|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 319
FRUITVALE BART TRANSIT VILLAGE
CASE STUDY
OCR for page 320
OCR for page 321
FRUITVALE BART TRANSIT VILLAGE
The Fruitvale BART Transit Village is an example of community-based
planning which responds to immobility by moving the services to the people who
need them. The centerpiece of the plan is the Bay Area Rapid Transit District's
(BART) commuter rail station located in the Fruitvale neighborhood of Oakland.
The Spanish Speaking Unity Council, a community development corporation
serving the 51,000 people in this neighborhood, has taken the lead in the
revitalization of the BART station area. It has proposed the Transit Village,
which will link transportation with a mix of social services, retail, and residential
uses.
PROJECT HISTORY
In 1991 BART proposed a multi-level, 600-space parking garage for its
Fruitvale station. People in the surrounding community questioned the value of
the garage to them, perceiving it as a wall separating the station from the
neighborhood. Instead, they suggested that a planning process take place to
capitalize on the presence of the station and connect it through pedestrian-friendly
design to the adjacent commercial district.
The Fruitvale neighborhood, so named for the fruit trees planted by its
original German settlers in the nineteenth century, is now primarily a low-income
area of Latino, African-American and Asian residents and businesses. According
to the 1990 U.S. census, over 65% of all households in Fruitvale own either one or
no private automobile. Whereas only 10% of employed residents in the county
take public transit to work, 20% of Fruitvale residents do so. The average
household size is 3.24 persons, above the county average of 2.66 persons. And
almost one-fifGh of the residents lack basic English skills.
Given this demographic profile, the Spanish Speaking Unity Council viewed
the BART parking proposal as an opportunity to further economic redevelopment
through a public-private partnership. The Unity Council is a major force in the
fabric of the community, operating a large Headstart program, a senior center and
senior congregate housing. It runs a Neighborhood Watch program against crime
spearheads a Main Street improvement district, and advocates on behalf of the
neighborhood for such amenities as underground utilities and open space
expansion. Thus, it was natural for the Unity Council to take the lead as the
planning and redevelopment agency for the Transit Village project.
-
_
~ .. . . ~ .. . .. i_ .. . . . .. . .
BART withdrew its parking proposal and agreed to participate in a broad-
based planning process. A 1992 Community Development Block Grant of $186,000
from the City of Oakland allowed the Unity Council to begin its outreach and to
plan a Design Symposium. According to the project director, "The receipt of this
grant meant that the community had become politically empowered and had the
ability to build on that success.") Five prominent Bay Area architectural firs,
1
OCR for page 322
as follows:
working at a nominal cost, presented different concepts to the 100 people in
attendance on a Saturday in May, 1993.
From the Design Symposium emerged a basic concept that could be used for
funding requests, zoning changes, and preliminary environmental review. The
concept has since been refined into a site plan suitable for a Request for Proposals
(RFP) soliciting a private-sector partner. The REP indicates that the private
developer should "have sufficient financial capacity to commit to investing their
time and resources in pre-development activities for the project, provide or acquire
required equity, secure investors for market rate projects, and obtain construction
and permanent financing as needed." The expected ground-breaking is April 1,
1998.
DESIGN FOR MOBILITY
The central feature of the Fruilvale BART Transit Village is a large
pedestrian plaza surrounded by small retail uses, multi-family dwellings, and
public services. The plaza is meant to draw people from the neighborhood, as well
as invite BART and bus riders to explore the shops and services at the station and
the connecting commercial district. The proposed residential development wall
provide "eyes on the street" to foster a safe environment within the Village. The
design addresses immobility by clustering social services so that they are in a one-
stop, centralized location. This will bring multiple services within walking
distance of existing and new residents, senior citizens located nearby, and those
arriving by transit.
The community services planned for the 12-acre station and its environs are
La Clinica de! La Raza, a health care center in the community which
will relocate and expand;
a Senior Citizens Center;
housing for senior citizens, already under construction on an adjacent
property;
a child care center;
a Community Resource Center, which will be new quarters for the Unity
Council; and
Oakland Public :Library's Latin American Branch located in the
Community Resource Center.
Development of the site is integrated with the transportation infrastructure.
Besides the pedestrian plaza, funded by the Federal Highway Administration, the
site will contain an Intermodal Transfer Facility built with a Federal Transit
Administration grant. According to the General Manager of AC Transit, the
Intermodal Facility will underscore the bus agency rich service in the
neighborhood and its important contribution to the viability of the area.
2
OCR for page 323
~-
=
; ~: = ~ ala
t
~ PR:Z
_~
t
/
a`` 1
\ C
\
<
/
/
/ \ \
\\\
..
a. . ~ ~
{~ . ..\\ ~
..-,... ~
~ ~ Ha, ~
. `
. ~ ~ ~
· .< ~
~ a\
OCR for page 324
Two four-story BART parking garages will be located behind the buildings
lining the pedestrian plaza. Continuing the pedestrian-friendly concept, the City
of Oakland will narrow a street bisecting the site from its current five lanes to two
lanes with parking. Oakland also adopted a new Transit Village zoning category
to support developments such as this, which capitalize on good transit access. The
Transit Village zone specifically encourages high-density, mixed use developments
and requires no new parking for commercial uses and only one-half parking space
per residential unit. Negotiations are underway with Union Pacific Railroad to
incorporate its abandoned right-of-way into the BART site, where a bike path may
be constructed to connect with downtown Oakland.
BARRIERS ENCOUNTERED
Overcoming the attitudes of unbelievers was the biggest barrier to gaining
support for the Transit Village, according to the Chief Executive Officer of the
Spanish Speaking Unity Council. She said that the primary obstacle was disbelief
that infill development in the inner city is feasible for private developers. There
was also skepticism that federal funding for the transportation elements could be
secured and a concern at BART that it should not stray from its core mission of
running trains. But when the Unity Council was awarded a $470,00 planning
grant from the Federal Transit Administration, she reports that the unbelievers
said, "Wow! Then maybe it is possible." According to then Secretary of
Transportation Federico Pena, the grant would be used to serve as "an example of
how to blend rail transit stations with the communities they serve."2
The Unity Council's Chief Executive Officer admits that it takes an
enormous government subsidy to make a project such as the Transit Village
attractive to private developers. For example, preliminary estimates for toxic
remediation range from $500,000 to $1,600,000. A private developer would not
want to take on these costs if the company could instead build on raw land.
Therefore, the Unity Council is seeking a grant from the Environmental Protection
Agency to cover these costs, and BART has agreed to take on some of the risk
after a more detailed toxic assessment is performed.
Because of the government subsidies needed, the Find raising burden is very
high. This requires consummate grantsm~nship and an ability to maneuver
through a labyrinth of bureaucratic rules and regulations. As an example of grant
restrictions that the Unity Council could not overcome, the Chief Executive Officer
cited their desire to build the senior housing over the senior center. A $7 million
grant from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
and the City of Oakland is funding the 68-unit senior housing project on land
adjacent to BART. A separate grant of $2.6 million from a local bond measure in
the City of Oakland will be used for the senior center. Although HUD's money
can be used for land payments, Oakland's bond money cannot. Because they were
unable to divide the facility into condominium ownerships, the Unity Council will
build each separately.
4
OCR for page 325
Gaining the Transit Village zoning change was also a long process. The
original zoning on the property would not have permitted mixed use development
due to building height restrictions. Besides this change, the new zoning allows for
high density housing and an increase in nonresidential floor area ratios.
Another difficulty for the non-profit Unity Council members was to learn
about an industry with which they had little previous interaction. They needed to
acquaint themselves with the transportation industry's key players, turf issues,
funding opportunities, terminology, and acronyms. This required building new
relationships and trust. The Executive Officer describes the Unity Council as "a
gnat" compared to the large transportation agencies and funders involved in this
project. Yet, having the community-based organization as leader of a $100 million
project is evidence of their success in forming industry partnerships.
Further evidence of their success occurred in 1994 when BART signed a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOW) with the Unity Council "to cooperatively
pursue the planning and development of the Fruitvale Transit Village Project."
And in 1996, BART executed an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement giving the
Unity Council site control.
FUNDING
One of the most impressive aspects of the Transit Village Project is the
package of public funding that has been assembled by the Unity Council. As
mentioned earlier, funds have already been identified from:
.
.
from:
the Federal Highway Administration;
the Federal Transit Administration;
a City of Oakland Community Development Block Grant;
a City of Oakland bond measure;
the Department of Housing and Urban Development; and
the Environmental Protection Agency.
In addition, the City of Oakland has already or is expected to commit funds
its Enhanced Enterprise Community Fund; and
tax increments from the Coliseum Redevelopment Area.
The Unity Council is pursuing or has secured additional financing from:
loans and lines of credit;
the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency;
the Department of Commerce's Economic Development Assistance
Program;
the Ford Foundation; and
the Hewlitt Foundation.
5
OCR for page 326
FACTORS AFFECTING TRl\NSFERl\BILITY TO OTEIE:R AGENCIES
Bringing services to the people who need them and, therefore, eliminating
the need to travel is one strategy to reduce the social, economic, and Herman costs
of immobility. Clustering these services around a transit hub and removing the
need to travel to multiple or difficult to reach locations is a complementary
strategy. The design for the Fruitvale BART Transit Village incorporates both
these strategies. This research has identified key factors which are transferable to
other cities and transportation organizations interested in pursuing these
strategies.
1. Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Communities Principles
The Fruitvale area is included in Oakland's Enhanced Enterprise
Community boundaries. However, independent of that federal effort, the
community had developed a Vision Statement through its planning process:
"The Fruitvale will be a welcoming, diverse, clean and safe
neighborhood with a high quality of life that will nurture strong
families, provide economic opportunity, and promote a solid sense of
community."3
This Vision Statement for the Fruitvale BART Transit Village, and the
design concepts that emerged from it, manifests the principles underlying the
federal Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Communities Initiative:
Economic Opportunity
Sustainable Community Development
Community-Based Partnerships
Strategic Vision for Changed
Adopting these principles can be a framework for similar efforts to establish
Transit Villages in other communities.
2. Leadership
The above principles are, in fact, just a framework; they are useless without
the leadership to carry them forward into a concrete plan. The earlier section on
barriers describes the tremendous hurdles that the ambitious Transit Village
concept faced. Without the leadership of the Spanish Speaking Unity Council, the
vision would have withered. Similar projects will need a champion with an
unwavering belief in the project and the diligence and perseverance to overcome
all naysayers.
Leadership must be combined with certain skills. The Unity Council's Chief
Executive Officer possesses the political acumen necessary to successfully enter
the unfamiliar arena of transportation. She was able to use her personal contacts
with the Mayor of Oakland, the BART director representing the Fruitvale district,
6
OCR for page 327
and federal officials to bring the Transit Village project to their attention. In
addition, her ability to tailor grants to the interests of donors was essential to win
crucial funding for implementation.
3. Community Support
In the document Market Opportunities arid Barriers to Transit-Based
Developmerz~ irz California, the authors cite localism and NIMBYism "as the
biggest political hurdles to developing transit villages and building transit-based
housing."5 Localism is defined by the authors as "the legal separation between
control of a transit system and the control of abutting land uses." In other words,
transit agencies cannot develop transit villages independently because cities have
supremacy over land uses within their boundaries. NIMBYism is the "Not in My
Backyard" opposition of residents to high-density development and mixed uses in
their neighborhoods.
The long-standing presence of the Spanish Speaking Unity Council earned
them the neighborhood's trust. Beginning with the Design Symposium in 1993,
the Unity Council involved the community from the outset in planning for the
Transit Village. A series of workshops was held in 1995 to identif y issues and
receive suggestions from the community. Through other initiatives such as the
Main Street improvement district, the Unity Council worked with adjacent
merchants. Using these proactive measures, the Unity Council was able to avoid
NIMBYism.
Even before its designation as an Enhanced Enterprise Community, the
City of Oakland was committed to helping bridge the separation of land use and
transportation authority of this project. The Frui~vale effort fit in well with the
efforts of the City's Community and Economic Development Department to
revitalize inner city neighborhoods. The City designated money for the project,
changed the zoning to accommodate the Transit Village, and intends to build a
city-owned senior center on the site.
At BART, the director elected from the Fruilvale area has nudged some of
her reluctant fellow board members into support. To combat "localism," the MOU
between BART and the Unity Center established a Policy Committee to oversee
the joint planning process. The Committee is comprised of the BAEtT director
representing Fruilvale and another BART board member, the Mayor and a
councilmember, and the Chief Executive Officer of the Unity Council and a board
member.
An important lesson from this case study is how developing mechanisms for
community and political buy-in can effectively prevent localism and NIMBYism.
Without such mechanisms, previous research indicates that those wishing to
implement a Transit Village can be stopped in their tracks.
7
OCR for page 328
4. New Measures of Success
Increasing system ridership is one of BARTH development objectives in the
Fruilvale BART Transit Village project. However, the quantifiable results of the
Transit Village on travel behavior will not be fully known for years or even
decades as the retail and housing components are built out. Yet, past research
implies that this Transit Village strategy can be effective in meeting ridership
goals. Robert Cervero reports that "Overall, residences and offices closest to
California rail stations were found to average higher transit modal splits than
places farther away. Thus, proximity was confirmed as an important factor in
shaping the travel choices among station-area residents and workers."6
However, the problem statement for this TORE research suggests that there
are broader measures of success than the traditional performance indicators, such
as ridership, used by transit agencies. Reducing the costs of "higher
unemployment, reduced tax revenue, greater welfare and medical costs, and
limited social potential" is a role the problem statement envisions for transit
through improvements in mobility.
BART adopted five other objectives for the Transit Village project, in
addition to ridership, which illustrate nontraditional measures for success:
"Obtain a reasonable return on its asset and any project investments.
Increase the long-term value of its existing assets.
Add more activity at station areas to improve safety.
Improve the physical connection between BART stations and their
surrounding communities.
Provide opportunities for patrons to purchase goods and services at
station areas."7
Clearly, the last three objectives exhibit BARTH acceptance of a new role
which links transportation and land use. Like BART, transportation
organizations taking on this new role will need to develop performance measures
which demonstrate how their services are integrated comprehensively into the
social and economic fabric of the communities they serve.
5. Partnerships and the Bandwagon Effect
At Fruilvale, the community-based organization has partnerships with both
the bus and rail transit agencies, local and federal governments, small merchants,
and large developers. These partnerships have been a mode} for other projects in
Oakland:
· Stab at the City of Oakland indicate that the exceptional progress made
by the Unity Council at the Fruilvale BART station has inspired
planning at two other BART stations in Oakland. Although there had
been preliminary interest at the MacArthur and Coliseum stations, the
Frui~vale BART experience has energized community leaders and
8
OCR for page 329
elected officials in these other neighborhoods. For example, the
Coliseum station serves the Oakland Coliseum, where basketball games,
rock music concerts, and other events take place. Developing the
station area into a complementary entertainment village is one idea
that is being discussed. The City of Oakland can supply planning tools
and some funding. However, community leaders now see that their
participation can leverage Oakland's support into additional funding,
since community-based organizations are eligible for funding that the
City is not.
.
AC Transit's partnership in the Fruilvale Intermodal Facility has also
spawned new ideas, according to the General Manager. The Board of
Directors has talked about a Livable Corridor along a major line in the
system. San Pablo Avenue begins in downtown Oakland and runs
through every city northward in the District. The Corridor would be "a
big Fruilvale project," she says, capitalizing on good bus transportation
to stimulate redevelopment with appropriate land uses.
The Fru~tvale BART Transit Village process illustrates the "bandwagon"
effect--where everybody wants to get on board. When transit agencies are willing
to undertake innovative partnerships:
· One agency can supplement the strengths of another.
· One good idea can spin off into many.
· One leader can be the mode! for others who follow.
Transportation organizations need to be open to participation in all kinds of
partnerships--with giants, such as the federal government, and with "gnats," such
as community-based organizations. Even a "gnat," as the Unity Council's Chief
Executive Officer points out, can be an invaluable resource in helping transit meet
its goal of increased mobility.
9
OCR for page 330
REFERENCES
Olson, :Laura, Mobility Partners Case Study: Fruitvale BAR T Community
Redevelopment Project.
3.
5.
6.
7.
Development Team Request for Proposals, January 1997
Development Team Request for Proposals, January 1997
Building Communities: Together, HUD, January 1994.
Cervero, Bernick, and Gilbert, University of California Transportation
Center Working Paper, August 1994.
Ridership Impacts of Transit-Focused Development in California, November
1993.
Development Team Request for Proposals, January 1997.
10
Representative terms from entire chapter:
unity council
