Serv rvice Pla lan BART Board Meeting March 22, 2018 Agenda - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transbay Tube Earthquake Safety Serv rvice Pla lan BART Board Meeting March 22, 2018

Agenda • Background • 4 AM - 5 AM Ridership Profile • Mitigation Strategies and Impacts • State of Good Repair (SOGR) Impact • Service Change Impact Study and Outreach Plan • Next Steps and Schedule 2

Background • Transbay Internal Retrofit contract awarded to Shimmick/CEC JV Dec. 2016. • Contract provides for a work window from approximately 9:30 PM (Sunday - Thursday) until 5:00 AM (Monday - Friday) for 3.5 years. • Requires Transbay Tube single-tracking from 9:30 PM until closing; sustainable headway of 24 minutes. • Requires 5 AM systemwide opening beginning September 2018. 3

100 200 300 400 500 600 0 525 Pittsburgh/Bay Point 233 Dublin/Pleasanton • 2,800 Passengers enter the system during the 1 st Hour 179158 El Cerritto Del Norte Concord 118106 85 84 71 70 68 66 59 53 52 51 50 49 46 45 42 38 34 32 32 31 30 29 28 28 26 24 22 22 21 21 20 17 17 17 16 16 15 15 13 Pleasant Hill North Concord Walnut Creek Richmond Fruitvale 1 st Rid Daly City st ho San Leandro idership hour of Bay Fair Coliseum of ser West Oakland Entries per station (between 0345 and 0445) South Hayward service (3:4 West Dublin ip Profile – Ori Fremont Balboa Park (3:45 AM – 4: Warm Springs Hayward Lafayette Union City Castro Valley 24th Street 4:45 Orinda 45 AM) Glen Park El Cerritto Plaza Mac Arthur rigin Milbrae Powell St. in Stations Proposed Bus Nodes 12th Street Lake Merritt Colma Civic Center 19th Street Asby SFO Airport 16th Street South San Francisco San Bruno Montgomery Rockridge Embarcadero Downtown Berkeley North Berkeley OAK Airport 0 4

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 0 738 Embarcadero 521 Montgomery 318 Powell St 237 Civic Center 133 SFO Airport Downtown SF 64% of all riders to 61 56 52 40 36 31 28 28 25 25 24 24 24 23 23 22 20 20 19 19 19 17 17 16 16 16 15 14 13 12 12 12 11 12th Street 24th Street 16th Street 19th Street 1 st Ridership Profile – Destination Stations Mac Arthur st ho San Bruno hour Milbrae ur of Glen Park of ser Exits per station (entry between 0345 and 0445) Lake Merritt ervic Daly City Warm Springs ice (3:4 OAK Airport (3:45 AM Richmond San Leandro Coliseum AM – 4:4 Balboa Park South Hayward Downtown Berkeley :45 AM) Fremont AM) Hayward Pittsburgh/Bay Point Plesant Hill Union City Top Destinations El Cerritto Del Norte Walnut Creek Ashby Dublin/Pleasanton Fruitvale South San Francisco Bay Fair Colma Concord West Oakland North Concord 9 Rockridge 6 El Cerritto Plaza 5 West Dublin 5 Lafayette 4 5 Castro Valley 4 North Berkeley 3 Orinda 2

Rid idership ip Profile- Demographic ics Minority and Non-Minority Ridership st Ho 1 st Hour ur All Da Al Day Min Minor orit ity 66% 56% Non Non-min inor orit ity 34% 44% Low-Income and Non-Low-Income Ridership *Low-income 1 st Hour All Day riders defined as under $50K. Low-Income* 37% 26% Non-Low-Income 63% 74% 2015 Station Profile Study 6

Mitigation Options and Impacts 7

Mit itigation Options Evaluated Options to be Advanced 1. No Mitigation: No Additional Service 2. Bus Service A: New East Bay Routes + Enhanced Existing Routes 3. Bus Service B : Bus Service A + SF Express Routes Other Options Considered • Minimal Regional Train Service + Extensive Single Tracking • Shuttle Train Service + Three (3) Station Express Buses • Shuttle Train Service + One (1) Station Express Bus 8

Metric ics and Mult lti-Agency Support Passenger Impact Number of Passengers Impacted Passenger Fare Travel Time Annual Cost of Mitigation Options Bus Service Cost and Revenue BART Operating Budget Impact State of Good Repair Impact Transbay Tube Earthquake Safety Construction Systemwide Maintenance • Measure RR • CBTC • Other Capital Projects • Additional Maintenance Needs 9

No Mit itigation: No Addit itio ional Service Passenger Impacts • 2,800 passengers impacted systemwide 10

Orig igin in Stations Catchment Area 770 riders 400 riders 300 riders 150 riders 150 riders 90 riders 300 riders 270 riders 90 riders 135 riders Proposed Bus Nodes 11

Bus Serv ervice A: : New Eastbay Routes + + Enhanced Exi xisting Routes New Eastbay Routes Enhanced Existing Routes 12

Bus Serv ervice B: : Bus Serv ervice A + + SF Exp xpress Routes New SF Express Routes New Eastbay Routes Enhanced Existing Routes 13

Summary Su ry of f Mitig itigatio ion Im Impacts Bus Service A: Bus Service B: No Mitigation: Standard BART New Eastbay Routes + Bus Service A + No Additional Service Enhanced Existing Routes SF Express Routes Passenger Impact Trip Time 53 min Passengers use 55 min 40 min PB/BP-EMB/TBT 35 min alternative mode 25 min 25 min Milb-EMB/TBT Fare $6.55 Passengers use Bus fare less Bus fare less PB/BP-EMB/TBT $4.65 alternative mode than BART fare than BART fare Milb-EMB/TBT SOGR Impact + + + TBT Work/Risk N/A + + + Systemwide Maintenance N/A Annual Cost of Mitigation Option Range (-) Range (+) Range (-) Range (+) Range (-) Range (+) Est. BART Revenue Loss $0 ($4.5 M) ($2.5 M) ($4.5 M) ($2.5 M) ($4.5 M) ($2.5 M) Est. BART Operating Expense $0 $3.0 M $4.0 M $3.0 M $4.0 M $3.0 M $4.0 M Savings Est. Net Bus Service Cost $0 N/A N/A ($2 M) ($1.5 M) ($2.5 M) ($1 M) Est. Parking Revenue Loss $0 ($0.5 M) ($0.2 M) ($0.5 M) ($0.2 M) ($0.5 M) ($0.2 M) Est. Net to BART $0 ($2 M) $1.3 M ($4 M) ($0.2 M) ($4.5 M) $0.3 M * Fare revenue subject to final bus fare schedule 14

State of f Good Repair Im Impact 15

TR TRA 2017 Main intenance Stu tudy: Majo jor Th Themes • BART’s current state threatens future success without continued infrastructure investment • Predictable reliability is the key to holding the riding public’s trust • Real-time track availability is insufficient to conduct needed maintenance, rebuild and renewal • Service adjustments and regular maintenance shutdowns must become normal business 16

Real-Time Maintenance Availabili lity is is In Insufficient Weekday Maintenance Wrench Time, by zone Zone Sun- Weekly Yearly hours Yearly Hours % Mtc. Time Thurs hours* (Current with Extra Hour Added with hours* Conditions) per night Extra Hour per night 1.5 16.5 858 1,223 43% more 1.5 hours 1.25 14.75 767 1132 48% more .75 11.2 585 950 62% more 1.25 hours 1 43 – 62% 365 additional increase in additional hour hours available annually nightly work time .75 Hours *Maximum potential “wrench time” does not include half hour for set up and half hour for tear down 17

Real l Cost & Schedule le Im Impacts: M lin line 34.5 KV Cable le Contract Duration Impact Cost Impact Duration Engineer’s Track Access Time Access (Months) % change from baseline Estimate % change from baseline (Hrs./Wk.) Subtotal Subtotal Current Case Current Case 16 No Change 75 months $134.6 M 12% 45 months 40% Improvement 20 5:00 Opening $119.0 M Improvement 49% Single Track 32 months 57% Improvement 40 Sundays, 5:00 $68.2 M Improvement Opening 54% Single Track 10:00 21 months 72% Improvement 56 PM & Sundays, $62.6 M Improvement 5:00 Opening 18

Progressin ing to SO SOGR - Upcomin ing Projec jects • Interlocking rebuild – 10 (impacting all lines) • Rail replacement – 60 miles (all lines • Rail reprofile (entire system) • Joint elimination – all lines • 34.5 KV replacement – M, K, A, C, R lines • Tunnel Lighting – M, K,R, C lines • Tunnel Water Mitigation – M, R lines • Transbay Tube Generator & Switchgears • Transbay Tube Cross Passage Doors • Substation replacement M,K,A,R, C and L lines • Platform Edge rehabilitation M, R, C, K, lines • Wayside Signage Upgrades – All lines • Wayside Lubricator Replacement – All lines • Train Control Mux upgrades – All lines • Train Control Program Stop Antenna – All Lines • Train Control Transmit and Receiver Loop – All lines • Fire Systems – RY, CY, HY, A and L lines 19

Agencies th that have Modif ifie ied Service for Main intenance • Miami-Dade Department of Transportation and Public Works (DTPW) Metrorail • New York City Transit (NYCT)* • Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA)* • Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) • Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (MBTA) • Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) • Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) • Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) • Port Authority-Trans Hudson (PATH) • Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) • Société de transport de Montreal (Montreal Metro) • London Underground (The Tube) • Metro Trans Melbourne • MTA Maryland* *unplanned extended reduction of service hours to deal with unsafe track conditions 20

Service Change Impact Study and Outreach Plan 21

Servic ice Change Im Impact Stu tudy • Staff to conduct a Service Change Impact Study to determine impacts on minority/low-income populations. • Demographic assessment • Travel Time and alternative routes analysis • Survey and public outreach • Timeline: Late March-May *Service change does not require Title VI analysis/no requirement to submit to FTA. 22