CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 2-1 

CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

The proposed project has three major components: 

• A new, multi-modal Transbay Terminal on the site of the present Transbay Terminal; 

• Extension of Caltrain commuter rail service from its current San Francisco terminus at 

Fourth and Townsend Streets to a new underground terminus underneath the proposed new 

Transbay Terminal; and 

• Establishment of a Redevelopment Area Plan with related development projects, including 

transit-oriented development in the vicinity of the new multi-modal Transbay Terminal. 

Other subordinate components of the project include a temporary bus terminal facility to be used 

during construction of the new Transbay Terminal; a new, permanent off-site bus storage/layover 

facility; reconstructed bus ramps leading to the new Transbay Terminal; and a redesigned 

Caltrain storage yard. Figure 1.2-1 (in Chapter 1) shows the project location. 

As described in this chapter, alternatives and options are under consideration for major project 

components. Section 2.1 describes the No-Project Alternative. Section 2.2 describes proposed 

project components, alternatives, and build options under consideration. Section 2.3 describes 

project component alternatives previously considered but subsequently withdrawn from 

consideration along with the reasons for their withdrawal. 

2.1 NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 

The No-Project Alternative consists of existing Caltrain service with funded improvements, other 

committed bus, rail, and roadway improvements, a BART extension to the San Francisco 

International Airport, and proposed development in downtown San Francisco in the 2020 

horizon year1

. This is the No-Project Alternative under CEQA and the baseline alternative for 

purposes of NEPA. 

Under the No-Project Alternative, the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency would not develop 

or implement a Redevelopment Plan for the Transbay Redevelopment Area. The publiclyowned properties would not be transferred to the Transbay Joint Powers Authority (TJPA), but 

likely would be developed or sold for development by the state. This development would occur 

in the absence of a Redevelopment Plan most likely under existing zoning designations and local 

land use controls. 

 

1

 The horizon year of 2020 was chosen because it is the horizon year for the current (not-updated) MTC regional model as well 

as for the San Francisco land use projections, on which ridership forecasts are based. 
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

2-2 Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 

2.1.1 CALTRAIN OPERATIONS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS UNDER THE NO-PROJECT 

ALTERNATIVE

Caltrain trains consist of diesel-hauled, bi-level “gallery” cars that provide peak period service in 

both northbound and southbound directions between Gilroy and San Francisco. A total of 80 

daily trains operate over the Peninsula Commute Joint Powers Board (JPB)-owned, northern 

portion of the route between San Jose and San Francisco. Caltrain operates four trains 

northbound in the morning and four trains southbound in the evening over the southern portion 

of the Corridor from San Jose to Gilroy, which is owned by the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR). 

JPB has programmed service increases to over 114 daily trains in the San Francisco to San Jose 

segment and over 20 daily trains in the San Jose to Gilroy segment within the next 10 years, 

including additional track, signal, station, and terminal capacity improvements to provide for the 

increased levels of service. JPB anticipates operating 132 daily trains in the 2020 horizon year. 

JPB has programmed a series of rehabilitation improvements, enhancements and additions to the 

existing system that would provide an improved level of service. The following Caltrain 

facilities will exist at the completion of these projects, consistent with the Caltrain Rapid Rail 

Study adopted by the JPB in 1998: 

• Rehabilitation of the Existing System – long-term repairs, reconstruction and modernization 

of the existing tracks, signals, bridges, stations, rolling stock and other systems. 

• Enhancements and Capacity Improvements – additions and betterments to the rail system, 

including additional tracks; enhanced signal and communications systems, cab signals, 

Automatic Train Stop (ATS), and fiber optics; new stations; new shops; buildings and 

support facilities; vehicular and pedestrian grade separations; and new rolling stock. Also 

included in this category are grade crossing and station closures and consolidations. 

• Increased Caltrain Express service consisting of 20 additional trains per day with an 

approximate 45-minute travel time between San Francisco and San Jose. 

• A variety of passenger station improvements to permit simpler ticketing arrangements and 

create improved station amenities. 

Signal system modernization improvements include a new Centralized Train Control (CTC) 

system, reverse signaling capabilities, additional train crossovers, and state-of-the-art active 

warning devices. The CTC would be operated from a new Central Equipment Maintenance and 

Operations Facility at the Lenzen Maintenance Facility in San Jose, and the existing Operations 

Center near Diridon Station in San Jose would be phased out. 

Track and associated passenger platform improvements at the new Millbrae Intermodal facility 

are being constructed to improve the interface of the BART extension to San Francisco Airport 

with Caltrain at the Millbrae Intermodal Station (see Section 1.4.2). 
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 2-3 

The No-Project Alternative also includes electrification of the entire Caltrain line from Gilroy to 

its present San Francisco terminus at Fourth and Townsend Streets. The Caltrain Electrification 

Program would provide for the conversion from diesel-hauled to electric-hauled trains and would 

require the installation of some 150 to 170 single track miles of overhead contact system (OCS) 

for the distribution of electrical power to the electric rolling stock. Electric rolling stock would 

consist of locomotives or electrical multiple unit (EMU) cars. The OCS would be powered from 

a 25 kV, 60 Hz, single-phase, alternating current (ac) supply system that would require the 

installation of two or three traction power substations, one or two switching stations, and nine or 

ten paralleling stations. This power supply and distribution system and voltage are compatible 

with the requirements of high-speed rail, and therefore will accommodate future development of 

high-speed rail in the Caltrain corridor without major overhaul of the new electrification 

facilities. The Caltrain Electrification Program is being evaluated by the JPB in a separate 

environmental document. 

Electrification of the Caltrain line is scheduled to be implemented by 2006. It is currently 

programmed under Track 1 of the 2001 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), and will be funded 

entirely from local sources. The environmental review process for this program is expected to be 

completed during 2004, and it is assumed that the Electrification Program would be in place 

prior to implementation of the Caltrain Downtown Extension component of the present project. 

Should electrification not be implemented in advance of the Downtown Extension, however, the 

extension could still be implemented using dual-mode (diesel-electric) locomotives. Dual-mode 

locomotives would enable Caltrain service to switch from diesel powered to electric powered 

propulsion before entering downtown San Francisco. A more detailed discussion of this 

propulsion option is provided in the 1997 Draft EIS/EIR for the Caltrain Downtown Extension. 

Should this option be necessary, the purchase of dual-mode locomotives would need to be added 

to the project costs for the Downtown Extension component. These potential costs are estimated 

to be $235 million in 2002 dollars for 34 locomotives. 

2.1.2 MUNI FACILITIES AND RELATED BUS SERVICE UNDER THE NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE

The No-Project Alternative includes all current San Francisco Municipal Railway (Muni) service 

at existing levels plus the following major planned, ongoing, or constructed projects: 

• S-Castro-Embarcadero Shuttle – new eastbound and westbound service between the Castro 

and Embarcadero stations; 

• Third Street Light Rail project – extension of Muni Metro light rail service south from its 

current terminus at Fourth and Townsend Streets. The Third Street Light Rail line will cross 

the Fourth Street Bridge and run along Third Street and Bayshore Boulevard, ending at the 

Bayshore Caltrain Station in Visitacion Valley; and 

• Central Subway – extension of Third Street light rail service northward from King Street 

along Third Street, entering a new central subway near Bryant Street, crossing beneath 

Market Street and running under Geary and Stockton Street to Stockton and Clay Streets. 
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

2-4 Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 

The Third Street LRT Project Initial Operating Segment (IOS) is expected to be open for full 

service in 2005; an early partial opening may occur in late 2004. The Central Subway project 

is scheduled to be constructed by 2012 but is not presently funded. Muni and the San Francisco 

County Transportation Authority are actively pursuing funding, and the project is included in the 

No-Project Alternative in anticipation of funding being included in the 2001 Regional 

Transportation Plan in time for the Central Subway to be completed within the horizon year for 

the present project. Other planned, ongoing, or completed service changes and improvements 

included in the No-Project Alternative are summarized in Table 2.1-1. 

2.1.3 BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM (BART) 

On June 22, 2003, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) opened an 

extension to San Francisco International Airport that also interfaces with Caltrain and SamTrans 

bus services at the new Millbrae Intermodal Station. Extensions from Hayward to Warm Springs 

and from Warm Springs to Santa Clara are also planned.

2.1.4 SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT SYSTEM (SAMTRANS) 

In August 1999, SamTrans introduced a variety of changes to improve the efficiency of its core 

system. The changes reallocated service from areas of little demand to areas of greater demand. 

In many instances, routes were consolidated to increase service efficiency and permit increased 

frequency. 

2.1.5 ROADWAY AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS

The No-Project Alternative assumes the completion of Caltrans San Francisco Seismic Retrofit 

projects, as follows: 

• Yerba Buena Island Viaduct and tunnel 

• West Span of the Bay Bridge (from Yerba Buena Island to the San Francisco Anchorage) 

• Elevated West Approach to the Bay Bridge (from the Anchorage to the Fifth Street ramp) 

• Elevated Bayshore Viaduct (I-80 from Fourth Street to Sixteenth Street) 
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 2-5 

Table 2.1-1: Other Muni Service Changes and Improvements Included in the 

No-Project Alternative 

Service Change Description Status Source 

Caltrain Express 

Bus Service 

Consolidation (80x 

/ 81x / 82x) 

Consolidation of 80x and 82x lines concurrent with the 

extension of N-Judah to Caltrain Terminal at Fourth and 

Townsend; consideration to elimination of 81x 

Implemented 

June 1999 

Muni SRTP 

2000 

Ferry Bus Terminal 

Relocation

Relocation of the Ferry Terminal off-street bus turnaround to new curb-side terminals on the surrounding 

streets, to allow development of the current bus turnaround area as a hotel, to produce revenue for Muni 

projects 

Implemented 

Fall 2001 

Muni SRTP 

2000 

F-Line 

Muni's F-Line Historic streetcar service opened for 

service from Castro/Market Streets along the 

Embarcadero to Fisherman's Wharf in 2000, and 

currently carries approximately 20,000 riders per day. 

March 2000 

Muni 

comments on 

DEIS 2002 

E-Line

Muni's E-Line station improvements on The 

Embarcadero and King Streets for historic streetcar 

service between Fisherman's Wharf and 4th/King Streets 

will be under construction in 2003. 

Under 

construction 

in 2003 

Muni 

comments on 

DEIS 2002 

15 – Third Street 

line 

15-Third line to be completely discontinued with 

implementation of the Third Street Light Rail project in 

full operation in 2005

2005 Muni SRTP 

2000 

6-Parnassus 

Downtown 

Terminal 

Downtown terminal for the 6 Parnassus line changed 

from Ferry Terminal to Transbay Terminal 

Implemented 

March 2000 

Muni SRTP 

2000 

12-Folsom 

Extended service hours, days, and frequencies; outbound 

route moved from Howard Street to Harrison Street 

(between Embarcadero and 11th Streets); service extended 

to Embarcadero, connecting with F-Market line at the 

Ferry Building; 83-Pacific route abandoned, replaced by 

increased service on 12-Folsom 

Implemented 

February 

2001 

Revised 

SOMA 

Action Plan, 

12/5/00 

N-Owl Service 

Extend N-Owl buses from current inner terminal at Ferry 

Terminal to the Caltrain Fourth and Townsend terminal, 

via Embarcadero and King Streets 

Implemented 

February 

2001 

Revised 

SOMA 

Action Plan, 

12/5/00 

47-Van Ness 

Motor Coach 

47-Van Ness motor coach (originally called line “42W”) 

– New Van Ness corridor line with terminals in eastern 

Fisherman’s Wharf and at the Caltrain Fourth and 

Townsend terminal. 

Implemented 

Spring 2001 

Revised 

SOMA 

Action Plan, 

12/5/00 

10-Townsend 

10-Townsend (originally called line 42E) – new line 

connecting Fisherman’s Wharf, the Financial District, 

Caltrain, SOMA, and Potrero Hill with terminals at Van 

Ness and North Point. Initial service will be between the 

northern terminal in Fisherman’s Wharf and a temporary 

southern terminal at Seventh and De Haro. 

Implemented 

Spring 2001 

Revised 

SOMA 

Action Plan, 

12/5/00 
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

2-6 Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 

Table 2.1-1: Other Muni Service Changes and Improvements Included in the 

No-Project Alternative 

9-San Bruno 

Additional 9-San Bruno trolley coach service (two 

additional coaches) between the vicinity of San Francisco 

General Hospital and the Ferry Terminal on weekdays 

Implemented 

Spring 2001 

Revised 

SOMA 

Action Plan, 

12/5/00 

Central Subway 

Extension of Third Street light rail service from King 

Street along Third Street, entering a new central subway 

near Bryant Street, crossing beneath Market Street and 

running under Geary and Stockton Streets to Stockton 

and Clay Street. 

To open in 

2012

Muni SRTP 

2000 

Notes: SRTP = Short Range Transit Plan; SOMA = South of Market Area

• Elevated Central Freeway (US 101 – connects I-80 with Market Street, with the proposed 

Octavia Boulevard providing the connection to Oak and Fell streets) 

These projects have all entered or completed construction. Retrofit construction on the Yerba 

Buena viaduct and tunnel was completed in 2000. Retrofit of the west Bay Bridge span piers is 

complete. Retrofit of the west span towers and bridge structure is scheduled to be completed by 

Spring 2003, and the west approach by Spring 2007. The Central Freeway retrofit is scheduled 

for completion by September 2005. 

Other roadway and street improvements planned and programmed by the City and County of 

San Francisco’s Department of Parking and Traffic or the Department of Public Works include 

two projects in the vicinity of the Transbay Terminal/Downtown Caltrain Extension project: 

striping a transit-only lane along Third Street, and providing a new King Street access roadway 

at Fifth Street into Mission Bay (from south of King Street across Mission Creek). 

2.2 PROJECT COMPONENTS 

The proposed project includes three major components, each with two alternatives, as follow: 

(1) A new Transbay Terminal to serve as a multi-modal transit/transportation facility that 

incorporates the principles of sustainability and environmental responsibility at the site of 

the current Transbay Terminal at First and Mission Streets in downtown San Francisco. 

(2) An underground extension of Caltrain commuter rail service from its current 

San Francisco terminus at Fourth and Townsend Streets to a new underground terminus 

in the basement of the proposed new Transbay Terminal. 

(3) Adoption of a Redevelopment Plan for the Transbay Project Area and related 

development projects, including transit-oriented development. The plan and related 

development would permit tax increment financing to assist in financing of the 

transportation improvements and other redevelopment projects. 
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 2-7 

Two alternatives are under 

consideration for each major 

project components. Other 

components of the project 

include a temporary bus 

terminal facility to be used 

during construction, a new, 

permanent off-site bus 

storage/ layover facility, 

reconstructed bus ramps 

leading to the west end of the 

new Transbay Terminal, and a 

redesigned Caltrain storage 

yard. A schematic diagram of 

the project components, 

alternatives, and design 

options is shown on the right. 

2.2.1 REFINEMENTS TO THE PROJECT AND EIS/EIR 

Refinements have been made to the Project and EIS/EIR since the Draft EIS/EIR was published. 

Under both the federal and state environmental processes, refinements are often made to the 

EIS/EIR in response to both public comments and any additional project planning that have 

occurred. The Federal Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration 

(DOT/FTA) procedures and regulations also call for selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative 

(LPA) from among the various project alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIS/EIR. Detailed 

analysis and mitigation measures are provided for the LPA and the other alternatives in this 

Final EIS/EIR. Per CEQA Section 15088.5, none of the refinements identified below and 

evaluated in this Final EIS/EIR introduce significant new information or new adverse impacts 

that cannot be mitigated. 

2.2.1.1 Adoption of a Locally Preferred Alternative 

Following the DOT/FTA guidance and regulations, the TJPA adopted in March 2003 the West 

Ramp Transbay Terminal, Second-to-Main, Tunneling, Full Build Options as the components to 

be included in the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for inclusion in the Final EIS/EIR. A 

Locally Preferred Alternative Report for the Transbay Terminal/Caltrain Downtown 

Extension/Redevelopment Project (March 20032) was prepared in advance of the LPA selection 

and is incorporated herein by reference. 

 

2

 This LPA report is available for public review by appointment in case file 2000.048E at the Planning Department 

at 1660 Mission Street, San Francisco. 
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

2-8 Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 

2.2.1.2 Movement of the Transbay Terminal Footprint to the West 

In response to public comment on the Draft EIS/EIR, the co-lead agencies – the City and County 

of San Francisco, the JPB, the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and FTA – propose to 

relocate the footprint of the new Transbay Terminal to the west (approximately 150 feet) of the 

location shown in the Draft EIS/EIR. This would result in the terminal structure no longer 

spanning Beale Street, thus reducing capital costs without substantially changing environmental 

effects or the operations and efficiency of the terminal. This change is described in 

Section 2.2.2. 

2.2.1.3 Elimination of the Temporary Bus Ramps to the Temporary Terminal 

In response to public comment regarding the need to reduce overall project costs, AC Transit 

bus access to the temporary terminal will no longer make use of a temporary bus ramp between 

the Bay Bridge and the temporary terminal during operation of the temporary facility. The 

proposed access to/from the temporary terminal for AC Transit buses is described in 

Section 2.2.2, and the impacts and mitigation measures associated with this access are detailed 

in Section 5.21.1.1 of the Final EIS/EIR. 

2.2.1.4 Supplemental Air Emissions Assessment of the Permanent Off-Site Bus 

Storage Facility 

In response to public comments on the Draft EIS/EIR, the co-lead agencies completed a 

supplemental air emissions assessment of the proposed permanent off-site bus storage facility 

under the West Approach to the Bay Bridge between Second and Fourth Streets. Findings of this 

supplemental analysis are provided in Section 5.7.3 and were used to respond to questions and 

comments raised during the public review period (please see Volume II of this Final EIS/EIR). 

2.2.1.5 Supplemental Noise Assessment for the Permanent Off-Site Bus Storage 

Facility 

In response to public comments on the Draft EIS/EIR, the co-lead agencies completed a 

supplemental noise assessment of the proposed permanent off-site bus storage facility under the 

West Approach of the Bay Bridge between Second and Fourth Streets. Findings of this 

supplemental analysis are provided in Section 5.8.6 and were used to respond to questions and 

comments raised during the public review period (please see Volume II of this Final EIS/EIR). 

2.2.1.6 Refinements to the 2nd-to-Main and 2nd-to-Mission Caltrain Extension 

Alternative Alignments and Station Layout 

In response to public comments on both alternatives for the Caltrain Extension, the JPB, 

working with the TJPA, the City and County of San Francisco and the Redevelopment Agency, 

developed engineering refinements to the Second-to-Mission and Second-to-Main options for the 
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 2-9 

Caltrain Downtown Extension that appeared in the Draft EIS/EIR. Refinements include changes 

to the track, platform, and tail track layouts. Section 2.2.3 describes these revisions. Meetings 

were held to discuss these refinements with the public. 

2.2.1.7 Revised Caltrain Operating Plan Assumptions 

The number of daily Caltrain trains assumed to be operated in the Year 2020 has been revised 

downward from 170 to 132, as shown in Section 3.1.6.2 in this Final EIS/EIR, reflecting more 

recent planning of the JPB. Train ridership projections have been revised to reflect this new 

assumed Caltrain service level, as described in Section 3.1.6.2 and 5.19.2. 

2.2.1.8 Revised Project Construction/Implementation Schedule 

In response to public comments, the co-lead agencies have refined and updated the proposed 

project construction and implementation schedule, which is shown in Figure 5.20-8, 

Section 5.20. 

2.2.1.9 Revised Project Capital Costs 

In response to public comments on the Draft EIS/EIR, the co-lead agencies have refined the 

capital cost estimates for both the new Transbay Terminal and the Caltrain Downtown 

Extension. The refined costs are provided for the Locally Preferred Alternative and the 

refinement results in an overall cost reduction of $143.7 million in 2003 dollars for the Project. 

The refined costs have been assigned to an anticipated year of expenditure assuming the refined 

construction/implementation schedule (shown in Figure 5.20-8), and inflation rates have been 

applied to provide a year-of-expenditure cost estimate for the LPA, thus providing a more 

accurate estimate of the Project’s overall costs. These revised costs are provided in Chapter 6 

and in Section 2.2.2.4 for the Transbay Terminal and Section 2.2.3.5 for the Caltrain Downtown 

Extension. If an alternative other than the LPA were to be chosen, capital costs for the Project 

would increase. 

2.2.1.10 Revised Project Financial Plan 

The Project’s financial plan has been refined to reflect the revised capital costs, the anticipated 

year of expenditure for various costs, and recent events regarding various funding sources. The 

refined financial plan is provided in Chapter 6 of this Final EIS/EIR. 

2.2.1.11 Release of Draft Transbay Redevelopment Project Area Design for 

 Development Vision/Redevelopment Boundary Revision 

In response to public comments on the Draft EIS/EIR and to advance the planning work for the 

proposed Transbay Redevelopment Area, the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency has released 

for public review the Draft Transbay Redevelopment Project Area Design for Development
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

2-10 Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 

Vision (August 2003). Development of the Draft Transbay Redevelopment Project Area Design 

for Development Vision involved extensive public input and involvement. The Draft Vision 

provides additional detail regarding the possible elements of the final Redevelopment Area Plan, 

as described in Section 2.2.4. This section also describes revisions to the proposed 

redevelopment area boundary made in response to public comments. 

2.2.1.12 Revisions in Response to Public Comments on the Draft EIS/EIR 

Other revisions/refinements have been made in this Final EIS/EIR in response to public 

comments received on the Draft EIS/EIR. Volume II of this Final EIS/EIR contains the 

comments given on the Draft EIS/EIR and the responses to these comments. As indicated in 

Volume II, responses at times led to revisions to the Final EIS/EIR. All refinements and 

revisions to the Draft EIS/EIR are outlined in this Final EIS/EIR in italics. 

2.2.2 TRANSBAY TERMINAL ALTERNATIVES

Two alternatives were studied for a 

new Transbay Terminal. Under 

either alternative, a new multi-modal 

terminal would be located at the 

same site as the existing terminal at 

Mission and First Streets (see figure 

to the right). 

Bus ramps would connect directly 

from the terminal to the Bay Bridge, 

while an underground rail facility 

would allow the extension of 

Caltrain to downtown and provide 

space for potential future East Bay 

commuter rail and California’s highspeed intercity rail. 

With either Transbay Terminal 

Alternative, facilities would be 

included for AC Transit, Greyhound, 

Greyhound Package Express, Muni 

buses and trolley coaches, Golden 

Gate Transit (GGT) basic service 

buses, taxi service, and easily 

accessible bicycle storage. SamTrans buses would operate on local streets adjacent to the new 

terminal. Each alternative would include space for retail and cultural uses. Under current plans, 

full or partial acquisition of five parcels of land and demolition of five buildings would be 
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 2-11 

required for either Transbay Terminal Alternative and for the Temporary Terminal described in 

Section 2.2.1.3. 

One concept for the terminal would incorporate sustainable design features that would allow the 

building to use site-specific wind, daylight and shading to reduce the building’s energy needs. 

The design of the roof and exterior walls would facilitate natural ventilation and natural lighting 

of the interior. Mechanical cooling would be used only for enclosed office areas and data 

equipment rooms. Photovoltaic panels are proposed on the roof structure to capture solar energy. 

Rainwater would be captured for maintenance and irrigation of landscaping. 

2.2.2.1 Transbay Terminal West Ramp Alternative 

Figure 2.2-1 shows the Transbay Terminal West Ramp Alternative, including the locations of 

bus ramps leading to the terminal and off-site bus storage. This figure reflects the revised 

location of the terminal (moved to the West) and the relocated permanent bus access ramps. The 

Transbay Terminal West Ramp Alternative was selected in March 2003 by the TJPA as the 

Transbay Terminal Component of the LPA. 

As developed during the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) study,3 conceptual 

plans for this alternative include a terminal one block (165 feet) wide by three blocks (1,300 feet) 

long. It would include six levels, with four levels above ground and two below. The currently 

proposed terminal floor plan is described below. 

Train Level: Train platforms would be two levels below grade. The actual location of platforms would vary 

for the two Caltrain Downtown Extension alternatives. Under either of the Caltrain Downtown 

Extension alternatives, there would be a direct connection to the train platforms from the 

Transbay Terminal. 

Train 

Mezzanine 

Level: 

A train mezzanine would be one level below the street level – one level above the train 

platforms. It would accommodate train passenger ticketing services and passenger queuing. 

Building mechanical systems would also be located on this level. This level would have 

sufficient space and would be designed so as not to preclude Muni Metro tracks leading from the 

proposed Third Street and Geary Corridor alignments.

Street Level: As shown in Figure 2.2-2, the portion of the terminal on street level between Beale and Fremont 

Streets would accommodate Muni buses and trolley coaches, as well as Golden Gate Transit 

basic service buses. A traffic signal would be provided for Muni and GGT as they exit this 

facility onto Fremont Street. The west side would include some retail. A lobby for 

Greyhound/Greyhound Package Express is assumed on the east side of Beale Street. 

Concourse 

Level: 

The second floor would function as a pedestrian concourse, connecting the various blocks one 

full story (20 feet) above street level. This area is currently assumed to include 150,000 to 

225,000 square feet of retail, entertainment, conference, and educational and cultural space. 

 

3

 Transbay Terminal Improvement Plan Study, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2001. 
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

2-12 Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 

Figure 2.2-1: nsbay Terminal West Ramp Alternative Location of Terminal Components 
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 2-13 

Figure 2.2-2: Transbay Terminal Street Level Bus Facilities for Muni and Golden Gate Transit 
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

2-14 Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 

AC Transit 

Level: 

The third floor (Lower Bus Level) would be 40 feet above street level, and would accommodate 

the transbay AC Transit commuter operation. It would permit 26 articulated and four standard 

buses simultaneously to serve arriving and departing passengers. As shown in Figure 2.2-3, Bus 

Deck 1 would be served by ramps that connect directly to the Bay Bridge. An interior full loop 

would be provided for bus circulation with two lanes – one through lane and one turnout lane. 

Upper Bus 

Level: 

The fourth floor (Upper Bus Level) would be 60 feet above street level, and would consist of a 

partial level on the north side of the building, shown in Figure 2.2-3. It would provide half-loop 

service with two bus lanes – one through lane and one turnout/parking lane – to bus lines other 

than AC Transit. This would include Muni service to Treasure Island, paratransit, Greyhound, 

and private operators. Six bus bays would be included, plus 700 feet of straight curb. 

Vertical circulation – escalators and elevators – would be provided between all of the levels for 

pedestrian/passenger flows. Conceptual plans for this terminal alternative include approximately 

200,000 square feet of transit-oriented and retail development and 900,000 square feet of transit 

support and loading areas and mechanical support, yielding a total floor area just over one 

million square feet.4

Bus Ramps and Circulation. As shown in Figure 2.2-1, the direct bus ramps would be on the 

west side of the building, offering dedicated connections between the Bay Bridge and Transbay 

Terminal Bus levels 1 and 2. These ramps would be in generally the same position as the 

existing ramps on the west side of the terminal and paralleling Essex Street. Figure 2.2-4 shows 

the location of the refined West Ramp leading to the terminal that has been moved to the west. 

Construction of these ramps would require the acquisition and demolition of one building east of 

the ramps and south of Howard Street and the removal of a portion of the back of the building 

east of the ramps and north of Howard Street. Existing bus ramps would need to be demolished 

and reconstructed to accommodate the new Terminal. 

The ramp leading to and coming from the lower bus level would be a two-way ramp, with a 

single 12-foot lane in each direction. A minimum 20-foot width would be provided to allow 

vehicles to pass and continue bus service in the event of a vehicle breakdown. The ramp would 

divide into two at the entrance to the terminal, with an upper level ramp and a lower level ramp. 

Figure 2.2-5 shows a visual simulation of the stacked ramp configuration across Howard Street. 

The upper level connection would have one lane functioning as an entrance to the upper bus 

level. The lower level bus ramp would have two lanes, functioning as both an entrance and an 

exit for lower bus level. Bus turnaround loops would be provided on each bus level at the east 

end of the terminal (see Figure 2.2-3). 

 

4

 Possible use of a new Terminal for a transit operator emergency control center has been proposed by the San 

Francisco Redevelopment Agency and may be evaluated in the future by the TJPA. 
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PRO

Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 2-15 Figure 2.2-3: Bus Deck 1 (AC Transit) and Bus Deck 2 (Other Bus Services) West Ramp Alternative 
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

2-16 Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 

Buses would travel from the upper bus level down an exit ramp inside the terminal to the lower 

(AC Transit) bus level, and all buses would depart the terminal on the lower bus ramp to the Bay 

Bridge. At the Bay Bridge approach connection, the ramps would again be divided and stacked. 

The lower level would provide access to the bridge for eastbound buses leaving the terminal, 

while the upper level would serve westbound buses coming from the bridge and destined for the 

terminal. Current conceptual designs would allow for the staging of at least four buses on the 

ramp at the entrance to the terminal approaching the lower bus level. This configuration, 

together with the bus ramp storage link (described below) would include a total of 235,000 

square feet of ramp area. 

Figure 2.2-4: Transbay Terminal Off-Site Bus Storage Link Ramp 

SamTrans bus service would operate on Mission Street using all bus stops for passenger 

alighting, and would terminate on either Mission Street between Fremont and Beale or on 

Howard Street between Beale and Fremont. After layover, SamTrans buses would load on 

Fremont, immediately south of the terminal (about 100 feet north of the Howard/Fremont 

intersection) and would then make stops on Mission Street for passenger boarding. 
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 2-17 

Figure 2.2-5: Visual Simulation of Stacked Ramps at Howard Street West Ramp Alternative 

AC Transit Bus Storage. As shown on Figure 2.2-1 and detailed in Figure 2.2-6, bus storage 

would be off-site, under the west Bay Bridge approaches between Second and Fourth Streets. 

AC Transit storage would be at-grade between Second and Third Streets. Two optional 

conceptual designs have been developed for bus storage at this site. The storage area would 

accommodate either 42 or 53 buses, depending upon the selected layout for storing of the 

vehicles. Access to this bus storage area would be via Fourth Street and a two-way “storage 

link” ramp that would connect with the Transbay Terminal bus ramps. The plans include a 

building to house a lounge and restrooms for the drivers and office space for supervisory 

personnel. A 10- to 12-foot noise wall would be provided along the southern boundary of the AC 

Transit off-site bus facility. Noise wall would also be provided along the bus ramps adjoining 

this facility. 

Golden Gate Transit Bus Storage. Golden Gate Transit weekday bus storage would be under 

the west approaches to the Bay Bridge, between Third and Fourth Streets. Based on current 

conceptual designs, approximately 140 buses could be accommodated on a paved at-grade lot. 
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

2-18 Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 

The lot could be available for other uses in the evening and on weekends when Golden Gate 

Transit stores its buses elsewhere. A 10- to 12-foot noise wall is proposed along the southern 

boundary of the Golden Gate Transit off-site bus facility and a portion of the eastern boundary 

of this facility. 

To minimize the impacts on neighborhood parking near the bus storage lot, a single level parking 

structure is proposed in the location shown on Figure 2.2-6. This structure, as currently 

conceived, would provide parking for up to 300 vehicles on two levels. 

2.2.2.2 Transbay Terminal Loop Ramp Alternative 

Figure 2.2-7 shows the Transbay Terminal Loop Ramp Alternative. This alternative would 

involve the demolition and reconstruction of both the existing western and eastern bus ramps 

between the Transbay Terminal and the Bay Bridge. The new Transbay Terminal would be one 

block wide and three and three-fourths blocks in length. It would include five levels, with two 

levels above ground and two below. The currently proposed terminal floor plan is described 

below. 

Train Level: Train platforms would be two levels below grade. The actual location of platforms 

would vary for the two Caltrain Downtown Extension alternatives. Under any of the 

Caltrain Downtown Extension alternatives, there would be a direct connection to the 

train platforms from the Transbay Terminal. 

Train 

Mezzanine 

Level: 

A train mezzanine would be one level below the street level – one level above the train 

platforms. It would accommodate train passenger ticketing services and passenger 

queuing. Building mechanical systems would also be located on this level. This level 

would have sufficient space and would be designed so as not to preclude Muni Metro 

tracks leading from the proposed Third Street and Geary Corridor alignments.

Street Level: As shown in Figure 2.2-2, the portion of the terminal on street level between Beale and 

Fremont Streets would accommodate Muni buses and trolley coaches, as well as Golden 

Gate Transit basic service buses. A traffic signal would be provided for Muni and GGT as 

they exit this facility onto Fremont Street. The west side would include some retail. A lobby 

for Greyhound/Greyhound Package Express is assumed on the east side of Beale Street. 

Concourse 

Level: 

The second floor would function as a pedestrian concourse, connecting the various 

blocks one full story (20 feet) above street level. This area would include 150,000 to 

225,000 square feet of retail, entertainment, conference, and educational and cultural 

space. 

Bus Level The third floor would be 40 feet above street level, and would accommodate AC Transit 

and all other bus operators. There would be 51 bus bays, served by three one-way bus 

lanes. The elevated transit loop would be in the same general location as the existing 

Transbay Terminal bus ramps and would connect directly to the Bay Bridge. Buses 

would enter the terminal from the east and exit to the west. 
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PRO

Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 2-19 

Figure 2.2-6: Transbay Terminal Off-Site Bus Storage
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 2-20 

Figure 2.2-7: Transbay Terminal Loop Ramp Alternative Location of Terminal Components 
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 2-21 

Vertical circulation – escalators and elevators – would be provided between all of the levels for 

pedestrian/passenger flows. Bus operations for the Transbay Terminal Loop Ramp Alternative 

would be very similar to the current facility, with AC Transit and other bus operators operating 

on the second floor, and with buses entering from the east and exiting to the west. Muni and 

Golden Gate Transit operations would be moved to between Beale and Fremont Streets at street 

level, as described for the Transbay Terminal West Ramp Alternative. 

Preliminary plans for this terminal alternative include approximately 175,000 square feet of 

transit-oriented and retail development and 750,000 square feet of transit support and loading 

areas and mechanical support, yielding a total floor area just under one million square feet.5

Bus Ramps and Circulation. The Transbay Terminal Loop Ramp Alternative would involve 

the demolition and construction of new bus ramp structures, providing for a full one-way loop of 

bus circulation through the Transbay Terminal with direct connections to the Bay Bridge on both 

the east and west sides of the terminal (See Figure 2.2-7). A total of 380,000 square feet of ramp 

area would be provided. Construction of these ramps would require the acquisition and 

demolition of one building east of the ramps and south of Howard Street and the removal of a 

portion of the back of the building east of the ramps and north of Howard Street. SamTrans bus 

operations would be as described for the West Ramp Alternative. 

Bus Storage. The Loop Ramp Alternative would allow for approximately 120 standard 40-foot 

buses to be stored on the eastern bus ramps, with the remaining bus storage off-site at one or 

both bus storage sites described under the West Ramp Alternative. 

2.2.2.3 Transbay Terminal Construction 

Temporary Bus Facilities. During construction of the new Transbay Terminal, two temporary 

surface terminals would be built. A temporary terminal for Greyhound buses would be located 

on Folsom Street between Fremont and Beale Streets. As shown in Figure 2.2-8, a temporary 

terminal for AC Transit buses would be located on the block bounded by Beale, Howard, Main, 

and Folsom Streets. A minimum of 16 saw-tooth bus spaces for AC Transit and eight bus spaces 

for Greyhound buses would be provided, based on preliminary plans. Amenities would be 

minimal and would include ticketing for AC Transit and Greyhound, restrooms, and sheltered 

waiting areas. Access to all operational areas would meet the requirements of the Americans 

with Disabilities Act. 

Golden Gate Transit currently uses a site at Eighth and Harrison Streets for bus storage. Muni 

operations would be located on the curbs surrounding the temporary terminal block, with four 

drop-off bays (two of them trolley-ready) and four pick-up bays (all trolley-ready). 

 

5

 Possible use of a new Terminal for a transit operator emergency control center has been proposed by the San 

Francisco Redevelopment Agency and may be evaluated in the future by the Transbay Joint Powers Authority. 
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PRO

Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 2-22 

Figure 2.2 8: Layout of Temporary Bus Terminal
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 2-23 

Contra-flow lanes would be designed along Beale and Folsom Streets to accommodate righthand drop-off and boarding for Muni. Golden Gate Transit would be allocated three bays on the 

curb with an additional four to five layover spaces on the north side of Folsom Street between 

Fremont and Beale Streets. During operation of the temporary terminal, SamTrans express bus 

service would operate via Mission, Beale, Folsom and Main Streets to an endpoint on Beale 

Street between Howard and Folsom, or as an alternative, on Main Street between Folsom and 

Howard. Buses would alight passengers at all bus stops prior to the endpoint. Leaving the 

endpoint, buses would be in service and stop at all bus stops for passenger boarding. 

In response to public comment regarding the need to reduce overall project costs, AC Transit 

bus access to the temporary terminal will no longer make use of a temporary bus ramp between 

the Bay Bridge and the temporary terminal during operation of the temporary facility. Without a 

temporary bus ramp, the AC Transit buses exiting the freeway would use local streets to gain 

access to the temporary terminal. Buses exiting the I-80 freeway would go north up Fremont 

from the Harrison Street ramp, turn east on Folsom and proceed eastbound toward the 

temporary terminal. For the return trips, there would be a contra-flow lane along Folsom from 

Main Street to Essex Street for buses exiting the terminal. Buses would then have a protected 

left-turn movement from Folsom onto Essex Street. Once on Essex, the buses would travel on a 

dedicated bus lane toward the freeway on-ramp. Northbound traffic lanes on Essex Street would 

be temporarily eliminated during operation of the temporary terminal to allow for the dedicated 

bus lanes leading south to the freeway. 

Construction of the new Transbay Terminal facilities would be staged to allow for development 

of the new terminal and ramps at approximately the same locations as the old terminal and 

ramps. Before commencement of construction of the new terminal and ramps, the following 

conditions are assumed: 

• Caltrans would have completed construction of the proposed off-ramp from the Bay Bridge 

to Fremont and Folsom Streets. 

• The existing Transbay Terminal access ramp over Fremont and Beale Streets would be 

removed 

Construction would be phased to first construct the temporary terminals, with all associated 

infrastructure. This would enable bus operations to proceed unimpeded during construction. 

Upon completion of the temporary terminals, all bus operations would be removed from the 

existing Transbay Terminal. The existing terminal and access ramps would be demolished. 

Construction of the new terminal and access ramps would then commence in one large 

construction area. 

2.2.2.4 Transbay Terminal Capital Costs 

Cost estimates shown in the Draft EIS/EIR for the two Transbay Terminal Alternatives were: 

West Ramp Alternative at $1.02 billion and Loop Ramp Alternative at $1.19 billion to start of 

construction assumed in the Draft EIS/EIR to be October 2002. These estimates include the cost 
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

2-24 Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 

of a train-ready basement, ramp development, the off-site bus storage facility, the temporary 

terminal, and the mid-point estimate for real estate. Capital costs for the Transbay Terminal 

West Ramp Alternative (the Locally Preferred Alternative) have been refined and are shown in 

Table 2.2-1. These costs assume a refined construction schedule as shown in Figure 5.20-8, with 

all costs escalated to the actual year of expenditures. 

Table 2.2-1: Transbay Terminal Capital Cost Estimate 

West Ramp Alternative (LPA) 

(Millions of Dollars – Year of Expenditure) 

Activity Cost Estimate

Operations Analysis, Preliminary Engineering, Geotechnical 

Engineering), Program Review/Value Engineering, Final 

Design & Permitting, Owner Costs 

$107.87 

Acquire Property, Design, Construct Temporary Terminals 

(Transit and Greyhound) $28.29 

Acquire Property & Demolish Buildings to Build Terminal $36.54

Demolish Existing Terminal & Ramps, Construct New 

Terminal & Ramps $909.22 

Construct Permanent Off Site Bus Storage Facility $24.45 

TOTAL COST ESTIMATE $1,106.37 

Notes: 

• Costs escalated to year of anticipated expenditure between 2004 and 2011. 

• Costs are for West Ramp Alternative 

• Other qualifications and assumptions apply, including coordination with Caltrans during 

the retrofit of the Western Approach and bus ramp retrofit projects. 

• Total assumes high end of 2001 real estate estimate escalated to year of expenditure. 

• Construction costs include a 25% construction contingency, 8% for construction 

management, and 10% project reserve. Owner costs are factored into each category. 

Source: MTC, SMWM, Oppenheim/Lewis, Sedway Group, Parsons, 2003

2.2.3 CALTRAIN DOWNTOWN EXTENSION ALTERNATIVES

The Caltrain Downtown Extension Component consists of an extension of Caltrain from the 

present San Francisco terminus (and storage yard) at Fourth and Townsend Streets to an 

underground terminal on the site of the present San Francisco Transbay Terminal at First and 

Mission Streets, a distance of some 1.3 miles. The extension would consist of two to four tracks 

branching to several additional tracks into the basement of the proposed new Transbay Terminal. 

Two Caltrain Extension alternatives are under consideration (1) Second-to-Main, and 

(2) Second-to-Mission. Both alternatives were refined in response to public comments on the 

Draft EIS/EIR. These revisions are shown in the Locally Preferred Alternative Report, (March 

2003). Platform lengths and the length of straight (tangent) platforms were increased for both 

refined options, and additional through tracks were added to both. The lengths and number of 

tail tracks were also increased under both options. The refined alignments include three tracks 
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 2-25 

from the Fourth and Townsend Station through to the terminal. The Draft EIS/EIR included only 

two tracks for the tunnel portion between Townsend and Second Streets. The refined option 

includes a third track in this segment to improve rail operations and capacity. Additional train 

storage capacity was also provided by the refined tail track layouts for both options. 

Figure 2.2-9 shows the overall Second-to-Main Caltrain alignment – the Locally Preferred 

Alternative for the Caltrain component 

Figures 2.2-10 through 2.2-18 show the plan and profiles for the Second-to-Main Street 

Alternative. Figures 2.2-10 through 2.2-14 and 2.2-19 through 2.2-22 show the plan and profiles 

for the Second-to-Mission Street Alternative. 

The extension would include reconstruction of the current storage yard at Fourth and Townsend, 

with provision of three surface platforms and six tracks on the southern portion of the existing 

facility near Fourth and King Streets and the addition of a new underground Caltrain station on 

the northern portion near Townsend and Fourth Streets. 

The Caltrain Extension project would begin just north of Sixteenth Street, where additional 

tracks and sidings would be added as the alignment approaches the Fourth and Townsend 

location. Four Caltrain tracks are proposed to cross an extension of Common Street to the West.6

 

From this location, the easternmost track would turn east into a reconstructed surface portion of 

the Fourth and Townsend storage facility and station. This track would then branch into six 

tracks leading to three surface platforms terminating at the current Fourth and Townsend Station 

(see Figure 2.2-13). 

These tracks would not continue to the new Transbay Terminal but would terminate at the Fourth 

and Townsend Street Station. Platforms would be provided between these tracks for limited 

Caltrain service including, for example, special ballpark trains or non-electrified trains that could 

arrive from Dumbarton or from areas south of Gilroy, e.g., Monterey. The three westernmost 

tracks (closest to Seventh Street) at Common Street would begin to descend at approximately 

Berry Street and would curve east to a new underground station with a center platform near 

Fourth and Townsend Streets. These three tracks would lead to a new underground station at 

Fourth and Townsend, with two tracks serving a center-platform station (see Figures 2.2-13). An 

additional fourth track coming from the East would pass north of these three tracks and the new 

underground platform. This fourth track would head to the west (toward Seventh Street) and 

would branch into five depressed storage tracks to be located to the south of Townsend Street 

between the new station platform and Seventh Street. 

 

6

 The extension of Common Street across the Caltrain right-of-way was included in the Mission Bay Subsequent 

Environmental Impact Report (SEIR). A Notice of Determination was posted for this SEIR on November 3, 1998. 

The California Public Utilities Commission approved the new at-grade crossing on May 18, 2000 as a replacement 

for two crossing that were closed at Berry and King Streets in the Mission Bay development. The new Common 

Street crossing is therefore assumed as part of the No-Project Alternative for this Transbay Terminal/Caltrain 

Downtown Extension/Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR. 
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

2-26 Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 

Figure 2.2-9: Caltrain Downtown Extension 

Second-to-Main Alternative – Locally Preferred Alternative

The four tracks passing the Fourth and Townsend underground station would merge into two 

tracks under Townsend Street near Fourth Street. The alignment would then continue east under 

Townsend Street in a cut-and-cover tunnel configuration. It would then curve north at about 

Clarence Place just east of Third Street in a cut-and-cover configuration. For the current cutand-cover option, eleven parcels with ten buildings would need to be acquired and demolished 

for this 1,100-foot long curve with 716- and 736-foot radii curves from Townsend to Second and 

Brannan Streets. (These buildings would remain for the tunneling option described below in 

Section 2.2.2.3.) The alignment would continue as a cut-and-cover section under Second Street 

for approximately 2,055 feet. 













CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

2-40 Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 

As described below, two alternatives are under consideration from Howard Street north: 

(1) Second-to-Main, and (2) Second-to-Mission. 

2.2.3.1 Second-to-Main Caltrain Extension Alternative 

Figure 2.2-23 shows the refined Second-to-Main Alternative alignment as selected for the 

Locally Preferred Alternative. As the Second-to-Main Caltrain Extension Alternative 

approaches Howard Street along Second Street, it would curve 90 degrees northeasterly, along 

an approximately 970-foot long curve with track curve radii of 498 to 545 feet into the basement 

of the new Transbay Terminal. Under current plans, 14 parcels of land with 11 buildings would 

need to be acquired and demolished for this curve into the Terminal. 

Figure 2.2-23: Caltrain Refined Second-to-Main Alternative – Locally Preferred Alternative 

The terminal station would have six tracks and three platforms and would include approximately 

2,000 feet of additional tracks (called tail tracks) in a cut-and-cover section leading from the east 

end of the new Terminal. These tracks would curve 90 degrees south along 498-foot to 521-foot 
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 2-41 

radius curves to Main Street and continue underneath Main Street to south of Folsom Street. The 

tracks would be used for temporary train storage, improving the operating efficiency of Caltrain 

service. Trains would not be required to be stored at Fourth and Townsend, but rather could be 

staged near the terminal to be brought quickly into service. This would minimize costly 

“deadheading” – the movement of trains that are not in revenue service. As shown on 

Figure 2.2-23, the proposed platform layout has been revised to maximize platform lengths to 

better accommodate long high-speed rail and commuter trains. The tail tracks could also be 

extended as a separate, independent project at some time in the future, to a San Francisco-toOakland cross-bay alignment for commuter rail and/or high-speed trains.

This alternative would include a design option for a pedestrian connection underneath Fremont 

Street to the BART Embarcadero Station. The pedestrian connection would be below grade 

level and approximately 800 feet long. Figure 2.2-24 shows a cross section for the proposed 

underground connection. 

Figure 2.2-24: Pedestrian Connection to BART (Conceptual Cross Section) 

2.2.3.2 Second-to-Mission Caltrain Extension Alternative 

The Second-to-Mission Alternative would follow the same alignment as the Second-to-Main 

Alternative up to Second and Howard Streets. At that point, it would provide a different 

configuration for the underground station in the Transbay Terminal and for the tail tracks leading 

out of the terminal. 

As this alignment approaches Howard Street, rather than running parallel to the Terminal’s long 

axis, this alignment would curve northeasterly at about Tehama Street, along a 1,432-foot radius 
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

2-42 Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 

curve for approximately 700 feet, cutting diagonally under the new terminal and exiting out 

under Mission Street headed towards The Embarcadero. The southernmost track would branch 

into four tracks leading to and serving two center platforms directly under the Transbay 

Terminal. These four tracks would terminate at the eastern end of the Terminal. The two 

northernmost tracks would continue on an angle to Mission Boulevard and would serve two 600-

foot side platforms to the north of the Transbay Terminal. These two tracks would continue to 

two 1,400-foot tail tracks under Mission Street ending just east of The Embarcadero. Under 

current plan, 20 parcels of land and 13 buildings would need to be acquired and demolished for 

this alternative. The tail tracks for this alignment would be used in a manner similar to the uses 

described above for the Second-to-Main Alternative, and could be extended as a separate, 

independent project at some time in the future to a San Francisco-to-Oakland cross-bay 

alignment for commuter rail and/or high-speed trains. 

As with the Second-to-Main Alternative, this alternative would include a design option for a 

pedestrian connection underneath Fremont Street to the BART Embarcadero Station. The 

pedestrian connection would be below grade level and approximately 800 feet long. 

2.2.3.3 Caltrain Extension Tunneling Option 

Use of tunneling rather than cut-and-cover trenching was evaluated for constructing the Caltrain 

Downtown Extension Alternative, and was selected as the Locally Preferred Alternative, as 

shown on Figure 2.2-9. Given the geology along the Caltrain Extension alignments, tunneling 

appears to be feasible only for that portion of the alignments between Townsend Street and 

Folsom Street. This construction technique would involve the underpinning (additional support) 

of the buildings on the curve between Townsend and Second Streets. 

Geology for this portion of the alignments is characterized as fractured rock. This geology is not 

suited for standard tunnel boring machines, so a highly specialized tunneling technique known as 

the “stacked drift” approach was evaluated. This approach, although more costly than most 

tunneling approaches, was selected to virtually eliminate the risk of tunnel collapse. Given that 

the proposed construction technique for tunneling has an extremely low likelihood of collapse or 

tunnel failure and given that buildings would be underpinned prior to construction, the buildings 

under which the tunnel would pass would not need to be vacated during the construction period. 

2.2.3.4 Accommodation of High-Speed Rail 

As shown on the plans and described in this section, the curves along the Caltrain Extension 

Alternatives all have radii greater than 493 feet, which is the minimum design curve radius for 

existing European (French and German) high-speed train equipment.7

 This minimum radius 

requirement was a critical factor for the placement of Caltrain alignment alternatives under 

Second Street. Specifically, the Second Street alignment allows for curves with radii greater 

 

7 Letter dated October 5, 2000 from Dan Leavitt, Deputy Director of the California High Speed Rail Authority to Maria Ayerdi, 

Transportation Policy Advisor, Office of the Mayor, City and County of San Francisco.
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 2-43 

than 493 feet leading from Second Street into the Transbay Terminal for both Caltrain 

Alternatives. 

2.2.3.5 Caltrain Capital Costs 

The Caltrain Downtown Extension costs shown in the Draft EIS/EIR ranged from $844.3 million 

for the Second-to-Main Alternative/tunnel option to $912.9 million for the Second-toMission/cut-and-cover option to start of construction assumed in the Draft EIS/EIR to be 

October 2002. Capital costs for the Second-to-Main Alternative Tunneling Option (the Locally 

Preferred Alternative) have been refined and are shown in Table 2.2-1. These refined costs 

assume a refined construction schedule as shown in Figure 5.20-8, with all costs escalated to the 

actual year of expenditures. 

Table 2.2-1: Capital Cost Estimate for Caltrain Downtown Extension 

Second-to-Main Street Tunneling Option – Locally Preferred Alternative 

(Millions of Dollars – Year of Expenditure)

Activity Cost Estimate 

Operations Analysis, Preliminary Engineering, Geotechnical Engineering, 

Program Review/ Value Engineering, Final Design & Permitting, Owner Costs $76.83 

Acquire Property & Demolish Buildings along Extension 

Acquisition/Relocation for Train Subway $82.85 

 Demolition $1.24 

Resale Proceeds ($31.12) 

Subtotal $52.97 

Design and Relocate Utility Lines along Extension $52.90 

Construct Surface Rail & Improvements at Train Yard $13.37 

Construct Cut-and-Cover and Retained-Cut – Caltrain Extension $427.13 

Reconstruct Streets $7.09 

Construct Train Tunnel $287.70 

Construct Track & Systems Facilities $58.54 

TOTAL COST ESTIMATE – Caltrain Downtown Extension $976.53 

Notes: 

• Costs escalated to year of anticipated expenditure between 2004 and 2011. 

• Costs are for Second-to-Main Tunneling Alternative, the Locally Preferred Alternative. 

• Total assumes high end of 2001 real estate estimate escalated to year of expenditure. 

• Construction costs include a 25% construction contingency, 8% for construction management, and 10% project reserve. 

Owner costs are factored into each category. 

• The optional underground pedestrian connection from the train mezzanine to The Embarcadero Muni Metro/BART 

Station is estimated to cost $45.3 million. 

• An additional $235 million could need to be added to the Project costs for purchase of dual mode locomotives if the 

Caltrain corridor is not electrified. 

Source: Parsons, 2003
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

2-44 Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 

The optional underground pedestrian connection from the train mezzanine to The Embarcadero 

Muni Metro/BART Station is estimated to cost $45.3 million. An additional $235 million could 

need to be added to the Project costs for purchase of dual mode locomotives if the Caltrain 

corridor is not electrified. This number is dependent upon the size and timing of the 

procurement, and the salvage value of the current Caltrain locomotives. Please note that the 

proposed California High Speed Rail Program would also require electrification of the 

peninsula corridor. 

2.2.3.6 Caltrain Operating Scenario Assumptions 

For purposes of this EIS/EIR, it is assumed that Caltrain would operate 132 trains daily in the 

horizon year of 2020. Table 2.2-2 shows the operating assumptions used for analysis of 

ridership and operating costs. 

Table 2.2-2: Caltrain Operating Assumptions (Year 2020) 

Type of Service 

(Per period two-way) 

Time of Day Local Limited Express 

Trains 

Per Day 

(Two-way) 

Early am 

5 – 6 am 7 0 2 9 

AM Peak 

6-9 am 15 7 12 34 

Off Peak 

9 am to 4 pm 29 1 2 32 

PM Peak 

4-7 pm 14 8 12 34 

Night 

7 pm to midnight 21 0 2 23 

Total 

5 am to midnight 86 16 30 132 

Source: Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board and HNTB, 2003

2.2.4 PROPOSED TRANSBAY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AREA

A plan for the redevelopment of the greater Transbay Terminal area has been a long-standing 

goal of the City and County of San Francisco, which entered into the redevelopment 

implementation process in December 1994 when the Board of Supervisors adopted a formal 

redevelopment survey area. A Citizen's Advisory Committee was formed which, along with 

local and regional agencies, has assisted the Redevelopment Agency in defining the 

redevelopment area. Additional planning and consensus building during the 1997 environmental 

process for the Caltrain Extension and the 2000 Terminal Study has resulted in the currently 
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 2-45 

proposed redevelopment area that is an integral part of the creation of a new Transbay Terminal 

and the extension of Caltrain. 

Any of the project alternatives would require adoption of a redevelopment plan, new zoning and 

design guidelines, and a capital improvement plan. Several documents are to be prepared to 

develop these plans. This EIS/EIR document initiates but does not complete development of the 

plan. Documents to be prepared fall into three categories: (1) Redevelopment Plan to be 

adopted by the Redevelopment Commission and Board of Supervisors and signed by the Mayor, 

(2) a Design for Development to be approved by the Redevelopment Commission and Planning 

Commission, and (3) Planning Code and zoning map amendments. Redevelopment plan 

adoption documents include a Redevelopment Plan, a Preliminary Report, and a Final Report. 

Both the Preliminary Report and the Final Report will include all documents required per 

California Community Redevelopment Law for a redevelopment plan adoption. 

Plan preparation will include the following activities: (1) analysis of the blight conditions in the 

area, (2) review of the financial feasibility of the entire project, (3) preparation of tax increment 

revenue projections for the area, and (4) evaluation of approaches for disposition and 

development of property within the Redevelopment Area. The Redevelopment Plan will be 

adopted by the San Francisco Redevelopment Commission and the San Francisco Board of 

Supervisors. 

A Draft Transbay Redevelopment Project Area Design for Development Vision was released for 

public review in August 2003, and is discussed in Section 2.4.1.3 below. The Final Design for 

Development would be approved (not adopted) by the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 

(SFRA) Commission and the San Francisco Planning Commission at the time the Redevelopment 

Plan is proposed for adoption. 

2.2.4.1 Transit-Oriented and Other Redevelopment in the Transbay Terminal Area 

Two development scenarios are being evaluated for the Redevelopment Plan Area, as described 

below. Assumed development levels for the "full build" and "reduced scope" development 

alternatives are shown in Table 2.2-3 and on Figure 2.2-25. The scenarios are not actual 

proposals but a representation of the range of reasonable development that could occur. Within 

the overall redevelopment plan, actual development proposals would be defined and evaluated in 

subsequent steps of the redevelopment process. 

Transit-oriented development in the vicinity of the Transbay Terminal would provide a mix of 

residential and commercial development adjoining a major multi-modal transportation facility. 

Revenues from the sale or lease of the land plus proceeds based on tax-increment from 

development on the properties in the Redevelopment Area would be used to defray a portion of 

the costs for the new Transbay Terminal and Caltrain Downtown Extension. Publicly-owned 

properties proposed for possible development are shown in Figure 2.2-25. 
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

2-46 Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redev

Table 2.2-3: Levels of Redevelopment (Gross Square Feet, GSF) Full Build and Reduced Scop

Block Numbers 

Proposed Uses 3718 3720 3736 3737 3738 3739 3740 3749 

Residential 

Full Build (No. of D.U.) 

0 0 611,910

(510) 

1,068,210

(890) 

1,170,450

(975) 

1,758,375 

(1,465) 

637,020

(531) 

234,325

(195) 

Reduced Scope (No. of D.U.) 

0 0 712,800 

(594) 

760,290 

(634) 

875,160 

(729) 

878,400 

(732) 

697,400 

(581) 

131,075 

(109) 

Office

Full Build 787,230 0 0 0 0 397,360 0 0 Reduced Scope 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Hotel

Full Build 0 475,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Scope 0 350,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Retail

Full Build 61,205 11,600 29,985 38,690 50,050 98,935 30,780 25,475 Reduced Scope 0 12,000 30,800 38,715 57,860 58,400 34,900 18,725 

Total

Full Build 848,435 487,200 641,895 1,106,900 1,220,500 2,254,670 667,800 259,800 

Reduced Scope 0 362,000 743,600 799,005 933,020 936,800 732,300 149,800 

Source: San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, San Francisco Planning Department
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 2-47 

Figure 2.2-25: Development Levels Assumed for Full Build and Reduced Scope Redevelopment 

Alternatives and Proposed Redevelopment Area Boundary
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

2-48 Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 

The adoption of a Redevelopment Plan for the area in the general vicinity of the proposed new 

Transbay Terminal is proposed to aid in the revitalization and enhancement of the Terminal area 

and to facilitate related development and financing of the transportation improvements and other 

redevelopment projects, including office, retail, hotel, and residential development. Transbay 

Redevelopment Project Area boundaries were revised to better recognize blighted areas and 

develop tax increment financing options. The proposed boundaries are also shown on 

Figure 2.2-25. 

Full Build Development Scenario. As shown on Table 2.2-4, the “full build” development 

scenario assumes about 7.6 million square feet (sq. ft.) of residential/office/retail/hotel 

development, including approximately 5.6 million sq. ft. of residential development (4,700 

residential units including affordable housing), 1.2 million sq. ft. of office development, 475,000 

sq. ft. of hotel development, and 355,000 sq. ft. of retail development. 

Reduced Scope Development Scenario. As shown on Table 2.2-4, the “reduced scope” 

development scenario assumes a lesser amount of commercial and retail development and is 

weighted more toward housing. It assumes approximately 4.7 million sq. ft. of 

residential/office/retail/hotel development, including 4.1 million sq. ft. of residential (about 

3,400 dwelling units), 350,000 sq. ft. of hotel development, and 260,000 sq. ft. of retail 

development. No office development is assumed for this Alternative. 

2.2.4.2 Draft Transbay Redevelopment Project Area Design for Development Vision 

The following program for the proposed Transbay Redevelopment Project Area was created 

through the Redevelopment Agency’s design for development process. The program is described 

in more detail in the Draft Transbay Redevelopment Project Area Design for Development 

Vision (August 2003) document. 

Working with members of the community during three public workshops, the Agency developed a 

refined program within the broad framework set forth in the “full build” and “reduced scope” 

alternatives of the Draft EIS/EIR. Based on community input from the public workshops and the 

comments to the Draft EIS/EIR, the refined program reduces the number of new residential 

towers in the proposed Project Area. Instead of a “wall of new development,” as described by 

comments on the Draft EIS/EIR for the Full Build Alternative above, the refined program 

includes fewer, more slender towers far enough apart to protect sunlight, open space, and views 

within the new Transbay neighborhood. 

The refined program also incorporates additional public improvements within the proposed 

Project Area, including new neighborhood parks, new public plazas, new pedestrian-oriented 

alleyways, and widened sidewalks. 

The final Design for Development will be a public document that provides a set of architectural 

and urban design standards and guidelines for new development, open spaces and streetscapes 
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 2-49 

in the proposed Project Area. The program described below is still being refined through the 

Redevelopment Agency’s continuing design for development process and ongoing community 

outreach. 

Land Use 

The Draft Design for Development document includes a land use program for the proposed 

Project Area, as shown in Figure 2.2-26. The area immediately surrounding the new Transbay 

Terminal is proposed as predominantly office uses, with some hotel and residential uses. The 

predominance of office uses north of Mission Street makes this part of the proposed Project Area 

appropriate for additional office development. The development parcels along Folsom Street 

and south of Howard Street between Main and Beale Streets are proposed to be predominantly 

residential uses. The proximity of Folsom Street to Rincon Hill and The Embarcadero makes 

this part of the proposed Project Area appropriate for additional residential development. 

Folsom Street and portions of Beale Street would also be the focus of ground-floor retail 

development serving the new Transbay neighborhood as well as the existing Rincon Hill 

neighborhood. To respect the existing historic districts to the west of the Transbay Terminal, the 

area along Second Street would be a mixed-use district with commercial and residential 

development. 

Urban Form – Residential 

The draft vision includes an urban form program described in detail in Appendix F of this Final 

EIS/EIR. While the “full build” alternative includes approximately 4,700 residential units, this 

level of development would create a virtual wall of residential towers along Folsom Street and 

north of Folsom Street between Main and Beale Streets. Based on community input from the 

public workshops, the number of residential towers was reduced and would include fewer, taller 

towers surrounded by low-rise development between four and eight stories in height. The 

spacing between the towers is intended to protect sunlight, open space, and views within the 

proposed Project Area. 

The draft program includes approximately 3,200 new residential units on the publicly owned 

development parcels, including several smaller, underutilized adjacent parcels. In addition to 

the development on publicly owned parcels, residential development would be encouraged and 

facilitated in the mixed-use zones of the proposed Project Area. It is intended that this new 

development retain the existing historic character of the neighborhood. 

Urban Form – Office/Retail 

 The proposed program includes new office development on two publicly owned parcels and a 

new hotel development on the publicly owned parcel just north of the new Transbay Terminal. 

This hotel would be designed to serve high-speed rail passengers using the new Terminal as well 

as the larger downtown area. The program includes approximately 40,000 square feet of 
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

2-50 Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 

ground-floor retail space concentrated in the residential area along Folsom Street. This new 

retail space will serve future residents of Transbay as well as existing residents in Rincon Hill. 

Figure 2.2-26: Draft Design for Development Land Use Plan 
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 2-51 

During the development of the Redevelopment Agency’s Draft Transbay Redevelopment Project 

Area Design for Development Vision released in August 2003 (and discussed in Section 2.4.1.3), 

differing height and bulk schemes were evaluated within the redevelopment plan area, including 

an 800-foot tall structure adjacent to the proposed new Transbay Terminal. However, these 

schemes are not being pursued at this time. In the event that the Transbay Redevelopment 

Project Area Design for Development Vision is revised by the Redevelopment Agency in the 

future, any new concepts would be subject to further evaluation and environmental review, as 

necessary. 

Public Improvements 

To transform the area into a livable residential neighborhood, the draft design for development 

document also includes improvements to the streetscape and open space for area residents and 

pedestrians. Four main types of public improvements are included: (1) neighborhood parks, 

(2) landmark plazas (3) pedestrian-oriented alleys, and (4) widened sidewalk zones. 

The most prominent of the proposed public improvements is the addition of widened sidewalks to 

improve the pedestrian experience along all the streets in the area, providing connections to and 

from downtown, the waterfront, South Beach and Yerba Buena. The sidewalks along Beale, 

Main and Spear Streets are proposed to be widened to provide usable open space for the area’s 

residents. In addition, it is proposed that the neighborhood be served with new parks 

programmed with various uses. Together these parks total 126,800 square feet. Two primary 

target zones for neighborhood parks are those zones where new residential development housing 

would be focused. Tower locations and heights have been carefully defined to minimize shading 

of parks and expanded streetscapes during the mid-day hours throughout the year. The primary 

opportunity and logical site for a landmark public plaza is on the north and south of the primary 

Transbay Terminal edifice, the east-west spine that will house the primary vehicular circulation 

for the terminal. 

The proposed program includes new alleys as well as extensions to existing alleys throughout the 

Project Area, allowing for better pedestrian circulation throughout the neighborhood. 

Pedestrian alleys can have a high level of pedestrian activity, and can be improved with special 

paving, lighting, plantings, and furniture. 

Critical improvements to the sidewalk environment appear necessary and are planned as a part 

of the redevelopment of the area. The widened sidewalks could serve two roles: (1) as improved 

linkages throughout the area but in particular to the terminal itself for the high volumes of 

pedestrian traffic that is expected as the area redevelops, and (2) as usable public open space on 

certain streets where adequate room exists to allow more active recreation uses. 

Folsom Street has been identified in the past as a location for a special pedestrian right-of-way 

that might act as the center of the new neighborhood and provide an active link to the waterfront 

along the Embarcadero. Portions of Main, Beale, and Spear Streets carry the lowest vehicular 

traffic volumes in the area, and there is excess capacity within the vehicular right-of-way for 
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

2-52 Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 

projected traffic volumes. This makes it possible to use some of the street width for a pedestrian 

sidewalk zone. 

Widening of sidewalks on these streets would be important given the significant number of 

housing units that would have access from or be adjacent to these streets, and could therefore 

enjoy the benefits of adjacent improved sidewalks. These streets are also the primary connectors 

from the eastern portion of the financial district to the South Beach waterfront area, where 

major open space amenities and public destinations are located, e.g., Pacific Bell Park. 

Options are being explored for widening the sidewalk environment of other Transbay area 

streets. However, projected traffic volumes on many streets are such that only limited 

improvements would be possible – none of the scale and extent as those proposed for Folsom, 

Main, Beale and Spear Streets. 

2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND WITHDRAWN 

Various alternatives and design options for the different components of the proposed project 

were considered and subsequently withdrawn from further consideration based on their inability 

to satisfy the project purpose and need, operational constraints, potential environmental impacts, 

lack of cost-effectiveness, engineering feasibility, and other factors. These alternatives and the 

reasons they were withdrawn from further consideration are described below for the Transbay 

Terminal and the Caltrain Downtown Extension. Previous planning efforts for a Transbay 

Redevelopment Area Plan are discussed in Section 2.2.3. 

2.3.1 TRANSBAY TERMINAL ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND WITHDRAWN

As part of the study by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the Transbay 

Terminal Improvement Plan evaluated three alternative replacement terminal site configurations 

and a terminal renovation alternative based on the following criteria: 

• Engineering issues 

• Transit operations criteria 

• Terminal operations criteria 

• Terminal and transit operations cost analysis 

• Joint development potential 

• Urban design issues 

• Overall project costs and revenues 

The terminal replacement alternatives were named after Dickens novels and consisted of Our 

Mutual Friend, Great Expectations, and A Tale of Two Cities. The conceptualization and 

evaluation of these three terminal alternatives continued for 24 months. Alternatives were 

screened with input from the Transbay Terminal Plan Panel. Based on this screening, the 
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 2-53 

Transbay Terminal Plan Executive Committee (consisting of staff and policy board 

representatives from AC Transit, the City and County of San Francisco, the JPB, Caltrans, and 

MTC) selected the Transbay Terminal West Ramp Alternative (“Great Expectations”) described 

above in Section 2.2.1.1. To assure that a full range of alternatives is evaluated, this EIS also 

includes the Loop Ramp Alternative described in Section 2.2.1.2, which is based on the MTC 

Study’s “Our Mutual Friend” option. 

2.3.1.1 Renovation of the Existing Transbay Terminal Building and Associated 

Structures 

Renovating the existing Transbay Terminal building and its associated structures would produce 

a facility that would be most similar to the existing Transbay Terminal. It would be the least 

expensive of the terminal improvement alternatives that were considered within the Transbay 

Terminal Improvement Plan study. It offers no other benefits in comparison with the 

replacement alternatives, however. 

Retaining the existing terminal building would not meet the project objectives. It would 

preclude most opportunities for improved space utilization, passenger circulation, signage, 

security, and safety. It would not accommodate the underground rail options – either a Caltrain 

extension or high-speed rail – and would require construction of new elevated rail structures. 

Although the existing Terminal, retrofitted to withstand a maximum credible earthquake, could 

accommodate a Caltrain Extension above-ground, such a strengthening would render the 

building impractical for multiple uses, including retail or commercial space. It therefore offers 

very limited potential for revenue-generating joint development within the terminal and would 

keep in place the elevated ramp structures that cross 10 city streets, which has contributed to the 

continued deterioration and underutilization of land in the Transbay Terminal area. For these 

reasons, and following review and concurrence by the Transbay Terminal Improvement Plan 

Panel and Executive Committee, the Renovation Alternative was withdrawn from further 

consideration. 

2.3.1.2 New Bus Terminal at Main/Beale Site 

In February 1999, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution repealing its prior 

endorsement of the Main/Beale site for a new terminal and urging the “City and County of 

San Francisco to work expeditiously with AC Transit, the Metropolitan Transportation 

Commission (MTC) and Caltrans to retain AC Transit regional bus service at the current 

Transbay Terminal site.” AC Transit supported this action noting that the Main/Beale site would 

not provide the level of transit service that could be provided at the current terminal site and it 

would be farther from the employment locations of AC Transit’s current riders. This site would 

not address project objectives to modernize the Transbay Terminal and improve its service. 

Withdrawal of the Main/Beal site was also consistent with the provisions of Proposition H, 

which calls for a multi-modal facility at the current Transbay Terminal site. 
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

2-54 Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 

2.3.1.3 A Tale of Two Cities Terminal at Transbay Terminal Site 

The Tale of Two Cities terminal alternative was the most costly of the alternatives considered by 

the Transbay Terminal Improvement study. It offered substantial room for expansion of bus 

operations and would have accommodated the full 2020 bus program projected by terminal bus 

operators. It provided clear passenger circulation within the terminal structure and integrated 

retail and passenger circulation advantageously. Both AC Transit and rail services would have 

been vertically separated from Muni services by only one level, thus facilitating intermodal 

transfers. 

The Tale of Two Cities terminal alternative did not meet the project objective to revitalize the 

Transbay Terminal area as well as the other terminal configurations. The extended footprint of 

this large facility did not contribute to improved utilization of land in the Transbay Terminal area 

and created long distances between modes for passengers circulating within the terminal. The 

facility also would have had elevated ramps crossing 10 city streets, which would have 

contributed to the continued “blight” in the area. The greatest negative with this alternative, 

however, was that the huge scale of the terminal facility and its integrated joint development led 

to costs almost twice these of the other two replacement alternatives. For these reasons, and 

following review and concurrence by the Transbay Terminal Improvement Plan Panel and 

Executive Committee, the Tale of Two Cities Alternative was withdrawn from further 

consideration. 

2.3.2 CALTRAIN DOWNTOWN EXTENSION ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND WITHDRAWN 

Multiple Caltrain Downtown Extension alternatives and design options were considered and 

subsequently withdrawn from further consideration based on engineering feasibility, potential 

environmental impacts, operational constraints, or inability to meet the project purpose and need. 

These Caltrain Extension alternatives and the reasons they were withdrawn from further 

consideration are described in the following sections and are shown on Figure 2.3-1. 

2.3.2.1 Caltrain Downtown Extension Draft EIS/EIR (1997) Alignment 

The Caltrain Extension alignment shown in the 1997 San Francisco Downtown Extension 

Project Draft EIS/EIR would follow Townsend Street and would curve north just east of Third 

Street and follow a tunnel alignment under Rincon Hill to Essex Street. It would be in a subway 

configuration under the alignment of the existing west bus ramps and follow the curve under the 

existing bus ramps into the basement of the new Transbay Terminal (see Figure 2.3-1, 

Alignment 1). It would not meet the project purpose to enable direct access to downtown San 

Francisco for future high-speed rail service. Its curve into the Transbay Terminal would have a 

395-foot radius, which would not accommodate the high-speed steel-wheel-on-rail equipment 

currently in use in Europe and under consideration by the California High-Speed Rail Authority 

for implementation in California, including a station in downtown San Francisco. 

. 

CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

2-56 Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 

Given its inability to accommodate high-speed rail, this alignment was withdrawn from 

consideration. A critical project purpose is to provide a multi-modal transit facility that 

accommodates bus, paratransit, Greyhound, Caltrain, and high-speed rail service. As noted 

above, the curves for the Caltrain Extension Alternatives described in Section 2.2.2 would 

accommodate the existing European high-speed rail equipment 

2.3.2.2 Essex Street Stub-End Alignment 

In response to the curve radii problems associated with the 1997 Caltrain Alignment, a new 

alignment was reviewed that would also tunnel under Rincon Hill and under the existing 

Transbay Terminal western ramps. Rather than curve into the basement of the Transbay 

Terminal, however, this alignment would include a train station that would be oriented 

perpendicular to and the west of the Transbay Terminal, with the northern end of this train 

station at Minna Street (see Figure 2.3-1, Alignment 2). This alignment would eliminate the 

tight curve leading into the Transbay Terminal and would enable the use of high-speed train 

equipment. 

This alternative was included in the Notice of Preparation and Notice of Intent to Prepare this 

EIS/EIR, but has since been withdrawn from consideration. During the public scoping process, 

the public noted several problems associated with this alignment. These public comments and 

issues contributed to the withdrawal of this alignment. First, the train platforms would not be 

directly under the multimodal transit facility, so internal passenger circulation and the ease of 

transfer from one mode to another would be substantially compromised. Second, the orientation 

would not allow for trains to pass through the station. That is, the trains would not be able to 

enter one end and exit at the other end of the station to a storage track. For the stub-end station, 

trains would pull into the station and would need to reverse direction to leave the station. This 

would substantially reduce train operating efficiency and would not meet the project purpose to 

substantially improve Caltrain service to downtown San Francisco. 

As described above, the two Caltrain Extension Alternatives under consideration in this EIS/EIR 

include tail tracks coming out of the east end of the train station. These trail tracks would allow 

for train storage and servicing, resulting in improved train operating efficiency. For example, 

trains would not need to be moved back to the Fourth and Townsend storage yard for storage and 

staging, but rather would be ready to be moved to a train platform from the tail track once a train 

vacated the platform; this train move would not block the train that is leaving the station. 

Finally, the tail tracks would allow for potential extension of commuter and high-speed rail 

service across the bay to Oakland, as a separate project. 

2.3.2.3 Other Caltrain Extension Alternatives Evaluated in 1997 

As part of the 1997 Draft EIS/EIR analysis, five alignment options applying different 

construction techniques for different segments were considered for an alternative to extend 

Caltrain to an underground station at Market and Beale Streets or at the Transbay Terminal. A 

detailed description of these alternatives and their characteristics is provided in the Design 
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 2-57 

Options Screening Report, Caltrain San Francisco Downtown Extension Project, Peninsula 

Corridor Joint Powers Board, 1995. 

Under the first option, the Caltrain Extension would have diverted from the existing Caltrain 

tracks at about Seventh and Berry Streets, travel subsurface along the south side of Townsend 

Street, curve beneath the southbound lanes of The Embarcadero roadway, and then travel 

northward along and under Beale Street to a proposed underground station at Market Street (see 

Figure 2.3-1, Alignment 3). Cut-and-cover and soft-ground tunneling techniques were 

investigated to evaluate engineering feasibility and minimize disruptions at the surface. Both a 

short-tunnel option with a portal between Fifth and Sixth Streets and a long-tunnel option with a 

portal at Seventh Street were considered. Differing alignment options for the final segment 

entering an underground train station at Market and Beale Streets were also considered. 

The second alignment option would have followed the same route along Seventh and Townsend, 

using subway and/or cut-and-cover construction techniques. From this point, the alignment 

would have descended, curving northeasterly, in a mined tunnel under Rincon Hill. Under Beale 

Street, the tunnel would ascend and continue, using cut-and-cover techniques, to the proposed 

underground train station, with alignment variations according to the different train station 

configurations (see Figure 2.3-1, Alignment 4). 

A third alignment would follow the King Street right-of-way rather than Townsend Street for the 

eastward segment. It would travel east on King to The Embarcadero, and continue northeastward 

in cut-and-cover tunnel subsurface along The Embarcadero right-of-way to Beale Street. It 

would then travel northward to an underground train station at Market and Beale (see 

Figure 2.3-1, Alignment 4). 

A fourth alignment would follow the King Street right-of-way in cut-and-cover tunnel, curve 

northeasterly east of Fourth Street, transition to a mined tunnel at approximately Third and King 

Streets, and then continue to an underground train station at Market and Beale (see Figure 2.3-1, 

Alignment 5). 

The fifth option would follow along King Street for the westernmost segment from about 

Seventh and Berry Streets to the Embarcadero (see Figure 2.3-1, Alignments 7 and 8). This 

alignment would be capable of being combined with the remaining portions of any of the 

Transbay Terminal or Market and Beale Streets terminal alignments described above. 

The alignments along Beale Street leading from The Embarcadero would pass near the Bay 

Bridge anchorage, raising issues regarding the effects of cut-and-cover construction on this 

major structure. The alignments using cut-and-cover construction down King or Townsend 

Street and The Embarcadero would introduce potentially substantial noise, traffic, air quality and 

other environmental impacts during construction within the South Beach neighborhood and 

elsewhere along The Embarcadero. This is an area that has experienced prolonged disruption 

from prior construction of The Embarcadero roadway and Muni Metro Extension projects. The 
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

2-58 Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 

King Street Alignment would also introduce traffic and other environmental impacts for the new 

baseball park at King and Second Streets. 

Extending the line north of Mission Street all the way to Market Street would have been costly, 

given that at least two train levels would have been needed, resulting in a deep excavation 

between older, historic buildings, and given the existence of subsurface structures (e.g., 

subsurface parking) in this part of the Beale Street right-of-way. Similarly, expanding the 

proposed Caltrain terminal to six tracks to accommodate future high-speed rail would cost more 

at the Market/ Beale Street location than at the Transbay Terminal. Finally, these alternatives 

would again introduce a stub-end station, reducing train operating efficiency (as described above 

in Section 2.3.2.2) and would not meet the project purpose to substantially improve Caltrain 

service to downtown San Francisco. 

Because of the additional capital and operating costs and the reduced operating efficiencies for 

this alternative compared to the alternatives defined herein and the major issues at the proposed 

train station site, the Caltrain Extension Alternative to the Market and Beale Street Terminal was 

withdrawn from further consideration. 

The King Street alignment segment was withdrawn from consideration because it would have 

caused severe traffic disruptions during construction, e.g., baseball games at Pacific Bell Park. 

Moreover, construction of this alignment would have meant tearing up the newly constructed 

southbound lanes of King Street and would have been complicated by a large box sewer line 

located adjacent to this alignment. 

The Caltrain terminal at Market and Beale Streets was ultimately withdrawn from further 

consideration because of the narrow right-of-way available on Beale Street, requiring 

construction of a multi-level train station between two historic structures. 

2.3.2.4 Alignment along Brannan Street for the Westernmost Segment of the 

Caltrain Extension 

This alignment would follow Brannan Street rather than Townsend Street or King Street for the 

first segment of the Caltrain Extension from about Seventh and Berry Streets to The 

Embarcadero (see Figure 2.3-1, Alignment 9). The Brannan Street alignment portion was 

capable of being combined with the remaining portions of any of the Transbay Terminal or 

Market and Beale Streets terminal alignments. It was withdrawn from further consideration 

because the alignment would have passed on the surface in front of the Sixth Street off-ramp for 

I-280 and would have traveled along the densely developed Brannan Street adversely affecting 

traffic operations. 
CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR 2-59 

2.3.2.5 Alignment From Essex Street Passing at an Angle Under the Transbay 

Terminal Site at First Street 

This alignment would follow the Essex Street tunnel alignment with a cut-and-cover section 

north of Folsom Street passing at an angle under the center (near First Street) of the new 

Transbay Terminal (see Figure 2.3-1, Alignment 10). It was withdrawn from further 

consideration because of the impacts that this long tunnel would have on real estate above the 

alignment, including the need for substantial property acquisitions, including both existing 

development and development currently under construction between Folsom and Mission Streets 

on both sides of First Street. 

2.3.2.6 Alignment Tunneling under Rincon Hill to a Tunnel and Terminal Station 

Directly Under the First Street Right-of-Way 

This alignment would generally follow the Essex Street tunnel alignment under Rincon Hill, but 

the tunnel would angle more to the east to meet the First Street right-of-way (see Figure 2.3-1, 

Alignment 11). A two-or three-level train station would then be constructed under the First 

Street right-of-way south of a new Transbay Terminal. This multi-level train terminal would 

require a transition of the train tracks from a one-level to a “stacked” configuration, which would 

need to occur to the south of the train terminal station. There is insufficient length to make such 

a transition under the Townsend Street right-of-way, and it is not advisable, from a tunnel 

construction safety or tunneling cost perspective, to build such a transition in the tunnel portion 

under Rincon Hill. This alternative was therefore withdrawn from further consideration. 

2.3.3 CALTRAIN STORAGE YARD LOCATED IN BRISBANE

An alternative to the Fourth and Townsend location proposed for a Caltrain midday storage and 

layover yard was a site at the former Bayshore Yard in Brisbane. This potential yard site was 

withdrawn from further consideration because of its distance from the proposed new Caltrain 

terminal. "Deadhead" time (the amount of time the train would be operated out of revenue 

service) would have been at least three and one-half times greater than the time to the current 

Caltrain facility, adding substantially to Caltrain operating costs and adversely affecting the 

ability to operate efficient and safe train service at anticipated levels of service.