& Candlestick Point Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II - Office of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

8AnalogiesThe mode split goal of the project – 45percent auto, 30 percent transit, 20 percentwalk, and 5 percent bike are analogousto other San Francisco neighborhoods. Inaddition, automobile travel has declined andalternative modes have gained popularityin projects and neighborhoods in SanFrancisco and other cities through effectiveTDM strategies. The following sections drawanalogies to Candlestick Point and HuntersPoint Shipyard, showing that dense, mixedusedevelopment and a comprehensive TDMprogram can achieve the project’s modalsplit goal.93
8.1 Comparison to Other SanFrancisco NeighborhoodsWith respect to current travel patterns in southeastern SanFrancisco, the mode split shift sought by the project goalsmight appear ambitious. However, many San Francisconeighborhoods currently exhibit comparable levels of auto,transit, and walk/bike travel, as shown in Table 26. Percentagesof residential work trips in other San Francisco neighborhoodsthat meet or exceed the project modal split goal appear in thetable in bold.All of the featured neighborhoods have a level of transit usegreater or equal to 30 percent for residential work trips. Areasof the City where at least a quarter of trips are made onfoot or by bike include Nob Hill, North Beach, and TelegraphHill. Private automobiles are used for 45 percent or less ofresidential work trips in Nob Hill, North Beach, Telegraph Hill,and the Western Addition.With a development density, mixed-use character andlevel of transit service comparable to these neighborhoods,Candlestick Point and Hunters Point Shipyard will achieve amodal split similar to these transit-oriented and walkable SanFrancisco neighborhoods.8.2 TDM Case StudiesWhile it is difficult to isolate the effectiveness of any one ofthe TDM elements described in Chapter 5, it is clear from thefollowing case studies that comprehensive, multi-faceted TDMplans can achieve dramatic shifts in mode choice. The policiesand programs outlined in Section 5.2.4 intend to createthis synergy, achieving results comparable to the followingcase studies.Table 26: Mode Split Comparison - San Francisco NeighborhoodsNeighborhoodPM Peak Hour Residential Work TripsTransit Walk/Bike Auto/CarpoolMarina 40% 11% 49%Mission 39% 14% 47%Nob Hill 39% 32% 29%North Beach 30% 40% 30%Parkmerced 31% 4% 65%Russian Hill 35% 15% 50%Telegraph Hill 31% 29% 40%Western Addition 45% 16% 39%% That Would AchieveProject Goals 30% 25% 45%Stanford University, Palo Alto, CaliforniaSource: U.S. Census Bureau – 2000In 2002, four percent of Stanford University employees rodeCaltrain to work. By 2007, this figure jumped to nearly 18percent. During the intervening five years, the following wereimplemented:• GO Passes are provided free to all employees who live offcampus,which allow unlimited rides on Caltrain;• Caltrain introduced “baby bullet” service, with Palo Alto asan express station; and• “Clean Air Cash” was instituted, an incentive which paysuniversity employees $234 (the cost of a permit) if theydo not purchase a parking permit.TDMplans canachievedramaticshifts inmodechoiceAnalogies94
Page 1:
Approved June 3, 2010Agency Commiss
Page 4 and 5:
1Executive Summary1.1 IntroductionT
Page 6:
Integration of TransportationImprov
Page 9 and 10:
Implementation and MonitoringA phas
Page 11 and 12:
Executive Summary8
Page 13 and 14:
Lennar is the lead developer for th
Page 15 and 16:
Principles• Transportation system
Page 17 and 18:
• Equity: to avoid a “gated com
Page 19 and 20:
3.1 Transit ChallengesFigure 3: Exi
Page 21 and 22:
3.3 Pedestrian &Bicycle ChallengesF
Page 23 and 24:
Figure 5: Proposed Nearby Developme
Page 25 and 26:
Land UseTable 4: Land Use ProgramCa
Page 27 and 28:
4.2 Street Network & Urban FormAs n
Page 29 and 30:
(Figure 7J); Griffith Street, Thoma
Page 31 and 32:
Figure 7B: Yosemite Slough Arterial
Page 33 and 34:
Figure 7D: CollectorsProject Defini
Page 35:
Figure 7F: Park Edge StreetsProject
Page 38 and 39:
35 Project DefinitionFigure 7I: Yos
Page 40 and 41:
37 Project DefinitionFigure 7K: Pos
Page 42 and 43:
39 Project DefinitionFigure 7M: Har
Page 44 and 45:
41 Project DefinitionFigure 7O: Non
Page 46 and 47: 4.3 Proposed RoadwayImprovementsExi
Page 48 and 49: Figure 8: Proposed Roadway Improvem
Page 50 and 51: Figure 10: Proposed Harney Way Pote
Page 52 and 53: 5Transportation Program 5.1 Introdu
Page 54 and 55: 5.2 StrategiesThe strategies outlin
Page 56 and 57: • Many residences in the adjacent
Page 58 and 59: Figure 14: Proposed Bicycle Routes5
Page 60 and 61: Figure 15: Proposed Transit Improve
Page 62 and 63: Table 7: Muni Service to the Projec
Page 64 and 65: Employerswill berequired toparticip
Page 66 and 67: It is expected that many residents
Page 68 and 69: Unbundling takes this concept one s
Page 70 and 71: Parking SupplyThe proposed parking
Page 72 and 73: Non-Stadium VariantsThe non-stadium
Page 74 and 75: 5.3 PhasingThe Plan calls for a com
Page 76 and 77: 6Game Day ConsiderationsAs part of
Page 78 and 79: Shuttles to Regional Transit Connec
Page 80 and 81: Table 18: Post-Game Lane Configurat
Page 82 and 83: Figure 18: Game Day TransitGame Day
Page 84 and 85: Table 21: Peak Direction Exit Capac
Page 86 and 87: Figure 20: Post-Game Auto Exit Capa
Page 88 and 89: Figure 22: Game Day Traffic Control
Page 90 and 91: 7Non-Stadium VariantsThe proposed p
Page 92 and 93: Figure 23: Land-Use Program: Non-St
Page 94 and 95: Land UseTable 24: Land Use Program(
Page 98 and 99: Station Tower, Surrey, British Colu
Page 100 and 101: ScenarioScenarioA(AlternativeWorkSc
show all

& Candlestick Point Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II - Office of ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?