BRIEFING BOOK CORE CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY BART Caltrain MUNI

Home , Embarcadero station, Market Street Subway, METRORail, West Portal station

80 AC Transit Ferry Berkeley

Alameda Oakland HWY 1 HWY

HWY 880

HWY 101

Daly City HWY 280 HWY CORE CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY Metropolitan Transportation Commission

TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1 Bay Area Transit Core Capacity Study Area...... 3 Figure 2 Existing Population Density - 2012...... 10 TABLE OF CONTENTS Figure 3 Projected Population Density and Growth - 2040...... 10 Figure 4 Existing Job Density - 2012...... 11 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Figure 5 Projected Job Density and Growth - 2040...... 11 Study Overview...... 2 Figure 6 Transbay Corridor Travel Demand Projection Vs . Actual Growth to Snapshot: The System Today...... 4 Date...... 14 Snapshot: The System in the Future ...... 5 Figure 7 Transbay Corridor Capacity and Potential Growth in Travel Briefing Book Structure ...... 6 Demand...... 15 TRENDS...... 7 Figure 8 San Francisco Corridor Definitions ...... 16 Figure 9 SF Metro Projected Peak-Hour Utilization by Corridor (2040) and Market Trends...... 7 2015-2040 for Sunset and Richmond corridors...... 17 Population Growth & Development Patterns...... 9 Figure 10 BART’s Fleet of the Future...... 25 Ridership Trends ...... 13 Figure 11 Transbay Peak Hour Passengers per Car ...... 25 CHALLENGES ...... 19 Figure 12 Pattern of Station Use Throughout the Day...... 26 Figure 13 Embarcadero and Montgomery Peak Hour AM Exits as a Percent Transbay Corridor ...... 21 of Station Capacity ...... 27 Metro Rail...... 23 Figure 14 Embarcadero Station Constraint Points ...... 28 Ferries...... 39 Figure 15 Capacity Constraints in the Oakland Wye...... 29 Peninsula – Commuter and Metro Rail...... 55 Figure 16 Traffic Impacts During West Oakland Fire...... 31 San Francisco – Light Rail and Bus...... 43 Figure 17 Portals and Merges - CONCLUSIONS...... 59 Potential Causes of Delay...... 45 Next Steps...... 62 Figure 18 Steps Required at Embarcadero Turnaround...... 47 Figure 19 Causes of Transit Delays on City Streets...... 48 Figure 20 Foregone Capacity and the ATCS System ...... 50 Figure 21 Downtown Extension and Regional Connections...... 56 Figure 22 Summarizing the System’s Constraints ...... 60

C CORE CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY Metropolitan Transportation Commission

INTRODUCTION Bay Area residents depend more and more capacity to and from the San Francisco Core. each day on the region’s transit systems. Five While all of these operators are independently main agencies move hundreds of thousands considering various improvements and invest- of people into and out of San Francisco’s Core ments to their respective systems, no study to every day, helping them access the dense job date has brought the major transit operators centers of the Financial District and South together to address this regional issue in a of Market (SoMa) neighborhoods, as well as comprehensive, coordinated manner. the emerging job centers in Mid-Market and The Bay Area Core Capacity Transit Study Mission Bay. Facing increasingly crowded (CCTS) is a collaborative effort by those five conditions in recent years as the region and transit operators, the San Francisco County transit ridership have grown rapidly, our transit Transportation Authority (SFCTA), and the system is challenged to deliver quality service Metropolitan Transportation Commission to riders both now and in the future. (MTC). The project aims to estimate potential The Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), future demand for travel to and from the San the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Francisco Core and come up with a plan for Agency (SFMTA), AC Transit, Caltrain, and the meeting demand in ways that support sustain- Water Emergency Transportation Authority able economic growth and improve the quality (WETA) are all committed to identifying invest- of life for the region’s residents, visitors, and ments and improvements to increase transit workers.

This Briefing Book lays out the facts about land use patterns, ridership trends, and the constraints imposed by existing transit infrastructure serving the San Francisco Core. The book aims to get everyone with an interest in the Bay Area’s economic vitality — and the transit system that enables it — on the same page about key issues the system faces. Working collaboratively, we can have a constructive conversa- tion about potential solutions over the coming months.

Image: Flickr user phoca2004

1 INTRODUCTION 3

HWY 880

HWY 580 CORE CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY TRANSIT CAPACITY CORE Berkeley Metropolitan Transportation Commission Transportation Metropolitan Oakland

80 Alameda

R O

Bay Area Transit Core Capacity Study Area Capacity Study Core Transit Area Bay D

A R

80 T

Figure 1 Figure HWY 101 HWY THE CORE METRO CORRIDOR Daly City

SAN FRANCISCO SAN

HWY 280 HWY HWY 1 HWY San Francisco BART Caltrain MUNI Transit AC Ferry - . - San Francisco San Francisco to implement. are larger improve larger are three to fivethree years are improvements to improvements are are significant transit transit significant are San Francisco Municipal San Francisco 20 to 25 years from today and from 25 years to 20 five to 15 years five . Transit operators: Transit Bay Area Agency (SFMTA), Transportation Costa Alameda-Contra (BART), Transit Rapid Emergency Water the Transit), (AC Transit and Caltrain (WETA), Authority Transportation and planning partner: Funding Authority (SFCTA) Transportation County Short-term projects Short-term imple can be that infrastructure existing the next over mented projects Medium-term will additional study and require that ments take likely projects Long-term ridership of levels to serve investments anticipated beyond ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ toward funding and implementation, the projects the projects funding and implementation, toward be considered will the CCTS through developed the nine-county for funding and prioritization for region. Specifically, funding priorities transportation use goals and step an important As 25 years. the next for

- Metropolitan Transportation Transportation Metropolitan Lead agency: Lead Commission (MTC) ▪ ▪ STUDY OVERVIEW STUDY STUDY PARTNERS STUDY A KEY INPUT TO THE 2017 PLAN BAY AREA UPDATE AREA BAY PLAN 2017 THE TO INPUT KEY A and funding commitments by seven Bay by seven funding commitments and agencies and is also supported by a U.S. Area TIGER The grant. Transportation Department of agencies include: partner seven Area 2040 will update the region’s overall land overall the region’s will update 2040 Area a charter through established was CCTS The The Core Capacity Transit Study is a parallel ef is a parallel Study Transit Capacity Core The long-range a regional 2040, Area to Plan Bay fort the Metropolitan by sponsored planning effort Association the and Commission Transportation Plan Bay (ABAG). Governments Area Bay of the system and keep pace with anticipated anticipated with pace the system and keep century. quarter the next over growth population the study area, which includes the two primarytwo the which includes the study area, Transbay the the feed that Core: transit corridors Corridor. Metro the San Francisco and Corridor medium-, and long- short-, will look at study The help steadily upgrade can that investments term The CCTS is a multi-agency study to identify andto identify study CCTS is a multi-agency The to serve needed investments the major prioritize service transit quality for demand the growing 1 shows Figure Core. the San Francisco into 2 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Transportation Metropolitan BRIEFING BOOK BRIEFING INTRODUCTION BRIEFING BOOK CORE CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY Metropolitan Transportation Commission Metropolitan Transportation Commission

SNAPSHOT: THE SYSTEM TODAY SNAPSHOT: THE SYSTEM IN THE FUTURE The San Francisco Core—the Financial District, This combination of forces has raised demand Addressing the transit system’s capacity limi- various ways to increase capacity in the SoMa, Mission Bay, and the areas around for transit during peak hours much more tations will become more critical as the Core Muni Metro tunnel. them—is the Bay Area’s largest and densest quickly than expected. At the same time, continues to densify. Failing to do so could limit ▪▪ Once complete, the new Transbay Transit single job center. Rapid housing and employ- aging infrastructure has caused increased the area’s potential to accomodate growth, Center will provide space for a larger fleet ment growth in eastern SoMa, Mission Bay, maintenance issues, exacerbating crowding which would in turn slow the regional economy of transbay buses, and direct access and Mid-Market, as well as increases in the on days when vehicles must be taken out of or push growth to low-density areas on the ramps to and from the freeway will speed number of workers in existing office towers service or infrastructure like tracks and wiring urban fringe. The region anticipates that two those buses on their way. AC Transit is in the historically dense Financial District, has need emergency repairs. Certain aspects of million more people will call the Bay Area home also exploring the potential of double- increased the urgency to improve mobility. the design of the rail networks that serve the by 2040, and many of them are expected decker buses, which would nearly double While much of this growth was planned, it has Core limit the system’s potential capacity, to find housing along the region’s transit bus capacity without taking up any occurred much faster than anticipated. The cause recurring reliability issues, and limit networks, commuting to jobs in the Core. The additional room on the bridge. rapid new development has been the result their ability to be resilient in the face of major region’s land use vision channels thousands of of changing market conditions and prefer- maintenance problems or natural disasters. new housing units and millions of square feet ▪▪ Caltrain is working to convert from diesel ences, including a rapidly growing economy Buses are limited by the need to contend with of new office space into neighborhoods like to cleaner, faster electric trains, and the and reductions in average office space per traffic on city streets and the Bay Bridge. the Financial District, South of Market, Civic agency plans to extend service further employee. A generational shift in where young Additionally, at current service levels, ferry Center, Market-Octavia, Showplace Square, into the Core once the downtown rail professionals prefer to live, documented in capacity only accomodates a small share of and Mission Bay. Much of the balance of Bay extension to the Transbay Transit Center several surveys, likely also plays an important transbay travelers. Area job and housing growth is projected to has been completed. role. occur in transit-accessible mixed-use areas ▪▪ WETA is planning increased service the region has prioritized for infill development. across the Bay, expanded docking Many of these areas are centered on BART or facilities at existing terminals, and new Caltrain stations, and many of the new resi- terminals that will provide direct service dents and workers in them will turn to transit to new areas in the East Bay. as their first option. Of course, the region has not yet identified In an effort to meet this challenge, the region’s funding for many of these critical improve- transit systems have already begun planning ments. Even if it does, ridership forecasts investments that will help them bring more suggest that demand could still far exceed riders into the Core: capacity in some key corridors. In the transbay corridor, the Bay Bridge is already at capac- ▪▪ A new train control system will allow ity for vehicles, leaving an already crowded BART to run more trains per hour through transit system to absorb a large share of the the Transbay Tube. In addition, the agency projected travel growth through the corridor. is in the process of replacing its fleet of Transit demand is also projected to grow rail cars with an expanded fleet of larger significantly in the Sunset corridor, pushing the cars that can hold more passengers. limits of Muni Metro’s current capacity. The larger fleet will allow it to run more maximum-length (10-car) trains. If planned capacity improvements are not implemented, the transit system will likely ▪▪ Muni is building a new subway alignment experience further increases in crowding. Once through downtown, expanding its fleet, the region’s roadway and transit networks and making changes that will help to reach their limits, the system will constrain speed up buses and trains on crowded economic development in the Core and in the city streets. In addition, Muni operations region as a whole. staff has been studying and piloting 4 5 SOLUTIONS , Trends chapter. chapter. chapter to be added as the to be added as chapter Challenges CHALLENGES Solutions BRIEFING BOOK BOOK BRIEFING other stakeholders, and the general public. the general and stakeholders, other STRUCTURE advances engineering studies, and facilitates a facilitates engineering studies, and advances study partners, visions of the aligning of process The Briefing Book starts with a chapter on with a chapter Book starts Briefing The and market use patterns the land which details ridership significant driven have that preferences to projected are that and years in recent growth it looks Next, future. the demand in increase further limit each agency’s that constraints the specific at growing to meet capacity to increase ability demand in a the study, of the course over will grow book This with a recommendations, potential team identifies project TRENDS 6 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Transportation Metropolitan BRIEFING BOOK BRIEFING INTRODUCTION CORE CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY Metropolitan Transportation Commission

TRENDS Land use plans, market preferences, and “ Population ridership trends are the backdrop to the crowding each of the transit agencies serving in San Francisco & Alameda County the Core face today. Some of these dynamics is projected to increase by almost were planned, while others were unforeseen by earlier generations of planners and policy- 700,000 by 2040. makers. ” MARKET TRENDS A variety of emerging market trends support the other parts of the country – as of 2009, 35% of region’s expressed desire to locate a large share the region’s employment was located within one of job and housing growth in the Bay Area’s half mile of fixed-guideway transit, the second central cities or along key transit corridors. highest share nationally.3 In recent years, demand for jobs and housing Offices in a variety of professional sectors also near transit stations has increased, and trends seem to be adding more workers per square indicate that it will continue to grow in the foot, which means growth in travel demand coming years. related to new office space could add to already Demand for transit-accessible office space is intense transit demand generated by existing likely to continue increasing. Based on a survey office towers. The trend is not universal across of real estate professionals across the country, all sectors. Some sectors with a major presence the 2015 edition of the Pricewaterhouse in the San Francisco Core, such as the legal Coopers/Urban Land Institute “Emerging Trends sector, still program 250 to 350 square feet per in Real Estate” predicts that office develop- employee, which is in-line with averages over ment around high-capacity transit stations is the last several decades. However, the biggest likely to continue to be strong, while traditional driver of job growth in San Francisco and across suburban office park development will con- the region as a whole, the technology sector, tinue to weaken.1 This national trend may be has been a leader in shrinking the per-employee particularly pronounced in the Bay Area, where space average, with some technology compa- a large share of the workforce is employed nies reportedly programming as little as 100 to in knowledge-based industries that have a 120 square feet per employee in new projects.4 higher propensity than other sectors to locate Increased density in occupied office space may in transit-oriented areas.2 Bay Area offices are be partially offset by another important trend: already more transit-oriented than those in To hedge against skyrocketing rents, companies have started leasing more office space than 1 Urban Land Institute and Pricewaterhouse Coopers (2015). “Emerging Trends in Real Estate, United States and Canada 2015.” 3 Federal Transit Administration (2014). “Trends in Transit- 2 Center for Transit-Oriented Development (CTOD) (2011). Oriented Development, 2000-2010.” “Transit and Regional Economic Development.” 4 Strategic Economics (2013a)

7 TRENDS 9 - - - CORE CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY TRANSIT CAPACITY CORE A market assess market A 12 The surrounding neigh surrounding The 13 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Transportation Metropolitan

11 2010-2014. 3, 2015. December Memorandum, Assessment.” MTC and ABAG (2013a). Page 57. Page (2013a). ABAG and MTC Market San Francisco “Revised Economics. Strategic U.S. Census Bureau. Quarterly Workforce Indicators, Indicators, Workforce Quarterly Census Bureau. U.S.

growth, respectively. respectively. growth, 11 12 13 ment conducted for this the that ment study found conducted for to 70,000 add 50,000 District could Financial than 200,000 more of total current to its jobs space per office decreased toward trend the if employee continues. Civic Center/Mid-Market, SoMa, borhoods of could also Square and Mission Bay/Showplace (albeit in a less concentrated significantly grow District). Collectively, the Financial than fashion between these neighborhoods could attract would which jobs, new and 85,000 63,000 40% and 55% roughly between represent There is strong evidence of this occurring in this occurring of evidence is strong There San of thousands with today, Area the Bay to jobs in daily commuting residents Francisco efficient can be highly It County. Clara Santa to and Caltrain BART agencies like transit for these serve riders, take as they would what up section a later As seats. be empty otherwise approach to is projected while ridership notes, cor in several the peak direction capacity in commutes so-called reverse future, the in ridors the growth some of for to account projected are demand. transit in overall 2010 and by 25% between grew San Francisco 2014. 17% to incorporate forecast is San Francisco jobs. new the region’s of and the number of jobs in of the number and 10 .” Page 40. Page .” Both areas are already growing growing already are areas Both 9 and ridership trends among Bay Area Area among Bay trends and ridership 8 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the and (MTC) Commission Transportation Metropolitan (2013a). (ABAG) Governments Area Bay of Association “Plan Bay Area 40. Page Housing.” Population, 2015: Economy, Region American Public Transportation Association Association (2014). American Public Transportation the Are – Here is Growing Use Transportation “Public Facts.” ABAG (2015). “San Francisco Bay Area State of the of State Area Bay “San Francisco (2015). ABAG

POPULATION GROWTH & DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS DEVELOPMENT & GROWTH POPULATION 9 10 oriented lifestyles. In 2014, transit ridership ridership transit 2014, In lifestyles. oriented than in more its highest level to rose nationwide 50 years, evidence. local strong provide operators in central residents new a portion of course, Of the to jobs in to commute likely cities are transit near on or located are that suburbs of opposite direction the in traveling corridors, the city. into flows peak commuter traditional 8 and downtown Core the San Francisco Today, and centers, vital employment Oakland are and more to become larger forecast they are with Coupled coming years. the dense in transit, near in housing growth projected major the coming 25 years activity over development demand in travel new significant could create today. nearing capacity are that corridors San Francisco have projections Area Plan Bay by people (35%) than 200,000 by more growing to grow is projected Alameda County and 2040, the same in people (32%) by nearly 500,000 time frame. overall the region’s 35% of 2010, Since rapidly. Alameda County has been in growth population San Francisco, or Smaller but Smaller 6

7 Other surveys have found that people that found have surveys Other 5 Global Strategy Group (2014). “Rockefeller Millennials “Rockefeller (2014). Group Global Strategy in “America (2015). Land Institute AND Urban Survey.” Transportation, on Housing, Views of ULI Survey A 2015: and Community.” of “Summary (2011). Administration Highway Federal Survey.” Travel Household 2009 National Trends: Travel 26. Page is Livable? “What (2014). Institute Public Policy AARP Adults.” Older of Community Preferences attitude have increased interest in living transit- in living interest increased have attitude 5 6 7 end of World War II (1945) and the mid-1960s the mid-1960s and II (1945) War World end of today. Surveys age retirement and reaching interested are groups both that shown have to get on automobiles in being less dependent equivalent of than past generations around ages. expressed millennials have majorities of Large not are cars where in places to live a desire required. than differently traveling are this age group in vehicular fewer cohorts, making those in other often. more transit trips and using a expressed have seniors of shares still strong transit-oriented walkable, in to live desire similar than Americans older of places, and one survey the most desired a bus stop is that found 50 to home. close to have amenity shifts in that the idea support trends Ridership The larger trends seem to be driven in part by to be driven seem trends larger The age cohorts: so-called key two of the attitudes 1980 between young adults born “millennials,” the between born and baby boomers, and 2000, and exurbs will weaken. These trends might trends These and will weaken. exurbs the given Area the Bay muted in be somewhat locations transit-oriented housing in of expense may still drive — affordability the region across the region’s to households of number a notable edges. Land Institute’s 2015 “Emerging Trends in Trends 2015 “Emerging Land Institute’s and Canada States United the for Estate” Real cities central near suburbs located that predicts likely are systems transit and on high-capacity the coming in markets growth to be strong suburbs while demand in auto-oriented years, On the other end of employees’ commutes, the commutes, employees’ end of the other On housing also points transit-oriented for appetite high-capacity for demand increased toward is a housing market San Francisco’s transit. of the strength of example leading national the Urban housing, but central-city for demand they need in the they that to short term ensure experts Still, right. time is the when can grow to will continue space per-worker that expect time. decline over 8 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Transportation Metropolitan BRIEFING BOOK BRIEFING TRENDS TRENDS 11 BART with Stations BART with Stations Caltrain 0 - 1 2 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 50 51+ BART with Stations BART with Stations Caltrain 0 1 - 50 - 250 51 - 500 251 501+ AND CHANGE Data Sources: MTC; ABAG; BART; Caltrain BART; ABAG; MTC; Sources: Data Job Density by Job (TAZ) Analysis Zone Transportation Data Sources: MTC; ABAG; BART; Caltrain BART; ABAG; MTC; Sources: Data Change in Job Density by Job Change in (TAZ) Analysis Zone Transportation Santa Clara Santa Santa Clara Santa Plan Bay Area (2013) Projections (2013) Area Plan Bay Plan Bay Area (2013) Projections (2013) Area Plan Bay CORE CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY TRANSIT CAPACITY CORE Association of Bay Area Governments Area Bay of Association Association of Bay Area Governments Area Bay of Association 2040 JOB DENSITY 2040 2012 JOB DENSITY 2012 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Transportation Metropolitan 28 jobs/acre 2040 JOB DENSITY BY TAZ BY JOB DENSITY 2040 30 jobs/acre Alameda Alameda Solano Solano 115 jobs/acre 34 jobs/acre 46 jobs/acre Contra Costa Contra 38 jobs/acre Downtown Oakland Downtown to 95 jobs/acre +10 257 jobs/acre See Inset SeeInset Contra Costa Contra SoMa zones) (highest-growht to 950 jobs/acre +220 19 jobs/acre San Mateo San Mateo 4,747 jobs/acre 4,747 maximum SoMa (other zones) (other 3,137 jobs/acre 3,137 (select zones) (select 540 jobs/acre Financial District Financial +20 to 250 jobs/acre +20 +10 to 450 jobs/acre +10 Existing Job Density - 2012 Density Job Existing - 2040 and Growth Density Job Projected San Francisco San Francisco BART with Stations BART with Stations Caltrain Marin Marin 11 jobs/acre 65 jobs/acre 187 jobs/acre Data Sources: MTC; ABAG; BART; Caltrain BART; ABAG; MTC; Sources: Data Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure BART with Stations BART with Stations Caltrain 0 - 1 2 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 50 51+ BART with Stations BART with Stations Caltrain 0 1 - 15 16 - 30 31 - 50 51+ Data Sources: MTC; ABAG; BART; Caltrain BART; ABAG; MTC; Sources: Data Household Density by Household (TAZ) Analysis Zone Transportation 19 hh/acre Data Sources: MTC; ABAG; BART; Caltrain BART; ABAG; MTC; Sources: Data Change in Household Density by Change in Household (TAZ) Analysis Zone Transportation AND CHANGE Plan Bay Area (2013) Projections (2013) Area Plan Bay Plan Bay Area (2013) Projections (2013) Area Plan Bay Association of Bay Area Governments Area Bay of Association Association of Bay Area Governments Area Bay of Association 12 hh/acre 2012 HOUSEHOLD DENSITY 2012 HOUSEHOLD 2040 HOUSEHOLD DENSITY Santa Clara Santa 11 hh/acre Santa Clara Santa 7 hh/acre Alameda Alameda 13 hh/acre Solano Solano Contra Costa Contra 16 hh/acre Downtown Oakland Downtown to 25 hh/acre +15 25 hh/acre Contra Costa Contra See Inset SeeInset 12 hh/acre 16 hh/acre 13 hh/acre Treasure Island Treasure to 40 hh/acre +25 11 hh/acre Transbay Transit Center District Center Transit Transbay to 120 hh/acre +95 134 hh/acre 28 hh/acre 30 hh/acre 16 hh/acre San Mateo San Mateo 112 hh/acre maximum Projected Population Density and Growth - 2040 Density and Growth Population Projected Existing Population Density - 2012 Population Existing +80 hh/acre (single zone) (single 166 hh/acre Financial District Financial San Francisco San Francisco Mission Bay Park Merced Park Hunters Point/ Hunters Marin Marin 19 hh/acre 19 hh/acre 47 hh/acre 47 65 hh/acre Candlestick Point +20 to 35 hh/acre +20 +20 to 55 hh/acre +20 +20 to 50 hh/acre +20 Figure 3 Figure Figure 2 Figure 10 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Transportation Metropolitan BRIEFING BOOK BRIEFING TRENDS TRENDS 13 - - - WETA’s WETA’s 17 CORE CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY TRANSIT CAPACITY CORE Metropolitan Transportation Commission Transportation Metropolitan Morning San Francisco-bound San Francisco-bound Morning Caltrain’s daily ridership has daily ridership Caltrain’s The region’s ferry service is operat ferry region’s The service are roughly equally popular today, equally popular roughly service are serving approximately former the with and passengers weekday average 2,400 2,500. roughly serving the latter already at capacity traveling into the Core Core the into traveling capacity at already at peak times. Transit: AC routes transbay Transit’s AC on ridership 2010 and 2015, nearly 40% between grew 2,000 approximately of average an from to more passengers peak-hour morning peak-direction On average, than 2,700. seated 93% of is at ridership transbay capacity. Caltrain: than dou more the last 10 years, in soared to more in 2005 26,500 roughly from bling, San Francisco The in 2015. than 58,000 the far by 4th and King is at station Caltrain the system, accounting in busiest station total Caltrain’s of nearly one quarter for trains 10 highest-demand The boardings. now in each direction by Caltrain operated seated 100% of exceeding ridership have very with the capacity, busiest trains capacity. seated 120% of exceeding WETA: Transportation Emergency Water the ed by routes WETA on Ridership (WETA). Authority weekday 3,500 average roughly from grew fiscal year the 2009-10 in passengers in 2013-14. than 6,200 to more Vallejo service and its Oakland/Alameda ▪ ▪ ▪ MTC (2015). MTC ▪ ▪ ▪

Regional land use and employment forecasts forecasts land use and employment Regional ridership transit in growth that suggest strongly How the coming years. in to continue is likely projections official the disparity between ever, growth ridership pace of the breakneck and just how has illustrated years few the last over levels. ridership future to predict difficult it is has already the region corridor, transbay the In Plan Bay that demand travel of levels realized 6 shows. as Figure 2040, for predicted Area difficulty in accurately the inherent Given the CCTS the future, study team predicting is in each projections growth of a range looking at 17 - - More recent data data recent More 16 SFMTA’s Muni is the region’s the region’s is Muni SFMTA’s Average weekday BART ridership ridership BART weekday Average Over the last decade, ridership has the last decade, ridership Over 15 SFMTA (Muni): SFMTA an system, carrying transit most-used pas 720,400 approximately of average fiscal 2013-14 the in weekday per sengers year. 5.6%. by roughly grown which lines, rail light Metro the Muni for Street Market tunnel under in a operate the Core, outside streets and on surface has ridership peak-hour morning that show five the last in one-third by roughly grown to in 2010 6,400 approximately from years, lines are Metro Muni Several 8,550 in 2015. BART: 2015 (from 2005 and 36% between grew to passengers 310,700 approximately the in the stations at Daily exits 423,100). Em (including San Francisco of areas Core and Civic Powell, Montgomery, barcadero, the same 40% over grew stations), Center three every out of two Today, time period. those one of end at begin or trips BART Peak-hour stations. San Francisco Core now on BART travel transbay from demand direction capacity: Peak available exceeds peak period often the during trains transbay car, per than 115 passengers more carry of maximum standard BART’s exceeding car. per 107 passengers ▪ ▪ “Statistical Summary of Bay Area Transit Operators: Operators: Transit Area Bay of Summary “Statistical 2015. July 2013-14.” Through 2009-10 Years Fiscal http:// Database. Transit the National to as reported www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/pubs/profiles/2004/ agency_profiles/9015.pdf Metropolitan Transportation Commission (2015). (2015). Commission Transportation Metropolitan with 2004 Ridership ridership 2013-2014 Compares ▪ ▪

RIDERSHIP TRENDS RIDERSHIP 15 16 As housing and employment in the Core areas areas Core the in housing and employment As years, in recent grown have San Francisco of the to Core and transportation from demand for the corridor, transbay the In well. as has grown transit, on has occurred this growth bulk of land use and the broad in part because of likely the previous outlined in trends demographic has the Bay Bridge section, but also because capacity. vehicle maximum reached already has seen the Core serving transit whole, a As the last 10 years over in ridership growth the most aggressive even has exceeded that forecasts. - - - improvements, directly focusing employment employment focusing directly improvements, transpor public along key and housing growth All but the Core. to connect that corridors tation Oakland or Francisco top 10 non-San the one of a is near housing and job growth for PDAs new of share large A station. Caltrain or BART rely will likely PDAs of employees and residents on transit. While these growth projections are lower than than lower are projections these growth While any Core, San Francisco the for forecast is what employ or population in residential increases transit the same an impact on could have ment Core. San Francisco the to crucial are that lines available fill would demand the new of Some 10% of (about corridor Transbay the in seats from commute workers Oakland Downtown of share today), but a larger San Francisco parts other from come likely would commuters routes places along key other Oakland or of transbay by be stretched already might that commuters. focus to hope planning agencies Regional Development in Priority the Core outside growth to accommo intended which are (PDAs), Areas infill through space housing and office new date location The development. transit-oriented and with existing aligns closely PDAs regional of transit planned and stations and Caltrain BART - - Land use plans for the areas around around the areas for Land use plans 14 “Development Project.” “Development Treasure Island Development Authority (2015). (2015). Authority Island Development Treasure

an analysis completed for this study found that that found this study for an analysis completed to 24,000 to add 12,000 has potential the area to 13,000 as 6,500 well as 2040, through jobs housing units. 14 rising rents in recent years, with residents and with residents years, in recent rising rents transit strong the area’s by companies drawn and affordability location, central infrastructure, the Whether to the Core. San Francisco relative will through sustain themselves trends recent is uncertain, but downturn economic the next sands of jobs and housing units, per the Central the Central units, per jobs and housing sands of Plan. SoMa on growth and housing in employment Trends an the Bay Bridge are end of the eastern Downtown the picture. part of important other and growth strong Oakland has experienced square feet of office space to the center of of the center to space office of feet square the Bay. Central under-construction the currently Bay, and Mission will link SoMa, which Subway, the and Square Union of areas the developed thou to add anticipated District, are Financial Other San Francisco developments that are are that developments San Francisco Other the include growth the area’s to spur slated which Island development, Treasure planned units, 140,000 residential 8,000 will bring space, and 100,000 commercial of feet square 12 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Transportation Metropolitan BRIEFING BOOK BRIEFING TRENDS TRENDS 15 Demand: High Growth Demand: Market Assessment Growth Projection Demand: Low Growth Person Trips Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , , , , , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 5 70,000 53,000 44,000 4 3 2 1 0 4 0 2 Auto BART WETA AC Transit 0 5 5 CORE CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY TRANSIT CAPACITY CORE 3 3 0 0 0 2 2 0 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Transportation Metropolitan 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 Not fullyNot fully fundedfunded 5 5 2 2 0 3,2003,200 0 2

0 WETA 900

Fully funded

0 0 BART 2 2

0 0 3,200 AC Transit AC 2 2 1,600 fundedfunded Not fullyNot fully Additional Transit Capacity Additional Transit Prerequisite/ Planned Projects Transbay Corridor Capacity and Potential Growth in Travel Demand Travel in Growth Capacity and Potential Corridor Transbay Transit Trips Transit bus & WestCAT AC Transit BART ferry WETA People in Cars Figure 7 Figure 105% 39k Demand 37k Capacity 2015 2,700 1,300 25,000 Existing Conditions to SF Core Westbound AM Peak Hour 10,000 29,000 Transbay Corridor Transbay Transbay Corridor Prerequisite Projects by Operator, 2015-2040 Projects by Operator, Corridor Prerequisite Transbay Image: Flickr user Gohsuke Takama Gohsuke user Flickr Image: - Under this scenario, this Under Model Model Results 37,900 Adjusted Adjusted 2040 share of employees wishing to travel in the wishing to travel employees of share constant. remains peak hour Scenario: High-Growth of an average by grow would ridership for assumed rate the year, per 2.35% regional MTC the 2035, Transportation The Area. Plan Bay preceded that plan the period during developed was 2035 plan the 2008 economic before growth of more far a thus represents and downturn, Area, than Plan Bay projection optimistic just was the region as developed was which the downturn. climbing out of ▪ ▪ this assumes a number of projects that are not not are that projects of this assumes a number constructed. are fully-funded currently Figure 7 shows trend lines for these three these three 7 lines for trend Figure shows breaking corridor, transbay the scenarios in total demand out by mode and comparing capac of levels potential the sum of to demand figure the As corridor. the ity on all modes in in all scenarios uses growth projected shows, and capacity by 2040, all available up most or 38,800 Observed 2015 - - - - This This scenario more than more 2014 demand 31,800 Observed 2010 Ridership in the in Ridership 2040 projection Transbay Corridor Travel Demand Projection Vs. Actual Growth to Date Growth Actual Vs. Demand Projection Travel Corridor Transbay 2040 Travel Demand Projections Demand Projections Travel 2040 to Date Growth Actual Versus 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 Figure 6 Figure 2040, 2040, and this scenario the assumes that 1.35% per year, based on job growth rates rates based on job growth year, per 1.35% the San as part of the Core for estimated completed Assessment Market Francisco esti assessment The this study. for could house between the Core that mated additional jobs by and 140,000 100,000 to a much more modest pace after the next the next modest pace after to a much more downturn. market As Market Study Transit Capacity Core Projection: Growth sessment by roughly will grow demand that assumes year through 2040. through transbay the In cor year 13% growth to roughly this amounts ridor, the scenario represents This 2040. through seen over rates the growth that potential been an aberra have years the last several return will land development that tion, and Low-Growth Scenario: Low-Growth as same rate the at grow would corridor per 0.6% originally projected, Area Plan Bay ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ of the study corridors. In the transbay corridor, corridor, transbay the In the study corridors. of following: the include the scenarios 14 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Transportation Metropolitan BRIEFING BOOK BRIEFING TRENDS TRENDS 17 2040 2040 131% 112% 19,400 Demand 19,900 Demand 17,750 Capacity 14,800 Capacity

2030 2030 118% 101% CORE CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY TRANSIT CAPACITY CORE 18,000 Demand 17,500 Demand 17,750 Capacity 14,800 Capacity 58% 65% 90% 112% 131% Metropolitan Transportation Commission Transportation Metropolitan Projected Percent of of Percent Projected Capacity Filled (2040) Capacity Filled 96% 2025 2025 112% 17,100 Demand 16,600 Demand 17,750 Capacity 14,800 Capacity 91% 2020 2020 107% 16,200 Demand 15,800 Demand 17,750 Capacity 14,800 Capacity 92% 111% 2015 2015 15,400 Demand 15,000 Demand 16,650 Capacity 13,500 Capacity Transit Trips Transit Trips People in Cars People in Cars Bike/Ped Bike/Ped Richmond corridors SF Metro Projected Peak-Hour Utilization by Corridor (2040) and 2015-2040 for Sunset and Sunset for and 2015-2040 (2040) by Corridor Utilization Peak-Hour Projected Metro SF 750 4,400 5,600 5,400 4,550 9,700 Existing Conditions Inbound to SF Core AM Peak Hour Existing Conditions Inbound to SF Core AM Peak Hour Sunset / Metro Richmond Sunset Mission Bayshore Corridor Neighborhoods Northern Richmond Image: Flickr user lpcmldst0128 user Flickr Image: Figure 9 Figure Island Treasure Bayshore

US-101 Core

S T within the City rely on Muni for trips in this trips in for on Muni City rely the within corridor. The Northern Neighborhoods and Neighborhoods Northern The served currently are corridors Richmond San Francisco, lines. In by bus exclusively capacity less far deliver buses generally even rail, than light on a line-by-line basis lanes, transit-only when buses can use bus rapid signal priority, and other transit treatments. transit and Muni BART Mission corridor, the In plenty provide to projected buses are to handle projected planned capacity of demand is T-Third the corridor, Bayshore the In capacity once ample to provide projected the with service associated the increased Though comes online. Subway Central capacity significant also provides Caltrain of limited number the line’s the corridor, in travelers that mean stops in San Francisco

T G O U G H S DOLORES ST

▪ ▪ ▪

S A

Mission

E G

Northern Neighborhoods

L U

Richmond F Sunset San Francisco Corridor Definitions Corridor San Francisco Figure 8 Figure is forecast to be nearing capacity. Planners capacity. Planners to be nearing forecast is these corridors, of three in all that suspect which transit, for demand is latent there time travel that means improve investments to likely are add capacity or and reliability ridership additional substantial attract The Sunset and Richmond corridors are are and Richmond corridors Sunset The future the in to be overcapacity forecast corridor Neighborhoods the Northern and ▪ ▪ capacity for the five Metro corridors. Some key Some corridors. Metro five the for capacity are: findings by corridor The study is looking at growth scenarios that that scenarios growth is looking at study The to 20,000 17,000 in an additional result would spread riders additional morning-peak-hour by 2040. corridors five the across to demand relative forecast 9 shows Figure In the San Francisco Metro corridor, the study corridor, Metro the San Francisco In demand into capacity and transit at is looking the out across fanning corridors five in the Core in as shown to southeast, northwest from city 8. Figure 16 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Transportation Metropolitan BRIEFING BOOK BRIEFING TRENDS 18 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Transportation Metropolitan BRIEFING BOOK BRIEFING TRENDS CORE CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY Metropolitan Transportation Commission

CHALLENGES The infrastructure and systems that carry commuters into theBART Core today were designed and built for the travel patterns of another era. As transit ridership has grownCaltrain over the last decade, the constraints facing Metro Rail these systems have become clearer. The agencies that MUNIoperate service in key corridors have identified

infrastructure investments that would address some of 80 theseAC challenges, Transit but they have yet to secure funding for many of these important projects. Even if they do, growth at recent rates would push ridership well past Berkeley augmentedFerry capacity levels. The system’s structural constraints could put a damper on the region’s efforts to be a more livable, equitable, economically vibrant, and Buses environmentally sensitive place.

This chapter reviews the interrelated capacity constraints each transit network faces. It will take a concerted effort by all transit operators to address the shortfall between projected future transit demand and planned transit capacity.

Ferries 80 Oakland

HWY 580 THE CORE

Light Rail San Francisco Alameda

Commuter

Rail HWY 1 HWY

HWY 880

HWY 101

Daly City HWY 280 HWY BRIEFING BOOK CORE CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY Metropolitan Transportation Commission Metropolitan Transportation Commission CHALLENGES CHALLENGES “Strategies for addressing these problems will require the combined efforts of multiple agencies. ”

TRANSBAY CORRIDOR BART, AC Transit, and the WETA all provide transit capacity in the transbay corridor. While BART does and will continue to provide a large share of the capacity, AC Transit and WETA carry thousands of passengers per day across the Bay and serve as important alternatives to BART when the rail system is not operating at full capacity.

In the interest of thinking about the corridor as an integrated system, this section refers to each service by the type of technology it employs: “metro rail” for BART, “buses” for AC Transit, and “ferries” for WETA.

Metro Rail Buses Ferries

21 20 Image: Flickr user Mike Behnken BRIEFING BOOK CORE CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY Metropolitan Transportation Commission Metropolitan Transportation Commission CHALLENGES CHALLENGES “Two-thirds of all BART trips either begin or end on Market Street Metro Rail in San Francisco.” METRO RAIL Increased ridership is already placing extraor- dinary demands on rail service in the transbay corridor. Over the last decade, daily ridership on the whole BART system has increased 36%, outpacing official forecasts. This ridership is focused on the San Francisco Core: Two-thirds of all BART trips either begin or end on Market Street in San Francisco, and a large portion of BART riders travel westbound from the East Bay into San Francisco during the morning peak commute period, and eastbound in the evening peak commute period. Trains in the transbay corridor today exceed BART’s standards for crowding during peak periods, and Embarcadero and Montgomery stations are approaching their effective capacity to process passengers.

BART projects that daily ridership will increase by 25% to nearly 500,000 by 2025 and by 50% to 600,000 by 2040. To accommodate forecast growth, BART has planned major investments, including an expanded fleet of cars, a modern train control system, an expanded maintenance facility, and upgrades to its power systems. The agency has not yet identified funding for all of these important projects, but if these upgrades are implemented, the agency will be able to run 28 10-car trains per hour per direction through the Transbay Tube (30 per hour during special events). These enhance- ments allow BART to transport approximately 30,000 peak-direction passengers each hour, a one-third increase over today’s 23,500. This change would also improve service frequencies for BART riders.17

Even if BART identifies funding for these planned upgrades, BART will still lack operational flexibility in the transbay corridor once they are complete. Due to the system’s original design, with branches converging for travel

17 BART Operations Planning Staff

22 23 BRIEFING BOOK CORE CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY Metropolitan Transportation Commission Metropolitan Transportation Commission

CHALLENGES Figure 10 BART’s Fleet of the Future EXISTING BART CAR LAYOUT Metro Rail

Metro Rail CHALLENGES

FLEET OF THE FUTURE LAYOUT

TRIPOD POLE TRIPOD POLE BIKE STORAGE (3) HANGING STRAPS

Transbay Peak Hour Passengers per Car (AM/PM Peak Hour Average) 130

across the Bay and through the San Francisco gers. The number and placement of seats Core, the system will still be vulnerable to major within the cars limits the number of stand- 120 delays when there are problems at a critical ing passengers that can be accommodated. merge point just south of Downtown Oakland 3. Each existing car has just two doors, and Standard with New Rail Cars (called the “Oakland Wye”) or in the two-track crowding around the doors slows boarding Max 115 people per car core of the system. Major challenges and and alighting, increasing dwell times at opportunities are summarized in more detail in individual stations, and limiting the speed at 110 the sections that follow. which trains can move through the Market Current Standard CARS Street portion of the system, reducing line Max 107 people per car capacity. The rail system’s aging vehicle fleet is one of BART’s standard for its current fleet is to the principal factors limiting transbay capacity. accommodate 107 passengers per car. How- 100 There are three major issues with the capacity ever, passenger loads today routinely exceed of the cars: 115 passengers per car (5.5 square feet per 1. There are not enough cars in the existing standee) during the peak hour, and regularly go fleet to serve the projected demand. as high as 140 (3.75 square feet per standee) Though BART would like to run all 10-car during the highest-demand parts of the peak 90 trains through the Transbay Tube during commute period.18 Crowding also varies by car, 2012 2013 2014 2015 peak commute periods, the system is with central cars experiencing far more crowd- limited to shorter trains on many runs due ing than end cars. COMFORTABLE (100 people per car) CROWDED (115 people per car) OVERCROWDED (130 people per car) to a lack of cars. 2. The layout of existing cars is not optimized to carry the maximum number of passen- 18 BART Operations Planning staff (2015)

Figure 11 Transbay Peak Hour Passengers per Car (AM/PM Peak Hour Average) 24 25 Embarcadero and Montgomery Peak Hour BRIEFING BOOK AM Exits as a Percent of Station Capacity CORE CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY Metropolitan Transportation Commission Average Weekday, Excluding Friday Metropolitan Transportation Commission

100%

Metro Rail

90% Metro Rail CHALLENGES

80%

Embarcadero (percent of capacity -13,000) Montgomery (percent of capacity - 14,250) 70%

STATIONS

Rail system demand is concentrated in the tions peaks sharply during the busiest part of 60% 2012 2013 2014 2015 Core: two-thirds of all BART trips either begin the morning and evening peak periods, reaching Figure 13 Embarcadero and Montgomery Peak Hour AM or end on Market Street in downtown San levels far higher than any other station. Exits as a Percent of Station Capacity Francisco. Within the Core, demand centers on During these peak periods, station crowding is Montgomery and Embarcadero Stations. As (Average Weekday, Excluding Friday) already a concern, particularly when service shown in Figure 12, ridership at these two sta- delays occur. If a train is delayed during the

Figure 12 Pattern of StationPattern Use Throughout of Station Usethe DayThroughout the Day (entries and exits by time(entries and and station, exits perby time 15-minute and station) period) peak commute period, a larger-than-normal BART stations must be capable of safely and number of passengers are left waiting on the effectively processing passengers during 4000 platform. In the worst cases, crowds of waiting normal operations and also during train delays. passengers can slow passengers trying to exit As ridership at these stations continues to Morning Peak Evening Peak trains, and crowded cars delay passengers increase, the ability to process passengers will trying to board trains, further increasing delays. require modifications to the stations to allow 3,253 (5pm) 3,205 (8:45am) A single delayed train can cause ripple effects larger numbers of passengers to move from the 3000 throughout the system, as that train will be platforms to the street level. late to all future stops, and trains behind it can BART has completed an extensive study of how Montgomery stack up. Queuing can also be an issue, albeit the Embarcadero and Montgomery stations Embarcadero with fewer ripple effects on train service, on the could be retrofitted to accommodate antici- concourses, and at fare gates. Civic Center pated peak-hour crowds at the two stations. Powell

2000 12th Street 19th Street

Average of all others Customers Entering and Exiting BART Entering Customers

1000

TYPICAL STATION ENTRIES (MOST STATIONS) 0

4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00

Time of Day 26 27 BRIEFING BOOK CORE CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY Metropolitan Transportation Commission Metropolitan Transportation Commission

CHALLENGES SYSTEM DESIGN All metro rail service between the East Bay Metro Rail and the San Francisco Core uses the Transbay Tube under the San Francisco Bay. There are Metro Rail three major capacity limitations inherent in this

design: CHALLENGES

OAKLAND WYE MERGE POINT Elev. Machine Room 1 When traveling westbound, all metro rail track junctions) contains speed restrictions lines converge at a point just east of West that slow operations and make it difficult Oakland Station, at a complex multi-level for trains to merge precisely into their Stairs merge point known as the Oakland Wye. tightly scheduled “slots” in the Transbay This is an extremely vulnerable point in the Tube. These restrictions were programmed a a network, as any delay to one train at or into BART’s original train-control system to UP BART Standards near the Wye impacts several other trains, ensure that trains operate safely through Regulations require BART sending ripples of delay though the entire the Wye’s relatively tight curves. Modifica- to be able to clear the platform in under six metro rail system. tions to the train-control system may enable minutes trains to pass through the curves at slightly The Oakland Wye interlocking (the system higher speeds. Oaklandthat ensures safe Wye train movements through

San Pablo Bay Escalator P2 a DOWN UP b BART Standards Oakland Wye No more than 90 sec. OAKLAND SAN of delay at escalators FRANCISCO b

San Francisco Bay Escalator a

c At points where lines merge, UP any problem can cause EMBARCADERO PLATFORM EMBARCADERO Entry Crowding delay on multiple lines During delays crowding around train can prevent others from exiting trains, further increasing delay

However, the design of the underground stations d d make platform expansion complex and extremely BART Standards A minimum of seven square expensive, and no major changes to Montgomery feet per passenger is or Embarcadero stations are planned at this time. desired as a scheduling standard during normal In the future, it may be possible to add a small operations. Five square feet amount of station capacity by reconfiguring is considered the minimum acceptable during delay existing stairwells, adding additional stairways, or conditions. For safety, trains travel installing platform screen doors.19 There are just two tracks into through these segments and out of San Francisco. Any Elevator at just 18 mph problem here can interrupt all transbay service 19 BART/SVRT Core Stations Modifications Study(2010) Figure 14 Embarcadero Station Constraint Points Figure 15 Capacity Constraints in the Oakland Wye

28 29 BRIEFING BOOK CORE CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY Metropolitan Transportation Commission Metropolitan Transportation Commission CHALLENGES CHALLENGES

Metro Rail

Bay Point Pittsburg Hercules Martinez Fairfax San Rafael Pinole Metro Rail El Sobrante Antioch San Anselmo Concord San Pablo Pleasant Hill Larkspur Richmond Clayton El Cerrito Mill Valley TYPICAL AM PEAK Walnut Creek Tiburon Albany Orinda 8AM: JUNE 21, 2012 Lafayette Berkeley FREEFLOW Sausalito Alamo Emeryville Moraga Piedmont Danville Oakland Alameda HEAVY CONGESTION San Francisco San Ramon

Dublin San Leandro Castro Valley Image: Flickr user TJ Gehling Daly City Brisbane Colma San Lorenzo Pleasanton Livermore South San Francisco Hayward San Bruno Paciﬁca Millbrae Union City 2 TRAIN CONTROL AND TRACTION POWER Burlingame Hillsborough Fremont To prevent collisions, trains must maintain a system can safely manage approximately one San Mateo Foster City Newark minimum following distance when running train every 2.5 minutes, allowing a maximum of through the Transbay Tube. To accomplish 24 peak-hour trains in each direction. Bay Point Pittsburg Hercules this goal, the existing train control signal Martinez Fairfax San Rafael Pinole Limits on the existing traction power system El Sobrante Antioch system divides the metro rail system into fixed San Anselmo Concord also restrict the number of trains that can San Pablo “blocks,” allowing just one train at a time (plus Pleasant Hill operate through the Transbay Tube and Larkspur Richmond DURINGClayton a small buffer behind each train) to operate El Cerrito WEST OAKLAND FIRE Mill Valley elsewhere in the system. Walnut Creek 8AM: JUNE 14, 2012 inside each block at any given time. This Tiburon Albany Orinda Lafayette Berkeley FREEFLOW Sausalito Emeryville Moraga Piedmont 3 SYSTEM REDUNDANCY Danville Oakland Alameda HEAVY The Transbay Tube, which has just one track in each direction, is the only rail corridor between CONGESTION San Francisco San Ramon San Francisco and the East Bay. The lack of redundancy presents a number of challenges for the

regional transportation system. Dublin San Leandro Castro Valley Daly City Brisbane The transit system is vulnerable to catastrophic delay in the case of mechanical failure or another Colma San Lorenzo Pleasanton Livermore South San Francisco problem in or near the Transbay Tube. A disabled train or a track maintenance issue can shut down Hayward service in one direction or require a single-track operation, creating delays that cascade through San Bruno Paciﬁca the metro rail system. Transbay bus service and ferries can only replace a small share of this Millbrae Union City Burlingame capacity in an emergency. As shown in Figure 16, a major incident such as the 2012 building fire Hillsborough Fremont San Mateo Foster City near West Oakland Station can affect not only metro rail service but also traffic throughout the Newark region.20 In addition, no alternate transit corridor is available when planned Tube maintenance is required. During summer 2015, scheduled track maintenance in the Tube required shutting down Figure 16 Traffic Impacts During West Oakland Fire all transbay rail service for two weekends.

20 MTC 511 traffic data, June 8, 2012

30 31 BRIEFING BOOK CORE CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY Metropolitan Transportation Commission Metropolitan Transportation Commission CHALLENGES CHALLENGES

Metro Rail

PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS Metro Rail BART has completed a variety of studies on the challenges facing the system, and it has created plans to address a number of the rail-car, station-access, and system design issues outlined in this chapter. Rail Cars Train Control and Traction Power BART is taking steps to address the issues with BART now has a project underway to modern- its rail cars. Through its Fleet of the Future pro- ize its train-control system. Instead of “fixed gram, BART has identified the need to replace blocks,” the new signal system will use “moving the existing fleet of 669 cars and expand it to blocks” that optimize throughput (trains per 1,081 cars. The first 850 new cars are funded, hour) even where speeds are slow. Moving and will be phased into operation beginning blocks continuously adjust the distance between 2017 and 2021. BART also has plans between trains, while allowing trains to get as to reconfigure and expand its Hayward Mainte- close as safety will allow. This means that trains nance Complex so that it has enough capacity run closer together in slower areas, such as to serve the larger fleet. near stations, and farther apart in faster areas, such as between stations. The new system will The new cars will have reconfigured seating and be able to provide more reliable service while more space around the doors to more easily allowing up to 30 trains per hour through the accommodate passenger circulation in crowded Transbay Tube. Full funding for the new train conditions and accommodate more standing control system has not yet been fully identified. passengers. The cars will also feature three doors per side, allowing for faster boarding. BART has already begun implementing upgrades to its traction power system. For Despite these planned investments, major example, a new transmission cable is being limitations remain. Full funding for the remaining constructed between West Oakland and 231 cars has not yet been identified. Similarly, Embarcadero as part of the Earthquake Safety funding for the expansion of the Hayward Main- Project. However, the agency has not yet tenance Complex has not yet been identified. identified full funding to make all needed power- The fleet cannot increase without an expansion system upgrades. in maintenance capacity.

Image: Flickr user Eric Fischer 32 33 BRIEFING BOOK CORE CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY Metropolitan Transportation Commission Metropolitan Transportation Commission

CHALLENGES BUSES AC Transit currently operates 30 routes across peak direction,21 and the new terminal will have Buses the Bay Bridge, providing capacity for just enough room to accommodate service levels

fewer than 3,000 riders from the East Bay into that would bring nearly 2.5 times that many Buses San Francisco during the morning peak hour. riders. Regardless, the new terminal will enable

Transbay bus services have seen increased bus service to be a major contributor to serv- CHALLENGES demand as metro rail and ferry services have ing future demand in the transbay corridor, if neared capacity during peak periods. In addi- buses can provide competitive travel times and tion to augmenting transbay capacity, buses reliability. increase the transit system coverage, serving If AC Transit is able to purchase the number of parts of the Bay that do not have easy access buses necessary to provide capacity at this to a rail station. Transbay bus service can be scale, space for bus storage and maintenance a major contributor to accommodating future on the East Bay side of the system will become demand in the transbay corridor, especially in a much more urgent priority. Current facilities the next 10 to 15 years. will hit capacity limits with a relatively marginal This section provides more detail on the chal- growth in the size of the fleet. lenges constraining transbay bus capacity today, and the opportunities to carry more BAY BRIDGE APPROACHES passengers on this mode in the future. Today, transbay buses face traffic delay on both the east and west sides of the Bay Bridge. TERMINAL CAPACITY On the east side of the bridge, transbay buses A major limit on transbay bus service today is face delay when approaching the Bay Bridge San Francisco terminal capacity (room at the toll plaza. I-80, I-880, and I-580 all converge at end of the line to let passengers off, then wait this point, creating a complicated set of inter- a few minutes for passengers traveling in the secting highway lanes that buses must safely other direction to board). The existing Temporary navigate and merge through to gain access Transbay Terminal has 17 bays (bus parking to the bridge. Though high-occupancy vehicle slots) for passenger loading and unloading. The (HOV) lanes help some buses move faster than capacity of the terminal limits how much bus general traffic on freeway approaches equipped service can be provided across the Bay Bridge. with the lanes, they end at the toll plaza, However, with the opening of the Transbay requiring buses to merge with general traffic for Transit Center in 2017, terminal capacity in San the journey across the bridge. When traffic is Francisco will increase significantly. The Transit particularly heavy, queues can back up past the Center will provide a total of 50 bus bays, of start of HOV lanes, delaying bus access. If more which 30 will be dedicated to transbay bus drivers try to use the Bay Bridge in the future, service. That will be more than enough room to what manifests itself today as occasional accommodate the number of peak-hour buses heavy queues could become the daily norm, AC Transit is currently planning to run to the new terminal. Those buses would have space 21 Arup (2015). “Transbay Corridor Current and Planned for as many as 7,300 peak-hour riders in the Transit Capacity and Demand.” Memorandum, July 30, 2015.

34 35 BRIEFING BOOK CORE CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY Metropolitan Transportation Commission Metropolitan Transportation Commission CHALLENGES

22 Buses ably, to below 30 miles per hour. Transbay buses are caught in the same congestion, which Buses slows crossing speeds and reduces reliability

when travel speeds are reduced. CHALLENGES

22 Alameda County Transportation Commission. “2014 LOS Monitoring Study.” BUS CONFIGURATION AC Transit may quickly run “ The total number and capacity of the buses into space limitations on its that are currently used in the corridor is another potential constraint on system capacity as new, smaller vehicles.” transbay demand grows. Older 57-seat MCI coaches on certain routes were recently replaced with new 36-seat Gillig coaches, though the agency does not have any additional smaller buses on order. The smaller vehicles were selected because they have and transbay bus speed and reliability would streets traveling both to and from the bridge. a newer, more efficient design that is more degrade considerably. No current plans are in With the opening of the Transbay Transit Center comfortable for passengers and more ADA place to remedy these challenges. in 2017, new access ramps will allow transbay accessible.23 The remaining MCI coaches will be buses to move directly from the Bay Bridge to Transbay buses also face delay on the west replaced with higher capacity models. AC Transit the terminal. The expected travel time savings side of the bridge, where they encounter signifi- is also in the process of growing its fleet of could make bus service more competitive for cant peak period delay on San Francisco city buses overall using funds from Alameda CTC. riders and allow for more frequent service. The agency is also currently testing the BAY BRIDGE SPAN CONGESTION potential of double-decker buses for a variety of Once on the bridge, buses share lanes with approach queues, and therefore should not face routes, including those that are most crowded truck and automobile traffic, and are subject to traffic delay at the bridge when the system running across the Bay. These buses can carry the impacts and delays of operating in mixed works as designed. However, in practice, meter- as many as 80 passengers each, and could add traffic across such a congested corridor. ing lights are not always perfectly timed for significant capacity on transbay routes. present conditions, and traffic delay does occur Caltrans manages westbound Bay Bridge traffic on the span, limiting bus speeds. using metering lights just west of the bridge toll 23 AC Transit (2015). “Transbay Service FAQs,” www. actransit.org. plaza. This system is designed to limit through- The Bay Bridge’s stated operating speed limit put to the free-flow capacity of the span, is 50 miles per hour, but morning and evening moving any backup to the toll plaza approach. peak congestion can reduce speeds consider- Buses use HOV lanes that bypass these bridge “Congestion slows crossing speeds and reduces reliability.”

36 37 BRIEFING BOOK CORE CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY Metropolitan Transportation Commission Metropolitan Transportation Commission CHALLENGES CHALLENGES

Ferries

FERRIES Ferries currently make connections between four ferry terminals on each side of the San Francisco Bay, with service reaching Oakland, Alameda, and Vallejo in the East Bay.24 The San Francisco Ferry Terminal is the main hub on the west side of the Bay, providing direct service to the San Francisco Core. The Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) operates the East Bay routes and is a passenger-only ferry service.

Ferries have become increasingly popular in the past few years, with ridership between the East Bay and Peninsula terminals growing from around 1.5 million passengers in 2012 to more than 2.1 million in 2015.25 Daily boardings on individual routes have also grown markedly in recent years, reaching peak ridership levels in the middle of the summer. The Alameda/ Oakland route’s summer ridership has grown from just over 2,000 passengers per day in 2012 to approximately 3,750 in the summer of 2015. In the same period, Vallejo ridership has more than tripled to nearly 3,300; Harbor Bay ridership has grown from less than 1,000 to more than 1,200. WETA survey data show that 41% of ferry passengers would drive alone if they could not take the ferry, and an additional 50% would take BART.26

24 North Bay ferry service is outside the scope of this study. 25 San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transporta- tion Authority 2016 Short Range Transit Plan 26 Connolly, Kevin (2015). “Water Emergency Transporta- tion Authority.” Presentation to the SPUR Transportation Policy Board, August 2015.

38 39 BRIEFING BOOK CORE CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY Metropolitan Transportation Commission Metropolitan Transportation Commission

SCALE OF SERVICE CONNECTIVITY either side of the journey. To be effective, end. Bayland environmental constraints limit ferry terminals need strong connecting transit opportunities for parking expansion. As of 2015, East Bay WETA ferry routes Ferries offer commuters a high-quality com- service or large amounts of parking on one provided space for just over 1,300 commuters muting experience, with majestic views and in the peak direction during the morning peak on-board refreshments, among other amenities. Ferries ROLE OF FERRY SERVICE Ferries hour. That amounts to approximately 4% of the As a result, they are able to attract choice

CHALLENGES Despite their limitations, ferries play an there is very little commuter traffic in the Bay

total capacity in the transbay corridor. Peak- riders (those with the option to drive). However, CHALLENGES important role in transbay mobility. Whether and because ferries are not confined to a single hour ridership is estimated at just under 1,300 constraints on land-side connectivity mean passengers prefer the ferry for its spacious- right-of-way, expanding service will not lead to riders, or approximately 3% of total estimated that ferries are only convenient to a small share ness, bicycle parking, breathtaking views of increased transbay congestion as it would for ridership in the corridor. of the total commute market, which may limit the surrounding landscape, direct access to other modes. Ferries also fulfill an important the ability of this mode to attract a significantly WETA plans to vastly expand capacity in the waterfront locations, or reliability in the case emergency response role in the corridor. WETA larger share of the transbay commute market future, adding several new routes, replacing the of a Bay Bridge or transbay tube breakdown, was, in part, founded for this purpose, and the as demand grows. current fleet with larger vessels, and increasing ferries provide an essential and increasingly agency estimates that with its current fleet, frequencies on existing routes. Expansion Ferry terminals are located on the waterfront, important service for transbay commuters. The it could evacuate more than 100,000 people routes would connect Richmond, Berkeley, and alongside which the Bay Area’s land use increasing importance of ferry service is due within 48 hours. Treasure Island terminals to downtown San patterns limit the number of places with both to the nature of water transportation. Because Francisco and an additional terminal at Mission available space for a terminal and sufficient Bay within the next 10 years. Berkeley and density to support frequent ferry service. Richmond routes are envisioned as commute- However, that is slated to change, with major only services, which would operate in the peak development planned for waterfront areas direction during peak periods. Treasure Island like Mission Bay, Hunters Point, Candlestick service would run every 50 minutes or more Point, and Treasure Island in San Francisco and frequently. Brooklyn Basin, Alameda Point, Alameda Estu- ary, and Richmond in the East Bay. As density WETA currently owns 12 vessels and contracts grows along the waterfront, ferry service could with a third party for two additional vessels. The become an increasingly important commute agency plans to replace its current fleet with option for these areas, which are not directly larger vessels in the near future.27 served by BART or other high-capacity transit Overall, WETA service levels would increase modes. Additionally, as bicycle infrastructure from five peak-hour trips in 2015 to 15 peak- becomes more abundant throughout the Bay direction vessels by 2040.28 This would mean Area, bicycle commuters could take increasing a nearly three-fold increase in peak-hour ferry advantage of transbay ferry service, which can capacity, making room for more than 4,000 accommodate 30 to 60 bicycles per vessel.29 peak-hour passengers in each direction, or Commuters that do not live close to a ferry more than 11% of total capacity in the corridor. terminal or commute by bicycle face a longer and often more complicated connection on

27 Connolly, Kevin (2015). 29 San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transporta- 28 Arup (2015). tion Authority 2016 Short Range Transit Plan

“WETA currently lacks extra vessels to support potential new ferry service routes.”

40 41 BRIEFING BOOK CORE CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY Metropolitan Transportation Commission Metropolitan Transportation Commission CHALLENGES CHALLENGES

Light Rail Buses SAN FRANCISCO – LIGHT RAIL AND BUS San Francisco’s light rail and bus systems together carry more than 40% of the Bay Area’s daily transit riders, including hundreds of thousands of people traveling into the San Francisco Core. A variety of intercon- nected issues limit the system’s capacity, leading to overloaded trains and buses into the Core during commute hours.

These networks’ capacity constraints fall in three main areas. ▪▪ System design issues: Aspects of the system’s configuration lead to delays. These complicating design features include the way trains must transition between surface streets and underground tunnels, the limited number of parallel tracks for parking or passing other trains, and the way trains must turn around on the eastern end of the Muni Metro subway. ▪▪ Surface reliability: Buses and trains running in mixed traffic on San Francisco streets are delayed by the same congestion as cars and other vehicles. ▪▪ Fleet management and safety: Several issues prevent the use of trains longer than two cars. These include an insufficient number of cars in the fleet, short distances between intersections on City streets, and other issues.

SFMTA is already tackling some of these issues through Muni Forward, recent vehicle purchases, and regular efforts to incrementally improve operations.

Image: Flickr user Austin Cross 42 43 BRIEFING BOOK CORE CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY Metropolitan Transportation Commission Metropolitan Transportation Commission

CHALLENGES SF Portals all users of the intersection, unpredictable train arrival times, the need to switch into and The light rail system’s train control system out of automatic operation when entering or automates the operation of trains underground Light Rail Buses exiting the subway, and the need to stop twice and optimizes spacing between trains to Light Rail before fully leaving the station in the outbound prevent collisions. Given the complex nature of direction (once to open and close train doors, SF operations above ground, train crews must be in and once to wait for the intersection to clear control when trains are at street level in order to and a directional switch in the intersection to respond to the unpredictable actions of private align). Because so many lines travel through the vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians. Buses portal, any delays have ripple effects through- CHALLENGES Trains enter the subway at West Portal, Duboce out the system. Portal (near Duboce and Market streets), and just southeast of Embarcadero station. At each Merges of these points, trains typically stop briefly to San Francisco’s light rail lines converge at six transition into or out of automated operation. different points in the system, several near the The transition time can notably increase operat- portals. In the eastbound direction, merge points ing times, particularly in the inbound direction. include St. Francis Circle (K and M), West Portal From time to time, trains are unable to commu- (K/M and L), Church and Duboce streets (J and Image: Flickr user Robert Thompson nicate with the tunnel’s automatic train control N), Van Ness station (K/L/M and J/N). In the system. When this happens, the train that failed westbound direction, merge points include 4th to connect to the system enters the subway and King streets (N and KT) and Embarcadero where they could operate unencumbered by SYSTEM DESIGN under manual control and must run much more station (N/KT and J/L/M). other vehicles and traffic lights. slowly than it would if managed automatically. The design of the Muni Metro system traces As noted previously, the train control system The challenges facing the Muni Metro system This in turn slows every train behind it. back to two very different eras of rail invest- maintains a buffer between trains to ensure today are an outgrowth of the very different ment in San Francisco. Track was laid on the that they have enough time and distance to realities and motivations of rail planners in West Portal station is a particularly complex surface portions of the lines in the late 1800s stop safely if they need to do so unexpectedly. these two eras. Today, there are many more transition point. Three lines converge at the and early 1900s, when streetcars were among Though system operators set the schedule to competing demands on the City’s streets intersection of Ulloa Street and West Portal the most advanced urban mobility technologies minimize simultaneous arrivals, the variability than there were 100 years ago. Unpredictable Avenue, which is controlled only by stop signs available. This period was before the prolifera- in above-ground operating conditions makes delays, slower speeds, and inconsistent travel and experiences high pedestrian volumes and tion of automobiles. As such, there was less it difficult to avoid them in practice. When two times throughout the surface portions of the erratic driver behavior. Factors that can delay competition for street space and, in turn, trains arrive at a point where lines converge at fewer potential sources of delay for trains. San light rail system attest to this evolution, and trains include unpredictable movements by Francisco’s network was built in part to provide these factors make it exceedingly difficult to access to newly developing communities on the take full advantage of the modern segment of FigurePortals 17 Portals & and Merges Merges - City’s west side, and stops were made frequent the network, through the San Francisco Core. Potential causesPotential of delay Causes of Delay Switching to ‘auto’ mode to provide many of the new residents front-door Distances between stops that are far shorter requires 20 seconds or more. than those typically associated with high quality Trains must then wait for trafﬁc access to their homes. in the tunnel to clear rail transit further undermine the service. The portion of the Muni Metro Tunnel between DUBOCE STREET The most modern parts of the system are also Embarcadero station and just west of Castro J station was built in the 1970s. By this time, cars limited in a critical way. Designed with only N N were the dominant mode of transportation. two sets of tracks, the tunnel lacks space for With people living further and further away trains to pass other trains or for operators to from traditional downtowns, planners felt they get disabled trains out of the way of those still Inbound N trains wait for needed to prioritize making transit as fast and carrying passengers. This exacerbates delays J an outbound J train to Inbound J train that might otherwise be quite minor. clear the intersection efficient as possible to ensure it would be a waits for delayed Gaps between trains viable alternative to the private automobile. Other aspects of the light rail system’s design trafﬁc ahead in subway lead to The Muni Metro Tunnel was constructed as limit the number of trains that can be run unpredictable part of the build-out of the BART system, and it outbound arrivals for through the system in a given hour, and other both lines made light rail travel along Market Street much design issues create a similar problem for CHURCH STREET quicker and more reliable by pulling trains off buses. the surface and into their own right-of-way,

44 45 BRIEFING BOOK CORE CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY Metropolitan Transportation Commission Metropolitan Transportation Commission

CHALLENGES SF Figure 18 Steps Required at Embarcadero Turnaround A set of sequential maneuvers required to turn J, L, and M trains around Wait for Inbound Trafﬁc Light Rail Buses Trains in pockets must wait Dwell Pocket Tracks for any train trafﬁc from Light Rail Passengers enter train Small segments where a third set of tracks above ground to clear SF is available so trains can reverse direction

outbound platform Buses

EMBARCADERO STATION CHALLENGES

inbound platform

Travel Time Into and Out of Pocket It takes a minimum of three to four Dwell minutes to enter and exit the pockets Passengers leave train Wait for Trains Leaving Pockets Operator Switch Sometimes, trains traveling from the Natural point for Embarcadero into the subway must switching operators to wait at the entry point (Ferry Portal) allow them to take care for trains leaving the pockets of basic needs Note: This conceptual diagram does not show the exact track layout and is only intended to illustrate the main train movements. delays for trains coming into the subway from Market Street the Embarcadero. San Francisco’s local bus system centers on Once the Central Subway opens, SFMTA will Market Street, where lines coming from all over the same time, one of the two trains must wait that start above ground persist in the subway. need to find a place to turn around K-Ingleside the city converge for the final portions of routes to allow the appropriate buffer in the subway, This reduces the number of trains that can run trains as well (the K and T currently interline, to the Ferry Building or Transbay Terminal. exacerbating any delays that caused trains through the subway in a given hour and, in turn, with T-Third trains turning into K-Ingleside trains The street often sees five or more buses per to go off schedule in the first place. Likewise, directly reduces overall passenger capacity. when traveling westbound in the subway, and minute in peak periods. The density of buses when gaps between trains are longer than vice versa in the opposite direction). Given means that operations on Market Street can be planned because of surface delays, the gaps that the J, L, and M currently take up almost notably slower than in other parts of the system. all scheduled capacity in the Embarcadero Buses are often delayed behind platoons of Embarcadero Turnback turnback, turning K trains could require route bicycles, and high volumes of pedestrians and changes, schedule adjustments, or a new set vehicles crossing Market Street at intersections Three light rail lines terminate at Embarcadero with one turnback located nearer to the station of pocket tracks. SFMTA has explored creating demand significant green time in each cycle station: the J, L, and M. Trains that terminate than the other. a set of pocket tracks along the Embarcadero, of signal phases, which means less green time at Embarcadero station must turn using short It takes trains approximately five minutes to near Harrison Street. for vehicles traveling along Market Street. One track segments that fork off the main tracks, complete the maneuvers required to turn around. advantage buses on the surface of Market called turnback pockets. To do so, trains must There are only a few places in the rest of the Given that there are two pockets, a total of 24 Street have over trains underground is the ability complete a sequence of steps, each requiring system in which trains can turn around or pull trains could theoretically make the turn in a peak to steer clear of delayed buses or other vehicles. anywhere from 30 seconds to several minutes, off the two sets of main tracks. This means hour, though only 22 are scheduled to do so. Any As noted earlier, trains cannot pass those that using the pocket tracks beyond the station that when trains must be removed from service delays in other parts of the system reduce the are delayed because the subway has only two (illustrated in Figure 18). There are two pocket because of maintenance issues, it is difficult to chances that trains will arrive at the turnaround sets of tracks. tracks in this location, one long enough for two- get them out of the way of other train traffic, at optimal times. When trains arrive at Embar- car trains and the other long enough for four-car which can in turn create severe delays. Ad- The Better Market Street project is a multi- cadero station in bunches or when there are long trains (though SFMTA currently does not run any ditional strategically placed pocket tracks could agency effort to decide how to most efficiently gaps between trains, some must wait for others trains that long). As the figure shows, the two also make it easier to offer more regular shuttle redistribute Market Street’s right of way, in close to complete the turnaround before they can turnback pockets are located just east of the service in the subway, where ridership is great- consultation with community stakeholders. begin the turnaround themselves. This also adds station, between the two sets of mainline tracks, est. The effort has considered a variety of ways

46 47 BRIEFING BOOK CORE CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY Metropolitan Transportation Commission Metropolitan Transportation Commission CHALLENGES SF

Light Rail Buses

of prioritizing transit traffic along the street, number of buses per hour scheduled along the which carries numerous bus lines and SFMTA’s corridor. The project is currently going through historic streetcar. The short segment of Market environmental review, and changes to the Street on which the 38-Geary line runs is a corridor will likely be implemented shortly after particularly important segment, given the large that process is complete. SURFACEReliability RELIABILITY & Predictability AND STREET DESIGN When they are not traveling in one of San double parked vehicles. Delays affect pas- Francisco’s limited number of transit-only sengers both onboard and downstream as they Light Rail lanes, buses and light rail trains are delayed cascade along an entire route and, often, lead to ▪▪ Traffic: Buses and trains are subject to when transit vehicles are delayed due to SF by congestion, just like any other vehicle on slower and more crowded conditions. Lengthy the congestion that affects all traffic on traffic congestion, crwoded conditions, the the city’s crowded streets. Such delays affect delays can also cause a delayed vehicle to run city streets when they run in lanes with boarding and de-boarding of customers

trains more than they affect cars because late on all of its scheduled trips later in the day. cars, trucks, and other vehicles. There is a who require additional time, and other Buses it takes much longer for trains to safely and wide array of issues that can cause delays, factors, they end up arriving at stops at Delays on city streets are caused by a few main comfortably accelerate and decelerate,Conditions and aboveground are unpredictable including: other vehicles changing lanes, irregular intervals which can create “bunch- issues, shown in Figure 19. trains cannot navigate around blockages like doubled-parked cars, lost or distracted ing.” This can, in turn, result in larger-than- drivers, intersection queues, and blockages normal crowds during longer-than-normal caused by collisions. Regardless of the intervals between vehicles, lengthening reason, cars blocking tracks are major boarding times further and contributing to sources of train delays. even more bunching. General Trafﬁc Congestion Stop Signs Cars slow down to let other vehicles At many intersections trains ▪▪ Congestion at Intersections: Intersections ▪▪ Stop Spacing: Along all of the surface change lanes, to turn, and to allow must slow or stop, even enough following distance. All of these when there is no cross are a focal point of traffic delays due to portions of Muni Metro routes, some stops behaviors impact train operations. trafﬁc. Stopping takes more the often complex interaction of vehicles, are as close together as one or two blocks. time for trains than for cars. cyclists, and pedestrians as they change Given the time it takes trains to accelerate speeds and make turns. and decelerate, frequent stops can increase ▪▪ Loading and Unloading Passengers: travel times notably over what they would SFMTA’s system-wide All-Door Boarding be if stops were as far apart as they are in policy allows Muni riders with valid proof many light rail systems — one-quarter to of payment to enter vehicles through any one-half mile apart. Frequent stops can also door, instead of requiring all passengers to make passengers feel like travel times are STATION PLATFORM STATION PLATFORM queue and enter vehicles through the first longer than they actually are. People tend door to pay fares or show operators proof of to perceive time spent regularly slowing payment. The use of all doors has improved down and speeding up as longer than efficiency and reduced average “dwell equivalent time spent more consistently in time,” or time spent at stations waiting for motion. Non-Routine Delay When autos stall or get in a passengers to load and unload. Loading ▪▪ Other Street Design Issues: Stop signs and Intersection Congestion collision, they can block trains’ and unloading time for typical crowds is narrow lanes in certain areas further limit Intersections are generally points of paths. SFMTA cannot fully congestion - vehicles slow to account control or predict this kind of factored into bus and train schedules, but trains’ average speeds on the surface. for the movement of other vehicles, or delay. they stop for signs or signals. Cars BUSES AND TRAIN CARS AVAILABLE queue at intersections, preventing trains from getting in position to Buses and train cars are expensive, and it often Chapter 2), leaving the SFMTA with too few safely let passengers board/alight. takes years between the time new vehicles vehicles to serve all potential transit riders in are ordered and their delivery. Muni ridership the short term. The agency has accelerated the has grown far more quickly than forecast (see Figure 19 Causes of Transit Delays on City Streets

48 49 BRIEFING BOOK CORE CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY Metropolitan Transportation Commission Metropolitan Transportation Commission

purchase of additional vehicles to more quickly train carrying four times as many passengers. potential capacity from being used at the accommodate newly forecast ridership levels. Limitations on train lengths, whether due to system’s highest ridership points. In other constraints like short block lengths on above- words, running only shorter trains cuts the The City’s current fleet of light rail vehicles is ground portions of the system or because subway’s capacity by at least half at the points Light Rail more prone to maintenance issues than those Light Rail of fleet limitations, prevent the tunnel’s full where more capacity is most needed. SF of other systems. Reliability has improved SF recently as a result of maintenance campaigns PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS focused on the issues that most contribute to delay (i.e. problems with train doors), but the The SFMTA has plans for or is already imple- The design of the new vehicles should improve Buses Buses maintenance issues have, at times, further menting a number of changes that will begin reliability substantially. As discussed in prior

Spacing for Safety addressing the issues noted above, though sections, the impact of a broken train or one CHALLENGES

CHALLENGES constrained the number of passengers the system can serve. The Muni Metro Tunnel keeps trains at a safe distance from funding shortfalls remain. that is having trouble connecting to the sub- each other. Late trains and maintenance issues, among other problems, can prevent the tunnel from functioning optimally. way’s train control system can cause delays SAFETY SYSTEMS Light-Rail Vehicle Replacement that persist for an entire commute period, IN THE MUNI METRO TUNNEL and Expansion creating overcrowded conditions. Noteworthy Shorter Trains aspects of the new design for reliability include: As noted earlier in this chapter, train control One-car trains reduce the SFMTA’s light-rail vehicle replacement plan- capacity of the tunnel, as they ning and design effort has been underway for systems typically enforce a minimum follow- must maintain the same ▪▪ The new vehicles are being manufactured ing distance between trains to allow for an minimum following distance several years, and the first new vehicles will nearby in Sacramento, giving SFMTA better emergency stop without the risk of a collision as any other train. enter service in early 2017. Many aspects of the access to parts needed for routine mainte- from behind. The light rail signal system is one new trains will increase capacity both directly nance. The current vehicles, manufactured of the earliest installations in the United States and indirectly. in Italy, had custom and hard-to-order OPTIMAL SPACING of communications-based train control, which, parts, which has forced trains to be out of To assure safety, the train Capacity will directly increase with growth in as noted in the East Bay Metro Rail section, service for longer than might otherwise be control system keeps a the size of the fleet, from approximately 150 dynamically keeps a safe amount of buffer minimum time buffer necessary for routine repairs. between trains. vehicles today to as many as 260 in the future space between trains. (SFMTA has ordered a total of 215 trains so far, ▪▪ The trains themselves have been simplified As noted earlier, the Muni Metro Tunnel’s train but the agency can purchase 45 more in the fu- to reduce maintenance issues. For example, control system allows train movements to be ture once it identifies funding for the additional there will be dramatically fewer moving managed automatically, which allows trains to vehicles). The larger fleet will enable SFMTA to pieces involved in opening and shutting be spaced more closely than they would under run longer trains and consider different service the doors than there are in today’s trains. patterns. As a result, SFMTA expects that the new manual operation. This increases the number OPTIMAL SPACING of trains per hour that the subway can accom- vehicles’ average distance between major modate; a traditional system can carry about 30 trains per hour per direction, but SFMTA currently schedules as many as 36 trains per ELONGATED SPACING hour at peak times. When trains run late, they increase spacing in the tunnel, reducing capacity. Absent the capacity limitations of the portals, merges, and turnbacks, as well as the lack of predictability of surface operations addressed earlier in the chapter, the system could safely Figure 20 Foregone Capacity and accommodate more trains per hour. However, the ATCS System those issues often reduce service below even scheduled levels.

Each train, no matter how long it is, requires the same amount of time to maneuver through the portals, turnbacks, and other elements of the system that limit the total number of trains the system can handle in a given hour. In other words, a one-car train, carrying a maximum of approximately 120 passengers, takes up space that could otherwise be filled by a four-car

50 51 BRIEFING BOOK CORE CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY Metropolitan Transportation Commission Metropolitan Transportation Commission CHALLENGES SF maintenance issues will be quintupled, from Finally, SFMTA is also investing in infrastructure Light Rail 5,000 miles to 25,000 miles. that will improve capacity. Improvements that Light Rail Buses SF the agency hopes to implement soon include: Trolley Bus and Motor Coach Replacement and Expansion ▪▪ Adjustments the layout of the intersection of West Portal and Ulloa (right outside West Buses SFMTA is in the midst replacing its entire fleet Portal Station) to simplify the ways differ- CHALLENGES of buses and, ultimately, expanding the fleet ent travelers cross the intersection and significantly. New buses have been phased in reduce the number of movements that can over the last several years, and all of the old delay train travel through the intersection. vehicles will be replaced by 2019. In addition to providing greater reliability and a smoother ▪▪ A new pocket track along the Embarcadero and more comfortable ride, the new buses have east of Harrison Street that will create a floors closer to street level, which allow for new location to turn back trains near the faster boarding and alighting. eastern end of the Muni Metro Tunnel. ▪▪ A new surface train control system along Reconfiguring and Expanding the Embarcadero and King Street to reduce Maintenance Facilities the number of times trains need to slow To accommodate all of the new train cars, down or stop in that portion of the system. SFMTA will need to establish additional mainte- Several longer term capital investments are also nance and storage facilities. Updates are also under consideration and will be evaluated as needed are needed at existing maintenance a part of the Core Capacity Transit Study and yards (Muni Metro East and the Green Yard at through ConnectSF, San Francisco’s update Balboa Park Station). The agency will need to to its long-range transportation plan that will identify additional maintenance and storage identify the next generation of major transit space for both buses and trains over the long improvements. These include: term. ▪▪ The Muni Subway Expansion Project, which Technological Investments would upgrade the M-Ocean View to a full subway line, providing a backbone of fast, The agency is making a set of investments reliable, high-capacity transit that runs in new technologies that should collectively across the whole city. This investment put minimize surface delays and allow for better the surface portion of the M from West management of the system’s daily operations. Portal to Parkmerced underground and These include: build four-car station platforms, enabling ▪▪ Implementation of a new radio system on the use of four-car trains all the way all trains that will allow staff in a central- through the Market Street subway, per the ized and state-of-the-art Transportation subway’s original design. Management Center to adjust service in ▪▪ A light rail corridor on Geneva Avenue that real time. would connect the two railyards (Muni ▪▪ Implementation of 40 miles of transit prior- Metro East and Balboa Park Green Yard) to ity streets with “red carpet” transit priority provide more flexibility and efficiency. lanes and transit signal priority, which can ▪▪ New rail service on Geary Boulevard, help reduce the amount of time buses and including subway service in the eastern trains are stuck at red lights. part of this high-ridership and overcapacity corridor. Infrastructure Investments

52 53 BRIEFING BOOK CORE CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY Metropolitan Transportation Commission Metropolitan Transportation Commission CHALLENGES CHALLENGES

Commuter Metro Rail Rail

▪▪ Extension of the Central Subway from its planned terminus in Chinatown north to Fisherman’s Wharf.

PENINSULA - COMMUTER AND METRO RAIL Commuter and metro rail systems provide complementary service along the San Francisco Peninsula. The commuter rail line, operated by Caltrain, roughly parallels the US -101 corridor, while the metro rail line (BART) travels further west near the I-280 corridor before diverging to serve San Bruno, San Francisco International Airport, and Millbrae.

While metro rail has spare capacity in the corridor, the commuter rail system is facing serious crowding issues today. Major upgrades to the commuter rail corridor are planned, including the Caltrain Modernization program, which includes upgrading train control and signal systems, electrifying the railroad, and expanding the fleet with

54 55 CORE CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY PENINSULA Metropolitan Transportation Commission

THE EMBARCADERO PENINSULA BROADWAY Commuter COLUMBUS

MONTGOMERY

BATTERY Rail SANSOME Commuter Rail CHALLENGES

STEUART Transbay Transit Center to Market Street: CALIFORNIA ~900 feet (5-minute walk)

HOWARD BUSH SAN FRANCISCO-OAKLAND BAY

TAYLOR TRANSBAY TRANSIT CENTER (UNDER CONSTRUCTION)

NEW MONTGOMERY

1ST MARKET

GEARY EMBARCADERO

OFARRELL JAMES LICK Downtown Extension

Current Station to Powell Station: 1 mile

Central Subway (Under Construction) TURK

GOLDEN GATE

MISSION

5TH

I 80 new Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) vehicles. In the the downtown extension project, and operate in HARRISON KING longer term, Caltrain plans to further expand its a shared corridor with California High Speed Rail

BRYANT 4TH AND KING STATION fleet, serve the new Transbay Transit Center via (HSR) as part of a blended system.

6TH 4TH COMMUTER RAIL

TOWNSEND Peninsula commuter rail service runs from has experienced huge growth in ridership since

BRANNAN Gilroy and San Jose to San Francisco, terminat- “baby bullet” express service began in 2004,

10TH 7TH ing at the 4th and King Street Station. Rail and ridership has more than doubled since service has operated in the corridor since the 2006.30 Key challenges include system capac- 1800s. The rail line transitioned to commuter ity and connectivity to complementary transit 8TH rail service with the growth of the Peninsula services.

3RD suburbs in the early 20th Century and came US HWY 101 30 Caltrain (2015a). “2015 Annual Passenger Counts.” BART under public control in the 1980s. The service Presentation to Board of Directors, March 7, 2015. Caltrain

POTRERO I 280 SYSTEM CAPACITY DTX Many peak-period trains now regularly carry to 83,000,31 suggesting that crowding may

CENTRAL 0 0.25 0.5 MUNI Miles passenger loads well above seated capacity. grow more acute as economic growth continues 16TH Caltrain has projected that average weekday on both ends of the Peninsula. To address ridership will grow by more than a third by 2021, Figure 21 Downtown Extension and Regional Connections 31 Caltrain (2015b). “Short Range Transit Plan Framework.” Presentation to Board of Directors, June 4, 2015.

56 57 BRIEFING BOOK CORE CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY PENINSULA Metropolitan Transportation Commission Metropolitan TransportationPENINSULA Commission

Commuter Metro Rail Rail

crowding issues, Caltrain recently added 16 2015 and is scheduled to be fully implemented will extend commuter rail to the new Transbay Peninsula Corridor. The region has deemed DTX used rail cars to its fleet, which will allow the by 2020. Transit Center. a top priority, but full funding has not yet been agency to lengthen trains. secured. The overall CalMod program will cost $1.7 billion, In the future, Caltrain and High Speed Rail The Caltrain Modernization Program (CalMod) with local, regional, and federal sources of will operate as a blended system sharing the includes a new train control system, the funding, as well as a substantial contribution electrification of the rail corridor between San from California High Speed Rail. Electrification METRO RAIL Francisco and San Jose, and the expansion of will allow trains to accelerate and decelerate Metro rail service (operated by BART) runs south from San Francisco along the I-280 corridor, the fleet with new, Electric Multiple Unit trains. more quickly, allowing Caltrain to run more terminating at San Francisco International Airport, and a station in Millbrae that allows direct connec- Together, these ongoing and planned invest- trains per hour in peak periods. Once California tions to Peninsula commuter rail service (operated by Caltrain). ments will help address long-term capacity High Speed Rail is fully implemented, Caltrain’s needs. The train control and signal system regional service will be supplemented with SYSTEM CAPACITY corridor), parking facilities in this corridor fill to portions of the project are complete and are fast intercity service to two stations on the capacity during the AM peak period. In order undergoing testing. The electrification of the Peninsula, San Jose, and south to Southern Current passenger demand in this corridor to increase the metro rail system’s share of railroad completed environmental review in California. does not exceed capacity, and forecasts do not suggest capacity constraints in the foreseeable the commute market, it may be necessary SYSTEM CONNECTIVITY future. As a result, Peninsula metro rail service to improve access opportunities at Peninsula may offer an opportunity to provide transit stations by all modes of transportation. Today, commuter rail service terminates at 4th cadero, and the Central Subway will make the access to more potential riders into the San and King Street station, which is located at the connection on the T-Third more direct via Fourth In order to better serve demand in the core Francisco Core. edge of the San Francisco Core, one mile from Street. To improve transit system connectivity system, BART has begun to explore potential metro rail stations on Market Street and 1.2 even further and to transport Caltrain riders Access facilities may be the major limitation operational changes that may affect service miles from the Temporary Transbay Terminal at from the Peninsula into the heart of the San on the metro rail corridor’s share of the overall frequencies on the Peninsula. BART’s Sus- Folsom and Beale Streets. The N-Judah and Francisco Core, the region has committed to the Peninsula commute market. With the exception tainable Communities Operational Analysis, T-Third currently bridge the last mile to Market Downtown Rail Extension (DTX) project, which of Millbrae station (which has less frequent completed in 2013, raises the possibility of Street and the Financial District via the Embar- peak-hour service than other stations in the improving the current “turnback” to allow BART

58 59 BRIEFING BOOK Metropolitan Transportation Commission CHALLENGES

60 CORE CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY Metropolitan Transportation Commission

CONCLUSIONS Bay Area transit commuters can today feel the Core are highly likely to once again approach effects of transit networks running up against capacity constraints in the next 25 years, constraints imposed by the design of the even if all of the already-identified projects are region’s transit infrastructure. The systems that implemented. If population and employment provide access to the San Francisco Core were growth continues on or near the trajectory seen designed in an era in which the high passenger over the last few years, additional infrastructure volumes of today – driven by job and housing improvements will be much more urgently growth – could scarcely have been imagined. As needed. a result, congested trains, buses, and ferries are Regardless of the pace of growth, there are a now the norm during peak commuting periods, number of key operational improvements that with delays becoming more and more frequent. could ensure the system functions much more The five transit agencies that are cosponsoring efficiently. Several of the key networks serving the Core Capacity Transit Study — AC Transit, the San Francisco Core were conceived in BART, Caltrain, SFMTA, and WETA — each have the 1950s and mostly built by the 1970s. The plans to increase capacity and improve reliabil- Transbay Tube, Oakland Wye, and Market Street ity in the coming years, though the region still Subway will remain constraint points in the needs to identify funding to implement many system, with limited redundancy in the event of these plans. These projects include new train of failure or need for major repairs. Addressing control systems and maintenance facilities, some or all of these issues could markedly im- station and terminal capacity increases, and prove transit travel time, reliability, and comfort, operational improvements that could tempo- as well as generating new capacity. rarily ease some of the crowded conditions The Core Capacity Transit Study is considering passengers experience on a daily basis. It is a variety of potential approaches to addressing important that the region focus on securing the the issues raised throughout this briefing book. funding necessary to make these upgrades. Future versions of the document will detail the While it is impossible to predict exactly how solutions the study and its sponsor agencies quickly the region’s population will grow over the are considering. long term, some critical transit lines serving the

59 80

Figure 22 Summarizing the System’s Constraints BART Berkeley Limited MetroRail cars TRANSBAY METRORAIL Major delays systemwide with maintenance TRANSBAY BUS issues/breakdowns in the Slow mixed-trafﬁc Transbay Tube speeds on Bay Bridge TRANSBAY BUS Congestion with private vehicles at Bay Bridge ramps SF LIGHT RAIL METRO RAIL Slow turnaround Limited station at Embarcadero capacity OR 80 RID COR TRANSBAY METRORAIL AY Speed restrictions and NSB RA congestion in the T Oakland Wye

HWY 580 TRANSBAY FERRY Vessel availability THE CORE and size constraints San Francisco

MUNI SF BUS Alameda Oakland Limited Light Rail cars Market Street congestion

TRANSBAY FERRY PENINSULA Landside access COMMUTER RAIL limitations Connectivity to job center and other

modes HWY 1 HWY

HWY 101 SAN FRANCISCO MetroRail METRO CORRIDOR CommuterHWY 880 Rail Light Rail Transbay Bus

PENINSULA METRO Ferry AND COMMUTER RAIL Difﬁcult connection

Daly City Merge issues HWY 280 HWY 60 Mainline issues 61 BART Caltrain MUNI

80 AC Transit Ferry Berkeley

HWY 580 THE CORE San Francisco Alameda Oakland NEXT STEPS This Briefing Book has laid out the trends and structural challenges facing each of the main transit networks that connect to the San Fran-

HWY 1 HWY cisco Core. It provides policy makers and agency

staff with a common set of facts they can draw HWY 880

HWY 101 on as they work to identify and prioritize critical investments. It is a living document that will evolve with the study, with a new chapter detail- ing potential solutions to be added as the study team narrows in on a set of promising projects.

Daly City The project team will continue investigating the

HWY 280 HWY system’s needs and challenges through the fall and begin creating potential investment packages in the spring, in coordination with the Plan Bay Area 2040 process.

TRENDS CHALLENGES SOLUTIONS