i don’t think that’s the right way to look at these types of issues. the question is, what design would make this street excellent for walkers and bikers?

after you figure that out, then see if there’s any room left over. if so, figure out how to divide it up between the various motorized modes of transport.

As far as Masonic goes, It is a bit of a hill, but it’s really the least steep road, there are pretty major hills to both sides. I agree Divisadero would be great for bike lanes, but if I wanted to go to Trader Joe’s from my house and had to take Divis, I would have to turn a 5 block trip into a 15 block trip, and still have a major hill to climb going up to Masonic from Divis. Plus, USF is right there, and lots of students in the vicinity. Masonic does see a decent amount of traffic, but it’s really not that heavy. I drive it almost every morning, they remove 1 lane of parking for driving, but I don’t think traffic would be that much worse if they just left it. There is only about 5 blocks where you have 3 lanes, on both sides it is 2 lanes. I’d like to see that 1 lane of parking permanently removed and turned into a bi-direction bike lane.

I’m having a hard time with trying to cram bike lanes onto Masonic as well. It has a really good-sized hill and is the only North-South street besides Franklin in the city that works decently for cars. I’d rather see lanes taken from Divisadero which is already hopeless for car travel and pretty flat from Haight to California Street and make that into a friendly biking street.

On rare occasions — for example if I’m going to the Fillmore Farmers Market on a Saturday morning — I’ll ride up and over O’Farrell, and then return by walking my bike back up the O’Farrell Street hill.

Alternatively, if I’m headed to Pacific Heights, I take Lake Street to Arguello, and then ont Sacramento to ???. Not sure of the street — avoiding the hills in Laurel Heights becomes treacherous and I just look for the least challenging ones.

I would love to see bike lanes on Geary, but short of bike lanes, I would like to see some sharrows on Anza and O’Farrell — as they are both going to become important feeders to Masonic when bike lanes finally get striped there.

Yeah.

You are right – I’d completely forgot about local buses. So how about this:

The first few spots’ length of a parking lane, after an intersection, would be a boarding/waiting island. So people would only have to cross the BRT and bike lane (with a striped crosswalk) to get to it. Buses would make the stop in-lane (rather than having to pull over), which makes the ride a lot more comfortable and having the stops post-intersection would decreases the buses’ time waiting at lights. Cars would be made to pass around the bus (as ends up being mostly the case anyway).

that’s exactly right. there’s every reason in the world for us to demand full bicycle infrastructure on Geary, Van Ness, and every other major corridor in the city. and that means at least fully-buffered bike lanes. if some motorized lanes and/or car parking have to be disappeared, even better.

as for a subway, i still don’t think humans should have to travel underground. but if they do, let the cars go underground, and leave mass transit upstairs. another way to look at subterranean transit — it is just protecting asphalt right-of-way for private automobiles — not desirable.

The only problem with this is that BRT buses would not be able to pass local buses. One day, when Geary has a subway, this design should be installed on the surface, with local buses using the bus lane, which would connect with subway stations. If you had a subway on Geary, the only bus service necessary would be local service.

How about having a short subway under the Masonic hill? It’s a traffic mess up there as it is, so getting the bus out of the way is a plus. It frees up space for bikes on precisely the segment where it matters most.

The best alternative might be Anza approaching from the west, going up to Geary via Masonic, going on Geary for a block and up again to the existing bike lane on Post.

Of course, a bart-style subway would be my ideal, or, failing that, Muni-style. But it’s all a dream…

What I think is interesting is a similar project on Van Ness, another gentle grade street, is also lacking bike lanes. What’s up with that? Just because I would never ride those streets right now, doesn’t mean I wouldn’t want to if the traffic were calmer and there was infrastructure.

I also think it’s important to make the bus on Geary work. Unfortunately I had to take the 38L, aka cattle car, into work today and I wanted to shoot myself. There should be no regular buses, just limited stops, and the bus should come every five minutes. Maybe if it was reliable and there was guaranteed breathing room, people would forgo their cars and use the bus. And maybe if Geary wasn’t scary and had bike lanes, more people would ride their bike!

West of Presidio, both Turk and California are good bike routes, the former of which already has bike lanes, and the latter of which is totally flat (even more so than Geary) and is a better candidate with fewer issues than Geary.

Let’s not be unreasonable here and try to complicate the matter here unnecessarily.

My problem is: why do they like the dedicated bus lanes on the inside, where peds have to cross the dangerous road to? Why not have this design:

(Starting from the inside-out)
-Removed median
-Two down-sized traffic lanes (they’re too wide)
-Parking lane (shortened on the ends for right-turn visibility)
-Bike lane
-Bus lane
-Sidewalk

There’s so much room, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were some left over for sidewalk widening, which should definitely be done where it can. Maybe some foliage and trees can be added to separate people from the bus lane where there’s no stop.

All the center median does is take up space and increase drivers’ false sense of security, encouraging them to drive inattentively.

With this plan, cars still have two lanes and are optimally separated from bike, bus, and people traffic by the parking lane. People can reach the bus directly from the sidewalk.

I didn’t do the actual measurements, but from a rough look, it seems like it should fit.

(I know, I dream…)

But getting back to reality: Geary Subway could cost $3-5 billion. That’s money that’s very difficult to find. Honestly, I believe that’s money better invested at intercity/high speed rail which aims to reduce reliance on the most inefficient mode of travel in the world: short-hop aviation.

I also don’t want to see another hurdle for Geary BRT as it faces enough opposition already. Can the SFBC push for an O’Farrell or Post/Sutter alternative? How about a bike flyover of the Muni yard?