Click here to load reader

Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) · PDF file Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Urban Forestry Council 12.14.12 . 2 Project Purpose and Need Enhance urban design and identity of Van Ness

  • View
    1

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Text of Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) · PDF file Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Urban Forestry...

  • Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

    Urban Forestry Council

    12.14.12

  • 2

    Project Purpose and Need

     Enhance urban design and identity

    of Van Ness Avenue

     Accommodate safe multimodal

    circulation and access within the

    corridor

     Improve transit reliability, speed, connectivity and comfort

     Separate autos from transit

     Reduce delays associated with loading and unloading, and traffic

    signals

     Improve pedestrian comfort, amenities, and safety

  • 3

    BRT Network Context

     Rail does not

    go to north side

    of city

     BRT network

    proposed to fill

    in rail gap…

    …and support

    local “rapid” +

    regional bus

    service

  • 4

    Features of BRT

    Dedicated transit lane

    Transit signal priority

    Traffic signal optimization

    1

    2

    3

    All-door boarding and

    low-floor vehicles

    Pedestrian safety

    enhancements

    High-quality shelters

    4

    5

    6

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

  • Alternatives Assessed in Draft EIS/EIR

     Alternative 1 -- No Build

     Alternative 2 – Side Lane

     Alternative 3 – Center Lane with Right Side Boarding/Dual Medians

     Alternative 4 – Center Lane with Left Side Loading/Center Median

     Design Option B for Alternatives 3 and 4– Limited Left Turns

  • 6

    Alternative 2 – Side BRT Lanes

    Side Dedicated

    Lanes

    High Quality

    Station

    Platforms in

    Sidewalk

    Extension

  • 7

    Alternative 3 – Center BRT Lanes with Right Side Loading / Dual Medians

    Median

    Reconfigured

    Fully

    Separated Bus

    Lanes

  • 8

    Alternative 4 – Center BRT Lanes with Left Side Loading / Center Median

    Vehicles Have

    Doors on Both

    Sides

  • Findings: Van Ness Avenue BRT Benefits

     Improve transit travel times by up to 32%

     Improve transit reliability by up to 50%

     Increase transit boardings by up to 35%

     Maintain corridor person-throughput while

    increasing transit mode share

     Save up to 30% of daily route operating costs

     Improve multimodal safety, including for

    pedestrians

    9

    17.5 16.8

    12.9

    8.8 9.3 8.6

    0

    2

    4

    6

    8

    10

    12

    14

    16

    18

    20

    2007 Existing Alt. 1 (No Build)

    VN BRT Alts 3 and 4 (with Design Option B)

    Tr av

    el T

    im e

    B et

    w ee

    n M

    is si

    o n

    /D u

    b o

    ce

    O ff

    ra m

    p a

    n d

    C la

    y St

    re et

    ( M

    in )

    Bus (Route 49)

    Automobile

    8.7 Min Difference

    4.3 Min Difference

  • 10

    Key issues/areas of interest

     Wish for identifying a high-performing alternative that “works”

     Concerns regarding:

     Traffic diversions

     Left turn removals

     Transit stop consolidation

     Visual effects, including trees and

    landscaping

  • 11

    Alternatives Analysis in the EIS/EIR

     Alternatives performance outlined in Chapter 10 of EIS/EIR

     36 indicators grouped into categories based on Project Purpose

    and Need as well as issues of importance to stakeholders and

    decision-makers

     Transit Performance

     Passenger Experience

     Access and Pedestrian Safety

     Urban Design/Landscape

     System Performance

     Environmental and Social Effects (includes tree presevation)

     Operations and Maintenance

     Construction and Capital Costs

  • 12

    Tree Analysis – Existing Conditions

     102 Median Trees

     28 are mature and in good/excellent health

     50 are young, healthy trees (

  • 13

    Tree Analysis – BRT Alternatives*

     All build alternatives result in net increase in trees on corridor

     Build Alternative 2

     Removes 6 mature/healthy trees

     Build Alternative 3

     Removes 28 mature/healthy trees

     Build Alternative 4

     Removes 11 mature/healthy trees

    Median

    Trees

    Removed

    Sidewalk

    Trees

    Removed

    New

    Median

    Trees

    New

    Sidewalk

    Trees

    Net

    Total

    Trees

    Alt 2 20 38 103 68 529

    Alt 3 102 0 163 48 525

    Alt 4 64 0 113 48 513

    *Note: Results represent

    preliminary likely tree

    preservation and new

    plantings based on

    current information.

    Ability to preserve and

    plant individual trees may

    change with final design,

    including a more detailed

    root assessment, and

    construction.

  • 14

    Center BRT Best Meets Project Purpose and Need

     Design Option B has nearly twice the travel time savings and

    reliability benefits as Side BRT (Alternative 2)

     Public comment on Draft EIS/EIR indicated preference for center

    running BRT (nearly 3:1 versus Side BRT)

    17.5

    16.8

    12.9

    8.8 9.3 8.6

    0

    2

    4

    6

    8

    10

    12

    14

    16

    18

    20

    2007 Existing Alt. 1 (No Build)

    VN BRT Alts 3 and 4 (with Design Option B)

    Tr av

    el T

    im e

    B et

    w ee

    n M

    is si

    o n

    /D u

    b o

    ce

    O ff

    ra m

    p a

    n d

    C la

    y St

    re et

    ( M

    in )

    Bus (Route 49)

    Automobile

    8.7 Min Difference

    4.3 Min Difference

  • 15

    Stakeholders Prioritize Transit Performance

    0

    5

    10

    15

    20

    25

    30

    35

    T R

    A N

    S IT

    P E

    R F

    O R

    M A

    N C

    E

    P A

    S S

    E N

    G E

    R E

    X P

    E R

    IE N

    C E

    A C

    C E

    S S

    A N

    D P

    E D

    E S

    T R

    IA N

    S A

    F E

    T Y

    U R

    B A

    N D

    E S

    IG N

    /L A

    N D

    S C

    A P

    E

    S Y

    S T

    E M

    P E

    R F

    O R

    M A

    N C

    E

    E N

    V IR

    O N

    M E

    N T

    A L

    A N

    D S

    O C

    IA L

    E F

    F E

    C T

    S

    O P

    E R

    A T

    IO N

    S A

    N D

    M A

    IN T

    E N

    A N

    C E

    C O

    N S

    T R

    U C

    T IO

    N A

    N D

    C A

    P IT

    A L C

    O S

    T S

    Weighting SFCTA/SFMTA Project Staff

    TAC

    CAC

    Average

  • 16

    Challenges with Center BRT alternatives

     Alternative 3:

     May require wider lanes throughout corridor due to “head-

    on” configuration

     Complete reconstruction of median

     Removal of all existing trees

     More significant utility considerations

     Alternative 4

     Requires left-right door vehicles

     No 5-door trolleycoach in existence in North America

    (procurement risk)

     Higher spare ratio contributes to facilities challenges

     Reduces operational flexibility

  • LPA Recommendation: Center-Running BRT with Right Side Loading/Center Median and Limited Left Turns

    For planning purposes only

  • 18

    LPA Recommendation: Center-Running BRT with Right Side Loading/Center Median and Limited Left Turns

    Existing Landscaping

    Preserved Where

    Possible Outside of

    Station Locations

    Standard, Right

    Side Door

    Vehicles

  • 19

    Tree Analysis – LPA*

     Net increase in trees

     Removes 17 mature/healthy trees (between Alts 3 and 4)

     Reflects latest SFMTA standards and proposal to Caltrans

     City agencies negotiating with Caltrans over median width

    Median

    Trees

    Removed

    Sidewalk

    Trees

    Removed

    New

    Median

    Trees

    New

    Sidewalk

    Trees

    Net

    Total

    Trees

    Alt 2 20 38 103 68 529

    Alt 3 102 0 163 48 525

    Alt 4 64 0 113 48 513

    LPA 80 0 85 48 469

    *Note: Results represent

    likely tree preservation

    and new plantings based

    on current information.

    Ability to preserve and

    plant individual trees may

    change with final design,

    including a more detailed

Search related