Geary_App_H Perancangan Terminal Bus

7/28/2019 Geary_App_H Perancangan Terminal Bus

1/20

Memorandum

Date: 5.17.06 RE: Geary Citizens Advisory CommitteeMay 18, 2006

To: Geary Citizens Advisory Committee

From: Julie Kirschbaum Senior Transportation Planner

Through: Tilly Chang Deputy Director for Planning

Subject: INFORMATION Provide Input on the Pedestrian, Urban Design, and Transit RiderExperience Analysis for the Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Study

Summary

Improving the transit rider experience, pedestrian conditions and the quality of the streetscape are major priorities forthe BRT project and respond directly to the needs assessment and community feedback received to date. Theevaluation of the pedestrian conditions and urban design improvements applies the criteria established in theEvaluation Framework (approved by the GCAC in March 2006) to the prototypical designs presented at the secondseries of public workshops. The analysis is based on the physical dimensions of the conceptual designs, as well as aqualitative review by agency staff and the project consultants. Each metric is described in a written matrix and thenassigned a relative ranking 1 through 5. Scoring in some sub-categories will change with the completion of thequantitative analysis and landscaping analysis, to be completed in July. Generally, the preliminary results show that thebuild alternatives represent a major improvement over the no-project. Across alternatives, the rankings variedsignificantly by category and location. We are seeking input on the pedestrian, urban design, and transit riderexperience analysis for the Geary Corridor BRT Study.

BACKGROUND

The Evaluation Framework for the Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Study (approvedMarch 2006) calls for evaluating the project benefits and impacts by examining multiple metrics thatcan be grouped into the following categories:

Benefits.Transit Operations & Performance; Transit Rider Experience; Pedestrian Safety &Access; and Urban Design & Landscaping.

Impacts/Constraints.Traffic & Parking Impacts; Capital & Operating Costs; andConstruction Impacts.

Some of the metrics are quantitative, such as transit travel time, and are derived from a series oftransportation models currently under development. Other metrics are more qualitative in nature or


2/20

DISCUSSION

The conceptual designs that were first presented to the community at the December 2005Workshops were evaluated by agency staff and consultants to better understand the degree to whichthey benefit Transit Rider Experience, Access & Pedestrian Safety, and Urban Design &Landscaping. The following designs were evaluated:

Richmond 1 (R1):Curbside BRT

Richmond 2 (R2):Center-running BRT with side-platform

Richmond 3 (R3):Center-running BRT with center-platform

Masonic 1 (M1):Surface BRT

Masonic 2 (M2):Underground station BRT

Fillmore 1 (F1):Side boulevard BRT (fill trench)

Fillmore 2 (F2):Center boulevard BRT (fill trench)

Fillmore 3 (F3):Viaduct BRT

Fillmore 4 (F4):Underground station BRT

In addition, a No Project alternative was considered for the Richmond (R0), Masonic (M0), and

Fillmore (F0) sections. Several metrics, such as headway variability and storm water management

,are not presented in this memo because we are still working on the modeling results and thelandscaping plan and analysis. In addition, a variation of this analysis is currently underway for theurban design and bus station improvements proposed in the Tenderloin/Downtown segment of thecorridor.

The analysis was completed in two stages: first the evaluators completed a comment matrix(Attachment 1) for each alternative, and then used that matrix to assign a score on a scale of 1 (low)to 5 (high). The analysis of the build alternatives considered the unique aspects of each of the

conceptual designs, as well as the design features which are consistent across alternatives anddescribed in the design principles and guidelines (approved in December 2006). For example, eachof the build alternatives was assumed to include comprehensive streetscape improvements thatfeature significant new transit amenities (e.g., high quality BRT stations), as well as enhancements tothe general street/pedestrian environment (e.g., consistent street plantings, lighting and curbextensions).

Conducting a systematic qualitative analysis tied to a ranking system requires coordination across amulti-agency team and will likely be refined as the Study progresses. In instances where most butnot all of the metrics in a sub-category could be evaluated, we provided a tentative ranking(noted initalics). The numerical matrix indicates to be determined (TBD), for sub-categories where themajority of metrics have not been finalized. This analysis will be completed for the fall workshops.Finally, through this process we have identified minor changes that improve the EvaluationFramework. We anticipate bringing a revised Framework for the GCACs approval to the Julymeeting


3/20

project and the build alternatives will be even more pronounced after the scoring is completed forwaiting experience and in-vehicle experience because of factors such as more efficient transit

operations facilitated by the dedicated transit lane. Across alternatives, the center alternatives have aslight overall advantage, although the side ranks highly both in terms of wayfinding and perceivedsecurity, primarily because of the natural surveillance of sidewalk activities and the opportunitiesfor locating stops to minimize the walk distance for the dominant transfer direction (e.g., at Geary &Divisidero). The center alternatives rank highest in terms of BRT branding and identity because ofthe opportunity to build signature stations and to have an infrastructure that is 100 percentdedicated to transit.

The build alternatives also represent a significant improvement over the no-project in terms ofAccess and Pedestrian Safety (Table 1.2). Most notably, the crossing experience is most improved inR2, because the wide street is broken into three manageable sections. Since we are not proposing amajor change to the sidewalk in this segment of the corridor, the sidewalk conditions rank similar tothe no-project, with the exception of the side alternative which has a wider sidewalk at the busbulbs and the bus lane offers an increased buffer between pedestrians and auto traffic. The qualityof bicycle access is slightly improved in the build alternatives, because the traffic volumes will belower and there will be no buses traveling in the outside vehicular lane. Some of these benefits areoffset by narrower auto lanes.

The preliminary findings for the Urban Design and Landscaping analysis (Table 1.3) show a slightpreference for R3 center busway with center platforms. Through median and landscaping upgrades,all of the build alternatives create a recognizable design theme by establishing a strong linear axis.R3 ranks highest in this category because it has the most consistent cross section and because themedian is not reduced for left turns. The side alternative offers the most potential for increasedpublic open space because the wide bus bulbs could be used to sponsor additional sidewalkactivities.

Table 1.1. Relative Ranking for Transit Rider Experience

Alternative

Quality o fwaiting and

boardingexperience

Quality of in-vehicle

experience

Wayfindingability

Perceivedsecurity of

waitingriders

BRT transitroute

branding /identity

Total(tentative)

R0: Richmond No-Project TBD TBD 2 4 1 7

R1: Curbside BRT TBD TBD 4 4 2 10

R2: Ctr BRT/Side Platforms TBD TBD 4* 3 4 11

R3: Ctr BRT/Ctr Platforms TBD TBD 3* 4 5 12

* Wayfinding ability for R2 and R3 varies by service plan Wayfinding for R2 is further


4/20

Table 1.2. Relative Ranking for Access and Pedestrian Safety

AlternativeCrossing

experience

Sidewalk

conditions+Quality o f

bicycle access

Employment,retail & consumeraccessibility forneighborhoods

Total(tentative)

R0: Richmond No-Project 2* 3 2 TBD 7

R1: Curbside BRT 4 4 3 TBD 11

R2: Ctr BRT/Side Platforms 5 3 3 TBD 11

R3: Ctr BRT/Ctr Platforms 4 3 3 TBD 10

+ The scores for sidewalk conditions may change based on the speed of adjacent traffic (to bedetermined using VISSIM).

* The crossing experience is much poorer east of Park Presidio than west of Park Presidio.

Table 1.3. Relative Ranking for Urban Design & Landscaping

AlternativeStreet

identity NeighborhoodConnectionsAbil ity to

createuseable

public openspace

Quality,quantity,

character oflandscaping

Quality o fsustainablestorm watermanagementtreatments

Total(tentative)

R0: Richmond No-Project 2 2 1 TBD TBD 5

R1: Curbside BRT 4 2 3 TBD TBD 9

R2: Ctr BRT/Side Stops 4 3 2 TBD TBD 9

R3: Ctr BRT/Ctr Stops 5 3 2 TBD TBD 10

Masonic:The qualitative analysis for the Geary and Masonic intersections highlights benefits of theproposed alternatives, as well as confirms some design challenges that had previously been

identified by staff. In terms of Transit Rider Experience (Table 2.1), both the Surface BRT (M1) andthe Underground BRT (M2) alternatives rank significantly higher than the No-Project (M0). Bothbuild alternatives improve wayfinding by creating a more intuitive transfer between the 43-Masonicand the 38-Geary and by consolidating the existing stops into a signature location between Masonicand Presidio. The two build alternatives rank very differently in terms of perceived security andBRT branding. M1 benefits from natural surveillance at the combined 38/43 stop. M2 is less secure


5/20

Presidio, although the build alternatives have narrower refuges. For sidewalk conditions, M1 alsoranks slightly higher than the No-Project, because it adds needed sidewalk width, especially on the

north side by providing a 180 ft bus bulb. M2 also increases the sidewalk width, but pedestrianshave no buffer from traffic on the service roads, and the traffic volumes are significantly increased.For M1, bicycle conditions are very similar to the No-Project; however, M2 degrades bicycleconditions for two main reasons: 1) the volume of traffic increases significantly and 2) the newarterial lane is much narrower than the existing service roads.

From an urban design perspective (Table 2.3), the Surface BRT alternative improves on the No-Project in the three sub-categories presented: street identity, creating useable open space, andneighborhood connections Both M1 and the No-Project preserve the Muni parcel for futuredevelopment, but the Surface BRT also creates a widened sidewalk/plaza opportunity at thenorthwest corner (in front of Mervyns). The Underground station BRT alternative ranks highest interms of street identity, because the streets cross section is consistent with other center-runningsegments and the strong transit identity contributes to the identity of the street. M2 ranks worse interms of creating useable open space and neighborhood connections because it requires asubstantial portion of the Muni parcel parking lot, reducing development potential, creating a widerroad cross section, and hindering north/south linkages.


Alternative

Quality o fwaiting and

boardingexperience

Quality of in-vehicle

experience

Wayfindingability


waitingriders

BRT transitroute

branding /identity

Total(tentative)

M0: Masonic No-Project TBD TBD 1 3 1 5

M1: Surface BRT TBD TBD 5 4 2 11

M2: Underground BRT TBD TBD 4 2 5 11


AlternativeCrossing

experience

Sidewalk

conditions+

Quality o f

bicycle access

Employment,retail & consumer

accessibility forneighborhoods

Total

(tentative)

M0: Masonic No-Project 2 2 2 TBD 6

M1: Surface BRT 3 3 2 TBD 8

M2: Underground BRT 2 2 1 TBD 5


6/20


AlternativeStreet

identity NeighborhoodConnectionsAbil ity to

createuseable

public openspace

Quality,quantity,character oflandscaping

Quality o f

sustainablestorm watermanagementtreatments

Total(tentative)

M0: Masonic No-Project 1 2 3 TBD TBD 6

M1: Surface BRT 2 3 4 TBD TBD 9

M2: Underground BRT 4 1 2 TBD TBD 7

Fillmore: In some shape or form all of the Fillmore alternatives help bring the neighborhoods to thenorth and south of Geary closer together. They also address the major inadequacies at the busstops, by providing needed platform space and amenities at one of the busiest locations on theroute. For Transit Rider Experience (Table 3.1), the Viaduct (F3) design ranks highest overall,primarily because of its scores for perceived security and BRT branding. Activity on the transit

plazas has the potential to increase perceived security, as does moving the 22-Fillmore line adjacentto the sidewalk. F3 also delivers strong BRT branding because it is a distinct transit-onlyinfrastructure. The remaining three alternatives (F1, F2, and F4) have the same totals. The SideBoulevard (F1) alternative is strong in perceived security, but may have wayfinding challenges fordrivers not familiar with frontage roads. The Underground station (F4) is strong in BRT branding,but ranks poorly in terms of perceived security, similar to the Underground Masonic alternative.However, one advantage of the Fillmore design over Masonic is that the plazas are large enough forpassengers to reduce underground waiting time by relying on NextBus.

All of the build alternatives represent a significant improvement in terms of Access and PedestrianSafety (Table 3.2). The No-Project crossing experience at Steiner and Webster require pedestrians touse a lengthy overpass and prohibits at-grade crossings of Geary. The Center Blvd (F2) offers themost significant improvement because the crossing distance is significantly reduced and the refugesare very wide. For F1, F3 and F4, bicycle access is improved because the service/frontage roadsfunction better for bicyclists when they do not carry buses. The Center Blvd F2 also separatesbicyclists from bus traffic, but the travel lane is narrower.

For urban design all of the build alternatives rank significantly higher than the No-Project, with theCenter Boulevard (F2) ranking highest. The two options that fill in the trench (F1 and F2) do themost to promote neighborhood connections and remove the psychological and pedestrian barrierbetween neighborhoods to the north and south of Geary. The designs that create plazas at Fillmore(F3 and F4) create the most usable public open space. F2 also ranks well for usable public openspace because the 35 ft wide sidewalk/promenade creates a linear park opportunity. All of the build


7/20


Alternative

Quality o f

waiting andboarding

experience

Quality of in-

vehicleexperience

Wayfindingability

Perceived

security ofwaitingriders

BRT transit

routebranding /

identity

Total(tentative)

F0: Fillmore No-Project TBD TBD 3 3 1 7

F1: Side Blvd BRT (fill) TBD TBD 3 4 3 10

F2: Center Blvd BRT (fill) TBD TBD 4 3 4 11

F3: Viaduct BRT TBD TBD 4 4 5 13

F4: Underground BRT TBD TBD 4 2 5 11


AlternativeCrossing

experience

Sidewalk

conditions+Quality o f

bicycle access

Employment,retail & consumeraccessibility for

neighborhoods

Total(tentative)

F0: Fillmore No-Project 1 2 2 TBD 5

F1: Side Blvd BRT (fill) 3 5 3 TBD 11

F2: Center Blvd BRT (fill) 4 5 2 TBD 11

F3: Viaduct BRT 3 4 3 TBD 10

F4: Underground BRT3 4 3 TBD

10

+ The scores for sidewalk conditions may change based on the speed of adjacent traffic (to bedetermined using VISSIM).


AlternativeStreet

identity NeighborhoodConnections

Abil ity tocreate

useablepublicopenspace

Quality,quantity,


Quality o f

sustainablestorm w atermanagementtreatments

Total(tentative)

F0: Fillmore No-Project 2 1 1 TBD TBD 4


8/20

In all but one instance (Masonic Underground BRT), the build alternatives represent a significantimprovement over the No-Project and address key needs identified in the existing conditions

analysis such as lack of passenger comfort and onerous pedestrian crossings. As the qualitativeanalysis shows, benefits such as high-quality stations, landscaping investments and BRT brandinghave the potential to transform Geary into a great street, and start to bridge, rather than divideneighborhoods. We will continue to refine this analysis as the quantitative metrics become availableand feed into our overall understanding of the project benefits.

We are seeking input on the pedestrian, urban design, and transit rider experience analysisfor the Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Study.


9/20


10/20


11/20


12/20


13/20


14/20


15/20


16/20


17/20


18/20

O:\BRT\Geary\Appendices for F inal Feasibility Study\H - Transit Rider Experience Matrices\revised qualitative matrixv2.doc Page A10

Relative Ranking for Transit Rider Experience

Alternative

Quality ofwaiting and

boarding

experience+

Quality of in -vehicle

experience+

Wayfindingability


waitingriders

BRT transitroute

branding /identity

Total(tentative)

R0: Richmond No-Project TBD TBD 2 4 1 7

R1: Curbside BRT TBD TBD 4 4 2 10

R2: Ctr BRT/Side Platforms TBD TBD 4* 3 4 11

R3: Ctr BRT/Ctr Platforms TBD TBD 3* 4 5 12

M0: Masonic No-Project TBD TBD 1 3 1 5

M1: Surface BRT TBD TBD 5 4 2 11

M2: Underground BRT TBD TBD 4 2 5 11

F0: Fillmore No-Project TBD TBD 3 3 1 7

F1: Side Blvd BRT (fill) TBD TBD 3 4 3 10

F2: Center Blvd BRT (fill) TBD TBD 4 3 4 11

F3: Viaduct BRT TBD TBD 4 4 5 13

F4: Underground BRT TBD TBD 4 2 5 11

Notes:+ No score is presented for quality of waiting and boarding experienceand quality of in-vehicle experiencebecause we are waiting for several keymetrics including headway variability, passenger load at the max load point, transit travel time and transit travel time variability.

* Wayfinding ability for R2 and R3 varies by service plan. R2 is further complicated if operated as contraflow service.


19/20


Relative Ranking for Access and Pedestrian Safety

AlternativeCrossing

experience

Sidewalk

conditions+Quality of

bicycle access

Employment,retail & consumeraccessibility fo r

neighborhoods+

Total(tentative)

R0: Richmond No-Project 2* 3 2 TBD 7

R1: Curbside BRT 4 4 3 TBD 11

R2: Ctr BRT/Side Platforms 5 3 3 TBD 11

R3: Ctr BRT/Ctr Platforms 4 3 3 TBD 10

M0: Masonic No-Project 2 2 2 TBD 6

M1: Surface BRT 3 3 2 TBD 8

M2: Underground BRT 2 2 1 TBD 6

F0: Fillmore No-Project 1 2 2 TBD 5

F1: Side Blvd BRT (fill) 3 5 3 TBD 11

F2: Center Blvd BRT (fill) 4 5 2 TBD 11

F3: Viaduct BRT 3 4 3 TBD 10

F4: Underground BRT 3 4 3 TBD 10

Notes:

+ The scores for sidewalk conditionsmay change based on the speed of adjacent traffic (TBD using VISSIM). No score is provided foremployment, retail & consumer accessibilitybecause the travel demand modeling has not been finalized.

* The crossing experience is much poorer east of Park Presidio than west of Park Presidio.


20/20


Relative Ranking for Urban Design & Landscaping

AlternativeStreet

identity NeighborhoodConnections

Abil ity tocreate

useablepublicopenspace

Quality,quantity,


Quality ofsustainablestorm watermanagement

treatments

Total(tentative)

R0: Richmond No-Project

2 2 1 TBD TBD 5

R1: Curbside BRT 4 2 3 TBD TBD 9

R2: Ctr BRT/Side Stops 4 3 2 TBD TBD 9

R3: Ctr BRT/Ctr Stops 5 3 2 TBD TBD 10

M0: Masonic No-Project 1 2 3 TBD TBD 6

M1: Surface BRT 2 3 4 TBD TBD 9

M2: Underground BRT 4 1 2 TBD TBD 7

F0: Fillmore No-Project 2 1 1 TBD TBD 4

F1: Side Blvd BRT (fill) 4 4 3 TBD TBD 11

F2: Ctr. Blvd BRT (fill) 5 4 4 TBD TBD 13

F3: Viaduct BRT 4 2 5 TBD TBD 11

F4: Underground BRT 4 2 5 TBD TBD 11

Notes:+ No score is presented for quality, quantity, & character of landscapingor quality of sustainable storm water management treatmentsbecause we are

currently developing and evaluating the landscape proposal.

Geary_App_H Perancangan Terminal Bus

Documents

Transcript of Geary_App_H Perancangan Terminal Bus