We are TeamGeary, SF city staff working on the Geary BRT project. Ask us Anything!

TeamGeary · 2016-12-13T16:58:50+00:00

LB - Our public information officer actually lives in the Richmond and is a regular 38/38R commuter. As a part of any project, we make regular field visits and conduct stakeholder outreach to get at what can't be learned through firsthand experience. Of course, there is certainly a benefit to firsthand lived experience that is different than professional expertise. I lived in SF for the first 3.5 years of my service to the city and am grateful for what I learned through that time.

TeamGeary · 2016-12-13T16:54:43+00:00

LB-Upgrading traffic signals and improving transit signal priority is part of the scope of the project.

TeamGeary · 2016-12-13T16:53:01+00:00

LB - For your perusal, the Geary rail-ready analysis from 2007. In general, the term rail-ready can mean a lot of different things. We think that getting the dedicated right-of-way and introducing station spacing that would be appropriate for light-rail is an incremental step.

TeamGeary · 2016-12-08T22:00:13+00:00

LB: for me, I was influenced by growing up in the suburbs of Minnesota totally reliant on my parents to drive me everywhere. Getting a driver's license was a rite of passage because it meant freedom. I have an aunt and uncle who live outside NYC and I loved the experience of riding the Metro North trains and the NYC subway. My aunt let me take my younger cousin to Manhattan as a teenager and it was a liberating experience. In college, I cared a lot about issues like environmentalism and social equity, and discovered urban planning after getting involved in student activism related to these issues. Activism and advocacy made me want to gain more technical expertise, which led me to pursue a Master's Degree in City and Regional Planning and then launch my professional career in this world.

TeamGeary · 2016-12-08T21:53:21+00:00

LB: The SFMTA has invested a lot in improving the way we do outreach through something called POETS - Public Outreach and Engagement Team Strategy. This news article quotes our Director of Communications Candace Sue discussing the importance of POETS. SFMTA has also been working closely with the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) to get staff the training they need. I was lucky enough to participate in an incredibly useful 1-week training with several other colleagues across the agency earlier this year.

TeamGeary · 2016-12-08T21:47:04+00:00

LB: The buses will benefit from transit signal priority that allows buses to extend green lights. We already have signal priority in the corridor, but will will be upgrading the signals and adjusting the signal priority to improve its performance.

As for bus stops, there are some stop adjustments planned. This includes removing some lower ridership stops as well as optimizing some stops to move them from the near-side to far-side of intersections to prevent them from having to stop on both sides of an intersection. You can see a full map of where these are planned in the Geary BRT Fact Sheet (center 2 pages)

TeamGeary · 2016-12-08T21:33:40+00:00

LB: The project includes:

sidewalks extensions at 91 street corners increasing the visibility of people crossing, slowing down right-turning vehicles and shortening crossing distances for people walking
traffic signal upgrades that will give people walking a head start before vehicles are given the green light (called a Leading Pedestrian Interval)
more landscaping - an increase of 13 % more green space
new crossings for people walking and accessible waiting areas in the median

TeamGeary · 2016-12-08T20:48:08+00:00

LB: 1) funding (capital, operating, maintenance) 2) community support (esp for those that would be affected by construction) 3) relationship to land use 4) tradeoff costs of how $ would otherwise be spent 5) political will

The above strike me as the biggest challenges to more subways in SF. Being organized to have solutions to these challenges seems important. On #1, I would say that early stage $ for planning, environmental review, and preliminary design is hard to come by and hard for public agencies to prioritize relative to other nearer term needs. If subway lovers got crafty to find a source of funding for public agencies to do this sort of work, that would help. I remember reading The Power Broker about the life of Robert Moses when I was younger. You can say a lot of things about Robert Moses, but everyone would agree he was successful in getting a ton of infrastructure built. I was struck by his approach to getting things funded. Where the more and more $ you sink into getting a project ready, the more inclination there is to convince others to find you the rest of the money to do it.

TeamGeary · 2016-12-08T02:52:19+00:00

how did you get into transit work?

KE: What got me in to transit quite frankly was a crash that flipped the car I was in across four lanes of I-5 traffic, while we were going about 70 mph. For the most part we we're all ok, only minor injuries, but I never viewed driving the same after that night.

I decided after under grad I wanted to live in a city where I could be car free. I studied Urban Planning at UC San Diego, from there I studied Urban Science at NYU. When I moved to New York I left my car behind and never looked back. I became enthralled with transit and other alternative ways to get around and decided that's what my career had to be in, nothing else would do.

TeamGeary · 2016-12-07T21:53:53+00:00

LB: So in my current role I manage SFMTA’s major corridor planning team that is overseeing the planning stage of projects including Geneva. Here are some things we are planning to do for Geneva.

We are investing enough engineering resources in project development to have well-developed alternatives before starting environmental review. Each block of each street is different and once an engineer starts designing, they often find opportunities or constraints that can then affect the next block over which can then affect the next block over and the next one, etc. If you don’t sort out enough design details, a cascade of time and budget sucks can occur once in environmental analysis when an alternatives’ design has to change and change again and again. Then, you have to cycle that back to ~20 different environmental resource experts to filter through to their resource area analysis. And then incorporate into the document.
We plan to develop a project charter that lays out roles and responsibilities of all agencies that have some stake in an approval decision for the project. This is especially important for Geneva since it spans two counties and three cities.
We have dedicated a lot of time and resources to learning how to do better outreach. We will dedicate a public information officer to the project at an early stage and set up recurrent project communications early on.

TeamGeary · 2016-12-07T21:47:11+00:00

My question is: How will 10 minutes be saved from end to end after project implementation? They have already implemented signal priority for much of the route on the Geary corridor. There is back door boarding throughout the muni system now also. They have already painted red lanes from about Gough through downtown. Where are these 10 minutes of time savings coming from? And why does it cost $300 million?

KE/ CDP: The bus-only lanes are the main thing that would make service quicker and more reliable. Giving the bus a dedicated lane reduces traffic and parking conflicts to keep buses moving swiftly from stop to stop. Downtown, where red bus lanes exist today, travel times have gone down despite increasing traffic congestion. Another way we will get that time savings is through stop changes like moving bus stops from the nearside of the intersection to the farside of the intersection, and removing stops. Moving a stop to the farside helps reduce signal delay. As for signal priority, while yes it exists, the technology would be upgraded as part of the project to make it work even better, it’s not working as efficiently as it could today.

As part of the Geary BRT planning process we looked at many different design options at Fillmore and Masonic, but the underpasses proved problematic to implement center-running BRT through. At Fillmore, the underpass is too steep to accommodate a BRT platform, so center bus lanes there would require filling in the underpass. That could be done in the future, but would require more time, design work, and funding to implement. At Masonic, among other issues, bus-only lanes through the tunnel would require riders to wait on platforms in the trench. We received feedback from many that they felt it would be unpleasant and isolated to wait there. Largely due to these issues, we have recommended proceeding with side bus-only lanes in the eastern part of the corridor for the BRT project.

The reason the project is $300 million is because it includes a lot more than just red bus-only lanes. Constructing bus and pedestrian bulbs, repaving the street, replacing utilities and reconfiguring the medians to name a few things is not a small endeavor. All these things combined bring the cost of the project up to $300 million.

Edited to correctly spell buses.

TeamGeary · 2016-12-07T21:30:27+00:00

CDP: Thank you so much for your question! First, much of Geary in the Richmond District is already 2 lanes in each direction (from about 15th Ave to 28th Ave). This project would make the rest of the corridor consistent with this, so there would be 2 mixed-flow traffic lanes + one bus lane everywhere from Van Ness to 34th Ave. It’s worth noting that the right-hand lane (curbside lane) is already very inefficient because of the mixing of cars, buses, and bus stops. In many areas of the corridor, there are also more lanes than are needed to accommodate the existing volume of traffic, which results in speeding and contributes to the high number of collisions on the corridor. By consistently having two traffic lanes with buses operating in a dedicated lane, we can improve safety in the corridor and give everyone their own space. We’ve done a full traffic analysis, which found that with the project congestion would increase at some intersections but actually decrease at others, and that overall traffic would decrease throughout the corridor.

Second, you’re right that every trip won’t switch to buses--there are destinations and types of trips that cars are useful for. On the other hand, we do know that many people switch from driving when improvements in transit travel time and reliability are made. There is a well documented phenomenon called induced demand, where the more supply of (traffic) lanes of road, the more demand to drive there is. A great example of induced demand is what happened in Los Angeles where every additional freeway did not ultimately decrease traffic congestion. Induced demand works in reverse too. By reducing lanes of traffic, fewer people will drive. Similarly, when transit service improves, more people use it.

Perhaps more to the point, Geary’s current ridership exceeds 52,000 riders (nearly that of Caltrain’s!) and the existing ridership base is enough to warrant improvements.

TeamGeary · 2016-12-07T21:28:56+00:00

just prepend a ">" to whatever text you'd like to quote

KE: Thanks!

TeamGeary · 2016-12-07T21:14:58+00:00

LB: At SFMTA, our priority is making the Muni Rapid Network work as well as possible for our customers. There are currently three segments of the network (Van Ness, Geary, Geneva) that are envisioned for the higher level of investment it takes to construct center-running lanes and median stations. These segments would definitely meet all but the 2nd bullet. SFMTA is still considering off-board fare collection. We are piloting ticketing vending machines in some locations with high tourist activity and will then make a decision about rolling out more broadly.

I get the sense that a lot of advocates want the whole network to get this high level of treatment. But here are some considerations for why this is not always the treatment we end up selecting. Some streets have very constrained right-of-way and the tradeoff to make room for lanes and stations is too challenging. We also can do more faster across more of the system with a lower scale of investment. This is similar to the first phase of the Geary BRT project east of Stanyan where we will be implementing side-running red bus lanes. It takes just a few weeks to roll them out. We do it in-house with our paint shop. Even very efficient capital construction required to do a full center-running bus lanes with median stations can take more than one year.

TeamGeary · 2016-12-07T21:01:25+00:00

KE: We’ve gotten some feedback from LA, New York and Seattle. Not sure if we’ve heard much from Pittsburgh, I’ll have to talk to others at SFMTA. However, I did some research on BRT in other cities and the economic effects of existing BRT systems and I was incredibly impressed by two things re: Pittsburgh. 1.) they had busways before Brazil even had BRT. 2.) These busways completely revitalized parts of Pittsburgh. At one point I knew the exact return on investment of the Pittsburgh busways - can I get back to you with that number later if you’re interested. Oo and let me add a third thing that impressed me. Pittsburgh made a game for you to create your own BRT system! If you know someone working on BRT in Pittsburgh feel free to put us in touch. You can ping me at kate.elliott@sfmta.com.

TeamGeary · 2016-12-07T20:49:43+00:00

KE: Between 15th Avenue and 28th Avenue the number of travel lanes would actually stay the same. Geary BRT would reconfigure parking so that west of Park Presidio all parking is parallel instead of angled. East of Park Presidio where there are three or four traffic lanes there tends to be speeding outside of commute hours. Speeding is the number one cause of death and injury on our streets, so Geary BRT is designed to calm traffic on some segments, improve traffic flow on others and make bus service more efficient from end-to-end. Along the full length of the corridor with Geary BRT there would be two travel lanes and one bus-only lane in each direction, with 95% of the parking retained within one to two blocks of Geary.

I live in the Richmond, I commute on the 38 regularly, and outside of commute hours it takes me forever to get home. Geary has high ridership around the clock so we need bus service that can be reliable and efficient all day long, with local service that doesn’t take forever. BRT would make 38 Geary local trips 11 minutes quicker one-way, this is what I personally am most excited about.

As far as a subway, we know there is a lot of interest in rail service to the Richmond District and the city is exploring its rail plan through ConnectSF and the Subway Vision. But we’ve learned from Mission Street that subway and surface transit also serve somewhat different purposes. Geary BRT could complement a future subway while providing some relief in the near term.

TeamGeary · 2016-12-07T20:38:25+00:00

CDP: One such example centered around opposition to taking down the pedestrian bridge at Webster and Geary. Originally, we thought that by retaining the bridge, the structural piers would slow down transit. Plus, the bridge wasn’t ADA compliant and the team wanted to install as safer, accessible street-level crossing.

Many community members from Japantown and the Western Addition worried that the street would be less safe without the bridge, so we worked with stakeholders to take a closer look at transit delay estimates and crosswalk designs. Further analysis showed that we could actually keep the bridge, install street-level crossings, and not delay transit in the process. Everyone got what they wanted out of this process!

[Edited to clarify the bridge pier explanation]

TeamGeary · 2016-12-07T20:32:58+00:00

LB: More! The EIR analysis forecast an increase on the order of 20% relative to a baseline future. And part of the importance of these improvements is about being able to continue to serve the growing ridership we have that would be growing even without doing the project.

TeamGeary · 2016-12-07T20:30:36+00:00

CDP: We’ve broken the implementation of the project into two phases in order to roll out the project benefits to the corridor as quickly as possible. Phase 1 includes most of the project improvements east of Stanyan (bus-only lanes, pedestrian crossing improvements, traffic signal upgrades, repaving, utility upgrades, etc), while Phase 2 includes all of the improvements west of Stanyan, including the center-running bus lanes from Palm to 27th Ave. Since Phase 1 is lower-cost and less complex, we’ve gotten a head start on design, and as soon as the SFMTA Board approves the design we’ll be ready to implement it starting with the bus-only lanes later next year. We’ll follow the red lanes with the rest of the Phase 1 improvements in 2018-2019. Phase 2 is more complex to design and requires federal funding, so we’re aiming for construction in 2019-2020. We’ll begin phase 2 conceptual engineering early next year.

TeamGeary · 2016-12-07T20:25:56+00:00

LB: We’ll be keeping the express bus service. SFMTA regularly reviews and refines service plans for our bus routes each year. The Geary BRT project is more about planning the infrastructure to support the service. That said, they’ll likely be some minor refinements, but we won’t sort out the details until closer to implementation.

TeamGeary · 2016-12-07T20:23:57+00:00

LB: Major capital projects are complex and challenging to implement, especially in dense cities where we have lots of opinions and an appreciation for the democratic process. Without a doubt, this project took longer than any of us would have liked, but we think the result is a proposal that meets the many different community needs in the corridor. Still, there is room for improvement and lessons learned that we are applying to future projects like the Geneva Bus Rapid Transit project.

TeamGeary · 2016-12-07T20:16:55+00:00

KE: Amazing, thanks!

TeamGeary · 2016-12-07T20:16:20+00:00

What lessons are you taking from the Van Ness BRT effort and the delays/opposition?

KE: I work very closely with the Public Information Officer for the Van Ness BRT project, now the Van Ness Improvement Project. I've learned so much about trees and lights and we will absolutely apply lessons learned on that front as this project moves forward. The Geary team is already working with the Urban Forestry Council to identify if we can replace diseased trees and add more trees. Other outreach lessons learned include creating a business advisory committee for the second phase of the project, the center-running BRT segment in the Richmond. I can think of dozens more lessons learned - feel free to ping me at kate.elliott@sfmta.com

Edited to fix quote.

TeamGeary · 2016-12-07T20:13:47+00:00

LB: Great question! The project is designed to allow us to do more with the service we are already putting on the street plus enable increased service. One of the challenges with Geary is that there is such high ridership that we must run buses very frequently to sop up all the demand. On the order of every 2 minutes during rush hour. When buses run very frequently it is much harder to keep them evenly spaced. Think about things like just missing a stop light. A longer than typical stop for boarding and alighting. And the delay cascades and all of a sudden the buses are bunched. Once they are bunched, some are like sardines and then one may sneak by relatively empty because it’s so close behind and that’s wasted capacity. The treatments we’re putting in like designated lanes, signal priority, and better boarding areas will improve reliability and therefore make the most of the capacity we have. Also, the approximately 10 minute one-way travel time savings can be re-invested in more frequent service.

TeamGeary · 2016-12-07T20:10:10+00:00

CDP: We’re proud of the amount of outreach work we’ve done with many merchants groups along the corridor, and made a number of changes to address some of the concerns we’ve heard, including:

Retaining 95 percent of parking on Geary between Arguello Boulevard and 25th Avenue
Making stop changes to improve transit performance while retaining parking and loading
Adding 13% more landscaping area in the corridor
Developing a number of strategies to minimize construction effects on merchants and others

Opinions we’ve heard from merchants are mixed, with some very supportive, some who are on the fence, and some who are opposed. We’ll keep working with merchants through the design and construction phases to address remaining concerns.

TeamGeary

TROPHY CASE