Geary Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (GCAC) Meeting 12

Transcription

1 - 1 - AGENDA Geary Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (GCAC) Meeting 12 Date: 6:00 p.m., Thursday, May 23, 2011 Location: Members: 100 Van Ness Avenue, 26 th Floor Joanna Fong (Moderator), Tony Biancalana, Kieran Farr, Jonathan Goldberg, Jolsna John, Margaret Massialas, Jim Misener, Bruce Osterweil, Joel Ramos, Thea Selby, and Jette Swan 6:00 1. Committee Meeting Call to Order 6:05 2. Adoption of Minutes of the February 17, 2011 Meeting ACTION * 6:10 3. Updates and Announcements INFORMATION + The purpose of this item is to present an overview of work conducted since the last GCAC meeting and discuss the updated GCAC meeting schedule and tentative agenda items. This will include the dates of future meetings. This is an information item. 6:20 4. Van Ness Bus Rapid Transit Draft EIS/EIR INFORMATION + Preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the Van Ness Bus Rapid Transit project is nearing completion, with the start of the public circulation period expected to begin in June. The public comment period will be 45 days. Like the joint EIS/EIR for Geary, environmental clearance for Van Ness BRT was initiated to meet federal and state rules. It determines any significant negative effects on the environment from BRT on Van Ness Avenue, identifies measures to mitigate any effects, and provides the Authority Board with information needed to decide whether or not to build BRT on Van Ness Avenue. Rachel Hiatt, the Authority s project manager for the Van Ness BRT project, will provide an overview of the project and key findings from the EIS/EIR. We are seeking comments and input from the Committee. 7:20 5. Geary BRT Environmental Process Update INFORMATION + The Authority will give an overview of the environmental analysis objectives and process for the Geary Bus Rapid Transit project. A recap of the project s Purpose and Need will be provided. The various technical environmental studies underway or soon to be initiated will be summarized, along with typical levels of significance for potential impacts. Preliminary data and findings for two environmental studies will be presented: hazardous materials and cultural resources. The Authority will discuss upcoming technical studies, including biological resources and water quality. We are seeking comments and input from the Committee. 7:45 6. Public Comment 8:00 7. Adjournment * Materials attached. + Materials distributed at meeting O:\Active Studies\GearyBRT Environmental\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 12\GCAC_Meeting-12_Agenda_final.doc Page 1 of 2

2 GCAC Meeting Agenda Page This meeting location is wheelchair accessible. In order to allow individuals with environmental illness or multiple-chemical sensitivity to attend the meeting, individuals are requested to refrain from wearing perfume or other scented products. All times shown are for information only. Items will be called at the discretion of the Moderator. O:\Active Studies\GearyBRT Environmental\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 12\GCAC_Meeting-12_Agenda_final.doc Page 2 of 2

3 - 3 - Draft Minutes Geary Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Citizens Advisory Committee (GCAC): Meeting Eleven Thursday, February 17, 2011 Present were the following members: Bruce Osterweil (Moderator), Tony Biancalana, Kieran Farr, Joanna Fong, Jonathan Goldberg, Jolsna John, Jim Misener, Joel Ramos, Thea Selby, and Jette Swan Authority staff: Zabe Bent, David Parisi, Elizabeth Sall, Jesse Koehler, Arthur Leung MTA staff: Paul Bignardi Consultants: Andrea Glerum, Tam Tran, Eric Womeldorff, Phil Erickson 1. Committee Meeting Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Meeting Eleven Moderator Bruce Osterweil at 6:05 p.m. 2. Adoption of Minutes of the July 29, 2010 Meeting ACTION Ms. John moved to approve the item. Tony Biancalana seconded the motion. There was no public comment. The minutes were approved unanimously. 3. Updates and Announcements INFORMATION Ms. Bent updated the GCAC on activities relating to the project over the previous months. Ms. Bent introduced the two new members on the GCAC, Jonathan Goldberg and Thea Selby. Ms. Bent introduced David Parisi as the Project Management Consultant joining her in leading the EIR/EIS. Ms. Bent also presented the project scope, timeline, and budget which includes the third alternative, grade separated areas, and bicycle planning, and gave an overview on the technical studies underway for the EIR. Ms. Bent then provided an update to the meeting schedule. After some discussion, the members decided to confirm the next meeting date at the end of May. Future meetings may be adjusted to bi-monthly to match project pace. Jolsna John commented on the high level of traffic at the Masonic overpass and the need for improvements at that location. Jette Swan added her concern to the traffic on the service street at the same location. Mr. Parisi stated that the traffic simulation model will be used to evaluate traffic operations. Kieran Farr then added there that in his opinion there is no way to achieve a good LOS in the area just because of the high traffic volume. Bruce Osterweil commented that East of Van Ness Ave more enforcement is needed to keep cars out of the bus lanes. Jette Swan asked for confirmation that the segment west of 33 rd Ave. would be the same as existing condition. Ms. Bent answered that bus service would be provided and street design characteristics would be Page 1 of 5

4 Page integrated, but the project does not include designated lanes west of 33 rd. There was no public comment. 5. Existing Conditions, Part 2 INFORMATION. Through the moderator, Mr. Parisi noted that there would be a change in the order in the presentations, with the existing conditions traffic assessment update being provided before the future transportation modeling update. He then introduced Eric Wolmerdorff of Fehr & Peers to present the item. Mr. Womeldorff presented an update to the modeling work that has been under development since last meeting. He presented the overview of the transportation model that will be used in impact analysis, including the modeling and the calibration process for the VISSIM. He also presented the model results for existing conditions on Geary. He described the different calibration factors typically used in modeling, and how well the model achieves them, noting that validation and calibration help to ensure confidence in future conditions analysis. Mr. Womeldroff also presented the evaluation measures and steps for the analysis of future conditions. Kieran Farr asked about background of Mr. Womeldroff and Fehr & Peers in the type of projects that they had done similar analysis. Eric Womeldroff answered that the project team had analyzed projects in many locations, and particularly the analysis for Central Freeway/Octavia Blvd plan. Mr. Parisi added that the project team spent several months working to develop and calibrate the model to represent existing conditions. Joel Ramos ask how historical patterns are considered for the calibration of existing conditions. Eric Womeldorff answered that the next presentation will talk about the question. Mr. Ramos then asked how the calibration criteria are set, such as the 90% parameters. Mr. Womeldroff explained that industry standards were used in validating the accuracy of the VISSIM model, and had been established by various public agencies and industry organizations. David Parisi explained that many of the evaluation measures to be used in the traffic impact analysis come from output of the VISSIM model. Joel Ramos added that he likes the use of person throughput and delay to bring the point that sacrifice of auto travel actually benefits more people, potentially without substantial impact to motorists. There were no public comments on this item. 4. Transportation Analysis Update INFORMATION. Elizabeth Sall of the Authority presented this item, describing the framework for transportation analysis using SF CHAMP and Dynameq models, and provided an overview of the existing transportation conditions in the corridor. The project team also presented progress on the transportation analysis, including trends in travel patterns with future baseline conditions. Thea Selby asked for an explanation of the term headway. Elizabeth Sall explained that headway is the time between arrivals of transit vehicles. Jim Misener asked if the service of Bus Rapid Transit takes into account mode shift, and how CHAMP accounts the different features of Bus Rapid Transit technology. Elizabeth Sall answered that the analysis she is presenting tonight is about the No Project scenario, and therefore BRT is not represented in this scenario; she also noted that the BRT features included in each alternative would be part of the input to those modeled scenarios. Page 2 of 5

5 Page Joel Ramos asked how successful the prediction result of the model is in comparison to reality in the future. Elizabeth Sall explained that model validation is documented in a model consistency report and improved upon during every major project effort since For example, the Octavia project was modeled using CHAMP and the after-project s actual results were very close to the model s predictions. She also noted that model output is compared to existing conditions for each project to ensure appropriate calibration. Kieran Farr asked about the issue with the 15 and T-line, and whether the ridership prediction is different to real ridership. Elizabeth Sall answered that in a CHAMP back-casting run, the observed ridership (using Automated Passenger Counters) in the opening year of T-line is very close to the modeled result. Bruce Osterweil asked if the model accounts for increase in gas prices. Elizabeth Sall responded that the model assumes a constant rate of vehicle operation cost inflation, which includes maintenance and operations costs, including fuel. Over the long term, trends suggest that as fuel prices increase new technologies bring other operating costs down cost, and therefore, the model takes a long-term view that overall operating costs escalate with inflation. She added that a sensitivity analysis was completed for Van Ness BRT where escalating fuel prices were modeled and found only small differences in long-term travel demands by mode. Bruce Osterweil asked how the increase in parking cost was accounted for. Elizabeth Sall answered the model includes parking costs and that parking costs are projected to increase with both density of the area and time. Tony Biancalana asked about the impact of existing conditions and new projects, such as the addition of Van Ness BRT, and only change the job and housing number, how much transportation impact would there be. Elizabeth Sall responded that the likely impact to transportation would be about the same as with BRT. Jonathan Goldberg asked if there will be zoning change due to pressure from the state government on different zoning from AB32. Elizabeth Sall answered that the zoning changes only include the current pipeline of projects. There were no public comments on this item. 6. BRT Station Platform Design INFORMATION. Phil Erikson of Community, Design and Environment presented station design elements, noting the features that need to be included in station platforms, and seeking input on the design of elements on standards and signature stations. Joel Ramos commented that he would like to see restrooms, especially for drivers at the end points of the route. Also, he wants to see water stations for refilling. He noted that bicycle parking may not be useful on the transit station platforms but perhaps on sidewalks. He also added that the station element should take into account graffiti and other vandalism issues facing Muni. Tony Biancalana commented that that vandalism proof material is very important to the station. He suggested that the station at Fillmore and Japantown should definitely be a signature station. He commented that wind turbine would work well at the area due to heavy wind; he concluded with the importance of lighting and also including Wi-Fi service at the station. Jette Swan added that bathroom is very important. She also added that the station design must be suited for microclimates in the city, especially the wind and fog in the Richmond District. She seconded that Fillmore should have a signature station. Page 3 of 5

6 Page Joanna Fong commented that the station design process should include feedback from the community. She mentioned that each neighborhood would want the best design. Phil Erikson responded by mentioning the scale and sizing of the basic stations as well as the signature station would change according to the neighborhood design to minimize visual impact. Ms. Fong suggested that modular parts in the station helps, especially with maintenance, and some parts can be individualize. Ms Bent reminded committee members that the project team conducts outreach throughout the process, and that details would be addressed during the Final Design phase. Jolsna John suggested that Geary corridor overall has older buildings, and putting a modern looking station does not match the characteristic of the surrounding buildings. Ms. John added that she would like to see green integrated to the station as a style, and noted that modular stations can be tacky if not well-designed. Jonathan Goldberg suggested that the station design should be integrated into the existing green spaces, such as the green space existed at Fillmore and Japantown. The station should create a green corridor and encourage use of the green space. Jim Misener also suggested that outreach should be done to different neighborhoods along the corridor. He commented that people have an image of their neighborhood. Zabe Bent responded that the station design will have some input from the neighborhoods and reflect neighborhood character, such as with Fillmore station. Bruce Osterweil commented that he does not foresee people leaving bicycles at the stations. He mentioned bicyclists may locked their bikes in the city but most likely not at the stations. Mr. Osterweil added that he thinks Fillmore, Van Ness, and Masonic should have a signature station, and solar panels at the stations are mandatory. Kieran Farr commented on the importance of branding, and the station should identify the branding of BRT not just a regular bus service. Mr. Farr added that both Van Ness BRT and Geary BRT should have some continuity in design. Thea Selby commented that some stops in the outer neighborhoods such as Richmond District have the glass in front, which does a good job in blocking wind. Also, Ms. Selby asked about the cities included in the example stations, since the design context for each city differs. Joel Ramos suggested a signature station at Kaiser Hospital, and that the project team should work with Kaiser to provide the best station design at that location for the patients. Paul Bignardi of SFMTA noted an example of a Kaiser Hospital transit station at Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, OH. Kieran Farr suggested the addition of music or audio cues at stations, which can be important as branding. However, Mr. Farr is also concerned with the potential noise pollution if audible information would be implemented. Joel Ramos said that the station design in San Jose is too modern and that basic station design should not be made too complicated. Tony Biancalana reminded the GCAC members that the station must be Light Rail ready, and added that it may require a big space. Joel Ramos noted the safety issue at stations, and added that the station design should not have obstructed views. Page 4 of 5

7 Page Jonathan Goldberg added that he does not want space for advertising. Paul Bignardi responded that may not be possible due to shelter contracts, and the need to reserve some space for community advertising or events as well. Mr. Goldberg added that if advertising are put in station they should not be excessive. Jette Swan added that business around stations, such as the planned Target on Masonic and Kaiser Hospital can use advertising in the station. There were no public comments on this item. 7. Public Comment There were no additional public comments. 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Page 5 of 5