San Francisco Public Library
Government Information Center
San Francisco Public Library
100 Larkin Street, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
REFERENCE BOOK
Not to be taken from the library
SCH No. 2007092059
VAN NESS AVENUE BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
City and County of San Francisco, California
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PREPARED PURSUANT TO:
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, §102 (42 U.S.C. §4432); and Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. Chapter 53); 49 U.S.C. §303
(formally Department of Transportation Act of 1966, §4(0); National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, § 106 (16 U.S.C. §4700;
Executive Order 1 1990 (Protection of Wetlands); Executive Order 1 1988 (Floodplain Management); and
Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice).
By the
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
and the
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
Leslie T. Rogers
Region IX Administrator
Federal Transit Administration
JUN 1 1 2013
Date of Approval
Mai i;i Lomhai <1<
Interim Executive Director
s/n Francjsco County Transportation Authority
Date of Approval
3 1223 10225 8218
Preface
Introduction
The San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA or Authority) proposes, in cooperation with the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), to
implement bus rapid transit (BRT) improvements along a 2-mile stretch of Van Ness Avenue in San Francisco,
California.
This Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) has been prepared
pursuant to the requirements of both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Both laws require that projects with a potential for significant adverse
environmental effects be reviewed in an EIS and EIR, respectively. This Final EIS/EIR identifies three build
alternatives for the Van Ness Avenue BRT Project that would meet the project's purpose and need, as well as the
Locally Preferred Alternative (LP A), which is the project design selected by the project proponents to be carried
forward for approval and subsequent construction. This document evaluates the environmental effects that
would result from each project alternative, including the LPA. This document also identifies measures to avoid,
minimize, and mitigate impacts.
Who is leading the environmental review of this project?
The Van Ness Avenue BRT Project is a collaborative effort. In cooperation with FTA, the Authority initiated this
project and has led the effort to complete the environmental review and preliminary engineering (approximately
30 percent design completion). The Authority has partnered closely with SFMTA, which will take the subsequent
lead in all major steps of project delivery following completion of the environmental review process, including
final design, construction, operation, and maintenance. The Authority has also partnered closely with the
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), which owns the portion of Van Ness Avenue within the
project limits, designated as U.S. Highway 101.
FTA is the Lead Agency under NEPA, and the Authority is the Lead Agency under CEQA. Caltrans and SFMTA
participate as Cooperating Agencies under NEPA and as Responsible Agencies under CEQA in environmental
review. Other participating agencies include Golden Gate Bridge Highway & Transportation District.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, San Francisco Department of Public Works, San Prancisco Planning
Department, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, and the San Francisco Mayor's Office on Disability.
What is the purpose of this document?
As required by NEPA and CEQA, this document informs the public and governmental decision makers of
potential environmental effects associated with the project and describes the measures thai would be
implemented to mitigate or lessen those effects (Chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7). This document will be used In
federal, state, regional, and local agencies to assess the environmental impacts of the project on resources under
their jurisdiction, to make discretionary decisions regarding the project, and to exercise then review and permit
authority over the project. This document also includes information on the cost to construct and operate this
project (Chapter 9), and provides an evaluation of important considerations such as environmental impacts, need,
feasibility, funding, cost for each project alternative, and selection of the IT A (Chapter 10). This process provides
decision-makers and the public information so they may consider the likely effects of' the project on the
environment, together with other important factors such as feasibility, cost, and meeting the identified project
purpose and needs.
The Draft EIS/EIR was made available for public review and comment from November •» through December
23, 2011; it was the subject of a public hearing on November 30, 201 I. and an online uchmar on Decembd \
2011. After considering public and agency comments on the Draft EIS/EIR and identifying the I V \. the SFCTA
prepared this Final EIS/EIR that includes the responses to comments received on the Draft EIS/EIR, which are
included as Appendix I of this document, and documentation on the LPA.
What is the difference between the Draft EIS/EIR and this Final EIS/EIR?
In this Final EIS/EIR, SFCTA and SFMTA recommend a preferred alternative, the LPA, to be carried forward.
At the compledon of this environmental process, FTA, SFCTA, and SFMTA expect to be able to approve and
certify this Final EIS/EIR and make a determination on whether to implement the project LPA. An additional
northbound station at the intersection of Van Ness Avenue and Vallejo Street, called the Vallejo Northbound
Station Variant, is under consideration as a design variant under the LPA. The decision on whether to include the
variant will be made at the time of project approval.
Material that is new or has been substantially revised since publication of the Draft EIS/EIR is indicated by a
vertical bar in the margin. Changes between the Draft EIS/EIR and the Final EIS/EIR primarily reflect
documentation of the LPA, as well as responses to comments received on the Draft EIS/EIR and staff-initiated
changes to correct minor errors or improve/ update presentation of information. These changes are delineated
with the vertical margin bar.
Appendix I contains all comments received on the Draft EIS/EIR during the public comment period, as well as
responses to those comments. Technical reports are available on request by contacting the SFCTA (project
contact information provided below).In this Final EIS/EIR, SFCTA and SFMTA recommend a preferred
alternative, the LPA, to be carried forward. At the completion of this environmental process, FTA, SFCTA, and
SFMTA expect to be able to approve and certify this Final EIS/EIR and make a determination whether to
implement the project LPA.
How can I be involved?
The project proponents encourage members of the public to remain involved with the project by reviewing the
Final EIS/EIR and attending the SFCTA Board certification hearing, the SFMTA project approval meeting, and
other project meetings such as Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) meetings. Members of the public may also
attend neighborhood and other stakeholder meetings in which the Van Ness Avenue BRT is discussed during the
final design and construction phases of the project. If the project is approved, the SFMTA will distribute
information about the formation of a Final Design and Construction Period CAC via the project Web site, direct
mailings, and electronic newsletters. Requests to be added to the project mailing list to receive periodic updates
on the project can be made by contacting:
Attn: Michael Schwartz, Senior Transportation Planner
San Francisco County Transportation Authority
1455 Market St., 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94103
vannessbrt@sfcta.org
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Executive Summary
5.1 | Introduction
The San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA or Authority) proposes, in
cooperation with the Federal Transit Administration (FT A) and the San Francisco Municipal
Transportation Agency (SFMTA), to implement bus rapid transit (BRT) improvements
along a 2-mile stretch of Van Ness Avenue in San Francisco,1 from Van Ness Avenue at
Lombard Street in the north to South Van Ness Avenue at Mission Street in the south. This
chapter provides a brief summary of the purpose of and need for the proposed project, the
project alternatives, project performance, a summary of potential environmental impacts,
and proposed mitigation measures. This summary should not be relied upon for a thorough
understanding of these topics; references to sections of this Environmental Impact
Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) with complete information are
provided below.
Substantive text changes between the Draft EIS/EIR circulated November 4 through
December 23, 2011, and this Final EIS/EIR are demarcated by a vertical bar in the margin.
Text changes primarily reflect documentation of the LP A, as well as responses to comments
received on the Draft EIS/EIR and staff-initiated changes to correct minor errors or
improve/update presentation of information..
5.2 | Agencies and Approvals
The Van Ness Avenue BRT Project is a collaborative effort. In cooperation with FTA, the
Authority initiated this project and has led the effort to complete the environmental review
and conceptual engineering. The Authority has partnered closely with SFMTA, which will
take the subsequent lead in all major steps of project delivery following completion of the
environmental review process, including preliminary and final design, construction,
operation, and maintenance. The Authority has also coordinated project development with
the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
FTA is the Lead Agency under NEPA, and the Authority is the Lead Agency under C1X)A.
Caltrans and SFMTA participate in the environmental review as Cooperating Agencies
under NEPA and as Responsible Agencies under CEQA. Other participating agencies
include Golden Gate Bridge Highway & Transportation District, Metropolitan
Transportation Commission, San Francisco Department of Public Works, San Francisco
Planning Department, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, and the San Francisco
Mayor's Office on Disability. The FTA and the Authority are responsible for approving
certifying this Final EIS/EIR, and subsequently the Authority and SFMTA are responsible
for approving this project. The SFCTA Board and the SFMTA would each approve the
project through formal selection of a preferred alternative as the project definition. It" the
project is approved, the SFMTA would implement project design, construction, operation,
and maintenance. The Authority would provide funding and ensure compliance with the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP - see Appendix J) and would also
provide review and concurrence on deliverables for the project during the design phase. In
addition, the Authority would be actively involved in the project through its oversight role .is
part of the significant Prop K funding programmed for the project (see Chapter Caltrans,
as the owner of the facility (Van Ness Avenue is US 101 in the project study area), would
provide various approvals of permits and documents as part of project development and
construction. See Chapter 2 on next steps, permits, and approvals for more details on agencv
roles and responsibilities.
The City and County of San Francisco operate as a joint government body within the same geographical Imundaricv
Throughout this document, this governmental body and geographic area may he referred to .i- the '( tt\ ..I San
Francisco," "San Francisco," "City," or "County."
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Si
Executive Summary
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
For more on the history and
context of the project,
see Chapter 1.
Van Ness Avenue functions as a
major north to south transit
corridor for the eastern part of
San Francisco, with more than
16,000 daily boardings on Muni
Routes 47 and 49.
For further discussion of the
project's purpose and need,
see Chapter 1.3.
5.3 I Project Location
Van Ness Avenue BRT is proposed in the northeastern quadrant of the City and County of
San Francisco, California. Van Ness Avenue serves as U.S. Highway 101 (US 101) through
the central part of the city and is owned by Caltrans. The BRT alignment follows Van Ness
Avenue/South Van Ness Avenue, a primary north-south arterial and transit spine, and
extends approximately 2 miles from Mission Street to Lombard Street. Replacement of the
overhead contact system (OCS) support pole/streetlight network, as part of the project,
would extend from Mission Street to North Point Street.
5.4 I Project History
Van Ness Avenue has been identified as a high-priority transit improvement corridor in a
number of planning studies and funding actions by the City, including the Authority's Four
Corridors Plan (1995), Muni's Short-Range Transit Plan (since 1996), and Muni's Vision
Plan and Vision for Rapid Transit (2000). The Authority's Countywide Transportation Plan
(2004) called for BRT on Van Ness Avenue as part of a citywide BRT Network (defined
initially by a core BRT network encompassing Van Ness Avenue, Geary Boulevard, and
Potrero Avenue). The Authority conducted the Van Ness Avenue BRT Feasibility Study in
partnership with SFMTA, comparing four BRT alternatives with a no project scenario. In
2006, the Authority and SFMTA Boards unanimously approved the study and called for
continued project development. In 2007, the Authority entered into a formal partnership
with SFMTA through a Memorandum of Agreement to develop the project. That year, the
Authority initiated joint state and federal environmental review of Van Ness Avenue BRT.
The same year, the Bay Area region designated Van Ness Avenue BRT as a regional priority,
and the Authority requested entry for the project into FTA's Small Starts Program. FTA
gave Van Ness Avenue BRT a "High" rating for cost effectiveness ("one of the Small Starts
project justification criteria)," one of only two Small Starts projects in the nation at that time
to receive such a designation, and has received the same rating for that criterion each year
since. In 2009, SFMTA adopted the Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP), which included
Van Ness Avenue in the Muni rapid network and identified it as a high-priority route for
rapid transit and BRT treatments.
5.5 I Project Purpose and Need
S.5.I I PROJECT PURPOSE
Van Ness Avenue is a major north to south corridor for the eastern part of San Francisco. It
functions as a major transit corridor, with more than 16,000 daily boardings on Muni Routes
47 and 49 between Mission and Lombard streets and more than 38,000 total daily boardings
on those two routes overall. The Muni bus routes that travel along Van Ness Avenue
provide regional transit connections to Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), AC Transit,
Caltrain, and SamTrans. Golden Gate Transit (GGT) also provides service along Van Ness
Avenue.
As described in the previous section, rapid transit on Van Ness Avenue has been included as
part of numerous local and regional plans. One purpose of the Van Ness Avenue BRT
Project is to serve a critical function in the City's rapid transit network and help meet the
following goals of the network as defined in the 2004 Countywide Transportation Plan:
• Improve transit levels of service for existing users quickly and cost effectively;
• Strengthen the citywide network of rapid transit sendees;
• Raise the cost effectiveness of Muni services and operational efficiency of the city's
Transit Preferential Streets (TPS) roadway network; and
• Contribute to the urban design, identity, and livability of the BRT corridors as signature
TPS streets.
The 2006 Van Ness Avenue BRT Feasibility Study identified specific needs for the corridor
(see Section 1.3.2) and established the purpose of the Van Ness Avenue BRT project: to
S-2
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
improve the safety and operational efficiency of Van Ness Avenue. With the development
of BRT on Van Ness Avenue, the City hopes to:
• Significantly improve transit reliability, speed, connectivity, and comfort;
• Improve pedestrian comfort, amenities, and safety;
• Enhance the urban design and identity of Van Ness Avenue;
• Create a more livable and attractive street for local residential, commercial, and other
activities; and
• Accommodate safe multimodal circulation and access within the corridor.
S.5.2 I PROJECT NEED
Van Ness Avenue BRT is intended to address numerous citywide needs, including reversing
trends towards decbning transit mode share, lowering transit productivity, and escalating
operating costs. In addition, BRT improvements were identified to address the corridor-
specific purpose described above and to meet the following corridor-specific needs:
• Separate Transit from Auto Traffic to Improve Travel Time and Service Reliability. Transit
speeds are currently not competitive with automobiles on Van Ness Avenue. Buses now
travel at half the speed of cars (only 5 miles per hour [mph]) within the project area. The
longer that buses travel in mixed traffic, the more irregular the spacing becomes,
causing bus bunching during peak periods.
• Reduce Delays Associated with Loading and Unloading and Traffic Signals. Time spent
loading and unloading passengers and time spent waiting at traffic signals accounts for
nearly 50 percent of total travel time on Van Ness Avenue.
• Improve the Experience for Transit Patrons. Existing transit sendee on Van Ness Avenue
lacks many amenities for waiting passengers (e.g., bus shelters with seating and real time
information) and for passengers onboard vehicles (e.g., poor ride quality). Improvement
of these conditions would make the transit experience attractive to new riders and more-
comfortable for existing riders, both in and out of the vehicle.
• Improve the Safety and Comfort of Pedestrians. Van Ness Avenue has long street crossing
distances, and most crossings do not have pedestrian infrastructure such as countdown
signals, accessible pedestrian signals, corner bulbs, and nose cones. Pedestrians also
experience more delay at signals than other users of Van Ness Avenue.
• Raise the Operating Efficiency of Van Ness Avenue. The Van Ness Avenue corridor has the
potential to carry substantially more people, more efficiently, than today. Within the
study area, automobile trips on Van Ness Avenue are expected to increase bv up to 7.5
percent by 2015 if a BRT project is not built, while the transit mode share is expected to
stay the same or decline without a BRT project. These trends would result in an increase
in congestion on Van Ness Avenue.
• Upgrade Streetscape to Support an Identity as a Rapid Transit and Pedestrian Environment.
Existing streetscape conditions are deficient, lacking in design consistency and
pedestrian amenities.
• Reduce operations costs. It buses continue to operate in congested traffic, further
degradation in transit speeds will increase the operating cost to maintain Muni's current
service headways.
• Support the Civic Destinations on the Corridor and Integrate Transit Infrastructure with
Adjacent Land Uses. Van Ness Avenue is already a strong market for transit, due largelj
to the existing transit-supportive land uses in the corridor; for instance, nearly half of
the households in the corridor do not own automobiles. More jobs and housing are
being planned along the corridor in future years.
• Accommodate private vehicle circulation and commercial loading. Van Ness Vvenue i^ also
designated as US 101. For this reason, attainment of transit and pedestrian
improvement objectives must be balanced with the needs to accommodate mixed local
and through traffic, bicycle, and goods circulation and access within the corridor.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I july 2013
Executive Summary
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
See Chapter 2 for further
discussion of BRT features and
a description of alternatives
included for analysis,
as well as alternatives
considered but rejected
through the scoping process.
The No Build Alternative
•
would include only
improvements that are planned
to occur regardless of whether
BRT is implemented, including
pavement rehabilitation and
incremental replacement
of the OCS and support
poles/streetlights.
S.6 I Project Description
5.6.1 I BRT FEATURES
BRT is a new mode of transit in San Francisco and represents a package of features that
together create rapid and reliable transit service for the benefit of passengers along a given
corridor, and the transit system as a whole. The Van Ness Avenue BRT Project includes:
• Dedicated bus lanes separated from regular (mixed-flow) traffic to reduce delays and
improve reliability.
• Level or near level boarding that minimizes the horizontal and vertical gap between the
platform edge and vehicle door threshold to decrease passenger loading time, increase
service reliability, and improve access for all users.
• Consolidated transit stops to reduce delays due to existing stop spacing that does not
meet Muni standards (stop locations and details shown in Chapter 2, Table 2-3).
• High-quality stations, each with an elevated platform, canopy for weather protection,
comfortable seating, vehicle arrival time information, landscaping, and other amenities.
Platforms would be large enough to safely and comfortably accommodate waiting
passengers, long enough to load two BRT vehicles, and designed to provide Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility.
• Proof of Payment allowing passengers to swipe their fare cards either on the platform
before the buses arrive or on-bus once boarded, allowing for all-door loading, and
reducing passenger loading time.
• Traffic signal optimization using technology upgrades to allow real-time traffic
management and optimal signal timing.
• Transit Signal Priority (TSP) to recognize bus locations and provide additional green light
time for buses approaching intersections and reduce delay at red lights.
• Fewer left-turn pocket lanes for mixed-flow traffic by eliminating left turns at certain
intersections to reduce conflicts with the BRT operation.
• Pedestrian safety enhancements, including enhanced median refuges, nose cones, and curb
bulbs to reduce crossing distances at intersections and increase safety. Accessible
pedestrian signals with crossing time countdowns would be installed at all signalized
intersections in the project corridor.
5.6. 2 I PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Based on the findings of the 2006 Van Ness Avenue BRT Feasibility Study and input
received during the project scoping process, three build alternatives were defined and
recommended for NEPA/CEQA analysis. A No Build Alternative was also defined, which
considers planned and funded improvement projects within the Van Ness Avenue corridor
that will be implemented by 2015 (opening year of the Van Ness Avenue BRT Project) or
2035 (the long-term horizon or "design" year). The project alternatives are described in the
following subsections and further in Chapter 2, along with alternatives considered but
rejected during the public scoping process.
Alternative 1: No Build
Alternative 1, the No Build Alternative, would include only improvements that are planned
to occur regardless of whether BRT is implemented, including pavement rehabilitation and
incremental replacement of the OCS and support poles/ streetlights. New, low-floor buses,
on-bus proof of payment, and real-time passenger information at major bus stops would
result in minor improvements to transit service. Pedestrian improvements at select locations
would include curb ramp upgrades, countdown signals, and accessible signals. Figure S-l
provides a typical cross section of Van Ness Avenue as it exists today, and this would
remain the same under the No Build Alternative.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Executive Summary
Figure S-i: Typical Cross Section of Existing Van Ness Avenue
Lane Trifle lane Tr*nc Lm
Build Alternatives
The three build alternatives would include all of the BRT features listed above in S.6.1, but
with differing lane configurations and associated station placement at the intersections. The
following subsections summarize the differences between the three alternatives, while
Chapter 2 describes each alternative in detail. Appendix A contains detailed plan drawings
for each build alternative. Under all build alternatives, GGT vehicles that currently operate
on Van Ness Avenue would operate in the transitway and use select BRT stations
exclusively.
The three build alternatives
would include all of the
BRT features but with
differing lane configurations
and associated station
placement at the intersections.
Build Alternative 2: Side-Lane BRT with Street Parking
Build Alternative 2 (see Figure S-2) would provide a dedicated bus lane, or transitwav, in the
right-most lane of Van Ness Avenue located adjacent to the existing curbside street parking
area. The transitway would be traversable for mixed-flow traffic that would enter the
transitway to complete a right turn or to parallel park. Under Build Alternadve 2, BRT
stations would be located within the curbside parking area as curb extensions.
Figure S-2: Typical Cross Section of Van Ness Avenue with Build Alternative 2
I'
£3k GT '13 St
WT8MM ~BR Vwifo." <o.'
p«t*g TrMMy Tftteljn* TrtfkUnt
Build Alternative 3: Center-Lane BRT with Right-Side Boarding and Dual Medians
Build Alternadve 3 (sec Figure S-3) would provide a transitwav comprised of two side-bv-
side, dedicated bus lanes located in the center of the roadway in between two medians. The
transitway would be separated from mixed-flow traffic by a 4-foot-widc median, widening to
a 9-foot-wide median at BRT stations, allowing right-side boarding.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I )uly 2013
Executive Summary
For detailed analysis of the
Van Ness Avenue BRT Project
performance for all
transportation modes, see
Chapter 3. Analysis of benefits
and impacts of each alternative
across all performance measures
is provided in Chapter 10.
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure S-3: Typical Cross Section of Van Ness Avenue with Build Alternative 3
ft
B3 Srwig"uMnM> LCdEii1 KffSaE)
LM ToAcLm TraflcUP*
L » .1. 10 .1. — u — ~ t „ !< •
BRTSMon' Mta Uadnoo Pirtto Sara*
MMan Tnffcura TnflcUM un
Build Alternative 4: Center-Lane BRT with Left-Side Boarding and Single Median
Build Alternadve 4 (see Figure S-4) would provide a transitway in the center of the roadway
comprised of a single, 14-foot-wide median flanked by dedicated northbound (NB) and
southbound (SB) bus lanes. Stadon platforms would be located on the single center median,
requiring left-side passenger boarding and alighting, as well as left-side doors on vehicles. All
stations would have this single-median design, with the exception of the BRT stations
proposed at Geary/O'Farrell, which would utilize a dual-median configuration similar to
that proposed under Build Alternative 3 to accommodate GGT buses that are strictly right-
side boarding. All GGT stops, except Geary/O'Farrell, along the BRT corridor would be
eliminated in Build Alternative 4. At the northern end of the corridor, GGT vehicles would
be routed along a portion of Chestnut Street to accommodate an additional stop at the
corner of Chestnut Street and Van Ness Avenue. At the southern end, GGT buses would
continue to stop at the intersections of McAllister and Polk streets (NB) and Golden Gate
Avenue and Polk Street (SB). A second GGT stop within the BRT runningway at Union
Street is also possible.
Figure S-4: Typical Cross Section of Van Ness Avenue with Build Alternative 4
"^n>« IMta Wdk
una Traflcum TnAcuna ImMi
Center-Lane Alternative Design Option B
Both center-running alternatives (Build Alternatives 3 and 4) contain a design option
referred to as the Center-Lane Alternative Design Option B, or Design Option B. This
design option would eliminate all but one NB left turn (at Lombard Street) and all but one
SB left turn (at Broadway) in the project corridor.
S.7 I Alternatives Analyzed and the LPA
As part of the alternatives analysis required by NEPA, the lead agencies are required to analyze
the environmental impacts of all reasonable alternatives. Three build alternatives and a design
option for center-lane Alternatives 3 and 4 were analyzed in the Draft EIS/EIR (see Chapter 2
for a description of alternatives), which was circulated for public review and comment from
November 4 through December 23, 2011. As required by NEPA, an approved EIS must
S-6
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
include the selection of a locally preferred alternative (LP A). The three build alternatives
considered consisted of one side-lane option (Alternative 2) and two center-lane options
(Alternatives 3 and 4), as well as a reduced left-turn variant (Design Option B). Based on
technical analyses presented in the Draft EIS/EIR, as well as agency, stakeholder, and public
input received during circulation of the Draft EIS/EIR, and results of risk analyses
performed by a steering committee of SFCTA and SFMTA staff, the SFMTA and SFCTA
jointly recommended, and subsequently selected, the LPA as a center -lane BRT with right -
side boarding/ single median and limited left turns for inclusion in the Final EIS/EIR. The
LPA includes features of Build Alternatives 3 and 4, as described in greater detail in the
following subsection. Section 10.3 describes the process of how the LPA was selected.
S.7.I I LPA: CENTER-LANE BRT WITH RIGHT-SIDE BOARDING/SINGLE MEDIAN AND
LIMITED LEFT TURNS
The LPA is a combination and refinement of the center-running alternatives with limited left
turns (Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B) and is referred to as Center-Lane
BRT with Right-Side Boarding/ Single Median and Limited Left Turns. The LPA retains the
high-performance features of Build Alternatives 3 and 4 (e.g., maximum transit priority,
fewest conflicts), while avoiding the need to acquire left- right door vehicles or remove the
entire existing median. Under the LPA, BRT vehicles would run alongside a single median
for most of the corridor, similar to Build Alternative 4; however, at station locations, BRT
vehicles would transition to the center of the roadway, allowing right-side loading at station
platforms as under Build Alternative 3. Figure S-5 depicts the LPA on a block without a
station and a block with a station. The LPA incorporates Design Option B, the left-turn
removal design option that would eliminate all left turns from Van Ness Avenue between
Mission and Lombard streets with the exception of a southbound (SB) (two-lane) left turn at
Broadway Street. Incorporation of Design Option B would provide the greatest transit travel
time benefits, reduce the weaving associated with the transitions buses must make between
station locations and blocks without stations, and aid with the flow of north-south traffic
along Van Ness Avenue. The LPA also includes a design variant to be decided at the time of
project approval. The design variant is a NB transit station at Vallejo Street, referred to as
the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant.
Figure S-5: LPA: Center-Running BRT with Right-Side Loading/Single Median and
Limited Left Turns
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Executive Summary
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Relative to the
No Build Alternative,
the LPA would:
• Reduce transit travel time
by 33 percent,
reducing the travel time gap
between autos and transit by
as much as 50 percent
• Incorporate features to
increase pedestrian safety
at intersections.
Carry more people per hour
than each remaining mixed
traffic lane, resulting in
more efficient operations.
Reinvestment of travel time
savings into more frequent
bus service could raise
person throughput on
Van Ness Avenue
by 8 to 12 percent.
S.8 I Project Performance in Meeting Purpose and Need
To help support decision making, this EIS/EIR documents BRT performance against a
number of measures related to the Purpose and Need described in Section S-4 and Chapter
1. For more detailed analysis of Van Ness Avenue BRT Project performance for all
transportation modes, see Chapter 3. Analysis of benefits and impacts of each alternative
across all performance measures is provided in Chapter 10.
5.8.1 IMPROVED TRANSIT PERFORMANCE AND RIDERSHIP
BRT would significantlv improve transit travel time, reliability, passenger comfort, and
ridership along Van Ness Avenue. In 2015, relative to Alternative 1 (No Build Alternative),
the LPA would reduce transit travel time by 33 percent, reducing the travel time gap
between autos and transit by as much as 50 percent (Source: V7.SSIM model).2 Reliability for
the LPA would also improve; the likelihood of a bus unexpectedly stopping (excluding
loading and unloading passengers) would decrease by 52 percent, allowing more consistent
travel times (Source: VISSIM model). Improved station facilities with level or near level
boarding, additional amenities, and real-time arrival information would also improve transit
passengers' comfort. W ith the LPA, transit boardings for Muni 47 and 49 lines throughout
their routes would increase by 3" percent with BRT relative to Alternative 1, and up to half
of the additional riders could be former drivers (Source: SF-CHAMP). With implementation
of the LPA, Van Ness Avenue BRT would increase the street's transit mode share to 44
percent of all motorized trips, relative to 30 percent in Alternative 1 (Source: SF-CHAMP).
See Section 3.2 for additional information on transit performance.
5.8. 2 ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND COMFORT
The Van Ness Avenue BRT Project would incorporate features to increase pedestrian safety
at intersections, including pedestrian countdown signals, enhanced median refuges, and
additional curb bulbs. These features would shorten crossing distances, allowing nearly all
intersections to meet local and federal standards for minimum pedestrian crossing speed,
while giving pedestrians more information about when it is safe to cross. New ADA curb
ramps and Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) along Van Ness Avenue would improve
safety and access for all users. Pedestrians would also benefit from wider effective sidewalk
widths in many locations, pedestrian-scale lighting, and additional median trees and
landscaping and tree plantings along the sidewalk. See Section 3.4 for more information on
nonmotorized transportation performance.
5.8. 3 IMPROVED OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY AND ACCOMMODATION OF PRIVATE
VEHICLES AND COMMERCIAL LOADING
By the most conservative estimates, BRT would maintain the same levels of person-
throughput on Van Ness Avenue relative to Alternative 1 (No Build Alternative). The
dedicated transit lane would carry more people per hour than each remaining mixed traffic
lane; however, by reinvesting saved operating resources into more frequent bus service, daily
person throughput on Van Ness Avenue could increase by as much as 8 percent in certain
locations. If intangibles such as marketing, branding, permanence, and quality are also
considered (as they are for rail projects), daily person throughput could increase by as much
as 12 percent on Van Ness Avenue in certain locations (Source: SF-CHAMP).
San Francisco's grid network supports the Van Ness Avenue BRT Project in many ways.
The majority of drivers who would drive on Van Ness Avenue under the No Build
Alternative in 2015 would continue to drive on Van Ness Avenue under any of the build
alternatives (68 to 81 percent for locations north of Hayes Street, depending on the
location), including the LPA (Source: CHS, 2013). Of the remaining 19 to 32 percent, many
would continue to drive on a street within two blocks of Van Ness Avenue — mosdy
I : The proposed project is scheduled to begin service in 2016 and revenue operations arc anticipated in 2018.
S-8
San Francisco County Transportatfon Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
EXECUTIVE
Executive Summary
SUMMARY
Franklin Street (Source: CHS, 2013); approximately a third would switch modes to transit or j
change their travel time of day or destination; and a small portion would continue driving on
other parallel streets throughout San Francisco (Source: SF-CHAMP). Due in part to the
many alternative options for current drivers on Van Ness Avenue, the implementation of
BRT does not increase the net number of intersections operating at level of service (LOS) E
or F in 2015 when compared with the No Build Alternative in that same year (Source: CHS,
2013). See Section 3.1 for additional information on multimodal system performance. See
Table S-l at the end of this summary and Section 3.3 for details on traffic circulation and
impacts. Section 3.3 also discusses how the traffic effects of converting mixed-traffic lanes
to dedicated bus lanes could be managed through signal timing, driver information,
improvement of alternative routes, and implementation of numerous citywide transportation
improvement and system management efforts that are currently underway.
5.8.4 | UPGRADED STREETSCAPE
A main component of the Van Ness Avenue BRT Project is to provide a consistent
landscaped median treatment and pedestrian lighting, as well as establish a more unified
identity for Van Ness Avenue as one of the City's most prominent arterials and a visible
rapid transit service. The improved streetscape features of the LPA would enhance the
amenity and urban design of Van Ness Avenue as a gateway into the city.
5.8.5 I SUPPORT OF CIVIC DESTINATIONS IN THE CORRIDOR AND INTEGRATE
TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE WITH ADJACENT LAND USES
The improved streetscape features of the Van Ness Avenue BRT Project would enhance the
amenity and urban design of Van Ness Avenue as a gateway into the city while achieving
multimodal transportation goals. In addition to serving existing transit demand, the Van
Ness Avenue corridor is meant to support recently approved nearby high-density mixed-use
development plans. The project will also transform the street into a vibrant pedestrian
promenade that supports the Civic Center and commercial uses. Rapid transit service along
Van Ness Avenue would contribute to the City's transit-oriented development efforts by
providing high-quality, reliable, comfortable transit that improves access to destinations
within the corridor and elsewhere in the city. Placement of BRT infrastructure would
demonstrate an investment in the corridor and provides a greater sense of permanence than
typical bus facilities. Such facilities can support place-making and livability, while helping to
stimulate further transit-oriented development.
5.8.6 I INCREASED TRANSIT OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY AND CAPITAL COST
EFFECTIVENESS
Muni operating resources in the BRT corridor could see a savings of 16 to 32 percent with
BRT relative to the No Build Alternative because fewer buses could provide the same
service frequency. The resulting savings could be reinvested in additional service 00 Van
Ness Avenue or elsewhere in the Muni system. See Chapter 9 for more information on
Operations Costs for each of the alternatives. As discussed in the Environmental
Alternatives Screening Report prepared after scoping, the BRT alternatives provide a cost-
effective way to deliver transit benefits to the Van Ness Avenue corridor. Sec Section S-9
and Chapter 9 for more information on Project Cost and Funding.
S.9 I Project Cost and Funding
The Van Ness Avenue BRT Project LPA is estimated to cost SI 26 million. Two sources .ire
planned to provide a significant portion of the funding for the project:
• Small Starts ($74,999,999 million). This program, w hic h is administered In I l \. pto\ id< s
competitive grants for new transit projects whose total capital costs do not exceed S250
million. The maximum grant award is $74,9<)9,W9 million. SFCTA and SFMTA have
requested $74,999,999 million in Small Starts funding for the project. In 2012, the
project was one of three Small Starts potential projects in the nation to receive .1 High
I
As discussed in the
I Environmental Alternatives
Screening Report, BRT provides
a cost effective way to deliver
transit benefits to the
Van Ness Avenue corridor.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Executive Summary
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Van Ness BRT would result iir
traffic circulation impacts at
6 to 11 intersections in the
corridor, primarily along
Franklin and Cough streets,
but no significant impacts at
other intersections, or to transit
or nonmotorized transportation.
If implemented, mitigation
measures could reduce
traffic impacts.
rating for cost effectiveness and the only Small Starts project in the nation to receive a
Medium - High rating for "project justification". (Source: Fiscal Year 2014 FTA Annual
Report on Funding Recommendations)3.
• Proposition K Sales Tax ($20.5 million). In November 2003, San Francisco voters approved
Proposition K (Prop K), approving a new 30-year Expenditure Plan and extending the
local half-cent transportation sales tax. The Board-adopted 2009 Proposition K Strategic
Plan programs approximately $20.5 million in sales tax funds to the Van Ness Avenue
BRT Project. The Authority will examine the Prop K programming during the next
Strategic Plan update to determine if more Prop K funds can be used for the Van Ness
Avenue BRT project.
The annual operations and maintenance costs associated with the LPA are significantly
lower than those of the No Build Alternative, with cost savings estimated at 28 percent. The
savings are attributed to the travel time benefits of the BRT, requiring fewer vehicles to
provide a similar amount of service. See Chapter 9 for more information on Project Cost
and Funding; Section 9.1.3 includes a broader discussion of funding sources.
S.10 I Summary of Environmental Impacts
Table S-l summarizes the environmental impacts that would result due to each project
alternative, the significance of the impacts, and proposed mitigation measures. Under
CEQA significance criteria, the proposed project would result in no impacts or less than
significant impacts relative to the following environmental factors:
Agricultural Resources
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
Mineral Resources
Population, Housing, and Recreation
Wind and Shadow
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use
Noise and Vibration
With implementation of mitigation measures, the project would result in less than significant
impacts relative to the following environmental factors:
Aesthetics/ Visual Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Community Impacts
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Hazardous Waste and Materials
Public Services
Transit Crowding (part of Chapter 3, Transportation Analysis)
Utilities and Service Systems
Implementation of any of the build alternatives may result in significant and unavoidable
impacts in one environmental category: traffic circulation. Traffic circulation impacts would
occur by 2035 at 1 1 intersections in the corridor for the LPA, primarily along Franklin and
Gough streets. If implemented, mitigation measures could reduce traffic impacts to less than
significant levels. However, the mitigation measures identified in Section 3.3.4, while
reducing localized traffic delays in the short term, may ultimately be found by the Authority
Board to not be feasible due to policy conflicts, specifically the need to balance traffic
3 The Van Ness Avenue BRT Project received a score of "High" on all three project justification criteria where scoring
measures have been defined. For the three criteria where measures have not yet been defined, all projects were assigned
a rating of "medium." In all previous annual funding recommendations since 2007 (where all measures had been
defined), Van Ness Avenue BRT Project has received a score of "High" for project justification, the only Small Starts
Project in the nation to receive such a designation.
S-io
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
circulation with pedestrian and transit circulation and safety. In addition, these engineering
techniques function by increasing automobile traffic capacity and are unlikely to be effective
in the long term due to the risk of induced demand. Section 3.3.4 provides a more
comprehensive description of those intersections that would be significantly impacted.
No unmitigable, significant impacts are projected for transit or to nonmotorized
transportation. A detailed discussion of impacts, and associated improvement and mitigation
measures is provided in Chapter 3, Transportation Analysis, and Chapter 4, Affected
Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or
Mitigation Measures. Analysis of cumulative impacts is presented in Chapter 5.
S.n I Areas of Controversy
Primary areas of controversy raised by the public during review of the Draft EIS/EIR
consist of: traffic congestion on Van Ness Avenue and diversion onto parallel streets in the
project vicinity, including how increased traffic congestion would affect air quality and noise
in the project area; the project's effects on trees on Van Ness Avenue and the desire to
preserve trees; the effects of relocating existing bus stops and stop consolidation (limiting of
stops); and concern about how the project alternatives were defined and that there should
be more consideration of less costly express bus alternatives. A more detailed discussion of
areas of controversy is provided in Section 7.7.
5.12 | Locally Preferred Alternative Selection
As described in Section 10.3, the Draft EIS/EIR for the proposed project was made
available to the public for review from November 4 through December 23, 201 1. During the
Draft EIS/EIR review period, the project team solicited further public and agency input on
the alternatives analysis, including input on the selection of an LPA, through a public
hearing, webinar, and stakeholder meetings. In particular, input on those performance
indicators that are directly related to the project purpose were sought. Once input was
gathered from all of the parties, including comments received on the Draft EIS/EIR,
SFCTA and SFMTA staff proposed an LPA. An LPA Report was prepared, including a
summary of public and agency input, analysis of alternatives' performance, and the
recommended LPA (SFCTA, 2012). The LPA Report was presented to the SFCTA and
SFMTA Boards for adoption, and in summer 2012 was unanimously approved by the Board
of Commissioners, which authorized the Executive Director to analyze the Staff
Recommended LPA in the Final EIS/EIR. The LPA is a refinement of the center-running
alternatives with limited left turns (Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B), and is
referred to as Center-Lane BRT with Right-Side Boarding/Single Median and Limited Left
Turns. The staff-recommended LPA combines features of Build Alternatives 3 and 4 in such
a way that it reduces project risk associated with needing to rebuild the entire median (and
associated environmental, utilities, and cost impacts) and needing to procure dual-side door
vehicles (cost and operations impacts) without compromising the ability of the project to
fulfill the purpose and need. Additional detail about the LPA selection process is pr.n ided in
Sections 10.3.2 through 10.3.8.
5.13 | Project Timeline
This Final EIS/EIR was completed following selection of the I.PA. The Final LIS 1 IR
includes all comments received during the public review of the Draft EIS/EIR (Appendix
I), responds to those comments, documents the I.PA, and proposes mitigation measures tor
significant impacts. The next steps include certification of this Final KIR by the SI'CT \ and
approval of this Final KIS by the FTA, publication of a NEPA Notice of Availability of this
Final EIS in the Federal Register, and subsequent approval of a Record of Decision (ROD) by
the FTA. The Final EIS/EIR will be distributed to agencies that previously Commented on
the Draft EIS/KIR. FTA may sign the ROD no less than 30 days after the Notice of
Availability is published in the Federal Register.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Executive Summary
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The SFCTA Board of. Commissioners and SFMTA Board of Directors would next approve
the project to pursue final design and construction phases of the LPA. A Statement of
Overriding Considerations is prepared, which is a CEQA findings document that includes a
summary of significant and unavoidable impact findings identified in the Final EIS/EIR and
explains the justification for approving the project despite these impacts. The Statement of
Overriding Considerations is presented at the time of project approval as part of the CEQA
Findings. Inclusion of the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant in the project design would
be determined at the time of project approval and documented in the CEQA Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Construction of the proposed project is planned to begin in 2016 and last 20 months. BRT
service is anticipated to begin in 2018.
S.14 I Opportunities for Public Input
The project proponents encourage members of the public to remain involved with the
project by reviewing the Final EIS/EIR and attending the SFCTA Board certification
hearing, attending project meetings with neighborhood groups and other stakeholders
throughout the final design and construction phases of the project, visiting the project
website (www.vannessbrt.org). and subscribing to the project e-mail newsletter and mailing
list. Through these communication channels, the SFMTA will distribute information about
the upcoming formation of the Final Design and Construction Period Citizen Advisory
Committee (CAC), in addition to briefings to neighborhood and other local organizations. A
list of upcoming meetings is made available on the project Web site: www.vannessbrt.org
and will be publicized through the project electronic newsletter. Requests to be added to the
newsletter and mailing list may be made by contacting:
Attn: Michael Schwartz
San Francisco County Transportation Authority
1455 Market St., 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94103
vannessbrt@sfcta.org
S-12
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Executive Summary
Table S-i: Summary of Environmental Impacts and M
ENVIRONMENTAL AREA/
IMPACTS
NO-BUILD
ALTERNATIVE
BUILD ALTERNATIVE 2:
SIDE-LANE BRT WITH STREfrER
D ALTERNATIVE 4:
LANE BRT WITH LEFT-
BOARDINC AND SINGLE
IAN
Aesthetics/
Visual Resources
Construction
No im pact-
Less than significars than significant
ne as Build
2.
Less than significaifiSt
activity, such as sig
require artificial ligh^rnative
light and glare imp
Improvement Mea
IM-AE-Ci: During f
orderly manner, rer
IM-AE-C2: To redu
contractor to direct
toward residences,
BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4
WITH DESIGN OPTION B
LPA
(COMBINES ALTERNATIVES
3 AND 4)'
Less than significant
impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Aesthetics/
Visual Resources
Operation
No impact.
Less than significars than significant
Mitigation measur
resulting from the f ne
network with taller
P>act with mitigation.
accommodate the (cent of exist
as Build
;rnative 2, except 15
ting
reconstruction ofths would be
which wolioved. The same
tion measures as
jld Alternative 2
be
ilemented.
Less than significant
impact with
mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 4.
>th£jld
sidewalk,
Mitigation Measurt1^1
M-AE-i: Design sid1'
properties and ot
M-AE-2: Design an
aesthetic function c
(2) assures a unifot
with the existing vis
streetlight network,
network to comply
be compatible with
designating ordinal
M-AE-3: To the ext«
project landscape c
sidewalk plantings
and a tree-lined cor
provides a sense of
for visibility. The pr
Commission, as we
ROW, which ensure
design plan within
City Hall Preservati
HPC for the landsc
M-AE-4: Design an
for the Van Ness As
Plan, and San Frani
with the goal of pre
M-AE-5: Design ani
wind turbines, and
Francisco General
Center Historic Dis
Properties, Plannin
applicable guidelini
Review and approv,
Less than significant
impact with
mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 2, except
22 percent of
existing trees would
be removed. The
same mitigation
measures as Build
Alternative 2 would
be implemented.
The summary of impacts and mitigation for the LPA includes all imp
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
S 11
Executive Summary
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The SFCTA Board of Commissioners and SFMTA Board of Directors would next approve
the project to pursue final design and construction phases of the LPA. A Statement of
Overriding Considerations is prepared, which is a CEQA findings document that includes a
summary of significant and unavoidable impact findings identified in the Final EIS/EIR and
explains the justification for approving the project despite these impacts. The Statement of
Overriding Considerations is presented at the time of project approval as part of the CEQA
Findings. Inclusion of the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant in the project design would
be determined at the time of project approval and documented in the CEQA Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Construction of the proposed project is planned to begin in 2016 and last 20 months. BRT
service is anticipated to begin in 2018.
S.14 I Opportunities for Public Input
The project proponents encourage members of the public to remain involved with the
project by reviewing the Final EIS/EIR and attending the SFCTA Board certification
hearing, attending project meetings with neighborhood groups and other stakeholders
throughout the final design and construction phases of the project, visiting the project
website (www.vannessbrt.org). and subscribing to the project e-mail newsletter and mailing
list. Through these communication channels, the SFMTA will distribute information about
the upcoming formation of the Final Design and Construction Period Citizen Advisory
Committee (CAC), in addition to briefings to neighborhood and other local organizations. A
list of upcoming meetings is made available on the project Web site: www.vannessbrt.org
and will be publicized through the project electronic newsletter. Requests to be added to the
newsletter and mailing list may be made by contacting:
Attn: Michael Schwartz
San Francisco County Transportation Authority
1455 Market St., 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94103
vannessbrt@sfcta.org
S-12
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
v.r, Ness Avenue Bus Rap.d Transit Proiect
RHl Environmental Impact Statement/
En„ror.mental Impact Report
Executive Summery
Table S-i: Summary
ENVIRONMENTAL AREA/
of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
eUHO ALTERNATIVE ):
SIDE-LANE BUT WITH STREET PARKING
BUILD ALTERNATIVE \.
CENTER-LANE BRT WITH RICHT-SIDE
BOARDING AND DUAL MEDIANS
BUILD ALTERNATIVE :
CENTER-LANE BRT WITH LEFT-
SIDE BOARDING AND SINGLE
MEDIAN
BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4
WITH DESICN OPTION B
(COMBINES AlTEtaUTIVES
i »"0 4|
Aesthetics/
Visual Resources
No impact.
Less than significant impact.
Less than significant impacts to aesthetics would result from temporary visual disruptions by construction
activity, such as signage, soil stockpiles, and construction equipment. Nighttime construction would
require artificial lighting, which would be minimized in residential areas and set up to avoid significant
light and glare impacts on adjacent residential properties.
Impro vement Measures:
IM-AE-Ci: During project construction, SFMTA will require the contractor to maintain the site in an
orderly manner, removing trash and waste, and securing equipment at the close of each day's operation.
IM-AE-C2: To reduce glare and light used during nighttime construction activities, SFMTA will require the
contractor to direct lighting onto the immediate area under construction only and to avoid shining lights
toward residences, nighttime commercial properties, and traffic lanes.
Less than significant impact.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Less than significant impact.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Aesthetics/
Visual Resources
Operation
No impact.
The summary of im
Less than significant impact with mitigation.
Mitigation measures will be implemented to address impacts to visual character and scenic resources
resulting from the following project features: replacement of the existing OCS support pole/streetlight
network with taller network that meets current sidewalk and roadway lighting standards and can
accommodate the BRT OCS loads, introduction of BRT stations and streetscape features, and
reconstruction of the Van Ness Avenue median and implementation of new BRT stations adjacent to the
sidewalk, which would involve removal of approximately 14 percent of existing sidewalk and median trees.
Mitigation Measures:
M-AE-i: Design sidewalk lighting to minimize glare and nighttime light intrusion on adjacent residential
properties and other properties that would be sensitive to increased sidewalk lighting.
M-AE-2: Design and install a replacement OCS support pole/streetlight network that (1) retains the
aesthetic function of the existing network as a consistent infrastructural element along Van Ness Avenue,
(2) assures a uniform architectural style, character, and color throughout the corridor that is compatible
with the existing visual setting and (3) retains the architectural style of the original OCS support pole/
streetlight network. Within the Civic Center Historic District, design the OCS support pole/streetlight
network to comply with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and
be compatible with the character of the historic district as described in the Civic Center Historic District
designating ordinance as called for by the San Francisco Planning Code.
M-AE-3: To the extent that the project alters sidewalk and median landscaping, design and implement a
project landscape design plan, including tree type and planting scheme for median BRT stations and
sidewalk plantings that replaces removed landscaping and re-establishes high-quality landscaped medians
and a tree-lined corridor. To the extent feasible, use single-species street trees and overall design that
provides a sense of identity and cohesiveness for the corridor. Place new trees close to corners, if feasible,
for visibility. The project landscape design plan will require review and approval by the San Francisco Arts
Commission, as well as review and approval by the SFDPW as part of their permitting of work in the street
ROW, which ensures consistency with the San Francisco Better Streets Plan. The median landscape
design plan within the Civic Center Historic District will be reviewed by the San Francisco HPC and the
City Hall Preservation Advisory Commission. A Certificate of Appropriateness must be obtained from the
HPC for the landscape plans within the Civic Center Historic District.
M-AE-4: Design and install landscaped medians so that median design promotes a unified, visual concept
for the Van Ness Avenue corridor consistent with policies in the Van Ness Area Plan, Civic Center Area
Plan, and San Francisco Better Streets Plan. This design goal for a unified, visual concept will be balanced
with the goal of preserving existing trees; thus, new tree plantings would be in-filled around preserved trees.
M"*E"5: Des'Sn and inSta" 3 pr°'eCt BRT station and transitway design Pla" (including station canopies
wind turbines, and other features) that is consistent with applicable City design policies in the San
Francisco General Plan and San Francisco Better Streets Plan; and for project features located in the Civic
Center Historic District, apply the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic
roperties, Planning Code Article 10, Appendix j pertaining to the Civic Center Historic District and other
applicable guidelines, local interpretations, and bulletins concerning historic resources.
Review and approval processes supporting this measure include:
Less than significant impact
with mitigation.
Same as Build Alternative 2,
except 25 percent of existing trees
would be removed, all of them
along the median. The same
mitigation measures as Build
Alternative 2 would be
implemented.
Less than significant impact
with mitigation.
Same as Build Alternative 3.
Less than significant
impact with mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 2, except 15
percent of existing
trees would be
removed. The same
mitigation measures as
Build Alternative 2
would be
implemented.
Less than significant
impact with
mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 4.
Less than sjgrjjficanj
impact with
mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 2. except
22 percent of
existing trees would
be removed. The
same mitigation
measures as Build
Alternative 2 would
be implemented.
(1) San Francisco Art Commission
' — ■ — 1_J ■ ... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1
'pacts and mitigation for the LPA include* all Im •■ -
all .mpacts and mitigation that would pertain to the LPA with or without incorporation of the Vallejo Northbo
ind Station Variant into the project design.
S'"F'"^<*'""» Transportation Authority | ,ulv 20„
S'l
Eiecutive Summary
Van Net* Avenue But 8*p*4 T>mvt L*'«y*a
Final Environmental Impact Scatem***/
Table Si: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
BUILD ALTERNATIVE i:
SIDE-LANE BUT WITH STREET PARKING
BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3:
CENTER-LANE BRT WITH RICHTSIDE
BOARDINC AND DUAL MEDIANS
BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4:
CENTER LANE BRT WITH LEFT-
SIDE BOARDINC ANO SINGLE
MEDIAN
approval of the station and transitway design plan as part of its review of public structures; {2) SFDPW
approval of the station and transitway design plan as part of its permitting of work in the street ROW,
which ,t will include rev.ew for consistency with the San Francisco Better Streets Plan; (3) HPC approval of
the portion of the station and transitway design plan located within the Civic Center Historic District as
part of granting a Certificate of Appropriateness; and (4) City Hall Preservation Advisory Commission and
City Planning Department advisement on design to HPC.
M-AE-6: Context-sensitive design of BRT station features will be balanced with the project objective to
provide a branded, cohesive identity for the proposed BRT service. The following design objectives that
support planning policies described in Section 4.4.1 will be considered in BRT station design and
landscaping;
• Architectural integration of BRT stations with adjacent Significant and Contributory Buildings through
station canopy placement, materials, color, lighting, and texture, as well as the presence of modern
solar paneling and wind turbine features to harmonize project features with adjacent Significant and
Contributory Buildings.
• Integration of BRT stations and landscaping with existing and proposed streetscape design themes within
the Civic Center Historic District in conformance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties and compatible with the character of the historic district as described in
the Civic Center Historic District designating ordinance as called for by the San Francisco Planning Code.
• Marking the intersection of Van Ness Avenue and Market Street as a visual landmark and gateway to
the city in design of the Market Street BRT station.
Aesthetics/
Visual Resources
Cumulative
No cumulative No cumulative impacts-
impacts.
No cumulative impacts.
No cumulative impacts.
No cumulative
impacts.
No cumulative
impacts.
impacts.
Air Quality No impact. Less than significant impact with mitigation.
Construction Construction activity would result in a less than significant impact under CEQA due to exceedances of
nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. Implementation of Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) control measures would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures:
M-AQ-Ci: Construction contractors shall implement the BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation
Measures listed in Table 4.15-4 and the applicable measures in the Additional Construction Mitigation
Measures. This includes Measure 10 in the Additional Construction Mitigation Measures.
M-AQ-C2: Construction contractors shall comply with BAAQMD Regulation 11 (Hazardous Pollutants)
Rule 2 (Asbestos Demolition, Renovation, and Manufacturing). The requirements for demolition activities
include removal standards, reporting requirements, and mandatory monitoring and record keeping.
Less than significant impact
with mitigation.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Less than significant impact
with mitigation.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact with mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact with
mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
impact with
mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Air Quality
Operation
Less than
significant
impact.
Air Quality
Cumulative
No cumulative
impacts.
Less than significant impact.
Localized carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations would result in less-than-significant impacts. An analysis
of emissions from idling vehicles during peak congestion period at the most congested intersection
showed idle emissions would be well below the State standards after implementation of the BRT in year
2035 faffic conditions. Toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions would result in a less-than-significant
impact under CEQA. The project would not increase TAC emissions. The proposed BRT would reduce
regional operational emissions, resulting in a beneficial impact. Localized CO concentrations associated
with each of the alternatives would not exceed State ambient air quality standards, and all alternatives
would be consistent with the BAAQMD regional air quality plans. The project would reduce the volume of
cars by providing the public with alternative means of transportation, which results in lower citywide
vehicle miles traveled (VMT), reducing regional operational emissions.
Less than significant impact.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Less than significant impact.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Less fa- s • zs".
impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Less than significant impact with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures M-AQ-Ci and M-AQ-C2 would avoid significant, cumulative air quality impacts
during construction of the proposed project and other planned projects in the vicinity.
Less than significant impact
with mitigation.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Less than significant impact
with mitigation.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact with mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact with
mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact with
mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Sam Francisco Countv Tran<nnrtahon Authonh I lutt JO'l
» .. Vr». ».*-.» »-» «!*•« Tt»rw.« Protect
I If lit S
i -. .•--»-• <»•-•'
Table So: Summa^ of Envtronmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
BWtwtf wt wrm STWrr pawing
» iaiivi |i
CENTER LAN! BRT WITH RIGHT-SIDE
BOARDING AND DUAL MEDIANS
BUIIO ALTERNATIVE 4
CENTER-LANC BRT WTTH LIFT
SIDE BOARDING AND SINGLE
MfDUN
IM
(COM
jAAIOa,
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Operation
Greenhouse Cas
Emissions
Cumulative
Biological
Environment
Construction
No impact.
The proposed proiect would decrease automobile VMT and associated greenhouse gas emissions
compared to baseline conditions, and it would cause a beneficial global warming impact.
No impact.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
No impact.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
No impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2
No impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
No impact.
Same as Build
No cumulative
impacts.
No cumulative impacts. Transit proiects. like the proposed proiect. reduce the volume of cars resulting in
overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
No cumulative impacts.
No cumulative impacts.
No cumulative
impacts.
No cumulative
impacts.
No o— -at <»
impacts.
Biological
Environment
Operation
Less than significant impact with mitigation.
Less than significant impacts to trees and nesting birds would result from temporary construction activity
the disturbance of bird nests during breeding season. Mitigation measures will avoid disturbance of
protected bird nests during breeding season, and require measures to preserve tree health during
construction. Mitigation measures are required to address potential impacts to trees and nesting birds
during project construction.
Mitigation Measures:
M-BI-Ci: Best Management Practices (BMPs) identified in tree protection plans and tree removal permits
resulting from the preconstruction tree survey will be implemented to preserve the health of trees during
project construction.
M-BI-C2: Disturbance of protected bird nests during the breeding season will be avoided. Tree and shrub
removal will be scheduled during the non-breeding season (i.e.. September 1 through January 31), as feasible.
If tree and shrub removal are required to occur during the breeding season (i.e.. February 1 through August
31), then the following measures will be implemented to avoid potential adverse effects to nesting birds:
A qualified wildlife biologist will conduct preconstruction surveys of all potential nesting habitats within
500 feet of construction activities where access is available. Exclusionary structures (e.g., netting or plastic
sheeting) may be used to discourage the construction of nests by birds within the project construction
zone. A preconstruction survey of all accessible nesting habitats within 500 feet of construction activities is
required to occur no more than 2 weeks prior to construction.
If preconstruction surveys conducted no more than 2 weeks prior to construction identify that protected
nests are inactive or potential habitat is unoccupied during the construction period, then no further
mitigation is required. Trees and shrubs within the construction footprint that have been determined to be
unoccupied by protected birds or that are located outside the no-disturbance buffer for active nests may
be removed.
If active protected nests are found during preconstruction surveys, then the project proponent will create a
no-disturbance buffer (acceptable in size to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW])
around active protected bird and/or raptor nests during the breeding season, or until it is determined that
all young have fledged. Typical buffers include 500 feet for raptors and 50 feet for passerine nesting birds.
The size of these buffer zones and types of construction activities restricted in these areas may be further
modified during consultation with CDFW. and it will be based on existing noise and human disturbance
levels at the project site. Nests initiated during construction are presumed to be unaffected, and no buffer
will be necessary; however the "take" (e.g., mortality, severe disturbance to) of any individual protected
birds will be prohibited. Monitoring of active nests when construction activities encroach upon
established buffers may be required by CDFW.
Less than significant impact
with mitigation.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Less than significant impact
with mitigation.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Less than significant Less than significant Less » J j gaj
impact with mitigation. impact with impact with
Same as Build mitigation. mitigation.
Alternative 2. Same as Build Same as Build
Alternative 2. Alternative 2.
The summary of
mpacts and mmgauon <„ theLW^^
Less than significant impact.
Less than significant impacts would result from removal of existing trees and landscaping. Build
Alternative 2 would result in the removal of some median and sidewalk trees within the project limits
Replacement trees would be planted. Benefits of mature tree canopies would be reduced until new
plantings mature, and replacement trees would not offer the same width canopy of many existing trees
Zv m °CS Clearance '"laments. T"e project would offset these impacts by planting more trees in
e van Ness corridor than currently present, resulting in less than significant impacts.
Improvement Measures:
Potential disturbance to migratory birds during project construction and tree removal is discussed in
a on 4-15-". Construction Impacts. To minimize impacts from removal of existing trees and
Less than significant impact.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Replacement trees would be
planted in the median. Sidewalk
trees would not be affected under
this alternative. Benefits of
mature tree canopies would be
reduced until new plantings
mature, and replacement trees
would not offer the same width
canopy of many existing trees due
Less than significant impact.
Same as Build Alternative 3.
litigation that would pertain to the LPA with or without incomoratinn „f .u. w 11 — ZZ 77 — I TT~ 7~.
urn incorporation ol the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant into the project design.
Less than significant
impact
Build Alternative 4
would result in the
removal of
approximately 64
median trees, or 15
percent of median
trees within the project
limits. Sidewalk trees
would not be affected.
Less than significant
impact.
Same as Build
Alternative^.
Less than significant
impact.
The LPA would
result in the removal
of approximately 90
median trees, or 82
percent of median
trees within the
project limits-
Approximatery 95
new median trees
f r.nc.KO Count, Transportation Author,!,
M» 201J
Executive Summary
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Pepor*
Table So: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
ENVIRONMENTAL AREA/
IMPACTS
NO-BUILD
ALTERNATIVE
8UILD ALTERNATIVE 2;
SIDE-LANE BRT WITH STREET PARKING
BUILD ALTERNATIVE j:
CENTER-LANE BRT WITH RIGHT-SIDE
BOARDING AND DUAL MEDIANS
-^dTZI^g the following improvement measures and permit requirements would be incorporated into
project design for each build alternative, including Design Option B:
IM-BI-r In compliance with local tree protection policies, mature trees shall be preserved and
incorporated into the project landscape plan as feasible. Planting of replacement trees and landscaping
will be incorporated into the landscape plan as feasible (also refer to mitigation measure M-AE-3,
addressing aesthetic/visual impacts).
IM-BI-2' A certified arborist will complete a preconstruction tree survey to identify protected trees that will
be potentially impacted by the proposed project, and to determine the need for tree removal permits and
tree protection plans under San Francisco Public Works Code requirements.
IM-BI-3: In compliance with the Executive Order on Invasive Species, E.O. 13112, the landscaping included
in the proposed project would not use species listed as noxious weeds.
to the OCS clearance
requirements. The project would
offset these impacts by planting
more trees in the Van Ness
corridor than currently present,
and implementation of
Improvement Measures IM-BI-i,
IM-BI-2 and IM-BI-3 listed under
Build Alternative 2, resulting in
less than significant impacts.
BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4:
CENTER-LANE BRT WITH LEFT-
SIDE BOARDING AND SINGLE
MEDIAN
Replacement trees
would be planted.
Benefits of mature tree
canopies would be
reduced until new
plantings mature, and
replacement trees
would not offer the
same width canopy of
many existing trees
due to the OCS
clearance
requirements. The
project would offset
these impacts by
planting more trees in
the Van Ness corridor
than currently present,
and implementation of
Improvement
Measures IM-BI-i, IM-
BI-2 and IM-BI-3 listed
under Build Alternative
2, resulting in less than
significant impacts.
[COMBINES ALTERNATIVES
3 AND 4)'
would be planted.
Sidewalk trees would
not be affected.
Benefits of mature
tree canopies would
be reduced until new
plantings mature,
and replacement
trees would not
offer the same width
canopy of many
existing trees due to
the OCS clearance
requirements. The
project would offset
these impacts by
planting more trees
in the Van Ness
corridor than
currently present,
and implementation
of Improvement
Measures IM-BI-i,
IM-BI-2 and IM-BI-3
listed under Build
Alternative 2,
resulting in less
than significant
impacts.
Biological
Environment
No cumulative
impacts.
No cumulative impacts.
No cumulative impacts.
No cumulative impacts.
No cumulative
impacts.
No cumulative
impacts.
No cumulative
impacts.
Cultural Resources
Construction
The summary of 11
No impact. Less than significant impact with mitigation.
Less than significant impacts would occur to significant historic and architectural properties. Excavation work
would occur within the Van Ness Avenue ROW, where there is a low probability of uncovering significant
archaeological deposits. Implementation of mitigation measures is required to address potential impacts
to archaeological resources and human remains that may be encountered during project construction.
Mitigation Measures:
M-CP-Ci: Focused archival research will identify specific areas within the APE that are likely to contain
potentially significant remains. Methods and findings will be documented as an addendum to the 2009
survey and sensitivity assessment (Byrd eta/., 2013). Research will be initiated once the project's APE map
is finalized identifying the major Areas of Direct Impact (i.e., the stations and sewer relocation). Many
documents, maps, and drawings cover long stretches of Van Ness Avenue, while other locations may be
researched if documents indicate potential sensitivity in adjacent areas.
The Addendum Survey Report will include the following:
• A contextual section that addresses the development of urban infrastructure along Van Ness Avenue
as well as widening and grading activities along the thoroughfare. This overview will provide a basis for
evaluating potential resources as they relate to the history of San Francisco and to its infrastructure.
• Documentary research that identifies the types of documents available for the identified station
locations: street profiles for grading, street widening maps showing demolished building sites utility
work plans, and others as appropriate. This will include researching various archives and records of
public agencies in both San Francisco and Oakland (Caltrans).
Less than significant impact
with mitigation.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Less than significant impact
with mitigation.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact with mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact with
mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact with
mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
.pacts and mitigation for the LPA includes all impacts and mi„ga,ion that would pertain ,0 the LPA with or w„hou, incorporation of the Vallejo Northed Station Vanant ,n,o the project design.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Table S-i: Summary
of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
BUR.D ALTERNATIVE *
POC^ANC BRT WW ST»*rT RARtiNC
• > NA I i . l
"» «« B»T WITH RIGHT SIDE
BOARDINC AND DUAL MEDIANS
. Locations apt to have historic remains present within selecl areas of the APE (i.e., not removed by later
grading or construction).
. A cut-and-fiM reconstruction of the entire APE corridor, comparing the modern versus midi8oos
ground surface elevations, to fine-tune the initial prehistoric sensitivity assessment, and refine the
location of high-sensitivity locations where prehistoric remains may be preserved.
• Relevant profiles and plan views of specific blocks to illustrate the methods used in analyzing available
documentation.
• Summary and conclusions to provide detailed information on locations that have the potential to
contain extant prehistoric archaeological and historic-era remains that might be evaluated as significant
resources, if any.
Two results are possible based on documentary research:
• No or Low Potential for Sensitive Locations - Major Areas of Direct Impact have no potential to retain
extant archaeological remains that could be evaluated as significant resources. No further work would
be recommended, beyond adherence to the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (M-CP-3).
• Potentially Sensitive Locations - If the ma|or Areas of Direct Impact contain locations with a moderate
to high potential to retain extant historic or prehistoric archaeological remains that could be evaluated
as significant resources, further work would be carried out. detailed in a Testing and Treatment Plan
(see M-CP-2).
The Phase I addendum report will be submitted to the SHPO for review and concurrence prior to initiation
of construction.
M-CP-C2: The Testing/Treatment plan, if required, would provide archaeological protocols to be
employed immediately prior to project construction to test areas identified as potentially significant or
having the potential to contain buried cultural resources. If such areas might be unavoidable, mitigation
measures would be proposed.
For historic-era resources, work would initially entail detailed, focused documentary research to evaluate
the potential significance of any archaeological material identified during initial research that might be
preserved. Significance would be based on the data-potential of possible remains applied to accepted
research designs. Two results could ensue:
• No Potentially Significant Remains. If no locations demonstrate the potential for significant remains,
no further archaeological testing would be recommended.
• Potentially Significant Remains. If any locations have the potential to contain significant remains, then
appropriate field methods will be proposed, including compressed testing and data-recovery efforts.
Testing will be initiated immediately prior to construction, when there is access to historic ground levels.
• Should a site or site feature be found and evaluated as potentially significant, mitigation in the form of
data recovery will take place immediately upon discovery should avoidance of the site not be possible.
If required for prehistoric resources, a Treatment Plan would identify relevant research issues for resource
evaluation, and pragmatic field methods to identify, evaluate, and conduct data recovery if needed. This
could include a pre-construction geoarchaeological coring program or a compressed three-phase field
effort occurring prior to construction, when the ground surface is accessible.
The procedures detailed in the Treatment Plan would be finalized in consultation with the SHPO.
A Phase 2 Test/Phase 3 Mitigation report will document all testing and data-recovery excavation methods
and findings.
M-CP-C3: If buried cultural resources are encountered during construction activities, pursuant to 36 CFR
800.13. construction would be halted and the discovery area isolated and secured until a qualified
professional archaeologist assesses the nature and significance of the find. Unusual, rare, or unique
finds— particularly artifacts or features not found during data recovery— could require additional study
Examples of these would include the following:
• Any bone that cannot immediately be identified as non-human
• Any types of intact features (e.g., hearths, house floors, cache pits, structural foundations)
•^Artifact caches or concentrations
BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4:
CENTER-LANE BRT WTTM LEFT-
SIDE BOARDING AND SINGLE
MEDIAN
TV wnmr, of impacts and m,t,ga„on for the LpA .
ndudes all impacs and m,„gatlon that wou|d pertain to the LPA with or without incorporation of the V.ll.jo Northbound Station Variant into the pro,ect design.
S*. '-~>~» C*,nt, T-nIporULloo Authority | |uly 201J
S-«>
Executive Summary
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
TaS!summa^
ENVIRONMENTAL AREA/
IMPACTS
BUILD ALTERNATIVE &
SIDE-LANE BUT WITH STREET PARKING
BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3:
CENTER-LANE BRT WITH RIGHT-SIDE
BOARDING AND DUAL MEDIANS
BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4:
CENTER-LANE BRT WITH LEFT-
SIDE BOARDING AND SINGLE
MEDIAN
-T^— ^i^s (i.e.. engraved or incised stone or bone, beads or ornaments, m, s^^Tt, fact )
. Archaeological remains that are redundant with materials collected during teis'ing0^a;a/!C°Vel"
fh at v m n rnal data potential need not be formally investigated. This could include debitage, most
naked or gZnd tools, with .he excepts of diagnostic or unique items (e.g., pro,ec.ile points.
crescents)' shell' non-human bone; charcoal; and other plant remains.
. Diagnostic and unique artifacts unearthed during construction would be collected and their origins
noted ^fac, concentrations and other features would be photographed, flotation/soils/radiocarbon
samples taken (as appropriate), and locations mapped using a CPS device.
Upon discovery of deposits that may constitute a site, the agency official shall notify the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) and any Indian tribe that might attach religious and cultural s.gn.f.cance to
the affected property. The notification shall describe the agency official's assessment of National Register
Zibility of .he property and proposed actions to resolve the adverse effects (if any). The SHPO, Indian
tribe and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (the Council) shall respond within 48 hours of the
notification The agency official shall take into account their recommendations regarding National Register
eligibility and proposed actions, and then carry out appropriate actions. The agency official shall provide
the SHPO, Indian tribe, and the Council a report of the actions when they are completed.
The above activities could be carried out quickly and efficiently, with as little delay as possible to
construction work.
The methods and results of any excavations would be documented, with photographs, in an Addendum
Report. Any artifacts collected would be curated along with the main collection. Samples would be
processed in a lab and analyzed, or curated with the collection for future studies, at the discretion of the
project proponent.
If major adjustments are made to the final project design, a qualified professional archaeologist should be
consulted before work begins, to determine whether additional survey, research, and/or geoarchaeological
assessments are needed.
M-CP-C4: If human remains are discovered during project construction, the stipulations provided under
Section 7050.5 of the State Health and Safety Code will be followed. The San Francisco County coroner
would be notified as soon as is reasonably possible (CEQA Section 15064.5). There would be no further site
disturbance where the remains were found, and all construction work would be halted within 100 feet of the
discovery. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner is responsible for contacting
the California Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Commission, pursuant to
California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 would notify those persons it believes to be the most
likely descendants (MLD). Treatment of the remains would be dependent on the views of the MLD.
(COMBINES ALTERNATIVES
} AND 4|'
Cultural Resources No impact. Less than significant impact.
Operation Less than significant impacts would occur to significant historic and architectural properties. No impacts
to archaeological resources would result during project operation. Mitigation measures M-AE-2, M-AE-3,
M AE-5, and M-AE-6, presented in Section 4.4.4 and in this table under Aesthetics/Visual Resources,
ensure compatibility of the BRT project with historic elements such as the Civic Center Historic District.
Less than significant impact.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Less than significant impact.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Cultural Resources
Cumulative
No cumulative
impacts.
Nocumulative impacts.
No cumulative impacts.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
No cumulative impacts.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Section 4(f)
Resources
Construction
No cumulative
impacts.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
No cumulative
impacts.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
No cumulative
impacts.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
No direct or No direct or temporary use.
constructive use, project construction would not result in direct or constructive use of Section 4(f) resources.
No direct or constructive use.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
No direct or constructive use.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Section 4(f)
Resources
Operation
No direct or No direct or constructive use-
constructive use. The proposed project wou,d n0, resu|( m d|rect usg Qf construct|ve uJe of Section ^ resources
No direct or
constructive use.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
No direct or
constructive use.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
No direct or
constructive use.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
No direct or constructive use. No direct or constructive use.
Same as Build Alternative 2. Same as Build Alternative 2.
The summary of impacts and mitigation for the LPA includes all impacts and mitigation that would pertain to the LPA with
No direct or
constructive use.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
No direct or
constructive use.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
No direct or
constructive use.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
or without incorporation of the Valle,o Northbound Station Variant into the pro,ect de
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Im Thau* *mrci
Tab*e S-i: Summary
of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
•UHO UTfUMATnt i
SKX-ULNE MT *1TH STRfTT AARA1NC
BUILD ALTERNATIVE 1
CENTER LANE BITT WITH RIGHT SIOE
BOARDING AND DUAL MEDIANS
BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4
CENTER- LANE RAT WTTH LIFT-
SIDE BOARDING AND SINGLE
MEDIAN
LM
COM
• •»-..«
Secnoo 4(fl
Resources
Ho jBIBPBCl
No impact.
No impact.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
No impact.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
No impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
No impact
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
A •»-'*- .» >
Geology /Soils/
SeisiT»crty/
Topography
*w Tic:
Less than significant impact with mitigation.
Mitigation measures are required to avoid slope instability impacts during protect construction.
Mitigation Measures:
M-CE-Ci: All cuts deeper than 5 feet must be shored (ACS. 2009a). Shoring design of open excavations
must be completed In consideration of the surcharge load from nearby structures, including an examination
of the potential for lateral movement of the excavation walls as a result. The following construction BMPs
related to shonng and slope stability will be implemented:
• Heavy construction equipment, building materials, excavated soil, and vehicle traffic shall be kept away
from the edge of excavations, generally a distance equal to or greater than the depth of the excavation.
• During wet weather, storm runoff shall be prevented from entering the excavation. Excavation sidewalls can
be covered with plastic sheeting, and berms can be placed around the perimeter of the excavated areas
• Sidewalks, slabs, pavement, and utilities ad|acent to proposed excavations shall be adequately
supported during construction.
I ess than significant impact
with mitigation.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Less than significant impact
with mitigation
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact with mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Less thar siz^ f '.i-:
impact with
mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
impact with
Same as 3^: C
Alternative 2.
Ceology/Soils/ No impact No impact.
Seismictty/ The project would not result in soil erosion, and project design would avoid potential seismic hazards.
Topography There are no substantial geologic hazard impacts that would not be fully addressed by design requirements.
Operation Improvement Measures:
IM-CE-i: Localized soil modification treatments will be performed as needed at locations where station
platforms would be located in areas of fill or areas mapped as a liquefaction area. Such soil modification
may include soil vibro-compaction or permeation grouting.
IM-GE-2: Fill soils will be overexcavated and replaced with engineered fill as needed in areas where
proposed project structures would be located in areas of fill or in liquefaction zones.
IM-GE-3: Deeper foundations will be designed for station platforms and canopies located in areas of fill or
areas mapped as a liquefaction area, as needed.
No impact.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
No impact.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
No impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
No impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
' ■ : ~ : ■ ■-.
- :e"=: .5 ;
Geology/Soils/
Seisin icfty/
Topography
Cumulative
No cumulative
impacts.
No cumulative impacts.
No cumulative impacts.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
No c u mulative impacts
Same as Build Alternative 2.
No cumulative
impacts.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
No cumulative
impacts.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
No ^ a: .e
Sa~-e as 8- z
AJternatrve 2.
Hazardous Waste/
Materials
Construction
W Vj-wur, of mpjeti ,n<J
No impact. Less than significant impact with mitigation.
Mitigation measures are required to avoid and minimize hazardous materials exposure during project
construction.
Mitigation Measures:
M-HZ-Cl: A Worker Site Health and Safety Plan will be created with the following components, in
response to potential recognized environmental conditions (RECs) identified in the Phase II review or
other follow-up investigations, and results from preconstruction lead-based paint LBP and aerially
deposited lead (ADL) surveys specified in Sections 4.8.3 and 4.8.4:
• A safety and health risk/hazards analysis for each site task and operation in the work plan;
• Employee training assignments;
• Personal protective equipment requirements;
• Medical surveillance requirements;
• Air monitoring, environmental sampling techniques, and instrumentation;
' mclud'nT d'SP0Sal meaSUr" f°r encountered contaminated soil, groundwater, or debris
including temporary storage locations, labeling, and containment procedures
* Emergency response plan; and
Less than significant impact
with mitigation.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Less than significant impact
with mitigation.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact with mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact with
mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
mitigaoon.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
"litigation for
the LPA includes all impacts and mitigation that would pertain ,0 .he LPA with or without incorporation of
the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant into the project design
^'•^wCaJwmjfTr.otpofUUon Authority | July 2013
Executive Summary
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
S U M tVI A R Y
BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3:
CENTER-LANE BRTWITH RIGHT-SIDE
BOARDING AND DUAL MEDIANS
BUILD ALTERNATIVE j
WITH DESIGN OPTION 8
BUILO ALTERNATIVE 4:
CENTER-LANE BRTWITH LEFT
SIDE BOARDING AND SINGLE
MEDIAN
(COMBINES ALTERNATIVES
3 AND 4)'
Hazardous Waste/
Materials
Hazardous Waste/
Materials
Cumulative
No c umul.ilivc
impacts.
Water Quality
and Hydrology
Construction
No impact
M SZIX included in the pro,ect Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SW,
luir an , o fb contamination, including protection of storm drains, and to prevent, any
'eabge either into or onto exposed ground surfaces, as specified ,n SectK
Hydrology and Water Quality Construction Impacts.
M-HZ-C3: Necessary public health and safety measures will be implemented during construction
No impact I ess than significant impact with mitigation.
Mitigation measures acquired to reduce or eliminate hazardous materials-related impacts from ADL.
LBP and nearby database listed, hazardous materials sites.
Mitigation Measures:
M-HZ-i: Phase II review, or follow-up investigation, for identified recognized environmental conditions
(RECs) will be conducted prior to construction, including:
. Field surveys of identified RECs to verify the physical locations of the REC sites with respect to the
preferred build alternative project components and proposed construction earthwork, and observe the
current conditions of the sites.
. A regulatory file review for each identified REC to determine the current status of the sites and, if
possible, the extent of the contamination.
If the aforementioned field survey and file review reveal a likelihood of encountering contaminated soil or
groundwater during project construction, then a subsurface exploration will be conducted within the areas
proposed for construction earthwork activities. The subsurface investigation will be conducted within the
project limits, adjacent to, or downgradient from the REC sites. If soil profiling reveals contaminant
concentrations that meet the definition of hazardous materials, then the project contractor will be
required to address the management of various hazardous materials and wastes in the Construction
Implementation Plan, consistent with the federal and state of California requirements pertaining to
hazardous materials and wastes management.
M-HZ-2: Soils in landscaped medians that will be disturbed by project activities will be tested for ADL
according to applicable hazardous material testing guidelines. If the soil contains extractible lead
concentrations that meet the definition of hazardous materials, then a Lead Compliance Plan to be approved
by Caltrans will be required prior to the start of construction or soil-disturbance activities. If lead levels present
in surface soils reach concentrations in excess of the hazardous waste threshold, then onsite stabilization or
disposal at a Class l landfill may be required, which will be specified in the Lead Compliance Plan.
M-HZ-3: Paint used for traffic lane striping and on streetscape features, including the OCS support
poles/streetlights, will be tested for LBP prior to demolition/removal to determine proper handling and
disposal methods during project construction. If lead is detected, then appropriate procedures will be included
in the Construction Implementation Plan to avoid contact with these materials or generation of dust or vapors.
Less than significant impact
with mitigation.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Less than significant impact
with mitigation.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact with mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact with
mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact with
mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Less than significant impact with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures M-HZ-Ci through M-HZ-C3 would avoid significant, cumulative impacts from
hazardous materials exposure during construction of the proposed project and other planned proiects i
the vicinity.
Less than significant impact
with mitigation.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Less than significant impact
with mitigation.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact with mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Less than significant impacts.
Compliance with permit requirements and standard best practices would avoid significant impacts to
water quality during construction.
Improvement Measures:
IM-HY-O: Preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) during
foX TTTol W'" T'T" °r aV0'd S'gnifiCant lmp3CtS t0 water Completion of an SWPPP
or National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Perm,, w.H be required for
™,,on of each build alternative and for earthwork activities under the No Build Alternative such as
he OCS support pole/streetlight replacement and repaving activities. The SWPPP will address water
_3HteH£tL«SM^ with construction activities, including identification of all drainage facilities
ie LPA include all Imnifl. 1 .l ,. . " s
Less than significant
impact with
mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact with
mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Less than significant impacts.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Less than significant impacts.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impacts.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impacts.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impacts.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
The summary of impacts and mitigation for the LPA mrl A „ -"'""»■ ""-luomg .oenmicat.on ot all drainage facilities
..gationformeLPAincludesall^^
San Francisco County Transportation Authority ! July 2013
Tabie St: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
BUU.0 AlTWUTTVt »
S»DE UNI KT WITH STWET RARXINC
BUILD ALTERNATIVI 1:
CENTSRLANE HKT WITH RIGHT. SIDE
BOARDING AND DUAL MEDIANS
BUILD ALTERNATIVE 41
C E NT EH- LAN E BAT WTTH LEFT
SIDE BOARDING ANO SINCU
MEDIAN
onsite placement of appropriate stormwater and non-stormwater pollution controls and best
management practices (BMPs). erosion and sediment control, spill response and containment plans,
inspection scheduling, maintenance, and training of all construction personnel onsite.
The SWPPP will specify how construction-related stormwater impacts can be mitigated throughout the
project site through practices such as:
• The appropriate treatment of overflow stormwater during construction, including inlet protection
devices, temporary silt fencing, soil stabilization measures, street sweeping, stabilized construction
entrances, and temporary check dams.
• Lining storage areas.
. Proper and expeditious disposal of items to be removed, such as landscaping, curb bulb waste, existing
bus stop shelters, and demolished OCS support poles/streetlights and signal poles.
IM-HY-C2: Any construction work that impacts the combined sewer system (CSS) will require
coordination with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), and construction-related
activities shall conform to the "Keep it on Site" guide (SFPUC. 2009).
IM-HY-C3: If groundwater is encountered during project excavation activities, the water will be pumped
from the excavated area and contained and treated in accordance with all applicable State and federal
regulations before being discharged to the existing local CSS. A batch discharge permit from SFPUC will be
required prior to commencement of discharge to the CSS.
No impact.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
No impact.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Water Quality No impact. No impact.
and Hydrology The project would slightly increase pervious surface area and improve drainage and runoff water quality.
Operation Improvement Measures:
IM-HY-i: Landscape areas provided by the project will be designed to minimize and reduce total runoff.
The overuse of water and/or fertilizers on landscaped areas will be avoided.
IM-HY-2: Opportunities to incorporate stormwater management tools set forth in the San Francisco
Better Streets P/anwiH be investigated for implementation as project design progresses. Streetscape
geometry, topography, soil type and compaction, groundwater depth, subsurface utility locations, building
laterals, maintenance costs and safety, and pedestrian accessibility will be ma|or considerations in
determining the feasibility of implementing stormwater management tools. Permeable paving, infiltration
planters, swales, and rain gardens will be considered.
IM-HY-3: In compliance with the City Integrated Pest Management Policy (City Municipal Code. Section
300). prevention and non-chemical control methods will be employed in maintaining landscaping in the
Van Ness Avenue corridor, including monitoring for pests before treating, and using the least-hazardous
chemical pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers only when needed and as a last resort.
IM-HY-4: Proposed BRT stations will be equipped with trash receptacles to minimize the miscellaneous
waste that may enter the storm drain system and clog storm drains or release pollutants.
No impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
No impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Sa—e as 3- -
Alternative 2-
Water Quality
and Hydrology
Cumulative
No cumulative
impacts.
Land Use
Less than significant impact. Less than significant impact.
Compliance with permit requirements and standard best practices would avoid significant cumulative Same as Build Alternative 2.
impacts to water quality during construction of the proposed project and other planned projects in the
vicinity.
Less than significant impact.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
^ess :-a- 5 ~;a-:
— ra;:
$a~e 35 =_ -
Alternative 2.
Land Use
No impact. Less than significant imoact , .l r
6 f Less than significant impact
Construction would not change land uses or displace properties. Construction planning would minimize Same as Build Alternative 2.
nighttime construction in residential areas and daytime construction in retail and commercial areas as
part of the Traffic Management Plan (TMP) implementation. The temporary removal of colored parking
spaces during project construction is discussed under Community Impacts - Construction below
Less than significant impact.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Less than TiBrmBrmt
impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
No impacts
No impacts
No impacts
No impacts
No impacts
No impacts
No impacts
Land Use
1 j >: /»
No cumulative
impacts.
No cumulative impacts
No cumulative impacts.
No cumulative impacts.
Thesummao; of
""pacts and mitigation for
the LPA includes all impacts and mitigation that would pertain to the LPA with or without
No cumulative
impacts.
No cumulative
impacts.
No cumLBTHrit
impacts-
ncorporation of the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant into the project design.
> 'wm County Trj,«po,OIlon Authority ! Jul, 2013
£*ecutive Summary
Van Nets Avenue Bui Sapid Tfawf ?'Oj*&
Final Environment*' Impact StaK*w<wf/
Environmental Impact Report
Table S-i: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
ENVIRONMENTAL ARIA/
BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3:
CENTER-LANE BRT WITH RIGHT-SIDE
BOARDING AND DUAL MEDIANS
BUILD ALTERNATIVE .',
CENTERLANE BRT WITH LEFT-
SIDE BOARDINC AND SINGLE
MEDIAN
)UtOt)
Noise and Vibration No impact.
Construction
Less than significant impacts.
Increases in noise and vibration at some locations would be temporary and are thus considered a less
than significant impact. Pro|ect construction would comply with the City Noise Ordinance.
Improvement Measures:
Mitigation measure M-CI-C6 presented in Section 4.15 and in this table under Community Impacts
provides a program for accepting and addressing noise and other complaints during project construction.
To further reduce noise and vibration impacts during construction, the following best practices, identified
as improvement measures, would be implemented:
IM-NO-Ci: Project construction will implement best practices in equipment noise and vibration control as
feasible, including the following:
• Use newer equipment with improved noise muffling and ensure that all equipment items have the
manufacturers' recommended noise abatement measures, such as mufflers, engine covers, and engine
vibration isolators intact and operational. Newer equipment will generally be quieter in operation than
older equipment. All construction equipment should be inspected at periodic intervals to ensure proper
maintenance and presence of noise control devices (e.g., mufflers and shrouding).
• Perform all construction in a manner that minimizes noise and vibration. Utilize construction methods
or equipment that will provide the lowest level of noise and ground vibration impact.
• Turn off idling equipment.
• When possible, limit the use of construction equipment that creates high vibration levels, such as
vibratory rollers and hammers. When such equipment must be used within 25 feet of any existing
building, select equipment models that generate lower vibration levels.
• Restrict the hours of vibration-intensive equipment or activities, such as vibratory rollers, so that
annoyance to residents is minimal (e.g., limit to daytime hours as defined in the noise ordinance).
IM-NO-C2: Project construction will conduct truck loading, unloading, and hauling operations so that
noise and vibration are kept to a minimum by carefully selecting routes to avoid passing through
residential neighborhoods to the greatest possible extent.
IM-NO-C3: Perform independent noise and vibration monitoring in sensitive areas as needed to
demonstrate compliance with applicable noise limits. Require contractors to modify and/or reschedule their
construction activities if monitoring determines that maximum limits are exceeded at residential land uses per the
City Noise Ordinance.
IM-NO-C4: The construction contractor will be required by contract specification to comply with the City
noise ordinances and obtain all necessary permits, particularly in relation to nighttime construction work.
Less than significant impacts.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Less than significant impacts.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impacts.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Less than significant Less tha- s z- ''ca't
impacts. impacts.
Same as Build Same as Build
Alternative 2. Alternative 2.
Noise and Vibration
No impact.
No impact.
No impact.
No impact.
No impact.
No impact.
No impact
Operation
1
BRT operation would not increase noise and vibration; it would operate a less noisy fleet of diesel-electric
hybrid and electric-powered vehicles than exists today. Noise levels along Van Ness Avenue and the
parallel Franklin and Cough streets would remain below FTA and Caltrans impact criteria.
Improvement Measure:
IM-NO-i: Upkeep of roadway surface will be maintained throughout project operation to avoid increases
in BRT noise and vibration levels.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Noise and Vibration
No cumulative
Less than significant impact.
Less than significant impact.
Less than significant impact.
Less than significant
Less than significant
Less than sign:*~ca-:
Cumulative
impacts.
Control measures IM-NO-Ci through IM-NO-C4 would be implemented to minimize noise and vibration
disturbances at sensitive areas during construction. Project construction would comply with the City
Noise Ordinance to avoid significant impacts during construction of the proposed project and other
planned projects in the vicinity. Construction phasing would be coordinated with these projects to
minimize construction-related impacts to sensitive receptors.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Population and
Housing/Growth
Construction
No impact.
No impact.
Project construction would not lead to unplanned growth in the Van Ness Avenue corridor or the larger
region, nor would it displace housing.
No impact.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
No impact.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
No impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
No impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
No impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
The summary of impacts and mitigation for the LPA includes all impacts and mit.gation that would pertain to the LPA with or without incorporation of the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant Into the project design
San Francisco County Transportation Author. r» |uH mi)
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Executive Summary
Table Si: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
ENVIRONMENTAL AKAJ
IMPACTS
Population and
Housing/Growth
Operation
Population and
Housing/Growth
Cumulative
BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3:
CENTER-LANE BRT WITH RIGHT-SIDE
BOARDING AND DUAL MEDIANS
BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4:
CENTER-LANE BRT WITH LEFT-
SIDE 8OARDINC AND SINGLE
MEDIAN
BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4
WITH DESIGN OPTION B
{COMBINES ALTERNATIVES
3 AND 4)
No impact. No impact.
The project would not lead to unplanned growth in the Van Ness Avenue corridor or larger region, nor
would it displace housing. ^
No impact.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
No impact.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
No impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
No impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
No impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
No cumulative
impacts.
No cumulative impacts.
No cumulative impacts.
No cumulative impacts.
No cumulative
impacts.
No cumulative
impacts.
No cumulative
impacts.
Public Services No impact. Less than significant impact with mitigation.
Construction L«s than significant impacts to public services would result from construction activities, such as
temporary rerouting and loss of on-street parking. No sidewalk closures would be required. These impacts
would cause temporary inconvenience to area residents, businesses, and people traveling-through the
corridor. Mitigation measures M-CI-Ci through M-CI-C7, described in this table under Community
Impacts, would minimize impacts to Civic Center facilities and other public services during project
construction.
Less than significant impact
with mitigation.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Less than significant impact
with mitigation.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact with mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact with
mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact with
mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Public Services No impact. No impact.
Operation The BRT would not result in the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities and would not
hinder service rations and response times. The project would benefit community facilities with improved
transit access.
No impact.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
No impact.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
No impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
No impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
No impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Public Services No cumulative Less than significant impact with mitigation.
Cumulative impacts. Mitigation Measures M-CI-Ci through M-CI-C7, described in this table under Community Impacts, would
lessen potentially significant, cumulative impacts to community facilities and government services during
construction of the proposed project and other planned projects in the vicinity.
Less than significant impact
with mitigation.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Less than significant impact
with mitigation.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact with mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact with
mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact with
mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Transportation
and Circulation
Construction
Less than significant impact
with mitigation.
Same as Build Alternative 2,
except a contraflow lane system
would not be required for Build
Alternative 3; therefore,
Mitigation Measure M-TR-C2
would not apply.
No impact. Less than significant impact with mitigation.
Circulation impacts during construction due to lane closures, short-term detours, and reduced speeds
would be temporary and are considered a less than significant impact with implementation of mitigation
measures. All construction activity will be carried out in compliance and accordance with the California
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), and applicable regulations of the SFPUC and San
Francisco Department of Public Works (SFDPW) Bureau of Street Use and Mapping (BSM), and SFMTA
Regulations for Working in San Francisco Streets Blue Book.
Mitigation Measures:
M-TR-Ci: Temporary conversion of parking lanes to mixed-flow traffic lanes will be implemented to
generally maintain two open traffic lanes in each direction and minimize traffic impacts.
M-TR-C2: A contraflow lane system, including elimination of left turns in either direction along Van Ness
Avenue, will be implemented during daytime construction under Build Alternative 2 to enable two lanes of
mixed-flow traffic to generally remain open in each direction during construction and minimize traffic
congestion on Van Ness Avenue. Appropriate signage and temporary traffic signals will be used to guide
drivers, augmented by flagmen as needed.
M-TR-C3: Plan required closures of a second mixed-flow traffic lane and detours for nighttime or off-peak
traffic hours as feasible, and as in conformance with approved noise requirements.
M-TR-C4: Maintain one east-west and north-south crosswalk leg open at all times at all intersections.
M-TR-C5: Install sufficient barricading, signage, and temporary walkways as needed to minimize impacts
to pedestrians and bicyclists. v
M-TR-C6: SFMTA will coordinate with CGT as part of the Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to plan
temporarily relocated transit stops as needed, and minimize impacts to CGT service
M-TR-C7: Implement a TMP to minimize delay and inconvenience to the traveling public including a
el tT, Ta"°n Pf0gram Wayfndmg 10 pr°V'de '0Cal bu5lness« and -^ents with information
Sao r„nclsco County Transporter, Authority I July 20.3
Less than significant impact
with mitigation.
Same as Build Alternative 3
without Design Option B.
Less than significant
impact with mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 3.
Less than significant
impact with
mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 3 with
Design Option B.
Less than significant
impact with
mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 3.
S-15
Cwcutiv* Summary
Van Nest Avenue Bus SapHf Tf*
F«nal Enyironmentjt ltr*p*ct
Table S-i: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
iwwwnni «Uj
Transportation
and Circulation
Operation
No impact. Significant impact (to traffic). '
The project would not significantly impact traffic conditions on Van Ness Avenue. Traffic congestion on
streets parallel to Van Ness Avenue would receive increased traffic that has diverted from Van Ness
Avenue. Traffic impact significance findings for the near-term and horizon years follow.
Less than significant impact (to traffic).
Less than significant vehicular traffic circulation impacts would result in Year 2015 at the following
intersection:
• Cough/Green
• South Van Ness/Mission/Otis and Duboce/Mission/Otis/US 101 Off-Ramp
Less than significant vehicular traffic circulation impacts would result in Year 2035 at the following
intersections:
• Cough/Green
• Gough/Clay
• Mission/South Van Ness/Otis
• Mission/Duboce/Otis/US 101 Off-Ramps
• Van Ness/Pine
Significant impact ftp traffic). 2
Significant impacts that may not be mitigated would result in Year 2015 at the following intersections:
• Gough/Hayes
• Franklin/O'Farrell
Significant impacts that may not be mitigated would result in Year 2035 at the following intersections:
• Gough/Hayes
• Franklin/Pine
• Franklin/O'Farrell
• Franklin/Eddy
• Franklin/ McAllister
Mitigation Measures
M-Traffic Management Toolbox
Develop and implement a traffic management toolbox to raise public awareness of circulation changes;
advise drivers of alternate routes; and pedestrian improvements. Toolbox actions will include:
• Provide driver wavfinding and signage, especially to assist infrequent drivers of the corridor who may
not be aware of alternate routes, such as along the Larkin/Hyde and Franklin/Gough corridors.
Coordinate with Caltrans to develop the driver wayfinding and signage strategy as part of mitigation
measure M-TR-C5. Continue to monitor traffic after construction and during project operation.
• Public Awareness Campaign and Transportation Management Plan (TMP) during and after Project
Construction. As discussed as part of mitigation measure M-TR-C7, the TMP will implement a public
awareness program of wayfinding during construction and will coordinate the public information
program with regional agencies, including Caltrans and GGT. Continue to monitor traffic after
construction and during project operation.
' P^estrian Amenities at Additional Corridor Locations After construction, during project operation
monitor travel in the corridor to identify additional locations for pedestrian improvements based on .
combination of pedestrian and vehicle volumes, infrastructure capabilities, and collision hist,
Less than significant impact (to transit).
No significant impacts to transit would result. While one transit line that cross Van Ness Avenue
experience increased delay, this delay would not result in significant impacts to service rel,ab,l,"v and
travel time. BRT service would substantially improve transit service on Van Ness Avenue.
Less than significant impact (to nonmotorized transportation).
No significant impacts to nonmotorized travel would result. While transit stop consolidation would
story.
BUILD ALTERNATIVE j:
CENTER- LANE BRT WITH RICHTSIDE
BOAROINC AND DUAL MEDIANS
BUILD ALTERNATIVE j
WITH OESICN OPTION B
BUILD ALTERNATIVE f
CENTER-LANE BRT WITH LEFT.
SIDE BOAROINC AND SINGLE
MEOIAN
g automoDiie traffic capacity and are unlikely to be effective In the long term due to the risk of induced demand. Thus, a conservative worsl "case f '° poUc< confllc,s' specifically the need to balance traffic circulation with pedestrian and transit circulation and safety. In addition, these engineering techmoues fw«t»o« to
Significant impact (to traffic). '
The project would not
significantly impact traffic
conditions on Van Ness Avenue.
Traffic congestion on streets
parallel to Van Ness Avenue
would receive increased traffic
that has diverted from Van Ness
Avenue. Traffic impact
significance findings for the near-
term and horizon years follow,
including those impacts that are
less than significant and those
that are significant. Mitigation
Measure M-Traffic Management
Toolbox under Build Alternative 2
also applies.
Less than significant impact (to
traffic).
Less than significant vehicular
traffic circulation impacts would
result in Year 2015 at the
following intersection:
• Gough/Green
• Duboce/Mission/Otis/US 101
off-ramp
Less than significant vehicular
traffic circulation impacts would
result in Year 2035 at the
following intersections:
• Gough/Green
• Franklin/Pine
• Van Ness/Pine
• Mission/Duboce/Otis/US lot
Off- Ramps
Significant impact (to traffic). 2
Significant impacts that may not
be mitigated to a less than
significant level would result in
Year 2015 at the following
intersections:
• Gough/Hayes
• Franklin/O'Farrell
• Mission/South Van Ness/Otis
Significant impacts that may not
be mitigated to a less than
significant level would result in
Year 2035 at the following
intersections:
• Cough/Sacramento
• Gough/ Eddy
Significant impact (to traffic).'
The project would not
significantly impact traffic
conditions on Van Ness
Avenue. Traffic congestion on
streets parallel to Van Ness
Avenue would receive
increased traffic that has
diverted from Van Ness
Avenue. Also, the elimination
of all but two left turn
opportunities off ofVan Ness
Avenue will result in an
increase in drivers making
multiple right turns in the
project vicinity, causing some
additional traffic on these
adjacent collector streets.
Traffic impact significance
findings for the near-term and
horizon years follow,
including those impacts that
are less than significant and
those that are significant.
Mitigation Measure M-Traffic
Management Toolbox under
Build Alternative 2 also
applies.
Less than significant impact
(to traffic).
Less than significant vehicular
traffic circulation impacts
would result in Year 2015 at
the following intersection:
• Gough/Green
• South Van
Ness/Mission/Otis
• Duboce/ Mission/
Otis/US 101 Off-Ramp
Less than significant vehicular
traffic circulation impacts
would result in Year 2035 at
the following intersections:
• Gough/Green
• Gough/Clay
• Franklin/Pine
• Mission/Duboce/Otis/US
101 Off-Ramps
Significant impact (to traffic).'
Significant impacts that may
not be mitigated to a less
than significant level will
Significant impact (to
traffic). 'Same as Build
Alternative 3 without
Design Option B.
Mitigation Measure M-
Traffic Management
Toolbox under Build
Alternative 2 also
applies.
Less than Significant
Impact (to traffic).
Same as Build
Alternative 3.
Significant impact. '
Same as Build
Alternative 3.
Less than significant
impact with mitigation
(to transit).
Same as Build
Alternative 3 without
Design Option B.
Same as Build
Alternative 3 without
Design Option B.
Less than significant
impact (to
nonmotorized
transportation).
Same as Build
Alternative 3 without
Design Option B, in
addition to the
following improvement
measures:
IM-NMT-2: For Build
Alternative 4, bus
vehicle design should
incorporate an intuitive
seating space for users
requiring level
boarding that is easily
accessible to both the
front door on the right
side and the door
behind the operator on
the left side.
IM-NMT-3: For Build
Alternative 4, bus
vehicle design should
incorporate audible
cues, such as stop
Significant impact (to
traffic).'
The project would not
significantly impact
traffic conditions on
Van Ness Avenue.
Traffic congestion on
streets parallel to Van
Ness Avenue would
receive increased
traffic that has
diverted from Van
Ness Avenue. Also,
the elimination of all
but two left turn
opportunities off of
Van Ness Avenue will
result in an increase in
drivers making
multiple right turns in
the project vicinity,
causing some
additional traffic on
these adjacent
collector streets.
Traffic impact
significance findings
for the near-term and
horizon years follow,
including those
impacts that are less
than significant and
those that are
significant. Mitigation
Measure M-Traffic
Management Toolbox
under Build Alternative
2 also applies.
Less than Significant
Impact (to traffic).
Same as Build
Alternative 3 with
Design Option B.
Significant impact (to
traffic). !
Same as Build
Alternatives 3 with
Design Option B.
Less than significant
impact with mitigation
(to transit).
Same as Build
Significant impact
(to traffic).'
Same as Build
Alternative 3 without
Design Option B.
Mitigation Measure
M-Traffic
Management
Toolbox under Htald
Alternative 2 also
applies.
Less thar
S'gn.fica*: '-"sac:
.
Same as Buiic
Alternative 3 with
Design Option B.
S Z' -" ZZ'- — "
(to traffic).'
Same as Build
Alternative 3 with
Design Option B.
Less :ra^ 5 f '
transit).
Same as Build
Alternative 3 without
Design Option B.
Less -si-' 5 £- ' : = "
impact (to
nonmotonzec
:-a-srr~;: :-
Same as B^ c
Alternative 3 without
Design Option B.
Less :-a- 5
impact itc :s-<. -£
Same as Build
Alternative 2. except
■c; rs-v sr=;es
would be removed
along Van Ness
Avenue. The same
improvement
measure as Build
Alternative 2 would
be implemented.
S24
t fat. f A r-"JM,-y t-UlllliHJ, juh.iiiv.oiii '"I- \\j "i*'"""-*- Mmim <>*«■ whihwii '
case finding of significant and unavoidable impact under CEQA is assumed (see Section 3.3.4).
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I fw^p so*)
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Proiect
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Executive Summary
Table So: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
ENVIRONMENTAL AREA/
increase the physical effort required to reach transit for some patrons relative to existing conditions, the
average distances between stops are consistent with applicable Muni guidelines for rapid bus and light
rail, and the project would offer pedestrian accessibility and safety benefits. The proposed project would
not substantially change or degrade bicycle conditions.
Improvement Measures:
IM-NMT-i: Include comprehensive wayfinding, allowing all users to navigate to and from the correct
platform.
IM-NMT-4: Provide sufficient information to educate less-ambulatory passengers that board at BRT
stations that they would need to exit through the front, right doors for stops outside the Van Ness Avenue
corridor.
Less than significant impact (to parking).
The project would not have a significant impact on the transportation system from changes in parking
supply. Build Alternative 2 would remove 33 parking spaces along Van Ness Avenue.
Improvement Measures:
IM-TR-i: On-street parking will be created where bus stops are consolidated or moved to the center of the
street.
IM-TR-2: Additional on-street parking will be provided where feasible by lane striping.
IM-TR-3: Infill on-street parking spaces will be provided where they do not exist today as feasible.
IM-TR-4: SFMTA will give priority to retaining color-painted on-street parking spaces, such as yellow
freight zones white passenger loading zones, green short-term parking, and blue disabled parking.
IM-TR-5: Blue handicapped parking spaces will be designed to provide a curb ramp behind each space.
BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3:
CENTER-LANE BRT WITH RIGHT-SIDE
BOARDINC AND DUAL MEDIANS
BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4:
CENTER-LANE BRT WITH LEFT-
SIDE BOARDINC AND SINCLE
MEDIAN
(COMBINES ALTERNATIVES
3 AND 4)'
• Cough/Hayes
• Franklin/O'Farrell
• Franklin/Eddy
• Franklin/McAllister
• Van Ness/Hayes
• South Van Ness/Mission/Otis
Less than significant impact
with mitigation (to transit).
A potentially significant impact to
transit service could occur in year
2035 due to vehicle crowding. The
following mitigation measure is
required to reduce this impact to
less than significant:
M-TR-i : An additional vehicle will
be added to the fleet as needed to
provide additional service and
reduce station vehicle crowding
impacts.
Less than significant impact (to
transit)
While some transit lines that
cross Van Ness Avenue would
experience some increased delay,
this delay would not result in
significant impacts to service
reliability and travel time. BRT
service would substantially
improve transit service on Van
Ness Avenue.
Less than significant impact
(to nonmotorized
transportation).
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Less than significant impact (to
Parking).
Same as Build Alternative 2,
except 68 parking spaces would
be removed along Van Ness
Avenue. The same improvement
measure as Build Alternative 2
would be implemented.
result in Year 2015 at the
following intersections:
• Cough/Hayes
• Franklin/O'Farrell
• Franklin/Market/Page
Significant impacts that may
not be mitigated to a less
than significant level would
result in Year 2035 at the
following intersections:
• Cough/Sacramento
• Cough/Eddy
• Gough/Hayes
• Franklin/O'Farrell
• Franklin/Eddy
• Franklin/McAllister
• Franklin/Market/Page
• Mission/South Van
Ness/Otis
Less than significant impact
with mitigation (to transit).
Same as Build Alternative 3
without Design Option B.
Less than significant impact
(to nonmotorized
transportation).
Same as Build Alternative 3
without Design Option B.
Less than significant impact
(to parking).
Same as Build Alternative 2,
except 31 parking spaces
would be removed along Van
Ness Avenue. The same
improvement measure as
Build Alternative 2 would be
implemented.
announcements, of
which door will open to
avoid any confusion for
passengers.
Less than significant
impact (to parking).
Same as Build
Alternative 2, except 45
parking spaces would
be removed along Van
Ness Avenue. The
same improvement
measure as Build
Alternative 2 would be
implemented.
Alternative 3 without
Design Option B.
Less than significant
impact (to
nonmotorized
transportation).
Same as Build
Alternative 4 without
Design Option B.
Less than significant
impact (to parking).
Same as Build
Alternative 2, except 13
parking spaces would
be removed along Van
Ness Avenue. The
same improvement
measure as Build
Alternative 2 would be
implemented.
Transportation
and Circulation
Cumulative
No cumulative
impacts.
Less than significant impact with mitigation
Mitigation Measures M-TR-O through M-TR-C7 would lessen significant, cumulative circulation impacts
during construction of the proposed pro,ect and other planned projects i'n the vicimty The Z ac s
Z 1 h P°rary tHUS C°"Sidered 'eSS tha" Si6nificant with mitjgat'°"- clula, arcu ation
E7T- To^Z^ ProP°Sed ^ -d «~ P"i« - «" —ty « —
Less than significant impact
with mitigation.
Same as Build Alternative 2,
except a contraflow lane system
would not be required for Build
Alternative 3; therefore,
Mitigation Measure M-TR-C2
would not apply.
Less than significant impact
with mitigation.
Same as Build Alternative 3
without Design Option B.
Less than significant
impact with mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 3.
Less than significant Less than s gn f ;a-;
impact with
mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 3 with
Design Option B.
impact with
mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 3 with
Design Option B.
1 The summary of impacts and mitigation for the LPA includes all imnar. a~- Z - WOjlc
P ty are unlikely to be effective In the long term due to the risk of mduced demand Thus cZerv/r n°' be fe3S,lble due t0 P0'10*' conflicts' specifically the need to balance traffic circulation with pedestrian and
emano. ihus. a conservative worst-case rinding of significant and unavoidable impact under CEQA is assumed (see Sect.on 3.3.4) 3
San Franosco County Transportat.on Authority | July 2o,3
transit circulation and safety. In addition, these engineering techniques function by
sis
Encutiv* Summary
Van ties* Av«nu« »u* P«
Final Enveonmenfat impact ********
EMS
Table Si: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
ENVIRONMENTAL AREAJ
BUILD ALTERNATIVE ):
CENTER-LANE BRT WITH RIGHT-SIDE
BOARDING AND DUAL MEDIANS
BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3
WITH DESIGN OPTION B
BUILD ALTERNATIVE ■
CENTER-LANE BRT wrTH LEFT-
SIDE BOARDING AND SINCLE
MEDIAN
UW
ICOH
Utilities and
Service Systems
Construction
No impact. Less than significant impact.
Compliance with standard procedures will minimize the potential for damage to utilities, injury to
construction workers, and proper completion of construction work.
Improvement Measures:
IM-UT-Ci: Construction work involving utilities will be conducted in accordance with contract
specifications, including the following requirements:
• Obtain authorization from utility provider before initiating work
• Contact Underground Service Alert in advance of excavation work to mark-out underground utilities
• Conduct investigations, including exploratory borings if needed, to confirm the location and type of
underground utilities and service connections
• Prepare a support plan for each utility crossing detailing the intended support method
• Take appropriate precautions for the protection of unforeseen utility lines encountered during construction
• Restore or replace each utility as close as planned and work with providers to ensure its location is as
good or better than found prior to removal
Less than significant impact.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Less than significant impact.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Less than |
impact.
Same as B> c
A :e"at <e i
Less than significant Less than significant Less ;ra^ s '
impact with mitigation. impact with impact wtth
Utilities and No impact. Less than significant impact with mitigation.
Service Systems Operation would not result in changes to utility demand and capacity. Some utilities would require relocation
Operation or modification for construction and to maintain access for utility providers to conduct maintenance, repair,
and upgrade/replacement activities. These would result in less than significant impacts to utilities and
service systems. Mitigation measures are required to avoid adverse impacts to utility systems and services.
Mitigation Measures:
M-UT-i: BRT construction will be closely coordinated with concurrent utility projects planned within the
Van Ness Avenue corridor.
M-UT-3: During planning and design, consideration must be given to ensure that the proposed BRT
transitway and station facilities do not prevent access to the underground auxiliary water supply service
(AWSS) lines. There must be adequate access for specialized trucks to park next to gate valves for
maintenance. The gate valves must not be located beneath medians or station platforms.
M-UT-4: In situations where utility facilities cannot be relocated, SFMTA will create a plan to
accommodate temporary closure of the transitway and/or stations in coordination with utility providers to
allow utility providers to perform maintenance, emergency repair, and upgrade/replacement of
underground facilities that may be located beneath project features such as the BRT transitway, station
platforms, or curb bulbs. Signage for BRT patrons and safety protocols for Muni operators and utility
providers will be integrated into this plan.
Less than significant impact
with mitigation.
Same as Build Alternative 2,
except the following additional
mitigation measure would also be
required:
M-UT-2: An inspection and
evaluation of the sewer pipeline
within the project limits will be
undertaken to assess the
condition of the pipeline and
need for replacement.
Coordination with SFPUC and
SFDPW will continue and be
tracked by Committee for Utility
Liaison on Construction and
Other Projects (CULCOP).
Less than significant impact
with mitigation.
Same as Build Alternative 3
without Design Option B.
impact with mitigation
Same as Build
Alternative 3.
impact with
mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 3 with
Design Option B.
— : z ; : : '
Same as Bu-iC
Alternative 3.
Utilities and
Service Systems
Cumulative
No cumulative Less than significant impact with mitigation.
Mitigation Measure M-UT-Ci would avoid significant cumulative impacts to utilities during construction
of the proposed project and other planned projects in the vicinity.
Less than significant impact
with mitigation.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Less than significant impact
with mitigation.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact with mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact with
mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Less than sigmrca-:
impact with
mitigation.
Same as Bu"C
Alternative 2.
Community
Impacts
Construction
No impact. Less than significant impact with mitigation.
Less than significant impacts on the community would result from construction activities such as
temporary rerouting and loss of parking; these impacts would cause temporary inconvenience to area
residents, businesses, and people traveling through the corridor. Construction phase impacts to the
community will be mitigated with special provisions to control rerouting, noise and fugitive dust The
temporary removal of colored parking spaces during project construction would be addressed by M-CI IM
1 (see Community Impacts Operation). y
Mitigation Measures:
M-CI-Ci: ATMP that includes traffic rerouting, a detour plan, and public information procedures will be
developed during the design phase with participation from local agencies other maio ornT, \
m the area (e.g., CPMC Cathedral Hill, Hayes Two-Way Conversion, and the C t^Co r do TB r^Ts $
Jocal communis, business associations, and affected drive. r.H. ■■^jj^jg^^-
Less than significant impact
with mitigation.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Less than significant impact
with mitigation.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact
with mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact
with mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Less :~a- 5 ■
impact
with mit:ga:
Same as Bui 'c
Alternative 2.
The summary of impacts and mitigation for the LPA includes all impacts and mitigation tha, would pertain to the LPA with ,
without incorporation of the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant into the project design.
San Francisco County Transportation Author*) | jot}
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Frnal Envtronmemal Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Executive Summary
Table S-i: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
BUILD ALTERNATIVE i:
SIDE-LANE BRT WITH STREET PARKING
BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3:
CENTER-LANE BRT WITH RIGHT-SIDE
BOARDING AND DUAL MEDIANS
BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4:
CENTER-LANE BRT WITH LEFT-
SIDE BOARDING AND SINGLE
MEDIAN
(COMBINES ALTERNATIVES
and other public information measures will be implemented prior to and during construction to minimize
confusion, inconvenience, and traffic congestion.
M-CI-C2: As part of the TMP, construction planning will minimize nighttime construction in residential
areas and minimize daytime construction impacts on retail and commercial areas.
M-CI-C3: As part of the TMP, construction scheduling and planning in the Civic Center area will take into
consideration major civic and performing arts events.
M-CI-C4: As part of the TMP public information program, SFMTA will coordinate with adjacent properties
along Van Ness Avenue to determine the need for colored parking spaces and work to identify locations
for replacement spaces or plan construction activities to minimize impacts from the loss of these spaces.
M-CI-C5: As part of the TMP public information program, SFMTA will coordinate with adjacent properties
along Van Ness Avenue to ensure that pedestrian access to these properties is maintained at all times.
M-CI-C6. As part of the TMP, SFMTA's process for accepting and addressing complaints would be
implemented. This includes provision of contact information for the Project Manager, Resident Engineer,
and Contractor on project signage with direction to call if there are any concerns. Complaints are logged
and tracked to ensure they are addressed.
M-CI-C7. As part of the TMP, adequate passenger and truck loading zones will be maintained for adjacent
land uses, including maintaining access to driveways and providing adequate loading zones on the same
or adjoining street block face.
Less than significant
impact with
mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Community No impact. Less than significant impact with mitigation.
Impacts Mitigation measures are required to minimize economic impacts on properties along Van Ness Avenue
Operation from parking removal.
Mitigation Measures:
M-CI-I M-i3: SFMTA will coordinate with all businesses that would be affected by removal of colored
parking spaces, including short-term parking, to confirm the need for truck and/or passenger loading
spaces and to identify appropriate replacement parking locations to minimize the impacts to these
businesses.
M-CI-IM-23: SFMTA will apply parking management tools as needed to offset any substantial impacts
from the loss of on-street parking, including adjustment of residential parking permits in the residential
community north of Broadway, or SFpark, which is a package of real-time tools to manage parking
occupancy and turnover through pricing (appropriate in areas of high-density commercial uses that rely
on high parking turnover).
Less than significant impact
with mitigation.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Less than significant impact
with mitigation.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact
with mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Less than significant
impact
with mitigation.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Community
Impacts
Cumulative
No cumulative
impact.
Cumulative impacts on community related and business activities from the loss of colored on-street
parking spaces would be mitigated through the implementation of M-CI-IM-i and M-CI-IM-2.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
Environmental
Justice
Construction
No impact. No impact.
Project construction would not disproportionately affect low income and minority populate
No impact.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
No impact.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Environmental
Justice
Operation
No impact. No impact.
No impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
No impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
No impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
The proposed project would not disproportionately affect low income and minority populations.
No impact.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
No impact.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
Environmental
Justice
Cumulative
No impact. No impact.
No impact.
Same as Build
Alte'native 2.
No impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
No impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
No impact.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
No impact.
Same as Build Alternative 2.
No impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
No impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
No impact.
Same as Build
Alternative 2.
The summary of i
M-CI-IM-i and M
mparts and mitigation for the LPA includes all impacts and mitigation that would perta
■U-IM-2 Constitute mitioatii-in meaorac Men* I :
HIM constitute mitigation measures under N EPA and improvement measures undtcEQA ^ W"h°U' WC0'p0'3l'0n 0< the V'N° Northbound Station Variant into the project design
San Franc.sco County TransportatK
' Authority I July 2013
S-J7
San Francisco County Transportation Authority |yl> ae>|
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Contents
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | S-i
1 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED | i-i
1.1 Introduction | i-i
1.1.1 | Project Location 1 1-3
1.1.2 I Uses of this Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact
Report 1 1-4
1.2 Planning Context 1 1-4
1.2.1 I Countywide Planning Context 1 1-4
1.2.2 I Regional Planning Context 1 1-6
1.3 Project Purpose and Need 1 1-7
1.3.1 I Project Purpose 1 1-7
1.3.2 I Project Need 1 1-8
1.3.3 I Project Ability to Meet the Purpose and Need 1 1-13
2 PROj ECT ALTERNATIVES | 2-1
2.1 Alternatives Development Process | 2-1
2.1.1 I Van Ness Avenue BRT Feasibility Study | 2-1
2.1.2 I Scoping Process | 2-1
2.1.3 I Alternatives Screening/Analysis | 2-2
2.1.4 I Identification of a Locally Preferred Alternative | 2-3
2.2 Project Alternatives | 2-4
2.2.1 I Alternative i: No Build (Baseline Alternative) | 2-4
2.2.2 I Build Alternatives, including the LPA | 2-6
2.3 Construction Plan | 2-24
2.3.1 I Construction Approach and Schedule | 2-26
2.4 Project Schedule | 2-28
2.5 Capital and Operating Costs of Build Alternatives I 2-28
2.5.1 I Capital Costs | 2-28
2.5.2 I Annual Operating Costs | 2-29
2.6 Alternatives Considered and Withdrawn | 2-29
2.6.1 I Fatal Flaw Alternatives | 2-29
2.6.2 I Low-Performance Alternatives I 2-30
2.7 Related and Planned Projects | 2-31
2.7.1 I Local Transportation Projects I 2-32
2.7.2 I Regional Transportation Projects | 2-34
2.7.3 I Local Planning Projects | 2-34
2.8 Next Steps and Project Timeline | 2-37
2.9 Permits and Approvals | 2-38
3 TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS | 3-1
3.0 Introduction | 3-1
3.1 Corridor Travel Patterns I 3-2
3.1.1 I Existing Travel Patterns I 3-2
3.1.2 I Future Travel Patterns | 3-6
3.1.3 I Summary of Corridor Travel Patterns I 3-12
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
3.2 Transit Conditions | 3-14
3.2.1 I Existing Transit Services, Ridership, and Performance | 3-14
3.2.2 I Future SFMTA Transit Services, Ridership, and Performance | 3-25
3.2.3 I Future Regional Transit Services | 3-31
3.2.4 1 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures | 3-37
3.2.5 I Transit Summary | 3-37
3.3 Traffic | 3-39
3.3.1 I Traffic Evaluation Methodology | 3-39
3.3.2 I Existing Conditions | 3-41
3.3.3 I Environmental Consequences | 3-45
3.3.4 I Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures | 3-79
3.4 Nonmotorized Transportation | 3-89
3.4.1 I Regulatory Setting | 3-89
3.4.2 I Affected Environment | 3-91
3.4.3 I Environmental Consequences | 3-100
3.4.4 I Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I 3-115
3.5 Parking | 3-116
3.5.1 I Existing Conditions | 3-116
3.5.2 I Environmental Consequences | 3-117
3.5.3 I Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures: Build
Alternatives (2015 and 2035) | 3-123
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, AND
AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES | 4.1-1
4.0 Introduction | 4.1-2
4.1 Land Use | 4.1-2
4.1.1 I Affected Environment | 4.1-2
4.1.2 I Environmental Consequences | 4.1-10
4.1.3 I Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures | 4.1-13
4.2 Community Impacts | 4.2-1
4.2.1 I Community Character and Cohesion | 4.2-1
4.2.2 I Public Services and Community Facilities 1 4.2-5
4.2.3 I Relocations | 4.2-]!
4.2.4 I Economic and Business Environment | 4.2-n
4.2.5 I Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures | 4.2-17
4.3 Growth I 4.3-1
4.3.1 I Affected Environment | 4.3-1
4.3.2 I Environmental Consequences | 4.3-1
4.3.3 I Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures | 4.3-2
4.4 Aesthetics/Visual Resources | 4.4-1
4.4.1 I Regulatory Setting | 4.4-1
4.4.2 I Affected Environment I 4.4-6
4.4.3 I Environmental Consequences | 4.4-19
4.4.4 I Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures | 4.4-51
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental I mpact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
4.5 Cultural Resources | 4.5-1
4.5.1 I Regulatory Setting I 4.5-1
4.5.2 I Archaeological Resources I 4.5-2
4.5.3 I Historic and Architectural Resources 1 4.5-7
4.5.4 1 Environmental Consequences 1 4.5-23
4.5.5 I Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I 4.5-32
4.6 Utilities | 4.6-1
4.6.1 I Regulatory Setting | 4.6-1
4.6.2 I Affected Environment | 4.6-3
4.6.3 I Environmental Consequences I 4.6-6
4.6.4 I Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures | 4.6-9
4.7 Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography | 4.7-1
4.7.1 I Geologic Setting | 4.7-1
4.7.2 I Environmental Consequences | 4.7-9
4.7.3 I Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures | 4.7-10
4.8 Hazardous Waste/Materials | 4.8-1
4.8.1 I Regulatory Setting | 4.8-1
4.8.2 I Affected Environment | 4.8-2
4.8.3 I Environmental Consequences | 4.8-4
4.8.4 I Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures | 4.8-6
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality I 4.9-1
4.9.1 I Regulatory Setting | 4.9-1
4.9.2 I Affected Environment | 4.9-3
4.9.3 I Environmental Consequences | 4.9-7
4.9.4 I Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures | 4.9-10
4.10 Air Quality | 4.10-1
4.10.1 I Regulatory Setting | 4.10-1
4.10.2 I Affected Environment | 4.10-8
4.10.3 I Environmental Consequences | 4.10-11
4.10.4 I Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I 4.10-19
4.10.5 I Transportation Conformity Impacts | 4.10-19
4.10.6 I Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I 4.10-20
4.10.7 I Greenhouse Gas Emissions | 4.10-20
4.10.8 I Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I 4.10-23
4.11 Noise and Vibration I 4.11-1
4.11.1 I Terminology | 4.11-1
4.11.2 I Human Reaction to Noise | 4.11-3
4.11.3 I Regulatory Setting | 4.11-4
4.11.4 I Affected Environment | 4.11-7
4.11.5 I Environmental Consequences I 4.11-11
4.11.6 I Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I 4.11-12
4.12 Energy | 4.12-1
4.12.1 I Regulatory Setting | 4.12-1
4.12.2 I Affected Environment | 4.12-1
4.12.3 I Environmental Consequences I 4.12-2
4.12.4 I Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures I 4.12-4
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Contents
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
4.13 Biological Environment I 4.13-1
4.13.1 I Regulatory Setting | 4.13-1
4.13.2 I Affected Environment | 4.13-3
4.13.3 I Environmental Consequences | 4.13-4
4.13.4 I Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures | 4.13-5
4.14 Environmental Justice 1 4.14-1
4.14.1 I Regulatory Setting | 4.14-1
4.14.2 I Affected Environment | 4.14-2
4.14.3 I Environmental Consequences | 4.14-4
4.14.4 I Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures | 4.14-10
4.15 Construction Impacts | 4.15-1
4.15.1 I Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities | 4.15-9
4.15.2 I Land Use & Community Impacts | 4.15-12
4.15.3 I Visual/Aesthetics | 4.15-14
4.15.4 I Cultural Resources | 4.15-15
4.15.5 I Utilities/Service Systems | 4.15-18
4.15.6 I Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography | 4.15-19
4.15.7 I Hazardous Materials 1 4.15-19
4.15.8 I Hydrology and Water Quality | 4.15-20
4.15.9 I Air Quality | 4.15-23
4.15.10 I Noise and Vibration | 4.15-29
4.15.11 I Biological Environment I 4.15-32
4.16 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 1 4.16-1
4.17 Relationship between Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the
Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity | 4.17-1
5 CU M U LATI VE I M PACTS | 5-1
5.1 Regulatory Setting I 5-1
5.2 Methodology | 5-1
5.3 Reasonably Foreseeable Projects | 5-2
5.4 Environmental Areas with No Cumulative Impacts | 5-4
5.4.1 I Land Use | 5-5
5.4.2 I Growth I 5-5
5.4.3 I Visual/Aesthetics | 5-5
5.4.4 I Cultural Resources | 5-6
5.4.5 I Water Quality and Hydrology | 5-6
5.4.6 I Geology and Soils | 5-7
5.4.7 I Hazardous Materials | 5-7
5.4.8 I Biological Resources | 5-7
5.4.9 I Utilities | 5-8
5.4.10 I Air Quality | 5-8
5.4.11 I Noise and Vibration | 5-9
5.4.12 I Nonmotorized Transportation | 5-10
5.5 Environmental Areas Subject to Cumulative Effects | 5-11
5.5.1 I Private Vehicular Traffic | 5-11
5.5.2 I Parking | 5-15
5.5.3 I Community Impacts | 5-20
5.5.4 I Public Services and Community Facilities | 5-23
iv
0
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Contents
6 FINAL SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION | 60
6.1 Proposed Action | 6-i
6.2 Section 4(f) Properties | 6-3
6.2.1 I Cultural Resources | 6-3
6.2.2 I Parks and Recreation Properties | 6-4
6.3 Impacts on Section 4(f) Properties I 6-4
6.4 Avoidance Alternative | 6-7
6.5 Measures to Minimize Harm | 6-7
6.6 Coordination | 6-9
7 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT EVALUATION | 7-1
7.1 The Relationship between NEPA and CEQA | 7-1
7.2 Significance of the Proposed Project's Impacts under CEQA | 7-1
7.3 Findings of Significance under CEQA | 7-2
7.4 Mitigation Measures Pursuant to CEQA Impacts | 7-2
7.5 Unavoidable Significant Effects under CEQA | 7-25
7.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative | 7-27
7.7 Areas of Controversy | 7-28
8 COORDINATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION | 8-1
8.1 Interagency Consultation I 8-i
8.1.1 I Technical Advisory Committee | 8-1
8.1.2 I Caltrans Project Development Team | 8-2
8.1.3 I FTA Quarterly Progress Review Meetings | 8-2
8.2 Community Involvement | 8-2
8.2.1 I Public Information Meetings and Hearing | 8-2
8.2.2 I Citizens Advisory Committee | 8-3
8.2.3 I Meetings with Local Groups and Organizations | 8-4
8.2.4 I Outreach during Draft EIS/EIR Circulation | 8-4
8.2.5 I Outreach to Support LPA Selection | 8-6
8.2.6 I Cultural Resources Community Consultation | 8-7
8.2.7 I Current and Future Public Outreach Efforts | 8-7
9 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS I 9-1
9.1 Capital Costs | 9-1
9.1.1 I Van Ness Avenue BRT Project Capital Costs | 9-1
9.1.2 I Improvements to be Coordinated with
Van Ness Avenue BRT Project | 9-2
9.1.3 I Budgeted/Planned Funding | 9-2
9.1.4 I Other Potential Funding Sources I 9-3
9.2 Operations and Maintenance Costs | 9-5
9.3 Risk Analysis | 9-6
9.4 Financial Analysis Conclusions | 9-6
10 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND THE LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 1 10-1
10. 1 Introduction and Approach 1 10-1
10. i.i I Alternatives Analyzed 1 10-2
10.2 Alternatives Analysis 1 10-2
10.2.1 I Indicators Based on Project Purpose and Need 1 10-2
10.2.2 I Additional Considerations 1 10-2
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
10.2.3 I List of Performance Indicators 1 10-2
10.2.4 I Alternatives Performance 1 10-4
10.3 Locally Preferred Alternative Selection 1 10-24
10.3.1 I Introduction 1 10-24
10.3.2 I Performance Evaluation Process 1 10-24
10.3.3 I Steering Committee and Agreement on Consensus Alternative 1 10-25
10.3.4 I Weighting of Criteria and Subcriteria 1 10-25
10.3.5 I Risk Analysis of Center-Running Alternatives 1 10-26
10.3.6 I Staff-Recommended LPA: Center-Lane BRT
with Right-Side Boarding/Single Median and Limited Left Turns 1 10-27
10.3.7 I Additional Outreach in Support of Staff-Recommended LPA 1 10-28
10.3.8 I Selection of LPA 1 10-29
10.4 LPA Environmental Consequences and Performance 1 10-29
10.4.1 I LPA Environmental Consequences 1 10-29
10.4.2 I Summary of LPA Performance against Purpose and Need 1 10-39
10.5 Small Starts Evaluation Process 1 10-40
10.5.1 I Current Rating 1 10-40
10.5.2 I Project Justification 1 10-40
10.5.3 I Local Financial Commitment 1 10-41
10.5.4 I Summary 1 10-41
11 REFERENCES I n-i
List of Appendices
A Plan Drawings of the Build Alternatives and LPA
B Changes in Parking
C State Historic Preservation Officer Letter of Concurrence
D Area of Potential Effect Maps
E Distribution List
F Notice of Intent and Notice of Preparation
C Notice of Completion and Notice of Availability for the Draft EIS/EIR
H List of Preparers
I Response to Comments
J Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
List of Figures
Figure S-i: Typical Cross Section of Existing Van Ness Avenue | S-5
Figure S-2: Typical Cross Section of Van Ness Avenue with Build Alternative 2 | S-5
Figure S-3: Typical Cross Section of Van Ness Avenue with Build Alternative 3 | S-6
Figure S-4: Typical Cross Section of Van Ness Avenue with Build Alternative 4 1 S-6
Figure S-5: LPA: Center-Running BRT with Right-Side Loading/Single Median
and Limited Left Turns I S-7
Figure l-i: Project Location Map 1 1-3
Figure 1-2: San Francisco Rapid Transit Network Map 1 1-5
Figure 1-3: Variation in Headways (Average Wait Times) at Market Street SB during the PM
Peak 1 1-9
Figure 1-4: Components of Transit Travel Time on Van Ness Avenue
(Southbound - PM Peak) | l-io
Figure 2-1: Typical Cross Sections of Build Alternatives 2-4 1 2-7
Figure 2-2: Cross Sections and Station & Left-Turn Pocket Location Map for the LPA | 2-9
Figure 2-3: BRT Station and Left-Turn Pocket Locations for Build Alternatives 2-4 | 2-n
Figure 2-4: Vallejo Northbound Station Variant | 2-13
Figure 3.1-1: The Van Ness Avenue Corridor Study Area | 3-1
Figure 3.1-2: Existing (2005) Daily Motorized Person-Trips for Van Ness Avenue
at Select Screenlines | 3-4
Figure 3.1-3: Neighborhoods Surrounding Van Ness Avenue used for
Mode Split Analysis | 3-5
Figure 3.1-4: Average Daily Auto and Transit Trips in the Van Ness Avenue Corridor
at Average Screenline | 3-8
Figure 3.2-1: Existing Transit Routes along and crossing Van Ness Avenue
(does not include Market Street) | 3-15
Figure 3.2-2: Existing Transit Stops for Muni Routes 47/49
on Van Ness Avenue BRT Corridor | 3-21
Figure 3.2-3: Daily Boardings by Stop for Routes 47 and 49 | 3-22
Figure 3.2-4: Northbound Daily Load (Passenger Volume) for Routes 47 and 49 | 3-23
Figure 3.2-5: Southbound Daily Load (Passenger Volume) for Routes 47 and 49 | 3-24
Figure 3.2-6: Average Speed on Van Ness Avenue by Mode -
Existing, 2015 No Build Alternative,
2015 Build Alternative 2, and 2015 Build Alternatives 3 and 4 | 3-28
Figure 3.2-7: Average Travel Time in Both Directions on Van Ness Avenue for Route 47
between Mission/Otis/South Van Ness and Clay/Van Ness -
Existing, 2015 No Build Alternative,
2015 Build Alternative 2, and 2015 Build Alternatives 3 and 4 I 3-29
Figure 3.2-8: Average Travel Time in Both Directions on Van Ness Avenue by Mode
from Duboce/Mission/Otis to Clay and Van Ness -
Existing, 2015 No Build Alternative,
2015 Build Alternative 2, and 2015 Build Alternatives 3 and 4 | 3-30
Figure 3.2-9: Average Delay by Mode for All Intersections
between Clay and McCoppin | 3-30
Figure 3.3-1: Street Network in the Proposed Van Ness Avenue BRT Project Corridor
Traffic Study Area | 3-40
Figure 3.3-2: 2007 Existing PM Peak-Hour Intersection LOS I 3-46
Figure 3.3-3: Near-Term (2015) No Build Alternative Intersection LOS I 3-51
Figure 3.3-4: Near-Term (2015) Build Alternative 2 Intersection LOS | 3-56
Figure 3.3-5: Near-Term (2015) Build Alternatives 3 and 4 Intersection LOS I 3-58
Figure 3.3-6: Near-Term (2015) Build Alternatives 3 and 4
with Design Option B (and LPA) Intersection LOS I 3-61
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Figure 3.3-7: Long-Term (2035) No Bui'd Alternative Intersection LOS | 3-65
Figure 3.3-8: Long-Term (2035) Build Alternative 2 Intersection LOS | 3-68
Figure 3.3-9: Long-Term (2035) Bu'ld Alternatives 3 and 4 Intersection LOS | 3-71
Figure 3.3-10: Long-Term (2035) Alternatives 3 and 4
with Design Option B and the LPA Intersection LOS | 3-75
Figure 4.1-1: Zoning and Land Use | 4.1-3
Figure 4.1-2: Commercial and Industrial Land Use | 4.1-4
Figure 4.2-1: Socioeconomic Study Area | 4.2-2
Figure 4.2-2: Public and Community Facilities | 4.2-8
Figure 4.2-3: Parks and Recreation | 4.2-10
Figure 4.4-1: Character-Depicting Images of the Van Ness Avenue Corridor | 4.4-9
Figure 4.4-2: Civic Center Historic District Map | 4.4-10
Figure 4.4-3: Images of Civic Center Historic District | 4.4-12
Figure 4.4-4: Images of OCS Support Poles/Streetlight Network | 4.4-14
Figure 4.4-5: Damaged and Leaning OCS Support Pole/Streetlights | 4.4-15
Figure 4.4-6: Landscape and Trees in the Van Ness Avenue Corridor | 4.4-18
Figure 4.4-7: Scenic Vistas Viewed from within the Van Ness Avenue Corridor | 4.4-20
Figure 4.4-8: Viewpoint i: Visual Simulations of Intersection
of McAllister Street and Van Ness Avenue | 4.4-23
Figure 4.4-9: Viewpoint 2: Visual Simulations of Intersection
of Sutter Street and Van Ness Avenue | 4.4-27
Figure 4.4-10: Viewpoint 3: Visual Simulations of Intersection
of Union Street and Van Ness Avenue | 4.4-29
Figure 4.4-n: Viewpoints 1-3: Visual Simulations of the LPA at the Intersections
of Van Ness Avenue with McAllister, Sutter, and Union Streets | 4.4-31
Figure 4.4-12: Special Status Buildings Located Adjacent to Proposed BRT Stations I 4.4-47
Figure 4.5-1: Civic Center Historic District Boundaries | 4.5-10
Figure 4.5-2: Historic Properties Listed or Eligible for Listing within Project APE | 4.5-n
Figure 4.5-3: Project Features and Location Map of Historic Properties
Listed or Eligible within Project APE | 4.5-13
Figure 4.5-4: Historic Properties Listed or Eligible for Listing within Project APE | 4.5-17
Figure 4.5-5: Historic Properties Listed or Eligible for Listing within Project APE | 4.5-19
Figure 4.5-6: Historic Properties Listed or Eligible for Listing within Project APE | 4.5-21
Figure 4.7-1: Project Alignment Slope Map | 4.7-2
Figure 4.7-2: Mapped Soils Underlying Project Alignment 1 4.7-4
Figure 4.7-3: Earthquake Fault Map | 4.7-6
Figure 4.7-4: Seismic Hazard Map 1 4.7-8
Figure 4.8-1: Recognized Environmental Conditions -
Hazardous Materials Database Listed Sites 1 4.8-5
Figure 4.9-1: Hydrologic Setting | 4.9-3
Figure 4.9-2: San Francisco Sewer System Map | 4.9-4
Figure 4.9-3: Regional Groundwater Basin Map | 4.9-6
Figure 4.11-1: Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels | 4.11-2
Figure 4.11-2: Typical Levels of Ground-borne Vibration | 4.11-3
Figure 4.11-3: Noise Impact Criteria for Transit Projects | 4.11-5
Figure 4.11-4: Background Noise Levels Modeled
by the San Francisco Department of Public Health (2009) | 4.11-9
Figure 4.11-5: Noise Measurement Locations | 4.11-10
Figure 4.14-1: Low-Income Block Groups, Significant Traffic Impacts, and Colored Parking
within the Van Ness Avenue Corridor BRT Study Area I 4.14-9
Figure 4.14-2: Minority Block Groups, Significant Traffic Impacts, and Colored Parking Loss
within the Van Ness Avenue Corridor BRT Study Area | 4.14-10
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Contents
Figure 5-1: Locations of Reasonably Foreseeable Projects
within General Vicinity of the Van Ness Avenue BRT Project | 5-4
Figure 5-2: Traffic Study Area I 5-12
Figure 6-i: Cross Sections of Build Alternatives I 6-3
Figure 6-2: No Build Alternative (Existing Conditions) Cross Section | 6-7
Figure 10-1: Results of LPA Criteria Category Weighting Exercise 1 10-26
Figure 10-2: LPA Cross Sections and Station and Left-Turn Pocket Location Map 1 10-27
Figure 10-3: Aerial Schematic of LPA 1 10-28
List of Tables
Table S-i: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures | S-13
Table 2-1: Alternatives Screening Report Criteria | 2-2
Table 2-2: Major Project Features | 2-14
Table 2-3: Proposed BRT Station Locations for Build Alternatives 2-4 | 2-15
Table 2-4: Proposed BRT Station Locations for LPA | 2-16
Table 2-5: Turn Pockets Proposed under Build Alternatives 2-4 | 2-18
Table 2-6: Center-Lane Alternative Design Option B Proposed Turn Pockets I 2-22
Table 2-7: Anticipated Construction Areas and Excavation Depths I 2-24
Table 2-8: Preferred Construction Approach and Schedule | 2-27
Table 2-9: Related and Planned Projects | 2-31
Table 2-10: Anticipated Environmental-Related Permits and Approvals | 2-39
Table 3.1-1: Existing Weekday Motorized Travel Demand at Average Screenline | 3-3
Table 3.1-2: Regional versus Local Auto Trips
along Van Ness Avenue and Franklin/Gough Streets during the PM Peak | 3-5
Table 3.1-3: Divertible and Nondivertible Trips along Van Ness Avenue
(North of Broadway) during PM Peak Period | 3-5
Table 3.1-4: Mode Split for Daily Trips To, From, or Within Neighborhoods
Surrounding Van Ness Avenue | 3-6
Table 3.1-5: PM Peak Person Trips/Lane/Hour at Average Screenline | 3-9
Table 3.2-1: Existing Muni Lines along the Proposed Van Ness Avenue BRT Corridor | 3-16
Table 3.2-2: Existing Muni Service crossing the Proposed Van Ness Avenue BRT
Corridor | 3-17
Table 3.2-3: Existing Golden Gate Transit Service in or near
the Proposed Van Ness Avenue BRT Corridor | 3-19
Table 3.2-4: Passenger Capacities | 3-23
Table 3.2-5: Existing Northbound PM Peak-Hour Muni Ridership and Load Factor | 3-23
Table 3.2-6: Headway Variability for Routes 47 and 49, Southbound during PM Peak | 3-25
Table 3.2-7: Existing and Near-Term (2015) Daily Transit Boardings
on Muni Routes 47 and 49 | 3-26
Table 3.2-8: Existing and Near-Term (2035) Daily Transit Boardings
on Muni Routes 47 and 49 | 3-27
Table 3.2-9: Unexpected Delays Impacting Reliability of BRT Routes I 3-31
Table 3.2-10: Likely GGT Stop Locations with BRT Project by Project Alternative I 3-32
Table 3.2-n: Year 2015 Muni Load Factor Analysis | 3-34
Table 3.2-12: Year 2035 Muni Load Factor Analysis I 3-36
Table 3.3-1: Existing (2007) Traffic Counts Average Weekday, Saturday,
and Sunday Daily, AM and PM Peak-Hour Traffic Link Volumes I 3-44
Table 3.3-2: Average Speed - 2007 Existing Conditions I 3-45
Table 3.3-3: 2015 No Build Alternative Southbound Average Speed I 3-50
Table 3.3-4: 2015 No Build Alternative Northbound Average Speed I 3-50
Table 3.3-5: Private Vehicle 2015 Southbound Average Speed I 3-54
Table 3.3-6: Private Vehicle 2015 Northbound Average Speed I 3-54
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Table 3.3-7: Existing Conditions, 2015 Build Alternative 2 (Side-Lane BRT), and
No Build Alternative Intersection LOS (Delay) for Intersections
that Operate at LOS E or F | 3-55
Table 3.3-8: Existing Conditions, 2015 Build Alternatives 3 and 4 (Center-Lane BRT), and
No Build Alternative Intersection LOS (Delay) for Intersections
that Operate at LOS E or F | 3-57
Table 3.3-9: Existing Conditions, 2015 Build Alternatives 3 and 4 (Center-Lane BRT) with
Design Option B, and No Build Alternative Intersection LOS (Delay)
for Intersections that Operate at LOS E or F | 3-60
Table 3.3-10: 2035 No Build Alternative Southbound Average Speed | 3-63
Table 3.3-11: 2035 No Build Alternative Northbound Average Speed | 3-63
Table 3.3-12: 2035 Horizon Year Southbound Average Speed | 3-64
Table 3.3-13: 2035 Horizon Year Northbound Average Speed | 3-66
Table 3.3-14: Existing Conditions, 2035 Build Alternative 2 (Side-Lane BRT), and
No Build Alternative Intersection LOS (Delay) for Intersections
j that Operate at LOS E or F | 3-67
Table 3.3-15: Existing Conditions, 2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4 (Center-Lane BRT), and
No Build Alternative Intersection LOS (Delay) for Intersections
j that Operate at LOS E or F | 3-72
Table 3.3-16: Existing Conditions, 2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4 (Center-Lane BRT) with
Design Option B, and No Build Alternative Intersection LOS (Delay)
for Intersections that Operate at LOS E or F | 3-76
Table 3.3-17: Summary of Vehicular Traffic Impacts | 3-80
Table 3.4-1: Pedestrian Crowding LOS Thresholds I 3-92
Table 3.4-2: Pedestrian Crowding LOS at High Pedestrian Count Intersections | 3-92
Table 3.4-3: Van Ness Avenue Intersections with Nose Cones - Existing Condition | 3-94
Table 3.4-4: Pedestrian Delay LOS Thresholds for Signalized Intersections | 3-96
Table 3.4-5: Pedestrian Delay LOS at Van Ness Avenue Intersections | 3-96
Table 3.4-6: Pedestrian Collisions by Location (2003-2008) | 3-97
Table 3.4-7: Forecast Hourly Pedestrian Crossing Volumes | 3-101
Table 3.4-8: Average Median Refuge Width and Crossing Distances | 3-102
Table 3.4-9: Side Street Crossings Meeting City and FHWA Walking Speed Targets
during Full Walk Split I 3-103
Table 3.4-10: Van Ness Crossings Meeting City and FHWA Walking Speed Targets
during Full Walk Split | 3-103
Table 3.4-n: Pedestrian Delay on Van Ness Avenue (seconds) | 3-104
Table 3.4-12: Right-Turn Locations by Hourly Volume | 3-105
Table 3.4-13: Number of Corner Bulbs by Alternative along Van Ness Avenue I 3-109
Table 3.4-14: Number of Nose Cones along Van Ness Avenue | 3-109
Table 3.4-15: Width of Travel Lane Used by Bicycles | 3-114
Table 3.5-1: Existing Parking Supply along Van Ness and South Van Ness Avenues
I between Mission and Lombard Streets (2010, 2011) | 3-116
Table 3.5-2: Existing Parking Occupancy along Van Ness and South Van Ness Avenues
! between Mission and Lombard Streets (2010) | 3-117
Table 3.5-3: Parking Supply and Demand along Van Ness Avenue -
No Build and Build Alternatives | 3-119
Table 3.5-4: Parking Supply and Demand along Van Ness Avenue -
No Build and LPA | 3-123
Table 4.1-1: Major Approved and Active Projects in the Study Area 1 4.1-7
Table 4.2-1: Population, Employment, and Housing Projections; 2000-203514.2-1
Table 4.2-2: Racial and Ethnic Composition | 4.2-3
I Table 4.2-3: Household Characteristics | 4.2-4
Table 4.2-4: 2000 Transit-Dependent Populations I 4.2-4
Table 4.2-5: Public and Community Facilities 1 4.2-7
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Table 4.2-6: Park and Recreation Facilities I 4.2-9
Table 4.2-7: Labor Force by Occupation - 2000 (Civilians Age 16+) 1 4.2-n
Table 4.2-8: Blocks of Van Ness Avenue where Substantial Parking
would be Removed I 4.2-14
Table 4.2-9: Adverse Colored-Zone Parking Impacts | 4.2-16
Table 4.4-1: High-Quality Landscaped Medians Featuring Mature Tree Canopies | 4.4-17
Table 4.4-2: Tree Health and Condition Rating Scale | 4.4-37
Table 4.4-3: Removed Trees Summarized by Tree Health and Condition | 4.4-37
Table 4.4-4: Summary of Anticipated Tree Removal and Planting Opportunities | 4.4-38
Table 4.4-5: Alternative 2 - Project Impact on High-Quality
Landscaped Medians Featuring Mature Tree Canopies 1 4.4-39
Table 4.4-6: Alternative 3 - Project Impact on High-Quality
Landscaped Medians Featuring Mature Tree Canopies 1 4.4-40
Table 4.4-7: Alternative 4 - Project Impact on High-Quality
Landscaped Medians Featuring Mature Tree Canopies 1 4.4-42
Table 4.4-8: LPA - Project Impact on High-Quality
Landscaped Medians Featuring Mature Tree Canopies | 4.4-43
Table 4.4-9: Proposed BRT Station Locations and Special-Status Properties | 4.4-45
Table 4.5-1: Anticipated Construction Areas and Excavation Depths | 4.5-3
Table 4.5-2: Prehistoric Archaeological Site Sensitivity within the APE | 4.5-5
Table 4.5-3: Status of Historic Resources within the Project APE | 4.5-8
Table 4.5-4: Properties Determined Not Eligible for National Register | 4.5-23
Table 4.7-1: Active Fault Seismicity | 4.7-5
Table 4.8-1: Recognized Environmental Concerns
for the Van Ness Avenue BRT Project - Database Listed Sites I 4.8-3
Table 4.9-1: Federal 303(d) List of Impairments
for Central and South San Francisco Bay | 4.9-5
Table 4.9-2: Existing and Proposed Approximate Impervious Surface Area
in the Project Corridor | 4.9-9
Table 4.10-1: State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards
and Attainment Status for the Bay Area Air Basin | 4.10-6
Table 4.10-2: 2009-2011 Ambient Air Quality Data in Project Vicinity | 4.10-10
Table 4-10-3: Estimated Net Operational Emissions - 2035 | 4.10-12
Table 4.10-4: Estimated Net Operational Emissions - 2007 | 4.10-13
Table 4.10-5: Localized Operational Concentrations, 2035 with BRT | 4.10-15
Table 4.10-6: Idle Emissions, 2035 witr> BRT | 4.10-16
Table 4.10-7: Toxic Air Contaminant Concentrations
on Parallel Streets, 2035 witri BRT | 4.10-17
Table 4.10-8: Estimated Cross Citywide Greenhouse Gas Emissions - 2035 I 4.10-21
Table 4.10-9: Estimated Net Citywide Greenhouse Gas Emissions - 2035 I 410-21
Table 4.10-10: Estimated Gross Citywide Greenhouse Gas Emissions - 2007 I 4.10-22
Table 4.10-11: Estimated Net Citywide Greenhouse Gas Emissions - 2007 I 4.10-23
Table 4.11-1: Land Use Categories and Metrics for Transit Noise Impact Criteria I 4.11-4
Table 4.11-2: Ground-Borne Vibration Impact Criteria for Human Annoyance I 4.11-6
Table 4.11-3: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria I 4.11-7
Table 4.11-4: Operational Noise Levels for Build Alternative 2 | 4.11-13
Table 4.11-5: Operational Noise Levels for Build Alternatives 3 and 4 and the LPA I 4.11-14
Table 4.12-1: Annual Year 2035 Countywide Energy Use for the Project Alternatives I 4.12-3
Table 4.14-1: 2000 U.S. Census Block Group Analysis | 4.14-2
Table 4.15-1: Anticipated Construction Areas and Excavation Depths I 4.15-2
Table 4.15-2: Preferred Construction Approach and Schedule I 4.15-5
Table 4.15-3: Elements of Transportation Management Plan | 4.15-7
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Table 4.15-4: Build Alternative 2 Estimated Daily Construction Emissions -
Unmitigated I 4.15-24
Table 4.15-5: Build Alternative 3 Estimated Daily Construction Emissions -
Unmitigated | 4.15-25
Table 4.15-6: Feasible Control Measures for Construction Emissions | 4.15-27
Table 4.15-7: Build Alternative 2 Estimated Daily Construction Emissions -
Mitigated | 4.15-28
Table 4.15-8: Build Alternative 3 Estimated Daily Construction Emissions -
Mitigated | 4.15-28
Table 4.15-9: Projected Construction Noise Emission Levels (dBA) 14.15-29
Table 4.15-10: Vibration Source Levels and Building Damage Impact Distances
for Construction Equipment | 4.15-31
Table 5-1: Reasonably Foreseeable Projects within General Vicinity
of the Proposed Van Ness Avenue BRT Project | 5-2
Table 5-2: Summary of Parking Loss on Van Ness Avenue
from Project Implementation | 5-17
Table 5-3: Summary of Parking Loss on Van Ness Avenue
from Project Implementation - No Build, LPA | 5-18
Table 7-1: CEQA Significance Criteria | 7-3
Table 7-2: Summary of Environmental Impacts under CEQA | 7-9
Table 7-3: CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance I 7-22
Table 9-1: Capital Cost Estimates for Build Alternatives | 9-1
Table 9-2: Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs for Proposed Service | 9-5
Table 10-1: Performance Indicators and Definitions 1 10-3
Table 10-2: Adverse Colored-Zone Parking Impacts under the LPA 1 10-33
Table 10-3: Project Impact on High-Quality Landscaped Medians Featuring Mature Tree
Canopies 1 10-37
Table 10-4: LPA Performance Summary against Purpose and Need Evaluation 1 10-39
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronyms and Abbreviations
°F degrees Fahrenheit
ug/rn^ micrograms per cubic meter
AADT annual average daily traffic
AB Assembly Bill
ABAC Association of Bay Area Governments
AC asphalt concrete
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
ACM asbestos-containing material
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
ADL aerially deposited lead
amsl above mean sea level
ANACRSA Archaeological and Native American Cultural Resources Sensitivity
Assessment
APC automatic passenger counter
APE Area of Potential Effects
APS Alternative Planning Strategy
APS Accessible Pedestrian Signal
ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
AT articulated trolley bus
ATCM Air Toxics Control Measures
Authority San Francisco County Transportation Authority
AVL automatic vehicle location
AWSS auxiliary water supply service
BAAB Bay Area Air Basin
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BACI Bay Area Climate Initiatives
BACT best available control technology
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
bgs below ground surface
Bl No Project Impact
BMPs Best Management Practices
BMS Better Market Street Project
BRT bus rapid transit
BSM SFDPW Bureau of Street Use and Mapping
BTUs British Thermal Units
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
CAA
CAAAs
CAAQS
CAC
CalEPA
California
Register
Cal-OSHA
Caltrans
CARB
CC
CCAA
CCR
CCSF
CDFW
CEC
CEQ
CEQA
CER
CERCLA
CERFA
CESA
CFGC
CFR
CH4
CHP
CHRIS
CMAQ
CMP
CNDDB
CO
CO2
COze
COZEEP
CPMC
CPUC
CRA
xiv
Clean Air Act
Clean Air Act Amendments
California Ambient Air Quality Standards
Citizens Advisory Committee
California Environmental Protection Agency
California Register of Historical Resources
California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration
California Department of Transportation
California Air Resources Board
cable car
California Clean Air Act
California Code of Regulations
City and County of San Francisco
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Energy Commission
Council on Environmental Quality
California Environmental Quality Act
Conceptual Engineering Report
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
of 1980
Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act of 1992
California Endangered Species Act of 1984
California Fish and Game Code
Code of Federal Regulations
methane
California Highway Patrol
California Historical Resources Information Center
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Congestion Management Program
California Natural Diversity Database
carbon monoxide
carbon dioxide
carbon dioxide equivalent
Construction Zone Enhanced Enforcement Program
California Pacific Medical Center
California Public Utilities Commission
California Resources Agency
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CSAA California State Automobile Association
CSS combined sewer system
CULCOP Committee for Utility Liaison on Construction and Other Projects
CWA Clean Water Act
CWTP 2004 Countywide Transportation Plan
cy cubic yards
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DOT United States Department of Transportation
DPM diesel particulate matter
DSA disturbed soil area
EDR Environmental Database Reports
E.O. Executive Order
EB eastbound
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
fps feet per second
FR Federal Register
FS far side of intersection
FTA Federal Transit Administration
FY fiscal year
GGBHTD Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District
GGNRA Golden Gate National Recreation Area
GGT Golden Gate Transit
GHG greenhouse gas
GPS global positioning system
gsf gross square feet
HAPs hazardous air pollutants
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
HOV high-occupancy vehicle
HPC Historic Preservation Commission
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Acronyms and Abbreviations
HPS
HRIER
HSC
HSIP
IES
IRRS
ISA
ISA
ISP
ITSP
kV
LBP
LCFS
Ldn
Leq
Lmax
LOS
LP
LPA
LRDP
LRV
LSI
LUSTs
M
Ma
MACT
MAPS
MBTA
MC
MLD
MLP
Mmax
MMT
mph
MPO
MRI
MSAT
xvi
0
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Historic Property Survey
Historic Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report
historic street car
Highway Safety Improvement Program
Illuminating Engineering Society
Interregional Road System
International Society of Arborculture
Initial Site Assessment
iron stone pipe
Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan
kilovolt
lead-based paint
low-carbon fuel standard
day-night average sound pressure level
equivalent sound pressure level
maximum sound pressure level
level of service
sound pressure level
locally preferred alternative
Long-Range Development Plan
light-rail vehicle
Less than Significant Impact
leaking underground storage tanks
metered
million years ago
maximum available control technology
Mobility, Access, and Pricing Study
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
motor coach
most likely descendant
maximum load point
maximum moment magnitude earthquake
million metric tons
miles per hour
metropolitan planning organization
magnetic resonance imaging
mobile source air toxics
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Acronyms and Abbreviations
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
MTS Metropolitan Transportation System
MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
National
Register National Register of Historic Places
NB northbound
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NESHAPs national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants
NHL National Historic Landmark
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
NHS National Highway System
NM nonmetered
NO nitric oxide
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOA naturally occurring asbestos
NOA Notice of Availability
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOC Notice of Completion
NOI Notice of Intent
NOP Notice of Preparation
NOx nitrogen oxide
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPI No Project Impact
NPS National Park Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NS near side of intersection
NTD National Transit Database
O3 ozone
OCS Overhead Contact System
OHP Office of Historic Preservation
O&.M operations and maintenance
OPR Office of Planning and Research
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Act
Pb lead
PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
PCCA
Project Construction Grant Agreement
PCP
Project Construction Plan
PDAs
Priority Development Areas
PDT
Project Development Team
PG&E
Pacific Gas and Electric
PI
Project Impact
PMio
particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter
PM2.5
particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter
POAQC
Projects of Air Quality Concern
ppb
r r
parts per billion
ppm
r r
parts per million
PPV
peak particle velocity
PRC
Public Resources Code
RCP
reinforced concrete pipe
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
RECs
Recognized Environmental Conditions
RHNA
Regional Housing Needs Allocation
RMS
root mean square
ROD
Record of Decision
ROC
reactive organic gas
ROW
r\w w
RTP
Regional Transportation Plan
RWQCB
Regional Water Quality Control Board
SAFETEA-LU
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users
SAR
Strategic Analysis Report
SB
Senate Bill
SB
southbound
SC/PI
Significant Contribution/Project Impact
scs
Sustainable Communities Strategy
SEL
sound exposure level
SER
Standard Environmental Reference
SEWTP
Southeast Wastewater Treatment Plant
SFCTA
San Francisco County Transportation Authority
SFDPH
San Francisco Department of Public Health
SFDPW
San Francisco Department of Public Works
SFFD
San Francisco Fire Department
SFHPC
San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Acronyms and Abbreviations
SFMTA
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
SFPUC
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
SFWD
San Francisco Water Department
SHOPP
State Highway Operation and Protection Program
SHPO
State Historic Preservation Officer
SIP
State Implementation Plan
SMAQMD
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District
S02
sulfur dioxide
SoMa
South of Market
SPUR
San Francisco Planning and Urban Research
SR2T
Safe Routes to Transit
SRO
single-room occupancy
SSGA
Small Starts Grant Agreement
STP
Surface Transportation Program
STRAHNET
Strategic Highway Network
SWITRS
Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System
SWPPP
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB
State Water Resources Control Board
TAC
Technical Advisory Committee
TACs
toxic air contaminants
TAZ
Traffic Analysis Zone
TBACT
toxic best available control technology
TC
trolley coach
TCMs
Transportation Control Measures
TEP
Transit Effectiveness Project
TIGER III
Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery
TIP
Transportation Improvement Plan
TJPA
Transbay Joint Powers Authority
TLC
Transportation for Livable Communities
TMDL
total maximum daily load
TMP
Transportation Management Plan
TPI
Transit Performance Initiative
TPS
Transit Preferential Streets
TPY
tons per year
TRB
Transportation Research Board
TSCA
Toxic Substances Control Act
TSF
Transportation Sustainability Fee
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
TSM
Transportation System Management
TSP
Transit Signal Priority
TSP
Transportation Sustainability Program
TVM
ticket vending machines
U.S.C.
United States Code
US ioi
U.S. Highway icn
USFWS
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS
United States Geological Survey
VdB
vibration decibel
VCP
vitrified clay pipe
VMT
vehicle miles traveled
VOC
volatile organic compounds
vph
vehicles per hour
VRF
Vehicle Registration Fee
WB
westbound
WDR
Waste Discharge Requirements
YOE
Year of Expenditure
0
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Chapter 1
Project Purpose and Need
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 1: Project Purpose and Need
CHAPTER SUMMARY: There is strong demand and ridership growth potential for high-performance
transit service in the Van Ness Avenue corridor. Despite the high demand, transit speeds and
reliability are poor in the corridor. Degradation in transit performance is a projected citywide problem
that is largely contributing to a decline in transit mode share. The proposed project is strategic in light
of these needs. Chapter 1 examines the planning context and project needs, in terms of transit
performance and multimodal circulation, as a means to provide focus on the purpose of the proposed
BRT project. The project purpose is developed to address these needs and provide the rationale for
the proposed improvements, as follows: improve transit reliability, speed, connectivity and comfort in
the corridor; improve the pedestrian experience; enhance urban design and identity of Van Ness
Avenue; create a more livable street; and accommodate safe multimodal circulation and access.
CHAPTER
1
Project Purpose
and Need
1.1 Introduction
The San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA or Authority) proposes, in
cooperation with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the San Francisco Municipal
Transportation Agency (SFMTA), to implement bus rapid transit (BRT) improvements
along a 2-mile stretch of Van Ness Avenue in San Francisco,4 from Van Ness Avenue at
Lombard Street to South Van Ness Avenue at Mission Street. In cooperation with ETA, the
Authority has initiated this joint Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FTA is the Lead Agency under NEPA
and the Authority is the Lead Agency under CEQA. The California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) owns the portion of Van Ness and South Van Ness avenues
within the project limits, designated as U.S. Highway 101 (US 101). In this capacity, Caltrans
has participated in the analysis of Van Ness BRT from the initial stages, including providing
funding for the Van Ness Avenue BRT Feasibility Study (SFCTA, 2006). Caltrans continues
to participate as a Responsible Agency under CEQA in the environmental review process.
SFMTA is also participating as a Responsible Agency because they would implement the
Van Ness Avenue BRT after project approval.
Van Ness Avenue is a major north to south artery for the eastern part of San Francisco. It
also functions as a major transit street, with an average of over 16,000 daily transit trips (four
times more than the two streets on either side of Van Ness Avenue combined) carried along
Van Ness Avenue within the study area (sec Section 3.1.1.1). SFMTA operates the Muni bus
system in San Francisco. There are two Muni bus routes along the entire length of Van Ness
Avenue within the project limits (Routes 47 and 49). Five other Muni routes serve a portion
of Van Ness Avenue, and one (#19) operates along Polk Street, which runs parallel ... Van
Ness Avenue. In addition, 32 Muni transit routes cross Van Ness Avenue al various
intersections along the corridor, providing transfer opportunities to other Muni routes.
Several Mum routes provide regional transit connections to Bav Are.. Rapid Tr.insii HiMrut
(BART), AC Transit, Caltrain, Golden Gate Transit, and SamTrans. Golden Gate Transit
' The City and County of San rranasco opera.e as a join, government body within the s..me geographical I xUriea
Throughout ; thu document, th.a government body and geography area may he referred to as the ' ( It] .., San
f ranciSCO, Jian rrancisco, "City, or "Couni\ "
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Chapter 1: Project Purpose and Need
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
operates eight routes (Routes 54, 70, 72, 73, 76, 80, 93, and 97) along Van Ness Avenue
south of Lombard Street, and one route (Route 10) crosses Van Ness Avenue at Golden
Gate Avenue (inbound) and at McAllister Street (outbound).5 (See Section 3.1 for more
details on the city/ county transit network.)
Van Ness Avenue is also designated as part of the larger US 101 highway arterial on the
National Highway System (NHS), providing regional and interregional travel (i.e., commute
and non-commute) and goods movement. US 101 extends from Los Angeles, California, to
Olympia, Washington. Van Ness Avenue serves as one of San Francisco's key north-south
arterials connecting freeway entrances and exits south of downtown with Lombard Street,
which routes US 101 traffic to the Golden Gate Bridge. One block to the west is the high-
capacity arterial pair of Franklin and Gough streets, which provides more than double the
automobile capacity provided by Van Ness Avenue. Throughout the project corridor, Van
Ness Avenue typically has six traffic lanes, a landscaped median, and parking on both sides.
With approximately 45,000 jobs, 25,000 housing units, and key regional destinations such as
the San Francisco Civic Center, the Van Ness Avenue corridor is one of the region's major
employment and commercial centers, and supports one of the highest population densities
of any transit corridor in San Francisco.
Approximately 33 percent of Thus, the Van Ness Avenue corridor functions in the role of a local and a regional arterial,
private vehicle traffic in the moving traffic to, from, and within the city. The corridor carries a mix of cars, trucks,
corridor is regional, while most transit, private employer shuttles, pedestrians, and bicycles. Generally, approximately 33
(67 percent) is local. percent of private vehicle traffic on Van Ness Avenue in the study area is regional, while
most (67 percent) is local.6 Approximately 20 percent of all trips to, from, and within the
neighborhoods surrounding Van Ness Avenue are currently made by transit, which is
slightly above the city-wide share of 17 percent transit trips (SFCTA, 2009). At 46 percent,
the percentage of households in the Van Ness Avenue corridor that do not own cars is 17
percentage points higher than the citywide average (SFCTA, 2009). Van Ness Avenue also
functions as the key north/south transit "spine" of the Muni network, with 32 intersecting
Muni routes between Mssion and Lombard streets. These existing land use and
transportation characteristics of the Van Ness Avenue corridor are highly conducive to
transit use and particularly well suited to BRT.
The Authority and SFMTA have identified the Van Ness Avenue corridor in long-range
planning studies as a top priority route for rapid transit treatments, and the corridor is
included in the San Francisco Transit Priority Network. The San Francisco Transit Priority
Network is intended to address the current citywide decline in transit mode share, which is a
trend expected to continue into the future unless action is taken to improve transit travel
times, reliability, and productivity (SFCTA, 2004) (see Section 3.1). The 2003 Proposition K
Expenditure Plan and the 2004 Countywide Transportation Plan (CWTP) identify BRT on
Van Ness Avenue as part of a strategic investment in a citywide network of rapid transit.
The Van Ness Avenue BRT Feasibility Study, completed by the Authority in 2006, identified
the need for and purpose of BRT on Van Ness Avenue, developed conceptual BRT design
alternatives, and identified preliminary initial impacts and benefits. The Van Ness Avenue
BRT Feasibility Study found that several BRT configurations are possible for Van Ness
Avenue and are likely to provide significant benefits. With the adoption of the Van Ness
Avenue BRT Feasibility Study, both the Authority and SFMTA also called for the next
phase of project development - environmental analysis and preliminary engineering.
Following environmental scoping, four alternatives were defined and carried forward for
evaluation in this Draft EIS/EIR, including one no-build alternative and three build
alternatives, with a design variation. The project alternatives considered in the Draft
EIS/EIR are presented in Chapter 2, Project Alternatives.
5 Throughout the document, transit service reflects operations at the time of issuance of the Notice of Preparation (NOP)
in September 2007.
8 Regional versus local traffic varies by location within the corridor, with higher proportions of regional traffic in the
northern portion and lower proportions in the southern portion (SFCTA, 2009).
1-2 San Francisco County Transportafion Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 1: Project Purpose and Need
This Final EIS/EIR presents the environmental analysis and findings related to the Locally
Preferred Alternative (LP A), which is the project design recommended by the SFCTA and
SFMTA staffs to be carried forward for final design and construction. The LPA is a
refinement of center-running alternatives (Build Alternatives 3 and 4) with the design
variation, called Design Option B, that eliminates left turns, as described in Sections 2.2.2.4,
10.3, and 10.4. The LPA also incorporates a southbound (SB) station at Vallejo Street in
response to community concerns regarding stop spacing. Furthermore, a northbound (NB)
transit station at Vallejo Street is included as a design variant, referred to as the Vallejo
Northbound Station Variant. The decision on whether to include the variant will be made at
the time of project approval. Section 2.2.2.4 provides a detailed description of the LPA.
i.i.i | Project Location
The proposed project is located in the northeastern quadrant of the City and County of San
Francisco, California. Figure 1-1 provides a project location map. The BRT project
alignment follows South Van Ness and Van Ness avenues, which comprise a north-south
primary arterial, extending approximately 2 miles from Mission Street in the south to
Lombard Street in the north. The project includes replacement of the Overhead Contact
System (OCS) support pole/ streetlight network, which extends from Mission Street north
to North Point Street, also shown in Figure 1-1.
Figure i-i: Project Location Map
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Chapter 1: Project Purpose and Need
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
KEY CONCEPT
This document informs the
public and governmental
decision makers of
environmental effects
associated with the project
and describes the measures
that would be undertaken to
mitigate those effects.
The north and south project limits, or project "termini" constitute logical termini for the
reasons described below. The project limits were identified in accordance with the project
purpose and need, described in the following secdon, and in accordance with opportunities
and constraints of the local environment. The southern project terminus, the intersection of
Mission Street and South Van Ness Avenue, was identified in part due to the fact that the
width of Mission Street does not allow for the same types of treatments that are proposed
on Van Ness Avenue. Additionally, this intersection marks the start of the corridor along
Van Ness Avenue where the 47 and 49 bus routes follow the same right-of-way (ROW).
The northern project terminus, the intersection of Lombard Street and Van Ness Avenue,
was identified based on traffic patterns that show a significant decrease in traffic volume
north of Lombard Street. Due to the lower traffic volumes, transit delays on Van Ness
Avenue north of Lombard Street are significantly less frequent and severe than transit delays
within the project limits.
1.1.2 | Uses of this Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental
Impact Report
This EIS/EIR is prepared pursuant to the requirements of NEPA, the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations
[CFR] 1500-1508), and CEQA, Tide 14, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Guidelines
for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (Sections 15000 to 15387).
As required by NEPA and CEQA, this document informs the public and governmental
decision-makers of environmental effects associated with the project and describes the
measures that would be undertaken to mitigate those effects. This document will be used by
federal, state, regional, and local agencies to assess the environmental impacts of the project
on resources under their jurisdiction, to make discretionary decisions regarding the project,
and to exercise review and permit authority over the project. Upon certification and
approval of this document, the City of San Francisco will include the proposed project in
their land use planning, zoning processes, and transportation planning, and will depict the
proposed project on the circulation element maps of the City of San Francisco General Plan
and supporting Area Plans.
1 .2 Planning Context
As discussed in the next two sections, rapid transit in the Van Ness Avenue corridor has
been consistently identified as a priority in local and regional transportation planning. At the
same time, the role of the Van Ness Avenue corridor as part of US 101 and the state
highway system is a critical component to the planning context.
1.2.1 | Countywide Planning Context
Van Ness Avenue has been identified as a high-priority transit improvement corridor in a
number of planning studies and funding actions by the City. The Authority's Four Corridors
Plan (1995) and Muni's Vision for Rapid Transit (2000) identified Van Ness Avenue as a
priority corridor for rapid transit improvements. Since 1996, Muni's Short-Range Transit
Plan has called for rapid transit on Van Ness Avenue. In 2000, MTA's Vision Plan also
called for rapid transit on Van Ness Avenue. In 2003, San Francisco voters approved
Proposition K, which is the reauthorization of the City's Vi cent transportation sales tax.
The Prop K Expenditure Plan serves as the investment component of the 2004 CWTP,
which sets forth the City's "blueprint to guide the development of transportation funding
priorities and policy." A key objective of the CWTP is the promotion and implementation of
San Francisco's transit first policy through development of a network of fast, reliable transit,
i-4
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter i: Project Purpose and Need
including BRT. The purposes of the multimodal transportation investment package
recommended in the CWTP are to:
• Support the City's growth and development needs by addressing expected
transportation system congestion impacts;
• Stem and reverse the trend toward transit mode share loss within San Francisco
affordably and in the near term; and
• Improve the cost effectiveness and operational efficiency of the City's mature
transportation system infrastructure and service.
The CWTP evaluated alternative approaches toward meeting these system needs and
recommended a preferred scenario that calls for development of a citywide Bus Rapid
Transit Network (defined initially by a core BRT network encompassing Van Ness Avenue,
Geary Boulevard, and Potrero Avenue). The purpose of this rapid transit network is to:
• Improve transit levels of service for existing users quickly and cost effectively;
• Strengthen the citywide network of rapid transit services;
• Raise the cost effectiveness of Muni services and operational efficiency of the city's
Transit Preferential Streets (TPS) roadway network; and
• Contribute to the urban design, identity, and livability of the BRT corridors as signature
TPS streets.
Figure 1-2 shows the city's Rapid Transit Network identified in the CWTP. San Francisco
currently lacks north-south rapid transit service in the northern half of the city. Van Ness
Avenue, combined with Mission Street, functions as the primary north-south transit corridor
in San Francisco; however, Van Ness Avenue lacks rapid transit service treatments, and
existing transit services suffer from poor performance in terms of speed and reliability.
These conditions affect two Muni transit lines (49 and 47) and eight Golden Gate Transit
regional bus routes (54, 70, 72, 73, 76, 80, 93, and 97).
Figure 1-2: San Francisco Rapid Transit Network Map
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July J013
Chapter i: Project Purpose and Need
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Transportation 2035, adopted
n 2009, serves as the blueprint
for the development of
transportation facilities in the
nine-county San Francisco Bay
Area. An update to this plan,
Plan Bay Area, is currently
underway and is scheduled for
adoption in 2013.
Since adoption of the Van Ness Avenue BRT Feasibility Study, SFMTA has developed and
adopted the Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP) (SFMTA, 2009). The TEP recommended
comprehensive revisions to the Muni route structure to improve efficiency and meet
emerging travel demand patterns. In addition, the TEP recommended a Rapid Network
designation composed of the most critical and productive Muni lines. Van Ness Avenue is
included in the rapid network and identified in the TEP as a high-priority route for rapid
transit and BRT treatments.
As a result of recommendations in the CWTP, the Van Ness Avenue BRT Feasibility Study
was initiated in 2004 and completed in 2006. During this time, the City defined BRT in San
Francisco as a "fuD-featured" system with the following general elements:
Dedicated lane
Transit signal priority
High-quality stations
Distinctive vehicles
Level or near level/all-door boarding (or proof-of-payment)
The Feasibility Study evaluated the feasibility of four alternative BRT configurations on Van
Ness Avenue. Four BRT alternatives were developed and compared with a no project
scenario, in conjunction with a comprehensive public and agency participation program. The
feasibility study was unanimously approved by both the Authority and SFMTA Boards in
December 2006.
1.2.2 I Regional Planning Context
1.2.2.1 I METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) serves as the Bay Area's
transportation planning, coordinating, and financing agency for the nine-county San
Francisco Bay Area. The MTC functions as both a regional transportation planning agency
for California, and for federal purposes, as the region's metropolitan planning organization
(MPO). As such, it is responsible for regularly updating the Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP), which is a comprehensive blueprint for the development of mass transit, highway,
airport, seaport, railroad, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The most recent RTP,
Transportation 2035, was adopted in 2009 and specifies how $218 billion in anticipated
federal, state, and local transportation funds will be spent in the Bay Area during the next 25
years. Improvements to local and express bus services are included as a major project in the
2009 RTP, with BRT service on Van Ness Avenue specifically identified as part of this plan.
Due to its regional reach, Van Ness Avenue BRT is one of only two Small Starts (FTA
funding program for projects under $250 million) priorities in the region. MTC has made a
programming commitment to the project, including $87.6 million in committed funds in the
financially constrained and adopted 2009 RTP.
1.2.2.2 I CALTRANS
As part of US 101, the Van Ness Avenue corridor provides part of the surface street link of
US 101 through San Francisco. US 101 is a major component of the Caltrans Interregional
Transportation Strategic Plan (ITSP). Thus, accommodating traffic operations in the Van
Ness Avenue corridor is essential; at the same time, Vision D of the June 1998 ITSP notes
that mass transit can support interregional travel improvements with cost-effective
investments in corridors that are densely populated and heavily traveled.
Development of BRT on Van Ness Avenue is consistent with Caltrans Deputy Directive 98
(October 2008), entitled "Integrating Bus Rapid Transit into State Facilities." The directive
supports the integration of BRT on the State highway system, recognizing its potential to
increase the "person-throughput" and vehicle occupancy rate, reduce congestion, mitigate
pollution, reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and improve goods movement. Deputy
1-6
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental I mpact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter i: Project Purpose and Need
Directive 98 places strong emphasis on the responsibility of Caltrans to ensure that BRT is
integrated with other transportation modes on the State highway system through revised
design policies and standards, as well as maintenance/ operations functions.
Another relevant Caltrans Deputy Directive, Directive 64 (October 2008), is entitled
"Complete Streets - Integrating the Transportation System." This directive supports the
development of complete streets, encouraging alternative modes of transportation, during
system planning and continuing through project development. A "complete street" is
defined as a transportation facility that is planned, designed, operated, and maintained to
provide safe mobility for all users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, transit riders, and
motorists, appropriate to the function and context of the facility.
In 2003, Caltrans supported local planning efforts by providing a Community Planning
Grant to study whether BRT can address transit needs and opportunities in the Van Ness
Avenue corridor. This was important initial funding for the Van Ness Avenue BRT
Feasibility Study, which was also supported by Proposition K funding.
1.3 Project Purpose and Need
1.3.1 1 Project Purpose
The purpose of the Van Ness Avenue BRT Project has its origins in the 2004 CWTP,
discussed above in Section 1.2.1, which identified the need for a rapid transit network
citywide. The CWTP describes the purpose of the rapid network as follows:
• Improve transit levels of service for existing users quickly and cost effectively;
• Strengthen the citywide network of rapid transit services;
• Raise the cost effectiveness of Muni services and operational efficiency of the city's
Transit Preferential Streets (TPS) roadway network; and
• Contribute to the urban design, identity, and livability of the BRT corridors as signature
TPS streets.
Van Ness BRT is a key element of the rapid network (see Figure 1.2), and is intended to
fulfill in part the more general purpose described above through improvements to Van Ness
Avenue.
The project is intended to support the City's growth and development demands by
addressing expected transportation system performance needs - including to stem and
reverse the trend toward transit mode share loss within San Francisco - affordably and in
the near term. The project is also intended to improve the cost effectiveness and operational
efficiency of the City's mature transportation system infrastructure and service. The travel
time and reliability benefits of BRT on Van Ness Avenue are expected to ripple throughout
the City's transit network, facilitating transfers to other transit routes and systems. More
than 40 percent of all Muni Routes 47 and 49 riders make at least one transfer to the many
heavily used east-west cross routes, including Muni Metro, as well as regional services such
as Golden Gate Transit, BART at 16* Street, and Caltrain at 4'VKing. Van Ness Avenue
riders with destinations along the Mission, Market, SOMA, Geary Houlcv.ird, and I "111011
Street corridors will benefit through shorter travel times and enhanced rider experience with
the implementation of BRT.
With a goal of having the Van Ness corridor meet the rapid network purpose, the Feasibility
Study identified specific needs for the corridor (see Section 1.3.2), and improvements
identified in the Study attempt to achieve that end. From this bottom-up perspective, the
purpose of Van Ness BRT is to improve the safety and operational efficiency ot Van Ness
Avenue in order to:
I DEFINITION
USER BENEFIT: Benefits
of the project bestowed on
existing passengers
(e.g., shorter travel time,
enhanced rider experience)
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Chapter t: Project Purpose and Need
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
High Ridership: Approximately
43,000 passengers use Muni
bus routes 47 and 49 and the
Golden Gate Transit routes 54,
70, 72, 73, 76, 80, 93, and 97
daily, with more than 1 6,000
daily passenger boardings
within the project limits.
• Significantly improve transit reliability, speed, connectivity, and comfort;
• Improve pedestrian comfort, amenities, and safety;
• Enhance the urban design and identity of Van Ness Avenue;
• Create a more livable and attractive street for local residential, commercial, and other
activities; and
• Accommodate safe multimodal circulation and access within the corridor.
Attainment of the project objectives must be balanced with the needs to accommodate
mixed traffic, bicycle, and goods circulation and access within the corridor, as well as
maintain some on-street parking for loading/ unloading and drop-off access.
1.3.2 I Project Need
The 2004 CWTP found that San Francisco's 17% transit mode share among San Francisco
residents will decline by 2025 if measures are not taken to provide a competitive transit
alternative to auto travel in major corridors such as Van Ness Avenue. In addition, the
CWTP determined that trends towards lower transit productivity and rising operations costs
must be reversed in order to provide sustainable transit service in San Francisco that will
meet future demands. Van Ness Avenue BRT is expected to help address these citywide
needs, and others, through specific improvements in the Van Ness corridor. The specific
improvements identified in the Feasibility Study were based on the project's purpose
described in the previous section and the corridor needs described in this section.
1.3.2.1 Itransit performance needs
There is an existing strong demand in addition to large ridership growth potential for high
transit service levels in the project corridor. Van Ness Avenue transit services currently
operate at high frequencies (the Muni bus routes provide an average combined headway of
3.75 minutes during peak periods and 6 to 8 minutes in the off peak). Approximately 43,000
passengers use Muni bus routes 47 and 49 and the Golden Gate Transit routes 54, 70, 72,
73, 76, 80, 93, and 97 daily, with more than 16,000 daily passenger boardings within the
project limits. A number of major east-west transit routes cross Van Ness Avenue and
generate major bus-to-bus and bus-to-rail transfers with Van Ness Avenue transit services,
including the Muni Metro lines at Market Street and Muni bus lines 38 (Geary) and 38L
(Geary Limited). Transit has a 20 percent mode share for trips to, from, and within the
neighborhoods surrounding Van Ness Avenue, which is greater than the 17 percent daily
transit mode share citywide.
Transit in the Van Ness Avenue corridor has the potential to serve substantially more riders
both today and in the future. Approximately 46 percent of households in the Van Ness
Avenue corridor do not own cars, compared with 29 percent citywide (SFCTA BRT
Feasibility Study, 2006, using BATS and Census 2000 survey data). At an average of 93
dwelling units per acre, Van Ness Avenue has the highest population density of any transit
corridor in San Francisco. The existing population density, together with the concentration
of employment and commercial activity along the corridor (approximately 45,000 jobs),
establishes a strong transit market capable of supporting higher levels of transit investment.
Furthermore, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the San Francisco
Planning Department have targeted the Van Ness Avenue corridor for 21,000 additional
jobs (50 percent increase) and 9,000 additional housing units (34 percent increase) between
2005 and 2015 (ABAG Projections, 2007), particularly near Market Street, and active infill
development is underway throughout the corridor, consistent with the objectives of the Van
Ness Avenue Area Plan and the Market/Octavia Better Neighborhoods Plan.
Despite the above-mentioned high existing and projected ridership demand, transit speeds
and reliability are poor in the Van Ness Avenue corridor. Degradation in transit
performance is a projected citywide problem that is largely contributing to a citywide decline
in transit mode share. The Authority's 2004 CWTP found that the City's 17 percent transit
1-8
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 1: Project Purpose and Need
mode share among city residents will decline by 2025 if measures are not taken to provide a
competitive transit alternative to auto travel in major corridors such as Van Ness Avenue. A
key need for transit service on Van Ness Avenue is to close the performance gap, in
reliability and in travel time, between transit and automobile travel.
• Separate Transit from Auto Traffic to Improve Travel Time and Service Reliability. Transit
speeds and reliability (both travel time and headway reliability) are poor on Van Ness
Avenue, due in large part to conflicts with mixed-flow traffic. Buses spend
approximately half their time on Van Ness Avenue completely stopped; these delays
occur when moving in traffic, maneuvering to and from the curb to load and unload
passengers, and waiting at signals. Signal and mixed-traffic delays account for well over
half of total bus delay. Travel times on Van Ness Avenue between Clay and Mission
average 16 minutes by transit and fewer than 9 minutes by private vehicle (see Section
3.2 for details). Even when time spent loading and unloading passengers is subtracted
from transit travel time, buses still remain as much as 35 percent slower than cars
(SFCTA, 2006).
Travel in mixed traffic also causes reliability problems. As buses travel in mixed traffic,
variation in headway increases, and buses begin to bunch, as shown in Figure 1-3
(Source: SFCTA field study performed as part of Van Ness BRT Feasibility Study,
2006). By the time SB Van Ness Avenue buses reach Market Street, buses are just as
likely to be more than 50 percent off from scheduled spacing (i.e., less than 4 minutes
apart or more than 1 1 minutes apart) as they are to arrive within 50 percent of
scheduled spacing (i.e., 4- to 11 -minute spacing). For example, buses are equally as likelv
to be 1 or more than 13 minutes apart (compared to the scheduled 7.5 minutes apart per
route), reflecting unreliable service for waiting passengers.
Figure 1-3: Variation in Headways (Average Wait Times)
at Market Street SB during the PM Peak
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I july 2013
Chapter 1: Project Purpose and Need
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Finally, conflicts with mixed traffic affect transit operating efficiency and productivity.
The delays caused by operating in mixed traffic add significandy to transit's route cycle
time, increasing the number of vehicles and operators required to provide needed
service frequencies.
BRT on Van Ness Avenue is forecast to decrease transit travel times by up to 32
percent and improve reliability by up to 50 percent (see Section 3.2 for details).
Moreover, BRT is estimated to improve transit operating productivity by up to 33
percent, reducing the overall cycle time of Van Ness Avenue routes and saving
substantial operating resources (see Chapter 9 for details).
• Reduce Delays Associated with Loading and Unloading and Traffic Signals. As shown in
Figure 1-4, time spent loading and unloading passengers (dwell time), while part of
service, does include unnecessary delays that contribute to slow travel times for buses.
Dwell times are lengthy because passengers must enter the bus through a single door,
ascend from the curb into the bus doorway, and wait in line while those without passes
pay bus fare onboard. Passengers with mobility disabilities often need the assistance of
lifts or ramps to enter and exit buses, which can further increase dwell time.
VAN NESS CORRIDOR
TRANSIT NEEDS
1. Separate transit from auto
traffic to improve travel time
and service reliability.
2. Reduce delays associated
with loading and unloading
and traffic signals.
3. Expand the City's
Network of Rapid Transit.
4. Improve the experience
for transit patrons.
Figure 1-4: Components of Transit Travel Time
on Van Ness Avenue (Southbound - PM Peak)
Bus Travel Time Components (SB PM Peak in Minutes)
r
'■Cruising Time
■ Signal Delay
□ Mixed Traffic Delay
■ Dwell Time
BRT stations with level or near level boarding platforms, proof-of-payment, and fare
prepayment should facilitate faster and easier passenger loading and unloading by
enabling passengers to simply walk or roll onto the bus through all vehicle doors.
Boarding more passengers in less time would provide more transit capacity without the
added costs of additional buses and drivers.
• Improve the Experience for Transit Patrons. Existing transit service on Van Ness Avenue
lacks many amenities that would make the transit experience attractive to new riders and
more comfortable for existing riders, both in and out of the vehicle. While waiting,
transit passengers along Van Ness Avenue often lack shelter, seating, and real-time
information. Waiting passengers jostle for sidewalk space with passing pedestrians.
While riding, transit passengers often encounter crowded buses as a result of bunching
and reliability problems, and experience poor ride quality as buses must weave around
mixed traffic and into and out of sidewalk bus stops.
BRT will upgrade bus service with station amenities including larger shelters, additional
seating, communications systems, ticket vending machines at selected stations, real-time
1-10
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 1: Project Purpose and Need
service information, improved lighting, and security features. BRT station platforms would
be separated from pedestrian traffic, and would include landscape and streetscape features to
offer a buffer from vehicular traffic where feasible. BRT is intended to improve ride quality
by eliminating the need to pull in and out of stops, and for most alternatives, the need to
weave around mixed traffic. The BRT buses would accommodate more passengers, offer
additional seating, and operate at more reliable headways, relieving crowding.
1-3.2.2 I MULTIMODAL CIRCULATION NEEDS
People currently use Van Ness Avenue to drive, walk, bike, and ride transit. Van Ness
Avenue improvements are intended to improve multimodal circulation and the overall
transportation effectiveness of the corridor, meeting the general needs identified in the
CWTP and the corridor-specific needs identified in the BRT Feasibility Study. Support of
non-motorized travel modes and overall system operation is critical to the success of high-
quality transit in the corridor and would support local planning efforts to transform Van
Ness Avenue into a pedestrian promenade, as well as a grand multimodal thoroughfare.
Multimodal circulation, corridor design, and land use planning needs for Van Ness Avenue
include the following:
• Improve the Safety and Comfort of Pedestrians. Pedestrian trips comprise 26 percent of
total daily trips to, from, and within the neighborhoods surrounding Van Ness Avenue,
exceeding the citywide average of 17 percent. Every transit trip begins and ends with a
walking trip, and nearly half of trips to, from, or within the Van Ness Avenue
neighborhoods are a walk, bike, or transit trip, indicating the importance of non-
motorized travel in the area along Van Ness Avenue. While the existing street design
within the project limits meets City sidewalk width standards with its 16-foot-wide
sidewalks, most intersections are without pedestrian countdown signals or Accessible
Pedestrian Signals (APS), and many of the intersections do not meet San Francisco or
Federal standards for minimum pedestrian speeds in order to cross Van Ness Avenue
during the walk signal phase.7 Pedestrians experience twice as much delay at
intersections as vehicle occupants, especially waiting to cross Van Ness Avenue. The
greater the delay, the higher the likelihood of noncompliance with signals, which results
in compromised safety and traffic flow impacts (SFCTA 2011). At crossings without a
pedestrian signal, pedestrians can be caught mid-crossing when the light turns yellow,
with as little as 4 seconds to reach a curb or median refuge, indicating the strong need
for pedestrian countdown and APS with sufficient crossing times at these crossings.
Section 3.4 provides detailed information on pedestrian crossing conditions in the
corridor.
BRT will improve pedestrian safety and conditions through the provision of curb
extensions (curb bulbs) to create greater pedestrian visibility, as well as shorter crossing
distances coupled with signal timings that meet City and federal targets for walking
speeds. The project will also implement APS, in addition to countdown signals, .11 .ill
signalized intersections, as well as enhance refuge medians to meet or exceed City
standards and include nose cones. These BRT features are expected to reduce the
crosswalk pedestrian collisions commonly experienced on Van Ness Avenue.
• Raise the Operating Efficiency of Van Ness Avenue by Maintaining Person-Throughput while
Increasing the Capacity and Vehicle Occupancy Rate. Tin Van Ness Vvenue corridor,
comprised of Van Ness Avenue and parallel streets from Gough Street to Hyde Street,
has the potential to carry people more efficiently, than today. Within the study area,
motorized trips on Van Ness Avenue are expected to increase In up to ".5 percent In
2015 if a BRT project is not built, while the transit mode share is expected to st.tv the
same or decline. These trends would cause an increase in congestion on Van Ness
Avenue. These increasing demands on the street's limited ROW necessitate more
PROJECT COALS BEYOND
TRANSIT ENHANCEMENT
1. Improve the safety and
comfort of pedestrians.
2. Raise the operating efficiency
of Van Ness Avenue by
increasing person-throughput/
vehicle occupancy rate.
3. Upgrade streetscape to
support an identity as a rapid
transit and pedestrian
environment.
4. Support the civic destinations
on the corridor and integrate
transit infrastructure with
adjacent land uses.
7 APS are devices that communicate when to cross the street in a non visual manner, such as tudiblc tones, speech
messages, anil vibrating surfaces.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
t-n
Chapter 1: Project Purpose and Need
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
efficient operations and use of space to increase capacity for person-throughput in the
corridor and raise the vehicle occupancy rate.
Due to the expected increase in transit ridership with BRT, Van Ness Avenue would
operate more productively. With BRT, each transit lane would carry 13 percent (Build
Alternative 2) to 36 percent (Build Alternatives 3, 4, and the LP A) more people than
each mixed traffic lane, and the average vehicle occupancy on the street would increase
to more than two people per vehicle (see Section 3.1 for details).
In addition, by creating a dedicated lane for transit, BRT would allow for increased bus
operations on Van Ness Avenue without impacting the traffic network (i.e., additional
buses would not conflict with auto traffic). BRT also makes it possible to provide
similar service at a lower operating cost (see Chapter 9); this is because with BRT, each
bus can complete its route in less time, so less vehicles and drivers would be needed to
keep the same frequencies. Preliminary results indicate that 1 to 2 more buses per hour
could be added on both the 47 and 49 BRT routes at no additional operating cost based
on the travel time savings in the 2015 microsimulation model (see Section 3.2). If more
operating funds were dedicated to Van Ness Avenue in the future, those investments
would be more cost effective with BRT because the lower travel times would allow for a
greater increase in frequency of bus operations. The center-lane BRT alternatives (Build
Alternatives 3 and 4) would be more cost effective than Build Alternative 2 because
those alternatives would have a lower travel time (see Chapter 3.2 for more details); and
Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B, as well as the LPA, would offer
additional cost effectiveness for this reason.
• Upgrade Streetscape to Support an Identity as a Rapid Transit and Pedestrian Environment.
Existing streetscape conditions are deficient, lacking in consistency and pedestrian
amenities.
A main component of the proposed build alternatives is to provide a consistent
landscaped median treatment and pedestrian lighting, as well as establish a more unified
identity for Van Ness Avenue as one of the City's most prominent arterials and a visible
rapid transit service. The improved streetscape features of the proposed build
alternatives would enhance the amenity and urban design of Van Ness Avenue as a
gateway into the city.
• Support the Civic Destinations on the Corridor and Integrate Transit Infrastructure with
Adjacent Land Uses. The project corridor is already a strong market for transit, due
largely to the existing transit-supportive land use in the corridor, including the highest
population density of any transit corridor in San Francisco, and nearly half of the
households in the corridor do not own automobiles.
In addition to existing transit demand, the Van Ness Avenue corridor is planned by the
City for high-density mixed-use development and transformation of the street into a
transit-served pedestrian promenade that supports the Civic Center and commercial
uses. Rapid transit service along Van Ness Avenue would contribute to the City's
transit-oriented development efforts by providing high-quality, reliable, comfortable
transit that improves access to destinations within the corridor and elsewhere in the city.
The placement of BRT infrastructure demonstrates an investment in the corridor and
provides a greater sense of permanence than typical bus facilities.
• Accommodate private vehicles and commercial loading. Attainment of the project objectives
must be balanced with the need to accommodate mixed traffic and goods circulation
and access within the corridor, as well as maintain some on-street parking for
loading/unloading and drop-off access. Private vehicle traffic in the future is anticipated
to become more congested on Van Ness Avenue and on the streets immediately parallel
in the no project scenario. Analysis indicates that the implementation of BRT is not
forecast to increase the number of congested intersections (i.e., those operating at LOS
E or F) in the corridor, in year 2015, relative to the No Build Alternative (see Section
I
I
I
I
I
1-12
0
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter i: Project Purpose and Need
3.3 for details). Parallel parking is located along most of Van Ness Avenue throughout
the project corridor, providing drop-off and loading access to businesses, residents, and
institutional uses fronting the avenue. Parking also provides persons with disabilities
access to the commercial, residential, civic, and cultural centers in the project corridor.
Accommodating truck maneuverability is also important in supporting land uses along
the corridor, as well as regional goods movement.
1.3.3 I Project Ability to Meet the Purpose and Need
Chapter 10 discusses the performance of each alternative and the LPA, with or without the
Vallejo Northbound Station Variant, on an array of indicators related to the Project Purpose
and Need, as well as other issues of interest to stakeholders A full analysis of transportation
performance can be found in Chapter 3, while analysis on the other areas of stakeholder and
environmental concern can be found in Chapter 4.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Chapter 1: Project Purpose and Need
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
,.,4 San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Chapter 2
Project Alternatives
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives
CHAPTER SUMMARY: The project proposed by the Authority will implement BRT improvements along
approximately 2 miles of Van Ness and South Van Ness Avenue between Lombard and Mission
streets in San Francisco. This chapter of the EIS/EIR describes the proposed action and the project
alternatives that were considered to achieve the project purpose and need while avoiding or
minimizing environmental impacts. Three build alternatives, including one side-lane running and two
center-lane running alignments, a design option eliminating left turns, a Locally Preferred Alternative
(LPA) refined from the center-lane running build alternatives incorporating the design option, and a
"No Build" (no action) Alternative are analyzed. The build alternatives, including the LPA, propose
operating BRT in a dedicated transit lane in the northbound and southbound directions, resulting in
two mixed-flow and one transit lane in each direction, replacing existing Muni bus stops with BRT
stations in the project corridor, and other transit enhancements such as transit signal priority.
CHAPTER
Project Alternatives
2.1 Alternatives Development Process
The Van Ness Avenue corridor has been identified as a high-priority transit improvement
corridor in many planning studies and funding acdons by the City. The Authority's Four
Corridors Plan (1995) and Muni's Vision for Rapid Transit (2000) identified Van Ness
Avenue as a priority corridor for rapid transit improvements. The Authority's 2004 CWTP
reinforced these plans by recommending a citywide rapid transit network that would include
BRT and TPS treatments as San Francisco's transit expansion strategy. The Van Ness
Avenue corridor was included as part of the Rapid Network.
The New Expenditure Plan for San Francisco, which was approved bv voters as
Proposition K authorizing the City's Vz cent transportation sales tax measure in November
2003 idendfies Van Ness Avenue for BRT funding. The New F^xpenditure Plan is the
investment component of the 2004 CWTP.
2.1.1 1 Van Ness Avenue BRT Feasibility Study
In 2006, the Authority and SFMTA Boards adopted the Van Ness Avenue BRT Feasibility
Study, which was prepared by the Authority, and identified the need for and purpose of BRT
on Van Ness Avenue. The plan developed conceptual BRT design alternatives and evaluated
initial impacts and benefits. The Feasibility Study found that several BRT configurations .in-
possible for Van Ness Avenue and are likely to provide significant benefits with relatively
modest impacts, and it called for the next phase of project development, environmental
analysis, and preliminary engineering. The Van Ness Avenue BRT Feasibilitv Studv is discussed
below, along with other key milestones in the project alternatives development process.
2.1.2 I Scoping Process
In September 2007, the Authority issued a federal Notice of Intent (NOI) and state Notice
of Preparation (NOP) initiating the project scoping period under NEPA and < I QA,
respectively. The purpose of the scoping period was to obtain feedback from the public, |
partner agencies, and all interested parties on the proposed project alternatives and the type*
of environmental impacts to be analyzed. Two formal scoping meetings were held with the
public on October 2 and October 4, 2007, and one agency meeting, which included federal.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
RESOURCES
To view the Van Ness BRT
Feasibility Study, the Scoping
Report, and the Alternatives
Screening Report, visit
www.sfcta.org/vanness.
state, regional, and local agencies, was held on October 4, 2007. The outcome of these
meetings is presented in the Van Ness BRT Scoping Summary Report (November 30, 2007).
The intent of the scoping process, as explained in the Scoping Summary Report, was to:
• Inform affected agencies and the public about the proposed Van Ness Avenue BRT
Project, including compliance with NEPA and CEQA requirements;
• Identify a reasonable range of transit improvement alternatives to be evaluated for Van
Ness Avenue;
• Identify potentially significant environmental impact areas that should be studied in the
EIS/EIR; and
• Expand on the existing mailing list of agencies and individuals interested in the future
actions related to Van Ness Avenue BRT and the EIS/EIR.
Written and verbal comments were received on a wide range of alternatives, including a No
Build Alternative, an express bus alternative, side lane and center lane running BRT
alternatives, side lane BRT with a removed parking lane, and a subway alternative. Overall,
center lane running BRT was the configuration most often preferred by the public, as
documented in the Van Ness BRT Scoping Summary Report. Agency and public input
received during the scoping period, in addition to findings of the Feasibility Study, CWTP,
and other studies, helped define the range of alternatives recommended for NEPA and
CEQA evaluation. Chapter 8, Consultation and Coordination, provides a detailed summary
of the project scoping period and outreach activities.
The Alternatives Screening
Report (2008) applied screening
criteria to alternatives analyzed
during the scoping process to
determine the ability of each one
to meet the project's purpose
and need (see Chapter 1).
2.1.3 I Alternatives Screening/Analysis
To identify the limited set of build alternatives to be analyzed in the Draft EIS/EIR, the
Authority prepared an Alternatives Screening Report (March 2008). The report applied many
screening criteria to determine the ability of each alternative to meet the purpose of and need for
the project, as developed in the Van Ness Avenue BRT Feasibility Study. The project purpose
and need statement reflects citywide BRT development policies found in the CWTP and project-
level goals and needs identified during the conceptual planning work of the Feasibility Study.
The alternatives that were analyzed in this report include a No Build Alternative; TPS
improvements; multiple BRT alignments, including center running and side running BRT;
and surface light rail and subway alternatives. The report recommended three build
alternatives for further study; these alternatives are presented in Section 2.2.
Table 2-1 displays the screening criteria used to analyze the alternatives in the screening
report. The criteria address benefits and impacts.
Table 2-1: Alternatives Screening Report Criteria
TYPE OF BENEFIT
SCREENINC CRITERIA
Transit Operations
Transit speed and reliability
Transit mode share/ridership
Out-of-vehicle waiting experience
Transit Rider Experience
In-vehicle ride quality
Pedestrian access and safety
Urban Design
Streetscape, landscape, integration with land uses
Multimodal System
Performance
Total person-delay
Rapid network identity
Time to benefits
2-2
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I july 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives
Table 2-1: Alternatives Screening Report Criteria
TYPE OF IMPACT
SCREENING CRITERIA
Traffic and Parking
Traffic circulation (includes diversions, delay)
Parking spaces
Cost
Capital cost
Operating cost
Construction Impact
Duration and intensity of construction
Source: Van Ness Avenue BRT Alternatives Screening Report. March 2008.
2.1.4 1 Identification of a Locally Preferred Alternative
The Draft EIS/EIR was distributed and made available to the public for review and
comment from November 4 through December 23, 2011. As required by NEPA, an EIS
must include the identification of a preferred alternative. The three build alternatives
considered in the Draft EIS/EIR, and described in Section 2.2, consisted of one side-
running alignment (Alternative 2) and two center-lane alignments (Alternatives 3 and 4), as
well as a limited left- turn variant (Design Option B). Based on technical analyses presented
in the Draft EIS/EIR, agency, stakeholder, and public input received during circulation of
the Draft EIS/EIR and results of weighting and risk analysis performed by a steering
committee of SFCTA and SFMTA staff, the SFCTA and SFMTA staff jointly
recommended, and their boards subsequently selected, the LPA as a center-lane BRT with
right-side boarding/single median and limited left turns for inclusion in the Final EIS/EIR.
The LPA represents an optimized, refined center-running alternative; BRT vehicles would
operate alongside the median for most of the corridor, similar to Build Alternative 4 (see
Section 2.2 for a full description of Build Alternative 4). At station locations, the BRT
runningway would transition to the center of the roadway, allowing right-side loading using
standard vehicles, similar to Build Alternative 3 (see Section 2.2 for a full description of
Build Alternative 3). This alternative would retain the high-performance features of Build
Alternatives 3 and 4 (e.g., maximum transit priority, fewest conflicts) while avoiding the need
to acquire left-right door vehicles or remove the entire existing median. Because the limited
left-turn variant (Design Option B) was shown in the Draft EIS/EIR to provide the greatest
travel time benefits for transit, would reduce the weaving associated with the transitions, and
aid with the flow of north-south traffic on Van Ness Avenue, the LPA incorporates Design
Option B, eliminating all left turns from Van Ness Avenue between Mission and Lombard
streets, with the exception of the southbound (SB) (two-lane) left turn at Broadway.
The LPA also involves some modifications to station locations versus those shown for the
build alternatives in the Draft EIS/HIR. Specifically, the stations are now on the near side of
intersections to allow for trucks turning onto Van Ness Avenue. Since the NB Market Street
station would be less than one block from the Mission Street station, the NB Mission Street
station would be removed under the LPA. There is currently a stop for the 49 at the
13th Strect/Dubocc/Mission/US 101 off-ramp intersection (one block from Mission Street
South Van Ness Avenue intersection) and a stop for the 47 at 1 I* and Mission Street (also
one block from the Mission Street/South Van Ness Avenue) intersection. As a separate
project, the TEP is studying routing that would accommodate a stop for the 47 Limited on
South Van Ness Avenue just south of the Mission Street/South Van Ness Avenue
intersection. Under the TEP, the 49 Limited would not make stops between the
16'V Mission stop and the Market Street BRT station; however, riders would still be able to
board the 14 (Mission local) bus along Mission Street. That route would continue to stop u
the Mission Street/South Van Ness Avenue intersection.
The LPA also involves the incorporation of a SB station at Vftllejo Street in response to
community concerns regarding stop spacing. A NB transit station at Vallejo Street ia also
DEFINITION
LOCALLY PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE (LPA):
The final selected physical
design concept and scope for
the Van Ness Avenue BRT
Project, which will be one of the
alternatives, or a combination of
features from more than one of
the alternatives reviewed in the
Draft EIS/EIR and described in
Section 2.2.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
1)
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
included as a design variant, referred to as the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant. The
decision on whether to include the variant will be made at the time of project approval.
Section 2.2.2.4 provides a detailed description of the LPA.
Upon project approval, the City of San Francisco would include the proposed project in
their land use planning, zoning processes, and transportation planning. Additionally, the City
would depict, or reference, the proposed project on the circulation element maps of the City
of San Francisco General Plan and supporting Area Plans.
2.2 Project Alternatives
Based on the outcome of the Van Ness Avenue BRT screening process, four alternatives
were defined in the Alternatives Screening Report prepared by the Authority in March 2008,
including one No Build Alternative and three build alternatives. These alternatives have been
refined in response to changes in funding and programming since the 2008 Screening
Report, and they are presented in detail in the following sections.
2.2.1 I Alternative 1: No Build (Baseline Alternative)
Alternative 1, the No Build Alternative, would not include BRT service and assumes that the
existing roadway and transit services in the 2-mile-long Van Ness Avenue corridor would
continue and be supplemented by funded improvement projects planned to occur within the
near-term horizon year of 2015. These transportation system and infrastructure
improvements are planned to occur regardless of implementation of any BRT build
alternatives, including the LPA. The following transportation system and infrastructure
improvements are included in the No Build Alternative:
• Pavement Rehabilitation. As part of US 101, which is a State highway, Van Ness Avenue
qualifies for Caltrans State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP)
funds, which may be used for capital improvements relative to maintenance, safety, and
rehabilitation of state highways and bridges that do not add a new traffic lane to the
system. Caltrans is developing cost and estimates as part of a Project Report for the Van
Ness/Lombard Pavement Rehabilitation project for funds to be programmed in the
2014 SHOPP and made available in FY 2016/2017.
• OCS and Support Pole/Streetlight Replacement. SFMTA, together with the San Francisco
Department of Public Works (SFDPW) and the San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission (SFPUC), plans to replace the existing overhead wire contact system and
support poles/ streetlights along Van Ness Avenue from Market Street to North Point
Street to address the failing structural condition of the system. Replacement of the
support poles has been on SFMTA's list of desired Capital Improvement Projects since
2003 (DPW, 2009). Improvements would include removal and replacement of existing
poles and light fixtures. This effort may be implemented as a comprehensive replacement
project or as a phased maintenance program that would replace poles on a priority basis,
with the most structurally compromised poles prioritized for replacement. Poles would be
replaced in approximately the same locations on the sidewalk, within approximately 3 feet
to 5 feet of the existing poles. The replacement poles would be designed to handle
modern loads as required by the BRT. These poles would also provide street and sidewalk
lighting. New lighting would be energy efficient, require low maintenance, and meet
current lighting requirements for safety. A new duct bank would be constructed within
the sidewalk area to support the streetlights and traffic signal interconnect conduits.
• Traffic Signal Infrastructure for Real-Time Traffic Management. The SFgo and Signal
Replacement Program led by SFMTA is a package of technology-based transportation
management system tools with the following objectives:
Advance the Transit First policy;
2-4
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives
- Replace 50-year-old traffic signal and communications infrastructure;
Provide transit priority and emergency vehicle preemption;
Disseminate real-time traveler and parking information;
- Manage special events; and
- Enhance operations and maintenance.
The SFgo and Signal Replacement Program is comprised of many projects that would
be implemented throughout the City, including the Van Ness Avenue corridor. Some
elements of the SFgo and Signal Replacement Program are expected to be implemented
on Van Ness Avenue by 2015 regardless of a BRT project and are part of the No Build
Alternative. Other elements of the SFgo and Signal Replacement Program intended for
Van Ness Avenue would be implemented as part of the BRT build alternatives,
including the LPA, and they are presented in Section 2.2.2. The following signal
infrastructure elements of the SFgo and Signal Replacement Program are planned for
implementation in the Van Ness Avenue corridor by 2015; therefore, they are included
in the No Build Alternative:
Traffic Signal Replacement. Existing traffic signal heads and poles will be upgraded to
mast arm poles (arched to hang over traffic lanes), and new signal heads will be
installed at all intersections along Van Ness Avenue.
- Pedestrian Countdown Signals. As part of the SFgo and Signal Replacement Program,
pedestrian countdown signals will be installed on all crosswalk legs at all signalized
intersections along Van Ness Avenue. Pedestrian countdown signals are traffic signals
located at crosswalks that, in addition to displaying the standard symbols for walk/
don't walk, also provide a flashing numerical countdown that indicates how much time
is remaining before cross traffic is given a green light. Countdown signals increase
pedestrian safety by giving clear and accurate information about crossing time so
that pedestrians can complete their crossing before cross traffic receives the ROW .
Accessible Pedestrian Signals. Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS), or audible crossing
indications, would likely be installed at some additional signalized intersections in
the project corridor as part of the SFgo and Signal Replacement Program. APS
provides audible crossing indications for visually impaired pedestrians. Currently,
APS is installed on Van Ness Avenue at the intersections of Market, McAllister,
Hayes, Grove, and Fell streets.
Curb Ramp Upgrades. The SFgo and Signal Replacement Program will install curb
ramps that meet current City standards and ADA requirements at all intersections
along Van Ness Avenue to provide access by people in wheelchairs, as well as
provide easier travel for those with strollers, carts, and the like.
• High-Quality Bus Vehicles with Low-Floor Boarding. SFMTA is gradually converting its fleet
to low-floor buses, which will provide more-level boarding, resulting in easier and
quicker boarding and alighting. Low-floor buses would not require passengers to climb
steps to board or exit buses, helping to shorten dwell times, especially the time required
for passengers in wheelchairs to board and alight. The replacement fleet in the Van Ness
Avenue would include 60-foot articulated electric trolley coaches and dicsel hybrid |
coaches, and it would be phased into operation by year 2015.
• On-Bus Proof of Payment/All-Door Boarding. In 2012, SFMTA implemented ill dooi
boarding, allowing passengers with proof of payment, such as a Clipper Card, to board
through any door and swipe their fare cards on receptors on the bus. All-door boarding
will help to reduce dwell times.
• Real-Time Arrival Information. SFMTA is installing real-time bus arrival information
displays (like NextMuni) at major bus stops with shelters along Van Ness Avenue.
Implementation of the aforementioned transportation system and infrastructure
improvements is assumed under the No Build Alternative. These improvements would not
result in changes to the basic sidewalk, intersection crossing, and median configurations;
therefore, under the No Build Alternative, it is assumed that Van Ness Avenue would
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I |uly 203
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Under each build alternative,
including the LPA,
two mixed-flow traffic lanes
(one southbound and one
northbound) would be converted
into two dedicated transit lanes.
maintain the existing physical configuration, and median widths, sidewalk widths, crosswalk
dimensions, crossing distances, and provision would be the same as today. Muni 47 and 49
buses would continue to serve curbside stations; existing parallel parking and all existing
traffic turning movements would be maintained.
2.2.2 I Build Alternatives, including the LPA
Based on findings of the 2006 Van Ness Avenue BRT Feasibility Study and scoping process,
three build alternatives were defined and recommended for NEPA/CEQA analysis in the
Van Ness Avenue BRT Alternatives Screening Report.8 Figure 2-1 presents cross sections of
the build alternatives. Figure 2-2 presents a typical cross section of the LPA and the station
locations. Figure 2-4 depicts the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant, an LPA design variation
that includes a NB station at the Vallejo Street/Van Ness Avenue intersection. The decision on
whether to include the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant will be made at the time of project
approval. .Project features common to each of the alternatives are summarized in Table 2-2.
Each build alternative, including the LPA, proposes BRT operating along a dedicated transit
lane, or transitway, for the 2-mile-long project corridor. Under each build alternative,
including the LPA, two mixed-flow traffic lanes (one SB and one NB) would be converted
into two dedicated transit lanes (one SB and one NB). In other words, the existing mixed-
flow traffic lanes would be reduced from three lanes to two lanes in each direction to
accommodate the BRT transitway. The build alternatives, including the LPA, would occur
entirely within the existing street ROW, and no property acquisition would be required.
None of the build alternatives, including the LPA, would require reduction in sidewalk
width. Curbside parking would generally be maintained under each build alternative,
including the LPA, although some loss of street parking would occur at locations
throughout the project corridor under each of the three build alternatives and the LPA.
Detailed information on parking is presented in Chapter 3, Section 3.5.
Under all build alternatives, including the LPA, the existing Muni bus stops along Van Ness
Avenue would be removed and replaced with BRT stations. Proposed BRT service would
meet Muni's standards for rapid stop spacing, providing eight NB and nine SB stop locations,
or one stop every three blocks; the Vallejo Northbound Station variant would include an
additional NB station for a total of 9 NB stations. This means that, on average, passengers
would not need to walk farther than 1.5 blocks to reach a stop. There are currently 15 NB
and 14 SB Muni bus stops along Van Ness and South Van Ness avenues between Mission
and Lombard streets, with an average of 700 feet between stops, or a stop approximately
every 2 blocks. This spacing does not meet the Muni service standard recommending
spacing between stops of 800 feet to 1,000 feet along relatively flat streets such as Van Ness
Avenue. Each build alternative proposes consolidation and removal of 6 existing bus stops
in each direction to reduce dwell time delays and improve service reliability over existing
conditions (the LPA would remove seven stops in the NB direction along the BRT corridor,
including the Mission/South Van Ness stop. The LPA would remove five stops in the SB
direction; if the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant is selected, six stops would be removed
in the NB direction). Figure 2-3 depicts the existing Muni stops that would be discontinued
and the proposed replacement BRT stations for Build Alternatives 2 through 4, and Figures
2-2 and 2-4 depict this information for the LPA. Stations would be placed within the
existing street ROW at 10 intersections, listed in Table 2-3 for Build Alternatives 2 through
4 and depicted in Figure 2-3. Station placement for the LPA is listed in Table 2-4. Detailed
plan drawings for each build alternative, including the LPA, are provided in Appendix A.
Golden Gate Transit service would utilize the BRT transitway and BRT stations to a varied
degree under each alternative, as described in Section 3.2.3.
8 The alternatives presented in this document have been slightly modified from the alternatives in the 2008 Screening
Report in response to changes in funding and programming that have occurred since the report was finalized. Namely,
features of the No Build Alternative have been more clearly defined based on up-to-date funding and programming.
2-6 San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives
"Mixed Flow-" Mood Flow
Trade Lane Traffic Lane Traffic Lane
Traffic Lane Traffic Lane
Sidewa* BRTSlalorv BRT MuedFbw M tied Flow
Parting Transtway Traffic Lane Traffic Lane
BRT BRTSUton; 16 Srfewa*
Traffic Lane Traffic Lane Transtway Partung
Lane
Lane Traffic Lane Traffic Lane
Parting Mad FV* l»aj Ftow
Lam Traffic Lane Traffic Lane
BRT U«d Ffcw
Trie—) Traffic La
Traffic Law Lane
Figure 2-1. Typical Cross Sections of Build Alternatives 2-4
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
2-8
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rap.d Trans.t Proiecl
Fmal Env.ronmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives
LPA: Center Lane BRT with Right-Side Boarding/Single Median and Limited Left Turns
3 2
<o »
•1
(A
!
i
f
e
!
•
Jackson St.
Station I
. AVE
i !
3 I
•
•
-
1 !
1
1
Incorporation of a design variant under the LPA, called the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant, would include a NB station on the block ol Van Ness Avenue between Vallejo and Green streets (see Section 2.2.2.4 and Figure 2 J).
Proposed BRT Salon
Proposed BRT Transrtoay
Proposed Landscape Median
Existng Muni Bus Sbps
Led Turn Pocket
Exslng Lelt Turn Pocket to be Elmnatod
Schematic diagram not to scale. See Appendix A for scaled engineering drawings.
Figure 2-2: Cross Sections and Station & Left-Turn Pocket Location Map for the LPA
San Francisco County Transportation Author.ty I july 2013
Chapter a: Project Alternatives
Van Ness A*e«*e aWi •*>-« "'•*■».• »-t**-
f tn>l ErrvrrorfeaMelleJ featpMi ft—
This page intentionally left blank.
2-IO
Sar\ Francisco County Transportation AutHwei
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit ProPect
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Proposed BRT Station
Proposed BRT Transituiay
Proposed landscape Median _J Proposed Lett Turn Pocket
Existing Muni Bus Slops — * Existing Left Turn Pocket to be Eliminated
Figure 2-3. BRT Station and Left-Turn Pocket Locations for Build Alternatives
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 20l3
Figure 2-2
BRTStationandLett-TurnPochdLocations
forProposedBuiltJAIteriiatives
Chapter K Project Alternatives
Van Nev*
This page intentionally left blank.
2-12
San Francisco Count* Tr«nspon«t«-
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives
Legend
Proposed BRT Station
Proposed BRT Transitway
Proposed Landscape Median
Existing Muni Bus Stops
Left Turn Pocket
Existing Left Turn Pocket to be Eliminated
Vallejo Northbound Station Variant
o
Figure 2-4. Vallejo Northbound Station Variant
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
a ij
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Table 2-2: Major Project Features
PROJECT FEATURE
NO BUILD
ALTERNATIVE
BUILD
ALTERNATIVES*
High-Quality Bus Vehicles with Low-Floor Boarding
X
X
High-Quality Bus Vehicles with Level or Near Level Boarding**
X
Dedicated Bus Lanes (Transitway)
X
High-Quality Stations
X
On-Bus Proof of Payment/All-Door Boarding
(swipe pass on bus)
X
Platform Proof of Payment/All-Door Boarding —
(swipe pass on platform prior to bus arrival at selected stations)
X
Real-Time Arrival Information
X
X
Pavement Rehabilitation
X
X
Pavement Resurfacing
X
Pedestrian-Scale Lighting
X
Landscaping
X
X
Overhead Contact System (OCS) support pole/streetlight replacement
X
X
Curb Ramp Upgrades
X
X
Curb Bulbs Upgrades
X
Median Upgrades/Nose Cones for Pedestrian Safety
X
Traffic Signal Infrastructure, including Upgrade to Mast Arm Signals
X
X
Real-Time Traffic Management (upgraded controllers and nber-optic
signal interconnects)
X
Global Positioning System (CPS)-Based Transit Signal Priority (TSP)
X
Automatic Vehicle Location
X
Pedestrian Countdown Signals
X
X
Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS)
X****
X
*The Build Alternatives would include indicated project features with or without incorporation of the
Center Alternative Desig
n Option B as
described in Sections 2.1.2.2 and 2.1.2.3. The LPA would also include the indicated project features.
**The Transportation Research Board defines level boarding as minimizing the horizontal and vertical gap between the platform edge and
vehicle door threshold (TRB, July 2003). The design of Van Ness BRT will have the buses board as close to level as possible, minimizing the
need to deploy a wheelchair ramp.
*** Not all BRT stations would have platform proof of payment with a receptor on the platform; however all stations would operate on a
proof of payment system with receptors on each bus with at least the same technology as would exist under the No Build Alternative.
**** The No Build Alternative would likely include some additional APS at key intersections. The build alternatives, including the LPA, would
include these signals at all intersections.
2-14
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives
Table 2-3: Proposed BRT Station Locations for Build Alternatives 2-4
VAN NESS AVENUE
CROSS STREET
BUILD ALTERNATIVE 2
BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3
BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
NORTHBOUND AND SOUTHBOUND
Mission Street
Curbside
station
150' @ FS
No BRT station
(existing stop on
Otis St. retained)
Center-lane station,
Dual-median
configuration
150' @ FS
No BRT station
(existing stop on
Otis St. retained)
Center-lane, single median
serving NB
150' @ FS NB
Market Street
Curbside
station
150' @ FS
Curbside station
no' @NS
Center lane station,
Dual-median
configuration
150' @ FS
Center-lane station,
Dual-median
configuration
110' @ NS
Center-lane, single median
serving NB and SB
150' @ FS NB
McAllister
Curbside
station
150' @ FS
Curbside station
150' @FS
Center-lane station,
Dual-median
configuration
150' @ NS
Center-lane station,
Dual-median
configuration
150' @ FS
Center-lane, single median
serving NB and SB
150' @ NS NB
Eddy Street
Curbside
station
150' @ FS
Curbside station
112.5' @FS
Center-lane station, Dual-median
configuration
150' @ FS
Center-lane, single median
serving NB and SB
150' @ NS NB
O'Farrell Street
No station
Curbside station
102.5' @fs
Center-lane, dual-median configuration
extends full block
Center-lane, dual-median*
extends full block
Myrtle Street
No station
No station
Geary Street
Curbside
station
ioc).5'@NS
No station
Sutter Street
Curbside
station
104 (a) ri>
Curbside station
109.7' @ FS
Center-lane station, dual-median
configuration
150' @ FS
Center-lane, single-median
serving NB and SB
150' @ FS
Sacramento
Street
Curbside
station
150' @FS
Curbside station
150' @FS
Center-lane station, dual-median
configuration
150' @FS
Center-lane, single-median
serving NB and SB
150' @ FS
Jackson Street
Curbside
station
150' @NS
Curbside station
125' @NS
Center-lane station,
dual-median
configuration
150' @FS
No station
Center-lane, single-median
serving NB and SB, extends
full block
Pacific Avenue
No station
No station
No station
Center-lane station,
dual-median
configuration
150' @FS
Broadway
No station
No station
No station
No station
No station
Green Street
Curbside
station
95'@FS
No station
No station
No station
No station
Union Street
Curbside station
M8'@NS
Center-lane station,
dual-median
configuration
150' @FS
Center-lane station,
dual-median
configuration
150" @NS
Center lane, single median
serving NB and SB
150' ® FS
Notes: FS - Far Side of Intersection; ; NB - northbound; NS - Near Side of Intersection, SB - southbound
* Alternative 4 transitions lo an Alternative 3 configuration (dual median, center lane) at this location
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Table 2-4: Proposed BRT Station Locations for LPA
VAN NESS AVENUE
CROSS STREET
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
Mission Street
No BRT Station (47 NB stop to be
relocated to south side of
intersection @NS)
No BRT station (existing stop on
Otis Street retained)
Market Street
Center lane station, single median
configuration 150' @ NS
Center lane station, single median
configuration 150' @ NS
McAllister
Center lane station, single median
configuration 150' @ NS
Center lane station, single median
configuration 150' @ NS
Eddy Street
Center lane station, single median
configuration 150' @ NS
Center lane station, single median
configuration 150' @ NS
O'Farrell Street
Myrtle Street
Geary Street
Center lane stations, single median configuration
extends full block
Sutter Street
No station
Center lane station, single median
configuration 150' @ NS
Bush Street
Center lane station, single median
configuration 150' @ NS
No station
Sacramento Street
No station
Center lane station, single median
configuration 150' @ NS
Clay Street
Center lane station, single median
configuration 150' @ NS
No station
Jackson Street
No station
Center lane station, single median
configuration 150' @ NS
Pacific Avenue
Center lane station, single median
configuration 150' @ NS
No station
Broadway
No station
No station
Vallejo
No Station*
Center lane station, single median
configuration 150' @ NS
Green Street
No station
No station
Union Street
Center lane station, single median
configuration 150' @ NS
Center lane station, single median
configuration 150' @ NS
-The Vallejo Northbound Station Variant is under consideration for the LPA, to be decided upon at project approval as explained in
Section 2.2.2.4. This would include a 150' far side station platform at Vallejo Street in the northbound direction.
The three build alternatives, and the LPA, propose differing lane configurations and
associated station placement at the intersections. Build Alternative 2 proposes dedicated
transit lanes along the side of the roadway where the right-most travel lane in each direction
currently exists, adjacent to the curbside parking area. Under Build Alternative 2, curb
extensions would provide curbside BRT stations. Build Alternative 3 proposes dedicated
transit lanes in the center of the roadway where the median currently exists, with two
medians separating bus lanes from mixed-flow traffic. Build Alternative 3 BRT stations
would be located in the center medians. Build Alternative 4 proposes dedicated transit lanes
in the center of the roadway where the left-most travel lane in each direction currently exists
along both sides of a single center median. Build Alternative 4 BRT stations would be
located in the single center median. Additional information about the differing proposed
stations and lane configurations is provided in Sections 2.2.2.1 through 2.2.2.3. Figures 2-1
and 2-4 depict the differing lane configuration for each build alternative.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives
As described in Section 2.2.2.4, under the LPA, BRT vehicles would run alongside a single
median for most of the corridor, similar to Build Alternative 4; however, at station locations,
BRT vehicles would transition to the center of the roadway, allowing right-side loading at
station platforms as under Build Alternative 3.
Existing left-turn pockets for mixed- flow traffic would be eliminated at 12 intersections (6
NB movements and 6 SB movements) to reduce conflicts with the BRT operation and
oncoming vehicles. The proposed BRT service under build alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would
allow 4 automobile left-turn opportunities in the SB direction and 6 in the NB direction.
Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B would have only one left-turn opportunity in the
SB direction and only one in the NB direction. The LPA, with or without Design Option B,
would have the same left-turn opportunities as Alternatives 3 and 4 with design Option B.
In addition, right-turn pockets for mixed-flow traffic would be introduced at certain
intersections to reduce conflicts with the BRT operation. Table 2-5 identifies the locations
of existing left-turn pockets and left-turn pockets proposed under each build alternative
(except for the LPA). Under the LPA, right-turn pockets would be provided at three
intersections along SB Van Ness Avenue at Mission/Otis/South Van Ness, Market Street,
and Pine Street. The locations of left-turn pockets proposed under the build alternatives are
illustrated in Figure 2-4 and Figure 2-2 for the LPA, as well as the existing left-turn pockets
that would be removed.
Finally, pedestrian improvements outlined in the Market and Octavia Area Plan, approved in
2007 by the Board of Supervisors, will be implemented at the Mission and South Van Ness
Avenue intersection. These include pedestrian bulbouts to reduce crossing distances and
would also convert the turn from South Van Ness Avenue onto 12th Street such that traffic
would be allowed to access South Van Ness Avenue from 12th Street (i.e., converting it from
1-way to 2-way). This would allow the project to close the southern part of the roadway
connecting 12th Street to South Van Ness Avenue, increasing the pedestrian space without
reducing traffic access. The project plans in Appendix A reflect the most recent plans for
this intersection, which would be included in the BRT project.
The following transportation system and infrastructure improvements are included in the
build alternatives, including the LPA:
• High-Quality Bus Vehicles with Level or Near Level Boarding. As described for the No Build
Alternative, the build alternatives, including the LPA, would involve an upgrade from
the existing buses to higher-capacity, higher-performance bus vehicles. The proposed
BRT vehicles would offer increased passenger capacity over the Muni 47 line buses that
presently operate in the Van Ness Avenue corridor. The proposed BRT vehicle fleet
under each build alternative, including the LPA, would be a mix of 60-foot electric
trolley coaches and 60-foot diesel hybrid motor coaches. The proposed BRT fleet
would replace the vehicles that operate on the existing Muni bus lines 47 and 49, which
currently comprise approximately a 50 percent split between 40-foot diesel motor
coaches and 60-foot electric trolleys, respectively. The maximum frequency of BRT
buses operating in the corridor would be equivalent to the current combined schedule
of Routes 47 and 49 of approximately 15 to 16 buses per hour in the peak hour in both
NB and SB directions. The design vehicle would be low-floor, and the bus station
platform design would provide level or near level boarding from bus to station |
platform, reducing dwell times and improving service reliability over the existing
conditions. Level or near level boarding would reduce the horizontal and vertical gap
between the platform edge and vehicle door threshold. The design of each BRT station
will allow for variation in the degree of level boarding achieved, and all BRT stations
will provide more level boarding than existing Muni operations in the corridor on
Routes 47 and 49."
I
Under the build alternatives,
including the LPA, existing left
turn pockets for mixed-flow
traffic would be eliminated at
various intersections
to reduce conflicts with the
BRT operation and oncoming
vehicles.
" -rhc Transportation Research Hoard defines level boarding as minimising the horizontal and vertical can bovvcen the
platform edge and vehicle door threshold (TUB, lub 2(103).
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
» «7
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Table 2-5: Turn Pockets Proposed under Build Alternatives 2-4
INTERSECTION
NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE/EXISTING
CONDITIONS
BUILD ALTERNATIVE 2
BUILD ALTERNATIVES 3 AND 4
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
LEFT
RIGHT
LEFT
RIGHT
LEFT
RIGHT
LEFT
RIGHT
LEFT
RIGHT
LEFT
RIGHT
IVlloblUir JUCCl
x
x
IvldirxCL jLI ccl
X
x
x
x
x
x
1 CI 1 .J) LI CCL
X
X
x
Havoc ^frppt
ndycb JlrCCL
X*
X
X
C. rnwp ^hrppr
\JI UVC JKCCL
X
X
X
X
\A r Al 1 ictor
IVI v_/\ 1 1 1 i LCI
X
X
x
(".rt npn (~".^t&
VJUIUCII VJdlC
X
x
X
x
X
TitrL/ ^ f rppt
1 Ul l\ JLI CCl
X
X
X
PHHv ^trppt1
LUUV J 11 CCL
X
L. 1 1 1 J J LI CCL
X
\J rdiicli jIiccL
X
X
X
f"par\/ Ctrppf
vjcdl V ju ccl
X
X
X
Post Street
X
X
Sutter Street
X
X
Bush Street
X
X
X
X
X
Pinp ^trppt
■ ■lie ju cci
X
X
X
X
X
f^^lifnrni^ Strppt
\_ d 1 1 1 vJ 1 1 I 1 d JLI CCL
X
X
Sacramento Stree
t
X
X
X
Clay Street
X
X
Washington Stree
t
X
l3/-L*c*-\n ^trppt
idLrbun jLicci
X
rdCITIC Mvenuc
X
D [UdUWdy
Xx
XX
XX
Green Street
X
Union Street
X
X
X
Filbert Street
X
Greenwich Street
Lombard Street
XXX
XXX
XXX
TOTAL
12
TO
6
4
6
4
Notes:
Xx = Double left-turn lane with one left-turn pocket (and a second, outside lane allowing left-turn and through traffic).
XX = Double left-turn lane
XXX = triple left-turn lane.
* Currently, there is a northbound, double left-turn lane at Hayes Street; however this would be changed to a single left-turn lane with implementation of the Hayes Two-Way Street
Conversion Project being implemented by the SFMTA, described in Section 2.6.1; therefore a single left-turn lane is assumed for the future no-build conditions.
2-18
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives
• Dedicated Bus Lanes (Transitway). BRT buses would operate in an exclusive, dedicated
bus lane on the street surface. The BRT transitway would accommodate both SFMTA
and Golden Gate Transit vehicles, which currendy operate along the corridor, and
would be available for use by emergency response vehicles. The bus lane would be
distinguished from mixed-flow traffic lanes by colored pavement or other special
markings or physical delineation.
• Pavement Rehabilitation and Resurfacing. Under the build alternatives, including the LPA,
Van Ness Avenue would undergo curb-to-curb rehabilitation and resurfacing. This work
would be planned in coordination with the Caltrans SHOPP plans for pavement
rehabilitation as described in Section 2.2.1 for the No Build Alternative.
• High-Quality Stations. The BRT stations proposed under each build alternative, including
the LPA, would include a platform, canopy, landscaped planter, and station amenities.
Visual simulations of stations are provided in Chapter 4.4, Visual/Aesthetics. The
station would sit upon a concrete bus pad elevated 10 to 12 inches above the street
grade (approximately double the height of a standard curb). Stations would be
approximately 150 feet in length, with a platform length of 130 feet to accommodate
two 60-foot articulated BRT vehicles. The platform provides the area for passenger
waiting, boarding, and station amenities. The station platform would range from 9 feet
to 14 feet in width, depending on the project alternative and the need for a platform to
accommodate single-direction travel, or both SB and NB travel. All station platforms
for the LPA would be 9 feet in width, accommodating only single-direction travel. The
station canopy would provide shelter from sun and rain, and it would be approximately
8 feet to 1 1 feet in height, depending on the incorporation of decorative architectural
features and/or solar paneling, which would be determined during final design.10 Station
amenities would include ticket vending machines (TVMs) at selected stations, seadng, i
lighting, a canopy and wind screens, garbage receptacles, and wayfinding information
(maps/signage). In Build Alternative 2, a landscaped planter would be incorporated to
beautify the stations. Stations would be designed to comply with ADA requirements.
The stations would feature active data display and audio capability to indicate bus arrival
time as required by ADA. Protective railings would be incorporated as appropriate for
safety requirements.
• Platform Proof of Payment/All-Door Boarding. As described for the No Build Alternative,
the build alternatives, including the LPA, would operate with all-door boarding BRT
service, allowing passengers with proof of payment, such as a Clipper Card, to board
through any door. In the build alternatives, including the LPA, SFMTA would have
selected BRT platforms function as proof-of-payment areas where passengers would
swipe their fare cards on receptors before the buses arrive, further helping to reduce
dwell time.
• Real-Time Arrival Information. As described for the No Build Alternative, the BRT Stations
under the build alternatives, including the LPA, would be equipped with real-time
arrival information, providing real-time bus arrival information displays.
• Transportation System Management (TSM) Capabilities. The proposed BRT service under
each build alternative, and the LPA, would utili/e advanced traffic and TSM
technologies, like those proposed under the SPgo and Signal Replacement Program,
including:
- Traffic Signal Infrastructure for Real-Time Traffic Management. Traffic signal poles
would be upgraded to mast armed poles. Signal controllers and interconnects would
be replaced with modern controllers and a new fiber-optic signal interconnect
communications network that would allow real-time traffic management. Variable
real-time message signs and traffic cameras would also be installed to manage traffic
Both the No Build and Build
I Alternatives would operate with
all-door boarding BRT service,
allowing passengers with proof
of payment, such as a Clipper
Card, to board through any door.
In addition, at selected stations
BRT passengers would be able to
pay fares and swipe passes on
receptors on the platforms
before boarding the bus, further
helping to reduce dwell time.
"> Chapter 4.4, Visual/ Aesthetics, discusses the design process tor proposed BRT Itttioni ind othd project feature!
located within the publii K< >\\
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 20
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Build Alternative 2 provides a
dedicated bus lane located
adjacent to existing curbside
street parking.
conditions and special events. The interconnects and controllers allow active
monitoring and adjusting of traffic signal timings.
Global Positioning System (GPS)-Based Transit Signal Priority (TSP). Under the build
alternatives, including the LPA, TSP hardware would be installed on the traffic
signal mast arms. TSP provides advance and extended green light time for buses
approaching signals to reduce bus delay caused by red lights. The proposed BRT
stations would be located on the far side of signalized intersections as feasible to
optimize the capability of TSP. Buses would be granted a green light to travel
through the intersection and then subsequently stop at a station, benefiting transit
travel time and reliability.
Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL). AVL would be utilized under the build alternatives,
including the LPA, to manage transit route operations in real time.
Median Upgrades/Nose Cones for Pedestrian Safety. Median refuges would be modified and
widened where feasible to reduce the distance that pedestrians must cross during one
light cycle, improving pedestrian safety at those locations. Nose cones would be
installed where feasible to provide a protective buffer between pedestrians and
automobile traffic. Under the LPA, all medians on Van Ness Avenue would be at least 6
feet wide, and nose cones would be installed for all east-west crossings of Van Ness
Avenue. All upgrades to intersections would comply with ADA standards.
Curb Ramp Upgrades. Curb ramps would be installed at all intersections along Van Ness
Avenue. Curb ramps would meet current City standards and ADA requirements to
provide access by people in wheelchairs, as well as provide easier travel for those with
rolling devices such as strollers and carts.
Landscaping. Medians would be landscaped to promote a unified, visual concept for the
Van Ness Avenue corridor. BRT stations would include landscaped planters, and
landscaping would be incorporated as feasible to provide a buffer between bus patrons
and adjacent auto and pedestrian traffic. In addition, the discontinuation of existing
Muni bus stops and removal of bus shelters as proposed under the build alternatives,
and the LPA, would open up additional sidewalk space at these locations. This would
enhance the pedestrian environment at these locations and offer opportunities for tree
planting, landscaping, or streetscape features. Under the LPA, the project proposes to
implement an approximate 2-foot-wide buffer in the form of planters in between
existing sidewalk trees on the block between O'Farrell and Geary streets on the east side
of the street, as well as the two blocks between Broadway and Green Street on both
sides of the street due to the lack of parking and a striped buffer in the outside mixed
traffic lane on those blocks. The planters would provide a buffer for pedestrians from
moving traffic.
Curb Bulbs. Curb bulbs are proposed at most signalized intersections to improve
pedestrian safety by improving visibility between motorists and pedestrians, shortening
the crossing distance across Van Ness Avenue, and reducing the speed of right-turning
traffic.
Pedestrian Countdown Signals. Pedestrian countdown signals would be installed on all
crosswalk legs at all signalized intersections in the project corridor as part of the build
alternatives, including the LPA.
Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS). APS, or push-buttons, would be installed on all
crosswalk legs at all signalized intersections in the project corridor as part of the build
alternatives, including the LPA.
OCS Support Pole/Streetlight Replacement. Under the build alternatives, including the
LPA, the OCS overhead wire and support pole system would be replaced and upgraded,
as described in Section 2.2.1, along with the associated street and pedestrian lighting.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives
2.2.2.1 I BUILD ALTERNATIVE 2: SIDE-LANE BRT WITH STREET PARKING
Build Alternative 2 would provide a dedicated bus lane, or transitway, in the right-most lane
of Van Ness Avenue located adjacent to the existing curbside street parking area. The
transitway would extend from Mission Street to Lombard Street in both the NB and SB
directions. The transitway would be traversable for mixed-flow traffic that would enter the
transitway to complete a right turn or to parallel park. Under Build Alternative 2, BRT
stations would be located within the curbside parking area as curb extensions, eliminating
the need for buses to exit the transitway to pick up passengers. Golden Gate Transit vehicles
that currendy operate on Van Ness Avenue would operate in the transitway and use BRT
stations exclusively, thus eliminating the existing Golden Gate Transit stop at Turk Street. A
planter with trees and shrubs would be located along the sidewalk side of the BRT station
platform to serve as a buffer between bus patrons and sidewalk pedestrians. Build
Alternative 2 would include all of the project features described in Section 2.2.2. Build
Alternative 2 would involve minimal modification to the existing median; therefore, existing
trees and landscape plantings would not require removal. Figure 2-1 presents the typical
cross section for Build Alternative 2.
2.2.2.2 I BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3: CENTER-LANE BRT WITH RIGHT-SIDE BOARDING
AND DUAL MEDIANS
Build Alternative 3 would provide a transitway comprised of two side-by-side, dedicated bus
lanes located in the center of the roadway (where the median currendy exists) in between
two medians. The transitway would be separated from mixed-flow traffic by a 4-foot-wide
median and a 9-foot-wide median. Golden Gate Transit vehicles that currently operate on
Van Ness Avenue would operate in the transitway and use BRT stations exclusively, thus
eliminating the existing Golden Gate Transit Turk Street Station. BRT stations would be
located on the 9-foot median, allowing right-side boarding. Build Alternative 3 would
require removal of much of the existing medians, including existing trees and landscaping, to
construct the dual-median, center-lane transitway; therefore, opportunities to preserve
existing trees and landscape would be minimal, and replacement trees and landscaping
would be the most constrained among the build alternatives. New tree planting is proposed
along the 9-foot-wide right-side medians and at locations of former curbside bus stops.
Figure 2-1 presents the typical cross section for Build Alternative 3.
Center-Lane Alternative Design Option B
Both center-running alternatives (Build Alternadves 3 and 4) contain a design option
referred to as Design Option B. This design option would eliminate all but one NB left turn
(at Lombard Street) and all but one SB left turn (at Broadway) in the project corridor.
Design Option B would reduce conflicts at intersections with turning vehicles and increase
the green light time available to BRT buses for through movement. The removal of left-turn
pockets would allow more street parking at certain locations, as explained in Chapter 3,
Section 3.5. Table 2-6 presents the turn pockets proposed under Build Alternatives 3 and 4
with incorporation of Design Option B. As discussed in Section 2.2.4, the LP A incorporates
Design Option B.
Build Alternative 4. Stations are
in the center of a 14-foot-wide
median, flanked by dedicated
bus lanes.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013 i
Build Alternative 3. Two side-by-
side dedicated bus lanes are
located in the center of the
roadway between two medians.
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Table 2-6: Center-Lane Alternative Design Option B Proposed Turn Pockets
INTERSECTION
NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE/
EXISTING CONDITIONS
BUILD ALTERNATIVES 3 AND 4
BUILD ALTERNATIVES 3 AND 4 WITH DESIGN
OPTION B*
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
LEFT
RIGHT
LEFT
RIGHT
LEFT
RIGHT
LEFT
RICHT
LEFT
RICHT
LEFT
RICHT
Mission/Otis
Street
X
X*
Market Street
X
X
X
X
X
X*
Fell Street
X
X
Hayes Street
X
X
Grove Street
X
X
X
McAllister
X
X
X
Golden Gate
X
X
X
X
T*
Turk Street
X
X
Eddy Street
X
Ellis Street
X
O'Farrell
Street
X
X
X
Geary Street
X
X
X
Post Street
X
X
Sutter Street
X
X
Bush Street
X
X
X
X
Pine Street
X
X
X
X*
California
Street
X
X
Sacramento S
treet
X
X
X
Clay Street
X
X
Washington S
treet
X
Jackson
Street
X
Pacific
Avenue
X
Broadway
Xx
XX
XX*
Vallejo Street
Green Street
X
Union Street
X
X
Filbert Street
X
Lombard
Street
XXX
XXX
XXX*
Notes:
T = transit only, turns only allowed by transit vehicles.
Xx = double left-turn lane with one left-turn pocket (and a second, outside lane allowing left-turn and through traffic).
XX = double left-turn lane.
* The LPA also incorporates Design Option B, but includes only those turn pockets indicated with an asterisk.
XXX = triple left-turn lane.
2-22
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives
2.2.2.3 I BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4: CENTER-LANE BRT WITH LEFT-SIDE BOARDING
AND SINGLE MEDIAN
Build Alternative 4 would provide a transitway in the center of the roadway comprised of a
single, 14- foot-wide median flanked by dedicated NB and SB bus lanes where the left-most
travel lane in each direction currently exists. Station platforms would be located on the single
center median, requiring left-side passenger boarding and alighting, as well as left side doors on
vehicles. All stations would have this single-median design, with the exception of the BRT
stations proposed at Geary/ O'Farrell, which would utilize a dual-median configuration similar to
that proposed under Alternative 3 to accommodate Golden Gate Transit vehicles that only have
right-side doors. As with the other build alternatives, including the LPA, Golden Gate Transit i
would operate exclusively in the transitway. Outside of the Geary/ O'Farrell Station, all other
Golden Gate Transit stops along the BRT corridor would be consolidated in Build Alternative 4.
Golden Gate Transit vehicles operating along the Van Ness BRT corridor would make an
additional stop at the corner of Chestnut Street and Van Ness Avenue to provide access in the
northern end of the corridor. This would require routing Golden Gate Transit buses along
Chestnut Street instead of Lombard Street between Laguna Street and Van Ness Avenue. To
accommodate this rerouting, buses turning left onto Laguna Street eastbound (EB) on Lombard
Street would be allowed. Additionally, Golden Gate Transit bus stops and shelters would be
established or lengthened at the intersection of Chestnut Street and Van Ness Avenue either
as new stops or shared with Muni buses. This could require the removal of a few parking
spaces. As an alternative to this solution at Chestnut, the Authority would reconfigure the
platform at Union Street to allow right-side boarding similar to the Geary Street station.
Build Alternative 4 would require some modification of the existing median landscaping,
including removal of some existing trees and landscaping, to construct the center-lane
transitway. Existing trees would be retained where feasible, and new trees would be planted
in the median and at former bus stops. Figure 2-1 presents the typical cross section of the
left-side boarding, single-median design for Build Alternative 4.
Center-Lane Alternative Design Option B
As explained in Section 2.1.2.2, Design Option B is under consideration for Build
Alternatives 3 and 4, and it is incorporated in the LPA. The design option would eliminate !
all but one NB left turn (at Lombard Street) and all but one SB left turn (at Broadway). The
proposed locations of turn pockets under Build Alternative 4 with or without incorporation
of the Center-Lane Alternative Design Option B are provided in Table 2-6.
2.2.2.4ITHE LPA: CENTER-LANE BRT WITH RIGHT-SIDE BOARDING/SINGLE
MEDIAN AND LIMITED LEFT TURNS
The LPA is a combination and refinement of the center-running alternatives w ith limited left
turns (Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B) and is referred to as Center- Lane
BRT with Right-Side Boarding/Single Median and Limited Left Turns. The LPA retains the
high-performance features of Build Alternatives 3 and 4 (e.g., maximum transit priority,
fewest conflicts), while avoiding the need to acquire left-right door vehicles or remove the
entire existing median. Under the LPA, BRT vehicles would run alongside a single median
for most of the corridor, similar to Build Alternative 4; however, at station locations, BRT
vehicles would transition to the center of the roadway, allowing right-side loading at station
platforms as under Build Alternative 3. Figure 2-2 depicts the LPA, schematicailv showing
locations of stations and turn pockets, and it provides a cross section of the LPA on a block
with a station and a block without a station. Detailed plan drawings of the LPA are provided
in Appendix A. The LPA incorporates Design Option B, the left-turn removal design
option, which would eliminate all left turns from Van Ness Avenue between Mission and
Lombard streets with the exception of a SB (two-lane) left turn at Broadway Street.
Incorporation of Design Option B would provide the grCatcst transit travd timc benefits,
reduce the weaving associated with the transitions buses must make between station
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
locations and blocks without stations, and aid with the flow of north-south traffic along Van
Ness Avenue. The LPA would include all project features described in Section 2.2.2.
The LPA station locations differ somewhat from those proposed under Build Alternatives 3
and 4 because all of the stations under the LPA are positioned at the near sides of
intersections, whereas stations are generally proposed at the far side of intersections under
Build Alternatives 3 and 4. In addition, under the LPA the NB Mission Street station
proposed under Build Alternatives 3 and 4 was eliminated, and a new SB station at Vallejo
Street was introduced. Lastly, a NB station at the Vallejo Street location is under
consideration as a design variant under the LPA, called the Vallejo Northbound Station
Variant. Incorporation of this NB station at the Vallejo Street/Van Ness Avenue
intersection will be decided at the time of project approval, and impacts associated with this
station are described throughout Chapters 3 through 7 of this document.11 The station
locations represented in the LPA respond to comments on the Draft EIS/EIR and public
outreach regarding LPA selection, and efforts to further optimize transit operations.
The LPA would require substantially more modification of the existing median landscaping
than Build Alternative 4 (but less than Build Alternative 3), including removal of more
existing trees and landscaping at station platform locations and transition blocks leading to
and from station locations. Existing trees would be retained where feasible, and new trees
would be planted in the median and along the sidewalk at former bus stop locations. Under
the LPA, the project proposes to implement an approximate 2-foot-wide buffer, in the form
of planters in between existing sidewalk trees on the block between O'Farrell and Geary
streets on the east side of the street and on the two blocks between Broadway and Green
Street on both sides of the street due to the lack of parking and a striped buffer in the
outside mixed traffic lane on those blocks. Figure 2-2 presents the typical cross section for
the LPA. Figure 2-3 depicts the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant.
2.3 Construction Plan
Construction would include
pavement rehabilitation as
needed, pavement resurfacing
from curb to curb, reconstruction
of curb and gutters (including
curb bulbs), reconfiguration of
the median, construction of BRT
stations, replacement of the OCS
support poles/streetlights
system, replacement of traffic
signal infrastructure, and
associated utility relocations.
An overview of the project Construction Plan (Arup, 2012) follows. Additional detail about
the Construction Plan is provided in Section 4.15, Construction Impacts. Construction of
the build alternatives, including the LPA, would occur within the existing street ROW.
Construction would include the following major activities along the length of the proposed
project: pavement rehabilitation as needed along the transitway, pavement resurfacing of
Van Ness Avenue from curb to curb, reconstruction of curb and gutters (including curb
bulbs), reconfiguration of the median, construction of BRT stations, replacement of the
OCS support poles/streetlights system, replacement of traffic signal infrastructure, and
associated utilitv relocations. BRT station construction would involve installing components
such as platforms, canopies, ticket vending equipment, railings, lighting, signage, and station
furniture12. The manner in which construction would take place would be similar for all of
the build alternatives and the LPA. Table 2-7 lists the major construction activities.
Table 2-7: Anticipated Construction Areas and Excavation Depths
CONSTRUCTION ITEM
AREA
DEPTH
(FEET)'
OCS Support Pole
3-foot-diameter excavation area, within sidewalk; located
11. 0
Replacement
throughout project limits.
OCS Conduit Trench
2-foot-wide trench, within sidewalk; located throughout
project limits.
3.0
11 No new project impacts beyond impacts described in the Draft EIS/EIR were identified with incorporation of the
Vallejo Northbound Station Variant into the project design (see discussions pertaining to the Vallejo Northbound
Station Variant in Chapters 3 through 7 of this document).
12 Exact features at each station will be determined during the design phase of the project.
2-24
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives
Table 2-7: Anticipated Construction Areas and Excavation Depths
CONSTRUCTION ITEM
AREA
DEPTH
(FEET)1
fa-toot-wide trencn, witnin street, replace or relocate sewer
Sewer Pipeline
at platform stations and at any locations where the BRT
11.5
Relocation
proposes the transitway or mixed traffic lanes directly over
the existing sewer facility.
Traffic Signal Poles
3-foot-diameter excavation area, located at intersections
1 6.0
throughout project limits.
Controller Cabinets
2.5-foot by 4-foot excavation area, located within the
sidewalk at intersections throughout project limits.
3.0
Curb Bulbs & Sidewalk
Reconstruction
Approximately 30 feet of full-width sidewalk disturbance
area, located at intersections throughout project limits
(varies by project alternative).
1-5
D 1 WO m a ¥t ¥ Don i rri /~ i r~\ or
rdvcrricNL rxcsuriacing
Curb-to-curb resurfacing.
0.7
Pavement
Reconstruction/
R p n a K i 1 1 tati r>
r\CI IdUIIILdUUII
Spot improvements, as needed, to travel lanes and parking
lanes to remedy failed pavement areas.
i-5
New pavement would be provided where transitways
New Pavement
cricrudcri uvcr cxibLiriy rricuidn. 1 ric maximum wiuin 01 new
1-5
pavement construction would be 14 feet at station locations
where transitways would replace existing 14-foot medians.
Typical station platform dimensions are 9 feet to 14 feet
Station Platform
wide by 150 feet long at platforms, Ceary/O'Farrell is the
longest platform area of approximately 270 feet.
1.0
Station Canopy
Foundation
2.5-foot-diameter excavation area at platforms.
5.0
1 Depth below ground surface (bgs).
Source: Project Construction Plan for Ihe Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project (2012).
Closure of one mixed-flow traffic lane in each direction and some on-street parking would
be necessary for construction of all of the build alternatives, including the LPA. Temporary
conversion of parking lanes to mixed-flow traffic lanes would be implemented in some cases
to maintain two traffic lanes in each direction and minimize traffic impacts. In all cases, two
lanes of mixed-flow traffic would generally remain open in each direction during
construction, although temporary closures of an additional mixed-flow traffic lane would be
required during construction tasks that could interfere with traffic or create safety hazards
such as utility relocations, placement of concrete barriers, or large equipment. These
closures would be planned for nighttime or off-peak traffic hours as feasible. Partial closure
of the sidewalk would be required under all of the build alternatives, including the LPA, for
curb bulb construction work, replacement of the OCS support poles/streetlights and
associated duct trenching, signal installation, and reconfiguration of underground utilities.
All construction work would be conducted in compliance with obtained permits and
regulations set forth by the City and Caltrans, in accordance with the Sl'MTA Regulations
for Working in San Francisco Streets (Blue Book), the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD), San Francisco Municipal Code (Noise Ordinance, Sections 2W and
2908), and SFPUC and SFDPW Bureau of Street Use and Mapping (BSM) work orders. \
traffic rerouting and detour plan would be coordinated during the project design phase.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 201
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
2.3.1 1 Construction Approach and Schedule
To minimize disruption to
the traveling public, all efforts
will be made to keep two traffic
lanes open in each direction
during construction.
Construction activities that
require closure of the on-street
parking lane and/or a
second traffic lane in
one direction would be
staged on approximately
three-block segments.
Principles of the project construction approach to be implemented under each build
alternative include the following:
• Maintain two mixed-flow traffic lanes in each direction (NB and SB) during peak hours,
and as feasible during non-peak hours on Van Ness Avenue during project
construction;
• The two mixed-flow traffic lanes would carry transit vehicles and maintain sendee for
the 47 and 49 bus routes throughout construction;
• Assure 10-foot widths for all traffic lanes at a minimum;
• Place a physical barrier between traffic lanes and the construction zone (typically to be
done by using a concrete k-rail barrier);
• Provide an appropriate buffer width between the construction zones and the adjacent
traffic lanes, inclusive of the k-rail concrete barrier;
• Reduced speeds through construction work areas;
• Remove curbside parking as needed during construction of stations or the transitway;
and
• Adhere to requirements and standards identified in the MUTCD and the San Francisco
Blue Book, which govern temporary work zone installations.
Construction of each build alternative, including the LPA, under the preferred construction
approach, would occur on two three-block segments of Van Ness Avenue throughout the
corridor at the same time to reduce the overall construction schedule. Thus, multiple
construction crews would be working at different locations (in three-block segments) along
the corridor at one time. To minimize disruption to the traveling public, construction
activities that require closure of the on-street parking lane and/or a second traffic lane in
one direction would be staged on approximately three-block segments. Construction on
three-block segments could occur simultaneously in the northern and southern ends of the
corridor to stagger associated parking and traffic circulation disruption, followed by
construction in the central segment. The three build alternatives and the LPA have different
street staging plans due to the nature of construction required for each. Build Alternative 2
would be constructed on one side of Van Ness Avenue at a time to accommodate open
lanes of mixed-flow traffic in both NB and SB directions at all times. One traffic lane would
remain open alongside the construction area, and three traffic lanes would remain open on
the opposite side of the street, along with on-street parking. Under construction of Build
Alternative 2, a contraflow system would likely be used during daytime construction to
maintain two open traffic lanes in each direction. Construction of the BRT stations,
transitway, and medians under Build Alternatives 3 and 4 would take place in an
approximate 43-foot-wide area in the center of the roadway. Two traffic lanes would
generally remain open on either side of the construction area. The parking lane on both
sides of the street would be closed during the construction work to maintain two open
traffic lanes in each direction.
Each alternative would have a range of durations, depending on the approach. The preferred
approach of working in three-block segments in two parts of the corridor at once would
have the duration be at or near the shorter end of the range for each of the alternatives (see
Section 4.15). This approach is recommended in the Project Construction Plan prepared for
the proposed project (Arup, 2012) and in the Caltrans Project Study Report-Project Report
(Parsons, 2013). Construction of Build Alternative 2 under the preferred approach is
anticipated to last approximately 19 months, as shown in Table 2-7; however, construction
duration could be extended in the event a contraflow system is not implemented and
construction activities requiring closure of a second lane in one direction would be restricted
to nighttime. Construction for Build Alternative 3 under the preferred approach is
anticipated to require 21 months, whereas construction for Build Alternative 4 under the
preferred approach is anticipated to require 14 months. Replacement of the aging sewer
pipeline beneath the entire transitway alignment (see Chapter 4.6, Utilities) would be
2-26
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I july 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
coordinated with construction of Build Alternative 3, which accounts for the longer
construction duration compared to Build Alternative 4. Under Build Alternative 4, it is
anticipated that the sewer pipeline would require replacement only beneath stations and not
the transitway, resulting in shorter construction duration. Table 2-8 summarizes the
construction approach and schedule for each build alternative. Incorporation of Design
Option B under Build Alternative 3 or 4 would not affect the construction schedule for
these alternatives.
2.3.1.1 I LPA CONSTRUCTION STAGING
Construction staging for the LPA would be as described above for Build Alternatives 3 and
4, except that replacement of the aging sewer pipeline would be required at station locations
and in areas where the transitway would cause direct load (i.e., weight) on the sewer. The
duration for LPA construction would be longer than under Build Alternative 4 because it
would require rebuilding the curb for the entire median, as well as replacement of the sewer
pipeline as described above. The Build Alternative 4 design does not require rebuilding of
the median curbs on blocks that are not proposed to have stations and do not currently have
a left-turn pocket, and it also would not have locations with the transitway running directly
over the sewer, meaning more linear feet of sewer would require replacement under the LPA
than under Build Alternative 4. The duration for LPA construction would be shorter than
under Build Alternative 3 because it is not anticipated to require complete replacement of
the sewer pipeline beneath the entire transitway alignment as described for Build Alternative
3. Under this construction implementation scenario, construction using the preferred
approach for the LPA is anticipated to require 20 months to substantial completion. The
NB station would be constructed at the same time as the SB station, and related lane
closures and staging would not be substanitally different. Incorporation of the Vallejo
Northbound Station Variant would extend construction time for the Vallejo block or
segment, but it would not extend the overall project schedule under the preferred approach,
because station construction is not on a cridcal schedule path (i.e., construcdon of the
station could occur simultaneous to other construction activities in that three-block
segment).
Table 2-8: Preferred Construction Approach and Schedule
BUILD ALTERNATIVE
PREFERRED CONSTRUCTION APPROACH
DURATION0
Alternative 2
Construction along a single side of the street on mltiple
segments, simultaneously.
19 months**
Alternative 3
Construction along both sides of the street in multiple
segments, simultaneously.
21 months
Alternative 4
Construction along both sides of the street in multiple
segments, simultaneously.
i4months
LPA
Construction along both sides of the street in two segments,
simultaneously.****
20 months
*To substantial completion.
** Construction duration for Build Alternative i could be extended in the event a contraflow system is not implemented and construction
activities requiring closure of a second lane in one direction would be restricted to nighttime.
***The duration for Build Alternative 3 construction would be longer than Build Alternative 4 due primarily to replacement of the sewer
pipeline throughout the BRT alignment. Design Option B would not affect the construction schedule for either Build Alternative 3 or 4.
**** The duration for LPA construction is longer than Build Alternative 4 because it would require rebuilding of the median curb for the
length of the corridor and also would require replacement of the sewer at station locations and in areas where the transitway would cause
direct load on the sewer. Incorporation of the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant would extend construction time for the Valle|0 block or
segment, but it would not extend the overall project schedule under the preferred approach.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
2.4 Project Schedule
The public hearing for the Draft EIS/EIR occurred November 30, 2011. On June 26, 2012,
the SFCTA Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to select the "Center Lane Bus
Rapid Transit with Right Side Boarding/Single Median and Limited Left Turns" as the LPA
for the Van Ness Avenue BRT Project, authorized the Executive Director to analyze the
Staff Recommended LPA in the Final EIS/EIR, and approved the Draft Van Ness Avenue
BRT LPA Report. Final design will occur after project approval. Following completion of
design, construction of the proposed project, is planned to begin in 2016 and last
approximately 20 months, assuming the preferred construction approach is utilized as
planned. Thus, BRT service is expected to begin in 2018.
2.5 Capital and Operating Costs
of Build Alternatives
Capital and operating costs for the build alternatives have been prepared as part of the
Capital Costing and Assumptions report. This section presents the estimated costs in 2014
dollars for each project alternative. Additional detail on capital and operating costs is
presented in Chapter 9, Financial Analysis.
2.5.1 1 Capital Costs
Total capital costs for the Van Ness Avenue BRT Project are estimated to range from
$93 million to $136 million (in 2014 dollars) to design and construct, depending upon the
project alternative. The project build alternatives, including the LPA, would be funded with
a combination of local and federal sources. The Proposition K Expenditure Plan, which was
passed by San Francisco voters in 2004, dedicates close to $200 million for the citywide
network of BRT and TPS improvements. Of this amount, approximately $20 million is
allocated for BRT on Van Ness Avenue. This amount will serve as a local match to leverage
up to $74,999,999 million from the FTA's Small Starts Program. Small Starts funding is
specifically dedicated for major transit projects that cost less than $250 million and have
Federal Section 5309 funding contributions of less than $75 million. BRT on Van Ness
Avenue is eligible for these fund;, and, in 2012, the project was one of three Small Starts
potential projects in the nation to receive a High rating for cost effectiveness and the only
Small Starts project in the nation to receive a Medium-High rating for "project justification".
(Source: Fiscal Year 2014 FTA Annual Report on Funding Recommendations)13.
The proposed project received $15 million in Small Starts funds in FY 201 1 and $30 million
in FY 2012.Elements of the No Build Alternative are funded by a variety of sources. The
replacement of OCS support poles/ streetlights, including the streetlight upgrades, is funded
through SFMTA's Overhead Rehabilitation Program and SFPUC's capital budget. The
traffic signals upgrade and SFgo and Signal Replacement real-time traffic management
program is funded by Proposition B, which is the transportation bond measure passed by
California voters in 2006, as well as funds from MTC's Climate Initiatives Program.
Roadway repaving will be funded through the State's SHOPP program.
Total capital costs for the
Van Ness Avenue BRT Project
are estimated to range from
$87 million to $130 million to
design and construct, depending
upon the project alternative,
funded with a combination of
local and federal sources.
13 The Van Ness Avenue BRT Project received a score of "High" on all three project justification criteria where scoring
measures have been defined. For the three criteria where measures have not yet been defined, all projects were assigned
a rating of "medium." In all previous annual funding recommendations since 2007 (where the all measures had been
defined), Van Ness Avenue BRT has received a score of "High" for project justification, the only Small Starts Project
in the nation to receive such a designation.
2-28
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives
2.5.2 I Annual Operating Costs
Overall, the estimated annual operations cost for the No Build Alternative, in current year
dollars, would total approximately $8.3 million, which does not include baseline maintenance
costs. Annualized operations and incremental maintenance costs range from $5.9 million for
Build Alternative 4 with Design Option B, which is a 29 percent savings relative to the No
Build Alternative, to $7.1 million for Build Alternative 2, which is a 14 percent savings
relative to the No Build Alternative. The key determinant of the cost to operate a service is
the route "cycle time," which dictates the number of buses and drivers that are required to
operate at a given frequency of service. By improving bus travel times and by reducing
delays, BRT shortens the amount of time it takes a bus to complete its route. This enables
the same number of drivers and buses to operate more cycles and ultimately provide a
higher frequency of service; therefore, the proposed Van Ness Avenue BRT would reduce
operating costs by reducing the amount of time required for a bus to complete its route.
Each of the alternatives, including the LPA, would result in differing costs for maintenance
of landscaping and the transitway, and all alternatives would include the costs for temporary
shuttling of BRT vehicles between maintenance facilities for interim maintenance until
SFMTA completes its planned maintenance facility expansion. These costs are described in
greater detail in Chapter 9, Financial Analysis.
The annual operating and maintenance costs associated with the build alternatives, including
the LPA, are significantly lower than those of the No Build Alternative, with cost savings
ranging from 14 percent to 29 percent, depending on the build alternative. Operation of the
Van Ness Avenue BRT Project would come from existing revenue sources for SFMTA.
By improving bus travel times
and by reducing delays,
BRT shortens the amount
of time it takes a bus to
complete its route, enabling
the same number of drivers
and buses to operate more
cycles and ultimately provide a
higher frequency of service.
The annual operating and
maintenance costs associated
with the build alternatives are
significantly lower than those of
the No Build Alternative, with
cost savings ranging from
14 percent to 29 percent,
depending on the
build alternative.
2.6 Alternatives Considered
and Withdrawn
Many alternatives were considered during project development and were analyzed in the
Alternatives Screening Report (SFCTA, 2008). This section summarizes the alternatives that
were not carried forward for analysis in the EIS/EIR.
2.6.1 1 Fatal Flaw Alternatives
Some alternatives failed to address one or more project screening criteria (Table 2-1) or
would worsen existing conditions. The inability to provide improvement with respect to one
or more of the screening criteria was considered a fatal flaw. Any alternative that would fail
to meet one or more of the screening criteria was dropped from further consideration. In
other words, only alternatives that addressed all elements of the project purpose and need
were carried forward, along with the No Build Alternative. The following alternatives were
dropped from further consideration due to a fatal flaw.
2.6.1.1 I CURB-LANE BRT, NO PARALLEL PARKING
A curb-lane BRT with no parallel parking, which involved running transit in the existing
parking lane in each direction to maintain three mixed travel lanes in each direction, was nol
recommended for further analysis in the EIS/EIR because although this alternative would
provide transit benefits, it would worsen pedestrian safety conditions and would eliminate
393 parking spaces that also provide drop-off and loading/unloading access to businesses
and residences fronting on Van Ness Avenue.
This alternative would require the removal of existing pedestrian safety treatments, including
curb bulbs and median refuges where left turns are provided, and it would preclude installation
of any new curb bulbs. Removal of the parking lane would result in no buffer between
Removal of the parking lane
would result in no buffer
between pedestrians on the
sidewalk and moving traffic for
the entire length of the corridor,
which would substantially
degrade the pedestrian
environment.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
2 19
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
pedestrians on the sidewalk and moving traffic for the entire length of the corridor, which
would substantially degrade the pedestrian environment. It would also increase the number of
traffic lanes that pedestrians would be exposed to when crossing Van Ness Avenue, requiring
pedestrians to cross nine lanes of traffic without a median refuge where left turns are
provided. Because the parking lanes themselves are not wide enough to serve as bus lanes
and the width of the sidewalks is fixed, the center landscaped median would be reduced by 3
feet along its entire length and eliminated altogether where left-turn pockets are provided.
2.6.1.2 I SURFACE LIGHT RAIL AND SUBWAY
Surface light rail and subway alternatives were not recommended for further analysis based
on cost-effectiveness analysis performed for the Alternatives Screening Report and BRT
Feasibility Study. Rail technology would provide high levels of transit benefits but with
significandy more capital, operating, and construction costs.
Light rail technology costs average more than $100 million per mile and subway technology
more than $500 million per mile; and light rail and subway also have higher operating costs
than Muni bus technology. With $90 million in Proposition K funds available through 2030
to implement strategic transit expansion projects (by matching federal funds), a subway
alternative would exhaust citywide funds on one corridor and generate a $900 million
funding gap, half of which would need to be covered locally. Furthermore, cost effectiveness
is one of the criteria FTA uses to evaluate Small Starts and New Starts projects. BRT on Van
Ness Avenue has been demonstrated to be a more cost-effective alternative than more
expensive rail technologies.
2.6.2 I Low- Perform a nee Alternatives
Some alternatives had no fatal flaws, but they would provide only slight or modest levels of
improvement. Projects that did little to meet the screening criteria were eliminated from
further consideration. In other words, only alternatives that would provide the greatest
ability to meet all aspects of the project purpose and need were carried forward. The
following alternatives are considered low performance; therefore, they were eliminated from
further consideration.
TPS Treatments without a Dedicated Bus Lane. These alternatives, which included treatments
such as TPS and bus bulbs, were not recommended for further evaluation because the
magnitude of expected benefits is low. TPS treatments without provision of a dedicated bus
lane are expected to provide substantially less travel time reduction benefits provided by
dedicated bus lanes.
Additionally, without a physically separated bus lane, buses would continue to operate in
mixed traffic and experience associated reliability impacts. Of all transit delays, mixed-traffic
delays have the greatest variability and result in the greatest unreliability in service; therefore,
TPS treatments without provision of a dedicated transit lane would provide minimal benefit
and are not sufficient to meet the project purpose and need.
Peak-Period Dedicated Bus Lane. A peak-period-only dedicated bus lane would provide transit
travel time and reliability benefits only during the peak period. Van Ness Avenue corridor
transit experiences delays and reliability problems throughout the day. Additionally, transit
ridership on the Van Ness Avenue corridor is strong throughout the day, not just during the
peak periods; therefore, a peak-period dedicated bus lane would not meet the project
purpose and need, and it would provide low benefit overall.
Light rail technology costs
average more than $100 million
per mile and subway technology
more than $500 million per mile;
light rail and subway also have
higher operating costs than
Muni bus technology.
Three alternatives are
not cost effective compared
with BRT
2-30
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives
2.7 Related and Planned Projects
In addition to the projects integrated in the No Build Alternative, several significant projects
are planned within or near the Van Ness Avenue corridor that could overlap with the Van
Ness Avenue BRT construction schedule. Table 2-9 identifies the other planned projects
that could be implemented during the same timeframe but independent of the proposed
BRT project. A discussion of these other planned projects follows, broken down by local
transportation projects, regional transportation projects, local public works projects, and
local planning and development projects.
Table 2-9: Related and Planned Projects
PROJECT/
ACTIVITY
START/
END DATES1
PRO|ECT DESCRIPTION
Doyle Drive
Replacement/
Presidio
Parkway
2010/2013
The Doyle Drive approach to the Golden Gate Bridge will be
1 j • . 1 1 .1 . • 1 • 1 j ■ rr*
replaced with a new approach that provides widened traffic
lanes, shoulder, and median. Additional project aspects include
seismic and soil stability upgrades and improved landscaping.
Transbay
Transit
Center
2008/2017
Modernization of the existing Transbay Terminal in downtown
San Francisco will include a new terminal that will
accommodate the extension of Caltrain service, as well as the
California High-Speed Rail Project.
California
Pacific
Medical
Center
(CPMC)
201l/20l6
The CPMC Cathedral Hill Campus would expand its campus to
include the entire block bounded by Van Ness Avenue, Geary,
Franklin, and Post streets. The expanded campus includes a
new medical center and medical offices of more than 1.5 million
gross square feet (gsf).
Central
Subway
2010/2019
This second phase of the Third Street Light Rail Project from
Fourth and King to Jackson and Stockton streets is an
underground subway project with multiple stations and tunnel
openings.
Geary BRT
2014/2019
The Geary BRT project involves construction of a BRT system
on Geary Bouievard between the Transbay Terminal and
33rd Avenue.
Hayes Two-
Way Street
Conversion
2011/2015
Conversion of Hayes Street from Gough Street to Polk Street
from a one-way to a two-way street. Phase 1 from Gough Street
to Van Ness Avenue completed in 2011.
SFgo and
Signal
Replacement
Ongoing in
coordination
with Van Ness
BRT
Replace traffic signal infrastructure to provide fiber-optic
interconnect communication on Franklin and Gough streets.
Road
Repaving and
Street Safety
Bond Projects
Ongoing
A $248 million Road Repaving and Street Safety Bond Program
to improve city infrastructure, including repaving streets,
pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements, traffic flow
improvements, and ADA upgrades. Near-term plans include
repaving Gough, Franklin, and Polk streets, along with
installation of pedestrian enhancements.
SFpark
2010/2012
Pilot test project involving installation of parking meters and
sensors to utilize real-time parking data to implement demand-
responsive pricing.
Polk Street
Bicycle Lane
Extension
2011/2013
Addition of northbound bicycle lane on Polk Street between
Market Street and McAllister Avenue.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
a j»
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
RESOURCE
For more information on Geary
BRT, visit www.gearybrt.org.
Table 2-9: Related and Planned Projects
PROJECT/
ACTIVITY
START/
END DATES1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Mission
Residential development of approximately 90 units as part of
Family
2012
the Mission Family Housing Project at 1040 Mission Street.
Housing
Completed in 2012.
Veteran's
To be completed
Redevelopment of community use into 76 studio apartments
Commons
in 2014
for veterans at the corner of Otis Street and Duboce Avenue.
1860 Van
Ness Avenue
Completed/Sold
Development of a 35-unit mixed residential/commercial unit is
proposed at the northeast corner of Van Ness Avenue and
Washington Street. Completed and sold in 2012.
Eddy and
Residential development of approximately 130 units as part of
Taylor Family
20n/Unknown
the Eddy and Taylor Family Apartments Project at 168-186 Eddy
Apartments
and Taylor streets.
Better Market
Street
2016
Streetscape improvement project on Market Street.
Environmental review is planned for completion in 2016.
1800 Van
Ness
2011/2014
Development of a 94-unit mixed-use building with 5,000 square
feet of retail on the northeast corner of Van Ness Avenue and
Clay Street.
100 Van Ness 2012/Unknown
100 Van Ness is an existing 29-story office building that is
currently 96 percent vacant. The proposal is to change the use
from office to multi-family residential, and renovate the interior
of the building to create 399 multi-family residential units with
ground floor retail, n8 parking spaces, and a 12,000-square-
foot rooftop resident's playground above.
1285 Sutter
Street
Located at the corner of Van Ness Avenue and Sutter Street in
San Francisco, this project is a 13-story apartment building with
2012/2013 10,000 square feet of retail space on the ground floor. The
concrete-frame development includes 107 apartment units for
rent, as well as two levels of underground parking.
1401 Market
Street
20n/Unknown
Construction of new mixed-use building containing
approximately 719 dwelling units and up to 719 parking spaces.
1 Some projects have been completed since circulation of the EIS/EIR. The status of such projects has been updated.
2.7.1 1 Local Transportation Projects
Several local transportation projects are planned that traverse or overlap the proposed
project, or are located in the project vicinity. Projects expected to be implemented by the
time construction begins for the BRT project are described below.
Geary BRT Project. The San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) and
SFMTA propose to implement BRT along Geary Boulevard between Van Ness and 33rd
avenues. SFCTA completed a feasibility study for BRT in the Geary corridor in 2007, and
environmental analysis is underway. Construction of the Geary corridor BRT is anticipated
to begin in 2014 and would occur following completion of construction of the Van Ness
Avenue BRT, with construction planned to be completed in 2019.
Hayes Street Two-Way Conversion Project. SFMTA proposes conversion of Hayes Street from a
one-way street to a two-way street, as called for in the Market Octavia Better Neighborhoods
Plan. The proposed project involves conversion of Hayes Street to two-way from Gough
Street to Polk Street. Between Van Ness Avenue and Franklin Street, there would be three
westbound (WB) lanes and one EB lane, with AM and PM peak tow-away restrictions along
the north side and prohibited parking along the south side. Between Franklin and Gough
streets, there would be two lanes WB and one lane EB, with full-time metered parking along
2-32
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives
the north and south sides. Between Van Ness Avenue and Polk Street, four lanes WB and
one lane EB are andcipated. In addition, Fell Street would become two-way between
Franklin Street and Van Ness Avenue, with one lane WB and two lanes EB. Phase 1 of the
project between Gough Street and Van Ness Avenue was implemented in 2011. The project
implementation schedule for Phase 2 from Van Ness Avenue to Polk Street has not been
finalized, but it is expected to be completed by 2015.
SFgo and Signal Replacement. As mentioned in Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2, the SFgo and Signal
Replacement Program is comprised of many projects that would be implemented
throughout the city, including the Van Ness Avenue corridor. As part of SFgo and Signal
Replacement, SFMTA plans to replace signal controllers and interconnects with modern
controllers and a new fiber-optic signal interconnect communications network on Franklin
and Gough streets.
SFpark. SFpark is a 2-year, parking management pilot test project undertaken by SFMTA in
2010. In 2010, new parking meters and sensors beneath parking spaces were installed that
collect real-time parking occupancy data. The real-time occupancy data are being used to
implement demand-responsive pricing. Under SFpark, meter prices are adjusted up and
down to match demand. High-demand spaces gradually go up in price, while other spaces
decrease in cost. Real-time data and demand-responsive pricing work together to readjust
parking patterns in the City so that parking is easier to find and drivers will do less "circling"
to find parking. Sensor data is uploaded vvirelessly to the SFpark data feed, which will then
make that information available to the public via SFpark.org. street signs, and smart phone
applications. SFpark will be evaluated through mid-2012 for Citywide expansion.
Polk Street Bicycle Lane - Market to McAllister Streets. As identified in the San Francisco Bicycle
Plan, the Polk Street Bicycle Lane project would involve moving a portion of the existing
NB Bicycle Route #25 from Market Street, Larkin Street, and McAllister Street onto Polk
Street. This project would involve the installation of a Class II bicycle lane in the NB
direction on Polk Street between Market Street and McAllister Street. A segment of this
Class II bicycle lane would be contra-flow (i.e., it would allow NB bicycle travel on an
otherwise one-way SB street). Polk Street is a one-way SB street between Grove Street and
Market Street. Polk Street (Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place) is a two-way street between
Grove Street and McAllister Street. This project would install a NB Class II bicycle lane
between McAllister Street and Grove Street by narrowing travel lanes. The existing angled
parking on the east side of Polk Street would be converted from front pull-in to back-in.
The segment between Grove Street and Market Street includes two design options. Option 1
would establish a NB contra-flow Class II bicycle lane on the east side of Polk Street from
Market Street to Grove Street. This bicycle lane would be separated from traffic by a concrete
median. Option 2 would convert the segment of Polk Street, from Market Street to Haves
Street, to two-way operation; narrow travel lanes; narrow sidewalk and median widths; and it
would add a NB travel lane on Polk Street between Market Street and Hayes Street.
Road Repaving and Street Safety Bond Projects
A $248 million Road Repaving and Street Safety Bond was approved bv voters in November
2011 (Proposition B). Recommended as part of the citywide Ten-Year Capital Flan to
improve and invest in the City's infrastructure, the bond will repave streets, make repairs to
deteriorating street structures, and improve streetscapes for pedestrian and bicyclist safety;
improve traffic flow on local streets; and install sidewalk and curb ramps to meet the ( ity's
obligations under the ADA. More information on this program can be found .11
http://sfdpw.orfr/indcx.aspx?piif>t-=lS8n
As part of this program, the City has prioritized Gough, Franklin, and Polk streets, parallel
to the Van Ness Avenue BRT project study area, for resurfacing ahead of the construction
start date of Van Ness Avenue BRT. l or Gough and Franklin streets, the projects arc being
coordinated with the installation of pedestrian and traffic signal conduits to enable SPgO and
RESOURCE
For more information on
SFpark, visit www.sfpark.org.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
pedestrian countdown signals for the length of the corridor. The Franklin Street project,
which is scheduled to begin in 2013, has also included pedestrian bulbs at two intersections
in the Market and OctaviaPlan study area. Other improvements on Gough and Polk streets,
including pedestrian and bicycle amenities, are being planned and coordinated by multiple
City departments (Polk Street Corridor Improvement Project).
2.7.2 I Regional Transportation Projects
Planned projects of regional importance located in the Van Ness Avenue BRT Project area
or otherwise affecting the Van Ness Avenue BRT Project area are discussed below.
Doyle Drive Replacement/Presidio Parkway Project. SFCTA, in cooperation with SFMTA,
Caltrans, and the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District, is replacing the
Doyle Drive approach to the Golden Gate Bridge. The Doyle Drive approach was built in
1937 as part of the Golden Gate Bridge and is part of US 101. The Doyle Drive
Replacement Project, also known as the Presidio Parkway Project, will provide seismic and
operational safety with widened traffic lanes and provision of shoulders and a median. The
project will also include landscaping to better blend into its surroundings in the Presidio
National Park. Project construction began in 2010, and the replaced Doyle Drive approach
is expected to open to traffic in 2015.
Transbay Transit Center/Caltrain Downtown Redevelopment Project. The Transbay Joint Powers
Authority (TJPA) is replacing the existing Transbay Terminal located in downtown San
Francisco with a new five-story Transit Center with one above-grade bus level, ground-floor,
concourse, and two below-grade rail levels serving Caltrain and future California High-Speed
Rail. A Redevelopment Area Plan has been established for transit-oriented development in
the vicinity of the Transbay Transit Center, including residential, office, and general
commercial uses. The project is intended to revitalize the surrounding area and
accommodate future transit projects, including the Caltrain Extension Project and the
California High-Speed Rail Project. The Transbay Transit Center will provide a train depot
for future high-speed rail. As part of Phase II, Caltrain commuter rail service will be
extended from its current terminus outside the downtown area (at 4th and King streets) to
the Transbay Transit Center. Construction of the Transbay Transit Center is underway and
expected to be completed in 2017.
Central Subway Project. The Central Subway Project is the second phase of the Third Street
Light Rail Project that links the Little Hollywood and Visitation Valley communities with
Union Square and Chinatown. This project will better connect San Francisco's civic,
business, and cultural centers with the diverse communities along the Central Subway
corridor. Once complete, the project will improve service reliability and travel times,
enhance transit connections, and provide economic opportunities and access to jobs for
local residents. The Central Subway Project corridor is located along Third/Fourth Streets,
Stockton Street, and Columbus Avenue from Fourth/King (the terminus of Phase 1 of the
Third Street Light Rail) to Jackson/Stockton Streets, with a construction-related tunnel to
Columbus Avenue/Union Street near Washington Park. Project construction began in 2010
and is expected to be completed in 2019.
. 2.7.3 I Local Planning Projects
Planned projects of generally local importance located in the Van Ness Avenue BRT Project
area are discussed below.
Van Ness Avenue Area Plan. The City adopted the Van Ness Area Plan in 1986 and created a
Van Ness Avenue Special Use District to the Planning Code in 1988 to implement the plan.
The plan is intended to promote Van Ness Avenue as the City's most prominent north-
south boulevard, lined with high-density mixed-use development that encourages
transformation of the street, with its more formal design features and relatively wide
2-34
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives
sidewalks, into a transit-served pedestrian promenade. Chapter 4.1, Land Use, provides a
summary of the Van Ness Area Plan key objectives. Since adoption of the special-use
district, approximately 1,000 housing units have been developed along Van Ness Avenue.14
The following such projects are located in the vicinity of the Van Ness Avenue BRT Project:
• Mission Family Housing. Approximately 90 units, which are to be located at the existing
parking lot at 1036-1040 Mission Street, are proposed as part of the Mission Family
Housing Project. This project was completed in 2012.
• Eddy and Taylor Family Apartments. Approximately 130 units, which are to be located at
the existing parking lot at 168-186 Eddy and Taylor streets, are proposed as part of the
Eddy and Taylor Family Apartments. Project construction is anticipated to be
completed in 2012.
• i860 Van Ness Avenue. This project involves development of a 35-unit mixed
residential/commercial unit proposed at the northeast corner of Van Ness Avenue and
Washington Street. This project was completed and sold in 2012.
Market and Octavia Better Neighborhoods Plan. The City adopted the Market and Octavia
Better Neighborhoods Plan in 2007 to encourage, among other things, the transformation of
the area around South Van Ness Avenue from Market to Division streets, known as "SoMa
West," into a new mixed-use residential neighborhood. This area encompasses the southern
end of the Van Ness Avenue corridor. A key driver of the plan is to help transform the
vacant land created by the recent dismantling of the Central Freeway, including Octavia
Boulevard, into a pedestrian-friendly neighborhood. The Market and Octavia Better
Neighborhoods Plan proposes new zoning for appropriate residential and commercial uses,
prescribes streetscape and open space improvements, and places high-density land uses close
to transit.
The plan enables creation of 2,500 new housing units around South Van Ness Avenue and
Mission Street. To ensure pedestrian- friendly design, the plan developed a policy to limit the
parking supply to one space per unit. Extensive public investments in streets, pedestrian
crossings, and streetscapes are envisioned, some of which have been completed.15 A
development impact fee was instituted to support transportation, open space, and
recreational improvements identified in the plan. Veteran's Commons in an example of a
project consistent with the Market and Octavia Better Neighborhoods Plan and is located in
the vicinity of the Van Ness Avenue BRT Project.
• Veteran's Commons. The Veteran's Commons project involves redevelopment of
community use into 76 studio apartments for veterans at the corner of Otis Street and
Duboce Avenue. Construction of this project is planned for completion in 2014.
• 100 Van Ness Avenue. The 100 Van Ness Avenue project involves an existing 29-story
office building that is currently 96 percent vacant. The proposal is to change the land
use from office to multi-family residential, and renovate the interior of the building to
create 399 multi-family residential units with ground floor retail, 1 18 parking spaces, and
a 12,000-squarc-foot rooftop resident's playground above. Construction of this project
began in 2012.
• 1285 Sutter Street. The 1285 Sutter Street project is located at the corner of Van Ness
Avenue and Sutter Street in San Francisco. This project involves redevelopment of B 1 3
story apartment building that will have 1 11,000 square feet of retail space on the ground
floor. It will include 107 apartment units for rent, as well as two levels of underground
parking. Construction of this project is planned for completion in 2013.
. 1401 Market Street. The 1401 Market Street project is located at the intersection ol
Market and 10* streets. It involves construction of a new mixed-use building containing
'I JJ" ';,n.N,css fTZiT Pla" i EK* a!: WhaautaumUmim 1 in mad w
1S I he Marker and ( )ctavia Hcttcr Neighborhood* Plan is available at:
httD://\v\vw.sti;ov.ori?/sitc/ph»nnini> ind<-« upfld=251flfl
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
approximately 719 dwelling units and up to 719 parking spaces. Construction began in
2011.
Better Market Street Project. Led by SFDPW, the Better Market Street Project is part of the
City's mission to transform the streetscape and improve the public's experience along the
public realm. The Better Market Street Project is expected to include improvements on
Market Street supported by sustainable urban design and mobility principles that facilitate
promenading opportunities and an enlivened sidewalk life; reliable and efficient transit
service; and a safe, comfortable, and appealing bicycle facility along its entire length.
California Pacific Medical Center (CPMC) Cathedral Hill Campus. As a component of the CPMC
Long Range Development Plan Project, the CPMC proposes to establish a new medical
campus that would include a new hospital and new medical office building in the Cathedral
Hill area of the Van Ness Avenue corridor, within the Van Ness Avenue BRT Project limits.
The new hospital would replace the existing Cathedral Hill Hotel and the 1255 Post Street
Office Building, which comprise the entire block bounded by Van Ness Avenue, Geary
Boulevard, and Post and Franklin streets. Across Van Ness Avenue from the proposed
hospital, on the western portion of the block formed by Van Ness Avenue and Geary,
Cedar, and Polk streets, the CPMC proposes to replace seven existing buildings with the
proposed medical office building. The CPMC Cathedral Hill Campus proposes to have a
pedestrian tunnel under Van Ness Avenue to connect the hospital and medical office
building.
The proposed hospital would be 15 stories and contain approximately 1,202,500 gross
square feet (gsf) with 2 underground floors, and it would provide approximately 555 hospital
beds'6. The 2 underground floors would provide approximately 253,400 gsf and 513 off-
street parking spaces. Entry to the parking garage would be from Post Street and Geary
Boulevard. Separate, off-street emergency drop-off from Franklin Street for patients arriving
by car would lead to the parking garage. The proposed pedestrian tunnel under Van Ness
Avenue would connect with the bottom underground floor/ parking level P3.
The proposed medical office building would be 9 stories and would contain approximately
381,000 gsf of office space and parking to support the proposed hospital. The proposed
medical office building would have 9 parking levels that would provide approximately 542
parking spaces, which would be accessed via Geary Street. Parking Level A would provide a
loading dock with access via Cedar Street. All vehicle entries on Geary and Cedar streets
would be right turns because Cedar Street is one-way EB and Geary Street is one-way WB.
Van Ness Avenue would provide the main pedestrian entrances for both the proposed
hospital and medical office building. Construction of the hospital, medical office building,
and tunnel is anticipated to begin in 2011 and continue through 2016.
Central Freeway and Octavia Boulevard Circulation Study. The Central Freeway and Octavia
Boulevard Circulation Study will evaluate and address transportation issues that remain
following completion of the Octavia Boulevard/Central Freeway project in 2005. These
multimodal transportation issues include transit routing and reliability, automobile traffic
circulation, pedestrian crossings, connectivity to regional transit stations, bicycle access,
general wayfinding, and travel demand management strategies. The study will help support
and advance key priorities of the 2008 Market and Octavia Better Neighborhood Plan,
including improved pedestrian circulation and transit facilities, as well as conversion of
streets from one-way to two-way operation. Because the study area is an active local
neighborhood, as well as a critical element of the transportation system for regional traffic
coming to, from, or through the area, the study will strive to address the complexity of
transportation needs at both the local and regional levels. Ongoing stakeholder and public
RESOURCE
For more information on
Better Market Street, visit
www.bettermarlcetstreetsf.org.
In April, 2013, CPMC announced that it was revising its proposal to reduce the hospital from 555 beds to up to 304
beds. Where the EIS/EIR takes the CPMC project into account in its cumulative analysis, it assumes the original larger
hospital size, thereby providing a conservative assessment.
2-36
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives
outreach will assist in prioritizing projects. The study team will guide selected projects
through the funding and approval process.
2.8 Next Steps and Project Timeline
This Final EIS/EIR was completed following selection of the LPA in accordance with 23
CFR Part 771.125(a). This Final EIS/EIR, in compliance with NEPA and CEQA, responds
to comments received during circulation of the Draft EIS/EIR (Appendix I), incorporates
additional analysis and/or text explanation in response to comments received, and provides
information demonstrating that the LPA is within the scope of the project alternatives
considered in the Draft EIS/EIR.
Following completion of the Final EIS/EIR, the SFCTA as the lead agency under CEQA,
and FTA as the lead agency under NEPA, would proceed to certify the document and
approve the project. FTA would provide approval by signing and dating the cover page of
the Final EIS/EIR. FTA would then submit the Final EIS/EIR to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), which places a NEPA Notice of Availability of the Final EIS for
public review in the Federal Register. Additionally, the Final EIS/EIR is distributed to
agencies that previously commented on the Draft EIS/EIR. Advertisements in local
publications would also be placed to announce project approval and availability of the Final
EIS/EIR. No less than 30 days after the Notice of Availability is published in the Federal
Register, FTA may sign the Record of Decision (ROD), which is a NEPA document that
states the EIS/EIR approval, identifies the alternatives considered, and discusses mitigation
plans and monitoring commitments. The ROD describes the considerations in reaching
project approval and why any identified measures to mitigate or minimize environmental
harm were not adopted.
The SFCTA Board of Commissioners would certify the Final EIS/EIR through adoption of
a resolution. The SFCTA would also adopt appropriate CEQA Findings, including a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations if adopted mitigation measures or project alternatives will not reduce all
impacts to a less than significant level. The SFCTA Board would approve the project
through formal selection of a preferred alternative as the project definition. SFMTA would
also adopt CEQA Findings in its role as a responsible agency under CEQA and approve the
project through selection of a preferred alternative. Within 5 days of project approval, .1
CEQA Notice of Determination is filed with the San Francisco County Clerk, which starts a
30-day statute of limitations for court challenges to the EIR.
Various other agencies would also take approval actions related to the project, as explained
in Section 2.2, including Caltrans, who will continue to own the ROW in the project
corridor. Caltrans and the SFMTA would enter into a Cooperative Agreement to cover
responsibilities and funding for the construction phase of the proposed project. The
SFMTA will own the constructed BRT improvements, with exception to improvements to
the BRT transitway, which will be owned by Caltrans. The SFMTA will operate ami
maintain the BRT transitway and facilities post construction. The major approvals required
of Caltrans are listed in Table 2-10.
Approximately 85 percent of the needed capital funding tor the build alternatives has been
identified, as described in Section 2.5 and Chapter 9. The project build alternatives, including
the LPA, would be funded with a combination of local and federal sources. Approximately
$20 million from the Prop K Expenditure Plan is allocated for BRT on Van NeSS Wenue.
This amount will serve as a local match to leverage up to S74,,)')<),<)<)<) million from the
FTA's Small Starts Program. During the design phase of the project, SFCTA and SFMTA
will apply for additional grants from various sources to complete the funding plan. The
annual O&M costs associated with the build alternatives, including the I. PA. are significant!}
lower than those of the No Build Alternative, with cost savings ranging from M to 29
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Chapter 2: Project Alternate
es
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
percent. Operation of the Van Ness Avenue BRT Project would come from existing
revenue sources for SFMTA, which include fare and parking revenues, operating grants (e.g.,
State Transit Assistance), traffic fees, and fines.
Sufficient conceptual engineering design of the build alternatives and the LPA has been
completed to approximately the 10 percent level, to determine environmental impacts and
mitigation measures for this EIS/EIR. The SFMTA would prepare 30 percent plans and the
Conceptual Engineering Report (CER). The design process requires phased development of
project plans and specifications, subject to review and approval by permit authorities at the
30-, 65-, 95-, and 100-percent design levels. The primary elements of the 30 percent design
include roadway and pavement, sidewalks and medians, utilities base map updating,
architectural and landscape design, and ongoing public outreach. Accommodation of ADA
requirements would also occur at this stage when designing curb bulbs and curb ramps. The
design schedule is: 30-percent design 2013-2014, 65- through 100-percent design documents
2014-2015, and advertisement for construction in 2015.
When design reaches a sufficient level of detail that the project cost, scope, and schedule are
firm and final (usually around 65 percent) and when project funding has been fully identified
for the entirety of the project, the FTA may issue a Small Starts Grant Agreement (SSGA),
which would commit FTA funding of the project to the full amount planned (up to
$74,999,999 million). The SFCTA may allocate Prop K sales tax funding to SFMTA to
provide local match for all FTA grants received by the SFMTA. Currently, the Prop K
Strategic Plan programs approximately $20.5 in sales tax funds to the Van Ness Avenue
BRT Project (see Chapter 9 of this EIS/EIR for more details on funding).
The architectural and landscape design included as part of the 30 percent design/CER
would provide details on station elements, including platform plans and cross sections.
Landscape requirements for plantings, irrigation, and hardscape would be determined during
this phase. OCS design, including poles, would be determined as part of the 30 percent
design/CER. There would be ongoing coordination with SFDPW for landscape and
OCS/light pole design. Major utilities and potential hazardous waste/materials would also
be initially addressed as part of completion of the CER. Sewer line relocation would be
determined under stations/platforms or underneath the BRT lane, in close consultation with
the SFPUC. Recognized Environmental Concerns (RECs) pertaining to hazardous materials
remediation would be addressed in accordance with federal and state hazardous materials
and waste laws.
A schedule and cost Risk Assessment update for the FTA would be completed as part of the
65 percent plans, and then 95 percent plans would be prepared including construction
permit applications for local, state, and federal agencies. The final, or 100 percent plans,
specifications and estimate would include final permits, maintenance agreements, ROW
certification, and contractor bid-ready plans and specifications.
Following completion of design, construction of the project, is planned to begin in 2016 and
last approximately 14 to 21 months. BRT service is anticipated to begin in 2018. Caltrans
and SFDPW would provide approvals for construction as noted below.
2.9 Permits and Approvals
Prior to commencement of construction activities, the following environmental-related
approvals shown in Table 2-10 would be required. Formal permits may not be required in all
cases. The SFMTA would pursue obtaining required permits.
2-38
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives
Table 2-10: Anticipated Environmental-Related Permits and Approvals
AGENCY
APPROVAL OR PERMIT
Approves tree removals and replanting in public ROW.
SFDPW
Approves landscape design plan, including tree type and planting
r/-homp fnr mprlian«; sidewalks and stations.
The Director of Public Works must Approve nighttime construction
work.
Approves street excavation work.
\—a 1 LI d 1 1 j
Approves Project Study Report/Project Report, including conceptual
design of the project.
Approves MOU for conversion of a traffic lane to dedicated transit use.
Approves Cooperative Agreement for construction.
San Francisco Planning
Department
Prepares General Plan Referrals that determine consistency of project
with General Plan, which support Board of Supervisors approval of
sidewalk and grade changes.
San Francisco Arts
Commission
Approves design of public structures.
San Francisco Historic
Preservation Commission
Approves certificate of appropriateness regarding design of landscape
and structures in the Civic Center Historic District.
City Hall Preservation
A H \/ 1 c r\/ 1 f\ m m ittoa
rMJVIowiy v_u r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LCC
Reviews design of project structures within the Civic Center Historic
District adjacent to City Hall and advises the San Francisco Historic
Preservation on the certificate of appropriateness approval.
SFPUC, San Francisco Fire
Department, PG&E, and
SFDPW
Coordination with utility providers regarding temporary or permanent
relocation of utilities (including sewer line) through NOI and other
filings with the San Francisco Street Construction Coordination Center
and participation in the Committee for Utility Liaison on Construction
and Other Projects (CULCOP). In addition, coordination with the San
Franfi^m Firp r}f*r\3rtme*nY r&anrAmn tFio Aiivili-^rw W/ntar Ciir\r-Jw
r iain.iiLu rue L/cpd 1 1 1 1 i trr 1 1 rctLaruiiig Muxiiidry water supply
System.
Approves discharge for release of any construction wastewater,
including groundwater, into the City's Combined Sewer System.
SFPUC
Determines compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permit requirements for construction activities
including contractor's preparation of a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
San Francisco Bay Area
Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB)
Receives General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit. An NOI to
construct, which includes the SWPPP, must be filed with the San
Francisco Bay RWQCB at least 30 days prior to any soil-disturbing
activities.
San Francisco Board of
Supervisors
Approves sidewalk and grade changes.
MTC
Air Quality Conformity Determination.
Source: Parsons, joij.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
> )9
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
2-40
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Chapter 3
Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
CHAPTER SUMMARY: The chapter is presented in five sections: Corridor Travel Patterns, Transit, Private
Vehicle Traffic, Nonmotorized Travel, and Parking. Each section discusses existing conditions and the
potential benefits and impacts (i.e., positive and negative) of implementation of each of the BRT
alternatives, including the LPA. Consistent with CEQA/NEPA requirements, each section also
discusses the environmental impacts of each of the build alternatives in both the near-term (2015) and
long-term (2035) horizon years and addresses significant impacts.
CHAPTER
3
Transportation Analysis
Environmental analyses presented in this chapter are primarily based on the Vehicular
Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum17 (CHS, 2013) prepared for the proposed Van
Ness Avenue BRT Project, and the Analysis of Nonmotorized Transportation Impacts
Technical Report prepared in support of the proposed project (Arup, 2013). These technical
studies are incorporated in this EIS/EIR by reference.
The Vehicular Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum provides an overview of the
methodology to create travel demand forecasting, traffic analysis, and microsimulation
modeling inputs to represent future year conditions, along with the resulting traffic related
environmental impacts. It also includes a validation report for the San Francisco Chained
Activity Modeling Process (SF-CHAMP), San Francisco's travel demand forecasting model,
which is referenced directly throughout Chapter 3. Similarly, the report includes a data
portfolio for the VISSIM microsimulation model used to better understand the performance
of BRT. The VISSIM model is referenced directly in this chapter as well.
The Vehicular Traffic Technical Memorandum and Nonmotorized Transportation Impacts
Technical Report are available upon request to SFCTA through the following contact:
Michael Schwartz
San Francisco County Transportation Authority
1455 Market Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94103
415-522-4823
michael.schwartz@sfcta.org
3.0 Introduction
The Locally Preferred Alternative (EPA) is a refinement of the two center-running build
alternatives with limited left turns (Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B). Pot
nearly all of the environmental impact areas and BRT performance areas described in
Sections 3.1 through 3.3, the I. PA has similar consequences to Build Alternatives 3 and 4
with Design Option B. In one instance (platform crowding in Section 3.2). the LPA
performs similarly to Build Alternative 3 with Design Option B, but not Build Alternative »
with Design Option B, and is so noted. The LPA performs differently thin Build
Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B for metrics discussed in Sections 3.4 ami V.\ but
the environmental consequences are consistent with Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design
Option B. In addition, the Vallcjo Northbound Station Variant performs similarly to the
LPA on almost even- environmental impact area and BRT performance area in Chapter V
A draft Of thil study was prepared for the Draft I- IS/KIR and it has been rcv.scd and f.nah/ed ... iddlCM the 1 I' \ ind
responses to comments for the Final FIS/FIR.
Lombard -
n 31 <
•g— i— 5-
= z
2
Broadway
California -
Ceary-
McAllirter •
TIAMK
tTVOT
Figure 3.1-1:
The Van Ness Avenue
Corridor Study Area
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Where there could be some minor differences in performance between the LPA and the
Design Variant (mostly for transit travel time and reliability as discussed in Chapter 3.2), the
text notes these differences.
3.1 Corridor Travel Patterns
Van Ness Avenue is a key thoroughfare within San Francisco's roadway grid system. It
functions as a major transit spine in San Francisco's Muni network, and it is also part of the
US 101 regional road system. This section provides an overview of the existing and future
travel patterns along Van Ness Avenue, on parallel streets, and in the surrounding
neighborhoods, with or without BRT. The travel demand projections discussed in this
section serve as the basis for the operations models described in Sections 3.2 and 3.3, and
provide several measures of performance of the build alternatives.
For Sections 3.1 through 3.3, Build Alternatives 3 and 4 are described together because these
alternatives are not distinguishable by the travel demand forecasting, traffic analysis, or
microsimulation models. Similarly, Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B, along
with the LPA, are described together for Sections 3.1 though 3.3. For Section 3.1 in
particular, many of the figures reported for Build Alternatives 3 and 4 also apply to Design
Option B (and the LPA) because travel demand forecasting estimates were not sensitive to
the differences in travel patterns between those alternatives. For these analyses, the center-
running alternatives are described together.
3.1.1 1 Existing Travel Patterns
This section on existing travel patterns presents the following data to illustrate existing and
future travel patterns: travel demand, regional versus local travel patterns, divertibility of
trips, and mode splits. Most of the data for this section were obtained from SF-CHAMP.
SF-CHAMP is the San Francisco travel demand forecasting model, and it was used to
determine how the project would change traffic patterns or modes of transport as described
in Chapter 3 of the EIS/EIR. SF-CHAMP is a computer-based tool that can be used to
assess the impacts of land use, socioeconomic, and transportation system changes on the
performance of the local transportation system. SF-CHAMP was developed to reflect San
Francisco's unique transportation system and socioeconomic and land use characteristics.
The relationships and parameters in SF-CHAMP were statistically estimated from San
Francisco residents' observed travel patterns and then tested to make sure the model
matched observed transit line boardings, roadway volumes, and numbers of vehicles. For
each modeled scenario, it uses a detailed representation of San Francisco's transportation
system, as well as population and employment characteristics, to produce measures relevant
to transportation and land use planning. Using future year transportation, land use, and
socioeconomic inputs, the model forecasts future travel demand. A full description of SF-
CHAMP and its validation report, the modeling inputs used in SF-CHAMP, including the
representation of BRT in the model, and details about the modeling process used for this
EIS/EIR can be found in the Vehicular Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum (CHS,
2013).
For the purposes of this section, the Van Ness Avenue corridor study area is defined as Van
Ness Avenue and five parallel streets, including Gough and Franklin streets to the west and
Polk, Larkin, and Hyde streets to the east. Figure 3.1-1 shows the Van Ness Avenue corridor
travel pattern study area and the analysis screenlines. Turning movement traffic volume
counts'8 collected in 2007 and the SF-CHAMP travel demand forecasting model were used
1N These traffic turning movement counts were taken at 91 intersections and were a separate effort from the 24-hour
traffic counts collected in March 2007 at 5 locations along Van Ness Avenue and 1 location each along Franklin and
Gough streets to determine the peak traffic hour.
3-2
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
to examine motorized traffic (i.e., auto and transit) volumes at various screenlines (i.e., cross
streets) along the corridor from Market Street to Lombard Street.
3.1.1.1 I DEMAND
Van Ness Avenue is a major street within San Francisco's transportation network earning
on average 55,000 trips via motorized modes for a roadway segment on an average weekday
of travel (see Table 3.1-1). At an average screenline, 39,000 people travel by private vehicle19
daily on Van Ness Avenue, referred to by shorthand in this section as "automobile." This is
approximately 31 percent of the total number of private vehicle trips made even day along
the entire corridor. By contrast, at an average screenline, more than 16,000 people travel via
transit daily on Van Ness Avenue, which comprises 80 percent of all transit trips in the Van
Ness Avenue corridor study area. Franklin and Gough average a combined 59,000 daily
automobile person trips, 50 percent more than Van Ness Avenue, making this pair the
primary automobile route within the corridor study area.
Table 3.1-1: Existing Weekday Motorized Travel Demand at Average Screenline
PRIVATE VEHICLE
TRANSIT
TOTAL
Van Ness Avenue 39,000 (71%)
16,000 (29%)
55,000 (lOO%)
Van Ness Avenue Corridor , ,„,„,,
Pl j . 126,000 86%
Study Area v '
20,000 (14%)
146,000 (ioo%)
Note: The Van Ness Avenue corridor study area is defined as Van Ness Avenue and five parallel streets, including Cough and Franklin streets
to the west and Polk, Larkin, and Hyde streets to the east, Screenlines were defined as motorized traffic that crossed specific streets up and
down the corridor, specifically Fell, McAllister, Geary, California, Broadway, and Lombard.
Source: SF-CHAMP
Private vehicle trips along Van Ness Avenue are substantially higher in the southern portion
of the study area near Fell and McAllister streets (see Figure 3.1-2) than in the northern
portion. Van Ness Avenue automobile person trips peak at Fell Street, which has 60 percent
more automobile trips than at Lombard Street; in the Van Ness Avenue corridor, inclusive
of the parallel streets, there are more than twice as many daily automobile trips at Fell Street
than at Lombard Street. Transit person trips have a different pattern. While the transit
person trips are also higher in the southern section near Fell Street than in the northern
section, the peak for transit demand is in the mid section between California and McAllister
streets.
Franklin and Cough average
a combined 59,000 daily
automobile person trips,
which is 50 percent more
than Van Ness Avenue,
making this pair the
primary automobile route
within the corridor study area.
" Private vehicles include: automobiles, trucks, taxis, and motorcycles
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Figure 3.1-2: Existing (2005) Daily Motorized Person-Trips
for Van Ness Avenue at Select Screenlines
Although Van Ness Avenue is
designated a regional arterial
road in the San Francisco
General Plan and is part of
the US ioi system, the two
parallel streets to the west,
Franklin and Gough streets,
carry more regional automobile
trips than Van Ness Avenue.
50,000 -|
45,000
40,000 H
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000 -
15,000 -
10,000 -
5,000 -
0
•Private Vehicle Person-Trips
•Transit Person-Trips
Fell McAllister Geary California
Screenline
Note: The existing conditions SF-CHAMP modeling is year 2005.
Broadway
Source: SF-CHAMP
Regional versus Local Trip Making
Although Van Ness Avenue is designated a regional arterial road in the San Francisco
General Plan and is part of the US 101 system, the two parallel streets to the west, Franklin
and Gough streets, carry substantially more regional automobile trips than Van Ness
Avenue. Local trips are defined as having their origin and destinations within San Francisco;
regional trips are defined as having at least one trip endpoint (i.e., origin or destination)
outside of San Francisco; pass-through trips are a subset of regional trips that have both
endpoints outside San Francisco (e.g., a trip from Marin County to San Mateo County). The
one-way orientation of Franklin and Gough streets20 (Franklin NB, Gough SB), comprising
four lanes in each direction during the peak with coordinated signal timing, explains the
higher attractiveness of the couplet to regional motorists.
Table 3.1-2 shows the typical origins and destinations of automobile drivers on Van Ness
Avenue and Franklin and Gough streets during the PM peak period (i.e., 3:30 p.m. to 6:30
p.m.). The table shows that in the northern end of the corridor at Broadway, Franklin and
Gough carry a higher number of regional auto trips than Van Ness Avenue and a
significantly higher number of pass-through trips, even though there are fewer total vehicles
during the PM peak. In the southern portion of the study area, Franklin/Gough carry a
similar portion of regional auto trips, but a significantly higher number and percentage of
pass-through auto trips. This indicates that during weekdays, Franklin and Gough streets
serve as a regional connection for autos between the Golden Gate Bridge, the Bay Bridge,
and the rest of the Bay Area, even more so than Van Ness Avenue.
Gough Street is two-way north of Sacramento Street.
3-4
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Table 3.1-2: Regional versus Local Auto Trips along Van Ness Avenue and
Franklin/Cough Streets during the PM Peak
TOTAL VEHICLE TRIPS
ALL LOCAL TRIPS1
ALL REGIONAL
TRIPS?
RECIONAL PASS
THROUGH TRIPS'
At Broadway Screenline
Van Ness Avenue
8,200
(100%)
5.500
(67%)
2,600
(33%)
<ioo
(<!%)
Franklin/Gough Streets
6,500
(lOO%)
3JOO
(58%)
2,800
(43%)
4OO
(6%)
Between Hayes and Grove
Van Ness (SB only)
4; 6OO
(lOO%)
3,700
(80%)
900
(20%)
<50
(<!%)
Franklin/Gough
13,000
(100%)
lOJOO
(80%)
2,600
(20%)
300
(2%)
1. All Local Trips are defined as trips beginning in San Francisco, passing through the screenline on Van Ness or Franklin/Cough, and
ending in San Francisco.
2. All Regional Trips are defined as trips that cross the screenline on Van Ness or Franklin/Cough and have at least one of their end points
in San Francisco.
3. Regional Pass-Through Trips are defined as trips that begin outside San Francisco, cross the screenline on Van Ness or Franklin/Cough,
pass through the corridor, and end outside San Francisco. This is a subset of All Regional Trips.
Source: SF CHAMP.
Trip Divertibility
San Francisco has a grid structure that allows drivers the opportunity to choose from manv
routes to get to their destinations. As shown in Table 3.1-3, SF-CHAMP forecasts indicate
that less than half of local drivers on Van Ness Avenue have origins or destinations in
neighborhoods surrounding Van Ness Avenue. This percentage is higher for regional
travelers with an origin or desdnadon outside of San Francisco. This means that these
drivers could divert to a variety of routes outside of the main parallel streets in the corridor
in the event BRT is implemented on Van Ness Avenue.
Table 3.1-3: Divertible and Nondivertible Trips
(North of Broadway) during PM Peak Period
along Van Ness Avenue
TOTAL
LOCAL
RECIONAL
Divertible Trips 52%
41%
76%
Nondivertible Trips 48%
59%
24%
Total 100%
100%
100%
1 Divertible trips are trips that use Van Ness Avenue and pass through the corridor without either end point in a neighborhood surrounding
Van Ness Avenue.
2. Nondivertible trips are trips that use Van Ness Avenue and have at least one end point in a neighborhood surrounding Van Ness Avenue,
so the trips must use the corridor to depart from their origin and/or arrive at their destination.
Source: SF CHAMP
3.1.1.2 ! MODE SPLIT
Figure 3.1-3 shows the neighborhoods that surround Van Ness Avenue, .is used 111 tin-
following analysis of mode split. The trips made «>, from, and within the neighborhood-,
that surround Van Ness Avenue arc roughly evenly divided between private vehicle (rips ..nil
other modes (i.e., transit, walking, or bicycling trips). Table 3.1-4 shows the mode split tor
trips that have an origin and/or a destination in a neighborhood surrounding Van NeM
Avenue. Roughly 20 percent of trips to, from, or within these neighborhoods occur In
transit. Regional trips arc slightly more likely than local trips be on transit, in part due .0 the
Figure 3.1-3:
Neighborhoods
Surrounding Van Ness
Avenue used for Mode
Analysis
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
catchment area of the Civic Center BART station. More than 25 percent of all the trips that
start or end in the Van Ness Avenue neighborhoods are nonmotorized (mainly pedestrian
trips). More than half of all trips that start and end in the Van Ness Avenue neighborhoods
(not shown in table) are walk or bike trips.
Table 3.1-4: Mode Split for Daily Trips To, From, or Within Neighborhoods
Surrounding Van Ness Avenue
TOTAL DAILY PERSONAL TRIPS
PRIVATE VEHICLE TRIPS
TRANSIT
TRIPS
WALK/BIKE
TRIPS
All Trips
597,000
54%
20%
26%
Local Trips
518,000
51%
20%
30%
Regional Trips
78,600
78%
22%
<1%
Source: SF-CHAMP
3.1.1.3 I COLLISIONS
Within the 2-mile length of Van Ness Avenue in the study area, nearly all collisions over a
six year period (approximately 97 percent or 252 of 261) occurred at intersections, based on
the most recent data available (2003-2008). The most common types of collisions on Van
Ness Avenue over this period were broadside (41 percent), which occurred during vehicle
turns, especially left-turn movements; rear end (29 percent), which occurred due to sudden
stops and poor traffic signal visibility; auto-pedestrian (11 percent), all of which occurred in
the roadway and most of which occurred in crosswalks; and sideswipe (11 percent), which
occur mostly during vehicle lane changes. Pedestrian collision injuries on Van Ness Avenue
have increased between 2008 and 2010, in spite of the implementation of a double-fine zone
for speeding along the length of the study area.
The build alternatives incorporate design features intended to reduce the likelihood of each
of these collision types, especially collisions between vehicles and pedestrians. The reducdon
of left-turn pockets, combined with provision of dedicated left-turn signals, would
significandy reduce the likelihood of broadside collisions. The traffic signal mast arms and
new signal heads provided as part of SFgo would significandy improve signal visibility,
reducing the likelihood of rear-end collisions. Pedestrian countdown signals, improved
signal timing, and shorter crossing distances would reduce the likelihood of collisions
between vehicles and pedestrians (a more detailed analysis of pedestrian conditions,
including collisions, is provided in Section 3.4). Finally, removing bus vehicles, which
frequendy merge in and out of traffic, from the mixed traffic lanes would contribute to
reduced sideswipe collisions.
3.1.2 I Future Travel Patterns
The build alternatives
incorporate design features
intended to reduce the
likelihood of the most common
types of vehicles collisions,
especially collisions between
vehicles and pedestrians.
This secdon discusses future travel patterns in 2015 and 2035 for the No Build Alternadve
and the three build alternadves (Build Alternative 2 and Build Alternatives 3 and 4, including
Design Option B and the LP A). Data for this section were obtained from the SF-CHAMP
travel demand forecasting model.
3.1.2.1 I PLANNED NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS
SF-CHAMP, in its analysis of travel patterns in future years, incorporates transportation
network improvements that are likely to be implemented independently of the Van Ness
Avenue BRT. Between 2005 and 2015, the key changes to the transportation network
assumed in the baseline and all of the build alternatives include:
• Two-way circulation on Hayes and Fell by 2015 (see Chapter 2, Project Description, for
more details).
3-6
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
• Central Subway rail project by 2035. This project involves an extension of the
T-Third light-rail line underground in the SoMa area beneath Fourth and
Stockton Streets to Chinatown. For more information on this project, visit
www.sfmta.com/ cms/mcsp/ cspover.htm.
• Geary BRT by 2035. This project involves similar improvements as the proposed
project for Van Ness Avenue, including, a dedicated transit lane, proof of payment/ all-
door boarding, and TSP. For more information on the Geary BRT, visit
www.gearybrt.org.
In addition, SF-CHAMP forecasts of future travel patterns assume growth in regional
population and employment provided by ABAG (p2007), as used in the most recently
adopted Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), Transportation 2035, for which an EIR was
prepared21. The projections anticipate significant population and employment growth along
the Van Ness Avenue corridor and throughout San Francisco. State of California
Government Code 65089 states that databases (i.e., land use inputs) for models such as SF-
CHAMP used to determine quantitative impacts of development on the circulation system
"...shall be consistent with the databases used by the regional planning agency [i.e., MTC]".
For this reason, land use projections used in the SF-CHAMP model for EIRs led by the San
Francisco Planning Department, as well as this EIS/EIR, are within 1 percent of regional
ABAG projections. The San Francisco Planning Department takes San Francisco's
employment and housing growth forecast by ABAG at the county level and distributes the
growth within the county to reflect anticipated developments in San Francisco, such as the
CPMC and approved and planned projects within the Market and Octavia Area Plan study
area. This methodology, which is consistent with local and regional best practices, has been
approved by the MTC such that SF-CHAMP was found to be regionally consistent with
MTC in San Francisco's Congestion Management Program Update. More information on
the methodology to account for future land use growth in SF-CHAMP can be found in the
Vehicular Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum (CHS, 2013).
3.1.2.2 I SYSTEM PERFORMANCE: PERSON THROUGHPUT, MODE SHARE, LANE
PRODUCTIVITY, AND VEHICLE OCCUPANCY
Mode Share. With the BRT project, a greater percentage of trips in the corridor and on Van
Ness Avenue will be made via transit relative to automobile than in the no-build scenario.
With the implementation of BRT, transit ridership would increase by 28 percent (Build
Alternative 2) to 35 percent (Build Alternatives 3 and 4, with or without Design Option B,
and the FPA); SF-CHAMP outputs indicate that up to 50 percent of these new transit riders
could be former private vehicle (auto) occupants, contributing to one of the major goals of
the project and the City's Transit First policy by reversing the trend towards declining mode
share.
As a result of the increased ridership, average share of trips made by transit on Van Ness
Avenue would increase from 29 percent to 40 percent (Build Alternative 2) or 44 percent
(Build Alternatives 3 and 4, with or without Design Option B, and the I. PA) of all
motorized trips on Van Ness Avenue itself; at some locations, transit riders would comprise
more than 50 percent of all motorized trips, meaning the two transit lanes w ould be parrying
more people than the four remaining mixed-traffic lanes combined.
Person-Throughput. Person-throughput refers to the number of people that travel through .1
corridor (e.g., the Van Ness Avenue corridor, from dough to Hyde streets) on a d.uK basis.
Using outputs from SF-CHAMP, Figure 3.1-4 shows how average person-throughput levels |
are expected to change with the BRT alternatives. With Build Alternative 2, avenge (fail)
person throughput in 2015 would decline slightly (4 percent) relative to the no project W ith
the center BRT alternatives (Build Alternatives 3 and 4, with or without Design ( Jptiorj B. |
Transit ridership would increase
by 28 to 35 percent with the
implementation of BRT; more
than 50 percent of these new
transit riders would be former
private vehicle (auto) occupants.
The RTP and its associated lilR arc available to the public at the MTC office a, 101 |jKh,h .street. ( Ukla.nl « \ " I
anil on the Ml(. \Vch site at www.mtc.ca.tfov
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013 , 7
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
and the LP A) average daily person-throughput is maintained in the Van Ness Avenue
corridor in the 2015 time horizon. This means that the corridor would carry as many people
with center-running BRT as it would without the project. In 2035, all of the build
alternadves maintain person throughput in the corridor versus 2035 No Project (change is
less than 1 percent). While person-throughput levels are maintained (for Center BRT and
the LP A) in the corridor on average between Market and Lombard, changes in person-
throughput levels do vary from locadon to locadon due to changes in traffic patterns (see
Secdon 3.1.2.3).
Figure 3.1-4: Average Daily Auto and Transit Trips in the Van Ness Avenue Corridor
at Average Screenline*
160,000
140.000
I 100,000
.9- 80,000
40,000
■ Transit
Private
Vehicles
2005 Existing 2015 No Project
-The LPA performs the same as Center BRT.
2015 Side BRT
2015 Center BRT
Source: SFCHAMP
It should be noted that this analysis reports forecasted travel demand based on the
assumption that the transit network and bus frequencies stay similar to existing conditions;
however, BRT would create the capacity to carry more person-throughput than conservative
assumptions forecast. Transit network improvements, such as the implementation of the
Transit Effectiveness Project's Rapid Network, would also contribute to person-throughput
increases in the Van Ness Avenue corridor, more cost effectively than in the No Build
Alternative, and without additional vehicular traffic impacts. Preliminary results indicate that
1 to 2 more buses per hour could be added on both the 47 and 49 BRT routes at no
additional operating cost based on the travel time savings in 2015 (see Section 3.2 and
Chapter 9 of this EIS/EIR).
Lane Productivity. As shown in Table 3.1-5, SF-CHAMP outputs indicate that due to the
increase in transit ridership on Van Ness Avenue with BRT service, each travel lane would
carry more people per hour (both private vehicles and transit) as a result of BRT when
compared with the No Build Alternative. While there would be a decrease in the number of
mixed traffic lanes on Van Ness Avenue, the resulting auto travel lanes would carry more
people on average than under the No Build Alternative. Transit would carry 1 3 percent to 36
percent more people in its dedicated lane than each mixed traffic lane carries, and it would
provide the capacity to carry many more trips per hour as Muni's Rapid Network and the
City's population grow.
3-8
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Table 3.1-5: PM Peak Person Trips/Lane/Hour
at Average Screenline
AVERAGE PM PEAK TRIPS/LANE/HOUR
TRANSIT
PRIVATE VEHICLES
0 DOC F v i cti n n
a- WW} LAI i LI 1 1 y
5°5
55°
2015 No Build Alternative
6lO
620
2015 Build Alternative 2
780
670
2015 Build Alternatives 3 and 4*
930
670
*The LPA performs the same as Center BRT.
Source: SF-CHAMP
Vehicle Occupancy. Vehicle occupancy is another measure of roadway efficiency. In the 2015
No Build Alternative, an average of 1.7 people occupies each motorized vehicle on Van
Ness Avenue, inclusive of private and transit vehicles. With the implementation of BRT and
the increased number of people riding transit on Van Ness Avenue, vehicle occupancy
would increase to 2.0 (Build Alternative 2) or 2.1 (Build Alternatives 3 and 4 and the LPA)
people per vehicle. This means the street would function on average at typical high-
occupancy vehicle (HOV) facility levels.
3.1.2.3 I VEHICLE DIVERSIONS
By converting one of the mixed travel lanes in each direction to a transit-only lane, Van
Ness Avenue BRT would reduce the private vehicle capacity on Van Ness Avenue.22 To
predict the traffic volumes for all intersections under any scenario, a four-step process was
followed and is described below. A complete description of this process can be found in the
Vehicular Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum (CHS, 2013).
Traffic turning movement counts were collected at 91 of the 139 intersections in the
traffic study area (see Figure 3.3-1 for a map of intersections in the traffic study area) in
spring 2007, with a few additional intersections collected in 2008 and 2009 to better
model the traffic south of Market Street. The counts were collected at all intersections
on Gough, Franklin and Van Ness Avenue, and at an additional 1 1 intersections on
Polk, Larkin, and Hyde streets within the vehicular traffic study area. Traffic counts
were also collected at the intersection of the Duboce/13,h/US 101 Freeway off- ramp.
Intersections where turning movement counts were collected can be found in Appendix
4 of the Vehicular Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum (CHS, 2013).23
The specific turning movement counts collected as part of Step 1 were used, along with
a signal timing plan provided by the SFMTA, to calibrate the existing conditions (20(F)
Synchro traffic analysis model for all intersections in the vehicular traffic study area.
This original set of volumes was balanced for all 139 study area intersections between
the total number of vehicles arriving at an intersection and departing from an
intersection. For study area intersections along Polk, I.arkin, and Hyde streets where
existing condition volumes were not collected using turning movement counts this
balancing exercise was used to estimate the amount of traffic in the existing conditions
Synchro Model. Section 2.2 of the Vehicular Traff.c Analysis Technical Memorandum
(CHS, 2013) describes the results of the existing conditions (2007) Synchro traffic
model.
1.
The traffic
-term 2
m volumes) between 2005" and 2015 and between 2005 and 2035 for each north south
ie traffic volume cshma.es generated by SF-CHAMP for the near-term 2<>IS and
long-term 2035 horizon years were used to calculate growth factors (Lc, percent change
" £P5 is fClluCCJ fi "T 0BMhW b»ih I"* «ul private vehicle, current use ,he ntf,. m.». ,r«cl
I lease note fall these manual m.ersecUon level traffic coum, are dH.crcn, ,han .he 24- hour ,u!k cum, u.,1 ...
IdZ'^^^ 2005 ~ « *"* -,h ,hc j.r ,m,
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | )uly 2013
68 to 81 percent of all private
vehicle (auto) trips on
Van Ness Avenue under the
No Build Alternative would
continue to use
Van Ness Avenue if BRT were to
be implemented in 2015. The
remaining 19 to 32 percent drive
on a parallel street within the
corridor, use transit; walk or
bike; change the time of day of
their trip; forego the trip, or
continue driving using routes
in another part of the city
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
street in four different sections of the corridor from the Duboce/13th/US 101 Freeway
off-ramp to Lombard Street, and for the east-west streets by facility type (e.g., arterial,
collector, and local streets) in the traffic study area from Mission to Lombard streets.
These growth factors were applied to the 2007 traffic volumes and calibrated the
existing conditions (2007) Synchro model to estimate 2015 near-term No Build and
2035 long-term No Build traffic volumes to minimize margins of errors. The initial set
of future traffic volumes was balanced between the upstream departure volumes and
downstream arrival volumes to ensure equilibrium of traffic volumes within the study
area. Similarly, traffic volumes generated by SF-CHAMP were used to create growth
factors on the parallel streets and side streets for BRT project scenarios. These growth
factors were applied to the calibrated Synchro existing conditions model to estimate
traffic volumes for each intersection in 2015 and 2035 for all of the build alternatives.
The next two steps involved adjustments to the raw model outputs that account for
differences in turning opportunities to more realistically represent diverted traffic within
the corridor.
Using the raw estimated traffic volumes created through Steps 1 through 3 above, a
series of adjustments were made based on knowledge of San Francisco traveler
behavior.
The traffic diversion analyses indicate that, on average, private vehicles would decrease by 19
percent to 32 percent in 2015 during the PM peak on Van Ness Avenue with any of the
build alternatives (including the LP A), or by roughly 315 to 650 vehicles per hour.25 This
means that 68 percent to 81 percent of all private vehicle trips on Van Ness Avenue under
the No Build Alternative would continue to use Van Ness Avenue if BRT were to be
implemented.26
The remaining 19 percent to 32 percent of private vehicle trips that would otherwise have
used Van Ness Avenue under the No Build Alternative 1 (i.e., former Van Ness Avenue
drivers) would change their tripmaking in a number of different ways. The changes are
forecast to mostly be split between the following choices:
• Continue to make the trip during the PM peak period, but use one of the parallel streets
I (i.e., Gough, Franklin, Polk, Larkin, or Hyde streets) in the corridor instead; or
• Use transit (see increase in ridership described in Section 3.2); walk or bike; change the
time of day of their trip; forego the trip; or continue to drive during the PM peak, but
use a route through another part of the city.
Changes in Circulation Patterns within the Van Ness Avenue Corridor. With implementation of
BRT, some drivers are expected to change routes, or divert, from Van Ness Avenue to
parallel streets due to the reduction in overall vehicle capacity, as well as the reduction of
left-turn opportunities from Van Ness Avenue. The reduction in left turns on Van Ness
Avenue may make the accessibility of parallel streets relatively more attractive for local
drivers in comparison, even at similar speeds. The operational effects and traffic impacts of
diversions within the Van Ness Avenue corridor are discussed in greater detail in Sections
3.3.3.2 and 3.3.3.3. In 2015, under Build Alternatives 2-4, including the LPA, approximately
105 to 450 total vehicles in both directions (2 to 7 vehicles per minute) could divert away
from Van Ness Avenue and make their trip on a parallel street within the corridor during the
PM Peak instead. Franklin Street would be the parallel route most frequently used during the
. PM peak hour, compared with Gough, Polk, Larkin, and Hyde streets. The amount of
additional private vehicle traffic varies widely up and down the 2-mile stretch of corridor
j analyzed, but any given segment of Polk, Franklin, or Gough streets could experience an
25 The number of vehicles and trips affected varies along the 2-mile stretch of Van Ness Avenue analyzed.
,26 For Design Option B and the LPA, the elimination of additional left turns would cause vehicles to find alternative
routes before they enter South Van Ness and Van Ness Avenue, the very southern end of the corridor near Market
Street, having a significandy greater reduction in vehicle traffic volumes on Van Ness Avenue, particularly in the NB
direction (up to 965 fewer vehicles per hour than in the No Build Alternative -hearty 50 percent of the vehicular traffic
that would have used Van Ness Avenue in the No Build Alternative).
3-10
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
additional 50 to 250 vehicles per hour (vph), or roughly one to four additional vehicles per
minute during the PM peak hour in 2015. Larkin and Hyde could also see an increase in
traffic volume of approximately 20 to 100 vph (less than two vehicles per minute between
the two streets combined during the PM peak hour).27
Again, the effect of these increases on traffic speeds and delays are discussed in detail in
Section 3.3. With the other transportation system improvements that the Authority and the
City are studying, such as those discussed in Section 3.3.4, the number of added vehicles on
Franklin and Gough streets may be reduced, along with an improvement in pedestrian
conditions on these streets. Intersection level turning movement traffic volumes for existing
conditions and each alternative in 2015 and 2035 for the entire traffic study area can be
found in the Vehicular Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum (CHS, 2013).
Changes in Circulation Patterns outside the Van Ness Avenue Corridor.28 SF-CHAMP results also
indicate that drivers are also expected to divert to routes outside the Van Ness Avenue
corridor. These changes are expected as a response to travelers changing destinations or
routes because of left-turn reductions and relative increase in the attractiveness of other
corridors compared to the Van Ness Avenue corridor. These drivers, who in the absence of
the BRT would have used Van Ness Avenue, would have a number of alternate routes to
choose from. SF-CHAMP results indicate that, with implementation of BRT, in 2015,
streets outside the corridor (east of Van Ness Avenue to The Embarcadero and west of Van
Ness Avenue to Pre'sidio Avenue) may see a total increase in traffic of approximately 2(Hi
vehicles in each direction with no street experiencing more than a 50 vph increase in each
direction. This increase represents a relatively small percentage of the overall volumes in
those corridors.
3.1.2.4 I EFFECTS ON TAXI AND SHUTTLE OPERATIONS
The BRT alternatives would not affect taxi or shuttle operations beyond the effects on
private vehicle traffic described above and in Section 3.3. Private shuttles are currently
prohibited from using transit lanes or stops citywide. With BRT on Van Ness Avenue, both
shuttle services and taxis would continue to operate in mixed-flow traffic lanes. In 201 1, the
Authority completed a Strategic Analysis Report (SAR) on the Role of Shuttle Services in
San Francisco's Transportation System.29 The report examined existing shuttle sen-ices and
regulations and developed policy recommendations. The SFMTA is currently developing the
Muni Partners Program, a component of the multi-agency Transportation Demand
Management Partnership Project led by the Authority.30 The Partnership Project will
examine the feasibility of allowing private shuttles to use transit lanes and stops. The design
of the BRT system does not preclude the use of the facilities by private shuttles if it is later
adopted as a City policy.
3.1.2.5 I EFFECTS ON TRUCK TURNING MOVEMENTS AND DIVERSIONS
The BRT alternatives would result in some changes to truck circulation from changes to
curbed medians and curb bulbs, specifically restrictions in truck turns onto Van Ness
Avenue due to smaller turning radii. Preliminary engineering and analysis indicate the
following truck turn restrictions may be required for all build alternatiyes: WB right turn to
NB Van Ness Avenue at Market Street, KB left turn to NB Van Ness Avenue and I B right
The greatest increase in traffic volumes in the study area would he on Iranklin Street, north of Market Street fol
Design < )ption B and the LPA. Due in larKe part to the reduction of left-turn pockets along Van \osv Uenuc let.
tummg vehicles under the Design ( )pt.on H and I.PA would use that segment of I ranklin Street to go north and thus
would experience an increase ol up to M0 vehicles in 2015 and 620 vehicles in 20VS with the implementation ol the
I.PA. l-hcsc increase, in traffic volumes are s.gn.ficantlv higher than the tncreascs at other segments along I anklin
Street (more than .1 times the average of increased volumes at other scrccnlmc intersections ah.nn the comdo, and
even h.ghcr than intersections on other parallel streets (more than 5 times the increase on ( lough Street Pus ■ «IKI
operations at the •intersection of Iranklin and Market Street .0 operate at U >S P, with more than 100 seconds nl dela>
tor the left turn trom Market Street onto I ranklin Street in 2015 (sec Section V V V2)
Diversions outside the corridor were found to he similar for all of the huild alternatives
The SAR is available at www.sfcta.orp/,h...rtn
Available on the project wchsitc at w^-w sfrta oiy /!,|nl
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
KEY FINDINGS
Van Ness BRT is the primary
transit street in the corridor, as
opposed to Franklin and Cough
streets, which are the primary
private vehicle streets. BRT
would help Van Ness Avenue
function more efficiently and
increase transit ridership.
Vehicle diversions to all other
streets in the corridor would add
up to less than 7 vehicles per
minute under the build
scenarios. The project design
would improve conditions that
factor into the primary collision
types that currently occur on
Van Ness Avenue.
turn to SB Van Ness Avenue at O'Farrell Street, WB left turn to SB Van Ness Avenue at
Geary Street, EB right turn to SB Van Ness Avenue at Union Street, EB right turn from NB
Van Ness Avenue and WB right turn from SB Van Ness Avenue at Eddy Street, EB right
turn from NB Van Ness Avenue at California Street. Build Alternatives 3 and 4 (and the
LPA) are anticipated to require truck turn restrictions to EB right turn to NB Van Ness
Avenue at Clay Street, EB right turn to SB Van Ness Avenue and WB right turn to NB Van
Ness Avenue at Pacific Avenue, EB right turn to SB Van Ness Avenue at Broadway,
Greenwich Street and Filbert Street, EB right turn from NB Van Ness Avenue and \\rrB
right turn from SB Van Ness Avenue at Hayes Street, WT3 right turn from SB Van Ness
Avenue at Grove Street, McAllister Street and Clay Street, EB right turn from NB Van Ness
Avenue and WB right turn from SB Van Ness Avenue at Pacific Avenue, Vallejo Street,
Green Street, Union Street, Filbert Street, and Greenwich Street. Under the Vallejo
Northbound Station Variant, WB trucks on Vallejo Street would not be able to turn right
onto NB Van Ness Avenue.
The proposed Hayes Two-Way Street Conversion Project that is planned for completion in
2015 (see Section 2.7) is expected to preclude truck turns for all right turns, with the
exception of the WB turn to NB Van Ness Avenue. In addition, advisor}7 signs stating
"Right Turn for Buses/Trucks Not Advised" are proposed at two-way street crossings at
Pacific, Broadway, Vallejo, Green, Union, Filbert, Greenwich, and Lombard streets under all
alternatives because of encroachment into opposing lanes. This is in addition to the existing
advisor}' signs currently posted at Grove, McAllister, Eddy, California, and Clay streets. The
aforementioned truck turning restrictions have been identified as potential turn restrictions
during preliminary design. All truck turning restrictions would be identified during final
design, and solutions will be sought to avoid prohibiting truck turns.
Under all of the build alternatives, including the LPA, it is unlikely that most trucks would
divert from Van Ness Avenue to parallel streets due to the increased grade/ slope on parallel
streets (trucks are currently prohibited on Franklin Street north of California Street and are
also prohibited on Gough Street north of Sacramento Street for this reason), and because
they are either traveling regionally on US 101 or making deliveries on Van Ness Avenue.
3.1.3 I Summary of Corridor Travel Patterns
The following are key findings about existing and future travel patterns in the Van Ness
Avenue corridor and benefits of the proposed BRT project:
• Van Ness Avenue is the primary transit street in the Van Ness Avenue corridor study
area (see Figure 3.1-1). Under typical existing conditions along the corridor, Van Ness
Avenue carries more than 55,000 people daily, with 29 percent of them on transit.
• Franklin and Gough streets are the primary private vehicle (auto) streets in the Van Ness
Avenue corridor study area. In 2005, Van Ness Avenue carried less than 31 percent of
the corridor's automobile traffic, but more than 80 percent of the transit riders.
• In existing conditions, Franklin and Gough streets are the primary regional routes for
private vehicles in the Van Ness Avenue corridor. This pair currently carries a higher
number and proportion of regional private vehicle (auto) traffic than Van Ness Avenue.
• Less than half of travelers in private vehicles on Van Ness Avenue under existing
conditions have an origin or destination in neighborhoods surrounding Van Ness
Avenue, meaning many of them could divert to streets throughout San Francisco rather
than use Van Ness Avenue or streets immediately parallel.
• Pedestrian and bicycle trips comprise approximately 25 percent of trips to, from, or
within the neighborhoods surrounding Van Ness Avenue.
• With BRT, transit trips would comprise an average of 40 percent (Build Alternative 2)
to 44 percent (Build Alternatives 3 and 4, with or without Design Option B, and the
LPA) of motorized trips along Van Ness Avenue. At select locations, transit trips would
comprise more than 50 percent of motorized trips, meaning the two transit lanes would
carry more people than the remaining four mixed travel lanes combined.
3-12
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
• With BRT, person throughput (total number of motorized trips on transit or in private
vehicles) would decrease slighdy under Build Alternative 2 and would be generally
maintained in the center BRT alternatives, including the LPA, compared to the No
Build Alternative; however, the number of trips made by transit would increase
significandy.
• The BRT lane has significantly higher service capacity than the service assumed in the
model. Future service investments would increase person-throughput without additional
traffic operations impacts.
• With BRT, each remaining private vehicle lane would carry more people than under the No
Build Alternative; however, transit would carry an average of 1 3 percent (Build Alternative
2) to 36 percent (Build Alternatives 3 and 4 and the LPA) more people in each of its J
dedicated lanes than each private vehicle lane would carry, and it would provide the
capacity to carry many more trips per hour as Muni's Rapid Network and the City's
population grow.
• BRT would increase the vehicle occupancy on Van Ness Avenue from 1.7 people per
vehicle (existing and No Build Alternative) to 2.0 (Build Alternative 2) or 2.1 (Build
Alternatives 3 and 4 and the LPA) people per vehicle. The street would function on
average at typical HOV facility levels of approximately 2 people per vehicle.
• The proposed project would address all of the primary collision types that currently
occur on Van Ness Avenue.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
JM
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
3.2 Transit Conditions
SFMTA operates two Muni bus
routes along the entire length of
Van Ness Avenue within the
project limits: Routes 47 and 49,
which convert into one route,
OWL 90, between i:oo a.m.
and 6:00 a.m.
This section provides a discussion of the local and regional transit systems presently serving
the corridor and the planned transit improvements that may affect the corridor; identifies
and evaluates the potendal environmental consequences of each of the alternadves on transit
service; and describes mitigadon measures that would reduce or avoid significant impacts.
Other performance measures are shown in this secdon for planning purposes and to aid in
the alternadves performance evaluadon documented in Chapter 9.
The Locally Preferred Alternadve (LP A) is a refinement of the two center-running build
alternadves with limited left turns (Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B). For
nearly all of the environmental impact areas and BRT performance areas described in
Section 3.2, the LPA (including the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant) has similar
environmental consequences to Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B, and is so
noted. In one instance (platform crowding), the LPA performs the same as Build Alternative
3 with Design Option B, but not Build Alternative 4 with Design Option B, and is so noted.
Unless otherwise noted, the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant is anticipated to perform
similarly to the LPA. Some small differences in BRT performance (i.e., travel time and
reliability benefits) between the LPA and the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant are noted
in the text.
3.2.1 I Existing Transit Services, Ridership, and Performance
This section describes the existing transit setting in the Van Ness Avenue corridor, including
existing transit services offered, demand, and transit operating performance. Two operators
provide transit service along Van Ness Avenue: (1) SFMTA operates Muni buses; and (2)
Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District (GGBHTD) operates Golden
Gate Transit (GGT) buses.
3.2.1.1 I SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
SFMTA operates two 24/7 (i.e., 24 hours per day, 7 days per week) Muni bus routes along
the entire length of Van Ness Avenue within the project limits: Routes 47 and 49, which
convert into one route, OWL 90, between 1:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Five other Muni routes,
including one Sunday-only route, serve a portion of Van Ness Avenue, and one (#19)
operates along Polk Street, which runs parallel to Van Ness Avenue to the east. In addition,
32 Muni transit routes, including all 6 Metro lines traveling under Market Street, cross Van
Ness Avenue at various intersections along the corridor, providing transfer opportunities to
other Muni routes. The subsections below describe each route that runs along the Van Ness
Avenue corridor in detail, including sendee coverage, hours of operation, and headways.
The ridership data for Muni routes were obtained from SFMTA's TEP; the cited data were
collected in 2006-2007. As part of the TEP, automatic passenger counter (APC) devices
equipped with a GPS were installed on a statistically representative sample of the Muni bus
fleet. These devices recorded the number of passengers boarding and alighting buses over a
24-hour period.
Current Muni fares are $2.00 for adults; $0.75 for seniors, people with disabilities, and youths
(ages 5 to 17); and free for children under the age of 5. Transfer receipts are issued on board,
free of charge, and are valid on any Muni route for up to 90 minutes from the time of
boarding. Monthly passes are $64.00 for adults ($74.00 for passes that include BART fare
within San Francisco city limits) $22.00 for seniors, youths, and persons with disabilities; and
$32.00 for qualified low-income passengers. These basic fares apply to all buses, Metro/light
rail lines, and historic streetcars, except cable cars. One-way cable car fares are $6.00 for
those over the age of 5, and $3.00 for seniors and people with disabilities before 7:00 a.m.
3-14
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
and after 9:00 p.m. A proof-of-payment system is in effect on all Metro lines. Any person on
an SFMTA vehicle or in the paid area of a Metro subway station must possess valid proof of
fare payment in the form of a transfer/receipt, a monthly pass, or a Clipper (formerly
Translink) card.
Existing Routes
Several Muni routes on Van Ness Avenue provide regional transit connections to BART,
AC Transit, Caltrain, GGT, and SamTrans. Figure 3.2-1 shows the existing transit routes
along the Van Ness Avenue BRT corridor.
Figure 3.2-1: Existing Transit Routes along and crossing
Van Ness Avenue (does not include Market Street)
Van Ness Avenue
Muni Transit
Service and
Frequency 2009
Black and orange routes indicate
transit routes that travel along Van
Ness Avenue. Gray routes indicate
transit routes that cross Van Ness
Avenue. The 19-Polk route has been
included for reference, as a parallel
route to Van Ness.
OWL (late night) service along Van
Ness Avenue is provided by 90-Owl
from North Point Street south past
Market Street
'Routes that travel along Market
Street are not marked on Market,
but included elsewhere.
PM Peak Period Frequency
— 20 minutes or more
12-1 5 minutes
10 minutes
^^^^ 9 minutes or less
— — Sundays only
N
A
Source San Francisco Municipal
Transportation Agency December 2009
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 201
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Routes Operating along Van Ness Avenue
Table 3.2-1 presents the routes operating along and parallel to Van Ness Avenue. Routes 47
and 49 are the principal transit routes serving the Van Ness Avenue corridor.
Table 3.2-1: Existing Muni Lines along the Proposed Van Ness Avenue BRT Corridor
ROUTES
SEGMENT WITHIN
PROJECT AREA
WEEKDAY
HOURS OF
OPERATION
WEEKDAY
AM/PM PEAK
HEADWAYS
(MIN)
AVERAGE
WEEKDAY DAILY
RIDERSHIP M
BOARDINGS
BETWEEN
MISSION &
LOMBARD
STREETS
ROUTES OPERATINC ALONG VAN NESS AVENUE BRT PROJECT AREA
47 - Van Ness
(MC)
Lombard Street to
Mission Street
6:00 a.m. -
1:05 a.m.
8
12, 800
7,800
49 - Van Ness -
Mission (TC)
Lombard Street to
Mission Street
5:40 a.m. -
1:12 a.m.
8
25,300
9,000
90 - San Bruno
Owl (MC)
Lombard Street to
Mission Street
1:18 a.m. -
4:40 a.m.
N/A
350
200
76 - Marin
Headlands (MC)
Lombard Street to
Sutter Street
Sundays
Only
N/A
N/A
N/A
30X - Marina
Express (MC)
Lombard Street to
Broadway
AM and PM
Peaks Only
AM - 5
PM - 10
2,400
150
12 - Folsom -
Pacific (MC)
Pacific Avenue to
Washington Street
6:00 a.m. -
12:30 a.m.
20
6,900
360
27- Bryant (MC)
Jackson Street to
Washington Street
5:47 a.m. -
12:57 a.m.
12
7,400
230
ROUTES OPERATING PARALLEL TO VAN NESS AVENUE
19- Polk (MC)
Lombard Street to
Eddy Street
5:21 a.m. -
1:23 a.m.
12
9,200
2,600
Note:
W Ridership accounts for
the total daily boardings, in both the
inbound and outbou
nd directions.
MC = Motor Coach; TC =
Trolley Coach
Sources: Muni Schedule (December 2009); Transit Effectiveness Project/APC Data (2006-2007)
47 - Van Ness. Muni Route 47 bus line, using diesel and diesel-hybrid buses, provides local
service from Fisherman's Wharf to the Caltrain Station at Fourth and Townsend streets,
passing through a mix of commercial, institutional, and residendal uses along Van Ness and
South Van Ness avenues and across SoMa areas on Bryant and Harrison streets. Route 47
runs along the entire length of the proposed Van Ness Avenue corridor.
49 - Van Ness - Mission. Muni Route 49 trolleybus line provides local service between Fort
Mason and City College of San Francisco via Van Ness Avenue and Mission Street; it serves
as a primary north-south arterial transit route in the city.
90 - San Bruno (Owl Service). Muni Route 90 Owl service is provided at night between North
Point and Arleta via Van Ness Avenue, Potrero Avenue, Bayshore Boulevard, and San
Bruno Avenue. Route 90 Owl replaces Routes 47 and 49 on Van Ness Avenue between 1:00
a.mt and 5:00 a.m.
76 - Marin Headlands. Route 76 provides local service between the Marin Headlands and the
Caltrain Station via the Golden Gate Bridge and downtown, only on Sundays and some
holidays.
30X - Marina Express. Route 30X operates over a limited portion of Van Ness Avenue and
provides express bus service during weekday AM and PM peak periods only, connecting the
Marina and Financial districts.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Routes 12 and 27. These two lines operate over a limited portion of Van Ness Avenue. Route
12 operates along Van Ness Avenue between Pacific Avenue and Washington Street, and
Route 27 operates between Jackson and Washington streets.
Routes 12, 27, 30X, 76, and 90 use standard (40- foot) motor coach buses.
Routes Operating Parallel to Van Ness Avenue
19 - Polk. Route 19 provides service between the Marina District and Hunters Point along
Polk Street, 7th/ 8th streets, various streets in Potrero Hill, and then Evans Street to the
Hunters Point Shipyard. Route 19 runs on Polk Street, one block east of Van Ness Avenue,
serving as an alternative north-south transit route next to Routes 47 and 49. Route 19
operates every 10 minutes during the AM and PM peak periods, every 24 minutes during
midday (or every 12 minutes to the north of Townsend), and every 20 minutes from 6:00
p.m. to 1:30 a.m. Route 19 averages 9,200 daily passengers, 2,600 of whom board between
Lombard and Eddy streets on Polk Street.
Routes Crossing Van Ness Avenue
There are 32 Muni transit lines that cross Van Ness Avenue between Mission and Lombard
streets, including 24 bus routes, 6 light-rail transit lines (Metro), one historic streetcar
(F-Line) and one cable car (C). Table 3.2-2 shows the basic characteristics of these lines.
Appendix A gives more detailed description of each.
Table 3.2-2: Existing Muni Service crossing the Proposed Van Ness Avenue BRT
Corridor
ROUTES CROSSING VAN
NESS AVENUE
CROSS STREET(S)
AT VAN NESS/
SOUTH VAN NESS AVENUE
WEEKDAY HOURS
OF OPERATION
WEEKDAY AM/PM
PEAK HEADWAYS
(MiN)
AVERAGE
WEEKDAY
RIDERSHIP "
1 - California (TC)
Sacramento Street (outbound)/
Clay Street (inbound)
5:22 a.m. -
1:25 a.m.
3-8
23,600
lAX - California
'A' Express (MC)
Pine Street (outbound)/ Bush
Street (inbound)
AM and PM
Peaks Only
AM - 10
PM - 15
76O
i BX - California
'B' Express (MC)
Pine Street (outbound)/ Bush
Street (inbound)
AM and PM
Peaks Only
AM - 6
PM - 15
1,700
2 - Clement (MC)
Sutter Street (outbound)/ Post
Street (inbound)
5:17 a.m. -
7:18 p.m.
10
7,100
3 - Jackson (TC)
Sutter Street (outbound) / Post
Street (inbound)
7:06 a.m. -
1:05 a.m.
TO
4,200
5 - Fulton (TC)
McAllister Street
24 Hours
AM -6
PM - 5
14,000
6 - Parnassus
(TC)
Market Street
6:20 a.m. -
12:22 a.m.
10
7,200
10 - Townsend
(MC)
Jackson Street (outbound)/
Washington Street (inbound)
5:06 a.m. -
8:44 p.m.
20
3,200
14 - Mission (TC)
Mission Street
24 Hours
AM - 12
PM -6
32,800
14L - Mission
Limited (MC)
Mission Street
8:40 a.m. -
3:51 p.m.
N/A
4.900
16X - Noriega
Express (MC)
Turk Street (outbound)/
Golden Gate Avenue (inbound)
AM and& PM
Peaks Only
AM - 10
PM - 15
910
21 - Hayes (TC)
Hayes Street (outbound)/
Grove Street (inbound)
5:36 a.m. -
12:52 a.m.
7
8,800
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Table 3.2-2: Existing Muni Service crossing the Proposed Van Ness Avenue BRT
Corridor
ROUTES CROSSING VAN
NESS AVENUE
CROSS STREET(S)
AT VAN NESS/
SOUTH VAN NESS AVENUE
WEEKDAY HOURS
OF OPERATION
WEEKDAY AM/PM
PEAK HEADWAYS
(MIN)
AVERAGE
WEEKDAY
RIDERSHIPl'l
30 - Stockton (TC)
Chestnut Street and North
Point Street
4:49 a.m. -
1 130 a.m.
3-6
23,700
31 - Balboa (TC)
Eddy Street
5:25 a.m. -
12:39 3-m-
12
9,000
31 AX - Balboa 'A'
Express (MC)
Pine Street (outbound)/ Bush
Street (inbound)
AM and PM
Peaks Only
AM
fly
HM -
-8
- io
900
3iBX- Balboa 'B'
Express (MC)
Pine Street (outbound)/ Bush
Street (inbound)
AM and PM
Peaks Only
AM -
rW\ -
- 10
- 15
770
38 -Geary (MC)
Geary Boulevard (outbound)/
O'Farrell Street (inbound)
24 Hours
6-
- 12
33,000
38L - Geary
Limited (ivii_}
Geary Boulevard (outbound)/
O'Farrell Street (inbound)
6:00 a.m. -
6:40 p.m.
5
-7
21,300
38AX - Geary 'A'
Express (MC)
Pine Street (outbound) / Bush
Street (inbound)
AM and PM
Peaks Only
AM -
PM -
- 10
-15
990
38BX- Geary 'B'
Express (MC)
Pine Street (outbound) / Bush
Street (inbound)
AM and PM
Peaks Only
AM
PM •
-8
-15
1,200
41 - Union (TC)
Union Street
AM and PM
Peaks Only
AM
PM
- b
-7
3,000
45 - Union -
Stockton (TC)
Union Street
6:10 a.m. -
1:03 a.m.
9
12,100
71 - Haight -
Noriega (MC)
Market Street
Non-peak
Hours
10
10,300
71 L - Haight-
Noriega Limited
(MC)
Market Street
AM and PM
Peaks Only
io
2, IOO
J - Church (LRV)
Market Street
5:09 a.m. -
12:16 a.m.
9
16,700
K Ingleside/
T Third (LRV)
Market Street
5:09 a.m. -
12:16 a.m.
9
32,700
L-Taraval (LRV)
Market Street
24 Hours
8
29,800
IVI — wCcdrl View
(LRV)
Market Street
5:42 a.m. —
12:10 a.m.
9
28,700
N - Judah (LRV)
Market Street
24 Hours
7
45,300
S - Castro Shuttle
(LRV)
Market Street
7:32 a.m. -
6:55 p.m.
9-
-n
N/A
F- Market &
Wharves (HSC)
Market Street
5:47 a.m.-
12:38 a.m.
7
18,500
C - California (CC)
California Street
6:23 a.m. -
12:32 a.m.
AM
PM
-6
-8
3,700
Note:
W Ridership accounts for the total daily boardings in both the inbound and outbound directions.
MC = Motor Coach; TC = Trolley Coach; LRV = Light Rail Vehicle; HSC = Historic Street Car; CC - Cable Car
Sources: Muni Schedule (December, 2009); Transit Effectiveness Project/APC Data (2006-2007).
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
3.2.1.2 I REGIONAL TRANSIT SERVICES
Golden Gate Transit
The GGBHTD provides regional transit services between San Francisco, Marin, and
Sonoma counties with GGT buses and Golden Gate ferries. The information listed in this
section reflects service levels as of 2007. Twenty- two (22) GGT bus routes serve San
Francisco: 3 basic routes and 19 commute routes. Buses on the basic routes run daily at 60-
minute headways, while commute buses run during peak periods in the peak direction only
(to San Francisco in the morning; to Marin and Sonoma in the afternoon/evening) with
more frequent service.
Of the 22 GGT bus routes, 8 routes (Routes 10, 54, 70, 72, 73, 76, 80, 93, and 97) travel
along Van Ness Avenue south of Lombard Street, and one route (Route 10) crosses Van
Ness Avenue at Golden Gate Avenue (inbound) and at McAllister Street (outbound). The
other 13 routes, as well as most trips on routes 54, 72, and 76, travel along Van Ness
Avenue north of Lombard Street, using Beach and Battery streets inbound and Sansome and
North Point streets outbound to serve the Financial District.
Routes 10, 70, and 80 are basic routes; all of the other routes are commute routes. Routes
70, 73, 80, and 93 travel along Van Ness Avenue between Lombard and Golden Gate
Avenue (inbound) and McAllister Street (outbound); Route 97 travels along Van Ness
Avenue between Lombard Street and Broadway. Table 3.2-3 shows the basic characteristics
of these lines.
Table 3.2-3: Existing Golden Gate Transit Service in or near the
Proposed Van Ness Avenue BRT Corridor
ROUTE
SERVICE AREA
TYPICAL WEEKDAY
HOURS OF
OPERATION
WEEKDAY PM PEAK
HEADWAYS W
(MIN)
AVERAGE PM PEAK
RIDERSHIP
(SF BOARDINC
ONLY)
PM PEAK
LOAD
FACTOR W
IO
Marin City - Sausalito -
San Francisco
6:38 a.m. -
7:31 p.m.
6O
45%
70
Novato - San Rafael -
Marin City - San Francisco
5:16 a.m. -
12:43 a-m-
30
15
61%
8O
Santa Rosa - Novato - San
Rafael - San Francisco
4:01 a.m.
11:43 P-m-
60
15
81%
54
San Marin - Novato -
San Francisco
AM and PM
Peaks Only
IO
179
45%
72
Santa Rosa - San Francisco
AM and PM
Peaks Only
20
80
47%
73
Santa Rosa - San Francisco
Civic Center
AM and PM
Peaks Only
3°
25
54%
76
East Petaluma -
San Francisco
AM and PM
Peaks Only
20-30
20
40%
93
Golden Gate Bridge Toll
Plaza - Van Ness Ave - San
Francisco Civic Center
AM and PM
Peaks Only
3°
16
N/A
97
Larkspur Ferry Terminal -
San Francisco
5:30 a.m.
Once a day
N/A
N/A
Notes:
('! Peak l-hour between 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m.
I" Load factor refers to the ratio of ridership to bus seatin
The Golden Gate Bridge
Highway and Transportation
District provides regional transit
services between San Francisco
and Marin and Sonoma counties
with Golden Gate Transit buses
and Golden Gate ferries.
g capacity (Colden Gate Transit policy does not allow standees)
Source: Joshua Widmann, Colden Catc Transit
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
J<9
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
The GGT sendee area is divided into seven fare zones: one in San Francisco, three in Marin
County, two in Sonoma County, and one in Contra Costa County. The fares vary depending
on trip length and number of fare zones crossed. In 2007, one-way adult bus fares between
San Francisco and Marin County range from $3.60 to $5.30, and one-way adult fares between
San Francisco and Sonoma County range from $7.60 to $8.40. One-way adult fares between
San Francisco and Contra Costa County were $6.60. Half-price discount fares apply to youths
(ages 8 to 18), seniors 65 years and older, persons with disabilities, and Medicare cardholders.
In addition, purchasers of 20 tickets or more are eligible for a 20 percent discount.
Basic Service Routes
Route 10. Route 10 provides daily service between Marin City, Sausalito, and San Francisco,
with additional service on weekdays to Tarn Valley. Route 10 travels on Park Presidio
Boulevard, Geary Boulevard, Golden Gate Avenue/McAllister Street, and Mission Street
and also serves the Transbay Terminal.
Route 70. Route 70 provides daily service between Novato, San Rafael, Marin City, and San
Francisco. Route 70 travels on Lombard Street, Van Ness Avenue, Golden Gate Avenue/
McAllister Street, and Mission Street and serves the Transbay Terminal.
Route 80. Route 80 provides daily service between Sonoma, Marin, and San Francisco
counties. Areas of service include Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park, Cotati, Petaluma, Novato, San
Rafael, Marin City, and San Francisco (Civic Center and Financial District). Route 80 travels
on Lombard Street, Golden Gate Avenue/McAllister Street, and Mission Street and serves
the Transbay Terminal.
Commute Service Routes
Route 54. Route 54 is a weekday commute service that provides service between Novato and
San Francisco. Most trips serve the Financial District, but one morning and one afternoon
trip serve the San Francisco Civic Center via Lombard Street, Van Ness Avenue, and
Golden Gate Avenue/McAllister Street.
Route 72. Route 72 is a weekday commute service that provides service between Santa Rosa,
Rohnert Park, Cotati, and San Francisco. Most trips serve the Financial District, but one
morning and one afternoon trip serve the San Francisco Civic Center via Lombard Street,
Van Ness Avenue, and Golden Gate Avenue/McAllister Street.
Route 73. Route 73 is a weekday commute service that provides service between Santa Rosa,
Rohnert Park, Petaluma, and San Francisco. It is an exclusive Civic Center service that
operates via Lombard Street, Van Ness Avenue, and Golden Gate Avenue/McAllister Street.
Route 76. Route 76 provides service between East Petaluma and San Francisco during the
AM and PM peak periods. While most Route 76 buses travel directly to the Financial
District via Battery and Sansome streets, two buses (leaving Petaluma at 5:35 a.m. and 6:13
a.m.) are routed along Van Ness Avenue to Civic Center.
Route 93. Route 93. Route 93 provides weekday commute shuttle service from the Golden
Gate Bridge Toll Plaza to the San Francisco Civic Center via Lombard Street, Van Ness
Avenue, and Golden Gate Avenue/McAllister Street.
Route 97. Route 97 provides one morning express trip on weekdays from the Larkspur Fern'
Terminal to the San Francisco Financial District via Lombard Street, Van Ness Avenue, and
Broadway.
Employer Shuttle Services
Private shutties, such as employer buses traveling to and from Silicon Valley and the
Peninsula, are a rapidly growing regional transit sendee. The Van Ness Avenue corridor has
3-20
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
recently seen expanded growth of large employer shutde services traveling along Van Ness
Avenue, in addition to pick-ups and drop-offs on Van Ness Avenue.
3.2.1.3 I EXISTING MUNI OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
This section presents existing Muni bus performance along Van Ness Avenue, including
crowding (i.e., load factor), travel speed and delay, travel time relative to driving, and
reliability. Each of these measures was analyzed using the most recent data available.
Crowding was analyzed using APC data collected in 2007 by SFMTA as part of the TEP.
Both APC data (2007) and SFCTA's 2004 transit speed and delay survey data were used to
analyze existing travel time, speed, and delay. Travel time and dwell time delay data were
obtained from APC data; mixed traffic and signal time delay data are inferred from the APC
data based on findings from the 2004 transit speed and delay survey. Reliability, which was
measured by headway adherence, was based on headway data collected in 2004. The auto
and transit travel time comparison was based on APC data (2007) and traffic counts
performed in 2008.
Bus Stops and Transfers
Figure 3.2-2 presents the locations of existing bus stops for the Muni lines operating along
Van Ness Avenue. There are 14 NB and 14 SB Muni bus stops along Van Ness Avenue
between Market and Lombard streets, and an additional NB bus stop located at South Van
Ness and Mission Street. The average stop spacing is approximately 700 feet, which is less
than the Muni service standard of approximately 800 to 1,000 feet along streets with grades
less than 10 percent, such as Van Ness Avenue.
Figure 3.2-2: Existing Transit Stops
for Muni Routes 47/49 on Van Ness Avenue BRT Corridor
3
z
B
Lombard
lureo"
Geary
Iparjf*
I Clay
hi***
fSutu*
! Of*
! Tuf*
Existing MUNI Bus
Stops Along Van
Ness Avenue
BRT Alignment
The location ol th«M tlopt art approximate
The doseil crou streets to these Van New
Avenue bus stops are indicated by the street
names highlighted in red
Muni Routes
^■47 Van Nesj
w 49 Mission
Direction:
• Northbound
• Southbound
Average Onuince
1 700'
Source San Francisco
Munrceja, T.anaoortaeon Agency
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 201
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
An onboard survey conducted in 2005 by SFCTA shows that major transfers between the
47/49 lines and crossing routes occur, in order of transfer activity, at Market Street, Geary
Boulevard, Mission Street, Hayes Street, and California Street.
Today, the Muni 47 and 49 share the same stops along Van Ness Avenue in the study area
between Mission and Greenwich streets. Outside the study area, they have different routes:
Route 49 begins at North Point and travels south to City College along Van Ness Avenue,
Mission Street, and Ocean Avenue, whereas Route 47 starts in Fisherman's Wharf, meets
Route 49 at North Point and Van Ness Avenue, leaves South Van Ness Avenue at Mission
Street and travels through SoMa to terminate at the 4th/ King Caltrain station. The TEP
recommended a slightly alternative route for the 47 through SoMa, which this study assumes
is implemented in 2015 for all future year scenarios.
Ridership and Mode Shares
The total number of daily passenger boardings and loads on Routes 47 and 49 are shown by
stop in Figure 3.2-3. As the chart indicates, boardings peak near Market Street in the NB
direction, likely due to transfer activity. There are multiple locations with heavy boardings in
the SB direction, and riders board the bus fairly consistently throughout the corridor. Major
stops in the corridor are similar for both lines, and they consistently are at locations with
transfers to other significant Muni transit lines, (e.g., Geary and O'Farrell have convenient
transfers to the 38-Geary line).
Figure 3.2-3: Daily Boardings by Stop for Routes 47 and 49
4000 1
Source: APC data (2006-2007).
Crowding (Load Factor)
Bus crowding is measured by load factor, which is the number of passengers on board a
transit vehicle relative to capacity. Muni's Short-Range Transit Plan presents a definition of
maximum capacity — the total number of passengers allowed, including the number of seats
and a set number of standees — and a representative number for each vehicle type. Muni
policy calls for vehicles to operate at 85 percent or less of the 100 percent, or "crush," load
3-22
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
at the most crowded point (i.e., maximum load point [MLP]) along a route during the peak
period. Table 3.2-4 shows the seating capacity, 85 percent capacity, and a 100 percent
capacity for Routes 47, 49, and 19.
Table 3.2-4: Passenger Capacities
ROUTE
SEATING CAPACITY
85% CAPACITY
100% CAPACITY
Route 47 (MC)
39
54
63
Route 49 (AT)
57
80
94
Route 19 (MC)
39
54
63
MC - motor coach (40-foot); AT - articulated trolley coach (60-foot)
Table 3.2-5 presents the PM peak-hour ridership and vehicle load factors at the MLP for the
Muni lines operating along Van Ness Avenue and Polk Street. For NB and SB trips, the MLP
for Routes 47 and 49 occurs at Van Ness Avenue and McAllister Street near Civic Center, as
seen in Figures 3.2-4 and 3.2-5. During the PM peak hour (usually between 3:00 p.m. and
5:00 p.m.), the Route 47 MLP occurs in the NB direction at Van Ness Avenue and McAllister
Street, averaging 44 passengers per bus, with a load factor of 0.7. During the PM peak period,
Route 49 can average as many as 49 people in the NB direction at its MLP at Van Ness
Avenue and McAllister Street, with a load factor of 0.52. During the PM peak in the NB
direction, Route 19 averages 45 passengers per bus at its MLP, with a load factor of 0.71.
Table 3.2-5: Existing Northbound PM Peak-Hour Muni Ridership and Load Factor
ROUTE W
MAXIMUM LOAD POINT
PM PEAK-HOUR
RIDERSHIP
%OF
SEATING
CAPACITY AT
MLP
% OF TOTAL
CAPACITY AT
MLP
47- Van Ness (NB)
Van Ness Avenue &
McAllister Street
340
113%
70%
49 - Van Ness - Mission (NB)
Van Ness Avenue &
McAllister Street
391
86%
52%
19 - Polk Street (NB)
7th Street &
Howard Street
223
114%
71%
Source: APC data (2006 2007).
Figure 3.2-4: Northbound Daily Load (Passenger Volume) for Routes 47 and 49
Source: APC (2006-2007).
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Figure 3.2-5: Southbound Daily Load (Passenger Volume) for Routes 47 and 49
5,000 1
4,500
Source: APC data (2006-2007)
The load factor analysis
indicates that Van Ness Avenue
buses operate with crowded,
but not crush conditions, which
is contrary to some riders'
experiences. The average load
factor for the corridor can
mask the situation on any
individual bus and may be
closely related to reliability.
KEY FINDING
Van Ness Avenue buses spend
approximately half of
their travel time stopped in
some sort of delay.
The load factor analysis indicates that Van Ness Avenue buses operate with crowded, but not
crush conditions, which is contrary to some riders' experiences. The average load factor for
the corridor can mask the situation on any individual bus. Because these loads are averaged
over the peak hour, the difference between the data and anecdotal experience of crowded
Van Ness Avenue buses may be explained by reliability issues; when headways are not evenly
spaced, some buses will be extremely crowded and others much less crowded. The discussion
of transit reliability is presented later in this section under Route Segment Reliability.
Travel Time, Speed, and Delays
Transit travel times (i.e., speeds), and the amount of time spent in delay, is a key indicator of
transit performance. Transit delays come in various forms. Dwell time is defined as the time
elapsed from the opening to the closing of the bus doors. This includes the onboard service
time associated with fare payment, as well as boarding and disembarking, and is not all delay
time; however, delays do occur during the dwell period associated with fare collection and
loading/unloading. Signal delay is the time spent waiting at red lights. Mixed traffic delay
includes time spent waiting to pull in and out of traffic and time spent behind parking,
double-parked, or right-turning cars. It should be noted that mixed traffic contributes to
some dwell time delays due to bus bunching and difficulties for buses pulling out of stops.
During the PM peak period, travel speeds are marginally lower in the SB direction (i.e., 5.5
mph) than in the NB direction (i.e., 6.3 mph), and time spent for various delays is slightly
greater. Van Ness Avenue buses spend about half of their travel time stopped in some sort
of delay. Signal and mixed-traffic delays account for more than 50 percent of total delay; 58
percent in the NB direction and 50 percent in the SB direction.
'Van Ness Avenue buses today spend approximately 17 seconds in delay at a typical
intersection. Even when dwell time is subtracted from transit travel times, buses remain
slower than autos because they experience greater signal and mixed traffic delays than
automobiles.
Van Ness Avenue buses currently average 5.2 mph, inclusive of dwell time. Current transit
travel times on the BRT route are 17.5 minutes for the Muni 49 segment between Clay Street
and Mission/Otis/Duboce (approximately 1.5 miles) and 14.4 minutes for the shorter Route
47 segment between Clay and Mission/Otis/South Van Ness (approximately 1.2 miles).
3-24
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Route Segment Reliability
Reliability affects the amount of time passengers must wait at a transit stop for a transit
vehicle to arrive, the consistency of passengers' arrival times at a destination from day to
day, and passengers' total trip time. Reliability is measured here in terms of travel time
variability and headway adherence, including percent of bunched buses.
Headway adherence is a standard measure of reliability when bus sen-ice operates at
frequencies of six buses or more per hour. Headway adherence is important for frequent
service, because the inability to keep a uniform headway is an indication of bus bunching,
which leads to overcrowding for the lead bus and longer waits than expected for passengers.
Bus bunching is caused, among other reasons, by buses operating in mixed-traffic operation.
When a downstream bus is substantially delayed because of traffic congestion or inefficient
signal progression, it could arrive at a bus stop at the same time as the next scheduled bus.
A February 2004 SFCTA field survey illustrates current reliability conditions. Although
during the PM peak, Muni Routes 47 and 49 are not bunched (i.e., defined as headways of
less than 1 minute) at the beginning of their routes, approximately 4 percent of SB buses
become bunched by the time they reach O'Farrell Street, and 7 percent become bunched by
the time they reach Oak Street. As shown in Table 3.2-6-6, 45 percent of buses arrive at
North Point with fairly evenly spaced headways between 6 and 9 minutes, which is nearly
three times the number of buses that arrive with extremely irregular headways of 2 minutes
or less or 13 minutes or greater. By O'Farrell Street, the buses are just as likely to arrive with
extreme headways as they are to arrive with even spacing, with the trend continuing to Oak
Street. Furthermore, because buses with short headways are bunched closely together,
randomly arriving passengers are more likely to experience longer headways and on buses
that are also more crowded. Routes 47 and 49 are intended to operate in an evenly staggered
manner along the corridor because a relatively high proportion of the passengers exit at
Market Street; therefore, when the two routes are considered together, the bunching
problems arc amplified.
Bus bunching is caused by buses
operating in mixed-traffic
operation. When a downstream
bus is substantially delayed
because of traffic congestion
or inefficient signal progression,
it could arrive at a bus stop at
the same time as the next
scheduled bus.
Table 3.2-6: Headway Variability for Routes 47 and 49, Southbound during PM Peak
STOP LOCATION (SOUTHBOUND
DIRECTION ONLY)
% OF BUSES ARRIVING WITH 6-
TO 9-MINUTE HEADWAYS
% OF BUSES ARRIVING WITH 2 MINUTE OR LESS OR
13-MINUTE-OR-GREATER HEADWAYS
North Point
45
17
O'Farrell Street
31
28
Oak Street
32
31
Source: SFCTA Field Survey (2004).
3.2.2 I Future SFMTA Transit Services, Ridership, and Performance
3.2.2.1 I STOP LOCATIONS
F,ach of the BRT alternatives would provide 8 station platform locations NB and (> station
platform locations SB (reduction of 6 locations in each direction), as shown in Chapter 2,
Figure 2-2. The LPA would provide 8 stations in the NB direction and l> stations m the SB
direction (the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant would include an atlilition.il NB station
for a total of 9 NB stations), with the Mission Street NB station relocated south of the BR I
corridor (the 47 would continue to stop at Mission Street/South Van Ness Avenue, but 00
the south, nearside, of the intersection). BRT station platform locations were selected basal
on current and expected future demand levels, as well as to preserve kev transfer points
between the BRT and other Muni Rapid routes. Further stop distances, and therefore
further walking distances, were taken into account in ridership forecasting. The BRT Stop
Each of the BRT alternative!
would provide 9 station platform
locations northbound and
8 station platform locations
southbound BRT station
platform locations were selected
based on current and expected
future demand levels, as well as
to preserve key transfer points
between the BRT and other
Muni Rapid routes.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July joij
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
locations would be spaced approximately 900 feet apart on average, which is a spacing that
falls within SFMTA standards for stop spacing on rapid routes. Secondary effects on
pedestrians and universal design from increased walking distances are discussed in Section
3.4, Nonmotorized Transportation.
3.2.2.2 I TRANSIT RIDERSHIP
Methodology
The future year (2015 and 2035) Muni ridership forecast was developed using SFCTA's
travel demand forecasting model - SF-CHAMP. SF-CHAMP provides the percent change in
ridership on each line for each scenario modeled. SF-CHAMP does not forecast any
difference in ridership between Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with or without Design Option B,
which also applies to the LPA.
Transit Ridership Forecasts
SF-CHAMP results indicate that ridership on Routes 47 and 49 would increase by 8 percent
in 2015 under the No Build Alternative due to an increase in population and employment in
the study area and throughout San Francisco, as well as minor transit improvements such as
low-floor buses and stop consolidation on Mission Street. Systemwide Muni ridership will
increase by 5 percent during this time period for similar reasons.
With the proposed project, Year 2015 transit boardings on Routes 47 and 49 would increase
by 29 percent (Build Alternative 2) and 37 percent (Build Alternatives 3 and 4, with or
without Design Option B, and the LPA) relative to existing conditions (see Table 3.2-7). Of
the growth in boardings between the Build and No Build Alternatives, more than 80 percent
is expected to occur on the Van Ness Avenue portions of Muni Routes 47 and 49. SFMTA
systemwide boardings would increase by 6 percent under Build Alternative 2 and 7 percent
under Build Alternatives 3 and 4, with or without Design Option B, and the LPA relative to
existing conditions.
Table 3.2-7: Existing and Near-Term (2015) Daily Transit Boardings
on Muni Routes 47 and 49
2007 EXISTINC
2015
NO BUILD
ALTERNATIVE
2015
BUILD ALTERNATIVE 2
201s BUILD
ALTERNATIVES
3 AND 4
(WITH OR WITHOUT
DESICN OPTION B)*
#47
12,800
13,600
15,600
16,700
#49
25,300
27,300
33,500
35,600
Total
38,100
40,900
49,100
52,300
% Change relative to Existing
n/a
8%
29%
37%
*Same performance as LPA.
Source: APC data (2006-2007) and SF-CHAMP.
^In the long-term horizon year (2035), ridership increases further due to population and
employment growth, in addition to transit operational improvements. As shown in Table
3.2-8, under the No Build Alternative (Alternative 1), daily ridership increases by 23 percent
(33 percent systemwide) relative to existing conditions. Under the build alternatives, daily
ridership on Muni Routes 47 and 49 increases by 51 percent (Build Alternative 2) and 59
percent (Build Alternatives 3 and 4, with or without Design Option B, and the LPA). Of the
growth in boardings between the Build and No Build Alternatives, more than 70 percent is
expected to occur on the Van Ness Avenue portions of Muni Routes 47 and 49.
Ridership on Routes 47 and 49
is projected to increase by
8 percent in 2015 under the
No Build Alternative,
by 29 percent under
Build Alternative 2, 1
or by 37 percent under '
Build Alternatives 3 and 4.
3-26
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Table 3.2-8: Existing and Long-Term (2035) Daily Transit Boardings
on Muni Routes 47 and 49
2007 EXISTING
2035
NO BUILD
ALTERNATIVE
2035
BUILD ALTERNATIVE 2
2035 BUILD ALTERNATIVES
3 AND 4
(WITH OR WITHOUT
DESIGN OPTION B)-
#47
12,800
l6,300
19,500
20JOO
#49
25,300
30,600
37,800
40,000
Total
38,100
46,900
56,300
60,700
% Change relative to Existing
n/a
23%
51%
59%
*Same performance as LPA.
Source: APC data (2006-2007) and SF-CHAMP.
3.2.2.3 I TRANSIT TRAVEL TIME, SPEED, DELAY, AND RELIABILITY
Methodology
Future year (2015) Muni travel time, speed, delay, and reliability were estimated using the
VISSIM microsimuladon model for the weekday PM peak hour (5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.).
VISSIM is able to represent transit operadons, including TSP, as well as dwell and mixed
traffic delays, as its own mode. The VISSIM data portfolio can be found as an appendix to
the Vehicular Traffic Transportadon Technical Memorandum (CHS, 2013). The study area
for the VISSIM model is along the BRT route from South Van Ness Avenue at Mission
Street to Van Ness Avenue at Clay Street. The model also includes the block between
Duboce/Mission/Ods/US 101 off-ramp and Mission/Otis/ South Van Ness for Route 49
and autos. Travel dme and speed esdmates from the VISSIM model presented here will van
slightly from the Synchro model esdmates presented in Secdon 3.3 due to different modeled
study areas, the simuladon of signal priority in VISSIM, and other factors. The purpose of
the VISSIM esdmates presented in this secdon is to measure the reladve travel time and
speed difference between autos and transit and differences in speeds and delays between the
BRT alternatives, whereas the purpose of the Synchro model results shown in Section 3.3 is
to analyze the relative difference in automobile intersecdon Level of Service (LOS).
Future Year (2015) Transit Travel Time, Speed, and Delay
2015 No Build Alternative transit travel dmes remain similar to existing conditions. While
autos would be able to travel between Van Ness Avenue at Clay Street and Duboce/
Mission/Otis/US 101 in approximately 9 minutes, it would take Route 49 nearly twice thai
amount of time (sec Figure 3.2-7).
The proposed project would increase the average speed of Routes 47 and 4l). As shown in
Figure 3.2-6, average bus speed would increase from 5 mph under the No Build Alternative
to 6 mph for Build Alternative 2 and to 7 mph under Build Alternatives 3 and 4 (with or
without Design Option B) and under the LPA.31 Auto speeds would be s.milar between the
No Build Alternative and all of the build alternative scenarios (including the LPA
resulting in a significantly reduced speed gap between modes.
rhc \ aIKe,,, Northbound Sum.™ Varum doc, no, artcci .he VISSIM model Itud, area, wh.ch Mop, .„ ( Im Mrcc, ,n
Vallc o Northbound Sttdofl Varum, the BRT ,pccd could he ,l,gh,lv ,lower dun tor du- LP \ «„l 1 ,
s ,1. 1 7 ,7 ST i uUm 'hi,n Bl"kl M*™*™ > »"d * 'he ,u„ , ,™ cl nm< , , ,,ld b.
W S n 31 uhM • •han .h^ .l.crn-uvc,. Ttl. change WU ,.kcn btO lOOUfl. fe. ,hc „u.w fa
Dwign ( Iption H mm'm "mC ",C 1 A Jni1 ^ M***"* ( '
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
The proposed project would
increase the average speed of
Routes 47 and 49 by 20 percent
under Build Alternative 2
and 40 percent under
Build Alternatives 3 and 4.
Auto speeds are similar between
the No Build Alternative
and all of the build alternative
scenarios, resulting in a
significantly reduced speed gap
between modes
y*7
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Figure 3.2-6: Average Speed on Van Ness Avenue by Mode - Existing, 2015 No
Build Alternative, 2015 Build Alternative 2, and 2015 Build Alternatives 3 and 4*
14
12
10
I 8
■o
S. 6
CO
11
AUTO
10
10
BUS
(ROUTES 47 + 49)
2007 Existing Alt 1 (No Build) Alt 2 (Side BRT) Alts 3 and 4
(Center BRT)
-The LPA is anticipated to perform the same as Build Alternatives 3 and 4.
Source: VISSIM
Average transit travel times
along Van Ness Avenue in a
segment with full BRT
treatment decrease by
approximately 3 minutes
with Build Alternative 2,
approximately 4 minutes
with Build Alternatives 3 and 4,
and 4.5 minutes with
Build Alternatives 3 and 4
with Design Option B,
including the LPA.
As a result of the faster speeds shown above, average transit travel times along Van Ness
Avenue between Mission/Otis/South Van Ness and Clay (approximately 1.2 miles in
length) for Route 47 would decrease by 2.6 minutes (18 percent) with Build Alternative 2,
3.9 minutes (27 percent) with Build Alternatives 3 and 4, and 4.5 minutes (32 percent) with
Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B, and with the LPA (see Figure 3. 2-7). 13 3 1
As shown in Figure 3.2-8, Route 49 would complete its longer segment to Duboce
(approximately 1.5 miles in length and partially outside the area with full BRT treatment) in
12.9 to 14.3 minutes in the Build Alternatives (including the LPA) instead of 16.8 minutes
under the No Build Alternative. Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B (including
the LPA)35 would cut in half the travel time gap between autos and the Route 49 bus
between Clay and Duboce/Mission/Otis. This travel time savings could be reinvested into
more frequent headways or could be used as operational savings to be used throughout the
Muni system.
Person delay on the Van Ness Avenue corridor provides a metric indicating the overall
impact of the BRT project on the efficiency of traveling in the corridor for people on transit,
in private vehicles, and on foot. Figure 3.2-9 summarizes average intersection delays per
person between Clay and McCoppin streets by mode during the PM peak.
With the BRT alternatives, the average amount of delay per person along Van Ness Avenue
intersections (18 seconds per person) would stay at similar levels to the No Build
Alternative. Person-delay would decrease slightly with Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with
33 Travel times shown are bidirectional averages. The BRT travel time savings are only for the segment of the corridor
that contains the VISSIM model (Mission to Clay Street). If similar benefits (i.e., a 32 percent reduction in travel time)
were to be assumed for the corridor all the way to Lombard Street, transit travel time would be reduced by 6 to 7
minutes for the LPA versus existing conditions (a reduction from 20 minutes for existing conditions versus 13 minutes
for the LPA); this would represent a reduction of up to 14 minutes round trip. (Source for existing conditions travel
time: Transit Effectiveness Project/ APC Data, 2006-2007.)
34 See note 33 above.
35 See note 33 above.
3-28
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Design Option B (including the LPA)36 to approximately 17 seconds per person rather than
18. Delays would decrease for travelers on Van Ness Avenue, whether on transit or in
private vehicles, as shown in Figure 3.2-9. Build Alternative 2 shows a greater decrease in
delay due to the flexibility of having permissive left turns in addition to fully protected left
turns, whereas Build Alternatives 3 and 4 can only have fully protected left turns for autos.
Travelers on cross streets see slight increases in delays (approximately 5 percent) as a result.
Cross-Transit Delay
Cross-transit delay was calculated using the same methodology employed by the San
Francisco Planning Department for the San Francisco Bicycle Plan EIR. The delay
calculation consists of (1) changes in mixed-traffic delay, (2) changes in dwell times due to
increased boardings, and (3) changes in time to pull out from stops due to increased traffic
delays. The analysis indicates that only one route on the SFMTA rapid network that crosses
Van Ness Avenue BRT would have an increase in mixed traffic delay and dwell time delay
across the traffic study area of more than 60 seconds with the implementation of BRT when
compared with the No Build Alternative in 2035. For this analysis, Year 2035 with Design
Option B and the LPA was used because it represents the largest increase in ridership and
the largest increase in traffic delays (see Section 3.3). The one cross route with greater than a
60-second increase in delay during the PM peak hour with the implementation of BRT
would be the 31 inbound. The delay for this route in 2035 would increase by just more than
3 minutes (190 seconds) with the implementation of BRT. This is nearly 3 minutes less than
the threshold established by the San Francisco Planning Department (1/2 of the 12-minute
headway or 6 minutes) that would create a potentially significant impact. Pullout time would
need to increase significantly for all routes (more than 50 seconds) for the delay to reach a
threshold of significance.
Figure 3.2-7: Average Travel Time in Both Directions on Van Ness Avenue for Route
47 between Mission/Otis/South Van Ness and Clay/Van Ness - Existing, 2015 No
Build Alternative, 2015 Build Alternative 2, and 2015 Build Alternatives 3 and 4
16
14
12
1 10
0)
E
14.4
14.2
BUS
(ROUTE 47)
11.6
10.3
2007 Existing Alt 1 (No Alt 2 (Side Alts 3 and 4 Alts 3 and 4
Build) BRT) (Center BRT) with Design
Variation B
Travel time is between Mission/South Van Ness and (Center B)
Clay.
**The LPA is anticipated to perform the same as Build Alternates 3 and 4 with Design Option B.
Source: VISSIM " "
The LPA would have fewer right-turn pockets than Build Alternatives 3 and 4; thus, the auto travel tune nm he sl.^hth
different for the LPA than those alternatives. This change was taken into account for the nUD traffic Ullyri ,n
Section 3.3.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
3 J9
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Figure 3.2-8: Average Travel Time in Both Directions on Van Ness Avenue by Mode
from Duboce/Mission/Otis to Clay and Van Ness- - Existing, 2015 No Build
Alternative, 2015 Build Alternative 2, and 2015 Build Alternatives 3 and 4**
E
i—
I
2
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
17.5
BUS
(ROUTE 49)
AUTO
16.8
14.3
13.7
12.9
8.8
9.3
9.4
9.3
8.6
2007 Existing Alt 1 (No
Build)
Alt 2 (Side Alts 3 and 4 Alts 3 and 4
BRT) (Center BRT) with Design
Variation B
(Center B)
'Travel time is between Mission/Duboce and Clay. Route
47 is not included because it travels a shorter route.
j **The LPA is anticipated to perform the same as Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B.
Source: VISSIM
Figure 3.2-9: Average Delay by Mode for All Intersections between Clay and
McCoppin*
□ 2007 Existing
Alt 1 (No Build,
■ Alt 2 (Side BRT)
■ Alts 3 and 4 (Center BRT)
B Alts 3 and 4 with Design
Option B
All Persons Autos BRT (47/49)
••The LPA is anticipated to perform the same as Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B.
Source: VISSIM
3-30
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Reliability
Bus reliability is most easily measured in VISSIM by the number of unexpected stops
experienced by the BRT service due to traffic signals, congestion, and mixed traffic
movements. Under the No Build Alternative in 2015, Muni buses would have a 70 percent
chance of at least one unexpected stop along any given block. With the proposed project,
the likelihood of an unexpected stop would be reduced to 50 percent under Build
Alternative 2 and to approximately 35 percent for Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with or without
Design Option B, and for the LPA.37 This is a strong indication that reliability would
increase and headway variation would decrease significantly with BRT.
Similar travel time savings and reliability improvements are also expected for GGT, whose
buses would benefit from traveling in the exclusive lane and TSP (see Table 3.2-9).
Table 3.2-9: Unexpected Delays Impacting Reliability of BRT Routes
SCENARIO
LIKELIHOOD OF AN UNEXPECTED STOP (PER BLOCK)
FOR 47 AND 49 ROUTES
2015 No Build Alternative
71%
2015 Build Alternative 2
51%
2015 Build Alternatives 3 and 4
36%
2015 Build Alternatives 3 and 4 (with Design Option B)*
34%
*The LPA is anticipated to perform the same as Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Des
could cause a slight increase (up to 10 seconds, on average) in travel time for GGT
NB Vallejo Street station.
gn Option B. The Vallejo Northbound Station Variant
passengers due to Muni buses being stopped at the
Source: VISSIM.
3.2.3 I Future Regional Transit Services
This section describes potential changes in service for regional transit service that operates
on Van Ness Avenue and presents detailed future transit ridership and performance (i.e.,
travel time, speed, delay, and reliability) conditions for Muni transit operations under each
proposed BRT project alternative. As with Section 3.1, Build Alternatives 3 and 4, and the
LPA, are described together because transit ridership and performance are not measurably
different for each within the constraints of the models.
Golden Gate Transit
The proposed BRT transitway would accommodate SFMTA and GGT vehicles under all
build alternatives, and GGT service would continue to operate on Van Ness Avenue with
implementation of the BRT project. The existing GGT curbside stops would be eliminated,
and GGT would likely use the closest BRT stations. Under all BRT project alternatives,
GGT travel times and reliability would improve, benefitting from use of the BRT transitway,
separation from mixed-flow traffic, and TSP. While the existing GGT routes along Van Ness
Avenue would not change under Build Alternatives 2 and 3, and the LPA, the routing under |
Build Alternative 4 may be modified to provide a northern stop, as described further below.
Table 3.2-10 shows the changes in station locations that would occur under each build
alternative. Approximately 80 percent of GGT riders on routes that travel along Van Ness
Avenue either use the Geary/O'Farrell stop or use stops off of Van Ness Avenue (i.e., in the
financial district); thus maintaining the existing Geary/OTarrcll stop and stops that prov ide
access to the northern end of the BRT project area (an important transit transfer point), as
The- \ illejo Northbound Station Variant does not affect the VISSIM model study area, which Stop! II ( l.,v S.rcc. in
the north Due to the need tor the BRT to stop one additional time in the NB direction a. VlUejo S.ree. under .he
Valle,., Northbound Station Variant, the BRT reliability benefits could be slightly lower than lor .he I T \ without -he
variant.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
well as stops near City Hall, were identified as critical to GGT operations, and all build
alternatives would achieve this. Under all build alternatives, the existing GGT Turk stop
would be eliminated, although GGT could utilize the proposed Eddy Street BRT station one
block north of Turk Street under Build Alternatives 2 and 3, and the LPA.
Table 3.2-10: Likely GGT Stop Locations with BRT Project by Project Alternative
EXISTING OCT STOPS ON
PROPOSED CCT STOP LOCATIONS WITH BRT PROJECT
VAN NESS AVENUE
CCT STOP WITH ALTERNATIVE 2
CCT STOP WITH ALTERNATIVE 3
CCT STOP WITH ALTERNATIVE 4
Chestnut Street
Union Street
Union Street Station
Union Street Station
curbside stops -or-
(NB&SB)
(NB&SB)
(NB & SB)
Union Street Station
(NB&SB)4
Broadway Street/
Pacific Avenue
(NB/ SB)
Jackson Street Station
(NB & SB)
Jackson Street Station
(NB &SB)
stop eliminated**
Clay Street/
Sacramento Street
(NB/SB)
Sacramento Street
Sacramento Street
stop eliminated
Station (NB & SB)
Station (NB&SB)
Sutter Street
Sutter Street Station
Sutter Street Station
stop eliminated
(NB & SB)
(NB & SB)
(NB&SB)
Geary Street/
O'Farrell Street
(NB/SB)
Geary/O'Farrell Street
Station (NB &SB)
Geary/O'Farrell Street
Station (NB &SB)
Geary/O'Farrell Street
Station (NB&SB)
Turk Street (NB)
Eddy Street Station
(NB)
Eddy Street Station
(NB)
stop eliminated
Notes:
Under Build Alternative 4, either CCT would use curbside stops at Chestnut Street in association with a rerouting of GGT service along
four blocks of Chestnut Street or GGT would utilize the BRT Union Street Station.
Under Build Alternative 4, existing GGT stops would be eliminated, with the exception of a stop at Union Street and Geary/O'Farrell
Street. Approximately 80 percent of GGT patrons either use the Geary/O'Farrell stop or do not stop on Van Ness Avenue.
Because GGT plans to use existing vehicles that do not permit left-side boardings, GGT
routes would only stop at the Geary/O'Farrell BRT station within the BRT project area
under Build Alternative 4. They would continue to utilize McAllister and Golden Gate stops,
just off of Van Ness Avenue, in the southern end of the corridor. GGT routing to the north
for Build Alternative 4 may utilize a new stop on Chestnut Street at Van Ness Avenue in the
northern end of the corridor.
To create the new Chestnut Street stop under Build Alternative 4, GGT buses would travel
along Chestnut Street instead of Lombard Street between Van Ness Avenue and Laguna
Street. The GGT buses would share the existing EB curbside Muni stop with the Muni 30
and 30X buses, possibly requiring a lengthening of the stop, resulting in the removal of one
to two street parking spaces next to these stops. For the creation of the new WB stop on
Chestnut Street, another one to three spaces may be removed.
This proposed Chestnut Street rerouting would result in approximately 5 GGT vehicles per
hout in each direction on Chestnut Street during peak periods, with lower frequencies
during off peak times. GGT operating hours in San Francisco for routes that would be
affected are from approximately 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m., similar to current Muni service
hours on Chestnut Street. As standard practice, GGT rerouting and stop consolidation that
would indirectly result from implementation of the proposed BRT project would be subject
to the agency's standard procedures for such operational changes, including public outreach
to inform patrons of changes in service.
As an alternative to the above changes, under Build Alternative 4, a dual-median and center-
lane transitway and station configuration similar to Build Alternative 3 could be provided at
3-32
San Francisco County Transportation Authority
I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Union Street. This would allow for right-side boarding required by GGT buses; thus, GGT
would share the Union Street Station with BRT. Under this scenario, GGT buses would
continue to travel along Lombard Street between Van Ness Avenue and Laguna Street.
Under all BRT project alternatives, GGT travel times and reliability would improve because
service would benefit from use of the BRT transitway, separated from mixed-flow traffic, as
well as TSP, even considering additional walk time due to elimination of existing GGT
stops, under each build alternative, as well as the potential change in routing onto Chestnut
Street under Build Alternative 4 (see Section 10.2.4.1).
Because the LPA would have right-side boarding, it would not require the above-described
variation in GGT routing.
Employer Shuttle Services
Private shuttles are currently prohibited from using transit lanes or stops citywide. With
implementation of BRT on Van Ness Avenue, employer and other private shuttles traveling
along Van Ness Avenue would continue to operate in mixed-flow traffic lanes and would
not travel within the BRT transitway or use BRT stations. In 201 1, the Authority completed
an SAR on the Role of Shuttle Services in San Francisco's Transportation System,38 which
examined existing shuttle services and regulations and developed policy recommendations.
The SFMTA is currently developing the Muni Partners Program, a component of the multi-
agency Transportation Demand Management Partnership Project led by the Authority.39 The
Partnership Project will examine the feasibilities of allowing private shuttles to use transit
lanes and stops. The design of the BRT system does not preclude the use of the facilities by
private shuttles if it is later adopted as a City policy.
3.2.3.1 I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - NEAR-TERM HORIZON YEAR (2015)
This section discusses Muni transit operations and cumulative impacts for the near-term
(2015) No Build Alternative and the build alternatives.
Platform Crowding (2015)
Alternative 1: No Build (Baseline Alternative)
In existing conditions, there are no platforms. Instead, the bus stops make use of the
existing 16-foot-wide sidewalk along Van Ness Avenue (on South Van Ness Avenue
between Market and Mission streets, the sidewalk is 22 feet wide on both sides). This width
is effectively reduced at bus stop locations. While there is evidence of crowding along
sidewalks at high ridership stops (e.g., Oak/Market, Geary), there is sufficient sidewalk space-
farther down the block for passengers to wait in the event of extreme crowding. At the
busiest stops, such as Market and Geary, waiting bus riders conflict with pedestrians trying
to use the sidewalk. In the 2015 No Build Alternative scenario, the increase in transit
ridership would worsen these situations.
Build Alternative 2: Side-Lane BRT with Street Parking
Build Alternative 2 would create right-side boarding platforms through sidewalk extensions
(bus bulbs) approximately 9 feet in width and 160 feet in length. Expected passenger loads
at the busiest station platform, Market Street, were analyzed to determine the likelihood of
crowding under the project scenarios. Build Alternative 2 in 2015 would provide 27 to 30
square feet per passenger on the Market Street station platforms, liven in the event of
extreme bus bunching, where the platform could be as much as twice as crowded, the
amount of space would be greater than 13 square feet per person, which is higher than
The SAR is available at w\v\v.sfrta.on>/shuttlrs
Available- on the project website at '
Under all the Build Alternatives,
there would not be a significant
platform crowding impact.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
3 )J
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
national standard guidelines and more than twice as much as local guidelines of 5 square feet
per person. There would not be a significant platform crowding impact in 2015.
Build Alternative 3: Center-Lane BRT with Right-Side Boarding and Dual Medians (with or without
Design Option B, including the LPA)
Build Alternative 3 would create dual platforms, each with similar dimensions and amount
of usable space as Build Alternative 2 (25 to 28 square feet per passenger on the Market
Street station platforms). The LPA platforms would have similar dimensions to Build
Alternative 3, although the LPA would provide an additional 1-foot buffer between the
station and the adjacent traffic lane, for a total of 5.5 feet of buffer between the center of the
platform and traffic. Even in the event of bus bunching, where the platform could be as
much as twice as crowded, the amount of space would be greater than 12 square feet per
person, which is higher than national standard guidelines and more than twice as much as
local guidelines (5 square feet per person). There would not be a significant platform
crowding impact in 2015.
The LPA platform crowding conditions would be the same as Build Alternative 3. There
would not be a significant platform crowding impact in 2015.
Build Alternative 4: Center-Lane BRT with Left-Side Boarding and Single Median (with or without
Design Option B)
Build Alternative 4 would create platforms on the existing single center median. Each
platform would be 13 feet to 14 feet wide and 160 feet in length and, in many cases, it would
serve passengers in both directions. Build Alternative 4 would provide 22 to 26 square feet
per passenger on the Market Street station platforms. Even in the event of bus bunching,
where the platform could be as much as twice as crowded, the amount of space would be
greater than 1 1 square feet per person, which is higher than national standard guidelines and
more than twice as much as local guidelines (5 square feet per person). There would not be a
significant platform crowding impact in 2015.
Crowding/Vehicle Load Factors (2015)
The future year (2015) load factor analysis is presented in Table 3.2-11. Note that peak load
factor refers to occupancy of the vehicle; thus, the peak load at a particular location is not
necessarily the same as the station with the most boardings.
Table 3.2-n: Year 2015 Muni
Load Factor Analysis
PEAK HOUR (5:00 PM TO 6:00 PM)
EXISTING*
2015
NO BUILD
ALTERNATIVE"
BUILD
ALTERNATIVE 2
BUILD
ALTERNATIVES
3 AND 4
(INCLUDING
DESIGN
OPTION B)**
Load Factor at Peak ^7
SB
O.39 O.46
O.32
O.32
NB
o.6i 0.76
O.53
O.8O
Location (% of total
vehicle capacity) ^
SB
O.44 O.43
0.71
O.8O
NB
O.45 O.5O
O.68
O.8O
* Existing Load Factors are different than in Section 3.2.1.3 because the VISSIM model was co
instead of 3:00 pm to 4:00, which is the peak transit hour in existing conditions.
**The LPA is anticipated to perform the same as 8uild Alternatives 3 and 4.
ded with a peak hour of 5:00 pm to 6:00 pm
Source: APC data (2006-2007) and SFCHAMP.
#
3-34
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Alternative 1: No Build (Baseline Alternative)
The crowding (i.e., Load Factor) increases slighdy on the 47 to 0.46 SB and 0.76 NB under
the No Build Alternative relative to the existing conditions. The load factor for Route 49
stays similar to existing conditions (0.43 SB and 0.5 NB). All of these load factors are below
Muni's 0.85 load factor standard.
Build Alternative 2: Side-Lane BRT with Street Parking
Using SF-CHAMP ridership forecasts, Build Alternative 2 would show a decrease in load
factors for Route 47 (0.32 SB and 0.53 NB) due to the greater effective capacity caused by
increasing the vehicle size from 40 feet (existing) to 60 feet. Route 49 would show increased
load factors under Build Alternative 2 (0.71 SB and 0.68 NB). The MLP is expected to be at
either Market/Oak or McAllister under this alternative. These load factors are still below
Muni's 0.85 load factor standard, so there would not be a significant crowding impact due to
Build Alternative 2. As indicated in Section 3.2.1.3, reliability is a significant contributor to
vehicle crowding levels in operation, so the reliability improvements (i.e., decrease in
headway variation) relative to the No Build Alternative (see Section 3.2.2.2) could result in a
less-crowded passenger experience even though the average loads would be higher.
Build Alternative 3: Center-Lane BRT with Right-Side Boarding and Dual Medians (with or without
Design Option B)
Using SF-CHAMP ridership forecasts, Build Alternative 3 would show a decrease in load |
factors for Routes 47 (0.32 SB and 0.80 NB) due to the greater effective capacity caused by
increasing the vehicle size from 40 feet (existing) to 60 feet. Route 49 would show increased
load factors under Build Alternative 2. Route 49 would show increased load factors under
Build Alternative 3 (0.80 SB and 0.80 NB). The MLP is expected to be at Market/Oak or
McAllister for this alternative. These load factors are still below Muni's 0.85 load factor
standard, so there would not be a significant in-vehicle crowding impact. As discussed
above, reliability is a significant contributor to vehicle crowding levels in operation, so the
reliability improvements (i.e., decrease in headway variation) relative to the No Build
Alternative (see Section 3.2.2.2) could result in a less-crowded passenger experience even
though the average loads would be higher.
Build Alternative 4: Center-Lane BRT with Left-Side Boarding and Single Median (with or without
Design Option B) and the LPA
The findings for Build Alternative 4 and the LPA are the same as for Build Alternative 3.
There would not be a significant crowding impact in 2015.
The LPA vehicle crowding conditions would be the same as Build Alternatives 3 and 4.
There would not be a significant vehicle crowding impact in 2015.
3.2.3.2 I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - LONG-TERM HORIZON YEAR (2035)
This section discusses transit operations and cumulative impacts for the near-term (2035)
No Build Alternative and the build alternatives.
s in 2015, no separated platforms would be built for the No Build Alternative in 2035;
Alternative 1: No Build (Baseline Alternative)
Platform Crowding (2035)
Reliability improvements
relative to the No Build
Alternative could result in
a less-crowded passenger
experience even though the
average hourly loads would
be higher under the
Build Alternatives.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Build Alternative 2: Side-Lane BRT with Street Parking
The size and usable space on the platforms would not differ from year 2015, but the busiest
station platform location is expected to be at Geary and O'Farrell due in part to the
expected completion of the CPMC hospital, and BRT on Geary Boulevard (note that this
peak boarding location is different than the MLP, which would continue to be at Oak/
Market or McAllister, as described later in this section). Build Alternative 2 in 2035 would
provide 25 to 29 square feet per passenger on the Geary and O'Farrell station platforms.
Even in the event of extreme bus bunching, where the platform could be as much as twice
as crowded, the amount of space would be greater than 13 square feet per person, which is
higher than national standard guidelines and more than twice as much as local guidelines.
There would not be a significant platform crowding impact in 2035.
Build Alternative 3: Center-Lane BRT with Right-Side Boarding and Dual Medians (with or without
Design Option B)
I The amount of space on the station platforms in Build Alternative 3 and the LPA would not
change between 2015 and 2035, but like Build Alternative 2, the busiest platform is expected
to be at Geary and O'Farrell. Even in the event of bus bunching, where the platform could
be as much as twice as crowded, the amount of space would be greater than 12 square feet
per person, which is higher than national standard guidelines and more than twice as much
as local guidelines. There would not be a significant platform crowding impact in 2035.
Build Alternative 4: Center-Lane BRT with Left-Side Boarding and Single Median (with or without
Design Option B) and the LPA
Build Alternative 4 would provide similar platforms at the Geary and O'Farrell location as
under Build Alternative 3 due to the need to accommodate Golden Gate Transit vehicles.
Thus, the crowding analysis and results for Build Alternative 4 (with or without Design
Option B) would be the same as Build Alternative 3. There would not be a significant
platform crowding impact in 2035.
The LPA platform crowding conditions would be the same as Build Alternatives 3 and 4,
although the LPA would provide an additional 1-foot buffer between the station and the
adjacent traffic lane, for a total of 5.5 feet of buffer between the center of the platform and
traffic. There would not be a significant platform crowding impact in 2035.
Crowding/Vehicle Load Factors (2035)
The future year (2035) load factor analysis is presented in Table 3.2-12.
Table 3.2-12: Year 2035 Muni Load Factor Analysis
PEAK PERIOD
EXISTING*
2035
NO BUILD
BUILD ALTERNATIVE 2
BUILD ALTERNATIVES 3
ALTERNATIVE
AND 4
(WITH OR WITHOUT
DESIGN OPTION B)**
Load Factor at
SB
O.39
O.68
O.37
O.39
Peak (location
(96 of total
vehicle
47 "
NB
0.6l
O.79
O.63
O.gi
SB
O.44
O.5I
O.67
O.78
capacity)
49 "
NB
O.45
O.56
O.76
O.89
^Existing Load Factors are different than in Section 3.2.1.3 because the VISSIM model was coded with a peak hour of 5:00 pm to 6:00 pm
instead of 3:00 pm to 4:00 pm, which is the peak transit hour in existing conditions.
**The LPA is anticipated to perform the same as Build Alternatives 3 and 4.
Source: APC data (2006 2007) and SF-CHAMP.
3-36
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Alternative 1: No Build (Baseline Alternative)
The load factors for both Routes 47 (0.68 SB and 0.79 NB) and 49 (0.51 SB and 0.56 NB)
would increase in 2035 relative to existing conditions. All of these load factors are below
Muni's 0.85 load factor standard.
Build Alternative 2: Side-Lane BRT with Street Parking
Build Alternative 2 would increase load factors on both Routes 47 and 49, as shown in Table
3.2-12. The MLP is expected at either Oak or McAllister in this alternative. These load
factors would still be below Muni's 0.85 load factor standard, so there would not be a
significant in-vehicle crowding impact. As indicated for the near-term horizon year,
reliability is a significant contributor to vehicle crowding levels in operation, so the reliability
improvements (i.e., decrease in headway variation) relative to the No Build Alternative (see
Section 3.2.2.2) could result in a less-crowded passenger experience even though the average
loads would be higher.
Build Alternative 3: Center-Lane BRT with Right-Side Boarding and Dual Medians (with or without
Design Option B)
Build Alternative 3 would show an increase in load factors on both Routes 47 and 49. The
MLP is expected be at Market or McAllister for this alternative. The 2035 0.91 load factor
for the NB Route 47 and the 0.89 load factor for the NB Route 49 would exceed Muni's
0.85 threshold and would constitute a significant in-vehicle crowding impact. As indicated in
Section 3.2.1.3, reliability is a significant contributor to vehicle crowding levels in operation,
so the reliability improvements (i.e., decrease in headway variation) relative to the No Build
Alternative (see Section 3.2.2.2) could result in a less-crowded passenger experience even
though the average loads would be higher.
KEY FINDING
Build Alternative 4: Center-Lane BRT with Left-Side Boarding and Single Median (with or without
Design Option B) and the LPA
The findings for Build Alternative 4 are the same as for Build Alternative 3. There is a
potentially significant vehicle crowding impact in 2035.
The LPA platform crowding conditions would be the same as Build Alternatives 3 and 4.
There is a potentially significant vehicle crowding impact in 2035.
3.2.4 1 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce or avoid significant
impacts from vehicle crowding, applicable to Build Alternative 3 and 4, with or without
Design Option B, and the LPA:
M-TR-i: A mitigation measure of adding one additional vehicle operating on Routes 47 and
49 would decrease headways for each route sufficiently to bring the load factors below the
0.85 standard. This reduction in headways could be possible with no additional operating
costs due to the expected travel time savings forecast in that horizon year.
3.2.5 I Transit Summary
Transit analysis through the use of SF-CHAMP, which is San Francisco's travel demand |
forecasting model, and the VISSIM microsimulation model indicates the following:
• Transit ridership would increase on Routes 47 and 49, as well as svstemwide, with the
Van Ness Avenue BRT Project.
Implementation of
Build Alternative 2
would not have a significant
impact on vehicle crowding
in 2015 or 2035.
Implementation of
Build Alternatives 3 and 4
(with or without Design
Option B) and the LPA would not
have a significant impact on
vehicle crowding in 2015
but would have a potentially
significant impact in 2035. The
impact could be mitigated by
adding an additional vehicle to
each route during the peak to
decrease headways This may be
possible at no additional
operating cost through the
reinvestment of travel time
savings.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
3 }7
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
• Transit travel time would decrease and speed would increase for Routes 47 and 49 with
the proposed project, significantly closing the travel time gap between autos and transit.
• Transit reliability would increase, with reduced variation in headways, with the proposed
project.
• Implementation of the BRT under any of the alternatives would not have a significant
impact on platform crowding in either 2015 or 2035.
• Implementation of Build Alternative 2 would not have a potentially significant impact
on vehicle crowding in 2015 or 2035. Implementation of Build Alternatives 3 and 4
(with or without Design Option B) and the LPA would not have a significant impact on
vehicle crowding in 2015 but is anticipated to have a significant impact in 2035. The
impact could be mitigated by adding an additional vehicle to each route during the peak
to decrease headways This may be possible at no additional operating cost through the
reinvestment of travel time savings.
• Total GGT passenger travel times and reliability would improve under all of the build
alternatives because service would benefit from use of the BRT transitway separated
from mixed-flow traffic, as well as TSP.
3-38
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
3.3 Traffic
This section presents the local and regional roadway systems in the traffic study area and
planned roadway improvements that may affect the study area; evaluates potential traffic
impacts; and presents mitigation measures that would mitigate significant traffic impacts.
The Van Ness Avenue BRT Project traffic study includes six north-south streets that would
most likely be affected by the proposed project: Van Ness Avenue, Franklin Street, and
Gough Street from Mission Street to Lombard Street; Polk Street from Market Street to
Pacific Avenue; Larkin Street from Market Street to California Street; and Hyde Street from
Market Street to Pine Street (Figure 3.3-1). Please note that in this section "traffic" refers to
private vehicle traffic (i.e., automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, shuttles, and taxis) only unless
otherwise explicitly stated.
This section also presents the potential traffic impacts of the Locally Preferred Alternative
(LP A) that was approved by the SFMTA Board in May 2012. The LPA is a refinement of
the two center-running build alternatives with limited left turns (Build Alternatives 3 and 4
with Design Option B). For nearly all of the environmental impact areas described in
Section 3.3, the LPA (including the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant) has similar
environmental consequences to Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B, and is so
noted.
3.3.1 1 Traffic Evaluation Methodology
Traffic operations were analyzed for the existing conditions and future years 2015 and 2035,
for the No Build Alternative, the three build alternatives, and Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with
Design Option B and the LPA. Traffic volumes used in the existing conditions analysis were
based on field counts collected mostly in 2007, and future traffic volumes were developed
using the SF-CHAMP travel demand forecasting model described in Section 3.1 and in the
Vehicular Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum (CHS, 201 3).40 Traffic volumes for the
intersections in the vicinity of the proposed CPMC hospital and medical office building were
modified to reflect the projected vehicle trip generation for these two buildings in the
CPMC EIR for the 2035 build alternatives and manually adjusted for reasonableness. Traffic
operations analysis for existing and future year analyses used a SYNCHRO operations
model created by CHS Consulting Group and further described in the Vehicular Traffic
Analysis Technical Memorandum (CHS, 2013).
Future-year intersection traffic volumes were developed based on growth factors obtained
from the SF-CHAMP model between the years of 2005 and 2015, and between 2005 and
2035. The SF-CHAMP model uses the forecast population and employment produced by
ABAG as the basis for future traffic volume forecasts. ABAG, the regional planning
organization, provides biannual population and employment forecasts for each city in the
Bay Area. The San Francisco Planning Department further breaks down the estimated total
population and employment in San Francisco by various traffic analysis zones (TAZ) for the
SF-CHAMP model based on zoning limitations and known development projects. For the
Van Ness Avenue BRT modeling, the projected land use data for both the Year 2015 and
2035 scenarios were used as inputs in the SF-CHAMP model and were based on ABAG's
Projections 2007. The Projection 2007 land use inputs were also, used in the most reccnth
adopted RTP, Transportation 2035, for which an EIR was prepared.
SFCTA provided growth factors from the SF-CHAMP model for each north-south street in
four different sections - northern, mid, and southern sections of Van Ness Avenue and the
SoMa - in the traffic study area and for the east-west streets by facility type (e.g., arterial.
DEFINITION
In this section, "traffic" refers
to private vehicle traffic
(i.e., automobiles, trucks,
motorcycles, shuttles, and
taxis) only unless otherwise
explicitly stated.
40 As described in the Vehicular Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum (CI IS, 2013), the existing condidl «U
SYNCHRO Model includes the following field counts: traffic turning movements at <>I intersections, pedestrian
counts, parking maneuver counts, and travel time and queue length data.
The Van Ness Avenue BRT
Project traffic study included six
north-south streets: Van Ness
Avenue (top), Franklin Street
(middle), and Cough Street
from Mission to Lombard; Polk
Street from Market to Pacific;
Larkin Street (bottom) from
Market to California; and Hyde
Street from Market to Pine.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
1J9
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
collector, and local streets). These growth factors were applied to the existing counts to
obtain future traffic volumes for each intersection. The initial set of forecast traffic volumes
were balanced within the traffic study area to ensure equilibrium of traffic volumes within
the study area. The process for developing the traffic volumes used in the existing and
future conditions traffic operations (i.e., SYNCHRO) models is more fully explained in
Section 3.1 and the Vehicular Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum (CHS, 2013).
Figure 3.3-1: Street Network in the Proposed Van Ness Avenue BRT Project
Corridor Traffic Study Area
4
3-40
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Future-year signal timing and phasing data were initially provided by SFMTA and then
optimized using the SYNCHRO model, which uses the same methodology specified in the
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000. For the three build alternatives and the LPA,
intersection geometries were modified in the SYNCHRO model for certain intersections
where left-turn pockets were removed as a result of the proposed project. Details of the left-
turn pocket locations are presented in Chapter 2, Table 2-3 and Figure 2-2.
As presented in Section 3.2, a VISSIM simulation model was created primarily for assessing
the project's benefits to transit operations. VISSIM is a microsimulation model that is
utilized for modeling transit, automobile, and pedestrian operations; simulating parking
operations; and incorporating signal priority systems. This section, however, uses a
SYNCHRO traffic operations model to assess intersection LOS impacts caused by the Van
Ness Avenue BRT Project build alternatives along Van Ness Avenue and the five parallel
north-south streets east and west of Van Ness Avenue.
Signalized intersection operations are evaluated based on average vehicular delay (seconds
per vehicle). Unsignalized intersections are analyzed using an LOS based on the approach
with the highest delay. The LOS is used to describe how efficiently an intersection operates
for private vehicle traffic. The method used for signalized intersections generally defines
LOS in terms of "control delay per vehicle," which refers to the average time spent by
vehicles decelerating, stopping, and accelerating at traffic signals. Signalized intersection
LOS is affected by traffic volumes, intersection lane configuration, and signal timing and
coordination in a corridor. Unsignalized intersection LOS is defined in terms of average
delay experienced per vehicle along the stop-controlled approach(es) at the intersection.
Intersection LOS designations range from "A," which indicates negligible delays with free-
flow speed (i.e., less than 10 seconds per vehicle for signalized intersections and unsignalized
approaches) to "F," which indicates delays with queuing that may block upstream
intersections (i.e., greater than 80 seconds per vehicle for signalized intersections and greater
than 50 seconds for unsignalized approaches). Criteria used to assess the significance of
private vehicle traffic impacts are presented in Section 3.3.3.
The Van Ness Avenue BRT Project traffic study area includes 139 intersections: 134
signalized intersections and 5 unsignalized intersections. Due to the large number of
intersections in the traffic study area, the discussion of existing and future intersection and
approach LOS focuses on those signalized intersections or worst approaches at unsignalized
intersections operating at LOS E and F. The City and County of San Francisco uses LOS D
as a threshold, so signalized intersections or worst approach at unsignalized intersections
operating at LOS E or F are discussed in this chapter. Details of the intersection LOS for all
139 intersections in the traffic study can be found in Appendix 8 of the Vehicular Traffic
Analysis Technical Memorandum (CHS, 2013).
Average vehicular travel speed is presented in this EIS/EIR for planning and informational
purposes. There are no criteria established by SFCTA or by the City and County of San
Francisco to assess vehicular traffic's CEQA impacts using average travel speeds. Travel
speed data provided in this EIS/EIR are presented for planning and informational purposes
to compare overall changes in the operating conditions of roadway operations.
DEFINITION
LOS: Level of Service
Unsignalized Intersection
Delay Criteria
LOS AVERAGE DELAY (SEC/VEH)
A 0-10
> 10 - 15
>i5-25
> 25 • 35
> 35 - 50
>50
Signalized Intersection
Delay Criteria
LOS
AVERACE DELAY (SEC/VEH)
A
B
> IO - 20
C
> 20 • 35
D
> 35 - 55
E
> 55 • 80
F
> 80
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, aooo
3.3.2 I Existing Conditions
This section describes the existing roadway operating conditions (including traffic volumes,
travel speed, and intersection LOS) of the regional roadways and local streets in the Van
Ness Avenue BRT Project area. Additional information on existing travel patterns 111 the
Van Ness Avenue corridor traffic study area can be found in Section 3.1, Corridor Travel
Pattern ( )verview.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
J 4>
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
3.3.2.1 I ROADWAY NETWORK
The discussion in this section presents only the role of the roadways in the traffic study area
for private vehicle traffic. These roadways also serve various roles for transit, pedestrian, and
bicycle traffic; those roles are described in Sections 3.2 and 3.4.
Regional Roadways
Van Ness Avenue and South Van Ness Avenue. Van Ness Avenue and South Van Ness Avenue
within the traffic study area are part of US 101, which is a north-south principal arterial on
the NHS whose purpose is to provide international, interstate, interregional, and
intraregional travel (i.e., commute and non-commute) and goods movement. It is also a
Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET) Route and part of the Interregional Road System
(IRRS). In 1998, the State specified certain portions of the IRRS as "Focus Routes" - State
highway segments that are critical to the interregional movement of people and goods. This
segment of US 101 was identified as a high-emphasis "Focus Route." In the project region,
US 101 is a conventional highway that connects San Francisco with Marin County to the
north and the Peninsula to the south.
Along the project alignment, Van Ness Avenue typically has six traffic lanes, a landscaped
median, and parking on both sides. The San Francisco General Plan classifies Van Ness
Avenue as a Major Arterial Road and Freight Traffic Route between North Point and
Market streets. It is also part of the Congestion Management Program (CMP) and
Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) network, and it is designated as a Primary
Transit Street (Transit Important) and a Citywide Pedestrian Network.
Local Roadways
There are 5 north-south parallel streets and 28 major east-west streets crossing Van Ness
Avenue and South Van Ness Avenue in the traffic study area; their function and
characteristics are described below.
North-South Streets
Cough Street. Gough Street is a Major Arterial Road and Freight Traffic Route between Pine
and Market streets, a secondary arterial road between Sacramento and Pine streets, and a
local street north of Sacramento Street. It is also part of the CMP and MTS network. It is a
two-way street north of Sacramento Street and a one-way SB street south of Sacramento
Street. On-street parking is prohibited on some sections during the AM and PM peak
periods to create additional lanes for traffic circulation.
Franklin Street. Franklin Street is a Major Arterial Road between Market and Lombard streets
and a Freight Traffic Route between Market and California streets and a secondary arterial
road between Lombard and Bay streets. It is also part of the CMP and MTS network. It is a
one-way NB street from Market to Lombard streets and a two-way street north of Lombard
Street. Franklin Street has three travel lanes. On-street parking is prohibited on some
sections during the AM and PM peak periods to create additional lanes for traffic
circulation.
Polk Street. Polk Street is a two-way street north of Grove Street, with one lane NB and one
lane SB, and becomes a one-way SB street south of Grove Street. It is part of Citywide
Bicycle Route 25, including a combination of Class II and Class III bicycle facilities.
Larkin Street. Larkin Street is a Secondary Arterial street between Market and Pine streets.
Larkin Street, between Pine and Market streets, is part of the MTS network. It is a one-way
NB street with three lanes from Market to California streets, and a two-way street north of
California Street and between McAllister and Grove streets.
3-42
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Hyde Street. Hyde Street is a Secondary Arterial from Pine to Market streets, a Transit-
Oriented Street from Beach to Washington streets, and part of the MTS network between
Pine and Market streets. It is a one-way street with three SB lanes between California and
Market streets, and a two-way street with one lane in each direction between Jefferson and
California streets. It shares the ROW with cable cars between Beach and Washington streets.
East- West Streets
There are 28 east-west streets in the traffic study area crossing Van Ness Avenue: 15 are
arterial roads defined by the San Francisco General Plan, and 13 are collector and local
streets. The following provides a brief description of the arterial roads.
Lombard Street. Lombard Street is a Major Arterial Road, Freight Traffic Route, and Transit
Important Street west of Van Ness Avenue. It is also part of the CMP and MTS networks.
Lombard Street between Van Ness Avenue and Richardson Avenue is part of US 101.
Broadway. Broadway is a Major Arterial Road and Freight Traffic Route, and it is part of the
CMP and MTS networks between Franklin Street and The Embarcadero. Broadway is part
of Citywide Bicycle Route 10 east of Webster Street.
Pine Street. Pine Street is a Major Arterial Road, a Freight Traffic Route, and a Transit
Important Street east of Sansome Street. It is also part of the CMP and MTS networks. Pine
Street is a WB one-way roadway with three traffic lanes.
Bush Street. Bush Street is a Major Arterial Road, a Freight Truck Route, and a Transit
Important Street east of Kearny Street. It is also part of the CMP and MTS networks. Bush
Street is an EB one-way roadway with three traffic lanes
Geary Street. Geary Street is a Major Arterial, a Transit Important Street, and a Freight
Traffic Route. It has a bus-only lane between Gough and Market streets. East of Gough
Street, it is a one-way WB street with two mixed travel lanes and a bus-only lane.
O'Farrell Street. O'Farrell Street is a Major Arterial, a Transit Important Street, and a Freight
Traffic Route. It is a one-way EB arterial from Market Street to Franklin Street. O'Farrell
Street forms a one-way couplet with Geary Street. Between Gough and Powell streets,
O'Farrell Street has two EB travel lanes and a bus-only lane.
Hayes Street. Hayes Street is a Major Arterial and a Freight Traffic Route between Market
and Gough streets. It is a one-way WB street from Market Street to Gough Street, with three
to five travel lanes. West of Gough Street, it has one traffic lane in each direction.
Fell Street. Fell Street is a Major Arterial and Freight Traffic Route. It is also pun of the CMP
and MTS networks. Fell Street is a one-way WB street west of Gough Street. It forms a one-
way couplet with Oak Street.
Market Street. Market Street is a Primary Transit Street, a Freight Traffic Rome west of
Franklin Street, and a Citywide Bicycle Route. Market Street is a two-way, four-lane street
with a 120-foot ROW and wide sidewalks in downtown. It also has exclusive transit lanes
from 12,h to 5th streets in the EB direction and from 8,h Street to Van Ness Avenue in the
WB direction, boarding islands, and marked Class I and Class II bicycle lanes west of 8*
Street. Market Street primarily serves as a transit corridor, providing rail and bus transit
service on the surface and two underground levels of rail service - Muni Metro and BART.
Mission Street. Mission Street is a Transit-Oriented Street. It generally has two travel lanes in
each direction, including transit-only lanes between I 1th and Beale streets in the EH
direction and between Spear and 11th streets in the WB direction. It also has let. turn
restrictions between Main and 1 1th streets.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 201
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Van Ness Avenue carries
approximately 37,500 to 41,500
vehicles daily in the northern
and mid-sections. Traffic
volumes are generally higher in
the southern portion of the
corridor, with approximately
44,500 daily vehicles in both
directions. The PM peak hour
represents the worst-case
scenario to assess vehicular
traffic impacts and is used for
the intersection LOS analysis.
3.3.2.2 I ROADWAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR DETERMINING THE PEAK TRAFFIC HOUR
Twenty-four (24) -hour traffic counts were collected in March 2007 at five locations along
Van Ness Avenue and one location each along Franklin and Gough streets.41 The purpose of
the 24-hour counts was to determine the peak traffic hour. The twenty-four (24)-hour traffic
count locations were selected because they represent blocks in the traffic study area with
arterial roads as cross streets in the northern, mid-, and southern sections. These counts were
taken to determine the peak hour for the intersection LOS analysis. Table 3.3-1 shows that
Van Ness Avenue carries approximately 37,500 to 41,500 vehicles daily in the northern and
mid-sections; approximately 7 percent of this volume occurs during the PM peak hour (5:00
p.m. to 6:00 p.m.), and approximately 6 percent occurs during the AM peak hour. Traffic
volumes are generally higher in the southern portion of the corridor, with approximately
44,500 daily vehicles in both directions. The bidirectional Van Ness Avenue traffic volumes
are higher during an average weekday PM peak hour than during an average weekday AM
peak hour and weekend peak hours; therefore, the PM peak hour represents the worst-case
scenario to assess vehicular traffic impacts of the proposed project and is used for the
intersection LOS analysis. The two arterial roads to the west of Van Ness Avenue, Franklin
and Gough streets, carry approximately 31,000 and 27,000 daily vehicles, respectively.
Table 3.3-1: Existing (2007) Traffic Counts: Average Weekday, Saturday, and Sunday
Daily, AM and PM Peak-Hour Traffic Link Volumes
STREET SEGMENT
AVERAGE WEEKDAY
SATURDAY
SUNDAY
DAILY
AM PEAK
HOUR
PM PEAK
HOUR
DAILY
AM PEAK
HOUR
PM PEAK
HOUR
DAILY
AM PEAK
HOUR
PM PEAK
HOUR
VAN NESS AVENUE NORTHBOUND AND SOUTHBOUND
Greenwich
and Filbert
38,28l
2,541
2,625
38,977
1,363
2,523
33.042
969
2,257
Pacific and
Broadway
36,487
1,98l
2,553
39,394
l,36l
2,351
34,275
932
2,336
Geary and
Post
41.499
2,356
2,762
39.357
1,042
2,500
Hayes and
Grove
42,910
2,662
2,947
Market and
Fell
44.499
2J02
2,966
COUCH STREET SOUTHBOUND
Ellis to Geary
27,007
i,959
1,787
25,435
920
1,637
21,315
510
1,425
FRANKLIN STREET NORTHBOUND
Post to Sutter
30,901
2,309
2,225
29,681
1-335
1,857
24,556
735
1,725
Source: SFCTA, March 2007.
3.3.2.3 I VEHICULAR TRAVEL SPEED
Table 3.3-2 provides the average vehicular travel speeds for Van Ness Avenue and the five
major north-south parallel streets in the traffic study area for the 2007 existing PM peak-
hour conditions. Under the 2007 existing conditions, the speed within the traffic study area
is lowest along Van Ness Avenue in the SB direction and highest along Van Ness Avenue in
the NB direction. This is because during the PM peak hour, traffic signals are synchronized
in the NB direction, but not in the SB direction. In other words, vehicles in the NB
direction can have a relatively uninterrupted flow of traffic, but vehicles in the SB direction
often have to stop at a red traffic light because of the lack of synchronization.
These 24-hour traffic counts were a separate effort from the turning movement counts taken at 91 intersections by the
Authority in spring 2007 (and some additional counts in 2008 and 2009) to calibrate the existing conditions (2007)
SYNCHRO model. More information on traffic counts, including a figure showing the traffic count locations, is
provided in the Traffic Memorandum (CHS, 2013).
3-44
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Table 3.3-2: Average Speed - 2007 Existing Conditions
STREET
AVERAGE SPEED (MPH)
SOUTHBOUND
NORTHBOUND
Cough
8.4
Franklin
TO.!
Van Ness
7-7
10-5
Polk
8.9
Lark in
9-5
Hyde
8.5
Source: SYNCHRO model, CHS Consulting Croup (2013)
3.3.2.4 I PM PEAK-HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
All of the intersections in the traffic study area, except for the intersecdon of Gough Street
and Green Street, operate at LOS D or better conditions in 2007. The SB Gough approach
is the only approach that operates at LOS F at the four-way stop-controlled intersection of
Gough Street and Green Street. This is mainly due to the high volumes of SB traffic (531
vehicles) that must stop at the intersection. Figure 3.3-2 shows the intersection LOS for all
139 intersections analyzed for the 2007 existing conditions scenario.
3.3.3 I Environmental Consequences
Year 2015 represents the near-term year for traffic analysis, as project construction is
scheduled to begin in 2015. Year 2035 represents the long-term horizon year of
approximately 20 years after the opening of the project. This section presents the anticipated
traffic conditions in 2015 and 2035 for the No Build Alternative and the three build
alternatives, including Design Option B and the LPA. It presents the future-year traffic
volumes, and assumptions used to forecast future volumes, future travel speeds, intersection
LOS for signalized intersections, and approach LOS for unsignalized intersections.
Traffic analysis results are presented in this section. For this EIS/EIR, the project-specific
impacts were determined by comparing the existing conditions to the build alternatives,
including the LPA, in Year 2015. It is important to note that this approach is a conservative
way to define traffic impacts because the build alternatives in Year 2015 reflect traffic
volumes and operations associated with population and employment growth in the study
area expected between 2007 and 2015, in addition to the traffic volumes and operational
changes associated with the project. For this reason, industry standard practice is to compare
the build alternatives to the No Build Alternative in the future baseline year; however, to
comply with the California Court of Appeal ruling for Sunnyvale West Neisjiborbood Association
v. City of Sunnyvale City Council regarding selection of a CEQA baseline year, traffic impacts in
this EIS/KIR were identified by comparing scenarios as follows:
• Project-Specific Impacts: Existing conditions compared with existing plus project*
conditions;
• Cumulative Impacts: Existing conditions compared with Year 2035 Build Alternatives
(including the LPA) conditions;
• Project Contribution to Cumulative Impacts: 2035 No Build Alternative conditions
compared with Year 2035 Build Alternatives (including the LPA) conditions.
Traffic operating conditions under the No Build Alternative are also presented in Year 201 5
tor informational purposes.
Although most intersections
within the traffic study area
operate with minimal delays
overall, certain specific
movements along the six
north-south roadways operate
in stop-and-go conditions.
!>r!^,\™ '"r ™ "PCraT ^ 2015 bui'd altema,ivcS ™" <" represent .he Bating pk»
operations or have a lower I .( \s than l-.xiMinK plus Project conditions.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
3-46
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Although most intersections within the traffic study area operate with minimal delays
overall, certain specific movements along the six north-south roadways operate in stop-and-
go conditions, especially the southern sections of Van Ness Avenue and Gough Street. As
presented above, the primary reasons for the differences are (1) higher traffic volumes in
multiple, conflicting directions in this section, and (2) a lack of signal synchronization in the
SB direction.
This section presents the criteria used to assess traffic impacts and identifies significant
impacts and less-than-significant traffic impacts per the impact thresholds described above j
in Section 3.3.1 and below in Section 3.3.3.1. As described in Chapter 2, Project Description,
there are three build alternatives: Build Alternative 2 (Side-Lane BRT with Street Parking),
Build Alternative 3 (Center-Lane BRT with Right-Side Boarding and Dual Medians), and
Build Alternative 4 (Center-Lane BRT with Left-Side Boarding and Single Median). There is
also the LPA (Center-Lane BRT with Right-Side Boarding/Single Median and Limited Left
Turns) and the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant.
This section presents traffic impacts for existing conditions, No Build Alternative, Build
Alternative 2, Build Alternatives 3 and 4 together, and Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with
Design Option B (and the LPA) together. Build Alternatives 3 and 4 have identical vehicular
traffic operations, with the exception of right-turn movements at the intersection of Van
Ness Avenue and Geary Street; therefore, traffic impacts for Build Alternatives 3 and 4 are
presented together. Build Alternatives 3 and 4 may incorporate a design variation - Design
Option B. Along Van Ness Avenue, Design Option B for these two build alternatives has
only one SB left-turn opportunity (at Broadway) and only one NB left-turn opportunity (at
Lombard Street). All of the other left-turn pockets in the NB and SB directions would be
removed under Design Option B for Build Alternatives 3 and 4.
The LPA has nearly identical traffic operations as Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design
Option B, except that the LPA only has right-turn pockets at three intersections on Van
Ness Avenue, all in the SB direction, at Mission/Otis/South Van Ness, Market Street, and
Pine Street. In addition, the LPA retains the two SB left-turn pockets at Broadway, similar to
Build Alternatives 3 and 4. Therefore, traffic impacts for the LPA and Build Alternatives 3
and 4 with Design Option B are presented together with any differences between the
alternatives noted in the chapter43. The Vallejo Northbound Station Variant would have one
fewer (2 versus 3) mixed traffic lane in the SB direction for the block between Vallejo and
Green streets versus the LPA. Under the LPA without the variant, this lane would be used
to store left-turning traffic onto Broadway. Under the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant,
this roadway space would be used by the far side NB station at Vallejo Street. In addition,
the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant would require a turning restriction preventing
trucks traveling WB on Vallejo Street from turning right onto Van Ness Avenue. Otherwise,
the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant would operate identically to the LPA. A full
description of each of the alternatives, including the LPA and the Vallejo Northbound
Station Variant, can be found in Chapter 2.
3.3.3.1 I SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
To assess the environmental significance of traffic impacts for signalized and unsignalizcd
intersections, the Authority uses the same criteria used by the San Francisco Planning
Department, presented in the San Francisco Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Environmental
Review.
« A detailed comparison of the traffic operat.ons and the traffic impacts between ,1k LPA ind Build Alu rn.im o I ind I
with Design ( )p„or , B ,» provided under the LPA traffic impacts discussion in the Vehicular Tr.U.u \nahata Technical
Memorandum (( .I IS, 2013).
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Project-Specific Impacts
DEFINITION
U.TRANS SIGNAL WARRANTS:
Caltrans thresholds for
determining when a signal
should be installed.
DEFINITION
tITICAL MOVEMENTS: Critical
movements are movements by
vehicles at intersections with
LOS E or F that would most
greatly contribute to the
degradation of LOS at those
intersections.
Signalized] Intersections
1. If the intersection LOS declines from LOS A, B, C, or D in existing conditions to LOS
E or F in the existing plus project scenarios (represented by the 2015 build alternatives),
then the project would cause a significant project-specific impact.
2. If the intersection LOS declines from LOS E in existing conditions to LOS F in the
existing plus project scenarios (represented by the 2015 build alternatives), then the
project would cause a significant project-specific impact.
3. If the intersection performs the same at either LOS E or F in both existing condition
and existing plus project scenarios (represented by the 2015 build alternatives), then the
project's contribution to significant impacts (i.e., contribution calculations) are
performed as follows:
"- If the project does not contribute to critical movements at failing intersections or
contributes vehicles to critical movements that operate at LOS D or better in
existing plus project scenarios (represented by the 2015 build alternatives), then the
project impact is considered less than significant.
If the project contributes 5 percent or more of the vehicles to a failing critical
movement of a failing intersection in the existing plus project scenarios
(represented by the 2015 build alternatives), then the project would cause a
significant project-specific impact.
Unsignalized Intersections
1 . If the LOS of the worst operating approach declines from LOS A, B, C, or D in existing
conditions to LOS E or F in the existing plus project scenarios (represented by the 2015
build alternatives), and the intersection meets the Caltrans signal warrants, then the
project would cause a significant project-specific impact.
2. If the worst operating approach performs at LOS E or F in both existing conditions
and existing plus project scenarios (represented by the 2015 build alternatives) and the
project traffic causes the Caltrans signal warrants to be met, then the project would
cause a significant project-specific impact.
Cumulative Impacts
If in the Year 2035 there is a significant project-specific impact, then there is significant
cumulative impact.
Significant cumulative impacts for all other signalized and unsignalized intersections are
assessed in two steps as follows:
1. Cumulative impacts are assessed by utilizing the same procedure discussed under
Project-Specific Impacts, except that the existing conditions scenario is compared with
the long-term (2035) with-project scenario instead of the existing plus project scenario
to assess cumulative impacts.
2. Significant cumulative impacts are assessed by calculating the project contribution to
cumulative impacts for signalized and unsignalized intersections as follows:
Signalized Intersections
1. If the intersection LOS declines from LOS A, B, C, or D in the long-term (2035) No
Build Alternative to LOS E or F in the Year 2035 build alternatives, then the project
would cause a significant cumulative impact.
If the intersection LOS declines from LOS E in the long-term horizon year (2035) No
Build Alternative to LOS F in the Year 2035 build alternatives, then the project would
cause a significant cumulative impact.
If the intersection performs the same, at either LOS E or F, in the long-term horizon
year (2035) for both the No Build Alternative and build alternatives, then the same
2.
3.
3-48
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
procedure is used as in Criterion #3 under Project-Specific Impacts for signalized
intersections to determine the project's contribution to significant cumulative impacts.
Unsignalized Intersections
1 . If the LOS of the worst operating approach declines from LOS A, B, C, or D in the
long-term horizon year (2035) No Build Alternative to LOS E or F in the Year 2035
build alternatives, and the intersection meets the Caltrans signal warrants, then the
project would cause a significant cumulative impact.
2. If the worst approach performs at LOS E or F in the long-term horizon year (2035) for
both the No Build Alternative and build alternatives, and the project traffic causes the
Caltrans signal warrants to be met, then the project would cause a significant cumulative
impact.
3.3.3.2 I NEAR-TERM (2015)
This section reports projected traffic conditions in the near-term (Year 2015) for the No
Build Alternative and the build alternatives and the LPA. It presents near-term (Year 2015)
traffic volumes and assumptions used in traffic projections, future roadway performance,
and summary of the Van Ness Avenue BRT Project impacts.44
2015 Alternative 1: No Build Alternative
The 2015 No Build Alternative assumes the roadway network in 2015 would be identical to
the 2007 existing conditions, with the exception of Hayes and Fell streets. SFMTA proposes
to convert Hayes Street between Gough and Polk streets to two-way streets by converting
one of the WB lanes to an EB lane. SFMTA also proposes to convert Fell Street between
Van Ness Avenue and Franklin Street to a two-way street by converting one of the EB lanes
in this block to WB. Details of the Hayes Street and Fell Street two-way conversions are
provided in Section 2.2.
Signal timing and phasing for the 2015 No Build Alternative were initially optimized based
on the minimum amount of time needed for pedestrian crossing based on national and City
standards, as provided by SFMTA, and future No Build Alternative traffic volumes were
estimated using the SF-CHAMP model.
Under the near-term 2015 No Build Alternative, traffic volumes along Van Ness Avenue
would increase by approximately 0.5 to 1 .9 percent annually from the 2007 levels, based on
the SF-CHAMP model forecasts. Traffic along the east-west streets would increase by
approximately 0.4 to 2.7 percent annually.
Vehicular Travel Speed. Tables 3.3-3 and 3.3-4 show that vehicular travel speeds would
decrease slightly along Van Ness Avenue, Franklin Street, Gough Street, Polk Street (SB)
and Hyde Street from the 2007 Existing Conditions. This decrease in travel speeds would be
caused by the increases in traffic volumes in the traffic study area. In the 2015 No Build
Alternative, vehicular travel speeds would increase from the 2007 existing conditions along
two NB streets: NB Polk Street and Larkin Street. This is primarily because synchronization
of the traffic signals along these streets can be improved over the current conditions.
** As noted previously, traffic operations for the Year 2015 build alternatives were used to represent the Kxist.iu; plti.
Project scenarios for purposes of impact analysis. Conditions for the 201 5 build alternatives arc equivalent traffic
operations or have a lower LOS than Kxisting plus Project conditions.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
3 49
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Table 3.3-3: 2015 No Build Alternative Southbound Average Speed
STREET
AVERAGE SPEED (MPH)
EXISTING CONDITIONS
2015 NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE
Cough
8.4
7-8
Franklin
Van Ness
7-7
7.0
Polk
8.9
8.5
Larkin
Hyde
8.5
8.4
Source: SYNCHRO model, CHS Consulting Croup, 2013.
Table 3.3-4: 2015 No Build Alternative Northbound Average Speed
STREET
AVERAGE SPEED (MPH)
EXISTING CONDITIONS
2015 NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE
Cough
Franklin
lO.I
9-8
Van Ness
TO.5
lO.I
Polk
9-1
9-8
Larkin
9-5
TO.O
Hyde
Source: SYNCHRO model, CHS Consulting Group, 2013.
Intersection Levels of Service. In the 2015 No Build Alternative (Alternative 1), all but four
intersections would operate at LOS D or better condition during the PM peak hour. Figure
3.3-3 presents the intersection LOS for the 139 study intersections. The traffic study area
intersections that would operate at LOS E or F under the 2015 No Build Alternative are
described below.
• Cough/Green. The SB approach, the worst approach at this four-way stop-controlled
intersection, would perform at LOS F under both existing conditions and the 2015 No
Build Alternative (Alternative 1).
• Cough/Hayes. This signalized intersection's operation would decline from LOS D under
existing conditions to LOS F under the 2015 No Build Alternative (Alternative 1).
• Duboce/Mission/Otis/US 101 Off-Ramps. This signalized intersection's operation would
decline from LOS D under existing conditions to LOS E under the 2015 No Build
Alternative (Alternative 1).
• South Van Ness/Mission/Otis. This signalized intersection's operation would decline from
LOS D under existing conditions to LOS E under the 2015 No Build Alternative
(Alternative 1).
2015 Build Alternatives
I As described in Chapter 2, the build alternatives, including the LPA, would include a full
complement of BRT improvements in the project area, including signal priority for buses,
new BRT bus stops and level or near level boarding, and dedicated bus lanes along Van
Ness Avenue. The Van Ness Avenue BRT Project alternatives, including the LPA, would
convert two mixed-travel lanes to bus-only lanes (i.e., one lane each in NB and SB
directions) and reduce left-turn opportunities along Van Ness Avenue. The following
summarizes the changes in roadway geometry and circulation patterns for the Year 2015
build alternatives and methods used to modify traffic circulation patterns and volumes for
the SYNCHRO traffic analysis.
3-50
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
• Reduction in Roadway Capacity for Mixed Traffic. The proposed project would reduce the
mixed-traffic capacity along Van Ness Avenue by slighdy less than one-third.
The decrease in roadway capacity would cause motorists to divert from Van Ness
Avenue to avoid delays. The traffic analysis indicates that with the implementation
of BRT in 2015, an average of 19 to 32 percent of traffic on Van Ness Avenue
(depending on the location) would change their travel patterns, including driving on
other streets, shifting the trip to other times of day, or shifting to other modes, such
as transit, walking, and bicycling.45 Further discussion of diversions can be found in
Section 3.1.
The volume of traffic that would divert to the five parallel streets and study
intersections in the project area was initially obtained from the SF-CHAMP model
and then manually adjusted for reasonableness.
• Left-Turn Prohibitions. The build alternatives would include elimination of 13 left-turn
bays along Van Ness Avenue in both NB and SB directions. Chapter 2, Project
Description, provides a detailed list of prohibited left-turn bays for each of the build
alternatives without Design Option B, presented in Table 2-4. Build Alternatives 3 and 4
could incorporate a design variation (Design Option B) where left-turn bays would only
be provided at Broadway in the SB direction and at Lombard in the NB direction. The
LPA incorporates Design Option B.
With the reduced number of left-turn opportunities, some motorists wishing to make a
left turn along Van Ness Avenue would alter behavior, including using a downstream or
upstream left-turn opportunity' or circulating around the block to reach their destination.
• Left-Turn Lane Reduction. There are two locations where the number of left-turn bays
would be reduced from two to one:
Hayes Street in the NB direction for all build alternatives;
Mission Street in the EB direction for all build alternatives; and
Similar to existing conditions and the No Build Alternative (Alternative 1), under Build
Alternative 2 Van Ness Avenue would have one exclusive left-turn lane and one shared
left-turn/ through lane at the SB approach to Broadway. Under Build Alternatives 3 and
4, and the LPA, there would be two exclusive SB left-turn lanes at the Van Ness
Avenue SB approach to Broadway.46 The reason for the difference in design at this
approach between Build Alternative 2 and Build Alternatives 3 and 4 is because under
Build Alternatives 3 and 4, left-turn movements can only be made during the dedicated
left-turn signal phase to not cause potential collisions with SB Muni and GGT buses in
the BRT lane. This is different than Build Alternative 2, under which SB left-turn
vehicles can make a turn when there is a gap in the traffic stream in the NB direction,
resulting in a higher capacity for the exclusive left-turn lane and shared left-
turn/ through lane under Build Alternative 2, similar to existing conditions.
• Right-Turn Lane Reduction. Van Ness Avenue between Geary and O'Farrell streets under
Build Alternative 4 (Center-Lane BRT with Left-Side Boarding and Single Median)
would have the same geometric design as Build Alternative 3 (Center-Lane BRT with
Dual Medians). Due to the transition of Build Alternative 4 from a single-median BRT
north of Geary Street to a dual-median BRT for this block, the SB Van Ness Avenue
exclusive right-turn lane to Geary Street would not be provided under Build Alternative
4 or its design variation, Build Alternative 4 with Design Option B. This right turn
would also be eliminated under the LPA.
The decrease in roadway
capacity associated with the
build alternatives would cause
motorists to divert from
Van Ness Avenue to avoid
icreased congestion and delays.
With the reduced number of
left-turn opportunities, some
motorists wishing to make a left
turn along Van Ness Avenue
would alter behavior, including
sing a downstream or upstream
eft-turn opportunity or circulate
around the block to reach their
destination.
For Design Option B and the LPA, the reduction of additional left turns along Van Ness Avenue would cause NB
drivers to divert to other parallel streets before they enter South Van Ness and Van Ness avenues. Consequently, the
very southern end of the corridor near Market Street would experience a significantly greater reduction in vehicle
traffic volumes on Van Ness Avenue, particularly in the NB direction (up to 965 fewer vph than in the No Build
Alternative - nearly 50 percent).
This additional left-turn lane would require removal of on-street parking spaces on the east and west sides of Van Ness
Avenue, north of Broadway.
3-52
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
The process used to develop future-year traffic volumes for the build alternatives is similar
to that used for the No Build Alternative. The percentage change in traffic volumes between
the 2015 No Build Alternative and each 2015 build alternative was applied. These
percentages were provided by the SF-CHAMP model. Subsequent manual adjustments were
made based on professional judgment and best practice. See the Vehicular Traffic Analysis
Technical Memorandum for more detail (CHS, 2013).
Traffic signal cycle length and phasing for the build alternatives were modeled the same as
the No Build Alternative, except at the intersections of Van Ness Avenue with Filbert Street
and South Van Ness Avenue with Mission and Otis streets for Build Alternatives 3 and 4,
including the LPA. The traffic signal phasing at these intersections was modified to allow j
buses to transition between a center-running configuration and mixed-flow traffic lanes along
Van Ness Avenue, South Van Ness Avenue, Mission Street, and Otis Street. Additionally,
traffic signals were optimized and coordinated for each of the build alternatives.
Travel Speed: Build Alternatives
As in the 2015 No Build Alternative, the average travel speed for all of the SB streets and
NB Franklin Street and NB Van Ness Avenue in the 2015 build alternatives would decline in
comparison to existing conditions. As seen in Tables 3.3-5 and 3.3-6, a comparison of the
existing conditions and the 2015 build alternatives and the LPA speed shows the following:
• Speed along SB Gough, SB Polk, and NB Franklin would decrease by approximately 0.5
mph under the Year 2015 build alternatives when compared with the existing
conditions. Speed along these corridors would decrease slightly more (up to 0.8 mph)
under Year 2015 Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and the LPA due to
the diversion of left-turning traffic from Van Ness Avenue to these parallel streets.
• Speed along SB Hyde Street would decrease by 0.2 mph from 8.5 mph in existing
conditions to 8.3 mph in all three build alternatives and the LPA in Year 2015.
• Speed along Van Ness Avenue in both directions would decrease between 0.1 and 0.5
mph in Year 2015 Build Alternative 2 and Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option
B and the LPA when compared with the existing conditions. Speed along Van Ness
Avenue in both directions would decrease the most (1 to 1.3 mph) under Year 2015
Build Alternatives 3 and 4. This is mainly due to the increase in traffic volumes for NB
left turns from Van Ness Avenue and changes in signal timing and phasing for these left
turns. Left turns at these intersections can only be made under a protected phase. The
LPA and the Northbound Station Variant would have the same speed as Build
Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B for all streets except Van Ness Avenue.
Under the 2015 LPA and the Northbound Station Variant, the SB Van Ness Avenue-
speed would be the same as 2015 Build Alternative 4. The NB Van Ness Avenue speed
would decrease slightly from 10.2 mph in Design Option B to 10.1 mph in the LPA (0.1
mph decrease). These small changes in speed may be attributed to the increase in right-
turn traffic making turns from the shared lane under the LPA and thus slightly
decreasing the speed of all movement in the curb lane.
• Speed along NB Polk and Larkin streets would increase between 0.4 and 0.8 mph when
compared with the existing conditions. This is primarily because synchronization of the
traffic signals along these streets can be improved over the current conditions.
• In many instances, there is almost the same amount of reduction in speed between
existing conditions and the 2015 No Build Alternative (Alternative 1) as there is
between existing conditions and the 2015 build alternatives. In other words, the Van
Ness Avenue BRT Project alternatives do not impact speeds any more than general
growth in citywide traffic in the No Build Alternative scenario would affect speeds. In
some instances, speed actually increases under the 2015 build alternatives versus the
2015 No Build Alternative. With the exception of NB Franklin Street and Van Ness
Avenue, project contributions to speed reductions are 0.3 mph or less.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Table 3.3-5: Private Vehicle
2015 Southbound Average Speed
STREET
AVERAGE SPEED (MPH)
1
EXISTINC
CONDITIONS
NO BUILD
(ALTERNATIVE l)
SIDE-LANE BRT CENTER-LANE BRT
(ALTERNATIVE 2) (ALTERNATIVES
3AND4)
CENTER-LANE BRT
WITH DESIGN
OPTION B
(ALTERNATIVES 3
AND 4) AND THE LPA
Cough
8.4
7.8
7-9
8.0
7-6
Franklin *
Van Ness
7-7
7.0
7-2
6.7/6.6*
7-6/7.5*
Polk
8.9
8.5
8.4
8.3
8.2
Larkin ...
Hyde
8.5
8.4
8.3
8.3
8.3
*The two speeds shown on Van Ness Avenue represent Build Alternative 3/Build Alternative 4. The difference in
speed is due to the lack of a right-turn pocket for SB traveling vehicles at Geary and Van Ness under Build
Alternative 4. Speeds are the same between Build Alternatives 3 and 4 for all other streets. The LPA and the
Northbound Station Variant would have the same average speed SB as Build Alternative 4 with Design Option B.
Table 3.3-6: Private Vehicle 2015 Northbound Average Speed
STREET
AVERAGE SPEED (MPH)
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
NO BUILD
(ALTERNATIVE l)
SIDE-LANE BRT CENTER-LANE BRT
(ALTERNATIVE 2) (ALTERNATIVES 3
AND 4)
CENTER-LANE BRT
WITH DESIGN
OPTION B
(ALTERNATIVES 3
AND 4) AND THE LPA
Cough ...
Franklin
lO.I
9.8
9-5
9.6
9-3
Van Ness
10-5
lO.I
IO.3
9.2
10.2/ lO.I*
Polk
9-1
9.8
9-5
9.8
9-9
Larkin
9-5
lO.O
9-9
lO.I
lO.I
Hyde ....
-The two speeds shown on Van Ness Avenue represent Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and the
LPA. The difference in speed is due to the lack of right-turn pockets along NB Van Ness Avenue under the LPA. The
LPA and the Northbound Station Variant would have the same average speed as SB Van Ness Avenue.
Traffic Impacts: 2015 Build Alternatives
This section presents the projected vehicular traffic impacts in year 2015 for the build
alternatives (including the LPA). Implementation of each of the proposed build alternatives
(including the LPA) is anticipated to result in adverse traffic effects, some of which are
considered significant impacts based on the impact significance thresholds described in
Section 3.3.3. The Van Ness Avenue BRT Project would cause significant traffic impacts
only if the LOS for the 2015 build alternatives would be worse than the existing conditions
based on the significance criteria presented in Section 3.3.3. Intersections that would
continue to operate at LOS E or F in the build alternatives, but which are not impacted by
project traffic based on the significance criteria presented in Section 3.3.3, are also identified
below as less than significant impacts.
3-54
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
2015 Near-Term Build Alternative 2: Side-Lane BRT with Street Parking47
Under Build Alternative 2, three intersections would operate at LOS E or F during the PM
peak hour in Year 2015. Table 3.3-7 presents a comparison of the average intersection delay
and intersection LOS for the intersections that would operate at LOS E or F conditions
under existing conditions, 2015 No Build Alternative or 2015 Build Alternative 2. Figure
3.3-4 presents the 2015 Build Alternative 2 intersection LOS for all study intersections.
Table 3.3-7: Existing Conditions, 2015 Build Alternative 2 (Side-Lane BRT), and No Build
Alternative Intersection LOS (Delay) for Intersections that Operate at LOS E or F
INTERSECTION
LOS (DELAY)
EXISTING CONDITIONS
2015 NO BUILD
ALTERNATIVE
2015 BUILD
ALTERNATIVE 2
Cough/Green--
F (76.5)
F (80.3)
F (86.3)
Cough/Hayes
D (45.9)
F (86.7)
E (79-0)
Franklin/O'Farrell
D (39.3)
D (43.2)
E (60.6)
Otis/Mission/S. Van Ness
D (46.1)
E (59-3)
D (45-7)
Duboce/Mission/Otis/US 101 Off-Ramp
D (44.4)
E (67.1)
D (51-3)
* Unsignalized intersection.
Table shows worst approach LOS (Delay) for an unsignalized intersection.
Table shows intersection LOS (intersection average vehicular delay) for sig
nalized intersections.
Source: SYNCHRO model, CHS Consulting Croup, 2013.
Significant Project-Specific Impacts. The project traffic would cause significant project-specific
impacts at two study intersections under the 2015 Build Alternative 2 as follows:
• Cough/Hayes. This intersection would decline from LOS D under the existing conditions
to LOS E under the 2015 Build Alternative 2 (representing existing plus project
conditions); therefore, the proposed project would cause significant project-specific
impacts. This intersection would perform at LOS F under the 2015 No Build Alternative.
• Franklin/O'Farrell. This signalized intersection would decline from LOS D under the existing
conditions to LOS E under the 2015 Build Alternative 2 (representing existing plus project
conditions); therefore, the proposed project would cause significant project-specific
impacts. This intersection would perform at LOS D under the 2015 No Build Alternative.
Less than Significant Project-Specific Impacts. Build Alternative 2 would cause less than
significant traffic impacts at the intersection of Gough and Green streets as presented below:
• Cough/Green. The SB approach, the worst approach at this four-way stop-controlled
intersection, would perform at LOS F under both the existing conditions and the 2015
Build Alternative 2 (representing existing plus project conditions); however, the
intersection would not meet the Caltrans peak-hour signal warrant under both the
existing conditions and the 2015 Build Alternative 2 scenario, and would therefore not
be significant per the impact significance thresholds described in Section 3.3.3. The
intersection would also operate at LOS F under the 2015 No Build Alternative, as
would the SB approach. There are several possibilities to improve traffic operation at
this intersection, including adding a traffic signal; removing some on-strcct parking
spaces to create an additional SB approach lane; however, removing parking would |
worsen pedestrian conditions by eliminating the buffer provided by parked cars
separating the sidewalk from the traffic lane, as discussed in Section 3.3.4 (see also
Section 3.4, Nonmotorized Transportation), and past public outreach has indicated that
the community prefers the stop-sign control of the intersection.
« As stated previously, for the purposes of environmental impact analysis, 2015 near term build alternatives RSpKSeni
existing plus project conditions. Conditions for the 2015 build alternatives are equivalent .rathe operations oi have .
lower l.( )S than existing plus project conditions.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
3-56
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
• South Van Ness/Mission/Otis and Duboce/Mission/Otis/US iot Off-Ramp. The intersections
of South Van Ness/Mission/Otis and Duboce/Mission/Otis/US 101 off-ramp would
decline from LOS D under the existing conditions to LOS E under 2015 No Build
Alternative, and then improve to LOS D under the 2015 Build Alternative 2. This
decline in performance between the existing conditions and the 2015 No Build
Alternative is due to growth in background traffic. The improved performance between
the 2015 No Build Alternative and 2015 Build Alternative 2 is mainly due to traffic
diversion from the study area. As discussed in Section 3.1, the SF-CHAMP model
estimated that due to the reduction of a mixed-traffic lane in each direction along Van
Ness Avenue, approximately 24 to 32 percent of traffic would divert their trips away |
from Van Ness Avenue in the PM peak period, including diverting to other modes or
other times of the day. Traffic diversion to streets outside of the project area could
potentially improve the operations of some intersections within the traffic study area,
such as the intersections of South Van Ness/Mission/Otis and
Duboce/Mission/Otis/US 101 off-ramp.
Sensitivity Analysis at Van Ness Avenue and Geary Street Intersection: In anticipation of expected
developments, the San Francisco Planning Department proposes to widen the sidewalk on
the west side of Van Ness Avenue between Post and Geary streets. This proposed widening
would necessitate the removal of the Van Ness Avenue SB exclusive right-turn lane onto
Geary Street. A sensitivity analysis has been performed, assuming the proposed sidewalk
widening occurs. With the approved sidewalk widening and removal of exclusive right-turn
lane, LOS at this intersection would remain unchanged at LOS B.
2015 Near-Term Build Alternatives 3 and 4: Center-Lane BRT Configuration48
Under Build Alternatives 3 and 4, four intersections would operate at LOS E or F during the
PM peak hour in Year 2015 (representing existing plus project conditions). Table 3.3-8
provides a comparison of the average intersection delay and intersection LOS for the
intersections that would operate at LOS E or F under the existing conditions, the 2015 No
Build Alternative, or 2015 Build Alternatives 3 and 4 scenarios. Figure 3.3-5 graphically
presents 2015 Build Alternatives 3 and 4 intersection LOS for all intersections.
Table 3.3-8: Existing Conditions, 2015 Build Alternatives 3 and 4 (Center-Lane BRT), and
No Build Alternative Intersection LOS (Delay) for Intersections that Operate at LOS E or F
INTERSECTION
LOS (DELAY)
EXISTING CONDITIONS
2015 NO BUILD 201s BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3 AND 4
ALTERNATIVE
Cough/Green'''
F (76.5)
F (80.3)
F (80.7)
Gough/Hayes
D (45-9)
F (86.7)
E (79-7)
Franklin/O'Farrell
D (39.3)
D (43.2)
E (57-2)
Otis/Mission/S. Van Ness
D (46.!)
E (59-3)
E (68.8)
Duboce/Mission/Otis/
US 101 Off-Ramp
D (44.4)
E (67.1)
D (47.2)
* Unsignalized intersection.
Table shows worst approach LOS (Delay) for an unsignalized intersection.
Table shows intersection LOS (intersection average vehicular delay) for signalized intersections.
Source: SYNCHRO model, CHS Consulting Croup, 2013.
■|8 As stated previously, for the purposes of environmental impact analysis, 2015 near-term build alternatives represent
existing plus project conditions. Conditions for the 2015 build alternatives are equivalent traffic operations or olVC .1
lower LOS than existing plus project conditions.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013 J-57
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
3-58
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Significant Project-Specific Impacts. Build Alternatives 3 and 4 would cause significant project-
specific impacts at three study intersections in Year 2015.
• Cough/Hayes. This intersection would decline from LOS D under existing conditions to
LOS E under 2015 Build Alternatives 3 and 4 (representing existing plus project
conditions); therefore, the proposed project would cause significant project-specific
impacts. This intersection would perform at LOS F under the 2015 No Build
Alternative.
• Franklin/O'Farrell. This signalized intersection would decline from LOS D under existing
conditions to LOS E under 2015 Build Alternatives 3 and 4 (representing existing plus
project conditions); therefore, the proposed project would cause significant project-
specific impacts. This intersection would perform at LOS D under the 2015 No Build
Alternative.
• South Van Ness/Mission/Otis. This signalized intersection would decline from LOS D
under existing conditions to LOS E under 2015 Build Alternatives 3 and 4 (representing
existing plus project conditions); therefore, the proposed project would cause significant
project-specific impacts. This intersection would perform at LOS E under the 2015 No
Build Alternative.
Less than Significant Project-Specific Impacts. Build Alternatives 3 and 4 would cause less than
significant traffic impacts at the intersection of Gough and Green streets, and the
intersection of Duboce/Mission/Otis/US 101 off-ramp, as presented below:
• Cough/Green. The SB approach, the worst approach at this four-way stop-controlled
intersection, would perform at LOS F under both the existing conditions and the 2015
Build Alternatives 3 and 4 (representing existing plus project conditions); however, the
intersection would not meet the Caltrans peak-hour signal warrant under both existing
conditions and 2015 Build Alternatives 3 and 4, and would therefore not be significant
per the impact significance thresholds described in Section 3.3.3. The intersection would
also operate at LOS F under the 2015 No Build Alternative, as would the SB approach.
There are several possibilities to improve traffic operations at this intersection, including
adding a traffic signal; removing some on-street parking spaces to create an additional
SB approach lane; however, past public outreach has indicated that the community
prefers the stop-sign control of the intersection.
• Duboce/Mission/Otis/US 101 Off-Ramp. Similar to Build Alternative 2, the intersection of
Duboce/Mission/Otis/US 101 off-ramp would decline from LOS D under the existing
conditions to LOS E under the 2015 No Build Alternative, and then improve to LOS D
under Build Alternatives 3 and 4 in Year 2015.
• Design Variation between Build Alternative 3 and Build Alternative 4 and Sensitivity Analysis at
Van Ness Avenue and Geary Street Intersection. As discussed in Chapter 2, Van Ness
Avenue between Geary and O'Farrell streets under Build Alternative 4 would have the
same geometric design as Build Alternative 3. Due to this transition from a center-
running BRT with a single median north of Geary Street to a right-side loading BRT
with two medians for this block, the SB Van Ness Avenue exclusive right-turn lane to
Geary Street would not be provided under Build Alternadve 4. This intersection
operates at LOS B under 2015 Build Alternadve 3. Without the exclusive SB right-turn
lane, LOS at this intersection would remain at LOS B under 2015 Build Alternative 4.
The analysis for Build Alternative 4 also serves as the sensitivity analysis if the San
Francisco Planning Department were to approve the proposed widening of the sidewalk
under Build Alternadve 3, thus requiring the elimination of the exclusive SB right -turn
lane onto Geary Street from Van Ness Avenue.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
i S9
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
2015 Near-Term Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B: Center-Lane BRT (including the
LPA)49
The LPA (including the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant)50 would have the same traffic
impacts in 2015 as Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B. Because the LPA would
have 11 fewer right-turn pockets, there are minor differences in approach average delay
between the LPA and Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B along Van Ness
Avenue. However, none of these differences would cause a new significant intersection LOS
impact or worsen a significant intersection LOS impact compared to the impacts outlined
for Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B. For details on LPA performance in
2015, please see the Vehicular Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum (CHS, 2013).
Under Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and the LPA, four intersections
would operate at LOS E or F during the PM peak hour in Year 2015. Table 3.3-9 presents a
comparison of the average intersection delay and intersection LOS for the intersections that
would operate at LOS E or F under the existing conditions, the 2015 No Build Alternative,
or 2015 Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B, including the LPA scenarios.
Figure 3.3-6 presents 2015 Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B, including the
LPA, intersection LOS.
Table 3.3-9: Existing Conditions, 2015 Build Alternatives 3 and 4 (Center-Lane BRT) with
Design Option B, and No Build Alternative Intersection LOS (Delay) for Intersections
that Operate at LOS E or F
INTERSECTION
LOS (DELAY)
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
201s NO BUILD
ALTERNATIVE
201S BUILD ALTERNATIVES 3 AND 4 WITH
DESIGN OPTION B AND THE LPA
Cough/Green*
F (76.5)
F (80.3)
F (108.1)
Cough/Hayes
D (45-9)
F (86.7)
E (74.6)
Franklin/O'Farrell
D (39-3)
D (43.2)
E (55-9)
Franklin/ Market/ Page
C (27.2)
C (28.7)
F (103.7)
Otis/Mission/S. Van Ness
D (46.!)
E (59-3)
D (5i-4)
Duboce/Mission/Otis/
US ioi OfF-Ramp
D (444)
E (67.1)
D (46.4)
* Unsignalized intersection.
Table shows worst approach LOS (Delay) for an unsignalized intersection.
Table shows intersection LOS (intersection average vehicular delay) for signalized intersections.
Source: SYNCHRO model, CHS Consulting Group, 2013
Significant Project- Specific Impacts. Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and the
LPA would cause significant project-specific impacts at three intersections in Year 2015 as
follows:
• Cough/Hayes. This intersection would decline from LOS D under existing conditions to
LOS E under 2015 Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and the LPA
(representing existing plus project conditions); therefore, the proposed project would
cause significant project-specific impacts. This intersection would operate at LOS F
under the 2015 No Build Alternative.
As stated previously, for the purposes of environmental impact analysis, 2015 near-term build alternatives represent
existing plus project conditions. Conditions for the 2015 build alternatives are equivalent traffic operations or have a
lower LOS than existing plus project conditions.
The Vallejo Northbound Station Variant would have one fewer (2 versus. 3) mixed traffic lanes in the SB direction for
the block between Vallejo and Green streets versus the LPA. Under the LPA without the variant, this lane would be
used to store left-turning traffic onto Broadway. Under the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant, that roadway space
would be used for the additional far side NB station at Vallejo Street. In 2015, the Vallejo intersection would operate at
LOS A during the PM peak under the LPA and would operate at a similar LOS with implementation of the Vallejo
Northbound Station Variant.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 201
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
• Franklin/O'Farrell. This signalized intersection would decline from LOS D under existing
condidons to LOS E under 2015 Build Alternadves 3 and 4 with Design Opdon B and
the LPA (representing existing plus project conditions); therefore, the proposed project
would cause significant project-specific impacts. This intersection would perform at
LOS D under the 2015 No Build Alternative.
• Franklin/ Market. This signalized intersection would degrade from LOS C under the
existing conditions to LOS F under 2015 Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option
B and the LPA (representing existing plus project conditions); therefore, the proposed
project would cause significant project-specific impacts. This intersection would
perform at LOS C under the 2015 No Build Alternative.
Less than Significant Project-Specific Impacts. In Year 2015, Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with
Design Option B and the LPA would cause less than significant traffic impacts at the
intersection of Gough and Green streets, and at the intersection of South Van Ness/
Mission/Otis and Duboce/Mission/Otis/US 101 off-ramp, as presented below:
Cough/Green. The SB approach, the worst performing approach at this four-way stop-
controlled intersection, would perform at LOS F under both existing conditions and 2015
Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and the LPA; however, the intersection
would not meet the Caltrans peak-hour signal warrant under both the existing conditions
and the 2015 Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and the LPA, and would
therefore not be significant per the impact significance thresholds described in Section 3.3.3.
The intersection would also operate at LOS F under the 2015 No Build Alternative, as
would the SB approach. There are several possibilities to improve traffic operation at this
intersection, including adding a traffic signal; removing some on-street parking spaces to
create an additional SB approach lane; however, past public outreach has indicated that the
community prefers the stop-sign control of the intersection.
South Van Ness/Mission/Otis and Duboce/Mission/Otis/US 101 OfF-Ramp. Similar to Build
Alternative 2, the intersections of South Van Ness/Mission/Otis and Duboce/Mission/
Otis/US 101 off-ramp would decline from LOS D under existing conditions to LOS E
under the 2015 No Build Alternative, and then improve to LOS D under Build Alternatives
3 and 4 with Design Option B and the LPA in Year 2015.
Design Variation between Build Alternative 3 and Build Alternative 4 with Design Option B and
Sensitivity Analysis at Van Ness Avenue and Geary Street Intersection. As discussed in Chapter 2,
Van Ness Avenue between Geary and O'Farrell streets under Build Alternative 4 with
Design Option B would have the same geometric design as Build Alternative 3 with Design
Option B. Due to this transition from a center- running BRT with a single median north of
Geary Street to a right-side loading BRT with two medians for this block, the SB Van Ness
Avenue exclusive right-turn lane to Geary Street would not be provided under Build
Alternative 4 with Design Option B. This intersection operates at LOS B under 2015 Build
Alternative 3 with Design Option B. Without the exclusive SB right-turn lane, LOS at this
intersection would remain at LOS B under 2015 Build Alternative 4 with Design Option B.
The analysis for Build Alternative 4 with Design Option B also serves as the sensitivity
analysis if the San Francisco Planning Department were to widen the sidewalk under Build
Alternative 3 with Design Option B, thus requiring the elimination of the exclusive SB right-
turn lane onto Geary Street from Van Ness Avenue. The LPA would include removal of the
right-turn pocket at this location.
LPA Vallejo Northbound Station Variant. The Vallejo Northbound Station Variant would have
one fewer (two versus three) mixed traffic lanes in the SB direction for the block between
Vallejo and Green streets versus the LPA. Under the LPA without the variant, this lane
would be used to store left-turning traffic onto Broadway. Under the Vallejo Northbound
Station Variant, that roadway space would be used for the additional far side NB station at
Vallejo Street. In 2015, the Vallejo intersection would operate at LOS A during the PM peak
under the LPA and would continue to operate at LOS A with implementation of the Vallejo
Northbound Station Variant.
3-62
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
3.3.3.3 I LONG-TERM HORIZON YEAR (2035)
This section presents projected traffic conditions in the long-term horizon Year 2035 for the
No Build Alternative and three build alternatives and the LPA. It presents long-term j
horizon year (2035) traffic volumes and assumptions used in traffic projection, future
roadway performance, and a summary of the Van Ness Avenue BRT Project impacts.
2035 Alternative 1: No Build
No specific roadway capacity modifications within the traffic study area are known between
2015 and 2035, except the Geary Corridor BRT Project; hence, the 2035 No Build
Alternative would have the identical roadway network as the 2015 No Build Alternative, as
discussed under Section 3.3.3.1.
Signal timing and phasing for the 2035 No Build Alternative were initially optimized based
on the minimum amount of time needed for pedestrian crossings provided by SFMTA and
future No Build Alternative traffic volumes estimated using the SF-CHAMP model.
Under the long-term 2035 No Build Alternative, traffic volumes along Van Ness Avenue
would increase by approximately 0.42 to 1.12 percent annually from the 2007 levels based
on SF-CHAMP model forecasts. Traffic along the east-west streets would increase by
approximately 0.35 to 1.49 percent annually. There would be higher increases along collector
streets than arterial roads.
Vehicular Travel Speed. Under 2035 No Build Alternative, vehicular travel speeds would
decrease along all north-south streets in the traffic study area. Tables 3.3-10 and 3.3-1 1 show
SB and NB average speeds, respectively.
Table 3.3-10: 2035 No
Build Alternative Southbound Average Speed
STREET
AVERAGE SPEED (MPH)
EXISTING CONDITIONS
2035 NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE
Cough
8.4
7-5
Franklin
Van Ness
7-7
6.6
Polk 8.9 8.1
Larkin
Hyde
8.5
7-6
Source: SYNCHRO model, CHS Consulting Croup, 2013.
Table 3.3-1 1: 2035 No
Build Alternative Northbound Average Speed
STREET
AVERAGE SPEED (MPH)
EXISTING CONDITIONS
2035 NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE
Cough
Franklin
lO.I
9-1
Van Ness
IO.5
8.9
Polk
91
8.8
Larkin
9-5
9-5
Hyde
Source: SYNCHRO model, CHS Consulting Croup, 2013.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
363
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Intersection Levels of Service. Under the long-term 2035 No Build Alternative, all but seven
intersections would operate at LOS D or better during the PM peak hour. Figure 3.3-7 presents
the intersection LOS for the study intersections for 2035 No Build Alternative. The traffic study
area intersections that would operate at LOS E or LOS F conditions are described below.
• Cough/Green. The SB approach, the worst approach at this four-way stop-controlled
intersection, would perform at LOS F under existing conditions and the 2015 and 2035
No Build Alternative.
• Cough/Hayes. This signalized intersection would decline from LOS D under existing
conditions to LOS F under both the 2015 and 2035 No Build Alternative.
• Franklin/Pine. This signalized intersection would slightly improve from LOS D under
existing conditions to LOS C under the 2015 No Build Alternative and decline to
LOS E under 2035 No Build Alternative.
• Franklin/O'Farrell. This signalized intersection would decline from LOS D under existing
conditions and the 2015 No Build Alternative to LOS E under 2035 No Build Alternative.
• Van Ness/Pine. This signalized intersection would decline from LOS C under existing
conditions and the 2015 No Build Alternative to LOS E under 2035 No Build Alternative.
• South Van Ness/Mission/Otis. This signalized intersection would decline from LOS D
under existing conditions to LOS E under the 2015 and 2035 No Build Alternatives.
• Duboce/Mission/Otis/US 101 Off-Ramp. This signalized intersection would decline from
LOS D under existing conditions and LOS E under the 2015 No Build Alternative to
LOS F under 2035 No Build Alternative.
2035 Build Alternatives
The long-term 2035 build alternatives would have the same BRT configuration as in the
near-term Year 2015 build alternatives. The changes in roadway geometry and circulation
patterns, the methodology used to develop intersection traffic volumes, and traffic signal
operation assumptions for the build alternative SYNCHRO traffic analysis are summarized
under Section 3.3.3.1, 2015 Build Alternatives.
The following sections analyze the cumulative traffic impacts of the three build alternatives and
the LPA, describing anticipated changes to vehicular travel speed, intersection delay, and LOS.
Travel Speed: Build Alternatives. As seen in 2035 No Build Alternative, the average travel speed
for all the NB and SB streets in the 2035 build alternatives would decline in comparison to
the existing condition. As seen in Tables 3.3-12 and 3.3-13, a comparison of the existing
condition and 2035 build alternatives speed shows the following:
Table 3.3-12: 2035 Horizon Year Southbound Average Speed
STREET
AVERAGE SPEED (MPH)
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
NO BUILD
(ALTERNATIVE 1)
SIDE-LANE BRT
(ALTERNATIVE 2)
CENTER-LANE BRT
(ALTERNATIVES 3 AND 4)
CENTER-LANE BRT
(ALTERNATIVES 3 AND 4)
WITH DESIGN OPTION B
AND THE LPA
Gough
8.4
7-5
6.1
6.5
5-9
Franklin ...
Van Ness
7-7
6.6
6.5
5.6/ 5-6*
6.6/ 6.5*
Polk
8.9
8.1
7-7
7.8
7-6
Larkin ...
Hyde
8.5
7-6
7.0
7-2
7-2
-•The two speeds shown on Van Ness Avenue represent Build Alternative 3/Build Alternative 4. The difference in
speed is due to the lack of a right-turn pocket for SB traveling vehicles at Geary Street and Van Ness Avenue under
Build Alternative 4. Speeds are the same between Build Alternatives 3 and 4 for all other streets. The LPA and the
Northbound Station Variant would have the same average speed SB as Build Alternative 4 with Design Option B.
3-64
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Table 3.3-13: 2035 Horizon Year Northbound Average Speed
STREET
AVERAGE SPEED (MPH)
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
NO BUILD
(ALTERNATIVE l)
SIDE-LANE BRT
(ALTERNATIVE 2)
CENTER-LANE BRT
(ALTERNATIVES 3 AND 4)
CENTER-LANE BRT
(ALTERNATIVES 3 AND 4)
WITH DESIGN OPTION B
ANDTHELPA
Cough ...
Franklin
TO.!
9-i
7-1
7-3
6.2
Van Ness
10.5
8.9
8.6
7-5
9-0/8.8*
Polk
8.8
8.5
8.5
8.5
Larkin
9-5
9-5
9.2
8.8
8.7
Hyde ...
-The two speeds shown on Van Ness Avenue represent Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and the
LPA. The difference in speed is due to the lack of right-turn pockets along NB Van Ness Avenue under the LPA. The
LPA and the Northbound Station Variant would have the same average speed as SB Van Ness Avenue.
• The speed along SB Gough Street would decrease by approximately 2 mph, and the
speed along NB Franklin Street would decrease between 2.8 mph and 3 mph under
Year 2035 Build Alternative 2 and 2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4, respectively, when
compared to the existing condition. Speed along these corridors would decrease the
most (2.5 mph on Gough Street and 3.9 mph on Franklin Street) under Year 2035 Build
Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and the LPA. This would occur due to the
diversion of most left-turning traffic from Van Ness Avenue to these parallel streets
after the elimination of most left-turn opportunities on Van Ness Avenue under Year
2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B with Design Option B.
• Speed along SB Polk and Hyde streets would decrease between 1.1 mph and 1.5 mph in
all three build alternatives and the LPA in Year 2035 when compared with the existing
conditions.
• Speed along NB Polk and Larkin streets would decrease between 0.3 and 0.8 mph in all
three build alternatives and the LPA in Year 2035 when compared with the existing
conditions. Speed along NB Polk Street under the build alternatives would be similar to
the speed in 2035 No Build Alternative.
• Speed along Van Ness Avenue in both directions would decrease between 1.2 and 1.9
mph in Year 2035 for Build Alternative 2 and Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design
Option B (including the LPA), respectively, when compared with the existing
conditions. This speed along Van Ness Avenue under these two alternatives would be
similar to the speed under 2035 No Build Alternative (± 0.3 mph). Speed along Van
Ness Avenue in both directions would decrease the most (2.1 to 3 mph) under Year
2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4. This is mainly due to the increase in traffic volumes for
NB left turns from Van Ness Avenue and changes in signal timing and phasing for
these left turns. Left turns at these intersections can only be made under a protected
phase. The LPA and the Northbound Station Variant would have the same speed as
Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B for all streets except Van Ness
Avenue. Under the 2015 LPA and the Northbound Station Variant, the SB Van Ness
Avenue speed would be the same as 2015 Build Alternative 4. The NB Van Ness
Avenue speed would decrease slightly from 9.0 mph in Design Option B to 8.8 mph in
the LPA (0.2 mph decrease). These small changes in speed may be attributed to the
increase in right-turn traffic making turns from the shared lane under the LPA and thus
slightly decreasing the speed of all movement in the curb lane.
3-66
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
>, « r. r> j t -~ t- o,~;art Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project v ■> v 1
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Traffic Impacts: 2035 Build Alternatives
This section presents the cumulative traffic impacts and the project traffic impacts in year
2035 for the build alternatives. Implementation of each of the proposed build alternatives is
anticipated to result in adverse traffic effects, some of which are considered significant
impacts based on the impact significance thresholds established in the San Francisco Traffic
Impact Analysis Guidelines for Environmental Review (see Section 3.3.3). The cumulative
traffic growth due to development projects by year 2035 would cause cumulative significant
impacts only if the LOS for the 2035 build alternatives would be worse than the existing
conditions. The Van Ness Avenue BRT Project would cause significant project impacts only
if the LOS for the 2035 build alternatives would be worse than 2035 No Build Alternative
based on the significance criteria presented in Section 3.3.3 or if a project-specific impact
was already identified in Year 2015 (representing existing plus project conditions). Other
adverse traffic effects considered less than significant per the San Francisco impact
significance thresholds that would result from the proposed build alternatives are also
identified in the following subsections. Intersections that would continue to operate at LOS
E or F in the build alternatives, but are not impacted by project traffic based on the
significance criteria, are identified below as less than significant impacts.
2035 Long-Term Horizon Year Build Alternative 2: Side-Lane BRT with Street Parking
Under Build Alternative 2, nine intersections would operate at LOS E or F during the PM
peak hour in Horizon Year 2035. Figure 3.3-8 graphically presents 2035 Build Alternative 2
intersection LOS for all intersections. Table 3.3-14 presents a comparison of the average
intersection delay and LOS for the intersections that operate at LOS E or F for the existing
conditions, 2035 No Build Alternative, and 2035 Build Alternative 2 scenarios.
Table 3.3-14: Existing Condition, 2035 Build Alternative 2 (Side-Lane BRT), and No
Build Alternative Intersection LOS (Delay) for Intersections that Operate at LOS E or F
INTERSECTION
EXISTINC CONDITIONS
2035 NO BUILD
ALTERNATIVE
2035BUILD ALTERNATIVE 2
LOS (DELAY)
LOS (DELAY)
LOS (DELAY)
Cough/Green*
F (76.5)
F (93-6)
F (1310)
Cough/Clay*
c (23.9)
D (29.8)
E (38.5)
Gough/Hayes
D (45-9)
F (98.1)
F (177-4)
Franklin/Pine
D (39-5)
E (66.7)
F (88.7)
Franklin/O'Farrell
D (39 3)
E (77-5)
F 033 ')
Franklin/Eddy
B (10.7)
C (24.1)
F (105.9)
Franklin/McAllister
B 057)
c (29.7)
F (90.2)
Van Ness/Pine
C (26.!)
E (64.9)
D (53-9)
Otis/Mission/S. Van Ness
D (46.1)
E (74-0)
E (65 7)
Duboce/Mission/Otis/US 101
Off-Ramp
D (44.4)
F (115 2)
F (93-5)
>'r Unsignalized intersection.
Table shows worst approach LOS (Delay) for an unsignalized intersection.
Table shows intersection LOS (intersection average vehicular delay) for signalized intersections.
Source: SYNCHRO model, CHS Consulting Croup, 201).
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
i6;
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
3-68
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Significant Cumulative Impacts. Based on the significance criteria, the project traffic under
Build Alternative 2 in the 2035 horizon year would cause significant cumulative impacts at
five intersections as follows:
• Cough/Hayes. This intersection is assessed to have significant project-specific impacts
under 2015 Build Alternative 2. Hence, based on the significance criteria (Section 3.3.3),
the proposed project would cause significant cumulative impacts.
• Franklin/Pine. This signalized intersection would decline from LOS D under existing
conditions to LOS F under 2035 Build Alternative 2; therefore, this intersection would
have significant cumulative impacts under 2035 Build Alternative 2. Furthermore, this
signalized intersection would decline from LOS E under 2035 No Build Alternative to
LOS F under 2035 Build Alternative 2; therefore, the proposed project would cause
significant cumulative impacts.
• Franklin/O'Farrell. This intersection is assessed to have significant project-specific
impacts under 2015 Build Alternative 2. Hence, based on the significance criteria
(Section 3.3.3), the proposed project would cause significant cumulative impacts.
• Franklin/Eddy. This signalized intersection would decline from LOS B under existing
conditions to LOS F under 2035 Build Alternative 2; therefore, this intersection would
have significant cumulative impacts under 2035 Build Alternative 2. Furthermore, this
signalized intersection would decline from LOS C under 2035 No Build Alternative to
LOS F under 2035 Build Alternative 2; therefore, the proposed project would cause
significant cumulative impacts.
• Franklin/McAllister. This signalized intersection would decline from LOS B under the
existing conditions to LOS F under 2035 Build Alternative 2; therefore, this intersection
would have cumulative impacts under 2035 Build Alternative 2. Furthermore, this
signalized intersection would decline from LOS C under 2035 No Build Alternative to
LOS F under 2035 Build Alternative 2; therefore, the proposed project would cause
significant cumulative impacts.
Less than Significant Cumulative Impacts. Five additional intersections would operate at LOS E
or F under Build Alternative 2 in the 2035 Horizon Year; however, the contribution of
project traffic is not significant based on the significance criteria. The intersections with less
than significant project impacts include:
• Cough/Green. The SB approach, the worst approach at this four-way stop-controlled
intersection, would perform at LOS F under both the existing condition and 2035 Build
Alternative 2; however, the intersection would not meet the Caltrans peak-hour signal
warrant under both the existing conditions and 2035 Build Alternative 2, and would
therefore not be significant per the impact significance thresholds described in Section
3.3.3. The intersection would also operate at LOS F under 2035 No Build Alternative,
as would the SB approach. There are several possibilities to improve traffic operation at
this intersection, including adding a traffic signal; removing some on-street parking
spaces to create an additional SB approach lane; however, removing parking would |
worsen pedestrian conditions by eliminating the buffer provided by parked cars
separating the sidewalk from the traffic lane, as discussed in Section 3.3.4 (see also
Section 3.4, Nonmotorized Transportation), and past public outreach has indicated thai
the community prefers the stop-sign control of the intersection.
• Cough/Clay. The WB Clay Street approach at this unsignalizcd intersection would
perform at LOS C under the existing conditions and would decline to LOS E at the
worst approach under 2035 Build Alternative 2; however, the intersection would not
meet the Caltrans peak-hour signal warrant under both the existing conditions and 2035
Build Alternative 2, and would therefore not be significant per the impact significance
thresholds described in Section 3.3.3. Potential options that may be used to improve
traffic operations of this intersection include adding a traffic signal, removing some on
street parking spaces on Clay Street to create an additional WB-tO-SB approach lane, or
widening Gough Street SB to two lanes by removing on-strcct parking spaces; however,
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
these improvements would have the adverse effect of parking removal on pedestrian
conditions along Clay and/or Gough Streets and are not recommended.
• South Van Ness/Mission/Otis. This signalized intersection would perform at LOS D
under existing conditions and would decline to LOS E under Build Alternative 2;
therefore, this intersection would have cumulative impacts under 2035 Build Alternative
2. Furthermore, this signalized intersection would perform at LOS E under both 2035
No Build Alternative and Build Alternative 2 conditions; however, the contribution of
project traffic is less than 5 percent to all critical movements. Thus, based on the
significance criteria, the proposed project would cause less than significant cumulative
impacts. The LOS cannot be improved because there is no ROW available to add lanes
at this intersection, and the traffic signal timings are constrained by the pedestrian
minimum timings and cannot be allocated to congested movements.
• Duboce/Mission/Otis/US 101 Off-Ramps. This signalized intersection would decline from
LOS D under existing conditions to LOS F under Build Alternative 2; therefore, this
intersection would have cumulative impacts under 2035 Build Alternative 2.
Furthermore, this signalized intersection would perform at LOS F under both 2035 No
Build Alternative and Build Alternative 2; however, the project does not contribute
traffic to any critical movement that performs at LOS E or F. Thus, based on the
significance criteria, the proposed project would cause less than significant cumulative
impacts. The LOS cannot be improved because there is no ROW available to add lanes
at this intersection, and the traffic signal timings are constrained by the pedestrian
minimum timings and cannot be allocated to congested movements.
• Van Ness/Pine. The intersections of Van Ness and Pine would decline from LOS C
under existing conditions to LOS E under 2035 No Build Alternative, and then improve
to LOS D under Build Alternative 2. This decline in performance between the existing
conditions and 2035 No Build Alternative is due to growth in background traffic. The
improved performance between 2035 No Build Alternative and 2035 Build Alternative
2 is mainly due to traffic diversion away from the intersection.
Sensitivity Analysis at Van Ness Avenue and Geary Street Intersection: In anticipation of expected
developments, the San Francisco Planning Department proposes to widen the sidewalk on
the west side of Van Ness Avenue between Post and Geary streets. This proposed widening
would necessitate removal of the Van Ness Avenue SB exclusive right-turn lane onto Geary
Street. A sensitivity analysis has been performed, assuming the proposed sidewalk widening
occurs. With the approved sidewalk widening and removal of exclusive right-turn lane, LOS
at this intersection would remain unchanged at LOS B.
2035 Long-Term Horizon Year Build Alternatives 3 and 4: Center-Lane BRT Configuration
Under Build Alternatives 3 and 4, 12 intersections would operate at LOS E or F during the
PM peak hour in Horizon Year 2035. Table 3.3-15 provides a comparison of the average
intersection delay and LOS for the intersections that would operate at LOS E or F under the
existing conditions, 2035 No Build Alternative, and 2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4
scenarios. Figure 3.3-9 presents 2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4 intersection LOS for all
intersections.
3-70
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Table 3.3-15: Existing Conditions, 2035 Bu''d Alternatives 3 and 4 (Center-Lane BRT), and
No Build Alternative Intersection LOS (Delay) for Intersections that Operate at LOS E or F
INTERSECTION
EXISTING CONDITIONS
2035 NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE
2035 BUILD ALTERNATIVES
3 AND 4
LOS (DELAY)
LOS (DELAY)
LOS (DELAY)
Gough /C reen "
h 17°-5J
P Im &\
h 193°)
h (IO5. 8)
Gough/Sacramento
\27->)
C (25.2)
P /R-i fi\
r ^ol.Dj
oOUgn J tuQy
A (6.9)
R h a X\
d y
oougn/nayes
u \45-9)
r ^ 1 zz.u 1
Franklin/Pine
u 139-5)
t ^DD.7J
P (-7-7 ^\
b (77-7)
Franklin/O'Farrell
D (39-3)
E (77-5)
F (125-7)
Franklin/Eddy
B (10.7)
C (24.1)
F (102.0)
Franklin/McAllister
B (15-7)
C (29.7)
F(9i-4)
Van Ness/Pine
C (26.1)
E (64.9)
F- (59-4)
Van Ness/Hayes
B (17.9)
D (47-7)
E (74.0)
Otis/Mission/S. Van Ness
D (46.1)
E (74.0)
F (128.2)
Duboce/Mission/Otis/US
101 Off-Ramp
D (44.4)
F (115.2)
F (97-9)
* Unsignalized intersection.
Table shows worst approach LOS (Delay) for an unsignalized intersection.
Table shows intersection LOS (intersection average vehicular delay) for signalized intersections.
Source: SYNCHRO model. CHS Consulting Croup, 2013.
Significant Cumulative Impacts. The Van Ness Avenue BRT Project would cause significant
cumulative impacts at eight study intersections under 2035 Horizon Year Build Alternatives
3 and 4:
• Cough/Sacramento. This signalized intersecdon would decline from LOS C under
existing conditions to LOS F under 2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4; therefore, this
intersection would have cumulative impacts under 2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4.
Furthermore, this signalized intersection would decline from LOS C under 2035 No
Build Alternative to LOS F under 2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4; therefore, the
proposed project would cause significant cumulative impacts.
• Cough/Eddy. This signalized intersection would decline from LOS A under existing
conditions to LOS E under 2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4; therefore, this intersection
would have cumulative impacts under 2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4. This signalized
intersection would decline from LOS B under 2035 No Build Alternative to LOS E
under 2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4; therefore, the proposed project would cause
significant cumulative impacts.
• Cough/Hayes. This intersection is assessed to have significant project-specific impacts
under 2015 Build Alternatives 3 and 4. Hence, based on the significance criteria (Section
3.3.3), the proposed project would cause significant cumulative impacts.
• Franklin/O'Farrell. This intersection is assessed to have significant project-specific
impacts under 2015 Build Alternatives 3 and 4. Hence, based on the significance criteria
(Section 3.3.3), the proposed project would cause significant cumulative impacts.
• Franklin/Eddy. This signalized intersection would decline from LOS B under existing
conditions to LOS F under 2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4; therefore, this intersection
would have cumulative impacts under 2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4. This signalized
intersection would decline from LOS C under 2035 No Build Alternative to LOS F
under 2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4; therefore, the proposed project would cause
significant cumulative impacts.
3-72
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Van Ness Avenue 8us Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
• Franklin/McAllister. This signalized intersection would decline from LOS B under
existing conditions to LOS F under 2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4; therefore, this
intersection would have cumulative impacts under 2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4. This
signalized intersection would decline from LOS C under 2035 No Build Alternative to
LOS F under 2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4; therefore, the proposed project would
cause significant cumulative impacts.
• Van Ness/Hayes. This signalized intersection would decline from LOS B under existing
conditions to LOS E under 2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4; therefore, this intersection
would have cumulative impacts under 2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4. This signalized
intersection would decline from LOS D under 2035 No Build Alternative to LOS E
under 2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4; therefore, the proposed project would cause
significant cumulative impacts.
• South Van Ness/Mission/Otis. This intersection is assessed to have significant project-
specific impacts under 2015 Build Alternatives 3 and 4. Hence, based on the significance
criteria (Section 3.3.3), the proposed project would cause significant cumulative impacts.
Less than Significant Cumulative Impacts. Four additional intersections would operate at LOS
E or F under Build Alternative 2 in the 2035 Horizon Year; however, the contribution of
project traffic is not significant based on the significance criteria. The intersections with less
than significant project impacts include:
• Cough/Green. The SB approach, the worst approach at this four-way stop-controlled
intersection, would perform at LOS F under both existing conditions and 2035 Build
Alternatives 3 and 4; however, the intersection would not meet the Caltrans peak-hour
signal warrant under both existing conditions and 2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4, and
would therefore not be significant per the impact significance thresholds described in
Section 3.3.3. The SB approach would also operate at LOS F under 2035 No Build
Alternative. There are several possibilities to improve traffic operations at this
intersection, including adding a traffic signal; removing some on-street parking spaces to
create an additional SB approach lane; however, removing parking would worsen
pedestrian conditions by eliminating the buffer provided by parked cars separating the
sidewalk from the traffic lane, as discussed in Section 3.3.4 (see also Section 3.4,
Nonmotorized Transportation), and past public outreach has indicated that the
community prefers the stop-sign control of the intersection.
• Franklin/Pine. This signalized intersection would degrade from LOS D under existing
conditions to LOS E under 2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4; therefore, this intersection
would have cumulative impacts under 2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4. Furthermore,
this signalized intersection would perform at LOS E under 2035 No Build Alternative
and Build Alternatives 3 and 4; however, the project does not contribute traffic to any
critical movement that performs at LOS E or F. Thus, based on the significance criteria,
the proposed project would cause less than significant cumulative impacts. One
potential improvement measure is providing an exclusive WB right-turn lane from Van
Ness Avenue to Franklin Street. This can be implemented by instituting a PM peak-
hour tow-away zone along the north side of Pine between Van Ness Avenue and
Franklin Street; however, this would have the adverse effect of parking removal on
pedestrian conditions along Franklin Street.
• Van Ness/Pine. This signalized intersection would perform at LOS C under existing
conditions and degrade to LOS E under 2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4; therefore, this
intersection would have cumulative impacts under 2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4.
Furthermore, this signalized intersection would perform at LOS E under 2035 No Build
Alternative and Build Alternatives 3 and 4. The contribution of project traffic 10 the
critical movement is not significant (i.e., no project traffic added to any critical
movement); therefore, the proposed project would not cause significant cumulative
impacts. One potential improvement measure is providing an exclusive WB right-turn
storage lane of 50 feet. This can be implemented by eliminating two parking spaces on
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 201
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
the north side of Pine Street; however, this mitigation measure is not recommended due
to the adverse effects of parking removal on pedestrian conditions along Pine Street.
• Duboce/Mission/Otis/US 101 Off-Ramps. This signalized intersection would perform at
LOS D under existing conditions and degrade to LOS F under 2035 Build Alternatives
3 and 4; therefore, this intersection would have cumulative impacts under 2035 Build
Alternatives 3 and 4. Furthermore, this signalized intersection would perform at LOS F
under 2035 No Build Alternative and Build Alternatives 3 and 4. However, the project
does not contribute traffic to any critical movement that performs at LOS E or F;
therefore, the proposed project would not cause significant cumulative impacts. The
LOS cannot be improved because there is no ROW available to add lanes at this
intersection, and the traffic signal timings are constrained by the pedestrian minimum
timings and cannot be allocated to congested movements. This intersection would
experience a reduction in traffic volumes under Build Alternatives 3 and 4 in 2035
caused by the diversion of traffic volumes from Van Ness Avenue.
Design Variation between Build Alternative 3 and Build Alternative 4 and Sensitivity Analysis at Van
Ness Avenue and Geary Street Intersection. As discussed in Chapter 2, Van Ness Avenue
between Geary and O'Farrell streets under Build Alternative 4 would have the same
geometric design as Build Alternative 3. Due to this transition from a center-running BRT
with a single median north of Geary Street to a right-side loading BRT with two medians for
this block, the SB Van Ness Avenue exclusive right-turn lane to Geary Street would not be
provided under Build Alternative 4. This intersection operates at LOS B under 2035 Build
Alternative 3. Without the exclusive SB right-turn lane, LOS at this intersection would
operate at LOS C under 2035 Build Alternative 4. The analysis for Build Alternative 4 also
serves as the sensitivity analysis if the San Francisco Planning Department were to widen the
sidewalk under Build Alternative 3, thus requiring elimination of the exclusive SB right-turn
lane onto Geary Street from Van Ness Avenue.
2035 Long-Term Horizon Year Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and the LPA:
Center-Lane BRT
The LPA (including the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant)51 would have the same traffic
impacts as Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B. Because the LPA would have
11 fewer right-turn pockets, there are minor differences in approach average delay between
the LPA and Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B along Van Ness Avenue.
However, none of these differences would cause a new significant intersection LOS impact
or worsen a significant intersection LOS impact compared to the impacts outlined for Build
Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B. For details on LPA performance in 2035, please
see the Vehicular Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum (CHS, 2013).
Under Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and the LPA, 12 intersections would
operate at LOS E or F during the PM peak hour in Horizon Year 2035, which is the same
number of intersections operating at LOS E or F under 2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4. Table
3.3-16 presents a comparison of the average intersection delay and LOS for the intersections that
would operate at LOS E or F under the existing conditions, 2035 No Build Alternative, and 2035
Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and LPA scenarios. Figure 3.3-10 presents
2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B intersection LOS for all intersections.
The Vallejo Northbound Station Variant would have one fewer (2 versus 3) mixed traffic lanes in the SB direction for the block
between Vallejo and Green streets versus the LPA. Under the LPA without the variant, this lane would be used to store
left-turning traffic onto Broadway. Under the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant, that roadway space would be used for
the additional far side NB station at Vallejo Street. In 2015, the Vallejo intersection would operate at LOS A during the PM
peak under the LPA and would operate at a similar LOS with implementation of the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant.
3-74
San Francisco County Transportation Authority ! July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Table 3.3-16: Existing Conditions, 2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4 (Center-Lane BRT)
with Design Option B, and No Build Alternative Intersection LOS (Delay) for
Intersections that Operate at LOS E or F
INTERSECTION
EXISTING 2035 NO BUILD
CONDITIONS ALTERNATIVE
2035 BUILD ALTERNATIVES 3
AND 4 WITH DESIGN OPTION B
AND THE LPA
LOS (DELAY)
LOS (DELAY)
LOS (DELAY)
Gough/Green*
F (76.5)
F (93.6)
F (142.7)
Gough/Clay*
C (23.9)
D (29.8)
E (44-5)
Gough/Sacramento
C (27.1)
C (25.2)
F (102.2)
Gough/Eddy
A (8.9)
B (14.8)
F (107.3)
Gough/Hayes
D (45-9)
F(98.i)
F (126.2)
Franklin/Pine
D (39-5)
E (66.7)
E (78.8)
Franklin/O'Farrell
D (39-3)
E (77-5)
F (115-3)
Franklin/Eddy
B (10.7)
C (24.1)
F (113.1)
Franklin/McAllister
B 057)
C (29-7)
F (143.1)
Franklin/Market
B 07-9)
C (33-1)
F (148.3)
Van Ness/Pine
C (26.1)
E (64.9)
C (21.4)
Otis/Mission/S. Van Ness
D (46.1)
E (74.0)
E (79-0)
Duboce/Mission/Otis/US 101 Off-Ramp
D (44.4)
F (115.2)
F (97-2)
* Unsignalized intersection.
Table shows worst approach LOS (Delay) for an unsignalized intersection
Table shows intersection LOS (intersection average vehicular delay) for si;
;nalized intersections.
Source: SYNCHRO model, CHS Consulting Group, 2013.
Significant Cumulative Impacts. Under Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and
the LPA, the Van Ness Avenue BRT Project would cause significant traffic impacts at the
following eight intersections in 2035.
• Gough/Sacramento. This signalized intersection would decline from LOS C under
existing conditions to LOS F under 2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option
B and the LPA; therefore, this intersection would have cumulative impacts under 2035
Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and the LPA. Furthermore, this
signalized intersection would decline from LOS C under 2035 No Build Alternative to
LOS F under 2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and the LPA;
therefore, the proposed project would cause significant cumulative impacts.
• Gough/Eddy. This signalized intersection would decline from LOS A under existing
conditions to LOS F under 2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and
the LPA; therefore, this intersection would have cumulative impacts under 2035 Build
Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and the LPA. Furthermore, this signalized
intersection would decline from LOS B under 2035 No Build Alternative to LOS F
under 2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and the LPA; therefore,
the proposed project would cause significant cumulative impacts.
• Gough/Hayes. This intersection is assessed to have significant project-specific impacts
under 2015 Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and the LPA. Hence,
based on the significance criteria (Section 3.3.3), the proposed project would cause
significant cumulative impacts.
• Franklin/O'Farrell. This intersection is assessed to have significant project-specific
impacts under 2015 Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and the LPA.
Hence, based on the significance criteria (Section 3.3.3), the proposed project would
cause significant cumulative impacts.
3-76
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
• Franklin/Eddy. This signalized intersection would decline from LOS B under existing
conditions to LOS F under 2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and
the LPA; therefore, this intersection would have cumulative impacts under 2035 Build
Alternatives 3 and 4. Furthermore, this signalized intersection would decline from LOS
C under 2035 No Build Alternative to LOS F under 2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4
with Design Option B and the LPA; therefore, the proposed project would cause
significant cumulative impacts.
• Franklin/McAllister. This signalized intersection would decline from LOS B under
existing conditions to LOS F under 2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option
B and the LPA; therefore, this intersection would have cumulative impacts under 2035
Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and the LPA. Furthermore, this
signalized intersection would decline from LOS C under 2035 No Build Alternative to
LOS F under 2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and the LPA; |
therefore, the proposed project would cause significant traffic impacts.
• Franklin/Market/Page. This intersection is assessed to have significant project-specific
impacts under 2015 Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and the LPA.
Hence, based on the significance criteria (Section 3.3.3), the proposed project would
cause significant cumulative impacts.
• South Van Ness/Mission/Otis. This signalized intersection would decline from LOS D
under existing conditions to LOS E under Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design
Option B and the LPA; therefore, this intersection would have cumulative impacts
under 2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and the LPA.
Furthermore, this signalized intersection would perform at LOS E under 2035 No Build
Alternative and Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and the LPA. The
contribution of project traffic to the critical movement is significant (i.e., greater than 5
percent). Thus, based on the significance criteria, the proposed project would cause
significant cumulative impacts.
Less than Significant Cumulative Impacts. Four additional intersections would have less than
significant impacts. These intersections would operate at LOS E or F under Build Alternatives
3 and 4 with Design Option B and the LPA in 2035; however, the contribution of project j
traffic would not be significant. The intersections with less than significant project impacts are:
• Cough/Creen. The SB approach, the worst approach at this four-way stop-controlled
intersection, would perform at LOS F under both the existing condition and 2035 Build
Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and the LPA; however, the intersection
would not meet the Caltrans peak-hour signal warrant under both the existing condition
and 2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and the LPA, and would
therefore not be significant per the impact significance thresholds described in Section
3.3.3. The intersection would also operate at LOS F under 2035 No Build Alternative,
as would the SB approach. There are several possibilities to improve traffic operations
at this intersection, including adding a traffic signal; removing some on-street parking
spaces to create an additional SB approach lane; however, removing parking would
worsen pedestrian conditions by eliminating the buffer provided by parked cars
separating the sidewalk from the traffic lane, as discussed in Section 3.3.4 (see also
Section 3.4, Nonmotorized Transportation), and past public outreach has indicated that
the community prefers the stop-sign control of the intersection.
• Cough/Clay. The WB Clay Street approach at this unsignalized intersection would
perform at LOS C under the existing conditions and would decline to LOS L. at 1 In-
worst approach under 2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B ami the
LPA; however, the intersection would not meet the Caltrans peak-hour signal warrant
under both the existing condition and 2035 Build Alternative 3 and 4 with Design
Option B and the LPA, and would therefore not be significant per the impact |
significance thresholds described in Section 3.3.3. Potential options that may be used to
improve traffic operations of this intersection include adding a traffic signal, removing
some on-street parking spaces on Clay Street to create an additional \\ B to SB
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
KEY FINDINGS
Under
Build Alternatives 3 and 4
without Design Option B in the
near-term Year 2015, traffic
conditions at three intersections
would be significantly impacted.
Under
Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with
Design Option B in the near-
term Year 2015 (including the
LPA), traffic conditions at two
intersections would be
significantly impacted.
Under Build Alternative 2, in the
near-term Year 2015, the project
would cause significant traffic
impacts at two intersections.
Under the long-term
Horizon Year 2035,
the project would cause
significant traffic impacts at
five to eight intersections,
depending on the alternative.
approach lane, or widening Gough Street SB to two lanes by removing on-street parking
spaces; however, these improvements would have the adverse effect of parking removal
on pedestrian conditions along Clay and/ or Gough Streets and are not recommended.
• Franklin/Pine. This signalized intersecdon would decline from LOS D under existing
conditions to LOS E under Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and the
LPA; therefore, this intersection would have cumulative impacts under 2035 Build
Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and the LPA. Furthermore, this signalized
intersection would operate at LOS E under 2035 No Build Alternative and Build
Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and the LPA; however, the contribution of
project traffic to the critical movements performing at LOS E or F would not be
significant (i.e., less than 5 percent); therefore, the proposed project would cause less
than significant cumulative impacts. One potential improvement measure is providing
an exclusive WB right-turn lane between Van Ness Avenue and Pine Street. This can be
implemented by instituting a PM peak-period tow-away zone along the north side of
Pine; however, this improvement would have the adverse effect of parking removal on
pedestrian conditions along Pine Street and is not recommended.
• Duboce/Mission/Otis/US 101 Off-Ramps. This signalized intersection would perform at LOS
D under existing conditions and decline to LOS F under 2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4
with Design Option B and the LPA; therefore, this intersection would have cumulative
impacts under 2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and the LPA.
Furthermore, this signalized intersection would perform at LOS F under 2035 No Build
Alternative and Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and the LPA; however,
the contribution of project traffic to the critical movements would not be significant (i.e.,
less than 5 percent, or LOS D or better). The LOS cannot be improved because there is no
ROW available to add lanes at this intersection and the traffic signal timings are constrained
by the pedestrian minimum timings and cannot be allocated to congested movements.
• Beneficial Impacts. The intersections of Van Ness and Pine would decline from LOS C
under the existing conditions to LOS E under 2035 No Build Alternative, and then
improve to LOS C under Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and the
LPA. This decline in performance between the existing conditions and 2035 No Build
Alternative is due to growth in background traffic. The improved performance between
2035 No Build Alternative and 2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B
and the LPA is mainly due to traffic diversions away from the intersection.
Design Variation between Build Alternative 3 and Build Alternative 4 with Design Option B and
Sensitivity Analysis at Van Ness Avenue and Geary Street Intersection. As discussed in Chapter 2, Van
Ness Avenue between Geary and O'Farrell streets under Build Alternative 4 with Design
Option B would have the same geometric design as Build Alternative 3 with Design Option B.
Due to this transition from a center-running BRT with a single median north of Geary Street
to a right-side loading BRT with two medians for this block, the SB Van Ness Avenue exclusive
right-turn lane to Geary Street would not be provided under Build Alternative 4 with Design
Option B. This intersection operates at LOS B under 2015 Build Alternative 3 with Design
Option B. Without the exclusive SB right-turn lane, LOS at this intersection would operate at
LOS C under 2015 Build Alternative 4 with Design Option B. The analysis for Build Alternative
4 with Design Option B also serves as the sensitivity analysis if the San Francisco Planning
Department were to widen the sidewalk under Build Alternative 3 with Design Option B, thus
requiring elimination of the exclusive SB right-turn lane onto Geary Street from Van Ness
Avenue. The LPA would include the removal of the right-turn pocket at this intersection.
LPA Vallejo Northbound Station Variant. The Vallejo Northbound Station Variant would have one
fewer (2 versus 3) mixed traffic lanes in the SB direction for the block between Vallejo and
Green streets versus the LPA. Under the LPA without the variant, this lane would be used to
store left-turning traffic onto Broadway. Under the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant, that
roadway space would be used for the additional far side NB station at Vallejo Street. In 2035,
the Vallejo intersection would operate at LOS A during the PM peak under the LPA and
would deteriorate to LOS B with implementation of the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant.
3-78
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
3.3.3.4 I SUMMARY OF VEHICULAR TRAFFIC IMPACTS
This section provides a summary of the Van Ness Avenue BRT Project's vehicular traffic
impacts for the three project alternatives for the near-term 2015 and long-term Horizon
Year 2035. Table 3.3-17 provides a summary of traffic impacts at all intersections that would
operate at LOS E or F in the existing, No Build, or Build Alternative conditions. Key
findings are listed below. As explained in Section 3.3.2.2, the PM peak hour represents the
worst-case scenario to assess vehicular traffic impacts of the proposed project and is used
for the intersection LOS analysis.
• In the existing conditions, only the intersection of Gough and Green streets would
perform at LOS E or F.
• In 2015 No Build Alternative, four intersections would perform at LOS E or LOS F.
The intersection of Mission/South Van Ness/ Otis is the only intersection on Van Ness
Avenue that would perform at LOS E.
• In the near-term 2015 (representing existing plus project conditions), the project would
cause significant project-specific impacts at the intersections of Gough/Hayes and
Franklin/O'Farrell under all three build alternatives. Under Build Alternatives 3 and 4,
the project would also cause significant project-specific impacts at the intersection at the
South Van Ness/Mission/Otis intersection. Under Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with
Design Option B and the LPA, the project would also cause significant project-specific
impacts at the intersection of Franklin and Market streets.
• In 2015, the performance of the Mission/South Van Ness/Otis intersection would
improve from LOS E to LOS D under Build Alternative 2, and Build Alternatives 3 and
4 with Design Option B and the LPA versus Alternative 1 (No Build Alternative), and
the performance of the Mission/Duboce/Otis/US 101 off-ramps would also improve
from LOS E to LOS D under all of the build alternatives versus Alternative 1 (No Build
Alternative). This is due to the diversion of traffic using Van Ness Avenue under 2015
No Build Alternative to other modes, other times of the day, and streets outside the
traffic study area because of the implementation of BRT.
• Under both near-term 2015 and long-term 2035 horizon years, Build Alternative 2
would have the least traffic impacts because of the availability of higher capacity for
vehicles making turns from Van Ness Avenue with protect-permitted left turns, thus
reducing diversions to other parallel streets.
• Under the long-term Horizon Year 2035 No Build Alternative (Alternative 1), seven
intersections would perform at LOS E or LOS F. This is three more than in the 2015 build
alternatives. The intersection of Mission/South Van Ness/Otis is the only intersection on
Van Ness Avenue that would perform at LOS E or LOS F under 2035 No Build Alternative.
• In the long-term Horizon Year 2035, the project would cause significant traffic impacts
at five to eight locations depending on the alternative.
• The project traffic in 2035 would cause significant cumulative impacts at seven of these
same intersections under Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with or without Design Option B,
including the LPA. One additional intersection, the Van Ness/Hayes intersection,
would be impacted under Build Alternatives 3 and 4 without Design Option B. Under
Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and the LPA, one additional
intersection, the Franklin/Market intersection, would be impacted by project traffic.
3.3.4 1 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
This section describes avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures that would lessen
traffic impacts for each build alternative, including the LPA. Whether to adopt mitigation
measures will be decided by the decision makers (i.e., the Authority Board). Decision makers
will consider the Final RIS/EIR prior to deciding whether to approve the project. As part of
that process, decision makers will make any required findings and, for CEQA purposes,
those will include determining whether mitigation measures are feasible or infeaaible,
considering specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations. It the
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Each build alternative, including
the LPA, already incorporates
features that help avoid or
minimize traffic impacts.
Nevertheless, the build
alternatives are forecast to cause
traffic delay impacts at certain
locations. Engineering measures
could mitigate some of these
delay impacts in the near term
but are not feasible due to policy
conflicts, specifically the need to
balance traffic circulation with
pedestrian and transit
circulation and safety.
In addition, these engineering
techniques function by
increasing automobile traffic
capacity and are unlikely to be
effective in the long term due to
the risk of induced demand
3 79
O
CL
01
a:
— u u
</l *-> TO
c on q_
u: u —
-a
cu aj
™ c c
00 E -
ij i >
1 2-
< C
^ LU
LO
>
a.
E
u
n
3
U
IE
>
<4-
o
^
ra
E
E
3
to
-O
I—
Ul 7 UJ <
1 S3 a
£ Q z
£ i 1
5 t «
u Jz
o»t
5 o
a >2 p
=1 > Q ce
3 g Z «
00 5 < ui
m Z Z
O ce 5
I j > o
CD |- ui
I 3
UJ •
b S
< «
*" =>
si
<
?3S
3 c; ui
Q co Z
Z O
< — r —
a
3
> Q Z ce
fz5B
IT Q « C
o =i ui S
N -j > CD
13
< w
^ Q UJ
5 ^ >
a <
O 1
Z ui
o z
Z O
U
u
u
U
00
U
00
U
I/O
U
00
U
00
U
00
U
00
U
00
U
U
00
U
00
U
oo
U
00
U
oo
U
00
CL
00
CL
00
CL
00
CL
00
CL
00
CL
00
Cl
00
Cl
z
CL
z
U
o
U
■a
o
a
c
CL
■a
o
U
z
o
3
a
o z>
a 9 s !
5 3
— P
a. a —
E — 2
~ .E
<
o a
S. 5 1 T S
- U
CD LO
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
decision makers determine that mitigation measures or project alternatives that reduce or
avoid significant impacts are feasible, they will be adopted and incorporated into the project.
If the decision makers determine that mitigation measures are infeasible and that significant
and unavoidable impacts will occur, decision makers will need to adopt findings that the
project will result in economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, notwithstanding
the unavoidable environmental risks of the project.
The discussion also identifies engineering mitigation measures, which may ultimately be
found by the Authority Board to be infeasible, to document the Authority's effort to
consider means of lessening or avoiding the significant traffic impacts anticipated under
each proposed build alternative, and to explain in each case some of the policy and
engineering challenges. The circulation and public comment period of this Draft EIS/EIR
provided an opportunity for input on this approach.
Each build alternative, including the LP A, would incorporate features that help avoid or
minimize traffic impacts through project design, in keeping with the project's objective to
accommodate traffic circulation. These include area-wide signal timing and optimization;
signal priority for BRT on Van Ness Avenue, which also benefits (north/south) mixed
traffic; reducing left-turn movements along the project alignment; and right-turn pockets at
high-demand locations.
Nevertheless, the build alternatives, including the LPA, are forecast to cause traffic delay |
impacts at the locations identified in Section 3.3.3. As discussed in more detail below,
engineering measures could, at some affected intersections, mitigate these delay impacts in the
near term. The engineering mitigation measures primarily include removal of parking tow-away j
lanes or traffic turn pockets, which increase roadway capacity at the affected intersections.52
Such mitigation measures were identified and tested for each project scenario.53
These types of mitigation measures, while reducing localized traffic delays in the short term,
may ultimately be found by the Authority Board to not be feasible due to policy conflicts,
specifically the need to balance traffic circulation with pedestrian and transit circulation and
safety. In addition, these engineering techniques function by increasing automobile traffic
capacity and are unlikely to be effective in the long term due to the risk of induced demand.
Pedestrian Conflicts. The use of tow-away zones and the addition of right-turn pockets would
worsen pedestrian conditions by removing on-street parking, which acts as a buffer from
moving traffic, increasing the levels of moving traffic itself and the associated conflicts with
pedestrians at intersections, and raising exposure of pedestrians to motorized traffic where
turn pockets are added. These outcomes would not support the project purpose and need to
improve pedestrian comfort and safety (see Section 1.3).
The San Francisco General Plan Transportation Element specifically notes the important role
of on-street parking as a buffer between pedestrians and traffic. Policy 18.2 provides that no
additional tow-away zones should be instituted if they would worsen pedestrian safety and
comfort. The buffer provided by parallel parking is especially important on Franklin and
Gough streets, which have narrower sidewalks than the standards recommended in the San
Francisco Better Streets Plan, and higher traffic volumes than Van Ness Avenue.
When evaluating this tradeoff between mitigating traffic delays and inducing new automobile
trips, or worsening pedestrian conditions through parking removal, the Authoritj is guided
by the Transit First Policy in the City Charter. The Transit First Policy states that "Decisions
regarding the use of limited public street and sidewalk space shall encourage the use of
public rights-of-way by pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit" (Citv Charter Article
VIII A, 115, Transit First Policy).
52 Other mitigation measures include conversion of Otis Street to two-way and closing Page Street t<> vehicukl Btffic tor
some project scenarios; these arc discussed in detail in this section.
a Traffic signal timings and offsets were optimized for all mitigation measures.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
)8.
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Induced Demand. Substantial evidence indicates that expanding roadway capacity induces new
vehicle trips and is not an effective way to address congestion over the long term. New
roadway capacity generates new automobile trips that were not previously made, returning
delays to previous levels. Researchers, including Robert Cervero, Mark Hansen, and Robert
Noland, published key findings on this topic starting in 1995.
In 2009, the California Resources Agency adopted revisions to the State CEQA guidelines
that recognize the "induced demand" that results from typical traffic mitigation measures.
The revisions removed from the Guidelines a suggestion to measure and mitigate traffic
impacts with automobile LOS or volume to capacity ratios, citing induced demand as a key
rationale for the change (December, 2009 Final Statement of Reasons,
http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/Final Statement of Reasons.pdf).
The following sections identify those locations that would experience a significant and
unavoidable automobile traffic delay impact by 2015 and/or 2035. Even without the
engineering mitigation measures described below, the number of intersections operating at
LOS E or LOS F under the build alternatives in Year 2015 is no greater than the number of
intersections operating at LOS E or F in the No Build Alternative scenario.
3.3.4.1 I NEAR-TERM (2015) BUILD ALTERNATIVES
This section identifies measures to reduce or eliminate Near-Term (2015) intersection
impacts under the build alternatives (representing existing plus project conditions); however,
the Authority Board may find these mitigation measures to be infeasible as explained below.
2015 Near-Term Build Alternative 2: Side-Lane BRT with Street Parking
As presented in Section 3.3.3.2, two intersections would have a significant and unavoidable
traffic impact in 2015 under Build Alternative 2.
• Cough/Hayes. Traffic impacts at this intersection would primarily result from the Gough
Street SB approach. Provision of a fourth SB through lane on Gough Street through the
implementation of PM peak-period tow-away along the east side of Gough Street between
Ivy and Linden would further improve the intersection's level of service to LOS D.
However, a tow-away lane would worsen pedestrian conditions along the east side of
Gough Street by removing parking during the peak period (see Section 3.4). If the Authority
Board finds the mitigation measure to be infeasible and does not adopt it, project traffic
would cause a significant and unavoidable impact in 2015 under Build Alternative 2.
• Franklin/O'Farrell. Traffic impacts at this intersection would primarily result from the
approximately 360 vehicles making the EB left turn from O'Farrell Street during the PM
peak hour and incurring extensive delays. Adding an exclusive EB left-turn lane would
restore the LOS at this intersection to an acceptable level; however, this mitigation
measure would cause adverse impacts on Muni bus services. O'Farrell Street has a bus-
only lane on the south side of O'Farrell. Providing an EB left-turn lane at Franklin
Street would require this bus-only lane to be converted to a general-purpose lane.
Losing this bus lane would adversely impact Muni bus speed and cause delays. This is an
especially difficult tradeoff given the planned Geary BRT service.. If the Authority
Board finds the mitigation measure to be infeasible and does not adopt it, project traffic
would cause a significant and unavoidable impact in 2015 under Build Alternative 2.
2015 Near-Term Build Alternatives 3 and 4: Center-Lane BRT
As discussed in Section 3.3.3.2, project traffic in Year 2015 under Build Alternatives 3 and 4
would cause a significant impact at three intersections.
• Cough/Hayes. Traffic impacts at this intersection would be primarily a result of the Gough
Street SB approach.. Provision of a fourth SB through lane on Gough Street through the
implementation of a PM peak-period tow-away zone along the east side of Gough Street
Even without these engineering
mitigation measures, the
number of intersections
operating at LOS E or LOS F
under the build alternatives
in Year 2015 is no greater than
the number of intersections
operating at LOS E or F
in the No Build Alternative
scenario.
3-82
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
between Ivy and Linden would improve the intersection's LOS to LOS D. However, a
tow-away lane would worsen pedestrian conditions along the east side of Gough Street
by removing parking during the peak period (see Section 3.4) .If the Authority Board
finds the mitigation measure to be infeasible and does not adopt it, project traffic would
cause a significant and unavoidable impact in 2015 under Build Alternatives 3 and 4.
• Franklin/O'Farrell. Traffic impacts at this intersection would primarily result from the
approximately 360 vehicles making the EB left turn from O'Farrell Street during the PM
peak hour and incurring extensive delays. Adding an exclusive EB left-turn lane would
restore LOS at this intersection to an acceptable level. However, this mitigation measure
would cause adverse impacts on Muni bus services. O'Farrell Street has a bus-only lane
on the south side. Providing an EB left-turn lane at Franklin Street would require this
bus-only lane to be converted to a general-purpose lane. Losing this bus lane would
adversely impact Muni bus speed and cause delays. This is an especially difficult tradeoff
given the planned Geary Corridor BRT service. If the Authority Board finds the
mitigation measure to be infeasible and does not adopt it, project traffic would cause a
significant and unavoidable impact in 2015 under Build Alternatives 3 and 4.
• South Van Ness/Mission/Otis. The LOS at this intersection cannot be improved because
there is no ROW available to add lanes. In addition, the traffic signal timings are
constrained by the pedestrian minimum timings and cannot be allocated to congested
movements. Therefore, this intersection cannot be mitigated, and project traffic would J
cause a significant and unavoidable impact in 2015 under Build Alternatives 3 and 4.
Year 2015 Near-Term Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and the LPA: Center-Lane BRT
As discussed in Section 3.3.3.1, project traffic in 2015 under Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with
Design Option B and the LPA would cause a significant impact at three intersections.
• Cough/Hayes. Traffic impacts at this intersection would be primarily a result of the
Gough Street SB approach. Provision of a fourth SB through lane on Gough Street
through the implementation of a PM peak-period tow-away zone along the east side of
Gough Street between Ivy and Linden would restore the intersection to LOS D.
However, a tow-away lane would worsen pedestrian conditions along the east side of
Gough Street by removing parking during the peak period (see Section 3.4). If the
Authority Board finds the mitigation measure to be infeasible and does not adopt it,
project traffic would cause a significant and unavoidable impact in 2015 under Build
Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and the LPA.
• Franklin/O'Farrell. Traffic impacts at this intersection would be primarily a result of the
approximately 360 vehicles making the EB left turn from O'Farrell Street during the PM
peak hour and incurring extensive delays. Adding an exclusive EB left-turn lane as a
mitigation measure would restore LOS at this intersection to an acceptable level;
however, this mitigation measure would cause adverse impacts on Muni bus services.
O'Farrell Street has a bus-only lane on the south side. Providing an EB left-turn lane it
Franklin Street would require this bus-only lane to be converted to a general-purpose
lane. Losing this bus lane would adversely impact Muni bus speed and cause delays.
This is an especially difficult tradeoff given the planned Geary Corridor BRT service. If
the Authority Board finds the mitigation measure to be infeasible and does not adopt it,
project traffic would cause a significant and unavoidable impact in 2015 under Build
Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and the LPA.
• Franklin/Market. Traffic impacts at this intersection would be primaril) .1 result oi the
delays for the EB left-turn approach from Market Street. This intersection performs
poorly due to the additional NB vehicles making a U-turn onto Otis Street from Mission
Street NB, turning right onto Gough Street NB, turning right onto EB Market Street,
and turning left onto NB Franklin Street. Rerouting Muni buses from EB Page Street to
the proposed two-way Haight Street, closing Page Street to vehicular traffic, and split-
phase timing for EB Page Street added to the Market Street EB left-turn mov ement ...
this signalized intersection This would restore the intersection's performance to ,.n
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
acceptable LOS; however, it would eliminate the Page Street phase of the traffic signal,
which would make it difficult for bicycle users, who heavily utilize Page Street bike
lanes, to access Market Street bike lanes. If the Authority Board finds the mitigation
measure to be infeasible and does not adopt it, project traffic would cause significant
and unavoidable impacts at this intersecdon in 2015 under Build Alternadves 3 and 4
with Design Opdon B and the LPA.
3.3.4.2 I LONG-TERM (2035) BUILD ALTERNATIVES
This section identifies measures to reduce or eliminate Long-Term (2035) intersection
impacts under the build alternatives; however, the Authority Board may find these measures
to be infeasible, as explained below.
2035 Long-Term Horizon Year Build Alternative 2: Side-Lane BRT with Street Parking
As discussed in Section 3.3.3.2, project traffic in 2035 under Build Alternative 2 would cause
a significant impact at five intersections.
• Cough/Hayes. Traffic impacts at this intersection would be primarily a result of the delays
for the Gough Street SB approach. Provision of a fourth SB through lane on Gough
Street through the implementation of a PM peak-period tow-away zone along the east
side of Gough Street between Ivy and Linden and a 125-foot exclusive EB right-turn
lane created by removing six parking spaces on the south side of Hayes Street would
improve the intersection's level of service. However, parking removal would worsen
pedestrian conditions along the east side of Gough Street and the south side of Hayes
Street (see Section 3.4). If the Authority Board finds the mitigation measure to be
infeasible and does not adopt it, project traffic would cause a significant and
unavoidable impact in 2035 under Build Alternative 2.
• Franklin/Pine. Traffic impacts at this intersection would be primarily a result of the
delays for the Pine Street approach. The mitigation measure includes providing an
exclusive WB right-turn lane from Van Ness Avenue to Franklin Street. This mitigation
measure can be implemented by instituting a PM peak-period tow-away zone along the
north side of Pine between Van Ness Avenue and Franklin Street. The intersection
would operate at LOS D after implementation of the mitigation. However, the removal
of parking would have adverse effects on pedestrian conditions. If the Authority Board
finds the mitigation measure to be infeasible and does not adopt it, project traffic would
cause significant impacts at this intersection in 2035 under Build Alternative 2.
• Franklin/O'Farrell. Traffic impacts at this intersection would be primarily a result of the
delays for the O'Farrell Street approach. Adding an exclusive EB left-turn lane is a
mitigation measure that would restore LOS at this intersection to an acceptable level;
however, it would cause adverse impacts on Muni bus services. O'Farrell Street has a bus-
only lane on the south side of O'Farrell. Providing an EB left-turn lane at Franklin Street
would require this bus-only lane to be converted to a general-purpose lane. Losing this
bus lane would adversely impact Muni bus speed and cause delays. This is an especially
difficult trade-off given the planned Geary Corridor BRT service. If the Authority
Board finds the mitigation measure to be infeasible and does not adopt it, project traffic
would cause significant and unavoidable impacts in 2035 under Build Alternative 2.
• Franklin/Eddy. Traffic impacts at this intersection would be primarily a result of the delays
for the Eddy Street approach. The mitigation would be to provide a 50-foot-long exclusive
EB left-turn lane by eliminating two parking spaces on the south side of Eddy. However,
the removal of parking would have adverse effects on pedestrian conditions. If the
Authority Board finds the mitigation measure to be infeasible and does not adopt it, project
traffic would cause significant impacts at this intersection in 2035under Build Alternative 2.
• Franklin/McAllister. Traffic impacts at this intersection would be primarily a result of the
delays for the Franklin Street approach. The mitigation includes adding a fourth NB
through lane created by instituting a PM peak-hour tow-away zone along the west side
3-84
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
of Franklin Street between Fulton and McAllister streets. This would extend the existing
tow-away zone by one block south. However, the removal of parking would have
adverse effects on pedestrian conditions along Franklin Street (see Section 3.4). If the
Authority Board chooses not to adopt the mitigation measure, project traffic would
cause significant impacts at this intersection in 2035 under Build Alternative 2.
2035 Long-Term Horizon Year Build Alternatives 3 and 4: Center-Lane BRT
As discussed in Section 3.3.3.2, the Van Ness Avenue BRT Project would cause a significant
traffic impact at eight intersections in 2035 under Build Alternatives 3 and 4.
• Cough/Sacramento. Traffic impacts at this intersection would be primarily a result of the
Gough Street approach. One mitigation measure is a second SB through lane along
Gough Street. This can be implemented by instituting a PM peak-period tow-away zone
on the west side of Gough Street between Clay and Sacramento streets. However, the
removal of parking would have adverse effects on pedestrian conditions along Gough
Street. If the Authority Board finds the mitigation measure to be infeasible and does not
adopt it, project traffic would cause significant impacts at this intersection in 2035 under
Build Alternatives 3 and 4.
• Cough/Eddy. Traffic impacts at this intersection would be primarily a result of the delays
for the Eddy Street approach. The mitigation includes providing a 50-foot-long exclusive
EB right-turn lane created by eliminating three parking spaces on the south side of
Eddy Street and relocating the bus stop on the near side of Gough to the far side of the
intersection. However, this mitigation measure would have the adverse effects of parking
removal for auto travel lane purposes on pedestrian conditions along Eddy Street in
addition to potential transit access impacts. If the Authority Board finds the mitigation
measure to be infeasible and does not adopt it, project traffic would cause significant
and unavoidable impacts at this intersection in 2035 under Build Alternatives 3 and 4.
• Cough/Hayes. Traffic impacts at this intersection would be primarily a result of the
delays for the Gough Street SB approach. Conditions would be mitigated with provision
of a fourth SB through lane on Gough Street through the implementation of a PM
peak-period tow-away zone along the east side of Gough Street between Ivy and
Linden. In addition, a 100-foot exclusive EB right-turn lane would be provided through
the removal of five parking spaces on the south side of Hayes Street. However, this
would have the adverse effects of parking removal on pedestrian conditions along
Gough Street and Hayes Street. If the Authority Board finds the mitigation measure to
be infeasible and does not adopt it, project traffic would cause significant and
unavoidable impacts at this intersecdon in 2035 under Build Alternatives 3 and 4.
• Franklin/O'Farrell. Traffic impacts at this intersection would be primarily a result of the
delays for the O'Farrell Street approach. The performance of this intersection would be
improved by increasing capacity on NB Franklin Street and EB O'Farrell Street through
additional lanes; however, there is no ROW available along Franklin Street and the
mitigation would impact transit along O'Farrell Street. In addition, adding an exclusive EB
left-turn lane would cause adverse impacts on Muni bus services. O'Farrell Street has a bus-
only lane on the south side of O'Farrell. Providing an EB left-turn lane at Franklin Street
would require this bus-only lane to be converted to a general-purpose lane. Losing this
bus lane would adversely impact Muni bus speed and cause delays. This is an especially
difficult trade-off given the planned Geary Corridor BRT service. If the Authority Board
finds the mitigation measures to be infeasible and docs not adopt them, project traffic
would cause significant and unavoidable impacts in 2035 under Build Alternatives 3 and 4.
• Franklin/Eddy. Traffic impacts at this intersection would be primarily a result of the
delays for the Eddy Street approach. The mitigation measure is providing a 50- foot long
exclusive EB left-turn lane by eliminating two parking spaces on the south side of Eddy
Street. However, this mitigation measure would have the adverse effects of parking
removal for auto travel lane purposes on pedestrian conditions along Eddy Street. If the
Authority Board finds the mitigation measure to be infeasible and does not adopt it.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
project traffic would cause significant impacts at this intersection in 2035 under Build
Alternatives 3 and 4.
• Franklin/McAllister. Traffic impacts at this intersection would be primarily a result of the
delays for the Franklin Street approach. The mitigation measure is a fourth NB through
lane created by instituting a PM peak-period tow-away zone along the west side of
Franklin Street between Fulton and McAllister streets. This would extend the existing
tow-away zone by one block south; however, this mitigation measure would have
adverse effects of parking removal for auto travel lane purposes on pedestrian
conditions along Franklin Street. If the Authority Board finds the mitigation measure to
be infeasible and does not adopt it, project traffic would cause significant impacts at this
intersection in 2035 under Build Alternatives 3 and 4.
• Van Ness/Hayes. Traffic impacts at this intersection would be primarily a result of the
delays for the Van Ness Avenue left-turn approach. The reduction of two existing NB
left-turn bays to one would not accommodate the forecast traffic volumes in 2035. This
impact would be mitigated by diverting a portion of the left-turn volumes upstream in
the SoMa area. Another mitigation measure would involve signage changes discussed
earlier, from the intersection of Duboce/Mission/US 101 off-ramps to Mission and
South Van Ness Avenue, and conversion of Otis Street to a two-way street from
Duboce/Mission to McCoppin. These changes would divert some of the Van Ness
Avenue NB left-turn traffic at Hayes Street to Otis, Gough, Market, and Franklin streets
to reach their destinations. However, this mitigation measure would potentially cause
secondary private vehicle, transit, and bicycle impacts at the Market and Franklin
intersection (would cause the intersection to decline to LOS E) and at the
Duboce/Mission intersection (would require the removal of parking on one side of the
street between Duboce/Mission and Otis/Gough). If the Authority Board finds the
mitigation measure to be infeasible and does not adopt it, project traffic would cause
significant and unavoidable impacts in 2035 under Build Alternatives 3 and 4.
• South Van Ness/Mission/Otis. No improvement is proposed for this intersection because
there is no ROW available to add lanes to this intersection, and the traffic signal timings
are constrained by the pedestrian minimum timings and cannot be allocated to congested
movements. This intersection cannot be mitigated without significant redesign of the
intersection. Therefore, this intersection cannot be mitigated, and project traffic would
cause significant and unavoidable impacts in 2035 under Build Alternatives 3 and 4.
2035 Long-Term Horizon Year Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and the LPA:
Center-Lane BRT
As discussed in Section 3.3.3.2, project traffic under 2035 Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with
Design Option B would cause a significant impact at eight intersections.
• Cough/Sacramento. Traffic impacts at this intersection would be primarily a result of the
delays for the Gough Street approach. The mitigation measure is a second SB through
lane along Gough Street implemented by instituting a PM peak-period tow-away zone
on the west side of Gough Street between Clay and Sacramento streets. However, this
mitigation measure would have the adverse effects of parking removal for auto travel
lane purposes on pedestrian conditions along Gough Street. If the Authority Board
finds the mitigation measure to be infeasible and does not adopt it, project traffic would
cause significant impacts at this intersection in 2035 under Build Alternatives 3 and 4
with Design Option B and the LPA.
• Cough/Eddy. Traffic impacts at this intersection would be primarily a result of the delays
for the Eddy Street approach. The mitigation measure is to provide a 50-foot-long
exclusive EB right-turn lane implemented by eliminating three parking spaces on the
south side of Eddy Street and relocating the bus stop on the near side of Gough to the
far side of the intersection. However, this mitigation measure would have the adverse
effects of parking removal for auto travel lane purposes on pedestrian conditions along
Eddy Street in addition to a potential transit access impact. If the Authority Board finds
3-86
San Francisco County Transportation Authority
I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
the mitigation measure to be infeasible and does not adopt it, project traffic would cause
significant impacts at this intersection in 2035 under Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with
Design Option B and the LPA.
• Cough/Hayes. Traffic impacts at this intersection would be primarily a result of the
delays for the Gough Street SB approach. The mitigation is to provide a fourth SB
through lane on Gough Street through the implementation of PM peak-period tow-
away along the eastside of Gough Street between Ivy and Linden and a 100-foot
exclusive EB right-turn lane created through the removal of five parking spaces on the
south side of Hayes Street. However, parking removal would worsen pedestrian
conditions along the east side of Gough Street and the south side of Hayes Street. If the
Authority Board finds the mitigation measure to be infeasible and does not adopt it,
project traffic would cause significant impacts at this intersection in 2035 under Build
Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and the LPA.
• Franklin/O'Farrell. Traffic impacts at this intersection would be primarily a result of the
delays for the O'Farrell Street approach. The mitigation is to increase capacity on EB
O'Farrell Street through additional lanes; however, ROW is unavailable along Franklin
Street. In addition, adding an exclusive EB left-turn lane would cause adverse impacts on
Muni bus services. O'Farrell Street has a bus-only lane on the south side of O'Farrell.
Providing an EB left-turn lane at Franklin Street would require this bus-only lane to be
converted to a general-purpose lane. Losing this bus lane would adversely impact Muni bus
speed and cause delays. This is an especially difficult trade-off given the planned Geary
Corridor BRT service. If the Authority Board finds the mitigation measures to be infeasible
and does not adopt them, project traffic would cause significant and unavoidable
impacts in 2035 under Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and the LPA.
• Franklin/Eddy. Traffic impacts at this intersection would be primarily a result of the delays
for the Eddy Street approach. The mitigation measure is to provide a 50-foot-long
exclusive EB left-turn lane by eliminating two parking spaces on the south side of Eddy
Street. However, this mitigation measure would have the adverse effects of parking
removal for auto travel lane purposes on pedestrian conditions along Eddy Street (see
Section 3.4). If the Authority Board finds the mitigation measure to be infeasible and
does not adopt it, project traffic would cause significant impacts at this intersection in
2035 under Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and the LPA.
• Franklin/McAllister. Traffic impacts at this intersection would be primarily a result of the
delays for the Franklin Street approach. The mitigation measure is a fourth NB through
lane implemented by instituting a PM peak-period tow-away zone along the west side of
Franklin Street between Fulton and McAllister Street. This would extend the existing tow-
away zone by one block south; however, this mitigation measure would have the ad\ erse
effects of parking removal for auto travel lane purposes on pedestrian conditions along
Franklin Street. If the Authority Board finds the mitigation measure to be infeasible and
does not adopt it, project traffic would cause significant impacts at this intersection in
2035 under Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B and the LPA.
• Franklin/Market. Traffic impacts at this intersection would be primarily a result of the
delays for the EB Market left-turn approach. This intersection would perform poorly
mainly due to the additional NB vehicles making a U-turn onto Otis Street from
Mission Street NB, turning right onto Gough Street, right onto EB Market Street, and
left onto NB Franklin Street. Traffic impacts at this intersection would be significant
and unavoidable. While traffic operations would be improved by closing Page Street to
EB vehicular traffic and adjusting signal timing at this intersection to provide more time
for Market Street EB left-turn movements, these changes would adversely affect
bicyclists using the Page Street bike lanes to access Market Street. If the Authority
Board finds the mitigation measure to be infeasible and does not adopt it, project traffic
would cause significant and unavoidable impacts in 2035 under Build Alternatives 3 and
4 with Design ( >ptdon B and the I PA.
• South Van Ness/Mission/otis. The LOS at tins intersection cannoi be improved because
there is no ROW available to add lanes, and the traffic signal timings are constrained In
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
the pedestrian minimum timings and cannot be allocated to congested movements.
Therefore, this intersection cannot be mitigated, and project traffic would cause
significant and unavoidable impacts in 2035 under Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with
Design Option B and the LPA.
Mitigation Measure M - Traffic Management "Toolbox"
Although these mitigations would not mitigate the traffic impacts to less than significant,
SFMTA will attempt to manage resulting traffic through a "toolbox" of short-term traffic
management strategies to improve traffic management in the study area. The approaches in
the toolbox are not associated with any specific intersection delay, but they would assist the
transition from no-build to build circulation patterns and support smooth multimodal
circulation in the corridor and citywide under a build and cumulative scenario. The toolbox
effort includes raising public awareness of circulation changes; advising drivers of alternate
routes; and pedestrian improvements. These strategies cannot be readily represented in
conventional traffic operations models; therefore, their potential effect on minimizing traffic
delay impacts has not been quantified.
• Driver Wayfinding and Signage. Driver guidance will especially assist infrequent drivers of
the corridor who may not be aware of alternate routes, such as along the Larkin/Hyde
and Franklin/ Gough corridors. Examples of wayfinding/ signage opportunities include
guidance from the US 101 off-ramps to 9th Street/ Civic Center to the Hyde/Larkin NB
corridor, and from NB Mission Street and the Duboce off-ramp to the Otis U-turn with
access to NB Franklin Street. For infrequent drivers heading SB from the northern part
of the corridor, signage/wayfinding could include use of North Point to access
downtown, or right turns off of Van Ness Avenue, such as at Pine, to access Gough.
The Authority will work with Caltrans to develop a driver wayfinding and signage
strategy as part of mitigation measures M-TR-C2 and M-TR-C5, discussed in Section
4.15.1.2. The SFMTA would continue to monitor traffic after construction and during
project operation. If the above-mentioned construction measures prove to be helpful in
minimizing traffic delay impacts, the SFMTA may choose to implement similar
strategies on an as-needed basis during project operation.
• Public Awareness Campaign and Transportation Management Plan (TMP) during Project
Construction. The project construction period is an ideal time to raise public awareness
of circulation changes resulting from the project and to implement wayfinding/ signage,
guidance to alternate routes, and use of parking control officers. As discussed as part of
mitigation measure M-TR-C7 in Section 4.15.1, a TMP would be developed to implement
these concepts during construction. These information channels could also create new
patterns, helping inform drivers during project operation. This campaign should be carried
out with regional agencies, including Caltrans and GGT. The SFMTA would continue to
monitor traffic after construction and during project operation. If the above-mentioned
construction measures prove to be helpful in minimizing traffic delay impacts, the SFMTA
may choose to implement similar strategies on an as-needed basis during project operation.
• Pedestrian Amenities at Additional Corridor Locations. In the long term, pedestrian amenities,
such as countdown signals and pedestrian curb bulbs, could help reduce the severity of
automobile traffic delays through mode shift (i.e., drivers switching to walking).
Recognizing this potential, the City has prioritized pedestrian improvements as part of the
.Road Repaving and Streets Safety Bond (Proposition B) Projects on Gough, Franklin,
and Polk streets (see Section 2.7.1). Ongoing monitoring of travel in the corridor may
identify additional locations for pedestrian improvements based on a combination of
pedestrian and vehicle volumes, infrastructure capabilities, and collision history. These
types of pedestrian improvements cannot be represented in standard traffic or travel
demand models to show a reduction in traffic on an individual project/intersection
basis. Rather, shifts from driving to walking tend to occur as a network of
improvements is implemented. In the near term, they will not worsen traffic conditions.
3-88
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I july 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
3.4 Nonmotorized Transportation
This section summarizes the existing pedestrian and bicycle travel conditions, referred to as
nonmotorized transportation, along Van Ness Avenue and how these conditions would
change with both impacts and benefits by implementation of the BRT build alternatives.
This section summarizes the findings of the Van Ness Avenue BRT Environmental
Review - Analysis of Nonmotorized Transportation Impacts Technical Report prepared in
support of the proposed project (Arup, 2013).
The LP A included in this Final EIS/EIR is a refinement of the center-running alternatives
with limited left turns (Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B), as described in
Chapters 2 and 10. The environmental consequences related to nonmotorized transportation
under the LPA and with the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant are identified as part of the
analysis presented for the build alternatives in this chapter. For many of the pedestrian and
bicycle conditions described in this section, the LPA has identical environmental
consequences to Build Alternatives 3 or 4 with Design Option B, and is so noted.
3.4.1 1 Regulatory Setting
Several City policies and plans govern and guide the nonmotorized transportation
environment along Van Ness Avenue. A summary of these policies and plans follows.
3.4.1.1 I EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE 10-03
On December 20, 2010, Mayor Gavin Newsom signed an Executive Directive (10-03)
directing San Francisco agencies to work toward a citywide target of a 25 percent reduction
in serious and fatal pedestrian injuries by 2016 and a 50 percent reduction by 2021. The
directive also states that the injury prevention goals should be linked with a complementary
citywide goal of increasing walking as a share of trips in San Francisco.
3.4.1.2 I SAN FRANCISCO BETTER STREETS PLAN
The San Francisco Better streets Plan provides a blueprint for the future of San Francisco's
pedestrian environment (San Francisco Planning Department, 2010). This citywide policy
document describes the City's vision, provides design guidelines, and identifies next steps
toward creating an improved pedestrian environment in San Francisco. The plan sets broad
guidelines and does not prioritize policies or street improvement projects or give specific
engineering guidance. Major themes and ideas of the San Francisco Better streets Plan
guidelines include:
• Distinctive, unified streetscape design;
• Space for public life;
• Enhanced pedestrian safety;
• Improved street ecology;
• Universal design;
• Integrating pedestrians with transit;
• Creative use of parking lanes;
• Traffic calming to reduce speeding and enhance pedestrian safety;
• Pedestrian-priority designs; and
• Kxtensive greening of street space.
3.4.1.3 I SFCO
As described in Section 2.2.1, the SFgo program is a package of technology-based
transportation management system tools being developed by SFMTA. The SFgo Program is
comprised of many projects that would be implemented throughout the City, Including the
Van Ness Avenue corridor. The following infrastructure elements of SFgo that are relevant
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
l«9
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
to nonmotorized transportation are planned for implementation in the Van Ness Avenue
corridor by 2015:
• Installation of pedestrian countdown signals on all crosswalk legs at all signalized
intersections along Van Ness Avenue. Pedestrian countdown signals increase pedestrian
safety by giving clear and accurate information about crossing time so that pedestrians
can complete their crossing before cross traffic receives the green light.
• Installation of APS at some additional signalized intersections on Van Ness Avenue.
Currently, APS is installed on Van Ness Avenue at the intersections of Market,
McAllister, Hayes, Grove, and Fell streets.
• Upgrade of curb ramps to meet current City standards and ADA requirements at all
intersections along Van Ness Avenue to provide access to people in wheelchairs and
overall improved pedestrian travel.
3.4.1.4 I SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN
The San Francisco Bicycle Plan includes policies and goals that reflect the City's commitment to
expanding the role and importance of bicycle transportation in San Francisco. The plan presents
a framework for the City to provide a safe and attractive environment needed to promote
bicycling. The plan includes 81 recommended action items to guide the City in becoming more
bicycle friendly and specifies 60 near-term bicycle network improvement projects and other
long-term improvement projects. Specific goals of the San Francisco Bicycle Plan include:
• Making bicycling an integral part of daily life in San Francisco;
• Increasing safe bicycle use;
• Refining and expanding the existing bicycle route network;
• Ensuring plentiful, high-quality bicycle parking;
• Expanding bicycle access to transit and bridges;
• Educating the public about bicycle safety;
• Improving bicycle safety through targeted enforcement;
• Promoting and encouraging safe bicycling;
• Adopting bicycle-friendly practices and policies; and
• Prioritizing and increasing bicycle funding.
The extension of bicycle lanes on Polk Street NB between Market and Grove streets is a near-
term improvement project proposed near Van Ness Avenue. Improvements to the bike route
on Polk Street are planned and are described in Section 5.3, Reasonably Foreseeable Projects.
3.4.L5 I VAN NESS AVENUE AREA PLAN (JULY 1995)
The City adopted the Van Ness Avenue Area Plan in 1986 and created a Van Ness Avenue
Special Use District of the Planning Code in 1988 to implement the plan. The plan is
intended to promote Van Ness Avenue as the City's most prominent north-south boulevard,
lined with high-density mixed-use development and including design features that support a
transit-served pedestrian promenade. The Van Ness Avenue Area Plan identifies the following
objectives and policies relevant to streetscape and nonmotorized transportation:
• Objective 8. Create an attractive street and sidewalk space that contributes to the
transformation of Van Ness Avenue into a residential boulevard.
- Policies 8.1 through 8.4 support landscaping and tree plantings, as well as maintaining
existing sidewalk space abutting major renovation or new development projects.
Policies 8.5 through 8.7 support maintaining existing sidewalk widths and providing
uniform aesthetic sidewalk treatments.
• Objective 9. Provide safe and efficient movement among all users on Van Ness Avenue.
Policies 9.1 through 9.4 support transit service, including reducing conflicts
between transit vehicles and other moving and parked vehicles.
Policies 9.5 through 9.8 aim to reduce conflicts between pedestrians and
automobiles by calling for off-street parking access from minor east-west streets
and prohibitions on new parking access on Van Ness Avenue.
3-90
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
- Policies 9.10 through 9.12 include measures to enhance pedestrian circulation.
- Policy 9.13 discourages freight-loading facilities on Van Ness Avenue.
3.4.1 .6 I MARKET AND OCTAVIA AREA PLAN (OCTOBER 2007)
The Market and Octavia Area Plan guides future development of the Market and Octavia
area. The area plan focuses on improving and creating new opportunities for nonmotorized
travel through infill redevelopment, dense new housing development, and civic and open
spaces that provide attractive outdoor shared places. The plan specifically promotes high-
density housing near transit to encourage more transit, pedestrian, and bicycle trips.
3.4.1.7 I TENDERLOIN - LITTLE SAIGON NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSPORTATION STUDY
The Tenderloin - Little Saigon Neighborhood Transportation Study identifies the
community's high-priority transportation needs and develops conceptual designs and
strategies for transportation improvements to the Tenderloin and Little Saigon
neighborhoods. The community's top priorities for improvement include pedestrian safety,
slower traffic, transit reliability and access, and streetscape.
3.4.1.8 I ADA COMPLIANCE
In the past, it was generally accepted that upgrades to meet ADA requirements were made
on the basis of "touch it, fix it," and identified deficiencies beyond the construction
footprint could be added to a Transition Plan and deferred to a subsequent improvement
project; however, following a recent Cal trans court settlement, this approach has been
replaced with one wherein all noncompliant features within a project limit should be
addressed to the maximum extent feasible. In Caltrans Design Bulletin 83-04, which covers
issues of accessibility, Caltrans specifically recognizes that pavement resurfacing and
rehabilitation projects now trigger ADA upgrades, even though curbs and sidewalks are not
typically modified under such projects. Although preventive maintenance and routine
maintenance work are not considered an alteration and are not required to follow the
guidance, the San Francisco City Attorney has interpreted that pavement resurfacing work
does trigger compliance with ADA requirements.
The Market and Octavia Area
Plan focuses on creating
new opportunities for
nonmotorized travel
through infill development
and outdoor shared spaces.
3.4.2 I Affected Environment
This section describes the existing pedestrian and bicycling conditions or the "affected
environment" for nonmotorized transportation in the Van Ness Avenue corridor.
Pedestrian trips make up 26 percent of total trips to, from, and within the neighborhoods
surrounding Van Ness Avenue on a daily basis, exceeding the citywide average of 18
percent. Neither of these figures accounts for walking to reach transit, which is the primary
mode for 20 percent of trips in the neighborhoods that surround Van Ness Avenue and 17
percent citywide. Because every transit trip begins and ends as a pedestrian trip, altogether
up to 46 percent of trips to, from, or within the neighborhoods surrounding Van Ness
Avenue include a walking or bicycling component, indicating the importance of
nonmotorized travel in the area along Van Ness Avenue.
3.4.2.1 I PEDESTRIAN CONDITIONS
The existing pedestrian conditions of Van Ness Avenue in the proposed BRT project area
arc described in this section.
Pedestrian trips make up
26 percent of total trips to, from,
and within the neighborhoods
surrounding Van Ness Avenue
on a daily basis, exceeding the
citywide average of 18 percent.
Because every transit trip begins
and ends as a pedestrian trip,
altogether up to 46 percent of
trips to, from, or within the
neighborhoods surrounding
Van Ness Avenue include a
walking or bicycling component.
Pedestrian Volumes and Crowding
Van Ness Avenue is characterized by dense development, mixed uses, short block lengths,
gentle grades, short distances between destinations, and frequent transit service, both along
Van Ness Avenue and on connecting cross streets (e.g., Market, Geary, OTarrcll, and
California streets). These factors combine to generate significant pedestrian traffic
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
J9«
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Pedestrians
crowding in
do not experience
Van Ness Avenue
crosswalks.
throughout the corridor. The highest volumes of pedestrian crossings are in the Civic Center
area from Grove Street to Market Street. Moderate activity is observed between California
and O'Farrell streets, while lower activity intersections are located north of Sacramento
Street, coinciding with largely residential areas. In summary, pedestrian crossing activity
largely occurs in three areas: (1) Civic Center near City Hall; (2) Market Street due to
numerous transit connections; and (3) major transit cross-corridors such as Geary Boulevard
and O'Farrell Street (Arup, 2013).
Pedestrians do not experience crowding in Van Ness Avenue crosswalks. Crosswalk density
is a measure of the "maneuvering area" provided for each pedestrian crossing the street,
indicating the level of crowding, and it is a function of pedestrian volumes, crosswalk
dimensions, green time, and expected walking speeds. Table 3.4-1 shows the HCM pedestrian
crowding LOS thresholds. Table 3.4-2 displays the pedestrian crowding LOS calculated
using the HCM method for the five intersections along Van Ness Avenue with the highest
recorded pedestrian count volumes. There are two key assumptions: (1) that pedestrian
volumes counted at each intersection are evenly distributed across all four crossings; and (2)
that pedestrians arrive evenly spaced at the intersections rather than in platoons due to
upstream traffic signals. In cases where crosswalk dimensions differ, the LOS rating reflects
the crossing with the lowest score. Given these assumptions, crosswalk density does not
appear to be a significant issue at these intersections. All crossings have an LOS A except at
Grove Street, which receives an LOS C due to a relatively long and narrow crosswalk on the
south side of the intersection and a shorter pedestrian green time than at other intersections.
Table 3.4-1: Pedestrian Crowding LOS Thresholds
LOS
MANEUVERING AREA PER PERSON
(SQUARE FEET)
A
> 60
B
40 - 60
C
24-4O
D
15-24
E
8-15
F
<8
Source: Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), Transportation Research Board (TRB).
Table 3.4-2: Pedestrian Crowding LOS at High Pedestrian Count Intersections
INTERSECTION
DENSITY LOS CROSSINC VAN NESS
DENSITY LOS CROSSINC SIDE STREET
Geary
A
A
O'Farrell
A
A
Golden Gate
A
A
Grove
C
A
Market
A
A
Source: VISSIM simulation, HCM.
Crosswalk Conditions
Marked crosswalks are present on all four sides of every signalized intersection along Van
Ness Avenue. Crosswalk width across Van Ness Avenue (i.e., the north and south legs of
the intersection) vary considerably, from 10 feet at the Fell, Golden Gate, Post, Bush, Pine,
and Lombard street intersections to 22 feet at McAllister Street and 24 feet at Market Street.
3-92
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Typical crosswalks widths are between 12 and 15 feet across Van Ness Avenue. Crosswalks
running parallel to Van Ness Avenue (i.e., on the west and east legs of the intersection) are
on average 16 feet wide, which corresponds with adjoining sidewalk widths.
Two types of crosswalks are used along Van Ness Avenue - traditional parallel line crosswalks
and high-visibility "ladder" crosswalks. Ladder crosswalks are located at Golden Gate, Turk,
Pacific, and Broadway; all other intersections employ traditional parallel line crosswalks.
Pedestrians have sufficient maneuvering space in crosswalks, even at the busiest crossings.
Each street corner along Van Ness Avenue has at least one curb ramp, allowing access by
people in wheelchairs, as well as providing easier travel for those with strollers, carts, and the
like; however, many ramps have not yet been upgraded to current City standards, which
include the installation of tactile domes for easy identification by visually impaired
pedestrians. Many intersections also have only one ramp, which necessitates more
maneuvering of a wheelchair to cross the street, places users closer to moving traffic, and
can be disorienting to visually impaired pedestrians.
Sidewalk Conditions
Along most of Van Ness Avenue, the sidewalks are 16 feet wide on both sides of the street.
On South Van Ness Avenue between Market and Mission streets, the sidewalk is 22 feet
wide on both sides. According to the Better streets Plan, Van Ness Avenue sidewalks should
be a minimum of 15 feet wide. The existing sidewalks exceed the City's standard of 15 feet
for a sidewalk along a commercial thoroughfare (San Francisco Planning Department, 2010).
Effective sidewalk width, however, is sometimes reduced due to various streetscape
elements, such as bus shelters and passenger waiting areas, trees and landscaping, parking
meters, bicycle racks, newspaper racks, trash receptacles, and OCS support poles/
streetlights. At the same time, these features serve to buffer the sidewalk and pedestrians
from vehicular traffic. A buffer, whether landscaping or curbside parking, can significantly
improve the sidewalk environment and the perception of safety and comfort by pedestrians
(PEDSAFE, 2004). Landscaped planters along the sidewalk between Market and McAllister
streets in the Civic Center provide additional buffer between pedestrians and traffic,
although these also reduce the effective sidewalk width. Nearly all blocks of Van Ness
Avenue between Lombard and Mission streets, in both the NB and SB directions, permit
some degree of curbside parking (i.e., with 8-foot-wide parking lanes).54 ■
Street lighting along Van Ness Avenue is provided by the OCS support pole/streetlight
network and is supplemented by lighting from adjacent properties. The existing streetlight
network does not meet Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) RP-08 minimum illumination
levels for safe roadway lighting on a major arterial/state highway such as Van Ness Avenue.
The Van Ness Avenue BRT Feasibility Study (SFCTA, 2006) found pedestrian-scale lighting
to be an important amenity that is currendy lacking on Van Ness Avenue. The study explains
that Van Ness Avenue has a high level of pedestrian night activities, and there is a need to
improve visibility for vehicles in the roadway, as well as for pedestrians on the sidewalk.
Crossing Distance, Nose Cones, and Curb Bulbs
The longer the distance needed to cross an intersection, the longer the signal time is needed
and the likelihood increases that pedestrians cannot complete the crossing in one signal
cycle. Van Ness Avenue is a wide roadway with six mixed-flow traffic lanes. The average-
crossing distance on Van Ness Avenue is 90 feet (Arup, 2013). The most common crossing |
distance across Van Ness Avenue is 93 feet, but curb bulbs located at 17 crossings reduce
that distance. In addition, the wide median located on some blocks of Van Ness Avenue
The only block that docs not permit parking along one side is the block ot" Van Ness Avenue betw een I ell Uld I l.nc-
streets, where no parking is provided along the cast side of the block.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
serves as a refuge for pedestrians that are unable to finish crossing the street during one light
cycle; however, the medians are not consistently located and range in width from 4 to 14
feet. In addition, many of the medians do not extend across the crosswalk to provide a
protective nose cone (Arup, 2013). Nose cones provide a physical barrier from traffic,
creating a protected space at the crosswalk median to wait for the next signal cycle to finish
crossing the street. They are refuges that extend into the crosswalk with ramps or a level cut-
through for ADA access. Fourteen (14) Van Ness Avenue intersections are equipped with at
least one nose cone, with 3 intersections having nose cones for both the north and south
crosswalks. The intersections with nose cones are listed in Table 3.4-3.
Table 3.4-3: Van Ness Avenue Intersections with Nose Cones - Existing Condition
VAN NESS AVENUE INTERSECTION
SOUTH LEG
NORTH LEG
Hayes Street
X
McAllister Street
X
Golden Gate Avenue
X
Turk Street
X
Ellis Street
X
O'Farrell Street
X
Geary Street
X
Post Street
X
X
Sutter Street
X
X
Bush Street
X
Pine Street
X
California Street
X
X
Sacramento Street
X
Clay Street
X
Total
8
9
Source: SFMTA Striping Plans, 3/2004 and Tqpographic Maps 2009.
Crossing distances of side streets along the corridor (i.e., the east and west legs of Van Ness
Avenue intersections) are between 38 and 50 feet. The crossing distance is significantly
longer in locations with multiple legs, such as the west leg of the Mission Street crossing,
which includes the Duboce and Otis streets legs. Crossings along the east and west legs at
Market Street, Broadway, and Lombard are longer than normal.
Curb bulbs, also known as corner bulbouts or curb extensions, extend the sidewalk into the
intersection and reduce effective curb-to-curb crossing width. Curb bulbs help slower-
moving pedestrians finish crossing within one phase of the traffic light cycle. Additionally,
curb bulbs increase pedestrian visibility, create a larger pedestrian queuing area, provide
additional space for curb ramps (discussed below), produce traffic calming impacts by
visually and physically narrowing the roadway, and can provide streetscape and landscaping
opportunities. The existing, typical curb bulbs on Van Ness Avenue extend 7 feet into the
street and reduce the crossing distance to 86 feet at 17 locations.
Pedestrian Signals
Pedestrian countdown signals visually display the remaining seconds to cross the street,
reducing risk for crossing pedestrians. This is especially important on Van Ness Avenue due
to the relatively long crossing distances. At crossings without a pedestrian countdown signal,
pedestrians can be caught mid-crossing when the light turns yellow with as little as 4 seconds
to reach a curb or median refuge, indicating the strong need for pedestrian signals at these
intersections. Of the 29 signalized intersections along Van Ness Avenue between Lombard
3-94
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
and Mission streets, 15 intersections have pedestrian countdown signals on all crossing legs,
3 intersections have them on some legs, while 11 intersections have no pedestrian signals of
any kind (Arup, 2013). Under SFgo, plans call for the installation of pedestrian countdown
signals on all legs of every intersection in the Van Ness Avenue corridor by 2015, as noted
in the description for the No Build Alternative in Section 2.2.2.
Another type of pedestrian signal is the Accessible Pedestrian Signal (APS). APS is a
pedestrian pushbutton that communicates when to cross the street in a nonvisual manner,
such as audible tones, speech messages, and vibrating surfaces. According to SFMTA's APS
inventory, the following five intersections along Van Ness Avenue are equipped with APS
on some or all crossing legs: Market, Fell, Hayes, Grove, and McAllister streets. Under SFgo,
plans call for the installation of additional APS on Van Ness Avenue signalized intersections.
Signal Timing
The adequacy of pedestrian crossing time is assessed in several ways. First, traffic signals
must be timed so that pedestrians can cross the entire street in the time provided by the
"walk" signal time combined with the "flashing don't walk" signal, yellow, and any all-red
time before the green signal for opposing traffic begins; this time is referred to as the "walk
split". The Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) MUTCD recommends that
pedestrian signals be timed so that the amount of crossing time is adequate for a pedestrian
or wheelchair user starting 6 feet back from the curb face to complete the crossing at 3 feet
per second (fps). The City of San Francisco seeks to provide enough time for a pedestrian
moving at 2.5 fps, where possible.
In addition, guidelines call for pedestrian timing to allow any pedestrian who begins crossing
during the "walk" signal to be able to complete the crossing within the combined "flashing
don't walk," yellow, and all-red time; this is referred to as the "pedestrian clearance time."
The MUTCD recommends that pedestrian signals be timed so that a pedestrian leaving the
curb at the end of the "walk" signal and traveling at 3.5 fps reaches the opposite curb before
a green signal is given to opposing traffic. Only one crossing along Van Ness Avenue meets
the City standard for pedestrian clearance; however, most crossings exceed the minimum
"walk" phase interval of 7.0 seconds, so pedestrian clearance guidelines likely could be met
for some crossings by simply reducing the "walk" phase length and increasing the "flashing
don't walk" phase length. Overall, pedestrian clearance times hover slightly above the 3.5 fps
standard, ranging from 3.5 to 5.0 fps.
Pedestrian signal timing on Van Ness Avenue is slightly below City and national standards
for crossing speeds at all but one intersection with a pedestrian signal, and at 40 percent of
intersections without a pedestrian signal. At crossings with no pedestrian signal, the
vehicular yellow light phase is the only indication that the crossing phase is about to end.
The clearance time for pedestrians is effectively only 3.5 to 4.5 seconds. Walking speeds to
finish this crossing before opposing traffic receives a green signal are up to 21.8 fps, more
than six times the FHWA guideline speed for a pedestrian signal clearance phase. This
reinforces the importance of a pedestrian signal to provide information to pedestrians on the
amount of time remaining to safely cross the street.
Pedestrian Delay
Pedestrian delay reflects the average amount of time an approaching pedestrian must w ait
before crossing the street. Delay represents one way to evaluate LOS for pedestrians. \s
wait times increase, pedestrians are also more likely to disregard a traffic signal, potentially
increasing the probability of collisions. In addition, pedestrian delay reduces the efficiency of
walking as a travel mode. Table 3.4-4 shows the pedestrian delay LOS thresholds, as well .is
the likelihood of pedestrian noncompliance provided in the Transportation Research
Board's (TRB) 2000 I [CM.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Table 3.4-4: Pedestrian Delay LOS Thresholds for Signalized Intersections
LOS
AVERAGE DELAY (SECONDS)
LIKELIHOOD OF NONCOMPLIANCE
A
< IO.O
Low
B
lO.I - 20.0
C
20. 1 - 30.0
Moderate
D
30.1 - 4O.O
E
40.1 - 60.0
High
F
> 60.0
Very High
Source: Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), Transportation Research Board (TRB).
Using these thresholds, the average delay at all intersections along Van Ness Avenue, shown
in Table 3.4-5, is LOS C. Pedestrian delay was simulated using VISSIM. Delay for
pedestrians crossing Van Ness Avenue averages LOS D, with between 30 to 40 seconds of
delay and a moderate to high likelihood of noncompliance with signals. Pedestrians crossing
Mission Street at South Van Ness Avenue fare even worse, with delays between 40 and 60
seconds and a high probability of noncompliance. Pedestrians experience less delay
traversing north-south across cross streets along the proposed BRT segment, where delays
average 21 seconds.
Pedestrians typically experience
twice as much delay at traffic
signals along Van Ness Avenue
than do vehicle occupants. In
general, as wait times increase,
pedestrians are less likely to
comply with the traffic signal,
potentially increasing the
probability of collisions.
Table 3.4-5: Pedestrian Delay LOS at Van Ness Avenue Intersections
INTERSECTION
DELAY LOS CROSSING VAN NESS
DELAY LOS CROSSING SIDE
STREET
AVERAGE DELAY LOS
Clay
c
B
C
Sacramento
c
B
C
California
c
B
c
Pine
D
C
c
Bush
D
C
c
Sutter
D
B
c
Post
C
B
c
Geary
D
B
c
O'Farrell
D
B
c
Ellis
C
B
c
Eddy
C
B
c
Turk
D
B
c
Golden Gate
D
B
c
McAllister
D
B
c
Grove
D
B
c
Hayes
D
C
c
Fell
D
B
c
Market
D
C
c
Mission
D
E
E
Average
D
C
c
Source: VISSIM simulation, Highway Capacity Manual (HCM).
Pedestrians typically experience twice as much delay at traffic signals along Van Ness Avenue
than do vehicle occupants. Pedestrians must typically wait longer to proceed across Van
Ness Avenue, with delays averaging 33 seconds. Delays at some crossings are much greater
3-96
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
than average; the longest mean wait time is 52 seconds crossing Mission Street at South Van
Ness Avenue. By comparison, the longest delay for vehicles at a single intersection approach
is 35 seconds, which is also at Mission Street and South Van Ness Avenue.
Major Collision Locations and Vehicle Right-Turn Volumes
Collision information is collected in the California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records
System (SWITRS) database. According to SWITRS data from 2003 to 2008, major collision
locations coincide with heavy pedestrian volumes at Market Street, in the Civic Center area,
and major transit cross-corridors. Of intersections where pedestrian counts were conducted,
the Broadway, Geary, and O'Farrell intersections had the highest number of collisions per
peak-hour crossing, indicating the highest risk.
Assessing the number of pedestrian collisions by the volume of pedestrians highlights
intersections that are high risk. Peak-hour pedestrian crossings at selected intersections are
used as a level of exposure in Table 3.4-6. Of locations where counts were conducted,
pedestrians crossing at the intersections of Broadway, O'Farrell, Geary, and California
streets had the highest risk of collision (note: SWITRS data do not collect time of day;
therefore, pedestrian collisions at all times are compared to peak-hour crossings).
Table 3.4-6: Pedestrian Collisions by Location (2003-2008)
VAN NESS AVENUE
INTERSECTION
NUMBER OF PEDESTRIAN
COLLISIONS
NUMBER OF PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS
INVOLVING SERIOUS INJURY
NUMBER PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS
PER 1,000 PEAK-HOUR CROSSINGS
Mission
2
2.4
Market
2
1.1
Fell
4
Hayes
2
1
Grove
4
1
2-7
McAllister
2
Golden Gate
2
2.1
Turk
3
Eddy 1
Ellis
O'Farrell
4
3
3-9
Geary
4
3-5
Post
3
Sutter 1
Bush 1
Pine
2
1
California
3
3-3
Sacramento
1
1.6
Clay i
Washington
Jackson
2
Pacific
2
Broadway
2
7-1
Vallejo 1 1
Green
2
Union
1
2 3
Filbert
The intersections of Broadway,
O'Farrell, Geary, and California
streets have the highest risk of
collisions involving pedestrians
within the study area.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Table 3.4-6: Pedestrian Collisions by Location (2003-2008)
VAN NESS AVENUE NUMBER OF PEDESTRIAN
INTERSECTION COLLISIONS
NUMBER OF PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS
INVOLVING SERIOUS INJURY
NUMBER PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS
PER 1,000 PEAK-HOUR CROSSINCS
Greenwich
Lombard
Total 52
n
Source: SWITRS, 2003-08 and pedestrian counts. Risk measures
only shown where pedestrian counts collected.
The cause of many pedestrian-vehicle collisions is difficult to determine from SWITRS data
because pedestrians were assigned fault in nearly half of all cases, and the most common
infraction was an unspecified "pedestrian violation." Drivers were at fault in 40 percent of
the collisions, most commonly for failing to yield ROW to pedestrians while executing a left
turn. Drivers and pedestrians were also each cited in several cases for failing to obey traffic
signs and signals.
The number of vehicular right turns is another factor in pedestrian safety at intersections
that affects pedestrians crossing side streets, north or south along Van Ness Avenue.
Locations with heavy right-turn volumes generally have more conflicts between vehicles and
pedestrians or bicyclists, possibly increasing the number of collisions (Arup, 2013). See
Table 3.4-12 for right- turn volumes at each intersection (existing conditions are assumed to
be similar to the No Build Alternative).
This analysis using SWITRS data does come with a few caveats. First, there are a range of
known factors for pedestrian and vehicle injuries beyond what is provided in SWITRS data.
These include environmental factors such as traffic volumes and free-flow speeds, vehicle
factors such as size and mass, institutional enforcement of safety laws, roadway design and
geometry, and factors related to physical function such as age and disability. Second,
pedestrian injuries are undercounted in San Francisco by 20 to 25 percent, resulting in
underestimation of risk.55 Finally, because the number of pedestrian injuries is small, it is
possible that the differences in pedestrian injuries may not be fully representative of the
difference in risk between those intersections.
DEFINITION
Universal Design is the design of
facilities and environments that
are broadly and easily accessible
to all people and do not require
separated or specialized
facilities. For more information,
visit: www.ncsu.edu/www/ncsu
/design/sods/cud.
Evaluation of Van Ness Avenue According to Universal Design Principles
Universal Design is the design of facilities and environments that are broadly and easily
accessible to all people and do not require separated or specialized facilities. Using the
Universal Design Principles developed by Ron Mace et al. at North Carolina State University,
existing pedestrian conditions and access to transit along Van Ness Avenue was also evaluated
in terms of its adherence to these principles (The Center for Universal Design, 1997).
Principle #i: Equitable Use. This principle refers to a design that is useful and marketable to
people with diverse abilities. Pedestrians on Van Ness Avenue are not segregated either in
their use of the sidewalk and street crossings or in their access to transit stops. Locations
with curb ramps at all corners allow universal access to the sidewalk and to crosswalks,
although access is more difficult at corners with only one ramp and not all ramps meet
current City and ADA standards. Median refuges with protective nose cones, where
provided (see Table 3.4-3), include a level cut-through in the crosswalk for wheelchair
access. Most traffic signals along Van Ness Avenue do not provide equitable use by people
with visual impairments because they do not feature APS. Bus stops are located on the
sidewalk with no grade change and are accessed in the same manner by all transit users.
There is no separate waiting area for passengers with disabilities. All users of buses currently
enter through the front door; however, wheelchair users must use a ramp as opposed to
55 http:/ Avww.ncbi. nlm.ruli.gov/ pubmet/ 16084782
3-98
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
ambulatory riders that use the steps. In addition, passengers that require a ramp must use the
front door to exit the bus versus other users that are able to exit from either the back or the
front door. This can limit boarding and exit opportunities for wheelchair users if there are
obstacles at bus stops such as street furniture or parked cars.
Principle #2: Flexibility in Use. This principle refers to a design that accommodates a wide
range of individual preferences and abilities. Sidewalks along Van Ness Avenue
accommodate a range of physical abilities and speeds, but street crossings do not provide as
much flexibility. Crossings are long, especially when crossing Van Ness Avenue. Several
crosswalks do not have a median refuge, and signal timing typically does not allow for the
slower walking speed of 2.5 fps suggested by City guidelines. Median refuges with railings,
which are provided on some intersection crossings, allow slower pedestrians to rest before
completing the street crossing during the following light cycle. Bus stops are not designed
for activities other than waiting; therefore, they are inflexible in use.
Principle #3: Simple and Intuitive Use. This principle describes a design that is easy to
understand, regardless of the user's experience, knowledge, language skills, or current
concentration level. The arrangement of pedestrian facilities along Van Ness Avenue is
generally standard and intuitive, but locations where a single curb ramp angles toward the
middle of the intersection are more disorienting to pedestrians with visual impairments, for
whom curb ramps help provide orientation for a street crossing. Bus stops are in typical
locations along the curb at street corners and are arranged in a conventional format;
therefore, they are consistent with user expectations. Passengers know to wait on the
sidewalk near the bus stop sign or bus shelter.
Principle #4: Perceptible Information. This principle refers to a design that communicates
necessary information effectively to the user, regardless of ambient conditions or the user's
sensory abilities. Crosswalks on Van Ness Avenue use traditional and high-visibility
markings; however, most traffic signals along Van Ness Avenue do not feature APS and do
not provide perceptible information for people with visual impairments. In addition, tactile
domes are not provided on all crosswalks for easy identification for people with visual
impairments, and the single curb ramps that angle toward the middle of the intersection are
disorienting. Bus stop signage and line information is provided only in a visual format and is
not accessible to people with limited sight.
Principle #5: Tolerance for Error. This principle refers to design that minimizes hazards and the
adverse consequences of accidental or unintended actions. Sidewalks are wide along Van Ness
Avenue and generally buffered from moving traffic by street parking, providing significant
tolerance for error. Street crossings provide less tolerance because of heavy traffic volumes,
especially where crossings are long and refuges are not provided. A bus stop from the sidewalk
requires minimal risk if the passenger is on the same side of the street as the stop, but reaching a
bus stop on the other side requires crossing six lanes of traffic on Van Ness Avenue, entailing
more risk. There is a significant tolerance for error while at a bus stop because the average
sidewalk width is 16 feet, and there is traffic only on one side of the bus stop waiting area.
Principle #6: Low Physical Effort. This principle refers to design that can be used efficiently and
comfortably with a minimum of fatigue. Van Ness Avenue has few hills, with no grades
above 10 percent, and bus stops are located approximately every 700 feet, necessitating
relatively low levels of physical effort to reach a transit stop. No significant effort is required
to access a bus stop because they are level with the sidewalk. Some bus stops are also
equipped with benches, allowing riders to sit and rest when they arrive.
Principle #7: Size and Space for Approach and Use. This principle refers to provision ol
appropriate size and space in design for approach, reach, manipulation, and use regardless of
a user's body size, posture, or mobility. The 16-foot-widc sidewalks and bus stops along Van
Ness Avenue provide adequate space to maneuver wheelchairs and other assistive devices.
Visually locating a bus stop along Van Ness Avenue may be challenging because StreetSCape
elements often obstruct a clear line of sight to bus stop shelters and signs, and these features
are small relative to other structures on the street.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
V99
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
3.4.2.2 I BICYCLE CONDITIONS
Bicyclists using Van Ness Avenue must share travel lanes with automobiles because there
are no designated bicycle lanes. Van Ness Avenue is not a popular cycling route due to
heavy vehicle volumes and the absence of a bicycle lane. Although some bicyclists choose to
use Van Ness Avenue, there is no accurate accounting of the bicycle trip volumes on the
street. The San Francisco 2009 Bicycle Count Report does not include any data for Van
Ness Avenue locations or intersections. Bicyclists typically use the right-most travel lane
adjacent to curbside parking (or adjacent to the curb where parking is not permitted), or ride
on the sidewalks. Van Ness Avenue has some U-shaped bicycle parking facilities, and field
surveys indicate informal use of trees, posts, and news racks for bicycle parking.
The corridor's designated bicycle route is a Class II/III dedicated facility on Polk Street,
which runs parallel to Van Ness Avenue one block east. This facility includes segments of
dedicated bicycle lanes (between Market and Post and between Union and Lombard), as well
as segments where vehicles and cyclists must share travel lanes (from Union to Post).
Bicycle-related collisions are much less common than pedestrian-related ones on Van Ness
Avenue due to the lower volume of bicycle trips. Bicycle-related collisions have typically
occurred in the southern end of the proposed BRT segment between Mission Street and Civic
Center, which is an area where several designated bicycle routes cross Van Ness Avenue.
3.4.3 I Environmental Consequences
The following analysis identifies potential impacts and benefits for nonmotorized
transportation: pedestrians and bicyclists. The analysis compares each build alternative,
including the LPA, relative to the No Build Alternative. The build alternatives, including the
LPA, are evaluated against applicable standards and, where no quantified standards apply,
against the guidance and policies presented in Section 3.4.1.
A build alternative is considered to have an adverse impact on pedestrians or bicyclists if it
performs worse than the No Build Alternative. As stated in the project purpose and need,
Chapter I, the intent of the build alternatives is to improve conditions for pedestrians
compared to the No Build Alternative, in which case a beneficial impact is identified. If a
build alternative performs the same as the No Build Alternative, it is considered to have no
impact. The impact and benefit evaluation for nonmotorized transportation follows,
presented separately for pedestrian and bicycle modes.
3.4.3.1 I PEDESTRIAN IMPACTS
Potential impacts to pedestrians on Van Ness Avenue are identified by evaluating crossing
safety, sidewalk safety, and accessibility for each build alternative.
Pedestrian Crossing Safety
Pedestrian Volumes. Table 3.4-7 provides the pedestrian crossing volume forecast for the
project alternatives. At a minimum, as shown in Table 3.4-7, the No Build Alternative and
Build Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would have the same pedestrian crossing volumes, with or
without incorporation of Design Option B, as would the LPA. Pedestrian volumes would be
heaviest in the segment between Market and Grove streets, which also has the heaviest
current crossing volumes. Table 3.4-7 shows that implementation of any of the build
alternatives would not increase pedestrian crossing volumes or cause crosswalk crowding.56
This does not account for the increased pedestrian volumes associated with the increased transit ridership discussed in
Chapter 3.2. •
Implementation of any
of the build alternatives
would not increase pedestrian
crossing volumes or cause
crosswalk crowding.
3-100
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Table 3.4-7: Forecast Hourly Pedestrian Crossing Volumes
VAN NESS AVENUE INTERSECTION
ALL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES (1-4)-
Union
44O
Clay
950
Broadway
28O
Sacramento
64O
California
920
Pine
560
Bush
560
Sutter
580
Post
600
Geary
1,140
O'Farrell
1,020
Ellis
1,120
Eddy
1,120
Turk
1,120
Golden Gate
1,160
McAllister
1,200
Grove
1,870
Hayes
670
Fell
1,350
Oak
870
Market
2,280
Mission 880
Duboce
1060
'^Approximate forecasted pedestrian crossing volur
nes for the build alternatives are the same as for the No Build Alternative.
Source: SFCTA, 2012.
Crosswalk Conditions and Crossing Experience. The crossing distances and crosswalk width
would not change from existing conditions under the No Build Alternadve.
Under the build alternadves, including the LPA, crosswalks would be restriped to meet City
standards for crosswalk widths and reduce pedestrian crowding. Crossing distances would
vary by build alternadve due to geometric design differences in lane configuration and
median locadon. Table 3.4-8 shows the average median refuge width and curb-to-curb
pedestrian crossing distances for each build alternadve. The average median refuge width tor
the LPA (not shown in the table) would be 9.5 feet, or 9.6 feet with the Vallejo Northbound
Stadon Variant, which is greater than the No Build Alternative and Build Alt ernative 3 but
less than Build Alternatives 2 and 4.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Table 3.4-8: Average Median Refuge Width and Crossing Distances
Under the build alternatives, the
east-west crossing distances
across
Van Ness Avenue would be
reduced due to the addition of
curb bulbs. In addition, each of
the build alternatives, including
Design Option B and the LPA,
would incorporate median
refuges with nose cones at all
signalized intersections.
The proposed build alternatives,
including Design Option B,
would improve signal and timing
conditions and meet required
crossing speeds for pedestrians
at nearly all intersections.
ALTERNATIVE
AVERAGE MEDIAN REFUGE
WIDTH
(FEET)
AVERAGE CROSSING DISTANCE (CURB-TO-
CURB)
(FEET)
No Build Alternative
9.0
91.1
Build Alternative 2
n.8
OD.4
Build Alternative 3
6.0
89.5
Build Alternative 3 with Design Option B
6.4
88.7
Build Alternative 4
12.8
88.8
Build Alternative 4 with Design Option B
13.4
87.6
Note: The average median refuge width for Build Alternative 3 (with or without Design Option
approximately 4 and 9 feet wide.
B) includes both medians, which are
Source: SFCTA, 2012.
The north-south crossing distance at side streets would not change from existing conditions
under the No Build Alternative and build alternatives, including the LPA.
The distance to cross Van Ness Avenue itself (east-west) would not change from existing
conditions under the No Build Alternative. Under the build alternatives, including the LPA,
the east-west crossing distances across Van Ness Avenue would be reduced due to the
addition of curb bulbs. The crossing distance for the LPA would be 89.4 feet, which on
average is 1.7 feet less than existing conditions and the No Build Alternative. The crossing
distance for the LPA would be longer by 0.6-foot to 2.9 feet compared to the other build
alternatives, with the exception of Build Alternative 3 without Design Option B, which is
longer than the LPA by 0.1 -foot. Notably, the pedestrian conditions analysis for the LPA
reflects Caltrans' new guidance in the 2012 Highway Design Manual, which effectively
results in a narrower 5-foot-wide dimension for curb bulbs on Van Ness Avenue57
compared to the 66-foot-dimension assumed for the other build alternatives. Thus, Build
Alternatives 2 through 4, with or without Design Option B, would have a slightly greater
crossing distance if the new Caltrans standard were to be applied in a similar manner as it
was applied to the LPA.
In addition, each of the build alternatives, including Design Option B and the LPA, would
incorporate median refuges with nose cones at all signalized intersections, which would
substantially improve pedestrian crossing conditions. On average, Build Alternatives 2 and 4
would provide median refuges wider than under the No Build Alternative. Build Alternative
3 would result in a higher number of narrow median refuges than under the No Build
Alternative, as indicated in Table 3.4-8. The LPA, with or without the Vallejo Northbound
Station Variant, would provide median refuges consistendy 6 feet or wider (only one refuge
would be narrower than 6 feet, at Mission/South Van Ness Avenue - a result of an existing
condition) compared to the No Build Alternative, which has 27 median refuges that are less
than 6 feet wide.
Under the No Build Alternative, the SFgo Program would install pedestrian countdown
signals on all crosswalk legs and curb ramps with tactile domes that meet current City
standards and ADA requirements at all signalized intersections along Van Ness Avenue, as
well, as APS at some additional signalized intersections by 2015. The build alternatives,
including the LPA, would provide pedestrian countdown signals, curb ramp upgrades, and
APS at all signalized intersections on Van Ness Avenue, resulting in improved pedestrian
crossing safety.
Caltrans. 2012. Highway Design Manual. May 7. fhttp:/ /www.dot,ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/hdmtoc.htm#hdm'). Note
the standard is for a 3-foot-wide buffer between the edge of the travelway and a curb bulb. Given the design
constraints along Van Ness Avenue, the standard results in a 5-foot-wide curb bulb.
3-102
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Pedestrian Signals and Timing. To evaluate signal timing, a crossing speed analysis was
undertaken to estimate how quickly pedestrians would have to cross an intersection given
the allotted signal time, also known as the full walk split (Arup, 2013). To compare average |
crossing speed performance among project alternatives, the number of intersections meeting
FHWA (3.0 fps for full walk split) and City (2.5 fps for full walk split) targets is identified
and compared to the No Build Alternative condition. The number of intersections meeting
these walking speed targets for side street crossings is presented for each build alternative in
Table 3.4-9. All of the build alternatives, including the LPA, would have the same number of
side street crossings meeting the City and FHWA targets as the No Build Alternative and
thus the same number of crossings (i.e., one, at Mission Street) that do not meet the FHWA
target of 3.0 fps or slower.
Table 3.4-9: Side Street Crossings Meeting City and FHWA Walking Speed Targets
during Full Walk Split
MEASURE
NO BUILD
ALT.
BUILD
ALT. 2
BUILD ALT.
3
BUILD ALT. 3
WITH DESIGN
OPTION B
BUILD
ALT. 4
ALT. 4 WITH
DESIGN
OPTION B
Number of crossings meeting
City target of 2.5 fps for full
walk split
27
27
27
27
27
27
Number of crossings meeting
FHWA guideline of 3.0 fps for
full walk split
28
28
28
28
28
28
Number of crossings exceeding
FHWA guideline of 3.0 fps for
full walk split1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 The Mission Street crossing exceeds the FHWA target of 3.0 fps.
Source: SFCTA, 2012.
The number of intersections meeting the FHWA and City targets for east-west Van Ness
Avenue crossings is presented in Table 3.4-10. Under the LPA (not shown in the table), 6
intersections would meet the City target and 24 intersections would meet the FHWA target,
with 5 not meeting the FHWA standard. All of the build alternatives, including the LP \.
would have more east-west Van Ness Avenue crossings that meet the Citv and FHWA
targets than the No Build Alternative and, conversely, fewer crossings exceeding FHWA
targets; therefore, the build alternatives, including the LPA, would improve conditions and
meet required crossing speeds for pedestrians at nearly all intersections.
Table 3.4-10: Van Ness Crossings Meeting City and FHWA Walking Speed Targets
during Full Walk Split
MEASURE
NO BUILD
ALT.
BUILD
ALT. 2
BUILD
ALT. 3
BUILD ALT. 3
WITH DESIGN
OPTION B
BUILD
ALT. 4
ALT. 4 WITH
DESIGN
OPTION B
Number of crossings meeting City
target of 2.5 fps for full walk split
3
M
8
8
8
• 1
Number of crossings meeting FHWA
guideline of 3.0 fps for full walk split
21
27
25
25
25
Number of crossings exceeding FHWA
guideline of 3.0 fps for full walk split
8
2
4
4
4
4
Source: SFCTA, 2012.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
j ioj
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Pedestrian Delay. TRB's HCM provides thresholds for evaluating pedestrian delay, as
described in Section 3.4.2.1. A build alternative would be considered to have an impact if it
would cause an intersection that performs at LOS A through D under the No Build
Alternative to perform with a pedestrian delay LOS of E or F or worsens pedestrian delay
by more than 5 percent at an intersection that is already operating at pedestrian delay LOS E
or F. Table 3.4-11 shows how the build alternatives would compare to the No Build
Alternative in terms of average pedestrian delay and resulting LOS. The LPA (not shown in
the table) would perform the same as Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B.
Pedestrian delay calculations are not available for the ten northernmost intersections in the
study corridor. Of the intersections where data is available, only one intersection — Mission
Street - currently operates at pedestrian LOS E. Based on these criteria, the build
alternatives, including Design Option B and the LPA, would not have an impact because
they would not increase pedestrian delay at any intersection currently operating at LOS A
through D to operate at LOS E or F and would not increase pedestrian delay at Mission
Street by more than 5 percent.
Table 3.4-11: Pedestrian Delay on Van Ness Avenue (seconds)
VAN NESS AVENUE
INTERSECTION
EXISTING
CONDITION
(2007)
NO BUILD
ALTERNATIVE
BUILD
ALTERNATIVE 2
BUILD
ALTERNATIVES
3 AND 4
BUILD
ALTERNATIVES 3
AND 4 WITH
DESICN OPTION B
AVC.
PED.
DELAY1
LOS
AVC.
PED.
DELAY
LOS
AVC.
PED.
DELAY
LOS
AVC.
PED.
DELAY
LOS
AVC.
PED.
DELAY
LOS
Duboce (on Mission)
25
C
36
D
26
C
27
c
27
c
Mission
45
E
45
E
47
E
46
E
44
E
Market
29
C
33
D
35
D
35
D
35
D
Fell
25
C
24
c
28
C
30
c
28
C
Hayes
25
C
29
c
30
D
30
c
30
D
Grove
28
c
32
D
34
D
31
D
30
D
McAllister
24
c
26
C
27
C
29
c
27
C
Golden Gate
23
c
24
C
32
D
30
C
27
C
Turk
23
c
24
c
26
C
24
c
26
C
Eddy
22
c
22
c
27
C
27
c
25
C
Ellis
22
c
21
c
22
c
22
c
23
C
O'Farrell
22
c
24
c
26
c
24
c
24
C
Geary
22
c
24
c
26
c
26
c
26
C
Post
22
c
26
c
27
c
29
c
26
c
Sutter
23
c
26
c
27
c
27
c
26
c
Bush
26
c
30
c
35
D
30
c
36
D
Pine
29
c
33
D
32
D
28
c
33
D
California
22
c
255
c
27
C
27
c
26
C
Sacramento
23
c
25
c
27
C
28
c
30
D
Clay
22
c
23
c
26
c
26
c
24
c
Washington -
Lombard
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
The build alternatives would not
increase pedestrian delay at any
intersection to LOS E or F and
would not increase pedestrian
delay at Mission Street, which
already operates at LOS E, by
more than 5 percent.
3-104
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Table 3.4-11: Pedestrian Delay on Van Ness Avenue (seconds)
VAN NESS AVENUE
INTERSECTION
EXISTING
CONDITION
{2007)
NO BUILD
ALTERNATIVE
BUILD
ALTERNATIVE 2
BUILD
ALTERNATIVES
3 AND 4
BUILD
ALTERNATIVES 3
AND 4 WITH
DESICN OPTION B
AVC. LOS
PED.
DELAY1
AVC. LOS
PED.
DELAY
AVC.
PED.
DELAY
LOS
AVC. LOS
PED.
DELAY
AVC. LOS
PED.
DELAY
TOTAL INTERSECTIONS BY PEDESTRIAN DELAY LOS
LOS A
O
O
O
O
O
LOS B
O
O
o
O
O
LOS C
19 •
15
13
13
17
LOS D
0
4
6
6
2
LOS E
1
1
i
l
1
LOS F
0
O
o
o
O
-Note: Pedestrian delay is provided in seconds. The delay seconds are approximate and could vary by ±3.0 seconds. This variation would not
affect impact findings.
Major Collision Locations, Vehicle Right-Turn Volumes, and Left-Turn Opportunities. By reducing
pedestrian crossing risk, as discussed above, all BRT alternatives would help to reduce the
likelihood of collisions with pedestrians, including at those locations identified in Section
3.4.2.1. In addition, vehicle right-turn volumes were projected to determine areas with
higher right-turn volumes; higher right-turn volumes are associated with more conflicts
between vehicles and pedestrians or bicyclists. Table 3.4-12 shows the number of locations
with right turns, grouped by hourly right-turn volume for each project alternative. The LPA
(not shown in the table), with or without the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant, would
perform similarly to Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B. Right turns, in this
case, include vehicles turning from side streets onto Van Ness Avenue and vehicles turning
from Van Ness Avenue onto side streets. Project alternatives with fewer high-volume
turning locations and more low-volume locations are considered safer for pedestrian
crossings, as well as bicycle travel. The table indicates an improvement in pedestrian
conditions: under all of the build alternatives and the LPA, there would be fewer locations
with 151 or greater right turns per hour and more locations with 50 or fewer right turns per
hour compared to the No Build Alternative.
Table 3.4-12: Right-Turn Locations by Hourly Volume
ALTERNATIVE
NUMBER OF RIGHT-TURN LOCATIONS BY HOURLY VOLUME
0-50
RIGHT TURNS/
HOUR
51-100 RIGHT
TURNS/ HOUR
101-150 RICHT
TURNS/ HOUR
151-200 RICHT
TURNS/ HOUR
200 ♦
RICHT TURNS/
HOUR
No Build Alternative
13
23
11
11
5
Build Alternative 2
16
23
M
6
4
Build Alternatives 3 and 4
16
23
M
6
4
Build Alternatives 3 and 4
with Design Option B
l6
21
16
6
4
Note: Total number of right-turn locations
Source: SFCTA. 2010.
varies slightly by project alternative as
simulated by the traffic
operations models
Finally, the build alternatives, including the LPA, would reduce the number of left-turn |
movements and allow left-turn movements only during a dedicated left-turn signal phase ...
the rematning left-turn pockets. This would also reduce conflicts between pedestrians and
turning vehicles. In existing conditions, the most common reason cited for auto-pcdcs.n.m |
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 201
3 »o$
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
collisions on Van Ness Avenue, when drivers are at fault, is that of auto drivers failing to
yield ROW to pedestrians when making left turns.
Overall, all of the build alternatives (including Design Option B) and the LPA would
perform better than the No Build Alternative for collision reduction on Van Ness Avenue.
In addition to incorporating crossing safety features as discussed in previous sections, the
build alternatives would generally have fewer locations with high volumes of right-turning
vehicles (with more than 150 right-turn movements per hour), more lower-volume right-
turn locations (with 150 or fewer right-turn movements per hour), and fewer left-turn
locations with vehicles only making left turns during a dedicated left-turn signal phase for
Build Alternatives 3 and 4, with or without Design Option B. In addition to the above, the
Van Ness Avenue corridor study area, which encompasses streets parallel to Van Ness
Avenue from Gough to Hyde streets (see Chapter 3.3), would have an overall reduction in
private vehicle volumes with the implementation of BRT. As noted in Section 3.4.2, a
reduction in traffic volumes is associated with a reduction in pedestrian collisions.
It should be noted that Build Alternatives 3 and 4, and the LPA, would require all
passengers to cross a portion of the street with every boarding and alighting to access the
I center platforms. Under Build Alternatives 3 and 4, and the LPA, passengers with a one-way
trip could be exposed to additional traffic that they would not be exposed to under the side
I platforms of Build Alternative 2 and the No Build Alternative; however, most trips are
round-trip, and passengers' exposure on the return trip in the opposite direction would be
reduced by the same amount (because the person would only need to cross from the center
median to the side of Van Ness Avenue instead of all the way across the road as under Build
Alternative 2 and the No Build Alternative). Thus, the net amount of pedestrian exposure
would be the same for all build alternatives, including the LPA, and the No Build
Alternative.
Each of the build alternatives
would result in improvements to
sidewalk safety and comfort
through the creation of curb
bulbs, removal of existing bus
shelters from sidewalks, and
improved sidewalk lighting.
Sidewalk Safety
This section evaluates pedestrian sidewalk safety along Van Ness Avenue. Standards and
thresholds have not been established by the City or other regulatory bodies to measure how
various factors influence sidewalk safety, so a qualitative assessment of sidewalk safety is
presented drawing upon City policies and plans presented in Section 3.4.1.
Pedestrian sidewalk safety, or the perception of safety, is influenced by many factors,
including the width of the sidewalk, the level of pedestrian activity on the sidewalk, the
amount of space between moving traffic on the roadway and pedestrians, and the presence
of objects that help buffer roadway activity from pedestrians on the sidewalk (i.e., parked
cars, grade separations, fences, trees, and landscaping).
Under the No Build Alternative, sidewalk conditions along Van Ness Avenue would not
change from what they are now, with the exception of improved sidewalk lighting that
would occur with replacement of the OCS support pole/streetlight network. New lighting
would meet current lighting requirements for safety and would improve the pedestrian
environment. Street furniture, sidewalk width, and street parking spaces would remain.
Under the build alternatives, including the LPA, the average sidewalk width of 16 feet would
remain the same throughout Van Ness Avenue. Replacement of the OCS support
pole/streetlight network under the build alternatives, including the LPA, would result in
improved pedestrian lighting, which would improve sidewalk safety. Existing bus stop
shelters and signage would be removed from the sidewalk because proposed BRT stations
would be located on curb extensions or in the median, and they would not take up sidewalk
space as do existing bus shelters. This would open up sidewalk space over conditions in the
No Build Alternative. Moreover, curb bulbs proposed under the build alternatives, including
the LPA, would create additional sidewalk space available to pedestrians compared to the
No Build Alternative condition.
3-106
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Streetscape features, such as curbside parking, sidewalk trees, landscaped planters,
newspaper racks, and bicycle racks, would continue to serve as a buffer between the
sidewalk and vehicular traffic throughout most of the corridor; however, each build
alternadve, including the LPA, would result in the removal of curbside parking along some
blocks of Van Ness Avenue, as described in Section 3.5, Parking. Table 4.2-11 in Section
4.2, Community Impacts, lists the locations where a substantial reduction in parking would
occur under each build alternative compared with the existing condition. As noted in detail
in Table 4.2-10, parking would be completely removed, or nearly completely removed along |
both sides of the block on the following blocks of Van Ness Avenue:
• Between Sutter and Bush streets under the LPA;
• Between Bush and Pine streets under Build Alternative 4 without Design Option B;
• Between Sacramento and Clay streets under the LPA;
• Between Jackson and Pacific streets under the LPA;
• Between Broadway and Vallejo Street under Build Alternatives 3 and 4, with or without
Design Option B, and the LPA; and
• Between Vallejo and Green streets under the LPA, including with the Vallejo
Northbound Station Variant.
The following blocks are the only two locations where parking would be removed on the
same side of the street for two consecutive blocks. For these blocks in the Civic Center,
curbside planters are located between the sidewalk and street, serving as a buffer between
the sidewalk and vehicular traffic. Under the LPA, the project proposes to implement an
approximate 2-foot-wide buffer, possibly in the form of planters, on the blocks between
Geary and O'Farrell streets and Broadway and Green Street on both sides of the street due
to the lack of a buffer provided by a parking lane or planters on those blocks.
• Between Market and Fell streets under Build Alternative 3 with or without Design
Option B (west side);
• Between Fell and Hayes streets under Build Alternative 3 without Design Option B, and
under Build Alternative 4 without Design Option B (west side);
• Between Broadway and Vallejo Street under Build Alternatives 3 (east and west sides)
and 4 (east and west sides), with or without Design Option B, and the LPA (east and
west sides);58 and
• Between Vallejo and Green streets under the LPA (east and west sides).59
Thus, the Van Ness Avenue corridor would retain a fairly even distribution of most curbside
parking throughout the corridor under all of the build alternatives, including the LPA, and the
loss of the street parking buffer on limited blocks under the build alternatives, including the
LPA, would not substantially change overall sidewalk safety and comfort along Van Ness
Avenue. The LPA would also include guardrails along the sidewalk side of the platform, except
at station entrances next to crosswalks, as described for Alternative 3 in the Draft EIS/EIR.
This design would reduce the amount of transit riders crossing outside of crosswalks to reach
the station. In summary, each of the build alternatives (including Design Option B) and the
LPA would result in improvements to sidewalk safety through the creation of curb bulbs,
removal of existing bus shelters from sidewalks, and improved sidewalk lighting. Removal of
a street parking buffer would occur in limited locations under the build alternatives,
including the LPA; however, most street blocks would retain a street parking buffer.
Pedestrian Accessibility
Pedestrian accessibility is evaluated by application of the Universal Design principles. The
seven principles of Universal Design described in Section 3.4.2.1 are used to evaluate the
5S Parking would be removed on both sides of the street for the L.PA with the Vallejo Northbound Station Design
Variant.
Ibid.
All of the proposed build
alternatives would
result in overall improvements
on the Universal Design
principle of Equitable Use
on Van Ness Avenue in
comparison to the
No Build Alternative.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 201
J-107
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
1 project alternatives. This analysis reviews the extent to which each alternative meets the
needs of all users, while recognizing that different users may have different concerns. Some
may be more interested in faster transit sendee through the corridor, while others prefer
more frequent transit stops; therefore, the performance of each alternative is evaluated
qualitatively with a description of the advantages and disadvantages if offers to users of
different preferences.
Equitable Use. Each of the build alternatives, including the LPA, would benefit wheelchair users
by installing raised station platforms to allow level or near level boarding. Wheelchair users
would be able to roll directly onto the bus, entering just as other riders do, with all of the build
I alternatives, including the LPA. Under the No Build Alternative, new buses planned for the
corridor by 2015 would ease vehicle access for most passengers by providing low-floor
boarding; however, these buses would not provide level or near level boarding so wheelchair
users would continue to use a separate wheelchair lift or ramp to enter and exit buses.
Transit stations under the No Build Alternative would be accessed in the same manner by all
persons, as bus stops would remain as they currently exist. Under Build Alternative 2, BRT
stations would be located on sidewalk extensions that would be accessed by a short ramp
from the sidewalk and would be accessible to all persons. Steps would provide an additional
means for ambulatory customers to reach the platform, resulting in differing platform access
routes. Under Build Alternatives 3 and 4 and the LPA, center-lane BRT stations would be
located on raised platforms accessed by a short ramp from the crosswalk. Transit waiting
areas are shared between all users under each build alternative, including the LPA.
Sidewalk accessibility under the No Build Alternative would improve through
implementation of the following SFgo initiatives: upgrade of curb ramps at all intersections
along Van Ness Avenue to allow universal access to the sidewalk and to crosswalks,
including access by people in wheelchairs and those with visual impairments through tactile
domes; installation of APS at some signalized intersections to ease street crossings and
transit access for pedestrians with limited vision; and installation of pedestrian countdown
signals on all crosswalk legs at all signalized intersections along Van Ness Avenue. The build
alternatives, including the LPA, would include the same aforementioned improvements to
sidewalk accessibility, but to a greater extent than under the No Build Alternative because
APS would be installed at all signalized intersections and curb bulbs would be installed at
most signalized intersections to improve visibility between motorists and pedestrians,
shorten the crossing distance across Van Ness Avenue, and reduce the speed of right-
turning traffic. In addition, the removal of existing bus stops from the sidewalk, as proposed
under the build alternatives, would open up additional sidewalk space.
In summary, all of the build alternatives, including the LPA, would result in overall
improvements to Equitable Use on Van Ness Avenue in comparison to the No Build
Alternative.
Flexibility in Use. The No Build Alternative would not change Flexibility in Use characteristics
of Van Ness Avenue. There would be no significant difference in Flexibility in Use of the
BRT system between the build alternatives; however, the BRT build alternatives, including
the LPA, improve pedestrian street crossings along Van Ness Avenue to accommodate a
greater range of physical abilities. Under the No Build Alternative, the average crossing
distance of Van Ness Avenue would remain approximately 91 feet, as summarized in Table
3.4-8. This distance is reduced by an average of nearly 5 feet under Build Alternative 2, an
average of approximately 1-foot under Build Alternative 3, an average of approximately 2
feet under Build Alternative 4 with incorporation of corner bulbs, and an average of 1.7 feet
under the LPA. All of the build alternatives, including the LPA, would reduce the crossing
distances to median refuges through construction of corner bulbs, making it easier for
slower pedestrians to reach a resting area if they are unable to cross the street during one
light cycle. Table 3.4-13 provides the number of corner bulbs to be provided under all of the
build alternatives. The LPA would provide 30 corner bulbs in the SB direction and 34
corner bulbs in the NB direction for a total of 64 corner bulbs. The average distance to a
The BRT build alternatives
improve pedestrian
street crossings along
Van Ness Avenue to
accommodate a greater
range of physical abilities.
All of the proposed build
alternatives would improve on
the Universal Design principle of
Flexibility in Use relative to the
No Build Alternative.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
refuge would remain 41 feet under the No Build Alternative and decrease to between 37 and
38 feet under Build Alternatives 2 and 4 (39 feet with the LP A). Build Alternative 3
(including Design Option B) has two narrower medians at each intersection rather than a
single wide median under other build alternatives; as a result, distances to the nearest median
are shorter, averaging 27 to 28 feet, but there is less refuge space at each median. If the 4-
foot medians in Build Alternative 3 are considered less than standard from a Universal
Design standpoint, then the average distance to the larger, 9-foot refuge in Build Alternative
3 (and the stations in the LPA) would be similar to the distance under Build Alternatives 2
and 4; however, the distance to the 9-foot refuge (or station location for the LPA) from the
curb would be different depending on the direction of crossing, because the median (or
station location) configuration changes throughout the alignment. For example, the 9-foot
refuge is located closer to the east curb when it provides a NB station and closer to the west
curb when it provides a SB station. Thus, under Build Alternative 3 (and at station locations
under the LPA), people would need to travel a longer distance to reach a refuge at some
intersections in comparison to Build Alternatives 3 and 4 and the No Build Alternative.
All of the build alternatives, including the LPA, would include the installation of median j
nose cones at intersections, providing refuge space for slower pedestrians to rest if they are
unable to cross the street during one light cycle. As detailed in Table 3.4-14, the build
alternatives would provide between 52 and 55 median nose cones (56 for the LPA), with
one at nearly every crossing, compared with 17 under the No Build Alternative. The LPA
would provide median nose cones at all 29 intersections, with 28 median nose cones on a
south leg of an intersection and 28 median nose cones on a north leg of an intersection for a
total of 56 median nose cones.
Table 3.4-13: Number of Corner Bulbs by Alternative along Van Ness Avenue
ALTERNATIVE
CORNER BULBS IN SB CORNER BULBS IN NB TOTAL CORNER BULBS
DIRECTION DIRECTION
No Build Alternative
H
15
29
Build Alternative 2
39
34
73
Build Alternative 3
25
26
51
Build Alternative 3 with Design Option B
31
28
59
Build Alternative 4
29
30
59
Build Alternative 4 with Design Option B
35
35
70
Source: SFCTA, 2010.
Table 3.4-14: Number of Nose Cones along Van Ness Aven
ue
ALTERNATIVE INTERSECTIONS WITH
NOSE CONES
NOSE CONES ON
SOUTH LEC
INTERSECTION
NOSE CONES ON
NORTH LEC
INTERSECTION
TOTAL NOSE
CONES
No Build Alternative 14
8
9
17
Build Alternative 2 29
28
27
55
Build Alternative 3 26
26
26
52
Build Alternative 3 with
Design Option B 26
26
26
52
Build Alternative 4 28
27
27
54
Build Alternative with
Design Option B 28
27
27
54
Source: SFCTA, 2010.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
3109
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Under Build Alternatives 3 and
4, locating and accessing transit
stops may be more difficult
for some users than under
Build Alternative 2 and the
No Build Alternative
(Alternative 1) because the
center-lane BRT stations would
not be typical. Passengers would
need to perceive that these
BRT stations are located in the
center of the street.
Build Alternatives 3 and 4
may provide slightly less
intuitive transit access than
Build Alternative 2 and the
No Build Alternative, but the
Universal Design principle of
Simple and Intuitive Use could
be optimized through
design measures.
Under Build Alternative 2 an additional 1 1 Van Ness Avenue intersections would meet the
City's standard for walking speed of 2.5 fps at a crossing, while an additional 5 intersections
would meet this standard under Build Alternatives 3 and 4 (including Design Option B).
Under the LP A, an additional 3 intersections would meet this standard compared to the No
Build Alternative. Under each build alternative, all of the intersections would meet the
FHWA guidelines for a walking speed of 3 fps or less, with the exception of crossing Van
Ness Avenue at Lombard and Mission streets, and crossing Mission Street at South Van
Ness Avenue. For Build Alternatives 3 and 4 (including Design Option B and the LP A),
crossing Van Ness Avenue at Jackson Street and Broadway would also require speeds
slightly above this threshold (3.1 and 3.2 fps, respectively). The build alternatives, including
the LPA, would also require a 3.2-fps speed crossing Van Ness Avenue at Filbert Street.
Overall, the build alternatives would provide a significant improvement over the No Build
Alternative, which has 9 intersections in the study that exceed the FHWA guidelines.
All of the build alternatives (including Design Option B and the LPA) would improve
Flexibility in Use relative to the No Build Alternative.
Simple and Intuitive Use. Under the No Build Alternative, the arrangement of pedestrian
facilities on Van Ness Avenue would continue to be generally simple and intuitive, and it
would improve through the provision of SFgo initiatives, including upgrade of curb ramps
to remove ramps that point toward the middle of the intersection and installation of tactile
domes, installation of APS at some signalized intersections, and installation of pedestrian
countdown signals on all crosswalk legs at all signalized intersections.
Another change in Simple and Intuitive Use that would occur under the build alternatives is
clear differentiation of space between pedestrian areas and transit waiting areas. This
arrangement is likely to be more intuitive than under the No Build Alternative, where
passengers would continue to wait on the sidewalk near the bus stop. Under Build
Alternatives 3 and 4 and the LPA, locating and accessing transit stops may be more difficult
for some users than under Build Alternative 2 and the No Build Alternative because the
center-lane BRT stations would not be typical. Passengers would need to perceive that these
BRT stations are located in the center of the street. Build Alternative 4 may be particularly
challenging because users would need to determine the direction the bus platform serves
because similar looking platforms would serve NB only, SB only, or both NB and SB bus
service at different locations. Under Build Alternatives 3 and 4 and the LPA, passengers
would also disembark buses on a platform with traffic on both sides, which may be
disorienting. Build Alternative 3 and the LPA may be particularly challenging because the
platform is relatively narrow. These challenges could also be mitigated or minimized with a
comprehensive wayfinding system that would allow all users to navigate to and from the
correct platform. Moreover, median transit stops are not without precedent. Many existing
Muni light rail and bus stops are located at center islands, including the light rail stations on
the T-Third, Market Street, 19th Avenue, and the Embarcadero.
The low-floor buses and raised platforms to be used in all of the build alternatives would
allow wheelchairs to roll directly on and off the bus at BRT stations along Van Ness
Avenue, providing easier access to most patrons at all stops within the BRT corridor.
Outside the BRT corridor, wheelchair users would board and exit through the front right
door, which would deploy a ramp. Wheelchair users would be able to board and exit
through the same door under Build Alternatives 2 and 3 (including Design Option B) and
the LPA. Under Build Alternative 4, all passengers, including wheelchair users, would board
and exit from the left-side doors within the BRT corridor; these doors are located behind
the driver. Under Build Alternative 4 (including Design Option B), wheelchair users that
board within the BRT corridor to travel to a destination outside the corridor would need to
negotiate to the opposite side of the bus (and vice-versa). Moreover, they would also need to
make their way to the front of the bus to exit from the right-side front door outside the
BRT corridor (and vice-versa). For Build Alternative 4, bus design should incorporate an
intuitive seating space for users requiring level or near level boarding that is easily accessible
to both the front door on the right side and the door behind the operator on the left side. In
3-110
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
addition, stop announcements of which door will open could be used to help clarify
confusion for passengers. As part of project implementation, sufficient information would
be provided to inform ambulatory passengers that board at BRT stations that they would
need to exit through the front, right doors for stops outside the Van Ness Avenue corridor.
In summary, the arrangement of pedestrian facilities along Van Ness Avenue would remain
generally standard and intuitive under all of the build alternatives (including Design Option
B) and the LPA. Build Alternatives 3 and 4 and the LPA may provide slighdy less intuitive
transit access than Build Alternative 2 and the No Build Alternative. Simple and Intuitive
Use could be optimized through the following design measures:
• Comprehensive wayfinding system allowing all users to navigate to and from the correct
platform;
• For Build Alternative 4, bus vehicle design should incorporate an intuitive seating space
for users requiring level or near level boarding that is easily accessible to both the front
door on the right side and the door behind the operator on the left side;
• For Build Alternative 4, stop announcements of which door will open could be used to
help clarify any confusion for passengers.
• Sufficient information should be provided to inform less ambulatory passengers that
board at BRT stations that they would need to exit through the front, right doors for
stops outside the Van Ness Avenue corridor.
Perceptible Information. Under the No Build Alternative, the arrangement of pedestrian
facilities would remain generally standard and intuitive, and improvements with the SFgo
initiatives would include upgrade of curb ramps to remove all existing, disorienting curb
ramps that angle toward the middle of intersections and replace them with curb ramps
angled toward crosswalks at all intersections; installation of APS at some signalized
intersections to ease street crossings and transit access for pedestrians with limited vision;
and installation of pedestrian countdown signals on all crosswalk legs at all signalized
intersections along Van Ness Avenue. The build alternatives, including the LPA, would
include the same improvements, but to a greater extent than under the No Build Alternative
because APS would be installed at all signalized intersections, and curb bulbs would be
installed at most signalized intersections.
Under the center-lane configured BRT alternatives (Build Alternatives 3 and 4, including
Design Option B, and the LPA), it may be more difficult for some users to perceive how to
access the BRT stations, because the route from the sidewalk to the platform is less clear
and direct than to a platform that is on the sidewalk or on a curb extension. Center-lane
located BRT stations may be more difficult for some users to reach because they would
require crossing a portion of the street, then turning up a ramp to enter the platform. To
maximize perceptible information, all proposed BRT platforms should include ample
wayfinding and nonvisual detection. Nonvisual detections, such as audible sounds or
changes in pavement feel, could help improve nonvisual perception of the station location
for center-lane configured alternatives.
Visual identification of transit stops would improve under the proposed project due to
upgraded shelters, platforms, lighting, and signage. BRT alternatives w ith center lane located
stations (Build Alternatives 3 and 4 and the LPA) would likely be the easiest to identify
because their location in the center of the street improves the line of sight to stations and
lends additional visual prominence relative to stations on the side of the street; however, as
noted in the "Simple and Intuitive" section above, under Build Alternative 4, the direction
of bus travel at a given platform could be more difficult to perceive for some users.
In summary, Build Alternatives 3 and 4 (including Design Option Ii), and the I PA, may
provide less perceptible information for transit station access than the No Build Alternative.
Build Alternative 2 would provide more perceptible information than the No Build
Alternative.
Center-lane located BRT stations
may be more difficult for some
users to reach because they
would require crossing a portion
of the street, then turning up a
ramp to enter the platform.
To maximize perceptible
information, all proposed BRT
platforms should include ample
wayfinding and detection.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Jill
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Build Alternatives 2 and 4
would improve on the Universal
Design principle of Tolerance
for Error relative to the
No Build Alternative with
improved street crossings, but
Build Alternative 3 and the LPA
would decrease tolerance for
error because of its narrower
platforms located between
traffic lanes.
Due to the increased distance
between stops, none of the
build alternatives would
improve on the Universal Design
principle of Physical Effort
required to reach transit relative
to the No Build Alternative and
may pose a burden on some
passengers.
Tolerance for Error. Under the No Build Alternative, sidewalks would remain buffered from
moving traffic by street parking, which provides significant tolerance for error, and street
crossings would remain long, providing less tolerance. Bus patrons would continue to access
bus stops from the sidewalk, which requires minimal risk.
Bus patrons would continue to access the BRT stations from the sidewalk under Build
Alternative 2, offering minimal risk. Sidewalks would generally remain buffered from
moving traffic by street parking, although some parking spaces would be removed in
comparison to the No Build Alternative, as discussed in the sidewalk safety section, above.
Under Build Alternative 2, street crossing distances would be shortened through provision
of curb bulbs, and median refuges would be improved with protective nose cones and level
cut-through for wheelchair access. These two aforementioned features would increase
Tolerance for Error over the No Build Alternative.
The Tolerance for Error is less for accessing the BRT stations in the center-lane alternatives,
including the LPA, relative to the No Build Alternative and Build Alternative 2 because
users must cross a portion of the street before accessing the platform. Under Build
Alternative 3 and the LPA, stations have the least Tolerance for Error because the platforms
are the most narrow (approximately 9 feet in width) and because they have moving traffic on
both sides: mixed-flow traffic on one side and bus lane traffic on the other side. Build
Alternative 4 offers a greater Tolerance for Error for waiting passengers because the
platforms are wider (approximately 14 feet), allowing passengers to wait farther from
moving traffic. Under Build Alternatives 3 and 4 and the LPA, sidewalks would generally
remain buffered from moving traffic by street parking; however, some additional parking
spaces would be removed in comparison to the No Build Alternative, including cases where
an entire street block or one side of a street block would lose street parking (see the sidewalk
safety section, above). Under Build Alternatives 3 and 4 and the LPA, street crossing
distances would be shortened through provision of curb bulbs (see Table 3.4-12), and
median refuges would be improved with protective nose cones and level cut-through for
wheelchair access, which would increase Tolerance for Error.
In summary Build Alternatives 2 and 4 (including Design Option B) would increase
Tolerance for Error relative to the No Build Alternative with improved street crossings, but
Build Alternative 3 (including Design Option B) and the LPA would decrease tolerance for
error because of its narrower platforms located between traffic lanes.
Low Physical Effort. The physical effort required to reach bus stops would not change under
the No Build Alternative. The build alternatives, including the LPA, would all require
increased physical effort for some passengers to reach BRT stations because the number of
bus stops in each direction between Mission and Lombard streets would be reduced from 1 5
NB and 8 SB in the No Build Alternative to 9 NB (8 for the LPA, and 9 for the LPA with
the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant) and 8 SB (9 for the LPA and also with the Vallejo
Northbound Station Variant) in the build alternatives; therefore, the average distance
between bus stations would increase from approximately 700 feet under the No Build
Alternative to 1,170 feet in each of the build alternatives (1,150 feet under the LPA and
1,080 feet under the LPA with the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant). In addition, some
GGT passengers would need to walk farther under the build alternatives due to stop
elimination. As a result, the average maximum distance from a location halfway between two
stops would increase from 350 feet to 590 feet (570 feet under the LPA and 540 feet under
the Vallejo Northbound Station Design Variant scenario). In addition, some GGT
passengers would need to walk farther under the build alternatives due to stop elimination.
Van Ness Avenue has few hills and only one block with an average slope steeper than 8
percent (Pacific Avenue to Broadway), which is the maximum permitted slope for an ADA-
compliant ramp, although there may be some portions of other blocks that exceed this
slope. Nevertheless, the increased distance between stops may be difficult to traverse for
some passengers, such as elderly or disabled patrons. Under the LPA, the only stop spacing
greater than 4 blocks occurs between Market and McAllister streets. In this area, grades are
less than 1.5 percent. In all of the project alternatives, low-floor buses would decrease the
3-112
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
physical effort required to board a transit vehicle, although their interior configurations may
require stepping up to reach some seats once onboard.
In summary, due to the increased distance between stops, all of the build alternatives
(including Design Option B) and the LPA would increase the physical effort required to
reach transit relative to the No Build Alternative and may pose a burden on some
passengers.
Size and Space for Approach and Use. Transit platforms under all of the build alternatives,
including the LPA, are designed to provide adequate space for wheelchairs and other j
assistive devices. The existing sidewalks under the No Build Alternative and the approximate
14-foot- wide BRT station platforms under Build Alternative 4 would provide the largest
space for approach and use. Build Alternatives 2 and 3 and the LPA would provide
somewhat narrower station platforms (approximately 9 feet wide) that would slightly reduce
Size and Space for Approach and Use compared with the No Build Alternative, although
Build Alternative 2 would allow for the patron waiting area to spill onto the adjacent
sidewalk.
As noted under Perceptible Information, BRT alternatives with center-lane-located stations
(Build Alternatives 3 and 4) improve the line of sight to stations.
In summary, Build Alternative 4 (including Design Option B) would improve Size and Space
for Approach and Use in comparison to the No Build Alternative due to the large platform
size. Build Alternatives 2 and 3 (including Design Option B) and the LPA would reduce Size
and Space for Approach and Use in comparison to the No Build Alternative because the 9-
foot platforms would provide less room than the No Build Alternative condition.
Bicycle Impacts
The bicycle impact analysis considers the speed of adjacent traffic (i.e., in the right-most
travel lane and other travel lanes), bicycle volumes, the width of the right-most travel lane
adjacent to parking or the curb, volume of right turning motorized vehicles, bicycle safety,
and comfort, as well as bicycle delay. Potential impacts resulting from the build alternatives
are discussed relative to the No Build Alternative.
Speed of Adjacent Traffic. Speed of adjacent, motorized traffic can affect the safety and
comfort of bicycle users along Van Ness Avenue. As demonstrated in Chapter 3.3,
automobile speed along Van Ness Avenue would be similar under the No Build Alternate e
and the build alternatives. In addition, the speed limit would remain the same (25 mph) for
all of the alternatives, including the No Build Alternative, meaning that there would he no
regulatory change that would impact vehicle speeds. Finally, the coordination of signal
timing along Van Ness Avenue with the implementation of TSP would mean that vehicles
would travel at a more consistent speed, leading to less accelerating and braking, lor these
reasons, there would be no impact on bicyclists with the implementation of BRT with
respect to the speed of adjacent vehicles.
Bicycle Volumes. At present, relatively tew bicyclists use Van Ness Avenue for travel because
a dedicated bicycle facility is on Polk Street, which is located one block to the east. Bicycle
volumes on Van Ness Avenue would likely continue at a similar level in the future w hen
compared with the rest of the bicycling network, whether or not one of the MKT build
alternatives is implemented.
Width of Travel Lane Used by Cyclists. It is assumed that under the No Build Uternative
bicyclists using Van Ness Avenue would continue to ride with vehicles in the tight most,
mixed-flow, travel lane. The narrower the travel lane, the mote likely conflicts could occur
(Arup, 2013). Table 3.4-15 shows the width of the right-most, mixed-flow travel lane. The
right-most, mixed-flow travel lane would remain approximately 1 1 feet wide throughout the
Van Ness Avenue corridor under the No Build Alternative and under Build Alternative- I
and 4; under the LPA, the typical width for the right-most, mixed-flow travel lane would be
Build Alternative 4 would
improve the Universal Design
area of Size and Space for
Approach and Use in comparison
to the No Build Alternative due
to the large platform size.
Build Alternatives 2, 3, and the
LPA would reduce Size and
Space for Approach and Use in
comparison to the No Build
Alternative.
Bicycle volumes on
Van Ness Avenue would likely
continue at a similar level in the
future when compared with the
rest of the bicycling network,
whether or not one of the
proposed BRT build alternatives
is implemented.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
1 1 feet in both SB and NB directions. Build Alternative 2 would have the narrowest lanes
for cyclists since they would use the center mixed traffic lane, approximately 1-foot narrower
than under the No Build Alternative.
Table 3.4-15: Width of Travel Lane Used by Bicycles
ALTERNATIVE
SB LANE (FT)
NB LANE (FT)
AVERACE LANE WIDTH (FT)"
No Build Alternative
11
11
11
Build Alternative 2
lO
lO
lO
Build Alternative 3
11
11
11
Build Alternative 3 with Design Option B
11
11
11
Build Alternative 4
11
11
11
Build Alternative 4 with Design Option B
11
11
11
-Refers to right-most, mixed-flow travel lane.
Source: SFCTA, 2010.
Bicyclists are more likely
to take the Polk Street
bicycle route parallel to
Van Ness Avenue when
traveling north or south along
the Van Ness Avenue corridor.
All of the build alternatives
would have fewer high-volume
right-turn locations compared to
the No Build Alternative, helping
to reduce conflicts between
bicycles and motorized vehicles.
Under Build Alternative 2,
bicyclists would be riding
between two lanes of moving
vehicles. This would also mean
that bicyclists would have to
cross the bus lane to turn right,
something that would not
be necessary under the
No Build Alternative and
Build Alternatives 3 and 4
and the LPA.
A wider travel lane could increase cyclists' perception of comfort and safety. On the other
hand, with any of the average lane widths under consideration, it can also be argued that
there is insufficient width to expect bicyclists to create their own safe travel zone; bicyclists
riding along with moving traffic in a narrow lane would be expected to "take the lane" as
allowed by the California Vehicle Code whenever they feel it is warranted for safety,
particularly when riding adjacent to a parking lane to avoid being hit by opening car doors.
This would effectively remove bicyclists from the zone of opening car doors; however,
under Build Alternative 2, it would place bicyclists between auto and bus traffic. Overall, this
situation would not alter the nature of the travel lane and its expected use by bicyclists;
bicyclists would still "take the lane," whether to avoid parked cars or moving buses. In
addition, as described in Section 3.4.2.2, bicyclists are more likely to take the Polk Street
bicycle route parallel to Van Ness Avenue when traveling north or south along the Van Ness
Avenue corridor.
Vehicle Right-Turn Volume. The number of vehicular right turns affects bicyclists.
Intersections with heavy right-turn volumes may have increased chances of vehicular
incidents with pedestrians or bicyclists. Table 3.4-12 in Section 3.4.3.1 shows the number of
locations with right turns, grouped by hourly volume for each build alternative. The LPA
would perform similarly to Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B. Locations with
right turns include vehicles turning from side streets onto Van Ness Avenue and vehicles
turning from Van Ness Avenue onto side streets. Alternatives with fewer high-volume turn
locations and more low-volume locations are considered safer for bicyclists.
Overall, all of the build alternatives (including Design Option B) and the LPA would have
fewer high-volume right-turn locations (i.e., with more than 150 per hour) and more lower-
volume locations (i.e., with 150 or fewer per hour); therefore, all of the build alternatives
would improve bicycle collision conditions compared to the No Build Alternative.
Bicycle Safety and Comfort. All of the build alternatives, including the LPA, would eliminate
buses weaving into and out of traffic lanes, reducing some of the conflicts between bicyclists
and buses.
•
The presence of parked cars to the right of bicyclists creates the possibility of bicyclists
hitting opening doors. Under the No Build Alternative and center lane alternatives, including
the LPA, bicyclists would ride adjacent to parked cars. Under Build Alternative 2, bicyclists
are expected to ride in the mixed-flow traffic lane next to the bus lane, so they would not
experience the same hazard of hitting parked vehicle doors; however, under Build
Alternative 2, bicyclists would be riding between two lanes of moving vehicles, with autos to
their left and buses to their right. This would also mean that bicyclists would have to cross
3-114
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
the bus lane to turn right, something that would not be necessary under the No Build
Alternative, Build Alternatives 3 and 4, and the LPA.
Bicycle Delay. TSP to speed transit along Van Ness Avenue would decrease bicycle signal
delay in the north-south direction, while increasing bicycle signal delay crossing Van Ness
Avenue in the east-west direction.
3.4.4 1 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would not result in adverse impacts to non-motorized transportation; j
therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Nonetheless, the following impact
minimization measures, or improvement measures, will be incorporated into project design
to enhance use of the BRT system:
IM-NMT-i. Include comprehensive wayfinding, allowing all users to navigate to and from the
correct platform.
IM-NMT-2. For Build Alternative 4, bus vehicle design should incorporate an intuitive seating
space for users requiring level or near level boarding that is easily accessible to both the
front door on the right side and the door behind the operator on the left side.
IM-NMT-3. For Build Alternative 4, bus vehicle design should incorporate audible cues, such I
as stop announcements, of which door will open to avoid any confusion for passengers.
IM-NMT-4. Provide sufficient information to educate less-ambulatory passengers that board
at BRT stations that they would need to exit through the front, right doors for stops outside
the Van Ness Avenue corridor.
KEY FINDING
"1
The proposed project would not
result in adverse impacts to
nonmotorized transportation.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 201
J"5
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
3.5 Parking
This section presents on-street parking supply and demand conditions within the Van Ness
Avenue BRT project study area. Off-street parking was not included in this analysis because
the proposed project would not affect any existing off-street parking facilities. The parking
analysis study area encompasses Van Ness Avenue from Lombard to Market streets and
South Van Ness Avenue from Market to Mission streets.
The LPA included in this Final EIS/EIR is a refinement of the center-running alternatives
with limited left turns (Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B), as described in
Chapters 2 and 10. The changes in parking under the LPA are identified as part of the
analysis presented for the build alternatives in this chapter; however, because the LPA
configuration is a variation of the configurations analyzed for the center-running alternatives
(Build Alternatives 3 and 4), the LPA with or without the Vallejo Northbound Station
Variant has slightly different results for parking gains and losses. However, the overall
impact findings with the LPA are consistent with the findings for Build Alternatives 3 and 4
with Design Option B, as presented in this subsection.
3.5.1 1 Existing Conditions
Data on existing on-street parking conditions were collected on Wednesday, May 21, 2008,
and Wednesday, December 17, 2008, between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. The
parking survey documented block by block along Van Ness Avenue and South Van Ness
Avenue from Mission Street to Lombard Street the following information:
• Number of parking spaces by type:
- Metered parking
- Nonmetered, time-limited parking
- Short-term parking (green-colored curbs)
- Truck loading zones (yellow-colored curbs)
- Passenger loading zones (white-colored curbs)
- Parking for the disabled (blue-colored curbs)
• Occupancy for each type of space during weekday, midday.
Table 3.5-1 summarizes the total number of on-street parking spaces on Van Ness Avenue
and South Van Ness Avenue and their midday occupancy. Parking studies conducted in
2010 and 2011, and reported in the Draft EIS/EIR, identified 442 on-street parking spaces
in the study area, with approximately equal numbers of spaces on the east and west sides of
the street. Most of the parking spaces identified in the study (74 percent) along Van Ness
Avenue and South Van Ness Avenue are metered or nonmetered, time-limited, general
parking spaces; 5 percent of the spaces are designated for loading (yellow curbs), 11 percent
are for passenger loading (white curbs), 7 percent are for short-term use (green curbs), and
3 percent are for disabled vehicle parking (blue curbs).
Table 3.5-1: Parking Supply along Van Ness and South Van Ness Avenues between
Mission and Lombard Streets (2010, 2011)
GENERAL
(METERED AND NONMETERED)
GREEN
YELLOW
WHITE
BLUE
TOTAL
SUPPLY
Parking Spaces
326
30
23
50
13
442
Between Mission and Broadway streets, most of the on-street, general parking spaces are
metered with a 1-hour time limit. Between Broadway and North Point streets, nonmetered
parking spaces have a 2-hour limit, except vehicles with a residential parking permit.
3-1 1 6
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Metered parking spaces are priced at $2.50 per hour from Mission to Eddy streets and SI. 50
per hour from Eddy to Broadway streets.
The observed weekday midday parking occupancy rates for the general (i.e., metered and
nonmetered) and green parking spaces along Van Ness Avenue and South Van Ness Avenue
are fairly consistent along the 2-mile study area, with 66 percent of the occupied spaces on
the east side and 64 percent on the west side of the street (see Table 3.5-2).
Table 3.5-2: Parking Occupancy along Van Ness and South Van Ness Avenues
between Mission and Lombard Streets (2010)
LOCATION
GENERAL (METERED
AND NONMETERED)
GREEN
TOTAL
SPACES OCCUPIED
(METERED, NONMETERED,
AND GREEN ONLY)
OCCUPANCY RATE
(METERED, NONMETERED,
AND GREEN ONLY)
East Side
146
20
166
no
66%
West Side
180
TO
190
121
64%
Total
326
30
356
231
65%
In general, parking occupancy is slighdy higher (i.e., 70 percent) than the average in the
middle portion of the corridor between Golden Gate Avenue and Broadway Street, which
supports mixed-use commercial and high-density residential uses. Parking occupancy is
lower than the average (55 percent) north of Broadway Street, which is more residential in
nature. For a detailed, block-by-block breakdown of occupancy, see Appendix B. The
occupancy rate for the yellow parking spaces is higher on the west side of the street
(80 percent) than on the east side (50 percent). Less than half of the white-colored curb
spaces were occupied at the time of survey on both sides of Van Ness and South Van Ness
avenues. A limited number of blue disabled parking spaces (13) are available on Van Ness
Avenue, most of which are located near the Civic Center area. The occupancy rate for blue
parking spaces is approximately 60 percent.
SFCTA surveyed double-parking behavior along Van Ness Avenue between Mission and
Clay streets on Tuesday, July 15, 2008, between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. In general, no
double-parking was observed, except for the segment between Bush and Sutter streets.
While doubie parking may occur occasionally at discrete locations along the Van Ness
Avenue corridor, the frequency of double parking and its impacts on traffic is not
considered significant.
As described in Secdon 2.6.1, SFMTA has installed parking sensors and new meters in the
Civic Center and Hayes Valley area as part of the SFpark pilot project. The SFpark sensors Sensors and new meters in the
and meters are located along Van Ness Avenue between Golden Gate Avenue and I Cckory Civic Center and Hayes Valley
Street. In 2011, the real-time occupancy data will begin being used to implement demand- area are part of the SFpark pilot
responsive pricing, which is andcipated to improve parking availability in these areas. SFpark text project Real-time
will be evaluated by SFMTA through mid-2012 for Citywide expansion/"' occupancy data will be used to
implement demand-responsive
3.5.2 I Environmental Consequences pricing, anticipated to improve
parking availability. For more
The parking analysis assesses the change in total parking supply expected as a result of the information, visit
Van Ness BRT project, and it highlights significant additions and reductions of puking www.sfpark.org
along the corridor. Appendix B provides detailed informadon of these expected changes in |
total parking supply on a block-by-block basis. The expected changes are approximate based
on the current project engineering. Exact changes in parking will be determined during
project final design. Parking impacts for each project alternative are identical in the near
term (2015) and long-term (2035) horizon years; therefore, impacts arc not presented
separately for each year. It should be noted that parking demand along Vail Ness Avenue
\v\v\v..st'p.irk.»r)-
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 201
j-117
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
SFCTA and SFMTA have worked
to reduce parking removal
through the following project
design principles, as feasible:
• Replacement of on-street
parking where bus stops
are consolidated or moved
to the center of the street;
• Addition of street parking
made possible by lane
restriping; and
• Provision of infill spaces
where they do not exist
today where feasible.
may change in the future as a result of the proposed project and changing land uses, as well
as separate efforts to manage parking demand such as variable pricing of parking through
the SFpark project.
SFCTA and SFMTA have worked to reduce parking removal through the following project
design principles, as feasible:
• Replacement of on-street parking where bus stops are consolidated or moved to the
center of the street;
• Addition of street parking made possible by lane restriping; and
• Provision of infill spaces where they do not exist today where feasible.
Thus, the parking figures reported for each project alternative in subsequent sections are the
net result of incorporating the aforementioned design principals in project design thus far.
Significance Criteria. The City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) does not consider parking
supply as part of the physical environment; parking conditions are deemed to be nonstatic in
that parking demand changes from day to day, year to year, and in response to changing land
uses and transportation options, among other factors. Hence, the availability of parking
spaces is not a permanent physical condition but changes over time as people change their
modes and patterns of travel. Therefore, the displacement of existing parking spaces is not
considered a significant impact for environmental review purposes.
SFCTA and SFMTA acknowledge, however, that if parking losses caused by a project are
great, the secondary effects of drivers circling for parking could trigger traffic impacts. In
addition, NEPA guidance encourages a discussion of the human environment and social and
economic impacts of a project. Thus, the social impacts from parking removal are discussed
in Section 4.2, Community Impacts, and changes in parking under each build alternative,
including the LPA, are presented in this chapter for informational purposes to the public
and decision makers.
3.5.2.1 I NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE
No changes to the existing parking supply on Van Ness Avenue and South Van Ness are
expected under the No Build Alternative in the 2015 and 2035, with one exception
associated with the proposed CPMC project. The Draft CPMC Long-Range Development
Plan (LRDP) EIR specifies that the CPMC project would remove the following parking
spaces on Van Ness Avenue (San Francisco Planning Department, 2010):
• 3 metered parking spaces on the west side of Van Ness Avenue between Post Street and
Geary Street; and
• 2 metered loading spaces on the east side of Van Ness Avenue between Cedar Street
and Geary Street.
Because the CPMC project has not yet been approved, this parking removal is not included
as a baseline condition in the presentation of parking conditions in this chapter and is
considered in the cumulative impact analysis presented in Chapter 5.
Another planned project that would affect parking in the project area is SFpark, which is
described in Sections 2.6.1 and 3.5.1. SFMTA's SFpark project is anticipated to increase
turnover of spaces, increasing the availability of parking along the corridor. The changes in
parking supply and demand in the Van Ness Avenue corridor resulting from the SFpark
pilot test project are unknown at this time; therefore, they are not considered in the parking
analysis, although it is likely that the SFpark pilot test project and subsequent permanent
expansion of this parking management program will have beneficial effects on parking in the
corridor.
3.5.2.2 I BUILD ALTERNATIVES
Future parking supply was estimated by identifying losses and gains in on-street parking for
each block that would result under each build alternative, including consideration of Design
3-11
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Option B under Build Alternatives 3 and 4, and the LPA. Parking loss can result from new |
station platforms, the addition of corner bulbs, or new lane striping to accommodate
exclusive right- and left-turn pockets. Parking gains can be a result of bus stop consolidation
or from moving existing curb bus stop locations, restriping existing curb lanes for parking,
or adding additional parking spaces through reallocation of existing parking. When
estimating parking losses and gains, 20 linear feet is assumed as the distance required for
each parking space, per SFMTA standards. Table 3.5.-3 summarizes the anticipated parking
supply changes under the project alternatives. The expected changes are approximate based
on the current project engineering. Exact changes in parking will be determined during
project final design. When parking spaces are able to be retained on a block, it is assumed
that a priority is given to the retention of colored parking spaces.
As explained above under the No Build Alternative, the Likely expansion of SFMTA's
SFpark project in the Van Ness Avenue corridor is anticipated to increase turnover of
spaces and increase the availability of parking in the corridor. This anticipated change in
parking would occur under all build alternatives and the LPA.
Table 3.5-3: Parking Supply and Demand along Van Ness Avenue - No Build and
Build Alternatives1
PARKING SUPPLY
NET CHANCE +/(■)
METERED,
NON-
METERED, AND
GREEN SPACES
COLORED
ZONE SPACES
TOTAL
SPACES
METERED,
NON-
METERED, AND
GREEN SPACES
COLORED
ZONE SPACES
TOTAL % SPACES
SPACES
Alternative 1:
No Build
356
86
442
Build
Alternative 2
328
81
4O9
-28
-5
-33 -7
Build
Alternative 3
304
70
374
-52
-16
-68 -15
Build
Alternative 3
(Design
339
72
4"
-17
-14
-31 -7
Option B)
Build
Alternative 4
325
72
397
-31
■14
-45 -10
Build
Alternative 4
(Design
378
77
455
22
-9
13 3
Option B)
1 The expected changes are approximate based on the current project engineering at the time th
changes in parking will be determined during project final design.
e 201 1 parking study was conducted Exact
Build Alternative 2: Side-Lane BRT with Street Parking
Van Ness Avenue. Build Alternative 2 is expected to cause a tut loss of 33 on-strcct parking
spaces (12 on the east side and 21 spaces on the west side) along Van Ness Avenue and
South Van Ness Avenue. Most of the net parking loss would occur between Broadwaj
Street and Golden Gate Avenue, with a 17 percent loss of parking in this segment.
Appendix B provides the parking gains and losses by block.
Of the 12 spaces that would be displaced on the east side of Van Ness Avenue, 7 spaces
would be metered, nonmetered, and green zone spaces, and 5 would be spaces in yellow,
white, and blue zones. No block would lose all of its parking under Build Alternative 2,
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
3-119
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
although nearly all parking would be removed on the east side of Van Ness Avenue between
Sutter and Bush streets.
On the west side of Van Ness Avenue, 21 parking spaces are expected to be displaced under
Build Alternative 2. All of the displaced parking would be general parking.
Build Alternative 3: Center-Lane BRT with Right-Side Boarding and Dual Medians
Van Ness Avenue. Build Alternative 3 is expected cause an approximate loss of 68 on-street
parking spaces (30 spaces on the east side and 38 spaces on the west side) along both sides
of Van Ness Avenue and South Van Ness Avenue.
Of the 30 spaces expected to be displaced on the east side, 22 would be metered,
nonmetered, and/or green parking spaces and 8 would be yellow, white, and blue spaces.
Parking would be removed completely on the east side in the following blocks:
• Between Market and Fell streets (6 existing spaces removed, including 5 yellow colored
spaces and 1 blue colored space).
• Between Jackson and Pacific streets (5 existing spaces removed) to accommodate dual
platforms.
• Between Broadway and Vallejo (8 existing spaces removed) to accommodate dual
exclusive SB left-turn lanes.
• Between Green and Union streets (7 existing spaces removed, including 1 white colored
parking space) to accommodate the combination of a platform and left-turn pocket.
On the west side of Van Ness Avenue, 38 parking spaces would be displaced with Build
Alternative 3. Of the 38 spaces, 30 would be general spaces and 8 would be yellow, white,
and blue spaces.
The following blocks would experience the removal of all parking, or nearly all parking, on
the west side of Van Ness Avenue under Build Alternative 3:
• Between Geary and O'Farrell streets (8 existing spaces removed, including 5 white
colored spaces) to accommodate the dual platforms for the length of the block.
• Between Vallejo and Broadway (8 existing spaces removed, including 2 white parking
spaces) to accommodate dual exclusive SB left-turn lanes.
• Between Hayes and Fell streets (8 out of 11 spaces on the west side would be removed).
• Between Golden Gate Avenue and Turk Street (8 out of 10 spaces on the west side
would be removed).
For specific, expected parking losses and additions on a block-by-block basis, see Appendix B.
Build Alternative 3: Center-Lane BRT with Right-Side Boarding and Dual Medians (with Design
Option B)
Van Ness Avenue. Design Option B results in fewer parking removals because the absence of
turn pockets would allow lane restriping to provide additional parking spaces.
Build Alternative 3 with Design Option B would cause a loss of 31 on-street parking spaces
(14 spaces on the east side and 17 spaces on the west side) along Van Ness Avenue and
South Van Ness Avenue.
Of the 14 spaces that would be displaced on the east side, 7 would be metered, nonmetered,
and/or green colored parking spaces and 7 would be yellow, white, and blue spaces.
The following blocks would experience the removal of all parking on the east side of Van
Ness Avenue under Build Alternative 3 with Design Option B:
• Between Market and Fell streets (6 existing spaces removed, including 5 yellow colored
spaces and 1 blue colored space) to accommodate a right-turn pocket.
3-120
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
• Between Jackson and Pacific (5 existing spaces removed) to accommodate dual
platforms.
• Between Broadway and Vallejo (8 existing spaces removed) to accommodate dual
dedicated SB left-turn lanes.
On the west side of Van Ness Avenue, 17 net parking spaces would be removed in Build
Alternative 3 with Design Option B. Of the 17 spaces, 10 would be general spaces and 7
would be yellow, white, and blue spaces.
The following blocks would experience the removal of all parking on the west side of Van
Ness Avenue under Build Alternative 3 with Design Option B:
• Between Geary and O'Farrell streets (8 existing spaces removed, including 5 white
colored spaces) to accommodate the dual platforms for the length of the block.
• Between Vallejo and Broadway (8 existing spaces removed, including 2 white parking
spaces) to accommodate dual exclusive SB left-turn lanes.
For specific parking losses and additions on a block-by-block basis, see Appendix B.
Build Alternative 4: Center-Lane BRT with Left-Side Boarding and Single Median
Van Ness Avenue. Build Alternative 4 is expected to cause a loss of 45 on-street parking
spaces (15 spaces on the east side and 30 spaces on the west side) along Van Ness Avenue
and South Van Ness Avenue.61
Of the 15 spaces that would be displaced on the east side, 13 would be metered,
nonmetered, and/or green parking spaces, and 2 spaces would be yellow, blue, or white
(between Geary and O'Farrell streets). The following blocks would experience the removal
of all, or nearly all, parking on the east side of Van Ness Avenue under Build Alternative 4:
• Between Golden Gate Avenue and Turk Street (9 out of 10 spaces would be removed).
• Between Bush and Pine streets (8 out of 9 spaces would be removed).
• Between Broadway and Vallejo (all 8 existing spaces removed) to accommodate dual-
dedicated SB left- turn lanes.
• Between Green and Union streets (7 existing spaces removed, including 1 white colored
parking space) to accommodate the combination of a platform and left-turn pocket.
On the west side of Van Ness Avenue, 30 parking spaces would be displaced in Build
Alternative 4. Of the 30 spaces, 18 would be general spaces and 12 would be yellow, white,
and blue spaces. Parking would be removed on the west side in the following blocks:
• Between Hayes and Fell streets (9 out of 1 1 spaces on the west side would be removed).
• Between Golden Gate Avenue and Turk Street (9 out of 10 spaces on the west side
would be removed).
• Between Geary and O'Farrell streets (8 existing spaces removed, including 5 white
colored spaces) to accommodate the dual platforms.
• Between Bush and Pine streets (10 existing spaces removed, including 2 yellow colored
spaces and 1 white colored space) to accommodate a left-turn lane.
• Between Broadway and Vallejo streets (8 existing spaces removed, including 2 white
spaces) to accommodate a left-turn lane.
For specific, estimated parking losses and additions on a block-by-block basis, see Appendix B.
Up to 5 parking spaces on Chestnut Street may also be removed to lengthen the existing eastbound MI NI bus stop
and to create a new westbound bus stop to accommodate GGT vehicles in the event ofGGT rerouting .is put of Build
Alternative 4 described in Section 3.2.2.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Build Alternative 4: Center-Lane BRT with Left-Side Boarding and a Single Median (with Design
Option B)
Van Ness Avenue. Design Option B results in fewer parking removals because the absence of
turn pockets would allow lane restriping to provide for additional parking spaces. Build
Alternative 4 with Design Option B would cause a gain of 13 on-street parking spaces (gain
of 12 spaces on the east side and 1 space on the west side) along Van Ness Avenue and
South Van Ness Avenue.62
Some spaces would be displaced under Build Alternative 4 with Design Option B, including
5 metered, nonmetered, and green parking spaces. The following block would have all of
their parking displaced on the west side of Van Ness Avenue in Build Alternative 4 with
Design Option B:
• Between Broadway and Vallejo streets (8 existing spaces removed, including 2 white
spaces).
The following blocks would have all of their parking displaced on the west side of Van Ness »
Avenue in Build Alternative 4 with Design Option B:
• Between Geary and O'Farrell streets (8 existing spaces removed, including 5 white
colored spaces) to accommodate dual platforms.
• Between Broadway and Vallejo streets (8 existing spaces removed, including 2 white
spaces).
Nevertheless, 7 general parking spaces would be added on the west side under Build
Alternative 4 with Design Option B; therefore, one parking space overall would be added on
the west side in this project alternative.
For specific, estimated parking losses and additions on a block-by-block basis, see Appendix B.
LPA: Center-Running BRT with Right Side Boarding/Single Median and Limited Left Turns
Van Ness Avenue. Because the LPA included in this Final EIS/EIR is a refinement of the
center-running alternatives with limited left turns (Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design
Option B), the LPA results in slightly different parking gains and losses, presented in Table
3.5-4. The LPA would cause the loss of approximately 105 on-street parking spaces
(49 spaces on the east side and 56 spaces on the west side) along both sides of Van Ness
Avenue and South Van Ness Avenue. 63
Of the 49 spaces that would be displaced on the east side, 42 would be metered,
nonmetered, and/ or green parking spaces and 7 would be yellow and white spaces.
Parking would be removed completely on the east side in the following blocks:
• Between O'Farrell and Geary streets (5 existing spaces removed, including 2 white
spaces).
• Between Broadway and Vallejo Street (9 existing spaces removed).
• Between Vallejo and Green streets (8 existing spaces removed).64
On the west side of Van Ness Avenue, 56 net parking spaces would be removed under the
LPA. Of the 56 spaces removed, 48 would be general and/or green spaces and 8 would be
blue or white spaces.
The following blocks would experience the removal of all parking on the west side of Van
Ness Avenue under the LPA:
62 Ibid.
63 The Vallejo Northbound Station Variant would result in the removal of one fewer parking space between Vallejo and
Green streets on the east side of the street.
64 Seven spaces would be removed under the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant.
3-1 22
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
• Between Market and Mission streets (1 1 existing spaces removed).
• Between Vallejo and Broadway streets (9 existing spaces removed, including 3 white
spaces).
• Between Green and Vallejo streets (9 existing spaces removed, including 1 green space
and 3 white spaces).
• Between Lombard and Greenwich streets (8 existing spaces removed, including 1 green
space and 4 white spaces).
For estimated parking losses and additions on a block-by-block basis, see Appendix B.
The LPA would provide a net 351 parking spaces, which is fewer spaces than the amounts
shown in Table 3.5-3 for the other alternatives. This is due in part to a more refined analysis
of parking changes that was conducted for the LPA than the build alternatives. This more
refined analysis considered the following factors that were not part of the analysis of the
other build alternatives in the Draft EIS/EIR: use of updated existing conditions data;
incorporation of longer curb bulbs per the Caltrans Highway Design Manual May 2012
update; inclusion of wider BRT lanes per MTA requirements set forth in 2012; and stricter
adherence to ADA design requirements such as provision of curb ramps behind
handicapped spaces (which largely are not present in existing conditions). Thus the parking
analysis for the LPA is a more refined analysis than that presented for the build alternatives
in the Draft EIS/EIR. A sensitivity analysis taking into account the aforementioned factors
was performed for Build Alternative 3; this analysis indicated that applying the methodology
used for the LPA to the other build alternatives would result in up to 32 more spaces
removed for the alternatives than was presented in Table 4.5-3 of the Draft EIS/EIR. This
would result in a similar number of on-street parking opportunities for the LPA as Build
Alternative 3.
Table 3.5-4: Parking Supply and Demand along Van Ness Avenue - No Build and
LPA1
PARKING SUPPLY
NET CHANGE +/(-)
METERED,
NON-
METERED, AND
GREEN SPACES
COLORED
ZONE SPACES
TOTAL
SPACES
METERED,
NON-
METERED, AND
GREEN SPACES
COLORED TOTAL
ZONE SPACES SPACES
% SPACES
Alternative 1:
No Build2
358
98
456
LPA3. 4
26l
90
351
-97
-8 -105
-23
1 The expected changes are approximate based on the current project engineering. Exact changes in parking will be determined during
project final design.
2 The refined analysis conducted in October 2012 (see Appendix B of this Final EIR/EIS), resulted in a higher number of existing parking
spaces in the study area than were identified in the 2010 and 2011 parking studies, which are the basis for Tables 3.5-1 through 3.5-3.
3 The LPA is a refinement of the two center-running build alternatives with limited left turns (Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B).
3 Existing conditions were revised during the supplemental parking survey for the LPA that was completed in October 2012.
4 The Vallejo Northbound Station Variant would result in removal of one fewer nonmetered space between Vallejo and Green streets on the
east side of Van Ness Avenue.
3.5.3 I Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures:
Build Alternatives (2015 and 2035)
As discussed in Section 3.5.2, the City of San Francisco does not consider parking supply as
part of the physical environment, and the displacement of existing parking spaces is not
considered a significant impact in the City of San Francisco; therefore, no significant
environmental impact from changes in parking would occur under any of the projeci
alternatives, including the LPA, and no mitigation is required. Nonetheless, the follow ing
design principles intended to reduce parking removal will continue to be incorporated into
project design as impact improvement measures applicable to each build alternative:
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
1 uj
Chapter 3: Transportation Analysis
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
IM-TR-i: On-street parking will be created where bus stops are consolidated or moved to the
center of the street.
IM-TR-2: Additional on-street parking will be provided where feasible by lane striping.
IM-TR-3: Infill on-street parking spaces will be provided where they do not exist today as
feasible.
IM-TR-4: SFMTA will give priority to retaining color-painted on-street parking spaces, such
as yellow freight loading zones, white passenger loading zones, green short-term parking,
and blue disabled parking.
IM-TR-5: Blue handicapped parking spaces will be designed to provide a curb ramp behind
each space.
The aforementioned improvement measures would be carried throughout project design to
identify any additional areas where parking can be retained.
3-124
San Francisco County Transportation Authority | July 2013
Chapter 4
Affected Environment, Environmental
Consequences and Avoidance, Minimization,
and/ or Mitigation Measures
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Avoidance,
Chapter 4: Affected Environment,
Environmental Consequences, and
Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
CHAPTER SUMMARY: This chapter summarizes how the No Build and the three build alternatives
(including the LPA, with or without the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant) are expected to affect the
environment, both positively and adversely, and also proposes avoidance, minimization, and
mitigation measures for any adverse impacts. Topics covered in this chapter include Land Use,
Growth Inducement, Community Impacts, Utilities, Visual/Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, Hydrology
and Floodplain, Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff, Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography,
Hazardous Waste/Materials, Air Quality, Noise and Vibration, Energy, Biological Environment, and
Construction Impacts.
CHAPTER
4
Affected Environment,
Environmental
Consequences,
and Avoidance,
Minimization, and/or
Mitigation Measures
Environmental analyses presented in this chapter are primarily based on a series of technical
studies prepared for the Van Ness Avenue BRT Project. These studies consist of the
following:
Tree Removal Evaluadon and Planting Opportunity Analysis (BMS Design Group, 2013)
Air Quality Technical Report and Addendum (Terry A. Hayes Associates Inc., 2013)
Natural Resources Technical Memorandum (Garcia and Associates, 2009)
Historic Property Survey (Parsons, 2010)
Archaeological and Nadve American Cultural Resources Sensitivity Assessment
(Far Western Anthropological Research Group, 2013)
Historic Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report (JRP Historical Consulting, 2009)
Finding of Effect (Parsons, 2013c)
Visual Impact Assessment Memorandum (Parsons, 2010)
Geologic Impacts Assessment Report (AGS Inc., 2009)
Initial Site Assessment Report (AGS Inc., 2009)
Overhead Cable System Support Poles/Streetlights Conceptual Engineering Report
(San Francisco Department of Power and Water, 2009)
Noise and Vibration Study (Parsons, 2010)
Storm Water Data Report (Parsons, 2013d)
Water Quality Technical Report (Parsons, 2013b)
Vehicular Traffic Operations Technical Memorandum (CHS Consulting, 2013)
Analysis of Non-motorized Transportation Impacts Technical Report and Addendum
(Arup, 2013).
BRT Design Criteria Technical Memorandum (BMS Design Group, 2008)
Van Ness Avenue BRT Feasibility Study (San Francisco County Transportation
Authority, 2006)
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
4.14
Chapter 4: Affected Environment,
Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation
Measures
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
• Van Ness Corridor Initial Land Use and Urban Design Needs Assessment (City of San
Francisco Planning Department, 2004)
I The above technical studies were incorporated in the EIS/EIR by reference and are
available upon request to SFCTA through the following contact:
I Michael Schwartz
San Francisco County Transportation Authority
1455 Market Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94103
415-522-4823
michael.schwartz@sfcta.org
4.0 Introduction
The Locally Preferred Alternative (LP A) is a refinement of the two center-running build
alternatives with limited left turns (Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B). For
many of the environmental impact areas described in Chapter 4, the LPA, with or without
the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant, has identical environmental consequences to Build
Alternatives 3 or 4 with Design Option B and is so noted. For some environmental
consequences, the LPA, with or without the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant, falls
within the range presented for Build Alternatives 3 and 4 in this chapter. When this is the
case, it is described as such, and detailed information is provided in Chapter 10, Section
10.4.1, to explain the specific effects of the LPA for the following environmental factors:
community impacts, aesthetics/visual resources, biological resources, cultural resources,
utilities and public services, hydrology and water quality, and construction impacts.
4.1 Land Use
4.1.1 I Affected Environment
This section describes the land use setting or "affected environment" for the Van Ness
Avenue BRT Project, presenting an overview of the corridor land use and development
patterns in the areas and activity centers along the 2-mile stretch of Van Ness Avenue in San
Francisco. Land use is broadly defined to encompass types of land uses, development and
growth trends, activity centers, and local and regional land use policies.
4.1.1.1 I EXISTING LAND USES
The Van Ness Avenue corridor, along with side and parallel streets, includes diverse
neighborhoods and land uses within the project limits. Land uses in the vicinity of the Van
Ness Avenue corridor include residential, commercial/ tourism, institutional, open space,
and mixed uses. Figure 4.1-1 shows land designations in the project area based on zoning.
Figure 4.1-2 shows designated areas of commercial and industrial land uses. As shown in the
aforementioned figures, Van Ness Avenue is a major shopping corridor, zoned primarily as
High Density Residential-Commercial Combined (RCA). Existing land use is described below from
south *to north between Mssion and North Point streets in the City and County of San
Francisco.
Between Mssion and Market streets, Van Ness Avenue extends through primarily civic,
commercial/ tourism, light industrial, and mixed-use land uses. This stretch of Van Ness
Avenue is zoned Doivntoivn Commercial (C3-6) and Public (P). Automobile dealerships, retail
shops, and art galleries are also located along this stretch of the corridor. Residential land
uses are located west of Van Ness Avenue between Franklin and Laguna streets and east of
Van Ness Avenue between 12th and 7th streets.
4.1-2
San Francisco County Transportation Authority ! July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Chapter 4: Affected Environment,
Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Public Arnai
m p Rib*:
Residential, House Character
RH-10 Che UiitftrLo^Detditd
Rrl-1 Che Unit fti Let
RH.1{«}Oie Unit Per l/>t uhor Sewndaiy iJnr
RH-2 Taw Uirb ftr Ut
RH-3 Duet Uiifa Per Ut
Residential, Ml ixed (Howes a Appts)
RM.1 Uw Dena% (1 Unrtf.-r 800 jfj
RM. 2 wbdemfc Denier ( 1 Uiit(>«r600 jj)
RM-3> lAdiim Denser (1 Ukiitp«r 400 aQ
RM.4 ffah Denial LhitperZOOifj
Residential - Commercial Combined
RC-3 LMiim DensV (1 Uiitper400 9fj
RC4 hljh DtniV ( 1 Ulitper 200 al)
Residential Transit Oriented
t RTO F-»)-nfclTreniti:»Kntd
I RTO- M RtalcnklTmnstCMenHUBinn
Bcnwntovvn Residential
■I RH.ftTRF4i<»ii rl
I SEkOTRStuli letch
I TM1TR Ti»n*»)r
ZONING USE DIS
South of Market Mixed Use
H 3PD 5>u1i ftik
I RBD Residtiibl Bicbut
I RSD ResdtnfcrSeiuce
1 SLR SeiukxrLjjhthdiismrlfeadenal
I 3 LI Seiuoe/Ujhthdurtal
| 380 SerwoefSecondirf Offct
Eastern Neighborhoods Mixed Jse
H MUG Moed the, Geiteml
| MJO Itoed U*,OnV*
i MJR Uttd (Jhe, Resdenfcl
JMU utwi uiied Use
Commercial
■1 C-2
I! C-3.S
Conrmnn/ fanes
Downfovn Support
| C-3-R rv.Mit.wi fM
| C-3-C Downbwi Geneml
I C-G-O C^Mit wi Offae
■ CfVO /• n\ D°wn>wi Offae
la°>(^ed.l Deuelepmenq
Industrial
] Hetur Conmercal
I M-1 Ujht hdu jt»I
I M«2 Heiif hdunvl
TRIGTS LEGEND
Neighborhood Commercial
tiC-1 Cusfcr (1 Conroereal Sfcrj)
NC-2 Smnl Sole p Comnercal Stiries)
I NC-3 l*den»fcSo^p-^«niiiercaiSferiea)
I MC5 ShopprjCentrpConwiereilSfcriej)
I NCD MUtoal (famed, Conteh i«rj)
Neighborhood Commercial Transit
■■ NCM Clisfcr
H MCT.2 Sral Sole
I NCT.8 M>der»fcS«le
H NCT hdirtutl (Named, CoitfeBVfcr;)
Chinatown Mixed Use
CRNC ResJenfcrNegfeoitnodConineKBl
CCy Comrunnf Busies
Production, Distribution, a Repair
| POR.1-8 Buffer
| POR.1-0 Desgn
PDR-1-G Genenl
P0R.2 Core
Mission Bay
fPJPJ M9-OS Caen Sp«oc
MB-O Oft*
Redevelopment Agency
m mb.ra Bi^nJaaanlWi
u p aa See ha*n fttit
1M
:->«■•
GRAPHIC SCALE
Sourw: ModHttdfrom Sin Francisco Punning PepirBnent
Figure 4.1-1: Zoning and Land Use
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
4 'J
Chapter 4: Affected Environment,
Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Figure 4.1-2: Commercial and Industrial Land Use
4.1-4
San Francisco County Transportation Authority I July 2013
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
Avoidance,
Chapter 4: Affected Environment,
Environmental Consequences, and
Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Land uses between Market and McAllister streets are primarily institutional, civic, and arts.
The Civic Center is a major activity center in the Van Ness Avenue corridor that includes
the San Francisco City Hall, Supreme Court of California, and other government facilities, in
addition to the Civic Center Plaza, San Francisco Symphony, Opera Center, Herbst Theatre,
Civic Auditorium, and other performing arts venues. This stretch of Van Ness Avenue is
zoned Downtown Commercial (C3-6) and Public (P). Residential, commercial, and mixed-use
land uses are located one to two blocks west and east of Van Ness Avenue.
Van Ness Avenue supports a broad range of land uses between McAllister and California
streets, including mixed-use, commercial/ tourism, residential, and institutional. This stretch
of Van Ness Avenue is zoned High Density Residential-Commercial Combined (RCA) and
Community business (C-2). A variety of retail and residential uses are situated in the
Tenderloin/Polk Street and Cathedral Hill areas. The AMC Theatres multi-screen movie
theater complex, automobile dealerships, and hotels are also located in these areas. The
Regency Center is a landmark hotel and event venue, and it is a major activity center in the
Van Ness Avenue corridor. Various high-density housing developments have been
completed recently or are nearly complete in this segment of the corridor.
Between California Street and Broadway, Van Ness Avenue passes through residential, mixed-
use, institutional, and commercial land uses. This stretch of Van Ness Avenue is zoned High
Density Residential-Commercial Combined (RCA). A variety of religious and other institutions, as
well as neighborhood-serving retail uses, are located along Polk Street, which is t