Geary COrrIDOr Bus rapID TransIT (BrT) sTuDy · 2009. 6. 7. · brt mplementat on s feas ble on geary, and recommends proceed ng w th more deta led study through an env ronmental

GearyCOrrIDOr

BusrapIDTransIT

(BrT)sTuDy

June 18, 2007

sanFranCIsCOCOunTyTranspOrTaTIOnauThOrITy

�Table of Contents

TableofconTenTsGearycorridorbusrapidTransiTsTudy

June 2007

��

San Francisco County Transportation Authority

��Table of Contents

Geary BRT Study

conTenTsExEcutivE Summary ............................................................................................ ES-1

ExiSting conditionS ..................................................................................................................... ES-2

analySiS and Evaluation ............................................................................................................... ES-2

rail rEadinESS ............................................................................................................................ ES-3

Public outrEach ......................................................................................................................... ES-4

concluSion ............................................................................................................................... ES-4

1 introduction ................................................................................................ 1-11.1 Why buS raPid tranSit? .......................................................................................................... 1-2

1.2 Study arEa .......................................................................................................................... 1-5

1.3 Study objEctivES ................................................................................................................. 1-6

1.4 Study ProcESS ..................................................................................................................... 1-6

1.5 rEPort organization ............................................................................................................ 1-8

2. ExiSting conditionS and tranSPortation nEEdS .................................................... 2-12.1 mEthodology ...................................................................................................................... 2-2

2.2 ovErviEW of thE gEary corridor ............................................................................................ 2-2

2.3 Summary of KEy findingS, iSSuES and oPPortunitiES .................................................................... 2-4

3 ProjEct guidElinES ......................................................................................... 3-13.1 buS raPid tranSit fEaturES .................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 ProjEct goalS ..................................................................................................................... 3-4

3.3 dESign PrinciPlES and guidElinES ............................................................................................. 3-5

4 altErnativES dEvEloPmEnt ............................................................................... 4-14.1 introduction ...................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Summary of altErnativES ....................................................................................................... 4-4

4.3 fEaturES common to all altErnativES ...................................................................................... 4-5

4.4 baSic tranSit Priority and baSic PluS altErnativES ..................................................................... 4-8

4.5 brt altErnativES .................................................................................................................4-10

4.6 SPEcial locationS: fillmorE and maSonic ................................................................................4-19

4.7 rail-rEadinESS ....................................................................................................................4-27

5 Evaluation mEthodology and rESultS ................................................................ 5-15.1 introduction ...................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Evaluation aPProach and critEria ........................................................................................... 5-4

5.3 tranSit PErformancE ............................................................................................................ 5-7

5.4 tranSit ridEr ExPEriEncE ......................................................................................................5-17

5.5 accESS and PEdEStrian amEnitiES ............................................................................................5-25

5.6 urban and landScaPE dESign .................................................................................................5-33

5.7 traffic oPErationS and ParKing .............................................................................................5-38

5.8 coSt .................................................................................................................................5-53

5.9 conStruction imPactS ..........................................................................................................5-55

5.10 SPEcial intErSEctionS ..........................................................................................................5-56

5.11 fEaSibility dEtErmination .....................................................................................................5-65

6 nExt StEPS .................................................................................................... 6-16.1 introduction ...................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.2 funding .............................................................................................................................. 6-1

6.3 imPlEmEntation roadmaP ....................................................................................................... 6-2

�v


ES-1executive Summary

COnTenTsExEcutivE Summary ......................ES-1

ExiSting conditionS ............................. ES-2

analySiS and Evaluation ........................ ES-2

rail rEadinESS ..................................... ES-3

Public outrEach ................................. ES-4

concluSion ........................................ ES-4

exeCuTIvesummaryGearyCOrrIDOrBrTsTuDy

June 2007

executivesummarythe San franc�sco county transportat�on author�ty, �n coord�nat�on w�th the San franc�sco mun�c�pal transportat�on agency, has completed the Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Study, wh�ch �ncludes conceptual des�gn and evaluat�on of several bus rap�d trans�t (brt) alternat�ves. through techn�cal analys�s and commun�ty �nput, th�s feas�b�l�ty study developed and evaluated a set of brt alternat�ves for geary boulevard. the Study drew upon c�tyw�de brt goals establ�shed by an �nteragency Study team and upon an �ntens�ve assessment of ex�st�ng cond�t�ons and transportat�on needs on geary, to develop and evaluate a 2015 basel�ne scenar�o, a peak hour bus lane alternat�ve, and three full-featured brt alternat�ves: a curb-runn�ng brt des�gn and two center-runn�ng brt des�gns. Evaluat�ons are based on a three-step transportat�on model�ng process, analys�s of the conceptual eng�neer�ng des�gns of each alternat�ve, and des�gn charrettes focused on key stat�on attr�butes. Based on the analysis, the Study finds that several BRT design configurations would provide substantial transit performance benefits at an

ES-2


affordable cost, and w�th manageable �mpacts. th�s report summar�zes the results of the needs analys�s, descr�bes alternat�ve des�gns, documents findings from the evaluation of alternat�ves, and descr�bes a prel�m�nary fund�ng and implementation plan. The Study finds that brt �mplementat�on �s feas�ble on geary, and recommends proceed�ng w�th more deta�led study through an env�ronmental analys�s.

the �n�t�at�ve to exam�ne feas�b�l�ty of �mplement�ng a bus rap�d trans�t (brt) l�ne on geary boulevard resulted from a convergence of several factors, most notably:

the mandate to �mplement a brt network for the c�ty �n the Expend�ture Plan of the Sf voter-approved Prop K transportat�on Sales tax.

the need to br�ng �mprovements �n the qual�ty and rel�ab�l�ty of trans�t serv�ce to the bus corr�dor w�th the heav�est ut�l�zat�on volumes �n the c�ty.

the need to slow down the trend �n decl�n�ng trans�t mode shares, wh�ch threatens to make c�ty streets more congested and could have major negat�ve �mpacts on the c�ty's econom�c v�tal�ty and l�vab�l�ty.

the real�zat�on that, g�ven reg�onal agreements and long-term state and federal pol�cy, even �n the best of c�rcumstances the level of local, state and federal fund�ng l�kely to be ava�lable �n the next 20 years w�ll not allow �mplementat�on of ra�l trans�t alternat�ves �n the corr�dor.

the 2004 countyw�de transportat�on Plan (cWtP) establ�shed that brt prov�des a potent�al opportun�ty to �mplement med�um term �mprovements at a level of expense that the c�ty could afford. thus, the central quest�ons for the study were: g�ven what we know about the techn�cal, operat�ng and d�mens�onal requ�rements of brt, �s �t feas�ble to �mplement brt on geary Boulevard? If so, what configurations may be possible, and what are the potential benefits, costs and �mpacts of each? th�s report documents the author�ty’s efforts, �n cooperat�on w�th Sfmta and other study partners, and w�th the gu�dance and overs�ght of a board-appo�nted c�t�zens comm�ttee, to answer these key quest�ons. the Study finds that BRT implementation on Geary boulevard �s feas�ble under several d�fferent configurations with potentially minimal impacts, and �t recommends that the project move �nto the next phase of env�ronmental rev�ew.

•

•

•

•

exIsTInGCOnDITIOnsgeary boulevard �s one of the c�ty’s most �mportant and complex east-west streets. it �s both a major trans�t trunk route and a major veh�cle thoroughfare that fac�l�tates travel both w�th�n the corr�dor and to other c�tyw�de/reg�onal locat�ons. geary boulevard carr�es over 50,000 trans�t tr�ps da�ly, between 30,000 and 65,000 auto tr�ps da�ly depend�ng on the locat�on along the corr�dor, and thousands of pedestr�an and b�cycle tr�ps. geary trans�t r�ders come from all soc�oeconom�c groups, cons�stent w�th the great number and range of ne�ghborhoods served by the geary corr�dor. geary r�ders �nclude those who are trans�t-dependent (have no cars �n the household) as well as those who own cars but choose to r�de trans�t as the occas�on warrants.

in sp�te of h�gh trans�t r�dersh�p and h�gh pedestr�an use, much of the current roadway layout and traffic signal infrastructure on Geary benefits motorists at the expense of transit riders and pedestr�ans. as a result, travel�ng by bus on the geary corr�dor �s less rel�able than travel�ng by car, and takes significantly longer—often twice as long as dr�v�ng. th�s var�ab�l�ty �n wa�t t�mes, coupled w�th unrel�able journey t�mes, forces many passengers to �ncrease the overall t�me they allot for the�r tr�p, mak�ng trans�t a less attract�ve alternat�ve to dr�v�ng. dur�ng both the m�dday and even�ng peak hours, for many parts of the corr�dor, rel�ab�l�ty problems cause about half of the buses to come “�n bunches”, result�ng �n long gaps �n serv�ce where no buses come at all. th�s lack of rel�ab�l�ty also contr�butes to crowd�ng on veh�cles.

analysIsanDevaluaTIOnthree full-featured brt alternat�ves were developed and evaluated for geary, along w�th a future no-project or basel�ne scenar�o and a peak-hour scenar�o that calls for a peak-d�rect�on, bus-only lane. Extens�ve techn�cal stud�es, �nclud�ng speed, delay, and rel�ab�l�ty stud�es for both trans�t and autos, �nformed the design of alternative BRT configurations. Each alternative has been further refined based on publ�c �nput and techn�cal des�gn requ�rements. Each alternat�ve was analyzed accord�ng to the evaluat�on framework approved by the geary c�t�zen’s adv�sory comm�ttee (gcac) �n march 2006, wh�ch captures an array of perspect�ves, and enables compar�sons across alternat�ves and to the basel�ne scenar�o (alternat�ve 1). a three-step model�ng process, �nclud�ng the author�ty’s travel demand forecast�ng model, a

ES-3executive Summary

Geary BRT Study

Synchro traffic operations model, and a VISSIM trans�t m�cros�mulat�on model produced the key transportat�on network performance results. add�t�onal qual�tat�ve evaluat�ons were based on the conceptual eng�neer�ng draw�ngs of the brt alternat�ves and des�gn charrettes focused on key stat�on attr�butes.

all brt alternat�ves are expected to prov�de significant transit performance benefits by reduc�ng travel t�mes and �ncreas�ng rel�ab�l�ty. brt would �mprove travel t�mes on the most congested part of Geary — Van Ness to 33rd Avenue — by 25% to 31% (7-8 minutes depending on the alternat�ve) for 38l-l�m�ted r�ders, and 41% to 44% (13-14 minutes) for 38-Local riders who choose to sw�tch to brt. in add�t�on to these travel time benefits, BRT is expected to substant�ally �mprove rel�ab�l�ty by el�m�nat�ng most or all conflicts with mixed traffic, and by streaml�n�ng passenger load�ng and unload�ng. th�s, �n turn, should help ease the crowd�ng that currently occurs on bunched veh�cles. f�nally, brt on geary �s part of a network of rap�d trans�t that would �mprove systemw�de performance. the trans�t travel t�me and rel�ab�l�ty �mprovements of brt are expected to attract new r�ders; ridership growth between approximately 5% (Alternative 2, Basic Plus) and 25% (Alternatives 4 and 5, center brt) �s expected, revers�ng the c�tyw�de trend toward decl�n�ng trans�t mode share.

all bu�ld alternat�ves (alternat�ves 2 – 5) are expected to divert some traffic from Geary to other streets �n the corr�dor and �n the c�ty. Wh�le more deta�led study �s needed, �n�t�al analysis suggests that traffic will continue to flow smoothly on geary �tself, and that the volume of traffic diverted to parallel streets will be marg�nal, amount�ng to only about 2 add�t�onal cars per m�nute �n the typ�cal sect�ons dur�ng the peak per�od. it �s ant�c�pated that th�s magn�tude of diversions can be managed with traffic signal t�m�ng adjustments. the t�me �t takes to dr�ve from gough to 33rd avenue dur�ng the afternoon peak �s projected to change by less than 1 – 2 m�nutes.

brt on geary �s expected to cost between $157-212 m�ll�on (�nclud�ng the un�que f�llmore and mason�c �ntersect�ons descr�bed below), significantly less than a subway or light rail project. full-featured brt �s expected to reduce operat�ng costs by reduc�ng the amount of t�me requ�red for a bus to complete �ts route. th�s sav�ngs would be re�nvested �nto route operat�ons, allow�ng more frequent serv�ce and/or expanded

serv�ce hours w�th brt at l�ttle to no add�t�onal operating cost. New low-floor, clean-burning buses are already scheduled to be procured as part of mun�’s veh�cle replacement cycle (�.e. �ncluded �n the basel�ne) and thus are not �ncluded �n the cost of the bu�ld alternat�ves.

the study focused �ts �nvest�gat�on on the segment of geary between van ness and 33rd avenues. the �ntersect�ons of geary at f�llmore Street and at mason�c avenue are notably d�fferent from the other more typ�cal sect�ons of geary boulevard, so the Study team developed more deta�led des�gn alternat�ves for these complex, w�de, mult�-level �ntersect�ons. four conceptual des�gns were developed for the f�llmore Street intersection — two that envisioned all auto traffic on the surface by filling the underpass entirely and two that maintained through traffic �n the underpass w�th potent�al plazas at the surface level. Est�mated costs for the f�llmore �ntersect�on range between $11 m�ll�on (for the “fill” options) and $20 million (for the underpass opt�on). all opt�ons warrant further analys�s, though the underpass opt�ons at f�llmore w�ll need more substant�al development �n order to further develop cost est�mates and determ�ne the feas�b�l�ty of construct�ng more extens�ve plazas over the ex�st�ng underpass. at mason�c, the Study team developed two conceptual designs—one with bus service on the surface and auto traffic maintained in the underpass and one w�th bus serv�ce �n the underpass and all auto traffic on the surface. Estimated costs for the mason�c �ntersect�on range between $4 m�ll�on (for the surface bus opt�on) and $20 m�ll�on (for the underpass bus opt�on). both opt�ons warrant further development; however the underpass bus opt�on, wh�ch offers the best trans�t performance, needs substant�al redes�gn to ensure that both auto and trans�t operates smoothly. cost est�mates may �ncrease as a result of more deta�led development �n the next phase of study; for th�s reason we have �ncluded a larger contingency (50%) in the cost estimates at this stage to reflect this possibility.

raIlreaDInessin compl�ance w�th the Prop K Expend�ture Plan, the conceptual alternat�ves are des�gned so that they do not preclude convers�on to l�ght ra�l �f the dec�s�on �s made to do so �n the future. in response to the gcac’s february 2005 request, the Study further �nvest�gated alternat�ve approaches to accommodat�ng future �nvestments on geary. they range from a des�gn standards

ES-4


approach to one wh�ch makes substant�al pre-ra�l �nvestment as a means of reduc�ng future construct�on �mpacts. analys�s found that des�gns for all center-runn�ng brt alternat�ves should accommodate the phys�cal d�mens�ons requ�red for light rail operations—e.g. ensuring adequate hor�zontal and vert�cal clearances, turn�ng rad��, platform lengths, and street grades. analys�s further determ�ned that add�ng des�gn and development of modular stat�ons to fac�l�tate ra�s�ng platforms to l�ght-ra�l veh�cle board�ng he�ghts would further reduce construct�on �mpacts of th�s opt�on and could add a total of $2 m�ll�on to est�mated costs. ra�l-ready analys�s focused on geary between van ness and 33rd avenues; costs and �mpacts for a l�ght ra�l l�ne east of Van Ness would be more significant and were not developed as part of th�s analys�s.

puBlICOuTreaChthe author�ty hosted three sets of publ�c workshops along the corr�dor to obta�n �nput throughout the durat�on of the Study and met w�th dozens of commun�ty groups and organ�zat�ons. the author�ty also �mplemented a caltrans Plann�ng grant to conduct more extens�ve mult�-l�ngual outreach for the Study �n Span�sh, ch�nese, japanese, russ�an, v�etnamese, and Korean w�th the help of s�x commun�ty-based partner organ�zat�ons. We reached res�dents and trans�t r�ders through rad�us ma�l�ngs, posters on bus shelters and �n buses, and a survey of about 1,200 r�ders �n bus shelters. the Study team reached merchants and property owners along the corr�dor through door-to-door surveys of bus�nesses, rad�us ma�l�ngs to property owners, a merchant drop-�n sess�on �n the r�chmond and �n the Western add�t�on, and meet�ngs of var�ous merchant organ�zat�ons, �nclud�ng clement Street merchants assoc�at�on, japantown merchants assoc�at�on, Small bus�ness comm�ss�on and others w�th�n the corr�dor. We also rece�ved �nput from v�s�tors to the corr�dor at commun�ty fa�rs and ne�ghborhood fest�vals, such as the tet fest�val, c�nco de mayo fa�r, russ�an fest�val, cherry blossom fest�val, and clement Street fa�r.

as noted above, author�ty staff gave presentat�ons at meet�ngs of numerous ne�ghborhood organ�zat�ons and comm�ttees on a regular bas�s throughout the study process, �nclud�ng Plann�ng act�on for the r�chmond, japantown task force, the Western add�t�on c�t�zens adv�sory comm�ttee, Wash�ngton h�gh School PtSa,

coal�t�on for San franc�sco ne�ghborhoods, the coal�t�on to Save ocean beach, the l�ghthouse for the bl�nd, the cathedral h�ll ne�ghbors assoc�at�on, the r�chmond democrat�c club, and the tenderlo�n futures collaborat�ve. We also met w�th large �nst�tut�ons �nclud�ng California Pacific Medical Center, and University of cal�forn�a at San franc�sco/mt z�on campus, and Ka�ser Permanente hosp�tal. Staff also met w�th and gave presentat�ons to several c�tyw�de organ�zat�ons and comm�ss�ons, along w�th key stakeholders on request. these �nclude the mayor’s Office on Disability, Muni’s Accessibility Advisory comm�ttee, mun� operators, the Pedestr�an Safety adv�sory comm�ttee, San franc�sco Plann�ng and urban research assoc�at�on, rescue mun�, l�vable c�ty, and the San franc�sco b�cycle coal�t�on.

COnClusIOnThis conceptual study finds BRT to be a feasible way of �mprov�ng trans�t serv�ce on geary boulevard wh�le also �mprov�ng the ne�ghborhoods that �t serves. trans�t r�ders have requested mult�ple trans�t �mprovements to substant�ally enhance trans�t serv�ce on geary, and commun�ty members have requested other enhancements to geary to �mprove da�ly shopp�ng, d�n�ng, and commut�ng along the street and w�th�n the many ne�ghborhoods served by geary. brt would offer substantial benefits to travel times, and more dependable trans�t serv�ce to the many dest�nat�ons throughout the geary corr�dor.

Though quite detailed, the findings presented here are prel�m�nary, and the alternat�ves can be evaluated more extens�vely should analysis progress to the next phase of study—an env�ronmental �mpact analys�s. more deta�led analys�s �s needed through th�s env�ronmental study to further define BRT designs and costs, to further �nvolve the publ�c �n the plann�ng process, to understand the magnitude of benefits and �mpacts, and to develop appropr�ate �mpact m�t�gat�on measures as needed. the Study recommends development of the requ�red env�ronmental �mpact stud�es for th�s potent�al project.

1-1Chapter 1: Introduction

COnTenTs1 introduction .......................... 1-1

1.1 Why buS raPid tranSit? ..................... 1-2

1.2 Study arEa ..................................... 1-5

1.3 Study objEctivES ............................. 1-6

1.4 Study ProcESS ................................ 1-6

1.5 rEPort organization ....................... 1-8

ChapTer1:InTrODuCTIOnGearyCOrrIDOrBrTsTuDy

June 2007

1 IntroductionSpann�ng the w�dth of the c�ty from market Street to the Pacific Ocean, Geary Boulevard serves much of the northern half of San franc�sco and connects res�dents and bus�nesses throughout the c�ty. geary boulevard �s among the bus�est trans�t corr�dors �n San franc�sco, carry�ng approx�mately 50,000 r�ders every day. geary also serves thousands of pedestr�ans and between 30,000 and 65,000 veh�cles every day on average (average daily traffic varies greatly depending on locat�on).

geary boulevard has the potent�al to be a “great street” l�ke ch�cago’s State Street, the Par�s�an boulevards, or barcelona’s Passe�g de gràc�a. a great street balances trans�t, pedestr�an, b�cycle, and vehicular flow through thoughtful design, and allows conven�ent access for a var�ety of users �nclud�ng res�dents, employees, shoppers, and other v�s�tors. these streets also contr�bute landscap�ng and open space to ne�ghborhoods, enhanc�ng l�vab�l�ty and contr�but�ng to the commun�ty’s sense of place. many of the �mprovements contemplated �n th�s study would help to make geary a great street.

1-2


in sp�te of h�gh trans�t r�dersh�p and h�gh pedestr�an use, much of the current roadway layout and traffic signal infrastructure on Geary benefits motorists at the expense of transit r�ders and pedestr�ans. as a result, travel�ng by bus on the geary corr�dor �s less rel�able than traveling by car, and takes significantly longer—often tw�ce as long as dr�v�ng. trans�t wa�t t�mes and �n-veh�cle travel t�mes are unrel�able, wh�ch forces many passengers to �ncrease the overall t�me they allot for the�r tr�p to account for these fluctuating travel times and wait times. This study focuses on the feas�b�l�ty of �mplement�ng a bus rap�d trans�t (brt) project on geary, as a means to �mprove trans�t serv�ce �n th�s �mportant corr�dor.

Geary Boulevard Prioritized for investment

because geary boulevard serves such an �mportant transportat�on funct�on, San franc�sco’s 2003 voter-approved transportat�on sales tax measure, Prop K,1 identified Geary Boulevard as one of the key l�nks �n the c�ty’s rap�d trans�t network. it allocated fund�ng for major �mprovements to geary �nclud�ng a potent�al bus rap�d trans�t project. bus rap�d trans�t, or brt, �s an excellent tool for creat�ng a “great street” because �t �s a flexible mode that can be designed to meet the specific needs of a community, contributing to the overall mob�l�ty of the commun�ty wh�le creat�ng a place where people want to l�ve, work, and shop.

the �n�t�at�ve to exam�ne the feas�b�l�ty of �mplement�ng a brt l�ne on geary boulevard resulted from a convergence of several factors, most notably:

the mandate �n the Expend�ture Plan of the voter-approved Prop K transportat�on Sales tax to �mplement a brt network for the c�ty;

the need to br�ng �mprovements �n the qual�ty and rel�ab�l�ty of trans�t serv�ce to the bus corr�dor w�th the heav�est ut�l�zat�on volumes �n the c�ty;

the need to reduce and reverse the loss of trans�t r�dersh�p, wh�ch threatens to make c�ty streets more congested and could have major negat�ve �mpacts on the c�ty's econom�c v�tal�ty and l�vab�l�ty; and

the real�zat�on that, g�ven reg�onal agreements and long-term state and federal pol�cy, even �n the best of c�rcumstances the level of local, state and federal fund�ng l�kely to be ava�lable �n the next 20 years w�ll not allow

� 75% of San Francisco voters approved Proposition K, the renewal of San Francisco’s ½-cent local sales tax for transportation.

•

•

•

•

�mplementat�on of ra�l trans�t alternat�ves �n the corr�dor.

launched �n late 2004 by the San franc�sco county transportat�on author�ty (transportat�on author�ty) and the San franc�sco mun�c�pal transportat�on agency (Sfmta) as an effort to ascerta�n the feas�b�l�ty of �mplement�ng bus rap�d trans�t (brt) on geary boulevard, th�s study has also served as a veh�cle to �dent�fy ways to �mprove trans�t serv�ce wh�le enhanc�ng the pedestr�an env�ronment and ma�nta�n�ng the conven�ence of auto travel. the Study found that BRT would provide significant benefits to the 50,000 trans�t r�ders who rely on geary bus serv�ce each day, enhanc�ng the ne�ghborhoods through wh�ch �t travels, wh�le m�n�m�z�ng negat�ve �mpacts on those who choose to dr�ve.

1.1 WhyBusrapIDTransIT?

Benefits Of BRTFast and Reliable—offers passengers a qu�cker, more pred�ctable tr�p.

Comfortable—increases passenger comfort.

Cost-Effective—moves people as effectively as l�ght ra�l at much lower costs.

Easier to Build—a typical BRT project can be des�gned and bu�lt �n 5 to 7 years

Flexible—maximizes operating flexibility by allow�ng mult�ple operators and mult�ple types of serv�ce (e.g., local, brt, and express bus routes) �n the same reserved lanes.

Segment-able—may be deployed in phases based on fund�ng ava�lab�l�ty and demand.

•

•

•

•

•

•

san francisco’s Policy framework

the new Expend�ture Plan (nEP) for Propos�t�on K art�culates the v�s�on for trans�t system development �n San franc�sco over a 30-year t�meframe.2 the nEP called for an �ntegrated c�tyw�de network of rap�d bus and ra�l trans�t, �nclud�ng the “creat�on of fast, frequent, and rel�able bus rap�d trans�t serv�ce,” on van ness avenue, geary boulevard, and Potrero avenue. the 2004 countyw�de transportat�on Plan3* (cWtP) also establ�shed brt network development as San franc�sco’s preferred pol�cy for transportat�on �nvestment.

� The NEP is expected to provide $�.8� billion in sales tax rev-enues for the transportation system – approximately 65% of which is dedicated to transit consistent with the City’s Transit First policy.� Adopted by the Authority in July �004


Geary BRT Study

bus rap�d trans�t (brt) was chosen as the c�ty’s trans�t serv�ce expans�on strategy because �t can deliver substantial transportation benefits qu�ckly and cost-effect�vely. brt ach�eves many of the benefits of rail transit, but at only a fract�on of the cost. it therefore allows the c�ty to address mob�l�ty needs on geary wh�le leaving sufficient resources available to invest in other San franc�sco trans�t projects. the geary corr�dor has been cons�dered for l�ght ra�l �n the past, but rather than focus�ng l�m�ted resources on a s�ngle corr�dor, San franc�sco opted to d�str�bute fund�ng and resources to several corr�dors. the brt alternat�ves dev�sed dur�ng th�s feas�b�l�ty study do not preclude future l�ght ra�l �mplementat�on. to prov�de a bas�s for compar�son, th�s Study evaluated, at an “order of magnitude” level, the costs and benefits of �nvestment �n bas�c l�ght ra�l �nfrastructure (fully d�scussed �n chapter 4 of th�s report).

bus rap�d trans�t uses a comb�nat�on of street design and transit and traffic operating technolog�es to better manage the use of c�ty streets, opt�m�z�ng trans�t speeds and mak�ng serv�ce more rel�able and comfortable w�th minimal negative effects on traffic flows and park�ng. character�st�cs of brt can vary, but most full-featured brt systems �nclude the follow�ng:

ded�cated bus lanes;

trans�t s�gnal pr�or�ty that reduces the amount of t�me buses spend at red l�ghts;

faster board�ng by us�ng t�cket-vend�ng machines, all-door boarding, and low-floor buses;

d�st�nct�ve stat�ons and board�ng areas w�th a h�gh level of amen�t�es �nclud�ng:

h�gh qual�ty shelters;

next bus arr�val �nformat�on �n real t�me.

Streetscape, pedestr�an access and safety �mprovements.

upon �ts complet�on, a brt project on geary would become part of a network of h�ghly recogn�zable trans�t routes. it would reduce trans�t travel t�me, �ncrease trans�t rel�ab�l�ty, and �mprove walk�ng cond�t�ons. adverse effects on automob�le travel would be m�nor and could be managed by max�m�z�ng the performance and efficiency of the remaining mixed-traffic lanes through technolog�cal and des�gn tools such as signal timing and traffic engineering. Faster and more rel�able trans�t serv�ce would result �n more people travel�ng to the geary corr�dor

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Successful Models And Proven Strategies

currently, brt systems have been �mplemented successfully �n over 25 c�t�es �n north amer�ca, South amer�ca, Europe, and austral�a. north amer�can c�t�es such as vancouver, boston, los angeles, las vegas, and Eugene have found that brt can reduce travel t�mes, �ncrease rel�ab�l�ty, and attract new r�ders, all �n a short per�od of t�me and w�th modest �nvestment. Several other uS c�t�es are exam�n�ng the feas�b�l�ty of �nst�tut�ng brt, �nclud�ng new york and oakland.

BRT in San Francisco would be uniquely defined to fit local priorities, the features of our ex�st�ng trans�t system, and the character�st�cs of the corr�dors brt would serve. however, San Francisco’s BRT system can also benefit from lessons learned both nat�onally and �nternat�onally.

Examples of h�gh-qual�ty brt veh�cles currently �n operat�on �n los angeles, cal�forn�a (top) and las vegas, nevada (above).

Examples of ded�cated bus lanes and brt stop amen�t�es p�ctured �n Eugene, or (left) and vancouver, bc (r�ght).

1-4


for shopp�ng, restaurants, and other commerc�al act�v�t�es. Pedestr�an �mprovements and landscap�ng would also make geary boulevard a more pleasant and des�rable place to be.

san francisco’s transit Priority network

the �mportance of the c�ty’s trans�t system cannot be understated. h�gh qual�ty, frequent, rel�able trans�t serv�ce �s cruc�al to the qual�ty of l�fe and econom�c v�tal�ty of San franc�sco. it improves air quality, reduces traffic congestion and max�m�zes the ex�st�ng street network’s ab�l�ty to move people. the �mportance of trans�t and �ts pr�mary role �n the health and well-be�ng of San Francisco is codified in the City Charter’s trans�t-f�rst Pol�cy.4 the pol�cy states:

“Public transit, including taxis and vanpools, is an economically and

4 San Francisco City Charter, Section �6.�0�, added November �999.

environmentally sound alternative to transportation by individual automobiles. Within San Francisco, travel by public transit, by bicycle and on foot must be an attractive alternative to travel by private automobile… ”

the 2004 countyw�de transportat�on Plan (cWtP) pred�cts that the share of tr�ps made by trans�t w�ll decl�ne �n the future unless measures are taken to �ncrease the compet�t�veness of trans�t relat�ve to dr�v�ng. the cWtP analys�s found that only a c�ty-w�de network of fast, rel�able, and comfortable trans�t serv�ces, shown �n f�gure 1-1 below, can cost-effect�vely reverse the decl�ne �n trans�t r�dersh�p. implement�ng brt on geary boulevard would be a key step �n mak�ng th�s network a real�ty.

f�gure 1-1 San franc�sco’s trans�t Pr�or�ty network


Geary BRT Study

1.2 sTuDyareathe geary corr�dor Study area can generally be defined as bounded by California Street on the north, balboa and turk Street on the south, the Pacific Ocean on the west and Market Street on the east, as shown �n f�gure 1-2. these boundar�es roughly represent the walk�ng catchment area for bus serv�ces that operate on geary (approx�mately ¼ m�le buffer). they also �ncorporate the parallel streets most l�kely to be affected by changes on geary boulevard. W�th�n these boundar�es, the greatest emphas�s �s placed on geary �tself.

although the ent�re length of the corr�dor �s �ncluded and analyzed �n th�s study, the area between van ness and 33rd avenue rece�ved part�cular attent�on. the brt alternat�ves cons�der a ded�cated trans�t lane between van

ness and 33rd avenue, bu�ld�ng on the ded�cated lane currently �n place on the geary/o’farrell Street one-way couplet east of van ness. improvements such as landscap�ng, �mproved shelters, and better s�dewalk cond�t�ons would be appl�ed to the whole length of the street from market Street to 48th avenue. no further reallocat�on of roadway space was cons�dered on the geary/o’farrell one-way couplet s�nce they were recently redes�gned for enhanced trans�t serv�ce as part of the inner geary trans�t Preferent�al Streets (tPS) Project, descr�bed below. th�s geary brt feas�b�l�ty study ut�l�zed much of the work done �n the inner geary tPS Project, such as conceptual des�gns for local and brt trans�t stops, �n order to create the appearance of one �ntegrated system for the length of geary.

f�gure 1-2 the geary corr�dor Study area

1-6


inner Geary transit Preferential streets Project

the inner geary trans�t Preferent�al Streets (tPS) Project was completed by the Sfmta �n january 2005 and funded by Propos�t�on K sales tax dollars. it can be cons�dered an �n�t�al phase of a potent�al geary brt project. th�s was a low-cost, short-term project to �mprove rel�ab�l�ty and passenger comfort �n a very congested part of the corr�dor. th�s sect�on of the corr�dor already had a ded�cated trans�t r�ght-of-way, but �t was too narrow to funct�on effect�vely, and was plagued by double-parked cars and other operat�onal problems.

the inner geary tPS Project �mproved the ex�st�ng trans�t lane to prov�de a more comfortable and faster r�de by mak�ng the lane w�der, creat�ng turn pockets, and add�ng yellow zones to eliminate conflicts between cars and delivery veh�cles �n the trans�t lane. the project also el�m�nated three local stops to �mprove rel�ab�l�ty and shorten trans�t travel t�mes. Pr�or to these changes, local buses stopped almost every block, result�ng �n closer stop spac�ng than Sfmta’s gu�del�ne of 800-1000 feet. at l�m�ted stops, bus bulbs were added to �mprove board�ng speeds and comfort. for most of the day there �s one lane of automobile traffic in each direction in this area; however, dur�ng the peak per�ods the park�ng lane �s converted to a through lane, doubl�ng auto capacity. Project benefits include: greater transit reliability, calmed traffic, increased safety, enhanced streetscape, �mproved bus�ness del�ver�es, and �ncreased park�ng ava�lab�l�ty through systemat�c park�ng management.

features such as prototyp�cal bus stop des�gns, landscap�ng, and pedestr�an �mprovements that were developed �n concept dur�ng the inner geary tPS Project are ut�l�zed �n th�s feas�b�l�ty study.

1.3 sTuDyOBjeCTIvesth�s conceptual study assesses the feas�b�l�ty of �mplement�ng bus rap�d trans�t on geary boulevard as a way to �mprove trans�t serv�ce wh�le also �mprov�ng the ne�ghborhoods that �t passes through. though qu�te deta�led, the findings presented here are preliminary, and would be evaluated more extens�vely should analysis progress to the next phase of study—an env�ronmental �mpact analys�s. the pr�mary purpose of the effort descr�bed �n th�s report was to create and refine preferred BRT conceptual des�gns through both techn�cal analys�s and

an extens�ve commun�ty outreach process. commun�ty members have had many opportun�t�es to prov�de �nput on the development of conceptual des�gns, and how well des�gns respond to key object�ves such as ra�s�ng trans�t serv�ce levels, �mprov�ng pedestr�an safety and access, meet�ng ne�ghborhood bus�ness and res�dent�al needs, and enhanc�ng urban des�gn. th�s Study sought to answer four pr�mary quest�ons, descr�bed below.

Key Study QuestionsHow would BRT be defined on Geary?

is brt feas�ble on geary?

Is BRT justified (benefits vs. impacts)?

Wh�ch alternat�ves are most prom�s�ng?

are there any alternat�ves that should be el�m�nated?

•

•

•

•

•

1.4 sTuDyprOCessth�s study has been conducted as a collaborat�ve �nter-agency and commun�ty process, �nvolv�ng close coord�nat�on between the San franc�sco county transportat�on author�ty, the San franc�sco mun�c�pal transportat�on agency (Sfmta), and other c�ty and reg�onal agenc�es, as well as var�ous commun�ty groups lead�ng extens�ve publ�c �nvolvement.

The san Francisco County Transportationauthority was created �n 1989 to adm�n�ster and oversee San franc�sco’s half-cent local transportat�on sales tax program (or�g�nally Propos�t�on b, now Propos�t�on K). it �s also the des�gnated congest�on management agency (cma) for San franc�sco and �s respons�ble for develop�ng and adm�n�ster�ng the c�ty’s congest�on management Program (cmP).

The san Francisco municipal Transportationagency �s compr�sed of the San franc�sco mun�c�pal ra�lway (mun�) and the department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) and is responsible for all the da�ly operat�ons of trans�t serv�ce offered by the c�ty and county of San franc�sco and the da�ly operat�on of streets �n San franc�sco.

the study process cons�sted pr�mar�ly of the follow�ng steps:

development of goals for the corr�dor and the project (descr�bed �n chapter 3);

analys�s of ex�st�ng cond�t�ons, �nclud�ng substant�al data collect�on and publ�c �nput, character�zed �n a needs assessment report

•

•


Geary BRT Study

(summar�zed �n chapter 2);

development of “des�gn Pr�nc�ples and gu�del�nes” for geary to prov�de a framework for the creat�on of conceptual des�gn alternat�ves (descr�bed �n chapter 3);

Development of five conceptual alternatives for the potent�al future of transportat�on serv�ce on geary boulevard (descr�bed �n chapter 4);

development of an evaluat�on framework to assess the success of the conceptual des�gn alternat�ves �n meet�ng the goals for the corr�dor and compare performance between alternat�ves (descr�bed �n chapter 5);

Evaluat�on of all alternat�ves (summar�zed �n chapter 5); and

development of a potent�al �mplementat�on strategy, �nclud�ng phas�ng and fund�ng, as well as identification of fast track projects that could be carr�ed out wh�le the project undergoes further analys�s (chapter 6).

study Partnersled by the transportat�on author�ty, Study partners �nclude:

agencypartners

San franc�sco mun�c�pal transportat�on agency (Sfmta): mun� & the department of Park�ng and Traffic

San franc�sco Plann�ng department

San franc�sco department of Publ�c Works

golden gate br�dge, h�ghway and transportat�on d�str�ct (golden gate trans�t)

ConsultantTeam

dKS assoc�ates w/the robert group and ibi group

roma des�gn group

P�ttman & assoc�ates

dav�d vasquez

throughout th�s document, “Study team” w�ll be used to refer to th�s collect�on of agency staff and consultants who conducted the geary corr�dor brt Study.

GearyCitizen’sadvisoryCommittee

the Study team was gu�ded by the geary c�t�zens adv�sory comm�ttee (gcac), a d�verse group of seventeen stakeholders represent�ng commun�t�es along the corr�dor and c�ty-w�de �nterests. the gcac served as a cr�t�cal l�a�son between the Study’s techn�cal team and local stakeholders.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

the gcac enabled the Study team to �nvolve the commun�ty early �n the plann�ng process. the gcac also prov�ded gu�dance and deta�led �nput on study act�v�t�es, and further rev�ewed and refined several components of the Study, �nclud�ng the project goals, des�gn standards and gu�del�nes, and evaluat�on framework.

PuBlic outreach

the author�ty hosted three sets of publ�c workshops to obta�n �nput throughout the durat�on of the Study, w�th approx�mately 600 attendees. the author�ty also rece�ved and �mplemented a caltrans Plann�ng grant to conduct more extens�ve mult�-l�ngual outreach for the Study �n Span�sh, ch�nese, japanese, russ�an, v�etnamese, and Korean w�th the help of 6 commun�ty-based partner organ�zat�ons (descr�bed below). We reached res�dents and trans�t r�ders through rad�us ma�l�ngs, posters on bus shelters and �n buses, and a survey of about 1,200 r�ders �n bus shelters. the Study team reached merchants and property owners along the corr�dor through door-to-door surveys of bus�nesses, rad�us ma�l�ngs to property owners, a merchant drop-�n sess�on �n the r�chmond and �n the Western add�t�on, and meet�ngs of var�ous merchant organ�zat�ons, �nclud�ng clement Street merchants assoc�at�on, japantown merchants assoc�at�on, and others w�th�n the corr�dor. We also rece�ved �nput from v�s�tors to the corr�dor at commun�ty fa�rs and ne�ghborhood fest�vals, such as the tet fest�val, c�nco de mayo fa�r, russ�an fest�val, cherry blossom fest�val, and clement Street fa�r.

author�ty staff also gave presentat�ons at meet�ngs of numerous ne�ghborhood organ�zat�ons and comm�ttees on a regular bas�s throughout the study process, �nclud�ng the Plann�ng act�on for the r�chmond, japantown task force, the Western add�t�on c�t�zens adv�sory comm�ttee, Wash�ngton h�gh School PtSa, San franc�sco coal�t�on of ne�ghborhoods, the coal�t�on to Save ocean beach, the l�ghthouse for the bl�nd, the cathedral h�ll ne�ghbors assoc�at�on, the r�chmond democrat�c club, and the tenderlo�n futures collaborat�ve. We also met w�th large institutions including California Pacific Medical center, and un�vers�ty of cal�forn�a at San franc�sco-mt z�on campus, and Ka�ser Permanente hosp�tal. Staff also met w�th and gave presentat�ons to several c�tyw�de organ�zat�ons and comm�ss�ons, along w�th key stakeholders on request. These include the Mayor’s Office on d�sab�l�ty, the Small bus�ness comm�ss�on, mun�’s access�b�l�ty adv�sory comm�ttee, mun� operators, the Pedestr�an Safety adv�sory comm�ttee,

1-8


San franc�sco Plann�ng and urban research assoc�at�on (SPur), rescue mun�, l�vable c�ty, and the San franc�sco b�cycle coal�t�on.

the purpose of th�s extens�ve outreach was to �nvolve the var�ed commun�t�es and stakeholders in refining the technical analysis, and to gauge publ�c support for the conceptual brt des�gns. if the project moves forward, th�s should s�mpl�fy the env�ronmental rev�ew process and lead to faster and more cost effect�ve �mplementat�on.

Community-Basedpartners

outreach efforts were supported by several other commun�ty-based partners who offered broader and deeper reach �nto commun�t�es that m�ght not trad�t�onally part�c�pate act�vely �n transportat�on plann�ng processes. these commun�ty-based partners are:

ch�natown commun�ty development center,

Ella h�ll hutch commun�ty center,

japantown taskforce,

la voz lat�na de la c�udad central,

l�ttle Sa�gon development assoc�at�on, and

russ�an amer�can commun�ty Serv�ces.

•

•

•

•

•

•

1.5 repOrTOrGanIzaTIOnth�s report documents the complete process and findings of the Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Study, organ�zed �n the follow�ng sect�ons:

Chapter2:existingConditionsandTransportationneeds

This Chapter summarizes the key findings on needs, opportun�t�es, and constra�nts from the needs assessment report completed �n 2005, �nclud�ng trans�t, auto, b�cycle, pedestr�an, and urban des�gn cond�t�ons. it also summar�zes the top pr�or�ty needs for transportat�on on geary Boulevard as identified by the community.

Chapter3:projectGuidelines

th�s chapter l�sts the project goals and the “des�gn Pr�nc�ples and gu�del�nes” that were developed �n collaborat�on between the Study team and the geary c�t�zen’s adv�sory comm�ttee to gu�de the alternat�ves des�gn process.

Chapter4:alternativesDevelopment

This Chapter describes the five alternative des�gn concepts that were developed by th�s study. they �nclude a basel�ne “bas�c trans�t Pr�or�ty” alternat�ve; an add�t�onal non-brt alternative — “Basic Plus Transit Priority;” and three full-featured brt alternat�ves, one s�de-runn�ng des�gn and two center-runn�ng des�gns. it also descr�bes alternat�ves developed for two un�que geary �ntersect�ons at f�llmore Street and mason�c avenue that requ�red spec�al attent�on.

Chapter5:evaluationmethodologyandresults

th�s chapter documents the cr�ter�a and methodology used to evaluate the �mpacts and benefits of each alternative on Geary Boulevard and descr�bes the outcome of the alternat�ves evaluat�on. Evaluat�on cr�ter�a are correlated to the project goals descr�bed �n chapter 3 and vary from trans�t performance and passenger comfort to traffic impacts and cost.

Chapter6:nextsteps

th�s chapter outl�nes the potent�al next steps �n the process of �mplement�ng a brt project on geary boulevard, �nclud�ng phas�ng and fund�ng.

2-1Chapter 2: Existing Conditions and Transportation Needs

Contents2. ExistingConditionsand

transportationnEEds............... 2-12.1 MEthodology................................. 2-2

2.2 ovErviEwofthEgEaryCorridor........ 2-2

2.3 suMMaryofKEyfindings,issuEsandopportunitiEs................................. 2-4

Chapter2:existingConditionsandtransportationneeds

gearYCorridorBrtstudY

JuNE 2007

2.existingConditionsandtransportationneeds

thischaptersummarizeskeyexistingconditions,needs, and opportunities for transportationimprovements in the geary Corridor. theinformation included in this chapter is drawnfromthefullneedsassessmentreportwhichcanbefoundinappendixa.thefullreportincludesthe complete set of findings, including needs, constraints, and other issues, organized intochaptersthataddress:

streetlayout

demographicsandlanduse

transitsupply

transitdemand

transitorigin-destinationanalysis

transitConditions

autoConditions

parkingConditions

BicycleConditions

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

2-2


pedestrianConditions

urbandesignConditions

Each chapter also includes a summary of therelevantpublicinputreceivedduringtheinitialoutreach process which culminated in thefirst series of public workshops in April 2005. understanding existing conditions and needsprovidedanimportantinputtothedevelopmentofcorridoralternatives,allowingeachalternativeto be designed to best address the deficiencies andtakeadvantageofkeyopportunities in thecorridor.

2.1 MethodologYa variety of techniques was used to documentexisting conditions on geary Boulevard.previouslycollecteddatafromsfMtaandotherCity agencies was complemented with a newdata collection effort and in some instances,withdataestimatedusingtransportationmodels.thedatacollectionincluded:recording,transit,auto,bicycle,andpedestrianvolumesatvariouslocationsinthecorridor;collectingquantitativeinformationontransitandautotraveltimesanddelay;andcollectingqualitativeinformationontransit,auto,bicycle,andpedestrianfacilities,aswellasurbandesignconditions.inaddition,the study team sponsored a public workshopseries in multiple locations along the corridorin April 2005 to learn about public perceptions of travelconditionsongeary. thestudyteamalsocollectedinformationonpublicperceptionsthrough smaller meetings and discussions withindividual stakeholders and community groups.afulldescriptionofthedatacollectedandthemethodologies used is included in the needsassessment,appendixa.

2.2 overviewofthegearYCorridor

Geary Boulevard: reflectinG the diversity of san francisco

geary Boulevard is one of the City’s mostimportantandcomplexeast-weststreets. it isboth a major transit trunk route and a majorvehiclethoroughfarethatfacilitatestravelbothwithinthecorridorandtoothercitywide/regionallocations. over its 6-mile length, the corridorpassesthroughacross-sectionofsanfrancisco,serving neighborhoods that represent a widerange of the city’s social, ethnic and culturaldiversity. the street traverses a wide range oflanduses,densities,andbuildingheights.

•

•

traveling east to west, geary Boulevard ischaracterized by dense offices, high-rise residences, and hotels in the tenderloin andunionsquareareas,larger-scaleresidentialandculturalbuildingsinJapantownandthewesternaddition, and a blend of multi-unit residenceswithlocalshopsatstreetlevelintherichmond.whilethisistrulyacorridorofmultipleusesintheeast,mostoftherestofthelengthofthestreetis lined with businesses and institutional uses,including someof themostvibrantcommercialdistricts inthecity. oneofthekeychallengesofthisstudywastodesigntransitimprovementsthat serve and enhance this wide variety ofneighborhoods, each with distinct needs, whilesimultaneously promoting a unified identity.

travel on Geary: the need to Balance all Modes

as stated previously, geary serves as a majorthoroughfare for many regional and localtrips, whether users are destined for work indowntown, school at an educational institutionin the corridor, shopping at the regional orlocal commercial districts, or eating at a localrestaurant. Geary carries between 30,000 and 65,000 drivers daily, depending on location along the route, combined with more than 50,000 daily transit riders, thousands of pedestriansandbicycleriders.thestreetfunctionswellforautosandotherprivatevehicles,butconditionsfor other modes need significant improvement to approachthesamequalityofserviceenjoyedbyprivatevehicles.

Muni’s38-gearybusline,includinglocal,limitedandexpressservicesrepresentsoneofthemostheavilyusedbuscorridorsinsanfrancisco,andinthewesternunitedstates. transitongearyBoulevard serves more than 50,000 boardings everyweekday.ifparallelroutesonCalifornia,Clement, and Balboa/turk are included, totalridership increases to about 100,000 daily boardings. unlike many transit routes thatprimarily servecommuters, transit ridershipongearyisconsistentlyhighthroughouttheday,onboth weekdays and weekends, and in both theeastboundandwestbounddirections.onsaturdayand sunday, geary buses serve approximately40,000 and 28,000 boardings respectively. The peakhouronweekdays isbetween3pmand4pmwhengearybusesarecarryingapproximately2,000 passengers per hour in the non-peak direction and over 2,000 passengers per hour in thepeakdirection.


Geary BRT Study

Table 2-1 San Francisco’s High-Ridership Bus Lines*

Muniroute averageweekdayridership

38-geary(including38l,38ax,and38Bx) 49,268

14-Mission(including14land14x) 47,241

30-Stockton 28,997

49-vanness 28,928

1-California(including1axand1Bx) 27,797

15-Third 25,321

22-fillmoresacramento 19,576

*Municipaltransportationagency,shortrangetransitplan

Buses serve as much as 25% of the trips made in thegearycorridoratthepMpeakhour,withthehighestpassengerloadsbetweenfillmorestreetand van ness avenue. for all neighborhoods,walkingalsoaccountsforalargepercentageoftrips.thenon-automodeshareinthetenderloinis over 50%, in Western Addition/Japantown it is 40%, and in the Richmond it is just over 30%.

in spite of high transit ridership and highpedestrian use, much of the current roadwaylayout and traffic signal infrastructure on Geary benefit motorists at the expense of transit ridersandpedestrians.forexample,thegeary“expressways” at fillmore & Masonic allowsmotoriststotravelatrelativelyhighspeeds,whilebusesarechanneledontonarrowandineffectualservice roads. as a result, traveling by bus onthe Geary corridor takes significantly longer than travelingbyautomobileandislessreliable:

travelingfromvannessto33rdavenueona38-localbustakesabouttwiceaslongasdriving,excluding the time required for a transitridertogettothestopandwait forthebusand/or to transfer toor fromanother route.theeffective travel speedof the38-local isless than 8 mph; the 38l-limited averagesapproximately 10 mph; auto traffic travels at speedsaveragingbetween17and21mph.

transitwaittimesandin-vehicletraveltimesareunreliable,whichforcesmanypassengersto increase the overall time they allot fortheir trip to account for these fluctuating traveltimes.formanypartsofthecorridor,

•

•

atmiddayandduringtheeveningrushhours,overhalfthebusescome“inbunches”whichresultsinlargegapsinservicewherenobusescomeatall.

thesereliabilityproblemsongearycontributeto crowding problems, which was a majorcommunity concern. More comments werereceivedonbusovercrowdingthananyotherissueduringthepublicworkshops.whenthereare“bunchesandgaps”intransitservice,thebunched buses are too close together andcannot develop full and even loads. Busesthat arrive after a gap become overcrowdedbecause they have more passengers to pickup.

one of the primary goals of this study is toaddress the need to rebalance the street tobetter serve transit riders, pedestrians, andbicyclists,withoutcausingamajordeteriorationin conditions for auto travelers. improvingtransit service on geary Boulevard would notonlyservecurrentriders, itwoulddramaticallystrengthen the citywide transit network. itwouldalsoimprovemobilityforlocalresidents,benefit neighborhood conditions, and improve access to local businesses, by attracting moreridersandmakingiteasierforpeopletogettolocalrestaurants,shops,andservices.

Geary: Poor Pedestrian conditions and urBan desiGn Betweenvannessavenueandparkpresidio,thedesign of geary Boulevard favors cars – thereare few public spaces with aesthetic qualitiesthat enhance the surrounding neighborhood.In the Inner Richmond, Geary’s six traffic lanes effectively keep traffic moving, but the wide streethinderspedestriantravel.theverywide,fast-movingeasternportionof theBoulevard isa major barrier to pedestrian circulation thateffectively bisects Japantown and westernAddition. In addition to providing significant improvements to transit, a Brt project ongeary should also seek to both (1) transformgeary Boulevard from a barrier that dividesneighborhoods to a “bridge” that enhanceslivabilityand“knitstogether”neighborhoodsoneither side of the Boulevard, and (2) significantly enhanceurbandesignandpedestrianconditionsthroughouttheCorridor.

•

2-4


2.3 suMMarYofKeYfindings,issuesandopportunities

design of the Brt alternatives was greatlyinfluenced by key issues, opportunities, and constraints that were established in the needsassessment. Key findings from the Needs assessmentreportaresummarizedbelow.

street layout

existingConditions

Geary Boulevard is generally very wide, with 125 feet of right-of-way (property line to propertyline) through most of the corridor and up to168feetatthewidestpoint.thelayoutofthecorridorhasevolveddifferentlyindifferentareas,based upon factors such as traffic conditions and intensityofcommercialactivity.theentirestreethasamediandividerandthecorridorgenerallyhas parking on every block. diagrams showingtheoverallstreetlayoutandtypeofparkingareshowninfigures2-1and2-2.

The traffic signals on Geary Boulevard are coordinatedthroughamastercontrollersystem,andhaverecentlybeenupgraded. inaddition,select intersections have been equipped withtechnology that offers transit signal priority,whichallowsthesignaltodetectanapproachingbusanddetermineifitshouldreceiveprioritybyextendingthegreenphaseorpotentiallyskippingaleft-turnphaseifappropriate.

needsandopportunities

thewide right-of-way isbothanopportunityand a constraint. the width of the road(especially around fillmore and Masonic)affordsmanyopportunities to“redesign”thestreet configuration to better serve transit ridersandpedestrianswithminimalimpactstoautos. In particular, reconfiguring the existing median and introducing or reallocating turnrestrictionscouldenhancetransittraveltimeandreliability.

transit suPPly

existingConditions

gearyBoulevardhassomeofthehighest levelsof scheduled transit service in the City. it isserved by four variations of the 38-geary line,which combine to provide as much as one busevery 3-5 minutes during peak periods, and some type of service 24 hours a day, 7 days aweek.Basedonthesefrequencies,busesmakeapproximately 589 trips, serving Geary’s more than 50,000 passengers over the course of a

•

typical weekday. however, it is important tonote that transit service on geary Boulevardsuffers from poor reliability, as discussed laterin this chapter, which decreases the efficacy of thishighquantityofservice.thefourservicesare described below, with service hours andheadways (the time between sequential transitvehicles) based on the 2005 schedules:

38-local service: the 38-local operates24 hours a day, at 7-10 minute scheduled headwaysduringtheday,6minuteheadwaysduring evening commute hours, and 30 minute headways for late evening and owl service.A total of 345 trips are offered on the Local eachweekday.the38-localserviceserves26stopsineachdirectionalonggearyBoulevardbetween van ness avenue and 33rd avenue.Stops are generally less than 0.15 miles apart (about 800-1000 feet, or 2-3 blocks).

38l-limitedservice:the38l-limitedoperateseastbound from about 6 am to 6 pm andwestboundfromabout8amto7pmat7-minutescheduledheadwaysexceptwestboundduringthe PM peak, when it operates at 5-minute scheduledheadways.atotalof196tripsareofferedonthelimitedeveryweekday.itstopsonly at major points on Geary, serving fifteen ofthetwentysix38-localstopsbetween33rdavenueandpowellstreet.stopsforthe38l-limitedbusstopsaregenerallybetweenone-third and one-half mile apart (about 1500-2500 feet,or4-7blocks).

38ax and 38Bx service: geary has twoexpress buses; both operate eastbound-only in the morning and westbound-only inthe evening. the 38ax travels between theOuter Richmond and downtown, with 10- to 20-minute scheduled headways depending on the time of day. the 38Bx travels betweentheinnerrichmondanddowntownwith9-to20-minute headways depending on the time ofday. a totalof23 tripsareofferedeveryweekday on the 38AX, and a total of 25 trips areofferedeveryweekdayonthe38Bx.

in addition to the routes on geary Boulevard,routes that operate within a few blocks ofgearyareconsideredpartofthebroadergearyCorridor.theyinclude:

1–California(andCaliforniaExpressbuses1axand1Bx)

2–Clement

3–Jackson

4–sutter

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

2-5

San

Fran

cisc

o Co

unty

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Auth

orit

yG

eary

BRT

Stu

dy

Chap

ter

2: E

xist

ing

Cond

itio

ns a

nd T

rans

port

atio

n N

eeds

figu

re2

-1

gea

ryr

ight

-of-

way

lay

out,

48t

hav

enue

to

14th

ave

nue

2-6

San

Fran

cisc

o Co

unty

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Auth

orit

yG

eary

BRT

Stu

dy

Chap

ter

2: E

xist

ing

Cond

itio

ns a

nd T

rans

port

atio

n N

eeds

figu

re2

-2

gea

ryr

ight

-of-

way

lay

out,

14t

hav

enue

to

van

nes

sav

enue


Geary BRT Study

31 – Balboa (and Balboa Express buses 31axand31Bx)

golden gatetransit operates one route (route10) on Geary Boulevard between Park Presidio andwebsterstreetprovidingdirectaccessfromMarin County to the richmond and downtown.Route 10 runs approximately once per hour from 7 am to 8 pm on weekdays. however, goldengatetransitcannotpickuppassengerstravelingwithin sanfranciscoper its current agreementwiththeCityofsanfrancisco.

since geary spans almost the entire lengthof northern san francisco from east to west,several north-south transit lines providetransferopportunitiestoexpandaccesstomanydestinations beyond the geary corridor. Majortransferopportunitiesonthecorridorare:

18–46thavenue

19–polk

22–fillmore

24–divisadero

28/28l–19thavenue

29–sunset

•

•

•

•

•

•

33–stanyan

43–Masonic

44–o’shaughnessy

47–vanness

49–vanness/Mission

•

•

•

•

•

in addition, geary buses connect to Marketstreetandtheireasternterminusatthetransbaytransit terminal and offer broader connectionsto destinations throughout san francisco andtheregionasawhole.thetransbayterminalisserved by over 30 bus routes from the East Bay andthepeninsula,whileMarketstreethoststheMuni light rail lines, numerous Muni bus lines,

• and the Bart system to the East Bay and thepeninsula.

the47and49vannessbusesarethetransitspineofanotherBrtcorridorstudyrecentlyapprovedby the Board and Citizens advisory Committeeof the transportationauthority. the van nessCorridorBrtstudywillbegin itsenvironmentalimpact analysis in Spring 2007. Together these potentialBrtprojectsprovideanopportunitytoexpand high-quality, reliable transit service inthe City and strengthen san francisco’s transitprioritynetwork.


the hours of service should be re-examinedforthelimitedandexpressbuses.analysisofthe 2004 Muni Customer Survey and data on cumulativepassengerloadsthroughoutthedayindicateaneedforexpandedservicehoursforthe38l. thisdatawasfurthersupportedbyfeedback during the public outreach events,including the 2005 public workshops on needs. thesecommentsshouldbeevaluatedagainstthe current demand/travel patterns in thecorridortodeterminetowhatextentthehoursofserviceshouldbeexpanded.limitedservicewas analyzed and evaluated in-depth, whileanalysisofexpressbusesshouldbeaddressedinthenextphaseofstudy.

transit improvements on geary should bemindfulofridershiponparallelrouteswithinthecorridor. geary servesasa trunk line inthe northern part of the city, and should beattractive to potential riders on other lineswithinthecorridor.

•

•

2-8


any transit improvements and/or Brt designswill need to consider golden gate transitservice.

transit oPeratinG conditions

existingConditions

thoughtransitsupplyongearyissomewhatdensecomparedtootherpartsofthecity,thequalityofserviceisconsideredpoorbymanyridersandthisimpressionissupportedbydata.toevaluatethecurrent operating performance of geary buses,the existing conditions analysis evaluated on-time performance (adherence to published timeschedules and to scheduled headways), traveltimeandtraveltimevariability.whenbad,theseconditions frustrate transit riders; waiting forbuses that should arrive at equal intervals, andwhilesittingorstandingforlongperiodsoftimeoncrowdedbusesmovingrelativelyslowlyacrossthecity. Municustomersurveysconsistently listtransit reliability as the biggest complaint withservice.

while private vehicles experience a high levelofservicealonggearyforthemostpart,transitoperates in difficult conditions and congested “pinch points” at key locations along the route.gearybusesmoverelativelyslowly,withaveragetravel speeds often lower than ten or 12 milesperhour,lessthanhalfthatofcars.onaveragelocal buses take almost one hour (50 minutes) to completethealmostsix-mileroutebetween33rdavenue andtransbayterminal. travel times forlimitedservicehoveraround39minutes.dependinguponthetimeofday,traveltimescanvarybyaslittle as two minutes and as much as fifteen. In most instances,the average travel time did notmatch the scheduled travel time, increasing thepossibilityof carryingdelaysencounteredduringonebustripintothenextbustrip.

gearybusesoperateathighscheduledfrequencies,e.g., 38l-limited buses are scheduled to arrivein sevenminute intervals.thereforemost riderssimply “show up” at the bus stop, rather thanlooking at published schedules to see when thenext bus is expected to arrive. geary busesexperience significant variations in reliability over thecourseofthedayandbustravelisagooddeallesspredictablethanautomobiletravelasshownin figures 2-3 and 2-4. reliability problems areslightlymoreacuteon the38-l limited thanonthelocal.withtheexceptionofthewestboundevening service, on the 38l-limited only abouthalf of the buses arrive “on-time” (defined by Muni as arriving between one minute early andfourminuteslate)duringbothmiddayandeveningpeakhours.

• Geary buses experienced significant variability in headways; however, sometimes variabilityincreasedasthebustraveledthroughthecorridor,while in other instances, reliability problemswere observed at specific locations (e.g. Van Ness avenue)andbusesrecoveredlaterdowntheline.sampleheadwayvariabilityforthe38lisshowninfigure2-3.


improvementsintransittraveltimeandreliabilityareneededthroughoutthedaybecause:

operational problems, such as bus bunchingand slowtravel times,areaspronounced inthemiddayperiodasinthepMpeak.

transit demand on geary is high throughoutthe weekday and on weekends. About 20-25% ofgearytransitridersusegearyduringpeakhours.

publicfeedbacksupportedtheneedforanalldayimprovements.

transit riders are especially sensitive tovariabilityinwaittimeandtraveltime.whiletravelspeedisimportant,reliabilityofserviceisevenmore important.fluctuations in traveltime and wait time cause riders to pad orincreasetheirestimatedtriptimestoreducethepotentialofarrivinglateattheirdestination.

Currently,thebusisinmotionlessthanhalfofitstotaltraveltime.wheninmotion,thebusistravelingslowerthanautos,oftenhalfofautospeeds.

improving transit travel times requiresunderstanding the sources of delay that mostcommonly impact transit service. the mostcommon sources of delay for the 38l-limitedand their respective contributions to the totaltransit travel time, are shown in Figure 2-5. To be successful, any transit improvements in thecorridorwillneedtoaddresson-timeperformanceand travel time by impacting all of these keysourcesofdelay,includingtimespentloadingandunloading passengers, time spent at traffic lights, andtimespentweaving inandoutof the travellane.

•

•

•


Geary BRT Study

figure2-3 headwayvariabilityforthe38l-limited,westboundpMpeak

figure2-4 headwayvariabilityforthe38l-limited,westboundMidday*

*SanFranciscoCountyTransportationAuthority,2005GearyBRTNeedsAssessment

Turn-out Time6%

Signal Delay Time22%

Time in Traffic47%

Loading/Unloading

22%

Other Delays3%

Figure 2-5 Travel Time Components for the 38L-Limited, EastboundMidday

descriptionoftraveltimeComponentsTime in Traffic timeinmotion

loadingandunloading timespentatstopfortheboardingandde-boardingofpassengers

signaltimedelay timespentwaitingattraffic signals

turn-outtime timespentweavinginandoutofthetravellanetoaccessthebusstop

otherdelays allothersourcesofdelay

2-10


transit deMand and crowdinG

existingConditions

Muni’s service standards establish that the peakperiodpassengerloadshouldbe“nogreaterthan85% of combined seating and standing capacity,” whenaveragedoverthetwo-hourpeakperiod(totalcapacity of an articulated bus is 94 passengers,85% of the full load is 80 passengers.1) By thismeasure,Muni ridership counts actually indicatethat geary buses are below this maximum loadstandard.however,morecommentswerereceivedonbusovercrowdingthananyother issueduringthe first series of public workshops. Limited buses aremorecrowdedthanlocalbuses.oneinthree38l-limitedbusestravelingwestboundduringtheevening commute did not exceed 80 passengers and 8% of these buses have more passengers thanthemaximumcapacityofbusesasshowninfigure2-6.

there are several reasons that riders perceivebusesascrowded.first,busesongearyarehighlyloaded for long distances on both the route 38-localand38l-limited.whiletheaveragenumberofpassengersonboardrarelyexceedsthemaximumcapacityof94seatedandstandingpassengers,itcommonly exceeds the bus seating capacity of57 and sometimes exceeds Muni’s maximum load standard of 80 passengers (shown in Figure 2-6). this causes many riders to stand, often for longperiodsoftime.ridersalsotendtoclusternearthe front door, due to the difficulty of boarding orexitingafullbus.Multi-doorboarding,proof-of-payment,andotherstrategies to improvetheboardingandexitingprocesswouldhelptoreducepassenger reluctance to distribute themselvesmoreevenlywithinthevehicle.

second, reliability problems and bus bunchingcontributetothesecrowdingproblems.asbusesbunch together, the first (and potentially the second) bus to arrive after a significant gap in serviceislikelytobecrowded.Busesimmediatelyfollowingthatbus,oftenbylessthanthescheduledheadway, may be far less crowded. reducingbunching by smoothing the flow of buses will not only increase reliability, it should also even outthenumberofpassengersoneachbusandreducetheperceptionofcrowding.

� MuniFY2006-FY2025ShortRangeTransitPlan,Chapter7,p.92.http://www.sfmta.com/cms/rsrtp/srtpindx.htm#draftfy2006,ac-cessedon�/26/07.

Load >79 Riders23%

Load > 57 Riders67%

Load > 94 Riders

8%

Load < 57 Riders

2%

figure2-6 BusloadsonMostCrowdedroute,westbound38l-limited,pMpeak


transit improvements on geary should aimtoalleviate theperceptionof crowding. forexample,fastertraveltimeswouldreducetheamount of time riders must stand, improvedreliabilitywouldpreventonebusfrombecomingvery crowded while the bus behind it staysrelatively empty, and a more comfortable buswith multi-door boarding (such as a low floor bus with larger windows and higher ceilings)wouldbetterdistributepassengersthroughthebusandincreasepassengercomfort,evenonarelativelyfullbus.

higher loads on the 38l-limited than the 38-localsuggeststhatsomereallocationofservicewould more appropriately reflect demand. More datatosupportthisapproachispresentedbelowintransportationridershipdemographics.

Some Geary riders also find it difficult to distinguish between the local and limitedservice. Analysis shows that up to 20% of passengers use the local bus for a trip thatcould be served by the limited, i.e. they getonalocalbusatalimitedstopandgetoffthatlocalbusatalimitedstop.thisindicatesthatthereismoredemandforthelimitedservice,aswellasaneedforreal-timeinformationandother strategies to differentiate the limitedservice.

•

•

•


Geary BRT Study

transit ridershiP deMoGraPhics

existingConditions

gearytransitriderscomefromallsocioeconomicgroups, consistent with the great number andrange of neighborhoods served by the gearycorridor. geary riders include those who aretransit-dependent(havenocarsinthehousehold)aswellasthosewhoowncarsbutchoosetoridetransitastheoccasionwarrants.theproportionoftransitdependenthouseholdsdecreasesfromeastto west across the Geary corridor, from up to 82% in the Tenderloin to 31% in the Outer Richmond. limited bus riders are slightly more likely toowncarsthanlocalriders,whileridersongearyexpress routes (38ax,38Bx)weremore likely tohave higher incomes and higher auto ownershipthanthoseonboththelocalandlimitedroutes.2


improvementstogearyservicemustaddresstheneedsofadiversesetoftransitusers.Existinggeary riders represent many of the diversecultural, economic and social groups withinsan francisco. while some riders are transit-dependent,manycar-ownersstillchoosetousegearytransitservices.

Enhancing and distinguishing transit servicesongearycoulddrawadditionalriderstogearytransit, as evidenced by the proportions ofexistingtransitriderswithhigher incomesandcarownershiponthelimitedandexpressservicesin the geary corridor. therefore, enhancingthesetwoservicesinthegearycorridorwouldnot only benefit all current riders, but could also representanopportunitytoexpandridership.

General traffic conditions

existingConditions

Motorvehicletraveltimesongearybetweenvannessand33rdavenuearehighlypredictableandtypicallyrangefrom13to16minutesinboththemiddayandpMpeak.intersectionsweregenerallyable to clear in one cycle. this suggests thatthereareno“chokepoints”forautoswestofvanness avenue and that motor vehicle conditionsongearyare relatively good. atmost locationstraffic operations are near optimal, with average intersection delays well under 20 seconds (LOS A or B), with the rare intersection with delays of30 seconds (LOS C). The one exception is the intersectionofgearyandMasonic,whichbecomesquite congested during the pM peak hour whendelays hover around 60 seconds, or LOS E.3

2 Dataderivedfromthe2004MuniOnboardSurvey.� Thismeasureonlyappliestothefrontageroadsleadinguptotheintersection, and does not apply to through traffic traveling under-neath the intersection, which bypasses several traffic lights.

•

•

thefar-right travel lane,whichservesbothcarsandbuses,isnotcurrentlyfunctioningeffectivelyforeithermode.Mostbusstopzonesarenotlongenoughtoaccommodatetwoarticulatedvehicles(suchasalimitedandalocal),sobusesareoftenunabletofullypullovertothecurbatbusstops,partially blocking the right-most traffic lane at times. Bus operators often face obstructionsfrom double parked vehicles, and often struggleto go around vehicles or merge back into traffic afterpullingovertothecurb.separatingtransitmovement from auto movement by dedicating alane exclusively to buses should benefit auto users andtransitridersalike.


it is a primary goal of this study to improvetransit operating conditions, bringing themclosertothehighqualityofautoconditions.

Though auto traffic flows smoothly along Geary for the most part, some locations prove morechallenging, such as geary at Masonic and atfillmore.specialcareshouldbetakenattheselocations.

Effortsshouldbemadetomaximizethroughputin remaining auto lanes using technology andurban design to efficiently manage auto traffic whilebalancingtheneedsofotherusersinthecorridor.

•

•

•

2-12


ParkinG

existingConditions

parallelparking isprovidedalongmostofgeary,however most blocks between 14th avenue and19thavenueofferangledparking.parallelparkingcanalsobefoundonseveralblockswestof33rdavenue. Most of geary has meters set for amaximumofonehourorless,particularlyinthecommercialcoresoftherichmondanddowntownareas.thereareseveralCity-ownedandprivateparking lots scattered throughout the corridor.These lots offer significant off-street parking opportunities, in the areas such as fillmore andMasonic, where several institutions maintainsurface parking lots or structured garages.parkingisinhighdemandintheouterrichmondcommercial core. parking occupancy, turnover,and double parking were found to be highestbetween17thand21stavenues.

parking conditions have large impacts on transitdelay. Crowded buses must often wait whilevehicles make parking movements, or attemptto pass double-parked vehicles by merging intotraffic. This not only increases travel time, the unpredictability also increases travel timevariability.doubleparkingismostcommonnearland uses that generate a high number of shortdurationtripswithlittleavailableparking.suchactivity is likely to occur at post offices, banks with

atMs,convenienceretail,andfoodestablishments(such as coffee shops). double parking is alsoproblematic on geary where diagonal parking ismoreprevalentbecausespacesarenotoftenlongenoughtoaccommodatedeliveryvehicles.


whileparkingstrategiesandparkingmanagementare corridor-wide issues, solutions need to betailored to theconditionsoneachblock face.impacts on parking cannot be summarized forthe entire corridor, but must be analyzed insmallerdistrictsorblocks.

areas with particular parking availabilityconcerns and impacts on other roadway usersinclude the blocks between 17th and 21stavenue,aswellasotherlocationswhereparkingisinhighdemand.

transitimprovementsshouldfocusonstrategiesthat best maintain or improve comparableavailabilityofon-streetparkingbecauseitserveslocalbusinessesandprovidesavaluablebufferbetweenpedestriansandmovingvehicles.

improvements should aim to increase theutilization of spaces. for example, pricingall parking and prioritizing short-term metersshouldincreasetheavailabilityofspaceswhilealsoalleviatingdoubleparkingproblems.

•

•

•

•


Geary BRT Study

Pedestrian and urBan desiGn conditions

existingConditions

Geary Boulevard is typified by relatively long crossing distances with limited refuge andstandardtwo-stripecrosswalksthatareinneedofmaintenance at some locations. some locationsstandoutasexamplesofstrongpedestrian-friendlylocations,suchassomeofthecommercialareasalongthecorridor.Conditionsintheseareaswereusedtoguidedesignintherestofthecorridor,inordertobothimprovepedestrianorurbandesignconditionsandtoknitthecorridortogetherwithconsistentstandards,treatmentsorthemes.

Crossingopportunitiesaretooinfrequentinmanylocations.the pedestrian bridges at steiner andwebster streets require long, circuitous walksontheramps,withmanyneighborhoodresidentscommenting that they are not as safe or secureas they would like. at fillmore, the width ofthe expressway, speed of traffic, and pedestrian crossingrestrictionsallcombinetoformabarriertopedestriancirculation.

Existing landscapingandlightingdonotcreateapedestrian-friendlyenvironmentforthemostpart.asstatedabove,thereareareasthatstandapartfrom general conditions on the corridor. largemature trees can be found near divisadero andMasonic. however, street trees in the sidewalkaresomewhatsparse,stuntedandshowevidenceof abuse. tree pits often have compacted andlitteredsoilwithnoapparentirrigationordrainage.Branches are broken where they overhang thetraffic lanes. Medians are overgrown with ivy and weeds. Community members expressed concernaboutivyharboringrodents.

Currently,mostlightingtakestheformofcobra-head fixtures with high-pressure sodium lamps. wherethereisamedian,thelightingistypicallydoublecobra-head.alllightingisdirectedattheroadway, with poor coverage of the sidewalk.future improvements should provide pedestrian-scale lighting, potentially using fixtures in the medianthatlightsidewalksaswell.


pedestrianimprovementsandotherurbandesigntreatments will benefit transit and neighborhood livability. Most people who access the transitsystem do so by walking, making the quality ofthepedestrianexperiencean importantelementin attracting riders to transit. a high-qualitypedestrianenvironmentalsosupportsneighborhoodlivabilityandcommercialvitality.theurbandesignand pedestrian conditions analysis identified the followingkeyopportunities:

identity. the geary Brt project offers anopportunity to develop a unified identity for gearyandenhanceneighborhoodappearancesandlivability.

high-quality shelters. adequate, attractiveand comfortablebus stops shouldbeprovidedwithamenitiessuchasclearsignage,real-timeinformationaboutbusarrivals,andbusshelters.at high volume bus stops, additional sidewalkspace is needed at key locations where theshelter,waitingpassengers,andotheramenitieslikenewspaperboxescompeteforspace.

safer crossings. Enhanced pedestrian crossingsare needed, especially at intersections withtransferring routes and/or high pedestrianvolumes. redesigning the median to extendinto the crosswalk, providing more visiblecrosswalks, and installing curb extensions/busbulbswillhelp improve thequalityof thepedestrianenvironment.

landscaping. landscaping should be providedthatenhancestheappearanceofthestreetandaddresses the functional needs of the street’susers.speciesthatenhancewatermanagementin this relatively low-lying area should bepursued,inordertoreducetheburdenonactivemaintenance.

livability. leverage transit improvementsto enhance neighborhood appearance andlivabilitybysupporting landusesthatactivatethesidewalksalonggeary.

lighting. provide appropriate and attractivelightingthatextendstopedestrianareas.

•

•

•

•

•

•

2-14


Bicycle conditions

existingConditions

while no bicycle lanes currently exist on gearyBoulevard, there are parallel east-west bicycleroutes. in addition, there are several north-southbicycle routes thatcrossgearyBoulevard.CurrentbicycleactivityongearyBoulevardisverylow relative to other modes of transportation,including walking and transit, possibility due tothe availability of alternate facilities (e.g. poststreet) in most locations or due to the lack offacilities on Geary and volume of auto traffic. parallelstreetshavemoreactivity,particularlyatMasonicavenue,fillmorestreetand17thavenue.

adiagramof routesand locations isprovidedasfigure2-7.

there is some bicycle garage parking in thecorridorandasmallnumberofbikeracksongeary.Clementstreethasdozensofbikeracksandthereare plans to install more racks on commercialstreetsthroughouttherichmonddistrict.


while geary is not the primary bicycle routein the corridor, it is critical that bicyclistscan safely and easily access transit on geary.strategies should be developed that facilitate

•

access through methods such as increasingbicycleparkingopportunities.

Coordinateabicycle study to identifyways toevaluatethepotentialforbicycleinfrastructurewithinthecorridor,whetherongearyorparallelstreets.thisstudyshouldincludedeterminingdesignopportunitieswithintheoverallcorridorandevaluatingdemandonparallelstreets.thestudyshouldbecoordinatedcloselywithsfMta’scity-wide bicycle planning effort to addressissuessuchasbicycleparkingandhowbicyclistsaccesstransitfromparallelstreets.

the san francisco Bicycle plan & policyframework recommends that geary Boulevardbe studied to see ifbicycleaccommodation isfeasible between 25th Avenue and Divisadero street. Community feedback and stakeholderdiscussionsdescribearguellostreettodivisaderostreet as the most strategic segment of thisconnectionbecausetheparallelstreets inthisareatendtobehilly.4

4 SFMTAwillbeginareviewofbicycleconditionsinsummer2007tobetterunderstandthebestlocationtoaccommodatesafe,convenientbicycletravelwithintheGearyCorridor.Effortswillfocusonplan-ningactivitiesuntilconclusionoftheBikePlanEnvironmentalImpactReport.MoredetailonthiseffortcanbefoundinChapter5.

•

•


Geary BRT Study

figure2-7 Bicycleroutes

3-1Chapter 3: Project Guidelines

COnTenTs3 ProjEct guidElinES ................... 3-1

3.1 buS raPid tranSit fEaturES ............... 3-1

3.2 ProjEct goalS ................................. 3-4

3.3 dESign PrinciPlES and guidElinES ........ 3-5

ChapTer3:prOjeCTGuIDelInesGearyCOrrIDOrBrTsTuDy

June 2007

3 projectGuidelinesthe “Project goals” and “des�gn Pr�nc�ples and gu�del�nes,” developed collaborat�vely by the geary c�t�zen’s adv�sory comm�ttee (gcac) and the Study team, were created to gu�de the development of des�gn alternat�ves. they attempt to comb�ne commun�ty �nput w�th best pract�ces and common features of brt systems nat�on-w�de to ensure des�gn of the best poss�ble project for the geary corr�dor and �ts sett�ng �n San franc�sco. inputs �nto the des�gn process are descr�bed below.

3.1 BusrapIDTransITFeaTuresbus rap�d trans�t (brt) �s a h�gh qual�ty, state-of-the-art bus serv�ce that reduces travel t�me, �ncreases rel�ab�l�ty, and �mproves passenger comfort. BRT combines the flexibility of buses and the qual�ty of l�ght ra�l at a fract�on of the cost of ra�l �nfrastructure. brt takes many forms �n c�t�es around the world, �ncorporat�ng all or several of the features descr�bed below. Even pr�or to the start of th�s study, an �nteragency team descr�bed the components of a full-featured brt. Key features of a full-featured brt system are l�sted below and �llustrated by f�gure 3-1.

3-2


f�gure 3-1 bus rap�d trans�t features


Geary BRT Study

Full-Featured Bus Rapid Transit System Features

DedicatedBuslanes remove conflicts between cars and buses. This provides a BRT vehicle with its own travel lane free of conflicting traffic, double-parked or stopped vehicles. Removing these causes of delay can significantly increase the speed, efficiency, and reliability of transit service, which in turn can �mprove r�der exper�ence and �ncrease trans�t r�dersh�p. auto dr�vers also benefit by removing conflicts with buses. For example, on Geary currently the third lane is not functioning optimally because of conflicts between buses and cars. Giving transit its own lane ensures that traffic flows efficiently in all traffic lanes.

Transitsignalpriority helps buses to spend less t�me stopped at red l�ghts, enabl�ng faster tr�ps and more rel�able overall serv�ce.

faster board�ng through improved fare collect�on �s a key element of brt. Passengers pay before board�ng the veh�cle at easy-to-use, conven�ent paystat�ons on the stat�on platform and then are able to board through any door. once on the bus, t�ckets or monthly passes serve as proof of payment when requested by �nspectors. th�s mult�-door board�ng, proof-of-payment system el�m�nates the need for buses to wa�t wh�le all passengers pay at the front door, removing a significant factor in vehicle delay. It also improves the r�der exper�ence by allow�ng for a w�der var�ety of payment cho�ces �nclud�ng mult�-use un�versal trans�t cards, monthly passes, and cred�t cards.

modern,low-Floor,high-CapacityBuses w�th mult�ple doors allow for more conven�ent and faster board�ng/ex�t�ng, and prov�de passengers w�th a more comfortable and qu�eter r�de. through the use of clean fuels and alternat�ve veh�cles, brt helps to ach�eve a�r qual�ty and other env�ronmental goals.

Distinctive stations and Boarding areas, rang�ng from protected shelters to large trans�t centers, are des�gned to serve as both traveler amen�t�es and ne�ghborhood enhancements. improved bus stops a�m to enhance safety and comfort for wa�t�ng passengers and strengthen ne�ghborhood �dent�ty by �nclud�ng better s�gnage and maps, h�gh-qual�ty shelters, and l�ght�ng.

real-TimeInformation tells r�ders when the next bus w�ll arr�ve, allow�ng users more control over the�r t�me.

streetscape and pedestrian access Improvements, such as landscap�ng, countdown s�gnals, b�cycle racks, and well-des�gned crosswalks, enhance the adjacent ne�ghborhoods and make the street safer and more comfortable for pedestr�ans and b�cycl�sts access�ng the bus stops. good street des�gn enhances safety and comfort for res�dents, shoppers, and other users, and g�ves the street a cohes�ve sense of �dent�ty.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

3-4


3.2 prOjeCTGOalsin order to ensure that th�s Study results �n the development of the best poss�ble �mprovement �n trans�t serv�ce �n the geary corr�dor, project goals were developed by the Study team �n close coord�nat�on w�th the geary c�t�zens adv�sory comm�ttee. these goals �nformed the development of the alternat�ve des�gns, the framework used to evaluate alternat�ves, and the framework that would be used to measure the success of the potent�al project �f or when �mplemented. the project goals recogn�ze that a major trans�t �nvestment should not only �mprove trans�t operat�ons, but also �mprove the qual�ty, access�b�l�ty, and attract�veness of the ne�ghborhoods that the trans�t route serves. the project goals were approved by the geary c�t�zen’s adv�sory comm�ttee on june 24, 2004.

Goal1-robustandstableTransitridership.decrease trans�t travel t�mes; �mprove serv�ce rel�ab�l�ty; �mprove �n-veh�cle comfort; �mprove passenger wa�t�ng exper�ence; �mprove the qual�ty and safety of trans�t access for all modes �nclud�ng pedestr�ans and b�cycl�sts; and �ncrease access�b�l�ty for geary ne�ghborhoods.

Goal 2 - Efficient, Effective, and Equitable Transit service. Increase service efficiency and effect�veness through cost effect�ve �mprovements; reduce operator stress; support demand generated by ex�st�ng and planned development; and distribute passenger benefits across all users and tr�p purposes.

Goal 3 - neighborhood livability andCommercial vitality. Support ex�st�ng and planned land use; enhance safety and secur�ty for all travelers and others �n the commun�ty; establ�sh attract�ve trans�t stat�ons that serve act�v�ty nodes; l�nk trans�t routes to the commun�ty through des�gn treatments; reduce em�ss�ons relat�ve to no-project cond�t�ons; m�n�m�ze negat�ve �mpacts of the project on local res�dents and bus�nesses.

Goal 4 - Transit priority network systemDevelopment. Establ�sh an �dent�ty that enhances the �mage of trans�t on geary; �ntegrate the geary corr�dor �nto the c�tyw�de rap�d trans�t system; prov�de clear, understandable, and access�ble passenger �nformat�on; apply and advance brt technology; �mprove connect�v�ty between the geary corr�dor and the local and reg�onal trans�t network; create a sense of permanence that inspires confidence in long-term investment; and serve as a model for brt appl�cat�ons �n other urban areas.


Geary BRT Study

3.3 DesIGnprInCIplesanDGuIDelInes

the Study team developed a ser�es of pr�nc�ples and related gu�del�nes to help shape the conceptual des�gns and serv�ce plans that were evaluated �n th�s Study. the geary “des�gn Pr�nc�ples and gu�del�nes” are cons�stent w�th the project goals and are �ntended to art�culate the des�gn pr�or�t�es that should be addressed by all alternat�ves. in some cases, the gu�del�nes also art�culate m�n�mum des�gn standards (e.g., m�n�mum lane w�dth). the geary c�t�zen’s Advisory Committee reviewed and modified the des�gn pr�nc�ples and gu�del�nes before approv�ng them �n december 2005.

the brt pr�nc�ples and gu�del�nes also bu�ld on ex�st�ng pol�c�es and standards (e.g., m�n�mum platform w�dth); however, there were several �nstances where new pr�nc�ples and gu�del�nes needed to be developed. these brt des�gn pr�nc�ples and gu�del�nes w�ll l�kely evolve over t�me, as the c�ty works to cod�fy c�tyw�de, mult�-modal des�gn standards. for example, the c�ty �s currently develop�ng a Streetscape master Plan and Pedestr�an master Plan, wh�ch w�ll establ�sh standards for elements l�ke street des�gn, landscap�ng, and pedestr�an amen�t�es.

the des�gn pr�nc�ples and gu�del�nes address a w�de var�ety of �ssues and have been organ�zed �nto seven overall categor�es. a br�ef summary of the pr�nc�ples and gu�del�nes �s prov�ded below. the full set of pr�nc�ples and gu�del�nes follows.

Buswayandstationdesign. the busway and stat�ons of the brt system must max�m�ze transit efficiency for both boarding and operat�ons. Passenger safety, conven�ence, and comfort must be pr�or�t�zed �n des�gn�ng bus stop access, transfers w�th other l�nes, and stat�on platforms. Stat�ons must enhance and not d�sadvantage local bus�nesses and the des�gn of the busway and stat�ons must not preclude future development of l�ght ra�l.

Identity. the des�gn features on geary should be cons�stent along the ent�re corr�dor wh�le also captur�ng opportun�t�es to h�ghl�ght un�que ne�ghborhoods on the corr�dor. des�gn of features on geary must be d�st�nct�ve to h�ghl�ght the prom�nence of both geary’s significant role in the City’s transportation network and the h�gher serv�ce prov�ded by brt. these pr�nc�ples may need to be updated based on the San franc�sco better Streets Plan currently underway.

•

•

service planning. Serv�ce standards must be developed for th�s new mode, wh�ch are cons�stent overall w�th mun� l�ght ra�l serv�ce standards, e.g. passenger loads of no more than 80, and stop spac�ng of about ½ m�le for brt and 800-1000 feet for local. travel t�me sav�ngs must be re-�nvested �nto �mproved serv�ce for brt wh�le a m�n�mum level of local serv�ce �s also ma�nta�ned.

signals. Traffic signals must both minimize delay for trans�t and accommodate safe pedestr�an access, and trans�t stops should be on the fars�de of the �ntersect�on when poss�ble to take advantage of s�gnal pr�or�ty. any left turn consol�dat�on must balance trans�t and pedestrian benefits with motorist needs.

sustainableDesign. Storm water management, e.g. permeable surfaces and low water landscap�ng, �s of part�cular �mportance �n the des�gn of geary because �t �s low-ly�ng relat�ve to surround�ng streets. brt des�gn should also favor procurement of solar powered equ�pment, new cleaner and qu�eter veh�cles, and recycled roadway mater�als. these pr�nc�ples may need to be updated based on the San franc�sco better Streets Plan currently underway.

neighborhood access. brt des�gns must max�m�ze �ntegrat�on w�th surround�ng land uses and access to adjacent propert�es, as well as ma�nta�n total on-street park�ng supply, and accommodate safe auto and b�cycle c�rculat�on.

pedestrian environment. brt des�gns must include features to maximize efficiency, ease, and safety for pedestr�ans �n terms of pedestr�an c�rculat�on, access to trans�t stops, and street cross�ngs. S�dewalk des�gn, street furn�ture, landscap�ng, and l�ght�ng must enhance the pedestr�an exper�ence. these pr�nc�ples w�ll need to be updated based on the San franc�sco better Streets Plan currently underway.

these capture the full range of concerns and pr�or�t�es of the gcac and Study team and can cont�nue to �nform the des�gn process, however they will likely be further refined and developed as future stages of th�s project take shape.

the “des�gn Pr�nc�ples and gu�del�nes,” adopted by the geary c�t�zen’s adv�sory comm�ttee �n december 2005, are deta�led on the follow�ng pages.

•

•

•

•

•

3-6


BuswayandstationDesign

Facilitate efficient transit loading and unload�ng

include proof of payment, brt veh�cles (low floor, multi-door, wide door), ticket vending mach�nes

Separate transit and motor vehicle traffic

des�gn ded�cated bus lane to be self enforc�ng (e.g., colored pavement, �sland separat�on, rumble str�ps, etc.)

accommodate rap�d trans�t serv�ces, �nclud�ng mun� and ggt, �n the ded�cated bus lane

Platform des�gns should accommodate safe access and efficient operations, and accommodate current and future demand

m�n�mum platform w�dth = 8ft

Platform length based on expected veh�cles (e.g., 150 ft to edge of crosswalk for two art�culated buses or 2 car lrt tra�n)

fac�l�tate conven�ent transfers

m�n�m�ze walk�ng d�stances and street cross�ngs between connect�ng trans�t routes (�nclud�ng bart/mun� metro stat�on entrances)

Provide wayfinding information

Serve all transfer po�nts

Phys�cal des�gns and support�ng �nfrastructure should be eas�ly ma�nta�nable

center busway des�gns must accommodate lrt operat�ons (ra�l-ready), as well as mun� and ggt veh�cles

Preferred m�n�mum lane w�dth �s 12 ft; 11.5 ft �s acceptable where r�ght-of-way �s constra�ned

accommodate m�n�mum turn�ng rad�� of 80 ft, except�ons can be made at term�nals

max�mum grade of 6 percent

S�te bus stat�ons �n locat�ons that could expand to a three car platform (240 ft)

curbs�de bus stops should leave adequate room for bus�nesses and pedestr�an shoppers

brt stat�ons and local bus stops should:

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Support the patrons’ sense of secur�ty w�th appropr�ate v�s�b�l�ty (e.g., clear s�ghtl�nes to approach�ng buses) and l�ght�ng

Prov�de adequate weather protect�on and comfortable seat�ng, �nclude space for wheelcha�r users �n the protected area

Prov�de clear s�gns, maps and real-t�me �nformat�on systems that est�mate when the next bus w�ll arr�ve

cons�der the needs of people w�th low v�s�on and wheelcha�r users �n des�gn and placement of passenger �nformat�on

Prov�de culturally and l�ngu�st�cally specific signage (e.g., information in japanese �n japantown)

Prov�de secure storage and fac�l�t�es for b�cycle access to key bus stops (brt stops only)

Identity

Prov�de an urban des�gn treatment that �s appropr�ate to the scale and prom�nence of geary (and o’farrell) as one of the c�ty’s great streets

the most v�s�ble elements – streetl�ghts, street trees, traffic signal mast-arms and signs – should have a cons�stent character, des�gn and scale that d�st�ngu�sh the corr�dor wh�le leaving opportunities to reflect neighborhoods through wh�ch the corr�dor passes

des�gn themes west of van ness should be carr�ed through on geary/o’farrell east of van ness

brt stops should have an upgraded des�gn, as compared to standard mun� stops, appropr�ate to the h�gher level of serv�ce prov�ded

brt system should be eas�ly recogn�zable as prem�um serv�ce and be �ntegrated �nto mun� rap�d System

integrate maps w�th mun� metro and bart, des�gn h�gh qual�ty stat�ons, use colored pavement, d�st�ngu�sh veh�cles, etc.

serviceplanning

brt span of serv�ce and max�mum headway should be cons�stent w�th mun� l�ght ra�l serv�ce (e.g., l-taraval)

•

•

•

•

•


Geary BRT Study

ma�nta�n a m�n�mum level of local serv�ce

average passenger loads at the max�mum load po�nt should not exceed 80 passengers

re�nvest travel t�me sav�ngs back �nto trans�t serv�ce

Stop spac�ng

Preferred brt stop spac�ng �s ½ m�le; however, stop placement should also cons�der transfer po�nts, key land uses, and grades

local stop spac�ng on average should be between 800 and 1000 feet. Stop placement should also cons�der transfer po�nts, key land uses, grade and access�b�l�ty for wheelcha�r users and sen�ors

signals

m�n�m�ze s�gnal delay for trans�t subject to constra�nts

basel�ne should allow trans�t to rece�ve green at least 50 percent of the t�me

accommodate safe pedestr�an access

ma�nta�n or �mprove the pedestr�an cross�ng speed

trans�t s�gnal pr�or�ty shall not cut off pedestr�an phases

avo�d manually actuated pedestr�an cycles, except at �ntersect�ons w�th low pedestr�an volumes

include pedestr�an count down s�gnals as part of s�gnal upgrades

consol�date left turns to promote safety and comfort for pedestr�ans and trans�t r�ders

Maintain sufficient turning opportunities for motor�sts

avo�d left turns at brt stops

center runn�ng alternat�ves requ�re protected lefts

fars�de stops preferred at s�gnal�zed �ntersect�ons

sustainableDesign

max�m�ze permeable surfaces

invest �n low-water landscap�ng

Purchase solar-powered equ�pment (�f cost effect�ve)

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

invest �n new veh�cles that m�n�m�ze a�r and no�se pollut�on

ident�fy opportun�t�es to �ncorporate recycled roadway materials into final designs

neighborhoodaccess

des�gn brt system to eas�ly �ntegrate w�th future potent�al land uses at major act�v�ty nodes

accommodate access to adjacent propert�es by res�dents, customers and del�ver�es

Prov�de for commerc�al load�ng/unload�ng

ma�nta�n access to curb cuts

ma�nta�n on-street park�ng

Park�ng lane m�n�mum of 8 ft

Seek opportun�t�es to replace park�ng on s�de streets and off-street

accommodate safe auto c�rculat�on

m�n�mum auto w�dth – 10 ft

m�n�mum left turn pocket – 9.5 ft

m�n�mum r�ght turn pocket – 9.5 ft

accommodate safe b�cycle access

pedestrianenvironment

Provide for efficient pedestrian circulation

avo�d overpasses as the only cross�ng alternat�ve

do not restr�ct pedestr�an cross�ngs at one leg of an �ntersect�on

Paths of travel should be the same for the able-bod�ed as for those w�th mob�l�ty �mpa�rments

Provide safe and efficient pedestrian access to trans�t stops

h�ghly v�s�ble crosswalks at all brt stops, stop bars, countdown s�gnals, access�ble curb ramps

buffer pedestr�ans from motor veh�cle and bus traffic with parallel parking, landscap�ng or other buffer treatments

cons�der pedestr�an cond�t�ons on cross streets

m�n�m�ze cross�ng d�stances w�th curb extens�ons, �slands, med�ans

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

3-8


allow a max�mum of four lanes between pedestr�an refuges

Pedestr�an �slands should be a m�n�mum of 6 ft w�de and extend through the crosswalk

to allow needed space for b�cycl�sts at �ntersect�ons, curb extens�ons should not extend across the full park�ng lane (6 ft preferred for 8 ft park�ng lane)

coord�nate the placement and des�gn of newspaper racks, ut�l�ty boxes, s�gnage and other street furn�ture to prov�de adequate pedestr�an space and reduce v�sual clutter

Prov�de landscap�ng that enhances the pedestr�an exper�ence w�thout reduc�ng the v�s�b�l�ty of storefronts. Prov�de plant�ng cond�t�ons that allow plant mater�als to thr�ve and allow ease of ma�ntenance

tree canopy should be above store fronts and should not block traffic s�gnals or s�ghtl�nes

Prov�de pedestr�an-scale l�ght�ng

Prov�de appropr�ate �ntens�t�es and coverage of l�ght�ng, but avo�d wasteful over-l�ght�ng and glare

d�scourage jaywalk�ng through des�gn treatments

•

•

•

•

4-1Chapter 4: Alternatives Development

COnTenTs4 altErnativES dEvEloPmEnt ......... 4-1

4.1 introduction .................................. 4-1

4.2 Summary of altErnativES .................. 4-4

4.3 fEaturES common to all altErnativES . 4-5

4.4 baSic tranSit Priority and baSic PluS altErnativES ................................... 4-8

4.5 brt altErnativES ............................. 4-10

4.6 SPEcial locationS: fillmorE and maSonic ...................... 4-19

4.7 rail-rEadinESS ................................ 4-27

ChapTer4:alTernaTIvesDevelOpmenT

GearyCOrrIDOrBrTsTuDy

June 2007

4 alternativesDevelopment

4.1 InTrODuCTIOnbus rap�d trans�t (brt) has been �mplemented �n a number of c�t�es �n north amer�ca. in each implementation, the configuration of the bus rap�d trans�t l�ne and the allocat�on of street right of way to transit, other vehicular traffic and park�ng, are un�que.

th�s chapter descr�bes the features of the five alternative designs for Geary that were developed for th�s Study. three full-featured brt alternat�ves were developed as well as two non-brt, trans�t pr�or�ty opt�ons for future trans�t �mprovements on geary. th�s chapter s�mply descr�bes the alternat�ves; an evaluat�on of how the alternat�ves would perform �s presented �n chapter 5.

the three full-featured brt alternat�ve des�gns would not only �nclude lane and med�an configurations, but would also include a set of comprehens�ve street treatments that commonly

4-2


accompany full-featured brt systems1 �nclud�ng: pedestr�an and streetscape �mprovements and bus stop enhancements. these latter enhancements (pedestr�an, streetscape, etc.) would be common to all brt alternat�ves and would be appl�ed along the ent�re length of geary (from market St. to 48th avenue). new lane and med�an configurations for BRT vary for each alternative and would only be bu�lt between 33rd avenue and van ness avenue.

th�s chapter pr�mar�ly focuses on the lane and median configurations of each alternative because the prototyp�cal des�gns for local stops/stat�ons, as well as the streetscape and pedestr�an �mprovements, were developed as part of the inner geary tPS Project. these �mprovements are summar�zed and �llustrated below (see the d�scuss�on of features common to all brt alternat�ves, Sect�on 4.5).

methodoloGy

implementat�on of major �mprovements �n the geary corr�dor depends on techn�cal mer�t and on commun�ty support. the alternat�ves have been refined based on extensive public involvement. over the course of two years, the Study team worked �terat�vely w�th the gcac to develop the ser�es of conceptual phys�cal des�gns for the alternat�ves and appropr�ate serv�ce plans for each. to beg�n to bu�ld consensus, the Study team worked w�th mult�ple commun�t�es along the geary corr�dor through extens�ve outreach and w�th the help of the geary c�t�zen’s adv�sory comm�ttee (gcac). broader commun�ty �nput �nto the des�gns was prov�ded at numerous commun�ty and stakeholder meet�ngs, at the second round of publ�c workshops �n december 2005, and through an on-l�ne survey focused on the des�gn and evaluat�on of alternat�ves. f�nally each alternat�ve was evaluated by the Study team and results were presented to the publ�c dur�ng the th�rd round of publ�c workshops �n november 2006 and mult�ple commun�ty meet�ngs. Evaluat�on methodology and results are presented �n chapter 5.

at th�s stage these des�gns are conceptual. further analys�s and evaluat�on, along w�th more deta�led des�gn and eng�neer�ng of the preferred alternat�ve(s) would be completed �n conjunct�on w�th the Env�ronmental impact report (Eir) that �s expected to follow th�s study.

� The features common to BRT systems worldwide are described in Chapter �. The features that would be implemented if a Geary BRT project were built are described in this Chapter.


Geary BRT Study

Summary of Alternativesalternative 1: Basic Transit priority �s the basel�ne aga�nst wh�ch all other alternat�ves were evaluated. it descr�bes cond�t�ons �n 2015 w�th no brt �mprovements. it reta�ns serv�ce as �s, but would �nclude bas�c �mprovements that are currently planned for the geary corr�dor (and much of the mun� system) even �f brt �s not bu�lt on geary, �nclud�ng trans�t s�gnal pr�or�ty at many existing signals, low-floor buses, and some real-time information. Alternatives 2-5 �ncorporate all features �n alternat�ve 1, and prov�de add�t�onal features to increase benefits or manage impacts, described below.

alternative 2: Basic plus Transit priority would �nclude the “bas�c trans�t Pr�or�ty” treatments descr�bed �n alternat�ve 1, plus a ded�cated trans�t lane �n the outside traffic lane in the peak direction during the peak period (eastbound 7 am-9 am and westbound 4 pm-7 pm) w�th �ncreased enforcement of the bus lanes. both local and brt veh�cles would operate �n the ded�cated lane. it would �nclude poss�ble stop consol�dat�on, bus management strateg�es, enhanced on-street l�ne management, longer bus stops where needed, and bus bulbs at the bus�est stops.

alternative3:sideBrTwould convert the existing outside traffic lane in each d�rect�on �nto a ded�cated trans�t lane. the ded�cated brt lanes would operate between the parking lane and the two remaining traffic lanes in each direction. both local and brt veh�cles would operate �n the ded�cated lane. non-trans�t veh�cles would be able to cross the bus lane to park or make r�ght turns. brt stat�on platforms would be located on new bus bulb-outs created by extend�ng the s�dewalk �nto the park�ng lane. local buses would cont�nue to pull-�n to the curb for stops, allow�ng brt veh�cles to pass local buses at local stops.

alternative 4: Center lane BrT with 2 medians would convert the center traffic lane in each direction along with the existing median into dedicated transit lanes separated from traffic by two side islands. These islands would serve as bus platforms at bus stops, and landscaped med�ans along the whole corr�dor. th�s landscaped buffer would phys�cally separate all bus and auto movements, minimizing bus and auto conflicts. Local buses could either operate �n the center trans�t lane or at the curb. in the serv�ce plan where local and brt buses both operate �n the center busway, brt buses could pass local buses at local stops by narrow�ng �slands at these locat�ons.

alternative5:CenterlaneBrTwith1median would also convert the center traffic lane in both directions to a dedicated transit lane, but buses would run on e�ther s�de of a s�ngle, shared, w�de center �sland. l�ke alternat�ve 3, th�s alternat�ve would essent�ally preserve the ex�st�ng landscaped med�an along the corr�dor. the �sland would serve as a trans�t platform at bus stops, and wa�t�ng passengers would be buffered from auto traffic by transit lanes. The transit lanes would be phys�cally separated from auto movements through a street treatment (e.g. raised curb), minimizing bus and auto conflicts. Depending on the serv�ce plan, th�s alternat�ve would be operated us�ng new left/r�ght door buses because the center stat�on platform �s located on the left s�de of the bus. an opt�on for brt buses to pass local buses �f both ran �n the center busway has yet to be developed for th�s alternat�ve. however, des�gn of such an opt�on could be explored �n the next stage of study.

4-4


4.2 summaryOFalTernaTIvesThere were five conceptual design alternatives developed by the Study team for geary boulevard between van ness avenue and 33rd avenue. there are two trans�t pr�or�ty alternat�ves: a basel�ne “bas�c trans�t Pr�or�ty” alternat�ve and a “bas�c Plus trans�t Pr�or�ty. there are three full-featured brt alternat�ves: two center-runn�ng des�gns and one s�de-runn�ng des�gn. in the three brt alternat�ves, the new enhanced brt serv�ce would replace current 38l-l�m�ted serv�ce, and

38-local serv�ce would cont�nue to operate. in the two bas�c alternat�ves, the 38-local and the 38l-l�m�ted would cont�nue to operate.

the d�st�ngu�sh�ng features of each of these five alternatives are described on previous page and a chart summar�z�ng all the features of each alternat�ve �s prov�ded �n table 4-1. Each alternat�ve �s fully descr�bed later �n th�s chapter.

Table 4-1 Summary of Features

Feature

alt.1

BasicTransitpriority

alt.2

Basicplus

alt.3

sideBrT

alt.4&5

CenterBrT

trans�t S�gnal Pr�or�ty Some s�gnals Some s�gnals most s�gnals most s�gnals

Low floor buses x x full brt buses full brt buses

real-t�me �nformat�on Some stops Some stops all stops all stops

increased enforcement of bus lanes x x x

longer bus stops (where needed) x x n/a

bus bulbs at l�m�ted stops Some stops x n/a

Potent�al local stop consol�dat�on x few few

ded�cated bus lane Peak hour & d�rect�on all day all day

Proof of payment/ mult�-door board�ng x x

t�cket vend�ng mach�nes at brt stops x x

level board�ng at brt stops x

h�gh qual�ty bus stat�ons x x

Pedestr�an safety & amen�t�es x x

landscap�ng enhancements x x

Expanded hours of brt serv�ce x x


Geary BRT Study

4.3 FeaTuresCOmmOnTOallalTernaTIves

the follow�ng features would be common to at least some degree in all five alternatives as currently conce�ved and evaluated �n th�s Study: transit signal priority, low floor buses, and real-t�me �nformat�on. these are �mprovements that mun� plans to �mplement to some extent throughout �ts system over t�me. the three full-featured brt alternat�ves (alts. 3-5) would accelerate and fully �mplement all of these �mprovements (and �n some cases would ut�l�ze a more soph�st�cated vers�on of technology). the two trans�t pr�or�ty alternat�ves (alts. 1 & 2) would �mplement them select�vely and gradually. th�s �s pr�mar�ly because the comprehens�ve features of a brt system, and the equ�table d�str�but�on of benefits it brings, would have greater potential to leverage significant regional, state, and federal fund�ng for trans�t �mprovements, wh�le other alternat�ves may not be as compet�t�ve for the same breadth or amount of fund�ng.

Transit-signalpriority(Tsp)�s des�gned to address transit delays at signals, which was identified as one of the top three sources of bus delay �n the needs assessment. tSP would essent�ally perm�t buses and traffic signals to communicate so that buses would spend less t�me �dle at red l�ghts. buses would be equ�pped w�th transponders which would send signals to traffic lights allowing for extended green l�ghts to allow buses to pass through or tr�gger�ng a change from red to green for approaching buses if it does not significantly impact crossing traffic. To make optimal use of tSP, trans�t stops/stat�ons should be located at the far s�de of �ntersect�ons so that buses do not have to stop to p�ck up passengers unt�l after they pass through the s�gnal. brt alternat�ves, and poss�bly bas�c Plus, could allow for a more soph�st�cated tSP system (th�s �s descr�bed �n sect�on 4.5 on brt alternat�ves).

A bus communicating with traffic lights through a transit signal priority system

4-6


Low-floor buses would el�m�nate the need for passengers to walk up steps to board veh�cles, and would also el�m�nate the need to deploy wheelcha�r l�fts for d�sabled passengers as the bus floor would be at the same height as the boarding platform. Low-floor buses thereby would provide enhanced access�b�l�ty for all r�ders and would speed the board�ng process. these new buses would also be cleaner and qu�eter than mun�’s existing fleet which would further improve the r�der exper�ence and �mpacts on ne�ghborhoods. An example of low-floor buses, used in the Las vegas brt system, �s shown below.

mun� �s plann�ng to gradually replace the�r entire fleet with low-floor buses. The two Basic alternat�ves (alts. 1 & 2) would ut�l�ze standard low-floor buses. The BRT alternatives (Alts. 3-5) could use standard low-floor buses, but are more l�kely to use full-featured brt buses wh�ch have low-floors and a series of other features descr�bed �n the brt sect�on (Sect�on 4.5).

Low floor buses from a BRT system in Las Vegas, Nevada


Geary BRT Study

real-time information at bus stops �s usually prov�ded through electron�c s�gns that are cont�nuously updated to d�splay when the next bus �s arr�v�ng, such as the nextbus s�gns that mun� currently operates on a few l�nes, �llustrated below. th�s �s one of the most d�rect ways to �mprove the passenger wa�t�ng exper�ence: �t el�m�nates one of the b�ggest frustrat�ons for trans�t r�ders and allows them to have more control over the�r t�me. t�me spent wa�t�ng for the bus often feels longer than t�me spent on the bus. W�th no �nformat�on about how long a wa�t m�ght be, passengers become anx�ous about how long they m�ght be at the stop, and how th�s w�ll �mpact the�r tr�p. accurate, rel�able �nformat�on on when the bus w�ll arr�ve at bus stops was one of the three h�ghest pr�or�ty trans�t �mprovements identified in the recent transit-rider survey on geary.

nextmun� �nformat�on for the n-judah

4-8


4.4 BasICTransITprIOrITyanDBasICplusalTernaTIves

alternative 1: Basic transit Priority

in order to evaluate alternat�ves effect�vely, �t �s �mportant to measure the alternat�ves aga�nst a “basel�ne” that represents the qual�ty of serv�ce that �s expected to operate �n the corr�dor �n the event the project is not implemented. It reflects cond�t�ons that are expected �n the corr�dor by the year of �mplementat�on. th�s “basel�ne” funct�ons somewhat l�ke the “control” group �n a scientific experiment.2

geary brt, �f �mplemented, �s expected to be operat�onal by 2015 at the latest. W�th�n th�s t�meframe, even �f the c�ty dec�des not to �mplement brt, the three �mprovements descr�bed above: trans�t s�gnal pr�or�ty at some signals, low-floor buses, and real-time �nformat�on at some bus stops, are planned for �mplementat�on on geary.

the bas�c trans�t Pr�or�ty alternat�ve (alt. 1) �ncludes the recently completed �mprovements downtown and �n the tenderlo�n that were �mplemented as part of the inner geary tPS Project, �nclud�ng reallocat�ng and re-str�p�ng ex�st�ng ded�cated trans�t lanes, bus bulbs at l�m�ted stops, and some local bus stop consol�dat�on. th�s alternat�ve assumes the ex�st�ng placement of standard mun� bus stops west of van ness avenue.

the basel�ne alternat�ve (alt. 1) �solates the incremental benefits of the improvements that mun� has already planned for the corr�dor from any potent�al brt �nvestment, allow�ng the evaluation to show the true benefits and impacts of brt.

alternative 2: Basic Plus transit Priority

alternat�ve 2 was added to the analys�s at the request of commun�ty stakeholders who were �nterested �n analyz�ng add�t�onal trans�t pr�or�ty treatments short of a full-featured brt l�ne. th�s alternat�ve a�ms to m�n�m�ze construct�on �mpacts. bas�c Plus would �nclude the common elements descr�bed above, plus the follow�ng:

adedicatedbuslaneinthepeakperiod,peakdirection(eastbound 7 am - 9 am; westbound 4 pm - 7 pm) would prov�de faster and more

� This is often called the “no project” alternative, however this technical term was not well received by the community and the Study Team determined that it was not appropriate for the high level of community outreach or high level of investment that this project entails. Therefore, the name “basic transit priority” was adopted to better describe the alternative.

•

rel�able serv�ce �n one d�rect�on operat�ng only �n the morn�ng and even�ng commute t�mes. the outs�de lane would be closed to mixed traffic during peak periods. The lane would be identified with signage, but would not have pavement mark�ngs, s�nce �t would not be an all-day treatment. Wh�le th�s lane would prov�de some travel t�me �mprovements for commuters travel�ng �n the peak d�rect�on dur�ng the peak per�od, �t �s �mportant to note that the recent survey of trans�t r�ders on Geary found that only 20-25% of riders take the bus dur�ng peak commute t�mes. there �s h�gh demand for serv�ce on geary throughout the weekday and on weekends wh�ch would be unaffected by th�s lane des�gnat�on.

Increasedenforcementofbuslanes wh�ch �s �ntended to �mprove the funct�onal�ty of th�s peak-per�od, bus-only lane. Such enforcement m�ght �nclude add�t�onal park�ng control officers (PCOs) and other strategic methods of keep�ng bus lanes clear of obstruct�ons or delays.

possible bus stop removal or consolidation wh�ch would �mprove trans�t t�mes by l�m�t�ng the number of stops a bus has to make. Specific stops have not been identified for elimination. desp�te an open letter that the Study team rece�ved call�ng for stop consol�dat�on, th�s Study’s analysis of stops along Geary identified few local stops and no l�m�ted stops that would be cand�dates for removal. opportun�t�es for consol�dat�on are l�m�ted by mun�’s stop spac�ng gu�del�nes, the geary brt des�gn pr�nc�ples and gu�del�nes, and the numerous transfer po�nts along the route.

Busmanagementstrategies such as:

avl(automated veh�cle locat�ons) us�nggPS (global pos�t�on�ng systems), wh�ch would allow mun�’s central control to know where all buses are located on the l�ne, prov�de enhanced opportun�t�es for l�ne management, and �mprove rel�ab�l�ty.3

Increased number of street supervisorswho would work to �mprove rel�ab�l�ty through on-street l�ne management. Street superv�sors actually work on the street to observe bus operat�ons, and can “re-space” buses to reduce bunch�ng and keep the l�ne operat�ng effect�vely �n the case of a serv�ce

� Muni is developing a number of technological enhancements that should aid in line management (managing how buses operate on the street). A new radio system would enable Central Control and Line Managers to be able to communicate with vehicle opera-tors in real-time. Until this technology is fully available, the Next-Bus system will provide a level of information that should improve Muni’s ability to manage the system.

•

•

•


Geary BRT Study

d�srupt�on. they are espec�ally �mportant �n help�ng serv�ce recover from unusual incidents such as vehicle breakdowns, traffic acc�dents, or other �nc�dents that �mpact the flow of buses on the line.

longer bus stops (where needed) would g�ve buses more room to maneuver, allow 2 buses (e.g. a local and l�m�ted bus or buses from mult�ple l�nes) to serv�ce the same stop concurrently, and prov�de a more comfortable wa�t�ng area for passengers. lengthen�ng bus stops would requ�re some park�ng removal.

Bus bulbs (at busy stops) would extend the s�dewalk �nto the park�ng lane at bus stops,

•

•

as �llustrated below. th�s would el�m�nate the need for buses to pull �nto the park�ng lane to reach the curb and then re-enter traffic, which �s currently a cause of bus delay. bus bulb-outs would also �mprove the passenger r�d�ng exper�ence by el�m�nat�ng the mot�on caused by buses weav�ng �nto and out of the park�ng lane.

the more soph�st�cated form of trans�t S�gnal Pr�or�ty used for the brt alternat�ves, descr�bed �n Sect�on 4.5, would also be a poss�b�l�ty for th�s alternat�ve.

a bus bulb-out on geary bu�lt as part of the inner geary tPS Project

4-10


4.5 BrTalTernaTIvesas prev�ously ment�oned, the three brt alternat�ves would �nclude full �mplementat�on of the common elements w�th a more soph�st�cated vers�on of technology �n some cases, descr�bed below. they would also �nclude some of the �mprovements of the bas�c Plus alternat�ve, l�ke �ncreased enforcement of bus lanes. however they would go far beyond the features of the trans�t pr�or�ty alternat�ves (alts. 1 & 2) to prov�de a significantly faster, more reliable, and more comfortable trans�t serv�ce than what ex�sts on mun�’s routes today. add�t�onal features would �nclude: an all-day, ded�cated trans�t lane �n both d�rect�ons of travel; h�gh qual�ty bus “stat�ons” w�th substant�al add�t�onal stop amen�t�es; and �mplementat�on of other techn�ques that are des�gned to reduce travel t�mes and �mprove bus speeds. in these full-featured brt alternat�ves, current 38l-l�m�ted serv�ce would be replaced by the new, enhanced brt serv�ce. 38-local buses would cont�nue to operate.

the brt alternat�ves (alts. 3-5) would prov�de a un�que opportun�ty to enhance serv�ce levels �n the corr�dor w�th l�ttle to no �ncrease �n operat�ng costs. brt would reduce trans�t travel t�mes and these sav�ngs could be re�nvested �n the serv�ce to allow for extended hours and/or greater frequenc�es. the “cycle t�me,” �s the t�me �t takes to complete one full route loop (�nbound and outbound) �nclud�ng t�me for the dr�ver to take a break. if a bus “cycle t�me” �s one hour, and the bus �s scheduled to operate every 15 m�nutes, then 4 buses are needed to meet th�s scheduled headway. if bus “cycle t�me” �s reduced by 15 m�nutes then only 3 buses are needed to run at the same frequency, wh�ch frees up one bus that can be reallocated to prov�de more frequent serv�ce, or serv�ce at d�fferent t�mes of day. at Study workshops, more frequent serv�ce and extended hours of serv�ce for the 38l-l�m�ted were commonly requested by the trans�t r�ders.

features common to all Brt alternatives

FeaturesDevelopedDuringtheInnerGearyTpsproject

High Quality Bus Stations With Real-time Information

the env�ronment �n wh�ch passengers must wa�t for the bus �s as �mportant as the exper�ence on the bus, often more so, and has real �mpacts on attract�ng and reta�n�ng r�ders. because the brt l�ne would have fewer stops than the local route (s�m�lar to current mun� l�m�ted serv�ce), the �nvestment �n �nfrastructure could be concentrated to offer h�gh qual�ty “stat�ons” that would be s�m�lar �n exper�ence to l�ght ra�l stat�ons. Stat�ons would be des�gned to convey a un�form �mage and un�que brand for the brt system wh�le also h�ghl�ght�ng d�st�nct�ve features of the surround�ng ne�ghborhood.

all brt alternat�ves would have h�gh qual�ty bus stat�ons at brt stops on along the corr�dor from market to 48th avenue. local stops would also be �mproved, but would have fewer amen�t�es. the prototyp�cal stop des�gns for both local and brt bus stops were developed as part of the inner geary tPS Project, and are �llustrated below. the brt stops would �nclude all the follow�ng features:

full shelters

Seat�ng

l�ght�ng

maps

b�cycle racks

landscap�ng

real-t�me informat�on

advert�s�ng (for ma�ntenance)

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•


Geary BRT Study

Prototyp�cal stop des�gn, developed as part of inner geary tPS Project

Pedestrian Safety And Landscaping Improvements

bus rap�d trans�t �n San franc�sco would not only be a cost effect�ve way to �mprove trans�t cond�t�ons on geary, but would also enhance the corr�dor for all users, mak�ng geary boulevard a more �nv�t�ng place to l�ve, work, shop, and d�ne. Each full-featured brt alternat�ve would �nclude an equal level of �nvestment �n the streetscape as well as amen�t�es for pedestr�ans and cycl�sts to prov�de a safer and more pleasant walk�ng env�ronment over the whole corr�dor. the prototyp�cal pedestr�an and streetscape �mprovements were also developed as part of the inner geary tPS Project. Proposed pedestr�an �mprovements for all three brt alternat�ves �nclude:

W�der s�dewalks �n some locat�ons

med�an caps

Pedestr�an countdown s�gnals

landscap�ng on s�dewalks and med�ans

Way-finding signage

corner curb extens�ons

more prom�nent crosswalks

curb extens�ons would extend the s�dewalk �nto the park�ng lane at �ntersect�ons to reduce total cross�ng d�stances for pedestr�ans. med�an caps

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

would extend med�ans through crosswalks to prov�de a m�d-street refuge for pedestr�ans �n the event they do not make �t across the ent�re street before the s�gnal changes. these �mprovements would also �ncrease pedestr�an v�s�b�l�ty. corner curb extens�ons would not be poss�ble at curbs�de local bus stops or where r�ght-turn pockets would be created.

These significant investments in the pedestrian and streetscape realms are l�nked most strongly to the brt alternat�ves because �mplementat�on of a BRT system specifically, rather than general transit �mprovements, would be far more compet�t�ve for current and foreseeable local, state and federal fund�ng opportun�t�es.

This significant investment in landscaping and pedestr�an safety doveta�ls w�th other major c�tyw�de efforts wh�ch all a�m to make San franc�sco a place character�zed by “great streets”: the mayor’s green�ng program and the better Streets Plan (�ncludes the Pedestr�an master Plan and the Streetscape master Plan). Synerg�es between these projects should enhance resources ava�lable for pedestr�an and streetscape �mprovements �n the full-featured brt alternat�ves.

4-12


Prototyp�cal streetscape and pedestr�an �mprovements, developed as part of inner geary tPS Project

all-DayDedicatedTransitlane

all brt alternat�ves would �nclude an all-day ded�cated lane for buses. a trans�t only lane �s one of the most effect�ve ways to �mprove bus speeds, reduce travel t�mes, and �mprove serv�ce rel�ab�l�ty, because �t removes the uncerta�nty and delay resulting from operating in mixed traffic. In add�t�on, th�s was one of the three h�ghest pr�or�ty trans�t �mprovements requested �n a recent survey of trans�t r�ders on geary.

all full-featured brt alternat�ves would result in two mixed-traffic lanes and one dedicated trans�t-lane �n each d�rect�on on geary w�th�n the Study area. East of Park Pres�d�o, all three BRT alternatives would convert one mixed-traffic

lane �nto a ded�cated trans�t lane. West of Park Pres�d�o, areas that currently have d�agonal park�ng would be replaced w�th parallel park�ng, prov�d�ng enough space to create a trans�t lane w�thout reducing the number of mixed-traffic lanes. The trans�t-only lane �s proposed to have both “bus-only” mark�ngs and s�gnage, as well as colored pavement to prov�de d�st�nct�ve brand�ng for the brt system. in the S�de brt alternat�ve (alt. 3), these d�st�nct�ve lane mark�ngs would also serve to discourage mixed traffic from entering the bus lane. an example of lane treatments, from a brt system �n rouen, france, �s shown below.

colored lanes of a brt l�ne �n rouen, france


Geary BRT Study

proofOfpaymentWithmulti-doorBoarding

the t�me requ�red for board�ng and al�ght�ng �s the second largest source of trans�t delay on the geary corr�dor today. in add�t�on to the advantages of new low-floor buses discussed above, a “proof-of-payment” fare collect�on system could significantly speed up transit service by making the boarding process more efficient. th�s system would allow passengers to board at all doors prov�ded they have “proof” that they have pa�d a fare. once on the bus, t�ckets or monthly passes could be shown when proof of payment �s requested by �nspectors who would randomly check brt veh�cles. allow�ng passengers to use all doors to enter and ex�t the veh�cle would substant�ally reduce the t�me requ�red for board�ng and al�ght�ng at trans�t stops, and should rel�eve some of the crowd�ng problem by allow�ng r�ders to d�str�bute themselves evenly �n the veh�cle.

Ticketvendingmachinesatstationplatforms

allow�ng passengers to pay before board�ng the veh�cle at easy-to-use, conven�ent paystat�ons on the stat�on platform would both speed up board�ng and �mprove passenger conven�ence. th�s, comb�ned w�th mult�-door board�ng and a proof-of-payment system, would el�m�nate the need for the bus to wa�t wh�le all passengers pay at the front door, removing a significant factor �n veh�cle delay. it would also �mprove the r�der exper�ence by allow�ng for a w�der var�ety of payment opt�ons �nclud�ng cash, transl�nk cards,4 and, poss�bly cred�t or deb�t cards as well, depend�ng on the technology.

moresophisticatedTransitsignalpriority

the fund�ng ava�lable to bus rap�d trans�t would allow for an �ncremental �nvestment �n trans�t s�gnal pr�or�ty (tSP), �nclud�ng �nterconnect�ng the s�gnals so that a group of �ntersect�ons could funct�on as part of a cont�nuous system. Whereas bas�c tSP just enables a bus to commun�cate w�th

4 TransLink is a universal electronic transit payment system that is currently being rolled out for many Bay Area transit operators. A Translink card stores “electronic cash” that can be used to pay the fare on many different transit systems. It significantly improves rider convenience by eliminating the need to carry multiple transit passes or exact change for fare payment. To pay a fare, a transit rider simply touches the card to a card reader installed on a bus, a station platform, or the entrance to a transit station/terminal, and the card reader deducts the correct fare, applies appropriate discounts and transfers. It is re-loadable, so a rider can add value at a machine or sign up for an automatic re-load program to ensure the card always has adequate funds. TransLink has been developed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), AC Transit, BART, Caltrain, Golden Gate Transit, Muni, SamTrans, Santa Clara VTA and other Bay Area transit agencies, and is currently opera-tional on all AC Transit and Dumbarton Express buses and all Golden Gate Transit and Ferry routes. More information can be found at http://www.transl�nk.org

the next s�gnal, th�s enhanced tSP would allow a traffic signal up to four intersections ahead of an approach�ng bus to acknowledge an approach�ng bus and make adjustments to speed trans�t flow without creating additional delay for other users. th�s �nterconnected system would allow adjustments l�ke sk�pp�ng a left turn phase to hold a green l�ght for an approach�ng bus depend�ng on volumes and recovery t�me. Wh�le these systems are very soph�st�cated, they are also des�gned for safety. in no case would the s�gnal pr�or�ty be set to preempt a red l�ght, and pedestr�ans would always be allowed sufficient time to safely complete the�r cross�ng.5 more deta�led study can be pursued �n a subsequent phase of work to determ�ne opportun�t�es for more advanced trans�t s�gnal pr�or�ty for alternat�ve 2 as well.

reinvestmentofTravelTimesavingsintomoreBrTservice

by reduc�ng travel t�mes, th�s package of brt �mprovements could prov�de enough operat�ng cost sav�ngs to enable mun� to �ncrease serv�ce and expand the serv�ce hours for the brt serv�ce �nto the n�ght to match the l�ght ra�l system. 6 Expand�ng the brt serv�ce to �nclude even�ngs and Sundays was among the three h�ghest priority improvements identified during the recent r�der survey. furthermore, �t �s expected that just �n order to ma�nta�n current r�dersh�p levels and levels of serv�ce �n future years w�ll requ�re h�gher operat�ng costs. the operat�ng efficiencies inherent to BRT service could allow for �ncreased serv�ce and �ncreased r�dersh�p for the same (or m�nor �ncrease �n ) �nvestment �n operat�ng costs, a much more susta�nable serv�ce �n the long run.

BrTvehicles

the brt alternat�ves (alternat�ves 3-5) would likely not use standard low-floor buses, but full-featured brt veh�cles wh�ch could also have w�der doors; potent�ally more doors; doors for board�ng on both the left and r�ght s�de of the bus7; and h�gher qual�ty passenger amen�t�es w�th�n the bus, as well as un�que brand�ng to d�st�ngu�sh the h�gher level of serv�ce.

5 In the Center BRT alternative with � median (Alt. 5), the ideal design is to have combined platforms for both directions of travel. However, this would require service in one direction to have near-side stops which would limit the effectiveness of TSP. A solution that meets these competing needs can be addressed in the next phase of study.6 Both more frequent headways and longer service hours were modeled in the alternatives evaluation (see Chapter 5).7 Boarding on both sides of the vehicle, similar to boarding in light rail vehicles, is necessary for Center BRT with a single center boarding island.

4-14


leftTurns

all brt alternat�ves would consol�date left turns for the 4 m�les between van ness avenue and 33rd Avenue in order to reduce conflicts with pedestr�ans. there are 61 total �ntersect�ons �n the corr�dor. brt alternat�ves would reduce the number of �ntersect�ons where left turns are perm�tted from 24 �n both d�rect�ons (alt. 1 basel�ne cond�t�ons) to 13-16 �n each d�rect�on depend�ng on the alternat�ve. for example, between arguello Street and 4th avenue there are 2 opportun�t�es to turn left �n the basel�ne, whereas under the brt alternat�ves there would only be one opportun�ty to make a left turn. all left turns would have a ded�cated left turn s�gnal phase and left turn pocket to max�m�ze the effect�veness of left turn locat�ons.

numberandlocationofstationstops

all brt alternat�ves were assumed to share the same number and locat�on of trans�t stat�on platforms. the brt stops were generally assumed to be at the locat�ons of current 38-l l�m�ted stops. th�s �s �n l�ne w�th most brt systems �n north amer�ca wh�ch typ�cally have stops that are at least 1,200 feet apart. for the most part, current local stops between van ness and 33rd are w�th�n mun� standards and would therefore be ma�nta�ned. Poss�ble stop consol�dat�on could be analyzed �n the next stage of study to br�ng all local stops w�th�n mun� stop gu�del�nes.

OtherTransitOperators

golden gate trans�t (ggt) operates serv�ce along geary boulevard, averag�ng approx�mately one bus per hour dur�ng the day (ggt route #10). all of the brt alternat�ves are des�gned to accommodate ggt serv�ce �n the ded�cated trans�t lanes. S�de brt and center brt w�th 2 med�ans (alts. 3 & 4) would not requ�re golden gate trans�t to acqu�re any new veh�cles, whereas center brt w�th 1 med�an (alt. 5) would requ�re both mun� and ggt serv�ces to operate w�th new buses that have doors on both s�des.

alternative 3: side Brt S�de brt (alt. 3), would convert the outs�de traffic lane in each direction to a dedicated trans�t lane. the bus would operate between the parallel park�ng lane and the two rema�n�ng mixed-flow traffic lanes. Figure 4-1 shows a plan v�ew draw�ng (from above) and a typ�cal cross sect�on of S�de brt.

the element that most d�st�ngu�shes S�de brt from the other two brt alternat�ves �s the fact

that a r�ght-s�de trans�t lane cannot be phys�cally separated from other traffic because mixed traffic must be able to cross the lane in order to park and make r�ght turns. bus operat�ons would be slowed by park�ng and turn�ng movements, as well as double-park�ng �n the bus lane, reduc�ng the benefits of the dedicated transit lane. In add�t�on, because there �s no phys�cal separat�on between trans�t veh�cles and pr�vate veh�cles, �t would be eas�er (than alts 4 and 5) for autos to dr�ve �n the trans�t-only lane �n v�olat�on of the “buS only” des�gnat�on (when the lane �s phys�cally separated v�olat�ons of th�s sort are difficult to impossible). Side BRT would essent�ally ma�nta�n the ex�st�ng med�an, except where med�an caps and left turn pockets would be added.

stations

all brt trans�t stat�on platforms would be located on bus bulbs that would be created by extend�ng the s�dewalk �nto the bus zone/park�ng lane. th�s would allow for an enhanced passenger wa�t�ng area, more pedestr�an amen�t�es, and shorter pedestr�an cross�ng d�stances. it would also el�m�nate the need for the bus to pull �nto and out of the curb lane for �ts stops (one of the sources of bus delay).

serviceplan

in th�s alternat�ve both the 38-local and brt buses would operate �n the s�de-lane. brt veh�cles would be able to pass 38-local buses at local-only stops because local stops would not have bus bulb-outs: when local buses pull �nto the bus zone to p�ck up passengers, the brt buses would be able to pass �n the bus lane.


Geary BRT Study

Curbside BRT

f�gure 4-1 alternat�ve 3: S�de brt

4-16


alternative 4: center Brt with 2 medians

center brt w�th 2 med�ans (alt. 4), would convert the existing center traffic lane in each d�rect�on and the ex�st�ng center med�an �nto dedicated transit lanes separated from traffic by two s�de �slands. f�gure 4-2 shows a plan v�ew draw�ng (from above) and a typ�cal cross sect�on of center brt w�th 2 med�ans.

stations

trans�t stat�ons would be located on the s�de �slands, wh�ch would also serve as landscaped med�ans between bus stops. these �slands would phys�cally separate the buses runn�ng �n the middle lanes from auto traffic. Medians would be narrowed to allow for left turn pockets.

serviceplan

there were two serv�ce plans cons�dered for th�s alternat�ve, each of wh�ch would have d�fferent �mpacts on the roadway and park�ng supply. in the first alternative both Local and BRT buses

would operate �n the center busway. by narrow�ng the �slands at local stops only, there would be room for an add�t�onal lane wh�ch would allow brt buses to pass local buses. in th�s serv�ce alternat�ve, ex�st�ng curbs�de bus stops could be replaced w�th on-street park�ng.

the second serv�ce plan that was cons�dered was one where the local bus would rema�n at the curb and only the brt buses would run �n the center busway. th�s would el�m�nate the need for a pass�ng lane, but would also el�m�nate any park�ng ga�ns. it would also re-�ntroduce the d�sadvantages to both autos and local buses resulting from operating in mixed-traffic; with th�s serv�ce plan alternat�ve, the travel t�me sav�ngs ga�ned by operat�ng �n the center trans�t lane would accrue only to brt buses. the extent of these �mpacts would depend on the frequency of local serv�ce and �s further d�scussed �n chapter 5.

Center Lane BRT, Side Platform

f�gure 4-2 alternat�ve 4: center brt w�th 2 med�ans


Geary BRT Study

alternative 5: center Brt with 1 median

center brt w�th 1 med�an (alt. 5), would convert the center traffic lane in each direction to a ded�cated trans�t lane wh�ch would run on e�ther s�de of a shared center �sland. f�gure 4-3 shows a plan v�ew draw�ng (from above) and a typ�cal cross sect�on of alternat�ve 5.

Center Lane BRT, Center Platform

f�gure 4-3 alternat�ve 5: center brt w�th 1 med�an

4-18


In this configuration bus and auto movements would be completely separated, offer�ng max�mum trans�t travel t�me sav�ngs and also eliminating bus conflicts for autos. However unl�ke center brt w�th 2 med�ans (alt. 4), the lack of s�de �slands to “buffer” the trans�t lane from auto traffic would necessitate some type of spec�al treatment to keep dr�vers out of the bus lane. th�s treatment could be a ra�sed curb between the busway and auto lanes or ra�sed pavement that d�scourages cars from enter�ng the busway, s�m�lar to the des�gn of the n-judah �n the inner Sunset between 9th and 19th avenues. th�s alternat�ve would requ�re use of new left/r�ght door buses �n order to accommodate left-s�de board�ng between 33rd avenue and gough Street and r�ght-s�de board�ng �n the tenderlo�n/downtown and towards the ocean.8

th�s des�gn would ma�nta�n ex�st�ng park�ng supply except at �ntersect�ons w�th left turns. as �llustrated �n f�gure 4-4, accommodat�ng a left turn pocket would require shifting through-traffic lanes to the r�ght and remov�ng some park�ng near the �ntersect�on.

station

the ex�st�ng med�an would bas�cally be ma�nta�ned �n th�s alternat�ve, serv�ng as a center board�ng platform shared by passengers �n both d�rect�ons at bus stops, and as a landscaped med�an for the rest of the street. th�s 14-foot center med�an would prov�de a w�de passenger wa�t�ng area and ample space for passenger amen�t�es. Passengers would be buffered from traffic by the bus-only lanes wh�ch would enhance passenger safety.

serviceplan

there were only two serv�ce plans cons�dered for alternat�ve 5; a th�rd serv�ce plan could be developed �f a pass�ng lane opt�on were

8 After evaluation of BRT plans for Geary, Van Ness, and Potrero (the three corridors under consideration for BRT implementation) and selection of preferred alternatives is complete, it would be determined if Muni should acquire a BRT-specific fleet of left/right door buses, or if right door-only buses would suffice.

developed. as ment�oned prev�ously, a pass�ng lane concept for alternat�ve 5 could be developed �n the next phase of study.9

The first service plan option is a “skip stop” serv�ce. th�s would el�m�nate the d�st�nct�on between local and brt serv�ces and �nstead every bus would stop at every other stop, alternat�ng with the bus behind it. A simplified diagram of typ�cal sk�p-stop serv�ce �s shown below �n f�gure 4-4. buses would overlap on some stops to allow for transfers. th�s would mean that every stop would be covered by at least one of the two buses, but no s�ngle bus would need to stop at every stop, allow�ng for faster serv�ce for all buses. th�s el�m�nates the need for a pass�ng lane because buses travel at approx�mately the same speed. however, when �mplemented �n other c�t�es th�s operat�on system has proven difficult for passengers to understand and to use. in most cases �t has been d�scont�nued.10

the second serv�ce plan would prov�de local bus serv�ce at the curb w�th only the brt bus �n the center busway, s�m�lar to the second serv�ce plan for alternat�ve 4. th�s plan would result �n a reduct�on of park�ng spaces because local buses rema�n at the curb, therefore park�ng spaces cannot be replaced at bus bulbs as �n alternat�ve 4. dur�ng an env�ronmental analys�s, the Study team would seek to des�gn a pass�ng lane opt�on to accommodate local buses �n the center busway.

9 If a passing lane option is developed allowing both the Local and BRT buses to run in the center transit-only lane, this alterna-tive would require the purchase of left / right door buses for local service as well as for BRT since both services would serve center median stations, which require the use of left door boarding ve-hicles.�0 This service plan could also be considered for Alternative 4 if it emerges as a preference in future stages of study, but was not considered in this phase of work.

f�gure 4-4 d�agram of typ�cal Sk�p-Stop Serv�ce


Geary BRT Study

4.6 speCIallOCaTIOns:FIllmOreanDmasOnIC

there are two �ntersect�ons on geary wh�ch requ�red development of spec�al des�gn alternat�ves: f�llmore Street and mason�c avenue. both �ntersect�ons have an underpass that allows through auto traffic on Geary in both directions to avoid conflicts with cross traffic. the�r complex�ty and w�dth present both great opportunities and significant challenges.

in the course of th�s feas�b�l�ty study the Study team was only able to do �n�t�al des�gn work for these locat�ons; a more thorough exam�nat�on would be needed �f the project advances to the prel�m�nary eng�neer�ng/env�ronmental analys�s phase. as descr�bed more completely �n chapter 5, “Evaluat�on methodology and results,” �t �s qu�te clear that there are feas�ble des�gns that address the challenges that these locat�ons present. however �t �s also clear that some alternat�ves need further development and that more deta�led study �s requ�red to �dent�fy the best phys�cal des�gn for each locat�on.

fillmore street

currently at th�s �ntersect�on, three lanes of through traffic in each direction on Geary enter an underpass, allow�ng cars to bypass cross traffic at Fillmore.11 buses stay on street-level serv�ce roads on e�ther s�de of th�s expressway to fac�l�tate transfers w�th the 22-f�llmore. Serv�ce roads have one lane of mixed-flow traffic and one parking lane. This causes significant delays for buses due to conflicts with pedestrians, service vehicles, and cross traffic as shown

�� Fillmore is actually a relatively narrow street which makes the underpass less crucial for preserving smooth traffic operations be-cause the width of Fillmore would not allow for enough cross traffic to cause a large amount of delay for traffic on Geary.

below. Adjacent land uses like the post office and f�llmore aud�tor�um cause frequent double park�ng here. in add�t�on, though th�s �s one of the most frequent transfer po�nts on the geary corr�dor, th�s �ntersect�on has some of the poorest pedestr�an and passenger wa�t�ng cond�t�ons, shown �n the photo below.

geary boulevard �s at �ts w�dest here, 168 feet. th�s �ntersect�on offers an opportun�ty to provide buses with some of the efficiencies that autos currently enjoy, wh�le st�ll preserv�ng adequate auto levels of serv�ce. it also presents an opportun�ty to better ut�l�ze the ample w�de r�ght-of-way to balance pedestr�an space w�th w�de streets for autos and other veh�cles.

the most �mportant commun�ty pr�or�ty for the f�llmore �ntersect�on was to better use th�s space to enhance the surround�ng ne�ghborhood and to fac�l�tate connect�ons between ne�ghborhoods to the north and south of geary. the w�de road here creates a freeway-l�ke atmosphere and feels l�ke an �nsurmountable r�ft between japantown to the north and the Western add�t�on to the south. convert�ng th�s barr�er �nto a br�dge between ne�ghborhoods was a major pr�or�ty �n the des�gn of brt alternat�ves here.

to address these �ssues, the f�llmore alternat�ves were des�gned not only to �mprove bus performance, but also to �mprove the pedestr�an env�ronment and to kn�t ne�ghborhoods together. four alternat�ves were cons�dered for th�s �ntersect�on. two would ma�nta�n the underpass and two would fill in the underpass, bringing all traffic to the surface. All of these designs for f�llmore would requ�re some add�t�onal eng�neer�ng analys�s �n the env�ronmental �mpact analys�s.

buses operat�ng �n the f�llmore area must use congested serv�ce roads, where passengers and pedestr�ans must often compete for �nadequate s�dewalk space

4-20


FillmoresideBoulevardBrT

in the f�llmore S�de boulevard brt des�gn the underpass would be filled in and all traffic would operate at street level, as p�ctured �n f�gure 4-5. the overall des�gn of the f�llmore S�de brt alternat�ve would be s�m�lar to the standard S�de brt alternat�ve (alt. 3), except the f�llmore vers�on would ma�nta�n the serv�ce roads on both s�des of geary. the brt and 38-local buses would operate �n a ded�cated trans�t-only lane located between the serv�ce road on the edge and two lanes of through traffic in the center. This would require conversion of one lane of through traffic �n each d�rect�on. the serv�ce roads would be maintained to reduce conflicts between buses and local traffic, particularly parking and turning cars.

Stat�on platforms would be located on 10.5-foot med�ans between the serv�ce roads and the bus lane. the serv�ce roads would follow a boulevard-style des�gn w�th ample pedestr�an-fr�endly features, curb extens�ons at cross-walks, and prom�nent landscap�ng, �nclud�ng an add�t�onal med�an �n the center of geary. th�s mult�ple-med�an des�gn would prov�de opportun�t�es for landscaping and beautification as well as help ach�eve the goals of connect�ng ne�ghborhoods, rather than serv�ng as a barr�er.

f�gure 4-5 f�llmore S�de boulevard brt


Geary BRT Study

FillmoreCenterBoulevardBrT

the center boulevard brt �s the second des�gn alternat�ve �n wh�ch the underpass would be filled and all traffic would operate at street level, p�ctured �n f�gure 4-6. th�s des�gn would be qu�te s�m�lar to the standard center brt alternat�ve w�th 2 med�ans. buses would operate �n a ded�cated busway �n the center of the street, separated from auto traffic by 16-foot medians on both s�des. these med�ans would prov�de pedestrian refuge, opportunities for significant landscap�ng and a more pleasant walk�ng env�ronment. as w�th some of the other f�llmore opt�ons, the w�de s�dewalks and med�ans would

also serve a place-mak�ng funct�on to connect ne�ghborhoods rather than separate them.

One lane of traffic in each direction would be removed to accommodate these trans�t lanes and the serv�ce roads would be el�m�nated. that would leave two lanes of mixed-flow through traffic and a lane of parallel park�ng �n each d�rect�on. th�s alternative would allow for significantly wider s�dewalks (18-35 feet depend�ng on the locat�on). W�der s�dewalks �n front of japantown addresses a top priority identified in the Japantown commun�ty Preservat�on Plan.

f�gure 4-6 f�llmore center boulevard brt

4-22


FillmoreundergroundBrT the th�rd opt�on for the f�llmore �ntersect�on, underground brt, would ma�nta�n the underpass. both brt and 38-local buses would operate �n the center of the underpass, a bus stat�on would be underground and passengers would change levels to transfer between geary and f�llmore buses, as �llustrated �n f�gure 4-7. one lane of through traffic in the underpass in each direction would be converted to accommodate these ded�cated trans�t-only lanes, leav�ng two lanes of through traffic in each direction. The existing tunnel would need to be w�dened to accommodate brt platforms and sound/safety walls would be �nstalled on both s�des of the platforms to buffer pedestrians from traffic noise, and fumes.

on the surface, serv�ce roads and park�ng would be ma�nta�ned as they are today. a street-level plaza would be created to prov�de space for

escalators and/or elevators descend�ng to the underground trans�t plaza. Passengers could reduce underground wa�t�ng t�me by rely�ng on real-t�me trans�t arr�val �nformat�on d�splayed �n the surface-level trans�t plazas. also, th�s �s the only des�gn alternat�ve for f�llmore that would allow f�llmore buses to stop where they currently do today and not move to the corners.

though th�s opt�on would not necessar�ly br�dge the ne�ghborhood as successfully as the S�de and center f�llmore alternat�ves, �t would leave f�llmore and geary very access�ble and pedestr�an fr�endly, and could poss�bly encourage more north-south movement on f�llmore. as w�th the v�aduct opt�on, future stages of the Study would analyze the length of the platform to ensure safe vert�cal clearance for trucks at the entrance and ex�t of the underpass.

f�gure 4-7 f�llmore underground brt


Geary BRT Study

FillmoreviaductBrT

the fourth opt�on, “v�aduct brt,” would ma�nta�n part of the underpass, as �llustrated �n f�gure 4-8. in th�s des�gn, brt and 38-local buses would run �n the center of the road at street level. th�s would be achieved by filling the center lane of the underpass �n each d�rect�on, leav�ng two through-traffic lanes in each direction. Service roads and park�ng would be ma�nta�ned as they are today. Stat�ons would be located on street-level plazas that �ncrease publ�c open space, buffer pedestrians from auto traffic, and maintain street-level transfers between geary buses and

the 22-f�llmore. Pleasant, s�mple pedestr�an cross�ngs w�th bulb-outs would connect the center platforms and the s�dewalk.

Plaza des�gn �s one element that would need further analys�s dur�ng the prel�m�nary eng�neer�ng stage of the Study to ensure the d�mens�ons allow for safe use by all types of veh�cles. for example, future stages of the Study would analyze the length of the platform to ensure safe vert�cal clearance for trucks at the entrance and ex�t of the underpass.

f�gure 4-8 f�llmore v�aduct brt

4-24


masonic avenue

the �ntersect�on of mason�c and geary �s very complex and presents un�que des�gn challenges and opportun�t�es for �mprovements. l�ke the f�llmore �ntersect�on, mason�c requ�res spec�al attention because lanes of traffic on Geary enter an underpass. also l�ke f�llmore, there are s�de service roads at the surface for local traffic and r�ght turns. at mason�c, however, there are also lanes that allow for westbound traffic on geary to turn left onto mason�c. the mason�c �ntersect�on has the h�ghest left-turn volume on the corr�dor at the Pm peak hour. in add�t�on, the w�de roadways here necess�tate long pedestr�an cross�ng t�mes.

unl�ke f�llmore, the underpass at mason�c provides crucial operational benefits to through-traffic on Geary. The underpass at Masonic allows cars to bypass two s�gnals, one of wh�ch has large traffic volumes. This longer underpass restricts cross traffic for four blocks. In addition, the current des�gn allows cars to trans�t�on from geary to mason�c w�th relat�ve ease. however, buses on geary currently operate on steep s�de service roads and often get caught in local traffic congest�on. the alternat�ves developed for th�s �ntersect�on sought to offer buses the same efficiencies that auto traffic currently enjoys, wh�le st�ll ma�nta�n�ng acceptable levels of serv�ce for all users.

two alternat�ves were developed to address these goals: an underground and a surface des�gn. both of these options have flaws that would require add�t�onal thought to meet the needs of all users. add�t�onal eng�neer�ng work could be completed dur�ng the Eir phase of th�s project, bu�ld�ng on the �n�t�al analys�s of th�s study. the follow�ng sect�ons descr�be the two opt�ons �ncluded �n the �n�t�al analys�s.

masonicsurfaceBrT

in the Surface brt des�gn alternat�ve for mason�c, p�ctured �n f�gure 4-9, buses would operate at

the surface in a semi-exclusive lane, local traffic would rema�n at street level, and auto through-traffic would be maintained in the tunnel. Eastbound buses would travel in the mixed-traffic serv�ce road west of mason�c. after cross�ng mason�c, they would travel �n a ded�cated lane on the serv�ce road. an add�t�onal lane would be ga�ned by remov�ng non-metered park�ng, wh�ch should not make a significant impact on the overall park�ng supply because the adjacent mall has a large off-street park�ng lot and because un-metered park�ng does not tend to have much turnover. at baker, the serv�ce road ends and the bus would enter a more typ�cal s�de-lane busway. a jo�nt platform for both geary buses and 43-mason�c buses would be located at a large bus bulb �mmed�ately after mason�c.

Westbound buses would travel �n a ded�cated lane on the ex�st�ng serv�ce road east of Pres�d�o that would be made ava�lable by convert�ng un-metered park�ng spaces, as above. a bus-only s�gnal at the Pres�d�o �ntersect�on would allow buses to enter the intersection first in order to reduce conflicts with left-turning autos. between Pres�d�o and mason�c, buses would travel �n a bus-only lane �n the center of the roadway. after cross�ng mason�c, buses would travel down the service road in a mixed-traffic lane before enter�ng a more typ�cal ded�cated s�de-lane west of coll�ns. Stat�on platforms would be accommodated on a w�de landscaped med�an between the bus lane and the serv�ce road �mmed�ately east of mason�c.

th�s alternat�ve would allow for �ntegrated, street-level transfers between geary and mason�c buses and would reduce potent�al auto-pedestrian conflicts by maintaining through-traffic underground.


Geary BRT Study

f�gure 4-9 mason�c Surface brt

4-26


masonicundergroundBrT

in the underground brt des�gn for mason�c, p�ctured �n f�gure 4-10, the ex�st�ng underpass would be ded�cated exclus�vely to geary buses. all current tunnel d�mens�ons would rema�n the same, w�th one underpass lane �n each d�rect�on ded�cated to the bus and the second lane used for the platform. geary passengers would need to change levels to access the bus and/or transfer to mason�c buses. at the surface, mason�c buses would operate �n the center-most lanes, wh�ch would be ded�cated to trans�t. Stops would be located d�rectly above the underground stat�on

�n a surface trans�t plaza between mason�c and Pres�d�o. th�s plaza would prov�de add�t�onal space for pedestr�ans and wa�t�ng trans�t r�ders.

In this alternative, all auto through-traffic would be brought from the underpass to the surface. To accommodate this significant increase in surface through traffic, the service roads would be w�dened to two lanes to carry the add�t�onal auto traffic that previously used the underpass.

f�gure 4-10 mason�c underground brt


Geary BRT Study

4.7 raIl-reaDInessthe geary corr�dor was cons�dered for l�ght ra�l �mprovements dur�ng the craft�ng of the new Expend�ture Plan for Prop K. the Expend�ture Plan adv�sory comm�ttee (EPac) determ�ned that wh�le trans�t �mprovements on geary boulevard were of h�gh �mportance, a l�ght ra�l l�ne on geary was not viable within the financial constraints of the 30-year plan. instead, the EPac developed a plan that mandates that any further �mprovements on geary be “ra�l-ready”. alternat�ves must be des�gned �n a way that does not preclude the poss�b�l�ty of future development of l�ght ra�l. the mandate �s �ntended ne�ther to support nor preclude l�ght ra�l on geary, rather to ant�c�pate the poss�b�l�ty of expand�ng the l�ght ra�l network and m�n�m�ze potent�al �mpacts of convers�on by bu�ld�ng on any ex�st�ng �mprovements.

in response to a request by the gcac, the Study �ncluded analyses to determ�ne the most appropr�ate range and level of ra�l-ready �nvestments that should be made �n a bus rap�d trans�t l�ne on geary to allow for the poss�b�l�ty of convert�ng the brt fac�l�ty to l�ght ra�l at some future date. th�s sect�on d�scusses the approach of th�s analys�s, the components analyzed, potential benefits and conceptual cost estimates for the each of the components. ra�l-ready analys�s focused on the port�on of geary between van ness and 33rd avenue; costs and �mpacts for a l�ght ra�l l�ne east of van ness would be more significant and were not developed as part of th�s analys�s. bas�c ra�l-ready costs for the f�llmore and mason�c �ntersect�ons are �ncluded conceptually �n est�mates developed for these �ntersect�ons, but need add�t�onal analys�s due to the conceptual nature of the est�mates as well as the need for subsequent redes�gn of alternat�ves at each locat�on. further deta�l should be developed dur�ng a subsequent stage of study, and as such these costs were not evaluated �n deta�l as part of the analys�s presented below.

the center-runn�ng conceptual alternat�ves accommodate the phys�cal d�mens�ons and operational requirements of a light rail vehicle—hor�zontal and vert�cal clearances, grades, and turn�ng rad��. as noted above, the Study team was later asked by the gcac to conduct a more deta�led analys�s to determ�ne wh�ch, �f any, other components of a l�ght ra�l l�ne m�ght be cost-effect�ve and worthwh�le to �nstall dur�ng brt �mplementat�on as a way to reduce �mpacts �f the trans�t l�ne on geary �s converted to l�ght ra�l �n the future. a summary of the ra�l-ready

analys�s �s prov�ded below, w�th the full report �n append�x b.

methodoloGy

the Study team began by �ncorporat�ng standards for the phys�cal d�mens�ons and operat�onal requ�rements for l�ght ra�l veh�cles �nto the des�gn pr�nc�ples for the alternat�ves. follow�ng the alternat�ves des�gn, the Study team developed a l�st of potent�al l�ght ra�l components that could be �nstalled dur�ng brt construct�on. Each component was evaluated �n context, and deta�led cost est�mates here developed based on the conceptual eng�neer�ng draw�ngs. the Study team then analyzed the �mpacts and benefits of installation during BRT construction we�ghed aga�nst those of �nstallat�on, or rather convers�on, dur�ng l�ght ra�l construct�on.

th�s analys�s was also accompan�ed by a rev�ew of predom�nantly north amer�can c�t�es that had cons�dered brt-to-ra�l convers�ons, along w�th a rev�ew of c�t�es that had already converted to rail from BRT. Reviews identified the benefits, �mpacts, and r�sks faced dur�ng brt construct�on as well as those exper�enced and observed dur�ng convers�on to l�ght ra�l. the goal of both the techn�cal analys�s and the br�ef case stud�es �s to determine whether the benefits of installing more extens�ve ra�l �nfrastructure dur�ng brt construct�on outwe�gh the costs or r�sks of leav�ng that �nfrastructure unused unt�l the t�me �f/when l�ght ra�l �s bu�lt.

rail-ready oPtions

the Study team evaluated two opt�ons for ra�l-readiness on Geary. The first—Option A—defines ra�l-read�ness by ensur�ng that conceptual brt des�gns do not preclude development of l�ght ra�l �n the future. th�s opt�on, as descr�bed above, requ�res des�gn�ng the hor�zontal and vert�cal clearances, grades, and turn�ng rad�� for all center-runn�ng brt alternat�ves to l�ght ra�l standards. it further requ�res that stat�ons or stops be s�ted �n a locat�on that can accommodate a l�ght ra�l platform, wh�ch �s longer than the typ�cal 120 foot m�n�mum space requ�red for brt.

th�s opt�on reduces the need for reconstruct�on of med�ans or reallocat�on of the street space �f a convers�on to l�ght ra�l �s made. however, there are l�kely to be construct�on �mpacts �f convers�on to l�ght ra�l �s pursued, as �t would requ�re lay�ng tracks and other related �nfrastructure. opt�on a pr�or�t�zes resources for development of a full-featured brt system along the corr�dor wh�le st�ll preserv�ng the opt�on to convert �f or when that

4-28


decision is made. Because of the significantly lower cost relat�ve to opt�on b, �t also allows resources that would be spent on ra�l-ready act�v�t�es to be allocated to other �mprovements �n th�s corr�dor, or others, �f or unt�l the dec�s�on to convert to l�ght ra�l �s made.

as a result of the rev�ew of convers�ons and convers�on dec�s�ons �n other c�t�es, the Study team recommends add�ng des�gn of a modular stat�on or platform to opt�on a. mun� currently operates l�ght ra�l veh�cles w�th a h�gher board�ng height, compared to the potential low-floor BRT veh�cles that fac�l�tate level board�ng. the d�fference �n board�ng he�ght between buses and l�ght ra�l veh�cles would requ�re a change from the lower brt platforms to much h�gher platforms for l�ght ra�l veh�cles �f the l�ne were converted to ra�l. however, �t �s poss�ble to des�gn and �nstall a modular platform where the he�ght of the platform can be eas�ly ra�sed w�th m�n�mal d�srupt�on or �mpact to the operat�on of trans�t veh�cles or autos. do�ng so would sl�ghtly �ncrease brt cap�tal cost est�mates; however �t would greatly reduce the need to completely rebu�ld platforms �f a convers�on �s made. costs are descr�bed �n more deta�l below.

Option B defines rail-readiness by reducing the need to excavate or reconstruct the street more than once �n an effort to m�n�m�ze construct�on �mpacts. th�s opt�on �ncludes all components of Option A, and then expands the definition to analyze a potent�al package of more extens�ve �nvestments. in add�t�on to the phys�cal d�mens�ons of l�ght ra�l, the Study team analyzed the costs, benefits and impacts of installing the follow�ng components:

structural elements

ut�l�ty relocat�on

underground electr�cal elements

ra�l �nvestments

stat�on foundat�ons

platform modifications

overhead contact system

electr�cal substat�ons

of these components, the Study team el�m�nated �nstallat�on of the overhead contact system (ocS) and of the electr�cal substat�ons, s�nce these elements offered l�ttle to no sav�ngs �n construct�on �mpacts and would be used only �f the brt l�ne were converted to a l�ght ra�l l�ne. other components of th�s opt�on should greatly reduce

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

the need for substant�al add�t�onal construct�on �f convers�on to l�ght ra�l �s pursued. opt�on b �ncludes lay�ng the tracks and cover�ng them w�th the busway, relocat�ng ut�l�t�es currently located �n the center med�an to the curb, �nstall�ng ground�ng and corros�on protect�on for the covered tracks, electr�cal elements beneath the runn�ng-way, changes to elevat�ons or grades of the cross streets, and other structural elements of the runn�ng-way.

lessons from other cities

only one other uS c�ty has made the convers�on to l�ght ra�l after �nstall�ng a ra�l-ready ded�cated bus line—Seattle, Washington. The Downtown Seattle trans�t tunnel (dStt) was �nstalled �n the late 1980s and converted to l�ght ra�l �n 2007. Seattle pursued a ra�l-ready opt�on s�m�lar to opt�on b, w�th the hope that the only substant�al components of convers�on would be uncover�ng the ra�ls and purchas�ng l�ght ra�l veh�cles. at the t�me of convers�on �t was d�scovered that the ra�ls needed substant�al re-�nstallat�on to address ground�ng and corros�on problems. in add�t�on, platform reconstruct�on was requ�red to accommodate their change to low-floor light-ra�l veh�cles, wh�ch were ne�ther ava�lable nor ant�c�pated at the t�me of construct�on. add�t�onal and unexpected costs for convers�on of the dStt exceeded $160 m�ll�on dollars, almost half of the $400 m�ll�on already expended on construct�on of the 1 - 2 m�le ded�cated busway.

most of the other c�t�es rev�ewed and consulted dec�ded to �ncorporate ra�l-read�ness �n brt des�gns by pursu�ng avenues s�m�lar to opt�on a. one other c�ty, houston, texas, �s st�ll analyz�ng the var�ous l�ght ra�l and ra�l-ready components to determine the benefits, impacts, risks and level of �nvestment. Several c�t�es outs�de of the US — Bogota, Colombia and Curitiba, Brazil — have analyzed BRT-to-rail conversion and rejected the idea, finding that the flexibility and capac�ty of brt was adequate and, �n some cases, more favorable than ra�l systems on the�r brt corr�dors. more deta�l �s offered �n append�x b.

comParison of the oPtions

cap�tal costs of the two opt�ons were vastly d�fferent. for the most part, costs of opt�on a are �ncluded �n the brt cap�tal cost est�mates g�ven that the des�gn pr�nc�ples and gu�del�nes �ncluded the phys�cal d�mens�ons of l�ght ra�l veh�cles, and were thereby �ncorporated �nto the conceptual des�gns for the center-runn�ng brt alternat�ves (alts. 3–5). the �ncremental cost of


Geary BRT Study

modular platforms at the stations is estimated at approximately $2.5 million, while Option B is expected to cost about $130 million above the capital costs for the typical BRT sections. These costs do not include rail-ready investments at Masonic and Fillmore, where design and construction would likely incorporate a higher level of rail-ready investment depending on the alternative chosen. More analysis of rail-ready investments at these intersections would be needed in a later stage of study.

Table 4-2 Comparison of Rail-Ready Options

Option A Option B

BRT Construction Cost* $172M – $212M

Additional Rail-Ready Cost $2.5M $130M

BRT Construction Time 1 ½ - 2 yrs

Incremental BRT Construction Time - ~ 1 yr

BRT Traffi c Impacts MED HIGH

Future LRT Conversion Time* ~ 3 yrs ~ 2 yrs

Future LRT Traffi c Impacts* HIGH MED

Level of Risk LOW HIGH

* Costs presented are in the year of construction, 2010.

Based on the rail-ready analysis by summarized above and detailed in Appendix B, the Study Team’s current recommendation is Option A. Though Option B should result in a benefi t of reduced traffi c and construction impacts in the future if the potential Geary BRT line were converted to a light rail line, Option B represents a signifi cant sunk cost for rail-ready activities that would not benefi t travelers on Geary unless or until conversion to light rail were pursued at a point quite far in the future. For Option B improvements like laying track and relocating utilities would increase BRT construction time by at least 1 year, while Option A includes the more signifi cant impacts of conversion if or when such conversion were pursued. When taken together the construction time of Option A and Option B is approximately the same for BRT with rail-ready enhancements and light rail conversion in the future—Option A would take an additional 2-3 years for conversion in the future whereas Option B would add 1 year to BRT construction

along with up to 2 additional years to convert in the future.

KEY CONCLUSIONS

Rail-ready Option A is the most prudent option given the high risks and sunk costs of Option B, along with the uncertainty of light rail development and long timeframe before its construction. Activities in Option A do not preclude light rail conversion, and minimize some impacts of conversion by incorporating physical requirements of light rail operations into BRT design.

The Study Team recommends incorporating a modular station platform into BRT designs as the study progresses, so that platforms can be easily raised to boarding heights of light rail vehicles as warranted if light rail conversion is pursued.

In addition to this analysis, the Study Team analyzed conceptually the costs of developing a full light rail line on Geary within the same segment analyzed for BRT. Cost estimates for LRT between 33rd Avenue and Transbay Terminal approached multiple billion dollars when escalated to the potential year of construction (2025): between $2.4 billion for full surface LRT and potentially $5 billion for surface-to-subway. While projected demand could be substantially higher than projected BRT demand the higher ridership would likely require two car trains for LRT operations, resulting in higher operating and maintenance costs. In response to requests from several stakeholders and communities to develop more detailed cost-benefi t comparison of the two modes, the Study Team have committed to a more robust analysis of the steps that would be required for light rail development if additional were to become available. This analysis is currently underway, and will be available before the start of the next phase of analysis for BRT on Geary Boulevard.

5-1Chapter 5: Evaluation Methodology and Results

Contents5 EvaluationMEthodology

andREsults............................. 5-15.1intRoduction.................................. 5-1

5.2 EvaluationappRoachandcRitERia...... 5-4

5.3tRansitpERfoRMancE........................ 5-7

5.4tRansitRidERExpERiEncE.................. 5-17

5.5accEssandpEdEstRianaMEnitiEs........ 5-25

5.6uRbanandlandscapEdEsign............. 5-33

5.7tRafficopERationsandpaRking......... 5-38

5.8cost............................................. 5-53

5.9constRuctioniMpacts...................... 5-55

5.10spEcialintERsEctions..................... 5-56

5.11fEasibilitydEtERMination................ 5-65

Chapter5:evaluationMethodologyandresults

gearyCorridorBrtstudy

JunE 2007

5evaluationMethodologyandresults

5.1 introduCtionthis chapter presents the results of the studyTeam’s evaluation of expected benefits and impactsofbRtongearyboulevard.theevaluationanalyzed the performance of each conceptualalternative (both bRt and transit priorityalternatives)withrespecttotransitperformanceand rider experience, pedestrian safety, urbanand landscape design, traffic operations, capital and operating cost, and construction impacts.these criteria were measured through bothqualitativeandquantitativemetrics(evaluationcriteriaaredescribedfullyinsection5.2).theanalysis is based on the standard designs notincludingthefillmoreandMasonicintersections(which can be integrated in the next phase ofstudy). this chapter also documents how welleach alternative would meet project goals andaddress key transportation needs identified during community outreach and the needsassessment. this is an initial evaluation onlyand has been constantly refined and developed throughouttheprocesstodate.furtheranalysis

5-2


can be completed in future stages of work(i.e. environmental analysis and preliminaryengineering).

Withanytransportationproject,therearetrade-offs between benefits and impacts. The Study Team refined each BRT alternative based on technical expertiseandcommunity feedback, inorder tomaximize the benefits of each alternative while devisingstrategiestominimizeoroffsetimpactswherepossible.infuturestages,thestudyteamwillremaincommittedtominimizingimpactsofbRt, includingmaximizingtheperformanceandefficiency of the remaining mixed-traffic lanes through tools such as signal timing and traffic engineering; developing strategies to reduceconstructionimpactsandminimizeparkingloss;anddeterminingthemagnitudeanddirectionoftraffic diversions in order to better manage all modes on geary boulevard and on surroundingstreets. the study team is also committed toworkingwiththecommunitytoprotectadjacentneighborhoods through strategies like traffic calmingwherewarrantedandwelcome.

Summary of Evaluation rESultS

overall, geary boulevard could accommodatebRtandseveralbRtdesignswouldbefeasible,whichmeansthattherearechoicesabouthowtoimplementbRtongeary.ingeneral,bRtwouldoffer significant transit performance benefits includingfastertraveltimes,morereliablewaittimes, more comfortable service, and loweroperatingcostsperpassenger.atthesametime,bRtimpactshavebeenestimatedtoberelativelyminorinmostcasesandcouldbealleviated.

The key findings of the alternatives evaluation areasfollows:

Benefits

BRT would offer significant transit performance benefits.

transittraveltimesareexpectedtodecreasebyupto30%,closingthetimegapbetweendrivingandridingthebus.

service reliability should improveconsiderablybyeliminatingmost(sidebRt)or all (Center BRT) conflicts with mixed traffic, and by streamlining passenger loading andunloading.

transitridershipisexpectedtoincreasebyasmuchas25%underthebRtalternatives,helpingtoreducethecitywidetrendtowarddecliningtransitmodeshare.

centerbRtalternatives(alts.4&5)would

•

improve transit performance the mostbecause conflicts with mixed traffic are not only completely removed by the physicallyseparatedlanebutalsoself-enforcedbytheconfiguration. As a result they would attract the most new riders and would providethe greatest share of benefits to transit-dependenthouseholds.

the experience of riding the bus wouldbe considerably improved by Brt due tonew transit platform amenities and safetyimprovements, including lighting, shelters,signage and wayfinding information, and real-timetransitarrivalinformation.bRtwouldalsoincrease the size of transit station platformsandprovideasmootherandmorecomfortableride(lessweavingandstopping).

center bRt with 1 median (alt. 5) wouldprovide the best transit rider experience.itwouldhavethewidestplatform,abufferfrom traffic (bus lanes), and a single platform whichwouldincreaseactivityandthereforesecurity.

pedestriansafetyandaccesswouldbegreatlyimproved by Brt by reducing pedestriancrossingdistances,providingvisiblecrosswalks,providingacompletesetofcountdownsignals,andenhancinglandscaping.

bRtalternativeswouldvaryprimarilyinthesizeandshapeofthelandscapedmedian(s),thedesignofthemedianpedestrianrefuges,andtheamountofbuffertheywouldprovidetopedestriansonthesidewalk.

Brtwouldimproveaccessibilitytoandfromthegearycorridor.

Jobaccessibilityby transit fromdivisaderoand20thavenueispredictedtoincreaseby20-70%withbRt.

center bRt alternatives would increaseaccessibilitythemostbecausetheymakeitpossibletotraveltomoredestinationsmorequickly.

Brthasthepotentialtomakegearyagreatstreetbyprovidingarecognizabledesignthemealongthewholecorridorthroughthecoloredtransit lane; landscapingupgrades;enhancedstreet furniture and paving; and potentiallylightingandotherurbandesignfeatures.thiswould improvethebeautyofthestreet,andupgrade geary’s character to match its sizeandprominencewithinsanfrancisco’sstreethierarchy.

Brt would contribute to the City’sdevelopmentofadistinctive,recognizable,

•

•

•

•

•


Geary BRT Study

and consistent network of transit prioritystreets.WithallbRtdesignsongearyitwouldbe clear that this is a new level of service,distinctfromcurrentMuniservice.

centerbRtalternatives(alts.4&5)wouldprovide the strongest opportunities foruniquebRtbrandingandidentity.

CenterBrtalternatives(alts.4&5)wouldprovide the greatest overall transit benefitdue to the physically separated transit laneprominentlylocatedinthecenterofthestreet.side bRt (alt. 3) would improve conditionsconsiderably over the baseline; however thepermeable transit lane, which allows conflicts withrightturningandparkingvehicles,wouldsomewhat diminish transit benefits.

Basic plus (alt. 2) is estimated to deliverbenefits similar to Side BRT when the dedicatedlaneisineffect(eastboundintheaM peak period, westbound in the pM peakperiod),andwouldperformlikethebaseline(alt.1)duringallothertimesofdayforcriteriathat is based on traffic operations. The effects of the lack of pavement definition and of the changingregulationsbytimeofdayarehardtopredict,andcouldcauseconfusionfordrivers,resultinginlowerperformancethansidebRt.forothermorequalitativecriteria,basicplusgenerally would perform like the baselinebecause it would not include substantialinvestmentsinfeatureslikestationplatforms,pedestrianamenities,urbandesignelements,orlandscaping.

impacts

BRT impacts to traffic operations and parking canbeminimized.

Overall traffic conditions are not expected to deteriorate significantly from conditions in the baseline (alt.1) for any alternativeduringthepMpeakhour.

autotraveltimesareexpectedtochangebyless than2minutes (actuallydecreasing insome scenarios) a relatively minor changewhen compared to the considerable timesavingsfortransit.

average transit delays at intersections arepredictedtodropbyupto50%(8seconds)while auto delays should change by lessthan 1 second (actually dropping in somescenarios)duringthepMpeak.

Traffic diversions from Geary to other streets areexpectedforallofthebRtalternatives(alts.3-5)andthebasicplustransitpriorityalternative (alt. 2). however, this initial

•

•

•

analysis suggests that these changes intraffic patterns would be predictable and would not be severe. Traffic is expected to continue to flow smoothly on Geary Boulevard itself, and the volume of traffic diverted to parallel streets would only be1-2 additional cars per minute (during thepeakperiod).thismagnitudeofdiversionswould be undetectable by most travelers,and could be managed with traffic signal timing adjustments and/or traffic calming asappropriate.

parking supply would only be minimallyimpacted by bRt if strategies to off-set reductions were adopted duringimplementation.centerbRtwith2Medians(alt.4)couldactually increasetheparkingsupply by 16% while the other alternativeswould remove no more than 4% of parkingspaces.

Construction costs of Brt on geary areexpectedtorangebetween$172and$212million depending on the alternative—significantly less than a subway or light rail project.1 If new low-floor buses with left and right doors are necessary, sfMta wouldworkproactivelytoprocurethemthroughthenormalvehiclereplacementcycle.

Brt is expected to provide more servicewithlittletonoincreaseinoperatingcostsbyreducingtheamountoftimerequiredforabustocompleteitsroute.

Brtconstructionwouldbelow-intensityandquickrelativetomajortransportationprojectslikelight-railorsubwayconstruction.2

bRtongearyboulevardcouldbeconstructedina1-1½years forallbRtalternatives ifstagedsimultaneouslyat2-3locations,in3-6blocksegmentsfor2-3monthsapiece.

Roadway access to businesses could bepreserved during construction for drivers,pedestriansandtransitriders.

several strategies to reduce constructionimpacts would be feasible with all bRtalternatives.

Basic plus would have minimal impacts,although the benefits would also be substantially lessthanbRt.thiswasthedirectintentofthe

� ThoughthiscostestimateincludescostsforconstructionattheFillmoreandMasonicintersectionsofGeary,theseintersectionswouldneedmoredetaileddesignandanalysisinthenextstageofstudy.Projectcostsmayincreaseasaresultofredesignoftheselocations.� ThisconstructionassessmentdoesnotincludetheintersectionsatFillmoreandMasonic.Constructionimpactsatthesetwoloca-tionswillvaryinintensityandtimedependinguponthealternativechosen.

•

•

•

•

5-4


basicplusalternative—toprovidesomebasictransit benefit while minimizing all impacts.

5.2 evaluationapproaChandCriteria

ovErall Evaluation mEthodology

alternative1,basictransitpriority,istreatedasthebaselineforthehorizonyear2015,becauseit represents improvements that are likely tooccurwhetherornotthereisabRtprojectinthecorridor.3 all other alternatives are comparedagainst conditions in this baseline alternative.This helps isolate the incremental benefits that would result from the bRt investments (and/or additional priority treatments) from thestandard changes Muni already has planned, aswell as isolating the alternatives from changedconditions in2015,e.g.demographicsandtrip-making. the alternatives were also comparedtoeachothertoevaluatetheadvantagesofonedesignoveranother.

both text descriptions and charts are used todocumenttheresultsoftheevaluationforeachcategory.inthecharts,upanddownarrowsareusedtoillustratewhetheranalternativeresultsinanimprovementordeteriorationoverconditionsin the baseline (alt. 1). for the quantitativemetrics,unlessotherwiseindicated,ahorizontalline means no significant change, one arrow indicatesachangeoflessthan10%,twoarrowsindicateachangeof10% to less than20%,andthreearrowsindicateachangeof20%orgreater.forthequalitativemetrics,ahorizontallinealsomeans no significant change, one arrow indicates arelativelysmallchange,twoarrowsindicateamoderate change, and three arrows indicate asubstantialchange.

itisimportanttokeepinmindthatanuparrowmeans a benefit and a down arrow means an impactbecauseinsomecasesanegativenumberrepresents a benefit. For example, a decrease in travel time is a beneficial change, so it is accompaniedbyanuparrow.

forsomeofthecriteria,twoormorealternativesare projected to perform similarly. thereforetheyarediscussedtogetherandnodistinctionismadebetweentheminthecharts.thisismostcommon for the two center bRt designs (alt.4, center bRt with 2 side medians andalt. 5,centerbRtwitha1centermedian).formany

� Typicallythisiscalledthe“noproject,”howeverthistechnicaltermwasnotwellreceivedbythecommunityandtheStudyTeamdeterminedthatitwasnotappropriateforthehighlevelofcom-munityoutreachthatthisprojectentails.Therefore,thename“basictransitpriority”wasadoptedtobetterdescribethealterna-tive.

criteriatheywouldperformidenticallybecausethe benefits and impacts would result from dedication of the center mixed-flow traffic lane totransit,regardlessofwheretheplatformsarelocated.

thesidebRt(alt.3)andbasicplus(alt.2)arealsosometimesdiscussedtogetherbecausetheywouldbothinvolvededicationofanoutsidelanefor transit. however, as currently envisionedbasicplusperformslikesidebRtonly5hoursadayandonlyinthepeakdirection(i.e.eastboundfrom7-9amandwestboundfrom4-7pm).inthenon-peakdirectionduringthepeakhourandinalloff-peakhoursbasicplus(alt.2)wouldperformlikethebaseline(alt.1),becausenodedicatedlanewouldbeprovided.4

becausemanychartsillustrateconditionsinthewestbound pM peak, the basic plusalternativemayappeartoperformbetterthanitwouldwhenevaluatedoverthecourseoftheday,sincethecharts representthetimewhenthealternativewould be delivering its maximum benefit. Readers should note that for this alternativethesechartsonlyillustrateconditionsthatwouldbeexperiencedbya relatively smallportionofgearyriders,andonlyduringcommutehours.

mEaSurES of Evaluation

the study team developed an evaluationframework which was grounded in the projectgoals and approved by the geary citizen’sadvisory committee in March 2006. it consistsofsevencategories,eachofwhichwasassignedvarious “sub-criteria,” which consist of bothqualitativeandquantitativemetrics.

four of the seven measures capture expectedproject benefits, while three address potential impactsorconstraintsasfollows:

Benefits:

transitoperationsandperformance

transitRiderExperience

pedestriansafetyandaccess

urbandesignandlandscaping

impacts/Constraints:

Traffic and Parking Impacts

capitalandoperatingcosts

constructionimpacts

� Inaddition,itishardtoquantifywhetherthelackofcoloredpavementclearlyidentifyingthededicatedtransitlaneandthechangingregulationsbytimeofdayintheBasicPlusalterativewillimpactdrivercomplianceandthusreducereliabilityimprovementsforthisAlternativewhenthededicatedlaneisineffect.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•


Geary BRT Study

the technical models used for the evaluation(vissiM, sf-chaMp, and synchro) are describedindetailinthenextsection.inadditiontothesemodels,therewerethreeotherprimarysourcesofdataforevaluatingbRtperformance:

conceptualengineeringdesigns

dataontheperformanceofotherbRtsystemsaroundtheworld

stakeholderandcommunityoutreach

atabledescribingall theevaluationcategoriesandsub-criteriaisprovidedinappendixc.

modEling ProcESS

ManykeyaspectsofbRtperformanceareassessedusingathree-stepapproachtomodelingtransportationconditions,summarizedinfigure5-1below.thethreekeymodelsusedare:

san francisco’s countywide travel demandforecastingmodel(sf-chaMp)

Synchro traffic operations model

VISSIM traffic and transit micro simulation model

figure5-1 three-stepModelingprocess

sanFranciscoCountywidetraveldemandForecastingModel(sF-ChaMp)

the san francisco county transportationauthority’s travel demand forecasting model(sf-chaMp) forecasts how changes in landuse, roadway networks, and transit networksare likely to affect travel demand in sanfrancisco. complete documentation of sf-CHAMP methodology and findings are included as appendix d. the process begins by testing themodel to confirm that it accurately “predicts”

•

•

•

•

•

•

current conditions. key inputs to the modelinclude:

Expectedchangesinlanduse,i.e.numberofjobs,households,andemployedresidents

Estimatesoffuturetraveldemandfromoutsidesanfrancisco

Known future roadway network modifications, taking into account major roadway projects,such as planned changes to geary boulevardandparallelstreet

Planned future transit network modifications, including changes to bus routes and theadditionofmajorprojects,suchasthethirdstreetlightrailline

sf-chaMp basically projects how many peoplearegoingfromonelocationtoanotherandwhatmodetheyareusingtogetthere(i.e.transit,car,walking).ansf-chaMpmodelfortheyear2015withoutbRt(thebasictransitpriorityalternative)was created in addition to sf-chaMp modelsfor the side bRt and center bRt alternatives.analysis for the basic plus alternative (alt. 2)wasacombinationofoutputsfromthebaselinemodel (model for the year 2015 without bRt)and the side bRt (alt. 3) model because thisalternativeperformslikealternative3duringthepeak period in the peak direction and like thebaselineatallothertimesofday.thesf-chaMpmodelingyieldsthefollowinginformation:

changes innumbersoftravelersandvehiclesongearyboulevardandparallelstreets

changes in the proportion of people walkingorbicycling

changes in transit ridershiponeach route inthegearycorridor

changes in the origins and destinations oftravelersincarsandontransit

Synchro Traffic Operations Model

onceitisknownhowmanypeoplearegoingfromonelocationtoanotherbycar,synchrohelpstounderstand how traffic flows on a specific street. thismodelfocusesonintersections,sinceinurbanareasthesmoothnessoftravelatintersectionsisakeyfactorincongestion.synchroassesseshowwell intersectionsservethenumberofvehiclesthat are expected, and estimates the resultingdelayscausedatintersections.

sfMta5 operates a Synchro traffic operations modelthatcoversmuchofthecity.forgeary,

� TheSanFranciscoMunicipalTransportationAuthority,theagencyinchargeofMuniandtheDepartmentofParkingandTraf-fic.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

5-6


thestudyteamworkedcollaborativelytodevelopamodelforthe2015baseline,aswellasmodelsfor the 2015 side and center bRt alternatives.complete documentation of the synchro modelisincludedasappendixE.

intersection operation depends on the volumeof vehicles, the timing of the traffic lights and thenumberof right/left turnpockets (locationof turnpockets is used to timeactual signals).synchroisgroundedinrealdata;it isbasedonobserved volumes of through and turning traffic anditusesactualsignaltiming.the2005synchromodelispopulatedwiththisobserveddataandthen scaled up based on sf-chaMp outputs for2015.inputstothesynchromodelinclude:

The roadway configuration of the corridor

Expectedvehiclevolumes,includingonparallelstreets

number,length,andtypeofturnpockets

thesignaltimingplan

thesynchromodeloutputsthatareusedforevaluationinclude:

the average amount of delay to vehicles ateachintersection

Queues of vehicles waiting at traffic lights

anoverallmetricfortheperformanceoftheintersection,calledan“los”grade

vissiMMicro-simulationModel

Resultsfromthesf-chaMpandsynchromodelsare used as inputs to this third modeling step,vissiM.vissiMisaprogramthatallowsustoseehowcarsandbusesinteract.themodelactuallysimulatesthenumberofpeopletravelingandhowtheyimpactoneanother.itcanassesshowautotraveltimesandtransittraveltimeschangefor

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

differentalternativesand isbasedonobservedvolumes of traffic on different streets.

unlikesf-chaMp,vissiMsimulatestheindividualbehavior of pedestrians, drivers, and transitriders at each intersection. unlike synchro,vissiMdistinguishesbetweenpeopleinvehicles,ontransit,andonthesidewalk,andisalsoableto model transit signal priority – each instancethatabustriggersanextendedgreenlightasitapproachesan intersection.6 documentationofthevissiMmodelisincludedasappendixf.keyinputstothevissiMmodelinclude:

numbers of people on buses, walking, anddriving

Movements made by each vehicle at anintersection (e.g., turn left or right, or gothrough)

signaltimingandlocationswheresignalpriorityispermitted

theoutputsfromthevissiMmodelinginclude:

transitandcartraveltimes

delay at intersections for people whethertravelingbycar,bybus,oronfoot

visual simulation that allows transportationplanners and engineers to identify problemlocations

� VISSIMusesthesamesignalcontrollerlogicastheactualsig-nals,whichcouldhelptostreamlineimplementation.

•

•

•

•

•

•


Geary BRT Study

5.3 transitperForManCe

PurPoSE

oneof thekeypurposesof thisgearycorridorbRtstudyistohelpunderstandhowtheproposedalternatives would benefit transit operations. thisanalysiswillhelpdeterminethedegreetowhichthealternativeswouldmeetthreeprojectgoals: maintaining a robust and stable transitridership, providing efficient, effective, and equitabletransitservice,andthedevelopmentof a distinctive, recognizable, and consistentnetworkoftransitprioritystreets.

table 5-1 shows all the sub-criteria for transitperformance.itprovidesbothabriefexplanationofeachandthesourceofthedatausedfor itsevaluation(e.g.themodelusedtomeasureeachcriterion).

Table 5‑1 Transit Performance Criteria

goals:*RobustandstableRidership* Efficient, Effective, and Equitable Transit Service*transitprioritynetworksystemdevelopment

sub-criteria Methodology/Definition sourcechangeintransittraveltime

Measurestheaveragetotaltraveltimealongthecorridorandcomparestotheaverageautotraveltime.

vissiMmicro-simulationmodel

changeinservicereliability

Measuresthevariationinpassengerwaitingtimesandtraveltimes.

casestudies

Easeofoperation

Captures the difficulty of operating the transit vehiclesalongtheirroute,including:howmuchtransit mixes with other traffic, how much transit weavingoccursalongthecorridor,andthedegreeofbuilt-inenforceabilityofthebuslane.

operatorinput,physicaldesigns

distributionofbenefits/transitEquityanalysis

Compares benefits, such as overall travel time savings,fortransit-dependentgroups(e.g.zero-carhouseholds and low-income households) to benefits forthegeneralpopulation.

traveldemandModel

attract/retaintransitriders

Measuresthechangeinthenumberoftransittripsongearyroutestodeterminehowwelltransitalternativeserveexistingandpotentialnewriders

traveldemandModel

5-8


mEthodology

the transportation modeling process describedat the beginning of chapter 5 provided thebulk of the transit performance results. thevissiM modeling simulated travel times andspeedsforbothtransitvehiclesandautos. sf-chaMp modeling estimated ridership for eachalternative,andevaluatedhowchangesintransitperformance would benefit different groups of travelers(theequityanalysis).finally,toassesscriteria not easily modeled, focus groups wereused.

for the purposes of the transit performanceanalysis, no distinction was made between thetwocenterbRtdesigns(alternative4withtwoside medians and alternative 5 with a singlecentermedian)because for themostpart theyareexpectedtoperformidentically.7themodelsmeasurethetransitperformanceimprovementsthatwouldresultfromanexclusive,physically-separated center transit lane, regardless ofwheretheplatformsarelocated.

� ThisassumesthatapassinglaneoptionisdevelopedforCenterBRTwith�median(Alt.�).Ifskipstopserviceweretobeadopted,theseresultscouldvary,asskipstopwouldoperatedifferentlythantheservicemodeled.

inaddition,forsomecriteriabasicplus(alt.2)resultsarethesameassidebRt(alt.3)resultsbecausemostoftheanalysispresentedhereisforthepMpeakperiodwhenbothalternativeswouldprovide a dedicated outside lane for transit inthewestbounddirection.atmostothertimesofdayandintheeastbounddirectionduringthepMpeak,basicpluswouldperformlikethebaseline(alt.1).

findingS

transittraveltimes

table 5-2 shows the expected average totaltraveltimefromgoughstreetto33rdavenueinthe pM peak period for the 38-local, the 38l-limited/bRt(thebRtservicewouldreplacethe38-limitedserviceinthethreefull-featuredbRtalternatives,alts.3-5),andautosundereachofthealternatives. inallcaseswestboundtravelwouldbefasterforalltypesofvehiclesbecausesignals have been optimized for the directionofpeakdemand. in themorningperiod, theseresults would be reversed. complete vissiMtravel time and speed results are included asappendixE.

Table 5‑2 Average Transit and Auto Travel Times (Gough to 33rd), PM Peak*

alternative

Westboundtraveltime eastboundtraveltime

auto 38

38l(alt.1-2)

Brt(alt.3-5) auto 38

38l(alt.1-2)

Brt(alt.3-5)Alt 1:Basic Transit Priority

15 min 32 min 26 min 14 min 32 min 25 min

Alt 2:Basic Plus 13 min 25 min 19 min 14 min 32 min 25 min

Alt 3:Side BRT 13 min 25 min 19 min 16 min 24 min 20 min

Alt 4: Center BRT with 2 medians

15 min 23 min 18 min 16 min 25 min 20 minAlt 5: Center BRT with 1 median

*Alt.�(BasicPlus)hastraveltimessimilartoAlt�(BasicTransitPriority),exceptinthepeakperiod,peakdirectionwhentraveltimesaresimilartoAlt.�(SideBRT).Thiscanbeseeninthechart:Alt.�performslikeAlt.�inthewestbounddirection(thepeakdirection),andlikeAlt.�intheeastbounddirection.


Geary BRT Study

inthepMpeakdirection,allbRtalternativesareexpectedtoimprovetransittraveltime,withoutdegradingautotraveltimesasshownintable5-2. bRt service would replace limited service,so it is assumed that all current limited riderswouldridethebRtservice.thenewbRtserviceis also expected to attract about one third ofcurrentlocalriderswhowouldbedrawntotheimprovedservice.

the center bRt alternatives (alts. 4 & 5) areexpectedtoresultinthegreatestimprovementinend-to-endtraveltimeforbusriders.underthecenterbRtalternatives,former38l-limitedriderswouldsave8minutesduringthepMpeaktravelingwestboundfromgoughto33rdavenue,a 30% time savings. local riders would save 9minutes if they stayed on the local bus (28%savings),and14minutesiftheyswitchedtobRt(44% savings). Eastbound time savings wouldbe slightly more modest under the center bRtalternatives, saving local and limited transitriders between 5-7 minutes if they stayed onthe same service, and saving local riders 12minutes if they switched to bRt service.8 allthese estimates are savings over the baseline2015traveltimes,notovercurrenttransittraveltimes.

the side bRt alternative (alt. 3) should alsoresult in significant travel time savings for transit riders,thoughlessthanthoseachievedbycenterBRT configurations because some buses would be slowedbyparkingorturningcarsandbydoubleparked vehicles. Westbound, both local andlimited riderswho remainon the sameserviceshouldsaveabout7minutesintotaltraveltime,a 20-25% savings from the baseline. RidersswitchingfromlocaltobRtservicewouldsaveabout13minutes.Eastbound,thesidebRtwouldperform identically to the center bRt for thebRtservice,savingformerlimitedpassengers5minutesintraveltime,andformerlocalriders12minutes.the38-localwouldbe25%fasterthanlocalserviceinthebaseline,savingpassengers8minutes.9

the basic plus alternative (alt. 2) would havetravel times similar to the baseline (alt. 1),exceptinthepeakperiod,peakdirectionwhentravel times would be similar to the side bRtalternative(alt.3).thisassumesthatasimilarlevel of resources would be invested in traffic

� Additionalwestboundtraveltimesavingscomefromsignaltim-ingasdiscussedintheintroductiontothissection.� Sincethesemodelswererun,thesignalpriorityandsignaltiming for the side alternative have been modified to improve the traveltimesavings.Iftheprojectcontinuesintothenextphaseof work, we will continue to refine and improve the transit travel timesavingsforbothsideandcenteralternatives.

management (e.g., turn pockets and signaltimingchanges)forthebasicplusasareplannedfor the side bRt alternative. a comparison oftravel time savings forboth theeastboundandthewestboundpMpeakare illustrated intable5-3andtable5-4.

beyondtraveltimesavingsforeachbus, itcanalso be illustrative to compare total aggregatehours saved by transit riders every day on thedifferentalternatives.10Whereasthebasicplusalternative(alt.2)isexpectedtosavepassengers2,200hoursperday,thesidebRtalternative(alt.3)wouldsavemorethantwicethat,about4,800hours,andthecenterbRtalternatives(alts.4&5)wouldsavetwoandahalftimesmore,about5500hours.

these travel time savings are consistent withthe improvements experienced by other full-featuredbRtsystemsintheunitedstateswhichhavereducedtraveltimesanywherefrom11to35%.11

�0TotalaggregatehourssavedbytransitridersiscalculatedbymultiplyingtheaveragetriplengthforridersonGeary(fromtheGearyon-boardsurvey),thenbythetraveltimesavingsperrider,and finally by the average number of riders in a day.��FederalTransitAdministration,CharacteristicsofBusRapidTransit.Exhibit�-�

5-10


Table 5‑3 Average Transit Travel Time (Gough to 33rd), 2015 Westbound PM Peak

Alternative38-Local Travel Time (Change from Alt. 1)

38L / BRT Travel Time (Change from Alt. 1)

Alt 1: Basic Transit Priority 32 min 26 min

Alt 2:Basic Plus 25 min

(22% less)19 min

(27% less)

From Local:41% less

Alt 3:Side BRTAlt 4: Center BRT with 2 medians 23 min

(28% less)18 min

(31% less)

From Local:44% less

Alt 5: Center BRT with 1 median

Table 5‑4 Average Transit Travel Time, (Gough to 33rd), 2015 Eastbound PM Peak

Alternative38-Local Travel Time (Change from Alt. 1)

38L / BRT Travel Time (Change from Alt. 1)

alt1:basictransitpriority 32min 25min

alt2:basicplus 32min

(nochange)

25min

(nochange)

alt3:sidebRt 24min

(25%less)20min

(20%less)

FromLocal:

38%less

alt4:centerbRtwith2medians 25min

22%less20min

20%less

FromLocal:

38%lessAlt 5: Center BRT 1 median


Geary BRT Study

TransitTravelTimecomparedtoAutoTravelTime

One of the primary issues identified in the Needs assessment was the need to better balancedifferent modes in the Geary corridor, specifically bybringingtransitoperatingconditionsclosertothe high quality of auto operating conditions.it is particularly important to minimize thedifference between auto and transit in-vehicletravel timesconsidering theadditionalpartsofatransittrip(walkingtothestationandwaitingforthebusandthenexitingthebusandwalkingto the final destination).

table 5-5 compares in-vehicle travel times forautos and buses for each of the alternatives.underbaselineconditions (alt. 1), ridingabusfrom gough to 33rd avenue in the pM peak isexpectedtotaketwiceaslongasdriving.Evenlimited service isexpected to takealmost75%longer than driving. While some difference

between driving time and transit time is tobe expected since buses need to pick up anddrop off passengers, the magnitude of thisdifferencediscouragesridersfromtakingtransit.furthermore,actualtraveltimefortransituserscan be longer than shown here when addingfactorssuchastimespentaccessingthetransitstopandwaitingforthebustothiscomparison.

all of the bRt alternatives would reduce thedifference in travel time between driving andtakingtransitoverthefullcourseoftheday.thecenterbRtalternatives(alt.4&5)wouldreducethe gap the most, due primarily to the higherqualityseparationbetweentransitvehiclesandautomovements. bRtbusestravelingbetweengoughstreetand33rdavenueinacenterbRtlanewouldtakeonly3minuteslongerthandrivingthesamedistance.localserviceisalsosubstantiallyimproved, with travel on the local bus takingabout50%longerthandriving,comparedtoover110%longercurrently.

Table 5‑5 Average Auto and Transit Travel Time (Gough to 33rd), Westbound PM Peak

alternativeautotravel

time

38-localtraveltime

(Comparisontoauto)

38l/Brttraveltime(Comparison

toauto)

Alt 1: Basic Transit Priority 15 min 32 min

(113% slower)26 min

(73% slower)

Alt 2: Basic Plus

13 min 25 min(92% slower)

19 min(46% slower)Alt 3:

Side BRTAlt 4: Center BRT with 2 medians

15 min 23 min(53% slower)

18 min(20% slower)Alt 5:

Center BRT with 1 median

5-12


servicereliability

While speeding up transit service is important,improving reliability and consistency of servicecan be even more important to transit riders.passengersareoften farmoresensitivetowaittimesthantoin-vehicletraveltimes,especiallywhenreal-timetransitarrivalinformationisnotavailable. in other words, time spent waitingforthebus“feelslonger”tothepassengerthanthesameamountoftimespentonthevehicle.consistency and predictability are key factorsin improving the customer experience andincreasingtransitridershipongeary.

allbRtdesigns(alts.3-5)areexpectedtoimprovetransit reliability by reducing conflicts with mixed traffic and streamlining passenger loading and unloading. a dedicated lane would allowbusestomaintainconsistentheadways,avoidingbunching or long gaps in service. the centerbRtalternatives(alts.4&5)wouldprovidethemost dramatic improvement because conflicts withcarswouldbecompletelyeliminatedbytheexclusivebuslaneswhichwouldnotbepermeableto mixed traffic. The Side BRT alternative (Alt. 3)wouldimprovereliabilityslightlylessbecauseparking, turning and double-parked vehicleswouldcontinuetoslowsomebusesdown,likelycausinggapsinservice.inaddition,waitingtimeforthebRtserviceinallthreebRtalternativescouldbereducedbecausethere-investmentoftraveltimesavingswouldallowformorefrequent

headways.12 the amount of time buses spendatplatformswouldalsobemoreconsistentdueto multi-door boarding and a proof-of-paymentsystem where passengers pay on the platformbeforeboarding.

thebasicplusalternative(alt.2)isexpectedtobe subject to the same delays as the baselinemostofthetime,andtohavesimilarreliabilityimprovements as side bRt (alt. 3) during peakperiods, when the dedicated bus lane is ineffect.Moreresearchwillneedtobeconductedto determine if the lack of clearly identifiable markings for the dedicated lane in the basicplusalternativealongwithchangingregulationsbytimeofdaywouldimpactdrivercomplianceandthusreducereliabilityimprovementsforthisalternative.

a summary of the expected change in servicereliabilityfromalternative1foreachalternativeis provided in table 5-6. it should be notedthattransitservicereliabilityunderalternative1 is likely tobeworse thancurrentconditions,as increased auto volumes will likely increaseconflicts between cars and transit vehicles on geary.13

��Forthepurposesofthisstageofmodeling,thetraveltimesavingsweresplitbetweenmorefrequentserviceandlongerservicehours.Infuturestagesofstudy,Muniwilldevelopamoresophisticatedoperatingcostmodeltodeterminepreciselyhowmuchadditionalservicecouldbeoffered.��Source:SF-CHAMPTravelDemandModel,SanFranciscoCountyTransportationAuthority.

Table 5‑6 Service Reliability

alternativeservicereliability

(Comparisontoalternative1)

Alt. 1: Basic Transit Priority Potentially worse than today because of increased auto traffic

Alt. 2: Basic Plus

Better than Alt. 1 in peak direction, at peak hourLike Alt. 1 at all other times

•

•

Alt. 3: Side BRT

Better reliability, but some conflicts with cars remainStreamlined passenger boarding; more consistency in time spent at platform

•

•

Alt 4: Center BRT with 2 medians Best reliability, eliminates all car-bus conflicts Streamlined passenger boarding; more consistency in time spent at platform

•

•Alt 5: Center BRT 1 median


Geary BRT Study

easeofoperation

All BRT designs (Alts. 3-5) would significantly improve transit operating conditions over thebaseline,makingtherouteeasierandsafer forMunioperatorstonavigate.overallthecenterbRtalternatives(alts.4&5)wouldprovidethegreatestimprovements.

allthreebRtdesigns(alts.3-5)wouldeliminatethe need for bRt buses to pull into and out oftraffic at bus stops due to bus bulbs, which reduces weaving.the38-localbuseswouldstillneedtoweaveintoandoutofthebusstopatlocal-onlystopsinboththesidebRtalternativeandinthecenterbRtalternatives iflocalservicerunsatthecurb.ifthelocalserviceisruninthecenterbusway, therewouldbeavery smalldegreeofweavingforbothservicestoallowlimitedbusestopasslocalbusesatlocal-onlystops.

thethreebRtdesignswouldalsoremovebusesfrom mixed traffic for 80% of the length of the corridor:14 in baseline conditions (alt. 1)buses would travel in mixed traffic for about 5 miles whereas in the bRt alternatives (alt. 3-5) buses would travel in mixed traffic for only 1milefrom33rdto48thavenues. however,thesidebRtalternative (alt. 3)wouldnot remove

��ThiscombinestheexistingdedicatedlaneeastofVanNesswith�.�milesofnewdedicatedlanesfromVanNessto��rdAvenue.

these conflicts with traffic entirely because of parking and right-turning vehicles crossing thebus lane, double-parked cars, and other carsthatmightillegallyusethebuslane.centerbRtalternatives (Alts. 4 & 5) would remove conflicts with mixed traffic completely between Van Ness and33rdavenuesbecausethebuslanewouldbephysically separated from mixed traffic. (If the local services ran at the curb in either of thecenterbRtalternatives,theywouldberunningin mixed traffic.)

becauseitaimstolimitconstruction,alternative2(basicplus)wouldnothavealltheimprovementsof alternative 3. therefore even in the peakperiod,peakdirection,transitoperationswouldnot be improved as much as with side bRt(alt.3). therewould likelybea fewtargetedadditional bus bulbs that would aid reliability,buttheywouldnotbeappliedcorridor-wideaswiththesidebRtalternative.

Table 5‑7 Ease of Operation

AlternativeEase of Operation

(Comparison to Alternative 1)

Alt. 1: Basic Transit Priority

Mixed traffic operations between 48th Avenue and Gough Street; dedicated lanes from Gough to Transbay TerminalBus weaves frequently to access stops

•

•

Alt. 2: Basic Plus

Mixed traffic operations during off-peakBus weaves frequently to access stops, except at a few locations with bus bulbs

••

Alt. 3: Side BRT

Dedicated lane, some conflicts remainLess weaving

••

Alt 4: Center BRT with 2 medians Dedicated lane, physically separated

Minimal weaving••Alt 5: Center BRT with

1 median

5-14


distributionofBenefits/Transit Equity Analysis

a number of steps in the planning process areintendedtoadvanceprojectswithanequitabledistribution of benefits and impacts. Broad community and stakeholder participation asearly as possible helps to ensure that concernsabout design, benefits and impacts of potential projects, as well as distribution of each, areaddressedeffectivelyinthedesignprocess.

thegearycorridorpassesthroughadiversesetofneighborhoodsrangingfromverylowincometo high income. the proportion of householdsinthecorridorwhodonotowncarsalsovariesby location—from 81% in the tenderloin anddowntown to31% in theouterRichmond. thefollowingevaluationmeasurecapturesthedegreetowhichlow-incomehouseholdsandhouseholdswithout a car would benefit from BRT on Geary relativetootherhouseholds.

thesf-chaMpmodelcancalculatetransportationoutcomesfordifferentgroupsofpeople,suchaslow-incomeandzero-carhouseholds,ortransit-dependent households. to measure the equityof bRt investment on geary, the study teammeasured the share of project benefits that would accrue to low-income households andtransit-dependent households, as well as theshareofhouseholdsthatarenotlow-incomeandthose that have access to a car. an equitableproject is one that benefits these populations proportionately.

Table 5-8 below estimates how benefits from a potentialbRtprojectongearyaccruetoeachofthepopulationsdescribedabove.

Table 5‑8 Share of Total Travel Time Savings for Households*

Zero-Carhouseholds

citywideproportion 20% 80%

alt3:sidebRt 16% 84%

alt4:centerbRtwith2medians

29% 71%alt5:centerbRtwith1median*TheStudyTeamcouldnotcompleteafullequityanalysisfortheBasicPlusalternative(Alt.�)duetothetimingofthisStudy.Moredetailcouldbedevelopedinalaterphaseofanalysis

attractandretaintransitriders

the following describes expected changes inridershiponallgearybuses(i.e.all38-linebuses)forthealternatives.transitridershipin2015isexpected to increaseovercurrent ridership forallalternatives(alts.1-5).inthebaseline2015conditions(alt.1),transitridershipinthegearycorridor is estimated to increase by about 4%overtoday’sridership.15allthebRtalternatives(alts. 3-5) are expected to increase ridershipsignificantly over these baseline projections (alt. 1) with the center bRt designs (alts. 4 &5) attracting the most riders, nearly doublingridership in some scenarios. this is because afaster, more reliable and more comfortableserviceisquitedesirable.thebRtservicesareexpected tonotonly improve service for thosewho currently ride the 38l-limited, but alsoattract 38-local riders and riders from otherroutes who are willing to walk a bit farther toaccessbetterservice.

onaverage,within thepeakperiods, thebasicplus alternative (alt. 2) is expected to attractabout5%moreridersthanthebaseline in2015(alt.1).thesidebRtalternativeisexpectedtoattract 15% more riders than the baseline, andthecenterbRtalternatives(alts.4&5)shouldattract 25% more riders than the baseline (seetable5-9).

thoughbRtalternativesareexpectedtoincreaseoverall ridership, the increase does not comefrom equal increases in ridership for local andlimitedservice.bRtisexpectedtoshiftridershipsignificantly from the slower local service to the faster bRt service. under the center bRtalternatives (alts. 4&5), ridershipon thebRtbusisexpectedtonearlydoublecurrentlimitedridership(96%moreriders),whilethe38-localisexpectedtoloseriders.similarly,underthesidebRtalternatives,thebRtserviceisexpectedtoincrease ridership by about 80% compared tocurrentlimitedridership.astraveltimesavingsattract more riders to the bRt service, thebalance between local and bRt services shouldberevisedtobettermatchridership.inaddition,re-investmentoftraveltimesavingscouldallowforincreasesinbRtservice.

theridershipgainsforthecenterbRtalternativesassume that both the local and the bRt busesoperateinthecenterbusway.however,currentlythereisonlyaviablepassinglanedesignforthecenterbRtalternativewith2medians(alt.4),

��Thisisslightlylowerthanthesystem-wideincreaseof�%.Thisincreasedoesnotkeeppacewiththegrowingnumberoftripsinthecorridor.


Geary BRT Study

not for thecenterbRtwith1median (alt. 5),as described in chapter 4. in the event thatanotherserviceplanisadoptedforthesecenteralternatives,transitridershipgainsarelikelytobe somewhatdiminished,but to still behigherthanforanyotheralternative.ifthelocalbusremains at the curb or if a skip stop service isadopted, transit ridership gains would be 20%,ratherthan25%.

according to the model, between 2,000 and3,400 new transit riders would ride the gearybuseseveryweekdayunderthebRtalternatives(alts. 3-5). these new riders would primarilybe existing Muni riders who are seeking better

service,e.g.ridersonotherrouteswhochoosebRtservicesinsteadoftheircurrentroute.thisis because those existing riders perceive a benefit frombRtserviceandarewillingtowalkfarthertoreceiveshortertraveltimesandmorereliableservice.thiswouldalsoincludesomepeoplewhowere previously walking or driving. increasedridership means more potential customers forlocalbusinesses.

Ridership estimates for the bRt alternativesmay be conservative, because other bRtimplementations in the u.s. have found thatmorepeoplecouldshiftfromdriving.

Table 5‑9 2015 Transit Ridership

Alternative

Estimated Average Daily Transit Ridership (all Geary services)

Growth from Alternative 1

Alt. 1: Basic Transit Priority 51,200 riders (4% increase from today)

Alt. 2: Basic Plus 5% more

Alt. 3: Side BRT 15% more

Alt 4: Center BRT with 2 medians25% more

Alt 5: Center BRT with 1 median

5-16


community fEEdback

at public workshops hosted by the authorityin november 2006, participants were asked toexpresstheirviewsongearybRt.awiderangeofcommentswerereceived—fromthoseexpressingsupport of bRt, to those concerned with themagnitudeof impactsfromthededicatedlane,tothoseseekingadditionalanalysistounderstandboth benefits and impacts. A complete summary ofworkshopresults is included intheoutreachReport,appendixg.

for the most part, public comments supportedimprovements that resulted in more reliableserviceongeary. inasurveyofapproximately1,200 transit riders16 along geary, the highestpriority transit investments included real-timeinformation,expandedhoursofservice,andthededicatedlane.theincreasedspeed,reliabilityand comfort offered by bRt were attractive tocommunitymembersandstakeholders.

somemembersofthepublicfeelthatestimatesof reduced travel time may not be significant enoughtowarranttheimpactstoautooperations,changes to parking availability, and diversionsfromgearytoparallelstreets. somemembersofthepublicsupportbasicplus(alt2)becauseits impacts are limited to commuting tripsduringthepeakhourandinthepeakdirection.others indicated that more permanent transit

��TheAuthorityconductedasurveyoftransitridersatbusstopsalongthelengthofGearyoverathree-weekperiodinsummer�00�.MoredetailscanbefoundinAppendixG.

improvementswouldencouragethemtousebRtfor non-work travel. While some respondentsand workshop participants felt that bRt wouldbe more efficient and offer an improvement on current conditions, others look for moredetailedanalysisofimpactsinanenvironmentalanalysis.

kEy concluSionS

bRtwouldimprovetransitperformanceforeverysub-criteriainthiscategory,withthecenterbRtalternatives (alts. 4 & 5) offering the greatestimprovementoverthebaseline. thephysicallyseparated transit-only lane of the center bRtdesigns would offer the greatest transit traveltimesavings,reliabilityimprovements,andeaseof operations, which in turn would lead to thehighestridershipgainsbecausepeoplearewillingto walk farther to receive shorter travel timesandmorereliableservice.sidebRt(alt.3)wouldalsoimprovetransitconditionsconsiderablyoverthe baseline, but the improvements would besomewhat diminished because the transit laneis permeable to mixed traffic and thus some conflicts would still occur which effect reliability, traveltime,andridersatisfaction.thebasicplusAlternative (Alt. 2), would deliver benefits similar tosidebRtwhenthededicatedlaneisineffect(eastboundintheaMpeakperiod,westboundinthepMpeakperiod)(seetable5-10).

Table 5‑10 Summary of Transit Performance Results

transittraveltimesWestbound

pMpeak(limitedto

Brtservice)service

reliabilityeaseof

operation

attractandretain

transitriders

alt1:basictransitpriority 26min

potentiallyworsethan

today

potentiallyworsethan

today51,200riders

alt2:basicplus

alt3:sidebRt


alt5:centerbRtwith1median


Geary BRT Study

5.4 transitriderexperienCe

PurPoSE

Maintainingrobustandstabletransitridershipisthe first goal of the Geary BRT project. Ensuring apositiveexperienceforusersofthesystemiscritical,bothforretainingexistingriders,aswellasattractingnewones.transitriderexperienceismeasuredbyqualityofthewaitingandboardingexperience;qualityofthein-vehicleexperience;wayfinding ability; and safety and security of waitingriders.

anothergoalofthegearybRtprojectissystemdevelopment of a transit priority network.achieving this goal involves enhancing transitongeary,while simultaneouslyhelpingachievecitywidegoalsofdevelopingahigh-quality,rapid

transitsystemwithasenseofpermanence.theability of each alternative to provide a unique“brand”or identityforthiscrucial,highly-usedtransitrouteisalsomeasuredinthissectionasitwillbeintegraltohowtransitridersexperienceridingthebusongeary.

table 5-11 shows all the sub-criteria thatmeasure transit rider experience. it provides abrief explanation/definition of each sub-criteria and the source of information used for itsevaluation.

Table 5‑11 Transit Rider Experience Criteria

GOALS: * Robust and Stable Ridership* Transit Priority Network System Development

sub-criteria Methodology/Definition source

Quality of waiting and boarding experience

Captures how the different designs affect waiting time and waiting variability, platform width, and buffers between waiting passengers and auto traffic.

Physical Designs and Qualitative

Quality of in-vehicle experience

Captures the quality of the ride on transit from the passenger’s perspective, including how much buses weave and the distance buses travel in mixed traffic. The travel demand model forecasts average bus loads, which will help to predict crowding on buses.*

Physical Designs andTravel Demand Model

Wayfinding ability

Captures how visible and legible transit routes and information would be to riders by assessing passenger comprehension of the system, e.g. can passengers easily find bus stops and transfer between bus stops, and the ease of transferring from Geary to other routes (including vertical circulation).

Physical DesignsandQualitative

Security of waiting riders

Captures level of perceived safety and security for waiting riders, including visibility of waiting passengers to other passengers and to people in nearby buildings.

Qualitative

BRT transit route branding / identity

Measures the ability of a design to be recognized by the general public as a high-quality and rapid service, includes opportunities for distinctive design treatments, establishment of consistent design themes, and raising the visibility of transit service.

Qualitative

*Traveltimeandreliabilityarealsoanimportantpartofthein-vehiclepassengerexperience;however,thesearedescribedingreaterdetailinthepriorsection.PleaserefertoSection�.�formorinformationonthesecriteria.

5-18


mEthodology

unlike a number of other evaluation criteria,transit rider experience is measured bothqualitatively and quantitatively, because it ismeasuring, in part, the way the environmentwouldmakeriders“feel”.

branding, marketing, the quality of the stationplatformamenities,andsecurityarequalitativelyassessed. the systematic qualitative analysisandrankingsystemrequiredcoordinationacrossa multi-agency team and was continually refined asthestudyprogressed. itwillcontinuetobeenhanced and further refined in future stages of thestudy.

conceptualengineeringdrawingsprovidedmorequantitative information about bus weaving,platformcapacity,andthebuffersbetweencarsand waiting passengers. the sf-chaMp modelprovided information on bus crowding. thefull matrices for transit Rider Experience arepresentedinappendixh.

there are some design features which areconsistent across all full-featured bRt designs(alts.3,4,&5)whichwouldimprovetransitriderexperienceandthusallbRtalternativescanbedescribedtogether.however,inmanycases,theuniqueaspectsofeachofthethreefull-featuredbRtconceptualdesignalternativeswouldresultinvariationsinthetransitriderexperienceandaredescribedseparately.Whilebasicplus(alt.2)andsidebRt(alt3)performsimilarlyunderother evaluation criteria, they are analyzedseparately for transit rider experience becausethestationareainvestmentsmadeforsidebRt(Alt. 3) would not be as significant for Basic Plus (alt.2).

findingS

QualityofWaitingandBoardingexperience

a passenger’s experience waiting for andboarding buses is affected by multiple factors:the quality, width, safety, and cleanliness ofthe station platform, the separation betweenpassengers on the platform and moving traffic, as wellashowoftenbusescomeandwhethertheyarriveontime.inbaseline2015conditions(alt.1) Muni bus stops would not change physicallyfrom today (standard shelters and a 6-foot orsmaller passenger waiting area), but passengerwaiting and boarding would be improvedsomewhatasmorereal-timearrivalinformationwould be provided and low-floor buses would be introduced.

the three full-featured bRt designs (alts. 3-5)would include all of the improvements above,plusmanyothersthatwouldimprovepassengerwaitingandboardingconsiderablyoverbaselineconditions. for some metrics all three bRtdesigns (alts. 3-5) would perform equally, andforothers,riderexperiencewouldvarybetweenthethree.

all bRt alternatives (alts. 3-5) would includeconsiderable investment in the station area,including amenities like increased seating,larger shelters, and comprehensive streetscapeimprovements, like consistent street plantingsand curb extensions. (all of the featuresincluded in the project design principles andguidelines, described in chapter 3, would beconsistentthroughthecorridorforallthreebRtalternatives.) all three bRt designs (alts. 3-5)would provide considerable improvements intransitservicereliabilitybyprovidinganall-daydedicatedtransitlane.sidebRt(alt.3)wouldimprovereliabilitysomewhatlessthancenterbRtalternatives(alt.4&5)duetosomeremainingconflicts between transit vehicles mixed traffic, asdescribedinsection5.3,transitperformance.averagepassengerwaittimeswouldbereducedunderallthreebRtalternativesbothbecauseofreliability improvements and increased servicefrequencyresultingfromre-investmentoftraveltimesavings.17

sidebRt(alt.3)andcenterbRtwith1median(alt.5)wouldprovidethebestpassengerwaitingexperiencewithwidebRtstationplatforms(alt.3: 20-foot bus bulb/sidewalk, alt. 5: 14-footplatform)anda13-footbuslanethatwouldactas a buffer between passengers and auto traffic. the center bRt alternative with 2 medians(alt. 4) would have 9.5-foot platforms andwould provide a smaller buffer from auto traffic becausetheplatformwouldbedirectlyadjacentto traffic lanes on one side. However, there are design treatments thatcouldbeused to lessenthe impact of waiting adjacent to traffic. For example,aplatform-longrailingcanbeinstalledtoactasabufferorshelterdesigncanhelpshieldpassengers from the adjacent traffic lane.

station conditions in the basic plusalternative(alt.2)wouldbesimilartothebaseline(standardsheltersandpassengerwaitingareaof6-feetorless) except at a few locations with bus bulbsor longer bus zones. in the peak period, peakdirection,thebasicplusalternativeisexpected

��Forthepurposesofthisstageofmodeling,thetraveltimesavingswerereinvestedtooffermorefrequentserviceandlongerservicehours.Infuturestagesofstudy,Muniwilldevelopamoresophisticatedoperatingcostmodeltodeterminepreciselyhowmuchadditionalservicecouldbeoffered.


Geary BRT Study

toexperiencethesamereliabilityimprovementsasthesidebRt.18

acomparisonofalternativesforqualityofwaitingandboardingexperienceisprovidedintable5-12below.

�� It is difficult to determine whether the lack of colored pave-menttoclearlyidentifythededicatedlaneintheBasicPlusalter-nativealongwithchangingregulationsbytimeofdaywillimpactdrivercomplianceandreducereliabilityimprovementsforthisalternative.

Table 5‑12 Waiting and Boarding Experience

AlternativeDescription of Waiting and Boarding Experience

Comparison to Alternative 1alt.1:basictransitpriority

Some real time information, new low-floor busesStandard Muni bus shelters

••

alt.2:basicplus

Improved reliability (peak period & direction only) Some real time information, new low-floor busesStandard Muni bus shelters

•••

alt.3:sidebRt

20ft. BRT bus bulb/sidewalk and 12 ft. local platforms, bus lane buffers from trafficHigh-quality bus shelters with full amenitiesImproved reliability (some conflicts remain) Real time information, new low-floor buses

•

•••

alt.4:centerbRtwith2medians

Two 9.5 ft. station platforms, small buffer from trafficHigh-quality bus shelters with full amenitiesImproved reliabilityReal time information, new low-floor buses

••••

alt.5:centerbRtwith1median

Single 14 ft. platform (widest), bus lanes buffer trafficHigh-quality bus shelters with full amenitiesImproved reliabilityReal time information, new low-floor buses

••••

5-20


Qualityofin-vehicleexperience

the quality of the in-vehicle riding experienceisafunctionofthesmoothnessoftherideandcrowdingonthebuses.passengersareespeciallysensitive to the “side to side” motion requiredto weave buses from the traffic lane to the curb for stops and then back into traffic. While all of thebRtalternativeswouldperformbetterthanthebaseline,duetotheirdedicatedtransitlane,thecenterbRtalternatives(alts.4&5)wouldprovide thebest in-vehicleexperiencebecausethey would operate completely separate frommixed traffic and would require minimal weaving alongthecorridor(someweavingtoaccommodatepassing), allowing for a smoother, straighterpassengerride.thesidebRtalternative(alt.3)is expected to involve some conflicts with mixed traffic and more weaving motions than the Center bRtalternativesduetoparkingandright-turningvehiclescrossingthebuslane,andthepossibilityof double-parked vehicles and other bus-laneviolations, all of which is less comfortable forpassengers.

basicplus(alt.2)wouldperformaboutthesameasthesidebRtinthepeakperiod,peakdirection,and the sameas thebaselinealternativeatallother times. it is possible that more bus-laneviolations would take place due to the lack ofpavementmarkingsandthechangingregulationsbytimeofday.

bRtimprovementsareexpectedtoattractmoreriders; passenger loads would likely be equaltoorgreaterthancurrentloads.however,theelimination of “bunching” and “service gaps”gained through improved reliability as well ashigherfrequencyfromreinvestmentoftraveltimesavings,aswellasall-doorboardingwithproofofpayment(pop),shouldresultinmoreevenlydistributedpassengerloadsthaninthebaselinealternative.inaddition,morecomfortablebusesshould improvetheexperienceof ridingonfullbuses. A description of relative benefits for quality of in-vehicle experience is provided intable5-13below.

Table 5‑13 Quality of In‑vehicle Experience

alternativedescriptionofin-vehicleexperience

Comparisontoalternative1

alt.1:basictransitpriority

Buses weave frequently to access stopsMixed traffic operations (except for bus-only lane from Van Ness Ave. to Transbay Terminal)

••

alt.2:basicplus

Additional bus bulbs will reduce weaving somewhat during peak hour in peak direction

•

alt.3:sidebRt

Much smoother ride, some mixed traffic conflicts remain

•


Much smoother ride, some weaving to allow BRT buses to pass local buses

•

alt.5:centerbRtwith1Median

Smoothest, straightest ride*•

*Someweavingcouldoccuronceapassinglaneisdeveloped,likelythesamedegreeofweavingasAlternative�.Moreworkcanbedoneinthenextphaseofstudytoevaluatetheseimpacts.


Geary BRT Study

Wayfinding ability

all bRt alternatives (alts. 3-5) would provideadditional signage to improve general transitwayfinding and the transfer experience in particular. Wayfinding would be simplified in center bRt alternative with 1 median (alt. 5)because the same platform is used for travelinbothdirections. ineitherofthecenterbRtalternatives, if all services were run in thebusway, bRt stops would be distinguished fromlocal stops by longer stop zones and enhancedtransitamenities.19iflocalservicewererunatthecurb,itwouldbeeveneasiertodistinguishbetween services, but could be frustrating forsomepassengerswhowouldbeforcedtochoosewhether towait for localbusesat thecurborbRtbuseson thecenterplatform. in thesidebRtalternative(alt.3)bRtstopsshouldbeeasytodistinguishfromlocalstopsbybusbulbsandotherdesigntreatments.

alloftheside-runningalternatives,includingthebaseline,basicplus(alt.2)andthesidebRt(alt.3) would have the advantage of offering stoplocationsthatcouldbedesignedtominimizethe

��CurrentlythereisonlyaviablepassinglanedesignfortheCen-terBRTalternativewith�medians(Alt.�),notfortheCenterBRTwith�median(Alt.�).TheStudyTeamisoptimisticthatapassinglaneoptioncanbedevelopedfortheCenterBRTalternativewith�median(Alt.�)inthenextstageofthisStudy.

walkdistancefortransfers.forexample,atthecornerofgearyanddivisadero,themostcommontransfer direction would be from eastboundgeary buses to southbound divisadero buses.geary buses traveling eastbound currently stoponthenearsideoftheintersectiontoallowforacombinedcornerstopwiththe24-divisadero;passengerssimplyhavetogetoffthegearybusand walk a few feet around the corner to getonthedivisaderobus.centerbRtalternatives(alts.4&5)wouldrequireriderstocrossfromthe center lane to the curb to transfer to busroutesthatcrossgeary.

Wayfinding is simplified when the visibility of transit services can be maximized and whenpassengers can be confident that the service operates the same way all day and every dayofservice.alternative2wouldhavetheaddedcomplexityofoperatingdifferentlyatdifferenttimes of day, which could be difficult for users of all modes to understand. a comparison ofalternatives for wayfinding ability is provided in table5-14,below.

Table 5‑14 Wayfinding Ability

alternativeDescription of Wayfinding

Comparisontoalternative1


Minimal wayfinding informationCan locate stops to minimize walking distance for dominant transfer

••

alt.2:basicplus

Existing wayfinding information Can locate stops to minimize walking distance for dominant transfer

••

alt.3:sidebRt

Additional signageCan locate stops to minimize walking distance for dominant transfer Easy to distinguish between services

••

•


Additional signageEasy to distinguish between services

••


Additional signageEasy to distinguish between servicesSimple, consistent due to 1 platform

•••

5-22


senseofsecurityforWaitingriders

Riders in all alternatives (1-5) would benefit frominformalsurveillancebyotherriders,whichcouldbeenhancedinbRtdesigns(alts.3-5)byincreased ridership and extended bRt servicehours.thesecurityofwaitingriderswouldalsobeimprovedinallbRtdesigns(alts.3-5)bystationfeatures such as closed-caption tv monitoring,betterlighting,andenforcedstation-areaproof-of-paymentzones.

passenger activity on the platform would behighest in the center bRt alternative with 1median(alt.5)becausepassengerstraveling inbothdirectionswouldwaitonthesamestation

platform.20 increasedridershipandmore“eyeson the platform” would naturally enhancesecurity.however,bothcenterbRtalternatives(alts. 4 & 5) would have somewhat reducednaturalsurveillancefromadjacentlandusesduetoroadwayandparkingseparation.

passengers’senseofsafety inthesidebRtandcenterbRtalternativewith1median(alts.3&5)couldbebetterduetothetransitlanebufferfrom moving traffic. See Table 5-15, below, for a comparisonofalternativesforpassengers’senseofsecurity.

�0IntheCenterBRTalternativewith�median(Alt.�),thecom-binedplatformforbothdirectionsoftravelwouldrequireserviceinonedirectiontohavenearsidestopswhichwouldlimittheef-fectivenessofTSP.Theinconsistencycanbeaddressedinthenextphaseofthestudy.

Table 5‑15 Passenger Sense of Security

alternativepassengersenseofsecurity

Comparisontoalternative1alt.1:basictransitpriority

highvisibilityfromadjacentlandusesandpassengeractivityatthebusstop

alt.2:basicplus

High visibility from adjacent land uses and passenger activity at the bus stop

•

alt.3:sidebRt

Enhanced station safety (e.g. lighting)Close visibility from adjacent land uses and passenger activity at the bus stop

••


Enhanced station safety (e.g. lighting)Reduced visibility from adjacent land usesSense of security from passenger activity at the bus stop

•••


Enhanced station safety (e.g. lighting)Highest passenger activityReduced surveillance from adjacent land uses

•••


Geary BRT Study

BrttransitrouteBranding/identity

thiscriterionmeasurestheabilityofadesigntobe recognized by the general public as a high-qualityandrapidservice.

allthreefull-featuredbRtalternatives(alts.3-5)wouldfeaturecoloredtransitlanestodiscouragemixed traffic, and would also brand bus rapid transitservicesassomethingunique.however,thevisualdistinctionofsidebRt(alt.3)wouldbelessobviousthanthecenterbRtalternativesbecausecarscouldcrossthebuslanetoturnrightortopark.Moreover,becausebusbulbswouldextendthesidewalk insidebRt, theycouldbeidentified with the sidewalk environment rather than the distinctive bRt transit service. basicpluswouldnothaveacoloredlaneandtherefore

wouldoperatelikethebaselineintermsofbRttransitroutebranding.

center bRt alternatives (alts. 4 & 5) wouldprovide the best branding opportunity andstrongestidentityforbRtbecausethebuslaneswouldbephysicallyseparatedfromauto lanes,reinforcingtheir identityasRapidtransit. thelocationofstationplatformsinthecenteroftheroadway would offer the opportunity to buildsignaturestationsdesignedtopromotethebRtservice,withinfrastructurededicatedexclusivelytotransit(seetable5-16,below).

Table 5‑16 BRT Identity

alternativeBrtidentity

Comparisontoalternative1alt.1:basictransitpriority nodistinction:perceivedlikeanyotherMuniroute

alt.2:basicplus nochange

alt.3:sidebRtColored pavement creates stronger identity

•

alt.4:centerbRtwith2medians Separate rapid transit infrastructureProminent, visible stations Ample branding opportunities Colored pavement creates stronger identity

••••alt.5:centerbRtwith1median

5-24


community fEEdback

Many community stakeholders were pleased tosee that features of the potential bRt projectwould include real-time information, betterlightingatstations,consistentsignage,andmorecomfortable shelters that also protect fromwind and rain. implementation of real-timeinformation,e.g.nextMuni,wasahighpriorityimprovement for transit improvements ongeary,and systemwide. participantswerealsointerested in the prospect of low-floor vehicles that would allow faster, easier boarding anddeparture.seniorswereespeciallysupportiveofthenewvehicles,statingthattheywouldallowmorecomfortableuseofbuses.

a few residents suggested that stations furtherincorporate security and safety features, suchassecuritycameras,emergencycallboxes,andnon-slipmaterialsonwalkingareas.safetyandsecurityofthefillmoreandMasonicunderpasseswasalsodiscussed,andadditionalcommentsonalternativesat these locationsaredescribed insection5.10.

Most community members felt that bRt wouldreducecrowdingonbusesandprovideasmoother,morecomfortableride.commentsalsoincludedsuggestionsto incorporateeducationfortransitridersandmotoristsalikeinordertoensurethatthedesigniseasytouseandunderstand.

kEy concluSionS

in every measure of transit rider experience,allof theprojectalternatives (alts.2-5)wouldofferabetterexperiencethanthebaseline(alt.1). center bRt with 1 median (alt. 5) wouldperform the best overall because transit riderswouldhavethewidestplatform,theywouldbebuffered from traffic by bus lanes, and riders in both directions would share one platformwhich increasesactivityandthereforesecurity.bothcenteralternatives(alts.4&5)rankhighoverallbecausetheywouldprovidethestrongestopportunity for bRt branding and identity,and they would offer the greatest reliabilityimprovementsbyprovidingaphysicallyseparatedtransit-onlylaneinthecenterofthestreet.sidebRtrankshighlyintermsofperceivedsecurity,primarily because of the natural surveillanceof sidewalk activities and the opportunitiesfor stops to be located to minimize the walkdistance for the dominant transfer direction(e.g., at geary & divisadero). basic plus (alt.2) would improve conditions considerably lessthanthefull-featuredbRtalternativesbecausetherewouldbefewer investmentsmadetothestationenvironment.(seetable5-17,below,fora summary of findings.)

Table 5‑17 Summary of Transit Rider Experience Results

alternative

QualityWaiting/Boarding

experience

Qualityin-vehicle

experienceWayfinding

abilitysenseofsecurity

BrtBranding/

identity


Realtimeinfo,newbuses,butstandardshelters

frequentweaving,mixed traffic operations

Minimalwayfinding, somestopsminimizetransferwalkdistance

naturalsurveillance-adjacentlanduses,noenhancedstations

perceivedlikeanyotherMuniroute

Alt. 2: Basic Plus

Alt. 3: Side BRT

Alt. 4: Center BRT with 2 medians

Alt. 5: Center BRT with 1 median


Geary BRT Study

5.5 aCCessandpedestrianaMenities

PurPoSE

improvingpedestrianconditionsandmaximizingaccessandmobilitythroughoutthecorridorareamong the top priorities for the bRt project;responding directly to the needs assessmentand to community feedback. this categorymeasures the benefits of each alternative to pedestrians,bothwhenwalkingalongthestreet(sidewalk conditions) and when crossing thestreet (crossing experience). it also measures

thequalityofbicycleaccessongeary,includingsafety and comfort for bicyclists. finally, itmeasures the increase in transit accessibilitytojobs(i.e.howmanymorejobsopportunitiesareavailabletotransitriderswithin30minutesfromneighborhoodsinthecorridor).table5-18showsallthecriteriaforaccessandpedestrianamenities. it provides a brief explanation/definition of each and the source of the data usedforitsevaluation.

Table 5‑18 Access and Pedestrian Amenities Criteria

GOALS: * Robust and Stable Ridership* Neighborhood Livability and Commercial VitalitySub-criteria Methodology/Definition Source

Crossing experience

Measures safety and comfort for pedestrians crossing Geary Boulevard, e.g. average crossing distances, how many traffic lanes pedestrians must cross, and the width of pedestrian islands.

Physical Designs

Sidewalk conditionsMeasures safety and comfort for pedestrians on the sidewalks, including sidewalk width and whether there are buffers between the sidewalk and moving traffic.

Physical Designs

Quality of bicycle access

Measures safety and comfort for bicyclists riding in the corridor, including the space available for bicyclists to navigate, i.e. average width of dedicated space for bicyclists, and whether curb extensions “pinch” this right travel lane.

Physical Designs

Increased employment and retail accessibility for neighborhoods

Captures the change in work opportunities accessible by transit for each alternative, measured by the change in the number of jobs reachable within a 30-minute transit trip.

Travel Demand Model

5-26


mEthodology

the evaluation results for this category wereprimarily assessed through review of theconceptual physical design drawings preparedfor each alternative. sf-chaMp was used toestimate changes in accessibility to economicopportunities.

findingS

Crossingexperience

the crossing experience in both the baselinealternative(alt.1)andthebasicplusalternative(alt.2)wouldbeequivalenttocurrentconditions,whicharegoodinsomeareas,butpoorinmanyotherareas. theareafrom15thavenueto28thavenueisrelativelypedestrian-friendlyduetoavibrant commercial zone and diagonal parking;traffic is relatively calmed and pedestrians only have to cross 2 lanes of traffic in either direction. inothersectionsofthecorridorhowever,crossingdistances are very long, making it difficult for many pedestrianstosafelygetacrosstheintersectioninthetimeallotted.forexample,eastofparkPresidio pedestrians must cross 3 lanes of traffic plusaparkinglanebeforereachingarefuge,andwhere there are left turn pockets pedestrians

are forced to cross all 5-7 lanes of traffic plus 2lanesofparkingbeforereachingarefuge.inthese locationsthemediansaresonarrowthattheyhardlyprovideanyrefuge.

the design of bRt alternatives sought to bringmore balance to the corridor, to replicate thefeaturesofthemorepedestrian-friendlyareasintheareasthatarelesspedestrian-friendly.thebRt alternatives would improve the pedestriancrossing experience by installing highly visiblecrosswalks,landscapedmedians,acompletesetof pedestrian countdown signals, corner curbextensions, and median caps (which provide araised, mid-crosswalk pedestrian refuge), allillustratedbelow.21thethreefull-featuredbRtdesigns on average would reduce pedestriancrossingdistancesby12feet,morethanthewidthofatravel lane,primarilythroughtheadditionofcornercurbextensions into theparking lane(crossingdistanceswouldbe reducedby6 feetatintersectionswithlocalbusstops,atthefewintersections with right turn pockets, and atintersectionswithleftturnsinalternative5).

��PedestriancrossingtimeswillmeettheCitystandardforcross-walkswithmedians,whichis�feetpersecond.

Pedestrians must sometimes cross seven lanes of traffic between Arguello and Park Presidio, and there isnousablemedianinmanylocations.


Geary BRT Study

highlyvisiblecrosswalks

pedestriancountdownsignals

cornercurbextensions

landscapedMedians

Visiblecrosswalks Countdownsignals Cornercurbextensions Mediancaps

thethreebRtalternatives(alts.3-5)aredesignedtoensurethat themajorityofpedestrianscouldcrossgearyinasignalcycle,throughacombinationofreducedcrossingdistancesandimprovedsignaltiming for all travel modes. pedestrian refugesareincorporatedintoallbRtdesignssothatthosepedestrianswhowereunabletocrossinonesignalphase would have a safe refuge. Even in sidebRt(alt.3),whichforthemostpartwouldleavemediansastheyarecurrently,featureslikemediancaps would be added to improve the pedestriancrossingexperience.

aside from these improvements common to allbRt alternatives, there are also ways in whichthepedestriancrossingexperiencewouldvarybyalternative.foremost,thenatureofthemid-streetpedestrian islands provided in each alternativevaries. the differences in median designs areillustratedinfigure5-2onthefollowingpage.

overall,thecrossingexperienceismostimprovedincenterbRtwith2platforms(alt.4),becausethe wide street would be broken into threemanageable sections with safe refuges providedafter crossing only two lanes of traffic (three lanes atthefewintersectionswithrightturnpockets).however,inthisdesignthetwo9.5-footmedianswouldbenarrowedto5and8feetatlocalstopstoallowbRtbusestopasslocalbuses,22andonemedianwouldbecompletelyeliminatedatthe12-13intersectionswithleftturnpockets.thiswouldrequire that pedestrians cross five lanes of traffic betweenrefugesattheselocations.however,thestudy team offset left turns so that they wouldnot occur for both directions of travel at oneintersection.therefore,ateveryintersection,thecrosswalkononesidewouldalwayshavefullwidthmediansandpedestrianswouldhavetheoptiontocrossonthesidewithnoleftturnpocket.

��IntheserviceplanwherebothBRTandLocalservicesareruninthecenterbusway.

5-28


incenterbRtwith1median(alt.5),pedestrianswould consistently have to cross 3 lanes of traffic to reach refuge (four lanes at the few rightand left turnpockets),however, theample15-foot center median would be consistent at allintersectionsthroughoutthecorridor.inthesidebRt (alt. 3), pedestrians would typically crossthree lanes of traffic (four at the few right and leftturnpockets)toreacharefuge,andmedians

would typically be 15 feet wide, but would bereduced to 5 feet at the 27 intersections withleft turns. as inalterative 4, left turns wouldbe offset so pedestrians would always have atleastonesideoftheintersectionwherethewidemedianwouldbeintact.

sidebRt(alternative3)

centerbRtwith2medians(alternative4)

centerbRtwith1median(alternative5)

figure5-2 physicaldesignsforbRtalternatives


Geary BRT Study

Evenconsideringthesevariations,allofthebRtdesigns would offer significant improvement over the baseline because the number of left turnpockets, which deteriorate crossing conditions,wouldbereduced.inthisfeasibilitystudy,thestudy team proposed reducing the number ofintersectionsthatallow left turnsbetween33rdandvannessfrom24 ineitherdirection inthebaseline(22-23ofwhichhaveleftturnpockets)to13-16ineachdirectioninthebRtalternatives.Moredetailedanalysisisneededinthenextphaseof work to finalize these assumptions.

a comparison of crossing experience andsidewalkconditionsbetweenalternatives2-5andalternative1isprovidedintable5-19below.

sidewalkConditions

all the bRt designs (alts. 3-5) would improvesidewalkconditionsongearyboulevardthroughpedestrian-scale street lighting and improvedlandscaping.sidebRtwouldalsoofferawider

sidewalk(20.5feet)atbusbulbs(14locations),andthebuslanewouldofferanincreasedbufferbetween pedestrians and moving auto traffic. basicplus(alt.2)wouldnotofferthelandscapingimprovements provided with side bRt, but itwouldoffersomeincreasedbuffertopedestriansatthepeakhourinthepeakdirection.thecenterbRtalternatives(alts.4&5)wouldoffersomeadditionalpedestrianroomonthesidewalksbymovingbusstops/shelterstothecenterstations,ifbothlocalandbRtserviceswereoperatedinthecenterbusway.23

��ApassinglaneoptionhasnotyetbeendevelopedforAlternative�,butisexpectedinthenextstageoftheStudy.

Table 5‑19 Quality of Crossing Experience and Sidewalk Conditions

Alternative Crossing Experience & Sidewalk Conditions Comparison to Alternative 1


Long crossing distances (avg. 100 feet)Inadequate pedestrian refuge at left turn locations.48 left turns (33rd to Van Ness)

•••

Alt. 2: Basic Plus No change (minimal additional buffer when dedicated lane is in effect.).Some additional bus bulbs

•

•

Alt. 3: Side BRT Wider sidewalks in some locations (20.5 feet)Bus lane provides additional buffer from moving trafficReduced crossing distance (avg. 88 feet)Countdown signals Landscaping improvementsFewer left turns (30)

••••••


Reduced crossing distance (avg. 88 feet)Countdown signalsLandscaping improvementsFewer left turns (28)Additional pedestrian space on sidewalk by moving bus shelters to the center.

•••••Alt. 5: Center BRT

with 1 median

5-30


QualityofBicycleaccess24

the quality of bicycle access would be slightlyimprovedinallthefull-featuredbRtdesigns(alt.3-5).allofthebRtstationswouldhavebicycleparking and, consistent with current policy, allbuseswillbeequippedwithbikeracks.overall,traffic would be somewhat calmed because there would be only two lanes of through auto traffic rather than three. lastly, in the center bRtalternatives(alts.4&5),ifbothlocalandbRtbuses were run in the center busway, bicycleswould not need to interact with buses in therightlane,whichcanbechallenging.

Some of these benefits would be offset by narrower auto lanes. side bRt (alt. 3) wouldpresentadrawbacktocyclistsbyrequiringthemtocrossthebuslanetomakearightturn,justasregular mixed traffic would.

The Study Team is currently working to refine the alternatives to determine how best toaccommodatebicycleswithinthegearycorridor.the study team has been pursuing methodsto accommodate a dedicated bicycle lane ofadequatewidth(noless5.5feet)inthecorridor,inordertoenablesafebicyclinginneighborhoodsthroughout the corridor. a review of potentialconfigurations of bicycle lanes on Geary and parallel streets will begin in spring 2007 andfindings will be incorporated into SFMTA’s bicycle planand/orthenextphaseofworkongearyasappropriate.

increasedemploymentandretailaccessibilityforneighborhoods

the sf-chaMp model can predict howimprovementsintransittraveltimetranslateintoimprovedaccesstojobs.thisisakeyeconomicbenefit to people who choose not to drive a car and/orcannotaffordtoownacar.inaddition,whenjobscanbeeasilyaccessedbytransit,itismorelikelythatpeoplewhohaveaccesstoacar

��Thealternativesdonotvaryenoughfromthebaselineorfromeachothertowarrantaseparatecomparisonchartforthiscriteria.The slight changes are reflected in the summary chart at the end of thissection.

willchoosetransittogettowork,reducingautocongestionandimprovingairquality.themodelestimatedthenumberofjobswithina30-minutetransit trip from four representative locations:downtown (2nd street at Market), Japantowncenter,divisaderoatgeary,and20thavenueatgeary.

bRtalternativeswouldallincreasethenumbersof jobs and shopping opportunities that couldbeaccessedbytransit,andwouldhelptoclosethegapbetweenjobaccessibilitybytransitandjobaccessibilitybyauto.astransittraveltimeimproves, it would approach auto travel time,helping to equalize how many jobs would beaccessiblewithina30-minutetransittrip.

thelargestimprovementintotaljobaccessibilitybytransitwouldoccurinthecenterbRtdesigns(alts. 4 & 5) at 20th avenue (73%) and atdivisadero(27%).insidebRt,approximately20%morejobswouldbeaccessiblefromboththeselocations. for downtown and the tenderloin,which are closest to the highest employmentdensity in the city and therefore already havehighjobaccessibility,improvementswouldrangefrom 1-6% for all alternatives. these gains injobaccessibilityforthecenterbRtalternativesassume that all services would be run in thebusway. if another service plan were adopted(localatthecurborskipstop)thegainswoulddropsomewhat.Moreaccesstojobswouldalsomean more access to commercial and retailopportunitiesforgearyneighborhoods.

due to the timing of this study, the studyteam could not complete a full analysis of jobaccessibility for thebasicplus alternative (alt.2). like many other metrics, basic plus wouldlikely perform like the baseline (alt. 1) in thenon-peakdirection/hoursandlikesidebRt(alt.3)inthepeakhour,peakdirection(seetable5-20).


Geary BRT Study

Table 5‑20 Job Accessibility in 2015*

AlternativeJob Accessibility in 2015

Change from Alternative 1downtown Japantown divisadero 20thave

Alt. 1: Basic Transit Priority 553,900 459,200 380,700 54,600

Alt. 3: Side BRT+ 1% + 4% + 21% + 20%


+ 2% + 6% + 27% + 73%Alt. 5: Center BRT with 1 median

*TheStudyTeamcouldnotcompleteafullanalysisofjobaccessibilityfortheBasicPlusalternative(Alt.�)duetothetimingofthisStudy.Likemanyothermetrics,BasicPluswilllikelyperformlikethebaseline(Alt.�)inthenon-peakdirection/hoursandlikeSideBRT(Alt.�)inthepeakhour,peakdirection.

community stakeholders called for alternativesthat did include sidewalk widening to providemorecomfortablepedestrianspaceandgreateropportunities for streetscape amenities. Moredetail on this location can be found in section5.10.

therewassubstantialsupportfor incorporatingbicycleaccesstogearyaspartofbRtstudy,thoughmany community members and stakeholdersareconcernedthatgeary’sconstrainedrightofway may not easily accommodate auto lanes,transitlanesandbikelanessafely.cyclistsareveryinterestedin initialbikeplanningtobeginin summer 2007 to understand where best toincorporate safe and convenient bike travelwithinthegearycorridor,particularlybetweenarguelloanddivisadero.

community fEEdback

participants in the 2nd workshop series hostedbytheauthorityindecember2005,commentedonthestrongrelationshipbetweenbRtfeaturesand increasedaccessibility togeary for awiderangeofusers.ManyparticipantsfeltthatbRtwould make geary safer for pedestrians, withthe additional countdown signals, more-visiblecrosswalks, and reduced crossing distances.some were concerned that the center mediandesigns might result in increased jaywalking inareas with lower traffic volumes, and encouraged moredetailonpotentialdesignofbuffers.

though sidewalk widths were not increasedin the typical sections in order to minimizeimpactsonaccesstobusinessesandotheractiveland uses during construction, many noted theopportunityforimprovedstreetscapeamenities.in some areas, for example in Japantown,

5-32


kEy concluSionS

all bRt designs (alts. 3-5) would improvepedestriansafetyandamenitiesandtheoverallattractiveness of geary considerably, throughfeaturessuchascornerbulbs,countdownsignals,andenhancedlandscaping.theseandotherbRtimprovementsarealsoexpectedtomakegearymore accessible, improving the livability forneighbors, as well as appeal for visitors. bRtis expected to encourage more people to walkto restaurants, do their shopping, and meetwithfriendsorfamilyongeary(seetable5-21,below).

Table 5‑21 Summary of Access and Pedestrian Amenities Results

Alternative

Crossing experience

and Sidewalk Conditions

Quality of Bicycle Access

Increased employment

and retail accessibility (at

20th Ave.)alt.1:basictransitpriority longcrossing

distances,inadequatepedestrianrefuge,32

leftturns

poor 54,600

alt.2:basicplus -

alt.3:sidebRt




Geary BRT Study

5.6 urBanandlandsCapedesign

PurPoSE

theright-of-waygiventostreetsandsidewalksrepresents thecity’s largestpublic space. themanydiversefeaturesofastreetallcontributeto the overall ambience, how a street “feels,”and in turn, how residents and visitors feelabout the surrounding neighborhood. the sizeand prominence of geary boulevard merit ahigh quality streetscape with a consistent anddistinctive design and prominent, beautifullandscaping. creating a pleasant environmentforeveryonewhousesgeary involvesattentionto both subtle details and larger features,includingcharacterandquantityofgreenspaceandintegrationbetweentheright-of-wayandthesurroundinglanduses.theurbanandlandscapedesignevaluationcriteriaareintendedtoassess

how the project would improve neighborhoodlivability and commercial vitality, one of theproject’sfourmaingoals.

Measuring each alternative’s contribution tourbanandlandscapedesignalsohelpsdeterminethedegreetowhicheachalternativewouldhelpmovesanfranciscotowardsanotherstudygoalandcommunitypriority: thedevelopmentofadistinctive,recognizable,andconsistentnetworkoftransitprioritystreets.

table 5-22 shows all the sub-criteria for urbanand landscape design with a brief explanationofeachandthesourceofthedatausedfor itsevaluation.

Table 5‑22 urban and Landscape Design Criteria

GOALS: *NeighborhoodLivabilityandCommercialVitality*TransitPriorityNetworkSystemDevelopment


streetidentity

capturestheabilityofanalternativetosupportadistinctive,recognizabledesignforgearyboulevard,throughthebRtplatforms,streetfurniture,andlandscaping.

Qualitative

integrationwithadjacentlanduses

considerstheeaseofaccessingtransitfromadjacentlanduses. Qualitative

abilitytocreateuseablepublicopenspace

Evaluatesthequantityandqualityofanynewopenspaceestablishedbythedesignalternatives.

physicaldesigns

Quality,quantity,andcharacteroflandscaping

Evaluatestheamount,quality,andconsistencyofgreenspacethroughoutthecorridor. Qualitative

Qualityofsustainablestormwatermanagement*

assessesthecontributionofthebRtalternativestowardsustainablestormwatermanagement,throughthenumberofmaturetreesandpermeablegroundsurfacearea.

physicaldesigns

*ThismetricwasnotevaluatedinthisStudy,butcanbeanalyzedinthenextphaseofwork.BecauseoftheuniquetopographyofGearybeinglowerthanmostofthesurroundingarea,thisevaluationwillbeacriticalcomponentoftheanalysistoensuresuccessoftheproject.

5-34


mEthodology

theanalysisofurbandesigncriteriawasderivedfrom conceptual drawings of each alternativethat include the dimensions of the landscapedmedian.thestudyteamassessedurbandesignconsiderations through a qualitative review ledbythesanfranciscoplanningdepartment.

detailed analysis of the quality, quantity,and character of landscaping, as well as thequalityofsustainablestormwatermanagementtreatments, which are key features of urbanandlandscapedesign,wasbeyondthescopeofthis initial conceptual study. there is a briefpreliminary discussion of landscaping includedbelow. More detailed analysis of both criteriacanbedoneintheenvironmentalanalysisstageoftheproject.

findingS

streetidentity

overall,theonlyexistingunifying,recognizableidentityforgearyboulevardisanexpresswayforcars.theoverallimpressionitmakesonvisitorsis not one of multi-modalism, neighborhoodbeauty, or rich urban design. Existing trees inthemedianalongmuchofthecorridoraresmalland inconsistent and the other plantings areminimal and haphazard.there are areas whichhavehigherqualitylandscapingincludinghealthy,large trees, such as the stretch surroundingdivisaderoand the vibrant commercial corridorbetween 15th and 25th avenues. however thequalityof these sections is not carried throughforthelengthoftheboulevard,thereforeitdoesnotaffecttheexperienceofgearyasacorridor,oritsimportancetosanfrancisco.

allofthebRtdesigns(alts.3-5)would includecomprehensivestreetscapeimprovementsfortheentirecorridor.thesewouldincludedistinctivepaving,consistentandprominenttreeplantings,and uniform landscaping. these would createa recognizable design theme along the wholecorridor,andwouldupgradegeary’scharactertomatch its size and prominence. these medianand landscaping improvements, combined withacoloredtransit-onlylane(aprominent,highlyvisible feature distinguishing geary from otherstreets),wouldprovideastrong,consistentlinearaxis and would create a unique, recognizableidentity for geary boulevard. neither thebaseline alternative (alt. 1) nor the basic plusalternative (alt. 2)would includeanycorridor-wideorlocalizedstreetscapeimprovementsand

thus would perform like current conditions intermsofstreetidentity.

center bRt with 1 median would provide themost prominent identity for geary due to theconsistency and width of the center median,undiminished for left turns or other traffic movements. Additionally, the unified, wide center platform presents an ideal opportunityfor “signature” stations that would reflect the surrounding neighborhood. the centerbRt alternative with 2 medians (alt. 4) wouldalso create a strong identity with central buslanes separated from traffic lanes by parallel landscaped medians and waiting platforms,however medians would be narrowed for bothlocal stops and left turns which would weakenitsdesignimpact.bothcenterbRtalternativeswouldstronglydistinguishthebRtservicefromstandardbusservice.

sidebRt(alt.3)wouldnotcreateasdistinctanidentityforgearyorforthebRtservicecomparedtothecenterbRtoptionsbecause locatingthebRtinfrastructureonthesidewalkwouldnotbeas strong a defining element as the highly visible centermedian.inaddition,buslaneswouldnotbe as distinct because they would be used byautos accessing on-street parking, loading, andright turns. the side bRt alternatives would,however, retain a 15-foot median (except atlocations with left turn pockets) and providenewlandscapingtoenhancethepresenceofthemedian, which would provide a degree of thelinearaxisinthecenteralternatives.

a comparison of the change in street identifyfromalternative 1 is provided intable 5-23ontheoppositepage.


Geary BRT Study

Table 5‑23 Street Identity

alternative descriptionofstreetidentityComparisontoalternative1


nochangefromtoday:Inconsistent, haphazard landscapingNo unifying, memorable corridor elements

••

alt.2:basicplus No change•

alt.3:sidebRt Median, landscaping improvementsColored transit-only lane

••


Median, landscaping improvementsColored transit-only laneStrong linear axis

•••Alt. 5: Center BRT

with 1 median

5-36


integrationwithadjacentlanduses25

baseline (alt. 1), basic plus (alt. 2), and sidebRt (alt. 3) alternatives are anticipated to bemost directly integrated with adjacent landuses because pedestrians walking along thesidewalk could easily stop and wait for a buswithout crossing any travel lanes. center bRtalternatives(alt.4&5)wouldnotbeasdirectlyintegrated with adjacent land uses becausewaitingplatformswouldbelocatedinthecenterof the road; however, the dual medians ofalternative4andtheuninterruptedmediansofalternative5wouldhelptobreakdownthescaleofthestreet,improvingtheoverallsenseofanintegratedenvironmentongearyboulevard.

abilitytoCreateuseablepublicopenspace26

none of the alternatives would contributesubstantivelytonewopenspace.thesidebRtalternative(alt.3)performsslightlybetterthantheothersbecausethewidebusbulbswouldaddtotheexistingsidewalkspace,creatinganample20.5footpedestrianspacethatcouldbeusedforadditionalsidewalkactivities.

this criterion ismost applicable to thedesignsat fillmore and Masonic, where more spaceis available, and thus there would be moreopportunitiesforopenspace. this isdiscussedinsection5.10.

Quality,Quantity,andCharacteroflandscaping

atpresent,thequalityoflandscapingongearyisquitevaried. insomeareas,therearemanyprominent,healthytreesandother landscapingthat contributes to the character and qualityof geary and enhances the surroundingneighborhoods.inothers,treesonsidewalksaresparse and stuntedandmedians areovergrownwithivyandweeds.

allbRtalternatives(alts.3-5)aimtobuildonthehigh-quality sections of geary and completelyrefurbishthepoorqualitysectionsofthestreet.thealternativeswouldprovidelandscapingthatbothenhancestheappearanceofthestreetandaddresses the functional needs of the street’susers.

��Thealternativesdonotvaryenoughfromthebaselineorfromeachothertowarrantaseparatecomparisonchart.Theslightchanges are reflected in the summary chart at the end of this sec-tion.��Thealternativesdonotvaryenoughfromthebaselineorfromeachothertowarrantaseparatecomparisonchart.Theslightchanges are reflected in the summary chart at the end of this sec-tion.

amorequantitativelandscapinganalysiscanbedone in the next stage of the study. it wouldlikely include a review of street and transitstation platform layout and geometry in orderto calculate the number of trees that can besupported, the square footage of landscapedarea, and the size and shape of landscapedsectionsofthestreet.

community fEEdback

communitymemberscommentedonthevaryingquality of existing streetscape amenities,includinglandscaping,alongwiththelackofsuchamenities in many locations. Most commentscalled for improvements to streetscapeamenities and pedestrian access on geary. afewcommunitymembersweremore interestedin transit improvements, stating that waitingenvironmentwasnotnecessarilyasimportantasa comfortable and reliable transit ride. somemerchants, particularly in the Richmond, areconcernedwiththecharacteristicsofstreetscapeelements, indicating that existing landscapingand transit improvements obstruct storefrontsignage at some locations. they encourageselectionof plantings andother amenities thatare either low enough or high enough to allowclearviewsofstorefronts.

Many community members and stakeholdersliked the idea of a strong, consistent look forgeary and the potential bRt line, while otherspreferred common elements with some varietyand change through the corridor to reflect differentneighborhoods.thecenteralternativeswerethoughttoprovidethebestopportunityfora prominent unified streetscape. Community members support including neighborhood mapsand wayfinding materials for neighborhood attractions in shelters, and some furthersuggestedretailkiosksandotheractivitieswherespaceallows.


Geary BRT Study

kEy concluSionS

urban design improvements that are providedby the bRt alternatives (alts. 3-5) have thepotentialtomakegearyagreatstreet.throughmedianandlandscapingupgradesandacoloredtransit-only lane, all of the bRt alternatives(alts. 3-5) would create a recognizable designtheme, establish a distinct visible linear axis,and considerably improve the beauty of thestreetalongthewholecorridor.

thecenterbRtalternativewith1median(alt.5) performs slightly better than the othersbecauseitwouldhavethemostregularpresencethroughout the corridor, and a consistent widemedianthatwouldnotbereducedforleftturnsor other traffic movements. The side alternative offers the most potential for increased publicopen space because the wide bus bulbs wouldadd to the existing sidewalk space to create alarge pedestrian space for additional sidewalkactivities(seetable5-24,below).

Table 5‑24 Summary of urban and Landscape Design Results

Alternative Street Identity

Integration with Existing

Land Uses

Creation of Open Space

Quality, Quantity, and Character of Landscaping

Quality of Sustainable Storm water Management


inconsistenthaphazard

landscaping;nounifying

corridorelements

nochangefromtoday

nochangefromtoday

tbdinthenextphaseofwork

tbdinthenextphaseofwork

alt.2:basicplus

alt.3:sidebRt



5-38


5.7 traFFiCoperationsandparking

PurPoSE

forabus rapid transitproject tobesuccessfulon Geary, it must not only benefit transit riders, but also improve neighborhood livability andcommercial vitality, the third of the project’sfourprimarygoals.thisgoalnotonlypromotesaninvestmentinpedestriansafety,streetscape,and urban design as discussed in previoussections,butalsoseekstominimizeimpactsonneighborhoods, such as traffic congestion.

this section evaluates how each alternativewould affect traffic conditions and overall use of thecorridorbyautomobiledrivers.theanalysisincludestheestimateddelayautosexperienceatintersections, the overall flow of traffic, average changesinautotraveltimes,andthedegreetowhich traffic would be diverted to other streets. parking impacts are measured by the changein the number of spaces available. table 5-25shows the sub-criteria for Traffic Operations and parking and provides both an explanation/definition of each and the source of the data

used for its evaluation (i.e. the model used toestimateeachcriterion).

Traffic operations are assessed in the PM peak period, when overall demands on the systemwould be greatest, so the results here shouldrepresenttheworstcaseforautooperations.inaddition, though only two lanes of auto traffic in each direction would remain in the threebRt alternative designs (alts. 3-5), many toolsand strategies exist to maximize the efficiency of those remaining lanes, e.g. left/right turnpockets and enhanced signal timing. Whilethe study team has used these strategies to acertain extent in this conceptual design study,even more traffic engineering can be done in the environmentalanalysisstageofthestudy,soallthese results should be considered preliminaryandworstcase.

Table 5‑25 Traffic Operations and Parking Criteria

GOAL:NeighborhoodLivabilityandCommercialVitality


accommodatetraffic circulation

andaccess

Provides a direct measure of impacts specifically todrivers,expressedthroughoverallintersectionperformance,delaystovehicles(expressedaslevelofservice,orlos),averageautotraveltimeongeary,andchangeinthenumberofturnrestrictions.alsoassessesthechangeinturnrestrictionswhichimpact overall traffic flow.

vissiMmicro-simulationmodel,physicaldesigns,

Synchro traffic model

changeinintersectiondelay

Measureshowintersectionsaccommodatethethroughmovementofpeople.vissiMmeasureshowmanysecondsapersonmustwaittogetthroughtheintersectionandcanproducethreemeasuresofdelay:theaveragedelayfordriversincars;theaveragedelayforbusriders;andtheaveragedelayforallpeopleusinganintersection,regardlessofhowtheygetthere(car,busorwalking).

vissiMmicro-simulationmodel

Change in traffic volumesonparallel

streets

Measures the amount of traffic diverted from Geary boulevardtootherstreetsandthelikelylocationsofthosediversions.

Synchro traffic model, sf-chaMp

presenceofon-streetparking

Measuresthenetchangeinon-streetparkingspacesbystreetsegment. physicaldesigns


Geary BRT Study

mEthodology

Measuring traffic impacts requires extensive use of the threecomputermodelsdescribed in thebeginning of chapter 5 (section 5.2): vissiM,synchro,andsf-chaMp.sf-chaMpwasusedtoquantify the extent of traffic diversions. The vissiM micro-simulation model was used toassessdelaynotonlyforautos,butforallmodestravelingongearyboulevard. bothvissiMandsynchromodelswereusedtoassessintersectionandroadwayperformance.parkingimpactsweretalliedbasedonengineeringdrawings.

findingS

overviewofintersectionperformance

inanurbansetting likethegearycorridor, thetime it takes to move traffic through intersections is the key determinant of how smoothly traffic flows. One of the most basic ways to gauge the “performance”ofanintersection,istomeasurethe average amount of time that a person orvehiclespendsdelayedatan intersection(i.e.,aresignalstimedsuchthatdriversrarelyhavetostop?candriversgetthrougheachsignalinonecycle?doesittakemultiplesignalcyclestogetthroughasingleintersection?).

The traffic models allow the Study Team to measure both how long, on average, vehicleshave to wait at geary intersections over thewhole corridor (average intersection delay),andtheamountofcongestionateachindividualintersection(intersection“levelofservice”).themodels also enable the study team to capturethe relative efficiencies of buses versus cars by measuring“persondelay.”

Traffic Circulation and Access

Traffic conditions vary considerably at individual intersections throughout the corridor due toroadway layout, traffic volumes, etc. The synchromodeldescribestheoverallperformanceof an intersection by using a common measurecalled “level of service,” or los. “level ofservice”captures the levelof congestionatanintersection by measuring vehicle delay and isexpressed through “grades” of a through f. agradeof“a”meansthatanintersectionisfree-flowing without any delay, while a grade of “F” represents an intersection that is experiencingnear “gridlock” conditions.27 from theperspectiveofanindividualdriver,thesegradesmean the difference between getting throughan intersection ina single signalphase (losa-

��A=Lessthan�0secondsofdelay,B=�0to�0seconds,C=�0to��seconds,D=��to��seconds,E=��to�0seconds,F=Over�0seconds.

d)versuswaitingformultiplecycles(a“failing”intersection los E-f). cities usually aim for alosof“c”or“d”dependingontheintersectionand the context. that is because, though noone enjoys an intersection performing at losf,anintersectionperformingatlosaforautosmaynotbeoptimallyutilizedbyallusersandisnot necessarily the most efficient use of public investment.

At the PM peak hour, overall traffic conditions would not significantly deteriorate from conditions in the baseline (Alt, 1) for any alternative. Traffic conditions at some intersections are predictedtobeatlevelEregardlessofabRtproject,(inthebaseline,alt.1),duetoincreasesinoveralltraffic volumes in the future.28 so in order toevaluate the traffic impacts of the BRT design alternatives, it is particularly important tocompare all LOS figures to traffic conditions in the2015baseline(alt.1).

at some intersections, the bRt designs wouldimprove conditions from the baseline. forexample, in both the side and center bRtalternatives conditions would improve from alevelof serviced toacat the intersectionofgearyandfranklinstreet.atotherintersections,problems with traffic flow at intersections would persist (los d or E) in all alternatives. forexample,levelofserviceatstanyanandfultonwouldbea“d”inthebaseline(alt.1),thesidebRt(alt.3),andthecenterbRtalternatives(alt.4&5).overall,nointersectionwouldapproachbreakdownconditions in thebaselineoranyofthe alternatives, with the exception of gearyandMasonicunderthecenterbRtdesigns(alts.4&5),wherethevehicledelayaveragewouldbeover90seconds,alevelofservice“f.”

theintersectionofgearyandMasonicisdiscussedinmoredetailinsection5.10.inshort,evenwithmost Geary through traffic in the underpass, the width and traffic volumes on both Masonic and geary,combinedwiththecomplexityofturningmovements, cause baseline delays at Masonicto be relatively high, (current level of serviceis“E”).becausetheanalysisofthecenterbRtalternativesassumedthatsomeamountofauto

��Alternative�,BasicTransitPriority,includes�0��householdandemploymentforecastsprovidedbytheSanFranciscoPlanningDepartmentandin-progressorplannedupdatestotheroadandtransitsystems.Changestothetransportationnetworkthatareintheveryearlystagesofplanning(e.g.,BRTonVanNessAvenue),werenotincluded.Follow-upscenariotestingcanbedoneinthenextphaseoftheStudytobetterunderstandhowtheridershipchangesonGearyareimpactedbyaBRTprojectonVanNessAvenue.Modelsshowthattherewillbesomegrowthintotaltrip-makingduetoeconomicdevelopment.Forexample,westboundGearyintheInnerRichmondisestimatedtocarryabout�percentmore traffic in 2015 than in 2005.

5-40


traffic from the underpass lanes would be added tothesurface,delayswouldincreasesubstantiallyandtheintersectionwouldbreakdown. inthenext phase of work, additional center-runningdesignoptionscanbedevelopedthatwouldgivethe bus the travel time benefits of the underpass, butwouldnotcreatebreakdownconditions fortraffic.

basic plus (alt. 2) is expected to perform likesidebRt(alt.3)inthepeakhour,peakdirectionand like the baseline (alt. 1) in off-peak hoursandinthepeakhour,off-peakdirection.

Figure 5-3 identifies locations where intersections are projected to operate at level of serviced, E, or f under the various alternatives. nointersectionbetweenarguelloandparkpresidiowoulddegradebelowalevelofservicecforanyalternative, therefore the map only shows thesection of geary boulevard between van nessandarguello.

nointersectionbetweenarguelloandparkpresidiodegradesbelowalevelofservicecandtherefore,thisstreetsegmentisnotshown.

figure5-3 2015levelofservicebetweenvannessandarguello,pMpeak


Geary BRT Study

averageintersectiondelay

in addition to understanding the “level ofservice” at each intersection, the models alsoallowevaluationoftheaveragedelaythatwouldbeexperiencedatallgearyintersections.

Conventional traffic operations models29 focusprimarily on the intersection delay for eachvehicle going through an intersection. thisanalysis isusefulforunderstandingthelevelofautomobilecongestion,butislimitedbecauseittreatsallvehiclesthesame,whetherthevehicleis a single occupant auto or an articulated busfullofpassengers.

More recently, traffic engineers have begun analyzing“persondelay,”tocapturetherelativeefficiencies of buses versus cars. The VISSIM model provides measures of intersection operationsthatareadjustedforthenumberofpeopleusinganintersection,notjustthenumberofvehicles.thevissiMmodelisabletorecognizethatwhenasinglebuscarrying60passengersisdelayedby30secondsthiscreates30minutesoftotalpersondelay.30thisisequivalenttodelayingfiftycars,carryingthecorridoraverageof1.2people,forthesame30seconds.31 thisstudyusedbothatraditional intersection analysis tool, synchro,and the vissiM model to estimate the changesin intersection delay between the proposedalternatives(alts.2-5)andthebaseline(alt.1).

this analysis presents how each alternativewouldcomparetothebaseline(alt.1)forfourmeasures of delay, (results are presented intable5-26below).theyare:

averagedelaytobusesongeary: howmucheachbustravelingongearywouldbedelayedatanintersectiononaverage,

averagedelaytovehiclesongeary:howmucheach vehicle driving on geary, cars, trucks,andbuses,wouldbedelayedatanintersectiononaverage,

average delay to each vehicle at theintersection, both on geary and on crossstreets: howmucheachvehiclethat travelsthrough the intersection, including all cars,trucks, and buses traveling on geary or onthe cross street, would be delayed at an

�� Synchro is an example of a conventional traffic model which is commonlyusedtoanalyzeintersections.Synchroisactuallyarela-tivelynewprogram,butusestraditionalmathematicalfunctionstoanalyzeintersections.�0�0secondx�busx�0passengers=��00seconds÷60sec/min-ute=30minutesofdelay.��0secondsx�0carsx�.�passengerspercar=��00seconds÷60sec/minute=30minutesofdelay.sourceof1.2averageautooccupancy:sf-chaMp.

•

•

•

intersectiononaverage,and

average delay to each person at theintersection,bothongearyandoncrossstreets:how much each person that travels throughthe intersection, including all pedestrians,drivers, and bus riders traveling on geary oron the cross street, would be delayed at anintersectiononaverage.

BusDelayandVehicleDelayonGeary

overall,allofthebRtalternativesareexpectedto reduce delay to buses on geary from thebaseline without significantly delaying cars travelingongeary.inthepMpeak,averagebusdelayundercenterbRt(alts.4&5)isprojectedto be 9 seconds, a decrease of 8 seconds, oralmost 50%, from the baseline (alt. 1). undersidebRt(alt.3)andbasicplus(alt.2)averagebusdelaywouldbe11seconds,adecreaseof6secondsfromthebaseline.Whileaccomplishingthis benefit for transit riders, average delay to autos on geary for all three bRt alternatives(alts.3-5)wouldchangebylessthan1second,avirtuallyundetectablechangetoanindividualdriver.

•

5-42


TotalIntersectionDelay:VehicleDelayandPersonDelay

Whentheanalysisconsidersallpeopleusingtheintersection, including those on cross streetsin addition to those on geary, average vehicledelay would increase somewhat under the bRtalternatives.underthecenterbRtalternatives(alts.4&5)averagedelayforallvehicles(cars,buses, trucks, etc.) would be 20 seconds, a6 second increase from the baseline (alt. 1).under side bRt (alt. 3) average vehicle delaywouldbe16seconds,amere2secondincreasefrom the baseline.32 this is primarily becausesignal timing adjustments favor traffic on Geary (because traffic volumes are much higher on

��UndertheCenterBRTalternatives,delayforvehiclescrossingGearyis��seconds,an��secondincreasefromthebaseline.WhencombinedwiththerelativelyminorincreaseindelayforvehiclesonGeary(�second),theresultisthataveragevehicledelaytoallvehiclestravelingthroughtheintersectionis�0seconds,a�secondincreasefromthebaseline.UndertheSideBRTalternative,averagedelayforvehiclesonthecrossstreetis��seconds,a��secondincreasefromthebaseline.AveragevehicledelayonGearyis�secondlessthaninthebaseline.Thereforeoverallaverageintersectionvehicledelayis��seconds,�secondsmorethaninthebaseline.

geary)whichcreatesadditionaldelaytovehiclesoncrossstreets.

howeverwhen“totalpersondelay”isconsidered,thegreateraveragedelay forvehiclesoncrossstreetswouldbeoffsetbytheconsiderablyloweraveragedelay tobus ridersongeary. and thesignal timing adjustments on Geary also benefit auto drivers on geary. for example, undercenterbRt(alts.4&5)theaveragepersondelayofthewholeintersectionwouldbeequivalenttobaseline conditions. total person delay underthe side bRt design (alt. 3) would actually bereduced from baseline conditions (2 secondsless).Resultsfortheseintersectiondelaymetricsareshownintable5-26below.

Table 5‑26 Average Intersection Delay, 2015 PM Peak

alternative

averageBusdelayongeary(Changefromalternative1)

averagevehicledelay

ongeary(Changefromalternative1)

averagevehicledelay

atentireintersection

(Changefromalternative1)

averagepersondelayatentire

intersection(Changefromalternative1)

alt1:basictransitpriority 17sec 11sec 14sec 15sec

alt2:basicplus* 11sec

(6secdecrease)

10sec

(1secdecrease)

16sec

(2secincrease)

13sec

(2secdecrease)alt3:sidebRt

alt4:centerbRtwith2medians 9sec

(8secdecrease)

12sec

(1secincrease)

20sec

(6secincrease)

15sec

(nochange)alt5:centerbRtwith1median

*UndertheCenterBRTalternatives,delayforvehiclescrossingGearyis��seconds,an��secondincreasefromthebaseline.WhencombinedwiththerelativelyminorincreaseindelayforvehiclesonGeary(�second),theresultisthataveragevehicledelaytoallvehiclestravelingthroughtheintersectionis�0seconds,a�secondincreasefromthebaseline.UndertheSideBRTalternative,averagedelayforvehiclesonthecrossstreetis��seconds,a��secondincreasefromthebaseline.AveragevehicledelayonGearyis�secondlessthaninthebaseline.There-foreoverallaverageintersectionvehicledelayis��seconds,�secondsmorethaninthebaseline.


Geary BRT Study

autotraveltime

While transportation engineers rely on bothlos and person delay to understand estimatedtravel conditions, most geary users evaluatetheconditionsbasedonhowlongittakesthemtotravelfromoneplacetoanother.vissiMwasusedtoestimatetotaltraveltimebetween33rdandgoughforbothautosandtransitvehiclesongeary.33

totalautotraveltimefromoneendofthegearycorridor to the other would not be significantly impacted by any of the bRt alternatives (alts.3-5). during the pM peak hour, the change inautotraveltimebetween33rdavenueandgoughstreet (3.9 miles) would be no greater than2 minutes more or less than in the baseline(alt. 1) traveling in either direction for any ofthe alternatives. this would be a relativelyminor change, especially when compared tothe considerable travel time savings for transit(discussedinsection5.3above).34

in the westbound direction, auto travel timeswouldimproveby13%forbasicplus(alt.2)andside bRt (alt. 3), and would remain constantforcenterbRt(alts.4&5). intheeastbounddirection,traveltimewouldremainthesameforbasic plus and increase by about 2 minutes or14%forallthebRtdesigns(alts.3-5).alltraveltimeresultsareshownintable5-27below.

��AnalysisoftraveltimesonstreetsparalleltoGearywerenotincludedinthisphaseofwork,butcanbeconductedinthenextphaseofstudy.��TheautotraveltimesfortheCenterBRTalternativesarepre-sentedwithouttheimpactoftheautodelayatMasonic,becausethecurrentdesignisfailingforautomobiles.Asolutionthatworksfor both auto and transit can be identified in the environmental analysisphaseoftheStudy.

Table 5‑27 Total Auto Travel Time, 2015 PM Peak

alternative

Westboundautotraveltime,goughto33rd,pMpeak

(Changefromalt1)

eastboundautotraveltime,goughto33rd,pMpeak

(Changefromalt1)alt1:basictransitpriority

15min 14min

alt2:basicplus

13min

(13%less)

14min

(nochange)

alt3:sidebRt

13min

(13%less)

16min

(14%more)

alt4:centerbRtwith2medians 15min

(nochange)

16min

(14%more)alt5:centerbRtwith1median

5-44


autospeed

autospeedistheratioofautotraveltimeoveragivendistance.aswouldbeexpectedbasedonthetraveltimeresults,autospeedswouldnotchangesignificantly under any alternative. Average auto speeds are expected to neither increase nordecreasebymorethan2mphtravelingineitherdirection.itshouldbenotedthatinthebaseline(Alt. 1), traffic speeds are expected to decrease from the current average speed of about 19mphto16-17mphunderalternative1,becauseoverall traffic volumes are estimated to increase by2015. changes in auto speed frombaselineconditions(alt.1)foreachalternativeareshownintable5-28below.35

Table 5‑28 Average Auto Speed, 2015 PM Peak

alternative Westboundaverageautospeed(Changefromalt.1)

eastboundaverageautospeed(Changefromalt1)

alt1:basictransitpriority

16mph 17mph

alt2:basicplus

18mph

(13%faster)

17mph

nochange

alt3:sidebRt

18mph

(13%faster)

15mph

(12%slower)

alt4:centerbRtwith2medians 16mph

(nochange)

15mph

(12%slower)alt5:centerbRtwith1median

��Theseareautospeedsfor�0��,approximately�yearsaftertheprojectopens,oncetheCityhasadjustedtothechange.Uponopening,aswithanychangeinstreetoperation,theremaybesomeconfusion and worsening traffic conditions. Considerable public educationandpublicitypriortothechangetakingeffectwillbenecessarytoensurethatautotravelisnotconsiderablyaffected.


Geary BRT Study

numberofturnrestrictions

the study team proposed a reduction in thenumber of left turns primarily to improveconditions for pedestrians. however, reducingthe number of turn pockets also reduces delayfor through traffic and for bus drivers. For the mostpart,althoughthenumberofintersectionswhereleftturnsarepermittedwouldbereduced,the remaining lefts would be protected by adedicatedleft-turnpocketanddedicatedsignalphase. this should make left-turns easier andshould also improve through movements in theremainingautolanes.

intersectionswithbus stops generallyhave thehighest volumes of pedestrians and thereforewereprioritizedforleftturnremoval.thestudyteamattemptedtobalancetheneedsofdriversto turn left with the impact of additional traffic lanesforpedestrianstocrossandreducedrefugewidthsforpedestrians.atthisstage,leftturnsareprovidedaboutevery4blocksinallthebRtalternativedesigns(alts.3-5).thenextstageofthestudy,theenvironmentalanalysis,canrevisitthis analysis and finalize recommendations for leftturnremoval.

Traffic Volumes on Parallel Streets

The removal of a general purpose traffic lane on Geary would no doubt change traffic patterns in thecorridor.thisstudyestimatedthemagnitudeof these changes, in particular the amount oftraffic that would be diverted off of Geary and how this traffic would redistribute itself across thecitywidestreetgrid.theseestimatesshouldrepresent the worst case scenario because thestudyteamestimateddiversionsatthepMpeakhour, the worst period for traffic congestion. Middaydiversionsareexpectedtobelowerthanthediversionsestimatedhere.36

Traffic diversions would not vary significantly basedonthelocationofthededicatedlane(sideorcenterofthestreet),thereforeallalternativebRt designs, alts. 3-5, would have about thesame expected effect on traffic diversions and are analyzed together here. diversions wouldvary by location however, so both an overalldescription of diversions, as well as diversionsat two typical locations in the p.M. peak, aredescribedbelow.

�� During construction of BRT, traffic diversions could be worse thandescribedhere,butmanytechniquesareplannedtominimizetheseimpacts,asdescribedinSection�.�.

Overall Traffic Diversions from Geary

The analysis shows that overall changes in traffic patternswouldbepredictable,andwouldnotbesevere. althoughonethirdof lanecapacityongearywouldberemoved,lessthanonethirdoftraffic is expected to divert to parallel streets during the pM peak for all bRt alternatives(thereareavarietyofreasonsforthiswhicharementionedbelow).

Traffic diversions would occur primarily between Gough and Park Presidio, where a mixed flow travel lane would be converted to a dedicatedbus lane and some turning movements wouldbe restricted in the bRt designs. West ofPark Presidio, no significant traffic diversions are expected because the bRt lanes could beaccommodated without converting traffic lanes.

Traffic would generally divert in a logical pattern, i.e.peopletendtomovetostreetsofsimilarcharacter,speed,andsizetothosetheywere traveling on before. geary is a majorthoroughfare,whichiscommonlyusedtotravellong distances on the corridor or to placesoutsidethecorridor(i.e.tothepresidioandtothesunset). therefore,asmightbeexpected,40% of diverted traffic is expected to avoid the corridoraltogether,switchingtostreetslikefellstreet,lincolnWay,or19thavenue.themajorityof traffic leaving Geary is expected to divert onto major parallel east/west arterial streets,e.g.fultonandcaliforniaintheRichmond,andpine or fell in Japantown, since these routesaresignalizedandhavemorecapacitythanthesmallerparallelstreetsinthecorridor.however,theincreasedvolumespredictedonthesestreetswouldbemodestandshouldbeundetectablebymost travelers on those streets. some minorvariations in traffic patterns are expected on individualstreetsduetothechangesinleft-turnrestrictionsalonggeary.

The results from the traffic circulation and access evaluation, described above, confirm these results, showing that traffic continues to flow smoothlyatallintersectionsinthecorridor.

5-46


Diversionsat�thAvenue

at4thavenue inthe innerRichmond, lessthan30% of the traffic on Geary is expected to divert tootherstreetsafterthelaneconversion.theestimated increase in traffic volumes on parallel streets is expected to be relatively modest,increasing by less than 10% on most streets.Of the traffic that does divert, an estimated 25-30% would go to either california or fultonstreets, however even these two streets areonlyexpectedtoreceiveabout2additionalcarsper minute in the PM peak. Traffic volume on clementstreetisestimatedtoincreasebyabout12%;however,becausethestartingvolumesarelow,thisonlytranslatestoaboutoneextracareverytwominutes(seetable5-29,below).

Table 5‑29 Increase in PM Peak Diversions to Parallel Streets at 4th Avenue

street

vehiclesperhour

atpMpeakCurrently

additionalvehicles

divertedperhour

additionalvehicles

divertedperMinute

illustrationofvehiclesdivertedperminute

lake 280 5 0.1

california 1520 100 1.7

clement 275 35 0.5

anza 270 15 0.3

balboa 1175 55 1.0

cabrillo 280 20 0.3

fulton 1660 130 2.1


Geary BRT Study

DiversionsatJapantown/Fillmore

in the Japantown area near fillmore street, asimilar pattern emerges. about one third oftraffic would divert off Geary. Major streets such as pine, turk, and fell would carry about30%ofthesediversions. thesmallerstreets inthevicinitywouldeachpickupasmallportionof diversions as well, yet traffic volumes on all parallel streets are expected to increase bylessthan10%fromthebaseline(seetable5-30,below).Table 5‑30 Increase in PM Peak Diversions to Parallel Streets at Japantown/Fillmore

street

vehiclesperhour

atpMpeakCurrently

additionalvehicles

divertedperhour

additionalvehicles

divertedperMinute

illustrationofvehiclesdivertedperminute

Clay 220 5 0.08

Sacramento 260 10 0.2

California 1520 35 0.6

Pine 2300 75 1.3

Sutter 570 40 0.7

Post 205 10 0.2

Eddy 520 25 0.4

Turk 1670 80 1.3

McAllister 265 20 0.3

Fulton 560 5 0.08

Grove 205 20 0.3

Hayes 535 5 0.08

Fell 3225 75 1.3

5-48


While some traffic would divert from Geary, it wouldstillcontinuetobeanattractiveroutefordrivers. In fact, BRT would optimize traffic flow intheremainingmixed-uselanesmakinggearyamoreattractiverouteforsomedrivers.currentlybus-auto conflicts are constraining the capacity of the right travel lane. bRt, by substantiallyor entirely moving buses from mixed flow lanes, would improve capacity for auto travel in theremaining mixed-traffic lanes.

diversions to other streets would also beminimizedbecause:

some drivers would switch to transit andwalking.

thosewhocontinuetodrivemaychangethetimeoftheirtriptoavoidpeakhours.

drivers avoid slow local streets with lots ofstopsigns.

travelspeedsongearywouldcontinuetoberelativelyhighwithverylittleadditionaldelaytodrivers.

The impact of traffic diversions into neighborhoods nearthegearycorridorcouldbereducedthroughtraffic calming, turn restrictions, and other means. Where traffic volumes in neighborhoods would increase, the study team is committedto working with neighborhoods to reduce theimpacts.themagnitudeofexpecteddiversionsontoparallelstreets,andtheexpectedimpacts

•

•

•

•

of those diversions on traffic flow, will be studied ingreaterdetailinthenextphaseofthisstudy.

on-streetparking

Minimizing on-street parking loss was identified as one of the highest priorities by participantsat the december 2005 public workshops. theimportanceofretainingon-streetparkingwasalsoemphasized by members of the geary citizen’sAdvisory Committee since the Committee first met in 2004. not only does on-street parkingbenefit auto users, it also provides a valuable buffer from traffic for pedestrians. Concerns abouton-streetparkinglossarealsofrequentlyraised by local merchants and residents atcommunitymeetings.

the study team sought to minimize on-streetparking loss through the development ofstrategies to off-set parking reductions. formostalternatives,parkinglossisminimizedbyacombinationofthefollowingstrategies:

30-degreeangledparkingwouldbemaintainedononesideofthestreetfrom14thavenueto28thavenue.37

60-degree angled parking would be addedon 12 sample cross streets betweenarguelloboulevardand33rdavenue.

��ThisstrategydoesnotworkfortheSideBRTalternative(Alt.�)sootherstrategieswereused.

•

•

Replacingparallelmeteredparkingwithdiagonalparkingoncross-streets,asshownaboveon11thavenue,isoneofseveralproposedstrategiestominimizeparkingimpacts.


Geary BRT Study

boththedesignofeachalternativeandthewaythe alternative would be operated would havea significant effect on its parking impacts. The parking supply in the 2015 baseline (alt. 1) isassumedtobeequivalenttotoday.fortherestof the alternatives, the most significant parking changewouldoccurwestofparkpresidiowhereangled parking would have to be converted toparallelparking toaccommodatethebRt lane.With the implementation of the replacementstrategies,mostofthealternativeswouldhaveasmallnegativeimpactonthenumberofspacesavailable, removing no more than 4% or about40 spaces between van ness and 33rd avenue.centerbRtwith2medians(alt.4)wouldactually

increasethenumberofparkingspacesongearyifallserviceswereruninthebusway.

table5-31summarizestheestimatednetimpactontheparkingsupplyforeachofthealternativesandoperatingscenarios.38theparkingimpactsofeachalternativearedescribedindetailbelow.

��Theestimatesincludeoff-settingstrategies.Formostalterna-tivesthesewere:�)�0-degreeangledparkingononesideofthestreetfrom��thAvenueto��thAvenue,and�)�0-degreeangledparkingon��crossstreetsbetweenArguelloand��rdAvenue.Thesearenotnecessarilytheexactstrategiesthatwillbeusediftheprojectmovesforwardtoimplementation.Thetotalnumberofon-streetspacesgainedorlostperscenariorepresentsaconcep-tualplanninglevelestimate.Thenumbershavebeenroundedtothe nearest 5 to reflect the conceptual nature of this stage of the study. As we refine the street designs over time, it is anticipated thattheestimatedparkingimpactsmaychange,andbehigherorlowerthanthecurrentestimates.

Table 5‑31 Change in Parking Supply (Van ness to 33rd)

alternative Changeinparkingsupplyfromalt.1includingreplacementstrategies

alt1:basictransitpriority 1060

alt2:basicplus nochange

alt3:sidebRt 40spacesremoved(4%less)

alt4:centerbRtwith2Medians

allservicesinbusway 165spacesadded(16%more)

localatcurb 10spacesremoved(1%less)

alt5:centerbRtwith1Median

allservicesinbusway 25spacesremoved(2%more)

localatcurb 185spacesremoved(17%less)

5-50


Alternative�:BasicPlus

basicplus(alt.2)wouldresultinalossofparkingbecauseadedicatedlanewouldnotoperatewellwith angled parking (which currently exists ongearywestof15thavenue).aswiththeotheralternatives,thespacescouldbereplacedwithangled parking on side streets. in addition,basicpluswouldhave longerbusstops insomelocationswhichwouldrequireasmallamountofparkingremoval.

Alternative�:SideBRT

Without parking replacement strategies, sidebRt (alt. 3) could result in a reduction of asmany as 145 spaces, a 14% decrease from thebaseline,duetolongerbusstopsandrightturnpockets. With the implementation of simplereplacement strategies, such as angled parkingonsidestreetsmentionedabove,mostofthesecouldbere-gained,resultinginanetlossofonly40spaces,a4%reductioninspacescomparedtothebaseline.

Alternative�:CenterBRTwith�medians

the center bRt alternative could actually addto the amount of parking available by allowingparkingtoberestoredwherecurbbusstopsarecurrently located. center bRt with 2 Medians(alt.4)wouldresultina6%increaseintheparkingsupply(60morespacesthanthebaseline)ifbothlocal and bRt buses were run in the busway.in the event that local buses remained at thecurb,parkinggainswouldbeeliminatedandthis

alternative would result in an 11% decrease inthe parking supply (115 fewer spaces than thebaseline), without implementing replacementstrategies.

the implementation of parking replacementstrategies, would maximize available parking,resulting in a 16% increase in the supply ofparking(165netspacesgainedoverthebaseline)ifboththelocalandbRtbusesoperatedinthecenterbusway, andwouldessentially eliminateallparkinglosseseveniflocalbusesremainedatthecurb(10spaceslessthanthebaseline).

Alternative�:CenterBRTwith�median

thecenterbRtalternativewith1median(alt.5)wouldhaveahigherimpactontheparkingsupplythan the other center bRt alternative (alt. 4),primarilybecauseparkingwouldberemovedtoaccommodate left turn pockets, as illustratedbelowinfigure5-4.

if a passing lane option can be developed foralternative 5, or if the skip stop service planwere adopted, and all buses run in the centerbusway, the maximum parking loss would beabout12%(130spacesremoved).ifthelocalbusremainedatthecurb,amaximumof27%oftheparkingsupplybetweenvannessand33rdavenuewouldbelostunderthisalternative(285spacesremoved). thestudyteamisoptimisticthatapassinglaneoptioncanbedevelopedinthenextstageofthisstudy.

figure5-4 impactofleftturnsonparkingsupplyinalternative5


Geary BRT Study

aswithother alternatives, the implementationof simple parking replacement strategies couldsignificantly reduce potential parking losses. If allbuseswereruninthecenterbusway(skipstopserviceorpassinglaneoptiondeveloped)parkinglosswouldonlybe2% (25 spaces removed). iflocal buses remained at the curb, the parkingsupplywouldbereducedby185spaces,17%lessthaninthebaseline.

theseestimatesarebasedonthetworeplacementstrategies mentioned above. if additionalreplacement strategies were implemented forthesealternatives,parkingimpactscouldpossiblybereducedevenfurtherasdescribedbelow.

FurtherMitigations

additional strategies can be developed as theprojectprogressestofurtherreducetheoverallchange in the on-street parking supply. theycouldinclude:

Maximizing utilization of existing parkingsupplyby:

identifying all opportunities for sharedparking between uses and encouragingsharingforcurrentandnewdevelopment

identifying opportunities for valet parkingwhich achieves more efficient use of parking spaces

designatingemployeeparkinglocationsthatare appropriate and advantageous to usersinthewholecorridor

Modifyingtheallocationofparkingspacesbytypeandtimeperiodthrough:

Reallocatingthemixofcommercialloading/unloadingandpassengerparkingspaces

changingthehoursofexistingparkingmeterstomatchthehoursofbusinessactivity;forexample, a convenience store could haveshortertimelimitsthanarestaurant

adjustingtherateschargedforexistingparkingto encourage short term usage and frequentturn-overtoimproveavailabilityforcustomeruse

converting metered parking spaces on sidestreetsfromparalleltoangled

installing signage to identify access to off-streetparkinglots

identifying funding sources to increaseenforcement

investinginnewpaymenttechnologiestoallowfor more payment options, more flexibility in

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

pricingandmanagement,andmorecustomerconvenience (e.g. paystations that acceptcreditcardsorpromotinguseofthecitywideparkingcard)

theauthority isundertakingacitywideparkingmanagementstudytoevaluatethepotentialofavarietyofparkingmanagementtechniquestoincreaseon-streetparkingturnoverincommercialcorridors.thepilotneighborhoodshavenotyetbeen determined, but it is likely that the findings fromthestudycouldbeappliedtogeary.

all of the potential mitigations would requireextensivecommunityinvolvementandoutreachto local businesses to identify appropriateopportunities, in addition to more detaileddesignwork.thislevelofanalysisgoesbeyondthe scope of this conceptual study and can becontinuedinthenextphasesoftheproject.

community fEEdback

thereweremanyquestionsandgeneralconcernsabouttheeffectsofbRtonoveralltraffic conditions on Geary, though most feedback centered on traffic diversions from gearytoparallelstreetsandpotentialchangesinparkingavailabilityongeary.duringthepublicworkshopshostedbytheauthorityandothercommunitymeetings,somefeltthatshorttermimpactsonmotoristscouldbeovercomewhereasothersfeltthatdecreasingthenumberofautotravellanestoaccommodateatransit-onlylanewouldcauseautocongestionanddivert traffic onto neighborhood streets. Some of the concern focused on traffic impacts during construction,andsomewasmoregeneraltoimpactsofthepotentialprojectoverall.

interestinavailableon-streetparkingvariedbylocationalongthecorridor.MostconcernedwereresidentsandmerchantsintheRichmond’scommercialcorridorwhourgeretainingorevenincreasingon-streetparkingforshoppersandfordeliveriestolocalbusinesses.somecommunitymembersencouragedthestudyteamtodevelopproactivemethodsofguidingmotoriststooff-streetparkingareaswithinthecorridortomaximizeuseofexistingparkingspaces.communitymemberscalledformoreanalysisofparkingimpactsofeachalternativeduringanenvironmentalreview.

kEy concluSionS

overall, all of the bRt alternatives (alts. 3-5)would provide significant improvements to bus operations without significantly impacting travel by automobile. Overall traffic conditions would

5-52


not significantly deteriorate from conditions in the baseline (alt. 1) for any alternative andtraffic would continue to flow at acceptable levels at all intersections in the corridor (withthe exception of Masonic, described in section5.10). auto travel time between 33rd avenueandgoughstreetwouldchangebynomorethan2minutesfromthebaseline(alt.1)andaverageautospeedwouldchangebynomorethan2mphineitherdirection.

Traffic diversions would occur with implementation of a bRt system, primarilybetween gough and park presidio. however,the increased volumes predicted on streetsparallel to geary would be modest and shouldbe undetectable by most travelers. finally,mostofthealternativeswouldhaveonlyasmallnegativeimpactonthenumberofparkingspacesavailableinthecorridor,removingnomorethan4%ofspacesbetweenvannessand33rdavenue.Table 5-32 summarizes the results of the Traffic operationsandparkingevaluation.

Table 5‑32 Summary of Traffic Operations and Parking Results

pMpeak

averagevehicle

delayongearyatpM

peak

averagepersondelay

forwholeintersectionatpMpeak

autotraveltime

(Westbound)

autospeed(Westbound)

on-streetparking

(allservicesinbusway)

alt1:basictransitpriority

11sec 15sec 15min 16mph 1060spaces

alt2:basicplus

10sec

(-1sec)

13sec

(-2sec)

alt3:sidebRt

10sec

(-1sec)

13sec

(-2sec)


12sec

(+1sec)

15sec

(nochange)

alt5:centerbRtwith1Median

12sec

(+1sec)

15sec

(nochange)


Geary BRT Study

5.8 Cost

PurPoSE

this section provides conceptual level capitalcostestimatesforthebRtalternativesongearyboulevard, includinghardcosts(e.g.materials,labor)andsoftcosts(e.g.planning,design,etc.).thecostestimatesbelowincludepedestrianandbusstopenhancementsalongthewholecorridor(48th to Market) in addition to the lane andmedianchangesbetween33rdandvanness.

note that cost estimates are based on theconceptual designs, and would be further refined duringpreliminaryengineering.thismeasureisintended to estimate the costs of constructingbRtongeary,andtodeterminethemagnitudeofthecapitalimprovementsthatwouldaccompanyabRtprojectongeary.theseestimatescanalsobeusedtobeginidentifyingapotentialfundingplanfortransportationimprovementsongeary.

the cost analysis also addresses likely impactsto operating costs and identifies potential sources for funding transit improvements ongeary. this evaluation category helps assesshow each alternative would meet the projectgoalofefficient, effective and equitable transit service.

mEthodology

thecostofbRtongearywasestimatedbythestudy team based on the conceptual designsfor each alternative and adjusted to reflect the historical costs of implementing transitconstruction projects in san francisco. theestimates include the full range of projectelements, along with traffic management activities during construction. capital costswere estimated for all alternatives; however,capital costs foralternative 1 are expected tobe relatively minor. costs for the remainingalternatives are incremental to the basicimprovements currently anticipated for gearyin the coming years. funding options for theprojectarediscussedinchapter6.

findingS

CapitalCosts

bRtongearyisexpectedtocostbetween$157million (alt 3) and $172 million (alts 4 & 5) in2010dollars($39-$43millionpermile)39forthetypical sections, depending on the alternativeselected. the center bRt alternatives (alts. 4&5)wouldcostslightlymorethanthesidebRtalternative(alt.3)duetotheconsiderablemedianchangestheyrequire.thecostsarehigheroncethespecialintersectionsatfillmoreandMasonicarefactoredin.Withthelessexpensivesurfacefillmore and Masonic designs, geary bRt isexpectedtocostbetween$172millionand$187million. With themoreexpensiveundergrounddesigns,gearybRtisexpectedtocostbetween$197millionand$212million.costestimatesforthese special locationsatfillmoreandMasonicarediscussedfurtherbelow.

forthebRtalternatives(alts.3-5),thisestimateincludes:

street resurfacing and any changes to streetconfiguration required by the project for the focused area of analysis (between goughstreetand33rdavenue)

bRt and local stop platforms and stationamenities, including shelter upgrades, ticketvending machines, real-time information,landscaping, and station lighting for the fulllength of Geary (Market Street to the Pacific ocean)

signal upgrades to support transit signalpriority and optimize traffic flow along Geary boulevard

pedestrianandstreetscapeimprovements,suchas curb extensions, and median landscapingalonggearyboulevard

Estimatesalsoincludeconstructionmanagementactivities intended to coordinate a safeconstructionenvironmentandmaintainvehicularandpedestrianaccess tobusinessesandhomesthroughout the construction period. thecontribution thateachof these featuresmakesto the overall cost of the project is shown inFigure 5-5. This figure does not include the fillmoreandMasonicintersections.

the baseline (alt. 1) would draw from fundsalready programmed as part of Muni’s existing5-year funding prioritization program. for thebasicplusalternative(alt.2),basictransitpriorityimprovementsongearyareexpectedtocostup

��Capitalcostshavebeenescalatedtotheyearofconstruction,�0�0,usinga�%rateofescalation.

•

•

•

•

5-54


to$8million.thisestimateincludesadditionaland/orextendedbusbulbsattargetedlocations,real-time information at additional locations,newsignagetoidentifythetransit-onlylane,andsignal upgrades required to support additionaltransit signal priority and optimize traffic flow.

SignalUpgrades

5%

StreetResurfacing/Configuration

33%

PlatformAmenities

45%

StreetscapeImprovements

2%

TrafficManagement

8%

PedestrianImprovements

7%

figure5-5 distributionofbRtcosts—typicalsections40

thecostofacquiringnewvehiclesisnotincludedintheseestimates,sincesfMta’sregularvehiclereplacement cycle already anticipates newvehicles on geary within approximately thesame timeframe as the project. More detailon potential vehicle acquisition, if warranted,and other potential costs would be addressedinasubsequentphaseofwork.costspresentedwithin this report have been escalated to theyear of construction, 2010. further detail oncapitalcostestimatesisprovidedinappendixi.

specialintersections

improvements at the intersections of gearyat fillmore and at Masonic are expected to bemore extensive, and require a higher level ofinvestment.forgearyatfillmore,estimatesforcapitalcostsrangebetween$11millionand$20million, with each of the “fill” options (Center and side) at $11 million and the undergroundoptionwithanundergroundstationat$20million.forgearyatMasonic,estimatesforcapitalcostsrangebetween$4millionforsurfacebRtand$20million forunderpassbRtwithanundergroundstation. given the complexity of constructionat these locations, and the need to redesignsomeofthealternatives,thecontingencyfactorapplied to costestimates for these locations is50%, higher than that for the typical sections(30%).Moredetailonthesedesignscanbefoundinsection5.10.

�0BasedontypicalsectionsforCenterBRT,excludingimprove-mentsatFillmoreandMasonic.ProportionsforSideBRTwouldbesimilar,thoughcostswouldbelower.

operatingCosts

abRtsystemongearyboulevardisexpectedtodeliveradditionalservicewhileoperatingwithinthecurrentoperatingcostenvelope.infact,allthebRtalternativesshouldprovidemoreservicewithlittletonoincreaseinoperatingcost.thekeydeterminantofthecosttooperateaserviceis the cycle time of the route—the averagetimerequiredtomakearoundtrip,includingabreak—whichdictates thenumberofbusesanddriversrequiredtooperateatagivenfrequencyofservice.forexample,ifabus“cycletime”isonehour,andthebusisscheduledtooperateat15 minute headways, then 4 buses are neededto meet the scheduled headway. if bus “cycletime”isreducedby15minutesthenonly3busesareneededtorunatthesamefrequency.

by improving bus travel times and reducingdelays,bRt shortens theamountof timeabusrequires to complete its route. this reductionenables the same number of drivers and busesto operate more route cycles and ultimatelyprovide a higher frequency of service, at littleto no additional cost. center bRt alternatives(alts. 4 & 5) would have the greatest traveltime savings and reliability improvements, asdiscussedearlier,andwouldthereforemaximizethe level of service Muni could obtain for itsexistingoperatingbudget.

Reinvestingoperatingcostsavingsisexpectedtooffer a major benefit that transit riders desire: higherfrequenciesandawiderspanofserviceongeary.savingscouldresultinbRtfrequenciesaslowas3or4minutesinthepeakperiodsand/orbRtservicehoursthatcoincidewithMuniMetroservice hours at little to no additional cost,particularly when service is efficiently allocated between the bRt and local services. Moredetailedoperatingcostanalyses,alongwithcostsfor maintenance of any new infrastructure orstreetscapeamenities,wouldbepursuedduringanenvironmentalanalysis.

community fEEdback

Whilecostwasaconcern,moststakeholdersdidnotperceivethisasanoverridingconstraintforfurtherstudy.Membersofthepublic indicatedthat cost estimates need further detail anddevelopmentduringasubsequentphaseofstudy,in particular for the intersections at fillmoreandMasonicandforoperatingandmaintenancecosts.


Geary BRT Study

kEy concluSionS

bRtongearyisexpectedtocostbetween$157millionand$172millionforthetypicalsections,withanadditional$15millionto$40millionforthe intersectionsoffillmoreandMasonic. thetotal project could cost between $172 millionand $212 million depending on the alternativethat is chosen for the typical locations and forthespecialintersections.

bRt is expected to reduce operating costs byreducing the amount of time a bus takes tocompleteoneroundtriproute.thesecycletimesavings for bRt could lead to increased transitfrequenciesand longerservicehourswith littletonochangeintheoperatingcosts.

5-56


5.9 ConstruCtioniMpaCts

PurPoSE

this section describes the likely duration andintensity of Geary BRT construction, and identifies strategies to reduce construction impacts onadjacent land uses. construction impacts areassessed based on the expected duration ofconstruction, in months, and the expectedintensity, in the number of street areas/blocksunderconstructionduringagivenspanoftime.

mEthodology

construction impacts were assessed throughconsultations with construction firms who have experience in san francisco. based on theconceptual engineering drawing of the bRtalternatives,thestudyteamdevelopedpotentialconstructionapproachestominimizethedurationandintensityofbRtconstruction.

findingS

Constructionduration

bRt alternatives on geary (alts 3-5) can beconstructedwithin1½to2years;durationvarieslittle across bRt alternatives. construction ofbRtwouldbearrangedinsegmentsof3-6blocksat a time, with each segment lasting about 2-3 months in total, including some night andweekend construction as appropriate. Workingonmorethanonesegmentatatimeatdifferentparts of the corridor would allow the overallconstruction to move more quickly than wouldotherwisebepossible.constructionstagingandtraffic management would be designed to keep at least one lane of traffic open and maintain pedestrianaccessthroughoutconstruction.

constructionimpactsforthebasicplusalternative(alt.2)wouldbelessintenseandshorteroverallthanthebRtalternatives,withspottreatmentsatkeylocationsalongthecorridor.thedurationof construction at some of these locations,however, could be approximately the same asthebRtsegments(2-3monthspersegment).

given the length of the corridor, constructioncouldbephasedtominimizeimpactsand/ortoaddress more congested areas before others.More detail on construction phasing would bedeveloped during an environmental impactanalysis.seesection5.10formoreinformationon fillmore and Masonic, where constructionwould be more intensive than in the typicalsections.

allfeasibleprojectdeliverymethodsthatcouldreduceconstructiontimeorminimizedisruptionswill be explored. during an environmentalanalysis,thestudyteamwouldalsoexplorenewwaystoeitherminimizeimpactsonbusinessesortomakeexistingbusinessretentionandsupportprograms more accessible to businesses alongthecorridorduringconstruction.

Constructionintensity

constructionofbRtislowerintensitycomparedtolightrailorsubwayconstruction;forthemostpart, construction would be similar to a streetresurfacing project particularly since designswould not result in substantial changes tosidewalkwidthsalongthetypicalsections.

if the full project were pursued in one phase,itislikelythat2-3shortsegmentsof3-6blockswould be under construction at a given time,at different areas of the corridor. during thattime, roadway access for land uses frontinggeary would be preserved. a more detailedconstructionschedulewouldbedevelopedduringanenvironmentalanalysis.

Each bRt alternative involves several keyconstruction elements: resurfacing, curbextensions, median work, and transit stations/platforms.becauseeachbRtalternativeinvolvesalloftheseelements,constructionimpactsdonotdiffer significantly among the BRT alternatives. again, construction impacts for the basic plusalternative (alt. 2) would be less intense thanthebRtalternatives,as spot treatmentswouldonlyincludebusbulbsorextendedbuszonesandcurbextensionsatkeylocations.

community fEEdback

atmanypoints throughout the study, includingpublicworkshopseriesandstakeholdermeetings,merchants and others have expressed concernsabout the impact of project construction.Workshop participants and other stakeholdersalongthecorridorhaveurgedthestudyteamtotakestepstominimizetheconstructionimpactsofallalternativesonadjacentlanduses.othercommunity members have expressed a strongdesire for construction jobs and other projectdevelopmentopportunitiestobemadeavailabletoaffectedresidents.

in most areas, community members andstakeholderssupportedthestudyteam’seffortstoincorporatedesignsthatwouldavoidsidewalkreconstruction.thiswasanintentionalefforttominimizeimpactsofbRtconstructiononaccess


Geary BRT Study

tobusinessesandotheractivelandusesalongthecorridor.atlocationslikefillmoreandMasonicwhere construction activities could be moreintensive, community members have expressedan interest in widening sidewalks to increasepedestrian comfort and offer more areas forotherstreetscapeamenities.

the expected construction impacts for gearyBRT would continue to be refined in the environmentalanalysis,throughadditionalstudyandpartnershipswithothercityagenciessuchasthe Mayor’s offices of Economic and Workforce development and of neighborhood services.the study team would work proactively todevelopandidentifyinnovativeprojectdeliverymethods that could reduce impacts as well ascity programs that would support businessesduringconstruction. Jobaccessprograms suchascitybuildwouldalsoprovideopportunitiesforaffectedcommunities.

kEy concluSionS

bRt construction is low-intensity and quickrelativetomajortransportationprojectssuchas light rail or subway construction, and ismoreakintoaresurfacingproject.

bRtongearycanbeconstructed in1½ to2years,in3to6blocksegmentsof2-3monthseach.

Expected construction impacts of the bRtalternatives do not differ significantly.

construction for the basic plus alternativewould likely be of similar time and intensitywhere construction is warranted, but wouldbeshortergiventhesmallernumberofareaswheretreatmentswouldberequired.

an array of construction approaches isavailabletoreducethedurationandintensityof construction, including night/weekendconstructionwhereappropriate.

access to businesses would be maintainedthroughouttheconstructionperiod.

•

•

•

•

•

•

5-58


5.10 speCialinterseCtionsifsanfranciscodecidestomoveforwardwithoneofthethreebRtdesigns(alts.3-5)evaluatedinthisstudy,therearetwointersectionsthatwouldrequirespecialattentionanddesigntreatmentsdue to unique traffic patterns and street layout. theseintersectionsare:

fillmorestreetandgearyboulevard

Masonicavenueandgearyboulevard

the primary feature that sets these twointersections apart is the presence of an autounderpass that creates “express” lanes forthrough traffic and street-level service roads that serve transit, local traffic, and parking. these intersections are also wider than thetypicalcrosssectionofgeary.thecombinationof these features offers both challenges andopportunities for improving the transportationconditions to the benefit of all users and nearby attractionsandneighborhoods.thebRtdesignswereadaptedtoaccommodatetheuniquestreetlayoutateachoftheselocations(describedfullyinchapter4).

in addition to addressing the needs of the bRtsystem at these special locations, the designsalso provide an opportunity to improve thesurrounding neighborhood by reducing theimpacts that these very large intersectionscurrentlyhaveonthesurroundingenvironment.The Needs Assessment Report identified several issues at these intersections that should beaddressedinanyreconstructiondesign:

Bus traffic at the Fillmore and Masonic intersections is relegated to slow, inefficient service roads, while auto traffic operates on the “express” lanes in an underpass.consequently, these intersections representareas of significant delay for buses, while auto traveltimesareexceptionallyfast.designsforimproving these intersections need to betterbalancetheneedsofallusers.

theselocationsaretwoofthehighesttransferpoints on the corridor, however they havesome of the poorest pedestrian and stationconditions: long, onerous or circuitouspedestrian crossings, narrow sidewalks, andpoorstationareas.

Geary serves as a significant barrier between neighborhoods to the north and south(particularly at fillmore), because of thevery wide street and poor pedestrian links.Community members identified this as a high priorityforimprovementinthere-design.

•

•

•

•

•

thescopeof this feasibility studyonlyallowedforinitialdesignworkattheselocationstoensurethatfeasibledesignsexist.allalternativeswouldrequirefurtherdevelopmentandmoredetailedstudy before the best physical design for eachlocation can be identified. A more thorough examinationcanbedoneinthenextstageofthestudy,theenvironmentalanalysis.

fillmorE StrEEt and gEary boulEvard

the intersection of fillmore street and gearyboulevard has some of the poorest pedestrianconditionsandwideststreetwidthsontheentirecorridor.thestreetservesasabarrierbetweenJapantowntothenorthandWesternadditiontothesouthofgeary.

four alternatives were considered for thisintersection(describedfullyinchapter4).twoalternatives would fill in the underpass, bringing all traffic to the surface:

fillmoresidebRt

fillmorecenterbRt

two alternatives would maintain two lanes ineach direction in the underpass, and dedicateonelaneineachdirectionfortransit:

fillmoreviaductbRt

fillmoreunderpassbRt.

allofthefillmorealternativeswouldprovideahighleveloftransitpriority,whilehelpingtobringtheneighborhoodstothenorthandsouthofgearyclosertogetherandimprovingurbandesign,pedestrianconditions,andstreetidentity.theywouldallconsiderablyreducepedestriancrossingdistancesandcreatewider,morefrequentpedestrianrefuges.theywouldaddressmajorinadequaciesatthebusstops,byprovidingneededplatformspaceandamenitiesatoneofthebusiestlocationsontheroute.Conditions for auto traffic at the Fillmore intersectionwouldremainatacceptablelevelsinallthealternatives.

In many cases, the two alternatives that fill the underpasswouldperformsimilarly,aswouldthetwothatmaintaintheunderpass,thereforetheoveralladvantagesanddisadvantagesofthesetwotypesofalternativearediscussedtogetherbelowandthenuniqueadvantages/disadvantagesofeachalternativearementioned.

•

•

•

•


Geary BRT Study

FillmoresideandCenterBrt

The two alternatives that fill in the underpass (fillmoresideandcenterbRt)woulddoabetterjobof“bridging”theneighborhoodstothenorthandsouthofgearythanthetwoalternativesthatmaintaintheunderpass.theywouldpromoteasenseofneighborhoodcohesionbyremovingtheperceivedandactualpedestrianbarrierofthefreeway-likeunderpass.theywouldalsoenhancethecrossingexperienceandwaitingexperiencefortransitridersbyprovidingwidermedianswithhigh-qualitylandscaping,possiblyexceedingthatofthestandardbRtalternatives(alts.3-5)sincemorespaceisavailable.thesewouldnotonlyserveaspedestrianrefuges,butwouldalsoenhancestreetidentity.infact,consistencyofthestreet’scrosssectionwithsomeofthestandardbRtalternativeswouldlenditselftowardsstrongstreetidentityandbRtidentityfortheprojectasawhole.

FillmoreSideBRT

the overall design of the fillmore side bRtalternative is similar to the standard side bRtalternative(alt.3),exceptthefillmoreversionmaintains the service roads on both sides ofgeary.this“boulevard”designwouldmaintainhigh auto capacity while greatly improvingtransit conditions and enhancing pedestrianfeatures. The conflicts with cars that occur on prototypical sections of standard side bRt (alt3) design would be substantially eliminated atthefillmoreintersectionbecauseparking,local,and turning traffic would be accommodated in thesideserviceroads.theresultisthattransitperformanceatthisimportantintersectionwouldbeexpectedtobeenhancedandcouldperformsimilartotheprototypicalcenterbRtalternativesections.

5-60


FillmoreCenterBRT

The overall benefits of the Fillmore Center BRT alternativewouldbequitesimilartothoseofthestandardcenterbRtalternativewith2medians(alt. 4). in the fillmore version, the extraspace gained by the elimination of the serviceroad would allow for a 35-foot sidewalk whichwouldcreateanopportunityforalinearparkorpromenade. this would not only increase thequalityofpedestrianconditionsandopenspacein the neighborhood, but also, in combinationwiththevisible,prominentcentertransit lane,createastrongstreetidentityandstrongurbandesign.


Geary BRT Study

FillmoreviaductandundergroundBrt

the fillmore viaduct and underground bRtalternatives would maintain all or part of theexistingunderpass.bothwouldhavethepotentialtocreatestreet-levelplazaareas,whichwouldbuffer waiting passengers from auto traffic, and provide space for landscaping and otherpedestrian and transit rider amenities. Withadditionalanalysisanddesign,thesealternativescould create more public open space than thetwo “fill” alternatives.

bykeepingpedestriansseparatefromhigh-speedauto traffic at Fillmore, the underpass would helpbridgeconnections to thenorthandsouthat fillmore. despite this, the characteristicsthat make this intersection a barrier betweenneighborhoods would remain, particularly atWebsterandsteinerwherepedestriancrossingsare relegated to overhead bridges. becausethese designs would dramatically improve thestreet-levelpedestrianexperienceatalloftheseintersections, they would remove the obviousdisadvantageoftheunderpasswhilemaintaining

the separation between autos and pedestrians.buspassengerstransferringbetweengearybusesandfillmorebuseswouldnotneedtocrossheavyGeary traffic to make transfers as they do in the fillmoresideandcenterbRtalternatives.

lastly, the plazas would deliver strong bRtbrandingbecausetheywouldbedistincttransit-only infrastructure that is highly visible. thedimensions,design,and feasibilityof theplazadesignsinthesetwoalternativeswillneedmoresubstantial development in future stages ofstudy.

FillmoreViaductBRT

Fillmore Viaduct BRT would fill the center lane oftheunderpass ineachdirection, leavingtwothrough traffic lanes in each direction and BRT and 38-local buses would run in the center ofthe road at street level. The benefits of Fillmore viaductbRtfortransitandautooperationswouldbe similar to thoseof the standardcenterbRtwith2medians(alt.4).

5-62


Fillmore Underground BRT

The Fillmore Underground BRT alternative would maintain and expand the underpass to allow for 2 lanes of through traffi c plus a transit station underground in the underpass. Transit passengers would descend from the street-level transit plaza to the underground station to board the bus. This design would provide strong BRT branding because the underground platforms would be unique and separate infrastructure from other Muni stops, however this alternative requires passengers to wait below street level with limited visibility from adjacent land uses. Passengers could reduce underground waiting time by relying on real-time transit arrival information displayed in the surface-level transit plazas. In addition, transit riders would have to change levels to transfer to Fillmore buses, which would be less convenient and more time-consuming than street-level transfers. As discussed in Section 5.8, this alternative is the most expensive of the Fillmore alternative designs due to substantial retrofi t of the underpass, as well as the addition of escalators/elevators and possibly additional operations and maintenance costs to maintain the underground station area.

COMMUNITY FEEDBACKCommunity members in this area are most interested in ways to improve the streetscape environment and pedestrian access for Geary. As mentioned perviously, Geary’s wide crossing distance presents a barrier between the Fillmore and Japantown areas. In addition to overall improvements in pedestrian access, Japantown residents are interested in incorporating a crossing opportunity near Peace Plaza/Buchanan Street. Residents also seek ways to incorporate additional parking for the existing underground parking garage between Fillmore and Webster, particularly if the Fill Options are pursued.

In recognition of the complexities of this intersection, residents are also interested to learn more about construction staging and phasing between Webster and Steiner, as well as impacts of diversions during the construction period.


Geary BRT Study

maSonic avEnuE and gEary boulEvard

theintersectionofMasonicatgearyisthemostcomplexintersectiononthecorridor.inadditionto the issue of “express” lanes for throughtraffic with side service roads for transit and local traffic, high demand for northbound traffic geary requires a double left turn lane in thewestbounddirection.this intersectionhasoneof the highest left-turn volumes on the entirecorridor.thisaddedcomplexitycreatesauniquechallenge for the design of bRt alternatives atthisintersection.forone,itaddsphysicaldesignchallenges, but more importantly the greatwidth, high traffic volumes on both streets, and complexityofturningmovementsatthislocationcreatecurrentintersectiondelaysatMasonicthatare already high (a current level of service of“E”).41 The existing tunnel provides a significant autoadvantageconsideringthesheervolumeofturning and through movements. in addition,the underpass at Masonic separates traffic over 4 intersections,unlikethefillmoreunderpassthateliminatesonly1.giventheexistingconditionsandlevelofservice,dedicatingalaneexclusivelytotransitwhileminimizingimpactstoautoswasuniquelychallenging.

twoalternativeswereconsideredforthiscomplexintersection:

MasonicsurfacebRt

MasonicundergroundbRt

bothoftheseoptionswouldimprovethetransitrider experience by improving wayfinding and creatingamoreconvenienttransferbetweenthe43-Masonic and the 38-geary at a consolidated

��“Levelofservice”isatoolformeasuringtheperformanceofanintersection.ItismeasuredbyassigningagradeofAthroughF,soEisonelevelabovebreakdownconditions.LevelofserviceisdescribedfullyinSection�.�.

•

•

signaturestationbetweenMasonicandpresidio.overall,bothalternativeswouldprovidebettertransitperformance.ascurrentlydesigned,theMasonic surface bRt would perform better forautos while the underground alternative wouldofferbettertransitperformance.however,theybothrequireadditionaldevelopmenttomeettheneedsofallusers.additionalengineeringworkcanbecompletedduringthenextphaseofthisstudy.theuniqueadvantagesanddisadvantagesofeachalternativearedescribedbelow.

MasonicsurfaceBrt

in this alternative, buses would operate atthe surface, local traffic would remain on the service roads, and auto through-traffic would be maintainedinthetunnel.Eastboundbuseswouldoperateinabus-onlylaneontheserviceroadandwestbound buses would operate on the serviceroad to the east and west of the intersection,butwouldutilizethecenterlanesfrompresidiotoMasonic.

the pedestrian and transit rider experiencewould be improved relative to the Masonicunderground alternative through integrated,street-leveltransfersbetweengearyandMasonicbusesandreducedpotentialforauto-pedestrianconflicts, achieved by maintaining through traffic intheunderpass. pedestrianaccessandsafetywouldalsobeimprovedbyreducingthecrossingdistanceatMasonicandpresidioandbyaddingneededpedestrian refuges and sidewalk space,in particular the 180-foot long bus bulb on thenorthsideofgearyandthewidenedsidewalk/plaza opportunity at the southeast corner (infrontofMervyn’sandbestbuy).

5-64


Masonic Surface BRT would maintain traffic conditionsandintersectiondelayatacceptablelevels because through traffic would remain in theunderpass.however,thededicatedbuslanewould have to enter a short segment of mixedtraffic west of the intersection between Masonic andWood,whichwould introducepotential forconflicts with cars and could impact service reliabilityandtransitperformance.thisoptionwould also maintain bus operations on steep,slowserviceroadsastheyapproachtheMasonicintersection, which entails further impacts ontransit operations. Finally, the configuration of Masonic surface bRt would be different inthe eastbound and westbound directions whichwould detract somewhat from its ability tocreateuniquebRtbrandingthatisdistinctfromstandardMuniservice.

MasonicundergroundBrt

inthisalternative,theexistingunderpasswouldbe dedicated exclusively to geary buses andanunderground stationwouldbebuilt. at thestreet-level, Masonic buses would operate incenter-running transit-only lanes and serviceroadswouldbewidenedtotwolanestocarryallauto traffic.

the design would create strong bRt brandingbecause it would be similar to the Muni Metrosystemandthesurfacetransitplazaforthe43-Masonicbuswouldhighlightthisintersectionasatransithub.itwouldalsooffersomeincreasesinsidewalkwidth.however,pedestrianswouldhave no buffer from traffic, and the traffic volumes would be significantly increased on the surface. also, this alternative could beperceivedaslesssafethansurfacebRtbecause

passengerswouldhavetowaitbelowstreetlevelwith limited visibility from adjacent land uses.furthermore,theywouldhavetochange levelsto transfer to Masonic buses, which would beless convenient and more time-consuming thanstreet-level transfers. as discussed in section5.8,thisalternativeismoreexpensivethantheother Masonic alternative due to constructionof the underground station, the addition ofelevators/escalators, and possibly additionaloperations and maintenance costs to maintaintheundergroundstationarea.

thedesignwouldoffer tremendousadvantagestotransitperformancebecausethebuseswouldhaveexclusiveaccesstotheundergroundexpresslanes.however,MasonicundergroundbRtwouldcauseautoconditionsattheintersectiontobreakdown. Because all auto traffic would be brought fromtheunderpasslanestothesurface,averagevehicledelaywould increasesubstantially, toalevelofservice“f”,wherecarswouldexperiencesignificant queues and wait multiple signals to advancethroughtheintersection.

thesubstantialimpactonautooperationsmakesthisalternativeinfeasibleascurrentlydesigned.the scope of this phase of work did not allowfor design of additional center-running optionsthat give buses the travel time benefits of the underpasswithoutcreatingbreakdownconditionsfor auto traffic. The Study Team is confident that asolutionthatworksforautos,transit,andothermodes could be identified in the environmental analysisphaseofthestudy.


Geary BRT Study

coSt and conStruction imPactS

While both cost and construction impactswould vary by location, cost and constructionimpacts are expected to be significantly higher at these locations than at the more typicallocationsalonggearyboulevard. basedontheconceptual designs, preliminary cost estimatesareprojectedtobebetween$11and$20millionat fillmore and $4 and $20 million at Masonicin year 2010 dollars. construction impacts forthese special intersection designs would alsobe considerably greater (both in intensity andlength)thanforothersegmentsofthecorridor.Mostofthealternativedesignscallforsubstantialreconstructionoftheunderpasslayout,eitherbyfilling it in to accommodate above-ground transit-only lanes,orbyexpanding it toaccommodatea subterranean transit station.42 both theseimpactswillrequirefurtherstudytodeterminetheirexactscale.

��TheMasonicSurfaceBRTisanexceptiontothis.Thisalterna-tiverequiresminimalreconstructionandthuscostsandconstruc-tionimpactswouldbeconsiderablylowerthanalltheotherspecialintersectiondesignsatFillmoreandMasonic.

5-66


5.11 FeasiBilitydeterMinationthealternativesevaluationwasdesignedtoassessthedegreetowhicheachoftheproposedalternativeswouldachievetheprojectgoals.EachevaluationcategoryislinkedtothegearybRtprojectgoalsasfollows:

goal evaluationCategories

robustandstableridership(Keepingpeopleontransit)

transitoperations&performancetransitRiderExperiencepedestriansafety&access

Efficient, Effective, and Equitable Transit service(Providingbettertransitserviceforallpeopleandatalowercost)

transitoperations&performancecapital&operatingcosts

neighborhoodlivabilityandCommercialvitalityStrengtheningthelocaleconomy,turningtransitintotrueeconomicactivitygenerator,whileprotectingexistingbusinessesandcommunityvalues)

pedestriansafety&accessurbandesign&landscapingTraffic & Parking Impactsconstructionimpacts

transitprioritynetworksystemdevelopment(Strengtheningimageandroleoftransit)

transitoperations&performancetransitRiderExperienceurbandesign&landscaping

\theprojectgoalsweredevelopedbythestudyteaminclosecoordinationwiththegearycitizensadvisorycommitteeandotherkeystakeholdersto ensure that the project is always guidedby broad objectives for the neighborhoods,the transit system, and the city. these goalsrecognize that thegearybRtprojectmustnotonly improve bus performance, but must alsoimprovemobilityandbalanceamongallmodesandthequalityoftheneighborhoodsthatgearybRt serves. (the process for developing thesegoalsisfullydescribedinchapter3.)

basedontheresultsreportedpreviouslyinthischapter,eachalternativewasevaluatedonhowwellitwouldmeettheprojectgoals,byassigningarankingof“high,”“medium,”or“low”ineachgoalareaasdescribedbelow.


Geary BRT Study

Summary of altErnativES’ contribution to ProjEct goalS

While all of the bRt alternatives (alts. 3-5) would lead to improvements in eachof the project goal areas, the center bRtalternatives43(alts.4&5)wouldprovidethebestoverallenhancement,withresultshigherthanorequal toall theotheralternatives ineverygoalarea.centerbRtranked“high”onall goals except neighborhood livability andcommercial vitality, where all alternativesreceiveda“medium”.thisoveralladvantageis due to a couple key benefits that the center transit lane configuration would have over the otherdesigns.first,thephysicallyseparatedtransit lane would maximize efficiency and effectiveness of transit operations, andwould fully eliminate bus and auto conflicts. in addition, the prominent center stationdesigns would provide the best pedestrianconditionsandurbandesignopportunitiesfortheneighborhood,aswellascreatethemostdistinct and recognizable identity for gearyandimageforthebRtservice.

sidebRt(alt.3)alsoperformswell,gettingarankingof“medium”forthreegoalsand“high”forone. sidebRtdoesnotperformquiteaswellascenterbRtfortwomainreasons.first,

��TheCenterBRTalternatives(Alts.�&�)performsimilarlyonsomanycriteriathattheyareassessedtogetherintermsofhowtheymeettheprojectgoals.

•

•

the transit-only lane would be permeable tomixed traffic and the resulting conflicts would diminish the operational efficiency benefits of the bus lane for both transit and drivers.secondly, the location of the new transit-only infrastructure adjacent to the sidewalkwould not create as distinct an image forstreetidentityorthebRtsystem,norwoulditprovideasmanypedestrianandurbandesignopportunitiesfortheneighborhood.

basicplus(alt.2)wouldnoteffectivelymeettheprojectgoals, receivinga scoreof“low”forallgoalsexceptone.thisisprimarilyduetothefactthatthetransitserviceimprovementswouldonlybeineffect5hourseachdayinonlyone direction (peak period, peak direction)which would minimize transit efficiency gains, inequitably distribute benefits, and would not createauniqueimagefortransit.also,therewouldbenomajororconsistentinfrastructureimprovements,landscaping,oramenitiesthatwould improve pedestrian and urban designconditionsfortheneighborhood.

Eachalternative’srankingforeachprojectgoalisshownintable5-33.abriefexplanationofthescoresforeachgoalisincludedbelow.

•

•

Table 5‑33 Alternatives’ Contribution to Project Goals

robustandstableridership

Efficient, effectiveand

equitabletransitservice

neighborhoodlivabilityandCommercial

vitality

transitprioritynetworksystem

development

alt.2:basicplus loW loW MEd loW

alt.3:sidebRt MEd MEd MEd high


high high MEd highalt.5:centerbRtwith1median

5-68


robustandstableridership

all bRt alternatives (alts. 3-5) would raisetransit ridership considerably by increasingthe attractiveness of transit through improvedperformanceandamorecomfortableandpleasantwaitingenvironment.asthereputationdevelopedformorereliableandcomfortableservice,thesegainswouldonlyincrease.centerbRtreceiveda“high”scorebecauseitwouldattractthemostnew riders to transit (25% increase). side bRtreceived a “medium” score because it wouldattract somewhat fewer riders (15% increase)duetolowertransitperformance.

basic plus (alt. 2) received a “low” scorebecause it would attract fewer than 5% moretransitriderstogeary.thisisbecausereliabilityimprovementswouldbe limited,onlyoccurringduring the peak period, peak direction, andbecausebasicpluswouldprovidenoimprovementinthepassengerwaitingexperience.Whilethisalternative would be an improvement overcurrent conditions, ridership increases andoperational improvements would be limited topeak periods, making it difficult to achieve a “robustandstableridership”.

Efficient, Effective and Equitable Transit service

allbRtalternatives(alts.3-5)wouldconsiderablyincrease overall efficiency of the transit service on geary due to increased ridershipand decreased travel time as well as allowingfor more service within the current operatingbudget (higher frequency, longer hours, and/or sunday service) from the reinvestment oftravel time savings. These benefits would be equitablydistributedtoallusersatalltimesofday.centerbRtscores“high”becauseitsdesignwould maximize efficiency, whereas Side BRT receiveda“medium”scorebecauseitwouldhavesomewhat diminished efficiency from remaining mixed traffic operations.

basicplus receiveda “low” scoreon this goal.although it would achieve some peak hourefficiency gains, there would be no efficiency gains in other time periods. Furthermore, benefits would be focused exclusively on commuters,which would leave out approximately 75% ofexistingriders,includingmosttransit-dependentriders.

neighborhoodlivabilityandCommercialvitality

allalternativesscored“medium”inmeetingthisgoal, although each alternative had differentstrengthsandweaknesses.

all bRt alternatives (alts. 3-5) would includeconsiderable investment in pedestrian safety,bus stations, and other amenities which wouldenhance the overall quality of the streetenvironment.inaddition,theincreasedserviceresultingfromreinvestmentoftraveltimesavingsshould lead to more commercial activity fromincreased foot traffic. On the other hand, the bRt alternatives would have parking tradeoffsandconstructionimpactsontheneighborhoods.however, these impacts should be relativelyminimal with the implementation of mediatingstrategies: construction could occur in shortsegments, and parking loss would be less than4%oncereplacementstrategiesareundertaken.centerbRtalternativesinsomescenarioswouldactuallyincreasecurbparkingbyupto16%.

basicplus(alt.2)rankedmediuminthiscategorybecauseitwouldminimizeconstructionimpacts,but would not provide benefits to the surrounding neighborhoods through improvements inthe pedestrian and rider environment, norwould it increase foot traffic or improve the attractiveness of transit for shopping or othertrips in the neighborhoods. parking impactsof this alternative could be high, if the peakperiod transit lane was implemented as a tow-awaylane,whichcouldeliminateasmanyas500parkingspaces.

transitprioritynetworksystemdevelopment

boththecenterandsidebRtalternatives(alt.3-5) ranked “high” for this goal, because theywould both create a recognizable and distinctrapid transit service along a critical corridorin san francisco, building a key link in whatcould become a bus rapid transit network.like light rail improvements, permanent busrapid transit infrastructure that is visible andineffectover the full courseof thedaywouldinspire confidence in transit performance. This typeofinfrastructureinvestmentoftenhelpstoinspire other investments in the neighborhoodas property owners understand that the cityis making a permanent improvement on thecorridor.

basicplus(alt.2)wasranked“low”forthisgoal,becauseitwouldonlyoperateinthepeakperiodand would not entail any investment in unique


Geary BRT Study

transit infrastructure. this would not lend asense of permanence and would be less likelyto inspire investment or considerably improveperceptionoftransitinsanfrancisco.

Conclusion

This conceptual study finds BRT to be a feasible way of improving transit service on gearyboulevardwhilealsoimprovingtheneighborhoodsthat it passes through. based on the analysis,several BRT design configurations could provide substantial transit performance benefits at an affordable cost, andwithmanageable impacts.the study report documents the results of theneeds analysis, describes alternative designs,documents findings from the evaluation of alternatives, and describes a potential fundingandimplementationplan.thoughquitedetailed,the findings presented here are preliminary, and can be evaluated more extensively shouldanalysisprogresstothenextphaseofstudy—anenvironmentalimpactanalysis.transitridershaverequestedvariedformsoftransitimprovementstoprovidesubstantiallyimprovedtransitserviceongeary,andcommunitymembershaverequestedother enhancements to geary to improve dailyshopping,diningandcommutingalongthestreetand within the many neighborhoods served bygeary.

BRT would offer substantial benefits to travel times, andmoredependableor reliable transitservice to the many destinations throughoutthe geary corridor. More detailed analysis isneeded to understand the magnitude of benefits andimpacts,andtodevelopappropriateimpactmitigations as needed. as such, the studyconcludes with a recommendation to proceedwith environmental analysis of a potentialproject.

6-1Chapter 6: Next Steps

Contents6 NextStepS.............................. 6-1

6.1INtroductIoN.................................. 6-1

6.2FuNdINg......................................... 6-1

6.3ImplemeNtatIoNroadmap................... 6-2

Chapter6:nextstepsGearYCorridorBrtstudY

JuNe 2007

6 nextsteps

6.1 introduCtionthissectiondescribesthenextstepsthatwouldbe involved in implementing a potential Brtproject on Geary Boulevard. The first section discusses a potential funding plan for Brt ongeary;subsequentsectionsoutlinetheproposedtimeline for potential implementation. The final section also summarizes community input intothe next steps, and describes opportunities forcommunityparticipationinsubsequentstagesofstudy.

6.2 FundinGthe following funding plan is intended todeterminewhetherrealisticfundingsourcesexistforgearyBrt,andtounderstandhowsuccessfulaBrtprojectongearymightbeincompetingforsuchfunds.amoredetailedfundingplanwouldbedevelopedduringlaterphasesofstudy.

the30-yearexpenditureplanfortransportationimprovements that were to be funded by theprop K sales tax was approved by voters in

6-2


2004. It dedicates close to $200 million for acitywidenetworkofBrtlinesandimprovementsfortransitpreferentialStreets.ofthisamount,more than $30 million is allocated to Brt ongeary,andmorecouldbeacquirediftheprojectis further prioritized in the next update of thepropKStrategicplan. thesefundscouldserveas a localmatch to leverage several times thisamountfromothersourcesinordertofundthecomplete project. geary Brt would be highlycompetitiveforallofthefundingprogramslistedbelow, due to its high ridership and the significant benefits it would offer to a diverse group of San Franciscoresidents.

a funding plan for Brt on geary would likelyinclude several of the following programs, inaddition to the prop K sales tax funds alreadydedicated to geary Brt. many regional, state,andfederalprogramsareavailabletofundtransitimprovements. there are also opportunitiesto combine improvements on geary with otherdevelopments and improvements along thecorridor, through public-private partnerships.thesepotentialfundingsourcesinclude:

Federal transit administration’s (Fta) SmallStartsprogram,whichoffersupto$75millionmatch forprojectswhere total cost is under$250million.

Federal Highway administration’s urbanpartnerships program, which offers morethan$130millionforcongestionmanagementactivities that include significant transit improvements.

research and Innovative technologyadministration’s program on Intelligenttransportation Systems operational testing,whichoffersupto$100millionfortechnologyimprovements that better manage roadwaysandreducecongestion.

public-privatepartnerships.

developercontributions.

thepotentialbreakdownofhowdifferenttypesoffundscouldcontributetotheoverallcostofgearyBrtisshowninFigure6-1.

•

•

•

•

•

FTA Small Starts38%

State, UPP, Federal

Programs42%

Prop K20%

Figure6-1 potentialdistributionofFundSourcesforgearyBrt

6.3 implementationroadmap

Next StepS

all alternatives except the baseline (alt. 1)presentedinthisreportwillrequireenvironmentalanalysis if they are to be considered forimplementation.FollowingtheapprovalofthisStudy,theauthoritywilltakestepstoinitiateanenvironmentalanalysisofBrtongearypursuantto state and federal rules, and an alternativesanalysisperFtarules.thesestudiesareintendedto analyze environmental impacts and benefits of Brt alternatives in detail, further develop andanalyze the performance of the various designalternatives presented, and identify specific strategies and activities to reduce or addressimpacts observed. the environmental andalternatives analysis would be conducted overa timeframe of approximately 1 to 1½ years,beginningsometimeinfall2007ifpursued.theseprocesseswouldresultinselectionofapreferreddesignfortransitimprovementsongeary.eachoftheseprocesseswouldproduceareportthatwill require review and/or approval by thesame agencies listed above, the transportationauthorityBoard,SFmta,Fta,andotherpartneragencies.

preliminary engineering designs would also beprepared for the potential project, includingsurveys, detailed plan, profile and section drawings,andanassessmentofrequiredutilityanddrainage modifications. Following identification and preliminary engineering of the preferredalternative, final designs and construction staging planswouldbeprepared.thesestepswouldbecoordinatedwithelementsofalternative1,thebaselinefortransitimprovementsongeary.theauthority will work proactively with the StudyTeam as a whole to ensure expedient and efficient coordinationateachstageofthesenextsteps.agraphic representationof implementation stepsispresentedbelow,inFigure6-2.

6-3Chapter 6: Next Steps

Geary BRT Study

Figure6-2 potentialgearyBrtImplementationtimeline

FaSt-track ImprovemeNtS

theStudyteamalsoworkedtoidentifypotentialactions that could be pursued in the near-termto improve or enhance transit service on geary.these include projects that would not needenvironmental approval, and/or projects thatcouldbecoordinatedwithbaselineimprovementsalreadyplannedforgearyBoulevard.duringthespringandsummerof2007, theStudyteamwillevaluate in more detail the following fast-trackimprovements:

Signaloptimizationstudyandimplementation

real-timeinformationatlimitedstops

proof-of-payment1

targeted enforcement of existing bus-onlylanes

additional limited service, or reallocation ofservicebetweenthelimitedandlocal2

depending on analysis results and availabilityof funding, some fast-track items could beimplementedasearlyasfall2007.

this list was developed as a result of technicalanalysisandcommunityfeedbackthroughoutthestudyprocess.Inadditiontotheaboveactivities,

� Asnotedearlierinthereport,SFMTAiscurrentlypursuingapilotordemonstrationofproof-of-paymentonbuslinestoevaluateitsbenefits and impacts. Based on results of that demonstration, SFMTA mayimplementproof-of-paymentonotherMunibuslinesorsystem-wide. � Additionalservicecouldresultinincreasedfrequenciesorex-tended operating hours for the 38L slightly beyond 6:00pm. Careful analysiswillbeneededtoensurethatnewserviceplansfallwithintheexistingresourcesforoperatingcosts,aswellasthemagnitudeof any service increases.

•

•

•

•

•

the authority will work with SFmta, with otherStudypartners,andwiththepublictoidentifyotherenhancementsthatcouldbeimplementedwithininthecorridorinadvanceofaBrtproject.

commuNIty Feedback

at public workshops hosted by the authority inNovember2006,participantsvoicedtheiropinionson next steps for the study of Brt on geary,and identified issues that they would like to see addressedinmoredetailinthenextstageofstudy.Key issues include the effects of traffic diversions ontolocalstreetsalongthecorridorandstrategiesto reduce diversions; impacts of constructionon local businesses and strategies to supportbusinesses during construction; and impacts onparking of the various alternatives along withstrategiestoreducethem.Someparticipantsalsohope to see more detailed analysis of economicimpacts of Brt in the next phase, while othershope to see further analysis of the benefits of BRT incomparisontolightrail.

geary transit riders, residents, merchants, andother stakeholders will continue to be involvedin the process as it moves forward, particularlyduringtheenvironmentalanalysis,wheninterestedparties will participate in refining the alternative designs, developing strategies to address anyimpacts, and defining a preferred alternative that best addresses the traveling needs of residents,merchants, and visitors to the many locationsalongthegearycorridor.

AppendiX

appendixa:needsassessmenTreporT

GearycorridorbusrapidTransiTsTudy

June 2007


AppendiX

appendixb:railreadyreporT


June 2007


AppendiX

appendixc:evaluaTioncaTeGoriesand

sub-criTeriaGearycorridorbusrapidTransiTsTudy

June 2007


AppendiX

appendixd:sf-cHampmeTHodoloGyand

findinGsGearycorridorbusrapidTransiTsTudy

June 2007


AppendiX

appendixe:syncHroandvissim

meTHodoloGyandfindinGsGearycorridorbusrapidTransiTsTudy

June 2007


AppendiX

appendixf:preliminaryparkinGanalysis


June 2007


AppendiX

appendixG:ouTreacHreporT


June 2007


AppendiX

appendixH:TransiTriderexperience

maTricesGearycorridorbusrapidTransiTsTudy

June 2007


AppendiX

appendixi:fullcapiTalcosTesTimaTesGearycorridorbusrapidTransiTsTudy

June 2007


AppendiX

appendixJ:desiGnprinciplesand

GuidelinesGearycorridorbusrapidTransiTsTudy

June 2007


AppendiX

appendixk:veHicleconfiGuraTionmemo

(originally completed for the van ness bus rapid transit study)


June 2007


Documents

Geary COrrIDOr Bus rapID TransIT (BrT) sTuDy · 2009. 6. 7. · brt mplementat on s feas ble on geary, and recommends proceed ng w th more deta led study through an env ronmental