Volume II: Section 1 ¾ DEIS Comments and Responses
City of Oakland Planning Department 11/20/1998
1
2
3
3 Cont.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
22 Cont.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge East Span Seismic Safety Project FEIS Page 1-203
Volume II: Section 1 ¾ DEIS Comments and Responses
City of Oakland Planning Department 11/20/1998
City of Oakland Planning Department Letter dated 11/20/1998
Comment 1
The DEIS was made available for public review and comment for a period of 60 days. It was also posted on the Caltrans website. Notices of availability were mailed to approximately 3,500 interested individuals and organizations. Four public hearings were conducted to give citizens the opportunity to comment on the DEIS.
A southern alternative, Replacement Alternative S-4, was analyzed in the DEIS. An alternative similar to the referenced CCSF alternative was considered in the DEIS as Replacement Alternative S-1 and withdrawn from further consideration because another southern alternative (Replacement Alternative S-4) that avoided impacts to the EBMUD sewer outfall was available. Since publication of the DEIS, Replacement Alternative S-1 was reevaluated and the conclusion was that this alternative should remain withdrawn from consideration. The additional evaluation conducted has been summarized in Section 2.7.5— Replacement Alternative S-1 of the FEIS. In this discussion, information about the CCSF’s Modified S-1 Alternative has been included.
Comment 2
The East Span Project is exempt by statute from the provisions of CEQA and, therefore, an EIR is not required. The project qualifies for the statutory exemption under the California Streets and Highways Code Section 180 because its purpose is to enhance seismic safety and it would not increase capacity. Please see Chapter 5 of the FEIS for additional information. The East Span Project considers a reasonable range of project alternatives and adopts appropriate mitigation measures to address adverse impacts resulting from the project.
Comment 3
A reasonable range of alternatives has been addressed in the EIS (please see Chapter 2 — Project Alternatives). The range of alternatives to be studied was developed under the NEPA/404 Integration MOU and through an extensive public outreach process (please see Appendix F — NEPA/404 Integration Process).
The project's Purpose and Need is very specific: to provide a seismically safe vehicular lifeline connection. Caltrans' focus on seismic safety to the exclusion of congestion relief such as rail, HOV lanes, and other alternative commute options was intentional, because Caltrans considers the need for improved seismic safety in this corridor to be paramount. Because of the project’s size, it has led some members of the regional community to advocate for multiple purposes that address congestion relief in addition to safety. However, expanding the scope of the project to include congestion relief would have resulted in lengthy public and agency debate about how best to implement a congestion relief solution, with the result that the seismic safety component of the project would have been substantially delayed. Caltrans anticipates beginning construction of this critical safety project in late 2001. This would not have been possible if the scope of the project had included congestion relief.
As mentioned in response to Comment 2 above, the East Span Project is designated as a specific action necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency as defined in the Streets and Highways Code Section 180.2 and, therefore, is exempt from the requirements of CEQA. Both the interim retrofit and East Span projects are being implemented to prevent a catastrophic failure of the bridge and provide a lifeline connection, respectively, not to enhance capacity.
Comment 4
Please see Section 4.15 — Cumulative Impacts of the FEIS, which has been revised to include more details. Section 4.15 addresses traffic, air quality, and bicycle travel. Evaluation of travel modes is beyond the scope of the East Span Project.
Comment 5
The Interim Retrofit Project strengthened the bridge, so the East Span would be able to better withstand smaller earthquakes. The interim project would not prevent future emergencies in the event of a maximum credible earthquake. Further measures would be required to provide safety during and after a maximum credible earthquake.
Comment 6
Implementing rail on the SFOBB is beyond this project’s Purpose and Need. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is currently studying transit service options in the Transbay Corridor, especially the possibility of rail. Studies already completed by MTC include a long-term capital and operating cost analysis for various transit options for the Transbay Transit Terminal and a feasibility analysis of rail on the SFOBB. A study examining the possibility of non-SFOBB transbay rail crossings will be completed by fall 2002. See Section 2.5— Accommodation of Multi-modal Strategies in the FEIS for a summary of available information about the studies completed or currently being conducted by MTC.
Comment 7
As part of the MTC feasibility study, a working paper on structural issues of placing rail on the SFOBB was completed in October 1999. The four rail vehicle types analyzed in the working paper were BART, light-rail transit, commuter rail, and high-speed rail. The working paper found that rail could be implemented on the SFOBB with structural modifications to the East Span and major structural changes to the West Span and the YBI tunnel. It was determined that to accommodate rail on the East Span decks, they would need to be widened by 0.9 to 1.5 meters (3 to 5 feet) to provide adequate clearance for the suspension cable system as well as to be able to maintain 5 travel lanes. Additional strengthening beyond the established design criteria would also be required. Given the high cost (approximately three billion dollars) of making these necessary modifications to the SFOBB and the age of the existing West Span, it was decided that other options for a high-capacity transbay crossing should be evaluated and compared to implementing rail on the SFOBB. Please see Section 2.5— Accommodation of Multi-Modal Strategies for additional details of the studies completed by MTC. Section 2.5 also addresses the consideration of HOV lanes on the bridge.
Comment 8
The proposal to provide direct freeway access ramps eastbound and westbound to the potential Gateway Park has been discussed at a series of meetings about the Gateway Park. Caltrans investigated the possibility of a direct, at-grade entrance to the park from the eastbound lanes. Caltrans prepared preliminary plans attempting to provide direct access. The results indicated that a ramp, which meets current safety and design standards, from a freeway (which I-80 is at this location) would require either taking a part of the park for the ramp(s) or placing additional fill in the Bay, depending on where the ramps are located.
Access to the park from the westbound lanes was also investigated. Extensive Bay fill would be required to provide a standard exit ramp to the park. The northern alternatives would occupy all land on the northwest portion of the Oakland Touchdown area. It was determined that access to the park from the westbound lanes would be impracticable and Caltrans is not pursuing it further.
Caltrans has presented conceptual drawings of potential direct access options. The East Bay Regional Park District and Caltrans will continue to explore access options. However, these options are not a component of the East Span Project and would not be designed, funded, or constructed as part of this project.
Comment 9
The estimate of future travel demand and vehicle use in the corridor is beyond the scope of the East Span Project because this project’s sole purpose and need are to provide a seismically upgraded lifeline connection, not to increase capacity. However, there are several indicators that traffic volumes on the SFOBB approaches would
continue to increase in the future. These include an expected increase in daily person trips in the corridor, the continued growth of the car-dependent urban population, and the continuation of San Francisco, the East Bay, and the Peninsula as significant employment destinations.
Comment 10
Though glare screens on the bridge’s inside barriers might help to minimize traffic delays by limiting the visibility of incidents in opposing traffic, they are not recommended for this project because they would impact bridge users’ scenic views of the bridge and its surroundings.
Comment 11
The implementation of the Bay Trail extension to the west end of the Oakland Touchdown area is a condition of BCDC Permit 11-93 for the I-880/Cypress Freeway Replacement Project and would be implemented pursuant to the conditions of that permit unless amendments allow otherwise. The design of the bicycle/pedestrian path on the East Span Project replacement alternatives would accommodate a connection to the Bay Trail extension.
In January 2001, BCDC voted to amend the San Francisco Bay Plan and Seaport Plan to delete the "Port Priority Use" designation from areas around Burma Road, which will allow the City of Oakland to implement a development plan for non-maritime land uses. As a result, it is likely that Port trucks will not be using Burma Road and, therefore, Port operations would not be impacted by bicyclists using Burma Road.
Comment 12
A demand projection for the bicycle/pedestrian path has not been prepared. There is a limited amount of information regarding the capacity of bicycle facilities. The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) reported two-way high volumes for a two-lane bicycle facility as 500-2,000 bicycles per hour. The capacity of the East Span bicycle/pedestrian facility would also be affected by environmental conditions, skill and familiarity of cyclists, and specific geometric features of the facility.
The capacity of the East Span bicycle/pedestrian facility when used simultaneously by pedestrians, bicyclists and other non-motorized users would vary depending on the mix of users. It is important to note that the capacity of the facility does not indicate what level of demand the facility would likely generate, although the HCM notes that the facility should “provide sufficient capacity to allow good-to-excellent operating conditions if they are to be successful in encouraging bike use.”
The configuration of the bicycle/pedestrian path was recommended by the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committed (BPAC) and adopted by the MTC. The BPAC served as the forum for over 40 groups representing the interests of potential path users.
Comment 13
The bicycle/pedestrian path on a replacement bridge would connect to the proposed Bay Trail, which extends to the west end of the Oakland Touchdown area. This would allow for a connection to 40th Street with possible connections to Maritime Street and West Grand Avenue. Plans for bicycle facilities in the City’s General Plan are noted. Bicycle access from downtown Oakland, Grand Avenue, and Mandela Parkway is beyond the scope of the East Span Project.
Comment 14
There would be no change in the requirements of the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) on designated jurisdictions for emergency response as a result of the project. The requirements that are currently in place for the existing East Span would remain intact for the new bridge.
Comment 15
Delivery of emergency services described in Section 3.1.6 — Community Services are expected to remain in place when the project is completed. Caltrans would remain owner/operator of the East Span and would use established procedures to respond to emergencies on the East Span. Provision of the lifeline vehicular connection would aid in disaster recovery in the Bay Area following a major earthquake (please see Riding Out Future Quakes: Pre-Earthquake Planning for Post-Earthquake Transportation Recovery in the San Francisco Bay Region at www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/eqtrans/eqtrans.html). Providing a nationwide inventory of emergency statistics for similar projects across the United States during the last 20 years is beyond the scope of this project.
Comment 16
During construction of a replacement alternative, the existing bridge would almost always be accessible to emergency personnel by land, water, and air. Caltrans is continuing to investigate lane and bridge closures during construction. Although lanes would be closed to general traffic, emergency vehicles would be allowed to pass through the closures most of the time. Caltrans will coordinate with the contractor and emergency service providers when no vehicles can pass. In addition, the timing of closures would be known in advance, and emergency response personnel would be notified before the bridge closures.
For any replacement alternative, Southgate Road on YBI would be closed once the eastbound detour is constructed. As a result, direct access from one side of the bridge to the other, east of the tunnel, would be eliminated. Access from one side of the island to the other side via Treasure Island Road would always be available for emergency response. After construction is complete, Southgate Road would be reopened.
During operation of the East Span following construction, emergency response access by land and water for a replacement bridge would be comparable to access to the existing bridge; air access to the eastbound structure would be improved over the existing condition because helicopters would be able to land on either deck of the replacement bridge as opposed to only the upper, westbound, deck of the existing bridge.
Comment 17
Emergency services such as fire response and police protection are discussed in Section 3.1.6 — Community Services. The provision of these services would not be impacted by construction or operation of the bridge. As a result, mitigation in the way of additional support/funds to the local police and fire departments is not required.
Comment 18
A detailed revegetation master plan for the Oakland Touchdown would be developed during the design phase, when the most accurate information about construction details and surrounding land uses would be available. Caltrans will work with the appropriate local agencies and interested parties to develop this plan.
Caltrans would prepare and implement a mitigation monitoring program. Mitigation monitoring would be the responsibility of Caltrans and would be consistent with conditions of permits obtained from state and federal regulatory agencies. Information on mitigation monitoring documentation would be made available to the City of Oakland, if requested.