Brian Larkin: Goals, concerns over Geary BRT

Near and Long Term Transit Improvements
Geary Boulevard is a heavily traveled transit corridor - more than 50,000 people ride the Muni 38 and 38L lines on an average weekday. Both lines are slow and often over-crowded. The Richmond District deserves better transit service; there is little disagreement about that. The question is what form those improvements should take.

The SF County Transportation Authority (TA) sponsored a feasibility study for implementing a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line on Geary that concluded last year. That study analyzed five options, two of which were relatively inexpensive and could be quickly implemented, and three others that would take several years to design and construct. Those options were:

- Simple improvements, such as traffic-signal preemption, coupled with relocation of bus-stops to the far side of the signaled intersections;

- Same improvements as above but with transit preferential lanes east of Van Ness Avenue only during commute hours;

- A side running BRT, with buses running in dedicated curb lanes;

- A center running BRT, with buses running in dedicated lanes in the median with platforms along the median's outer-edges;

- A center running BRT, but with center-platforms. This would require new buses with doors on the left side of the bus, necessary for use with a center platform.

Note that there was no study of a light rail, or LRT option, other than the proviso that nothing in the BRT system's design should preclude an LRT system later.

One result of that study was a recommendation to begin environmental analysis and engineering. According to the TA's Web site, "The environmental analysis will identify the benefits and impacts of BRT alternatives, recommend a preferred alternative for Geary, and develop a set of strategies to mitigate potential impacts of BRT implementation."

The five options described above are not necessarily the only ones that the environmental study will consider.

What worries me is that the two lower-cost, quickly-implemented versions (#1 and #2 above) will not make it into the next study, and that the new study will jump right to the expensive, long-lead dedicated lane of BRT options (#3, #4 & #5 above). Those more elaborate options would improve transit, but not necessarily to a level proportional to their cost in time, money and disruption.

Problems with BRT
Proponents of a sophisticated BRT system cite its relatively low cost to build and operate. The investment required, however, will be significant (more than $200 million). For that large of an investment, the BRT system should be expandable to meet future increases in ridership. But to be effective, BRT relies on traffic signal preemption (change a red-light to a green light) or signal hold (hold a green signal until the vehicle crosses the intersection). Among the intersections that the Geary BRT would have to traverse are two California state highways - Highway 1 (Park Presidio Boulevard) and US Highway 101 (Van Ness Avenue). As ridership on the BRT line increases, since buses can't be train-lined together like light rail vehicles, more buses traveling closer together will be needed. At some point, the bus preemption could impede traffic on those streets to an unacceptable level. This would no doubt result in demands for fewer signal pre-empts, reducing the effectiveness of the BRT system.

Further, to be effective in reducing travel times, BRT needs greater spacing between stops than typical local bus service provides Ð something akin to the distance between stops for the current 38L (limited stop) service. When Muni attempted to reduce the number of stops for the 38 local along O'Farrell Street east of Van Ness, members of the community organized in opposition and had the number of stop-eliminations reduced. That might not happen west of Van Ness, but it could, compromising the effectiveness of an expensive, long lead-time project.

Calls for Increased Density
There will be pressure to increase the residential density of the Richmond District. Indeed, Supervisor Aaron Peskin has already called for "density equity" between the eastern and western portions of the City. Little or nothing may come of this in the near term, but at some point there will be the need to build more housing close to urban centers. Even discounting the threat of global warning, we can be sure that dwindling oil supplies and increased demand will lead to higher prices. Higher oil prices mean higher gasoline prices, and that will eventually make the long-distance suburb to suburb or suburb to city commutes that are so common today prohibitively expensive.

The Richmond District will ultimately change; the question is - how will that change happen? Will we get the necessary improvements in infrastructure to accommodate higher density, or will we get high-profile but low-effectiveness changes like BRT to placate us while others turn our neighborhood into an over-crowded disaster?

Subway/LRT Option
Some simple changes to the current bus service on Geary would improve service quickly and cheaply and almost as much as a full-blown center-running BRT. That's a great short-term solution to our mobility problem in the Richmond District. The longer term solution will require a more sophisticated but none-the-less viable solution - an extension of the Muni Metro system to the northwest part of the City in a tunnel.

Building subways in older cities is an expensive proposition. Indeed, the cost estimate for the planned Central Subway from the Caltrain depot to Chinatown and North Beach includes $21 million for utility relocation and $22 million for temporary facilities and other related costs during construction.

But other old, dense cities are either planning or building new subway systems. Los Angeles is now building its Metro Gold Line east-side extension. Total cost of that project is $900 million and will open late next year. The Gold Line extension is similar to a Muni Metro extension out Geary, and the costs of those two projects should be comparable.

New York City is building its first new subway in more than 50 years, the Second Avenue Subway. When that project is completed it will be 8.5 miles long, add 16 new stations and cost $13 billion.

Changing Times
Our community, state, nation, and whole planet are coming into a period of transition. Half of the energy we use in the United States goes to transportation, and that's a problem. We need to develop better transportation systems.

We have two choices - we can start acting now to build better transportation systems in a planned, rational way. Or, we can wait until we are faced with a real crisis and act out of desperation. I'm for acting now.

Brian Larkin is an engineer who served on the Geary Citizens Advisory Committee and a candidate for supervisor in District 1.