geary corridor bus rapid transit study

Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Study

Summary of Outreach Activities September 2007 Prepared by: San Francisco County Transportation Authority With participation from: San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency

G e a r y C o r r i d o r B u s R a p i d T r a n s i t S t u d y • A p p e n d i x G C o m m u n i t y O u t r e a c h S u m m a r y R e p o r t

S A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y

Page 1

A. Introduction

A.1 Background and Overview In late 2004, the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (Transportation Authority) and the Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) launched a study of the feasibility of bus rapid transit on Geary Boulevard. The study is a tool to identify ways to improve transit service while enhancing the pedestrian environment and maintaining the convenience of auto travel, through full-featured bus rapid transit. This outreach report is a companion piece to the detailed technical analysis and findings of the Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Study, which are described in the July 2007 Final Report.

The feasibility study found that BRT would provide significant benefits to the 50,000 transit riders who rely on Geary bus service each day and would benefit the neighborhoods it serves, while minimizing the negative impacts to those who choose to drive in the corridor. This report summarizes the community outreach effort undertaken to guide and inform the Geary Corridor BRT Study. Community outreach is defined in this report as the broad spectrum of community engagement, which seeks to inform, educate, consult, involve, and collaborate with community stakeholders throughout project planning, development, and implementation.

Over its six-mile length, the Geary corridor passes through a cross-section of neighborhoods that represent the social, ethnic, and cultural diversity of San Francisco. The corridor also serves a variety of travel needs and activities, including shopping, employment, social service, educational, and recreational at varied local, regional, and neighborhood destinations. In addition to English, outreach was conducted in six languages (Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese) in an effort to bring communities to the table who often do not have a strong voice in the transportation planning process. Outreach was also targeted to the broad range of stakeholders who use the corridor for different travel needs.

Hundreds of individuals—elected officials, community residents, community group leaders and representatives, bus patrons, bus operators, merchants, business owners, major property owners, and representatives of large employers and medical, religious, and educational institutions—participated in the community outreach process. The purpose of this extensive outreach was to involve the varied communities and stakeholders in refining the Study technical analysis, and to gauge public interest and support for moving forward with conceptual BRT design alternatives for more detailed analysis.

A.2 Community Outreach Framework Outreach efforts emphasized the need to: 1) reach out to the community in a variety of ways; 2) involve stakeholders who are not typically part of transportation planning; and 3) incorporate a broad range of outreach materials and communication techniques to engage the diverse community and interests along the corridor.

As such, community outreach for the Geary Corridor BRT Study was organized to maximize:

quality of participation (identifying, engaging, and including the appropriate stakeholders)

diversity (a broad spectrum of participation)

education (informing and teaching the community about bus rapid transit)



Page 2

Study Team • Agency Partners • Consultant Team

Geary Citizens Advisory Committee

Community Based Partners

Geary Corridor Community Stakeholders

Figure 1. Community Outreach Partners

Community Outreach Partners

reach (breath and depth of outreach network)

accessibility (easy access to project information and materials)

inclusiveness (multiple forums and opportunities to voice different or opposing views)

Community outreach was continuous and ongoing during the study process, including periods between public workshops when technical analysis was being conducted to identify and evaluate project alternatives. Outreach materials were also updated and revised during the study process in response to community feedback. Refer to section B. Community Outreach Methods and Approach for a discussion of community feedback loops.

A.3 Community Outreach Partners

Study Team

Community outreach for the Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Study was conducted as a collaborative inter-agency and community effort, involving close coordination between the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (TA),1 the Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), 2 and other city, regional, and state agencies, as well as various community organizations and groups. Led by the Transportation Authority, community outreach partners included the following entities:

Agency Partners Municipal Transportation Agency — Muni and the Department of Parking & Traffic

San Francisco Planning Department

San Francisco Department of Public Works

Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District

Caltrans (Multilingual Outreach Project)

Consultant Team

DKS Associates with The Robert Group and IBI Group

1 The San Francisco County Transportation Authority was created in 1989 to administer and oversee San Francisco’s half-cent local transportation sales tax program (originally Proposition B, now Proposition K). It is also the designated Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for San Francisco, and is responsible for developing and administering the City’s Congestion Management Program. 2 The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) is comprised of the San Francisco Municipal Railway (Muni) and the Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) and is responsible for all daily operations of transit service and the street network in the City and County of San Francisco.



Page 3

ROMA Design Group

Pittman & Associates

David Vasquez

Throughout this document, “Study Team” will be used to refer to this group of agency partners and the consultant team that conducted the Geary Corridor BRT Study, as well as the community outreach effort.

Geary Citizen’s Advisory Committee The Study Team was guided by the Geary Citizens Advisory Committee (GCAC), a broad group of stakeholders, some of whom live in and represent communities along the corridor, and others who represent citywide interests; refer to Figure 2. Geary Citizens Advisory Committee below for a list of the representatives from each neighborhood appointed to the GCAC. Participation of the GCAC members enabled the Study Team to involve the community early in the planning process. The GCAC was a critical link for Study Team participation in numerous community and stakeholder meetings, and facilitation of a series of public workshops during the study process, which are described in section C. Public Workshops.

The GCAC held a total of 24 meetings, typically on the fourth Thursday of each month beginning in February 2004 and ending in April 2007. Each meeting was open to, and attended by, members of the public. The public was also invited to comment on agenda items discussed at each meeting.

The primary roles of the GCAC were to:

Advise the Study Team on the scope, objectives, and technical approach of the BRT feasibility study, particularly where prioritization, trade-offs, or other policy input were needed;

Assist the Study Team with outreach to neighborhood organizations or constituencies and advise on strategies for effective outreach; and

Communicate study progress to stakeholders and solicit broad feedback on the potential project including design alternatives.



Page 4

Figure 2. Geary Citizens Advisory Committee, Membership Breakdown

District of Residence Neighborhood Representation

Number of Members

District 1 Richmond 6 District 2 Richmond 2 District 2 Jordan Park 1

District 5 Fillmore and Western Addition 1

District 5 Polk Gulch 1 District 6 Tenderloin 1 District 7 Japantown 1 District 8 Citywide 1 District 9 Citywide 2 District 9 Citywide/Tenderloin 1 Total 17 More information can be found at www.GearyBRT.org/GCAC

HISTORY OF GEARY CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE At the Transportation Authority’s June 2003 meeting of the Plans and Programs Committee, Commissioner McGoldrick requested that the Transportation Authority appoint a Geary Citizens Advisory Committee (GCAC) for the Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Study. The Board initially appointed 11 members and 5 alternates (Resolution 04-24). Subsequently, the Board appointed an additional 4 members (Resolution 04-50, bringing the total GCAC to 15 members and 5 alternates. In October 2005, as part of Resolution 06-19, the Authority Board increased the GCAC membership to 20 members and eliminated alternate positions. In December 2006, the Board reduced the GCAC membership to 17 to accommodate attrition and quorum requirements. The 17-member GCAC completed its tenure in April 2007, after approval of the Study, and authorization to proceed with the next phase of project implementation, environmental review and conceptual engineering. During the next phases of the study, a new GCAC will be appointed.



Page 5

Key activities of the GCAC included establishing project goals; participating and commenting on public workshop materials, presentations, and exercises; reviewing design principles; reviewing needs assessment; and reviewing and narrowing feasible and preferred alternative design options.

Community-Based Partners Outreach efforts were supported by six community-based partners who offered broader and deeper reach into immigrant and minority communities along the Geary corridor that might not traditionally participate actively in transportation planning or decision-making. These community-based partners are:

Chinatown Community Development Center

Ella Hill Hutch Community Center

Japantown Taskforce

La Voz Latina de la Ciudad Central

Little Saigon Development Association

Russian American Community Services

The community-based partners conducted the multilingual outreach project for the Geary Corridor BRT Study that was funded through a Caltrans Environmental Justice Grant. The objectives of the multilingual outreach project were twofold: 1) to educate and collect feedback from minority and immigrant communities concerning the Geary Corridor BRT project; and 2) to build long-term capacity within these communities to actively participate in future transportation projects. The community-based partners and their role and activities are described in section G. Multilingual Outreach Project.



Page 6

B. Outreach Methods and Approach

B.1 Outreach Tools and Techniques Bus transit and auto travel on the Geary corridor affect a wide range of individuals, communities, employers, institutions, and business interests. Accordingly, community outreach utilized a diverse array of outreach strategies, techniques, and tools to engage community stakeholders. No single method was relied upon to “get the word out” or receive community feedback. Outreach methods used during the study process are summarized below; their application to specific outreach efforts is discussed in the remaining sections of this report.

Figure 3: Summary of Community Outreach Methods

Method Tool or Technique Summary Description of Outreach Activity

Public Workshops Three public workshop series (10 separate events in total) conducted in April 2005, December 2005, and November 2006

Geary CAC Meetings GCAC discussions and public comment on project goals, and the identification, refinement, and evaluation of project alternatives

Merchant Meetings

Presentations and meetings with neighborhood merchant groups along the corridor Fillmore area merchant workshops Richmond area merchant workshops

Community and Neighborhood Group Meetings

Targeted presentations and informal meetings with neighborhood and community groups along the corridor, as well as citywide interest groups

Stakeholder and Focus Group Meetings

Meetings with project stakeholders including merchants (as noted above), large institutions/employers, major property owners, bus operators, special interest groups, tenant organizations, youth groups, senior organizations, and representatives of elected officials

Com

mun

ity E

ngag

emen

t an

d P

artic

ipat

ion

Community Festivals Staffing of informational booths at local community street fairs and festivals

Com

mun

ity In

form

atio

n

and

Edu

catio

n

Workshop Mailings, Advertisement and Notices

Direct mailings (radius mailings, mailing lists, and workshops and meeting sign-in sheets) Bus shelter ads In-bus ads placed in overhead space, “Take-One” dispensers, and driver panels Multilingual press releases and PSAs; ads purchased in community newspapers E-mail notices to project e-mail list and to list-servs of broad based community organizations Notices posted on community events calendars Notices posted on study/project website (www.GearyBRT.org), and SFGov, SFCTA, and MTA websites



Page 7


Merchant Informational Materials

Door-to-door hand-distribution of merchant-targeted flyers to merchants and businesses on Geary Boulevard between Webster Street and 27th Avenue in January 2006 Door-to-door hand-distribution of merchant-targeted flyers to merchants and businesses on and on Fillmore Street between Eddy and Bush Streets in January 2006 Business newsletter directed at merchants, January 2006

Project Informational and Presentation Materials

BRT factsheets (translated into six languages as noted under Multilingual Communication below) Project Newsletters - Fall 2005 and Winter 2006 (translated into six languages) BRT conceptual design handouts readily available at public workshops, community meetings, on the project website, or upon request PowerPoint presentations on bus rapid transit concept and Geary Corridor BRT Study Large-scale easel or wall-mounted informational display boards posted at public workshops and selected community group meetings for group discussion and visual comparison of design options

Multilingual Communication

Translations into Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, and Russian of key Study documents such as public workshop announcements, press releases, and public service announcements (PSAs) for non-English media Translation services at workshops and community group meetings Facilitation of direct outreach targeted to limited-English and minority communities within the corridor, including focus groups, stakeholder meetings, and staffing at community festivals and events

Press and Other Media

Workshop notices in citywide and neighborhood newspapers Articles in citywide and neighborhood newspapers Featured articles in community organizations’ newsletters PSAs on radio and TV Featured segment on weekly TV news shows

Com

mun

ity

Inpu

t an

d Fe

edba

ck

Opinion and Project Awareness Surveys

Four-page survey/comment form on design options distributed at December 2006 workshops and posted on project website Intercept survey of approximately 1,200 transit riders on Geary corridor in June 2006 to receive input on investment priorities for BRT



Page 8


Community Feedback Instruments

Public comments and feedback received at Geary CAC meetings Recorded comments from public workshops Comment cards distributed at workshops, inserted in project newsletters, and available on project website Individual letters and e-mails to Transportation Authority, partner agencies, and elected officials Web page dialogue for on-line comments and questions about project

B.2 Integration into the Study Process As part of the community outreach process, various forms and levels of community input and feedback were integrated into the major steps of the study process, which included:

Development of goals for the corridor and the project;

Analysis of existing conditions, including substantial data collection and public input, characterized in a Needs Assessment Report (also included as an appendix to the feasibility study);

Development of Design Principles and Guidelines for Geary to provide a framework for the creation of conceptual design;

Development of five conceptual alternatives for the potential future of transportation service on Geary Boulevard;

Development of an evaluation framework to assess the success of the conceptual design alternatives in meeting the goals for the corridor and compare performance between alternatives;

Evaluation of all alternatives; and

Development of potential implementation, phasing, and funding strategy, as well as identification of fast track projects that could be carried out while the project undergoes further analysis.

Figure 4. Integration of Community Outreach into Study Process, below, shows the links between community feedback received from various public outreach forums to the methodology, technical analysis, and development of the Geary Corridor BRT Study.



Page 9

Figure 4. Integration of Community Outreach into Study Process

Community Outreach Feedback Mechanisms

Major Steps in Study Process

GC

AC

Mee

tings

Wor

ksho

p 1

–

Iden

tify

Nee

ds &

Con

cern

s

Wor

ksho

p 2

– C

once

ptua

l Des

igns

Wor

ksho

p 3

–

Eva

luat

ion,

Nex

t Ste

ps

Mer

chan

t, C

omm

unity

, S

take

hold

er M

eetin

gs

Com

men

t car

ds,

lette

rs, e

-mai

ls

4-Pa

ge S

urve

y

Pas

seng

er S

urve

y

Corridor and study goals

Needs assessment Alternatives evaluation framework Conceptual alternatives development Alternatives evaluation Implementation and Fast Track projects



Page 10

C. Public Workshops Three series of workshops—for a total of ten events at different locations along the corridor—were conducted as part of the Study.3 The first two series of workshops were held in April and December 2005. The third, and final, series was held in November 2006. Each workshop series was conducted in three neighborhood locations that span the corridor—the Tenderloin, Japantown/Western Addition, and Outer Richmond. The workshop series were all held within four-day periods on weekday evenings and Saturdays.

The workshop series were sequenced and scheduled to allow members of the public to review key project information or technical analysis as it was developed, and provide feedback to the Study Team in identifying and refining design alternatives and assessing the feasibility of implementing BRT. A description of each workshop and a summary of the feedback received are provided below. Complete summaries of each workshop series are provided in attachment H.2 Public Workshop Summaries.

C.1 First Public Workshop Series, April 2005

Figure 5. Summary of April 2005 Workshop Series

Workshop Purpose: Identify Community Needs

Community Feedback Objective: Receive input on community perceptions of travel conditions on the Geary corridor to assist in the development of alternatives that address travel deficiencies and build on key opportunities.

Dates/Locations/Attendance:

Tuesday, April 13 6-8 p.m. 39 attendees

Jones Memorial United Methodist Church 1975 Post Street

Wednesday, April 14th 6-8 p.m. 23 attendees

San Francisco Senior Center 481 O’Farrell Street

Saturday, April 15 10 am– 2 p.m. 50 attendees

Self Help for the Elderly Center 408 22nd Avenue

120 attendees (approximate)4

Workshop Format At each of the April 2005 workshops, the Study Team gave a PowerPoint presentation which explained BRT concepts, described the Geary corridor’s history and environment, and reviewed 3 Each series consisted of three workshops, except the December 2005 series, which consisted of four workshops, for a total of ten. 4 Note, number of attendees represents members of the public and does not include staff or Study Team members.



Page 11

current traffic and transit patterns. Following the presentation, workshop participants broke out into 13 smaller groups (about 5-7 people per group) that were facilitated by members of the Study Team. The groups were asked to describe their current experience on the 38-Geary or other Muni lines in the corridor and suggest where improvements could be made. In addition, the groups noted ideas on how to improve the overall Geary corridor environment. Comments were recorded on tablets and easels.

Overview of Comments and Feedback Overall, participants felt passionately about their transit experiences along the Geary Corridor and provided thoughtful insights and first-hand knowledge about bus service, travel conditions, and the pedestrian environment along the Geary corridor. Guided by a facilitator, each group discussed their perceptions of existing travel on the Geary corridor. These discussions covered opinions about current bus service, passenger on-bus experience, street conditions, and sidewalk and pedestrian conditions. The groups then made suggestions for short-term improvements to Geary bus service that might be achieved in the immediate future. Groups also commented on their vision for Geary BRT, including infrastructure and bus service, vehicles, and improved bus stops, street conditions, and sidewalk and pedestrian enhancements.

Participants expressed interest in consideration of light rail instead of BRT, as well as development of a BRT system that could be “rail-ready” for light rail service in the future. Group participants also provided comments on bicycle travel on the corridor and on the possible BRT fare collection systems that were presented at the workshop.

The topics discussed at the April 2005 Workshop series provided community feedback on the top set of priorities and needs for transportation improvements on the Geary corridor. This information was incorporated into the Geary Corridor BRT Needs Assessment and was used by the Study Team to develop the Geary Corridor BRT Design Principles and Guidelines, December 2006. Refer to Appendix A of the Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Feasibility Study for the Needs Assessment report.

C.2 Second Public Workshop Series, December 2005

Figure 6. Summary of December 2005 Workshop Series

Workshop Purpose: Review Conceptual Designs

Community Feedback Objective: Receive input on Geary Corridor BRT design options to evaluate and refine conceptual design alternatives

Dates/Locations/Attendance: Tuesday, December 6, 2005 6-8 p.m. 43 surveys returned

Japanese Cultural Center 1840 Sutter Street at Buchanan Street

Thursday, December 8, 2005 6-8 p.m. 23 surveys returned

Tenderloin Family Apartments 201 Turk Street at Jones Street

Saturday, December 10, 2005 10 a.m. - 12 p.m. 34 surveys returned


Saturday, December 10, 2005 Self Help for the Elderly Center



Page 12

6-8 p.m. 18 surveys returned

408 22nd Avenue

200 attendees (approximate)

Workshop Format A second series of four workshops were held in December 2005 to present Geary Corridor BRT design options to the community. Each workshop began with a PowerPoint presentation that gave an overview of BRT, a status of the project to date, and details on how a BRT system might be implemented on the Geary Corridor. Workshop participants then broke into groups and circulated among four stations showing BRT options for different segments along the Geary corridor. The four segments were: 1) BRT in the Richmond; 2) BRT at Geary & Masonic; 3) BRT at Geary & Fillmore; and 4) BRT in the Tenderloin/Downtown.

Each station was hosted by a facilitator from the Study Team who pointed out critical elements of each option and responded to questions. After the station exercise, participants broke out into small groups and participated in a workbook exercise that surveyed more detailed views on the BRT options; a shorter version of the workbook survey was also made available on-line at the project website. Translations of the workbook surveys were available in Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, and Spanish. The small groups also discussed and made comments about the survey questions, which were recorded on a flip chart. After the group exercise, participants reconvened into a final, large group comment and question session. A total of 118 surveys were returned at the workshops. In addition, another 33 people filled out the BRT survey on-line. A complete summary of the December 2006 workshop is included in Attachment H.2 Public Workshop Summaries.

Overview of Comments and Feedback The first part of the survey asked participants to choose their top three objectives for the BRT project. Participants’ top two choices were “faster transit service” and “more reliable transit service”. These were followed by two choices that nearly tied: “safer pedestrian crossings” and “minimize parking loss”. Respondents were also permitted to add their own project objectives such as “cost” and “first class transit experience.” The survey also asked respondents to assess and score different BRT options along the corridor. Within the Richmond, Center Lane BRT with a side platform was a clear preference. At the Geary and Masonic intersection, numerical rankings indicated a slight preference for surface BRT in comparison to the underground BRT option. Comments focused more on potential problems with both options rather than supporting a preference. At the Geary and Fillmore intersection, the viaduct option was preferred. Respondents were enthusiastic about the opportunity for a new transit plaza. In the Tenderloin and Downtown area, respondents were asked to assess two proposals for improving station areas. BRT bus stop options were ranked higher than local bus stop designs due to the enhanced sidewalks, better lighting for security, enhanced streetscape, and easier bus-loading opportunities.



Page 13

C.3 Third Public Workshop Series, November 2006

Figure 7. Summary of November 2006 Workshop Series

Workshop Purpose: Refine Designs, Phasing and Short-term Priorities

Community Feedback Objective: Receive feedback on conceptual design options, and input on project implementation and fast-track projects

Dates/Locations/Attendance: Thursday, November 2, 20065 6-8 p.m.

Jones Memorial United Methodist Church 1975 Post Street

Saturday, November 4, 2006 10-12 p.m.


Saturday, November 4, 2006 2-4 p.m.

Tenderloin Community School 627 Turk Street at Polk

130 attendees (approximate)

Workshop Format The November 2006 workshops presented key findings from the feasibility study analysis and explored the benefits and impacts of bus rapid transit relative to a basic package of transit priority investments. Each workshop began with a PowerPoint presentation that gave an overview of BRT, a status of the project to date, and details on how a BRT system might be implemented on the Geary Corridor. Workshop participants then broke into facilitated small groups to share areas of interest and concern regarding the proposed BRT project. Small group discussion was guided by workbooks that contained feedback questions by participants and their reactions to the information presented.

Comments from all three workshops were aggregated and classified by common themes. This classification enabled analysis of the open-ended responses in a grouped manner when possible. The frequencies of these categories are included in the summary of the November 2006 workshop (see Attachment H.2 Public Workshop Summaries). Specific concerns for each neighborhood were also noted.

Overview of Comments and Feedback Participants were asked what BRT feature they were most interested in; their concerns about specific BRT features; and to rank the potential impacts and benefits of BRT. Over 40% of comments focused on improved transit services. Many participants also mentioned physical improvements such as bus right-of-way, Next Bus6 technologies, and more efficient platforms and bus shelter designs. When asked about concerns of specific BRT features, comments focused on

5 Rather than individual surveys, as with the previous workshops, participants completed workbooks in groups. 6 NextBus is an information technology system that provides satellite-based transit vehicle arrival information on selected Muni routes, both at transit shelters and on a continuously updated website.



Page 14

traffic impacts such as diversion of vehicles onto parallel streets, the impact on parking and the unloading of goods for businesses, safety (including pedestrian safety), and negative impacts associated with the project’s construction phase.

A large percentage of participants—44%—reported that they believed BRT would bring high levels of benefit. An additional 22% thought it would bring some level of benefit, while only 17% thought BRT would bring low levels of benefit. Participants were divided on the level of negative impact that BRT would have. Nearly 30% of participants thought BRT would have a high negative impact, while another 30% thought the project would have the very little negative impact. An additional 27% believed the project would have some negative impact.

Feedback from the November 2006 workshops helped refine the BRT design options and re-emphasized the need for more detailed information on project construction, parking impacts, and identification of fast track projects.



Page 15

D. Direct Outreach In addition to public workshops, direct outreach was an essential element of the community outreach process. Direct outreach allowed the Study Team to conduct ongoing outreach to community stakeholders who would be directly and indirectly affected by changes in bus transit and auto travel on the Geary corridor. Direct outreach efforts focused on identifying and taking advantage of opportunities to introduce and initiate discussions about the project to a broad spectrum of stakeholders and interest groups. In contrast to the public workshops, where members of the community were invited to attend meetings at central locations, direct outreach involved the Study Team going out into the community, by invitation or request, to present and discuss the project. Direct outreach involved focus groups and stakeholders meetings, as well as informal working sessions. Direct outreach also included larger forums with presentations at regularly scheduled meetings of community groups and organizations, and staffing information booths at community-wide events, fairs, and festivals along the Geary corridor.

Members of the Community Outreach Team, primarily TA staff, attended and made presentations at more than 50 meetings and events in 2005, 2006, and 2007; refer to Figure 8. Direct Outreach Meetings and Events for a list of these outreach efforts. Meetings were held with representatives of elected officials, neighborhood and community groups, merchant groups and business organizations, large employers/institutions, major property owners, senior and youth organizations, and interest groups. As noted in Figure 8, a major portion of the direct outreach effort was conducted as part of the Multilingual Outreach Project which is discussed in section G. Multilingual Outreach Project.

The format for direct outreach varied, but typically consisted of a “table-top” or PowerPoint presentation of the Geary Corridor BRT project and conceptual design options. Presentations were modified as necessary to focus on issues important to the target audience. Following the presentation, there were questions and answers and informal discussions concerning project concerns and issues. The groups provided key feedback messages for improving travel and developing a feasible BRT system on the Geary corridor, which are summarized below.



Page 16

Figure 8. Direct Outreach Meetings and Events

Elected Officials

Neighborhood / Community Groups

Merchant / Business Groups

Large Employers / Institutions

Major Property Owners

Seniors / Youth Organizations

Interest Groups

Community Events and Festivals

Mayor Newsom

Coalition of San Francisco Neighborhoods

Clement Street Merchants (2 meetings)

California Pacific Medical Center

Mervyn’s Property Manager and Anchor Tenants

Ella Hill Hutch Seniors (2 meetings)

Central City Collaborative SRO

Cherry Blossom Festival 2006 and 2007

Office of Supervisor Ma (District 4)

Japantown Task Force (3 meetings)

Fillmore Merchants Association

Kaiser Perrmanente Hospital

Safeway / Webster Tower Mall Owners

Japantown Youth Leadership Council

Coalition to Save Ocean Beach

Chinese New Years Street Fair 2006

Office of Supervisor Alioto-Pier (District 2)

Jordan Park Neighborhood Association

Geary Merchants

UCSF / Mt. Zion Medical Center

Turk Street Tenants Association

Senior Action Network

Muni Operator Focus Group

Clement Street Fair 2006

Office of Supervisor Daly (District 6)

Little Saigon Development Corporation

Russian Merchants Association

University of San Francisco

Sequoia Senior Living Residence

Pedestrian Safety Advisory Committee

Russian Festival (2006)

Office of Supervisor Mirkarimi (District 5)

Lower Polk Neighbors

Small Business Commission Vietnamese

Senior Center

Richmond Democratic Club

Vietnamese Tet Festival 2006 and 2007

Office of Supervisor McGoldrick (District 1)

Richmond Democratic Club

Union Square Merchants

Washington High School PSTA

Rescue Muni Cinco de Mayo Festival 2006

Office of Supervisor Peskin (District 3)

Russian-American Community Services Board of Directors

Japantown Merchants Association

Washington High School Students

San Francisco Bicycle Coalition



Page 17

Figure 8. Direct Outreach Meetings and Events

Elected Officials

Neighborhood / Community Groups

Merchant / Business Groups

Large Employers / Institutions

Major Property Owners

Seniors / Youth Organizations

Interest Groups

Community Events and Festivals

Russian Community Leaders

Self-Help for the Elderly

Sierra Club/ Green Party Transportation Working Group

Tenderloin Community Leaders

SPUR Sustainable Development Committee

Tenderloin Futures Collaborative

Transportation and Land Use Coalition (TALC)

Western Addition CAC, and Planning/ Development Subcommittee (2 meetings each)

- Meeting sponsored or coordinated by CBO Partners.



Page 18

D.1 Key Feedback Messages

Key Feedback Messages from Elected Officials Officials were supportive of moving forward with the feasibility study and improving transit service in the Geary corridor.

There was emphasis on minimizing impacts on businesses and parking, both during and after construction.

Key Feedback Messages from Neighborhood and Community Groups Overall, neighborhood groups were especially interested in safety improvements for pedestrians and those waiting at bus shelters.

Improved transit speed and reliability was important to community groups. Existing service was generally seen as insufficient to provide community members with mobility and beyond the corridor.

The potential of BRT alternatives to improve connections between neighborhoods along and across the corridor was a key benefit for community groups.

Key Feedback Messages from Large Employers / Institutions Institutions were interested in the potential of BRT to improve mobility in the Geary corridor. Possible traffic impacts were an area of concern, especially given current congested conditions in various areas and intersections.

Large employers with many workers and clients who use transit were especially aware of existing crowded and slow conditions on Geary buses.

Key Feedback Messages from Merchants / Business Groups Apprehension about the potential impacts on business during construction, concern about the length and intensity of construction, as well as loss of parking and business patrons, and traffic congestion on Geary were key areas of concern for all merchants, but especially in the Richmond. Merchants and business groups look forward to more detailed construction information during the next stage of analysis, in order to understand potential impacts.

Some merchants, particularly in the Richmond district, requested more detailed evaluation of the potential economic impacts of BRT on businesses, especially during the construction period.

Merchants in the Fillmore and Japantown view increased access to businesses with faster and more reliable bus service as a positive benefit of BRT. These stakeholders also look forward to more detailed information on the

Design options that included plazas at Fillmore and Geary were supported by Japantown and Fillmore Street merchants to reunite the neighborhoods south and north of Geary and enhance the commercial districts.



Page 19

Key Feedback Messages from Major Property Owners Property owners were concerned about possible construction impacts associated with BRT implementation, such as noise and street closures.

Property owners appreciate involvement in the study of BRT at this early stage of the process, and asked for continued communication as study progresses.

Key Feedback Messages from Senior Groups / Youth Organizations Seniors were interested in safer conditions at bus stops. They were also interested in improvements to ease boarding and alighting.

Washington High School students were interested in seeing more rapid bus service on Geary, particularly to and from other areas in the city such as downtown. Pedestrian safety improvements were also emphasized.

Key Feedback Messages from Interest Groups Various interest groups were primarily interested in promoting alternatives to automobile use. Many were enthusiastic about planned improvements to transit service on Geary, particularly to enhance capacity and reduce travel times.

The Bicycle Coalition was generally supportive of improved transit but requested that greater consideration be given to bicycle use on and near Geary.



Page 20

E. Press and Other Media Public education and visibility of the Geary Corridor BRT Study was increased and improved substantially by media coverage. Press and media coverage included press releases, articles, and editorials in citywide daily newspapers and neighborhood newspapers, articles in newsletters published by neighborhood organizations; Public Service Announcements (PSAs) on radio and television, and appearances on local television and coverage in local television news. Press releases and PSAs for the non-English newspapers were translated by the community-based partners.

E.1 Press A press release was issued to advertise each of the three workshop series. Press releases were issued to an extensive list of media outlets, including the Chronicle and Examiner, as well as numerous community publications, including the New Fillmore, Sun Reporter, Sunset Beacon, and Richmond Review. The press releases typically generated a series of articles and subsequent letters to the editor. After the first and second round of workshops, on-going press coverage was generated by the increased public awareness of the Geary Corridor BRT study, and of bus rapid transit in general.

A number of articles have appeared in citywide and neighborhood newspapers. The Geary BRT study has been covered in the Chronicle, Examiner, San Francisco Business Times, The City Star, Richmond Review, New Fillmore, World Journal, Sing Tao Daily, Ming Pao Daily News, Hokubei Mainichi News, and Chinese Times. Figure 9. Geary Corridor BRT Newspaper Articles lists newspaper coverage of the project for which there are electronic links available. A full set of print and web coverage is on file with the Transportation Authority. Many of the articles emphasized merchant concerns, particularly those which appeared in the Richmond Review. A number of opinion pieces in the Examiner and Chronicle, and other neighborhood newspapers, supported bus rapid transit on the Geary corridor. Examples of coverage in neighborhood newspapers include The New Fillmore, which ran an article that emphasized the project’s potential to bridge Japantown and The Fillmore, and the Hokubei Mainichi News, which featured an article on BRT inviting Japantown residents and business owners to the December 2005 public workshop to review alternative design concepts. This daily newspaper serves San Francisco’s Japanese and Japanese-American community.

Figure 9. Geary Corridor BRT Newspaper Articles

Newspaper Article

News

San Francisco store owners oppose proposed bus lanes, 4 January 2006.

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/04/BAGJOGGJ8L1.DTL

S.F. Chronicle

Transportation planners cheer bus rapid transit, 7 November 2006.

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/11/07/BAGJIM7EAR1.DTL



Page 21

Opinion

Editorial: Let the buses roll in San Francisco, 21 January 2007.

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/01/21/EDGC7N6NJC1.DTL

News

Voter-approved plan for Geary runs into hurdles – merchants express concern about possible impacts, 5 December 2005

www.sfexaminer.com/articles/2005/12/05/news/20051205_ne02_geary.txt

Poll finds S.F. voters back rapid-transit bus lanes, 22 September 2006.

www.examiner.com/a-303409~Poll_finds_S_F__voters_back_rapid_transit_bus_lanes.html

S.F. shows off bus rapid transit, 3 November 2006.

www.examiner.com/a-376917~S_F_shows_off_bus_rapid_transit.html

Study: Bus system would attract more riders, 24 April 2007.

www.examiner.com/a-691221~Study__Bus_system_would_attract_more_riders.html

Geary “Bus Rapid Transit” gets green light, 2 May 2007.

www.examiner.com/a-706242~Geary__bus_rapid_transit__gets_green_light.html

Opinion

S.F. Examiner

Editorial: Don’t Let Geary Transit Get Off Course, 8 December 2005.

www.sfexaminer.com/articles/2005/12/08/opion/20051208_op01_editorial.txt

News

Geary Bus Plan Gets First Public Review, May 2005.

www.sfrichmondreview.com/archives/richmondreview/2005editions/May05/gearybusplan.html

Concerns About Geary Bus Plan Aired at Sept. Workshop, October 2005.

www.sfrichmondreview.com/archives/richmondreview/2005editions/Oct05/busplan.html

Richmond Review

Merchants Rally to Slow Down Plan to Transform Geary, November 2005.

www.sfrichmondreview.com/archives/richmondreview/2005editions/Nov05/GearyBus.html



Page 22

Plans for improving #38 Geary debated, January 2006.

www.sfrichmondreview.com/archives/richmondreview/2006editions/Jan06/BRTworkshops.html

Geary merchants want economic study, March 2006.

www.sfrichmondreview.com/archives/richmondreview/2006editions/March06/BRTSt ecudy.html

Transit Proposals for Geary Bus Line Moving Forward, December 2006.

www.sfrichmondreview.com/archives/richmondreview/2006editions/Dec06/GearyBRT.html

Geary Bus Plan Moves Forward, Payment Options Sharpened, April 2007.

www.sfrichmondreview.com/archives/richmondreview/2007editions/April07/GearyBRT.html

Geary BRT Plan Moves to TA for Economic Impact Report, May 2007.

www.sfrichmondreview.com/archives/richmondreview/2007editions/May07/GearyBRT.html

Geary BRT Gets OK to Move to Next Phase, June 2007.

www.sfrichmondreview.com/archives/richmondreview/2007editions/June07/GearyBRT.html

Opinion

Supervisor Jake McGoldrick: Geary Transit Improvements, February 2005.

www.sfrichmondreview.com/archives/richmondreview/2005editions/Feb05/mcgoldrickcol.html

Paul Kozakiewicz: Take Good Look at Geary Plan, April 2005.

www.sfrichmondreview.com/archives/richmondreview/2005editions/Apr05/kozakcol.html

Supervisor Jake McGoldrick: The Year in Review, Geary BRT, December 2005.

www.sfrichmondreview.com/archives/richmondreview/2005editions/Dec05/McGoldrickcol.html

Paul Kozakiewicz: Transit Plan Could Alter Geary Landscape – for Better or Worse, December 2005.

www.sfrichmondreview.com/archives/richmondreview/2005editions/Dec05/Kozakcol.html

Jose Luis Moscovich: Geary BRT Plan Moves Forward, December 2005.

www.sfrichmondreview.com/archives/richmondreview/2005editions/Dec05/Moscovichcol.html

Supervisor Jake McGoldrick: Geary Bus Rapid Transit, January 2006.

www.sfrichmondreview.com/archives/richmondreview/2006editions/Jan06/McGoldrickCol.html



Page 23

Paul Kozakiewicz: Supervisors Bypass Public Debate to Force Geary Transit Changes, January 2006.

www.sfrichmondreview.com/archives/richmondreview/2006editions/Jan06/Paulcol.html

Jose Luis Moscovich: Let BRT Study Get the Facts, April 2006.

www.sfrichmondreview.com/archives/richmondreview/2006editions/April06/BRTcol.html

Supervisor Jake McGoldrick: Richmond District in Motion, September 2006.

www.sfrichmondreview.com/archives/richmondreview/2006editions/Sept06/McGoldrickcol.html

Paul Kozakiewicz: Creating a Win-Win Transit Plan, December 2006.

www.sfrichmondreview.com/archives/richmondreview/2006editions/Dec06/Kozakcol.html

Supervisor Jake McGoldrick: Update on local issues, January 2007.

www.sfrichmondreview.com/archives/richmondreview/2007editions/Jan07/mcgoldrickcol.html

Supervisor Jake McGoldrick: Park Closed, BRT Proceeds, May 2007.

www.sfrichmondreview.com/archives/richmondreview/2007editions/May07/McGoldrickcol.html

The New Fillmore

Bus-Only Lanes on Van Ness, Geary Moving Forward, January 2007.

www.newfillmore.com/issue%20pdfs/2007_01.pdf

E.2 Other Media

Newsletters The Transportation Authority and Municipal Transportation Agency produced and issued two BRT newsletters. The Fall 2005 issue highlighted the features of BRT such as dedicated or exclusive bus lanes, high-quality bus stops, and streetscape improvements. A Winter 2006 business newsletter was also issued to publicize a series of merchant workshops held in January 2006 and featured BRT design options targeted to merchants. The Winter 2006 newsletter also focused on the project goals and transportation needs on Geary.

Television The Geary BRT project was featured on the KTVU 2 morning television news program on November 2, 2006. The five-minute segment featured a live interview with Transportation Authority Executive Director José Luis Moscovich. The third series of public workshops, which began the same day as the story aired, were publicized. Renderings of three BRT alternatives were also shown during the report.



Page 24

The Geary BRT study was the subject of short segment on the KTVU morning television news program on May 2, 2007. The program reported on the progress of the project and the upcoming initiation of the environmental review process.



Page 25

Highest Priority Transit Investments on Geary

25% 24%15%

5% 6%

26%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Expand

ed Hou

rs

Own Lane

New Buse

s

Better

Maps

Bus Sto

ps

Real-T

ime I

nfo

Fre

qu

ency

n = 1815; Respondants were asked to chose their top 2 priorities for transit investment on Geary Blvd.

F. Other Feedback

F.1 Transit Rider Survey Over a three week period in June 2006, the Transportation Authority conducted a survey to gather input from transit riders about the potential benefits and impacts of Bus Rapid Transit along Geary Boulevard. Approximately 1200 bus riders were surveyed at bus stops along Geary. See attachment H.3 Transit Rider Survey for the survey questions. Surveys were available in Chinese, English, and Russian language formats. Findings of the survey are summarized below.

• When asked to give their opinion on BRT, ninety percent of riders surveyed responded positively to the idea of implementing BRT on Geary Boulevard.

• Roughly one-third of riders surveyed have the ability to take the 38L express bus and instead choose to take the first bus to arrive. This finding indicates that a large proportion of the Geary riders who can use limited service do not see it as distinguishable from the local service in its current form, or they do not have confidence that a limited bus is worth waiting for.

• Survey respondents were asked to identify what they believe to be the highest priority transit needs on Geary Boulevard. Those most frequently identified needs were less crowding, faster travel times, and shorter waiting time at bus stops.

• Real-time information, expanded hours, and dedicated buses lanes were most frequently identified as priority transit investments. These results are shown in the Figure 10, below.

Figure 10. Survey Results

The transit rider survey data was incorporated into the Study to prioritize transit investments and to identify fast-track transit improvements that could be implemented in the near term.



Page 26

F.2 Letters and Emails

As of June 2007, 28 letters, e-mails, and other communication were received from individuals and organizations concerning Geary BRT and related topics. Of the total, 13 items were received from individuals, and 15 from citywide and regional organizations. The majority of letters and e-mail from individuals were from residents of the Richmond. Letters and e-mails from organizations represented a diverse range of interests such as the California State Automobile Association, San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, Planning Association of the Richmond, Sierra Club, and Washington High School Parent Teacher Student Association. Over half of the letters and e-mails were in support of BRT, with most favoring center platform design options. Letters in opposition primarily cited reasons of traffic congestion, impacts on local merchants and businesses, loss of parking, or support of light rail on Geary instead of BRT. Other letters and e-mails did not state a particular opinion, but requested more information to better understand BRT and the underlying assumptions of travel time savings and service reliability.

Letters and e-mails received are on file and available for review at the Transportation Authority offices at 100 Van Ness, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102. Contact the Transportation Authority at (415) 522-4800 to review the file.



Page 27

G. Multilingual Outreach Project

G.1 Background In January 2006, the Transportation Authority and MTA received a Caltrans Environmental Justice Grant to conduct multilingual outreach for the Geary BRT Study. Through this effort, the Transportation Authority increased active participation in public workshops and the project planning process of ethnic, immigrant, and minority communities along the Geary corridor. As discussed in section A.3 Community Outreach Partners, six community-based organizations participated in the Multilingual Outreach Project, and were integral members of the study team. These organizations, the nature of their services, and the communities they represent are described below.

Figure 11. Geary Corridor Neighborhoods

G.2 Multilingual Outreach CBO Partners

Chinatown Community Development Center The Chinatown Community Development Center (CCDC) provides services to San Francisco’s Chinatown and Chinese-speaking population citywide. Established in 1977, the CCDC is committed to the empowerment of low-income residents, diversity and coalition building, and social and economic justice. Among its various social services, the CCDC provides outreach and education, as well as planning advocacy for a number of transportation projects and programs. The CCDC has



Page 28

conducted pedestrian safety workshops, Walk to School Day, and the Chinatown Park and Ride Program. The CCDC was also instrumental in implementing a scramble signal (all-direction pedestrian exclusive phase) at one of the busiest pedestrian intersections in the city located in Chinatown.

Within the Geary corridor, the CCDC provided multilingual outreach and Chinese translation services for Chinese-speaking communities in the Downtown, Tenderloin, Japantown, and Inner and Outer Richmond neighborhoods. Refer to Figure 11. Geary Corridor Neighborhoods, above, for the location of these neighborhoods within the Geary BRT corridor.

Ella Hill Hutch Community Center Ella Hill Hutch Community Center is a multi-service community organization that provides comprehensive youth development, education, employment, cultural, and homeless assistance, primarily to the African American community in the Western Addition neighborhood of San Francisco, which includes the Fillmore commercial district. The community center provides a Comprehensive Youth Development Collaborative Program, which includes a computer technology center, general and construction related employment placement; a County Community School; homeless shelter; and maintenance services for the Fillmore Street Jazz Preservation Project.

Japantown Task Force, Inc.

Japantown Task Force, Inc. was created in 2001 to continue the work of the previous 50-member Japantown Planning, Preservation, and Development Task Force organization. Representing one of the last three remaining Japantown communities in the U.S., the mission of the task force is to preserve and develop the City’s historic Japantown as a culturally and commercially enriched neighborhood and district; strengthen the ethnic diversity of the City; and create an atmosphere of safety, beauty, vitality, and prosperity for the residents, organizations, institutions, and businesses in Japantown. The Task Force is actively involved in implementing community safety and beautification projects, as well as programs to enhance tourism and economic development in Japantown. The Japantown Task Force provided translation services for Japanese and Korean communities along the corridor.

La Voz Latina de la Ciudad Central La Voz Latina de la Ciudad Central (La Voz Latina) is a project of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic that specifically targets and assists Latinos living in the Tenderloin. The mission of La Voz Latina is to provide leadership development to parents and assist in community-led campaigns. This organization also provides technical assistance on housing and education issues. Approximately 80 percent of the Latino community served by La Voz Latina is transit dependent. Many either live on Geary or use the 38 Geary line to access work and other services. La Voz Latina provided Spanish translation services.

Little Saigon Development Association Little Saigon Development Association (LSDA) serves the Vietnamese community in the Tenderloin. In recognition of the increasing number of Vietnamese immigrants who have made the Tenderloin their home over the past three decades, the mission of the LSDA is to create a designated “Little Saigon” neighborhood and business district in the Tenderloin which will serve as the center of Vietnamese businesses, restaurants, entertainment, and social services. The LSDA provided Vietnamese translation services.



Page 29

Russian American Community Services The Russian American Community Services (RACS) organization has provided social services to San Francisco’s Russian population since 1977. RACS targets its services to Russian American seniors, focusing on senior nutrition and social services, but also provides community services across all age groups in the Russian community. RACS offices are located in the outer Richmond neighborhood, which is a focal point for Russian American churches, schools, and businesses. RACS estimates that approximately 90 percent of its clients are transit dependent. RACS provided Russian translation services for the project.

G.3 Public Workshop Outreach Within their respective communities, each of the community based organizations (CBOs) conducted outreach to publicize and increase participation in the three series of public workshops conducted in April 2005, December 2005, and November 2006. Their efforts focused on notifying community members of the public workshops, explaining the format of the event, and encouraging attendance. The CBOs also used a variety of activities to increase awareness of the project. These activities included:

• Coordinating and providing culturally appropriate translation of press materials, workshop announcements, workshop materials, and other outreach materials. Translations were provided in Chinese (Mandarin), Vietnamese, Korean, Japanese, Spanish, and Russian.

• Posting announcements in local shops and businesses frequented by community members;

• Attending meetings of community organizations;

• Notifying community leaders, community organizations, and religious groups in the community; and

• Door-knocking in the community commercial districts and residential areas as appropriate.

Depending on the location, two or more CBO representatives attended each of the workshops to greet and provide a comfort level to community members who may not have been familiar with attending public workshops. At each workshop, CBO representatives coordinated or provided translation services, and provided feedback and comments, especially foreign-language comments.

G.4 Direct Outreach The CBOs conducted ongoing direct outreach to raise awareness of the project and opportunities to participate in the planning process for the Geary BRT Study. The CBOs attended a wide variety of community meetings, focus groups, and interviews to publicize the project. The CBOs also staffed tables at community-wide street fairs, festivals, and events. Refer to the list of meetings and events coordinated or conducted by the CBOs in Figure 8. Direct Outreach Meetings and Events.



Page 30

G.5 Other Outreach Efforts

CBO Coordination and Management Meetings Over the course of the study, four CBO team meetings were held to discuss the progress of outreach efforts, exchange outreach ideas and strategies, and coordinate activities among the CBOs. These meetings also included presentations and discussions of technical aspects of the project, which helped equip CBO representatives with the skills to educate their respective communities about BRT in general, as well as the specific application of BRT on the Geary corridor.

Geary CAC Updates Two presentations were made on May 18, 2006 and July 26, 2006 to update the Geary Citizens Advisory Committee (GCAC) of the multilingual outreach project. In addition to informing the GCAC of their activities, the updates provided opportunities for the CBOs to prepare PowerPoint slide presentations, enhance public speaking skills, and respond to public comments and questions in a formal meeting setting.

G.6 Contributions to Geary Corridor BRT Study In addition to capacity building within ethnic, immigrant, and low-income communities, the multilingual CBO partners made two key contributions to the Geary BRT Study.

Expanded Outreach Network As a result of the Multilingual Outreach Project, the Transportation Authority was afforded introductions and access to community leaders who typically would have been difficult to identify or engage in stakeholder interviews. For example, RACS organized and conducted a meeting with leaders of the Russian community, which was attended by business people, clergy, social organizations, and school administrators. Similarly, the Japantown Task Force introduced the Study Team to a Japanese youth and senior groups, many of whom are daily riders of the 38 Geary; these groups offered candid opinions and targeted suggestions about implementing Geary BRT. Their comments concerning fare collection, bus transfers, and pedestrian safety have been incorporated into the BRT design concepts. These examples of expanded outreach were replicated by each of CBOs during the study process.

Study Technical Assistance Based on the direct outreach experiences reported by La Voz Latina and Chinatown Community Development Corporation, the CBOs recommended that a larger survey effort be conducted at bus stops to learn more about ridership and opinions concerning BRT design options. This recommendation was implemented for the project as described in section F.1 Transit Rider Survey.



Page 31

H. Appendices

H.1 Study Newsletters/Fact Sheets

H.2 Workshop Summaries

H.3 Transit Rider Survey

H.4 Multilingual and Additional Outreach Materials

GEARY CORRIDOR Bus Rapid Transit StudyThe Transportation Authority and MUNI have launched theGeary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Study as a key first steptowards bringing major bus improvements to Geary Boulevardincluding dedicated bus lanes, distinctive boarding stations,real-time bus arrival information, and urban design treatments.

Speed, Reliability and Comfort for Bus RidersBus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a high quality, state-of-the-art busservice that reduces travel time, increases reliability andimproves passenger comfort. BRT combines the flexibility ofbuses and the quality of light rail at a fraction of the cost.

Geary Prioritized for Transit InvestmentRunning from Market Street to the Pacific Ocean, Geary Boulevardconnects residents and businesses throughout San Francisco, and itis among the busiest bus corridors on the West Coast, carryingabout 50,000 riders daily. Yet despite its critical role in the city’stransportation network, there has been no significant transitinvestment on Geary Boulevard in recent decades.

Geary is now slated to receive early funding through theTransportation Authority’s 2005 Strategic Plan, a year by yearfunding document that implements Prop K, the 2003 voter-approved transportation sales tax measure. The Geary CorridorBus Rapid Transit Study was initiated in late 2004 and will definethe key features of BRT on Geary through in-depth technicalanalysis and an extensive community outreach process.

THE BENEFITS OF BRT� BRT is fast and reliable—it offers

passengers a quicker trip with moredependability

� BRT is cutting-edge—it maximizespassenger comfort by utilizing state-of-the art technology

� BRT is cost-effective—it moves peopleas effectively as light rail at a lowercapital cost

� BRT is a quick solution—withcommunity support and sufficientfunding, a typical BRT project can bedesigned and built in 5 to 7 years

� BRT is flexible—it maximizes operatingflexibility by allowing multiple operators

� BRT is incremental—it may bedeployed in phases based on fundingavailability and demandPartner Agencies:

� San Francisco County Transportation Authority

� Municipal Transportation Agency

� MUNI

� Department of Parking and Traffic

� Planning Department

� Department of Public Works

� Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District

gearyBRT.orggearyBRT.org

Summer 2004 Establish Geary Citizens Advisory Committee

Fall/Winter 2004 Data Collection on Existing Conditions

April 2005 First Public Workshops—Identify Community Needs

Summer/Fall 2005 Begin Developing Conceptual Design Alternatives

December 2005 Second Public Workshops—Review Conceptual Designs

Winter 2006 Refine Alternatives

Spring 2006 Third Public Workshops—Refine Designs, Phasing and Short-Term Priorities

Summer 2006 Final Report and Recommendations

2006/2008Detailed Design and Environmental Studies

2008/2009Final Design

2010/2011 Target Date for Phase I Construction

Study Schedule

For more information, contact Julie B. Kirschbaum,Project Manager, Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Study,at 415.522.4830 or write to [email protected]

November 2005

Elements of a Bus Rapid Transit System

BRT encompasses a variety of features designed to reduce delays, as well as improve reliability and customer comfort. Components of the BRT system and related benefits may include:

A Dedicated Lane or Exclusive Guideway provides a BRT vehicle with its own travel lane free of conflictingtraffic, double-parked or stopped vehicles, and other obstructions. By running buses in dedicated lanes,BRT can provide travelers with a faster and more reliable service. The Geary BRT study will determinewhether a dedicated bus lane separating buses from the general traffic is required, and if so whether itshould be placed on a center or side lane. The study will also seek to preserve on-street parking.

B Modern, Low-Floor, High-Capacity Buses with wide doors and aisles allow for more convenient andfaster boarding/exiting, and provide passengers with a more comfortable and quieter ride. Through theuse of clean fuels and alternative vehicles, BRT helps to achieve air quality and other environmental goals.While new buses are desirable, BRT is flexible enoughto be implemented with existing buses, and the GearyCorridor BRT Study will design solutions that canwork with both fleets.

C High Quality Bus Stops for BRT range from protectedshelters to large transit centers, and are designed toserve both as traveler amenities and as neighborhoodenhancements. The Geary BRT study will look atupgrading existing stops with improved signage andmaps, high-quality shelters, and lighting. Improvedbus stops will enhance safety and comfort for waitingpassengers and strengthen neighborhood identity.

D Streetscape Improvements and Amenities, such aslandscaping, countdown signals, bicycle racks, andwell-designed crosswalks, enhance the adjacentneighborhoods, to make the street safer and morecomfortable for pedestrians and bicyclists accessing thebus stops. Good street design enhances safety andcomfort for residents, shoppers and other users, andgives the street a cohesive sense of identity.

E Improved Fare Collection is a key element of BRT,making it faster and more convenient to pay the busfare, often before boarding the vehicle. Regular ridersmay use prepaid Translink cards or monthly passesthat allow multi-door boarding. The system might alsoinclude ticket vending machines at certain stops sothat passengers can purchase tickets before boarding.Once on the bus, the ticket or monthly pass serve asproof of payment when requested by inspectors.

F Advanced Transit and Traffic Management Systems provide an array of state-of-the-art technologies toenhance the traveler’s experience riding BRT and to improve overall traffic flow. Advanced technologiesbeing considered for the Geary BRT include:

� Signal Priority for buses at traffic signals, allowing the bus to spend less time stopped at red lights andenabling faster trips and more reliable overall service; and

� Real-time information that tells riders when the next bus is coming, allowing users more control overtheir time.

Project Goals - The Geary Citizens Advisory Committee (GCAC) helped establish the project goals, which recog-nize that a major transit investment must not only im-prove transit operations, but also improve the neighbor-hoods that the transit route serves. The goals fall into four main categories: ■ Robust and Stable Ridership ■ Efficient, Effective & Equitable Transit Service ■ Neighborhood Livability & Commercial Vitality ■ Transit Priority Network System Development

Transportation Needs on Geary - Mobility on Geary has deteriorated. Almost 50,000 daily transit riders rely on bus service that is slow, unreliable and crowded. As a result, more people are switching to driving. A recent evaluation of existing transit conditions on Geary identi-fied the following priority needs: ■ Rapid transit service needed to serve northern SF ■ Better balance needs of autos, transit & pedestrians ■ Ridership & congestion warrant all-day treatment ■ Pedestrian safety improvements a high priority

Is the decision to build BRT already made? The decision to build BRT has not yet been made. We are in an early phase of the project—developing proposed concep-tual designs. At the conclusion of the Study (this summer) the Transportation Authority Board will consider the Study rec-ommendations, taking into account both technical merit and community input. If the Board supports the project, environ-mental review (including a no-build option) and preliminary engineering will follow. Will reducing a traffic lane on Geary divert traffic to nearby streets? The Study team is currently evaluating traffic diversions. In areas where a traffic lane is removed, experience with other projects of this type and scale has shown that not all diver-sions will shift to local streets. Some drivers will switch to transit or walking, while others will change the time of day they travel. We also expect that some drivers will continue to use Geary because it has fewer stop signs than surrounding streets. Planners will work with concerned neighbors to iden-tify traffic calming improvements on nearby streets as needed. Are you going to consider light rail on Geary? Currently, we simply do not have the funds for light rail on Geary. The Expenditure Plan Citizens’ Advisory Committee (EPAC) adopted a transit priority network that defines Geary as a BRT corridor. The EPAC recognized that a light rail line on Geary is not viable within the financial constraints of the City’s 30-yr Expenditure Plan. Instead the Plan requires that the BRT design be rail-ready, meaning that proposed designs should not preclude a future rail project on Geary. Center-

running BRT options will adopt dimensional standards, such as height and width clearances, turning radii, etc., used for light rail vehicles. We will also examine more extensive rail-ready packages. Will we lose on-street parking? Possible parking loss varies by design and location. We have attempted to minimize parking loss for all of the proposed conceptual BRT designs and will present possible ideas dur-ing the evaluation phase of the Study (late spring 2006). We will also propose ways to mitigate parking loss (e.g., by replac-ing spaces on side streets). What will be the construction impacts? When will they occur? Most of the construction impacts will not occur for 5 to 7 years. BRT can be built a few blocks at a time while maintain-ing transit service and auto access to businesses during the construction. Since construction of BRT is fairly straightfor-ward in most sections, it can amount to a matter of weeks and months, not years (impacts could be more extensive at Fill-more and at Masonic, depending on the designs). Construc-tion impacts will be significantly minimized compared with light-rail transit or subway construction. Can we really afford this? Yes; BRT is a cost effective way to deliver improved transit service. The project is expected to cost between $150-$200 million, with about $50 million coming from local sales tax resources. The project is also eligible for up to $75 million from the Federal Transit Administration and is expected to compete well for other federal and regional resources.

g e a r y B R T. o rg

Start of Service

05 11 10 09 08 07 06

Preliminary Design & Environmental Studies Final Design

Construction & Mitigation

Identify and Implement Fast-track Projects

Conceptual Planning and Design

Frequently Asked Questions

Ways to learn more or provide input : ■ visit the project website at www.GearyBRT.org ▪ email [email protected] to be added to the mailing list ■ request a presentation to your group ▪ contact Project Manager, Zabe Bent at 415.522.4830 January 2006

BRT Newsletter, Winter 2006

The Geary Corridor BRT Study covers the Geary corridor from Market Street to the Ocean. Pedestrian and bus stop improvements will be identified for the entire length of the street, while BRT lane and median configuration designs will focus between 33rd Avenue and Van Ness Avenue.

What is Bus Rapid Transit? BRT is a quick and relatively inexpensive way to speed up buses and make service more reliable and comfortable. Buses will use dedicated lanes, get priority at traffic lights and stop at well-lit BRT stations equipped with elec-tronic information displays announcing bus arrival times.

What are the benefits of BRT? Faster and more reliable transit service will result in faster commute times and more people trav-eling to the Geary corridor for shopping, restaurants, and other commercial activities. Pedestrian improvements and landscap-ing will also make Geary a more pleasant place to shop and stroll.

Curbside BRT Center Lane BRT w/side platforms Center Lane BRT w/center platforms

Key Design Features. Dedicated transit lane between parking lane and two auto lanes. Bus bulb added at BRT stops by extending sidewalk into the parking lane. Right turn pockets included at strategic locations to minimize conflicts between buses and turning vehicles.

Advantages. Bus bulbs allow for increased passenger waiting area and reduce pedestrian crossing distances (as do curb extensions). This design is most similar to the current configuration and would require the least amount of construction.

Disadvantages. Parking, turning, and double-parked cars reduce the benefits of the dedicated transit lane. Parking loss is higher due to longer curbside bus bulbs.

Key Design Features. Center dedicated lane separated from traffic by two side islands, which serve as bus platforms and landscaped medians. By narrowing the islands at local stops, there is enough room for BRT buses to pass local buses.

Advantages. Bus and auto movements are completely separated, offering maxi-mum transit travel time savings. Existing bus stops can be replaced with on-street parking to mitigate parking loses in the commercial core.

Disadvantages. This design requires the most reconstruction due to changes to existing median. In addition, this design has the narrowest passenger waiting area (9.5 ft) of the three designs.

Key Design Features. Center dedicated lanes on either side of a wide island, which serves as a bus platform and a landscaped median.

Advantages. Bus and auto movements are completely separated, offering maxi-mum transit travel time savings. Passenger waiting area is widest of the three de-signs (14 ft) and buffered from traffic by dedicated bus lanes.

Disadvantages. This design reduces on street parking at intersections with left turns. It also is the least flexible from a transit operations perspective because buses cannot pass one another.

D R A F T C O N C E P T U A L D E S I G N S F O R G E A R Y B R T

What will BRT look like on Geary? The draft conceptual designs for Geary BRT from 33rd Avenue to Masonic are presented below. All of the proposed designs dedicate a lane to transit, which in some parts of Geary will mean eliminating a lane of traffic and in other locations will mean replacing diagonal parking with parallel parking. The distinguishing features of each design are presented below. To learn more and contribute feedback about the proposed designs at the Geary and Masonic intersection, at the Geary and Fillmore intersection, or in the Tenderloin/downtown areas, visit the project website at www.GearyBRT.org.

Monday, January 30 Fillmore Police Station Community Room

1125 Fillmore Street @Turk

Tuesday, January 31 Richmond Police Station Community Room

461 6th Avenue @Geary

Come to any 30-minute session to learn more about the study and provide your feedback.

12:00 pm ▪ 1:00 pm ▪ 2:00 pm ▪ 3:00 pm

AT T E N D U P C O M I N G O UTR E A C H E V E N T S o n J A N U A R Y 3 0 & 3 1 f o r B U S I N E S S E S

▪ Learn more about proposed transit and pedestrian improvements on Geary Boulevard ▪ ▪ Hear what is being proposed to improve access and mitigate impacts to local businesses ▪

▪ Review and comment on the proposed designs ▪

Project Goals - The Geary Citizens Advisory Committee (GCAC) helped establish the project goals, which recog-nize that a major transit investment must not only im-prove transit operations, but also improve the neighbor-hoods that the transit route serves. The goals fall into four main categories: ■ Robust and Stable Ridership ■ Efficient, Effective & Equitable Transit Service ■ Neighborhood Livability & Commercial Vitality ■ Transit Priority Network System Development

Transportation Needs on Geary - Mobility on Geary has deteriorated. Almost 50,000 daily transit riders rely on bus service that is slow, unreliable and crowded. As a result, more people are switching to driving. A recent evaluation of existing transit conditions on Geary identi-fied the following priority needs: ■ Rapid transit service needed to serve northern SF ■ Better balanced needs of autos, transit & peds ■ Ridership & congestion warrant all day treatment ■ Pedestrian safety improvements a high priority

g e a r y B R T . o r g

09 08

How will the BRT Project benefit my business? Faster and more reliable transit service will result in more peo-ple traveling to the Geary corridor for shopping, restaurants, and other commercial activities. Pedestrian improvements and landscaping will also make Geary a more pleasant place to shop and stroll. Will reducing a traffic lane on Geary divert traffic to nearby streets? The Study team is currently evaluating traffic diversions. In areas where a traffic lane is removed, experience with other projects of this type and scale has shown that not all diver-sions will shift to local streets. Some drivers will switch to transit or walking, while others will change the time of day they travel. We also expect that some drivers will continue to use Geary because it has fewer stop signs than surrounding streets. Planners will work with concerned neighbors to iden-tify traffic calming improvements on nearby streets as needed. What will be the construction impacts? When will they occur? Most of the construction impacts will not occur for 5 to 7 years. BRT can be built a few blocks at a time while maintain-ing transit service and auto access to businesses during the construction. Since construction of BRT is fairly straightfor-ward in most sections, it can amount to a matter of weeks and months, not years (impacts could be more extensive at Fill-more and at Masonic, depending on the designs). Construc-tion impacts will be significantly minimized compared with light-rail transit or subway construction. Will we lose on-street parking? Possible parking loss varies by design and location. We have attempted to minimize parking loss for all of the draft concep-

tual BRT designs. The Center Busway with Side Platforms would add parking, because spaces can be replaced where ex-isting side bus stops are moved to the center. For all alterna-tives, we intend to mitigate parking loss (e.g., by replacing spaces on side streets, for example). Will you do an economic impact assessment? The city does not conduct economic impact assessments for infrastructure projects that are deemed to have major eco-nomic benefits. Geary BRT is a major investment for the community that will contribute to its economic vitality. Every project of this scale will unfortunately require some construc-tion and associated impacts, but these will be minimized and the larger payoff will be a more attractive street that draws more foot traffic and customers. Is the decision to build BRT already made? The decision to build BRT has not been made. We are cur-rently in the first phase of the project - developing proposed conceptual designs. At the conclusion of the study this sum-mer, the Transportation Authority Board will consider the study recommendations, including information about benefits, costs, community input, and possible impacts. If the Board supports the project, the next step will be the environmental review (including a no-build option) and preliminary engineer-ing stages of the process. Can we really afford this? Yes, BRT is a cost effective way to deliver improved transit service. The project is expected to cost between $150-$200 million, with about $50 million coming from local sales tax resources. The project is also eligible for up to $75 million from the Federal Transit Administration and is expected to compete well for other federal and regional resources.

Start of Service

05 11 10 07 06

Preliminary Design & Environmental Studies Final Design

Construction Staging & Mitigation

Identify and implement fast-track projects

Conceptual Planning and Design

Frequently Asked Questions by Business Owners

Ways to learn more and have your input heard: ■ come to a business outreach event (Jan 30 & 31) ▪ fill out and send back business survey

■ visit the project website at www.GearyBRT.org ▪ email [email protected] to be added to the mailing list ■ contact Project Manager, Julie Kirschbuam at 415.522.4830

January 2006

BRT Newsletter, Winter 2006

What is bus rapid transit? BRT is a quick and relatively inexpensive way to speed up buses and make service more reliable and comfortable. Buses will use dedicated lanes, get priority at traffic lights and stop at well-lit BRT stations equipped with electronic information displays announcing bus arrival times. What will BRT look like on Geary? The draft conceptual designs for Geary BRT from 33rd Avenue to Masonic are presented below. All of the proposed designs dedicate a lane to transit, which in some parts of Geary will mean eliminating a lane of traffic and in other locations will mean replacing diagonal parking with parallel parking. The distinguishing features of each design are presented below. To learn more about the proposed designs at the Geary and Masonic intersection, at the Geary and Fillmore intersection, or in the Tenderloin/downtown areas, visit the project website at www.GearyBRT.org.

Curbside BRT Center Lane BRT w/side platforms Center Lane BRT w/center platforms

Key Design Features. Dedicated transit lane between parking lane and two auto lanes. Bus bulb added at BRT stops by extending sidewalk into the parking lane. Right turn pockets included at strategic locations to minimize conflicts between buses and turning vehicles.

Advantages. Bus bulbs allow for increased passenger waiting area and reduce pedestrian crossing distances (as do curb extensions). This design is most similar to the current configuration and would require the least amount of construction.

Disadvantages. Parking, turning, and double-parked cars reduce the benefits of the dedicated transit lane. Parking loss is higher due to longer curbside bus bulbs.

Key Design Features. Center dedicated lane separated from traffic by two side islands, which serve as bus platforms and landscaped medians. By narrowing the islands at local stops, there is enough room for BRT buses to pass local buses.

Advantages. Bus and auto movements are completely separated, offering maxi-mum transit travel time savings. Existing bus stops can be replaced with on-street parking to mitigate parking loses in the commercial core.

Disadvantages. This design requires the most reconstruction due to changes to existing median. In addition, this design has the narrowest passenger waiting area (9.5 ft) of the three designs.

Key Design Features. Center dedicated lanes on either side of a wide island, which serves as a bus platform and a landscaped median.

Advantages. Bus and auto movements are completely separated, offering maxi-mum transit travel time savings. Passenger waiting area is widest of the three de-signs (14 ft) and buffered from traffic by dedicated bus lanes.

Disadvantages. This design reduces on street parking at intersections with left turns. It also is the least flexible from a transit operations perspective because buses cannot pass one another.

D R A F T C O N C E P T U A L D E S I G N S F O R G E A R Y B R T

Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Study Workshop Series 1: Summary

O:\BRT\Geary\@Outreach\Final Workshop Summaries\1-Apr05Workshop_Summary_FINAL.doc Page 1 of 10

Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Study Summary of April 2005 Public Workshops

Three Geary Corridor Community Workshops were held on April 13, 14, and 16, 2005 in San Francisco to discuss ideas for a proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system for the Geary Corridor. The general public was invited to the workshops which were jointly sponsored by the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) and Muni. The public was informed of the workshops through newspaper and newsletter announcements, agency web pages, emails, mailed flyers, and flyers placed on buses and at bus shelters. Approximately 112 people attended the three workshops, not including agency/consultant staff. Locations and sign-in attendance for each workshop are as follows:

• April 13: Jones Memorial United Methodist Church (1975 Post Street) 6-8 p.m. 39 attendees

• April 14: San Francisco Senior Center (481 O’Farrell Street) 6-8 p.m. 23 attendees

• April 16: Self Help for the Elderly Center (408 22nd Avenue) 10 a.m.-12 p.m. 50 attendees At the workshops, PowerPoint presentations were made explaining BRT concepts, describing the Geary Corridor history and environment, and explaining current traffic and transit patterns. Following the workshops, the meeting broke out into smaller focus groups (about 5-7 attendees) facilitated by agency and consultant staff. Attendees were asked to describe their current experience on Muni and suggest where improvements could be made. In addition, the focus groups gauged reaction to BRT concepts and noted ideas for how to improve the overall Geary Corridor environment. Comments were recorded on tablets and easels. Below is a summary of comments from the focus groups. There were a total of 13 focus groups from the three workshops. Comments from the three workshops are combined. Please note that this summary does not include comments from Comments Sheets that were distributed to attendees. These comments were recorded separately and most who submitted comment sheets participated in the focus groups. Comments are organized in a progressive fashion, beginning with comments from riders about their current experience on Muni and moving into visions and desires for the future of the Geary Corridor as it relates to a BRT system. Comments involving specific topics such as fare collection and bicycle concerns are categorized separately. Where a comment was recorded more than once, it is counted in parentheses. Overall, participants felt passionately about their transit experiences along the Geary Corridor. Most wanted to see significant improvements in service and embraced the BRT concepts presented at the workshop. Specifically, participants would like to see dedicated bus lanes, running down Geary on a central BRT alignment.



Comments from Geary Corridor Workshops April 13, 14 & 16, 2005

Current Bus Service Conditions on Geary

• Bus Bunching is a problem. (7) • Transfers are difficult; better coordination needed between lines. (5) • Too many transfers force people to drive their own cars, use other options. • Bus stop placement too frequent, especially in downtown. (3) • Geary is straightforward – good link to destinations, frequent service. • Everyday – overcrowded buses at Rush Hour. • Speed and reliability need improvement – (e.g. takes an hour to Cliff House). (3) • Delays in a.m., especially with street cleaning, deliveries. • Delays in p.m. involve traffic, pedestrian crossings. • Market to Van Ness is very slow, most congestion, especially bad after 6 p.m. • 38 slow, crowded – all the major lines are crowded – additional capacity needed. (3) • 38 a relatively good line in terms of service. • 38 A/B Express Service – good. • 38L is much preferable to the 38. • 38 L stops at 6:30 p.m., not on Sunday. • ¾ Limiteds go by while waiting for local service. • Signals aren’t timed, confusing. (2) • Fillmore buses hard to find in p.m. • Service at night – too crowded, infrequent. • Feeder bus services are inadequate. • Need more routes/service frequency. • Inner Geary – need more Express Bus options. • Transfers late at night aren’t coordinated • More buses needed after 10 p.m. • Owl undependable; lack of service after 2 a.m. • Schedules OK on hour and half hour but unreliable in between. • Overcrowded bus – few riders get off – Van Ness-Powell – 38 AX and 38 BX all day. • Inner and Outer Geary equality issues. • Takes 3 buses to get here from 11th and Balboa. • Would like less traffic, all heavy with traffic. • Bus drivers don’t stop for passengers. • Keep up the good work on Muni.

Current “On Bus” Experience on Geary

• Buses on Geary are too crowded. (3) • Overcrowding also caused by packages, backpacks, etc. (2) • Hard to hang on with packages – bus design. • Bus should have places for luggage; places to stand without bars. (2) • People with kids – hard to hold on when buses jerk. • Articulated buses move around too much. • East of Inner Richmond – buses are very crowded; for disabled it’s very challenging. • Lack of seating/comfort for long trips – local riders take seats from thru-riders. (2)



• Lack of seating – Hyde & Geary, St. Francis. • Existing buses too small. • Pickpockets big problem on crowded 38 Geary and 30 Stockton. (2) • Homeless people on 38 affect rider experience. • Wheelchair boarding slows bus down. • Doors get crowded. • Steps much too high. • Enter/exiting vehicles conflicting w/ pedestrian traffic, on narrow sidewalks • Dangerous getting off buses (center lanes), drivers turn right in front of buses. • Auto request to exit at rear door is annoying. • The street announcements are very helpful. • Onboard announcements good – but need to synchronize better. • Hostile drivers – experience riding Muni. • Can’t stand the bus going in/out of traffic.

Current Bus Stop Conditions on Geary

• Bus stops – lots of litter, graffiti, less visible. • Bus stops turn into truck unloading zones. (2) • Lack of pay phones at stops. • Phones needed at stops (911, easier ways to call cabs). • Lack of maps and phone books. • Maps are too small. • Lack of bike facility. • Location/design is not user friendly on narrow sidewalks. • Buses not pulling close enough to curbs. • Shelters take up too much sidewalk space; sidewalks already too narrow. • Shelters are too small. • Abuse by drug dealers in the area (Downtown, Tenderloin). • Unused ad space – lost revenue. • Need for real time information (Next Bus). • Some ad content is objectionable.

Current Street Conditions on Geary (non-sidewalk)

• Geary lighting is OK. • Poor lighting. • Buses run red lights – needs enforcement, concern as a pedestrian. (2) • Unsignalized pedestrian crossings. • Mast-arm traffic signals are good. • Existing bus lanes don’t work. • Double parking not enforced. • Double parking – Union Square – Powell – Mason. All the way to Van Ness. • Geary Blvd. is hostile, ugly – a service blvd. for trucks. • Masonic/Geary (Trader Joe’s) intersection very congested. • Gough – Masonic especially bad – traffic, speeds, lack of pedestrian and retail activity. • Arguello/Geary – Difficult area for pedestrians/buses/school activities • Civic engineering at Masonic and Fillmore needs to be undone.



• Side streets are dark. • Access streets are steep. • Diagonal parking leaves dead spaces, triangles could be landscaped • Better markings needed for bus lanes. • Some intersections lack signals (safety). • Too many signs equal clutter. • Proliferation of yellow zones, new 6-axle zones. • One way streets are like expressways. • No painted crosswalks, no countdown signals at some streets. • Diamond lanes not enforced/need barrier.

Current Sidewalk/Pedestrian Conditions on Geary

• Pedestrian countdowns are helpful. • Difficult to cross Geary. • Street width – long crossing – pedestrians get caught in median. • Street is hard to cross – Japantown to Divisadero, 10th Avenue, 17th Avenue, Stanyan. • Ocean Avenue, separates area (pedestrian bridge), hard on pedestrians to cross • Walking – pedestrian bridges are not good. • O’Farrell nice to walk – less cluttered, wider sidewalks make a difference, except when the tow-away

lane is in effect. • Arguello/Geary school crossing – accident waiting to happen. • Sidewalks are too narrow – anti pedestrian. (2) • Geary-O’Farrell are different: Geary more vibrant; O’Farrell has more dark places. • East of Stanyan less pedestrian friendly. • Best place to walk – Union Square area near Alexandria Theater • There are no “best” areas. • Worst – Fillmore, Masonic, expressway areas – dangerous, security issues around Scott. • Pedestrians are road kill at expressway portion (Laguna–Masonic) & Richmond 2nd/3rd Aves. To 30th. • O’Farrell has better trees because the sidewalk is wider. • Street trees take a beating from car doors, bikes, parking, need cages to protect them. • Acorn streetlights were great – current ones light the street, not the sidewalk. • Wider sidewalks make a better environment at O’Farrell between Leavenworth and Hyde. • Poor environment – drug dealing, safety, filthy, no-security (downtown). • Mason is nice. Trees are trimmed between Bush and Sutter. • Overpasses are unsafe, not hospitable to pedestrians. • Japantown could be connected better – median islands. • Geary Divide creates two divisions – “good” and “bad” Fillmore. • Tow-away lanes make pedestrian environment uncomfortable; parking is a barrier. • Brownfield streets near 33rd, Divisadero, etc. should be enhanced for community use (e.g. garden). • Better lighting would help.

Suggestions for Improving Bus Service Right Now

• Implement Next Bus system. (9) • Make the connection better, more reliable scheduling, reduced bus bunching. (2) • Improve transfers (i.e., 22 Fillmore). • Timed transfers to the 43 and 44 would help – as well as the 22 and 24.



• Need new buses with more capacity. • Limited should run later and on Sundays. • Rush hours – longer service. • Emphasize bus etiquette – move to the back! • Drivers are courteous – more rewards needed for impressive service. • Bus bulbs in near term. • Prohibit front door exiting. • Education campaign is needed to get people to alight at back door. • No substitute drivers on Express buses; need to be familiar with system. • Allow bus drivers to communicate to other drivers especially for special needs passengers. • Maps, like on trains, would help – they should show where transfers are. • Updated Maps. • Improve 27 service – Spotty, better at ends. • 44th/Geary desires: crosswalks w/visibility, working lights/signs, defined stop areas. • Add Botts DOTS to separate bus lanes. • Implement skip stop operation (A & B buses could allow more bus stops). • Need better lights on the sidewalk (2). • Longer lights needed to cross street, especially at 25th.

Geary Visions for BRT Infrastructure/Service (excludes vehicle/station comments)

• Implement central median BRT lanes. (9) • Implement dedicated BRT lanes. (4) • Central median idea would be safer for pedestrians. • Put local in dedicated lane, Limited in mixed flow. • Center median ones or platforms like N-Judah are not realistic in this neighborhood. • Like median running BRT with amenities for pedestrians (but less safe than side-running). • Dedicated center lanes lose lane of auto traffic. • “Skip-stop” service may be OK. • Better scheduling/frequency/timed transfers please. (3) • TP (transit priority) corridor is a good idea (i.e., 24 Divisadero). • TP advantage – cars see bus going faster, makes drivers want/think they should be on bus. • Loss of left hand turns OK . • Dead end side streets so that buses can move through more quickly. • Want more like rail (linear). • May be advantageous to reduce number of auto lanes with dedicated bus lanes to optimize transit. • Subway mode, station spacing. • Convenient stops VIP. • Have buses stay in center through Masonic & Fillmore undercrossings. • BRT step in the right direction. • Separate design scheme for BRT.

Geary Visions for BRT Buses

• Low Floor Buses. (5) • But not “platform” seating – bad for short people.



• If multidoor/level floor, still may need to prioritize disabled seating, loading near front. • Not sure how side lane would work with packing/loading. • Door on both sides of buses could allow for platforms on left. • Side loading. • Vehicles – better stop and start – less side movements. • Under the seat racks? • More commuter-type buses – coaches. • Red top half on bus. • Back door loading necessary. • Camera on front of bus (for enforcement). • Talking signs – better signage for all. • Smoother rides please/more comfort. • No leaky buses. • Challenge: passenger circulation on buses.

Geary Visions for Improved Bus Stops

• Better lighting. (3) • Create more space around bus stops. • Kiosks on islands/medians. • More inviting signage and symbols. • Near Leavenworth/Geary or O’Farrell – install a cab stand – late night connections. • A central/median stop – would give it more prominence/opportunity to be maintained. (2) • Bring activities to the median (Issue – not enough room – and wind problems?). (2) • Better maps at the stop – highlight the route you’re using. • Better seats at bus stops – more seats – more comfort (at every stop). • Real time info (Next Bus). • West side of shelters should be protected from wind. • Security cameras at stops. • Phones for cabs at stops (like Oslo and Denmark). • Separate colors for Limited/Locals. • BRT stop design should reflect neighborhood, be intuitive, easy to understand for new riders,

different color scheme. • Multiple door entries. • Bulb outs would help. • More seats at the bus stop. • Bricks/pavement – make it smooth, shoe friendly, non-slippery. • Better Awnings that take up less room. • Unique stop identity like Fillmore. • Environment while waiting for bus not necessarily important. • Level boarding – easy platforms to use. • Platforms are not realistic. • Need a single platform shared by all bus types. • Add emergency call boxes at bus stops possibly w/motion detectors to save power. • Stations desired – landscaping, keep clean, like South Embarcadero, N-Judah. • No bulb outs at bus stops.



Geary Visions for Improved Street Conditions • A boulevard plan – more beauty, vision, width. • Beauty is a lower priority – I want a comfortable ride. • Clean up Geary, less strip mall look. • Pavement color would really help for user identification. • Colored pavement – difficult to maintain. • Parallel parking (eliminate diagonal). • Angled parking should be on side streets. • Perpendicular parking in the middle of the street. • Don’t make driving too easy. • Don’t remove traffic lanes. • Vision to extend trench – see handout – that looks cold; no trees. • Deck the expressway. • Pick up trash/discarded mattresses, etc. • Like to see “white” light/not amber hued. • Auto uses don’t belong on Geary corridor – shouldn’t rely on street for staging. • After hours parking on private lots. • Like idea of a strong central “look” while others prefer common elements w/some variety, change

through the corridor. • More traffic enforcement. • Need traffic signal upgrade on mast arms/overhead. • North/South side streets need to complement Geary. • Close off some smaller streets. • Look at one-way/two-way streets to make it safer for pedestrians (driveways are a challenge here).

Geary Visions for Improved Sidewalk/Pedestrian Conditions

• Wider sidewalks please. (4) • More intimacy on the street – width is poorly utilized. • Newsracks can block sidewalks – organize and reduce all clutter. (4) • Countdown signals at all legs of intersections. (3) • Crosswalks should be more visible. • Prefer to have pedestrian crossings at grade level. (2) • Pedestrian scale lighting (i.e. halogen) is needed. (3) • Ladder crosswalks. (2) • Landscaping important – keep trees maintained, needs appropriate spacing. (2) • Sidewalks seating – enhance streetscape, landscaping. • Parking meters – consolidating them would reduce clutter. • Need more trees – fruit and nut. • Better coordination with city agencies regarding other stuff on sidewalks. • Masonic – complex w/ mixed use, retail, art, in tunnel. • Need land use changes at Masonic/Fillmore to create transit/pedestrian friendly area. • Landscaping that doesn’t attract rodents. • Definitely needs landscaping so people can see across Geary. • Feel safe in crosswalks – pedestrian friendly. • Narrow sidewalks – 25th and Masonic – can we widen and add bike lane? • Not so much concrete.



• Avoid big bushes. • Kiosks in some areas. • Cutoff the Fillmore Bridge – fill it in so activity can happen. • Talk to local businesses – bring them into the mix. • What about sidewalk vendors – i.e. fruit stands. • Improve security.

Fare Collection System Comments

• Bus driver should not be responsible for fare collection/enforcement, reduces reliability. • Transfers inconsistency – creates problems with fare evasion, passenger conflicts. • Fare enforcement – people without passes board without paying; drivers allow it. (2) • Electronic ticket to indicate valid rider. • Don’t charge extra for the express buses. • Translink – when it expands, it will help too – all operators. • But fast passes are faster than Translink. • Use electronic Fast Passes/Translink type that is passed at scanner upon boarding. • Ticket machines like those at Embarcadero. • A multi-operator pass would be used by more people. • Need to get a bus ticket inside buses, enter thru any door and pay inside to a machine. • Fare may be more expensive for faster buses – $3 fare for express service. • Buy tickets prior to boarding. • Swiss example – fare machines on the bus.

LRT/Subway Comments

• Make BRT “rail ready”. (3) • Light Rail instead – better amenities, more reliable. (3) • Problem for light rail – intersections – subway would avoid this. • Long term vision must be LRT w/subway downtown. • Need rail to meet demand – buses will fill up with unmet demand. • Subway instead. (4) • BART should be built underneath Geary – solution from 30 years ago. • Subway station at Masonic with cars decked above; redevelop Muni Property. • Vancouver SkyTrain example.

Bicycle Comments

• Bicycle conflicts? • Bike parking – can use meters and get a rack installed on my street. • Dedicated lane is good – could add bikes. • Regarding bikes – safer to ride in left lane to not be next to bus. • Would design a tree protector that serves as a bike rack. • Bike Lane is needed. • Bicycle – quicker than bus – thru Panhandle requires less exertion than 38.

Other Suggestion for Improved Geary/Muni Service (non BRT) • Replace 38 with smaller shuttles that are clearly different from X or L. • Ridership may be light on weekends – terminate on Market on weekend. • Short route from Fillmore to Market.



• Limited stops at cross line transfers, including Polk. • Limiteds and Locals needed for a complete system. • Jitney service. • More frequent local buses – mid day/non-peak hours. • Maybe a free bus zone inside of Van Ness. • Multiple nodes can be accomplished like Market Street. • Consider downtown shuttle. • Divide line between high/low density – Western Addition, Park Presidio, 32/33. • Have 2 lines – one L, one regular – show all lines at a stop, relevant. • 67 Line seems to be inconsistent. • 27 – Spotty, better at ends. • King Street at night – vehicles don’t stop; difficult to make eye contact. • Shift Clement service to Geary. • Offer express service to/from downtown via tunnels.

Big Themes - Comments and Questions

• Bus reliability and maintenance is important. • Need to ask riders’ priorities – within $ constraints – or is $ a function of political will? • Will dedicated lane eliminate need for limited? • If there’s no beauty, people won’t buy in v. beauty is not a top priority. • If street were more beautiful people would be more likely to get out of cars. • As Muni improves, riders will return, especially in Richmond, outlying areas. • Look at the system, not just corridor – all the different elements, cross pedestrian access. • We don’t need fancy improvements to improve these things. • Don’t fix what hasn’t been broken. • Redevelop Muni property • Goals are great, but plan for growth. • Study needs to recognize non-payment. • Consider the entire experience/trip of the bus rider – need more consistent quality. • Performance – as long as it’s safe. • Sell transit – as a way of life. • Some things can be fixed with technology; other things need behavior change. • Make statistics available – cost, ridership, busiest stops, peak hours, service levels. • Convince people to take bus; takes change in culture • Design is later step; solve problem first. • Set up improvement districts. • Raise meter fees to help fund streetscape improvements. • Need to explain benefits, reasons (cost, environment, fuel); presentations need to make this

argument. • Transit policies and land use – more intense/greater density. • Pay attention to security issues – cameras, lighting. • Security enhancements could tap into other pots of money. • If transit were improved, loss of parking would be less problematic. • Transit more important than parking. • Richmond District still paying for failed vision of BART – promised as a transit corridor. • Can bus stops be mid-block?



• What about cars that would be shifted to other streets? • Preference – electric/trolley buses, wireless electric. • More Red Light photos. • Concern that dedicated lanes will be empty in non rush hour (not efficient use of space). • How will plans impact parking spaces – and loss of them? • Geary deserves same level of improvements as other corridors. • Dream – Muni known for content of buses, not color of lanes. • What are engineering issues of sidewalk v. center lanes i.e. Fillmore or Masonic?

Miscellaneous

• Emulate Embarcadero – Slower traffic on Embarcadero. • Less traffic on Embarcadero, not a cut thru route. • Curitiba project most efficient way to move people – all door access. • Get rid of blue bridge. • 673# gives great info. • Interactive Yahoo bus top – keyboard at the bus stop – lots of info access. • Parking lots should be infilled with housing, etc. • 4-5 story max for building (outer Richmond). • Buildings addressing the street.

Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Study Community Workshop Comment Form

We want to hear your comments and ideas for the Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Study. Please take the time to fill out this comment form so that we can include your feedback in our study efforts. I attended the workshop on the following date (check one):

Wednesday, April 13 □ Thursday, April 14 □ Saturday, April 16 □

I found out about this workshop by: mailed flyer□ bus shelter flyer□ flyer on bus□

newspaper/newsletter article□ email notification□ Other___________

I arrived by: transit□ walking□ bicycle□ driving□ drop off/taxi□ Other___________

I typically get to work/school by: transit□ walking□ bicycle□ driving□ drop off/taxi□

I do not work/attend school□ Other________________

For non-work/non-school travel, I typically: take transit□ walk□ bicycle□ drive□

drop off/taxi□ Other________________ Name: ______________________________________________________ __ _ ____ __ Affiliation: _________________________________________________ __ __ ______ Address, City, State, Zip Code: ____________________________________________________________ _ __ _ _____ Email Address: _____________________________ Phone (optional):_________ ___ _ ____ Comments (Use reverse side if you need additional space):

You may return this comment form to the sign-in desk at the end of today’s Community Workshop, fax it to Geary BRT at (415)522.4829 or send it by mail c/o San Francisco Transportation Authority, 100 Van Ness Ave., 25th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102. If you have questions, contact Julie Kirschbaum at (415)522.4830.


O:\BRT\Geary\@Outreach\Final Workshop Summaries\2-Dec05_Workshop_Summary_FINAL.doc Page 1 of 5

Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Study Summary of December 2005 Public Workshops

Introduction The San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) held a second series of four workshops in December 2005 to present Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) options to the community. Workshops were held on December 6, 8, and 10 in three different areas along the Corridor – the Tenderloin, Japantown/Mid-Corridor, and the Outer Richmond. Approximately 200 people attended the four workshops. Each workshop began with a PowerPoint presentation that gave an overview of BRT, a status of the project to date, and details on how a BRT system might be implemented on the Geary Corridor. Workshop participants then broke into groups and circulated among four stations showing BRT options for different segments along the Geary Corridor. The four segments were: BRT in the Richmond, BRT at Geary & Masonic, BRT at Geary & Fillmore, and BRT in the Tenderloin/Downtown. Each participant was given a survey to fill out for more expanded views on the BRT options. The first part of the survey asked participants to choose their top three objectives for the BRT project. Participants’ top two choices were “faster transit service” and “more reliable transit service”. These were followed by two choices that nearly tied: “safer pedestrian crossings” and “minimize parking loss”. Respondents were also permitted to add their own projective objectives such as “cost” and “first class transit experience”. (See Figure E.) A total of 118 surveys were turned in at the workshops. In addition, 33 people filled out the BRT survey online. A breakdown of surveys by workshop follows:

• Tuesday, December 6, 6-8 p.m., Japanese Cultural Center (Mid-Corridor) 43 surveys returned

• Thursday, December 8, 6-8 p.m., Tenderloin Apartments (Tenderloin)

23 surveys returned

• Saturday, December 10, 10-Noon, Self-Help for the Elderly (Outer Richmond) 34 surveys returned

• Saturday, December 10, 6-8 p.m., Self-Help for the Elderly (Outer Richmond)

18 surveys returned Large Group Discussion Summary Each workshop ended with a final comment and question session. Here, many “big picture” questions and issues were raised, often reflecting the concerns of workshop area residents and businesses. For example, at the Richmond workshops, questions were asked about the impacts of a BRT system on parking and loading for local businesses. In the Japantown/Fillmore area, more scrutiny was given to options such as filling in the



trench at Geary and Fillmore by traffic-wary residents. In the Tenderloin, with its high impact, pedestrian environment, scrutiny was given to issues of shelter/station area design and security. In addition, there were comments from dedicated advocates about the desire to see LRT rather than BRT on Geary. A desire for a more beautiful and livable pedestrian/transit environment was reinforced at all workshop comment sessions. Concerns for the Geary designs and corridor study were varied. Multiple comments were received regarding whether a BRT system, or even this Study, is necessary for Geary Boulevard. Other comments referenced concerns for traffic deterioration, diversions into the neighborhoods and parking loss, particularly as a result of the dedicated lane. A few participants asked whether the corridor study would evaluate impacts on regional traffic on Geary. Many participants, merchants and residents alike, also wondered about the length of the construction period and are very concerned about the level and duration of construction impacts. Several participants also asked whether the decision to build BRT had already been made, with reassurances that the decision to continue studying BRT on Geary would not be made until the conclusion of this study. Positive feedback on the designs and study were equally varied. Participants commented on the relationship between BRT’s elements and increased accessibility to Geary for a wide range of users, especially pedestrians. Many participants also commented that BRT would make Geary safer for pedestrians. Some participants liked the design options, but wondered whether BRT could be implemented faster than the projected schedule. There was a lot of support for the center alternatives with side platforms, but it came with concerns that it would lead to jaywalking and might be difficult for transit riders who had physical disabilities. Overall, participants were pleased to see pedestrian improvements and greening/landscaping elements including in the BRT designs. Survey Data Summary, including breakout group comments The survey asked respondents to assess and score different BRT options along the Geary Corridor. Respondents were asked to score the options and their features (i.e. transit service improvement, pedestrian access, bike access) using the following values:

1-Excellent, 2-Good, 3-Fair, 4-Worst. Numerical averages and number of responses are found in tables at the end of this summary. In addition, respondents were encouraged to comment on the options both on the survey and during the workshop breakout groups where comments were recorded. Based on feedback from community partners and workshop participants, the online survey was shortened. It did not include the ranking system, but continued the opportunity to provide qualitative comments. A summary of the data for all of the BRT survey options, including representative comments, is below: A. BRT in the Richmond Respondents were asked to assess three BRT options:

• R1: Curbside BRT • R2: Center Lane BRT Option A (side

platform) • R3: Center Lane BRT Option B

(center platform)



Numerical rankings (Figure A) indicate a clear preference for the R2 option across all workshops with average ratings of between good and excellent on all features. Favorable comments on R2 focused on the benefits of a center, dedicated bus lane that would keep bus and car traffic separate. Many believe this option would result in speedier, focused, and more comfortable bus service that would attract new riders. Many see this center lane option as a comprehensive solution that incorporates the goals of BRT while also providing opportunities to improve the area’s streetscape, landscaping, and station waiting areas. Some also mentioned the rail ready potential of the option. Concerns about R2 focused on the loss of a traffic lane in either direction and potential loss of parking as well as pedestrian safety/access issues involved in crossing the streets to center waiting areas. Business-minded comments addressed concerns about disruption of current pedestrian patterns. R3 was ranked second with most features ranked between good and fair, tilting toward good. Many of the R2 comments were echoed here. For some, the left side loading buses raised a big concern as this would require a special procurement of buses that could only be used on a BRT line. The inability of BRT buses to pass local bus service in this option was also noted. R1, the curbside option, was ranked third, with most features scoring fair. Many comments note that curbside BRT would not be an effective improvement as cars would still need to use bus lanes for turning movements and double parking would prevent efficient BRT. “Curbside BRT is too close to…current,” noted one respondent. B. BRT at Geary and Masonic Respondents were asked to assess two BRT options:

• M1: Surface BRT • M2: Underground BRT

M1 slightly outranked M2 on most features (Figure B), except for the most encompassing – greatest improvement in transit service. Here, M2 was seen as a slightly better choice. Overall, M1 received solid “good” rankings while M2 straddled between good and fair scores Comments on M1 and M2 focused more on potential problems with both options rather than affirming support for either. While many recognized that M2 would likely speed buses through the area, many focused on concerns about an underground station and the potential crime, accessibility and transfer issues inherent in such a design. Also, concerns were raised about shifting car traffic to parallel streets under M2. Concerns about M1 focused on the mixed flow traffic scheme and the shift away from a center lane system which some see as the best option for an efficient BRT system. Again, car lane shifts under M1 were seen as problematic. Additional comments focused on streetscaping, landscaping, and pedestrian-friendly opportunities for this area under both options. Tablet comments indicate that the public would like more details on both of these options, including traffic flow, viability, and cost. C. BRT at Geary and Fillmore Respondents were asked to assess four BRT options:

• F1: Side Boulevard BRT • F2: Center Boulevard BRT • F3: Viaduct BRT



• F4: Underground BRT F3 was the preferred option among respondents, receiving solid “good” rankings on most features (Figure C). This was followed by F2, also in “good” territory. F1 was next with a fair/good ranking, followed by F4, which was clearly ranked only fair overall. There were many enthusiastic comments for the F3, viaduct option. Respondents were intrigued by the idea of a dedicated bus lane that ascends to a new transit plaza at Fillmore and Geary, presenting opportunities for a new urban space and landscaping that would connect the Fillmore area to Japantown. F4, underground BRT, faced the same criticisms as M2 – mainly, the viability and safety of an underground BRT station. While acknowledging transit time may be saved, critics questioned how easily transfers could be made between street level bus lines and underground BRT. Concerns were also raised about vehicle fumes, crime/safety issues and diverting auto traffic to side lanes. Options F1 and F2 received only a few direct comments. F1 was criticized for traffic patterns that could slow up bus and auto traffic. F2 was questioned for the wisdom of filling in the trench and placing all traffic on one level. Some comments noted potential planning opportunities to enhance this area and link neighborhoods, similar to comments made for F3. D. BRT in the Tenderloin/Downtown Respondents were asked to assess two proposals for improving station areas:

• T1: BRT Bus Stop • T2: Local Bus Stop

T1 was ranked a solid “good”. The local bus option ranked between good and fair (Figure D). Comments on T1 noted the enhanced space around the bus stop – wider sidewalks, better lighting for security, enhanced streetscape, easier bus loading opportunities. A few people pointed out that the design of T2 would allow buses to pass each other easily. Additional comments noted that some of these bus stop improvements can be made without the creation of a BRT system. “This is just intelligent urban design. Doesn’t need ranking,” noted one respondent. Some comments noted the challenge of implementing BRT in this section of the transit corridor with the usual headaches of double-parking cars and trucks. E. Project Objectives Workshop participants were asked to rank their top three choices for key objectives of a potential BRT project. More reliable transit service and faster transit service nearly tied for the top-ranked choice, with more than double the next-ranked options. Safer pedestrian crossings and minimized parking impacts tied for the next ranking, followed by minimizing traffic impacts and enhancing streetscape design. Other objectives include:



• larger/enhanced bus waiting areas • minimizing construction impacts

• better sidewalks and sidewalk amenities • more/improved landscaping

Participants were also given an opportunity to add additional objectives or features, and listed the following:

• bicycle lanes • first-class transit experience • minimize traffic impacts on adjacent streets • cost • low bus fares • bus stop removal • enhance economic development • preserve existing trees • senior/disabled concerns

• anti-homeless hangouts • clean fuel buses • easy conversion to light rail • friendlier drivers • install flyovers to bypass traffic signals • less-crowded buses • more stops/better spacing • safer streetscape

F. Additional Considerations Many participants commented on landscaping and urban design issues, even suggesting varieties of trees to plant. Aesthetic issues were important to participants and many see the adoption of a BRT system as an opportunity to improve the landscape and pedestrian environment in any plan. Among nearly all options, bike access received the lowest scores. Several bicycle enthusiasts attended the workshops, and many would like to see more bicycle access incorporated into potential BRT designs. Conclusions Survey results and workshop comments show strong support for continued discussion of a BRT line and supportive enhancements in the Geary Corridor. However, there were many participants seeking detail on expected impacts of the project. Despite initial support for a particular option at this stage of analysis, some participants expressed opposition to any plan that impacts current parking availability, traffic operations or pedestrian flow. Though many participants have already expressed their opinions on the performance of particular alternatives, others hope to understand more about the benefits and impacts that will result from the detailed evaluation process to follow in the coming weeks and months. Feedback from these December workshops will help refine option choices for BRT in four different areas of the Corridor: Geary in the Richmond, Geary at Masonic, Geary at Fillmore, and Geary in the Tenderloin/Downtown. For the Richmond and the more typical cross section of Geary, community response was divided. Some participants encouraged development of a center-running option, feeling that it would be the most rail-ready path, whereas others expressed concerns on the impact of construction on local businesses and of the project’s potential to change the neighborhood character. At Geary and Masonic, both options received good scores though participants looked for more explanation on how both options will move auto and bus traffic efficiently, addressing factors such as cost, pedestrian/landscape factors, and flow of cross traffic. At Geary and Fillmore all options received strong support, with many participants citing the ability to address several transit/urban planning goals in the area such as reducing the barrier formed by the ‘expressway’ portion of Geary and offer better connections between the Fillmore and Japantown. In the Tenderloin, the options presented focused on station area design which many responded to positively. Some noted that station design changes could be made in this area with or without a BRT system.

Turn in to the sign-in table or send in by fax - 415.522.4829 or mail - San Francisco County Transportation Authority, 100 Van Ness, 25th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102

Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Study

Second Public Workshop Series - Survey and Comment Form

Contact Information

Name: _________________________ Affiliation: _________________________ Address: ________________________ City/State/Zip: ____________________ Email: _________________________

Project Objectives

1. The project objectives are listed below. Please place a check next to the three you consider most important.

____ faster transit service ____ more reliable transit service ____ better sidewalks ____ safer pedestrian crossings ____ better/more sidewalk amenities ____ more/improved landscaping

____ minimize parking loss ____ minimize traffic impacts ____ minimize construction impacts ____ enhance street design ____ larger/enhanced bus waiting areas

2. Are any objectives missing? _______________________ 3. Had you heard of Bus Rapid Transit before this meeting? ____ Yes ____ No 4. How did you find out about this meeting? __________________________________

Participant Travel Patterns

5. How did you arrive to this workshop? ___ Transit ___ Walked ___ Drove ____ Bicycled _____ Drop off/taxi Other: _____________________ 6. Where do you live? (please indicate nearest intersection)___________________________ 7. Check any of the following that describe you: ____ work on/near Geary ____ live on/near Geary ____ have business or personal errands on/near Geary ____ travel often in the corridor 8. How often do you use Muni on Geary? ____ more than 2x/day ____ 1 or 2 times/day ____ several times/week ____ once/week ____ once/month or less 9. How often do you drive on Geary? ____ more than 2x/day ____ 1 or 2 times/day ____ several times/week ____ once/week ____ once/month or less 10. How often do you walk on Geary? ___________ Bike on Geary? _______________


BRT in the Richmond: Building a Great Transit Street

Three conceptual designs will be presented at the Richmond Station: R1: Curbside BRT R2: Center Lane BRT Option A (side platforms) R3: Center Lane BRT Option B (center platforms)

Please review the designs with the workshop staff and then complete the following questions… 11. Which design provides the: (rank the designs 1=excellent, 2=good, 3=fair, 4=worst) R1 R2 R3

a) greatest improvement to transit service? b) best transit waiting area? c) safest/most convenient pedestrian crossing? d) most convenient transfer to intersecting bus routes? e) best opportunity for greening and new public spaces? f) best environment to shop/do business on Geary? g) safest/most convenient bicycle access to the BRT system? h) best character/image for Geary Boulevard?

12. What do you like the most about the proposed designs in the Richmond? __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ 13. What are your biggest concerns about the proposed designs in the Richmond? __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ 14. Questions/Comments: ___________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________


BRT at Geary & Masonic: Creating a Transit Hub

Two conceptual designs will be presented at the Geary & Masonic Station: M1: Surface BRT M2: Underground BRT

Please review the designs with the workshop staff and then complete the following questions… 15. Which design provides the: (rank the designs 1=excellent, 2=good, 3=fair, 4=worst) M1 M2

a) greatest improvement to transit service? b) best transit waiting area? c) safest/most convenient pedestrian crossing at Masonic? d) most convenient transfer to intersecting bus routes? e) best opportunity for greening and new public spaces? f) best environment to shop/do business on Geary? g) safest/most convenient bicycle access to the BRT system? h) best character/image for Geary Boulevard?

16. What do you like the most about the proposed designs for Geary & Masonic? __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ 17. What are your biggest concerns about the proposed designs for Geary & Masonic? __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ 18. Questions/Comments: ___________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________


BRT at Geary & Fillmore: Reuniting Communities

Four conceptual designs will be presented at the Geary & Fillmore Station: F1: Side Boulevard BRT F2: Center Boulevard BRT F3: Viaduct BRT F4: Underground BRT

Please review the designs with the workshop staff and then complete the following questions… 19. Which design provides the: (rank the designs 1=excellent, 2=good, 3=fair, 4=worst) F1 F2 F3 F4

a) greatest improvement to transit service? b) best transit waiting area? c) safest/most convenient pedestrian crossing at Fillmore? d) safest/most convenient pedestrian crossing at Steiner/Webster? e) most convenient transfer to intersecting bus routes? f) best opportunity for greening and new public spaces? g) best environment to shop/do business on Geary? h) safest/most convenient bicycle access to the BRT system? i) best connection between Japantown and the Western Addition?

20. What do you like the most about the proposed designs at Geary & Fillmore? __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ 21. What are your biggest concerns about the proposed designs for Geary & Fillmore? __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ 22. Questions/Comments: ___________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________


BRT in the Tenderloin/Downtown: Improving Sidewalks and Bus Stops

Some BRT elements have already been implemented in this segment of the corridor (e.g., wider bus only lane, right turn pockets and some sidewalk extensions at limited bus stops).

Two representative bus stop designs showing additional transit, pedestrian and urban design improvements will be presented at the Tenderloin/Downtown Station: TD1: BRT Bus Stop TD2: Local Bus Stop

Please review the designs with the workshop staff and then complete the following questions… 23. How well does each bus stop design: (rank the designs 1=excellent, 2=good, 3=fair, 4=worst) TD1 TD2

a) improve transit service? b) improve the transit waiting area? c) improve safety and ease of pedestrian crossings? d) improve transfers to intersecting bus routes? e) create greening and new public spaces? f) improve environment to shop/do business on Geary? g) improve bicycle access to the BRT system? h) create improved character/image for Geary Boulevard?

24. What do you like the most about the proposed bus stop designs? __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ 25. What are your biggest concerns about the proposed bus stop designs? __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ 26. Questions/Comments: ___________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________

THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

Please turn in your completed survey to a staff member and receive a raffle ticket for a Free Monthly MUNI pass!

For those who could not attend tonight’s event, the survey and workshop graphics

will also be available online at the Study’s website: www.gearyBRT.org.

http://www.gearybrt.org/


O:\BRT\Geary\@Outreach\Final Workshop Summaries\3-Nov06_Workshop_Summary_FINAL.doc Page 1 of 5

Geary Bus Rapid Transit Summary of November 2006 Community Workshops

Introduction As part of its continuing public outreach, the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) held a third series of public workshops on November 2nd and 4th, 2006 to present Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) options and alternatives to the community. The workshops presented key findings from the feasibility study and explored the benefits and impacts of bus rapid transit relative to basic transit priority investments. This memo summarizes public feedback gathered from participants at the Geary BRT study workshops held on November 4th at the Tenderloin Community School in the Tenderloin and at Self-Help for the Elderly in the Richmond; and on November 2nd at Jones Memorial Church in Japantown. Nearly 90 people signed-in at the workshops, and overall count of attendees totaled over 130. Each workshop began with a PowerPoint presentation that gave an overview of BRT, a status of the study to date, and details on how a BRT system might be implemented on the Geary Corridor. Workshop participants then shared areas of interest and concern regarding a potential BRT project in small groups facilitated by Study Team members and community partners. The groups used workbooks that contained questions about participants’ reactions to the information presented, as well as questions about the participants interests themselves. Comments from all three workshops were aggregated and classified by common themes. This classification is intended to allow for numerical analysis of the open-ended responses. The frequencies of these categories are shown below. Specific concerns for each neighborhood are also noted.

Findings

About the Participants Workshop participants represent a mix of transportation users on Geary Boulevard, with a particularly strong showing of transit users: two-thirds of workshop participants take the bus on Geary a few times a week or more (see Figure 1 below). Over 40% of participants drive on Geary a few times a week or more. The most common mode for workshop participants is walking. Nearly 75% of participants walk on Geary a few times a week or more. Figure 1. Transport modes of workshop participants

Transport Mode Percent How often do you use buses on Geary?

Every day 42% A few times / week 24% A few times / month 16% (Almost) never 18%

total 100% How often do you drive on Geary?

Every day 13%



Transport Mode Percent A few times / week 28% A few times / month 12% (Almost) never 47%

total 100% How often do you walk on Geary?

Every day 52% A few times / week 22% A few times / month 19% (Almost) never 7%

total 100% Workshop participants attended for a wide variety of reasons (see Figure 2 below). Workshop participants were most interested general transit improvements, however, many people also attended to get more information about BRT generally and for specific details on the Geary project. Many also came to discuss concerns of negative impacts such as variations in parking opportunities, potential business impacts, possible traffic diversions, and impacts during construction. Some people attended because they live within the project corridor or are members of interest groups such as transit advocates, neighborhood associations, or business owners. A few people came specifically to oppose the BRT project, while many came specifically to support it. A few came to learn more about potential light rail conversion or light rail readiness. Interests Aspects of a potential Geary BRT project that most interested workshop participants focused on increased bus speed, improved reliability, and enhanced comfort. Over 40% of comments focused on these improved transit services (see Figure 3 below). Many participants also mentioned physical improvements such as bus right-of-way, NextBus (real-time arrival information), and more efficient platforms and bus shelter designs. Many also mentioned improved streetscape environment and landscape design. Some participants expressed interests in ensuring that a BRT project would be rail ready if future conversion to light rail were pursued. Some participants were especially interested in platform and bus stop design, calling for improvements such as increased protection from wind and rain, more visible signage, and wide platforms as a buffer from vehicles. Many participants mentioned increased landscaping and greenery, both on the platforms and along the corridor. Other participants expressed strong interest in the potential for BRT to decrease crowding on buses, decrease bus-bunching, and create a generally faster, more comfortable bus experience. Key interests include:



• improved landscape/streetscape/design • enhanced platforms/bus shelter/stop amenities • increased comfort • better transit reliability • greater speed/efficiency • more transit service

• real-time information/NextBus • improved safety • signal timing changes • right of way improvements • prepaid fare (proof-of-payment) • potential for conversion to light rail

Concerns The most prominent concerns about the potential BRT project focused on traffic impacts such as diversion of vehicles onto parallel streets, the impact on parking and the unloading of goods for businesses, safety (including pedestrian safety), and negative impacts associated with the project’s construction phase (see Figure 4 below). Many participants expressed concern that decreasing the number of travel lanes would cause congestion on Geary and/or divert traffic onto neighborhood side streets. Some participants were concerned about decreased parking opportunities for shoppers and businesses, and increased difficulty for loading and unloading deliveries. Nearly 20% of the concerns centered on specific design alternatives, such as double-parking and parking enforcement of a side-running BRT, and the ability of buses to pass a broken down vehicle within a designated BRT lane. Concerns about safety were varied; though some participants felt that BRT would offer a clear improvement on pedestrian conditions a few participants expressed concern about pedestrian safety at the BRT platforms. Others were concerned about vandalism at bus stops and the potential impacts of increased stop spacing on the vulnerability of pedestrians at night. Some participants were concerned about potential negative impacts to business and traffic associated with construction of BRT along the corridor. In addition to concerns about specific BRT features, some participants expressed concerns about project funding and the potential impact on available funds for LRT if conversion is pursued in the future. The key concerns mentioned include:

• parking/spaces/loading • safety and comfort • construction impacts • traffic impacts • platforms/bus shelter/stops

• cost and availability of funding • transit speed/efficiency • transit service • environmental impacts

Potential Benefits and Impacts of BRT on Geary A large percentage of participants–66%–expect favorable benefit to transportation and the neighborhood environment on Geary (see Figure 5 below), while 17% thought BRT would bring only low levels of benefit. Participants were divided on the level of negative impact that BRT would have (see Figure 6 below). Overall, while workshop participants thought that Geary BRT would bring high levels of benefit, many also



believed it would be accompanied by some level of negative impact. Participants also varied in their opinion of how well impacts might be mitigated through design and project implementation methods. Perceived Benefits Participants expect to personally benefit from Geary BRT in a variety of ways (See Figure 7 below). Nearly one-third expect to benefit from improved and more reliable bus service. An additional 12% expect service to speed up and become more efficient. Several participants stated that this new reliability and speed would increase their personal transit use. Current transit riders suggested that increased ridership would increase revenue and benefit Muni overall. Some participants commented that the BRT features could revitalize the streetscape and lead to both increased business revenue and a more pleasant retail environment. Others expect the new BRT design to improve the general feel of the corridor, leading to a safer, more “people-oriented” environment. Specific benefits cited include:

• more transit service • improved transit reliability • revitalized streetscape • better speed & efficiency

• environmental benefits • enhanced business / retail experience • improved safety • real-time information/NextBus

Perceived Impacts Participants reported a variety of negative impacts that would affect them personally as a result of Geary BRT (see Figure 8 below). A third of participants expected to be affected by traffic impacts, such as increased traffic on side streets, auto-congestion, and slower travel times for drivers. Many participants were also concerned about the potential loss of parking spaces, particularly along the business corridor. Some commented on the inconvenience of a protracted construction phase: impacting business, parking, and traffic circulation. Safety was an important concern for some participants. Several were worried about having to walk further to the bus stop, especially at nighttime. A few commented on the potential impact to the neighborhood character, such as neighbors and merchants moving out, and that a new BRT system is too complicated for local seniors to understand. Notably, several participants commented that although there would be negative impacts, those impacts would be temporary or short-lived. Cited impacts include:

• potential traffic impacts • potential business impacts • change in parking availability

• construction duration/intensity • change in safety/security • neighborhood impacts (diversions, etc.)

Recommendations for the Next Stage of Study Despite the perceived negative impacts, nearly all of the recorded comments recommend continued study of BRT on Geary. Participants were divided on whether to include all alternatives in the next phase of analysis, or to eliminate certain alternatives. Many participants recommend excluding some of the alternatives from further study; these recommendations are revealing, as shown in Figure 9 below. Nearly 40% of comments recommend not carrying Alternative Three (side BRT or curbside BRT) forward. About one-quarter of participants are opposed to including Alternative Two (peak hour lane) in the next phase of analysis. Participants were most interested in including Alternatives Four and Five (center BRT lanes) for further analysis. Participants suggested a wide range of issues for further study (see below). Many participants wanted further analysis of how the pre-payment system would work: where machines would be placed and how proof-of-payment was enforced. Participants also look forward to further study of strategies and designs to



speed up the bus. Further analysis of traffic impacts and circulation was also requested. In addition to the benefits and concerns mentioned above, key issues that workshop participants would like to discuss during the next stage of analysis include:

• environmental benefits • bicycle access • refinement of alternative design • potential for future LRT conversion

• construction staging and phasing • traffic and transit impacts of delivery vehicles • interim steps for improving transit service

Further study of the impact on businesses was a key concern for participants in the Richmond. Many wanted additional analysis that examined the current demographic and transportation modes of patrons and businesses. Further involvement and input of businesses along the corridor was also encouraged. Supporters of conversion to light rail requested clarity regarding which alternatives were rail-ready, and other participants requested further study of bicycle issues including bike lanes on Geary or a parallel side street. Some participants expressed concern over methods and assumptions, or were concerned about the transparency of information presented. Conclusion Participants at the November 2006 workshops continued to express strong interest in the potential for Geary BRT to increase transit speed and reliability along the corridor. There is also a strong interest in BRT design to improve the urban character, environment, and streetscape on Geary. However, a significant number of concerns remain regarding specific details and how implementation will affect traffic circulation, parking, and businesses. Participants look forward to developing more information on the construction impacts of a potential project in particular during the next stages of project development, along with details on specific BRT features such as stop placement, platform design, and fare pre-payment options.

TELL US ABOUT YOURSELF

How often do you:

Use buses on Geary?

Drive on Geary?

Walk on Geary?

Why did you come to this workshop?

Few times/weekEvery day

Few times/month (Almost) never





ABOUT BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT)

Which BRT features interest you? What BRT features concern you?

ABOUT THE STUDY FINDINGS

Rate the benefits of BRT on Geary:

Rate the impacts of BRT on Geary:

1 53Least Benefit

Most Benefit

How do you think BRT on Geary would benefit you?

How do you think BRT on Geary would negatively impact you?

1 53Least Impact

Most Impact

Near-Term ActionsStudy Report to Geary CAC (Feb ’07)Study Report to Authority Board (Apr ’07)Environmental Impact Report (2007-08)BRT Implementation Decision (2008)

Potential Project TimelineEarly Improvement Projects (2008-09)Final Design (2008-09)Construction (2010)Open Phase 1 BRT (2011)

NEXT STEPS

What issues would you like addressed in the next phase?

What do you recommend?

Move to the next phase of analysis with all the feasible alternatives proposed.

No further action; I prefer the status quo.

Move to the next phase of analysis, but leave out the following alternatives:

Geary Bus Rapid Transit Survey Fax: 522-4829 www.GearyBRT.org

1. How often do you take the bus? ___ rarely ___ 1-2 days per week ___ 3+ days a week

2. What bus are you waiting for right now? ___ Golden Gate transit___ 38 ___ 38L ___ 38AX/BX ___ I’ll take the first bus to arrive

3. How would you rate the current transit service on Geary? ___ Excellent ___ Good ___ Fair ___ Poor

4. Please mark your two highest priority transit needs on Geary

Faster travel times on the bus More consistent wait times (better reliability) Shorter wait times (more frequent service) Less crowded buses Improved safety/security More comfortable bus stops Other: ____________________

5. Please review the list of proposed improvements and mark your two highest priority transit investments for Geary (check 2 boxes):

Expanded hours for the 38L-Limited (including evenings, Sundays) Giving the bus its own lane (dedicated bus lane) New buses with easier and faster passenger loading Better transit and neighborhood maps High quality bus stops with bigger shelters Real-time information about when the next bus will arrive Other: ____________________

6. Had you heard of bus rapid transit (BRT) before taking this survey? ___ Yes ___ No

7. What is your opinion of bus rapid transit (BRT) on Geary?

________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________

(Optional) Name __________________ Email ___________________________ (for Geary BRT updates only)

Surveyor: Time: Location:

GEARY BUS RAPID TRANSIT SURVEY

“Buses have to weave in and out of parking [and] traffic, which causes problems.” “[The] 38 bus is crowded constantly and [it is] very hard to shop or take anything with you.”

“Make it happen!”

“Sounds efficient. A definite improvement on the current system.”

Quotes about Current Geary Service

Quotes about BRT

About the Survey Over a three week period in June 2006, the San Francisco County Transportation Authority conducted a survey to gather input from transit riders about the potential benefits and impacts of Bus Rapid Transit along Geary Boulevard. Approximately 1200 bus riders were surveyed at bus stops along Geary.

Our Findings

� When asked to give their opinion on BRT, ninety percent of riders surveyed responded positively to the idea of implementing BRT on Geary Boulevard.

� Roughly one-third of the riders surveyed have the ability to take the 38L express bus and instead choose to take the first bus to arrive. This finding indicates that a large proportion of the Geary riders who can use limited service, do not see it as distinguishable from the local service in its current form, or they do not have confidence that a limited bus is worth waiting for.

� Survey respondents were asked to identify what they believe to be the highest priority transit needs on Geary Boulevard. Those most frequently identified during this survey were less crowding, faster travel times and shorter waiting time at bus stops.

� Real-time information, expanded hours, and giving buses their own lane were most frequently identified as important transit investments. These results are shown in the graph below.

Highest Priority

Transit Investments on Geary

25% 24%15%

5% 6%

26%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Expanded Hours

Own Lane

New Buses

Better Maps

Bus Stops

Real-Time Info

Frequency

n = 1815; Respondants were asked to chose their top 2 priorities for transit investment on Geary Blvd.

geary corridor bus rapid transit study

Documents