Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planners brief commission on Van Ness Bus Rapid Transit; draft EIR expected mid‑2008
Summary
San Francisco staff and the Transportation Authority outlined the Van Ness Bus Rapid Transit project, describing service goals, safety and station design elements, preliminary benefits (estimated 28% reliability improvement) and a public scoping period already completed; a draft environmental review is expected in mid‑2008.
The San Francisco Planning Department and the San Francisco County Transportation Authority updated the Planning Commission on the Van Ness Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor on Nov. 1, describing the project purpose, alternatives and environmental schedule.
Rachel Hyatt, senior transportation planner with the Transportation Authority, reviewed the project history and feasibility work, noting the study followed Prop K (half‑cent sales tax for transportation) and identified Van Ness as a priority corridor. The analysis documented poor transit reliability and pedestrian safety issues along Van Ness, and the BRT concept includes dedicated lanes, high‑quality stations with prepaid fare, all‑door boarding and signal priority to speed buses. “Every transit trip starts with a walking trip,” Hyatt said, framing pedestrian improvements as integral to BRT station design.
Staff described alternatives under study — center median stations vs. curbside configurations — and noted tradeoffs including potential loss of less than 10% of parallel parking under some alternatives and traffic diversion patterns. The authority has completed public scoping and expects a draft joint CEQA/NEPA document in mid‑2008; locally preferred alternatives are expected to be selected in February (board level) and if advanced would proceed to final design and construction with MTA leading delivery.
Cost estimates presented in the briefing put the project in the tens of millions range; staff noted Prop K and a potential federal grant would be principal funding sources. Commissioners asked about subway alternatives, left‑turn treatments, and parking impacts; staff said a subway was not financially feasible in the near term and that design would balance left‑turn signals and selective restrictions to reduce bus‑car conflicts.
Next steps: draft environmental document and continued outreach; staff invited further technical briefings to the commission as the draft EIR is prepared.
