Bay Area Transportation Report
BAY AREA TRANSPORTATION REPORT Prepared by the BAY AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY COMMISSION BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA MAY, 1969 Bay Area Transportation Study Commission Created by the State Legislature to prepare comprehensive regional Transportation plan for the Bay Area HOTEL CLAREMONT P.O. BOX 1023 BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704 PHONE 415-869-3223 May 16, 1969 TO THE GOVERNOR AND MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE STATE OF CALIFORNIA On behalf of the Bay Area Transportation Study Commission there is transmitted herewith, as directed by statute, the Commission's Report on future transportation requirements in the San Francisco Bay Area. The findings and recommendations contained herein have been developed from the Commission's extensive data base and computer analyses, in addition to other research, comments, and suggestions of scores of transportation specialists and others who appeared before the entire Commission or one of its Study Groups. The Commission is convinced that a major element in dealing with transportation challenges of the future is the establishment of a continuing planning process, which can blend well with the essentially incremental nature of future Bay Area transportation development. In contrast to a formal plan, which inevitably becomes dated quickly, the on-going planning process is readily adaptable to rapid technological and economic changes. For these reasons, the report stresses the process rather than the plan. Respectfully submitted, NILS O. Eklund, JR. Chairman THROUGHOUT THE BASIC STUDY, COMMISSION AND STAFF RECEIVED VALUABLE ASSISTANCE FROM MANY FEDERAL, STATE, CITY AND COUNTY AGENCIES IN THE REGION AS WELL AS BUSINESS FIRMS, EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS TOO NUMEROUS TO MENTION. TO ALL, THE COMMISSION TENDERS ITS THANKS. The preparation of this report was financed in part through Federal funds made available by the U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Bureau of Public Roads, and State Highway funds made available by the State of California, Department of Public Works; and in part by an Urban Planning Assistance Grant from the Urban Renewal Administration of the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development under Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954, as amended; and in cooperation with the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Bay Area Rapid Transit District. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the State of California, the Bureau of Public Roads, or the Department of Housing and Urban Development. vi BAY AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS-AT-LARGE Nils Eklund. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Chairman Professor Harmer E. Davis, Alternate M. F. Bagan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice-Chairman B. John Bugatto Richard G. Raffetto, Alternate James A. Folger James J. Twombley. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Labor Representative William G. Dowd, Alternate Thomas A. Rotell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Labor Representative William M. Smock, Alternate U.S. Simonds, Jr.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Labor Representative MEMBERS OF THE SENATE Honorable Randolph Collier Honorable Nicholas C. Petris Nicholas Demetry, Alternate MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY Honorable James W. Dent George H. Krueger, Alternate Honorable John F. Foran Stephan C. Leonoudakis, Alternate STATE BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY Gordon C. Luce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Secretary Marc Sandstrom, Alternate Charles G. Beer, Alternate STATE OFFICE OF PLANNING Robert L. Harkness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Planning Officer Edmond C. Baume, Alternate ASSOCIATIONS AND DISTRICTS J. Julien Baget. . . . . . . . . Association of Bay Area Governments William J. Bettencourt . . . . Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District Colonel Robert M. Copeland, Alternate Michael Wornum . . . . . . . Golden Gate Bridge and Highway District Dean N. Meyer, Alternate George M. Silliman . . . . . . .S.F. Bay Area Rapid Transit District Edmund C. Sajor, Alternate vii BAY AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY COMMISSION-Continued COUNTY AND CITY REPRESENTATIVES Joseph P. Bort . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Supervisor, Alameda County Professor Norman Kennedy, Alternate J. D. Maltester. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mayor, City of San Leandro James F. Vivrette, Alternate James P. Kenny . . . . . . . . . . . Supervisor, Contra Costa County Mark L. Kermit, Alternate Newell B. Case . . . . . . . . . . .Councilman, City of Walnut Creek Louis H. Baar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Supervisor, Marin County Earl J. O'Grady. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mayor, City of Larkspur Alfred J. Malvino, Alternate Henry M. Wigger. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Supervisor, Napa County Edward Bernard, Alternate Ralph Trower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mayor, City of Napa Jack D. Morrison . . . .Supervisor, City and County of San Francisco John H. Anderson . . . . . . . . .Office of The Mayor, San Francisco Jack M. Barron, Alternate T. Louis Chess . . . . . . . . . . . . .Supervisor, San Mateo County John C. Lilly, Alternate John S. Rosselli . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Councilman, Redwood City Robert W. McLennan, Alternate Victor Calvo . . . . . . . . . . . . .Supervisor, Santa Clara County John C. Beckett, Alternate W. D. Weisgerber . . . . . . . . . . . .Councilman, City of Milpitas Leonard W. Winston, Alternate J. Ellis Godfrey . . . . . . . . . . . . . Supervisor, Solano County William A. Jones, Alternate Donald F. Pinkerton. . . . . . . . . . . . .Mayor, City of Fairfield Loyal V. Hanson, Alternate Leigh S. Shoemaker . . . . . . . . . . . . Supervisor, Sonoma County Jack Ryersen . . . . . . . . . . . . .Councilman, City of Santa Rosa Gerald M. Poznanovich, Alternate CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE Stanley E. McCaffrey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Chairman Angelo J. Siracusa, Alternate BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Mrs. Bernice Hubbard May . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Commissioner Roy E. Oakes, Alternate PORT OF OAKLAND Edward G. Brown. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Commissioner Ben E. Nutter, Alternate SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION George F. Hansen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General Manager San Francisco International Airport FEDERAL AGENCIES Donald J. Steele . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Division Engineer William R. Lake, Alternate U.S. Bureau of Public Roads Arthur Kontura . . . . . . . . . .Acting Director, Planning Division US Department of Housing and Urban Development Miss Rosemary Duggin, Alternate ADVISORY Larry A. Thelen. . . . . . Attorney State Department of Public Works viii BAY AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY COMMISSION-Continued PRESENT OFFICERS OF STUDY GROUPS FINANCE James A. Folger. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Chairman Francis J. Carr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice-Chairman INNOVATIONS AND NOVEL SYSTEMS George M. Silliman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Chairman Professor Harmer E. Davis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice-Chairman ORGANIZATION AND THE PLANNING PROCESS Stanley E. McCaffrey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Chairman Mrs. William M. Eastman. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice-Chairman PUBLIC INFORMATION William J. Bettencourt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Chairman Adam G. Llewellyn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice-Chairman FORMER COMMISSIONERS Alexander, Robert B. Allen, Doctor Charles L. Andersen, Dewey K. Anderson, Arnold C. Andrews, Elton Azevedo, Mrs. Margaret B. Beckett, John C. Behr, Peter H. Bradford, Robert B. Carbert, Leslie E. Castner, L. E. Eby, Gordon Feyge, Harold Gatov, A. W. Glikbarg, A. S. Gnoss, George H. Gray, Thomas Klinker, Thomas R. Kopp, Quentin L. LeMenager, Charles R. Lerer, Ben K. Ludy, George H. McAteer, Honorable "J" Eugene McCarthy, Honorable John F. McCarthy, Leo 'I'. McInnis, John Maynard, Robert T. Melville, John G. Mitchell, Richard G. Morrison, Jr., Harry L. Moscone, George R. Musso, Joseph Pitts, Robert E. Pollard, Donald L. Pursel, Kent D. Razcto, Emanuel P. Richardson, T. J. Risso, Donald Rumford, Honorable W. Byron Ruonavaara, Arthur Ryan, Honorable Leo J. Schmid, Warren E. Schwab, Henry P. Smith, Shirley H. Solari, Louis S. Spangler, Martin J. Van Bebber, Norman P, Walt, Harold R. CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE (1964-1969) Allen, Doctor Charles L. Bagan, M. F. Berkley, Thomas L. Bostwick, Henry Caroselli, Ercole Carr, Francis J. Carr, James K. Chase, H. Stephen Cinelli, Alfred G. Collins, Mrs. Edward F. Coppa, Joseph J. Craemer, Jack Davis, Professor Harmer E. DeMartini, Armond Eastman, Mrs. William M. Ertola, Chadwick C. Ets-Hokin, Louis Fox, Charles J. Galgiani, Mrs. John V. Gillies, Dugald Graver, Robert W. Hirten, John E. Hofmann, Fred Hogg, John Inwood, Professor Ernest L. Jacobs, John H. Jacobson, Mrs. Ralph N. Lilly, John C. Llewellyn, Adam G. McCaffrey, Stanley E. McGrath, Thomas Margolis, Professor Julius Maynard, Robert T. Moffitt, Jr., A. H. Murray, Robert E. Nutter, Ben E. O'Sullivan, Terry Pollard, James H. Raeburn, Albert Rehfuss, Carl Ries, Floyd B. Royston, Robert Scott, Professor Stanley Sherer, Samuel Smith, Shirley H. Solomon, Abe Spangler, R. L. Sparling, W. A. Vcgod, Charles Walker, Robert W. Warner, Charles Watkin, Harold Wheaton, Dean William L. C. Winston, Leonard W. Zeller, Richard H. ix BAY AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY COMMISSION Continued PRESENT BATSC STUDY STAFF Richard M. Zettel. . . . . . . .Consultant and Former Study Director Dean E. Larson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acting Study Director John W. Abbott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consultant to BATSC Richard R. Carll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Planning Coordinator Robert J. Aiello . . . . . . . . . . . .Chief Administrative Officer Jay W. McBride . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Technical Consultant Transportation Section Data Systems Section Regional Growth and Edward F. Graham Patrick Hackett Location Section Isaiah Meycr John Hertz William Goldner Frank T. White Shirley Rodenborn John McCallum Hanna Kollo Josef Nathanson Clifford Cady Wesley Wells Richard Jones Edward C. Sullivan Data Services Section Graphics Section Administrative Section Noreen Roberts Lois Fonseca Dorothy Rolls LeRoy French Wataru Miura Claire Nelson Charles Hixson RoseMarie Ebert Linda Pipkorn Vivian January Sandra Trice Frances Meesters Margaret Burandt George Porter Melvin Blue Many persons associated with BATSC Staff over the five years of the Study could not be listed here. x TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The Study Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Why a Transportation Study? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Organization and Cooperative Arrangements . . . . . . . . . . 2 Study Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Study Plan and Work Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Financing the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Special Dividends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 This Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 CHAPTER 1. HISTORICAL GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Regional Growth Trends. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Trends in Population Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Travel Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Transportation Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 The Planning Climate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 CHAPTER 2. LAND USE SURVEYS AND PLANNING STUDIES . . . . . . . . .16 BATSC Information System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 System of Geographic Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Land Use Data Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Land Use, Population and Employment in the Bay Area . . . . .18 Bay Area Planning Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 CHAPTER 3. TRAVEL SURVEYS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 BATSC Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 Total Person Trips in the Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 Length and Time of Day of Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 Weekend Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 Person Trips and Vehicle Trips. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 Travel and Household Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . .29 CHAPTER 4. TRANSPORT SYSTEMS OF THE BAY AREA . . . . . . . . . . .31 Transport System Inventories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 The Street and Highway System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 The Public Transit System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 CHAPTER 5. REGIONAL GROWTH FORECASTS AND LAND USE PROJECTIONS. . .37 Regional Locational Model System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 Regional Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 Urban Location Assumptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 The Allocation Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 Urban Location Forecasts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 xi TABLE OF CONTENTS-Continued Page CHAPTER 6. TRAVEL FORECASTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 Travel Forecasting Model System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 Person Trip Forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 Person Trips Between Zones 51 Transit Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 Vehicle Trip Forecasts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 CHAPTER 7. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLANNING. . . . . . . . . . . . .55 The Assignment Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 Study Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 Network Assignment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 Network Evaluation-Specific Problems. . . . . . . . . . . . .68 CHAPTER 8. A GUIDE TO DEVELOPMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72 Urban Transport Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72 System Benefits and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73 Project Evaluation and Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74 A Recommended Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75 CHAPTER 9. A PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79 Continuing Transportation Planning. . . . . . . . . . . . . .79 Technological Innovations and Novel Systems . . . . . . . . .81 Management of Regional Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . .82 Regional Transportation Finance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82 A Final Note. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85 xii LIST OF EXHIBITS TABLES No. Page 1-1 Trend in Population Density for San Francisco Bay Area. . . .11 1-2 Registered Motor Vehicles Per 1,000 Persons, San Francisco Bay Area and State of California. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 2-1 Land Use in 1965. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 2-2 Regional Employment by Major Industry Groups, 1965. . . . . .20 2-3 BATSC Population and Dwelling Unit Estimates for 1965 . . . .20 2-4 Development Potential of the Region, 1965 . . . . . . . . . .22 3-1 Average Weekday Auto Traffic Comparison Between Assigned Sample Expansions and Vehicle Counts at Screenlines and Selected Stations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 3-2 Person Trips Within Region Classed by Mode and Purpose, 1965. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 3-3 Average Weekday Person Trips in 1965 by County. . . . . . . .28 3-4 Average Weekday Trips Compared with Average Weekend Day Trips, 1965. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 3-5 Average Car Occupancy for Weekday Trips, by Purpose . . . . .29 3-6 Person Trips Related to Characteristics of Households, 1965. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 4-1 Road Mileage by County, 1965. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 4-2 Road Miles and Vehicle Miles by Class of Facility, 1965 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 4-3 Traffic on Selected Freeways as of December 31, 1964. . . . .32 4-4 Bay Area Highway Deficiencies Estimated in 1964 for Ten Year Period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 5-1 Regional Employment Projection Total for Three Development Alternatives, 1965-1990, with Population Estimates . . .38 5-2 Employment Projections, 1980 and 1990, for Three Development Alternatives by Specified Industry Divisions . . . . . .39 5-3 Land Use Model Coefficients, 1965-1990. . . . . . . . . . . .41 5-4 Regional Population and Employment Growth by Counties and Selected Cities, 1965-1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 5-5 Changes in Regional Land Use by Counties and Selected Cities, 1965-1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44 5-6 Net Importing or Exporting of Workers by Counties and Selected Cities, 1965-1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45 6-1 Zonal Variables Used for Forecasting Internal Trip Ends . . .49 6-2 Internal Study Area Trips Estimated for Average Weekdays in 1965, 1980, and 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 6-3 Total Person Trips Forecast for 1990, by County . . . . . . .50 6-4 Comparison of Average Trip Duration by Purpose, 1965 and 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 6-5 Transit Trip Forecasts by Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 6-6 Transit Trip Forecasts by County. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 6-7 Average Weekday Vehicle Trips Crossing Study Area Boundary, 1965, 1980, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 7-1 X Network Major Freeways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 7-2 W Network Major Freeways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58 7-3 Comparative Network Assignment Data . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 7-4 Comparison of Assigned Vehicle Loadings at Selected Locations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 7-5 Comparison of Transit Person Trip Loadings at Selected Locations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 xiii FIGURES No. Page Bay Area Transportation Study Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 The Transportation Planning Process 5 1-1 Population by County, Nine Bay Area Counties. . . . . . . . . 8 1-2 Regional Trends in Transportation Compared with Population Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 1-3 Annual Transit Patronage, Major Companies . . . . . . . . . .13 2-1 Land Use Surveys and Input Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 3-1 Travel Surveys and Input Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 3-2 Average Trip Duration by Purpose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 3-3 Percentage Distribution of Trips Classed by Duration Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 3-4 Hourly Distribution of Person Trips by Mode, 8 a.m.9 a.m. . .29 4-1 Transport System Surveys and Input Data . . . . . . . . . . .31 5-1 Regional Growth Forecasting Process . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 5-2 BATSC Regional Employment and Population Projections for Three Development Alternatives, 19651990 . . . . . .39 6-1 Trip Forecasting Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 6-2 Trip Length Frequency Distribution of Home Based Work and Related Business Trips. . . . . . . . . . . . .50 7-1 Network Evaluation Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 xiv MAPS No. Page The Nine-County San Francisco Bay Area. . . . . . . . . . . xvi 1-1 Transportation Systems in Selected Metropolitan Areas . . . .10 2-1 Analysis Zones in the Study Area 17 2-2 Generalized Land Use, 1965. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 2-3 Employment Density, 1965. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 2-4 Population Density, 1965. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 2-5 Land Development Potential 23 2-6 Future Basic Unique Locators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 3-1 Screenlines and Selected Counting Stations Identified in Table 3-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 4-1 G Highway Network, 1965 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 4-2 G Transit Network, 1965 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 5-1 Selected Cities by Zonal Groupings. . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 5-2 Employment and Population Growth in Selected Major Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46 5-3 Changes in Land Use in Selected Major Cities. . . . . . . . .46 6-1 Person Trip Flows to and From Downtown San Francisco. . . . .51 7-1 X Highway Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57 7-2 X Transit Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58 7-3 W Highway Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59 7-4 W Transit Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 7-5 V Transit Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 7-6 1980 Average Weekday Traffic Assigned to the X Highway Network. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 7-7 1990 Average Weekday Traffic Assigned to the W Highway Network. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64 7-8 Overloaded Freeways, W Network 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 7-9 1980 Average Weekday Traffic Assigned to the X Transit Network. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 7-10 1990 Average Weekday Traffic Assigned to the X Transit Network. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 7-11 1990 Average Weekday Traffic Assigned to the W Transit Network. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67 7-12 1990 Average Weekday Traffic Assigned to the V Transit Network. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67 8-1 Development Guide, Highway Network. . . . . . . . . . . . . .77 8-2 Development Guide, Transit Network. . . . . . . . . . . . . .78 xv Click HERE for graphic. xvi INTRODUCTION The need for adequate transportation in the San Francisco Bay Area-comprehensive, balanced transportation-is too large to ignore and too important to neglect if we are to meet our social and economic obligations and achieve our environmental aspirations. A new regional approach is essential. Recognizing this, The California Legislature in 1963 established the Bay Area Transportation Study Commission, charging it with responsibility to: (a) Undertake a comprehensive study of urban transportation in the nine counties adjoining San Francisco Bay; (b) Prepare a master regional transportation plan; (c) Recommend ways and means of implementing the plan; and (d) Provide for an orderly transition of its responsibilities to an on-going program. THE STUDY AREA The nine counties surrounding the Bay Area consist (counter- clockwise) of San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, Solano, Napa, Sonoma, and Marin. In 1965, on these 4.5 million acres, lived 4.4 million people holding 1.7 million jobs. They owned about 2 million automobiles and motorcycles, and 285,000 trucks. These operated on 1,400 miles of State highways and 14,300 miles of county roads and city streets. Urban activities consumed only 8 percent of the 9-county land area, but this was one-fourth of the land regarded as usable for urban purposes. This Bay Area has 23 percent of the total population of California. Lying as it does on the median line of Pacific Coast population, agriculture, industry and finance, the Bay Area is a vital force in the expanding West. The area's outstanding topographical feature, the magnificent Bay itself, serves at once to unite and divide the area and poses transportation problems of extreme magnitude. Other physical features of the Bay Area, especially the hills, tend to have profound impact on the location of activities and the way the transportation system develops. Throughout this report, the diversity of the area will be apparent in the variety of its urban transportation requirements. s compared with many other metropolitan areas, the Bay Area is scarcely a region at all, but rather a number of subregions whose principal common ties are the Bay and "The City." The Legislature provided that the Commission might prepare a transportation plan for all of the nine counties or a lesser area. For study purposes, it was decided that data should cover the entire 9-county region and thus be available and usable anywhere within the region. Including all nine counties was a prerequisite for meeting Federal planning requirements for the extension of Federal financial aids. The Commission's plan, moreover, is being developed and represented in a way that would not immediately affect any outlying part of the region that might wish to be excluded. WHY A TRANSPORTATION STUDY? The Bay Area has a transportation system in being and abuilding-the product of years of successful planning and development by many participants. Among its bridges are masterpieces of art; its freeways include national prize winners; its fledgling rapid transit system receives world acclaim. Yet the region has congestion and noise and air pollution, and too many accidents-too much destruction of property and lives. Some of the separate planning efforts for the region are on collision courses. Too many hands attempt to guide the wheel of policy. Movement is too slow to meet the challenge of growth and social change. There are doubts-increasing each year-about "whither we are tending." We don't know the consequences of following the current practice of piecemeal planning. We have concern that informal cooperation of the past might break down under stresses of the future. We are not certain of the criteria and objectives now guiding individual transport agencies; whether they are consistent, one with another; whether they are compatible with broader regional goals; and, indeed, what are those goals. It is wondered whether a regional agency, intermediary between the local and State levels, might pro- 1 vide a framework for prevention instead of remedy of problems; whether it might be possible to implement policies that would alter future development trending contrary to fundamental goals and aspirations; whether regional principles might be woven into the decision-making fabric of active transportation programs in the Bay Area. All of this was recognized when the Legislature took the step of establishing the Bay Area Transportation Study Commission. The Federal Government also helped to establish the necessity for comprehensive, cooperative transportation planning on a regional basis. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962, the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966, each in somewhat different terms but with the same objective, requires adequate planning as a prerequisite to Federal assistance for transportation projects. Prospective growth of the Bay Area presages increasing transport needs, progressively more difficult to fulfill as living space becomes more urbanized throughout the region. The dimensions of future growth and their implications for transport are portrayed in this report. The figures are staggering; the challenge, monumental. Growth does not pose the sole challenge. Economic progress, transformed into higher incomes, will more than proportionally increase transportation demands; yet at the same time greater amenities-more attention to all community values-will be wanted. Expectations are on the rise, not only economic but social as well. The "urban crisis" is upon the Bay Area region, and the transportation system will be expected to respond, not only to serve rising personal aspirations but also to enhance the environment. None of this is really new to the Bay Area. The region has doubled in population every twenty years or so, for quite some time. It has met many economic and social needs. It can continue to do so if it deploys the same kind of imagination, vigor and resourcefulness that has served to the present. It must be alert to new opportunities. The pace of technological development is quickening, both in hardware and software. The Bay Area's transportation system requires much improvement-at an accelerating rate. Planning and development of the system must be flexible enough that products of new technology can be added to the system at appropriate places as quickly as they become feasible. More than this, transportation planning for the future must become increasingly sophisticated, using the latest in computer technology and analytical methodology as instruments of assistance to policy makers. However, this technical methodology-and computer capability as well-are still evolving. Almost every urban transportation planning study (including ours, we are pleased to know) adds to our ability to analyze and understand complex urban interactions. There is still much to learn and much that will be learned in the years immediately ahead. In one sense, then, this report must be considered a progress report. The BATSC program in this context is but a beginning; however, the course is right. Federal agencies emphasize and require a continuing planning process rather than a plan, and the Legislature, too, realized the importance of continuing planning in asking the Commission to take steps for an orderly transition of responsibilities to appropriate existing agencies or, if deemed advisable, to a new agency. ORGANIZATION AND COOPERATIVE ARRANGEMENTS The importance attached to transportation planning in the Bay Area was implicit in the formation of the Study Commission. The Legislature provided for 37 members initially, and added four more in 1967. Currently the makeup is as follows: Governor's Appointees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Legislators (2 Senators; 2 Assemblymen) . . . . . . . . . . . 4 ExOfficio State Officials (Business & Transportation Administrator; State Planning Officer) . . . . . . . . . 2 County Supervisors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 City Officials (One representing cities in each county) . . . 9 Special Agencies (BARTD; AC Transit; Golden Gate Bridge & Highway District; ABAG; BCDC; Port of Oakland; San Francisco Public Utilities Commission). . . 7 BATSC Citizens Advisory Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Federal Observers (U.S. Bureau of Public Roads; HUD). . . . . 2 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 The Chairman and Vice-Chairman are appointed by the Governor; other officers are elected by the Commission. The spectrum of membership reflects the extent of political fragmentation among agencies having transportation planning response abilities of regional significance in the Bay Area. In addition to the nine counties, there are in excess of 90 cities. In addition to the special agencies named above, there are single- county agencies, such as the West, Bay Rapid Transit Authority, the Marin County Transit District, and special transportation and land use studies in Santa Clara and Contra Costa Counties. Broad representation on the Commission was seen as the principal way in which the study would be responsive to individual local governments and other concerned agencies. A substantial majority of the members represent local public entities in the area. The Legislature also provided for appointment of a large Citizens Advisory Committee which has participated in the Commission's work since 1965 and has been invited to attend all Commission meetings. To facilitate its work the Commission created four Study Groups, consisting of both Commission and Citizens Advisory Committee representatives. Three Study Groups, dealing with substantive issues not a part of the technical study process, are: Organization and The Planning Process, Innovations and Novel Sys- tems, and Urban Transportation Finance. Reports of these Study Groups are inputs for the Commission study, the results of which are included in this report. 2 Click HERE for graphic. The fourth Study Group has advised the Commission and the Study Director on matters of public information. Notwithstanding its broad membership, the Commission and its staff sought to further cooperative programs through written agreements establishing formal working relationships with other agencies, including the State Transportation Agency, the Association of Bay Area Rapid Transit District, and several counties in the area. At the technical level, coordination has been fostered through advisory groups for the Study Director and staff. A local Planning Director's Committee (later an Association) has advised with both ABAG and BATSC staffs. A Bay Area Automated Information Systems Coordinating Committee includes representatives from both ABAG and BATSC. A regional Council of Transportation Engineering was established to advise BATSC staff in technical aspects of the study, and a series of workshop meetings, involving county, city, and special district planners and engineers, was held in each of the counties. Much informal exchange of information and ideas has taken place throughout the course of the study with many agencies and persons in the region. STUDY LIMITATIONS While the Legislature provided for comprehensive study and planning of urban transportation in the Bay Area, it placed certain restrictions upon the Commission's authority. The Legislature, in order to forestall unwarranted delay of transportation projects that were well advanced, wisely provided that the Commission's existence and work program should not interfere with or in any way impede "execution by Federal, State, or 3 local public agencies of any projects in the Bay Area which have already been planned by such agencies, or which may be planned during the course of the study . . . ." The legislation also initially limited whatever studies the Commission might make of inter-regional transportation facilities- airports, seaports, railroads, and truck and bus terminals-to the extent of their influence on planning for intra-regional transport by reason of generation and attraction of local traffic. This limitation focused attention on transport problems of regional character, which, in itself, was a grave enough responsibility at this time. A practical limitation arises from the fact that the Commission's responsibility was limited to urban transportation planning, although the interrelationships between land use and transportation planning were fully appreciated. There exists no general plan in the Bay Area, for which might be designed a compatible regional transportation plan that would assist in effectuating the plan and promoting the region's goals. As will be shown in the course of this report, however, general planning considerations have guided the Study's findings. Commission staff exerted considerable effort to digest and refine plans and programs of all major general and transportation planning agencies in the region. A close working relationship with ABAG, which initiated a comprehensive regional planning program about the same time BATSC started, served to further integrate regional land use and transportation planning. STUDY PLAN AND WORK PROGRAM The main thrust of the Commission's study is in development of analytical and planning mechanisms leading to understanding of total urban transportation requirements and their relationship to other planning, and development goals of the region. The chief purpose to be served is coordination of separate programs and practices within a larger policy framework. An urban transportation-land use study follows the basic premise that there is a regularity and rhythm in the daily lives of large numbers of people, establishing patterns in their personal movements (and in movements of their goods and services) that can be discovered through systematic collection and analysis of data. These overall travel patterns can be refined by classifying them according to social and economic characteristics of the population and locations of land use activities. Once established, these patterns can be simulated in mathematical expressions or models that reproduce total travel behavior of the present time (a base year) as related to the relevant social, economic and land use variables. Models are then employed for prediction of future transportation demands, based upon assumptions or predictions regarding future social and economic circumstances, land use activities, planning goals, and public policies. The normal flow of an urban transportation study begins with a massive data collection effort, follows with technical analysis and forecasting, and ends with the evaluation and submittal of a transportation plan. The broad flow of activities is depicted in the adjoining chart; the process will unfold throughout this report. However, the Commission is to do more than submit a static plan. It is to suggest means of implementation and provide for continuing study and review of the plan. The Commission's pioneering effort in the Bay Area must be followed through if it is to achieve significant results. A good deal of money and effort have gone into the program. FINANCING THE STUDY The Legislature has never made an appropriation for support of the Commission. It had been understood from the outset that transportation planning funds which otherwise would be spent piecemeal could be acquired to finance the BATSC Study and planning program. As will be shown, the results of negotiated financing were quite successful, but the process involved considerable expenditure of staff effort and inordinate accounting and reporting difficulties. Any future arrangement for regional transportation planning should include more certain and stable financing conditions. Where Money Came From. In all, the Commission negotiated financing of $5,915,000 to carry its operations through the five fiscal years ending June 30, 1969. By way of perspective, the prospectus before the Legislature in 1963, when BATSC was established, estimated that about $7 billion would be expended on Bay Area public transportation facilities by 1980. The planning costs incurred for BATSC is well under 1/10th of one percent of that sum. Sources of financing were, as follows: Amount Percent U.S. Bureau of Public Roads 3,408,000 57.6 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 1,238,000 20.9 ______________ _______ Federal Subtotal $4,646,000 78.5 State Department of Public Works- BPR Matching $650,000 11.0 State Department of Public Works- HUD Matching 283,334 4.8 ______________ _______ State Subtotal $933,334 15.8 Assoc. of Bay Area Governments- HUD Matching $185,666 3.2 Bay Area Rapid Transit District- HUD Matching $150,000 2.5 ______________ ______ Local Subtotal $335,666 5.7 _______________ _____ Total $5,915,000 100.0 It deserves to be noted that Federal financing was almost four-fifths of the total. State and local financing together were a little over one-fifth. State financing provided about three- fourths of the non-Federal funds, but less than one-sixth of the total cost. 4 Click HERE for graphic. Where Money Went. The data collection effort consumed 60 percent of the total cost, as shown in the following breakdown: Amount Percent Study Design, Information System, Data Services $493,430 8.3 Data Base-Inventories and Surveys 3,548,750 60.0 Technical Design and Development- Methods and Models 1,133,910 19.2 Planning, Processing, Reporting 738,910 12.5 _______________ ______ Total $5,915,000 100.0 A data collection project of this magnitude is not expected to recur, except possibly at 10-year intervals. Actually, as late as 1963 data were still being used from a Bay Area Metropolitan Survey (much less comprehensive than the BATSC program) conducted 16 years earlier, in 1947. This procedure is not recommended. On the contrary, the continuing program should constantly update and refine the BATSC data base, which would require a comparatively modest program. Preparations should be made to take full advantage of the 1970 Census information in transportation planning. Finally, much data needed for an urban transportation study are essential to planning activities in general. More emphasis on comprehensive Bay Area planning in the future should diminish the data costs of studies in special fields, such as the transportation planning, program. Development of technical methods should be carried on, but at a reduced scale. With operational models now available, there should be refinements and the substitution of new- "modules" in the overall process from time to time. On the other hand, the actual business of planning and the interplay between technical analysis and policy judgment should be accelerated and expanded in the ongoing program. SPECIAL DIVIDENDS Data Base and Services The BATSC data base, accumulated through the several inventories and special studies, is one of the largest files of socioeconomic data in the United States. With the software system especially, designed to handle it, the data base constitutes an available nucleus for a future Bay Area information system. The data have not only served the Study but many other public and private agencies. Almost 9,000 aerial photographs leave been loaned to various agencies. Requests for data from the home interview, employment inventory and various other sources have some- 5 times required several days of complex computer programming to fill. Added to these are many simple requests that can be handled readily by telephone, letter, or published document. Some 6,000 documents have been distributed to other agencies and to the gen- eral public. Processing Federal Applications BATSC has reviewed numerous applications to the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Transportation for mass transit and highway construction projects, as well as for transportation planning studies. Estimated total costs of the mass transportation applications were about $300 million, for which $145 million of Federal assistance was asked. In the highway field, ultimate costs of the highway projects reviewed will be on the order of $500 million. THIS REPORT The report of the BATSC Study which follows is, in a very real sense, a summarization of a wide range of activities carried on by the Commission and staff, and the results of this work to date. Technical reports documenting procedures at greater length, and presenting much more statistical information, have been prepared and will be released before the Commission terminates its work. The opening chapter of this report outlines the urban transportation setting in the Bay Area and the problems and issues that have been raised. The next three chapters present findings, in capsule form, from the Commission's extensive data surveys. Following are three chapters which review the analytical techniques and planning criteria used to obtain forecasts of population, employment, land use, travel demands, and the use of alternative transportation systems assumed for the region. Chapter 8 is an evaluation of the future course of transportation in the Bay Area, as revealed by the Study's surveys and forecasts, and concludes with recommendations for the further development of the region's urban transportation system. The final chapter presents an overall commentary and makes suggestions on continuing transportation planning, technological surveillance and research, regional transport organization and management, and fiscal controls and financial measures which the Commission believes must be followed if the Bay Area is to meet its needs and satisfy the aspirations of its people. 6 CHAPTER 1 HISTORICAL GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT No metropolitan area in the United States has escaped the mounting pressures of traffic congestion produced by population growth, increasing economic productivity, rising income, and added leisure. These trends have been especially forceful in the rapidly growing State of California and in the San Francisco region. With all prospects pointing to their continuation in years ahead, the urban transportation situation, one of urbanism's more critical problems, seems destined to become even more aggravated. The urban setting of today is one in which the automobile is the dominant element in transportation. Over two million motor vehicles are registered in the region and more than 60 million vehicle miles are traveled daily. One and three-quarters billion dollars have been invested in Bay Area freeways (and other State highways) over the past 20 years; almost $600 million have been expended for road improvements by cities and counties in the same period; the region's bridges represent an investment of $350 million. Yet, these figures appear modest when compared with ap- praisals of investment needs of highways, bridges, and parking facilities in the next quarter century; while the challenge to the living environment of land consumption, noise, fumes and aesthetic disturbances indicates other costs that might be added to the total bill. The basic "transportation problem" is of course the automobile: it has made today's urban region possible and given residents the opportunity to avoid the congestion of the highly concentrated city and enjoy the wide range of opportunities offered by the modern metropolis, but the size of its growth threatens to choke the region on its own traffic. It is particularly important, therefore, to examine the trends which have brought about today's situation and to consider the likelihood that they will govern and constrain planning for the future. This chapter presents a brief survey of past trends. Later chapters dealing with future urban growth and travel projections make more explicit the assumptions upon which BATSC planning and recommendations are based. REGIONAL GROWTH TRENDS Urbanization in the San Francisco Bay Area has been rapid and widespread. Population in the nine-county region, which was 1.7 million in 1940 and 3.7 million in 1960, will be nearly 5 million in 1970. Employment has grown apace: from 680,000 in 1940 to an expected 1.9 million in 1970. Although people and jobs are dispersed over 7000 square miles of land and divided by large bodies of mountains and water, the Bay Area has, in the San Francisco-Oakland complex, one of the most concentrated urban core developments of any large metropolitan areas, to go with its many low density suburbs. No single term adequately describes the urban structure. It has been called a "collection of realms," noted for its contrasts, not dominated by any single community, and growing apart rather than together. Population Growth For the past 15 years, the Bay Area's share of California population has remained at just under one fourth of the State total, and this proportion seems likely to continue. Thus expectations about growth in the nine-county region can be based with considerable confidence upon statewide trends and factors in- fluencing the level of population. In 14 of the 15 years from 1950 through 1964, the annual growth rate for the State surpassed 3 percent, and in eight of those years the rate was over 4 percent. It is significant, then, that the rate of growth has recently dipped under 2 percent; this for the years 1966-1968.1 The change is reflective of a nationwide decline in the birthrate, and a substantial drop (since 1963) in migration to California which has been reinforced by the drop in the birthrate. California's share of U.S. population is still rising but quite slowly by comparison with the trend of earlier years. It seems reasonable to expect continued Bay Area popu- ___________________________ 1. California Department of Finance, California Population 1968. Sacramento It is commented: "The expected increase in the entrance into the childbearing period of the baby boom, first anticipated in 1965, has not yet taken place. This has already forced downward revisions in forecasts of school enrollment. 7 lation growth, but not at the level that might have been anticipated a few years ago. The location of growth within the nine counties has been more difficult to predict. Figure 1-1 shows population trends for each of the counties and indicates that San Francisco and Alameda Counties are growing much less rapidly than the remaining seven; San Francisco, in fact, has not increased at all since 1950. This distribution of growth-especially the dramatic change in Santa Clara County-was not fully anticipated in the mid-1950'S.2 Santa Clara County ranked fourth in population among Bay Area counties in 1950 but will become the leader soon after 1970. Click HERE for graphic. Employment Trends Employment has been growing in the Bay Area at about the same rate as the state wide trend- and as with population-is holding at just under one-quarter of the State total. Changes in the composition of employment, however, have influenced its location within the region. Statewide, manufacturing employment has been increasing at less than half the growth rate for all classes of employment since 1960. In the Bay Area between 1950 and 1960, manufacturing accounted for about 27 of every 100 jobs added to the employment total; from 1960 to 1966 this number fell to less than 15 out of every 100. About two-thirds of the region's increase in manufacturing employment since 1950 occurred in Santa Clara County, the majority of it in the aerospace group, and most of the remainder in southern Alameda County, giving a southern push to urban growth in the Bay Area. However, the largest growth since 1960 has been taking place in the Government and Services groups, with a substantial rise in Finance and related fields. Growth in these classes, which recently have accounted for two-thirds of all new jobs in the region, has prevented a decline in employment for San Francisco County. Unlike many other large central cities, San Francisco is continuing to experience an increase in the number of jobs, despite the loss of manufacturing enterprises. Much employment classed in the Services and Public sectors is in educational positions, functions of local government, medical services, and other activities which locate near the population they serve. The "suburban" counties-Contra Costa, San Mateo, and the northern group-have had most of their job increases in these classes and in the retail trade category. The expansion of population in each county itself represents a growing market for goods and services and a demand for more jobs; but at the same time the interdependence of the region upon the common "economic base" of jobs in primary activities, such as manufacturing, is heightened. One class of employment-agriculture-has steadily declined in the past decade, thus depriving counties whose land is becoming increasingly urbanized of an independent source of income. Land Use Pattern The shape of the region's urban growth owes much to the presence of the Bay and the mountains, as is evident from the location of cities shown on the map in the Introduction to this Report. Physical features constrain a narrow bay plain which, for a distance of approximately 100 miles, now contains bands of virtually uninterrupted urban development on either side of the bay. These corridors fix the direction and location of the major streams of traffic at the central core of the region, and strongly influence the circulation of persons and goods out toward the developing periphery. Topography has served to constrain a large part of the growth along existing and predictable paths. From San Francisco and Richmond in the north to San Jose in the south, the belt of bayside land, representing only 10 percent of the land area in the nine-county region, holds 80 percent of the regional population, and 9 out of 10 jobs. The San Francisco- Oakland-Berkeley core holds 32 percent of the population and 45 percent of the jobs. Functionally, the core is characterized by high concentrations of employment in administrative, financial, and distributive activities. San Francisco has long occupied a position of dominance among cities of the Far West in the fields of finance, banking, insurance and real estate. The core possesses excellent ocean shipping facilities; Oakland in particular enjoys an improving position as a deep water, rail and air transportation center. ___________________________ 2. Population predictions, prepared for r.p;id, transit planning in 1955, were close to present-day estimates for 1970 nine-county population, but exceeded the San Francisco-Alameda County level by about 300,000 and fell short of Santa Clara County's population by about the same amount. See Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Hall and Macdonald, Regional Rapid Transit. San Francisco: 1956, p. 18. 8 The balance of the bay plain is characterized by linear pockets of industrial activity along the bay front and by transportation rights-of-way. Commercial development concentrates in regional subcenters-San Mateo City, Redwood City, Fremont, Hayward, and Richmond-in strip fashion along major arterial high- ways or in shopping centers. Residential areas tend to have highest densities next to major employment centers along the bay front, with density decreasing inland towards the mountains. At the southern tip of the Bay, the metropolitan San Jose complex has 19 percent of the region's population. Urbanization has been spreading rapidly southward into the vacant and easily developed lands of the Santa Clara valley. In the rest of the region, the pattern has become one of suburban development in a number of subcenters joined by urbanized corridors of land. Central core development over the past two decades has resulted in a suburban population overflow into southern Marin County and the Orinda-Walnut Creek-Concord area. Steel, oil, and chemical plants, and several military in- stallations, have produced urban Martinez, Pittsburg, Vallejo, Fairfield, and Novato-all beyond the main "commutershed." In the largely undeveloped hinterland, cities are usually small and self- contained. Altogether, the Bay Area has been fortunate in the urban pattern which has developed. As summed up in one document: "The key to the area's uniqueness and scale lies in the Bay Area's topography and the contrasting patterns of high downtown densities and low suburban densities- produced in large part by the Bay, hills and valleys. These centralized high densities promote multiple uses of urban land. They shrink social distances, including interracial 'distances' of a metropolitan area, and it was this very pattern of urban life which the housing panel of the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Woods Hole conference of 1966 urged upon the nation." 3 But the topographical features to which these benefits are due have produced their measure of urban development problems. San Francisco, with little land on which to grow, has faced difficult decisions flowing from the displacement of residential population and housing with commercial and industrial expansion. Secondary subcenters located along main urban corridors have had to weigh the advantages of maintaining separate identity, against per- mitting growth to continue until they commingle with their contiguous neighbors. Preference for low-density suburban space has put pressure upon urban land accessible to job opportunities, and population pressure has forced low-density communities to consider acceptance of higher densities of development, possibly at the sacrifice of living amenities. Regional spread has already weakened and forced into decline some of the regional subcenters, replaced by new nuclei with strong residential and commercial character. An overriding issue is the preservation of the very physical features-the bay and the hills-which have made the Bay Area so unique and diverse. The transportation system that has developed, and is being planned, to serve the Bay Area follows the corridor configuration dictated by the region's natural features. An inspection of the transport networks shown in Map 1-1 for other metropolitan areas as well as San Francisco makes this apparent. Regions such as Boston and Washington, D.C., have a "wheel-and-spoke" pattern in their transport systems. Chicago has radial spokes superimposed upon a "grid" of freeway routes. The pattern in Los Angeles is primarily "grid." None of these areas resemble the San Francisco region, where many of the principal routes run doughnut shaped around the Bay. The particular Bay Area pattern tends to concentrate travel flows in main corridors and to emphasize "gateway" transportation needs and problems. TRENDS IN POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS While the fundamental fact of urban development in the Bay Area is population growth, several trends associated with the increasing populace help to explain transportation has become one of the more pressing urban problems. Income Level Between 1950 and 1965, a threefold growth in personal income occurred in the Bay Area (exclusive of the effects of 'Inflation). Per capita income rose from $2,000 to $3,500. Consumer expenditures, including the owning of automobiles and the number of trips taken, are closely related to available money. Expenditures for automobiles, motor fuel, and parts run about 6 percent of disposable personal income, and recently the percentage has been rising slightly. Because of its effect upon the ability to own motor vehicles, rising income levels are also correlated with a decreasing relative preference for the use of public transit serv- ices. Especially significant for the Bay Area is the fact that highest median household incomes are found in the "suburban" counties-Marin, San Mateo, and Contra Costa-which generate a large volume of commuter travel to employment destinations located in other counties. Nationally and in California, there is nothing in present trends to suggest that income will not continue to increase relative to population, or that automotive transport will become a lesser share of total economic product. Racial Composition In 1940 the black population of the Bay Area was 20,000, in 1960 it was 250,000, and the 1970 census may show the total number to have passed 400,000. Two counties-Alameda and San Francisco- plus the western part of Contra Costa County have some 85 percent of the region's black population. The consequences for the transport situation of this growth and concentration of minority population should not he disregarded. As in other metropolitan ___________________________ 3. Bay Area Rapid Transit District, "BART: Catalyst For Bay Area Planning," Rapid Transit, Summer, 1968. 9 Click HERE for graphic. 10 areas, loss of white population to the suburbs has generated an equivalent demand for movement through predominantly black districts en route to central city employment (and other) destinations. In the Bay Area, unlike many other urban regions, there is not yet a "black belt" several miles wide surrounding central areas which white suburbanites must traverse. The black corridor on the cast side of the Bay runs with frequent interruptions for 15 miles along the bayside, but is seldom more than a mile or two in width, and is paralleled for the entire distance by a band of white residential population. Elsewhere, black population is contained in relatively small enclaves or diffused among white and other non-white residents. The suburbs are much more separated by water and hills from the central city than by racial bands. Equally important transport problems created by growing racial ghettos arise from the travel needs of minorities to reach places of employment. As noted above, the largest increases in employment-and in particular manufacturing employment-are being registered in counties other than Alameda and San Francisco. Accessibility to jobs in dispersed areas is relatively more dependent upon travel by, automobile. According to a recent survey, only half of all Negro households own automobiles; and "if a man cannot afford a car, and public transit is both inadequate and too expensive, and his job has shifted to a suburb, while racial and economic segregation prevent him from following the job that man is effectively isolated from earning a living." 4 Clearly, there is an economic incentive for those living in minority areas to own an automobile if possible, and rising income levels will bring that possibility within the reach of more families. No safe prediction based on past trends can be ventured about the future growth and location of black population. Its proportion of total population, 7 percent in 1960, can be expected to rise. Whether it will be more diffused in the region than at present is less certain. Expansion in San Mateo County, where a black population surpassing 200,000 by 1980 has been predicted, and in Santa Clara County, which had under 10,000 Negroes in 1965, are possibilities. Another possibility is further expansion of black population in Richmond, Berkeley, Oakland, and San Francisco, with continued flight of whites to suburbs-and thus a continued growth of commuter transport needs on the part of both races due to racial separation. Age Grouping Although the rate of population growth in the Bay Area has been tapering off, the consequences of the high postwar birth rate are now being felt in the region's daily travel. Data for California as a whole show that between 1950 and 1965 the population increase for persons under 15 years of age was 115 percent, while for all other ages the increase was only 65 percent. During the next fifteen years, 1965-1980, growth in the 15-34 age bracket is forecast at 76 percent, compared with 27 percent for all other ages. The "baby boom" is now reaching the driving and auto- owning age, and for a time this trend should produce travel requirements that increase more than in proportion to the growth of the total population. Living Density The urban spread made possible by the motor vehicle Is manifest in the decline of urban living densities. Statistically the trend is not easily measured because historical records of the amount of land developed for urban purposes are not available. One study has attempted to approximate the quantity of urbanized land over time and determine the amount and density of population residing within urban limits in the Bay Area. The trend, seen in Table 1-1, indi- cates a continuing drop in persons per square mile in the region, but also shows that urban density has ceased to decline and is somewhat rising in the central cities-San Francisco and Oakland. TABLE 1-1 TREND IN POPULATION DENSITY FOR SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA Population per urbanized square mile Entire San Francisco Balance of Year Bay Region and Oakland region 1880 4,907 5,571 2,889 1890 5,643 7,119 2,889 1900 5,417 8,162 2,619 1910 4,445 6,446 1,635 1920 5,334 8,244 2,041 1930 5,883 9,647 2,900 1940 4,528 9,615 2,127 1950 3,145 11,894 1,690 1960 2,501 11,012 1,779 Source; Research Report No. 21, Real Estate Research Program, University of California, Berkeley: 1963. A factor in the lower density pattern is the preference for single-unit dwellings. Between 1950 and 1960, 68 percent of the dwelling unit increase in the six-county San Francisco Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area was in single units, but outside of San Francisco and Oakland the percentage was 94 percent. This trend would have been even more striking with inclusion of Santa Clara County. Recent data suggest that the proportion of multiple unit dwellings in new dwelling units has ceased to decline and may rise moderately in future years. BATSC forecasts discussed later in this Report have estimated living density in 1990 only 7 percent less than in the region today, with continued inroads of single-unit dwelling tracts in non-urbanized land areas being balanced by the construction of high-rise and other multi-unit buildings. But a considerable amount of urban dispersion has already been accomplished in today's region, and there appear to be no trends indicating a return to more concentrated urban living. ___________________________ 4. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Tomorrow's Transportation, Washington: 1968,p. 16. 5. Wallace F. Smith, Housing Market Data From Census Materials - A study of California and the Bay Area, Research Report No. 21, Real estate Research Program, University of California Berkeley. Berkeley: 1963. 11 Motor Vehicle Ownership In Table 1-2, the basic fact that motor vehicles have been increasing at a faster rate than population is verified. The proportion of households having automobiles available to them has also increased. In 1960, 78 percent of households in the San Francisco SMSA had motor vehicles available; by 1965 the proportion was 84 percent. The number of households with more than one motor vehicle increased from 25 to 38 percent over the same period. There appears to be no reason for assuming that car registrations per household have yet reached the point of saturation, given trends in income, living density, and the age level of population. The growth of truck registrations has been more rapid than automobiles. In the pattern of urban development that has emerged, dependence upon trucks for goods movement within the metropolitan area is almost total. Although trucking pickup and delivery service is the source of much traffic congestion on city streets, no alternative modes of goods movement are yet in sight. TABLE 1-2 REGISTERED MOTOR VEHICLES PER 1,000 PERSONS, SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AND STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1940 1950 1960 1965 Bay Area Automobiles 328 349 411 450 Trucks 28 39 57 66 California Automobiles 372 385 431 461 Trucks 28 45 63 76 Urban Mobility The culmination of these various factors can be seen in a trend not easily measured from historical data, but evident nonetheless. The amount of travel per person in metropolitan areas has been rising and seems likely to continue to rise. Data collected on the characteristics of metropolitan travel indicate that more trips are being taken per capita, at a higher average length per trip. It is also known that, while motor vehicle registrations have increased relative to population, the average annual usage of each vehicle has remained at a constant level. Given the inherent flexibility of automobiles in serving urban travel purposes, and the higher standards of vehicle movement opened up by the construction of high-class urban highways, this trend is not unexpected. To many persons, this is a trend which will not be arrested, as illustrated by the following comment: "A deep and lasting affinity has existed between the average California citizen and the automobile for many years. He seems to demand the independent mobility-the ability to go where he wants at his pleasure-that driving his own car provides, and he is more than willing to pay for it. He refuses to live in an environment that groups his home, place of work and shopping facilities all within easy walking distance of each other. He turns away from the use of mass transportation as a means of getting to work and even is reluctant to join in a car pool with fellow workers. He prefers to own at least two automobiles and for good reason. While he has one at work, the other is used by the rest of the family to transport the children to school and to permit his wife easy access to the thousand and one advantages and services that exist within the community-if she has convenient access to them." ', A different trend has also been noted: a growing understanding of the "hidden costs" of dependence upon the private automobile: accidents, air pollution, esthetic disturbance, parking demands, crime control, and degradation of pedestrian travel. "The total cost to society of continuing to rely almost wholly on the automobile as its major source of urban transportation for the entire range of types of travel demand is already high. It will almost certainly continue to grow at an increasing rate. Only recently has the urban public become aware of the underlying eco- nomic and social costs of too heavy a reliance upon a restricted range of transportation service."7 Click HERE for graphic. TRAVEL TRENDS What has been happening in Bay Area transportation is summarized in Figure 1-2. Particularly since 1960, there has been a sharp rise in vehicle registrations and in traffic volumes at selected locations. Public transit usage has ceased to decline but has yet to show a growth trend comparable to that for population or motor vehicle use. ___________________________ 6. California, Magazine of Commerce, Agriculture and Industry, published by the California State Chamber of Commerce, Spring, 1967. 7. Tomorrow's Transportation, p. 14. 12 Highway Travel With the annual growth rate in motor vehicles running above 5 percent for the region, it is not surprising that traffic flows have been rising each year, often in disturbing amounts. On virtually all important freeway and bridge arteries, the growth rate has been extremely rapid. Vehicles crossing the San FranciscoOakland Bay Bridge in 1968 were nearly double the traffic of 1950. Golden Gate Bridge traffic was over three times as much. On the Eastshore Highway (Route 80) in Berkeley, daily traffic was 108,000 in 1963 and 144,000 in 1968. In many locations where highway improvements have removed critical traffic bottlenecks, peak period traffic flows have risen even more rapidly. At the Caldecott Tunnel passing through the Berkeley-Oakland hills, where lane capacity was doubled in 1965, traffic increased 60 percent from 1961 to 1967 during the morning commuter period. Between 6 and 9 a.m., westbound, as many vehicles now use the Tunnel as traveled on the Bay Bridge half a dozen years ago. A significant aspect of this trend is that movement of persons has not risen at the same rate as movement of vehicles. For example, between 1949 and 1962, when the Bay Bridge was recording a 50 percent gain in the quantity of vehicles handled, the total number of persons crossing the bridge by all modes of travel did not change notably. For part of the period, decreasing transit usage offset increases in auto usage by passengers. Even when transit riding trends reversed and showed modest gains, a decrease in the number of persons per passenger automobile held total person movement constant. Falling automobile occupancy, correlative with the rising rate of auto ownership in the region, has been observed in several recent studies. For travel leaving the central district of San Francisco between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m., auto movement doubled between 1947 and 1965, but person flow increased by only one-third. Transit Travel Transit usage on the major systems of the Bay Area is indicated on Figure 1-3. The peak in transit riding was reached during World War 11, but a decline followed immediately as cars, tires, and gasoline again became available. In 1965, patronage on the systems in Figure 1-3 collectively was 83 percent of the 1940 level. At least one trend seems to have reversed. Between 1954 and 1959, peak-hour commuter trips in six principal commuter "gateways" showed an increase of 29 percent in total trips but a 15 percent decline in transit trips; however, substantial increases have recently been recorded on several main commuter routes. For example, bus riding on the Bay Bridge, which ran about 30,000 daily trips in 1959, had passed 50,000 daily in 1968; and riding during the peak commute period had nearly doubled. TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS In consideration of these travel trends, the major thrust of Bay Area transportation programs since World War II has been toward the construction of freeways, bridges, roads, and streets. Construction expenditures (including rights-of-way) on State, county, and city highways in the nine-county region have been climbing rapidly: Fiscal Expenditures Dollars Year (Millions) Per Capita 1960 $95.5 $26 1961 123.3 32 1962 146.2 37 1963 150.3 37 1964 180.5 43 1965 183.2 43 1966 200.0 45 1967 212.1 47 The annual expenditure is now at a rate of more than $200 million, and to this figure could be added the expenditures on roads in subdivisions and other private lands, which presently surpass $30 million a year. The State's freeway program is the largest item among the road-building activities. The freeway principle, and full responsibility on the part of the State for freeway construction in urban areas, were well established in California's transportation policies in 1947 when the State's postwar highway program was instituted. Financing for freeway expansion was stepped up in 1953 by the State and in 1956 by the Federal Interstate Highway program. State policy for urban freeways was formalized in 1959 by the legislative adoption of the California Freeway System, which included 1,350 miles in the Bay Area. Click HERE for graphic. 13 By 1965, 345 miles of the System had been built in the region. The long-range course or ultimate objectives of this program have never been clearly defined, other than the construction of routes listed in the State statutes to freeway standards. Already, freeways are completed along the principal travel arteries that are natural extensions of the statewide highway system and connect the Bay Area with other regions. Routes now under construction have the main purpose of linking up major subareas in the region and serving as "distributor" highways for long-distance intercity traffic. In the future, much of the investment is planned for freeways whose chief function will be to keep routes already completed from bogging down in traffic congestion. There is no apparent termination point for this type of freeway development, so long as traffic growth continues. However, completion of the system presently defined in State law is at least a quarter of a century away, at present levels of financing. The level of capital spending on city and county roads varies widely within the region. Per capita, construction expenditures for fiscal years 1960 through 1966 (using 1965 population) ranged from $39 in San Francisco to $140 in Santa Clara County; the regional average was $73 ' Collectively, local government road expenditures have been rising at a higher rate than the State program, although again there is considerable difference among individual communities. Despite sizeable outlays in recent years, the estimated construction deficiencies of the local road and street system are not diminishing; the accumulation of deficiencies is considered to be so large that the local road programs would continue for years, even though traffic growth were to cease today. Bridge crossings constructed to date have been located-as have freeways-generally along well-established transportation routes, usually replacing ferry boat services. Several of the original structures have been augmented by new and wider bridges, or by enlargement of existing facilities. The chief concern now with regard to future crossings of the Bay is rapidly-developing congestion of traffic on several present structures. Until the approval by voters of the Bay Area Rapid Transit District's three-county plan in 1462, there was little activity in public transit comparable with the effort going into the highway, road, and street programs. Indeed, with many transit services being converted to bus operation in the region, highway activities were to some extent made on behalf of public transit, as well as automobiles and trucks. The BARTD vote launched the region on a new and as yet undetermined path. The total investment in the authorized rapid transit system is expected to reach $1.3 billion, and the annual cost to property holders, sales taxpayers, and Bay Bridge users to be in the neighborhood of $100 million. It should be remembered, however, that the District originally included five counties, and that the system actually authorized was regarded as only a first phase in rapid transit development that would include all nine Bay Area counties. No definite steps to extend BART or begin another rapid transit project have yet been taken; several have been under consideration. It seems certain that, in the existing or new territories to be served by BART, an enlargement of feeder and distributive transit services will be required if the maximum value is to be gained from the rapid transit system. In view of these possibilities, the commitment of the region's resources to public transit is likely to become very much larger in the future. THE PLANNING CLIMATE A final trend to be noted is a proliferation of planning activities concerned with transportation and problems related to transportation. Pressures of urban growth and development in the Bay Area have called forth various efforts by public agencies to grapple with the course of events; creation of the Bay Area Transportation Study Commission was one such effort. The Commission's area of study has been urban transportation, but the relationship of transportation to other regional planning activities has been clearly recognized during the Study. Since 1962, when BATSC was conceived, the Association of Bay Area Governments has assumed the role, and has been recognized by the Federal Government, as the Bay Area's regional planning agency, for general planning purposes. A Preliminary Plan for the region was prepared in 1966, and a revised Plan is due in 1969. The Bay Conservation and Development Commission was created by the State Legislature in 1965, and has developed a plan to guide urban development affecting the Bay and its shoreline. Another action by the Legislature established the Bay Delta Water Quality Study, which has submitted a regional plan for the disposal of sewage and wastes. These planning activities have been carried on simul- taneously with the BATSC Study. In the common area of interest-the analysis of trends and forces involved in urbanization of the region-a considerable interplay between them has occurred. State action also established two agencies-the West Bay Rapid Transit Authority, covering San Mateo County, and the Marin County Transit District that have performed transportation planning studies for portions of the nine-county region. Other subregional studies involving transport that have been in existence during the term of BATSC include land use-transportation planning in Santa Clara and Contra Costa Counties, a study of coordination between transit systems by the Northern California Transit Demonstration Project, and a study of parking and traffic circulation in downtown San Francisco. The part played by the Federal Government in setting planning requirements, and in providing much of the funding for these studies, has perhaps been the most influential single factor responsible for the planning trend; but the movement leading to comprehensive transportation planning had begun well before Federal actions made the process imperative. In 1961 a bill to establish a Golden Gate Transportation Commission, covering a six-county area, for the manage- 14 ment and planning of transport facilities by one regional agency of government narrowly failed of passage in the Legislature. The next year a prospectus prepared under Legislative authorization recommended a comprehensive planning study for the region, and the BATS Commission was created the following year. These decisions were taken despite the fact that the individual programs of public agencies involved with Bay Area transportation were based upon a considerable background of planning activities, and were fairly well organized with respect to administration and financing. The planning climate demanded that a broader view be taken of transportation-one that would fit the exigencies of the growing urban community. The need was recognized for a transport policy founded upon a comprehensive planning base, which dealt with all components of the urban transport system and with the impact of the total system on the environment and the social and economic struc- ture of the region. The comprehensive approach was thus established to study such matters as balance between separate transport modes and programs, patterns of urban activities served by the transport system, emerging technological developments in transport beyond the re- sponsibility of any single transport agency, social and physical amenities, and organizational relationships between federal, state, and local governments. It was hoped in this way to provide the basis for a coordinated metropolitan transportation system that would effectively advance and reinforce general urban development goals in the Bay Area. 15 CHAPTER 2 LAND USE SURVEYS AND PLANNING STUDIES Results of the inventories, surveys, and special studies, presented in this and the following two chapters, describe the state of the region in (or near) 1965, which in technical terms is the "base year." All input data for the technical analysis reviewed in Chapters 5, 6, and 7 were converted to the 1965 base. Three main categories of data were required: (1) information on the socioeconomic characteristics of the region, including population, employment, and land uses, which is summarized in this chapter; (2) data on travel patterns and travel characteristics in the region; (3) detailed inventories of the region's transport facilities as they existed in 1965. Each item of travel, transport, and land use data was identified by its particular location within the region. BATSC INFORMATION SYSTEM The BATSC "data base" contains some 20 million items of data recorded on more than 1,000 reels of magnetic tape. It was recognized from the inception of the Study that data files of this magnitude would have to be organized within an overall information system, which included a carefully designed methodology for processing and manipulating data in analytical use. Despite formidable difficulties which were experienced by the BATSC project in managing its accumulation of data, the information system has now been operating for over two years in behalf of the internal study program, with emphasis on the use of modern computer software and hardware. Some weaker parts of the system, particularly the documentation of data from many sources, are being redesigned in the light of past experience. Arrangements are being made for the continuing maintenance and updating of the data base. The BATSC information system was developed primarily to meet the needs of the transportation study but its design is appropriate to a wide variety of other uses; and it has been used considerably in servicing external requests for data. The system, as it pres- ently functions, is a prototype of a general-purpose regional information system, documented by dictionaries and directories, and capable of easy access to users. SYSTEM OF GE ENTIFICATION In order to organize data received from many sources and localities on a common basis, a hierarchical or nested system of coding by zonal units was developed for the Bay Area, taking this form: Zonal Unit Number in Region Counties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Super-districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98 Analysis Zones. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 Census Tracts and Tract Equivalents . . . . . . . . . . . . 742 Traffic Analysis Zones. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,184 Census Blocks or Equivalents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48,000 No boundary lines of any of these zones are overlapping. The system of Analysis Zones (291) is represented in Map 2-1. Most of the analysis done to date has been at this grain of detail. Data presented in this report are classed by the larger areal units-usually by County or groups of Analysis Zones-but this is mostly for illustrative reasons. It should be appreciated that the analytical and planning process-the technical core of a systems study such as BATSC requires that details of travel flows, urban plans, economic development, and so forth be defined in the fine grain geographic units represented by the BATSC zonal structure. It is anticipated that in the future still smaller area studies will be performed. BATSC data have been carefully maintained for this purpose. As an adjunct to the zonal system, a census tract street index was created. This index lists all numeric street addresses and all intersections within the region, matching each address with its related census block and tract numbers, along with city and county codes. The index contains about 300,000 records, and approximately one million addresses were locationally coded with its aid. (A by- product of this project was use of the index as the basis for an address coding guide being prepared by the U. S. Census Bureau for the decennial census in 1970. 16 Click HERE for graphic. 17 LAND USE DATA REQUIREMENTS A region's physical framework-plus its current demographic, economic, and social conditions-establishes its overall character which, in turn, influences its transport needs. Thus surveys of "land use" (this is a short-hand term for all social and economic activities on land) are essential to transportation analysis and planning. BATSC collection of land use and related information was guided by the kinds of analyses to be undertaken, the models involved, and the precise form of their data requirements. Click HERE for graphic. Figure 2-1 shows the categories of land use data collected and the flow of this information through the analysis phase. Two of the surveys involved the direct collection of original data in large quantities: 1. The Land Use Inventory. Mainly with the aid of aerial photographs, a classification of the acreage of land throughout the region in numerous use categories was prepared. Data processing in full detail is still incomplete at the time of this writing. 2. The Employment Survey. Employment data in Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) categories was produced for all employment in the region. The principal data source was the California Department of Employment records of firms covered under the Unemployment Insurance Code: the records were for the 4th quarter of 1964. BATSC staff also undertook the task of locating employees at their actual workplaces which were reported from headquarters offices or plants in the Department of Employment records. Staff also made estimates of employment location for the 32 percent of Bay Area workers not covered by unemployment insurance; direct questionnaires and various other methods were used to this end. Besides these surveys, the BATSC Study drew upon estimates of occupied dwelling units by small-area locations that were available in the region. These were converted to population estimates according to average household sizes as indicated by the BATSC survey of households (described in the following chapter). Staff estimates of population were checked against independent estimates, such as were available from local agencies in the region In addition to the collection of "hard" data, BATSC staff, with the assistance of city and county planning departments and many other agencies, assembled three important classes of information that were based to some extent upon planning judgments and estimates of the future held by planning officials. This data was supplemented with information obtained from general plans, zoning ordinances, and planning reports and studies developed by outside agencies. Planning data is classed, as follows: 1. Land Use Constraint Data. This is information concerning the extent to which non-urbanized land in the region is usable and available for urban development. 2. Land Release Data. Expectations as to the type, time and location of future urban growth were recorded. 3. Unique Locator and Committed Development Data. Data were continuously recorded during the term of the Study on the announced locations of future urban activities, and estimates were made of the amount and location of large urban developments whose allocation is better done manually than with analytical models. BATSC urban location models employ this information to allocate forecasts of region;l population and employment to analysis zones within the Study area. Model inputs required for the base year (1965) at 7 zonal level of detail were: total dwelling units; population; employed residents; nonworking population; basic and population-serving employees1; acreage of land in residential, population-serving, and basic activities; and acres of vacant land and unusable land. All locational estimates are made within the limits of the planning constraints upon the use of land as developed from the planning data. LAND USE, POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT IN THE BAY AREA Land Use Survey Existing (1965) land uses in the Bay Area, classified in 14 categories, are represented in Map 2-2. The map detail is generally descriptive of the data inputs which are at a census tract level-used by the location analysis. Table 2-1 summarizes these statistics by county, with the data classified as to residential an non-residential urban uses, and the amount of non urbanized land. ___________________________ 1. Basic employees, generally speaking, are employees in activities that develop income for the region from external sources and thus, have site requirements, transport needs, and plant investments which are less determined by the distribution of urban activities within the region. Population serving employees, on the other hand, are engaged in activities that do not "import" income but involve transfer of goods and services among residents of the region-and therefore locate with respect to the spatial pattern of population and employment. 18 Click HERE for graphic. 19 The basic source of information was data produced by the Center for Real Estate and Urban Economics, University of California, which in turn had used BATSC aerial photography and other materials in developing the data. To fit the information to its model requirements, BATSC made a number of modifications in the data using its aerial photographs, commercial maps, maps prepared by ABAG and much information from city and county planning departments. TABLE 2-1 LAND USE IN 1965 (in Acres) Urban Land Total _________________ Non- land Resi- Nonresi- urban County area dential dential land Alameda 464,609 56,432 19,623 388,554 Contra Costa 480,512 55,256 10,252 415,004 Marin 326,823 12,754 3,381 310,688 Napa 475,768 4,407 1,774 469,587 San Francisco 30,110 13,500 6,143 10,467 San Mateo 286,522 45,026 9,296 232,200 Santa Clara 848,607 61,369 19,943 767,295 Solano 528,402 6,400 7,694 514,308 Sonoma 1,007,851 7,204 3,016 997,161 Bay Region 4,449,204 262,348 81,192 4,105,664 It will be a surprise to many that more than 90 percent of Bay Area lands were not developed for urban uses in 1965. Obviously, it is activities on the 8 percent of land that is developed that gives rise to urban transportation demands. The intensity of these activities is best indicated in terms of employment and population. Employment Survey The BATSC Employment Survey provided base year data on Bay Area employees at 2- and 4-digit levels of the Standard Industrial Classification, by census tract and block. The numerical deployment of the 1.6 million workers in the region by major industrial category is given in Table 2-2. Some aspects of the dispersion among the counties are worth attention. San Francisco contained about one-fourth of all employees, and San Francisco and Alameda Counties together about one-half. More than half of the employment in the Transportation and Communications, Trade, and Services groups were located in these two counties, and San Francisco alone had over half of employment classified as Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate, By contrast, employment in the Manufacturing, Construction, and Government sectors was much more widely spread out among the counties. Map 2-3 offers a visual picture of the points of high employment concentration within the region. Employment data are important to transport analysis and planning not only because they are the source of the journey to work but because certain classes of employment identify activities that attract trips for non-work purposes. As one example, retail employment is indicative of shopping trip attractions. TABLE 2-3 BATSC POPULATION AND DWELLING UNIT ESTIMATES FOR 1965 County Population Dwelling units Alameda 1,092,204 339,596 Contra Costa 530,422 152,827 Marin 181,786 57,408 Napa 61,836 19,023 San Francisco 754,754 308,588 San Mateo 559,536 170,603 Santa Clara 902,133 259,547 Solano 149,386 43,982 Sonoma 171,277 52,572 Bay Region 4,403,334 1,404,146 Dwelling Units and Population The location of people at their place of residence is critical to transportation analysis and planning, The vast majority of all urban trips begin or end at homes; home-based trips account for over three-fourths of all trips by Bay Area residents, Click HERE for graphic. 20 Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. The base year population of 4.4 million persons2 lives in some 1.4 million dwelling units in the Bay Area in 1965. The data are aggregated by counties in Table 2-3. Residential density in the Bay Area is portrayed in map 2-4. ___________________________ 2. The 1965 population estimate of the State Department of Finance, which has been used in the BATSC projection of regional growth, is 77,000 persons under the BATSC base year population estimate, which is a summation of population by census tract. 21 BAY AREA PLANNING DATA BATSC reliance upon data received from city and county planning departments and other agencies conformed to the legislative mandate for interagency cooperation in the course of the Study. The Commission here wishes to express its gratitude to the many individuals and agencies who assisted in the development of the planning data. All data thus received by, the Commission's staff were reviewed for their reasonableness, compatibility, and readiness for in-house quantification. The final product of this work, it should be emphasized, is the responsibility of staff and is based upon the staff's planning judgment. The importance of these data will become apparent when their use in forecasting future land use development is described in Chapter 5. A point worth mentioning here-and repeating later-is that local planning policies and judgments were used to control or constrain trends that mathematical models tuned to market forces might otherwise have produced; hence, our frequent use of the term, "controlled trends" planning. Land Availability Data Determination of the capacity of vacant land to accommodate residential or economic growth establishes maximum limits to the allocation of growth to any locality in the region. Planners in the region were requested to identify vacant land in the following classes: 1. Land unusable for urban development because of natural constraints (topography, hydrography, etc.). 2. Land usable for urban development but unavailable because of its accessibility or policy constraints (zoned for agriculture, parks and permanent open space). 3. Land usable and available for industrial development (zoned or to be zoned for industrial use). 4. Land usable and available for residential and commercial development (zoned or to be zoned for these uses). The data are summarized by county iii Table 2-4. Of the 4 million acres that are not now developed, almost 3 million acres are regarded as unusable for urban development. Nonetheless, about 1.2 million acres are vacant and usable, more than three times the acreage now developed. The collected data were consolidated and simplified to produce the configuration depicted in Map 2-5 portraying availability of land in the region. Large portions of the North Bay, eastern Contra Costa, Alameda, and western and eastern Santa Clara Counties are constrained by topography and inaccessibility. Park recreation and permanent open space uses exempt approximately two-fifths of Marin and much of western San Mateo Counties from development. Except for the Napa Valley, portions of eastern Contra Costa, northeastern and western Solano, and the vineyard areas of Sonoma and Alameda Counties, agricultural zoning as a long-term policy constraint has limited effect. The most significant feature of the pattern of vacant lands available for urban development is the extent to which these lands are in short supply throughout much of the bay plain urban area and, especially in the core area, The only exceptions are the sizeable acreages in the vicinity, of Redwood Shores, north of San Jose and around Milpitas and Fremont. Inland communities have sufficient available land to accommodate future growth. Industrial land is in greater supply in the metropolitan San Jose area, both to the north and south into the Santa Clara Valley; along the Hayward-Fremont waterfront; along the south shore of the Sacramento River, especially in eastern Contra Costa County; and in south central Solano County. It is assumed, however, that these last two areas are remote from the significant industrial pressures likely to be influential in the region during the planning period to 1990. Land Release Data Contributing planning departments mapped possible future land use, in five year increments from 1965 to 1990, according to eight activity types (three residential, one commercial, two industrial, parks and open space, and "special"). TABLE 2-4 DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF THE REGION, 1965 (In Acres) Vacant Vacant Unusable available available for natural Developed for for or policy County Total area in 1965 industry other uses reasons Alameda 464,609 76,052 28,305 95,892 64,360 Contra Costa 480,512 65,509 51,304 192,132 171,567 Marin 326,823 16,134 3,914 76,692 230,183 Napa 475,768 6,181 4,813 74,074 390,700 San Francisco 30,110 19,645 744 601 9,120 San Mateo 286,522 54,319 5,907 130,104 6,192 Santa Clara 848,607 81,312 36,364 152,734 578,197 Solano 528,402 14,093 79,027 84,199 51,083 Sonoma 1,007,851 10,290 10,036 152,482 111,041 Bay Region 4,449,204 343,535 220,314 958,910 2,926,445 22 Click HERE for graphic. 23 Anticipating that many of the mapped statements would reflect planning judgments as well as policy, a rating scheme was used to rate judgments in one of three probabilities-certain, probable, improbable. Intensity of activity was asked for in terms of dwelling units, persons or families per acre for residential uses and employees per acre for industrial and commercial activities. Essentially, the vast array of data collected provides a general impression of the nature and extent of future growth as seen through the eyes of county and city planners. More specifically, however, the data were useful to BATSC staff in reviewing and modifying the results of its analytical operations. Unique Locator and Committed Development Data Unique locator activities include: large employment centers, junior colleges and universities, government complexes, military bases, planned communities, transportation terminals, penal institutions, and redevelopment projects. Information identifying the type, location, areal size, employment and/or population, probable date of completion and proposed staging of development was acquired for several hundred basic residential and "population-serving" unique locators. Map 2-6, Future Basic Unique Locators, shows 125 important "basic" locators in the region. The pattern of these locators reveals a striking and continuing emphasis upon the South Bay concentration of employment in manufacturing, associated primarily with new technology industries. New heavy industrial activities are also spotted along the northern Bay shoreline and the Sacramento River. The construction of major buildings such as the Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Alcoa, and Crocker suggest a further intensification of finance, banking, insurance, and real estate activities in downtown San Francisco. Warehousing, transportation, and communication activities are shown adjacent to both international airports and the ports of San Francisco and Oakland. Government employment locators are shown in conjunction with the University of California Medical Center in San Francisco and expansion of the California Medical Facility at Vacaville. The past trend of limited basic employment opportunities in Marin, Sonoma and Napa Counties seems to have continuing probability, at least for the near future. Click HERE for graphic. 24 CHAPTER 3 TRAVEL SURVEYS Collection of data on travel in the region is the largest undertaking of the field surveys in a metropolitan transportation study. Data on travel indicate the amount, purpose, location, time, and mode of use for trips within the region, and these values are essential inputs to the process of predicting future transportation demands. Click HERE for graphic. BATSC SURVEYS Four interview surveys were conducted by BATSC staff to establish 1965 travel patterns and relationships between travel and land use characteristics. The use made of these surveys is indicated in Figure 3-1. Home Interview Origin-Destination Survey The Home Interview Survey provided most of the information used in the travel analysis. Interviews with families and individuals recorded the number and the origins and destinations of trips made by persons living within the region, and gathered information about the characteristics of households that could be correlated with travel behavior. The Survey consisted of three parts, each being for a specific purpose: 1. Regular (short form) Home Interview Survey. The regular form of the Survey consisted of approximately 30,000 interviews selected randomly throughout the Bay Area. Each interview contained detailed information about the household, persons in the household, and all trips made by household members (over 4 years of age) during a given travel day. Samples of travel were taken on a seven-day week basis. 2. In-Depth (long form) Home Interview. This special-purpose survey collected information from about 2,500 households, randomly distributed over the Bay Region, beyond that obtained from the regular survey. This added information concerned household mobility, migration, locational history, and seasonal trips. 3. Bridge Sample. A small sample was taken of automobile bridge commuters to San Francisco. Home addresses were obtained from the Department of Motor Vehicles, and the households of the auto owners were interviewed, using the in depth form of the Home Interview questionnaire. The sample (Bay Bridge, Golden Gate Bridge) of about 600 interviews was taken to provide information about the effect bridge commuting might have on job and residential location choice. The Home Interview Survey sample was taken from regional lists of occupied dwelling units. About one and one-half million data cards, containing approximately ten million words of data, were keypunched and processed-the largest single survey effort of the Study. Screenline Survey The Screenline Survey covered vehicles crossing nine lines (or screens) passing through the region and dividing it into separate parts. Interviews with vehicle occupants developed data on trip origins and destinations, travel purposes, time of day, land use at origin and destination, and other travel-oriented data. The Screenline Survey was used to check the accuracy of transportation models used for planning evaluation and to verify the completeness of other travel surveys. There were two types of screenline interviews: the roadside interview, and the mail questionnaire. The latter form was used when interruption of normal traffic flow was undesirable or unsafe. In this case, li- 25 cense plate numbers were recorded and addresses obtained from the Department of Motor Vehicles. Approximately 73,000 roadside and 89,000 mail interviews were collected for 83 stations on the screenlines. Cordon Survey The Cordon Survey, like the Screenline, was a survey of vehicle trips passing specific locations on a line, a "cordon" line in this instance surrounding the nine-county Bay Region and located on the county boundaries. Cordon information was used to develop "external" trip data, as distinct from the "internal" trips prepared from the Home Interview Survey. Approximately 112,000 cordon interviews were taken at 25 stations bordering the region, on both weekdays and weekends. Truck-Taxi Survey The Department of Motor Vehicles and private agencies furnished lists of commercial vehicles from which BATSC selected the survey sample. Interviews contain all trips made by sample vehicles on selected travel days, land use at origin and destination, trip purposes, and commodities carried, Mail questionnaires were sent to registered owners of commercially li- censed pick-up trucks. Truck owners and drivers were interviewed in person. Taxi information was taken from company daily trip logs. Accuracy Checks Estimates of total daily travel, obtained from expansions of the combined Home Interview Survey and the Cordon Survey samples (i.e., internal and external trips), were compared with Screenline Survey data and with vehicle ground counts, to determine if the estimates accurately represented travel patterns within the region. Close agreement was found between the sample and screenline data, and it was concluded that the expanded trip files, without further adjustment, were sufficiently accurate to be used for model cali- brations and planning analysis. The comparison is summarized in Table 3-1, which presents data for selected interview stations (there were 81 altogether) and screenlines, as shown on Map 3-1. Screenline values combine the data for individual stations located on the screenlines. While some of the individual stations show large percentage variations from actual counts (which may be due only to the technique for assigning expanded trip volumes to routes), the comparison of assigned and counted values for screenlines is within 10 percent with one exception. On the San Mateo-Santa Clara County Line, traffic counts much exceeded assigned crossings. It is believed that the excess occurs because the line meanders through a densely developed area, and many trips were counted more than once while moving from origin to destination. In addition, employment information from the expanded Home Interview Survey was compared with information from the BATSC Employment Inventory on a county-by-county basis. Again, there was close agreement between data from the two sources. TOTAL PERSON TRIPS IN THE REGION Presentation of travel data in summary form can give at best only a very limited idea of the findings which are useful for the transportation study. Millions of trips are taken in the region each day. There are many more millions of potential origin- destination travel combinations. The aim of a systems analysis is to study, and to project into the future, those interactions which produce urban travel, as they are revealed by the extensive travel surveys. There is no convenient way to report the total body of information on Bay Area travel gained from the surveys. Even so, data set TABLE 3-1 1965 AVERAGE WEEKDAY AUTO TRAFFIC COMPARISONS BETWEEN ASSIGNED SAMPLE EXPANSIONS AND VEHICLE COUNTS AT SCREENLINES AND SELECTED STATIONS Counted Assigned Percent* Location crossings crossings difference Station 1. S.F.-Oakland Bay Bridge 122,736 136,358 +11. 1 2. Golden Gate Bridge 65,564 54,473 -16.9 3. Richmond-San Rafael Bridge 9,870 13,053 +32.2 4. San Mateo Bridge 11,594 2,833 -41.1 5. Dumbarton Bridge 9,004 9,068 +0.7 6. Carquinez Straits Bridge 29,750 27,648 -7.1 7. Benicia-Martinez Bridge 7,7451 2,477 +61.1 8. Freeway 17 at Warm Springs 34,737 37,198 +7.1 9. Bayshore Freeway at Palo Alto 77,371 90,122 +16.5 10. Rte. 24 Caldecott Tunnel 60,007 62,407 +4.0 11. Rte. 580 at Dublin 26,140 27,040 +3.4 Screenline a. S.F.-San Mateo County Line 217,097 213,354 -1.7 b. San Mateo-Santa Clara County Line 180,033 135,707 -24.6 c. East Bay Hills County Line 106,518 102,068 -4.2 d. Alameda-Santa Clara County Line 34,737 37,198 -7.1 e. Marin-Sonoma County Line 20,987 20,485 -2.4 f. Cordon Around San Francisco 405,397 404,185 -0.2 g. North Bay/South Bay Line 112,929 107,651 -4.6 h. East Bay/West Bay Line 243,635 243,930 +O.1 * Differences are expressed as a percentage of the counted crossings. 26 Click HERE for graphic. forth in summary charts and tables-as in the balance of this chapter-point up some critical facts about travel conditions, which must be heeded by transport planners as travel needs of the future are studied. Data in this chapter are reported only for internal travel. Only about one percent of trips involve trip origins or destinations (or both) outside of the region. This proportion is quite small because (among other reasons) of the far-flung geographic spread of the nine-county region and the location of the cordon line for counting external trips on the out-most periphery. Naturally, the external proportion would be much higher upon selective routes and at locations nearer the outer edge, but the fact is worth emphasizing that the vast majority of trips and transport needs in the Bay Area are produced by residents of the area. Person Trips by Purpose and Mode of Travel. The total picture of Bay Area travel by persons on an average weekday in 1965 is summarized in Table 3-2. The total number of trips by the 4.4 million residents of the region comes to 11.8 million. Of these, 80 percent are home-based; that is, they begin, or end, at home. This aspect of trips, interesting of itself, is of especial value to the analyst, for 80 percent of the trips can be directly related to characteristics of households and places of residence. One fact standing out from the data-one which is not widely appreciated except by young people-is that a generous number of trips is taken on foot, particularly for going to school. The largest single class of trip is home-based work (and trips related to work), which includes the commuter travel of the region. Work-purpose trips by public transit are-excepting school trips- larger in number than all other transit trip purposes put together, illustrating the considerable orientation of transit service to the home-work travel movements. Transit is not used significantly for shopping trips. Click HERE for graphic. 27 Altogether, almost ten trips by automobile were sampled for every trip using public transit, even allowing for the large amount of transit travel by school bus.1 Person Trips by County. The distribution of trips by county within the region is reported in Table 3-3. About 90 percent of the trips remained within the county where they were produced, testifying to the very considerable geographic spread of travel in the Bay Area resulting from the dispersion of population and employment. However, more than a million trips crossed county lines. The Counties of Marin, Contra Costa, and San Mateo, which have the higher percentages of travel to other counties, are known in the region as "bedroom suburbs." TABLE 3-3 AVERAGE WEEKDAY PERSON TRIPS IN 1965 BY COUNTY Percentage of trips Total ____________________________________ trips Remaining Attracted to County of produced within other production (000) county counties ___________________________________________________________________ Alameda 2,892 92.3 7.7 Contra Costa 1,397 85.0 15.0 Marin 424 82.5 17.5 Napa 168 6.9 13.1 San Francisco 2,005 91.8 8.2 San Mateo 1,442 79.4 20.6 Santa Clara 2,630 95.4 4.6 Solano 372 93.0 7.0 Sonoma 496 95.4 4.6 ______________________________________________________________ Total 11,826 90.2 9.8 Among the counties, little more than half the trips taken in San Francisco are by automobile, compared with 75 percent by auto for the region as a whole. Excluding school trips, walk trips, and inter-count)r trips from consideration (leaving intra-county trips by auto and transit), 80 percent of trips in San Francisco are by automobile, but the 20 percent by transit was in itself a high proportion. In none of the other eight counties was the transit proportion of intra-county trips as high as 5 percent, and in seven counties it was one percent or less. LENGTH AND TIME OF DAY OF TRIPS Average Duration by Trip Purpose. Work-purpose trips are the largest single trip category and also the longest. Model inputs required the length of trips in BATSC survey data to be measured in minutes rather than miles, and the actual distance covered by trips cannot be directly reported. However, the average duration time of trips according to purpose was calculated as shown in Figure 3-2. Trips of relatively short distance are those for convenience shopping (to the grocery store, for instance) and to school, as would be expected. Click HERE for graphic. The high average length of work-purpose trips increases their relative importance in total travel, as compared with the number of trips. It can be inferred from trip duration times that nearly one-third of all regional travel by persons is for the work purpose. Trips Classed by Trip Duration. Another significant aspect of travel related to the duration of trips is shown in Figure 3-3. Only a little more than 20 percent of trips were for duration times exceeding one half an hour. About two-thirds are for duration times of 18 minutes or less. However, the one-third of trips for durations exceeding 18 minutes accounts for roughly two-thirds of the travel minutes by persons in the region. This is an important characteristic of urban travel: a minority of the trips accounts for the majority of movement that must be handled on the transportation system's roads, bridges, and transit facilities. Click HERE for graphic. Hourly Distribution of Trips. The "peaking" aspect of urban travel in morning and afternoon periods is well-known; for the Bay Area the hourly time Pattern is indicated in Figure 3-4. The bar chart actually understates the size of the urban peak relative to other hours because trips to and from work, which are of greater average length than other trips, predominate during the peaks. Survey data reveal that travel duration times are at least 25 percent higher during the commute hours, Travel, therefore, increases more than in proportion to the number of trips for the peak periods. Also, the commuter trips, being of greater length, tend to gravitate more to freeway or high-speed transit, thereby adding to peak emphasis on these facilities. These characteristics are accounted for in the technical analysis and forecast of travel produced by the BATSC Study. The relatively greater importance of transit service during peak periods is evident from Figure 3-4, although the high transit proportion in the earlier afternoon hours is due to the school movement, which precedes the regular afternoon rush home. ___________________________ 1. We should observe that the school travel estimate is incomplete because the interviewing was done during summer months; further analysis of the travel data may result in revisions. For this reason, school were not Projected along with other trips in preparing travel forecasts; see Chapter 6. 28 Click HERE for graphic. WEEKEND TRIPS About 9,000 of the BATSC home interviews occurred on weekend days and reported data on weekend trip behavior. A comparison of trips for the weekend day and the average weekday is given in Table 3-4. It is apparent at once that, while there are about the same number of person trips on the weekend day as on a weekday, the purpose classification varies considerably. Work trips and school trips are much reduced on weekend. There is a large rise in shopping, personal business, and social trips. These data bear out what everyone knows-that recreation, shopping, and other trips tend to replace home-to-work and to-school travel on weekends. Nevertheless, the difference is important enough to measure with some care because it TABLE 3-4 AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRIPS COMPARED WITH AVERAGE WEEKEND DAY TRIPS, 1965 Average Average weekday weekend day ______________________ _________________ No. of Percent No. of Percent trips of trips of Trip purpose (000) trips (000) trips Home-based Work 2,626 22.2 856 7.5 Personal business 1,248 10.6 1,935 17.0 Social 795 6.7 1,500 13.2 Recreational 535 4.5 994 8.7 Shopping Convenience 1,223 10.3 1,744 15.4 Comparison 409 3.5 589 5.2 School 1,448 12.2 52 0.5 Other home-based 1,095 9.3 1,438 12.6 Non-home-based 2,447 20.7 2,268 19.9 __________________________________________________________________ Total 11,826 100.0 11,376 100.0 signifies a different kind of travel need. There is very little in the way of a commuter peak on weekends. Also, weekend trips are concentrated in purpose categories having a low preference for transit or for walking-in other words, a high preference for the private automobile; and they concentrate on different parts of the transport system. Thus a heavy volume of automotive travel occurs on weekends which cannot all be effectively served by the transportation provided for handling the normal weekday commuter movement. PERSON TRIPS AND VEHICLE TRIPS The travel surveys divided person trips by auto between those where the traveler was the driver and those where lie was the passenger; this was to permit person trip columns to be converted to vehicle trips, according to the proportion of person trips which represented the driver. The proportion between drivers and non- drivers varies according to the purpose of the trips, as shown in Table 3-5. The most striking statistic to be noted here is the low occupancy recorded for work-purpose travel compared with all other purposes, despite the practice of car pooling among some commuters. Thus the urban peak demand, already emphasized by the greater duration of work-purpose trips, is further accented in the vehicle peak demand by the low occupancy rate associated with this purpose. TABLE 3.5 AVERAGE CAR OCCUPANCY FOR WEEKDAY TRIPS, BY PURPOSE Average car Trip purpose occupancy* Home-based School 2.76 Recreational 1.93 Social 1.62 Comparison shopping 1.46 Personal business 1.41 Convenience shopping 1.28 Work 1.18 Other homebased 1.81 Non-home-based 1.44 _______________________________________________________ All purposes 1.44 * Person trips in autos divided by auto driver trips. TRAVEL AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS Use of travel survey data in traffic forecasting depends upon the relationships which can be established between trip making and urban activities. In a study such as this, a great variety of relationships are examined and tested. Especially critical, because of the high proportion of "home-based" trips, are relation- ships that apply to the travel behavior of households. Relationships actually used by BATSC to prepare forecasts are described in Chapter 6, but the present chapter may be concluded by pointing out some of the significant relationships between travel and household characteristics illustrating important points about the origins of urban travel demands. 29 Click HERE for graphic. The travel data in Table 3-6 include (1) the quantity of person trips, per household and per resident; (2) the division of person trips among modes of movement; (3) the percentage of person trips by automobile which are trips by vehicle drivers-the higher this percentage, of course, the lower the occupancy rate in each classification. These aspects of travel are related in Table 3-6 to two characteristics of residential living-living density, and the structure type of dwelling units-and two closely correlated items of household data: household income, and the number of autos available to households. The results presented in Table 3-6 generally bear out advance expectations. Residential density and dwelling unit structure types. Trips per household are higher for lower density and single-unit households; this for the obvious reason that larger family sizes are associated with single-unit dwellings and low-density living. The impact of living density upon the use of automobiles, compared with transit and walking, is quite pronounced, which verifies the close association that automotive transport has with dispersed urban development patterns. Income and auto availability. Trips per household rise considerably with increasing income and car availability, mainly because higher incomes are associated with both larger families and more cars. It is significant, however, that greater income and car availability are linked with more trips per capita-that is, with greater disposition (or ability) to travel on the part of the population. Also evident with higher income is a larger tendency to travel by automobile, since income is associated with the ability to own and operate vehicles, and to live in localities where automobile usage may be somewhat mandatory. Furthermore, higher income and auto availability are both related to a greater individual operation of automobiles by persons, and a lower proportion of passengers in automobiles. The consequence is that more vehicle trips occur with the same quantity of person trips. Thus the contemporary urban trends toward higher income levels, increased vehicle ownership, and low-density living patterns have helped produce the massive daily flows of motor vehicles on the region's highways. 30 CHAPTER 4 TRANSPORT SYSTEM OF THE BAY AREA The travel demands described in Chapter 3 took place over existing networks of transport facilities in the region. Surveys were undertaken of the highway, road, and street system, and of transit services, to measure the amount and quality of these facilities now available. This information not only described the region's 1965 transportation system-its capabilities and deficiencies. It also provided a technical basis for preparing alternative future systems and evaluating their performance relative to present conditions, TRANSPORT SYSTEM INVENTORIES The surveys made of the region's transport facilities fall into three classes: 1. Highway Inventory. Highways, roads, and streets for which data were collected included all State Highways, and a selected mileage of major county roads and city streets. Total miles inventoried were 3,250. Information was obtained from the State Division of Highways and from city, and county governments. It included: the type of facility, length, number of lanes, median type, traffic control devices, speed, traffic counts (if available) and capacity estimates. 2. Speed-Volume Studys. On 450 miles of streets and highways, - which included much of the State system, travel time measurements were made by BATSC staff in automobiles, both at peak and off-peak hours. Travel times were related to other route characteristics on these roads-volumes, traffic controls, medians, etc. This was for the purpose of establishing a "level of service" standard for each class of facility. 3. Transit Inventory. An inventory of public transit services offered in the region was made with the cooperation of both private and public transit operations. Information was summarized with respect to number of passengers carried, location of routes, frequency of service, trip transfer data, and size and age of equipment. The transport network information contributes to the urban location forecasting process, where network travel time is a variable affecting the location of urban activities, and to the forecast of future trips and travel in the region, which depends partly upon the level of transport services. The flow of input data is indicated in Figure 4-1. Mainly, however, the information is used to develop highway or transit networks for future years, over which simulated traffic flows may be assigned. The traffic assignment process is later described, in Chapter 7. But the networks, to be employed in the process, must be described and coded as computer input in great detail. Routes are coded in sections (termed "links") and connected at intersections (termed "nodes"). Route data, such as distance and speed, are coded separately for each link in the system. Complexity of the system is evident in the fact that there were 3,441 links in the Highway Inventory, and that to connect each zone in the BATSC analysis zone system to every other zone required tracing about 85,000 different combinations of links-one route path for each pair of zones. Click HERE for graphic. 31 THE STREET AND HIGHWAY SYSTEM Mileage and Usage Within the nine-county study area there were 15,645 miles of State highways, county roads and city streets as shown by county in Table 4-1. On these 15,000 miles, on an average weekday in 1965, there was a total daily traffic in excess of 60 million vehicle miles. Table 4-2 shows, of course, that traffic was very unevenly distributed among the facilities. Less than 3 percent of the highway mileage accommodated almost 30 percent of the vehicle miles; 45 percent of the mileage carried 74 percent of the traffic. TABLE 4-1 ROAD MILEAGES BY COUNTY, 1965 Mileage _____________________________________________ State City County County highways streets roads Total ______________ ___________ _________ _______ ______ Alameda 207 1,990 526 2,723 Contra Costa 113 928 1,042 2,093 Marin 91 439 431 961 Napa 109 150 483 742 San Francisco 31 906 937 San Mateo 196 1,186 359 1,741 Santa Clara 229 2,155 924 3,308 Solano 159 311 702 1,172 Sonoma 237 290 1,451 1,978 ___________________________________________________________________ Bay Region 1,372 8,355 5,918 15,645 TABLE 4-2 ROAD MILES AND VEHICLE MILES BY CLASS OF FACILITY, 1965 Daily Miles vehicle miles. ___________________ _____________________ Amount Class of facility Amount Percent (000) Percent Freeways and expressways 429 2.8 17,370 28.8 Arterial roads 6,590 42.2 27,080 45.0 Local roads 8,626 55.0 15,850 26.2 ______________________________________________ Total 15,645 100.0 60,300 100.0 * State Division of Highways data. TABLE 4-3 TRAFFIC ON SELECTED FREEWAYS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1964 Daily Freeway Average vehicle length daily miles Freeway (miles) traffic (million) Nimitz 32.30 77,000 2.49 Interstate 80 26.90 89,000 2.39 Bayshore 47.57 90,000 4.28 U.S. 101, Marin County 12.29 63,000 0.77 _________________________________________ Total 119.06 83,400 9.93 * Source: State Division of Highways data. The wide disparity in traffic volumes is even more dramatically shown in Table 4-3 where it will be seen that, four major freeways, constituting well under one percent of the area's highway mileage, carried more than 16 percent of the vehicle miles. Seven highway bridges span the Bay at various points. Two bridges provide crossings in the northeastern portion of the region: the parallel Carquinez Bridges, and the Martinez-Benicia Bridge. Two structures serve the North Bay: the Golden Gate Bridge, which connects the North Bay to San Francisco, and the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, which connects it to the East Bay. The most heavily used facility is the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, linking San Francisco and the East Bay. Two other bridges are located southward: The San Mateo-Hayward, and the Dumbarton. In 1965, the seven bridges collectively handled an average daily volume of 290,000 vehicles, representing 1.3 million vehicle- miles. The "G" Network The BATSC Highway Inventory included all of the 429 miles of freeways and expressways reported in Table 4-2, and 2,625 miles of arterial and 194 miles of local roads. A technical network-called the "G" Network was coded with the aid of the Inventory data to represent, for analytical uses, the highway system of the region in 1965. After various tests, during which some mileage was added and other mileage dropped, the "G" Network was completed, as illustrated in Map 4-1, about 3,000 miles of roads. Analysis of travel on the "G" System showed that in 1965 full freeways carried one-half of the vehicle miles of automobile travel, although having less than 10 percent of the mileage. Freeway trips moved at an average speed of 52.4 miles per hour, compared with 35.9 for all trips using the system. Highway Deficiencies The sufficiency of the highway system and bridges for serving the demands of traffic in 1965 was not evaluated at length in the BATSC Study. However, in California the Legislature has provided for a systematic study of needs on all highway facilities at periodic intervals, and these estimates suggest how adequate the network was regarded in 1964,1 in the year preceding the BATSC inventories. The needs estimates encompass within a common framework deficiencies that are due to inadequate traffic carrying capacity, excessive accident experience, and structural requirements. Of the total mileage almost 50 percent was estimated to be deficient in 1964 or within 10 years, as shown in Table 4-4. In summary, the numbers are: Cost to Total Deficient Percent Correct Mileage Mileage Deficient (Millions) State Highways 1,372 896 65.3 $1,613 County Roads 5,918 3,881 65.6 575 City Streets 8,355 2,682 32.1 818 _______ ______ _____ _______ 15,645 7,459 47.7 $3,006 ___________________________ 1. More recent estimates will be used later in this report; here we are portraying conditions as they existed when the Study began. 32 Click HERE for graphic. 33 Click HERE for graphic. It would have required an expenditure of about $300 million a year to correct all deficiencies; actually expenditures are presently at an annual rate of about $200 million. On this basis alone, therefore, a backlog of about $100 million a year has been building up since 1964. Moreover, the 1964 estimates made no allowance for inflation which, of course, has further eroded the pace of improvement. To these quantities should be added the deficiencies in the bridge system, The cost of a Southern Crossing to relieve the load on the Bay Bridge is in the neighborhood of $200 million, in 1965 prices, with another $100 million for approach roads. The cost of adding a deck to the Golden Gate Bridge, which was nearing a critical deficiency status in 1965, would come to it least $50 million. An entirely new Golden Gate Crossing would cost many times this amount. THE PUBLIC TRANSIT SYSTEM Transit service in the Bay Area in 1965 cannot be said to reflect any, kind of a region-wide system but rather a mixture of operations more or less local in nature. In all there were 27 transit operators, public and private, offering scheduled services. In many areas no service at all was offered, In other areas, service frequency varied considerably from place to place, and by time of day. On an average weekday in 1965, about 740,000 person trips used the transit services provided in the Bay Area. Major Transit Companies Four major operations accounted for about 95 percent of all Bay Area transit patronage. 1. Municipal Railway of San Francisco. This public agency carried 410,000 adult person trips on 833 buses, trolleys, and street cars operating over 53 routes. Muni is the largest transit agency in terms of patronage in the Bay Area. However, Muni has virtually no operations outside of the City, of San Francisco, except for a limited service into Daly City. Nevertheless, Muni provides the vital terminal distribution service between Greyhound, A-C Transit, the Southern Pacific Company, and the San Francisco Central Business District. It is the very "life blood" of the downtown area; the extensive buildup of office complexes in the CBD could not have occurred without Muni. The Muni, however, operates at a substantial deficit, which is made tip by general revenues of the City, and County. 2. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District. This public transit organization carried 125,000 adult person trips daily on 685 buses operating over 52 routes. The service area is from Hayward to Richmond with trans-bay service to downtown San Francisco. There are 12 trans-bay bus routes, carrying 36,000 passengers per day, and utilizing 236 buses. The district operates at a substantial and increasing deficit, made up by a tax subsidy in the East Bay service area. This loss is caused mainly, by many unprofitable but necessary local service routes. However, these local routes, along with the express and trans-bay routes, provide excellent bus transit coverage in the service area. 3. Western Greyhound Lines. Greyhound is primarily a "long-haul" bus company and provides the Bay Area with services to the North, the South, and the East. But it is also an important transit operator within the Bay Area. It carried about 47,000 commute person trips daily, on 330 buses in 1965. Its commuter routes are: (a). Antioch-Concord to Oakland-San Francisco. (b). Napa-Vallejo to Oakland-San Francisco. (c). Santa Rosa-Marin County to San Francisco, (d). San Jose-San Mateo County to San Francisco. (e). Pacifica to San Francisco. Greyhound provides the only commute service linking Marin, Sonoma, and parts of Contra Costa County with core areas of San Francisco and Oakland. The company claims that it incurs a substantial deficit on commute operations. 4. Southern Pacific Company. This company operates the only commuter railroad in the Bay Area. It carried about 24,000 person trips daily on 119 cars over a single route between San Jose and San Francisco. Southern Pacific may nearly break even financially on an out-of-pocket cost basis, but the service is in no sense profitable. 34 Other Transit Companies In addition to the foregoing, three operators of intermediate size offer transit services for commuters in the Bay Area. They are: 1. San Jose City Lines. Serving the San Jose-Santa Clara area of Santa Clara County, and carrying 18,000 person trips daily. 2. Peninsula Transit Lines. Serving the Redwood City-Menlo Park- Atherton-Palo Alto areas, and carrying 2,000 person trips daily. 3. Peerless Stages, Inc. Providing intercity service between East Bay Cities and Santa Clara County, and also connecting several cities in the San Jose area. The Barrett Transportation Service, a private company, primarily serves the San Francisco International Airport- it transports about 5,000 passengers daily between the Airport and San Mateo County, San Francisco, and the East Bay. The 18 remaining operations are hardly of regional significance. They offer only connecting Service or fill specialized needs. They generally have an average daily patronage of less than 1,000 persons and operate from 2 to 10 buses. The "G" Transit Network As with highways, a "G" Network of transit routes was developed for analysis purposes from the inventory of services offered by the various transit operators in the Bay Area in 1965. The principal routes and areas served are shown in Map 4-2. Large parts of the Bay Area lack transit services of any kind. Transit Problems and Deficiencies There is no established method of estimating transit deficiencies such as that developed for Highways. But by almost any standards the existing "system" can scarcely be described as adequate. In general, all intercounty commute services by bus are hindered by the delays of highway congestion suffered by all vehicle users. A reasonably high standard of on-line service is maintained by the Southern Pacific rail operation, which is partly offset by the distance of the San Francisco terminal front the main destination points of its patrons. Both A-C Transit and Greyhound terminals are also somewhat removed from major destinations. Completion of the Bay Area Rapid Transit System will provide a portion of the region with a new level of transit service in the early 1970's but much less than was envisioned in the mid-1950's. The original plan was prepared for a regional population of 4.8 million -virtually today's (1969) Bay Area population, and included a Marin County line to Novato and bayshore extensions to San Jose on both sides of the Bay, in addition to the system now under construction. Still further additions were proposed to serve growth beyond the 4.8 million level. Significantly, these estimates were predicated upon highway improvements beyond those that have actually been achieved. Local transit service in much of the Bay Area is infrequent or virtually nonexistent. San Francisco's system can hardly be regarded as rapid. In all counties other than San Francisco and Alameda, less than one percent of intra-county trips (excluding school bus trips) use transit whereas 3 to 4 percent is a normal expectation on the basis of potential "captive riders" (those who have no other means of conveyance). Also, region-wide rapid transit would create substantial needs for feeder services not now available. Click HERE for graphic. 35 Deficiencies in transit equipment are particularly evident. The 31 "gallery" cars operated in Southern Pacific commuter runs in 1965 are now a dozen years old or more (15 more were added in 1968). The remaining 77 commuter cars are from 40-50 years old. Over half the Greyhound bus fleet operated in Marin commuter service was 11 years old or more When surveyed in 1966. Equipment on the San Francisco Muni System (cable cars excepted) was found in 1966 to require a complete turnover within the next few years, at a cost of $50 million, due to worn-out or obsolescent vehicles. Underlining transit deficiencies, of course, is the shortage of funds available for new equipment and expanded services. Private transit operations are rapidly disappearing from the urban scene throughout the country. Few public transit operations in the country any longer attempt to meet costs from farebox revenues. Both San Francisco Muni and A-C Transit are recording mounting transit operating deficits that must be added to the capital needs of the region. San Mateo, Marin, Santa Clara, and Contra Costa, all with significantly large urbanized areas not served by either local or intercounty transit, are actively engaged in studies and other activities looking toward establishment of new and expanded transit services. 36 CHAPTER 5 REGIONAL GROWTH FORECASTS LAND USE PROJECTIONS Forecasts of regional development, travel, and the use of alternative transport systems were prepared by means of the analytical process described in the next three chapters. In a transportation study, a fundamental relationship exists between urban and regional development and the transportation facilities which are being planned. The transportation system is emplaced to provide avenues for the movement of persons and goods from place to place. Thus, the spatial arrangement of residences, jobs, and social and economic activities within the region is crucial to transportation planning and policy decisions. But, in addition, the location and capacities of the transportation system stimulate and direct the evolving pattern of urban activities. There is a reciprocal relationship between urban development and transportation. Planning and forecasting are closely intertwined throughout the process. The comprehensive set of regional forecasts, from which estimates of future travel were prepared, is reviewed in the present chapter. It will be seen that many, considerations were involved in the predictions: especially, the overall level of population and economic growth, topographical conditions, issues of centrality versus dispersion, community and regional planning, characteristics of jobs in the future, urban living densities, and the transport system of the region. All of these factors were reduced to the form of technical inputs: model parameters, or planning constraints. The focus in this chapter is upon the techniques and assumptions used to predict the urban pattern in the Bay Area for 1980 and 1990, and provide the conditions for the transportation analysis which follows. REGIONAL LOCATIONAL MODEL SYSTEM The process of estimating future growth and location which was developed by BATSC staff is depicted in Figure 5-1. This process, whose successive steps are entirely integrated from one to the next, is divisible into two distinct stages. First, projections of population and employment are made for the region as a whole-consistency has been maintained in the relationship between the level of economic development and the population estimates. Second, the projected growth is allocated to analysis zones within the counties. Current inventories of the zonal distribution of population, employment, housing, and land usage-representing the accumulated history of urban development in the Bay Area-are the base from which future projections are made. Planning controls guide the location of urban growth. Click HERE for graphic. The sequence of models by which this analytical process is carried through comprises: 1. EMPRO: a model forecasting regional employment growth in industrial categories, given certain trend data and assumptions about the future; 2. SHARES-SHIFT: a model allocating regional employment estimates in the "basic" employment classes to individual counties; 3. BEMOD: a model allocating "basic" employment to analysis zones within each county; 4. PLUM: a model allocating (a) residential population in households to analysis zones, relative to the location of employment and other factors, and (b) locating "population- serving" employ- 37 ment by zone, relative to the location of residential population, basic employment, and other factors; 5. INCMOD: a model projecting households into income categories and then into dwelling unit -structure classes. The growth-location process permits assumptions regarding growth and location to be changed at several points in the process as desired by analysts and planners. Different sets of assumptions and different Tanning policies will generate alternative regional development forecasts. Thus the sequence of computer programs is a valuable working tool for purposes of long-range planning, and should be an important contribution to an ongoing planning process. REGIONAL GROWTH Growth Assumptions Population. After careful review, the levels of regional population in future years were taken from he 1967 estimates by the California Department of Finance. These estimates assume the lowest of four possible levels of fertility, continuation of existing death rates, and an annual statewide increment of net n- migration of 300,000, allocated to counties on the basis of 1960 to 1965 experience, and modified to incorporate judgments of county officials, planners, and labor market analysts. The Department's estimates to 1985 were extended to 1990 by BATSC staff using compatible adjustment factors. Employment. With regional population targets determined, regional employment targets for 1980 and 1990 were established using statewide labor-force participation rates and allowing for minimum frictional (temporary loss of job) unemployment. These targets were converted to regional rates of growth and related to the national employment growth rate. Analysis of the region's economic base identifies forces that stimulate growth. The economic base comprises industries that export goods and services and generate flows of funds into the re . on in return. These industries tend to be linked with growth of national markets. The remainder of the industrial structure serves markets within the region and are regarded as "population-serving" as distinguished from "basic", an especially significant distinction in location analysis. Data from 1952 to 1965 for 54 Industry classes (grouped front 2- digit Standard Industrial Code categories) in the region were fitted to the national or regional growth rates to estimate coefficients for industry projections into the future. Alternative Growth Levels Three alternative employment projections were made. The first (called HINAT) assumed strong, expansionary growth forces on a national basis which would affect the course of regional growth. In particular, a continuation of high Federal outlays for military and aerospace activity was assumed. The second alternative (BAYGRO) put less emphasis on Federal programs and more on internal regional growth, with emphasis on personal consumption and urban redevelopment. The third alternative (LOPLAN) assumes lesser economic growth and population pressures, with greater emphasis on amenities and leisure in place of greater production and employment. Each of the alternatives is regarded as feasible- and for each the analytical process provides a balance between population and employment and is capable of locating activities to analysis zones throughout the region. The middle alternative (BAYGRO) provides employment estimates consistent with the population estimates of the Department of Finance as extended by BATSC staff. Higher employment levels under the first alternative (HINAT) generate a correspondingly larger population, while the comparatively lower employment figures under the third alternative (LOPLAN) implies less population. Growth Forecasts Population and Employment. Regional population and employment projections by five-year increments to 1990 are given in Table 5-1. The data are charted in Figure 5-2. Click HERE for graphic. 38 The 1990 population estimates range from 6.9 million to 8.5 million (respectively, 60 percent and 95 percent over 1965). Employment estimates range from 2.9 to 3.5 million (respectively, 73 percent and 111 percent over 1965). As will be seen on Figure 5-2, significant divergences in the estimates begin in the later years of the planning period. But if the course of future development is to be altered significantly by planning intervention it must begin soon. Long lead times are always involved, and forces already in motion at any particular time are likely to carry over for the next decade with little possibility of significant variation through policy. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Industrial Structure. The industrial composition of employment is an important factor in determining the spatial distribution of activity within the region. For example, so-called white-collar, workers tend to be concentrated in office and commercial centers; blue-collar jobs are generally more dispersed. On the other hand, planning policy can affect the composition of employment. For example, a restraining policy on regional growth may be reflected in a higher proportion of employment geared to national growth. Table 5-2 summarizes, for each of the three alternative employment forecasts for the Bay Area, the employment in nine major industrial divisions (grouped from the 54 categories actually analyzed). As to the three alternatives, the major difference in industrial structure is found in the relative proportions of growth in manufacturing employment. The lowest growth level (LOPLAN) produces the largest segment of manufacturing employment: most of it is related to the national growth rate, while non-manufacturing employment is related to a regional growth rate, assumed to be low, The highest growth alternative (HINAT) produces more manufacturing employment in absolute numbers, but less than LOPLAN in proportion to total employment. The mid-projection (BAYGRO) represents a reasonable compromise between the extremes. Some broad general trends common to all three alternatives may be observed. Most significant is the regional expansion in services and government employment. Expansion of services reflects continuation of nationwide tendencies, not only as population grows, but accumulatively as incomes and standards of living rise. Government is growing in response to greater emphasis on services to the population, but not as fast as private services. There is also a discernible tendency to decentralize governmental services closer to the people served. The region is also a major transshipment point for military personnel and supplies to the Pacific Basin, with supporting civilian personnel involved all through the region; thus military employment is assumed to be constant, neither increasing nor decreasing from its resent level. 39 Expansion of manufacturing is more modest, but still meaningful. The "new technology" industries are the fastest growing among manufacturing, reflecting the national expansion of these industries, augmented by favorable regional characteristics in terms of location, site availabilities, professional labor force, and the concentration of large numbers of headquarters of major firms and government establishments. The relative increase in finance, insurance, and real estate is large, but less significant in absolute terms. Major financial headquarters for the Western Region of the United States, located in San Francisco, are responding to the westward tilt in national growth. Trade, transportation services, and construction tend to correspond to population growth. Agriculture within the region is declining in employment. In the BATSC analysis, the traditional emphasis on industrial development has given way to a broader perspective of regional economic development that includes public agencies, office buildings and complexes, along with the siting of large industrial plants. In the absence of a comprehensive regional general plan for the Bay Area at this point in time, and after subjective evaluation of the most probable course of regional growth, it was decided to accept the middle forecasts (BAYGRO) as the first alternative to be used in subsequent location analysis. As will be seen in the location process, local planning controls and judgements were given full consideration as probable constraints on development in each of the areas to which growth was allocated. URBAN LOCATION ASSUMPTIONS The Controlled Trends Concept The procedure used in the BATSC Study generates a development pattern which describes the long-range consequences of urban trends and policies as presently identifiable. This general planning concept we have called "controlled trends." It has this title because model parameters, and planning judgments which control model outputs, have been adjusted to reflect trends, policies as they now exist, and estimates of future policies. Model results, therefore, should show "whither we are tending" as a region. Changes in trend parameters or planning controls would produce other urban development patterns. The particular forecast produced by this Study is termed the "Controlled Trends Plan." The Plan constitutes a standard against which variants toward other alternatives, including comprehensive and enforceable general regional planning, may be tested. Planning Assumptions The inputs for the overall location process have been described in Chapter 2 and the preceding sections of this chapter, but several critical assumptions in the input data which follow from the "controlled trends" concept should be noted: 1. The Regional Growth Forecasts. Population and economic growth at the BAYGRO level were selected, as previously mentioned. This decision establishes the total quantities of growth to be allocated. 2. Structure of Employment Growth. The rapid growth trend noted for "new technology" industries- mainly the aerospace component-is projected in the growth estimates for Santa Clara County, giving a decidedly "southern" tilt to Bay Area development. On the other hand, categories of employment that grow the most rapidly relative to others-especially the services, finance and public sectors will continue to have a strong centralizing impact upon urban growth. Large medical centers, governmental buildings, corporate headquarters, and so forth will continue to prefer locations in San Francisco and other urban centers. 3. Status of Regional Planning. A fully, developed and articulated regional general plan, adopted by the Bay Area and reflecting positive policy decisions of a regional organization, does not exist at this time. The Preliminary Plan of the Association of Bay Area Governments is still under review by Bay Area communities. In the alternative, BATSC staff developed a com- posite framework of policies reflecting the locally based decisions of cities, counties, and certain special agencies, which was described in Chapter 2. Many of these plans would have the same effect as planning decisions by a regional agency, The BATSC Study has not assumed an "unplanned" region of the future. 4. Bay and Open Space Controls. Local land use plans were followed where they reserve and identify otherwise usable land for open space, recreation, conservation, and other public uses. Bay fill was also added to the supply of land where indicated in data received from local agencies. The proposed San Francisco Bay Plan of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission and its possible impact on bay filling was studied, but there do not appear to be instances in the Controlled Trends Plan of bay fill in localities where the BCDC Plan has indicated a restriction upon all bay filling, The extent of filling in some localities might be governed by future decisions of BCDC or a successor agency. The identification of unusable land follows local practice, particularly with regard to the development potential of slopes of varying steepness. With regard to residential development, it is assumed that, at any time, there is some residual proportion of available land held off the market for speculative, tax shelter, or personal motives, but that this proportion will gradually diminish through time as development takes place and pressures of demand for land build up. 5. Density of Land Development. The expansion of employment in specific zones was assumed to continue at the same developmental densities as in the base year, 1965. There is one notable exception. Land use densities in central business districts, particularly high-rise office centers, were allowed to attain much higher levels under pressures of demand for space in these places and the obvious trends in office building construction. With regard to residential development, account was taken both of planning or zoning restrictions on density and the existing densities of development. If the 40 supply of land available for residence neared exhaustion in a zone, the modeling system generated increased residential density. This density adjustment differed in each of the nine counties: the largest adjustments occurred in the more densely developed areas; and no adjustment occurred in Sonoma, Napa, and Solano Counties. Model results were reviewed relative to planning limits upon density, usually for several zones collectively. Allowance for increased density was made for residential zones located near several of the BART stations. 6. The Transportation System. An assumption underlying the land use modeling system is that every potential location in the region is accessible. How accessible any locality is will depend upon the transport network assumed. In the BATSC analysis, the level of accessibility was defined by the highway system to which the region is largely "committed"-the "X" Network described in Chapter 7, with free-flowing travel times. This network furnished specific time input values. An implied assumption was also made that BART construction would permit substantial employment growth in the central core areas of the region. It may be observed that the location process presents an inescapable dilemma for analysts and planners regarding the transportation system. Activities are located according to the accessibility of each sector of the economy to the other sectors. For this, a transport system must bc assumed. Yet it is the spatial distribution of physical development which governs the planning of network facilities, capacities, travel modes, and trip destination preferences. The premise is that transportation should be designed to serve land use, not to master it. Thus urban location forecasts tend not to be constrained by transportation barriers, at least not in the first round of planning. This is substantially, the assumption made in the present BATSC forecasts. Tn subsequent analysis, the network assumptions will be varied and the playback between transportation and land use development tested in greater depth. Model/ Variables A complex set of variables that are systematically adjusted within the growth model include residential densities, sizes of Households, labor force participation rates, and numbers of workers per household (Table 5-3). The results of this process at the regional level were: 1. Adaptation of average residential density to local conditions, with increasing density in central areas being offset by lower densities as suburban areas expand outward; 2. A slight increase in average size of Households; 3. An increase in labor force participation, reflecting employment of a larger percentage of the population and an increase in employed residents per household. THE ALLOCATION PROCESS The locational forecasting system operates incrementally through time. Starting with a base year description of the regional development pattern, three major sectors of activities are allocated at five-year intervals to zones within the region up to the target years, of 1980 and 1990. Basic employment is allocated first, then residences are located in relation to basic employment, and finally population-serving employment is located in relation to residences and daytime working population. In allocating activities to land, it was assumed within each zone that the "highest and best" use will preempt the land available for development as growth takes place. Conflicting demands for land were adjudicated by the modeling system in accordance with the following priorities: (1) policy-determined open space and unusable land, (2) land for basic industries, (3) land for population-serving industries, (4) residential land. Location of Basic Employment The basic sector, made up of activities with strong dependence on interregional transportation facilities, special site requirements, or significant inter-industry linkages, is seen as the priming agent in the locational process. Decisions regarding the location of manufac- Click HERE for graphic. 41 turing plants, the major administrative centers of business and government, universities and research centers, or the air, water and ground transportation terminals that link the region with the rest of the world are assumed to have a priority in the sequence of development and in the competition for available urban land. Basic employment in the Bay Area, classified into 12 industry groups, was allocated to the system of BATSC Analysis Zones in a two-stage process. In the first stage, the intra-regional shifts in employment location observable over the period 1950-1965 were used to establish forecast controls at the county level for each 5- year interval in the planning period to 1990. In the second stage, a set of locational factors including land use and availability, accessibility, transport facilities, water-frontage, and industry linkages were used to establish "scores" favorable or unfavorable to the expansion of the separate industry groups. Overall growth was limited by the amount of available land. Land preempted by basic employment was taken "off the market" prior to succeeding location processes. The file of unique locators described in Chapter 2 was analyzed and compared with known local general plans and policies for consistency. If known developments appeared realizable but would result in an industry share in a county larger than that forecast by the model, the model output was superseded by the external data. This is best exemplified by the employment expansion projected for the San Francisco International Airport in San Mateo County, where known development substantially exceeded output of the model. The output of mechanical runs was also carefully reviewed by BATSC staff to determine consistency with expectations of local planners and judgments based upon knowledge of the area. Adjustments were made accordingly. In particular, assumptions were made about the level and location of Federal-civilian employment in military bases (assumed to remain constant) and State and Federal employment (assumed to expand into major subcenters). Location of Residences and Population Serving Employment The emplacement of basic activities, in turn, influences the location of the household sector-. This group of locators includes the region's labor force and dependents, their dwelling units, and the land occupied by residential communities. Residences of workers in the basic sector of the economy were located first. Observable regular patterns of work-home separation were incorporated into the model system by means of a set of allocation functions, describing the probabilities of workers in any zone residing in other zones. The population-serving sector comprises that part of the economy regarded as being dependent upon location of nighttime residential population and daytime location of workers. This sector is typified by retail trade, most personal and business services, and various functions of local government. Two sets of functions, analogous to those used in locating residences of basic employees, were used because location is dependent upon both residential and other employment locations. Once population-serving employment was located, its workers were allocated to residential locations in a manner similar to the location of basic employees. Finally, through use of demographic data on labor force participation rates and size of households, the non-working population was located in conformity Click HERE for graphic. 42 with the working population. In this way a structure of demand for dwelling units and residential land was generated. In a final step, located households were classified by income levels and dwelling types. The resulting zone-by-zone distributions of household incomes and relative mix of single- family homes and multiple-dwelling units reflect differential growth rates within the region, as well as overall upward shifts in regional income. URBAN LOCATION FORECASTS The estimates of population and employment in 1990, together with their emplacement on land, are summarized statistically in Tables 5-4 and 5-5 for Bay Area counties and the larger communities. Graphically, Maps 5-2 and 5-3 display these forecasts. Population The region's population grows 70 percent, from 4.4 million in 1965 to 7.5 million in 1990. Growth of individual counties varies significantly. San Francisco is expected to grow the least, both absolutely and relatively. Marin County grows relatively the most (almost 125 percent), while Santa Clara County grows the most in total (882,000). Five of the 9 counties more than double their populations, with the northern tier, which starts with small 1965 base year populations, climbing the fastest. 43 At the central regional core, a group of cities, virtually fully developed in 1965, grows only 10 to 30 percent by 1990. These core cities include San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, Richmond, San Leandro, Daly City, and San Mateo. Cities whose growth is note- worthy for high proportionate increases are Fremont, Livermore, Pittsburg-Antioch, Napa, and Petaluma. Employment The pattern of employment increases is markedly different from that of population. First of all, jobs in the region grow about 87 percent, from 1.7 million in 1965 to 3.1 million in 1990, as compared with a 70 per-cent increase in population. Jobs in San Francisco, the largest labor market, grow 50 percent, but larger relative increases in Alameda and Santa Clara Counties bring the 1990 job totals of those labor markets up to approximate parity with San Francisco, however, the relative job increases in the regional core are much greater than the corresponding population increments, with San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, Daly City, and Palo Alto having job growth rates at three to six times their population growth proportions. The differentiation in growth rates between population and employment in individual localities has important implications for regional transportation. Table 5-6 compares the resident labor force with available jobs for each of the counties. Residents do not, of course, fill all of the available jobs within a county, but the figures do give an impression of gross magni- Click HERE for graphic. 44 tudes of the commuting problem and its future course. San Francisco is expected to have a net in-commuting total of 320,000 in 1990 as compared with 143,000 in 1965. Contra Costa County has the largest absolute growth in net out-commuting (almost 90,000), followed by Marin with a growth of 50,000. Santa Clara County, which is comparatively self-contained, nonetheless has the largest relative growth in out-commuting-a six-fold increased from 6,000 in 1965 to 37,000 in 1990. In 1965, cities requiring substantial in- commuting to fill local job requirements include Alameda, Oakland, San Francisco, Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, and Santa Rosa. By 1990, Berkeley, San Mateo, Redwood City, Menlo Park, and Santa Clara become net importers of labor, contributing to the circulation problems associated with the journey to work. Use of Land The forecast growth of the region will consume a considerable part of the land regarded as available and usable for urbanization in the Bay Area. The number of acres in the urban use will increase from 344,000 in 1965 to 619,000 in 1990, an increase of 80 percent. Fortunately, the Bay Area as a whole appears to have adequate land to accommodate its prospective growth, notwithstanding that almost 3 million acres of the nearly 4.5 million total acres are regarded as unusable and are expected to remain in "open space." In 1965, 344,000 acres were in urban uses and about 1.2 million acres were available for development. Growth to 1990 is expected to consume 275,000 acres, leaving about 900,000 available for use after 1990. Click HERE for graphic. 45 Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. 46 However, concentrations of growth make the rates of land consumption vary greatly among the counties and their communities. Santa Clara County will use up almost 50 percent of its now available usable land by 1990; in contrast, the Northern tier of Solano, Napa, and Sonoma Counties will use less than 10 percent of its available usable land. Moreover, the latter 3 counties will contain 34 percent of the usable land available for urban development in the Bay Area in 1990. A Spatial Overview Against the background of assumptions termed "controlled trends," some large-grain changes in the region are discernible. The job preeminence in San Francisco is replaced by a solid corridor of establishments extending down the Peninsula into Santa Clara County. An important segment of the regional core is the East Bay complex, which also extends down the shore of the Bay southerly. Cities in these paths of growth become metropolitan subcenters, with the Palo Alto-Sunnyvale, and Hayward-Fremont areas as likely growth nodes. San Jose, at the southern confluence of the paths, continues its dramatic growth as a major California city. In addition, a group of separated towns away from the Bay are marked for growth to mature sizes. Santa Rosa, Napa, Concord, Walnut Creek, Pittsburg-Antioch, Livermore, and Gilroy, are examples. Residential development to 1990 is pervasive, growing outward from the 1965 limits. Density changes are not substantial except in the core concentration in San Francisco-Oakland. Pressures to modify residential densities may be generated by the heavy concentration of jobs and business establishments in the Peninsula Corridor where available land is limited in quantity. 47 CHAPTER 6 TRAVEL FORECASTS BATSC travel estimates, based upon the forecast of urban development reviewed in the preceding chapter, indicate that-for the region as a whole-the total number of trips, the number of automobile trips, and the volume of vehicular travel will increase at a faster rate than the increase in Bay Area population between 1965 and 1990. This chapter describes the forecasting process and the principal assumptions producing this result. TRAVEL FORECASTING MODEL SYSTEM Future travel demands are forecast by procedures answering four basic questions: 1. How much travel?-called "trip generation." 2. From where to where?-called "trip distribution." 3. By what mode? -called "modal split." 4. Via what route?-called "trip assignment." The first three of these steps produce "trip tables." These are matrices of trips classed by purpose, by mode, or in other ways, showing the flow of trips between any pair of analysis zones in the region, and between analysis zones and points on the border of the region. In the fourth step, the trip tables are assigned to the transport networks to determine volumes of travel using each highway and transit route in the system. The trip forecasting process which develops the trip tables is illustrated in Figure 6-1. Traffic assignment methods are described in Chapter 7. Three essential elements are needed in order to forecast future travel demand. First is a system of mechanisms or models that link trip volumes, place of occurrence, and mode of travel, on one hand, to land use and socioeconomic characteristics of small areas (called analysis zones), on the other. These models are developed basically through extensive analysis of relationships established in the base year and correlating and adjusting variables until equations are established that reproduce actual travel behavior over existing networks in the base year. Data presented in Chapters 3 and 4 were used to develop the BATSC forecasting models. The next requirement is an allocation of future land uses and socioeconomic activities to analysis zones, such as was described in Chapter 5. Finally, it is necessary to have not only the existing transportation networks (used in simulation of present travel demands) but also assumed alternative future networks, reduced to quantitative terms as described in the next chapter. Click HERE for graphic. One basic assumption of the forecasting procedure should be noted. It is assumed that people in given circumstances will behave rather much as they do today. They will go to work, shop, school, eat out, visit friends, and the like. Their daily base of operations will be their homes, from which they will sally forth and then return. The validity of this assumption has been tested over time and from place to place; but it should be subject to constant reappraisal in the 48 Click HERE for graphic. light of new conditions that may develop. For example, a shorter work week could considerably change travel patterns, depending upon how new working hours are distributed. On the other hand, the basic assumption does not assert that no changes will take place. On the contrary, changes in income, in vehicle ownership, in type of dwelling unit and kinds of employment, are accommodated in the models. in developing forecasting models and estimates of future demand, total travel is broken down into components reflecting differences in the nature of demands. The first breakdown is between internal travel and external travel: the former including all trips that begin and end within the 9-county area, the latter being all trips that cross the outer boundaries of the area (called the "cordon line"). Internal person trips were next broken down into home-based trips and non-home-based trips; the former being trips that start or end at home, the latter having neither start nor end at home. Home-based trips were broken down into seven trip purposes, different enough in nature, time of occurrence, and trip length to warrant separate treatment in subsequent analysis. Separate combinations of trip production and trip attraction variables were established for each purpose. The zonal variables finally settled upon for forecasting trip ends are show-n in Table 6-1. School trips, as noted in Chapter 3, were omitted from final estimates, owing to the seasonal variation over the period of the travel surveys. This could be done at not much cost to route analyses, because the vast majority of school trips remain within analysis zones and thus are not assigned to the networks. PERSON TRIP FORECASTS Total internal person trip forecasts for 1980 and 1990, classified by trip purpose, are shown in Table 6-22. The 10.4 million trips of 1965 are expected to grow to 18.5 million trips in 1990. Distribution of trips among different purposes is expected to remain about the same as in the base year. The percentage growth in person trips from 1965 to 1990 is almost 80 percent, compared with a 70 percent increase in estimated Bay Area population. Some explanation of this difference is in order. With respect to home-based work trips, the variable found most significant for estimating trip productions at the home end was the number of employed residents per zone. Employed residents are rising at a faster rate than population as a whole: a larger share of the total populace will be employed in 1990 than today. This is mainly because of the postwar surge in the birth rate. A higher than normal number of persons, relative to total population, is presently entering the job market and, in the process, creating transportation demands. Also, population-serving employment, the variable used to produce non-home-based trips, is increasing in proportion to total employment, a consequence of the trend toward a "services economy" previously discussed. Non-home-based trips include a variety of purposes- for example, work-to-shop, shop-to-cat meals, personal business-to-shop. These trips -are related to the growing complexity of society and a wider variety of travel opportunities that can be expected in future years. More travel is the expected result. Internal person trips are classified by county of production and county, of attraction in Table 6-3. The county results are, not unexpectedly, quite similar to the growth projections described in Chapter 5. San Francisco grows significantly in both trip production and attraction but at a slower rate than the rest of the area. Alameda and Santa Clara grow most in absolute terms, but the northern tier of counties starting from a small base, grow most rapidly. On ___________________________ 1. Technically, home-based trips are always produced at the home end and attracted to the non-home end. Non-home-based trips are produced by the zone of origin and attracted to the zone of destination. 2. These estimates are based upon the BAYGRO forecast of growth and the controlled trends concept of location projections. 49 Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. 50 such a gross areal basis, the changes are not as dramatic as one might expect, but much more variation is found among the 291 analysis zones which were used in the analyses. PERSON TRIPS BETWEEN ZONES Trip distribution analysis employed a "gravity model." The gravity principle states, in essence, that internal trip ends from one zone are attracted to all other zones in direct proportion to the attractiveness of other zones, and in inverse proportion to the spatial separation (measured in travel time) between the zone and all other zones in the Study area. This device is in common use among urban transport studies. Assumptions about the length of travel, measured by duration time, are a prime consideration for the development of the gravity model. Figure 6-2 illustrates the calculation of the percentage breakdown of trips by length categories for a single travel pur- pose. The object, of course, is to achieve with the model the best "fit" possible to actual data derived from the travel surveys. Trip lengths differ among travel purposes, so that separate calculations of model parameters are made to distribute trips in each purpose class. Average duration times for each purpose resulting from the 1990 application of the gravity model are compared with 1965 times in Table 6-4. Most purposes show a slight increase in average time, but essentially are the same as in 1965. However, this has an important implication for the estimate of total travel mileage in the future. A higher level of travel mobility is built into the 1990 transport network than in 1965. The average speed of vehicle trips assigned to the BATSC test networks rises from 35.9 miles per hour in 1965 (with the G Network) to 43.9 miles per hour in 1990 (with the W Network). Therefore, a trip of equal duration goes farther. Average trip length for trips assigned to the G Network was 7.64 miles in 1965. Average length rises to 9.22 miles in 1990, assuming the W Network. The assumption of rising average trip length is not unreasonable, provided transport facilities are available. Nevertheless, the magnitude of the change induced by assumed higher levels of mobility is remarkable: between 1965 and 1990, 27 percent of the increase in the volume of travel using the freeway, expressway, and arterial road systems is due to growing length of trips. With spreading of growth in the region 3 and with an increase in the fluidity of travel, the increase in the amount of travel to be accommodated further compounds the urban transportation problem which is aggravated enough simply because of growth. With a 291-zonal system, there are 84,000 possible zonal interchanges for trip flows to follow and thus no easy way to portray this information. Map 6-1 offers an illustration of flow data involving trips to downtown San Francisco, using a much reduced number of zones. ___________________________ 3. The urban location analysis reviewed in Chapter 5 made virtually the same assumption: that people will continue to have the same time-using preferences when locating residence in relation to their jobs. TABLE 6-4 COMPARISON OF AVERAGE TRIP DURATION BY PURPOSE, 1965 AND 1990 Average minutes per trip Trip purpose 1965 1990 ___________________________________________________________________ Home-based Work 15.8 16.9 Personal business 10.2 11.2 Social 11.1 12.0 Recreational 12.2 12.8 Convenience shopping 7.1 7.3 Comparison shopping 11.5 10.6 Other Home-based 9.4 9.7 Non-home-based 9.7 10.4 Click HERE for graphic. 51 TRANSIT TRIPS Division of future person trips between alternative modes, such as automobiles and transit, is the most speculative, yet most crucial problem facing the transportation planner. BATSC has followed techniques used by both highway and transit analysts throughout the country, while fully realizing that the advent of the Bay Area Rapid Transit system and probable extensions of BART- type facilities elsewhere in the region enormously compound factors that under the best of circumstances cannot be evaluated quantitatively. Such factors as comparative comfort, convenience, privacy, tension, all will enter into each person's decision as to mode of travel-in those situations in which a rational choice is available. For many people, the only choice is between using public transit or not traveling at all. For many other people the automobile will be virtually indispensable for their work or related business. In all cases, the purpose of the trip, its length, the time of day, the place of occurrence will influence the decision as to mode. The effect that BARTD service may have upon the decisions of persons and businesses to locate deliberately to take advantage of the rapid transit mode will not be fully known for some years to come. Modal Split Model Notwithstanding the intangibles and unknowns involved, a predictive model was produced from analysis of the BATSC data base. It was found, as has been found in much previous analytical work, that relative characteristics of the highway and transit systems, characteristics of the trip-maker himself, and socioeconomic and development aspects of the zones of trip production and attraction were the important quantifiable considerations entering into the modal choice decision. Transportation system efficiency was measured by relative transit and highway travel times. Transit time included walking at origin and destination, waiting for services and transfers, and enroute time; highway times included time to park and walk to destination as well as driving time. Trip-maker characteristics were reflected by the type and location of his residence. Intensity of residential development having been found to be the most significant variable of several investigated, separate relationships for low, medium, and high density zones were developed. Click HERE for graphic. Transit trip-making behavior was, of course, found to vary considerably among areas within the region. In particular, transit trips were much more attracted to downtown areas of major importance (such as San Francisco and Oakland) in a significantly different manner than to other areas. All variables were incorporated into a model which, in its final form, consists of a family of curves relating transit patronage to relative transit and highway travel times by trip purpose. Transit Trip Forecasts Several different highway and transit networks were assumed for calculating modal choice. Estimates of transit usage (exclusive of school trips) ranged from 999,000 transit trips in 1990, with minimal transit extensions, to 1.1 million, with an extensive transit network. Data shown in Table 6-5 are based on the 1990 W Network, as described in Chapter 7. Transit travel, therefore, is predicted to increase, as would be expected from past trends and the advent of the BARTD system; nonetheless, the transit proportion declines slightly between 1965 and 1990. Transit trips are expected to increase 74 percent over this period, but total person trips to increase 78 percent. Transit trip productions and attractions are classified by county in Table 6-6. In view of imponderable elements in the transit forecast, BATSC estimates for 1990 were compared those of two other agencies in the region engaged in transit research: the West Bay Rapid Transit Authority, and the Bay Area Rapid Transit District. Pas- senger volume forecasts were checked against West Bay's for eight locations on the west side of the bay, between San Francisco and Santa Clara. In all places the BATSC estimates were higher, but not significantly: the maximum excess was 20 percent. Neither forecast included any large quantity of trips that might be generated by a special rapid transit service to San Francisco Airport. Estimates of transit trips on the BARTD system by BARTD staff are generally lower, and often much lower, than the BATSC estimates, except in the Market Street portion of the San Francisco line-where, it is 52 Click HERE for graphic. believed, the BATSC division between BARTD and San Francisco Muni is open to question. In drawing these comparisons, it is realized that transportation network assumptions, used as a basis for the traffic projections, might explain why BATSC values are usually higher. BATSC figures may include local transit trips running parallel to rapid transit lines that were excluded in the other data. BATSC assumptions regarding the quality of certain feeder services may have been more elaborate. Other possibilities could be listed. However, it appears, after making such allowances, that the transit travel forecast by BATSC errs, if at all, on the "liberal" side- given the type of transit service assumed for the region. VEHICLE TRIP FORECASTS Subtraction of transit trips from total person trips leaves person trips taken in automobiles, either by drivers or passengers. The vehicle occupancy rates, stratified by trip purpose, as shown in Table 3-6 of Chapter 3, were applied to the various purpose categories in the travel forecasts to obtain estimates of auto vehicle trips. About 11.5 million total auto vehicle trips were forecast for 1990. To round out vehicle trip forecasts, it is necessary to add estimates of (1) vehicle trips for "external" travel that cross the boundary of the nine-county area, and (2) truck trips, not estimated in the person travel forecasts. Cordon Travel Cordon travel by motor vehicle was forecast by four trip types. Trips by residents of the Study area were separated from those by nonresidents. Each of these was differentiated by frequency of occurrence; "frequent" trips being those made one or more times per week, all others being "infrequent." A widely, used model (originally developed by T. J. Fratar) was adapted for BATSC use in forecasting external trips. In essence, the model assumes that observed base year travel between two areas will grow in some proportion to the growth of the two areas. A summary of average weekday vehicle trips crossing the Study area boundary is given in Table 6-7. Cordon travel is expected to increase from about 105,000 in 1965 to more than 230,000 in 1990. In perspective of total travel within the region, external travel is comparatively minor (well under 2 percent of total vehicle trips), but in certain corridors and specific routes it looms larger. Click HERE for graphic. Truck Travel A considerable body of information on truck usage has been assembled and used in making judgments regarding future highway requirements as presented in the following chapter. However, it has not been possible to develop systematic forecasts of goods movement for the regional transportation network as a whole, similar to those that have been developed for personal travel. The importance of trucking is not underrated. Virtually all goods used by Bay Area residents are moved by trucks on urban highways several times before reaching their final destinations. It is a salutary circumstance, therefore, that satisfaction of highway capacity requirements for peak passenger movements provides off-peak capacity for goods movement with resulting economies benefiting the entire region. Unlike personal travel, the possibility of an important alternative to regional movement of goods by highways in the foreseeable future is given little credence. Truck registrations are a substantial fraction of total vehicle registrations-over 12 percent for the Bay Area as a whole. However, the percentages vary greatly among the counties; for example, the percentages for Napa and Sonoma Counties were twice the level of Marin and San Mateo Counties in the base year. 53 Truck registrations, as well as automobiles, have been rising at a faster rate than population, and recently the truck proportion has been increasing slightly; apparently due to the increasing popularity of "pick-ups" as the second or third vehicle of some households for use mainly in personal travel which travel, significantly, is already accounted for in estimates of inter-zonal person trip flows. It seems reasonable to assume, for forecasting purposes, that trucks will continue to account for a fairly constant proportion of motor vehicle registrations and vehicle miles of travel. However, the practice sometimes followed of making a constant percentage adjustment of automobile traffic volumes throughout the highway network to account for truck travel would be highly misleading for the Bay Area. We have noted variations among counties; just as striking are differences among highway routes. BATSC traffic counts at screenline and cordon stations recorded trucks as a percentage of total vehicles in the travel stream. At points of entry to the region truck percentages ranged from 21 to 28 percent of total vehicles on major highways. On major routes within the outer reaches of the region the percentages were in the general vicinity of 20 percent. However, within the more built-up areas the percentages dropped to between 10 and 15 percent on major freeways and to under 10 percent on highways in residential areas. The variations are due to a number of factors involved in goods movement, but one is especially significant for this Study: truck percentages (and usually absolute volumes) are less during peak-flow periods than during off-peak hours; hence major commuter routes have a lesser proportion of truck travel. Because of the many variables involved and the apparent absence of rhythmic patterns such as characterize daily person movements, no truck trip assignment model has yet been developed. To this extent, then, both future highway needs and highway bene- fits are quantitatively understated in the analyses in following chapters. Whenever specific routes (as distinct from the regional network) are planned and precise location and design decisions are required, the needs of commercial vehicle travel will warrant detailed study for the individual case. The ongoing regional transportation study program should also utilize BATSC data and supplemental information to develop improved estimating techniques for commercial truck travel. Quantitative expression of trucking demands will simply add evidence to our findings regarding regional transportation needs. 54 CHAPTER 7 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLANNING The transportation systems analyzed in this chapter are generally based upon the continuation of transport programs and policies now in effect, although one study network places far more emphasis upon public transit than would be possible under present policies. Al] of the networks are composed of "conventional" transport technology. This basis for network development was chosen to coincide with assumptions underlying our forecasts of urban activities and travel flows: they are representative of present policies and trends affecting land use development, and of current trip-making habits and practices of people in the region. With these assumptions, certain conclusions follow. Vehicle use on many freeways in 1980 and 1990 is predicted to be several times the 1965 level. Expanded public transit has a limited impact upon the total travel pattern of the region. Freeways built in areas where greatly increased population, employment, and travel have been forecast are instrumental in attracting the urban activities which generate the traffic. The large majority of travel is unaffected, in a region-wide sense, by alternative network plans. In a number' of specific problem areas, so-me of which are discussed in this chapter, significant shifts of travel are related to alternative systems, and important differences in network performance are observed; however, no extreme departures from present methods of meeting urban transport needs are indicated. Over time, trends and policies for population growth, regional development, and transport technology might radically revise the assumptions upon which the network analysis in this chapter is based. However, the testing and evaluation of these study systems provides a sound basis for further investigation of planning alternatives which will improve the ability of the transportation network to serve travel needs. THE ASSIGNMENT PROCESS Steps involved in network analysis are shown in Figure 7-1. Each test network-a particular transportation system specified for the future-combines a highway and a transit system. Inter-zonal forecasts of travel by motor vehicle and public transit are assigned, or "loaded", on the test networks by a computer process1 which simulates the use of the transport system in a forecast year. Travel by mode depends, of course, upon the transport system being assumed for study. Click HERE for graphic. Certain features of the loading process have a bearing upon the interpretation of the results. Test networks are technically described so that a route providing minimum travel time is determined between each pair of zones in the region. All travel between any pair is then assigned to the minimum time path. Use of the "all-or-nothing" assignment principle means that consideration must be given to alternative routings that conceivably might handle some of the flow, especially if the minimum time route is overloaded. Also, the highway network speeds, from which travel times were calculated, were "free-flow" speeds, although somewhat lower in more urbanized areas for equivalent road facilities. Since traffic congestion may be instrumental in inducing drivers to seek optional and inferior routes of travel, the network loadings must often be analyzed collectively rather than individually. Only Inter-zonal trips were assigned to the test networks, and network use by intrazonal trips was excluded. When intrazonal vehicle trips are very short, it is reasonable to assume that their use of arterial Highways-particularly limited-access freeways-is minor; however, this assumption loses its force as zonal size increases. Completion of the assignment process yields travel flows on each link of the highway and transit networks for a future year. Flows may be classified ac- ___________________________ 1. BATSC network analysis has used the assignment program TRANPLAN (Transportation Planning System) of the Control Data Corporation. 55 cording to the origins and destinations of travel, using a "selected link" computer program. This shows the function performed by each part of the transport system, and in the event that network loadings exceed capacity, it reveals those travel demands responsible for the problem. Such analysis helps the planner to determine whether an overload condition might be corrected by providing alternate network routes for a portion of the travel, or by transferring the excess to another travel mode; or it may suggest that demands upon the transport system could be altered by changing land use at the origins and destinations of travel. This is, of course, the technical feedback from transport evaluation to urban growth forecasting and comprehensive regional planning. Network loadings are reviewed to identify specific problem areas where deficiencies are likely to occur. Then a detailed analysis of each of these problem areas is undertaken to ascertain the nature of the problem and possible solutions. Upon completion of the analysis, revisions are made in initial test networks, and additional testing and evaluation is performed. STUDY SYSTEMS Two basic study systems were tested. The "X" Network, consisting of existing facilities and those regarded as committed by 1980 based on agency programs and a continuation of present trends in financing, was analyzed for 1980 travel. The X Network formed the foundation upon which to develop 1990 study networks. The "W" Network was used as the initial 1990 study system. It is based on current plans developed by various agencies, such as the California Freeway and Expressway System, transit plans of BARTD and WBRTA, and city and county road programs. Although not a plan in itself, the W Network permits evaluation of consequences of continuing present policies and identification of changes that may be necessary. One other 1990 study network was tested, a "V" Network, essentially the same as the W Network, except that it provides additional rapid transit in certain areas by 1990. Network Components As stated earlier, each of the study networks includes two components-a highway system and a transit system. The Highway components of the X and W Networks include the following types of facilities: 1. Freeways - divided highways with full control of access and no intersections at grade. 2. Other Highways - all other types of facilities including expressways (partial access control with intersections at grade) and both divided and undivided conventional streets and highways. The transit components of the X, W, and V Networks include the following types: 1. Rail Rapid Transit-high-speed transit vehicles operating on fixed rails in an exclusive, grade separated right-of-way. 2. Bus Rapid Transit - a high-speed bus service operating on exclusive rights-of-way, reserved lanes on freeways, or in the normal stream of traffic on a freeway but with priority of access over other traffic (or possibly a combination). 3. Express Bus Transit - a fast bus service using a combination of freeways, where possible, and local streets, making a limited number of stops. 4. Local Transit - local buses or trolley cars operating primarily on city streets, including feeder service to rapid transit stations. The X Network (Maps 7-1 and 7-2) Highways. The highway component of the X Network includes facilities for which construction is committed and those whose completion is expected by 1980, assuming present levels of financing are maintained. It contains State Highways (including freeways), county and city expressways, other major local arterials, and a Southern Crossing of San Francisco Bay. Total highway mileage in the X 'Network is 3,396 miles, of which 857 miles are freeways as itemized in Table 7- 1. Click HERE for graphic. 56 Click HERE for graphic. 57 Click HERE for graphic. Transit. The transit component of the X Network includes transit facilities expected to be in operation in 1980, based on continuation of present policies. It includes only those new transit facilities under construction or fairly well committed by 1980. The following major services are included in the X Transit Network. 1. Completion of the presently authorized BART system. 2. Express bus extension from BART rail lines, as follows: (a) Richmond to Vallejo. (b) Hayward to Livermore-Pleasanton. (c) Concord to Martinez and Antioch. (d) Fremont to San Jose. 3. Continuation of existing Southern Pacific commuter service from San Francisco to San Jose. 4. Continuation of existing Greyhound suburban services on the Peninsula and in Marin County, or similar services by the Transit Districts in these areas. 5. A reduced level of A-C Transit trans-bay service, using both the Bay Bridge and the new Southern Crossing. A total of 125 miles of rapid transit (including S.P. rail) is included in the X Network. The W Network (Maps 7-3 and 7-4) Highways. The W Highway Network contains 1,386 miles of freeways, including the entire California Freeway and Expressway System within the region, This involves not only extending freeways into some remote parts of the region, but also the provision of additional freeways in major centers. The W Network includes certain freeways running roughly parallel to X Network facilities, providing additional capacity and convenience. Freeways included in the W System, in addition to those in the X System, are shown in Table 7-2. Click HERE for graphic. 58 Click HERE for graphic. 59 An extension of Route 480 in San Francisco between the present end of the Embarcadero Freeway at Broadway and the Golden Gate Bridge, not now in the California Freeway and Expressway System, was included because, in addition to furnishing an important network connection, it provides an opportunity for high-speed bus operation (possibly on exclusive bus lanes) between Marin County and central San Francisco. Click HERE for graphic. The highway component of the W Network also includes major local arterials and expressways that have been planned by local agencies and are expected to be in service before 1990. Transit. The transit component of the W Network provides an increased level of transit service, based principally on proposals of several transit agencies within the region. The following major transit services are included in the W Network: 1. Replacement of present Southern Pacific and Greyhound services on the Peninsula, with a ' rail rapid transit extension of BART from Daly City to San Jose. 2. Rail rapid transit extension of BART from Fremont to San Jose. 3. Provision of a bus rapid transit service in Marin County, between San Francisco and Novato. 4. Construction of the Geary Blvd. and Irving Judah Subways of the San Francisco Municipal Railway (as proposed in the report of the Northern California Transit Demonstration Project). 5. Various additions to the express bus service in the X Transit Network, all of which are indicated in Map 7-4. A total of 175 miles of rapid transit lines (including bus rapid transit) are included in the W Transit Network. One important feature of the W Transit Network is high-speed bus rapid transit service to Marin County. This service could be provided by reserving exclusive lanes for buses on the Golden Gate Bridge and its approaches (the extension of Route 480 in San Francisco and Route 101 in Marin County). It could also be accomplished (at least initially) by providing priority use of existing and new freeway lanes by buses. The V Network (Map 7-5) The V Network was analyzed to test even more emphasis on rapid transit than is provided by the W Network. The highway component of the V Network is identical to the W Highway Network. The transit component to the. V Network includes the following major changes in the W Transit Network. 1. Rail rapid transit service in Marin County between San Francisco and Novato, replacing the bus rapid transit service in the W Network. 2. Conversion of the following express bus services of the W Network to rail rapid transit: (a) Concord to Antioch. (b) Hayward to Livermore. (c) Mountain View to San Jose via Vasona. 60 3. Additional extensions of the express bus service as indicated in Map 7-5. A total of 230 miles of rail rapid transit is included in the V Transit Network. Click HERE for graphic. Testing Sequence In order to evaluate 1980 conditions, a combination of the X Highway Network and X Transit Network was tested. The total person trips forecast for 1980 were split into highway trips and transit trips, using the modal split process with travel time inputs from the highway and transit components of the X Network. The transit trips were then assigned to the X Transit Network and the remaining trips, after conversion to vehicle trips, were assigned to the X Highway Network. Click HERE for graphic. The 1990 evaluation was made by testing the W Network highway component (identical to V) in conjunction with the transit components of the X, W, and V Networks. This made it possible to evaluate the effects of low, medium, and high level transit service for 1990 with the W Highway Network. The sequence of modal split and loading of trips onto various networks for 1990 is diagrammed below. Click HERE for graphic. 61 Click HERE for graphic. NETWORK ASSIGNMENT Results of test network loadings for 1980 and 1990 inter-zonal trips, including external vehicles, are summarized in Table 7-3.4 Between 1965 and 1990, average weekday inter-zonal vehicle trips are expected to increase 114 percent, and the number of transit person trips to increase 60 percent with the W Network. If no more than X Transit Network were available in 1990, there would be 60,000 fewer trips by transit and 45,000 more vehicle trips on the highways. If the V Transit Network were completed by 1990, the number of transit trips would increase by 27,000, resulting in 20,000 fewer daily vehicle trips on the W Highway Network. These differences are not large in relation to the total quantity of 1990 trips. Highway Loadings Forecasts of vehicle traffic volumes on the highway networks are shown graphically in Map 7-6 for 1980 and Map 7-7 for 1990. These maps give a region-wide indication of the size of traffic flows on main arteries of travel. Travel volumes were studied at many individual locations on the highway system, a few of which are presented for illustration in Table 7-4. Despite a large increase in transit trips, particularly in corridors served by BART, a large growth of vehicle traffic is forecast in most major highway corridors. For example, in the Bay Bridge corridor, between San Francisco and Oakland, the number of transit riders will more than double by 1990. However, the number of vehicle trips will also double, resulting in both the Bay Bridge and Southern Crossing approaching capacity by 1990. On the Peninsula, the Bayshore Freeway will be overloaded in 1980 notwithstanding the completion of ta Route 280 (Junipero Serra Freeway). In 1990, with the Bay Front Freeway (Rte. 87) included in the W Network, the Bayshore Freeway volumes can be reduced to tolerable levels. If the Bay Front Freeway is not constructed by 1990, the indicated demand on the Bayshore Freeway will be in the range of 200 to 250 thousand vehicles per day-an impossible level. Even if more of the excess than has been estimated would be diverted to the junipero Serra and to transit, the Bayshore would still be severely overloaded. In the East Bay, the Eastshore Freeway through Emeryville and Berkeley will be overloaded by 1980, with loadings in excess of 200,000 vehicles per day. The addition of Route 61 in the W Network will relieve the problem, not only for 1980 but for 1990 as well. Further north, in Richmond, Route go will be overloaded in both 1980 and 1990. On the Nimitz Freeway south of Oakland some heavy volumes (over 125,000 vehicles per day) appear in both 1980 and 1990 loadings, although in combination with Route 61, there is adequate capacity in the corridor. One of the severe bottlenecks in the East Bay, notwithstanding BART, will be at the Caldecott Tunnels. Capacity of existing tunnels will be exceeded before 1980, The growth forecast for this corridor in 1990 will load both existing Route 24 and the proposed Shepherd Canyon Freeway to capacity. For the San Francisco-Marin Corridor, the X Network indicates severe loadings on the city streets of San Francisco, as well as a projected 1980 volume of 122,000 vehicles per day on the Golden Gate Bridge. By 1990, the daily vehicular demand on the Golden Gate Bridge is expected to reach 180,000 vehicles per day. Other areas of heavy vehicle trip loadings, particularly in 1990, include freeways near the central part of the three urban centers-San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose. ___________________________ 4. External trips are added which somewhat revise previously reported data. Such trips account for only about 2 percent of assumed vehicle trips but are responsible for 7 to 10 percent of vehicle -miles. Also, with free-flow speeds assured C. result of congestion) routing of trips and their modal division would change. 62 Click HERE for graphic. 63 Click HERE for graphic. 64 The extent of these over-loadings was estimated from comparisons of traffic volumes with road capacities, and the region-wide picture for the W Network in 1990 is graphically displayed in Map 7-8. Within the total network of some 3,500 miles there are about 1,400 miles of freeways- altogether about 200 miles of freeways have assigned flows exceeding capacity, notwithstanding the extensiveness of the system. Very critical conditions are indicated by solid color lines: these are routes where assigned volumes exceed 20,000 vehicles daily per lane. Light shading indicates lane volumes of 15-20,000 vehicles daily. In each individual instance, the comparison of volume to capacity depends upon the "peaking" characteristics of the traffic flow, as well as the highway design features. BATSC staff have followed the general guidelines set forth in the Highway Research Board's Highway Capacity Manual, 1965.5 Transit Loadings The series of Maps 7-9 to 7-12 show transit travel in 1980 for the X Transit Network, and in 1990 for three transit systems each combined with a W Highway Network for the purpose of calculating modal splits. Transit loadings at several key locations are presented in Table 7-5. None of these corridors have transit loadings near capacities of routes in the various networks. Within network and speed controls previously noted, changes in transit usage produced by the different transit networks were not great with one notable exception. In the San Francisco-Marin Corridor, the change from conventional bus service to bus rapid transit either on exclusive right-of-way or with priority access, produced an increase from 40,000 trips per day to 60,000. The additional increase produced by the change to rail rapid transit was an additional 7,000 trips. There w-as much improvement in ]ex-el of service provided by bus rapid transit compared to present bus service in Marin County; however, the additional improvement produced by converting bus rapid transit to rail transit appeared relatively minor under the assumption that bus rapid transit could be made extremely attractive. This assumption of course, be subject to verification in the future when the two types of service (bus rapid and BART) may be compared directly. In the north peninsula corridor, the change from the present. high level of service offered by Southern Pacific and Greyhound to full rail rapid transit (X to W) is estimated to increase transit usage by only 12 percent, assuming, however, that levels of service of the private operators would leave been maintained. For other selected corridors the major transit improvement is completion of first-stage BARTD facilities, already included in the X Network. Thereafter, changes in network from X to W to V do not change usage since levels of service in the particular corridors served are not significantly changed. In all cases, of course, the importance of transit at commuting hours is much greater than is portrayed by daily traffic statistics; on the other hand, the transportation system is expected to serve all kinds of travel demands. Click HERE for graphic. ___________________________ 5. Special Report No. 87 of the Highway Research Board, 1965. The distinction in link volumes used in Map 7-8 is meant to correspond roughly to the difference between Level of Service "C" and "D", as defined in Chapter 9 of the Manual. 6. Such a priority use can be provided through a ramp-metering system, where the number of vehicles entering the freeway would be regulated at each on-ramp to assure a free-moving flow of traffic. Buses would be given priority of access over private vehicles at each on-ramp, but once on the free-moving freeway, they would be mixed with other traffic. This would result in more efficient use of the entire roadway than would be accomplished by segregating autos and buses into separate lanes. The buses would maintain the same level of high-speed service as can be attained by exclusive lanes; at the same time additional capacity for autos would be available by allowing mixed traffic in all lanes. 65 Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. 66 Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. 67 Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. NETWORK EVALUATION-SPECIFIC PROBLEMS A review of network assignments quickly reveals that any meaningful evaluation of future transportation conditions can best begin with analysis of the W and V Networks. What we have now, the G Network, is visibly deficient for present traffic in certain places and critical times; it would be frivolous to entertain the notion that it might suffice for the future. The X System-what the Bay Area is likely to have by 1980 without major policy change, 68 particularly in regard to financing-proves inadequate in many respects to accommodate 1980 demands, to say nothing of 1990 needs. To cite a few illustrations: 1. The Eastshore Freeway in the Berkeley vicinity has an assignment of 222,000 vehicles per day in 1980 as compared with 110,000 in 1965. 2. The Caldecott Tunnels would have 192,000 vehicles per day in 1980 as compared to 54,000 in 1965. 3. The Bayshore Freeway will be overloaded in 1980 notwithstanding completion of the Junipero Serra Freeway (Route 280). The X System cannot seriously be considered as a possible alternative to meet 1990 demands. On the contrary, elements of the W System (initially regarded as a 1990 System) must be moved forward in time to accommodate 1980 requirements as currently projected. Attention is therefore directed to the W System (which includes the X System). Any long-range regional transportation planning for the Bay Area, particularly the highway component thereof, would begin with the W System as a base and test possible variations in specific problem areas. Examination of various 1990 network loadings indicate several locations on the highway networks where overloads are expected to create traffic problems of regional significance. Capacity problems are not expected on the W or V transit networks. As to highways, however, not only does the W. Network, as developed for analytical purposes, appear to be inadequate in certain cases indicating that additions should be considered, but the network itself contains links that are highly controversial and for which feasible alternate solutions should be sought. The analytical mechanism verified problems that are well known and controversial, as well as some new ones. The more important of the specific problem areas were given individual detailed study, the results of which are briefly summarized in this report, mainly for illustration of the continuing process of system refinement. In the detailed analysis, use of various techniques included: 1. Evaluation of growth and type of travel generated by the surrounding portions of the region. 2. Analysis of travel patterns for trips assigned to specific links on the W Network. 3. Study of probable future peak-hour conditions: volumes, highway capacities, and speed reductions. 4. Study of the effect of adding specific improvements-new highway facilities or improved transit service-to the W Network. These techniques are described under the term "link analysis," as distinct from "system analysis." Selected link study involves more than finding that traffic exceeds capacity at some critical point; it involves the nature of that demand. To illustrate, BARTD has ample capacity through the Caldecott Tunnel area where serious highway overloads are anticipated. A first reaction might be that the two would balance out-that trips would move from road to rail. Some of this will happen, of course, but the important question is, how much? To what extent is there a real option? Involved are the time and purpose of vehicle trips and, most importantly, their origins and destinations: in short, identifying trips likely to continue to use the highway in any event because transit service does not fit their particular requirements. Systems effects are also to be analyzed whenever changes in individual links are considered. Again for purposes of illustration, consider the Ashby Freeway in Berkeley (which is somewhat problematical because of strong local resistance). The freeway would be heavily used if it were included in the system. If it were excluded the repercussions would be rather far-reaching. The Warren Freeway would carry considerably less traffic, but the MacArthur and Eastshore Freeways, already expected to bc heavily congested, would be even more congested in the absence of the Ashby Freeway. Similarly, analysis of W Network loadings indicates that the Dumbarton Bridge and its approach, the Willow Freeway (Route 84) will be well utilized. However, system difficulties are evident along the Bayshore Freeway. Preliminary investigation suggests that system problems would be eased by locating the crossing and its westerly freeway approaches further south on the peninsula. Selected Problem Areas Analysis of the W System reveals a number of situations requiring special attention and possible modification. In some cases, a solution seems fairly evident; in others multiple alternatives must be considered. For example: 1. The W System includes Route 61 (in the vicinity of the present Eastshore Freeway) connecting with Route 80 near Albany. In view of growth projected north of Richmond and up to the Carquinez Bridge, it appears advisable to extend Route 61 northerly through Richmond and on at least to Hercules before merging it into Route 80. It also appears that investigation of an extension of BART from the Richmond Transit Station to Vallejo should receive early attention in the ongoing planning program. 2. The case for the Shepherd Canyon Freeway, from Moraga to the MacArthur Freeway in Oakland, is well established in the analysis; in fact, its construction can hardly be delayed beyond 1980 (as is implicit in its omission from the X System) without serious regional consequences. Beyond this, however, analysis reveals that the Shepherd Canyon Freeway should be extended at least to the Nimitz Freeway in Oakland to provide additional freeway access to Central Oakland, and perhaps later it should be extended to Route 61 and provide additional access to the Southern Crossing. Even with the Shepherd Canyon Freeway the corridor has far too little high- 69 way capacity to handle projected traffic demands. Additional freeways appear to be needed, but first BARTD's potential should be fully exploited, especially through provision of superior feeder services and convenient parking facilities. 3. The MacArthur Corridor in Oakland appears to be seriously overloaded long before 1990. Clearly, an additional freeway northerly from San Leandro and lying midway between the MacArthur and the Nimitz must be given serious consideration. Additionally, a BART extension, perhaps immediately adjacent to the MacArthur Freeway, should be investigated as a possible alternative. 4. The Walnut Creek area in Contra Costa County appears to be adequately served by routes in the W Highway System but staff analysis indicates that certain relocations may be advisable; also that Route 24 northerly of Walnut Creek should be extended across Route 680 to connect with Route 77 in the Pleasant Hill vicinity, 5. In Santa Clara County (much less "corridor oriented" than other heavily urbanized Bay Area counties) two critical situations deserve mention. In San Jose both Routes 17 and 87 will be severely overloaded in 1990. In the case of Route 17 local streets can absorb some of the overloads and conversion of the Lawrence Expressway to a full freeway will help. The Route 87 corridor poses more difficult problems; however, concentration on upgrading and extending several arterials in the corridor can provide additional capacity. Also, consideration should be given to possible change of routing of the Vasona Rapid Transit Loop (as provisionally laid out in the V Network). 6. In the Sunnyvale-Mountain View area, the Route 85 corridor, particularly between the Bayshore and junipero Serra, will be heavily congested. An additional parallel freeway would be difficult to install, so first attention should be given to the improvement and interconnection of a number of existing arterials in the vicinity. Also, conversion of the Lawrence Expressway to freeway stand- ards and re-routing of the rapid transit loop could help some. The foregoing cases illustrate major problems (outside of Central San Francisco and Oakland) that would remain even if the W Systems were in being by 1990. When compared with the entire W System Highway Network, the critical mileage involved is not great; but each situation is important in its own right and has unique attributes that deserve special attention. In some cases relocation of a W freeway route or transit line may resolve the problems. In other cases, concentration on upgrading arterials and inducing more transit usage will afford relief. In still others, transit extensions should be given attention along with new freeways. In every case, detailed study with fine-grain data focussed on the particular small area involved is advisable before any definite commitment is made. This is, of course, the next logical step in an ongoing transportation planning process for the Bay Area. How- ever, these possible variants in the W and V System do not vitiate their value as an overall developmental guide for both transit and highway improvements at this time; recognizing, of course, that each specific project will be further anal zed and subjected to economic evaluation prior to determination of its precise location and design standards. The San Francisco Situation Central city problems, particularly in San Francisco, are more difficult to deal with. It will have been noted that for system analysis purposes the W System included additional vehicular capacity (a second deck on the Golden Gate Bridge) and a freeway connecting the Bridge to downtown San Francisco (Route 480). It is estimated that population in Marin County will increase 227,000 between 1965 and 1990; that total jobs in San Francisco will increase by 238,000, many of which will be occupied by Marinites. Person trips through the Golden Gate Corridor are projected to increase from 46,000 in 1965 to 145,000 in 1990 for work purposes (215 percent) and from 87,000 in 1965 to 297,000 in 1990 (241 percent) for all purposes. These numbers are indicative of increased trip desires under the controlled trends planning concept of the Study. Lesser job growth in San Francisco, lesser population growth in Marin (or a combination) would reduce these estimates. So, too, would a failure to provide transportation facilities that would accommodate the demands. Any of these would have regional repercussions, for the population or the jobs would locate elsewhere within the Bay Area. If current forecasts are to be served, however, a considerable increase in overall capacity in the corridor will be needed. A combination of the W Highway and V Transit Systems provides additional capacity, perhaps adequate to 1990 if there is unexpectedly high usage of transit. New watercraft service might provide additional capacity. If the additional highway capacity is not provided, other possible modes (bus, ferry, rail or other transit) will have to be considerably more attractive than many believe possible. At the present time, the Golden Gate Bridge and Highway District and the Marin County Transit District are working on the problem which, while it is one of the more difficult in the Bay Area, does have the somewhat singular advantage of a substantial fiscal base supported by toll collections. Solution of the Golden Gate Corridor problem would by no means end San Francisco's urban transportation problems. The projected growth in San Francisco employment implies much importation of labor, and other trips as well, through all gateways. In fact, total person trips in, out and through San Francisco might increase from about 647,000 in 1965 to 1,425,000 in 1990, of which transit person trips would increase from 105,000 to 281,000. External mo- tor vehicle trips (at least one end outside the city) 70 would increase from 420,000 to 875,000, notwithstanding considerable emphasis on transit in the V System. To these numbers must be added movements by San Franciscans themselves, both on transit and by motor vehicle. All of this presages considerable traffic pressures on the city street system of San Francisco and a huge demand for increased parking facilities. It also portends considerable congestion on San Francisco's freeways as included in the W System. In fact, to provide anything approaching adequate motor vehicle accessibility to all parts of the city BATSC staff tested an elaborate plan, including a Western Freeway, Panhandle Freeway, and Golden Gate- Embarcadero Freeway on general alignments formerly included in the State Freeway and Expressway System for San Francisco, plus a Tiburon bridge to Marin and an eastern extension of the Central Freeway to the Southern Freeway (Rte. 280). Even then a segment of the Central Freeway would be overloaded and portions of the Panhandle and James Lick Freeways would be at or near capacity by 1990. The analytical results argue for optimum reliance on transit for movement into and within San Francisco; but at best a critical traffic and parking problem in the downtown area will remain. Actually, San Francisco is a heavily transit-oriented city. The W System, which includes modernization of the Muni equipment, the new Market Street Tunnel provided by BARTD and, in addition, subways for express street car lines along Geary and Judah Streets will make it more so. But more will be needed. A new and innovative circulatory system for the core area itself should be vigorously promoted to provide internal mobility, to lessen street congestion, to relocate parking demands to peripheral areas, and, of course, to provide more attractive feeder service to longer-distance transit lines. One possibility would be an automated network cab system operating on exclusive guideways separated from street traffic. Successful development of such a system in San Francisco, the most critical center, would probably be followed by its introduction in Central Oakland and San Jose and later in other major centers.7 A Question of Balance. Understandably, the specter of serious congestion in downtown San Francisco and the inadequacy of current technology may have warped Bay Area attitudes about urban transportation in general. The diversity of conditions and the need for a variety of solutions within the Bay Area bears repetition. In 1990 San Francisco will continue to have less than one percent of the Bay Area's land area; it will have 11 percent of the population and 23 percent of the jobs. Vast differences among the several counties are portrayed on a gross basis in the following projections for 1990: Residents, Per Employees Per Square Mile Square Mile San Francisco 17,570 15,180 Alameda 2,320 1,000 San Mateo 1,950 810 Contra Costa 1,440 360 Santa Clara 1,350 500 Marin 800 200 Solano 380 130 Sonoma 230 70 Napa 190 80 ________ ________ Bay Region 1,075 450 Consider these differences in connection with the transportation networks that have been analyzed. Outside of San Francisco the W Highway Network appears to function quite well up to 1990 with exceptions previously noted (to which additional planning attention should be given immediately in the ongoing program). Within downtown San Francisco a radically new approach will be required if "The City" aspires to continue to be the major employment and activity hub that the Commission's analysis has pro- jected. Such an approach might include interurban rapid transit, efficient city-wide transit, special center circulatory systems, but it ought not overlook needs for individual transport (currently automobiles) especially for non-work purposes, nor needs for goods movement (principally trucks). Some might think that San Francisco's internal problems are local in nature, but how the region develops overall will be influenced by how problems within the City are met. On the other hand, growth, location, land use configurations beyond San Fran- cisco's boundaries affect prosperity as well as problems within the City. The problems of the region vary and warrant individual analysis; this does not mean that interdependencies do not exist or that solutions should be fragmented. Among other things attention must be given to benefits, costs and other consequences of future transport development. ___________________________ 7. See the Commission's comments on Innovations and Novel Systems in Chapter 9. 71 CHAPTER 8 A GUIDE TO DEVELOPMENT The analysis in Chapter 7 demonstrates that the Bay Area must think in terms of a transportation system involving investment of public funds far greater than that which will become available by continuation of present policies. The X System will fall short of serving 1980 needs in critical areas, to say nothing of 1990 requirements. The W Highway System (with either W or V Transit) will have critical overloads in some cases by 1990. Current financing will fall short of meeting W Highway Network costs, let alone additions. Financing the W Transit Network requires substantial investment for which no ready source of financing is available; the more extensive V Network is just that much more costly. The capital costs of regional transportation improvements to 1990 if the system were developed as depicted in the W Highway and V Transit Networks would be on the order of $8 to $9 billion at current prices (and $11 to $12 billion with an annual inflation rate of only 3 percent). Is it possible to justify such huge public investments? We assert that the answer is affirmative but concede that no simple economic calculus can be offered in proof. The answer is to be found in benefits of urban mobility, or disadvantages of immobility (involving many intangible values, in either case). URBAN TRANSPORT SERVICES Transportation is the webbing that creates the urban region, binding together its social and economic fabric and making its existence possible through connections to other regions. Urban transportation is a vital link in production and distribution of goods and services that provide for economic welfare of the people; the private economy cannot function without it and suffers penalties when it is inadequate. The journey-to- work is an essential ingredient of the productive process, bringing together the needed labor force. The dichotomy between government and business sometimes seen in other fields simply does not exist; urban transportation is a necessary part of business activity. Transportation, rarely wanted for its own sake but for what it yields at journey's end, is one of our major economic undertakings, accounting for about one-fifth of our gross national product, more than one-fifth of our total State income, and probably one fifth of our regional economic effort. Urban mobility is a cherished community value to be weighed along with other values, not to be set off against them. Availability of urban transportation provides workers with choices in jobs and places to live (and permits opportunities for personal trade-offs between housing and commuting), Improved urban transportation enlarges other opportunities for choice: lower money costs vs. speed, comfort and convenience; time and distance vs. rent and amenity, etc. Travel for many purposes (shopping, recreation, social activity, education and the like) enables us to enjoy the rewards of our economic effort. The costs of improvement of public facilities for urban transportation are often offset by reductions in total transport cost because of savings in operating costs, in travel time, or in accident costs. It is Sometimes said, with good reason, that we cannot afford not to have good transportation. Bay Area Transport. The Bay Area has a vast transportation plant in being. The use of this plant entails expenditures of literally millions of dollars a day and billions a year. Most of this expenditure is made through the private sector of the economy, but a substantial part (perhaps 10 to 15 percent) draws upon public funds. The system performs a remarkable feat in moving people and goods around the area, but it should do much better. It should meet transportation demands with greater safety and economy; and it should better serve the desired development of the region as well as the manifest needs of its users. Substantial deficiencies already existing in the system impose a heavy daily penalty upon users and upon the total economy of the region. Projected growth of the Bay Area will add more than pro- 72 portionately to urban transportation demands within the region, because of increasing economic activity an affluence. The heavy penalties of congestion already being incurred will be greatly increased unless substantial remedial action is taken to improve our urban transportation system at an accelerated rate. Probably nowhere in the United States, and certainly not in the San Francisco Bay Area, has there been developed consciously a regional urban transportation policy that deals with all components of the urban transport system and the impact of that total system on the physical environment and the social and economic structure it serves. Yet it is the region that benefits if the system is good; the region that suffers penalties if it is inadequate. SYSTEM BENEFITS AND COSTS Individual project and simple network alternatives can sometimes be evaluated usefully in terms of cost and benefit relationships; and, in fact, we recommend below that benefit-cost and cost-effectiveness techniques be used, with suitable discretion, in evaluating project alternatives and system variants during implementation of regional transportation programs in the Bay Area. We recommend further that the ongoing transportation planning program give early attention to development of improved evaluative techniques as it proceeds in the development of alternatives for consideration of Bay Area decision-makers. Yet we would warn against preoccupation with mechanistic procedures. The best transportation system in not necessarily the cheapest; the system yielding most benefit to users may not provide most value to the community as a whole. It is simply not possible to attach meaningful dollar values to all benefits (or costs) of an entire urban transportation system (or even variations from one system to another). Even measurable values of significance often can only be translated into monetary terms by debatable assumptions; consider, for example, estimates of the value of time savings (particularly for travel in recreation or other nonmarketable pursuits) or dubious assessments of worth of lives possibly saved by transport improvements. More difficult to evaluate are quality of service considerations-such values as comfort, convenience, and other travel amenities. How are these to be measured? And even if measurable objectively, who is to say they are not worth added costs (in absence of a pricing regimen)? Greater amenity may actually increase total outlays (both public and private) for transportation. As a case in point, it was shown earlier that increases in freeway speeds tend to increase distances traveled. This would tend also to nullify time savings while increasing operating costs and accident exposure. May it then be said that the improvements have not been beneficial? Or should it simply be said that, with greater fluidity, mobility has improved and people have chosen to take advantage of it? One possible advantage would be increased choice among places to live or work; and perhaps a better trade-off between land rent and transportation costs. At this point we might consider also some broader planning implications of changes in the transportation system. We have consistently recognized the interrelationship between transportation and land-use development; and have acknowledged that urban transportation should serve and promote desirable land-use patterns. In order to do this, however, transportation costs may be made greater than they otherwise would be (or transportation values less); the community is then faced with evaluation of benefits of an improved land-use pattern and a determination of their worth as compared to revised transport costs and values. Stated in opposite terms, an improved transportation system may impose external or social costs upon the community that are not reflected in market costs of resources used, The trade-off problem is identical; and is obviously one not subject to numerical solution in the present state of art and knowledge. Planning judgments are required. We suggest some of the factors that should be weighed in making such judgments. Highway Benefits With any given projection of motor vehicle usage, it can usually be demonstrated that congestion-reducing improvements in the highway network yield handsome tangible as well as intangible benefits to users. And when traffic reaches a given volume the development of freeways provide the greatest service at the least cost for users. The principle of the freeway-limitation of access and elimination of cross traffic at grade-provides a facility of remarkable convenience, economy and safety for movement of motor vehicles. Freeways are safer, carry more traffic per lane (especially in urban areas), and maintain their basic designed services longer than any other form of highway. On all scores more efficient than the conventional arterial, road, or street, the freeway consumes less land for economical movement of comparable volumes of traffic over comparable distances. In urban areas the capacity of a freeway lane is about double that of an expressway lane (with signalization and intersections at grade) and 2.4 times that of a conventional highway lane. In terms of highway fatalities, full freeways are about twice as safe, per mile driven, as the average for all other highways, roads and streets in California (2.7 vs. 5.5 per 100 million vehicle miles). Urban freeways are actually safer than rural freeways in terms of fatalities (the latter having twice the fatality rate); on the other hand, extreme congestion leads to about 50 percent more accidents per mile driven on urban freeways as compared to rural freeways, but still many fewer than occur on city streets and expressways. Freeways and other controlled-access facilities can be a boon to urban planning, separating the road from the environment and the environment from the road, with benefit to both. Not only do they preserve investments made in them by maintaining their capacity to carry traffic, but they preserve the integrity of land development which often is soon impaired along conventional highways. Increasing use of freeway 73 rights-of-way for multiple purposes, not interfering with mobility, can yield economies and conserve land. Properly used, the freeway system can provide a positive basis for urban planning. Among other things, it may be conducive to a rational division and development of land into areas of compatible and related uses. Transit Benefits The freeway system, indispensable though it is for total daily movements, simply will not function without complementary rapid transit facilities - rail or bus - at critical times in certain corridors, particularly for peak commuter loads. As one current example, bus transit (A-C Transit and Greyhound Lines) carries 40 percent of people who cross the Bay Bridge between 6:30 and 8:30 each weekday morning; and more during shorter periods. To carry Southern Pacific's daily patronage of 24,000 passengers, with typical car occupancies, would require about 4 additional freeway lanes in each direction, primarily for commuter loads. BARTD will carry about 20 percent of all persons through the Caldecott Tunnel area in peak hours in 1990. Moreover, transit provides the only source of urban mobility for a considerable segment of the population. Included are those too young or too old to drive, or who are otherwise handicapped. Also included are many who have no motor vehicles at their disposal because they are too poor to afford the costs. In the latter case, subsidized transit may be regarded as an acceptable form of income redistribution, but it has the additional advantage of providing accessibility to jobs that may be available. One of transit's outstanding advantages is found in its economy of space. On the highways, buses can carry many times more people than autos in a lane of traffic. Rail transit usurps much less land for a given carrying capacity than highways. It is important to distinguish here, however, between what transit can carry and what it actually will carry; even so, the great reserve capacity ordinarily found in transit systems must be regarded as a valuable asset, especially as we contemplate long-range demands in the face of increasing urbanization and tightening restrictions on available space. Land Values Improvements in the urban transportation system must be made selectively, both in space and time. The result of any specific transport improvement is a change in site accessibility relationships which, in turn, affect land values differentially. Freeway and transit improvements will create similar responses. Within a certain sphere of influence land values will tend to increase; but beyond that sphere lands whose relative accessibilities have been lessened will be adversely affected in value. It is difficult to balance out the gains and losses, to show that there is a positive enhancement of values; and even if this could be shown, many would question whether overall increases in land values contribute to the general welfare. The larger question involves the differential effects of alternative transport improvements on patterns of land useage. It is generally thought that transit tends to promote centralization while freeways favor suburban development; but it should be noted that both kinds of facilities run two ways and, when providing com- plementary services, tend to serve the same corridor. Thus, rapid transit as well as freeways may encourage decentralization but the resulting land use patterns may differ. In any event, it is far too simple to characterize the urban transportation problem as a blunt dichotomy between public rail transit and the private automobile, Cities generally are the most pluralistic places in modern society; their citizens need a wide range of travel services. The Bay Area, in particular, has variety almost beyond description. If its transportation system is to be balanced, as the Commission proposes, it needs a mix of services- different combinations of freeways and transit, complementary to each other but varied with requirements of place and time. PROJECT EVALUATION AND PRIORITIES To this point we have generalized about the overall benefits of an improved urban transportation system and considerations involved in their evaluation. We have also been careful to observe that system analysis, such as we have performed, does not extend to the precise location and design of project alternatives (nor even to final decisions as to system variants in certain problem areas). At the point in the planning process when choices among specific manageable alternatives must be made rigorous evaluation of economic, social and planning consequences becomes most significant. Detailed cost-benefit analysis of alternatives will then be a useful tool, provided intangibles are given explicit recognition and accorded appropriate weight in the decision-making process. Not only should transportation costs and needs be considered, but attention should be given also to human and cultural values. The urban transport facility not only should function physically for the movement of people and goods, it should contribute to the total city environment. In location and design, the soul of the region, as well as the variety of conditions within it, should be recognized. To achieve anything approaching these implied requirements of evaluation, not only with respect to location and design but also to questions of priority,re-quires the exercise of planning judgments (aided by analytical processes) on a continuing basis and involving short-range programs and specific projects. The matter of priorities is especially important. At any given time funds available for urban transport improvements will be severely limited. The financial situation confronting regional transportation in the Bay Area is dealt with in Chapter 9, which sets forth specific recommendations on the subject.1 ___________________________ 1. Financial problems are considered more extensively in the Report of the Study Group on Urban Transportation Finance in the Commission's Report, Supplement II. 74 All components of the regional transportation system are now, and are likely to continue to be, in serious financial straits. All the more reason, then, to husband resources and make prudent choices in their allocations. All the more reason to establish priorities among alternatives that will provide optimum mobility values and hopefully benefit the community at large as well. There is need for a responsive and responsible regional transportation organization to assume this difficult assignment. Each project or problem area and possible alternatives must be dealt with individually, but it should be considered in light of its relationship to an overall plan or developmental guide, which itself should be subject to continuing refinement and adjustment in response to changing conditions. The Commission proposes such a guide. A RECOMMENDED GUIDE The urban transportation problem in the San Francisco Bay Area is not one problem but many. Throughout its studies the Commission has given much attention to the nature of urban transport demands and the variety of problems to be dealt with. It has emphasized the dynamics of transportation planning; the necessity to build upon what we have in incremental fashion. It has found no one solution, no simplistic answer, no single-minded "orientation" that should be followed. The Commission has emphasized the extreme diversity to be found within the Bay Area-diversity in topographical conditions, in patterns of development, even in personal attitudes. Its very diversity gives the Bay Area much of its charm, much of its vitality. Transportation should be designed to serve, not to nullify this diversity; notwithstanding that problems are intensified and solutions made more difficult. A commonly-accepted goal of urban transportation planning is creation of balanced transportation. But this is an elusive concept. A balanced mix of facilities for commuting may be quite unbalanced for weekend and recreational needs. Balanced transportation for the financial district of San Francisco would be quite unbalanced for the aerospace complexes of Santa Clara County, the refinery areas of Contra Costa, the vineyards of Napa and Sonoma. A master regional transportation plan for the Bay Area is called for in the law creating the Commission. Clearly, such a plan should satisfy mobility needs with economy and safety; it should be comprehensive as to modes of transport; it should be balanced for the purposes it is to serve; it should be compatible with other goals of the community. BATSC analysis and projections are based largely on extension of current policies and practices regarding general planning as it now exists in the Bay Area. No enforceable general regional plan to which transportation might be fitted exists. The "controlled trends" planning which underlies BATSC program may be quite acceptable to a large proportion of the Bay Area populace. Certainly it will be acceptable to many who would minimize public interference with market forces through severe planning constraints. Obviously, however, this approach portends heavy emphasis on highway transportation in the future, not because the plan is "highway-oriented" but because people are "highway - oriented"-and under current policy and practice are likely to be for some time in the future. If the Bay Area wishes to change the course of events indicated by "controlled trends," it will have to acquire authority and determine what should be changed and how. Transportation plans can then be adapted to a new land-use configuration for the area through modification of assumptions and use of the planning mechanism developed by BATSC. Transportation planning and policy can be used to promote a broader set of planning goals for the region, which goals, importantly, should embrace a physical environment that allows transportation to function in order to preserve and enhance mobility values. Whether or not the Bay Area is drastically to change planning constraints, the early course of transport development is apparent. A substantial acceleration of the rate of improvement of both transit and highway facilities is urgently needed to accommodate future growth and economic progress. BATSC successor, whether existing agencies or a new structure, should get on with the job. Further planning is necessary it must, in fact, be a continuing process-but a guide for development can be set forth. Recommended Highway Component The Commission recommends that: 1. The W Highway System (as delineated in Chapter 7), which identifies major travel corridors and establishes trip desire lines, be accepted as a general development guide for highway improvements and extensions in the Bay Area; provided that other modes of transportation should be considered in critical areas as possible alternatives to highway development. 2. The X Highway System, which is largely committed and well on the way to completion, be given highest priority. 3. With respect to facilities in the W System but not in the X System, those facilities be given priority that are of the most immediate urgency and that qualify, virtually beyond question, as essential components of the regional transportation system under any realizable set of planning constraints. The Commission appreciates that within the W System are a number of controversial elements that are most difficult to locate and design satisfactorily. In addition it has identified certain problem areas in which completion of the W Highway System ap- parently will be insufficient to the need. Both of these cases deserve further investigation and analysis and should be among the first orders of business of any 75 organization that succeeds to the Commission's responsibilities.2 Close cooperation with local governments and private citizens should be arranged to assist in resolution of the difficulties. Each of these qualifications on the W System are important individually; however, they do not invalidate use of the W Highway System as an overall guide to development while specific problems are being worked out. In all cases, including elements that serve the need and are comparatively non-controversial, further planning will be needed to establish precise locations and designs of facilities. The BATSC planning program was never intended to extend to the level of planning needed for location and design purposes. Recommended Transit Component The Commission recommends that the V Transit System (as delineated in Chapter 7) be Used as a development guide. It establishes directions that should be followed and includes first steps that should be taken in the years immediately ahead in developing an adequate transit system, mutually complementary with the W Highway System, for the Bay Area. It deserves to be noted that the transit system can and almost perforce must-be developed by incremental stages, but with each stage being a logical step toward development of a more advanced system. As a matter of priority, the logical sequence at this time would appear to be from the X System to the W System to the V System; but priorities, as well as the planning guide itself, should be under constant review. Obvious though it is, the Commission urges the earliest possible completion of the BARTD System to the highest possible standards. All of the Commission's planning has been predicated upon early completion and successful operation of the BARTD System. Practical experience with the results of its operations will give the Bay Area a much improved basis f or both planning of future transit lines and appraisal of their impact on highway needs. In the meantime, however, there are obvious specific steps to recommend that not only will be compatible but contributory to further transit development. These include: 1. Complete modernization of equipment (except Cable Cars) of the San Francisco Municipal Railway-the region's major transit operation. 2. Development of optimal service integration between BARTD and A-C Transit in the East Bay, San Francisco Muni in the City, and new bus services that may be established on the Peninsula. 3. Extension of BARTD transit service to the Livermore- Pleasanton, Pittsburg-Antioch, and Vallejo areas via connecting express bus service. 4. Development of public bus services, primarily for local and feeder use, in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties and that part of Contra Costa County not now so served. 5. Initiation public bus service in Marin County to provide both local service and express service to San Francisco, with a further objective of converting express bus to rapid bus service at an early date. 6. Depending upon outcome of feasibility studies now under way, inauguration of demonstrations to further test the utility of water transportation (conventional ferries and more advanced craft) in meeting urban transport demands (initially in the San Francisco-Marin corridor.) Emphasis on highway mass transit in early development stages is suggested for a number of reasons: (1) BARTD will soon be in operation and its operating results be a valuable guide in appraising future extensions of rail transit; (2) in areas in which it is proposed initially, bus transit will be needed to provide local and feeder services under any circumstances, and is readily, adaptable if and when conversion to rail transit is determined to be advisable; (3) potentials of bus transit in areas not served by rail have not been fully tested under circumstances in which the need for bus service is given full attention in design of Highway facilities and control of their operations (for example, preferential ramp metering and reserved highway lanes where warranted); (4) new technology is developing that may mean in certain circumstances that a logical transition will be from bus transit to new modes (including dual-mode vehicles) at the time when conversion to another form may be advisable;3 (5) initial financing is comparatively easy because highway facilities are available without capital investment by the transit operators. The Combined Networks The highway and transit networks recommended as a development guide in the foregoing sections are presented in Maps 8-1 and 8-2. The X Systems, which include what already exists and that which most likely will be (and as a general rule ought to be) developed first, are distinguished from the remainder of the systems which will be developed later and therefore can be subjected to additional analysis before major commitments are made. It bears repeating that all transport networks tested to this time are based on projections and analyses which, in turn, are based on certain critical assumptions. These include: (1) continuing population and economic growth; (2) more income, car ownership and travel propensity; (3) greater fluidity of motor vehicle movement; (4) continuing preference for low density residence, dispersed industrial locations, and moderate central business district growth; (5) continuance of commuter peaking; (6) conventional transport technology; and (7) essentially local control of regional growth and development patterns. In light of these assumptions, the Commission's immediate recommendations as to transportation net- ___________________________ 2. IBATSC will direct its staff during its remaining time of existence to give primary attention to these problem areas for the benefit of BATSC successor. If it seems appropriate and constructive, BATSC may issue a supplemental report on these and other matters prior to its termination. 3. See discussion of technological innovations below and in the Commission's Report, Supplement 1. 76 Click HERE for graphic. 77 Click HERE for graphic. works (and the sequence of their development) may be regarded as essentially "conservative" from a broad planning point of view. They are based upon what might be short-run behavior patterns and planning practices; hence, our present emphasis on the concept of a development guide rather than a "master plan." Differences of opinion prevail among students of urban problems as to the role of the transportation system (and its planning) in influencing regional development. On one side are those who would use the transportation system to create new behavior patterns and rearrange patterns of living. Others doubt that the transportation system can or should be used to do this. One writer phrases it this way: "The men who design for the future must think first how people want to live. . . . Then, and only then, can the technologists build a system of transportation to serve that way of life." This same writer, however, acknowledges that "society's demands for mobility cannot wait for cities to be redesigned and the habits of generations to be overturned." The Bay Area is not now prepared to deal with this fundamental issue. It is obvious, however, that transportation development will continue without interruption; hence, the Commission's proposed guide will be useful. More important are the Commission's proposals, as set forth in the next chapter, in regard to a continuing regional transportation planning process under an organization with authority to coordinate other plans and implement its own. Establishment of such a program, built upon the BATSC legacy, will indeed represent a bold departure from current prac- tices and trends in urban transportation planning and development. 78 CHAPTER 9 A PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION A regional transportation plan for the Bay Area should be dynamic. It should provide an effective means of following through so that guidelines may be transformed into programs of action. The Legislature clearly intended this, for it anticipated a transition of BATSC responsibilities to an ongoing agency and directed the Commission to suggest ways and means of implementing the transportation plan it was to prepare. The Basic Need Basic to Bay Area needs is an organizational structure to carry on the planning process inaugurated by the Commission in order: (a) to refine elements of plans both for highways and transit; (b) to translate plans into programs of action; (c) to monitor technology and encourage its earliest feasible inclusion in Bay Area systems; (d) to manage components of the system and exercise surveillance over the remainder to assure compatibility and coordination of transport development, not only within the transportation field itself but between transportation and general plans; and (e) most importantly, to exert control of transportation finance to the end that adequate funds will be provided and appropriate priorities established. The issues are dealt with below under four major topics: (1) Continuing Planning; (2) Technological Development; (3) Regional Management; and (4) Transportation Finance. CONTINUING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING It might be said that the Commission's plan is largely the process it has initiated and recommends be carried on and improved. The underlying thought -equally applicable to the region-was well expressed by the Study Manager of the Santa Clara County Transportation and Land Use Study when he wrote: "It should by now be clear that no plan is ever final, and there must be a process for continued adjustment and refinement of plans. Transportation systems are 'just one part of overall county development and too complex, subject to too many variables of technology and the economy, and of the evolving standards of the public to be absolutely quantified in any master plan." BATSC planning is based upon controlled trends but depends upon many assumptions about the future up to 1990. Even if all assumptions proved accurate, a "moving" plan would be required. In 1980, for example, it would be unthinkable to build what was thought in the 1960's to be needed for 1990. Rather we would plan and build, in the light of knowledge and the state of technology at that time, for 2,000 and beyond. Of course, conditions will change and assumptions will go awry. It is essential in planning and programming to make provision for adaptability to future changes and developments that cannot be anticipated or predicted at this time. Economic and Social Changes Anticipated increases in productivity will have an impact upon transportation demands, increasing them more than in proportion to population growth and perhaps more than in proportion to the productivity increase itself. Much will depend upon the nature of the product increase; how the industrial structure may evolve; what kinds of employment will be available; whether new employment will require central assembly or induce dispersion, For example, will future improvement in communications technology increase transportation demands (as it seems, on balance, to have done in the past), or will it reduce such demands (as many have expected it to do)? Even more may depend upon the distribution of higher incomes resulting from increased product, and how far it may go in mitigating poverty. Now much of the impetus for transit development (and subsidy) stems from concern for the impoverished, the immobile, the captive rider, the person who cannot af- 79 ford "auto-mobility." To what extent will increased and redistributed income change this condition, making auto-mobility available and, on a broader scale, changing living and housing patterns? Increased productivity, or at least a portion of it, may be distributed in another way, that is, by reduction in working hours, with potentially profound effects upon transportation requirements. How is increased leisure to be taken-by longer vacations? A shortened work-day? Four-day work-weeks? Any of these-or some combination thereof-has impact on urban transportation, affecting both journey-to-work and non-work travel. To illustrate: 3-day weekends would not diminish commute requirements on a daily basis but would reduce usage and patronage by about one-fifth and correspondingly increase idle capacity and its associated expenses. But a rotated day off during the week could conceivably reduce peak hour commuting demands by one-fifth. Shorter work days would increase opportunities for effective staggering of working hours to reduce peak commute demands. These sources of possible changes in transport demands can be handled at any particular time only by predictions based upon assumption, They ar e largely beyond control or intervention of the region. They are unavoidable risks of planning. But the cost of such risks may be minimized by constant surveillance of trends and changes so that plans may be adjusted and modified on a timely basis. General Planning Policy Although broad social and economic forces are beyond control of the region, the general pattern of regional development and distribution of activities on the land is not; provided the region has the will and the authority to intervene. Rising expectations with regard to environmental quality and amenities, accompanied by increasing economic ability to achieve those aspirations, are already evident. It seems almost certain that within BATSC planning period (to 1990) pressures will build up to create enforceable plans and programs imposing restraints on development in certain areas beyond those anticipated in the "controlled trends" analysis underlying the Commission's findings. In fact, the projected consequences of following current policies in terms of transport requirements may provide a spur to more comprehensive and effective general planning at a regional level. Transportation plans should be responsive to movements in this direction. Transportation development should be used to promote broader community goals and aspirations wherever feasible, provided full costs are considered, mobility values are appropriately con- sidered with other values, and general planning recognizes an obligation to promote an urban configuration in which transportation can function effectively. Fortunately, the BATSC program has developed techniques of analysis that can respond to changed assumptions and new planning constraints. To be effective, of course, the mechanism must be exercised in a continuing planning process. Future transportation planning, increasingly articulated with general planning, should build upon the BATSC legacy. Among other things, the BATSC data base should be maintained and updated on a continuing basis. Preparations should begin immediately for maximum utilization of 1970 census data. Analytical methodology is becoming increasingly sophisticated; computer capabilities are improving. Bay Area transportation planning-indeed planning in p general-should keep pace to secure maximum advantage of new technical tools of planning. Beyond this, transportation planning involves a progressive approach, moving from the "big picture" to the "close-action photo." Analysis of gross regional networks identifies problem areas (as illustrated in Chapter 7) requiring closer investigation on the basis of finer grain data and more detailed networks. Alternative solutions, in some cases alien to an overall solution (extraordinary traffic control measures, for example) may be discovered, in which case testing of alternatives in respect to both effect on the small-area problem and impact on the regional system logically follows. Progressively, the choices are narrowed and finally the planning process must zero in on precise location and design choices. Effective transportation planning must be concerned also with priorities, not only as a matter of sound economy, but because each project added to a system affects previously existing accessibility relationships and sets in motion forces that may upset previous assumptions and predictions and therefore necessitate revisions in earlier plans and programs. If optimum development is to be achieved, priorities should deal with inter-modal choices (a highway vs. a transit project, for example) as well as with projects within a mode. Legal Requirements The case for continuing transportation planning on a regional basis has merit in its own right. If further persuasion is needed, the Federal Government requires existence of a qualified continuing process as a prerequisite for federal aid for any urban transportation purpose. BATSC program was designed to meet federal requirements as well as to satisfy its obligations to the State Legislature. Federal law and regulations emphasize a planning process- the progenitor Federal Aid Highway Act of 1962, for example, makes no reference to a plan. However, comprehensiveness is stressed and, in particular, the interdependency of land use and transportation development. Much point is made of the diversity in requirements of different areas and the inappropriateness of national standards. Appreciating intricacies of planning and complexities of intergovernmental arrangements in urban areas, Federal agencies have been somewhat lenient to this point in time in carrying through their planning regulations to a logical conclusion. However, it is evident that they intend the required planning proc- 80 ess to evolve to include capital budgeting and the setting of project priorities at the regional level.1 TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS AND NOVEL SYSTEMS 2 The continuing transportation planning process should make provision for constant surveillance and demonstration of technological developments and innovations in urban transport, the object being to encourage their earliest possible inclusion in the Bay Area's transportation system. The pace of urban transport technology in an age of space exploration seems painfully slow, but perhaps only because additions and improvements in the existing system, when perceptible at all, appear insignificant in comparison with the massive networks already in being. Throughout this report and in other publications the Commission has emphasized "incrementalism" in development of the regional transportation system. The present system is a valuable asset, representing a huge private and public investment that will continue to serve as the base upon which to build additions and improvements. The basic road and street system-about 15,000 miles in all-is an indispensable element of urban living, providing accessibility and mobility and serving other purposes is well. Vast investments in private housing, business plant, and public facilities are keyed to the region's transportation network; and reasonable stability is essential for their preservation. No instant "magic carpet" transportation will be found-and perhaps none is to be desired. Nothing being done now is obsolete, nor will it be soon. On the contrary, Bay Area agencies engaged in freeway design and construction, in road and street development, in the bridge field, in modern bus operations, and in construction of the BARTD system, are as technologically advanced in urban transportation as any to be found. However, technological innovations will be made that should be introduced into the Bay Area's transportation complex. Moreover, such additions, while seemingly small relative to the total scene, will be of great significance in solution of the particular prob- lems to which they are addressed. A first requisite of successful innovation is a full understanding of the nature of the problem to be met. Urban transportation problems are many and varied; sometimes technologically feasible innovations are offered in search of problems. The key to innovation is matching of demands, on the one side, to technological performance, on the other. In specific situations there are exciting possibilities, but most of them require, not only considerably more research and development work, but also practical operating demonstrations. The Bay Area provides an ideal testing ground, for its variety of conditions-plains and mountains, density and sprawl, water barriers and open space-covers' the spectrum of urban transport problems. The Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development in 1968 proposed a billion dollar program of research, development and demonstration in urban transport technology. A program of this nature should be encouraged. Costs and risks are high but pay-offs can be great and may be of benefit to many urban areas throughout the country, which makes it an especially worthy undertaking at the national level. The Bay Area should prepare itself to attract demonstration grants, and to administer them to be of maximum benefit to the nation as well as to the Bay Area. This requires regional leadership exercised through a structure that is concerned with the total urban transportation system. A unit within that structure should maintain continual surveillance over technological possibilities and their capabilities and have intimate familiarity with Federal and other projects throughout the country and elsewhere in the world. It should be constantly on the alert to match possible innovations to problems identified in the continuing planning process. The Bay Area has already received a rewarding share of Federal research and demonstration grants through BARTD, A-C Transit, the State Division of Highways, the Port of Oakland, and others. In the future, greater emphasis might be given to interface problems as between modes. Some immediate possibilities are apparent: - Service of the Oakland Coliseum, industrial park, and airport complex by an innovative transit extension from the nearby BARTD station. - New watercraft concepts for San Francisco Bay crossings to provide supplemental services for special situations and to connect to integrally designed surface transit in certain areas. - Experimentation with ramp metering of freeways designed to give preferential treatment to bus transit. - Modern bus services designed as integral extensions of rail rapid transit for such areas as Livermore-Pleasanton. - Increasing adoption of multiple use of right-of-way concepts. - Encouragement of experimentation with steam and electric- powered motor vehicles. Over the longer run, downtown cores and other major centers must have specially developed internal circulatory systems, involving concepts and designs that neither present highway nor transit technology now affords. Ultimately, dual-mode systems-vehicles that can be operated both independently and under automated guidance will be developed; the Bay Area should prepare for their earliest practicable introduction. New vehicles or new gadgets are not enough. In fact, as the HUD report states: "Many of the greatest advances in urban transportation lie in areas such as analysis and planning, operations and management, in- ___________________________ 1. See Report of Study Group on Organization and Planning in the Commission's Report, Supplement I. 2. For further detail and supporting material see Report of the Study Group on Innovations and Novel Systems in the Commission's Report, Supplement I. 81 tergovernmental relations, and financing, and in greater understanding of the whole complex social context of urban travel." This statement epitomizes the basic finding of the BATSC Study-the need for continuing study, analysis, planning, and understanding of urban transport requirements. More is needed-an institutional framework with adequate fiscal authority to make it effectual. MANAGEMENT OF REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION 3 The Commission recommends that a regional transportation agency be created in the Bay Area with authority to: - Continue regional transportation study, analysis, and planning. - Exert leadership in development, demonstration, and installation of innovative systems of urban transport. - Work cooperatively with Federal and State agencies to assure that their projects or projects in which they participate are compatible with Bay Area plans and priorities. - Oversee development and operation of all regional transportation facilities to the end that regional goals will be attained and planning programs implemented. The Commission recommends that a limited-purpose but multiple function regional government be created in the Bay Area. It has repeatedly stressed that regional transportation planning and development is less effective than it can be, when conducted in isolation from general regional planning and development. It notes further that transportation planning requires many kinds of data and analyses that ought to be common to all regional planning activities. The Commission recognizes that provision should be made for trade-offs between transportation values and other values within a multiple-purpose, politically responsive and responsible organization. It believes that an elected policy board for a multiple-purpose regional government can best assure appropriate political participation in regional transportation planning and development decisions. If no multiple-purpose regional organization is established at this time, the Commission recommends that a regional transportation agency be established, with essentially the same authority and responsibility over regional transportation that would be delegated to a regional government and exercised by a department of such government. A regional transportation agency, however, should be formulated in such a way that it may readily be absorbed if a broader regional organization is created subsequently; the Legislature might be well advised to make a statement of intention to this effect. Because it would be a single-purpose (albeit, multi-modal) agency and because it might be easier to dissolve later, it is suggested that the governing board be appointive rather than elective, but that arrangements for appointments assure an optimum of political responsiveness and responsibility. Whether single-purpose or part of a multiple-purpose organization, regional transportation administration should have considerable autonomy and adequate authority to carry out its responsibility to meet transportation needs in the Bay Area. Beyond study and planning powers, it should have authority to review and comment on transportation plans and budgets in the Bay Area. It should review all applications for use of State or Federal funds on transportation projects. In so doing, not only should it assure compatibility with regional goals and objectives, but it should eventually establish long-term capital budgets and short-term priorities. It should have primary policy-making authority over major regional highways, Bay crossings, and rapid transit systems. It should be authorized to study other transportation facilities, such as airports and seaports, to determine and advise the Legislature regarding advisability of their inclusion under jurisdiction of the regional transportation administration. It is recognized that in some cases legal and fiscal complications are such that full jurisdiction over transport facilities should not be transferred to regional administration immediately. Further study will be required, and this should be stimulated and made imperative by a forceful statement of legislative intent regarding inclusion of facilities within the regional framework at the earliest opportune time. The real impact of the regional organization, however, will be largely proportional to its financial authority. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION FINANCE4 A plan for development of a balanced system of regional transportation in the Bay Area-and a structure that could bring it about will be of little worth unless simultaneous action is taken to rationalize and augment existing programs of transport finance. The needs are great, the benefits will be greater. But needs will not be met, benefits will not be realized, without new financial arrangements. Fiscal Needs All components of the regional transportation system are in financial difficulty but in varying degree. The State Highway System, which includes freeways that comprise major regional transport arteries, is being financed at much slower rate than was envisioned in 1959; in fact, it now appears that the system may have only about half enough money needed by 1990 to make it adequate to accommodate 1990 traffic demands. The Bay Area component of the State System will fall equally short. Local road and street deficiencies continue to accumulate but at very uneven rates, partly as a result of unresponsive State apportionment formulas. __________________________ 3. For further detail see the Report of the Study Group on Organizationa.d Planning in the Commission's Report, Supplement I, 4. For further detail and supporting material see Report of Study Group on Urban Transportation Finance in the Commission's Supplement II. 82 The financial potential of most Bay Area toll crossings is tied up for many years in already committed projects at present toll rates. Golden Gate Bridge District is working on the immediate and long- range problems within the corridor it serves, with the expectation that financing of solutions will be through bridge tolls and involve long-term financial commitments. Transit's financial needs are not readily quantified, because no agency has responsibility for a region-wide system. In fact, part of transit's problem is that, unlike highways, there has been no systematic evaluation of needs, deficiencies, costs, revenues and benefit data; this situation would be rectified in a continuing program under a regional transportation agency. Transit's financial problems are compounded because, other than fares, it has no assured flow of income, nor any convenient source of public financing such as has been available for highways. Private enterprise has virtually given up on transit operations. BARTD's recent financial problems are well known. The San Francisco Muni and A-C Transit are experiencing increasing operating deficits. Proposals for new operations within the Bay Area hold no promise of being self-supporting. Benefits of Transport Improvement The high costs of needed improvement in the regional transport system will be offset-in most cases more than offset-by direct benefits to users of the system. These benefits will be manifested in savings in operating costs and time, in greater comfort and convenience, and in fewer accidents involving property damage, injury and death. As importantly, they 'II be manifested in the preservation and enhancement of urban mobility which is a primary value of our way of life. Urban Transport Finance-General The Commission is convinced that there is need for substantial acceleration of the rate of financing of all regional transportation facilities in order to provide a balanced system capable of achieving economic, social and aesthetic objectives of the Bay Area. As a general principle users of regional urban transport facilities, as direct beneficiaries, should be required to meet costs. Departure from this principle should be founded on overriding social or planning considerations. The entire thrust of this report suggests that the region should have major authority in determining the course of urban transport development. With such authority should go financial responsibility. But financial responsibility cannot be effectively exercised unless a variety of fiscal options are made available to the region. Financing Facilities for Highway Users Freeways and Major Highways. All freeways and major highway facilities of regional significance should be recognized as facilities for optimum mobility of motor vehicle users and should be financed entirely by such users through special imposts, such as the gasoline tax and motor vehicle fees. General taxes should be reserved for other purposes. In view of the need for substantially accelerated financing, the State should appraise all highway needs on a uniform basis throughout the State and adjust State-imposed highway-user charges accordingly. The State should continue to make available f or expenditure within the Bay Area an equitable share of its user tax collections and Federal aid, but the regional transportation agency should have a major voice and considerable discretion in the use of such funds. In addition, the regional agency should be granted authority to impose taxes on gasoline and motor vehicles to augment urban transportation improvements. Roads and Streets. Local roads and streets are indispensable components of the urban transportation system, serving both highway and transit users. They generate substantial revenues and deserve equitable allocations of such funds for their maintenance and construction. The State should periodically reappraise total allocations and apportionment formulas and adjust them to current conditions. A regional transportation agency should have authority to distribute user taxes it might impose among local governments for local transportation purposes, when such action is found - to contribute to overall balance in the regional transportation system. Bay Crossings. Construction and operating costs of major Bay crossings should continue to be financed by tolls. Authority to finance costs of other urban transport facilities within a particular corridor served by a toll facility should be available for use where it is found that such other facilities will be of benefit to users of the urban transport system within that corridor. A current example is use of Bay Bridge tolls to finance BARTD's subaqueous tube. Similar arrangements should be available for use in the San Francisco-Marin Corridor and perhaps in the longer future for the corridor to be served by a new Dumbarton Bridge. Motor Vehicle Parking. Terminal facilities are an obvious component of a fully "balanced" transportation system. However, the Commission believes that public parking policy is a highly local and individual matter to be decided by communities within the region. It would urge that private enterprise be relied upon to a maximum extent to provide off-street parking. It suggests that parking costs should be met by direct charges or absorbed as a cost of doing business by merchants and employers. It notes an inconsistency in public subsidy of parking when street facilities are heavily congested, and suggests that pricing of parking under market principles would be an appropriate curb on excessive vehicle use in some circumstances. However, multiple use of rights-of-way including use for parking should be encouraged in the interests of economy and land conservation (although pricing principles should still be applicable). Parking in connection with transit stations should be regarded as a matter of transit policy in which impact on transit costs and usage are key Considerations. 83 Summary Note. The Commission believes that all facilities of regional significance for the direct use of motor vehicles can and should be financed by the users through special charges as gasoline taxes, motor vehicle fees, tolls, and parking fees. General taxes are not needed to support these facilities. While the Commission would have highway users pay their way and sometimes more to support complementary urban transport facilities in certain circumstances-it does not advocate penalty charges specifically for the purpose of discouraging highway use. It does suggest, however, that further research in pricing principles and techniques be conducted. Financing Facilities for Transit Users Highway facilities have a built-in and acceptable form of financing (gasoline taxes, motor vehicle fees, tolls, parking charges, etc.) and consequently an assured flow of public funds. Public transit has neither, for it is now quite evident that public transit of the quality desired to meet social and environmental planning objectives cannot meet its full costs from farebox revenues. Thus, it needs financial support from general taxes or from other users of the urban transportation system-possibly from both sources. Intermodal Financing. The California Constitution requires that gasoline taxes and motor vehicle fees be used directly and exclusively for highway purposes (without clearly defining the term). To the extent legally possible it is recommended that a liberal construction be used in defining highway purposes. For example, the use of highway funds to provide preferential treatment to highway vehicles furnishing transit services should be encouraged (for financing reserved lanes, priority metering of ramps, highway transit grade separations, etc.). Beyond this, however, constitutional reform is desirable. It should be possible to use highway-user taxes for any urban transportation purpose. At the same time, any possible constitutional impediment against imposition of gasoline and motor vehicle taxes at a regional level should be removed. Both the State Legislature and the regional transportation board should have discretion to finance transportation facilities in a system context. It would be inappropriate to set forth in advance any definition or rule for use of such revenues as between highways and other transport purposes. For one thing, a proper division of costs between transit users and other financial contributors cannot be established arbitrarily but must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Then, too, as to non-operating revenue support of transit, a combination of general and special taxes and charges may be found appropriate as determined in specific cases. One thing is certain. Conditions vary from time to time and place to place within a region as dynamic and diverse as the Bay Area. A financial formula found acceptable for one time and place may be quite inappropriate in another. Subregional arrangements often may be found advisable. In some areas highway needs will be paramount; in other areas a transit emphasis will be indicated'. Our basic concern is that provision be made for adaptability in financing so that each situation can be considered on its merits and distortions induced by financial arrangements may be avoided. It is assumed, of course, that responsible policy-makers will not ,abuse their discretion; they will be dedicated to balance in the transportation system based upon careful evaluation of alternatives; they will weigh all consequences of choices on social and economic conditions as the physical environment; and they will consider equity in distribution of financial burdens among users of the urban transport system as well as among the populace in general. General Taxation for Transit. Provision of the opportunity to use highway funds for other urban transport purposes is an important step in equipping the Bay Area to cope with its transport needs, but additional authority is needed. Highway needs are mount- ing and must continue to absorb a substantial fraction of highway funds that be available. The non-rider burden of transit support should be distributed among all beneficiaries of the system and not solely among motor vehicle users. It should be recognized that transit improvement is justified largely in social and environmental terms. Some portion of the burden should rest upon general taxation. It is urged that the Legislature make a variety of general taxing tools available to the region. Among possible sources amenable to regional imposition are: general and selective sales taxes, personal income and payroll taxes, and business and utility gross revenue taxes. In addition, property taxation, especially land-value taxation, should not be ignored as a potential source of urban transport finance over the long run, It has been used traditionally and for good reason-to finance urban transportation needs. It is now heavily burdened for other than transport purposes, but if widely advocated via or State and local tax reform is accomplished and the property tax is thereby relieved of much of its present burdens, it could again be regarded as an acceptable supplementary source of urban transport finance. Along with other tools the regional transportation agency should have limited access to property taxes, and authority to differentiate between taxation of land and other property Financial Planning Provision should be made in the ongoing transportation planning process for in-depth consideration of financial conditions and problems. Research should be conducted looking toward increasingly sophisticated fiscal and economic policies for urban transportation, based upon improved techniques of evaluating needs, establishing priorities, raising user and nonuser revenues, and perhaps pricing to control congestion in certain circumstances. The regional transportation agency should be empowered to coordinate financing and mediate problems where jurisdictional conflicts among operating 84 agencies may arise. It should be the clearinghouse for applications to Federal agencies for urban transportation grants and should exercise surveillance over demonstration projects. It should make economic appraisals of proposed improvements or curtailments of regional transport facilities based upon evaluations of total costs and total consequences regardless of source of funds. Competent financial planning will be a principal means by which the Bay Area can achieve its regional transportation goals. A FINAL NOTE Ponder these questions: When our nation is so affluent why are our urban areas (in which the bulk of wealth resides) so poor? If urban mobility is a cherished value, if we are willing and able to spend billions through the private sector to achieve it, if bene- fits of urban transport improvements demonstrably outweigh costs, why is our urban transport system so obviously deficient? If we unanimously applaud the concept of "balanced transportation," why is it so difficult to find consensus on what it is? If all agree that transport development should promote other community values and aspirations, if all agree that transportation planning should be totally coordinated with general planning, why are we not fully accomplishing these ends? The answers are to be found in defects in present institutional arrangements. Nine counties, more than 90 cities, many special districts, cannot provide the regional framework within which major urban transport problems can be satisfactorily resolved. Neither can the State or the Federal Government, remote as each is from immediate issues of individual urban areas, required as each is to follow quite uniform criteria, standards and formulas to cope with problems of diverse regions. Then, too, it is difficult perhaps impossible-to develop a true system of urban transportation when individual components are planned, financed and developed separately. The Commission has presented a guide for urban transport development in the Bay Area. More importantly, it has suggested changes in institutional arrangements that give a key role to a regional structure for planning, for management, and for finance of urban transportation. With appropriate responsibility and authority the region can resolve its urban transport problems compatibly with its larger goals and aspirations. Without them the burden is likely to shift to the State or Federal levels to be exercised in ways that may be less then optimal from the regional point of view. Our proposals respond to present and future needs of the region and will make the Bay Area a more desirable place in which to live.