van ness avenue bus rapid transit (brt) · bus rapid transit (brt) urban forestry council 12.14.12...
TRANSCRIPT
Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Urban Forestry Council
12.14.12
2
Project Purpose and Need
Enhance urban design and identity
of Van Ness Avenue
Accommodate safe multimodal
circulation and access within the
corridor
Improve transit reliability, speed, connectivity and comfort
Separate autos from transit
Reduce delays associated with loading and unloading, and traffic
signals
Improve pedestrian comfort, amenities, and safety
3
BRT Network Context
Rail does not
go to north side
of city
BRT network
proposed to fill
in rail gap…
…and support
local “rapid” +
regional bus
service
4
Features of BRT
Dedicated transit lane
Transit signal priority
Traffic signal optimization
1
2
3
All-door boarding and
low-floor vehicles
Pedestrian safety
enhancements
High-quality shelters
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
Alternatives Assessed in Draft EIS/EIR
Alternative 1 -- No Build
Alternative 2 – Side Lane
Alternative 3 – Center Lane with Right Side Boarding/Dual Medians
Alternative 4 – Center Lane with Left Side Loading/Center Median
Design Option B for Alternatives 3 and 4– Limited Left Turns
6
Alternative 2 – Side BRT Lanes
Side Dedicated
Lanes
High Quality
Station
Platforms in
Sidewalk
Extension
7
Alternative 3 – Center BRT Lanes with Right Side Loading / Dual Medians
Median
Reconfigured
Fully
Separated Bus
Lanes
8
Alternative 4 – Center BRT Lanes with Left Side Loading / Center Median
Vehicles Have
Doors on Both
Sides
Findings: Van Ness Avenue BRT Benefits
Improve transit travel times by up to 32%
Improve transit reliability by up to 50%
Increase transit boardings by up to 35%
Maintain corridor person-throughput while
increasing transit mode share
Save up to 30% of daily route operating costs
Improve multimodal safety, including for
pedestrians
9
17.516.8
12.9
8.8 9.38.6
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
2007 Existing Alt. 1(No Build)
VN BRT Alts 3 and 4 (with DesignOption B)
Trav
el T
ime
Bet
wee
n M
issi
on
/Du
bo
ce
Off
ram
p a
nd
Cla
y St
reet
(M
in)
Bus (Route 49)
Automobile
8.7 Min Difference
4.3 Min Difference
10
Key issues/areas of interest
Wish for identifying a high-performing alternative that “works”
Concerns regarding:
Traffic diversions
Left turn removals
Transit stop consolidation
Visual effects, including trees and
landscaping
11
Alternatives Analysis in the EIS/EIR
Alternatives performance outlined in Chapter 10 of EIS/EIR
36 indicators grouped into categories based on Project Purpose
and Need as well as issues of importance to stakeholders and
decision-makers
Transit Performance
Passenger Experience
Access and Pedestrian Safety
Urban Design/Landscape
System Performance
Environmental and Social Effects (includes tree presevation)
Operations and Maintenance
Construction and Capital Costs
12
Tree Analysis – Existing Conditions
102 Median Trees
28 are mature and in good/excellent health
50 are young, healthy trees (<13’ in height, <10 years old)
24 trees are in moderate/poor health
314 Sidewalk Trees
Health and height assessed only for trees that could be
impacted by BRT (38 trees)
Total = 416 Trees
13
Tree Analysis – BRT Alternatives*
All build alternatives result in net increase in trees on corridor
Build Alternative 2
Removes 6 mature/healthy trees
Build Alternative 3
Removes 28 mature/healthy trees
Build Alternative 4
Removes 11 mature/healthy trees
Median
Trees
Removed
Sidewalk
Trees
Removed
New
Median
Trees
New
Sidewalk
Trees
Net
Total
Trees
Alt 2 20 38 103 68 529
Alt 3 102 0 163 48 525
Alt 4 64 0 113 48 513
*Note: Results represent
preliminary likely tree
preservation and new
plantings based on
current information.
Ability to preserve and
plant individual trees may
change with final design,
including a more detailed
root assessment, and
construction.
14
Center BRT Best Meets Project Purpose and Need
Design Option B has nearly twice the travel time savings and
reliability benefits as Side BRT (Alternative 2)
Public comment on Draft EIS/EIR indicated preference for center
running BRT (nearly 3:1 versus Side BRT)
17.5
16.8
12.9
8.8 9.38.6
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
2007 Existing Alt. 1(No Build)
VN BRT Alts 3 and 4 (with DesignOption B)
Trav
el T
ime
Bet
wee
n M
issi
on
/Du
bo
ce
Off
ram
p a
nd
Cla
y St
reet
(M
in)
Bus (Route 49)
Automobile
8.7 Min Difference
4.3 Min Difference
15
Stakeholders Prioritize Transit Performance
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
TR
AN
SIT
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E
PA
SS
EN
GE
R E
XP
ER
IEN
CE
AC
CE
SS
AN
DP
ED
ES
TR
IAN
SA
FE
TY
UR
BA
ND
ES
IGN
/LA
ND
SC
AP
E
SY
ST
EM
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E
EN
VIR
ON
ME
NT
AL
AN
DS
OC
IAL
EF
FE
CT
S
OP
ER
AT
ION
S A
ND
MA
INT
EN
AN
CE
CO
NS
TR
UC
TIO
N A
ND
CA
PIT
AL C
OS
TS
Weighting SFCTA/SFMTA Project Staff
TAC
CAC
Average
16
Challenges with Center BRT alternatives
Alternative 3:
May require wider lanes throughout corridor due to “head-
on” configuration
Complete reconstruction of median
Removal of all existing trees
More significant utility considerations
Alternative 4
Requires left-right door vehicles
No 5-door trolleycoach in existence in North America
(procurement risk)
Higher spare ratio contributes to facilities challenges
Reduces operational flexibility
LPA Recommendation: Center-Running BRT with Right Side Loading/Center Median and Limited Left Turns
For planning purposes only
18
LPA Recommendation: Center-Running BRT with Right Side Loading/Center Median and Limited Left Turns
Existing Landscaping
Preserved Where
Possible Outside of
Station Locations
Standard, Right
Side Door
Vehicles
19
Tree Analysis – LPA*
Net increase in trees
Removes 17 mature/healthy trees (between Alts 3 and 4)
Reflects latest SFMTA standards and proposal to Caltrans
City agencies negotiating with Caltrans over median width
Median
Trees
Removed
Sidewalk
Trees
Removed
New
Median
Trees
New
Sidewalk
Trees
Net
Total
Trees
Alt 2 20 38 103 68 529
Alt 3 102 0 163 48 525
Alt 4 64 0 113 48 513
LPA 80 0 85 48 469
*Note: Results represent
likely tree preservation
and new plantings based
on current information.
Ability to preserve and
plant individual trees may
change with final design,
including a more detailed
root assessment, and
construction.
20
New Planting Species
11 ft. median
9 ft. median
Cost and Funding
21
Cost: $125.6M (YOE)
$106M in already identified funding
$20M in Prop K; $75M in FTA Small
Starts funds; $11M in other
local/state sources
Only Small Starts project in the nation to
receive a “high” project justification
summary rating
FTA programmed $45M for project in
FY 11/12 and 12/13
$10M recommended for 13/14
22
Project Schedule
Near Term
Certify Final EIS/EIR (March, 2013)
Begin preliminary design (January,
2013)
FTA Record of Decision (May, 2013)
Design/Implementation
Complete Preliminary Design (Spring
2014)
Final Design (Spring 2014 – Summer
2015)
Construction (Fall 2015 – Winter 2017)
Operations (Spring 2018)
