View Crandall presentation

Transcription

Building Livable Communities with Transit
San Francisco
2008
Integrating Urban Design,
Architecture and
Engineering in Station
Design
CRANDALL ARAMBULA
October 29, 2008
Ideal Station
Land Use & Ridership
Ideal Station
ps
i
r
t T t)
i
s
n nsi
a
r
0 T n tr a
0
2
3, 0% o
(1
Ideal Station
TOD Potential
Existing
Population
Good
nt
w
Ne pme
lo tial
e
v
n
De Pote
In
Co term
nn od
ec a
tio l
ns
TOD
Potential
Ne
Hu ighb
b
Po orho
te
nt od
ial
orm ent
f
t
Pla onm
vir
n
E
Pedestrian
Access
Fair
Poor
TOD Potential
Existing
Population
Good
nt
w
Ne pme
lo tial
e
v
n
De Pote
In
Co term
nn od
ec a
tio l
ns
TOD
Potential
Ne
Hu ighb
b
Po orho
te
nt od
ial
orm ent
f
t
Pla onm
vir
n
E
Pedestrian
Access
Fair
Poor
TOD Potential
Existing
Population
Good
nt
w
Ne pme
lo tial
e
v
n
De Pote
In
Co term
nn od
ec a
tio l
ns
TOD
Potential
Ne
Hu ighb
b
Po orho
te
nt od
ial
orm ent
f
t
Pla onm
vir
n
E
Pedestrian
Access
Fair
Poor
TOD Potential
Existing
Population
Good
nt
w
Ne pme
lo tial
e
v
n
De Pote
In
Co term
nn od
ec a
tio l
ns
TOD
Potential
Ne
Hu ighb
b
Po orho
te
nt od
ial
orm ent
f
t
Pla onm
vir
n
E
Pedestrian
Access
Fair
Poor
TOD Potential
Existing
Population
Good
nt
w
Ne pme
lo tial
e
v
n
De Pote
In
Co term
nn od
ec a
tio l
ns
TOD
Potential
Ne
Hu ighb
b
Po orho
te
nt od
ial
orm ent
f
t
Pla onm
vir
n
E
Pedestrian
Access
Fair
Poor
TOD Potential
Existing
Population
Good
nt
w
Ne pme
lo tial
e
v
n
De Pote
In
Co term
nn od
ec a
tio l
ns
TOD
Potential
Ne
Hu ighb
b
Po orho
te
nt od
ial
orm ent
f
t
Pla onm
vir
n
E
Pedestrian
Access
Fair
Poor
TOD Potential
Existing
Population
Good
nt
w
Ne pme
lo tial
e
v
n
De Pote
In
Co term
nn od
ec a
tio l
ns
TOD
Potential
Ne
Hu ighb
b
Po orho
te
nt od
ial
orm ent
f
t
Pla onm
vir
n
E
Pedestrian
Access
Fair
Poor
TOD Potential
Existing
Population
Good
nt
w
Ne pme
lo tial
e
v
n
De Pote
In
Co term
nn od
ec a
tio l
ns
TOD
Potential
Ne
Hu ighb
b
Po orho
te
nt od
ial
orm ent
f
t
Pla onm
vir
n
E
Pedestrian
Access
Fair
Poor
Ideal Station
Timing
Project Timeline
1
2
3
4
Draft
Final
LRT Project

Preliminary Engineering
EIS
Final Design
Value Engineering
YEAR
5
6
7
8
9
Project Timeline
1
2
3
4
Draft
Final
YEAR
5
6
7
8
LRT Project

EIS
Final Design
Value Engineering
TOD Station Area Planning
Too Late
9
Project Timeline
1
2
3
4
Draft
Final
YEAR
5
6
7
8
LRT Project

EIS
Final Design
Value Engineering
Too Late
9
LRT Alignment Selection
Bellevue, WA
BelRed HCT Redevelopment Corridor, Bellevue, WA
BelRed Station Area Plans, Bellevue, WA
D
O
T
l
a
i
t
n
e
t
o
P
BelRed Station Area Plans, Bellevue, WA
Redmond, WA
1) SR 520 Alignment
2) Bear Creek Alignment
3) BN Alignment
Alternative Alignments
Downtown High-Capacity Transit & TOD Study, Redmond, WA
D
O
T
l
a
i
t
n
e
t
o
P
Downtown High-Capacity Transit & TOD Study, Redmond, WA
Portland, OR
Alignments Options
Station Area Potential
Station Area Potential
Interstate 5 Alignment
Interstate Ave. Alignment
D
O
T
l
a
i
t
Interstate 5 Alignment
n
e
t
o
P
Interstate Ave. Alignment
Alignment Selection- Lessons Learned
Alignment alternatives must consider TOD
potential along entire alignment.
CRANDALL ARAMBULA, PC
Project Timeline
1
2
3
4
Draft
Final
YEAR
5
6
7
8
9
1 LRT Project

EIS
Final Design
Value Engineering
2 TOD Station Area Planning
?
Project Timeline
1
2
3
4
Draft
Final
1 LRT Project

EIS
Final Design
Value Engineering
By
Client
YEAR
5
6
7
8
9
Station Location
Hillsboro, Oregon
Orenco Station
Orenco
Station
PR
T
Orenco Station TOD, Hillsboro, OR
D
O
T
l
a
i
t
n
e
t
o
P
PR
T
Orenco Station TOD, Hillsboro, OR
Project Timeline
1
2
3
4
Draft
Final
1 LRT Project

EIS
Final Design
Value Engineering
YEAR
5
6
7
8
9
Denver, CO
Decatur Station
Aurora
Denver
Denver and Aurora Station Area Plans, CO
Option B – Land Use
Option B – Proposed Station Platform Location
Option B - Station Platform Location
Lakewood Gulch at Federal Blvd. Bridge
y
t
i
r
u
c
Se
Option B - Station Platform Location
Lakewood Gulch at Federal Blvd. Bridge
Willow
Creek
Rose
Quarter
Beaverton Central
Lloyd Center
42nd
82nd
Gateway
Low Crime Rate 0-10/year
Moderate Crime Rate 11-20/year
High Crime Rate 21+/year
Portland Light Rail Station Crime Rates
122nd
162nd
Mall/SW 5th Avenue
Robberies: 0
Assaults: 0
Menacing and harassment: 1
Thefts and purse snatchings: 0
Graffiti/mischief/theft of Tri-Met property: 0
Other offenses: 0
Total: 1
Station
Platform
Mall/SW 5th Avenue Station
Station
Platform
Retail
Entrance
Station
Platform
N.E. 82nd Avenue
Robberies: 19
Assaults: 26
Menacing and harassment: 4
Thefts and purse snatchings: 5
Graffiti/mischief/Tri-Met property theft: 6
Other offenses: 2
Total: 62
Station
Platform
82nd Avenue Station
Interstate
Station
Platform
82nd Avenue Station
82nd Avenue Station
Lower Crime Stations
Higher Crime Stations

Moderate to high
pedestrian traffic

Low pedestrian traffic

Pedestrian traffic from
transit users and
adjacent businesses

Pedestrian traffic is
limited to transit users

Located at street level

Located below grade
“buried stations”

“Eyes on the station”
from adjacent housing,
retail and commercial

No “eyes on the
station”

Direct adjacency to
parks
Option B – Land Use
Option C - Land Use
Option C – Station Platform Location
Decatur Station
Decatur Station
y
t
e
f
a
S
n
o
i
t
Sta
l
&
a
i
t
n
e
t
o
P
D
O
T
Decatur Station
Project Timeline
1
2
3
4
Draft
Final
YEAR
5
6
7
1 LRT Project

EIS
Final Design
Value Engineering
?
8
9
Station Location- Lessons Learned
Station locations should be determined
through a design process that identifies:
1) Development potential
2) Ability to create a safe station
Station Area Plans
Edmonton, Alberta
Stadium Station
Edmonton LRT System
Stadium LRT Station Area Transportation Issues
800 Meter
Radius
Edmonton
Northlands
Parkdale
Commonwealth
Stadium
T
Kinnair
d Ravin
e
Clarke
Athletic
Grounds
Virginia Park
ew
an
Ri
ve
r
Cromdale
N
or
th
Sa
sk
at
ch
McCauley
Stadium LRT Station Issues
400 Meter
Radius
y
t
e
f
a
S
n
o
i
t
Sta
& D Plan
O
T
a
f
o
k
c
a
L
Beaverton, OR
The Round
The Round, Beaverton, Oregon
Beaverton, OR
FRIDAY , JULY 27, 2007
The Round – Summary Evaluation
t
o
n
s
i
A Regional Embarrassment
g
n
i
r
c
i
l
e
f
f
b
u
o
Fatal Flaws
r
p
e
a
p
r
1) A “developer knows best”
philosophy
by
the
City of
Beaverton
o
s
l
o
f
s
e
e
e
t
2) A decision to use
avdeveloperuoffering
as ao
substitute
for a station area
c
e
t
d
i
r
framework
Aplan ubst ng p
i
3) Selection of a developer’s
that was all flash, with little substance
n
a s laconcept
n
p
Fundamental Problems
1)
2)
3)
4)
Isolated station location with little pedestrian or auto connectivity to the
surrounding area
Low population density in the station area
New development potential limited by existing low density uses
Did not respond to basic siting requirements for housing, retail or office
uses
Denver, CO
10th & Osage Station
Aurora
Denver
Denver and Aurora Station Area Plans, CO
10th and Osage
Land Use
Recommended Ground Floor Uses and Active Edges
Primary Pedestrian & Bicycle Circulation
Primary Auto and Bus Circulation
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Park Blocks
Park Block and Promenade Intersection
11th Ave
Osage St.
42
42
136
10th Ave
50
9th Ave
6th Ave
Existing South Lincoln Park Homes – 270 Units
140
Phase 1
New
Relocated
140 units
0 units
South Lincoln Park Homes – Potential Phasing
42
140
Phase 2A
New
Relocated
140 units
42 units
200
140
Phase 2B
New
Relocated
340 units
42 units
200
42
140
Phase 3A
New
Relocated
340 units
84 units
200
120
140
Phase 3B
New
Relocated
460 units
84 units
200
120
140
50
Phase 4A
New
Relocated
460 units
134 units
200
120
140
100
Phase 4B
New
Relocated
560 units
134 units
200
120
140
136
100
Phase 5A
New
Relocated
560 units
270 units
200
120
140
635
100
Phase 5B
New
Relocated
1195 units
270 units
200
120
140
635
100
Phase 5B
New
1195 units
Relocated
270 units
New/Relocated 4.4 to 1
10th & Osage Station Area Plan, Denver, CO
10th & Osage Development Potential
10th & Osage Development Potential
10th & Osage Station - Infrastructure Projects
(Mariposa to Santa Fe)
10th & Osage Station – Summary Infrastructure Cost Estimates
Station Area Plans- Lessons Learned
1) Development will be piecemeal or will not
happen without a plan
2) Developer offerings are not a substitute for a
public planning process
2) Developer offerings are not a substitute for a
public planning process
3) Plans need to:
Be detailed
Consider quality of life
Be economically feasible
Have an implementation strategy
Be adopted
Other Issues
National Energy Issues
Environmental (Global warming)
Economic (Rising energy costs)

Industrial
32%
Transportation
29%
Residential
21%
U.S. Energy Use by Sector
Commercial
18%
BuildingC
odes
BuildingC
odes
BuildingC
odes
Strict
Conservation
Standards
Reuse Waste Heat
Industrial
Strict
Conservation
Standards
Transportation
High Density Housing
Strict
Conservation
Standards
Residential
Commercial
Strategies for Saving Energy
BuildingC
odes
Land Use
& Transportation
Actions
Strict
Conservation
Standards
Great Centers
Strong Retail
Public Open
Space
Reuse Waste Heat
Great Streets
Pedestrian
Friendly
Bike Friendly
Great Transit
Industrial
Transportation
BuildingC
odes
BuildingC
odes
Strict
Conservation
Standards
Strict
Conservation
Standards
Residential
Commercial
BuildingC
odes
Land Use
& Transportation
Actions
BuildingC
odes
BuildingC
odes
n
o
ti
a
t
r
o
p
s
s
n
g
a
n
r
i
T
v
l
a
a yS %
i
t
n
g
0
e
r
t
5
e
o
r
n
P
e
E Ov
Strict
Conservation
Standards
Great Centers
Strong Retail
Public Open
Space
Reuse Waste Heat
Great Streets
Pedestrian
Friendly
Bike Friendly
Great Transit
Industrial
Transportation
Strict
Conservation
Standards
Strict
Conservation
Standards
Residential
Commercial
BuildingC
odes
Strict
Conservation
Standards
Reuse Waste Heat
Land Use
& Transportation
Actions
Great Centers
Strong Retail
Public Open
Space
Great Streets
Pedestrian
Friendly
Bike Friendly
r
e
t
r
o
h
S
&
Great Transit
r
e
w
e
F
Industrial
BuildingC
odes
Transportation
BuildingC
odes
o
t
Au
Strict
Conservation
Standards
s
p
i
r
T
Strict
Conservation
Standards
Residential
Commercial
Typical Development
Residential
1 Mile Radius
Typical Development
1 Mile Radius
Center Development
Residential
Center
1 Mile Radius
Center

Retail
Commercial
Government
Recreation
Public Open Space
Transit
Center Development
Residential
Center
1 Mile Radius
Center

Retail
Commercial
Government
Recreation
Public Open Space
Transit
Center Development
Residential
Center
1 Mile Radius
r
e
w
e
F
Center

Retail
Commercial
Government
Recreation
Public Open Space
r
e
t
r
o
h
S
&
o
t
u
A
s
p
i
Tr
Center Development With Bike Lanes
Residential
Center
1 Mile Radius
Center

Retail
Commercial
Government
Recreation
Public Open Space
Transit
Bike System

On Street Bike Lanes (10% Mode Split)
Typical Bike Lanes (Best case ridership, 10% of all trips)
Bicycle Use Comparison
United States
(Typical)
Daily Trips
Bike
Walk Transit/
Auto
1%
3%
96%
CRANDALL ARAMBULA PC
www.ca-city.com
Centered With Protected Bike Lanes
Residential
Center
1 Mile Radius
Center

Retail
Commercial
Government
Recreation
Public Open Space
Transit
Bike System

Protected Bike Lanes (40% Mode Split)
Protected Bike Lanes ( ridership, 30% to 40% of all trips)
Bicycle Use Comparison
United States
(Typical)
Netherlands
Utrecht
(288,000)
Wageningen (33,000)
Daily Trips
Bike
Walk Transit/
Auto
1%
3%
96%
31%
41%
CRANDALL ARAMBULA PC
www.ca-city.com
23%
18%
46%
41%
Center With Protected Bike Lanes
Center
Residential

Center
1 Mile Radius
M
e
r
o
Retail
Commercial
Government
Recreation
Public Open Space
o
t
Au
s
p
i
r
T
n
i
n
o
Protected
Bike Lanes (40% Mode Split)
i
t
c
u
d
e
R
Bike System
Typical
Development
21,900 miles/yr
$4,380 /year
Mixed Use
Center
Center
& Bike Lanes
Center &
Protected Lanes
Household Gasoline Expenditure*
13,140 miles/yr
$2,628 /year
11,826 miles/yr
$2,365 /year
* 20 miles/gallon @ $4.00 per gallon = $0.20 per mile
7,884 miles/yr
$1,577 /year
Typical
Development
21,900 miles/yr
$4,380 /year
Mixed Use
Center
Center
& Bike Lanes
Center &
Protected Lanes
Household Gasoline Expenditure*
0 miles
0 stimulus
13,140 miles/yr
$2,628 /year
11,826 miles/yr
$2,365 /year
Economic Stimulus**
60 million miles
$27 million
76 million miles
$34 million
* 20 miles/gallon @ $4.00 per gallon = $0.20 per mile
** Total miles not driven times $0.45/mile
7,884 miles/yr
$1,577 /year
122 million miles
$55 million
Ideal Station
s
¼ Mile Radius
5 Minute Walk
LRT
s
Ideal Station ?
s
LRT
s
¼ Mile Radius
5 Minute Walk
1 Mile Radius
5 Minute Bike Ride
(Protected)
TOD
BCD
Ideal Station ?
ps
i
r
t T t)
i
s
rasn ransi
T
00 on t
2
,
3 0%
(1
LRT
s
¼ Mile Radius
5 Minute Walk
1 Mile Radius
5 Minute Bike Ride
(Protected)
TOD
BCD
Ideal Station ?
ps
i
r
t T t)
i
s
rasn ransi
T
00 on t
2
,
3 0%
(1
LRT
ps
i
r
tT )
i
s
rasn ansit
T
00 on tr
8
,
12 0%
(1
¼ Mile Radius
5 Minute Walk
1 Mile Radius
5 Minute Bike Ride
(Protected)
TOD
BCD
Alignment & TOD Design
Alternatives must consider:
1) TOD potential
2) Stations safety
3) BCD potential (1 mile rad.) ?
TOD Timing
Project Timeline
1
2
3
4
Draft
Final
LRT Project

EIS
Final Design
Value Engineering
Yes
YEAR
5
6
7
8
9
Project Timeline
1
2
3
4
Draft
Final
YEAR
5
6
7
8
LRT Project

EIS
Final Design
Value Engineering
Too Late
Yes
No
9
Building Livable Communities with Transit
San Francisco
2008
Integrating Urban Design,
Architecture and
Engineering in Station
Design
CRANDALL ARAMBULA
October 29, 2008

View Crandall presentation

Transcription

Similar documents

List of Duct Testers for the 2012 Washington State Energy Code