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
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
4
50,000+ daily transit riders Bus corridor: 48th Avenue to Transbay Transit Center Current bus routes: 38, 38L, 38AX, 38BX, GGT92
Not to scale Existing 38L route; Proposed BRT route Not to scale
5
Existing street configuration is unfavorable for buses, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Existing bus service is slow and unreliable.
Transit ridership on Geary is consistently high in both directions throughout the day,
6
1 2 3
4 5 6
7
Alt Alternativ rnative 1: No Pr e 1: No Project /
Baseline Alt Alternativ rnative 2: Side-lane BR e 2: Side-lane BRT T
We West o
Gough S Street et
The Fillmore Post Office The Fillmore Post Office The Fillmore Post Office The Fillmore Post Office
Not to scale. For planning and conceptual purposes only.
8
Alt Alternativ rnative 3: Cent e 3: Center er-lane BR
T with Dual with Dual Medians Medians Alt Alternativ rnative 4: Cent e 4: Center er-lane BR
T with Single Median with Single Median
We West o
Gough S Street et
The Fillmore Post Office The Fillmore Post Office The Fillmore Post Office The Fillmore Post Office
Not to scale. For planning and conceptual purposes only.
9
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
10
Support for transit improvements in
Desire to better organize traffic, parking,
Need for pedestrian safety improvements Concern regarding any loss of parking and
Need to minimize construction impacts Desire for landscaping and trees
11
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
49% 28% 22%
Walk or Bike Transit Auto
How did you travel How did you travel to Geary Boulevard toda to Geary Boulevard today? y?
12
How often do you visi How often do you visit busi businesses or
services es on Geary
Boulevard? rd?
0% 20% 40% 60%
walk or bike transit auto Percent of Total Responses
less than once a month
2‐4 times/week 5+ days/week
13
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
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
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
1 to 20 21 to 50 51 to 100 101 to 200 More than 200 Percent of Total Responses
How many customers visit your business location on an average day?
15
GEAR GEARY CORRID CORRIDOR BUS OR BUS RAP RAPID TRAN TRANSIT | PR | PROJECT OJECT UPD UPDATE
16 16
18% 25% 54% Walk or Bike Transit Auto
16
49% 28% 22% Cus Customer
Merchants Merchants surveyed estimated that their customers arrive by:
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Preserve parking Faster,More Reliable Muni Pedestrian Safety Something else Sidewalk amenities Landscaping
Percent of rcent of Responses sponses
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?
Merchants Merchants Customers Customers
17
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Good / More Likely Good / More Likely Bad / Less L Bad / Less Likely ikely Little or No Effect Little or No Effect Not Sure Not Sure Percent of rcent of Responses sponses Merchants Merchants Customers Customers
Cus Customer
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?
18
19
Provide BRT service to 48th Avenue Extend BRT lanes to 33rd Avenue Explore new alternative (Alternative 3-Consolidated) Run BRT on frontage roads in Masonic area Consider “filling” Fillmore underpass Accelerate bus improvements
20
Not to scale Not to scale
Alt Alternativ rnative 1: No Pr e 1: No Project /
Baseline
21
Not to scale Not to scale
Alt Alternativ rnative 2: Side-lane BR e 2: Side-lane BRT T
22
Not to scale Not to scale
Alt Alternativ rnative 2: e 2: Side-lane BRT Side-lane BRT Alt Alternat rnativ ive 3/3C: Cent e 3/3C: Center er-la
e BRT T with Dual Medians with Dual Medians Alt Alternat rnativ ive 4: e 4: Cent Center er-lane BRT
with Single Median with Single Median Alt Alternativ rnative 1: e 1: No No Pr Project /
Baseline
23
The Fillmore Post Office The Fillmore Post Office
Not to scale. For planning and conceptual purposes only.
Configuration similar to
Consolidates local and limited-
Consolidated stops closer
Requires no bus passing lanes No overall parking loss in
24
Alternative 3 Alternative 3-Consolidated
25
38‐Local EB/WB 38‐Limited EB/WB BRT EB/WB Alternative 1 (Existing)
27/25 12/11 N/A
Alternative 2
24/24 N/A 9/9
Alternative 3
21/18 N/A 9/9
Alternative 3 ‐‐ Consolidated
N/A N/A 15/15
Alternative 4
19/19 N/A 10/10 Number mber of bus s
betw tween een 33th 33th A Aven enue and V ue and Van Ness n Ness A Aven enue ue
26
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%
On-s On-str tree eet parkin t parking change betw g change between 25th A een 25th Ave. and P
lm Ave. e.
27
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
transition to side-BRT lanes through the Masonic intersection.
Masonic tunnel
Not to scale
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. Alternatives 3, 3-C and 4 could also include design options that transition to side-BRT lanes through the Fillmore intersection.
Fillmore underpass
Not to scale
30
Delivery target for full BRT service advanced from 2020 to
Targeted improvements before full implementation: New, low-floor buses Bus service adjustments Curb bulbs planned at Park Presidio and Arguello Potential signal upgrades East of Van Ness existing bus lane enhancement Potential corridor-wide improvements
31
Full analysis to compare alternatives ongoing Upcoming outreach in Fall along entire corridor to present key
Seeking your input on key measures to inform alternative
Better Streets Policy (SF Admin Code Chapter 98)
“…all City departments shall coordinate their various determinations regarding the planning, design, and use of public rights-of-way…”
Transit First Policy (SF City Charter Section 8A. 115)
“Decisions regarding the use of limited public street and sidewalk space shall encourage the use of public rights of way by pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit…”
“Complete Streets” Policy (SF Public Works Code
Section 2.4.13) “…a project involving the planning, construction, reconstruction,
include…transit, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements…”
wave” for safer steadier traffic speeds