Posts Tagged ‘brt’

Geary: A Tea House Next to a A Tea House Next to a A Tea House

Tuesday, April 18th, 2017

As seen way out in the Avenues:

7J7C0369 copy

The middle one there I guess could be described as a dessert house, but they serve an awful lot of tea and they have a teapot as a logo.

(Speaking of Geary, you know, if that Geary “BRT” project is so great, you’d think the local Supervisor would be behind it 100%, but I don’t think she is. Who’s paying for the BRT, do we know that? And how much are they paying, like per person? Seems as if the cheerleaders for this joint don’t know/don’t care. Oh well…)

Our SFMTA “Disappears” the Pedestrian Bridge It Hates So So Much – The One Over Geary at Webster – Uh Oh

Tuesday, March 14th, 2017

I didn’t build this bridge over Geary, I’m not responsible for it. But guess what, SFGov put this bridge in, a while back. And then SFGov decided that removing the bridge was “essential” to the Geary BRT project. (The R in there stands for “Rapid,” as if calling something rapid makes it rapid.)

Anyway, here it is IRL:

Captureddds copy

Comes now the SFMTA, with a “visualization” of The Future. Do you see what happened to the bridge?

Geary Rapid - Geary and Buchanan Rendering (1)

It’s gone down the mem’ry hole:

Geary Rapid - Geary and Buchanan Rendering copy

What I had thought was that the SFMTA had gotten pushback on the bridge at Webster and had decided on letting it stay. So IDK what is the status of the bridge is now.

And all the buses will stop at Buchanan? But they decided to keep the stops at Laguna as well? Does that make any sense at all? Is this really a BRT project anymore? Was it ever?

How Hard is It to Get People to Post “CUT THE GEARY BRT” Posters on Geary? Not Very

Wednesday, March 8th, 2017

I haven’t done an inventory, but I saw three of these in three blocks of the inner Inner Richmond the other day:

7J7C8171 copy 7J7C8172 copy

Geary “BRT,” of course, is the plan to replace buses on Geary with … buses on Geary.

(The “R” in BRT stands for the same thing the R in the #38R stands for – RAPID, baby! It’s the phrase of the decade. The SFMTA should change its name to the SFRTA, the San Francisco Rapid Transit Agency. And the SFCTA should be called the SFRCRTRA (San Francisco Rapid County Rapid Transit Rapid Authoritah. And that means that a Geary BART spur (which would be more rapider than buses replacing buses) should/would be called Rapid EXTREME or something.)

As with most federal / state-funded pork barrel projects, there are costs and benefits, and there will be winners and losers.

This “Substandard” Pedestrian Bridge on Geary has a Bright Future in 2017, Despite All Its Haters at the SFCTA / SFMTA

Wednesday, February 8th, 2017

One doc the SFCTA had dissed this bridge 23 times, ’cause the SFCTA thinks it will interfere with the Geary BRT project. And this marketing doc here gets into it a bit.

Well it turns out that this bridge will stick around. Look, about a dozen and a half souls were using it last I saw it:

7J7C6671 (2) copy

Anyway, this bridge will slow down the BRT yet they’re still talking about how the “average” #38 round-trip rider will save a half an hour a day. This seems impossible to me. If they said a few #38 riders might save a half hour on some days, well, that’d be more honest, but you can’t expect too much from the SFCTA / SFMTA…

7J7C5123 copy

Seems Reno is Ahead of Frisco, Transit-wise

Wednesday, December 28th, 2016

But IDK. I’m pretty sure that Reno, NV doesn’t have dozens of public employees whose sole job is to say how great the local transit system is, the way our local SFMTA SFCTA is set up.

Anyway, there’s this:

img_6044-copy

And this, which looks like a BRT system:

img_6043-copy

I guess what I’m saying is that it appears that Reno’s transit system is run for Reno, as opposed to the employees of its transit system…

Bridge Over the River Geary: Despised by Our SFCTA, Yet Beloved By Its Numerous Users

Tuesday, December 27th, 2016

Hey, how many times do you think our SFCTA could possibly insult this pedestrian bridge over Geary at Webster in just one report? Well, 23 times,* by my count. Earlier, it seemed that the destruction of this bridge was vital for the success of the Geary BRT scheme, yet the SFCTA caved and now the bridge has a new lease on life, Geary BRT or no.

7j7c5123-copy

On It Goes…

*Mostly having to do with the ADA, but lots of things are grandfathered in, as the SFCTA well knows.

Oh, I Guess the Hated / Beloved Pedestrian Bridge over Geary at Webster is Going to Stay After All? – Geary BRT Update

Monday, August 1st, 2016

Look at all this stuff our SFCTA was going to do:

Capturefsdfddd copy

Note “Roadway redesign – mid 2016”

Capturefdfsdddd copy

Well guess what – the SFCTA / SFMTA recently caved, so the Bridge Over The River Geary will remain at Webster.

So all these meetings were a big success, or a huge failure for the SFCTA, depending on how you look at it.

And look at all the Haterade that the SFCTA poured over the pedestrian bridges of Geary – and this is just 20% of the references made:

In the Japantown and Fillmore areas, there are closed crosswalks and circuitous pedestrian bridges that are not compliant with accessibility standards for people with disabilities.

In the Japantown area, as depicted in Figure 1-6, some aspects that discourage pedestrian movement and activity include narrow medians and circuitous pedestrian bridges that intimidate some and are not compliant with accessibility standards for people with disabilities.

Spanning Geary Boulevard are two pedestrian bridges at the Webster Street and Steiner Street intersections, where closed crosswalks limit pedestrians‟ ability to cross Geary Boulevard at ground level. These overcrossings are several decades old and, although they provide separation from traffic, are often perceived as an inconvenient way of crossing Geary Boulevard due to the long and indirect ramps, change in elevation required, and some users‟ sense of insecurity. Additionally, the pedestrian overcrossings are not compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), hindering the mobility of people with disabilities.

Pedestrian bridges at Steiner Street and Webster Street: These two pedestrian overcrossings would be removed, to eliminate conflicts between these structures‟ piers and the proposed bus lanes, as well as to provide new pedestrian crossings at street grade.

Two pedestrian bridges span Geary Boulevard at the Webster Street and Steiner Street intersections. The grade-separated walkways allow pedestrians to cross over Geary Boulevard. These overcrossings are several decades old and are perceived as an inconvenient way of crossing due to the long and indirect ramps, change in elevation required, and some users’ sense of insecurity. Additionally, the pedestrian overcrossings are not compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) due to their average inclines exceeding the ADA standard of a five percent maximum grade (i.e. a slope increasing in elevation by five feet for every 100 feet in length), which makes wheelchair crossings difficult.

Like I said, this is just 20% of the vitriol our SFCTA spewed upon these two bridges in just one document. I get the feeling these SFCTA people would say just about anything to get nine figures from the Feds. I mean if the Feds would give the SFCTA $100,000,000 to recommend keeping everything on Geary EXACTLY THE SAME FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS, then I’ll bet the we would have gotten a document what extols the virtues of these bridges.

Anyway, the Webster bridge is staying, that’s the news.

Apparently, People Use the Pedestrian Bridges Over Geary Quite a Bit – A Newsflash for our SFMTA SFCTA Alphabet Soup

Friday, December 11th, 2015

Just saying

7J7C0112 copy

I don’t know if it was such a great idea to build these bridges and I also don’t know if it’s such a great idea to spend big big bucks to tear them down…

This BRT Rendering Shows How Our SFMTA Views Us The People – But Is This a Homeless Person or Just an Old Pushing Groceries?

Wednesday, November 18th, 2015

These are most of the people depicted in this Van Ness BRT proposal from the SFMTA:

MRU - Van Ness BRT 11.16.15 copy

At first I thought the right side showed a stolen metal shopping cart being pushed by a street person, but then I thought it might be a stroller, but then I ENHANCED the image to see it’s a privately-owned folding shopping cart being pushed by I don’t know who.

Of course this isn’t a typical amount of peds you’d expect to find using the crosswalks at this intersection, but perhaps our SFMTA is, once again, being “aspirational.”

And this rendering is a lot better than some we’ve seen in the past, like this urbanist’s fever dream of our already-failed Octavia “Boulevard,” which turned out to be somehow too wide and not wide enough at the same time IRL:

main-qimg-620ed7f35836515536f460f2a63b94e9

On It Goes…

SFCTA Confirms Public Comment Cards for Geary BRT Stolen – But Some Returned “Anonymously” – Comment Deadline Extended

Thursday, November 12th, 2015

Here’s the latest on this issue, from the SFCTA, below.

If our SFCTA wanted to handle this issue with the least possible effort, then I give it an A+, or a passing grade if we’re grading pass/fail. Another approach would have been to notice another meeting and yada yada.

This project has been on the radar for a long, long time, but I never really paid attention to it until the pedestrian bridges issue came up. If the SFCTA were a person and we took what it said seriously, I’d tell you that our SFCTA is in deep denial on this bridges issue.

(And how much would a BART spur under Geary end up costing, like a billion dollars a mile, like our already-failed Central Subway? Is something like this unreachable pie in the sky? IDK.)

Anyway, here it is:

“To the Participants at the Geary Bus Rapid Transit Project’s November 5, 2015, public comment meeting:
Thank you very much for the time you spent coming to the meeting to learn about the project and for submitting comments on the Draft Environmental Document. Your input is important and appreciated.
Unfortunately, we wish to provide notice that during the meeting, at approximately 7:10 p.m., sign-in sheets with your personal contact information and a few completed comment cards were stolen, at least some of which were later returned by mail anonymously. We sincerely apologize for this incident and have contacted the police about it.
We take your privacy seriously. When we share publicly the comments submitted to us by community members, our policy is to remove any personal contact information. We do not share any personal contact information with third parties, nor do we condone the use of stolen contact information by others. Please let us know if you receive any suspicious communications from anyone who would not normally have access to your phone number or email address. It may help with the investigation of this incident.
Third, in response to these extenuating circumstances, we are extending the public comment period until November 30, 2015, and we encourage you to contact us if you submitted a comment card at the public meeting before 7:10 p.m. and are concerned about whether we received it.
Feel free to contact us to verify your comment’s receipt, or simply submit another comment, via email at gearybrt@sfcta.org.
Regards…”