Geary Rapid Transit (Richmond, Pleasanton: construction, price, light rail)

[andyadhi01]

Originally Posted by sav858

You're kidding right? The national average for bus speed is 12.5 mph.

"Muni buses inch along at the rate of only 8 miles per hour, so slowly that potential riders look elsewhere for their transportation, according to a city report.

Muni’s average speed is the slowest compared with other similar metropolitan transportation systems. For example, Boston’s Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority ranks the fastest, at nearly 18 miles per hour, and New York City’s City Transit moves at an average of 14 miles per hour.

Muni has slowed down by 1 percent every year over the last 20 years..."

Study finds average Muni speeds lag | Joshua Sabatini | Local | San Francisco Examiner

Also no one said BRT is better than a subway but it's the most cost effective alternative at the moment. There is not enough money to build a subway. Do you not realize the financial constraints agencies like MUNI have?

I have yet to hear anyone on here offer a viable and comparable alternative.

The difference with Boston and NYC is because they have a real subway. The western and southern half of SF is hilly and suburban and is very much car dependent. Pretending that somehow sunset/richmond are fully walkable in non-sense. This will reduce Geary to one lane road in certain spots unless they eliminate all parking. Thats just insane in area which has a really bad parking situation already. This is purely ideological move and not based on facts.

[rah]

Geary needs a subway, not BRT. BRT may help slightly over the current situation, but there are much better options for improved transit on Geary. Like so often though, SF seems to go for the half-assed idea (the BRT instead of a subway)...but it's not like too many merchants on Geary want any change whatsoever in the first place. Back when the idea for a subway was being kicked around, they opposed that too, just as so many of them now oppose BRT. In their minds, anything slightly out of the ordinary will negatively impact their business. Which is a pretty lame mind set.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by andyadhi01

The difference with Boston and NYC is because they have a real subway. The western and southern half of SF is hilly and suburban and is very much car dependent. Pretending that somehow sunset/richmond are fully walkable in non-sense. This will reduce Geary to one lane road in certain spots unless they eliminate all parking. Thats just insane in area which has a really bad parking situation already. This is purely ideological move and not based on facts.

How is it not based on facts? Did you even bother to look anything up about the project at all before you made that statement? Have you ever looked ANYTHING up about BRT?

You guys should really learn more about current BRT systems in the US and worldwide, they have been very successful.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by rah

Geary needs a subway, not BRT. BRT may help slightly over the current situation, but there are much better options for improved transit on Geary. Like so often though, SF seems to go for the half-assed idea (the BRT instead of a subway)...but it's not like too many merchants on Geary want any change whatsoever in the first place. Back when the idea for a subway was being kicked around, they opposed that too, just as so many of them now oppose BRT. In their minds, anything slightly out of the ordinary will negatively impact their business. Which is a pretty lame mind set.

And what are those options? I still have yet to hear from anyone offering one single comparable option. And if you say subway please explain to me how that would be paid for.

I agree that subways are better but do you not realize how expensive they are and how financially constrained MUNI is?

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by sav858

How is it not based on facts? Did you even bother to look anything up about the project at all before you made that statement? Have you ever looked ANYTHING up about BRT?

You guys should really learn more about current BRT systems in the US and worldwide, they have been very successful.

It's deep green ideology, based on Callenbach's Ecotopia e.g. "carless living."

Great if you are in a truely walkable area, crappy if you live in a residential area in the Outer Richmond.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by sav858

And what are those options? I still have yet to hear from anyone offering one single comparable option. And if you say subway please explain to me how that would be paid for.

I agree that subways are better but do you not realize how expensive they are and how financially constrained MUNI is?

Exactly. BRT is way cheaper and can be done in a year. Checkbox Curtiba Brazil and Mexico City for BRT inspiration. The bus stigma is causing people to no look at the benefits of the project. It is like saying "ewww it is the bus so it sucks."

[sav858]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

It's deep green ideology, based on Callenbach's Ecotopia e.g. "carless living."

Great if you are in a truely walkable area, crappy if you live in a residential area in the Outer Richmond.

So any form of public/mass transit is "deep green ideology"? So when people were heavily using mass transit to get around before WWII is that "deep green ideology" too? Are the NYC subways "deep green ideology?" Give me a break with that political BS. It's called urban mobility and cars clearly aren't the best form of that in a city like SF.

Residential areas in the Outer Richmond are already serviced by buses along the same route that this BRT is meant to replace. Light rail services the Outer Sunset. So how are people suppose to get to work in Downtown SF? Drive? No one is saying get rid of your car and live completely car free but mass transit is clearly the most efficient way get people to work and around a city like SF.

[darkeconomist]

Originally Posted by rah

Geary needs a subway, not BRT. BRT may help slightly over the current situation, but there are much better options for improved transit on Geary. Like so often though, SF seems to go for the half-assed idea (the BRT instead of a subway)...but it's not like too many merchants on Geary want any change whatsoever in the first place. Back when the idea for a subway was being kicked around, they opposed that too, just as so many of them now oppose BRT. In their minds, anything slightly out of the ordinary will negatively impact their business. Which is a pretty lame mind set.

How, though, would you pay for a subway? And what would the cost per rider per mile be? Subways are highly expensive. We would be talking fractions of billions of dollars per mile. If you're not at crush capacity on the subway, it's simply not worth building.

[rah]

Originally Posted by darkeconomist

How, though, would you pay for a subway? And what would the cost per rider per mile be? Subways are highly expensive. We would be talking fractions of billions of dollars per mile. If you're not at crush capacity on the subway, it's simply not worth building.

How would we pay for it? The same way all other subways and civic projects are paid for: taxes/government funding. If we can build the new central subway in SOMA/Chinatown we can built one down Geary too. Yes it would be expensive (overly expensive even, just like the central subway), but I never said it wouldn't be.

Originally Posted by sav858

And what are those options? I still have yet to hear from anyone offering one single comparable option. And if you say subway please explain to me how that would be paid for.

I agree that subways are better but do you not realize how expensive they are and how financially constrained MUNI is?

What are those options? I already mentioned it in that very post: a subway. As for how to pay? I already answered this above, but I'll say it again: Taxes and government funding like every other project of this type (the same kind of sources that would pay for BRT, obviously...why are you guys acting like this is some great mystery?). Would it be more expensive than BRT? Of course. Would it be better than BRT? Yes.

BRT is good too of course, I have nothing against buses at all (I ride them every day). I just hate to see the city fail to meet the full potential of the Geary corridor in terms of transit.

[geoking66]

Originally Posted by rah

Geary needs a subway, not BRT. BRT may help slightly over the current situation, but there are much better options for improved transit on Geary. Like so often though, SF seems to go for the half-assed idea (the BRT instead of a subway)...but it's not like too many merchants on Geary want any change whatsoever in the first place. Back when the idea for a subway was being kicked around, they opposed that too, just as so many of them now oppose BRT. In their minds, anything slightly out of the ordinary will negatively impact their business. Which is a pretty lame mind set.

I'd rather see Geary connected to BART as well, but the likelihood is slim. Surface trams could connect to an X-shape system if Van Ness' BRT becomes rail. Perhaps a link to the Central Subway from a Geary tram line?