BART Millbrae Extension Final EIR/EIS Section 3.1-1.3
including ridership "projection" tables 3-1.4 3-1.5, 3-1.6, 3.1-7, 3.1-8 and 3-1.9

Manually transcribed from

Volume 1 of the June 1996
Final Environmental Impact Report/Final Environmental Impact Statement for the
BART San Francisco Airport Extension, Northern San Mateo County, California,
sponsored by
the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration (FTA),
the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) and
the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans).

[...]

Chapter 3: Environmental Analysis

[...]

Section 1: Transportation

[...]

1.3: Transit Impact Assessment and Mitigation

[...]

Project-Specific Analysis

[...]

3. Transit boardings on BART and CalTrain would increase, but boardings on SamTrans would decrease compared to the No Build Alternative

Table 3-1.4 shows the daily transit boardings for BART, CalTrain, the ALRS, and SamTrans under the Aerial Design Option LPA. As indicated BART and CalTrain would experience increased boardings, while SamTrans boardings would decrease because the proposed rail improvements would attract patrons who formerly rode the bus. The MTC Regional Rail Transit Extensions Program (MTC Resolution No. 1876) includes an extension of CalTrain from its current San Francisco terminus at 4th and Townsend Streets to the central downtown area. The JPB, the entity owning CalTrain, is currently (1996) preparing a DEIS/DEIR for this extension. The patronage forecasts for the BART extension build alternatives with and without the CalTrain downtown extension were presented in the Alternatives Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Impact Report (AA/DEIS/DEIR) published by MTC in 1992. The assumptions used by the MTC in the travel demand modeling for the BART extension with and without the CalTrain downtown extension were held constant for the analysis of the BART extension in this FEIR/FEIS.

Estimates of transit boardings on BART and CalTrain, with the proposed CalTrain downtown extension, are based on the patronage forecasts for Alternatives 3A and 3B, from the AA/DEIS/DEIR. Alternative 3A is a BART build alternative (the Base Case Alternative in the DEIR/SDEIS) without the proposed CalTrain extension to downtown San Francisco, whereas Alternative 3B is the Base Case Alternative plus the CalTrain downtown extension.

In the following discussion, BART boardings without the CalTrain downtown extension are compared to boardings with the CalTrain extension. BART boardings of 399,500 under Alternative 3A (without the CalTrain extension) decline by 4 percent, to 383,700, under Alternative 3B (with extension). Assuming a similar relationship for the Aerial Design Option LPA, BART boardings would also decline by 4 percent, from 401,400 without the CalTrain downtown extension to 385,500 boardings with the extension in 2010. Under the Aerial Design Option LPA, CalTrain boardings would increase by 24 percent, from 46,700 without the downtown extension to 57,800 with the extension in 2010. This percentage change in CalTrain boardings is identical to that found between Alternative 3A and 3B in the AA/DEIS/DEIR. The consistency between the project definitions for the Base Case Alternative in the AA/DEIS/DEIR and the DEIR/DEIS allowed the use of ratios as a reasonable approach to approximate patronage changes with the CalTrain downtown extension.

Table 3-1.5 shows the daily transit boardings at each BART station in San Mateo County for the Aerial Design Option LPA. Further details on trip type and access mode are contained in Appendix B of this document.



Table 3-1.4
Locally Preferred Alternative
Daily Transit Operator Boardings(1)
Transit System 1993 (Base Year) 1998 (Year of Opening) 2010 (Horizon Year)
BART without CalTrain Extension 312,700 358,900 401,400
BART with CalTrain Extension(2) 300,300 344,600 385,500
CalTrain without Extension 36,300 41,700 46,700
CalTrain with Extension(2) 45,000 51,700 57,800
SamTrans 66,500 75,300 85,400
Airport Light Rail System 3,900 5,000 6,200
Change from Alternative 1 (No Build)
BART without CalTrain Extension 56,700 37,600 42,000
BART with CalTrain Extension(2) 44,300 23,300 26,100
CalTrain without Extension 15,600 12,100 8,900
CalTrain with Extension(2) 24,200 22,100 20,000
SamTrans (7,300) (5,000) (2,800)
Airport Light Rail System 3,900 5,000 6,200
Source: MTC, BART-SFO AA/DEIS/DEIR Patronage Forecasts, May 1991
MTC, BART-SFO DEIR/DSEIS Patronage Forecasts, October 1993
Parsons Brinkerhoff, July 1995

(1) Boardings are the total number of patrons entering transit vehicles from all sources without including transfers, auto, and walk access. More transfers occur between BART and CalTrain without the CalTrain downtown extension than with the downtown extension. Therefore, the sum of boardings for BART and CalTrain are greater without the downtown extension. However, total regional transit person trips, which do not include transfers, would be greater with the downtown extension.

(2) Patronage estimates not from MTC's regional model but rather based on changes in Base Case and 1992 LPA for boardings with and without CalTrain extension as forecasted in the AA/DEIS/DEIR.


Table 3.1-5
BART Daily Patronage By Station(1) Locally Preferred Alternative
Station 1993 No Build 1993 (2) LPA
Daly City 12,500 11,900
Colma N/A 14,600
Subtotal 12,500 26,500
Hickey N/A 7,200
Tanforan N/A 8,500
Airport International Terminal N/A 11,500
Millbrae Avenue N/A 28,900
Subtotal N/A 56,100
TOTAL 12,500 82,600
1998 No Build 1998 LPA
Daly City 12,800 11,600
Colma 32,700 15,500
Subtotal 45,500 28,000
Hickey N/A 7,600
Tanforan N/A 9,100
Airport International Terminal N/A 14,400
Millbrae Avenue N/A 30,900
Subtotal N/A 62,000
TOTAL 45,500 90,000
2010 No Build 2010 LPA
Daly City 13,600 13,300
Colma 35,200 16,200
Subtotal 48,800 29,500
Hickey N/A 8,000
Tanforan N/A 9,800
Airport International Terminal N/A 17,800
Millbrae Avenue N/A 33,000
Subtotal N/A 68,600
TOTAL 48,800 98,100
Source: See Appendix Table A

(1) Patronage is defined as the number of entrances and exits at a particular station.

(2) Analysis of 1993 build alternatives assumes that the project is implemented for the baseline year (even though the actual opening year is 1998) and is provided as a means of measuring impacts due solely to the project without influences from general growth or other changes.
4. Regional transit ridership, particularly for trips originating or destined for northern San Mateo County, would increase.

Table 3-1.6 shows total transit person trips for the entire nine-county Bay Area for the Aerial Design Option LPA. A comparison of this regional transit total to total transit ridership under the No Build Alternative in the same analysis year indicates that the Aerial Design Option LPA would increase total regional transit ridership.

Table 3-1.7 shows daily trips to the SFIA by mode and indicates a significant shift to rail transit (from bus and automobile use) compared to the No Build Alternative. Increased transit usage would decrease auto congestion and air pollution. In 1998, the percentage of transit riders destined to the SFIA would increase from 8.9 to 14.1 percent; to northern San Mateo County, from 7.0 to 9.5 percent; and to downtown San Francisco, from 34.8 to 40.8 percent.



Table 3-1.6
Regional Transit Person Trips (Linked Trips) (1) (2)
Daily Volumes by Trip Purpose and Year
1993 1998 2010
Work Trips 515,200 561,200 604,100
Non-Work Trips 587,200 640,200 691,000
TOTAL 1,201,400 1,201,800 1,295,100
Change from No Build Conditions (3)
61,700 20,400 23,200
Source: MTC, BART-SFO AA/DEIS/DEIR Patronage Forecasts, May 1991
MTC, BART-SFO DEIR/DSEIS Patronage Forecasts, October 1993
Parsons Brinkerhoff, July 1995

(1) The region is defined as the nine-county Bay Area region, including the counties of San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Sonoma, Napa, and Solano.

(2) Linked trips may involve the use of one or more transit systems, but the total trip from origin to destination is counted as one transit trip.

(3) 1993 No Build does not include BART to Colma.


Table 3-1.7
Locally Preferred Alternative
Daily Volumes by Mode to the SFIA
Transit System 1993 (Base Year) 1998 (Year of Opening) 2010 (Horizon Year)
AIR PASSENGERS (1)
BART 5,000 5,800 7,200
CalTrain 2,200 2,600 3,200
Bus 10,200 12,000 14,800
Auto 85,400 100,300 123,800
TOTAL 102,800 120,700 149,000
WORK AND OTHER
BART 3,100 4,300 5,400
CalTrain 1,200 1,600 2,000
Bus 500 600 800
Auto 46,000 63,800 79,500
TOTAL 50,800 70,300 87,700
TOTAL SFIA TRIPS
BART 8,100 10,100 12,600
CalTrain 3,400 4,200 5,200
Bus 10,700 12,600 15,600
Auto 131,400 164,100 203,300
TOTAL 153,600 191,000 236,700
Change from Alternative 1 (No Build)
TOTAL SFIA TRIPS
BART 8,100 10,100 12,600
CalTrain 3,000 3,600 4,500
Bus (4,300) (5,600) (7,000)
Auto (6,800) (8,200) (10,100)
Source: MTC, BART-SFO AA/DEIS/DEIR Patronage Forecasts, May 1991
MTC, BART-SFO DEIR/DSEIS Patronage Forecasts, October 1993
Parsons Brinkerhoff, July 1995

(1) Air passengers includes visitors and greeters as well as air passengers.

(2) CalTrain riders to SFIA are required to transfer to BART. These CalTrain riders are included only under CalTrain and are not included in the number of BART trips to SFIA.
5. Regional transit transfers that are required to complete the trip from origin to destination would be the same as under the No Build Alternative. New transfer opportunities between BART-CalTrain and BART-ALRS would be created that would connect rail services among San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland, and other cities in the Bay Area and would connect these rail services to the SFIA.

Table 3-1.8 shows the average number of transfers required for all transit trip-making in the region with the Aerial Design Option LPA. New transfer opportunities would occur between BART and CalTrain at the Millbrae Avenue Station that would otherwise not be available. The BART alignment into the SFIA would create a transfer opportunity between BART and the ALRS at the Airport International Terminal Station. Transfers between CalTrain and the ALRS would require the intermediate use of BART.

Table 3-1.9 shows the transfer volumes predicted at these stations. Transfer opportunities are a beneficial effect of the Aerial Design Option LPA because of the unavailability of these transfers under the No Build Alternative. [...]



Table 3-1.8
Locally Preferred Alternative
Regional Transit Boardings and Transfers (1)
Daily Volumes by Year
1993 (Base Year) 1998 (Year of Opening) 2010 (Horizon Year)
Total Transit Boardings 1,656,200 1,901,000 2,217,000
Change from No-Build 84,300 25,400 28,400
Transfers Per Transit Person Trip (2) 0.502 0.582 0.642
Change from No-Build (0.008) (0.006) (0.008)
Source: MTC, BART-SFO AA/DEIS/DEIR Patronage Forecasts, May 1991
MTC, BART-SFO DEIR/DSEIS Patronage Forecasts, October 1993
Parsons Brinkerhoff, July 1995

(1) The region is defined as the nine-county Bay Area region, including the counties of San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Sonoma, Napa, and Solano.

(2) Total transit boardings divided by regional transit person trips from Table 3.1-6 minus 1 which represents the boardings if the first transit system. The 1,295,300 linked transit trips from Table 3.1-6 is divided by the 2,217,200 transit boardings in the year 2010 to obtain 1.642, then minus 1 yields 0.642.


Table 3-1.9
Daily Intermodal Transfers Between Rail Services
Weekday Transfers
Between Operators
1993 (Base Year) 1998 (Year of Opening) 2010 (Horizon Year)
BART-CalTrain w/o Caltrain ext. 19,400 21,700 24,100
BART-CalTrain w/ Caltrain ext. 10,100 10,900 11,800
BART-ALRS w/o Caltrain ext. (2) 4,900 6,300 7,700
BART-ALRS w/ Caltrain ext. (1) (2) 4,700 6,000 7,400
CalTrains-ALRS (3) N/A N/A N/A
Source: MTC, BART-SFO AA/DEIS/DEIR Patronage Forecasts, May 1991
MTC, BART-SFO DEIR/DSEIS Patronage Forecasts, October 1993
Parsons Brinkerhoff, July 1995

(1) These transfers are not from MTC's regional model but rather are based on changes in transfers under the Base Case Alternative and the 1992 LPA, with and without CalTrain downtown extension, as forecast in the AA/DEIS/DEIR.

(2) BART-ALRS transfers do not include individuals who walk between BART and their airport destinations.
(3) These transfers require and intermediate transfer to BART and are included in the BART-CalTrain volumes.
6. SFIA airline terminals would be within walking distance from BART.

The BART Airport International Terminal Station on SFIA property allows air passengers to walk to the most frequently used terminals, with the option to transfer to the ALRS, which would be close to the BART station. In the event the ALRS becomes non-operational, BART customers would be able to walk to their airline terminal destinations. The distances from the mid-point of the platform to the nearest counters at the planned International Terminal and the North Terminal are 760 feet and 1,400 feet, respectively. The BART station would be on the departure level of the planned International Terminal, which is one level below the ALRS.

7. Geographic coverage by rail transit within the study area, including the SFIA, would improve with new BART service and expanded CalTrain service. Rail service would enhance transit service in general for northern and mid-San Mateo County and decrease automobile use.

Rail transit geographic coverage would be improved with the BART extension due to the new stations, making transit more accessible from locations in northern and central San Mateo County. Improved service would contribute to increases in transit use and reductions in automobile use, according to the MTC modeling results.

8. Reliability of transit services in northern San Mateo County would improve, since rail service would increase relative to bus service, and rail provides more reliable, on-time performance.

The reliability of a transit system plays a significant role in the decision to use transit. This is particularly important when transfer connections are necessary, because unreliable arrival or departure times may mean missing the connection. The amount of time spent waiting for a transit vehicle is considered by most travelers when choosing their best option. Rail transit is inherently more reliable than bus transit in terms of maintaining scheduled arrivals and departures, because rail modes operate on dedicated rights-of-way not subject to traffic delays.

9. The Aerial Design Option LPA would relieve crowded conditions projected for the Colma Station (see Table 3.1-5) by attracting BART riders to other stations along the alignment.

Table 3-1.5 shows that the patronage of the Colma Station would decrease from 32,700 patrons under the No Build Alternative to 15,400 patrons under the Aerial Design Option in 1998. Thus, it would not be necessary to expand facilities at the Colma Station under the Aerial Design Option LPA.

Cumulative Analysis

The modeling exercise used to predict future BART transit effects includes assumptions about other transit operators. The previously discussed BART effects, thus, encompass the impacts of adding BART service, increasing the number of CalTrain trains, and reorienting SamTrans bus service. The methodology is in effect a cumulative analysis. Accordingly, the number of all cumulative effects are either insignificant or beneficial.


Transcribed by (but not written by!)
Richard Mlynarik
Last modified: Wed May 17 14:36:58 PDT 2006