Reimagining Geary Boulevard Town Hall Meeting with Supervisor Eric - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Reimagining Geary Boulevard Reimagining Geary Boulevard Town Hall Meeting with Supervisor Eric Mar July 31, 2013

Reimagining Geary Boulevard Reimagining Geary Boulevard  Reimagining Geary with Bus Rapid Transit  Overview  Recent outreach and what we’ve heard  New developments and recent progress  Reimagining Geary’s streetscape  Attractive and safe  Supports merchants and patrons  Your ideas

Reimagining Geary Boulevard Reimagining Geary Boulevard Reimagining Geary with BRT

Geary Corridor Overview  50,000+ daily transit riders  Bus corridor: 48th Avenue to Transbay Transit Center  Current bus routes: 38, 38L, 38AX, 38BX, GGT92 Not to scale Not to scale Existing 38L route; Proposed BRT route 4

Need for Mobility Improvements on Geary Existing street configuration is Existing bus service is slow and Transit ridership on Geary is consistently high in both unfavorable for buses, pedestrians, unreliable. directions throughout the day, and bicyclists. on weekdays, and weekends. 5

Bus Rapid Transit Features Dedicated transit lane Pedestrian safety and 1 5 streetscape Transit signal priority enhancements 2 High-quality stations Traffic signal optimization 6 3 All-door boarding and low- 4 floor vehicles 6

Alternatives 1 and 2 We West o of G Gough S Street et Alternativ Alt rnative 1: No Pr e 1: No Project / oject / Baseline Baseline Alternativ Alt rnative 2: Side-lane BR e 2: Side-lane BRT T Fillmore Fillmore Fillmore Fillmore The The The The Office Office Post Post Office Office Post Post Not to scale. For planning and conceptual purposes only. 7

Alternatives 3 and 4 West o We of G Gough S Street et Alt Alternativ rnative 3: Cent e 3: Center er-lane BR -lane BRT T Alternativ Alt rnative 4: Cent e 4: Center er-lane BR -lane BRT T with Dual with Dual Medians Medians with Single Median with Single Median Fillmore Fillmore Fillmore Fillmore The The The The Post Post Office Office Post Post Office Office Not to scale. For planning and conceptual purposes only. 8

Recent Community Outreach  Summer 2012: open houses held throughout corridor  Meetings with 30+ local organizations and community groups  Door-to-door merchant outreach  Customer intercept survey  Project Citizens Advisory Committee 9

What We Have Heard Key issues raised during community outreach include:  Support for transit improvements in corridor  Desire to better organize traffic, parking, and pedestrian space while minimizing traffic impacts  Need for pedestrian safety improvements  Concern regarding any loss of parking and its effect on merchants  Need to minimize construction impacts  Desire for landscaping and trees 10

Customer Intercept and Merchant Surveys  Customer intercept surveys:  Conducted in March 2013 at four locations along Geary  7 midweek days and 3 Saturdays  589 total responses  Merchant surveys:  Conducted in May 2013; door-to-door along Geary and Clement  Weekdays and Saturday  Visited all businesses at least twice  260 total responses 11

Customer Survey: How did you travel to Geary today? How did you travel How did you travel to Geary Boulevard toda to Geary Boulevard today? y? 49% 28% 22% Walk or Bike Transit Auto 12

Customer Survey: How often do you visit businesses or services? How often do you visi How often do you visit busi businesses or or servi services es on Geary on Geary Bouleva Boulevard? rd? 60% Percent of Total Responses 40% less than once a month once a week 2 ‐ 4 times/week 5+ days/week 20% 0% walk or bike transit auto 13

Customer Survey: Would you walk longer for better bus service? Wo Would uld y you b be willing t willing to walk an walk an ad additional b tional block o k or t two t o to a a bus stop if s stop if it it meant meant your ride your ride woul would be d be faster and faster and the bus more reliabl the bus more reliable? e? 83% Yes, Definitely It Depends No, Definitely Not Not Sure 14

Merchant Survey: How many customers visit your business? Ove Over 70% employ 5 or fewer people 70% employ 5 or fewer people • Most have 50 or fewer daily customers Most have 50 or fewer daily custome • How many customers visit your business location on an average day? 40% Percent of Total Responses 30% 20% 10% 0% 1 to 20 21 to 50 51 to 100 101 to 200 More than 200 15

Customer and Merchant Surveys: How do customers travel to Geary? Customer Cus omers surveyed arrived at the corridor by: 49% 28% 22% Merchants Merchants surveyed estimated that their customers arrive by: 18% 25% 54% Walk or Bike Transit Auto GEAR GEARY CORRID CORRIDOR BUS OR BUS RAP RAPID TRAN TRANSIT | PR | PROJECT OJECT UPD UPDATE 16 16 16

Customer and Merchant Surveys: What’s your highest priority for change? What w What woul uld be y d be your ur highest highest priority c priority change f ange for Gear r Geary y Boule Boulevard? ard? 50% 40% sponses rcent of Responses 30% Percent of Merchants Merchants 20% Customers Customers 10% 0% Preserve Faster,More Pedestrian Something Sidewalk Landscaping parking Reliable Safety else amenities Muni 17

Customer and Merchant Surveys: Effect of BRT on businesses? Cus Customer omers: W s: Would y uld you be more or u be more or less lik less likely t ely to visit Gear visit Geary businesses y businesses if if Muni w Muni were fast re faster and more reliable and some parking w er and more reliable and some parking were remo re removed? d? 50% 40% rcent of Responses sponses 30% Merchants Merchants Percent of Customers Customers 20% 10% 0% Good / More Likely Good / More Likely Bad / Less Likely Bad / Less L ikely Little or No Effect Little or No Effect Not Sure Not Sure 18

New Developments and Recent Progress  Provide BRT service to 48 th Avenue  Extend BRT lanes to 33 rd Avenue  Explore new alternative (Alternative 3-Consolidated)  Run BRT on frontage roads in Masonic area  Consider “filling” Fillmore underpass  Accelerate bus improvements 19

Proposed BRT: West of 33 rd Avenue Not to scale Not to scale Alt Alternativ rnative 1: No Pr e 1: No Project / oject / Baseline Baseline 20

Proposed BRT: 26 th Ave. to 33 rd Ave. Not to scale Not to scale Alt Alternativ rnative 2: Side-lane BR e 2: Side-lane BRT T 21

Proposed BRT: Gough to 25 th Ave. Not to scale Not to scale Alternativ Alt rnative 1: e 1: No No Pr Project / oject / Baseline Baseline Alt Alternativ rnative 2: e 2: Side-lane BRT Side-lane BRT Alternat Alt rnativ ive 3/3C: Cent e 3/3C: Center er-la -lane BR e BRT T Alt Alternat rnativ ive 4: e 4: Cent Center er-lane BRT -lane BRT with Dual Medians with Dual Medians with Single Median with Single Median 22

New Variant: Alternative 3-Consolidated  Configuration similar to Alternative 3  Consolidates local and limited- stop BRT services  Consolidated stops closer together than current limited stops but farther apart than Fillmore Fillmore The The local stops  Requires no bus passing lanes Post Post Office Office  No overall parking loss in segment between Palm and 25 th Avenue Not to scale. For planning and conceptual purposes only. 23

New Variant: Alternative 3-Consolidated Alternative 3 Alternative 3-Consolidated 24

BRT and Local Bus Stops Number mber of bus s of bus stops ops be betw tween een 33th 33th A Aven enue and V ue and Van Ness n Ness A Aven enue ue 38 ‐ Local 38 ‐ Limited BRT EB/WB EB/WB EB/WB Alternative 1 27/25 12/11 N/A (Existing) Alternative 2 24/24 N/A 9/9 N/A Alternative 3 21/18 9/9 Alternative 3 ‐‐ N/A N/A 15/15 Consolidated N/A Alternative 4 19/19 10/10 25

On-Street Parking On-str On-s tree eet parkin t parking change betw g change between 25th A een 25th Ave. and P e. and Palm A lm Ave. e. Potential Parking Reduction Alternative 1 (Existing) N/A Alternative 2 ‐ 20% to ‐ 25% Alternative 3 ‐ 15% to ‐ 20% Alternative 3 ‐‐ Consolidated 0% to +5% Alternative 4 ‐ 15% to ‐ 20% 26

On-Street Parking Potential to add on-street parking: 27

Masonic Alternative 2 would construct porous bus-only lanes on the service roads. For Alternatives 3, 3-C and 4, the Masonic tunnel would necessitate a special configuration to keep buses running in the center of the road. The special configuration may require compromises in station design, accessibility, and/or Not to scale traffic. Alternatives 3, 3-C and 4 could also include design options that transition to side-BRT lanes through the Masonic intersection. Masonic tunnel

Fillmore Alternative 2 would construct porous bus-only lanes on the service roads. For Alternatives 3, 3-C and 4, the underpass at Fillmore would need to be filled in to keep buses running in the center of the road. The fill may be too expensive to include in the initial phase of the project. Not to scale Alternatives 3, 3-C and 4 could also include design options that transition to side-BRT lanes through the Fillmore intersection. Fillmore underpass