Let the buses roll in San Francisco

EDITORIAL --- Now that San Francisco has completed the Third Street light-rail line -- after decades of planning and construction -- it is time to focus on the next essential extension of the Municipal Railway.

We refer to the proposed construction of dedicated rapid bus lanes or "corridors" in the middle of two of the city’s most densely traveled streets -- Geary Boulevard and Van Ness Avenue. The lanes would provide easier access to a huge swath of San Francisco unserved by rapid transit -- San Francisco’s northwest quadrant that stretches from downtown to the Pacific Ocean.

What’s at stake is figuring out ways to make mass transit even more appealing than driving a car on clogged city streets. If a bus can’t traverse a city faster than a car, then riders will inevitably abandon public transit. "If we lose those people, the city goes backward and the city gets more congested," said Jose Luis Moscovich, executive director of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority. "We have to figure out a 21st-century way to make public transit attractive."

Some 25 cities around the world -- from Vancouver to Rouen, France -- have established successful rapid bus corridors. But the improvements in San Francisco would represent the most comprehensive implementation of the "bus rapid transit," or BRT, approach on an established transit corridor in a densely populated city in the United States.

The plan involves far more than creating separate bus lanes. The buses themselves would have lower floors and wider doors and aisles to allow for easy entrance and exit of passengers at special sheltered platforms built in the center of the street. Traffic signals would be timed to allow riders to reduce travel times by 25 percent or more. Buses won’t be slowed by people fumbling for coins to put into fareboxes, because passengers will pre-pay their fares.

Some merchants along Geary and Van Ness are understandably apprehensive that their businesses would be hurt by disruptions during construction. But the long-term gains should outweigh the short-term inconveniences, including eventually enabling customers to shop without having to worry about parking, and attracting new customers from neighborhoods throughout the city.

Another advantage of the BRT approach is that construction on the entire project would only take between 18 months and two years on the 6-mile long Geary line, and less than that on the shorter Van Ness line. Because construction would only be done in three-block segments, neither route would ever be completely closed.

What’s more, the time line, as well as the expense, would be minimal compared to what would be required to build comparable light-rail lines. The Geary line would cost between $150 million and $200 million -- compared to as much as $2 billion for a light-rail system. "These are not complicated projects," said the Transportation Authority’s Moscovich. "They should be able to happen in a short period of time."

Even more alluring is that more than half the costs of the project are already available from revenues generated by Proposition K, the half-cent sales tax approved by voters in 2003. The remainder could come from "Small Start" federal transportation funds intended precisely for projects such as these.

Rapid bus lanes like these should be a no-brainer. All city departments who need to sign off on them should work to make them happen without the unacceptable delays and cost overruns that marred the Third Street project.

The city’s representatives in Washington should also get to work to secure the federal funds needed to underwrite the project. They wouldn’t need to rely on dubious congressional "earmarks," such as the one that tried to fund the now abandoned "bridge to nowhere" connecting a remote Alaskan island to the mainland. These transit corridors are essential improvements that will enhance the quality of life for all San Franciscans as well as visitors who come to explore its wonders.