Transbay Blog

The Bay Area Council Economic Institute (BACEI), in response to a request from the California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, has released its Bay Area Economic Recovery Workplan. This is essentially a compendium of regional priorities and projects (submitted by MTC and local governments) that strategizes potential targets for ARRA stimulus money. The proposals fall into several categories — transportation, housing, water, energy/climate, workforce, business, and science/innovation — generally emphasizing projects of regional or multi-jurisdictional significance that will update the Bay Area’s infrastructure to promote future economic prosperity and sustainability. Some $31 billion of stimulus funds will be allocated to California, of which some of these Bay Area projects will certainly receive a share. California is also positioning itself to receive up to $20 billion more, factoring in awards coming in through discretionary grant programs.

Read the rest of this entry »

BART survey data (2008). Top: rider home locations; bottom: rider employment locations. Courtesy of BART.

BART has released its 2008 Station Profile Study, updating its last study from 1998. The data, which is collected from rider surveys, is BART’s version of the census. It reveals the demographic profile of BART riders, and it provides valuable information on how riders use the BART system: where they are coming from, where they are going, how they travel from their home a nearby station, and how they travel to their destination after riding BART. The data, which is available both system-wide and for each individual station, confirms what we know anecdotally about the role of urban vs. suburban stations: 81% of riders at 16th/Mission walked to BART, while merely 3% walked to Orinda; 72% of riders drive to North Concord/Martinez, but a miniscule 1% drive to Powell. I plan to do some number-crunching on the data in the future; but for now, I wanted to share some interesting results and initial impressions. In addition to clarifying how BART riders currently make use of the system, the survey data reveals how the Bay Area could better take advantage of this critical regional asset than we do today. The lesson we learn from the data is the lesson that we already knew: we need to do a better job of linking transit and land use, particularly along BART’s heavy rail metro lines. This is something that we are always talking about, and the BART surveys do suggest that the region is moving in the right direction in terms of promoting transit-oriented development. Bicycle trips from home to station bumped up from 3% to 4%, while transit trips declined from 23% to 15%. Nearly half (49%) of riders access stations by car (34% solo, 10% dropoff, 5% carpool), the same as in 1998. However, more people are now walking to BART stations from their home than they were a decade ago: 31% in 2008, compared to 26% in 1998. More people are also walking from BART to work or other destination: 74% in 2008, compared to 67% in 1998. Furthermore, at 6 major CBD stations (12th St, 19th St, Lake Merritt, Berkeley, Montgomery, Powell) and 5 other mostly urban stations (Ashby, North Berkeley, El Cerrito Plaza, Colma, and Balboa Park), home origin points increased by 10% or more, while car and transit origins decreased. More home-based pedestrian trips at downtown stations reflect a trend toward urban/downtown infill housing, epitomized by Jerry Brown’s 10K housing initiative in Downtown Oakland and San Francisco’s Rincon Hill plan.

Read the rest of this entry »

The SFCTA recently released a report (PDF), which, to no one’s surprise, affirmed the agency’s desire to pursue bus rapid transit on Geary instead of light rail. The BRT route would feature dedicated bus lanes and platforms on wide Geary Boulevard, but no dedicated lanes in the downtown segment of the route east of Gough. The report studied several alternatives to evaluate which should be forwarded into the EIR/EIS process. The recommended choices were BRT running in center lanes (considering both side and island platforms, although the latter would require vehicles with left and right doors), along with a less effective side-running alternative that was also moved forward. East of Gough, different versions of a two-way Geary Street (including a transit mall) were rejected; however, transit preferential treatment was moved forward for EIR/EIS purposes. These are the basic design standards that have already been contemplated in connnection with this project, and really the only potentially tricky section to design will be the configuration of the intersections at Fillmore and Masonic. No light rail alternative was recommended for further environmental review.

Those who dream of one day rebuilding the B-Geary line, figuring that it would be worth the investment, might not be swayed by the TA’s stated excuses for not pursuing light rail: the increased expense and complexity (see this memo or presentation, PDFs), and tight competition for considerable extra funding. From the cost persepctive, something does not quite add up. The TA may have escalated its cost figures based on the astronomically high costs of the Central Subway, because even using the numbers cited by the TA in its report, a six-mile Geary line — including a downtown subway terminating at Montgomery Station, with a west portal at Laguna — should cost something in the ballpark of $1.2-$2 billion, not $5 billion as claimed. Even on the basis of existing ridership (to say nothing of the new riders it would attract), rail would certainly be suitable for the Geary corridor. But there are also good arguments that favor moving forward with BRT at this time.  Corridor improvements (increased ridership, ride quality, and so forth) are diluted for the BRT project as compared to LRT, but those improvements would be implemented faster, and at lower cost ($150-$200 million) — and similar improvements could then be carried out more quickly on other major transit corridors throughout the city, as well. Disruptions associated with light rail construction were opposed by neighborhood merchants. Moreover, the T-Third and Central Subway contain a host of diverse planning infelicities that, to be frank, call into question the SFMTA’s ability to oversee additional major capital projects. The current design and alignment of the Central Subway damages a potential B-Geary/T-Third transfer station at Union Square (just as the T-Third transfer to Market Street will be inadequate) — and in the long term, it may make more sense to include Geary in the regional rail network with a BART line instead of Muni Metro. I suspect that there will be strong views on both sides as to whether the SFCTA is making the correct decision by pursuing BRT rather than LRT. I certainly do not want to discourage debate on this topic, since Geary is an important corridor that has been unwisely neglected, and it is worthy of the discussion. But BRT remains the mode of choice going forward.

UPDATE (24 April 2009): At its April 23 meeting, the BART board decided to postpone approval of the Oakland Airport Connector, but nonetheless approved the transfer of $50 million of seismic retrofit funding and $70 million of ARRA stimulus funding to the project. Meanwhile, the FEIR for eBART was approved 8-1, with Tom Radulovich dissenting. More details on those projects below.

My apologies for the slow posting schedule lately. I will be very busy in upcoming weeks, so posting will be on the slow side by necessity, and may have to go on hiatus. I have not yet forgotten about the promised posts on the Delta; but for now, here is a post on tomorrow’s BART board agenda.

BART’s $54 million FY10 budget deficit — which it is projected will enlarge to a $249 million deficit over the next four years — has already gotten quite a bit of publicity. To close that deficit, BART is considering several measures, including additional parking fees at East Bay stations, and a 10% fare hike starting July 1, 2009. BART may also reduce evening and weekend headways from 15 minutes back to 20 minutes, restoring the pre-2008 timetable; also under consideration is a reduction of service to the Peninsula stations from two lines to only one. Even if these changes were implemented, there would still remain a $23 million deficit for this fiscal year. To deal with that remaining $23 million gap, some combination of additional fare hikes are possible, including: a $2 increase to the SFO station fare, a 25-cent increase to the minimum fare, a 10-cent increase for transbay trips, or increasing the proposed 10% fare hike to 15%. Further service reductions are also a possibility, although raising fares would bring in considerably more revenue than the amount of money that would be saved by cutting service. Midday service between South Hayward and Fremont may be reduced from two lines to one line, and direct service between Richmond/Fremont and San Francisco may also be eliminated during midday hours.

Read the rest of this entry »

When Octavia Boulevard opened in 2005, it became an urbanist case study, joining The Embarcadero as another shining example of how removing key segments of freeway can breathe new life into once-blighted urban neighborhoods. Empty lots along Octavia are still undeveloped, so Hayes Valley is a work in progress; and the intersection of Market & Octavia, where the freeway touches down to the street, created a dangerous situation in which motorists executing an impermissible right turn onto the freeway collided with bicyclists. Octavia is heavily traveled by motorists, but it still remains a vast improvement over the northern segment of the Central Freeway that once cast shadows over Hayes Valley. South of Market neighborhoods, in contrast, have not had the opportunity to enjoy a similar renaissance. The urban fabric of those neighborhoods remain sliced in half by the southern segment of the reconstructed Central Freeway — even while South of Market bears the burden of hosting still other freeways and many unsafe traffic sewers.  The remaining freeway, combined with 13th/Division Street directly below the freeway (pictured above), cuts a wide swath of automobile capacity into the heart of San Francisco, thus preventing the affected neighborhoods from flourishing in the way that neighborhoods north of Market have. One day, it would be gratifying to see the rest of the Central Freeway removed. And if it were removed, what might San Francisco look like then? What follows here is certainly not a proposal, but simply a depiction of one potential vision for the Central Freeway corridor — a long-term vision, which aims not just to reclaim, but to transform, neighborhoods now cast in shadow. The goal is to not simply remove the freeway structure and replace it with a boulevard, but to set the bar high with a joint transit and land use vision.

Read the rest of this entry »

Alameda Harbor Bay; courtesy of etthekid.

Prior to the construction in the 1930s of the Golden Gate and Bay Bridges, Bay Area citizens crossed the Bay by using the once-thriving ferry service. The completion of those bridges and the rising popularity of the automobile greatly affected how people moved throughout the region. Since then, ferry service has been profoundly reduced, now serving a fraction of the riders it once did, generally tourists and a small share of transbay commuters. But as we know, the next big earthquake is not a matter of if, but when; and when it does hit, any damage sustained by BART and the bridges may require that we go back to the basics, by moving people via ferries. The Water Transit Authority (WTA) was established in 1999 to plan an eventual expansion of Bay Area ferry service and terminals, and WTA finally produced a plan in 2003. Then, in October 2007, the Governor signed SB 976 into law, which established the Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA), a new agency that would absorb the WTA. The goal of the legislation was to create an agency that would manage and expand Bay Area ferry service in a way that would make ferries a central component of the region’s response to earthquakes and other emergencies. SB 976 required that WETA adopt a transition plan by January 1, 2009, and an emergency management plan by July 1, 2009. Local concerns about the ferry takeover prompted SB 1093, which took effect in September 2008; that latter bill extended the adoption date for the transition plan to July 1, 2009, and assured Alameda and Vallejo that the transition would be informed by a public process. WETA has since produced the two required draft plans, and the agency now seeks public comment on those plans before adopting final versions.

Read the rest of this entry »

Washington Square: next stop on the line? Top image courtesy of House of Orion; bottom image courtesy of Streetsblog.

There have been two flavors of discussion lately about the Central Subway — one, which exposes the unsurprising revelation that this exercise in burrowing underground is already going over budget; and the other, as at SPUR’s recent forum on the Central Subway, which pushes forward, dreaming for a bigger, and hopefully better line. (By the way: many thanks to Tom Prete for his Twitter coverage of the SPUR event, and be sure to also check out his excellent recent piece on Muni’s express buses.) Is bigger always best, or is it better to be short and sweet? Thanks to the subway’s somewhat awkward stub end at Chinatown, both might be partially true. That we would expand rail to Chinatown, daylight the tunnel-boring machines near Washington Square, and then not bring rail service to North Beach would indeed seem to be a missed opportunity, even for Central Subway skeptics like yours truly. But then, where to extend the tracks? To Fisherman’s Wharf, as some suggest — or to Fort Mason, the Marina District, the Presidio, and even the Golden Gate Bridge, as others have suggested? Surface light rail through North Beach might be more than Columbus Avenue streetscape planners have bargained for, but our hunch is to side with the Fisherman’s Wharf supporters on this one. Not because we feel a pressing need to add a third track connection between Union Square and the Wharf, on top of cable cars and the F-line — but because it is a natural point of extension that would add value without requiring too lengthy an extension; we might dare even to call it “damage control.” Van Ness will have dedicated bus lanes by this point in time, and terminating the rail extension there near North Point would facilitate a transfer to more robust service on that corridor. Besides, we would rather see historic streetcars go to Fort Mason, and we’re not convinced that both services are needed. As for the Presidio, an extension of the 30-Stockton trolley — and perhaps, eventually, historic streetcars as well — to the Presidio Transit Center strikes us as the more reasonable plan. The benefit gained by extending the Central Subway from Chinatown to Washington Square is considerable; but a westward extension, into the Marina and beyond, seems to carry much less benefit per dollar spent. For one, try convincing certain Marina folk that, really, more overhead wires might not reduce their property values. Okay, we jest (sort of), but setting that aside, ridership in the northwest corner of town is less than well-demonstrated: the 30 and 45 buses are not thoroughly used in the Marina and Cow Hollow. They sometimes run largely empty until they arrive at crowded Chinatown stops on Stockton Street, which suggests that building such an extension would not yield the best bang for buck. The peak hour 30X Marina Express buses to the Financial District are well-used, but — short of the SFMTA cutting popular express bus routes to increase Central Subway ridership — why would downtown-bound Marina commuters choose to ride the Central Subway and then execute a several-minute transfer at the inexpertly designed Union Square/Market Street station, when a one-seat express bus ride could take them directly downtown? We don’t know, either. And, to be frank, there are other corridors where the transit capital dollars would be a better investment.

Transbay: courtesy of Pelli Clarke Pelli.

During the discussion at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission over how to allocate Bay Area transportation stimulus funds, MTC proposed applying for $195-$400 million of funds to build the train box at the Transbay Transit Center in San Francisco. This money would come from the $8 billion of high-speed rail grant money that was ultimately integrated into the final stimulus bill. Then, the California High-Speed Rail Authority made public its concerns that the Transbay Transit Center, as currently designed, would be inadequate to satisfy its new needs for 12 trains per hour, increased from six trains, for each of the six peak hours everyday. Under the current plan for the Transbay station, tracks would transition underground west of 4th Street, leading to a new subway station at 4th and Townsend, where Caltrain currently terminates. A three track tunnel would then curve off Townsend and north onto 2nd Street, turning once more and splaying out to a six track throat leading to the Transbay underground rail station. The station had been planned to include three island platforms and six platform tracks: two tracks for Caltrain, and four for high-speed rail. According to ridership projections, 2030 Transbay ridership for Caltrain might be 31,500 and 4th/King Caltrain ridership at 17,100. Daily high-speed rail ridership at Transbay by 2030 was projected to be in the vicinity of 26,500.

Read the rest of this entry »

This Wednesday, February 25, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission expects to approve its proposed allocation of the federal stimulus money that will be made available to the Bay Area for transportation purposes. The stimulus package that was ultimately approved changed since our last post on this subject, and so MTC has accordingly made changes to its plans. What follows in this post is a more complete description of the altered proposal.

According to the most recent estimates, the Bay Area will receive approximately $490 million of transportation stimulus money, which MTC has discretion to allocate within defined categories. $340 million are FTA transit formula funds pursuant to Section 5307/5309, and $150 million are FHWA/Surface Transportation Program funds.

Of the $340 million for transit, $270 million will be allocated to operators for transit rehabilitation: AC Transit ($25.7 million), BART ($65.3 million), Caltrain ($10.3 million), Golden Gate ($9.4 million), SFMTA ($67.2 million), SamTrans ($7.9 million), VTA ($47.2 million), and $36.4 million for the smaller transit operators.

Rendering of Coliseum BART station; courtesy of BART.

And as for the rest of the FTA funds? MTC plans to allocate the remaining $70 million to the Oakland Airport Connector. In November 2000, Alameda County voters approved by an overwhelming 81.47% Measure B, a 1/2-percent sales tax for transportation that rejuvenated 1986 Measure B. The proceeds from 2000 Measure B were to be allocated to many projects, including highways, BART to Warm Springs, ACE improvements, and the Oakland Airport Connector: a 3.2-mile automated guideway transit system that would connect Oakland International Airport to Coliseum BART, the closest BART station; this function is currently filled by AirBART shuttle buses. The people mover, which would complete the trip between BART and the Airport in under ten minutes, is expected to increase transit share to the Airport — to about 13% (13,540 daily riders), increased from 9% in 2007 — and it could accommodate any future market growth at the Airport. And yet, while it seems like it would be a good idea to improve BART access to Oakland Airport, this particular project is in a sickly state. The cost has ballooned to $529 million, and a large funding gap remains. The project was intended to be a public/private partnership, but the private partners who might have filled the funding gap are no longer interested in pursuing the project. $288 million of public funds are allocated to the project, but $241 million more are needed. Some of that additional money might eventually be obtained from other sources: including $71 million from BART and $50 million saved from seismic retrofit of the Transbay Tube. MTC would now like to apply $70 million of FTA stimulus funds to rescue the people mover and close the funding gap.

This would be an unwise allocation of the money. We literally just got through lamenting that the State of California has yanked five years of State Transit Assistance operating funds from transit agencies; these agencies must now put fare hikes, service cuts, or a combination of the two on the table to close their own deficits. To the extent that MTC can help agencies in need, it should, by allocating the money directly for agencies to use for purposes of rehabilitation and preventive maintenance. The plan to withhold $70 million of valuable stimulus money — only to insert it into the funding pot for a project that is basically a luxury item, at a time when we can scarcely afford necessities let alone luxuries — is frivolous. In any case, we have long believed that the sensible course of action would be to at least revisit the less glamorous option of a rapid bus system with signal priority on the amply wide (6-8 total lanes) Hegenberger Road and Airport Drive. This would provide a link between BART and the Airport that is quicker and more reliable than current AirBART service, at a fraction of the cost of the proposed people mover.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation (TNDC) manages about 1,800 residential units for very low-income tenants, and it is currently pursuing several new residential projects in the Tenderloin and nearby South of Market locations, in the form of both new construction and reuse of historical buildings. Among the new construction projects is a trio of buildings that will add almost 350 new homes to the block bounded by Ellis, Mason, Eddy, and Taylor Streets on the east side of the Tenderloin. Two of those three buildings fill a gap in the streetwall on the west side of Mason Street. Construction of 125 Mason (pictured at left), the offsite affordable housing for the Millennium Tower, was recently completed as a result of a partnership with Glide Economic Development Corporation; it adds137 units ranging from one to four bedrooms. The multi-bedroom units will provide much-needed housing for the dense concentration of families in the Tenderloin. 149 Mason, which will be an eight-story 56-studio building to house the homeless, is currently under construction on the parcel next to 125 Mason.

Eddy and Taylor; courtesy of David Baker + Partners.

The third building in this trio, 168-186 Eddy/238 Taylor, is planned for the northeast corner of Eddy & Taylor, where it would replace a 22,334 square foot surface parking lot. The building would be about 130 feet tall and mixed-use, potentially with a grocery store on the ground floor that would improve the neighborhood’s access to fresh food and produce. The Planning Department has issued a Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration (link to 8.2 MB PDF) explaining its determination that the project does not require an EIR to evaluate significant adverse effects to the environment. The analysis in that document assumes a building containing up to 178 units, and the project website contemplates 143 units (44 one-bedroom, 77 two-bedroom, and 22 three-bedroom) at a density of 280 units/acre. The project would provide the required bicycle parking, but would have zero off-street car parking, for both the residential and commercial components. The emphasis on multiple bedrooms indicates that, like 125 Mason, Eddy & Taylor is especially geared toward housing low-income and homeless families in the Tenderloin. The architect is David Baker + Partners, who also designed the 67-unit Curran House, another TNDC property just south of the Eddy & Taylor parcel. Additional renderings of the Eddy & Taylor project can be found at the project website.