Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Meeting 17

AGENDA 1 Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Meeting 17 Date: 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, June 29th, 2010 Location: 100 Van Ness Avenue, 26 th Floor 5:00 1. Committee Meeting Call to Order 5:05 2. Adoption of Minutes of the May 25, 2010 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. 5:20 4. Screening Analysis of Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative INFORMATION* In 2007, consistent with requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)/California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Authority conducted Scoping and Alternatives Screening processes. The purpose of these processes was to identify and screen reasonable and feasible alternatives for Van Ness Avenue BRT, resulting in a limited set of alternatives for full analysis in the environmental impact statement (EIS)/environmental impact report (EIR) document. The Screening Criteria used to select the EIS/EIR alternatives were based on the project Purpose and Need statement. One alternative identified during the Scoping period was a Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking alternative. This concept would convert the existing parallel parking lane on Van Ness Avenue in each direction to a dedicated bus lane. It would retain three mixed flow traffic lanes in each direction, remove curb bulbs, and narrow the center median. The Alternatives Screening Report found that the Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative could not meet the project Purpose and Need and should not be carried forward for analysis in the EIS/EIR due to three fatal flaws: 1) inability to improve pedestrian access and safety; 2) inability to provide an urban street design that increases the livability of Van Ness Avenue and supports its identity a Transit Preferential Street; and 3) inability to provide any parallel parking for loading / unloading and dropoff access to businesses and residents fronting Van Ness Avenue. The Alternatives Screening Report was adopted by the Van Ness BRT CAC, the Authority s Plans and Programs Committee, and the Authority Board. The purpose of this item is to present the analysis supporting the Alternatives Screening Report finding on the Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative. This is an information item. 6:10 5. Draft Alternatives Evaluation Framework INFORMATION+ The Van Ness BRT Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)/Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) will include a Framework for evaluating the benefits and impacts of four alternatives plus a design variation, and will present information on the performance of each alternative. At the May 25, 2010 meeting, the project team presented the committee with a draft Evaluation Framework with criteria on which to evaluate the alternatives. Since the May 25, 2010, the criteria have been revised based on feedback from the CAC and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The DEIS/DEIR will document the performance of each alternative on the various criteria to assist staff and stakeholders in identifying a locally preferred alternative (LPA). The purpose of this item is to obtain committee input on the relative weight of each criterion. We are seeking input and feedback from the Committee. O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 17\Meeting 17 Agenda.doc

2 VN CAC Meeting #17 Agenda, 06.29.10 Page 2 6:50 6. Public Comment 7:00 7. Adjourn * - Materials Attached + - Materials Available at Meeting O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 17\Meeting 17 Agenda.doc Page 2 of 2

DRAFT MINUTES 3 Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Meeting 16 Date: 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, May 25, 2010 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 5:06 p.m. Van Ness CAC members present were Dave Goggin (moderator), Bob Bardell, Michelle Brant, Jason Henderson, Steve Kendrick, Lawrence Li, Henry Pan, Howard Strassner, and Marla Taylor. Staff present included Liz Brisson, Rachel Hiatt, and Michael Schwartz of the Authority; Paul Bignardi of SFMTA; Nandini Shridhar of Caltrans; and Brynna McNulty of Parsons Transportation Group. 2. Adoption of Minutes of the February 23, 2010 Meeting ACTION Jason Henderson asked that it be noted in the record that at each meeting he commented that the project should have been implemented more quickly. Dave Goggin pointed out two typos that he asked be edited. Howard Strassner moved to approve the minutes. Marla Taylor seconded. There was no public comment. The item passed unanimously. 3. Public Outreach and Involvement Approach: Social Media -- INFORMATION Liz Brisson, Transportation Planner, presented the item. Henry Pan asked if people were allowed to post on the wall of the Facebook site. Liz said that the policy was that anyone was allowed to post on the wall. Jason Henderson said he applauded the public outreach, but he said he was concerned about how cluttered Facebook was. He asked if there was any measure of the effectiveness of the Facebook page given how many people had pages. He thought that many people tuned out all the messaging and people could miss something important. He said he was also concerned about privacy issues that he had heard a lot about in the news. Liz Brisson said that the point about clutter was a good one. She said they thought to have fewer posts per week to not overwhelm fans of the page. Jason Henderson said he wanted to make sure that people wouldn t miss out if they weren t fans. Bob Bardell asked if the general public could access the page. Liz Brisson said that anyone could read it, but people needed to join in order to interact and post on the page. O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 17\Meeting 16 Minutes Draft.doc

4 VN CAC Meeting #15 Agenda, 05.25.10 Page 2 Rachel Hiatt said that the main reason to have a Facebook page was to be able to let people comment and let people see the comments, which would be a different way of interacting with the project than the Authority website could do on its own. Henry Pan said he would like to see a separate page for Van Ness BRT. Howard Strassner said the only benefit he saw was the ability to look at comments. Bob Bardell asked what happened when new content was added to the site. Liz Brisson said that changes would show up in the news feed. Lawrence Li said he was not a big fan himself, but he recognized that a lot of people used Facebook and that it was a good way to reach them. He also recommended a separate Van Ness BRT page. Michelle Brant asked how the Authority would know the age of the person posting on the site. Liz Brisson said that there was a feature that allowed the Authority to summarize the basic demographics of fans of the page. Jason Henderson asked if posts to the Facebook page would count as public comment on the EIR/EIS. Paul Bignardi of SFMTA said that it could count. During public comment, Eric P. Scott said he was disappointed that the Authority had chosen to use Facebook exclusively as its social media site. He said he had two issues with Facebook. First, he said it operated as a cult that sought to grow its membership; he encouraged Authority staff to verify that the site was truly open to the public. Secondly, Mr. Scott said that Facebook had a very poor track record with respecting privacy; Mr. Scott said he would not use them as a primary part of the social media strategy. He encouraged the BRT team to look at what Central Subway was doing as a model. Craig Anderson said he noted that only 18 members were from San Francisco. Liz Brisson said that this was because some of the people likely chose not to reveal where they were from or perhaps chose not to identify as being from San Francisco. 4. Detailed Project Status and Schedule INFORMATION Rachel Hiatt, Senior Transportation Planner, presented the item. Steve Kendrick asked what the new scenario was that had been added. Rachel Hiatt replied that it was a variation on the center alternatives (Alternatives 3 and 4), and that they removed left turn pockets at all locations except Broadway southbound to see if that would improve traffic operations. Marla Taylor asked if the environmental study would consider the growth associated with the California Pacific Medical Center (CPMC). Rachel Hiatt responded that it would. Howard Strassner asked if the public would be involved in the scoping of alternatives. Rachel Hiatt responded that the scoping had already been finished, but that the public had been involved in that process. Howard Strassner said that he had submitted an alternative with parking in the middle of the street while allowing buses to run in the curb lane. He said he thought this would cost less than the other center running alternatives. He asked that the project team respond to his proposal. Steve Kendrick said that he wanted to take out parking all together. He said as long as O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 17\Meeting 16 Minutes Draft.doc Page 2 of 6

VN CAC Meeting #15 Agenda, 05.25.10 Page 3 5 the study is looking at one variant, the staff should look at a curb running alternative that removed parking and maintained all three mixed traffic lanes in each direction. He said this model could be replicated all over the city and that on-street parking could be replaced through underground garages. Bob Bardell asked why the staff was looking at alternatives that removed left turns. Rachel Hiatt said that SFMTA asked the Authority to study that scenario. She said that the signal timing constraints in the center scenarios impacted operations due to the need for a dedicated left turn phase for private vehicles to get around the buses. Rachel Hiatt said that there were tradeoffs with each scenario that needed to be studied. Ms. Hiatt said that there she had heard from the CAC that there were four scenarios they would like to see examined: growth associated with the California Pacific Medical Center, high fuel price, BRT in the curb lane with parking in the center, and a scenario with BRT in the curb lane that removes parking or has a tow-away zone during peak periods. Marla Taylor said that if the project were to get rid of parking and left turns, then Van Ness would turn into a parkway where people would speed. Steve Kendrick thought that would be a good thing because Van Ness was designated US 101 and was the appropriate road to accommodate high speeds and high volumes of traffic, not the parallel streets which were more residential in nature. Marla Taylor said that removing parking and eliminating turns would be a big change, and would not make it easy to walk on Van Ness. Jason Henderson said that he supported looking at the no-left turn scenario, but not any of the other ones. He said that he felt like each meeting added something new for the project to study, and he wanted to know when this phenomenon would stop so the project could be completed. He said the current schedule was already too long. Howard Strassner said that the CAC selected the center lane to be studied before they knew it would cost $30 million more than the side running alternative, and he only allowed the side lane alternative because he thought it wouldn t go anywhere. Marla Taylor asked if the CAC was what was holding the project up. Rachel Hiatt said no. Lawrence Li said that he agreed with Jason Henderson, and said he was satisfied with the four alternatives being considered. He said he did not like the idea of having speeding traffic right next to the sidewalk. Steve Kendrick said that this could be remedied by replacing the area currently occupied by parking meters with landscaping. Rachel Hiatt said that she would bring a proposal for addressing the sub-alternatives to the June CAC. During public comment, Eric P. Scott said the schedule only showed 7 days for CAC/TAC input on the locally preferred alternative (LPA) selection. Rachel Hiatt said that the schedule was reflecting two meetings, but that there would be significantly more occasions for the two groups to weigh in on the alternatives evaluation process. Steve Kendrick said that Michelle Brant (who had left the meeting at that point) had left a note for him to ask a question. He said the note asked if there was a state agency that was opposing the removal of one lane of traffic. Rachel Hiatt said that the state agency involved in the study is Caltrans, but that Caltrans had not taken any official position on the project, including on the topic of lane removal. Nandini Shridhar of Caltrans said O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 17\Meeting 16 Minutes Draft.doc Page 3 of 6

6 VN CAC Meeting #15 Agenda, 05.25.10 Page 4 that Ms. Hiatt was correct that Caltrans had not taken an official position on the project yet. 5. Draft Alternatives Evaluation Framework INFORMATION Rachel Hiatt, Senior Transportation Planner, presented the item per the staff memorandum. Howard Strassner said that crowding should not be one of the criteria because if it was a problem, MTA could always run more buses. Rachel Hiatt said that it was still a good idea to select a project that would run buses at even headways, thus minimizing crowding and getting the most use out of the existing fleet and operating plan. Steve Kendrick said that the ability to sit down should be considered as one of the criteria. He said that when BART was designed, the idea was to allow everyone to be able to sit down. Paul Bignardi said that the difference between the alternatives is only about 4 seats. Steve Kendrick said it was a function of both the number of seats and also the speed and reliability of the buses, so it should be considered. Howard Strassner said that the criteria should only include a minimum median refuge width, but that it should not be a differentiator beyond that. Rachel Hiatt said that the minimum was 4 feet. Howard Strassner said 4 feet was not enough, and said the criteria should be anything beyond 6. Steve Kendrick said that site distance should be one of the criteria. Bob Bardell said that right turns were a danger. He said that if the project were to eliminate left turns, there would be more right turns which would be more dangerous. He said this was a concern that should be captured. Rachel Hiatt said this would be considered in the criteria, possibly through universal design. Howard Strassner said one way to deal with it was to delay the start of right turns until after the pedestrians had already started crossing. Rachel Hiatt said that such a signal timing could be incorporated into the project. Marla Taylor said that by eliminating right turns the project would frustrate people. Henry Pan asked if there was a chance that the bus would not have signal priority at certain intersections due to the need to accommodate other movements. Rachel Hiatt said it was possible, but that the team would know more through the micro-simulation model. Dave Goggin said that the edge-area ratio criterion would make long-skinny shapes do worse than shorter, wider ones. He said that the criterion would be better if it corresponded with total area of landscaping. Rachel Hiatt asked if one of the landscaping criteria should be taken out. Dave Goggin said the removal of some should be considered. Dave Goggin also said there should be a leafiness ratio criterion. He said this criterion would measure the amount of canopy in order to look at how to reduce light pollution and to enrich the blue lighting. Bob Bardell asked if deciduous trees were a good option given the plugging of drains. Rachel Hiatt said that this factor was being considered in the design. Lawrence Li said he would like to see a criterion that shows all tress as opposed to just the ones that are retained. Rachel Hiatt asked if people had opinions on the time lag between planting and making trees full grown. Lawrence Li said he saw this project as O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 17\Meeting 16 Minutes Draft.doc Page 4 of 6

VN CAC Meeting #15 Agenda, 05.25.10 Page 5 7 long term and didn t care about the lag time. Steve Kendrick said that for the cost of the project, the team could purchase and plant the trees full grown. Henry Pan asked if SFMTA had selected the buses. Paul Bignardi said they only knew general specifications, but would not select the supplier for a while. Marla Taylor asked where the maintenance budget would come from. Lawrence Li asked the team to consider weighing sidewalk experience, including the buffer between vehicles and sidewalk. Steve Kendrick said that by having the buses in the curb lane, people would enjoy their sidewalk experience more. Marla Taylor said criteria like that were too subjective. Bob Bardell said that BRT would be more analogous to a subway, and that people should not be waiting as long. Steve Kendrick asked if global warming was specifically targeted. He said to be sure to incorporate how fast vehicles would be moving when calculating this measure. Rachel Hiatt said that the analysis did include this consideration. Jason Henderson said to be sure to look at the scale of measurement with greenhouse gases. He said that sometimes it could look like there is was increase at a local level while it would be a reduction regionally. Tilly Chang said that impacts of changes in transportation and land uses would be modeled locally and regionally for this criterion. Dave Goggin said there should be a graffitiability metric. He said one alternative might tempt graffiti vandals if there were larger spaces. Henry Pan asked if the station platforms would be standard or if they would be reflective of neighborhoods. Rachel Hiatt said those decisions had not yet been made regarding the stations but that there would be many other opportunities to weigh in on that. Jason Henderson said he thought that the person delay criterion should be thrown out and not used in the analysis. Bob Bardell said he wanted to see where the metric was for looking at diversions into residential neighborhoods. Rachel Hiatt said this would be looked at as part of the transportation impact analysis. Steve Kendrick said he agreed that this was an important factor. Jason Henderson asked how the Central Freeway/Octavia Boulevard Circulation study would inform the analysis. Rachel Hiatt said that the modeling assumptions were based on changes that the team knew would be coming in the same time period as the BRT. Howard Strassner asked if the CAC would provide input on weighting. Rachel Hiatt said that could wait for a subsequent meeting. 6. Public Comment Eric P. Scott said there would be a public health benefit to the center alternatives because the platforms would not be next to donut shops. He said he liked the criteria, but thought there were some things that were missing. He said he would like to see criteria that measure what would happen when things ground to a halt due to rain, passenger safety (on and off-board), and wheelchair loading. Wendy Tran wanted to know the construction timeline and wanted to be sure the team had anticipated the growth associated with the CPMC. Rachel Hiatt said construction would begin around 2012. She also said that the Van Ness BRT project was being O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 17\Meeting 16 Minutes Draft.doc Page 5 of 6

8 VN CAC Meeting #15 Agenda, 05.25.10 Page 6 coordinated closely with CPMC. Tilly Chang said that Authority Board Chair Mirkarimi requested that the Authority make a presentation regarding CPMC at the next plans and programs meeting. Henry Pan asked if the BRT would affect the CPMC ambulances. Rachel Hiatt said that the ambulances don t access the hospital from Van Ness Avenue. Jordan Kirk said that systemwide ridership seemed to be a proxy for speed and reliability, so it could be redundant. He also asked if there was any difference in the amount of signaling for each alternative. Rachel Hiatt said the alternatives vary between the signal time given to each mode. She said that there is a minimum pedestrian crossing time, but outside of that MTA can change between how much signal time is given to various movements such as those of the cross streets as well as left turns.. 7. Adjourn Marla Taylor motioned to adjourn the meeting. Henry Pan seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 7:19 p.m O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 17\Meeting 16 Minutes Draft.doc Page 6 of 6

9 Memorandum Date: 06.26.10 RE: Van Ness BRT Citizens Advisory Committee June 29 th, 2010 To: From: Subject: Van Ness Avenue BRT Citizens Advisory Committee Rachel Hiatt Senior Transportation Planner Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative INFORMATION Summary In 2007, consistent with requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)/California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Authority conducted Scoping and Alternatives Screening processes. The purpose of these processes was to identify and screen reasonable and feasible alternatives for Van Ness Avenue BRT, resulting in a limited set of alternatives for full analysis in the environmental impact statement (EIS)/environmental impact report (EIR) document. The Screening Criteria used to select the EIS/EIR alternatives were based on the project Purpose and Need statement. One alternative identified during the Scoping period was a Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking alternative. This concept would convert the existing parallel parking lane on Van Ness Avenue in each direction to a dedicated bus lane. It would retain three mixed flow traffic lanes in each direction, remove curb bulbs, and narrow the center median. The Alternatives Screening Report found that the Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative could not meet the project Purpose and Need and should not be carried forward for analysis in the EIS/EIR due to three fatal flaws: 1) inability to improve pedestrian access and safety; 2) inability to provide an urban street design that increases the livability of Van Ness Avenue and supports its identity a Transit Preferential Street; and 3) inability to provide any parallel parking for loading / unloading and dropoff access to businesses and residents fronting Van Ness Avenue. The Alternatives Screening Report was adopted by the Van Ness BRT CAC, the Authority s Plans and Programs Committee, and the Authority Board. The purpose of this item is to present the analysis supporting the Alternatives Screening Report finding on the Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative. This is an information item. BACKGROUND A Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative was considered during the 2007 Scoping and Alternatives Screening processes in support of the Van Ness Avenue BRT EIR/EIS. The Alternatives Screening Report adopted by the Authority Board in 2008 found that the Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative would not meet the project Purpose and Need, and was not recommended for further analysis. DISCUSSION The Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative would convert the existing 8 foot (ft) parallel parking lane on Van Ness Avenue to an 11 ft dedicated bus lane in the north and southbound directions, retaining three mixed flow traffic lanes in each direction. In order to create the additional width for the dedicated bus lane, the existing 14 ft landscaped center median would be reduced to 10 ft in most locations along the corridor and would be eliminated at locations where left-turn pockets are provided. The alternative would also include many of the same features as the other build alternatives, including transit signal priority (TSP); higher capacity bus vehicles; level boarding; improved stops; fare prepayment; all door boarding; and replacement of support poles for signals, overhead contact system (OCS) support poles/streetlights, and replacement of the OCS itself. O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 17\Item 4 Memo.doc Page 1 of 4

10 The Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative features would differ from the features of the build alternatives considered in the EIS/EIR (Alternatives 2-4) in the following ways: No curb bulbs; No median pedestrian refuge where left turn pockets are provided; Bus station platforms would be located within the existing sidewalk area; Increased lane capacity for mixed traffic; No right turn pockets (buses would share the lane with right turning vehicles); and No parallel parking. NEPA/CEQA Scoping and Alternatives Screening Process: The EIS/EIR Alternatives Screening Process for the Van Ness Avenue BRT project began formally in September 2007 and concluded in April 2008 with Authority Board adoption of the NEPA/CEQA Alternatives Screening Report, which identified three build alternatives for further consideration and eliminated the Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative due to three fatal flaws. Criteria for screening were based on the project Purpose and Need Statement, and were presented to the Van Ness BRT CAC in the December 2007. At its January 2008 meeting, the Van Ness BRT CAC voted 4-3 in favor of adopting the Alternatives Screening Report, which eliminated the Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative due to three fatal flaws. Analysis of the Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative: The project alternatives screening criteria were derived from the project Purpose and Need statement. The project team analyzed the performance of the Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative on each of the criteria used in the Alternatives Screening Report, summarized below in Table 1. O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 17\Item 4 Memo.doc Page 2 of 4

11 Table 1: Screening Criteria Performance of Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Category Criteria Score* Notes Transit Operations Benefits Transit Rider Experience Urban Design Benefits Multi-modal System Performance Benefits Improve Transit Speed and Reliability Improve Transit Mode Share/ Ridership Improve Vehicle Waiting Experience Improve Ride Quality Improve Pedestrian Access and Safety Improve Streetscape; Landscape; Integrate with Adjacent Uses Minimize Total Person Delay Strengthen and Highlight the city s Network of Rapid Transit Service Time to Benefits Transit delays and conflicts reduced by TSP and bus lanes Conflicts with right turning vehicles Illegal parking conflicts Reduced benefit of TSP due to need for extended pedestrian signal time to cross Van Ness Increased speed and reliability will attract new riders Corridor transit mode share will increase Shelters, seating, real-time service information systems, ticket vending, lighting, and security features will be installed. Passenger queuing area may be insufficient at the Market and Geary/O Farrell stations. Rehabilitation of existing concrete parking strip would improve ride quality. Enhanced ride quality through dedicated lane Significant weaving maneuvers to avoid right turning and illegally parked vehicles Curbside stations would encroach on sidewalk, reducing effective pedestrian width below standards, and increasing pedestrian congestion. Pedestrian crossing distances increased due to removal of curb bulbs; distance to median refuges also increased Median refuges eliminated at left turn intersections Longer pedestrian crossing times Without bus bulbs, stations located at major activity centers may be crowded and could affect access to adjacent land uses. The landscaped median would be reduced by 4 and eliminated at left turn locations. Planted buffers for the extent of Van Ness would contribute to the urban design aesthetic of the street. Increase in number of travel lanes detracts from the design of Van Ness Avenue as a signature Transit Preferential Street. Difficult to predict without operational simulation Transit delays somewhat reduced, but somewhat increased by signal timing constraints. Mixed traffic delays somewhat reduced through increased lane capacity, but somewhat increased by signal timing constraints. Pedestrian crossing delays likely to increase by signal timing constraints. Service will be distinct from existing transit. Conflict between buses and right-turning automobiles at intersections reduces the ability to create a distinct brand of rapid transit separate from traditional bus service. Limited station platform size reduces the opportunity to provide amenities. Could be implemented within three years of environmental clearance and other approvals. Variation involving underground parking construction would significantly increase the time to benefits. O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 17\Item 4 Memo.doc Page 3 of 4

12 Category Criteria Score* Notes Traffic and Parking Impacts Capital and Operating Cost Accommodate Traffic Circulation Provide Parallel Parking Capital Cost Operating Cost Increased automobile capacity between intersections by retaining 3 lanes of mixed flow traffic and removing all transit operations from the third lane. Reduced vehicle capacity at some intersections due to shorter green times along Van Ness due to longer pedestrian crossing distances. Increased traffic volumes generated through increased capacity. Removes all loading/unloading and drop off access along Van Ness Avenue. Variation involving underground parking construction would not provide loading/unloading or drop off access. Moderate capital cost affordable with anticipated resources. Variation involving underground parking construction would create significant additional costs. Operational efficiencies will allow fewer buses to provide a more reliable and frequent service resulting in lower cost per vehicle mile than existing bus service. Construction Impacts Duration and Intensity of Construction *Empty circle indicates fatal flaw Street work and temporary closures required to install transitway and relocate utilities. Primarily street work that can be staged to minimize closures but curbside construction will affect adjacent uses. Variation involving underground parking construction would create intensive construction impacts not reflected here. Lower Benefit Higher Impact Higher Benefit Lower Impact CONCLUSION The Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative is not recommended for full analysis in the EIR/EIS based on its inability to meet the project Purpose and Need. That inability is based on three fatal flaws: Inability to improve access and pedestrian safety; Inability of the alternative to contribute to the urban design and identity of Van Ness Avenue as a signature Transit Preferential Street; and Inability to provide for loading / unloading and drop off parallel parking access. Based on this analysis described in this Report, the Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative was withdrawn from consideration following the Scoping and period. This is an information item. Attachment Curb Running Bus Rapid Transit, No Parallel Parking Alternative Summary Report O:\Active Studies\Van Ness BRT Environmental & PE\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 17\Item 4 Memo.doc Page 4 of 4

13 Curb Running Bus Rapid Transit, No Parallel Parking Alternative Summary Report Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project Prepared for: San Francisco County Transportation Authority Prepared by: Parsons November 2007 Revised June 2010 1

14 INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the Screening analysis of a Curb Running Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), No Parallel Parking build alternative for the Van Ness Avenue BRT Project. The Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative was considered during the 2007 Scoping and Alternatives Screening processes in support of the Van Ness Avenue BRT EIR/EIS. The Alternatives Screening Report adopted by the Authority Board in 2008 found that the Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative would not meet the project Purpose and Need, and was not recommended for further analysis. DESCRIPTION OF THE CURB RUNNING BRT, NO PARALLEL PARKING ALTERNATIVE The Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative was considered during the Van Ness Avenue BRT Project NEPA/CEQA Scoping process. The alternative would include the following features: Bus lane in each direction shared with right turning vehicles Transportation System Management (TSM) capabilities (including transit signal priority) Higher capacity bus vehicles Level boarding, improved stops/stations located on the sidewalk Proof of payment/all door boarding/fare prepayment Replacement of signal poles Replacement of Overhead Contact System (OCS) support pole/streetlights Landscaped planters in the outer zone of the sidewalk Suggested variations on the Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking alternative would include offstreet replacement parking. Off-street replacement parking is not a reasonable or feasible project feature, whether provided publicly or privately. Off-street parking does not replace in kind the loss of loading / unloading and drop-off access provided by on-street parallel parking. Private vendors may provide publicly-available off-street parking along Van Ness Avenue per existing per existing City codes; the BRT alternative would not modify codes regarding privately provided off-street public parking. The City could not require private vendors to provide publicly-available parking to replace the on-street parking. The cost of providing publicly-subsidized off-street replacement parking is a fatal flaw of such an alternative (see page 14). Geometry. A typical cross section of existing conditions and the Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative are shown in Figure 1. The Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative would convert the existing 8 foot (ft) parallel parking lane on Van Ness Avenue to an 11 ft bus lane in the north and southbound directions, retaining three mixed flow traffic lanes in the north and southbound directions. In order to create the three additional feet in each direction for the bus lane, the outermost mixed traffic lane would be narrowed from 11.5 ft to 10.5 ft, and the existing 14 ft landscaped center median would be narrowed to 10 ft. The median would be removed entirely at locations where left-turn pockets are provided. 2

15 The Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative would not be an exclusive bus lane; rightturning autos would share the lane. Differences from the other build alternatives. The Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative features differ from the features of alternatives carried further for consideration in the following ways: No curb bulbs; No median pedestrian refuge where left turn pockets are provided; Bus station platforms would be located within the existing sidewalk area; Increased lane capacity for mixed traffic; No right turn pockets; and No parallel parking. Figure 1: Typical Cross Section of Existing Conditions on Van Ness Avenue and for the Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative. REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES SCREENING PROCESS The Van Ness Avenue BRT Project alternatives identification and screening process began formally in September 2007. The NEPA/CEQA Scoping Period first gathered public and agency input on the project Purpose and Need statement and range of reasonable and feasible alternatives. The Scoping Period concluded with an Alternatives Screening Process; this effort screened the range of alternatives proposed during Scoping based on ability to meet the project Purpose and Need. In April 2008, the Authority Board approved the Alternatives Screening Report, which recommended three build alternatives for further analysis, and removed the Curb Running BRT, No Parallel 3

16 Parking Alternative from further consideration based on three fatal flaws in its ability to meet the project Purpose and Need. NEPA/CEQA Scoping Period Scoping is a process early in the environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) during which interested parties are invited to review and comment on proposed project alternatives and associated potential environmental impacts. The project scoping period for Van Ness BRT was initiated in September 2007 and involved an array of public notification and outreach efforts, described in the Authority s November 2007 Scoping Summary Report. The Scoping Summary Report documents comments received during scoping and summarizes the major themes and issues presented by the pubic and agencies. A Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking alternative was proposed to the Authority for consideration as part of the Scoping outreach efforts. Comments on the Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative included: Proposal of and request to consider the alternative as a way to retain three mixed traffic lanes; and Concern that double parking and truck loading/unloading would be a significant impact on transit operations. The Van Ness Avenue BRT CAC adopted the Scoping Summary Report at its December 2007 meeting. NEPA/CEQA Alternatives Screening Process Following the conclusion of the Public Scoping period, the Authority conducted a screening of alternatives for further consideration in the EIS/EIR. The alternatives screening process is intended to identify a limited set of build alternatives with the best ability to meet the project Purpose and Need, and recommend such alternatives for further consideration. Approach to Alternatives Screening December CAC meeting. At its December 2007 meeting, the Authority presented the proposed approach to Alternatives Screening, including the Screening Criteria based on project Purpose and Need, and the approach to removing alternatives from further consideration based on 1) low performance and 2) fatal flaws. 1 The Van Ness Avenue BRT Purpose and Need used for the Alternatives Screening report can be found in Appendix A. Draft Alternatives Screening Report January Special CAC meeting. The Authority held a special meeting of the Van Ness BRT CAC in January 2008, focused on the draft Alternatives Screening Report. The report documented the project alternatives screening criteria and process, and defined the project alternatives to be further considered and evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR). In the Report, the Curb Lane BRT, No Parallel Parking alternative is not recommended for further analysis due to three fatal flaws in its ability to meet project Purpose and Need: 1) inability to improve pedestrian access and safety; 2) inability to provide an urban street design that increases the livability of Van Ness Avenue and supports its identity a Transit Preferential Street ; and 3) inability to provide any parallel parking for loading / unloading and dropoff access to businesses and residents fronting Van Ness Avenue. 2 1 Meeting materials from the December 4 th, 2007 meeting can be found at www.vannessbrt.org (Citizens Advisory Committee tab, Meeting #2; minutes in Meeting #3) 2 SFCTA, 2008. Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Alternatives Screening Report. March 28. 4

17 The Draft Alternatives Screening Report defined the following project alternatives to be considered for further analysis in the EIS/EIR: Side Lane BRT; Center Lane BRT with right side loading / dual medians; Center lane BRT with left side loading / center median. At its January, 2008 meeting, the CAC discussed whether the Curb Running Alternative, No Parallel Parking was fatally flawed and whether it should be considered in place of a Side Lane Alternative (that preserved parallel parking). The CAC voted 4-3 in favor of adopting the draft Alternatives Screening Report. A subsequent motion to rescind the adoption of the report in order to include the Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative failed by a vote of 4-3. 3 Alternatives Screening Report for TAC February 2008. Based on CAC input, the Authority presented the Alternatives Screening Report to the Van Ness Avenue BRT Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), comprised of partner agencies. The TAC concurred with the findings of the report. Alternatives Screening Report Authority CAC and Board approval March and April, 2008. Following TAC review, the Authority presented the Scoping and Alternatives Screening Reports to the Authority s Citizen Advisory Committee in February, 2008 and to the Authority s Plans and Programs committee in April, 2008, 4 noting the CAC discussion about the Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative and explaining the rationale for fatal flaw designation. 5 The Plans and Programs Committee unanimously recommended approval for the Alternatives Screening Report and the full Board unanimously approved the report in April 2008. 6 ALTERNATIVES SCREENING CRITERIA AND RESULTS The project alternatives screening criteria were derived from the project Purpose and Need statement, provided as Appendix B (see the Alternatives Screening Report 7 for more explanation). This section describes the performance of the Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative on each of the criteria used in the Alternatives Screening Report. The performance of all alternatives identified through the scoping process are shown in the matrix included in Appendix B. 3 Minutes can be found at www.vannessbrt.org (Citizens Advisory Committee tab, Meeting #4) 4 Authority Plans and Program Committee agenda and materials can be found at www.sfcta.org (Item #11 from April 8, 2008 meeting) 5 Authority Plans and Program Committee minutes can be found at www.sfcta.org (Item #2 from May 13, 2008 meeting). Video of the meeting can be found at www.sfgtv.org 6 Authority Board agenda and materials can be found at www.sfcta.org (Item #14 from April 15, 2008 meeting; minutes are item #2 from May 20, 2008 meeting). Video of meeting can be found at www.sfgtv.org 7 Ibid. 5

18 Transit Operations Benefits of Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Criteria Score Notes Improve Transit Speed and Reliability Improve Transit Mode Share/ Ridership Transit delays and conflicts reduced by TSP and bus lanes Conflicts with right turning vehicles Illegal parking conflicts Reduced benefit of TSP due to need for extended pedestrian signal time to cross Van Ness Increased speed and reliability will attract new riders Corridor transit mode share will increase Lower Benefit Higher Benefit A key transit need identified in the Van Ness Avenue BRT Feasibility Study is to reduce delays and improve travel times by separating transit from auto traffic. The Feasibility Study demonstrates that a BRT system can improve transit travel times and reliability, resulting in increased transit ridership on the Van Ness lines and increased transit mode share within and in adjacent corridors. The Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative would reduce some existing transit delays and conflicts through a bus lane and TSP, in addition to other BRT features including low floor vehicles/level boarding, proof of payment/all door boarding, increased service frequencies, fewer transit stops, and transit stop amenities resulting in high benefits. However, the Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative would not attain maximum improvements to transit speeds and reliability due to delays and conflicts posed by illegal parking in the BRT dedicated lane, rightturning vehicles utilizing the BRT lane, and reduced TSP effectiveness caused by the need to assign more green time to pedestrian movements across Van Ness Avenue. In the Van Ness BRT Feasibility Study, the center running BRT alternatives reduced travel time 20% more than the Side Running BRT (with parking) alternative. Since some of the difference between these alternatives was caused by conflicts with right turning vehicles, we infer that the Curb Running, No Parallel Parking Alternative would be even more delayed by right turning vehicles due to the lack of right turn pockets. San Francisco does not have experience with long stretches of curbside transit lanes with no parallel parking or loading spaces. On Market Street, east of Eighth Street, the curb lane has no parking, Figure 2: Truck illegally loading in transit lane on 34 th Street in New York but the lane is not dedicated to transit only. To avoid the impacts of loading and unloading, the street also has loading bays on most blocks. Nevertheless, private vehicles regularly double park in 6

19 the curb lane, making operations difficult for transit, other motorized vehicles, and cyclists. 8 Evaluations of the bus-only lane on 34 th Street in New York City have documented a high rate of illegal loading/unloading and double parking (350 instances in a 40 hour period) 9 by various types of vehicles causing significant delay to buses there (see Figure 2). Transit Rider Experience Benefits of Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Criteria Score Notes Improve Vehicle Waiting Experience Improve Ride Quality Improve Pedestrian Access and Safety* *Empty circle indicates fatal flaw Shelters, seating, real-time service information systems, ticket vending, lighting, and security features will be installed. Passenger queuing area may be insufficient at the Market and Geary/O Farrell stations. Rehabilitation of existing concrete parking strip would improve ride quality. Enhanced ride quality through dedicated lane Significant weaving maneuvers to avoid right turning and illegally parked vehicles Curbside stations would encroach on sidewalk, reducing effective pedestrian width below standards, and increasing pedestrian congestion. Pedestrian crossing distances increased due to removal of curb bulbs; distance to median refuges also increased Median refuges eliminated at left turn intersections Longer pedestrian crossing times Lower Benefit Higher Benefit While there is a high potential for growth in ridership, the existing transit service on Van Ness Avenue lacks many amenities that would make the transit experience attractive to new riders. The following components of the transit rider experience are identified as screening criteria: the out-ofvehicle waiting experience, the in-vehicle ride quality, and pedestrian access and safety. Improve Vehicle Waiting Experience. The Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative would improve the out-of-vehicle waiting experience with station amenities including shelters, seating, communications systems, ticket vending machines, real-time service information, lighting, and security features. However, these improvements would be installed along the curb of the existing sidewalk adjacent to pedestrian through traffic area, and would be confined to space constraints, and may not be able to meet passenger demand at some stations. This is likely to be the case at the Geary Street and Market Street stations. In addition, clearance space and capacity on the sidewalks would be constrained. The tight space constraints would make universal design challenging, and wheelchair users would have more difficulty maneuvering both on the platform and on the sidewalk around the platform (maximum space allotted to sidewalks at station locations would be 7 feet maximum, lower than the 8 foot ADA standard. 8 San Francisco County Transportation Authority. Market Street Action Plan (2004) and Strategic Analysis Report on Transportation Options for a Better Market Street (2009) 9 http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/08/05/ 7

20 Improve Ride Quality. The Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative would improve the in vehicle ride experience with new vehicles and new pavement. However, riders will remain subject to lateral motion due to vehicles avoiding right-turning and illegally parked vehicles. Improve Pedestrian Access and Safety. Pedestrian access and safety should be improved by Van Ness Avenue rapid transit due to the inferior existing pedestrian conditions: Absence of pedestrian signals 10 at most crossings; Non-attainment of FHWA guidelines maximum crossing speeds at more than one-third of intersections in the corridor; Non-attainment the City s more protective goal for crossing speed at 89% of signals; 11 and Twice as much delay (amount of time an approaching pedestrian must wait before crossing the street) at traffic signals as vehicle occupants. The Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative would increase crossing distances at multiple locations, increasing the average crossing distance by over 3 and ½ feet. This will bring pedestrian crossing times further away from FHWA and City standards, rather than bringing crossing times into attainment of the goals. In addition, at left turn locations, the Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative would not provide a median refuge. At these locations, pedestrian signals would need to be timed to meet the City s protective walking speed goal for the entire crossing, severely impacting the ability to provide green time for Van Ness Avenue Transit Signal Priority and mixed traffic. By requiring the crossing of an additional lane of traffic, pedestrians would have greater exposure to moving vehicles than today, increasing the probability of collisions. This signifies a decrease in pedestrian safety over existing conditions. Without bulbouts, station platforms would reduce effective sidewalk widths below clearance standards. The worsening of the pedestrian access, safety, and comfort relative to existing conditions in the Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative is considered a fatal flaw. 10 SFCTA, 2006. Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Feasibility Study. December. 11 Wong, Corey (2010). Van Ness BRT Non-Motorized Transport Existing Conditions 8

21 Urban Design Benefits of Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Criteria Score Notes Improve Streetscape; Landscape; Integrate with Adjacent Uses* *Empty circle indicates fatal flaw Without bus bulbs, stations located at major activity centers may be crowded and could affect access to adjacent land uses. The landscaped median would be reduced by 4 and eliminated at left turn locations. Planted buffers for the extent of Van Ness would contribute to the urban design aesthetic of the street. Increase in number of travel lanes detracts from the design of Van Ness Avenue as a signature Transit Preferential Street. Lower Benefit Higher Benefit The project Purpose and Need statement calls for rapid transit that will contribute to the urban design, identity, and livability of the BRT corridors as signature TPS streets. The Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative would provide some opportunities to improve urban design, but other aspects of the alternative would counteract those opportunities. The Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative would require the removal of the existing landscaped center median where left turn pockets are provided, and the removal of all corner bulbs, two consequences that are inconsistent with increasing the livability and rapid transit identity of the street. Curbside stations may crowd or restrict access to adjacent land uses. Overall, the Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative would contradict the objective of establishing Van Ness Avenue as a transit preferential street by essentially widening the roadway. This creates a fatal flaw for the Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative in its ability to meet the project Purpose and Need. 9

22 Multi-modal System Performance Benefits of Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Criteria Score Notes Minimize Total Person Delay Strengthen and Highlight the City s Network of Rapid Transit Service Time to Benefits Difficult to predict without operational simulation Transit delays somewhat reduced, but somewhat increased by signal timing constraints. Mixed traffic delays somewhat reduced through increased lane capacity, but somewhat increased by signal timing constraints. Pedestrian crossing delays likely to increase by signal timing constraints. Service will be distinct from existing transit. Conflict between buses and right-turning automobiles at intersections reduces the ability to create a distinct brand of rapid transit separate from traditional bus service. Limited station platform size reduces the opportunity to provide amenities. Could be implemented within three years of environmental clearance and other approvals. Variation involving underground parking construction would significantly increase the time to benefits. Lower Benefit Higher Benefit Total person-delay, rapid network identity, and travel time benefits are screening criteria to evaluate multimodal transportation system performance and capture the balance between providing local transit service and accommodating mixed traffic and goods movement circulation and access within the corridor. Minimize total person delay. Without operational simulation, it is unclear how the Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative would affect total person delays. The Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative would increase pedestrian crossing distances and remove pedestrian refuges from some crossings, resulting in longer pedestrian crossing times, and limiting the ability to optimize signal timing to reduce delays for traffic and transit. On one hand, transit delays would be somewhat reduced by removing some conflicts with mixed traffic; on the other hand, delays related to right-turning traffic and illegal parking could continue. Transit signal priority would reduce transit signal delays to some extent, but the ability to provide capacity for TSP would be reduced due to shorter signal timing available for the Van Ness Avenue movements. Mixed traffic would, on one hand, have reduced delays due to conflicts with transit vehicles and other traffic, since more lane capacity would be provided. On the other hand, longer pedestrian crossing times would limit the ability to optimize signal timing to reduce delays for traffic and transit. Potential gains in roadway travel times from the additional capacity afforded by the curb lane would be at least be partially negated by losses in intersection operations. Pedestrian delays would most likely increase as a result of signal timing constraints. The extent of the effect of expanding mixed traffic capacity is also difficult to estimate without 10

23 travel demand forecasting. Increasing roadway capacity on a street with latent demand, like Van Ness Avenue, will generate additional traffic on that street. The amount of increased traffic varies depending on the situation, but the elasticity can range from 0.5 greater than 1.0, meaning for every 1% of capacity increase there is between 0.5% to greater than 1% increase in traffic on that street. 12 The Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative would likely result in an increase in automobile traffic on Van Ness Avenue. That induced automobile traffic would counteract the City s efforts to implement its Transit First Policy and achieve its Climate Action Plan. 13 The Transit First Policy, part of the City Charter and Municipal Code since 1973, reads, 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, and shall strive to reduce traffic and improve public health and safety. 14 If the Van Ness BRT project were to follow the intent of these policies, transit performance and pedestrian conditions should be prioritized over auto performance. By keeping the same number of mixed traffic lanes while removing bus operations from them, the Curb Running, No Parallel Parking Alternative effectively increases roadway capacity at the expense of transit and pedestrian conditions, counter to the Climate Action Plan and City s Transit First Policy. Strengthen and Highlight the City s Network of Rapid Transit Service. The Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative would create a stronger street presence for transit through defined stations, but this improvement would be counteracted by the sharing of the bus lane with right turning vehicles. Time to Benefits. The Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative could be constructed within a near-term timeframe. The variation of this Alternative which would involve underground offstreet parking construction would significantly increase the amount of time until project completion, not satisfying the criterion that benefits could be provided in the near-term. Traffic and Parking Impacts of Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Criteria Score Notes Accommodate Traffic Circulation Provide Parallel Parking* *Empty circle indicates fatal flaw Increased automobile capacity between intersections by retaining 3 lanes of mixed flow traffic and removing all transit operations from the third lane. Reduced vehicle capacity at some intersections due to shorter green times along Van Ness due to longer pedestrian crossing distances. Increased traffic volumes generated through increased capacity. Removes all loading/unloading and drop off access along Van Ness Avenue. Variation involving underground parking construction would not provide loading/unloading or drop off access. 12 Litman, Todd. Generated Traffic and Induced Travel. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. http://www.vtpi.org/gentraf.pdf 13 Climate Action Plan for San Francisco. San Francisco Department of the Environment, 2004 14 San Francisco City Charter, Section 8A.115 11

24 Higher Impact Lower Impact The Curb Running BRT Alternative would increase mixed flow traffic lane capacity on Van Ness Avenue. If not offset by additional traffic caused by induced demand, the extra capacity could result in reduced peak period traffic congestion impacts on Van Ness Avenue. At intersections, it is unclear how traffic operations would be affected without operational simulation. The signal time required for cross-streets would increase, significantly at some locations, due to additional required time for pedestrian crossing, resulting in increased delays for Van Ness Avenue traffic. The Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative would preclude loading/unloading or drop off activity because parallel parking spaces would be removed. Observations of existing curbside, no parallel parking lanes whether for bicycles or transit suggest that there would be a significant amount of illegal loading/unloading and double-parking in the event of Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking. The variation of this Alternative which would provide off-street parking would not address the loss of loading/unloading and drop-off access. Capital and Operating Cost of Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Criteria Score Notes Moderate capital cost affordable with anticipated resources. Variation involving underground parking construction would Capital Cost create significant additional costs. Operating Cost Operational efficiencies will allow fewer buses to provide a more reliable and frequent service resulting in lower cost per vehicle mile than existing bus service. Higher Impact Lower Impact Capital costs of the Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative are expected to be affordable with anticipated resources, and operating costs would not increase. The variation of this Alternative which would involve underground parking construction would create significant additional costs. 12

25 Construction Impacts of Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Criteria Score Notes Duration and Intensity of Construction Street work and temporary closures required to install transitway and relocate utilities. Primarily street work that can be staged to minimize closures but curbside construction will affect adjacent uses. Variation involving underground parking construction would create intensive construction impacts not reflected here. Higher Impact Lower Impact The Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative could be implemented within three years of environmental clearance and other approvals. The construction impact of the Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative would be moderate due to the need to reconstruct a significant portion of the median. The version of this Alternative which would include publicly-constructed off-street parking, such as parking beneath the roadbed, would create significant construction impacts of a fatally-flawed scale. CONCLUSION The Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative is not recommended for full analysis in the EIR/EIS based on its inability to meet the project Purpose and Need. That inability is based on three fatal flaws: Inability to improve access and pedestrian safety; Inability of the alternative to contribute to the urban design and identity of Van Ness Avenue as a signature Transit Preferential Street; and Inability to provide for loading / unloading and drop off parallel parking access. Based on this analysis described in this Report, the Curb Running BRT, No Parallel Parking Alternative was withdrawn from consideration following the Scoping and period. 13

26 Appendix A: Van Ness Avenue BRT Purpose and Need used in Alternatives Screening Report CITYWIDE BRT STRATEGY GOALS In order to: 1. Support the city s growth and development needs by addressing expected transportation system congestion impacts; 2. Stem and reverse the trend toward transit mode share loss within San Francisco affordably and in the near term; and 3. Improve the cost effectiveness and operational efficiency of the City s mature transportation system infrastructure and services; The 2004 San Francisco Countywide Transportation Plan and Prop K transportation sales tax Expenditure Plan call 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) which is intended to: a. Improve transit levels of service for all existing users quickly and cost-effectively; b. Strengthen the citywide network of rapid transit services; c. Raise the cost effectiveness of transit services and operational efficiency of the city s Transit Preferential Streets (TPS) roadway network; and d. Contribute to the urban design, identity, and livability of the BRT corridors as signature TPS streets. VAN NESS BRT STUDY/PROJECT GOALS As part of this citywide BRT strategy, the Van Ness BRT project will address specific needs as identified in the Authority s Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Study. In order to: 1. Close the performance gap (travel time, wait time and in-vehicle time reliability, crowding, connectivity, and safety) between transit and automobile travel on Van Ness Avenue; 2. Raise the operating efficiency of Van Ness Avenue by increasing person-throughput capacity; and 3. Improve the level of amenity and urban design of Van Ness Avenue as a gateway into the City, and for the benefit of the neighborhoods and land uses adjacent to the street, while 4. Accommodating future mobility needs, The Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit project will improve the safety and operational efficiency of Van Ness in a way that supports the urban environment by: a. Significantly increasing the reliability, speeds, connectivity, and levels of passenger amenity for current local and regional bus transit services on Van Ness; b. Improving pedestrian comfort, amenity and safety along Van Ness; and c. Enhancing the urban design and identity of Van Ness Avenue as a signature Preferential Transit Street and distinctive gateway into San Francisco, while making the street more livable and attractive for local residential, commercial and institutional activities, through landscaping, signage, amenity, and streetscape improvements. d. Furthermore, attainment of these objectives should be balanced by the need to ensure the provision of local transit service, maintain some on-street parking, and accommodate mixed traffic, bicycle and goods movement circulation and access within the corridor. 14

27 Appendix B: Screening Matrix for Van Ness BRT EIS/EIR Analysis 15