Third Street Light Rail Project
Environmental Impact Statement
Environmental Impact Report

S.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

S.1 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED

S.1.1 PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ACTION

The San Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI) is seeking federal funding assistance to construct the proposed Third Street Light Rail Project (Project). Having completed the Major Investment Study (MIS) for the Third Street Corridor (Corridor), the initial planning phase in the federal funding process, MUNI has initiated the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the state California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental processes for the Project in order to assess the potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project alternatives and to qualify for federal funding. After the Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) is completed, the City and County of San Francisco (City) will consider adoption and use of local funds for the preferred alternative (or a portion thereof), which will be selected by the San Francisco Public Transportation Commission in May 1998. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) will then determine if the preferred alternative meets their transit investment objectives and whether to recommend federal funding for the Project. If the City does go forward with the Project, the City intends to request a letter from FTA which authorizes the City to use local funds for the first phase of the Project as the local contribution toward a future, yet to be secured, federal grant. This letter from FTA is called a Letter of No Prejudice.

S.1.2 NEED FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CORRIDOR

The Project would address deficiencies in the transit system serving the communities in the southeastern part of San Francisco, including deficiencies that exist at present and those that are anticipated to exist during the 20-year planning horizon (2015). In addition, the Project is also intended to serve as a key infrastructure improvement to help support the economic and physical revitalization of the Bayview Hunters Point commercial core along Third Street and the planned development in Mission Bay. It would also serve as the key element in establishing a Downtown Subway identified in the San Francisco Transportation Authority's Four Corridor Plan.

MUNI Service Reliability Problems In The Third Street Corridor

Buses caught in Corridor traffic congestion often provide unreliable service south of Downtown. Currently, passengers may experience overcrowding and extended waiting times between buses, as well as slower operating times and increased travel times. This situation is projected to worsen as traffic in Downtown and along the Corridor increases to projected 2015 levels.

Inadequate Connectivity Between Corridor Transit Lines And Other Transit Services

Residents of the communities in the Corridor perceive that they do not enjoy the same quality transit connections to the MUNI Metro rail system and to regional transit services such as Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) as do residents in other parts of the City.

Projected Increases In 2015 Transit And Auto Travel Demand In The Corridor

As presented in Table S-1, a 39 percent increase in Corridor population and a 35 percent increase in Corridor employment is anticipated by 2015. Much of the population and employment growth will result from development in Mission Bay which is projected to include a new University of California campus, research and development functions, over 6,000 dwelling units, a cineplex, a 500-room hotel, and commercial uses. Other development proposals in the Corridor, such as the new Giants ballpark (Pacific Bell Ballpark), Candlestick Mills Mall and the new 49ers stadium, San Francisco Executive Park development, and Hunter's Point Reuse Plan would contribute to this growth.

Projected Increases In 2015 Transit Travel Times In The Corridor

As a result of the projected population and employment growth in the Corridor, traffic congestion on major highways and arterials, particularly Highway 101 and Third Street, is expected to increase substantially. Highway 101 at Cesar Chavez is expected to be Level of Service (LOS) F (excessive delays) and LOS E (significant delays) at intersections of Third and Cesar Chavez and King Streets and at Bayshore and Arleta.

Integration Of Transportation Improvements With Community Revitalization Along Third Street

The South Bayshore Area Plan of the City's General Plan addresses the need for transit improvements by calling for the integration of transit- and pedestrian-oriented land use and new development along Third Street in concert with a new light rail investment.

Air Quality Issues

The Bay Area air basin is designated as a state non-attainment area (not in compliance with state air quality standards) for ozone and small-diameter particulate matter. Reducing dependence on automobiles for Corridor trips will reduce mobile emissions in the region.

S.1.3 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

In accordance with the revised FTA transit planning guidelines, MUNI has identified seven principal goals to be used to guide the evaluation of the No Build/TSM and Light Rail Alternatives. They are:

1. Travel and Mobility Goal. Improve transit service to, from, and within the Corridor, thereby enhancing the mobility of Corridor residents, business people, and visitors.
2. Equity Goal. Bring transit service in the Corridor to the level and quality of service available in other sections of the City.
3. Economic Revitalization/Development Goal. Design transportation improvements that support economic revitalization and development initiatives within the Corridor.
4. Transit-supportive Land Use Goal. Ensure compatibility with City land use plans and policies and transportation improvements so that transit ridership can be maximized and the number of auto trips reduced.
5. Environmental Goal. Provide transit improvements that enhance and preserve the social and physical environment and minimize potential negative impacts during construction and operation of the line.
6. Financial Goal. Implement transit improvements that provide for the efficient use of limited financial resources.
7. Community Acceptance and Political Support Goal. Provide a transportation system that reflects the needs and desires of Corridor residents and business people and is compatible with the City's planning initiatives.

S.2 ALTERNATIVES

S.2.1 DEVELOPMENT AND SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES

The Bayshore Corridor System Planning Study, completed by MUNI in December 1993, was the first step in the planning process to implement major public transportation improvements in the southeastern quadrant of the City. The study recommendations emphasized the importance of implementing light rail service along Third Street in the Corridor and the opportunity to use transportation investments to support economic revitalization efforts in the Corridor. In February 1994, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (the predecessor of the Public Transportation Commission) approved a resolution (#94-0044) to carry forward light rail through the federal capital project development process.

Two public meetings were held in November 1996 during the Scoping Process to receive public commentary on the environmental issues associated with the Project alternatives. As a result of public input during the Scoping Process and at the neighborhood workshops and economic forums, the following modifications were made to the Light Rail Alternative:

• Multiple traffic lane and streetscape options were incorporated into the light rail surface alignment along Third Street between Kirkwood and Thomas Avenues. One-lane, two-lane, and flexible (tow-away) lane configurations were developed, each with varying sidewalk widths, curb parking patterns and, in the case of the one-lane option, the opportunity for establishing a bike lane. In addition, a fourth option that permitted track and light rail to share a lane in each direction also was developed. This "mixed-flow" option would retain curb parking on Third Street along the nine-block commercial core as well as providing a landscaped median.
• Center and side platform configurations were considered on a station-by-station basis to allow left-turn pockets, added parking, and streetscape enhancements where desired.
• Several station locations were newly-designated or reassigned:
  1) the proposed station at Thomas Avenue was moved to Williams-Van Dyke to coincide with the transfer point for the 54-line;
  2) a station was added at Third/Shafter to serve the southern end of the Third Street commercial core;
  3) a station at the intersection of Third and South Streets in Mission Bay was added to serve the planned University of California campus; and
  4) a station was added at Third and Mission Rock Streets in Mission Bay to serve the planned uses south of Mission Creek.
• A bi-directional alignment on the Fourth Street bridge across Mission Creek was added as a design option in order to provide better access to the Caltrain Terminal at Fourth and King Streets, reduce conflict between the light rail line and vehicular/pedestrian activity at the Pacific Bell Ballpark, and reduce capital costs associated with two separate rights-of-way.
• A "hybrid" (low, mini-high) station platform design was added to minimize potential visual intrusiveness of the station platforms while still maintaining compatibility with standard high-floor light rail vehicles.
• An additional location for the new LRV maintenance facility at a former Western Pacific railyard adjacent to Pier 80 was identified.

The Light Rail Alternative incorporated a series of design options that were subsequently examined from technical, financial, environmental, economic revitalization, and community perspectives. The screening of design options was used to determine which options should be carried forward for evaluation in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIS/DEIR).

Based on the input from the community meetings as well as input from the Project's Technical Advisory Committee and Community Advisory Group, and City Commissions (Planning, Redevelopment, Port, and Parking and Traffic) -- the Public Transportation Commission (PTC) on July 8, 1997, narrowed the design options for the Light Rail Alternative. The PTC eliminated the 16th/I-280/King alignment through Mission Bay, the Central Subway alignment via Kearny, and the Downtown Surface Route via Market or Washington. A description of three alternatives carried forward in the DEIS/DEIR is provided below.

Possible future extensions (branches of Third Street light rail) were addressed in the 1993 Bayshore Transit Study and include possible branches to Hunters Point Shipyard, Candlestick Point, and the Balboa Park BART Station. These possible future branches of the proposed Project, including a possible branch to the planned stadium and mall at Candlestick Point, would need subsequent conceptual engineering and environmental analysis if proposed at a future date. No funding for these possible branches has been identified.

S.2.2 LIGHT RAIL (BUILD) ALTERNATIVE (PROPOSED PROJECT)

The Light Rail Alternative would construct a light rail line linking some or all of the Chinatown, Downtown, South of Market, Potrero Hill, Bayview Hunters Point, and Visitacion Valley/Little Hollywood neighborhoods, primarily along Third Street. In addition, a new light rail maintenance and storage facility would also be constructed on approximately 5.3 hectares (13 acres) of eastern or western sections of the former Western Pacific rail and north of Pier 80 or on a 7.1-hectare (17.5-acre) Port-owned site along Cargo Way near Pier 90. The line would operate at service levels comparable to existing MUNI Metro service frequencies and hours.

The Light Rail Alternative would be constructed in two phases. The two phases of the Light Rail Alternative, presented in Figures S-1 and S-2, are:

• Light Rail Alternative -- Initial Operating Segment (IOS), to be operational in 2003
• Light Rail Alternative -- New Central Subway, to be constructed sometime after 2005

Because of the later construction schedule for the New Central Subway, supplemental environmental analysis may be required prior to the final design of the subway.

The Light Rail Alternative -- IOS represents an initial phase of the Project. The existing J-Church service would extend from the Market Street Subway and the MUNI Metro Extension along Third Street and Bayshore Boulevard to the Caltrain Bayshore Station near the County line. Temporary private shuttles could be provided from this terminus to the proposed mall and stadium at Candlestick Point until the need for possible future planning of a branch line of Third Street light rail is established. The total length of the IOS would be 8.7 kilometers (5.4 miles).

The Light Rail Alternative -- New Central Subway represents the full-build or completed project, operating as an independent line (not integrated with the MUNI Metro system) from the Caltrain Bayshore Station along Bayshore Boulevard and Third Street into a new Central Subway north of Brannan Street. The northern terminus of the Central Subway would be a station at Stockton and Clay Streets. The total length of this alignment would be 11.3 kilometers (7.0 miles), including 2.8 kilometers (1.75 miles) for the New Central Subway portion north of King Street. The IOS would require 25 additional light rail vehicles (LRVs) to operate the line and to accommodate 2015 demand. Three additional LRVs would be required to operate the New Central Subway. By replacing diesel buses with LRVs, MUNI's diesel bus peak-vehicle requirement will be reduced by 30 to 35 buses.

S.2.3 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE

The No Project Alternative represents the scenario in which the existing transportation system remains unchanged except for the modifications that are already programmed to be implemented in the Corridor. The No Project Alternative, therefore, includes the existing MUNI route network, fleet size and fleet mix, facilities, and existing service frequencies as well as the existing roadway system. The No Project Alternative would not accommodate 2015 demand.

Existing Transit System

Within the Corridor, service from the southern end of the Corridor to Downtown is provided by diesel bus lines, particularly the 15-Third bus line and the 9X-San Bruno Expresses (Figure S-3). The 15-line, which currently carries over 25,000 daily riders, operates between City College and North Beach. For the No Project Alternative, the total bus fleet size, including spare vehicles, would be 764. The total LRV fleet size would be 136.

S.2.4 NO BUILD/TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT (TSM) ALTERNATIVE

The No Build/TSM Alternative would include the transit and roadway system and improvements to the system identified in the No Project Alternative in combination with added transit service in the Corridor, primarily on the 15-line, to meet 2015 demand.

For the No Build/TSM Alternative, MUNI would need 40 new buses (33 articulated diesel and 7 trolley buses), including spare buses (the additional vehicles needed in the peak to compensate for those that are being repaired), to meet peak period demand in 2015. For this scenario, the total bus fleet size, including spares, would be 804, or 40 more buses than the No Project Alternative (existing conditions). The total light rail fleet size, including spares, would be 136, or the same as in the No Project Alternative.

S.2.5 OPERATING STATISTICS FOR THE LIGHT RAIL, NO PROJECT, AND NO BUILD/TSM ALTERNATIVES

A summary of the operating statistics for the Light Rail Alternative (IOS and New Central Subway) is presented in Table S-2 and compared with the No Project Alternative and No Build/TSM Alternative. As indicated in Table S-2 the No Build/TSM Alternative would increase existing annual systemwide bus hours by 110,000 reflecting the additional service on the 15-Third bus line to accommodate 2015 demand. The Light Rail Alternative would reduce systemwide bus hours but increase annual light rail operating hours by approximately 72,000 and 106,000, respectively, for the IOS and the New Central Subway.

S.2.6 CAPITAL COST SUMMARY

Light Rail Alternative

The total capital cost for the IOS, including the purchase of 25 additional LRVs to accommodate 2015 demand and the construction of the initial phase for the new LRV maintenance and storage facility, is estimated at $401.7 million (1997 dollars). The base capital cost estimate assumes that:

• light rail uses the Fourth Street bridge in both directions;
• the two-lane design option is selected for the Third Street commercial core;
• ballast mats are installed to mitigate the vibration impacts anticipated from operating the existing LRV fleet; and
• hybrid low platforms are used for all surface stations.

The cost estimate would be greater if any other options replaced those in the base case, including use of the Third and Fourth Street bridges, selection of the one-lane or mixed-flow design option in the Third Street commercial core, installation of floating slabs rather than ballast mats to mitigate vibration impacts, or additional features to the new LRV maintenance facility.

Construction of the New Central Subway, including three additional LRVs and the same base case assumptions identified for the IOS, would require $505.9 million (1997 dollars). The combined total capital cost estimate for the Light Rail Alternative is $907.6 million.

No Build/TSM Alternative

The No Build/TSM Alternative requires the purchase of 33 articulated diesel buses and seven articulated trolley buses (including spares) to meet 2015 demand. Existing MUNI bus storage and maintenance facilities could not accommodate the additional buses. As a result, a new 40-bus operations and maintenance facility would need to be constructed at the Western Pacific site or the Cargo Way site. The total capital cost of the No Build/TSM Alternative is $53.8 million.

S.2.7 OPERATING & MAINTENANCE (O&M) COST SUMMARY

Compared with the No Project Alternative, total systemwide O&M costs increase for the No Build/TSM and Light Rail Alternatives. Total annual systemwide O&M costs are approximately $10 million more for the No Build/TSM Alternative and the IOS than the No Project Alternative, reflecting the increased service to accommodate 2015 demand. The additional route miles and five minute peak service levels increase the annual O&M costs for the New Central Subway approximately $3.6 million over the IOS. The No Build/TSM Alternative and the Light Rail Alternative differ in bus and LRV O&M costs because of the use of articulated buses and light rail, respectively, to meet projected 2015 demand.

In 2003, the implementation year for the Third Street Light Rail Project, annual systemwide O&M costs would be similar for the No Project and No Build/TSM Alternatives, since 2003 demand is not expected to warrant substantially increased service for the No Build/TSM Alternative. Annual O&M costs for the IOS in 2003 would be over $4 million greater than the No Build/TSM Alternatives, reflecting the increased costs to operate light rail and a new LRV maintenance facility.

S.3 TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS

Section S.3.1 provides a summary of existing and 2015 general transportation findings for the Corridor. Section S.3.2 provides a table summary of major transportation-related impacts (transit, traffic, freight, parking, and pedestrian and bicycle circulation) for the Light Rail, No Build/TSM, and No Project Alternatives.

S.3.1 SUMMARY OF GENERAL TRANSPORTATION FINDINGS

Transit Demand

Table S-3 presents existing and 2015 weekday transit ridership estimates for the Corridor. Currently, about 66,000 person-trips are made by bus each weekday in the Corridor. Substantial increases in Corridor population and employment are anticipated in the future. By 2015, it is estimated that patronage demand for Corridor transit services will increase by between 105 and 116 percent over existing conditions. Without any improvement to transit service in the Corridor, substantial overcrowding would occur on all bus lines serving the Corridor. Without implementation of light rail, about 40 new articulated buses would be required to serve the additional future demand.

Transit Travel Times

As increased automobile and truck traffic congests Corridor roadways in the future, bus travel times will get longer and service reliability would become inconsistent. By 2015, patrons using Corridor buses will experience substantial travel time increases over existing conditions as shown in Table S-4. Light rail, which would operate in an exclusive right-of-way separate from automobile and truck traffic, would have comparatively lower travel times.

Traffic Volumes

Increased automobile and truck traffic will further congest Corridor roadways. By 2015, Bayshore Boulevard's peak hour traffic volumes are expected to increase by up to 53 percent over existing conditions. On Third Street between Highway 101 and the southern part of the Bayview Hunters Point district, peak hour traffic volumes are estimated to increase by up to 44 percent. From the northern part of the district to near the Islais Creek channel, peak hour volumes are projected to increase by up to 80 percent. North of Cesar Chavez Street, peak hour traffic is anticipated to increase by up to 50 percent over existing conditions.

Travel Speeds and Intersection Service Levels

With increased 2015 traffic levels, automobile and truck travel speeds will decrease on Bayshore Boulevard and on Third Street. Provision of light rail tracks would remove one of the three travel lanes in each direction on both of these arterial roadways, decreasing roadway capacity and further lowering automobile and truck travel speeds. If Third Street were narrowed to just one lane in each direction within the commercial core, average travel speeds would be less than five miles per hour within the district and traffic would be severely congested.

By 2015, due to increased background traffic levels, eight intersections in the Corridor will be operating at congested conditions (LOS E or F) during weekday peak periods. Therefore, the impacts to the intersections would be considered cumulative unavoidable adverse impacts. Two of the intersections (Bayshore/Arleta and Fourth/Brannan) could be mitigated to acceptable operations with minor improvements, such as lane re-striping, parking removal, etc., but the other six intersections (Third/Cesar Chavez, Third/King, Third/Townsend, Third/Brannan, Fourth/King, and Fourth/Bryant) could not be feasibly improved without major investment and/or potential environmental impacts.

With the implementation of the IOS, the above intersections would become somewhat more congested, and additional intersections would degrade to LOS E or F conditions by 2015. The intersection of Third and Evans Streets could be improved to acceptable operations through minor traffic re-routing of the southbound left-turn movement, and under the option in Mission Bay where northbound light rail tracks would use Third Street, the Third and Berry Streets intersection would be significantly impacted, but could be mitigated through roadway widening and sidewalk narrowing or by allowing a traffic lane on the light rail track. Under the Third Street commercial core options where Third Street would have one travel lane in each direction, all intersections in the commercial core would be significantly affected and could not be feasibly improved.

With implementation of the New Central Subway, the intersection of Third and Bryant Streets would degrade to LOS F, but could be mitigated to an acceptable service level through lane re-striping and parking removal.

Freight Movements

With the implementation of the Light Rail Alternative, some on-street parking would be removed, reducing the number of on-street loading zones throughout the Corridor. By designating some of the remaining on-street spaces as loading zones, this would not be a significant impact. At the Caltrain Bayshore intermodal station, removal of the Union Pacific spur track would significantly affect nearby businesses that rely on the track for cargo shipments. Alternative designs of the station layout that would retain the existing spur track would mitigate this potential impact.

On-Street Parking

On Bayshore Boulevard and on Third Street (between the Caltrain Bayshore intermodal station and Bryant Street), on-street parking capacity for about 1,675 vehicles currently exists. During weekdays, existing on-street parking occupancy is about 65 percent on a Corridor-wide basis. The lowest occupancy occurs to the south (about 31 percent of the available curb space on Bayshore Boulevard is used), but parking occupancy increases gradually to the north. On Third Street, between 16^th and Bryant Streets, typically 90 percent or more of the curb lanes are occupied with parked cars during weekdays.

With the provision of light rail, parking would be displaced in the Corridor adjacent to light rail station platforms, in the transition areas before and after the platforms, and where additional room is needed to accommodate left-turn lanes. Implementation of the IOS, along with the proposed Mission Bay development, would displace between 773 and 842 on-street parking spaces in the Corridor (the range in total parking displacement is dependent on which design option through the Third Street commercial core is selected). Almost 470 of the displaced parking spaces would occur in Mission Bay, where additional on-street parking is proposed along new roadways (resulting in a net gain of about 40 spaces within Mission Bay). The New Central Subway would displace between 97 and 98 additional parking spaces. Based on current parking occupancies, however, substantially fewer vehicles would actually be displaced. South of 16^th Street most displaced vehicles could be accommodated in other nearby on-street spaces.

Pedestrian Circulation

Pedestrian activity throughout the Corridor is expected to increase in the future. Under the Light Rail Alternative, minor reduction in sidewalk widths would occur in areas adjacent to some of the proposed light rail station platforms and where left-turn lanes are provided. Minor reductions or widenings would occur in the Third Street commercial core. These impacts would not be significant.

With implementation of the New Central Subway, sidewalks on Third and Fourth Streets between Townsend and Brannan Streets would be narrowed in order to maintain on-street parking on one side of Third and Fourth Streets. An alternative to reducing the sidewalk widths would be to prohibit on-street parking and instead widen the sidewalks. This option would need to be evaluated during final design. Some of the subway station's proposed stairways, escalators, and elevators would encroach upon the sidewalks, reducing the effective sidewalk widths and resulting in overcrowded conditions at three station locations. Mitigating measures include obtaining public access rights to an adjacent private sidewalk and re-evaluating future sidewalk widths and adjacent parking needs.

Bicycle Circulation

The San Francisco Bicycle Plan identifies Bicycle Route 5 as an 11.3-kilometer (7.0-mile) route extending along Bayshore Boulevard, Third Street, King Street, and The Embarcadero. Within the Corridor, the Bicycle Plan recommends 1.8-meter (6.0-foot) wide bicycle lanes on Third Street between China Basin and Bayshore Boulevard. The Bicycle Plan states that although this segment of Third Street serves a high amount of cargo trucking operations, it was recommended as a bicycle route because no other direct bicycle route exists. The Bicycle Plan also recognizes that the possible establishment of a light rail line on Third Street would compete with the bicycle lanes for street width and that the current width of the street cannot accommodate both light rail and bicycle lanes. According to the Bicycle Plan, Bicycle Route 7 (Indiana Street/Third Street/Phelps Street/Palou Avenue/Keith Street) was designed to provide an alternative to a segment of Bicycle Route 5. With the implementation of light rail, bicycle travel along Third Street would be constrained.

Construction

Construction of the light rail line would affect transit service, traffic flow, freight movements, on-street parking, and pedestrian and bicycle circulation. The impacts would not be significant, however, with the improvement measures proposed to be undertaken, e.g., detour routes, exclusive bus zones, short-term parking limits, maintenance of sidewalks, etc.

S.3.2 SUMMARY OF KEY TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

A summary of potential transportation-related impacts (transit, traffic, freight, parking, and pedestrian and bicycle circulation) for the alternatives is presented in Table S-5. Mitigation measures for potential significant impacts are provided (indicated in italic). Suggested improvement measures for less-than-significant impacts are also discussed, where applicable.

Light Rail Alternative

The Light Rail Alternative would produce no potentially significant impacts that cannot be mitigated, except those related to the one-lane design options in the Third Street commercial core, and the preclusion of a bicycle lane along Third Street. Provision of only one travel lane in each direction on Third Street through the commercial core would result in extreme traffic congestion and diversion. With light rail replacing a travel lane in each direction along the entire Corridor, bicycle travel along Third Street and Bayshore Boulevard would become constrained and installation of a continuous bicycle lane would not be possible. (Note that cumulative unavoidable significant impacts are expected at several intersections throughout the Corridor, with or without the light rail project.)

Significant impacts, which can be mitigated, and several of the key less-than-significant impacts for the IOS include:

• degraded service levels at several intersections, with two intersections degrading to LOS E or F conditions;
• reduced automobile and truck travel speeds on Bayshore Boulevard and Third Street;
• potential for impacting rail access via the Union Pacific's spur track at the Caltrain Bayshore intermodal station;
• long-term displacement of on-street parking and loading zones along Bayshore Boulevard and Third Street;
• reductions in sidewalk passageway widths adjacent to station platforms, left-turn lanes, and potentially in the Third Street commercial core depending on the design option selected; and
• construction impacts, including impacts to transit service, traffic flow, freight movements on-street parking, and pedestrian and bicycle circulation.

In addition, implementation of the New Central Subway would:

• degrade service levels at some intersections, with one intersection degrading to LOS E or F conditions;
• cause long-term parking displacements along Third and Fourth Streets between King and Bryant Streets, at the Union Square garage, and on Stockton/Clay Streets;
• reduce the effective sidewalk widths near access points (i.e., stairways, escalators and elevators) to the proposed New Central Subway stations; and
• result in construction impacts, including impacts to transit service, traffic flow, freight movements, on-street parking, and pedestrian and bicycle circulation.

The Light Rail Alternative would produce beneficial impacts, including, for example, improvement in transit travel times, accessibility, and service reliability between Downtown and the southeast quadrant of the City.

No Project and No Build/TSM Alternatives

Compared to the Light Rail Alternative, the No Project and No Build/TSM Alternatives would result in reduced transit service reliability, and increased travel times and diminished mobility for residents in the southeast quadrant of the City. They would, however, have no short-term construction impacts or long-term parking impacts. However, by 2015, eight intersections would operate at LOS E or F conditions due to increases in background traffic levels and would be considered cumulative unavoidable adverse impacts. Two of the intersections (Bayshore/Arleta and Fourth/Brannan) could be mitigated to acceptable operations with minor improvements, but the other six intersections (Third/King, Third/Townsend, Third/Brannan, Fourth/King, Fourth/Townsend, and Fourth/Bryant) could not be feasibly improved without major investment and/or potential environmental impacts. The No Project and No Build/TSM Alternatives could possibly enable, pending further study, implementation of exclusive bicycle lanes along Third Street if on-street parking were removed.

S.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES

A summary of potentially significant environmental impacts and mitigation measures (indicated in italic), excluding transportation-related impacts (see previous section), for the Light Rail, No Build/TSM, and No Project Alternatives is presented in Table S-6 and briefly described below.

S.4.1 LIGHT RAIL ALTERNATIVE

Potentially significant impacts produced by the Light Rail Alternative can be mitigated. The key non-transportation impacts are:

• one to eight business displacements, depending on the new maintenance facility site selected;
• alteration of the historic architectural character of the Islais Creek bridge due to the addition of light rail track and overhead wires on the bridge (the Third and Fourth Street bridges over Mission Creek historically have had streetcar operation);
• potential for earthquake-induced liquefaction at the new LRV maintenance facility site and for encountering hazardous materials during construction of the light rail alignment and the new maintenance facility;
• vibration impacts to 78 residences, 2 churches, and 1 school resulting from operating the existing LRV fleet along Third Street; and
• displacement of the North Point trunk sewer line.

The majority of business displacements would occur if the Cargo Way maintenance facility site were selected. If the eastern portion of the Western Pacific site were used for the maintenance facility, a waterfront open space would be created, with a public access trail. Potential impacts for both the Western Pacific maintenance facility site and the Cargo Way site are related to the fact that the sites are underlain by heterogeneous artificial fill potentially susceptible to earthquake-induced liquefaction. The potential for hazardous materials (metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-VOC's including polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, total petroleum hydrocarbons, and friable asbestos from serpentine fragments) that may expose site workers and the public to health risks is present. Measures to avoid adverse effects caused by the presence of hazardous materials are required by Article 20 of the San Francisco Municipal Code. Construction of the New Central Subway would displace the existing North Point trunk sewer line at the intersection of Third and Mission Streets, requiring relocation of the sewer line or installation of an underground siphon and pump station to mitigate displacement.

S.4.2 NO PROJECT AND TSM ALTERNATIVES

The No Project and No Build/TSM Alternatives would not provide the beneficial impacts of the Light Rail Alternative, yet would contribute to the following impacts:

• increased traffic congestion;
• reduced transit service reliability;
• increased travel times and diminished mobility for residents in the southeast quadrant of the City;
• regional pollutant emissions;
• increased gasoline consumption; and
• inconsistency with the City's adopted land use and transportation plans and policies calling for rail transit development in the Corridor.

S.5 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY

S.5.1 ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CAPACITY FOR THE NO BUILD/TSM AND LIGHT RAIL ALTERNATIVES

MUNI has the financial capacity to continue current bus and rail service levels as well as fulfill ADA paratransit requirements. Although no fund deficits are anticipated to occur in implementing the Capital Improvement Program under the No Build/TSM Alternative, MUNI, in conjunction with the Transportation Authority, does possess the ability to leverage future Proposition B revenues for the purpose of using debt financing to finance its acquisition of new buses and construction of new service facilities. Funding sources for constructing and operating the Light Rail Alternative are described below. The discussion below presents the capital requirements, the operating and maintenance costs and the revenues available to finance these costs through FY 2015 for the IOS and the New Central Subway.

Local Funding Sources for the Light Rail Alternative

The primary source of funding for the IOS is currently assumed to be the Proposition B one-half cent sales tax program presently in place in San Francisco. Passed by San Francisco voters in November 1989, sales tax revenues began being collected in April, 1990. The tax will sunset in March 2010.

Several components of the Proposition B Expenditure Plan that was adopted in 1989 can potentially contribute to the Project. These Expenditure Plan components are identified in Table S-7. In addition, Table S-7 indicates what the Expenditure Plan identified as funding for the Third Street components in FY 90 dollars (i.e., those amounts actually identified in the Plan), and the escalated amount of those components in FY 96 dollars. The FY 96 dollar amounts were derived by escalating the Plan components at the same annual growth rates as the Proposition B revenues grew between FY 90 and FY 96, which was 4.8 percent. The FY 96 figure of $293.0 million is then escalated at a conservative 3.5 percent annual growth rate for years subsequent to FY 96 until it is utilized to meet the capital costs of the IOS. In terms of FY 97 dollars, this amount grows to $303.2 million.

In addition to the four Expenditure Plan components (identified in Table S-7) being dedicated to the Project, excess or surplus funds in two additional projects have also been dedicated to the Light Rail Alternative. These are, in 1997 dollars, $30 million from the MUNI Metro Extension project and $44.4 million from the MUNI vehicle replacement project. Combined, these two sources contribute an additional $74.4 million to the Light Rail Alternative, bringing the total Proposition B commitment to an estimated $377.7 million in FY 97 dollars.

In addition to local Proposition B funds identified for the Project, the City has also identified certain
tax increment funds to be available to the Project from existing and potential redevelopment
project areas located adjacent to the Third Street light rail line. These include Bayview Hunter's Point (survey area), India Basin, and Mission Bay (survey area). The tax increment that is programmed to support the Project is estimated at $8.5 million in constant 1997 dollars. It is similarly assumed that the operating and maintenance costs associated with the incremental service provided by the Project will be met through existing sources used to fund MUNI's current operations and maintenance.

State Funding Sources for the Light Rail Alternative

Augmenting local funding from Proposition B sales taxes and tax increment funding, an estimated $25.0 million in State Regional Improvement Program funds have been earmarked for the Project. These funds are allocated regionally and are the result of the recently enacted SB45 which consolidates previous categorical state funding programs, such as Transit Capital Improvement funds, into a single category of funds administered and programmed regionally.

Federal Funding Sources for the Light Rail Alternative

Because of the significant lead time required to secure federal discretionary funding (Section 5309 New Starts) and formula funding (Section 5309 Fixed Guideway Modernization), no funding from these sources is anticipated to be available for the IOS. However, these sources are anticipated to be significant contributors to the New Central Subway.

In lieu of federal discretionary funding for the Project, the City is allocating an estimated $7.6 million in Federal Surface Transportation Program and Congestion Management Air Quality funding to supplement local and state funding. It is likely that a Letter of No Prejudice will be sought from FTA that will qualify the local Proposition B revenues that will be primarily used to fund the IOS as local match for subsequent federal funding for the New Central Subway.

S.6 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

The Project alternatives were evaluated according to FTA and local criteria. A summary of the evaluation is presented for each criterion utilized in the evaluation process.

S.6.1 MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS

The Light Rail Alternative would provide travel time savings, improved service reliability, and enhanced quality of service for the residents of the Corridor. The mobility benefits would be further enhanced by the completion of the New Central Subway, which provides a direct link between the southeastern quadrant of the City and Union Square/Chinatown. The New Central subway also would establish the key link in the Downtown subway system as identified in the Four Corridor Plan. Because the bus service provided under No Project or No Build/TSM Alternatives would not operate in exclusive rights-of-way, service reliability and travel times would be impaired as congestion in the Corridor increases over the 20-year planning period.

S.6.2 TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

The Light Rail Alternative would generate short-term construction impacts that would not be produced by the No Project and No Build/TSM Alternatives. All long-term impacts resulting from light rail operations, such as property acquisition, parking displacement, conflict with the North Point sewer along Mission Street at Third, and vibration, could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, with the following exceptions:

• constrained bicycle travel along Bayshore Boulevard and Third Street and preclusion of bicycle lanes along these roadways; and
• future traffic congestion on Third Street with the one-lane design option in the Third Street commercial core.

Cumulative future (2015) traffic impacts that would occur at selected Corridor intersections in the No Project and No Build/TSM Alternatives would remain in the Light Rail Alternative. Of these intersections projected to operate at LOS E or F, six cannot be feasibly mitigated for any of the alternatives.

The Light Rail Alternative (IOS and New Central Subway) would produce the following beneficial impacts that could not be provided by the No Project and No Build/TSM Alternatives:

• potential beneficial land use impacts at station locations;
• improved transit travel times, accessibility, and service reliability between Downtown and the southeast quadrant of the City;
• 1,845 person-years of employment and 225 permanent jobs;
• enhanced visual character and the potential for economic revitalization along the Third Street commercial core in Bayview Hunters Point and at the new maintenance facility site, particularly if a new waterfront open space were created;
• replacement of 15-line diesel buses with "clean" electric transit; and
• decreased regional ozone precursors (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NO_x), and particulate (PM₁₀) emissions compared with the No Project Alternative.

As a result, the Light Rail Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative.

S.6.3 OPERATING EFFICIENCIES

Farebox recovery, the percentage of MUNI's revenues generated from fares, as well as cost per passenger and cost per bus and train hour, would be similar for all alternatives, in spite of the somewhat higher operating costs associated with light rail. The performance measurements indicate that light rail can carry a greater number of passengers while utilizing fewer vehicles to meet 2015 demand.

S.6.4 TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE LAND USE

The Light Rail Alternative furthers the goals of the San Francisco Transportation Authority's Four Corridor Plan and is compatible with City and area-specific plans and policies governing transportation and land use. The Light Rail Alternative would offer the opportunity for the transportation investment in the Corridor to be coordinated with land use planning and economic revitalization at station locations. In addition, it conforms with the City's Transit First policy by providing exclusive right-of-way for transit. These benefits would not be provided by the No Project and No Build/TSM Alternatives.

S.6.5 EFFICIENCY

The lowest cost per new rider and per user benefit, two former FTA evaluation criteria, would be offered by the Light Rail Alternative IOS using a dedicated right-of-way in the Third Street commercial core.

S.6.6 GOALS ATTAINMENT

The alternatives were evaluated to determine if Project goals would be achieved by implementing each of the alternatives in the Corridor. A summary of the evaluation for key goals is provided below.

Equity Goal

The Light Rail Alternative would address the concern of Corridor residents that existing transit service quality is not at a comparable level to that provided to other portions of the City. Light rail would offer more reliable service at slightly reduced travel times along Third Street because of the use of an exclusive right-of-way, particularly through Downtown and Chinatown via the New Central Subway. Minority communities in Bayview Hunters Point, Visitacion Valley, South of Market, and Chinatown would be the principal beneficiaries of this higher quality of service. Because of the increasing congestion in the Corridor, buses operating in the No Project and No Build/TSM Alternatives would not be expected to improve service reliability and travel times.

Economic Revitalization Goal

Because one of the primary objectives of the Light Rail Alternative is to support economic revitalization in the Third Street commercial core, the infrastructure investment that would accompany light rail implementation, in terms of street redesign, sidewalk improvements, and landscaping, would not be provided by the No Project and No Build/TSM Alternatives. For the four design options being considered for Third Street in the commercial core, the one-lane and mixed-flow options would allow a greater portion of the public right-of-way devoted to these improvements than the two-lane option.

Community Acceptance Goal

Community support for the Project has been established by holding over 40 meetings in the Corridor to discuss the Project alternatives, by fostering community input in previous Corridor planning studies, and by the cooperative efforts of City agencies operating in the Corridor. Subsequent community meetings will be held as part of the public review of the DEIS/DEIR to coalesce community input toward determining the Preferred Investment Strategy for the Corridor.

Financial Goal

The Light Rail and the No Build/TSM Alternatives would not incur capital or operating deficits for building or operating transit service in the Corridor. However, construction of the New Central Subway would require unsecured federal as well as unidentified state or local resources.

S.7 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY/ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED

Five design issues remain outstanding. They are:

• whether to select a two-lane, one-lane (two different options), or mixed-flow configuration on Third Street between Kirkwood and Thomas Avenues;
• whether to select high or hybrid low platforms for the surface stations (including, for hybrid low platforms, finalizing the design for wheelchair access ramps and platform width);
• whether to operate light rail only on the Fourth Street bridge over Mission Creek or to split the alignment as a one-way couplet on the Third and Fourth Street bridges;
• whether to build a new maintenance facility on the eastern or western portion of a former Western Pacific railyard adjacent to Pier 80 or at a Port-owned site along Cargo Way near Piers 90 and 92; and
• which of two Corridor bus service plans/route modifications should accompany the Light Rail Alternative.

Environmental issues to be resolved include: the potential displacement of curb parking at station locations along Third Street between Kirkwood and Thomas Avenues; an alternative to formally designated bike lanes in the Corridor; extent of mitigation of potential vibration impacts; potential conflicts with the trunk sewer line on Mission Street at Third Street; resolution of potential conflicts with pedestrian circulation surrounding proposed subway access points; and the retention of the Union Pacific freight spur line at the proposed Caltrain Bayshore intermodal station.

S.8 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

The DEIS/DEIR builds on community input received over the past nine months:

• In November 1997, more than 100 interested citizens attended a pair of scoping meetings to learn more about the project and share their ideas about the proposed light rail line.
• The Community Advisory Group (CAG), a body of approximately 30 neighborhood representatives, has met throughout the planning process to provide public comments, discuss technical findings and make recommendations on the project.
• Early in 1997, MUNI hosted a series of neighborhood workshops in Visitacion Valley/Little Hollywood, Bayview Hunters Point, Potrero Hill, South of Market, and Chinatown/Downtown, to discuss the project with the community. Over 300 people attended the workshops.MUNI has made over 40 presentations on the project to community groups.
• Newsletters on the Project have been mailed to about 5,000 persons and distributed to 20,000 households in the Corridor as a means of providing information to the public on project development.

As a result of public input, MUNI modified existing design options and added new ones to ensure that the project fully reflects the community's desires. MUNI plans to continue their on-going public involvement program during the review period for this DEIS/DEIR and during the response to comments, selection of a preferred alternative, final design, construction and environmental compliance monitoring.

S.9 AGENCY COORDINATION AND APPROVALS REQUIRED

Public agencies formally or informally contacted and consulted during the preparation of this environmental document, that would have approval or permit requirements are listed below. A Technical Advisory Committee comprised of 42 public agency representatives and City Staff, listed in Chapter 9.0, participated in the planning and design options for the Light Rail Alternative and in the identification of issues described and analyzed in this document.

The San Francisco Public Transportation Commission has approval authority over San Francisco Municipal Railway facilities and the Project. State, federal, and local agencies that require permit approval for aspects of the Project are identified in Chapter 2.0.

• Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
• Bay Area Air Quality Management District
• Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)
• California Department of Fish & Game
• California Environmental Protection Agency
• California Office of Intergovernmental Management
• California Public Utilities Commission
• California State Lands Commission
• California State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO)
• California Transportation Commission (CTC)
• Caltrans District 4
• Department of Boating & Waterways
• Federal Highway Administration
• Joint Powers Board (Caltrain)
• Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
• Regional Water Quality Control Board
• San Francisco Department of Public Health
• San Francisco Department of Public Works
• San Francisco Parking and Traffic Commission
• San Francisco Planning Department
• San Francisco Port Commission
• San Francisco Redevelopment Agency
• US Army Corps of Engineers
• US Coast Guard-Pacific Area
• US Environmental Protection Agency
• US Fish and Wildlife Service