Curbed SF on Geary BRT
The always useful Curbed SF blog has a detailed discussion up today on the Geary Bus Rapid Transit project, which we have supported since time immemorial (well, almost). As the progress proceeds at a glacial pace, Matt of Curbed points out that the concerns about higher density and transit oriented development were much less of a problem when actual transit oriented development was happening, almost a century ago when the Municipal Railway first opened the A and B lines up Geary in 1912. So it really does not make sense to oppose restoring a small subset of the service that was available a century ago on the grounds that it will somehow make Geary less livable.
One concern, however – in the design of the BRT project, why are high quality shelters with NextBus proposed for “most” stops? The whole point of BRT is to upgrade the service at ALL stops.
I recall taking the old iron horse type streetcars on Geary to school. I think with my student car ticket it was ten rides for Twenty five cents. Too bad that line was eliminated.
There are some good observations in this Curbed SF article and comments. “Better transit equals less need for cars,†and â€the trade-off between cars, mass transit and bikes is not zero sum.â€
Too often on Rescue Muni I see irrational car hatred. There seems to be an absurd notion that if you punish automobile drivers enough it will magically improve public transit. The anti Prop H campaign was a good example. Some of the arguments against it were ludicrous.
Rescue Muni would be better served by focusing on transit lovers and ignoring car haters.
Don –
I think you may be confusing the opinions of our members (e.g. commenters on this site and the yahoo group) with the policy of the organization. We unabashedly support transit priority (and opposed 2007 Prop H because we believed it would increase congestion), but I don’t think you’ll find any “car hate” in our policy or recommendations. The whole point of Rescue Muni is to promote better transit so people have ALTERNATIVES to cars.
Thanks
Andrew
Thanks for the link to my Curbed article!
Regarding Don’s comment: I don’t make any apologies for being strongly opposed to cars in cities. I think they’re very handy inventions, but a city can only sustain a very small number of them before they start making life miserable. A car just simply takes up too much space. I don’t see why a city should be under any obligation to accommodate more than a few at a time.
That having been said, I do agree that refusing to accommodate cars isn’t by itself a solution; you have to provide usable transit. I’m looking forward to the day that San Francisco actually accomplishes that.
I know that Rescue Muni leadership is not extremely anti auto. After all, some of you actually own cars. I also know that your policy is to promote better public transit as an alternative. That’s why I send you money. But Rescue Muni arguments against prop H were anti automobile. Or so it seemed to me.
It is questionable there was any evidence that Prop H would cause more congestion. It may have actually reduced congestion. But even if Prop H would have caused more congestion, that may have been good for public transit use. Congestion is a good motivator to use public transit, even bad public transit.
There is no evidence that more cars harm public transit use. In SF census tracts there is a positive correlation between vehicle density (the number of cars per square mile) and the percent of people who use public transit to get to work. Many people own cars and take public transit.
‘irrational car hatred’ misses the point. The era of cheap oil is over, and even if it weren’t if the price at the pump properly accounted the pollution/health/land use costs of single driver commuting most drivers would think twice before going the six blocks to the store or movie. As to sharing the scarce pavement, once the bus has more than five passengers, it is taking up less street space than if they were each driving alone which is the most common case. As to the claim of car density/and transit use, show me the numbers, because the claim is completely counterintuitive.
For a good analysis of car potential, go here
http://frumin.net/ation/2009/08/whats_capacity_go_to_do_with_m.html
“There is no evidence that more cars harm public transit use. In SF census tracts there is a positive correlation between vehicle density (the number of cars per square mile) and the percent of people who use public transit to get to work. Many people own cars and take public transit.”
Don, you’re right that there is correlation, but there’s certainly no evidence of causation. The neighborhoods in SF that have lower rates of vehicle density also happen to be neighborhoods where walk-commuting is extremely high, thus eating into transit use – but you can hardly call that a negative or claim that that somehow validates the argument that more cars = more transit use.
If you expand your area of data to the entire Bay Area or even just the inner Bay Area, your entire correlation loop falls apart (and actually reverses itself).
David: See the Census Bureau website to download SF census tract data.
Boris: I did not say more cars=more transit use. I said there was no evidence that more cars harm transit use. “More cars harm transit” was a Rescue Muni anti Prop H argument. I suspect that if one were to factor in population and housing density any correlation between auto density and transit use one way or the other would disappear.
The main point is that being pro auto is not the same as being anti transit (that is how Rescue Muni interpreted Prop H). Further, being anti auto to improve public transit is the wrong strategy. Automobiles subsidize public transit.
BTW I am fully aware that correlation does not equal causation.
PLEASE GO ELECTRIC!!! Geary Blvd is a major arterial and corridor leading into the Richmond District of San Francisco! bETWEEN 1912 AND 1958 it had clean effecient and environmentally friendly ELECTRIC trams (the “A” “B” “C” and “D” lines), in fact to what I understand it may have been the first electric tram line of United Railroads, the precursor to the Municipal Railway of San Francisco hence (MUNI).nnUnder the then influence of General Motors and the National City Lines Scandal that prevaled during the time between the early part of the previous century and the early 60’s (and in some cases even up into the very early 1970’s), Geary Boulevard was de-electrified with wires torn down and track torn up.nnSince then, there has never been any form of electrification on Geary whatsoever! Again, I am adamately absolutely and vehemently OPPOSED to this so-called Transit Bus Corridor Project for one important major reason — it’s DIESEL! Apparently, ABSOLUTELY NO ELECTRIFICATION HAS EVEN BEEN CONSIDERED in the planning of this project!nnWe were promised light rail out here on Geary Boulevard with ELECTRIC trams (light rail)! I am so blighted disgusted, and disappointed that this present busway indoctrination seems to be coming right out of the old National City Lines propaganda!nnDiesel is definitely NOT necessarily more effecient than electricity (bio-diesel inclusive), never has and never shall! This sell for a glorified DIESEL busway on Geary is self-defeating and very unenvironmental — and actually in the long term MORE expensive!nnLet’s resolve to keep the promises to the residents and commercial enterprises here in the Richmond District by keeping to the long overdue promises of clean efficient quiet ELECTRIC light rail! (Even if one should decide to go the bus route, then at least consider articulated TROLLEY busses)!nnTrue that the INITIAL expense is more than that quick unenvironmental “alternative” fix, hence more diesel pollution both noise and environmental wise. But in the LONG TERM electrification pays more than TRIPLE (that is 3X) the costs than running fossil fuel transport. This has been proven world wide for over a century! Electrification is indeed nothing new, it began during the last part of the ninteenth century and with todays technology it genuinely has proven itself both in terms of enviroment and COSTS! Just turn to Europe, Japan, China and other parts of the world to verify just what I am arguing here!nnPLEASE put the emergency brakes on this rhetoric nonsense of some diesel busway as that is deceptive and misleading to the general public at large! Let’s instead honour and respect the promises that have been made in the recent past. With electrification of the non-corridor routes such as the #1, 5, and 31 trolleybus routes, there is no excuse as not to electrify what IS the major and most important corridor (other than Mission Sreet) of San Francisco — PLEASE ELECTRIFY! NOW!nnThanks a million for your attentiveness! n
PLEASE GO ELECTRIC!!! Geary Blvd is a major arterial and corridor leading into the Richmond District of San Francisco! bETWEEN 1912 AND 1958 it had clean effecient and environmentally friendly ELECTRIC trams (the “A” “B” “C” and “D” lines), in fact to what I understand it may have been the first electric tram line of United Railroads, the precursor to the Municipal Railway of San Francisco hence (MUNI).nnUnder the then influence of General Motors and the National City Lines Scandal that prevaled during the time between the early part of the previous century and the early 60’s (and in some cases even up into the very early 1970’s), Geary Boulevard was de-electrified with wires torn down and track torn up.nnSince then, there has never been any form of electrification on Geary whatsoever! Again, I am adamately absolutely and vehemently OPPOSED to this so-called Transit Bus Corridor Project for one important major reason — it’s DIESEL! Apparently, ABSOLUTELY NO ELECTRIFICATION HAS EVEN BEEN CONSIDERED in the planning of this project!nnWe were promised light rail out here on Geary Boulevard with ELECTRIC trams (light rail)! I am so blighted disgusted, and disappointed that this present busway indoctrination seems to be coming right out of the old National City Lines propaganda!nnDiesel is definitely NOT necessarily more effecient than electricity (bio-diesel inclusive), never has and never shall! This sell for a glorified DIESEL busway on Geary is self-defeating and very unenvironmental — and actually in the long term MORE expensive!nnLet’s resolve to keep the promises to the residents and commercial enterprises here in the Richmond District by keeping to the long overdue promises of clean efficient quiet ELECTRIC light rail! (Even if one should decide to go the bus route, then at least consider articulated TROLLEY busses)!nnTrue that the INITIAL expense is more than that quick unenvironmental “alternative” fix, hence more diesel pollution both noise and environmental wise. But in the LONG TERM electrification pays more than TRIPLE (that is 3X) the costs than running fossil fuel transport. This has been proven world wide for over a century! Electrification is indeed nothing new, it began during the last part of the ninteenth century and with todays technology it genuinely has proven itself both in terms of enviroment and COSTS! Just turn to Europe, Japan, China and other parts of the world to verify just what I am arguing here!nnPLEASE put the emergency brakes on this rhetoric nonsense of some diesel busway as that is deceptive and misleading to the general public at large! Let’s instead honour and respect the promises that have been made in the recent past. With electrification of the non-corridor routes such as the #1, 5, and 31 trolleybus routes, there is no excuse as not to electrify what IS the major and most important corridor (other than Mission Sreet) of San Francisco — PLEASE ELECTRIFY! NOW!nnThanks a million for your attentiveness! n
PLEASE GO ELECTRIC!!! Geary Blvd is a major arterial and corridor leading into the Richmond District of San Francisco! bETWEEN 1912 AND 1958 it had clean effecient and environmentally friendly ELECTRIC trams (the “A” “B” “C” and “D” lines), in fact to what I understand it may have been the first electric tram line of United Railroads, the precursor to the Municipal Railway of San Francisco hence (MUNI).nnUnder the then influence of General Motors and the National City Lines Scandal that prevaled during the time between the early part of the previous century and the early 60’s (and in some cases even up into the very early 1970’s), Geary Boulevard was de-electrified with wires torn down and track torn up.nnSince then, there has never been any form of electrification on Geary whatsoever! Again, I am adamately absolutely and vehemently OPPOSED to this so-called Transit Bus Corridor Project for one important major reason — it’s DIESEL! Apparently, ABSOLUTELY NO ELECTRIFICATION HAS EVEN BEEN CONSIDERED in the planning of this project!nnWe were promised light rail out here on Geary Boulevard with ELECTRIC trams (light rail)! I am so blighted disgusted, and disappointed that this present busway indoctrination seems to be coming right out of the old National City Lines propaganda!nnDiesel is definitely NOT necessarily more effecient than electricity (bio-diesel inclusive), never has and never shall! This sell for a glorified DIESEL busway on Geary is self-defeating and very unenvironmental — and actually in the long term MORE expensive!nnLet’s resolve to keep the promises to the residents and commercial enterprises here in the Richmond District by keeping to the long overdue promises of clean efficient quiet ELECTRIC light rail! (Even if one should decide to go the bus route, then at least consider articulated TROLLEY busses)!nnTrue that the INITIAL expense is more than that quick unenvironmental “alternative” fix, hence more diesel pollution both noise and environmental wise. But in the LONG TERM electrification pays more than TRIPLE (that is 3X) the costs than running fossil fuel transport. This has been proven world wide for over a century! Electrification is indeed nothing new, it began during the last part of the ninteenth century and with todays technology it genuinely has proven itself both in terms of enviroment and COSTS! Just turn to Europe, Japan, China and other parts of the world to verify just what I am arguing here!nnPLEASE put the emergency brakes on this rhetoric nonsense of some diesel busway as that is deceptive and misleading to the general public at large! Let’s instead honour and respect the promises that have been made in the recent past. With electrification of the non-corridor routes such as the #1, 5, and 31 trolleybus routes, there is no excuse as not to electrify what IS the major and most important corridor (other than Mission Sreet) of San Francisco — PLEASE ELECTRIFY! NOW!nnThanks a million for your attentiveness! n
PLEASE GO ELECTRIC!!! Geary Blvd is a major arterial and corridor leading into the Richmond District of San Francisco! bETWEEN 1912 AND 1958 it had clean effecient and environmentally friendly ELECTRIC trams (the “A” “B” “C” and “D” lines), in fact to what I understand it may have been the first electric tram line of United Railroads, the precursor to the Municipal Railway of San Francisco hence (MUNI).nnUnder the then influence of General Motors and the National City Lines Scandal that prevaled during the time between the early part of the previous century and the early 60’s (and in some cases even up into the very early 1970’s), Geary Boulevard was de-electrified with wires torn down and track torn up.nnSince then, there has never been any form of electrification on Geary whatsoever! Again, I am adamately absolutely and vehemently OPPOSED to this so-called Transit Bus Corridor Project for one important major reason — it’s DIESEL! Apparently, ABSOLUTELY NO ELECTRIFICATION HAS EVEN BEEN CONSIDERED in the planning of this project!nnWe were promised light rail out here on Geary Boulevard with ELECTRIC trams (light rail)! I am so blighted disgusted, and disappointed that this present busway indoctrination seems to be coming right out of the old National City Lines propaganda!nnDiesel is definitely NOT necessarily more effecient than electricity (bio-diesel inclusive), never has and never shall! This sell for a glorified DIESEL busway on Geary is self-defeating and very unenvironmental — and actually in the long term MORE expensive!nnLet’s resolve to keep the promises to the residents and commercial enterprises here in the Richmond District by keeping to the long overdue promises of clean efficient quiet ELECTRIC light rail! (Even if one should decide to go the bus route, then at least consider articulated TROLLEY busses)!nnTrue that the INITIAL expense is more than that quick unenvironmental “alternative” fix, hence more diesel pollution both noise and environmental wise. But in the LONG TERM electrification pays more than TRIPLE (that is 3X) the costs than running fossil fuel transport. This has been proven world wide for over a century! Electrification is indeed nothing new, it began during the last part of the ninteenth century and with todays technology it genuinely has proven itself both in terms of enviroment and COSTS! Just turn to Europe, Japan, China and other parts of the world to verify just what I am arguing here!nnPLEASE put the emergency brakes on this rhetoric nonsense of some diesel busway as that is deceptive and misleading to the general public at large! Let’s instead honour and respect the promises that have been made in the recent past. With electrification of the non-corridor routes such as the #1, 5, and 31 trolleybus routes, there is no excuse as not to electrify what IS the major and most important corridor (other than Mission Sreet) of San Francisco — PLEASE ELECTRIFY! NOW!nnThanks a million for your attentiveness! n
PLEASE GO ELECTRIC!!! Geary Blvd is a major arterial and corridor leading into the Richmond District of San Francisco! bETWEEN 1912 AND 1958 it had clean effecient and environmentally friendly ELECTRIC trams (the “A” “B” “C” and “D” lines), in fact to what I understand it may have been the first electric tram line of United Railroads, the precursor to the Municipal Railway of San Francisco hence (MUNI).nnUnder the then influence of General Motors and the National City Lines Scandal that prevaled during the time between the early part of the previous century and the early 60’s (and in some cases even up into the very early 1970’s), Geary Boulevard was de-electrified with wires torn down and track torn up.nnSince then, there has never been any form of electrification on Geary whatsoever! Again, I am adamately absolutely and vehemently OPPOSED to this so-called Transit Bus Corridor Project for one important major reason — it’s DIESEL! Apparently, ABSOLUTELY NO ELECTRIFICATION HAS EVEN BEEN CONSIDERED in the planning of this project!nnWe were promised light rail out here on Geary Boulevard with ELECTRIC trams (light rail)! I am so blighted disgusted, and disappointed that this present busway indoctrination seems to be coming right out of the old National City Lines propaganda!nnDiesel is definitely NOT necessarily more effecient than electricity (bio-diesel inclusive), never has and never shall! This sell for a glorified DIESEL busway on Geary is self-defeating and very unenvironmental — and actually in the long term MORE expensive!nnLet’s resolve to keep the promises to the residents and commercial enterprises here in the Richmond District by keeping to the long overdue promises of clean efficient quiet ELECTRIC light rail! (Even if one should decide to go the bus route, then at least consider articulated TROLLEY busses)!nnTrue that the INITIAL expense is more than that quick unenvironmental “alternative” fix, hence more diesel pollution both noise and environmental wise. But in the LONG TERM electrification pays more than TRIPLE (that is 3X) the costs than running fossil fuel transport. This has been proven world wide for over a century! Electrification is indeed nothing new, it began during the last part of the ninteenth century and with todays technology it genuinely has proven itself both in terms of enviroment and COSTS! Just turn to Europe, Japan, China and other parts of the world to verify just what I am arguing here!nnPLEASE put the emergency brakes on this rhetoric nonsense of some diesel busway as that is deceptive and misleading to the general public at large! Let’s instead honour and respect the promises that have been made in the recent past. With electrification of the non-corridor routes such as the #1, 5, and 31 trolleybus routes, there is no excuse as not to electrify what IS the major and most important corridor (other than Mission Sreet) of San Francisco — PLEASE ELECTRIFY! NOW!nnThanks a million for your attentiveness! n
PLEASE GO ELECTRIC!!! Geary Blvd is a major arterial and corridor leading into the Richmond District of San Francisco! bETWEEN 1912 AND 1958 it had clean effecient and environmentally friendly ELECTRIC trams (the “A” “B” “C” and “D” lines), in fact to what I understand it may have been the first electric tram line of United Railroads, the precursor to the Municipal Railway of San Francisco hence (MUNI).nnUnder the then influence of General Motors and the National City Lines Scandal that prevaled during the time between the early part of the previous century and the early 60’s (and in some cases even up into the very early 1970’s), Geary Boulevard was de-electrified with wires torn down and track torn up.nnSince then, there has never been any form of electrification on Geary whatsoever! Again, I am adamately absolutely and vehemently OPPOSED to this so-called Transit Bus Corridor Project for one important major reason — it’s DIESEL! Apparently, ABSOLUTELY NO ELECTRIFICATION HAS EVEN BEEN CONSIDERED in the planning of this project!nnWe were promised light rail out here on Geary Boulevard with ELECTRIC trams (light rail)! I am so blighted disgusted, and disappointed that this present busway indoctrination seems to be coming right out of the old National City Lines propaganda!nnDiesel is definitely NOT necessarily more effecient than electricity (bio-diesel inclusive), never has and never shall! This sell for a glorified DIESEL busway on Geary is self-defeating and very unenvironmental — and actually in the long term MORE expensive!nnLet’s resolve to keep the promises to the residents and commercial enterprises here in the Richmond District by keeping to the long overdue promises of clean efficient quiet ELECTRIC light rail! (Even if one should decide to go the bus route, then at least consider articulated TROLLEY busses)!nnTrue that the INITIAL expense is more than that quick unenvironmental “alternative” fix, hence more diesel pollution both noise and environmental wise. But in the LONG TERM electrification pays more than TRIPLE (that is 3X) the costs than running fossil fuel transport. This has been proven world wide for over a century! Electrification is indeed nothing new, it began during the last part of the ninteenth century and with todays technology it genuinely has proven itself both in terms of enviroment and COSTS! Just turn to Europe, Japan, China and other parts of the world to verify just what I am arguing here!nnPLEASE put the emergency brakes on this rhetoric nonsense of some diesel busway as that is deceptive and misleading to the general public at large! Let’s instead honour and respect the promises that have been made in the recent past. With electrification of the non-corridor routes such as the #1, 5, and 31 trolleybus routes, there is no excuse as not to electrify what IS the major and most important corridor (other than Mission Sreet) of San Francisco — PLEASE ELECTRIFY! NOW!nnThanks a million for your attentiveness! n
PLEASE GO ELECTRIC!!! Geary Blvd is a major arterial and corridor leading into the Richmond District of San Francisco! bETWEEN 1912 AND 1958 it had clean effecient and environmentally friendly ELECTRIC trams (the “A” “B” “C” and “D” lines), in fact to what I understand it may have been the first electric tram line of United Railroads, the precursor to the Municipal Railway of San Francisco hence (MUNI).nnUnder the then influence of General Motors and the National City Lines Scandal that prevaled during the time between the early part of the previous century and the early 60’s (and in some cases even up into the very early 1970’s), Geary Boulevard was de-electrified with wires torn down and track torn up.nnSince then, there has never been any form of electrification on Geary whatsoever! Again, I am adamately absolutely and vehemently OPPOSED to this so-called Transit Bus Corridor Project for one important major reason — it’s DIESEL! Apparently, ABSOLUTELY NO ELECTRIFICATION HAS EVEN BEEN CONSIDERED in the planning of this project!nnWe were promised light rail out here on Geary Boulevard with ELECTRIC trams (light rail)! I am so blighted disgusted, and disappointed that this present busway indoctrination seems to be coming right out of the old National City Lines propaganda!nnDiesel is definitely NOT necessarily more effecient than electricity (bio-diesel inclusive), never has and never shall! This sell for a glorified DIESEL busway on Geary is self-defeating and very unenvironmental — and actually in the long term MORE expensive!nnLet’s resolve to keep the promises to the residents and commercial enterprises here in the Richmond District by keeping to the long overdue promises of clean efficient quiet ELECTRIC light rail! (Even if one should decide to go the bus route, then at least consider articulated TROLLEY busses)!nnTrue that the INITIAL expense is more than that quick unenvironmental “alternative” fix, hence more diesel pollution both noise and environmental wise. But in the LONG TERM electrification pays more than TRIPLE (that is 3X) the costs than running fossil fuel transport. This has been proven world wide for over a century! Electrification is indeed nothing new, it began during the last part of the ninteenth century and with todays technology it genuinely has proven itself both in terms of enviroment and COSTS! Just turn to Europe, Japan, China and other parts of the world to verify just what I am arguing here!nnPLEASE put the emergency brakes on this rhetoric nonsense of some diesel busway as that is deceptive and misleading to the general public at large! Let’s instead honour and respect the promises that have been made in the recent past. With electrification of the non-corridor routes such as the #1, 5, and 31 trolleybus routes, there is no excuse as not to electrify what IS the major and most important corridor (other than Mission Sreet) of San Francisco — PLEASE ELECTRIFY! NOW!nnThanks a million for your attentiveness! n
PLEASE GO ELECTRIC!!! Geary Blvd is a major arterial and corridor leading into the Richmond District of San Francisco! bETWEEN 1912 AND 1958 it had clean effecient and environmentally friendly ELECTRIC trams (the “A” “B” “C” and “D” lines), in fact to what I understand it may have been the first electric tram line of United Railroads, the precursor to the Municipal Railway of San Francisco hence (MUNI).nnUnder the then influence of General Motors and the National City Lines Scandal that prevaled during the time between the early part of the previous century and the early 60’s (and in some cases even up into the very early 1970’s), Geary Boulevard was de-electrified with wires torn down and track torn up.nnSince then, there has never been any form of electrification on Geary whatsoever! Again, I am adamately absolutely and vehemently OPPOSED to this so-called Transit Bus Corridor Project for one important major reason — it’s DIESEL! Apparently, ABSOLUTELY NO ELECTRIFICATION HAS EVEN BEEN CONSIDERED in the planning of this project!nnWe were promised light rail out here on Geary Boulevard with ELECTRIC trams (light rail)! I am so blighted disgusted, and disappointed that this present busway indoctrination seems to be coming right out of the old National City Lines propaganda!nnDiesel is definitely NOT necessarily more effecient than electricity (bio-diesel inclusive), never has and never shall! This sell for a glorified DIESEL busway on Geary is self-defeating and very unenvironmental — and actually in the long term MORE expensive!nnLet’s resolve to keep the promises to the residents and commercial enterprises here in the Richmond District by keeping to the long overdue promises of clean efficient quiet ELECTRIC light rail! (Even if one should decide to go the bus route, then at least consider articulated TROLLEY busses)!nnTrue that the INITIAL expense is more than that quick unenvironmental “alternative” fix, hence more diesel pollution both noise and environmental wise. But in the LONG TERM electrification pays more than TRIPLE (that is 3X) the costs than running fossil fuel transport. This has been proven world wide for over a century! Electrification is indeed nothing new, it began during the last part of the ninteenth century and with todays technology it genuinely has proven itself both in terms of enviroment and COSTS! Just turn to Europe, Japan, China and other parts of the world to verify just what I am arguing here!nnPLEASE put the emergency brakes on this rhetoric nonsense of some diesel busway as that is deceptive and misleading to the general public at large! Let’s instead honour and respect the promises that have been made in the recent past. With electrification of the non-corridor routes such as the #1, 5, and 31 trolleybus routes, there is no excuse as not to electrify what IS the major and most important corridor (other than Mission Sreet) of San Francisco — PLEASE ELECTRIFY! NOW!nnThanks a million for your attentiveness! n