Geary Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (GCAC) Meeting Five

-1- AGENDA Geary Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (GCAC) Meeting Five Date: 6:00 p.m., Thursday, April 2, 2009 Location: Members: 100 Van Ness Avenue, 26 th Floor Peter Ehrlich (Moderator), Tony Biancalana, Kieran Farr, Joanna Fong, Marissa Louie, Margaret Massialas, Jim Misener, Bruce Osterweil, Joel Ramos, James Rogers, and Jette Swan 6:00 1. Committee Meeting Call to Order PAGE 6:05 2. Adoption of Minutes of the February 26, 2009 Meeting ACTION* 3 6:10 3. Updates and Announcements INFORMATION* 9 purpose of this item is to provide an update regarding the work conducted since the last GCAC meeting and present an updated GCAC meeting schedule and tentative agenda items. We are seeking comments and input from the Committee. 6:15 4. Draft Alternatives Screening Assessment INFORMATION* 11 At its February 2009 meeting, the GCAC unanimously approved the alternatives screening framework, which will be used to narrow the full set of alternatives proposed during the scoping period to a limited set of alternatives to be analyzed in the EIR/EIS. In order to assess each alternative s performance in addressing the purpose of and need for the project, the framework applies several screening criteria including consideration of bicycle access, per the GCAC s February action. Authority staff will present the draft results of the screening assessment. We are seeking comments and input from the Committee. 7:00 5. Concepts for Complex Intersections INFORMATION+ Authority seeks to determine the most feasible designs for BRT at the complex intersections and Masonic and plans to seek public input regarding the conceptual designs. first opportunity will be at an April 25 community workshop in Japantown, which will be hosted by the Planning Department s Better Neighborhood Planning team. Authority staff will present conceptual designs for these complex locations in the corridor. We are seeking comments and input from the Committee. 7:20 6. Public Comment 7:30 7. Adjournment * Materials attached + Materials to be provided at the meeting This meeting location is wheelchair accessible. In order to allow individuals with environmental illness or multiple-chemical sensitivity to attend the meeting, individuals are requested to refrain from wearing perfume or other scented products. All times shown are for information only. Items will be called at the discretion of the Moderator. O:\Active Studies\GearyBRT Environmental\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 5\Meeting 5 Agenda_Final.doc Page 1 of 1

-2- This Page Intentionally Left Blank

-3- Draft Minutes Geary Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Citizens Advisory Committee (GCAC): Meeting Four Thursday, February 26, 2009 Present were the following members: Tony Biancalana, Kieran Farr, Joanna Fong, Margaret Massialas, Bruce Osterweil, Joel Ramos, and James Rogers. Authority staff: Zabe Bent, Tilly Chang, and Jesse Koehler SFMTA staff: Paul Bignardi Consultants: Judis Santos and Myrna Valdez (Jacobs) 1. Committee Meeting Call to Order meeting was called to order by Meeting Three Moderator Bruce Osterweil at 6:06 p.m. 2. Adoption of Minutes of the January 8, 2009 Meeting ACTION Kieran Farr moved to approve the item. Tony Biancalana seconded the motion. re was no public comment. item passed unanimously. 3. Updates and Announcements INFORMATION Zabe Bent, Principal Planner, presented this item and noted that the timeline included a tentative extra meeting in April requiring GCAC action to schedule. Ms. Bent said that the meeting would allow further GCAC input into the screening process and public outreach materials relating to complex intersections. Ms. Bent noted that the subsequent meetings remain unchanged and added that the goal is to bring the final screening report to the GCAC at the regularly scheduled meeting at the end of April. Tilly Chang, Deputy Director for Planning, noted that absence at the extra meeting would not count against a committee member s attendance record since it is a special meeting. Mr. Farr asked if a quorum would be required at the April 2 nd meeting. Ms. Chang replied that quorum would be required. Mr. Osterweil suggested that all committee members be given sufficient advance notice if the extra meeting is to be held. re was no public comment. 4. Draft Scoping Summary Report and Description of Alternatives INFORMATION Ms. Bent presented the item. Ms. Bent reviewed the objectives of the scoping process, which include defining issues and alternatives to be studied in the environmental review and notify interested stakeholders and agencies. She discussed the public notification effort and scoping O:\Active Studies\GearyBRT Environmental\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 4\Meeting 4 Minutes_Final.doc Page 1 of 5

-4- GCAC Meeting Draft Minutes 02.26.09 Page 2 meetings. Ms. Bent presented the purpose of and need for the Geary BRT project (Purpose and Need). She reviewed the range of comments received during the scoping period, including the full set of potential alternatives that were proposed. Ms. Bent briefly described the range of alternatives for typical sections, which are grouped in the following categories: incremental and transit preferential streets (TPS) alternatives, full-featured BRT alternatives, and rail alternatives. She also discussed alternatives proposed for the downtown portion of the corridor, which include options utilizing the existing one-way streets (Geary and O Farrell) as well as options that envision two-way operations on Geary Street. Ms. Bent reviewed upcoming steps in the process, which will include further GCAC input into alternatives screening and definition in April. Mr. Ramos asked what a bus-only transit mall east of Van Ness would mean. Ms. Bent replied that this would imply consolidating both transit directions on Geary Street, prohibiting auto traffic, and using and O Farrell Streets to accommodate autos. She added that the parking and loading implications are not fully known and noted that a partial transit mall would restrict auto access in only certain parts of the downtown portion of the corridor. Joanna Fong asked what mixed traffic refers to. Ms. Bent said that mixed traffic means all vehicles, including private autos, taxis, buses, and trucks. Tony Biancalana asked if delivery issues had been considered for the transit mall. Ms. Bent said that the public input suggesting this option did not cover the issue but that it would need to be addressed if such an alternative were advanced. Mr. Farr asked if Peter Ehrlich had proposed the concept. Ms. Bent said that Mr. Ehrlich was among a few individuals who suggested variations of the concept during the scoping period. Mr. Osterweil recalled the alternatives evaluation that was conducted during the Feasibility Study and inquired as to the purpose of re-opening the discussion to such a broad set of options. Ms. Chang replied that the past work is an important input into the current analysis and that the current process involves attention to sections in the downtown portion of the corridor, which were not substantially addressed in the Feasibility Study. Ms. Chang added that in any EIR, it is necessary to involve the public in scoping, after which the lead agency must disclose and document the full range of proposed alternatives that will then be narrowed through screening. Mr. Ramos asked if it would be helpful to narrow the alternatives now. Ms. Bent said that the subsequent item on the agenda would provide a framework for screening and that a draft and final assessment would be presented in April. Mr. Farr thanked the study team for their work on the item. Mr. Biancalana said that the downtown portion of the corridor is important because many of the operational issues are present in the areas. Ms. Bent said that the existing conditions analysis will assess current performance, in order to update the locations and severity of key operational issues. Mr. Farr asked if the project included the portion of the corridor east of Van Ness Avenue. Ms. Bent said that while the Feasibility Study focused on full-featured BRT alternatives between 33 rd and Van Ness Avenues, the current project phase will study the entire corridor with a focus on maintaining transit performance benefits in the area east of Van Ness. Mr. Farr inquired if the project cost includes investment for the full corridor. Ms. Bent replied that the cost information will be updated during the environmental study but said that the previous estimates included some improvements for Inner Geary, primarily station area improvements and pedestrian enhancements. Mr. Farr asked if the project will only be delivered west of Van Ness. Mr. Biancalana said that the project will be implemented in phases. Ms. Bent said that the entire project length would be analyzed. It could be implemented in phases, but that these more detailed phasing and construction decisions will be determined later in the process. Mr. Osterweil asked for confirmation that some improvements were being implemented in the downtown portion of the O:\Active Studies\GearyBRT Environmental\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 4\Meeting 4 Minutes_Final.doc Page 2 of 5

GCAC Meeting Draft Minutes 02.26.09 Page 3-5- corridor at the same time that the Feasibility Study was taking place. Ms. Bent said that this had in fact been the case. During public comment, Roger Bazeley asked how the changes to the Geary corridor recommended by the Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP) will be accounted for. Mr. Bazeley added that items that must be considered include hours of operation, stop spacing and placement, and efficiency of boarding. Ms. Bent responded that the Geary BRT team has been meeting with the TEP team to discuss the plans in detail. Ms. Bent said that the baseline will assume the appropriate TEP recommendations. Ms. Bent added that the TEP envisions some extension of the span of limited service in the evening and that EIR/EIS analysis would utilize the all-day travel demand model. Ms. Bent said that limited stop consolidation assumptions would be guided by the Feasibility Study and TEP and that proof-of-payment for improved boarding will be assumed as a BRT project element. 5. Alternatives Screening Framework ACTION Ms. Bent presented the item per the staff memorandum. Ms. Fong asked why the light rail subway alternative in the sample assessment would receive the highest impact rating for the capital cost criterion. Ms. Bent replied that due to the exceedingly high cost and lack of funds in the 30-year expenditure plan there is no feasible funding plan at present. Mr. Farr asked why pedestrian access and safety were included as a screening criterion. Ms. Bent said that this criterion, like the others, is linked to the project Purpose and Need and the goals established during the Feasibility Study, and added that pedestrian safety is needed for transit accessibility. Mr. Ramos inquired as to why bicycle issues were not included in the screening framework. Ms. Bent said that the proposed framework seeks to facilitate a high-level screening and that bicycle access would be studied in greater detail during the EIR/EIS analysis. Ms. Chang added that all of the alternatives will adhere to a principle of improving bicycle access. Ms. Bent said that screening criteria should provide meaningful comparisons across alternatives. She also reminded the group that more detail on bicycle access would be discussed in the following agenda item. Mr. Ramos conveyed his concern that it is a perception issue and that it is important to include bicycles somehow in the evaluation. James Rogers asked if the criteria rating scale is tied to quantitative thresholds. Ms. Chang replied that the rating scale provides notional standards guided by past analysis and information that is both qualitative and quantitative. Jesse Koehler, Transportation Planner, added that the fatal flaw rating is important as it denotes a complete lack of benefit or significant impact provided by a given alternative with respect to a specific criterion. Ms. Fong asked if the circles provide a comparison for each criterion of the alternatives performance relative to one another. Ms. Bent replied that this is the goal of utilizing this method. Ms. Fong said that detailed design will be necessary later in the process but that this stage is about big picture concepts and comparisons. Ms. Chang agreed, but noted that the study team has conceptual designs that provide information to guide the assessment. Mr. Ramos expressed concern that while auto impacts are considered, bicycle impacts or benefits are not included in the screening framework. Mr. Farr suggested adding bicycles to the pedestrian access and safety criterion. Ms. Bent said that there are some important differences in the considerations for bicycle access and safety for pedestrians. Mr. Osterweil offered that the criterion for accommodate traffic circulation and access could be modified to include bicycles. Mr. Biancalana said that bikes are typically a part of traffic flow and that the discussion is more a O:\Active Studies\GearyBRT Environmental\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 4\Meeting 4 Minutes_Final.doc Page 3 of 5

-6- GCAC Meeting Draft Minutes 02.26.09 Page 4 matter of semantics since the intent is not to exclude bicycles. Ms. Bent said that bicycle considerations are likely to not be useful as a screening criterion because there are not likely to be significant differences among alternatives when taken as a whole. Ms. Chang noted that bicycle and transit improvements are sometimes at a crossroads when street space is being reorganized. Mr. Ramos said that he understood this issue but felt that some consideration of bikes was necessary in the screening. Mr. Farr said that the alternatives seem to be distinguished by physical differences but that signal technology is also an important component of certain alternatives and noted that there are different approaches such as extended green cycles or a green wave for transit. Ms. Bent said that signal improvements can make a big difference in transit performance and that transit priority will be studied in detail during the service planning analysis. Mr. Farr reiterated that the various transit signal priority options are a crucial consideration. Ms. Chang said that the standard for transit signal priority for a BRT corridor is more robust than for a TPS corridor. Mr. Farr said that he feared signal priority will not be well implemented and noted that the Mission Street transit lane has significant issues. Ms. Bent cautioned that Mission Street does not offer a true comparison since it is not a BRT corridor. Mr. Biancalana referenced the use of a similar circle-based rating system in the Consumer Reports magazine when comparing products. Ms. Fong said that this is a high-level screening to advance multiple alternatives, not to select the final single alternative. Mr. Ramos moved to approve the alternatives screening framework with the modification that an additional criterion be included to read accommodate bicycle access. Mr. Rogers seconded the motion. During public comment, Roger Bazeley said that transit access should be considered additionally and that bicycle racks will improve bicycle access. motion was approved unanimously. 6. Bicycle Access INFORMATION Ms. Bent presented the item. Ms. Bent discussed the analysis conducted since the conclusion of the Feasibility Study to understand bicycle demand in the Geary corridor and the character of potential facilities on Geary or elsewhere in the corridor. She began by reviewing how bicycle access will be incorporated into BRT amenities and vehicles, then reviewed the implications of incorporating bicycle facilities into the BRT designs for typical sections. Ms. Bent discussed the infeasibility of a combined bike and bus lane on Geary, largely due to the high frequency of transit service. She explained that incorporating a bicycle lane into the center-running BRT with side platforms alternative would result in substandard lane widths for buses and autos and would eliminate the potential to accommodate a bus passing lane. Ms. Bent also explained that the center platform alternative would require a large reduction in parking supply in order to accommodate a bicycle lane. Mr. Ramos asked if medians are assumed on Geary. Ms. Bent said that medians are assumed throughout and are necessary for platforms and pedestrian refuge in the center-running alternatives. Mr. Ramos asked if parking impacts referred to auto parking. Ms. Bent said that this was the case. Mr. Rogers inquired as to the community s thoughts regarding potential parking impacts. Ms. Bent said that in a project that re-balances the street, parking plays an important role for accommodating auto access and providing an important buffer between pedestrians and the traffic lanes. O:\Active Studies\GearyBRT Environmental\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 4\Meeting 4 Minutes_Final.doc Page 4 of 5

GCAC Meeting Draft Minutes 02.26.09 Page 5-7- Ms. Bent concluded the presentation and said that while it would be difficult or infeasible to accommodate both bicycle lanes and BRT in the typical sections, other options are available in the immediate corridor to provide better comfort for cyclists. Ms. Bent added that the most important link in the corridor could provide a higher-class facility on Geary at the wiggle between Masonic and Presidio where the parallel routes change alignment. Mr. Osterweil said that there are four uses contending for limited street space transit, bicycles, autos, and parking. Ms. Bent noted that the primary tradeoff in some alternatives emerges with parking, and in others with transit performance. Mr. Biancalana said that at the service roads only two of the four uses are given dedicated space. Ms. Chang said that bicycle stakeholders have expressed their desire to not jeopardize a BRT project if bicycles are provided for elsewhere in the corridor rather than Geary itself. Mr. Osterweil agreed that it is important not to threaten the project. Mr. Ramos asked when the team had last talked the Bicycle Coalition. Ms. Bent said that the most recent discussions regarding Geary occurred at the start of this bicycle analysis. Mr. Ramos said that he hoped new strategies, such as bicycle boxes and optical guidance of BRT vehicles are considered for Geary. Ms. Bent said that the usefulness of optical guidance to reduce the width of the bus lanes is limited on Geary by the need to accommodate light-rail dimensions for rail-readiness. During public comment, Roger Bazeley said that bicycle racks on the BRT vehicles will help bicyclists travel in the corridor. Mr. Bazeley added that parking impacts were a major community concern during the Feasibility Study. 7. Additional April GCAC Meeting ACTION Mr. Rogers moved to schedule an additional GCAC meeting for April 2, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Biancalana seconded the motion. re was no public comment. motion was approved unanimously. 8. Election of Rotating Moderators ACTION Ms. Fong moved to elect Kieran Farr, James Rogers, Tony Biancalana, and Bruce Osterweil, respectively, to serve as Moderators for future meetings. Mr. Biancalana seconded the motion. re was no public comment. item passed unanimously. 9. Public Comment re was no general public comment. 10. Adjournment meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. O:\Active Studies\GearyBRT Environmental\CAC\Meetings\Meeting 4\Meeting 4 Minutes_Final.doc Page 5 of 5

-8- This Page Intentionally Left Blank

-9- Schedule & Tentative Meeting Topics Geary BRT Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting Date Key Topics (Tentative) GCAC Role 1 July 31, 2008 2 October 30, 2008 December 4 th and 6 th, 2008 Public Scoping Meetings 3 January 8, 2009 4 February 26, 2009 April 2, 2009 5 (extra meeting) Spring 2009 Public Meetings 6 April 30, 2009 7 June 25, 2009 8 August 27, 2009 9 October 29, 2009 Fall 2009 Public Workshops Prior to FEIR/FEIS 10 December 17, 2009 Last updated Monday, March 30, 2009 Meeting Management & Procedures Feasibility Study EIR/EIS Objectives and Scope of Work TEP Recommendations Election of Moderators GCAC Meeting Schedule Update Study Workplan and Schedule Public Involvement Plan EIR/EIS Scoping Process Introduction to BRT Preliminary Summary of Scoping Comments Van Ness BRT Project Update Draft Scoping Summary Report and Description of Alternatives Alternatives Screening Framework Bicycle Access Draft Alternatives Screening Assessment Concepts for Complex Intersections Alternatives Screening Report LRT Roadmap Existing Conditions Transportation Analysis Framework BRT Vehicle Update Draft Impact Analysis (various topics) Engineering Design Issues Engineering Designs, Mitigations and Cost Estimates Draft EIR/EIS Public Outreach Summary Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) report Topics in support of Final EIR/EIS approval Information Information Action Input/Action Information Input/Action Input/Action Input/Action Various O:\Active Studies\GearyBRT Environmental\CAC\Meetings\Meeting Topics and Schedule\Tentative GCAC schedule and topics_v15.doc Page 1 of 1

-10- This Page Intentionally Left Blank

GEARY BRT EIS/EIR AND ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Draft Screening Assessment, Alternatives for Typical Sections BENEFITS IMPACTS Criteria Category Transit Performance Transit Rider Experience Urban Design Multimodal System Performance Traffic & Parking Capital & Operating Costs Construction RAIL READY Alternative No Project (Baseline/TSM) Criteria Improve Transit Speed & Reliability Attract & Retain Transit Riders Distribute Benefits Equitably (i.e., income levels, geographic) Improve Ride Quality Improve Waiting & Boarding Experience Improve Pedestrian Safety & Access Enhance Street Identity, Landscaping, & Integration with Adjacent land Uses Strengthen the City's Rapid Transit Network Minimize Time to Benefits Accommodate Bicycle Access Accommodate Traffic Circulation & Access Change to Available On-Street Parking & Loading Capital Cost Operating & Maintenance Cost Construction Duration & Intensity Rail Ready Compliant? 1 New low-floor vehicles Peak-Period/Direction Bus Lanes 2 Ride quality Some delays reduced ly improved Improvement favors improvements minimal No improvement in during peak period in travel times will attract peak period/direction New low-floor vehicles due to poor legibility of pedestrian conditions peak direction some riders commuters peak period treatment No enhancement Minimally distinguishable from current service implementation timeframe Reduced auto capacity in peak period & direction Slight impact from Peak Minimal capital costs expansion of platforms period enforcement costs Minimal construction All-Day Bus Lanes 3 ly improved travel times will attract benefits Some delays reduced some riders; branding distributed equitably not present Bus lanes without BRT treatment limit No improvement in New low-floor vehicles ride quality pedestrian conditions improvement No enhancement All-day treatment provides slightly more highlighted service implementation timeframe Reduced auto capacity Enforcement costs; operating efficiency Slight impact from Minimal capital costs improved with Minimal construction expansion of platforms reinvestment of travel time savings BRT: Busway on One Side 4 Dwell & mixed traffic delays reduced High benefit to transitdependent groups; Greater performance improvements attract varying impacts to more riders opposite sides of street Improves as traffic, loading, & parking conflicts are eliminated Distinctive treatment High-amenity stations, Complex street & enhances street Distinctive treatment but narrow median platform configuration identity; one-sided provides highly Construction required platforms beside degrades pedestrian treatment limits distinguishable service outside lane safety & comfort landscaping & integration improvement to bicycle access Significant impacts; Will generate Some parking need for protected operations savings construction impacts; significant right & left turns capital costs through reduced travel impacts; phasing loading impact to one further impacts auto time & more efficient helps reduce impacts side of street capacity & circulation use of capacity BRT: Side-running BRT 1 5 Most delays reduced, Buses move around Improved performance High benefit to transitdependent groups but turning & parking right-turning & parking attracts riders autos share curb lane vehicles Large, high-quality boarding areas at sidewalk Stations at widened sidewalks improve pedestrian safety & access benefit to street identity; closest Noticeably link between transit distinguishable from stations & adjacent current service land uses Construction required improvement to bicycle access Reduced auto capacity Will generate operations savings construction Parking impacted for capital costs through reduced travel impacts; phasing curbside BRT stations time & more efficient helps reduce impacts use of capacity Page 1 of 3-11-

-12- This Page Intentionally Left Blank

GEARY BRT EIS/EIR AND ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Draft Screening Assessment, Alternatives for Typical Sections BRT: Center BRT with Side Platforms 6 Greater performance Dwell, signal, & mixed High benefit to transitdependent groups improvements attract traffic delays reduced more riders Improves as traffic, loading, & parking conflicts are eliminated High-quality stations; Pedestrian conditions platforms on two & crossing experience separate medians substantially improved Center-running treatment provides highly visible enhancement Center-running treatment provides strong, highlighted service Construction required improvement to bicycle access Reduced auto capacity Smallest parking impact of BRT alternatives Best operational construction efficiency & capital costs impacts; phasing reinvestment of travel helps reduce impacts time savings BRT: Center BRT with Center Platforms 7 Greater performance Dwell, signal, & mixed High benefit to transitdependent groups improvements attract traffic delays reduced more riders Improves as traffic, loading, & parking conflicts are eliminated High-quality stations; widest platforms on single center median Widest median platforms provide significant improvement Center-running treatment provides highly visible enhancement Center-running treatment provides strong, highlighted service Construction required improvement to bicycle access Reduced auto capacity Best operational Parking impacted with construction efficiency & need to accommodate capital costs impacts; phasing reinvestment of travel turn pockets helps reduce impacts time savings Rail: Surface LRT N/A 8 Greater performance High benefit to many, Dwell, signal, & mixed improvements attract but local/parallel traffic delays reduced more riders service impacted Improves as traffic, loading, & parking conflicts are eliminated High-quality stations Significant improvement Significant enhancement Rail treatment provides prominent service improvement Significant funding gap prevents near term construction improvement to bicycle access Reduced auto capacity Likely to result in moderate parking impacts More than $100M per Increased operating & Longer & more mile; no feasible maintenance cost intensive construction funding plan Rail: Subway N/A 9 Total grade separation eliminates trafficcaused delays High benefit to many Full grade separation but local/parallel provides best ride service impacted quality Metro stations Subway would not provide significant street-level improvements Enhances street Rail treatment identity, but subway provides prominent treatment would not service improvement enhance landscaping Longest time to identify funds, plan, design, & construct improvement to bicycle access Total grade separation improves auto circulation No parking loss anticipated Long & intensive Highest cost Increased operating & construction; streetlevel impact primarily alternative; no feasible maintenance cost funding plan at stations Rail: Combined Surface/Subway N/A 10 Dwell, signal, & mixed traffic delays reduced High benefit to many but local/parallel service impacted Improves as traffic, loading, & parking conflicts are eliminated High-quality stations Substantial improvement for surface-running sections Enhances street Rail treatment identity; improved provides prominent landscaping for service improvement surface-running potion Significant funding gap prevents near term construction Limited surface improvements Reduced auto capacity in surfacerunning segments Could result in some parking reduction No feasible funding plan Increased operating & maintenance cost Long & intensive construction Low Benefit High Benefit High Impact Low Impact Designation of Alternatives (Typical Sections) Fatally Flawed Low-Performing High-Performing one or more empty circles no empty circles; multiple quarter-filled circles no empty or quarter-filled circles; multiple fully-filled circles Page 2 of 3-13-

-14- This Page Intentionally Left Blank

GEARY BRT EIS/EIR AND ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Draft Screening Assessment, Alternatives for East of Gough BENEFITS Transit Criteria Category Performance IMPACTS Multimodal Transit Rider Experience Urban Design System Traffic & Parking Capital & Operating Cost Performance Construction RAIL READY Alternative Criteria Maintain Transit Speed & Reliability Improve Pedestrian & Waiting Environment Improve Pedestrian Safety & Access Enhance Street Identity, Landscaping, & Integration with Adjacent Land Uses Minimize Time to Benefits Accommodate Traffic Circulation & Access Change to Available On-Street Parking & Loading Capital Cost Operating & Maintenance Cost Construction Duration & Intensity Rail-Ready Compliant? 1 No Project (Baseline) TSM Basic: BRT amenities 2 and pedestrian safety improvements Existing Bus Lanes maintained Modest improvements at stops improvement Short implementation timeframe Low capital costs Minimal impact Modest construction impact TSM Plus: TSM basic plus 3 improved couplet operations Existing Bus lanes maintained with Modest improvements modest operational at stops improvements improvement implementation timeframe Could have slight traffic impacts capital costs Minimal impact Modest construction impact 4 Two-Way Geary: Bus-Only Transit Mall Minimal change to speed & reliability Transit-only street provides high-quality waiting environment Transit-only street provides high-quality pedestrian environment Transit-only street significantly enhances urban design Requires significant time for planning, design, & implementation Significant traffic impacts Greatest parking and loading impacts Substantial capital costs impact Significant construction impact Two-Way Geary: Partial 5 Transit-Only Two-way operations Transit-oriented streettransit-oriented streettransit-oriented street with traffic potentially degrade performance improves waiting experience improves pedestrian environment enhances urban design Requires significant time for planning, design, & implementation Significant traffic impacts Significant parking and loading impacts Substantial capital costs Significant construction impact 6 Two-Way Geary: Bus Lane & Traffic Lane Two-way operations with traffic potentially degrade performance Requires significant time for planning, design, & implementation Substantial traffic impacts; auto access maintained Significant parking and loading impacts Substantial capital costs Significant construction impact Low Benefit High Benefit High Impact Low Impact Page 3 of 3-15-