Title 176b83b51c0f9baf5d60f10178040cff98d2a32a945ba8d4cb618412e6bc1740

Project:

Geary BRT Ph. 1

Checklist:

Geary BRT Phase 1   

Name:
Geary BRT Phase 1
    
Description:
The Geary Bus Rapid Transit Phase 1 elements include: •Dedicated bus lanes from Market Street to Stanyan Street separated from regular (mixed-flow) traffic to reduce delays and improve reliability; •Stop spacing adjustments to improve efficiency, including relocating and removing bus stops; •High-quality bus stops, with more room for passengers to wait and additional passenger amenities •Traffic signal optimization to improve traffic flow; •Improved Transit Signal Priority to provide additional green light time for buses approaching intersections; and •Pedestrian safety enhancements to reduce crossing distances at intersections, increase the visibility of people walking, calm traffic, and improve crossing signals.
    
Status:
Approved
    
Project:
Geary BRT Ph. 1
    
Location:
San Francisco
    
Contact Name:
Liz Brisson
    
Contact Email:
liz.brisson@sfmta.com
    
Contact Phone:
4157014791
    
Contact Address:

1 South Van Ness, 7th Floor
San Francisco, 94103

    
1a: What bicycle and pedestrian accommodations are currently included on the facility or on facilities it intersects or crosses? Please check all that apply.
    
Class I bicycle paths
Class II bicycle lanes
Class III bicycle routes
Class IV bikeways
Bicycle boxes
Raised separated bikeways
Bicycle Boulevards
Bicycle parking
Sidewalks on one side or both sides of street
Marked crosswalks
Protected intersection
Painted conflict zones
Narrow unpaved path
Pedestrian-actuated traffic signals or routine pedestrian cycle
Bulb-outs
Bicycle actuated traffic signals or routine bicyclist cycle
High visibility crosswalks
Pedestrian-level lighting
ADA-compliant ramps
Traffic signal push buttons
Refuge islands on roadways
Transit shelter
Wide curb lanes
Right turn only lanes
Transit vehicle stops
Pedestrian countdown signals
Way-finding or directional signage
None

     
: Other
    
Pedestrian overcrossing structures

     
: Please provide specifics of any items checked above.
    
As Geary Boulevard is a long, complex urban corridor, the specific bicycle and pedestrian features vary along its length. Checked items exist only at selected locations along the corridor, except for sidewalks, marked crosswalks, and a routine pedestrian cycle. Intersecting Bike Routes: Bike Lane - Arguello Boulevard, Webster St, Polk St Shared Lane Bike Routes - Presidio Ave, Steiner St Other bike routes - 34th Ave, 23rd Ave, 15th Ave, 8th Ave, 3rd Ave

     
1b: If there are no existing pedestrian or bicycle facilities, how far from the proposed project are the closest parallel bikeways and walkways?
    
0-1/4 mile
1/4 mile to 1/2 mile
1/2 mile to 1 mile
1+ mile

     
1c: Please indicate needed pedestrian, bicycle, or transit improvements in the project area that staff or the public have identified
    
Improved lighting
sidewalks
Improve intersections
Mid-block crossings
Accommodations for the elderly or disabled or school age children
School age children
Transit shelters
ADA facilities
Widened curb lanes
Bicycle parking
Traffic signals responsive to bicycles
Shorter vehicular traffic signal cycles
Addressing choke points or gaps in pedestrian or bicycle
RR crossings
Bike racks on busses
Widened or better-lit under crossings
Removed slip lanes
Right turn only lanes
None

     
: Other
    
Protected left-turn phases, cross bike intersection markings, bike signals, and potentially bike boxes and signal timing changes, red zone daylighting to improve pedestrian visibility, opening closed crosswalks, introducing new crosswalks, new signalized pedestrian crossings, road diet of expressway segment from 8 lanes total to 4 general purpose travel lanes and 2 bus only lanes, new and improved median refuges, dedicated bus lanes, bus and pedestrian bulbs.

     
1d: Please describe the overall context of the project area:
    
The Geary Phase 1 project corridor extends from downtown San Francisco in the east to Stanyan Street in the west and is home to one of the busiest bus corridors west of the Mississippi with over 52,000 daily riders. Geary Boulevard is also a designated Vision Zero high-injury corridor, meaning it hosts a disproportionate number of traffic-related crashes due to the high density of multimodal users combined with a street design oriented toward automobiles. The City’s WalkFirst study (2012) identified Geary Boulevard as a top-priority corridor for pedestrian safety improvements because of the corridor’s very high rate of pedestrian injury and role as a key street for pedestrian activity. Many of its intersections see pedestrian volumes greater than 500 in the p.m. peak hour, with pedestrians numbering as many as 4,000 at a few intersections. Geary travelers are eight times more likely to be hit by traffic than the citywide average, and collisions are particularly concentrated at intersections in the eastern half of the corridor. The corridor’s existing street and streetscape environment, much of which was designed to funnel east-west traffic quickly across the city, do not provide a high-quality experience for pedestrians and transit riders. Geary Boulevard has as many as ten traffic lanes at some intersections, crosswalks are missing in some locations, and many stops lack amenities. Bus stops without transit bulbs make it difficult for buses to pull even with the curb for easy passenger boarding and create congested conditions at busy stops because riders must wait on sidewalks in the flow of pedestrian traffic.

     
1e: What existing challenges could the proposed project improve for bicycle, pedestrian, or transit travel in the vicinity of the proposed project?
    
Unresponsive signals to bicycles
Lack of bicycle parking
Freeway on-off ramps
Narrow curb lanes
Choke points
RR crossings
No bike racks on buses
Wide roadway crossings
Long signal cycles which require pedestrians to wait long periods of time
Short signal crossing times
Narrow undercrossings, overcrossings
Slip lanes
Sidewalk obstruction or missing sidewalk
Pedestrian-level lighting
Lack of ADA compliant facilities
Lack of Transit vehicle stops

     
: Other
    
Lack of dedicated bus lanes west of Gough

     
2a: What trip generators (existing and future) are in the vicinity of the proposed project that might attract walking or bicycling customers, employees, students, visitors or others?
    
Educational institutions
Transit stations
Senior centers
High-density land uses
Downtowns
Shopping areas
Medical centers
Major public venues
Government buildings
Parks

     
: Other
    

     
3a: Have you considered collisions involving bicyclists and pedestrians along the route of the facility?
    
Yes

     
: If so, please provide the number of collisions and describe the outcomes of each:
    
There were 149 pedestrian collisions in the period 2010-2014, including two fatalities. Overrepresented collision types include collisions involving left turning vehicles (about 40 percent versus 25 percent city-wide) and those involving speeding (about 30 percent compared to 14 percent citywide). There were 69 bicycle-automobile collisions in the period 2006-2010.

     
: If so, what resources have you consulted?
    
SWITRS, The Mayor’s Pedestrian Strategy and WalkFirst Study.

     
4a: Do any adopted plans call for the development of bicycle or pedestrian facilities on, crossing or adjacent to the proposed facility/project?
    
City or town bicycle plan
Countywide bicycle plan
City or town pedestrian plan
Countywide pedestrian plan
Combined bicycle and pedestrian plan
ADA transition plan
General plan
Specific plan
Regional transportation Plan
Sales tax expenditure plan
Station area access plan
No plans

     
: Other
    
San Francisco Better Streets Plan WalkFirst Investment Plan Plan Bay Area 2040 (anticipated) 2013 Plan Bay Area Transportation 2030

     
: Is the proposed project consistent with these plans?
    
Yes

     
5a: Do any local, statewide or federal policies call for incorporating bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities into this project?
    
Caltrans Deputy Directive 64
Caltrans Highway Design Manual (Chapter 1000)
ACR 211
MUTCD 2003
MUTCD California supplement
Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG)
MTC Pedestrian Districts Study
None
more

     
: Other
    

     
: If so, have the policies been followed?
    
Yes

     
5b: N/A
    
Yes

     
5c: If this project includes a bicycle and/or pedestrian facility, which applicable design standards or guidelines have been followed?
    
AASHTO bicycle and pedestrian design guides
Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines
Caltrans Design Information Bulletin 89
Caltrans Highway Design Manual
Caltrans California MUTCD
Caltrans Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in California
FHWA MUTCD
ITE Designing Urban Walkable Thoroughfares
NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide
N/A - no bicycle or pedestrian facilities included
None

     
6a: What comments have been made regarding bicycle and pedestrian accommodations at BPAC, stakeholder, or public meetings at which the proposed project has been discussed?
    
This project has been the subject of extensive public discussion in planning processes dating back as far as 1995. Community input and the Geary BRT Citizens Advisory Committee (GCAC) helped define details of the project from the beginning In response to stakeholder feedback regarding pedestrian safety, additional pedestrian crossing improvements, including bulbs, were incorporated into the project between the Draft and Final EIR. . SFBC and WalkSF both testified in support of the project at the SFCTA Board environmental certification and project approval on January 5, 2017.

     
: How have you responded to comments received?
    
The project incorporates numerous changes made in response to community input received, including incorporating additional pedestrian safety and access improvements.

     
7a: What accommodations, if any, are included for bicyclists and pedestrians in the proposed project design?
    
Class I bicycle paths
Class II bicycle lanes
Class III bicycle routes
Class IV bikeways
Bicycle boxes
Raised separated bikeways
Bicycle Boulevards
Bicycle parking
Sidewalks on one side or both sides of street
Widened sidewalks
Marked crosswalks
Protected intersection
Painted conflict zones
Narrow unpaved path
Pedestrian-actuated traffic signals or routine pedestrian cycle
Bulb-out
Bicycle actuated traffic signals or routine bicyclist cycle
High visibility crosswalks
Pedestrian-level lighting
ADA-compliant ramps
Traffic signal push buttons
Refuge islands on roadways
Transit shelters
Wide curb lanes
Right turn only lanes
Transit vehicle stops
Pedestrian countdown signals
Way-finding or directional signage
None

     
: Other
    
Elimination of unprotected left turns New pedestrian crossings New corner bulb-outs and transit bulbs New painted safety zones New median refuge islands New pedestrian signals Accessible pedestrian signals Crosswalk striping improvements Cross bike intersection markings Red zone daylighting to improve pedestrian visibility, opening closed crosswalks, introducing new crosswalks, new signalized pedestrian crossings, road diet of expressway segment from 8 lanes total to 4 general purpose travel lanes and 2 bus only lanes

     
8a: Will the proposed project remove an existing bicycle or pedestrian facility or block or hinder bicycle or pedestrian movement?
    
No

     
: If yes, please describe situation in detail.
    

     
8b: If the proposed project incorporates neither bicycle nor pedestrian facilities, or if the proposed project would hinder bicycle or pedestrian travel, list reasons why the project cannot be re-designed to accommodate these facilities.
    

     
: Was a road diet or car parking removal considered?
    

     
: What would be the cost of the added bicycle and/or pedestrian facility?
    

     
: If the proposed project incorporates bicycle or pedestrian improvements, what proportion is the bicycle and/or pedestrian facility of the total project cost?
    
0

     
: If right-of-way challenges are the reason for the hindrance, please explain the analysis that led to this conclusion.
    

     
9a: How will access for bicyclists and pedestrians be maintained during project construction?
    
Alternative signed bicycle route
Alternative signed pedestrian route
Separated pedestrian pathway
Other

     
: Other
    

     
10a: What agency will be responsible for ongoing maintenance of the facility?
    
SFMTA

     
10b: How will ongoing maintenance be budgeted?
    
Funding for operations and maintenance of the proposed project would come from existing revenue sources for SFMTA, which include fare and parking revenues, operating grants (e.g., State Transit Assistance), traffic fees, and fines.