3 ms·

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 th

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 11y ago
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 11y ago
  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.
lubujackson 11y ago
I feel like the solution should really be to make Franklin (a 3 lane, one-way street with timed lights) the south->north 101 and Gough (a 3 lane, one-way street with timed lights) the north->south 101. People who live in the city already take these routes whenever they can (unless there is construction mess, which seems to be common now). I don't love the traffic hassle being added to Van Ness, but Van Ness is already the worse option for the city so the road systems should be updated to reflect that reality. Polk St. is being turned into the bicycle fast transit route also, so when those 2 projects are finished it will be 4 side-by-side roads with different transit priorities. The key here should really be to push all the cars onto Franklin and Gough.

epistasis 11y ago

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 11y ago
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.

lubujackson 11y ago

I feel like the solution should really be to make Franklin (a 3 lane, one-way street with timed lights) the south->north 101 and Gough (a 3 lane, one-way street with timed lights) the north->south 101. People who live in the city already take these routes whenever they can (unless there is construction mess, which seems to be common now). I don't love the traffic hassle being added to Van Ness, but Van Ness is already the worse option for the city so the road systems should be updated to reflect that reality. Polk St. is being turned into the bicycle fast transit route also, so when those 2 projects are finished it will be 4 side-by-side roads with different transit priorities. The key here should really be to push all the cars onto Franklin and Gough.