AC Transit Berkeley/Oakland/ San Leandro Corridor MIS Final Report Volume 3: Evaluation of Alternatives
prepared for
Alameda Contra Costa Transit District
prepared by
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1300 Clay Street, Suite 1010 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 873-8700 (510) 873-8701 (fax) with
Parsons Transportation Group Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Hausrath Economics Group Montoya Communications, Inc. Carney Hammond Filmore
9 September 2002
Table of Contents Table of Contents .................................................................................................................... 1 1.0 Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... 5 1.1
Recommended Alternative ...................................................................................... 16
2.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 19 2.1
Report Organization ................................................................................................ 20
3.0 Transportation Alternatives ............................................................................................ 22 3.1
Vehicle and Operations Technology Options .......................................................... 22
3.2
Northern Corridor Alignment Options ...................................................................... 28
3.3
Southern Corridor Alignment................................................................................... 29
3.4
Jack London District................................................................................................ 31
4.0 Evaluation Criteria .......................................................................................................... 32 5.0 Transit Operating Plans ................................................................................................. 35 5.1
Service Frequency .................................................................................................. 35
5.2
Station Locations..................................................................................................... 37
5.3
Coordinating Express and Local Service ................................................................ 44
5.4
Connecting Services ............................................................................................... 45
6.0 Evaluation of Transportation Alternatives....................................................................... 48 6.1
Access to Major Employment Centers .................................................................... 55
6.2
Access to Major Educational Centers ..................................................................... 56
6.3
Access to Other Transit........................................................................................... 57
6.4
Travel Time ............................................................................................................. 58
6.5
Connecting Services ............................................................................................... 60
6.6
Service Reliability .................................................................................................... 60
6.7
Frequency of New Service ...................................................................................... 61
6.8
Security On-Board................................................................................................... 61
6.9
Security at Stations ................................................................................................. 62
6.10
Cleanliness and Comfort On-Board..................................................................... 62
6.11
Cleanliness and Comfort at Stations ................................................................... 64
6.12
Support of Intensified Land Use Development .................................................... 65
6.13
Systemwide and Corridor Ridership .................................................................... 67
6.14
Capital Cost ......................................................................................................... 72
6.15
Annual Corridor Operating Cost .......................................................................... 74
6.16
Farebox Recovery ............................................................................................... 76
6.17
Lifecycle Cost per Rider ...................................................................................... 78
6.18
Incremental Lifecycle Cost per New Rider........................................................... 80
6.19
Ease of Entry and Exit ......................................................................................... 82
6.20
Emissions (Air Quality) ........................................................................................ 83
6.21
Energy Consumption ........................................................................................... 86
6.22
Service to Low Income and Other Households of Concern................................. 88
6.23
Parking Impact..................................................................................................... 91
6.24
Traffic Impact....................................................................................................... 93
6.25
Impacts to Other Transit Services ....................................................................... 99
6.26
Traffic Safety Impact.......................................................................................... 100
6.27
Local Access ..................................................................................................... 101
6.28
Bicycle Impact ................................................................................................... 102
6.29
Pedestrian Impact.............................................................................................. 104
6.30
Visual Impact ..................................................................................................... 105
6.31
Historical and Archaeological Resources Impact .............................................. 105
6.32
Park and Recreation Impact .............................................................................. 108
6.33
Neighborhood Business Impact......................................................................... 108
6.34
Hazardous Materials Impact .............................................................................. 112
6.35
Noise/Vibration Impact ...................................................................................... 113
6.36
Trees/Landscaping Impact ................................................................................ 115
6.37
Natural Resources Impact ................................................................................. 116
6.38
ROW Acquisition/Displacements ....................................................................... 116
6.39
Ease of Construction ......................................................................................... 117
6.40
Construction Impacts ......................................................................................... 118
7.0 Evaluation of Jack London District ............................................................................... 121 7.1
Access to Major Employment Centers .................................................................. 122
7.2
Access to Major Educational Centers ................................................................... 124
7.3
Access to Other Transit......................................................................................... 124
7.4
Support of Intensified Land Use Development...................................................... 124
7.5
Ridership ............................................................................................................... 124
7.6
Capital Cost........................................................................................................... 125
7.7
Annual Corridor Operating Cost ............................................................................ 125
7.8
Farebox Recovery ................................................................................................. 126
-2-
9 September 2002
7.9 7.10
Lifecycle Cost per Rider ........................................................................................ 126 Parking Impact................................................................................................... 126
8.0 Community Input .......................................................................................................... 128 8.1
Vehicle and Operations Technology ..................................................................... 129
8.2
Northern Corridor Alignment ................................................................................. 129
8.3
Service to Jack London District ............................................................................. 129
9.0 Recommended Alternative ........................................................................................... 131 9.1
Recommended Technology .................................................................................. 131
9.2
Recommended Alignment ..................................................................................... 132
10.0Funding, Staging, Phasing ........................................................................................... 137 10.1
Funding Profiles of Major Transit Capital Investments ...................................... 137
10.2
Funding Strategy for the Berkeley/Oakland/San Leandro Corridor ................... 140
10.3
Action Plan for Funding and Implementation..................................................... 149
-3-
9 September 2002
-4-
9 September 2002
1.0
Executive Summary
Over a two-year period from 1999 to 2001, the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) conducted a Major Investment Study (MIS) to examine the feasibility of providing a new or improved transit service in the Berkeley/Oakland/San Leandro corridor. This report is the third of three MIS Final Report volumes. It presents the evaluation of the alternatives for this study and identifies a locally preferred alternative for the corridor. The first volume, Study Background, provides background information on the corridor, the history of the MIS, and an overview of the study process. The second volume, Development of Alternatives, discusses the use of market analysis to develop a set of alignment and vehicle/ operations technology options that meet the transportation needs in the corridor and presents the alternatives selected for detailed evaluation. In addition, there is a Summary Report that summarizes the key information from all three volumes. The Berkeley/Oakland/San Leandro corridor stretches approximately 18 miles from downtown Berkeley and the University of California at Berkeley at the northern end through much of Oakland including downtown Oakland to San Leandro at the southern end (see Figure 1.1). Buses in this corridor currently carry 40,000 riders a day1 – nearly 20 percent of AC Transit's total ridership and roughly the number of passengers carried by many light rail systems in California.
1
Routes 40, 40L, 43, 51, 51A and 51M between downtown Berkeley and downtown Oakland plus routes 82 and 82L between downtown Oakland and Bay Fair BART. Figures based on AC Transit September 1998 driver counts and fall 1997 - winter 1998 boarding and alighting surveys.
-5-
9 September 2002
Figure 1.1 Corridor Study Area
AC Transit and its partner cities of Berkeley, Oakland and San Leandro developed six transportation alternatives to carry forward for detailed evaluation (see Table 1.1). These alternatives were designed to cost-effectively meet the service objectives approved for this project (see Table 1.2).2 This included analyzing where travelers go to and come from in this corridor, understanding what these travelers need and want in their travel experience, and identifying the alignments and vehicle/operations technologies that would best serve these travelers. The six alternatives result from combining three vehicle/operations technology options with two alignment options (see Figure 3.7 for a map of the two northern alignment options). Under all six alternatives, the alignment extends from downtown Berkeley to Bay Fair Mall/ BART and uses International Boulevard/East 14th Street in the southern portion of the corridor (see Figure 3.8 for a map of the southern alignment). In addition, including service
2
For more details on the development of the alternatives and service objectives, see Final Report Volume 2: Development of Alternatives.
-6-
9 September 2002
to the Jack London District and the Oakland Amtrak/Capitol Corridor Station was considered.3
Table 1.1 Transportation Alternatives Vehicle and Operations Technology
Northern Alignment
Southern Alignment
1 Light Rail Transit (LRT) Telegraph
International/E 14th
2 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Telegraph
International/E 14th
3 Enhanced Bus
International/E 14th
Telegraph
4 Light Rail Transit (LRT) College/Broadway International/E 14th 5 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) College/Broadway International/E 14th 6 Enhanced Bus
College/Broadway International/E 14th
Table 1.2 Service Objectives 1. Improve access to major employment and educational centers and enhance connections to other AC Transit services, BART, ferry services and other transit providers; 2. Improve transit service reliability; 3. Provide frequent transit service; 4. Ensure security, cleanliness and comfort waiting for and riding on transit; 5. Support transit-oriented residential and commercial development; 6. Increase the percentage of trips made by transit, and reduce the percentage by automobile; 7. Identify a set of transit improvements that has a high probability of being funded; 8. Improve ease of entry and exit on vehicles for all transit riders, including persons with disabilities; and 9. Provide an environmentally friendly transit service that contributes to air quality improvement. 3
During the development of alternatives portion of the study, two alignment options were identified for the downtown Oakland portion of the corridor. These were called Jack London Service and North-South Through Service. Early in the evaluation of alternatives portion of the study, AC Transit and its partner cities determined that the operational details for getting through downtown Oakland, such as which exact streets to use and how the transfers should work, should be dealt with in a future Phase II study. The key question to answer in the Phase I MIS with respect to this option is whether the proposed new corridor transit service should include the Jack London District and the Oakland Amtrak/Capitol Corridor Station.
-7-
9 September 2002
The six alternatives in Table 1.1 were evaluated across 40 evaluation criteria (see Section 6.0 for the details of this evaluation).4 The following seven tables (Tables 1.3 through 1.9) present summaries of this evaluation. Tables 1.3 and 1.4 rate each of the six alternatives across each of the 40 criteria, using colored dots to indicate performance relative to existing bus service:
= Much better than existing bus service = Similar to existing bus service = Much worse than existing bus service Tables 1.3 and 1.4 can be used to compare the six alternatives side-by-side for each of the evaluation criteria. Table 1.5 is a summary version of Tables 1.3 and 1.4 and provides an overview of how the six alternatives perform relative to each other. Table 1.5 shows a selected set of the criteria consolidated from those in Tables 1.3 and 1.4.
4
For the purposes of this evaluation, all six alternatives were assumed to include service to the Jack London District and the Oakland Amtrak/Capitol Corridor Station. For a detailed evaluation of just this service, see Section 7.0.
-8-
9 September 2002
Table 1.3 Rating Table – Criteria Related to Service Objectives = Much Better than Existing Bus Enh Bus Telegraph Int’l
Enh Bus College Int’l
BRT Telegraph Int’l
= Much Worse than Existing Bus BRT College Int’l
LRT Telegraph Int’l
LRT College Int’l
Access to Employment Access to Education Access to Other Transit Travel Time Connecting Services Service Reliability Service Frequency Security On-Board Security At Station Clean, Comfort On-Board Clean, Comfort At Station Intensified Land Use Systemwide Ridership Corridor Ridership Capital Cost Operating Cost Farebox Recovery Cost per Rider Cost per New Rider Ease of Entry and Exit Emissions (Air Quality) Energy Consumption
-9-
9 September 2002
Table 1.4 Rating Table – Environmental and Other Criteria = Much Better than Existing Bus Enh Bus Telegraph Int’l
Enh Bus College Int’l
BRT Telegraph Int’l
= Much Worse than Existing Bus BRT College Int’l
LRT Telegraph Int’l
LRT College Int’l
Service to Low Income Parking Traffic Other Transit Service Traffic Safety Local Access Bicycle Pedestrian Visual Impact Historical Resources
Not ranked
Park, Recreation Neighborhood Business Hazardous Materials Noise/Vibration Trees/Landscaping Natural Resources ROW Displacements Construction Ease Construction Impacts
- 10 -
9 September 2002
Table 1.5 Summary Rating Table = Much Better than Existing Bus Enh Bus Telegraph Int’l
Enh Bus College Int’l
BRT Telegraph Int’l
= Much Worse than Existing Bus BRT College Int’l
LRT Telegraph Int’l
LRT College Int’l
Travel Time Service Reliability Security, Comfort Intensified Land Use Ridership Capital Cost Operating Cost Parking Traffic Bicycle Construction
Quantitative information is available for some of the evaluation criteria presented in Tables 1.3 and 1.4. This quantitative information is consolidated and compared side-by-side in Tables 1.6 and 1.7.
- 11 -
9 September 2002
Table 1.6 Rating Table – Criteria Related to Service Objectives (Quantified Criteria)
Evaluation Criterion Travel Time Shattuck/Addison to Bdwy/11th (min) Bdwy/12th to Bay Fair BART (min) Shattuck/Addison to Bdwy/11th (% improve) Bdwy/12th to Bay Fair BART (% improve) Frequency of New Service Peak headway, north corridor (min) Peak headway, south corridor (min) Off-peak headway, north corridor (min) Off-peak headway, south corridor (min) 2020 Systemwide Ridership Net new AC Transit weekday boardings 2020 Corridor Ridership Increase in total corridor weekday boardings Shattuck/Center to Oakland Amtrak 14th/Broadway to Bay Fair BART New service weekday boardings Shattuck/Center to Oakland Amtrak 14th/Broadway to Bay Fair BART Initial Capital Cost Capital cost (millions of 2001$) Annual Corridor Operating Cost 2020 operating cost (millions of 2001$) Increase over No Build 2020 Farebox Recovery* Total corridor service New service only Lifecycle Cost per Rider 2020 total cost per corridor boarding (2001$) Incremental Lifecycle Cost per New Rider 2020 incremental cost per new boarding (2001$) Emissions (Air Quality) Reduction in CO emissions (tons) Reduction in NOX emissions (tons) Reduction in TOG emissions (tons) Reduction in PM10 emissions (tons) Reduction in CO2 emissions (tons) Energy Consumption Reduction in equiv gallons of gas (millions) *
Enh Bus Enh Bus BRT BRT LRT LRT Telegraph College Telegraph College Telegraph College Int'l Int'l Int'l Int'l Int'l Int'l 28 58 15% 13%
36 58 14% 13%
22 45 33% 33%
31 45 26% 33%
20 44 39% 34%
30 44 29% 34%
15 7.5 15 10
10 7.5 15 10
5 5 7.5 7.5
5 5 7.5 7.5
5 5 7.5 7.5
5 5 7.5 7.5
7,681
8,727
11,280
12,815
15,189
17,256
9,704 3,552 6,152 21,229 4,073 17,157
9,909 3,862 6,046 23,080 6,015 17,065
15,543 8,828 6,715 27,555 10,231 17,324
15,915 9,305 6,609 32,343 15,111 17,231
20,545 10,651 9,894 32,472 11,805 20,667
22,431 12,661 9,770 37,991 17,435 20,557
$84
$95
$342
$354
$893
$928
$32.2 $6.6
$32.0 $6.4
$45.7 $20.1
$44.2 $18.6
$55.0 $29.5
$54.8 $29.2
27.3% 24.4%
27.5% 23.8%
21.6% 19.4%
22.4% 21.7%
19.6% 16.7%
20.3% 18.2%
$2.70
$2.76
$4.79
$4.76
$7.46
$7.38
$5.92
$5.54
$15.77
$13.76
$23.91
$21.61
100 30 10 0 12,270
100 30 10 0 12,270
160 50 10 1 19,050
160 50 10 1 19,050
160 50 10 1 19,050
160 50 10 1 19,050
0.9
0.9
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
New information from a 2001 AC Transit fare study indicates that the farebox recovery on trunk lines such as those operating in the Berkeley/Oakland/San Leandro corridor are higher than the systemwide average used in this study. This is the result of possibly higher average fares, combined with high levels of passenger boardings per service hour. For purposes of comparing alternatives, the relative differences in farebox recovery would remain unchanged. The results of this fare study will be used to revise the calculation of farebox recovery in the future Phase II study.
Summary of information in Section 6.0.
- 12 -
9 September 2002
Table 1.7 Rating Table – Environmental and Other Criteria (Quantified Criteria)
Evaluation Criterion Service to Low Income Households Low income persons w/i 1/2 mi of alignment Parking Impact Spaces lost in Berkeley Spaces lost in Oakland - North (inc. JLS) Spaces lost in Oakland - South Spaces lost in San Leandro Local Access Driveway closures Turn restrict in Berkeley Turn restrict in Oakland - Tele, Coll, Bdwy Turn restrict in Oakland - International Turn restrict in San Leandro Bicycle Impact Bike lanes affected (miles) Pedestrian Impact Sidewalks affected (miles) Hazardous Materials Impact Potentially impacted sites w/i 1/8 mile Trees/Landscaping Impact Landscaping/medians removed (feet) Trees removed ROW Acquisition/Displacements Parcels totally displaced Parcels partially displaced
Enh Bus Enh Bus BRT BRT LRT LRT Telegraph College Telegraph College Telegraph College Int'l Int'l Int'l Int'l Int'l Int'l 38,765
40,893
38,765
40,893
38,765
40,893
125 235 285 130
180 255 285 130
135 405 470 100
65 220 470 100
190 505 625 190
125 345 625 190
1 3 0 0 0
1 5 2 0 0
0 11 33 77 33
0 16 32 77 33
9 11 33 77 33
9 16 32 77 33
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
3.0
2.0
1.4
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
1.5
157-164
165-172
157-164
165-172
157-164
165-172
5,900 60
5,400 40
12,200 130
17,100 105
12,200 130
23,900 230
0 1
0 1
2-4 0
2-4 0
2-4 15-18
2-4 15-18
Summary of information in Section 6.0.
- 13 -
9 September 2002
Table 1.8 summarizes how well the three vehicle and operations technology options fare across the key evaluation criteria used in Table 1.5. Only criteria where the three technology options differ in performance are included. This table provides a synopsis of the key tradeoffs between Enhanced Bus, BRT and LRT and shows that BRT performs as well as or almost as well as LRT in the areas of travel time, reliability, security, comfort and support for intensified land use. It also ranks close to LRT in ridership. However, it does so at a much lower capital and operating cost and with fewer parking, traffic and construction impacts than LRT. Thus, while BRT is not the top performer for the service objectives established for this project (see Table 1.2), it ranks near the top on most of them while performing reasonably well on all objectives.
Table 1.8 Enhanced Bus Vs. BRT Vs. LRT 3rd Best
2nd Best
Best
Travel Time
Enhanced Bus
BRT/LRT
Service Reliability
Enhanced Bus
BRT/LRT
Security, Comfort
Enhanced Bus
BRT/LRT
Intensified Land Use
Enhanced Bus
BRT
LRT
Ridership
Enhanced Bus
BRT
LRT
Capital Cost
LRT
BRT
Enhanced Bus
Operating Cost
LRT
BRT
Enhanced Bus
Parking
LRT
BRT
Enhanced Bus
Traffic
LRT
BRT
Enhanced Bus
Construction
LRT
BRT
Enhanced Bus
- 14 -
9 September 2002
Table 1.9 summarizes how well the two northern alignment options fare across the key evaluation criteria used in Table 1.5. Again, only criteria where the two northern alignment options differ in performance are included. This table provides a synopsis of the key tradeoffs between the Telegraph Avenue and College Avenue/Broadway alignments and shows that although the College Avenue/Broadway alignment attracts more riders, the Telegraph Avenue alignment provides a faster and more reliable service, with lower capital cost and fewer traffic and construction impacts. Thus, the Telegraph Avenue alignment comes closer to meeting the service objectives established for this project (see Table 1.2) while having fewer negative impacts than the College Avenue/Broadway alignment.
Table 1.9 Telegraph Vs. College/Broadway 2nd Best
Best
Travel Time
College/Broadway
Telegraph
Service Reliability
College/Broadway
Telegraph
Telegraph
College/Broadway
Capital Cost
College/Broadway
Telegraph
Traffic
College/Broadway
Telegraph
Construction
College/Broadway
Telegraph
Ridership
A detailed evaluation of including corridor service to the Jack London District and the Oakland Amtrak/Capitol Corridor Station reveals that this would improve access to major employment destinations in this area and provide connections to the ferry system, Capitol Corridor commuter rail service and Amtrak intercity rail service. This service would support the growing entertainment, residential and commercial development in the Jack London District. Table 1.10 summarizes several key quantitative measures for this service.
Table 1.10 Evaluation of Service to Jack London District BRT
LRT
2020 Weekday Boardings on New Service
750
890
Initial Capital Cost (millions of 2001 $)
$18
$42
2020 Operating Cost (millions of 2001 $)
$1.3
$1.9
10.2%
8.2%
2020 Lifecycle Cost per Rider (2001 $)
$14
$22
Parking Spaces Lost
45
75
2020 Farebox Recovery
Based on results from the October 1999 version of the Alameda Countywide Travel Demand Model and engineering, operational and parking analysis by Parsons Transportation Group.
- 15 -
9 September 2002
1.1 Recommended Alternative Based on the results of the detailed evaluation and extensive input from leaders of community-based organizations, the general public and elected officials, a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) was selected by the Policy Steering Committee on 11 July 2001 and approved by the AC Transit Board of Directors on 2 August 2001. The full text of the resolution passed by the Board is in Section 9.0.
RECOMMENDED TECHNOLOGY Bus Rapid Transit was recommended as the preferred vehicle and operations technology for the corridor, with the understanding that LRT should be considered as a long-term goal. The BRT system would be designed to maximize the ease of potentially upgrading to LRT in the future. The BRT system would include the following features: x
Special transit lanes dedicated to BRT along most of the corridor;
x
Traffic signal priority and coordination throughout the corridor;
x
Frequent BRT service with a background local service (5 to 7.5 minutes between BRT buses);
x
Wider BRT station spacing than existing bus service (1/3 to 1/2 mile between BRT stations);
x
Well-developed BRT stations including shelters, boarding platforms, benches, security features, fare machines, real-time bus arrival information and other amenities;
x
Proof-of-payment ticket validation; and
x
Low-floor, multi-door, level-boarding, low-emission BRT buses.
Recognizing that implementing the full BRT program would take several years and several regional funding cycles to complete, the Policy Steering Committee recommended and the AC Transit Board of Directors agreed to implement selected elements of the Enhanced Bus alternative quickly. Features such as bus priority at traffic signals, bus stop improvements and redesigned bus routes would benefit corridor riders sooner while putting in place many of the elements needed in the eventual BRT system.
RECOMMENDED ALIGNMENT The recommended alignment would primarily use Telegraph Avenue in the northern portion of the corridor and International Boulevard/East 14th Street in the southern portion (see Figure 1.2). The recommended alignment would begin in the north near the downtown Berkeley BART station. From there, it would proceed south along Shattuck Avenue, then east using the Bancroft Way/Durant Avenue one-way couplet. At Telegraph Avenue, the alignment would turn south and follow Telegraph Avenue until reaching downtown Oakland. The alignment would include a deviation into the MacArthur BART station. In downtown Oakland, the alignment would switch to Broadway between Grand Avenue and 15th Street, and then follow Broadway to Oakland’s City Center. Heading southeast, the alignment would leave
- 16 -
9 September 2002
downtown Oakland using a subset of streets between 10th and 14th Streets. The alignment would proceed southeast along International Boulevard and East 14th Street through Oakland and San Leandro. The alignment could include a deviation into the San Leandro BART station. The alignment would proceed through the Bay Fair Mall area and terminate at the Bay Fair BART station. The recommended alignment would include service to the Jack London District and the Oakland Amtrak/Capitol Corridor Station. The details of how to provide this service will be considered in preliminary engineering and environmental review. To provide fast, reliable BRT service, a special transit lane would be provided along most of the alignment. This includes the portions of the alignment on Shattuck Avenue; Telegraph Avenue; Broadway; International Boulevard; East 14th Street between the Oakland/San Leandro border and Davis Street; and East 14th Street between San Leandro Boulevard and Bay Fair Drive. To make this possible, the segment of Telegraph Avenue between Dwight Way and Bancroft Way near the University of California could be converted to a transit and pedestrian mall, permitting deliveries but with limited auto access. Many details of the recommended alignment will be determined in the course of preliminary engineering and environmental review. These include, but are not limited to, the precise alignment in the downtown areas of Berkeley, Oakland and San Leandro and how to reconfigure automobile traffic patterns and maintain auto access in the portion of Telegraph Avenue near the University of California at Berkeley.
- 17 -
9 September 2002
Figure 1.2 Recommended Alignment
- 18 -
9 September 2002
2.0
Introduction
Over a two-year period from 1999 to 2001, the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) conducted a Major Investment Study (MIS) to examine the feasibility of providing a new or improved transit service in the Berkeley/Oakland/San Leandro corridor. This report and its companion volumes document the results of this study. The Berkeley/Oakland/San Leandro corridor stretches approximately 18 miles from downtown Berkeley and the University of California at Berkeley at the northern end through much of Oakland including downtown Oakland to San Leandro at the southern end (see Figure 2.1). Buses in this corridor currently carry 40,000 riders a day5 – nearly 20 percent of AC Transit's total ridership and roughly the number of passengers carried by many light rail systems in California.
Figure 2.1 Corridor Study Area
5
Routes 40, 40L, 43, 51, 51A and 51M between downtown Berkeley and downtown Oakland plus routes 82 and 82L between downtown Oakland and Bay Fair BART. Figures based on AC Transit September 1998 driver counts and fall 1997 - winter 1998 boarding and alighting surveys.
- 19 -
9 September 2002
The corridor under study is home to 320,000 people and consists of the dense urban core of cities ringing the eastern shore of San Francisco Bay. The corridor is centered on downtown Oakland, the East Bay’s largest city. Downtown Oakland provides work to 70,000 people and is continually adding new jobs and residences. The corridor is anchored in the north by the University of California at Berkeley, host to 31,000 students and 19,000 employees. An additional 13,000 employees work in downtown Berkeley and in areas near the university. South of downtown Oakland, one-third of the corridor passes through some of the densest residential neighborhoods in the entire San Francisco Bay Area, often exceeding 25,000 persons per square mile. The southern end of the corridor is anchored at the Bay Fair Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station, a major transfer station for three BART lines and seven local bus routes. This station also serves the Bay Fair Mall, a regional shopping mall.
2.1 Report Organization The MIS Final Report consists of several individual volumes: Volume 1: Study Background. Provides background information on the corridor, an overview of land use in the corridor, the history of the MIS, and an overview of the study process. Volume 2: Development of Alternatives. Discusses the use of market analysis to develop a set of alignment and technology options that meet the transportation needs in the corridor and presents the alternatives selected for detailed evaluation. Volume 3: Evaluation of Alternatives. Covers the detailed evaluation of the selected alternatives and presents the locally preferred alternative for the corridor. A fourth volume, the Summary Report, contains an executive summary of the key information from the three main reports. A fifth volume, the Technical Appendix, contains detailed information on individual technical topics such as market analysis, ridership estimation, transit operations, engineering, cost methodology, funding sources and community input. A sixth volume, the Engineering Description of Alternatives, provides detailed information on the alignments, including aerial alignment drawings and engineering cross-sections. In addition, an inventory of historic buildings was completed for this study. This inventory is in its own volume, the Historic Building Survey. The remainder of this report is organized into eight sections: Section 3. Transportation Alternatives. Describes alternatives selected for detailed evaluation.
the
six
transit
improvement
Section 4. Evaluation Criteria. Presents the 40 criteria selected to evaluate the alternatives. Section 5. Transit Operating Plans. Discusses the operating details for the six alternatives, including service frequency, station locations, coordinating express and local service and connecting services.
- 20 -
9 September 2002
Section 6. Evaluation of Transportation Alternatives. Covers the analysis of each of the alternatives for each of the evaluation criterion. Includes several tables summarizing the results of this analysis. Section 7. Evaluation of Jack London District. Evaluates including corridor service to the Jack London District. Section 8. Community Input. Summarizes the input received from community leaders and the general public on the what the recommended alternative for the corridor should be. Section 9. Recommended Alternative. Presents the recommendations made and adopted for this project by the Policy Steering Committee and the AC Transit Board. Section 10. Funding, Staging, Phasing. Describes the current funding situation and likely funding sources. Presents a possible funding strategy for this project along with an action plan for implementing this strategy.
- 21 -
9 September 2002
