|
Mobility Partner: Transit-Oriented Communities
Click HERE for graphic. MOBILITY PARTNERS The Mobility Partners Program is an initiative of the U.S. EPA's Office of Policy Analysis and the Surface Transportation Policy Project to meet the transportation goals of the President's Climate Change Action Plan by facilitating the exchange of ideas and concepts for reducing mobile source emission. Case Studies are produced on a quarterly basis, and are accompanied by ACCESS, the quarterly newsletter of Mobility Partners. If you would like to receive more information about the program, please contact us at: MOBILITY PARTNERS 1400 16th Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 939-3470 Phone (202) 939-3475 Fax MOBILITY PARTNERS Transit-Oriented Design Designing Communities that foster economic growth, provide livability, and do not contribute to the emission of greenhouse gases Click HERE for graphic. Transit-Oriented Design (TOD) is a general description implying higher density land uses and activities ... designed and located to encourage ridership on public transit," according to Kimberly Fisher of the Urban Land Institute. Transit-oriented design projects attempt to attract people to the transit system by creating an atmosphere which is safe, convenient and easily accessible by foot, bicycle or alternative transit mode. If people can safely walk to the transit stop and bank, buy groceries and return library books on their way home from the station, they are more likely to use the transit system. It is essential to integrate the transit station into the other activities of the community in order to most effectively maximize the benefits of the transit investment and to maximize ridership. Transit oriented design projects can: 1 MOBILITY PARTNERS - Improve air quality by reducing the number of vehicle trips. If the design of the area surrounding a transit station promotes bicycling and walking, more people will use transit and alternative modes for their travel needs; - Promote economic development by attracting consumers, businesses and social services to the area surrounding the transit station; - Increase housing options by encouraging mixed-use development, which incorporates commercial, social service and residential structures. The city of Portland, Oregon described the potential for transit-oriented development in their citizen's workbook for the Annual Regional Rail Summit as follows: "Painting the vision, a transit station may have abundant uses, including jobs, housing, retail, restaurants, daycare centers, services, athletic facilities, pedestrian plazas with fountains and furniture, bicycle parking and lockers, news stands and, of course, tall double skinny lattes. Whatever is offered around the transit station, access to the light rail is an easy walk, bus ride or bicycle trip from people's single family neighborhood or just a simple walk across the street from a mixed- use building next to the station. Many activities are underway to encourage transit stations to become more than just a place to park the car. The Community Initiative The three communities highlighted in the following case studies on community initiatives of transit-oriented development are similar to many other inner-city communities across the country. All three show that transit and pedestrian oriented design retrofits can work in existing communities, not just in new suburbs. Bayview Hunters Point (BVHP) in San Francisco is the largest African-American Community in the city and faces high unemployment rates. Likewise, in many areas of the Lake Street El corridor on the west side of Chicago over 25% of the residents are unemployed. Employers and residents continue to flee the area because there is little indication of any improvement in the economic situation. Chicago's west side is predominantly African- American with a large number of female-headed households. In the Lake-Pulaski neighborhood, almost one-third of the population has an income below the poverty level. In the Fruitvale district of Oakland, California, the situation is similar. Fruitvale is a predominately low-income Latino neighborhood. All three of these communities have several substantive problems facing them: unemployment, crime and inadequate access to public transportation. It is important to keep in mind the situation of the three communities in order to fully understand the significance of the transit planning initiated and conducted by the communities. The importance of the planning efforts of the BVHP, the Lake-Pulaski and the Fruitvale communities extends far beyond the value of transit-oriented development. These communities have taken an impressive initiative to redesign their own neighborhoods in 2 MOBILITY PARTNERS order to make their communities more livable. Each of the three case studies represents a tremendous effort on the part of everybody involved to design their communities from within instead of accepting what bureaucrats promised them. In working with planners and architects, each community identified and described elements which would improve the feeling and economic vitality of their neighborhood. All three design plans are still in the planning and predevelopment process. Though the redevelopment is not finished, successes are already apparent. The process of developing a transit design empowered the communities, providing residents with the opportunity and encouragement to become more active in the decision making process. The communities are also beginning to see concrete evidence of the redevelopment process. The west side of Chicago witnessed the retention of their rapid transit line and a $300,000,000 investment in the rehabilitation of the line. A Fruitvale health clinic, La Clinica de la Raza, has received a grant to expand its facilities in the new pedestrian plaza area adjacent to the transit station as well as a $470,000 design grant from the US DOT. And, the community transit system alternative put forth by the BVHP community is entering the Major Investment Analysis process along with the proposals of MUNI, the transit agency, to determine the impacts and cost-effectiveness of the plans. Even though the transit redevelopment projects have not yet been fully realized, it is important to recognize their current and future impact on the health and livability of each community. The significance of three innercity neighborhoods focusing their resources to design community-specific redevelopment plans cannot be underestimated. Each plan will increase transit ridership and employment opportunities, attract social service facilities and retail businesses, and make the community more a pleasant place to work and live. The Bayview Hunters Point community, the Lake Street El neighborhoods and the Fruitvale community should be congratulated for the transit-oriented designs and the design processes which they have implemented. Michael Bernick of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Board of Directors stated, "the transit village idea has been tried before but it always faltered because the residents did not support it. [In Fruitvale]..they did it right, they started with the residents." Recognition of the efforts of the BVHP, Lake Street El and Fruitvale communities is well deserved and their community design processes can serve as an example for other communities across the country. All communities-urban, suburban and rural-have the ability to work together to replicate these results. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) provides many tools and available funds for efforts such as transit-oriented development. ISTEA also mandates effective public participation in the decision making process, which is exemplified in the community planning of all three neighborhoods. In coordinating efforts, community organizations, city and county officials, transit agencies, planners and developers can achieve redevelopment projects which will further the vision and needs of the community. 3 MOBILITY PARTNERS Bayview Hunters Point Social and Ecological Justice Transportation Plan Click HERE for graphic. In 1989 the residents of San Francisco passed Proposition B which provided for a half cent sales tax to support transportation, 60% of which is dedicated to transit. As a priority, $95 million was set aside for the Bayshore Corridor, including the Bayview Hunters Point community (BVHP), which has long been underserved by public transportation. The BVHP residents have long felt the need for improved public transportation to connect them to the rest of the city and other job opportunities, especially since the Hunters Point Shipyard closed. The shipyard was the major employer in the community, with over 15,000 employees when it closed in the mid- 70's. The Bayview Hunters Point community has historically hosted a heavy industrial area which, along with the opening of the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard in the 1940's, accounted for the much of the influx of African-Americans to the BVHP area. BVHP is the largest African-American community in San Francisco, and also has seen a growing Asian population in recent years. 5 MOBILITY PARTNERS In November 1992, the San Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI) began a system study of the Bayshore Corridor due to the $95 million set aside for this area by the Proposition B sales tax. MUNI originally proposed ten possible options for the corridor which were narrowed to 4 light rail proposals. Midway through MUNI's process of review and evaluation of the proposals, the New Bayview Committee, a coalition of community organizations and individuals including Health Research Consultants [community & public relations consultants], churches and housing groups, initiated an independent assessment of the MUNI proposals. The community leaders felt that MUNI, as a transit agency, would not be able to address the related environmental and social issues in a manner to suit the needs of the community. Of strong interest to the New Bayview Committee were the economic development impacts of the light rail proposals due to the decline of the economic base since the closure of the Hunters Point Shipyard. The Urban Habitat Program, a project of Earth Island Institute working to create socially just and ecologically sustainable communities by cultivating multicultural leadership, began working with the New Bayview Community to evaluate the MUNI proposals and to recommend a transit proposal which would ensure an appropriate transit system for the Bayview Hunters Point district. Urban Habitat received a grant from the Energy Foundation to evaluate the MUNI proposals, educate the community and other interested parties about the proposals and related land-use, energy and environmental issues and to formulate an alternative plan with the community. Through this project, Urban Habitat is working to redefine the manner in which transportation planning investment decisions are made so that development is designed to support the needs and goals of a community. As stated in the BVHP Transportation Plan: The project seeks to demonstrate an integrated approach to transportation and land-use planning as a means to increasing energy efficiency in transportation by reducing reliance on automobiles, reducing energy consumption, promoting more efficient land use development patterns and improving the social, economic and environmental quality of life in one community as a model for other communities in the San Francisco Bay Area region and for other metropolitan regions in the United States. This project seeks to create a socially just and ecologically sustainable transportation plan for developing the Bayshore Corridor in the Bayview Hunters Point District that is reasonably likely to be implemented by the City and county of San Francisco. Within the community, there was a strong sentiment that for too many years people had produced studies of the corridor which did not reflect the 6 MOBILITY PARTNERS needs and attributes of the region and which did not result in any action. The community did not sense a commitment to act on the results of the studies by the city or other involved parties. The joint work of New Bayview Committee and Urban Habitat focused on incorporating the perspectives and needs of the community into the planning and evaluation process and linking the communities needs and vitality to regional needs and vitality. A Socially Just and Ecologically Sustainable Transportation System The terms "social justice" and "ecologically (or environmentally) sustainable" are often used as catch phrases for a vision of communities and projects which minimize negative impacts and foster a more equitable and fair environment. The Urban Habitat Program's definitions of the terms provide a basis for understanding the goals of this project. Social Justice is about meeting peoples' basic needs equitably, that is fairly and justly. Social justice demands that societal institutions be accessible, responsible and accountable to all people in society, regardless of social or economic standing. Ecological sustainability is based on principles of ecology which recognize the connectedness and interrelationship of all living things. Long-term survival (sustainability) of any species in an ecosystem depends on a limited resource base. A sustainable society is one that is able to satisfy its needs while maintaining its natural resources and life support systems. Socially just and ecologically sustainable communities are those that assure an equitable, healthy and sustainable social, economic, and environmental quality of life as a minimum standard for all people. Definitions: Social Justice is about meeting peoples' basic needs equitably that is fairly and justly. Social justice demands that societal institutions be accessible, and accountable to all people in society, regardless of, social or economic standing. Ecological sustainability is based on principles of ecology, which recognize the connectedness and interrelationship of all living things. Long-term survival (sustainability) of any species in an ecosystem depends on a limited resource base. A sustainable society is one that is able to satisfy its while' maintaining its natural resources and life support systems. Socially just and ecologically sustainable communities are those that assure an equitable, healthy and sustainable social, economic, and environmental quality of life as a minimum standard for all people. Social Justice Needs Assessment Summary Because Urban Habitat had the goal of creating a socially and ecologically just transportation system, it was necessary to define what elements would produce a socially and ecologically just transportation 7 MOBILITY PARTNERS system in the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood. Urban Habitat and Pittman & Harnes Associates, the consultants chosen to perform much of the analysis, began the evaluation of the four MUNI initiatives with a needs assessment of the Bayview Hunters Point community. The Social Justice Needs Assessment was performed to identify the needs of the community, as well as improvements and solutions which can be implemented to strengthen the community economically and socially while also improving air quality and other environmental factors. Five main issues were identified: population, housing, employment, transportation and environment & energy. For each category, neighborhood characteristics and the potential role of transportation in alleviating the problems were identified. For example, under employment, it was noted that the BVHP community has high unemployment rates and an average household income that is 70% of the citywide average. The social justice assessment suggested the development of transit projects that create permanent jobs for residents within the transit system and that provide access to higher paying employment opportunities elsewhere in the region. The needs assessment provided the community with a clear depiction of the current situation and the relationship between transportation systems and other community concerns such as employment. This enabled Urban Habitat and the consultants to present possible measures aimed at addressing existing concerns and enriching opportunities in the community. Social and Environmental Justice Criteria From the needs assessment, Urban Habitat developed Social and Environmental Justice Criteria "which seek to directly support the objectives of social justice transportation planning." The Social and Environmental Justice Criteria were designed as mechanisms to evaluate the ability of transportation plans to address the social and environmental needs in the community. The criteria focused on the ability of the proposal to most efficiently and effectively: 1. Maximize job/income opportunities for neighborhood residents; 2. Provide an improved level of transportation services to community residents; 3. Facilitate economic development that promotes environmental quality; 4. Facilitate economic development that promotes energy efficiency; and 5. Provide an implementation strategy to maximize job/income opportunities for the community. 8 MOBILITY PARTNERS Click HERE for graphic. Under each of these main topics, detailed specific actions and opportunities were listed in order to facilitate the evaluation. This criteria was used to evaluate the four MUNI transit system options and also to guide the development of the community proposal. According to Urban Habitat, "The overriding concern of this social justice transportation plan is to recommend a transit solution for the Bayview Hunters Point community that maximizes employment and income opportunities, while preserving environmentally sound and effective land use patterns." The Bayview Hunters Point community was seeking community investment which would facilitate job creation and access to other employment opportunities. Urban Habitat was committed to articulating that desire through the MUNI project evaluations and the development of the community proposal, and advocating for a transit system that not only provides for increased employment opportunities, but also forwards the vision of a socially just transportation plan as a basis for building livable communities. All four of the MUNI light rail proposals were evaluated by the above criteria, looking closely at how well they would facilitate the creation of a socially and ecologically just transportation system. Three of the alternatives rated comparably under the established criteria, and the fourth fell far short of these. However, none of the proposals sufficiently satisfied all or even most of the criteria. Due to the inadequacies of the MUNI proposals in providing transit systems that improved the economic and environmental vitality of the community, Urban Habitat joined with the New Bayview Committee to draft a community alternative which would provide a transit system designed to fulfill the needs and concerns of the BVHP community. 9 MOBILITY PARTNERS In addition to the meetings, a survey was drafted to gather information from BVHP residents on their: - Main mode of transportation used; - Destination of trips; - Opinion of current bus service; - Knowledge of city's proposals to build light rail; - Opinions about the potential value of light rail; - Preferences for' station spacing and platform height; - Ideas about how to revitalize the economic and social quality of life in BVHP; and - Views on the, economic and social quality of life in BVHP; and - Views on the economic and environmental impact of light rail. Community Alternative Urban Habitat, working with the New Bayview Committee, and other BVHP residents, developed the first community-designed transit system plan based on social and environmental justice criteria in the country. The goal of Urban Habitat was to help the community articulate its vision of an effective, convenient and accessible transit system for the neighborhood, and to secure consideration of the community plan by MUNI, which was in the process of outlining options for the Bayshore corridor. The New Bayview Committee provided a forum for the development of a community-designed transit proposal. With a well established role in the community from work on the naval shipyard conversion, health care access for residents, and the building of a community facility, among others, the New Bayview Committee worked in conjunction with Urban Habitat to establish and conduct the planning process. The Committee and Urban Habitat chose the already established monthly New Bayview Committee meetings as the forum to open the discussion of transportation options in the BVHP region. The large monthly meetings, which typically attracted 30-75 people, remained the primary forum for the dissemination of information about the project and receiving the overall input of the community. With the survey information and other community input, two planning groups, the project team and the community working group, emerged to focus on the details of the community alternative transit proposal. The project team was the core planning group consisting of. Sam Murray, the President of the New Bayview Committee; Aurea Luis-Carnes, a principal owner of Health Research Consultants; Henry Holmes and Luz Cervantes of The Urban Habitat Program; and Donna Pittman and Lillian Harnes of Pittman & Harnes Associates. The project team had the responsibility of drafting a proposal for a transit line which would best serve the needs of the Bayview Hunters Point community. The preliminary recommendations 10 MOBILITY PARTNERS of the project team were then taken to the working group. The working group consisted of 10-12 community leaders and residents committed to the implementation of the alternatives and willing to stick with the project throughout the process. In detailed manner, the working group considered the criteria to be used to evaluate the MUNI proposals, and evaluated with detailed feedback the preliminary map and recommendation for the community alternative. The working group also responded to and helped with the distribution of the Community Survey on Transportation. The two separate planning groups included a variety of strong interests, knowledge and abilities to draft a transit system plan for the community. Throughout the planning process, Urban Habitat's role was to engage the community in the process, providing access to technical and professional knowledge about issues and options and advocating for the plan at the city and county levels. "Having a non-profit help articulate the needs of the community and translate them into the technical work of the consultants was extremely effective," noted Carmen Clark of the San Francisco Transportation Authority (SFTA). "Urban Habitat also translated the 'jargon' for the community." Urban Habitat and Pittman & Haines Associates provided institutional capacity, helping the community members to understand the planning and decision making processes and translate their concerns into a realistic transit system proposal. Community Plan Components - Space stations every 2-3 blocks - Employ low floor vehicles - Relocate Metro East Rail Yard facility to Hunters Point Shipyard from current planned site at King and 16th - Connect community transit to the future BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) extension to the airport - Create a Bayshore Corridor development entity - Form an economic development strategy - Establish a job set-aside program Maintain direct transit service between Visitation Valley and Chinatown/ Fisherman's Wharf. A preliminary recommendation was submitted to the working group and presented to the New Bayview Committee. Both groups provided essential input and raised concerns about various aspects of the plan. One of the major concerns came from the Asian community in Visitation Valley, a neighborhood of BVHP. Much of the Asian community in BVHP expressed serious concern about the potential loss of a direct transit line to the Chinatown area where many of them work. The bus currently runs directly to Chinatown and Fisherman's Wharf, but the proposed transit line would stop 10- 15 blocks away from the area. The community feared the termination of the direct bus line with the implementation of a light rail line connecting BVHP to the downtown area. The desire to maintain the direct line surfaced not only as a question of convenience, but also one of affordability because without the direct line residents would have to pay an additional fare to transfer from the light rail end stop to a bus line. Transfers were eliminated in San Francisco in 11 MOBILITY PARTNERS middle of 1993, midway through the MUNI study, so it would double the cost for Visitation Valley residents to get to Chinatown. [Free Transfers were reinstated in March 1994. MUNI experienced a significant decline in fare receipts and ridership after transfers were eliminated.] The project group effectively addressed this contentious issue, which could have eroded support for the plan in the community, by including the maintenance of the direct line in the proposal. The Visitation Valley example demonstrates the types of concerns held in the community and also the level of trust and open discussion established by the project team and the New Bayview Committee. The feedback received from the working group and the residents was incorporated into the final plan proposal. Community Plan Components The Bayview Hunters Point community designed plan is a hybrid alternative, combining elements from each of the four MUNI plans as well as three major new proposals. The Community hybrid alternative includes the following components and relevant goals: - Space stations every 2-3 blocks, to improve transit access and to support economic development along the Third Street corridor. - Employ low floor vehicles, Standard light rail vehicles require a high, 33 inch elevated platform on the street for boarding, which often creates physical and psychological barriers and prevents use. Low floor vehicles allow a curb size platform. (New Proposal) - Relocate Metro East Rail Yard facility to Hunters Point Shipyard from current planned site at King and 16th to increase job opportunities and employment set-asides. It may also be possible to acquire the land and support facilities at a lower cost due to Defense Department transition funds. This goal invigorated the community involvement in the redevelopment of the shipyard. (New Proposal) - Connect community transit to the future BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) extension to the airport to ensure access to current and future employment opportunities at and around the airport. (New Proposal) - Create a Bayshore Corridor development entity to effectively coordinate development efforts in the corridor as to maximize the investment benefits for the community and to provide a forum for effective public participation and involvement. - Form an economic development strategy before transit development occurs to formulate an integrated economic development strategy for transit-oriented development and to seek funds for such planning from programs such as FTA's Livable Communities Program and the Empowerment Zones. - Establish a job set-aside program to ensure employment opportunities for residents in the construction and long- term maintenance of the line. - Maintain direct transit service between Visitation Valley and Chinatown/Fisherman's Wharf. 12 MOBILITY PARTNERS Click HERE for graphic. Paralleling the development of the community transit alternative plan, Urban Habitat also instituted an advocacy component to their work, building the political support needed for adoption of the community plan. The Urban Habitat Program staff met and corresponded with members of MUNI, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (the local Metropolitan Planning Organization), the San Francisco Transit Authority, the Public Utilities Commission, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, the mayor's office, the city planning office and other city and county officials to educate them about the transit design planning efforts of the BVHP community. Continual dialogue with city elected officials and agency staff was essential in building support for the project and will continue to be the cornerstone in their efforts to have the Community Hybrid Alternative adopted as the design plan for the Bayview Hunters Point transit system. Agency Acceptance The Bayview Hunters Point Community Alternative was submitted to the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) of San Francisco, a five- member commission appointed by the mayor with jurisdiction over the Water Department, the Hetch Hetchy Dam and the MUNI railway. The PUC is a powerful commission since many of their resolutions are not subject to the regulation of any other body. The PUC instructed MUNI to do a cost analysis of the two major new components of the community plan- the low-floor cars and the transfer of the rail yard to the Hunters Point Naval yard- so that the community plan could be evaluated on equal footing with the four MUNI proposals. The Public Utilities Commission then accepted the BVHP community alternative as a viable system plan, and authorized MUNI to pursue a federal Major Investment Analysis (MIA) of 13 MOBILITY PARTNERS the five proposals. (The four MUNI plans and the community alternative) A Major Investment Analysis is required under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) to evaluate all alternatives in a corridor based on the direct and indirect costs and considering factors such as: mobility improvements; social, economic and environmental effects; safety; operating efficiencies; land use and economic development; financing; and energy consumption. After a positive finding of the MIA, a project can be submitted to the Metropolitan Planning Organization for approval and acceptance into the regional Transportation Improvement Plan. As the MIA process begins, Urban Habitat is continuing to meet with city and county staff and elected officials to gain support for the community proposal and to maintain the community's ongoing involvement in the process. Innovations/Successes Urban Habitat and the Bayview Hunters Point district developed a cooperative partnership and formed a community plan for the transit system to serve the BVHP corridor. Urban Habitat helped to take the concerns of the community and shape them into a plan for a transit system. From the onset, this project laid a framework for the integration of transportation planning with economic development and land use planning, and environmental and social considerations. The approach was one of true evaluation of the positive and negative impacts of transportation on a community, including an analysis of the many different social, economic and environmental impacts and consequences, as well as the relationship between the community's needs and those of the larger metropolitan area. MUNI planners studied the area and tried to involve the public in its study and system proposal process through traditional outreach efforts, but the four options presented by MUNI did not grow from community concerns and desires. After the first community meeting held by MUNI, the attendance dwindled, reflecting the difficulty the community faced addressing transportation amidst a range of other pressing needs, and the perceived lack of a long- term commitment by the city to the BVHP community. As a result, what the city planners assumed the community wanted and needed did not address the needs of community residents as identified by Urban Habitat and Pittman & Haines Associates using their social and ecological justice criteria. Urban Habitat and the New Bayview Committee challenged the assumptions of MUNI and submitted a hybrid alternative to the four MUNI proposals that incorporated options to address the Social and Ecological Justice criteria. This alternative is now being studied by the responsible government agencies. Urban Habitat and the New Bayview Committee have demonstrated that a community can design a transit system proposal that addresses transportation, economic, environmental and social needs. The success in the BVHP district resulted from the dedication on the part of Urban Habitat to listen to the community's needs and wishes and 14 MOBILITY PARTNERS translate them into concrete plans for the transit system. "What Henry[Holmes] was able to do was build bridges of communication," states Carmen Clark of SFTA. Henry Holmes, the Associate Director of the Urban Habitat Program, who led the initiative, attributes the success of the project to the true cooperative planning effort and the strong advocacy component. As Henry Holmes noted, " All communities have the ability to plan for a more livable community. In BVHP, Urban Habitat and Pittman & Harnes just provided the institutional capacity to translate the concerns and aspirations into a credible plan". For more information contact: Henry Holmes, Associate Director Luz Cervantes, Transportation Project Assistant Urban Habitat Program 300 Broadway, Suite 28 San Francisco CA 94133 415-788-3666 15 MOBILITY PARTNERS Chicago Community Green Line Initiative "A grocery store is not the only possible economic anchor for a community. A transit system can also serve as an anchor, getting people in and out of the neighborhood. The station is an anchor bringing back investments to the community. We need to 'flip the script' as to what can serve as the anchor." -John Paul Jones, Neighborhood Capital Budget group, Chicago All too often community groups must react to decisions made by the city government or the transit authority. Indeed in Chicago, the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) had closed several stations on the Lake Street Elevated Train Line (El), and due to a 30% decline in ridership, between 1985 and 1990 (24% between 1976-1990), and needed repairs, they threatened to completely close the line. The Lake Street El runs from the Loop, the central business district, through Chicago's west side to the near west suburbs of Oak Park and River Forest. The decline in ridership on the Lake Street line is attributed to the loss of population in the El corridor, service cuts, fare increases and the high rate of unemployment. Unemployment in the Lake Street El corridor, within Chicago, is between 10 and 25% in most neighborhoods, with several areas experiencing unemployment rates over 25%. Upon hearing talk of closing the Lake Street El, West Side and west suburban area community and development organizations, business and industrial groups, local leaders and transit riders joined together to 17 MOBILITY PARTNERS mobilize a broad coalition of inter-city and suburban interests and to take proactive steps to fight for the preservation of the line. In February 1992, the Neighborhood Capital Budget Group (NCBG), a city-wide coalition of 200 neighborhood organizations and local economic development groups, spearheaded the formation of the Lake Street El Coalition, whose members ranged from block clubs to Congressional members. [See Appendix] As a piece of the larger strategy to preserve the Lake Street El and the Green line (In Spring of 1993, the Lake Street El, on the west side, and the Jackson Park/Englewood El, on the south side were connected and renamed the Green line.), the Lake Street El Coalition joined with several other community organizations to design a transit station redevelopment project that would attract people back to the rapid transit line while encouraging economic development and opportunities in the region. The CTA claimed the declining ridership prohibited the economic feasibility of maintaining the line. It was therefore clear to the Coalition that they had a mission of determining how to increase ridership in the community in order to permanently sustain the line. Strategy Questions for increasing Transit Ridership in a Community - Why do people use transit? - Where are they going? - What would entice people to use it more often? - How can the El be more accessible and convenient? - What role does it, or should it play in the community? The Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) and the Neighborhood Capital Budget Group, convened The Lake Street El Coalition, area residents and community organizations in February 1993 to discuss one potential strategy for maintaining the Lake Street El, a transit station redevelopment project. CNT, a non- profit public interest organization specializing in transportation, housing, community energy, sustainable manufacturing and materials policy, proposed that the Coalition undertake a transit-oriented development project (TOD) to demonstrate how the Lake Street Line could be a catalyst for a comprehensive community revitalization strategy. The transit-oriented design would incorporate the El station itself, pedestrian access to the station, a land development strategy for the surrounding neighborhood, and economic development opportunities for the community. As one element of their overall strategy, the Coalition decided to pursue a transit oriented design project, which would create a more accessible, convenient and safe El stop, improve the overall feeling of the neighborhood, and also reduce the automobile dependence in the community. Doug Farr & Associates (with Carol Schlensker), an architectural firm, provided planning and design assistance to the Coalition, much of it pro-bono with the rest paid by CNT. The Coalition viewed providing incentives through redevelopment as a 18 MOBILITY PARTNERS means to attract residents back to the community and to expand the employment opportunities in the area. A re-densification of the residential neighborhood and the expansion of employment opportunities in the El corridor would translate into both an increase in the demand for El service and revitalization for the community. Working on a short timeframe, in order to design a plan before further announcements about the fate of the Lake Street El, and in time to enter an American Institute of Architects Sustainable Communities design contest, the Coalition worked with CNT and Doug Farr & Associates to devise a plan. This would be the first transit oriented design project in an urban area the size of Chicago. Sustainable Kit of Parts The six basic elements imperative to the process a. Revitalized access to the El , which provided a well lit station, a transit information system, and safe entry and exit; b. A 24 hour commercial and pedestrian activity center, possibly a 24 hour drug store and walking police; c. A commercial strip next to the El stop, providing riders with the ability to run errands on their way to and from the El; d. Intensified housing development, approximately 40% of the land is vacant lot space; e. Industrial retention, the west side has a large community of 1 story industrial and repair shops. The community felt it was important to retain this commercial industry. f. Housing for Edges, a proposal designed especially for the Pulaski station area in order to realize parts d and e. A barrier wall between the housing and Elevated tracks or industrial facility reduces noise and visual pollution. The housing opens in the opposite direction from the barrier wall. The Pulaski Street Station in the West Garfield community was designated by the Coalition as the model for the transit-based development plan due to four main reasons. Geographically, the Pulaski station rests halfway between downtown and the end of the line in Oak Park. The Lake and Pulaski neighborhood exhibited a reasonable representation of the other El stops on the line, and though the community needed investment in infrastructure and the economic base, it was not the most destitute community. Finally, the Pulaski stop neighborhood had the benefit of the presence of a strong Community Development Corporation, Bethel New Life, to help see through the redevelopment plans. The Pulaski Street Station would stand as a model design process which could be easily replicated at other stations on the Lake Street line and across the city. The main planning element of the model was a "Sustainable Kit of Parts", designed by Doug Farr & Associates. The kit started with perspective drawings of six different design projects and institutions representing options for: housing type and density, commercial 19 MOBILITY PARTNERS development, transit access, and bike and pedestrian facilities. To preface the discussion of the "Sustainable Kit of Parts", the definition of "Sustainable" that the American Institute of Architects presented to direct its competition was read and posted at the beginning of the meeting. "Sustainability refers to the ability of a society, ecosystem or any such on going system to continue functioning into the indefinite future without being forced into decline through the exhaustion or overloading of key resources on which that system depends. In the case of society, those resources might be material, such as fuels or topsoil; or they might be social, such as educational levels or the sense of fair play; or waste-absorbing natural systems, such as wetlands or the atmosphere. " The group reviewed and adopted the definition as a guideline for the planning efforts, and it was posted on the wall for continual reference. At the open community meeting, Farr and the other architects proceeded with a presentation which displayed and explained the drawings of the different options. The visual perspectives demonstrated several of the Kit elements in each drawing to facilitate the comprehension of what the integrated elements would produce in the community. Through discussion, the six parts were expanded to about 20, with participants offering libraries, museums and other cultural institutions, parking facilities, mid-rise housing, and single family housing as options to be included in the Sustainable Kit of Parts. Once the list was completed, proposals were discussed and the items were prioritized through consensus of the group. [See appendix for final project list] Contents of the Six Planning Sessions 1. Preliminary presentation to the Coalition about transit oriented development. 2. Review and discussion of the "Sustainable 3. An assessment of Portland, Minneapolis and other transit a review of the ISTEA planning requirements, prioritization of the elements, in the Kit of Parts, and a discussion of public safety issues as related to pedestrian friendly design; 4. Analysis of an industrial retention strategy; 5. Review and discussion of a preliminary design, prepared by the architects according to the previous meetings and selection of elements in the Kit of Parts; and 6. Review of the final transportation oriented design an strategy Doug Farr Associates prepared large mock-up boards to clearly, display the plan. Planning Process A "fast track" design and planning process consisted of six main meetings with an average participation of 15 people. The meetings were 20 MOBILITY PARTNERS open to all and the coalition posted announcements in the local businesses and community centers. Leaders of the community and business organizations represented in the coalition were the main participants, though other neighborhood residents were also involved. In reviewing the visual presentations and discussing the potential impacts on the neighborhood, the community members identified each element of their neighborhood and how they wished to redesign it. The sustainable kit of parts provided an excellent opportunity for the community members and the coalition to have substantive access to the planning process, and at the end of the process, the mock-up boards provided a tangible depiction of the possible community redevelopment. Unlike most agency planning processes the community was not reacting to a plan that had been predesigned for them, they were setting their own standards and selecting a design aimed at increasing ridership, attracting residential and commercial investment and improving safety in their community. This distinction is important, since it is the heart of ISTEA. The ISTEA regulations call for, "Early and continuing public involvement opportunities throughout the transportation planning and programming process." [Sec 450.212( a)(1)] The Pulaski design project was initiated, conducted and structured by the community and not the city, state or metropolitan planning organization. Chicago area community organizations, both inner-city and suburban, built upon a vision of a safe, economically active, healthy and prosperous community to design redevelopment projects for one neighborhood. The energy and ideas of residents, community and business leaders, and concerned neighbors coalesced into a plan to restore the Pulaski station area and other communities across the city. Often, the inner-cities are ignored and withdrawn from the priority list for cultural, institutional and economic investments. The west side community of Chicago initiated a planning effort which can be duplicated across the city and the country. Community organizations are rarely offered the opportunity to redesign their neighborhoods in order to ameliorate social and economic situations, however the Lake Street El Coalition has proven that communities do have the resources and ability to plan for redevelopment and improved transit service. Community leaders from across the city and near-west suburbs united to realize community revitalization instead of waiting for the city to act on their behalf. Fate of the El In July 1993, The Lake Street El Coalition unveiled the Pulaski and Lake neighborhood design and their plan to use the process as a prototype for other redevelopment projects throughout the Green line, as a means to increase El ridership through community redevelopment. The announcement served as yet another forum for the Coalition to press the need to preserve the Green line. About 10 days after the unveiling, the year-long efforts of the Coalition to convince the CTA to renovate, not 21 MOBILITY PARTNERS eliminate the Green line came to fruition. In August 1993, Bob Belcaster, President of the CTA announced that the Lake Street line would not be closed, but reconstructed. A $300,000,000 investment was to be made on the line in order to upgrade and renovate it. This announcement bolstered the efforts and goals of the Coalition and their redevelopment plans as it provided a major source of capital investment in the area, which was expected to act as a catalyst for further investment and economic growth. They hoped to use the CTA investment to leverage further private and public support for development projects called for in the Pulaski transit oriented design. Further, Public/Private Initiatives for the Coalition - A mixed-use "Town Center" to serve as a safe entry- point for the transit system; - A pedicab or van shuttle to facilitate access to the El and nearby commercial district; - New housing construction on vacant lots, to include "Courtyard Infill Housing"; - Reviving the industrial corridor, focusing on attracting recycling and other environmentally oriented business; and - Similar design efforts in other communities along the Green line. Implementation and funding Funding for the initial Pulaski design was provided from the participating organizations through staff time and also with financial support provided by the Center for Neighborhood Technology through grants from the Catherine T. MacArthur, Surdna, Energy and Nathan Cummings Foundations. As with most projects, securing funding is a complicated process and the Green line initiative in Chicago was no exception. In looking for funds to support the development of transit oriented design plans at other stations along the Lake Street line, CNT and NCBG pursued funds from federal and local sources. The Center for Neighborhood Technology sought $260,000 in federal ISTEA funds on behalf of the Coalition to design similar plans for additional stations. Specifically, they sought funds from the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality improvement (CMAQ) program, reasoning that the transit design projects would attract people away from their cars and onto rapid transit, thus reducing the proliferation of single occupant vehicles on the road. [The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality improvement program directs funds to projects which contribute to meeting national air quality standards. In general, projects which increase the capacity for Single Occupant Vehicles (SOV) are ineligible.] To supplement the federal funds requested, the CTA has agreed to provide the twenty percent local "match" required by the ISTEA/CMAQ regulations, and the City of Chicago committed additional Community Development Block Grant funds to support community transit specialists, for total funding of $425,000. The final project, pending FTA approval, will support intensive planning and development efforts at four additional Green Line stations. 22 MOBILITY PARTNERS At the same time, the Neighborhood Capital Budget Group applied for a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) from the city's Department of Planning & Development. The block grants are federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) grants administered through the city. NCBG received enough funding from the CDBG grants to conduct the planning process at two or three other stations along the Green line, and has begun the community outreach and organizing effort to bring individuals and organizations into the planning process. Sponsorship In applying for ISTEA funds with a project design in mind, it is of primary importance to know how to leverage support for the project and to effectively use the tools that ISTEA provides. In the case of the Green line initiative, it was crucial to secure support from a sponsoring agency in order to apply for federal funds. To qualify for federal funding, a project must meet any appropriate qualifications and have a government agency sponsor. Eligible sponsors include: State Agencies (eg. Department of Transportation, Dept. of Natural Resources, Air Quality Board), transit agencies, and city or county governments. In the initial CMAQ application to the Chicago Area Transit Study (CATS- the local Metropolitan Planning Organization responsible for approving CMAQ projects and other ISTEA funds), Cook County was identified as the government sponsor, as the Lake Street El serves the west side of Chicago and some of the border suburbs, all within Cook County. However, the final application, as approved by CATS and submitted to the Federal Transit Administration, was sponsored by the City of Chicago's Department of Planning and Development, which also agreed to set up a twelve-member community/public sector Steering Committee for CMAQ-funded planning projects to ensure that the projects are community managed and run. The Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) was a potential sponsor for the project but the CTA wavered in its desire to serve as the sponsor of the project, which is one of the reasons that sponsorship changed on the CMAQ application between the initial submission and the final approval. The CTA decided the project focused primarily on economic development activities rather than on transit, thus they felt the city government would be a more appropriate sponsor for the project. In the case of the Green line initiative the approval process was less controversial than the sponsorship. CATS approved the project and submitted it to FTA for funding approval. It is worthy to note that a FTA regional representative indicated that the Green line initiative exemplifies the type of program they would like to fund. The struggle to secure a sponsor for the project clearly displays the policies and politics that come into play when project funding decisions are at stake. With indecisive government agencies and the inability of non-profit and community development organizations to receive money directly from the federal government, the Coalition faced difficulties in securing funding for the 23 MOBILITY PARTNERS planning efforts at other stations along the Green line. ISTEA provides many opportunities and tools to leverage support and funding for innovative projects, but it is necessary to learn to use the tools and to maneuver within the local political process. Further Funding Sources - The Federal Highways Administration (FHWA). ISTEA funds, specifically, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ), Enhancements, Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Transit-section 3 funds could cover the pedestrian facilities, the shuttle and street and station orientation. - Community Banks. The Community Reinvestment Act mandates that banks demonstrate that they are investing in commercial, residential and non-profit projects within the community they serve. - Location Efficient Mortgages. A program to be based on the Energy Efficient Mortgage Program which recognizes lower costs due to energy efficient homes. The Location Efficient Mortgages would take into account the savings achieved by using transit as opposed to owning 1 or 2 cars for people who live near transit stations. (For more information contact Center For Neighborhood Technology) - The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Community Viability Fund, a new flexible fund, is designed to build the organizational capacity of community-based groups and institutions in order to strengthen the civic culture, fund the design/development of public amenities, and support strategic planning essential to neighborhood revitalization. - HUD. Funds are provided to cities which are distributed as Community Development Block Grants to community non- profit organizations. - The Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The fiscal year 1995 budget includes a livable communities program which would provide funds for community redevelopment projects integrating transit, housing and other economic development activities; - The Clinton Administration's Empowerment Zones. The Lake Street El corridor has been proposed as one of Chicago's empowerment zones, which would provide funding for redevelopment and tax incentives for investment. - Department of Health and Human Services'(HHS) demonstration grant program which provides grants to communities for creative community development projects. (For more information contact: HHS Office of Community Services, 202-401-9333). Creative planning The Pulaski transit-oriented design project displays two unique and productive planning elements, both a community designed plan and a diverse funding strategy. The Green line initiative is a prime example of a project positioned to access a variety of funds by incorporating several community, policy and organizational interests into one project. The transit station redevelopment project was originally conceived to increase 24 MOBILITY PARTNERS ridership on the El, thus maintaining the line, but the project also took on a broader redevelopment mission. The Pulaski station proposal provides for rehabilitation and construction of housing and commercial space in order to bring -people and businesses back to the community. It will enhance the pedestrian and bicycle facilities, improve access to commercial districts and address the issue of safety in the community. Due to the interconnected nature of the proposal and the issues it addresses, the Lake Street El Coalition and CNT intend to secure funding for the actual redevelopment from several sources. Areas of exploration include: The Center for Neighborhood Technology and Neighborhood Capital Budget Group have spearheaded the search for funding to realize the plans of the community. Some funding has been received already to continue the design efforts at two other stations, and a strategy to broadly involve several different elements and agencies into the funding process is being developed. The broad thinking of the Coalition, CNT and NCBG will help them leverage the funds needed to realize their goals, turning the plans into reality. Conclusion The Green line project portrays the potential for community initiatives in transit oriented design. The Lake Street El Coalition demonstrated that a community can take proactive steps to maintain and improve transit service, as well as craft a plan for broader community development. Doug Farr, the architect working with the Coalition noted, " We started with a pie in the sky vision and now there is a $300,000,000 investment in the Green line, NCBG has funds to plan 2-3 other stations and CNT is waiting to receive more money to conduct community planning efforts. No one thought two years ago, that this would be happening." A vision, community commitment and organizational support can take dreams a long way towards reality. Transit service and transit resources can serve not only as a focal point for reinvestment in a community, but also to improve inter-and intra-city connections. The Chicago organizations are seizing the investment opportunities associated with transportation and are learning how to incorporate community goals and visions into larger city and federal programs, instead of waiting for the city to initiate redevelopment projects. One of the key messages conveyed throughout the process to both the community and the elected officials is the importance of transit as a resource and the interconnected nature of social, economic and transportation problems, solutions and investments. 25 MOBILITY PARTNERS For more information contact: Michael Freedberg Howard Greenwich Center for Neighborhood Neighborhood Capital Budget Technology Group 2125 W. North Avenue 343 South Dearborn, Suite 910 Chicago, EL 60647 Chicago, EL 60604 312-278-4800 312-939-7198 Doug Farr & Associates 53 West Jackson Chicago EL 60604 312-408-1297 26 MOBILITY PARTNERS APPENDIX A The Lake Street El Coalition Bethel New Life Coalition for New Priorities Northeast Austin Coalition NW Austin Council Oak Park Trustees Village of Bellwood South Austin Community Council First Chicago Bank of Oak Park Transit Riders Authority Chicago Lung Association Center for Neighborhood Technology Madison Street Business Association Marconi Community Action Fifth City Chicago Oak Park Community Action Organization Oak Park-River Forest Chamber of Commerce US Congressman William Lipinski US Congresswoman Cardiss Collins Illinois State Senator Earlean Collins Circle Urban Ministries Industrial Council of NW Chicago Neighborhood Capital Budget Group Village of Oak Park Village of Elmwood Park Council Inner Voice South Shore Bank of Austin Gammon United Methodist Church Greater North Pulaski Development Corporation Central Race Block Club Metro Seniors in Action Advisor Council of Garfield Park 27 MOBILITY PARTNERS APPENDIX B Design Plan for the Pulaski Street El Station The plan for the Green line initiative contains the following primary components, selected from a Sustainable "Kit of Parts" by members of the Lake Street El Coalition as part of the planning process: 1. Housing construction, rehabilitation and infill. This housing intensification strategy is aimed at increasing ridership by attracting new residents and retaining existing population. Three primary types of housing are proposed: Housing for Edges, Public Courtyard Infill Housing, and 2-, 3-, and 6-flat infill housing. 2. Pedestrian-oriented linkage with existing commercial strip. The El Station is linked to the Madison Street commercial strip four blocks to the south by a proposed series of mixed use office and cultural facilities, and a shuttle which will connect Madison Street with the Pulaski stop. 3. 24-hour mixed use center at the El station. This focused on improved public safety by creating access to El through the mixed use center, and making this a focal point of activities on a 24- hour basis. 4. Industrial retention and renewal. This focuses on bringing back jobs (and riders) to this neglected industrial corridor. 5. Large retail/grocery store. Current plans call for a possible large grocery store to be located immediately to the north of the El station, with access to the store directly from the El, thereby allowing access for non-car owners. 6. Other components of the plan call for a shuttle service or other neighborhood-based transportation network for getting people to and from their homes to the El quickly and easily. From: Community Green Line Initiative, "Sustainable Growth Strategies for an Urban Future". 28 MOBILITY PARTNERS Fruitvale BART Community Redevelopment Project Click HERE for graphic. The Fruitvale community in Oakland represents much of what inner city communities have been facing during the past decade. There has been extensive flight of residents, businesses and employment opportunities from a previously active economic center. The migration of many families to suburban neighborhoods and the closing of two major employers, a department store and a cannery, diminished the residential and commercial base in the Fruitvale district. The community is primarily a low-income Latino neighborhood with sizeable African-American and Asian communities. Fruitvale also has a strong social infrastructure of non-profit organizations established in the community, including four to five major non-profit organizations and several smaller groups. Most of the organizations are grassroots, Latino-based groups which boast leaders who grew up in the community and within the strong network of social and 29 MOBILITY PARTNERS community organizations. This unique trait of the Fruitvale district provides strong community leadership and an established network of community activists who represent a range of interests and concerns. In the spring of 1991, two events galvanized the community and focused attention on one issue. First, the University-Oakland Metropolitan Forum conducted a study of the Fruitvale community, focusing on the East 14th Street commercial district. In evaluating the community development potential of the area, the study group worked with community leaders who had ideas and opinions about the needs of the Fruitvale community. The completed study identified the 14th Street commercial district as a primary community development opportunity and suggested better integration of the commercial district and the transit station. Shortly after the completion of the study, the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) proposed the construction of a multi-level parking facility adjacent to the Fruitvale BART station. Concerns about the value of the parking garage served as the catalyst for community action, bringing a broad number of community members together to focus on one issue. Specific Community Desires for the Proposed BART Station - An attractive, well landscaped design; - Housing density and type. There was a large concern and debate about the impact of subsidized low-income housing and also about what types-of housing can receive financing in the area; - Parking. Concerns arose about insuring ample parking, as well as reducing the amount of parking; - Traffic flow. Many were concerned about traffic jams if the street were blocked off. - Safety. Participants raised questions about how the design might affect safety and security in the community - Potential new businesses. Many, participants questioned the ability of non-profit organizations to serve as an ample anchor for the area, though it was, agreed that little new retail could be BART's proposed parking garage initiated the discussion about improved planning surrounding any new development and the need for that planning to reflect development needs of the community. BART held a community meeting to receive input on the proposed parking facility and residents voiced concern about the value of the structure to the community. People questioned the connection between the parking facility and community needs, such as employment opportunities and economic development, as well as expressing concerns about safety related to a large parking structure. BART wanted to increase ridership by facilitating the transfer of riders from their cars or the bus onto the transit line at the Fruitvale station. The community focused upon creating a more pedestrian friendly atmosphere between the station and the commercial district in order to encourage people to use BART to get to community facilities and to stay for the commercial district. BART responded to the community's concerns by withdrawing the proposal for 30 MOBILITY PARTNERS the parking structure and opening discussions with community representatives to discuss possible alternatives. The Spanish Speaking Unity Council (SSUC), a community development corporation organized to promote Hispanic leadership, programs and ventures that assist Latinos, took the lead on planning with BART for an alternative to the parking garage. A Funding and Development Opportunity In January, 1992 the city of Oakland provided Fruitvale with an opportunity to unify the planning, ideas, and energy initiated and renewed by the study and the BART proposal debates. The city announced that it was seeking proposals for almost $1 million in Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), and the mayor expressed a preference for high impact, physical development projects. A community leader asked SSUC to submit a proposal for the Fruitvale community in order to secure immediate development funds and to present itself as a player for the longterm. It was at this juncture that SSUC, under the leadership of Arabella Martinez, initiated a broad-based, collaborative redevelopment planning process for the Fruitvale neighborhood. With some ideas in place due to the BART parking garage discussions, the Unity Council initiated discussions and planning sessions about the proposal which would create a pedestrian plaza connecting the BART station and the East 14th Street business district. Through a series of individual consultations and meetings with community leaders, the plan took on a more definite shape. In February 1992, SSUC submitted a proposal to the city for $500,000 to fund a sweeping redevelopment plan for the Fruitvale district. Concurrently, SSUC launched an outreach effort to further involve Fruitvale residents in the identification and designation of related development and improvement projects. The City of Oakland awarded SSUC $185,000 for planning the redevelopment and rehabilitation project around the BART station. This grant was the first step of a major redevelopment investment in the Fruitvale district. Rich Bell,the Fruitvale BART Project director at SSUC, recognizing the importance of the City grant, noted, "The receipt of this grant meant that the community had become politically empowered and had the ability to build on that success. The $185,000 grant demonstrates political and financial success that is rare for a community such as Fruitvale." The $185,000 grant from Oakland was the beginning of a larger commitment to encourage the redevelopment projects in Fruitvale. SSUC used an informal continuous process to formulate the development plan for the neighborhood. With several ideas identified through the early BART parking structure discussions, SSUC began meeting with community leaders. A task force of 8 to 10 community leaders, Oakland agency staff, and BART representatives formed to spearhead the plan definition. The task force agreed upon a Community 31 MOBILITY PARTNERS Design Symposium as the kick-off for the community planning process. The vision for the Fruitvale redevelopment includes: - An attractive pedestrian plaza connecting the BART station with the East 14th Street commercial district; - New commercial space on the plaza; - New and expanded space on the plaza for non-profit agencies and social services, such as a new Clinica de la Raza, a child development center and a senior citizen multi-purpose center; - An expansion of the Latin American Library on the plaza; - New affordable and moderately priced housing above the commercial and social services facilities; and - Facade and street improvements in the East 14th Street commercial district. Community Design Symposium The goal of the Design Symposium was to give the community and other interested parties the opportunity to express ideas about how the transit station should serve the neighborhood and what types of housing, commercial, and economic development projects suited Fruitvale. In preparing for the symposium, the task force met with the architects, who agreed to work with the community at a small cost. They gave the architects some general ideas about what the community wanted to create out of the design process, and allowed the architects to prepare a design according to the different thoughts and concerns they had heard. The Symposium itself was held on a Saturday in May from 8:30 am to 3 pm. SSUC was able to cover costs with some of the Community. Development Block Grant money they received from the city for the planning process. Anyone who had an interest or stake in the project was invited and encouraged to participate in the symposium. SSUC publicized the Symposium through flyers, announcements at community meetings and functions and invitations distributed to government officials and staff, transit representatives, and community members. In the end, 300 people attended the Design Symposium, representing an extremely broad cross section of the region. In attendance were: the mayor, a Congressional member, city agency representatives, residents, local merchants, directors from the community non-profit organizations, developers, architects, and city planners. With 300 people and one design plan, the task force was faced with the challenge of structuring the process in a manner that could be productive, fair and effective. Translators were provided for the meeting and the proceedings were taped for future reference. The day started with an overview of the scope of the project, the general vision and the community input received to date to set the context of the discussion. Following the overview, the architects presented the design plan to the group. The presentation included visual depictions and explanations of the 32 MOBILITY PARTNERS East 14th Street commercial district and how they proposed to connect it to the BART station two blocks away. Following the architects presentation, a "panel of experts" had the first opportunity to address the architects with questions and concerns. The panel consisted of 8 people including a resident, a BART board member, a banker, a local business owner, a city official, and a city council member. Many of the questions and concerns from the panel related to the feasibility of such a plan. The panel had an hour and 15 minutes to address the architects and express their ideas about the plans merits and problems. The next section of the symposium was opened up to the rest of the participants. Everyone was given the opportunity to pose questions and express likes, dislikes and proposed changes. The goal of the symposium was not to arrive at consensus, but to give the community and other interested people the opportunity to truly express their concerns and ideas. A community resident and Rich Bell from SSUC moderated this segment to ensure that everyone had the opportunity to speak. This last section of the Symposium lasted for about 2 hours. Overall the plan was soundly rejected by the symposium participants. The task force and the architects learned what was acceptable to the community, what was not and what issues needed to be further addressed due to significant disagreements. The Spanish Speaking Unity Council has implemented several effective techniques to involve the community, in the Planning process and is continuing to improve the Outreach, participation and education efforts. Some of the forums and techniques employed, or being developed include: - Workshops with community organizations and residents; - Architectural design competitions; - Public symposiums; - Design charettes; - Individual consultations; - Community planning meetings, to discuss housing mix and density, parking, traffic circulation, facade and street design; - Newsletters; - Surveys to determine desired products and services; and - Educational materials for the community forums. Overall, the Design Symposium was extremely successful not only at forming the community design principles, but also at bringing together all of the interested parties: the community residents and merchants who live and work in the community, the city officials who have the authority to provide funds and authorizations for the project, the architects who will put a design together from the community input, and the developers who will physically implement the design. In order for the Fruitvale design process to proceed a great deal of cooperation and trust among all of the parties must exist, and the symposium provided the building blocks for that trust. Partnerships 33 MOBILITY PARTNERS Click HERE for graphic. The Spanish Speaking Unity Council and Arabella Martinez in particular, are credited with mobilizing and maintaining the broad base of support for the Fruitvale BART project. (See Appendix: Fruitvale Partnerships) From the neighborhood groups to the. Secretary of Transportation, Federico Pe¤a, SSUC established strong support for the vision and effort to integrate transportation and community development. In speeches, Secretary Pe¤a has referenced the Fruitvale BART Project as an example of the type of community transportation planning needed in the country. The scope of the project and the real community-based planning process are cited as two of the main selling points of the project. For example, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) saw the project as an excellent opportunity to maximize the major investments that had gone into BART over the years. Ellen Griffin of MTC stated, "MTC sees projects like the Fruitvale BART pedestrian plaza as a way to use transportation investments to serve larger community goals. It is probably the best example of bottoms-up transportation planning in the Bay Area. We need more community-based groups that are willing to wade into the transportation arena to advance projects. If we could, we would clone the Spanish Speaking Unity Council around the region." Through hard work, community support and political savvy, the Spanish Speaking Unity Council successfully brought together the affected parties in Fruitvale and those who had the political and financial power to help implement the Fruitvale BART Project. Next Steps The informal design process had been successful in the Fruitvale district, thus SSUC kept the design and decision-making process informal following the Design Symposium. Rich Bell, the Fruitvale Project 34 MOBILITY PARTNERS manager for SSUC, continued meeting with the task force and other interested parties. The resulting consensus process for the community was unique. Instead of forcing issues at meetings, dialogue and education about different plans and impacts has continued. People are pushed to articulate their ideas and opinions on paper, and the ideas are continually circulated to everyone who is willing to read them. The "design document" is constantly changing as people challenge certain ideas and transform others. Instead of voting on each proposal, ideas remain on the document unless opposition is expressed. The "design document" is still evolving as the planning process and learning experience continue. This process has enabled SSUC and the community to leave unresolved issues open and on the table and has built trust among all of the interested parties. This open atmosphere has been essential in moving forward with the best possible plan for the redevelopment of the Fruitvale District. Along with the physical changes to the area, the redevelopment vision also includes expanded employment opportunities for Fruitvale residents through job set-asides from the redevelopment process and the resulting economic revitalization. The improved connection between BART and the commercial district will mutually benefit the area businesses and BART. Transit riders will be encouraged to shop on 14th street and with the expanded social services located on the plaza adjacent to the BART station, patrons of the library, senior center and clinic will be encouraged to arrive on BART as opposed to via automobile. The increase in transit ridership will also spawn environmental benefits, improving air quality and reducing energy consumption. The Fruitvale transit-oriented redevelopment project offers a unique, community- based, integrated approach to commercial revitalization and economic development. In the coming months, the community will be defining plans for implementing the above vision. SSUC has laid out a plan to further Click HERE for graphic. 35 MOBILITY PARTNERS educate the community about the feasibility and impact of certain options. Consultants will be brought on board to evaluate the impact of traffic calming devices, such as narrower streets and street closure to slow the speed of traffic, on traffic flow and the feasibility of financing different types of housing. Two types of "hands-on" processes have been planned for the summer of 1994 to further define the redevelopment: educational workshops and block model planning sessions. The educational workshops are designed to inform the debate on controversial issues through experiential learning. For example, the type and density of housing has been a contentious issue among the community members. The workshops will include field trips, allowing people to see various examples of affordable housing and how it has been integrated into different communities. The goal of SSUC is to provide information to all sides of the debate and to dispel myths. SSUC believes it is essential for the planning process and for general interaction among the community residents to establish an informed environment where people do not take stubborn positions based on ill-informed beliefs. The block model planning sessions are geared to help the community visualize the different elements available and how they fit together. With block models, people can physically change the design of the community, immediately recognizing the impact of various elements of design. As the architects begin to work with the community leaders and residents, other involvement efforts will also be implemented. Not only is SSUC a community organization that has taken the lead on the design of this project, but they have invested a significant amount of time and resources to involving the residents in the decisions and the design of the project. Funding Sources All too often, innovative plans have been abandoned due to a lack of funding. The Spanish Speaking Unity Council has avoided that problem thus far, effectively securing funds for the redevelopment planning process and pursuing additional funds from a variety of sources reflective of the integrated approach to the redevelopment. SSUC and other non-profit organizations in the community have received funds from the following entities: - Federal Transit Administration for station design planning; - City of Oakland Community Development Block Grant to support staffing, facade improvements and expansion of the child care center; - Private foundations to support predevelopment activities, staffing and the new Clinica de la Raza facilities. 36 MOBILITY PARTNERS SSUC is currently or plans to pursue funding from the following sources: - Federal Transit Administration and Federal Highways Administration through ISTEA funding for landscaping and bus transfer facility. - State of California for construction of the pedestrian plaza; - Economic Development Administration of the Department of Commerce for infrastructure improvements; - Commercial Banks to help finance the housing and commercial development. Because transit-oriented redevelopment is not only a matter of redesigning the transit station, the financing of a transit- oriented redevelopment plan can extend far beyond federal and state transportation funds. In order to fully finance a project such as the Fruitvale BART project, organizations must extend their search for funding to a wide variety of sources as the Spanish Speaking Unity Council has done. Conclusion The Fruitvale BART project has succeed where many other transit oriented development projects have not. "There are two strengths of this project that have made it successful," says Michael Bernick, a member of the BART Board of Directors. "One, SSUC mobilized neighborhood and political support from the onset of the project and two, they generated federal money to match private capital." Clear evidence of these successes was displayed by the celebrated, official ceremony where Secretary Pe¤a and Larry Dahms, the director of MTC presented Arabella Martinez with a $470,000 grant for the planning and predevelopment of the Fruitvale BART project. Without the support of the community and the ability to finance the redevelopment, transit-oriented designs are dead in the water. In building a broad base of support for the Fruitvale BART project, SSUC has also successfully established a true collaborative planning process. SSUC mobilized the community residents, most of the community organizations, several government agencies, elected officials, planning agencies and community development corporations. The strength of such a large and varied pool of participants has displayed itself in the planning and development funds the project has received. Rich Bell, the SSUC Fruitvale BART project manager, stated: "While the Fruitvale BART project presents an unusual opportunity to do "cutting edge" transit-based development in an inner city setting, perhaps the most unique aspect of the project is the grassroots, origination of the project, and the collaborative approach to its planning. The leading role played by SSUC in the project will ensure that a community-based, collaborative approach will be maintained throughout the project and that community interests will remain at the forefront of development considerations. 37 MOBILITY PARTNERS The Spanish Speaking Unity Council has taken a bold lead to involve community. residents in determining the structure of their communi ISTEA provides some tools and opportunities for communities, cities and states to redefine the decision making process to include the concerns and visions of those affected by transportation decisions. The Fruitvale BART Project exemplifies the ability of a community, an inner-city community, to not only articulate a vision for their neighborhood, but to also design a process to realize that vision. Fruitvale BART Project Public/Private Partnerships The Spanish Speaking Unity Council has brought together the following organizations and agencies in partnerships and consultations to contribute to the success of the Fruitvale BART project. Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) City of Oakland U.S. Department of Transportation Metropolitan Transportation Commission Fruitvale Merchants Association La Clinica de La Raza Office of the Mayor Alameda County Transit Federal Transit Administration Caltrans (CA Department of Transportation) Fruitvale Community Collaborative Alameda County Congestion Management Agency La Camara de Comercia Mexicana-Americana de Oakland Fruitvale Community Development District Council St. Elizabeth's Church Patten College Oakland City Council East Bay Conservation Corps Oakland Community Housing Inc. The University-Oakland Metropolitan Forum Oakland Coliseum Area Redevelopment Advisory Committee East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation Institute for Urban and Regional Development Bay Area Council Association of Bay Area Governments Urban Habitat Rails-to-Trails Conservancy Urban Ecology University of California-Berkely graduate students More than 2 dozen planning, economic development, design & architecture firms MOBILITY PARTNERS For more information contact: Rich Bell Spanish Speaking Unity Council 1900 Fruitvale Avenue #2A Oakland CA 94601 510-535-6900 For more detailed information about the type of funding secured and the involvement of the above partners, request "The Fruitvale BART Project: Progress and Accomplishments." Ellen Griffin, Public Information Department Ann Flemer, Finance Department Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) 101 8th Street Oakland CA 94607 510-464-7700 39
