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