SFist: The "No Duh" Story of the Day

rzu

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:29:06 -0800

I've been volunteering with the Go Geary coalition on this for a couple months now. The 38 line is the busiest bus line in the Western US and is constantly plagued by poor service - overcrowded, dirty and slow-moving buses. Just the other day I was on the 38 and had to wait for 4 traffic light cycles (4 greens) before we were able to make it through the Fillmore intersection. And this on a double-length bus packed with people with another full bus two cars behind. BRT is not an ideal solution, by any means, but it is a good way to improve transit on this line in a way that minimizes construction impacts and maximizes our bang for the buck. BRT is not light rail, but it is a lot cheaper and quicker to put in. If folks are interested in helping out or learning more, I'd direct them to our website: www.gogeary.com

Eric

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:29:12 -0800

Just to clarify: I am 100% behind Geary BRT, and I do not support delaying this project any more, certainly not to wait for a rail line that may or may not ever come. We can do it in pieces, as this corridor is in desperate need of help, and keeping it rail-ready is just a good approach for accommodating possible work in the future, even if no money for rail exists right now. The "38 Dreary" is a mess, so improvement really needs to come now.

Eric

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:23:05 -0800

There is, to some extent, an over-emphasis on rail. Some corridors (Third Street, I'm looking at you) that really, from a transit perspective, do not require rail. Geary is one of those corridors with such heavy usage -- 50,000 riders on an average weekday -- that rail is entirely appropriate, in my opinion. BRT will give you extra capacity, in terms of having swiftly moving vehicles and cutting down dwell times, but rail will you give you more capacity still.

zig

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:15:32 -0800

Seems to me that everyone puts an over empahsis on rail here in SF To me it seems a City like SF, with a few very dense but small areas and the rest of moderate to low density would be much better with bus tunnels that could be entered by different lines at different points

Eric

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:10:23 -0800

For truly rapid transit east of Van Ness, you're going to have to do some sort of tunneling, as the situation on the surface, to put it mildly, pretty much sucks. If BRT is designed to be rail-ready, you'd essentially be building a lot of the infrastructure for a future Geary light rail line, just without actually putting in any track, but the dimensions of the ROW would be flexible so that you could accommodate a bona fide rail line in the future. Stick in a subway portal around Laguna, and trains could tunnel underneath Geary or Post towards downtown. Will this actually happen? Who knows -- it probably won't be within my lifetime anyway. At this point, I'll just be thrilled to see BRT improvements west of Van Ness.

zig

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:28:45 -0800

Andrew As I understand the proposal, and from looking at the street, there will be no way to physically seperate the BRT lane East of Van Ness due to congestion At many points you are down to two lanes with people making left turns and others legally backing into spots blocking the bus

andrew

Tue, 24 Apr 2007 23:25:26 -0800

Zig et al., the whole point of the BRT project is to physically separate the buses from traffic so none of those double parkers can get inthe way. Assuming that SFPD and DPT will always be there to enforce transit lanes is folly (though cameras might help) - a real separated busway will work MUCH better.

zag

Tue, 24 Apr 2007 17:12:58 -0800

They oughta just put in a monorail already.

Joel

Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:48:37 -0800

authorities say the whole thing could be finished by 2011 Yeah, I see that happening.

zig

Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:43:26 -0800

It is a shame the city can't afford a bus tunnel like they have in Seattle for this stretch downtown A bus tunnel here and one instead of the central subway could have been more flexible and more bag for the buck

Zig

Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:40:46 -0800

"MUNI has already modified Geary East of Van Ness in preparation for Geary BRT" All I will say is I was driving on O'Farrell the other day and looking at the parking, the traffic crush the buses and the turns being made and I have a hard time imagining how this will prevent buses from being stuck in traffic. In fact it seemed so congested at some points I can't see how it can even be enforced if they wanted to

Sweet D

Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:17:39 -0800

"This BRT line does nothing on Geary East of Van Ness" MUNI has already modified Geary East of Van Ness in preparation for Geary BRT. What remains to be done is the distinguishing of the Bus Only Lane and the enhancement of existing stops. i think if the lane is properly distinguished it would speed buses through the TL quite nicely.

Jerry Jarvis

Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:52:54 -0800

I would also be leary of any re-doing of a transit corridor that has to do with MUNI.Third street is a good example as to why one should be.

zig

Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:24:05 -0800

Let me clarify that I am all for BRT just have little confidence in transit planning in SF And it does effect the mechants business so it better bring real benifits

zig

Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:22:20 -0800

"As a matter of fact, there is only ONE pooh-poohing business owner. David Heller is the only person to have expressed any dissatisfaction with the BRT" thats odd. there seems to be some people complaining when I watch the small business commission meetings on the SF gov channel. There were a small vocal group opposing the project Hope the numbers the MTC are putting out there are sound and not like the T line estimates. Yeh a 600 million Lightrail that is slower than the bus This BRT line does nothing on Geary East of Van Ness

David Latterman

Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:22:06 -0800

I did a merchant walk for BRT this past weekend. I noticed two things. This is just anecdotal, mind you, so sample size is like 20. Not scientific. I saw it like a focus group. 1) Merchants either hadn't heard of BRT at all or were dimly aware. 2) Without exception, they thought it was a good idea when it was presented to them. Any business that cared about car traffic already had parking lots! Stores that sold big items like mattresses would be delivering anyway. A few businesses did raise the disruption concern, but were assuaged when we told them it would basically be a street repaving. This assumes, though, the rail lines are not built in. I don't expect for one minute the city will be able to do this on budget or one time, so we need to be honest. Still, there are so many positives to this that every group (even most of the GGBM) can pretty much be sold on this on merit.

MattyMatt

Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:37:48 -0800

As a matter of fact, there is only ONE pooh-poohing business owner. David Heller is the only person to have expressed any dissatisfaction with the BRT. He claims to represent merchants on Geary, but there's no evidence that his organization has any members, or if they do, that those members oppose bus usage.

survivor

Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:23:13 -0800

This is a great idea. I rarely shop in the Richmond now, but would like to (clement Street!). I would definitely go more often if there were a rapid bus going out there. A subway would make even more sense (more sense than the Central Freeway, that's for sure), but BRT is better than nothing. The 38 is by far the busiest bus line in the region and needs some relief. I ride it a lot now, and will ride it even more if this common-sense plan is put into place.

Mathias

Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:13:12 -0800

Finally, now let's get this Geary BRT started (and somebody, please, please, PLEASE, put a muzzle on Heller already, he's absolulely nutty (for good fun, tell him WABBIT SEASON and watch him go from there).

TinMan

Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:07:36 -0800

"Both scenarios would increase traveling time by a little less than 15 minutes. Oooh." Do you mean decrease traveling time? Oh wait, we're talking about SF public transportation. Never mind, you're right.

TheRobin

Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:53:44 -0800

I NEVER go to that part of town right now. The main reason is bad public transportation along with very hard to find parking. Taking away some parking spaces will maybe make parking a bit more difficult, but it's already terrible. With better transit in the area I would most definately go to the Richmond more for dinner, shopping etc. (duh!) How far up their asses do the Geary Street Merchants have their heads?

tom

Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:17:17 -0800

The next Geary Citizens Advisory Committee meeting is coming up on Thursday, Apr 26 at 6pm, 100 Van Ness, 26th floor. And make sure not to shop at David Heller's store, the Beauty Network (Geary & 21st). Vote with your (unpedicured) feet!