SOUTH HAYWARD BART ACCESS STUDY - Eden Housing · 2013-06-21 · South Hayward BART Access Study • Draft Report SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT Table of Contents (continued)

SOUTH HAYWARDBART ACCESS STUDY

DRAFT REPORT July 2010

S o u t h H a y w a r d B A R T A c c e s s S t u d y • D r a f t R e p o r t

S A N F R A N C I S C O B A Y A R E A R A P I D T R A N S I T

Page i • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Table of Contents

Page

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................... ES-1 Study Overview ................................................................................................................................................. ES-1 Considerations .................................................................................................................................................. ES-1 BART Ridership, Access, and Parking Analysis ............................................................................................... ES-3 Additional Access and TDM Strategies ............................................................................................................. ES-4 Implementation .................................................................................................................................................. ES5

Chapter 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1-1 Key Issues .......................................................................................................................................................... 1-2 Report Structure .................................................................................................................................................. 1-3

Chapter 2. Study Process ....................................................................................................................................... 2-1 Project Partners .................................................................................................................................................. 2-1 Community Outreach .......................................................................................................................................... 2-1

Chapter 3. Policy Framework ................................................................................................................................. 3-1 Policy Framework & Planning Process ............................................................................................................... 3-1 General BART Guidelines ................................................................................................................................... 3-2 Local Plan and Policy Documents ....................................................................................................................... 3-4

Chapter 4. Land Use Conditions and Future Site Development ......................................................................... 4-1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................................. 4-1 Planned Land Use Changes ............................................................................................................................... 4-2

Chapter 5. Transportation Conditions and Key Issues ....................................................................................... 5-1 Pedestrian Facilities and Conditions ................................................................................................................... 5-1 Bicycle Facilities and Conditions ......................................................................................................................... 5-8 Kiss-and-Ride and Taxi Facilities ........................................................................................................................ 5-8 Bus and Shuttle Services .................................................................................................................................... 5-9 San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) ................................................................................................ 5-13 Station and Neighborhood Parking ................................................................................................................... 5-14

Chapter 6. South Hayward BART Ridership, Access, and Parking Analysis .................................................... 6-1 Population and Employment Assumptions .......................................................................................................... 6-2 Development and Access Scenario Descriptions ................................................................................................ 6-4 Comparison of Scenarios .................................................................................................................................... 6-7

Chapter 7. Additional Access & TDM Strategies ................................................................................................. 7-1 Preferred TOD Site Plan ..................................................................................................................................... 7-1 Pedestrian and Bicycle Strategies ...................................................................................................................... 7-1 Taxis and Kiss-and-Ride ................................................................................................................................... 7-11 Buses and Shuttles ........................................................................................................................................... 7-11 Vehicular Access and Parking .......................................................................................................................... 7-12 TDM Strategies ................................................................................................................................................. 7-16

Chapter 8. Implementation ..................................................................................................................................... 8-1 Prioritized List of Access Strategies .................................................................................................................... 8-1 Creation of a Joint Powers Authority ................................................................................................................... 8-3 Funding Strategies .............................................................................................................................................. 8-3



Table of Contents (continued) Page

Page ii • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Appendix A – Documents from public meetings, agendas, public comment and related materials

Appendix B – South Hayward Alternative Access Plan from Sherman Lewis (Hayward Area Planning Association)



Page iii • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Table of Figures Page

Figure ES-1 Development Scenarios .................................................................................................................. ES-4 Figure 3-1 BART Access Hierarchy .................................................................................................................... 3-3 Figure 4-1 South Hayward BART Station Area and Neighborhood Destinations ............................................... 4-3 Figure 4-2 Existing Land Uses near South Hayward BART ............................................................................... 4-4 Figure 4-3 South Hayward Station: Home Locations of BART Riders by Mode ................................................. 4-5 Figure 4-4 Existing South Hayward BART Property ........................................................................................... 4-6 Figure 4-5 Population and Employment around the South Hayward Station in 2008 and 2020 ......................... 4-7 Figure 4-6 Proposed South Hayward Mixed-Use (SHMU) Site Plan and Phasing ............................................. 4-8 Figure 5-1 Pedestrian Barriers and Challenges in Vicinity of South Hayward BART Station ............................. 5-3 Figure 5-2 10th Street at Tennyson (End of Nuestro Parquecito) ...................................................................... 5-5 Figure 5-3 Informal Paths Leading from 10th Street towards Tennyson and Under Bridge ................................ 5-5 Figure 5-4 Proposed lane configuration and cross section as part of Route 238 Corridor

Improvement Project ......................................................................................................................... 5-6 Figure 5-5 South Hayward BART Walking Distances......................................................................................... 5-7 Figure 5-6 Existing Bicycle Facilities in the South Hayward BART Vicinity ........................................................ 5-8 Figure 5-7 Taxi Stand at the South Hayward BART Station ............................................................................... 5-9 Figure 5-8 Private Shuttles Operating at the South Hayward BART Station .................................................... 5-10 Figure 5-9 Current AC Transit Service in the South Hayward BART Station Vicinity ....................................... 5-11 Figure 5-10 AC Transit Service To or Near South Hayward BART .................................................................... 5-12 Figure 5-11 Access Mode to the South Hayward BART Station (Home Origins) ............................................... 5-14 Figure 5-12 South Hayward Parking Survey Study Area.................................................................................... 5-15 Figure 5-13 On-Street Parking Occupancy within Half-Mile Radius ................................................................... 5-17 Figure 5-14 BART Parking Lot and Dixon Street Occupancy ............................................................................. 5-17 Figure 6-1 Development Scenarios .................................................................................................................... 6-1 Figure 6-2 Population and Employment Projections in the South Hayward Station Area in 2020 ...................... 6-2 Figure 6-3 Existing and Potential On-street Parking Utilization .......................................................................... 6-4 Figure 6-4 Ridership and Access Modes ............................................................................................................ 6-7 Figure 6-5 BRM-Projected Passengers by Access Mode: No-Project and Scenario C ...................................... 6-9 Figure 6-6 Estimated BART Boardings Retained due to Proposed Shuttle ...................................................... 6-10 Figure 6-7 Parking Supply and Housing Supply ............................................................................................... 6-11 Figure 6-8 Potential Land Value and Land Rent .............................................................................................. 6-12 Figure 6-9 Parking Revenue ............................................................................................................................ 6-13 Figure 6-10 On-site Parking Costs ..................................................................................................................... 6-14 Figure 6-11 Shuttle Operations Costs ................................................................................................................ 6-15 Figure 6-12 Fare Revenue ................................................................................................................................. 6-15 Figure 6-13 Total Fiscal Impact .......................................................................................................................... 6-16 Figure 7-1 Preferred TOD Site Plan ................................................................................................................... 7-2 Figure 7-2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Access and Circulation Concept .................................................................. 7-4 Figure 7-3 Existing and New Streets (highlighted) in the Vicinity of the BART Station ....................................... 7-7 Figure 7-4 Proposed Bicycle Master Plan Recommendations ........................................................................... 7-8 Figure 7-5 Multi-Purpose Connections including Bike and Pedestrian Links ..................................................... 7-9 Figure 7-6 Access to and from Bus Intermodal Center on Street A .................................................................. 7-13



Table of Figures (continued) Page

Page iv • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Figure 7-7 General Vehicular TOD Site Access ................................................................................................ 7-14 Figure 7-8 Potential Parking Benefit Districts .................................................................................................... 7-17 Figure 8-1 Proposed Access Improvements to the South Hayward BART Station and Neighborhood ............. 8-1 Figure 8-2 Local and Regional Funding Programs for Station-Area Improvements ............................................ 8-4 Figure 8-3 State and Federal Funding Programs ................................................................................................ 8-6



Page ES-1 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Executive Summary Study Overview The South Hayward BART Station Area has great potential to accommodate new transit-oriented development, particularly if this new development is combined with general access improvements at and around the station. Several planning studies have recently been conducted to assist in guiding the potential growth around the station and present recommendations for other improvements. The purpose of the South Hayward BART Access Study is to complement these planning efforts and to supplement them with specific guidance and recommendations for the South Hayward BART Site. The primary goals for this study include the following:

Integrate the approved South Hayward Mixed Use project (SHMU) into the adjacent neighborhoods by improving access for all modes

Support planned land use and population growth and transportation improvements in the coming years

Increase transit ridership

Increase multiple-occupancy vehicle access to BART

Upgrade pedestrian and bicycle access facilities at and near the station

Provide adequate taxi and passenger drop-off facilities

Identify appropriate transportation demand management (TDM) strategies targeting BART patrons and the SHMU

Considerations Community Feedback and Local Stakeholders Local involvement and feedback from stakeholders has been a critical component of the planning process for the South Hayward BART Station Area. Beginning in 2004 and continuing to the present day, public outreach efforts have included Planning Commission and City Council meetings, work sessions, and community workshops.

Numerous project partners and stakeholders have also been directly involved throughout development of this Access Study and have provided valuable insights and expertise to the project team. These partners include:

BART

AC Transit

City of Hayward

Wittek Development and the Montana Property Group

Eden Housing

Dr. Sherman Lewis, President of the Hayward Area Planning Association (HAPA)




Existing Policy Framework The South Hayward BART Access Study project team has drawn on a range of planning efforts that encompass recently completed local plans and larger regional planning efforts. This step is critical in ensuring that a future vision for the South Hayward BART Station is both consistent with and complementary to the established land use goals for the Station Area, the City of Hayward, and the Bay Area as a whole. The breadth of plans that have been reviewed for the purposes of this report can be found in Chapter 3, Policy Framework. These plans have been authored by numerous agencies, including the City of Hayward, BART, AC Transit, and VTA, among others.

Land Use and Future Development With regard to existing land use, the area in the direct vicinity of the South Hayward BART Station is largely residential while the Mission Boulevard corridor, located slightly to the east of the BART Station, is predominately commercial and includes a variety of businesses ranging from restaurants, hotels, and auto body shops to local services. The area surrounding the BART station has a number of major points of origin and destinations, including large residential complexes, schools, and recreational facilities. A detailed map showing existing land uses can be found in Figure 4-2 in Chapter 4.

The first major project planned and approved for the South Hayward BART/Mission Boulevard area is the SHMU development on the South Hayward BART Station property and parking lots, and the former Perry & Key site. The project will center on Dixon Street, bordered by the BART station and tracks to the west, Tennyson Road to the north, Mission Boulevard to the east and residential parcels to the south. The project will replace the current parking lots and former Perry & Key site with a mixed-use development featuring a mix of market rate and below-market rate family and senior housing, retail uses, and structured parking to support all planned uses.

The SHMU development will be governed by the Planned Development District approved in March of 2009 and will follow basic guidelines that were outlined in the South Hayward BART/Mission Boulevard Concept Plan, which was adopted by the City of Hayward in June 2006, as well as concepts contained in the draft South Hayward BART/Mission Boulevard Form-Based Code, anticipated for adoption by the Hayward City Council in early 2011.

The SHMU project will provide dense, urban and walkable, transit-oriented development at the station, and new retail that aims to meet community needs in a currently underserved area of Hayward. It is anticipated that the project would stimulate future development along similar smart growth lines in the surrounding area. More information regarding the SHMU can be found in Chapter 4.

Transportation Conditions and Key Issues As a regional rail station and intermodal transfer facility, transportation access and transportation conditions at the South Hayward BART Station are critical components of this study. Transportation access encompasses a variety of modes, including walking, bicycling, transit, ridesharing and driving. Further detail on these modes and their unique interactions with the South Hayward BART Station can be found in Chapter 5.

According to the 2008 BART Station Profile Survey, approximately 13% of all home origin patrons entering the South Hayward BART Station arrive on foot. Despite having a relatively complete pedestrian network in the study area, including generally adequate sidewalks and easy crossings, the area does have several significant barriers that make walking to the BART station complicated and, in some cases, dangerous. Examples include the BART and Union Pacific Rail




Road (UPRR) tracks, Mission Boulevard and Tennyson Road. Approximately 2% of all home origin patrons entering the South Hayward BART Station arrive by bicycle. The station vicinity has several bicycle facilities including bike lanes and bike routes that provide access to the station. The station itself has bicycle parking that is comparable in supply to other stations of similar character in the BART system. Of the 30 bike lockers available at the BART Station, 18 are currently rented.

AC Transit provides eight routes that directly service the South Hayward BART Station. These routes provide service to adjacent and nearby East Bay cities. However, service has been recently decreased due to budget cuts. The most recent service reductions occurred in May 2010. Further information about current routes and service frequencies can be found in Figure 5-10 in Chapter 5. Based on transfer analysis, it was found that about 60% of transfers at the South Hayward BART Station are to and from BART.

A key transportation component that interrelates to future development potential at the station involves local station parking. The South Hayward BART Station is unique amongst the BART system as it is one of few stations where parking demand is lower than its available supply of 1252 spaces on typical weekdays.

BART Ridership, Access, and Parking Analysis This study explores the impacts of the planned SHMU development on BART ridership, costs, and revenue. It considers four alternatives for development of the site, examining impacts for each scenario in the year 2020. The scenarios include and are summarized in Figure ES-1:

No-Project: A ‘no-project’ scenario in which the proposed SHMU development is not built and BART parking and access is retained largely in its current form.

Scenario A: A project development scenario in which the SHMU development is built in the form approved by the Hayward City Council on March 17, 2009. The development would consist of 788 housing units and 60,000 square feet of commercial space (consisting mostly of a supermarket). The existing surface parking lots would be eliminated, and a planned seven-level, 910-space parking structure would replace 73% of the existing BART-dedicated parking supply. Additional parking would be available for BART patrons through carefully regulated and managed parking on neighborhood streets.

Scenario B: A modified SHMU project development scenario in which the East Lot would be retained as a surface parking lot. In this scenario, a total of 681 housing units could be built. Between the planned 910-space parking structure and the spaces available in the East Lot, 87% of the existing dedicated BART parking supply would be replaced. Additional parking may be available for BART patrons through carefully regulated and managed parking on neighborhood streets.

Scenario C: A modified SHMU project development scenario in which 886 housing units would be built, and no dedicated BART parking would be replaced on-site. In this scenario, an equivalent of 910 spaces would be provided in satellite parking facilities along the Tennyson Road, Industrial Parkway and Mission Boulevard corridors, and a free shuttle would provide service between these satellite parking lots and the BART station.




Figure ES-1 Development Scenarios

No Scenario Scenario Scenario

project A B C

Number of Housing Units 0 788 681 886

Commercial Square Footage 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000

On-Site BART Parking 1,252 910 1,083 0

Satellite Parking 0 0 0 910

% Replacement Parking 100% 73% 87% 73%

The ridership and fiscal analysis provided in this report was developed using the recently developed BART Ridership Model (BRM) and the fiscal portion of Professor Rick Willson’s and BART’s Access Policy Methodology. Based on this analysis, the proposed Scenario A appears to provide the best balance of BART ridership, positive fiscal impacts for BART, access modes and TOD in keeping with BART policies, and development potential for the station area. The scenario includes 788 units of new housing and more than 60,000 square feet of new retail, as well as replacement of 73% of the existing surface parking supply in a fully-funded structure. It may also include the introduction of regulated and managed on-street parking in the existing neighborhoods surrounding the Station in order to provide additional parking for BART riders while ensuring adequate parking availability for neighborhood residents.

Additional Access and TDM Strategies The preferred Scenario A will be accompanied by an array of access improvements and parking and transportation demand management strategies, as described below. These improvements and strategies will further the success of the area, as more people will want to access the station and the surroundings by foot, bicycle, transit, and high-occupancy vehicles.

Priority Projects and TDM Strategies Multiple projects and TDM strategies will address the existing and future access demands of the Station Area. Through increased connections (multi-use pathways, new streets, and bus/shuttle services), parking facilities (bike parking, shared parking, unbundled parking, metered parking), and programs (ecopasses, parking cash out, TDM marketing coordination, etc.), access to the station and through the neighborhood will improve and meet the growing population’s needs.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Access An enhanced transit plaza in front of the station will extend along Street B as an enhanced streetscape connecting the station with Dixon Street. The City of Hayward has recently been awarded a Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) grant by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for the transit plaza improvements and associated access improvements. Street B will have wide sidewalks along the supermarket on the north side and the live/work units on the south side, thus providing a “gateway” to the station. Due to the north-south alignment of the BART tracks and the parallel Union Pacific tracks, access going east and west in the vicinity of the station is challenging. Recommendations include upgrading existing overpasses and underpasses to ensure safety and universal access, and improving facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians in the larger station area. In addition, creating additional streets to reduce block




sizes, as shown in the draft South Hayward BART/Mission Boulevard Form-Based Code, will enable better mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists in the station area.

Transit, Kiss-and-Ride and Taxi Access Regarding bus access, the seven bus bays and one paratransit stop proposed in the plan are adequate and can handle increased demand through increased bus service with shorter headways and by potentially having multiple routes sharing the same stops. Kiss and Ride and taxi facilities will have adequate space to handle current and future demand.

Vehicular Access and Parking For traffic entering the site from the west, access will be provided through Tennyson Road with entry on Street A, with traffic from all other directions entering the site through Dixon Street with entry on Street B and Street C. In order to avoid negative impacts on on-street parking in the surrounding neighborhoods due to a reduced on-site BART parking supply, various parking management strategies can be implemented. The parking measures that can be implemented include residential parking permit districts, residential parking benefit districts that would include parking fees, and time limited parking. If either of these programs generates revenue, beyond what is needed to operate and maintain the program, consideration should be given whether a portion of this net revenue could fund public improvements in the surrounding neighborhoods.

TDM Strategies TDM policy strategies will help reduce the parking demand through incentives and education of other transportation options. Programs recommended include ecopasses for senior and affordable housing residents in the development, as well as in other new developments in the station area, parking cash-out for employee parking, carsharing with one or two dedicated carsharing spaces for use by residents, BART patrons and employees in the neighborhood, and TDM marketing coordination to better inform new and existing residents of the many transportation options, and how they may benefit them.

Implementation Joint Powers Authority In order to best manage multimodal access to and from the TOD site, a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) between BART, the City of Hayward and the Hayward Redevelopment Agency may be the best solution.

Prioritized List of Access Strategies With the abundant number of access strategies recommended and the varied costs of implementing each strategy, a prioritized list creates a foundation for which strategies should be implemented early on in the process, and which strategies will have the greatest impact on creating a true transit-oriented development. Figure 8-1 shows a list of strategies, organized by mode, to help determine the strategies on which to focus.




Funding Strategies Given the current economic climate and with many government budgets constrained, finding funding sources for access projects can often be challenging amidst other community priorities. The Bay Area is unique in its funding programs, which can specifically be used for safety projects, particularly those related to non-motorized modes. In addition, there are several other strategies that can be employed that may be able to assist in funding transportation projects, including revenue from metered parking and parking benefit districts. More detailed analysis of potential funding sources, including parking pricing revenue, may need to be conducted by the project partners in later phases of the SHMU development.



Page 1-1 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Chapter 1. Introduction This study provides a summary of key access issues, opportunities, constraints and recommended improvements at and around the South Hayward BART Station as it transforms into a transit-oriented development (TOD) over coming years. A new mixed-use development, hereafter referred to as the South Hayward Mixed Use project (“SHMU” or the “Project”), will replace the existing BART surface parking lots and redevelop an adjacent site owned by the Project developer.

The recommendations herein are the result of an inclusive community design process undertaken beginning in 2004 with support by elected officials and local agencies. The SHMU project itself is in alignment with actions identified in the 2009 City of Hayward Climate Action Plan that seek to reduce automobile use and vehicle miles travelled, and responds directly to the wishes expressed by the community and neighborhood in public meetings. The City of Hayward, BART, and the developer team have created a strong partnership over recent years to ensure that the site is developed according to true transit-oriented design concepts and standards.

The purpose of this study is to identify, evaluate and prioritize strategies to:

Integrate the proposed SHMU into the adjacent neighborhoods:

Improve the safety and convenience of bicycle and pedestrian linkages to adjacent South Hayward neighborhoods

Maximize opportunities for enhanced transit, bicycle and pedestrian access to and from the station area, including access to the proposed retail amenities

Support planned land use and population growth and transportation improvements in the coming years

Increase transit ridership:

Sustain and increase BART ridership and activity at the South Hayward BART Station

Expand ridership during off-peak hours and to nearby and key destinations

Enhance all transit ridership within the catchment area of the SHMU, including AC Transit and other existing transit services

Identify opportunities for enhanced transit services feeding the South Hayward BART Station, including funding and institutional arrangements and transit linkages

Minimize car use and ownership within the SHMU

Increase multiple-occupancy vehicle access to BART

Upgrade pedestrian and bicycle access facilities at and near the station

Provide adequate taxi and passenger drop-off facilities

Identify appropriate transportation demand management (TDM) strategies targeting BART patrons and the SHMU

This study refers to three distinct areas surrounding the Station:

Study area, which covers the larger catchment area for the Station, including all trip origins from surrounding communities




Station area, which covers the ½-mile radius around the station, and in which new and additional transit-oriented development can be located

SHMU (or “the Project”), which will be situated on the existing BART surface parking lots and the adjacent private property (“Perry & Key”) to the east that fronts onto Mission Boulevard

Key Issues The City of Hayward and BART are taking advantage of infill and redevelopment opportunities to foster a positive quality of life through economic revitalization, housing options, multi-modal transportation and access to jobs and services around the South Hayward BART Station. Some of the key transportation issues that will need to be resolved are:

Parking and automobile access. South Hayward is one of the few stations where BART commuter parking does not currently fill to capacity. Coupled with BART’s access policies to reduce the percent of commuters accessing the station via single occupant vehicles, this suggests that there is some flexibility in determining the optimum number of replacement parking spaces that will be required once the existing parking lots are replaced by the SHMU. Carpooling and kiss-and-ride strategies are critical components in reducing the need for single occupant vehicle access to the station. In addition, experience with residential transit-oriented developments shows that without appropriate design or incentives to own fewer vehicles (e.g. parking pricing or a robust transportation demand management program), most households will still own two vehicles, even if they commute via BART. However, it is of great importance that future spillover parking be regulated and managed to minimize potential negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods. This can be mitigated by establishing residential parking permit and benefit districts and implementing other parking strategies, which are further described later in this report.

Transit access. BART’s station access guidelines stress that bus intermodal facilities need to be as close as possible to the station, and the SHMU site plan adheres to this recommendation. For several routes, particularly Mission Boulevard services that stop at the station, it is important to reduce travel time by ensuring that bus access is as efficient as possible. While the existing AC Transit network provides good coverage, there may be opportunities to provide more frequent service in some corridors.

Pedestrian and bicycle access. Dixon Street, Tennyson Road, and Industrial Parkway are the three key streets that need to accommodate bicycles, in line with the City of Hayward’s Bicycle Master Plan. All three streets are already designated bicycle facilities, but further access improvements can be made. Tennyson Road in particular is an important east-west connector in this southern area of Hayward, and connects to Whitman Street (for downtown access) and Huntwood Avenue (for trips to the north and south). For pedestrians, Dixon Street, which will be the main spine of the TOD, Mission Boulevard, and Tennyson Road provide critical links to the surroundings. As Mission Boulevard redevelops, its importance for pedestrians will likely grow, and will need to be addressed as a commercial street as well as an arterial.




Report Structure The report includes the following sections:

Summary of the planning process, focusing on project partner coordination and community engagement

Land use and transportation policy framework, describing relevant land use and transportation and access policies, plans and documents

Land use conditions and key issues, focusing on existing conditions, key destinations and trip generators within the half-mile study area and BART catchment area, as well as a summary of planned future growth in the study area

Transportation facilities, services and key issues, including an overview of existing facilities and conditions

BART ridership, access and parking analysis, including key assumptions and scenarios with and without the Project

Additional access and transportation demand management (TDM) strategies, including specific access improvements from the various planning documents that would support the project, as well as other access strategies

Implementation, which focuses on a tiered list of specific key access strategies, schedule, costs, funding sources, and responsible party, followed by a discussion of the potential for a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) to manage parking and/or access programs




This page intentionally left blank.




Chapter 2. Study Process Project Partners The access study was conducted with input from and in coordination with BART and the following partner agencies and stakeholders:

BART (Planning, Property Development, Customer Access, Maintenance & Engineering, Transportation, Police, System Safety and Transit System Development Departments)

AC Transit

City of Hayward (Public Works Department, Redevelopment Agency, and Development Services Department)

Wittek Development and the Montana Property Group

Eden Housing

Dr. Sherman Lewis, President of the Hayward Area Planning Association (HAPA)

The first issue the design team reviewed related to parking within the development. The team also discussed three alternative parking replacement scenarios that would address overall parking needs for BART commuters, the SHMU residents, retail employees and customers, and neighborhood residents.

The second issue that the design team sought to resolve related to site circulation and the bus intermodal design. The circulation framework has fundamental implications for the development alternatives. Furthermore, planning for existing and future pedestrian, universal, bicycle, transit and vehicular access, along with personal safety and security aspects, was discussed.

Other issues, including discussion of a Joint Powers Authority, parking pricing, and details of urban design were also discussed in meetings between all or some of the stakeholders.

Community Outreach Prior Community Outreach The proposed SHMU development is the result of an inclusive community design process with a wide range of stakeholders, which culminated with the adoption of the South Hayward BART/Mission Boulevard Concept Design Plan and related amendments to the City of Hayward Zoning Ordinance and General Plan in June of 2006. As shown in documentation found in Appendix A, the project is supported by elected officials and local agencies. More importantly, the project itself responds directly to the wishes expressed by the local community and neighborhood as noted through a series of five community meetings, two public hearings, and a Hayward City Council work session.

City staff, with their partners at BART, began the visioning and planning process for the neighborhood in November 2004. The City assembled a Technical Advisory Group (TAG), consisting of City staff from the Community and Economic Development Department, the Redevelopment Agency, and the Public Works Department. In addition to BART, representatives from AC Transit were also active members. The TAG met approximately once a month.

The City then hosted three community meetings to gather input from the neighborhood, community leaders and residents. The first meeting was held in January of 2005 and served as a




kick-off to the project and a review of existing conditions. The second community meeting was held in June of 2005 where participants were asked to review two preliminary land use scenarios and give feedback. BART hosted a community workshop in September of 2005 that specifically dealt with the BART properties. A final City-hosted community workshop was held in the first quarter of 2006, following the release of the public review draft of the Concept Design Plan. On average, 60 to 70 participants were in attendance at each meeting.

An additional neighborhood meeting, held by Wittek Development and Eden Housing in December 2008, included presentation of a site plan and development design for the proposed SHMU. All residents living within 300 feet of the project were mailed invitations to attend this meeting.

Many of the Concept Design Plan neighborhood/community meetings were held in the United Food and Commercial Workers (Local 870) Union Hall located along Mission Boulevard in the Concept Design Plan area. Local 870 is a union that represents a wide range of retail and food service workers in the region.

A City Council study session on the proposed SHMU was held on November 18, 2008. The staff report provided at the study session included a detailed development description including a site plan and affordability levels —including rents and incomes served. This report was distributed to community members in attendance and can be found in Appendix A. In addition to being handed out at the study sessions, all information was made available in an easily accessible format on the City of Hayward’s website.

Materials from each of the following meetings, including agendas, sign-in sheets, handouts and public comments, are included in Appendix A of this report. The following dates represent various community outreach events held by the project team and City of Hayward events where public comment could be received on the Concept Design Plan and the SHMU project.

January 19, 2005: South Hayward BART / Mission Boulevard Concept Plan Community Meeting #1

July 15, 2005: South Hayward BART / Mission Boulevard Concept Plan Community Meeting #2

September 14, 2005: South Hayward BART Properties Meeting (hosted by BART)

February 15, 2006: South Hayward BART / Mission Boulevard Concept Plan Community Meeting #3

June 8, 2006: Hayward City Council/Planning Commission Joint Work Session on the draft Concept Design Plan

June 15, 2006: Hayward Planning Commission Public Hearing on the Concept Design Plan and related Environmental Impact Report and Amendments to the Hayward General Plan and Zoning Ordinance

June 26, 2006: Hayward City Council Public Hearing on the Concept Design Plan and related Environmental Impact Report and Amendments to the Hayward General Plan and Zoning Ordinance

November 18, 2008: Hayward City Council Work Session on the proposed SHMU project

December 8, 2008: Community Meeting on the proposed SHMU project

February 19, 2009: Hayward Planning Commission Public Hearing on the proposed SHMU project and related Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Document




March 17, 2009: Hayward City Council Public Hearing on the proposed SHMU project and related Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Document

Hayward Area Planning Association The project team met with Sherman Lewis, President of the Hayward Area Planning Association (HAPA), in March 2010 and has had subsequent correspondence with him on several occasions. Dr. Lewis has developed an extensive alternative access plan that he argues would eliminate the need for the BART replacement parking structure. Dr. Lewis proposes to use the Proposition 1C funds currently allocated to the BART replacement parking structure to support alternative access, which consists of four policies: 1) shared paid parking at the BART station; 2) fast, frequent, free shuttles to the station; 3) arrangements for remote shuttle parking; and 4) advocating for more housing in the SHMU. According to Dr. Lewis, this alternative access approach supports sustainable growth due to the high capacity of the proposed shuttle system. He acknowledges that there are several issues that need to be resolved in order for this proposal to come to fruition. According to Dr. Lewis, these institutional barriers can only be overcome by political will to study the alternative access proposal. He also states that the State of California is willing to consider this alternative use of the Proposition 1C funds. At this time, this has only been verbally discussed with State officials, and no formal application or approval has been made.

Dr. Lewis asserts in his analysis that the alternative access proposal would further benefit the project’s economy and environment, and that the TOD would be more livable using improved alternative access policies, including zoning deregulation, unbundling of parking, shared parking, additional parking management, ecopasses, improved design for walking, bicycling, transit, and rapid shuttles, incorporation of carsharing, and expanded ridesharing programs. He contends that the alternative access proposal would increase access to BART, obviate the rationale for the BART parking structure, and provide for more growth at a lower cost. Mr. Lewis’ analysis is further described in Appendix B and in Scenario C in Chapter 6.

Recent Public Outreach The preliminary findings of the draft Access Plan have been discussed with BART Directors Franklin and Blalock in July 2010. Furthermore, Dr. Sherman Lewis received the draft Access Plan for review and initial feedback in July, 2010. On August 4, 2010 a community workshop will be convened at Moreau High School for the general public to review the study findings, with focused attention on access and site design issues within the station area. Comments will be incorporated into the report before the draft Access Plan is presented to the BART Board of Directors on August 26, 2010 and to the Hayward City Council on September 14, 2010. Comments received at these sessions will be incorporated into the final Access Plan.








Chapter 3. Policy Framework This chapter outlines existing plans and policies that have been developed to provide guidance for future growth at and around the South Hayward BART Station. This compilation of documents represents work completed at the project-planning, local, and regional levels of analysis.

Policy Framework & Planning Process The South Hayward BART Access Study project team has drawn on a range of planning efforts. Some of the most important sources include local and regional plans, such as:

City of Hayward South Hayward BART/Mission Boulevard Concept Design Plan (2006)

The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the South Hayward BART/Mission Boulevard Concept Design Plan (2006)

Approved Preliminary Development Plans for the SHMU and related staff reports, Planning Commission and Council actions, and Conditions of Approval (March 2009)

The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the SHMU (March 2009)

City of Hayward Station Area Residential Zoning District standards and other related Zoning Code provisions

South Hayward BART/Mission Boulevard Form-Based Code, Draft (2010)

Available studies and concept drawings related to a proposed pedestrian/bicycle link across Tennyson at the South Hayward BART Station

City of Hayward General Plan (2002)

City of Hayward Bicycle Master Plan (2007)

City of Hayward’s Route 238 Corridor Improvement Project Final Environmental Impact Report (2007)

Bus/shuttle transit operations data (including AC Transit) (2010)

BART South Hayward BART Development, Design, and Access Plan (2006)

BART Station Profile Survey (2008)

BART Ridership Model documentation (2010)

Access BART Study of the BART A-Line (2005)

BART Bicycle Access and Parking Plan, Vol. 1 (2002)

BART Transit-Oriented Development Guidelines (2003)

BART Station Access Guidelines (2003) and other BART access studies

ABAG’s Projections 2005 (2005)

ACCMA Central Alameda County Community-Based Transportation Plan (2004)

VTA’s EIR/EIS efforts on the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit (SVRT) extension (2009) and its impacts on BART ridership

AC Transit Designing With Transit (2004)

Nelson\Nygaard bus transfer analysis (June, 2005)




In addition to the above listed sources, the consultant team conducted a BART station parking survey in January, 2010 to establish a baseline for parking demand. Detailed information about this survey is provided in a later section of this report.

The sources below have been critical in the development of this study. Other references listed above are described in more detail in later chapters of the report.

General BART Guidelines

BART Strategic Plan and TOD Policy BART has well-established policies and guidelines regarding access to and development around its stations. The BART Strategic Plan and the BART TOD Policy (2005) identify the following components that have informed the South Hayward Access Study:

Improve access on foot, by bicycle, by auto, and on shuttles, buses and other forms of transit.

In conjunction with local communities, promote TODs, enhanced destinations and multiple purpose stops for reverse commuting and off-peak riders (e.g. one-stop shopping).

Increase transit ridership and enhance quality of life at and around BART stations by encouraging and supporting high quality TODs within walking distance of BART stations.

Encourage direct connections to stations from surrounding development in order to promote pedestrian and non-motorized access.

Enhance the stability of BART’s financial base through the value capture of TOD. A TOD in itself can help bolster value appreciation, which in turn can generate increased public revenues that can help lower the overall tax burden for residents and be used to fund community investments.

Access BART Study As described in the Access BART Study of the BART A-Line (2005) from the Lake Merritt to Fremont stations, one of BART’s goals is to optimize ridership by examining trade-offs between TOD and access strategies, and identifying stations that have a priority for TOD or parking (or a combination of both). In order to develop a recommendation, the study:

Evaluates land use scenarios to optimize ridership.

Finds station clusters that provide opportunities for shifting assets and maximizing utilization of BART and BART assets.

Uses access mode share targets to help shape investment strategies as called for in the BART Strategic Plan.

The Access BART Study was the first phase of a larger effort to approach TOD and access from a broader perspective. Adopting a broader perspective allows BART to be more strategic about the provision of access resources and investments.

BART Station Access Guidelines As ridership grows across the system, BART is seeking to reduce the drive-alone rate in favor of increased use of carpools, transit, walking and bicycling. Figure 3-1 shows a generalized




prioritization of access goals to BART stations, adopted in the 2003 BART Station Access Guidelines. Pedestrian access has highest priority, while transit connections should be convenient, safe and close to the station. Access to bicycle parking and passenger pick-up/drop-off locations should be in the near vicinity of station entrances. Simple, visible and readable signage is also important for all modes.

Figure 3-1 BART Access Hierarchy

Source: BART Station Access Guidelines (2003).




Local Plan and Policy Documents

South Hayward BART/Mission Boulevard Concept Design Plan Hayward adopted the South Hayward BART/Mission Boulevard Concept Design Plan in June of 2006. Through the guidance provided in the Concept Design Plan and other related documents, the City of Hayward will endeavor to facilitate transit-oriented development in the area around the South Hayward BART Station and along Mission Boulevard. Key elements include:

A land use plan that is supportive of higher densities (up to100 units/acre on some parcels) and space for recreational and mixed uses.

Specific design guidelines that address street frontage, building, and site access characteristics as to ensure consistent and desirable aesthetics and achieve other city goals.

A circulation improvement plan that aims to improve bicycle, pedestrian, and transit circulation to and through the site.

The Concept Design Plan provides specificity with regard to the aforementioned elements; most notably, pedestrian and bicycle improvements around the BART Station and along or across the BART tracks.

South Hayward BART Development, Design and Access Plan The South Hayward BART Development, Design and Access Plan (2006) was developed with the understanding that the vicinity surrounding the station is highly underutilized and has potential to develop and intensify its use in the future. This vision is realized in the South Hayward BART/Mission Boulevard Concept Design Plan described above. The Development, Design, and Access Plan is intended to complement that plan and to provide adequate guidance to ensure that new development on the current site is consistent with both local and BART policies.

More specifically, the plan calls for numerous guidelines regarding site and building design, as well as for access and intermodal facility design. Highlights from the plan include the following:

A bus transfer analysis and the number of bus bays needed to support the bus transfer analysis.

Access Improvements that include all modes that utilize the BART Station. This includes transit, pedestrians, bicycles, and automobiles. It was noted that new development would be a major catalyst in enabling many improvements by generating higher levels of activity in the station area.

Design guidelines were created to specifically assist stakeholders involved with development near the South Hayward BART Station. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with the City of Hayward and existing BART Transit-Oriented Development Guidelines. Some specific goals in these guidelines include providing safe and comfortable pedestrian spaces, creating great outdoor spaces, shortening walking distances, and integrating new development into the existing neighborhood.




South Hayward BART/Mission Boulevard Form-Based Code The South Hayward BART Station lies within the South Hayward BART Station Area, designated in the Hayward General Plan Land Use Element to be developed along “smart growth” guidelines. The South Hayward BART/Mission Boulevard Form-Based Code, which is currently under development, is intended to carry out the policies of the General Plan by identifying the types of development permitted and the desired form of buildings and streets. The Code is intended to bring many benefits to the community in the form of health, safety, convenience and business vitality. The vision is to be accomplished by establishing neighborhoods that are dense, transit-oriented, mixed-use, safe, and pedestrian friendly, so that most daily activities can be conducted on foot. Development should provide housing for a wide range of incomes, and for people with differing physical abilities. Civic and employment functions, including open space, should be integrated into neighborhoods so that they are within walking distance of residents and employees. South Hayward BART Station Area development should incorporate these objectives, with an enhanced pedestrian environment as a high priority, and auto accommodation as a lower priority. This is also consistent with BART’s access policies.

Form-based codes differ from traditional zoning codes in that they do not seek to prescribe segregated land uses or functions; rather, their intention is to combat some of the problems associated with sprawl development by encouraging a mix of uses and focusing on accessibility for all transportation modes. This is also achieved by prescribing the form of the built environment, the relationship between buildings, and between buildings and streets, and the people who will live and work there. This shift in focus tends to allow more predictable outcomes concerning the character of a place than traditional zoning codes.

A form-based code includes a regulating plan that typically is an amendment to the zoning district map, splitting a project area into as many as six types of “transect zones”. The zones vary from the lowest density (T1), as in natural zones or wilderness condition, to the highest density (T6), as in a typical urban core, like downtown San Francisco. The designations used for the South Hayward BART/Mission Boulevard area are T4, Urban General Zone, and T5, Urban Center Zone, with additional TOD density overlays for the SHMU development and areas immediately adjacent to the BART station properties. Integrated throughout the Code area are Civic Space zones, where open space, parks, and civic buildings would be located. Each transect zone requires a different set of design features—such as building heights, building frontage types, or setbacks from the street—and permits a range of uses that are appropriate for mixed-use urban neighborhoods of various densities. As with other form-based codes, emphasis is placed on criteria for site design and aesthetics, as compared to high level of specificity towards land use.

The draft also provides criteria for street design based on transect and specification for opening of new streets to improve circulation. Examples of the proposed new streets can be found in Chapter 7. The street design criteria provide guidance on lane widths, curb radii, landscaping type, bicycle facilities and on-street parking configuration among others. These criteria and proposed improvements will have a positive impact for both pedestrian and bicycle commute modes by improving non-motorized circulation to and through the site.

The Code has not yet been adopted by Hayward City Council. Work sessions on the draft Code with the Planning Commission and City Council were held in April of 2010 and preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report is underway. It is anticipated that the Form-Based Code will be adopted in early 2011.




Hayward Bicycle Master Plan The City adopted the updated Bicycle Master Plan in 2007, which identifies opportunities to expand the existing network of bicycle paths, lanes and routes. The goals of the Plan are as follows:1

Develop an Implementation Strategy to facilitate constructed bicycling facilities.

Provide recommendations and necessary facilities to ensure gaps in the bikeway network are filled and ensure appropriate facilities are provided to support new development (including in-fill and transit-oriented development).

Enhance the quality of life in Hayward. The development of bicycle facilities provides for people-friendly streets, paths, trails, and activity centers available to everyone, and supports sustainable community development.

The Bicycle Master Plan proposes adding 6.9 miles of bikeways to the current 32.1 miles of bicycle routes, 22.4 miles of bicycle lanes and 6.8 miles of bicycle paths. These improvements are estimated to cost $1.6 million in 2007 dollars.

In the South Hayward BART Station area, existing bicycle facilities include (see also Figure 5-6 in Chapter 5).

East-West

Tennyson Road, north of the BART station (Class II bike lane)

Industrial Parkway, south of the BART station (Class I bike path)

North-South

Dixon Street, between Tennyson Road and Industrial Parkway (Class II bike lane)

Nuestro Parquecito (multi-use path)

Huntwood Way, between Harder and Industrial Parkway (Class II bike lane)

Whitman Street (Class III bike route) – This project, completed in 1999, provides the main link between South Hayward BART and downtown. It also provides bike access for students who attend Tennyson High School and Cesar Chavez Middle School.

1 City of Hayward Bicycle Master Plan (May, 1997).




Chapter 4. Land Use Conditions and Future Site Development

This chapter outlines the existing land use conditions around the South Hayward BART Station and presents information regarding the existing ridership catchment area that utilizes the station. It also notes key destinations that BART riders may access when using this station.

Existing Conditions The area in the direct vicinity of the South Hayward BART Station is largely residential. This to some degree explains the fact that 82% of the patrons who access the station are coming from their homes.2 The Mission Boulevard corridor, located slightly to the east of the BART Station, consists predominately of businesses ranging from restaurants, hotels, and auto body shops to local services. The area surrounding the BART station also has a few key origins/destinations, including schools, residential complexes and recreational facilities. Some of the notable locations include:

Cesar Chavez Middle School

Bowman Elementary School

Spanish Ranch Mobile Home Park

Tennyson Park

Tennyson High School

Valle Vista Park

While most of the area surrounding the station is developed, the area between Mission Boulevard and Dixon Street, south of Valle Vista Avenue, remains open space, some of which is Valle Vista Park, a park owned by the City of Hayward and operated by the Hayward Area Recreation and Park District (HARD). The locations of these destinations are found below in Figure 4-1 along with the Station Area boundary. Figure 4-2 below describes the current land uses as designated by the City of Hayward.

With regard to users of the South Hayward Station, a majority of the walking access trips come from within a half mile of the station; other modes of access arrive from much greater distances. Transit trips that access the station originate primarily along the corridors served by routes intersecting with the station (i.e., Tennyson Road and Mission Boulevard), while auto trips originate from a wide range of places, primarily in Hayward and Union City. Figure 4-3 illustrates the home origins of South Hayward BART riders based on a 2008 weekday rider study.3

The site of the SHMU is currently utilized for surface parking serving the South Hayward BART Station. The BART parking is split into two lots. The Main lot (with 80% of the parking) is immediately adjacent to the station, and is bordered by Tennyson Road, Dixon Street, the BART tracks, and residential apartments to the south. Across Dixon Street, the BART East Lot provides additional parking for BART patrons. The former Perry & Key Site, located between the BART East Lot and Mission Boulevard, contains a large vacant commercial building that previously

2 BART Station Profile Survey (2008). 3 BART Station Profile Survey (2008).




housed the Perry & Key auto body repair shop and is now owned by the Project developers. See Figure 4-4 for an illustration of the existing conditions.

Planned Land Use Changes As illustrated in Figure 4-5, there will be a projected 50% increase in population and a 30% increase in employment within the South Hayward BART Station Area (the half-mile radius around the station) between 2008 and 2020. This should be compared to a 7% and 13% increase, respectively, in the larger catchment area for the South Hayward BART Station.4 The significant growth in the Station Area can to a large extent be contributed to the City’s and region’s vision for the South Hayward BART and the Mission Boulevard corridor as a prime location for transit-oriented development. The City recognizes the potential of the area to achieve this objective given the amount of undeveloped and underutilized land in close proximity to the South Hayward BART Station and along the major transit corridor of Mission Boulevard.

The vision has provided the foundation for the South Hayward BART/Mission Boulevard Concept Design Plan, which was adopted in 2006, and which is currently being replaced by a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Form-Based Code (FBC) for the area. The City’s goals are to enable building intensity that is supportive of transit-oriented development, to improve pedestrian, bicycle and transit access, and to create opportunities for high-quality public open spaces. As the area transforms, more local-serving retail will likely be introduced, as well as more commercial use.

4 Population and employment growth assumptions are based on ABAG Projections 2005 (P05) in local models for San Francisco, ACCMA, CCTA, and MTC (for San Mateo County). Land use projections for the City of Hayward and for the South Hayward BART station are those developed for the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency’s countywide model. Growth assumptions were examined and modified by City of Hayward staff in July, 2010 to reflect growth expectations. These baseline assumptions include the SHMU development as proposed and adopted by the City Council on March 17, 2009.

M is s io n

D ix o n

Ruu s

11 th1 2 t h1 0 t h

F o ls o m

In d u s t r ial

Te n n y s o n

Huntw

o o d

1 6 t hWhit m

a n

Ta y lo r

Trit o n

P a c ifi c

C e li a

C a lh o u n

Le id ig

1 3 th

E tt a

L a s s e n

C h a n c e

Venu s

H a n c o c k

O ly m p

M a y

15th

Ve rd i

R o c h e ll e

C a r m a r

D o u g la s W e b s te r

Man o n

K e ll o g g

M in e rv a

Merc u ry

h i e l

Ara g o n

C o le

H o ly o k e

Va ll e V is ta

M a rs

Harp o o n

Lo g a n

Va g a b o n dJ u p it e r

B r o a d w a y 17th

A zte c

W h ite

B e a le

Cole ri d g e

B u rk e

Colo n y

Nan

tuc k

e t

N o rt h fi e l d

Lustig

H u rl e y

T h o rn e

J e ff e r s o n

A s trid a

P a n jo n

Prov

ide n

c e

D e Va c a

B ria r w o o d

H illv ie wB u c k w h e a t

L a n c e

S a tu rn

Cork Oa k

M e d it er r a

n e a n

G ree le y

Wha le b o n e

Me d la r

S p a rli ng

Va n

Ve n tn o r

S u s s e x

R a in tr e e

R u b io

C o llin s

E s t h e r

C o p p e rfiel d

C o o p e r

Bald w in

O h a rr on

M u rr ay

B o a rdw alk

Q u is tR o s s

Win n

Brig h t o n

J i m in e z

Roa n o k e

C a s s ia

Lun a

S p a ld in g

Sunris e

U r a n u s

Dun b a r

In g ra m

S a l

Mit c h e ll

A n d e rs o n

V ie b r o c k

S ta t e s

B ra n a u g h

P a cifi c

Nan

tuc k

e t

B r o a d w a y

Medla r

C o le

GIS Data Source: ESRI

0 0.25 0.5Miles

South Hayward BART Station

Spanish Ranch Mobile Home Park

Tennyson Park

Bowman Elementary School

Cesar Chavez Middle School

TennysonHigh School

Valle Vista Park

Hayward Golf Course

Bay Area Rapid Transit

Union Pacific - Niles Subdivision

Figure 4-1 South Hayward BART Station Area and Neighborhood Destinations

Station Area

1/2-mile

S e a M is tM a rin e rs

B a rb a ra

Be a tr o n

PINEBROOK W

W TENNYSON RD

E 12TH ST

E 11TH ST

E 16TH ST

E 13TH ST

E 15TH ST

SN OWB ERR Y

VASO

NA C

T

TELFORD CT

MITC

HELL PL

ANDERSON PL

BROOKTREE WY

PETITE

WAY

STANISLAUS

CT

FOXFIRE LN

BROOKTREECT

LONE

TREE PL

CT

RAYMOND DR

MAHOGANY

ST

MOUNTAIN

OAK CT

RED

OA

K CT

DESERT OAK CT

CANONB URY

CANO

HEATH CT

RIV ER OAK WAY

MARLIN CT

ESSEXCT

ROCK ROSE CT

BALLAR CT

EUCA

LYPTUS CT

EUCALYPTUS CT

DOGWOOD CT

SAGELEAF CT

T

SUN AVE

PERSIM

MO

N C

T

RO SE WO O D CT

PISTACHIO CT

BRIARWOOD CT

STO NERID

GE

CT

STEELST

COLLETTE ST

DOUGLAS ST

CARMAR ST

SEA WAY

FALL RIVER DR

BERKELE Y RD

WAY

UUS LN

HUNTWO

OD AVE

PACIFIC ST

RANCHERO CT

TROPEZ PL

ST

ARAG

ON

AVE

GOLDTREE WAY

HYDE DR

DIXON ST

CALHOUN ST

CELIA ST

COLE PL

ETTA A

VE

BROADWAY ST

BALDWIN ST

CHANCE ST

BR

OO

KFI

ELD

RD

BEALE DR

BURKE DR

CARSON DR

ESTHER CT

C

CINNAMON CT

EASTWOOD WAY

CHAMBOSSE DR

BALTIC CT

COPPERFIELD AVE

BROADWAY ST

EDWIN WAY

COLO

NY C

T

COLER

IDG

E AVE

BARBARA CT

BOARDWALK WAY

BRIGHTO

N ST

BROOKDALE WAY

GREEN HAZEL RD

BROOKHAVEN CT

DHIL

LIO

N C

T

COOPER WAY

FREITAS DR

DUFFEL PL

DUNBAR PL

TT CT

MINERVA ST

TAYLOR AVE

WH

ALE

BO

NE W

AY

WIN

DEM

ERE R

D

WESTBO

URN

E CT

RO

CH

ES

TER

CT

SAN

DB

URG

WA

Y

SUSSEX WAY

SANDY HOOK DR

ROC

KPOR

T WAY

SEA MIST C

T

BRANAUGH CT

CHESTERFIELD CT

COLLETTE PL

GR

EENWO

OD

RD

CHANCE ST

DE VACA WAY

DELGADO RD COLORADO RD

BUCKWHEAT CT

GREELEY CT

BLUE JAY DR

DE LA CRUZ RD

DARTMORE LN

BRISTOL D

CORK OAK LN

CORK

OA

K LN

CASSIA DR

BRIARWOOD DR

CAMELLIA CT

CASSIA DR

EARTH AVE

ASTRIDA DR

CASSIA CT

PACIFIC ST

LASSEN ST

LEIDIG CT

HANCOCK ST

PANJON ST

OLYMPIC A

VE

MANO

N AVE

INDUSTRIA

L PKY

LUVENA DR

KELLOGG AVE

LUSTIG

CT

LOG

AN

WA

Y

LON

E TREE PL

MEDITERRANEAN AVE

JEFFERSON ST

HURLEY DR

PEYTON DR

HORTON CT

MAY CT

HILLVIEW ST

JACARANDA DR

MASON DR

LA NCE W

AY

MURRAY ST

MONTICELLO ST

MA

NGRO

VE RD

HOLYOKE AVE

LOVE R IN C

T

HEMLOC

K RANCH RD

INGRAM

PL

MARTHA PL

LAURETTE PL

OHARRON DR

PACIFIC ST

MO

UNTA

IN

OAK CT

MISSION BLVD

NA

NTU

CK

ET W

AY

HARP

OO

N W

AY

NORTHFIELD DR

RO

UG

H W

AY

GU

ILD

HA

LL

RD

NU

SO

M C

T

NE

W C

AS

TLE C

T

HARPOON

WAY

NEW ENGLAND VILL DR

GU

ILFOR

D C

T

KE

NS

I NG

T ON

RD

NANTUCKET WAY

OVERHILL DR

MARINERS C

T

HIGH

GA

TE D

R

NEWBERRY LN

PERIW

INK

LE R

D

MARINERS CT

MER

CUR

Y ST

MARS AVE

PLUTO

ST

MEDLAR DR

LUN

A ST

MEDLAR DR

PERSIMMON DR

NEPTUNE AVE

WH

ITMA

N ST

RUUS RD

TRITO

N ST

SANDOVAL WAY

WEBSTER ST

ROCHELLE AVE TENNYSON RD

VALLE VISTA AVE

WHITE DR

SIERRAWOOD AVE

THORNE DR

TAYLOR AVE

STANISLAUS WAY

SAN

TUC

CI C

T

SPARLING DR

SPALDING S

T

STATES ST

SILVERDELL WAY

SAL CT

TUCKER ST

ROA

NO

KE ST

STEWART DR

ROSS PL

VOLTAIRE ST

QUIST AVE

STONEHAVEN CT

WHITETREE ST

WEBSTER ST

VANDERBILT S

STATES ST

RO

YS

TON

LN

RANCHERO WAY

VEN

US

ST

SUSAN PL

SATURN AVE

WINN

CT

RAINTREE CT

VAG

AB

ON

D LN

VAN CT

URANUS AVE

AM

PSH

IRE

WA

Y

SI

INDUSTRIA

L PKY W

VENTNOR CT

BRIDGEVIEW WAY

AR

RO

WH

EA

D W

AY

BR

IDG

EW

ATE

R R

D

BRIDGEHEAD LN

B R IDGECREEK WAY

ASHBRO

OA

KB

RO

OK

RD

BROOKVIEW WAY

MISSION BLVD

GA

L

JOSH

UA

ST

EBONY WAY

BRUNO ST

ANDREA ST

BRIAN ST

RD

AY M

ON

TJOY

CT

HA

RV

EY

AV

E

THIEL RD

JOLE

EN

CT

COLLINS CT

E 10TH ST

E 17TH ST

W E Y M O U TH CT

WE

STM

INS

TER

CT

VIEBROCK WAY

BROO

KSIDE LN

·|}þ

238

0 1/4 1/2Miles

Source: City of Hayward GIS

Residential

Suburban Density 1.0-4.3 units/net acre

Public & Q uasi-Public

Com m ercial

Dow ntow n— City Center

Industrial

O pen Space

Station Area Density 75.0-100.0 units/acre

Mission Blvd Density 34.8-55.0 units/net acre

High Density 17.4-34.8 units/net acre

Medium Density 8.7-17.4 units/net acre

Mobile Home Park 8.7-12.0 units/net acre

Limited Medium Density 8.7-12.0 units/net acre

Rural Estate Density 0.2-1.0 units/net acre

Low Density 4.3-8.7 units/net acre

Retail and Office

General Commercial

Industrial CorridorMixed Industrial

Parks and RecreationLimited Open SpaceBaylands

Retail and Office CommercialHigh Density Residential

Commercial/High Density Residential

Public and Quasi Public

Sustainable Mixed Use

Figure 4-2 Existing Land Uses near South Hayward BART

Mission Blvd

Hesperian Blvd

Deco

to R

d

Jack

son S

t

Tennyson Rd

Whipple Rd

Alvarado Niles Rd

Niles Blvd

Winton Ave

dvlB yti C noi nU

Palomares RdHarder Rd

Industrial Pky

Industrial Blvd

dR retiwalC

Paseo Padre Pky

Depot Rd

Alvarado Blvd

Dyer

St

Fremont Blvd

Smith St

Carlos Bee Blvd Loop Rd

Horner St

Niles Blvd

Industrial Pky

Whipple Rd

UNION CITY

SOUTH HAYWARD

880

92

880

880

Figure 4-3 South Hayward Station: Home Locations of BART Riders by Mode

Data Sources: ESRI, 2008 BART Station Profile Study (weekday only; data are weighted from survey sample to represent average weekday ridership)

0 1 2Miles

BART Line and Station

One mile Station Buffer

Half-mile Station Buffer

Capitol Corridor (Amtrak)

Amtrak (other)

Walked all the way

Bicycle

Bus, train or other transit

Drove alone / carpooled

Dropped off

LEGENDOrigins by Mode to Station

Altamont Commuter Express

BARTEast Lot

BART Parking

Buses

Tennyson Road

Mission Blvd

Dixon S

treet12th S

treet

11th Street

10th Street

Union P

acific Railroad

Bay A

rea Rapid Transit

Sources: BART; Google Maps

Copperfield Ave0 250 500

Feet

Figure 4-4 Existing South Hayward BART Property




Figure 4-5 Population and Employment around the South Hayward Station in 2008 and 2020

Station Area Half Mile Radius Catchment Area

2008 2020 % Change 2008 2020 % Change

Population 4,304 6,509 +51% 107,385 114,678 +7%

Jobs 243 322 +33% 45,964 51,940 +13%

Source: Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, BART Ridership Model (2010).

The SHMU Project The first major project planned and approved for the South Hayward BART/Mission Boulevard area is the South Hayward Mixed-Use (SHMU) development on the South Hayward BART Station property and parking lots and the former Perry & Key site. The project will center on Dixon Street, bordered by the BART station and tracks to the west, Tennyson Road to the north, Mission Boulevard to the east and residential parcels to the south. The project will replace the current parking lots and former Perry & Key site with a mixed-use development featuring both market rate and below-market rate (or “affordable”) housing, retail (consisting primarily of a planned new supermarket), and structured parking to support all planned uses.

The SHMU development will be governed by the Planned Development District approved in March of 2009 with additional guidance provided by the South Hayward/Mission Blvd Concept Design Plan, adopted in June 2006. In addition to numerous design guidelines, the Concept Design Plan outlines basic densities and building height maximums for new development around the South Hayward Station. The underlying Station Area Residential zoning allows for residential development densities between 75-100 dwelling units per acre, and the Concept Design Plan calls for buildings of five to seven stories.

The SHMU project will provide dense, urban and walkable, transit-oriented development at the station. New retail aims to meet community needs in a currently underserved area of Hayward. It is anticipated that the project will stimulate future development along similar smart growth lines in the surrounding area.

The project is planned to be implemented in five phases. The first phase consists of 81 affordable senior housing units built over residential parking (to serve both the family affordable and the senior affordable housing). The second phase includes a 58,500-square foot supermarket above which 125 units of affordable family housing would be developed by Wittek-Montana and Eden Housing, respectively. As part of these initial phases, the existing Main BART parking lot will be reconfigured, the East Lot will be expanded with temporary parking provided on the Perry & Key site, and the established circulation pattern for AC Transit buses will be replaced by temporary stops on Dixon Street. Construction of the proposed seven-level BART replacement parking structure may occur concurrent with or shortly after construction of the first residential buildings. The final two phases will consist of market rate housing; 241 rental units west of Dixon Street, and 341 for-sale units east of Dixon Street, respectively. This phasing is illustrated in Figure 4-6.

Phase 4: 241 market-rate rental units

Phase 5: 341 market-rate for sale units

TOD Development Phases

Phase 2: 125 affordable family housing units over a 58,000 sf supermarket;temporary BART parking and bus circulation arrangement

2

Phase 1: 81 affordable senior housing units over residential parking

1

3

4

Phase 3: BART 7-story parking structure, or other uses

5

Tennyson Road

Mission Blvd

Dixon S

treet12th S

treet

11th Street

10th Street

Union P

acific Railroad

Bay A

rea Rapid Transit

Sources: BART; Google Maps; Wittek-Montana Development

Copperfield Ave

Figure 4-6 Proposed South Hayward Mixed Use (SHMU) Site Plan and Phasing

0050520Feet

Parcel 2:Affordable Family Housing & Supermarket

Parcel 4: Market Rate Rental Housing

Parcel 1: AffordableSeniorHousing

Parcel 3: BART ParkingStructure

Perry & KeyMarket Rate Condominiums

Street A

Street B

Street C

PedestrianWalkway

Future Pedestrian Connection




Chapter 5. Transportation Conditions and Key Issues

This section provides a summary of key transportation issues that need to be addressed in this study, and compiles currently available transportation data from a variety of sources. It includes the following sections:

Pedestrian facilities and conditions

Bicycle facilities and conditions

Kiss-and-Ride and taxi facilities

Bus and shuttle services

BART service

Station and neighborhood parking

Each section includes an overview of the existing facilities and conditions, along with key issues and opportunities.

Pedestrian Facilities and Conditions As of the 2008 BART Station Profile Survey, 13% of all home origin patrons entering the South Hayward BART Station arrived on foot. Despite having a relatively complete pedestrian network in the study area, including generally adequate sidewalks and easy crossings, the area does have several significant barriers that make walking to the BART station complicated and, in some cases, dangerous. In contrast, the area has some excellent pedestrian facilities, such as Nuestro Parquecito, which runs adjacent to East 10th Street north of the BART station property across Tennyson Road. This linear park provides an attractive route along the east side of the BART tracks, leading to Bowman Elementary School, which is approximately 0.6 miles from the station.

Some of the key barriers to pedestrian movement are illustrated in Figure 5-1 and include:

BART tracks. Pedestrian crossings of the BART tracks are limited to the vehicular under crossings at Tennyson Road, Industrial Parkway and Harder Road, plus two pedestrian-only crossings. These include a tunnel to the south of Bowman School, which can best be described as a “pipe”—it is cramped, unpleasant and not ADA accessible. The tunnel is managed by the staff at Bowman School and is only open at limited times during school hours. Nevertheless, it provides an important link for the neighborhood by enabling pedestrians to continue to BART via Nuestro Parquecito. The other crossing is a pedestrian bridge at Sorensen Road. This structure is not ideal either, as it encloses its users in chain link fencing and is approximately 400 feet in length. The Bowman School tunnel and the Sorensen Road pedestrian bridge are 0.5 miles and 0.85 miles north of the station, respectively.

Tennyson Road. Pedestrians coming south through Nuestro Parquecito, upon arriving at Tennyson Road, are confronted with a difficult crossing of Tennyson Road to reach the BART station. As shown in Figure 5-2 and Figure 5-3, 10th Street ends in a cul-de-sac about 15 feet above Tennyson Road. Although no sign indicates the direction to continue, pedestrians are required to turn east toward Mission Boulevard down a narrow dirt path parallel to Tennyson Road and cross Tennyson Road at Dixon Street at the traffic signal, and then walk through the BART parking lot. Due to the grade differences between




Tennyson Road and the adjacent pathways on the north and south sides of Tennyson Road, pedestrians seeking the most direct path of access to the BART station via Nuestro Parquecito presently walk down the embankment, climb a fence, and then jaywalk across Tennyson Road. Alternatively, some go along the embankment under the BART tracks, cross via the parallel Union Pacific Rail Road bridge, and go under the BART tracks along the embankment on the other side. While no official study has been conducted to observe these actions, there are clear paths and signs of use that indicate these types of crossings are occurring although they are certainly not safe. These alternative means of crossings are unofficial and are not recommended activities. The City of Hayward’s Bicycle Master Plan addresses the need to provide better bike/pedestrian access from the north side of Tennyson, particularly from Nuestro Parquecito.

Mission Boulevard carries two major AC Transit routes (Routes 22 and 99/801) and also serves as a critical vehicular link parallel to the BART tracks. However, its function as a high-traffic arterial corridor makes it a significant pedestrian barrier.

The Route 238 Corridor Improvement Project, anticipated for completion in 2012, will provide a pedestrian crossing and a median on the south side of Tennyson Road across Mission Boulevard, which may be an opportunity to provide a pedestrian refuge. Figure 5-4 depicts the proposed configuration and typical cross section of Mission Boulevard as part of the Improvement Project.

Due to the barriers created by the railroad corridors and the nature of the street network adjacent to the BART station, quarter-mile and half-mile walking distances from the station vary greatly as compared to the straight-line distances. In addition, pedestrian access to the station can only be achieved from the east side due to the location of the station entrance. Thus, the pedestrian network catchment area on the west side of the station is reduced as compared to the east. The difference between quarter-mile and half-mile walking distances by way of the pedestrian network can be seen in Figure 5-5.

The existing parcels and street network that comprise this portion of Hayward are largely fragmented due to several existing railroad rights-of-way and previous railways that have since been removed. These barriers have contributed to a street network that is somewhat disjointed and provides a limited number of through streets, limiting overall connectivity in the district.




Figure 5-1 Pedestrian Barriers and Challenges in Vicinity of South Hayward BART Station

Source: Nelson\Nygaard and South Hayward BART Development, Design and Access Plan.








Figure 5-2 10th Street at Tennyson (End of Nuestro Parquecito)

Source: Nelson\Nygaard.

Figure 5-3 Informal Paths Leading from 10th Street towards Tennyson and Under Bridge





Figure 5-4 Proposed lane configuration and cross section as part of Route 238 Corridor Improvement Project

Source: Route 238 Corridor Improvement Project Final Preliminary Design Report (2005).

11th

Mission

Mission

12th

Dixon

10th

16th

Tennyson

Tennyson

Whitman

Huntwood

Triton

13th

Venus

May

Hancock

Celia

Lassen

15th

Pacific

Rochelle

Verdi

Douglas

Kellogg

Cole

Leidig

Webster

Aragon

Mercury

Valle Vista

Carmar

17th

Broadway

Jupiter

Beatron

AztecBeale

White

Calhoun

Burke

Pluto

Lustig

Hurley

Thorne

Minerva

De Vaca

Mendez

Astrida

Jefferson

Cork Oak

Lance

Hillview

Briarwood

Buckwheat

Saturn

Delgado

Carson

Medlar

Rubio

Sparling

Raintree

Mason

Colorado

Esther

PanjonCopp

erfield

Cooper

Winn

Ross

Oharron

Quist

Murray

Barbara

Earth

Tucker

Roanoke

Luna

Cassia

Sun

Jiminez

Quevedo

Sea Mist

Mariners

Sunrise

Uranus

NeptuneDunbar

Dogwood Ingram

MitchellAnderson

Broadway

Pacific

Cole

Webster

Figure 5-5 South Hayward BART Walking Distances


0 0.25 0.5Miles


Quarter Mile from Station

Half Mile from Station

Maximized Access through Parking Lot

Bay Area Rapid Transit

Union Pacific - Niles Subdivision




Bicycle Facilities and Conditions Figure 5-6 below outlines existing bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the station. Presently, Tennyson Road through Dixon Street past the BART Station has Class II bike lanes. Furthermore, Whitman Street to the west is considered a class III bike route with access to the Cesar Chavez Middle School and Tennyson High School.

Figure 5-6 Existing Bicycle Facilities in the South Hayward BART Vicinity

Source: Hayward Bicycle Master Plan (2007).

As of the 2008 BART Station Profile Survey, the South Hayward BART station has 56 spaces for bicycles, of which 30 spaces are bicycle lockers and 26 spaces are racks. As of July 2010, there were 18 rented bicycle lockers, two that were out of service and ten that were unrented. BART plans to install electronic bicycle lockers at all of its stations; however, funding is not currently available to fund these improvements. The City is supportive of the use of Transportation for Clean Air Funds to fund these bicycle parking improvements and recommends that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District be more flexible in allowing funds for such projects, which will improve bicycle facilities for BART riders and encourage more bike use and less impact on air quality.

Kiss-and-Ride and Taxi Facilities Approximately 15% of users at the South Hayward BART Station arrive by being dropped-off and picked-up. These trips are predominately in private vehicles, but are occasionally made by taxis or shuttles (including paratransit shuttles and private employer-provided shuttles). The South




Hayward BART Station has facilities to accommodate these users, including a Kiss-and-Ride area, a waiting area, and a taxi stand for queuing taxis, see Figure 5-7.

The Kiss-and-Ride area is a very popular facility at the station. This is not surprising considering the high percentage of individuals who indicated in surveys that they access the station by way of a private vehicle. Among those, 10% indicated that they were dropped off at the BART station, most likely at the Kiss-and-Ride facility located just outside of the station entrance. The Kiss-and-Ride facility consists of a curb lane designated for fast drop-offs and pick-ups, approximately 200 feet in length, and has capacity for six vehicles. During most of the day, this facility is not highly trafficked. However, it is heavily utilized during station peak hours, roughly 7-9 AM and 4-7 PM.

Finally, the South Hayward BART Station is served by local taxi services. There is currently capacity for six taxis at the station taxi stand; however, utilization rates indicate that not all six spaces are currently needed.

Figure 5-7 Taxi Stand at the South Hayward BART Station


Bus and Shuttle Services Alameda-Contra Costa Transit (AC Transit) provides local and express bus service in thirteen cities and adjacent unincorporated areas in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. It is the third-largest public bus system in California.

There are eight AC Transit routes that serve the South Hayward BART Station, including seven daytime routes and one “night owl.” Their routes and frequencies are illustrated in Figure 5-9 and Figure 5-10. The most frequent routes operate at 30-minute headways, and serve both Mission Boulevard and the neighborhoods west of the BART tracks. In May 2010, AC Transit rolled out significant service changes which resulted in many route modifications and the elimination and creation of routes. These changes have been noted in Figure 5-10.




Two of AC Transit’s higher frequency corridors pass through Hayward—the Mission Boulevard (#99) and Hesperian Boulevard (#22) corridors. Tennyson Road is a key east-west link between these two trunk lines in southern Hayward. Among routes that are near the South Hayward BART Station, those that serve Mission Boulevard have the shortest headways (30 minutes).

In addition to AC Transit service, it has been observed that other smaller shuttle buses operate at the South Hayward Station. These include East Bay Paratransit vehicles and private employer-operated shuttles.

Figure 5-8 Private Shuttles Operating at the South Hayward BART Station





Figure 5-9 Current AC Transit Service in the South Hayward BART Station Vicinity

Source: AC Transit (June, 2010).




Figure 5-10 AC Transit Service To or Near South Hayward BART

Route Destinations Recent Changes

Weekday Weekend

Hours of

Operation

(approxi-mate) Fr

eque

ncy

(in m

inut

es) Hours of

Operation

(approxi-mate) Fr

eque

ncy

(in m

inut

es)

22 Hayward BART, South Hayward BART, Mission Blvd, Hesperian Blvd, Tennyson, W Winton and Southland Mall

No recent changes. 6am-12am 30 – –

37 Hayward between Hayward BART, South Hayward BART, Amtrak

New line operates a loop in both directions, starting at Hayward BART, continuing via West A St., Santa Clara St., West Winton Ave., Amador St., Jackson St., Santa Clara St., Evergreen St., Underwood Ave., Gomer St., Patrick Ave., Tennyson Rd., South Hayward BART, Tennyson Rd., Whitman St., Silva Ave., and Meek Ave., then returning to Hayward BART.

6am–8pm 60 – –

68 South Hayward BART, Union Landing Transit Center, Huntwood Ave, New England Village

New line operates a loop in both directions, beginning at South Hayward BART, continuing via Tennyson Rd., Tampa Ave., Folsom Ave., Ruus Rd., Ruus Ln., Stratford Rd., Industrial Parkway West, Industrial Parkway Southwest, Dyer Rd., Union Landing Transit Center, Dyer Rd., Whipple Rd., and Huntwood Ave., and then returning to Tennyson Rd. and South Hayward BART. On weekends, the line operates in the clockwise direction only.

6am-8pm 60 6am–6pm 60

83 South Hayward BART and Hayward BART along A St, Tennyson Rd, and Clawiter Blvd.

Frequency has been reduced to 60 minutes all day. 5am-8pm 60 – –

85 South Hayward BART, Hayward BART, and San Leandro BART

Line has been extended to South Hayward BART via Soto Rd., Harder Rd., Gading Rd., Shafer Rd., Manon Ave., Harris Rd., and Huntwood Ave. Weekday frequency has been reduced from 30-60 minutes to 60 minutes.

6am–8pm 60 7:30am–6:00pm

60

86/386 South Hayward BART, Southland Mall, Hayward BART, Tennyson Road and Winton Ave.

Weekend frequency has been reduced from 20-30 minutes to 30 minutes. 5am–8pm 30–60 35-50*

6am-9:30pm 7am-9pm*

30

99 All Central Alameda BART Stations including Bay Fair, Hayward, South Hayward, Union City and Fremont.

Line has been rerouted between Union City BART and Fremont BART to operate via Decoto Rd., Fremont Blvd, and Walnut Ave. (incorporating discontinued Line 211). Weekday frequency between Bay Fair BART and Hayward BART has been reduced from 15 to 30 mins. (See Line 232 for service along Mission Boulevard. See Line 345 for weekend service to the Gurdwara Sahib (Sikh Temple).)

5am–midnight

30

6am–midnight

30 40*

801 All-Nighter bus, services locations between 12th Street BART and Bay Fair BART

No recent changes. 12:35am-6:14am

60 12:30am -

6:00am 30

Source: AC Transit (2010).




San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) The South Hayward BART Station is located on Dixon Street in Hayward, west of the intersection of Mission Boulevard and Tennyson Road. It is one of two BART stations in the city, and is served by both the Daly City-Fremont line and the Richmond-Fremont line. Service starts at 4:00 AM on weekdays, 6:00 AM on Saturdays and 8:00 AM on Sundays and ends at 12:30 AM each day. Direct service between Daly City and Fremont is offered between 5:00 AM and 7:00 PM Mondays through Fridays and 9:00 AM and 7:00 PM on Saturdays; at other times, passengers must transfer at Bay Fair. BART operates at 10-15 minute headways, depending on time of day and day of the week.

Access to BART BART’s 2008 Station Profile Survey provides detailed information on demographics of South Hayward BART riders. Figure 5-11 and the following present some of the key findings from the data:

South Hayward is primarily a home origin station. More than four out of five (82%) riders boarding at the station are traveling from home, with 18% traveling from other origins.

11% of station users make less than $25,000 annually.

63% of station users are female.

44% of station users indicated their ethnicity as Asian or Pacific Islander (South Hayward vicinity is indicated to be 23% Asian or Pacific Islander based on the 2000 Census).

Drive alone and park is the primary access mode, with vehicle drop-off being the second most important, and walking the third most important. However, bus and bicycle access assumes greater importance for trips of non-home origins, i.e. for trips between the BART station and the workplace or school site.5

Approximately 5% of patrons (roughly 80 patrons) parking at the South Hayward BART Station live within a ten-minute walk (½-mile) of the Station, and an additional 12% (roughly 205 patrons) live within a 20-minute walk (1 mile) of the Station.

In common with those at most other BART stations, South Hayward riders are frequent BART users (77% take BART 5 days a week). Most (79%) take BART by choice, and have a motor vehicle available to make the trip.

5 1998 BART Station Access Study.




Figure 5-11 Access Mode to the South Hayward BART Station (Home Origins)

Access Mode 2008 Home Origin

Drive alone 58%

Drop Off 15%

Walk only 13%

Carpool 8%

Bus/other transit 5%

Bicycle 2%

Taxi 0%

Source: 2008 BART Station Profile Survey.

Station and Neighborhood Parking South Hayward is one of few BART stations where parking does not regularly reach capacity. BART provides 1,252 parking spaces in two lots. There are 51 reserved monthly spaces among this quantity that cost $42 per month. The reserved monthly spaces comprise approximately 4% of the total parking supply, which is consistent with many other non-terminus stations that do not have a parking capacity problem (stations where parking demand does not reach capacity during AM peaks).

The parking lots include a large-volume parking lot adjacent to the station and the East Lot across Dixon Street. Often, in overflow situations, patrons choose to park on Dixon Street when the main BART parking lot nears capacity, instead of parking in the East Lot across Dixon Street. On-street parking is available on Dixon Street and several smaller adjacent neighborhood streets. However, overflow parking does not appear to be a problem due to the generous supply of BART parking. As part of this project, Nelson\Nygaard conducted a parking occupancy survey on Wednesday, January 27, 2010. In the survey, the area surrounding the South Hayward BART Station was divided into four zones, which were compared to one another with regard to capacity and occupancy. These four zones are depicted in Figure 5-12 and were based on half-mile walkable distances from the station entrance.

11th

Mission

Mission

12th

Dixon

10th

16th

Tennyson

Tennyson

Whitman

Huntwood

Triton

13th

Venus

May

Hancock

Celia

Lassen

15th

Pacific

Rochelle

Verdi

Douglas

Kellogg

Cole

Leidig

Webster

Aragon

Mercury

Valle Vista

Carmar

17th

Broadway

Jupiter

Beatron

AztecBeale

White

Calhoun

Burke

Pluto

Lustig

Hurley

Thorne

Minerva

De Vaca

Mendez

Astrida

Jefferson

Cork Oak

Lance

Hillview

Briarwood

Buckwheat

Saturn

Delgado

Carson

Medlar

Rubio

Sparling

Raintree

Mason

Colorado

Esther

PanjonCopp

erfield

Cooper

Winn

Ross

Oharron

Quist

Murray

Barbara

Earth

Tucker

Roanoke

Luna

Cassia

Sun

Jiminez

Quevedo

Sea Mist

Mariners

Sunrise

Uranus

NeptuneDunbar

Dogwood Ingram

MitchellAnderson

Broadway

Pacific

Cole

Webster

North West

South West

North East

South East

Figure 5-12 South Hayward Parking Survey Study Area


0 0.25 0.5Miles


Half Mile from Station

North East

South East

North West

South West

Maximized Access through Parking Lot




The findings of the study, which provided a detailed accounting of parking occupancy in the BART lots and on the surrounding local streets, are summarized below:

Most of Tennyson Road and parts of Mission Boulevard, especially south of Tennyson, do not allow parking. The restrictions on Tennyson Road were implemented at the request of the Police Department and neighborhood residents. Additional restrictions on Mission Boulevard will be implemented as part of the 238 Corridor Improvement project. Most of the other streets in this predominately residential area have unrestricted parking.

Direct route access is possible by foot to some streets north of Tennyson. However, crossing Tennyson from the station is restricted to Dixon Street and Whitman Street, which have the nearest controlled crosswalks. Consequently, this causes pedestrians heading to 11th Street, 10th Street, and Cole Place to backtrack down Tennyson Road before reaching their streets.

All four zones are predominantly residential.

The Northeast zone has some 2-hour parking restrictions on Mission Boulevard and on Hancock Street as it climbs the hill east of Mission Boulevard.

The BART station and parking lots are located in the Southeast Zone.

The Northwest Zone has a school at Whitman Street and Leidig Court which may affect parking patterns due to increased activity during school hours for student drop-offs and pick-ups.

As shown in Figure 5-13, parking occupancy within the half-mile walk-distance of the BART station decreased between 6 AM and 11 AM, which indicates that most BART patrons driving to the station do not park in the neighborhood, especially since the BART lots only fill up to 90% by 11 AM as indicated in Figure 5-14. Street parking used by BART patrons was seen only on Dixon Street directly adjacent to the BART parking lots, which acts as spillover parking when the Main lot nears capacity, as the street parking is not restricted here, and is slightly more convenient than the BART East Lot across Dixon Street. Of the 66 spaces on Dixon Street, 42% (28 spaces) filled by 11 AM. Of these, it is estimated that 26 spaces are used by BART patrons, as two spaces were filled on that street segment already before 6 AM.




Figure 5-13 On-Street Parking Occupancy within Half-Mile Radius

Zone

On-Street

Parking Capacity

Share of Parking Spaces in Study

Area

6AM 11AM Change

in Occupancy 6AM-11AM

Number of Spaces

Occupied

Number of Spaces

Unoccupied

% Occupied

Number of Spaces

Occupied

Number of Spaces

Unoccupied

% Occupied

Northeast 686 42% 227 459 33% 159 527 23% -10% pts Southeast 256 16% 86 170 34% 76 180 30% - 4% pts Northwest 317 19% 114 203 36% 82 235 26% -10% pts

Southwest 376 23% 132 244 35% 110 266 29% -6% pts

TOTAL 1,635 100% 559 1076 34% 427 1208 26% -8% pts

Source: South Hayward Parking Occupancy Survey (2010). Figures are for weekday (Wednesday, January 27, 2010).

Figure 5-14 BART Parking Lot and Dixon Street Occupancy

Zone Parking Capacity

Share of Parking Spaces in the Station Area

(BART Lot and Dixon Street)

9AM 11AM

Change in Occupancy 9AM-11AM

Number of Spaces

Occupied

Number of Spaces

Unoccupied %

Occupied

Number of Spaces Occupied

Number of Spaces

Unoccupied %

Occupied BART Main Lot 1,079 81.9% 993 86 92% 1,057 22 98% +6% pts BART East Lot 173 13.1% 16 157 9% 67 106 39% +30% pts BART Lots Subtotal 1,252 95% 1,014 238 81% 1,127 125 90% +9% pts Dixon Street between Tennyson and Sea Mist

66 5% 2* 64* 3%* 28 38 42% +39% pts

TOTAL (Lot s+ Street) 1,318 100% 1,016 302 77% 1,133 185 86% +9% pts

Source: South Hayward Parking Occupancy Survey (2010). Figures are for weekday (Wednesday, January 27, 2010).

* Dixon Street Occupancy was counted at 6:00 AM, concurrent with all other on-street segments.








Chapter 6. South Hayward BART Ridership, Access, and Parking Analysis

This section explores the impacts of the planned SHMU development on BART ridership, costs, and revenue. It considers four alternatives for development of the site, examining impacts for each scenario in the year 2020. As illustrated in Figure 6-1, the scenarios are:

No-Project: A ‘no-project’ scenario in which the proposed SHMU development is not built and the status of BART parking and access policies are largely retained in their current form. The 1,252 parking spaces available in the two BART lots will be retained.

Scenario A: A project development scenario in which the SHMU development is built in the form approved by the Hayward City Council on March 17, 2009. The development would consist of 788 housing units and 60,000 square feet of commercial space (consisting mostly of a supermarket). The existing surface parking lots would be eliminated, and a planned 910-space parking structure would replace 73% of the existing BART dedicated parking supply. Additional parking would be available for BART patrons through carefully regulated and managed parking on neighborhood streets.

Scenario B: A modified SHMU project development scenario in which the East Lot would be retained as a surface parking lot. In this scenario, a total of 681 housing units could be built. Between the planned 910-space parking structure and the spaces available in the East Lot, 87% of the existing dedicated BART parking supply would be replaced. Additional parking may be available for BART patrons through carefully regulated and managed parking on neighborhood streets.

Scenario C: A modified SHMU project development scenario in which 886 housing units would be built, and no dedicated BART parking would be replaced on-site. In this scenario, 910 parking spaces in satellite parking facilities would be provided along the Tennyson Road, Industrial Parkway and Mission Boulevard corridors, and a free shuttle would provide service between these satellite parking lots and the BART station.

Figure 6-1 Development Scenarios

No Scenario Scenario Scenario

Project A B C Number of Housing Units 0 788 681 886

Commercial Square Footage 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000

On-Site BART Parking 1,252 910 1,083 0

Satellite Parking 0 0 0 910

% Replacement Parking 100% 73% 87% 73%




The ridership analysis provided in this report was developed using the recently developed BART Ridership Model (BRM). BRM was developed to analyze the ridership impacts of policy decisions at a system-wide and corridor level. The model was refined in June, 2010 to provide a closer examination of mode of access decisions by potential riders.

Population and Employment Assumptions This analysis examines potential BART ridership for each development scenario in the year 2020. By 2020, the full build-out of SHMU is anticipated, and all supporting access policies could be in place. The model also assumes the completion of the BART system extension to Downtown San Jose.6

The version of the BRM used for this analysis includes a number of assumptions about growth at the system level. Population and employment growth assumptions are based on ABAG Projections 2005 (P05) in local models for San Francisco, ACCMA, CCTA, and MTC (for San Mateo County). Land use projections for the City of Hayward and for the South Hayward BART station are those developed for the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency’s countywide model. Growth assumptions were examined and modified by City of Hayward staff in July, 20107 to reflect growth expectations. These baseline assumptions include the SHMU development as proposed and adopted by the City Council on March 17, 2009. Baseline population and employment expectations in the station area are summarized in Figure 6-2. By 2020, these ACCMA/ABAG projections for the South Hayward station area assume that the BART catchment area as a whole will include nearly 115,000 residents and 52,000 jobs.

Figure 6-2 Population and Employment Projections in the South Hayward Station Area in 2020

Half Mile Radius Catchment Area

Population 6,509 114,678

Jobs 322 51,940

Source: Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, BART Ridership Model (2010)

Access Policy Assumptions The development scenarios described in this chapter rely on a set of common assumptions about future access policies and investments.

Bicycle and pedestrian facilities: For each development scenario, changes in the street grid, bicycle, and pedestrian infrastructure are held constant. Existing facilities are discussed in Chapter 5 of this report. Recommended facilities investments are described in Chapter 7 of this report.

Transit service: Existing AC transit routes serving the BART station are described in Chapter 5 of this report. In addition, Scenario C envisions a dedicated shuttle serving satellite parking lots and operating along the Tennyson Road and Mission Boulevard corridors (described in more detail below).

6 The extension to Santa Clara County will likely be in operation to Milpitas and Warm Springs Stations by 2018. Ridership would be reduced somewhat from the projections above if service ends at Berryessa Station. 7 In dialogue between the City of Hayward, Public Works Department, BART and MTC in July, 2010.




Transportation Demand Management: Recommended Transportation Demand Management strategies are discussed in Chapter 7 of this report.

On-street parking: As described below, overall ridership from the South Hayward BART station is expected to grow substantially in the coming decade. With this growth will come large increases in demand for all modes of access to the station, including park-and-ride access. Without any change in parking regulation, it can be expected that many BART patrons would park on neighborhood streets around the station. In response to this likely outcome, we have assumed that by 2020, or earlier if spillover parking becomes a problem before 2020, the City of Hayward will begin to regulate parking in the area around the station. On-street parking regulation options include:

The City could choose to institute a residential permit parking program. The City of Hayward currently has residential permit parking restrictions at two other locations in the city. Alternatively, the City could choose to institute a residential parking benefit district (PBD). Under this scenario, the City or a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) would regulate parking on the neighborhood streets around the station. The City or the JPA would choose a preferred level of parking occupancy on neighborhood streets. This target occupancy level would be enough to ensure convenient free parking for residents while allowing paid access for some BART patrons.8 Each year, the City or the JPA would sell up to the number of permits required to establish this occupancy level. Permit proceeds would be used to cover program administration and enforcement. Surplus revenues, if any, (net of administrative and maintenance costs of implementation) would be reinvested in public improvements in the neighborhood.

For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that the City of Hayward with the concurrence of the Project Joint Powers Authority will implement a residential parking benefit district (PBD). On-street parking in the half-mile area around the station would be reserved primarily for residents. For modeling purposes, it is assumed that permits would be sold to BART patrons at a level such that expected on-street parking occupancy including BART commuters in the half-mile radius of the station would not exceed 50% on weekdays.9 Based on the on-street parking occupancy survey detailed in Chapter 5 and Figure 5-13, approximately 320 parking permits could be sold to ensure that occupancy does not exceed 50% of the parking supply, see Figure 6-3. It is therefore assumed herein (for modeling purposes only) that these 320 parking spaces would be sold to BART patrons. However, the actual number of parking permits sold each year would be determined by City of Hayward or Joint Powers Authority staff based on actual on-street occupancy and likely with community involvement.

For each of the development scenarios described here, the street parking currently available along Dixon Street between Tennyson Road and Sea Mist Court (66 spaces) will be removed in order to accommodate turn lanes that are needed for the circulation plan. This will reduce the total on-street parking supply from 1635 to 1569 spaces.10

8 Both Union City and Lafayette do have on-street parking programs that allow BART commuters to pay to park on-street. 9 A zone-based permitting system may be required to spread BART patron parking relatively evenly throughout this area. 10 This report does not include any on-street parking along Tennyson within the ½-mile area of the South Hayward BART Station (prior parking studies had indicated approximately 42 spaces). The City does not currently allow parking at or near the underpass, but this policy may be reviewed at the time of the establishment of a parking benefit district. No estimate has been made as to how many spaces might be made available along Tennyson Road.




Figure 6-3 Existing and Potential On-street Parking Utilization

On-street spaces within 1/2 mile (excl. Dixon Street) 1569

Spaces used by 11 AM 427

Proposed max spaces available to BART patrons 320

Total occupancy of spaces 48%

Source: Nelson\Nygaard Parking Inventory (2010).

Off-street parking: The amount and location of dedicated off-street parking for BART varies by development scenario, and is described in detail below. For this analysis, it is assumed that the daily charge for using BART-dedicated parking would be $1.50.11 In fact, future BART parking prices could be higher or lower. Should demand for parking exceed supply, for example, BART may choose to manage demand by raising the price. In this case, expected parking revenues would be higher.

In addition, BART customers may be able to make use of some parking in the planned SHMU development’s residential garages. It is anticipated that the planned housing development will provide at least one parking space for every market-rate housing unit. However, some parking spaces in the development will be “unbundled,” meaning they will be offered for sale or lease to residents separately from the purchase price or monthly rent of the housing unit (unbundled parking is described in more detail in Chapter 7). For the purposes of this analysis, we have assumed that because of the unbundled parking policy, 5% of the dedicated residential parking spaces (estimated 39 spaces) will remain unsold or unrented,12 and that a shared parking agreement between the property owner and BART will allow BART customers to use this parking for a fee.

Development and Access Scenario Descriptions These potential development scenarios are described below.

No-Project Scenario In this scenario, the SHMU development would not be built. The existing surface BART parking lots would be retained with the dedicated BART parking supply remaining at 1,252 spaces. Removing the proposed development from the Alameda County and regional land use allocations would reduce the projected 2020 population within a half-mile of the station by 2,049 persons.13 For the purposes of this analysis, the project team has reviewed the ABAG projections and has assumed that the overall catchment area population would not be affected by this decision: ABAG

11 The project team agreed to use a daily fee of $1.50 as this is the default value in the BRM. In reality, the fee may be either higher or lower in 2020, depending on the parking occupancy rate at the South Hayward BART Station as well as the parking fees at the Union City and Hayward BART stations. 12 Elasticity of vehicle ownership with respect to price is typically -0.4 to -1.0, so a 10% increase in total vehicle costs reduces vehicle ownership by 4-10%. Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2009), Parking Requirement Impacts on Housing Affordability, www.vtpi.org/parkhou.pdf. 13 Throughout this analysis, we have assumed that the average household size for the development would be 2.6 persons. This is the current household size for the Alameda County station site TAZ (107) in the ACCMA travel model, which includes the station site.




allocated housing development would occur elsewhere in the City of Hayward. Using these assumptions, total population within a half-mile of the station in 2020 would be 4,460.

As in the other scenarios described here, this analysis assumes that the City of Hayward or a new Joint Powers Authority would respond to rising BART ridership by regulating the on-street parking supply around the station. Free on-street parking for non-residents would be eliminated, and 320 on-street parking permits would be sold, allowing some additional BART patrons to park on-street within the half-mile radius of the station. The total parking supply (including dedicated spaces in the surface lots and on-street parking) would be 1,572.

Scenario A: Hayward-Approved SHMU Development Proposal With 73% Parking Replacement in Structure

In this scenario, the SHMU development would be built consistent with the Planned Development approved by the Hayward City Council on March 17, 2009. The development would consist of approximately 788 housing units and 60,000 square feet of commercial space (consisting mostly of a supermarket). A development of this scale is part of the baseline assumptions for population and employment growth in the Alameda County and regional land use allocations. Under these allocations, total population within a half mile of the station would be 6,509, and population in the larger station catchment area would be 114,678.

The existing surface parking lots would be eliminated, and a planned garage would replace 73% of the existing BART dedicated parking supply. A seven-story garage with about 910 spaces would be built next to the BART tracks, just south of the station plaza and entrance. BART patrons would access the garage’s main entrance via a new street, provisionally known as Street C in this study. As shown in Figure 4-6, the street runs east and west starting at Dixon Street, and ending at the BART parking structure. The structure’s second entrance would be located on Street A, which runs north and south from Tennyson Road to Street C.

In addition, an estimated 39 parking spaces could be made available to BART patrons in the development’s residential garages, assuming a future agreement to unbundle parking. This represents 5% of the residential parking supply. Finally, as described above, 320 on-street parking permits would be sold allowing additional BART patrons to park in the street within the half-mile radius of the station. A Joint Powers Authority could be formed to oversee regulation of this parking supply. The total parking supply, including both structured and on-street spaces, would be 1,269.

Scenario B: Modified SHMU Development Proposal with 87% Parking Replacement

In theory, a mixed use development at the South Hayward BART Station could include replacement of up to 100% of the existing surface parking supply in a structure. However, there are a number of practical obstacles to 100% parking replacement at the South Hayward BART Station. In particular, height restrictions prohibit a parking structure taller than seven stories. Even if such a structure were permitted, the State Proposition 1C Infrastructure Grant funds set aside for a parking structure would be insufficient to cover the additional costs. Expanding the footprint of the parking structure would make it difficult to build enough housing to create a viable development and to retain the current funding levels from the State Proposition 1C grant – which is sized based on the number of housing units.

Given these constraints, the development scenario that maximizes parking provision while still building some housing, includes less than full parking replacement. In this scenario, the SHMU




development would be built, but it would be modified from the form approved by the Hayward City Council to accommodate continued BART parking on the East Lot. A total of up to 87% of the existing BART parking supply would be retained on-site within the new parking structure and on the existing East Lot. The 107 residences proposed for the East Lot would be eliminated from the development proposal, bringing the total residential development to 681. Under this proposal, total population within a half mile of the station would be 6,231.14 As in Scenarios A and C, the larger station catchment area population is assumed to be 114,678.

Between the proposed parking garage and the retained surface parking on the East Lot, the dedicated BART parking supply would be 1,083. An estimated 34 parking spaces could be made available to BART patrons in the development’s residential garages assuming a future agreement to unbundle parking (5% of the residential parking supply). Finally, as described above, 320 on-street parking permits would be sold, allowing additional BART patrons to park in the street within the half-mile radius of the station. The total parking supply would be 1,437.

Scenario C: Modified SHMU Development Proposal with 0% Parking Replacement

In this scenario, no dedicated BART parking at the Station would be retained. Satellite parking facilities would be established along the Tennyson Road, Industrial Parkway, and/or Mission Boulevard corridors, and a free shuttle would provide service between these satellite parking lots and the BART Station. The space not dedicated to a replacement parking structure would be used for additional residential development, bringing the total size of the development to 886 units. Under these allocations, total population within a half mile of the station would be 6,764. As in Scenarios A and B, the larger station catchment area population is assumed to be 114,678.

An estimated 44 parking spaces could be made available to BART patrons in the development’s residential garages assuming a future agreement to unbundle parking. This represents 5% of the residential parking supply. Finally, as described above, 320 on-street parking permits would be sold, allowing additional BART patrons to park in the street within the half-mile radius of the station. The total parking supply, excluding the satellite parking lots, would be 364.

This scenario, along with its associated shuttle operations concept, was introduced by Hayward Area Planning Association President Dr. Sherman Lewis. Dr. Lewis’ proposed operations plan is presented in full in Appendix B. In summary, the service would operate shuttle bus routes on the Industrial and Tennyson corridor every ten minutes. Along the Industrial route, stops would be placed at the BART station and at the California Auto dealers exchange near Industrial and Huntwood Avenue. Along the Tennyson Route, stops would be placed at Fairway Center, Arrowhead Road, South Hayward BART, and West Tennyson Road. It is unknown if at least some of the capital funds awarded to the project through the Proposition 1C Infill Infrastructure Grant could be repurposed to fund ongoing shuttle operations. Fiscal considerations are described in more detail in the next section.

As proposed, the shuttle service operator would contract with owners of underutilized parking facilities along these corridors, leasing parking for use by BART patrons. This arrangement for satellite parking presents a number of substantive challenges. Most significantly, lease arrangements with owners of private parking facilities may not be stable. If parking arrangements for BART patrons changed over time as facility owners entered and exited lease arrangements with BART, BART would not be able to guarantee its riders stable access to these facilities over 14 The average household size for the development would be 2.6 persons. This is the current household size for Alameda County station site TAZ (107) in the ACCMA travel model, which includes the station site.




time. This is of particular concern because pressure to develop underutilized parcels will grow over time. The area around the South Hayward station is a MTC/ABAG-designated Priority Development Area (PDA). Low cost leases of underutilized parking facilities are unlikely to be available over the long term. Furthermore, the instability of the lease agreements with private land owners will require an advanced wayfinding system, potentially including real-time information signs, to guide drivers to these satellite parking lots. Liability, safety and security issues will also need to be resolved prior to the establishment of this program.

Comparison of Scenarios Ridership and Access Modes As stated above, the ridership analysis below was developed using the BART Ridership Model (BRM), which analyzes the ridership impacts of policy decisions at a system-wide and corridor level. The analysis incorporates the City’s recent plans to incorporate additional housing and neighborhood serving commercial uses in the vicinity of the South Hayward BART Station and Mission Boulevard. Figure 6-4 illustrates projected boardings and mode splits for each development scenario.

Figure 6-4 Ridership and Access Modes

No

Project Scenario

A Scenario

B Scenario

C

Total System Boardings 411,702 411,836 411,894 411,358

South Hayward Boardings 3,335 3,473 3,544 3,128

South Hayward Boardings Difference from No Project 0 138 209 -207*

South Hayward Mode Split Bike/Walk % 21% 32% 30% 44%

South Hayward Mode Split Transit % 12% 14% 12% 24%

South Hayward Mode Split Park/Ride % 48% 38% 42% 19%

South Hayward Mode Split Drop Off % 17% 16% 16% 18%

* Does not count ridership generated by the proposed free shuttle. Shuttle ridership is discussed in more detail below.

Projections for each scenario are as follows:

No-Project: Based on the above land use assumptions, access investments, and parking supply, expected daily ridership at the South Hayward BART station would be 3,335. Total BART system boardings would be 411,702. Under the no-project scenario, just under half of all riders (48%) would access the station via park-and-ride. This is a significant drop in park-and-ride access from today, and it reflects the fact that demand for BART would grow substantially, but that available parking would not, and BART patrons would have to access the station in other ways. Twenty-one percent would walk or bike, 12% would ride transit, and 17% would be dropped off.

Scenario A: Projected daily station ridership for Scenario A would be 3,473, or 138 daily boardings more than in the no-project scenario. Total system-wide ridership would be 411,836.




Under Scenario A, 38% of riders would access the station via park-and-ride. One third would walk or bike, 14% would ride transit, and 16% would be dropped off. This large increase in walk/bike access as compared to the no-project scenario reflects the large increase in population living within walking distance of the station, as well as the smaller parking supply.

Scenario B: Projected daily station ridership for Scenario B would be 3,544, or 209 boardings more than the no-project scenario. Total system-wide ridership would be 411,894. Under Scenario B, 42% would access the station via park-and-ride. Twenty-nine percent would walk or bike, 12% would ride transit, and 16% would be dropped off. Both walk/bike access and park-and-ride access mode shares fall between those projected for the no-project scenario and Scenario A, reflecting the fact that this proposal includes somewhat more parking and somewhat less housing than Scenario A.

Scenario C: Projected daily station ridership for Scenario C without the proposed free shuttle would be 3,128, or 207 less than the no-project scenario and 345 less than Scenario A. Total system-wide ridership would be 411,358. Reflecting the limited parking supply, park-and-ride access would represent just a fifth of all boardings. Walk/bike mode split would climb to 44% and, transit mode split would climb to 24%.

In addition to the ridership projected by BRM, providing a free shuttle operation with satellite parking could be expected to help retain some portion of BART’s projected park-and-ride patrons. Because the shuttle would introduce a somewhat longer access trip, as well as the need to transfer to reach the station, a significant share of the park-and-ride patrons projected for the other scenarios would not be retained by this plan. Shuttle ridership potential is discussed below.

Scenario C Shuttle Ridership Impact This section provides an order-of-magnitude estimate of the number of BART passengers likely to be retained by the proposed satellite parking and shuttle system. This analysis has been conducted by Nelson\Nygaard. Because there is no shuttle system in the BART district or in a peer transit system with this operating plan, it is not possible to know with precision exactly how many BART riders would use the shuttle, and how many would not. The estimate that follows is concerned with the share of potential park-and-ride passengers who would use the proposed satellite parking and shuttle system if dedicated parking at or near the South Hayward BART station were not available. The shuttle would also attract some share of BART customers that would otherwise have walked, biked, or used AC Transit to access the station. However, this mode shift would not represent additional BART passengers, and is therefore excluded from this discussion.

Figure 6-5 illustrates the difference in the number of BART passengers projected to arrive at the South Hayward BART station by each mode of access in the no-project scenario and in Scenario C in the absence of the proposed free shuttle.




Figure 6-5 BRM-Projected Passengers by Access Mode: No-Project and Scenario C

Mode No Project Scenario C Difference

Walk/Bike 696 1366 670

New Transit 402 742 340

New Park/Ride 1594 599 -995

New Drop Off 565 565 0

Total Displaced Park-and-Ride Passengers 654

Scenario C is projected to have 670 more walk/bike access passengers than the no-project scenario. Most of this increase in walk/bike access passengers is the result of the additional BART trips generated by the SHMU development.

Scenario C is also projected to have 995 fewer park-and-ride passengers and 340 more transit access passengers than the no-project scenario. The difference—the 654 potential daily park-and-ride passengers not projected to shift to transit in the absence of the shuttle—are the potential market for the shuttle.

To assess the likelihood of customers from this group choosing to ride the proposed shuttle, we have examined BART rider home origin data from the 2008 BART Station Profile Survey. Of those survey respondents reporting that they drove or carpooled and parked at the South Hayward station, 5% live within a half-mile of the station. For this analysis, we have assumed that any passengers retained from this group living nearest to the station will be among those shifting to walk, bike, or other forms of transit.

Of the remaining survey respondents, 13% live between a half mile and one mile of the station. It is estimated that the typical driving access trip time for this group is 4 minutes. If this group has an average BART trip time of 20 minutes, then total trip length is 24 minutes. Based on available research on transit passenger responses to transfer time, it is estimated that an expected average shuttle wait time of 5 minutes would be perceived by passengers as equivalent to roughly ten minutes of extra travel time. 15 This delay would increase perceived travel time by 45%. Based on an assumed elasticity of demand for BART with respect to travel time of -1, 45% of this market would opt not to ride BART, and 55% would be retained.16

Figure 6-6 illustrates that the same assumptions have been applied to potential passengers living 1-1.9 miles; 2-4.9 miles; 5-9.9 miles; and 10 or more miles from the station. On average, it is estimated that the addition of the shuttle would increase perceived total travel time by 33%.

15 TCRP Report 95, Chapter 9: Transit Scheduling and Frequency: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes. Federal Transit Administration. 2004. “An examination of over 50 work purpose travel demand models from throughout the United States found each minute of transit wait time to average 2.12 times as important as a minute of in vehicle travel time. Ranges were from 2.72 average for urban areas under 750,000 population to roughly 2.0 for larger cities, and from 2.48 average for 1990s models to about 2.0 for older models (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000).” TCRP Report 95, Chapter 9: Transit Scheduling and Frequency: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes. Federal Transit Administration. 2004. 16 No reliable research is available specifically on the elasticity of demand for feeder shuttle service with respect to travel time. Elasticities of demand for transit service with respect to transit fares vary between -.05 and -1. (TCRP Report 95, Chapter 9: Transit Scheduling and Frequency: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes. Federal Transit Administration, 2004.) BART park-and-ride access patrons, who by definition have access to other modes of transportation, would be expected to sensitive to changes in travel time.




Based on an estimated elasticity of demand for BART with respect to travel time of -117, 39% of the market for park-and-ride passengers would be lost, and 61% would be retained. If the market for ‘displaced’ park-and-ride passengers is the 654 boardings identified above, then the shuttle has the potential to attract 441 of these boardings. This does not account for any riders dissuaded from using the shuttle system due to issues related to the potentially unstable satellite parking arrangements.

Figure 6-6 Estimated BART Boardings Retained due to Proposed Shuttle18

Assumed drive times Shuttle adds…

% of 2008 park-and-ride home

origins

2020 displaced parkers

Access Trip travel time (min)

BART Trip travel time

Total travel time

Avg Wait time (min)

Transfer penalty (min)

Per-ceived Access Travel

time with Shuttle

Total trip time with shuttle

% change in total

trip time

Elasticity of

demand for BART

WRT travel time

Change in BART riders

Potential riders

retained

1/2 Mile - 1 Mile 13% 84 4 20 24 5 5 14 34 42% -1 -42% 49

1 Mile - 2 Miles 26% 172 8 20 28 5 5 18 38 36% -1 -36% 110

2 Miles - 5 Miles 44% 290 12 20 32 5 5 22 42 31% -1 -31% 200

5 Miles - 10 Miles 13% 88 20 20 40 5 5 30 50 25% -1 -25% 66

More than 10 Miles 3% 21 30 20 50 5 5 40 60 20% -1 -20% 16

Total 100% 654 33% 441

If the shuttle retained 441 daily boardings from the potential market for park-and-ride passengers, daily boardings for Scenario C would increase to 3,569. Ridership total is comparable to Scenario B and slightly more than Scenario A. This ridership total informs the fiscal analysis that follows.

Fiscal Impacts This section discusses the fiscal impacts of the proposed development scenarios. It considers all expected costs and revenues, including potential changes in fare revenue, parking revenue, parking operations and maintenance costs, operating costs for the proposed shuttle, and parking capital costs. It also considers the $21 million in Proposition 1C Infrastructure Grant revenue already secured by the development. This analysis relies on the approach developed for the BART Access Policy Methodology (Willson, 2005).19 It is based on constant 2010 dollars.

17 Elasticity of demand for feeder shuttle service with respect to travel time is not well documented. Elasticities of demand for transit service with respect to transit fares vary between -.5 and -1. (TCRP Report 95, Chapter 9: Transit Scheduling and Frequency: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes. Federal Transit Administration, 2004.) BART park-and-ride access patrons, who by definition have access to other modes of transportation, would be expected to be sensitive to changes in travel time. 18 “An examination of over 50 work purpose travel demand models from throughout the United States found each minute of transit wait time to average 2.12 times as important as a minute of in vehicle travel time. Ranges were from 2.72 average for urban areas under 750,000 population to roughly 2.0 for larger cities, and from 2.48 average for 1990s models to about 2.0 for older models (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000).” TCRP Report 95, Chapter 9: Transit Scheduling and Frequency: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes. Federal Transit Administration. 2004. 19 For a detailed description of this method, see Willson, 2005. www.bart.gov/docs/.../BART%20Access%20Policy%20Methodology.pdf




Features of the development scenarios particularly relevant to this analysis are illustrated in Figure 6-7.

Figure 6-7 Parking Supply and Housing Supply

No

Project Scenario

A Scenario

B Scenario

C*

Number of Housing Units 0 788 681 886

Garage Spaces (Unreserved) 0 871 871 0

Garage Spaces (Reserved)20 0 39 39 0

Garage Spaces (Total) 0 910 910 0

Surface spaces (Unreserved) 1,213 0 173 910

Surface spaces (Reserved) 39 0 0 0

Surface spaces (Total) 1,252 0 173 910

Total BART spaces 1,252 910 1,083 0

% Replacement (Compared to no-project)

100% 73% 87% 73%

* Scenario C parking would be provided in satellite parking lots and would not be provided on-site as is the case in the other scenarios.

Land Value Following the BART Access Policy Methodology, this analysis relies on a residual land value calculation to understand the value of the development parcel. Approximate value of the proposed development property has been estimated for this analysis based on the sale price of the Perry & Key lot, which makes up part of the development site. Based on this sale price, the parcel would be worth approximately $17,000 for each housing unit that could feasibly be built. It is important to note that this value has been calculated for fiscal comparisons only, and does not represent actual negotiated or agreed purchase price. Based on this calculation, and as illustrated in Figure 6-8, the total value of the developable land in Scenario A is $13.6 million. The financial terms of the agreement between BART and the site developer have not been agreed upon. If the negotiated annual land rent were 10% of the value of the property, then the land rent would be $1.3 million. If negotiated land rent were 5% of the value of the property then the land rent would be about $680,000.21

20 For modeling purposes, it was assumed that the number of reserved spaces will be maintained. This number may change as parking demand changes. 21 For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that the East Lot would generate ongoing revenue to BART commensurate with the land rents associated with the BART properties located west of Dixon. Although it is anticipated that the East Lot will be sold rather than leased to the developer, such ongoing revenues will likely be provided in the form of transfer fees payable to BART upon each resale of each condominium unit to be built upon the East Lot.




For Scenario B, the need to retain the East Lot for surface parking would lead to the loss of 107 units of housing, reducing the value of the property. If the negotiated annual land rent were 10%, then the land rent would be $1.2 million annually. At 5%, the land rent would be about $590,000.

For Scenario C, more developable land would yield a somewhat more valuable property. If the negotiated annual land rent were 10%, then the land rent would be $1.5 million annually. At 5%, land rent would be $767,000.

Figure 6-8 Potential Land Value and Land Rent

No

Project Scenario

A Scenario

B Scenario

C

Number of Housing Units Possible 0 788 681 886

Land Value per Possible Housing Unit*

$17,308 $17,308 $17,308 $17,308

Total Land Value** $0 $13,638,462 $11,786,538 $15,334,615

Annual Land Rent (10% land rent multiplier)

$0 $1,363,846 $1,178,654 $1,533,462

Annual Land Rent (5% land rent multiplier)

$0 $681,923 $589,327 $766,731

*Derived value based on purchase price of Perry & Key lot divided by unit count.

** Total land value and associated land rents are provided for illustrative purposes only and are based solely upon per-door residential land values estimated based upon the 2007 Perry & Key acquisition. As that site does not include significant commercial development, no value associated with the planned commercial components on Lot 1 is included in this analysis.

Parking Revenue and Operations Cost An important factor in the fiscal impact of these development scenarios are the costs and revenues associated with parking operations. This analysis makes a number of assumptions about the price of BART parking in 2020 for all scenarios, including the no-project scenario. It assumes that the BART parking structure will charge $1.50 for daily parking, and that the station’s 39 reserved spaces will cost $100 per month.22 As illustrated in Figure 6-9, the addition of parking charges would add more than $330,000 per year in net revenue for the no-project scenario. With reduced parking, parking revenue would be somewhat lower for scenarios A ($289,000) and B ($327,000). Scenario C’s satellite parking would be free. Nevertheless, this scenario still incurs similar annual operating and maintenance costs per space, in addition to the costs of providing a complex and likely changing wayfinding system (depending on which lots will be used and for how long) and lease negotiation.

22 In fact, future BART parking prices could be higher or lower. Should demand for parking exceed supply, for example, BART may choose to manage demand by raising the price. In this case, expected revenues would be higher.




Figure 6-9 Parking Revenue

No

Project Scenario

A Scenario

B Scenario

C

Daily Charge for BART Parking $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $0.00

Daily Turnover 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1

Daily Parking Fees for Unreserved (net of 30% cost of collection)

$1,413 $1,006 $1,206 $0

Annual Unreserved Parking Revenue (255 week days)

$360,204 $256,531 $307,484 $0

Annualized Cost of Parking Charge Equipment

($27,059) ($19,271) ($23,099) $0

Net Annual Change in Daily Parking Revenue

$333,145 $237,260 $284,386 $0

Monthly Reserved Parking Fee $100 $100 $100 $100

Total Monthly Fees for Reserved Parking (net of 10% cost to collect)

$3,510 $3,510 $3,510 $0

Annual Reserved Parking Revenue (12 months)

$42,120 $42,120 $42,120 $0

Net Annual Parking Revenue $375,265 $279,380 $326,506 $0

Source: Analysis based on fiscal calculations and assumptions in Access Policy Methodology (Willson, 2005).

Operations and Maintenance Costs (Parking and Shuttle) BART estimates that surface parking costs just under $600 per space per year to maintain, while structured parking costs just less than $800 per year per space. At this cost, the no-project scenario has operations and maintenance (O&M) costs of $730,000 per year to maintain the existing surface parking supply, see Figure 6-10. Replacing 73% of the surface supply with structured parking (Scenario A) would keep these costs roughly constant. O&M costs for Scenario B would be somewhat higher ($821,000) because it would have both a parking structure and part of the existing surface supply. O&M costs for Scenario C would be roughly $526,000 for 910 spaces provided in the satellite lots.




Figure 6-10 On-site Parking Costs

No

Project Scenario

A Scenario

B Scenario

C

Parking Capital Cost $0 ($21,000,000) ($21,000,000) $0

Grant/Partnership Revenue Toward Parking Costs

$0 $21,000,000 $21,000,000 $0

Net Parking Capital Costs $0 $0 $0 $0

O&M Cost Per Space (structured parking)

$792 $792 $792 $792

O&M Cost Per Space (surface parking)

$578 $578 $578 $578

Total Parking O&M Cost ($729,726) ($720,483) ($820,517) ($526,189)

In addition, Scenario C would have operating costs associated with contracting for shuttle service and securing the off-site parking facilities, see Figure 6-11. The shuttle service operations plan proposed by HAPA includes 14,982 hours of service, costing an estimated $70 per hour23 in 2010 dollars. The total contract operating cost would be $1.5 million per year, including amortization of capital costs for shuttle vehicles, shelters and access improvements around the shuttle stops. The operating plan also asserts that 910 satellite parking spaces can be secured on the proposed corridors at a total cost of $229,000 per year. Combined, the total annual cost would be around $1.7 million.

If the State Proposition 1C infrastructure grant funds secured by the project could be repurposed to fund the shuttle, up to $21 million could be made available to cover these costs. The grant would cover expected costs for 12.9 years. However, over a projected 30-year useful life for this set of facilities, the grant funding would fall $29.4 million short of covering all costs. The projected annual shortfall would be $983,000 in 2010 dollars.

23 Nelson\Nygaard estimate based on the type of shuttle service proposed by Dr. Sherman Lewis.




Figure 6-11 Shuttle Operations Costs

No

Project Scenario

A Scenario

B Scenario

C

Shuttle Operating Costs/Year $0 $0 $0 ($1,453,511)

Shuttle Remote Parking Lease Costs $0 $0 $0 ($229,000)

Shuttle Total Annual Costs $0 $0 $0 ($1,682,511)*

Shuttle Costs over 30-Year Project Lifetime $0 $0 $0 ($50,475,320)

Grant/Partnership Revenue Toward Shuttle Costs $0 $0 $0 $21,000,000

Shuttle Revenue/(Cost) over 30 Year Project Lifetime 0 0 0 (29,475,320)

Annual Shuttle Revenue/(Cost) Net of Grant/Partnership Revenue $0 $0 $0 ($982,511)

* This does not include the annualized costs of providing an advanced wayfinding system likely needed to guide drivers to the satellite parking lots.

Fare Revenue Because daily boardings would vary with the development scenarios, expected fare revenue would also vary. This analysis considers fare revenue for each development as it would compare to the no-project scenario. Based on an assumed average round trip fare from South Hayward BART home origins of $6, Scenario A would likely generate an additional $22,000 per year from fare revenues, see Figure 6-12. Scenario B would generate $33,000. Scenario C would generate $30,000 in additional fare revenue as compared to the no-project scenario.

Figure 6-12 Fare Revenue

No

Project Scenario

A Scenario

B Scenario

C

Daily Boardings 3,335 3,473 3,544 3,569

Change in Daily Boardings Compared to No-Project

0 138 209 234

Average One-Way Fare $6.00 $6.00 $6.00 $6.00

Change in Daily Fare Revenue $0.00 $828.00 $1,254.00 $1,405.19

Change in Annual Fare Revenue*

$0 $22,058 $33,407 $37,434

*Includes equivalent of 296 week days, 10% cost to collect.




Total Fiscal Impacts The above fiscal analysis demonstrates that the ongoing costs associated with maintaining the existing surface parking lots exceeds the expected increase in revenues from parking charges in the no-project scenario by about $350,000 per year, see Figure 6-13. Based on the above assumptions, Scenario A would have a positive fiscal impact for BART, increasing revenue between $262,000 and $944,000 per year, depending on the negotiated land rent. Burdened with higher parking costs and less value from housing, Scenario B would represent a smaller net positive position of between $128,000 per year and $718,000 per year. Scenario C could either generate revenue or increase costs, depending on the negotiated land rent. The range of outcomes varies between -$704,000 and $60,000.

Figure 6-13 Total Fiscal Impact

No

Project Scenario

A Scenario

B Scenario

C

Change in Fare Revenue $0 $22,058 $33,407 $37,434

Parking Revenue* $375,265 $279,380 $326,506 $0

Revenue at 10% Land Rent $0 $1,363,846 $1,178,654 $1,533,462

Revenue at 5% Land Rent $0 $681,923 $589,327 $766,731

O&M Costs ($729,726) ($720,483) ($820,517) ($1,508,700)

Total Annual Fiscal Impact for BART (if land rent is 10% of property value) ($354,461) $944,801 $718,049 $62,196

Total Annual Fiscal Impact for BART (if land rent is 5% of property value) ($354,461) $262,878 $128,722 ($704,535)

* This revenue includes off-street parking fees only, not revenue from potential parking benefit district(s).

Recommended Scenario Based on the above analysis, the proposed Scenario A provides the best balance of BART ridership, positive fiscal impacts for BART, access modes and TOD in keeping with BART policies and the development potential for the station area. The scenario includes 788 units of new housing, new retail, as well as replacement of 73% of the existing surface parking supply in a structure. It may also include the introduction of on-street parking regulation for the surrounding neighborhood streets that would provide some additional parking for BART riders while ensuring parking availability for neighborhood residents.

While Scenarios B and C generate slightly higher BART ridership, both of these scenarios have significant drawbacks.

Scenario B would reduce the number of much needed housing units within the TOD and also would require keeping a surface parking lot, which would have a negative impact on the image of the transit-oriented development. Even more importantly, if the 107 units planned on the East Lot parcel are removed, the Project would not meet the City’s density zoning ordinance requirement of a minimum 75 units per net acre for that zone. The overall density would fall to 70.7 units per net acre. In addition, a loss of 107 units will affect the amount of Proposition 1C funding that the




Project will receive (a loss of nearly $2.7 million in funding24), jeopardizing the financial stability of the project. Furthermore, reducing the number of housing units while increasing the amount of commuter parking will likely increase the number of vehicular trips, Vehicle Miles Traveled per capita, as well as GHG per capita for the project, which is not desired from a local or regional perspective, particularly as it is Priority Development Area and adjacent to a BART station.

The fiscal analysis of Scenario C currently assumes that $21 million, which as of today can only be used as a capital investment for the BART parking structure, will be available to fund future shuttle operations. Furthermore, even if this State Proposition 1C grant could be used to fund shuttle operations and satellite parking leases, it is still a much less profitable scenario to BART than Scenario A. Finally, the satellite parking lots will have to be secured through shared parking agreements with property owners in the proposed shuttle corridors, which may cause problems when new development is proposed or properties are re-tenanted and new locations have to be secured, resulting in the redirection of drivers to other lots. These potential satellite parking location changes may require shuttle route changes and modifications to the wayfinding system, further impacting the customer experience.

24 Eden Housing (2010). Communication with Andrea Osgood about grant funding impacts of replacing the proposed housing on the East Lot with surface parking.








Chapter 7. Additional Access & TDM Strategies

Preferred TOD Site Plan Based on the analysis in the previous chapter, the preferred TOD site plan would include 73% replacement parking, which provides the best balance of BART ridership, positive fiscal impacts for BART, access modes and TOD in keeping with BART policies, and development potential for the station area. This scenario is also fully funded by the Proposition 1C Infill Infrastructure Grant. Figure 7-1 illustrates the preferred TOD site plan.

The preferred Scenario A will be accompanied by an array of access improvements and parking and transportation demand management strategies, as described below. These improvements and strategies will further the success of the area, as more people will want to access the station and the surroundings by foot, bicycle, transit, and high-occupancy vehicles.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Strategies Considering that some 300 regular BART patrons who live within a half mile (a 20-minute walk) of the South Hayward BART Station currently drive to the Station, pedestrian and bicycle improvements in the Station Area are very important measures to reduce parking demand at the Station. Most pedestrian and bicycle access improvements coincide with each other. For example, the existing Nuestra Parquecito parkway acts as both a bikeway and a walkway. Likewise, if new streets are introduced at the TOD or in the station area, both pedestrians and bicyclists will benefit from new connections, as will motorists. Below is a compilation of priority projects and TDM strategies that would benefit pedestrians and bicyclists.

Enhanced Walkways and Bikeways within SHMU The plan envisions a transit plaza in front of the station that would extend along Street B as an enhanced streetscape connecting the station with Dixon Street. The planned retail on Street B includes a supermarket to the north and residential live/work units to the south, with both facing onto wide sidewalks. By providing Street B with wide sidewalks and an inviting atmosphere, it will be the key “gateway” to the station, acting as the primary access point from origins to the east, northeast and south. Street A will provide additional access from the west by connecting to Tennyson and the Tennyson underpass. Street A will also provide access to the east and south via Street C and a wide pedestrian walkway through the market-rate housing to Dixon Street.

Two sets of curb cut ramps at street corners are strongly preferred for users of wheelchairs, strollers, and rolling luggage, and should be implemented wherever feasible throughout the site. Creating a ramp in each direction of a crosswalk allows pedestrians to enter directly into the crosswalk.

The TOD site plan calls for improving the bike network, and access to the station by providing bike lanes on Dixon Street. These strategies are illustrated in Figure 7-2.

Tennyson Road

Mission Blvd

Dixon S

treet12th S

treet

11th Street

10th Street

Union P

acific Railroad

Bay A

rea Rapid Transit


Copperfield Ave

Figure 7-1 Preferred TOD Site Plan

0 250 500Feet


Parcel 3: Market Rate Housing

Parcel 2: AffordableSenior Housing

Parcel 4: BART Parking Structure

Perry & Key:Market Rate Condominiums

Street A

Street B

Street C

Pedestrian Walkway





Bike parking at the station should be expanded and incorporate electronic bicycle lockers, which are more adaptable to bicycle user needs, and more secure than the existing bike racks. Without such lockers, or improvements to the bicycle network, bike mode share is unlikely to increase at the station. The City of Hayward has recently been awarded a Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) grant by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for the transit plaza improvements and associated access improvements. A portion of this grant will be used to ensure that the faregates can be accessed by bicycle and that both long-term and short-term bicycle parking is provided. The bike parking will be located as close to the entrance as possible without being placed in the general path of pedestrians coming from streets, transit, or the parking garage. Replacement of the existing 30 bike lockers with electronic bike lockers is a likely strategy. As use of the new lockers increases, new electronic bike lockers should be added as demand warrants and as funding becomes available. Bicycle ridership is also highly dependent on improvements to the bike network in the surrounding neighborhoods, which is discussed later in this chapter.

Enhanced Walkways and Bikeways within a Half Mile of the Station In the future, a planned walkway adjacent to the Perry & Key site may provide access east of Dixon Street to Mission Boulevard, passing through a future park or open space on an existing Caltrans property. See Figure 7-2 for the location of this improvement.

Dedication of easements to widen sidewalks in conjunction with redevelopment of parcels in the half-mile radius will greatly enhance pedestrian access. Due to a limited right-of-way along Mission Boulevard, a parallel north-south corridor for pedestrians and bicyclists should be a priority. Segments of this corridor already exist. However, this corridor can be completed between Harder Road and Tennyson Road by creating new pedestrian and bicycle links in the north/south directions. Improvements are listed below:

Consider upgrading the north-south crossing of Tennyson Road immediately to the east of the BART tracks through construction of a bridge over Tennyson linking the Nuestra Parquecito along East 10th Street to the BART Station. In the short term, alternatives include creating a paved path from East 10th

Street and East 11th Street down to Tennyson

Road and making improvements to cross Tennyson Road at Dixon or 11th Street through corner bulbouts and special markings.

Tennyson Road

Mission Blvd

Dixon S

treet

12th Street

11th Street

10th Street

Union P

acific Railroad

Bay A

rea Rapid Transit


Copperfield Ave

Figure 7-2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Access and Circulation Concept

0 250 500Feet





Perry & Key:Market Rate Condominiums

Street A

Street B

Street C

Future Multi-Use Path

FutureWest BART Entry

East B

ay Regional P

athway

Primary Pedestrian Routes

Forms of Circulation

Multi-Use Paths

Dedicated Bike Lanes




The BART and railroad tracks are the primary barrier to east-west movement within the station area. The following actions are recommended and focus on improving crossings of the BART tracks and pedestrian and bicycle facilities on connecting streets:

Implement streetscape and bikeway improvements on Tennyson Road.

As funding becomes available, improve lighting (particularly under the BART and UPRR tracks) and landscaping along this key corridor for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Construct new east-west streets or pedestrian and bikeways to improve access to Mission Boulevard from residential neighborhoods and the BART station. This can be accomplished in conjunction with redevelopment of the following parcels:

On the west side of Mission Boulevard at Broadway Street and 12th Street.

Between Tennyson Road and Valle Vista Avenue, through the Perry & Key site, BART east parking lot and state-owned properties.

On state-owned parcels in the neighborhood south of the BART station.

Additional bike and pedestrian links should be created west of the station to cross the UPRR tracks. An at-grade crossing exists at Huntwood Avenue and Schafer Road, northwest of the station, near Tennyson High School. A grade-separated crossing here or at a nearby location would improve access and safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. Likewise, a crossing southwest of the station, linking Folsom Avenue to the proposed East Bay Greenway, or further east to Valle Vista Avenue would greatly improve access to the station and connect neighborhoods currently separated by railroad tracks.

Recommendations from the South Hayward/Mission Boulevard Form-Based Code Draft The South Hayward/Mission Boulevard Form-Based Code Draft calls for the creation of new streets. Several streets are proposed to reduce block sizes and better connect neighborhoods, which will improve overall access, including bike access. Figure 7-3 illustrates the locations of these new streets and the added connectivity that they would provide.

Recommendations from the City of Hayward Bicycle Master Plan The City of Hayward Bicycle Master Plan proposes several new bicycle facilities near the study area. These bicycle facilities can be seen in Figure 7-4 and Figure 7-5 and are described below:

Station Area Trail – This trail was designed in conjunction with the proposed improvements on Mission Boulevard (Route 238), and is proposed to be constructed parallel to Mission Boulevard to provide bicyclists and pedestrians a safe corridor of travel. Segments of this corridor already exist. This overall route will include several specific improvements that would benefit station access to the South Hayward BART Station:

An easement from the property owners for a multi-use path along the western edge of the K-Mart site (adjacent to Harder Road).

Construction of a bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Tennyson Road.

Easement for a multi-use path along BART tracks between Valle Vista Avenue and Industrial Parkway.




Construction of a new bicycle/pedestrian tunnel under the BART tracks adjacent to Bowman Elementary School. The existing tunnel is not designed for bicyclists and is not ADA compliant.

Upgrade Sorenson Street pedestrian bridge to allow bicycle access.

Union Pacific Regional Trail – The acquisition and use of the UPRR tracks as a multi-use transportation corridor has recently been studied in the UPRR Oakland Subdivision Corridor Improvement Study, with the Alameda County Public Works Agency as the lead. The major issues are the funds needed to acquire the UPRR right-of-way and institutional arrangements needed to operate and maintain the facility. Neither of these issues has been resolved at this point. The study, completed in January 2010, included specific recommendations for each segment of the trail.

East Bay Greenway - A concurrent study initiated by Urban Ecology looked at the possibility of providing a pedestrian and bicycle facility within the BART right-of-way, which could be constructed concurrently with BART’s seismic retrofit project. More recently, coordination of the study has been assumed by the Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority (ACTIA), which is trying to obtain the necessary funding to conduct a feasibility study of the Greenway. No time frame has been established, although ACTIA is forming a technical advisory committee and hiring a consultant to conduct the environmental clearance and develop implementation strategies for the facility in 2010/2011, following the consultant selection process. City of Hayward transportation staff has already been invited to participate. Linking the Nuestro Parquecito bikeway to the BART station is critical for increasing access by bicycles. Without it, bike mode shares from the north are likely to remain low. A pedestrian and bike bridge linking the bikeway (and 10th Street) to Street A is included in the City’s Bicycle Master Plan and the City continues to pursue funding for this project.

When the East Bay Greenway or some type of multi-use pathway is constructed, a feasibility study and cost-benefit analysis should be conducted to evaluate whether a west entrance to the South Hayward BART Station is warranted. A new west entrance would allow pedestrians and bicyclists on the Parkway to directly enter the station without requiring a circuitous journey to reach the east facing entrance. Currently, BART patrons residing west of the station must access it via Tennyson to the north or Industrial Parkway to the south.




Figure 7-3 Existing and New Streets (highlighted) in the Vicinity of the BART Station

Source: South Hayward/Mission Boulevard Form-Based Code, Draft (March 3, 2010).




Figure 7-4 Proposed Bicycle Master Plan Recommendations

Source: City of Hayward Bicycle Master Plan (2007).




Figure 7-5 Multi-Purpose Connections including Bike and Pedestrian Links

Source: South Hayward BART/Mission Boulevard Concept Design Plan (2006).








Taxis and Kiss-and-Ride Taxis and Kiss-and-Ride vehicles will be located on the west side of Street A, just south of the BART plaza. Seven Kiss-and-Ride spaces are proposed to be located immediately adjacent to the BART plaza. Signage should provide guidance to motorists to take Street A southbound to access the Kiss-and-Ride location. This design is similar to other BART stations where Kiss-and-Ride is located next to the station entrance. Up to four taxi stalls can be provided along Street A south of the plaza. However, due to fairly low utilization rates, only two stalls may be warranted. Instead, the remaining two stalls could either become additional Kiss-and-Ride spaces or space for landscaping (fixed or potted) until additional Kiss-and-Ride spaces are needed based on demand, or another use is identified.

Buses and Shuttles As shown in Figure 7-6, the bus intermodal center is located just outside the BART entrance on the east side of Street A, between Street B and Street C. Mission Boulevard buses turn west onto Tennyson, followed by a turn onto Dixon. Eastbound Tennyson buses turn right onto Dixon. All routes then turn right onto Street C and make a final right turn onto Street A, stopping at the bus intermodal center. With seven bus bays, the intermodal center provides sufficient access for existing service. If bus ridership increases, growth can be accommodated through increased frequency of service and possibly utilizing the same bus bay for more than one route. Current service is on 30 to 60 minute headways; however, if demand warrants it, capacity can be doubled or tripled with 10 to 15-minute headways.

Various scenarios were developed to illustrate how buses and shuttles could exit the TOD site. The final agreed upon scenario is presented Figure 7-6 and below:

Mission Boulevard-bound buses will head north on Street A, turn right onto Tennyson, and finally turn right or left onto Mission.

Tennyson Road (westbound) buses will head north on Street A, turn right onto Street B, turn left onto Dixon, turn left at the Tennyson traffic light and continue west on Tennyson Road.

In order to avoid impacts on adjacent uses from idling buses and queuing passengers at the bus intermodal center, ground level apartments should have floors elevated above ground level. With the site generally sloping to the south, most units will have floors above ground level.

Paratransit service to the station requires convenient and direct access to the station entrance. The paratransit stop is located on Street A, immediately adjacent to the BART plaza north of the kiss-and-ride spaces.

Although not specifically indicated in the development plans, existing and future shuttle operations could share the paratransit space as well as bus bays with low utilization rates. These shuttles can either be public or private (e.g. employer shuttles). At this point in time, only the existing employer shuttles are anticipated.

Note that if a high-frequency public shuttle service overlaps with an AC Transit bus route for a significant distance, it is considered a competitive route. For example, if a public shuttle service were added along Tennyson Road during peak periods, it would be competitive with AC Transit Route 86. This could result in a service cut in AC Transit service for that route, if bus ridership drops significantly. Any public shuttle service under consideration should therefore be created in




consultation with AC Transit, and then monitored to track the impacts of the service on AC Transit ridership and service.

Vehicular Access and Parking Figure 7-7 presents an illustration of the vehicular access into the TOD site and its parking entrances. Parking at the TOD site will be provided for three types of uses:

Retail parking for the supermarket and other on-site retail:

Garage under the supermarket25

On-street parking on Street B

Residential parking for residents:

Garage on Parcel 2 for senior and family affordable housing units on Parcels 1 and 2

Garage on Parcel 3 for market-rate rental units

Garage(s) on the Perry & Key site for market-rate for-sale units

BART parking:

BART parking structure on Parcel 4. This parking is designated to BART patrons from 5 AM to 3 PM, and may be used by the public after 3 PM on weekdays and all day on weekends.

Additional reserved parking could be located in the residential parking garages, to the extent that the supply of residential parking exceeds demand. Such parking would be reserved parking only, with BART patrons being charged a monthly fee, for instance.

Additional reserved parking could be located in the adjacent neighborhoods by establishing a parking benefit district administered by the City and/or JPA.

25 This parking will be initially restricted to retail parking only. Although this may result in surplus parking during off-peak periods, this parking cannot be shared with all-day commuters due to significant overlap after 5:00 PM on weekdays.

Tennyson Road

Mission Blvd

Dixon S

treet12th S

treet

11th Street

10th Street

Union P

acific Railroad

Bay A

rea Rapid Transit


Copperfield Ave




Street A

Street B

Street C

Pedestrian Walkway


Perry & Key: Market Rate Condominiums

FuturePedestrian Connection

Bus S

tops

STOP

Mission Blvd Bus Routes

Tennyson Road Bus Routes

InboundOutbound

InboundOutbound

Other Symbols

Traffic signal

Bus Operations

STOP Stop sign

TOD sites

0 250 500Feet

Figure 7-6 Access to and from Bus Intermodal Center on Street A

STOP

STOP

Tennyson Road

Mission Blvd

Dixon S

treet12th S

treet

11th Street

10th Street

Union P

acific Railroad

Bay A

rea Rapid Transit





Street A

Street B

Street C

Pedestrian Walkway


Perry & Key:Market RateCondominiums


Bus S

tops

STOP

STOP

STOP

STOP

BART Garage Access Routes

Private Development Access

PrimarySecondary

Parking Entrance/Exit

Other Symbols

Traffic signal

Automobile Access

STOP Stop sign

TOD sites

Loading Dock

Figure 7-7 General Vehicular TOD Site Access

0 250 500Feet




Retail Parking The proposed supermarket will have parking located in an underground garage with approximately 170 spaces for customers. Although the details of how to ensure that parking is only used by retail customers is still under development, there will likely be a validation system in place. It has been suggested that unused retail parking should be shared with BART patrons making shorter trips during weekdays (e.g. between 10 AM and 3 PM); however, the retail parking management details are still incomplete and will need to be developed and coordinated with the retail tenant. See discussion under the Shared Parking section below for more information.

Retail customers will also be allowed to park on both sides of Street B. Depending on the orientation of the parking, issues regarding safety, ease of loading and unloading cars, and bus operations are affected. As roughly half of the bus routes pass through this street, it is critical that the parking be designed in a way to be inviting to all, allowing shopping customers safe and easy access to their cars, to safely load their car with groceries, and allow for safe and efficient bus operations. Most important is that overall safety is maintained, and that the fewest conflicts are created. The preferred alternative of forty-five degree parking offers easy entry and exit of the 24 parking spaces, with virtually no conflicts with opposing traffic. Sidewalk widths with this configuration will be approximately 15 feet.

Since these 24 stalls will be the only on-street spaces provided within the SHMU, they will need to be either time-limited or metered to avoid having BART patrons and retail employees park in these prime spots. It is recommended that multi-space meters be installed, with parking rates set to create a 15% vacancy rate. Due to the close proximity to the BART Station, the rates will have to be higher than the daily fee for parking in the BART garage.

Shared Parking Parking spaces may be used jointly by land uses with different hours of operation or different peak hours of operation. Each land use (e.g. BART commuter parking, retail, residential) generates demand for parking that varies by time of day and day of the week. This varying demand is expressed as a percentage of spaces allocated for a particular land use that are likely to be used at any given time. If parking is shared, then the total demand for parking is the sum of the usage for all uses. For example, during the evening, parking spaces dedicated for commuter use are largely empty and so can be “shared” or filled with retail customers who are parking during the evening and on weekends. Shared parking would not necessarily decrease the overall parking demand, but instead, it would ensure that parking demand is met more efficiently, allowing additional development or additional space for non-vehicular improvements.

At the SHMU, the potential for shared parking will be fairly limited due to the overlap in parking demand throughout the day by residents, BART patrons, and retail customers. A significant portion of the residents will leave their cars in the residential garages during the day and take transit to work, thereby effectively removing the potential for BART patrons to use these spaces. SHMU residents who drive to work will likely leave at approximately the same time as BART patrons arrive at the station, and vice versa in the evening; thereby further reducing the potential for shared parking between these uses. The supermarket/retail parking will likely have a fair amount of available spaces throughout most of the day, but since many BART patrons will likely return from work at about the same time as the evening grocery/retail shopping occurs, it is difficult to estimate what the potential for shared parking is (since this retail parking will have to be made available to grocery/retail customers). The BART parking structure will be available to the general public after 3 PM on weekdays and during the weekend.




Nevertheless, parking occupancy rates for all parking (residential, retail, BART commuters, etc.) should be monitored on a periodic basis (every 6 or 12 months), to determine the actual parking demand. Once demand is known by time of day and week, parking designations can be optimized to include shared parking where applicable. Furthermore, as new development is proposed and built in the station area, shared parking strategies should be recommended as a means to reduce construction of excess parking and to more efficiently utilize the available supply.

TDM Strategies Transportation Demand Management, or TDM, is a general term for strategies that increase overall system efficiency by encouraging a shift from single-occupant vehicle (SOV) trips to other modes of travel such as transit, walking, bicycling, and ridesharing. TDM measures focus on reducing transportation demand as compared to the alternative solution of increasing transportation capacity. It emphasizes the movement of people and goods, rather than motor vehicles, and so gives priority to more efficient modes. TDM programs come in a variety of forms and most individual TDM strategies only affect a small portion of total travel. However, the cumulative impacts of a comprehensive TDM program can be significant. Ultimately, TDM seeks to reduce auto trips—and total vehicle miles traveled for individuals to accomplish their daily needs. This is done by increasing travel options, by providing incentives, policies, and information to encourage and help individuals modify their travel behavior and use sustainable travel options. While some parking strategies were described in the section above, parking policies fall under TDM programs as the availability of parking is strongly correlated to one’s decision to drive. Thus, additional parking strategies that may reduce driving demand are included in this section. Strategies with the potential to support non-motorized modes and transit access in the TOD and the station area are described below.

Residential Parking Permit Districts and Residential Parking Benefit Districts In order to prevent spillover parking in residential neighborhoods, many cities implement residential parking permit (RPP) districts (also known as preferential parking districts) by issuing parking permits to residents usually for free or a nominal fee. These permits allow residents to park within the district while all others are prohibited from parking there for more than a few hours, if at all.

Residential parking permit districts are typically implemented in residential districts near large traffic generators such as central business districts, educational and entertainment centers, and transit stops or park-and-ride stations. Residents in areas that have significant on-street commuter parking may have concerns about the availability of parking for themselves and their guests, traffic safety, emergency vehicle access, and impacts on delivery and other basic services. However, residential parking permit districts have several limitations including:

Issuing an unlimited number of permits without regard to the actual number of curb parking spaces available in the district, which may lead to congested on-street parking.

A surplus of available parking spaces during the day can occur when many residents are away, but the permit district prevents any commuters or employees from parking in these spaces even if demand is high and many motorists would be willing to pay to park in one of the surplus spaces.




One way to address these problems is to create a Parking Benefit District (PBD), which can be implemented on its own or in conjunction with a residential parking permit district. A PBD is created by metering the on-street parking (with permits, pay stations, or traditional parking meters) and dedicating any excess revenue, less expenses for maintenance and enforcement, towards neighborhood improvements that promote walking, cycling and transit use, such as upgraded sidewalks, curb ramps, bicycle lanes, street lighting, and landscaping.

Currently, the neighborhoods surrounding the South Hayward BART Station do not experience overflow parking, so a neighborhood parking permit district is unnecessary. However, with a continued increase in BART ridership and/or BART parking charges, some spillover parking may eventually occur. Once parking at the station fills on a regular basis, or spillover occurs, changing to one or more PBDs in the surrounding residential neighborhoods should be studied and considered. A map of a possible district is shown in Figure 7-8 below, which was derived from the Draft Parking Strategy Report associated with the South Hayward BART/Mission Boulevard Form Based Code.

Figure 7-8 Potential Parking Benefit Districts

Source: South Hayward BART/Mission Boulevard Form Based Code: Parking & Transportation Demand Management Strategy, Draft (2010).

Unbundled Parking Parking costs are generally subsumed into the sale or rental price of housing and commercial space for the sake of simplicity, and because that is the more traditional practice in real estate. Thus parking is bundled in the cost of housing. Bundling is defined as “The practice of selling two or more products as a package deal, rather than selling each product separately.”26

26 Hanming Fang and Orit Rotem, “The Case for Taxing Surface Parking,” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and the Environment 9, no. 4, 2004, 319-333. In Shoup (2007) The High Cost of Free Parking (p. 576).




Although the cost of parking is often hidden in this way, parking is never free. Unbundling requires that the cost of parking be separated from the purchase price or lease cost of a property.

Unbundling residential parking at the SHMU, and in other new residential and commercial developments in the station area, would have a positive impact in several ways:

1. Residents in the new development could opt to not have a parking space, having a lower effective rent than an equivalent apartment that bundles parking.

2. Due to lower apartment rent rates, the housing development would be available to a larger market of potential renters.

3. The parking spaces that are not used by residents can be used for other purposes, including BART parking, which would generate revenue for the site, or for other purposes, such as retail parking.

Ecopass Program In recent years, growing numbers of transit agencies, including AC Transit, have teamed with universities, employers, or residential neighborhoods to provide ecopasses. These passes typically provide unlimited rides on local or regional transit providers for low monthly fees, often absorbed entirely by the employer, school, or property management. A typical example of an ecopass is the Eco-Pass program in downtown Boulder, which provides free transit on Denver's Regional Transportation District (RTD) light rail and buses to more than 7,500 employees, employed by 700 different businesses in downtown Boulder. To fund this program, Boulder's downtown parking benefit district requires a flat fee for each employee who is enrolled in the program, regardless of whether the employee actually rides transit. Because every full-time employee in the downtown is enrolled in the program, the Regional Transportation District in turn provides the transit passes at a deep bulk discount.

A review of existing ecopass programs found that the annual per employee fees are between 1% and 17% of the retail price for an equivalent annual transit pass. The principle of employee or residential transit passes is similar to that of group insurance plans—transit agencies can offer deep bulk discounts when selling passes to a large group, with universal enrollment, on the basis that not all those offered the pass will actually use it regularly.

Offering free transit passes is usually an extremely effective means to reduce the number of car trips in an area; reductions in car mode share of 4% to 22% have been documented, with an average reduction of 11%. By removing any cost barrier to using transit, including the need to search for spare change for each trip, people become much more likely to take transit to work or for non-work trips.

Eden Housing and AC Transit plan to provide ecopasses, known as the AC Transit’s Easy Passes, to residents of the affordable family and senior housing developments in the SHMU to promote bus use. By providing these free passes, residents will have a readily available choice of either taking the bus, or using a personal vehicle (if they own one).

The City of Hayward should encourage any future development in the station area to provide Easy Passes for their residents or employees. The program could be funded by using, for example, Parking Benefit District revenues, or by reducing the amount of parking built in a new development, and thereby using these savings to pay for the Easy Pass program.

In the case of South Hayward residents and employees, the cost savings would be considerable. AC Transit’s Easy Pass program provides steeply discounted transit passes and is available to employers, educational institutions and residential developments at an annual cost of between




$41 – 115 per person, depending on the size of the organization/development and the level of transit service provided within a quarter-mile of the location.27 This should be compared to single ride fares of $2, or monthly passes priced at $80 - $132.50. A key advantage of AC Transit's Easy Pass program is that it is already established, and AC Transit is seeking new customers for the program. Therefore, this recommendation can be implemented simply by requiring that new developments enroll employees and residents in the program.

Benefits from Ecopass Programs Ecopasses provide multiple benefits, as discussed below.

For transit riders

Free access to transit (e.g., eliminating the current $2 per ride or $80-$132.50 per month AC Transit pass price)

Rewards existing riders, attracts new ones

For employees who drive, making existing transit free can effectively create convenient park-and-ride shuttles to existing underused remote parking areas

For transit operators

Provides a stable source of income

Increases transit ridership, helping to meet agency ridership goals

Can help improve cost recovery, reduce agency subsidy, and/or fund service improvements

For developers

Ecopass programs can benefit developers if implemented concurrently with reduced parking requirements, which consequently lower construction costs

Providing free transit passes at new developments provides an amenity that can help attract renters or home buyers as part of a lifestyle marketing campaign appealing to those seeking a “transit-oriented lifestyle”

For employees/employers

Reduces demand for parking on-site

Provides a tax-advantaged transportation benefit that can help recruit and retain employees

Parking Cash Out Many employers provide free or reduced price parking for their employees as a fringe benefit. Under a parking cash-out requirement, employers will be able to continue this practice on the condition that they offer the cash value of the parking subsidy to any employee who does not drive to work.

The cash value of the parking subsidy should be offered as follows: 27 See http://www.actransit.org/riderinfo/easypass/




A transit/vanpool subsidy equal to the value of the parking subsidy (of which up to $230 per month is tax-free for both employer and employee)28

A bicycle subsidy equal to the value of the parking subsidy (of which up to $20 per month is tax-free for both employer and employee)

A taxable carpool/walk subsidy equal to the value of the parking subsidy

Employees who opt to cash out their parking subsidies would not be eligible to receive free parking from the employer, and would be responsible for finding and paying any fees of other parking on days when they drive to work.

Within the SHMU, the potential for a parking cash-out program is fairly limited, considering the fact that there is little commercial development other than the supermarket and some additional small-scale retail. If other commercial developments are developed in the station area, the City could require these projects to establish a parking pricing or parking cash-out program for employees.

Benefits of Parking Cash Out The benefits of parking cash out are numerous, and include:

Provides an equal transportation subsidy to employees who ride transit, carpool, vanpool, walk or bicycle to work. The benefit is particularly valuable to low-income employees, who are less likely to drive alone to work.

Provides a low-cost fringe benefit that can help individual businesses recruit and retain employees.

Employers report that parking cash out requirements are simple to administer and enforce, typically requiring just one to two minutes per employee per month to administer.

In addition to these benefits, the primary benefit of parking cash-out programs is their proven effect on reducing auto congestion and parking demand. Even in suburban locations with little or no transit, financial incentives can substantially reduce parking demand. On average, a financial incentive of $70 per month reduces parking demand by more than 25%.29 While SHMU is not planned at this time to include an abundance of commercial uses suitable for a parking cash out program, such a program should be considered for future development in the station area due to ability to reduce vehicle trips.

Carsharing Carsharing has proven successful in reducing both household vehicle ownership and the percentage of employees who drive alone because of the need to have a car for errands and meetings during the workday. As a result, carsharing can be an important tool to reduce parking demand.

For residents, carsharing reduces the need to own a vehicle, particularly a second or third car. Recent surveys have shown that more than half of carshare users have sold at least one vehicle

28 Under the federal “Commuter Choice” law. More info at the Federal Transit Administrations’ Commuter Choice website http://www.fta.dot.gov/initiatives_tech_assistance/customer_service/2172_ENG_HTML.htm. 29 Source: Derived from Donald Shoup, “Evaluating the Effects of Parking Cash Out: Eight Case Studies,” 1997. Based on dollar amounts in 2005 dollars.




since joining the program in the San Francisco Bay Area.30 For employees, carsharing allows them to take another mode than driving alone to work, since they will have a vehicle available for errands during the day.

The SHMU, with its immediate access to BART and shopping, creates a viable location for carsharing. The City of Hayward should encourage carshare providers, such as City Carshare and Zipcar, to locate one or more carshare vehicles in the TOD. In order to facilitate the introduction of one or more carsharing pods in the area, the City should consider the following strategies:

Require or encourage developers to offer carsharing operators the right of first refusal for a limited number of parking spaces

Require new developments to pay into a carshare start-up fund

Partially or fully subsidize operating costs for a specified term

Coordinate with BART to potentially provide one or more parking spaces in the BART parking structure for carshare vehicle parking

Provide other incentives, such as offering convenient and visible curb spaces, for instance on Street B, to carshare providers

TDM Marketing Coordination

TOD Newcomer Residents Informational materials about the above listed programs, as well as transit and shuttle service information, should be distributed as part of a “move-in” packet to residents. One or more employees from the sales and/or leasing offices should be responsible for these tasks, including receiving TDM training to help residents become aware of and make use of non-vehicular modes of transportation. A representative of the JPA, HOA and/or a staff member of the respective leasing offices can assume this responsibility, pursuant to the HOA and lease agreements.

Neighborhood Residents In an effort to decrease the number of local residents driving to the BART station, several months prior to the BART surface parking lot being closed for TOD construction, the JPA and/or the project developers should coordinate a one-time marketing campaign targeted to neighborhoods and residents that have convenient access via other modes of transportation to the BART station. The marketing effort would include distribution of information on alternative means of accessing BART and potentially free trial transit passes or other financial incentives to try a non-automobile alternative of getting to BART.

Wayfinding Signage “Wayfinding” refers to how people orient themselves and navigate from place to place, and the types of information they use to do so. People, especially those less familiar with an area, orient themselves using maps, signage, and other publicized information, as well as landmarks such as prominent buildings, mountains and other natural features in the landscape. An effective wayfinding system helps people feel safe and comfortable, and find their way. It also gives them a

30 April 2002 survey by Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates for City CarShare.




“sense of place”—an understanding and familiarity with where they are and where they are going, and encourages them to use the same travel mode again in the future.

Residents, employees, and visitors to the South Hayward BART Station and the SHMU will benefit from an effective wayfinding program, including signage and other information to help them find their way to BART from within the project area and elsewhere in the City of Hayward and beyond. The City, BART, and the developers could implement the following strategies within the project area to ensure effective wayfinding:

Publicly displayed maps of the area that indicate prominent landmarks and important destinations, as well as maps of the regional transportation system for the Bay Area.

Provide transportation information for all modes, including maps and schedules for transit, and directions to bus stops, bicycle parking, paratransit and shuttle stops, potential carshare pods, taxi stand, and Kiss-and-Ride areas, and automobile parking areas.

Signage throughout the site, designed in coordination with BART, AC Transit, and other transportation services, to direct travelers to various services and key destinations. These signs will supplement the signs already described above.

There will be many opportunities to design wayfinding into structures, the plaza and other elements of the site. Furthermore, the actual design of the site, not just signage, will make an important contribution to the identity and ability for people to orient themselves at the South Hayward development.




Chapter 8. Implementation Prioritized List of Access Strategies With the abundant number of access strategies recommended in this study and the varied costs of implementing each strategy, a prioritization list creates a foundation of which strategies can be implemented early in the process, and which strategies will have the greatest impact on creating a true transit-oriented development. Figure 8-1 shows a list of strategies, organized by mode, to help determine the strategies on which to focus. High-level cost assumptions, the potential usage of the proposed improvement, and timeliness (when the improvement should be introduced, assuming funding is available) all help determine the level of priority a strategy has in relation to other strategies in the table.

A critical way to manage the implementation of the access strategies is through a single government entity which oversees and manages the implementation of the strategies. With the City of Hayward, the Hayward Redevelopment Agency, and BART having jurisdiction in different areas, the creation of a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) may be the best way to manage access and implementation of access strategies. This concept is further described later in this chapter.

Figure 8-1 Proposed Access Improvements to the South Hayward BART Station and Neighborhood

Project Cost Usage Timeliness Priority Other Comments

Streets

New streets southeast of BART Station

High Moderate Low Moderate Creating more streets, interconnecting Dixon and Mission is dependent on development of large parcels between the two streets.

Wayfinding Low Moderate High High Wayfinding will encourage new and existing residents and visitors to use transit by effectively guiding them to the BART station.

Pedestrian

Enhanced walkways within half mile of the station

Moderate Moderate Moderate/ High

Moderate/ High

Includes sidewalk completion and other improvements in the station area.

Pedestrian bridge over Tennyson Road to connect to Nuestro Parquecito or future multi-use pathway

Moderate/High

Moderate Moderate Moderate/ High

Would complete the bicycle/pedestrian network to BART from Nuestro Parquecito. A less expensive solution may be to construct new pedestrian paths from 10th and 11th Streets down to Tennyson Road.

Enhanced connections under BART tracks

Moderate/High

Low Moderate Moderate Specific improvements may include upgrading the tunnel outside Bowman School and the bridge at Sorenson.





Ped/bike corridor along UP alignment

High Moderate Low/ Moderate

Moderate Could be combined with new west entrance to station.

Ped/bike connection between Dixon and Mission Blvd on Caltrans right of way

Low Moderate Low Moderate Planned pathway linking Mission and Dixon through a new park will create better neighborhood connectivity.

Bicycle

Replace single-user lockers with electronic lockers

Low Low Moderate Moderate Part of system-wide upgrade.

Restripe and sign Class II bike lanes on Tennyson Road

Low Low Moderate Moderate The route will be safer if better signed and striped.

Bike boxes and bike actuated traffic signals

Low/ Moderate

Low Low Low On streets with bike lanes in the station area.

Transit and Shuttles

AC Transit/Shuttle service

Moderate Low/ Moderate

Low Low May be appropriate in conjunction with increased development.

Vehicles and Parking

Shared Parking Low Low Moderate Moderate Once parking is unbundled, creating a framework where parking is shared will maximize use of all parking spaces.

Transportation Demand Management

Unbundled Parking Low Moderate High High Unbundled residential parking will increase the opportunity for shared parking with other users, such as BART commuters.

Parking Benefit District Moderate Low Moderate Moderate On-street parking will need active management following new development and reduced BART parking.

Easy Pass Program Moderate Moderate High High By providing free AC Transit passes (Easy Passes), residents will have a readily available choice of taking the bus, potentially increasing overall transit usage. This will be provided to affordable and senior housing residents.





Parking Cash Out Low Low Moderate Moderate Parking cash out, while effective, may not be appropriate for all uses at the South Hayward BART Station at this time, but should be considered for future development in the station area.

Carsharing Low Moderate Moderate Moderate The station area currently does not have access to carsharing. However, the SHMU development may trigger implementation.

TDM Coordination Low Moderate High High An emphasis should be made on existing services and ensuring that individuals are aware of all transportation options.

Creation of a Joint Powers Authority In order to best manage multimodal access to and from the TOD site, a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) between BART, the City of Hayward and the Hayward Redevelopment Agency could be established. This JPA would manage the unique needs of the station area and could oversee (and in the case wherein the City is to manage and oversee certain needs, the JPA would have the ability to advise the City in these matters):

Management of the BART parking garage

Management of on-street parking within half-mile walk radius of the station

Coordination of all commuter parking pricing

Management of redistribution of net revenues into streetscape and access improvements

Coordination of a TDM program

Bike access and parking within the half-mile radius of the station

Funding Strategies Given the current economic climate and with many government budgets constrained, finding funding sources for access projects can often be challenging amidst other community priorities. The Bay Area is unique in its funding programs, which can specifically be used for safety projects, particularly those related to non-motorized modes. In addition, there are several other strategies that can be employed that may be able to assist in funding transportation projects, including parking revenues, partnerships with property owners, and partnerships with new developments. The programs and projects noted in the figures below by no means cover the full extent of funding opportunities available; they are intended to represent a sample of potential programs to assist in funding access improvements at and around the South Hayward BART Station. While numerous fund programs exist, all are very competitive and can be difficult to obtain.

Local and Regional Funding Programs As part of the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission serves as the region’s Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and serves as the primary body




through which federal and state funds are passed onto local organizations. These include the Alameda County Transportation Commission (CTC) and other specific project sponsors who apply for funding. The list below outlines potential sources for local and regional funds that could potentially be used for station area access improvements.

Figure 8-2 Local and Regional Funding Programs for Station-Area Improvements

Agency Program Description

City of Hayward Redevelopment Agency

City Redevelopment Agency Funds

As the South Hayward BART Station falls within the City of Hayward Redevelopment Area the City Redevelopment Agency could serve as a financial contributor to local area access improvements and projects.

Alameda CTC Measure B In November 2000 Alameda County voters approved Measure B, a ballot measure to continue the County's 1/2 cent sales tax for transportation projects through March 2022. Measure B also established the Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority (now the Alameda CTC) to administer this sales tax. Currently an update of the Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) and Expenditure Plan (EP) is underway. Key stakeholders and the public will be invited to weigh-in on changes and updates to both the CTP and the EP as the process moves further along. $80.6 million in total funds will be allocated towards bicycle and pedestrian safety projects over the lifespan of the EP.

Alameda CTC Transportation for Clean Air Funds (TFCA)

As the TFCA program manager for Alameda County, the ACCMA (now Alameda CTC) is responsible for programming 40% of the four dollar vehicle registration fee that is collected in Alameda County for this program.

Alameda CTC Vehicle Registration Fee

The Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee could provide up to $11 million in new transportation funds annually generated by a $10 per year vehicle registration fee if approved by Alameda County voters in the November 2010 election. As of July 2010, the draft expenditure plan includes 60% of the funds being directed towards local road improvement and repair and 5% directed towards pedestrian and bicycle safety and access programs. Both of these categories could fund transit access improvements at the South Hayward BART Station.

Alameda CTC Lifeline Transportation Program

MTC’s Lifeline Transportation Program supports projects that address mobility and accessibility needs in low-income communities throughout the region. It is funded by a combination of federal and state operating and capital funding sources, including the Federal Transit Administration’s Jobs Access and Reverse Commute Program, and state Proposition 1B Transit Capital and State Transit Assistance programs The City of Hayward could work with BART or AC Transit to apply for these funds as applicants must be a transit agency.

Alameda CTC Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP)

The RTIP is the Bay Area's proposal to the State of California for how the region’s STIP funds should be spent on transit, state highway, local road, bicycle and pedestrian projects over a five-year period. The Alameda CTC adheres to MTC’s guidelines and develops the Alameda County list of projects to be funded in the STIP. As the regional transportation planning agency (RTPA) for the Bay Area, the MTC approves the region's funding priorities for the STIP and submits the projects to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) by way of the RTIP.





Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)

Bicycle Facility Program

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (Air District) Bicycle Facility Program (BFP) provides grant funding to reduce motor vehicle emissions through the implementation of new bikeways and bicycle parking facilities in the Bay Area. The BFP is funded through the Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) program.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)

Transportation Development Act (TDA)

State legislation enacted in 1971 required that a quarter of every cent of retail sales tax generated within a county be used to fund transportation projects. Funds are predominantly spent on transit related projects, but TDA Article 3 requires that 2% of the funds be allocated to bicycle and pedestrian projects such as the elimination or improvement of an identified safety problem; roadway or route improvements; bicycle parking; bicycle racks on transit; maintenance of facilities; bicycle safety, education, and promotional activities; projects that improve regional connections and bicycle plans. Funds are allocated by the MTC to counties who administer the funds for the cities. While TDA funds remain available, the City of Hayward has developed a long term program to use these funds to help meet city ADA requirements.


Safe Routes to School Programs (SR2S)

The Safe Routes to School programs are intended to increase the number of children who walk or bicycle to school by removing the barriers that currently prevent them from doing so. Barriers include lack of infrastructure or inadequate infrastructure that poses a safety hazard, or lack of outreach programs that promote walking/bicycling through education and encouragement for children, parents and the community. There are three separate and distinct Safe Routes to School programs. The California-legislated program is referred to as SR2S and provides infrastructure funding for cities and counties. The federal program, referred to as SRTS, is part of SAFETEA-LU and offers funding to state, local and regional agencies for infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects. The regional Safe Routes to School program would provide additional funding to expand existing Safe Routes to Schools programs that are being implemented successfully in Marin, Alameda and Contra Costa counties.


Safe Routes to Transit Program (SR2T)

The Safe Routes to Transit (SR2T) program awards approximately $20 million in grants to facilitate walking and bicycling to transportation hubs and is administered through TransForm, a non-profit transportation advocacy group based in Oakland, CA.


Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) Program

The Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) Program is designed to support community-based transportation projects that bring “new vibrancy to downtown areas, commercial cores, neighborhoods, and transit corridors.” The projects resulting from TLC grants are intended to provide for a range of transportation choices including walking, support connections between transportation and land use, and should be developed through inclusive community planning. The TLC program’s funding has been doubled to $2.2 billion over the next twenty five years as part of MTC’s Transportation 2035 Plan. The City of Hayward recently received a 3,098,000 TLC grant for landscape and streetscape improvements along Dixon Street north of Valle Vista Avenue, along the south side of Tennyson Road adjacent to the SHMU, and at the BART station plaza.

Sources: ABAG, Alameda CTC, BAAQMD, City of Hayward, MTC, SFMTA, Caltrans.




State and Federal Funding Programs In addition to local and regional programs, state and federal programs may offer potential funding for the South Hayward BART Station. Most of these funds are from Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). At the federal level, there are numerous programs that can directly or indirectly fund station access projects, yet a small number of them provide the majority of funding. Federal funding sources are likely to be the most competitive and tend to have the most requirements including requirements for matching funds that often are difficult to meet.

Figure 8-3 State and Federal Funding Programs


US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (and Caltrans)

Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA)

Three of the twelve eligible activities within the TEA program are directly related to non-motorized modes. They are: 1) pedestrian and bicycle facilities, which include: sidewalks, walkways or curb ramps; bike lane striping, wide paved shoulders, bike parking and bus racks; off-road trails; bike and pedestrian bridges and underpasses; 2) pedestrian and bicycle safety and educational activities; and 3) conversion of abandoned railway corridors to trails.

Caltrans Division of Local Assistance

Bicycle Transportation Account

The Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) provides state funds for city and county projects that improve safety and convenience for bicycle commuters. To be eligible for BTA funds, a city or county must prepare and adopt a Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP) that complies with Streets and Highways Code Section 891.2. The BTP must be approved by the local agency’s Regional Transportation Planning Agency. A call for projects for BTA funds will be made in late 2010. The City currently has an eligible Bicycle Master Plan.

US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (and Caltrans)

Surface Transportation Programs

This funding program is intended to be the primary federal source for pedestrian and bicycle projects. Eligible bicycle activities include on-road facilities, off-road trails, sidewalks, crosswalks, bicycle and pedestrian signals, bike parking and other ancillary facilities. "Non-construction" projects are also eligible and include maps, brochures or public service announcements. STP funds also may be used to bring sidewalks and intersections into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). For the near future, these funds are most likely to be used by the City for pavement rehabilitation, however could be used for non-motorized needs in the future.






Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program

The CMAQ program was designed to enable "non-attainment" areas under the Clean Air Act to fund certain types of transportation programs to improve air quality. Eligible projects include both construction and non-construction activities, such as: bicycle facilities (planning, engineering and construction), bicycle racks on buses, bicycle parking, trails, bicycle route maps, bicycle-activated traffic lights, bicycle safety and education programs and bicycle promotional programs. In the Bay Area, CMAQ funds are distributed through various funding programs by the MTC. The federal share for most CMAQ projects, generally, has been 80%.

Caltrans Division of Mass Transportation

Jobs Access and Reverse Commute (JARC)

The Job Access and Reverse Commute Program (JARC) goals are to improve access to transportation services to employment and employment related activities for low-income individuals and welfare recipients and to transport residents of urbanized areas and non-urbanized areas to suburban employment opportunities. The City of Hayward could work with BART or AC Transit to apply for these funds as applicants must be a transit agency.


Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)

The overall purpose of this program is to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads through the implementation of infrastructure-related highway safety improvements. Funds may be used for projects on any public road or publicly owned bicycle and pedestrian pathway or trail.

Sources: Caltrans, FHWA.





APPENDIX A DOCUMENTS FROM PUBLIC MEETINGS, AGENDAS, PUBLIC COMMENT AND RELATED MATERIALS

South Hayward BART Development

a transit-oriented mixed-use development that includes nearly 800 units of housing, a new supermarket , and replacement BART parking garage

DEVELOPER: Wittek Development LLC and Montana Property Group

ARCHITECT: BAR Architects

DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION Wittek Development LLC and Montana Property Group (Wittek & Montana) are proposing a transit oriented development that will bring Hayward to the forefront of a regional and nationwide trend to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing dependence on the automobile. The proposed design and mix of uses will encourage and enable residents from the development and the surrounding community to make commute and shopping trips on transit and on foot.

Wittek & Montana propose to develop the South Hayward BART station parking lots into a mixed-use retail and housing development that includes nearly 800 units of housing, a new supermarket, and a 900-car replacement BART parking garage. The proposal includes 125 units of affordable housing to be developed by Eden Housing to meet the City’s inclusionary requirement. Included in the development will be walkable pedestrian corridors and landscaping amenities to support the housing and commercial uses. The site will also integrate circulation features and amenities required for multi-modal transit stations, including bus transfer stops and bicycle storage. Once it is complete, this development will transform the core of the South Hayward community, creating a vibrant high quality living environment for residents adjacent to the BART station and offering neighborhood amenities that now do not exist.

The first phase will be the development of a 58,500 square foot supermarket, which will include other local serving retail uses (e.g. Jamba Juice, Starbucks). Directly above the supermarket will be 125 units of affordable apartments by Eden Housing. In several subsequent phases, the developers will build high quality market rate apartment and condominium developments consistent with the Station Area Residential District and with associated amenities such as a health club and a business center. Parking will be located in garages beneath the residential and retail spaces. Large landscaped courtyards will provided within each development as open space serving the residents. The development will be Green Point Rated and its design and construction will incorporate green features like energy efficiency, water conservation, and durable, renewable, and non-toxic materials and finishes.

SITE PLAN SUMMARY

Site Area: 12 acres Density: 64 du/acre

Homes Parking Parcel 1 – affordable family housing by Eden 125Parcel 2 – market rate apartments or condos 65

241

Parcel 3 – market rate apartments or condos 241 277

Perry & Key – market rate condos 341 417 772 935 Residential Parking ratio: 1.2

Supermarket Parking 190 BART Parking Garage 910

APPENDIX B SOUTH HAYWARD ALTERNATIVE ACCESS PLAN FROM SHERMAN LEWIS (HAYWARD AREA PLANNING ASSOCIATION)

Overview

We have a choice. The City of Hayward, BART, Wittek, and the people of Hayward have a choice. The easy choice is to spend the funds granted by state taxpayers to subsidize 910 parking spaces at the South Hayward BART station (SH BART). That choice continues our unsustainable commitment to one mode of transportation, the automobile. It commits us to stagnation in the growth of the city and BART ridership because the parking structure has a fixed limit on the number of spaces. The City of Hayward should study alternative access.

The hard choice is to use the parking structure funds to support alternative access, which consists of three policies: 1) shared paid parking at the BART station; 2) fast, frequent, free shuttles to the station; and 3) arrangements for remote shuttle parking. Alternative access supports sustainable growth because of the high capacity of the shuttle. This choice is difficult because of mortgage financing of the Eden Housing project, vested development rights, and uncertainties about how to pay for building shared parking when the market value is not established. These institutional barriers can only be overcome by political will to study alternative access. The State of California, however, is on board to support alternative use of its funds, if we want it.

At SH BART, shared parking could provide enough parking for all users. The parking would paid for by lease or by daily fee, which wold be paid by the user or by an agency. For shared parking for BART, the BART EZ rider card or equivalent makes it easy for users to pay.

However, the economy would be more productive, the environment more sustainable, and the TOD more livable using alternative access policies, including zoning deregulation, unbundling, parking management, shared parking, parking markets, ecopass, density and mixed use, design for walking, bicycles and transit, rapid shuttles, and car pools/rental/sharing.

Shared use means having a parking charge, probably starting at a dollar a day, or leasing parking on a monthly basis. BART has 23 stations with charges and leases, 8 with no parking and only 8 with free parking. These charges have had a positive effect on ridership; without them BART could not provide the level of service it does at the same level of fares and taxes. If parking gets too scarce, the charge would go up, based on willingness to pay. A few BART riders might no longer come to the station, but overall more would come, combining parking, more shuttle ridership, and more walking.

Alternative access would increase access to BART, obviate the rationale for the BART parking structure, and provide for more growth at a lower cost. The Prop 1C grant for the structure is enough to finance alternative access, and the State is on record as willing to consider an alternative.

In a supportive TOD environment, people are not forced to own a car. They may not be able to really afford a car, or do not want one. They can save about $500 per year on parking space rental and save about $5,000 more by not owning a car. They can walk to the store, ride BART, rent a car as needed, and still save money. We should offer people an affordable, sustainable, high quality of life based on alternative access.

The South Hayward "transit-oriented development" (TOD) does not have shared parking; that is, BART parking can’t use the commercial space, the shopper can’t use the residential space, and the resident can not use the BART space. All the parking is single use: no one can avoid paying for it even if they do not need it, and no one can rent a space even if they can afford it and need it. The cost of the parking space is bundled into other costs.

The City TOD plan calls for a 66 percent increase in parking spaces over the current supply. BART has 1,207 spaces at South Hayward now. Proposed parking structure would have 910 spaces and the TOD total is just short of 2,000 spaces, typical of car-oriented "transit-oriented" development.

The Plan is based on a priori assumptions about parking, which uses zoning to force the building of parking and requires that residential rents include the cost of parking [see City of Hayward Build and Bundle Parking Ordinance.pdf]. BART wants parking that it can get others to pay for. The stores want enough free parking for patrons. None of these calculations have considered a way to provide enough parking at a reasonable price in an efficient way. The TOD Plan pays lip service to non-auto modes while subsidizing parking and not providing for alternative modes or incentives for efficient access. “Demand” for parking is demand at the price of free, all justified by self-fulfilling prophesies about the need for expensive “free” parking.

12

3456789

1011

1213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152535455565758596061626364

A B C D E F G H I J

BART entries and exits

BART operating hours Mon-Fri10 min

headways total hours Sat15 min

headways total hoursto Richmond 4:10am 12:08am 19.75 6:04am 12:12am 18.13from Richmond 5:10am 1:18am 20.13 6:47am 1:18am 18.52 to Day City 5:15am 6:00pm 12.75 8:58am 5:58pm 9.00from Daly City 7:06am 7:51pm 12.75 10:56am 7:51pm 8.92first train to last train 21.13 19.23

Work day ridership by quarter hourtime of day

entries exitsentries

and exits entries exitsentries

and exits0:00 2 11 140:15 0 9 90:30 0 1 20:45 0 3 3 3 24 271:00 0 0 01:15 0 5 51:30 0 0 0 1:18am last train1:45 0 0 0 0 5 54:00 8 1 8 4:10 am first train4:15 4 0 54:30 9 0 94:45 10 0 10 31 1 32 start rapid shuttle5:00 43 6 495:15 42 9 51 one route three routes5:30 40 3 43 start peak 6 per hour 18 per hour5:45 68 6 74 193 24 217 peak service 32 116:00 82 8 90 peak service6:15 80 15 95 peak service6:30 112 14 126 peak service6:45 147 10 157 421 47 468 peak service 70 237:00 166 24 190 peak service7:15 179 25 204 peak service7:30 154 26 180 peak service7:45 164 25 189 663 101 763 peak service 110 378:00 165 17 182 peak service8:15 128 21 148 peak service8:30 97 19 116 peak service8:45 78 16 94 468 73 541 peak service 78 269:00 67 13 80 peak service9:15 51 11 62 end peak9:30 39 7 469:45 39 13 52 196 44 240 33 11

10:00 33 10 4310:15 28 13 4210:30 19 13 3310:45 28 13 41 109 50 158 18 611:00 24 17 4111:15 23 15 3911:30 26 17 4211:45 23 12 36 96 61 157 16 512:00 27 17 4412:15 20 11 3212:30 18 15 3312:45 21 23 43 86 66 151 14 513:00 14 22 3613:15 15 20 3513:30 22 15 3613:45 16 22 38 67 78 145 11 414:00 18 20 3814:15 23 26 4814:30 24 33 5614:45 22 32 54 86 110 197 14 5

quarter hour hour

seats needed

6566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100

101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125

A B C D E F G H I J15:00 22 39 6215:15 25 31 56 start peak15:30 27 52 79 peak service15:45 26 74 100 100 197 297 peak service 17 616:00 23 56 79 peak service16:15 28 85 113 peak service16:30 33 81 114 peak service16:45 30 104 134 113 326 439 peak service 19 617:00 37 135 172 peak service17:15 29 121 150 peak service17:30 25 160 185 peak service17:45 26 125 151 117 542 658 peak service 19 618:00 25 205 230 peak service18:15 18 139 157 peak service18:30 17 107 123 peak service18:45 13 103 116 72 554 626 peak service 12 419:00 10 83 93 peak service19:15 10 64 74 peak service19:30 11 46 57 end peak19:45 9 42 51 40 235 275 7 220:00 8 25 3320:15 8 32 4020:30 8 6 1420:45 10 24 34 34 86 120 6 221:00 11 29 4021:15 10 22 3221:30 6 5 1121:45 8 25 33 35 81 116 6 222:00 5 27 3222:15 5 17 22 stop rapid shuttle22:30 4 6 1022:45 4 14 18 18 64 8223:00 2 14 1623:15 4 16 2023:30 4 1 523:45 1 13 13 11 43 54

2,959 2,811 5,770 2,959 2,811 5,770 11,541Peak service is quarter hour entries and exits 74 and above and the shoulders.Source: Tim Chan, BART, BART Average weekday data for October 6-8, 2009

0

50

100

150

200

250

0:00

0:30

1:00

1:30

4:00

4:30

5:00

5:30

6:00

6:30

7:00

7:30

8:00

8:30

9:00

9:30

10:00

10:30

11:00

11:30

12:00

12:30

13:00

13:30

14:00

14:30

15:00

15:30

16:00

16:30

17:00

17:30

18:00

18:30

19:00

19:30

20:00

20:30

21:00

21:30

22:00

22:30

23:00

23:30

Number of en

tries and exists

South Hayward Riders by Time of Day

Analysis, car and bus routes to South Hayward BART

Home to Work RidershipMajor probable routes intersections sampled riders percentUsing Industrial 18 91 40.8% 898 1,089Using Tennyson 25 76 34.1% 750 909Using Mission south 6 40 17.9% 395 479Using Mission north 8 16 7.2% 158 191

total 223 100.0% 2,200 2,668n = 223 interviews, 2008, BART

From the Profile:Travel Mode to South Hayward Station from home Station ParkingDrive Alone 58% 1,911 Daily fee 0Dropped Off 15% 494 Monthly permit $42 $39 year = $468Carpool 8% 264 Free 1,038

auto access 81% 2,668 Total car parking spaces 1,077Bus/Transit 5% 165 Total bike spaces: 86Walk (only) 12% 395Bicycle 2% 66

100% 3,294City of Home Origin Trip DestinationHayward 74% Work 82%Union City 18% School 4%Fremont 6% Work Related Activity 2%Other 3% Visit Friends/Family 2%

Personal Errands 2%Other Factors Shopping 2%77% Use BART five or more days per week Other 6%79% Have a car available to make their BART trips13% Have been riding BART for less than one year

Age Gender13 to 17 Years <1% Male 37%18 to 24 Years 8% Female 63%25 to 44 Years 42% 45 to 64 Years 47% Ethnicity65 Years and Over 3% Non-HispanicHousehold Income White 21%Under $25,000 11% Black/African American 15%$25,000 to $49,999 14% Asian or Pacific Islander 44%$50,000 to $74,999 21% American Indian or Alaska Native <1%$75,000 to $99,999 15% Other, including 2 or more races 4%$100,000 to $149,999 25% Hispanic (any race) 16%$150,000 and Over 14%

Source: South Hayward Intersection Origins.xlsx. Original data from BART, October 2009The colored dot map of home locations was not used. A more detailed listing was used and aggregated.Corey et. al., 2008 BART Station Profile Study , "South Hayward Station - Home Origins," p. 104 pdf 107

In 2008, 3,294 riders entered on an average weekday, of which 2,689 were coming from home, of which 2,200 were going to work, called a home to work trip. A home to work trip also includes work to home, presumed equal to coming from home to work. Typically, riders come from home to BART to go to work and return later. This trip was surveyed. A few, however, are entering from work to go home; they were not sampled. Other major trip types include work, social-recreational, and shopping-business in various combinations of two, except home and work. BART's sample of 223 out of the 2,689 determined most home location intersections. The sample can be expanded to estimate the actual number of riders using different access routes. Different statistical weightings can change the estimated percent distribution. The smaller the number of home origins at a home location intersection, the less reliable the data. However, aggregating many low volume routes to the four major routes of approach increases sample size and reliability, and is the best data available. In 2009 ridership was about 3,190 per weekday.

if all auto accesses

home to work

BART Parking charges no parking free parking parking charges # spaces

Percent of BART stations with no parking or parking charges: 81%West Oakland $5 1Daly City $3 2Colma $2 3Ashby (Berkeley) $1 715 4Castro Valley $1 5Dublin/Pleasanton $1 6El Cerrito del Norte $1 7El Cerrito Plaza $1 8Fremont $1 9Fruitvale (Oakland) $1 10Lafayette $1 11Lake Merritt (Oakland) $1 12MacArthur (Oakland) $1 13Millbrae $1 14North Berkeley $1 15Orinda $1 16Pittsburg/Bay Point $1 17Pleasant Hill $1 18Rockridge (Oakland) $1 19San Bruno $1 20South San Francisco $1 21Union City $1 22Walnut Creek $1 23 have parking charges12th St. Oakland City Center x 116th St. Mission (SF) x 219th St. Oakland x 324th St. Mission (SF) x 4Balboa Park (SF) x 5Civic Center (SF) x 6Downtown Berkeley x 7Embarcadero (SF) x 8Glen Park (SF) x 9Montgomery St. (SF) x 10Powell St. (SF) x 11San Francisco Int'l Airport x 12 have no parkingBay Fair (San Leandro) x 1Coliseum/Oakland Airport x 2Concord x 3Hayward x 4North Concord/Martinez x 5Richmond x 6San Leandro x 7South Hayward x 8 have free parkingtotal stations 43Daily parking fees are required Monday through Friday from 4:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.The easiest way to pay for daily parking is to purchase an EZ Rider card.

BART: “Monthly Reserved Permit Parking is available at most BART stations. Permits are station-specific and cost between $30 and $115.50 per month (subject to change). They guarantee a space within a designated parking area close to the station Monday through Friday until 10 a.m.”

(BART limits its revenues by undercharging for parking; BART does not use a market-based policy. At some stations the permits are sold out and there is a waiting list. At West Oakland and Daly City, the monthly pass cost per day is lower than the daily rate.)

Parking at SH BART and Parcel 4 Alternative

Parcel 4 is the site of the planned parking structure to the left of the BART station entrance.Current parking at BART, 2009 spaces

1,207

Proposed "TOD" Parking Phase Units spaces spaces/unitparcel 1 under Safeway, store size 58,500 sq ft, and Eden family housing 1 125 172 commercial under Safeway

18 commercial on streetparcel 2 Eden senior housing and parking for families and seniors 1 81 204 0.99 3 levelsparcel 4 BART structure 2 0 910 BART only 7 levelsparcels 3N and 3S, apartments 3 241 277 1.15 1 levelPerry and Key 4 341 417 1.22

"TOD" total units, parking spaces 788 1,998 2.54including BART and commercial

Parcel 4 Alternative Phase Units spaces spaces/unitApartments or condos 2 120 138 1.15 1 or 2 levelsRest of project various 788 1,088 1.38 various

TOD total units, parking spaces 908 1,226 1.35

Comparison of changes in parkingpercent increase after "transit-oriented" development 65.5%percent decrease with no BART structure -9.9%percent increase with 138 space on parcel 4 in lieu of larger structure 1.6%

Unbundling conceptThe approximate cost of renting a two bedroom apartment with bundled parking. $1,400 per month

unbundled apartment $1,300 per monthunbundled parking $100 per monthThe approximate cost of renting a two bedroom apartment with unbundled parking $1,400 per month

The cost is the same.More information: MTC, Reforming Parking Policies to Support Smart Growth, June 2007

Prop 1C Infill Infrastructure Grant for $30 million to City of Hayward

Details on grant as reported by the CityProp 1C Infill

ProgramInfill Program plus

RDA bonds

Site acquisition (Caltrans, for open space, not end uses, not prorated) $ 800,000Site preparation (prorated below to end uses) $ 295,598 $ 365,818Utilities (prorated below to end uses) $ 2,490,875 $ 3,314,570Surface improvements (end use, but excludes relevant costs like utilities) $ 1,535,294 $ 1,881,363BART parking structure (structure, grading, foundation, site work, contingency 3%, GC Conditions & Fee and Bond) (end use, but excludes relevant costs) $ 19,401,762Residential parking structures (assume parcel 2) (end use, but excludes relevant costs) $ 4,451,448Soft costs related to eligible costs (engineering, design, overhead, contractor fee, construction contingency, survey) (prorated below to end uses) (1) $ 1,025,023 $ 1,583,093

$ 30,000,000

Total, 3 cost items (site prep, utilities, soft costs) to be prorated to the 3 end-uses $ 5,263,481Prorated to end use: surface improvements total 6.05% $ 318,293Prorated to end use: residential parking structure total 17.53% $ 922,863Prorated to end use: BART structure total 76.42% $ 4,022,325

100.00%

Analysis of parking structures including prorated costs

South Hayward Residential Parking Structure spaces structure per space

Wells Fargo Construction Loan $ 1,952,112Cost including loan and 3 prorated items (site prep, utilities, soft costs) 204 $ 7,326,423 $ 35,914Cost per yearAmortized, cost per year (5% interest, 30 years) $ 471,958 $ 2,314Operating cost per space/year (the City does not know this cost. Est. $1.49/day) (2) $ 110,945 $ 544Capital and operating cost (excludes value of land, life cycle, and external costs) $ 582,903 $ 2,857Cost per day allocated to 365 days per year (residential use) $ 1,597 $7.83

South Hayward BART Parking Structure spaces structure per space

RDA bonds $ 491,478Cost including bonds and 3 prorated items (site prep, utilities, soft costs) 910 $ 23,915,565 $ 26,281Cost per yearAmortized, cost per year (5% interest, 30 years) $ 1,540,607 $ 1,693Operating cost per space per year (2) $ 489,234 $ 538Capital and operating cost (excludes value of land, life cycle, and external costs) $ 2,029,841 $ 2,231Cost per day allocated to 252 days per year (commuter use) $ 8,055 $8.85

BART riders riders per riderBART riders per day using 910 spaces 1,200 $6.71Cost per BART rider carries forward to the comparison tab below.

Commuter days per year, assuming 8 holidays/ year 252 $ 28,798,398Prop 1C funding for capital cost of both structures combined

(1) This seems to include architecture, engineering, city project management, landscaping, soils testing, and permits.

(2) BART, South Hayward BART Development, Design, and Access Plan, April 2006, p. C-6 /pdf 99, $537.62 per year and $2.13 per day 250 day year. Operating costs are particularly variable. Lighting and cleaning are relatively fixed, police is quite variable, and maintenance is very low to start and grows over time. Insurance and administrative overhead are usually unreported as such.

Parcel 1 Eden/Safeway Parking Structure data from Bomel Construction Co., Jan. 15, 2009gross square footage 145,700elevated deck sq ft 71,596total cars. Council approved only 125) 166total cost $8,479,789sf/car 877.71cost/car $51,083cost/gsf $58[Seems to exclude site preparation, utilities, landscape/amenities, environmental mitigation, and soft costs]

Note: The City of Hayward does not know its operating costs for parking structures.

Note: 5% interest rate may be too low given current economic environment and uncertain long term prospects for municipal lending. However, the important thing is to maintain comparability by using the same rate for both structures and shuttles.

Sources: Table 6, Total infrastructure development budget (probably Eden Housing) and Kurt Hammel of Bomel Construction, South Hayward Mixed Use estimate for parcel 4, Jan. 15, 2009 [no need to adjust for inflation] Note: Hammel assumed "900 total cars", while Total infrastructure…" shows 910 spaces. I assume 910 spaces. Hammel has two columns, "BART PS BID" and "BART PS SITE"

Eden Housing can reduce its rent by the amount it charges for parking without losing 9 percent financing. Less rent reduces the mortgage loan, so some source of funds needs to be found to back fill the reduction in mortgage loan. We don't have any estimates of what the amount would be. From Alan Goldstein, Senior Project Manager, AHC Inc., Arlington VA 22201, 703-486-0626, ext. 116, [email protected], Jan. 8 12010 email and other communications: The Frederick at Courthouse is an affordable housing project for families with unbundled parking close to the Courthouse Metro Station and three bus lines. The parking charge is $50 per month. The building has 181 parking structure spaces, of which 55 replace a surface lot which had served 364 unit adjacent AHC garden apartments (Woodbury Park). The apartments have rented only 5 of the structure spaces. The Frederick has 54 one bed units, 46 two bed units, and 8 three bed units for a total of 108 units and 170 bedrooms. 76 of the 108 units rent a space. Next to the Frederick AHC built another nine story apartment building, The Park, with 98 market rate condominiums. The condo owners rent 8 spaces. AHC has its offices in the Frederick with 30 spaces allocated to AHC staff (no info on use). The project includes many sidewalks, bike racks, and transit-benefit programs. AHC excluded the parking from the basis used to determine 9% tax credits, so it was able to unbundle using four other funding sources. Of 181 spaces, 62 are vacant. 10% is a reasonable vacancy factor, so the parking was overbuilt by 44 spaces.

The Residential Parking Structure may be much more expensive because it is below ground.

Fairway - BART - Tennyson Route Map

Industrial to BART Shuttle Route Map

Industrial Rapid Shuttle

Route and stops distance timecumulative

distancecumulative

timeraised

sidewalks signals1. Auto Exchange to Pacific 0.47 1.28 0.47 1.28 1, 2 1 Industrial and Huntwood2. Pacific to Dixon 0.31 0.85 0.78 2.13 3, 43. Dixon to SH BART 0.63 1.72 1.41 3.85 5, 6 2 Industrial and DixonLayover at SH BART 1.15 5.00 7Assumed speed for shuttle 22.0Total time including layover, 5 minutes

BART operating hours

days/year first to leave last to arrive hours days/year first to leave last to arrive hours4:10am 1:18am 21.13 6:04am 1:18am 19.23

252 5,326 113 2,173

One bus schedule10 minute headways, 6 departures per hourdepart times bus 1 bus 1 bus 1Auto Exchange :00 :10 :20SH BART :05 :15 etc.

Shuttle Operating hours

days/year first to leave last to arrive hours days/year first to leave last to arrive hours4:45am 10:15pm 17.50

252 4,410 no week end serviceTaxi operating hours

3.63252 916 no week end service

Mon-Fri, 10 minute headways Sat

Mon-Fri, 10 minute headways Sat, 15 minute headways

Note: Service on shuttles would be reduced for times of very low riders and increased if justified. Initially, demand is defined by BART faregate data on ingress and egress by time of day. Subsequently, policy could be that any shuttle run during a week with one or more standees for 4 days would precipitate more service. Service may increase using an additional, temporary bus to meet peak demand. If patronage on Tennyson justified, service could be extended a block up Patrick to the Weekes Branch Llibrary, or out Tennyson to St. Rose and Kaiser hospitals and the shopping center on the northeast corner of Tennyson and Hesperian. The Industrial route is mainly for week-day commuters. For weekend service they could go to another shuttle or directly to a BART station, which would have much lower parking demand on the weekend.

Tennyson Rapid Shuttle

Route and stops distance timecumulative distance

cumulative time

raised sidewalks signals

1. Patrick to Tampa 0.37 1.11 0.37 1.11 8 3 Patrick and Tennyson2. Tampa to Ruus Rd. 0.39 1.17 0.76 2.28 9, 10 4 Tampa and Tennyson

3. Ruus Rd. to Whitman 0.44 1.32 1.20 3.60 11, 12 5 Ruus and Tennyson4. Whitman to BART 0.43 1.29 1.63 4.89 13, 14 6 Huntwood and TennysonLayover at BART 0.11 5.00 (7) 7 Whitman and TennysonAssumed speed for shuttle 20.0 8 E 12th/Dixon and TennysonTotal time including layover, 5 minutes

Speed of traffic, Tennyson, ACCMA Level of Service Monitoring ReportsTennyson between I-880 2004 2006 2008 2006 2008 2006-08

and Mission pm peak pm peak pm peak am peak am peak averageWest on Tennyson 20.1 18.1 20.9 22.1 19.2 20.1East on Tennyson 21.0 21.7 19.5 20.4 21.7 20.8Average speed for shuttle 20.0 20.5

BART operating hours see IndustrialOne bus schedule see IndustrialShuttle Operating hours

days/year first to leave last to arrive hours days/year first to leave last to arrive hours4:45am 10:15pm 17.50 7:30am 11:00pm 7.75

252 4,410 113 876Taxi operating hours

3.63 11.48252 916 113 1,298

Note: See Industrial


Sat schedule is for Saturday, Sunday and holidays. The bus would have one bus serving both Fairway and Tennyson, with half the total hours (7.75) allocated to each service.

Fairway Rapid Shuttle

Route and stops distance timecumulative

distancecumulativ

e timeraised

sidewalks signals1. Fairway Center to Arrowhead 0.64 1.67 0.64 1.67 15 9 Rousseau and Mission2. Arrowhead to Bowling Lane 0.43 1.12 1.07 2.79 16, 17 10 Audubon and Mission3. Bowling Lane to Dixon 0.41 1.07 1.48 3.86 18, 19 11 Bowling Alley and Mission4. Dixon to BART 0.35 0.91 1.83 4.77 (5, 6) 12 Bowling Alley and IndustrialLayover at BART 0.23 5.00 (7) (2 Industrial and Dixon)Average speed for shuttle 23.0Total time including layover, 5 minutes (part of Industrial shuttle)

Speed of traffic, Mission, ACCMA Level of Service Monitoring ReportsMission between Industrial and 2004 2006 2008 2006 2008 2006-08

Sorenson pm peakpm peak pm peak am peak am peak averageNorth on Mission 19.2 18.5 23.4 19.0 24.7 21.4South on Mission 23.4 24.3 25.9 23.5 23.6 24.3

22.9BART operating hours see IndustrialOne bus schedule see Industrial

Shuttle Operating hours

days/year first to least to arriv hours days/year first to leav last to arrive hours4:45am 10:15pm 17.50 7:30am 11:00pm 7.75

252 4,410 113 876Taxi operating hours

3.63 11.48252 916 113 1,298

Note: See Industrial


Sat schedule is for Saturday, Sunday and holidays. The bus would have one bus serving both Fairway and Tennyson, with half the total hours (7.75) allocated to each service.

Shuttle ridership

One way riders, 30 seat bus

riders/bustrips per

hour riders per hourtrips per

hour riders

full bus 30 6 180 3 90per day, half full bus 15 6 90 3 45

hours/day riders/day hours/day riders/day1. Industrial Shuttlefull bus 17.50 3,150per day, half full shuttle 17.50 1,575

2. Tennyson Shuttlefull bus 17.50 3,150 7.75 698per day, half full shuttle 17.50 1,575 7.75 349

3. Fairway Shuttlefull bus 17.50 3,150 7.75 698per day, half full shuttle 17.50 1,575 7.75 349

All three shuttlesfull bus 17.50 9,450 7.75 1,395per day, half full shuttle 17.50 4,725 7.75 698

Capacity: Compare to SH BART parking structure with 910 spaces, weekday

Total Industrial Tennyson Mission S Mission N100.0% 40.8% 34.1% 17.9% 7.2%

Home to work origins, 2008 2,200 898 750 395 158Total auto accesses, 2008 2,668 1,089 909 479 191Estimated accesses from structure 1,200 490 409 215 86Estimated access from one half full shuttle 1,575 643 537 283 113Estimated access from two half full shuttles 3,150 1,285 1,074 565 226Estimated access from three half full shuttles 4,725 1,928 1,610 848 339

For total auto accesses, 2008Percent of access by structure 45.0% 45.0% 45.0% 45.0% 45.0%Percent of access by one half full shuttle 59.0% 59.0% 59.0% 59.0% 59.0%Percent of access by two half full shuttles 118.1% 118.1% 118.1% 118.1% 118.1%Percent of access by three half full shuttles 177.1% 177.1% 177.1% 177.1% 177.1%

Mon-Fri Sat

Even if the structure is able to handle 32% more than its space capacity, it is far too small to accommodate demand, only 45% of 2008 demand. A single shuttle running half full also lack capacity, two are more than enough, while all three are way too much. Access needs could be met by one shuttle and shared parking, or two shuttles.

20 minute headways10 min. headways

allocated to access routesAssume structure accommodates 1,200 accesses 32% more than its capacity

South Hayward BART Rapid Shuttle Plan

Capital Cost, all shuttlesRoute improvements: number each TotalStops: Raised sidewalks, shelters, Ticket Vending Machines at stops 19 $ 12,000 $ 228,000Signals and signal preference controls 12 intersections see note $ 10,000 $ 120,000Garage: office, parts and supplies storage, one bus bay; outside space for 5 buses $ 500,000Buses: 30 foot 30 seat buses, powerful clean diesel hybrid motors, wide doors, regenerative

braking, signal preference, electronically guided docking, initial spare parts# and cost 4 $ 550,000 $ 2,200,000

Total $ 3,048,000Amortization cost per year years interest check sums

15 6% $ 308,649 $ 308,649

Operating Cost, all shuttles rate/hour hours Cost per year

Bus operation (MV Transportation) $ 70 14,982 $ 1,048,705 $1,048,705Taxi operation $ 18 5,342 $ 96,157 $96,157

Total $1,144,862

1. Industrial Shuttle 7 stops, 3 signals, .33 of garage, 1.33 buses $1,014,000Capital amortized $ 102,680

Weekdays 4,410 $ 308,700Weekends 0 $ 0Taxi 916 $ 16,481

Total Amortization plus operating expenses $ 427,861

2. Tennyson Shuttle 7 stops, 5 signals, .33 of garage, 1.33 buses $1,034,000Capital amortized $ 104,706

Weekdays 4,410 $ 308,700Weekends 876 $ 61,303Taxi 2,213 $ 39,838

Total Amortization plus operating expenses $ 514,546

3. Fairway Shuttle 5 stops, 4 signals, .33 of garage, 1.33 buses $1,000,000Capital amortized $ 101,263

Weekdays 4,410 $ 308,700Weekends 876 $ 61,303Taxi 2,213 $ 39,838

Amortization plus operating expenses $ 511,103

Capital and operating yearly costs $ 1,453,511 $ 1,453,511Total cost per day, all costs allocated to 252 days per year $ 5,768

Cost per BART rider per week day, capital and operating riders per day cost per rider

Shuttle, bus half full, one way, weekday riders 4,725 $1.22Shuttle, riders equal to structure riders, bus 17% full (explanation at comparisons tab). 1,200 $ 4.81Cost per BART rider carries forward to the comparison tab below.Riders per day is an estimate only, not a result of modeling. 9450

Sources:MV Transportation 2009: http://news.mvtransit.com/default.htm $510 million revenues, 12,400 empolyees, HQ in Suisun CityW.C. Phil, 707-803-2954, Oct 2005, turnkey operation, all maintenance, three buses, per revenue hour $40March 13, 2007, City of Modesto, MV Transportation is unionized, Teamster’s Local 386. $ 41http://www.ci.modesto.ca.us/ccl/agenda/ar/2007/04/ar070403-11.pdfUnion City: Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2008-2017 $56.24http://www.unioncity.org/transit/pdf-transit/UNION%20CITY%20SRTP%20Complete-reduced.pdfDiana Dorington talk with W. C. Phil, Oct. 2008 $ 50

National Transit Data Base for 2008, Annual Transit Profiles Operating expense per vehicle revenue hourUnion City Transit (MV Transportatiohttp://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/pubs/profiles/2008/agency_ $66.56AC Transit http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/pubs/top_profiles/2008/Transit_Profiles_Top $151.74

http://www.scgov.net/scat/documents/Hybrid.pdf Jun-09The 29-foot-long, BRT-style hybrid bus costs approximately $517,000.

• The medium-duty diesel engine used in hybrids has 8.9 liters, compared to the 11.0-liter standard diesel engine.

Pavement: The City would improve pavements to fill potholes and redce high camber and provide right turn lane priority

Daimler's diesel-electric Orion VII buses cost about US$525,000 each, depending on how they're configured for customers, about $200,000 more than conventional clean diesel buses. Bus cost: http://news.cnet.com/The-greening-of-the-city-bus/2100-11389_3-6079090.html Bus specs: http://www.daimler.com/dccom/0-5-7145-1-1029825-1-0-0-0-0-0-11979-0-0-0-00-0-0-0.html. CNET News June 1, 2006, Orion VII cost around $488,000 each.

Taxis: Rates for Taximeters. http://www.taxicabelectronics.com/Rates.htm, shows 35 California cities. Rate shown is average hourly charge for waiting time for urban cities, $30, plus $5, equals $35. Estimate that taxis would be in use about half the available time, or $18 /hour average.

Signal preference: "Google data" on the web has estimates for a range of equipment, from a two bus system with 10 intersections to a six bus system with 13 intersections. I estimate current costs at about $8k per signal for 13 signals and about $4k per bus for four buses, for a total of $120,000.

Allison Transmission Inc. of Indianapolis, IN, developed the transmission in the new hybrids. GILLIG of Hayward CA designed and built the bus. Regenerative braking system. A nickel metal hydride 600-volt battery pack supplies electrical energy to the motors. Each of the smaller (29-foot-long) hybrid buses is projected to be 35-40 percent more efficient than the standard diesel bus. At an average cost of $3 per gallon of diesel fuel, the hybrid is expected to have a savings of about $21,000 a year per bus. The small hybrid bus has 23 seats.

• In a hybrid bus, various environmentally harmful emissions are reduced by an average of 50 to 90 percent when compared to a conventional diesel-fueled engine. • The noise level of a hybrid bus is about half of a standard diesel bus, or equivalent to that of a passenger car, which is approximately 79 decibels.

Bond rates: http://www.municipalbonds.com/: Feb. 11, 2010, average yields California muni 2020 bonds at 4.166%, 2030 bonds at 5.1%

Shuttle parking

BART Station 2008 totalProposed BART

structureSpaces =

to structurePotential spaces

1. Industrial Shuttle 371 7702. Tennyson Shuttle 310 2953. Fairway Shuttle 163 1002(Mission north not studied) 65

Totals 1,207 910 910 2,066

1. Industrial ShuttleAssessor's

Parcel Numbers Total acres Used acrespotential spaces

Huntwood 465005000103 1.95 1.95 293951 INDUSTRIAL PKWY W 465005000703 1.59 1.59 239967 INDUSTRIAL PKWY W 465005000903 1.59 1.59 239

5.13 5.13 770

2. Tennyson Shuttle Total acres Used acrespotential spaces

Patrick Ave.street, 12 on west, 8 on east 20

Tampa Ave. street, south of Tennyson 20

27531 TAMPA AVEMcNellis John E & Michele R TRS 453007003704 2.89 0.71 107

1100 W. Tennyson

Cohn Kenneth & Ann B Trs Etal & Shaw Nancy Tr Etal 464002500200 3.94 0.72 108

Smaller spots along Tennyson various 40

295

3. Fairway Shuttle Total acres Used acrespotential spaces

cumulative spaces

31049 MISSION BLVD (north FPA Hayward Associates LP 078G273201600 3.95 0.58 87

1.11 167

31117 MISSION BLVD (southFPA Hayward Associates LP 078G273201700 6.26 0.9 135

1.89 284Roussseau and Gresel Sts street 80

752 752Bowling Ave. redevelopment 180 90 90 842Arrowhead Street street 40Vanderbilt Street street 40Tennyson/Whitman Street street 40Tennyson/Ruus Road street 40

160 1,002

total, 3 routes 2,066Parking availability was analyzed using Google satellite images and Street View and City of Hayward GIS interactive map.

potential spaces per acre (PSA) 150

CA Auto Dealers Exchange

Remote parking financial

Choices for parking for BARTAt the station user pays agency pays business pays city pays

At the shuttle stop user pays agency pays business pays city pays

Parking: Lease capitalization for 30 years, maximum possible need

cost/week day/space

cost/year/ space number yearly leases total capital

$ 1 $252 910 $229,320 $ 3,559,840Annuity payout per year years interest initial capital

30 5% $ 3,559,840 $ 229,320

Amortization formulaequal monthly payments totaled for a year at 5% annual interest compounded monthly for a 30 year term.

years interest initial capital yearly lease

30 5% $ 3,559,840 $ 229,320

Method of payment

Location of parking

PMT = (interest rate/12 months, years of term*12 months, loan amount, end amount zero)*12

The shuttle is premised on charging for parking at South Hayward BART (a dollar a day or buying a monthly

permit) and on not charging for parking for the shuttle. The shuttle agency, a business, or the City would pay for shuttle parking.

In the case of the City, street parking could be used by shuttle rides unless demand justified some parking charge, in which case the user would pay. If shuttle riders have to pay for parking, it would be important for shuttle ridership

that the charge at the station be higher than for the shuttle stop, to offset the longer travel time of using the shuttle. It seems likely that if demand for street parking is high, demand for parking at the station will be even higher. Where street parking is in demand and parking management is needed, street parking revenues would go to the City to be

used to benefit the neighborhood as determined by neighborhood advisors and Council. These revenues would add to those from any neighborhood parking permit or other parking fee system.

In the case of a business like a store, the owner might tolerate the shuttle parking in hopes of getting more customers. Owners can, however, post against long term parking, which they should and must do for high‐use

spaces in front of a store. They may also post usually unused spaces, which involves some expense with no return. Owners have an incentive to lease unused spaces at a low cost to get revenue from the lease and to get more customers. Other businesses with extra parking might simply tolerate some shuttle parkers, post the lot, or

negotiate some lease arrangement.In the case of the shuttle agency, it may need to lease enough spaces to combine with other spaces to equal the

spaces of a parking structure the shuttle is designed to replace. The other spaces could be shared spaces at the station or street spaces. There is much more unused parking than needed for the shuttle, so the agency has some

leverage for bargaining. For parking at shopping centers, a lease paid to the owners could be adjusted based on level of use, shuttle

ridership, and amount of shopping by parkers. For example, every 3 months the use of spaces could be observed (all day parking near shuttle stop), riders counted. and some estimate made of how much BART parkers shop. The lease rate would be adjustable based on these factors. The estimate above is based on $1 per weekday, but the rate could be lower because competing centers might see an advantage to shuttle parking and be willing to offer it for less or for free. There are reasons for owners to cut a deal, and reasons to provide for lease adjustments based on

experience. The shuttle agency does not have to lease any parking, but center owners would then have a problem of "poachers" and no income from their parking, or they would have to post signs and tow cars.

The $1 parking lease cost is based on what BART would charge at the South Hayward station, which also is probably close to a market price. Most BART stations charge $1 per day or more. Currently, South Hayward is still

free. The parking west of Dixon fills up completely while the overflow area across Dixon usually has empty spaces, indicating less demand than at most BART stations. Use of the overflow area is hindered by the need to walk across Dixon and the distance to the station entrance.

The agency should be able to use some of the Prop 1C funds previously planned for the structure in a capital fund used as an annuity to generate some lease payment.

For the most efficient shuttle on Industrial Boulevard the agency could buy a park and ride lot for a fraction of the cost of structured spaces. The lot studied is the California Auto Dealers Exchange, which could be moved to even less‐used parking on Industrial closer to the freeway. Alternatively, one of those lots could be used without risking the five minute shuttle travel time to the station. While Industrial is efficient for current shuttle access to BART, it is not as promising for long term, sustainable, redevelopment along the corridor as are Tennyson and Mission.

South Hayward BART Rapid Shuttle Plan, concepts for operating revenues

Operating funds needed per year (from financial tab) $ 514,546

Property taxCity of Hayward Assessment Roll, 2008-9 $16,672,523,012Rates needed and percent of assessment roll needed to produce operating revenues.

tax rate Yield Valuation neededPercent of

Assessment Roll0.02% $ 514,546 $ 2,572,730,776 15.4%0.03% $ 514,546 $ 1,715,153,851 10.3%0.04% $ 514,546 $ 1,286,365,388 7.7%

Sample fixed charges at using .03% for various house valuebase rate 1.0976%

Valuation Base tax Fixed charge As a % of base tax$50,000 $ 749 $15 2.00%

$100,000 $ 1,298 $30 2.31%$200,000 $ 2,395 $60 2.51%$500,000 $ 5,688 $150 2.64%

Base tax = ad valorum tax + $200 in special assessments

Current Fixed Charge (2009-2010 tax statement) for bus service (no ecopass) $96Current .0076% tax for BART on a $100,000 valuation (no ecopass) $6

Wittek Project amount at .03% of project valueProject value base tax (1) shuttle contribution As a % of base tax$ 300,000,000 $ 3,293,000 $90,000 2.73%

The commerce and housing would participate and then be able to give ecopasses to customers. Major undeveloped properties (Caltrans, Holiday Bowl) on the route would also participate. I estimate that the value of additional corridor development over time might generate 4 to 5 times as much as Wittek Project, or about $400,000.

Assuming new development would kick in some operating funds, about 15% to 20% of Hayward valuation would need a Fixed Charge for everyone to ride free, but there is no easy way to get there. A system could be set up to allow property owners to join the district, in ways that lower the cost to all those already in the district, to cover a fixed cost. The initial cost could be a little high because of the small base, but would by formula go lower as more properties joined. The timing is difficult, because properties will not develop at one time and an undue burden should not be imposed on the early properties. Once the shuttle is on the street, some marketing and easy procedures should allow existing development to buy into the system. Properties already covered would have an incentive to encourage others to join to lower their own cost. The capacity of the shuttle is so high that it will be years before it reaches even half full.

The major problem for the shuttle is covering operating costs in the short run pending buy-ins by new development and existing owners. Some costs can be covered by ticket sales at possibly $3 per round trip, and there may be public sources (MTC, CMA) willing to support getting the idea underway if the City applies for a grant.

Operating revenues can come from a Fixed Charge on the property tax, ticket sales, eco-pass, parking charges, and other sources. Fares would be a minor source of income for the shuttle, which only works if most people can ride free with ecopass. This tab focuses on Fixed Charges, which are already in place for AC Transit bus and BART without providing ecopass. Fixed charges can apply to new development as a public works requirement to mitigate reduced parking and to replace off-site street exactions. Fixed charges can also apply voluntarily to existing developed properties--owner-occupied homes, rentals, commerc-who choose to participate. It is hard to say how much initial revenue would come from fixed charges, but over time they would become the major source of operating funds. While ad valorum rates are discussed below, the Fixed Charge should be a set charge indexed to inflation.

The more valuation participating, the lower the rate of tax needed. All paying properties get ecopasses for their users. The areas benefiting would be the Fairway Park area, the Tennyson corridor, and neighborhoods access BART via Industrial Blvd. The analysis assumes that total valuation may drop and rise again by the time a shuttle might start service, so the number is the best that can be found.

Shuttle vs. Structure comparison

Shuttle half full: can carry 4,725 round trip BART riders per day.

Parking Structure more than full:

Shuttle to equal structure:

BART Riders per dayexcluding parking including parking

Shuttle cost at half full 4,725 $5,768 $1.22 $1.40Shuttle cost to equal structure riders(shuttle 17% full) 1,200 $5,768 $4.81 $5.51Structure cost 1,200 $8,055 $6.71

The capital available for the structure is more than the shuttle needs

Structure Shuttle Parking maxi-

mum need BothCapital needs $23,915,565 $3,048,000 $3,559,840 $6,607,840

The shuttle and parking capital costs 28% of the structure capital costs--less than one-third.

The shuttle costs 72%

The shuttle at half full would serve 294%

The shuttle serves growth more than the structure, which is limited by the number of spaces built.Neither the structure nor the shuttle can work by charging the cost directly to users; both are indirectly financed.

Elasticity

Complications

more riders than the structure. The shuttle can grow riders; the structure can not.

Development of parcel 4 increases commercial viability, sales tax revenues, BART ridership, walking mode, and sustainability. It reduces driving, congestion, and externalities associated with driving.

The more expensive the parking, and the cheaper, faster, more reliable, and more frequent the shuttle, the more ridership can be delivered by the shuttle. The BART parking charge could start at $1 for shared parking on parcel 2 and in the replacement building on parcel 4. A large number of people would choose the frequent, fast, free shuttle. If at $1 demand exceeds supply, a higher charge would shift more riders to the shuttle. As long as the shuttle service is fast, frequent, and free, BART is unlikelylose any riders, and is likely to gain riders.

Recommendation: no parking structure; switch funds to alternative access: shared parking, $1 initial BART parking charge, parking charge adjusted based on demand, unbundled housing with ecopass, rapid shuttle, and shuttle parking.

The Fairway - Tennyson schedule may not be realistic during peak hour due to congestion, causing a run time over 10 minuteHowever, the same problem affects driving to the structure. The structure also has increasing delays. It would have seven levels of parking, requiring, as it fills, increasing time to drive up, hunt and park and then walk back down to the station from tmore remote spaces. The shuttle, meanwhile, delivers people to the station entrance. These factors need to be studied but seem to favor the shuttle as the structure fills.

Existing AC Transit bus service is too slow, expensive, unreliable, and infrequent to attract very many riders. It would, however, continue to serve access from Mission North.

The shuttle allows profitable development of parcel 4, site of the planned parking structure to the left of the BART station entrance.

The shuttle and the structure can be compared head to head, apples to apples. Costs of a full year are spread to 252 commuter days because commuters, not week-end riders, are the reason for the parking structure. A number of policies are needed to achieve alternative access (see TOD parking); this tab looks only at the structure and the shuttle.

910 spaces can hold 910 cars, including 12% carpools, at one time, plus a few more cars that replace cars that leave, equal to about 1,200 BART riders. The shuttle with only 17% of its seats filled equals the capacity of the structure, anstill costs less.

of the per rider cost of the structure for the same number of riders even running mostly empty buses.

per rider

Time and money: Comparison of travel times and cost of trips

Time

drive to structure entrance find parking

wait for shuttle ride shuttle

find parking

walk / elevator to BART entrance total time

Industrial Shuttle, start at Whitman, 1.37 milesParking Structure 4:31 3:00 2:10 9:41Alternative Access 0:15 5:00 4:31 9:46

Tennyson Shuttle, start at Tampa, 1.26 milesParking Structure 3:28 3:00 2:10 8:38Alternative Access 0:15 5:00 3:28 8:43

Fairway Shuttle, start at Rousseau, 1.79 milesParking Structure 5:58 3:00 2:10 11:08Alternative Access 0:15 5:00 5:58 11:13

Money parking work days/yearAverage cost, auto $0.54 per mile one way round trip $1.00 250

Industrial Shuttle, start at WhitmanParking Structure $0.74 $1.48 $1.00 $619.90Alternative Access Fixed Charge $90.00

Tennyson Shuttle, start at TampaParking Structure $0.68 $1.36 $1.00 $590.20Alternative Access Fixed Charge $90.00

Fairway Shuttle, start at RousseauParking Structure $0.97 $1.93 $1.00 $733.30Alternative Access Fixed Charge $90.00

Assumptions

Route and driving at speeds assumed are based on Street Atlas.

The above is point comparison to estimate an average trip, but actual trips will vary a lot based on congestion on streets and in the structure, weather, indivdual walking speed, the elevator, walk distance, and carry items.

The building replacing the structure could have two levels available for BART. Those two levels will have faster access time than possible levels above. To compare shuttle access with the structure only the top five of the seven levels are different between the two scenario, so it is the travel time to them that is relevant. The average trip to the top five levels would go up the first two to the middle of the top five, which is the fifth level.

The Alternative Access Fixed Charge is the least certain estimate, depending on transitional funding sources and amount of property participating. While most property would be close to the shuttle routes, it should also include more remote properties that wish to use a shuttle with ecopass.

2009 AAA auto costs range from 89.7 to 35.4 cents per mile nationally. The above uses 54 cents, composite average, 15,000 miles per year.

"Find parking, walk to BART entrance" assumes parking on fifth level. On Feb. 21 2010 I drove in the Hayward Kaiser parking structure up 1.5 levels in 52 seconds and down 1.5 levels in 47 seconds. At the Hayward BART structure I drove up 3 levels and parked in 1:44 minutes and left the parking and drove out in 2:02 minutes. From the car to station entrance, starting about 2/3 of the way from the elevator, took 2:14 and 2:06 going in and 2:12 minutes on the return. The table above shows estimates based on these times. 15 mph seemed a reasonable speed on straight-aways, and 10mph around the curves, in the structure.

The five minute wait for the shuttle is based on half the headway. Users, however, are likely to be able to time their arrival at the shuttle to reduce the wait, especially if starting close to the shuttle.

South Hayward BART Ridership under various scenarios, a draft conceptual framework for 2015

Hypothetical scenarios, to illustrate conceptsRiders per week day Elasticity assumptions:

Structure, no fee, no shuttles 3,400Structure, $1 fee, no shuttles 3,200

Structure, $2 fee, no shuttles 3,000Structure, $1 fee, with shuttles (unlikely) 4,500

Shared parking, $1 fee, with shuttles 4,500Structure, $2 fee, with shuttles (unlikely) 4,300

Shared parking, $2 fee, with shuttles 4,300Structure, $8 fee, no shuttles 2,000

Structure, $8 fee, with shuttles (unlikely) 4,200

The structure, with no capacity for growth, limits ridership, and parking charges lower the ridership a bit more.

A structure and shuttles would bring more riders, but shared parking and shuttle get the same increase in riders. Funding available can support a structure or shuttles, not both.

A higher parking fee lowers ridership, but less than with no shuttles, because people deterred by the $2 charge can easily ride the shuttles. Funding available can support a structure or shuttles, not both.Again, structure = shared.

A parking fee to cover the monetary cost of building the structure would greatly discourage riders, unless there is a shuttle alternative. Few riders, in fact, would use the structure. Ridership can get higher only with high capacity shuttles.

Shared parking may get more riders than a structure because the structure at 7 levels involves more time from the top levels, and the shared parking would be on the lower levels of two adjacent buildings with less time needed to reach the station entrance..

Structu

re, no fe

e, no sh

uttles

Structu

re, $1 fe

e, no sh

uttles

Structu

re, $2 fe

e, no sh

uttles

Structu

re, $1 fe

e, w

ith sh

uttles

(unlike

ly)

Shared

parkin

g, $1 fe

e, w

ith

shuttles

Structu

re, $2 fe

e, w

ith sh

uttles

(unlike

ly)

Shared

parkin

g, $2 fe

e, w

ith

shuttles

Structu

re, $8 fe

e, no sh

uttles

Structu

re, $8 fe

e, w

ith sh

uttles

(unlikely)

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

Riders per week day

Scenarios

BART ridership under various scenariosHypothetical results, ~2015