FSEIS-SEIR Chapter 2

2.0 ALTERNATIVES

Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) an EIS should provide a full and fair discussion of significant impacts and inform decision-makers and the public of reasonable alternatives which would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment (40 C.F.R. 1502.1). The Alternative’s Section of the document shall: “a) rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and, for alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated” and “b) devote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail including the proposed action so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits.” (Source: 43 FR 55994, 1978, CEQ Regulations Section 1502.14)

Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an EIR should focus on those alternatives that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project (Public Resources Code 21002.1; CEQA Guidelines 15126.6). Under both NEPA and CEQA, the alternatives considered should meet the Purpose and Need as defined in Section 1.0.

The proposed Central Subway Build Alternatives are shown in Figure 2-1. This chapter describes these alternatives and the development process and screening of alternatives by the community and local agency representatives.

2.1 Alternatives to be analyzed in the SEIS/SEIR

On June 7, 2005, the Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) designated the Fourth/Stockton Alignment with a combined double-track portal on Fourth Street between Townsend and Brannan Streets as the Locally Preferred Alternative (Alternative 3A). In response to public input during the 2005 Scoping process and technical recommendations from a Peer Review Panel [begin deletion] , and in order to reduce the cost of the project, [end deletion] a new design (Alternative 3B) was subsequently developed for the Fourth/Stockton Alignment. The three alternatives to be analyzed, including design options, are summarized below.

· Alternative 1 - No Project/TSM: Includes the projects programmed in the financially constrained Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) including the T-Third Line (formerly Initial Operating Segment - IOS) and associated bus changes. This alternative is required as part of the environmental document by both NEPA and CEQA.

· Alternative 2 - Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment: This alternative is the same alignment along King, Third, Harrison, Fourth, Kearny, Geary, and Stockton Streets as presented in the 1998 FEIS/FEIR with a shallow subway crossing of Market Street at Third Street, modified to include the addition of

 

Figure 2-1

central subway build Alternatives

 ALTERNATIVE 2: Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment

 

 ALTERNATIVE 3 (Option A LPA): Fourth/Stockton Alignment

 ALTERNATIVE 3 (Option B Modified LPA): Fourth/Stockton Alignment

 

Source: PB/Wong

Not to scale

 above-ground emergency ventilation shafts, off-sidewalk subway station entries, and the provision of a closed barrier fare system. This alternative includes one surface platform at Third and King Streets and four subway stations at Moscone, Market Street, Union Square, and Chinatown.

· Alternative 3 - Fourth/Stockton Alignment: This alignment would be exclusively on Fourth and Stockton Streets with a deep subway crossing of Market Street and two design options:

§ Option A (LPA) with a double-track portal on Fourth Street between Townsend and Brannan Streets and three subway stations at Moscone, Union Square/Market Street, and Chinatown, or

§ Option B (Modified LPA) with a double-track portal on Fourth Street between Bryant and Harrison Streets, three subway stations at Moscone, Union Square/Market Street, and Chinatown and a surface platform on Fourth Street just north of Brannan Street. This option also evaluates two sub-options with mixed-flow or semi-exclusive rail operation on the surface of Fourth Street.

[begin deletion] On February 19, 2008, the MTA, subsequent to publication of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, endorsed Alternative 3B as the LPA. [end deletion]

2.1.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO PROJECT/TSM

This alternative serves as a 2030 Baseline for comparison with other alternatives. It includes the following key elements that are proposed to be in place by 2030 (see Figure 2-2):

· programmed projects in the approved and financially constrained Regional Transportation Plan (RTP);

· operation of the T-Third line, which opened for passenger service in April 2007 as an extension of the [begin insertion] Castro Shuttle [end insertion] [begin deletion] K-Ingleside [end deletion] to Visitacion Valley, with associated restructured bus service in Visitacion Valley at the south end of the corridor and bus connections in Chinatown/North Beach at the north end;

· extension of the N-Judah from its existing terminus at Caltrain at King and Fourth Streets to an existing turnaround loop at 18th, Illinois, and 19th Streets, to provide additional service to the UCSF and Mission Bay development.

A No Project Alternative and a No Build/TSM Alternative were independently analyzed in the 1998 FEIS/FEIR. The No Build/TSM Alternative was different from the No Project Alternative and assumed that bus service would increase by about 80 percent by 2015 to meet demand. Among other bus changes, increased frequencies on the 15-Third diesel bus line and a new 15-Third short line between Chinatown and the Central Waterfront were proposed. (The 15-Third bus was discontinued in April 2007.) A new bus maintenance facility to accommodate an additional 27 diesel coaches and 6 trolley coaches was also part of the 1998 No Build/TSM Alternative.

 

FIGURE 2-2

alternative 1 – no project/tsm

 Since implementation of the T-Third line, the Project Purpose and Need have not changed. As bus service is already provided at three minute frequencies or better for much of the Central Subway Corridor and the streets, particularly Stockton Street, are operating at capacity, it would be difficult to introduce additional bus service as a viable TSM alternative. The No Project and TSM Alternative are combined for this SEIS/SEIR.

In conformance with CEQA guidelines, the No Project/TSM 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 Third Street/Central Subway Corridor. The 2030 No Project/TSM Alternative, therefore, includes the existing roadway system, the existing Muni route network, fleet size and mix, facilities, and service frequencies (except those as noted below) and the projects programmed in the Muni Short Range Transit Plan and the RTP. The existing roadway system, Muni route network and fleet characteristics are described in Section 3.0.

The No Build/TSM Alternative includes the following bus service frequency changes that would be implemented by 2030 in conjunction with the introduction of the T-Third line service:

· 30-Stockton long line (terminus at Beach and Broderick Streets):

§ Weekday, midday service frequencies would be improved from nine to seven and a half minutes, and evening service frequencies would be improved from twelve to ten minutes;

§ Saturday, service frequencies would be improved in the evening from twelve to nine minutes;

· 30-Stockton short line (terminus at Van Ness Avenue and North Point Street):

§ Weekday, midday service frequencies would be reduced from a range of four to five minutes to seven and a half minutes, p.m. peak service frequencies would be reduced from a range of four to five minutes to nine minutes, and evening service frequencies would be improved from twelve to ten minutes;

§ Saturday, service frequencies would be reduced in the midday from a range of three to six minutes to six minutes, and improved in the evening from twelve to nine minutes;

§ Sunday, midday service frequencies that now range from four to eight minutes would be set at six minutes, while evening frequencies would be improved from twelve to nine minutes;

 

· 45-Union/Stockton line:

§ Weekday, a.m. and p.m. peak service would be improved from nine to eight minutes, and evening service frequencies would be improved from fifteen to ten minutes;

§ Sunday, service frequencies would be reduced in the evening from twelve to fifteen minutes.

Programmed Transit and Roadway Improvements

Transit improvements currently under construction or planned for the future will be in place by the time that the Project is implemented. These improvements are part of the base transit network for the No Project/TSM Alternative and all of the Build Alternatives. These improvements include: new fare gates in the Market Street Subway, the construction of the new Metro East Light Rail Facility (scheduled for completion in 2008), and the replacement of existing facilities and equipment at the end of their life cycle. Other Muni service improvements that are programmed for implementation in the Central Subway Corridor are identified in the Short Range Transit Plan and/or the RTP and are part of the No Project/TSM Alternative. They are listed below, and those located in the Downtown area north of Mission Bay, are indicated in Figure 2-3.

· [begin deletion] 45-Union/Stockton and 22-Fillmore [end deletion] : When demand warrants, the 45-Union/Stockton trolley bus line will be extended from Fourth and Townsend Streets through Mission Bay and Potrero Hill to a new terminus at Third and 20th Streets, replacing 22-Fillmore service in Potrero Hill. At the same time, the 22‑Fillmore will be rerouted through Potrero Hill along 16th Street to Third Street, in accordance with the Mission Bay Plan. This extension of trolley service will serve the new Mission Bay and UCSF development.

· [begin deletion] F-line/Muni Metro Extension Connector Track [end deletion] . As part of the Mid-Embarcadero Roadway project, a connector track was installed in the median of The Embarcadero roadway from south of the Ferry Building to Folsom Street. The connector track links the F-line with the Muni Metro Extension. This new track permits F-line vehicles to operate to the Giants Ballpark, however, no regular service is planned at this time.

· [begin deletion] Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) [end deletion] . The Geary Corridor is one of the identified corridors for BRT implementation and planning work is underway.

· [begin deletion] Transit Preferential Streets (TPS) Improvements [end deletion] . Corridors identified for TPS improvements are Stockton Street/Columbus Avenue and Market Street.

 

FIGURE 2-3

no project/TSM ALTERNATIVEs TRANSIT AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS

 

· [begin deletion] Islais Creek Bus Maintenance and Storage Facility [end deletion] . In 2008, Muni will begin construction of a new bus maintenance facility at Indiana and Tulare Streets to replace Kirkland Division. The $73 million facility will be situated on a 5.3 acre site that can accommodate a maximum of 165 standard diesel buses. Running and heavy repair functions will be performed at this facility when it becomes operational in 2010.

· [begin deletion] BART System Upgrades [end deletion] . This project would improve station access, expand station capacity, and introduce new vehicles to the BART core system to reduce existing system constraints. These projects will be incrementally implemented over the next 20 years.

· [begin deletion] Transbay Terminal Muni Bus Facility Relocation [end deletion] . The Transbay Joint Powers Authority, an agency composed of representatives of the City, AC Transit, and CalTrain has approved a project to replace the Transbay Terminal at its existing site. The new facility would accommodate Muni buses as well as AC Transit, SamTrans, Golden Gate Transit and would be capable of accommodating a future Caltrain Peninsula Rail Service and possible high speed rail. During construction of the Transbay Terminal facility, Muni bus service would be temporarily relocated to a site south of Howard Street and between Main and Beale Streets. The first phase of the Transbay Terminal improvements is included in the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s RTP.

The No Project/TSM Alternative also includes roadway improvements in the Corridor that are underway or committed for implementation (refer to Figure 2-3). They are:

· [begin deletion] Bay Bridge Approach and Terminal Separator Ramps [end deletion] . Caltrans is providing seismic upgrades to the Bay Bridge west approach structure and rebuilding the Terminal Separator ramps. Expected completion date is 2013.

· [begin deletion] Integrated Transportation Management System (ITMS) [end deletion] . The ITMS is operated by DPT’s SFgo Program. Two of these corridors, Market Street and Mission Street, cross the Central Subway Project Corridor along Fourth Street. The SFgo Program is currently seeking funding to install fiber optic communication cable along the Market Street corridor, and the timetable for installation of the cable is dependent on when funding is secured. The Mission Street corridor has been planned but has not yet been programmed into any funding mechanism at this time. In addition, fiber optic communications cable would be installed along the Project Corridor on Fourth Street between Market and King Streets. The installation of fiber optics is also being considered along streets in the vicinity of Union Square to provide for changeable message signs in the Union Square Garage. Old traffic signal equipment including controllers, cabinets, conduits, poles, and signal heads would be replaced at signalized intersections affected by the construction in the Corridor.

· [begin deletion] Transbay Terminal Roadway Changes [end deletion] . The new Transbay Terminal facility will provide expanded bus and rail service in a new building on the site of the existing Transbay Terminal at First and Mission Streets. Included in the project improvements are new ramps linking the Transit Center to the Bay Bridge and to the planned off-site Bus Storage facilities.

 

2.1.2 Alternative 2 - enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment

In the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment, the 1.75 mile light rail service would operate between Fourth and King Streets and Stockton and Jackson Streets. North of the Fourth and King Street IOS surface platform, the rail would travel east [begin insertion] of [end insertion] [begin deletion] on [end deletion] King Street in a surface configuration and northbound on Third Street and southbound on Fourth Street, transitioning to a subway operation at portals located between Brannan and Bryant Streets. The service would operate independent of the existing Muni Metro Market Street subway (see Figure 2-4).

This alternative follows the 1998 EIS/EIR (Base Case) Alignment with its shallow crossing of Market Street at Third Street, but also incorporates design changes to meet current fire codes and new Muni fare collection policy. (See Alternative 2 profile in Figures 2-5 and 2-6.) In order to meet current fire codes, above-ground emergency ventilation shafts would be located in off-street right-of-way rather that provided through an in-street ventilation system as originally planned. To address public concerns about pedestrian access and space constraints, most [begin deletion] subway [end deletion] station entries have been moved off crowded sidewalks to private or public property and combined wherever possible with vent shafts. A description of the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment is provided below.

Alignment – Alternative 2

The Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment would extend the T-Third line north of King Street on Third and Fourth Streets to single-track portals between Brannan and Bryant Streets. This alternative would include a surface station on Third Street across from the ballpark, and four subway stations at Moscone, Union Square, Market Street, and Chinatown.

After stopping at the existing station platform at Fourth and King Streets, light rail vehicles (LRVs) traveling northbound would turn right into the King Street median and follow the Muni Metro Extension tracks to Third Street (refer to Figure 2-4). At Third Street, the northbound track would curve left into

 

FIGURE 2-4

alternative 2 – enhanced eis/eir alignment

 

FIGURE 2-5: ENHANCed EIS/EIR Alignment

Profile between fourth/King and market/third STREETs

FIGURE 2-6: ENHANCed EIS/EIR Alignment

Profile between market/third STREET and stockton/jackson streets

 

the curb lane on the west side of Third Street, where a surface station serving the ballpark would be located.

Traffic signals would synchronize the left turn movement of LRVs with left-turning cars and trucks from King Street to Third Street.

North of King Street, LRVs would travel in a semi-exclusive right-of-way northbound on Third Street and southbound on Fourth Street. On Third Street between Townsend and Brannan Streets, the light rail track would be located to the west of three northbound traffic lanes. As LRVs shift into the center of Third Street, north of Brannan Street at the portal, the street configuration would transition to two northbound traffic lanes on each side of the light rail alignment. On Fourth Street between Bryant and Brannan, LRVs would operate with two southbound traffic lanes on each side of the light rail alignment. At Fourth and Townsend Streets, the track would shift slightly to the east to accommodate three southbound traffic lanes west of the tracks and one northbound right turn only traffic lane east of the tracks. The 30-Stockton and 45-Union/Stockton trolley bus lines would continue operation on the east side of Fourth Street, south of Bryant Street, to the Caltrain Terminal west of Fourth Street on Townsend Street. Existing trolley bus stops would be retained on Fourth Street just north of Bryant and Brannan Streets. No major overhead wire relocations would be necessary under this alternative. The bus loading zone would continue to be located on Townsend Street for northbound buses and on Fourth Street adjacent to the Caltrain Terminal for southbound buses. Up to 93 parking spaces would be eliminated between King and Bryant Streets, including 57 of the 92 spaces on Third Street and 36 of the 56 spaces on Fourth Street between Townsend and Bryant Streets. Parking on both sides of Third and Fourth Streets at the portals (Brannan to Bryant Streets) would be eliminated as would all parking on Third Street between King and Townsend Streets.

On Third Street, north of Brannan Street, the northbound tracks would enter the subway in a 410-foot long single-track portal structure located in the middle of the street. On Fourth Street, south of Bryant Street, the southbound tracks would exit the subway from a 360-foot single-track portal structure, also located in the street median. Two lanes of traffic would pass on each side of the 18-foot wide single-track portal on both Third and Fourth Streets. The northbound subway would continue under Third Street to Harrison Street. The southbound subway, which would link with the northbound subway at Third and Harrison Streets, would curve under the edge of the property at 425 Fourth Street (Assessor’s Parcel #3762-112) bordering the south side of Harrison Street between Third and Fourth Streets, and then curve north from Harrison Street to Third Street under the property at 370 Third Street (Assessor’s Parcel #3751-157) about 30 feet below the surface for northbound operations with the southbound tunnel running below. Easements would be required under buildings at both locations. Deep (mined) tunneling would be used to avoid affecting the foundations of two buildings located above the subway on Third and Fourth Streets at Harrison Street.

The northbound and southbound subways would converge at Third and Harrison Streets in a stacked configuration with the southbound track located below the northbound track. This configuration was provided to not preclude a future connection of the Central Subway with a possible future Geary subway line traveling under Geary [begin deletion] , Kearny, [end deletion] and Third Streets and then east via Folsom Street to the vicinity of the Transbay Terminal. The Geary subway is not analyzed in the Central Subway SEIS/SEIR; the Geary project would be subject to an independent environmental analysis in the future should a project be defined and funding identified. The stacked configuration would continue under Third Street into the Moscone Station located between Folsom and Howard Streets (see Figure 2-7).

Northbound and southbound station platforms would be at two levels and would share a common [begin insertion] mezzanine ( [end insertion] concourse [begin insertion] ). [end insertion] Station access from the surface (stairs/escalators and one elevator) would be permitted only on the east side of Third Street because the presence of truck ramps leading to loading docks underneath the Moscone Center would preclude surface access on the west side of Third Street. The main station entrance (escalators and stairs) would be in the Tehama Pedestrian Way next to retail bays on the north side of the Moscone Garage. One elevator would be located near Third Street and Tehama Pedestrian Way in the northwest corner of the Moscone Garage. Emergency stairs would be provided by a hatch located in the sidewalk off Clementina Street near the southwest corner of the garage. There would be no direct access into the Moscone Center in order to comply with the facility’s access control. Two emergency ventilation shafts would extend east of Third Street under Clementina Street, rising along the southeast exterior of the Moscone Garage to a height 16 feet above the garage roof.

Immediately north of Howard Street, the tracks would ascend and transition to a side-by-side configuration to permit a shallow crossing above the BART/Muni Metro Market Street Subway. The existing BART/Muni Metro Subway is composed of four 18-foot diameter steel plate lined tunnels. The Market Street Station would be located north of Mission Street (see Figure 2-8), linked by an approximately 440-foot long underground pedestrian concourse via Stevenson and Annie Streets to the Montgomery Street BART/Muni Metro Station.

 FIGURE 2-7: ENHANCed EIS/EIR Alignment - Moscone station

 

FIGURE 2-8: ENHANCed EIS/EIR Alignment – MARKET STREET station

 

Construction of the Market Street Station would displace an eight-foot diameter trunk sewer line under Mission Street. The trunk sewer line could be relocated or abandoned or, in lieu of these options, a siphon and pump station could be installed under the Third/Mission intersection to force wastewater under the subway (refer to Section 2.2.2, Central Subway Alternative Construction Methods). The shallow configuration of the station would preclude construction of a mezzanine [begin deletion] and [end deletion] [begin insertion] ( [end insertion] concourse [begin insertion] ) [end insertion] level above the platform. Instead, access would be provided from street level to a mezzanine [begin deletion] and [end deletion] [begin insertion] ( [end insertion] concourse [begin insertion] ) [end insertion] under the platform level for fare payment, and then up to the platform level via subsurface escalators, stairs, and elevators. The main street entrances (escalators and stairs) would be located on the south side of Market Street just west and east of Third Street. Two elevators would be located on the southwest corner of Market and Third Streets next to the escalators and stairs. Two sets of emergency stairs would be provided by a hatch located in sidewalks on the west and east sides of Third Street just south of Jessie Street. Two emergency ventilation shafts would extend east of Third Street under Stevenson Street, rising at the northeast interior of the private Hearst garage at 45 Third Street (Assessors Parcel #3707-058) to a height 26 feet above the roofline. The vent shafts would displace about 30 parking spaces and would require an easement.

After crossing the Market Street Subway, the alignment would turn west under Geary Street and descend into a stacked configuration as shown in Figure 2-9. The stacked subway configuration is provided so as not to preclude a connection with a possible future Geary Street subway line traveling east and westbound from Union Square.[1] The stacked configuration would continue to Union Square Station, which would be located on Stockton Street between Geary and Sutter Streets. The stacked tunnels would affect the design of the Union Square Station, which would include a mezzanine [begin deletion] and [end deletion] [begin insertion] ( [end insertion] concourse [begin insertion] ) [end insertion] and two platform levels (refer to Figure 2-9). The main pedestrian entry would be located on the east side of the Union Square Plaza near an existing pedestrian stairway and café. It would include escalators and stairs, rising from the sidewalk level at Stockton Street to the plaza entrance. Additional entries would be located in sidewalk bulb-outs on Stockton Street north (stairs) and south (escalators) of Maiden Lane. Emergency stairs would be provided by a hatch located in the sidewalk on the east side of Stockton Street just south of Campton Place. Two vent shafts would be integrated into the Union Square plaza terrace between the plaza café and the sidewalk on the west side of Stockton Street. Vent shafts would be located on either side of the escalators and stairs. The vent shafts would be about 11 feet high, but would

 

FIGURE 2-9: ENHANCed EIS/EIR Alignment - union square station

 

not rise above the plaza because of their location on the terrace grade. The emergency ventilation would be designed in cooperation with BART so as not to impact ventilation in the Powell Street Station. Two elevators would be located north of the northern-most vent shaft with access from the sidewalk on Stockton Street. These facilities would displace about 29 of the 985 parking spaces in the Union Square Garage. The bulb-out for the escalators on the east side of Stockton Street, south of Maiden Lane, would widen the sidewalk by about four feet and would extend a little over 50 feet, displacing two to three truck parking spaces. The bulb-out for the stairs on the east side of Stockton north of Maiden Lane would widen the sidewalk about five feet and would extend a little over 60 feet, displacing three truck parking spaces.

North of the Union Square Station, the subway would continue in a mined tunnel under Stockton Street. The north and southbound tunnels would transition to a side-by-side configuration before the Chinatown Station. The station would have side platforms, as well as a crossover and tail tracks required for operator layover. The northern terminus for the Central Subway would be in Chinatown at Stockton and Jackson Streets. The underground station, between Sacramento and Washington Streets on Stockton Street, would have a mezzanine [begin deletion] and [end deletion] [begin insertion] ( [end insertion] concourse [begin insertion] ) [end insertion] and one platform level (see Figure 2-10). The main pedestrian entrance would be in a building that Muni would construct at 814-828 Stockton Street near Sacramento (Assessor’s Parcel #0225-014) to accommodate escalators, stairs, two elevators, and two emergency ventilation shafts.

Construction of the station entrance would require acquisition of the parcel and relocation of ten businesses [begin insertion] and one to two residential units over the businesses [end insertion] . The Muni facility would require only one story; a structure of 40-feet in height was assumed on this parcel for this analysis. Transit-oriented development could be proposed as part of an independent project for this site in the future.[2] The maximum allowable height for this property is 65-feet; but, for the purposes of this SEIS/SEIR, it was assumed that Muni would restrict the building height to 40 feet as required to meet height limits in Prop K to minimize shadows on parks (Willy “Woo Woo” Wong Playground to the east of the station). The vent shafts would rise to a height 10 feet above the development roofline on the southeast end of the parcel near Pagoda Alley. Emergency stairs would be provided by a sidewalk hatch located in a bulb-out on the northwest corner of Stockton and Clay Streets. The bulb-out would widen the sidewalk by seven feet and would extend about 40 feet, eliminating one white loading zone and a red zone. A double

 

FIGURE 2-10: ENHANCed EIS/EIR Alignment - chinatown station

 

crossover and twin storage tracks, capable of storing two 2-car trains, would extend beyond this subway station to Jackson Street.

Station Locations – Alternative 2

The Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment would have four subway stations and one surface station, as listed in Table 2-1. The surface station would be located on Third Street, north of King Street, to serve the ballpark. Subway station platforms would be about 250 feet in length, and 16 to 23 feet in width (depending on configuration as side platform or center platform), and would accommodate two-car trains using high-floor LRVs. All subway station designs include fare gates and ticket vending machines (TVMs) per new Muni policy; this specification requires longer station layouts and typically the need for a mezzanine [begin deletion] and [end deletion] [begin insertion] ( [end insertion] concourse [begin insertion] ) [end insertion] level.

TABLE 2-1

ALTERNATIVE 2 - ENHANCED EIS/EIR ALIGNMENT STATION LOCATIONS

 

Station	Type	Location
King Street (northbound only)	Surface Station - Platform adjacent to Sidewalk	Third Street between King and Townsend Streets
Moscone	Underground - Two level stacked platform with a mezzanine [begin deletion] and [end deletion] [begin insertion] ( [end insertion] concourse [begin insertion] ) [end insertion] level above the platform level.	Third Street between Folsom and Howard Streets
Market Street	Underground - Single level side platforms with a mezzanine [begin deletion] and [end deletion] [begin insertion] ( [end insertion] concourse [begin insertion] ) [end insertion] level below the platform level.	Third Street between Mission and Market Streets
Union Square	Underground - Two level stacked platforms with a mezzanine [begin deletion] and [end deletion] [begin insertion] ( [end insertion] concourse [begin insertion] ) [end insertion] level above the platform level.	Stockton Street between Geary and Sutter Streets
Chinatown	Underground – Single level side platforms with a mezzanine [begin deletion] and [end deletion] [begin insertion] ( [end insertion] concourse [begin insertion] ) [end insertion] level above the platform level.	Stockton Street between Sacramento and Washington Streets

 

Light Rail Operating Plan – Alternative 2

For the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment, one-car trains would operate as an independent line (not linked with Muni Metro) from the southern terminus in Visitacion Valley, via the existing T-Third alignment to Fourth and King Streets, and then via the Central Subway to the northern terminus in Chinatown. This service would be called the T-Third long line. The T-Third short line would extend from the Mission Bay Turnaround Loop (18th, Illinois, 19th, and Third Streets) to Chinatown, also operating with one-car trains [begin deletion] and the T-Third very short line would operate from Fourth and Berry Streets to Chinatown [end deletion] . Service frequencies for each line would be [begin insertion] five [end insertion] [begin deletion] six [end deletion] minutes in the peak period and ten minutes during the Midday, except for the short line. The [begin insertion] Castro Shuttle [end insertion] [begin deletion] K-Ingleside [end deletion] would be extended to operate as the T-Third line under the 2030 No Project/TSM Alternative, but would operate as an independent line for the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment, using the 2006 configuration between Castro and Embarcadero Muni Metro Stations.

Bus Operating Plan – Alternative 2

To make efficient use of the Central Subway, bus operations in the Corridor would be restructured. The Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment bus system would be similar to the No Project/TSM Alternative including the extension of the 45-Union/Stockton trolley bus line from the Caltrain Terminal through Mission Bay and Potrero Hill to a new terminus at Third and 20th Streets and the rerouting of the 22-Fillmore trolley bus line along 16th, Third, and Mission Rock Streets to a terminus in Mission Bay. In both bus plans the 9X-San Bruno Express and 30-Stockton lines would have five and nine-minute peak period frequencies respectively, which are the current peak headways for those lines. Changes from the No Project/TSM Alternative associated with the Enhanced EIS/EIR bus plan include the elimination of the 30-Stockton short line between Van Ness Avenue and North Point Street and the Caltrain Terminal at Fourth and Townsend Streets, and minor frequency adjustments as noted below. All comparisons given below are to the No Project/TSM 2030 bus service.

· 30-Stockton long line:

§ Weekday, midday service frequencies would be reduced from seven and a half to nine minutes;

§ Saturday, evening service frequencies would be reduced from nine to ten minutes;

§ Sunday service, which is currently provided only on the 30-Stockton short line, would be provided on the 30-Stockton long line. Sunday service frequencies would be reduced in the midday from six to seven minutes and reduced in the evening from nine to ten minutes.

· 30-Stockton short line:

§ Service would be eliminated during the week and on weekends.

· 45-Union/Stockton line:

§ Weekday, service frequencies would be reduced in peak periods from eight to nine minutes.

Operating Statistics – Alternative 2

A summary of operating statistics for the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment is presented in Table 2-2. The frequency on the 9X-San Bruno Express bus line would remain unchanged at five minutes when compared with the No Project/TSM Alternative. Since the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment coincides with the routes for the 30-Stockton and 45-Union/Stockton lines south of Jackson Street, service hours for

 

TABLE 2-2

ANNUAL OPERATING STATISTICS

ALTERNATIVE 2 - ENHANCED EIS/EIR ALIGNMENT

Alternative	Peak Headways 9-X Line2	Diesel/Trolley Peak Demand ( [begin insertion] Systemwide [end insertion] [begin deletion] Fleet size [end deletion] ) 1	Total Annual Diesel/Trolley Bus Hours (Systemwide) 1	Peak Headways T-Third2	LRV Fleet Peak Demand3( [begin insertion] Systemwide [end insertion] [begin deletion] Fleet size [end deletion] ) [begin insertion] 1 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 3 [end deletion]	Total Annual LRV Car Hours [begin deletion] T-Line [end deletion] (Systemwide)
Existing (2007) T-Third	5 minutes	377 ( [begin insertion] 495 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 473 [end deletion] ) diesel buses; 225 ( [begin insertion] 333 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 331 [end deletion] ) trolley buses	2,592,230	9 minutes	[begin insertion] 118 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 119 [end deletion] (151) LRVs	[begin insertion] 84,800 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 109,400 [end deletion] [begin insertion] (568,500) [end insertion] [begin deletion] (570,200) [end deletion]
No Project/TSM (2030)	5 minutes	377 (495) diesel buses; 230 ( [begin insertion] 333 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 336 [end deletion] ) trolley buses	2,622,030	7 minutes	[begin insertion] 129 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 1 [end deletion] [begin deletion] 3 [end deletion] [begin deletion] 7 [end deletion] (171) LRVs	[begin insertion] 80,400 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 117,000 [end deletion] [begin insertion] (609,500) [end insertion] [begin deletion] (602,700) [end deletion]
Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment (2030)	5 minutes	377 (495) diesel buses; 219 ( [begin insertion] 333 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 336 [end deletion] ) trolley buses	2,545,630	[begin insertion] 5 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 6 [end deletion] minutes	[begin insertion] 130 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 142 [end deletion] (175) LRVs	[begin insertion] 87,500 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 83,900 [end deletion] [begin insertion] (591,200)(3) [end insertion] [begin deletion] (621,800) 3 [end deletion]

Notes: ¹ Source for 2007 bus equipment demand and bus hours is the Muni 2006-2025 Short Range Transit Plan, December 2005 and Dan Rosen, MTA, May 2007. [begin deletion] Revised Dan Rosen, MTA, January 2008. [end deletion]

² Headway refers to the time between transit vehicles on a given line

³Assumes one-car trains operating in the peak for the Central Subway on both the T-Third long [begin deletion] and short lines and two-car trains on the T-Third very short line [end deletion] .

 

these bus lines could be reduced where duplicate service occurs. The Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment would reduce the peak demand requirements for the [begin deletion] combined [end deletion] diesel and trolley fleets over No Project/TSM which would result in a systemwide annual reduction of bus hours by 76,400. Rail headways on T-Third line would improve from the current nine minutes under existing conditions to seven minutes in the No Project/TSM Alternative and to [begin insertion] five [end insertion] [begin deletion] six [end deletion] minutes under the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment. The additional [begin deletion] LRV [end deletion] route miles and service frequencies associated with the new Central Subway service would result in an annual [begin insertion] increase [end insertion] [begin deletion] decrease [end deletion] of [begin insertion] 7,100 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 33,100 [end deletion] LRV car hours on the [begin insertion] Central Subway Corridor [end insertion] [begin deletion] T-Third line [end deletion] , but a system-wide annual reduction of [begin insertion] 18,300 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 19,100 [end deletion] car hours.

Transit Fleet Requirements – Alternative 2

The Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment would require [begin insertion] four [end insertion] [begin deletion] six [end deletion] additional LRVs ( [begin insertion] three [end insertion] [begin deletion] five [end deletion] peak LRVs and one spare) compared to the No Project/TSM Alternative. Muni’s total fleet size, including spares, would be 175 LRVs with [begin insertion] 130 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 142 [end deletion] LRVs in the peak. The diesel bus fleet [begin deletion] would be increased by 23 buses, but the [end deletion] [begin insertion] and [end insertion] peak demand would remain the same as under the existing condition and the No Project/TSM Alternative. The trolley bus fleet would [begin insertion] remain the same as under [end insertion] [begin deletion] increase by five buses from [end deletion] the existing conditions [begin insertion] and No Project/TSM Alternative [end insertion] [begin deletion] by 2030 for Alternative 2 [end deletion] , but the peak demand would be reduced by six vehicles over existing conditions and eleven vehicles over No Project/TSM.[3]

 

Light Rail Maintenance Facility

The Metro East LRV maintenance facility that was analyzed in the 1998 FEIS/FEIR is currently under construction as part of the T-Third line and is expected to become operational in the fall of 2008. It would be used to store and maintain the LRV fleet for the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment vehicles as well as for the T-Third line. It also provides a traction power substation facility. Traction Power Distribution System

The T-Third electric power distribution facilities would connect to the Central Subway (Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment) facilities. The northerly most T-Third electric power substation on Illinois Street near Mariposa Street (analyzed as part of the 1998 FEIS/FEIR) could be used for back-up power as could the Muni Metro Extension electric power substation on King Street, east of Third Street. In addition, the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment would be constructed with overhead wire, feeder cable, and two new substations located within the station boxes (non-public areas) for the Moscone and Chinatown Stations.

Signaling and Communications System

The Automatic Train Control System used for Muni Metro would be installed in the subway portion of the Central Subway Project to monitor and control train movements in the subway. The T-Third line, including the Central Subway segment, would operate independently from Muni Metro although it would share the existing control center at West Portal. The Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment would also have fire suppression, ventilation, and emergency back-up generator systems linked to Central Control.

 

Fare Collection System in the Central Subway

The Proof-of-Payment fare collection system on surface Third Street would be used for the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment. However, unlike the T-Third line surface operation, the subway platforms would be considered paid areas. In the subway stations, ticket vending machines and turnstiles similar to those installed at Muni Metro stations would facilitate fare collection.

2.1.3 ALTERNATIVE 3 - Fourth/STOCKTON Alignment

The Fourth/Stockton Alignment would start as a double-track surface line at Fourth and King Streets and would proceed north along Fourth Street to a portal, at one of two possible locations, where it would transition from surface to subway operation. It would continue north under Fourth Street as a double-track operation to a terminus in the vicinity of Stockton and Jackson Streets (Figure 2-11). The

 

FIGURE 2-11

ALTERNATIVE 3 -Fourth Stockton Alignment OPTION A (lpa)

 

 

pedestrian connection to the Market Street Subway would be at the BART/Muni Metro Powell Street Station.

There is a construction variant for this alternative to extend the running tunnels another 2,000 feet north of the Chinatown Station to facilitate construction and extraction of the tunnel boring machines. In this approach the tunnels would continue north on Stockton Street to a temporary shaft on Columbus Avenue near Washington Square Park where the tunnel boring machines would be extracted and construction equipment and materials could be delivered.

As in the case of the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment, above-ground emergency ventilation shafts are proposed to be located in off-street locations and, wherever feasible, station access is located off- sidewalk in property to be acquired by Muni. Fare gates are provided at the mezzanine level for all stations. The location and number of stations varies for the two design options described below.

Alternative 3 – Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A (LPA)

Alignment – Alternative 3A

This alternative was selected as the Locally Preferred Alternative by the MTA Board at its meeting of June 7, 2005. It would extend 1.7 miles north from the T-Third line terminus at Fourth and King Streets via Fourth and Stockton Streets to the Central Subway terminus in Chinatown. After stopping at the T-Third line station platform on Fourth Street at King Street, LRVs would continue north on Fourth Street in a semi-exclusive double-track median to a portal between Townsend and Brannan Streets. This option would include three subway stations at Moscone, Union Square/Market Street, and Chinatown (see profile Figure 2-12). It would not have any operations on King, Harrison, Third, Kearny, or Geary Streets. The 30-Stockton and 45-Union/Stockton trolley bus lines would continue operation on the east side of Fourth Street, south of Bryant Street, to the bus terminal east of Fourth Street on Townsend Street. Existing bus stops would be retained on Fourth Street just north of Bryant Street, but the island stop at Brannan Street would be moved from the north to the south side of the street. No major overhead wire relocations would be necessary under this option.

On Fourth Street between King and Townsend Streets the track would shift slightly to the east to accommodate three southbound traffic lanes west of the trackway and one northbound right turn only traffic lane east of the tracks. At Townsend Street, the easterly lane would provide an exclusive right turn for northbound buses to facilitate use of the south side bus layover and loading zone near Fourth Street. Southbound buses would continue to use the layover and loading zone adjacent to the Caltrain

 

FIGURE 2-12: fourth/stockton Alignment option a

PROFILE between fourth/King and STOCKTON/JACKSON STREETs

 

Terminal. There are no existing parking spaces in this segment so none would be eliminated with this lane configuration.

On Fourth Street between Townsend and Brannan Streets, the rail line would enter the subway through a 360-foot double-track portal structure. A Muni bus stop would be located in the median just north of the portal, but south of Bryant Street. There would be three southbound traffic lanes next to the 27.5-foot wide portal: two on the west side of the tracks and one on the east side of the tracks. Between Townsend and Brannan Streets, [begin insertion] eight [end insertion] [begin deletion] 18 [end deletion] parking spaces would be eliminated on Fourth Street. However, this loss would be partially offset by the creation of three new parking spaces from a bus zone on the west side of Fourth Street south of Brannan that would no longer be needed.

The subway would continue under Fourth Street to the Moscone Station (see Figure 2-13) between Folsom and Howard Streets. This station would have a mezzanine [begin deletion] and [end deletion] [begin insertion] ( [end insertion] concourse [begin insertion] ) [end insertion] and one platform level that would serve both northbound and southbound trains. The main station entrance (escalators and stairs and two elevators) would be in an off-street property that Muni would acquire (at 266 Fourth Street, Assessor’s Parcel # 3733-093), currently the site of a gas station. The Muni station facility would require only one story. However, for purposes of this environmental review, it is assumed the station entry would be located in a 40-foot high building, with a setback 85-foot tower as permitted under existing zoning. While Muni may propose transit-oriented development for the station site in the future, no specific proposal has been identified at this time. Development at this site would be the subject of an independent environmental review at such time as a specific proposal is submitted to the Planning Department.

The vent shafts would rise 26 feet above the development 40-foot roofline on the north end of the parcel or to a height of 66 feet. An additional stair [begin deletion] way [end deletion] [begin insertion] set [end insertion] would be located in the sidewalk on the west side of Fourth Street just north of Howard Street [begin deletion] and an escalator on the north side of Howard Street, just west of Fourth Street [end deletion] . A third elevator would be located directly across the street on the east side of Fourth Street near the corner of Howard Street.

Immediately north of Howard Street, the alignment would descend and continue in a twin side-by-side tunnel configuration to permit a deep crossing of the Market Street Subway and an easement under buildings at 790-798 Market Street [begin deletion] /2 Stockton Street [end deletion] (Assessor’s Parcel 0328-002) (see Figure 2-14). A combined Union Square/Market Street Station would be located on Stockton Street between Maiden Lane and Market Street, with the station platform extending from just south of Geary Street to about 100 feet south of O’Farrell Street. The station would have a [begin insertion] common [end insertion] mezzanine [begin deletion] and [end deletion] [begin insertion] ( [end insertion] concourse [begin insertion] ) [end insertion] and one center platform level that would serve both northbound and southbound trains. The south end of the Market Street/Union

 

FIGURE 2-13: fourth/stockton Alignment option a - Moscone station

 

 

FIGURE 2-14: fourth/stockton Alignment option a

union square/Market street station

 

Square Station would connect to the BART/Muni Metro Market Street Subway at the Powell Street Station using existing pedestrian entrances on Market Street and at the northwest corner entrance on Stockton and Ellis Streets.

At the north end of the station the main entrance would be located in the east side of the Union Square plaza near an existing stairway and café. It would include escalators and stairs, rising from the Stockton Street sidewalk to the plaza entrance. Two elevators would be located just south of the escalator/stair set. Additional entries would be located in sidewalk bulb-outs on Stockton Street north (stairs) and south (escalators) of Maiden Lane. No additional emergency stairs would be provided. Two vent shafts would be integrated into the plaza terrace between the plaza café and the sidewalk on the west side of Stockton Street. One vent shaft would be on either side of the escalators and stairs. The vent shafts would be about 11 feet high, but would not rise above the plaza because of their location on the terrace grade. The emergency ventilation would be designed in cooperation with BART so as not to impact ventilation in the Powell Street Station. The entry facilities would displace about 29 parking spaces of the 985 spaces in the Union Square Garage. The bulb-out for the escalators on the east side of Stockton Street south of Maiden Lane would widen the sidewalk by about 4 feet and would extend a little over 50 feet, displacing two to three truck parking spaces. The bulb-out for the stairs on the east side of Stockton Street, north of Maiden Lane, would widen the sidewalk about 5 feet and would extend a little over 60 feet, displacing three truck parking spaces.

North of Union Square, the subway would continue in twin-bored tunnels under Stockton in a side-by-side configuration to the Chinatown terminus. The Chinatown station would have a center platform with a crossover north of the platform and tail tracks for operator layover north of the crossover. Like the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment, the Chinatown Station for the Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A would be on Stockton Street between Sacramento and Washington Streets (see Figure 2-15). It would have a mezzanine [begin deletion] and [end deletion] [begin insertion] ( [end insertion] concourse [begin insertion] ) [end insertion] and one platform level for north and southbound trains. The main pedestrian entrance would be in a building that Muni would construct on Stockton near Sacramento (814-828 Stockton Street, Assessor’s Parcel #0225-014) to accommodate escalators, stairs, two elevators, and two emergency ventilation shafts. Construction of the station entrance would require acquisition of the parcel and relocation of 10 businesses [begin insertion] and one to two residential units above the businesses [end insertion] . The Muni station facility would require only one story. However, for the purposes of this analysis it is assumed that a 40-foot high building consistent with Prop K would be constructed on the site. The maximum allowable height for this property is 65-feet, but Muni would restrict the building height on the site to 40

 

FIGURE 2-15: FOURTH/stockton ALIGNMENT OPTION A - chinatown station

 

feet to avoid casting additional shadows on the Willy “Woo Woo” Wong Playground to the east. As with other build alternatives, Muni may propose transit-oriented development on the station site in the future, but no specific proposal has been identified at this time. Development at the site would be the subject of an independent environmental review at such time as a specific proposal is submitted to the Planning Department. The vent shafts would rise 10 feet above the development roofline on the southeast end of the parcel near Pagoda Alley. Emergency stairs would be provided by a sidewalk hatch located in a bulb- out on the west side of Stockton Street near Washington Street. The bulb-out would widen the sidewalk by 7 feet and would extend about 24 feet in length, eliminating one parking stall.

A double crossover and twin storage tracks, capable of storing two [begin insertion] three [end insertion] [begin deletion] two- [end deletion] car trains, would extend north of this station to Jackson Street.

Station Locations – Alternative 3A

Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A would have three subway stations (compared with four subway stations in Alternative 2) as listed in Table 2-3. The subway station platforms would be about 250 feet in length and 26 to 28 feet in width and would accommodate two-car trains using high-floor LRVs. The Union Square/Market Street Station has a much longer layout than the Moscone and Chinatown Stations. Like Alternative 2, this alternative would accommodate fare gates and ticket vending machines (TVMs) and a closed barrier fare collection system. All subway station platforms are on one level with a mezzanine and a concourse level above the platform.

TABLE 2-3

CENTRAL SUBWAY FOURTH/STOCKTON ALIGNMENT OPTION A STATIONS

 

Station	Type	Location
Moscone	Underground – Single level center platform with a mezzanine [begin deletion] and [end deletion] [begin insertion] ( [end insertion] concourse [begin insertion] ) [end insertion] level above the platform level.	Fourth Street between Folsom and Howard Streets
Union Square/Market Street	Underground - Single level center platform with a mezzanine and concourse level above the platform level.	Stockton Street between Maiden Lane and Market Streets
Chinatown	Underground - Single level center platform and a mezzanine and concourse level above the platform level.	Stockton Street between Sacramento and Clay Streets

 

North Beach Tunnel Construction Variant

For both design options in Alternative 3, there is an option to extend the running tunnels north of the original EIS/EIR terminus in Chinatown for construction purposes. This construction variant is shown as an extension of Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A under Stockton Street for approximately 2,000 feet to a temporary construction shaft in the middle of Columbus Avenue near Washington Square in North Beach. Other options were evaluated and presented to the public, but the location on Columbus Avenue was considered the most technically viable.[4] The initial shaft would be 35 to 60 feet wide by 30 feet long, located in the middle lanes of Columbus Avenue between Union and Filbert Streets, and would occupy two traffic lanes. During the shaft construction period, estimated at five to six months, at least one northbound and one southbound traffic lane would be maintained at all times. Following excavation of the shaft, one half of the footprint would be decked over permanently. The remainder would be temporarily decked so the cover could be removed for construction activities. The latter shaft would be used to extract TBMs and could be used to deliver materials to Chinatown Station. TBM extraction is estimated to take about a week for each TBM. At the conclusion of TBM extraction and material delivery, the shaft would be permanently decked, leaving no surface impacts. The running tunnels would not be finished out with track and other facilities, but could be used to store materials.

Light Rail Operating Plan – Alternative 3A

Light rail operations would be the same as identified under the EIS/EIR Enhanced Alignment (Alternative 2) as described in Section 2.1.3.

Bus Operating Plan – Alternative 3A

To make efficient use of the Central Subway light rail line, bus operations in the Corridor would be restructured. The Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A bus system would be the same as under the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment presented in Section 2.1.3.

Operating Statistics – Alternative 3A

A summary of operating statistics for Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A is presented in Table 2-4. Operating statistics would be the same as the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment for the diesel and trolley bus fleet (see Section 2.1.3). Train headways on the T-Third line would improve from the current nine minutes under existing conditions to seven minutes in the No Project/TSM Alternative and to [begin insertion] five [end insertion] [begin deletion] six [end deletion] minutes under the Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A. Even though there is an increase in route miles and service frequencies associated with the new Central Subway service, the result is an annual reduction of [begin insertion] 2,400 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 40,300 [end deletion] LRV car hours on the [begin insertion] Central Subway Corridor [end insertion] [begin deletion] T-Third line [end deletion] and a system-wide annual reduction increase of [begin insertion] 27,800 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 11,900 [end deletion] car hours when compared to the No Project/TSM Alternative. This is a result of the more direct alignment and faster travel time for this alternative.

TABLE 2-4

ANNUAL OPERATING STATISTICS

ALTERNATIVE 3 –FOURTH/STOCKTON ALIGNMENT OPTION A

 

 

Alternative	Peak Headways 9-X Line2	Diesel/Trolley Peak Demand ( [begin insertion] Systemwide [end insertion] [begin deletion] Fleet size [end deletion] ) 1	Total Annual Diesel/Trolley Bus Hours (Systemwide) 1	Peak Headways T-Third2	LRV Fleet Peak Demand3( [begin insertion] Systemwide [end insertion] [begin deletion] Fleet size [end deletion] ) [begin insertion] 1 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 3 [end deletion]	Total Annual LRV Car Hours [begin deletion] T-Line [end deletion] (Systemwide)
Existing (2007) T-Third	5 minutes	377 ( [begin insertion] 495 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 473 [end deletion] ) diesel buses; 225 ( [begin insertion] 333 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 331 [end deletion] ) trolley buses	2,592,230	9 minutes	[begin insertion] 118 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 119 [end deletion] (151) LRVs	[begin insertion] 84,800 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 109,400 [end deletion] [begin insertion] (568,500) [end insertion] [begin deletion] (570,200) [end deletion]
No Project/TSM (2030)	5 minutes	377 (495) diesel buses; 230 ( [begin insertion] 333 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 336 [end deletion] ) trolley buses	2,622,030	7 minutes	[begin insertion] 129 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 137 [end deletion] (171) LRVs	[begin insertion] 80,400 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 117,000 [end deletion] [begin insertion] (609,500) [end insertion] [begin deletion] (602,700 [end deletion]
Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A (2030)	5 minutes	377 (495) diesel buses; 219 ( [begin insertion] 333 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 336 [end deletion] ) trolley buses	2,545,630	[begin insertion] 5 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 6 [end deletion] minutes	[begin insertion] 127 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 139 [end deletion] (175) LRVs	78,000 [begin deletion] 76,700 [end deletion] [begin insertion] (581,700)(3) [end insertion] [begin deletion] (614,600) 3 [end deletion]

Notes: ¹ Source for 2007 bus equipment demand and bus hours is the Muni 2006-2025 Short Range Transit Plan, December 2005 and Dan Rosen, MTA, 2007. [begin deletion] Revised Dan Rosen, MTA, January 2008. [end deletion]

² Headway refers to the time between transit vehicles on a given line

³ Assumes one-car trains operating in the peak for the Central Subway on both the long and short lines [begin deletion] and two-car trains on the T-Third very short line [end deletion] .

 

Transit Fleet Requirements – Alternative 3A

Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A would require [begin insertion] four [end insertion] [begin deletion] three [end deletion] additional LRVs ( [begin insertion] three [end insertion] [begin deletion] two [end deletion] plus one spare) beyond the 2030 LRV fleet requirements for the No Project/TSM Alternative. In this scenario, Muni’s total LRV fleet size, including spares, would be 175 LRVs with [begin insertion] 127 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 139 [end deletion] LRVs in the peak period. The diesel bus fleet would [begin insertion] remain the same as the under [end insertion] [begin deletion] increase by 30 buses from [end deletion] [begin insertion] [end insertion] the existing conditions [begin insertion] and No Project/TSM (2030) Alternative, [end insertion] [begin deletion] in 2030, but [end deletion] [begin insertion] with [end insertion] the [begin insertion] same [end insertion] peak demand [begin deletion] would not change [end deletion] .

The trolley bus fleet would [begin insertion] remain the same [end insertion] [begin deletion] increase by five buses [end deletion] , but peak demand would be reduced by six trolleys over existing conditions and by eleven trolleys over the No Project/TSM Alternative.[5]

 The light rail maintenance facility, traction power distribution system, signaling and communication system, and fare collection system previously described for Alternative 2 in Section 2.1.2 would also apply to Alternative 3A.

Alternative 3 – Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option B (Modified LPA)

Alignment – Alternative 3B

Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option B would extend 1.7 miles north from the T-Third line terminus at Fourth and King Streets via Fourth and Stockton Streets to the Central Subway terminus in Chinatown. After stopping at the station platform on Fourth at King Streets, light rail would continue north on Fourth Street to a double-track portal between [begin insertion] Bryant [end insertion] [begin deletion] Perry [end deletion] and Harrison Streets under I-80 (see Figure 2-16).

There would also be three subway stations at Moscone, Union Square/Market Street, and Chinatown as in Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A (see Figure 2-17).

In order to accommodate light rail south of the portal, Fourth Street would be converted from one-way southbound to two-way traffic. Overhead wire for the 30-Stockton and 45-Union/Stockton electric trolley bus lines would be relocated from the east to the west side of Fourth Street. Existing bus stops would be retained on Fourth Street, just north of Bryant Street, and on Fourth Street, just north of Brannan Street. The trolleys would continue on a new turnaround loop via Brannan, Fifth and Townsend Streets to the existing bus terminal and loading zone on Townsend Street, just east of Fourth Street.

On Fourth Street, the LRVs would operate in one of two lane configuration sub-options: semi-exclusive or mixed-flow. In a semi-exclusive operation trains are physically separated from adjacent traffic except at intersections and at the surface station. In a mixed-flow operation trains and other vehicles share a trackway that is embedded in the street.

Fourth Street Surface Operation: LRVs in Semi-Exclusive Right-of-Way. This sub-option was developed to optimize Muni light rail and roadway operations. In this sub-option LRVs would operate between Fourth and King Streets to the portal under I-80 in a semi-exclusive double-track right-of-way, separated from adjacent traffic by six-inch curbs as shown in Figure 2-18. This sub-option would generally provide two southbound traffic lanes on Fourth Street.

Between King and Townsend Streets the tracks on Fourth Street would shift slightly to the east to accommodate three southbound traffic lanes west of the trackway and one northbound traffic lane east of the tracks. The street configuration from west to east would provide: a southbound right turn only traffic lane next to the Caltrain Terminal, two southbound traffic lanes, a semi-exclusive double-track median, and a northbound traffic lane. Bus loading zones would continue to be located on Townsend Street, just east of Fourth Street, for northbound buses and adjacent to the Caltrain Terminal for southbound buses.

 

FIGURE 2-16

ALTERNATIVE 3 –Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option B (Modified LPA)

 

fIGURE 2-17: FOURTH/stockton ALIGNMENT OPTION b profile

 

FIGURE 2-18: FOURTH/stockton ALIGNMENT OPTION b CONFIGURATION ON FOURTH STREET

Semi-Exclusive Right-of-Way

 

There are no existing parking spaces in this segment so none would be eliminated with this lane configuration sub-option.

On Fourth Street between Townsend and Brannan Streets, the rail line would continue semi-exclusive median operations. The street configuration from west to east would provide: two southbound traffic lanes, the semi-exclusive double-track median, and one northbound traffic lane. In this segment, [begin insertion] all [end insertion] [begin deletion] 18 out of [end deletion] 20 parking spaces on Fourth Street would be permanently eliminated. Just north of Brannan Street the tracks would spread to accommodate a center platform between Brannan and Freelon Streets. The street configuration from west to east would provide: a southbound traffic lane (vehicles only), a southbound mixed-flow trackway (vehicles and trains), a 14.5-foot platform, a northbound semi-exclusive trackway, and a northbound traffic lane (vehicles only) with a forced right turn at Bryant Street. The southbound trackway must be mixed-flow in this segment in order to maintain two lanes for southbound traffic. Between Brannan and Bryant Streets 29 out of 36 parking spaces on Fourth Street would be permanently eliminated.

North of the platform the tracks would come back together, crossing Bryant Street to a semi-exclusive right-of-way in the approach to the portal. The rail line would enter the subway portal in the median in a 360-foot retained cut located between Bryant and Harrison Streets. There would be three southbound traffic lanes next to the 27.5-foot portal entrance: two on the west side of the tracks and one on the east side of the tracks. Between Bryant and Harrison Streets, all of the 29 parking spaces on Fourth Street would be permanently eliminated.

Fourth Street Surface Operation: LRVs in Mixed-Flow. This sub-option was developed to increase the availability of parking, address traffic circulation issues, and enhance the streetscape with median landscaping. In this sub-option LRVs would operate between Fourth and King Street to the portal under I-80 in mixed-flow, with trains and vehicles sharing the double-track right-of-way. Three southbound traffic lanes would be provided during the peak between King and Bryant Streets. During the off-peak there would be two southbound lanes and parking on at least one side of the street. Between King and Townsend Streets, the LRVs would operate in mixed-flow, with trains and passenger vehicles using the trackway in both directions, in addition to three southbound traffic lanes and one northbound traffic lane for vehicular use only. The street configuration from west to east would provide: a southbound right turn only traffic lane next to the Caltrain Terminal (vehicles only), two southbound traffic lanes (vehicles only), a southbound mixed-flow trackway (vehicles and trains), a 6.5-foot planted median, a northbound mixed-flow trackway (vehicles and trains), and a northbound traffic lane (vehicles only) (see Figure 2-19). Bus loading zones would continue to be located on Townsend just east of Fourth Street for north-

 

FIGURE 2-19: FOURTH/stockton ALIGNMENT OPTION b CONFIGURATION ON FOURTH STREET

mixed Right-of-Way

 

bound buses and adjacent to the Caltrain Terminal for southbound buses. There are no existing parking spaces in this segment so none would be eliminated with this lane configuration sub-option.

On Fourth Street between Townsend and Brannan Streets, the rail line would continue median mixed-flow operations. The street configuration from west to east would provide: a 10-foot southbound peak tow-away lane (parking midday and evenings), a southbound traffic lane (vehicles only), a southbound mixed-flow trackway (vehicles and trains) a 6.5-foot planted median, a northbound mixed-flow trackway (vehicles and trains), and northbound traffic lane (vehicles only). In this segment 5 parking spaces would be eliminated on the west side of Fourth Street during the peak, but retained midday/evenings; 15 parking spaces would be permanently eliminated on the east side of Fourth Street.

Just north of Brannan Street the tracks would spread to accommodate a center platform between Brannan and Freelon Streets. The street configuration from west to east would provide: a southbound traffic lane (vehicles only), a southbound mixed-flow trackway (vehicles and trains), a 15-foot platform, a northbound mixed-flow trackway (vehicles and trains), and a northbound traffic lane (vehicles only) with a forced right turn at Bryant Street. Between Brannan and Bryant Streets [begin insertion] 33 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 29 [end deletion] out of 36 parking spaces on Fourth Street would be permanently eliminated. The surface platform displaces space for parking except the few spaces on the west side of Fourth Street, north of Freelon Street.

North of the platform, the tracks would come back together, crossing Bryant Street to a semi-exclusive right-of-way in the approach to the portal. The rail line would enter the subway portal in a 360-foot retained cut, located in the middle of the street between Bryant and Harrison Streets. There would be three southbound traffic lanes next to the 27.5-foot wide portal entrance: two on the west side of the tracks and one on the east side of the tracks. Between Bryant and Harrison Streets, all of the 29 parking spaces on Fourth Street would be permanently eliminated due to the portal structure.

The subway for Alternative 3B would continue under Fourth Street to the Moscone Station located between Folsom and Howard Streets (see Figure 2-20) [begin insertion] , the same as discussed for Alternative 3A on page 2-28 [end insertion] . [begin deletion] Like Alternative 3A, this station would have mezzanine and concourse levels and a platform level that would serve both northbound and southbound trains. The main station entrance (escalators, stairs, and two elevators), would be in the off-street property at 266 Fourth Street. The station would be shorter than the one proposed in Alternative 3A and the emergency exit would be provided on the west side of Fourth Street mid-block between Folsom and Howard Streets [end deletion] .

Immediately north of Howard Street, the alignment would descend and continue in a side-by-side configuration to permit a deep crossing of the Market Street Subway and an easement under buildings at 790-798 Market Street [begin deletion] /2 Stockton Street [end deletion] (Assessor’s Parcel [begin deletion] ’s [end deletion] #0328-002 [begin deletion] and 37052-001 to 004 [end deletion] ). Different from Alternative 3A above, Alternative 3B would have a combined Union Square/Market Street Station located on Stockton between Geary and Market Streets, with a platform centered on O’Farrell Street (see Figure 2-21). It would have a common

 

FIGURE 2-20: FOURTH/stockton ALIGNMENT OPTION B - Moscone station

 

FIGURE 2-21: FOURTH/stockton ALIGNMENT OPTION B - union square/market street station

 

mezzanine [begin deletion] and [end deletion] [begin insertion] ( [end insertion] concourse [begin insertion] ) [end insertion] and one platform level that would serve both northbound and southbound trains. The south end of the Market Street/Union Square Station would connect to the BART/Muni Metro Market Street Subways at the Powell Street Station using existing pedestrian entrances on Market Street and at the northwest corner entrance on Stockton and Ellis Streets. At the north end of the station the main entrance would be located at the southeast corner of Union Square on Geary Street just west of Stockton Street. The entry would include escalators and stairs. A site for as many as two elevators would be located off Stockton Street in the terrace near the corner at Geary Street. The station entrances would displace about 34 parking spaces in the Union Square Garage. A second set of stairs would be located in the sidewalk on the north side of Geary Street, just east of Stockton Street, behind an existing Muni bus stop. [begin deletion] Widening of the existing station access/egress on the north side of Ellis Street at One Stockton Street (the Apple Store) may require a bulb-out of the sidewalk, which would result in the elimination of three parking spaces and an existing street tree. [end deletion] Two emergency ventilation shafts would extend west of Stockton Street under Ellis Street, rising inside the air-well of the Ellis/O’Farrell Garage at 123 O’Farrell Street to a height of 26 feet above the garage roof. The emergency ventilation would be designed in cooperation with BART so as not to impact ventilation in the Powell Street Station. These vents would displace about 25 parking spaces out of a total of 950 spaces in the Ellis/O’Farrell Garage.

North of the Union Square station, the subway would continue in a bored tunnel under Stockton in a side-by-side configuration to the Chinatown terminus. This would permit the location of a station with a center platform, as well as a double crossover of tracks for train return in the opposite direction south of the platform. Twin storage tracks, capable of storing two two-car trains, would extend north of the station, about 60 feet beyond Jackson Street. Different from both Alternatives 2 and 3A, the Chinatown Station for Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option B would be located on Stockton Street between [begin insertion] Washington [end insertion] [begin deletion] Clay [end deletion] and Jackson Streets (see Figure 2-22). It would have a mezzanine [begin deletion] and [end deletion] [begin insertion] ( [end insertion] concourse [begin insertion] ) [end insertion] and one platform level for north and southbound trains. The main pedestrian entrance would be in a building that Muni would construct on the west side of Stockton Street south of Washington Street (933- [begin insertion] 935 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 949 [end deletion] Stockton Street, Assessor’s Parcel #0211-001) to accommodate escalators, stairs, two elevators, and two emergency ventilation shafts. Construction of the station entrance would require acquisition of the parcel and one building, and relocation of 8 businesses and 17 residential units that occupy the building. The Muni facility would require only one story. However, for the purposes of this analysis it is assumed to be part of a 65-foot high building as permitted under existing zoning. The vent shafts would rise 26 feet above the development roofline on the southwest end of the parcel. Emergency stairs would be provided by a sidewalk hatch located in an existing bulb-out on west side of Stockton Street between Washington and Jackson Streets. The bulb-out would be extended slightly to an overall length of 38 feet, eliminating [begin insertion] about one [end insertion] [begin deletion] two [end deletion] parking space [begin deletion] s [end deletion] .

 

FIGURE 2-22: FOURTH/stockton ALIGNMENT OPTION B - chinatown station

 

Station Locations – Alternative 3B

Fourth Street Alignment Option 3B would have three subway stations and one surface station, as listed in Table 2-5. The surface station would be located on Fourth Street north of Brannan Street to serve emerging development in the area. The surface station would be between 14 and 15 feet in width. The subway station platforms would be about 200 feet in length [begin deletion] (225 feet at Union Square/Market Street), [end deletion] [begin insertion] ( [end insertion] compared with 250 feet in Option 3A [begin insertion] ) [end insertion] , and 26 feet in width to accommodate two-car trains using high-floor LRVs. All subway station designs would accommodate fare gates and ticket vending machines (TVMs) per new Muni policy. All subway station platforms are single level with a mezzanine [begin deletion] and concourse [end deletion] level above to permit a deep crossing of Market Street.

TABLE 2-5

CENTRAL SUBWAY FOURTH/STOCKTON ALIGNMENT

OPTION B STATION LOCATIONS

 

Station	Type	Location
Brannan	Surface – Single Center Platform	Fourth Street between Brannan and Freelon Streets
Moscone	Underground – Single level center platform with a mezzanine [begin deletion] and [end deletion] [begin insertion] ( [end insertion] concourse [begin insertion] ) [end insertion] level above platform level.	Fourth Street between Folsom and Howard Streets
Union Square/Market Street	Underground -Single level center platform with a mezzanine [begin deletion] and [end deletion] [begin insertion] ( [end insertion] concourse [begin insertion] ) [end insertion] level above the platform level and a non-paid pedestrian level between Union Square and Market Street.	Stockton Street between Market and Geary Streets
Chinatown	Underground – Single level center platform and a mezzanine [begin deletion] and [end deletion] [begin insertion] ( [end insertion] concourse [begin insertion] ) [end insertion] level above the platform level.	Stockton Street between Washington and Jackson Streets

 

North Beach Tunnel Construction Variant – Alternative 3B

This variant would be the same as described above for Alternative 3A.

Light Rail and Bus Operating Plan – Alternative 3B

For the Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option B, both the light rail and bus operating plans would be the same as for Alternative 3A and Alternative 2 as described in Section 2.1.2.

Operating Statistics – Alternative 3B

The operating statistics for the diesel and trolley bus fleet for Central Subway Fourth Street Alignment Option B would be the same as Option A and the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment as described in Section 2.1.2. Table 2-6 summarizes the operating statistics for the Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option B. Rail headways on the T-Third line would improve from the current nine minutes under existing conditions to seven minutes in the No Project/TSM Alternative and to [begin insertion] five [end insertion] [begin deletion] six [end deletion] minutes under the Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option B (same as Option A). Even though there would be an increase in [begin deletion] LRV [end deletion] route miles and service frequencies associated with the new Central Subway service, the result [begin insertion] is [end insertion] [begin deletion] would be [end deletion] an annual

TABLE 2-6

ANNUAL OPERATING STATISTICS FOR

ALTERNATIVE 3 – FOURTH/STOCKTON ALIGNMENT OPTION B

 

Alternative	Peak Headways 9-X Line2	Diesel/Trolley Peak Demand ( [begin insertion] Systemwide [end insertion] [begin deletion] Fleet size [end deletion] ) 1	Total Annual Diesel/Trolley Bus Hours (Systemwide) 1	Peak Headways T-Third2	LRV Fleet Peak Demand3( [begin insertion] Systemwide [end insertion] [begin deletion] Fleet size [end deletion] ) [begin insertion] 1 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 3 [end deletion]	Total Annual LRV Car Hours [begin deletion] T-Line [end deletion] (Systemwide)
Existing (2007) T-Third	5 minutes	377 ( [begin insertion] 495 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 473 [end deletion] ) diesel buses; 225 ( [begin insertion] 333 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 331 [end deletion] ) trolley buses	2,592,230	9 minutes	[begin insertion] 118 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 119 [end deletion] (151) LRVs	[begin insertion] 84,800 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 109,400 [end deletion] [begin insertion] (568,500) [end insertion] [begin deletion] (570,200) [end deletion]
No Project/TSM (2030)	5 minutes	377 (495) diesel buses; 230 ( [begin insertion] 333 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 336 [end deletion] ) trolley buses	2,622,030	7 minutes	[begin insertion] 129 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 137 [end deletion] (171) [begin deletion] LRVs [end deletion]	[begin insertion] 80,400 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 117,000 [end deletion] [begin insertion] (609,500) [end insertion] [begin deletion] (602,700) [end deletion]
Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option B (2030)	5 minutes	377 (495) diesel buses; 219 ( [begin insertion] 333 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 336 [end deletion] ) trolley buses	2,545,630	[begin insertion] 5 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 6 [end deletion] minutes	[begin insertion] 130 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 140 [end deletion] (175) LRVs	[begin insertion] 86,400 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 78,000 [end deletion] [begin insertion] (590,100) 3 [end insertion] [begin deletion] (615,900) 3 [end deletion]

Notes: ¹ Source for 2007 bus equipment demand and bus hours is the Muni 2006-2025 Short Range Transit Plan, December 2005 [begin deletion] and Dan Rosen, MTA, 2007. Revised Dan Rosen, January 2008. [end deletion]

² Headway refers to the time between transit vehicles on a given line.

³ Assumes one-car trains operating in the peak for the Central Subway on both the long and short lines.

 

reduction of [begin insertion] 6,000 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 39,000 [end deletion] LRV car hours (compared with [begin insertion] 2,400 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 40,300 [end deletion] LRV car hours for Option A) on the [begin insertion] Central Subway Corridor [end insertion] [begin deletion] T-Third line [end deletion] and a systemwide annual [begin insertion] reduction [end insertion] [begin deletion] increase [end deletion] of [begin insertion] 19,400 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 13,200 [end deletion] car hours, compared to the No Project/TSM Alternative and the [begin insertion] 27,800 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 11,900 [end deletion] car hours for Option A, which has [begin insertion] a more direct alignment [end insertion] [begin deletion] one fewer stations [end deletion] and [begin deletion] a [end deletion] faster travel time.

Transit Fleet Requirements – Alternative 3B

Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option B would require four additional LRVs (three peak LRVs and one spare) beyond the 2030 requirements for the No Project/TSM Alternative. Muni’s total LRV fleet size, including spares, would be 175 LRVs and [begin insertion] 130 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 140 [end deletion] LRVs in the peak period, the same as Option A. The diesel bus fleet would [begin insertion] remain the same as [end insertion] [begin deletion] increase by 23 buses [end deletion] from the existing condition [begin deletion] in 2030 [end deletion] , but [begin insertion] and No Project/TSM fleets, with [end insertion] the [begin insertion] same [end insertion] peak demand [begin deletion] would remain the same [end deletion] . The trolley bus fleet would [begin insertion] remain the same [end insertion] [begin deletion] increase by five buses, [end deletion] [begin insertion] [end insertion] but peak demand would be reduced by six trolleys over existing conditions and by eleven trolleys over No Project/TSM.[6]

The light rail maintenance facility, traction power distribution system, signaling and communication system and fare collection system previously described for Alternative 2 in Section 2.1.2 would also apply to Alternative 3B.

[begin deletion]
[end deletion]

2.2 CAPITAL COSTS

2.2.1 Capital Cost Summary

The capital cost estimates were prepared for Alternative 2, Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment; Alternative 3, Fourth/Stockton Option A, LPA; and Alternative 3, Fourth/Stockton Option B, Modified LPA; and cover all components of the Project from the Initial Operating Segment (IOS) northerly terminus at King and Fourth Streets to Chinatown and for the LPA (Option 3A and 3B) North Beach Construction Variant extending non-operating tunnels beyond Chinatown Station to a construction shaft located on Columbus Avenue.

The estimate was developed using the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Guidelines for Preparation of a Capital Cost Estimate for New Starts Projects and is structured to follow the FTA Standard Cost Categories (FTA Standard Cost Categories for Major Capital Projects, Rev. 9, February 2007). The standard cost categories are shown in Table 2-7. Table 2-7 compares base capital costs in 2007 dollars (without escalation or finance charges).

Cost estimates for various components of the Project have been developed based on a breakdown of labor, permanent materials, construction materials, plant and equipment required to construct or install a component of the project, indirect costs and margin plus any additional subcontract costs and contingency. Included in the unit prices are cost allocations for utility relocation, mobilization/demobilization, traffic control, other sitework and special conditions, such as demolition, site clearance and disposal of contaminated ground. The capital cost estimate also has an allowance for public art at each of the stations. Prevailing labor rates used in building up the cost estimate are based upon Department of Industrial Relations Schedule of Labor Rates for Craftsmen in Northern California. Where appropriate, unit costs for some elements of the trackwork and systems installation are developed using historical data from MTA projects, including the IOS and other light rail projects around the country and location factored to the San Francisco area. All unit prices have been estimated in 2007 dollars.

Right-of-way and easement costs were provided by the City based on recent appraisals. Professional Services have been determined on a percentage of construction cost basis, including all subconsultants and engineering and administration by MTA. A design/estimating contingency allowance is included to cover design development, uncertain market conditions at the time of bids, and recognizes the preliminary engineering level of the project. The costs for four additional LRVs (three plus one spare vehicle) are based on recent MTA procurement costs. In accordance with FTA guidelines an unallocated

TABLE 2-7

CAPITAL COST SUMMARY (in $Millions)

 

	2007 Alternative 2	2007 Alternative 3A1	2007 Alternative 3B1
Guideway & Track Elements	$364	$248	$244
Station, Stops, Terminals, Intermodals	$376	$376	$325
Support Facilities: Yards, Shops, Admin. Bldgs.	--	--	--
Site Work & Special Conditions	$94	$70	$47
Systems	$118	$110	$94
Construction Subtotal	$952	$804	$710
Row, Land, Existing Improvements	$15	$20	$20
Vehicles	$21	$21	$21
Professional Services	$229	$202	$188
Unallocated Contingency	$97	$84	$75
Subtotal	$1,345	$1,131	$1,014

¹ Costs for Alternatives 3A and 3B do not include the North Beach Construction Variant which is estimated to cost $54 million in YOE dollars.

Source: PB/Wong 2007

contingency is included in the capital costs to cover unexpected changes/additions in the work scope and unanticipated costs above and beyond the assumed normal rates that occur during construction.

The estimates are based on design/bid/ build delivery with contract packages as follows:

· Utility Relocations

· Tunnels including TBM Procurement

· Chinatown Station with Crossover and Tail Track

· Union Square/Market Street Station

· Moscone Station

· Surface Platform [begin insertion] , [end insertion] [begin deletion] and [end deletion] Trackwork [begin insertion] , and Overhead Contact System [end insertion]

· Systems (Train Control, Traction Power, Communications [begin deletion] and Overhead Contact System [end deletion] )

Alternative 2 – Central Subway Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment

The original capital cost estimate for Alternative 2 was based upon an estimate for the EIS/EIR prepared in 2004 with enhancements added to the cost estimate in 2005. The costs indicated in Table 2-7 for Alternative 2 represent the base year estimate escalated to 2007 dollars in accordance with construction industry published escalation rates for the period 2004 to 2007. Adjustments were also made to the original 2004 estimate to reflect further definition of the project and consistency of unit prices with the later Alternative 3 estimates.

 

Alternative 3A – Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A (LPA)

The original capital cost estimate for Alternative 3A was based upon an estimate for the Project produced in 2005 and previously adjusted in 2006. The costs indicated in Table 2-7 for Alternative 3A represent the base year estimate escalated to 2007 dollars in accordance with construction industry published escalation rates for the period 2006 to 2007.

Alternative 3B – Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option B (Modified LPA)

The capital cost estimate for Alternative 3B was based upon an estimate for the project produced in 2007.

2.3 OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) COSTS

2.3.1 O&M COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY

The O&M cost model was developed based on Muni’s actual operating expenses for fiscal year 2005/2006. O&M cost calculations accounted for the level of Muni service provided for the No Project/TSM Alternative, the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment, and the Fourth/Stockton Alignment Options A and B. For each alternative, bus and light rail variables related to route miles, service frequencies, and travel times were derived from engineering and travel demand requirements. See Chapter 8.0 for detailed description of cost estimation methodology.

Operations inputs, such as revenue miles and hours per mode, were calculated independently using operating plans developed specifically for the Central Subway Project.

2.3.2 O&M COST SUMMARY

Table 2-8 summarizes the total operating and maintenance costs for the Muni system, broken out by vehicle type, for each alternative.

TABLE 2-8

OPEARATING AND MAINTENANCE COST SUMMARY

(millions $ / year of operating expenses)

 

 

	No Project	Alternative 2	Alternative 3A	Alternative 3B
2016	$707.9	$693.4	$693.0	$693.2
2030	$1,145.9	$1,122.3	$1,121.7	$1,122.1
Increment Over No Project/TSM
2016	N/A	($14.3)	($14.9)	($14.7)
2030	N/A	($23.6)	($24.2)	($23.8)

Source: MTA, May 2007.

 

2.4 project development history

Ten alternatives, encompassing diesel and electric buses and light rail vehicles with varied alignments and operating scenarios were considered during a multi-phase planning and screening process that preceded preparation of the Third Street Light Rail Project Final EIS/EIR. Through the initial screening process the alternatives evaluated in the 1998 EIS/EIR were reduced to No Project, No Build/TSM with enhanced bus service to meet demand, and a two-phased Light Rail Build Alternative that included a 5.4-mile Initial Operating Segment (IOS), now referred to as the T-Third Line, and a 1.7-mile Central Subway Project as shown in Figure 2-29. In 1998, the San Francisco Planning Commission certified the Final EIS/EIR and the San Francisco Public Transportation Commission (predecessor to the MTA) approved design and construction of the Third Street Light Rail Project in two phases. In 1999, the FTA issued a Record of Decision for the IOS, Phase 1 of the Project. The T-Third Line opened for full revenue service in April 2007. The Phase 2 Central Subway Project was put on hold by the Commission in 1999 pending development of a viable financial plan and incorporation into the RTP.

The Phase 2 Central Subway 1998 FEIS/FEIR Project (known as the Base Case) has been eliminated as an alternative because it is no longer a feasible project due to changes in City fire codes related to the vent shaft placement and Muni fare collection policy changes. It is defined here only as a point of reference.

The Base Case would have operated on both Third and Fourth Streets, south of Market Street. The line would have started at Fourth and King Streets, the terminus of the T-Third Light Rail Project. It would have operated as a surface line running northbound on Third Street and southbound on Fourth Street. There would have been a surface station on Third Street at King Street. The rail line would have transitioned from surface to subway operation at portals located between Brannan and Bryant Streets for both the Third Street and Fourth Street segments. Just north of Harrison Street, the Fourth Street rail line would have turned east to converge with the Third Street line and would have operated double-track from this point north. There would have been two subway stations in this Third Street segment, one between Folsom and Howard Streets and the other just south of Market Street. The rail line would have crossed Market Street in a shallow subway above the BART and Muni tunnels and connected to Geary Street via Kearny Street. The Market Street Station also included a pedestrian connection to the Montgomery Station.

The line would have followed Geary Street to Stockton Street where it would have turned north and continued on Stockton Street to a terminus at Jackson Streets. The two subway stations in the north of

 

FIGURE 2-29

Third street light rail

Phase 1 initial operating segment and phase 2 [begin deletion] 1998 feis/feir [end deletion] central subway

Market segment would have been located on Stockton Street at Union Square near Post Street and in Chinatown near Clay Street. All subway station entrances would have been located in public sidewalks. Station designs assumed Proof-of-Payment (POP) fare collection, which eliminated the need for fare gates, like those used on the Market Street Metro, at the mezzanine [begin deletion] /concourse [end deletion] level.

During preparation of the Third Street Light Rail Project EIS/EIR in 1997, there was a formal screening process to determine which options should be carried forward for evaluation in the EIS/EIR. Four key decisions were formulated in this process and summarized in the Design Options Screening Report, Working Paper #2:[7]

· [begin deletion] Decision 1 [end deletion] . Which alignment sub-options should be selected for: 1) Mission Bay (Third/King or 16th/I-280/King); 2) the Central Subway (Stockton/Geary or Kearny); and 3) the Downtown Surface Route (Market Street/Transbay Termi­nal or Washington Street/Chinatown)?

· [begin deletion] Decision 2 [end deletion] . Which Downtown alignment should be selected: Option 1 - Market Street Subway (integrated with Muni Metro); Option 2 - a New Central Subway through Downtown to Chinatown; or Option 3 - a Downtown Surface Route?

· [begin deletion] Decision 3 [end deletion] . Which Third Street configuration should be selected: two lanes, one/two flexible lanes, or one lane? Which LRV type (high floor or low floor); station platform height and configu­ration; and station locations should be selected?

· [begin deletion] Decision 4 [end deletion] . Which site should be selected for the new LRV maintenance and storage facility (Mission Bay, Cargo Way, or the former Western Pacific Rail Yard) and should the new LRV maintenance facility and the LRV acquisitions be phased?

The four key decisions were discussed at a series of about 120 meetings between October 1996 and July 1997. 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) narrowed the design options to be carried forward in the EIS/EIR on July 8, 1997. For the Light Rail Alternative, the PTC eliminated the 16th/I-280/King alignment through Mission Bay, the Central Subway alignment via Kearny Street, and the Downtown Surface Route via Market or Washington Streets.

The Final EIS/EIR was completed in 1998. On June 23, 1998, the San Francisco Public Transportation Commission selected the Third Street Light Rail project as the Locally Preferred Alternative including the Phase I Initial Operating Segment (now T-Third Line) and the Phase 2 Central Subway. On January 19, 1999, the San Francisco Public Transportation Commission approved the two-phased Third Street Light Rail Project. The PTC also approved two traffic lanes in each direction along Third Street, a new rail maintenance and storage facility at the former Western Pacific rail yard site and use of high platforms along the T-Third line, explicitly rejecting the use of low platforms or a hybrid version (low level with a high boarding area) that were not compatible with Muni’s existing high floor light rail vehicles or did not address accessibility concerns about having equal access at all doors. FTA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) on March 16, 1999, for the Phase 1 portion of the Project. Though no New Starts federal funds were used for the T-Third project phase, the ROD did permit acquisition of limited right-of-way for the Phase 2 Central Subway that was identified in the 1998 FEIS/FEIR. The ROD deferred approval of Phase 2 until the Central Subway was incorporated into the RTP and Project funding was identified.

The Phase 1 Third Street Light Rail Project was initially included in the MTC RTP as a locally-funded project. The IOS was supported by over $300 million (1997 dollars) in Proposition B local sales tax revenues and other non-New Starts funds. In 2001, the Third Street Light Rail project, including the Phase 2 Central Subway, was incorporated into the RTP as a project eligible for federal funds. The funding plan included a combination of local, regional and federal funds for implementation of the two project phases and noted that an updated cost estimate would be provided for the Central Subway following selection of the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) by the MTA.

2.4.1 Phase 2 Central Subway Conceptual Design

At the time the 1998 EIS/EIR alternative was conceived, a shallow excavation method was thought to be the most cost-effective construction approach for crossing Market Street, as there was sufficient room above the BART/Muni Metro Subway at Third and Market Streets to accommodate a shallow crossing. A shallow crossing at Fourth and Market Streets was not considered because of conflicts with the Powell Street Station structure. Because of a concern about the impact of surface construction and the circuitous alignment required for a shallow alignment, the Central Subway design team subsequently recommended consideration of a deep (rather than a shallow) tunnel crossing of Market Street at Third Street that would go below the existing Muni Metro and BART tunnels using Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs).[8]

Studies were also performed to evaluate several alternative surface-to-subway portal locations in the South of Market area.[9] The findings from the station design, construction methodology, portal location, and other studies were discussed at seven public meetings and five Third Street Light Rail Community Advisory Group (CAG) meetings beginning in 2003. The portal options and project construction methods were presented to the public in an August 2004 meeting. The options included: (1) two portals, a single-track portal on Third Street between Townsend and Brannan Streets, one block south of the original location, with a single-track portal remaining on Fourth Street between Brannan and Bryant Streets or (2) a single double-track portal on Fourth Street between Townsend and Brannan Streets that used a two-track alignment via Harrison, Third, Kearny, Geary, and Stockton Streets. The prevailing public preference was for a single double- [begin deletion] track [end deletion] portal on Fourth Street. Members of the public also suggested a Fourth Street alignment, which was possible using a deep crossing at Fourth and Market Streets. The meeting also discussed overall Project construction methods (TBM vs. Cut-and-cover/Special Excavation Method). The TBM concept was favorably received as an alternative to cut-and-cover since this approach reduces surface impacts such as noise, dust, and traffic effects and also reduces guideway construction time.

The “Special Alignment and Validation Studies,” finalized in June 2005, evaluated a Fourth/Stockton Alignment with a double-track portal on Fourth Street between Townsend and Brannan Streets and a deep crossing below the BART/Muni Metro Market Street subway at Fourth Street.[10] It maintained the Chinatown Station on Stockton Street in the vicinity of Clay Street, combined the Union Square and Market Street Stations with northern entries in the vicinity of Union Square and southern entries using BART/Muni Metro Powell Street Station entrances; and relocated the Moscone Station to Fourth Street between Howard and Folsom Streets. The Fourth/Stockton Alignment had improvements in transit and vehicular travel time and localized traffic circulation, particularly on Third Street. This alignment, which used TBM construction, also reduced surface-related construction impacts (noise, dust, traffic) as compared to the shallow construction method proposed for the 1998 EIS/EIR Alignment.

Based on results from these studies, the MTA approved the designation of the Fourth/Stockton Alignment as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) on June 7, 2005. This designation allowed the Fourth/Stockton Alignment, rather than the 1998 EIS/EIR Alignment, to be evaluated as the LPA in the FTA New Starts Program. [begin deletion] On February 19, 2008, the MTA, subsequent to publication of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, endorsed Alternative 3B as the LPA. [end deletion]

 

2.4.2 initiation of supplemental eis/eir

Preparation of an SEIS/SEIR was initiated in 2005 for the Phase 2 Central Subway refined alternatives. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) identifying alternatives to be evaluated in the SEIR was sent to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, responsible and trustee agencies, the Central Subway mailing list, and Corridor residents and occupants within a 300-foot band of the proposed alignments on June 3, 2005. Legal notice was also published in the San Francisco Chronicle, ads were placed in five Chinese daily newspapers, and flyers posted along the proposed alignments. In addition, the alternatives were presented for public comment at an EIR Scoping meeting conducted by MTA and the San Francisco Planning Department on June 21, 2005. A Notice of Intent was not required for the Central Subway SEIS.

2.4.3 Modifications to the Alternatives

During the 2005 Central Subway Scoping Process, many comments regarding the proposed changes to the Phase 2 Central Subway were received. (See Section 11.0 Coordination.)

Subsequent to the Scoping Process, an updated Project construction cost estimate was prepared that exceeded the proposed budget for the Project. A panel of construction experts working with the Project design team undertook a cost reduction analysis to identify ways of reducing the cost of the Project without compromising its overall purpose and need. [begin deletion] Surface alternatives along Third, Fourth, and Stockton Streets and continuing north to Fisherman’s Wharf were evaluated as part of this process, but were rejected from further evaluation in the Draft SEIS/SEIR because they had fewer benefits in terms of service reliability and greater impacts on parking and traffic. Though the capital costs were less for a surface alternative than for a subway alternative, the surface alternatives only minimally met the project purpose and need and resulted in higher operation and maintenance costs. [end deletion] [11]

In response to public input during Scoping and recommendations from the cost reduction effort, a new option for the Fourth/Stockton Alignment design was identified. The original Fourth/Stockton Alignment was designated Option A (LPA) and a modified Fourth/Stockton Alignment, described below, was designated as Option B (Modified LPA). The changes incorporated into the Option B (Modified LPA) Alternative are summarized below.

· The portal was moved to a location under the I-80 Freeway on Fourth Street between Bryant and Harrison Streets;

· The number of southbound traffic lanes on Fourth Street between Harrison and Bryant Streets was reduced from four to three to accommodate the new portal location. In addition, the four southbound

 

· lanes in the segment between Bryant and [begin insertion] King [end insertion] [begin deletion] Townsend [end deletion] Streets were reconfigured to two northbound and two southbound lanes. Two sub-options for the northbound and southbound light rail tracks were identified: operation in mixed-flow lanes or semi-exclusive right-of-way in the inner two lanes;

· The relocation of the portal from between Townsend and Brannan Streets to between Bryant and Harrison Streets allowed for an additional surface station on Fourth Street between Brannan and Bryant Streets. This station would be a center platform configuration with access from the Fourth and Brannan Streets intersection;

· The underground station platform lengths were reduced from 250 to 200 feet, and the platform widths were standardized at 26 feet to address cost concerns;

 

· The size of the combined Union Square/Market Street Station was reduced and the northerly pedestrian entry was moved to the southeast corner of Union Square at Geary and Stockton Streets;

· The Chinatown Station underground platform was moved a block north to Washington Street, a more central location in Chinatown, which would also result in a shallower and more easily accessible station with reduced station costs;

· Construction methods and phasing were changed to include the use of two rather than one TBM and to limit Union Square/Market Street Station construction to cut-and-cover as opposed to a combination of cut-and-cover and sequential excavation; and

· A construction variant extending tunnels north of the Chinatown terminus to the vicinity of Washington Square Park in North Beach was proposed to facilitate removal of the TBM following construction.

Following the first NOP in June 2005, Muni discovered that the NOP had not been distributed to property owners. Accordingly, on September 20, 2006, a revised NOP that presented details of Option B (Modified LPA) suggested by the public during the 2005 Scoping Process was sent to owners and occupants within a 300-foot band of the proposed Central Subway Project alignments. In addition, the revised NOP was sent to the San Francisco Planning Department’s standard EIR distribution list and the 2,500-name Central Subway Project mailing list. The key comments received in response to the second NOP are summarized in Chapter 11.0 Coordination.

2.4.4 Screening of Design Options/Alternatives Not Carried Forward

Alignment and Portal Location

As mentioned in Section 2.4.1, the “Portal and Surface Station Locations Study” evaluated several surface-to-subway portal locations. The relocation of the single-track portal from between Bryant and Brannan Streets on Third Street to the block between Townsend and Brannan Streets, as well as having a double-track portal on Fourth Street between Townsend and Brannan Streets that would use an alignment via Harrison, Third, Kearny, and Geary Streets, and then transitioning back to Stockton Street were both eliminated from further consideration in the SEIS/SEIR because of traffic, parking and disruption to adjacent properties. A double-track portal on Fourth Street between Townsend and Brannan Streets was selected as a design to go forward with. These options were discussed at public meetings in the summer and fall of 2004. The double-track portal on Fourth Street between Townsend and Brannan is now a part of Alternative 3 - Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A.

Tunnel Construction Methods

During conceptual engineering, a deep crossing of the BART/Muni Metro Market Street Subway at Third Street using a TBM to bore the northbound and southbound tunnels was considered for the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment. In this scheme the TBM would have been deployed between the single portals on Third and Fourth Streets and the intersection of Stockton and Geary Streets. This alignment would have passed under several properties between Third Street at Market Street and Stockton Street at Geary Street thus allowing for a straighter alignment compared to the surface construction alignment. From that point northward the Sequential Excavation Method (SEM) would have been used to reach the Chinatown terminus. The potential for incorporation of a deep Market Street crossing into the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment was evaluated in the “Special Alignment and Validation Studies.” The Third Street deep tunnel under Market Street was found to have a longer construction schedule and greater tunnel construction impacts to a sewer main, and higher costs, than a deep crossing on the Fourth/Stockton Alignment. These factors were discussed at public meetings in the summer and fall of 2004 and the deep crossing at Third and Market Streets was subsequently eliminated from further consideration in the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment when the Fourth/Stockton Alignment was selected as the LPA. A deep crossing of Market Street is proposed, as part of the Alternative 3 – Fourth/Stockton Alignment.

The use of a mega tunnel with a single large diameter bore for tunnels and stations was explored as an alternative to the twin tunnel construction method. Station access and ventilation shafts would be constructed via cut-and-cover techniques from the surface. The mega tunnel would require stacked stations that would push the platform levels to even greater depths. This tunneling concept was eliminated from further consideration because soil conditions are not optimal and settlement concerns would be greater with this approach, the larger TBM radii turns would impact more right-of-way requiring more costly right-of-way acquisition, and the platform depths would result in longer station access times for patrons. In addition, the deeper alignment under the BART/Muni Metro Market Street Subway would force the relocation of the Union Square/Market Street Station (UMS) for the Fourth/Stockton Alignment further north, creating a longer walk for passengers transferring to UMS from the BART/Muni Metro Powell Street Station.

Station Location

The station locations and the northern boundary of the Phase 2, Central Subway were initially established early in the Third Street Light Rail planning process as part of the Bayshore Transit Study completed in 1993 and incorporated into the Four Corridor Study prepared by the San Francisco Transportation Authority in 1995. The northern limit of the Third Street Light Rail Corridor was originally at California Street (Four Corridor Plan) and was later extended to Jackson Street, the northern project boundary analyzed in the 1998 EIS/EIR. The study limit of Jackson Street, established in the 1998 EIS/EIR, was important in distinguishing funding priorities for transportation corridors in the City and also for establishing the Project eligible for federal funding.

Under the 1998 EIS/EIR, all stations access points for the Project were provided in sidewalk areas within the public right-of-way. Early in the Phase 2 planning process for the Central Subway, station location and access studies were undertaken to evaluate the opportunities for locating station access points out of the public right-of-way to minimize disruption to the congested sidewalks and pedestrian traffic along the Project Corridor. At the same time, an alternative with a more direct alignment for the rail corridor, the Fourth/Stockton Alignment, was also being studied. When the NOP was issued in June 2005, off-street station locations had been incorporated in several locations into both the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment and the Fourth/Stockton Alignment. Further refinement of the station locations occurred between June of 2005 and summer of 2006 when the environmental process was reactivated. The northern boundary for the Project remained fixed at Jackson Street consistent with the 1998 EIS/EIR. Extending the Project boundaries northward would have required reinitiating the environmental process rather than preparation of a Supplemental EIS/EIR. The various station access points that were considered at each of the stations as part of this process are summarized below.

During conceptual engineering and public outreach discussed above, the San Francisco Planning Department and members of the public expressed concerns about the location of the Moscone Station on the Fourth/Stockton Alignment. Three locations for a Moscone Station were identified and discussed with the public at meetings in 2004 and 2005. The options included 1) Fourth Street between Howard and Folsom Streets, 2) Fourth Street between Folsom and Harrison Streets, and 3) Fourth Street between Howard and Folsom Streets with an additional subway station on Fourth Street south of Harrison Street. A member of the public and the cost reduction panel suggested a fourth option locating the station on Fourth Street between Mission and Howard Streets. The second and third options were developed in response to the Planning Department’s concern about serving the anticipated development on Fourth Street, south of Harrison Street and north of the Fourth/King station. The second Moscone Station location on Fourth Street between Folsom and Harrison Streets was eliminated from further consideration in this SEIS/SEIR because of potential safety conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians at the freeway ramps and a lack of public support expressed at meetings in the summer and fall of 2004.[12] The third option was eliminated due to the cost of an additional subway station on Fourth Street between Brannan and Bryant Streets. However, when Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option B (Modified LPA) was developed a surface station was added at that location. The fourth option between Mission and Howard Streets was eliminated due to the conflict with a [begin deletion] n [end deletion] [begin insertion] major [end insertion] [begin deletion] eight-foot diameter [end deletion] sewer [begin deletion] transport [end deletion] line on Fourth Street [begin insertion] in this area [end insertion] [begin deletion] between Howard and Mission Streets [end deletion] , and station spacing concerns given the proximity of the Moscone Station between Mission and Howard Streets and a Union Square/Market Street Station between Market and Geary Streets. [begin deletion] The sewer transport line was recently relocated to this block of Fourth Street specifically to provide a connection to Moscone Center, so moving the major sewer line is not feasible due to its size and service connection to Moscone Center. The eight-foot diameter of the sewer line, which would penetrate a station at this location, would preclude simple design solutions. In addition, shifting the station north to Mission Street would cause greater overlap of the Union Square/Market Street Station service areas and would create a service gap between the Fourth and King Station and Mission Street, thereby serving a smaller population and employment base in South of Market. [end deletion]

In Union Square, merchants expressed concerns in meetings held during 2004 and 2005 about the narrowing of sidewalks in the busy retail core and the potential impacts on businesses adjacent to subway entrances. The redesigned Union Square Plaza was identified for potential access to the Union Square Station for the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment and was favorably received by the business community and civic organizations. This station access proposal was incorporated into the Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A and later refinements to Union Square Station access were incorporated into Alternative 3B.[13],[14]

Early in the process of exploring off-street locations for the Chinatown Station, the project team did a site walk of Chinatown with community members. Four potential off-site locations were identified for locating an entrance to the station centered on Clay Street: 1) the southwest corner of Stockton and Sacramento Streets intersection (777 Stockton Street); 2) the east side of Stockton Street north of Sacramento Street (814-828 Stockton Street); 3) the north side of Clay Street, west of the Stockton Street intersection (910-918 Clay Street); and 4) mid-block on the east side of Stockton Street between Jackson and Pacific Streets (site located in Ping Yuen Housing Complex at 799 Pacific). These sites were identified and evaluated based on factors such as building size and heights (one to two-story buildings were preferred to minimize neighborhood disruption), ability to accommodate station facilities and vent shafts (regulations governing vent shaft locations were updated to require off-sidewalk locations that discharge 10 feet above the adjacent surface), accessibility, constructability, business and residential displacement, development potential, possible environmental impacts, and consistency with Project boundaries established in the 1998 EIS/EIR. The 814-828 Stockton Street site emerged as the preferred site. The parking structure at 777 Stockton Street was eliminated from consideration because of its small size, which restricted the ability to accommodate the station entrance/exits and the vent shafts and to retain existing residential uses on the property. The 910-918 Clay Street site was eliminated from further consideration also because of its small size, which restricted the ability to accommodate the station facilities and the vent shaft, the community organizations located in the building that would be affected, and because of its accessibility to Stockton Street. The steep grades on Clay Street, in combination with the distance from Stockton Street, made this site less accessible to subway patrons than others under consideration. The Ping Yuen site was eliminated due to its location two blocks away from the station and beyond the established Study Area limit established for the Project in the 1998 EIS/EIR and the northern limit distinguishing the corridor for funding priority in the Four Corridor Plan. Further restrictions on this site included: a 12-foot drop from street level to the site, no access for construction and staging areas, displacement of an existing child care center on the site, and impacts to residents of the public housing occupying the site.

In community meetings that were held subsequent to the publication of the initial NOP in 2005, the meeting participants suggested that the Chinatown station site be moved closer to the heart of the Chinatown business district. Based on further assessments and screening, two additional access points were evaluated at that time in conjunction with a subway station site between Clay and Washington Streets: the southwest corner of the Stockton and Washington Streets intersection (933-949 Stockton Street) and the east side of Stockton Street, south of Washington Street (944-960 Stockton Street). The 944-960 Stockton Street site was eliminated from further consideration as it only afforded limited access through the basement of the existing Mandarin Towers building constraining the amount of space available for station entrances/exits and vent shafts. Thus only the 933-949 Stockton Street site was incorporated into the Fourth/Stockton Alignment, Option B. Both the two story building at 933-949 Stockton Street, near Washington Street, and the two story building at 814-828 Stockton Street near Sacramento Street are being carried forward for analysis in the SEIS/SEIR.

2.5 Role of the SEIS/SEIR

2.5.1 approval process

The purpose of the SEIS/SEIR is to examine alternative transit improvements in the Central Subway Corridor in terms of their potential environmental and social-economic impacts and to compare the alternatives based on the following Project goals: 1) improve travel and mobility for transit riders; 2) improve transit access to employment opportunities and to other areas of the City and region; 3) enhance physical environment while minimizing adverse environmental impacts; 4) ensure compatibility with transit-supportive policies; 5) implement a financially feasible [begin deletion] project [end deletion] ; and 6) gain community acceptance and support from City officials.

In addition to describing potential adverse impacts and mitigation measures associated with each alternative, the Draft SEIS/SEIR describes the trade-offs among the No Project/TSM and the Central Subway Alternatives according to these goals. The information will be used by local decision makers and the FTA to determine which alternative would have the least environmental effects and would be the most cost-effective and beneficial to the community, which would have the strongest local support, and which would be within the financial capacity of the local project sponsor, MTA, to implement.

A 45-day public comment period on the Draft SEIS/SEIR allows the public and interested agencies the opportunity to cite concerns about the environmental analysis and evaluation of alternatives. The public comment period also offers the opportunity for the public to provide input to the MTA on the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). Following the selection of the [begin insertion] Preferred Investment Strategy [end insertion] [begin deletion] LPA [end deletion] , the Final SEIS/SEIR will be completed. The Final SEIS/SEIR will incorporate and provide a summary of the comments and responses received during the public review process for the Draft SEIS/SEIR, and may provide additional information on the LPA.

FTA and the San Francisco Planning Commission will review the Final SEIS/SEIR to determine if all issues and/or comments received on the Draft SEIS/SEIR have been addressed and if the document meets the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and California Environmental Quality Act, respectively. In addition, FTA will determine if interagency agreements, developed as committed project mitigation measures, have been completed. The Planning Commission will be asked to certify the Final SEIR as complete and fulfilling the requirements of CEQA.

After FTA [begin deletion] ’s [end deletion] review is completed, a Draft Record of Decision is prepared. The Final SEIS will be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which places a notice of availability of the Final SEIS for public review in the Federal Register. Additionally, the Final SEIS is distributed to agencies that have previously commented on the Draft SEIS/SEIR. No less than thirty days after the notice of availability is published in the Federal Register, FTA may sign the Record of Decision. The San Francisco MTA can then request from FTA a “Letter of No Prejudice,” which states that local funds used to construct Phase 1 of the Third Street Light Rail Project may serve as a local match for New Starts federal funding for the Phase 2 Central Subway Project.

2.5.2 Required permits and approvals

Permits and approvals involving local, state, and federal agencies will be required prior to Project implementation. A list of these major approvals is provided in Table 2-9.

 

 

Table 2-9 -Agency approvals

 

Agency	Approval or Permit
Department of Interior	Section 4(f) approval.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation	Approval of Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) describing procedures for protection of and mitigation of impacts to historic and cultural resources pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and 36 CFR 800.
California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)	Finding of Effect Determination.
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)	Permits required for all at-grade or grade-separated railroad, highway, and street crossings as well as pedestrian crossings of light rail and railroad tracks; public hearings before the CPUC may also be required; a formal application to conform with CPUC Rules of Practice and Procedure (CPUC Code Section 1200) is required; a formal application requesting permission to deviate from the established CPUC General Order (G.O.) standard (such as those regarding the height requirements for overhead wires) must be submitted and approved by the CPUC.
Caltrans	Access Control Properties Review. Permit to Encroach on Caltrans Right-of-Way.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and California Transportation Commission	Consistency with RTP and STIP.
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)	[begin insertion] Amendment of [end insertion] [begin deletion] Consistency with the 1986 Muni/BART [begin insertion] j [end insertion] Joint [end deletion] [begin insertion] use [end insertion] [begin deletion] Station Maintenance [end deletion] [begin insertion] a [end insertion] [begin deletion] A [end deletion] greement [begin deletion] , First Supplement [end deletion] [begin insertion] for Powell Street station entries [begin deletion] , [end deletion] [end insertion] [begin deletion] and execution of the 2008 Station Improvement Coordination Plan [end deletion] .
Regional Water Quality Control Board	General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)	Conformity determination.
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission	Batch Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit required for dewatering affluent discharge to the combined sewer system providing the quality of the effluent meets the NPDES General Permit discharge standards.
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency	Approve Project. Request from FTA a “Letter of No Prejudice” for New Starts federal funding. Approval required for surface street changes, traffic operation changes, traffic control measures, and on-street parking changes.
San Francisco Department of Public Health	Review and acceptance of site remediation plan in Maher Ordinance Area – Article 20.
San Francisco Planning Commission	General Plan Review/Referral for all aspects of project which occur in public rights-of-way, and amendments to appropriate portions of General Plan, Transportation Elemen [begin deletion] t, and Planning Code [end deletion] .
San Francisco Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board	Section 106 Review and Approval, review of SEIS/SEIR and Historical Architectural Report.
San Francisco Department of Public Works	Approval required for construction in streets and changes to sidewalk widths.
San Francisco Redevelopment Commission	Project review required for portions within existing Redevelopment Project Areas and, if adopted by the Board of Supervisors, within the proposed Redevelopment Areas. No approvals are needed for constructing light rail.
San Francisco Department of Recreation and Parks	Section 4(f) de minimis approval. Prop. K review and approval for shadow analysis. [begin insertion] Long-term encroachment permits for Union Square plaza. [end insertion]
San Francisco Arts Commission	Approval of the Public Arts Element and Civic Design.
San Francisco Board of Supervisors	Approval of General Plan [begin deletion] and Planning Code [end deletion] amendments. Adoption of Redevelopment Plan amendments. Approval of property acquisitions, including eminent domain. Approvals required for use of City rights-of-way and Park property.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority	Review and inclusion of the project in the Countywide Transportation Plan and Capital Improvement Program of the Congestion Management Program for San Francisco funding.

 

 

---

 

[1] The possible future Geary subway project is not part of the Central Subway Project and is not analyzed in the Central Subway SEIS/SEIR. The Geary project would be subject to an independent environmental analysis in the future should a project be defined and funding identified.

[2] Any proposal for transit-oriented development on this site would be subject to independent environmental review once a specific proposal is defined.

[3] San Francisco Municipal Railway, EIR Supplemental Final Revised Light Rail and Bus Transit Operating Plan, August 6, 2006.

[4] Other portal locations along Stockton Street and Union Street would have impacts to traffic and access to local businesses.

[5] San Francisco Municipal Railway, EIR Supplemental Final Revised Light Rail and Bus Transit Operating Plan, August 6, 2006.

[6] San Francisco Municipal Railway, EIR Supplemental Final Revised Light Rail and Bus Transit Operating Plan, August 6, 2006.

[7] San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and Municipal Railway, Design Options Screening Report Working Paper #2, April 1997.

[8] San Francisco Municipal Railway, “Recommended Tunnel Construction Methods Report,” March 16, 2004.

[9] San Francisco Municipal Railway, “Portal and Surface Station Locations Study,” December 23, 2004

[10] PB/Wong and San Francisco Municipal Railway, “Special Alignment and Validation Studies,” June 30, 2005.

[11] [begin deletion] PB/Wong for Muni, FINAL DRAFT, Task 1.72-01, Conceptual Alternative Downtown Rail Alignment Study Volume 1, Summary Report, Revision Oc, March 20,2006. [end deletion]

[12] PB/Wong and San Francisco Municipal Railway, “Working Paper Task 1.60-11 Additional Station Location and Access Studies, Revision”, May 24, 2005.

[13] Ibid.

[14] PB/Wong and San Francisco Municipal Railway, “Summary Report Task 1.60.4 Special Alignment and Validation Studies” Revision 0, June 30, 2005.