
Transit Projects Are About to Get Easier in California - apsec112
http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014/07/transit-projects-are-about-to-get-much-much-easier-in-california/374049/
======
13thLetter
Something of a bait-and-switch. It's not that transit projects are not still
required to prepare enormous reports that take years to complete if there is
any possible "negative impact" \-- it's just that worsening traffic is no
longer considered a "negative impact." The immense bureaucratic snarl still
exists, it's just being pointed in a slightly different direction that fits
the new anti-car political winds.

~~~
epistasis
I can't totally agree with this. Vehicle miles travelled is a much more
relevant environmental metric than "level of service" for cars. While "level
of service" does measure the impact for car drivers, it neglects any
environmental impact, and also neglects other, non-car transportation as being
something that people may want to do.

So now, for the environmental impact report, the metric will actually be
environmentally related rather than "speedy car traffic" related.

~~~
13thLetter
My main concern is that the immense bureaucratic delay is still in place.
"Level of service" for cars may no longer trigger it, but that just means
something else will instead. We can't go on being a nation that takes decades
to build minor transit improvements due to walls of paper.

Well, we _can_ , it'll just suck.

~~~
intopieces
>We can't go on being a nation that takes decades to build minor transit
improvements due to walls of paper.

The sad thing is, the minor transmit improvements are lauded as "marvels".
Being recently back from Hong Kong, taking 15 years to build a 2-mile bus
route just doesn't impress me.

And when you consider that a system like this (only far more extensive) is
already in place in Bogotá [0] and has been for about 15 years... well, this
little 2 mile stretch seems a bit underwhelming.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy SF is improving transit. I just wish it didn't
take decades because it seems like other solutions are likely to come about in
the mean time, which means wasted time.

[0] [http://www.streetfilms.org/bus-rapid-transit-
bogota/](http://www.streetfilms.org/bus-rapid-transit-bogota/)

------
xfour
In this particular case though, doesn't Van Ness function as part of the 101
to get people from the 80 to the Golden Gate Bridge? I'm no car-centric person
but what will happen when you disperse those cars that are making that journey
across, to Octavia and Franklin? Let alone the other way across 19th Avenue,
which is already a mess. Hopefully less people will attempt to traverse the
city but that will take time to change people's routines, during that time I
feel like the traffic impact will be enormous. I can imagine that's why they
needed the study.

~~~
cbhl
SF doesn't particularly care for people driving through the city to get to
North Bay -- IIRC, there have been protests against building new highways
(e.g. along Cesar Chavez / Army St) dating back to the 80s. Drivers will
probably shift to CA-1, or Bay Bridge + 580, or even the San Mateo Bridge +
580.

Ideally we'd also replace cars running along 101-Van Ness-GGB with shuttle
buses for North Bay commuters working at tech companies in SF and the South
Bay.

~~~
jacobolus
They’ve been protesting against wrecking the city with shitty highways since
long before the 80s.

Here was the freeway plan from 1948.
[http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~25...](http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~258970~5522255)

Thankfully SF residents blocked it, and the city was mostly saved, unlike many
other US cities which had their urban centers completely destroyed in
~1940–1980 by freeways and parking lots.

------
HillaryBriss
Bus-only lanes make a lot of sense in high traffic areas. The time has
definitely come for this sort of thing in many California cities. They should
put some on the 405 through the Sepulveda corridor in Los Angeles.

------
ChuckMcM
From 2014, not sure much has changed in a little over a year

~~~
porsupah
Construction is apparently expected to begin in early 2016.

[https://www.sfmta.com/news/project-updates/construction-
cont...](https://www.sfmta.com/news/project-updates/construction-contract-
awarded-and-tree-hearing-notices-posted)

The project's home page:

[https://www.sfmta.com/projects-planning/projects/van-ness-
co...](https://www.sfmta.com/projects-planning/projects/van-ness-corridor-
transit-improvement-project)

Interestingly, they're - remarkably sensibly - taking advantage of all the
activity to replace the firefighting water system, sewers, lighting, and
overhead bus electrical systems.

------
1024core
This is a stupid idea, IMHO. Most maps label the Van Ness Ave as "Hwy 101".
When tourists come from the south, they'll naturally keep on 101.

If you look at the concept figure, there'll be 2 "lanes" on either side. If
you reserve 1 lane for parking, you've reduced Van Ness to 1 lane of road in
each direction.... a disaster in the making!

Surface transport is risky anyways: what if there's an injury accident (as
happens _all_ the time on roads), and ambulances block the transit bus?
Whoops, no more "rapid" in BRT!

The solution is either a subway (expensive), or an overhead line (fugly). Not
BRT.

~~~
epistasis
First, the rendering does not show a lane of parking, so Van Ness is going
from 3 lanes to 2.

Second, current bus traffic on Van Ness makes it effectively 2 lane for car
traffic. The lane nearest to the sidewalk has a stopped bus every few blocks,
and there's lots of inefficiencies with cars getting stopped, then waiting for
an opening to get around the bus. Making the lane dedicated will not decrease
car throughput significantly,while simultaneously increasing transit
throughput for the busses.

Third, a temporary slowdown does not stop BRT from being rapid all the rest of
the time.

BRT is an inexpensive way to increase throughput on existing infrastructure.
Though I would heavily support subway, BRT will improve transit much sooner.

Finally, BRT can easily coexist with subway, and will likely be used heavily
when subways finally do get built. So opposing the near-term improvement does
not damage longer term possibilities for improvement.

~~~
the_watcher
Yea, if you've ever driven on Van Ness, you know that buses already occupy a
lane entirely to themselves, and people trying to get around them cause all
kinds of traffic headaches. This is actually a logical solution to an existing
problem, not a stupid idea.

