Geary - App - H Perancangan Terminal Bus

Memorandum
Date: To: From: Through: Subject:

5.17.06
RE: Geary Citizens Advisory Committee May 18, 2006
Geary Citizens Advisory Committee Julie Kirschbaum Senior Transportation Planner Tilly Chang Deputy Director for Planning INFORMATION Provide Input on the Pedestrian, Urban Design, and Transit Rider Experience Analysis for the Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Study
Summary
Improving the transit rider experience, pedestrian conditions and the quality of the streetscape are major priorities for the BRT project and respond directly to the needs assessment and community feedback received to date. The evaluation of the pedestrian conditions and urban design improvements applies the criteria established in the Evaluation Framework (approved by the GCAC in March 2006) to the prototypical designs presented at the second series of public workshops. The analysis is based on the physical dimensions of the conceptual designs, as well as a qualitative review by agency staff and the project consultants. Each metric is described in a written matrix and then assigned a relative ranking 1 through 5. Scoring in some sub-categories will change with the completion of the quantitative analysis and landscaping analysis, to be completed in July. Generally, the preliminary results show that the build alternatives represent a major improvement over the no-project. Across alternatives, the rankings varied significantly by category and location. We are seeking input on the pedestrian, urban design, and transit rider experience analysis for the Geary Corridor BRT Study.
BACKGROUND The Evaluation Framework for the Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Study (approved March 2006) calls for evaluating the project benefits and impacts by examining multiple metrics that can be grouped into the following categories: Benefits. Transit Operations & Performance; Transit Rider Experience; Pedestrian Safety & Access; and Urban Design & Landscaping. Impacts/Constraints. Traffic & Parking Impacts; Capital & Operating Costs; and Construction Impacts. Some of the metrics are quantitative, such as transit travel time, and are derived from a series of transportation models currently under development. Other metrics are more qualitative in nature or are based on the dimensions of the proposed designs. The purpose of this memo is to present the preliminary results of the qualitative analysis for several categories of project benefits: Transit Rider Experience, Access & Pedestrian Safety, and Urban Design & Landscaping. The rest of the evaluation results, including some gaps in the above mentioned categories, will be presented to the Geary Citizens Advisory Committee (GCAC) at the July meeting. The completed Framework will then be presented to the community at the 3rd series of public workshops in September 2006.
O:\BRT\Geary\Appendices for Final Feasibility Study\H - Transit Rider Experience Matrices\qualitative analysis MEM.doc
Page 1 of 8
DISCUSSION The conceptual designs that were first presented to the community at the December 2005 Workshops were evaluated by agency staff and consultants to better understand the degree to which they benefit Transit Rider Experience, Access & Pedestrian Safety, and Urban Design & Landscaping. The following designs were evaluated: Richmond 1 (R1): Curbside BRT Richmond 2 (R2): Center-running BRT with side-platform Richmond 3 (R3): Center-running BRT with center-platform Masonic 1 (M1): Surface BRT Masonic 2 (M2): Underground station BRT Fillmore 1 (F1): Side boulevard BRT (fill trench) Fillmore 2 (F2): Center boulevard BRT (fill trench) Fillmore 3 (F3): Viaduct BRT Fillmore 4 (F4): Underground station BRT In addition, a No Project alternative was considered for the Richmond (R0), Masonic (M0), and Fillmore (F0) sections. Several metrics, such as headway variability and storm water management, are not presented in this memo because we are still working on the modeling results and the landscaping plan and analysis. In addition, a variation of this analysis is currently underway for the urban design and bus station improvements proposed in the Tenderloin/Downtown segment of the corridor. The analysis was completed in two stages: first the evaluators completed a comment matrix (Attachment 1) for each alternative, and then used that matrix to assign a score on a scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high). The analysis of the build alternatives considered the unique aspects of each of the conceptual designs, as well as the design features which are consistent across alternatives and described in the design principles and guidelines (approved in December 2006). For example, each of the build alternatives was assumed to include comprehensive streetscape improvements that feature significant new transit amenities (e.g., high quality BRT stations), as well as enhancements to the general street/pedestrian environment (e.g., consistent street plantings, lighting and curb extensions). Conducting a systematic qualitative analysis tied to a ranking system requires coordination across a multi-agency team and will likely be refined as the Study progresses. In instances where most but not all of the metrics in a sub-category could be evaluated, we provided a tentative ranking (noted in italics). The numerical matrix indicates to be determined (TBD), for sub-categories where the majority of metrics have not been finalized. This analysis will be completed for the fall workshops. Finally, through this process we have identified minor changes that improve the Evaluation Framework. We anticipate bringing a revised Framework for the GCACs approval to the July meeting. The comment matrices and ranking tables for Transit Rider Experience, Access & Pedestrian Safety, and Urban Design & Landscaping are presented in Attachment 1. The following discussion presents the numerical rankings by corridor segment and highlights the key findings.
Richmond: The analysis of all three categories reveals a significant improvement for all project alternatives over the no-project. For Transit Rider Experience (Table 1.1), this comes primarily from the improved wayfinding and strong BRT branding. It is likely that the distinction between the no-
Page 2 of 8
project and the build alternatives will be even more pronounced after the scoring is completed for waiting experience and in-vehicle experience because of factors such as more efficient transit operations facilitated by the dedicated transit lane. Across alternatives, the center alternatives have a slight overall advantage, although the side ranks highly both in terms of wayfinding and perceived security, primarily because of the natural surveillance of sidewalk activities and the opportunities for locating stops to minimize the walk distance for the dominant transfer direction (e.g., at Geary & Divisidero). The center alternatives rank highest in terms of BRT branding and identity because of the opportunity to build signature stations and to have an infrastructure that is 100 percent dedicated to transit. The build alternatives also represent a significant improvement over the no-project in terms of Access and Pedestrian Safety (Table 1.2). Most notably, the crossing experience is most improved in R2, because the wide street is broken into three manageable sections. Since we are not proposing a major change to the sidewalk in this segment of the corridor, the sidewalk conditions rank similar to the no-project, with the exception of the side alternative which has a wider sidewalk at the bus bulbs and the bus lane offers an increased buffer between pedestrians and auto traffic. The quality of bicycle access is slightly improved in the build alternatives, because the traffic volumes will be lower and there will be no buses traveling in the outside vehicular lane. Some of these benefits are offset by narrower auto lanes. The preliminary findings for the Urban Design and Landscaping analysis (Table 1.3) show a slight preference for R3 center busway with center platforms. Through median and landscaping upgrades, all of the build alternatives create a recognizable design theme by establishing a strong linear axis. R3 ranks highest in this category because it has the most consistent cross section and because the median is not reduced for left turns. The side alternative offers the most potential for increased public open space because the wide bus bulbs could be used to sponsor additional sidewalk activities. Table 1.1. Relative Ranking for Transit Rider Experience
Alternative Quality of waiting and boarding experience TBD TBD TBD TBD Quality of invehicle experience TBD TBD TBD TBD Wayfinding ability Perceived security of waiting riders BRT transit route branding / identity Total (tentative)
R0: Richmond No-Project R1: Curbside BRT R2: Ctr BRT/Side Platforms R3: Ctr BRT/Ctr Platforms
2 4 4* 3*
4 4 3 4
1 2 4 5
7 10 11 12
Wayfinding ability for R2 and R3 varies by service plan. Wayfinding for R2 is further complicated if operated as contraflow service.
Page 3 of 8
Table 1.2. Relative Ranking for Access and Pedestrian Safety

Alternative Crossing experience Sidewalk conditions+ Quality of bicycle access Employment, retail & consumer accessibility for neighborhoods TBD TBD TBD TBD Total (tentative)
R0: Richmond No-Project R1: Curbside BRT R2: Ctr BRT/Side Platforms R3: Ctr BRT/Ctr Platforms
2* 4 5 4
3 4 3 3
2 3 3 3
7 11 11 10
+ The scores for sidewalk conditions may change based on the speed of adjacent traffic (to be determined using VISSIM). * The crossing experience is much poorer east of Park Presidio than west of Park Presidio.
Table 1.3. Relative Ranking for Urban Design & Landscaping

Street identity Neighborhood Connections Ability to create useable public open space Quality, quantity, character of landscaping Quality of sustainable storm water management treatments TBD TBD TBD TBD Total (tentative)
Alternative
R0: Richmond No-Project R1: Curbside BRT R2: Ctr BRT/Side Stops R3: Ctr BRT/Ctr Stops
2 4 4 5
2 2 3 3
1 3 2 2
TBD TBD TBD TBD
5 9 9 10
Masonic: The qualitative analysis for the Geary and Masonic intersections highlights benefits of the proposed alternatives, as well as confirms some design challenges that had previously been identified by staff. In terms of Transit Rider Experience (Table 2.1), both the Surface BRT (M1) and the Underground BRT (M2) alternatives rank significantly higher than the No-Project (M0). Both build alternatives improve wayfinding by creating a more intuitive transfer between the 43-Masonic and the 38-Geary and by consolidating the existing stops into a signature location between Masonic and Presidio. The two build alternatives rank very differently in terms of perceived security and BRT branding. M1 benefits from natural surveillance at the combined 38/43 stop. M2 is less secure than the current configuration because passengers wait below ground and are not visible from surrounding land uses. In contrast, M2 is very strong on BRT branding because it is similar to the Muni Metro system and the surface transit plaza for the 43 line highlights Masonic as a transit hub. In contrast, M1 is not consistent with the rest of the corridor (under any design option), or between eastbound and westbound configurations.
Currently, the Surface BRT (M1) ranks higher than the No-Project for Access and Pedestrian Safety, where as M2 ranks slightly lower (Table 2.2). M1 reduces the crossing distance at Masonic and
Page 4 of 8
Presidio, although the build alternatives have narrower refuges. For sidewalk conditions, M1 also ranks slightly higher than the No-Project, because it adds needed sidewalk width, especially on the north side by providing a 180 ft bus bulb. M2 also increases the sidewalk width, but pedestrians have no buffer from traffic on the service roads, and the traffic volumes are significantly increased. For M1, bicycle conditions are very similar to the No-Project; however, M2 degrades bicycle conditions for two main reasons: 1) the volume of traffic increases significantly and 2) the new arterial lane is much narrower than the existing service roads. From an urban design perspective (Table 2.3), the Surface BRT alternative improves on the NoProject in the three sub-categories presented: street identity, creating useable open space, and neighborhood connections Both M1 and the No-Project preserve the Muni parcel for future development, but the Surface BRT also creates a widened sidewalk/plaza opportunity at the northwest corner (in front of Mervyns). The Underground station BRT alternative ranks highest in terms of street identity, because the streets cross section is consistent with other center-running segments and the strong transit identity contributes to the identity of the street. M2 ranks worse in terms of creating useable open space and neighborhood connections because it requires a substantial portion of the Muni parcel parking lot, reducing development potential, creating a wider road cross section, and hindering north/south linkages. Table 2.1. Relative Ranking for Transit Rider Experience
Alternative Quality of waiting and boarding experience TBD TBD TBD Quality of invehicle experience TBD TBD TBD Wayfinding ability Perceived security of waiting riders BRT transit route branding / identity Total (tentative)
M0: Masonic No-Project M1: Surface BRT M2: Underground BRT
1 5 4
3 4 2
1 2 5
5 11 11

Alternative Crossing experience Sidewalk conditions+ Quality of bicycle access Employment, retail & consumer accessibility for neighborhoods TBD TBD TBD Total (tentative)
2 3 2
2 3 2
2 2 1
6 8 5
+ The scores for sidewalk conditions may change based on the speed of adjacent traffic (to be determined using VISSIM).
Page 5 of 8
Table 2.3. Relative Ranking for Urban Design & Landscaping

Street identity Neighborhood Connections Ability to create useable public open space Quality, quantity, character of landscaping Quality of sustainable storm water management treatments TBD TBD TBD Total (tentative)
Alternative
1 2 4
2 3 1
3 4 2
TBD TBD TBD
6 9 7
Fillmore: In some shape or form all of the Fillmore alternatives help bring the neighborhoods to the north and south of Geary closer together. They also address the major inadequacies at the bus stops, by providing needed platform space and amenities at one of the busiest locations on the route. For Transit Rider Experience (Table 3.1), the Viaduct (F3) design ranks highest overall, primarily because of its scores for perceived security and BRT branding. Activity on the transit plazas has the potential to increase perceived security, as does moving the 22-Fillmore line adjacent to the sidewalk. F3 also delivers strong BRT branding because it is a distinct transit-only infrastructure. The remaining three alternatives (F1, F2, and F4) have the same totals. The Side Boulevard (F1) alternative is strong in perceived security, but may have wayfinding challenges for drivers not familiar with frontage roads. The Underground station (F4) is strong in BRT branding, but ranks poorly in terms of perceived security, similar to the Underground Masonic alternative. However, one advantage of the Fillmore design over Masonic is that the plazas are large enough for passengers to reduce underground waiting time by relying on NextBus.
All of the build alternatives represent a significant improvement in terms of Access and Pedestrian Safety (Table 3.2). The No-Project crossing experience at Steiner and Webster require pedestrians to use a lengthy overpass and prohibits at-grade crossings of Geary. The Center Blvd (F2) offers the most significant improvement because the crossing distance is significantly reduced and the refuges are very wide. For F1, F3 and F4, bicycle access is improved because the service/frontage roads function better for bicyclists when they do not carry buses. The Center Blvd F2 also separates bicyclists from bus traffic, but the travel lane is narrower. For urban design all of the build alternatives rank significantly higher than the No-Project, with the Center Boulevard (F2) ranking highest. The two options that fill in the trench (F1 and F2) do the most to promote neighborhood connections and remove the psychological and pedestrian barrier between neighborhoods to the north and south of Geary. The designs that create plazas at Fillmore (F3 and F4) create the most usable public open space. F2 also ranks well for usable public open space because the 35 ft wide sidewalk/promenade creates a linear park opportunity. All of the build alternatives rank high in terms of street identity, with F2 again ranking the highest because of the strong linear access, the promenade opportunity, and the strong BRT identity.
Page 6 of 8
Table 3.1. Relative Ranking for Transit Rider Experience

Alternative Quality of waiting and boarding experience TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Quality of invehicle experience TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Wayfinding ability Perceived security of waiting riders BRT transit route branding / identity Total (tentative)
F0: Fillmore No-Project F1: Side Blvd BRT (fill) F2: Center Blvd BRT (fill) F3: Viaduct BRT F4: Underground BRT
3 3 4 4 4
3 4 3 4 2
1 3 4 5 5
7 10 11 13 11

Alternative Crossing experience Sidewalk conditions+ Quality of bicycle access Employment, retail & consumer accessibility for neighborhoods TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Total (tentative)
F0: Fillmore No-Project F1: Side Blvd BRT (fill) F2: Center Blvd BRT (fill) F3: Viaduct BRT F4: Underground BRT
1 3 4 3 3
2 5 5 4 4
2 3 2 3 3
5 11 11 10 10
+ The scores for sidewalk conditions may change based on the speed of adjacent traffic (to be determined using VISSIM). Table 3.3. Relative Ranking for Urban Design & Landscaping
Street identity Neighborhood Connections Ability to create useable public open space Quality, quantity, character of landscaping Quality of sustainable storm water management treatments TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Total (tentative)
Alternative
F0: Fillmore No-Project F1: Side Blvd BRT (fill) F2: Ctr. Blvd BRT (fill) F3: Viaduct BRT F4: Underground BRT
2 4 5 4 4
1 4 4 2 2
1 3 4 5 5
TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
4 11 13 11 11
Page 7 of 8
In all but one instance (Masonic Underground BRT), the build alternatives represent a significant improvement over the No-Project and address key needs identified in the existing conditions analysis such as lack of passenger comfort and onerous pedestrian crossings. As the qualitative analysis shows, benefits such as high-quality stations, landscaping investments and BRT branding have the potential to transform Geary into a great street, and start to bridge, rather than divide neighborhoods. We will continue to refine this analysis as the quantitative metrics become available and feed into our overall understanding of the project benefits. We are seeking input on the pedestrian, urban design, and transit rider experience analysis for the Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Study.
Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENT 1 (comment and ranking matrices for qualitative analysis) Transit Rider Experience Comment Matrix
Transit Rider Experience
Quality of waiting and boarding experience1 Quality of in-vehicle experience
1
Wayfinding ability
Perceived security of waiting riders
BRT transit route branding / identity
Ave. wait time (H/2)
Headway SD & COV (SD/mean)
Bus Stop/ Platform width
Buffer from traffic
Extent of weaving
PAX load at max. load point
Transit travel time
Transit travel time reliability
Direction of travel (# of changes)
Combined stops vs. local only at the curb
Transfer experience (inc. vertical circulation)
Visibility to other passengers & adjacent land uses
Recognizable as a high-quality and rapid service
Headway variability and average wait time TBD. Platform width Less than 6 ft at local/limited stops,2 especially crowded at high ridership bus stops. Buffer from traffic width of bus zone. Next bus likely, no other bus stop improvements planned. Headway variability and average wait time TBD. Platform width Approximately 11 ft at limited stops, less than 6 ft at local stops. R1: Curbside BRT Buffer from traffic - bus bulb (limited stops) or bus zone (local stops) plus 13.5 ft bus lane. Passengers benefit from major stop improvements outlined in design principles/guidelines.
Bus weaves frequently to access stops. Passenger load at max load point - TBD Travel Demand Model. 4.8 miles of mixed traffic (Gough to 48 Ave) dedicated lane begins at Gough Street goes till Market. Less weaving than no project, but bus still has to weave for local stops, parking cars, turning cars and double parked cars. Passenger load TBD Travel Demand Model. 1 mile of mixed traffic (48th Ave to 33rd Ave) dedicated lane between 33rd and Market.
th
No change in direction of travel. All limited stops also have local service; however, minimal information provided to distinguish between type of stop. Transfer experience varies by location. Some stop locations designed to minimize walk distance for the dominant transfer direction. No change in direction of travel. All limited stops also have local service; Limited stops distinguished from local stops by bus bulbs/design treatments. Transfer experience improved with signage. Some stop locations designed to minimize walk distance for the dominant transfer direction. No change in direction of travel. Natural surveillance of land uses and sidewalk activity. Natural surveillance of land uses and sidewalk activity.
R0: Richmond No-Project
Both local and limited service on Geary lack distinction perceived as just like any other Muni bus route. Muni has done some initial experimenting in the Tenderloin to design limited bus shelters with branded color (green). Colored pavement provides definition. Right turns and parking allowed from transit lane. Buses not separated by curbs. Stations/platforms separated across street, identify with sidewalk environment, rather than transit service. Colored pavement provides definition. Buses separated from traffic by curb and platforms.
Headway variability and average wait time TBD. Platform width - 9.5 ft at limited stops; 8 ft at local stops (less than 6 ft if local operates at the curb). R2: Center BRT (side platforms) Buffer from traffic - 0 ft (platform adjacent to traffic lane). Passengers benefit from major stop improvements outlined in design principles/guidelines.
1 EB/WB weave from center transit lane to curb lane at 33rd Ave. With Contraflow operations, buses must also crisscross upon entering/existing the transit lane Passenger load at max load point - TBD Travel Demand Model. 1 mile of mixed traffic (48th Ave to 33rd Ave) dedicated lane between 33rd and Market.
Possibility for block long stations increases wayfinding for passengers walking to/from either direction. Wayfinding varies by service plan: All in center is simple; limited stops are longer than local. Local at the curb easy to distinguish, but may be frustrating to passengers without a preference. Skip stop service frustrating and confusing for new passengers. Passengers on platforms in roadway. Somewhat reduced natural surveillance due to roadway and parking separation.
No mixed traffic in BRT lanes. Stations are more prominent and visible; if inbound/outbound platforms are directly across from one another, opportunity to create signature stations opportunities. If locals in busway, locals benefit from special identity too (yet this could detract from unique identity of limited service)
Transfer experience improved with signage. Confusing if operated as contra-flow service. Headway variability and average wait time TBD. Platform width - 14 ft limited stops (less than 6 ft if local operates at the curb). Buffer from traffic - 12 ft bus lane. Passengers benefit from major stop improvements outlined in design principles/guidelines. 1 EB/WB weave from center transit lane to rd curb lane at 33 Ave. Passenger load at max load point - TBD Travel Demand Model. 1 mile of mixed traffic (48th Ave to 33rd Ave) rd dedicated lane between 33 and Market. Possibility for block long stations increases wayfinding for passengers walking to/from either direction. Wayfinding varies by service plan: Local at the curb easy to distinguish, but may be frustrating to passengers without a preference. Skip stop service frustrating and confusing for new passengers. Passenger on platforms in roadway. Somewhat reduced natural surveillance due to roadway and parking separation, but more passengers on same platform increases activity.
Colored pavement provides definition. Bus separated from traffic by curb. No mixed traffic in BRT lanes. Stations are more prominent and visible; single, unified platforms create signature "station" opportunities.
R3: Center BRT (center platforms)
Transfer experience slightly improved with signage.
1
2
No score is presented for quality of waiting and boarding experience and quality of in-vehicle experience because we are waiting for several key metrics including headway variability, passenger load at the max load point, transit travel time and transit travel time variability. Assuming 2 ft of shy distance against the building and a 5 ft walking path for through pedestrians, less than 6 ft remains for transit passengers waiting for the bus.
O:\BRT\Geary\Appendices for Final Feasibility Study\H - Transit Rider Experience Matrices\revised qualitative matrixv2.doc
Page A1
Quality of waiting and boarding experience1
Quality of in-vehicle experience1
Wayfinding ability
Buffer from traffic
Extent of weaving
Transit travel time
Headway variability and average wait time TBD. Platform width 2 ft to 5 ft depending on location; sidewalk width is inadequate to accommodate both transit riders and pedestrians. Buffer from traffic width of bus zone. Next bus likely, no other bus stop improvements planned. No change in direction of travel. See R0. All limited stops also have local service; however, minimal information provided to distinguish between type of stop. Lack of intuitive transfer between 38 and 43. Passengers on sidewalks, but narrow sidewalks, minimal street level activity, and thick median landscaping reduce visibility somewhat.
M0: Masonic No-Project
See R0.
Headway variability and average wait time TBD. Platform width 15 ft north & south side. M1: Surface BRT Buffer from traffic South side bus bulb and bus lane; North side bus lane on one side and low volume turn pocket on the other side. Passengers benefit from major stop improvements outlined in design principles/guidelines. 2 WB weaves at Presidio and Masonic. Passenger load at max load point - TBD Travel Demand Model. 0.2 miles of mixed traffic between Collins and Masonic. No change in direction of travel. Stops reconfigured/simplified to one midblock limit/local stop between Masonic and Presidio. Single platform for 38 and 43 buses.
Eastbound: natural surveillance of land uses and sidewalk activity. Westbound: Passengers on platform in roadway, reduced natural surveillance. However, shared 38/43 platform increases number of passengers and activity on platform. Possible future redevelopment of Muni Presidio site could improve natural surveillance. Geary passengers wait below ground, not visible from surrounding uses. Consider providing cameras or staff monitoring platforms. NextBus on surface could reduce necessary underground waiting time. 43 passengers now wait in roadway rather than sidewalk, somewhat reduced natural surveillance from surrounding land uses, but improved sight lines from current configuration. Colored pavement provides definition. Treatment not consistent with rest of corridor (any option), or between eastbound/westbound. BRT lanes require some mixed flow.
No change in direction of travel. Headway variability and average wait time TBD. Platform width 13.5 ft. M2: Underground BRT Buffer from traffic 100%, all traffic at surface Passengers benefit from major stop improvements outlined in design principles/guidelines. No weaving in this segment. Passenger load at max load point - TBD Travel Demand Model. Dedicated lane in this segment. Stops reconfigured/simplified to one midblock limited/local stop between Masonic and Presidio. Transfer to either direction from 43/38 improved -- no need to cross Geary or Masonic and direct vertical platform-toplatform connection. Requires vertical circulation. Block long station improves access from all directions.
Colored pavement provides definition. More similar to Muni Metro, subway environment. Creates surface transit plaza for 43, to further highlight Masonic as a transit hub.
No score is presented for quality of waiting and boarding experience and quality of in-vehicle experience because we are waiting for several key metrics including headway variability, passenger load at the max load point, transit travel time and transit travel time variability.
Page A2
Quality of waiting and boarding experience1
Quality of in-vehicle experience1
Wayfinding ability
Buffer from traffic
Extent of weaving
Transit travel time
Headway variability and average wait time TBD. Platform width 0 ft to 5 ft depending on location; sidewalk width is inadequate to accommodate both transit riders and pedestrians. Buffer from traffic width of bus zone; low volume service roads. Next bus likely, no other bus stop improvements planned. Headway variability and average wait time TBD. Platform width 10.5 ft. F1: Side Blvd BRT (fill trench) Buffer from traffic 12 ft bus lane on one side and low volume service road on the other side. Passengers benefit from major stop improvements outlined in design principles/guidelines. No weaving in this segment. Passenger load at max load point - TBD Travel Demand Model. Dedicated lane in this segment. No change in direction of travel. Combined limited/local stop. See R0. Transfer from 22 to 38 not too difficult across frontage roads. However, midblock 38 eastbound stop set back from corner increases walk distance for transferring passengers. 38 stops adjacent to constricted frontage roads with limited street activity/visibility. Impaired sight lines between 22 and 38 stops. See R0.
F0: Fillmore No-Project
No change in direction. Combined limited/local stop. Transfer with 22 line improved by 38 buses moving toward the intersection, but degraded by 22 line no-longer able to stop in overpass. Some confusion for auto drivers not familiar with frontage roads, but reduced due to increased prevalence (e.g., Octavia Blvd). No change in direction of travel. Headway variability and average wait time TBD. Platform width 16 ft. F2: Center Blvd BRT (fill trench) Buffer from traffic 0 ft (platform adjacent to traffic lane). Passengers benefit from major stop improvements outlined in design principles/guidelines. 1 EB/WB weave at Octavia from center transit lane to curb lane. Passenger load at max load point - TBD Travel Demand Model. Dedicated lane in this segment. Combined limited/local stop. All transfers between 38/22 must cross main Geary traffic. Transfer with 22 line improved by 38 buses moving toward the intersection, but degraded by 22 line no-longer able to stop in overpass. Simple and clear street hierarchy and division of space for all road users. 1 EB/WB weave at Octavia from center transit lane to curb lane. Passenger load at max load point - TBD Travel Demand Model Dedicated lane in this segment No change in direction of travel. Combined limited/local stop. Transfer with 22 lines improved by 38 buses moving toward the intersection, but degraded by 22 line no-longer able to stop in overpass.
Geary passengers reasonably visible from adjacent land uses, separated by frontage road, though parking could obscure view. Fillmore passengers moved to sidewalks abutting more active land uses.
Colored pavement provides definition. Side medians used primarily by BRT (but also for turning vehicles). Use of medians for transit different than regular bus. BRT lanes require some mixed flow, not separated by curb.
Geary passengers on platforms in roadway. Somewhat reduced natural surveillance. Fillmore passengers moved to sidewalks abutting more active land uses.
Colored pavement provides definition. Buses separated from traffic by curb and platforms. No mixed traffic in BRT lanes.
Headway variability and average wait time TBD. Platform width 30 ft. F3: Viaduct BRT Buffer from traffic wide platform acts as a buffer, adjacent to low volume service road Passengers benefit from major stop improvements outlined in design principles/guidelines.
Activity on the transit plazas could increase natural surveillance. Fillmore passengers moved to sidewalks abutting more active land uses. Geary passengers wait below ground, not visible from surrounding uses. NextBus in surface plazas could reduce necessary underground waiting time. Consider cameras or staff monitoring subway platforms. Opportunity to add natural surveillance for 22 line passengers with active uses in plazas.
Colored pavement provides definition. Viaduct unique. Distinct infrastructure for BRT only. Transit plazas/platforms distinct and unique from typical bus waiting environment or side platforms.
Headway variability and average wait time TBD. Platform width 15 ft. F4: Underground station BRT Buffer from traffic platform separated from traffic by sound wall, noise penetration likely from either end. Passengers benefit from major stop improvements outlined in design principles/guidelines.
1 EB/WB weave at Octavia from center transit lane to curb lane. Passenger load at max load point - TBD Travel Demand Model Dedicated lane in this segment
No change in direction of travel. Combined limited/local stop. Required vertical circulation to transfer to 22 lines, but no need to cross any roadways. 22 line remains in overpass, more central to passengers walking in either direction.
Colored pavement provides definition. More similar to Muni Metro, subway environment. Surface transit plaza for 22 lines further highlights transit service.
No score is presented for quality of waiting and boarding experience and quality of in-vehicle experience because we are waiting for several key metrics including headway variability, passenger load at the max load point, transit travel time and transit travel time variability.
Page A3
Access and Pedestrian Safety Comment Matrix

Access & Pedestrian Safety
Alternative Average number of lanes between refuges Crossing experience3 Sidewalk conditions Quality of bicycle access Increase employment, retail and consumer 3 accessibility for neighborhoods
Refuge width (average, # fewer than 6 ft)
Average crossing distance
Average sidewalk width
# of pedestrian crossing opportunities added/removed
Speed of adjacent traffic
Buffer from traffic
Average lane width adjacent to parking
Degree of pinching (# of curb extension locations > 6 ft)
Number of jobs w/in 30 min radius (by mode)
Number of retail jobs w/in 15 min; # hhs w/in 15 min (by mode)
3 lanes + parking lane btw refuge east of Park Presidio; 2 lanes + angled parking btw refuge west of Park Presidio. R0: Richmond No-Project At locations with left turn lane, the refuge is inadequate and pedestrians are forced to cross between 5 and 7 lanes of traffic + 2 lanes of parking (32 crosswalks between 33rd Ave and Collins). Refuge - 14 ft without left turn pocket; 4-5 ft with left turn. Ave crossing distance - 100 ft. 3 lanes btw refuge (curb extensions/bus platforms eliminate need to cross parking lane); additional left turn lane at 20 crosswalks between 33rd Ave and Collins. R1: Curbside BRT Refuge - 15 ft w/o left turn pockets; 5 ft with left turn; better than existing conditions, because # of left turns reduced. Ave crossing distance - 88 ft, 94 ft at intersections with right turn pockets. 2 lanes btw refuges (curb extensions eliminate need to cross parking lane); 5 lanes btw refuge at locations with left turns (20 crosswalks between 33rd Ave and Collins). R2: Center BRT (side platforms) Refuge of 9.5 ft.; 8 ft & 5 ft at local stops. Ave crossing distance = 88 ft, 94 ft at intersections with right turn pockets. Lanes btw refuge - 3 lanes; additional lane crossing for left turn rd pockets (20 crosswalks between 33 Ave and Collins). R3: Center BRT (center platforms) Typical refuge of 15 ft. Ave crossing distance - 88 ft; 94 ft at intersections with right turn pockets or left turns.
Sidewalk width = 12.5. No pedestrian crossings added/removed. Traffic speed TBD VISSIM No-Project. Buffer from traffic = 8 ft parking lane.
East of Park Presidio = 11 to 12 ft vehicular lane; west of Park Presidio = Wider lane because of 5 ft access behind diagonal parking. No pinching/no existing curb extensions.
TBD Travel Demand Model.
Sidewalk width = 12.5; 20.5 at BRT stops (14 locations in this segment). Traffic speed TBD VISSIM No-Project. Buffer from traffic = 8 ft parking lane/13 ft bus lane.
10 ft vehicular lane, next to 13.5 ft bus lane. No pinching, bicyclists separated from curb extensions by bus lane. Fewer auto lanes, lower auto volumes than no-project; plus no buses in vehicular lanes. 10 ft vehicle lane. No pinching if curb extensions designed no wider than 6 ft. Fewer auto lanes, lower auto volumes than no-project; plus no buses in vehicular lanes (except with local at the curb). 11 ft vehicular lane. No pinching if curb extensions designed no wider than 6 ft. Fewer auto lanes, lower auto volumes than no-project; plus no buses in vehicular lanes (except with local at the curb). TBD Travel Demand Model. TBD Travel Demand Model. TBD Travel Demand Model.
The scores for sidewalk conditions may change based on the speed of adjacent traffic (TBD using VISSIM). No score is provided for employment, retail & consumer accessibility because the travel demand modeling has not been finalized.
Page A4

Alternative Average number of lanes between refuges
Crossing experience3
Sidewalk conditions
Quality of bicycle access
Increase employment, retail and consumer 3 accessibility for neighborhoods
Buffer from traffic
M0: Masonic No-Project
At Masonic (east side): Lanes btw refuge 2 lanes 2 Refuges both approximately 25 ft Crossing distance approximately 140 ft At Presidio (west side): Lanes between refuge 2 and 4 Typical refuge 25 ft Crossing distance - 108 ft At Masonic (east side): Lanes btw refuge up to 3 lanes 2 Refuges 8 ft, 15 ft Crossing distance approximately 127 ft At Presidio (west side): Lanes between refuge 3 lanes 1 Refuge 8 ft Crossing distance - 87 ft At Masonic (east side): Lanes btw refuge up to 3 lanes 3 Refuges 10 ft, 16 ft, 10 ft Crossing distance approximately 140 ft
Sidewalk width 12 ft south; 7.5 ft north. No pedestrian crossings added/removed in this segment. Traffic speed TBD VISSIM. Buffer from traffic = 8 ft parking lane.
Bicyclists use low volume, but steep service roads that are 14-16 ft and then transition to 11-12 ft vehicular lane between Presidio and Masonic. No pinching/no existing curb extensions.
Sidewalk width = 12 ft south; 10 ft north + 22 ft at 180 ft bus bulb. No pedestrian crossings added/removed in this segment (consider adding crossing at Broderick as part of future phase). Traffic speed TBD VISSIM. No buffer on service roads or north side of Geary, 8 ft parking lane south side between Masonic & Presidio.
Bicyclists continue to use service roads; east side vehicular lane narrowed to create dedicated busway. Vehicle lane between Presidio and Masonic varies from 11 to 14 ft. No buses in vehicular lanes. No pinching, bicyclists separated from curb extensions by bus lane. TBD Travel Demand Model.
M1: Surface BRT
Sidewalk width = variable 10 - 40 ft south; 12 - 70 ft north. No pedestrian crossings added/removed in this segment (consider adding crossing at Broderick as part of future phase). Traffic speed TBD VISSIM. Buffer from traffic = no buffer; significantly increased traffic volumes adjacent to pedestrians.
Service roads eliminated, bicyclists travel in 12 ft vehicular lane. No pinching (design includes only one curb extension, which can be designed no wider than 6 ft). Significantly higher traffic volumes. No buses in vehicular lanes. TBD Travel Demand Model.
M2: Underground BRT
At Presidio (west side): Lanes between refuge 2 lanes 2 Refuges 15 ft, 8 ft Crossing distance - 98 ft Significantly higher volumes of traffic compared to M0 and M1.
Page A5

Alternative Average number of lanes between refuges
Crossing experience3
Sidewalk conditions
Quality of bicycle access
Increase employment, retail and consumer 3 accessibility for neighborhoods
Buffer from traffic
At Fillmore: Lanes btw refuge 1 lane Refuges wide overpass refuge (approximately 90 ft) Crossing distance basically one lane in each direction F0: Fillmore No-Project At Steiner/Webster: Lanes between refuge N/A overpass crossing Refuge N/A overpass crossing Crossing distance - onerous; up to three legs of the intersection plus overpass ramps To cross at Steiner and Webster, pedestrians must use overpass, increasing crossing distance significantly At Fillmore: Lanes btw refuge 1 to 3 lanes Refuges - 10.5 ft & 15 ft Crossing distance - 132 ft (with curb extensions) At Steiner/Webster: Lanes between refuge 1 to 3 lanes Refuge 10.5 ft & 5 ft Crossing distance - 132 ft (with curb extensions) At Fillmore: Lanes btw refuge 2 lanes Refuges - 16 ft Crossing distance - 103 ft (with curb extensions) At Steiner/Webster: Lanes between refuge 2 to 3 lanes Refuge 6 ft and 16 ft Crossing distance - 103 ft (with curb extensions) At Fillmore: Lanes btw refuge 1 to 2 lanes 2 Refuges 30 ft Crossing distance 122 ft (with curb extensions) F3: Viaduct BRT At Steiner/Webster: Lanes between refuge 6 lanes on one side of Webster/Steiner; 3 lanes on other side of Webster/Steiner Refuge minimal on one side of Webster/Steiner; 16 ft on other side of Webster/Steiner Crossing distance - 122 ft (with curb extensions) At Fillmore: Lanes btw refuge 1 lane 1 Refuge wide overpass refuge (approximately 90 ft) Crossing distance basically one lane in each direction F4: Underground station BRT At Steiner/Webster: Lanes between refuge 6 lanes on one side of Webster/Steiner; 3 lanes on other side of Webster/Steiner Refuge minimal on one side of Webster/Steiner; 9.5 ft on other side of Webster/Steiner Crossing distance - 122 ft (with curb extensions)
Sidewalk width = 7.5 ft to 12 ft; adjacent to service road & trench. No pedestrian crossings added/removed in this segment. Traffic speed TBD VISSIM. Buffer from traffic = 8 ft parking lane. Bicyclists use low volume 13.5 ft service road. TBD Travel Demand Model.
Sidewalk width = 12 ft New surface crossing opportunity at Steiner/Webster (currently pedestrian crossings limited to 3 leg crossing/overpass. Possible additional crossing at Octavia/Buchanan explored in future phases of work. Traffic speed TBD VISSIM. Buffer from traffic = 8 ft parking lane, low volume frontage road, and10.5 ft side island between sidewalk and main auto traffic. Sidewalk width = 35 ft north; 18 ft south. New surface crossing opportunity at Steiner/Webster (currently pedestrian crossings limited to 3 leg crossing/overpass. Possible additional crossing at Octavia/Buchanan explored in future phases of work. Traffic speed TBD VISSIM. Buffer from traffic = 8 ft parking lane. 11 ft vehicular lane (not a frontage road). No pinching if curb extensions designed to be no more than 6 ft wide. Fewer auto lanes plus no buses in vehicular lanes, but more traffic per lane than frontage roads. TBD Travel Demand Model. Bicyclists travel in frontage road (without buses) ideal width of frontage road to be determined in future phases of work. No pinching if curb extensions designed to be no more than 6 ft wide.
F1: Side Blvd BRT (fill trench)
F2: Center Blvd BRT (fill trench)
Sidewalk width = 12 to 20 ft depending on location. New surface crossing opportunity at Steiner/Webster; 3 leg crosswalk likely to remain. Possible additional crossing at Octavia/Buchanan explored in future phases of work. Traffic speed TBD VISSIM. Buffer from traffic = 8 ft parking lane. Bicycles operate in existing 13.5 ft service roads, slightly improved because no buses. No pinching if curb extensions designed to be no more than 6 ft wide.
Sidewalk width = 12 to 20 ft depending on location. New surface crossing opportunity at Steiner/Webster; 3 leg crosswalk likely to remain. Possible additional crossing at Octavia/Buchanan explored in future phases of work. Traffic speed TBD VISSIM. Buffer from traffic = 8 ft parking lane. Bicycles operate in existing 13.5 ft service roads, slightly improved because no buses. No pinching if curb extensions designed to be no more than 6 ft wide
Page A6
Urban Design and Landscaping Comment Matrix

Urban Design & Landscaping
Alternatives Street identity Neighborhood Connections Ability to create useable public open space Quality, quantity, and character of landscaping Consistency of landscape footprint throughout corridor
4
Quality of sustainable storm water 4 management treatments
Recognizable design theme or street elements
North/South linkages; degree of barrier created by the street
Area of borrowable/flexible right-of-way
Sq. feet of softscape
Sq. feet of canopy at maturity
Change in healthy existing trees
% of permeable surfaces
Number of mature trees
Linear axis w/ consistent wide median and some mature trees R0: Richmond No-Project Inconsistent and haphazard landscaping, most existing trees too small for width and significance of Geary Median narrows for left turns. Strong linear axis with consistent wide median and mature trees; consider replacing smaller trees with trees that match the width and significance of Geary BRT/local discrepancy creates block-to-block inconsistency along sidewalk streetscape. Medians narrow for left turns. Strong, consistent linear axis. R2: Center BRT (side platforms) Double row of trees provides unique statement, though some trees lost on one side due to left turns. Strong BRT identity contributes to identity of the street. Strong linear axis with consistent wide median and mature trees; consider replacing smaller trees with trees that match the width and significance of Geary. R3: Center BRT (center platforms) No narrowing of median for left turns. Median landscaping transitions to station platforms without changing dimensions. Strong BRT identity contributes to identity of the street. Dual side-island treatments help to breakdown the scale of the street. Wide 20.5' sidewalks at BRT bus bulbs could create additional space for sidewalk activities Separate local stops at curbs eliminates ability to create corner bulbs at local stops Some corner bulbs eliminated for right turn pockets. Landscaping analysis currently under development. Storm water management analysis currently under development Currently, street acts as a modest barrier (in segment between Park Presidio and Masonic) Relatively narrow sidewalks, especially at bus stops Landscaping analysis currently under development. Storm water management analysis currently under development
R1: Curbside BRT
Not a significant improvement over R0, because the design does not meaningfully breakdown the scale of the street.
Separate local stops at curbs (locals not in busway) eliminates ability to create corner bulbs at local stops Some corner bulbs eliminated for right turn pockets.
Landscaping analysis currently under development.
Storm water management analysis currently under development
Uninterrupted median treatment helps to breakdown the scale of the street.
Some corner bulbs eliminated for right turn pockets and left turn pockets (traffic transitions to parking lane)
Landscaping analysis currently under development.
No score is presented for quality, quantity, & character of landscaping or quality of sustainable storm water management treatments because we are currently developing and evaluating the landscape proposal.
Page A7

Alternatives
Street identity
Neighborhood Connections
Ability to create useable public open space
Quality, quantity, and character of landscaping Consistency of landscape footprint throughout corridor
Service roads off-set. M0: Masonic No-Project Space broken up by weaving heavily planted medians that obscure visibility.
Maintains most traffic underground and preserves Muni Yard for future development.
Preserves parking lot on Muni property, which could be used for open space in future upon redevelopment. No widened sidewalks. Preserves parking lot on Muni property, which can be used for open space in future upon redevelopment. Widened sidewalk on south side at bus bulb. Widened sidewalk/plaza at northwest corner.
Landscaping analysis currently under development
M1: Surface BRT
Quirky configuration with both sidewalk and inroad platform boarding. Weaving of medians and lanes.
Maintains most traffic underground and preserves Muni Yard for future development
M2: Underground BRT
Street cross-section remains basically consistent. Surface transit plaza consistent with centerrunning BRT configuration. Strong BRT identity contributes to identity of the street.
Requires all through-traffic to route to surface, substantially increasing traffic volumes through this segment. Requires substantial portion of Muni Yard for additional roadway, reducing development potential and creating wider road cross section.
Large portion of Muni property utilized for roadway, reducing ability to create open space in future. Significantly widened sidewalk/plaza in front of Mervyn's site, tapers to the east.
Page A8

Alternatives
Street identity
Neighborhood Connections
Ability to create useable public open space
Quality, quantity, and character of landscaping Consistency of landscape footprint throughout corridor
F0: Fillmore No-Project
Trench is dominating feature; narrow frontage roads with no landscaping. Creates perception of separated expressway, rather than city street.
Trench divides neighborhoods north and south of Geary, limits desirability and incentive to improve Geary corridor itself or redevelop properties lining Geary to be more inviting and outwardly-facing. Eliminates trench, removing psychological and pedestrian barrier between neighborhoods on north and south side of Geary.
No new open space planned as part of the No-Project
F1: Side Blvd BRT (fill trench)
Boulevard configuration with frontage roads is fairly unique and distinctive, with multiple layers of trees; reduces prominence of vehicular traffic. Medians and frontage roads cannot be maintained for extended length (only Steiner to Webster) Strong linear axis with double planted medians. Wide sidewalk opportunity on the northern block face for signature pedestrian promenade treatment (best in conjunction with redevelopment of north block face) Strong BRT identity contributes to identity of the street. Strong linearity of median landscaping absent, except at viaduct plazas.
Calm frontage roads allow some spill-out pedestrian activity, improved over existing condition by island landscaping.
F2: Center Blvd BRT (fill trench)
Eliminates trench, removing psychological and pedestrian barrier between neighborhoods on north and south side of Geary.
35 ft wide sidewalk/promenade linear park opportunity on north side of Geary (should be coupled with intensive redesign of Japan Center, other uses to activate). Widening of southern sidewalk to 18 ft (from 12 ft), especially in front of congested uses (e.g., Fillmore Theater).
F3: Viaduct BRT
Extra large platform-plazas at Fillmore create notable space -- more identifiable with Fillmore activity, than with Geary. Strong BRT identity contributes to identity of the street. Strong linearity of median landscaping absent, except at plazas.
Maintains trench, but improves north-south connection along Fillmore Street.
Four 30 ft wide platforms/plazas at Fillmore separated from sidewalks by narrow frontage road.
F4: Underground station BRT
Extra large platform-plazas at Fillmore create notable space -- more identifiable with Fillmore activity, than with Geary. Strong BRT identity contributes to identity of the street.
Maintains trench, but improves north-south connection along Fillmore Street.
Two 90 ft wide transit plazas at Fillmore separated from sidewalks by narrow frontage road. Opportunity for small buildings to activate plazas.
Page A9
Relative Ranking for Transit Rider Experience

Alternative Quality of waiting and boarding experience+ TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Quality of invehicle experience+ TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Wayfinding ability Perceived security of waiting riders BRT transit route branding / identity Total (tentative)
R0: Richmond No-Project R1: Curbside BRT R2: Ctr BRT/Side Platforms R3: Ctr BRT/Ctr Platforms M0: Masonic No-Project M1: Surface BRT M2: Underground BRT F0: Fillmore No-Project F1: Side Blvd BRT (fill) F2: Center Blvd BRT (fill) F3: Viaduct BRT F4: Underground BRT
2 4 4* 3* 1 5 4 3 3 4 4 4
4 4 3 4 3 4 2 3 4 3 4 2
1 2 4 5 1 2 5 1 3 4 5 5
7 10 11 12 5 11 11 7 10 11 13 11
Notes: + No score is presented for quality of waiting and boarding experience and quality of in-vehicle experience because we are waiting for several key metrics including headway variability, passenger load at the max load point, transit travel time and transit travel time variability. * Wayfinding ability for R2 and R3 varies by service plan. R2 is further complicated if operated as contraflow service.
Page A10
Relative Ranking for Access and Pedestrian Safety

Alternative Crossing experience Sidewalk conditions+ Quality of bicycle access Employment, retail & consumer accessibility for neighborhoods+ TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Total (tentative)
R0: Richmond No-Project R1: Curbside BRT R2: Ctr BRT/Side Platforms R3: Ctr BRT/Ctr Platforms M0: Masonic No-Project M1: Surface BRT M2: Underground BRT F0: Fillmore No-Project F1: Side Blvd BRT (fill) F2: Center Blvd BRT (fill) F3: Viaduct BRT F4: Underground BRT
2* 4 5 4 2 3 2 1 3 4 3 3
3 4 3 3 2 3 2 2 5 5 4 4
2 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 3 2 3 3
7 11 11 10 6 8 6 5 11 11 10 10
Notes: + The scores for sidewalk conditions may change based on the speed of adjacent traffic (TBD using VISSIM). No score is provided for employment, retail & consumer accessibility because the travel demand modeling has not been finalized. * The crossing experience is much poorer east of Park Presidio than west of Park Presidio.
Page A11
Relative Ranking for Urban Design & Landscaping

Street identity Neighborhood Connections Ability to create useable public open space Quality, quantity, character of landscaping Quality of sustainable storm water management treatments Total (tentative)
Alternative
R0: Richmond NoProject R1: Curbside BRT R2: Ctr BRT/Side Stops R3: Ctr BRT/Ctr Stops M0: Masonic No-Project M1: Surface BRT M2: Underground BRT F0: Fillmore No-Project F1: Side Blvd BRT (fill) F2: Ctr. Blvd BRT (fill) F3: Viaduct BRT F4: Underground BRT
2 4 4 5 1 2 4 2 4 5 4 4
2 2 3 3 2 3 1 1 4 4 2 2
1 3 2 2 3 4 2 1 3 4 5 5
TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
5 9 9 10 6 9 7 4 11 13 11 11
Notes: + No score is presented for quality, quantity, & character of landscaping or quality of sustainable storm water management treatments because we are currently developing and evaluating the landscape proposal.
Page A12

Geary - App - H Perancangan Terminal Bus

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Geary - App - H Perancangan Terminal Bus

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Memorandum

Date: To: From: Through: Subject:

Table 1.2. Relative Ranking for Access and Pedestrian Safety

Table 1.3. Relative Ranking for Urban Design & Landscaping

TBD TBD TBD TBD

M0: Masonic No-Project M1: Surface BRT M2: Underground BRT

Table 2.2. Relative Ranking for Access and Pedestrian Safety

M0: Masonic No-Project M1: Surface BRT M2: Underground BRT

Table 2.3. Relative Ranking for Urban Design & Landscaping

M0: Masonic No-Project M1: Surface BRT M2: Underground BRT

TBD TBD TBD

Table 3.1. Relative Ranking for Transit Rider Experience

Table 3.2. Relative Ranking for Access and Pedestrian Safety

TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

Perceived security of waiting riders

BRT transit route branding / identity

Ave. wait time (H/2)

Headway SD & COV (SD/mean)

Bus Stop/ Platform width

Buffer from traffic

PAX load at max. load point

Transit travel time

Transit travel time reliability

Direction of travel (# of changes)

Combined stops vs. local only at the curb

Transfer experience (inc. vertical circulation)

Visibility to other passengers & adjacent land uses

Recognizable as a high-quality and rapid service

R0: Richmond No-Project

R3: Center BRT (center platforms)

Transfer experience slightly improved with signage.

Transit Rider Experience

Quality of waiting and boarding experience1

Quality of in-vehicle experience1

Perceived security of waiting riders

BRT transit route branding / identity

Ave. wait time (H/2)

Headway SD & COV (SD/mean)

Bus Stop/ Platform width

Buffer from traffic

PAX load at max. load point

Transit travel time

Transit travel time reliability

Direction of travel (# of changes)

Combined stops vs. local only at the curb

Transfer experience (inc. vertical circulation)

Visibility to other passengers & adjacent land uses

Recognizable as a high-quality and rapid service

M0: Masonic No-Project

Transit Rider Experience

Quality of waiting and boarding experience1

Quality of in-vehicle experience1

Perceived security of waiting riders

BRT transit route branding / identity

Ave. wait time (H/2)

Headway SD & COV (SD/mean)

Bus Stop/ Platform width

Buffer from traffic

PAX load at max. load point

Transit travel time

Transit travel time reliability

Direction of travel (# of changes)

Combined stops vs. local only at the curb