9.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

9.1 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

The evaluation of alternatives provides local decision makers with guidance in selecting a Preferred Investment Strategy.  The evaluation, as presented in this Chapter, is consistent with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) New Starts Funding criteria.  The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), which was passed in August 2005, direct FTA to evaluate and rate candidate New Starts projects as an input to federal funding decisions and at specific milestones throughout each project’s planning and development process.  In May 2006, the FTA updated their guidance on policies and procedures for discretionary New Starts funding under Section 5309.  These revised Section 5309 criteria reflect a comprehensive set of quantitative and qualitative measures:

· Mobility Improvements;

· Environmental Benefits;

· Operating Efficiencies;

· Cost Effectiveness;

· Transit Supportive Existing Land Use and Future Patterns;

· Other Factors (optional); and

· Local Financial Commitment.

FTA does not suggest that the local project evaluation (to determine the Preferred Investment Strategy) must be based entirely on the recommended performance measures, or that the federal government must limit its consideration of candidate projects to those same performance measures. Therefore, the evaluation includes measures based on the locally-defined goals and objectives discussed above, as well as FTA's recommended measures.

The local goals and objectives have been integrated into the FTA evaluation criteria categories.  Project goals and objectives are presented in Section 1.4 of the SEIS/SEIR.  For each FTA criteria, performance measures related to the FTA guidelines and local goals and objectives are evaluated.  The resulting performance measures categorized by FTA New Starts criteria are presented in each section below.

9.1.1 TRANSIT OPTIONS EVALUATED

The evaluation compares the Central Subway Build Alternatives against the No Project/TSM Alternative. The No Project/TSM assumes that the T-Third line and associated bus changes described in Section 2.1 of this SEIS/SEIR are in place along with major transportation network improvements identified in the Regional Transportation Plan.  The two Central Subway Build Alternatives include the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment and the Fourth/Stockton Alignment.  The Enhanced EIS/EIR alignment has a surface/subway light rail line operating on segments of Third, Harrison, Kearny, and Geary Streets as well as Fourth and Stockton Streets.  The alignment crosses Market Street in a shallow subway and includes a surface platform on Third Street at King Street and four Subway stations (Moscone, Market, Union Square and Chinatown).  Enhancements to the 1998 FEIS/FEIR alternative include above-ground emergency ventilation shafts, off-sidewalk station entries where feasible, and the provision of a closed barrier fare system.  The Fourth/Stockton Alignment would operate exclusively on Fourth and Stockton Streets with a deep tunnel crossing under Market Street.  Two design options for this alternative are being evaluated.  Option A (Locally Preferred Alternative or LPA) has a double-track portal on Fourth Street between Townsend and Brannan Streets and three subway stations (Moscone, Union Square/Market Street, and Chinatown).  Option B (Modified LPA) has a double-track portal on Fourth Street between Bryant and Harrison Streets, a surface platform on Fourth Street at Brannan Street, and three subway stations (Moscone, Union Square/Market Street, and Chinatown).  Option B includes semi-exclusive and mixed-flow suboptions for the surface portion of the light rail operation on Fourth Street.  The Fourth/Stockton Alignment Options A and B also include a North Beach tunnel construction variant that would extend the tunnel to the north approximately 2,000 feet under Stockton Street and Columbus Avenue, just past Union Street, to allow for the removal of the TBM.

Detailed descriptions of the alternatives can be found in Section 2.1 of this SEIS/SEIR.

9.1.2 EVALUATION FRAMEWORK

The Section 5309 New Starts criteria provide FTA with a consistent framework for evaluating major transit investments seeking federal discretionary funding under the Section 5309 New Starts program.  FTA uses an analytical method in which New Start projects are analyzed against several evaluation criteria and results are displayed and reported annually.^[1] 

This method is also used to evaluate the alternatives/transit options relative to local goals and objectives.  No attempt has been made to provide an overall ranking or single index combining all measures.  The community and its decision-makers can apply their own values in weighing the importance of the various measures and selecting a Preferred Investment Strategy.  The evaluation completed for the SEIS/SEIR will not necessarily conform to the evaluation by FTA that compares New Start projects nationwide for purposes of recommending projects to Congress for funding.

The local evaluation is summarized by means of performance ratings assigned to the alternatives.  Performance ratings were assigned to each alternative based on how well the alternative meets the objective.  In some cases there is a clear distinction between alternatives, while in others no clear distinction may exist.  The ratings may be adjusted in order to account for significant environmental impacts, or other criteria, which make a particular alternative significantly more or less desirable than the other.                                 

9.2 MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS

In general, mobility is improved by a transit project if individuals can complete the trips they currently make at reduced travel times or if they can and do make more trips in response to a lowered net cost of trip making.  Costs, in this context, include the value of service quality differences, such as travel time and reliability.

The Travel and Mobility Goal is to improve transit service to, from, and within the Central Subway Corridor, thereby enhancing the mobility of Corridor residents, business people, and visitors.  The specific supporting objectives and performance measures applied to each of the transit options for the Travel and Mobility Goal are presented in Table 9-1.

9.2.1 SUMMARY OF MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS EVALUATION

Table 9-2 summarizes the evaluation of the alternatives with respect to achieving the Mobility Improvements criteria/objectives.

Alternative 1 - No Project/TSM

The No Project/TSM Alternative would not provide the same high-quality transit service to low income households and employment centers in the Central Subway corridor as would occur if the Project were implemented.  It would have slower transit travel times than the Build Alternatives, as a direct exclusive transit right-of-way connection to Chinatown would not be provided.  The No Project/TSM Alternative would not be compatible with the Transportation Authority’s 1995 Four Corridor Plan because it would

TABLE 9-1

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS

TABLE 9-2

SUMMARY OF MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS EVALUATION

not establish a rail connection to Chinatown as called for in the plan.  The No Project/TSM Alternative would result in the greatest travel times for Muni passengers between Fourth and King Streets and Chinatown and transit ridership in the Corridor would be [begin insertion] about nine percent [end insertion] [begin deletion] at least 10 minutes s [end deletion] lower than if the Central Subway was implemented.  As buses would be operating on surface streets in non-exclusive right-of-way throughout the Corridor, average operating speeds of transit vehicles would be slower as they would be encountering vehicular congestion that occurs on surface streets.  As a result of these factors, the weekday transit ridership of [begin insertion] 147,450 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 124,200 [end deletion] passengers under the No Project/TSM Alternative would be the lowest of any alternative.

Alternative 2 - Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment

The Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment would have in-vehicle travel time savings of [begin insertion] 6.1 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 5.8 [end deletion] minutes from Fourth/King Streets to Third and Market Streets and 10.0 minutes from Fourth/King Streets to the Chinatown Station compared to the No Project/TSM Alternative due to the more direct route and the addition of 1.75 miles of exclusive right-of-way.  The Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment would improve service to the substantial number of low income households and employment centers along the Corridor resulting in an increase of [begin insertion] 15,160 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 21,000 [end deletion] transit riders over the No Project/TSM Alternative to a total of [begin insertion] 162,610 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 145,200 [end deletion] average daily transit riders, including [begin insertion] 89,790 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 76,300 [end deletion] rail passengers.  The split of service between the Third and Fourth Street corridors in the South of Market would slightly extend the market reach to low income households.  The Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment would be fully compatible with citywide and area-specific plans.

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

The Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A would have the greatest travel time savings (12.4 minutes over the No Project/TSM Alternative from Fourth/King to Chinatown Station and [begin insertion] 7.3 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 7.0 [end deletion] minutes to Market Street) and would add approximately 1.7 miles of exclusive right-of-way for transit.  The Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A would attract about [begin insertion] 14,660 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 19,000 [end deletion] new weekday riders over the No Project/TSM Alternative, for a total average weekday ridership of [begin insertion] 162,110 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 143,200 [end deletion] , which would be slightly lower than the ridership increases achieved with the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment.  This would include [begin insertion] 88,840 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 77,600 [end deletion] rail passengers.  [begin deletion] This alternative would see the greatest increase in rail ridership among the alternatives.  [end deletion] While, the Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A would not serve quite as many low income households and employment centers as the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment, the benefits in travel time savings would partially offset the potential negative of a smaller service area.  This alternative would be fully compatible with the Four Corridor Plan and other citywide and area-specific plans.

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

The Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option B would have a travel time savings of 10.7 minutes from Fourth/King Streets to Chinatown Station and [begin insertion] 6.0 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 5.6 [end deletion] minutes to Market Street when compared to the No Project/TSM Alternative.  Similar to Option A, approximately 1.7 miles of new exclusive transit right-of-

way would be added to the Muni System and approximately [begin insertion] 14,840 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 18,400 [end deletion] new daily transit riders would be added to the Corridor, for an average daily ridership of [begin insertion] 162,290 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 142,600 [end deletion] passengers in the Corridor, including [begin insertion] 99,230 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 76,600 [end deletion] rail passengers.  [begin insertion] This alternative would see the greatest increase in rail ridership among the [end insertion]

[begin insertion] alternatives.  [end insertion] As with the other Build Alternatives, Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option B would improve transit service to the low income population along the Corridor and also enhance service to the employment centers as envisioned in citywide and area-specific plans and the Four Corridor Plan.

9.3 ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS

Environmental benefits of a transit project can cover a wide variety of topics, including reduced mobile emissions, energy savings, and opportunities for transit-oriented development that can positively affect the environment.  The Environmental Goal is to provide transit improvements that enhance and preserve the social and physical environment and minimize direct or indirect construction or operation impacts.  The specific supporting objectives and performance measures for the Environmental Goal are presented in Table 9-3.

TABLE 9-3

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS

9.3.1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS EVALUATION

Table 9-4 summarizes the evaluation of each alternative with respect to achieving the Environmental Benefits criteria/objectives.  The EPA air quality designation for the region applies to present day measures and cannot be evaluated for the Project alternatives in the future.

Alternative 1 - No Project/TSM

The No Project/TSM Alternative would not require property acquisitions, affect parklands and cultural sites, have visual impacts, or displace parking during construction.  However, it would also not reduce air pollution or contributions to greenhouse gases and would not reduce energy consumption.   It would also likely result in more localized long-term traffic congestion along the Corridor.

TABLE 9-4

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS EVALUATION

Alternative 2 - Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment

The Enhanced EIS/EIR would reduce emissions related to vehicular traffic and greenhouse gases, and would increase use of electric energy from renewable hydroelectric power.  This would result in a small net decrease in energy consumption (-16 million BTU’s annually) when compared to the No Project/TSM Alternative.  Construction of the vent shafts and station entrances would result in visual changes to Union Square, but would not impact the character-defining features of the park.  The subway construction would potentially impact 14 highly sensitive prehistoric archaeological sites, three highly sensitive historical archaeological sites, and three historical architectural properties.  This alternative would cast minor shadows from the vent shaft on Willy “Woo Woo” Wong Playground, east of the Chinatown Station.  The Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment would require the displacement of 10 small businesses [begin insertion] and one to two residential units [end insertion] in Chinatown for the station construction.  The Enhanced EIS/EIR Alternative would also result in a physical take of parkland at Union Square plaza for the station entry, vent shafts, and emergency elevators, which requires Section 4(f) review and approval of a de minimis finding.  This alternative would permanently displace a total of 59 off-street parking spaces in private and public garages.  During the construction of the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment, most of the on-street parking spaces in the immediate work areas would be temporarily displaced.  One building at 814-

828 Stockton Street in Chinatown would be demolished to build the proposed station.  This building has been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and is considered a contributor to

the Chinatown Historic District (the District has a total of 371 contributing buildings).  An adverse effect is described for this impact to cultural resources.

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

The Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A would reduce emissions related to vehicular traffic and greenhouse gases, and would increase use of electric energy from renewable hydroelectric power.  The decrease in fossil fuel consumption would not be sufficient to completely offset the increased energy consumption associated with the increase in electricity used by the light rail system resulting in a slight increase in energy consumption (+243 million BTU’s annually) when compared to the No Project/TSM Alternative.  The double-portal entrance that would be visible along Fourth Street would affect the visual conditions of the block located between Townsend and Brannan Streets.  The construction of vent shafts and station entrances would have a modest visual effect at Union Square and when viewed from Willy “Woo Woo” Wong Playground in Chinatown.  Like Alternative 2, above, this alternative would cast minor shadows from the vent shaft on Willie “Woo Woo” Wong Playground.

Construction of the Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A would potentially impact seven highly sensitive prehistoric archaeological resources, 11 highly sensitive historical archaeological sites, and three historical properties.  This Alternative would displace one business to accommodate the Moscone Station construction and 10 small businesses [begin insertion] and one to two residential units [end insertion] to accommodate the Chinatown station.  The Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A would result in the same physical take of parkland at Union Square plaza for the station entry, vent shafts, and emergency elevators as described for Alternative 2, which would require Section 4(f) review and approval of a de minimis finding.  Removal of the building at 814-828 Stockton Street in Chinatown would have the same impacts as Alternative 2 to cultural resources.  This alternative would permanently displace a total of 29 off-street parking spaces at the Union Square garage. During the construction of this Alternative, most of the on-street parking spaces in the immediate work areas would be displaced.

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

The Fourth/Stock Alignment Option B would reduce emissions related to vehicular traffic and greenhouse gases, and would increase use of electric energy from renewable hydroelectric power.  This would result in the greatest decrease in energy consumption of 1.05 billion BTUs annually when compared to the No Project/TSM Alternative.  The double-portal entrance on Fourth Street would be visible along the block located between Bryant and Harrison Streets under the I-80 overpass.  The construction of the station entrance would have a modest visual impact at Union Square along Geary

Street because it would be built into the terraced concrete edge of the plaza.  The vent shafts for this alternative would be in the Ellis/O’Farrell garage, not in Union Square, further minimizing visual impacts to the plaza.

Construction of the Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option B would potentially impact seven highly sensitive prehistoric archaeological resources, 12 historic archaeological sites, and three historical properties.  Removal of the building at 933-949 Stockton Street would have the same impact to the Chinatown Historic District as described for Alternatives 2 and 3A.  This Alternative would displace one business to accommodate the Moscone Station construction and 8 small businesses and 17 residential units to accommodate the Chinatown station at Stockton and Washington Streets.  The Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option B would also result in a physical take of parkland at Union Square plaza for the station entry and emergency elevators (but not the vent shafts), which would reduce the physical take of park property.  Section 4(f) review and approval of a de minimis finding would be required.  This alternative would permanently displace a total of 59 off-street parking spaces in the Union Square and Ellis/O’Farrell garages.  During the construction of this Alternative, most of the on-street parking spaces in the immediate work areas would be temporarily displaced.

9.4 OPERATING EFFICIENCIES

Operating efficiencies represent the extent to which the proposed transit investment would produce future resource savings for transit operators relative to existing service or existing service forecasted into the future.  The specific supporting objectives and performance measures applied to each of the transit options for the Operating Efficiencies evaluation criteria are presented in Table 9-5.

TABLE 9-5

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING OPERATING EFFICIENCIES

9.4.1 SUMMARY OF OPERATING EFFICIENCIES EVALUATION

Table 9-6 presents a comparison of the systemwide Operations Efficiencies calculations for each alternative.  Table 9‑7 summarizes the evaluation with respect to achieving the Operating Efficiencies criteria/objectives.

TABLE 9-6

OPERATING EFFICIENCIES - 2030

Sources: 2030 base system ridership – San Francisco Model, January [begin insertion] 2007 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 2008 [end deletion] , and [begin insertion] MTA, [end insertion] [begin insertion] May 2007 [end insertion] [begin deletion] AECOM Consult Inc., March 2008 [end deletion] .

Notes:      ⁽¹⁾     Includes Cable Car mode.

⁽²⁾ Excludes Cable Car mode

⁽³⁾ [begin deletion] Includes Historic Street Cars [end deletion]

TABLE 9-7

SUMMARY OF OPERATING EFFICIENCIES

Alternative 1 - No Project/TSM

The No Project/TSM Alternative operating costs per passenger mile would be comparable to the Build Alternatives.  The No Project/TSM Alternative would have the highest operating cost per passenger [begin insertion] ($1.82 [end insertion] [begin deletion] $2.34 [end deletion] ), [begin insertion] and [end insertion] [begin deletion] but would have [end deletion] the [begin insertion] highest [end insertion] [begin deletion] lowest [end deletion] operating cost per [begin deletion] revenue [end deletion] bus hour [begin insertion] ($254.00 [begin deletion] [end deletion] [end insertion] [begin deletion] $140.02 [end deletion] ) [begin deletion] and per revenue train hour ($248.20) [end deletion] when compared to all the Build Alternatives [begin insertion] and would have a higher operating cost per train hour ($303.00) than the Enhanced EIS/EIR or Fourth/Stockton Option B alignments [end insertion] . 

Alternative 2 - Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment

The Enhanced EIS/EIR Alternative would provide faster and more reliable transit service than the No Project/TSM Alternative, [begin insertion] generally [end insertion] with [begin insertion] out a [end insertion] [begin deletion] some [end deletion] loss in operating efficiency.  The operating costs per passenger ( [begin insertion] $1.63 [end insertion] [begin deletion] $2.31 [end deletion] ) [begin deletion] would go down [end deletion] , while the operating costs per [begin deletion] revenue [end deletion] bus hour ( [begin insertion] $209.00 [end insertion] [begin deletion] $140.34 [end deletion] ) [begin insertion] , [end insertion] and per [begin deletion] revenue [end deletion] train hour ( [begin insertion] $298.00 [end insertion] [begin deletion] $260.32 [end deletion] ) would [begin insertion] all go down [end insertion] [begin deletion] increase [end deletion] when

compared to the No Project/TSM.  The service would be of higher quality and capacity compared to the No Project/TSM Alternative; however, the operating cost per passenger [begin insertion] ($0.58 [end insertion] [begin deletion] $1.25 [end deletion] ) would marginally increase. 

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

The Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A would provide some [begin deletion] systemwide [end deletion] improvements in operational efficiency compared to both the No Project/TSM Alternative and the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alternative.  The operating cost per passenger ( [begin insertion] $1.56 [end insertion] [begin deletion] $2.29 [end deletion] ) would be lower [begin deletion] , [end deletion] [begin insertion] and [end insertion] the operating cost per passenger mile ( [begin insertion] $0.57 [end insertion] [begin deletion] $1.24 [end deletion] ) [begin deletion] about the same, [end deletion] and [begin deletion] the [end deletion] operating cost per bus hour ( [begin insertion] $209.00 [end insertion] [begin deletion] $140.32 [end deletion] ) would be [begin insertion] about the same [end insertion] [begin deletion] slightly lower than Alternative 2, though higher than the No Project/TSM Alternative [end deletion] , with no perceptible decrease in operating efficiency.  [begin insertion] This alternative would have t [end insertion] [begin deletion] T [end deletion] he [begin insertion] highest [end insertion] operating cost per [begin deletion] revenue [end deletion] train hour [begin deletion] would be $259.98, which falls between the other two Build Alternatives [end deletion] . 

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

The Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option B [begin insertion] has the greatest overall operating [end insertion] efficiencies [begin deletion] are comparable to Alternative 3A for passenger and passenger mile costs and for bus operating costs per revenue bus hour [end deletion] .  [begin insertion] With the highest ridership, this alternative generates the lowest operating cost per passenger ($1.52).  The operating costs per passenger mile ($0.57) and per bus hour ($209.00) are comparable to other Build Alternatives.  The [end insertion] [begin deletion]   This alternative has the lowest [end deletion] operating cost per [begin deletion] revenue [end deletion] train hour ( [begin insertion] $299.00 [end insertion] [begin deletion] $259.84 [end deletion] ) [begin insertion] falls just below the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment and is lower by $6.00 than for Option A [end insertion] [begin deletion] of all the Build Alternatives [end deletion] .

9.5 COST EFFECTIVENESS

Cost effectiveness, as applied to transportation capital projects, is defined as the extent to which an alternative returns benefits in relation to its costs in terms of incremental cost per hour of transportation system user benefits.  Since the early 1980's FTA has used a cost-effectiveness index to evaluate and compare New Start transit projects.  The cost-effectiveness index is an attempt to calculate the cost of attracting one new rider to transit. FTA has recently revised its cost effectiveness measure to exclude travel time savings from the calculation and to consider the user benefits.  The Cost Effectiveness evaluation criteria are presented in Table 9-8.

TABLE 9-8

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING COST EFFECTIVENESS

9.5.1 SUMMARY OF COST EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION

Table 9-9 summarizes the evaluation of each alternative with respect to achieving the Cost Effectiveness criteria/objectives.  The Table 9-9 incremental costs were calculated from Operations and Maintenance (O&M) forecasts developed in [begin insertion] 2006 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 2008 [end deletion] consistent with all of the evaluations performed for the SEIS/SEIR.^[2]

TABLE 9-9

SUMMARY OF COST EFFECTIVENESS

[begin insertion] -High, -Medium High, Medium, Medium Low, -Low [end insertion]

Note:  [begin insertion] An updated cost effectiveness index was calculated for Alternative 3B as part of the Fiscal Year 2009 New Starts Report submitted to FTA in September 2007.  [end insertion] The cost-effectiveness index for all [begin insertion] other [end insertion] alternatives is based on the Fiscal Year [begin insertion] 2007 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 2009 [end deletion] New Starts Report.  [begin insertion] For the Final SEIS/SEIR, the cost-effectiveness index will be updated for all alternatives. [end insertion]

Alternative 1 - No Project/TSM

The cost per hour of transportation system user benefit is not applicable to the No Project/TSM Alternative.

Alternative 2 - Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment

Alternative 2 has the highest incremental cost per hour of transportation system-user benefit ( [begin insertion] $33.58 [end insertion] [begin deletion] $30.37 [end deletion] ) of all of the build alternatives and would be assigned a low cost effectiveness rating based on the FTA criteria.  The MTA 2030 projected systemwide ridership would be [begin insertion] higher [end insertion] [begin deletion] lower [end deletion] in Alternative 2 than in other alternatives [begin deletion] , but the Central Subway Corridor ridership would be higher [end deletion] .  [begin insertion] and [begin deletion] t [end deletion] [end insertion] [begin deletion] The [end deletion] MTA revenues generated from this alternative would [begin insertion] also [end insertion] be [begin insertion] highest [end insertion] [begin deletion] lowest [end deletion] among alternatives; however, relative operating costs [begin deletion] per revenue bus and train hour [end deletion] for this alternative are also [begin insertion] high [end insertion] [begin deletion] low, though [end deletion] without comparable user benefits.  This alternative would generate a higher level of Central Subway ridership than [begin deletion] either [end deletion] Alternative 3A [begin deletion] or 3B [end deletion] , but would [begin insertion] generate lower ridership on the Central Subway line than under Alternative 3B and would [end insertion] result in the highest travel time [begin insertion] s [end insertion] of all Build Alternatives.

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

Alternative 3A has an incremental cost per hour of transportation system-user benefit [begin insertion] ($22.73 [end insertion] [begin deletion] $21.12 [end deletion] ), which is an improvement over Alternative 2.  This cost would receive a medium cost-effectiveness rating based on FTA criteria.   This alternative would have the lowest projected ridership on the Central Subway line of all Build Alternatives [begin deletion] , [end deletion] [begin insertion] and would rank behind Alternative 2 [end insertion] [begin deletion] but would rank the highest [end deletion] in systemwide MTA ridership and projected revenues.  While travel times are the fastest for this alternative, by providing only three stations, the accessibility to the system is less with Alternative 3A.

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

Alternative 3B has [begin insertion] the lowest [end insertion] a slightly higher incremental cost per hour of transportation system-user benefit [begin insertion] ($18.36 [end insertion] [begin deletion] $21.24 [end deletion] ) [begin deletion] than Alternative 3A [end deletion] , [begin deletion] but would [end deletion] also achiev [begin deletion] e [end deletion] [begin insertion] ing [end insertion] a medium rating [begin insertion] , but would rank above the other two Build Alternatives [end insertion] with respect to the FTA cost-effectiveness criteria.  This alternative achieves the [begin deletion] second [end deletion] highest projected ridership of all Build Alternatives, [begin deletion] falling just below Alternative 3A. [end deletion]   [begin deletion] It improves [end deletion] [begin insertion] by improving [end insertion] travel times [begin deletion] over the No Project/TSM Alternative and Alternative 2 [end deletion] and also provid [begin deletion] es [end deletion] [begin insertion] ing [end insertion] a high level of system accessibility.  [begin insertion] The resulting user benefits offset the higher systemwide costs and lower systemwide revenues projected for Alternative 3B. [end insertion] [begin deletion] These factors give Alternative 3B the best overall performance in operating efficiencies (refer to Table 9-6). [end deletion]

9.6 TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE EXISTING LAND USE AND FUTURE PATTERNS

It is difficult to evaluate land use in quantitative terms due to the subjective nature of the topic.  The issue is how well (or how poorly) a transportation alternative reinforces local land use policies.  For instance, if a given alternative provides improved accessibility to areas where the City wants to stimulate growth, it would support the City’s land use policy.  On the other hand, if it would intrude upon established neighborhoods or planned developments or worsen traffic congestion, it would not support the City’s land use policy.

The Transit Supportive Land Use Goal is to ensure compatibility with City land use plans and policies and transportation improvements so that transit ridership can be maximized, the number of auto trips reduced, and opportunities for transit-oriented development pursued.  The specific supporting objectives and performance measures used to evaluate the Transit Supportive Land Use Goal are presented in Table 9-10.

9.6.1 TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE LAND USE EVALUATION

Table 9-11 summarizes the evaluation of achieving the Transit Supportive Land Use and Future Patterns criteria/objectives.

Alternative 1 - No Project/TSM

While the land use conditions in the Study Area are very favorable to a high level of transit use, the No Project/TSM Alternative would not be as supportive of citywide and area-specific plans nor would it provide the same opportunities for economic revitalization centered on transit stations that would be

TABLE 9-10

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE LAND USE AND FUTURE PATTERNS

Table 9-11

SUMMARY OF TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE LAND USE AND FUTURE PATTERNS

afforded by the Build Alternatives.  The No Project/TSM Alternative would serve major activity centers in the Corridor, but light rail service on its own reserved right-of-way would provide higher quality and more reliable service.

Alternative 2 - Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment

The Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment would be fully supportive of citywide and area plans and would accommodate the growth anticipated in the Corridor with enhanced transit service.  This Alternative would encourage revitalization in the Central Subway Corridor by providing more reliable and direct transit service to most of the major activity centers in the Corridor from the four stations proposed along the alignment.  Transit-oriented development opportunities would be made available by MTA at the Chinatown Station.

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

The affects of the Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option B on transit supportive land use would be the same as those for Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A, except that this alternative includes an additional surface station at Fourth and Brannan Streets, which enhances access to the transit system along the Fourth Street Corridor and has been supported in concept by the Citywide Section (long-range planning division) San Francisco Planning Department.

9.7 OTHER FACTORS

Other Factors is an optional criterion defined by FTA that focuses on local evaluation factors, rather than the FTA-defined evaluation criteria that are applied to all transit operators in the United States. The measures that are applied to each of the transit options for the “other factors” evaluation criteria are presented in Table 9-12.  For the evaluation of alternatives, this criterion group includes local goals and objectives that cannot be easily categorized into FTA Section 5309 New Starts criteria.

9.7.1 OTHER LOCAL EVALUATION FACTORS

Table 9-13 summarizes the evaluation of each alternative with respect to achieving the Other Factors criteria/objectives.

Alternative 1 - No Project/TSM

The No Project/TSM Alternative would provide the slowest travel times from Fourth and King Streets to Market Street and Chinatown.  The No Project/TSM Alternative would maintain the current on-street parking supply and would do nothing to relieve the impact of the heavily congested traffic that slows bus transit operations on the surface streets.  While the No Project/TSM Alternative would not be as supportive of citywide and area-wide land use plans, it does have some community support as a low-cost alternative to a light rail investment in the Corridor. 

TABLE 9-12

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING OTHER FACTORS

TABLE 9-13

SUMMARY OF OTHER LOCAL EVALUATION FACTORS

Alternative 2 - Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment

The Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment would reduce travel times from Fourth and King Streets to Market Street and Chinatown, but not to the same degree as would the Fourth/Stockton Alignment because surface alignments for the Enhanced EIS/EIR would use both Third and Fourth Streets and therefore would not be as direct.  The Enhanced EIS/EIR would displace 111 on-street parking spaces along the Corridor and 59 off-street spaces at the Hearst and Union Square garages. 

The Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment would be compatible with citywide and area-specific plans and has generated some community acceptance and political support, however, comments received at the public

meetings suggest that the Fourth/Stockton Alignment Options A or B would have a greater degree of community support because of elimination of surface disruption along Third Street. 

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

The Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A would have the greatest travel time savings of any of the alternatives because travel is more direct on Fourth Street when compared to the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment and it has one fewer station than the Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option B.  The Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A would result in a net loss of 29 on-street parking spaces along the Central Subway Corridor and 29 off-street spaces at the Union Square garage.  In terms of the community acceptance and political support objective, the Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A would be superior to the No Project/TSM Alternative and the Enhanced EIS/EIR because it would provide shorter, more direct service into the Union Square retail area and Chinatown.

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

The Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option B would have a greater travel time savings than the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment but slightly higher than the Fourth/Stockton Option A because it has one more station.  The Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option B would result in a net loss of 82 on-street parking spaces along the Central Subway Corridor [begin deletion] (79 with mixed-flow operations) [end deletion] and 59 off-street spaces at the Ellis/O’Farrell and Union Square garages.  In terms of the community acceptance and political support objective, the Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option B likely have the greatest public support of the Build Alternatives as it provides the highest level of ridership [begin deletion] , [end deletion] [begin insertion] and [end insertion] the greatest level of accessibility by improving the direct connections between Visitacion Valley and Chinatown [begin deletion] , and minimizes the impact on park lands [end deletion] .  This alternative also offers cost savings not afforded by the Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A.

9.8 LOCAL FINANCIAL COMMITMENT

This section discusses the financial feasibility of the alternatives and design options.  Local financial commitment measures the local agency’s contribution to the cost of constructing, operating and maintaining the Project, the stability and reliability of its capital financing plan, and the stability and reliability of its operating financing plan.  The Financial Goal is to implement transit improvements that provide for the efficient use of limited financial resources.  The specific supporting objectives and performance measures are presented in Table 9-14.

TABLE 9-14

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING LOCAL FINANCIAL COMMITMENT

9.8.1 LOCAL FINANCIAL COMMITMENT EVALUATION

Table 9-15 summarizes the evaluation of each alternative with respect to achieving the Local Financial Commitment criteria/objectives.

Alternative 1 - No Project/TSM

Under the No Project/TSM Alternative, there would be no further capital investment in rail.  Bus service would be added as required in the future to respond to increased demand.  Operating costs under this alternative would be higher than for all Build Alternatives.

TABLE 9-15

SUMMARY OF LOCAL FINANCIAL COMMITMENT

Alternative 2 - Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment

A total of $1.19 billion in combined federal, state, and local funds have been identified for implementation of the Project.  The Enhanced EIS/EIR is projected to cost $1.31 billion (see Table 8-1) in 2007 dollars ($1.64 billion year of expenditure), so funding would fall short of the costs to implement. Other funding sources would need to be identified to address funding shortfalls (including the 2030 Year of Expenditure escalation) and to implement this alternative.  The local contribution to the full funding plan would be 36 percent, as for all Build Alternatives.  The Central Subway is expected to result in a net operating surplus on a project-level with the operating cost per passenger mile comparable among all alternatives.

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

The capital cost of the Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A is $1.13 billion in 2007 dollars ($1.41 billion year of expenditure), which falls below the total funds needed for the Project.  Additional funds would be needed to cover the escalation costs in order to implement the Project (see Chapter 8.0, Financial Feasibility, for a more detailed discussion of the Project cost escalation factors).  See operating cost discussion under Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment.

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

The capital cost of the Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option B is the lowest of all Build Alternatives at $1.01 billion in 2007 dollars ($1.24 billion year of expenditure).  [begin insertion] Funding for this alternative would fall just short of the funds required to implement the Project.  Additional funds would need to be secured to address escalation costs for implementation of the Project (see Chapter 8.0, Financial Feasibility, for a more detailed discussion of the Project cost escalation factors).  [end insertion] [begin deletion] This alternative is the only alternative that is fully funded.  [end deletion] See operating cost discussion under Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment.

[begin deletion] New Starts Evaluation Process Update [end deletion]

[begin deletion] The Section 5309 “New Starts” program is the Federal government’s primary program for providing financial support to locally-planned, implemented, and operated fixed guideway transit major capital investments.  The New Starts evaluation process is used in conjunction with the evaluation process under the National Environmental Policy Act, for which this Environmental Impact Statement is being prepared.  This section describes how FTA evaluates projects for its New Starts funding recommendations.  The Central Subway project is seeking New Starts funding and, therefore, will be subject to this evaluation and rating process. [end deletion]

[begin deletion] Each year FTA submits its Annual Report on New Starts to Congress as a companion document to the annual budget submitted by the President.  The report provides recommendations for the allocation of New Starts funds under Section 5309 of Title 49 of the United States Code.  As required by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), FTA uses the following project justification criteria to evaluate New Starts projects: mobility improvements; environmental benefits; cost effectiveness; operating efficiencies; transit-supportive existing land use; policies and future patterns; and other factors.  FTA must also consider the local financial commitment for the proposed project.  In total, the criteria are intended to measure the overall merits of the project and the sponsor’s ability to build and operate it. [end deletion]

[begin deletion] FTA reviews the project justification and local financial commitment criteria for each candidate project and assigns a rating for each criterion.  For some of the project justification criteria, the proposed project is compared against a New Starts “baseline alternative.”  The New Starts baseline alternative consists of improvements to the transit system that are relatively low in cost and represent the “best that can be done” to improve transit without major capital investment in new guideway infrastructure.  As such, it is usually different than the baseline (represented by the no-build condition) against which environmental impacts are measured in the NEPA document.  [end deletion]

[begin deletion] A candidate project is given an overall rating of “High,” “Medium-High,” “Medium,” “Medium-Low” or “Low”, based on ratings assigned by FTA to each of the project justification and local financial commitment criteria described above.  These ratings are important, as FTA considers them in its decision to recommend projects for New Starts funding.  Specifically, FTA will not recommend funding for projects which are rated “Medium-Low” or ”Low.”  It is important to note, moreover, that a “High,” “Medium-High” or “Medium” rating does not automatically translate into a funding recommendation, although the potential for receiving New Starts funding is much greater. [end deletion]

[begin deletion] Project evaluation is an on-going process.  FTA evaluation and rating occurs annually in support of budget recommendations presented in the [begin deletion] Annual Report on New Starts [end deletion] and when projects request FTA approval to enter into preliminary engineering or final design.  Consequently, as proposed New Starts projects proceed through the project development process, information concerning costs, benefits, and impacts is refined and the ratings are updated to reflect new information. [end deletion]

[begin deletion] CURRENT RATINGS FOR THE CENTRAL SUBWAY PROJECT [end deletion]

[begin deletion] Overall Rating: Medium-High [end deletion]

[begin deletion] PROJECT JUSTIFICATION [end deletion]

[begin deletion] Rating: Medium-High [end deletion]

[begin deletion] MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS [end deletion]

[begin deletion] Rating: Medium-High [end deletion]

[begin deletion] In its evaluation of the mobility improvements that would be realized by implementation of a proposed project, FTA reviews the following measures: [end deletion]

[begin deletion] User benefits per project passenger mile [end deletion]

[begin deletion] Number of current Low Income Households that would be served by the proposed New Starts investment. [end deletion]

[begin deletion] Number of low income households and jobs served by the proposed New Starts project [end deletion]

[begin deletion] User benefits essentially represent all the travel time savings to transit riders in the forecast year that result from the New Starts project as compared to not building the project (the baseline alternative).  They include reductions in walk times, wait times, transfers, and, most importantly, in-vehicle times.  In order to rate projects in comparison to other proposed New Starts, this measure is normalized by the annual passenger miles traveled on the New Starts project in the forecast year.  The number of low income households and jobs served measure reflects the absolute number of low income households (defined as below the poverty level) and jobs located within ½ mile of the "boarding points," or stations, associated with the proposed project.  The total number of low income households and jobs located within these ½ mile zones is then divided by the total number of stations to determine both the average number of low-income households and average number of jobs per station.  [end deletion]

[begin deletion] Table 9-2 presents the mobility improvement measures for the Central Subway project.  [end deletion]

[begin deletion] ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS [end deletion]

[begin deletion] Rating: Medium-Low [end deletion]

[begin deletion] In its evaluation of environmental benefits that would be realized through the implementation of a proposed project, FTA considers the current air quality designation by EPA.  This measure is defined for each of the transportation-related pollutants (ozone, CO, and PM-10) as the current air quality designation by EPA for the metropolitan region in which the proposed project is located, indicating the severity of the metropolitan area’s noncompliance with the health-based EPA standard (NAAQS) for the pollutant, or its compliance with that standard.  New Starts project sponsors also submit information to FTA on the forecast reductions in emissions resulting from the New Starts project for each transportation-related pollutant.  FTA has found that information submitted in support of the environmental benefits criterion does not distinguish with any meaning the merits of competing New Starts projects.  While FTA reports the information submitted by project sponsors on environmental benefits to Congress and other stakeholders, it does not formally incorporate this measure in its evaluation of New Starts projects.  [end deletion]

[begin deletion] Table 9-4 presents the information used to determine the environmental benefits rating for the Central Subway project.  [end deletion]

[begin deletion] OPERATING EFFICIENCIES [end deletion]

[begin deletion] Rating: Medium-High [end deletion]

[begin deletion] FTA measures this criterion by evaluating the change in systemwide operating costs per passenger mile in the forecast year, comparing the Section 5309 New Start investment to the baseline alternative.  FTA assigns a rating of “medium” to all projects that have information submitted for this measure.  Like the environmental benefits measure, FTA has found that information submitted in support of the operating efficiencies criterion does not distinguish with any meaning the merits of competing New Starts projects.  While FTA reports the information submitted by project sponsors on operating efficiencies to Congress and other stakeholders, it does not formally incorporate this measure into its evaluation. [end deletion]

[begin deletion] COST EFFECTIVENESS [end deletion]

[begin deletion] Rating: Medium [end deletion]

[begin deletion] Significant among the project justification criteria is cost effectiveness, which is the annualized capital and operating cost per hour of user benefits for the forecast year.  It captures the additional costs of the New Starts project compared to the transportation benefits to transit riders. User benefits are defined identical to the measure used in the mobility improvements criterion.  [end deletion]

[begin deletion] New Starts projects must be rated "Medium" for cost effectiveness, in addition to receiving an overall "Medium" rating, in order to be considered by the Federal Transit Administration for New Starts funding. [end deletion]

[begin deletion] TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE LAND USE [end deletion]

[begin deletion] Rating: High [end deletion]

[begin deletion] This criterion addresses the extent that transit-oriented development is likely to occur in the New Start project’s corridor.     [end deletion]

[begin deletion] LOCAL FINANCIAL COMMITMENT [end deletion]

[begin deletion] Rating: Medium [end deletion]

[begin deletion] Proposed New Starts projects must be supported by evidence of stable and dependable financing sources to construct, operate and maintain the transit system.  The measures FTA uses to evaluate local financial commitment are: [end deletion]

[begin deletion] Local Share [end deletion]

[begin deletion] Rating: High [end deletion]

[begin deletion] FTA examines the proposed share of total project costs from sources other than Section 5309 New Starts, including Federal formula and flexible funds, the local match required by federal law, and any additional capital funding. [end deletion]

[begin deletion] Strength of Capital Financing Plan [end deletion]

[begin deletion] Rating: Medium [end deletion]

[begin deletion] FTA looks at the stability and reliability of the proposed capital financing plan, including the current capital condition of the project sponsor, the level of commitment of capital funds to the project, the financial capacity of the project sponsor to withstand cost overruns or funding shortfalls, and the reliability of the capital cost estimates and planning assumptions. [end deletion]

[begin deletion] Strength of Operating Financing Plan [end deletion]

[begin deletion] Rating: Medium [end deletion]

[begin deletion] FTA looks at the ability of the sponsoring agency to fund operation and maintenance of the entire system (including existing service) as planned, once the guideway project is built.  This includes: an examination of the current operating condition of the project sponsor; the level of commitment of operating funds for the transit system; the financial capacity of the project sponsor to operate and maintain all proposed, existing and planned transit services; and the reliability of the operating cost estimates and planning assumptions. [end deletion]

[begin deletion] The quantitative measures listed below represent some of what FTA relies on in rating a project’s local financial commitment.  The data listed below are for the Central Subway Project. [end deletion]

[begin deletion] [end deletion]

[begin deletion] Additional information on the financial plan for this project can be found in Chapter 8.0 of this document. [end deletion]

^[1]    Updated analysis was prepared for Alternative 3B (Modified Locally Preferred Alternative) only and was included in the August 2007 New Starts Report.

^[2]       [begin insertion] Updated Operations & Maintenance costs have been performed for Alternative 3B (Modified Locally Preferred Alternative) only and are included in the Fiscal Year 2009 New Starts Report.  The Fiscal Year 2007 [begin deletion] numbers [end deletion] used in Table 9-9 are to be only used for comparing one alternative against another.  These are different from the numbers submitted in the Fiscal Year 2009 New Starts Report.  The New Starts Report reflects the most current ridership numbers and cost effectiveness for the modified LPA (Alternative 3B) and should be used for all other circumstances. [end insertion] See Appendix H for [begin insertion] updated [end insertion] [begin deletion] further discussion of [end deletion] cost-effectiveness numbers.