility to public transportation
is undetermined.
STUDY SITE 15 : Burlingame Post Office
220 Park, Burlingame
The parking spaces provided next to the Burlingame Post Office include
on-street metered spaces and a 97-stall, ground-level city public park-
ing lot. The existing utilization of these facilities is almost 100 percent,
despite the 2-hour maximum parking limit. Whether or not the govern-
ment owns the parking lot is still unclear. However, due to the exist-
ing high occupancy rate at the lot, use of the facility by commuters
appears to be impractical. Public transportation is provided in the
vicinity of the Post Office by bus stops on Howard and El Camino Real
as well as the Southern Pacific commuter station.
44
-------
STUDY SITE 16 : PMDS Sales Office
1150 San Mateo, South San Francisco
The PMDS Sales Office, which is located in the warehouse section of
town, appears to be generally unoccupied except for two side warehouses
located on the site. The survey revealed a ground level parking lot
containing 20 spaces, 6 of which were currently being used. There is
no cost associated with parking at the facility, and there do not appear to
be any restrictions on who may use the lot. Very little additional land
is available at the facility (only a 20-foot by 20-foot plot), so there does
not appear to be much potential for expanding the existing parking lot.
Neither is there any vacant land close to the site that has potential for
conversion to a park-n-ride lot. Public transportation is not apparently
accessible within the immediate vicinity of the facility.
STUDY SITE 17 : San Francisco Docks and Yard,
Defense Corps of Engineers
Sausalito
The San Francisco Docks and Yard facility provides 3 abuses onlyt
parking stalls and 24 auto parking stalls for general use, in addition
to approximately 20 parking spaces inside a government compound. At
the time the survey was conducted (approximately 11:30 a.m. ), the
general-use parking lot was approximately half full (1 bus and 12 cars).
Parking within the general-use lot is free of charge; parking inside the
government compound is fenced off, and access is therefore restricted.
There was no vacant land either within the facility or adjacent to it that
showed potential for conversion to a park-n-ride facility. Public trans-
portation is available in the form of Golden Gate Transit bus stops and
the Golden Gate Ferry, which is located next to the facility; however,
it is quite a long walk from the facility parking lot to the ferry terminal.
STUDY SITE 18 : San Rafael Post Office and Federal Building
San Rafael
Located at this facility is a Post Office, civil service offices, a recruit-
ing station, Department of Treasury offices, and selective service offices.
45
-------
Parking at the facility is provided in a ground-level lot that accom-
modates 27 vehicles, with additional curb parking for 9 vehicles. At
the time of the survey (10:30 a.m. ), both the lot and the street park-
ing were being fully utilized. Parking within the lot is generally un-
restricted, although some spaces are reserved for employees. There
is no additional vacant land on the site that could potentially be converted
to a park-n-ride facility; however, there is a small plot of vacant land
(100 feet by 130 feet) opposite the facility on Third Street. This land con-
tains a fairly empty gravel parking lot that serves two adjacent buildings
(the ownership of this lot is unknown). The availability of public trans -
portation to the site is undetermined.
STUDY SITE 19 : Richmond Post Office
Richmond
Parking in the ground-level lot surrounding the Richmond Post Office
is divided into sections for employee parking and visitor parking. Of
the 32 spaces, 25 are provided for employee parking and 7 are provided
for visitor parking. At the time of the survey (9:30 a.m.), 16 employee
and 6 visitor stalls were occupied. While there is no vacant land on the
site itself, a substantial amount of open space exists in an area imme-
diately surrounding the Post Office. This land has been opened up pri-
marily due to urban renewal projects, and construction is going on all
around the study site. A free (2-hour limit) ground-level parking lot
is located in the block opposite the Post Office defined by 10th and Nevin.
This lot, although partially undeveloped, can accommodate a large num-
ber of vehicles and is relatively unused. Parking for the BART station
is 3 to 4 blocks to the east of the Post Office. No other forms of public
transportation are apparently available in the immediate vicinity of the
study site.
STUDY SITE 20 : Mill Valley Post Office
Mill Valley
The Mill Valley Post Office is served by a ground-level parking lot that
can accommodate 13 vehicles. Use of this lot is restricted to employees
46
-------
only. At the time of the survey (11:00 a.m.), 8 vehicles were observed
to be parked in the lot. There is no vacant land on or adjacent to the
study site that could potentially be converted to a park-n-ride lot. The
facility is located in downtown Mill Valley and is therefore in an area
that is generally congested, with parking space at a premium. Public
transportation to and from the study site is provided by the Golden Gate
Transit buses which operate on Miller.
STUDY SITE 21 : GSA Supply Depot
159 Oyster Point Boulevard, South San Francisco
The parking area that serves the GSA Supply Depot is a large unpaved
lot which can accommodate approximately 160 vehicles. Access to this
lot is via a dirt road which crosses 7 to 8 railroad tracks and an over-
pass from the freeway (U.S. 101) and connects with Oyster Point Boule-
vard. At the time of the survey (8:30 a.m. ), the parking lot was occupied
by 106 vehicles. Parking at the depot is free of charge, and access is
unrestricted. The supply depot is located in an industrial section of
South San Francisco with no vacant land nearby. Public transportation
to and from the facility is not apparently available in the immediate
vicinity.
STUDY SITE 22 : South San Francisco Post Office
322 Linden, South San Francisco
The South San Francisco Post Office is served by a ground-level parking
lot, containing 20 parking stalls, and 4 parking spaces on the street.
Parking in the lot is restricted to employees only; at the time of the
survey (9:00 a.m. ), the lot was occupied by 16 vehicles. The study site
contains no vacant land, nor is there any open space in the area imme-
diately surrounding the Post Office. Public transportation to and from
the Post Office is not apparently available within the immediate vicinity
of the study site.
47
-------
STUDY SITE 23 : Main Post Office
220 South Livermore, Livermore
The Livermore Post Office is served by a ground-level parking lot that
can accommodate 46 vehicles. Access to the lot is restricted to “official
vehicles only.” At the time of the survey (11:00 a.m. ), only 7 vehicles
were parked in the lot; however, it can be assumed that most postal
vehicles were out delivering mail and that the lot is fully utilized dur-
ing the morning and evening hours. Although there is no additional
vacant land at the study site, it would be possible to provide 20 to 30
more parking stalls through redesign of the existing parking lot. The
availability of public transportation to and from the study site is
undetermined.
STUDY SITE 24 : Main Post Office
822 C Street, Hayward
The Hayward Post Office is served by a ground-level parking lot which
contains 55 spaces. Seven of the stalls are marked “reserved,” and the
remainder of the lot is reserved for “employees and customers.” At
the time of the survey (12:00 noon), 14 vehicles were observed to be
using the lot. The study site does not contain any vacant land nor is
there any open space immediately surrounding the site that could poten-
tially be used for a park-n-ride facility. Public transportation to and
from the study site is provided by a BART station located two blocks to
the west.
STUDY SITE 25 : Main Post Office
2417 Central Avenue, Alameda
The Alameda Post Office building is closed and not in use anymore. It
is served by a ground-level parking lot that can accommodate 7 vehicles
and is reserved for use by postal vehicles only. There is no vacant land
on the study site, nor is there any open space in the area immediately
surrounding it which could potentially be converted to a park-n-ride
facility. The availability of public transportation to and from the Post
Office is undetermined.
48
-------
STUDY SITE 26 : Geological Survey Building
Menlo Park
This study site is served by a ground-level parking lot that can accorn-
modate approximately 350 vehicles. At the time this survey was taken
(1:00 p.m.), approximately 225 vehicles were using the lot. There is
no charge for parking at this facility, and access is unrestricted. The
only vacant land on the site is the large front yard (125 feet by 200 feet)
which has just recently been landscaped. There is also some open land
in areas immediately surrounding the study site. The availability of
transit to and from the Geological Survey building is undetermined.
SUMMARY OF ON-SITE INVESTIGATIONS
As a result of the on-site investigations, numerous sites were generally
considered unsuited or inappropriate for use as park-n-ride facilities.
On the other hand, a number of sites visited appeared to offer consider-
able potential for such use; these study sites are listed in Table 2.
The primary consideration given in the sites selected in Table 2 was
the existing or potential availability of parking spaces. If Federal lands
were to be used for park-n-ride lots, it was assumed those parcels re-
quiring the least conversion costs would be most likely to be considered;
lands which required extensive modifications were felt to be at a disad-
vantage for serious consideration.
The sites given in Table 2 represent a number of Federal agencies.
Also, their locations are proximate to a variety of transit services.
Implementation of a program to coordinate these agencies and transit
operators is deemed necessary to establish the desired park-n-ride
facilities and to ensure their usefulness to the transit operators in en-
couraging more extensive transit use as a consequence of this change-
of -mode alternative.
49
-------
TABLE 2. FEDERAL LANDS WITH POTENTIAL FOR USE AS
PARK-N-RIDE FACILITIES
Study Site Description Location
3 Veterans Administration Hospital Martinez
4 John Muir National Historic Site Martinez
7 Federal Center Santa Rosa
10 Veterans Administration Hospital Menlo Park
19 Richmond Post Office Richmond
21 GSA Supply Depot South San Francisco
25 Main Post Office Alameda
26 Geological Survey Building Menlo Park
50
-------
Table 3 presents the Federal agencies and transit operators whose co-
ordination would be needed to investigate further establishment of park-
n-ride lots on parcels listed in Table 2. For land parcels too distant
to walk to the transit service, discussions would have to consider shut-
tle service or a fixed-route addition to include the Federal site. For
Federal lands within walking distance of transit, these deliberations
would focus primarily on public information and awareness of the avail-
ability of such a service. Given sufficient impetus to proceed, it is not
envisioned that major institutional problems would be encountered, nor
is it felt that the costs of providing these facilities would be that
significant.
The areas of study that need to be evaluated further prior to actual pro-
gram implementation are:
o Institutional Arrangements - -More detailed discussions need
to be held with specific agencies and transit operators with
regard to specific parcels of land under consideration for
conversion to park-n-ride lots. These discussions should
center on cooperative arrangements which can be made to
ensure mutual reinforcement of each agency’s actions in
achieving a successful project.
o Cost Estimates--Detailed estimates need to be prepared to
identify the costs associated with each project. These costs
should be divided into capital costs (e. g., site modifications)
and annual operating costs (e. g., advertising, maintenance).
Arrangements need to be clarified among the participating
Federal agencies and transit operators regarding respective
financing responsibilities.
o Preliminary Project Design - -As part of the cost estimates,
preliminary project designs will need to be prepared for
each site under consideration. At a minimum, the informa-
tion to be furnished should contain the exact location of the
park-n-ride facility; size of the lot (number of parking
spaces available); and periods of operation (e.g., weekdays,
weekends). Preliminary architectural sketches would be
useful in this evaluation.
o Supportive Measures--As a specific project comes under
evaluation, an analysis of the supportive measures neces -
sary to make the project attractive needs to be made. In
51
-------
TABLE 3. FEDERAL AGENCIES AND TRANSIT OPERATORS
INVOLVED IN POTENTIAL PARK-N-RIDE FACILITIES
Study Site Federal Agency Transit Operator
3 Veterans Administration AC Transit
4 General Services Administration AC Transit
7 General Services Administration Golden Gate Transit
10 Veterans Administration Southern Pacific RR;
Greyhound
19 Postal Service BART
21 General Services Administration Southern Pacific RR
25 Postal Service AC Transit; BART
26 Geological Survey Southern Pacific RR;
Greyhound
52
-------
cooperation with the transit operators, a marketing and
public information campaign needs to be initiated. 1 As
part of these considerations, details need to be worked out
regarding community relations and information, signs and
equipment, publicity on transit services and fares, etc.
o Potential Demand--Projecting demand for the use of these
facilities is difficult for a variety of reasons. First, de-
mand is a function of many of the factors discussed above- -
convenience, physical layout, adequate public information,
and attractiveness. These factors relate to the supply of
parking. The demand for the parking spaces is even more
difficult to predict and is a function of available alternatives,
socioeconomic characteristics, and levels of transit service.
With regard to the last consideration--potential demand--a difficulty is
encountered in defining the general “market area.” While it is accepted
as larger than the service areas covered by transit services (either
shuttle or fixed route), the potential market area for park-n-ride users
varies widely with specific regional and areal characteristics.
It was originally proposed that the Federal action program decided upon
was to be primarily for Federal employees. In terms of this study,
such an approach has several disadvantages. First, the potential de-
mand for park-n-ride facilities on Federal lands is significantly reduced
by providing them only for Federal employees’ use. While the Federal
employee population in the Bay Area is quite sizable in absolute num-
bers (approximately 80,000), in terms of the total region’s employment
force, Federal employees are not as significant. Second, even if it were
desirable to use the proposed park-n-ride facilities for Federal employ-
ees only, an enforcement and monitoring program would need to be es-
tablished. For these reasons, it is recommended that any facilities that
would be implemented be open to all potential users to ensure maximum
1 .
For general guidelines in this area, see “A Generalized Public Transit
Marketing Policy--Action Plan for Improvements in Transportation Sys-
tems in Large U. S. Metropolitan Areas,” prepared by London Transport
Executive for U.S. Department of Transportation, DOT-OS-b 192,
July 1972.
53
-------
demand, and that all reasonable measures be taken to actively promote
the facilities as open to public use. A possible course of action to be
taken, given the uncertainties regarding potential demand, would be to
initiate several demonstration or pilot projects and to monitor their
usage.
54
-------
SUMMARY
This study has evaluated the potential use of Federally owned lands for
park-n-ride facilities. Included in the investigation are recommenda-
tions for a number of sites that appear quite attractive for such use. In
this regard, a number of steps have been identified for actions to be in-
itiated to further examine critical issues relating to conversion of spe-
cific land parcels. These issues--institutional arrangements, cost es-
timates, preliminary project design, supportive measures, and potential
demand- - should all be analyzed more fully before embarking on any in-
dividual projects.
The remainder of this section discusses briefly two separate and dis-
tinct issues:
o Other environmental considerations (e.g., air pollu-
tion and energy conservation)
o Planning guidelines for program implementation
OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
A basic premise for initiating this study has been that park-n-ride fa-
cilities will reduce vehicle miles of travel (VMT) and thereby improve
air quality and conserve energy. As such,’ establishment of these facil-
ities is a desirable action to be encouraged by Federal agencies as a pos-
itive program.
Recent data, however, suggest that park-n-ride facilities may be signi-
ficantly less effective in reducing auto emissions than originally estimated.
“The new information explicitly disaggregated vehicular emis-
sions into a number of component parts previously unaddressed
by EPA- -cold starts, hot soaks, and diurnal breathing losses.
While these data are still preliminary, the implications of this
55
-------
information for control tactics to be recommended are con-
siderable. The net result of EPA’s revised procedures for
calculating vehicular emissions is to place emphasis on trip
making and VMT reductions for air quality improvement.
The relative importance of trips versus VMT reduction var-
ies over time and requires careful analysis on a region by
region basis. Of considerable importance is that many pre-
viously proposed control measures for air quality improve-
ment are of questionable value in light of the revised proce-
dures; some tactics, in fact, may actually increase emissions
while reducing VMT.... The fundamental conclusion. . . is
that those control tactics which would either reduce the aver-
age trip length or increase average speed but not affect the
number of trips made (e. g., park-and-ride, ramp metering)
may be considerably less effective in reducing automobile
emissions than those tactics yhich would be directed at re-
ducing trip-making activity.”
Figure ZZ presents a typical hydrocarbon emissions pattern, illustrating
the various components of the total emissions cycle. As shown in the
figure, emissions from running exhaust are relatively minor compared
to total emissions, especially in 1980 and 1985. This suggests that for
later years strategies directed at reducing VMT, but not affecting trip-
making activity, will have only modest impacts on emissions--signifi-
cantly less than originally estimated.
A similar situation exists for energy consumption, where there is a dra-
matic difference in fuel economy between short and long trips. On a per-
mile basis, the fuel consumed in short trips is significantly higher than
for long trips. Thus, if one were interested in fuel economy expressed
in miles per gallon (MPG), one would tend to drive longer trips. This
is clearly a false fuel economy since the total fuel consumed in going be-
tween two points is obviously more important than the value in going
1 Environment Irite rnational, “portation Manage ment Tac -
tics for Air Quality Improvement- -San Diego Region, ‘ prepared for
Comprehensive Planning Organization of the San Diego Region, Decem-
ber 1975.
56
-------
U)
2
0
CIRCA
1972
COLD START
RUNNING EMISSIONS
(FUNCTION OF VMT AND SPEED)
HOT SOAK
COMMENTS
• MAJOR REDUCTION IN
RUNNING EXHAUST
EM ISS IONS
• TRIP END RELATED
EMISSIONS UNCHANGED
VI
2
0
CIRCA
1980
• PROPOSED CONTROLS ON
EVAPORATIVE LOSSES IN
1980 (I.E. DIURNAL AND
HOT SOAK EMISSIONS)
• TRIP END RELATED
EMISSIONS VERY
IMPORTANT
U,
2
0
Ma
CIRCA
1985
FIGURE 22. TYPICAL HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS PATTERNS (LDV)
— — - -
DIURNAL LOSSES
57
-------
between these points.’ In keeping the total fuel consumption in mind one
would also have to consider the energy consumed by the transit system.
From an energy conservation perspective, perhaps other forms of bus
collector systems would be best (e.g., demand-responsive).
PLANNING GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION
Many of the guidelines that direct location of park-n-ride lots have im-
plicitly been used in this analysis. For purposes of future Federal land
acquisitions, where it may be desirable to implement a park-n-ride fa-
cility in the initial planning stageB, these general guidelines are reiterated: 2
o The locations should be in dense travel corridors ap-
proaching high-density employment centers.
o Sites should be adjacent to a radial freeway, beyond
the location of serious congestion.
o Access to the park-n-ride facility should be conven-
ient for both the bus and the automobile.
o The cost of development should be minimized; in this
case, existing Federal facilities for parking should be
used wherever possible.
o The parking facility should be located on land parcels
of sufficient size to allow for both adequate traffic cir-
culation and pedestrian safety and convenience; the size
should also provide for potential future expansion if
the demand warrants such expansion.
o Use of park-n-ride facilities should be free of charge;
parking fees will substantially discourage use of this
mode. Furthermore, use should be actively promoted.
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “A Report on Automotive Fuel
Economy,” February 1974.
excellent summary of these principles, as well as local experiences
with park-n-ride facilities, is presented in “Locating and Operating Bus
Rapid Transit Park-Ride Lots--A Synthesis of Experience and Some Pre-
liminary Planning Guidelines,” D.M. Gatens, prepared for Urban Mass
Transportation Administration, August 1973.
58
j
-------
As stated in the section on the Federal land management process, con-
sideration should be given to possibly modifying the standard site inves-
tigation reports to incorporate a preliminary assessment of future land
acquisitions and their potential use as park-n-ride facilities. In the long
run, such a modification in process could be more cost-effective and in-
tegrated more directly with other ongoing regional transportation plan-
ning efforts.
59
-------
APPENDIX
SUMMARY OF MAJOR FEDERALLY OWNED LANDS IN THE
BAY AREA, BY AGENCY AND LOCATION
60
-------
/
I
1/
‘/
C,
/ / /
/
‘I “si
f 4,d/
Atunod.
774.886 153,951
61(1 19 lii
2 (2 )
Albuny
In 000
5(1
4 (I)
4,
B. rkcloy
Ajomod.
County
(15 nUn .)
64.872
I 13
4(l)
/‘/ /;/,/V // / /; / /
291763
(6 6(1
LFX.LND
Squsro F o o t .g . of BulId.ng
L .nd Arrongo- -u (Jobon. I S k cr .1
No Sd .. In County (No of County
Sd.. ,n thn CUp)
County
Prop
Fromont
5 0.2 56
II 7(1
H.y ’ .rd
9.405
(,U
4(l)
Livoon,oro
Z0.161
OU
4(I)
395,079
118. SR
I
2, C66 ,795
031 3R
101 513
2(2)
4 IR
I
6 540
lOON
I
‘
-_________
PIo..onton
120.26-4
8.50
86. 4(1
Conto.
Coot.
County
( loU..)
Concord
1.209
24 5(1
2(I)
M .rtln n
‘
5.500
5(1
Oil)
398.623
3513
I
16,460
8.7(1
I
Richmond
3,146
719
2(I)
19.377
.5(1
2(11
°
County
Prop.
I
b i n r in
County
((4 otto.)
I1ol n..
8 ( i)
Fort
Sorry
6.061
2 24 ,4R
9123
-------
1.t.ri o
Coaurty
(14 site.)
i co n ithu ed )
/ / 0.!
/ / / / / / i: / / . / / / / ? / / / f/
/ i / / 1/ / / II / / / i/ / V /, // / /
4 1W
2(i)
Zoo. rue..
693
75. SR
9 (I)
Son Raia.l
Point thy ..
Stall..
81.742
60.74ZR
8(I)
73.420
60.659R
2 ( I)
I
f
I I I I
C’
County
Prop
SiR
8(I)
LEGEND
Square Footage .1 BuIlding
Land Acreage--U • tJrb.o. A 0 Rural
No. Sit.. In Coanty (N .. of Coemly
Sit., in lb. City)
Soo.atlto
7.913
3911.
8) 1)
187.514
60U
2(t)
Ttberon
193,888
453
8( l)
190.568
45 3
I
M I I I
V.lI.y
7.094
SU
I
9.723
483 8U
2 (l)
Naps
Couoiy
(3 .1 1 . .)
Nap.
15.843
7
2( 1.)
——
48
I
B NeZ. ..
4.893
2(1)
San Francisco
County
(18 s It..)
SOn
FrancIsco
103.649
28W
2(I)
3709.010
35 2W
8
1.284.516
25 5W
2
6,771.991
ISO. SU
I
84181
29W
I
50572
0.3W
I
245.890
3.9W
2
442.726
36 4U
County
Prop
14.337
izoa
2(I)
San Mote.
County
(17 sit ..)
Bcrling .m .
14.257
I. 3W
311)
Mrnlo Park
9 340
3 5.800
9 . ZU
6 (l)
971.888
96. ZU
I
396.03.
40.1 A
j
--
10.3W
I
Montar.
-------
-------
.r O/ 141
/ ?/
/ Q 4
li/if! /
/
Tot .1
0 ’
i./
I
ii’
/ ./,/ /,
/ / / / / / /1/1/if /
I
‘7
16
-
13.461
S. om.
Coonty
(3
(coo
M..Id.b o o
—
40Z. 6R
I
Pot.1 rntt
——
360.063
0 IS. 7R
2(I)
I8.7Z6
. 9U
I
-
4 3
3
I I
I I
I I
LEGEND
Sqtt.r. Footo 1 o of Bt IIdLn 1
l.ond U - U.b o. R • Enrol
No. Silo. in Co nty (No. of C tnty
S d.. In tho City)
------- |