Concrete Grey
A couple of weeks days ago I wondered what the color of our flyovers on Geary would be - the ones we’d use to try and keep pedestrians safe from speeding cars and buses. On my walk down Geary last night, I got our answer — ‘concrete grey’.
Here’s the intersection of Geary and Steiner, looking east:
As you can see, Geary is every bit the traffic sewer it has been described as being. In fact, it could be even worse than that, but we get the point - ‘Pedestrians Keep Out’.
The pictured flyover is one way Geary currently tells pedestrians that they are not allowed in this part of San Francisco. There are at least a couple of these flyovers in place already. I’m guessing that running a bunch of very large, high-speed buses down Geary will require us to install a few more of these - to keep the slaughter down as much as possible.
Move the map forward a bit and you’ll notice there are no crosswalks at grade - at the normal street level. Those pesky school kids kept getting in the way, and San Francisco got tired of picking up their guts all the time, so we installed these flyovers to make sure everyone knew that San Francisco was built for cars, and to really say, in as explicit a way as possible, that pedestrians were on their own if they decided to brave this part of San Francisco. Pedestrians could just not be tolerated on this highway any longer — it wasn’t feasible.
Most walkable city in America, huh?
Doesn’t say much for the rest of America.
Leave comment (2)[p.s. The Forums are open for participation.]
December 29th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Peter:
I think your continued bashing of BRT is misguided. I look forward to BRT not just because my bus ride will be more reliable and more pleasant but because when a lane of traffic is appropriated for public transit it gives us an opportunity to re-examine the current streetscape and do something about it. I expect that the BRT project will mean a Geary with better landscaping and improved pedestrian access. And when I say ‘I expect’, I mean that I will work to make sure that the Geary traffic sewer gets cleaned up in the process. Pedestrian fly-overs are among the relics that need to go. For a BRT system to work, pedestrian access is key, and as you point out flyovers tell folks: “No Pedestrians Here”
December 29th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
thanks rzu - as i’ve said, i hope i am flat-out wrong about BRT. 100%.
but we have to ask ourselves what are our goals for the city, and what is the true effect of BRT? is it just improving bus service, or does it prevent rail on Geary for the next 30 years at least? I feel certain it will prevent rail. that’s why people call BRT a ‘poison pill’.
So, do we just want improved bus service, or do we want something better?
sure, everyone wants improved bus service - of course. but things are never that simple. the real question is, how much do we have to give up to get this improved bus service called BRT?
BRT proponents are saying, “Nothing - you don’t have to give up anything.” But skeptics started saying, somewhat sheepishly it seems to me, “Well, we are not sure we believe you. We think we want this doodad thing to be ‘rail-ready’.” And to this, the BRT proponents said, “Sure - we’ll give you ‘rail-ready’ - no problem. Trust us.”
Well, of course, this BRT-to-light rail conversion has never happened to my knowledge, except for a case in France that could have happened - I’m still trying to figure out how their new T3 tram came about. Other than that, Ottawa ‘planned’ for a possible future light rail conversion, but of course, several years later and a new expensive study later, officials said light rail was no longer feasible — it’d be too expensive. And that’s the whole point of BRT - to delay light rail for as long as possible - ideally, indefinitely, as happened in Ottawa.
what are the build alternatives to BRT? here are a few:
1) ‘no build’ option — do nothing at all
2) change the streetscape to favor cyclists and pedestrians
3) put some money into improving existing bus service
4) put a lot of money into improving existing bus service - maybe call it BRT
5) put a more than a lot of money into improving existing bus service - call it BRT - and make it ‘rail ready’
6) put a whole lot of money into building a light rail.
To me, option 6) is the only logical choice — if we care about the future of the city. Ideally we want the walk/bike improvements, too, but we deserve real transit, as do future generations.
Some of these build alternatives are mutually-exclusive — others, not.
My immediate takes on BRT vs. Light Rail are the following:
1) as a cyclist, i hate buses — i want to get rid of them all
2) as a pedestrian, i hate buses — i want to get rid of them all
3) as a public transportation person, i hate buses — i want to have access to real transit, like rail
4) as a cyclist, i want to make it as easy as possible to move car people on transit, so they need real transit available to them - that means trains - this makes it easier for us, politically, to reclaim space that cars took from us years ago.
The list basically goes on and on like that. In almost every conceivable way, BRT on Geary is a horrible thing for San Francisco livability, but is particularly bad for pedestrians and cyclists who dream of a more bike-friendly, transit-oriented future. We are kicking the can down the road saying, “We don’t want to deal with this right now” - and we have a mayor who’s already built one rail line, is pushing through another as we speak, and yet we’re not getting rail on one of the busiest transit corridors in America - a line which _deserves_ rail. It just does not make any sense to me at all. Zero.
so, if people think they’re getting improved bus service - BRT - without giving anything up, then that’s a problem — i’m trying to help people see that by supporting BRT, they are giving up rail. i can’t imagine that this was discussed in San Francisco without strong oppo from groups who should know better - SFBC, Walk SF, Livable City, etc. I’ll be honest - i don’t get it one bit.
i actually think the idea that we’ll be able to force the city to build anything ‘rail-ready’ - whatever that means - is laughable. it’s not even a concept in reality - it’s words on a page. once we buy those huge buses, we need to wear them out - 15 to 20 years longer without light rail. it’s an immeasurable tragedy.