San Francisco's Transbay Terminal, as sober and utilitarian as the Bay Bridge which feeds it a steady stream of buses, could be transformed like Cinderella's coach into a bright and airy terminal which would also house shops, restaurants, and perhaps a hotel and conference center. Plans presented to regional transportation agencies during the past few months would create a regional transportation hub which would also serve as a landmark in downtown San Francisco, similar to grand railroad stations in other large cities.
The design concept, nicknamed "Great Expectations" during the evaluation phase of the planning project, would remove the current three-story terminal and replace it with a "signature" five-story building. The new terminal would include space for MUNI, SamTrans, and some Golden Gate Transit vehicles at ground level. The second floor would include ticket windows for buses, and vendors such as newstands, flower shops and cafes. The third and fourth floors would accommodate buses, including AC Transit, Greyhound and other private providers. Below ground level, space would be available for future electrified Caltrain service and high-speed rail. A glass roof would brighten the terminal's interior spaces and give passengers views of surrounding downtown buildings.
In conjuction with joint development projects proposed for surrounding land now occupied by the terminal or its ramps, the new terminal area could include offices, retail, and gathering places such as an education center or a conference center. Mixed-use or residential development is also a possibility, in keeping with the trend toward transit-oriented development. The area is within walking distance of the Financial District, BART, the Ferry Building and Pac Bell Park.
The terminal building at First and Mission streets was built in the 1930s, and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It serves thousands of East Bay bus riders daily, and occupies a strategic location in the downtown. Two years ago, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) began a study of the Terminal's future, the Transbay Terminal Improvement Plan project. (See Nov/Dec 1998 issue)
In addition to selecting consultants, BATA established a working group, the Transbay Panel. The Panel's Executive Committee consists of both an executive staff representative and a policy board member from AC Transit, the City of San Francisco, the Caltrain Joint Powers Board, Caltrans and MTC. It also includes a wide range of other stakeholders, including transit agencies, city departments, and bus rider coalitions (see below). After determining a set of criteria for development of design concepts, the Panel reviewed and evaluated the three alternatives which were developed, and compared them to a renovation of the existing terminal building.
The panel was presented with the "Great Expectations" alternative and two others, "Our Mutual Friend" and "Tale of Two Cities". The first, "Our Mutual Friend" included bus ramps entering the terminal at one end and exiting at the other, similar to the current configuration. This design put the trains above ground on one level and buses on a second level. "Tale of Two Cities" was designed with underground rail and a single-level loop configuration for buses, with the station spread along the entire loop, a space approximately 3 blocks long. It envisioned multiple street access points for passengers, and retail interspersed with bus bays along the interior station corridor areas. A final, unnamed alternative, terminal renovation, would have no rail facilities and would keep the existing bus loop design.
The design concepts were then assessed and compared in three areas: bus and rail operations, project costs, and potential for joint development. Criteria for these assessments had been agreed upon in earlier panel discussions. All of the alternatives, except renovation, satisfied the needs for bus and rail service defined in the criteria.
Costs for building a new terminal and providing all the other components such as ramps, a temporary terminal and bus storage ranged from about $700-900 million for "Our Mutual Friend" and "Great Expectations" to over $1 billion for "Tale of Two Cities". (In addition, the terminal will require at least $13 million per year to operate.) "Great Expectations" offered the greatest possibility of offsetting some expense with joint development. Renovation was significantly less expensive than building a new terminal, but lacked accommodation for rail service and the potential for joint development.
Based on these comparisons, the panel selected the "Great Expectations" alternative and BATA allocated funds in February 2000 to continue concept planning. The result was a stunning glass-and-steel design which received enthusiastic reviews from the AC Transit board of directors in July and from BATA in September. Many panel participants were already supportive of the project because of the terminal's potential to create a true transit connection in downtown San Francisco. Other policy makers and the public now had the opportunity to consider how such a building could realize some of the other goals set for the new terminal, including being a neighborhood asset.
At its September meeting, BATA agreed to add $1.1 million to the $2.5 million already invested in the planning, to move into the next phase, including environmental analysis, financing and governance. Key issues for environmental analysis are changes in parking and traffic in the congested South of Market area, as well as air quality impacts if transit use increases. Additional discussions are also needed on details such as when and where new bus storage areas will be developed.
Some funding is already allocated or available for financing the terminal construction. Joint development on the publicly owned land around the current building could raise around $350 million, although limits on office development could reduce this amount. Federal and state funds, including money Caltrans would otherwise spend on renovations, plus toll revenues designated by BATA for the project, would add approximately $95 million. The remainder, estimated between $400-450 million, could potentially come from an extension of the bridge toll now scheduled to expire in 2008, or from other state and federal funds.
Any potential funding source which requires state legislation, such as a bridge toll extension, will require a unified effort from Bay Area transportation agencies. Such an effort appears likely, because commuters in at least five Bay Area counties would benefit. Panel members note that BATA has brought stakeholders together more successfully than previous Transbay Terminal planning groups, resulting in a stronger consensus on how to proceed. A more difficult issue may be the governance of the new facility. Caltrans currently operates the terminal, but is reluctant to continue this role when the new building begins to serve an enlarged group of transit agencies and retailers. One option may be formation of a joint powers authority by most or all of the agencies which would use the terminal, building on the cooperation already in place.
As the planning process moves forward, the proposed terminal is becoming a factor in long-range planning by the region's transit agencies as well as San Francisco itself. Environmental analysis is being timed to allow the information to be used in the decision process for Caltrain electrification. A recent BART strategic planning workshop touched on the potential for BART to use the terminal in some way for expanded transbay rail or extended San Francisco routes. Parking and traffic patterns are being considered by San Francisco planners. The "great expectations" for the terminal are already preparing the Bay Area to take full advantage of this revitalized transit hub.
Leslie Stewart
Steering Committee (one staff, one policy board member from each agency):
Other members:
For more information:
Rod McMillan, MTC, 510-817-3260; e-mail, rmcmillan@mtc.ca.gov
Quality of life is often cited as a reason for the Bay Area's economic success. As further proof that the environment and the economy are interdependent, a study was recently released by the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) which quantifies the value of many amenities provided by regional parks.
The report, "Quantifying Our Quality of Life", which was prepared for EBRPD by Economic & Planning Systems, measures the benefits provided by the park district to residents of the East Bay and beyond. It seems difficult to put a price on the freedom of walking along a ridgeline trail, the thrill of seeing a bird never seen before, or the quiet pleasure of watching a toddler build sandcastles at the edge of the Bay. These are some of the intangible benefits of our regional parklands. However, amenities have value like other infrastructure, and can be treated the same way in economic analysis, although some are more easily quantifiable than others.
Property values, agricultural production, "user utility" and replacement value of parklands are some of the most easily quantified benefits.
There are other types of public benefits from parklands. Land maintained in the natural state helps the region to avoid impacts of development and provides environmental benefits which are harder to quantify.
A final set of benefits includes the money spent in the region because of the existence of the park district.
The most difficult benefit to quantify, yet perhaps the most important one, is quality of life. Part of the quality of life in a region can be measured in the same way as the benefits of parks, by looking at property values, the value of recreational experiences, and environmental resources. Part of it is measured by indicators which may indirectly relate to the presence of parks—traffic congestion from urban growth unshaped by open space and greenbelts, air and water quality which is improved because of land preserved in its natural state. "The provision by the District of parks, open space, and trails, and associated recreational and educational opportunities, environmental and cultural preservation, alternative transit modes, and sprawl-limiting characteristics all form part of the strong quality of life in the East Bay", the report concludes, without assigning a monetary value to this benefit.
The district will be challenged in the future, however, by growth and increased requirements for habitat preservation and management. Demographic shifts will bring an older, more ethnically diverse population. At the same time, newcomers will expect the quality of life they first encountered to be maintained, placing pressure on the district to provide new services and expand existing parks and trails. A full understanding of the role the parks play in both the environment and the economy of the region will be important as the district moves ahead to face these challenges.
Leslie Stewart
For more information:
Copies of the 63-page report "Quantifying Our Quality of Life", or the 24-page executive summary, are available from the EBRPD Public Information Department at 510-544-2200. The report can be downloaded from the EBRPD Website, http://www.ebparks.org
Under the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) of 1988, air districts in areas that have not met the health-based state air quality standards must prepare clean air plans to attain them, and update the plans every 3 years. A public hearing is scheduled on December 20 for the proposed 2000 Clean Air Plan (CAP), which is being prepared by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District). At an Air District workshop in October the draft CAP and Proposed Addendum to the 1991 Clean Air Plan Environmental Impact Report (prepared for the 2000 CAP) were presented for public consideration and comment.
The 2000 CAP is an ozone attainment plan aimed at reducing emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (Nox), which react together in sunlight to form ground-level ozone. Trends in ozone levels have shown a steady improvement since the passage of the CCAA, although wide fluctuations in the weather from day to day and year to year have obscured the trend at times. In 1998, the national 1-hour ozone standard of 12 parts per hundred million (pphm) was exceeded on 8 days and the state standard of 9 pphm was exceeded on 29 days; during 1999, the national standard was exceeded on 3 days and the state standard on 20 days. As of September 21, 2000, the national standard had been exceeded on 3 days and the state standard on 11 days in the Bay Area.
Records from monitoring stations also show that peak ozone levels on the days when the standards were exceeded are diminishing each year. This means that the exposure of the Bay Area's population to unhealthful amounts of ozone has been reduced by 68 percent since 1988.
To comply with the requirements of the CCAA, the CAP includes an inventory of the sources of air pollution in the Bay Area, ozone trends reflecting the reduction in ozone levels at monitoring sites, and a description of the control measures that have been implemented. Also included are control measures in the 1997 CAP that will be carried over, those that will be deleted, proposed new measures, the control strategy with a proposed implementation schedule, and a discussion of future planning beyond 2003 when the next update is scheduled. Information on the CAP's effect on particulate matter (PM) is also included. This is because the health effects of PM are serious and control measures that reduce emissions of the precursors of ozone also reduce PM emissions.
The emissions inventory is intended to be a planning tool rather than an accurate measure of pollutants emitted. Some sources of pollution can be measured directly, but most must be estimated by a variety of methods that have varying degrees of accuracy. For example, a comparison of emissions from a given source in the 2000 inventory may not agree with the data for the same source in the inventory in the 1997 CAP, because improved techniques for estimating emissions are showing that earlier inventories may have underestimated some emissions.
For the year 2000, the emissions inventory estimates that 550 tons of ROG, 561 tons of NOx, and 174 tons of PM per day are being emitted. Of the stationary sources of air pollution that are regulated by the Air District, industrial and commercial sources are responsible for 5 percent of the ROG emissions, 1 percent of the NOx, and 9 percent of the PM. Petroleum products and solvent evaporation contributes 25 percent of the ROG. Combustion from stationary sources adds 1 percent of the ROG, 17 percent of the NOx, and 25 percent of the PM. (These numbers may change in the final CAP.)
Mobile source combustion emissions and consumer products are not under the regulatory jurisdiction of the Air District but contribute to ozone and PM emissions. On-road vehicles are responsible for 45 percent of the ROG, 46 percent of the NOx, and 0.5 percent of the PM. Off-road vehicles, entrained road dust, aircraft, consumer products, and other sources add 24 percent of the ROG, 36 percent of the NOx, and 61 percent of the PM.
Fifteen stationary source control measures in the 1997 CAP have been implemented. Fifteen measures from the 1997 CAP are recommended for deletion, including some that have been proved not to be feasible or cost-effective, or would result in insignificant emissions reductions. All 19 transportation control measures are partially implemented and will be retained. Two mobile source measures were expanded: the Vehicle Buy-Back Program and the Smoking Vehicle Program. The Air District has also approved a Carl Moyer program to replace diesel engines in marine vessels and locomotives with low emission engines and an expanded lawn mower buy-back program to promote the use of electric lawnmowers.
The 2000 CAP must contain all feasible control measures that can be implemented expeditiously. Besides the measures carried forward from the 1997 CAP, the Air District has identified four new measures in the 2000 CAP. These measures would reduce emissions from automobile refinishing coatings, wood products coatings, concrete coating operations, and residential water heaters.
A comprehensive revision of the CAP is expected to be made in 2003. By then, the findings of the Central California Ozone Study will be available to provide data to improve ozone modeling capabilities and to improve the identification of emissions reductions necessary to meet clean air standards.
The Air District will be studying the following areas to determine whether control measures may be developed that would produce significant emissions reductions and would be feasible:
Any of these areas that prove to be promising may be considered for future CAPs.
Besides the CAP to attain the state ozone standards, the Air District must also prepare plans to attain national air quality standards. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved new national standards for ozone, PM, and regional haze. The state Air Resources Board has determined from monitoring data that the Bay Area has not attained the new national 8-hour ozone standard. The Air District, therefore, expects to prepare an attainment plan for this standard in 2003.
However, a lawsuit before the US Supreme Court contesting the validity of the new standards complicates the matter. The schedule and requirements of the ozone plan have not been set, and the determination of the nonattainment areas for the new PM standard has been delayed pending the outcome of the lawsuit. The EPA is expected to review the PM standard in 2002.
Adelia Sabiston
For more information:
The draft Clean Air Plan is available online at http://www.baaqmd.gov/planning/cap/aqp.htm
For the Spare the Air Tonight advisory and to receive a free copy of the Woodburning Handbook, call the Air District at 1-800-HELP-AIR.
Thanks to mild summer weather, with onshore breezes and few hot days, the Bay Area experienced one of its cleanest ozone seasons. During the smog season, from June 1 to October 15, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District) called only 5 Spare the Air advisories, on days when it expected that air pollution would reach unhealthful levels.
This year, the national 1-hour ozone standard of 12 parts per hundred million (pphm) was exceeded on 3 days, on June 14 and 15 and July 31, the same number of exceedances as in 1999. The state ozone standard of 9 pphm was reached on 12 days, compared with 20 days in 1999. The new national 8-hour average ozone standard of 8 pphm was exceeded on 4 days, compared with 9 days in 1999.
On Spare the Air days, people are asked to curtail their driving and other air polluting activities. An e-mail survey by the Air District showed that 37.5 percent of those surveyed reduced their driving or did not drive for air quality reasons. Of this group, 12.5 percent worked at home or telecommuted, 19.5 percent switched to public transit, and 13.5 percent used carpools or vanpools.
The wintertime Spare the Air Tonight Program alerts people to evenings when air pollution levels are expected to be high and asks that woodburning stoves and fireplaces not be used.
The Regional Agencies Smart Growth Strategy (see Aug/Sept 2000 issue) is now being coordinated with the Bay Area Alliance's Regional Livability Footprint project. The overall goal for the combined Work Plan is to achieve support among public officials, civic leaders and stakeholder organizations regarding a preferred land use pattern that will guide how the Bay Area could grow over the next 20 years. Workshops and extensive outreach to local governments will be used to develop this support; they will also contribute to maps indicating which areas could be available for various types of development, and which areas are environmentally important and need to be preserved or enhanced. Finally, a set of implementation actions and incentives will be developed for local governments and regional agencies to guide them in implementing desired land use changes.
Staff for the Regional Agencies are developing a pool of qualified consultants and technical experts who may be used to assist the combined project in planning, developing and facilitating the workshops and analyzing the results. The Bay Area Alliance will be developing a similar pool to analyze alternative scenarios other than the single Smart Growth alternative which will be considered by the Regional Agencies, and also to compile the results of the public education and feedback process through the media following the workshops. At its October meeting, the Regional Agencies Steering Committee received a proposal developed by the Alliance and its consultants for the mapping exercise.
Leslie Stewart
For more information about the Regional Agencies Smart Growth Strategy Steering Committee, call Victoria Eisen at ABAG, 510-464-7960. Bay Area Alliance Steering Committee meetings and Livability Footprint meetings are also continuing. For Alliance Steering Committee information, call Ceil Scandone at ABAG, 510-464-7900, or check the Alliance Website at http://bayareaalliance.org. Livability Footprint information is available from Andrew Michael at Bay Area Council, 415-981-6600, e-mail amichael@bayareacouncil.org.
Electronic toll collection on the Golden Gate Bridge (see May/June 2000 issue) has been so successful that after three months of operation, toll plaza backups during the morning commute have virtually disappeared. The FasTrak program has already reached a participation level which was projected to take 16 months. Initial projections were for the daily market share of all toll transactions to reach 35% by the end of the first year, 45% by the third year and 66% by the seventh year. By November 15, 2000, four months after beginning implementation, 56,000 FasTrak tags had been issued to almost 39,000 account holders, and the market share of toll transactions had reached 59% during the morning commute and 34% overall. The Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District estimates that the 35% market share level will be reached in early December 2000.
District officials have eliminated the use of toll discount tickets effective mid-November, a step which is necessary to offset the financial impact on the district of the lower FasTrak rate of $2.67 per car instead of $3.00. The new FasTrak system has begun to meet objectives related to increased customer convenience and administrative efficiency, and one important objective, congestion relief, has demonstrably been met. As FasTrak users became a significant segment of bridge drivers, the district opened a dedicated 24-hour FasTrak lane on September 11, which handles approximately 1250 vehicles per hour during the morning commute, compared to an average of 535 vehicles per hour in a staffed lane. A second lane for the morning commute opened on October 4.
Meanwhile, FasTrak lanes are continuing to open on bridges operated by Caltrans. The Carquinez, Benicia and Richmond-San Rafael Bridges are already open, and lanes were scheduled to open on the Bay Bridge at the end of November. The remaining Bay Area bridges should have FasTrak capability by the end of the year. Although transponders work on any FasTrak toll bridge, drivers should obtain them from the agency whose bridge they use most, either the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District, or Caltrans.
Leslie Stewart
For More Information:
FasTrak transponder applications:
Caltrans bridge drivers: 888-725-TRAK; online, http://www.dot.ca.gov/fastrak.
Golden Gate Bridge drivers: 877-GGB-TOLL; download at http://www.goldengatebridge.org.
The recent article on Water Blending (Oct/Nov 2000 issue) may have given the incorrect impression that the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) plans for the American River are part of the CALFED plan for restoring the Delta and meeting California water needs. The American River diversion is not a component of the CALFED plan. While the blending project mentioned in the CALFED Record of Decision as a later step might eventually include Sierra sources such as the Mokelumne or American River, the studies that will determine what is required have not yet been done.
In October, CALFED initiated meetings with interested stakeholders and committed $100,000 to an initial investigation of a possible Bay Area Blending/Exchange Project. The study will attempt to determine whether it is possible to share existing supplies and infrastructure in a way that eliminates or minimizes the need for new supplies or projects. It will also look at potential sources for improved water for Bay Area water agencies, where the water could be stored, how it would be delivered, and which Bay Area agencies are interested in being included. Agencies participating in preliminary stakeholder meetings have included EBMUD, Contra Costa Water District, San Francisco Water District, Alameda County Water District, Santa Clara Valley Water District, and Zone 7 Water District.
Leslie Stewart