BART Millbrae Extension Final EIR/EIS Section 3.1-1.3
including ridership "projection" tables 3-1.4 3-1.5, 3-1.6, 3.1-7, 3.1-8 and 3-1.9

[...]

Chapter 3: Environmental Analysis

[...]

Section 1: Transportation

[...]

1.3: Transit Impact Assessment and Mitigation

[...]

Project-Specific Analysis

[...]

3. Transit boardings on BART and CalTrain would increase, but boardings on SamTrans would decrease compared to the No Build Alternative

Table 3-1.4 shows the daily transit boardings for BART, CalTrain, the ALRS, and SamTrans under the Aerial Design Option LPA. As indicated BART and CalTrain would experience increased boardings, while SamTrans boardings would decrease because the proposed rail improvements would attract patrons who formerly rode the bus. The MTC Regional Rail Transit Extensions Program (MTC Resolution No. 1876) includes an extension of CalTrain from its current San Francisco terminus at 4th and Townsend Streets to the central downtown area. The JPB, the entity owning CalTrain, is currently (1996) preparing a DEIS/DEIR for this extension. The patronage forecasts for the BART extension build alternatives with and without the CalTrain downtown extension were presented in the Alternatives Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Impact Report (AA/DEIS/DEIR) published by MTC in 1992. The assumptions used by the MTC in the travel demand modeling for the BART extension with and without the CalTrain downtown extension were held constant for the analysis of the BART extension in this FEIR/FEIS.

Estimates of transit boardings on BART and CalTrain, with the proposed CalTrain downtown extension, are based on the patronage forecasts for Alternatives 3A and 3B, from the AA/DEIS/DEIR. Alternative 3A is a BART build alternative (the Base Case Alternative in the DEIR/SDEIS) without the proposed CalTrain extension to downtown San Francisco, whereas Alternative 3B is the Base Case Alternative plus the CalTrain downtown extension.

In the following discussion, BART boardings without the CalTrain downtown extension are compared to boardings with the CalTrain extension. BART boardings of 399,500 under Alternative 3A (without the CalTrain extension) decline by 4 percent, to 383,700, under Alternative 3B (with extension). Assuming a similar relationship for the Aerial Design Option LPA, BART boardings would also decline by 4 percent, from 401,400 without the CalTrain downtown extension to 385,500 boardings with the extension in 2010. Under the Aerial Design Option LPA, CalTrain boardings would increase by 24 percent, from 46,700 without the downtown extension to 57,800 with the extension in 2010. This percentage change in CalTrain boardings is identical to that found between Alternative 3A and 3B in the AA/DEIS/DEIR. The consistency between the project definitions for the Base Case Alternative in the AA/DEIS/DEIR and the DEIR/DEIS allowed the use of ratios as a reasonable approach to approximate patronage changes with the CalTrain downtown extension.

Table 3-1.5 shows the daily transit boardings at each BART station in San Mateo County for the Aerial Design Option LPA. Further details on trip type and access mode are contained in Appendix B of this document.

4. Regional transit ridership, particularly for trips originating or destined for northern San Mateo County, would increase.

Table 3-1.6 shows total transit person trips for the entire nine-county Bay Area for the Aerial Design Option LPA. A comparison of this regional transit total to total transit ridership under the No Build Alternative in the same analysis year indicates that the Aerial Design Option LPA would increase total regional transit ridership.

Table 3-1.7 shows daily trips to the SFIA by mode and indicates a significant shift to rail transit (from bus and automobile use) compared to the No Build Alternative. Increased transit usage would decrease auto congestion and air pollution. In 1998, the percentage of transit riders destined to the SFIA would increase from 8.9 to 14.1 percent; to northern San Mateo County, from 7.0 to 9.5 percent; and to downtown San Francisco, from 34.8 to 40.8 percent.

5. Regional transit transfers that are required to complete the trip from origin to destination would be the same as under the No Build Alternative. New transfer opportunities between BART-CalTrain and BART-ALRS would be created that would connect rail services among San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland, and other cities in the Bay Area and would connect these rail services to the SFIA.

Table 3-1.8 shows the average number of transfers required for all transit trip-making in the region with the Aerial Design Option LPA. New transfer opportunities would occur between BART and CalTrain at the Millbrae Avenue Station that would otherwise not be available. The BART alignment into the SFIA would create a transfer opportunity between BART and the ALRS at the Airport International Terminal Station. Transfers between CalTrain and the ALRS would require the intermediate use of BART.

Table 3-1.9 shows the transfer volumes predicted at these stations. Transfer opportunities are a beneficial effect of the Aerial Design Option LPA because of the unavailability of these transfers under the No Build Alternative. [...]

6. SFIA airline terminals would be within walking distance from BART.

The BART Airport International Terminal Station on SFIA property allows air passengers to walk to the most frequently used terminals, with the option to transfer to the ALRS, which would be close to the BART station. In the event the ALRS becomes non-operational, BART customers would be able to walk to their airline terminal destinations. The distances from the mid-point of the platform to the nearest counters at the planned International Terminal and the North Terminal are 760 feet and 1,400 feet, respectively. The BART station would be on the departure level of the planned International Terminal, which is one level below the ALRS.

7. Geographic coverage by rail transit within the study area, including the SFIA, would improve with new BART service and expanded CalTrain service. Rail service would enhance transit service in general for northern and mid-San Mateo County and decrease automobile use.

Rail transit geographic coverage would be improved with the BART extension due to the new stations, making transit more accessible from locations in northern and central San Mateo County. Improved service would contribute to increases in transit use and reductions in automobile use, according to the MTC modeling results.

8. Reliability of transit services in northern San Mateo County would improve, since rail service would increase relative to bus service, and rail provides more reliable, on-time performance.

The reliability of a transit system plays a significant role in the decision to use transit. This is particularly important when transfer connections are necessary, because unreliable arrival or departure times may mean missing the connection. The amount of time spent waiting for a transit vehicle is considered by most travelers when choosing their best option. Rail transit is inherently more reliable than bus transit in terms of maintaining scheduled arrivals and departures, because rail modes operate on dedicated rights-of-way not subject to traffic delays.

9. The Aerial Design Option LPA would relieve crowded conditions projected for the Colma Station (see Table 3.1-5) by attracting BART riders to other stations along the alignment.

Table 3-1.5 shows that the patronage of the Colma Station would decrease from 32,700 patrons under the No Build Alternative to 15,400 patrons under the Aerial Design Option in 1998. Thus, it would not be necessary to expand facilities at the Colma Station under the Aerial Design Option LPA.

Cumulative Analysis

The modeling exercise used to predict future BART transit effects includes assumptions about other transit operators. The previously discussed BART effects, thus, encompass the impacts of adding BART service, increasing the number of CalTrain trains, and reorienting SamTrans bus service. The methodology is in effect a cumulative analysis. Accordingly, the number of all cumulative effects are either insignificant or beneficial.