DECEMBER 2004 ACKNO WLEDGEMENTS This project was funded by Caltrans through a Community Based Transportation Planning Grant. POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE: Nancy Nadel, Oakland City Council Member Danny Wan, Oakland City Council Member Lynette Sweet, BART Board Member Carole Ward-Allen, BART Board Member PROJECT TEAM: Natalie Fay, City of Oakland Pamela Kershaw, Port of Oakland Tina Spencer, AC Transit Andrew Thomas, City of Alameda Carolyn Trunnell, Caltrans John Nemeth, BART Val Menotti, BART Marian Lee-Skowronek, BART Jim Gravesande, BART Ric Rattray, BART Sam Lau, BART CONSULTANT TEAM: Daniel Iacofano, MIG, Inc. Rosemary Dudley, MIG, Inc. Paul Tuttle, MIG, Inc. Lou Hexter, MIG, Inc. Jerry Walters, Fehr & Peers Gregory Saurs, Fehr & Peers Robert Rees, Fehr & Peers Eddie Barrios, Fehr & Peers Thomas Matoff, LTK Engineering Services John Schumann, LTK Engineering Services TABLE OF CONTENTS 1: INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Project Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6BART’s Priorities and Project Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6The Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Jack London District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12Travel Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15Existing Transit Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 3: ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Infill BART Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18Group Rapid Transit (GRT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Underground BART Shuttle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 Streetcar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24Distinctive Bus or Shuttle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 4: REFINEMENT OF STREETCAR ALTERNATIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 Alignment Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34Alignment Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39Streetscape Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41Traffic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45 5: STREETCAR FUNDING CONCEPTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 Capital Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50Operations Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 6: CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 Lessons from Other Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 “...the connection between downtown Oakland and the Jack London Square District is a necessary component to create the energy that both destinations need to thrive.” 1: INTRODUCTION 5 Project Background BART’s Priorities and Project Goals The Planning Process 6 6 7 1: Introduction INTR ODUCTION Jack London Square has always been a hub of activity, first as an active seaport and more recently as an entertainment district for Bay Area resi­dents and visitors. Located ten blocks south of the heart of downtown Oakland, Jack London Square (JLS) offers a glimpse into the history of Oakland’s industrial seaport, which has been adapted to provide visitors a unique experience that capitalizes on the port’s identity. The area features a cluster of entertainment venues, including restaurants, bars, performance spaces, and a movie theater. While these activities raise Jack London Square’s profile as a regional destination, the area is separated from downtown by the I-880 freeway and is just far enough away from BART that it requires additional effort to reach, lim­iting its visitors. Given the perception of inaccessibility, stakeholders in the Jack London District, including the Port of Oakland, local mer­chants, residents, and developers, were interested in improving connections to downtown Oakland, the BART system, and adjacent neighborhoods. These interested parties brought their concerns to the City of Oakland and the City requested that BART initiate a study on how to better con­nect JLS to the downtown area and the BART network. JACK LONDON BART FEASIBILITY STUDY | 5 1: Introduction > Project Background “Ultimately...a variety of transit alternatives were considered and compared in this study through input that included commu­nity meetings and technical analysis...” 1.1 Project Background In 2001, the City of Oakland requested that BART study an infill station in the vicinity of Jack London Square on the existing train line. The City of Oakland’s Estuary Policy Plan (1999), an element of the City’s General Plan, had also identified the need to connect JLS to downtown. BART conducted an Opportunity Scan to examine future land use and transporta­tion opportunities, identify stakeholders, develop project goals, and develop a scope of work for further study. After this initial assessment, stakeholders com­prised of local business owners, nonprofit agen­cies, and residents supported BART staff ’s effort to seek funding to study the feasibility of an infill BART station in greater detail. In 2003, the City of Oakland and BART obtained funding from the Caltrans Community-Based Transportation Planning Grant Program to proceed with the study. BART initiated the Jack London BART Feasibility Study in 2003 to determine the feasibility of con­structing an additional BART station near Jack London Square. Ultimately, however, a variety of transit alternatives were considered and compared in this study with input that included public meet­ings and technical analysis, such as technology options, ridership forecasts, engineering and oper­ations analysis, and estimated construction and operating costs. 1.2 BART’s Priorities and Project Goals BART has established the following goals to determine and prioritize its system expansion projects: – Enhance regional mobility, especially access to jobs. – Generate new ridership on a cost-effective basis. – Demonstrate a commitment to transit-supportive growth and development. – Enhance multimodal access to the BART system. – Develop projects in partnership with communities that will be served. – Implement and operate technology-appropriate service. – Assure that all projects address the needs of the District’s residents. In addition to BART’s system expansion goals, the project stakeholders identified the following goals and objectives in 2002 for the Jack London Study: – Examine the feasibility of a BART station in the JLS vicinity to improve regional transit access and intermodal connections. – Generate new transit ridership on a cost-effective basis, encourage off-peak ridership, and support entertainment uses. – Enhance the regional image and identity of the entire Jack London District. – Support mixed-use, higher-density develop­ment and a pedestrian-friendly environment. 1: Introduction > The Planning Process 1.3 The Planning Process In 2003, BART began the study by assembling a Project Team, which consisted of local partners including: the City of Oakland, City of Alameda, Port of Oakland, and AC Transit. BART also finalized the workscopes, budgets and agreements for its consultants, which included: MIG, LTK Engineering Services, and Fehr & Peers. To pro­vide oversight, the Project Team assembled a Policy Advisory Committee (PAC), which consist­ed of BART Board Members, Lynette Sweet and Carole Ward Allen, and Oakland City Council Members, Danny Wan and Nancy Nadel. In addi­tion, the Project Team considered future Alameda Point improvements, as well as AC Transit, Capitol Corridor, and Ferry plans to determine how they might affect this study. The study included four stakeholder meetings at which the Project Team received comments from representatives of local agencies, nonprofit organizations, businesses, and residents. In December 2003, the Project Team conducted the first Stakeholder Meeting. Three conceptual alternatives were presented at this meeting: the BART Infill Station, an Underground BART Shuttle, and an electric streetcar. At the request of a stakeholder, an additional alternative was includ­ed for consideration: Group Rapid Transit (GRT). BART engineering and operations staff then BART staff considered many alternatives which they presented to the public for review throughout the study. reviewed the feasibility of an infill station on the existing BART line in the vicinity of Jack London Square. An infill station at the desired location would not fit into the existing track geometry without major modifications. Consequently, it was determined to be infeasible and not reviewed fur­ther. An infill station closer to West Oakland was found to be feasible, but did not satisfy project goals given its distance from JLS. Consultants also considered a GRT alternative and determined that it would not be an appropri­ate technology given the goals of the study and local preferences. As a result, this alternative was also no longer considered in the study. The two other transit alternatives: an electric streetcar connecting JLS to the 12th Street Station area and an Underground BART Shuttle connecting JLS directly into the 12th Street Station itself were both carried on for further 1: Introduction > The Planning Process analysis. The Project Team developed conceptual alignments, service assumptions, operational and maintenance plans, and rough capital and operat­ing costs for these two alternatives. Based on travel demand models, fieldwork, interviews, and a review of comparable systems, consultants also estimated future ridership for these two alterna­tives. The Project Team conducted a second Stakeholder Meeting in March 2004 to present the two alternative transit options still under con­sideration. The PAC was intrigued with the long-term prospect of a new BART line beginning at 12th Street Station that could link to both JLS and Alameda, with either a single or double track. These “Alameda-oriented” BART extension con­cepts have the potential to be further investigated in upcoming 2005 studies sponsored and directed by the City of Alameda. The PAC, however, was not interested in further investigation of a single-tracked underground BART shuttle that simply terminated at JLS, given its relatively high costs. To improve both the connection from the 12th Street area to JLS and downtown circulation, the PAC advised staff to continue to refine and explore the streetcar alternative. It also advised that staff consider rubber-tire (bus/shuttle) alter­natives to a streetcar. Given this direction, the Project Team hosted an interactive design “charrette” as the third Stakeholder Meeting in July 2004. The Team pre­sented five streetcar alignment options to the stakeholders for feedback, encouraging partici­pants to formulate additional routes. All of the options, at a minimum, connected 12th Street to Broadway at 2nd Street near Jack London Square. The Team compared and evaluated the operating characteristics, potential stop locations, capital and operating costs, and the ridership projections for these five options. The Team also presented a rubber-tire (bus/shuttle) alternative for each of the five alignment scenarios. The meeting included an interactive work session to allow participants to compare the five streetcar options. Stakeholders were divided into small groups to discuss the advantages and disadvan­tages of each alignment and determine which streetcar alignment best met the project goals. No single option appealed universally to all stake­holders, with each generating a list of pros and cons. Two options, however, stood out as having the broadest appeal among participants. The first was the “small” loop option that would use Washington, Franklin and Webster Streets as the primary corridors, and the second was a simple alignment along Broadway. Either of these could serve as the first phase of a potentially bigger cir­culation system. Lastly, the stakeholders showed little interest in a new, distinctive bus or shuttle service in lieu of, or as a prelude to, a future streetcar. 1: Introduction > The Planning Process PLANNING PROCESS GRAPHIC Following the meeting, BART staff began to develop a funding strategy for the proposed streetcar by first conducting research on other successful streetcar systems in the United States. Given the limited availability of public funds in the near term, the method used by Portland, Oregon and Tampa, Florida that involved a local voluntary assessment district to cover a share of costs was an attractive model. At the request of several stakeholders, BART staff met with devel­opers and property owners in the Jack London District and downtown to discuss the idea. To refine these two streetcar options further, the Project Team studied the compatibility of a streetcar in these two alignments with current City of Oakland streetscape improvement plans. Given the concerns expressed by the PAC, con­sultants also analyzed the impact of a streetcar on traffic circulation along these two alignments. Both of these analyses determined that a street­car would be feasible, but could require some street modifications. In December of 2004, the Final Public Meeting was held to discuss the study’s conclusions and potential next steps. There was strong support from the PAC for a new bus or shuttle service given its lower development costs. At the same time others in attendance considered creating a nonprofit to keep the streetcar concept alive. “...All this development greatly increases the need for transit options that link Jack London District to other parts of downtown.” 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS Jack London District 11 12 Travel Markets Existing Transit Service 15 15 2: Existing Conditions EXISTING CONDITIONS The Jack London District and surrounding districts are experiencing a sig­nificant amount of new housing development in response to the Oakland 10K Initiative. Now more than ever, Jack London Square could benefit from a permanent transit service to connect this new residential and mixed-use development to the rest of downtown. This chapter provides an overview of the Jack London area, including the locations of recent and planned development, increased travel demand, the level of service that currently exists, and the expected transit ridership. The growth in this district will influence the anticipated number of people who choose to use public transit to travel within downtown and to make connections beyond. JACK LONDON BART FEASIBILITY STUDY | 11 2: Existing Conditions > JLS Surroundings 2.1 Jack London District The Jack London District is surrounded by a number of other thriving districts, including Chinatown, Old Oakland, City Center, the Produce District, and the Waterfront Warehouse District. Each district draws its own base of clientele and enlivens downtown with streetscape activity. Further north of downtown is the Lakeside neighborhood and the planned mixed-use Uptown District. Old Oakland along Washington Street Jack London District at Broadway and the Embarcadero The land uses surrounding Jack London Square are primarily mixed-use industrial, commercial, and residential. Immediately north of the district are warehouses that have been converted into entertainment venues and office space. Interstate 880 (I-880) creates a physical separation between downtown and the southern districts, including Jack London District, the Produce District, and the Waterfront Warehouse District. City govern­ment buildings are located on both sides of the freeway along Broadway and Washington Streets. Spurred by Mayor Jerry Brown’s 10K Initiative to bring 10,000 new residents to downtown Oakland, a number of housing development projects are underway throughout the downtown area. These projects are noted in orange in the map to the right. Areas of intense pedestrian activity are noted in tan to illustrate where district activity is the highest. 2: Existing Conditions > JLS Surroundings 2: Existing Conditions > JLS Surroundings The Produce District along Second Street The Phoenix Lofts on Second Street Source: www.lonestartours.com/loftsunlimited/737-2nd-street Chinatown Some housing near Jack London Square has recently been completed. Immediately adjacent to the Square, the Phoenix Lofts on 2nd Street added 29 live-work lofts to the district in 2000. A year later, two new rental properties, the Allegro at Jack London Square and the Landing, opened nearly 600 apartments. In 2002, the Market Lofts mixed-use development on 4th Street constructed 46 new lofts. I-880 separating the District from downtown Oakland Other housing developments are anticipated in the near future, including the Market Square project in Old Oakland, with over 200 new resi­dences (which will be completed in March 2005). Lastly, the Oak to 9th project to the east of the Jack London District, and the Uptown project to the north are underway and will pro­vide thousands more residential units in the area. All this development greatly increases the need for transit options that link Jack London District to other parts of downtown. 2: Existing Conditions > Travel Markets 2.2 Travel Markets Given current and future development activity in the Jack London area south of I-880, the number of trips to and from the area are expected to grow significantly over the next two decades. In 2003, there were approximately 48,000 daily trips to and from the Jack London area (south of I­880). This is expected to grow 108% to about 100,000 trips by the year 2025. The biggest driver of this trip growth is the expected increase in the residential population in the area. The number of residents in the Jack London area, particularly to the east of Jack London Square, is expected to grow significantly by about 131% between now and 2025. As this residential population grows, so will commute trips leaving the Jack London District in the a.m. and return­ing in the p.m. Many of these trips will be bound for downtown Oakland as well as the BART sys­tem to reach San Francisco and other job rich destinations. The new population in this areas means that there will also be a significant amount of trip growth within the Jack London District itself. The number of trips within the District is expected to grow by 70% by 2025. Given Jack London Square’s emergence as an entertainment and retail area, another driver of travel growth will be in social and recreational trips attracted to the Jack London District. These trips will occur disproportionately during midday, evening and weekends, when local transit service is less frequent. At present, the Jack London District is more automobile-oriented, with lower percentages of people using transit than other parts of downtown. For example, the automobile mode share for people working in the 12th Street area is 42%, while in other parts of downtown it is 64% and in Jack London Square it is 75%. This could be due to the relative ease of parking in the Jack London District compared with elsewhere downtown, or the lack of BART service, or both. 2.3 Existing Transit Service Jack London Square is served by several modes of transit including ferries, Capitol Corridor com­muter rail service, Amtrak, and several AC Transit bus routes. The number of AC Transit riders (those getting on or off within the Jack London area south of I-880) is currently about 600 and expected to grow to 1,000 by 2025. About 75% of these are patrons are traveling from the Jack London area to downtown Oakland. Despite the presence of this transit, there appears to be a market for additional transit services, par­ticularly those that connect to other parts of downtown Oakland or the BART system. The Broadway Shopper Shuttle, a free service which ran from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. on weekdays, carried nearly 1,200 riders daily before it was discontin­ued for lack of funds. “The cost estimates, project benefits, community support, and construction feasibility of each alter­native were considered...” 3: ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 17 Infill BART Station 18 Group Rapid Transit (GRT) 20 Underground BART Shuttle 22 Streetcar 24 Distinctive Bus or Shuttle 31 3: Alternatives Considered AL TERN ATIVES CONSIDERED Five transit alternatives were considered as a means to better connect JLS with downtown Oakland and the 12th Street BART Station, including: 1. Infill BART Station 2. Group Rapid Transit (GRT) 3. Underground BART Shuttle 4. Streetcar 5. Distinctive Bus or Shuttle Each of these five alternatives are described in this chapter. The cost esti­mates, project benefits, community support, and construction feasibility of each alternative were considered during this process. Based on initial findings, the Infill Station and GRT were removed from the study process and further analysis focused on the feasibility of the streetcar and the underground shuttle. Based on stakeholder and PAC input, the options were further narrowed to focus on the streetcar alternative with the inclusion of a distinctive bus or shuttle alternative. JACK LONDON BART FEASIBILITY STUDY | 17 3: Alternatives Considered > Infill BART Station 3.1 Infill BART Station An infill station is a new station built on an exist­ing BART line between existing stations. This alternative would provide direct connections between the Jack London District, downtown Oakland, and San Francisco. BART has established a variety of criteria for the development of potential infill stations, including track configuration, slope, and maintenance of service throughout construction. Also, a new sta­tion cannot impact throughput capacity and proper train sequencing through the Oakland Wye and Transbay Tube. To satisfy these opera­tional requirements, a new station in this general area would require a minimum of three tracks, with one reversible track operating in the peak direction. The proposed infill station would resemble MacArthur Station with multiple tracks. Using these criteria, BART staff examined three alternative infill station possibilities: Option 1: Original Concept – A station site at the exit of the Washington Street BART Portal. Option 2A: A station site on existing track between Castro and Market Streets. Option 2B: A station site on existing track between Market and Filbert Streets. OPTION 1: INFILL STATION AT WASHINGTON STREET PORTAL The installation of a station at the exit of the Washington Street BART Portal would provide the greatest proximity to Jack London Square. The track in the vicinity of the Portal has a 3.75% grade, while BART’s station design criteria require an overall grade of 1% or less.1 Consequently, to allow for the necessary grade at an infill station, some tracks that converge under­ground in the Oakland Wye would have to be re­configured. Moreover, the three switches located in this area of track would need to be maintained. The addition of a station would thus entail the relocation of the existing switches westward towards the West Oakland Station. In so doing, the aerial structure would need to be reconfigured to carry the three tracks and associated switches. These factors would make the location of a sta­tion here an enormously costly endeavor with sig­nificant operational impacts in the densest por­tion of the BART system where routes merge and diverge. Since revenue service would have to be maintained during construction, this would add greatly to the complexity and cost of the project. While the precise cost of such an endeavor is unknown, it is many more times greater than other options considered in this study. A thorough analysis of this option would require substantial funds for an engineering review. 1 As an example, a 1% grade over the length of an 800-foot platform would produce a difference of 8 feet between the two ends of the platform. 3: Alternatives Considered > Infill BART Station INFILL BART STATION LOCATION DIAGRAM 3: Alternatives Considered > Infill BART Station “The track in the vicinity of the Portal has a 3.75% grade, while BART’s station design criteria require an overall grade of 1% or less.” OPTION 2A: INFILL STATION BETWEEN CASTRO AND MARKET STREETS Another option is to locate the station closer to the existing West Oakland BART Station, utilizing the existing track configuration and conforming to design criteria. One such location for such a station exists between Castro Street and Market Street. To utilize this site and maintain opera­tional flexibility, a third track would need to adjoin one of the two platforms. Unfortunately, the vertical curve in the existing trackwork lead­ing out of the Portal compresses the available space for a turnout and crossover to be installed, and precludes this track from fitting between the Portal and this particular site. However, locating the station slightly further towards the West Oakland Station to make room for the turnouts and crossover only pushes the station past the available straight section of track. As a result the station cannot be constructed at this location to meet BART’s criteria and is therefore not a viable option. OPTION 2B: INFILL STATION BETWEEN MARKET AND FILBERT STREETS A final infill option was evaluated that would meet the minimum three-track configuration needed for operations. This option entails the installation of additional switches and crossovers to configure a three-track station that meets both operational and station design criteria. For this option, three completely new aerial tracks (30 feet in height) would need to be constructed. Switches The elevated tracks in the vicinity of Jack London Square were considered as a site for an infill station. would be needed to tie the new tracks to the mainline tracks. The distance from the Portal needed to install station platform, switches, and crossovers would likely put the station between Market and Filbert Streets. In order to construct the new track alignment and station, new rights-of-way would need to be acquired. It appears that about eight city blocks would be needed, which would cause displace­ment of approximately 15 businesses and 5 resi­dences. In addition, the traffic flow would be severely restricted in the area during construction. While this option is technically feasible, its high costs (approximately $250-300 M) make it an unattractive option. Most importantly, its location is far enough away from the heart of Jack London District to put it at odds with the study’s goal of better linking this neighborhood with downtown Oakland and the region. This alterna­tive was dropped from further analysis. 3: Alternatives Considered > Group Rapid Transit GROUP RAPID TRANSIT DIAGRAM 3.2 Group Rapid Transit (GRT) A Group Rapid Transit (GRT) system would be comprised of a fleet of small- to medium-sized vehicles operated on a grade separated guideway. GRT guideways can be at grade, elevated, or underground; for this particular application, an elevated structure was assumed. The primary dis­tinction of a GRT system as compared to more traditional automated guideway transit is the abili­ty to bypass stations, allowing vehicles to provide service between two non-adjacent stations. BART’s consultants evaluated a potential elevated GRT system for the Jack London District, specif­ically considering the technology developed and marketed by CyberTran Inc. (CTI) of Alameda, California. However, the CTI system is not cur­rently in any revenue service application any­where, nor is there yet a fully functional proto­type in operation. As such, despite some poten­tial advantages of the GRT concept, the use of this technology for a Jack London District appli­cation presently comes with a variety of risks and downsides. Source: www.cybertran.com These images of GRT concepts illustrate the elevated monorail and driverless cars of a hypothetical GRT system. Source: www.poitra.com 3: Alternatives Considered > Group Rapid Transit The CTI Group Rapid Transit concept is at a very early stage in development. It still needs concept refinement through engineering, proto­type development, regulatory review, testing, rev­enue application, modification, and general appli­cability. Until it has moved farther along in the development process, it is a risky option for an application in the context of downtown Oakland and JLS. In time, it may become a reliable, cost-effective, and attractive modal and technological choice for some applications. Moreover, the proposed CTI technology uses an aerial guideway beam that functions as a track for vehicles, and consequently requires supporting structures for beams. These structures would have to be designed with great care so as not to interfere with fire and emergency crews, traffic patterns and flow, visual lines of sight, and views of existing architecture and other sites of inter­est. The beam and associated elements would also cast permanent shadows. Altogether, there could be significant visual and physical intrusion into the urban environment, which may not be appro­priate in neighborhoods like Old Oakland, Chinatown, and JLS. Overall this impact was deemed undesirable for this context. Other loca­tions may eventually prove to be more appropri­ate for this technology. Therefore, this alternative was dropped from further analysis. 3.3 Underground BART Shuttle Another alternative considered was an under­ground BART shuttle connecting the 12th Street BART Station with an underground station in the heart of JLS. This would involve the creation of a new BART line under Broadway. The under­ground shuttle would improve transit frequency, speed, BART connectivity, route permanence, vehicle comfort, and image over the existing bus service, generating 3,000 - 4,000 net new weekday transit riders by 2025. On weekends, new rider­ship would be about half the weekday figures. The benefit of an underground shuttle is that it could take travelers from downtown right into the heart of JLS with a quick travel time of about two minutes, which is the fastest of all the options. This could also be a potential point of departure to Alameda and conceivably even across the Bay over the long-term. The current single-sided platform on the lower level of the 12th Street Station would be expand­ed to allow for a center platform with the existing BART tracks on one side and the new BART shuttle track on the other (see image to the right). This would allow a direct cross-platform transfer for San Francisco/Fremont-bound passengers to JLS. Richmond- and Pittsburg/Bay Point-bound passengers from JLS would transfer on the upper level platform. The shuttle could be designed to fit into existing BART system infrastructure, 3: Alternatives Considered > Underground BART Shuttle UNDERGROUND BART SHUTTLE using a BART guideway, vehicles, and train con­trol, and operating with a standard BART fare structure. BART has operational objectives that would have to be met for this concept to be viable. First, the BART shuttle system could not be allowed to dis­rupt existing BART operations. Second, the inter­face between the existing BART system and the new BART shuttle system would need to be as seamless as possible, without significantly incon­veniencing passengers who wish to transfer from one line to the other. In order for the BART shuttle system to integrate seamlessly with the existing BART system, the BART shuttle operating plan must complement and operate as an extension of the BART system. The hours of operation must match BART’s hours of operation. The level-of-service should allow for coordinated headways between the BART shuttle and the BART system to facilitate easy transfers. The headway should be no longer than the minimum BART route headway during the peak, which is currently around five minutes on the Pittsburg/Bay Point - SFO/Daly City/Millbrae route. Off-peak headway can be reduced to 15 minutes or 20 minutes on the evenings or weekends to match BART’s base operating headway. The shuttle system is assumed to be operated with a train operator, though the possibility of a “driverless environment” was considered and would require further study. 3: Alternatives Considered > Underground BART Shuttle The image above (left) shows the Square as it exists today; the image above (right) illustrates what the entrance to the underground shuttle could look like. Unless the system were automated, BART would also require adequate facilities for an end-of-line operations area and staff break room for train crew supervisors to observe and monitor train and platform operation as well as provide report­ing and break location for train operators per BART’s Facilities Design Criteria. Maintenance would be performed in current maintenance facilities that are adequate to handle the addition­al small number of car hours. Access to these facilities would be achieved through a track inter­locking south of the 12th Street BART station, tying the new shuttle tracks to existing tracks. This project would cost in the range of $180-250 million with an annual operating cost of $2-4 million. The complication would be the need for tunnel­ing under Broadway or an adjacent street, which would have impacts on the surface. While con­struction would not require the length of Broadway to be excavated, it would require two to three excavated areas of about one block in length each. In addition, BART would have to maintain weekday revenue service during the construction, which could not negatively impact throughput through the Oakland Wye and Transbay Tube. The Underground Shuttle with a terminus at JLS was not considered by the PAC to be worth fur­ther investigation in this study given its high capi­tal costs. However, a shuttle that could connect downtown Oakland to Alameda, with a com­bined or intermediary stop at JLS, was considered more desirable and worthy of further review. Such an endeavor was beyond the scope of this study. However, this concept will likely be further investigated in a 2005 study sponsored by the City of Alameda. 3: Alternatives Considered > Streetcar 3.4 Streetcar The fourth alternative studied was the electric streetcar. There is a range of options to consider with surface operating rail technology. The fastest and highest capacity technology, which often involves multiple vehicles and a regional scope is commonly known as light rail transit (LRT), as found in Sacramento, Salt Lake City, and Denver. At the lightest end of the spectrum are historic or museum operations, which typically use single vehicle vintage trolleys (such as in Charlotte, Seattle, and Memphis). This service is typically slower with a lower capacity, but also a lower cost. The proposed streetcar to Jack London Square is a single car system that could use mod­ern or vintage vehicles, or both. The single car streetcar system works best in areas with short trips and high passenger vol­umes. Several streetcar builders produce modern cars that are smaller than regional light rail vehi­cles. They emphasize easy access with short dis­tances between stops rather than high top speeds and longer station spacing. Streetcars usually have short distance between stops (500 - 1000 feet), and frequent service (approximately 10 minute wait times). The streetcar proposal would offer ADA compli­ant level boarding from the sidewalk. It would use a double track and generally operate in mixed traffic. Modern track installation and construction is relatively simple and fast, a benefit to local Historic streetcars, such as this one, are being reintro­duced into cities across the country. San Francisco has had tremendous success with their historic streetcars. Portland, Oregon An example of the track construction is shown in the image above. businesses that can be affected during the con­struction phase of infrastructure projects. The proposed construction technique, as recently used in Portland, is called shallow track method. It allows most utilities to remain in place, reducing 3: Alternatives Considered > Streetcar There are successful examples of streetcar systems throughout the country. The images below show how streetcars have fit into the urban context in Portland, Oregon and Tacoma, Washington. Portland, Oregon Tacoma, Washington Portland, Oregon Portland, Oregon cost and shortening construction time to a few weeks per block. The track depth is typically 12 inches. The benefits of a streetcar are numerous. It is the cheapest rail option since it is constructed on the surface and requires relatively minimal street interference during construction. The system could operate with modern cars or historic Oakland cars or some combination. The streetcar could also be expanded in any direction and could serve as a circulator for the downtown area. In addition to its transportation function, the streetcar could also be part of an economic development strategy for downtown Oakland. The streetcar has the potential to enliven the streetscape and spur development on underuti­lized parcels. Track infrastructure laid in the street has a permanence that sends the message that investment and the value it brings is there to stay. In addition to connecting the Jack London District to the City Center area, the streetcar could serve adjacent districts, providing them with an attractive transit service that could help to activate broad areas of downtown. Other cities that recently implemented streetcars consider them catalysts for development of underutilized parcels. A disadvantage of the streetcar is that, though cheaper than other rail options, it still has a high­er capital cost than a rubber-tire bus or shuttle 3: Alternatives Considered > Streetcar option. It would also require more stops than the underground shuttle, making it slower (for trips from 12th Street Station to JLS). Finally, due to Federal regulations, it cannot cross the train tracks on the Embarcadero at grade, and, there­fore, could not stop in the heart of JLS without a tunnel or bridge. The streetcar alternative would improve transit service frequency, route presence, and vehicle image, adding approximately 2,000 - 3,000 net new transit riders each weekday by 2025 to the projected baseline transit ridership of 1,000 daily riders. Depending upon the size of the initial system, a streetcar alternative for the Jack London District An historic car in Tampa, Florida has become one of the city’s is generally estimated to cost between $30 - $75 most popular forms of public transit. It is paid for in part by the advertisements you see on the front of the car. million, with a range of annual operating costs of $1.5 - $5 million. To determine the ideal align­ment for the streetcar, the PAC requested further analysis. Potential alignments are discussed in the next chapter. The streetcar is a flexible system that can fit into existing infra­structure, such as under the I-880 overpass, as illustrated here. BEFORE AFTER 3: Alternatives Considered > Streetcar BEFORE AFTER The streetcar has the potential to enhance property values, improve the pedestrian realm, and spark development, as shown in these before and after illustrations of Washington Street at 10th Street. 3: Alternatives Considered > Streetcar BEFORE AFTER Another example of a before and after illus­tration at the intersection of Washington Street at 4th Street is shown above. 3: Alternatives Considered > Distinctive Bus or Shuttle “Because Jack London Square is a destination that appeals to tourists, the charm of a double-decker bus could encourage visitors to take public transporta­tion.” 3.5 Distinctive Bus or Shuttle The PAC requested that the study consider the alternative of a rubber-tired vehicle such as a bus or a shuttle. As a result, the Project Team ana­lyzed the costs and benefits of bus service for each of the alignment options, with the same operational frequency, run times, and stops as the proposed streetcar. Such an alternative had sever­al advantages. These included a lower capital cost, the flexibility to change routes, and the ability to implement much faster than other alternatives. A bus or shuttle would also have the ability to drive over the railroad tracks on Embarcadero, which could allow a stop closer to the heart of Jack London Square. The disadvantage of such a service includes lower ridership potential than the other alterna­tives and higher annual operating costs than a streetcar. Buses and shuttles also tend to have less flair than streetcars, which are more novel and generate more public enthusiasm and support. Moreover, while buses and shuttles are flexible, the lower level of public investment and commit­ment as compared to a streetcar can translate into a less stimulating effect on development. This could limit the ability of buses or shuttles to con­tribute to the revitalization of downtown Oakland and adjacent districts. For all of these reasons, the stakeholders present at the July Public Meeting determined that the disadvantages outweighed the advantages of this alternative as compared to the streetcar. Despite the lack of stakeholder enthusiasm, however, this remains a low cost and technically feasible option if a streetcar lacks funding in the short term. The lack of rubber-tire appeal could be mitigated somewhat with a distinctive bus with an unusual form, such as a double-decker or mock vintage trolley. Distinctive buses come in many styles. Double-decker buses are often considered more charming than the average bus and capture higher ridership numbers. The image below shows an example of historic trolley cars adapted to operate with rubber tires. 3: Alternatives Considered > Distinctive Bus or Shuttle BART SYSTEM EXPANSION CRITERIA TABLE Criteria Streetcar Options Bus Options Transit Supportive Land Use/Development Plans Existing Land Use: Residential and/or Employment M M Existing Intermodal Connections M M Land Use Plans and Policies MH MH Cost Effectiveness Cost per New Rider -- Base Case MH­H H Cost per New Rider -- TOD N/A N/A Regional Network Connectivity Regional Transportation Gap Closure LM-MMH LM-MMH System and Financial Capacity Core System Improvements N/A N/A Capital Finance Plan L LM Operating Finance Plan L LM Partnerships Community & Stakeholder Support M-MMH LM Above: The two remaining viable transit alternatives were screened H = HIGH using BART System Expansion Criteria. M = MEDIUM L = LOW “...A streetcar is a great option offering a connection to Jack London Square, Chinatown, and Old Oakland.” Workshop Participant 4: REFINEMENT OF STREETCAR ALTERNATIVE 33 Alignment Options 34 Alignment Conclusions 39 Streetscape Compatibility 41 Traffic Impacts 45 4: Refinement of Streetcar Alternative REFINEMENT OF STREET CAR AL TERN ATIVE Based on both technical comparisons and stakeholder input, the streetcar system was determined to be the most desirable long-term alternative. Given this preference, the Project Team explored this alternative in greater detail, beginning with the identification of a preferred alignment. Five streetcar alignments were studied as distinct options, with a range in length of track, number of stops, and street routes. These included: Option 1: Broadway “Spine” Option 2: “U” Loop Option 3: “C” Loop Option 4: “Small” Loop Option 5: “Big” Loop From these options, two alignments were considered to be the most viable. Further analysis of these two alignments involved a review of their com­patibility with downtown Oakland’s streetscape and their impact on traffic. J A CK L ONDON B A R T FEA SIBILITY S TUD Y | 33 4: Refinement of Streetcar Alternative > Alignment Options 4.1 Alignment Options OPTION 1: BROADWAY “SPINE” The Broadway “Spine” alignment would run up and down Broadway, beginning on 14th Street in front of the Frank Ogawa Plaza and City Hall, and ending in the block between 2nd and Embarcadero Streets. This option is the shortest in length at just over half a mile. Six stops would be spaced over the 13 block-span, reasserting Broadway as the spine of downtown Oakland. This could be the first phase of a potentially larg­er system. Broadway at 11th Street Broadway at 2nd Street 4: Refinement of Streetcar Alternative > Alignment Options “U” L OOP DIA GR AM OPTION 2: “U” LOOP The “U” Loop option extends the first option over to the Amtrak Station on 2nd and Alice Streets and up to Lake Merritt BART Station. This option better serves the Chinatown District and the Warehouse District. In addition, this option has an alternative route down Washington Street, which could more directly serve the Old Oakland District (the technical analysis reflected in the profile below is gathered from the Broadway alignment). The “U” Loop is double the length of Option One at one and a half miles. 2nd at Harrison Street Jackson at 3rd Street 4: Refinement of Streetcar Alternative > Alignment Options “C” L OOP DIA GR AM OPTION 3: “C” LOOP The third option is the “C” Loop, which extends the Broadway “Spine” option to the Amtrak and Lake Merritt BART Stations via Chinatown, rather than through the Warehouse District. This option is comparable to the “U” Loop in length, number of stops, ridership, and capital and oper­ating costs. Like Option Two, the “C” Loop has the alternative of running along Washington Street rather than Broadway. 9th at Webster Street 8th at Harrison Street 4: Refinement of Streetcar Alternative > Alignment Options “SMALL” L OOP DIA GR AM OPTION 4: “SMALL” LOOP Option Four is called the “Small” Loop because it makes a full loop down Washington Street to 2nd Street, up Webster/Franklin Streets through Chinatown and back to Broadway. It is the only option that does not have an option to travel down Broadway for more than two blocks. It would take slightly longer to reach JLS from 12th Street Station, because its path is less direct than those with Broadway alignments. This option is comparable in route length, and capital and oper­ating costs to Options Two and Three. Washington at 4th Street 6th at Webster Street 4: Refinement of Streetcar Alternative > Alignment Options “BIG” L OOP DIA GR AM OPTION 5: “BIG” LOOP The fifth option called the “Big” Loop combines Options Two and Three to make a complete loop connecting JLS and the Amtrak, Lake Merritt and 12th Street Stations. It can be considered a longer-term, full phase option. It has a total length of just over two miles. This option also has the possibility of running up and down Washington Street rather than Broadway. Webster at 8th Street Franklin at 9th Street 4: Refinement of Streetcar Alternative > Alignment Conclusions 4.2 Alignment Conclusions There was no consensus about the best alignment for a streetcar system in downtown Oakland as each of the options generated a list of pros and cons from meeting participants. In general, stake­holders wanted a system with a quick connection from downtown to the Jack London District, as well as the ability to circulate between downtown neighborhoods. Some liked the simplicity and low cost of the Broadway “Spine” alignment, possibly as the first phase of a potentially much broader circulation system than the “Small” loop. These stakeholders saw Broadway as Oakland’s historic parallel to San Francisco’s Market Street and the ideal loca­tion for a visible transit spine. The Broadway alignment also provides a consistent transit line along the edge of Chinatown, while not interfer­ing with its commerce and activity. This option would be roughly one-half the capital and operat­ing costs of the other alignment options; though, it is also expected to encourage fewer riders than the other five options given its smaller scale. It is the most cost effective of the options with the lowest cost per new rider and could also be most readily integrated and coordinated with existing AC Transit lines to potentially save on operating costs. The “U” Loop was seen as a potential second phase for a Broadway alignment, with the service heading from the Jack London District to the Amtrak Station and then toward the Lake Merritt BART station and Laney College. This option’s ridership would be 50% greater than the Broadway “Spine” option. The operating and capital costs, however, would be 100% greater. Meeting participants expressed a concern about a streetcar operation in the heart of Chinatown given its density and commercial activity, especial­ly on 8th and 9th Streets. This meant that there was generally less support for the “C” Loop option or a “Big” Loop option.The “Big” Loop has considerably higher estimated capital and operating costs than the other options. The “Small” Loop option was a favorite of some since it functions like a tight downtown circulator and connects a variety of neighborhoods with tourist appeal. Some also like the fact that this option avoids Broadway, which they view as heav­ily trafficked and unappealing. This option was considered to better serve Old Oakland and Chinatown, while not interfering with auto traffic and bus service on Broadway. However, its total cost per transit trip is the second highest of the five options. Finally, many favored the idea of a future phase that extended any streetcar option to Uptown and the 19th Street BART Station. Some also favored the idea of linking the Amtrak Station and Lake Merritt into a downtown transit circulator. 4: Refinement of Streetcar Alternative > Alignment Conclusions ALIGNMENT OPTIONS COMPARISON TABLE 4: Refinement of Streetcar Alternative > Streetscape Compatibility Options # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 Broadway “U” loop “C” loop Small loop Big loop Profile for Streetcar or Rubber Tire Frequency (minutes) 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 Route Length (miles) 0.68 1.54 1.54 1.44 2.12 Number of Stops 6 10 10 12 13 Travel Time (minutes): 12th Street to JLS 4 4 4.5 5.5 4.5 Chinatown to JLS N/A N/A 5 .5 5 5.5 Chinatown to Lake Merritt N/A N/A 3 .0 N/A 3 Lake Merritt to 12th Street N/A 1 1 5 N/A 5.5 Performance for Streetcar Ridership 2,010 2,940 3,040 2,440 3,120 Capital Cost (in millions of 2004 $) 38 60 64 61 75 Annual Operating Cost (in millions of 2004 $) 1.7 3.4 3.4 3.4 4.2 Performance for Rubber-TTire Ridership 1,800 2,630 2,720 2,180 2,790 Capital Cost (in millions of 2004 $) 12 17 17 20 21 Annual Operating Cost (in millions of 2004 $) 2 3.4 3.4 4 4.7 Streetcar Cost Effectiveness Est. Total Cost per New Transit Trip (in 2004 $) $9.66 $11.14 $10.90 $13.60 $13.64 Gross Operating Cost per Passenger $2.92 $3.99 $ 3.86 $4.80 $4.64 Rubber-TTire Cost Effectiveness Est. Total Cost per New Transit Trip (in 2004 $) $5.68 $6.25 $ 6.05 $8.88 $7.80 Gross Operating Cost per Passenger $3.26 $4.46 $ 4.31 $5.38 $5.19 4.3 Streetscape Compatibility The streetcar system is a flexible rail technology that easily integrates into existing street configu­rations. The modern electric streetcar is typically 8.5 feet wide and 60 feet in length.Like a bus, it operates in mixed flow traffic lanes, meaning that cars and buses can share the lane with the street­car tracks; and thus, traffic flow is typically unhin­dered. Usually, the streetcar operates along the far right travel lane alongside the on-street parking lane. The streetcar stops are accommodated by extending the sidewalk at the corner to the edge of the travel lane (this extension is called a bulb out). In some cases the alignments might include segments of track in the lane next to the median, with boarding from an island platform. Streetscape improvements along the route should include: 1. Signalized intersections at streetcar stops. 2. Forty-five-foot long sidewalk bulb outs at stops (the width should be no more than the width of the parking lane or travel lane, which is generally eight feet). 3. Consolidation and coordination of light and sign poles for streetcar overhead wiring. 4. A coordinated signage program. 5. Regularly trimmed trees to ensure streetcar clearance. In addition to these improvements, it is recom­mended that each stop be outfitted with a shelter, proper lighting, seating options, trash receptacles, and street trees. Once the two preferred streetcar alignments were identified, the Project Team conducted a more thorough analysis to determine the streetcar sys-tem’s compatibility with the existing and pro­posed streetscapes along the Broadway “Spine” and “Small” Loop alignments. The Team reviewed existing right-of-way constraints, on­going planning efforts, and adopted streetscape improvements along the proposed routes. Cities across the country are accommodating streetcars within their urban corridors with rela­tive ease. However, to ensure the proposed street­cars’ ability to fit in the downtown Oakland envi­ronment, three Oakland City plans were reviewed: 1. Pedestrian Master Plan City of Oakland 2002 2. The Estuary Policy Plan Oakland, California 1999 3. Downtown Oakland Streetscape Master Plan City of Oakland From this review, the Team identified a number of issues for further study as the streetcar design enters its next phase.2 These are described as fol­lows. 2ND STREET PRODUCE DISTRICT The Pedestrian Master Plan identifies the Produce District as a key location for improved pedestrian activity and identifies the placement of a trolley line along Broadway to 2nd Street. 2 In the future, there will be a need to coordinate with the Revive Chinatown! Plan for the Chinatown District. 4: Refinement of Streetcar Alternative > Streetscape Compatibility CRO S S SE C TION OF 2ND S TREET IN THE PRODUCE DIS TRIC T the Produce District and the potential street­car route along 2nd Street, this study rec­ommends that the bike route be located one block north on 3rd Street. This alignment maintains bike routes in close proximity to JLS, Old Oakland, and the Produce Market, and would provide a less congested route for bicylists. Designing the exact streetcar alignment along Washington Street will require coordination with the proposed bikeway as well. WEBSTER STREET GREEN The Estuary Policy Plan identifies a major streetscape improvement along Webster Street from 4th Street to the wharf. Webster Street is located directly above the Webster Tunnel leading to Alameda. The tunnel was constructed with a 45-foot easement along the west side of the street that precludes development. Currently the easement is used for surface parking lots. The Estuary Policy Plan proposed creating a 45-foot wide open space down the center of this stretch of Webster Street, thereby shifting the south­bound lane of Webster to the west side of the open space. It is imperative that a Webster Street alignment is coordinated with the right-of-way determined for the Webster Street Green. Consequently, the Pedestrian Master Plan recom­mends the relocation of the weekly farmer’s mar­ket to Franklin Street between 2nd and 3rd streets and notes that the wholesale nature of the district is changing. Careful planning will have to take place along this stretch of 2nd Street so that loading and unloading activities do not conflict with streetcar movement and auto circulation. A detailed study of this street should be conducted. CLASS II AND III BIKEWAYS The Pedestrian Master Plan recommends two potential east-west alignments for a class III bike­way (which is often referred to as a bike route for shared use with pedestrian or motor vehicle traf­fic) along 2nd Street or 3rd Street. In addition, the Plan recommends one north-south class II bikeway (which is often referred to as a bike lane defined by a striped lane for one-way travel) alignment along Washington Street. Streetcar alignment will have to be coordinated with this bikeway. Given the existing loading and unloading along 4: Refinement of Streetcar Alternative > Streetscape Compatibility BROADWAY WITH CENTER ALIGNMENT (CROSS SECTION LOOKING NORTH) 4: Refinement of Streetcar Alternative > Streetscape Compatibility BROADWAY TURNING MOVEMENTS BROADWAY AT THE I-880 OVERPASS Significant turning movements on and off Though none of the plans include the Broadway Broadway occur between 6th and 9th Streets. To at I-880 area, special planning coordination will best avoid conflict between the vehicular traffic in be necessary at this location, which has unique this stretch, it is recommended that consideration traffic considerations. Southbound, Broadway’s be given to placing the northbound streetcar two through-lanes widen to four under the free- along the center median, rather than along the way structure, of which three are left-turn only sidewalk. This configuration would require pas- lanes onto I-880 and only one is a through-lane sengers to exit the streetcar on its left side. In lieu to JLS. It is recommended that the southbound of bulb outs, medians at the stops would be streetcar tracks steer clear of the turning lanes by widened to accommodate passengers. The running alongside the west sidewalk. To improve increased median width would not reduce the circulation, an additional through lane could be number of travel lanes on Broadway (the existing added west of the existing through lane, provid­ lanes are wider than the necessary minimum). ing two through lanes southbound where there is TYPIC AL S TREET C AR S T OP S This plan view drawing shows how the sidewalk bulb outs will provide the streetcar with stops for easy boarding and ample side­walk accommodations, without reducing the number of travel lanes. now only one. In such a case, the streetcar would run in the curb lane. This would require reducing the sidewalk (which is now about 20 feet in width) to about 10 feet. General streetscape improvements that have been discussed for the area include public art, overhead lighting, and parking screens to increase the perception of safety. This is a challenging street-level environ­ment from the point of view of pedestrian movement and urban design, but introduction of a streetcar and coordination with streetscape treatments to the north (Downtown Core) and to the south (Jack London Square) could help ame­liorate the sense of a divisive barrier created by the I-880 structure. BROADWAY BUS STOPS Recent streetscape improvements have been made to Broadway between 12th and 14th Streets to distribute bus stops. The terminus of the streetcar in the City Center area will have to be carefully planned and located to avoid congestion, allow bus boarding to occur as usual, and provide for effective bus/streetcar transfers. WASHINGTON STREET STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS The Downtown Streetscape Master Plan is in its final stages of design development for two to three blocks along Washington Street between 7th and 10th Streets. The improvements will con­sist of the reconstruction of brick sidewalks along this area, and corner bulb outs on 6th, 7th, and 8th Streets to improve the pedestrian realm and accommodate angled street parking on the streets perpendicular to Washington Street. In planning for the ideal placement of a streetcar stop, the alignment will need to be coordinated with bulb outs and respect the recent improve­ments. Careful planning in these areas will allow the streetcar system to easily fit into the rights-of-way along either alignment route and can help improve the streetscape activity within these areas. The frequency and activity of the streetcars increases the “eyes on the street” helping to improve the perception of safety along the route. The streetcars’ accompanying street furniture and amenities will further enhance downtown Oakland and the surrounding districts. 4: Refinement of Streetcar Alternative > Traffic Impact 4.4 Traffic Impacts In order to refine the streetcar concept further, the Project Team analyzed the traffic impacts of a streetcar operation for the Broadway “Spine” and “Small” Loop options. A field review of both alignments was conducted to collect information relevant to the streetcar operations. This information included parallel and angle parking characteristics; roadway and inter­section lane widths and designations; traffic con­gestion levels; intersection geometrics and traffic signal control operations; bike lanes; and bus stop and loading locations (See the Traffic Impacts Diagram on the following page). A documenta­tion review was also undertaken to identify previ­ous corridor recommendations that may conflict with streetcar operations along either route. After reviewing the opportunities and constraints for the two streetcar options, the following loca­tions were identified as potential issues for street­car operations that would require more in-depth analysis before track construction. None of the issues mentioned below represent fatal flaws that would preclude the implementation of a streetcar operation. CITY CENTER AREA The proposed turn-around area, west of Broadway, on 14th Street would impact the oper­ations of the traffic signals along Broadway. Special transit phasing might have to be intro­duced, potentially creating some additional delay for other traffic. BROADWAY CORRIDOR Additional traffic delays caused by in-lane street­car stops and maneuvers would cause occasional traffic signal “cycles” to exceed capacity. However, intervening cycles, between streetcar arrivals, would allow traffic to clear and the street to return to normal operations. Any reduction of bus vehicles due to the introduction of streetcars could compensate for this impact to some degree. BROADWAY AT I-880 The current operations of Broadway under the I­880 overpass would be complicated by the addi­tion of the streetcar. The southbound move­ment, which is limited to one travel lane, would be impacted by the streetcar along with the free­way ramp movements. However, alternative streetcar alignments, such as running in the southbound shoulder, are available. Regardless of the specific southbound alignment, we recom­mend against a streetcar stop in this area. FRANKLIN STREET The current lane widths on Franklin Street, 10 feet, are not ideal for use by the streetcar, and might need to be widened, reducing the number of traffic lanes. If Franklin Street is converted into a two-way street, the streetcar would occupy the single lane for through traffic in each direc­tion (with a third lane available for traffic turns). 4: Refinement of Streetcar Alternative > Traffic Impact TR AFFIC IMPA C T S DIA GR AM As a result, while through traffic would still be permitted, it would be slowed by streetcars in the through lanes and by possible parking and delivery maneuvers, so that the character of Franklin Street would likely change to a local-use, “transit first” street. This configuration would need to be coordinated with the Revive Chinatown! plans for street changes. WEBSTER TUBE PORTAL The current operations of the Webster Tube Portal would be greatly complicated by the addi­tion of streetcar movements. Both the northbound and south­bound streetcar routes would be negatively impacted by the traffic entering the Portal. The south­bound route would have the greatest impact on Portal opera­tions, as the streetcar would have to weave across traffic entering the Portal at 6th Street before continuing on Webster Street under I-880. 2ND STREET Delivery schedules on 2nd Street might need to be altered to keep the through travel lanes clear 4: Refinement of Streetcar Alternative > Traffic Impact AREAWIDE TRAFFIC CONCERNS DIAGRAM along 2nd Street. A possible solution is to limit truck operations along the corridor to night-deliv-ery only. If the delivery trucks cannot be fully reg­ulated, the streetcar operations would be delayed by double parked trucks. In addition to the location-specific issues, there are three areawide concerns that warrant attention (See diagram to the right): – Parking: Parking maneuvers could hamper streetcar progression and schedule adherence, and streetcar delays would impact general traf­fic as well. – Truck Activity: Delivery truck schedules and/or drop-off locations would have to be altered to accommodate the streetcar opera­tions. Any double parking in the streetcar trav­el lane would effectively stop streetcar opera­tions and impact the vehicular traffic as well. – Bicycle Routes: The streetcar might present a hazard to bicyclists when riding along or cross­ing the tracks. Bike lanes and routes in the study area would have to be moved off of the streetcar route. Of the two alignment options, the Broadway “Spine” option appears to present fewer opera­tional issues than the “Small” Loop. In both cases, however, the above challenges would need to be subjected to more detailed study in order to define a preferred streetcar alignment. Additional engineering and community involvement will be required to fully address street function and per­formance, streetscape, and character issues related to the multimodal use of streets along the street­car alignments. “...Both the sleek, modern streetcars and the old-time, vin­tage trolley car can generate a tremendous amount of local excitement and enthusiasm for what many consider a great community amenity.” 5: STREETCAR FUNDING CONCEPTS 49 Capital Funding 50 Operations Funding 51 5: Streetcar Funding Concepts STREETCAR FUNDING CONCEPTS Streetcar projects have been developed in several cities across the United States in recent years and dozens more are in the planning stages in cities as large as Philadelphia and Los Angeles and as small as Racine, Wisconsin and Salem, Oregon. Most recent projects have relied on local funding to cover at least part of the capital costs of construction. The specific sources of these local funds used vary widely from bonding against future city parking revenue in Portland, to a hotel tax in New Orleans, to capital funds allocated from regional Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), to local transit operators, in the case of several other cities. J A CK L ONDON B A R T FEA SIBILITY S TUD Y | 49 5: Streetcar Funding Concepts > Capital Funding 5.1 Capital Funding In the case of Oakland, there is a projected $60 - $75 million available for City of Oakland-sponsored transportation projects over the next 25 years. Meanwhile, the total amount of funds requested by projects in the current Countywide Transportation Plan already greatly exceeds that amount. At this time, it does not appear that any additional transportation funds will be made available from the State of California to the City of Oakland in the near future, given the fiscal and political environment in Sacramento. To compete for funds in the near term, more money would have to become available for transportation projects, and the streetcar project would have to receive a high prioritization from local elected officials. Some streetcar projects have used federal money for capital construction, although generally in a form distributed by regional MPOs. Funding from the highly competitive federal “New Starts” program for new rail systems has not been a major component of streetcars funding to date. Typically, streetcar projects do not score well on the Federal Transit Administration crite­ria, which are aimed at achieving travel times savings for large numbers of commuters. Streetcars carry smaller numbers of patrons and are often used for pedestrian activation, place-making, and downtown economic development. To assist funding for smaller scaled transit proj­ects like streetcars and bus rapid transit, Congress is considering adding a “Small Starts” funding program for streetcars in the federal transportation reauthorization bill (known as TEA-LU). If passed by Congress, this grant program would provide funding for projects with a federal cost share of between $25 million and $75 million. Total funding over six years would be about $935 million. In the future, this program could be a potential source of funds for an Oakland streetcar. The federal “New Starts” programs still rely on some type of local match. The first step to attaining federal money is to have a project in the Countywide Transportation Plan and the Regional Transportation Plan. Another type of funding used in the capital development of streetcar projects is money gathered from voluntary local improvement dis­tricts. These are mechanisms used by property owners to tax themselves in order to provide some specific local benefit in a designated zone. In Portland, about $9.5 million or 17% of the total project costs were raised this way, with a new streetcar line being planned in Seattle expected to generate over 50% of project costs from a Local Improvement District. Property owners may be willing to help finance a street­car, given its tendency to add value to nearby property and to encourage local economic devel­opment. 5: Streetcar Funding Concepts > Funding for Operations A preliminary analysis by BART staff has deter­mined that if an assessment district were estab­lished in downtown Oakland, similar to Portland’s with similar tax rates, it would gener­ate about 10-14% of project costs, depending upon the streetcar alignment chosen (assumes an assessment zone within an approximate two-block radius of the streetcar route). The estab­lishment of such a district would require the consent of the owners of 50% of the taxable assessed value. This type of special district in Oakland could alternatively be used to raise funds for the streetcar’s ongoing operating costs. 5.2 Operations Funding For most cities and transit agencies, identifying revenue sources for ongoing transit operations is even more of a challenge than funding construc­tion. Fortunately, recent streetcar systems have used an array of creative means to keep their streetcars rolling. In fact, Tampa’s electric street­car operates without any traditional local public subsidies at all. Collecting fares from riders is one obvious method of offsetting operating costs. While some streetcars are free, like Tacoma’s, a majority of recently established streetcars do charge for fares, such as Charlotte, Memphis and the Muni F line in San Francisco. Farebox revenue in Tampa rep­resents about 25% of total operating costs. If fares were charged on a streetcar in downtown Oakland, they could make a respectable contribu­tion to operating revenues. Given the projected ridership of a streetcar on Broadway, and based on a $1 fare per ride, the farebox could generate about $400,000 annually, or about 20% of the total operating costs. It is extremely rare for federal or state transporta­tion funds to be used to subsidize streetcar oper­ations. In Tampa, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds were used for a period of three years while the city built an endowment fund aimed at using the interest for streetcar operations. In most cases, though, the primary method of funding streetcars is normal public funds dedicated to transit operations. There is a possibility that new streetcar service on Broadway could reduce AC Transit operating costs, since it might allow for the diversion of some bus service along Broadway. A detailed understanding of how a streetcar operation would mesh with AC Transit service, however, would have to be studied in more detail. Several streetcar systems have been successful in acquiring private funds for their operations. Since streetcars add value to property near the line, local improvement districts have been used to raise funds voluntarily from private property owners. While Portland used these types of funds to cover one-time capital costs, Tampa has used 5: Streetcar Funding Concepts > Funding for Operations The streetcars that used to serve downtown Oakland and neighborhoods beyond could be reintroduced to the city. Historic trolleys are often a big draw for tourists and everyday riders. Both the sleek, modern streetcars and the old-time, vintage trolley car can generate a tremen­dous amount of local excitement and enthusiasm for what many consider a great community amenity. In fact, some may be so enthusiastic that they are willing to make their own voluntary financial or in-kind contribution or support a local improvement district to see the project suc­ceed. For example, Portland raised $30,000 for first year operations through ticket sales for an inaugural event. Finally, several streetcar systems, such as Tuscon, San Francisco, and Dallas use volunteer labor to operate, maintain, or promote historic trolleys. them to help offset their ongoing operations. At a rate of $0.33 per $1,000 in taxable assessed value, they have raised enough funds to cover about 25% of operating costs. Oakland could follow the Tampa model. If the same rates used in Tampa were applied in Oakland, then a local streetcar assessment district would generate roughly $250,000, or about 12.5% of total oper­ating costs. Another method to bring in private funds includes advertising on the outside of the street­cars or on the inside of the cars above the win­dows, similar to many bus and metro systems. Also, the streetcar operator can offer sponsor­ships or naming rights for streetcar stops or for the trolley vehicles themselves. For example, Tampa used this strategy to raise about $5 million from entities like Time Warner, Suntrust Bank, and the Tampa Port Authority to build an endow­ment fund to support streetcar operations though interest payments. 6: Conclusions CONCLUSIONS This study concludes the first step of the planning process for transit improvements between 12th Street and Jack London Square. A typical Transit Project Development Process such as this takes anywhere from four to ten years from the initial conceptual planning to operation. This study represents the first stage of a multi-step process: Conceptual Planning. The key summary points from the study are as follows: – There is a desire for an improved transit link from downtown to JLS and a circulator between neighborhoods. – A streetcar is the favorite transit mode for the long-term, partly due to its ability to stimulate development and add interest to down­town. – BART could provide a long-term link to Jack London Square via a new line to Alameda. – Although less popular, rubber-tire bus or shuttle is a viable short-term alternative. This final section also includes lessons from other cities on the benefit of nonprofit streetcar advocacy groups and potential next steps emerging from this study. JACK LONDON BART FEASIBILITY STUDY | 53 6: Conclusions > Lessons from Other Cities 6.1 Lessons from Other Cities Across the country, nonprofit organizations have played a vital role in both the development and ongoing operation of streetcar transit services. As advocates, these groups have helped to build sup­port for streetcar projects, keeping them in the public eye until they were successfully implement­ed. The Tampa & Ybor City Street Railway Society in Tampa, Florida spent over a decade acting as a proponent of that city’s existing TECO streetcar line. In San Francisco, the Market Street Railway’s advocacy for streetcars includes a website, a quarterly newsletter, and solicitations for donations to support their activi­ties. Nonprofits groups have also been involved in acquiring and restoring historic vehicles used in streetcar systems. The Market Street Railway helped to acquire funding for the restoration of vintage “PCC” streetcars and also acquired rare trolleys from around the world for San Francisco’s F-line. They have also created infor­mational displays inside the streetcars and clean the car interiors. In a similar vein, the Tampa & Ybor City Street Railway Society has acted as the “locator, curator, and restorer of original Tampa Streetcar artifacts.” Their focus has been on the restoration of vintage historic Tampa trolley cars through the use of volunteer labor. In some cases, nonprofit organizations have actu­ally operated streetcars. Charlotte Trolley in Charlotte, North Carolina started as a grassroots effort operating a limited schedule streetcar in 1996 on a city-owned rights-of-way. The line has since been upgraded with operations turned over to the local transit operator and the line integrat­ed into the city’s overall transit network. The organization, however, still exists as a “friends of the trolley” support organization. In Portland, Oregon, the nonprofit corporation “Portland Streetcar Inc” manages the develop­ment, construction, and operation of the street­car. “Tampa Streetcar Inc.” is another nonprofit that manages streetcar operations and contracts with a local government transit agency to operate the service. The ability to acquire donations and to use volunteer labor are advantages of a non­profit managing a trolley line. In addition, if the streetcar has a dedicated source of funding, such as a local business assessment district, then segre­gating and protecting these funds from compet­ing priorities may be easier if managed by a single purpose nonprofit. Following the lead of other cities, citizens in Oakland who are enthusiastic about a downtown streetcar could join together to form a nonprofit organization. This group could promote the streetcar concept, build enthusiasm for it, explore creative funding opportunities, and generally help to keep the vision alive. 6: Conclusions > Next Steps 6.2 Next Steps Those involved in this project, whether commu­nity members, elected officials, or the Project Team all agree on the need for a better connec­tion between the City Center area and Jack London Square. There is also strong desire for improved connections between downtown neigh­borhoods. A new type of transit service could provide a valuable source of mobility, as well as a mecha­nism for stimulating development in the Jack London District. Generally, because of its abili­ties to satisfy these goals, the streetcar was the preferred long-term technology for most partici­pants. Given the length of time required to devel­op a streetcar system and the uncertainty of funding, however, there is strong support for an enhanced bus or shuttle service in the short term. To develop a streetcar system, the next step in the process would be to identify funding sources to begin the initiation of the environmental review process and for project capital costs. This would be followed by a design and bid stage with a construction/test stage to follow. The full oper­ation of a new streetcar service would occur no sooner than 2009 and more likely would not occur until the 2010’s, even if funding is identi­fied in the near term. The following are some future steps that were identified by those involved in the study.