|
|
|
|
|
 |
By Alexandria Rocha
San Francisco Examiner
Originally Published April 24, 2007
A rapid bus system on Geary Boulevard would create faster, more reliable service on the busy corridor while also attracting a quarter more riders, according to a feasibility study released by the San Francisco County Transportation Authority.
Along with Muni, the authority has been researching whether to introduce a bus rapid transit system on Geary Boulevard since 2004. BRT systems typically feature bus-only lanes closed to vehicles, with buses making fewer stops and having priority at traffic signals.
The idea has been controversial in San Francisco, as some business owners have said they would lose customers if normal traffic lanes were converted to bus-only lanes and parking spaces were reduced.
The study, released this month, reviews converting either the outside or center lanes of Geary Boulevard to bus-only lanes, with variations on each scenario. Officials also looked into creating bus-only lanes during peak commuter times and not implementing bus rapid transit at all.
Muni spokeswoman Maggie Lynch said an upcoming environmental review, which is the next step, would clarify which of the five alternatives is superior.
According to the study, a BRT system developed in the center lanes would improve public transit the most because buses would not merge with vehicle traffic. One scenario would create bus-only lanes in both directions that hug the existing median. The other scenario replaces the median with a two-way bus lane separated from vehicle traffic by two new islands.
During the peak evening commute, the center-lane alternatives are expected to reduce travel times up to 14 minutes.
“It’s going to have major, positive effects on people’s lives and commutes throughout the length of the corridor,” said Jose Luis Moscovich, executive director of the Transit Authority. “There are many different neighborhoods that are going to benefit — the Outer Richmond, Japantown and the Tenderloin. Currently, they are suffering from very slow bus service.”
An outer-lane alternative could save up to 13 minutes during evening commutes, but would likely be slowed by vehicles in the same lane, according to the study.
Construction costs for BRT range from $172 million to $212 million, but an additional $130 million could be tacked on if the system was designed for eventual use by light-rail vehicles. The project would be paid for through a combination of voter-approved sales taxes and federal grants.
Despite transit officials’ support of BRT, some business owners are not convinced their voices will be heard regarding a potential loss of customers. David Heller, president of the Greater Geary Boulevard Merchants and Property Owners Association, said the loss of vehicle traffic would significantly impact his business.
“We’re not against improving Muni. We are against bulldozing a community for a three to four minute difference,” he said. “People come to shop here by car. When you eliminate parking, they will go somewhere else.”
Under the various scenarios, between 25 to 285 parking spaces would be eliminated if BRT is implemented.
About one-third of vehicle traffic is also expected to divert off Geary Boulevard at Fourth Avenue in the Inner Richmond and at Fillmore Street in Japantown.
Advocates, however, said more people would likely visit Geary Boulevard’s commercial districts if public transit is improved.
The Geary BRT Community Advisory Committee is hearing a presentation on the study Thursday. The MTA executive board will discuss it on May 1.
- : 1.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
April 25th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
In the short run, the 38 Geary buslines should be consolidated into just one 38 Geary line with fewer stops and eliminate the 38L. The 38BX should have less stops, same as the current 38L stops in the Avenues so that it is not used as a shuttle in the Avenues.
Also, if the BRT is a done deal, then the mid Richmond south of Geary should have sticker parking as part of the deal so that drivers will not park in the mid Richmond and take the buses downtown. Residential sticker parking stops at Park Presidio Blvd. and should be extended to 25th Avenue but with 4 hour limits.
April 27th, 2007 at 2:21 am
If BRT is what we’re getting, then BRT is what we’re getting. It will be better than the current system.
But what is really concerning me is that they keepshowing these images of those fugly “busses” they’re using in Southern California (at least they look the same as those things down south). This is serious. These busses LOOK RIDICULOUS. I want to see someone tell me that when they do this BRT, the busses will look like our current boxy understated, but functional busses and not these horrendous mobile eye-sores painted bright red with plastic crap tacked to them to try and make them not look like busses.
PLEASE TELL ME THEY WON’T LOOK LIKE THAT! PLEASE!!!!!!!
April 27th, 2007 at 2:29 am
1. The BRT should obviously be the center lanes.
2. No one goes to the Richmond to shop that doesn’t already live in the area anyway. These people will always shop there because they’re local. No one travels to the Richmond for its AMAZING shopping as it is now.
3. If ridership increases, BRT will bring more potential customers to the area. This idea that shopping must be car-based is so 1970s I could puke.
4. If David Heller and the merchants on Geary are that stupid, then just ignore them. Improving MUNI for the community trumps whatever these idiots think - they are still in the minority.
5. BRT STILL doesn’t address what happens downtown. What’s the point of improving service in the Richmond if they just hit a bottleneck when they get to Van Ness and downtown anyway? Building BRT to eventually be Light Rail needs to be EMPHASISED. This needs to be presented as preparing Geary for light rail and BRT being a step in that process, NOT we’re doing BRT and maybe light rail. We need to commit to light rail as the long term goal - INCLUDING a Subway from at LEAST VAN NESS to the end of Geary downtown. This is more important than the Central Subway, but since the Central is getting done first we also need to make sure it will be compatible with future Geary Subway (i.e. Union Square stop can pull double duty as Geary and Central stop.
LIGHT RAIL!
May 9th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
In spite of Jason’s slur on David Heller and local merchants, he’s right about where the real bottleneck for the 38 line is—between Van Ness and Market St. Otherwise, the 38 line moves very well. (A lot of people travel out to the Clement St. area, by the way, but many now use the even slower #2 Clement and #1 California lines.) Seems like people are exaggerating Muni’s problems with the 38 Geary line to get onboard the BRT bandwagon. It’s a fashionable solution in search of a real problem.
May 15th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
BRT is a chance to have the benefits of light rail at a fraction of the cost. It won’t rob merchants of Geary of customers, it will bring more customers out there because of they’ll not be facing an hour stop-and-go bus ride.
Losing a traffic lane always looks bad to the merchants. The Valencia merchants fought giving up a lane to the bike lanes, but after traffic was calmed on Valenccia, shoppers and diners started flocking there. Also, traffic mobility hasn’t suffered as there are now left turn pcokets, and the thru traffic flows more steadily, and much more safely.
The trick to having a successful business district is to make it user-friendly, and pleasant to be on. The merchants along Valencia are enjoying increased patronage, the bike lanes have greatly increased the number of cyclists using the street. Everybody wins. BRT could bring the same win to the outer Richmond.
It’s too bad that the city didn’t have the foresight to put BRT on 3rd. It would have the flexibility to diverge to different terminal targets at both ends of the line, and could have taken a lane on Kearny to get to Chinatown, which would have saved us from the whole Central Subway debacle.