Van Ness Avenue BRT Overview and Scoping Process. Geary BRT CAC January 8, 2009

Transcription

1 Van Ness Avenue BRT Overview and Scoping Process Geary BRT CAC January 8, 2009

2 VAN NESS AVENUE S ROLE Identified in Prop K for BRT treatment Muni 47 and 49; 19 operates on Polk 20,000 daily riders on Van Ness Avenue segment 80,000 daily persontrips Parallel couplet Franklin / Gough carries bulk of auto traffic Designated State Route 101 Regional connections to Caltrain; used by Golden Gate Transit 2

3 POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FEASIBILITY STUDY ADOPTED IMPLEMENTATION DECISION Final Design POTENTIAL START OF SERVICE Environmental Analysis & Preliminary Engineering Construction & Mitigation

4 EIR/EIS MILESTONES December 2007 FTA Awards Entry into Project Development April 2008 Impacts Analysis Initiated Fall 2008 MTC designates Van Ness BRT 2 nd Regional Small Starts Priority December % Engineering Designs Completed October 2007 December 2008 October 2007 Scoping Period March 2008 Authority Adopts Screening Results September nd FTA Project Development Annual Submittal November 2008 Existing Conditions Transportation Models Completed 3

5 ALTERNATIVES SCREENING PROCESS Previous Studies Countywide Transportation Plan Van Ness Avenue BRT Feasibility Study Project Purpose and Need Broad Set of Alternatives Public and Agency Scoping Comments Apply Screening Criteria Proposed Alternatives for EIS/EIR Description of Alternatives Report

6 PURPOSE AND NEED In order to address these citywide needs: Improve transit service cost-effectively; Improve transit service in the near term; and Strengthen the citywide network of rapid transit services, Van Ness Avenue BRT should: Close the performance gap between transit and auto travel; Increase the corridor s capacity for person-throughput; and Improve pedestrian safety, amenities and urban design. 6

7 SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS Alternatives mentioned for Van Ness by public scoping participants

8 SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS

9 RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES SCREENED Operational changes only: 1. Added service 2. Route restructuring 3. Express bus 4. Free fares Transit Infrastructure: 5. TPS,* no bus lane 6. TPS,* peak period bus lane 7. Curb lane BRT with parallel parking 8. Curb lane BRT, no parallel parking 9. Center lane BRT, dual medians 10. Center lane BRT, center median 11. Surface light rail 12. Subway * TPS includes: Low floor buses; All-door boarding; Transit signal priority; High quality stations; Bus bulbs

10 SCREENING APPROACH Qualitative assessment based on Van Ness BRT Feasibility Study; 2004 Countywide Transportation Plan; other previous study; and experience Alternatives screened using five-point scale Lower benefit Higher impact Higher benefit Lower impact Criteria for screening out an alternative Fatal flaw : one or more ratings Low Performance multiple ratings Alternatives not recommended for EIR/EIS not necessarily precluded May not require EIR/EIS Already planned for implementation 6

11 ALTERNATIVES WITH FATAL FLAWS Added service, route restructuring, express bus, free fares Alone do not meet Screening Criteria for benefits No/little travel time and reliability benefits; no pedestrian benefits Operational changes expected following Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP) Curb lane BRT, no parallel parking Worsens pedestrian conditions Subway / surface light rail Do not meet Screening Criteria for impacts No feasible funding plan Significant construction impact

12 ALTERNATIVES WITH LOW PERFORMANCE TPS treatments, with and without a peak period bus lane Incur most of the expense of BRT, But do not provide most of the benefit Slow speeds and reliability problems occur all day, not just during peak periods

13 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDED IN EIR/EIS Side Lane BRT with parallel parking

14 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDED IN EIR/EIS Center Lane BRT with right side boarding / dual medians

15 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDED IN EIR/EIS Center Lane BRT with left side boarding / center median

16 OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES Caltrans approval process Streamlined process agreed Replacement of Muni Overhead Contact System (OCS) / Light Poles Historic resource Golden Gate Transit Accommodate GGT in Center Lane Alt with Left Side Loading / Center Median Narrower curb-to-curb Right of Way than Geary Boulevard Medians, platforms, travel lanes are narrower than in Geary designs Coordination with Geary BRT EIR/EIS: California Pacific Medical Center project Intersection and station platforms at Geary Boulevard and Van Ness Avenue Selection of BRT vehicles Station platform design and branding

17 WORK CURRENTLY UNDERWAY Agency Coordination Maintain high FTA rating Caltrans approvals Draft EIR/EIS Cultural impact analysis historic poles Transportation / circulation analysis Utilities impact analysis Construction impact analysis 12% Project Development Station platform design Landscape design and greening strategies Storage / maintenance plan for BRT vehicles

18 THANK YOU Rachel Hiatt, Senior Transportation Planner