Van Ness BRT moves toward a hybrid center‑running locally preferred alternative; planners outline benefits and funding gaps

The Planning Commission received an informational update on the Van Ness Bus Rapid Transit project on May 8, when agency planners outlined a recommended locally preferred alternative (LPA) that blends center‑running and side‑running features to balance transit performance with construction and procurement risks.

Michael Schwartz of the County Transportation Authority and members of the SFMTA team described the proposed hybrid alignment: buses would operate outside the median for portions of the corridor and transition toward center-running at stations to allow right‑side boarding from raised platforms. Planners said this configuration captures most of the reliability and travel‑time benefits of fully center‑running options while reducing procurement risks associated with unusual vehicle door configurations.

Key elements discussed included consolidation of stops (roughly 15 northbound and 14 southbound stops reduced to about 9 and 8), measures to reduce left turns (design option limiting left turns to a single signalized location in each direction), pedestrian improvements (countdown signals, audible signals, corner bulbs), and tradeoffs around median planting and parking. Planners acknowledged significant unavoidable traffic circulation impacts at a handful of intersections in future-year analyses but said similar congestion levels also exist in no‑build scenarios.

Planners presented a preliminary cost range of roughly $90–130 million (staff noted refinement is ongoing) and said $100 million in funding had been identified in part: $20 million from Proposition K, a portion from Small Starts (the staff discussion referenced a $75 million figure) and programmed FTA funds. The presenters also emphasized outreach steps, interagency coordination with Caltrans (because Van Ness is US‑101), and a schedule target of starting construction in 2015 with opening anticipated in 2016.

Public commenters and commissioners raised points about preserved accessibility for seniors and people with disabilities, the length of walking distances between consolidated stops, potential diversion impacts for cross streets and neighborhoods, and whether incremental measures could achieve similar benefits at lower cost. Planners said the center or hybrid center options best meet the project’s transit‑performance goals but will require further design refinement and coordination before final environmental certification and funding close-out.

What happens next: the County Transportation Authority and MTA boards were scheduled to consider adoption of the LPA and inclusion in the final environmental document; the planning commission may see related general-plan referrals or amendments after environmental certification.