|
|
|
|
|
 |
By The Transportation and Land Use Coalition
Imagine all the benefits of a subway system, the smooth ride and reliable schedule, in an above-ground bus system for a fraction of the cost. Bus rapid transit (BRT) is a fast and comfortable transit system that combines many of the features people like about trains on rail with the flexibility and affordability that comes from using rubber-tired vehicles on the roads.
From the passenger’s point of view, BRT is like a train: fast, comfortable, and reliable. From the taxpayer’s point of view, BRT is like a low-cost bus. A BRT busway costs a fraction to build compared to a light rail system, and the vehicles themselves are more affordable as well.
BRT is the solution for Geary Blvd., Van Ness Ave. and many other streets in San Francisco. Once it is in place on those two major corridors, current and potential transit users throughout the city will demand BRT on their main streets. Full-featured BRT is in place nowhere in the United States, so a description is in order.
First, BRT vehicles are different from traditional buses. Though they are buses, they look and feel more like trains. They have doors on both sides, with as many as three per side, instead of the normal two. Like trains, you can board or depart from any door. They have low floors that are even with the platform so that passengers can get on and off quickly and easily. Passengers with mobility impairments no longer have to struggle up stairs. Buses no longer have to stoop or pause to operate a wheelchair lift.
Second, BRT buses travel in their own lane. The exclusive busway and transit-priority signals speed the bus on its way through intersections. Sophisticated traffic controls help to make sure the bus only stops to pick up and discharge passengers. Additionally, a subtle but important reason why trains are so much more comfortable than buses is that trains travel in a straight line: no swerving in and out of traffic or bus stops. Geary and Van Ness BRT will enjoy the same straight-line smooth operation, allowing you to comfortably read or work while riding and not be jostled against the passenger sitting next to you.
Third, the BRT bus stops become real transit stations, where passengers pay their fare before they get on the bus. There is no delay while people fumble for coins or try to fit a wet dollar bill into the fare machine.
Another improvement to both BRT and standard lines is NextMuni technology, which indicates when the next bus will arrive. Its planned implementation will take the guessing out of waiting for a bus. You’ll know if you have time to run and get that quick snack before the bus comes!
Put it all together, and you’ve got a great transit experience. Just show up at the station and pay your fare, and when the bus comes, the doors pop open, passengers zip on and off whichever door they choose, the doors close, and the bus zooms away. As good as a subway for a fraction of the cost, BRT is great for riders and taxpayers alike.
These systems are so popular and so affordable that the Federal Transit Administration has created a special funding category for such transit expansion projects called “Small Starts”, which funds projects with a total capital cost of less than $250 million.
BRT is perfect for Van Ness Ave. and Geary Blvd. because those streets have huge passenger loads that would benefit from a more efficient transit system. They’re also great because, unlike trains, the BRT buses can continue onto other streets after they leave the BRT busway on Geary Blvd. and Van Ness Ave.
Given that, at present, San Francisco does not have enough money for major expansion projects such as the Central Subway and the Downtown Extension of Caltrain to a New Transbay Terminal, being able to build a whole new transit infrastructure for less than $200 million is of paramount importance. The City’s voter-approved sales tax already provides $110 million for the Geary and Van Ness BRT as well as Muni Metro improvements.
After BRT is established on Geary and Van Ness, Muni should expand the network as quickly as possible to other areas of the city. The most logical next candidate for BRT expansion is the Potrero/Bayshore corridor, although Muni expansion should be subject to careful analysis and directed to the area of greatest need, and not the squeakiest wheel!
For more information on BRT, check out the National BRT Institute or the Bus Rapid Transit Policy Center.
For a recent BRT success story, check out what’s going on in Los Angeles. A plan to extend an existing BRT line was approved this past fall and another expansion is in the works. Here’s an editorial about the proposed project from the LA Times, "An above-ground solution for Wilshire traffic."
- - - - -
The Transportation and Land Use Coalition is a partnership of over 90 groups working for a sustainable and socially just Bay Area. TALC envisions a region with healthy, vibrant, walkable communities that provide all residents with transportation choices and affordable housing. TALC analyzes county and regional policies, works with community groups to develop alternatives, and coordinates grassroots campaigns.
Note: Articles are posted for the purpose of generating ideas and honest debate on how San Francisco can live up to its full promise and potential. Posting of an article does not imply an endorsement by the author of Gavin Newsom for Mayor, nor an endorsement by Gavin Newsom for Mayor of the positions set forth in the article.
- : 5.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:28 pm
The best way to have a great debate is to make sure both sides are heard. That’s why I called David Heller, President of the Geary Boulevard Merchants Association, who gave me permission to post his letter on the topic of BRT on Geary. You can learn more about David’s point of view at www.savegearyblvd.com.
Dear Merchants and Friends
(a letter from David Heller)
I would like to tell you about a plan that was not well thought out and I think could do some real damage to the people who live and work in the Richmond District. The proposition of the Bus Rapid Transit is a shame and a bureaucratic nightmare.
The Bus Rapid Transit would dedicate one lane in each direction on Geary Boulevard solely for the use of Muni buses. They plan on making it light rail ready to 33rd Avenue.
This may sound great on the surface but when you dig a little deeper you can see that this proposition has not been well thought out. As we all know, there are over 50 avenues which means over 20 avenues will not even benefit from such a proposition. This project will affect traffic all along Geary Boulevard and on the parallel streets.
With 55,000 cars driving on Geary Boulevard where will they all go when half of the capacity is eliminated? I’ll tell you where: into our neighborhoods, on Anza, Balboa, and Clement Streets. Those already busy streets will drown even more in automobile traffic that should have stayed on Geary Boulevard in the first place.
In addition to all that, hundreds of existing parking spaces will be lost and that alone will DEVASTATE our local economy, not to mention the years of construction and congestion.
How did it get this way? The entire project is rooted in deception by Proposition K supporters as well as by Supervisor Jake McGoldrick who has mislead the public from the very beginning. Just look at how Proposition K was passed…the Bus Rapid Transit Light Rail Ready was hidden from our view without public outreach or input. Instead of being upfront on the proposition ballot it was instead hidden.
The voters voted to increase the half-cent tax to improve maintenance of local streets. This half-cent tax was to create citywide networks of fast and reliable buses, improve safety for pedestrians, the elderly, disabled and bicyclists as well as continue the existing half-cent sales tax during this implementation and future projects. The one thing we did not vote for is to put hundreds of local merchants out of business, which is exactly what this project will do, make no mistake!
So, in closing, let me tell you – we’ve been duped. Proposition K is not a citywide transit measure in which we were all told during the campaign that led up to its passage. Instead it’s been hijacked by a handful of politically correct bureaucrats and transformed into the…
“Neighborhood Business Elimination Programâ€, 

…and we’re in the cross-fire.
WE CAN NOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN.
Here’s how you can stop it… GET INVOLVED! Go to www.savegearyblvd.com/involved.html
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Right now I almost never go to the Richmond to do any shopping. They have some great shops there but it’s too difficult and time consuming to get there by transit. Once Geary BRT is completed I will add my dollars to the Richmond businesses I love and probably to some new one. Great places there include Cheap Petes, Green Apple Books and even All American Bowling & Trophy Supply on Cabrillo. In short, Geary BRT will attract more San Franciscans to shop in the Richmond.
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:34 pm
San Francisco is constantly billed as a transit first city, yet almost anytime a major project that would remove cars, reduce pollution, and benefit thousands of people is proposed, people complain.
I can understand the fears that exist. But from all the plans I have read, construction would take place in small segments, keeping lanes open at all times, so not once will they shut down Geary Blvd. There will be constant access to stores. And eventually better and quicker access for those without cars.
As for traffic concerns, I am a driver, who sometimes takes the 38, or 38L, why do I sometimes drive? Because transit is slow, and often not on time. How do you get the many people like me out of our cars, reliable, quick transit. It is not a complicated technology and has worked in so many cities, it doesn’t make sense why it wouldn’t work here.
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:50 pm
If the #38 Bus were ~20 minutes faster from my Inner Richmond neighborhood to downtown I’d ride it much more often. Mr. Heller’s comments about improved mass transit killing local businesses and hurting Richmond residents are silly. I’m a Richmond resident, near 2nd and Balboa. I walk or bike with my family to businesses on Clement and Geary almost every weekend.
But there are many like Mr. Heller who can’t imagine anyone getting from any point A to any point B except by car. In his mind, two lanes for a dedicated bus line _has_ to mean two-lanes-worth of cars will be transferred to side streets, as if the number of car trips can never go down. It’s a similar argument many on Polk and Valencia Streets made when bike lanes were striped there. None of the dire predictions for Polk or Valencia came true. (Some report enhanced business due to greater foot and bike traffic.) It’s the same argument the DeYoung Museum directors are making now in opposition to Saturday car-free days. It turns out that the museum’s highest visitor census is always on Sundays, when cars are not allowed in Golden Gate Park.
I hope that a good BRT system makes it to Geary. I hope that a good BRT plan is implemented. It will make the Richmond an even better place to live and to do business. In my opinion it’s already the best neighborhood in the city. The Richmond Rocks.
February 24th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
I am dismayed to see this BRT article, especially displayed so prominently on the Mayor’s homepage. It belongs on Supe McGoldrick’s page, not the Mayor’s.
There are a *lot* of options to improve transit on Geary *without* BRT being imposed on those who live and work there.
Were these other options even looked at, much less studied? (No, they were not.)
Did anyone look up the name of the author of the original piece-of-crap article? Did anyone go to the website?
They call themselves Transportation and Land Use Coalition (TALC), and they aren’t even located in SF!
However, the SF outfits that lend their names to this “TALC” are sucking nonprofits who routinely rob the General Fund of our tax dollars for their own paychecks!
They line their pockets with our tax dollars while calling themselves “advocates” or some other variation of imposing 1984 Newspeak doublethink on us.
“Advocates” = paid lobbyists.
Can the Thought Police be far behind?
(Oh wait. That’s right: Daly, McGoldrick et al are already here.)
At any rate, this BRT article (especially from an outside source) should *not* be on the Newsom for Mayor site.
I am a Newsom supporter and I say:
Remove this from the site!
Overall rating: Big Fat ZERO
February 25th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
I don’t understand Andrew Ferguson’s comment about where this BRT article goes. The Mayor supports Geary BRT. See http://tinyurl.com/2hpdno. Why wouldn’t this article belong here?
Can somebody from his campaign confirm the mayor’s position?
February 26th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
BRT is one of the best ideas in transit in a very long time. It will make bus trips quicker and more convenient. BRT should not be used for only 2 bus lines, though. It should be for the majority of them. These are the buses of the future. We have to get away from urban areas that are built around the car. Cars are dangerous, polluting, and seperate people from their communities. Dense cities should be using effecient forms of transportation, not massive single-occupancy-vehicles. We need to do everything we can to make our city more green and livable. BRT is a great solution.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
=v= It is dishonest to claim that BRT has “all the benefits” of a rail system. The most successful implementations (the same handful that’s cited in every rosy BRT scenario) have been along former rail right-of-way and have all fallen short of the former rail’s ridership and benefits.
Especially ecological benefits: BRT inherently uses more energy and pollutes more. With An Inconvenient Truth walking away with Oscars and yet another, even more conclusive, global warming report from the IPCC, it is not the time to start locking us in to 30 more years of excessive carbon emissions.
BRT usurped LRT when the oil industry captured two branches of the Federal government and changed their funding structure accordingly. This changed with the last midterm election. Now is the time to demand that the Feds restore transit spending for something more responsible.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:07 am
First, in response to Andrew Ferguson, the Mayor supports BRT for Geary St. This is what he said during his State of the City 2006 address:
“We are working to speed up other high-use routes by implementing Bus Rapid Transit on Van Ness Avenue and Geary Boulevard.
The BRT, as it’s called creates dedicated lanes for public transit, allows passengers to embark and disembark more efficiently and takes advantage of our state-of-the-art integrated traffic management system that gives buses priority in real time.
Make no mistake we will work closely with Merchants to address their concerns before implementing this program.”
http://www.sfgov.org/site/mayor_index.asp?id=48460
Second, ActLocallySF.org will have articles that Mayor Newsom agrees with and does not agree with. The idea behind the site is to allow people to debate the issues that face the city of San Francisco. That’s why Eric Jaye called David Heller, President of the Geary Boulevard Merchants Association to get his take on BRT, refer back to the first comment.
Finally, the Mayor will see what is being debated on this site. So, keep the comments rolling. Your debate will shape the policy of the future.
Brian Purchia
Editor
ActLocallySF.org
March 1st, 2007 at 5:40 pm
In the rest of the nation, electricity is the largest source of global warming pollution (greenhouse gas emissions). In California, the transportation sector is the single largest source of global warming pollution. Improving public transit is critical to reducing these emissions. Only by making public transit more convenient will we get people out of their cars. Bus rapid transit has been shown to be one of the most cost effective ways of reducing global warming pollution in the transportation sector.
The idea that improving mass transit will hurt local business is ludicrous. Just look at how business flourishes near BART stops, for example, to see the boost the public transit can provide to economic development. We need to get past such small think.
Lastly, in a densely populated city such as San Francisco, public transit offers the only chance for improving the mobility of the populace. And a recent poll shows that people are desperately unhappy with our transportation system. A new poll by the Field Research Corp. has pointed to transportation as the most important public policy concern of San Francisco residents. 25% of SF residents say transportation is their biggest concern, dwarfing responses on housing, homelessness, and crime. (I can assure you that transit is not the main concern in New York City, thanks to their fabulous public transit system.)
So we should do this for the quality of life benefits as well as its contribution to the fight against global warming.
Chris Busch, Ph.D.
Economist, Union of Concerned Scientists*
(*affiliation for identification purposes only)
March 5th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
I live at 8th and California and take the 38 all the time. Improvements in service on this line would make it a lot easier to get to and from the Richmond, and from all the information I’ve seen, disruption during construction would be localized and fairly minimal.
I don’t understand why David Heller is so opposed to improving transit in this neighborhood. The neighbors I know around here take the bus very frequently. Not only that, but we take pride in living in such a great area and go out of our way to bring friends over to go out for food, hang out at the local bars and cafes, and shop at the many great stores we have around here. It is not a stretch to say that improved public transit would bring more folks out here to enjoy everything this area has, in addition to being an incredible amenity for those of us who live here now.
-Razzu Engen
March 5th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
one thing i’d like to add to this lively exchange is that preserving the status quo for a few doesn’t justify mediocrity overall, which is what we have for transit on Geary.
with more cars on the road, the bus is slowing down and must be separated from traffic, parking and pedestrians. doing nothing is the worst possible outcome for riders, residents and local businesses in the Richmond.
March 6th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
It is time that San Francisco stepped back to consider a total plan rather than putting together piecemeal solutions which will not solve more than a local issue.
This solution seems particularly ill considered, since while it will improve the Geary access for those in the neighborhood, it will make the corridor inaccessible for anyone who lives West of Twin Peaks, in the Mission or at any other location not directly connected to the corridor. It’s sexy, but then so is Paris Hilton.
A well thought out master plan would include:
1) correction of the failure of Muni to meet the current schedules and to set minimal standards for driver comportm4ent.
2) addressing the comfort level of all waiting passengers. Forest Hill is a wind tunnel with one concrete slab for seating. The “shelters” provide no protection from wind or weather, but are attractive to vandals.
3) Providing a GPS driven LED system which would allow passengers to see the approximate wait times for coming buses. See any European city for an example.
4) Reviewing the net to see how all neighborhoods can be provided with frequent pickup. Some lines running over half an hour in theory may actually take one or more hours to arrive.
5) Consideration of various mainline bus alternatives. Smaller buses, jitneys, people movers, shuttles to central points. See again any Latin American or European City for ideas.
6) Think tunnel.
As a West of Twin Peaks dweller I can guarantee that I would no longer frequent Geary for my needs, which until now have included all of my business technical requirements. Fortunately internet resources would be easier in the long run.
March 15th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Geary BRT is a great idea… as a bandaid until rail.. UNDERGROUND rail can be achieved. For such a liberal city we’re so afraid of any change. We need to suck it up, spend the money and change for the better immediately. This will cost billions, will inconvenience businesses and residents for short periods of time, but the payoff is worth it. BRT costs less because it’s worth less. Spend the money and do it right.. subway down Geary and Van Ness corridors, extend upcoming Central Subway to Columbus, and then all the way up Columbus. Geary subway should terminate at the new transbay terminal. Geary BRT does not address the bottleneck downtown. We are the second most densely populated city in the US with halfway decent public transit. No more excuses. These projects all should’ve been done 10 years ago. They need to start construction YESTERDAY. Help pay for some of it by charging a toll to vehicles entering the city and increasing parking rates. (I say this as a downtown resident who drives and pays a lot of money to park in the city… these increases would affect me dramatically). DO IT NOW! We need it yesterday. All of these plans for 20 years out do NOTHING for residents now. Geary and Van Ness BRT for now as a short term BANDAID. Geary and Van Ness Subway as the goal… START NOW! P.S. I know this will never happen because this city is full of so many crybabies from both political extremes. “It costs too much” “it hurts businesses” SUCK IT UP AND DO IT!!!!
March 15th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
By the way if the bus in the picture is what they’re actually going to use on the Geary and Van Ness BRTs we have to start thinking about the serious eye sore they pose. I remember seeing busses that looked similarly ridiculous in Los Angeles. I laughed and took pictures of them to show my friends back home. The current look of MUNI busses is fine - boxy, but functional - none of these ridiculous curved swoops and hideous nonsense. IT’S STILL A BUS and it will always be a bus no matter how much ridiculous crap you put on it. This may not be the major concern, but it IS important.
March 15th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
I suggest people who don’t agree with improving MUNI to travel to other cities around the world. I recently went to Taiwan and Hong Kong, two cities with world class transit systems that make MUNI look like very sad. I think the BRT is a step in the right direction but would be more useful if it was combined with a free fare for MUNI light rail cars. That would encourage more people to use mass transit, something the City needs.
March 15th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
The BRT will not help much at all, because it is subject to all the worsening traffic problems. If the passengers had to cross a traffic lane to get to the bus island that would be havoc. Imagine 200 school kids blocking traffic while trying to board the bus. A train with it’s own right of way and fewer stops, such as a subway, is one answer. A elevated or monorail, as used in all the airports would make more room for autos on the street below. As I look at all the empty water around San Francisco I would like to see ferries that take you from the Presidio to The Ferry Building in 10 minutes. How much more refreshing than a bus making 40 stops, a dream yes, but so was the GG Bridge once.
March 16th, 2007 at 4:08 am
I believ that the Geary Street Bus way in the beginning for improving Public Transportation in SF. The next stage is to improve the light rail system in the city and increase accessablity throughout the city.
March 16th, 2007 at 6:40 am
I’ve ridden a similar system in Bogota, Colombia and the service is excellent. At peak traffic hours the busses are faster than cars. This is a very important point. When public transportation is as fast or faster than cars people will be more inclined to take the bus or train. You can try to convince people of the environmental benefits of public transportation but unless the service is truly competitive people will continue to use cars.
Parking is not easy on Geary. Cars are constantly double-parked (further disturbing traffic flow). Having fast and convenient public transportation to this area might encourage more people to go there to do their shopping and at the same time reduce traffic and greenhouse gasses.
March 16th, 2007 at 11:55 am
BRT is the right choice for the Geary and Van Ness corridors. While the fears of conservative merchants are understandeable, I strongly believe that convenient public transit into the Richmond will bring overall positive results to both merchants and residents.
An efficient, fast, punctual and frequently running BRT will give residents a real alternative to automobile travel and thus reduce traffic volume on Geary and Van Ness.
A BRT will also give citizens from other neighborhoods a reason to come to the Richmond for shopping, dining and entertainment. (Have you ever tried to find parking on Clement on a Thursday or Friday night? Close to impossible). A BRT would give more people access to the Richmond, not less.
For those arguing that a BRT uses more energy and pollutes more. Compared to what? Single occupancy automobile traffic? If the buses are run on an alternative fuel such as Bio Diesel they can be highly efficient and environmentally friendly.
March 16th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
I ride the bus from Presidio Ave every day to and from work, but rarely ride the 38 due to over-crowding. I’m not worried about getting downtown quickly, so I usually opt for the 2 or 4. I think the main Geary problem can be solved simply with more busses. Who wants to get on a bus only to squeeze in between dozens of people with laptops and purses? Or better yet, wait 20 minutes while 2 busses filled to capacity roll on by? If I lived in the Richmond I would probably drive rather than ride.