[fflint]

Study: Bus system would attract more riders

Alexandria Rocha
The San Francisco Examiner
April 24, 2007

http://www.examiner.com/images/newsroom/small/small_22273239-02BD-D4FB-0ED82DDE6E6DFFCC.jpg
A study by the County Transportation Authority says a BRT system using the center lanes of Geary Boulevard would improve transit in the corridor.

SAN FRANCISCO - 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.

[BTinSF]

There's more info on Geary BRT here: http://www.sfcta.org/geary.htm

Aside from the one shown, the other options are:

http://www.sfcta.org/Images/Richmond_Curb_sm.jpg

and

http://www.sfcta.org/Images/richmond_CenterPlatform_sm.jpg

Finally, here's what the Chron editorialized on the subject:

Let the buses roll in San Francisco
Sunday, January 21, 2007

NOW THAT San Francisco has completed the Third Street light-rail line -- after decades of planning and construction -- it is time to focus on the next essential extension of the Municipal Railway.

We refer to the proposed construction of dedicated rapid bus lanes or "corridors" in the middle of two of the city's most densely traveled streets -- Geary Boulevard and Van Ness Avenue. The lanes would provide easier access to a huge swath of San Francisco unserved by rapid transit -- San Francisco's northwest quadrant that stretches from downtown to the Pacific Ocean.

What's at stake is figuring out ways to make mass transit even more appealing than driving a car on clogged city streets. If a bus can't traverse a city faster than a car, then riders will inevitably abandon public transit. "If we lose those people, the city goes backward and the city gets more congested," said Jose Luis Moscovich, executive director of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority. "We have to figure out a 21st-century way to make public transit attractive."

Some 25 cities around the world -- from Vancouver to Rouen, France -- have established successful rapid bus corridors. But the improvements in San Francisco would represent the most comprehensive implementation of the "bus rapid transit," or BRT, approach on an established transit corridor in a densely populated city in the United States.

The plan involves far more than creating separate bus lanes. The buses themselves would have lower floors and wider doors and aisles to allow for easy entrance and exit of passengers at special sheltered platforms built in the center of the street. Traffic signals would be timed to allow riders to reduce travel times by 25 percent or more. Buses won't be slowed by people fumbling for coins to put into fareboxes, because passengers will pre-pay their fares.

Some merchants along Geary and Van Ness are understandably apprehensive that their businesses would be hurt by disruptions during construction. But the long-term gains should outweigh the short-term inconveniences, including eventually enabling customers to shop without having to worry about parking, and attracting new customers from neighborhoods throughout the city.

Another advantage of the BRT approach is that construction on the entire project would only take between 18 months and two years on the 6-mile long Geary line, and less than that on the shorter Van Ness line. Because construction would only be done in three-block segments, neither route would ever be completely closed.

What's more, the time line, as well as the expense, would be minimal compared to what would be required to build comparable light-rail lines. The Geary line would cost between $150 million and $200 million -- compared to as much as $2 billion for a light-rail system. "These are not complicated projects," said the Transportation Authority's Moscovich. "They should be able to happen in a short period of time."

Even more alluring is that more than half the costs of the project are already available from revenues generated by Proposition K, the half-cent sales tax approved by voters in 2003. The remainder could come from "Small Start" federal transportation funds intended precisely for projects such as these.

Rapid bus lanes like these should be a no-brainer. All city departments who need to sign off on them should work to make them happen without the unacceptable delays and cost overruns that marred the Third Street project.

The city's representatives in Washington should also get to work to secure the federal funds needed to underwrite the project. They wouldn't need to rely on dubious congressional "earmarks," such as the one that tried to fund the now abandoned "bridge to nowhere" connecting a remote Alaskan island to the mainland. These transit corridors are essential improvements that will enhance the quality of life for all San Franciscans as well as visitors who come to explore its wonders.

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/01/21/ed_muni_graphic.jpg

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/21/EDGC7N6NJC1.DTL

[Reminiscence]

I think that both Van Ness and Geary, two of the city's most important routes, would do well with light rail. I am however, somewhat cautious, especially now with the dissapointment of the T-Third line. Judging by the information from fflint's article, it would not be a bad idea to invest in rail.

[CHapp]

Egad! Another BRT in the making. :yuck:

Actually Geary does seem to lend itself to that approach better than a certain EaBay BRT proposal (which is bound to become reality :hell: ).

It seems that BRT is the latest fashion among our esteemed urban planners, come hell or high water! :notacrook: