Am i correct in assuming that there is a “may not” or similar before all these provisions

things to think about:

- i’m a fan of center bus lanes and would like to see more, but understand DOT wants both local & brt to use the lanes and local still needs curb stops
- TSP is conditional only for late buses
- can we get onboard bus lane enforcement cameras? legislation needed

things i am excited about in general:

- raised intersections and bumpouts everywhere
- transit signal priority
- road diets
- bike connections around edgewood park and edgewood ave to the green along elm st
- offboard fare payment

things i am excited about specifically (obviously better bus service is #1):

- fixing the broadway intersection and building the “judges’ circle”
- expanded broadway plaza
- dixwell/munson peanut
- elm st contraflow bus lane
- church st center running bus lanes
- grand/ferry roundabout

sbarro

my favorite comment from the meeting (which got picked up by the new haven independent article) was someone claiming that it was “offensive to the neighborhood” to say that “so few vehicles” use the bridge

400 ADT *is* technically very few compared to 8300 ADT on parallel Grand Ave. close it

Yes a full replacement, it’s in conjunction with lengthening the station platforms and providing a new stair/elevator from the bridge to the platform, so it needs a brand new structure to eliminate piers in the railbed and raise track clearance

Planned to start construction next year if all goes to the DOT’s schedule

Final note: as New Haven in collaboration with CTDOT and its consultants continue designing our BRT, I hope to see center running lanes and physically separated lanes as the default alternative. Knowing how drivers will park in any available curb space they find, curbside bus lanes are not ideal.

Reports referenced in the thread:

Van Ness Ave: www.sfmta.com/media/41987/...
Geary Blvd: www.sfmta.com/media/42845/...

Overall, when looking to make a true investment in bus lanes, center running should be the default, especially in dense areas with lots of curbside activity. Curb running bus lanes present too many points of failure (parking, mixing traffic, tougher signal separation) to be a quality final product.

Curbside/offset bus lanes are likely fine for a quick build situation, where you want to provide a dedicated bus lane with some simple paint and signing changes only. But cities should be prepared to deploy additional enforcement, as even one car parked in the bus lane will render it useless.

Given this data, I conclude that center running bus lanes are the most effective type for both bus operations and overall street safety. They require more capital construction, but produce a high quality, reliable, self enforcing end result by removing buses from typical downtown curbside conflicts.

Ridership - both corridors were built in the covid era, so ridership data was presented as a percentage of pre-covid recovery:

Van Ness - 103% recovery, with added challenge of an overlapping van ness route being suspended
Geary - 67% recovery on both the local and rapid routes

Collisions - looking at both overall collisions and transit related collisions:

Van Ness - overall crashes down 33%, transit crashes down 82%
Geary - overall crash rate unchanged/negligible, transit crashes down 50%

Transit lane compliance - how often are passenger vehicles breaking the law by entering the bus lanes:

Van Ness - SFMTA does not provide data, likely because center bus lanes cannot be parked in / are median separated and highly discourage it
Geary - 47% reduction after painting bus lanes red