Alternatives to replacement of the Embarcadero Freeway and the terminal separator structure : final environmental impact statement/environmental impact report and Section 4(f) evaluation

318 Pages·1996·17.4 MB·English

by  United States. Federal Highway Administration

^Mi Fi'Mf'SfO PUBLIC LIBRARY
FRANCISCO
SAN
PUBLIC LIBRARY
REFERENCE
BOOK
Not to be takenfrom the Library
SEP 2 2 1998

92.202E & 94.060E
ALTERNATIVES TO REPLACEMENT OF THE EMBARCADERO
FREEWAY AND THE
TERMINAL SEPARATOR STRUCTURE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIS/EIR)
AND
SECTION EVALUATION
4(f)
VOLUME
II:
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
AUGUST 1996
DOCUMENTS
DEPT.
SEP
1 1996
SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC LIBRARY
DOCUMENTS DEPT.
SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC LIBRARY
REFERENCE
BOOK
Not lo be taken from the Library
87
SANFRANCISCOPUBLICLIBRARY
223 04405 0087 Volume II: Summary ofComments and Responses
Table Of Contents
Section Page
INTRODUCTION
1
8. LISTOFAGENCIESAND PERSONS COMMENTING ON THE DRAFT EIS/EIR 4
ORALCOMMENTS RECEIVED AT PUBLIC HEARINGS
9.
ORGANIZED BYTOPIC 5
9.1 Comments on the Scopeof the Project, on the Definition of
ProjectAlternatives, and on the Project Purposeand Need 5
9.2 Comments on Jurisdictional and Funding Issues 15
9.3 Comments about Related Projects and Possible Future Projects 1
9.4 Comments on Transportation Effects and theAnalysis of Transportation Issues 1
9.5 Comments on other Environmental Effects 26
9.6 Comments on Non-Environmental Issues, including Economic Effects 28
9.7 Comments Regarding General Organization ofthe Document, Graphics,
Factual Information Provided, and the Review Process 31
9.8 Preferences Expressed Regarding Alternatives 37
10. COMMENT LETTERS
10.1 Public Agency Comments 41
(US Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX; US Department of the Interior.
Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance; California State Lands
Commission; Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board; City of Alameda; Golden
Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District; Port of San Francisco; San
Francisco Municipal Railway; San Francisco County Transportation Authority;
San Francisco RedevelopmentAgency)
10.2 Private Individuals and Groups 75
(Sierra Club; San Francisco Tomorrow; San Francisco Planning and Urban
Research Association; M. Levine; DeMars & Maletic; W. Schmalz; Steuart Street
Association; Golden Gateway Center; Lillick & Charles; Citizens for Open Space
and to Retain the Vaillancourt Fountain; G. Chester; Clocktower Lofts Owner's
Association Board of Directors; A. Meader; Design in Sync; L. Bird; D. Gordon;
A. Rogers; M. Paglietti; S. Caramia; South of Market Alliance for the Revival of
the SOMA Environment; J. & J. Baldwin; G. Lang; R. & R. Lowe; Chinatown
Resource Center; S. Hestor; Chinatown Transportation Research and
Improvement Project; M. Mah; M. Chung; K. Pell; T & C Burkhart; J. Chow;
Kaliski, Tof, Spence, & Andersen; Koga & Berge; Matsoukis & Duke)
i
REF 388 411 AL7 9f
.
V 2
.
Volume II: Summary ofComments and Responses
Alternatives to
replacement of the
1996 .
Table Of Contents (Continued)
Pa e
Section 9
RESPONSES TO ORALANDWRITTEN COMMENTS ORGANIZED BY TOPIC 170
11.
11.1 Responsesto Comments on the Scopeof the Project, the Definition of Project
Alternatives, and the Project Purpose and Need 170
11.1.1 The Project Should Address Traffic Problems in Chinatown 170
A. Improve Regional Access to Chinatown and Include
Solutions toTraffic Problems in Chinatown. Including
Transit Connections (SPUR, CRC, Hestor, Mah,
170
ChinatownTRIP)
B. Earlier Suggestions Including Intercept Parking were
Improperly Dismissed (Schmaltz, CRC, Hestor, Queen) 172
C. Maintain Right-of-Way forTransit Loops where Freeway
Ramps have been Removed (Hestor) 174
D. NoAlternatives Address Chinatown Needs/Consider
onlyAlternatives that ImproveTraffic Flow and Decrease
Travel time to Chinatown (Chinatown TRIP, CRC) 175
11.1.2 Other Proposed Modifications/Additions to the Project 175
A. Consider Depressing or Undergrounding the
Embarcadero Roadway
(SFT, Maletic. Bird, Ciampi, Unobskey, Levin) 175
B. Changes to Bryant Street and Pedestrian Improvements
77
on 2nd Street (Design) 1
C. Extend Essex Streetto Howard (Schmaltz, Chappell) 178
D. Shorten the Fremont Street Off-Ramp or Omit
Proposed Modifications to the Ramp (SPUR,
Schmaltz, Alexander, Bement, Manus, Chappell) 179
E. Relocate the Second Street On-Ramp (Chester) 181
F. Re-examine Carpool Lanes on the Essex and
Sterling Street Ramps (Schmaltz. Chester) 182
G. Opening Davis Street to VehicularTraffic (GGC, Lillick & Charles,
182
Chester)
H. LeftTurn Lanes and the Widening' of Washington Street
183
(GGC. Walters, Bird)
3 1223 04405 0087
PUBLKTEIBRARY
S.F.
Volume II: Summary of Comments and Responses
Table of Contents (Continued)
Section Page
I. Add More Southbound Lanes to the Embarcadero
(Schmaltz) 183
J. Add Class One and Two Bicycle Lanes (Poschmann, Means) 184
11.1.3 Other Comments Regarding the Scope of the
Projectand the Project Purpose and Need 184
A. Expand the Project Purpose and Need (Schmaltz) 184
B. There is no Need for the Second Street On-Ramp
(Clocktower, Design.Bird, Paglietti, Baldwin,
Lowe, Gott, Hempel, Chappell, SOMA
Rose, Paglietti, Chow, Kaliski, Koga) 185
C. There is no Need for the Second Street Off-Ramp
(Clocktower, Design, Bird, Paglietti, Baldwin,
Lowe, Chappell, SOMA Rose, Pell, Kaliski,
Koga, Matsoukis) 186
D. Includethe DPTVariant at
Equal Level of Detail (Goodenough) 187
E. None of theAlternatives Provide Comparable
Capacity (Johnson, Queen) 188
F. Transit First -- There's No Need to Increase
Automobile Capacity (Means, Levin, Chow) 189
11.2 Responses to Comments on Jurisdictional and Funding
Issues (USEPA, State Lands, Port, SFTA, Sierra Club,
SOMA
SFT, Rose, Chappell. Levin) 190
A. Coastal Zone Consistency 190
B. State Lands Commission Jurisdiction 191
C. Bayside Plaza 191
D. PortJurisdiction 191
E. Captial Cost and Financial Feasibility 192
F. Eligibility for Emergency Relief Funds 192
G. "Fundability" of Project Alternatives 193
H. San Francisco's "Transit First" Policy 194
in
2
Volume II: Summary ofCommentsand Responses
Table of Contents (Continued)
Section Page
11.3 ResponsestoComments on Related Projectsand
Possible Future Projects(SFRA) 194
11.3.1 Caltrain Extension (JPB, SFRA, SFT) 195
11.3.2 Construction on Assessor's Blocks 202 and 203
(GGC, Walters, Aarons) 196
11.3.3 Rincon HillArenaand Mission Bay Entertainment
Complex (Schmaltz, Bird, Hestor) 196
11.3.4 MUNI Ferry BusTerminal (Port, MUNI) 198
11.3.5 Muni F-Line(MUNI) 198
11.3.6 TransbayTerminal (Schmaltz) 199
11.4 Responsesto CommentsonTransportation Effects
andtheTransportationAnalysis 200
11.4.1 ChinatownTraffic 200
11.4.2 Traffic NearSecond Street and theClocktower 208
A. Second StreetOff-Rampwould Terminate atthe
Clocktower's Driveway (Clocktower, SOMA Rose,
Baldwin, Gott, Pell, Chow, Kaliski, Koga, Matsoukis) 208
B. Existing and Potential FutureTraffic Congestion
intheVicinity(Clocktower, Bird, Rogers, Paglietti,
Caramia, SOMA Rose, Alexander, Lord, Leibovitz,
Hempel, Design, Pell, Chow, Kaliski, Matsoukis) 208
11.4.3 General Comments Regarding Existing and Projected
FutureAutomobileTraffic, including the Incident
Analysis (Rogers, Baldwin, Clocktower, Chester,
Schmaltz, SierraClub, SFT, SFTA, SFRA,
Hestor, MUNI, SFRA, Goodenough, Letunic, Maletic,
Chow, Koga) 210
A. IncidentAnalysis (SFRA, MUNI, Chester) 210
B. Congestion Management Program (CMP)
Roadway Network (SFTA) 21