Geary_App_D Perancangan Terminal Bus

7/28/2019 Geary_App_D Perancangan Terminal Bus

1/41

O:\BRT\Geary\Modeling\Documentation Outputs\Geary BRT Unified Modeling Memo July 2006_Final.doc Page 1

Geary BRT Study Regional Travel Demand ModelingThe San Francisco Travel Demand Forecasting Model (SF CHAMP) provides data on many aspects of thebase year and projected future year conditions along the Geary Blvd corridor. This memorandum documentsthe methodology and results of the modeling work done for the base and future scenarios for the Geary BusRapid Transit Feasibility Study.

In this document, the assumptions used for the Model will be discussed, including land use and network

inputs in section 2. The 2005 base model validation is presented in section 3, and the base model outputs areshown in section 4. Section 5 documents the No Project results as compared to the base, while section 6analyzes the Geary project alternatives, as compared to the No Project.

1.BACKGROUNDSF-CHAMP is the Authoritys regional travel forecasting model, which is used for a wide array of planningstudies and project evaluations. CHAMP was originally developed in the year 2000, so most of its inputswere originally based on data available at that time. This included 1990 Census data, and transit and roadcounts from the late 1990s. Travel patterns in the city have changed since then, due to the 2001 recessionand the current slow recovery. The original year 2000 model did not reflect these changes.

Since this BRT study explored short-term alternatives, it was important that CHAMP accurately reflect the

existing conditions so that future estimates could be compared realistically. In order to do this, the Authoritydeveloped an updated 2005 base year model with incremental changes to the core model inputs. Thedevelopment of the 2005 base year is described below in section 2, and the analysis of the year 2015alternatives is documented in sections 3 through 6.

The main goals of this modeling effort were: (1) to estimate future transit ridership along Geary Boulevard inseveral alternative configurations; (2) to examine the effects of taking one lane from auto traffic in eachdirection along Geary; and (3) to provide inputs for subsequent analysis steps which will further examine thedetailed operations of transit and autos on Geary.

2.INPUTS AND ASSUMPTIONSSeveral inputs to the model were modified for the new base year: land use data, regional travel demand,roadway characteristics, and transit network representations.

2.1.Land Use InputsThe San Francisco Planning Department develops land use forecasts in five-year increments through year2025, based on countywide totals provided by Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Table 1 belowsummarizes the overall amount of employment, households, and employed residents inside the city of SanFrancisco. This land use data is a key zonal-level input for the CHAMP model. Planning DepartmentScenario B was used for all Geary model analysis.

Table 2.1. Comparison of SF County Land Use Projections based on ABAG 2002

Year Employment Households Employed Residents

2000 634,400 315,546 420,279

2005 634,435 337,958 457,337Projections 2002

Planning Dept Scenario B2015 702,515 356,449 483,322


2/41


2.2.Regional TravelCHAMP directly predicts travel for San Francisco residents only. It always uses the MetropolitanTransportation Commission (MTC) Model for estimating regional travel demand, and only 2000 and 2025MTC forecasts are available. Regional demand estimates for 2005 and 2015 had to be created. There are twomethods for doing this: either by running the MTC Model using ABAG 2005 and 2015 inputs, or by creating"fratared" (factored) trip tables that target future totals but mimic the regional trip distribution from year2000.

Rerunning the MTC model has one advantage: it makes the regional results sensitive to changes in ournetwork. However, the factoring process has several advantages: it uses the known-good 2000 MTC results asa starting point; it avoids the pitfalls of having to examine the adjustments hardwired into the base MTCmodel to make sure the final numbers are reasonable; and it is much easier and less time-consuming to factorthe trip tables than to run the MTC model.

Given the uncertainty and time-consuming nature of creating a new forecast year for the MTC model, theknown-good regional demand for year 2000 was fratared to match the new targets for 2005 and 2015tripmaking.

Work trips use employed residents as the control total on the production end, and employment on theattraction end. Nonwork trips use various combinations of households, employed residents, and jobs ascontrol totals. Table 2 below summarizes the regional trip ends created and used for this study.

Table 2.2. Daily Trips in the 9-County Bay Area Region by Purpose and Year

2000 2005 2015 2025

Work Trips 5,285,800 5,461,500 6,298,505 6,922,300

Social/Rec 2,387,500 2,558,400 2,776,100 3,144,300

Shop 5,234,200 5,636,700 6,182,200 6,629,300

School 1,862,900 1,976,600 2,166,500 1,973,800

Non-home based 5,955,600 5,978,400 6,849,300 7,599,900

Truck 548,100 565,683 645,800 711,500

Total 21,274,100 22,177,283 24,918,405 26,981,100

2.3.Roadway Network ModificationsThe primary change to the San Francisco highway network assumptions between the 2005 Base and the 2015No Project was the Inner Geary lane reduction project. Because the roadway counts along Geary were takenin 2004, we assumed that the base model did not include the roadway effects of the Inner Geary project. Allfuture horizon years assumed that one lane was removed in each direction on both Geary Street and OFarrellStreet east of Van Ness Ave.

Octavia Boulevard and the Central Freeway off-ramp were modeled as open for all of the Geary model runs.

A ground truthing initiative verified that the roadway characteristics in the model were representedaccurately. This verification included number of lanes, turn restrictions, and peak-hour tow-away laneconversion for all east/west roads in the corridor from Turk/Balboa Street to California Street, and formajor north/south roadways as well.

Many changes exist in the regional roadway network in the 2025 road network from MTC. The timing ofthese improvements is unknown, so none were included in the 2015 analysis. Since these road improvementsare outside the city, it is unlikely they impact the Geary corridor.


3/41


Table 3, below, summarizes road network modifications by forecast year. Changes in early years propagate toall future networks unless otherwise noted.

Table 2.3. Roadway Network Modifications by Forecast Year

2005 2015 2025

Octavia Boulevard andCentral Freeway opening

Same Same

Facility types on Geary andparallel streets adjusted

to match road counts

Same Same

Third/Fourth Sts in SoMareconfigured for Central

Subway portals

Same

Inner Geary lane removal Same

Illinois Street bridge Same

Doyle Drive seismicretrofit

Same

2.4.Transit Network ModificationsThe current travel times and headways in the model were compared against Fall 2005 Muni operating data forlines in the study area, to make certain that service was correctly reflected. Also, some network changes werecoded that mirror Muni service changes since 2000. Future transit networks include improvements that arealready programmed. Table 4 below lists the transit network assumptions for the forecast years. Changes inearly years propagate to all future networks unless otherwise noted.

All of the Geary roadway counts were collected in the year 2004, and therefore the base year highwaynetwork is based on the year 2004 such that it does not include the recent Inner Geary lane narrowingproject. However, the transit network used in the model calibration is based on the transit networks providedin the September 2005 schedule following the most recent round of Muni service cuts. The decision wasmade to use 2005 transit networks with a 2004 roadway network so that the 2004 counts could be used tocalibrate the road network, while the recent service cuts would not obscure the Geary transit ridership results.


4/41


Table 2.4. Transit Network Assumptions by Forecast Year

2005 2015 2025

Confirmed routing and

stop locations of 1, 2, 3,4, 31, and 38/38L linesbased on the Sept 2005schedule

Same Same

Third Street LRT extendedalong a new CentralSubway under 4

thStreet to

Moscone Center, UnionSquare, and Chinatown

Same

Removal of MUNI 15 linealong 3

rdStreet with the

T/K-line LRT replacement

Same

BART to Warm Springs isincluded

Same

3.VALIDATIONTwo data sources were used to calibrate and validate the SF-CHAMP travel demand model for the GearyBRT project. First, roadway volume estimates were compared with the observed current roadway volumes.Secondly, transit ridership estimates were compared to the observed transit ridership provided by Muni.

Lastly, a model development effort was undertaken to improve the Models roadway assignment method inthe Geary neighborhoods. The research focused on increasing the roadway assignment accuracy on local andcollector streets throughout the City. The details of this assignment improvement project are presented inthe last part of this section.

3.1.Observed Roadway VolumesObserved traffic turning movement counts were collected by the Project Consultant at selected intersectionswest of Van Ness Ave on Geary Blvd in December 2004. The comparison of these traffic counts show that

the results along Geary Blvd are well within acceptable range. There are some discrepancies, mostly in thereverse PM peak direction where the model returns higher roadway volumes than observed in the project areawest of Arguello Avenue. The Model consistently returns high volumes in the Westbound direction atLaguna Street, while most other locations are within 20%. Link-level volumes within 20% are generallyconsidered adequate for modeling purposes.

The following figures display the comparison of model and count volumes in the eastbound and westbounddirections. The Model volumes are compared against both the original Synchro counts provided by MTAand observed manual counts collected by the Project Consultant. The conclusion is that the SF Model is areasonable (and conservative) estimator of current traffic volumes and should be a reliable estimator of futurevolumes as well.

Table 3.1. Comparison of Model and Count Volumes

Westbound Eastbound

Synchro Model % Diff Synchro Model % Diff

W Laguna 1950 2545 30.5% 1690 1572 -7.0%

W Divisadero 1861 2153 15.7% 1332 1263 -5.2%

W Collins 2100 2055 -2.1% 1450 1356 -6.5%

E Park Presidio 1658 1918 15.7% 1268 1502 18.4%

W Park Presidio 1668 1494 -10.4% 1052 1154 9.7%

W 25th Ave 1310 1326 1.2% 754 1472 95.2%


5/41


Figure 3.1: 2005 PM Peak Hour Highway Volumes Westbound

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Lagu

na

Stei

ner

Div

isad

ero

Colli

ns

Stan

yan

2nd

4th

6th

8th

10th

Park

Pre

s17

th19

th21

st

24th

27th

29th

32nd

36th

Model

Observed

Synchro

Figure 3.2: 2005 PM Peak Hour Highway Volumes Eastbound

Lagu

na

Stei

ner

Div

isad

ero

Colli

ns

Stan

yan

2nd

4th

6th

8th

10th

Park

Pre

s17

th19

th21

st

24th

27th

29th

32nd

36th

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000 Model

Observed

Synchro


6/41


To support traffic operations, a Synchro model was subsequently developed and calibrated to the observeddata described above. However, observed data for the entire length of Geary Blvd was not available for usein the Synchro model. The following adjustment was applied to smooth the historical counts that were usedto populate the Synchro model where recent counts were not available: since the observed manual countscollected for the Geary Blvd BRT project closely matched the existing Synchro counts provided by MTA, theexisting Synchro count data was used to calibrate the model for the intersections in which we did not haveDecember 2004 counts.At Collins St, just west of Masonic Blvd, automated counts were taken at several locations across a screenline

stretching from Turk St to California St. This location was used to verify the accuracy of highway volumes ofthe parallel roadways at a single point along Geary corridor. As a result, roadway facility types were adjustedup or down in order to provide the correct proportion of traffic along each parallel street in the corridor. Theresults of this comparison can be seen in Figure x.

3.2.Observed Transit RidershipTransit count data collected by the Project Consultant and Muni observers were used to validate the transitridership numbers generated by the SF-CHAMP model.

Muni Boardings on the 38 and 38L L ines

The Muni 38 and 38L share the same route along Geary Blvd in the study area from the Transbay Terminal

to 33rd

Avenue, however the 38 Limited makes many fewer stops and consequently has a shorter travel time.West of 33rd Avenue, the routes diverge with the limited service continuing along Geary Blvd to Point Lobos,and the local service splitting into two routes. The first local route turns south along Balboa Street destinedfor Ocean Beach, while the second local route turns north to the VA hospital at Fort Miley. The headwayson the two local routes are identical.

As can be seen in the figures below, the general shape of the transit volumes in the Model versus theobserved counts matches fairly well. The model does underestimate transit volume in the eastbounddirection while overestimating westbound transit during the PM peak. This is true for both the local andlimited services.

The recalibration of the Models highway assignments (See section 3.3) shifted additional riders onto transit,thus leading to an overestimate of approximately 20% for all systemwide Muni transit boardings. Until theupcoming CHAMP 3 mode choice model recalibration later this summer, line-level transit volumes will pivotoff of ridership figures as reported in the latest Muni Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP).


7/41


Figure 3.3: Route 38L PM

2005 Westbound

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

VanNess

Laguna

Fillmore

Divisadero

Presidio

Spruce

Arguello 6

th

ParkPresidio

20th

25th

33rd

Bus Stop

Passengers

Estimated

Observed

Figure 3.4: Route 38L PM

2005 Eastbound

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

33rd

25th

20th

ParkPresidio

6th

Arguello

Spruce

Presidio

Divisadero

Fillmore

Laguna

VanNess

Bus Stop

Passengers

Estimated

Observed


8/41


Figure 3.5: Route 38 PM

2005 Westbound

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

VanNess

Laguna

Fillmore

Divisadero

Presidio

Spruce

Arguello

6th

ParkPresidio

20th

25th

33rd

Bus Stop

Passengers

Estimated

Observed

Figure 3.6: Route 38 PM

2005 Eastbound

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

33rd

25th

20th

ParkPresidio

6th

Arguello

Spruce

Presidio

Divisadero

Fillmore

Laguna

VanNess

Bus Stop

Passengers

Estimated

Observed


9/41


3.3.Roadway Validation EnhancementsExamination of roadway volumes revealed that the model consistently produced lower volumes on localstreets than were observed in the base conditions. This appeared to be true across the entire city network.When we removed a lane from Geary for tests of the with-project alternatives, there were noticeablediversions to the smaller parallel streets, since the model saw excess capacity there.

The original model development documents showed that, consistent with FHWA guidelines, higher-facilitytype roadways were validated to a greater degree of accuracy. This may be appropriate for suburban settings,

but for San Francisco with its dense grid system and very few freeways, accurate volumes on arterials,collectors, and local streets are at least as important as freeway volumes. This section documents the researchefforts to get base volumes on local streets closer to the observed volumes. Achieving this goal would alsohave the effect of reducing the erroneous diversions to local streets in the build alternatives. For a fulldescription of the road validation exercise, contact the Authority for a copy of the roadway validation memo.

Methodology

The standard roadway validation technique is modification of the alpha and beta values in what is known asthe BPR equation shown below. We chose to modify the alpha, beta, and freeflow speed/capacity tables,which allowed us to match volumes and the observed CMP speeds more closely, while retaining the correctform of the BPR equation.

+=

C

Vtt 0.1*0

The standard BPR equation for calculating congested roadway travel time.

Dozens of combinations of speed, capacity, and alpha/beta values were tested in order to match roadvolumes by facility type, area type, and screenline values. The existing models speed and capacity tables didnot match MTCs latest model, so as a first step we tried matching MTCs inputs. The results of this test wereworse the original model validation, particularly with respect to speeds being far too high, especiallycompared to observed CMP speeds.

Since neither the original model nor the MTC model speed/capacity tables resulted in good validation on

smaller streets, we attemped many additional combinations of inputs to the assignment process. We testedupwards of fifteen different variations of the speed and capacity tables, as we tried to converge on a set ofstarting conditions that resulted in accurate speeds and volumes across all facility types and in all time periods.

Validation Results

The tests converged on a solution which included modifications to the speed/capacity tables and the BPRequation coefficients. For speeds, we found that less gradient in the freeflow speeds between high- and low-facility types worked best; i.e. the freeways and arterials had lower initial freeflow speeds while the smallerstreets had higher initial speeds. For capacities, lower capacities on the small streets allowed the observed(existing) levels of traffic to remain without additional room for growth, which expert planners believed wasgenerally not present. The BPR curve modifications were designed to encourage traffic to remain on arterialsas much as possible.

Table 3.2 below shows the final speed/capacity tables used in the validation.


10/41


Table 3.2. Final Speed, Capacity, and BPR

Speed Table Capacity, veh/lane/hour

Area Type: Area Type:

Facility Type: 0 1 2 3 Facility Type: 0 1 2 3

Freeway (2) 45 50 55 60 Freeway 1850 1850 1900 1900

Interchange (1) 30 35 40 40 Interchange 1700 1700 1750 1750

Ramp (5) 25 25 30 30 Ramp 1300 1300 1400 1400

Rural Arterial (3) 25 25 35 35 Rural Arterial 1300 1300 1450 1450

Arterial Plus (15) 25 30 35 40 Arterial Plus 850 900 950 950

Major Arterial (7) 25 30 35 35 Major Arterial 850 900 950 950

Arterial (8) 25 25 30 35 Arterial 700 700 800 800

Minor Arterial (12) 25 25 35 35 Minor Arterial 650 700 750 800

Collector(4) 20 25 30 30 Collector 550 600 650 700

Local (11) 20 25 30 30 Local 300 300 300 350

BPR FT 1,5,6,8 FT 2 FT 3 FT 4,11 FT 7,12,15

Gamma 1 1 1 1 1

Alpha 0.88 0.83 0.56 0.6 0.6Beta 5.5 5.5 3.5 8.5 3.5

The new speed/capacity tables and BPR equation coefficients resulted in a closer match of estimated volumesto existing ground counts. Table 3.3 below shows the aggregate results of the final validation. In aggregate,volumes on all facility types except freeways matched closer to existing counts; freeways were originallyalmost 9% overutilized, while this final validation shows them -11% underutilized. Arterials are now quiteclose to observed, while collectors and local streets are less underutilized than before.

Table 3.3. Final Model Validation vs. Observed Volumes

Freeway Major Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local Street Total

Relative Error: -11.3% +2.4% -1.4% -14.6% -28.1% -4.7%

P.M. Peak and Midday Time Periods

The P.M. period validates even better than the daily average. Overall aggregate volumes are within 2%, andby facility type, all match within ten or even five percent, except for local streets which are within 25%.Estimated volumes in the midday period are consistently lower than observed volumes, on average about10%.

Screenlines and Bridges

Bridge volumes were not particularly affected by this revalidation. In the P.M. period, estimated movementsin both directions on the Golden Gate and Bay Bridges match observed volumes within about five percent.Estimated volumes at the San Mateo county line are almost precisely correct in the P.M. period, (less than

0.1% difference in volume), although estimates for individual facilities at the county line differ: I-280, forexample, is about 9% high northbound and 13% low southbound.

Diversions onto Local Streets

The revised BPR curves and capacity tables had the intended effect on local street volumes. The model nowmatches observed volumes on small streets more closely, although it still underestimates those volumes byabout 30%. Since those streets were very underutilized in the original model, they filled up with new trafficin the future alternatives.


11/41


With this new road validation, the model does not fill the local streets with additional traffic that in realityprobably will not use those facilities; they are small, frequently have numerous stop signs, and dont have theexcess capacity that the model originally estimated especially since the model was underestimating base-yeartraffic conditions on these streets. Thus, estimated diversions onto local streets still happen but to a muchlesser degree than in the original model. This is exactly in line with our planners judgment about how thesestreets will behave in the future.

Validation Summary

This research successfully validated the SF-CHAMP road assignments to observed volumes on all streettypes, large and small, simultaneously. An added benefit of the revalidation is that the model now reacts tocapacity changes (such as lane reductions) more rationally.

Making these modifications to the core of the model had some consequences which shouldnt be surprising:(1) mode choice is directly affected by changes in travel time, so the new lower roadway speeds resulted inhigher transit mode share; (2) the assignment procedure now takes about 50% longer to converge than in theoriginal form, due to more balancing among parallel streets of varying facility types.

For this study of the Geary corridor, traffic diversions are a critical component of the analysis. Since thetransit growth of the build alternatives is going to be compared on a relative scale (instead of absolutevolumes), the boost in transit ridership will be mostly cancelled out since it will exist in all base and futurescenarios. Therefore, we are comfortable using this technique. The full SF-CHAMP model will be

recalibrated this fall, to incorporate the findings of this roadway research while matching existing transitboardings more accurately.

4. 2005 BASE YEAR MODELING RESULTSCHAMP produces trip tables of travel demand for all origin/destination pairs in the region. These tables aresummarized into district-level tables, and then compared to identify trends in mode share or trip growth. Inaddition, trip tables are assigned to the roadway and transit systems, creating link-level volumes and route-level ridership. The results of these analyses are described below. For the sake of brevity, P.M. peak periodresults (3:30 pm to 6:30 pm) are highlighted in most cases.

4.1.Screenline AnalysisA screenline is used to measure traffic volumes across a specific set of roadways. For this analysis, the Gearycorridor is defined as more than just Geary Blvd itself, since several of the roads parallel to Geary Blvd areinterdependent; they work together and affect each other. Instead, traffic volumes along the east-westroadways in the vicinity are summed together. The Geary corridor includes Geary Blvd, Balboa and AnzaStreets to the south, and Clement and California Street to the north. The total volume of traffic on all fiveroads is measured at a specific cross street. This traffic measure is called a screenline.

It is important to note that screenline analysis only reports motorized trip volumes (auto and transitpersontrips). Unmotorized persontrips using the walk or bike modes are not reflected in the totalpersontrips. In other words, the mode share figures reported are the share of total motorized persontrips,not the share of all persontrips. This result reflects a limitation of the Model in not being able to assignpedestrian and bike volumes to the roadway network.

Eight cross streets define the screenlines used in this study. They are Van Ness, Webster, Divisadero, Collins,Arguello, Park Presidio, 25th Ave, and 33rd Ave. See Figure 4.1 for the geographic location of the eightscreenlines.

In the following analysis, the volume of person trips by auto and by transit is reported at various screenlinesalong the Geary corridor as well as on Geary itself.


12/41


Figure 4.1. Screenline definitions

Table 4.1: Year 2005 Geary Persontrip PM Peak Hour Volumes -Geary BRT Study

for Geary Blvd. only

East of in Autos on Transit

Total

Motorized Trips

Van Ness 4070 2660 6730

Webster 5060 2480 7540

Divisadero 4590 2460 7050

Collins 4820 2420 7240

Arguello 5450 2290 7740

Park Presidio 4540 1820 6360

25th Av 3360 950 4310

33rd Av 3220 170 3390

Table 4.2: Year 2005 Geary Persontrip PM Peak Hour Volumes -


13/41


Geary BRT Study

Screenline from California to Turk/Balboa


Total

Motorized Trips

Van Ness 17600 5030 22630

Webster 18400 3440 21840Divisadero 17430 5450 22880

Collins 12180 4670 16850

Arguello 13380 4000 17380


25th Av 4920 1370 6290

33rd Av 3700 1520 5220

4.2.Zone Based AnalysisA zone-based analysis reveals the trip patterns and characteristics of all the trips coming from and going tothe blocks and zones that neighbor Geary Blvd. This provides a slightly different picture of tripmaking thanthe patterns and characteristics of trips operating on the Geary corridor at a particular screenline.

For the zone-based analysis, the City was divided into 14 zones. The Geary corridor itself was segmentedinto four districts, including the Outer Richmond, Inner Richmond, Western Addition/Japantown, and theTenderloin. The Outer Richmond was defined as the area north of Golden Gate Park, south of the Presidio,and west of Park Presidio. The Inner Richmond was defined as the area north of Golden Gate Park, southof the Presidio, east of Park Presidio, and west of Baker. The Japantown/Western Addition was defined as

the area north of Fulton, south of California, east of Baker, and west of Van Ness. The Tenderloin wasdefined as the area north of Turk, south of Pine, east of Van Ness, and west of Powell.

Mode Shares

Table 4.3 below shows the mode split of all daily trips with one end Geary corridor, 2005. Local trips haveone end in a Geary corridor neighborhood, and one end in San Francisco; regional trips have one end in aGeary corridor neighborhood and one end outside of San Francisco.


14/41


Table 4.3: 2005 Mode Share of Local and Regional Trips from Geary

Corridor Neighborhoods

PM

Trip Origin Destination by Auto by Transit Walk/Bike

Local 70.4% 11.8% 17.7%

Regional 90.6% 8.7% 0.7%Outer Richmond

All Destinations 72.0% 11.6% 16.4%

Local 65.7% 13.5% 20.8%

Regional 88.9% 10.4% 0.7%Inner Richmond


Local 57.7% 12.4% 29.9%

Regional 81.8% 17.6% 0.7%Western Addition/

Japantown


Local 42.0% 19.4% 38.6%

Regional 54.2% 45.4% 0.4%Tenderloin


Local 58.5% 14.4% 27.2%

Regional 75.2% 24.2% 0.6%Project Area


Local 59.0% 16.7% 24.3%

Regional 67.1% 32.0% 0.8%City-Wide


Most trips to or from the Geary corridor neighborhoods and other parts of San Francisco occur by car,followed closely by walk/bike trips. Transit trips to and from Geary and other parts of San Francisco arerelatively low less than 15%. Regional trips to and from the corridor are mostly made by car, although thePM regional transit share is almost 25% reflecting the high regional BART use in the Tenderloinneighborhood.

Origins and Destinations of Trips to/from the Geary Corridor

The following discussion of the origins and destinations of trips with one leg in a Geary corridorneighborhood refers to Table 4.4. 27.8% of trips in the Project Area have both their origin and destination inthe Geary Corridor. 61.3% of Geary trips are to other locations within the City, while 10.9% are to regionaldestinations.

% of Destinations Destination

27.8% Project Area

61.3% Local - out of Project Area

10.9% Regional - out of SF

Trips that begin on the Geary corridor and end in the East Bay have the highest mode share (43%) due toBART accessibility. The highest transit shares reflect employment availability and transit accessibility - tripsfrom Geary to the East Bay and downtown, as one might expect, have relatively high transit shares.


15/41


Transit shares are lowest from Geary to the North/South Bays and intra-district and adjacent-district trips,reflecting low transit accessibility and high walk/bike accessibility, respectively.

Table 4.4: PM Peak Mode Share to other DistrictsPM Peak Mode Share to other

Districts Geary Subcorridor Origin:

Destination DistrictOuter

RichmondInner

Richmond Japantown TenderloinProject

AreaCity-Wide

Avg

Outer Richmond 2.8% 9.2% 19.4% 29.0% 7.8% 15.7%

Inner Richmond 8.5% 2.4% 8.9% 22.3% 6.4% 14.8%Western Addition/Japantown 16.7% 10.2% 2.3% 11.6% 7.2% 13.4%

Tenderloin 30.3% 28.1% 11.9% 1.9% 9.4% 18.1%

Downtown 21.5% 22.8% 16.3% 20.9% 20.3% 17.7%

Northern Neighborhoods 14.2% 11.4% 7.4% 20.8% 13.2% 15.6%

North Beach 24.1% 24.3% 17.5% 22.0% 21.5% 17.7%

Western SoMa / Civic Center 18.9% 21.2% 10.2% 12.3% 14.4% 16.1%

Eastern SoMa / Rincon Hill 23.4% 24.6% 18.2% 19.7% 21.0% 17.1%

Sunset 9.8% 12.9% 19.3% 31.1% 15.8% 16.9%

Central Neighborhoods 15.3% 11.8% 10.9% 25.9% 14.9% 17.8%

Mission/Potrero Hill 18.0% 19.0% 14.4% 26.3% 19.3% 17.7%

Southwest Neighborhoods 12.2% 15.6% 19.6% 32.7% 17.7% 16.0%

Southeast Neighborhoods 13.0% 15.7% 17.6% 30.7% 18.4% 16.6%North Bay 4.4% 5.0% 7.8% 37.2% 15.2% 27.6%

South Bay 4.4% 5.2% 8.6% 25.1% 11.3% 13.6%

East Bay 21.0% 23.7% 32.2% 61.2% 43.1% 54.3%

4.3.Summary Transit has an estimated 6 to 10% mode share among trips to and from the neighborhoods along the

Geary corridor.

Transit mode share in the corridor is estimated to be highest among those traveling to downtownlocations (20%) and to the East Bay (43%).

Intradistrict trips and trips to adjacent neighborhoods have lower transit shares due to higher walk andbike accessibility.

Almost one in four trips in the Geary corridor are destined to locations along the Geary corridor. Only10% of trips in the corridor have destinations outside of San Francisco.


16/41


5.2015 NO PROJECT FORECASTTo help understand the effects of future changes in land use, demographics, and growth that are not directlyrelated to the project, a 2015 No Project alternative was studied. This alternative included 2015 householdand employment forecasts, and in-progress or planned updates to the road and transit networks as describedin Section 2. The results of this alternative will be compared to the build project alternatives in order tomore easily distinguish between changes due to the project and changes due to background growth and

development.Growth factors for roadway movements informed the subsequent Synchro traffic modeling steps. Bothnorth/south and east/west roadway growth factors were developed.

5.1.East-West Roadway Growth Factors: 2005 to 2015Projected P.M. peak hour traffic growth in the corridor is between 1.02 and 1.11, with more growth in theoff-peak direction (eastbound) than the reverse direction. This higher growth is consistent with the higherthan expected eastbound volumes also observed during the model validation.

Tables 5.1 and 5.2 show the East/West growth factors for the 2005 to 2015 No Project alternative. The studyarea was divided into eight sections along the screenline boundaries. While in the No Project the factors arevery similar, the future alternatives show more differences on the two portions. A 10% decrease in traffic

volume is estimated east of the Van Ness screenline due to the Inner Geary narrowing, which was notmodeled in the 2005 roadway base.

Table 5.1: PM Peak Hour Roadway Volumes

Summary

Westbound Eastbound

Geary 2005 2015 Change 2005 2015 Change

East of Van Ness 2,050 1,850 0.90 1,150 1,260 1.10

East of Webster 2,540 2,720 1.07 1,390 1,540 1.11

East of Divisadero 2,100 2,280 1.08 1,500 1,590 1.06

East of Collins 2,100 2,260 1.08 1,650 1,760 1.07

East of Arguello 2,350 2,540 1.08 1,830 1,930 1.06

East of Park Presidio 1,920 1,980 1.03 1,550 1,590 1.02

East of 25th 1,220 1,290 1.05 1,350 1,470 1.09

East of 33rd 1,320 1,390 1.05 1,170 1,320 1.13

0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00

Westbound Eastbound

Screenline - Calif. To Balboa 2005 2015 Change 2005 2015 Change

East of Van Ness 9,420 10,080 1.07 4,340 4,730 1.09

East of Webster 9,140 9,870 1.08 5,120 5,600 1.09


East of Collins 5,460 5,850 1.07 3,910 4,210 1.08East of Arguello 6,060 6,400 1.06 4,210 4,460 1.06


East of 25th 2,010 2,150 1.07 1,720 1,980 1.15

East of 33rd 1,550 1,690 1.09 1,290 1,530 1.19


17/41


Table 5.2: MD Peak Hour Roadway Volumes Summary

Westbound Eastbound

Geary 2005 2015 Change 2005 2015 Change

East of Van Ness 2,250 1,670 0.74 1,680 1,120 0.67

East of Webster 3,300 3,320 1.01 2,990 3,230 1.08East of Divisadero 2,880 2,930 1.02 2,950 3,190 1.08

East of Collins 2,800 2,890 1.04 2,980 3,120 1.05

East of Arguello 3,180 3,400 1.07 3,540 3,830 1.08


East of 25th 1,430 1,510 1.06 1,960 2,140 1.09

East of 33rd 1,670 1,730 1.04 1,890 2,010 1.06

0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00

Westbound Eastbound

Screenline - Calif. To Balboa 2005 2015 Change 2005 2015 Change

East of Van Ness 12,290 12,430 1.01 7,880 7,910 1.00

East of Webster 11,910 12,390 1.04 9,760 10,330 1.06


East of Collins 7,660 7,950 1.04 7,210 7,600 1.05

East of Arguello 7,830 8,230 1.05 7,740 8,310 1.07


East of 25th 2,550 2,680 1.05 3,170 3,430 1.08

East of 33rd 2,370 2,460 1.04 2,790 2,960 1.06

5.2. North-South Roadway Growth FactorsThe cross streets which intersect with the Geary corridor also exhibit changes in volume between 2005 and

2015. The direction and magnitude of these changes depend on the type of street and how close that street isto the downtown urban core. Model volumes for the 2005 and 2015 No Project are presented in AppendixA. Many of the minor streets were bundled together to smooth the growth factors with adjacent similarcross-streets. Major arterials such as Park Presidio or Masonic were left separate.

5.3.Persontrips Screenline AnalysisThe following Tables 5.3 and 5.4 report the growth in motorized persontrips (auto and transit) for the GearyCorridor screenline as well as Geary itself. Growth in non-motorized trips (walk and bike trips) is notreflected in the figures.


18/41


Table 5.3: Year 2015 No Project Geary Persontrip PM Peak

Hour Volumes - Geary BRT Study



Total

Motorized

Trips

Van Ness 3940 2820 6760

Webster 5440 2630 8070


Collins 5130 2560 7690

Arguello 5790 2430 8220


25th Av 3550 1000 4550

33rd Av 3450 170 3620

Table 5.4:Year 2015 No Project Geary Persontrip PM PeakHour Volumes - Geary BRT Study



Total

Motorized

Trips

Van Ness 18860 5310 24170

Webster 19810 3640 23450

Divisadero 18700 5740 24440

Collins 12960 4920 17880

Arguello 14030 4190 18220


25th Av 5350 1440 6790

33rd Av 4130 1540 5670

5.4.Zone Based AnalysisThe citywide transit mode share is not projected to change much between 2005 and 2015 No Project,hovering around 20 percent. Trips to and from the Geary corridor have a higher percent transit than citywidetrips, but trips that both begin and end along Geary actually have a much lower transit share. The low transitmode share for intracorridor trips is due to a high percentage of non-motorized trips (particularly walk trips).Walking is quite competitive with transit in the corridor, due to the high walkability of the area and therelatively slow transit speed in the No Project alternative.


19/41


The specific transit mode shares for local and regional mode shares to/from the Geary Neighborhoods isshown in Table 5.5.

Table 5.5: 2015-No Project-Mode Share of Local and Regional Trips from Geary CorridorNeighborhoods

PM

Trip Origin Destination by Auto by Transit Walk/Bike

Local 71.6% 11.8% 16.6%



Local 66.4% 13.5% 20.0%



Local 58.6% 12.1% 29.3%


Japantown


Local 41.1% 19.6% 39.2%Regional 54.1% 45.5% 0.4%Tenderloin


Local 58.8% 14.4% 26.8%



Local 58.6% 16.8% 24.6%



5.5.Transit RidershipTable 5.6 illustrates the estimated growth in transit trips along the Geary Corridor between 2005 and 2015.Transit ridership on Muni is expected to increase 5% systemwide, while ridership on the Geary corridor itselfis expected to grow at a more modest 4.3%.

Table 5.6: 2015 No Project Estimated Transit Trips - CHAMP

2005 SRTP %Change 2015 NoProject

38 29,517 4.4% 30,817

38L 17,955 3.1% 18,511

All 38 49,268 3.8% 51,151

Geary Corridor 100,663 4.3% 104,930

Systemwide 685,984 5.0% 720,480


20/41


Mode Share

Auto mode share is quite consistent between 2005 and 2015, changing not at all in the P.M. period (61%) anddropping in the midday (61% to 54%). The model also shows a clear competition between walk/bike modesand transit. Transit mode share is estimated to drop slightly between 2005 and 2015, while the walk/bikemode share increases. This trade-off has been exhibited in the SF-CHAMP model on other projects as well,and may be due to changes in the distribution of future development along the corridor more than actualdifferences in transit service or congestion levels.

5.6.Summary Between now and 2015, auto traffic in the corridor is expected to grow at about 5% at most screenline

locations along the Geary corridor Park Presidio Blvd. is the fastest growing location with an estimatedgrowth of 10%. While the model shows various growth rates at different points along the corridor,including some slight traffic decreases at the Van Ness Ave. screenline, the overall growth rate isconsistent with the modest changes expected in the areas surrounding the corridor.

The Inner Geary narrowing project is expected to drive down auto traffic east of the Van Ness Avescreenline by up to 25%. This is expected, due to the decreased capacity of this arterial through the heartof downtown.

Transit mode share is not expected to change significantly in the future no-project scenario; a slight

decrease in transit share is possible due to increased competition with the walk mode. Auto mode sharein the corridor is also estimated to remain about the same.

6.2015 WITH PROJECT FORECASTSThis section describes the initial model results for the 2015 project alternatives. Four build alternatives wereanalyzed: a side-running alternative and three center-running configurations. For modeling purposes, thefour alternatives had identical stop locations, but different travel time savings and headways (with the centeralternatives being faster). The SF-CHAMP model outputs will be analyzed using Synchro and VISSIM in thenext stage of the study.

6.1.Network Changes in Project AlternativesThe BRT system is given one lane of exclusive right-of-way in each direction along Geary Blvd, betweenGough Street and 33rd Avenue. Since Geary Blvd is currently three lanes in each direction, this equates to a33% decrease in available right-of-way for other vehicular traffic.

Left turn restrictions are added along Geary to prevent unprotected turns across the BRT right-of-way. Noleft turns are permitted except at protected, signalized intersections. These signals are at:

Eastbound: Fillmore, Presidio, Masonic, Spruce, Palm, 4th, 8th, 12th, 15th, 19th, 23rd, 27th, 31st, 35thWestbound: Webster, Fillmore, Presidio, Masonic, Blake, Stanyan, 3rd, 7th, 11th, 15th, 18th, 22nd, 26th, 30th, 34th

Compared to the current configuration of the corridor, this means that 11 more eastbound and 12 morewestbound left turn locations are prohibited in the project alternative. Turns are either prohibited due to lowturning volumes or to prevent adverse pedestrian conditions.

Definition of Alternatives

Curbside

physical design:Curbside BRT

service plan:BRT/local services in busway

Center A

physical design:Center BRT with side or center platforms

service plan:BRT/local services in busway


21/41


Center B


service plan:BRT in busway, local at the curb

Center C


service plan:Skip stop service in busway

Transit travel time

The transit travel time and headway assumptions are listed in the following two tables:

Table 6.1: Geary headways

Headway Summary Inbound Outbound

Time Period AM MD PM EV Owl AM MD PM EV Owl

38 Limited 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 5.02005 Base

38 Local 7.0 7.0 6.0 10.0 30.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 10.0 30.0

38 Limited 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.02015--No

Project 38 Local 7.0 7.0 6.0 10.0 30.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 10.0 30.0

38 Limited 4.0 5.0 4.0 12.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 12.0

2015 Curbside 38 Local 8.0 8.0 7.0 15.0 30.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 15.0 30.0

38 Limited 4.0 4.0 4.0 12.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 12.02015 Center A

(All Services) 38 Local 7.0 8.0 7.0 15.0 30.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 15.0 30.0

38 Limited 4.0 4.0 4.0 12.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 12.02015 Center B

(Local @ Curb) 38 Local 8.0 8.0 8.0 15.0 30.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 15.0 30.0

38 A 6.0 6.0 5.0 12.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 12.02015 Center C

(Skip Stop) 38 B 6.0 6.0 5.0 12.0 30.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 12.0 30.0

Table 6.2: Geary Travel Time

Travel Time Summary Inbound OutboundTime Period AM MD PM EV Owl AM MD PM EV Owl38 Limited 37.0 40.0 48.0 40.0 42.0 46.0

38 Local 1 46.0 53.0 55.0 40.0 32.0 50.0 57.0 58.0 51.0 38.02005 Base

38 Local 2 44.0 50.0 52.0 40.0 48.0 54.0 55.0 50.0

38 Limited 35.0 37.6 45.3 37.4 39.2 43.2

38 Local 1 43.4 49.9 51.9 38.2 31.7 47.2 54.1 54.8 49.1 37.82015--No

Project38 Local 2 41.4 46.9 48.9 38.2 45.2 51.1 51.8 48.1

38 Limited 29.8 32.6 39.4 29.6 32.6 34.1 37.7 29.9

38 Local 1 38.3 44.0 45.7 34.8 31.1 41.7 47.7 48.4 44.9 37.52015 Curbside

38 Local 2 36.3 41.0 42.7 34.8 39.7 44.7 45.4 43.9

38 Limited 27.0 29.6 35.6 27.8 29.3 30.9 34.0 27.9

38 Local 1 35.0 40.4 41.7 32.8 31.1 38.0 43.3 44.1 42.1 37.52015 Center A

(All Services)38 Local 2 33.0 37.4 38.7 32.8 36.0 40.3 41.1 41.1

38 Limited 27.0 29.6 35.6 27.8 29.3 30.9 34.0 37.6

38 Local 1 43.7 50.0 52.2 38.0 31.1 47.9 55.1 55.6 49.5 37.52015 Center B

(Local @ Curb)38 Local 2 41.7 47.0 49.2 38.0 45.9 52.1 52.6 48.5

2015 Center C 38 A 32.6 37.5 38.8 30.5 31.1 35.1 40.1 40.7 39.1 37.5


22/41


(Skip Stop) 38 B 30.5 34.4 35.6 30.4 31.1 33.0 36.9 37.5 37.9 37.5

6.2.East/West Auto Traffic FactorsThe main purpose of this comparison is to advise the Project Consultant on factors to use when building the2015 BRT Synchro models. These factors will be used by the Project Consultant to adjust the 2015 NoProject traffic model for both the side and center build alternatives. Factors are given for Geary Blvd

specifically and for the corridor as a whole. Table x, below, summarizes the roadway factors for Geary andthe parallel streets in the corridor for side and center alternatives. For the sake of brevity, only one of theCenter alternatives is presented. The roadway factors among the various Center alternatives are notsignificantly different to warrant individual discussion.

Geary Blvd

Westbound PM Roadway volumes drop along Geary up to 38% (a factor of 0.62) at Webster, with mostscreenline locations dropping around 25%. This means, in essence, that 75 percent of the traffic previouslyon Geary now uses a facility which has 66 percent of its original capacity. The screenline at Webster losesmore traffic since this roadway segment

Parallel Streets

When traffic is examined across the entire corridor (which includes California, Clement/Euclid, Geary,Anza/OFarrell, Balboa/Turk, and all streets in between; see Figure x above), roadway volumes on theparallel streets rise somewhat in most locations. This reflects that in the build alternatives, a portion ofexisting traffic diverts from Geary Blvd onto the parallel streets.

Both the side and center alternatives show slight decreases in traffic volumes along the corridor at thescreenline level, up to 8% in the Richmond neighborhood to less than 2% near Van Ness Avenue.Significant differences in roadway capacity were not observed between the Side and Center alternatives.

Table 6.3: PM Peak Hour Roadway Volumes Summary (Side)

Westbound Eastbound

Geary NoProject Project Change NoProject Project Change

East of Van Ness 1,850 1,760 0.95 1,260 1,250 0.99

East of Webster 2,720 1,690 0.62 1,540 1,080 0.70


East of Collins 2,260 1,810 0.80 1,760 1,530 0.87

East of Arguello 2,540 1,830 0.72 1,930 1,470 0.76


East of 25th 1,290 1,280 1.00 1,470 1,500 1.02

East of 33rd 1,390 1,280 0.93 1,320 1,300 0.98

Westbound EastboundScreenline - Calif. To Balboa NoProject Project Change NoProject Project Change

East of Van Ness 10,080 9,900 0.98 4,730 4,660 0.99

East of Webster 9,870 9,230 0.93 5,600 5,160 0.92


East of Collins 5,850 5,440 0.93 4,210 3,960 0.94

East of Arguello 6,400 5,860 0.92 4,460 4,110 0.92



23/41


East of 25th 2,150 2,070 0.96 1,980 1,990 1.01

East of 33rd 1,690 1,550 0.92 1,530 1,510 0.98

Table 6.4: PM Peak Hour Roadway Volumes Summary (Center)

Westbound Eastbound


East of Van Ness 1,850 1,760 0.95 1,260 1,270 1.00

East of Webster 2,720 1,700 0.62 1,540 1,240 0.81


East of Collins 2,260 1,660 0.73 1,760 1,430 0.81

East of Arguello 2,540 1,830 0.72 1,930 1,510 0.78


East of 25th 1,290 1,280 1.00 1,470 1,510 1.03

East of 33rd 1,390 1,280 0.92 1,320 1,290 0.98

Westbound Eastbound

Screenline - Calif. To Balboa NoProject Project Change NoProject Project Change

East of Van Ness 10,080 9,880 0.98 4,730 4,660 0.99East of Webster 9,870 9,240 0.94 5,600 5,260 0.94


East of Collins 5,850 5,420 0.93 4,210 3,860 0.92

East of Arguello 6,400 5,860 0.92 4,460 4,150 0.93


East of 25th 2,150 2,070 0.96 1,980 2,010 1.02

East of 33rd 1,690 1,550 0.92 1,530 1,490 0.98

Table 6.5: MD Peak Hour Roadway Volumes Summary (Side)

Westbound Eastbound


East of Van Ness 1,670 1,660 0.99 1,120 1,100 0.98

East of Webster 3,320 2,160 0.65 3,230 1,860 0.58


East of Collins 2,890 2,330 0.81 3,120 2,580 0.83

East of Arguello 3,400 2,410 0.71 3,830 2,750 0.72


East of 25th 1,510 1,500 0.99 2,140 2,080 0.97

East of 33rd 1,730 1,570 0.91 2,010 1,820 0.91

Westbound Eastbound

Screenline - Calif. To Balboa NoProject Project Change NoProject Project Change

East of Van Ness 12,430 12,320 0.99 7,910 7,750 0.98

East of Webster 12,390 11,530 0.93 10,330 9,110 0.88


East of Collins 7,950 7,390 0.93 7,600 7,040 0.93

East of Arguello 8,230 7,490 0.91 8,310 7,410 0.89



24/41


East of 25th 2,680 2,670 0.99 3,430 3,350 0.98

East of 33rd 2,460 2,340 0.95 2,960 2,750 0.93

Table 6.6: MD Peak Hour Roadway Volumes

Summary

Westbound Eastbound


East of Van Ness 1,670 1,610 0.96 1,120 1,110 0.99

East of Webster 3,320 2,190 0.66 3,230 2,530 0.78


East of Collins 2,890 2,220 0.77 3,120 2,460 0.79

East of Arguello 3,400 2,420 0.71 3,830 2,770 0.72


East of 25th 1,510 1,500 0.99 2,140 2,080 0.97

East of 33rd 1,730 1,560 0.90 2,010 1,820 0.90

Westbound Eastbound

Screenline - Calif. To Balboa NoProject Project Change NoProject Project ChangeEast of Van Ness 12,430 12,320 0.99 7,910 7,810 0.99

East of Webster 12,390 11,680 0.94 10,330 9,690 0.94


East of Collins 7,950 7,410 0.93 7,600 7,050 0.93

East of Arguello 8,230 7,510 0.91 8,310 7,460 0.90


East of 25th 2,680 2,680 1.00 3,430 3,360 0.98

East of 33rd 2,460 2,350 0.95 2,960 2,780 0.94

6.3.North/South Auto Traffic FactorsFactors for the change in volumes on the east-west streets were also applied. These factors were applied tothe Synchro No Project and With-Project models, as shown in Appendix B.


25/41


6.4.Persontrips Screenline AnalysisTable 6.7: PM Peak Hour Persontrips

Year 2015 Center A Geary Persontrip PM Peak Hour Volumes - Geary BRT

Study



Total

Motorized Trips

Van Ness 3820 4390 8210

Webster 3740 4110 7850


Collins 3920 3520 7440

Arguello 4300 3320 7620


25th Av 3610 1400 5010

33rd Av 3290 270 3560

Year 2015 Center A Geary Persontrip PM Peak Hour Volumes - Geary BRT

Study



Total

Motorized Trips

Van Ness 18490 6450 24940

Webster 18530 4990 23520

Divisadero 17610 6540 24150

Collins 11940 5500 17440

Arguello 12920 4780 17700


25th Av 5300 1760 7060

33rd Av 3910 1880 5790

6.5.Transit RidershipThe improved transit travel times of the side and center alternatives result in increased transit boardings andmode share. Compared to the 2015 No-Project, daily boardings on the Geary routes increase 16.8% for theside alternative and up to 24.7% for the center alternatives. Of the Center alternatives, Center A has thehighest growth in ridership while the skip stop alternative (Center C) has the lowest growth. In fact the skipstop alternative ridership numbers are lower than the side alternative. Table 6.8 summarizes daily boardingsby alternative, below.


26/41


Table 6.8. Estimated Change in Average Daily Transit Ridership for BRT Alternatives (2015)

No Project1 Side Center A Center B Center C

All Geary Corridor 104,900 +6% +8% +7% +5%

All 38 51,200 +17% +25% +21% +20%

38 local 30,800 -32% -29% -37% +20%

38L limited 18,500 +81% +96% +100% --

New transit riders 2,300 3,400 2,250 2,350

Ridership on the 38L-Limited, representing the new BRT service, increases the most almost doubling insome scenarios while the slower local ridership decreases by 25 to 40%. The 38L-Limited ridershipincreases significantly because of the faster travel times, in combination with more frequent headways andexpanded hours.

The new BRT riders come from a variety of sources. The model predicts that the new BRT service will attractbetween 2,000 and 3,500 new transit riders every weekday, as well as attracting significant numbers of existing

Muni riders who shift from parallel routes, as well as from express and local Geary routes. This is becausethose existing riders are willing to walk farther to receive the benefit of shorter travel times and more reliable

service. 2 The Center A alternative attracts the most new riders (3,400) while the Center B alternative attractsthe fewest (2,250).

Other BRT implementations in the U.S. have found that up to one quarter of BRT users are new transitriders who did not take transit before BRT was implemented. This suggests that the SF-CHAMP model maybe under-predicting the propensity of auto users to switch to BRT and therefore is a conservative estimate.

As shown in the table below, transit mode share to and from the Geary corridor also improves. PM peakhour transit mode share increases from 15.6% to 15.7% in the side alternative and also to 15.7% in the centeralternative.

Table 6.9: 2015-SideBRT-Mode Share of Local and Regional Trips from Geary CorridorNeighborhoods

PMTrip Origin Destination

by Auto by Transit Walk/Bike

Local 71.2% 12.2% 16.5%



Local 66.1% 13.9% 20.0%



Western Addition/ Local 58.5% 12.3% 29.2%

1 The no-project ridership was calculated by multiplying the FY2004 average daily ridership reported in Munis ShortRange Transportation Plan (SRTP) by the percent change predicted with the travel forecasting model.

2 The Federal Transit Administrations funding criteria now focus on this notion of user benefit instead of newtransit riders. FTA recognizes that benefits which accrue to existing transit riders and to new riders are both consideredproject benefits.


27/41


Regional 81.6% 17.8% 0.7%Japantown


Local 41.3% 19.2% 39.5%



Local 58.6% 14.5% 26.9%



Local 58.6% 16.9% 24.5%



Table 6.10: 2015-CenterBRT (All Services)-Mode Share of Local and Regional Trips from Geary

Corridor NeighborhoodsPM

Trip Origin Destinationby Auto by Transit Walk/Bike

Local 71.1% 12.4% 16.6%



Local 66.1% 14.0% 19.9%



Local 58.1% 12.4% 29.5%


Japantown


Local 41.3% 19.1% 39.6%



Local 58.4% 14.6% 27.0%



Local 58.5% 17.0% 24.6%




28/41


6.6.Maximum Load Point (MLP) AnalysisThe CHAMP model was used to perform an analysis of crowding at the Maximum Load Point (MLP) alongthe Geary corridor. The MLP is the point on the transit route where the load is highest. In most timeperiods for both the 38 Local and Limited, the MLP was found between Laguna and Van Ness.

Muni considers a transit route to be overcrowded if the transit load at the MLP is greater than 85% of thevehicles capacity. Muni operates 60 ft articulated buses on the 38 Geary route. A 60 ft articulated bus has acarrying capacity of 94 persons. The 85% crowding standard for this type of vehicle is 80 persons. None of

the BRT alternatives exhibit crowding at the MLP. The highest forecasted load is 69, which is found for theCenter B alternative in the inbound direction for the 38L.

The highest forecasted load for the BRT alternatives is 45% higher than the corresponding load in the 2005base. Anecdotal evidence suggests that riders consider the 38L route to be crowded due to bus bunching andcongestion while boarding the front of the vehicle. Proof-of-payment (POP) is expected to be used on theGeary BRT route, thus allowing boardings from all doors and reducing crowding at the front of the vehicle.However, it will also be necessary to ensure that Muni line management is disciplined enough to provide aconsistent headway between buses during the peak hours to avoid crowding created by bus bunching.

Table 6.11: Maximum Loads

Estimated Maximum Load for Route 38

Base No Project SideCenter

ACenter

B

inbound

MD 36.3 37.3 33.7 35.8 29.0

PM 48.1 50.4 37.7 42.7 29.6

outbound

MD 41.8 45.7 43.6 46.0 39.9

PM 49.4 53.4 45.8 49.6 41.4

Estimated Maximum Load for Route 38 L

Base

inbound

MD 48.5 49.3 46.3 50.6 52.0

PM 48.3 49.9 59.7 67.4 69.0

outbound

MD 50.9 51.7 48.4 52.1 53.2

PM 50.5 54.0 49.9 55.9 56.6

6.7.Accessibility AnalysisThe SF-CHAMP model can estimate the accessibility of jobs for residents along the Geary corridor. For thepurposes of this analysis, four representative locations were chosen: downtown (Market/Montgomery),Japantown Center, Divisadero St at Geary Blvd, and 20th Avenue at Geary Blvd. The largest changes in totaljob accessibility by transit occur at Divisadero/Geary (+72%) and 20th Avenue/Geary (+27%), while losses in


29/41


job accessibility by auto were less than 1% at all locations. This shows that the Geary BRT Project increasestransit accessibility dramatically while having a negligible effect on auto access to the project area.

Table 6.12: Job Accessibility

2015 Scenario: Total jobs accessible within 15 minutes by auto and 30 minutes by t ransit

StartingPoint Mode

NoProject Side BRT

Side BRT

%Change

CenterBRT (All)

CenterBRT (All)

%Change

CenterBRT

(Local atcurb)

CenterBRT

(Local at

curb) %Change

CenterBRT

(Skipstop)

CenterBRT(Skip

stop) %Change

Auto474,912 473,910 -0.2 473,757 -0.2 473,757 -0.2 473,757 -0.2

Downtown

Transit553,868 561,169 1.3 565,295 2.1 565,295 2.1 556,526 0.5

Auto376,599 376,281 -0.1 376,144 -0.1 376,144 -0.1 376,144 -0.1Japantown

CenterTransit

459,175 475,618 3.6 488,484 6.4 479,264 4.4 473,014 3.0

Auto212,529 209,618 -1.4 210,334 -1.0 210,334 -1.0 210,334 -1.0DivisaderoStreet at

Geary Transit380,668 461,255 21.2 484,030 27.2 471,253 23.8 482,215 26.7

Auto122,616 122,012 -0.5 121,958 -0.5 121,958 -0.5 121,958 -0.5

20thAvenue at

Geary Transit54,575 65,501 20.0 94,367 72.9 96,828 77.4 78,805 44.4

2015 Scenario: Retail jobs accessible wit hin 15 minut es by auto and 30 minutes by t ransit

StartingPoint Mode

NoProject Side BRT

Side BRT

%Change

CenterBRT (All)

CenterBRT (All)

%Change

CenterBRT

(Local atcurb)

CenterBRT

(Local at

curb) %Change

CenterBRT

(Skipstop)

CenterBRT(Skip

stop) %Change

Auto66,034 65,592 -0.7 65,505 -0.8 65,505 -0.8 65,505 -0.8

Downtown

Transit101,328 105,240 3.9 106,217 4.8 106,217 4.8 102,265 0.9

Auto

66,381 66,372 0.0 66,372 0.0 66,372 0.0 66,372 0.0JapantownCenter

Transit96,834 100,799 4.1 103,039 6.4 101,224 4.5 98,551 1.8

Auto48,048 47,921 -0.3 47,944 -0.2 47,944 -0.2 47,944 -0.2

DivisaderoStreet at

GearyTransit

94641 99,869 5.5 101,414 7.2 99,755 5.4 101,716 7.5

Auto24,627 24,609 -0.1 24,609 -0.1 24,609 -0.1 24,609 -0.1

20thAvenue at

GearyTransit

30,769 34,417 11.9 42,745 38.9 43,704 42.0 39,642 28.8


30/41


6.8.Equity AnalysisAn equity analysis was conducted to compare the benefits of a Geary BRT project to different groups ofpeople. The proportion of project benefits to low-income households was analyzed, as well as the proportionof project benefits to zero-car households relative to households with access to a vehicle.

According to model outputs, residents of zero-car households would save an average of 0.03 minutes per trip

in the Side BRT scenario and 0.07 0.13 minutes per trip in the Center BRT scenarios. By contrast,members of households with access to a vehicle would save an average of 0.13 minutes per trip in the SideBRT scenario and 0.27 0.40 minutes per trip in the Center BRT scenarios, as shown in Table 6.13.

Furthermore, residents of low-income households would save an average of 0.01 minutes per trip in the SideBRT scenario and 0.05 0.09 minutes per trip in the Center BRT scenarios. Residents of households that arenot low-income would save an average of 0.15 minutes per trip in the Side BRT scenario and 0.29 0.44minutes per trip in the Center BRT scenario.

These results are due to the fact that members of low-income and zero-car households are more likely to takeshorter trips.

The Side BRT scenario provides most of its benefits to households that are not low-income and do haveaccess to a vehicle. As seen in Table 6.14, in the Side BRT scenario, 16% of all minutes saved from the

project would be saved by zero-car households, although they represent 27% of all San Francisco households.In addition, 4% of total minutes saved in the Side BRT scenario would go to low-income households,although these households represent 15% of San Francisco households.

The Center BRT scenarios provide a more equitable distribution of benefits. In the Center A scenario, 29%of minutes saved go to zero-car households, and 23% of minutes saved go to low-income households. In theCenter B scenario, 20% of minutes saved go to zero-car households, and 14% of minutes saved go to low-income households. In the Center C scenario, 25% of minutes saved go to zero-car households, and 17% ofminutes saved go to low-income households.

Table 6.13: Average Minutes Saved per Trip

Al ternat iveHousehold Type Side Center A Center B Center C

Zero-car households 0.03 0.12 0.07 0.13

1+car households 0.13 0.30 0.27 0.40

Low-income

households 0.01 0.10 0.05 0.09

Other households 0.15 0.33 0.29 0.44


31/41


Table 6.14: Total Daily Minutes Saved

Side Center A Center B Center C

% of HHcitywide

Minutessaved

Percentof totalminutessaved

Minutessaved


Minutessaved


Minutessaved

% oftotalminutessaved

Zero-carhouseholds 20% 14,438 16% 71,621 29% 38,083 20% 76,874 25%

1+ carhouseholds 80% 76,604 84% 173,528 71% 156,172 80% 229,976 75%

Low-incomehouseholds 14% 3,303 4% 56,351 23% 26,699 14% 50,986 17%

Otherhouseholds 86% 87,739 96% 188,798 77% 167,555 86% 255,864 83%

6.9.Diversions AnalysisA physical reduction in auto capacity along Geary Blvd is an end result of all Project alternatives for theGeary BRT Study. A need to divert trips from Geary will emerge as dedicated bus lanes are added whilemaintaining as many on-street parking spaces as is possible. Geary Blvd carries a large amount of the trafficdestined for the northwestern neighborhoods of the City, particularly the Richmond District. The purpose ofthis analysis is to determine the number of trips that will likely be diverted to parallel streets or alternatecorridors.Methodology

The SF-CHAMP travel demand forecasting model can take a snapshot of the trips crossing a specificintersection (screenline) at a particular time period, and produce a report of various attributes of those trips.

This analysis looks at the origins and destinations of all modeled vehicles at a specific Geary screenline duringthe PM peak. This feature, known as "select-link analysis," is useful for analyzing the travel patterns of theusers of a facility. Here, the actual origins and destinations of vehicles using Geary can be summarized todetermine how many of the trips using Geary have a destination on the corridor, versus how many trips arejust passing through.

For this analysis, the selected link is Geary Blvd at Divisadero Street. This section of Geary was chosenbecause it was far enough west to be close to the main project impacts (Masonic and Fillmore), while it wasfar enough east to still be representative of most of the traffic along Geary. The highest traffic volumes alongGeary Blvd occur between Laguna and Masonic.

Findings: Overall Tr ip Picture

Decrease in PM Peak Hour Volume on Geary at Divisadero Street 1200 100.0%

Traffic Diverted onto:

Parallel streets in corridor 330 28.3%

Transit or suppressed trips 110 9.4%

Parallel streets outside

corridor 730 62.3%

Table 6.13: Diversions at Divisadero St.


32/41


As reported in Section 6.2, when one lane of mixed traffic is removed in each direction from Geary, roadwayvolumes drop on Geary an average of 30%. This indicates that 70% of pre-project Geary traffic continues touse a facility that now has 67% of its former mixed traffic capacity.

The trips that divert off of Geary Blvd as a result of the project primarily divert to other streets in the Gearycorridor, as well as other corridors entirely, making use of San Franciscos grid system, as shown in Table6.13. See Figure 6.1 for a visual depiction of the diversions that result from the Geary project. This estimateof diversions activity is reasonable based on the current origin-destination patterns of trips using the Gearycorridor currently.

Figure 6.1. Trips Diverted from Geary Blvd, With-Project.

With the proposed conversion of a general purpose travel lanes (in each direction) to dedicated transit lanes,67% of mixed traffic capacity is retained. The SF Model suggests that 70% of the existing auto traffic willremain on Geary Blvd even after capacity reduction. This means that the model is projecting a diversion of30% of traffic off of Geary. SF-CHAMP shows that over 60% of the traffic might be diverted out of thecorridor altogether and almost 10% of auto trips may not occur at all.

West of Park Presidio, there are no significant traffic diversions since the BRT lanes can be accommodatedwithout converting regular traffic lanes. Some minor variations in traffic patterns are expected on individualstreets due to the likely need for some left-turn restrictions along Geary.

In summary, the amount of diversion is less than proportional to the amount of capacity removed, because:

Some drivers will switch to transit and walking;

Those who continue to drive may change the time of their trip to avoid peak hours;

Drivers avoid slow local streets with lots of stop signs; and

Geary will continue to be an attractive route for many drivers because the street will be optimized fortraffic flow and buses will be in a separate lane, out of the way of cars, though some drivers will optfor other parallel arterials.


33/41


6.10.Conclusions Roadway volumes drop along Geary an average of 30 percent (a factor of0.70). This means, in essence,

that 70 percent of the traffic previously on Geary now uses a facility which has 67 percent of its originalcapacity.

In both the side and center With Project alternatives, the absolute number of transit boardings and thetransit mode share both increase, on Geary itself and in the corridor.

The trips that divert off of Geary Blvd as a result of the project divert to other parallel streets in theGeary corridor, as well as other San Francisco corridors entirely.


34/41


Appendix A: Cross-street factors: No Project

Geary Intersection Approaches (PM)

2005 vol 2015 vol FACTOR

Van Ness NB 4853 5618 1.16

Van Ness 4853 5618

Van Ness SB 5286 5847 1.11

Van Ness 5286 5847

Franklin NB 11289 12292 1.09

Franklin 11289 12292

Gough SB 6863 7166 1.04

Gough 6863 7166

Laguna NB 623 686 1.10

Laguna 623 686

Laguna SB 824 858 1.04

Laguna 824 858

Webster, Fillmore, Steiner, Scott NB 3668 4123 1.12

Webster 2064 2486

Fillmore 410 468

Steiner 604 557

Scott 590 612

Webster, Fillmore, Steiner, Scott SB 5274 5564 1.05

Webster 2923 3090

Fillmore 769 808

Steiner 774 840

Scott 808 826

Divisadero NB 4065 4351 1.07

Divisadero 4065 4351

Divisadero SB 4607 4808 1.04


St Josephs, Lyon NB 864 894 1.03

St Josephs 845 845

Lyon 19 50

Broderick, Baker, Lyon SB 1561 1925 1.23

Broderick 553 693

Baker 714 763

Lyon 295 469

Presidio SB 1588 1769 1.11

Presidio 1588 1769


35/41


Masonic NB 4615 4741 1.03

Masonic 4615 4741

Masonic SB 6667 6777 1.02

Masonic 6667 6777

Collins, Blake, Cook, Spruce NB 774 787 1.02

Collins 290 262

Blake 23 29

Cook 3 3

Spruce 458 493

Collins, Blake, Cook, Spruce SB 1375 1410 1.03

Collins 696 725

Blake 23 29

Cook 0 0

Spruce 656 655

Parker, Beaumont, Stanyan NB 3826 4014 1.05

Parker 681 692

Beaumont 366 442

Stanyan 2779 2880

Parker, Commonwealth, Jordan, Palm SB 1576 1746 1.11

Parker 652 660

Commonwealth 536 615

Jordan 384 442

Palm 4 30

Arguello NB 1465 1490 1.02

Arguello 1465 1490

Arguello SB 956 1093 1.14

Arguello 956 1093

2nd, 3rd, 4th NB 1685 1671 0.99

2nd 541 603

3rd 598 545

4th 546 523

2nd, 3rd, 4th SB 1592 1671 1.05

2nd 541 594

3rd 556 600

4th 496 476

5th, 6th, 7th NB 1176 1495 1.27

5th 530 560

6th 288 425

7th 358 511

5th, 6th, 7th SB 1112 1373 1.23

5th 498 518


36/41


6th 482 511

7th 133 344

8th, 9th, 10th NB 1377 1630 1.18

8th 524 539

9th 448 567

10th 405 524

8th, 9th, 10th SB 1309 1298 0.99

8th 378 376

9th 490 468

10th 441 454

11th, 12th SB 1086 1052 0.97

11th 551 506

12th 535 546

11th, 12th NB 941 972 1.03

11th 453 458

12th 488 514

Funston, Park Presidio, 14th NB 6073 6525 1.07

Funston 571 557

Park Presidio 4964 5307

14th 539 662

Funston, Park Presidio, 14th SB 5271 5356 1.02

Funston 0 9


14th 2 11

15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th NB 1304 1657 1.27

15th 290 241

16th 240 294

17th 120 250

18th 22 138

19th 280 368

20th 1 0

21st 14 9

22nd 216 222

23rd 111 120

24th 10 14

15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th SB 829 1047 1.26

15th 310 399

16th 119 113

17th 132 133

18th 20 119

19th 79 73

20th 15 56

21st 1 3

22nd 130 131


37/41


23rd 0 1

24th 24 19

25th NB 2570 2748 1.07

25th 2570 2748

25th SB 2740 2852 1.04

25th 2740 2852

26th, 27th, 28th, 29th NB 2685 2599 0.97

26th 98 130

27th 105 89

28th 564 574

29th 12 13

30th 301 145

31st 234 346

32nd 439 562

33rd 163 252

34th 632 473

35th 138 14

36th 0 0

26th, 27th, 28th, 29th SB 1249 1857 1.49

26th 7 54

27th 7 6

28th 239 469

29th 0 0

30th 218 273

32nd 198 352

33rd 10 43

34th 4 19

35th 258 262

36th 307 380

Geary Intersection Approaches (MD)

2005 vol 2015 vol FACTOR

Van Ness NB 9704 10694 1.10

Van Ness 9704 10694

Van Ness SB 8415 8487 1.01

Van Ness 8415 8487

Franklin NB 11204 12047 1.08

Franklin 11204 12047

Gough SB 8565 9218 1.08

Gough 8565 9218


38/41


Laguna NB 933 999 1.07

Laguna 933 999

Laguna SB 987 986 1.00

Laguna 987 986

Webster, Fillmore, Steiner, Scott NB 6013 6286 1.05

Webster 3534 3705

Fillmore 793 825

Steiner 802 820

Scott 884 937

Webster, Fillmore, Steiner, Scott SB 6646 6818 1.03

Webster 3750 3893

Fillmore 947 984

Steiner 976 964

Scott 973 976

Divisadero NB 6480 6926 1.07


Divisadero SB 6594 6895 1.05


St Josephs, Lyon NB 1681 1717 1.02

St Josephs 955 964

Lyon 726 753

Broderick, Baker, Lyon SB 1980 1992 1.01

Broderick 746 741

Baker 854 858

Lyon 380 392

Presidio SB 2244 2398 1.07

Presidio 2244 2398

Masonic NB 6176 6574 1.06

Masonic 6176 6574

Masonic SB 7372 7676 1.04

Masonic 7372 7676

Collins, Blake, Cook, Spruce NB 771 802 1.04

Collins 369 400

Blake 71 84

Cook 17 0

Spruce 315 318

Collins, Blake, Cook, Spruce SB 1682 1756 1.04

Collins 832 854

Blake 71 84

Cook 0 0


39/41


Spruce 779 817

Parker, Beaumont, Stanyan NB 5652 5839 1.03

Parker 1598 1680

Beaumont 637 692

Stanyan 3417 3466

Parker, Commonwealth, Jordan, Palm SB 2899 3053 1.05

Parker 827 869

Commonwealth 802 826

Jordan 614 649

Palm 656 709

Arguello NB 2295 2451 1.07

Arguello 2295 2451

Arguello SB 1805 1921 1.06

Arguello 1805 1921

2nd, 3rd, 4th NB 2070 2187 1.06

2nd 695 724

3rd 669 704

4th 706 759

2nd, 3rd, 4th SB 2160 2293 1.06

2nd 756 800

3rd 754 800

4th 649 692

5th, 6th, 7th NB 2858 3134 1.10

5th 661 732

6th 1448 1582

7th 749 820

5th, 6th, 7th SB 2429 2587 1.06

5th 684 688

6th 1213 1295

7th 532 603

8th, 9th, 10th NB 3939 3977 1.01

8th 1565 1591

9th 788 764

10th 1586 1622

8th, 9th, 10th SB 3177 3435 1.08

8th 1264 1431

9th 589 627

10th 1324 1376

11th, 12th SB 1482 1574 1.06

11th 703 796

12th 779 777


40/41


11th, 12th NB 1177 1066 0.91

11th 581 512

12th 596 554

Funston, Park Presidio, 14th NB 9020 9669 1.07

Funston 902 823


14th 886 957

Funston, Park Presidio, 14th SB 7701 8178 1.06

Funston 160 246


14th 426 399

15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th NB 3858 4437 1.15

15th 823 870

16th 705 760

17th 707 724

18th 169 264

19th 219 347

20th 21 63

21st 229 259

22nd 586 620

23rd 296 349

24th 103 181

15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th SB 2721 3192 1.17

15th 313 371

16th 754 789

17th 524 545

18th 370 499

19th 309 377

20th 41 175

21st 39 44

22nd 231 237

23rd 115 133

24th 26 22

25th NB 2789 2848 1.02

25th 2789 2848

25th SB 2849 2912 1.02

25th 2849 2912

26th, 27th, 28th, 29th NB 3315 3781 1.14

26th 354 422

27th 274 322

28th 653 658

29th 352 493

30th 264 439

31st 208 144


41/41

32nd 639 703

33rd 93 83

34th 472 513

35th 5 3

36th 0 0

26th, 27th, 28th, 29th SB 3685 3837 1.04

26th 276 319

27th 393 415

28th 500 425

29th 15 12

30th 608 649

32nd 785 843

33rd 398 406

34th 56 81

35th 356 406

36th 299 283

Documents

Geary_App_D Perancangan Terminal Bus