Streetsblog San Francisco

In San Francisco it's almost as cliche to kvetch about Muni as it is to misquote Mark Twain about chilly summers, but what can possibly be done to fix a transit system that seems to have so many problems and almost no solutions that everyone can agree upon?

The city's sitting mayor and several former mayors have vowed change for the better, but in just the last year the city has seen fare increases, service cuts, and layoffs of maintenance and cleaning personnel that make riding Muni less attractive, less reliable, and more expensive. What gains may have been made in the past decade since restructuring Muni and the Department of Parking and Traffic into the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) are arguably slipping away amid budget cuts, which are forcing cutbacks that the agency and the riding public will feel for years.

Getting concessions from Transport Workers Union (TWU) 250 will stave off the worst of the budget shortfall for the next six months, but large deficits loom, with an expected gap of more than $100 million over the next two years. While members of the Board of Supervisors toy with the idea of changing appointment criteria for the MTA Board of Directors and some advocates are working in Sacramento to stop the governor's raids on transit funds, many people are trying to figure out a local solution that might have traction.

"It is an extraordinary crisis. Ideally it would be great to see everyone come together," said Tom Radulovich, Executive Director of Livable City, a transit advocacy organization. "We all want a functioning transit agency in town."

As the MTA holds a series of town hall meetings that have elicited the expected anger of riders who are already feeling the burden of cuts and hikes and who can read the writing on the wall, another group is organizing what it expects to be a large Muni Summit in early March. The summit is being coordinated by members of San Francisco Tomorrow, whose long-time Muni champion and critic Norm Rolfe passed away recently, members of Savemuni.com, who have long opposed building the Central Subway, and members of the MTA's Citizens Advisory Council (CAC).

"There’s definitely anger," said Gerald Cauthen, a civil engineer and former employee of Muni who helped found Savemuni.com. Cauthen has attended numerous MTA Board meetings and the two recent town hall meetings, where he said some of the testimony is hopeful, despite the frustration riders feel. "Many people don’t know what’s wrong with Muni, what it will take to make Muni better, but a lot of people are throwing out ideas."

Read more...

For decades, planners and transportation specialists have debated how San Francisco's most important street could be re-visioned to  make it work better for transit, pedestrians, cyclists, shoppers, and those living on or near it. Now, as the Better Market Street Project moves forward with trial traffic diversions, the Art in Storefronts project, music and programming in public spaces, greening along sidewalks, and pedestrian safety improvements, San Francisco's political class is intent on revitalizing the street for the long haul. Though the concrete vision for what Market Street will eventually look like is some ways off, there is more effort now than in many years to improve the public realm and ensure the street lives up to its great potential.

City planners have been on the hook for some of the last century's greatest metropolitan mishaps: urban freeways and "slum clearance," arbitrary minimum parking requirements, and land use laws that have left little room for the mingling of uses. Understandably, today's planners are a bit humbled. But when planning directors from some of North America's most progressive cities spoke at City Hall this week about the political challenges that face urban planners, several of them said the field needs to move beyond worrying about past mistakes.

"Because of the failure of the planning profession in the past, we've gotten quiet, we've gotten a little too meek," said Brent Toderian, Vancouver's planning director. "We serve at the will of politicians, and are often unwilling to speak truth to power loudly and persuasively and in public. I think that's really been an absolving of our leadership responsibilities in the profession."

SPUR and the San Francisco Planning Department hosted the discussion with planning heads from SF, New York, Portland, Seattle, Vancouver, Minneapolis and San Diego, who were all in town for the Urban Land Institute's annual expo.

While the directors didn't lack for bold visions, some lamented the planning field's fixation on avoiding undesirable consequences. "I'd have to say, especially in California, unfortunately, the field has evolved into focusing on preventing bad things from happening instead of making good things happen," said Bill Anderson, San Diego's planning head.

Minneapolis planning chief Barbara Sporlein echoed that concern. "So much of planning is making up for past mistakes," she said. "It just feels like every time something happens, [we say,] 'That can't happen again.'"

Read more...

It would someday rank among the world's most beautiful bike paths. Imagine a separated, 2.5-mile bicycle path between the northbound traffic lanes of the Embarcadero and the pedestrian promenade from AT&T Park to Fisherman's Wharf. Not only would it provide a safe and dignified passage for cyclists, it would cut down on bike and pedestrian conflicts that occur on the shared sidewalk. Sound like a fantasy? Not so, according to a study sponsored by SPUR, which suggests that not only would the path serve an important transportation function, it would attract tourists and locals alike.

The study's goal was to examine the feasibility of a wide, comfortable, car-free facility capable of serving cyclists well enough to attract bicyclists away from the pedestrians on the promenade and provide safe and convenient bicycling to fast and slow riders alike. The path would eventually connect to other links in the Bay Trail, providing a car-free beltway, so to speak, around the city on the shores of San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean.

The plan was crafted by a summertime fellow sponsored by the Patri family of architects and urban designers. The Patri Fellow, Carrie Nielson, with the help of staff from the design firm EDAW/AECOM and the Port of San Francisco, looked at various alternatives and settled on the idea of a two-way, 15-foot wide cycle track using space captured from the northbound bicycle lane, parking, and the sidewalk. Her research found that it's feasible, simple in some places, complicated and expensive in others. Total cost is estimated at $10-20 million.

Read more...

If the Geary Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project doesn't get some love from advocates and the general public, the project could be in trouble, according to several people closely following the process.

"I look to the left, I look to the right, all I see is opposition and criticism," says Joel Ramos, a member of the Geary BRT Citizens Advisory Committee and a staffer for Transform who has experience in the battle for Berkeley BRT.

Richmond Supervisor Eric Mar, who is in favor of BRT on Geary, said he expected more support from transit advocates.  The project gets little but tough love from its allies in the transportation reform movement, who complain alternately that the plan should be for rail instead of buses and that it ignores the needs of bicycle users in the corridor. From the anti-transit side, there are still dozens of Richmond residents who reliably show up to complain about the minor impediments to car traffic and parking that Geary BRT will impose. Indeed, without the enthusiastic support of transit advocates, Geary BRT public meetings get overrun by opponents.

Geary BRT would create a new exclusive busway in the center of the street from just east of Gough Street to 33^rd Avenue in the outer Richmond. With pre-paid and three-door boarding, bypass lanes for express buses, and car-free lanes, the Transportation Authority expects to shave from five to nine minutes off the typical trip, as much as 30% of the travel time between those points. With stations instead of stops and low-floor buses with multiple doors operating in straight lines with no swerving for traffic, Geary BRT will feel like a train on rubber wheels. The dimensions of the center lane are planned to be able to accommodate trains if desirable in the future. The agency is currently completing its environmental impact report, which is expected to be ready for certification within the next few months. The project will cost approximately $200 million. 

Read more...

San Francisco and New York were blessed with gorgeous weather Friday, which made for glorious PARK(ing) days in both cities.

In San Francisco, upwards of 34 metered parking spots were transformed into temporary parks, on-street bike parking demonstrations, cafe seating and other public space reimaginings. New York, writes Streetfilms director Clarence Eckerson, had about 50 spaces "filled to the gills with people, sod, chairs, food, fun, games, and in one case - bubbles galore!"

In his latest Streetfilm, John Hamilton, using images submitted to our Flickr pool, features some great San Francisco moments in SoMa, the Mission, and North Beach, and takes us for a brief photo tour of PARK(ing) Day events around the world. Clarence opted to "take it down a notch," and spent more time relaxing in the spaces rather than trying to document as many as possible. The result is two inspiring PARK(ing) Day Streetfilms!

City Visions Radio will be discussing the Better Streets Plan tonight, looking "into San Francisco's evolving bicycle and pedestrian plans, and how this ties into a long-term vision for San Francisco's streets."

Host Joseph Pace will be joined by Marc Caswell, the program manager for the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, Manish Champsee, the president of Walk SF, and Gabriel Metcalf, the executive director of SPUR.

The program will explore the Bike Plan and improvements envisioned for the pedestrian realm: "What does the plan have in store to improve and expand San Francisco's bike network, as well as make the streets safer for bicyclists? How will this be balanced with pedestrian safety and improvements to the city's walkability?"

Catch the program tonight at 7 p.m. on 91.7 FM or listen live at KALW.org.

The Senate Transportation Committee met earlier this week to consider AB 744, a bill that would authorize the MTC to convert carpool lanes to toll “express lanes” and use the revenue to expand the regional carpool and bus express lane network. To its critics, the plan is the last gasp of suburban highway expansion. To its proponents, it’s the beginning of road pricing and a substantial enhancement for regional transit.

The bill would allow the MTC to charge a toll for single occupancy vehicles to access the 500 miles of existing carpool lanes and use the revenue generated to build 300 miles of new carpool lanes on suburban freeways. The Sierra Club and most other environmentalists support the conversion of existing HOV lanes to HOV/toll lanes, as long as fast speeds in the carpool lanes are preserved and the funding generated is used for transit, as is the case with the lanes currently in operation in Santa Clara and Alameda Counties. It’s the creation of 300 miles of new highway lanes where urbanists and environmentalists object to the MTC’s plans.

“There are some environmentalists for whom the outcome they’re seeking is not to have the network at all, and that’s unfortunate,” said Randy Rentschler, Legislation and Public Affairs Director for the MTC. Rentschler says the network will provide connectivity in the express lane that will provide “significant benefit to public transit,” especially the important kinds of transit that city residents such as San Franciscans might not appreciate: vanpools, corporate shuttles, and regional express buses.

Urbanists counter that the plan only contemplates express lanes on suburban highways. Creating express lanes close to San Francisco or Oakland would require converting existing multi-purpose lanes to express lanes, something MTC staff assumes is politically impossible. That assumption was buttressed by an amendment to AB 744 offered by Senator Joe Simitian and “accepted” by the MTC expressly prohibiting the MTC from converting existing multi-purpose lanes to tolled express/carpool lanes. If, as planned, the express lanes will stop at the edge of urban Oakland and San Francisco and the revenue generated from those lanes stays in the corridor where it’s generated, urbanists contend the network will induce sprawl by improving suburban freeway efficiency and throughput while urban areas get no funding, just more traffic.

Read more...

Celebrated Colombian urbanist and former mayor of Bogotá Enrique Peñalosa told a standing room audience of more than one hundred people at the San Francisco Public Library last night that San Francisco can be friendly to cars or to people, but not both. Further, he argued that there is no fundamental technical reason why streets have to function only as free-flowing arteries to move cars, but that the state of our cities in America is a political decision that we can overturn and that American's perceptions of what is possible in cities will follow suit.

"I don't say this as a car-hater--I have a car, I think cars can be wonderful to go to the countryside--but clearly the faster cars go in a city, the wider the roads are, the less pleasant is it to be around. The narrower the street, the slower the speeds, the wider the sidewalks, the better you can feel. High-velocity urban roads are sort of fences in a cow pasture."

Road space, he argued, is the most valuable asset in a city and it is a resource that society can use as it pleases, distributing it between all transportation modes or only one. He stated what is obvious, but what seems to rarely be acknowledged by traffic engineers and politicians in San Francisco: less space for cars will mean less cars. "There is no such thing as a 'natural' level of car use in a city. There is nothing technical about how much space you should give to cars or to pedestrians. It's not like you have to ask a transport engineer permission. What is clear is this is a political decision."

Peñalosa's trip was underwritten by the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) and was part of the kick-off of the Great Streets Project, a join initiative between the SFBC, SPUR, Project for Public Spaces, and The Livable Streets Initiative (parent company of Streetsblog). Peñalosa earlier in the day met with Mayor Gavin Newsom, which he said went quite well.

"I think [Newsom] was very sensitive to all these issues and he even told some of his people to look into how these things are being used in other cities, the designs that are being used to improve the pedestrian and bicycle spaces there," he said.

Read more...

I'm happy to announce today that Dave Snyder, the former transportation director at SPUR, will join Streetsblog San Francisco as a regular contributor.

Snyder, who was recently appointed to a position on the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District Board of Directors, is a longtime advocate for socially just transportation and land-use policies. He is the founder of the modern day San Francisco Bicycle Coalition and also of Transportation for a Livable City, the organization now headed by Tom Radulovich.

Snyder's inside knowledge and comprehensive analyses of the transportation sector will greatly enhance our coverage of transit issues in the Bay Area: 

I'm excited about this opportunity because I've always loved both journalism and transportation activism, and Streetsblog is both! The SFBC got started in 1991, really, as a vehicle for the publication of a newsletter to connect various elements of the bicycle activist community. Streetsblog can do the same thing for the broader livable streets movement: connect the dots between the bicycle activists and the neighborhood activists and the social justice activists. I hope that I can learn from the different perspectives and help educate folks who see transportation from those different perspectives about how by working together we can create a more livable city for everyone.

Welcome Dave! We're thrilled to have you.