AC TRANSIT DISTRICT Board of Directors Executive Summary
GM Memo No. 09-034 Meeting Date: February 11, 2009
Committees: Planning Committee External Affairs Committee Rider Complaint Committee Board of Directors
Finance and Audit Committee Operations Committee Paratransit Committee Financing Corporation
SUBJECT: Consider Recommending Receipt of Quarterly Report on Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Information Only
Briefing Item
Recommended Motion
Fiscal Impact: None
Background/Discussion: Small Starts Process Staff and consultants completed the submission for the Federal Small Starts program in September 2008. During fall and winter 2008, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and their Project Management and Oversight Consultants conducted audits, evaluations and employee interviews on the project. On December 9, 2008, the FTA granted the District permission to enter Project Development (PD; Attachment 1). Permission to enter PD is an important milestone that paves the way for a Project Construction Grant Agreement (PCGA) to fund project construction. It also allows for pre-award spending for design, right-of-way acquisition or other PD-related work prior to construction. Entry into PD also indicates that the project will be included in the Federal New Starts Annual Report, which recommends funding levels by project. This report is generally submitted for congressional review sometime in February. The BRT project is one of only three Small Starts projects nationwide to achieve a high rating in the Small Starts process. The FTA rates projects from “low” to “high” based on BOARD ACTION:
Approved as Recommended [ ] Approved with Modification(s) [ ]
Other
[ ]
The above order was passed on: . Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary By
GM Memo No. 09-034 Meeting Date: Feb. 11, 2009 Page 2 of 3 the cost-effectiveness of a project and its ability to provide benefits to transit users. The Transit System User Benefit (TSUB) is a calculation of the incremental cost to save a person-hour of travel time. To achieve a high rating a project must provide a TSUB of less that $11.49. At the opposite end of the spectrum, projects with TSUB values greater than $29 would receive a low rating. The BRT was given a “high” rating by FTA and a TSUB measure of $9.74. City Decision Making Since the release of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) in May 2007, staff has been working with each individual city to help achieve consensus on the Locally Preferred Alternative for the project. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for the project, active leading up to the release of the DEIS, has been reconstituted to support the decision making by the cities of San Leandro, Oakland and Berkeley. The TAC is composed of staff at multiple levels of government. In addition, a sub-TAC consisting of working staff from each of the three cities has also met numerous times. The TAC and sub-TACs supplement the work with individual cities and ensure consistency between the cities, helping to guide the public process and develop a coherent master schedule. For the first quarter, staff and consultant efforts will focus on providing the Cities of Berkeley and Oakland with materials and analysis needed to support its decisionmaking process. Because the City of San Leandro began their public outreach effort a bit earlier than the other cities, city staff is currently determining specific items and efforts that they envision needing in the near future to further their decision making process. Policy Steering Committee The PSC is an advisory body composed of elected officials from Oakland, San Leandro and Berkeley, AC Transit Directors and a county Supervisor. Its purpose is to help guide the development of the project and foster a partnership between the District and the cities. The Committee last met during project scoping in 2005. At that time, they confirmed that BRT on Telegraph, International and East 14th was the project that the cities wanted to pursue. In addition, the Committee outlined areas of environmental concerns that the District should evaluate in the DEIS (Attachment 2). The current phase of work is focused on working with the cities to refine the project definition for study in the Final EIS and providing more detail for proposed mitigations. Each of the cities has indicated that additional outreach needs to be undertaken during this process. Also, city staffs recognize that a closer partnership between the cities and the District is more important than ever in the effort to meet long term goals for the corridor. While each city needs to take action to allow the conversion of traffic lanes to bus lanes, the Policy Steering Committee can help identify obstacles to both implementing the BRT project and meeting larger goals for corridor revitalization.
GM Memo No. 09-034 Meeting Date: Feb. 11, 2009 Page 3 of 3
Prior Relevant Board Actions/Policies: GM Memo 08-187: Consider Receiving Update on Substantive Issues Related to the BRT Project, Board Workshop on November 19, 2008 GM Memo 07-315: Information on the Public Comments Phase of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Report (DEIS/R) and General Project Update for the East Bay Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project Attachments: Attachment 1: Attachment 2:
FTA Project Development Approval Letter Minutes BRT Policy Steering Committee June 7, 2005
Approved by:
Nancy Skowbo, AGM Service Development
Prepared by:
Jim Cunradi, Project Manager
Date Prepared:
February 2, 2009
GM Memo 09-034 Attachment 1
GM Memo 09-034 Attachment 2 BERKELEY-OAKLAND-SAN LEANDRO BUS RAPID TRANSIT POLICY STEERING COMMITTEE CAMBRIDGE SYSTEMATICS 555 12TH STREET, ROOM 1600 OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA JUNE 7, 2005, 11:30AM ITEM 1: WELCOME & INTRODUCTIONS PRESENT: Greg Harper, AC Transit Director and Committee Chair; Orval Badger, San Leandro Vice Mayor; Dolores Jaquez, AC Transit Director; Kriss Worthington, Berkeley Councilmember; Shelia Young, Mayor of San Leandro and MTC Commissioner; Tom Bates, Mayor of Berkeley ABSENT: Henry Chang, Oakland Councilmember; Nate Miley, Alameda County Board of Supervisors; Larry Reid, Vice Mayor of Oakland AC TRANSIT STAFF AND CONSULTANTS: Andrew Tang, Cambridge Systematics; Jim Cunradi, Senior Transportation Planner; Kathleen Eichmeier, Recording Secretary; Tina Spencer, Long-Range Planning Manager; Jon Twichell, Capital Implementation Manager ITEM 2: PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None ITEM 3: BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT) BACKGROUND AND PROJECT STATUS Jim Cunradi said that in 2001 the outcome of the Major Investment Study (MIS) was that the Policy Steering Committee (PSC) selected BRT and the Telegraph and International/E.14th alignment. The PSC also selected the range of options to be included in the environmental study. The environmental study has been underway for the past year and a half, and in fall 2005, AC Transit will release the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Before release to the public, the draft must be submitted to CalTrans, the State Office of Historical Preservation and the Federal Transportation Administration. In 2006, AC Transit will refine the chosen alternative, and begin construction in 2008/2009. He said one of Committee’s concerns had been that BRT is a long-range project, and they also wanted a short-range project that could be implemented immediately. In keeping with that request, AC Transit has designed a Rapid Bus for the corridor similar to San Pablo that will be implemented in 2006. Jon Twichell said AC Transit is working with ACTIA and CMA on the Rapid Bus. Line 82 will be improved within a month, and then the entire Telegraph-International-E. 14th Rapid will be up and running next summer. The corridor is 19 miles long and will cost $19 million. Jim Cunradi compared features of the existing service, Rapid Bus and BRT. The Rapid bus adds wider stop spacing, traffic signal priority and real-time arrival signs. To those features, BRT adds bus-only lanes, rail-like stations, near level boarding, and proof-of-payment ticketing.
BUS RAPID TRANSIT POLICY STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING
MINUTES FOR JUNE 7, 2005 PAGE 2 OF 7
ITEM 4: VIRTUAL TOUR OF CORRIDOR WITH BRT Jim Cunradi showed photo-simulations of what various intersections would look like with the BRT changes. The photo-simulations showed proposed BRT stations, changes to traffic lanes, left-turn lanes, parking, landscape and medians. He said the Oakland 20th Street Transit Center will be built later this year as part of Oakland’s Telegraph Avenue Streetscape project. The design of every intersection is not complete, and several intersections have more than one option. The objective is to make best use of the road space for cars, buses and pedestrians. ITEM 5: BRT Project Benefits Jim Cunradi said the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will list project benefits in detail, including the following:
BRT improves the travel time. Reducing riders’ door to door travel time is what attracts the most new riders. Buses today take over 90 minutes to make the trip. On the Rapid Bus this would be brought down to 77 minutes, and with BRT it drops down to an hour
BRT increases transit ridership. Looking at the corridor as whole, AC Transit would expect 15,000 to 16,000 new riders in the corridor. These new riders come from three sources: ♦ 40% from other AC Transit routes, since riders often move from more congested lines; ♦ 25% from other transit systems, which is common as transit agencies change service; ♦ 35% from cars, which is 5,500 auto trips off the road every day.
Other benefits to community and passengers include improved reliability and comfort, and more security for passengers waiting for the bus.
It provides a focus for redevelopment and revitalization.
AC Transit thinks it is probably the only practical method in the East Bay to expand surface transit at very congested locations such as in the downtown areas and around major locations such as hospitals and schools.
Finally, BRT would reduce energy consumption and improve air quality, primarily by reducing the number of auto trips.
ITEM 6: BRT Project Impacts Jim Cunradi said the most controversial issues are impacts to traffic and parking. He said they had a clear plan for mitigating traffic impacts, and a concept on how to fix parking impacts. He said they would welcome an exchange of ideas on parking questions. Traffic Impacts Jim Cunradi said BRT impacts traffic in three ways: reducing the number of lanes, creating traffic diversions which moves the impact to other streets, and changing transit signals. The two main sources of impact are transit signal priority and protective left turn phasing. He presented data on what had been studied, how AC Transit would fix the impact, and what
BUS RAPID TRANSIT POLICY STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING
MINUTES FOR JUNE 7, 2005 PAGE 3 OF 7
the final results would be. AC Transit had analyzed 85 intersections for significant traffic impact using very strict criteria. Each of the cities, CalTrans and the CMA were asked to weigh in on which intersections and impacts would be studied. At each intersection, traffic level of service (LOS) was rated A through F, where A is free flow, B and C are good operation, D is beginning to see congestion, E is congested conditions, and F is failing. Significant impacts were then defined as any intersection where the addition of BRT drove the level of service from an A through D rating to an E or F, or added delay to an already congested (E or F) corridor. He said these strict criteria highlighted a lot of intersections requiring mitigation, and put the onus on AC Transit to fix the negative impacts. Councilmember Worthington asked if traffic impacts were analyzed in comparison to existing service or Rapid Bus service. Jim Cunradi said traffic impacts were analyzed as though Rapid Bus were already in place. He said it is another measure of how conservative their analysis was, because the benefits were less and the traffic impact was greater than if BRT were compared to existing service. Natalie Fay said that Oakland wanted AC Transit to look at the impact of some of the proposed mitigations on pedestrian traffic, for example, right turn lanes and pedestrian crosswalks. Jim Cunradi showed a series of charts that identified the intersections in each city where a significant impact had been found. The charts showed the traffic rating of these intersections without BRT, with BRT, and with mitigation measures. He said mitigation measures start by adjusting signal timing and cycle length. Next they look at right-turn, left-turn and through lanes. He said that in Berkeley, North Oakland and Downtown Oakland, all proposed mitigations fit within the existing street width, or curbs. In East Oakland and San Leandro, almost all fit within the existing street width except for a couple, and those fit within the existing right-of-way, which includes the sidewalk. Councilmember Worthington noted that there was only one intersection where the LOS rating after BRT mitigation was better than the original intersection without BRT. He asked what was unique about that intersection, and how could that positive effect be applied to other intersections. Andrew Tang said that in the case in point, they proposed a left turn pocket which would solve not only the impact of the BRT, but also solved some of the current traffic problems. He said that, in general, they were being very conservative in mitigation. He said going beyond mitigation to overall improvement of the intersection was beyond the present BRT project. Director Harper asked why the year 2025 had been picked for the environmental study horizon. Jim Cunradi said it was done to give time for the transit system to mature in the sense of public use of the system. It was also picked to encompass future growth and long-term projects. Director Harper said it might be good to have something closer since there are many unknown variables that may affect the system between now and 2025. Many of these variables cannot be known now. He agreed they need to meet any legal requirements, but Committee members might want to know the trend in earlier years.
BUS RAPID TRANSIT POLICY STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING
MINUTES FOR JUNE 7, 2005 PAGE 4 OF 7
Andrew Tang said they had an analysis at year 2010. The situation was better all around, both with and without BRT. The question is what will it look like when more development takes place, in downtown Oakland or UC, for example. Looking further into the future is actually a very conservative way of doing it. Councilmember Worthington asked what the impact of Rapid Bus would be on the intersections. Jim Cunradi said that in general it will be better than today. The signals will be interconnected so drivers can get a signal progression of green rather than red lights. Mayor Bates asked when BRT construction would begin, how much it would cost and how it would be funded. Jim Cunradi said construction isn’t anticipated to begin until 2009. Rapid Bus will be implemented in 2006. He said if the BRT lanes are only re-striped, the cost would be $150 million, of which $100 million is ready. If the BRT middle lanes are re-paved and reconstructed, the cost goes up to $300 million. Mayor Young said it was actually $320 million. She said the $100 million already identified would come from a variety of sources, such as ACTA and MTC. Mayor Bates asked what the cost would be for light rail. Mayor Young said light rail would cost about five times as much, about $900 million. Jim Cunradi said this is largely because utilities have to be relocated away from the tracks for light rail. He said the PSC had decided BRT was the best thing they could get with the money. Director Harper asked why a large number of buses in downtown Oakland make it impossible to have bus-only lanes. He said it would seem the more bus traffic, the more useful bus-only lanes would be. Jim Cunradi said a study that showed that more than 40 buses per hour interfere with one another. The buses need to be able to pass, pull out, and drive around each other. Downtown Oakland has 100 buses an hour, so bus-only lanes would only interfere with bus traffic. Downtown Berkeley is on the borderline and will have to be studied. Mayor Bates asked if there would be any station upgrades with the Rapid Bus next year. Jim Cunradi said shelters and NextBus signs would be installed similar to San Pablo. Parking Jim Cunradi said parking was probably the most controversial issue. The two factors that take away parking spaces are BRT stations and left turn pockets. He showed charts that analyzed parking in each city and area, and also corridor-wide. Parking was only studied on the BRT street itself, and not on side streets. The overall BRT corridor data showed that out of 3,945 current spaces along the corridor, 910-1,320 spaces or 23-34% would be displaced. The data also showed that, at present, the peak rate of parking utilization is 63%. He said that means that at peak times general corridor-wide parking would be close to capacity.
BUS RAPID TRANSIT POLICY STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING
MINUTES FOR JUNE 7, 2005 PAGE 5 OF 7
Councilmember Worthington asked why the parking several blocks in each direction from the BRT street wasn’t factored in. He said that not looking at all available parking overstates the negative impact. Jim Cunradi agreed and said they were going to take a wider look at parking. He said it would be complicated due to factors like pedestrian access. He said they would not look at private off street parking, but they would look at on-street parking in the vicinity. Natalie Fay said one of the issues to keep in mind is concern about commercial parking overflowing into residential areas. Jim Cunradi said parking mitigation is not as fleshed out as traffic mitigation, and will be particular to individual neighborhoods and dependent on what each city wants to see in the neighborhoods. He said they had gathered ideas in discussions with city staff and at TAC meetings. Options might include funding new parking structures or lots in commercial areas, and adding parking meters at cross streets. Natalie Fay said street parking in areas with apartment buildings would be an issue in evenings when people come home from work. She said that might not be reflected in the data if parking were only studied during the day. Vice Mayor Badger said Rapid Bus in San Leandro makes sense, but BRT with dedicated lanes and loss of parking does not. He said he thought that it had been decided that there would be no BRT in San Leandro, and he questioned why it was being discussed at the meeting as though it were going to take place. Tina Spencer said AC Transit had been told by Vice Mayor Badger, Mayor Young, and San Leandro Councilmembers that it was unlikely San Leandro would agree to dedicated lanes. She said the agreement was that AC Transit go ahead and study it. Once AC Transit gets into the scaling and implementation phase, decisions will be on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction level, and in some cities, even intersection by intersection. She said that as an environmental project, they were studying it as a whole and studying the worst environmental impacts. When it comes to the implementation, AC Transit recognizes they will have to negotiate with each city. Vice Mayor Badger agreed it was all right to simply to complete the overall study, but AC Transit should not do the study with the idea that San Leandro will eventually agree to BRT. Tina Spencer agreed. She said that when they have a draft document, they would discuss with the cities on an intersection by intersection basis. Andrew Tang said part of the purpose of this study is to provide accurate information needed for those discussions with cities. Vice Mayor Badger agreed with providing information, but it should not be presented as though it was definitely going to happen. Mayor Bates asked if this study must be completed before AC Transit puts in the Rapid Bus. Jim Cunradi said no. Rapid Bus required a Categorical Exclusion, which was complete. Mayor Bates asked if there would be improvements such as those along San Pablo where there were sidewalk and other improvements around the stop environment.
BUS RAPID TRANSIT POLICY STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING
MINUTES FOR JUNE 7, 2005 PAGE 6 OF 7
Director Harper said that they had to be clear what improvements are transit related. He said transit funding people had had issues with some of the improvements along San Pablo. Mayor Bates said that since they already had $100 million there is the opportunity to do Rapid Bus and make significant ridership improvement. Maybe some of the $100 million should be used to improve the surroundings around the shelters and the bus service. Once the ridership is up, there would be no need for BRT. Mayor Young said some of the money is earmarked for specific uses, and it cannot be used for other things. Mayor Bates said the question is what are the restrictions, and what could be done with the money. He said he wanted to explore improving the area around the stops now. He said he thought they should use some of the $100 million for this purpose, rather than dedicating it to something that might not happen later on. Other Impacts Jim Cunradi concluded the presentation of mitigation issues by looking at other impacts in addition to traffic and parking. These included business and property access, changes to bike lanes, changes in pedestrian access, noise impact, curb realignments, modification of landscaped medians, changes to visual settings at stations, and temporary construction impacts. He said the only active bike planning program was along Telegraph and they felt they could keep as many bike lane miles under the BRT. Many of the changes, such as to pedestrian access, would result in improvements. The noise impacts are neutral because it’s generally better to have a bus in the middle lane, rather than near the curb. He said there were only a couple of locations requiring curb realignments and this was reported in the EIS. Finally, in general, putting a station in the middle of the street changes the look of the street and it needs to be done well.
ITEM 7: BRT Operation Variations Jim Cunradi said two operating variations are being considered. They differ in the station spacing and whether or not local service is retained. The Express BRT plus Local option has BRT in bus-only lanes with wide station spacing, and local service maintained in regular traffic lanes. The BRT Only option drops the local service but has more BRT stations to compensate. The benefit of the BRT Only option is more use of the lanes, more frequent service, and lower operating cost. The benefit of the Express BRT plus Local is that many transit riders want to keep their local stops. He displayed a chart comparing the two operating variations. One of the major differences is that the BRT Only option could be expected to remove 9,300 auto trips per day from the road, while the Express BRT plus Local would only remove 5,300. On the other hand, the Express BRT plus Local would have 110 local stops and 35 BRT stations, while the BRT Only would have no local stops and 51 BRT stations. The traffic and parking impacts would be similar between the two scenarios.
BUS RAPID TRANSIT POLICY STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING
MINUTES FOR JUNE 7, 2005 PAGE 7 OF 7
ITEM 8: BRT Alignment and Design Variations Jim Cunradi did not go into these in detail. He said some variations are being dropped from consideration before the environmental study. He said the reasons are usually low ridership, high costs or bigger environmental impacts.. Tina Spencer said AC Transit would be scheduling meetings with each city to talk about these options in detail. ITEM 9: Next Steps Director Harper asked the Committee to think about how often they wanted to meet in the future, and how active they wanted to be. He said a lot of good work had been done in the past two and a half years, and AC Transit needed to get back in touch with the policy makers. He asked if the Committee would like to start a monthly or quarterly cycle of regular meetings. Vice Mayor Badger said he didn’t think they needed to be quite as active as they were three years ago, but they definitely need to be active. He agreed there was a lot of good work going on, but he was only hearing about it for the first time. Mayor Bates said they should meet prior to release of the EIS so they would know what is in it. He said he wanted opportunity for discussion about where the project is headed, because he was pessimistic about getting to the final BRT stage, and thought there should be substantial improvements now rather than later. He suggested meeting in September. Councilmember Worthington said he would want the meeting before the EIS is released to the public so he could be prepared for constituents’ questions. Director Harper said staff would do some coordination and call the next meeting in early September.
ITEM 10: Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at about 1:15 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, JIM CUNRADI By: Kathleen Eichmeier, Recording Secretary
