Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Meeting 12

AGENDA 1 Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Meeting 12 Date: 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, September 8th, 2009 Location: 100 Van Ness Avenue, 26 th Floor 5:00 1. Committee Meeting Call to Order 5:05 2. Adoption of Minutes of the July 14 th, 2009 Meeting ACTION * 5:10 3. Project Status and Schedule INFORMATION The purpose of this item is to update the Committee on the Van Ness Avenue BRT EIR/EIS schedule and status. 5:15 4. Schedule Remaining Van Ness CAC Meeting Dates for 2009 ACTION* At its July 14 th, 2009 meeting, the VN CAC requested revising the list of scheduled 2009 meetings to better accommodate members schedules and holidays. The purpose of this item is to schedule all remaining 2009 VN CAC meetings. We are seeking a motion to adopt a schedule for the remaining 2009 meetings of the VN CAC. 5:25 5. Lighting Technologies Follow-up for Trolley/Light Poles Replacement Project INFORMATION At the July 14 th VN CAC meeting, the Department of Public Works (DPW) presented an update on the trolley/light poles replacement project. To follow up on VN CAC members questions, representatives from DPW and the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) will make a brief presentation on the state of LED lighting technology in San Francisco. We will also provide an update on the status of the trolley / light poles replacement project in the context of the VN BRT EIR/EIS. We are seeking input and feedback from the Committee. 5:45 6. Year 2015 and 2035 No Project and With Project Scenario Travel Demand Forecasting Results INFORMATION* The San Francisco Travel Demand Forecasting Model (SF CHAMP) provides data on many aspects of the base year and projected future year conditions along Van Ness Avenue. Following the December 2008 VN CAC meeting presentation on motorized transportation (automobile and transit) Existing Conditions, and the March 2009 VN CAC presentation on travel demand forecasting for the 2015 no project scenario, the project team developed travel demand forecasts for the future Year 2015 with project, Year 2035 no project, and Year 2035 with project scenarios, per the transportation performance analysis framework. The purpose of this item is to present the findings of the travel demand forecasting. The results of these analyses have been used as inputs in the operations analysis, which will be presented at an upcoming CAC meeting. We are seeking input and feedback from the Committee. 6:20 7. Caltrans Design Exceptions -- INFORMATION Van Ness Avenue serves as Highway 101 through San Francisco; the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) maintains jurisdiction over the roadway, although some operations and maintenance activities have been transferred to the City and County of San Francisco. Accordingly, Caltrans is involved in the EIR/EIS and Preliminary Engineering of Van Ness Avenue BRT as a responsible agency under CEQA and a participating agency per NEPA. O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 12\Meeting 12 Agenda.doc

2 VN CAC Meeting #12 Agenda, 09.08.09 Page 2 Caltrans also requires a formal approval process for changes proposed within their rights of way. The Van Ness BRT team will prepare a Project Study Report / Project Report (PSR/PR) and Design Exception Fact Sheets for Caltrans approval. The team has drafted Design Exception Fact Sheets for Caltrasn review in September, 2009; these documents identify a number of design features proposed by the Van Ness Avenue BRT project that do not meet Caltrans design standards, including sight distances, grades, shoulder widths (caused by pedestrian bulbs), and travel lane widths. The purpose of this item is to explain the Caltrans approval process for the PR/PSR and design exceptions, and to summarize the content and status of the design exception fact sheets. We are seeking input and feedback from the Committee. 8. Public Comment 7:00 9. Adjourn * - Materials Attached O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 12\Meeting 12 Agenda.doc Page 2 of 2

DRAFT MINUTES 3 Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Meeting 11 Date: 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, July 14 th, 2009 Location: 100 Van Ness Avenue, 26 th Floor 1. Committee Meeting Call to Order The committee was called to order by Committee member Dave Goggin at 5:17 p.m. Van Ness CAC members present were Dave Goggin (moderator), Michelle Brant, Steve Kendrick, Lawrence Li, Howard Strassner, and Marla Taylor. Authority and City staff members and consultants present were Rachel Hiatt and Michael Schwartz of the Authority; Paul Bignardi of SFMTA; Jim Buker, James Chia, and Debra Temple of SFDPW; Kim Franchi, Greg King, and Brynna McNulty of Parsons Transportation Group, and Bill Maddex of Arup. 2. Adoption of Minutes of the April 7 th, 2009 Meeting ACTION * Howard Strassner moved to approve the minutes. Steve Kendrick seconded. There was no public comment. The item was approved unanimously. 3. Project Status and Schedule INFORMATION Rachel Hiatt, Senior Transportation Planner, presented the item overview. There was no public comment. Howard Strassner said he had a permanent conflict with second Tuesdays, and was wondering if the scheduling item could be reopened. Rachel Hiatt said that an action could not be taken until the next meeting. Ms. Hiatt said that she would present specific dates for 4 th Tuesdays at the next meeting, adjusting for any conflicts with holidays. There was no public comment. 4. Historical Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report (HRIER) Findings INFORMATION* Greg King presented the item, per the staff memorandum. He acknowledged the research of JRP Historical Consulting, the subconsultant. Howard Strassner asked how the project could affect the buildings that sit a significant distance from the road. Greg King said that the first step is to determine what the Area of Potential Effect (APE) could be, as shown through the HRIER, then look at what the impact would be at a later phase. Rachel Hiatt noted that the project team has determined that the likely APE only includes buildings adjacent to station platforms, and that the project would not have effects on other buildings, other than within the Civic O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 12\Meeting 11 Minutes - Draft.doc

4 VN CAC Meeting #11 Meeting Minutes, 07.14.09 Page 2 Center Historic District. Michelle Brant asked whether the APE is limited only to resources on Van Ness Avenue itself, and whether impacts to historic resources on other streets would be considered. Rachel Hiatt said that the project s APE does not include the potential for impacts on historic resources on streets other than Van Ness Avenue. Other impact areas, such as traffic impacts, have an impact analysis area that includes parallel streets. Michelle Brant said a historic building on Gough is impacted by traffic. Michelle Brant asked if there was a look at the districts as opposed to just a building by building analysis. Rachel Hiatt said that the analysis looked at the Civic Center District as well as Van Ness Avenue as a whole. Howard Strassner asked if the HRIER makes reference to the fact that Van Ness Avenue is a transit corridor. Greg King said that this would merit a small mention in the report, but that the report focuses on historical roles of Van Ness Avenue only. Howard Strassner asked if there would be a report showing if there was or was not a historic impact. Greg King said that yes, effects (or lack thereof) must be proven. Dave Goggin asked why the buildings 1000 Van Ness (AMC), Concordia, 901 Van Ness, and 920 Van Ness were not included among those identified as potential historic resources. Greg King said he would be willing to share any details about the buildings. Rachel Hiatt said that if there wasn t a station planned there, then those buildings would not have been surveyed. Marla Taylor asked if the project would need to be sure to not detract from the character of the Civic Center Historic District. Greg King said that the project team would evaluate whether the BRT project could have a negative impact on the Civic Center Historic District. If the project were to have an impact, then the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) would ask for measures to lessen the impact. During public comment, Roger Bazeley stated that the HRIER did a good job of showing the historic context of Van Ness Avenue. He said it would be important to understand that the Civic Center is not just civic in use, but also arts. He said the street was dead at night. It was not a world class boulevard, as opposed to Lincoln Center in New York or Champs-Élysées in Paris. He said that the purpose of the great streets project was to make Van Ness a grand boulevard. He said every crosswalk should be a ladder crosswalk. He said that the trolley/light poles should fit within the context of the design of the street. He said the new style of MUNI bus stop, such as the one outside City Hall was not bad, but that the color was off on the roof. 5. Poles Replacement Project Status INFORMATION Jim Buker of SFDPW presented the item per the staff memorandum. Michelle Brant said she was concerned that the poles had been allowed to deteriorate. She asked for clarification of the purpose of the poles structural integrity study. Jim Buker said DPW looked at existing poles structural condition to determine whether the poles are structurally sound today and whether they could support BRT. Rachel Hiatt added that the structural study addressed both functions of the poles (as overhead contact system (OCS) support as well as the street lighting), and the Public Utilities Commission had found that the structural integrity of the poles to provide street lighting was also insufficient. O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 12\Meeting 11 Minutes - Draft.doc Page 2 of 5

VN CAC Meeting #11 Meeting Minutes, 07.14.09 Page 3 5 Howard Strassner asked if the BRT project had determined that the OCS wires would be supported from the sidewalk. Jim Buker and Paul Bignardi, SFMTA, confirmed that the OCS wires will be supported from poles on the sidewalk. Roger Basely said that two of the alternatives will increase the amount of tension on the poles. Jim Buker said that this would cause the poles to have even less structurally integrity. Howard Strassner asked if changing regulations would allow for the use of LEDs. Steve Kendrick asked if SFDPW has talked with the LED industry to arrange for a pilot or similar venture for LED lighting of major streets. Jim Buker said that some of the characteristics that make LED better (color, etc), have not been recognized by the authorities that establish the lighting standards. Mr. Buker said that as the standards were written today, DPW would have to spend more money and energy on LED lighting than high pressure sodium illumination in order to demonstrate that the lighting standards are met. Steve Kendrick asked who wrote the lighting standards. James Chia of SFDPW and Dave Goggin said the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) writes the standards. Rachel Hiatt said the Van Ness team could provide the standards and the relevant entities at the next CAC meeting. Howard Strassner said that the CAC would like more background. James Chia said DPW would bring an electrical engineer come next meeting, but that his knowledge was that there were lighting standards that the City must attain, and that there were liability issues if those standards were not achieved. Rachel Hiatt said that LED lighting would be added to the agenda for the September CAC. Dave Goggin said that the IES statute that governs lighting was RP8-00. Steve Kendrick asked again if DPW had researched obtaining custom-built LED lighting systems for the project. Jim Buker said that his impression was that LED technology was not ready to provide the intensity needed for state routes like Van Ness. Mr. Buker said that those jurisdictions that were testing LED street lighting, were trying it at the residential level, not on state highways. James Chia said that DPW was working with manufacturers on other projects that could use LEDs. Mr. Chia said the industry was still improving their product. Jim Buker said the limitation was in how the standards were written. He said that LEDs delivered a different quality of light, and the standards did not reflect this different quality of light. Steve Kendrick asked if there was a product out there that would work if the standards could reflect the different quality of light. Jim Buker said that as an architect he couldn t answer that question. Dave Goggin said there were efforts underway to update the standards. Dave Goggin said that the 95% cutoff of light above was not good enough because the 5% of light that escaped upwards would be at an angle that contributed to night glow. He said he wanted the BRT project to press the 100% cutoff manufacturers to make their lights as good as the 95%, so that they could be used and not contribute to night glow. Mr. Goggin said that the BRT project was wise to stick with the high pressure sodium O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 12\Meeting 11 Minutes - Draft.doc Page 3 of 5

6 VN CAC Meeting #11 Meeting Minutes, 07.14.09 Page 4 for now. He said the LED technology still had some color issues. Dave Goggin said that the presentation emphasized creating brighter lighting. He questioned why brighter was always considered better. Jim Buker said he would have the lighting engineer discuss these issues with him at the next CAC meeting. Steve Kendrick asked if there had been a final decision on using trolley buses, as opposed to other propulsion types, for the BRT vehicles. Paul Bignardi said that SFMTA had decided on a mixed fleet of trolleys and diesel hybrids because the system does not have the facility to handle all hybrid vehicles, and because trolley coaches are zero emissions. During public comment, Eric P. Scott asked if there were any other options besides high pressure sodium lights, and that light pollution can mean different things, depending on the person s perspective. Roger Bazeley stated that color temperature was an issue. He said LED did not have the right color for the corridor. He wanted to emphasize that warm colors were appropriate. He said that the 1917 poles were more Victorian versus those built in 1914. Mr. Bazeley said it would be good to mimic the 1914 poles, particularly with the square shape. He said it would be good to lower the lighting on the middle of the blocks and increase the lighting in the intersections. Paul Biganrdi said it was important to remember that there would be additional lighting at the stations. This could mimic the lighting scheme of the poles or it could look totally different. 6. Construction Staging and Phasing Options INFORMATION* Bill Maddex presented the item per the staff memorandum. Howard Strassner asked if the sewer work would affect the project cost. Rachel Hiatt said that there were 9 blocks of Van Ness that had an older brick sewer that had undergone emergency maintenance in recent years. She said the BRT team was working with PUC, who was doing a systemwide rating to assess the condition of the sewer. Ms. Hiatt said that PUC had moved Van Ness to the top of the list. Ms. Hiatt said the BRT team would consider which portions of the sewer PUC would want to replace. She said that it would not be a project cost. Ms. Hiatt said that at the station platform locations, PUC would prefer not to have a sewer underneath. She said that the Van Ness BRT team had conservatively assumed a replacement of the sewer at the station locations, but the team didn t think that would be necessary where there were newer portions of the sewer. She said that replacements at those locations would be a project cost. Howard Strassner said the BRT team may want to argue against paying for any of it, because PUC would replace the sewer anyways. Howard Strassner asked if there is any construction timing overlap with the Geary BRT project. Bill Maddex said they would ensure that the projects would not be in construction at the same time where the projects overlap spatially. Marla Taylor asked if construction would be a big influence on selecting the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). Paul Bignardi and Rachel Hiatt said that construction was just one element of many environmental considerations. Mr. Bignardi and Ms. Hiatt both said that construction would probably would not be the driving factor in selection of the LPA. O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 12\Meeting 11 Minutes - Draft.doc Page 4 of 5

VN CAC Meeting #11 Meeting Minutes, 07.14.09 Page 5 7 Rachel Hiatt said there was agreement to use the approaches that had the shortest duration for construction. She said that using these approaches, the range would be between 14 and 19 months. Marla Taylor said that construction considerations should play a role in LPA selection, because she thought construction would likely be longer than what was projected. Ms. Taylor noted that there were many problems with Alternative 2. Bill Maddex agreed that alternative 2 was more problematic from a construction perspective. Howard Strassner asked if it would be appropriate for the CAC to voice an opinion on having shorter construction duration. Rachel Hiatt said that it would be appropriate, but that it would need to be an action item. Dave Goggin said that it was important to take into account the residential units when considering night work. He said the health of the construction workers should also be considered, and that he would prefer to only have day work. Bill Maddex said the one area that could possibly prefer the nighttime work is around City Hall. During public comment, Roger Bazeley requested that pedestrian safety be taken into account in selecting a construction approach. Eric P. Scott said that construction impacts were for a matter of months, whereas the project would be with them for years. He said people should not be focusing on the pain of construction versus the long term. 7. Elect Three Rotating Moderators ACTION* Lawrence Li moved to have Marla Taylor moderate in September, Lawrence Li to moderate in October, and Howard Strassner to moderate in December. Howard Strassner seconded. There was no public comment. The item passed unanimously. 8. Public Comment Henry Pan asked why the project is not being built rail ready. Rachel Hiatt said that the project did not anticipate being converted to rail. Henry Pan asked why the BRT project would extend all the way to Francisco Street. Rachel Hiatt said the dedicated lane would end at Lombard because much of the traffic left Van Ness at that point under current conditions, so the dedicated lane would provide reduced benefits north of Lombard Street. She said the project would still use proof of payment, transit signal priority and other amenities north of Lombard. Roger Bazeley said he would like to see a route map where the BRT would connect with the rest of the Muni system. He said if Geary ended up with a similar project to Van Ness, then the bus stop design similar to the one in front of City Hall would be more appropriate. However, he said that he would like to see a different color and feel for the Van Ness corridor. He said that the newer poles could be kept on the corner and historic poles on the block. 9. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 7:21 PM. O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 12\Meeting 11 Minutes - Draft.doc Page 5 of 5

8 Memorandum Date: 09.04.09 RE: Van Ness BRT Citizens Advisory Committee October 8 th, 2009 To: From: Subject: Summary Van Ness Avenue BRT Citizens Advisory Committee Rachel Hiatt Senior Transportation Planner Proposed VN CAC Meeting Schedule At its July 14 th, 2009 meeting, the VN CAC requested revising the list of scheduled 2009 meetings to better accommodate members schedules and holidays. The purpose of this item is to schedule all remaining 2009 VN CAC meetings. We are seeking a motion to adopt a schedule for the remaining 2009 meetings of the VN CAC. BACKGROUND At its July 14 th, 2009 meeting, the VN CAC requested revising the list of scheduled 2009 meetings to better accommodate members schedules and holidays. The purpose of this item is to schedule all remaining 2009 VN CAC meetings. DISCUSSION Attachment 1 identifies two proposed meeting dates, on the fourth Tuesdays of the month, proposed for October 27 th, 2009, and November 24 th, 2009. Attachment 1 also outlines tentative meeting topics for all remaining 2009 meetings of the VN CAC. We are seeking a motion to schedule two Van Ness BRT CAC meetings during 2009. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt a motion to schedule two Van Ness BRT CAC meetings. 2. Adopt a motion to schedule two Van Ness BRT CAC meetings, with modifications. 3. Defer action. Attachments 1. Tentative VN CAC Meeting Schedule and Topics O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 12\Item 4 Memo - Upcoming Meetings.doc Page 1 of 1

Van Ness Avenue BRT Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting #12, September 8 th, 2009 9 Schedule & Tentative Meeting Topics Van Ness Avenue BRT Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting Date Key Topics (Tentative) 12. September 8 th, 2009 13. [proposed special meeting] October 27 th, 2009 14. November 24 th, 2009 Travel Demand Forecasting 2015 With Project and 2035 No Project and With Project Lighting Technologies / OCS/Poles Replacement Project Update Caltrans Approval Process Update 2015 With Project traffic and transit operations [Synchro/VISSIM simulation] BRT Vehicles specifications, procurement, storage, maintenance update Cost estimates and funding plan Implementation schedule Pedestrian impacts analysis Parking impacts analysis DEIR/DEIS findings environmental benefits, impacts and mitigation measures Outreach Approach for DEIR/DEIS findings Last updated Friday, September 4 th, 2009 O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 12\Tentative VN CAC meeting schedule and topics.doc Page 1 of 1

10 Memorandum Date: 09.04.09 RE: Van Ness BRT Citizens Advisory Committee September 8, 2009 To: From: Subject: Summary Van Ness Avenue BRT Citizens Advisory Committee Margaret Cortes Senior Transportation Planner Michael Schwartz Transportation Planner Travel Demand Forecasting for Years 2015 and 2035, No Project and With Project Scenarios INFORMATION The San Francisco Travel Demand Forecasting Model (SF CHAMP) provides data on many aspects of the base year and projected future year conditions along Van Ness Avenue. Following the December 2008 VN CAC meeting presentation on motorized transportation (automobile and transit) Existing Conditions, and the March 2009 VN CAC presentation on travel demand forecasting for the 2015 No Project scenario, the project team developed travel demand forecasts for the future Year 2015 With Project, Year 2035 No Project, and Year 2035 With Project scenarios, per the transportation performance analysis framework. The report documents the methodology and results of the modeling work. Similar to growth in the No Project scenario between 2005 and 2015, traffic in the corridor will continue to increase in the No Project year 2035. The mode split between autos, transit, and non-motorized modes is expected to stay similar in the 2035 No Project when compared with 2005 and 2015 No Project. In the With Project scenarios, screenline analyses indicate a significant increase in transit ridership on Van Ness Avenue and the Van Ness corridor in both the 2015 and 2035 With Project scenarios. In 2035, results from the center BRT scenario show that up to 50% of motorized trips on Van Ness Avenue are taken on transit. While Van Ness Avenue itself experiences a significant drop in auto person-trips due to the loss of a travel lane in each direction, person throughput is generally maintained for the corridor. The results of these analyses have been used as inputs in the operations analysis, which will be presented at an upcoming VN CAC meeting. We are seeking input and feedback from the Committee. BACKGROUND The San Francisco Travel Demand Forecasting Model (SF CHAMP) provides data on many aspects of the base year and projected future year conditions along Van Ness Avenue. Following the December 2008 VN CAC meeting presentation on motorized transportation (automobile and transit) Existing Conditions, and the March 2009 VN CAC presentation on travel demand forecasting for the 2015 No Project scenario, the project team developed travel demand forecasts for the future Year 2015 With Project, Year 2035 No Project, and Year 2035 With Project scenarios, per the transportation performance analysis framework. The report documents the methodology and results of the modeling work. INPUTS AND VALIDATION The Van Ness BRT EIR/EIS memorandum is provided as Attachment 1. The report highlights the inputs and assumptions used to populate the model, and provides evidence of model validation to support the use of SF CHAMP. Land Use Inputs: The San Francisco Planning Department develops land use forecasts in five-year increments through year 2035 based on countywide totals provided by Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). By law, SF CHAMP s inputs must be within 1% of the ABAG projections. O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 12\Item 6 Memo - Travel Demand Forecasting.doc Page 1 of 5

11 Roadway Network Modifications: Several recent network changes were included in the 2005 base year model networks. These include the Muni Third Street LRT construction and the shortening of the Central Freeway and conversion to Octavia Boulevard, which opened in September 2005. Transit Network Modifications: The current transit travel times and headways in the model were compared against 2005 Muni operating data for lines in the study area, to make certain that service was correctly reflected. Future transit networks include improvements that are already programmed (i.e., included the Regional Transportation Plan). Validation: Several data comparisons were used to validate the model: Roadway volume forecasts as compared with observed historical roadway volume trends; Roadway volume estimates as compared with observed current roadway volumes; and Transit ridership estimates as compared with observed transit ridership. Details on the validation are included in the report, and The Van Ness BRT study team s conclusion is that the CHAMP model is a reasonable estimator of current traffic and transit volumes and should be a reliable estimator of future volumes as well. For purposes of operations simulations, the observed volumes will provide the absolute values used in the operations models, and growth rates from CHAMP (rather than absolute volumes) will be used to obtain future year volume levels. 2005 BASE YEAR TRAVEL DEMAND A screenline statistic reports trip volumes assigned to a specific roadway link (or set of links) at a specific point. We report screenline statistics for Van Ness Avenue itself as well as for the corridor, defined to include several parallel streets (Franklin and Gough Streets to the west, and Polk, Larkin, and Hyde Streets to the east). Eight cross streets define the screenlines used in this study: Mission, Market, Fell, McAllister, Geary, California, Broadway, and Lombard Streets, shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Screenline Definition In 2005, on Van Ness Avenue itself, both daily auto-trips and transit-trips peak at the McAllister screenline with 45,614 and 19,152 trips respectively. The daily volume of auto person-trips on Van Ness Avenue at Lombard is 62% of the auto person-trips at McAllister; in the PM Peak Hour, auto person-trips at Lombard are 38% of the trips at Fell Street. Screenline analysis results suggest that autos turn off the Van Ness Avenue and the Van Ness Corridor at Geary, California, and Broadway, to locations in the western and eastern parts of San Francisco. This reinforces the finding that many of the auto trips on the corridor do not continue to Doyle Drive and the North Bay, and also indicates that the average distance traveled on Van Ness Avenue by autos is short, with high frequencies of turns onto and off of the street. During the PM peak, the McAllister screenline has a 30% transit mode share among motorized person-trips on Van Ness. Transit mode share on Van Ness Avenue is roughly between 15-35% of motorized trips, both on a daily basis and during the PM peak. The transit share of motorized trips for the entire Van Ness corridor is lower and tends to hover between 10 and 20 percent, reflecting that Van Ness Avenue itself carries nearly all of the transit service in the corridor. Transit's share of motorized person-trips is roughly the same in O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 12\Item 6 Memo - Travel Demand Forecasting.doc Page 2 of 5

12 magnitude throughout the corridor, reinforcing the need for a transit improvement design that extends the full length of project study area. A zone-based analysis reveals the trip patterns and characteristics of all the trips coming from and going to the blocks and zones that neighbor Van Ness, including nonmotorized (bike and pedestrian) trips. Table 1 below shows the mode split of all daily trips with at least one end in the Van Ness corridor in 2005. Local trips have one end in a Van Ness corridor neighborhood, and one end in San Francisco (in or outside the Van Ness corridor); regional trips have one end in a Van Ness corridor neighborhood and one end outside of San Francisco. Roughly 20% of trips to, from, or within the Van Ness Corridor neighborhoods occur by transit. Regional trips are slightly more likely than local trips to take transit. More than one quarter 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 are walk or bike trips. Table 1. 2005 Daily Mode Share of Trips to, from or within Van Ness Corridor Neighborhoods. By Auto By Transit Walk/Bike Local Trips 54% 21% 25% Regional Trips 73% 27% 0%* All Trips 54% 20% 26% *A small fraction of regional trips walk or bicycle across the Golden Gate bridge from the North Bay CHAMP also helps explain the origin-destination patterns of Van Ness corridor travelers, particularly the magnitude and proportions of regional travelers. This analysis indicates that the majority of users are traveling entirely within San Francisco. Trip Divertibility: Any trip with an origin or a destination on the Van Ness Avenue is considered nondivertible; conversely, trips that have no origin and no destination on the Van Ness Avenue are considered divertible. 1 Table 2 describes in detail the divertible and non-divertible trips on Van Ness Avenue. Table 1. Summary of Divertible and Non-Divertible Trips on Van Ness Avenue North of Broadway (2005 PM Peak Period) PM Peak Regional Trips Local Trips Total Divertible 2,039(25%) 2,234 (27%) 4,273 (52%) Not Divertible 657 (8%) 3,219 (39%) 3,876 (48%) Total 2,696 (34%) 5,453 (66%) 8,149 (100%) According to CHAMP, in 2005, about half (48%) of total trips on Van Ness Avenue North of Broadway during the PM Peak have an origin or a destination on Van Ness Avenue, and therefore, could not be diverted from the street. The vast majority of these non-divertible trips 80% - are local trips. By definition, divertible trips are the inverse of divertible trips; thus, about half (52%) of the trips on Van Ness Avenue north of Broadway had no origin or destination on the street in 2005, and are considered divertible, and do not necessarily need to travel on the street. The 52% figure is a sum of local divertible trips and regional divertible trips. North of Broadway on Van Ness Avenue, local divertible trips comprised 27% of total trips and regional divertible trips comprised 25% of total trips in the PM peak period in 2005. Interestingly, less than 1% of total trips on Van Ness Avenue have both an origin and destination outside San Francisco. These trips are using Van Ness but are passing through San Francisco altogether. 1 The Van Ness BRT team does not suggest that divertible trips ought to divert; only that they could. O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 12\Item 6 Memo - Travel Demand Forecasting.doc Page 3 of 5

13 2015 AND 2035 NO PROJECT TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTS Using similar analyses as in the 2005 baseline condition, CHAMP is able to predict changes in future years in the No Project scenarios. The findings of these analyses are summarized as follows: Between 2005 and 2015, motorized person-trips are expected to grow by 2% on Van Ness Avenue and 4% on the corridor. While the model shows various growth rates at different points along the corridor, including some slight traffic decreases in the year 2015 at selected screenlines, the overall growth rate is consistent with the modest changes expected in the areas surrounding the corridor and in the distant destinations that it serves. Between 2005 and 2035, motorized traffic in the corridor will grow between 9% and 16% (slightly less than the citywide increase), although transit will maintain a similar proportion of all motorized trips, increasing most significantly for regional trips. The share of Van Ness Avenue motorized trips made on transit is expected to stay similar (average of ~29%) from 2005 to 2015. The mode split for all trips to, from, and within Van Ness corridor neighborhoods is expected to stay similar to 2005 existing conditions in both 2015 and 2035. Transit ridership on the 47 and the 49 will increase by 5% by 2015 and 18% by 2035. 2015 AND 2035 WITH PROJECT TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTS Using similar analyses as in the No Project scenarios, CHAMP is able to predict changes in future years in the project scenarios. The findings of these analyses are summarized as follows: In 2015, Van Ness Avenue itself experiences a significant decrease in auto person-trips compared with the 2015 no-project scenario, but person throughput is generally maintained for the corridor (drops by about 1%). Similarly, in 2035, Van Ness Avenue experiences a significant decrease (23%- 43%) in auto person-trips compared the 2035 No Project scenario, although person-throughput on the corridor declines at a lower rate (7%-15%). In 2015, both the side and center With Project alternatives, transit ridership on the Van Ness Muni lines increase by 28% over the 2015 No Project scenario. In 2035, the With Project scenarios show an even larger increase in transit ridership when compared with the 2035 No Project scenarios. Ridership on the Van Ness Muni lines (47 and 49) increases by 30% (center scenario see Figure 2 below). Daily motorized transit mode share on Van Ness Avenue itself reaches 50% of all motorized trips at its peak, meaning the two transit-only lanes are carrying as many people as the four mixed flow lanes at this point. O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 12\Item 6 Memo - Travel Demand Forecasting.doc Page 4 of 5

14 70000 60000 50000 2007 Count Data 2015 NP 2015 Side 2015 Center 2035 NP 2035 Side 2035 Center Daily Boardings 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 Figure 2. Ridership on Muni Lines 47 and 49 in varying scenarios An average of 22%-24% of auto trips divert off Van Ness Avenue when one lane is removed. The trips that divert off of Van Ness Avenue as a result of the project will divert to other parallel streets in the Van Ness corridor, as well as other San Francisco corridors entirely. Further analysis on diversions will be shown in a subsequent draft of the documentation that includes Synchro analysis. We are seeking input and feedback from the Committee. Attachments 1 Van Ness SF-CHAMP Documentation O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 12\Item 6 Memo - Travel Demand Forecasting.doc Page 5 of 5

Van Ness Avenue BRT EIR/EIS 15 Van Ness BRT EIR/EIS Regional Travel Demand Modeling The San Francisco Travel Demand Forecasting Model (SF CHAMP) provides data on many aspects of the base year and projected future year conditions along Van Ness Avenue. This memorandum documents the methodology and results of the modeling work done for the base and future scenarios for the Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement. 1. INPUTS AND ASSUMPTIONS CHAMP uses many inputs and relationships developed from 2000, 2005, and 2007 data. This memo describes the development of the 2005 base year and the subsequent forecast years (2015 and 2035), as well as the validation measures that were used to assess the validity of the CHAMP model in the Van Ness corridor. Several inputs to the model were modified for the new base year: land use data, regional travel demand, roadway characteristics, and transit network representations. 1.1. Land Use Inputs The San Francisco Planning Department develops land use forecasts in five-year increments through year 2035 based on countywide totals provided by Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Table 1 below summarizes the overall amount of employment, households, and employed residents inside the city of San Francisco. This land use data is a key zonal-level input for the CHAMP model. Table 1 Comparison of SF County Land Use Projections based on ABAG 2007 Year Employment Households Employed Residents Projections 2007 2005 553,073 338,920 388,100 1.2. Regional Travel 2015 636,840 357,810 404,700 2035 832,860 396,310 518,800 CHAMP directly predicts travel for San Francisco residents only. It always uses the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Model for estimating regional travel demand, and only 2006, 2015, and 2035 MTC forecasts are available. Regional demand estimates for 2005 had to be created. There are two methods for doing this: either by running the MTC Model using ABAG 2005 inputs, or by creating "fratared" (factored) trip tables that target future totals but mimic the regional trip distribution from year 2006. Rerunning the MTC model has one advantage: it makes the regional results sensitive to changes in the San Francisco network. However, the factoring process has several advantages: it uses the known-good 2006 MTC results as a starting point; it avoids the pitfalls of having to examine the adjustments hardwired into the base MTC model to make sure the final numbers are realistic; and it is much less time-consuming to factor the trip tables than to run the MTC model. Given the uncertainty and time-consuming nature of creating a new forecast year for the MTC model, the known-good regional demand for year 2006 was fratared to match the new targets for 2005 tripmaking. Work trips use employed residents as the control total on the production end, and employment on the attraction end. Non-work trips use various combinations of households, employed residents, and jobs as control totals. Table 2 and Table 3 below summarize the regional trip ends created and used for this study. O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 12\VanNess Updated SF-CHAMP Documentation 090209.doc Page 1 of 34

16 Van Ness Avenue BRT EIR/EIS Table 2. Daily Passenger Trips in the 9-County Bay Area by Purpose and Year from MTC model 2006 2015 2035 Work Trips 4,920,743 Social/Rec 2,602,011 Shop 5,731,431 School 2,385,248 Non-home based 5,647,534 5,858,600 2,680,000 5,907,900 2,076,500 6,419,900 7,780,294 3,377,059 7,364,513 2,597,863 8,028,588 Total 21,286,967 22,942,900 29,148,317 Table 3. Daily Trips in the 9-County Bay Area by Purpose and Year used in CHAMP 2005 2015 2035 Work Trips 5,461,500 5,858,600 7,780,294 Social/Rec 2,558,400 2,680,000 3,377,059 Shop 5,636,700 5,907,900 7,364,513 School 1,976,600 2,076,500 2,597,863 Non-home based 5,978,400 6,419,900 8,028,588 Total 21,611,600 22,942,900 29,148,317 1.3. Roadway Network Modifications Several recent network changes were included in the 2005 base year model networks. These include the Muni Third Street LRT construction and the shortening of the Central Freeway and conversion to Octavia Boulevard, which opened in September 2005. The 2005 model scenario reflects removal of a traffic lane along the full length of Third Street between Mission Bay and Geneva Avenue for the LRT construction, and the fully rebuilt Octavia Boulevard connected to the new Central Freeway ramp at Market Street. A ground truthing initiative in 2006 verified that the roadway characteristics in the model input network were accurately represented in the 2005 base-year model. This verification included number of lanes, turn restrictions, and peak-hour tow-away lane conversion for all north/south roads in the corridor from Gough to Hyde Streets, and for major east/west roadways as well. Table 4, below, summarizes road network modifications by forecast year. Changes in early years propagate to all future networks unless otherwise noted. O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 12\VanNess Updated SF-CHAMP Documentation 090209.doc Page 2 of 34

Van Ness Avenue BRT EIR/EIS Table 4 Roadway Network Modifications by Forecast Year 17 2005 2015 2035 Octavia Blvd. fully rebuilt and new Central Freeway touchdown at Market St Third Street one lane removed south of Mission Bay (for LRT) Same Same Hayes converted to two-way operations from Polk to Franklin Fell converted to two-way operations from Franklin to Van Ness Mission Bay Street Grid Same Third/Fourth Sts in SOMA reconfigured for Central Subway portals Same Same Same Illinois Street bridge 1.4. Transit Network Modifications The current transit travel times and headways in the model were compared against 2005 Muni operating data for lines in the study area, to make certain that service was correctly reflected. Future transit networks include improvements that are already programmed. Table 5 below lists the transit network assumptions for the forecast years. Changes in early years propagate to all future networks unless otherwise noted. Table 5 Transit Network Modifications by Forecast Year 2005 2015 2035 Third Street LRT opened from 4 th /King Streets to Sunnydale Avenue Removal of Muni 15 line along 3 rd Street Same Same Caltrain Electrification Third Street LRT extended along New Central Subway under 3 rd Street to Market Street, Union Square, and Chinatown Same Same BART to Warm Springs and ebart 2. VALIDATION Several data comparisons were used to validate the model. These comparisons are described in the following sections. Roadway volume forecasts as compared with observed historical roadway volume trends; Roadway volume estimates as compared with observed current roadway volumes; and Transit ridership estimates as compared with observed transit ridership. 2.1. Existing Roadway Volume Trends Historical roadway volumes in the corridor are available from two sources, Caltrans and SFMTA. Both sources show a decline in roadway volumes in recent years. What is more surprising is that the Caltrans data show volumes on Van Ness decreasing steadily and consistently across the entire time period from 1992 to the present. This spans several recessions, the boom years of the late 1990s, and several spikes in fuel costs. O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 12\VanNess Updated SF-CHAMP Documentation 090209.doc Page 3 of 34

18 Van Ness Avenue BRT EIR/EIS This trend is true at all locations along Van Ness which Caltrans surveyed: Lombard, California, Turk, and Golden Gate. Depending on location, since 1992 volumes have decreased on Van Ness Avenue between 30 and 50 percent. This finding could be partially attributed to changes in Caltrans collection methodology. Figure 1 displays the Caltrans observed volumes for the peak hour at four locations along Van Ness between 1992 and 2008, while Figure 2 shows the average daily volume for the same locations and time period. Both charts show a slow, steady decline in volumes since the dot-com bust in 2000. Figure 1. Caltrans Observed Peak Hour Volume along Van Ness Avenue between 1992 and 2008. Caltrans Average Peak Hour Counts 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000-1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 at Golden Gate at Turk at California at Lombard 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Figure 2. Caltrans Observed Annual Average Daily Trips (AADT) along Van Ness Avenue between 1992 and 2008. Regional Travel AADT on Van Ness 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 - at Golden Gate at Turk at California at Lombard 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 ABAG projections show a very modest increase in population and employment in the northern counties across the Golden Gate Bridge over the next twenty years. The North Bay s total share of regional employment across the region is expected to fall slightly by 2035. The Van Ness corridor is expected to grow O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 12\VanNess Updated SF-CHAMP Documentation 090209.doc Page 4 of 34

Van Ness Avenue BRT EIR/EIS (see Figure 3 and Figure 4). While regional tripmaking will likely increase from 2005 to 2035, there is no expectation that traffic volumes on Van Ness will rise unexpectedly or dramatically over the timeframe of this study. Figure 3. Additional Housing Units in Van Ness Corridor and San Francisco 2005 to 2015 Figure 4. Additional jobs in Van Ness Corridor and San Francisco 2005 to 2015 O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 12\VanNess Updated SF-CHAMP Documentation 090209.doc Page 5 of 34 19

20 Van Ness Avenue BRT EIR/EIS 2.2. Observed Roadway Volumes CHAMP estimated volumes for 2005 along Van Ness Avenue are well within an acceptable range when compared to observed traffic turning movement counts collected at several intersections on Van Ness, Franklin, and Gough between Mission and Clay in March of 2008. Figure 5 displays the comparison of the 2005 CHAMP model results to count volumes on Van Ness Avenue and Franklin Gough in the southbound and northbound directions. The Van Ness BRT study team s conclusion is that the CHAMP model is a reasonable estimator of current traffic volumes and should be a reliable estimator of future volumes as well. The comparison of 2005 SF CHAMP model to the 2008 counts show similar overall trends. CHAMP overestimates volumes by an average of 17%, consistent with the downward trend for traffic on Van Ness. For purposes of operations simulations, the observed volumes will provide the absolute values used in the operations models, and growth rates from CHAMP (rather than absolute volumes) will be used to obtain future year volume levels. Figure 5. CHAMP 2005 Model vs. March 2008 Counts along Van Ness Avenue PM Peak Hour Volumes on Southbound Van Ness Avenue 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Clay Sacramento California Pine Bush Sutter Post Geary O'Farrell Ellis Cross Street 2005 CHAMP 3.3.2 2008 Count Eddy Turk Golden Gate McAllister Grove Hayes Fell Oak Market PM Peak Hour Volumes on Northbound Van Ness Avenue 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Clay Sacramento California Pine Bush Sutter Post Geary O'Farrell Cross Street 2005 CHAMP 3.3.2 2008 Count Ellis Eddy Turk Golden Gate McAllister Grove Hayes Fell Oak Market O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 12\VanNess Updated SF-CHAMP Documentation 090209.doc Page 6 of 34

Van Ness Avenue BRT EIR/EIS 21 Similar to Van Ness Avenue, the 2005 CHAMP model generally predicts slightly higher (23%) volumes on both Franklin and Gough compared to the 2008 counts (see Figure 6), and mirrors the trend of volumes along the Franklin and Gough corridors. Figure 6. CHAMP 2005 Model vs. March 2008 Counts along Franklin and Gough 4000 3500 PM Peak Hour Volumes on Southbound Gough 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 4500 Clay Sacramento California Pine Bush Sutter Post Geary Ellis Eddy Cross Street Turk Golden Gate McAllister Fulton Grove 2005 CHAMP 3.3.2 2008 Count Hayes Fell Oak 4000 PM Peak Hour Volumes on Northbound Franklin 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 2005 CHAMP 3.3.2 500 2008 Count 0 Clay Sacramento California Pine Bush Sutter Post Geary O'Farrell Ellis Eddy Turk Golden Gate McAllister Fulton Grove Hayes Fell Oak Cross Street O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 12\VanNess Updated SF-CHAMP Documentation 090209.doc Page 7 of 34

22 Van Ness Avenue BRT EIR/EIS 2.3. Observed Transit Ridership Muni s Automated Passenger Counter (APC) data from Spring of 2007 was used to validate SF-CHAMP s estimates of transit ridership. Muni Boardings by Submode Total daily Muni boardings are within 1% of observed APC data from 2007. Total estimated bus boardings are about 2% higher in the 2005 CHAMP model than observed, while total rail boardings are about 3% lower. Express buses are 11% lower in the CHAMP model, but have historically been more difficult to model accurately. Table 6 summarizes these results. Table 6 Total Daily Muni Boardings; Modeled 2005 vs. Observed 2007 Mode Observed Modeled Difference Total Bus 493,371 503,842 2% Local Bus 465,092 478,543 3% Express Bus 28,279 25,299-11% Light Rail / Cable 185,849 179,481-3% Total 679,220 683,323 1% Muni Boardings by Route; Modeled vs. Observed Figure 7 displays a scatterplot of the modeled vs. observed boardings for every route in the Muni system. (If the model predicted the ridership of each route perfectly, all the data points would land on the drawn diagonal line). There is no discernible bias between bus and rail, or between small and large routes. Figure 7. Modeled vs. Observed Muni Boardings by Route, for Bus and Rail Daily Boardings by Route 50,000 45,000 40,000 Estimated Daily Boardings 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 Bus Rail 5,000 0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 Observed Daily Boardings O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 12\VanNess Updated SF-CHAMP Documentation 090209.doc Page 8 of 34

Van Ness Avenue BRT EIR/EIS 23 Muni Boardings on the 47 and 49 Lines The Muni 47 and 49 share the same stops along Van Ness Avenue in the study area between Mission and North Point. Outside the study area they have different routes: the 49 begins at North Point and travels south to City College along Van Ness and Mission Street, whereas the 47 starts in Fisherman s Wharf, meets the 49 at North Point and Van Ness Avenue, leaves Van Ness at Mission Street and travels through SOMA to terminate at the 4 th /King Caltrain station. Because of these different routings, the two lines exhibit different boarding profiles even though they share the same stops and have similar headways on the Van Ness corridor. As can be seen in Figure 8 - Figure 11, 49 buses pick up many more passengers than 47 buses as they head southbound. The two routes termini in the Northbound direction are more similar, making the differences in boardings between the lines in the Northbound direction are less pronounced. Major stops in the corridor are similar for both lines, with Mission and Market Streets having the highest number of boardings northbound, and Jackson, Broadway, Mission and Market Streets the highest number of boardings southbound. Both directions see a large change in ridership at Geary and O Farrell, presumably due to transfers to and from the 38-Geary line. The 2005 CHAMP model noticeably over-predicts the proportion of boardings and alightings that take place at this stop. As with auto volumes, CHAMP overestimates transit ridership for the entire line (18% for the 47 and 3% for the 49). Figure 8. Southbound 49 Boardings and Volumes, PM Peak Period O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 12\VanNess Updated SF-CHAMP Documentation 090209.doc Page 9 of 34

24 Van Ness Avenue BRT EIR/EIS Figure 9. Southbound 47 Boardings and Volumes, PM Peak Period. Figure 10. Northbound 49 Boardings and Volumes, PM Peak Period O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 12\VanNess Updated SF-CHAMP Documentation 090209.doc Page 10 of 34

Van Ness Avenue BRT EIR/EIS 25 Figure 11. Northbound 47 Boardings and Volumes, PM Peak Period. 3. 2005 BASE YEAR MODELING RESULTS CHAMP produces trip tables of travel demand for all origin/destination pairs in the region. These tables are summarized into district-level tables, and then compared to identify trends in mode share or trip growth. In addition, trip tables are assigned to the roadway and transit systems, creating link-level volumes and routelevel ridership. The results of these analyses are described below. P.M. peak period results (3:30 P.M. to 6:30 P.M.) are highlighted in most cases. 3.1. Screenline Analysis A screenline statistic reports trip volumes assigned to a specific roadway link (or set of links) at a specific point. We report screenline statistics for Van Ness Avenue itself as well as for the corridor, defined to include several parallel streets (Franklin and Gough Streets to the west, and Polk, Larkin, and Hyde Streets to the east). It is important to note that screenline analysis only reports motorized trip volumes (auto and transit persontrips). CHAMP does not assign unmotorized persontrips using the walk or bike modes, and thus are not reflected in the screenline statistics. In other words, the mode share figures reported are the share of total motorized persontrips, not the share of all persontrips. Eight cross streets define the screenlines used in this study: Mission, Market, Fell, McAllister, Geary, California, Broadway, and Lombard Streets, shown in Figure 12. Golden Gate Transit trips and MUNI trips are both included in the persontrips count. The Market screenline includes trips on MUNI only (because Golden Gate transit does not make a stop at these intersections). In the following analysis, the volume of person-trips by auto and by transit is reported at various screenlines along the Van corridor as well as on Van Ness Avenue only. O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 12\VanNess Updated SF-CHAMP Documentation 090209.doc Page 11 of 34

26 Van Ness Avenue BRT EIR/EIS Figure 12. Screenline definitions Persontrips Figure 13 summarizes the volume of motorized person-trips (walk and bike trips are not reflected in the mode share figures) crossing selected Van Ness Avenue and Van Ness corridor screenlines daily. While not shown in the figure and table, observed counts indicate that roadway volumes are higher in the PM than in the AM, reflecting a wider mix of trip purposes later in the day. On Van Ness Avenue itself, both daily auto-trips and transit-trips peak at the McAllister screenline with 45,614 and 19,152 trips respectively. The daily volume of auto person-trips on Van Ness Avenue at Lombard is 62% of the auto person-trips at McAllister; in the PM Peak Hour, auto person-trips at Lombard are 38% of the trips at Fell Street. Along the entire corridor (including parallel streets) perspective, daily person-trips peak at McAllister, with 191,519 and 28,106 trips by auto and transit respectively. The corridor-wide volume of auto person-trips at Lombard is 26% of the auto person-trips at McAllister. Traveling northbound, the volume of autos in the corridor increases from Market, peaking at McAllister (85,368 person-trips daily). After the McAllister screenline, however, auto volumes in the corridor decrease, and drop by 72% between the Broadway and Lombard screenlines. In the PM peak, auto volumes on the corridor are highest at Market, suggesting that more autos are using the corridor to access southern freeway on-ramps or moving north and turning off at screenlines such as Turk and Geary. These screenline results suggest that autos turn off the Van Ness Avenue and the Van Ness Corridor at Geary, California, and Broadway, to locations in the western and eastern parts of San Francisco. This reinforces the finding that many of the auto trips on the corridor do not continue to Doyle Drive and the North Bay, and also indicates that the average distance traveled on Van Ness Avenue by autos is short, with high frequencies of turns onto and off of the street. Mode Shares During the PM peak, the McAllister screenline has a 30% transit mode share among motorized person-trips on Van Ness. Transit mode share on Van Ness Avenue is roughly between 15-35% of motorized trips, both on a daily basis and during the PM peak. The transit share of motorized trips for the entire Van Ness corridor is lower and tends to hover between 10 and 20 percent, reflecting that Van Ness Avenue itself carries nearly all of the transit service in the corridor. Transit's share of motorized person-trips is roughly the same in magnitude throughout the corridor, reinforcing the need for a transit improvement design that extends the full length of project study area. O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 12\VanNess Updated SF-CHAMP Documentation 090209.doc Page 12 of 34

Van Ness Avenue BRT EIR/EIS 27 Figure 13. Daily Motorized Trips on Van Ness Avenue -- CHAMP 2005 Existing Conditions O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 12\VanNess Updated SF-CHAMP Documentation 090209.doc Page 13 of 34

28 Van Ness Avenue BRT EIR/EIS 3.2. Zone Based Analysis A zone-based analysis reveals the trip patterns and characteristics of all the trips coming from and going to the blocks and zones that neighbor Van Ness, including nonmotorized (bike and pedestrian) trips. This provides a different picture of tripmaking than the patterns and characteristics of trips operating on the Van Ness corridor at a particular screenline. For the zone-based analysis, the City was divided into 13 zones. The Van Ness corridor itself was segmented into three zones encompassing the Civic Center area (from Mission to Geary), the mid-van Ness area from Geary to Washington, and the north Van Ness area north of Washington. The most significant difference between the findings of the zonal analysis and the screenline analysis is that the sheer volume of trips coming from, going to, or within the corridor zones is nearly three times as great (597,000 persontrips daily and 130,000 in the pm peak) as the volume of trips at any one screenline. This again emphasizes the short, local nature of most trips along the corridor, since each screenline is only receives a fraction of the total cars on the corridor.. Mode Shares Table 7 below shows the mode split of all daily trips with at least one end in the Van Ness corridor in 2005. Local trips have one end in a Van Ness corridor neighborhood, and one end in San Francisco (in or outside the Van Ness corridor); regional trips have one end in a Van Ness corridor neighborhood and one end outside of San Francisco. Table 7. Mode Share of Trips to, from or within Van Ness Corridor Neighborhoods. By Auto By Transit Walk/Bike Local Trips 54% 21% 25% Regional Trips 73% 27% 0%* All Trips 54% 20% 26% *A small fraction of regional trips walk or bicycle across the Golden Gate bridge from the North Bay Roughly 20% of trips to, from, or within the Van Ness Corridor neighborhoods occur by transit. Regional trips are slightly more likely than local trips to take transit. More than one quarter of all the trips that start or end in the Van Ness Avenue neighborhoods are non-motorized (mainly pedestrian trips). More than half of all trips that start and end in the Van Ness Avenue neighborhoods are walk or bike trips. Mode Shares by Specific District Table 8 shows the origins and destinations of the trips coming to and going from the Van Ness corridor Regional trips beginning and/or ending outside of San Francisco, headed to or from the Van Ness corridor, have a relatively high transit mode share (27%) higher than the transit mode share for local trips (21%). The zones with the highest transit mode shares reflect employment availability and transit accessibility. For example, trips from Van Ness to the East Bay have relatively high transit shares, likely due to BART access; other destinations accessible by a one-seat transit ride such as Outer Mission and North Bay (via the Muni 49 and Golden Gate Transit) also demonstrate higher transit mode shares. Transit shares are lowest from Van Ness for intra-district and adjacent-district trips (reflecting low transit accessibility relative to walk/bike accessibility) as well as regional trips requiring a transfer of line or operator (i.e., VN North to South Bay). Across most destinations, the transit mode share from the Van Ness Corridor is higher than the citywide average. O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 12\VanNess Updated SF-CHAMP Documentation 090209.doc Page 14 of 34

Van Ness Avenue BRT EIR/EIS Table 8. PM Peak Transit Mode Shares in 2005 Base CHAMP 29 Origin District Destination District VN North VN Central Civic Center Van Ness Average Citywide Average VN Compared to Citywide Downtown 5% 16% 26% 15% 18% -3% MsnBayHPt 18% 16% 13% 15% 11% 3% OuterMissn 31% 27% 31% 30% 17% 13% Richmond 21% 23% 27% 25% 15% 10% Mission 26% 21% 22% 22% 17% 5% SOMA 17% 20% 21% 20% 18% 1% CastroNoeV 23% 21% 21% 21% 16% 5% Sunset 30% 27% 35% 32% 15% 17% WAddtnUSF 19% 18% 18% 18% 14% 3% NorthBeach 21% 26% 27% 24% 20% 5% MidMarket 15% 24% 22% 21% 21% 0% NobHill 23% 24% 26% 25% 22% 3% MarinaPres 16% 17% 19% 17% 15% 2% North Bay 15% 21% 35% 28% 26% 2% South Bay 7% 17% 25% 21% 15% 6% East Bay 17% 42% 57% 50% 56% -6% VN North 12% 22% 25% 17% 19% -2% VN Central 22% 13% 21% 17% 21% -4% VN CiviCtr 23% 19% 11% 14% 20% -6% 3.3. Analysis of Specific Users of Roadways CHAMP helps explain the origin-destination patterns of Van Ness corridor travelers, particularly the magnitude and proportions of regional travelers. This analysis indicates that the majority of users are traveling entirely within San Francisco. Analysis of Franklin/Gough and Van Ness Avenue users along the Corridor in the P.M. Peak Period Figure 14 - Figure 16 show the travel patterns of drivers on Franklin/Gough and Van Ness Avenue at different points along the corridor. Both Van Ness and the Franklin/Gough couplet provide significant capacity along the north/south Van Ness corridor, but only a very small portion of their traffic is regional in nature. On the Franklin/Gough couplet between Broadway and Vallejo, about 6% of the traffic is regional through-traffic, with neither an origin nor destination in San Francisco. At this same location, 57% of vehicles have both an origin and destination in San Francisco. Vehicles on Van Ness Avenue between Broadway and Vallejo are even less regional in nature - fewer than 1% of vehicles are regional pass-through trips, neither coming from nor going to San Francisco. Two-thirds of the traffic at this location - 67% of vehicles are local, San Francisco drivers, with both an origin and destination in San Francisco. The high proportion of local traffic is even more pronounced in the southern part of the corridor, between Hayes and Grove, where 80% of vehicles on Franklin/Gough and Van Ness Avenue are making local trips with both an origin and destination within San Francisco. O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 12\VanNess Updated SF-CHAMP Documentation 090209.doc Page 15 of 34

30 Van Ness Avenue BRT EIR/EIS Figure 14. Travel Patterns of Franklin/Gough Users between Hayes and Grove, PM Peak Period Figure 15. Travel Patterns of Franklin/Gough Users between Broadway and Vallejo, PM Peal Period O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 12\VanNess Updated SF-CHAMP Documentation 090209.doc Page 16 of 34

Van Ness Avenue BRT EIR/EIS 31 Figure 16. Regional vs. Local Trips on the Van Ness Corridor 3.4. Trip Divertibility The following analysis identifies the proportion of trips using Van Ness Avenue that must use the street (non-divertible), relative to those trips that do not have an origin or destination on the corridor and could potentially take a different route for their trip (divertible) 1. Any trip with an origin or a destination on the Van Ness Avenue is considered non-divertible; conversely, trips that have no origin and no destination on the Van Ness Avenue are considered divertible. Table 9 describes in detail the divertible and non-divertible trips on Van Ness Avenue. Findings: Non Divertible Trips According to CHAMP, in 2005, about half (48%) of total trips on Van Ness Avenue North of Broadway during the PM Peak have an origin or a destination on Van Ness Avenue, and therefore, could not be diverted from the street. The vast majority of these non-divertible trips 80% - are local trips. Table 9. Summary of Divertible and Non-Divertible Trips on Van Ness Avenue North of Broadway (2005 PM Peak Period) PM Peak Regional Trips Local Trips Total Divertible 2,039(25%) 2,234 (27%) 4,273 (52%) Not Divertible 657 (8%) 3,219 (39%) 3,876 (48%) Total 2,696 (34%) 5,453 (66%) 8,149 (100%) Findings: Divertible Trips By definition, divertible trips are the inverse of divertible trips; thus, about half (52%) of the trips on Van Ness Avenue north of Broadway had no origin or destination on the street in 2005, and are considered divertible, and do not necessarily need to travel on the street. 1 The Van Ness BRT team does not suggest that divertible trips ought to divert; only that they could. O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 12\VanNess Updated SF-CHAMP Documentation 090209.doc Page 17 of 34