Comments on: Van Ness BRT: Design Alternatives

By: Aaron Goodman

Aaron Goodman — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 17:55:53 +0000

Extend it ALL THE WAY OUT to the Excelsior, do not make such a short-visioned step towards BRT lines and the Mission and Excelsior neighborhoods along the 49 route and 14/14L that depend on the needed improvement to access jobs, and there housing.

By: Surf

Surf — Wed, 07 May 2008 17:11:27 +0000

I agree with kfarr. Clearly, Design Alternative #3, center side, with two medians, is the only worthwhile plan, completely separating the transit traffic from the auto traffic with it’s own dedicated right of way. In addition, it’s the best design for future conversion to a light rail line, and makes the side streets for autos more human in scale.

By: John

John — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 21:43:25 +0000

I have to agree with M1TK, BRT seems like a cheap half-solution that future generations will find vexing and ask “who the hell’s idea was it to build this thing in the first place”. Furthermore it seems like the proponents of this type of system are same of the same ilk that destroyed public transport in this country in the first place.

By: Eric

Eric — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:12:32 +0000

That would probably be my preferred plan, assuming that no further changes are made. However, we are still a couple years away from finally settling on and approving a design.

By: kfarr

kfarr — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:02:21 +0000

In my opinion, the only ‘real’ option is plan 3. It physically separates auto traffic from the bus lanes and doesn’t require the purchase of new rolling stock.

By: Eric

Eric — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:46:49 +0000

If the T-Third is any example, even surface light rail is not as easy as it sounds like it should be, at least in this town. Admittedly, that project had extra engineering hurdles (i.e. the bridges) that wouldn’t be problematic on Van Ness. Still, even if a subway is preferable, the process of planning (and paying for) such a project would put Van Ness transit on hold for years and years. Meanwhile, current bus service will only worsen as congestion increases.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:15:14 +0000

M1EK, if course light rail is better. Unfortunately there is no money in the budget for the trainsets. BRT if done right is a half measure, but a good half measure. Center lanes create the right of way so that in the future, when the state decides that investing in thing like infrastructure instead of lower taxes for Orange County, building out light rail will be cheaper and easier. And in the mean time center lane BRT is way better than in-traffic buses.

By: Eric

Eric — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 15:41:17 +0000

Stephen: I agree entirely.

M1EK: I’m not sure about Honolulu, but in San Francisco, we already have allegedly “bus only” lanes which permit turns and parking, but which are horribly abused. These lanes, as a very immediate example, immediately cast suspicion on the curbside BRT option.

By: M1EK

M1EK — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 15:29:04 +0000

I forsee another BRT debacle. TheBus in Honolulu got encouraged to use curbside lanes, and then the whole thing fell apart as it became obvious that “bus-only except for parking and right-turn” lanes are useless. Watch for the same dynamic here – I’d almost bet on it.

Center lanes would be almost as expensive as just doing light rail, which, of course, is what you should be doing. You’re going to regret rolling over for Bush’s FTA guys on this one, big-time.

By: Stephen Woods

Stephen Woods — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:32:35 +0000

In my opinion there needs to be no cars in these lanes. The outer lane option will not be a big enough improvement. Drivers will use them to get around traffic if there isn’t a physical barrier. Half measures are just not going to work on Van Ness. This is such an important corridor and it is amazing that its taken this long to get serious about transit down Van Ness.