Geary Bus Rapid Transit Project

Transcription

1 Geary Bus Rapid Transit Project Outreach Update SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY April 28, 2016

2 Project Activities Since January Meeting Continued outreach to community groups Special focus: Issues raised in comments on Draft EIS/EIR Preparation of Final EIS/EIR Response to Comments on Draft EIS/EIR Incorporating project changes into document Coordination between City agencies and FTA 2

3 Outreach Since January Meeting Clement Street Merchants Association Greater Geary Merchants Holy Virgin Cathedral Japantown Task Force Geary working group Planning Association for the Richmond Senior and Disability Action Network The Sequoias and Seniors on the Hill SF Interfaith Council SF Transit Riders Union Spruce/Cook block merchants Union Square BID USF Residence Hall Association USF Student Senate WalkSF 3

4 Japantown Task Force Traffic calming along Geary Boulevard Buchanan Street pedestrian crossing Webster Street pedestrian crossing Steiner Street pedestrian crossing Laguna Street bus stop and wayfinding 4

5 Geary Traffic Calming 5

6 Geary Traffic Calming Engineering Road Diet and Lane Narrowings Bulbouts (physical narrowing) Coordinated Traffic Signal Timing with Posted Signs Median Pedestrian Refuges Pavement Markings Education Vision Zero traffic safety education program Enforcement Automated Speed Enforcement (requires state legislation) Evaluate posted speed reduction potential Driver s view from 50 away (braking distance) 6

7 Buchanan Street Crossing 7

8 Buchanan Street Crossing, Proposed Design 8

9 Remove Bridge, West and Eastside Crosswalks 10

10 Retain Bridge, Westside Surface Crossing Two-stage crossing at Buchanan 11

11 Issues with Direct Eastside Crossing Driver s view from 50 away (braking distance) Typical Emergency Stopping Distance* Speed (mph) 30 Brake Reaction Distance (ft) 44 (1 second) Braking Distance (ft) 50 (2.3 seconds) Total Stopping Sight Distance (ft) 94 (3.3 seconds) * Assumes perception-reaction time of 1 second, friction value of 0.6 (dry asphalt), braking on a level roadway (this location has 2.1% down slope which is insignificant). Informed by federal design standards (AASHTO Green Book). Information from "Stopping Sight Distance and Decision Sight Distance", Transportation Research Institute,

12 Staggered Crossing *Illustration provided by Paul Wermer on 1/27/

13 Staggered Crossing Improved pedestrian sight distance at westbound frontage road Multiple wide medians to serve as safe pedestrian refuge areas Reduced additional delay compared to one-stage crossing Timing designed to meet Federal walking-speed standards to cross in one light cycle; slower pedestrians would wait in refuge areas for second light cycle 14

14 Staggered Crossing 15

15 Recommendation Retain existing bridge, add westside crossing and staggered eastside crossing. 16

16 Steiner Street Crossing 17

17 Pedestrian Counts 79% of pedestrians crossing Geary use the westside surface crossing 16% use the overcrossing 5% cross illegally on eastside surface Children = 1/4 th of total Geary crossings at Steiner; Seniors = 3%. 18

18 Pedestrian Counts Steiner & Geary Northbound/Southbound Pedestrian Counts* Bridge Crosswalk Eastside Total Total Pedestrians 121 (16%) 607 (79%) 38 (5%) 766 Children 47 (24%) 141 (72%) 9 (5%) 197 Adults 69 (13%) 447 (82%) 27 (5%) 543 Seniors 5 (19%) 19 (73%) 2 (8%) 26 Mobility-Impaired 0 (0%) 2 (67%) 1 (33%) 3 Non-Mobility Impaired 121 (16%) 605 (79%) 37 (5%) 763 Strollers 5 (15%) 29 (85%) 0 (0%) 34 Non-Strollers 116 (16%) 578 (79%) 38 (5%) 732 *Counts collected Tuesday 8/25/2015 from 7-9am and 3-6pm, and Tuesday 12/15/2015 from 1:15-3pm. 19

19 Historical Context 20

20 Additional Input Mixed opinions from community Japantown Concern that bridge is safest crossing Groups that support removal of Steiner Bridge: Senior & Disability Action bridge not ADA compliant, safety and security concerns WalkSF removing bridge improves visibility for a safer at-grade crossing, removing would lengthen crossing and narrow sidewalk Lower Fillmore Merchants should improve surface crossings instead Rec & Parks majority of people accessing facilities cross at-grade, bridge obscures visibility to park facilities 21

21 Retain Bridge, Shared Through Lane Discontinuous Transit Lane Local & BRT Stop New right-turn pocket USPS, Fillmore loading zone 22

22 Retain Bridge, Shared Through Lane Tradeoffs: Provides grade-separated crossing Discontinuous transit lane Detailed delay analysis: average delay expected to increase by 9 seconds per bus compared to remove bridge scenario 25 hours of additional delay for 10,000+ westbound daily passengers SFMTA not comfortable with accepting this additional delay 23

23 Retain Bridge and Bus Lane 24

24 Retain Bridge and Bus Lane 25

25 Retain Bridge and Bus Lane Continuous Transit Lane Local & BRT Stop New right-turn pocket USPS, Fillmore loading zone 26

26 Retain Bridge and Bus Lane Tradeoffs: Enables continuous transit lane Provides grade-separated crossing Removal of a mature tree Reduction in sidewalk to 6.6 width doesn t meet Better Streets standards Westside surface crossing distance increases 27

27 Remove Bridge, West and Eastside Crosswalks Continuous Transit Lane Local & BRT Stop New right-turn pocket USPS, Fillmore loading zone 28

28 Remove Bridge, West and Eastside Crosswalks Tradeoffs: Provides surface crossing on westside and eastside Allows higher quality ADA-compliant westside surface crossing, with improved visibility and refuges Could create improved entrance to Kimbell Playground Allows continuous westbound bus-only lane Does not provide grade-separated crossing 29

29 Recommendation Remove Bridge, West and Eastside Crosswalks 30

30 Japantown Stop Locations Original proposal (2013): consolidation of Webster & Laguna stops to new Buchanan stop Community feedback then: preserve stops at Webster, Laguna Revised proposal: local stops preserved Community input now: Laguna rapid needed due to high density of seniors, hilly terrain Bus frequency identified as a key issue Concern about wayfinding to Japantown 38, 38L , 38L

31 Laguna Bus Stop Proposal: Retain as Local Stop Rationale: Time savings for Rapid bus riders: 125 hours daily Daily ridership: Laguna: 2,900 Average Rapid Stop: 4,500 No transfers to other Muni routes, unlike most Rapid stops Local service available for riders who need shorter walking distance 32

32 Laguna Bus Stop Proposal: Retain as Local Stop 1,440 1,920 Maximum walk distances to Rapid stops: Laguna current: 840 feet Laguna proposed: 1,680 feet Other proposed Rapid stops, Arguello to Powell: 1,000-1,700 feet 33

33 Laguna Bus Stop Proposal: Retain as Local Stop Changes for Laguna riders: Bus crowding at Laguna: Local 5-20% lower than Rapid Future travel times on Local, Laguna to Market: +3 min vs. current Rapid No change vs. current Local Future travel times on Local, Laguna to 25 th Ave: +1.5 min vs. current Rapid -2 min vs. current Local Next Step: consider local service frequency with BRT 34

34 Cook and Spruce Streets Area Merchants Image: Google

35 Staff-Recommended Alternative Existing local/rapid stops

36 Staff-Recommended Alternative

37 Staff-Recommended Alternative New traffic signal at Cook

38 What we heard from area merchants: Major concern: elimination of all parking/loading spaces on block Land use needs between Spruce and Cook Delivery services Active driveways Medical offices Furniture, lumber and carpet stores Print-shops Maintain current stop locations and sizes

39 Options considered: Reduce size of bus bulbs Two-bus bulb acceptable, but still eliminates most spaces on block Change stop location Limited opportunities, would result in uneven spacing Change stop to local-only and keep existing bus zones Relatively low daily ridership: 1,600 vs. 4,500 average for Rapid stops No transfers to other Muni routes Saves travel time for through Rapid riders (11,000 daily) Preserves all parking/loading on block Outreach to USF students: no significant concerns

40 Recommendation Change stop to local-only and keep existing bus zones New traffic signal at Cook 41

41 Richmond Merchants Roundtable discussion of narratives Key issues raised: Adequacy of current bus performance Whether project benefits are overstated, impacts understated Maintaining boulevard character, including trees and landscaping Economic effects on businesses, especially during construction 42

42 Richmond Merchants Key issues raised (con t): Desire for No Build or phased implementation of elements other than bus-only lane Consider alternative designs in the Richmond: Side-running bus only lanes Peak hour bus-only lanes Bus lanes not painted red 43

43 Richmond Merchants Information presented on: Existing transit ridership and travel times Components of No Build and BRT alternatives Analysis methodology and projected future transit, traffic, and parking conditions Tree analysis and future boulevard design Economic effects of BRT Construction outreach and mitigation strategies 44

44 Richmond Merchants Construction Outreach and Mitigation Strategies Pre-Construction Survey Business and Community Advisory Committees Accessibility, Way-finding, and Advertisement Notification and Project Resources Business Technical Assistance and Support 45

45 Richmond Merchants Next Steps: Discussion process ongoing Working to provide additional information and address concerns in ways that meet purpose and need of the BRT project Commitment to ongoing communication with corridor merchants before and after project approvals 46

46 Geary Bus Rapid Transit Project Outreach Update SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY April 28, 2016