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.

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”