Item Description: Presentation and Discussion: Berkeley Rapid Transit Locally Preferred Alternative

Transcription

1 Office of the City Manager Meeting Date: April 29, 2010 Item Number: 1 Item Description: Presentation and Discussion: Berkeley Rapid Transit Locally Preferred Alternative Staff report, resolution, and responses to Council questions from the April 20, 2010 Council meeting on BRT Locally Preferred Alternative. Distribution Checklist: Mayor Councilmembers City Manager City Attorney City Auditor City Clerk Total: 2 copies 8 copies (1 copy each) 5 copies 1 copy 1 copy 25 copies + ORIGINAL 42 COPIES (NOTE: This cover sheet should be used only if the agenda item the material refers to is in addition to or is a revision of the material included in the original report) 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA Tel: TDD: Fax: manager@cityofberkeley.info

2 ACTION CALENDAR April 29, 2010 To: From: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Phil Kamlarz, City Manager Submitted by: Dan Marks, Director, Planning and Development Department Subject: Bus Rapid Transit Build Alternative RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution forwarding a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) build alternative to AC Transit for study in its FEIS/R. FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION Limited additional staff time partially covered by AC Transit per Resolution No. 64,561 N.S. adopted on July 14, CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS On April 20 th, the City Council reviewed the Planning Commission recommendation and staff recommendation and took public comment on the BRT Locally Preferred Alternative. (These alternatives, as well as the Rapid Bus Plus alternative developed by a community group, were detailed in the March 23 rd staff report.) At that meeting, members of the Council asked for additional information and continued the discussion to April 29 th. Staff has developed a chart comparing the Planning Commission build alternative and the staff build alternative with the Rapid Bus Plus and no-build alternatives. Also included with this report is a memo that responds to the more general BRT questions and provides additional information. Staff has attached a draft resolution to this report. The portion of the resolution that gives details about the alignment has been left blank so that it can accommodate the Council s final decision. The Planning Commission and staff identified issues for AC Transit to study in the FEIS/R in addition to the alignment; these issues are included in the resolution for the Council s consideration. RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATIONS City staff, consultants and the Transportation and Planning Commission have spent considerable time evaluating alternatives for a possible BRT alignment. The Planning Commission considered a variety of options before deciding on the recommended alignment. Some of the options considered are shown in an Evaluation Matrix (Attachment 4 of the March 23, 2010 report) and in Chapter 2 of the September 2009 LPA document, available on the City s website:

3 Bus Rapid Transit Build Alternative ACTION CALENDAR April 29, 2010 AC Transit is already committed to studying the Rapid Bus Plus alternative (as developed with members of the Rapid Bus Plus Coalition), and the no build alternative. For this reason, staff believes that studying one of the build alternatives that includes dedicated lanes described in the March 23 rd report, in addition to these two alternatives, would give the Council the greatest range of information from which to make a final decision on BRT. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED The Council could choose to amend the Planning Commission or staff recommendations and forward that to AC Transit for study. The Evaluation Matrix (Attachment 4 of the March 23 rd report) gives different options for the various sections of the Berkeley alignment. CONTACT PERSON Elizabeth Greene, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Department, Attachments: 1: Draft resolution for a Build Alternative 2: Comparison chart of alternatives 3: Responses to Councilmember questions from April 20, 2010 City Council meeting

4 RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S. FORWARD TO AC TRANSIT A BUILD ALTERNATIVE FOR STUDY IN THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY/REPORT (FEIS/R). THIS ALTERNATIVE IS NOT AN APPROVAL OF BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT) IN BERKELEY, BUT RATHER WILL ALLOW A BUILD OPTION TO BE STUDIED SO THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE AVAILABLE TO MAKE A FINAL DECISION ON BRT IN BERKELEY WHEREAS, AC Transit is considering a Bus Rapid Transit project which could run buses on dedicated lanes along Telegraph Avenue, through the Southside and through downtown; and WHEREAS, the City is developing a Build Alternative to determine a specific route that would work best for the City and its residents, and identify areas for future environmental study; and WHEREAS, the development of this Build Alternative will allow specific scenarios to be studied in the Final EIR for the BRT project and give the public a clearer understanding of the potential impacts and benefits of the BRT project; and WHEREAS, the development of this Build Alternative does not indicate final approval of the BRT project through Berkeley. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley to forward to AC Transit a Build Alternative for study in the Final Environmental Impact Study/Report, and that this Build Alternative will have the following features: 1. Telegraph Avenue south of Dwight to the Berkeley/Oakland border: 2. Telegraph Avenue north of Dwight: 3. Telegraph to Shattuck: 4. Shattuck/Downtown: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that AC Transit shall include the following points in the FEIS/R: 1. Conduct a robust analysis of the No-Build and the Rapid Bus Plus options; 2. Expand the discussion of the cost effectiveness of BRT, and include a detailed discussion of operational funding AC Transit anticipates will be available to run BRT; what effect, if any, using this money for BRT may have on other AC Transit routes; and whether guarantees to be made to the City of Berkeley regarding minimum service levels; 3. Study the impact of the loss of each local stop, particularly on the senior, student and disabled communities; 4. Analyze options for rerouting traffic around Telegraph north of Dwight to allow for periodic street closures due to street fairs and identify an alignment for this rerouting;

5 5. Study the possibility of Eco Passes; 6. Study vehicles that are powered by alternatives to diesel; 7. Consider the mitigation strategies and additional analysis proposed in Section 4-3 of the September Locally Preferred Alternative document. These include additional parking mitigation ideas, request for study of mitigations to limit the economic impacts on businesses of BRT construction, and the need to identify potential locations for a bus layover; and 8. Analyze how the various segments could transition between the three options (no-build, Rapid Bus Plus, and build) so that the City Council could choose each segment independently without requiring an additional environmental review. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council will review the FEIS/R upon completion and will make a decision at that time on whether BRT will run through Berkeley, and if so, what alignment it shall follow.

6 Telegraph South of Dwight Major Elements NO-BUILD RAPID BUS PLUS PLANNING COMMISSION PC VARIANT STAFF Transit right-of-way Mixed traffic. Mixed traffic. Dedicated lanes. Dedicated lanes. Dedicated lanes. Stop design Sidewalk stops, no level boarding. Sidewalk stops, no level boarding; prepaid boarding. Median stops, level boarding; prepaid boarding and additional amenities (shelters, lighting, info kiosks, etc.). Median stops, level boarding; prepaid boarding and additional amenities (shelters, lighting, info kiosks, etc.). Median stops, level boarding; prepaid boarding and additional amenities (shelters, lighting, info kiosks, etc.). Alignment and stop location Addt l rapid stop (at Derby); local stops removed. Addt l rapid stop (at Derby); local stops removed. Addt l rapid stop (at Derby); local stops removed. Benefits and Impacts Transit riders Slightly faster, more reliable service if queue jumps, signal priority; faster boarding through all doors. Faster, more reliable service; faster boarding through all doors, platforms level with floors. Faster, more reliable service; faster boarding through all doors, platforms level with floors. Faster, more reliable service; faster boarding through all doors, platforms level with floors. Auto capacity and circulation Two lanes reduced to one except at major intersections; left turns restricted at other intersections. Parking and loading Approx. 100 curbside spaces on Telegraph removed (unless more turn restrictions). Pedestrians Fewer lanes of traffic to cross; up to 17 median refuges added. Two lanes reduced to one except at major intersections; left turns restricted at other intersections. Approx. 100 curbside spaces on Telegraph removed (unless more turn restrictions). Fewer lanes of traffic to cross; up to 17 median refuges added. Two lanes reduced to one except at major intersections; left turns restricted at other intersections. Approx. 100 curbside spaces on Telegraph removed (unless more turn restrictions). Fewer lanes of traffic to cross; up to 17 median refuges added. Bicyclists No change (to south, lanes end at Ashby). No change (to south, lanes end at Ashby). Lanes extended to Oakland border. Lanes extended to Oakland border. Lanes extended to Oakland border. Mobility-challenged individuals Local stops removed. Local stops removed. Local stops removed. Streetscape Bulbouts removed at Stuart, added at Prince and Ward. Bulbouts removed at Stuart, added at Prince and Ward. Bulbouts removed at Stuart, added at Prince and Ward.

7 Telegraph (and Dana) Major Elements NO-BUILD RAPID BUS PLUS PLANNING COMMISSION PC VARIANT STAFF Transit right-of-way Mixed traffic. Mixed traffic. Mixed traffic. Mixed traffic. Mixed traffic on Telegraph; dedicated lane on Dana. Stop design No stops in this segment. No stops in this segment. No stops in this segment. Alignment and stop location Buses in both directions on Telegraph; local stops removed. Benefits and Impacts Transit riders Slightly faster, more reliable service if signal priority. Slightly faster, more reliable service if signal priority. Auto capacity and circulation Telegraph converted to twoway; likely need to remove right-turn lane, island at Dwight/Telegraph. Parking and loading No change to number of parking spaces. Two-way Telegraph makes doubleparking a problem. Vendor impacts Loss of space at SW corner of Bancroft and Telegraph and spaces on the E side of the Bancroft/Durant block, between Bancroft and the first loading area. Pedestrians Potentially major impact on sidewalk at Bancroft/Telegraph; scramble signals on Telegraph. Bicyclists Cyclists can use Telegraph southbound. Mobility-challenged individuals Local stops removed (at Channing). Streetscape Possible significant reduction of sidewalk on SW corner of Bancroft/Telegraph and on E side of Telegraph south of Bancroft; possible removal of four trees on E side of Telegraph south of Bancroft and removal of seven trees on Dwight triangle. Buses in both directions on Telegraph; local stops removed. Slightly faster, more reliable service if signal priority. Telegraph converted to twoway; likely need to remove right-turn lane, island at Dwight/Telegraph. No change to number of parking spaces. Two-way Telegraph makes doubleparking a problem. Possible loss of space at SW corner of Durant and Telegraph. Scramble signals on Telegraph. Cyclists can use Telegraph southbound. Local stops removed (at Channing). Minor reduction of sidewalk on SW corner of Durant/ Telegraph; removal of seven trees on Dwight triangle. Local stops removed. Faster, more reliable service where lane (on Dana). Telegraph remains one-way; one lane removed on Dana. Local stops removed (at Channing).

8 Bancroft (and Durant) Major Elements NO-BUILD RAPID BUS PLUS PLANNING COMMISSION PC VARIANT STAFF Transit right-of-way Mixed traffic. Mixed traffic. Buses in both directions on Bancroft; dedicated lane in one direction, mixed traffic in other. Stop design Sidewalk stops, no level boarding. Sidewalk stops, no level boarding; prepaid boarding. Alignment and stop location Buses in both directions on Bancroft; UC stop moved from Durant/Dana to Bancroft/Dana. Benefits and Impacts Transit riders Slightly faster, more reliable service if queue jumps, signal priority; faster boarding through all doors; improved access to UC. Sidewalk stops, level boarding; prepaid boarding and additional amenities (shelters, lighting, info kiosks, etc.). Buses in both directions on Bancroft; UC stop moved to Bancroft/Telegraph; addt l rapid stop (at Ellsworth); local stops removed. Faster, more reliable service where bus lane; faster boarding through all doors, platforms level with floors; improved access to UC and Telegraph. Buses in both directions on Bancroft; dedicated lane in one direction, mixed traffic in other; dedicated lanes for southbound buses on one block each of Dana and Durant. Sidewalk stops, level boarding; prepaid boarding and additional amenities (shelters, lighting, info kiosks, etc.). Buses in both directions on Bancroft; southbound buses use Bancroft, Dana, Durant, then Telegraph; UC stop moved to Durant/ Telegraph; addt l rapid stop (at Ellsworth); local stops removed. Faster, more reliable service where bus lane; faster boarding through all doors, platforms level with floors; improved access to Telegraph. Buses in both directions on Bancroft; dedicated lane in one direction, mixed traffic in other. Sidewalk stops, level boarding; prepaid boarding and additional amenities (shelters, lighting, info kiosks, etc.). Buses in both directions on Bancroft; UC stop moved to Bancroft/Dana; addt l rapid stop (at Ellsworth or Fulton/Oxford); local stops removed. Faster, more reliable service where bus lane; faster boarding through all doors, platforms level with floors; improved access to UC. Auto capacity and circulation Bancroft converted to two-way. Bancroft and Durant converted to two-way, with one lane each way. Parking and loading Minimal impact (fewer than 10 spaces). Bancroft and Durant converted to two-way, with one lane each way. Minimal impact (fewer than 10 spaces). Bancroft and Durant converted to two-way, with one lane each way. Minimal impact (fewer than 10 spaces). Pedestrians Two-way Bancroft calmer, safer to cross. Two-way Bancroft calmer, safer to cross. Two-way Bancroft calmer, safer to cross. Two-way Bancroft calmer, safer to cross. Bicyclists Bike lanes added on Durant. Bike lanes added on Durant. Bike lanes added on Durant. Mobility-challenged individuals Local stops removed. Local stops removed. Local stops removed. Streetscape

9 Shattuck Major Elements NO-BUILD RAPID BUS PLUS PLANNING COMMISSION PC VARIANT STAFF Transit right-of-way Mixed traffic. Mixed traffic. Dedicated lanes. Dedicated lanes. Mixed traffic. Stop design Sidewalk stops, no level boarding. Sidewalk stops, no level boarding; prepaid boarding. Median stops, level boarding; prepaid boarding and additional amenities (shelters, lighting, info kiosks, etc.). Median stops, level boarding; prepaid boarding and additional amenities (shelters, lighting, info kiosks, etc.). Sidewalk stops, level boarding; prepaid boarding and additional amenities (shelters, lighting, info kiosks, etc.). Alignment and stop location Addt l rapid stop (at Bancroft). Addt l rapid stop (at Bancroft). Possible addt l rapid stop (at Kittredge). Benefits and Impacts Transit riders Slightly faster, more reliable service if queue jumps, signal priority; faster boarding through all doors. Faster, more reliable service; faster boarding through all doors, platforms level with floors. Faster, more reliable service; faster boarding through all doors, platforms level with floors. Slightly faster, more reliable service if bus-only left turn lane onto Bancroft; faster boarding through all doors, platforms level with floors. Auto capacity and circulation Three lanes reduced to two on some blocks; some turns restricted; some congestion possible from longer signal cycles. Parking and loading Approx. 15 curbside spaces on Shattuck removed. Pedestrians Sidewalks reduced at corners. Bicyclists No change (no bike lanes on Shattuck). No change (no bike lanes on Shattuck). Bike lanes added on Shattuck. Three lanes reduced to two on some blocks; some turns restricted; some congestion possible from longer signal cycles. Approx. 15 curbside spaces on Shattuck removed. Sidewalks reduced at corners. Bike lanes added on Shattuck. Mobility-challenged individuals Streetscape Sidewalks reduced at corners by 9-10 ; side medians removed and center medians reconfigured. Sidewalks reduced at corners by 9-10 ; side medians removed and center medians reconfigured.

10 Attachment 3 Responses to Councilmember questions from April 20, 2010 City Council meeting To: From: Subject: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Dan Marks, Planning and Development Director Responses to Questions Regarding Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) from Councilmembers Date: April 25, 2010 At the April 20, 2010 City Council meeting, Councilmembers requested additional information about the BRT proposal. Below are the questions and the responses. Question A: What are the current ridership rates on the 1 and 1R? Response: The most recent figures (2009) from AC Transit are: 1 = 11,909 average daily riders 1R = 12,278 daily riders According to an AC Transit Service and Reliability Study released January 15, 2010, average daily ridership on the 1R in 2008 was 12,023 passengers. Along Telegraph Avenue, that number was 3,268 passengers per day. Attached are graphs from that report of the ridership along the route at different times of the day and going in the north- and south-bound directions. Question B: What did the Oakland City Council decide to forward to AC Transit? Response: The Council chose to forward a full-build option, with dedicated lanes and raised platforms along the entire Oakland corridor.. In addition, they asked AC Transit to study the same alignment with all the build features except the dedicated lanes, such as raised platforms, pre-paid boarding, signal priority, etc. This study will not be in the FEIR/S, but will be used, as the Council sees fit, to develop mitigations to the full-build option. Question C: What do side-running raised platforms look like? Response: Attached are photos of the raised platforms on Webster Street in Alameda. Note these platforms do not provide level boarding they were developed to create a grade separation between the bulb-out at the bus stop and the very high street crown. Question D: Is there an analysis of different BRT components?

11 Response: Attached is a memo that AC Transit presented to the BRT Policy Steering Committee (PSC) on February 19, Question E: Can we get a comparison of existing BRT lines? Response: BRT systems have a great deal of flexibility compared to other systems, such as light rail which can only run where tracks are placed in the road. Because of this, BRT systems vary greatly to meet the cost, ridership needs, existing street patterns and other requirements of each community. For this reason, it is very difficult to compare systems across cities. A comparison of existing U.S. BRT lines is in Appendix A of the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 90:

12 Photos of Webster Street (Alameda) raised platforms

13 Page left intentionally blank

14

15

16

17

18