Summary
AC TRANSIT EAST BAY BRT PROJECT S- 1
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Summary
The Alameda- Contra Costa Transit District ( AC Transit) proposes to implement the East Bay Bus
Rapid Transit ( BRT) Project, a 14.7- to 16.8- mile BRT line connecting Berkeley, Oakland, and San
Leandro. The project would include the following features:
• Dedicated bus lanes along arterial streets connecting Downtown Berkeley, the University of
California, Downtown Oakland, Downtown San Leandro, and the Bayfair Center in San Leandro;
• Transit signal priority treatments and signal coordination throughout the BRT project alignment;
• BRT service operating at 3.6- to 5.0- minute headways during peak periods;
• Stations spaced 1/ 4- to 1/ 2- mile apart ( wider spacing than local buses, comparable to light rail
service);
• Station features including: shelters, boarding platforms, benches, security features, fare machines,
real- time bus arrival information, and other amenities;
• Pre- paid ticketing and proof- of- payment fare verification and enforcement; and
• Low- floor, multi- door, low- emission BRT vehicles.
The proposed BRT service would be supported by the existing local bus network; bus routes along
the proposed BRT project alignment serve approximately 24,000 boardings a day— nearly 12 percent
of AC Transit’s total ridership.
The project location and vicinity are shown in Chapter 1, Figure 1.1- 1.
S. 1 Purpose and Need
Recognizing the importance of the Berkeley/ Oakland/ San Leandro transit corridor, AC Transit
proposes a project that is designed to:
• Improve transit service and better accommodate high existing bus ridership.
• Increase transit ridership by providing a viable and competitive transit alternative to the private
automobile.
• Improve and maintain efficiency of transit service delivery and lower AC Transit’s operating
costs per rider.
• Support local and regional planning goals to organize development along transit corridors and
around transit stations.
Meeting the four- fold project purpose described above would respond to the following corridor and
AC Transit needs:
• Improve transit schedule reliability and reduce transit travel times.
• Improve transit service efficiency by reducing AC Transit’s operating cost per rider.
Summary
S- 2 AC TRANSIT EAST BAY BRT PROJECT
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
• Enhance accessibility by public transit to jobs and corridor activity centers by expanding transit
capacity and making transit more competitive with the automobile.
• Improve boarding and alighting of buses and make transit more convenient for passengers with
disabilities or other mobility restrictions.
• Expand travel options and reduce reliance on automobile travel along the increasingly congested
roadways, thereby helping to improve the capacity and efficiency of the local transportation
network.
• Support transit- oriented residential and commercial development of the project corridor.
• Better serve low- income and transit- dependent populations.
S. 2 Project Alternatives
Various alternatives considered as part of this project were developed as part of the Alameda- Contra
Costa Transit District Major Investment Study ( MIS) conducted by AC Transit between 1999 and
2002. The MIS considered three modal alternatives: Light Rail Transit ( LRT), BRT, and Enhanced
Bus. The MIS concluded that the LRT was not cost- effective in the immediate future, while
Enhanced Bus did not generate sufficient levels of ridership to warrant further consideration. BRT
offered substantial gains in ridership at a lower cost than LRT. It was chosen as the mode for the
Locally Preferred Alternative ( LPA), with the understanding that LRT service would be considered
the long- term goal in the corridor. The MIS also considered two primary alignment alternatives, as
well as alignment variations to serve specific activity centers. The alignment proposed for the Build
Alternatives described in this Draft Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report
( DEIS/ DEIR) was identified as the LPA alignment on the basis of several evaluation factors,
principally ridership, engineering feasibility, and impacts including additional right- of- way
requirements. Further discussion of the vehicle/ mode and alignment alternatives and variations
considered in developing the strategy for the East Bay BRT Project is in Section 2.4, Alternatives
Considered and Withdrawn.
S. 2.1 No- Build Alternative
The No- Build Alternative includes all planned and programmed projects in the project corridor, as
described in Section 2.2.1, No- Build Alternative. The No- Build Alternative also includes low- cost
enhancements to bus services currently in operation in the study corridor and represents the best that
can be done to meet the basic project purpose without a major investment. Services that will be
improved as part of the No- Build Alternative include:
• Route 40/ 40L ( Telegraph Avenue/ Foothill Boulevard- Bancroft Avenue);
• Route 43 ( Shattuck Avenue- Telegraph Avenue); and
• Route 82/ 82L ( International Boulevard/ East 14th Street).
Capital and service enhancements to these routes would be carried out under AC Transit’s Rapid Bus
Program, which is the primary transit improvement planned and programmed for the proposed BRT
corridor. The following improvements will be carried out as part of this program:
• Addition of low- floor buses;
Summary
AC TRANSIT EAST BAY BRT PROJECT S- 3
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
• Improvements to bus stops ( benches, shelters, improved signage and mapping, bus arrival
information); and
• Transit signal priority.
The No- Build Alternative includes implementation of a new Rapid Bus route in the corridor, Route
1R ( replacing Route 40/ 40L in the north and Route 82L in the south). Route 1R will operate in
mixed- traffic lanes in a route that mostly follows the proposed Build Alternative. Rapid Bus stops
will be spaced approximately ½ - mile apart, and the route will operate at 12- minute peak period
headways. The proposed route is estimated to save 14 minutes of travel time compared to the current
bus travel time of 92 minutes between Berkeley and San Leandro. The service will be implemented
in early to mid- 2007, with incremental improvements as the service matures and ridership grows.
S. 2.2 Build Alternatives
S. 2.2.1 BRT Alignment
The BRT alignment would use primarily Telegraph Avenue in the northern portion of the corridor
and International Boulevard/ East 14th Street in the southern portion. The route would begin on
Shattuck Avenue in Downtown Berkeley, proceed east to the south side of the UC Berkeley campus,
and then continue on Telegraph Avenue to Downtown Oakland. It would turn onto 20th Street before
continuing southward on Broadway, and then would follow 11th Street ( southbound) and 12th Street
( northbound) to International Boulevard. The East Bay BRT would enter San Leandro on East 14th
Street, which is a continuation of International Boulevard. The southern terminus of the BRT service
would be either the BayFair BART station at the southern San Leandro boundary or the San Leandro
BART station just west of the city’s central business district.
Two operating plans are under consideration for bus services along the project alignment:
• Separate BRT and Local Service. Two services would operate along the project alignment. BRT
buses would operate along the BRT transitway; regular bus services would operate in adjacent
mixed- flow lanes as a supplemental service. BRT peak period headways would be five minutes
and stations would be spaced between 0.4 to 0.5 miles apart. Local bus peak period headways
would be 12 to 15 minutes and stops would be located at the curb, every two to three blocks.
• Combined BRT and Local Service Option. All bus service along the project alignment would be
operated along the BRT transitway— as express service. The only routes that would use mixed-flow
lanes would be those that operate along short segments of the alignment before continuing
onto other streets. Peak period BRT headways would be 3.6 minutes. Stations would be spaced
0.25 to 0.35 miles apart to be better- suited for local trips.
The various combinations of service operating plans and possible project termini in San Leandro
define the four Build Alternatives under consideration for the East Bay BRT Project:
Alt 1: Separate BRT and Local Service to BayFair BART ( 16.8 miles in length)
Alt 2: Separate BRT and Local Service to San Leandro BART ( 14.7 miles)
Alt 3: Combined BRT and Local Service to BayFair BART ( 16.8 miles)
Summary
S- 4 AC TRANSIT EAST BAY BRT PROJECT
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Alt 4: Combined BRT and Local Service to San Leandro BART ( 14.7 miles)
Several alignment variations are under consideration for each of the Build Alternatives in Downtown
Berkeley, Berkeley Southside, and the Eastlake District of East Oakland. Alignment variations are not
dependent upon the Build Alternative selected or upon the alignment variation selected in another
location. They are independent options for all Build Alternatives. Table S. 2- 1 summarizes the BRT
alignment variations, which are described in detail and depicted by alignment segment in Section
2.2.3, Build Alternative: Alignment Variations.
This DEIS/ DEIR describes the characteristics and potential environmental effects of each of the Build
Alternatives and their possible alignment variations.
S. 2.2.2 Transitway
The BRT transitway would typically consist of dedicated lanes for transit only. Other traffic with the
exception of emergency vehicles would be prohibited from using the transit way. Median transitways
would be 22 to 24 feet in width for two- directional travel and side- running transitways would be 11 to
12 feet in width for single direction travel. Transitways would be separated from mixed- flow traffic
lanes by a mountable curb. Along several roadways, transit lanes would be established by converting
mixed- flow traffic lanes to transit- only lanes. The main roadways where this is proposed include
Telegraph Avenue, from UC- Berkeley to 20th Street in Oakland; International Boulevard, from 1st
Avenue in Oakland to the Oakland/ San Leandro city limit; and, under Build Alternatives 1 and 3
only, East 14th Street from the Oakland/ San Leandro city limit to Bayfair Drive in San Leandro ( with
the exception of Downtown San Leandro where dedicated BRT lanes are not proposed). Chapter 2,
Project Alternatives, Section 2.2.2.3, provides detail on BRT alternatives and Figure 2.2- 9 and Figure
2.2- 10, show the limits of the alignment types.
S. 2.2.3 Stations
Depending on the Build Alternatives, BRT service would offer 31 to 51 stations ( see Section 2.2.2.3,
Figures 2.2- 3 through 6 and Table 2.2- 3). Alternatives offering combined BRT and local service
( Alternatives 3 and 4) would have more stations per mile than alternatives offering separate BRT and
local service ( Alternatives 1 and 2). BRT stations typically would be 60 feet in length, with passenger
access ramps connecting to crosswalks at nearby intersections. In limited segments along the
alignment, such as Downtown Berkeley, Berkeley Southside, and Downtown Oakland, where local
service would also operate along the BRT transitway, station platforms would be extended to 120 feet
to accommodate two buses.
All BRT stations would feature lighted platforms that allow convenient boarding of buses. Stations
would include:
• Ticket vending machines and validators;
• Passenger information kiosks with passive and active data display ( maps, schedules) and audio
capability for information such as actual bus- arrival time;
• Windscreens and steel tube- framed canopy shelters with benches;
• ADA- compliant features and facilities;
• Telephones/ intercoms at all major transfer stations; and,
• Tactile warning strips along platform edges.
Summary
AC TRANSIT EAST BAY BRT PROJECT S- 5
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Table S. 2- 1: Summary of BRT Alignment and Alignment Variations
Segment Alignment / Variations Description
Two Alignment Variations Are Under Consideration
Two- Way Transitway via Shattuck
Avenue
Two- way transitway with dedicated lanes in median of Shattuck Avenue.
Downtown Berkeley Segment
University Avenue to Bancroft
Way/ Durant Avenue
One- Way Transitway via Shattuck
Avenue- Oxford Street Loop
One- way transitway loop running clockwise on Bancroft Way, Shattuck Avenue,
University Avenue, and Oxford Street/ Fulton Street. Side- running transitways on
Bancroft Way and Oxford/ Fulton streets; Shattuck and University Avenues would use
combination of median- running, single- lane transitways and mixed- flow lanes.
Four Alignment Variations Are Under Consideration
Two- Way Transitway via Bancroft Way
and Two- Way Transitway via
Telegraph Avenue
Bancroft Way: two- way operations in a dedicated transitway or in mixed- flow lanes.
Telegraph Avenue, Bancroft Way to Haste Street: transit/ pedestrian zone restricted
during daytime hours to transit vehicles and access by delivery vehicles only.
Telegraph Avenue, Haste Street to Dwight Way: shared transitway northbound and
bus- only lane southbound.
Two- Way Transitway via Bancroft Way
and One- Way Transitway via
Telegraph Avenue- Dana Street
Couplet
Bancroft Way from Oxford Street/ Fulton Street to Dana Street: two- way operations in
a dedicated transitway or in mixed- flow lanes.
Dana Street from Bancroft Way to Dwight Way: southbound, side running, single lane
transitway, proceeding to eastbound single lane transitway on Dwight Way.
Telegraph Avenue, Bancroft Way from Dana Street to Dwight Way: side- running,
single- lane transitway in northbound/ westbound direction adjacent a single mixed- flow
traffic lane.
One- Way Transitway via Bancroft
Way- Durant Avenue Couplet and
Two- Way Transitway via Telegraph
Avenue
One- way couplet of Bancroft Way and Durant Avenue west of Telegraph Avenue.
Side- running, single- lane transitways on both of these streets.
Telegraph Avenue: Two- way transitway south of Durant Avenue; Transit/ pedestrian
zone along Telegraph between Bancroft Way and Haste Street.
Berkeley Southside Segment
Oxford Street/ Fulton Street to
Dwight Way
One- Way Transitway via Bancroft
Way- Durant Avenue and Telegraph
Avenue- Dana Street Couplets
One- way couplets of side- running, single- lane transitways as described in previous
variations.
Summary
S- 6 AC TRANSIT EAST BAY BRT PROJECT
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Table S. 2- 1: Summary of BRT Alignment and Alignment Variations
Segment Alignment / Variations Description
Berkeley– North Telegraph
Avenue Segment
Telegraph Avenue/ Dwight Way
to Berkeley/ Oakland city limit
One Alignment: Telegraph Avenue Two- way median transitway along entire segment.
North Oakland/ Downtown
Oakland Segment
Berkeley/ Oakland city limit to
Broadway at 11th/ 12th Streets
One Alignment: Telegraph Avenue to
20th Street ( Thomas Berkley Way),
20th Street from Telegraph to
Broadway, Broadway from 20th Street
to 11th Street
Two- way median transitway along entire segment of Telegraph Avenue.
Side- running transitway in each direction along 20th Street between Telegraph Avenue
and Broadway.
Mixed- flow operations along Broadway
Downtown Oakland/ Lake
Merritt Segment
Broadway to 1st Avenue
One Alignment: 11th Street
southbound and 12th Street
northbound between Broadway and
Oak Street, 12th Street from Oak
Street to 1st Avenue
Side- running transitway along couplet of 11th Street southbound and 12th Street
northbound between Broadway and Oak Street
Mixed- flow operations along 12th Street crossing the Lake Merritt estuary from Oak
Street to 1st Avenue
Two Alignments Variations Are Under Consideration
Two- Way Transitway via International
Boulevard
Two side- running transitways next to the parking lanes on International Boulevard.
Oakland– Eastlake District
Segment
1st Avenue to 14th Avenue
One- Way Transitway via International
Boulevard- 12th Street Couplet
One- way transitways in the median of 12th Street ( southbound) and International
Boulevard ( northbound); BRT lane on 14th Avenue between 12th St. and International.
East Oakland Segment
14th Avenue to Oakland/ San
Leandro city limit
One Alignment: International
Boulevard
Two- way transitway in the median of International Boulevard.
Alternatives 1 and 3, One
Alignment: East 14th Street, Bayfair
Drive and BayFair BART access road
East 14th Street: Two- way median transitway from city limit to Davis Street, mixed-flow
lanes from Davis Street to Blossom Way, two- way median transitway from
Blossom Way to Bayfair Drive
Bayfair Drive and BayFair BART access road to terminus at BayFair BART Station:
median transitway along BayFair Drive transitions to mixed flow.
San Leandro Segment
Oakland/ San Leandro city limit
to BayFair BART or San
Leandro BART
Alternatives 2 and 4, One
Alignment: East 14th Street, Davis
Street and San Leandro Boulevard to
San Leandro BART
Mixed- flow lanes along East 14th Street, Davis Street, and San Leandro Boulevard,
terminating at the San Leandro BART Station.
Summary
AC TRANSIT EAST BAY BRT PROJECT S- 7
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
A station normally would include both southbound and northbound platforms. Southbound is defined as
proceeding from Berkeley to Oakland to San Leandro and northbound as proceeding from San Leandro
to Oakland to Berkeley. BRT platforms would be placed either in the roadway median or along the curb,
depending on the type of transitway.
Median platforms would serve transitways constructed in the middle of the street, while curbside
platforms would serve transitways running along the right or outside lane. A median station would have
two 10- foot- wide platforms, one serving each direction of travel. All stations would be on the right side
of the transitway for right- side vehicle boarding. Curbside platforms would be integrated into existing
sidewalks and pedestrian plazas and would extend outward from the curb approximately eight feet to
serve BRT vehicles operating in the right or outside travel lane. At some of these locations, existing
parking lanes would be displaced. All BRT platforms would be a minimum of 10 inches above the top
of the street pavement at the platform edge, allowing convenient passenger loading and unloading of
low- floor buses.
S. 2.2.4 Other Elements
The standard BRT vehicle would be a 60- foot articulated bus, similar to the Van Hool coach currently in
AC Transit’s fleet. Low- floor buses would allow passengers to board and alight more quickly. Off-board,
proof- of- payment fare collection with on- station ticket vending machines would eliminate the
delay associated with on- board fare collection and allow passengers to board and alight from any door on
the vehicle. Advanced transit signal priority, where the green phase of a traffic signal could be extended
for BRT vehicles, would minimize stopped delay at intersections. These features of the East Bay BRT
Project would result in faster, more reliable transit service.
Stations would display and announce bus arrival information. Schedule and other system information
would also be available on the internet.
S. 3 Transportation Impacts
S. 3.1 Changes to Corridor Transit Services with Proposed Build Alternatives
Table S. 3- 1 summarizes the changes to the AC Transit bus routes currently providing service along the
study corridor. Route 1R will be implemented as part of the No- Build Alternative. Under the Build
Alternatives, Route 1R would be replaced with East Bay BRT service, which would provide more
frequent headways than Route 1R. No major changes to BART, San Leandro Links, Emery Go- Round,
UC Berkeley Bear Transit, AirBART, or paratransit services are planned under any of the Build
Alternatives, although minor schedule adjustments may be made in response to shifts in ridership
demand.
Tables S. 3- 2a through S. 3- 2d summarize proposed changes in bus service along the project alignment
with implementation of each of the Build Alternatives. AC Transit would replace certain routes with new
BRT service and modify other routes to ensure convenient connections to BRT service. However, the
overall levels of bus service ( revenue hours and miles operated daily) in the project corridor and within
each city along the corridor would not be reduced from the No- Build condition.
Summary
S- 8 AC TRANSIT EAST BAY BRT PROJECT
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Table S. 3- 1: Proposed AC Transit Service in the Project Corridor ( No- Build Alternative)
Weekday Headway in Minutes Weekend Headway in Minutes
Segment Route Stops
Peak
Travel
Time ( min) Peak Midday Evening Owl Peak Midday Evening Owl
1R 8 14 12 15 20 n/ a1 15 15 20 n/ a1
40/ 40L2 Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced
Downtown Berkeley
to Shattuck Avenue/
Telegraph Avenue
“ Line X” 3 24- 27 20 15 15 20 60 20 20 20 60
1R 5 12 12 15 20 n/ a1 15 15 20 n/ a1
40/ 40L4 Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced
Shattuck Avenue/
Telegraph Avenue
to Downtown
Oakland 43 16 13 15 15 20 60 20 20 20 60
1R 17 36 12 15 20 n/ a1 15 15 20 n/ a1
82 53 47 12 15 20 60 15 15 20 60
Downtown Oakland
to Downtown San
Leandro
82L5 Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced
1R 5 15 12 15 20 n/ a1 15 15 20 n/ a1
82 15- 16 17 12 15 20 60 15 15 20 60
Downtown San
Leandro to BayFair
BART Station
82L5 Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced
Notes:
1 Not Applicable ( does not operate).
2 Route 40/ 40L local bus service between Downtown Berkeley and the Shattuck Avenue/ Telegraph Avenue would be replaced by “ Line X” local bus service.
3 “ Line X” would replace Route 40/ 40L local bus service between Downtown Berkeley and Shattuck Avenue/ Telegraph Avenue, possibly as an extension of another
AC Transit route.
4 Route 40/ 40L local bus service between the Shattuck Avenue/ Telegraph Avenue and Downtown Oakland would be replaced by Route 1R Rapid Bus service.
5 Route 82L bus service between Downtown Oakland and the BayFair BART Station would be eliminated and replaced by Route 1R Rapid Bus Service.
Source: AC Transit Technical Memorandum: East Bay BRT EIS/ EIR Operating Plan and Cost Analysis, November 2005, by Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates.
Summary
AC TRANSIT EAST BAY BRT PROJECT S- 9
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Table S. 3- 2a: Proposed AC Transit Service: Alt 1 Separate BRT and Local Service to BayFair BART ( 2025)
Weekday Headway in Minutes Weekend Headway in Minutes
Segment Route Stops
Peak Travel
Time ( min) Peak Midday Evening Owl Peak Midday Evening Owl
East Bay BRT
( Replaces 1R) 8 10 5 7.5 20 n/ a 15 15 20 n/ a
40/ 40L2 Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced
Downtown Berkeley
to Shattuck Avenue/
Telegraph Avenue
“ Line X” 1 24- 27 24 15 15 20 60 20 20 20 60
East Bay BRT 5 9 5 7.5 20 n/ a 15 15 20 n/ a
40/ 40L2 Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced
Shattuck Avenue/
Telegraph Avenue
to Downtown
Oakland 43 16 16 15 15 20 60 20 20 20 60
East Bay BRT 17 26 5 7.5 20 n/ a 15 15 20 n/ a
82 53 53 12 15 20 60 15 15 20 60
Downtown Oakland
to Downtown San
Leandro 82L2 Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced
East Bay BRT 5 13 5 7.5 20 n/ a 15 15 20 n/ a
82 15- 16 20 12 15 20 60 15 15 20 60
Downtown San
Leandro to BayFair
BART Station 82L2 Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced
Notes:
1 This segment could operate as the extension of some other AC Transit route.
2 This segment would be replaced with implementation of Rapid Bus Route 1R service ( No- Build). East Bay BRT service replaces Route 1R.
Source: AC Transit Technical Memorandum: East Bay BRT Operating Plan and Cost Analysis, November 2005, by Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates
Summary
S- 10 AC TRANSIT EAST BAY BRT PROJECT
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Table S. 3- 2b: Proposed AC Transit Service: Alt 2 Separate BRT and Local Service to San Leandro BART ( 2025)
Weekday Headway in Minutes Weekend Headway in Minutes
Segment Route Stops
Peak Travel
Time ( min) Peak Midday Evening Owl Peak Midday Evening Owl
East Bay BRT
( Replaces 1R) 8 10 5 7.5 20 n/ a 15 15 20 n/ a
40/ 40L2 Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced
Downtown Berkeley
to Shattuck Avenue/
Telegraph Avenue
“ Line X” 1 24- 27 24 15 15 20 60 20 20 20 60
East Bay BRT 5 9 5 7.5 20 n/ a 15 15 20 n/ a
40/ 40L2 Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced
Shattuck Avenue/
Telegraph Avenue
to Downtown
Oakland 43 16 16 15 15 20 60 20 20 20 60
East Bay BRT 18 33 5 7.5 20 n/ a 15 15 20 n/ a
82 53 53 12 15 20 60 15 15 20 60
Downtown Oakland
to Downtown San
Leandro 82L2 Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced
" Line Y" 1 5 15 12 15 20 n/ a 15 15 20 n/ a
82 15- 16 17 12 15 20 60 15 15 20 60
Downtown San
Leandro to BayFair
BART Station 82L2 Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced
Notes:
1 This segment could operate as the extension of some other AC Transit route.
2 This segment would be replaced with implementation of Route 1R Rapid Bus Service ( No- Build). East Bay BRT service replaces Route 1R.
Source: AC Transit Technical Memorandum: East Bay BRT Operating Plan and Cost Analysis, November 2005, by Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates
Summary
AC TRANSIT EAST BAY BRT PROJECT S- 11
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Table S. 3- 2c: Proposed AC Transit Service: Alt 3 Combined BRT and Local Service to BayFair BART ( 2025)
Weekday Headway in Minutes Weekend Headway in Minutes
Segment Route Stops Peak Travel
Time ( min) Peak Midday Evening Owl Peak Midday Evening Owl
East Bay BRT
( Replaces 1R) 10 11 3.6 5 10 60 8 8 10 60
40/ 40L1 Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced
Downtown Berkeley
to Shattuck Avenue/
Telegraph Avenue
“ Line X” Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced
East Bay BRT 7 10 3.6 5 10 60 8 8 10 60
40/ 40L1 Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced
Shattuck Avenue/
Telegraph Avenue
to Downtown
Oakland 43 16 16 15 15 20 n/ a 20 20 20 n/ a
East Bay BRT 26 30 3.6 5 10 60 8 8 10 60
82 Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced
Downtown Oakland
to Downtown San
Leandro 82L1 Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced
East Bay BRT 8 14 3.6 5 10 60 8 8 10 60
82 Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced
Downtown San
Leandro to BayFair
BART Station 82L1 Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced
Notes:
1 This segment would be replaced with implementation of Route 1R Rapid Bus Service ( No- Build). East Bay BRT service replaces Route 1R.
Source: AC Transit Technical Memorandum: East Bay BRT Operating Plan and Cost Analysis, November 2005, by Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates
Summary
S- 12 AC TRANSIT EAST BAY BRT PROJECT
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Table S. 3- 2d: Proposed AC Transit Service: Alt 4 Combined BRT and Local Service to San Leandro BART ( 2025)
Weekday Headway in Minutes Weekend Headway in Minutes
Segment Route Stops Peak Travel
Time ( min) Peak Midday Evenin
g Owl Peak Midday Evenin
g Owl
East Bay BRT
( Replaces 1R) 10 11 3.6 5 10 60 8 8 10 60
40/ 40L2 Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced
Downtown Berkeley
to Shattuck Avenue/
Telegraph Avenue
“ Line X” Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced
East Bay BRT 7 10 3.6 5 10 60 8 8 10 60
40/ 40L2 Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced
Shattuck Avenue/
Telegraph Avenue to
Downtown Oakland 43 16 16 15 15 20 n/ a 20 20 20 n/ a
East Bay BRT 27 36 3.6 5 10 60 8 8 10 60
82 Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced
Downtown Oakland
to Downtown San
Leandro 82L2 Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced
" Line Y" 1 5 15 12 15 20 n/ a 15 15 20 n/ a
" Line Z" 1 15- 16 17 12 15 20 60 15 15 20 60
82 Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced
Downtown San
Leandro to BayFair
BART Station
82L2 Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced Replaced
Notes:
1 This segment could operate as the extension of some other AC Transit route.
2 This segment would be replaced with implementation of Route 1R Rapid Bus Service ( No- Build). East Bay BRT service replaces Route 1R.
Source: AC Transit Technical Memorandum: East Bay BRT Operating Plan and Cost Analysis, November 2005, by Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates
Summary
AC TRANSIT EAST BAY BRT PROJECT S- 13
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
S. 3.2 Transit Performance
Table S. 3- 3 summarizes the changes in selected patronage and quality of transit service parameters under
the No- Build Alternative and Build Alternatives.
All Build Alternatives would represent a major improvement in transit service and patronage compared
to No- Build conditions. The Build Alternatives would:
• Increase corridor ridership by 56 to 76 percent;
• Reduce peak period transit travel times by 22 to 36 percent compared to existing transit travel times;
• Reduce peak period transit travel times by 8 to 24 percent compared to the No- Build Alternative;
• Increase corridor average peak period transit travel speeds by 28 to 55 percent compared to existing
conditions; and,
• Increase corridor average peak period transit travel speeds by 8 to 31 percent compared to the No-
Build Alternative.
Build Alternatives that offer Combined BRT and Local Service ( Alternatives 3 and 4) would generate
higher ridership than Build Alternatives that offer separate BRT and local service ( Alternatives 1 and 2).
The different BRT alignment variations in Downtown Berkeley ( two variations possible), Berkeley
Southside ( four), and East Oakland ( two) would not produce major differences in travel times or
ridership.
S. 3.3 Traffic Impacts
Traffic impacts along the study corridor with and without the Build Alternatives were evaluated at 36
intersections in the morning peak and 88 intersections in the afternoon peak. Intersections and roadway
segments were identified for evaluation in consultation with the Alameda County Congestion
Management Agency ( ACCMA) and the Cities of Berkeley, Oakland, and San Leandro and were
Table S. 3- 3: Summary of Performance of No- Build and Build Alternatives
Criterion
Existing
Conditions
2025
No- Build
Alt 1
Separate BRT
and Local
Service to
BayFair BART
Alt 2
Separate BRT
and Local
Service to San
Leandro BART
Alt 3
Combined BRT
and Local
Service to
BayFair BART
Alt 4
Combined BRT
and Local
Service to San
Leandro BART
Average Weekday Boardings
Along BRT Alignment 23,190 28,050 43,750 42,050
49,230
47,540
Increase in Regionwide Trips
( Compared to No- Build) N/ A N/ A 5,320 4,580 9,320 8,020
Peak Period Transit Travel
Times: Downtown Berkeley to
BayFair BART Station
( minutes)
92 78 59 66 66 72
Peak Period Average Travel
Speeds ( mph) 10.9 12.9 16.9 15.1 15.2 13.9
Summary
S- 14 AC TRANSIT EAST BAY BRT PROJECT
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
analyzed in accordance with ACCMA and City of Oakland criteria. 1 Thresholds of significance and
significance of impacts before and after feasible mitigations are applied are presented in Chapter 6,
California Environmental Quality Act Evaluation.
As a result of the operational analysis, it was determined that, under the Build Alternatives:
• Seven to eight roadway segments would experience degradation in operations exceeding established
level of service ( LOS) criteria during the afternoon peak.
• Four to six intersections would experience degradation in operations exceeding LOS and vehicle
delay thresholds during the morning peak; and
• Twenty- one to 26 intersections would experience degradation in operations exceeding LOS and
vehicle delay thresholds during the afternoon peak.
The majority of these impacts would be mitigated to acceptable levels. Effective mitigation of traffic
impacts at the following four intersections would require substantial acquisition of additional right- of-way,
which would have severe impacts on the developed urban environment through which the proposed
BRT corridor would run. Such mitigation was deemed impractical.
• Fulton Street/ Bancroft Way in Berkeley. Under the One- way Transitway via Shattuck
Avenue- Oxford Street alignment variation, impacts would occur during both the morning and
afternoon peak hours. This impact would be avoided by selecting a different alignment variation for
this alignment segment. Impacts would be mitigated to below threshold levels under all other BRT
alignment variations in this segment.
• Telegraph Avenue/ Alcatraz Avenue in Oakland. An impact exceeding threshold would occur during
the afternoon peak hour.
• International Boulevard/ High Street in Oakland. An impact exceeding threshold would occur during
the afternoon peak hour.
• San Leandro/ High Street in Oakland. An impact exceeding the threshold would occur during the
afternoon peak hour.
Traffic impacts and proposed mitigation measures are described in Section 3.2.4, Avoidance,
Minimization and/ or Mitigation Measures.
S. 3.4 Pedestrian Impacts
The Build Alternatives would improve the pedestrian environment in the corridor in two major ways:
• Slowing or reducing traffic along the BRT alignment segments with BRT lanes would make
these streets more desirable as walking areas. The presence of BRT stations ( both curbside and
median) and their associated crosswalks would act as traffic calming devices, improving the safety of
pedestrian crossings in the corridor.
• Under some of the alignment variations under consideration in Berkeley, creation of a
pedestrian/ transit zone along Telegraph Avenue in an area noted for its high volumes of
1 With the concurrence of Berkeley and San Leandro, City of Oakland traffic impact criteria were used for all
intersection level of service analyses.
Summary
AC TRANSIT EAST BAY BRT PROJECT S- 15
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
pedestrians would enhance pedestrian conditions and benefit the many pedestrian- oriented retail
activities in the area.
The Build Alternatives would not change existing sidewalks except at locations where existing curbs or
curb bulb- outs would have to be removed or cut back to accommodate BRT station platforms or to
construct a BRT lane along the curb. In these cases, locally established minimum sidewalk widths would
be maintained, and the benefits of BRT stations and lanes cited above would offset the impacts of
sidewalk narrowing to pedestrian comfort and safety. No mitigation measures are proposed for these
impacts. Sidewalks along Telegraph Avenue between Dwight Way and Bancroft Way, which are used
by street merchants holding permits from the City of Berkeley, would not be narrowed.
S. 3.5 Bicycle Impacts
In general, the East Bay BRT Project would improve accessibility for bicycles and the overall
environment for bicycling in the corridor. BRT stations would be designed to allow level boarding of
bicycles and BRT vehicles could include bicycle racks. Street redesign to accommodate the BRT
transitway and stations, including removing a lane of traffic in each direction along Telegraph Avenue
and International Boulevard, would tend to slow traffic speeds and improve the bicycle friendliness of
the street.
The East Bay BRT Project would require minor modifications to the bike lane along Telegraph Avenue,
from Dwight Way in Berkeley to SR 24 in Oakland, to accommodate proposed traffic and transit lane
improvements. These modifications would occur primarily through intersections and where BRT stations
are located. These modifications would apply accepted standards for bicycle crossings at intersections
and would not degrade the quality of bicycle access. Project modifications would be needed to
accommodate the City of Oakland’s planned Telegraph Avenue Bicycle Lane; see Section 3.3.2, Bicycle
Conditions, and Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts.
No mitigation measures for bicycle traffic impacts are proposed. AC Transit would continue to
coordinate with corridor cities on the integration of bike and bus facilities.
S. 3.6 Parking Impacts
Existing on- street parking would be preserved along most portions of the alignment. Parking spaces
would need to be removed in station areas and at signalized intersections with dedicated left- turn lanes.
Existing bicycle lanes would be preserved along most portions of the alignment, except at station areas
and at signalized intersections. Table S. 3- 4 summarizes parking conditions, impacts, and proposed
mitigation for parking impacts under the Build Alternatives. A full discussion of localized impacts to
parking is provided in Section 3.4, Parking.
An estimated 7,056 curb parking spaces were surveyed along the project alignment. Spaces included
those on roadways under consideration for BRT improvements and on cross streets in major commercial
areas. About 70 percent of all spaces were occupied during the periods when parking surveys were
conducted. The East Bay BRT Project would displace from 945 to 1,300 of the spaces. This amounts to
about 13 to 18 percent of existing supply. The most spaces would be displaced in Oakland, with
Summary
S- 16 AC TRANSIT EAST BAY BRT PROJECT
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
approximately 750 to 785 spaces removed, followed by Berkeley, with approximately 180 to 315 spaces
removed, and then San Leandro, with 15 to 200 spaces removed.
The range in displacements depends upon the Build Alternatives and associated alignment variation.
Alternatives 1 and 3 would have somewhat higher displacements than Alternatives 2 and 4. The latter
alternatives displace fewer spaces because they would terminate improvements at San Leandro BART
and operate in mixed- flow lanes. Alternatives 1 and 3 continue to BayFair BART largely in dedicated
transit lanes and would displace additional parking near station areas and where left- turn lanes are
retained. The selection of alignment variation would affect total parking displacements somewhat but
would not be a distinguishing factor among the Build Alternatives. 2
The East Bay BRT Project proposes to mitigate parking impacts by either replacing a portion of the
spaces displaced or by converting remaining spaces to metered or time- restricted parking to ensure there
are adequate parking opportunities in commercial districts. Depending upon the Build Alternatives and
alignment variation, from 187 to 318 spaces along the proposed East Bay BRT Project alignment would
be replaced, metered or otherwise restricted to better serve commercial uses. Spaces currently designated
for residential use would not be affected. The number of spaces proposed for mitigation would range
from approximately 16 to 29 percent of total spaces displaced.
2 Alignment variations are independent from individual Build Alternatives ( i. e., all alignment variations are
possible options for each Build Alternative).
Summary
AC TRANSIT EAST BAY BRT PROJECT S- 17
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Table S. 3- 4: Summary of Build Alternative Parking Impacts and Proposed Mitigation by Major Area
Parking Supply
Geographic Area Total
Spaces
Total Occupied
( weekday p. m.)
Total Parking Displaced
( Number / % of Supply) 1
Spaces Proposed for
Mitigation ( Number / % of
Displaced Parking) 1
Mitigation Measure2
Downtown Berkeley ( Area 1)
( University Avenue to Bancroft Way/ Durant
Avenue)
272 206 76% 19– 54 7%– 20% 0– 20 0%– 37% Replace with New
Parking
Berkeley Southside ( Area 2)
( Oxford/ Fulton Street to Dwight Way) 328 270 82% 15– 116 5%– 35% 7– 101 32%– 87% Replace with New
Parking
Berkeley: Telegraph Avenue North ( Area 3)
( Dwight Way to Berkeley- Oakland city limit) 577 433 75% 142– 146 25%– 25% 65– 70 46%– 48% Meter / Restrict
Substitute Spaces
North Oakland and Downtown Oakland
( Areas 4- 8) ( Berkeley- Oakland city limit to
Broadway at 11th/ 12th Street)
2,257 1,567 69% 303– 311 13%– 14% 25– 36 8%– 12% Meter / Restrict
Substitute Spaces
Downtown Oakland/ Lake Merritt and East
Oakland ( Areas 9- 14)
( Broadway to Oakland- San Leandro city limit)
2,981 2,050 69% 445– 475 15%– 16% 82– 107 17%– 23% Meter / Restrict
Substitute Spaces
San Leandro ( Areas 15- 18)
( Oakland- San Leandro city limit to BayFair
BART)
641 327 51% 14– 200 2%– 31% 0– 0 0%– 0% No Mitigation Proposed
Total 7,056 4,853 69% 945– 1,3003 13%– 18% 190– 3203 16%– 29%
Notes:
1 The ranges reflect the minimum and maximum for the four Build Alternatives and the alignment variations under consideration.
2 Parking to be replaced in Downtown Berkeley and Berkeley Southside by participating in city and UC Berkeley parking projects; metered/ restricted parking to be
expanded in other areas where mitigation is proposed.
3 Totals are rounded.
Source: Parsons, 2005
Summary
S- 18 AC TRANSIT EAST BAY BRT PROJECT
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
S. 4 Affected Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Table S. 4- 1 summarizes the long- term environmental impacts of the Build Alternatives other than traffic
and parking, and identifies the proposed avoidance, minimization and/ or mitigation measures for each
impact. A detailed description of the impacts and mitigation measures for each impact category is
presented in Chapter 4.
Table S. 4- 1: Summary of Build Alternatives Long- Term Impacts and
Proposed Mitigation Measures
Impact Category Impacts of Build Alternatives1
Proposed Avoidance,
Compensation and
Minimization Measures
Long- Term Impacts
Land Use Proposed project would not result in conversion of existing
land to transportation uses. Project would support
intensified corridor development that is consistent with
regional Smart Growth and transit- oriented development
policies rather than contribute to land use changes. Land
use benefits would tend to focus on the downtown centers
where densities are highest and there is the greatest
potential for more intensified land use development.
None required.
Growth Inducement Project would support infill growth strategies of corridor
cities and would be consistent with regional Smart Growth
policies and transit- oriented development objectives that
call for the development of higher- density, mixed- use
activity nodes around rapid transit stations and along
major transit corridors in the region.
None required.
Agricultural/
Farmland Impacts
There are no agricultural lands present in the project
corridor and no impacts to agricultural lands.
None required.
Community
Impacts
The Build Alternatives would result in community cohesion
benefits as station areas would provide focal points for
community activity and development. The project would
be constructed on existing roadways; it would not disrupt
community cohesion.
The Build Alternatives would improve access to
community facilities, which would benefit corridor
communities. No community facilities would be displaced
or moved under the Build Alternatives.
Low- income and minority populations in the corridor would
benefit from the improved transit access. There would be
no outstanding Environmental Justice issues with the
proposed Build Alternatives.
None required.
Summary
AC TRANSIT EAST BAY BRT PROJECT S- 19
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Table S. 4- 1: Summary of Build Alternatives Long- Term Impacts and
Proposed Mitigation Measures
Impact Category Impacts of Build Alternatives1
Proposed Avoidance,
Compensation and
Minimization Measures
Utilities The Build Alternatives would not create new demands on
water supply, stormwater, or wastewater infrastructure.
Build Alternatives may require relocation of underground
utilities in areas of major improvements ( e. g. stations) and
where maintenance activities would conflict with BRT
operations. Utilities that pose potential conflicts with the
BRT project are identified in Tables 4.5- 1 and 4.5- 2.
Relocation of parallel utilities under the BRT transitway is
not planned.
Temporary utility impacts would occur during construction,
as described in Table S. 4- 2.
During detailed design of the East Bay
BRT project, AC Transit would
coordinate closely with utility providers
to ensure that all existing utilities are
identified and to develop utility
relocation plans. Initial plans showing
utility locations, potential conflicts, and
proposed relocations and improvements
would be developed during preliminary
engineering and preparation of the final
EIS/ EIR for the East Bay BRT Project,
and then further refined during final
design.
Visual/ Aesthetics In general, the visual quality of the corridor would change
only where landscaping or streetscape elements would be
removed to accommodate the BRT stations or transitway.
Some streetscape elements in Downtown Berkeley and
Fruitvale would be removed under all Build Alternatives. A
public art structure at the Shattuck Square west sidewalk
would be relocated under all Build Alternatives when
operating two- way along Shattuck Avenue. The City of
San Leandro monument near Durant Avenue could be
affected and require relocation under Alternatives 1 and 3
only.
The Build Alternatives would be
designed to include streetscape
elements similar to those being
removed.
Station amenities would be designed in
accordance with urban design
guidelines and in coordination with the
cities of Berkeley, Oakland, and San
Leandro.
The BRT Transitway would be
reclassified and East 14th Street
widened to avoid impacts to the City of
San Leandro monument.
Archaeological
Resources
The Build Alternatives would be constructed largely on the
surface of existing streets and sidewalks and disturbance
of existing pavement would not extend below levels
previously disturbed; therefore, the potential for impacts to
archaeological resources is extremely low.
An archeologist would monitor
construction work in sensitive locations
identified in the Site Treatment Plan for
the Alameda- Contra Costa Transit
District’s East Bay Rapid Transit Project
in Berkeley, Oakland, and San Leandro.
If buried cultural materials are
encountered during construction, work
would stop and measures would be
taken as specified in Section 4.16.6,
Cultural Resources, within Section 4.16,
Construction Impacts.
Historic Resources No historic properties would be altered or destroyed for
the Build Alternatives. The proposed project would not
result in noise or vibration impacts to historic properties.
Changes to the setting of eligible historic resources would
be in keeping with the dense, urban setting of the area
and would not substantially alter features of the properties
that render them eligible for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places or the California Register of Historic
Places.
None required.
Summary
S- 20 AC TRANSIT EAST BAY BRT PROJECT
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Table S. 4- 1: Summary of Build Alternatives Long- Term Impacts and
Proposed Mitigation Measures
Impact Category Impacts of Build Alternatives1
Proposed Avoidance,
Compensation and
Minimization Measures
Section 4( f)
[ 49 U. S. C. Section
303]
This provision of the Department of Transportation Act of
1966 ( DOT Act), and its amendments, is intended to
preserve the beauty and integrity of publicly owned public
parks, recreational areas and wildlife refuges, and historic
sites ( cultural resources) considered to have national,
state, or local significant. The East Bay BRT project would
not adversely affect any “ Section 4( f)” resource
temporarily or long term with the possible exception of
cultural sites that may be encountered during construction.
The State Historic Preservation Officer in a letter to the
federal transit administration, dated March 15, 2006,
concurred with this determination.
None required except as noted above.
Proposed improvements would not
disrupt, displace or otherwise adversely
affect known resources.
Floodplain/
Hydrology
The Build Alternatives would cross creeks, channels, and
canals on existing bridges in areas that are fully
developed; therefore, impacts or encroachments on these
bodies of water are not anticipated. No encroachments or
impacts to the floodplain are anticipated as a result of the
Build Alternatives.
None required.
Water Quality/
Stormwater
No special requirements or concerns have been raised by
the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control
Board regarding this project. As the Build Alternatives
would add landscaping and require little or no widening of
pavement along the shoulders, there would be no
increase in impervious surfaces. Incorporation of
permanent Best Management Practices would result in an
improvement in water quality from street runoff.
Best Management Practices ( BMPs)
would be implemented to reduce the
discharge of pollutants from the storm
drain system. BMPs to be implemented
for the project would include mechanical
devices such as catch basin inserts or
other in- line filtering devices.
Geology/ Soils/
Seismicity
Although no active faults cross the project corridor, it is
located in a seismically active region which has been
subjected to several strong earthquakes. In the portions of
the study corridor south of Lake Merritt and at
International Boulevard at 13th Avenue, there is a high
susceptibility to liquefaction. No substantial geologic
hazard impacts have been identified which would not be
fully addressed by design requirements.
Project would be designed to current
seismic and geotechnical design
standards. No additional mitigation
measures are proposed.
Summary
AC TRANSIT EAST BAY BRT PROJECT S- 21
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Table S. 4- 1: Summary of Build Alternatives Long- Term Impacts and
Proposed Mitigation Measures
Impact Category Impacts of Build Alternatives1
Proposed Avoidance,
Compensation and
Minimization Measures
Hazardous
Waste/ Materials
80 environmental risk sites were identified in the study
corridor ( 44 along the proposed BRT alignment, 14 in
close proximity to the proposed alignment, and 22 within
¼ - mile or less upgradient from the proposed alignment).
Mitigation measures for potential
hazardous waste- related impacts will
include:
• Preconstruction field surveys of
identified environmental risk sites to
observe current conditions.
• Regulatory file review of
environmental risk sites to
determine current status of sites
and extent of contamination.
• Subsurface exploration of segments
of the project alignment next to or
downgradient from any
environmental risk site. ( If
construction of the project
warrants.)
Air Quality Carbon monoxide concentrations would not exceed state
and federal one- and eight- hour standards in 2010 or
2025. PM10 concentrations in 2010 and 2025 would not
exceed the federal 24- hour standard under the Build
Alternatives. PM2.5 concentrations would exceed the
federal 24- hour standard in 2010 under both the No- Build
and Build Alternatives, but the effect of the Build
Alternatives would not constitute an adverse impact. PM2.5
concentrations in 2025 would not exceed the federal 24-
hour standard under the No- Build and Build Alternatives.
Complies with federal transportation conformity criteria ( 40
CFR Part 93).
None required.
Noise and Vibration The project would generally reduce noise levels along the
BRT alignment. Project noise levels would exceed FTA
Category 2 Land Use impact criteria in one area in
Berkeley with the Two- Way Transitway via Bancroft Way
variation, where bus lanes on Bancroft Way would
displace car traffic to Durant Avenue, which is parallel to
the alignment. The Category 2 severe impact criteria
would not be exceeded at any location. There are no
impacts or severe impacts for Category 3 land uses with
the project. See Section 4.13.1.1, Noise Methodology and
Criteria for more information on FTA impact and severe
impact criteria.
Because buses have rubber tires and suspension systems
that isolate vibrations from the ground, no vibration impact
is anticipated.
Noise barriers would not be feasible in
the Berkeley location experiencing
moderate impacts at Category 2 land
uses. No abatement is proposed.
Energy Energy consumption under the Build Alternatives is
comparable to that under the No- Build Alternative.
None required.
Summary
S- 22 AC TRANSIT EAST BAY BRT PROJECT
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Table S. 4- 1: Summary of Build Alternatives Long- Term Impacts and
Proposed Mitigation Measures
Impact Category Impacts of Build Alternatives1
Proposed Avoidance,
Compensation and
Minimization Measures
Landscaping/ Trees Trees would be removed in segments where existing
medians or landscaped bulb- outs from the normal street
curb line are to be reconstructed for BRT transitway
improvements. No large, mature healthy trees are
intended for removal. The East Bay BRT Project would
include substantial new landscaping that would replace
affected existing landscaping and trees wherever possible.
Some design concepts would result in a net overall
increase in landscaped areas. See Chapter 4,
Section 4.6.2.5, Roadway Landscaping and Other Urban
Design Features.
None required. Cities would be
consulted by AC Transit before
removing major landscaping or trees.
Replacement/ restoration plans would be
prepared and be subject to local
approvals.
Biological
Environment
Vicinity of the Build Alternatives is fully developed; no
sizable natural habitats remain and no wetlands are
present within the construction area. The proposed
project would be constructed along existing roadways and
bridges. Crossings of San Leandro Creek and Estudillo
Canal would not widen existing structures or pavement.
None required. Best Management
Practices would be followed to avoid
effects to surface water. In compliance
with the Executive Order on Invasive
Species, E. O. 13112, landscaping
included in the proposed project would
not use species listed as noxious
weeds.
Notes:
1. Impacts other than traffic and parking
Source: Parsons, 2006
Summary
AC TRANSIT EAST BAY BRT PROJECT S- 23
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Table S. 4- 2 summarizes the temporary, construction phase impacts of the Build Alternatives and
identifies proposed avoidance, minimization and/ or mitigation measures for each impact.
Table S. 4- 2: Summary of Build Alternatives Construction Impacts and
Proposed Mitigation Measures
Impact Category Build Alternative Impacts
Proposed Avoidance,
Compensation and
Minimization Measures
Construction
Stages, Schedule,
and Work Hours
Construction stages would include: utility
relocation, removal of existing pavement, BRT
transitway construction ( pavement, curbs, and
medians, where proposed), BRT station
construction, replacement of existing curbs and
sidewalks ( where applicable), and the addition or
update of signals, signage, and pavement
markings.
Major work would be localized to station areas and
roadway segments where the full pavement cross
section would be reconstructed and should not
disrupt any individual area for more than a few
weeks at a time. Elsewhere, construction would be
confined largely to the area of the median or side-running
transitway, with at least one traffic lane
open at all times.
Several non- contiguous areas could be
constructed simultaneously to minimize impacts
and shorten the duration of construction. Most
work would be accomplished during daylight
hours; however, some night work may be
necessary to minimize traffic impacts.
All construction would be planned and
staged to minimize disruption of traffic
and utility service. Specific construction
staging would be developed during final
design.
Traffic Traffic disruption would be due largely to the
closure of one lane of traffic in each direction.
Sidewalks and bikeways may be temporarily
closed during construction of BRT stations and the
transitway.
Depending upon agreements with local
jurisdictions, individual intersections along the BRT
alignment could be closed fully or in part for a few
weeks.
One lane of vehicular traffic would be
maintained in each direction during
business hours. Pedestrian access
( including wheelchair accessible ramps
and temporary sidewalks) would be
maintained during construction.
Traffic detours would be designated.
Bicycle traffic may have to be rerouted to
parallel facilities during construction.
AC Transit would establish traffic,
pedestrian, and bicycle control plans for
the construction period. These plans
would be approved by local cities.
Summary
S- 24 AC TRANSIT EAST BAY BRT PROJECT
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Table S. 4- 2: Summary of Build Alternatives Construction Impacts and
Proposed Mitigation Measures
Impact Category Build Alternative Impacts
Proposed Avoidance,
Compensation and
Minimization Measures
Community
Impacts
Project construction would result in short- term
impacts to automobile accessibility and on- street
parking along the project alignment, which could
temporarily affect certain types of business activity
in certain locations and the passage of emergency
vehicles through the work area.
Impacts to area public services and
facilities during construction would be
minimized by implementing the following
measures:
• AC Transit would coordinate with
local emergency service providers in
developing detour plans
• Emergency service providers would
be provided with advance notice of
road closures and detour routes.
Utilities/ Service
Systems
Existing utilities would be identified and necessary
relocations accomplished in advance of
construction for each of the proposed station
locations. Short- term scheduled and unscheduled
interruptions of utility services may occur or
unanticipated utilities may be encountered.
AC Transit and its contractors would
coordinate closely with utility providers to
give advance notice of any required
short- term interruptions of service to
customers. Contingency plans would be
developed in coordination with utility
providers to address unanticipated
encounters with buried utilities and/ or
unscheduled interruptions in service.
Visual/ Aesthetics Construction will take place in the existing
roadway in an urbanized area. Transportation
improvements such as the proposed BRT project
have become an accepted aspect of the urban
scene. No substantial adverse impacts are
anticipated.
Materials would not be stockpiled on site,
and demolition materials would be hauled
away. Debris would be cleared daily.
Best Management Practices would be
implemented to protect mature trees,
other vegetation, and the existing
streetscape during construction.
Cultural Resources The East Bay BRT Project would be constructed
largely within the surface of existing streets and
sidewalks. There is little potential to disturb
subsurface areas not previously disturbed for
construction of the original street or utilities. No
historic resources would be affected during
construction.
During construction, an archeologist
would monitor work in sensitive locations
identified in the Site Treatment Plan. If
buried cultural materials are encountered
during construction, work would stop until
a qualified archaeologist could evaluate
the find. If applicable, AC Transit and FTA
would comply with 36 CFR 800.13
regarding late discoveries.
Section 4( f)
Project construction would not adversely affect any
known section 4( f) resources.
None required other than monitoring in
sensitive locations, as proposed above.
Summary
AC TRANSIT EAST BAY BRT PROJECT S- 25
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Table S. 4- 2: Summary of Build Alternatives Construction Impacts and
Proposed Mitigation Measures
Impact Category Build Alternative Impacts
Proposed Avoidance,
Compensation and
Minimization Measures
Hydrology and
Water Quality
The Build Alternatives would remove roadway
pavement and excavate and grade along the
transitway and in station areas. Exposure and
loosening of soils and subsurface materials have
potential to affect stormwater runoff into storm
drains along the BRT alignment.
Best Management Practices would be
implemented to prevent dust, debris, and
sediment from entering runoff. Drain
basins would be equipped with temporary
devices to collect any sediment and
debris that does enter runoff during
construction. AC Transit would require
the contractor to develop and implement
a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan,
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, and
a Spill Prevention, Contaminant and
Clean- up Plan ( SPCCP). The SPCCP
would address containment of fuels, oils,
lubricants and other construction
materials that could enter runoff.
Hazardous
Waste/ Materials
Construction activities in a densely developed
urban area have potential to affect workers and
surrounding residents, business owners,
employees, and others as well as resources if
hazardous materials used in construction are
released to the surrounding environment.
AC Transit would require the contractor to
develop and implement a Worker Health
and Safety Plan ( WH& SP) to address the
handling and storage of hazardous
construction materials. A plan that
effectively protects those in closest
proximity to the source of contaminants
would protect corridor residents and
others.
Air Quality Under the Build Alternatives, It is estimated that up
to 1.65 acres would be under construction along
the alignment at any time, potentially releasing up
to 84 pounds of PM10 and 81 pounds of PM2.5
emissions per day, in addition to exhaust from
construction equipment.
Emissions control measures described in
Section 4.16.9.2 would be implemented
to ensure that there would be no adverse
air quality impacts from construction.
Noise and Vibration Noise impacts are anticipated at any residential
location within 25 to 90 feet of construction
activities, depending on the construction phase.
Night time construction may be necessary.
Vibration impacts will need to be mitigated if
construction equipment operates in close proximity
to wood- framed buildings along the project
alignment ( close proximity is defined by the
vibration impact distances for construction
equipment listed in Table 4.16.10- 5.)
Contractor would:
• Conduct noise and vibration testing
and monitor and inspect equipment to
ensure that they meet noise
standards;
• Place temporary noise barriers for
asphalt cutting and other noisy
activities;
• Turn off idling equipment;
Summary
S- 26 AC TRANSIT EAST BAY BRT PROJECT
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Table S. 4- 2: Summary of Build Alternatives Construction Impacts and
Proposed Mitigation Measures
Impact Category Build Alternative Impacts
Proposed Avoidance,
Compensation and
Minimization Measures
• Choose haul routes and conduct
loading and unloading operations to
minimize noise in residential and
other sensitive areas;
• Minimize construction activities during
nights, weekends, and holiday
periods;
• Adhere to local and FTA noise
thresholds and ordinances.
Mitigation measures are detailed in
Section 4.16.10.3.
Biological
Environment
No construction phase impacts to the biological
environment are anticipated as there are few
biological resources in the project area.
Best Management Practices described in
Section 4.16.7 would avoid impacts to
waterways connecting to biological
resources outside the project area.
Source: Parsons, 2006
S. 5 Cumulative Impacts
NEPA defines cumulative impact as “ the impact... which results from the incremental impact of the
action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what
agency ( federal or non- federal) or person undertakes such other actions.” CEQA defines cumulative
impacts as " two or more individual effects which, when considered together are considerable," and
suggests that “ cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects
taking place over a period of time" ( State CEQA Guidelines Section 15355).
The environmental document has evaluated cumulative effects of the East Bay BRT Project and other
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future project in the study area. Because the proposed project
would use existing paved street right- of- way, there is no potential for it to contribute to cumulative
impacts on land use, neighborhood character or cohesion, or biological and wetlands resources in the
general project corridor. Its primary impacts would be to travel demand, including mode choices,
parking, and traffic circulation.
S. 5.1 Assessment of Cumulative Impacts: Regional Context
The primary method for assessing cumulative impacts in these areas was projections based. The
assessment used summaries contained in adopted general plans or related planning documents of planned
and programmed development to characterize regional conditions. The Alameda County Congestion
Management Agency ( ACCMA) countywide model was used to develop travel forecasts for
development and growth in the region through the year 2025. The model estimates future traffic and
Summary
AC TRANSIT EAST BAY BRT PROJECT S- 27
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
transit travel demand for traffic analysis zones within Alameda County and other San Francisco Bay
Area counties and external counties. The use of regional forecasts incorporates the cumulative impacts
of the project and other planned and programmed development so that additional analysis of cumulative
effects related to specific development and transportation improvement projects within the region is not
necessary.
S. 5.2 Assessment of Cumulative Impacts: Local Context
The proposed BRT alignment would overlap the proposed Telegraph Avenue Bicycle Lane Project
between Aileen Street/ SR 24 and 20th Street. The assessment of the cumulative impacts of the two
projects determined there would be sections of Telegraph Avenue between SR 24 and 20th Street that
would not have enough street right- of- way to stripe a Class II bike lane on each side while
accommodating the presence of the BRT lanes. These areas would make up about 22 percent of the
feasible length of the striped bikeway excluding intersections and areas immediately adjacent to
intersections. If the bike lane were extended by displacing curbside parking, up to 280 more parking
spaces might be displaced on Telegraph Avenue between SR 24 and 20th Street, for a total loss of 498
spaces or 26 percent of the total supply before mitigation was applied.
Implementation of the proposed bicycle lane could also contribute to cumulative circulation impacts,
primarily through prohibition of additional left turns along Telegraph Avenue, resulting in additional
out- of- direction travel to make right turns to navigate around the restrictions.
Moving the proposed bike lane to parallel roadways to allow for development of a more continuous lane
without displacement of parking would avoid these cumulative impacts.
In the south portion of the corridor ( Oakland to San Leandro), two projects in San Leandro might
contribute to cumulative impacts of the East Bay BRT project under Build Alternatives 1 and 3 only:
• East 14th Street North Area Study
• East 14th Street South Area Development Strategy.
In San Leandro, the East 14th Street North Area Study project, in detailed design, and the East 14th Street
South Area Development Strategy, which includes median improvements from 136th to 143rd Avenue,
currently under permit review, both have the potential, when combined with the East Bay BRT Project,
to result in substantial cumulative impacts on access and circulation. Under the East 14th Street North
Area Study, a second northbound lane, from Hays Street to Georgia Way, would not be compatible with
the East Bay BRT Project alternatives terminating at BayFair BART. The lane would be replaced by one
of the proposed BRT- only lanes in the street median. Throughput capacity of East 14th Street for regular
auto and truck traffic would be reduced as a result.
The East 14th Street South Area Development Strategy, depending upon the final configuration of
streetscape improvements and lane reconfigurations, would result in alternative uses of the street right-of-
way in south San Leandro. Proposed streetscape median improvements, scheduled for implementation
in mid to late 2007, would be substantially modified by the East Bay BRT Project. The East 14th Street
South Area Development Strategy would possibly alter lane capacities and cross street access relative to
future year conditions assumed in the traffic analyses conducted for this environmental document. For
Summary
S- 28 AC TRANSIT EAST BAY BRT PROJECT
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
this reason, in combination with the East Bay BRT Project, it has the potential to contribute to
cumulative access and circulation impacts.
S. 6 California Environmental Quality Act Evaluation
The impacts evaluated in Chapters 3 and 4 of this document were also evaluated under California
Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) significance criteria defined in Table 6.2- 1. Impacts at various
roadway segments and intersections would rise to the level of significance under CEQA. Most are
mitigable to a less than significant level; however, the proposed BRT project would result in unavoidable
( unmitigable) significant adverse impacts on traffic operations at three to four intersections during the
afternoon peak hour:
• Fulton Street/ Bancroft Way ( One- Way Transitway via Shattuck Avenue– Oxford Street variation
only; also applies to the morning peak hour.)
• Telegraph Avenue/ Alcatraz Avenue
• International Boulevard/ High Street
• San Leandro Street/ High Street
The impact at the Fulton Street/ Bancroft Way intersection would be avoided by selecting the Two- Way
Transitway via Shattuck Avenue alignment variation rather than the One- Way Transitway via Shattuck
Avenue– Oxford Street variation for this segment of the BRT alignment. Impacts at intersections other
than those listed above would be mitigated to less than significant with proposed measures.
Based on results of both the intersection and roadway levels of service analyses, the project would also
result in unavoidable significant impacts at the following roadway segments:
• Telegraph Avenue near Alcatraz Avenue
• International Boulevard near High Street
Significance of all traffic operational impacts before and after proposed mitigation is applied is reported
in Tables 6.3- 1 through 3 in Section 6.3, Mitigation Measures for Significant Impacts under CEQA.
No other impacts of the proposed BRT project would rise to the level of significance under CEQA.
S. 7 Consultation and Coordination
S. 7.1 Project Organization and Public Participation
Consultation with the general public and appropriate public agencies began during the Major Investment
Study ( MIS) for this project, conducted from 1999 to 2002 and continued during preparation of this
environmental document. In all, over a dozen public information meetings were held along the corridor,
over 70 stakeholder interviews and meetings were conducted, and about 15 presentations were made to
community organizations. A particular focus of the public participation process was to inform low
income and ethnic minority communities about the project and obtain comment on issues of concern.
The East Bay BRT project is aligned through neighborhoods with higher than average concentrations
( compared to the AC Transit service area and Alameda County as a whole) of low income, mobility
dependent, and minority populations. These populations could substantially benefit from proposed
Summary
AC TRANSIT EAST BAY BRT PROJECT S- 29
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
project improvements; however, they could also be affected by long- term project impacts on traffic and
parking and short- term construction impacts.
Another focus of outreach was businesses in the corridor. Small businesses especially are subject to the
effects of parking displacements and access disruption from construction. Meetings were held with
business associations and merchant groups along the corridor. Outreach to communities and businesses
is described, including a chronology of coordination from 2002 through 2006, in Chapter 7, Consultation
and Coordination.
Meetings were announced through direct- mail flyers, telephone calls to community organizations,
newspaper advertisements and announcements posted in AC Transit buses. A Policy Steering
Committee ( PSC) and Technical Advisory Committee ( TAC) continue to advise the project team on
strategic directions and technical issues in project development and environmental review. The Citizens
Advisory Committee ( CAC) met three times during the MIS phase.
The AC Transit Board of Directors adopted the Locally Preferred Alternative ( LPA), calling for BRT
along an alignment using Telegraph Avenue and International Boulevard/ East 14th Street, on August 2,
2001. The LPA was carried forward into this DEIS/ EIR for further evaluation.
Public comments at the community meetings and received in writing have urged consideration of the
following alternatives:
• Providing service to Jack London Square;
• Reviewing ways in which Chinatown in Oakland can be better served;
• Enhancing service to the university staff and student population at UC Berkeley;
• Considering streets other than Telegraph in Berkeley for the project alignment; and,
• Using a Davis Street/ San Leandro Boulevard alignment to bypass Downtown San Leandro.
These alignment variations and options were considered during the studies, and are discussed in Section
2.2, Project Alternatives, and 2.4, Alternatives Considered and Withdrawn.
S. 7.2 Agency Consultations
FTA and AC Transit have coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Officer ( SHPO) to delineate
the Area of Potential Effects ( APE) for archaeological and historic resources. A Historic Properties
Survey Report ( HPSR), a Finding of Effect ( FOE), and a Site Treatment Plan to address unanticipated
encounters of archaeological resources were prepared and submitted to the SHPO, with a request for
SHPO’s concurrence in the findings. SHPO’s letter concurring with these findings is presented in
Appendix D.
The Native American Heritage Commission ( NAHC) was contacted to perform a Sacred Lands file
search and for Native American contacts who may have interests or concerns regarding potential project
effects in the proposed corridor. All Native American interested parties identified by the NAHC were
contacted directly and only Andrew Galvan of the Ohlone Indian Tribe replied ( by telephone). He
indicated that he knew of no Native American resources in the project area. No other replies were
received. A full chronology of coordination activities may be found in Section 7.6, Chronology of
Coordination.
Summary
S- 30 AC TRANSIT EAST BAY BRT PROJECT
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
S. 8 Financial Analysis
S. 8.1 Capital Costs and Funding Options
The East Bay BRT Project is estimated to cost between $ 310 million and $ 400 million ( year of
expenditure) to design and construct, depending upon the Build Alternative selected. Committed funding
of $ 102.05 million has been identified. Of the total identified funding, $ 42.73 million has been
committed to expenditures on Rapid Bus related items as well as BRT design and environmental studies.
The remaining $ 59.32 million is available for the construction of the BRT system. The funding sources
are summarized in Table S. 8- 1 and described in more detail in Section 8.2., Funding for Construction
Costs.
Table S. 8- 1: Summary of Committed Funding Sources
($ 2005, millions)
Funding Source
Amount ($)
($ 2005 in millions)
Regional Measure 2 ( Bridge Tolls) 65.00
Alameda County Measure B ( Sales Tax) 20.23
CMA TIP 9.39
Federal Grant 2.73
Federal STIP 2.70
SAFETEA- LU 2.00
Total $ 102.05
Source: AC Transit, 2006
Other potential sources of funding will be identified and may include:
• State Infrastructure Bonds
• State Transportation Improvement Program ( STIP)
• State Traffic Congestion Relief Program ( TCRP)
• FTA Section 5307 – Urbanized Area Formula Funds
• FTA Section 5309 – Capital Program – Discretionary Funds
• Transportation Fund for Clean Air
S. 8.2 Operating Costs and Funding Options
Annual operating and maintenance costs for the proposed BRT service in 2025 are estimated at between
$ 35.5 and $ 39.4 million ( 2005 dollars), depending on the Build Alternative selected. These costs are
from $ 4.9 to $ 8.8 million higher than annual costs under the 2025 No- Build Alternative, which is $ 30.6
million. Increases in fare revenue under the Build Alternatives will offset this increase in costs, reducing
the operating subsidy required to operate the system to between $ 1.2 and $ 7.1 million, depending on the
Build Alternatives. Alternative 3 would require the lowest subsidy while Alternative 2 would require the
highest subsidy.
Three million dollars in additional committed operations and maintenance funding from Regional
Measure 2 ( RM- 2) has been identified to operate Rapid Bus service in the East Bay corridor and would
Summary
AC TRANSIT EAST BAY BRT PROJECT S- 31
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
also be used to offset the operating costs of the BRT service. The $ 3 million in funding does not escalate
over time and sunsets in 2040.
No other committed sources of operations and maintenance funding have yet been identified to cover the
additional operational costs associated with BRT service. Other potential funding sources include:
• Vehicle license fees
• Local streets and roads program
• Private sector funding
See Section 8.3, Funding for Operations and Maintenance Costs, for further information.
S. 8.3 Cash Flow Analysis
A cash flow analysis was used to determine AC Transit’s financial capacity to implement and operate
the proposed East Bay BRT Project. This analysis forecasts operating and capital revenues and
expenditures that AC Transit is likely to incur in maintaining existing transit services and increasing
service as specified in the 2003- 2012 Short Range Transit Plan ( SRTP). The 25- year cash flow included
in the SRTP does not show a deficit ( inadequate revenues to meet projected expenditures) in any future
year, demonstrating AC Transit’s financial capacity to operate and maintain existing service and fund
existing capital programs other than the East Bay BRT Project.
The SRTP cash flow analysis does not include the costs of constructing or operating the proposed East
Bay BRT Project, which by 2025 is projected to increase net annual operating and maintenance costs by
$ 1.2 to $ 7.1 million. AC Transit must also identify additional sources of capital funding for the
approximately $ 250 million to $ 340 million of project costs for which committed funds are not
available. At this point, AC Transit has not demonstrated the financial capacity to construct and operate
the project although it is anticipated that sufficient resources to construct and operate a project would be
secured prior to completion of the final environmental document ( FEIS/ R).
S. 8.4 Risk Analysis
A risk analysis takes the cash flow analysis one step further by accounting for variations in the key
underlying assumptions. The financial feasibility of building and operating the East Bay BRT Project is
dependent upon several significant revenue assumptions that are not without risk:
• Funding sources for the remaining $ 250 million to $ 340 million required to construct the BRT
system need to be identified and secured. AC Transit assumes a substantial source of construction
funding could be recently passed ( November 2006) state infrastructure bonds or new infrastructure
bond initiatives. AC Transit must qualify a project and compete for bond funds with other projects.
It is not certain whether the East Bay BRT Project would be awarded infrastructure bond funds.
Much of the assumed non- federal funding for the East Bay BRT Project is derived from the
collection of sales taxes and bridge tolls. The amount of revenue from these sources is highly
dependent on economic conditions and could fall short of expectations. Therefore, these sources of
funds include risk.
Other federal transportation program funds could become available for projects with demonstrated
mobility benefits. However, the East Bay BRT Project would have to compete with many other
major investment proposals for these funds.
Summary
S- 32 AC TRANSIT EAST BAY BRT PROJECT
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
• Funding for the remaining $ 1.2 million to $ 7.1 million ( 2005 dollars) required to operate and
maintain the BRT system needs to be identified and secured annually. While farebox revenue for
existing routes is expected to increase, this is not a certainty. Should ridership levels fall short of
predicted levels, additional funding would be required to cover the funding gap.
• Should AC Transit proceed to implement the East Bay BRT Project, it would need to balance
investment in the new BRT service with ongoing efforts to re- grow base bus service. While new
funding streams may be secured for East Bay BRT operations, the implementation of the new
service should not lead to further curtailment of either existing bus routes or existing growth plans.
S. 8.5 Financial Analysis Conclusion
The cash flow and risk analyses present preliminary information to evaluate whether AC Transit has the
ability to fund the construction and subsequent operation of the East Bay BRT project while continuing
to operate and maintain existing bus service. At this early stage in the project, AC Transit lacks the
explicit commitment from sufficient sources to fund both the capital construction and operations of the
service. As the project progresses, however, AC Transit’s ability to pay for these costs will become
clearer.
S. 9 Evaluation of Alternatives
Figure S. 9- 1 presents a qualitative comparison of the Build Alternatives based on project features and
performance measures that follow from the project Purpose and Need presented in Chapter 1. Chapter 8,
Financial Analysis and Alternatives Evaluation, provides additional detail on the comparison of
alternatives based on the information included in this environmental document.
Unless noted, comparisons in Figure S. 9- 1 are relative to the No- Build Alternative, assuming 2025
conditions.
The assessment is for 24 measures, categorized under the four basic purposes established for the East
Bay BRT Project and a fifth category covering environment impacts.
S. 9.1 Improve Transit Service in Project Corridor
• All Build Alternatives show improvement in corridor transit service frequency, capacity, speed
and travel time, as quantified in Chapter 8, Table 8.7- 1. The best performing alternatives for
express bus frequency and capacity would be Alternatives 3 and 4, which propose peak period BRT
headways averaging 3.6 minutes and, compared with the No- Build Alternative, would offer
approximately 12 more express bus trips each direction each peak hour. Alternatives 1 and 2 propose
headways averaging 5.0 minutes during the peak and would offer seven more bus trips per peak
hour. The best performing alternative in terms of bus speed and transit travel time would be
Alternative 1. Average bus speeds for this alternative would increase by approximately 4 mph
compared to the No- Build Alternative. The speed and travel time improvements for Alternative 2
would be less favorable because BRT passengers would need to transfer to a slower Rapid Bus
service to reach BayFair BART. Average speeds and transit travel times would not improve as
substantially under Alternatives 3 and 4 due to the additional station stops BRT buses would make.
Summary
AC TRANSIT EAST BAY BRT PROJECT S- 33
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
• Figure S. 9- 1: Comparison of Build Alternatives
Measure
Alt. 1
Separate BRT
and Local
Service to
BayFair BART
Alt. 2
Separate BRT
and Local
Service to San
Leandro BART
Alt. 3
Combined BRT
and Local
Service to
BayFair BART
Alt. 4
Combined BRT
and Local
Service to San
Leandro BART
Improve Transit Service in the Project Corridor
Express buses per hour ( frequency) + + ++ ++
Capacity - Bus seat- miles operated ++ ++ +++ +++
- Roadway auto capacity    
- Roadway person- trip capacity O O O O
Speed - BRT bus average speed ++ ++ + +
- Auto average speed    
Express bus travel time ( Berkeley to BayFair BART) +++ ++ ++ +
Express bus boarding time + + + +
Reliability + + ++ ++
Security, comfort and cleanliness + + + +
Increase Transit Ridership by Providing Transit
Alternative to Automobile
Weekday boardings - New trips and total corridor/ system ++ + ++++ +++
- Auto vehicle VMT/ trips + + + +
Improve and Maintain Efficiency of Transit Service
Delivery
Capital costs-- total          
Net operating costs-- total1          
Net operating costs-- per trip1 + O +++ ++
Annualized total cost-- per new transit trip2 + + ++ ++
Support Local and Regional Planning Goals
Weekday express buses between key activitiy centers ( trips) + + ++ ++
Point- to- point peak- period express bus travel time
between key activity centers ++ ++ + +
Potential for transit- oriented development + + ++ ++
Environmental Impacts
Parking displaced        
Intersection and roadway LOS    
Construction impacts ( traffic, utilities)    
Environmental Justice
( effect on low- income/ transit dependent) + + + +
Other environmental effects
( air quality, land use, hazardous materials) O O O O
Notes: Legend  O +
1 Net Operating Cost accounts for fare revenue on BRT service and change
in fare revenue on other AC Transit bus routes.
2 A measure of cost- effectiveness. Comparison is
among build alternatives rather than relative to No- Build.
Worse /
Greater Impact
than No- Build
No Change /
Similar Impact as
No- Build
Better /
Lesser Impact
than No- Build
Summary
S- 34 AC TRANSIT EAST BAY BRT PROJECT
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Build Alternatives would result in a decrease in roadway auto capacity as a result of converting
traffic lanes to transit- only lanes. Each Build Alternative would have the same order of magnitude
impact. The total person- trip capacity of arterials along the alignment for the East Bay BRT
Project, however, would be approximately the same after implementation of the project as before
implementation due to the substantially higher vehicle capacity of buses versus autos. The “ carrying
capacity” of BRT roadways would not change.
• The average speed of autos would degrade somewhat and to the same extent under each of the
Build Alternatives. This would be due to increased congestion in mixed- traffic lanes and at
intersections resulting from the project.
• Improved travel time and improved reliability are two of the most important factors that attract
transit riders. Primary causes of unreliability in bus service, as in the case of the No- Build
Alternative, are buses operating in mixed- flow traffic and delays occurring during passenger
boarding, fare collection, and alighting. Because BRT buses would operate along exclusive
transitways and have transit signal priority along with self- service, proof- of- payment fare collection,
BRT service would be more reliable compared with the No- Build Alternative.
• Service characteristics such as safety and security, convenience and comfort are those aspects of
transit directly experienced by the passengers. The ticket vending machines, real- time arrival
information, shelters, benches, security features, boarding platforms, and other amenities that would
be included in BRT station areas would ensure a higher degree of security and comfort when
compared to standard bus service under the No- Build Alternative. Under the Build Alternatives,
modern, aesthetically pleasing, low- floor buses with multiple doors would stop at low- level boarding
platforms and thereby offer easy entry and exit for all transit riders, including persons with
disabilities. Compared to the No- Build Alternative, all Build Alternatives are expected to lead to
favorable improvement in these areas.
S. 9.2 Increase Transit Ridership
• All Build Alternatives would increase transit boardings, along the project alignment, in the project
corridor, and systemwide for AC Transit. Alternative 3 performs best, increasing corridor boardings
in 2025 by 16,100 relative to the No- Build Alternative, followed by Alternative 4 with 13,900 more
boardings than the No- Build. A number of passengers would tend to find highly frequent express
operations with convenient spacing of full BRT stations preferable to a combination of express and
local operations as proposed under Alternatives 1 and 2, which would increase corridor boardings by
9,600 and 7,300 boardings, respectively.
In terms of new transit trips (“ new riders” formerly using autos or other non- transit modes) that
would be generated by the Build Alternatives, Alternative 3 would perform best, increasing transit
system ridership in the region by 9,300 per weekday, followed by Alternative 4 ( 8,000 new trips),
Alternative 1 ( 5,300), and Alternative 2 ( 4,600 new trips).
• As transit ridership goes up, auto use, reflected in auto vehicle miles traveled ( VMT), tends to go
down. This would occur under all Build Alternatives. The decrease in auto VMT would be
Summary
AC TRANSIT EAST BAY BRT PROJECT S- 35
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
proportional to the increase in ( new) riders on the East Bay BRT Project. Alternative 3, which
generates the greatest increase in both corridor trips and new transit trips, would decrease weekday
auto use by approximately 20,700 VMT. Alternative 2, which generates the smallest increase in
corridor and new transit trips, would decrease weekday auto use by 10,200 VMT. However, because
the decrease in VMT, measured within Alameda County, is not likely to be large compared to total
VMT generated on an average weekday the improvement in this measure, as shown in Figure 8.7- 1,
is moderate under all Build Alternatives.
S. 9.3 Improve and Maintain Efficiency of Transit
• Implementation of the East Bay BRT Project would require a major capital investment to obtain the
benefits described. Alternative 3 would have the highest capital cost to implement and therefore
performs lowest among the alternatives by this performance measure. Alternative 2 would have the
lowest cost to implement and performs best.
• Net operating costs to AC Transit would also increase as a result of implementing the East Bay
BRT Project. Total net operating costs, and their increase relative to the No- Build Alternative, would
be lowest for Alternative 3 and highest for Alternative 2. Net costs account for the fare revenue from
users that offsets a portion of total operating costs. Fare revenue is calculated to include revenue
gained or lost on all bus transit services operated by AC Transit systemwide.
• Net operating cost per trip ( or per boarding) for most of the Build Alternatives would improve
relative to the No- Build Alternative. The net cost per trip, which adjusts for the change in fares
systemwide, would decrease most under Alternative 3, by approximately $ 0.96, followed by
Alternative 4, by approximately $ 0.71. The cost per trip under Alternative 1 would decrease by
approximately $ 0.26. The net cost per trip under Alternative 2 would increase somewhat, by $ 0.07
compared with the No- Build Alternative. Alternative 2 performs least well on this measure of the
four Build Alternatives.
• The annualized cost per new transit trip, which historically was a measure used by the Federal
Transit Administration to assess cost effectiveness of a major transit investment, is comparable for
Alternatives 3 and 4, which perform better than Alternatives 1 and 2 on this measure. This is
attributable to the high number of new riders generated by alternatives that combine BRT and local
service as well as their lower annual operating costs, factors that offset the effects of higher capital
costs in the calculation of cost effectiveness.
S. 9.4 Support Local and Regional Planning Goals
• Express buses operated between key activity centers and point- to- point travel times were
quantified, relative to the No- Build Alternative. All Build Alternatives would increase the number of
express bus trips operated between key activity centers. However, the increase is greater for
Alternatives 3 and 4. Alternatives 1 and 2 would offer somewhat better ( i. e., faster) in- vehicle
express bus travel time as a consequence of making fewer BRT station stops.
Summary
S- 36 AC TRANSIT EAST BAY BRT PROJECT
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
• Facilitation of transit oriented development is a very key measure for many policy makers and
individuals when deciding whether or not to make major investments in transportation infrastructure.
Cities along the project alignment, in particular Berkeley and Oakland, have adopted transit-supportive
land use policies. The East Bay BRT Project could help cities achieve these objectives.
BRT infrastructure would provide transit a strong identity, with stations offering locations for
organizing development. All Build Alternatives have more potential than the No- Build Alternative
to facilitate development. Due to the importance of stations for transit oriented development,
Alternatives 3 and 4, because they have more BRT stations, would be viewed as having more
potential to facilitate this type of development when compared to Alternatives 1 and 2.
S. 9.5 Environmental Impacts
• All Build Alternatives would degrade intersection and roadway performance, measured in terms
of level of service. However, mitigation can reduce the number of adversely affected locations
substantially. No more than four intersections out of 88 evaluated would experience impacts that
could not be mitigated to meet locally established thresholds. All Build Alternatives would be
comparable in their impacts.
• All Build Alternatives would result in displacements of on- street parking. From 945 to 1,300
spaces, out of 7,056 spaces surveyed, would be displaced, depending on the Build Alternatives and
alignment variation selected. Approximately 16 to 29 percent of displaced spaces would be mitigated
through parking replacement or metering of currently unrestricted parking in commercial districts to
ensure availability for local business customers. Parking loss is possibly the most evident long- term
impact of the East Bay BRT Project. The loss is generally comparable across each of the Build
Alternatives. However, because corridor automobile use would decrease and transit boardings would
increase, demand for parking along the project alignment would decrease with the East Bay BRT
Project in place.
• Construction impacts would be temporary but include roadway closures in limited segments, traffic
disruption, and access restrictions. Utilities would be relocated if in conflict with proposed
improvements although no major interruption in services is anticipated. All Build Alternatives would
have comparable effects relative to the No- Build Alternative.
• The project corridor has large populations of low- income, minority, and transit dependent
individuals ( see Section 4.4.4, Environmental Justice). The East Bay BRT Project would
substantially improve transit access and mobility for disadvantaged populations. From an
environmental justice standpoint, the project would have more long- term benefits than long- term
adverse impacts and would be an improvement relative to the No- Build condition. All Build
Alternatives would offer comparable mobility benefits.
• Other environments impacts would be minor to non- existent. The Build Alternatives are not
viewed as resulting in permanent, adverse environmental effects after implementation in such areas
as air quality, noise, energy, natural habitat, cultural resources, and other environmental areas
described in Chapter 4.
Summary
AC TRANSIT EAST BAY BRT PROJECT S- 37
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
S. 10 Issues to be Resolved
Two issues remain to be resolved during the course of further environmental and engineering studies for
the proposed East Bay BRT Project: ( 1) the specific alignment for and limits of BRT improvements, and
( 2) identifying sufficient capital and operating funding for project implementation. With respect to the
project alignment and limits, four Build Alternatives and several minor alignment variations are
presented in this document. Two alternatives are shorter than the other two alternatives; alignment
variations propose construction and operations along different roadways in Downtown Berkeley,
Berkeley Southside, and the Eastlake District of East Oakland. The preferred project alignment and
limits will be determined with input from project corridor cities, local agencies, the public, and other
interested parties as part of the outreach process for this environmental document.
With respect to capital funding, AC Transit is continuing to pursue funding to implement one of the
Build Alternatives ( see Section 8.2.2, Potential Sources of Funding). However, if upon completing the
current DEIS/ EIR phase of the project sufficient funds are not available to construct a full Build
Alternative, including all associated facilities, consideration may be given to a smaller project ( i. e., a
project shorter than from Berkeley to San Leandro) or to phased improvement of a Build Alternative.
A phased project could include an initial, independent segment along the selected preferred project
alignment, which would be extended in stages as funds become available. Or, a phased project could
involve constructing first the stations, intersection improvements, and other key infrastructure for a
project and delaying full reconstruction of the BRT transitway between stations ( for example, existing
pavement could be painted or otherwise designated for BRT- only use). If such options were to be
pursued, they would be described in the final EIS/ EIR for the East Bay BRT Project.
It is possible, therefore, that changes to the length and alignment for the preferred alternative could be
proposed that differ from those specifically considered in this document. The preferred alternative could,
in such an instance, become a subset of the BRT improvements described in this DEIS/ EIR. However,
this DEIS/ EIR, by analyzing the full scope of possible BRT improvements, presents the “ worst case”
environmental impacts for public and agency review. The analysis encompasses any impacts associated
with a lesser project. The analysis establishes, therefore, the basis for making a sound, reasoned decision
on the preferred BRT project whether implemented in its entirety or as a lesser project.
[ THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]