Ci,ics Ors,mci. County 0 ,' 3 U n,+ L \1\1 'D. The consensus processCbarlotte B. Powers 'V, L¥' r
Association of B,y Arcu Governments
.4 'k' 4, A'fII. A Short History ofthe Transbay Terminalyon Rubin 0 '1'.'toSm Fnncisco Mayor's Appointec What is the role Of the Transbay Tergnal in the Region ?
Angelo j. Simiusa A. Previous efforts to improve the IeifilinalSm Francisco Boy Consen,2[ion 1Ind I)evelopment Commission B. Current uses at the Terminal
Kathryn Winter
Nap, County and CitiesIII. Common Ground and Next Steps
Sbaron Wrigbt What is our common understanding of the key issues ?Sonam. County and Cities
A. Making a successful Transbay Terminal.Har,y Yabata
State Business, Transporta ionand 1 lousing Agency
IV. A "Scrapbook" of Ideas
Regional transportation terminals that are great for transit and for people.
I urence D. Dabms A. Lessons learned from around the world.Executive Director B. Panel recommendations for further research.
Witium F. HeinDeputy Executive Director
.
TRANSBAY TERMINAL IMPROVMENT PLANPROJECT SUMMARY AND WORKPLAN
I. PROJECT SUMMARY
In June 1998, BATA passed a motion directing staff to prepare a capital and operating costanalysis ofthree options to improve the Transbay Terminal, as follows:
• renovate the existing terminal;• replace the existing facility with a new facility on the same site; and• relocate the existing facility to a new facility at Howard and Beale Streets.
The project is structured in two phases:
Phase 1. Develop and implement a process for arriving at a consensus among the affected
parties on the short-term and long-term objectives of and facility requirements fora Transbay Terminal Improvement Project.
Phase 2. Based on the results of Phase 1, develop and analyze conceptual design optionsfor a Transbay Terminal Improvement Project.
In August, 1998, staff released a Request For Proposal (RFP) to hire consultant services toconduct a Transbay Terminal Improvement Plan. Based on review of the proposalssubmitted, a consultant selection committee which was comprised of representatives of ACTransit, City and County of San Francisco, Caltrans and MTC, unanimously recommend thatthe firm of Simon Martin-Vegue Winkelstein Moris (SMWM) be selected for the TransbayTerminal Improvement Plan project. In November, the BATA Administration Committeeauthorized the executive Director to enter into a contract with SMWM.
A summary ofthe SMWM team is provided below.
Prime & Subconsultants Area of Responsibility
Simon Martin-Vegue Winkelstein • Consensus building and development of terminalMoris designsLaSalle Partners Development • Economic development evaluationLTK Engineering Services • Transit operations analysisBusiness Development Inc. • Consensus building and public outreach
The project schedule calls for Phase 1 of the project to be completed by May/June, 1999 andPhase 2 of the project to be completed by November, 1999. The total cost to complete theproject is $550,000 ($230,000 for Phase 1 and $320,000 for Phase 2).
II. SCOPE OF WORK
PHASE 1Task 1. Develop Final Project Workpian and Schedule
Under this task, Consultant will:
A. Develop draft workplan and schedule for the completion of the project afld a preliminarystructure and process to involve staff and policy representatives of the affected agencies,organizations and BATA to successfully reach consensus on a set of objectives andfacility requirements for a Terminal Improvement Project. (Working Paper #1.1: FinalPhase 1 Workplan, Schedule and Process, and Structure of Consensus Process)
B. Hold one-on-one interviews with key project stakeholders (e.g. representatives ofagencies and organizations impacted by the project, including BATA) to assess anddocument the major agreements, issues and concerns of the affected parties about the
project.
C. Present preliminary workplan, schedule and consensus building process to BATA WorkProgram Committee (BATA WPC) for review and comment.
D. Based on review by BATA WPC and stakeholder interviews, 1) develop a final workplanand schedule for the completion of Phase 1 of the project, including the level of effort andexpected results for each work task, the products to be delivered for each work task, thestaffing requirements and assignments for each work task, and a detailed schedule for
completing each worktask, including a schedule of meetings, workshops and publicoutreach activities; and 2) develop a final structure and processes to discuss and reachconsensus among the representatives of the affected parties and the public on theobjectives and requirements for a Transbay Terminal Improvement Project through theconstitution of a Transbay Panel which includes representatives of the affected agencies(City of San Francisco, AC Transit, Caltrans and MTC) and includes the active
participation of other impacted and interested organizations and groups.
Task 2. Develop Consensus on Terminal Components and Criteria
Under this task, CONSULTANT will:
A. Work with the Transbay Panel and BATA to gather information and reach consensus forreasonable assumptions for the Transbay Terminal Improvement Plan. Consultant willconduct analyses and prepare reports and memoranda for discussion with BATA WPC,representatives ofthe affected agencies, and with the Transbay Panel. This task willinclude discussing and meeting with representatives of the affected agencies and otherorganizations on an as needed basis to gather, review and disseminate information for theanalyses. This task also includes revising and editing analyses, reports and memorandabased on discussions with BATA and the Transbay Panel. The analyses, reports andmemoranda will include, but not be limited to, the following:
1. A summary review of the history and past improvement efforts that have beenconducted regarding the existing Transbay Terminal facility, including adescription of the current uses of the facility and ramps (bus boarding, stagingand parking areas, ticket offices, passenger areas, joint development, etc.). (Drq#Working Paper #2.1: Terminal History and Current Facility Use)
2. An assessment ofthe key areas of agreement among the affected agencies and themajor issues that need to be addressed on the terminal objectives andrequirements. These agreements and issues should be based on the one-on-oneinterviews (Task #IC) with the key stakeholders and the review and analysis ofpast improvement efforts. This assessment should include a discussion ofpotential constraints (facility size, project costs, operations, available financing,etc.) that must be addressed as part of the project development. (Drq# WorkingPaper #2.2: Identification of Areas of Agreement and Key Issues to beAddressed-Results of Initial Stakeholder Interviews)
3. A review and analysis of relevant transit facility and joint development projectsthat have been completed in the United States and internationally with theobjective of preparing display materials and slide show for presentation anddiscussion with the Transbay Panel.
4. An assessment of potential physical and operational requirements toaccommodate alternative forms of rail service at the terminal and its immediatevicinity. This assessment will include, but not be limited to, identifying therequirements for rail access and accommodation in a facility, order of magnitudecost estimates to accommodate rail services, impacts on bus services, and the
policy impacts of accommodating rail alternatives in the terminal. (Draft WorkingPaper #2.3: Rail Service Issues and Impacts)
5. A compilation of the facility space and utilization requirements (Draft WorkingPaper #2.4: Terminal Space and Utilization Requirements) including, but notlimited to:
• the public and private operators' short and long-term space requirements fora terminal facility. This task will include assigning a team member to be aliaison with each individual transit operator in the assessment of the
operators' facility requirements and reviewing and confirming the transitspace and utilization requirements with each transit operator.
• the space requirements for ticket offices, maintenance facilities, security,
passenger areas and amenities and other required services and operations.
6. An assessment ofthe joint development issues and opportunities for a terminalimprovement project including economic, transit, and urban design benefits of amixed-use transit project. (Draft Working Paper #2.5: Joint Development Issuesand Opportunities)
7. Based on the terminal objectives and requirements discussed in Task A2, developdescription of terminal components and criteria for evaluation and consensusdiscussion. U)raft Working Paper #2.6: Terminal Components and CriteriaConsensus)
B. Present and discuss analyses and working papers with BATA, BATA WPC and with aTransbay Panel, which includes representatives of the affected agencies (City ofSan Francisco, AC Transit, Caltrans and MTC) and includes the active participation ofother impacted and interested organizations and groups. This task includes organizingand conducting all meetings, facilitating meetings, documenting all discussions and
preparing meeting minutes and summaries, and preparing all presentation materials, asfollows.
1. Meeting #1: Lessons Learned/New Perspectives. Meeting will review the historyto date, identifying key hurdles and issues that will provide a commonunderstanding of the importance of the current project, and will include anoverview of national and international experience with central city transitfacilities.
2. Meeting #2: Focus on Operations. Meeting will review the combined multi-modal needs for the Terminal and the preliminary evaluation and implications ofdifferent parameters of use and demand.
3. Meeting #3: Focus on Terminal Development. Meeting will present developmentstrategy scenarios based on international and national prototypes and thedevelopment opportunities inherent in the Transbay Project.
4. Meeting #4: Milestone - Consensus on Description of Components and Criteria.Meeting will present the components and criteria for the new terminal, both transitoperations and access and joint development.
Task 3. Building a Terminal Program Consensus ( Terminal Objectives andRequirements)
Under this Task, CONSULTANT will:
A. Work with the Transbay Panel and BATA to build consensus on a conceptual facilityprogram. Consultant will develop and evaluate conceptual facility programs thatintegrate the terminal objectives and requirements discussed in Task #2. This task willinclude:
1. Developing a conceptual engineering terminal program that describes indiagrammatic form the relationship among Terminal components and their initialimplications for adjacencies, verticality and phasing, (Dra# Working Paper #3.1:Conceptual Programs for Accommodating Transit Requirements)
2. Developing a range of program options for accommodating the transit needsidentified in Task 2. (Drq# Working Paper #3.1: Conceptual Programs forAccommodating Transit Requirements)
3. Illustrating minimum operating requirements, desired operations above theminimum, capital and operating costs, fatal flaws, and incompatibilities. (Drq#Working Paper #3.1: Conceptual Programs for Accommodating TransitRequirements)
4. Constructing feasible programs and economic models for joint development basedon the essential elements for a successful terminal and potential corollaryfacilities. (Drq# Working Paper #3.2: Conceptual Programs for JointDevelopment)
5. Developing conceptual, program-diagrams of the terminal options. (Drq#Working Paper #3.3: Consensus Transit and Joint Development Program)
6. Develop and recommend a proposed detailed workplan for Phase 2 of the project,which includes, but is not limited to, the tasks to be completed, the staffingrequirements, and the project budget and schedule. (Working Paper #3.4:Detailed Phase 2 Workplan, Schedule, and Budget)
B. Present and discuss the terminal objectives, requirements and components and the Phase
2 workplan with the BATA Work Program Committee and with the Transbay Panel forconsensus approval. This task includes organizing and conducting all meetings,facilitating meetings, documenting all discussions and preparing meeting minutes andsummaries, and preparing all presentation materials, as follows:
1. Meeting #5: How do the Components Work Together. Meeting will delineatethree conceptual programs, with discussion as to operations, engineering, design,
development, and financial implications. Meeting will include opportunities forthe public and interested groups and organizations to participate in the discussionofterminal objectives, requirements and components (Transbay ConceptProgram).
2. Meeting #6: Milestone - Transit Program and Joint Development Program.Establish consensus on how the program components fit together.
3. Present the consensus facility objectives, requirements and components and thePhase 2 workplan for review to representatives of the affected agencies,organizations and the policy boards ofthe affected agencies on an as needed basis.
4. Present the consensus facility objectives, requirements and components to theBATA Work Program Committee and BATA for review and approval. (WorkingPaper #3.5: Transmittal of Phase 1 Findings for BATA Review)
PHASE 2
Task 4. Evaluate and Recommend a Preferred Terminal Site (Alternative/SiteTesting)
Under this task, CONSULTANT will:
A. Work with the Transbay Panel and BATA to develop consensus on a site for theTransbay Terminal Improvement Plan. Consultant will develop and analyze threeterminal alternatives (replacement ofthe current terminal at the existing site, a majorrehabilitation of the existing terminal at the existing site and relocating the terminal to aMain/Beale location) to determine which option best accommodates the terminalobjectives, requirements and components (Transbay Concept Program) established inPhase 1. Consultant will develop two-dimensional drawings and diagrams to illustratethe alternatives. This analysis will include, but not be limited to, the following:
1. Describing the parameters of the existing Transbay Terminal and the Main/Beale sitelocations, including the physical layout (size, adjacent land uses, traffic volumes,etc.)._(Drq# Working Paper #4.1: Evaluation ofTerminal Site Alternatives)
2. Evaluating the transit operational, access and capacity issues and opportunities foreach alternative to accommodate the short-term and long-term transportation serviceneeds. (Dra# Working Paper #4.1: Evaluation ofTerminal Site Alternatives)
3. Evaluating the ability of each of the alternatives to accommodate temporary operatingfacilities, if required; (Drq# Working Paper #4.1: Evaluation of Terminal SiteAlternatives)
4. Evaluating the joint development constraints and opportunities associated with eachof the alternatives and testing the economics of each alternatives against the financialmodel; (Dra# Working Paper #4.1: Evaluation ofTerminal Site Alternatives)
5. Evaluating and comparing the costs of each ofthe alternatives, including assessingthe costs relative to the benefits of each alternative and examining the potential fundprogram for each alternative. (Dra# Working Paper #4.1: Evaluation ofTerminalSite Alternatives)
6. Prepare site alternatives (replacement of the current terminal at the existing site, amajor rehabilitation of the existing terminal at the existing site and relocating theterminal to a Main/Beale location) for evaluation and consensus discussion for thedevelopment of a preferred alternative for a terminal improvement project. (Drq#Working Paper #4.2: Terminal Site Location Evaluation and Consensus)
B. Present and discuss analyses of the alternatives with BATA, BATA WPC, with theTransbay Panel and with other affected groups, organizations and individuals, asrequired. This task will include conducting and facilitating meetings and preparing allmeeting materials for Transbay Panel and BATA to reach consensus on a preferredalternative.
1. Transbay Panel Phase 2 Reconfirmation Meeting
2. Meeting #7: Test Fit of Sites with Program. Meeting will present options for theTerminal Program at each site.
3. ·Meeting #8: Milestone - Site Evaluation and Consensus.. Establish consensus onsite fit for consensus Terminal Program.
Task 5. Design and Analyze Facility Options and Recommend a Preferred TerminalDesign (Design for Action)
Under this task, CONSULTANT will:
A. Work with the Transbay Panel and BATA to develop consensus on design anddevelopment concepts for the Transbay Terminal Improvement Plan. Consultant willdevelop and evaluate conceptual terminal designs. Consultant will develop two-dimensional drawings and diagrams to illustrate the conceptual terminal designs. Thistask will include, but not be limited to:
1. Developing and assessing conceptual designs on the preferred site that meet theobjectives, requirements and components identified in Phase 1 and identify andaddress outstanding issues regarding the terminal objectives and requirements.(Draft Working Paper #5.1 : Evaluation of Conceptual Terminal Designs)
2. Developing and assessing options for temporary operating facilities and projectphasing. (Draft Working Paper #5.1 : Evaluation of Conceptual Terminal Designs)
3. Conducting one in-house charrette to develop design alternatives. Charrette wouldinclude client team, and, at the discretion of MTC, members of the Transbay Panel.Week long charrette would be a working meeting with on-going review and aninformal wrap-up presentation.
4. Developing operating and capital cost estimates and a financing strategy for theconceptual designs. (Draft Working Paper #5.1 : Evaluation of Conceptual TerminalDesigns)
5. Developing conceptual renderings, diagrams and spatial specifications for theconceptual designs. U)raft Working Paper #5.1 : Evaluation of Conceptual TerminalDesigns)
6. Developing a terminal design and operational and implementation strategy for theconsensus alternative. This task will include developing and recommending plans forterminal operations, joint development, project phasing, interim/temporaryoperations, financing, and required next steps. (Draft Working Paper #5.2:
Consensus Terminal Design and Operational and Implementation Strategy)
B. Present and discuss and hold workshops on the conceptual terminal design options andterminal design, economic model, and operational and implementation strategies with theBATA Work Program Committee and with the Transbay Panel as shown below. Thistask will include conducting and facilitating meetings and preparing all meeting materialsfor Transbay Panel to reach consensus on a Transbay Termihal Design, Development andOperations Strategy. This task will also include a maximum of one presentation each ofthe consensus terminal design review to the representatives and the policy boards ofMTC/BATA, AC Transit, the City and County of San Francisco, and Caltrans on an asneeded basis.
1. Meeting #9: Design/Engineering/Development Concepts. Meeting will presentdesign options for the consensus Terminal Program on the consensus Terminal Site.Meeting will include opportunities for the public and interested groups andorganizations to participate in the discussion of terminal design options.
2. Meeting #10: Milestone-Design, Development and Operations Strategy. Establishconsensus on concept design for the Transbay Terminal Improvement Plan and theessential components for moving forward including terminal operations, jointdevelopment, phasing, interim operations, financing, and next steps.
3. Present the consensus terminal design and operational and implementation strategy tothe BATA Work Program Committee and BATA for review and approval. (WorkingPaper #5.3: Final Project Summary Notebook and Executive Summary)
Simon Martin-Vegue Winkelstein Morisand Associated Consultants
t
1. Historical and Geographical Context
In considering the history of San Francisco's Transbay Transit Terminal, it will be useful to consider notonly its 60-year history as a building, but also its place as an important transportation node in the region.
To begin with - why is there such a terminal at all? Why should there be a regional transit node at Firstand Mission?
The more we understand the original purpose of a city's physical components, the moremeaningful is its present pattern and the more we learn about the processes at work inthe city's structure. James E. Vance
The Transbay Terminal is a physical expression of the basic facts of urban and economic development inthe Bay Area as they have existed almost from the earliest period of the region's "western" history. Tounderstand the Terminal and its role, some thought needs to be given to Downtown San Francisco, and itslocation in the regional setting.
San Francisco's Downtown - its Financial District, commercial retail core, and associated economiccenter, including, hotels, restaurants, theaters and close-in, high-density residential areas, stem from aneconomic pre-eminence whose establishment can be traced back for 160 years. In the entire Bay Area, itwas what we now know as Downtown San Francisco, rather than other places, that grew into the regionalcenter because the region's first transportation system - its water-borne system - favored this location.
Today, San Francisco's location at the tip of a Peninsula, with a few congested links to the "mainland" anddelightfully incomplete freeway system in a freeway era, seems eccentric. It is not located at the center ofthe land-based transportation system. However, in his seminal Geography and Urban Evolution in the SanFrancisco Bay Area, (1964) Cal Professor James E. Vance, Jr. noted that in the earliest period of westernsettlement, when the waterways of California and its great bay provided the basis for the state'stransportation (just as the highway system does today), San Francisco was :..the hub of the mostimportant transportation network on the Pacific Coast."
San Francisco's Downtown waterfront was the point at which ocean-going and intra-state commerce inter-connected and exchanged cargoes, and, hard though it may be to understand today, it was the city'stransportation centrality which caused it to become the economic center of life for a physically vast empire.The economic functions which were spun off from this economic activity - banking, wholesale and retailtrade, ancillary economic activity of all kinds - made Downtown San Francisco the nucleus of California'seconomic life.
In time, the arrival of the railroads brought an industrially-based economic and urban growth of a kind thatSan Francisco's geography prevented it from capturing. The East Bay, what the Spanish and Mexicanshad called the 'Contra Costa"or 'opposite shore", enjoyed economic centrality in the railroad era in theway that Downtown San Francisco had during the ' era of the boatman." With the arrival of the firsttranscontinental railroad in the East Bay in 1869, and a realization that San Francisco could be
disadvantaged economically by lack of rail connections to the east, a degree of panic set in. (See TheSan Francisco Bay Area: A Metropolis in Perspective (1959,1985) by Mel Scott). There was fear thatupstarts such as Oakland might replace San Francisco as the hub. Looking to a possibly gloomy future forSan Francisco, the Bulletin opined, "San Francisco has quietly waited for the cars to bring themselves toher ships, until she finds the railroad transportation of the state, from the south, the east and the north, fast
Transbay Terminal Improvement PlanWorking Paper 2.1: Terminal History--DRAFT
2
.
concentrating on the eastern shore of the bay, and her ships passing themselves over to the cars...Thefate of Venice awaits her if they are not brought back; and they can be brought back only by stretching therails across the bay, and laying their end upon our wharves." (26 October 1871). The Call added, ' ...thenecessity for some...medium of communication between San Francisco and Alameda shores of the Bayother than by vessel has long been felt and discussed by our citizens, but never with so muchearnestness nor so much firm belief in its practicability as at the present time." (6 October 1871). Butdespite many proposals, no means of transportation "other than by vessel", directly linking the city with thecentral East Bay was built until the Bay Bridge was constructed in the 1930s.
11. The :'Bridge of Ferries"
Yet, San Francisco remained the business hub of the west for decades after the arrival of the railroads inthe East Bay, even after it was eclipsed in population by Los Angeles in 1910. As Vance notes:
...once San Francisco was sited at the end of its peninsula, it began to expand into ametropolis which came ultimately to encompass most of the early rivals...In the earlystages of urban settlement, there was no central city within the San Francisco Bay Area,allowing vain hopes to San Jose, Alviso, Benicia, and New York of the Pacific (Pittsburg).But there was never any real doubt as to the need for such a core...
Once established in the pre-railroad era, this dominance was supported by the development of one of themoat imposing train and ferry services ever established anywhere.
Although primordial Transbay service by common carrier had existed since the 185Os, the intensiveservice which colors public recollection even today in the Bay Area really took place only after theconsolidation of the railroad empire of the "Big Four" (Stanford, Crocker, Huntington and Hopkins) into theSouthern Pacific Company in 1885. A virtual monopoly on rail lines, and access to large sources of capitalmade it possible for the SP to construct a large passenger train and ferry terminal in West Oakland knownpopularly as the "Oakland Mole", as well as at Alameda and other places, to upgrade track and installsignal systems, and to construct large ferryboats capable of carrying two or three thousand people,several trains worth, at one time, crossing the Bay to the foot of Market Street in less than 20 minutes.
Crossing the bay by ferry and train became a basic characteristic of Bay Area life. By the turn of thecentury, so common a shared experience was this service that in his definitive novel of old SanFrancisco, The Heart Line (1907), author Gelett Burgess chose it for a key dramatic encounter in the plot;his description gives a sense of this shared way of life, which, though vanished, still has certain outlinesrecognizable to us almost a century later:
Outward, across the narrow, mile-long mole, the Oakland Local, a train of twelve coaches,swept on from block to block, beckoned by semaphores, till it threw itself with a roar intothe great train-shed upon the Oakland pier. The locomotive stopped, throbbing andpanting rhythmically, spouting a cloud of steam that eddied among the iron trusses of
the roof. The air brakes settled back with a long, relieved hiss. The cars emptiedstreams of passengers; the ferry-station became as populous and busy as a disturbedant-hill. Up the broad stairs and into the huge waiting-room the commuters poured,there to await the boat.
Transbay Terminal Improvement PlanWorking Paper 2.1: Terminal History-DRAFT
3
It was half-past nine in the morning. The earlier trains, laden with clerks andstenographers and the masses of early workers, had already relieved the traffic acrossthe bay. The present contingent consisted chiefy of the more well-to-do business men,ladies bent on shopping in the city, and a scattering of sorts. Some clustered in a densegroup by the door of the gangway, the better to rush on board and capture the favoriteseats; the rest took to the settees and unfolded their morning newspapers, conversed, orwatched the gathering throng.
The Overland from Chicago was already in, two hours late, and it contributed to theassembly its delegation of dusty, tired tourists, laden with baggage, commercial travelers,curious and bold, with a few immigrants in outlandish costumes, prolific in children andimpedimenta. Another roar and the Alameda local thundered into the shed and emptiedits lesser load. The Berkeley train had arrived also, and the waiting room was well-filled.
Through the glazed front of the hall the steamer Piedmont came into view, entering theslip. It slid in quietly and was deftly tied up. The gang-plank was lowered and itspassengers disembarked, filing through a passageway separated from the waiting throng
by a fence. Then the heavy door slipped upward, the crowd made for theentrance and passed on board the boat. As each party stepped off the gang-plank,someone would say, "Do you want to sit outside or inside?" The continual repetition ofthis question kept the after part of the deck echoing with the murmur.
This service remained a monopoly of the Southern Pacific until, in 1903, a borax millionaire, FrancisMarion Smith, having decided to challenge the SP and expand his real estate and local streetcar holdingsinto interurban public transportation, opened the first line of what became the "Key System." The firstline, recognizable as today's AC Transit bus line F-Berkeley via Shattuck Avenue, competed with SP'sBerkeley/Shattuck local trains. But while SP trains consisted of old steam engines pulling antique woodencoaches, Key's trains were fast, modern, electrified, in a way the BART of their day, and they ran out to apier located farther out in the bay than the Oakland Mole. (It was located just below the "turn" in thecantilever eastern section of the Bay Bridge. In fact, the Bridge's Oakland approach was eventually builtright alongside the Key System's mole and pier.) This, together with more modern ferries using propellersrather than side wheels, shortened the boat crossing time to about 15 minutes. Not only did this shortentravel time for passengers, it meant that a twenty-minute headway could be sustained with only two boatsin service. Additional routes were soon opened to Piedmont, Claremont (whose hotel was a BoraxSmith/Key System project), and more sections of Berkeley and Oakland.
In response to this invasion of its territory, Southern Pacific reacted with a dramatic program ofelectrification, re-equipment and expansion of its own lines. SP was in the hands of Union Pacific's E. H.Harriman, a tycoon who never shrank either from a fight or from investment in his railroad empire when hefelt it necessary. (See E. H. Harriman, A Biography (1922) by George Kennan). SP obviously observedthe tremendous patronage success of the Key operation, and was no doubt also encouraged by thegrowth in population of central East Bay cities; benefitting from the San Francisco earthquake and fire, thecentral East Bay more than doubled in population between 1900 and 1910. By the late 'teens, the EastBay, thanks to the struggle between SP and the Key System, had a very large network of electrifiedinterurban rail lines, often competing, and extended through ferries to San Francisco. This was in additionto an extensive local streetcar system operating on most major streets in the area between Richmond andHayward..
Transbay Terminal Improvement PlanWorking Paper 2.1: Terminal History-DRAFT
4
' '.
The peak in trans-bay ferry patronage was reached in about 1925, when 41.5 million passengers used theboats of the Southern Pacific and Key System, and, in much lower numbers, the Western Pacific andSanta Fe. Of the total, 39.8 million were local passengers. We sometimes think of the ferryboat service interms of its connections to long-distance trains, but actually the Transbay system was overwhelminglyoriented to regional transit purposes. Both Key System and SP Oakland boats left the San FranciscoFerry Building every 20 minutes. SP also ran boats every thirty minutes to Alameda, where they met twoelectrified rail lines serving the island city, plus a periodic one-boat shuttle service to the foot of Broadwayin Oakland (the "Creek Route"). The basic pattern of services was that trains and boats all ran on thesame headway, with carefully coordinated schedules so that every train on every line met a boat, andevery boat a train.
In addition to these services, a half-hour headway was operated to Sausalito by the SP-controlledNorthwestern Pacific Railroad, where yet another electrified interurban railroad network was operated toSan Rafael, San Anselmo, Fairfax/Manor, Mill Valley and intermediate towns. At Mill Valley, the NWPconnected with a scenic railway to Muir Woods and the summit of Mt. Tamalpais. The Santa Fe Railwayoperated ferry service to connect with its San Joaquin Valley trains at Richmond, and the Western Pacificran a boat to connect with its transcontinental trains at its own Oakland pier. Another electrified railroad,with lines running to Concord, Pittsburg, Sacramento and Chico, the Sacramento Northern, joined KeySystem rails in Oakland, and ran its trains to the Key System pier and ferries. In addition to all of this,automobile ferries, also largely controlled by a Southern Pacific subsidiary after 1929, becameincreasingly important after the mid-twenties, and came to represent a growing percentage of the totalTransbay patronage. Near the Ferry Building there were also terminals for boats to Vallejo, Stockton andSacramento.
The hub of this tremendous network was the San Francisco Ferry Building. Built in 1890s by the StateBoard of Harbor Commissioners (a state agency which controlled the San Francisco waterfront for acentury), this building was really San Francisco's Union Station. It is sometimes said that it was thesecond busiest railroad station in the world, and while the conclusive demonstration of that claim iselusive, it is certainly true that it was one of the world's greatest and busiest terminals - almost entirelybecause of the enormous "commute" passenger volumes. At peak hours, ridership was very heavy; thestudies done in planning the Bay Bridge found that in late 1929, even after some years of decline inridership, the SP and Key System passenger. ferries were transporting over 24,000 passengers in theeastbound direction between 4:40 and 6:20 PM, a number probably similar to BARTs current one-wayridership through the Transbay tube in the same period. More than 18,000 were transported in onedirection in the peak one hour, a high figure; even today, few transit systems in North America can claimto carry this number in one hour in the peak direction of travel. Some individual boats carried over 2700passengers each.
In front of the Ferry Building, more than half of San Francisco's local streetcar system terminated,providing connections to all parts of the city. This arrangement was excellent not only for Transbaypassengers, but also for the city's three transit operators (Market Street Railway, Municipal Railway, andCalifornia Street Cable Railroad Co.). It meant that streetcars and cable cars would be carrying loads intwo directions during peak periods; in the morning, for example, typical peak loads from cityneighborhoods into Downtown, then fresh loads outbound from the ferries. This phenomenon, known as'backhaul", can be very important; in 1927, Delos Wilcox, a consultant to the city noted that "...the city'sisolated position, with most of the suburban travelers coming in by water, makes lower Market Street awonderful reservoir of street railway traffic."
Transbay Terminal Improvement PlanWorking Paper 2.1: Terminal History-DRAFT
5
In this "classical period" of regional transit, however, there was one significant exception to the FerryBuilding's status as a 'Union Station", i.e. one serving all railroad lines, and that was the SouthernPacific's Peninsula line which terminated at Third and Townsend Streets. This line was used, as it istoday, by "commuter" trains to San Jose, and also by longer-distance trains to coastal points such asMonterey and Santa Cruz, and to Santa Barbara and Los Angeles via the Coast Route, with a few trainsrunning beyond LA to other destinations. Over the years, various proposals were made for theelectrification and extension of this line to a better downtown terminal in San Francisco, but for whateverreason, this was obviously never actually undertaken. The original route of the SP's peninsula line in SanFrancisco was through the Mission District, Bernal Cut, Daly City and San Bruno, roughly the alignment ofBART today. However, this route involved running in city streets, and it was slow and hilly, requiringhelper locomotives.
Consequently, the UP/SP Harriman management built the so-called ' Bayshore Cutoff", the fast, tunneledroute used by commuter trains today between Townsend Street and Bayshore. This alignment waslargely built with future four-tracking and electrification in mind. It is sometimes said that the SouthernPacific Building at 65 Market Street (later renamed #1 Market after the structures between Steuart and theEmbarcadero were removed) was designed to permit a future electrified and elevated extension of thePeninsula trains to the back of the structure, using a design similar to that used at 6th and Main streets inLos Angeles by SP's subsidiary Pacific Electric. If this had been done, it would truly have brought allregional rail and rail/ferry service together in one place at the foot of Market Street.
Apparently, electrification studies were being done as late as the 1920s (see Southern Pacific's CoastLine, (1994) by John Signor), but were then dropped. In the twenties, SP's electrified interurban railservices in the East Bay, in Los Angeles and in Portland were losing money, though in places they wereheavily used. In addition, SP owned financially disappointing local streetcar systems in other, smallercities - Eugene, Stockton, San Jose, Fresno. Given the heavy investment in the East Bay suburbanelectric and ferry system, and the low likelihood of positive financial return, SP apparently walked awayfrom the idea of a Peninsula electrification. By the late thirties, all but the East Bay and Pacific Electricsystems were gone. Today's studies of Caltrain extensions to Downtown revisit some of these issues,though in a new context.
111. The Bridge Railway and The Bridge Terminal
The Hoover-Young Commission, named for the President and Governor who appointed it, conducted in1929 the original transportation studies which led to the Bay Bridge. The studies clearly assumed that thebridge would serve not only vehicular traffic, but also incorporate a rail extension to a San Franciscoterminal as well. There was not even a question about this. In deciding upon a recommendation for abridge location, the bridge's convenience to and usability by the 'Transbay" rail lines was a majorconsideration. The design criteria recommended for the bridge noted:
...interurban (rail) traffic is not increasing and it is probable that it will not be necessary toprovide for more than 40,000,000 interurban passengers per year for a considerable time.Two operation tracks, with an emergency track, are considered adequate to take care of
this amount of traffic.....The roadway on the lower deck...(is to provide)..for eitherfour interurban tracks, or two operative interurban tracks, one emergency passing trackand two vehicular lanes for truck traffic.
Transbay Terminal Improvement PlanWorking Paper 2.1: Terminal History--DRAFT
6
..
The bridge was eventually built as a double-deck structure, generally along the lines of the Commissionsrecommendation, though with a reduced rail plant. The upper deck carried six vehicular lanes forautomobile traffic. The lower deck carried three lanes for truck traffic (one in each direction, with thepassing lane now for trucks rather than trains) and two tracks. The bridge opened in November 1936, butthe Bridge Railway and Terminal did not open until January 1939, more than two years later - a costlydelay to the rail service, as it turned out. Among several alternative locations and layouts, the oneeventually selected was a loop terminal of six tracks fronting on Mission street between First and Fremont.A three4rack streetcar loop brought cars of the Municipal and Market street systems right to the front ofthe building; a control tower was located on the Terminal's marquee, from which a switch operator coulddirect cars to the correct track. Originally, alternate cars of the many lines running down Market to theFerry Building were routed to the Terminal, but scheduling difficulties seem to have made this awkward,and this arrangement was replaced by one in which different lines ran either to the Ferry or the BridgeTerminal.
The decline in Transbay rail and ferry ridership which had set in after 1925 had accelerated during theDepression. In 1933, faced with mounting losses, the state Public Utilities Commission approved a plan toeliminate the competitive lines which existed in several places in the East Bay. Thus, the Key System lineon Shattuck Avenue in Berkeley was cut back to South Berkeley, in favor of the SP's Berkeley line.. TheSP's Berkeley/California Street line was eliminated in favor of the Key's Sacramento Street line, and soon. After the Bridge opened in 1936, trains and ferries continued, but at a continuing disadvantagerelative to the automobile, which now had a "superhighway" across the Bay. Rail ridership continued todecline. In 1937, Key began some Transbay bus service. By 1938, Transbay rail ridership was down to20 million, having lost almost half its customers in the 13 difficult years since the high of 1925.
Still, the Bridge Railway was intended for - and began with - a fairly heavy use. The railway and itsterminal served the Key System's 6 lines, SP's 5 lines, and the relatively few trains of the SacramentoNorthern (SN). The February 1939 timetable called for 300 Key trains in each direction per weekday, 216SP trains in each direction, and 13 of the SN, over 1000 trains per day on the double4rack line. Between4:30 and 5:30 PM, 37 trains were scheduled to depart the Terminal for the East Bay, an average headwayof about 97 seconds.
It is important to recognize that the Terminal did not fully replace the Ferry Building. Only the local,"interurban" trains were routed over the Bridge Railway, and mainline service remained with its boatconnections at the Ferry Building until 1958. Thus, the Terminal actually represented a dilution of the'Union Station" idea, since it resulted in more, not fewer, railroad terminals in San Francisco, and areduction in connectivity of services. The presence of three railroad terminals in San Francisco causedenough confusion about what trains ran from where that Southern Pacific printed a special brochure fortourists during the busy World's Fair travel year of 1939, explaining the complex layout of terminals andservices. Moreover, after the Bridge opened, the Santa Fe had forsaken ferry connections to its trains,and replaced its presence at the Ferry Building with a 'streamlined modeme" bus terminal at 44 FourthStreet. Thus, the .Union Station" concept in San Francisco was really lost in 1939, though ironically a newUnion Station opened in Los Angeles in that same year, after many years of controversy.
Though it did not completely halt the decline in Transbay ridership, the Bridge Railway did seem to slowthe trend. However, the multi-carrier service did not last long enough for significant trends to emerge.Southern Pacific had clearly lost heart in its electrified passenger operations, and, in anticipation ofabandonment, and perhaps to facilitate abandonment, had spun off the Transbay service into a new,
Transbay Terminal Improvement PlanWorking Paper 2.1: Terminal History-DRAFT
7
separate company, the Interurban Electric Railway Company, IER. The Alameda lines, with roundaboutroutings through Fruitvale, were particularly hopeless. 1940 ridership for all lines was less than 20 million,slightly below the pre-bridge level. In response to this, the first step was a series of service reductions, butin 1940 and 1941, IER applied for and received permission to abandon service, ringing the final curtaindown on its once extensive East Bay service in July 1941. The Sacramento Northern first discontinued itslonger-distance trains to Chico and Sacramento, and then finally its commuter runs to Concord andPittsburg the same year.
The Key System, now with a Transbay monopoly, established some additional bus services, andrearranged its rail lines, in order to cover the territory formerly served by SP/IER trains. Five lines wereleft - A-Oakland/12th Street, B-Oakland/Grand Avenue, C-40th Street/ Piedmont, E-Clermont, F-Berkeleyvia Shattuck Avenue, now extended through the ex-Southern Pacific North Berkeley Tunnel to SolanoAvenue. However, hardly had this reduction in service by half occurred, but U.S. involvement in WorldWar 11 began. Gas and tire rationing, and war-induced economic activity, caused transit ridership to soareverywhere, but nowhere more acutely than in the Bay Area. By 1945, Key System trains were carrying25 million passengers per year on just five lines - more than had been carried by Key and SP combinedten years before.
IV. The Bus Era
The postwar period was bad for transit almost everywhere, and saw a steep decline in Bridge Railwayridership. Some of the decline was caused by a return to the "normal" conditions accompanying the liftingof gas rationing, but the Key System also went through a very long strike in 1953 from which it never reallyrecovered. A new ownership and management generally unsympathetic to rail service had taken overafter the war, and emphasis was placed on bus substitution, incremental at first, but more sweepingthereafter. These, plus other political factors, led to discontinuance of the rail service in 1958; ironically,the Southern Pacific's mainline ferryboat connections outlasted the Key trains by a few months. In 1957,the last full year of rail service, patronage was down to 5.2 million.
In the aftermath of rail abandonment, the Terminal was converted to bus use. Widespread publicdissatisfaction with the privately-operated Key System led to the establishment of the Alameda-ContraCosta Transit District, AC Transit, which took over the local and Transbay bus service in 1960. In the lastfull year of Key operation, 1959, Transbay bus-only ridership was down to 8 million, the lowest level ofTransbay transit ridership in this century. AC adopted a vigorous program of service improvement, and ahigh standard of near-perfect bus maintenance for which the agency was famous in the transit industry.By 1969, typical weekday Transbay bus ridership was approximately 44,000 passengers, a number whichsurged to 54,000 per weekday during the oil embargo. However, BART Transbay rail service began tosiphon patronage away from the bus network after 1974. Much of the Transbay bus system wasdiscontinued in the next dozen years as AC Transit's scarce operating resources were delicately balancedbetween local East Bay service, in many places providing a mobility where there is no other choice, andTransbay service where there was often a BART alternative. As AC's requirement for Terminal spacedeclined, some space was allocated to other carriers, including Golden Gate Transit, Greyhound, and touroperators. In the last year, the San Francisco Municipal Railway has begun to operate a one-bus shuttleline from the Terminal to Treasure Island, a service formerly provided by AC.
Recently, several factors have worked to support and strengthen the Transbay bus service. First, the bus
Transbay Terminal Improvement PlanWorking Paper 2.1: Terminal History--DRAFT
8
' I
system is more convenient for some people, and they have proved to be a determined group of transitsupporters. Rallying political and legal support, their efforts resulted in an AC Transit re-thinking of itsTransbay opportunities as part of a broader strategic plan in 1996-1997. Then, a BART work stoppage in1997 resulted in a massive increase in bus ridership - up to 42,000 per day, despite only a very limitedcapability of AC to redeploy service to meet bridge demand. After the strike, AC found that it retainedsome of the riders who had tried it out during the BART work stoppage; the total is now about 13,000 perday, primarily concentrated in peak periods. This is an increase of over 40% in comparison to pre-strikelevels. BART's extensions to outlying suburbs also may have resulted in fuller trains in inner East Bayurban areas, providing an additional incentive to some to use the bus service. A new and positiveComprehensive Service Plan is being implemented, and early results seem good. Ridership growth ispositive, and farebox recovery for the service has increased to a very healthy 65%.
The present terminal design effort is, therefore, being undertaken in a positive atmosphere of increasingbus ridership, and optimism about the role of the Transbay bus service in solving of long-term Transbaycapacity issues given the continued pace of regional growth. Furthermore, the proposals to extend theCaltrain service to the Terminal have recently received some positive political support, harking back toconsiderations of this service and its extension to a Downtown San Francisco station which go back manydecades. As has been seen, the idea of tying together all of these services has eluded San Francisco forover a century. Thus, the goal of the current effort, to bring these previously unsuccessful efforts to asolid and positive conclusion.
Transbay Terminal Improvement PlanWorking Paper 2.1: Terminal History-DRAFT
