HomeMy WebLinkAboutPUD-98-053 Britannia Pointe Grand
i
FINAL REPORT
Britannia Pointe Grand Business Center Expansion
Transportation Demand Management Analysis and Proposal
to Mitigate Traffic Impacts through
Applied TDM Strategies
March 2000
Prepared for Britannia Development, Inc.,
by
Peninsula Congestion Relief Alliance
Contact: Angela Rae
333 Gellert Blvd., Suite #111
Daly City, California 94015
(650) 994-7924
www.commute.org
March 14, 2000.Final.V.3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .............................................................
EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................................1
Land Use .................................................................1
Traffic Impacts .............................................................1
Transportation .............................................................2
Alternative Transportation Services ............................................. 2
Commute Trends ...........................................................3
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT DEFINED ............................ 3
Menu of TDM Strategies ..................................................... 4
• Outdoors: Physical Improvements ..................................... 4
• Indoors: Physical Improvements ...................................... 5
• Ongoing (after building occupancy) ................................... 5
REVIEW OF FOUR BAY AREA TDM PROGRAMS ................................... 6
1. Bishop Ranch Business Park ................................................ 7
2. Hacienda Business Park ................................................... 11
3. Contra Costa Centre ...................................................... 14
4. San Francisco International Airport .......................................... 17
TDM ACTION PLAN FOR POINTE GRAND ........................................ 20
Summary of Recommended Action ............................................ 20
CONCLUSION .................................................................21
ATTACHMENT A: POINTE GRAND SITE DIAGRAM ................................. 22
ATTACHMENT B: TDM ACTION PLAN & BUDGET ................................... 25
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to summarize the current conditions near the Britannia Pointe
Grand business center located in the East of 101 business park in South San Francisco
California, and assess strategies that may improve the efficiencies of existing transportation
facilities by expanding Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs that
encourage and facilitate the use of alternative travel modes. The premise holds that applied
TDM strategies in the Bay Area can mitigate up to 35% of total trips at any given site.
The goal is to reduce reliance on the single-occupancy automobile as the primary travel mode
of up to 35% of those commuting to the Pointe Grand business center, and subsequently
reduce total vehicle miles traveled and vehicle trips generated in proportion to the projected
growth after the construction of four new buildings at the site. These buildings are named:
Sugen II, Sugen III, Exelexis I and Exelexis II, as shown in Attachment "A" Site Diagram.
The report concludes with a recommended TDM action plan to be applied by Britannia
Development, Inc. at all Pointe Grand facilities now and after buildout of the site.
*****
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Land Use
The Britannia Pointe Grand business center (hereinafter referred to as Pointe Grand) is
located on a contiguous parcel at Harbor Boulevard and Grand Avenue. It is currently
comprised of nine buildings with 395,000 gross square feet, housing about 800 workers. Two
new buildings consisting of 118,000 gross square feet are under construction, and three more
are planned with gross square footage of up to 175,000. All totaled, Pointe Grande will
house up to 1,250 workers in 14 buildings with a total of 685,000 square feet of commercial
office space. The majority of the workforce at Pointe Grand will be comprised of those
employed in the bio-technology and high-technology industries.
Traffic Impacts
The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Traffic Impact Report prepared for the City of South
San Francisco, was reviewed by the Congestion Management Agency (C/CAG). C/CAG
ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT Report
Pagel Pointe Grande TDM Analysis for Britannia Development
determined that the Pointe Grand business park expansion will generate 400+ new peak hour
trips, which will further degrade the level of service standard on US 101 from Oyster Point
Blvd. to Interstate 380. C/CAG's recommendation calls for "the inclusion of aggressive
Transportation [Demand] Management measures" for the project.'
Transportation
Pointe Grand is located within close proximity to a key transportation corridor featuring US
101, the Southern Pacific Railroad (CalTrain), Interstate 280 via the Interstate 380
interchange, and the San Francisco International Airport.
Alternative Transportation Services
A variety of alternative transportation services exist in or near Pointe Grand:
^ South San Francisco CalTrain Commuter Rail Station
^ Samtrans inter-county 7B bus line linking the South part of the County with the North
via the Redwood City CalTrain to the SFO Airport to South San Francisco
Convention Center to the downtown San Francisco Transbay Terminal.
^ Two employer-sponsored shuttles serving 20 employers with 2,170 employeesz:
1. Glen Park BART shuttle to Utah-Grand Business Area
2. South San Francisco CalTrain Station shuttle to Utah-Grand Business Area
^ At present, few bicycle facilities are located in the area, though 100 or more
commuters reportedly commute by bicycle to their jobs East of 101, especially during
the warmer summer months.3 A bicycle route exists around Pointe Grand's
perimeter-on Utah, Littlefield and East Grand Avenues-as identified in the San
Mateo County Bike Map. Future facilities will include the Industrial City Rail Trail
connecting the CalTrain Station to the Bay Trail, and a continuous East-to-West bike
lane along Oyster Pointe Boulevard.4
' Letter from Richard Napier, C/CAG to Suzie Kalkin, South San Francisco Planning Division, Apri126, 1999.
z Peninsula Congestion Relief Alliance Database, updated with American Business Lists, October 1999.
s Bike to Work Day Poll, RIDES for Bay Area Commuters, May 1999.
a City of South San Francisco Planning and Engineering Department, December 1999.
ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT Report Page 2 Pointe Grande TDM Analysis for Britannia Development
^ Future water transit service to the business park at a ferry terminal slated for the
Oyster Pointe Marina within the next five years will literally create a brand new
transit corridor for those traveling from the North, South and East Bay to jobs in the
East of 101 area. Existing shuttles serving the Pointe Grand area could be quickly
and efficiently rerouted to serve this new commuter hub.
^ BART service to the South San Francisco BART station, now under construction, is
expected to begin in mid 2001. Though the station will not directly link to the East of
101 area, it will improve shuttle travel times as the current shuttles are re-routed from
Glen Park BART to this closer station. This can increase shuttle ridership as well as
entice a brand new rider constituency: South San Francisco and San Bruno residents
who live near the station and can utilize the shuttles to reach jobs East of 101.
Commute Trends
In a recent telephone survey to Bay Area residents, RIDES for Bay Area Commuters asked
3,669 adults who work full-time outside of the home how they currently travel to work. In
San Mateo County, 411 people responded. The overall drive alone rate for the Bay Area was
determined to be 67%. For San Mateo County, the percentage was higher at 75.4%. The
highest drive alone rate is in Santa Clara County at 77.2%.5
The Commute Profile further delineated the non-drive alone travel modes (mode split). In
San Mateo County 12% travel in a carpool, 9% use public transit, 3% bicycle, 2% walk, and
less than 1% telecommute. Public transit is further broken down by type: 2.8% use BART,
2.5% use Samtrans bus and 2.5% ride CalTrain. Use of employer shuttles was not measured
in this survey. This 1999 mode split for San Mateo County provides a baseline for
improvement at existing sites, since it is behind the curve compared to other counties.
*****
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT DEFINED
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is a variety of actions taken to reduce the
number of cars on the road by increasing the use of alternative travel modes such as carpools,
vanpools, bicycles, land or water transit, and implementing other congestion reduction
' Commute Profile 1999: A Survey of San Francisco Bay Area Commute Patterns, RIDES for Bay Area
Commuters, Inc., August 1999.
ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT Report Page 3 Pointe Grande TDM Analysis for Britannia Development
,'
strategies such as, staggered work hours, alternative work schedules and home to work
telecommuting. It may also include pricing strategies that discourage driving alone by
charging employees for parking or raising bridge tolls.
For clarification, this report concentrates on TDM, versus "Transportation Systems
Management" (TSM). The distinction is subtle but important. TDM works to reduce traffic
by increasing the demand for alternative modes. TSM deals with traffic flow, signal timing
and engineering additional capacity (supply) on existing roadways. TDM is typically viewed
as a specialized area of TSM, and in recent years, an integral part of traffic mitigation plans.
TDM programs are most effective when implemented directly by the employer or an on-site
property management firm.
Menu of TDM Strategies
The scope of TDM strategies has often been limited to employee commute programs at the
work site. However, there is increasing awareness that employee commute programs are
inextricably linked to the physical attributes of the building to which employees travel each
day. Thus, the scope of TDM must be broadened and the determination made that a truly
effective TDM strategy for development mitigation begins at the ground breaking.
It is worth noting that in the Bay Area most work sites comfortably accommodate an
employee's decision to drive alone through the provision of ample free parking. To counter
this attractive accommodation, developers must work hard to include features that equally
accommodate other modes of travel. A comprehensive list, or "menu", of TDM measures
that work in concert to achieve this goal is provided below:
I.Outdoors: Physical Improvements
Limited parking (more people than parking spaces)
Bus turnarounds at main entrances
Transit shelters and benches
Preferential parking for carpools and vanpools
Signage for vanpool and carpool parking
Bicycle lanes and paths to and from transit grid
ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT Report
Page 4 Pointe Grande TDM Analysis for Britannia Development
Bicycle parking: racks, lockers, bike cages
Signage for bicycle parking
Pedestrian walkways from adjacent roadways to front entrances
Pedestrian walkways to and from transit grid
Walkway lighting
Recharging station for electric vehicles
Remote park and ride lots near origin of travel
Patios, gardens, benches, walking/jogging paths, and other attractions that
encourage people to stay on site during the work day.
II. Indoors: Physical Improvements
Employee showers and clothing lockers
Transit Information Center: computer kiosks, brochure racks, telephone
ISDN cabling, data jacks (for telecommuting)
Teleconferencing room (set up for video conferencing)
On-Site Amenities: Exercise room, day care center recreation area, cafeteria,
mail room, ATM banking, photo finishing, dry cleaning, drug store, employee
lounges, drinking fountains, vending machines, on-site car washing or repair
service and other amenities that encourage people to stay on site during the
work day.
III. Ongoing (after building occupancy)
Employee Transportation Coordinator (Full-time staff for employers with 100
or more employers. Employers with over 1,000 employees may require
additional staff). Or, tenant Transportation Management Association (TMA)
Commute information (bus maps, bicycle guides, shuttle schedules)
On-site transit pass sales
Commuter Check transit subsidies
Emergency Ride Home Program
Employer-sponsored shuttles to CalTrain and BART
Mid-day shopper shuttles
Carpool matching and vanpool formations
Provision of vanpool vehicles
Vanpool cash subsidies towards rider fares
Parking cash out program
New employee orientation (with special commute presentation)
Commuter incentives (free bus tickets, awards, free towel service)
Walking or bike "buddy" program
Policy to encourage hiring local residents
Provision of local housing subsidies
Formal policy to allow home-to-work telecommuting
Formal policy to allow 9/80 work schedules
Promotional events such as Bike-to-Work Day, Spare the Air, etc.
ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT Report Page 5 Pointe Grande TDM Analysis for Britannia Development
The purpose of itemizing the extensive list of TDM measures available to potentially mitigate
trips by supporting alternative transportation is to suggest that there is no one-size-fits-all
approach. The Alliance purports that each developer should pick and choose measures from
the menu to form a customized "TDM Action Plan." By offering a menu of options,
developers will be afforded autonomy over their project by having the choice of mitigation
measures that are most attractive, cost effective, and appropriate for their particular land use.
The Alliance staff is available to evaluate any TDM plan a developer is proposing, determine
trip reduction effectiveness, and recommend adjustments to that plan where needed. For the
purpose of this report, a model TDM Action Plan is provided.
*****
REVIEW OF FOUR BAY AREA TDM PROGRAMS
To understand the broader context into which TDM programs implemented by the employer
and/or property management firm fit, four such Bay Area programs are reviewed. These
programs are also known as employer-based trip reduction programs or commute alternative
programs.
The review below discusses the effectiveness of trip reduction efforts at four medium to large
Bay Area employment centers:
1. Bishop Ranch Business Park, in San Ramon
2. Hacienda Business Park, in Pleasanton
3. Contra Costa Centre, in Pleasant Hill
4. San Francisco International Airport, in San Mateo County
These sites were chosen for analysis because they offer a wide array of ridesharing
alternatives, and because recent survey data is available. They provide a good comparison of
what could develop in the East of 101 redevelopment area.
ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT Report Page 6 Pointe Grande TDM Analysis for Britannia Development
At each of these centers, employers have joined together to promote commute alternatives,
usually by hiring a separate agency to administer the commute alternative program.
Basing the commute alternative program at the employer, rather than in the employee's
residence community allows for greater control of the program. Employees are more likely
to find people with similar schedules for carpooling and vanpooling, and management-related
programs such as telecommuting or compressed work week schedules are more easily
implemented.
Large employers who operate commute alternative programs independently, such as Hewlett-
Packard or Genentech, are much less common in the Bay Area. Further, in this era of
voluntary compliance with ridesharing measures, they are unlikely to conduct employee
surveys. Each of the sites discussed in this report is under a local trip reduction ordinance
which requires them to survey employees about their commute behavior on a regular basis.
Throughout the Bay Area, commute modes vary widely, and the variation largely depends on
the availability of public transit. Commuters to downtown San Francisco, for instance, are
much more likely to use public transit than commuters to suburban office parks. San
Francisco commuters can use BART, Muni, Samtrans, AC Transit, Golden Gate Transit,
CalTrain and the ferries. In contrast, areas that have fewer transit options may have drive-
alone rates as high as 90%.
1. Bishop Ranch Business Park
Bishop Ranch Business Park is located in San Ramon, a city in Contra Costa County. The
City of San Ramon is on Highway 680, which runs North/South through the eastern parts of
Contra Costa and Alameda counties. Bishop Ranch's congestion problems are acute, in part
because it is not near a fixed transit line such as BART or CalTrain. A relative lack of
transit, combined with ample free parking has led many commuters to choose to drive alone
to work. In addition, the large employers at Bishop Ranch draw commuters from great
distances, including a significant percentage from the Central Valley.
ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT Report Page 7 Pointe Grande TDM Analysis for Britannia Development
Bishop Ranch is served by AC Transit, which offers service within Alameda and Contra
Costa counties, as well as connections from the two closest BART stations, Pleasant Hill and
Dublin/Pleasanton. Bishop Ranch commuters can also use County Connection, WestCAT
and Tri-Delta Transit. Several SMART buses run from the Central Valley. Last year, the
Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) began running from Stockton, Tracy and Manteca to
Santa Clara County. ACE stops in Pleasanton, where Bishop Ranch commuters can take a
County Connection bus to the worksite.
In addition to the many transit alternatives, Bishop Ranch offers carpool and vanpool
incentive programs. Many employers permit (and promote) telecommuting and compressed
work schedules, and encourage employees to bicycle or walk to work. Commuters who use
carpools, vanpools or transit are eligible for the Guaranteed Ride Home program.
As the largest employer (or consortium of employers) in San Ramon, Bishop Ranch falls
under the jurisdiction of the San Ramon Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
ordinance. The City of San Ramon surveys employees every two years to comply with the
TDM ordinance. The most recent survey was conducted in May, 1999.
Bishop Ranch has 20,365 employees, including San Ramon's two largest employers, Pacific
Bell (7,500) and Chevron (3,500). Most Bishop Ranch employees work full-time, Monday
through Friday. Very few work swing shifts, or are scheduled to work evenings and
weekends. The table below shows the commute modes.
ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT Report Page 8 Pointe Grande TDM Analysis for Britannia Development
Table 1 -Bishop Ranch Commute Modes
Commute Mode Bishop Ranch Chevron Pacific Bell
Drive alone 70.0% 68.3% 68.2%
C ool 16.3% 9.0% 16.7%
Van ool 6.3% 13.0% 7.9%
BART & bus 1.6% 0.4% 1.7%
Bus 1.1 % 0.1 % 0.6%
Motorc cle 0.4% 0.6% 0.3%
ACE 0.1% 0.1% 0.2%
Bic cle 0.9% 2.0% 0.5%
Walk 0.3% 0.6% 0.3%
Telecommute 1.3% 0.5% 2.7%
Com ressed da off 1.7% 5.4% 1.1
Total 100% 100% 100%
It is useful to look at Chevron and Pacific Bell separately because they take different
approaches to trip reduction. (Both employers have dedicated staff to a commute alternative
program, which supplements the Bishop Ranch program.)
At Chevron, the focus is on vanpooling and on compressed work schedules. Chevron
subsidizes vanpools, and encourages employees to work compressed schedules. Many
employees (vanpool riders and others) work a 9/80 schedule, meaning that they work 80
hours in 9 days, then have the tenth day off. This schedule shifts commutes out of the peak
hour (since employees work longer days, arriving earlier and leaving later), and reduces
overall commuting by giving the employee one day off every two weeks. This successful
program is embraced by senior management, and is considered part of the corporate culture.
At Pacific Bell, the emphasis is on telecommuting. While other commute alternatives are
strongly encouraged, telecommuting is more prevalent than at most Bay Area employers. In
part, this is due to the nature of Pacific Bell's business. However, making it part of the
ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT Report Page 9 Pointe Grande TDM Analysis for Britannia Development
corporate culture is, again, key to its success. By looking at the commute modes in clusters,
the relatively light use of transit is evident. Table 2 shows clustered commute modes.
Table 2 -Bishop Ranch Clustered Commute Modes
Commute Mode Bishop Ranch Chevron Pacific Bell
Drive alone 70.4% 68.9% 68.5%
Ca ooUVan ool 22.6% 22.0% 24.6%
Public Transit 2.8% 0.6% 2.5%
Other 4.2% 8.5% 4.6%
Total 100% 100% 100%
Despite the many transit alternatives available to them, and despite aggressive incentive
programs, only about 3% of Bishop Ranch commuters use transit. As each commuter has his
or her own reason for not using transit, quantifying the problem is difficult. Anecdotal
information suggest the following reasons. First, driving alone is too easy, even with the
congestion. Employees have plenty of free parking, and ready access to their worksites.
Second, transit is too inconvenient. Many of the transit alternatives involve a transfer, either
from BART or ACE to a bus, or from one bus system to another. Further, survey
respondents complain that the buses do not run frequently enough, or are unreliable. (In one
case, demonstration runs of a connector bus were canceled, and commuters were left
stranded. Few were willing to give the transit service a second chance.) 6
Finally, an important piece of information came to light during the most recent survey. Many
respondents noted that in the past, they bicycled to work, but that new management had
removed bicycle lockers and showers. These commuters now drive alone. Similarly, many
6 City of San Ramon, 1999 Employee Transportation Survey Results, Valerie Brock Consulting, Oakland,
CA, September 1999.
ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT Report Page 10 Pointe Grande TDM Analysis for Britannia Development
employees reported that they were no longer permitted to telecommute. The commute mode
shift is not apparent simply from looking at the data, but highlights an important aspect of
effective commute alternative programs: consistency.
Bishop Ranch Business Park: Conclusions
Managerial support is critical. Commute alternative programs are most successful when
employers actively encourage employees to use the alternatives. A consistent approach
shows employees that management is committed to commute alternatives. Removing bike
lockers sends the wrong message, not just to bicycle commuters but to all employees. At
Bishop Ranch and at other employers around the Bay Area, commuters have demonstrated
their reluctance to give transit a second chance. One bad experience will keep them in their
cars. When establishing a shuttle service, or trying a new route, it is essential that the shuttle
work well on the first day.
2. Hacienda Business Park
Hacienda Business Park is located in Pleasanton, next to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART
station in Alameda County. Pleasanton is on Highway 580, which runs East/West through
Alameda County. In addition to Dublin, Pleasanton is close to Livermore, and the region is
often called the Tri-Valley area. Like Bishop Ranch, employers in Hacienda Business Park
draw commuters from the Central Valley. The Hacienda Transportation Program is
administered through the Hacienda Owners Association. Hacienda Business Park is served by
AC Transit, County Connection, WHEELS, BART, MAX (bus from Modesto), SMART and
ACE. ACE, opened in 1998, was the second new fixed line transit in two years. BART
opened the Dublin/Pleasanton station in 1997.
To alleviate the perceived inconvenience of transit, WHEELS buses meet incoming BART
and ACE trains, and also run directly down I-680 from Concord/Walnut Creek. The
WHEELS buses run throughout Hacienda Business Park, and are free to all employees.
Hacienda actively promotes carpooling and vanpooling, and requires all tenants to allocate
ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT Report Page l l Pointe Grande TDM Analysis for Britannia Development
5% of parking places as "preferential parking" for carpools and vanpools. Similarly, bicycle
racks are required at all buildings. Hacienda encourages employers to offer showers, and
ensures that all streets are well-lit for bicyclists and pedestrian commuters.
Employees whose employers participate in the Pleasanton "Commendable Commutes"
program are eligible for the Alameda County CMA Guaranteed Ride Home program. Most
of the larger Hacienda employers participate in the program.
In 1998, Hacienda had approximately 20,000 employees and residents. The most recent
employee survey was conducted in May, 1998. Among the 615 employers in Hacienda
Business Park, 93 participated in the survey. These employers represented 4,985 employees,
and included many of the larger Hacienda employers.
The composition of the survey respondents highlights one of the challenges facing the
Hacienda Owners Association. Commute alternative programs are more effectively
administered at large employers (more bang for the buck), yet, without regulations mandating
involvement, some large employers will not participate. Table 3 shows the commute modes
at Hacienda Business Park.
ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT Report
Page 12 Pointe Grande TDM Analysis for Britannia Development
Table 3 -Hacienda Business Park Commute Modes
Commute Mode Avera e
Drive alone 75.4%
Ca ool 13.1%
Van ool 0.5%
BART 1.0%
Bus -WHEELS 0.6%
Bus -SMART 0.2%
BART & bus 1.6%
Motorc cle/Mo ed 0.2%
Bic cle 0.2%
Walk 0.3%
Com ressed week da off 0.2%
Work at home/telecommute 0.5%
Time off 3.2%
Work or travel offsite 3.0%
Total 100%
To calculate the commute modes among people who were actually traveling to work each
day, commuters who took time off or who worked or traveled off-site were excluded from the
analysis. Table 4 shows the clustered Hacienda Business Park commute modes.
Table 4 -Hacienda Business Park Commute Modes
Commute Mode Percenta e
Drive alone 80.6%
C ool 14.5%
Public Transit 3.6%
Other 1.2%
Total 100%
Hacienda Business Park has an exemplary Commute Alternatives Program, whose efforts are
not reflected in the relatively high drive-alone rate. One factor in commuter's propensity to
drive alone seems to be company size. Unlike Bishop Ranch, Hacienda Business Park is
ADMINISTRATNE DRAFT Report Page 13 Pointe Grande TDM Analysis for Britannia Development
comprised of many small and medium-sized firms. It is more difficult to find ridesharing
partners at smaller firms. Further, Hacienda commuters travel an average of 20 miles from
home to work, shorter than the average at Bishop Ranch. Despite the congestion in the Tri-
Valley area, commuters may feel that the perceived inconvenience of riding public transit or
carpooling with a neighbor is not necessary for their shorter commutes.'
Hacienda Business Park: Conclusions
Regardless of how efficient transit transfers are, many commuters are not willing to use more
than one form of transit on their commute. The BART/WHEELS transfer, and the
ACE/WHEELS transfer may be a deterrent. Many commuters are unwilling to walk more
than a few blocks from a transit stop. Hacienda Business Park is somewhat spread out, and
many commuters, especially those carrying laptop computers, will not walk from BART on a
regular basis.
When establishing a commute alternatives program, enlisting the support of larger employers
should be a top priority. Larger employers have more resources for marketing commute
alternatives, and employees are more likely to find ridesharing partners. Finding innovative
ways to engage consortiums of small employers through transportation management
associations or chambers of commerce may offer marginal increases as well.
3. Contra Costa Centre
Contra Costa Centre is a medium multi-tenant complex located at the Pleasant Hill BART
station in central Contra Costa County. Since 1990, the Centre has grown to 3,179
employees occupying nine buildings in 1998. The most recent survey was conducted in
April, 1998.
City of Pleasanton, 1998 Employee Transportation Survey Results, Valerie Brock Consulting, Oakland,
CA, July 1998.
ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT Report Page l4 Pointe Grande TDM Analysis for Britannia Development
Like Hacienda Business Park, Contra Costa Centre benefits from its proximity to BART.
However, the effect is more extreme because Pleasant Hill is located in the middle of a
BART line, rather than at the end. Commuters living in Eastern Contra Costa County can
easily take BART, as can commuters in San Mateo, San Francisco and Alameda counties. In
addition, parking at Contra Costa Centre is adequate, but limited. There is insufficient space
for all employees to drive alone to the Centre.
Through the Contra Costa Centre Association (CCCA), employees are offered numerous
incentives to use commute alternatives. Over 71 % of commuters are aware of the vanpool
program which uses Contra Costa Centre vans. Another 45% know about the mid-day
shuttle service to an area retail center. (This mid-day shuttle omits one reason to drive -
lunchtime errands.) The Centre also offers a Guaranteed Ride Home program for carpool and
vanpool commuters (37% awareness), and carpooUvanpool ridematching services (33%).
About 28% of commuters know about the commute fairs offered at the Centre, and 19%
know about the child care program. The child care program is a partly subsidized daycare
facility at the Centre. As child care, or the ability to reach children in the event of an
emergency are key reasons for driving alone, this child care facility is an important incentive.
While one cannot conclude that because employees are aware of incentives, they use them, it
is safe to generalize that high overall awareness of incentives is likely to be related to
increased use of commute alternatives.
Table 5 shows the commute modes at Contra Costa Centre. It is particularly interesting to
see that use of BART is nearly triple that of commuters to Hacienda Business Park. This can
be explained by the location of Contra Costa Centre in the middle of a BART line, and by the
limited parking, but it may also be due to highway construction. Contra Costa Centre is very
close to the Highway 680/24 interchange. From 1993 until 1998, this interchange was under
construction, causing further congestion. Commuters may have had a greater incentive to
look for commute alternatives.
ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT Report Page l5 Pointe Grande TDM Analysis for Britannia Development
Table 5 -Contra Costa Centre Commute Modes
Mode Percent
Drive alone 71.8%
Ca ool 11.7%
Van ool 2.8%
BART 8.9%
Bus 2.1
Motorc cle 0.4%
Bic cle 0.4%
Walk 1.2%
Telecommute 0.3%
Com ressed da off 0.2%
Total 100%
It is also interesting to note that commute modes at Contra Costa Centre have changed very
little since 1991, despite big increases in the number of employees at the Centre. Several
large employers have moved in, and a few have moved out, yet overall, commute modes have
remained stable. This suggests that there may be a natural stabilization Pointe, beyond which
further marketing efforts will yield diminishing returns. Table 6 shows clustered commute
modes at Contra Costa Centre over time.g
Table 6 -Contra Costa Centre Commute Modes Over Time
Mode 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1998
Drive alone 70% 73% 71% 67% 67% 70%
Ca ooUVan ool 17% 13% 13% 15% 15% 14%
Transit 11 % 11 % 8% 10% 9% 11
Other 2% 4% 8% 8% 9% 4%
$ Contra Costa Centre, 1998 Employee Transportation Survey Results, Valerie Brock Consulting, Oakland,
CA, June, 1998.
ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT Report Page l6 Pointe Grande TDM Analysis for Britannia Development
Contra Costa Centre: Conclusions
Making commute alternatives attractive may not be enough. Transportation planners may
need to use a carrot and stick approach, where commute alternatives are made more
appealing, and driving alone is made less appealing, perhaps by limiting parking. Taking
advantage of external factors can be helpful. Contra Costa Centre capitalized on the
inconvenience of the 680/24 construction project by aggressively marketing commute
alternatives. Gaining the support of individual employers is key to building awareness of
commute alternatives. Hacienda Business Park has an impressive marketing campaign, but
must work with hundreds of individual employers. At Contra Costa Centre, there are fewer
than 201arge employers, and fewer than one hundred total employers. It is much easier to
contact employees through a more centralized structure.
4. San Francisco International Airport
San Francisco International Airport (SFO) is one of the largest employment sites in San
Mateo County; over 24,000 people work on the ground crew for airlines, or for various
airport enterprises. The airport runs a centralized commute alternative program for these
employees. The airport surveys the employees on a regular basis; the most recent survey was
conducted in January, 1998.
Especially with the recent construction at the airport, reducing the incidence of solo driving is
atop priority for airport transportation planners. Unlike the other employers discussed in this
report, SFO operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Employees are much less likely to
commute at peak times, meaning that traditional commute alternatives such as public transit
maybe less available. Only 41 % of SFO employees arrive at work between 6:00 a.m. and
10:00 a.m.; throughout the region, about 85% of people arrive at work during those hours.
SFO has adapted to the unusual schedule requirements, and has one of the lowest drive-alone
rates in the Bay Area.
In addition to extensive vanpooling, many commuters use private transit or buspools. These
commuter alternatives are particularly beneficial for commuters who live far away from the
ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT Report Page 17 Pointe Grande TDM Analysis for Britannia Development
airport. Table 7 shows the Monday through Friday commute modes for SFO employees.9
Table 7 - SFO Monday-Friday Commute Modes
Mode Percent
Drive alone 53.0%
Ca ool 10.3%
Van ool 8.8%
Public Transit 5.7%
Private Transit 0.7%
Club busBus ool 1.3%
Dro ed-off 2.4%
Other 1.8
Com ressed da off 2.0%
Telecommute 0.4%
Re ular da off/ vacation 13.5%
Total 100%
To better compare the results with other large employment sites, the people who have regular
days off during the week (13.5%) have been removed from the analysis, and the modes
clustered. People who are dropped-off are included with carpoolers. Table 8 shows the
clustered, recalculated commute modes.
Table 8 - SFO Monday-Friday Clustered Commute Modes
Mode Percent
Drive alone 61.3
Ca ooUVan ooUDro ed off 24.8%
Transit, ublic and rivate 9.0%
Other 4.9%
Total 100%
The drive-alone rate is still quite low compared to the regional average. The use of vanpools
and private transit allows employees who work unusual schedules and who live far away an
y San Francisco International Airport, 1998 Transportation Survey, RIDES for Bay Area Commuters, Inc.,
Oakland, CA, January, 1998.
ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT Report Page l8 Pointe Grande TDM Analysis for Britannia Development
effective alternative to driving alone. Certainly, a shortage of employee parking paired with
the transit-savvy "corporate" culture of an international airport weigh in favorably.
San Francisco International Airport: Conclusions
Effective commute alternative programs focus on the commute alternatives that employees
are most likely to use. Bicycling and walking to work are relatively unappealing to SFO
employees, and fewer resources are devoted to them.
Commuters who work unusual schedules are more likely to drive alone due to lack of
ridesharing partners. This negative can become a positive with commute alternatives
targeted at their special needs (vanpools, bus pools, etc.).
The drive-alone rate at SFO is even lower on weekends than during the week, demonstrating
that commuters can be influenced by factors other than traffic congestion and perceived
convenience, with extremely limited employee parking being number one among them.
*****
ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT Report Page 19 Pointe Grande TDM Analysis for Britannia Development
TDM ACTION PLAN FOR POINTE GRAND
A computer-generated model TDM Plan was developed specifically for Pointe Grand to
demonstrate how a comprehensive plan that incorporates outdoor physical improvements,
indoor physical improvements and on-going commute programs for each specific mode of
travel will support a person's choice to use a commute alternative, and directly impact daily
trip reduction. Please see Attachment "B" Transportation Demand Management Action
Plan. From this model, a set of recommended actions is made
*****
Summary of Recommended Actions
Upon reviewing existing conditions at the Britannia Pointe Grand Business Center, current
commute trends, a hypothetic model of a comprehensive TDM plan, and a comparison of other
medium-to-large employment sites with specific commute programs, a set of actions is
provided for Britannia Development's consideration. These actions are meant to establish the
framework for the application of progressive TDM strategies that will mitigate negative traffic
caused by the new development, as well as establish high quality commute programs for those
using the site in the long term. Four primary recommendations follow:
Rl : Designate ahalf--time TDM Coordinator to operate the Pointe Grand commute alternative
program and act as the primary contact for the City on TDM matters.
R2: Conduct a baseline commute survey to existing tenants.
R3: Implement a comprehensive TDM plan, like the one described here by the Peninsula
Congestion Relief Alliance in Attachment B, which incorporates outdoor improvements,
indoor improvements, and on-going commute assistance programs after occupancy.
R4: Work in partnership with the Alliance to make use of the numerous free and subsidized
Alliance programs and services that will directly fulfill the requirements in the TDM plan
and the commute program offered to tenants.
*****
ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT Report Page 20 Pointe Grande TDM Analysis for Britannia Development
CONCLUSION
The implementation of a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan
for commercial land uses intended for high ormedium-density employment can measurably
reduce further impacts by decreasing the use of single occupancy vehicles and increasing
the use of alternative modes of transportation. The physical features of a new (or
redeveloped) land use can dramatically impact a person's ability to use alternative
transportation. Equally important to the goal of maintaining the continued use of the
alternative commute is the provision of programs, services and subsidies on an on-going
basis after occupancy. Other benefits of implementing TDM plans include improved ability
by tenants to attract and retain a high quality work force, significant cost savings associated
with building and maintaining less parking, and improved mobility of shipping and
delivery vehicles needing access and egress from those business located at Pointe Grand.
Significant and measurable air quality benefits will also be realized over the long term.
~~~*~
ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT Report Page 21 Pointe Grande TDM Analysis for Britannia Development
ATTACHMENT A
SITE DIAGRAM
Britannia Pointe Grand Business Center,
East of 101 Business Park in South San Francisco
*****
t/
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
1
t
1
1
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
~ ~~
1
t
t
Y~r. 6. 1999 1:liPY CNAl/0RR0 DESIGN No.0122 P. 2
~~~~
~~ ~
x. ~
~,.~bv r
--- ._ ..rM.K
r
~~ ~ ~~ ~1111Y
~c ~ 1`1`g,~11'µ'{'' 11~~11}'' {II{{II }1}1 '~{'{'''}'{{'~''}{'~tt~''{(n~{{
I • , ~~~~Illllllllll~llfllllV J
Q 0~~~
1} • 777
1~ J i •
Q •}} p •
~r~p
t a ,;
',n A
r
r .~
U
() ~
t
d
~ '~
rH~
P
%,° i ~;
~.
~ ~ ,
a'
:~
..
,.
~-~
.`
f1~
C~
ATTACHMENT B
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT
ACTION PLAN
for
Britannia Pointe Grand Business Center,
East of 101 Business Park in South San Francisco
*****
A computer model generated by the Peninsula Congestion Relief Alliance
January 2000
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT
ACTION PLAN
for
Britannia Pointe Grand Business Center
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Overview
The following transportation and trip reduction action plan is aimed at reducing employee drive alone car
trips by increasing the number of Pointe Grand employees using commute alternative modes during the
peak hour commute, Monday through Friday. The plan is based on the results of the attached computer
model that measures the effectiveness of a variety of TDM elements. A list of concepts used to build this
model is attached here.
Based on the model, it is estimated that 410 of the 1,250 people that will be working within the
Pointe Grand business center will use a commute alternative to the single occupancy vehicle on
average about 2 days per week if several key TDM program components were available. This
calculates to 239 one-way trips reduced each day. The eight recommended TDM programs, service
and subsidies that will help achieve this goal are:
1) Emergency Ride Home Program
2) Monthly subsidies (e.g.:Commuter Check) for transit riders
3) Monthly subsidies for vanpoolers
4) Preferential parking (and monitoring) for carpools and vanpools
5) Bicycle parking
6) Utah-Grand BART/Caltrain shuttle service
7) On-going marketing to tenants and employees
8) Dedicated, on-site personnel to provide commute assistance year-round
Assumptions
The plan begins with five assumptions (see Page 1 of the Model):
Page -1-
Al) There are 1,250 employees reporting to the Pointe Grand Business Park during
the a.m. peak period of 6:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.
A2) 10% are currently using a commute alternative and 90% are driving alone. This
means 125 employees are using some mode of commute alternative regularly.
A3) The saturation point for commute alternative usage in San Mateo County is set at
35%.
A4) It is conservatively estimated that most commute alternative users drive a portion
of the time, and will use the alternative on average 2 days per week, 8 months in the
year. Actual alternative commute usage is likely higher.
AS) There are 236 possible commuting days in one year (11.25 months x 21 days).
Our goal for Pointe Grand is to achieve at least 32%, or 410 alternative commute users, by the Year
2002. Please note: if 32% of the employees used some form of commute options just 2 days per
week, then 9.75% of the actual and total trips made to the site would be eliminated. For Pointe
Grand this equals: 585,280 total trips - 56,400 trips eliminated annually.)
Process
Next, the exhaustive list of TDM program components, which we assert work in concert to increase
the likelihood of an employee's decision to leave their car at home and choose an alternative, is
reviewed. Site characteristics, corporate culture, employment size and other factors affect which
components are chosen for the plan. These program elements are then placed into the computer
model to determine their effect on the desired outcome, i.e.: 410 Pointe Grand employees using
alternative transportation regularly. The model does not differentiate between programs that already
exist at Pointe Grand versus those that are needed to further support the desired outcome. It does
distinguish between program elements that, in our experience, have had the greatest impact on
Page -2-
motivating an employee to switch from a private automobile to an alternative mode.
Implementation and Budget
Page 10 of the model report summarizes the impact of the set of recommended TDM elements on
each individual commute mode, and totals the number of people likely to participate with the
corresponding trips reduced based on the usage factor for each mode. This helps determine a budget
that would be needed to sustain the program annually and on-going after implementation as
itemized on Page 11. That budget is summarized below:
TDM Program Element
1) Emergency Ride Home Program
2) Monthly subsidies transit riders
3) Monthly subsidies for vanpoolers
4) Preferential parking for car- and vanpool
5) Bicycle parking
6) Utah-Grand BART/Caltrain shuttle service
Estimated Out-of-Pocket Cost
$ 245 (annually)
$17,440 (annually)
$ 4,640 (annually)
$ 0
$ 1,400 (one-time expense)
$12,000 (covers all tenants)
7) On-going marketing to tenants and employees $ 2,500 (annually)
8) Dedicated, on-site personnel $25,000 (estimated annual)
TOTAL $62,725
Page -3-
• d d
~ A A
d d
. ,~'~.4.~L~„
;f~~""„~: ~ O O
-. rr~y~r} Z 2
~~s~ ~:. '
o u~
o ~ o 0 o e e e e
N CI N f") OI l'7 O N ~ N ~ f0
..hf
a Q
~ .•~~,
~ ~~
Y $ $ $ Q Q
3`x" 19 E E E ~ E E ~ E °o,
r :>:m d ~ o
Y ter. r,. n d d d d d d v e
.:~a~m•~.~: E ~ ~ ~ X42 ~ ~
~~i~~ V~ar~~ OI d d d d~ d C d Dd 1~C0
~, C d 9 d V d d d d y O y
L: H & y Q w ~ w ~~ t ~ 7
EE E > > ~ ~ ~ E ~
Q~ 5 ~ o o d
mfM s ~ N ~ 1. 7 >. 7 ~` 7 >` 7 J+ 7 >` ~ ~ d
~ D Y Y Y S Y ~ Y ~ 'Y 7
~t'/My~-: ". N d d y d d~ Y p~ Y 01 Y 0) Y 01 Y N fp
ii. ~K C d C d C d C d C 01
N'' lp , : E c ~' ~ c ~' ~ aci ~' ,., d ~' ,., d ~' ,-. d ° -- c ~ -. E c ~ •-
Q~~.~X ~~ ~~4 ~~c SEA ~~.4 ~~g ~~~° °~~ ~'~ E'er ~•
Ij~ ti!1. ~9 1` `J ~ ~d ~ d.xy y.xy M
• Q~j miP, !~~ j0 L N '% .~i N •% y N X 7 N x 7 N f0 " C d
(~pp 11pp A 10 10 10 yy I9
`^^YY U d ~ d d d ~ f0 19 "' 10 d "~ IE d ~p 19 10
~~ C~ H d m~ N ~ [D ~ N 6] ~ N fD ~ N m~ N m~ N m~ H ~ m Q~ N a; 9
O=•Cr ir: a o
. ~, a
'' ~ d
3'c~.c ~ d
Eh C n E
OA L .
r V_m,~"
°
0
d
d
0
.~
m
s
d
n
d
a
0
0
n
N
O
pN
O
C
.Q
v
d
a
•c
F-
.~
a
v ~
C
'C W
O
J y
~
h }
> Y
W
? Y
W
~ Y
~
~
y Y
7
7
N Y
~
O
N Y
1
7
N Y
7
>
N Y
~
>
N Y
~
>
N Y
7
>
N Y
~
>
N Y
~
N
r
C c£
O Z
W
G
C
O.a C
D K
O K
~ 6
G
W C
~
~.
W
W~
~
~
r
W
r
W
r
W
~
~
r
~
r
W
~-
W
r
E I
~
c E
f
L W
a
~
~ W
W
~
~ f
w
~
~ W
a
~
- W
s
~
- Z
c
~ C C
~ Q
~ C
~ K
~ 6
~ K
~ ~
~ C
~
d -
~
.y^. d
d E
Y F ~
2_
g~
~p p
p:i
2_ sj
~y~ Q
CV
Z 7
j ~N O
C~
=
~_ O
gV
'
~~
~
~
1
<
7
~
7
~
3
~
~
~
7
~
3
~ y
F
Zo
~
_a
E V ZV U V U
t
t
t
1
t
t
t
t
t
t
1
t
t
1
t
t
t
t
t
1
t
N A
6 9
n
o. ~, d
?, A A ~
O O 3 C
z a c E
Z d
c0
C ~
d
Y
o ~
3
d N
E •c
~~
Z
0
N ~
a lL o N
Z d N r
N
Y
d
3y
~p N
019
7
7
e
C O
O
O
O
O
O
r h
O
O
r
r pp
O
a°~ .,~ .p r r
y O O O
Eon
d E ~ t
N O °
~
c
e
M
"'
•
j1 N C Y • ~ Nl h V (~
L
~ ^ N d
7
~
7
~
A
~
N d d C C _N ~ d C O 10
Y Y C M Ln d y d O A V C $ U 1`0 N~~ G C ~ ~ •Q v a
A A ~ C Y C 3 N }
A d D. •~ > O O N 7
~. E
'° C
E O d
~ ?
v
N N
~
u :~ N
^
N ~
d
~ c
m -'
^°' v
`
` ~ c
L E
Z
° rn
H
' ~
9
~ a
d
o v
,
C~
~ '~ a
~
~
~
• •-
=
~
O a
~ o
~ •LT
Q1
~ '
'
R
3
N
U
a d
10
O.
9
9
V
O ~pp
1
C
CC b
t
A
N
Y
=
O
r0 ~
O
N
C E
C d
Y
y t
"
d tt
d (J
N
0 C A ~ J C V
V
J O ~ H~ .O
a o 01
;7 01
~ 7
O
C
G ; 9
O) U ~ Y ~ d C U U d
C ~ ' O d ` N
d
° ~ Y
_
"
o c
~
A
° d
o
3 ~
J ~ f0 'E d
~ ID
~
O
a
c
Y
V
O
y ~ ~
~.
d `~ C
C 1 +
d
A
~ a~
c
d ~ d
O
E~ E a A N
t.. 10 D O1 r.1 p
d
pp N d
.0 F G ~ N
~Y ~ ao
d ~ '^ U
?' ~ C 9 G
d d N 10 _d •a
~a `o a!°pyo
N d ~ V 6
T _
n Nom. d N y ~
` O 10
~ t d Q d t7
p C O. td.. ~N
W ~ d
d ~ O y ~
v a L O C~ LL
T C 5.. ~ d
~ aD ~ R ~ C N
~ ~
10 r d U ~
E''v'~ o¢ Nx
'C m
3~N~ WOTyXt(
QwQ C T W ~_•~
E t ~ 7 9 ~ °y
y C d d F- la
~ ~ Z r ~ ~
N~ CO IC0 L A
Aoo„e~•E'=c
d ~Cn 10 N d ~ A
Y~ ~` d T G 7 N
d t0 } O 'C Q ~
d~ 9 d p~ C D
a daEm10~
c+'°~dd3nd
01 C d Y
vi,$EyAC~•
~ ; $ ~ ~ ~ ~ R
d N L ~ C
itTcavc 3`~~1 u
d N•w ~ i,= d k
z°~8z°vz°~~
a
d
d
O
c
c
m
3
d
n
ad`
N
O
N
O
4
Ti
r
.~
a
N ~> r
W r
W >
W >
W r
W r
W >
W r
W >
~ >
j >
j r
~ >
j >
j r
~ >
O W
K K K C K C C C K C C d' K C K C K
C
'C j
a7 7 >
N >
N 7
N 7
N ~
N 7
N >
N >
N >
N >
N >
N 7
N >
N >
N >
N
~ =N N
W
O
~ m I
~
C K K K d'
,
f
F-
F
1-
1-
F
f
~ ~ 4
0 W6
0 d
0 d
0 6
0 d
o "
Z.
a f'
Z
a f
Z
a 1-
2
a Z
a 2
a
Z 2
a
Z 2
a
Z Z
a
Z Z
a
2 2
a
Z
E v W W W y
~ W W 2
W 2
W 2
W Z
W Z
W W W W W W
F- W
1-
a W W W >
W W W } H f- f t- H F- H H
y
E c c c o c o
O
H
YW-
~
FW-
H
FW-
N
N
'
=
a
a N
< N
a N
a N
~
yaj
W
C a a a a a a
W C C
W H W W W
} W
YY W
} W
}
}
}
E
("
~~ W
~ W
.~ W
~ W
~
~ W
~
f ~
~ W
} Y
^' O
~
ie W
Z
O W
O ~
O
O
f
-
~
-
~
- F
~
F p O O O O N N
d
v E > > z> > > > ~ ~_ ~ ~_ ~_ ~_ ~
o ~_
~ ~
~ ~
o ~
E~= ~z ~z ~~z az r~-= ~z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Z Z Z ~ Z
d C
o N y O N
o z N
z N
z N
z Z
a Z
a Z
a Z
a Z
a a $ a a a
E V U U V V U
u
c
c
n
d
d
O
c
c
A
m
0
c
d
n
a
O
O
n
N
O
d
8
C
.4
Ti
7
6
'C
F
C
N
a
1
r W
~
r
N ~
~Y
Y
Y
}
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y Y Y Y Y W
VC K K K C C C C K
> K
> C
> K
> C
> C
> C
>
C a> > >
N >
N >
N >
N >
N >
N N N N N N N N
~ ZN N
C
O 2
W
~ m
a a
H-
>
}
~
>
f-
c u
~ c W r
a2i
oa >
a2
a >
z
a ~
z
a ~
z
a 1-
z
a r
z
a ~-
z
a ~
z
a z
a
2 z
a
2 z
a
2 z
a
2 z
a
2 z
a
Z
V J 2 ~
J 2
F 2
f 2
W 2
W Z
W- Z
YW- Z
F 2
f H FW- f f y
W~
F f
1 a W H W I
- I
- F
E o I c
2 w a a
C E
F y
W y 2
O
~ Z
O
~ W
Y W
Y W
Y 2
O
~
O
~
Y W
}
H
i
N
i
H O
~ O
~
2
Q ~
Vl
O
b
b V! A
0
C
.A. d
N
~
K
a
W
f
W
`1
W
`1
W
'~_
W
`e
W
~_
W
~
W
~_
=
1-
~
~
_
y
a
K
a
. v E
z > ~ ~ ~ ~ > ~ r ~ o ~ ~ > >
Y~ ~ 2 a a a a a a a a m a a
E F
d
c
0
d
•c
0
N
Q7
~pC
U
10
C
.~
C
'C
d
G
yO
6
O
N
d
h
d
L_
N
7
N
Vi
Q
s
a
d
d
0
C
C
.~.
fD
O
L
d
f0
d
a
0
O
n
N
O
d
C
O_
v
d
n
~c
d
.T
a
I
(A
C
t
~ s
SOY
JC
a>
Z N
W
~
>
h
W
K
>
N
W
5
>
N
Y
K
>
W
~
C
>
N
W
C
>
N
W
K
>
N
W
C
>
N
W
C'
>
V)
}
K
>
N
Y
K
>
N
c
O
~ =
W
m
C
n
c u X 'c c c c A `C~ A q A A
C
E • g
° 5
•
r
O
''
•
r
•
r
•
r
O
r
•
r
Y
r
•
r
•
r
as
E c
~ c
~
O N N N N
q •
Cr
~ •~ L
f
• L„
~
b ~
3
h L
f
O t.
~
~O ~
' L.
s
b ~
~
b ~
~
A q
' ~
~
b t
s
10
.
. C
~
C
c °'
., E
d ~
€
a`
G
c° u
~
c' c
~
a yy
t
a` ~~ii
t
a` gg~
t
a` ¢g
E
a 44
t
a` gg
t
a`
~
< gg
E
a qg
t
a`
. E v
u
c
c
E
a
0
d
O
c
~ c
m
0
L N A o
9
Y 4 ~p d
d ~+ 9
6 T
• G
d
~
„
o3c ~
N a
E
e
E •
0
Z
~ _d
C 8
4 n n
p ~ N
d 7 t~0
a N
~~
z
0
~ N
~~ ~
.-. N
lL
Y
d
M
N
l~0 d C O!
j } 4
N
O
Q
n
N
O
pd
O
C
.Q
7
n
•c
r
d
.~
a
1
~
~ r r r r > r r r r r r r r r
z r r
z r r
z
~ ~ z z z ~ z z z ¢ s s z z
> z
7
> a
>
> a
> 7
.C a > > 7 7
N >
N >
N >
N >
N >
N >
y >
N N y y N y N y
O
~~ =y
W N y
P
c
.
~,
.
C
C
A
q
>
~ q
Y C
E r O
r O
. O
. O
. O
o q
c q
2
2
2
~ w
~ q
~ q
~ q
~
~
~
~ ~
as 8 8 8 8 8 '"
E
C
O
A E
_
~
.
w
~
.~..
q
~
~
~
w
~
.~.
n
~
M
L
~ O
n
~ .
~
n
~ ~
n
~
w
Y
`n
>°
n
y w
~
o
~ N
~
o
~ P
C
O
4
c P
C
3
4
c P .
C t
O
P
c ~
~
Y
E
E
E
E
E
e
E
E
E
e
e
O
O
O o
C
C
Y
C
O
O
c
O
C
O
fb
°
q
4
y
t
4
t
~
g
E
~
~
q
t
C V
m E ~ u
2 c° "
5~ ~`
5 ~`
5 _c
~
9„
c w
2 w
'c w
c E
c
c
c
c
c
a
T
` a
d~ ~~ oc N
o~ ~
o~ o~ a a a a a a a a
a v v v u u
E
u
c
`c
n
0
m
m
'c
c
~o
m
3
v
d
w
a
a`
0
0
N_
O
d
8
C
.Q
rl
n
~c
F-
m
a
r
i rn
H
C
_
~C
O
~ ~
O W
J~
=y
=
W
fD
W
~
N
yy~
~
N
W
Q'
h
W
K
>
N
W
K
>
N
W
C
>
N
C
c u
d C
al ~
~
• c
C -c
C c
C c
C -c
C -c
C
dQ 8
. E
. c
~ N N
`
~
v `
L.
e
L.
o
S
u
A
w
t
~
'
Car
u E ~
~~
-' o
~u
-'
~
_
E
- gg
t
- 44
t
_ gq.
t
_
d ~
v
~ "
v
~ ~ a` a` a` a` a
a
E
V
C
O
d
d
O
n,
'c
c
m
0
d
A
n
a
0
0
N
O
CI
C
O_
K
IC
N
a
3 r
d ~
6
O
Y q
G E O N N
O Q~
dN
~a
~~
z
N
T ~
A Q
~
W
d
}
7=
E¢
O W
V ~O O N
~ N
c~
O
t
~
EE
~d
z
O V
T'Q
Y O_
c
o
o
0
0
~~
~o m 0
c a
m v
~r
a c.
J
H
~ O
7 ~
.~ Z
a
~ ~
L ~
V
Y
L
Q
d
+.+
~ U
~ U
=
++ o a
Q
O
~ O
O
~ O )
. C Y
. C ~
m l0
m ~
. y ~
m O
> >+
. ~ C
l0
1~
N
N
C
1
U
w
f0
O
d
(d
_U
(9
U
_O
C
O
C
fd
O
C
a~
m
a~
0
U
N
C_
O
a
O
a~
L
vi
a
.`
a~
7
E:
0
U
U
7
.p
c
O
U
w
r
r
U
d
.D
f9
f0
L
~>
Q
_N
O
C
N
cD
Q.
.~
~ W
~
::
C ~
fr
r
r
r
r
>
r
>
r
r
>
r
~
r
r
>
r
r
>
r
>
r
>
r
>
>
N O W W > > > ~ > > > > >
: K >
0: K >
C K O: C ~ ~
~ UK K C K K K C K ¢ C 0 = N N N h N N N N
C a y y N N N N N N N N N 1
9
O =
C =
W
O
~ fD
rn n ii a ii
C
•
Y
6
C
>
V _
~ _
~
V
C
~
8
Y
C
V
o
C
C
R
C
V
C
q
C
A
C
A
C
A
R
C V
d C O C
n w
~ C ~ ~ R
C S
C N
C
V C
V C
V C
V C
V C
V C
V C
V
E d
Y V
y Y
1- i
1- C
A C
C ~ V
~ C
C C
C V
~ C ~ H F- ~ ~ r r 1-
E
D c
~
r
r
t
r"
r
t
A A A - 5 ~
A d O 9 Y O
E O
E D
E d
E O
~ d
~ _
9
E ~
E Y
~ Y
r C
m Y G
e O
m O
~ O
e
€~ E
_ E
-
~
c c
is
c °i
d E c
o =
c~
~
€ 0
~ u
c 0
°'u
c 0
°'u
c
~
~ c
0
o u
5 0
°"
t:
~ 0
~ 'u
2
~
~ 0
E
~
S
r
5.
E i-
a' C ~ b
D c
Q
Q 5~
D 5~
O 5 N
D ,
c
a a n
0 o ~ -~
D O c
a 5-
D o c
a c
a c
a c
a ,
c
a .
c
a c
a c
a
E O U u U U U U U
`
O a
a1 N
N
~ O
a y ~ r ~ O O O ~ ~ ~' O ~[1 O O
N O O O~
C
d
d
S
C
O d
N
°' E ~
d N C
N
N
1n
N
N N n
~ N d .
.
O
O 9 O L W
d R •~
7 '= A
A .O+ 7
~ A
N
w y C E y y C
c c i m d u c ~ ` c A c a
Q1
~
N 0
y o
U
a
.V
y c
(~
U
y \Q
Y c
U i
a
W ~
L m
N
~
~
d ~
N io
~
a a ~ ~ LL <n d o ~ m o ~ g grn4 ~ ~ 3 ~ y
C ~ o ~ ~ a ~
° U
~ c
~ li U E
w o ~ ~ ~ d
O
~
Q ~ ~
~o ~
a ~
y x
w a
vi t
U
c d
U
~ '
E m
c ~
~ d
'o L
~ N
d ~ E
E R
~ t
U q
7"0
n. ] d
3
o °:
E o
U
~ v
¢ O
d ~
L
E o g
c c
01 o o H ~ a Q U E m
n
O
N U U
t y d
m E
W ~
F d
S ~
3 - 'c a
~
- i
d ~ r
u u ~ a 3 € ~ c
d i
~
.~
~ d
~'
y
N`
z
LL
°
y ~ E ~ 7
O = a 0 o
c N W ~ ~ a
a J O
~
C
'
U ~C O ~
` :: ~ o S w •E
t C N O {p C O A i
•+
~ ~
o
a
~°- O p e O ~
u a
a 3
C Y
.. C
A
C
d ~
d
-
T
O
{NI
d C
d 11 T
7 r
C
C G
U
C
d
d
d
0
C
C
m
O
O
d
W
n
a`
T
O
O
N
O
O
u
d
H
a
W
~J W
QJaJI S
V
N
C7
Z
H
C
LL
LL
F
a o 0
o da a
c~~n~y
~ u r~ ~-
Uai`oF0-
~ c
O
a0
N
O
N
N ~
~ N %
W ~ N
1~
N
m
ONf. c
d
N
l0
N
o
n
N
O
lh ~ M
w N
Q Q Q Q Q
e e
N ~
N N
2 Z Z Z Z O O
N
f~
N
~
~ v
S
e
N
W
N e
I~
N
°
~ N Vr N
N
t0
~
~
N
M
N C
~
d
U
~
O
~
a0
N
e
~
~
O
~
nj w
~
r
N
Ili c
m
V
~
~
O^
~
o
O
~
N
p~ N %
W
O
O
N
~ C
d
U
l7
O)
~
N
~
a00
b
N x
W
LL'
C
7 A
7 ~
^
T
~
e
e
N
Ep
N e
~
N
N
~
1
9
8
~
~
tD
N
~
e
~"~
c0
N a
N ~
~
d
d
D E C
.Q
~ C
~ N
~ C
~
a d d
74~2 d~
> C h
L
O N
A e N L 1p
7"d
0 `~
q
3
N ~p
~
~ 0 0 0 QQ D ~ 0 ~
~ ~ ~
~ E ° i. ~. ~ t ~ ~ %~ ~ A,
N N ~ ~
~ Y
. Y N ~ d
3 LL
~ Y~
' ~~
~ `~
~ ~
~
' ~
~
' $~
~ d
~° „v
°° 59
t
' E ~ E ~
~ " p c
!- ~ 'o aE ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~
`o~
R
o m ~ '
r EV
a
E
~ ~ ~
Z
N
N
R
Y
d
L
V
l0
d
W
U
0
W
Na_
I.i
J
Q
F--
0
H
d
L
0
d
n
N
L_
C
.O
d
c
0
d
c
A
~o
d
o.
n
L_
N
d
N
~7
U
L
u
L
3
H
t
d
n
.~
d
N
7
N
.d.
E
E
u
0
N
L
O~
7
O
t
O
e
N
1E
t
ips
X
N
E
n
O
'c
A
m
`o
d
~o
d
a
0
O
O
B
0
d
•c°
H
C
10
a
I
r
.,` .y .
~; '`.r..
.y.Y, ~~'
f 5+
,/ C~a{`;
Y ~ y.
t
~ ~
ry, ` ~ a
.,• p
'~°'y~~~~.L ;~
'•. Vi. 3
A 4
` N~ ~` ~t
? ~, ~
„~ j.
~..~'LL
V/.'
. w•~f ~~,
'JK~;..
~ ~ Tl-
" L'~' ~1
~"~}` C.
~-+-.:, r
~ , : a`~ ~.
~ ~ `~`~°=
~ v' ~'~ c~°'o::•
~~, C:
O `'~•~•~
~ ~Y m~ ~H
~~ Ny
V,
W~ ~ ~:
Nj
~ .Q_a
~ ~~ a
~~ 0
~ W~°'~
W~U
C) Q Z ,,,,
Q~ H d W O W W W W W W
QaQ
QU' d O °ry °N'. o ~ coD, c°q Oo 00
v
Q
w
w
} ~ c
t o 0
0
q p ~
Z N ~, ~ 0
o °
Q m o ~ o o
~ ~ n ~
~ ~ °°
M °°
M
~
~'
m W ~ K
Q
p
+
U
N '
0
o 0
~ 0
o ~
~ o
o ~
c o
o ~
c o
o
W ~.
V 0 ~n
N o
~ 0
~ 0
~ vi
tOD
QN
e9
0
~
~ .
o
J m
~ ~ ~ ~
J
N
Q
F" O O O O O O O O O
O W W N ~ ~ ~ ~ O O O~
W V Z ~ ti ~ ~- N N
A to N
N tD
~ O W ~ 69 69 ~
`fl E bs w
a
a
a ~+ w
O
G
W
0 0 0 0
O o O o 0
J
Q H QOj ~ ~ to O O O O~
~~ v v cD m o ~n o eo
Z O ~ ~ ~ N O N O 1~
Z C1 .- to EA ~ EA o i.
Q `~ ~ A w
W y
~ y
~ y
~ N
U N
V N
~ N
~ y
N ~.+
N T
~ j,
0 >,
0
o (0
a (0
a ~+
o T
0 T ~
0
~ n a a ~' '~ n.
d a
d n
~
Q d ~ ~ M d
~ O M O Q Q
W
H
Z
O
O
~ _
_
W } Z
0 0 ~,
,Wj
~
O
~
~
C1 W
O
=
o
~
Z
W
w
W m
~
Y
w
U
W
~
~
~
~ o
~
}
o
m
J
O
z
j C7
Y
~
a
Q
Z
~
w
a
Z
Y
~
W
U
}
U
m J
~
2
~
Q
~
Q
U
~
m ~
c
0
~
Y
~
p>
o
°'
c
O o
a~
~
E
d
y
v
m
~
i r- N ch a in cc h a0
U
C
c
a>
E
n
0
a~
0
~a
.~
c
~o
m
0
a~
n
n.
~ y
d j
C
~ `
U
'° d
f9
_ ~
m° f9
n 3
~ y
c c
o
a~
W E ,~
o o
'; `n n
o
E
~ o
3 ~ ~
° °
y a~
'O O LO C y ~
f6 C
L .
_ y y
U C
Q O
y O
y ~ y f9 ~ C " U y ~
L ` y O Q E 0 L •- L
v '~ v
L V
y d ._ a~
n p Q ~~
e
d ~ N d N O)
3 a ~o
i >, ~
° c o m
o % a~
v ~ ° o
a
y
c
a
C o o c
o
3
a m E o v a c
o a v
~ o f
v 3 0 ° U co ~ ~
m` 'n rn o c c ca O a 'r? E ~
C O 1+
L fG C C
~ O C
rj p •y O
y U7
~ ~ L
~ N O
FiN U
0
~ V n
° 1 ~ CO N O C ~` V d C C
E a ~
~ •E ,~ o
c
E •~
E
~ n
v E
L O o
a~
o
f0 ~ a O ~ O 7 N Y O T N
. ~ C
o C
W o
X 0 0
O y o c rn ~
L a
n °
~~ O N> d
~ 3 N O'
O Y_
D d
c N d
~ O)
C
~ ~ t9 ~
~ 99N
O ~ ~ ~ C a
O p~ ~
O ~ O
C y > p O
3
~
y N O` ~ C (1 U O y ~
a m
` c c ~ ~ c y L c c° E
a
~
~ n E U ;~ CO r> c
9 C ;_ .O ~ O N
° o E
~ ?
u
3
a y
u °'a ~ ~ °
m E ° a a3i o
u c
o y ~
~°
a~
y O) o ~c
O N a~
'~ L O u
C y c
O d ~ rn~
O y
h° a N O o c a o~ u°, m~ 0 0
~
O °
a o _
C O ~
~ ~ o
~ m w d N 7 ~
~, y r0 ~ N
3 a ~ m ~ a`~ d ~ c ~
O ani a°~i E ~ a>
O C D T
y y C O N
N .~. f0 _O C E ~
v 5 Y a~ ~ ~ r _
~ a °~ °' n n E
0 ~
~~~ O y ~ N~ ~~ O U L d~ V ~
c
o S' ~ a o ° y~ c E v
o y ? a rn~
~ ~ ~ C („) O L o O
y ~ Y (/~ U f9 3 C
°
g
C D E~
d y= ° o
y ~~ po yp
U O n c
fC o ~ ~
C O .
I"'
0
U = E °
y
`
~ 61
° y
~ y
4 ' L'
W=o a
F- E.E -
a
i•
'O a
' ~ E ~.
u •~ 01 'S
C
~ a
y
W v~ U co j
o ° ~ ~ m o u. O Q .~
,-, o ~
c~ ° L
ii a 1-
v o
~n E
~
~ a
w a
~ 9 9
O D O O C C
j` 1` N (~ ~~~(7 d d
aadzz ZC1C9C~(9C9C9C~»»>ww
p ~ N t7 V 47 t0 1~ p O O ~ N M v N 10 h a0 p
r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^
V
C
C
n
0
v
d
A
c
c
m
0
v
d
m
a
m
a
O
O
n
N
O
9N
O
C
O_
~7
9
d
d'
n
~c
d
u
c
co
a