360 likes | 1.02k Views
Rescue Muni’s Recommendations for Geary Rapid Transit. For PAR 1/30/2003. Agenda. Introduction Why Geary Rapid Transit? Types of Service Expansion Rescue Muni’s Recommendations for Geary Corridor: Phase 1: Bus Rapid Transit Phase 2: Subway/Surface Light Rail. RESCUE MUNI.
E N D
Rescue Muni’s Recommendations forGeary Rapid Transit For PAR 1/30/2003
Agenda • Introduction • Why Geary Rapid Transit? • Types of Service Expansion • Rescue Muni’s Recommendations for Geary Corridor: • Phase 1: Bus Rapid Transit • Phase 2: Subway/Surface Light Rail
RESCUE MUNI A Transit Riders’ Association for San Francisco • Volunteer organization pursuing better public transit (400 members, all-volunteer) • Co-sponsor of 1999 Prop. E (Muni Reform) including Service Standards and Protected FundingAnnual sponsor of Muni Riders’ Survey measuring service reliability (last year 14% of riders delayed) • Active participants on Citizens’ Advisory Council and in public forums concerning Muni (e.g. recent fare increase discussion) • Join us: www.rescuemuni.org
Why Geary Rapid Transit? • Geary Corridor is among most heavily used diesel bus lines in the nation: • 38-Geary: 29,000 daily boardings • 38L-Geary Limited: 18,000 • 38AX and 38BX Expresses: 3,000 • total Geary: 50,000 • 31-Balboa: 10,000 • 31AX, 31BX: 2,000 • 2-Clement, 3-Jackson, 4-Sutter: 16,000 • total with neighboring routes: 78,000 • By comparison: N-Judah LRT 39,000 Data from 1999 and 2000. Source: Muni Short Range Transit Plan, 2002
Why Geary Rapid Transit? • Time Savings and Higher Service Capacity • 20 minute savings in scheduled time from 48 Av to downtown • Current schedule: 49 min • LRT with Subway: 29 min • 40% time savings = 40% more service with same equipment! (Source: Muni Geary Corridor Study, 1995) • 10-15 min savings over Local for Bus Rapid Transit? (estimates) • Reduced delays for all services, particularly downtown • 38 was 74% on-time in most recent study (2/02) • In same study, 38L was 82% on-time, and K-Ingleside rail was also 82% on-time • So fewer stops, subway = fewer delays than current local service
Bus Rapid Transit • • Exclusive Right of Way • Signal pre-empts • Limited Stops • POP ….Proof of Payment • Ticket machines • Low floor buses • Bus “Stations”, not “Stops”. --amenities include schedules, NextBus type systems
Good BRT looks like… (1) Miami: Dedicated ROW, Stations, Through Buses to Neighborhoods from Ends of Busway Curitiba: Stations, Paid Area, Special Vehicles
Good BRT looks like… (2) Los Angeles: Express Service, Signal Pre-Empts, Reduced Stop Frequency Cleveland: Dedicated ROW in Major Boulevard, Signal Pre-Empts
BRT should NOT look like... Boston Silver Line: Lanes aren’t really dedicated, signal pre-empts didn’t work!
Light Rail Transit • Efficient, high capacity transit for urban corridors
Excellent LRT here in SF • Muni’s new Embarcadero service By Eric Haas. Found at www.nycsubway.org.
Geary has had modern rail! • for a short stretch (Presidio to Divisadero) c. 1948 By Clark Frazier. Found at www.streetcar.org.
Our Plan for Geary • Two phased plan to upgrade transit: • Phase 1: Bus Rapid Transit • To be built ASAP (2007?) • Upgradable to Light Rail with minimal additional work • Enhanced Transit Preferential Streets inside Van Ness • Phase 2: Light Rail • Includes Geary Subway from Van Ness to Union Sq. • Much longer planning/construction timeline (2015??)
Geary BRT Designs (1) Geary and 17th
Geary BRT Designs (2) Geary and 17th
Geary BRT Designs (3) O’Farrell and Jones
Geary Light Rail Designs (1) Downtown Subway
Geary Light Rail Designs (2) Laguna Portal
Geary Light Rail Designs (3) Geary and Presidio (Our recommendation)
Geary Light Rail Designs (3a) Geary/Presidio (More expensive choice)
Geary Light Rail Designs (4) Geary and 17th
Possible Geary Timeline • BRT: • Construction 2004-2007 (?) • Muni cost estimate: $170M • LRT: • Construction 2009-2014 (??) • Muni cost estimate: $1.7B • New funding will be necessary for both • e.g. extension of existing 1/2 cent sales tax (1989 Prop B), transit oriented development; federal matching $
Issues with Geary Transit? • Parking • 1995 study: parking on Outer Geary can be almost completely conserved via 90 degree on side streets • Some parking lost during BRT phase on Inner Geary • Traffic Flow • Faster bus service = fewer buses in traffic, less traffic • Construction Impact • This is a concern - but well-run projects can have less impact (construct a section at a time, use deep boring techniques) • Cost • Geary LRT will definitely need new funding sources
To consider during planning: • LRT Design • Elevated or Surface in middle section? • Street Design • Parking vs. Landscaping vs. Left Turn Lanes vs. Traffic Lanes • Station Location and Type (Low floors preferred!) • Service Planning • Maintain local buses during BRT and/or LRT phases? • Through cars to Chinatown, Ballpark, Embarcadero, ?
It’s Worth It! • Many trips on Geary will be cut in half by subway • Geary/Masonic to Transbay by bus: 27 min (3 mi) • Castro to Embarcadero by subway: 13 min (3 mi) • Delays are much reduced by dedicated right-of-way and subway • No traffic lights from Presidio to Embarcadero!(if elevated design used) • Much improved streetscape with rail service • Compare Embarcadero, King, Market, Church...
Thanks! Questions? RESCUE MUNI: 415 273 1558 www.rescuemuni.org