⁴ᴷ⁶⁰ Van Ness Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Observations

Here are some observations along SFMTA's brand-new Van Ness Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor! Starting at Market Street, we slowly make our way up Van Ness as far north as Pacific Avenue, filming every MUNI and Golden Gate Transit bus along the way.
After decades of planning and setbacks, Van Ness BRT officially opened on April 1, 2022. This was filmed one week later on April 8.
From Wikipedia: "Van Ness Bus Rapid Transit is a bus rapid transit corridor on the Van Ness Avenue thoroughfare in San Francisco, California, United States. The 2-mile (3.2 km) line, which runs between Mission Street and Lombard Street has dedicated center bus lanes and nine stations. It was built as part of the $346 million Van Ness Improvement Project, which also included utility replacement and pedestrian safety features. Van Ness Bus Rapid Transit is used by several San Francisco Municipal Railway (Muni) lines including the 49 Van Ness-Mission, as well as three Golden Gate Transit routes.
"Streetcar service on Van Ness Avenue began in 1915; it was replaced by trolleybuses in 1950-51, with diesel bus routes later added. Planning for a rail line on the corridor began in 1989 with the passage of a ballot measure. By 1995, it was to be the last of four major rail corridors constructed in the city. The planned mode was replaced with bus rapid transit in 2003, with studies and environmental analysis lasting the next decade. Construction began in June 2016; the planned completion in 2019 was delayed several times. Service began on April 1, 2022."
The corridor is utilized by the 49 Van Ness/Mission as well as a few Golden Gate Transit routes, all of which were captured in this video.
Although it is called BRT, the corridor is more so a set of glorified red bus lanes. It features traffic signal priority so that buses get a faster journey, but buses are ultimately still waiting for traffic at most intersections they encounter. There is no level boarding or on-platform fare payment, leading many to label it as "bus rapid transit creep," an term used for when a project that claims to be BRT omits key features that would make it an effective BRT system.
Still, the lanes are a welcome improvement for transit along Van Ness since they are never stuck in car traffic to the right of them. This can lead to some very satisfying instances of packed buses zooming past congestion right next to them.
To watch the full journey along the BRT corridor, click here: • ⁴ᴷ⁶⁰ SFMTA: Full Journ...

[@louiszhang3050]

This reminds me of a lot of the major avenues in Seoul which have dedicated bus lanes. Only difference in Seoul is that they’re everywhere. Hope San Francisco and cities around the US build more of these.

[@qjtvaddict]

Seoul is larger than pretty much any US city.

[@portcybertryx222]

There are a lot of cities in the US with BRT. SF does it better tho

[@TohaBgood2]

Nope. The last thing we need to build in a city like SF are BRT and more busses. Busses are insanely expensive to run per rider. BRT was invented in areas with extremely low labor costs. They're basically a hack to spend less on building costs but only slightly more on running costs by using busses. This math simply does not work in a city where a bus driver earns over $100k in pay. What we actually need is light rail because it can double capacity by simply adding another car. With busses and BRT you need a whole new bus with a whole new driver. It's completely crazy that we're jumping on a transit fad instead of simply building a train. All this "innovation" in transit is just a waste of money. We just need more trains. I know that this is a boring answer, but it happens to be the truth.

[@JH-pe3ro]

I've rode this a few times now. It seems to work OK with the current traffic patterns, gets me out to the wharf pretty quickly.

[@transittown7891]

Nice Bus Rapid Transit. Yeah these are so efficient for getting from place to place 😊

[@TohaBgood2]

These are insanely expensive to run per rider compared to a light rail vehicle. BRT only works in areas with very low labor costs. SF is literally one of the top 3 most expensive cities in the world. The idea that we can replace trains with busses without wasting literal hundreds of millions is completely insane.

[@user-ql8pb6kh1d]

​@@TohaBgood2I have been on MUNI when I was in middle school

[@Daniel-ui3zy]

5:10 omg this beamer probably got a ticket. Honestly stupid thing to do, but I'm guessing the cop driving in the bus lane made it confusing for them.

[@sbl17jackson37]

The problem is that cars and motorcyclist can still illegally use these bus BRT lanes. They need to try to prevent this from happening.

[@LilBoyHexley]

All BRT should at a minimum separate via a very low curb or bump. Something low wouldn't block the bus or emergency vehicles from entering or leaving the lane as needed, but would prevent casual movement by non-city vehicles into the lane.

[@portcybertryx222]

I think they are planning to install small curb raisers in intervals between the BRT and car lanes which should prevent cars from crossing over

[@TheOfficialChillClan]

glorious

[@TheCloakedTiger]

FINALLY! Messy nessy is not so messy anymore!

[@BTinSF]

I have noticed fully electric trolley busses “practicing” on the route. I assume the swtichover to them is coming soon.

[@user-ql8pb6kh1d]

I didn't ride the bus, but I did ride the MUNI train

[@sbl17jackson37]

I realize that adjacent streets have protected bike lanes, but still having some on Van Ness would be nice also.

[@justinmccandless]

Polk is not all that protected for most of the way if that's what you mean.

[@rlowe6078]

Does the 49 have *any* traffic light priority?

[@chrisorr8601]

I believe it does or they were working on implementing it when they opened the corridor. I think it’s also to do with magnetic strips in the ground so any bus that uses that corridor gets priority

[@BTinSF]

So I notice the usual contingent of SF "the law doesn't apply to me" skateboarders, scooter riders and so on are beginning to use the red bus-only lanes. I expect this to get worse and worse as time goes on.

[@kirahastings9900]

Better than using the sidewalks.

[@blainegabbertgabonemhofgoa6602]

Building proper, protected bike lane would solve the problem

[@BTinSF]

@@blainegabbertgabonemhofgoa6602 There's no room left for that. What was 6 lanes of traffic on a state highway (a main route from the Golden Gate Bridge to the Bay Bridge) is now 4 and a bike lane would necessarily make it 2 (corner "bulb-outs" would prevent using curbside parking space for a continuous bike lane as well). That is unacceptable. Further, if you are familiar with San Francisco, one finds many scooters and bikes being ridden on sidewalks and in other illegal ways (e.g. wrong direction on one-way streets) even where there are bike lanes.

[@blainegabbertgabonemhofgoa6602]

@@BTinSF the at least adjacent streets like Polk and Franklin should have them. And not the green bike gutters but rather real protected bike lanes

[@blainegabbertgabonemhofgoa6602]

@@BTinSF and before Van Ness became a 6 lane stroad, it has a 2 or 4 lane road with a tram line. It was a street that that served the residents of San Francisco. In the late 40s and 50s the tram lines were removed and Van Ness was expanded to become a 6 lane stroad that serves suburban commuters.

[@TransitAndTeslas]

Reminds me a lot of SBS

[@qjtvaddict]

But better

[@seanshen8325]

signal priority for buses?

[@m0istl0la97]

yup

[@mewnqmeipad8714]

Shouldn’t wait for lights

[@danielsamuels5857]

Are trolleybuses running along this line too?

[@BayAreaTransitNews]

They will soon, but not right now

[@BTinSF]

The wires for that are in place. Once there were 3 bus/trolley routes on Van Ness (42, 47 and 49). Since covid only the 49 is running. Wires exist for its route--on Van Ness as well as the extension on Mission St--so why they aren't using trolleys I can't say. Why they don't restore the 47 service I can't say either.

[@kirahastings9900]

Non-Wheelchair disabled need to get on front of the bus which stops almost a bus length from the "shelters." Thus disabled and elderly have to stand while waiting for bus.

[@TheOfficialChillClan]

what happened to this channel? Starving for content over here

[@BayAreaTransitNews]

We have a lot more content! Just trying to find the time to edit and upload it

[@TheOfficialChillClan]

@@BayAreaTransitNews let me know if you need any help

[@JennaPeters-n2x]

Wilson Kenneth Moore Maria Rodriguez Sarah

[@TohaBgood2]

Oh boy, not another boondoggle of a BRT line! The last thing we need to build in a city like SF is BRT and more busses. Busses are insanely expensive to run per rider. BRT was invented in areas with extremely low labor costs. They're basically a hack to spend slightly less on building costs (20-30% less) but only slightly more on running costs by using busses instead of light rail. This math simply does not work in a city where a bus driver earns over $100k in pay. What we actually need is light rail because it can double capacity by simply adding another car. With busses and BRT you need a whole new bus with a whole new driver. It's completely crazy that we're jumping on a transit fad instead of simply building a train. All this fake "innovation" in transit is just a waste of money. We just need more trains. I know that this is a boring answer, but it happens to be the truth.

[@jamesparson]

1. What are you going to do with GGT 2. Where are you going to build a yard for the Light Rail trains

[@JermaniBurroughs]

@@jamesparsonHave the LRT branch of the J at 30th St, Then turn on Cesar Chavez st, Then Have it run on Van Ness Until Lombard St where it will End, It will be called the V & The yard will be at Balboa Park

[@boyziggy]

Van Ness BRT efficiencies: No level boarding. No real-time prediction on when or if the next bus will arrive, just broken signs from day 1. Totally useless bus shelters that provide no actual shelter from the sun or rain Poorly designed crosswalks that provide little protection from turning traffic; few pedestrian bulb-outs or refuge islands, and none of them are protected with anything that can actually stop a turning vehicle. No signal traffic signal priority Dirty diesel buses falsely labeled as “Clean transit vehicle” that are dirtier, noisier, bumpier, more cramped and have fewer seats than electric trolly buses they replaced Why did we spent $365 million and take over 10 years to build this crap? Pathetic! I want to believe there is a special hell for SFMTA management that so badly screwed up this project. Compared with BRT in other countries or even parts of this country, we’re paying a much more to get much less. Why did this disgrace happen? Van Ness BRT epitomizes everything that is wrong with SF transit.

[@qjtvaddict]

The USA is a 💩🕳

[@qjtvaddict]

Bus time data is on phones dude. And bums took over the city so forget the shelter.

[@MJofLakelandX]

You forget, the very trolley buses you're describing were "high-floor" artics that were NOT very friendly with ADA patrons. Low-floor buses have less seat because of the wheel-wells. You complain for this project to take fold;you went to the open room meetings... then you get it! Now, you wanna complain some more. What else do you want?...

[@boyziggy]

@@MJofLakelandX I went to several of those Van Ness BRT meetings. What I want is an efficient transit system we can all be proud of, that people actually enjoy riding. Compared with the rest of the world, we spend more money to move fewer people in more misery. I used to be a fan of public transit and unused to always lobby and vote for expanding it, but I feel betrayed because we squander money on unbelievable stupid crap like this that fails to get the basics right. What kind of numb-nuts worthless POS designs a bus shelter that provides zero protection from rain or sun? How is it that the latest newest low floor buses that we spent hundred of millions on can’t provide seemless level boarding like other counties have? The quality of our buses is total shit compared with what buses are like in other parts of the world, where they spend much less and get more. The new buses are arm-pit ugly, they’re so unbelievably bumpy and brand new pavement because the corrupt bus manufacturers in this country are working with bus designs from the 80s that offer no shocks. Other counties seem to make triple articulated buses with low floors, level boarding, and smooth rides that’s smoother than the brand new billion dollar worthless subway that we built. The sad fact is, we are worse at planning and implementing transit today than most other countries, and worse than every previous generation. The Van Ness BRT is just one of many reasons we we should NEVER support any mass transit project again until we clean house and fix the inherent corruption that lead us to the mess after mess after billion dollar capital transit mess. We need to a completely new system for planning and building all capital transit in the Bay Area that punishes useless corrupt crap like this. That 6 billion thesePOS now want to build a 1 mile tunnel to the overpriced transbay terminal that doesn’t connect to bart? Until we fix this broken system, we shouldn’t put a penny more into it. Clean house, punish the people for scammed us out of our transit funding, and deny them of retirement. They stole transit funding from us, and there should be a reckoning for their corrupt impotence because the rest of the world is doing a way more effective job than anybody in any transit system here.

[@tankman_tv9332]

​@@MJofLakelandX boomers at their best...newer generations like transit slightly more than older generations, so no wonder why they complain more