1
Fisher’s Landing Transit Center Redevelopment/Expansion Community Survey Summary | February 2018
2
Fisher’s Landing Transit Center Redevelopment/Expansion
3
Fisher’s Landing Transit Center Redevelopment/Expansion
Community Survey Summary
82
%
Of respondents said they use the transit center.
As part of the Fisher’s Landing Transit Center Feasibility Study, C-TRAN and project consultants prepared a community survey to seek input on future uses that could be included in future development projects. The survey was posted on January 17, 2018 and closed on February 5, 2018. The survey was distributed by C-TRAN on their website and through social media platforms. 280 people participated in the survey. The majority of respondents live in Vancouver (74%). Other respondents lived in Camas (13%), Washougal (6%), and the remaining 8% included Portland, Clark County, Battle Ground, Longview, and Brush Prairie. The survey consisted of a combination of multiple choice and open-ended questions. Survey results are summarized in this document.
How do you typically get to and from the transit center?
57
%
Use the transit center at least 3 times a week.
45% Single-occupancy Vehicle 25% Transit 14% Drop off 7% Walk 4% Bike 4% Other 1% Carpool Would be willing to park in a parking garage?
YES - 83% NO - 17% Would added amenities encourage you to use the transit facility?
YES - 64% NO - 36%
The amenities most desired at the transit center include a place to get a cup of coffee and a bite to eat; a park; restrooms that are open after the transit center closes; additional transit services, including additional service to Portland, bus rapid transit service, light rail, and service to the airport; and automated kiosks for Hop Fastpass cards. Respondents also expressed a desire for covered walkways and waiting areas and a parking garage.
4 Respondents were asked if they would bike or walk to the transit center if they lived within 1-mile. Over 60 percent indicated they would. Respondents who indicated they would not bike or walk to the transit center identified a need for improved bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure on the surrounding roads and additional secure bike parking to encourage biking and walking to the site.
In addition to the amenities desired to increase use of the transit center, respondents were asked what uses they envision at an expanded transit center and what uses are most important to encourage their use of the transit center. Respondents indicated they would like restaurants or cafes, especially with grab-and-go food options; a place to buy a cup of coffee or accommodate errands (post office, market, retail establishments, dry cleaners); improved pedestrian access to the site; improved facilities at the transit center (e.g., 24-hour restrooms); and increased transit services (BRT, future light rail, better signage for routes, payment kiosks, etc.).
The survey also asked about existing concerns at the transit center and concerns with expansion. The majority of responses related to existing concerns included the lack of security and lighting, the need for more covered waiting areas; and pedestrian access to the transit center. Concerns with expansion included increased traffic as a result of future development, maintaining handicap accessibility, negative impacts to transit services and parking, increased costs to use transit, pedestrian safety, loss of open space, construction impacts, and safety and security.
Fisher’s Landing Transit Center Redevelopment/Expansion
5 The last series of questions in the survey asked respondents to indicate whether specific development styles would be appropriate for Fisher’s Landing.
Residential Options Option A
Example of small-scale, three- and four-story brick affordable residential townhomes with small entry porches along the streetscape and a corner café.
160
103
Option C
Example of medium-scale, three- and four-story brick residential brownstones with large porches and stoops. Front entry is elevated from the street.
133
130
Individual responses included some positive feedback regarding the scale of the development, comments related to the need for affordable housing, and some concerns with any residential development at the transit center.
Option B
Example of small-scale, three-story residential townhomes along a sloped residential street with landscaping in front.
146
115
Comments for Residential Option B were similar to those for Option A, including concerns with the impacts of residential development on existing parking.
Responses to Residential Option C were less positive and some respondents expressed accessibility concerns related to the elevated entry.
6
Mixed-Use/Retail/Commercial/Office Options Option A
Example of two- and three-story office building with single or multiple tenants and concealed parking. Building is located directly on the sidewalk to enhance the pedestrian experience or connection to bus lines. Office buildings may have café or coffee shops on corner and public spaces.
155
Example of a medium sized, five-story office building along a pedestrian-only street.
54
209
105
Some respondents expressed concerns with the aesthetic of this option and questioned the need for additional retail/ commercial space on SE 164th Avenue.
Option B
Example of three- to four-story residential building with retail and services on ground floor along a “main street” setting. Includes street trees, street lighting, street furniture, and outdoor seating and public plaza spaces.
192
Option C
As noted by the number of respondents that disliked this option, many comments indicated the style of this development is not appropriate for the area. However, some respondents did like the pedestrian-only street.
Option D
Example of a one-story, internally focused retail environment connected to public spaces and pedestrianonly streetscape.
171
87
70
This option was preferred over Mixed-Use Option A with some similar concerns related to additional commercial development.
Respondents indicated a preference for the green space included in this option and had mixed responses related to the scale – some thought it would be appropriate for the area, while others think a more dense development is a more efficient use of space. Respondents also expressed concerns about an increase in traffic.
Fisher’s Landing Transit Center Redevelopment/Expansion
7
Mixed-Use/Retail/Commercial/Office Options Option E
Example of a one- to two-story, village-style town center with drive-by traffic, enhanced streetscapes with large sidewalks, street furniture, and public plaza.
143
118
Responses to this option were similar to those for Mixed-Use Option D. Respondents also expressed concerns with the interface between pedestrians and cars in this option.
Option F
Example of a one- to two-story, village-style town center with drive-by traffic, enhanced streetscapes, and public plaza for staging events, food carts, or celebrations.
142
119
Comments on this option included a positive response to food carts and an interest in public plaza space, but concerns with the viability of such a space.
Option G
Example of a series of connected restaurants and cafes with roll up doors and communal outdoor seating.
136
125
In addition to comments similar to the other mixed-use options, respondents indicated the aesthetic style of this option might not be appropriate for Fisher’s Landing.
8
Standalone Restaurants/Bars Options Option A
Example of standalone restaurant or food hall and open warehouse-style space with communal seating and outdoor spaces.
80
118
Option C
Example of standalone restaurant or food hall and open warehouse-style space with communal seating and outdoor spaces with fire pits and outdoor games.
130
130
Respondents indicated the scale of this building would not fit with the area, but there were some positive comments related to the inclusion of indoor/outdoor seating.
Option B
Example of standalone food hall with covered patio and outdoor communal seating with soft, evening lighting.
161
98
Comments on this option were similar to Standalone Restaurant Option A, with more positive comments on the outdoor space.
Comments included a preference for this design, but concerns with the viability of outdoor seating in the Northwest’s climate.
Fisher’s Landing Transit Center Redevelopment/Expansion
9
Civic/Community Options Option A
Example of a single-story brick civic or community building.
148
110
Option C
Example of a signature building that is an identifiable marker of a district or neighborhood.
99
156
Responses on the aesthetic style of this option were mixed; however, many respondents indicated a preference for community spaces and some concerns with traffic and parking impacts.
Option B
Example of multistory brick and glass civic or library building.
161
96
Similar to Civic Option A, responses on the architectural style were mixed, but an overall positive response to a civic/community space.
Respondents indicated the idea of a signature building and community space is appealing, but did not care for the specific architecture of the example.
10
Open Space/Streetscape Options Option A
Example of public gardens with integrated public art.
170
86
Option C
Example of a town square or town green with lawn seating, fun furniture, and safe play areas.
152
104
Respondents indicated an interest in green space, but a need for more covered areas in this climate.
Example of public plaza with shaded seating, artistic lighting, street trees, and fun paving patterns.
Responses to this option were similar to the first open space options, including a consideration for the climate. Respondents also indicated a buffer between parking and play areas is necessary.
192
Option D
Option B
70
Example of terraced public spaces with integrated steps and opportunity for overlooks and vistas.
117
Respondents indicated a preference for the covered areas included in this option, but expressed a desire for more trees and green space.
139
Respondents were less positive about this option, indicating it includes too much concrete and is not accessible for users with disabilities.
Fisher’s Landing Transit Center Redevelopment/Expansion
11
Open Space/Streetscape Options Option E
Examples of semi-public spaces for casual outdoor meetings, including small intimate settings for a variety of activities.
151
107
Option G
Example of a successful streetscape with on-street parking and buildings directly adjacent to a large sidewalk with areas for street trees, street lighting, furniture, bike racks, spill-out space for vendor products, flower baskets, and weather protection.
141
101
Responses to this option were similar to the other open space options. In addition, respondents indicated a need to ensure proper security in these settings.
Option F
Example of a linear park or green trail along a building façade incorporating various types of seating and leisure spaces.
149
103
Some respondents indicated they like this streetscape, but are unsure of how it will fit in the area. Others expressed interest in mixed-use development in this setting to encourage walkability.
Conclusion As a final question, respondents were asked if there was anything else they would like to add. Many responses reiterated ideas previously expressed, including a need for affordable housing and concerns related to increased traffic. In general, respondents were supportive of expanded uses at the transit center as long as transit functions are not negatively affected.
Again, respondents expressed the same concerns with weather protection and security with some positive comments regarding the aesthetics of this option.