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