sf_muni: GoGeary then Go Boozing

Robot 6.6.1 (

pdx6) wrote in

sf_muni,
@ 2006-07-27 08:05:00

GoGeary then Go Boozing

If you're tired of bitching about Muni, now here's your chance to do something about it. I'll be there, but I won't be buying anyone drinks at Trad'r Sam. :) Well, maybe the mayor.

Spread the link.

(Post a new comment)

	troymccluresf 2006-07-27 03:24 pm UTC (link)
	Trad'r Sam? Never heard of it. (Reply to this)

	(Anonymous) 2006-07-27 03:50 pm UTC (link)
	Uh. Geary BRT? What does BRT stand for? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Bus Rapid Transit pdx6 2006-07-27 04:07 pm UTC (link)
	It's like light rail, with right of ways and timed lights, but still using smelly diesel buses. It's pub-transit done half-right. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Bus Rapid Transit
(Anonymous)
2006-07-27 09:09 pm UTC (link)

Is the plan to use Diesel busses? In one of the documents I read, repaving would include putting down a thicker foundation and the power lines needed for future light rail service. I figured if they were laying power, they'd be using it for electric busses.

As for "BRT," I really don't like that the Transit Authority (the city authority which is planning all this) uses transportation industry terms in documents for fliers and public information. I think they should just call it a busway. A railway is a "way" (as in a roadway) with "rail", this would be a "way" for a "bus" a "busway"

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Bus Rapid Transit

pdx6
2006-07-27 09:39 pm UTC (link)

My first thought when I read "BRT", was "WTF", but we already have a "WTF" bus system. Yes, they should use terms that everyone understands, since it isn't the MTA that will be riding, we will.

I don't know if there will be electric buses. I hope to find out. I wouldn't think the whole idea was so half-assed if they used electric buses. What do fear is if they don't go with diesel, they may go with hybrid-diesel, which I've heard mixed reviews about (the MTA just bought some hybrid buses for lines like the 48).

About the only good thing that will come of a BRT is "low rise" buses, much like AC Transit's NL so we don't have to watch and wait while old people scale the stairs, and street level "payment areas" similar to Muni Metro, so people can board via the rear or front doors.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Bus Rapid Transit

jedipussytricks
2006-07-27 10:32 pm UTC (link)

street level "payment areas" similar to Muni Metro, so people can board via the rear or front doors.

Ooooh, I hadn't heard about that. I like that idea. (The downside being that if you pay your fare and then the buses are all FUBARed and you end up walking, you're SOL.)

I've often thought there should be more of those ticket vending machines like the ones by the Giant's stadium for boarding the N. Would save a lot of time at major bus stops if most people had already paid.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: Bus Rapid Transit ericatlarge 2006-07-28 06:17 pm UTC (link)
	this is what rescue muni has been pushing for- a certain geary merchant is spearheading opposition- all his customers evidently drive. good thing we have all those poor kids from the sticks to die for their oil. and the bus is good enough for plebes like me. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Bus Rapid Transit

pdx6
2006-07-28 06:22 pm UTC (link)

So I've read when it comes to this guy. He objected to what turned out to be the wonderful Octavia Blvd project too, right?

We still need cars for a while longer, so we'll need to work with motorists and local businesses for the maximum level of success. It is when business owners make unreasonable demands that the process stalls. I for one, would rather take the ~~train~~bus and avoid crazy drivers and expensive parking garages.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Bus Rapid Transit

jamisononfire
2006-07-29 12:33 am UTC (link)

He was President of "Save the Center Freeway" which he brags about in one of the television clips on his Save Geary Boulevard web site.

It's amazing to see him rant because he is so completely out of touch with reality. At one of the Geary Citizen Advisory Committee meetings, he told us we were nuts if we thought anyone would take transit to go shopping and asked (rhetorically) if any of us had ever seen anyone on a bus carrying groceries. The people sitting around me all had this sort of "yes, on the way here in fact" look.

The thing that probably ticks me off most is his outright lies. He said in one story that "Hundreds of existing parking spaces will be lost. It will be devastating to the economy," when its quite the opposite! Dedicated BRT lanes mean curbside bus stops will be turned into additional parking (with options ranging from 2% to an amazing 16%) and right turn lanes to speed traffic.

I think one of the biggest misconceptions is that by removing a lane, it's going to hurt car traffic, but busses sharing the lane are a big traffic problem themselves. Busses stop traffic as they turn into a stop, and when cars try to get around the busses, they impact the traffic flow of the second lane. And then you have the limited busses trying to get around the local busses which can block traffic in two lanes.

Compare that to the Embarcadero where the N-Judah and the F-Line have their own rights of way that don't block traffic.

This should be a campaign to get the busses out of car traffic and into there own lanes where they belong!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Bus Rapid Transit

pdx6
2006-07-29 12:58 am UTC (link)

I didn't know this guy had his own site. It hasn't been updated in a while.

The only point he brings up that I agree with is the disruption of local businesses. There will be some, but assuming construction is only a few blocks at a time and will actively be using rapid buses, I don't think the impact will be that great. His estimate of "100's" is based on no real facts to back it up.

The Richmond isn't an area that is sorely lacking in parking anyway, and an additional 2-16% increase in parking spaces seems like something to celebrate for motorists! Not to mention buses not crowding out turn lanes.

As usual, he sounds like the token San Francisco business man that tries to ruin it for everyone for his benefit (remember the o'farrell cable car had a similar fate). Transit is about us, the community. I thought the transit system was part of what made the community here so powerful? Not run small business into the ground.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Bus Rapid Transit

jamisononfire
2006-07-29 01:24 am UTC (link)

The construction impact would be nothing like Third Street, but I think the TA downplays it a little too much. Part of that is because until they decide what kind of BRT they are going to do.

There's a second legitimate complaint he has: narrowing Geary will divert cars onto other roads. Neither Anza or Clement go all entirely through and goes right, traffic will still flow better on Geary than any of the parallel streets.

Back to the parking, one of the things being considered is turning parallel parking into angled or perpendicular which narrows the drivable width of the street and discourage drivers from turning off Geary into a residential neighborhood anytime the traffic looks heavy ahead. From the presentation I attended you would have thought the entire project was about cars and pedestrians.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Bus Rapid Transit commonreader 2006-08-03 03:02 am UTC (link)
	Oh man I am so out of here. That is it, this is absolutely the last straw. The Richmond cannot handle anymore traffic. Excuse me while I go find Justin Herman's grave and spit on it. (Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Bus Rapid Transit

commonreader
2006-08-03 03:00 am UTC (link)

Wait, when you own a small business you're automatically not part of the community? How's that work?

If this guy is such a dick and so wrong you shouldn't have any trouble convincing people. I really can't get my panties in a wad about individual TAX PAYING business owners when the real enemy is TAX SUCKING UP MUNIcrats. Small business owners will always be able to come up and promote their own wacky local politics, but now that there is the internet, their special ability to campaign to their customers is effectively neutralized. Everyone can get all the angles on all the issues.

Plus the 38 is SO BAD I can totally understand how people just don't believe anyone uses it unless their car is broken down or they've been punished by God or something. And it is actually extremely difficult to do family grocery shopping on transit. This is one of those places where it's really important to remember that just because someone's being a dick doesn't mean they don't have a point. Part of living in a community is putting up with people you can't stand, my friend.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	mrericsir 2006-07-27 08:38 pm UTC (link)
	To answer your question, Bus Rapid Transit. In other words they'll bulldoze all the trees and stuff in the middle of Geary and replace it with two bus-only lanes. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	pdx6 2006-07-27 08:53 pm UTC (link)
	The bulldozing is both good and bad. Based on the CG they have there, more trees would be planted. What gets me is that they just finished with phase 2 of the Geary/Fillmore urban renewal project, and now they are basically going to redo the road they just spent 30 years redoing! (Reply to this) (Parent)

	belleof_theball 2006-07-28 01:25 am UTC (link)
	Oh, thanks everyone. Instead of diesel buses which pollutes, wouldn't it be better to have electric buses? And why get rid of the trees. They make Geary look better anyways. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	pdx6 2006-07-28 04:27 am UTC (link)
	SF also has "free" electricity available to transit, so overhead wiring makes sense. Based on the models on the gogeary site, it looks like there will be some re-planting. I'll see what is really going on during the gogeary discussion on Saturday. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Geary BRT Link cb_moonshine 2006-07-27 03:54 pm UTC (link)
	http://www.sfcta.org/geary.htm (Reply to this)

	erinin3d 2006-07-27 07:41 pm UTC (link)
	2010? Won't we all be under water by then? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	pdx6 2006-07-27 07:45 pm UTC (link)
	Someones been watching too many Al Gore movies. Also, I hear the BRT can float, that's why they picked it over the more practical light rail. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	jedipussytricks 2006-07-27 08:45 pm UTC (link)
	On a serious note, my understanding is that they chose BRT because it's much cheaper than light rail, but does not preclude an upgrade to light rail in the (apparently very distant) future. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	pdx6 2006-07-27 08:51 pm UTC (link)
	That's exactly what they are doing, because this is San Francisco Government: Why do it right the first time? Why use all that fancy electricity stuff we have over in those there mountains? Diesel buses on the busiest route on the west coast (4th in the country) is obviously the best way to go. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

jedipussytricks
2006-07-27 09:03 pm UTC (link)

The literature I read indicated that they don't even have enough money to do BRT, they're just going to try to wing it and get the rest of the money later. How do you propose they pay for light rail?

I mean, I'm sure that if I were in charge of the budget, there are a lot of things I'd be willing (thrilled even!) to cut to pay for light rail in the Richmond. But short of proposing cuts in other parts of the budget that are just not going to happen, where's the money going to come from?

At least they're doing something instead of nothing, and leaving options open for the future.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

pdx6
2006-07-27 09:10 pm UTC (link)

Excellent points. I haven't looked at the budget numbers, and I was hoping to hear more at GoGeary. With the third street light rail project wrapping up, we have all the trained labor we need to roll right into the Richmond and lay track. There are those lengthy impact reports and planning to do, and we could do those while digging up the cash.

The question is, doing something now half assed better than finding more cash to do it right? Where is our federal money? Putting in light rail in say 10 years, is going to just screw up geary again for 4 years while they put in rail and dig tunnels. Double the hassle for the residents. Also, it is like buying something twice just to save money now.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

jamisononfire
2006-07-27 10:30 pm UTC (link)

Maybe it would be helpful to think of BRT as "phase one" I posted another reply the same time as you that covers a lot of that.

BRT construction will be a lot different than Third Street. The disruptions will be in different areas at different times. The TA says it will be like disruption caused by repaving, which I don't buy, It's repaving plus curb replacement, Under-grounding power lines might be a better comparison.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	commonreader 2006-08-03 03:05 am UTC (link)
	Doing something halfassed is absolutely worse that not doing it at all, because people are trying to live here. People can tolerate things just generally sucking in a predictable fashion, but construction noise and disruption of businesses are going to drive people right out of the city. I am starting to wonder if that's not the idea. (Reply to this) (Parent)

wesolows
2006-07-30 04:59 am UTC (link)

Hell, I'd be thrilled not only to cut 75% of the city's predominantly socialist spending but also to increase the cost of fast passes and cash fares (I'm a fast pass holder and will remain so) as much as 200%. A world-class transit system is worth paying for, and even if fast passes cost $150 a month they'd still be no more than 1/2 the cost of owning, driving, and parking a car. Why does everyone make demands and then scurry away in anger when asked to pay?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

jamisononfire
2006-07-27 10:22 pm UTC (link)

Yes, they choose BRT because it was cheaper, though affordable might be a better term. There's only so much Prop K funding for this and Van Ness BRT and all the other projects.

The TA is making provision now for light rail though, when the road is torn out they will relay it over a light rail grade concrete bed and each station is going to be long enough for a two-car train, with room to expand to three-car if it ever happens.

There are a couple benefits to building BRT, with light rail in mind, then upgrading later.

Even once it has light rail, the dedicated lanes will still usable by busses (Golden Gate Transit runs a line along Geary)

And a problem with building a rail line is that you can't make use of it until the entire thing is finished. Geary would meed to be in a subway through downtown and we've seen how long it took just to build the Third Street entirely on the surface.

BRT can be done section by section since buses can move in and out of the completed section while the rest are under construction. And come to think of it, that might make great marketing for BRT as riders can experience the difference in speed and the quality of the stations to curb stops.

When Geary gets upgraded to light rail, busses provide exactly the same benefit, they can just move out of a section of the dedicated lanes which is being upgraded to rail. And since the foundation has already been laid, that would go much quicker.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

pdx6
2006-07-27 10:29 pm UTC (link)

That's probably the most sound reasoning I've heard so far. A right-of-way is what is really needed, particularly on geary and o'farrell sections, though I suppose that is where that line would go undergound. There seems to be way, way too many stops on the geary line, even with the L in service. Also, I'm not sure what a BRT will do about bunching, especially if they can't pass each other.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

jamisononfire
2006-07-27 10:41 pm UTC (link)

Thanks

The last I heard the TA was still considering different service options which are wrapped up in how they actually laying this out. In one configuration with a local and limited like the 38 and 38L are today, the BRT stations would be about every 6-8 blocks, and a local stop between. The dedicated right of way would widen from 2 to 3 lanes (I'm counting both directions total) and the local bus would pull to the side so a limited bus can pass. A limited bus caught behind a local would have a chance to pass every 4 blocks along the line.

I don't know if that's the favored option, it seems to me like it would work.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

wesolows
2006-07-30 05:06 am UTC (link)

a problem with building a rail line is that you can't make use of it until the entire thing is finished

Not true at all. The VTA built the new line out in San Jose from Baypointe to Alum Rock in several phases; I personally remember using this new line when it ended at I-880 and construction was still ongoing. Any properly designed rail system has enough crossovers to support phased construction. And would transferring from the end of an unfinished B-line to a 38 or 38L possibly be any worse than the time wasted waiting for a 38 that's not too crowded to pick you up? I doubt it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

jamisononfire
2006-07-30 05:35 am UTC (link)

You're right,

I left out phasing, but I did so because it's not a practical option. Geary Light Rail would run in a subway through downtown, which would be much longer and difficult then the surface segment further out.

So instead of taking a bus from the avenues to downtown and transferring to a train, there'd be rail in the Richmond first, but you'd have to transfer to a bus through downtown. Then there would also have to be a rail yard and the matter of getting trains back and forth for maintenance when the Richmond segment wouldn't be connected to the rest of the system, etc...

This is the same situation as the Third Street line, where the Fourth Street Bridge has taken as long to build as the entire rest of the line. There was no need, and really no way, to phase it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

pdx6
2006-07-30 08:40 pm UTC (link)

Why does the B-geary have to join the subway when it can join at market street? Run rail via geary and o'farrell and have it join up with the F, then run the line out to Caltrain. Are the Breda cars too heavy to do that? We could possibly use the PCC cars until the subway is finished.

My point is, we can still do a phased in rail program. I'm thinking something similar out in the Castro when they had street cars above ground while digging under Castro. This would remove the need for a railyard, since the system would be joined in phases, with the final step being opening up the subway tunnel, and leaving the geary and o'farrell tracks for MSR's cars to run on B-Geary similar to the F on Market toward Castro. A dual system.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

jamisononfire
2006-07-30 10:52 pm UTC (link)

I love this, you are just as fascinated by this as I am PDX6...

Running surface trains, especially two- and three-car Breda trains (Breda is the name of the company which built the Muni Metro trains we have now) through the downtown core just isn't practical. They would be even more delayed and bunched than the 38 is now, because a train could not drive around cabs, delivery trucks, limos, etc... Just as happens to the Metro lines now on the surface, only worse.

If they were to build surface tracks while a subway was built, the PCC trolleys would never be able to keep up with demand. the trolleys don't hold as many people as the busses, and Muni does not even have enough trolleys for the demand on the F-line. Muni has bought 11 more PCCs that are being rebuilt and repaired which should start showing up in just a few months, but that's far from what they'd need.

I don't think we'll ever see a B-Geary trolley line like the F-Line either, because there just aren't enough tourist destinations to justify it compared to other historic streetcar projects. The National Park Service, Muni and the Market Street Railway (MSRy) are working on an F-line to Fort Mason and the Presidio, the E-Embarcadero connecting the Ballpark and Caltrain to Fisherman's Wharf (the stations are already in place, it's just a matter of trolleys, drivers and getting the T-Third Street up and running first) and I still hope the G-Golden Gate Park line could happen. (The G-Line would run from the Ferry Building up Market, use Chruch to cut over to the N-Judah tracks and then turn into the Park at Ninth Avenue and circle around the Music Concourse)

I've had this radically different expansion plan which would let Geary be phased.

What I did was take the M (it could be another line) run it to BART and through SOMA (this is already a heavily used, but underserved corridor, even before considering SOMA is where most the house and job growth will come from in the next 20 years), then up Beale to a Transbay/Embacadero station and then to the Financial District. The M would terminate there, but then the tunnel would keep being extended to eventually connect up with the Geary surface line. Geary BRT would be built in the meantime so that riders wouldn't have to wait until 2025 or whatever date rail would actually be possible.

I don't think anyone is going to disagree Geary should have light rail, but the money just isn't there. Unless you want to right up another tax proposition?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

pdx6
2006-07-31 08:29 pm UTC (link)

Interesting expansion plan. Avoiding market on B-Geary? A train in the park would be a great idea: We could forget about "Car Free Saturdays/Sunday". No need for cars.

I see the classic cars as useful as any other sort of car. I thought Muni had a dozen or so cars it bought in the '70s during the tunnel work near castro to keep up with coverage, but didn't use most of them. Are these the same cars?

As for money, it is there for the taking. The downtown corridor, which to me is from the Ferry Building to Van Ness, should have a congestion tax for cars entering from the freeway. It would be low, maybe .25, and adjusted up over time based on how busy a particular exit is. Cars on market from the ferry building to van ness would be permit only: buses, delivery trucks, trains, taxis, and other select vehicles. The permits wouldn't bring in much money as the freeway exit fee, but the point is to reduce traffic and generate fees to forward this whole "Transit First in Downtown" stuff I hear about.

The revenue generated would only be used for two things: new track/infrastructure, and new rolling stock. I have no estimates on how much cash this would feed into Muni's buildout budget, but over 20 years it would be plenty. And as a side note, how on earth did the Central Subway get $670m?! I don't oppose the Central Subway, but it doesn't seem as important as a route with 50,000 riders.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

jamisononfire
2006-07-31 10:38 pm UTC (link)

This should probably be broken out into a new topic...

I should have mentioned another historic expansion idea that's come up from time to time, extending the California line from Van Ness to Japantown via Buchanan.

As for the Central Subway, it was part of an agreement with the Chinatown Merchants who opposed the Embarcadero Freeway coming down and was justified by using the number of riders using the Stockton "corridor" even though most of those riders start and end there trip beyond Chinatown in Northbeach, Van Ness, the Marina, etc...

There will also be no stations located in the 8 blocks between Moscone Center and King Street, so by running "through" SOMA the central subway really would just pass through without serving it (more people get off the 30/45 at Brannan than at Caltrain)

I haven't given up hope the Central Subway can still be killed and the money relocated to Geary.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	commonreader 2006-08-03 03:08 am UTC (link)
	don't think we'll ever see a B-Geary trolley line like the F-Line either, because there just aren't enough tourist destinations to justify it compared to other historic streetcar projects. BRING BACK PLAYLAND (Reply to this) (Parent)

(Anonymous)
2006-07-27 10:29 pm UTC (link)

Hey folks.

Since that's my ugly mug up above I felt as though I should comment.

With any luck the meeting should answer most of your questions (hint, hint). But if not, I'd be happy to try to explain over the aforementioned drink afterwards.

Just no scorpion bowls, please.

Seriously: The reason we're going out of our way asking folks to attend is that the question is not whether we'll be able to build light rail or just a busway--it's whether we'll be able to do anything at all.

(Reply to this)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs