S.0    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

S.1       INTRODUCTION

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) is proposing the Central Subway Project (Project), as the second phase of the Third Street Light Rail Project that was evaluated under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in the Third Street Light Rail Project Final Environmental Impact Study and Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/FEIR) (Case No. 96.281E) in 1998.  The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for the Third Street Light Rail Project and the San Francisco Public Transportation Commission (PTC) approved the Project in 1999.  The PTC was the predecessor policy board to the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA), which now oversees the San Francisco Municipal Railway (Muni) and the Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT).  The Phase 1 Initial Operating Segment (IOS) opened for service in spring of 2007.^[1]  The IOS is now referred to as the T-Third Line.

This Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIS/SEIR) updates information in the Central Subway Project Study Area and focuses on changes to the Central Subway portion of the Third Street Light Rail Project that have occurred since the certification of the 1998 FEIS/FEIR.  Proposed changes to the Central Subway portion of the Light Rail Project include: a new segment along Fourth and Stockton Streets between Brannan and Geary Streets as an alternative to use of Third, Harrison, Kearny, and Geary Streets; extension of the planning horizon year from 2015 to 2030; the addition of above ground ventilation shafts for tunnel segments and stations; the use of off-street access to stations; a deep tunnel under Market Street; and the potential extension of a construction tunnel under [begin deletion] Stockton Street and [end deletion] Columbus Avenue to the north end of the Project near Washington Square for removing the Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM).

This SEIS/SEIR evaluates three alternatives for the Central Subway Project: a No Project/Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative; an Enhanced EIS/EIR Alternative with an alignment along both Third and Fourth Streets south of Market Street and a shallow tunnel under Market Street, as in the original 1998 FEIS/FEIR; and a Fourth/Stockton Street Alternative with a deep tunnel under Market Street and two design options.

S.2       PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED

S.2.1     PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ACTION

As the Project Sponsor, MTA’s objective for the proposed Project is to complete the second phase of the Third Street Light Rail Project by providing Muni transit service improvements from the present terminus of the T-Third Line at Fourth and King Streets through South of Market, Downtown and Chinatown in the Central Subway Corridor.  MTA is seeking federal funding assistance to construct the proposed Central Subway Project.  Phase 1 of the Third Street Light Rail Project was originally included in the Metropolitan Transportation Commission Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) as a locally-funded Project.  The Phase 1 T-Third line was supported primarily by Proposition B local sales tax revenues; over $300 million in 1997 dollars.  In 2001, the Phase 2 Central Subway was incorporated into the RTP as a Project eligible for federal funds.  The funding plan included a combination of local, regional and federal funds for implementation of the two Project phases and noted that an updated cost estimate would be provided for the Central Subway following selection of the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) by the Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA).

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) action is to determine if the preferred alternative for the Central Subway Project meets their transit investment objectives and whether to recommend federal funding for the Project as part of the New Starts Program.

The FTA makes major transit funding decisions through a process designed to aid in the selection of transit solutions for the region.  Through this process, FTA identifies transit investments that:

· Achieve transit service and mobility goals, while minimizing social, economic, and environmental impacts;

· Increase transit use and reduce travel time at a reasonable cost;

· Link public transportation investments with land use planning and community revitalization;

· Have strong public and political support and compatibility with local, regional, and state planning initiatives; and

· Enhance and preserve the environment, particularly in terms of reduced air and noise pollution and congestion relief.

S.2.2     NEED FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CORRIDOR

The Central Subway Project would help to address mobility and transit deficiencies [begin deletion] by improving connections to communities [end deletion] in the [begin deletion] northeastern and southeastern [end deletion] part [begin deletion] s [end deletion] of the City and improving reliability of transit services.  Transit deficiencies include those that exist at present and those that are anticipated to exist during the 20-year plus planning horizon (2030).  The Central Subway Project is also intended to serve as a key infrastructure improvement to help ease congestion in the Study Area; improve transit service to the large transit-dependent population that resides along the Corridor; accommodate the increasing number of residents in the South of Market area; and serve mobility needs for the new jobs that are expected to be created in the Study Area.

For the Central Subway Project, transit accessibility along the Corridor is particularly critical as the population has a higher degree of transit dependency (72 percent of households along the Central Subway Corridor are without a vehicle compared to 29 percent citywide) and higher unemployment rates than other parts of the City (9 percent unemployed in the Central Subway Corridor versus 4.6 percent citywide unemployment).

S.2.3     PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The seven principal goals that Muni identified for the phased Third Street Light Rail Project to guide the evaluation of alternatives are still applicable to the Phase 2 Central Subway Project.  They are:

1. [begin deletion] Travel and Mobility Goal [end deletion]   Improve Muni service reliability in the Central subway Corridor, as part of the Third Street Light Rail Corridor, thereby enhancing the mobility of Corridor residents, business people and visitors.

2. [begin deletion] Equity Goal [end deletion]   Bring transit service in the Corridor to the level and qual­ity of service available in other sections of the City and improve the inadequate connections with other transit lines serving the region.

3. [begin deletion] Economic Revitalization/Development Goal [end deletion]   Design transportation improvements that support economic revitalization and development initiatives within the Corridor.

4. [begin deletion] Transit-supportive [end deletion] [begin deletion] Land [end deletion] [begin deletion] Use Goal [end deletion]   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. [begin deletion] Environmental Goal [end deletion]   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. [begin deletion] Financial Goal [end deletion]   Implement transit improvements that provide for the efficient use of limited financial resources.

7. [begin deletion] Community Acceptance and Political Support Goal [end deletion]   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.

Objectives include: increasing transit ridership; improving service reliability; reducing 2030 travel time; improving transit operating speed in downtown and South of Market; enhancing the opportunity to expand Muni’s Light Rail System; improving access to downtown employment opportunities; improving access to Chinatown; maintaining auto and truck access in the commercial core; maintaining adequate transit and vehicular circulation in the commercial core; providing opportunities for revitalization in the commercial core; enhancing urban design in the commercial core; supporting the coordination of land use and transportation planning; serving major activity centers in the Corridor; minimizing permanent displacement of homes and businesses; minimizing impacts on parklands/cultural resources; minimizing air quality impacts; minimizing adverse construction impacts; providing beneficial environmental impact to the community; developing a viable financial plan to cover total capital costs for the alternatives; developing a viable financial plan to cover total annual operating and maintenance costs; maximizing transit operating efficiency while accommodating 2030 travel demand; gaining community support for the preferred investment strategy; gaining City Commission and elected officials support for the preferred investment strategy; and gaining support from appropriate regional, state and federal agencies.

S.3  ALTERNATIVES

This document analyzes three alternatives for the Central Subway.  The alternatives are summarized in Table S-1 and Figure S-1 and described in further detail below.

Alternative 1 - No Project/TSM was developed in conformance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements.  The T-Third Line (Phase 1 of the Third Street Light Rail Project) and associated bus changes implemented in April 2007 are included in this alternative as are the funded projects programmed in the Regional Transportation Plan and the Muni Short Range Transit Plan.  This alternative would not fully accommodate 2030 projected travel demand.

Since implementation of the T-Third line, the Project Purpose and Need have not changed.  Bus service is already provided at three minute frequencies or better for much of the Central Subway Corridor and the streets, particularly Stockton Street, are operating at capacity.  As a result, additional bus service would not be a viable TSM alternative.  Introduction of a Bus Rapid Transit facility as a TSM Alternative would

TABLE S-1

summary of central subway alternativeS

Note:  SXM – Special Excavation Method; SEM – Sequential Excavation Method; TBM – Tunnel Boring Machine

            N/A = Not Applicable              

            [begin deletion] Ridership is defined as the number of passenger boardings. [end deletion]

Source:  PB/Wong 2007

not meet the Project goals and objectives as it would increase rather than reduce congestion on surface streets.  Therefore, the No Project and TSM Alternative are combined for this SEIS/SEIR.

The No Project/TSM Alternative has a projected weekday ridership of [begin insertion] 60,030 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 24,600 [end deletion] passengers for 2030 on the T-Third Line.  The transit travel time between Fourth and King Streets and Chinatown would be 17.0 minutes in 2030.

Figure S-1

central subway build Alternatives

ALTERNATIVE 2: Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment

ALTERNATIVE 3 (Option A LPA):  Fourth/Stockton Alignment

ALTERNATIVE 3 (Option B Modified LPA): Fourth/Stockton Alignment

Source: PB/Wong

Not to scale

Alternative 2 – Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment, as analyzed in the 1998 FEIS/FEIR, uses Third, Fourth, Harrison, Kearny, Geary, and Stockton Streets.  It 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 original FEIS/FEIR alternative include above-ground emergency ventilation shafts, off-sidewalk station entries where feasible, and the provision of a closed barrier fare system.

In the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment, the 1.75 mile light rail service would operate between Fourth and King Streets and Stockton and Jackson Streets.  North of King Street, the rail would travel in a surface configuration northbound on Third Street and southbound on Fourth Street, transitioning to subway operation at two-single track portals located between Brannan and Bryant Streets.  The service would operate independent of the existing Muni Metro Market Street subway.

This alternative follows the 1998 FEIS/FEIR Alignment, but also incorporates design changes to meet current fire codes, new Muni fare collection policy, and pedestrian access and circulation issues.   Above-ground emergency ventilation shafts would be located off-street rather that provided through an in-street ventilation system as originally planned.  Most station entries have been moved off crowded sidewalks to private or public property and combined wherever possible with vent shafts.  For the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment, one-car trains would operate as an independent line from the southern terminus in Visitacion Valley, via the existing T-Third alignment to Fourth and King Streets, and then via the Central Subway to the northern terminus in Chinatown.  Stations would be two level stacked platforms at Moscone and Union Square and single level side platforms at Market Street and Chinatown.  [begin deletion] Platform lengths would be approximately 250 feet at all subway stations.  [end deletion]

To make efficient use of the Central Subway, bus operations in the Corridor would be restructured.  The Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment bus system would be similar to the No Project/TSM Alternative including the extension of the 45-Union/Stockton trolley bus line from the Caltrain Terminal through Mission Bay and Potrero Hill to a new terminus at Third and 20th Streets and the rerouting of the 22-Fillmore trolley bus line along 16th, Third, and Mission Rock Streets to a terminus in Mission Bay.  In both bus plans the 9X San Bruno Express and 30-Stockton lines would have five and nine-minute peak period frequencies respectively, which are the current peak headways for those lines.  Changes from the No Project/TSM Alternative associated with the Enhanced EIS/EIR bus plan include the elimination of the 30-Stockton short line between Van Ness Avenue and North Point Street and the Caltrain Terminal at Fourth and Townsend Streets, and minor frequency adjustments.

The Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment has a projected weekday ridership of [begin insertion] 89,790 [end insertion] 76,300 [begin deletion] [end deletion] passengers for the year 2030 on the T-Third Line.  The transit travel time between Fourth and King Streets and Chinatown would be 7.0 minutes in 2030 or a 10 minute savings over the No Project/TSM Alternative.

Alternative 3 – Fourth/Stockton Alignment was developed as an alternative that would operate exclusively on Fourth and Stockton Streets with a deep tunnel (rather than shallow) crossing of Market Street.  The Fourth/Stockton Alignment would start as a double-track surface line at Fourth and King Streets and would proceed north along Fourth Street to a portal where it would transition from surface to subway operation.  For Option A, the portal would be located between Townsend and Brannan Streets and between Bryant and Harrison Streets for Option B.  It would continue north under Fourth [begin deletion] and Stockton [end deletion] Street [begin deletion] s [end deletion] as a double-track operation to a terminus in the vicinity of Stockton and Jackson Streets.  The pedestrian connection to the Market Street Subway would be at the BART/Muni Metro Powell Street Station. 

The 30-Stockton and 45-Union/Stockton trolley bus lines would continue operation on the east side of Fourth Street, south of Bryant Street, to the bus terminal east of Fourth Street on Townsend Street.  Existing bus stops would be retained on Fourth Street, just north of Bryant Street, but the island stop at Brannan Street would be moved from the north to the south side of the street.  No major overhead wire relocations would be necessary under this option.

As in the case of the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment, above-ground emergency ventilation shafts are proposed to be located in off-street locations and, wherever feasible, station access is located off- sidewalk in property to be acquired by Muni.  Fare gates are provided at the mezzanine level for all stations.  The location and number of stations varies for the two design options.

There is a construction variant for this alternative to extend the tunnel another 2,000 feet north of Jackson Street to facilitate construction and extraction of the Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM).  In this approach the tunnel would continue north on Stockton Street to a temporary shaft on Columbus Avenue near Washington Square Park where the TBM would be extracted and construction equipment and materials could be delivered.

[begin deletion] Alternative 3A [end deletion]

This alternative was selected as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) by the MTA Board at its meeting of June 7, 2005 [begin deletion] , but was replaced by Alternative 3B as the LPA by MTA Board action on February 19, 2008 [end deletion] .  It would extend 1.7 miles north from the T-Third line terminus at Fourth and King Streets via Fourth and Stockton Streets to the Central Subway terminus in Chinatown.  After stopping at the

existing T-Third line station platform on Fourth Street at King Street, LRVs would continue north on Fourth Street in a semi-exclusive double-track median to a portal between Townsend and Brannan

Streets.  This option would include three subway stations at Moscone, Union Square/Market Street, and Chinatown.

The subway station platforms would be [begin insertion] 200 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 250 [end deletion] feet in length ( [begin insertion] compared with 250 feet in [end insertion] [begin deletion] similar to [end deletion] Alternative 2) and [begin insertion] narrower in [end insertion] [begin deletion] of varying [end deletion] width [begin deletion] s and [end deletion] [begin insertion] but [end insertion] would accommodate [begin insertion] two [end insertion] [begin deletion] three [end deletion] car trains using high-floor LRVs.  To accommodate access via Union Square and the Powell Station at Market Street, the Union Square/Market Street Station would have a much longer layout than the Moscone and Chinatown Stations.  Like Alternative 2, this alternative would accommodate fare gates and ticket vending machines (TVMs) and a closed barrier fare collection system.  All subway station platforms are on one level with a center platform and a mezzanine (concourse) level above the platform.

Alternative 3A has a projected weekday ridership of [begin insertion] 88,840 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 77,600 [end deletion] passengers for 2030 on the T-Third Line.  The transit travel time between Fourth and King Streets and Chinatown would be 4.6 minutes in 2030 or a 12.4 minute savings over the No Project/TSM Alternative.

Alternative 3B

[begin deletion] This alternative was selected as the LPA by the MTA Board on February 19, 2008, replacing 3A.  [end deletion] Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option B would extend 1.7 miles north from the T-Third line terminus at Fourth and King Streets via Fourth and Stockton Streets to the Central Subway terminus in Chinatown.  After stopping at the existing T-Third station platform on Fourth at King Streets, light rail would continue north on Fourth Street to a double-track portal between Bryant and Harrison Streets under I-80.  There would be one surface station on Fourth Street, north of Brannan Street, and three subway stations at Moscone, Union Square/Market Street, and Chinatown.  [begin deletion] The subway platforms would be 200 feet in length (compared to 250 feet in Alternative 3A) and 26 feet in width and would accommodate two-car trains using high-floor LRVs. [end deletion]

LRVs would operate between Fourth and King Streets to the portal under I-80 in a semi-exclusive double-track right-of-way, separated from adjacent traffic by six-inch curbs.  Alternatively, LRVs would operate between Fourth and King Street to the portal under I-80 in mixed-flow, with trains and vehicles sharing the double-track right-of-way.  This latter approach would increase the availability of parking, address traffic circulation issues, and enhance the streetscape with median landscaping.

Alternative 3B has a projected weekday ridership of [begin insertion] 99,230 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 76,600 [end deletion] passengers for 2030 on the T-Third Line.  The transit travel time between Fourth and King Streets and Chinatown would be 6.3 minutes in 2030 or a 10.7 minute savings over the No Project/TSM Alternative.

Construction Methods and Duration

The Central Subway requires a number of underground structures, including guideway tunnels, stations, tail tracks, rail crossovers, and emergency cross-passages. These structures would be constructed in a

variety of geologic conditions, ranging from rock to soft ground, and would be located adjacent to existing structures and utilities that are sensitive to ground movements.  Available geologic information for the alternative Central Subway alignments indicates the tunnels would encounter highly variable conditions ranging from saturated sand, silt and clays to weathered and highly fractured sandstone and siltstone bedrock of the Franciscan Formation.  Mixed-face conditions (i.e., rock and soil in the excavation face) are expected where the tunnels transition into and out of the bedrock.  To deal with the different alignment and profile options and the varying geologic and groundwater conditions, several different tunnel construction methods are being considered, including excavation by Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM), cut-and-cover (C&C), and sequential excavation methods (SEM).  Another method referred to as the Special Excavation Method (SXM) was introduced in the 1998 FEIS/FEIR.

The construction methods used in each of the Alternatives is summarized in Table S-1.  Because of the different construction methods, the construction time would vary by alternative.  Construction of Alternatives 2 and 3A would take approximately six years to complete and construction of Alternative 3B would be reduced to approximately 5.5 years.

S.3.1  DEVELOPMENT AND SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES

The 1998 FEIS/FEIR proposed a Central Subway Downtown alignment with a shallow crossing of the BART/Muni Metro subway at Third Street with a pedestrian connection to the BART/Muni Montgomery [begin deletion] Street [end deletion] [begin deletion] [end deletion] Station.  At the time the alternative was conceived, a shallow excavation method was thought to be the most cost-effective construction approach.  It was concluded that there was sufficient room above the BART/Muni Subway at Third and Market Streets to accommodate a shallow crossing.  A shallow crossing at Fourth and Market [begin deletion] Streets [end deletion] was not considered because of conflicts with the Powell [begin deletion] Street [end deletion] Station structure.  Because of a concern about the impact of surface construction and the circuitous alignment required for a shallow alignment, the Central Subway design team recommended consideration of a deep (rather than a shallow) crossing of Market Street at Third Street that would go under the existing Muni Metro and BART subway tunnels using Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs).[2]

In addition, studies were performed to evaluate several alternative portal locations in the South of Market area.^[3]  The findings from the station design, construction methodology, portal location, and other studies were discussed at seven public meetings and five Third Street Light Rail Community Advisory Group (CAG) meetings in 2004.  The portal options and Project construction methods were presented to the public in an August 2004 meeting.  The options included: (1) a single-portal on Third Street between Townsend and Brannan Streets, one block south of the original location, with a single portal remaining on Fourth Street between Brannan and Bryant Streets; and, (2) a double- [begin deletion] track [end deletion] portal on Fourth Street between Townsend and Brannan Streets that used a two-track alignment via Third, [begin deletion] Fourth, [end deletion] Harrison, Kearny, Geary Streets and Stockton Streets.  The public preference was for a double-portal on Fourth Street.  Members of the public also suggested a Fourth Street alignment, which was possible using a deep crossing at Fourth [begin deletion] /Stockton [end deletion] and Market Streets.

The “Special Alignment and Validation Studies,” finalized in June 2005, evaluated a Fourth/Stockton Alignment with a double track portal on Fourth Street between Townsend and Brannan Streets and a deep crossing below the BART/Muni Metro Market Street subway at Fourth Street.^[4]  It maintained the Chinatown Station on Stockton Street [begin insertion] in the vicinity of Clay and Washington Streets [end insertion] [begin deletion] at Clay Street [end deletion] , combined the Union Square/Market Street Stations with northern entries in the vicinity of Union Square and southern entries using BART/Muni Metro Powell Street Station entrances; and relocated the Moscone Station to Fourth Street between Howard and Folsom Streets.  The Fourth/Stockton Alignment had improvements in transit and vehicular travel time and localized traffic circulation, particularly on Third Street.  This alignment, [begin insertion] with [end insertion] using a Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM), also reduced surface-related construction impacts as compared to the shallow construction method proposed for the 1998 FEIS/FEIR alignment.

The station locations and the northern boundary of the [begin insertion] Phaase [end insertion] [begin deletion] Phase [end deletion] 2, Central Subway were initially established as part of the Third Street Light Rail planning process and were analyzed in the 1998 EIS/EIR.  Early in the Phase 2 planning process [begin deletion] , [end deletion] studies were undertaken to evaluate options for moving [begin deletion] many of [end deletion] the station entrances out of sidewalk locations to outside the public right-of-way.  As a result of these efforts, off-sidewalk subway station entrances were identified for the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alternative and incorporated into the Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A.

Based on results from these studies, the MTA approved the designation of the Fourth/Stockton Alignment as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) on June 7, 2005.  This designation allowed the Fourth/Stockton Alignment, rather than the 1998 FEIS/FEIR Alignment, to be evaluated as the LPA in the FTA New Starts Program.  After the publication of the NOP in June 2005, a Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option B was developed based on public input [begin deletion] , [end deletion] and design studie [begin deletion] s and to reduce the costs of the Project [end deletion] .  This option [begin deletion] reduced the size of the stations and [end deletion] provided new station entrance options for Union Square/Market Street and a new station location and entrance options for Chinatown. [begin deletion]   On February [end deletion]

[begin deletion] 19, 2008, subsequent to publication of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the MTA Board voted to replace Alternative 3A with Alternative 3B as the LPA. [end deletion]

S.3.4     OPERATING STATISTICS FOR THE CENTRAL SUBWAY, NO PROJECT/TSM ALTERNATIVES

Table S-2 shows the comparative operating statistics for the existing transit service, the future 2030 transit service under the No Project/TSM Alternative and the three Build Alternatives. The Light Rail and bus operating plans would be the same for all Build Alternatives.  All Alternatives would require four additional LRVs (three peak LRVs and one spare) beyond the requirements for the No Project/TSM Alternative.  Muni’s total LRV fleet size, including spares, would be 175 LRVs though the peak demand would vary from [begin insertion] 127-130 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 139-142 [end deletion] LRVs by alternative.  The diesel bus fleet would [begin insertion] remain the same as [end insertion] [begin deletion] increase by 23 buses from [end deletion] the existing condition [begin deletion] in 2030 for all alternatives, but [end deletion] [begin insertion] and No Project/TSM fleets, with [end insertion] the [begin insertion] same [end insertion] peak demand [begin deletion] would not change [end deletion] .  The trolley bus fleet would [begin insertion] remain the same [end insertion] [begin deletion] increase by five buses in 2030, [end deletion] but peak demand would be reduced by six trolleys over existing conditions and by eleven trolleys over No Project/TSM [begin deletion] with the Project [end deletion] .

TABLE S-2

ANNUAL OPERATING STATISTICS

Notes:   ¹                          Source for 2007 bus equipment demand and bus hours is the Muni 2006-2025 Short Range Transit Plan, December        2005 and Dan Rosen, MTA, May 2007. [begin deletion]   Revised Dan Rosen, MTA, January 2008. [end deletion]

                     ²                          Headway refers to the time between transit vehicles on a given line.

                        ³ Assumes one-car trains operating in the peak for the Central Subway on both the long and short lines [begin deletion] and two car trains on the very short line [end deletion] .

S.3.5     CAPITAL COST SUMMARY

The capital cost methodology follows the current FTA guidelines.  Systemwide estimates were developed for train control, communications, transit vehicles, and the electrification system.  Site-specific [begin insertion] detailed [end insertion]

[begin deletion] conceptual [end deletion] engineering was used to develop capital costs for the proposed stations.  Cost data was based on previous local light rail projects and similar projects nationwide.  The capital cost estimates account for engineering and management, contingency, and Project reserve.  Escalation factors were applied to the [begin insertion] Project [end insertion] [begin deletion] costs [end deletion] to account for [begin insertion] recent [end insertion] escalation trends experienced in major transportation infrastructure projects to arrive at [begin insertion] 2007 [end insertion] [begin deletion] Year-of-Expenditure (YOE) [end deletion] costs.  See Table S-3 for a summary of the capital costs by Alternative.

TABLE S-3

CAPITAL COST SUMMARY ($Millions)

¹          Costs for Alternatives 3A and 3B do not include the North Beach Construction Variant, which is estimated to costs $54 million in [begin deletion] Year of Expenditure ( [end deletion] YOE [begin deletion] ) [end deletion] dollars.

Source:  PB/Wong 2007

As indicated in the total capital cost for the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment, including the purchase of four additional LRVs (3 peak and 1 float vehicle) to accommodate 2030 demand is estimated at $1 [begin insertion] , [end insertion] [begin deletion] . [end deletion] 345 billion ($1 [begin insertion] , [end insertion] [begin deletion] . [end deletion] 685 [begin deletion] billion in Year of Expenditure ( [end deletion] YOE [begin deletion] ) [end deletion] ).  The total capital cost for the Central Subway Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A is estimated at $1.131 billion ($1 [begin insertion] , [end insertion] [begin deletion] . [end deletion] ,407 [begin deletion] billion in [end deletion] YOE) and the total capital cost for the Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option B is estimated at $1.014 billion ($1 [begin insertion] , [end insertion] [begin deletion] . [end deletion] 235 [begin deletion] billion in [end deletion] YOE). 

S.3.6.   OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST SUMMARY

The Operating and Maintenance (O&M) cost model was developed based on Muni’s actual operating expenses for fiscal year 2005/2006.  O&M cost calculations accounted for the level of Muni service provided for the No Project/TSM Alternative, the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment, and the Fourth/Stockton Alignment Options A and B.  For each alternative, bus and light rail variables related to route miles,

service frequencies, and travel times were derived from engineering and travel demand requirements.  See Chapter 7.0 for a detailed description of cost estimation methodology.

Operations inputs, such as revenue miles and hours per mode, were calculated independently using operating plans developed specifically for the Central Subway Project. 

Table S-4 summarizes the [begin insertion] total [end insertion] [begin deletion] annual [end deletion] operating and maintenance costs for the Muni system, broken out by vehicle type, for each alternative.

TABLE s-4

[begin insertion] OPEARATING [end insertion] [begin deletion] operating [end deletion] AND MAINTENANCE COST SUMMARY

(millions $ / year of operating expenses)

                Source:  [begin insertion] MTA, May [begin deletion] 2007 [end deletion] [end insertion] [begin deletion] AECOM Consult Inc. April, 2008 [end deletion] .

S.4       TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS

Section S.4.1 provides a summary of major transportation impacts (transit, traffic freight, parking [begin deletion] [end deletion] pedestrian, bicycle, and emergency access) for the Project Alternatives.

S.4.1     SUMMARY OF GENERAL TRANSPORTATION FINDINGS

Transit Demand

Table S-5 presents the existing and 2030 weekday transit ridership estimates for the corridor.  Currently about [begin insertion] 92,870 person- [end insertion] [begin deletion] 93,300 transit [end deletion] trips are made in the Corridor each weekday.  Substantial increases in population and employment are projected in the future in the Study Area.  By 2030, it is estimated that transit ridership would increase to somewhere between [begin insertion] 147,450 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 142,600 [end deletion] to [begin insertion] 162,610 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 145,200 [end deletion] passengers in the Corridor depending on the Alternative.  Without implementation of the rail service in the Central Subway Corridor, transit ridership would be constrained as the transit trip between the Visitacion Valley and Chinatown would take longer and would be less reliable.

TABLE S-5

ESTIMATED WEEKDAY TRANSIT RIDERSHIP

EXISTING AND 2030 CONDITIONS

Notes:      ¹     Central Subways T [begin deletion] -T [end deletion] hird long [begin insertion] [end insertion] [begin deletion]   [end deletion] line to Visitacion Valley [begin deletion] , [end deletion] [begin insertion] and [end insertion] T-Third short-line to 18^th and Third Streets [begin deletion] , and T-Third very short line to Fourth and Townsend Streets [end deletion] .

²     Line 15-Third shifts to 9X San Bruno.

³     45 Extended into Mission Bay

n/a  Not Applicable

[begin deletion] Ridership is defined as the number of passengers boarding. [end deletion]

Source:  San Francisco Model, January 2007. [begin deletion]   Revised 2008. [end deletion]

Transit Travel Times

As traffic demand grows in the future, the resulting increased congestion and delays would result in longer bus travel times and less service reliability.  By 2030, Muni patrons on surface bus routes would experience longer travel times (17.0 [begin deletion] [end deletion] minutes) when compared to existing conditions (11.8 [begin deletion] [end deletion] minutes) as shown in Table S-6.  The introduction of light rail in exclusive or semi-exclusive in the Central Subway Corridor would reduce the travel times for Muni patrons to between [begin insertion] 5.0 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 4.6 [end deletion] and 7.0 minutes as noted for the Build Alternatives. 

Traffic Volumes and Intersection Levels of Service

Traffic volumes are projected to increase on almost all of the key streets serving the Study Area by 2030 as a result on continued regional and Corridor wide population and employment growth.  As a result of the increase in traffic volumes, a greater number of intersections would experience congestion and delays. 

TABLE S-6

IN-VEHICLE TRAVEL TIMES FOR SELECTED TRANSIT TRIPS

existing and 2030 conditions

Notes:   ¹    The Chinatown Station is at Stockton/Clay for the Enhanced EIS/EIR and Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A (LPA)    Alternatives, and at Stockton/Washington for the Fourth/Stockton Option B (Modified LPA) Alternative.

 Source:   PB/Wong, April 2007.

In 2030, under the No Project/TSM Alternative three of the five Study Area intersections ( [begin deletion] Third [end deletion] [begin insertion] Fourth [end insertion] /King [begin insertion] Streets, Fourth Harrison Streets, [end insertion] and Sixth/Brannan Streets) would operate at LOS E or F in the a.m. [begin deletion] and p.m. [end deletion] peak hour [begin insertion] and three intersections (Third/King Streets, Fourth/King Streets, and Sixth/Brannan Streets) would operate at LOS F in the p.m. peak hour [end insertion] .  While most of these intersections already operate at LOS E or F as they serve as the major access points to the regional freeway system, the traffic delays would increase in the future.  For the No Project/TSM Alternative, the [begin insertion] Fourth and Harrison [end insertion] [begin deletion] Third and King Streets [end deletion] intersection would degrade from LOS [begin insertion] B [end insertion] [begin deletion] D [end deletion] to LOS E in the a.m. peak hour. [begin insertion]   Implementation of striping changes at the Fourth/Harrison intersection would mitigate these adverse impacts. [end insertion]

Implementation of the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment would reduce traffic delays on Fourth Street in the a.m. peak hour, but would increase delays experienced by motorists at the Third and King Streets and Sixth and Brannan Streets intersections when compared to the No Project/TSM Alternative.  The intersection of Third and King Streets would degrade from LOS [begin insertion] D [end insertion] [begin deletion] E [end deletion] to LOS F in the a.m. peak hour as a result of the implementation of this alternative and the Sixth and Brannan Streets intersection would continue to operate at LOS F.  During the p.m. peak hour, the Third and King [begin insertion] , Fourth and King, [end insertion] and Sixth and Brannan Streets intersections would all continue to operate at LOS F, but with increased delays.

Implementation of either the Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A or Option B rather than the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment would alleviate some of the delays on Third Street, but result in greater delays on Fourth Street.  The Third and King and Sixth and Brannan Streets intersections under Alternatives 3A or 3B would operate as LOS F during the a.m. (a degradation from LOS [begin insertion] D [end insertion] [begin deletion] E at Third/King Streets [end deletion] resulting from the Project) and p.m. peak hour (continued LOS F operation) while the Fourth and King Streets intersection would continue to operate at LOS E during the a.m. peak hour and LOS F during the p.m. peak hour.  The intersection of Fourth and Harrison Streets would degrade from LOS [begin insertion] B [end insertion] [begin deletion] C [end deletion] [begin insertion] to LOS F for Alternative 3B in the a.m. peak hour and from LOS B [end insertion] to LOS E for Alternative 3A and to LOS F for Alternative 3B in the p.m. peak hour.

Freight Movements

With the implementation of the Project, the removal of parking along the surface alignment and at the station entrances and portal location would impact freight loading for adjacent businesses and residences, for example, at 601 Fourth Street under Alternative 3A.  While additional truck loading spaces would be provided on surface streets adjacent to the Corridor along Third and Fourth Streets, existing loading zones in the Union Square and Chinatown station areas would be expected to accommodate the freight delivery and loading needs in the areas where on-street yellow zones are eliminated.

[begin deletion] Stockton Street [end deletion] [begin deletion] is a mix of on-street metered parking, on-street loading zones, and bus zones.  In some blocks, between Market and Sutter Street, on-street parking and loading has been removed completely to accommodate the flow of traffic, access to the public parking garages, and bus stops.  The on-street loading spaces in both Union Square and Chinatown are important to servicing the adjacent retailers as off-street loading docks are limited. [end deletion]

[begin deletion] On Columbus Avenue, between Union and Powell Streets, there are no off-street loading spaces [end deletion] .

Parking

On-street and off-street parking would be affected with the implementation of each of the Build Alternatives along the segments of the Corridor that would have surface light rail operations and where station entrances and vent shafts are proposed to be located in off-street parking garages.  For the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alternative, 111 on-street parking spaces would be removed on Third Street between King and Bryant; on Fourth Street between Townsend and Harrison Streets; and on Stockton Street between Geary and Post Streets and Clay and Washington Streets.  In addition this alternative would eliminate 59 off-street parking spaces in the Hearst and Union Square parking garages.  The Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A would eliminate 29 on-street parking spaces on the blocks of Fourth and Stockton Streets on the street segments identified above and 29 off-street parking spaces in the Union Square parking garage.  The Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option B would eliminate 82 on-street parking spaces under the semi-exclusive option and [begin insertion] 81 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 79 [end deletion] parking spaces under the mixed-flow option (this option also retains some off-peak spaces on Fourth Street) in the Fourth and Stockton

Street segments identified above.  In addition [begin deletion] , [end deletion] this alternative would [begin deletion] potentially [end deletion] eliminate [begin deletion] 3 parking spaces on the north side of Ellis Street to accommodate an expansion of the station access/egress at One Stockton Street (the Apple Store) and [end deletion] a total of 59 off-street parking spaces from the Ellis/O’Farrell and Union Square parking garages.

Pedestrian

Though pedestrian volumes are heavy on many of the sidewalks in the Moscone, Union Square, and Chinatown districts, the sidewalks located at the proposed station entrances are currently operating at a LOS A.  Under each of the alternatives, sidewalk reductions would need to be implemented at the following locations:  Market Street and Union Square Stations for the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment; Moscone and Union Square/Market Street Stations for the Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A; and Union Square [begin deletion] /Market Street [end deletion] Station for the Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option B.  Even with these sidewalk reductions,

the pedestrian level of service would continue to be LOS A.   Under Alternative 3B, the pedestrian level of service would be reduced to LOS B [begin deletion] , at the Chinatown Station, [end deletion] as a result of the increase in pedestrian activity rather than a reduction of effective sidewalk width.

Bicycle

Bicycle routes #11 on Second Street and #19 on Fifth Street and the improvements proposed along these routes to accommodate bicyclists could be affected by the Project implementation.  The diversion of traffic to Second and Fifth Streets from Third and Fourth Streets as the result of increased delays in the future that would be compounded by the introduction of surface rail operations could affect bicycle travel on these two bicycle routes.  Implementation of the proposed bicycle improvements on these streets would protect bicycle travel in the future.

Emergency Vehicle Access

The implementation of surface rail [begin insertion] s [end insertion] operations along Fourth Street would potentially impact the circulation and accessibility of fire trucks leaving Fire Station #8 located on Bluxome Street.  The rail median would be designed so as to preserve the ability for fire trucks to cross the median to travel on Fourth Street so as to minimize the impacts on emergency response times.

Construction

Construction of the Central Subway Project would temporarily affect transit service, traffic flows, freight movements and delivery activities, on-street parking, and pedestrian and bicycle circulation.  There would also be a temporary increase in truck traffic along the light rail alignment as a result of truck traffic associated with the removal of excavated soils and backfill around the guideway and station areas [begin deletion] and delivery of materials [end deletion] .  The impacts would not be significant and improvement measures such as detour routes, exclusive bus zones, short-term parking limits, maintenance of sidewalks, and provisions for emergency vehicles would alleviate the adverse impacts.

S. 5      ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES

A summary of the significant environmental impacts and mitigation measures for the Project Alternatives are presented in Table S-7.  The potentially significant impacts are briefly summarized below for the Build Alternatives and the No Project/TSM Alternative.

TABLE s-7

SUMMARY OF Significant ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

S.5.1     CENTRAL SUBWAY BUILD ALTERNATIVES

Implementation of the Build Alternatives would result in significant impacts as noted below:

· traffic impacts in 2030 at the following locations: Fourth/Harrison Streets intersection ( [begin insertion] No Project/TSM Alternative – LOS B to LOS E in a.m. peak hour, [end insertion] Alternative 3A, LOS [begin insertion] B [end insertion] [begin deletion] C [end deletion] to LOS E in [begin insertion] a. [end insertion] [begin deletion] p. [end deletion] m. peak hour, and Alternative 3B – LOS [begin insertion] B [end insertion] [begin deletion] C [end deletion] to LOS F in [begin insertion] a.m. and [end insertion] p.m. peak hour) and Third/King Streets intersection (Alternatives 2, 3A, and 3B – LOS [begin insertion] D [end insertion] [begin deletion] E [end deletion] to LOS F in a.m. peak hour) all as a result of project implementation.  Considerable contribution to cumulative impacts would occur at the Sixth and Brannan Streets intersection in the p.m. peak hour (Alternative 2); the Fourth and Harrison Streets intersection during the p.m. peak hour (Alternatives 3A and 3B); the Third and King and Fourth and King Streets intersections during the p.m. peak hour for Alternatives 3A and 3B; and during the a.m. peak hour at the Third/King Streets intersection for Alternative 3B.

· displacement of 10 small businesses (10 or fewer employees) [begin insertion] and 1 or 2 residential units [end insertion] for Alternatives 2 and3A and displacement of 8 small businesses (10 or fewer employees) and 17 residential units [begin deletion] (which would require a Planning Code amendment) [end deletion] for Alternative 3B in the predominantly minority and low-income Chinatown neighborhood;

· potential disruption to one known prehistoric archaeological resources during construction of Alternative 2;

· potential disruption to locations identified as sensitive to the presence of prehistoric archaeological resources (14 for Alternative 2 and 6 for Alternatives 3A and 3B);

· potential disruption to one known historic archaeological resources during construction of Alternatives 3A and 3B);

· potential disruption to locations where historical archaeological resources might be uncovered (6 for Alternative 2, 15 for Alternative 3A, and 13 for Alternative 3B);

· demolition of one historic resource in Chinatown for each of the Build Alternatives (814-828 Stockton Street for Alternatives 2 and 3A and 933-949 Stockton Street for Alternative 3B) out of the total 371 contributory historic buildings in the proposed Chinatown Historic District which would create a visual break in the cohesive grouping of these contextually-related buildings;

· potential disruption to historic architectural resources along the alignment by construction-related ground-borne vibration (34 resources in Alternative 2, 25 resources in Alternatives 3A, and 3B);

· construction period settlement could cause damage to existing building foundation, subsurface utilities, and surface improvements such as roads and sidewalks;

· construction activities and design of the Union Square or Union Square/Market Street Station could alter ground water flows at the Powell Street Station that require daily pumping.

· potential for exposure of workers and the public to potentially hazardous materials during site excavation or transport of excavated soils or servicing of diesel-powered construction equipment on-site on properties landside of the 1851 highwater mark not subject to Article 20;

· exceedance of FTA vibration criteria at one residential building located at 570 Fourth Street for all Build Alternatives; and

· exceedance of FTA ground-borne noise criteria at two residential buildings located at 527 and 529 Third Street under Alternative 2. 

All of these impacts, except those related to traffic, residential and small business displacement, archaeological resources, and historical architectural resources could be reduced to a less-than-significant level by implementing mitigation measures as identified in Table S-7.  No feasible mitigation measures have been identified for mitigating significant impacts at any of the identified intersections except at Fourth and Harrison Streets, therefore there would be significant environmental effects which could not be avoided.  The impact on archaeological resources would be considered significant environmental effects which can not be avoided because there is no assurance as to the level of mitigation for the unidentified resources.  The business and residential displacement associated with each of the Build Alternatives would be considered adverse impacts.  The impacts would be mitigated through, the required adherence to state and federal regulations on the acquisition of parcels and relocation of businesses and residences, but would still be considered significant effects because of the disruption to and dislocation of low income households.

Each of the Build Alternatives would also require use of Union Square plaza for station entrances and for vent shaft placements (Alternative 2 and 3A only).  It has been determined that this use of

the plaza would not be considered a significant impact and a de [begin insertion] minim [begin deletion] u [end deletion] s [end insertion] [begin deletion] minimis [end deletion] finding for impact on Section 4(f) resources [begin insertion] is anticipated [end insertion] [begin deletion] for Alternative 3B has been concurred with by the Recreation and Parks Commission (see Appendix J) to satisfy Section 4(f) requirements. [end deletion]

S.5.2     NO PROJECT/TSM ALTERNATIVE

The No Project/TSM Alternative would not have any of the construction-related impacts associated with the Build Alternatives, but it would result in increased future congestion at some locations, reduced transit service reliability, increased transit travel times, increased energy consumption, and increased air pollution when compared to the Build Alternatives. 

S.6       FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY

S.6.1     ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CAPACITY FOR THE NO BUILD/TSM AND CENTRAL SUBWAY ALTERNATIVES

The U.S. Department of Transportation Section 5309 New Starts program administered by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides discretionary capital grants for construction of new fixed guideway systems or extensions to existing fixed guideway systems.  To receive a New Starts grant, projects must complete a planning and project development process that consists of Alternatives Analysis, Preliminary Engineering, and Final Design phases.  The funding program is discretionary and highly competitive, with funding decisions made on the basis of New Starts Criteria specified in law and regulation.  Near the completion of Final Design, highly-rated projects are eligible to receive a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA), which defines the scope of the project, specifies requirements with which the project sponsor must comply to receive New Starts funds, identifies the multi-year federal financial commitment to the project, and signals federal intent to seek the specified amounts of funding through future appropriations.

The MTA is seeking $762.2 million in Section 5309 New Starts funding.  The MTA started receiving New Starts funds for the Central Subway Project in FY 2003.  To date, the MTA has received $45.3 million in New Starts funds as follows: $1.5 million in 2003; $8.9 million in 2004; $9.9 million in 2005; and $25 million in 2006.  These funds were allocated for preliminary engineering and environmental review.

Table S-3 presents the total capital cost estimates for the Build Alternatives by construction elements, right of way, vehicles and soft costs.  Preliminary estimates predict that the Central Subway will begin construction in 2010 and start revenue service in 2016.

Comparative Capital Costs

Alternative 3A would extend light-rail service along Fourth Street as a semi-exclusive double-track surface line for a short distance from the T-Third Line terminus, and it would soon transition to a subway (tunnel), which would be used for the majority of the Project’s 1.7-mile length.  Three underground subway stations are included in this alternative, and four additional light-rail vehicles (LRVs) are required beyond the No Project/TSM Alternative. 

Alternative 3B is similar to Alternative 3A, but it has a shorter tunnel (with a longer surface line), four stations (the fourth is a surface platform), four LRVs more than No Project/TSM Alternative, and a shorter (one-year less) construction period.  Tunnel sections and subway stations are typically more expensive to construct than surface lines and surface platforms.  Alternative 3B also evaluates two sub-options with mixed-flow or semi-exclusive rail operation on the surface of Fourth Street.

Costs for Alternative 2, were derived from original cost estimates for the shallow tunnel under Market Street.  This alternative also includes:  operation of a surface line on both Third and Fourth Streets with a portal on each street; five stations (four underground and one surface); and four addition LRVs over the No Project/TSM Alternative

Comparative O&M Costs

The projected incremental operating costs for both the IOS and Central Subway Projects are summarized in Table S-4 in year-of-expenditure dollars (YOE$). The 2016 figures represent the cost at the startup of the Central Subway operations, while the 2030 figures are for a selected forecast year.  The increase in cost over time reflects an assumed inflation rate of [begin insertion] 3.5 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 2.3 [end deletion] percent.

Due to a faster and more direct alignment, Alternative 3A creates an annual reduction of [begin insertion] 2,400 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 40,300 [end deletion] LRV car hours on the Central Subway Corridor and a system-wide annual [begin insertion] reduction [end insertion] [begin deletion] increase [end deletion] of [begin insertion] 27,800 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 11,900 [end deletion] car hours when compared to the No Project/TSM Alternative.  Alternative 3A would also reduce the number of system-wide annual bus hours by 76,400.  Alternative 3B would save the same number of annual bus hours, however, it would [begin insertion] increase [end insertion] [begin deletion] reduce the [end deletion] annual LRV car hours by [begin insertion] 6,000 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 39,000 [end deletion] on the Central Subway Corridor, while [begin insertion] reducing [end insertion] [begin deletion] increasing [end deletion] by [begin insertion] 19,400 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 13,200 [end deletion] the system-wide LRV hours compared to the No Project/TSM Alternative.  Alternative 2 [begin insertion] yields [end insertion] [begin deletion] would result in [end deletion] an annual [begin insertion] increase [end insertion] [begin deletion] decrease [end deletion] of [begin insertion] 7,100 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 33,100 [end deletion] LRV car hours, a system-wide annual [begin insertion] reduction [end insertion] [begin deletion] increase [end deletion] [begin insertion] [end insertion] of [begin insertion] 18,300 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 19,100 [end deletion] car hours, and would reduce the number of system-wide annual bus hours by 76,400 when compared

to the No Project/TSM Alternative.

A total of [begin insertion] $432.2 [end insertion] [begin deletion] $473 [end deletion] million in state and local capital funding has been committed to the Central Subway Project.  In addition, the MTA is currently seeking $762.2 million in federal “New Starts” funding, for a total of [begin insertion] $1,194.4 [end insertion] [begin deletion] $1,235 [end deletion] million in capital funding identified for the Project (see Table S-8). [begin insertion]   Additional regional and state funding is being pursued to eliminate the funding shortfall [end insertion] .

TABLE S-8

Central Subway Capital Funding Plan ($Millions)

Source: MTA Central Subway FY2008 New Starts Financial Plan.

S.7       EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

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 (see Table S-9).[5]  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 performance ratings assigned to 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.

Using these evaluation criteria, Alternative 3B has the best performance of all alternatives followed by Alternative 3A and Alternative 2.  All Build Alternatives perform well for mobility improvements, operating efficiencies, and financial commitment when compared to the No Project/TSM Alternative, with the highest marks for Alternative 3B.  While all of the transit

TABLE S-9

SUMMARY OF MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS EVALUATION

investment strategies are supportive of desired land use patterns, the Build Alternatives go further than the No Project/TSM Alternative toward implementing desired City policy and providing opportunities for revitalization along the Central Subway Corridor. 

Implementation of the Central Subway Project Build Alternatives would introduce some environmental impacts that do not exist for the No Project/TSM Alternative, but improvements to air quality and energy consumption would also occur with the implementation of the Build Alternatives, particularly Alternative 3B.

S.8       AREAS OF CONTROVERSY/ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED

Topics of concern raised by the public during the environmental review of the Central Subway Alternatives include: loss of on-street parking; loss of loading zones adjacent to businesses; local access concerns, displacement of affordable housing and small businesses, vibration impacts to older buildings, and noise during construction.

S.9       COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

Over the past several years, many public meetings have been held to solicit input to the Project.  The MTA established a Community Advisory Group (CAG) early in the planning process to provide input to the identification and selection of design options for the Third Street Light Rail Project and to help select the options to carry forward for environmental review.  The CAG is composed of a broad cross-section of stakeholder groups from the six primary neighborhoods in the Third Street Corridor:  Visitacion Valley, Bayview Hunters Point, Potrero Hill, South of Market, and Chinatown/Downtown.  The CAG has met six times since December of 2003 to discuss the Central Subway phase of the Project.

A Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Notice of Scoping Meeting were mailed in June 2005 and a Public Scoping meeting was held in June 2005.  Four public informational meetings were also held.  In September 2006, a revised Notice of Preparation was mailed.  A revised NOP was sent out because a number of property owners did not receive the June 2005 notice and the Project description had changed.  To ensure that the NOP was received by the appropriate recipients, the notice was mailed to the following:

· All residents within the 300-foot boundary of the proposed Project alignment, including the North Beach construction variant;

· All property owners within the 300-foot alignment, including the North Beach construction variant as listed with the San Francisco Assessor’s Office;

· The citywide Central Subway mailing list; and

· The San Francisco Department of Planning’s Standard Environmental Impact Report mailing list.

In October 2006, a series of community meetings were held along the alignment to update the public on the new Fourth/Stockton Alignment as the Central Subway Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA).  Since the mailing of the NOP, the Central Subway team has also held over a dozen community meetings in addition to the stakeholder meetings conducted by the executive team members and staff.

S.10  AGENCY COORDINATION AND APPROVALS REQUIRED

Permits and approvals involving local, state, and federal agencies will be required prior to Project implementation.  A list of these major approvals is provided in Table S-10.

Table S-10

Agency approvals

[1]     The 1998 FEIS/FEIR used Initial Operation Segment to define the Phase 1 portion of the Third Street Light Rail Project.  This Phase of the project initiated passenger service in April 2007 and is now referred to as the T-Third Line.  This Supplemental SEIS/SEIR uses T-Third Line with reference to the Phase 1 segment, where appropriate.

[2]     San Francisco Municipal Railway, “Recommended Tunnel Construction Methods Report,” March 16, 2004.

[3]     San Francisco Municipal Railway, “Portal and Surface Station Locations Study,” December 23, 2004

[4]     San Francisco Municipal Railway, “Special Alignment and Validation Studies,” June 30, 2005.

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