The San Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI) is seeking federal funding assistance to construct the proposed Third Street Light Rail Project (Project). Having completed the Major Investment Study (MIS) for the Third Street Corridor (Corridor), the initial planning phase in the federal funding process, MUNI has initiated the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the state California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental processes for the Project in order to assess the potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project alternatives and to qualify for federal funding. After the Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) is completed, the City and County of San Francisco (City) will consider adoption and use of local funds for the preferred alternative (or a portion thereof), which will be selected by the San Francisco Public Transportation Commission in May 1998. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) will then determine if the preferred alternative meets their transit investment objectives and whether to recommend federal funding for the Project. If the City does go forward with the Project, the City intends to request a letter from FTA which authorizes the City to use local funds for the first phase of the Project as the local contribution toward a future, yet to be secured, federal grant. This letter from FTA is called a Letter of No Prejudice.
The Project would address deficiencies in the transit system serving the communities in the southeastern part of San Francisco, including deficiencies that exist at present and those that are anticipated to exist during the 20-year planning horizon (2015). In addition, the Project is also intended to serve as a key infrastructure improvement to help support the economic and physical revitalization of the Bayview Hunters Point commercial core along Third Street and the planned development in Mission Bay. It would also serve as the key element in establishing a Downtown Subway identified in the San Francisco Transportation Authority's Four Corridor Plan.
Buses caught in Corridor traffic congestion often provide unreliable service south of Downtown. Currently, passengers may experience overcrowding and extended waiting times between buses, as well as slower operating times and increased travel times. This situation is projected to worsen as traffic in Downtown and along the Corridor increases to projected 2015 levels.
Residents of the communities in the Corridor perceive that they do not enjoy the same quality transit connections to the MUNI Metro rail system and to regional transit services such as Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) as do residents in other parts of the City.
As presented in Table S-1, a 39 percent increase in Corridor population and a 35 percent increase in Corridor employment is anticipated by 2015. Much of the population and employment growth will result from development in Mission Bay which is projected to include a new University of California campus, research and development functions, over 6,000 dwelling units, a cineplex, a 500-room hotel, and commercial uses. Other development proposals in the Corridor, such as the new Giants ballpark (Pacific Bell Ballpark), Candlestick Mills Mall and the new 49ers stadium, San Francisco Executive Park development, and Hunter's Point Reuse Plan would contribute to this growth.
|Area||1995||2015||Difference||% Change||1995||2015||Difference||% Change|
|Source: Metropolitan Transportation
Commission/Association of Bay Area Governments Land Use Data
Projections '96 and San Francisco Cumulative Update to
Notes: Corridor is defined by the MTC Travel Analysis Zones that are included in the Study Area identified in Figure 1-2.
As a result of the projected population and employment growth in the Corridor, traffic congestion on major highways and arterials, particularly Highway 101 and Third Street, is expected to increase substantially. Highway 101 at Cesar Chavez is expected to be Level of Service (LOS) F (excessive delays) and LOS E (significant delays) at intersections of Third and Cesar Chavez and King Streets and at Bayshore and Arleta.
The South Bayshore Area Plan of the City's General Plan addresses the need for transit improvements by calling for the integration of transit- and pedestrian-oriented land use and new development along Third Street in concert with a new light rail investment.
The Bay Area air basin is designated as a state non-attainment area (not in compliance with state air quality standards) for ozone and small-diameter particulate matter. Reducing dependence on automobiles for Corridor trips will reduce mobile emissions in the region.
In accordance with the revised FTA transit planning guidelines,
MUNI has identified seven principal goals to be used to guide
the evaluation of the No Build/TSM and Light Rail
Alternatives. They are:
The Bayshore Corridor System Planning Study, completed by MUNI in December 1993, was the first step in the planning process to implement major public transportation improvements in the southeastern quadrant of the City. The study recommendations emphasized the importance of implementing light rail service along Third Street in the Corridor and the opportunity to use transportation investments to support economic revitalization efforts in the Corridor. In February 1994, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (the predecessor of the Public Transportation Commission) approved a resolution (#94-0044) to carry forward light rail through the federal capital project development process.
Two public meetings were held in November 1996 during the Scoping Process to receive public commentary on the environmental issues associated with the Project alternatives. As a result of public input during the Scoping Process and at the neighborhood workshops and economic forums, the following modifications were made to the Light Rail Alternative:
The Light Rail Alternative incorporated a series of design options that were subsequently examined from technical, financial, environmental, economic revitalization, and community perspectives. The screening of design options was used to determine which options should be carried forward for evaluation in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIS/DEIR).
Based on the input from the community meetings as well as input from the Project's Technical Advisory Committee and Community Advisory Group, and City Commissions (Planning, Redevelopment, Port, and Parking and Traffic) -- the Public Transportation Commission (PTC) on July 8, 1997, narrowed the design options for the Light Rail Alternative. The PTC eliminated the 16th/I-280/King alignment through Mission Bay, the Central Subway alignment via Kearny, and the Downtown Surface Route via Market or Washington. A description of three alternatives carried forward in the DEIS/DEIR is provided below.
Possible future extensions (branches of Third Street light rail) were addressed in the 1993 Bayshore Transit Study and include possible branches to Hunters Point Shipyard, Candlestick Point, and the Balboa Park BART Station. These possible future branches of the proposed Project, including a possible branch to the planned stadium and mall at Candlestick Point, would need subsequent conceptual engineering and environmental analysis if proposed at a future date. No funding for these possible branches has been identified.
The Light Rail Alternative would construct a light rail line linking some or all of the Chinatown, Downtown, South of Market, Potrero Hill, Bayview Hunters Point, and Visitacion Valley/Little Hollywood neighborhoods, primarily along Third Street. In addition, a new light rail maintenance and storage facility would also be constructed on approximately 5.3 hectares (13 acres) of eastern or western sections of the former Western Pacific rail and north of Pier 80 or on a 7.1-hectare (17.5-acre) Port-owned site along Cargo Way near Pier 90. The line would operate at service levels comparable to existing MUNI Metro service frequencies and hours.
The Light Rail Alternative would be constructed in two phases. The two phases of the Light Rail Alternative, presented in Figures S-1 and S-2, are:
Because of the later construction schedule for the New Central Subway, supplemental environmental analysis may be required prior to the final design of the subway.
The Light Rail Alternative -- IOS represents an initial phase of the Project. The existing J-Church service would extend from the Market Street Subway and the MUNI Metro Extension along Third Street and Bayshore Boulevard to the Caltrain Bayshore Station near the County line. Temporary private shuttles could be provided from this terminus to the proposed mall and stadium at Candlestick Point until the need for possible future planning of a branch line of Third Street light rail is established. The total length of the IOS would be 8.7 kilometers (5.4 miles).
The Light Rail Alternative -- New Central Subway represents the full-build or completed project, operating as an independent line (not integrated with the MUNI Metro system) from the Caltrain Bayshore Station along Bayshore Boulevard and Third Street into a new Central Subway north of Brannan Street. The northern terminus of the Central Subway would be a station at Stockton and Clay Streets. The total length of this alignment would be 11.3 kilometers (7.0 miles), including 2.8 kilometers (1.75 miles) for the New Central Subway portion north of King Street. The IOS would require 25 additional light rail vehicles (LRVs) to operate the line and to accommodate 2015 demand. Three additional LRVs would be required to operate the New Central Subway. By replacing diesel buses with LRVs, MUNI's diesel bus peak-vehicle requirement will be reduced by 30 to 35 buses.
The No Project Alternative represents the scenario in which the existing transportation system remains unchanged except for the modifications that are already programmed to be implemented in the Corridor. The No Project Alternative, therefore, includes the existing MUNI route network, fleet size and fleet mix, facilities, and existing service frequencies as well as the existing roadway system. The No Project Alternative would not accommodate 2015 demand.
Within the Corridor, service from the southern end of the Corridor to Downtown is provided by diesel bus lines, particularly the 15-Third bus line and the 9X-San Bruno Expresses (Figure S-3). The 15-line, which currently carries over 25,000 daily riders, operates between City College and North Beach. For the No Project Alternative, the total bus fleet size, including spare vehicles, would be 764. The total LRV fleet size would be 136.
The No Build/TSM Alternative would include the transit and roadway system and improvements to the system identified in the No Project Alternative in combination with added transit service in the Corridor, primarily on the 15-line, to meet 2015 demand.
For the No Build/TSM Alternative, MUNI would need 40 new buses (33 articulated diesel and 7 trolley buses), including spare buses (the additional vehicles needed in the peak to compensate for those that are being repaired), to meet peak period demand in 2015. For this scenario, the total bus fleet size, including spares, would be 804, or 40 more buses than the No Project Alternative (existing conditions). The total light rail fleet size, including spares, would be 136, or the same as in the No Project Alternative.
A summary of the operating statistics for the Light Rail Alternative (IOS and New Central Subway) is presented in Table S-2 and compared with the No Project Alternative and No Build/TSM Alternative. As indicated in Table S-2 the No Build/TSM Alternative would increase existing annual systemwide bus hours by 110,000 reflecting the additional service on the 15-Third bus line to accommodate 2015 demand. The Light Rail Alternative would reduce systemwide bus hours but increase annual light rail operating hours by approximately 72,000 and 106,000, respectively, for the IOS and the New Central Subway.
|Alternative||Peak Headways 15 Line||Diesel/Trolley Peak Demand (Systemwide)||Total Annual Diesel/Trolley Bus Hours (Systemwide)||Peak Headways(1): Third Street Light Rail||LRV Fleet Peak Demand (System-wide)||Annual LRV Car-Hours (Systemwide)|
|Existing (1997-1998) (No Project Alternative)||6 minutes||373 diesel buses / 263 trolley buses||2.29 million||--||107 LRVs||395,600|
|No Build/TSM (2015)||5 minutes||400 diesel buses / 269 trolley buses||2.40 million||--||107 LRVs||395,600|
|Light Rail Alternative -- IOS (2015)||--||Plan A:(2) 370 diesels / 269 trolleys||Plan A: 2.26 million||6 minutes||128 LRVs(3)||467,200(4)|
|Plan B: 369 diesels / 269 trolleys||Plan B: 2.27 million|
|Light Rail Alternative -- New Central Subway (2015)||--||Plan A: 365 diesels / 258 trolleys||Plan A: 2.23 million||5 minutes||131 LRVs(3)||503,800(4)|
|Plan B: 365 diesels / 258 trolleys||Plan B: 2.23 million|
(1) "Headways" refers to the time between transit vehicles on a given line
(2) Plans refer to Bus Route Plans associated with the Light Rail Alternative.
(3) One additional LRV adding 3,200 car hours would be required if the "mixed-flow" option were selected for the Third Street commercial core.
(4) Assumes one-car trains operating in the peak and midday for the IOS and for the New Central Subway.
The total capital cost for the IOS, including the purchase of 25 additional LRVs to accommodate 2015 demand and the construction of the initial phase for the new LRV maintenance and storage facility, is estimated at $401.7 million (1997 dollars). The base capital cost estimate assumes that:
The cost estimate would be greater if any other options replaced those in the base case, including use of the Third and Fourth Street bridges, selection of the one-lane or mixed-flow design option in the Third Street commercial core, installation of floating slabs rather than ballast mats to mitigate vibration impacts, or additional features to the new LRV maintenance facility.
Construction of the New Central Subway, including three additional LRVs and the same base case assumptions identified for the IOS, would require $505.9 million (1997 dollars). The combined total capital cost estimate for the Light Rail Alternative is $907.6 million.
The No Build/TSM Alternative requires the purchase of 33 articulated diesel buses and seven articulated trolley buses (including spares) to meet 2015 demand. Existing MUNI bus storage and maintenance facilities could not accommodate the additional buses. As a result, a new 40-bus operations and maintenance facility would need to be constructed at the Western Pacific site or the Cargo Way site. The total capital cost of the No Build/TSM Alternative is $53.8 million.
Compared with the No Project Alternative, total systemwide O&M costs increase for the No Build/TSM and Light Rail Alternatives. Total annual systemwide O&M costs are approximately $10 million more for the No Build/TSM Alternative and the IOS than the No Project Alternative, reflecting the increased service to accommodate 2015 demand. The additional route miles and five minute peak service levels increase the annual O&M costs for the New Central Subway approximately $3.6 million over the IOS. The No Build/TSM Alternative and the Light Rail Alternative differ in bus and LRV O&M costs because of the use of articulated buses and light rail, respectively, to meet projected 2015 demand.
In 2003, the implementation year for the Third Street Light Rail Project, annual systemwide O&M costs would be similar for the No Project and No Build/TSM Alternatives, since 2003 demand is not expected to warrant substantially increased service for the No Build/TSM Alternative. Annual O&M costs for the IOS in 2003 would be over $4 million greater than the No Build/TSM Alternatives, reflecting the increased costs to operate light rail and a new LRV maintenance facility.
Section S.3.1 provides a summary of existing and 2015 general transportation findings for the Corridor. Section S.3.2 provides a table summary of major transportation-related impacts (transit, traffic, freight, parking, and pedestrian and bicycle circulation) for the Light Rail, No Build/TSM, and No Project Alternatives.
Table S-3 presents existing and 2015 weekday transit ridership estimates for the Corridor. Currently, about 66,000 person-trips are made by bus each weekday in the Corridor. Substantial increases in Corridor population and employment are anticipated in the future. By 2015, it is estimated that patronage demand for Corridor transit services will increase by between 105 and 116 percent over existing conditions. Without any improvement to transit service in the Corridor, substantial overcrowding would occur on all bus lines serving the Corridor. Without implementation of light rail, about 40 new articulated buses would be required to serve the additional future demand.
|LRT/BUS LINE||EXISTING (1996)||2015 NO PROJECT & NO BUILD/TSM ALTERNATIVES||2015 LIGHT RAIL ALTERNATIVE -- IOS||2015 LIGHT RAIL ALTERNATIVE -- NEW CENTRAL SUBWAY|
|Light Rail Lines in Corridor:|
|MUNI Metro Extension LRT (1)||n/a||11,240||9,050||2,020|
|Third Street LRT (2)||n/a||n/a||71,010||92,110|
|Bus Lines in Corridor:|
|Lines 9X, 9AX, 9BX||14,330||17,100||21,780||18,200|
|Lines 30, 45||26,640||31,770||31,770||25,880|
|Shifts from Line 15 (3)||n/a||n/a||4,480||4,480|
|TOTAL IN CORRIDOR:||66,020||135,640||138,090||142,690|
|Increase Over Existing:||n/a||69,620||72,070||76,670|
|Increase Over No Build/TSM:||n/a||n/a||2,450||7,050|
(1) MUNI Metro Extension will operate with the L-Taraval to the Caltrain Terminal and the N-Judah light rail to Third and Mariposa.
(2) Third Street light rail will interconnect with the J-Church.
(3) Line 15-Third shifts to 43-Masonic, 9-San Bruno and/or 54-Felton routes.
Source: Travel Demand Forecasting Results Working Paper #4, San Francisco Municipal Railway, December 1997.
As increased automobile and truck traffic congests Corridor roadways in the future, bus travel times will get longer and service reliability would become inconsistent. By 2015, patrons using Corridor buses will experience substantial travel time increases over existing conditions as shown in Table S-4. Light rail, which would operate in an exclusive right-of-way separate from automobile and truck traffic, would have comparatively lower travel times.
|TRANSIT TRAVEL TIME (minutes)(4)|
|ORIGIN-DESTINATION||EXISTING (1996)||2015 NO PROJECT & NO BUILD/TSM ALTERNATIVES||2015 LIGHT RAIL ALTERNATIVE -- IOS||2015 LIGHT RAIL ALTERNATIVE -- NEW CENTRAL SUBWAY|
|Arleta/Bayshore -- Third/Market(1)||36/45||42/51||31/44||27/40|
|Third/Palou -- Third/Market (2)26/40||30/44||24/38||19/33|
|Arleta/Bayshore -- Stockton/Clay||42/54||49/61||n/a||30/44|
|Third/Palou -- Stockton/Clay||32/45||36/50||n/a||22/37|
|Arleta/Bayshore -- Main/Market(3)||36/48||42/54||29/42||n/a|
|Third/Palou -- Main/Market||26/43||30/47||22/36||n/a|
(1) Station is at Arleta/Raymond for IOS and New Central Subway.
(2) Station is at Montgomery for IOS.
(3) Station is at Embarcadero for IOS.
(4) First number represents in-vehicle travel times and second number represents total travel times.
Source: Travel Demand Forecasting Results, Working Paper #4, San Francisco Municipal Railway, December 1997.
Increased automobile and truck traffic will further congest Corridor roadways. By 2015, Bayshore Boulevard's peak hour traffic volumes are expected to increase by up to 53 percent over existing conditions. On Third Street between Highway 101 and the southern part of the Bayview Hunters Point district, peak hour traffic volumes are estimated to increase by up to 44 percent. From the northern part of the district to near the Islais Creek channel, peak hour volumes are projected to increase by up to 80 percent. North of Cesar Chavez Street, peak hour traffic is anticipated to increase by up to 50 percent over existing conditions.
With increased 2015 traffic levels, automobile and truck travel speeds will decrease on Bayshore Boulevard and on Third Street. Provision of light rail tracks would remove one of the three travel lanes in each direction on both of these arterial roadways, decreasing roadway capacity and further lowering automobile and truck travel speeds. If Third Street were narrowed to just one lane in each direction within the commercial core, average travel speeds would be less than five miles per hour within the district and traffic would be severely congested.
By 2015, due to increased background traffic levels, eight intersections in the Corridor will be operating at congested conditions (LOS E or F) during weekday peak periods. Therefore, the impacts to the intersections would be considered cumulative unavoidable adverse impacts. Two of the intersections (Bayshore/Arleta and Fourth/Brannan) could be mitigated to acceptable operations with minor improvements, such as lane re-striping, parking removal, etc., but the other six intersections (Third/Cesar Chavez, Third/King, Third/Townsend, Third/Brannan, Fourth/King, and Fourth/Bryant) could not be feasibly improved without major investment and/or potential environmental impacts.
With the implementation of the IOS, the above intersections would become somewhat more congested, and additional intersections would degrade to LOS E or F conditions by 2015. The intersection of Third and Evans Streets could be improved to acceptable operations through minor traffic re-routing of the southbound left-turn movement, and under the option in Mission Bay where northbound light rail tracks would use Third Street, the Third and Berry Streets intersection would be significantly impacted, but could be mitigated through roadway widening and sidewalk narrowing or by allowing a traffic lane on the light rail track. Under the Third Street commercial core options where Third Street would have one travel lane in each direction, all intersections in the commercial core would be significantly affected and could not be feasibly improved.
With implementation of the New Central Subway, the intersection of Third and Bryant Streets would degrade to LOS F, but could be mitigated to an acceptable service level through lane re-striping and parking removal.
With the implementation of the Light Rail Alternative, some on-street parking would be removed, reducing the number of on-street loading zones throughout the Corridor. By designating some of the remaining on-street spaces as loading zones, this would not be a significant impact. At the Caltrain Bayshore intermodal station, removal of the Union Pacific spur track would significantly affect nearby businesses that rely on the track for cargo shipments. Alternative designs of the station layout that would retain the existing spur track would mitigate this potential impact.
On Bayshore Boulevard and on Third Street (between the Caltrain Bayshore intermodal station and Bryant Street), on-street parking capacity for about 1,675 vehicles currently exists. During weekdays, existing on-street parking occupancy is about 65 percent on a Corridor-wide basis. The lowest occupancy occurs to the south (about 31 percent of the available curb space on Bayshore Boulevard is used), but parking occupancy increases gradually to the north. On Third Street, between 16th and Bryant Streets, typically 90 percent or more of the curb lanes are occupied with parked cars during weekdays.
With the provision of light rail, parking would be displaced in the Corridor adjacent to light rail station platforms, in the transition areas before and after the platforms, and where additional room is needed to accommodate left-turn lanes. Implementation of the IOS, along with the proposed Mission Bay development, would displace between 773 and 842 on-street parking spaces in the Corridor (the range in total parking displacement is dependent on which design option through the Third Street commercial core is selected). Almost 470 of the displaced parking spaces would occur in Mission Bay, where additional on-street parking is proposed along new roadways (resulting in a net gain of about 40 spaces within Mission Bay). The New Central Subway would displace between 97 and 98 additional parking spaces. Based on current parking occupancies, however, substantially fewer vehicles would actually be displaced. South of 16th Street most displaced vehicles could be accommodated in other nearby on-street spaces.
Pedestrian activity throughout the Corridor is expected to increase in the future. Under the Light Rail Alternative, minor reduction in sidewalk widths would occur in areas adjacent to some of the proposed light rail station platforms and where left-turn lanes are provided. Minor reductions or widenings would occur in the Third Street commercial core. These impacts would not be significant.
With implementation of the New Central Subway, sidewalks on Third and Fourth Streets between Townsend and Brannan Streets would be narrowed in order to maintain on-street parking on one side of Third and Fourth Streets. An alternative to reducing the sidewalk widths would be to prohibit on-street parking and instead widen the sidewalks. This option would need to be evaluated during final design. Some of the subway station's proposed stairways, escalators, and elevators would encroach upon the sidewalks, reducing the effective sidewalk widths and resulting in overcrowded conditions at three station locations. Mitigating measures include obtaining public access rights to an adjacent private sidewalk and re-evaluating future sidewalk widths and adjacent parking needs.
The San Francisco Bicycle Plan identifies Bicycle Route 5 as an 11.3-kilometer (7.0-mile) route extending along Bayshore Boulevard, Third Street, King Street, and The Embarcadero. Within the Corridor, the Bicycle Plan recommends 1.8-meter (6.0-foot) wide bicycle lanes on Third Street between China Basin and Bayshore Boulevard. The Bicycle Plan states that although this segment of Third Street serves a high amount of cargo trucking operations, it was recommended as a bicycle route because no other direct bicycle route exists. The Bicycle Plan also recognizes that the possible establishment of a light rail line on Third Street would compete with the bicycle lanes for street width and that the current width of the street cannot accommodate both light rail and bicycle lanes. According to the Bicycle Plan, Bicycle Route 7 (Indiana Street/Third Street/Phelps Street/Palou Avenue/Keith Street) was designed to provide an alternative to a segment of Bicycle Route 5. With the implementation of light rail, bicycle travel along Third Street would be constrained.
Construction of the light rail line would affect transit service, traffic flow, freight movements, on-street parking, and pedestrian and bicycle circulation. The impacts would not be significant, however, with the improvement measures proposed to be undertaken, e.g., detour routes, exclusive bus zones, short-term parking limits, maintenance of sidewalks, etc.
A summary of potential transportation-related impacts (transit, traffic, freight, parking, and pedestrian and bicycle circulation) for the alternatives is presented in Table S-5. Mitigation measures for potential significant impacts are provided (indicated in italic). Suggested improvement measures for less-than-significant impacts are also discussed, where applicable.
|Transportation Area||Light Rail Alternative -- Initial Operating Segment||Light Rail Alternative --- New Central Subway||No Project Alternative||No Build/TSM Alternative|
|Transit||In general, total transit travel times would be 6 to 12 minutes shorter (depending on trip origin and destination) than for the No Build/TSM Alternative.||In general, total transit travel times would be 11 to 17 minutes shorter (depending on trip origin and destination) than for the No Build/TSM Alternative.||In general, total transit travel times would be 4 to 6 minutes longer (depending on trip origin and destination) than existing 15-Third bus travel times.||In general, total transit travel times would be 4 to 6 minutes longer (depending on trip origin and destination) than existing 15-Third bus travel times.|
|In future, extra trains could be needed to serve Mission Bay and Hunters Point. Improvement measure to monitor patronage levels.||In future, extra trains could be needed to serve Mission Bay and Hunters Point. Improvement measure to monitor patronage levels.||Substantial overcrowding would occur on all bus lines serving Corridor. With mitigation (i.e., adding 40 new articulated buses), impacts would be less than significant.||Increased patronage demand would be served with 40 new articulated buses.|
|During construction, buses stopped in travel lane would increase traffic congestion. Improvement measure to provide bus pullouts.||During construction, buses stopped in travel lane would increase traffic congestion. Improvement measure to provide bus pullouts.||No construction impacts affecting transit.||No construction impacts affecting transit.|
|During construction, bus travel times would be longer. Recommended improvement measure for MUNI to monitor performance and add service, as appropriate.||During construction, bus travel times would be longer. Recommended improvement measure for MUNI to monitor performance and add service, as appropriate.||No construction impacts affecting transit.||No construction impacts affecting transit.|
|Traffic||Implementation of light rail would contribute to the LOS E
and F conditions expected at four intersections also
significantly impacted by the No Project Alternative under
cumulative conditions: Bayshore/Arleta; Third/Cesar Chavez,
Third/King; and Fourth/King. In addition, two other
intersections would be significantly affected by the IOS:
Third/Evans, and Third/Berry (for Mission Bay Option 2 only).
With mitigation (e.g., lane striping, parking removal,
and/or other measures), impacts would be less than
significant for the above intersections, except
Third/Cesar Chavez, Third/King and Fourth/King, which
could not be feasibly mitigated (cumulative unavoidable
Additionally, the one-lane design options in the Third Street commercial core would result in LOS F conditions (a significant impact) at all intersections throughout the commercial core, resulting in extreme congestion and traffic diversion. This impact cannot be mitigated feasibly.
|Implementation of the New Central Subway would contribute to LOS E and F conditions expected at four intersections also significantly impacted by the No Project Alternative under cumulative conditions: Third/Townsend, Third/Brannan, Fourth/Brannan, and Fourth/Bryant. In addition, under the New Central Subway, the Third/Bryant intersection would degrade to LOS F. With mitigation (e.g., lane striping, parking removal, and/or other measures), impacts would be less than significant at Third/Bryant and Fourth/Brannan, but the other three intersections could not be feasibly mitigated (cumulative unavoidable significant impacts).||Level of Service E or F conditions would exist at eight intersections under cumulative conditions: Bayshore at Arleta; Third at Cesar Chavez, King, Townsend, and Brannan; and Fourth at King, Brannan, and Bryant. With mitigation (e.g., lane striping, parking removal, and/or other measures), impacts at Bayshore/Arleta and Fourth/Brannan would be less than significant. The remaining six intersections could not be reasonably mitigated, and therefore the impacts are considered cumulative unavoidable adverse impacts.||Level of Service E or F conditions would exist at eight intersections under cumulative conditions: Bayshore at Arleta; Third at Cesar Chavez, King, Townsend, and Brannan; and Fourth at King, Brannan, and Bryant. With mitigation (e.g., lane striping, parking removal, and/or other measures), impacts at Bayshore/Arleta and Fourth/Brannan would be less than significant. The remaining six intersections could not be reasonably mitigated, and therefore the impacts are considered cumulative unavoidable adverse impacts.|
|Compared to the No Project and No Build/TSM Alternatives, Corridor travel speeds would decrease, but not significantly. However, the one-lane design options in the Third Street commercial core would decrease speeds to below 5 mph due to extreme traffic congestion, resulting in a significant impact. This impact cannot be mitigated feasibly.||No significant impacts related to travel speeds.||Compared to existing conditions, Corridor travel speeds would decrease.||Same as No Project Alternative.|
|During construction, only two travel lanes per direction would be open, but traffic would only be marginally affected unless buses stop in general travel lanes or cars double-park. Improvement measure to provide bus pull-outs, designated short-term parking areas, and enforcement would make impact less than significant.||During construction, only two travel lanes per direction on Third and Fourth would be open and only one travel lane per direction on Geary and Stockton would be open. Implementation of Department of Parking and Traffic's (DPT's) traffic detour plan would reduce congestion.||No construction impacts affecting traffic.||No construction impacts affecting traffic.|
|Trucks||Reduced number of on-street loading zones and parking would occur. Improvement measures to provide designated loading areas, short-term parking and parking enforcement to alleviate double-parking.||On Third and Fourth (between King and Brannan), reduced number of on-street loading zones and parking would occur. Improvement measure to provide designated loading areas and short-term parking.||No significant impacts affecting trucks.||No significant impacts affecting trucks.|
|During construction, reduced number of on-street loading zones and parking would occur. Improvement measure to provide designated loading areas and short-term parking.||During construction, reduced number of on-street loading zones and parking would occur. Improvement measure to provide designated loading areas and short-term parking.||No construction impacts affecting freight.||No construction impacts affecting freight.|
|Railroad||Significant impacts to freight rail access by removing the Union Pacific Railroad's Sunnydale spur track. Mitigation would be to redesign station layout to retain the existing spur track. With mitigation, impact would be less than significant.||No railroad impacts.||No railroad impacts.||No railroad impacts.|
|Parking||On-street parking "shortfalls" would exist on 15 to 18 blocks along Bayshore and Third, excluding parking displacement in Mission Bay, but parking could be accommodated on-street and close-in. Impact is not significant. Recommended improvement measure to designate loading areas and short-term parking. Also, develop plan to increase on-street parking on nearby cross-streets. See "Trucks" for construction impacts.||On-street parking "shortfalls" would exist on 5 blocks along Third and Fourth. About 11 parking spaces would be lost near Union Square and Chinatown stations. Impact is not significant. See "Trucks" for construction impacts.||As part of collaborative planning efforts between City and County of San Francisco and developers of Mission Bay project, all parking on Third Street and the existing portion of Fourth Street between King and Mariposa would be displaced. Impact is not significant. See "Trucks" for construction impacts.||Same as No Project Alternative.|
|Pedestrians||No significant pedestrian impacts.||Stairs, escalators and elevators to subway stations would
reduce effective sidewalk widths, resulting in overcrowding
near Moscone, Market Street, and Union Square
Mitigation measure to obtain sidewalk easement at Moscone
Improvement measure to re-evaluate (during final design)
subway entry widths, sidewalk widths, and adjacent traffic
and parking lane needs.
Sidewalk reductions on Third and Fourth between Townsend and Bryant would contribute to moderate pedestrian crowding. Improvement measure to evaluate, during final design, sidewalk width versus parking needs.
|No pedestrian impacts.||No pedestrian impacts.|
|During construction, the passageways on some sidewalks would be narrowed and some pedestrian crosswalks would be closed temporarily.||During construction, the passageways on some sidewalks would be narrowed and some pedestrian crosswalks would be closed temporarily.||No construction impacts affecting pedestrians.||No construction impacts affecting pedestrians.|
|Bicyclists||Bicycle lanes would not be possible along Third Street if light rail were implemented (except with one-lane design option in the Third Street commercial core). Bicycle travel would be constrained along Third Street. Mitigation measures to improve bicycle environment in Corridor, such as restriping portions of Third Street (between Cargo Way and Cesar Chavez) for bike lanes where on-street parking is currently prohibited, improving Bicycle Route 7, and possibly permit bicycles on the Third Street light rail vehicles.||No significant impacts to bicycles.||Pending future study, it is possible that bicycle lanes could be provided on Bayshore and Third if on-street parking were removed.||Same as No Project Alternative.|
|During construction, bicycle travel would be constrained in areas under construction. Improvement measure to retain wide outside travel lane, where feasible.||During construction, bicycle travel would be constrained in areas under construction. Improvement measure to retain wide outside travel lane, where feasible.||No construction impacts bicycles.||No construction impacts bicycles.|
The Light Rail Alternative would produce no potentially significant impacts that cannot be mitigated, except those related to the one-lane design options in the Third Street commercial core, and the preclusion of a bicycle lane along Third Street. Provision of only one travel lane in each direction on Third Street through the commercial core would result in extreme traffic congestion and diversion. With light rail replacing a travel lane in each direction along the entire Corridor, bicycle travel along Third Street and Bayshore Boulevard would become constrained and installation of a continuous bicycle lane would not be possible. (Note that cumulative unavoidable significant impacts are expected at several intersections throughout the Corridor, with or without the light rail project.)
Significant impacts, which can be mitigated, and several of the key less-than-significant impacts for the IOS include:
In addition, implementation of the New Central Subway would:
The Light Rail Alternative would produce beneficial impacts, including, for example, improvement in transit travel times, accessibility, and service reliability between Downtown and the southeast quadrant of the City.
Compared to the Light Rail Alternative, the No Project and No Build/TSM Alternatives would result in reduced transit service reliability, and increased travel times and diminished mobility for residents in the southeast quadrant of the City. They would, however, have no short-term construction impacts or long-term parking impacts. However, by 2015, eight intersections would operate at LOS E or F conditions due to increases in background traffic levels and would be considered cumulative unavoidable adverse impacts. Two of the intersections (Bayshore/Arleta and Fourth/Brannan) could be mitigated to acceptable operations with minor improvements, but the other six intersections (Third/King, Third/Townsend, Third/Brannan, Fourth/King, Fourth/Townsend, and Fourth/Bryant) could not be feasibly improved without major investment and/or potential environmental impacts. The No Project and No Build/TSM Alternatives could possibly enable, pending further study, implementation of exclusive bicycle lanes along Third Street if on-street parking were removed.
A summary of potentially significant environmental impacts and mitigation measures (indicated in italic), excluding transportation-related impacts (see previous section), for the Light Rail, No Build/TSM, and No Project Alternatives is presented in Table S-6 and briefly described below.
Potentially significant impacts produced by the Light Rail Alternative can be mitigated. The key non-transportation impacts are:
The majority of business displacements would occur if the Cargo Way maintenance facility site were selected. If the eastern portion of the Western Pacific site were used for the maintenance facility, a waterfront open space would be created, with a public access trail. Potential impacts for both the Western Pacific maintenance facility site and the Cargo Way site are related to the fact that the sites are underlain by heterogeneous artificial fill potentially susceptible to earthquake-induced liquefaction. The potential for hazardous materials (metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-VOC's including polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, total petroleum hydrocarbons, and friable asbestos from serpentine fragments) that may expose site workers and the public to health risks is present. Measures to avoid adverse effects caused by the presence of hazardous materials are required by Article 20 of the San Francisco Municipal Code. Construction of the New Central Subway would displace the existing North Point trunk sewer line at the intersection of Third and Mission Streets, requiring relocation of the sewer line or installation of an underground siphon and pump station to mitigate displacement.
The No Project and No Build/TSM Alternatives would not provide the beneficial impacts of the Light Rail Alternative, yet would contribute to the following impacts:
|Environmental Area||Light Rail Alternative -- Initial Operating Segment||Light Rail Alternative -- New Central Subway||No Project Alternative||No Build/TSM Alternative|
|Land Use||Consistent with adopted plans and policies; consistency with federal Coastal Zone would be determined for maintenance facility sites. Potential beneficial land use impacts at station locations.||Consistent with adopted plans and policies.||Not consistent with adopted plans and policies.||Consistent with City "Transit First" policies, but not consistent with policies promoting fixed rail transit along Third Street.|
|Acquisition and Displacement||Nine property acquisitions, including 1 to 8 business displacements, depending on the maintenance facility site selected. MUNI would follow the Uniform Relocation Act provisions to mitigate this impact to less than significant.||Union Square garage parking displacement (2 or 3 stalls); an easement along a private arcade on the east side of Third at Clementina.||None required.||No displacements.|
|Socioeconomic and Environmental Justice||Reduced travel times/enhanced service reliability would improve residents' mobility. Construction of IOS would create 1,845 person-years of employment, 145 permanent jobs, and access to job centers. Consistent with Executive Order No. 12898. Temporary construction-related impacts to business would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels by using standard construction mitigation practices, such as dust and noise abatement and proper signage if temporary traffic or pedestrian detours were required.||Reduced travel times would improve residents' mobility. Construction of the New Central Subway would create 3,033 person-years of employment and 80 permanent jobs. Consistent with Executive Order No. 12898. Temporary construction-related impacts to business would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels by employing standard construction mitigation practices.||Corridor would be underserved by transit. Increased traffic congestion would diminish service reliability. Project benefits not realized.||140 new jobs to operate additional bus service would be created. Traffic congestion would persist, affecting transit service reliability.|
|Community Facilities and Services||Would enhance accessibility to community facilities because of improved service reliability and reduced travel times. One additional full-time equivalent MUNI-contracted security office may be required. New waterfront open space would be developed in conjunction with Western Pacific east site. No parklands would be affected.||Would enhance accessibility to community facilities because of improved service reliability and reduced travel times. Temporary construction noise, dust, vibration impacts at Union Square and Yerba Buena Gardens could be mitigated to less-than-significant levels by employing standard construction mitigation practices. No parklands would be affected.||Increased travel times would diminish residents' mobility and access to community facilities and services.||No impacts.|
|Cultural Resources||Construction of track and overhead wire on Islais Creek bridge would affect the character of the bridge. This impact would not be adverse and would not change its potential eligibility as a historic property. With mitigation, impacts would be less than significant. State Historic Preservation Officer concurrence has been requested in a Finding of Affect Report.||Potential indirect construction impacts could occur for 53 National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) properties and 86 potentially- eligible NRHP properties along the subway alignment between Brannan and Post. Two potential archeological sites along Third/Fourth between Bryant and Mission could be affected. Mitigation includes pre-construction subsurface investigation. With mitigation (avoidance or data retrieval through excavation and documentation), impacts would be less than significant.||No impacts.||No impacts.|
|Visual and Aesthetic||Long-term visual modifications along alignment, particularly at the Caltrain Bayshore Station, Third/Meade, Third Street commercial core, and the new LRV maintenance facility site. In the context of the built-up, urban environment, impacts would be less than significant. Beneficial effects may occur in the Third Street Commercial Core and at the maintenance facility site with landscaping and sidewalk treatments.||Long-term visual modifications at portal locations. In the urban context of these locations, the impact would be less than significant.||No impacts.||No impacts.|
|Utilities and Energy||Construction of IOS would temporarily affect 380 utilities. Construction-related disruption would be minimal (two to three hours). Cost of utility relocation/replacement would be part of project. Although overall MUNI energy consumption would increase for this alternative, "clean" electric transit would replace diesel buses along Third Street.||Major trunk sewer line crosses subway alignment at Third/Mission. Mitigation achieved by installing underground siphon and pump station or relocating sewer line.||Increased auto trips would result in increased gasoline consumption.||No substantial impacts.|
|Geology, Soils, Seismicity||No impacts. Methods to control potential settlement/remediate liquefaction conditions at new light rail maintenance facility site would be included in final design.||Dewatering of tunneling could cause settlement during construction. Methods to prevent potential settlement due to subway construction would be included in final design.||No impacts.||No impacts. Methods to control potential settlement and remediate liquefaction conditions at new bus maintenance facility site would be included in final design.|
|Hydrology and Water Quality||Construction and operation of the IOS/new light rail maintenance facility could discharge sediments, chemicals and metals into storm drainage system. With mitigation (SWPPP-Best Management Practices), impacts would be less than significant.||Construction of the Central Subway could discharge sediments, chemicals and metals into storm drainage system. With mitigation (SWPPP-Best Management Practices), impacts would be less than significant.||No impacts.||Construction and operation of new bus maintenance facility could discharge chemicals and metals into storm drainage system. With mitigation, impacts would be less than significant.|
|Biology and Wetlands||No impacts to wetlands or threatened and endangered species or special status species.||No impacts to wetlands or threatened and endangered species or special status species.||No impacts.||No impacts|
|Hazardous Materials||Construction of the IOS and new light rail maintenance facility may encounter presence of hazardous materials; operation of maintenance facility may require handling of hazardous materials. Phase II soil characterization would be completed to ascertain levels of contamination. With mitigation (compliance with Article 20 and Site Mitigation Report), impacts would be less than significant.||Construction of the New Central Subway may encounter presence of hazardous materials. With mitigation (compliance with Article 20 and Site Mitigation Report), impacts would be less than significant.||No impacts.||Construction of new bus maintenance facility may encounter presence of hazardous materials; operation of facility may require handling of hazardous materials. With mitigation, impacts would be less than significant.|
|Air Quality||Would decrease regional ROG, NOx, and PM10 emissions over the No Project Alternative. Localized CO emissions would remain within state and federal standards. Transportation conformity requirements would be satisfied by the IOS. Dust and exhaust emissions occurring during construction of the IOS and new LRV maintenance facility would be mitigated to less-than-significant level by watering the site and using exhaust controls.||Would decrease regional ROG, NOx, and PM10 emissions over the No Project Alternative. Localized CO emissions would remain within state and federal standards. Transportation conformity requirements would be satisfied. Dust and exhaust emissions occurring during construction of the New Central Subway would be mitigated to a less-than- significant level.||Baseline conditions.||No substantial increase over baseline conditions. Dust and exhaust emissions during construction of new bus maintenance facility could be mitigated to a less than significant level.|
|Noise and Vibration||No noise impacts; long-term vibration impacts would occur for 78 residences, 2 churches and 1 school between the Highway 101 overcrossing and 16th Street. With proper mitigation (modify the transit vehicle suspension system, use of floating slabs in trackbed construction), these impacts would be less than significant.||No long-term noise or vibration impacts are expected.||No impacts.||No impacts.|
MUNI has the financial capacity to continue current bus and rail service levels as well as fulfill ADA paratransit requirements. Although no fund deficits are anticipated to occur in implementing the Capital Improvement Program under the No Build/TSM Alternative, MUNI, in conjunction with the Transportation Authority, does possess the ability to leverage future Proposition B revenues for the purpose of using debt financing to finance its acquisition of new buses and construction of new service facilities. Funding sources for constructing and operating the Light Rail Alternative are described below. The discussion below presents the capital requirements, the operating and maintenance costs and the revenues available to finance these costs through FY 2015 for the IOS and the New Central Subway.
The primary source of funding for the IOS is currently assumed to be the Proposition B one-half cent sales tax program presently in place in San Francisco. Passed by San Francisco voters in November 1989, sales tax revenues began being collected in April, 1990. The tax will sunset in March 2010.
Several components of the Proposition B Expenditure Plan that was adopted in 1989 can potentially contribute to the Project. These Expenditure Plan components are identified in Table S-7. In addition, Table S-7 indicates what the Expenditure Plan identified as funding for the Third Street components in FY 90 dollars (i.e., those amounts actually identified in the Plan), and the escalated amount of those components in FY 96 dollars. The FY 96 dollar amounts were derived by escalating the Plan components at the same annual growth rates as the Proposition B revenues grew between FY 90 and FY 96, which was 4.8 percent. The FY 96 figure of $293.0 million is then escalated at a conservative 3.5 percent annual growth rate for years subsequent to FY 96 until it is utilized to meet the capital costs of the IOS. In terms of FY 97 dollars, this amount grows to $303.2 million.
In addition to the four Expenditure Plan components (identified in Table S-7) being dedicated to the Project, excess or surplus funds in two additional projects have also been dedicated to the Light Rail Alternative. These are, in 1997 dollars, $30 million from the MUNI Metro Extension project and $44.4 million from the MUNI vehicle replacement project. Combined, these two sources contribute an additional $74.4 million to the Light Rail Alternative, bringing the total Proposition B commitment to an estimated $377.7 million in FY 97 dollars.
In addition to local Proposition B funds identified for the
Project, the City has also identified certain
tax increment funds to be available to the Project from existing and potential redevelopment
project areas located adjacent to the Third Street light rail line. These include Bayview Hunter's Point (survey area), India Basin, and Mission Bay (survey area). The tax increment that is programmed to support the Project is estimated at $8.5 million in constant 1997 dollars. It is similarly assumed that the operating and maintenance costs associated with the incremental service provided by the Project will be met through existing sources used to fund MUNI's current operations and maintenance.
|Transportation Plan Component||$ FY90||$ FY96||$ FY97|
|Transit Corridor Construction Fund||$190.0||$244.2||$252.7|
|Third Street Median Isles||7.0||9.0||9.3|
|Metro East LRV Maintenance Facility||18.0||23.1||23.9|
|Mission Bay Metro Extension||13.0||16.7||17.3|
|Source: G. Richard Swanson & Associates|
Augmenting local funding from Proposition B sales taxes and tax increment funding, an estimated $25.0 million in State Regional Improvement Program funds have been earmarked for the Project. These funds are allocated regionally and are the result of the recently enacted SB45 which consolidates previous categorical state funding programs, such as Transit Capital Improvement funds, into a single category of funds administered and programmed regionally.
Because of the significant lead time required to secure federal discretionary funding (Section 5309 New Starts) and formula funding (Section 5309 Fixed Guideway Modernization), no funding from these sources is anticipated to be available for the IOS. However, these sources are anticipated to be significant contributors to the New Central Subway.
In lieu of federal discretionary funding for the Project, the City is allocating an estimated $7.6 million in Federal Surface Transportation Program and Congestion Management Air Quality funding to supplement local and state funding. It is likely that a Letter of No Prejudice will be sought from FTA that will qualify the local Proposition B revenues that will be primarily used to fund the IOS as local match for subsequent federal funding for the New Central Subway.
The Project alternatives were evaluated according to FTA and local criteria. A summary of the evaluation is presented for each criterion utilized in the evaluation process.
The Light Rail Alternative would provide travel time savings, improved service reliability, and enhanced quality of service for the residents of the Corridor. The mobility benefits would be further enhanced by the completion of the New Central Subway, which provides a direct link between the southeastern quadrant of the City and Union Square/Chinatown. The New Central subway also would establish the key link in the Downtown subway system as identified in the Four Corridor Plan. Because the bus service provided under No Project or No Build/TSM Alternatives would not operate in exclusive rights-of-way, service reliability and travel times would be impaired as congestion in the Corridor increases over the 20-year planning period.
The Light Rail Alternative would generate short-term construction impacts that would not be produced by the No Project and No Build/TSM Alternatives. All long-term impacts resulting from light rail operations, such as property acquisition, parking displacement, conflict with the North Point sewer along Mission Street at Third, and vibration, could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, with the following exceptions:
Cumulative future (2015) traffic impacts that would occur at selected Corridor intersections in the No Project and No Build/TSM Alternatives would remain in the Light Rail Alternative. Of these intersections projected to operate at LOS E or F, six cannot be feasibly mitigated for any of the alternatives.
The Light Rail Alternative (IOS and New Central Subway) would produce the following beneficial impacts that could not be provided by the No Project and No Build/TSM Alternatives:
As a result, the Light Rail Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
Farebox recovery, the percentage of MUNI's revenues generated from fares, as well as cost per passenger and cost per bus and train hour, would be similar for all alternatives, in spite of the somewhat higher operating costs associated with light rail. The performance measurements indicate that light rail can carry a greater number of passengers while utilizing fewer vehicles to meet 2015 demand.
The Light Rail Alternative furthers the goals of the San Francisco Transportation Authority's Four Corridor Plan and is compatible with City and area-specific plans and policies governing transportation and land use. The Light Rail Alternative would offer the opportunity for the transportation investment in the Corridor to be coordinated with land use planning and economic revitalization at station locations. In addition, it conforms with the City's Transit First policy by providing exclusive right-of-way for transit. These benefits would not be provided by the No Project and No Build/TSM Alternatives.
The lowest cost per new rider and per user benefit, two former FTA evaluation criteria, would be offered by the Light Rail Alternative IOS using a dedicated right-of-way in the Third Street commercial core.
The alternatives were evaluated to determine if Project goals would be achieved by implementing each of the alternatives in the Corridor. A summary of the evaluation for key goals is provided below.
The Light Rail Alternative would address the concern of Corridor residents that existing transit service quality is not at a comparable level to that provided to other portions of the City. Light rail would offer more reliable service at slightly reduced travel times along Third Street because of the use of an exclusive right-of-way, particularly through Downtown and Chinatown via the New Central Subway. Minority communities in Bayview Hunters Point, Visitacion Valley, South of Market, and Chinatown would be the principal beneficiaries of this higher quality of service. Because of the increasing congestion in the Corridor, buses operating in the No Project and No Build/TSM Alternatives would not be expected to improve service reliability and travel times.
Because one of the primary objectives of the Light Rail Alternative is to support economic revitalization in the Third Street commercial core, the infrastructure investment that would accompany light rail implementation, in terms of street redesign, sidewalk improvements, and landscaping, would not be provided by the No Project and No Build/TSM Alternatives. For the four design options being considered for Third Street in the commercial core, the one-lane and mixed-flow options would allow a greater portion of the public right-of-way devoted to these improvements than the two-lane option.
Community support for the Project has been established by holding over 40 meetings in the Corridor to discuss the Project alternatives, by fostering community input in previous Corridor planning studies, and by the cooperative efforts of City agencies operating in the Corridor. Subsequent community meetings will be held as part of the public review of the DEIS/DEIR to coalesce community input toward determining the Preferred Investment Strategy for the Corridor.
The Light Rail and the No Build/TSM Alternatives would not incur capital or operating deficits for building or operating transit service in the Corridor. However, construction of the New Central Subway would require unsecured federal as well as unidentified state or local resources.
Five design issues remain outstanding. They are:
Environmental issues to be resolved include: the potential displacement of curb parking at station locations along Third Street between Kirkwood and Thomas Avenues; an alternative to formally designated bike lanes in the Corridor; extent of mitigation of potential vibration impacts; potential conflicts with the trunk sewer line on Mission Street at Third Street; resolution of potential conflicts with pedestrian circulation surrounding proposed subway access points; and the retention of the Union Pacific freight spur line at the proposed Caltrain Bayshore intermodal station.
The DEIS/DEIR builds on community input received over the past nine months:
As a result of public input, MUNI modified existing design options and added new ones to ensure that the project fully reflects the community's desires. MUNI plans to continue their on-going public involvement program during the review period for this DEIS/DEIR and during the response to comments, selection of a preferred alternative, final design, construction and environmental compliance monitoring.
Public agencies formally or informally contacted and consulted during the preparation of this environmental document, that would have approval or permit requirements are listed below. A Technical Advisory Committee comprised of 42 public agency representatives and City Staff, listed in Chapter 9.0, participated in the planning and design options for the Light Rail Alternative and in the identification of issues described and analyzed in this document.
The San Francisco Public Transportation Commission has approval authority over San Francisco Municipal Railway facilities and the Project. State, federal, and local agencies that require permit approval for aspects of the Project are identified in Chapter 2.0.