So the city has finally posted the full Alameda Point Station Area Plan Transit Oriented Development Alternatives report.
It’s Friday and so I’ll go light on the comments, but two things jump out of it….First, for those pushing the “it’s all about jobs” orientation (as separate from the existing focus of “it’s about jobs plus…”).
The demand for new office and employment uses at Alameda Point will be limited by:
- Competition from existing available office space and existing office buildings in Alameda, such as Harbor Bay Business Park in Oakland and other East Bay cities; and
- Less direct freeway and regional transit access to and from Alameda Point than other East Bay locations.
…..
Historically, the City of Alameda has absorbed approximately 100,000 square feet of new employment uses per year on average. Demand for new office and employment space at Alameda Point will probably not exceed 100,000 to 150,000 square feet per year unless large scale office or institutional users are attracted to the site.
For those who are traffic inclined, this report provides the first real, professionally created, traffic analysis of various alternatives and provides actual numbers based on concrete proposals. Check out Page 44 for the full run down, but essentially, the Transit Plus (alternative #3) plan which looks at slightly more than double the number of houses proposed in the PDC and an increase in local retail would generate less traffic generate more traffic than the Measure A compliant PDC, but that increased transit (related to the Alameda Point development) would result in reductions in traffic from other parts of the island that would more than offset these increases for a net reduction in traffic. It should be noted that this transit is not pie-in-the-sky, innovative, or unrealistic, it’s buses running at frequencies similar to those currently on Santa Clara. (They even show their work!).
This is a great read, well written, the information is clearly presented, the tradeoffs and constraints are well defined, it’s an excellent intro to the land-use issues at the Point.
Enjoy your weekend.
[ed note: edited for clarity and intellectual honesty]
[2nd ed. note: clarification of type of transit studied]
More housing == less traffic ?
Not exactly. Alternative 3 actually generates the most traffic, but “The transit benefits to the rest of Alameda would offset some or all of the additional traffic generated by Alternative # 3 as compared to 1 and 2.”
If you’re going to reduce the report to a soundbite, at least be intellectually honest about it: more housing might lead to less traffic if the rest of Alameda chooses to use the potentially improved transit options that might be on offer. Not quite as catchy, I admit.
Yes, sorry, in my rush to post during lunch I was a bit sloppy with the language. I had planned on writing in greater length about how they make the claim next week. I have amended the post, thanks for the feedback