AgdaPkt 2018-02-12 Joint SA PFA - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Chapter 1 x Executive Summary 1-16 Forecasting suggests that ACE will be a significant source of ridership for any Dumbarton transit service, particularly for the rail alternatives. These forecasts also predict a significant increase in total ACE ridership from the current 5,000 daily riders to 8,000 - 10,000 daily riders (and 20,000 in the high growth alternative). These forecasts are consistent with ACE planning, which suggests a doubling of ridership by 2020. They also suggest that a high-quality transit connection from the Central Valley and Tri-Valley region to the high-employment areas in Silicon Valley would serve a currently un-met need. Thus, ensuring that the connection is as easy as possible with high- frequency express buses (as in Alternatives 4, 5, and 6) or a timed transfer to rail (as in Alternatives 7, 8, 9, and 10) is an important component of these large transfer volumes. 1.6 Comparative Analysis The mobility benefits of the alternatives were evaluated quantitatively and qualitatively based on the four project goals and a set of accompanying metrics as described below: Goal: Enhance mobility – Mobility of the alternatives was measured by examining estimated daily transbay transit ridership, peak hour load factor, transbay passengers per seat mile in the peak period, minutes of delay per person in the peak period, and operational benefit; Goal: Pursue cost-effective improvements with a return on investment – Cost- effectiveness and return on investment was measured by considering annualized capital cost per new user, annual operating and maintenance cost per new user, and fundability; Goal: Minimize environmental and financial risk, and maximize safety – The measures of success for this goal included an assessment of environmental impacts, financial risk, and safety; Goal: Avoid disproportionate burden and disparate impacts – SamTrans has policies that specify thresholds for determining whether a given action, or project, has a disproportionate burden on low-income populations versus non-low-income populations or a disparate impact on minority populations. Because the alternatives are still conceptual, the assessment of how the alternatives meet this goal are high-level and would require more analysis as projects are developed further. The comparative analysis was conducted for the long-term alternatives only. Generally, it is assumed that short-term improvements (Alternative 2) would be pursued as there are limited enhancements that can provide increased mobility and congestion relief in the short-term. Each alternative was scored based on the metrics stated above using available information on ridership, capacity, costs, etc. Alternatives 4 through 10 would meet the DTCS goals to varying degrees. Overall, the Combined Bus and Rail (Alternative 10) and the Busway on the Rail Bridge (Alternative 6) scored the highest with 60 and 57 total points, respectively. These alternatives were followed by the Enhanced Bus on the Highway Bridge with One Express Lane in Each Direction (Alternative 5) at 55 points. Alternative 10 ranked highest or equally best under three of the four DTCS study goals. As a result, Alternative 10, which presents a combination of roadway, bus, and rail improvements, is considered the top-ranking alternative with the greatest potential to enhance Corridor 6.1.D. - Page 25