Transit Proposals for Geary Bus Line Moving Forward

By George McConnell

Is the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) program currently under consideration for Geary Boulevard just a code name for urban renewal that will end up destroying neighborhoods as some have suggested?

A poll taken by the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) shows overwhelming support citywide for the program, but many Richmond District residents and merchants remain skeptical about how it might affect their neighborhoods and businesses. Hard questions are being asked.

The BRT system, which creates exclusive transit lanes for local buses, was pioneered in Latin America and has been implemented successfully in many cities, both here and abroad. Bus Rapid Transit uses dedicated roadways for transit vehicles and technology to speed travel times. For example, global positioning systems can be used to prevent bus "bunching" and transit vehicles can control intersections as they approach to keep traffic lights green.

Locally, San Jose and Oakland, recently installed BRT on two of their most heavily used routes and found that travel time was reduced by up to 20 percent.

"It's been a real glowing success," said an AC Transit spokesman.

Implementation of BRT, included in Proposition K, which was passed by city voters in 2003, is currently in the preliminary planning process, and a final decision whether or not to build has not been made. The SF Board of Supervisors will decide this spring whether or not to move forward with an environmental review for the project.

In the third and final workshop held by SFCTA on Nov. 4 at the Self-Help For The Elderly Center to introduce the public to the program, about 100 people received a detailed analysis of the alternative plans selected for consideration from Project Manager Julie Kirschbaum. The four plans include one that would leave the current system intact, two versions of a plan that would create curbside bus lanes, and two plans that would create center bus lanes with either center or side loading platforms. The current design calls for the system to extend westward to 33rd Avenue.

In addition to exclusive traffic lanes, the program would also include new high-quality stops similar to those found on Muni Metro with electronic kiosks providing real-time bus information, ticket vending machines and landscaping. The system would also utilize the proof of payment (POP) system, with riders being monitored by inspectors.

"BRT gives bus travel some advantages by making it faster and more comfortable, and it would make it possible to increase limited or express service available now only on weekdays," Kirschbaum said. "Experience in other cities shows there is a 25 percent increase in ridership in a center lane design, and a 15 percent increase with curbside lanes."

After an initial presentation, she fielded questions from the audience for about an hour. Although SFCTA's statistics show the plan would create minimal impact on the area, both during the construction phase and during actual operations, many at the meeting questioned the study's accuracy, which one member of the audience described as "a fairy tale, not the real world."

Of particular concern to many is the potential impact on businesses and the loss of parking that might result with the various BRT plans, as well as hazardous traffic conditions created on adjacent streets if drivers switch to other routes to avoid congestion created by the new transit lanes.

Computer models created by the SFCTA indicate there would be an increase of up to two vehicles per minute along Fulton, California, Balboa and Clement streets.

"This is a definite safety issue because children and the elderly use the side streets, and with all the increased traffic, there goes the neighborhood," one resident stated at the workshop.

One of the groups actively opposed to BRT is the Greater Geary Boulevard Merchants and Property Owners Association.

According to David Heller, the president of the association, when they put Muni Metro on the Third Street and Ocean Avenue corridors, rampant development ensued and once-thriving communities were "turned into a graveyard."

"Our neighborhood is on the verge of being bulldozed. We don't need dedicated lanes. This is not about transportation but about development. With 55,000 cars driving on Geary Boulevard, where will they all go when capacity is eliminated?" Heller said. "Hundreds of existing parking spaces will be lost and that alone will devastate our local economy, not to mention the years of construction and congestion. BRT is a bureaucratic nightmare."

According to SFCTA, there are 1,000 parking spaces between 35th and Van Ness avenues. If a center lane plan were selected, there would be a 16 percent increase in available parking spaces; however, there would be a 4 percent decrease, without mitigation measures, with a curbside plan. In some locations, diagonal parking would be replaced with parallel parking.

The project will cost approximately $200 million, or $27 million to $28 million a mile, depending on the plan selected, Kirschbaum said. Funding would come from a combination of federal and local tax dollars, including revenue from the half-cent sales tax increase called for by Proposition K. Talks have been held with the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, but no program leaves a lot of space for bikes, according to Kirschbaum.

"BRT works only if you do all of the other associated projects. In the long run, it is more cost effective than running a (rail) track," she said. "Undergrounding the system is not feasible."

According to Muni's Vision for Rapid Transit, published in 2002, light rail is seen as the ultimate transit solution on Geary, and the city's 30-year transportation plan requires that the BRT design "must be rail-ready." If the BRT program is approved, service on Geary Boulevard is expected by 2011.

For more information about Geary BRT, go to the Web site at www.GearyBRT.org. To contact the Geary Merchants, go to www.savegearyblvd.com.