Potential Alternatives Report
Transportation
May 13, 2011
Potential Alternatives Report San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update Prepared for the Bay Area Toll Authority
Bay Area Toll Authority
AECOM
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
Potential Alternatives Report San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update Prepared for the Bay Area Toll Authority May 13, 2011
Bay Area Toll Authority
AECOM
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
Table of Contents
1.0
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 1
2.0
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 2
3.0
New Potential Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 3 3.1 Bay Bridge Corridor ..................................................................................................................................... 4 3.2 San Mateo Bridge / Dumbarton Bridge Corridors .......................................................................................15 3.3 All Corridors ...............................................................................................................................................17
List of Tables Table 1: Potential Alternatives Summary .............................................................................................. 1 Table 2: Daily Transbay Person-Trips – Travel Demand ......................................................................... 3 Table 3: Daily Transbay Person-Trips – Bay Bridge ............................................................................... 5 Table 4: Daily Transbay Person-Trips – San Mateo Bridge .................................................................. 15 Table 5: Daily Transbay Person-Trips – Dumbarton Bridge ................................................................. 15
ii
Bay Area Toll Authority
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
Potential Alternatives Report
1.0 Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to introduce new potential transbay alternatives that may warrant further study. These new alternatives are highly conceptual and were developed with a focus on the current planning landscape in the Bay Area, including the latest regulatory framework and ridership / demand projections. In addition to presenting new potential alternatives, this report provides a summary of current and projected transbay transportation conditions. Previously identified alternatives were updated and included in the Alternatives Update Report. A summary of the significant potential alternatives is included in Table 1. Table 1: Potential Alternatives Summary
Alternative
Mode Served
Bay Bridge Corridor Expansion of Embarcadero and Montgomery Stations (“Saddlebags”)
BART
West Bay Skip-Stop with New San Francisco Alignment
BART
East Bay Skip-Stop
BART
Metro Concept
BART
East Bay Access Improvements
BART
East Bay Transit Access Improvements
BART
Bay Bridge Bus Only-Lane
Bus
AC Transit East Bay Terminal and Bay Bridge Shuttle
Bus
AC Transit Service Expansion in San Francisco
Bus
Bay Bridge East End Transit Access Improvements
Bus
AC Transit Rapid Bus Improvements
Bus
Transbay Network Reconfiguration
Bus
I-80 San Francisco (option A) – Braid of 4th Street On-Ramp / 9th Street Off-Ramp th
Vehicle
I-80 San Francisco (option B) – Lane Addition from 4 Street On-Ramp to Central Skyway
Vehicle
I-80 San Francisco – Eastbound On-Ramp Improvements
Vehicle
th
I-80 San Francisco – Eastbound HOV Lane on 5 Street On-Ramp
Vehicle
I-580 Oakland – Westbound HOV Extension and Bypass of SR 24 / I-580 Interchange
Vehicle
Expanded Bay Bridge HOV Lane Operation and Enhanced Congestion Pricing
Vehicle
San Mateo Bridge / Dumbarton Bridge Corridors Destination-Oriented Bus Service
Bus
Willow Road Boulevard
Vehicle
Willow Road Tunnel
Vehicle
HOV Extension at SR 92 / US 101 Interchange
Vehicle
Source: AECOM, 2011.
May 13, 2011
1
AECOM
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
2.0 Introduction This report was developed in accordance with Task 4 of the San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update: Project Work Plan and Schedule.(1) This document is herein referred to as the “Bay Crossings Work Plan”. The purpose of this report is to introduce new potential transbay alternatives that may warrant further study. These new alternatives are highly conceptual and were developed with a focus on the current planning landscape in the Bay Area, including the latest regulatory framework and ridership / demand projections. In addition to presenting new potential alternatives, this report provides a summary of current and projected transbay transportation conditions. Current and projected transportation conditions on the various San Francisco Bay crossings have been developed based on recent data collection and the latest SCS / RTP travel demand model (version 0.1). The results of this effort are contained in the San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update: Current and Projected Conditions Report.(2) This document is herein referred to as the “Current and Projected Conditions Report”. It should be noted that many previously identified alternatives were updated and included in the San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update: Alternatives Update Report.(3) This document is herein referred to as the “Alternatives Update Report”. The new potential alternatives presented herein focus on the following transportation modes: Vehicle; BART; and Bus. This report will evaluate these new alternatives and address existing and projected transbay mobility issues identified as a result of the San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update. New alternatives included in this report represent a wide range of capital and operational improvements, as well as strategies and geographic areas, identified to address bay crossings issues. The new alternatives have been organized into the following bridge corridors: Bay Bridge Corridor; San Mateo Bridge Corridor; Dumbarton Bridge Corridor; and All Corridors. It should be noted that a screening process will be developed and applied to the new potential alternatives in accordance with Task 5 of the Bay Crossings Work Plan and submitted in a subsequent phase of the study. (1)
(2)
(3)
2
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update: Project Work Plan and Schedule. Prepared by AECOM. Prepared for the Bay Area Toll Authority. Submitted February 7, 2011. San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update: Current and Projected Conditions Report. Prepared by AECOM. Prepared for the Bay Area Toll Authority. Submitted April 8, 2011. San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update: Alternatives Update Report. Prepared by AECOM. Prepared for the Bay Area Toll Authority. Submitted April 15, 2011.
Bay Area Toll Authority
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
Potential Alternatives Report
3.0 New Potential Alternatives Substantial increases in transbay travel demand are expected between 2010 and 2035. In the next 25 years, the number of daily transbay vehicle-trips is expected to increase by nearly 25 percent, or 100,000 daily transbay vehicle-trips. Given that the existing demand is nearing the current infrastructure capacity, substantial delays to vehicles (including buses) utilizing the bridges can be expected in the near future. A comparison of the 2010 and 2035 daily person-trips crossing the Bay, San Mateo, and Dumbarton Bridge corridors is shown in Table 2. Table 2: Daily Transbay Person-Trips – Travel Demand
Mode
2010
2035
Change
Vehicle – SOV (1 person)
348,600
432,500
+24%
Vehicle – HOV (2 persons)
40,600
58,300
+44%
Vehicle – HOV (carpool)
93,600
130,000
+39%
Vehicle – Truck (1 person)
16,300
6,000
-63%
Rail – BART
175,500
224,000
+28%
Rail – Dumbarton
-
11,000
-
Bus
11,600
13,600
+17%
Ferry
4,500
36,000
+700%
Total Person-Trips
690,700
911,400
+32%
Total Vehicle-Trips
426,300
526,300
+23%
Total Transit-Trips
191,600
284,600
+49%
Source: Current and Projected Conditions Report, AECOM, 2011.
The overall San Francisco Bay crossings daily person-trips are expected to increase by more than 30 percent between 2010 and 2035. Daily transbay vehicle, rail, bus, and ferry travel is projected to increase. The most significant increase in demand is expected to occur in the BART system. Nearly 50,000 additional passengers are expected to cross the Bay via the Transbay Tube on a daily basis by 2035. Based on the findings of the Current and Projected Conditions Report, enhancements and modifications to the existing transportation infrastructure will be required to increase the network capacity and adequately serve the network demand. Between 2010 and 2035, the number of daily transbay transit-trips is expected to increase by nearly 50 percent, or more than 90,000 daily transbay transit-trips. In particular, BART ridership is expected to increase by 30 percent to nearly 225,000 daily transbay passengers, which would exceed the capacity of the current Transbay Tube configuration. The systemwide ridership would increase to approximately 530,000 daily passengers.
May 13, 2011
3
AECOM
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
Transbay Travel Demand
Transbay bus ridership is expected to increase by nearly 20 percent, or 2,000 daily passengers, between 2010 and 2035. Although the increase in ridership could likely be served by the current infrastructure, the existing transbay bus service is inefficient and unsustainable. Many of the current bus lines traverse indirect routes, are redundant with others, and / or are delayed by traffic congestion. The new potential alternatives were developed with a focus on the current planning landscape in the Bay Area, including the latest regulatory framework and ridership / demand projections.
3.1 Bay Bridge Corridor The Bay Bridge corridor accommodates more than 70 percent of the daily trips crossing the San Francisco Bay and the demand is currently exceeding capacity. The total number of daily trips crossing the Bay via the Bay Bridge corridor is expected to increase by more than 30 percent by 2035, which will exceed the planned system capacity. The total daily traffic volumes crossing the Bay Bridge corridor in 2010 and 2035 are shown in Table 3.
4
Bay Area Toll Authority
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
Potential Alternatives Report
Table 3: Daily Transbay Person-Trips – Bay Bridge
Mode
2010
2035
Change
Vehicle – SOV (1 person)
202,800
255,100
+26%
Vehicle – HOV (2 persons)
40,600
58,300
+44%
Vehicle – HOV (carpool)
46,300
54,100
+17%
Vehicle – Truck (1 person) Rail – BART Bus Ferry
6,400
3,700
-42%
175,500
224,000
+28%
9,900
12,800
+29%
4,500
36,000
+700%
Total Person-Trips
486,000
644,000
+33%
Total Vehicle-Trips
247,500
309,000
+25%
Total Transit-Trips
189,900
272,800
+44%
Source: Current and Projected Conditions Report, AECOM, 2011.
The new potential alternatives that have been developed focus on increasing the capacity of the Bay Bridge corridor by expanding and optimizing the existing facilities. The new potential alternatives include the following:
May 13, 2011
5
AECOM
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
BART: Expansion of Embarcadero and Montgomery Stations (“Saddlebags”) Expansion and modification of the Embarcadero and Montgomery Stations to incorporate platform screen doors and / or “saddlebag” side platforms (shown in yellow at right) would improve the operations of those stations and optimize the capacity of the Transbay Tube. These improvements, in conjunction with BART’s Metro Service Concept and Core Capacity Improvements, could significantly increase demand in BART’s core service area and reduce demand for auto travel in the Bay Bridge corridor. This configuration would provide additional platform space for BART patrons and improve the boarding / alighting procedures, which could potentially reduce dwell time and headways. The configuration of the new side platform and access to the platform, which has been studied by BART in the Core Station Improvement Study, is based on a 10 car train using the new three (3) door car configuration. Much of the work required to expand the subway box structure could be accomplished outside the existing station without impacting the station or train operations. According to BART, the systemwide capacity within the Transbay Tube could be doubled (from 350,000 daily passengers to 700,000 daily passengers) by constructing “saddlebag” side platforms in the Embarcadero and Montgomery BART Stations. This assumes the implementation of three (3) door cars and other system enhancements. The construction of “saddlebags” will be required based on the following daily systemwide passenger demands: Embarcadero Station (EB direction) – 500,000 passengers; Montgomery Station (EB direction) – 550,000 passengers; Embarcadero Station (WB direction) – 700,000 passengers. BART: West Bay Skip-Stop with New San Francisco Alignment A new alignment within San Francisco would increase the service capacity within the Market Street corridor and provide additional BART stations within a new San Francisco corridor. A parallel track and side platform could be constructed at the Montgomery Station and allow for transfers between trains without causing delay. This would essentially function as a “skip-stop” at the main constraint point – the Embarcadero Station – while providing a new BART route.
6
Bay Area Toll Authority
Potential Alternatives Report
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
As discussed in BART’s Analysis of Transbay Capacity Memorandum, immediately after trains exit the Transbay Tube, they encounter the Embarcadero Station, where all trains stop and must allow passengers to board / alight. Ideally, select trains would be able to skip-stop this station (and other Market Street stations) to reduce congestion. However, throughput could actually be reduced because of dwell times caused by passengers who would transfer at West Oakland or other East Bay station to a train that was going to stop at their desired station in San Francisco.
Since skip-stopping alone would not be feasible, it could be accomplished with modifications to the infrastructure. The modification could consist of a train diversion off the existing tracks between the San Francisco Vent Structure and Embarcadero Stations. Trains would be evenly distributed between the existing and new lines. This would eliminate the Embarcadero Station as a constraint point in the system. The infrastructure and operations plan would need to be developed to minimize the need for patrons to transfer in the East Bay. Given this configuration, transfers could not occur in San Francisco. BART: East Bay Skip-Stop According to BART’s Analysis of Transbay Capacity Memorandum, with the implementation of Advanced Automated Train Control (AATC) and without stations in the BART network, the Transbay Tube capacity would be approximately 60 trains per hour per direction. Since all trains are required to stop at stations on either side of the Transbay Tube (Embarcadero and West Oakland), the capacity is reduced to approximately 30 trains per hour. To relieve the East Bay Transbay Tube constraint point, there are three (3) potential solutions, which include: 1. Do not have all trains stop at the West Oakland Station (Alternative #1) 2. Construct an additional mainline track that would allow trains to bypass the West Oakland Station (Alternative #2) 3. Build additional tracks at the West Oakland Station and assign trains to alternating platforms (Alternative #3)
Alternative #1 would add two (2) outside tracks to the existing West Oakland platforms, enabling the use of alternating platforms in both directions at the same time. Alternative #2 would provide the same capacity improvement benefits as Alternative #1 in the peak direction and would be less expensive to construct. However, trains would arrive on alternating side platforms during the peaks. This alternative also has the benefit of a center pocket turnback track. Alternative #3 would likely be the most difficult to construct but would provide a flexible, compact, double center-platform arrangement with the capacity enhancing benefits of the other alternatives. In addition, Alternative #3 would have a center pocket track, but without the side-platform shortcoming of Alternative #2.
May 13, 2011
7
AECOM
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
BART: Metro Concept BART’s Metro concept is a collection of enhancements / improvements that focus on improving capacity within the Transbay Tube corridor. The BART Metro concept includes the following network modifications: Skip-stops to either side of the Transbay Tube Increased service within the core service area (OaklandMacArthur to San Francisco 16th Street) Service concentration and infill stations Vertical circulation improvements within the Market Street corridor Replacement of current train fleet with three (3) door cars Implementation of the Advanced Automated Train Control system Station capacity improvements (including “Saddlebags”) These improvements could all be constructed independently, and would offer varying degrees of operational / access benefits. The benefits of these proposed BART Metro Concept modifications are as follows: Skip-stops would increase the capacity within the Transbay Tube by reducing the number of stops at each of the stations and the corresponding congestion delay. As discussed in the East Bay Skip-Stop Alternative, improvements at the West Oakland Station could allow select trains to continue from the Transbay Tube to the wye without stopping. As discussed in the West Bay Skip-Stop with New San Francisco Alignment Alternative, a new alignment would be constructed between the Transbay Tube and the Embarcadero Station. This would essentially function as a skip-stop while providing a new route within San Francisco. Increased service within the core service area would include shorter headways for trains serving patrons between the OaklandMacArthur and San Francisco 16th Street Stations. The patronage in this section of the system is expected to grow significantly with the new and future Transit Oriented Developments (TOD) and increased urban density. Previous projects include the Fruitvale BART Transit Village in Oakland and future projects include MacArthur BART Transit Village in Oakland. The service concentration and infill stations could better serve the patrons within the more densely populated regions and those that are not within close proximity to an existing BART station. Potential locations that could be considered for infill stations could include Emeryville, Albany, and / or San Francisco-Van Ness. Vertical circulation improvements within the Market Street corridor could be accomplished by increasing the number and carrying capacity of staircases, elevators, and escalators. In addition to constructing such facilities independently, these enhancements could be accomplished by incorporating the Expansion of Embarcadero and Montgomery Stations (“Saddlebags”) Alternative. The new platforms could be supplemented by additional street-level conveyances.
8
Bay Area Toll Authority
Potential Alternatives Report
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
The replacement of the current train fleet with three (3) door cars would serve two purposes. Firstly, three (3) door cars would allow patrons to board / alight trains at a faster rate, which could reduce dwell time and headways. Secondly, the new cars would have a greater passenger capacity as the ratio of standees to seated passengers would be increased. Generally, the three (3) door cars would increase the capacity of train cars and the Transbay Tube. This would be compatible with the the Expansion of Embarcadero and Montgomery Stations (“Saddlebags”) Alternative. The implementation of the Advanced Automated Train Control system would allow BART to run trains closer together and at greater average speeds, thereby significantly increasing the ridership capacity of the BART system at a cost far less than the cost of physically expanding the system by building another Transbay Tube or more trackway. The system would use radio signals to track the locations of trains and govern their speeds. The AATC system would be expected to increase the throughput of the Transbay Tube from 23 to 30 trains per hour per direction. Station capacity improvements (including “Saddlebags”) would increase the amount of platform space, improve boarding / alighting procedures, and improve vertical circulation. As discussed in the Expansion of Embarcadero and Montgomery Stations (“Saddlebags”) Alternative, capacity improvements could possibly be constructed within the Market Street stations incrementally as warranted by ridership demand. Much of the work required to expand the stations could be accomplished outside the existing facilities without impacting the station or train operations. BART: East Bay Access Improvements Improving connectivity to East Bay BART stations would serve to leverage the existing high quality of BART connections in the Bay Bridge corridor, and could take advantage of planned increases in BART capacity. BART ridership could be increased significantly using a strategy of transit-oriented development (TOD) and access improvements based on analysis of relative cost-effectiveness. For example, “rapid bus” improvements to major connecting bus lines could greatly extend the reach of BART stations. Indeed, this is a rationale for AC Transit’s East Bay Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project in the International Boulevard / Telegraph Avenue corridor (as shown below), which would connect to several BART stations. This concept could be particularly effective when tied to capacity expansion for BART stations and / or operational improvements, including the Metro Service Concept.
May 13, 2011
9
AECOM
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
BART: East Bay Transit Access Improvements Analogous to improving connectivity to East Bay BART stations, ridership on transbay AC Transit routes and ferry services could be increased with TOD and better connections, including non-motorized access, at AC Transit nodes and ferry terminals. Since it can be environmentally challenging to construct TOD at a ferry terminal due to shoreline and wetlands impacts, connections between ferry terminals and nearby TODs may demand particular attention. Bus: Bay Bridge Bus-Only Lane Within the framework of using person-seat capacity rather than vehicle capacity as a performance measure, one (1) lane of the Bay Bridge could be converted to bus-only operations during peak periods. This concept would synergize with an AC Transit Bay Bridge Shuttle service operating between an East Bay Terminal and the Transbay Terminal in San Francisco. Bus: AC Transit East Bay Terminal and Bay Bridge Shuttle AC Transit currently operates more than 25 routes between the East Bay and the Transbay Terminal in San Francisco. Within the East Bay, this comprehensive service extends between San Pablo on the north and Fremont on the south. The majority of the transbay buses converge at the Bay Bridge and provide service to a single location in San Francisco. Most of the routes are redundant between the East Bay and San Francisco, presenting an opportunity to more efficiently use resources. An East Bay Bus Terminal could be developed to shuttle passengers between the East Bay and the Transbay Terminal. The conveyance between the East Bay Bus Terminal and the Transbay Terminal could be a fleet of special buses or an alternative technology, such as a rubber-wheeled train. This service could potentially be initiated in concert with a bus-only or contra-flow bus lane on the Bay Bridge. The service frequency would be high to minimize transfer delays and maintain adequate capacity. Despite requiring an additional transfer, the East Bay Bus Terminal (concept at left) could potentially reduce travel time and increase efficiency. Since buses serving transbay routes would no longer make the approximately 15-mile roundtrip between Oakland and San Francisco, the trip time and travel distance for individual transbay routes would be reduced by up to 45 minutes. The reduced run times could translate to higher service frequency and / or increased service coverage, while maintaining the same quality of service with existing resources. In addition, this concept would likely reduce the number of buses crossing the Bay Bridge during peak hours and / or increase capacity utilization on each bus.
10
Bay Area Toll Authority
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
Potential Alternatives Report
Bus: AC Transit Service Expansion in San Francisco AC Transit transbay service is limited to the Transbay Terminal within San Francisco. Passengers utilizing AC Transit to cross the Bay Bridge must transfer to another transit service to reach their destination, unless within walking distance. The forced transfer is a deterrent for potential AC Transit passengers. For many passengers, BART is a preferable alternative due to the number of stations and the coverage provided by the BART trunk line in San Francisco. To increase their service coverage in San Francisco, AC Transit buses could be routed to destinations beyond the Transbay Terminal, including Caltrain’s 4th and King Station, Mission Bay and other hubs, particularly those offset from BART. The buses could then return to the Transbay Terminal, or return directly to the Bay Bridge. Bus: Bay Bridge East End Transit Access Improvements Improvements to transit access at the east end of the Bay Bridge would complement “rapid bus” and other enhancements of AC Transit’s transbay express bus service. According to a November 2010 Bay Bridge Corridor Congestion Study presentation to the Transbay Joint Powers Authority board by AC Transit and Arup, auto queues now rarely impede transit access, but are projected to do so in the future. Improvements could extend beyond the immediate toll plaza vicinity, and address egress from the Bay Bridge. Additionally, the routes between major transit hubs are indirect, slow, and circuitous. For example, several bus lines between the MacArthur BART Station and the Bay Bridge experience long travel times do to network limitations. In particular, improvements to ramps and ramp access and egress (potentially including new ramps) along I80 and I-580 in Emeryville might be considered. A ramp in the westbound direction could connect the transit corridor in Oakland directly to the Bay Bridge via a dedicated bus or HOV lane. As mentioned above, direct access for buses from westbound MacArthur Boulevard to the Bay Bridge may offer new service opportunities, directly connecting the San Pablo Avenue corridor with San Francisco.
May 13, 2011
11
AECOM
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
Bus: AC Transit Rapid Bus Improvements Cost-effective, short-term improvements to segments of transbay express bus lines outside of the Bay Bridge corridor could be made to improve the lines’ overall performance. Signal priority and stop optimization have already been planned for Line NL in the MacArthur Boulevard Corridor in Oakland. Based on existing ridership, similar measures should be studied for Lines F (Berkeley / Emeryville) and O (Alameda). These three lines account for more than 40 percent of all existing Transbay ridership. Moreover, the City of Alameda has identified potential Bus Rapid Transit improvements along the Line O route, which might serve as a basis for further study. Improvements along the MacArthur Boulevard corridor are projected to net 1,500 new daily transit trips (although not all of these would be transbay trips, as other lines operate in the corridor). In general, modest measures to improve transit speed and reliability such as signal priority amount to a relatively low-cost way to significantly improve both transit ridership and cost-effectiveness, and to make more effective use of available capacity. Bus: Transbay Network Reconfiguration In the longer term, more extensive changes to the AC Transit transbay express bus network should be considered. Currently, the system is configured as a “traditional” express bus network, in which buses make relatively frequent stops within neighborhoods before operating as express service on freeways. This system has the advantage of offering “one-seat” rides. However, a “feeder” model might offer the advantages identified above for the East Bay Terminal and Bay Bridge Shuttle concept. An alternate or expanded version of this concept would feature express lines operating “point to point” exclusively along freeways, using high-occupancy lanes. Each “point” would be served by feeder buses, and might provide patron parking. Stops could range from “pads”, similar to those used by Golden Gate Transit along Highway 101 in the North Bay, to inline freeway stations such as those along the Silver Line in Los Angeles County or on the Sound Transit Express network in the Puget Sound Region (shown in blue at right). Freeway bus stations, as shown on the next page, might be located along I-80 and I-580 in areas that are not well-served by BART. The existing park-and-ride at Richmond Parkway is a similar facility, as buses use direct ramps to access the HOV lanes; however, the station is situated “offline”, to the west of the freeway. Buses could also operate along major arterials, stopping only at major transit nodes. The “point to point” model would have many of the same advantages and disadvantages as the East Bay Terminal / Bay Bridge Shuttle concept. Additional study might also consider reconfiguration of service to more effectively serve Priority Development Areas.
12
Bay Area Toll Authority
Potential Alternatives Report
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
Vehicle: I-80 San Francisco (option A) – Westbound Braid of 4th Street On-Ramp / 9th Street Off-Ramp During the weekday PM peak period, large volumes of vehicles enter I-80 at the westbound 4th Street On-Ramp and exit I-80 at the westbound 9th Street Of-Ramp. The resultant weaving is a source of congestion and delay, reducing the effective through capacity between Yerba Buena Island and the San Francisco touchdown. Better capacity utilization of the existing Bridge could be gained by developing additional ramp facilities to allow this traffic to exit closer to the Bridge. Reducing the congestion and queue could be accomplished by constructing a 5th Street left-hand off- ramp and braiding the right-hand 9th Street off-ramp to separate it from the 4th Street southbound on-ramp traffic. The illustration at right shows two possible options – either a left-hand or right-hand exit to 9th Street, providing added lanes to allow traffic to peel off from the mix of through traffic and southbound US 101 traffic, which presently congests the center lanes in the peak period. This added off-ramp capacity would be required in order to free up capacity to accommodate an eastbound weekday PM peak period contra-flow bus lane, though it would make better utilization of capacity even without the bus lane. Vehicle: I-80 San Francisco (option B) – Westbound Lane Addition from 4th Street On-Ramp to Central Skyway As a variation of the Braid of 4th Street On-Ramp / 9th Street Off-Ramp alternative (option A), a lane from the 4th Street On-Ramp to the Central Skyway could be added to provide additional capacity to the freeway. US 101 south of the Central Skyway provides four (4) through lanes, while I-80 east of the Central Skyway currently provides three (3) through lanes. Essentially, more freeway capacity is provided south of the Central Skyway than to the east. A fourth lane would eliminate this constraint point and provide a consistent number of through lanes on I-80 / US 101 within San Francisco. Vehicle: I-80 San Francisco – Eastbound HOV Lane on 5th Street On-Ramp During the weekday PM peak period, vehicle congestion from eastbound I-80 propagates back onto the one (1) lane 5th Street On-Ramp. Vehicles entering the freeway are delayed as they attempt to merge into the three (3) eastbound lanes on I-80. To reduce delays for HOVs utilizing the ramp, a dedicated HOV lane could be added (approximately 2,000 feet) to the ramp from the I-80 merge area to the 5th Street / Bryant Street intersection. This would allow HOVs to “jump” the mixed-flow vehicle queue. Given the existing geometry and roadway width, this improvement could potentially be constructed with the addition of striping and signage.
May 13, 2011
13
AECOM
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
To provide additional incentive for HOVs, the dedicated HOV lane could be extended beyond the 5th Street / Bryant Street intersection and onto Bryant Street. A similar treatment has been successfully implemented on Bryant Street at the Sterling Street On-Ramp. At this location, the HOV lanes extend west beyond the 2nd Street / Bryant Street intersection to 3rd Street. Vehicle: I-80 San Francisco – Eastbound On-Ramp Improvements The Bay Bridge Corridor Congestion Study – prepared by Arup – has evaluated several ramp improvements in the South of Market (SoMa) area. The analysis included a simulation with several improvements at the Essex Street, First Street, and Sterling Street On-Ramps. The improvements included the closure of the Sterling Street On-Ramp, the conversion of the First Street On-Ramp to HOV-only during the PM peak period, ramp metering, and multiple improvements on the local streets. In addition to the improvements proposed by Arup, the following enhancements could be considered: HOV lane on the Eastbound I-80 On-Ramp at 5th Street HOV lane extension from the Eastbound I-80 On-Ramp at 5th Street to the Eastbound I-80 On-Ramp at 5th / Essex Streets Standard signalization (rather than metering) at the convergence of the First Street and Essex ramps Vehicle: I-580 Oakland – Westbound HOV Extension and Bypass of SR 24 / I-580 Interchange During weekday peak periods, motorists experience significant delays along the I-580 corridor between I-80 and SR 24, which can be attributed to a combination of factors including: The I-580 weaving section between the westbound SR 24 On-Ramp and the eastbound I-80 Off-Ramp; and The queuing from eastbound I-80 through the I-580 corridor and past the I-580 / SR 24 Interchange. The congestion and queuing caused by vehicles destined for eastbound I-80 significantly delays vehicles on SR 24 destined for westbound I-80, the Bay Bridge. A potential solution to improve access to the Bridge for HOVs would be to implement a dedicated HOV bypass for vehicles from SR 24 that would connect directly to HOV lanes on the I-80 Bay Bridge Toll Plaza approach. This would allow HOVs to bypass queuing and congestion that is unrelated to the Bay Bridge. This improvement could be expanded to begin on SR 24 prior to westbound weaving section. Vehicle: Expanded Bay Bridge HOV Lane Operation and Enhanced Congestion Pricing Pricing strategies could be implemented to manage travel demand in the Bay Bridge corridor. This concept could not only generate revenue, but also render expensive infrastructural investments unnecessary and make use of available capacity on other modes. As a near-term component of this strategy, Saturday HOV lane operation should be considered.
14
Bay Area Toll Authority
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
Potential Alternatives Report
3.2 San Mateo Bridge / Dumbarton Bridge Corridors The San Mateo Bridge and Dumbarton Bridge corridors each accommodate approximately 15 percent of the daily trips crossing the San Francisco Bay. Independently, the two (2) bridges currently provide adequate capacity to meet demand; however, the capacity of the approaches to the bridges are constrained. Additionally, transit ridership within these corridors is significantly less than the Bay Bridge corridor. Currently, the transit mode share within the Bay Bridge corridor is nearly 40 percent, whereas the transit mode share on the San Mateo and Dumbarton Bridge corridors is less than one (1) percent; however, with the activation of Dumbarton Rail the transit share will increase significantly. The total daily traffic volumes crossing the San Mateo Bridge corridor in 2010 and 2035 are shown in Table 4. Table 4: Daily Transbay Person-Trips – San Mateo Bridge
Mode
2010
2035
Change
Vehicle – SOV (1 person)
79,300
97,700
+23%
Vehicle – HOV (carpool)
23,600
33,500
+42%
Vehicle – Truck (1 person)
6,300
1,700
-73%
300
600
+100%
Total Person-Trips
109,500
133,500
+22%
Total Vehicle-Trips
97,000
115,900
+19%
Total Transit-Trips
300
600
+100%
Bus
Source: Current and Projected Conditions Report, AECOM, 2011.
The total daily traffic volumes crossing the Dumbarton Bridge corridor in 2010 and 2035 are shown in Table 5. Table 5: Daily Transbay Person-Trips – Dumbarton Bridge
Mode
2010
2035
Change
Vehicle – SOV (1 person)
66,500
79,700
+20%
Vehicle – HOV (carpool)
23,700
42,400
+79%
Vehicle – Truck (1 person)
3,600
600
-83%
Rail – Dumbarton
-
11,000
-
1,400
200
-86%
Total Person-Trips
95,200
133,900
+41%
Total Vehicle-Trips
81,800
101,400
+24%
Total Transit-Trips
1,400
11,200
+700%
Bus
Source: Current and Projected Conditions Report, AECOM, 2011.
The new potential alternatives that have been developed focus on increasing the capacity of these corridors by expanding transit operations and improving the approach to the Dumbarton Bridge. The new potential alternatives include the following:
May 13, 2011
15
AECOM
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
Bus: Destination-Oriented Bus Service This alternative focuses on providing AC Transit bus service from regional transit nodes (e.g., at BART and Capitol Corridor stations) directly to primary destinations (e.g., universities and corporate campuses). Currently, the AC Transit bus line that experiences the highest ridership in this corridor is Line U, which provides direct service from Fremont BART Station to Stanford University. The Bay Fair and Fremont BART Stations could serve as regional transfer points for buses utilizing the San Mateo and Dumbarton Bridges, respectively. The buses could be destination-oriented and serve large employers such as Genentech, Google, and San Francisco International Airport (SFO). Several employers currently offer shuttle service between San Francisco and their corporate campuses. For example, Google shuttles employees between Van Ness Avenue in San Francisco and their campus in Mountain View. Demand for these buses typically exceeds capacity during the peak periods. Vehicle: Willow Road Boulevard This alternative would include the widening of Willow Road to a six (6) lane (three (3) lanes in each direction) roadway. Homes and business located directly on the street would be served by quieter and slower outer roadways serving local traffic (one (1) lane in each direction), while lanes leading to / from US 101 and the Dumbarton Bridge would be connected via faster inner roadways serving regional traffic (two (2) lanes in each direction). The Boulevard would extend between Bayfront Expressway and US 101. Similar to Octavia Boulevard in San Francisco, the four (4) central lanes could be separated from the local side lanes by landscaping elements to buffer noise and create a more pedestrian-friendly urban environment.
16
Bay Area Toll Authority
Potential Alternatives Report
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
Vehicle: Willow Road Tunnel This alternative would include the construction of a tunnel structure below Willow Road to provide two (2) express lanes (one (1) lane in each direction) and shoulders connecting between US 101 and the Dumbarton Bridge. Tunnel portals would be located north of the US 101 / Willow Road interchange and east of the Bayfront Expressway / Willow Road intersection. This alternative would remove regional through traffic from surface streets (Willow Road and University Avenue), enhancing local traffic access and operations, as well as improving travel time for bridge traffic by reducing delay at intersections. Willow Road would remain a four (4) lane surface roadway serving local traffic. Vehicle: HOV Extension at SR 92 / US 101 Interchange During weekday peak periods, motorists experience significant delays approaching the SR 92 / US 101 Interchange. Specifically, the approaches to / from SR 92 to the east of US 101 experience significant delays with no priority for HOV motorists. A potential solution to improve access to the San Mateo Bridge for HOV vehicles would be to construct the following improvements: Extend the HOV lanes on US 101 from Woodside Road (SR 84) to the north or SR 92 Provide HOV flyovers on SR 92 to the east of US 101 Provide a westbound HOV lane from the San Mateo Bridge to the SR 92 / US 101 Interchange
3.3 All Corridors Several new alternatives have been developed that are applicable to all of the corridors crossing the San Francisco Bay. Generally, these new alternatives are not large-scale physical modifications but are intended to enhance the usage of the existing infrastructure. These enhancements include increasing HOV and transit ridership, reducing congestion, improving multimodal travel, and shifting peak hour trips.
May 13, 2011
17
AECOM
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
Proposed travel demand management and active traffic management strategies include but are not limited to the following: All electronic tolling (AET) Efficiency at the toll plazas would be improved with the expansion of electronic toll collection (ETC) / FasTrak and the transition to all electronic tolling on the bridges. In addition to improved operational efficiency, benefits of AET include the reduction or elimination of abrupt vehicle speed and lane changes at toll plazas, reduction of emissions through the elimination of unnecessary vehicle decelerations and accelerations, and a reduction in travel time through toll plazas. Variable tolling / congestion pricing (on all bridges) Recently implemented on the Bay Bridge, variable tolling strategies could be expanded to include all bridges. Tolls should be varied based on time of day and / or real-time demand and congestion on the facility. Variable HOV requirements Carpool vehicle occupancy requirements should vary based on time of day and / or real-time demand and congestion on the facility. Ridesharing Services Ridesharing is an important mobility option for non-drivers and is a cost-effective alternative. Rideshare congregation points should be established at major East Bay employment centers for sharing rides across the bridges and to major East Bay transit nodes. Rideshare programs can be implemented using computerized matching systems that take into account each commuter’s origin, destination, schedule, and special needs. Taxi Match program This alternative would make use of text / SMS to match commuters destined for similar locations. Parking Pricing Parking garage operations at key locations in Downtown San Francisco could be managed to incentivize desired behavior and spread demand. Early-bird specials would encourage workers to arrive earlier; similarly, there could be an extra surcharge if the driver leaves the garage during the weekday PM peak period. Additionally, parking prices could be set to equal or exceed transit fares. Variable speed limits Speed limits would be adjusted according to traffic conditions such as congestion, incidents, construction, and weather. Variable speed limits exist on several segments of the New Jersey Turnpike, I-80 in Wyoming, I-90 in Washington, I-270 in St. Louis, and I-75 in Tennessee.
18
Bay Area Toll Authority
Potential Alternatives Report
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
Ramp metering policy More consistent ramp metering policies could be enforced on all freeways that feed bridges. Freeway Performance Measurement System (PeMS) data shows that many Bay Area freeways break down during peak periods, resulting in flows lower than capacity (i.e., 1,700 to 1,800 passenger cars per hour per lane (pcphpl) maximum). More effective ramp metering may be a solution to manage existing capacity. Tradeoffs associated with a change in policy would need to be identified and approved by local agencies; for example, if a change in ramp metering policy would result in greater delays at ramps and local arterials. Dynamic queue warning system A condition-responsive dynamic queue warning system could be placed at strategic locations to provide advance warning to drivers approaching the end of slow or stopped queues, thereby reducing the potential for severe rear-end collisions and potentially providing drivers with the possibility of identifying an alternate, less-congested route to reach their destination. Shoulder-use guidance systems Options for a shoulder-use guidance system could be explored. Temporary shoulder use is a congestion management strategy typically deployed in conjunction with variable speed limits or speed harmonization. This strategy provides additional capacity during times of congestion and reduced travel speeds. When travel speeds are reduced, signs indicate that travel on the shoulder is permitted. Temporary shoulder use is only permitted when speed limits are reduced. A similar program in the United Kingdom uses sensors to detect the buildup of traffic which triggers a Changeable Message Sign (CMS) instructing drivers to slow down and use the extra lane. CMS would tell drivers the lane was closed if there was an accident. Radar speed / flow sensor communications Expand deployment of Doppler radar speed / flow sensor communication with PDAs and smartphones, satellite radio, and navigation. Changeable Message Signs Changeable Message Signs should be strategically placed throughout the network to provide reliable, real-time information to drivers. Additionally, advance warning signs may be used, such as a static message board displaying a warning message and flashing beacons that would be activated when a predefined threshold was reached. These new alternatives encourage the optimization of existing infrastructure with an emphasis on improving trip reliability and driver information. Proposed improvements to expand and integrate the bicycle network include but are not limited to:
May 13, 2011
19
AECOM
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
Bicycle / transit integration Combining transit and cycling can provide a high level of mobility compared to automobile travel. Bicycle / transit integration supports both transit and bicycle transportation, and may encourage transit use and attract new riders. Bicycle Racks—Most AC Transit buses provide a bicycle rack with space to accommodate two (2) bicycles; additional storage for bicycles would improve bicycle / bus integration. Bicycle Storage—Bicycle parking should be provided at all transit stops and transportation terminals. A mix of paid lockers for long-term parking and free racks for short-term parking may be appropriate. Bicycle Access—Bicycle paths, bicycle lanes, and road maintenance improvements that make it easier to ride to transit stations and transportation terminals should be prioritized. Public Bicycle Systems (PBS) Public Bicycle Systems are automated bicycle rental systems designed to provide efficient mobility for short trips, and are often located at public transit stations. Implementation of a bike-sharing program is currently being explored in San Francisco.
20
Bay Area Toll Authority
May 13, 2011
Potential Alternatives Report San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update Prepared for the Bay Area Toll Authority
Bay Area Toll Authority
AECOM
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
Potential Alternatives Report San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update Prepared for the Bay Area Toll Authority May 13, 2011
Bay Area Toll Authority
AECOM
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
Table of Contents
1.0
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 1
2.0
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 2
3.0
New Potential Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 3 3.1 Bay Bridge Corridor ..................................................................................................................................... 4 3.2 San Mateo Bridge / Dumbarton Bridge Corridors .......................................................................................15 3.3 All Corridors ...............................................................................................................................................17
List of Tables Table 1: Potential Alternatives Summary .............................................................................................. 1 Table 2: Daily Transbay Person-Trips – Travel Demand ......................................................................... 3 Table 3: Daily Transbay Person-Trips – Bay Bridge ............................................................................... 5 Table 4: Daily Transbay Person-Trips – San Mateo Bridge .................................................................. 15 Table 5: Daily Transbay Person-Trips – Dumbarton Bridge ................................................................. 15
ii
Bay Area Toll Authority
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
Potential Alternatives Report
1.0 Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to introduce new potential transbay alternatives that may warrant further study. These new alternatives are highly conceptual and were developed with a focus on the current planning landscape in the Bay Area, including the latest regulatory framework and ridership / demand projections. In addition to presenting new potential alternatives, this report provides a summary of current and projected transbay transportation conditions. Previously identified alternatives were updated and included in the Alternatives Update Report. A summary of the significant potential alternatives is included in Table 1. Table 1: Potential Alternatives Summary
Alternative
Mode Served
Bay Bridge Corridor Expansion of Embarcadero and Montgomery Stations (“Saddlebags”)
BART
West Bay Skip-Stop with New San Francisco Alignment
BART
East Bay Skip-Stop
BART
Metro Concept
BART
East Bay Access Improvements
BART
East Bay Transit Access Improvements
BART
Bay Bridge Bus Only-Lane
Bus
AC Transit East Bay Terminal and Bay Bridge Shuttle
Bus
AC Transit Service Expansion in San Francisco
Bus
Bay Bridge East End Transit Access Improvements
Bus
AC Transit Rapid Bus Improvements
Bus
Transbay Network Reconfiguration
Bus
I-80 San Francisco (option A) – Braid of 4th Street On-Ramp / 9th Street Off-Ramp th
Vehicle
I-80 San Francisco (option B) – Lane Addition from 4 Street On-Ramp to Central Skyway
Vehicle
I-80 San Francisco – Eastbound On-Ramp Improvements
Vehicle
th
I-80 San Francisco – Eastbound HOV Lane on 5 Street On-Ramp
Vehicle
I-580 Oakland – Westbound HOV Extension and Bypass of SR 24 / I-580 Interchange
Vehicle
Expanded Bay Bridge HOV Lane Operation and Enhanced Congestion Pricing
Vehicle
San Mateo Bridge / Dumbarton Bridge Corridors Destination-Oriented Bus Service
Bus
Willow Road Boulevard
Vehicle
Willow Road Tunnel
Vehicle
HOV Extension at SR 92 / US 101 Interchange
Vehicle
Source: AECOM, 2011.
May 13, 2011
1
AECOM
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
2.0 Introduction This report was developed in accordance with Task 4 of the San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update: Project Work Plan and Schedule.(1) This document is herein referred to as the “Bay Crossings Work Plan”. The purpose of this report is to introduce new potential transbay alternatives that may warrant further study. These new alternatives are highly conceptual and were developed with a focus on the current planning landscape in the Bay Area, including the latest regulatory framework and ridership / demand projections. In addition to presenting new potential alternatives, this report provides a summary of current and projected transbay transportation conditions. Current and projected transportation conditions on the various San Francisco Bay crossings have been developed based on recent data collection and the latest SCS / RTP travel demand model (version 0.1). The results of this effort are contained in the San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update: Current and Projected Conditions Report.(2) This document is herein referred to as the “Current and Projected Conditions Report”. It should be noted that many previously identified alternatives were updated and included in the San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update: Alternatives Update Report.(3) This document is herein referred to as the “Alternatives Update Report”. The new potential alternatives presented herein focus on the following transportation modes: Vehicle; BART; and Bus. This report will evaluate these new alternatives and address existing and projected transbay mobility issues identified as a result of the San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update. New alternatives included in this report represent a wide range of capital and operational improvements, as well as strategies and geographic areas, identified to address bay crossings issues. The new alternatives have been organized into the following bridge corridors: Bay Bridge Corridor; San Mateo Bridge Corridor; Dumbarton Bridge Corridor; and All Corridors. It should be noted that a screening process will be developed and applied to the new potential alternatives in accordance with Task 5 of the Bay Crossings Work Plan and submitted in a subsequent phase of the study. (1)
(2)
(3)
2
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update: Project Work Plan and Schedule. Prepared by AECOM. Prepared for the Bay Area Toll Authority. Submitted February 7, 2011. San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update: Current and Projected Conditions Report. Prepared by AECOM. Prepared for the Bay Area Toll Authority. Submitted April 8, 2011. San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update: Alternatives Update Report. Prepared by AECOM. Prepared for the Bay Area Toll Authority. Submitted April 15, 2011.
Bay Area Toll Authority
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
Potential Alternatives Report
3.0 New Potential Alternatives Substantial increases in transbay travel demand are expected between 2010 and 2035. In the next 25 years, the number of daily transbay vehicle-trips is expected to increase by nearly 25 percent, or 100,000 daily transbay vehicle-trips. Given that the existing demand is nearing the current infrastructure capacity, substantial delays to vehicles (including buses) utilizing the bridges can be expected in the near future. A comparison of the 2010 and 2035 daily person-trips crossing the Bay, San Mateo, and Dumbarton Bridge corridors is shown in Table 2. Table 2: Daily Transbay Person-Trips – Travel Demand
Mode
2010
2035
Change
Vehicle – SOV (1 person)
348,600
432,500
+24%
Vehicle – HOV (2 persons)
40,600
58,300
+44%
Vehicle – HOV (carpool)
93,600
130,000
+39%
Vehicle – Truck (1 person)
16,300
6,000
-63%
Rail – BART
175,500
224,000
+28%
Rail – Dumbarton
-
11,000
-
Bus
11,600
13,600
+17%
Ferry
4,500
36,000
+700%
Total Person-Trips
690,700
911,400
+32%
Total Vehicle-Trips
426,300
526,300
+23%
Total Transit-Trips
191,600
284,600
+49%
Source: Current and Projected Conditions Report, AECOM, 2011.
The overall San Francisco Bay crossings daily person-trips are expected to increase by more than 30 percent between 2010 and 2035. Daily transbay vehicle, rail, bus, and ferry travel is projected to increase. The most significant increase in demand is expected to occur in the BART system. Nearly 50,000 additional passengers are expected to cross the Bay via the Transbay Tube on a daily basis by 2035. Based on the findings of the Current and Projected Conditions Report, enhancements and modifications to the existing transportation infrastructure will be required to increase the network capacity and adequately serve the network demand. Between 2010 and 2035, the number of daily transbay transit-trips is expected to increase by nearly 50 percent, or more than 90,000 daily transbay transit-trips. In particular, BART ridership is expected to increase by 30 percent to nearly 225,000 daily transbay passengers, which would exceed the capacity of the current Transbay Tube configuration. The systemwide ridership would increase to approximately 530,000 daily passengers.
May 13, 2011
3
AECOM
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
Transbay Travel Demand
Transbay bus ridership is expected to increase by nearly 20 percent, or 2,000 daily passengers, between 2010 and 2035. Although the increase in ridership could likely be served by the current infrastructure, the existing transbay bus service is inefficient and unsustainable. Many of the current bus lines traverse indirect routes, are redundant with others, and / or are delayed by traffic congestion. The new potential alternatives were developed with a focus on the current planning landscape in the Bay Area, including the latest regulatory framework and ridership / demand projections.
3.1 Bay Bridge Corridor The Bay Bridge corridor accommodates more than 70 percent of the daily trips crossing the San Francisco Bay and the demand is currently exceeding capacity. The total number of daily trips crossing the Bay via the Bay Bridge corridor is expected to increase by more than 30 percent by 2035, which will exceed the planned system capacity. The total daily traffic volumes crossing the Bay Bridge corridor in 2010 and 2035 are shown in Table 3.
4
Bay Area Toll Authority
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
Potential Alternatives Report
Table 3: Daily Transbay Person-Trips – Bay Bridge
Mode
2010
2035
Change
Vehicle – SOV (1 person)
202,800
255,100
+26%
Vehicle – HOV (2 persons)
40,600
58,300
+44%
Vehicle – HOV (carpool)
46,300
54,100
+17%
Vehicle – Truck (1 person) Rail – BART Bus Ferry
6,400
3,700
-42%
175,500
224,000
+28%
9,900
12,800
+29%
4,500
36,000
+700%
Total Person-Trips
486,000
644,000
+33%
Total Vehicle-Trips
247,500
309,000
+25%
Total Transit-Trips
189,900
272,800
+44%
Source: Current and Projected Conditions Report, AECOM, 2011.
The new potential alternatives that have been developed focus on increasing the capacity of the Bay Bridge corridor by expanding and optimizing the existing facilities. The new potential alternatives include the following:
May 13, 2011
5
AECOM
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
BART: Expansion of Embarcadero and Montgomery Stations (“Saddlebags”) Expansion and modification of the Embarcadero and Montgomery Stations to incorporate platform screen doors and / or “saddlebag” side platforms (shown in yellow at right) would improve the operations of those stations and optimize the capacity of the Transbay Tube. These improvements, in conjunction with BART’s Metro Service Concept and Core Capacity Improvements, could significantly increase demand in BART’s core service area and reduce demand for auto travel in the Bay Bridge corridor. This configuration would provide additional platform space for BART patrons and improve the boarding / alighting procedures, which could potentially reduce dwell time and headways. The configuration of the new side platform and access to the platform, which has been studied by BART in the Core Station Improvement Study, is based on a 10 car train using the new three (3) door car configuration. Much of the work required to expand the subway box structure could be accomplished outside the existing station without impacting the station or train operations. According to BART, the systemwide capacity within the Transbay Tube could be doubled (from 350,000 daily passengers to 700,000 daily passengers) by constructing “saddlebag” side platforms in the Embarcadero and Montgomery BART Stations. This assumes the implementation of three (3) door cars and other system enhancements. The construction of “saddlebags” will be required based on the following daily systemwide passenger demands: Embarcadero Station (EB direction) – 500,000 passengers; Montgomery Station (EB direction) – 550,000 passengers; Embarcadero Station (WB direction) – 700,000 passengers. BART: West Bay Skip-Stop with New San Francisco Alignment A new alignment within San Francisco would increase the service capacity within the Market Street corridor and provide additional BART stations within a new San Francisco corridor. A parallel track and side platform could be constructed at the Montgomery Station and allow for transfers between trains without causing delay. This would essentially function as a “skip-stop” at the main constraint point – the Embarcadero Station – while providing a new BART route.
6
Bay Area Toll Authority
Potential Alternatives Report
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
As discussed in BART’s Analysis of Transbay Capacity Memorandum, immediately after trains exit the Transbay Tube, they encounter the Embarcadero Station, where all trains stop and must allow passengers to board / alight. Ideally, select trains would be able to skip-stop this station (and other Market Street stations) to reduce congestion. However, throughput could actually be reduced because of dwell times caused by passengers who would transfer at West Oakland or other East Bay station to a train that was going to stop at their desired station in San Francisco.
Since skip-stopping alone would not be feasible, it could be accomplished with modifications to the infrastructure. The modification could consist of a train diversion off the existing tracks between the San Francisco Vent Structure and Embarcadero Stations. Trains would be evenly distributed between the existing and new lines. This would eliminate the Embarcadero Station as a constraint point in the system. The infrastructure and operations plan would need to be developed to minimize the need for patrons to transfer in the East Bay. Given this configuration, transfers could not occur in San Francisco. BART: East Bay Skip-Stop According to BART’s Analysis of Transbay Capacity Memorandum, with the implementation of Advanced Automated Train Control (AATC) and without stations in the BART network, the Transbay Tube capacity would be approximately 60 trains per hour per direction. Since all trains are required to stop at stations on either side of the Transbay Tube (Embarcadero and West Oakland), the capacity is reduced to approximately 30 trains per hour. To relieve the East Bay Transbay Tube constraint point, there are three (3) potential solutions, which include: 1. Do not have all trains stop at the West Oakland Station (Alternative #1) 2. Construct an additional mainline track that would allow trains to bypass the West Oakland Station (Alternative #2) 3. Build additional tracks at the West Oakland Station and assign trains to alternating platforms (Alternative #3)
Alternative #1 would add two (2) outside tracks to the existing West Oakland platforms, enabling the use of alternating platforms in both directions at the same time. Alternative #2 would provide the same capacity improvement benefits as Alternative #1 in the peak direction and would be less expensive to construct. However, trains would arrive on alternating side platforms during the peaks. This alternative also has the benefit of a center pocket turnback track. Alternative #3 would likely be the most difficult to construct but would provide a flexible, compact, double center-platform arrangement with the capacity enhancing benefits of the other alternatives. In addition, Alternative #3 would have a center pocket track, but without the side-platform shortcoming of Alternative #2.
May 13, 2011
7
AECOM
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
BART: Metro Concept BART’s Metro concept is a collection of enhancements / improvements that focus on improving capacity within the Transbay Tube corridor. The BART Metro concept includes the following network modifications: Skip-stops to either side of the Transbay Tube Increased service within the core service area (OaklandMacArthur to San Francisco 16th Street) Service concentration and infill stations Vertical circulation improvements within the Market Street corridor Replacement of current train fleet with three (3) door cars Implementation of the Advanced Automated Train Control system Station capacity improvements (including “Saddlebags”) These improvements could all be constructed independently, and would offer varying degrees of operational / access benefits. The benefits of these proposed BART Metro Concept modifications are as follows: Skip-stops would increase the capacity within the Transbay Tube by reducing the number of stops at each of the stations and the corresponding congestion delay. As discussed in the East Bay Skip-Stop Alternative, improvements at the West Oakland Station could allow select trains to continue from the Transbay Tube to the wye without stopping. As discussed in the West Bay Skip-Stop with New San Francisco Alignment Alternative, a new alignment would be constructed between the Transbay Tube and the Embarcadero Station. This would essentially function as a skip-stop while providing a new route within San Francisco. Increased service within the core service area would include shorter headways for trains serving patrons between the OaklandMacArthur and San Francisco 16th Street Stations. The patronage in this section of the system is expected to grow significantly with the new and future Transit Oriented Developments (TOD) and increased urban density. Previous projects include the Fruitvale BART Transit Village in Oakland and future projects include MacArthur BART Transit Village in Oakland. The service concentration and infill stations could better serve the patrons within the more densely populated regions and those that are not within close proximity to an existing BART station. Potential locations that could be considered for infill stations could include Emeryville, Albany, and / or San Francisco-Van Ness. Vertical circulation improvements within the Market Street corridor could be accomplished by increasing the number and carrying capacity of staircases, elevators, and escalators. In addition to constructing such facilities independently, these enhancements could be accomplished by incorporating the Expansion of Embarcadero and Montgomery Stations (“Saddlebags”) Alternative. The new platforms could be supplemented by additional street-level conveyances.
8
Bay Area Toll Authority
Potential Alternatives Report
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
The replacement of the current train fleet with three (3) door cars would serve two purposes. Firstly, three (3) door cars would allow patrons to board / alight trains at a faster rate, which could reduce dwell time and headways. Secondly, the new cars would have a greater passenger capacity as the ratio of standees to seated passengers would be increased. Generally, the three (3) door cars would increase the capacity of train cars and the Transbay Tube. This would be compatible with the the Expansion of Embarcadero and Montgomery Stations (“Saddlebags”) Alternative. The implementation of the Advanced Automated Train Control system would allow BART to run trains closer together and at greater average speeds, thereby significantly increasing the ridership capacity of the BART system at a cost far less than the cost of physically expanding the system by building another Transbay Tube or more trackway. The system would use radio signals to track the locations of trains and govern their speeds. The AATC system would be expected to increase the throughput of the Transbay Tube from 23 to 30 trains per hour per direction. Station capacity improvements (including “Saddlebags”) would increase the amount of platform space, improve boarding / alighting procedures, and improve vertical circulation. As discussed in the Expansion of Embarcadero and Montgomery Stations (“Saddlebags”) Alternative, capacity improvements could possibly be constructed within the Market Street stations incrementally as warranted by ridership demand. Much of the work required to expand the stations could be accomplished outside the existing facilities without impacting the station or train operations. BART: East Bay Access Improvements Improving connectivity to East Bay BART stations would serve to leverage the existing high quality of BART connections in the Bay Bridge corridor, and could take advantage of planned increases in BART capacity. BART ridership could be increased significantly using a strategy of transit-oriented development (TOD) and access improvements based on analysis of relative cost-effectiveness. For example, “rapid bus” improvements to major connecting bus lines could greatly extend the reach of BART stations. Indeed, this is a rationale for AC Transit’s East Bay Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project in the International Boulevard / Telegraph Avenue corridor (as shown below), which would connect to several BART stations. This concept could be particularly effective when tied to capacity expansion for BART stations and / or operational improvements, including the Metro Service Concept.
May 13, 2011
9
AECOM
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
BART: East Bay Transit Access Improvements Analogous to improving connectivity to East Bay BART stations, ridership on transbay AC Transit routes and ferry services could be increased with TOD and better connections, including non-motorized access, at AC Transit nodes and ferry terminals. Since it can be environmentally challenging to construct TOD at a ferry terminal due to shoreline and wetlands impacts, connections between ferry terminals and nearby TODs may demand particular attention. Bus: Bay Bridge Bus-Only Lane Within the framework of using person-seat capacity rather than vehicle capacity as a performance measure, one (1) lane of the Bay Bridge could be converted to bus-only operations during peak periods. This concept would synergize with an AC Transit Bay Bridge Shuttle service operating between an East Bay Terminal and the Transbay Terminal in San Francisco. Bus: AC Transit East Bay Terminal and Bay Bridge Shuttle AC Transit currently operates more than 25 routes between the East Bay and the Transbay Terminal in San Francisco. Within the East Bay, this comprehensive service extends between San Pablo on the north and Fremont on the south. The majority of the transbay buses converge at the Bay Bridge and provide service to a single location in San Francisco. Most of the routes are redundant between the East Bay and San Francisco, presenting an opportunity to more efficiently use resources. An East Bay Bus Terminal could be developed to shuttle passengers between the East Bay and the Transbay Terminal. The conveyance between the East Bay Bus Terminal and the Transbay Terminal could be a fleet of special buses or an alternative technology, such as a rubber-wheeled train. This service could potentially be initiated in concert with a bus-only or contra-flow bus lane on the Bay Bridge. The service frequency would be high to minimize transfer delays and maintain adequate capacity. Despite requiring an additional transfer, the East Bay Bus Terminal (concept at left) could potentially reduce travel time and increase efficiency. Since buses serving transbay routes would no longer make the approximately 15-mile roundtrip between Oakland and San Francisco, the trip time and travel distance for individual transbay routes would be reduced by up to 45 minutes. The reduced run times could translate to higher service frequency and / or increased service coverage, while maintaining the same quality of service with existing resources. In addition, this concept would likely reduce the number of buses crossing the Bay Bridge during peak hours and / or increase capacity utilization on each bus.
10
Bay Area Toll Authority
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
Potential Alternatives Report
Bus: AC Transit Service Expansion in San Francisco AC Transit transbay service is limited to the Transbay Terminal within San Francisco. Passengers utilizing AC Transit to cross the Bay Bridge must transfer to another transit service to reach their destination, unless within walking distance. The forced transfer is a deterrent for potential AC Transit passengers. For many passengers, BART is a preferable alternative due to the number of stations and the coverage provided by the BART trunk line in San Francisco. To increase their service coverage in San Francisco, AC Transit buses could be routed to destinations beyond the Transbay Terminal, including Caltrain’s 4th and King Station, Mission Bay and other hubs, particularly those offset from BART. The buses could then return to the Transbay Terminal, or return directly to the Bay Bridge. Bus: Bay Bridge East End Transit Access Improvements Improvements to transit access at the east end of the Bay Bridge would complement “rapid bus” and other enhancements of AC Transit’s transbay express bus service. According to a November 2010 Bay Bridge Corridor Congestion Study presentation to the Transbay Joint Powers Authority board by AC Transit and Arup, auto queues now rarely impede transit access, but are projected to do so in the future. Improvements could extend beyond the immediate toll plaza vicinity, and address egress from the Bay Bridge. Additionally, the routes between major transit hubs are indirect, slow, and circuitous. For example, several bus lines between the MacArthur BART Station and the Bay Bridge experience long travel times do to network limitations. In particular, improvements to ramps and ramp access and egress (potentially including new ramps) along I80 and I-580 in Emeryville might be considered. A ramp in the westbound direction could connect the transit corridor in Oakland directly to the Bay Bridge via a dedicated bus or HOV lane. As mentioned above, direct access for buses from westbound MacArthur Boulevard to the Bay Bridge may offer new service opportunities, directly connecting the San Pablo Avenue corridor with San Francisco.
May 13, 2011
11
AECOM
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
Bus: AC Transit Rapid Bus Improvements Cost-effective, short-term improvements to segments of transbay express bus lines outside of the Bay Bridge corridor could be made to improve the lines’ overall performance. Signal priority and stop optimization have already been planned for Line NL in the MacArthur Boulevard Corridor in Oakland. Based on existing ridership, similar measures should be studied for Lines F (Berkeley / Emeryville) and O (Alameda). These three lines account for more than 40 percent of all existing Transbay ridership. Moreover, the City of Alameda has identified potential Bus Rapid Transit improvements along the Line O route, which might serve as a basis for further study. Improvements along the MacArthur Boulevard corridor are projected to net 1,500 new daily transit trips (although not all of these would be transbay trips, as other lines operate in the corridor). In general, modest measures to improve transit speed and reliability such as signal priority amount to a relatively low-cost way to significantly improve both transit ridership and cost-effectiveness, and to make more effective use of available capacity. Bus: Transbay Network Reconfiguration In the longer term, more extensive changes to the AC Transit transbay express bus network should be considered. Currently, the system is configured as a “traditional” express bus network, in which buses make relatively frequent stops within neighborhoods before operating as express service on freeways. This system has the advantage of offering “one-seat” rides. However, a “feeder” model might offer the advantages identified above for the East Bay Terminal and Bay Bridge Shuttle concept. An alternate or expanded version of this concept would feature express lines operating “point to point” exclusively along freeways, using high-occupancy lanes. Each “point” would be served by feeder buses, and might provide patron parking. Stops could range from “pads”, similar to those used by Golden Gate Transit along Highway 101 in the North Bay, to inline freeway stations such as those along the Silver Line in Los Angeles County or on the Sound Transit Express network in the Puget Sound Region (shown in blue at right). Freeway bus stations, as shown on the next page, might be located along I-80 and I-580 in areas that are not well-served by BART. The existing park-and-ride at Richmond Parkway is a similar facility, as buses use direct ramps to access the HOV lanes; however, the station is situated “offline”, to the west of the freeway. Buses could also operate along major arterials, stopping only at major transit nodes. The “point to point” model would have many of the same advantages and disadvantages as the East Bay Terminal / Bay Bridge Shuttle concept. Additional study might also consider reconfiguration of service to more effectively serve Priority Development Areas.
12
Bay Area Toll Authority
Potential Alternatives Report
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
Vehicle: I-80 San Francisco (option A) – Westbound Braid of 4th Street On-Ramp / 9th Street Off-Ramp During the weekday PM peak period, large volumes of vehicles enter I-80 at the westbound 4th Street On-Ramp and exit I-80 at the westbound 9th Street Of-Ramp. The resultant weaving is a source of congestion and delay, reducing the effective through capacity between Yerba Buena Island and the San Francisco touchdown. Better capacity utilization of the existing Bridge could be gained by developing additional ramp facilities to allow this traffic to exit closer to the Bridge. Reducing the congestion and queue could be accomplished by constructing a 5th Street left-hand off- ramp and braiding the right-hand 9th Street off-ramp to separate it from the 4th Street southbound on-ramp traffic. The illustration at right shows two possible options – either a left-hand or right-hand exit to 9th Street, providing added lanes to allow traffic to peel off from the mix of through traffic and southbound US 101 traffic, which presently congests the center lanes in the peak period. This added off-ramp capacity would be required in order to free up capacity to accommodate an eastbound weekday PM peak period contra-flow bus lane, though it would make better utilization of capacity even without the bus lane. Vehicle: I-80 San Francisco (option B) – Westbound Lane Addition from 4th Street On-Ramp to Central Skyway As a variation of the Braid of 4th Street On-Ramp / 9th Street Off-Ramp alternative (option A), a lane from the 4th Street On-Ramp to the Central Skyway could be added to provide additional capacity to the freeway. US 101 south of the Central Skyway provides four (4) through lanes, while I-80 east of the Central Skyway currently provides three (3) through lanes. Essentially, more freeway capacity is provided south of the Central Skyway than to the east. A fourth lane would eliminate this constraint point and provide a consistent number of through lanes on I-80 / US 101 within San Francisco. Vehicle: I-80 San Francisco – Eastbound HOV Lane on 5th Street On-Ramp During the weekday PM peak period, vehicle congestion from eastbound I-80 propagates back onto the one (1) lane 5th Street On-Ramp. Vehicles entering the freeway are delayed as they attempt to merge into the three (3) eastbound lanes on I-80. To reduce delays for HOVs utilizing the ramp, a dedicated HOV lane could be added (approximately 2,000 feet) to the ramp from the I-80 merge area to the 5th Street / Bryant Street intersection. This would allow HOVs to “jump” the mixed-flow vehicle queue. Given the existing geometry and roadway width, this improvement could potentially be constructed with the addition of striping and signage.
May 13, 2011
13
AECOM
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
To provide additional incentive for HOVs, the dedicated HOV lane could be extended beyond the 5th Street / Bryant Street intersection and onto Bryant Street. A similar treatment has been successfully implemented on Bryant Street at the Sterling Street On-Ramp. At this location, the HOV lanes extend west beyond the 2nd Street / Bryant Street intersection to 3rd Street. Vehicle: I-80 San Francisco – Eastbound On-Ramp Improvements The Bay Bridge Corridor Congestion Study – prepared by Arup – has evaluated several ramp improvements in the South of Market (SoMa) area. The analysis included a simulation with several improvements at the Essex Street, First Street, and Sterling Street On-Ramps. The improvements included the closure of the Sterling Street On-Ramp, the conversion of the First Street On-Ramp to HOV-only during the PM peak period, ramp metering, and multiple improvements on the local streets. In addition to the improvements proposed by Arup, the following enhancements could be considered: HOV lane on the Eastbound I-80 On-Ramp at 5th Street HOV lane extension from the Eastbound I-80 On-Ramp at 5th Street to the Eastbound I-80 On-Ramp at 5th / Essex Streets Standard signalization (rather than metering) at the convergence of the First Street and Essex ramps Vehicle: I-580 Oakland – Westbound HOV Extension and Bypass of SR 24 / I-580 Interchange During weekday peak periods, motorists experience significant delays along the I-580 corridor between I-80 and SR 24, which can be attributed to a combination of factors including: The I-580 weaving section between the westbound SR 24 On-Ramp and the eastbound I-80 Off-Ramp; and The queuing from eastbound I-80 through the I-580 corridor and past the I-580 / SR 24 Interchange. The congestion and queuing caused by vehicles destined for eastbound I-80 significantly delays vehicles on SR 24 destined for westbound I-80, the Bay Bridge. A potential solution to improve access to the Bridge for HOVs would be to implement a dedicated HOV bypass for vehicles from SR 24 that would connect directly to HOV lanes on the I-80 Bay Bridge Toll Plaza approach. This would allow HOVs to bypass queuing and congestion that is unrelated to the Bay Bridge. This improvement could be expanded to begin on SR 24 prior to westbound weaving section. Vehicle: Expanded Bay Bridge HOV Lane Operation and Enhanced Congestion Pricing Pricing strategies could be implemented to manage travel demand in the Bay Bridge corridor. This concept could not only generate revenue, but also render expensive infrastructural investments unnecessary and make use of available capacity on other modes. As a near-term component of this strategy, Saturday HOV lane operation should be considered.
14
Bay Area Toll Authority
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
Potential Alternatives Report
3.2 San Mateo Bridge / Dumbarton Bridge Corridors The San Mateo Bridge and Dumbarton Bridge corridors each accommodate approximately 15 percent of the daily trips crossing the San Francisco Bay. Independently, the two (2) bridges currently provide adequate capacity to meet demand; however, the capacity of the approaches to the bridges are constrained. Additionally, transit ridership within these corridors is significantly less than the Bay Bridge corridor. Currently, the transit mode share within the Bay Bridge corridor is nearly 40 percent, whereas the transit mode share on the San Mateo and Dumbarton Bridge corridors is less than one (1) percent; however, with the activation of Dumbarton Rail the transit share will increase significantly. The total daily traffic volumes crossing the San Mateo Bridge corridor in 2010 and 2035 are shown in Table 4. Table 4: Daily Transbay Person-Trips – San Mateo Bridge
Mode
2010
2035
Change
Vehicle – SOV (1 person)
79,300
97,700
+23%
Vehicle – HOV (carpool)
23,600
33,500
+42%
Vehicle – Truck (1 person)
6,300
1,700
-73%
300
600
+100%
Total Person-Trips
109,500
133,500
+22%
Total Vehicle-Trips
97,000
115,900
+19%
Total Transit-Trips
300
600
+100%
Bus
Source: Current and Projected Conditions Report, AECOM, 2011.
The total daily traffic volumes crossing the Dumbarton Bridge corridor in 2010 and 2035 are shown in Table 5. Table 5: Daily Transbay Person-Trips – Dumbarton Bridge
Mode
2010
2035
Change
Vehicle – SOV (1 person)
66,500
79,700
+20%
Vehicle – HOV (carpool)
23,700
42,400
+79%
Vehicle – Truck (1 person)
3,600
600
-83%
Rail – Dumbarton
-
11,000
-
1,400
200
-86%
Total Person-Trips
95,200
133,900
+41%
Total Vehicle-Trips
81,800
101,400
+24%
Total Transit-Trips
1,400
11,200
+700%
Bus
Source: Current and Projected Conditions Report, AECOM, 2011.
The new potential alternatives that have been developed focus on increasing the capacity of these corridors by expanding transit operations and improving the approach to the Dumbarton Bridge. The new potential alternatives include the following:
May 13, 2011
15
AECOM
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
Bus: Destination-Oriented Bus Service This alternative focuses on providing AC Transit bus service from regional transit nodes (e.g., at BART and Capitol Corridor stations) directly to primary destinations (e.g., universities and corporate campuses). Currently, the AC Transit bus line that experiences the highest ridership in this corridor is Line U, which provides direct service from Fremont BART Station to Stanford University. The Bay Fair and Fremont BART Stations could serve as regional transfer points for buses utilizing the San Mateo and Dumbarton Bridges, respectively. The buses could be destination-oriented and serve large employers such as Genentech, Google, and San Francisco International Airport (SFO). Several employers currently offer shuttle service between San Francisco and their corporate campuses. For example, Google shuttles employees between Van Ness Avenue in San Francisco and their campus in Mountain View. Demand for these buses typically exceeds capacity during the peak periods. Vehicle: Willow Road Boulevard This alternative would include the widening of Willow Road to a six (6) lane (three (3) lanes in each direction) roadway. Homes and business located directly on the street would be served by quieter and slower outer roadways serving local traffic (one (1) lane in each direction), while lanes leading to / from US 101 and the Dumbarton Bridge would be connected via faster inner roadways serving regional traffic (two (2) lanes in each direction). The Boulevard would extend between Bayfront Expressway and US 101. Similar to Octavia Boulevard in San Francisco, the four (4) central lanes could be separated from the local side lanes by landscaping elements to buffer noise and create a more pedestrian-friendly urban environment.
16
Bay Area Toll Authority
Potential Alternatives Report
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
Vehicle: Willow Road Tunnel This alternative would include the construction of a tunnel structure below Willow Road to provide two (2) express lanes (one (1) lane in each direction) and shoulders connecting between US 101 and the Dumbarton Bridge. Tunnel portals would be located north of the US 101 / Willow Road interchange and east of the Bayfront Expressway / Willow Road intersection. This alternative would remove regional through traffic from surface streets (Willow Road and University Avenue), enhancing local traffic access and operations, as well as improving travel time for bridge traffic by reducing delay at intersections. Willow Road would remain a four (4) lane surface roadway serving local traffic. Vehicle: HOV Extension at SR 92 / US 101 Interchange During weekday peak periods, motorists experience significant delays approaching the SR 92 / US 101 Interchange. Specifically, the approaches to / from SR 92 to the east of US 101 experience significant delays with no priority for HOV motorists. A potential solution to improve access to the San Mateo Bridge for HOV vehicles would be to construct the following improvements: Extend the HOV lanes on US 101 from Woodside Road (SR 84) to the north or SR 92 Provide HOV flyovers on SR 92 to the east of US 101 Provide a westbound HOV lane from the San Mateo Bridge to the SR 92 / US 101 Interchange
3.3 All Corridors Several new alternatives have been developed that are applicable to all of the corridors crossing the San Francisco Bay. Generally, these new alternatives are not large-scale physical modifications but are intended to enhance the usage of the existing infrastructure. These enhancements include increasing HOV and transit ridership, reducing congestion, improving multimodal travel, and shifting peak hour trips.
May 13, 2011
17
AECOM
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
Proposed travel demand management and active traffic management strategies include but are not limited to the following: All electronic tolling (AET) Efficiency at the toll plazas would be improved with the expansion of electronic toll collection (ETC) / FasTrak and the transition to all electronic tolling on the bridges. In addition to improved operational efficiency, benefits of AET include the reduction or elimination of abrupt vehicle speed and lane changes at toll plazas, reduction of emissions through the elimination of unnecessary vehicle decelerations and accelerations, and a reduction in travel time through toll plazas. Variable tolling / congestion pricing (on all bridges) Recently implemented on the Bay Bridge, variable tolling strategies could be expanded to include all bridges. Tolls should be varied based on time of day and / or real-time demand and congestion on the facility. Variable HOV requirements Carpool vehicle occupancy requirements should vary based on time of day and / or real-time demand and congestion on the facility. Ridesharing Services Ridesharing is an important mobility option for non-drivers and is a cost-effective alternative. Rideshare congregation points should be established at major East Bay employment centers for sharing rides across the bridges and to major East Bay transit nodes. Rideshare programs can be implemented using computerized matching systems that take into account each commuter’s origin, destination, schedule, and special needs. Taxi Match program This alternative would make use of text / SMS to match commuters destined for similar locations. Parking Pricing Parking garage operations at key locations in Downtown San Francisco could be managed to incentivize desired behavior and spread demand. Early-bird specials would encourage workers to arrive earlier; similarly, there could be an extra surcharge if the driver leaves the garage during the weekday PM peak period. Additionally, parking prices could be set to equal or exceed transit fares. Variable speed limits Speed limits would be adjusted according to traffic conditions such as congestion, incidents, construction, and weather. Variable speed limits exist on several segments of the New Jersey Turnpike, I-80 in Wyoming, I-90 in Washington, I-270 in St. Louis, and I-75 in Tennessee.
18
Bay Area Toll Authority
Potential Alternatives Report
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
Ramp metering policy More consistent ramp metering policies could be enforced on all freeways that feed bridges. Freeway Performance Measurement System (PeMS) data shows that many Bay Area freeways break down during peak periods, resulting in flows lower than capacity (i.e., 1,700 to 1,800 passenger cars per hour per lane (pcphpl) maximum). More effective ramp metering may be a solution to manage existing capacity. Tradeoffs associated with a change in policy would need to be identified and approved by local agencies; for example, if a change in ramp metering policy would result in greater delays at ramps and local arterials. Dynamic queue warning system A condition-responsive dynamic queue warning system could be placed at strategic locations to provide advance warning to drivers approaching the end of slow or stopped queues, thereby reducing the potential for severe rear-end collisions and potentially providing drivers with the possibility of identifying an alternate, less-congested route to reach their destination. Shoulder-use guidance systems Options for a shoulder-use guidance system could be explored. Temporary shoulder use is a congestion management strategy typically deployed in conjunction with variable speed limits or speed harmonization. This strategy provides additional capacity during times of congestion and reduced travel speeds. When travel speeds are reduced, signs indicate that travel on the shoulder is permitted. Temporary shoulder use is only permitted when speed limits are reduced. A similar program in the United Kingdom uses sensors to detect the buildup of traffic which triggers a Changeable Message Sign (CMS) instructing drivers to slow down and use the extra lane. CMS would tell drivers the lane was closed if there was an accident. Radar speed / flow sensor communications Expand deployment of Doppler radar speed / flow sensor communication with PDAs and smartphones, satellite radio, and navigation. Changeable Message Signs Changeable Message Signs should be strategically placed throughout the network to provide reliable, real-time information to drivers. Additionally, advance warning signs may be used, such as a static message board displaying a warning message and flashing beacons that would be activated when a predefined threshold was reached. These new alternatives encourage the optimization of existing infrastructure with an emphasis on improving trip reliability and driver information. Proposed improvements to expand and integrate the bicycle network include but are not limited to:
May 13, 2011
19
AECOM
San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Update
Bicycle / transit integration Combining transit and cycling can provide a high level of mobility compared to automobile travel. Bicycle / transit integration supports both transit and bicycle transportation, and may encourage transit use and attract new riders. Bicycle Racks—Most AC Transit buses provide a bicycle rack with space to accommodate two (2) bicycles; additional storage for bicycles would improve bicycle / bus integration. Bicycle Storage—Bicycle parking should be provided at all transit stops and transportation terminals. A mix of paid lockers for long-term parking and free racks for short-term parking may be appropriate. Bicycle Access—Bicycle paths, bicycle lanes, and road maintenance improvements that make it easier to ride to transit stations and transportation terminals should be prioritized. Public Bicycle Systems (PBS) Public Bicycle Systems are automated bicycle rental systems designed to provide efficient mobility for short trips, and are often located at public transit stations. Implementation of a bike-sharing program is currently being explored in San Francisco.
20
Bay Area Toll Authority
