Transit Projects Are About to Get Easier in California | Hacker News Reader

Transit Projects Are About to Get Easier in California

citylab.com

57 pointsapsec11218 comments

Something of a bait-and-switch. It's not that transit projects are not still required to prepare enormous reports that take years to complete if there is any possible "negative impact" -- it's just that worsening traffic is no longer considered a "negative impact." The immense bureaucratic snarl still exists, it's just being pointed in a slightly different direction that fits the new anti-car political winds.

I can't totally agree with this. Vehicle miles travelled is a much more relevant environmental metric than "level of service" for cars. While "level of service" does measure the impact for car drivers, it neglects any environmental impact, and also neglects other, non-car transportation as being something that people may want to do.

So now, for the environmental impact report, the metric will actually be environmentally related rather than "speedy car traffic" related.

My main concern is that the immense bureaucratic delay is still in place. "Level of service" for cars may no longer trigger it, but that just means something else will instead. We can't go on being a nation that takes decades to build minor transit improvements due to walls of paper.

Well, we can, it'll just suck.

>We can't go on being a nation that takes decades to build minor transit improvements due to walls of paper.

The sad thing is, the minor transmit improvements are lauded as "marvels". Being recently back from Hong Kong, taking 15 years to build a 2-mile bus route just doesn't impress me.

And when you consider that a system like this (only far more extensive) is already in place in Bogotá [0] and has been for about 15 years... well, this little 2 mile stretch seems a bit underwhelming.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy SF is improving transit. I just wish it didn't take decades because it seems like other solutions are likely to come about in the mean time, which means wasted time.

[0] http://www.streetfilms.org/bus-rapid-transit-bogota/

>but that just means something else will instead

Well if this article is to be believed that would not have happened here.

I think the process of environmental review is essential, and I think that too often NIMBYs throw wrenches in projects and make them worse, but that these forces must be balanced. This is a time when they are becoming more balanced.

In this particular case though, doesn't Van Ness function as part of the 101 to get people from the 80 to the Golden Gate Bridge? I'm no car-centric person but what will happen when you disperse those cars that are making that journey across, to Octavia and Franklin? Let alone the other way across 19th Avenue, which is already a mess. Hopefully less people will attempt to traverse the city but that will take time to change people's routines, during that time I feel like the traffic impact will be enormous. I can imagine that's why they needed the study.

People learn really quickly to adapt traffic patterns. And considering that there will be a period where there's construction, people will start adapting even before the lanes are completed.

SF doesn't particularly care for people driving through the city to get to North Bay -- IIRC, there have been protests against building new highways (e.g. along Cesar Chavez / Army St) dating back to the 80s. Drivers will probably shift to CA-1, or Bay Bridge + 580, or even the San Mateo Bridge + 580.

Ideally we'd also replace cars running along 101-Van Ness-GGB with shuttle buses for North Bay commuters working at tech companies in SF and the South Bay.

They’ve been protesting against wrecking the city with shitty highways since long before the 80s.

Here was the freeway plan from 1948. http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~25...

Thankfully SF residents blocked it, and the city was mostly saved, unlike many other US cities which had their urban centers completely destroyed in ~1940–1980 by freeways and parking lots.

If you're trying to do that, you should really be taking 580 over the Richmond-San Rafael bridge. There are very few circumstances in which that isn't the faster route.

Bus-only lanes make a lot of sense in high traffic areas. The time has definitely come for this sort of thing in many California cities. They should put some on the 405 through the Sepulveda corridor in Los Angeles.

From 2014, not sure much has changed in a little over a year

The most recent activity I can find is a summary of the feedback on the VMT change:

http://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/Summary_of_Feedback_on_Draft_VMT_...

it says that future activity will be announced an an email listserv, but it appears that the archives of that email list serve are not open to the public.

Construction is apparently expected to begin in early 2016.

https://www.sfmta.com/news/project-updates/construction-cont...

The project's home page:

https://www.sfmta.com/projects-planning/projects/van-ness-co...

Interestingly, they're - remarkably sensibly - taking advantage of all the activity to replace the firefighting water system, sewers, lighting, and overhead bus electrical systems.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com