Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Evaluation Framework Geary Citizens Advisory Committee - March 23, 2006

The evaluation phase of the study will focus on understanding the benefits and impacts of each conceptual alternative compared to a no-project alternative and compared to each other. The proposed evaluation framework was developed by the inter-agency study team and is grounded in the project goals. The primary categories for the evaluation framework are as follows: Benefits. 1) Transit Operations & Performance; 2) Transit Rider Experience; 3) Pedestrian Safety & Access; and 4) Urban Design & Landscaping Impacts/Constraints. 5) Traffic & Parking Impacts; 6) Capital & Operating Costs; and 7) Construction Impacts

The qualitative and quantitative metrics described below are used in combination to capture the key attributes of each category. We will present the evaluation results to the public in June. In addition we will report key informational statistics (e.g., changes in transit travel time). Sample Summary Table Option X Option Y Medium High Medium Medium Low High Medium Option Z Medium Medium Low High Medium Low Low

Transit Operations & Performance Transit Rider Experience Pedestrian Safety & Access Urban Design & Landscaping Traffic & Parking Impacts Capital & Operating Costs Construction Impacts

High Medium High Medium High Medium Medium

The evaluation framework is tied to the study goals, approved by the Geary Citizens Advisory Committee in June 2004. The study goals are: Goal 1 - Robust and Stable Ridership. Decrease travel times; improve service reliability; improve in-vehicle comfort; improve passenger waiting experience; improve the quality and safety of transit access for all modes including pedestrians and bicyclists; and increase accessibility for Geary neighborhoods. Goal 2 - Efficient, Effective, and Equitable Transit Service. Increase service efficiency and effectiveness through cost effective improvements; reduce operator stress; support demand generated by existing and planned development; and distribute passenger benefits across all users and trip purposes.

O:\BRT\Geary\Appendices for Final Feasibility Study\C - Evaluation\Evaluation Framework.doc

Page 1 of 6

Goal 3 - Neighborhood Livability and Commercial Viability. Support existing and planned land use; enhance safety and security for all travelers and others in the community; establish attractive transit stations that serve activity nodes; link transit route to the community through design treatments; reduce emissions relative to no-project condition; minimize the negative impacts of the project on local residents and businesses. Goal 4 - Transit Priority Network System Development. Establish an identity that enhances the image of transit on Geary; integrate the Geary Corridor into the citywide rapid transit system; provide clear, understandable, and accessible passenger information; apply and advance BRT technology; improve connectivity between the Geary Corridor and the local and regional transit network; create a sense of permanence that inspires confidence in long-term investment; and serve as a model for BRT applications in other urban areas.

Matching Up the Study Goals and the Evaluation Framework 1) Transit Operations & Performance

Robust and Stable Ridership Efficient, Effective, and Equitable Transit Service Neighborhood Livability and Commercial Vitality Transit Priority Network System Development

2) Transit Rider Experience 3) Pedestrian Safety & Access 2) Transit Operations & Performance 6) Capital & Operating Costs 3) Pedestrian Safety & Access 4) Urban Design & Landscaping 5) Traffic & Parking Impacts 7) Construction Impacts 2) Transit Rider Experience 4) Urban Design & Landscaping

The proposed metrics and methodology for each evaluation category is presented below:

Transit Operations/Performance * Robust and Stable Ridership * Efficient, Effective, and Equitable Transit Service
Sub-criteria Change in transit travel time Methodology/Definition Transit travel time and speed by route Transit travel time vs. auto travel time Headway coefficient of variation (standard deviation/mean) Change in service reliability Travel time coefficient of variation (standard deviation/mean) Percent of bunched buses (headways<1 min)
O:\BRT\Geary\Appendices for Final Feasibility Study\C - Evaluation\Evaluation Framework.doc

Source VISSIM VISSIM VISSIM VISSIM VISSIM Page 2 of 6

Transit Operations/Performance (continued)

Operator views Ease of operation Miles in mixed traffic Extent of weaving (# of transit lane weaves) Enforceability Distribution of benefits Attract/retain transit riders Change in benefits, e.g., overall travel time, for transit-dependent groups (e.g., zero car HHs, low-income HHs) relative to general population Transit mode share Ridership Survey Physical Designs Physical Designs Qualitative Travel Demand Model Travel Demand Model Travel Demand Model

Transit Rider Experience * Robust and Stable Ridership * Transit Priority Network System Development
Sub-criteria Quality of waiting and boarding experience Methodology/Definition Average wait time (headway/2) Headway coefficient of variation (standard deviation/mean) Platform width (proxy for crowding) Buffer from traffic Extent of weaving (# of transit lane weaves) Quality of in-vehicle experience Passenger load at maximum load point Miles in mixed traffic Direction of travel (# of directionality changes) Wayfinding ability Security of waiting riders BRT transit route branding / identity Combined stops vs local only at the curb Transfer experience (including vertical circulation) Visibility to other passengers and adjacent land uses Recognizable as a special service Source Service Plan Service Plan Physical Designs Physical Designs Physical Designs Travel Demand Model Physical Designs Physical Designs Physical Designs Qualitative Qualitative Qualitative

O:\BRT\Geary\Appendices for Final Feasibility Study\C - Evaluation\Evaluation Framework.doc

Page 3 of 6

Access and Pedestrian Safety * Robust and Stable Ridership * Neighborhood Livability and Commercial Vitality
Sub-criteria Crossing experience Methodology/Definition Average number of lanes between refuges Refuge width (average, # fewer than 6 ft) Average crossing distance Average sidewalk width Pedestrian safety and accessibility Number of pedestrian crossing opportunities added/removed Speed of adjacent traffic Buffer from traffic Quality of bicycle access Increase employment, retail and consumer accessibility for neighborhoods Average lane width adjacent to parking Degree of pinching (# of curb extension locations > 6 ft) Number of jobs w/in 30 min radius (by mode) Number of retail jobs w/in 15 min; # hhs w/in 15 min (by mode) Source Physical Designs Physical Designs Physical Designs Physical Designs Physical Designs VISSIM Physical Designs Physical Designs Physical Designs Travel Demand Model Travel Demand Model

Urban Design/Landscape * Neighborhood Livability and Commercial Vitality * Transit Priority Network System Development
Sub-criteria Street identity Integration with adjacent land uses Ability to create useable public open space Quality, quantity, and character of landscaping Methodology/Definition Recognizable design theme or street elements Access between bus stops and adjacent land uses Edge-area ratio of landscape "borrow-able" by adjacent land uses Square feet of softscape Consistency of landscape footprint throughout corridor Square feet of canopy at maturity Change in number of healthy existing trees Source Qualitative Qualitative Physical Designs Physical Designs Qualitative Physical Designs Qualitative

O:\BRT\Geary\Appendices for Final Feasibility Study\C - Evaluation\Evaluation Framework.doc

Page 4 of 6

Urban Design/Landscape (continued)

Quality of sustainable storm water management treatments Percentage of permeable surfaces Number of mature trees Physical Designs Physical Designs

Traffic Impacts and Parking * Neighborhood Livability and Commercial Vitality

Sub-criteria Change in person delay Accommodate traffic circulation and access Change in traffic volumes on parallel streets Presence of on-street parking Methodology/Definition Total intersection person-delay (various movements by mode) Intersection LOS Number of turn restrictions Traffic volumes at screen line locations (Intersection LOS where known) Net change in on-street parking capacity by segment Source VISSIM VISSIM Physical Design Travel Demand Model/ Synchro Physical Designs

Cost (capital/operating) * Efficient, Effective and Equitable Transit Service

Sub-criteria Capital cost Operating and maintenance costs Methodology/Definition Total construction costs including hard and soft costs Total operating cost (vehicles x hours) and maintenance costs Operating expense per vehicle hour Service efficiency and effectiveness Operating expense per unlinked passenger trip Unlinked passenger trips per vehicle revenue hour Source Cost Estimate Muni Cost Model DPW Estimates Muni Cost Model/ Service Plans Muni Cost Model/ Travel Demand Model Travel Demand Model Service Plans

O:\BRT\Geary\Appendices for Final Feasibility Study\C - Evaluation\Evaluation Framework.doc

Page 5 of 6

Construction Impacts * Neighborhood Livability and Commercial Vitality

Sub-criteria Maintain access to local businesses Methodology/Definition Construction period length Construction period intensity Source Construction Estimate Construction Estimate

O:\BRT\Geary\Appendices for Final Feasibility Study\C - Evaluation\Evaluation Framework.doc

Page 6 of 6