Photo: Howard Wong

As if squeezing onto the 30-Stockton wasn’t already undignifying enough, Muni riders on Stockton Street soon face a four-year detour to make room for the construction of the Central Subway project.

Beginning January 21, southbound buses on the 30 and 45 Muni lines will be detoured off of Stockton Street at Sutter Street — a change likely to exacerbate delays on one of the city’s most heavily-used transit corridors already notorious for its slow, overcrowded bus service.

The Central Subway, a $1.6 billion project which the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) says is necessary to serve the needs of transit demand along the Stockton/Fourth Street corridor, isn’t expected to open for at least eight more years. But while riders take a back seat during its construction, the agency has yet to indicate any interest in improving existing transit on the surface — one of the major criticisms leveled against the Central Subway over the years.

Last July, the San Francisco Civil Grand Jury blasted the project in a report calling on the SFMTA to redesign it “to better serve the San Francisco population.” The major problems cited included poor connectivity to major destinations and transit stations and a lack of ”plans to address existing problems on the Stockton corridor before project completion.”

“The problems have been noticeable, predictable, and no solutions have ever been offered,” said Howard Wong of Save Muni, a “volunteer group of transit experts, public transportation supporters” which has lobbied the SFMTA to pursue surface transit improvements as a more useful and cost-effective alternative to the Central Subway to meet transit needs on the corridor.

The 30-Stockton, which runs through San Francisco’s densest areas of Chinatown and Union Square, is widely known as one of the most overcrowded and slowest-moving buses in the city. A 2007 San Francisco Chronicle article cited its average speed at 3.6 mph between Market and Sutter Streets, and while more recent official data weren’t immediately available, service doesn’t seem to have improved. In the San Francisco Examiner’s recent ”Man vs. Muni” series, it was the first — and last — bus to be raced at a walking pace by transportation reporter Will Reisman. (Reisman won the second round.)

Although the Chinatown Community Development Center and other groups have voiced support for the Central Subway, some transit advocates say with or without the project, the more immediate needs of service on Stockton need attention.

“Stockton Street is the most hectic street in the city,” said Robert Boden of the San Francisco Transit Riders Union (SFTRU). “Buses have to compete with delivery trucks, cars, and pedestrians, making it nearly impossible for Muni to run reliable service. Hopefully SFMTA will implement speed improvements to ensure buses move easily through Chinatown, providing riders with quicker travel times.”

Bunched buses sit mired behind tour buses, taxis and private autos in Stockton Street's "bus only" lane in the Union Square shopping district. Photo: Aaron Bialick

A report [PDF] released by Save Muni in November of 2010 included five near-term transit improvements that they say could speed bus service on Stockton:

Improvement 1: Deploy part-time loaders during peak times. Loaders would check fares and otherwise facilitate bus boarding through the rear doors. By making better use of the rear doors and by encouraging people to move quickly to the backs of buses, loaders could speed up the loading and unloading process. Loaders, strategically positioned at the four or five most congested stops in Chinatown during the busiest times of the day, would significantly enhance Muni service between Union Street and the Stockton Street Tunnel.

Improvement 2: Deploy low-floor buses along Stockton Street. Low floor buses make loading easier, safer and significantly faster. The current situation is severe enough to warrant the immediate procurement and deployment of enough lowfloor buses to end the inordinate loading delays that currently plague the riders of the 8x, 30 and 45 lines.

Improvement 3: Enable Stockton Street buses to pre-empt traffic signals. This long overdue improvement would facilitate better and more reliable bus flow during all hours of the day.

Improvement 4: Create a Southbound transit-only lane on Kearny. This would enable the southbound 8x bus to be rerouted fromColumbus/Stockton/Fourth to Columbus/Kearny/Market/Fourth. Simplifying the southbound 8x routing in this manner would provide northeastern San Francisco with a faster and more direct connection to Market Street and the Financial District. By removing 8x riders and 8x buses from Stockton Street while maintaining a robust Stockton Street 30 and 45 line service, it would also improve bus flow and ease crowding on Stockton.

Improvement 5: In order to calm traffic, improve the pedestrian orientation of the street and facilitate the flow of Muni buses, consideration should be given to altering the configuration of Stockton as Market Street was successfully altered last year.

“It almost seems that the MTA is purposely avoiding solving these problems,” said Wong, “the very conventional management techniques that have been tried and true in transit systems throughout the United States and throughout the world.”

SFMTA spokesperson Paul Rose said the agency has evaluated surface improvements as an alternative to the Central Subway, but they were “rejected from further evaluation…because they had fewer benefits in terms of service reliability and greater impacts on parking and traffic.”

Detours starting January 21st. Image: SFMTA

“The SFMTA considered and reviewed a range of transportation alternatives to provide public transit service that enhances and preserves the social, physical and environment aspects of the communities to be served while minimizing potential negative impacts during construction and operation of the line,” he said. “Though the capital costs were less for a surface alternative than for a subway alternative, the surface alternatives only minimally met the project purpose and need and resulted in higher operation, maintenance costs and environmental impacts.”

But Wong said the Central Subway, which will only extend as far north as Chinatown eight years from now, won’t serve the bulk of the passengers that travel on the corridor from northern Chinatown, North Beach, Russian Hill, the Marina, and the Embarcadero.

“If they’re saying they’re never going to improve service for the bulk of the people in the northeast quadrant, then they’re not doing their job,” he said. “You have to have better, more dependable buses, because they’re not going to walk a mile or two to the Central Subway station to ride half a mile.”

The construction detour starting this month could add several minutes for riders as it reroutes buses onto Mason Street via Sutter, taking a sharp left onto Market and a right on Fifth Street all the way to the Caltrain station. Northbound buses will remain on their regular routes.

“Even a small change in a bus route can be confusing for riders at first,” said Boden of SFTRU. “Hopefully this temporary re-route will allow riders of the 30 and 45 to have reliable service by avoiding the construction area.”

In the meantime, measures to mitigate the transit impacts of the detour are limited to a supplemental shuttle for the 8x line which loops between Broadway and Kearny and SoMa. The shuttle ”will continue to operate down Stockton Street during peak service hours until later in the construction schedule,” said Rose.

However, the agency ultimately continues to rely on the Central Subway as the solution to the corridor’s problems.

“We think that the only reason trial programs haven’t been instituted is to create a sense of urgency to drain all the funds from the entire citywide Muni system to the Central Subway,” said Wong. “I think that’s disingenuous and dishonest to the ridership.”

A new video from People Organized to Win Employment Rights (POWER) highlights the impact of unreliable and unaffordable transit on low-income San Franciscans who rely on Muni.

In San Francisco, “transportation is a dividing line of access and opportunity for African American, Latino, Asian and Pacific Islander communities who have the highest transit dependency in the city,” writes POWER. The group is campaigning “to shift local, regional and national mass transit priorities towards the needs of working class communities of color and to bring an analysis of race, class, and gender to bear on transportation planning decisions.” They have also called on the SFMTA to distribute free Muni passes to low-income youth who lack transportation options to school.

While the SFMTA has struggled to find funding for such a program, SFMTA board member Joel Ramos has suggested that the revenue could be come from extending parking meter hours.

Thanks to Fran Taylor for the video.

The SFPD bills millions to the SFMTA each year for services like directing traffic at this recent visit from President Obama. But which services should the SFMTA be paying for? Photo: Steve Rhodes/Flickr

As the SFMTA struggles to provide reliable Muni service, little headway has been made in curbing the amount it spends on staff overtime and work orders issued to other departments.

Supervisors David Campos and David Chiu, who held a hearing on both issues yesterday, say the continued the lack of transparency and accountability is frustrating.

“We’ve been having this conversation as long as I’ve been here,” Chiu told SFMTA Chief Financial Officer Sonali Bose at yesterday’s Government Audit and Oversight Committee meeting, where the supervisors found little explanation as to why the agency has agreed to dole out ballooning sums of money to other city agencies for services in recent years.

“I almost feel like we’re wasting our time, at times, by having these hearings,” said Chiu. “We are not seeing results, but I hope with this new administration that that will change.”

“I think that the single biggest challenge that the MTA is facing,” said Campos, “is not a challenge of lack of funding, but is a challenge of mismanagement.”

The $62 million to be spent this year on frequently vague, inadequately documented work orders is down compared to the $66 million spent in FY09-10, a rate that has doubled in the past decade.  However, where exactly that money is going remains “a bit of a black hole,” said Chiu, and critics have scrutinized both the SFMTA and the agencies who are billing it.

“From my perspective, I just don’t understand why it’s been so difficult to get a better handle of what’s happening in the black box of $60 million-plus that are being spent on this,” he said.

In April of last year, an audit by the City Controller’s Office found weak oversight of the SFMTA’s payments to 25 departments including the Police Department, the City Attorney, the Department of Technology, and the Department of Public Works. Many of the agreements, according to the audit, did not include accurate descriptions of the services provided, proper signatures, or even a memorandum of understanding establishing fee rates and performance measurements.

Critics like then-Supervisor Bevan Dufty blasted the SFPD for collecting nearly $19 million from the cash-strapped SFMTA through excessive work orders for services like traffic enforcement, injury crashes, dignitary escorts, and directing traffic at special events.

The SFMTA made some progress in buckling down on work order procedures within the few months after the audit was released, said Tonia Lediju, the Director of Audits for the City Controller’s Office. The agency has since established MOUs with all departments which it pays to perform work, though many lack the proper signatures and charter-mandated performance standards.

“We’ve come a long way, but there’s still some way to go,” said Bose.

But procedures aside, the audit doesn’t address whether or not the SFMTA should be paying for the services in the first place, the supervisors argued.

“I don’t feel like this audit helps to clarify that big question,” said Chiu. “I feel like we’re focused on the trees and not the forest.”

When asked about the guidelines SFMTA staff uses to determine which work orders are appropriate, Bose said it generally agrees to any work order which the agency “is getting any value from.”

Reducing work orders would not only help balance the SFMTA’s budget, but also help fund services like free Muni for low-income youth, argued dozens of speakers from POWER, a social equity advocacy organization. Chiu agreed, pointing out that “over the next six weeks, the amount of money that will be spent by the city on work orders will be the equivalent of what it would cost to get free Muni in San Francisco.”

Another major budget-buster for the SFMTA is overtime costs, which are projected this year to nearly double the budgeted amount at $57 million, but the agency is only now developing an official policy aimed at curbing them.

Debra Johnson, the SFMTA’s Director of Administration, presented a plan [PPTX] to reduce overtime by addressing issues like vehicle breakdowns, special events, staff shortages, and under-budgeting. One major boon, she said, will be new part-time operators joining the work force as part of the new labor agreement reached in June. That should reduce the need for full-time operators to work overtime at peak hours.

Overall, the agency aims to cut overtime by 10 to 15 percent in the next fiscal year, said Johnson.

The supervisors were optimistic about reform under the new administration of Transportation Director Ed Reiskin, who brings a strong track record from his tenure as director of the Department of Public Works.

Reiskin, who was unable to attend the hearing due to a family emergency, said in an op-ed in the SF Examiner yesterday that he agrees overtime must be curbed but generally defended the validity of work orders.

But the SFMTA’s lack of accountability for controlling costs in recent years, the supervisors said, is to blame for its current budget crisis.

“In the private sector, if overtime costs continued to be as high as they are, someone would be held accountable and not have their job at this point,” said Chiu.

Photo: bhautik joshi/Flickr

For what’s intended to be a relatively quick, cost-effective transportation solution, San Francisco’s first Bus Rapid Transit route on Van Ness Avenue has been a long time coming. Planners first conceived the project in 2004, and as late as two years ago, it was scheduled to open in 2012. Since then, construction has been pushed back to 2016.

The agonizing wait has left many frustrated transit advocates asking, “What’s the hold up?”

Tilly Chang, the deputy director for planning at the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) leading the planning effort, says answering that question opens “a huge can of worms.”

“We understand the frustration,” she said, citing a slew of factors contributing to the delay of the massive project.

Van Ness BRT is in many ways the first of its kind in the United States, and its scope has grown to include a complete overhaul of the street. The project’s environmental impact report/statement, released last month in compliance with state and federal requirements, also included a burdensome level of analysis.

“Trust me, for those of us going through this process, we would love to have it move as fast as possible,” said Michael Schwartz, the SFCTA’s project manager.

“The fact that there really isn’t an example in the city, and in North America, of full-featured BRT in a dense urban environment like San Francisco is part of what makes the project really exciting, but also means there are significant policy decisions to work out,” he said. “I think there’s a trade-off where there’s a really good process that happens in California and San Francisco to involve stakeholders and do good coordination, but that does take time.”

One major impediment, said Chang, has been the extensive impact analysis required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) using the automobile-centric transportation metric known as Level of Service.

“It is not only time consuming and expensive, but in direct conflict with the city’s transit first policy,” she said, although she noted that efforts to reform LOS requirements in CEQA are “nearing completion.”

Staff also cited the technical complexity of the project’s area, which includes many busy intersections and runs along a state highway controlled by Caltrans. It also requires negotiations with agencies like the Federal Transit Authority, the SF Public Utilities Commission, the SF Planning Department, the Department of Public Works, and the SFMTA.

Since its conception, the project’s scope has grown into a major redesign of the two-mile stretch, including pedestrian safety improvements, landscaping, road resurfacing, and the replacement of all traffic signals. Much of that work was being planned independently of the BRT project, which was pushed back in part so that all the changes could be built concurrently.

Schwartz said coordination saves the city time and money in the long run. “It makes sense to go in while we’re doing the construction,” he said.

Chang said the timeline isn’t extremely long for major transportation projects in the United States. “The average federal highway project takes over ten years to get through these stages; subways take at least twice as long, and bus rapid transit projects should take far less time,” she said. “But there is a range of BRT definitions, and full-featured BRT is more like rail.”

While BRT should be faster to implement than rail, Schwartz said planners have “realized along the way that many of the same coordination issues of a much more intensive infrastructure project still need to be worked out.”

The release and expected certification of the project’s EIR is a major milestone, but up to four years of work still precede construction. “From 2012 to 2016, the plan is to undertake design, purchase and test vehicles, obtain needed permits, fill in funding gaps, and construct the facility,” said Chang. “There’s a desire to go faster but we need to pick a locally-preferred alternative and get more engineering done, including the condition of the sewers, before we can update the project schedule.”

Construction could come faster depending on which design alternative is chosen, said Schwartz. The center-median option would require less sewer work than the dual-median option, bringing the construction schedule up to 2015 with service beginning the year after.

Chang says by the time riders are zipping along on BRT on Van Ness, Geary Boulevard, the East Bay corridor, and El Camino Real in the South Bay, future BRT projects should face fewer obstacles.

“We and AC Transit hope and expect that these first projects will provide proof of concept to help pave the way for the skeptics in the public and at public agencies, so that future BRT projects can have a smoother path to implementation.”

The best choice for transit riders comes down to two center-running options for Bus Rapid Transit on Van Ness Avenue. Images courtesy of SFCTA

After years of delay, the 2016 target date for the Van Ness Bus Rapid Transit project seems more tangible than ever. The San Francisco County Transportation Authority recently released its draft environmental impact report and will select one of several proposed design alternatives in the spring.

The SFCTA is asking for public input on the different options and the draft report, which includes a trove of information for planners and transit advocates to consider when weighing each design.

Last week, the San Francisco Transit Riders Union’s Rapid Transit Working Group met to discuss the alternatives.

“Ultimately, we’re looking at what is going to create the best, 21st-century riding experience for transit riders on Van Ness Avenue,” said SFTRU board member Rob Boden. SFTRU members are considering which design to endorse, but the organization hasn’t taken a stance yet.

The group’s top priorities, said Boden, are improving transit reliability and passenger comfort. The EIR analyzes those factors along with everything from median widths and greenery to bus weaving.

Bus Rapid Transit has appeared in a variety of forms in cities around the world, but generally includes amenities like dedicated lanes, pre-paid ticketing, all-door level boarding, and limited stops that feel more akin to riding a rail system than a bus.

For the Van Ness project, the most significant question boils down to this: Should buses run between a pair of medians or alongside a single center median?

A comparison of bus and auto speeds for each of the project's design alternatives.

The EIR analyzed three design alternatives (plus a status quo scenario), but only the two options that place bus lanes in the center of the road appear to maximize the project goals of improving bus speeds, reducing operating costs, and increasing ridership. Each of those options carries some pros and cons.

On one hand is the dual median alternative, which would separate a two-lane busway from other traffic by placing it between two medians, where passengers would disembark from the right side of the bus. One problem with this design, the report says, is a risk of delays and head-on crashes when one bus needs to pass one another. The price tag for construction ($130 million, compared with $119 million for the other center-running alternative) and maintenance of the busway and landscaped medians is also higher than the others, and it would require the highest number of median trees removed.

Alternative 3: a center-running busway between two medians.

The other center-running alternative would place each bus lane on either side of a single center median. Since boarding at BRT stops would be limited to the left side, buses would require doors on both sides to use the platforms (buses would still need right-side doors for the remainder of their routes). This could limit Muni’s flexibility with its vehicle fleet, and buses operated by Golden Gate Transit would only be compatible with one stop on the two-mile stretch (between Geary and O’Farrell).

Alternative 4: center running bus lanes on the outside of a single median.

Tilly Chang, the SFCTA’s deputy director for planning, said staff has consulted other municipalities that have used BRT vehicles with doors on both sides, including in Cleveland, Ohio and Eugene, Oregon.

“We found that they have not experienced significant incremental operations and maintenance costs versus their right-door only buses,” said Chang. “However, this requires further study before assuming a similar experience would be the case here, and we are undergoing that exercise right now in as much as it can inform the decision-making process.”

Another concern raised by SFTRU members about the design is the lack of a physical barrier preventing other vehicles from entering the bus lanes, but Chang said the lanes could be slightly raised.

On the upside for the alternative are wide refuge medians for pedestrians, added separation between the boarding platform and auto traffic, and the quickest and least intrusive construction period of any of the alternatives.

For both center-running alternatives, it’s also worth noting that planners have the option to prohibit all left turns on the corridor (save one in each direction at Broadway and Lombard). This measure, called “Option B”, would maximize the project’s benefits in virtually every criteria, including lowering operating costs from $6.1 million to $5.6 million and reducing vehicle crashes, according to the report.

Alternative 2: side-running bus lanes.

The third design alternative, which would place bus lanes on alongside parking lanes, would yield the poorest results for transit performance, according to the report. Bus speeds are projected to increase only about half as much as the center-running designs, and this configuration would carry the highest operating costs.

That’s no surprise, given the lanes would likely see frequent incursion by other vehicles. The problem can already be seen on existing bus lanes on Mission, Geary, and O’Farrell Streets, where drivers frequently stop in them to make right turns, pull into parking spaces, and double park. As a result, passengers are subject to constant delays as buses weave around other vehicles.

Colored pavement treatments, included in each of the design alternatives, could mitigate that effect by discouraging drivers from entering the lanes, but it’s no substitute for center-running, separated bus lanes.

The SFCTA’s next presentation on the project will be an online webinar on Monday, December 5th at noon.

To find other meetings, learn more, and submit comment, see the SFCTA website. You can also get complete details on the design alternatives in the EIR’s Alternatives Analysis chapter [PDF].

The T-Third Street Light Rail project's Central Subway extension has nearly tripled from its baseline cost. Photo: Marcin Wichary/Flickr

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) received a low score in an audit of its performance in delivering construction projects. Millions are reportedly wasted annually in delays and management inefficiencies.

“Some of these findings are very disturbing,” said Supervisor David Campos after hearing the report at today’s San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) Board meeting. ”We have heard repeatedly how there are limited resources that the MTA has available, but this audit points out… that a big part of the problem is that we’re not doing enough with the resources we do have.”

As the SFMTA seeks new revenue sources to fill budget gaps for the coming fiscal years, it is considering unpopular fee increases like a hike in Muni fares, which was quickly taken off the table by the SFMTA Board of Directors yesterday.

The SFCTA Board, which approves much of the funding for the SFMTA’s capital projects, requested the audit from CGR Management Consultants.

The numbers reported were sobering. In the third quarter of 2010, 29 projects with a total baseline budget of $800 million had gone over-budget by an estimated $90 million, excluding the Central Subway, and averaged 592 days in delay.

The consultants estimated that 5 to 10 percent, or up to $15,000,000, of the SFMTA’s capital budget could be saved with better project execution. Among the causes for waste, they listed weak oversight of capital projects, inadequate staff reports to the SFMTA Board of Directors, and the board’s own leniency towards granting extra time and money to projects.

“What we found, in reporting to the SFMTA Board, and their own monitoring, is that they compare themselves to the approved budget, not the baseline budget,” said CGR Principal Jim Ayers. “They ought to be using [the baseline] as a benchmark for showing how well or not well they’re doing.”

The SFMTA officially “concurred” with 17 of the recommendations provided by the consulting firm and “partially concurred” with two. One of the recommendations that met with “partial” agreement concerned a reorganization of staff which SFMTA Director of Transportation Ed Reiskin said would hurt the agency’s flexibility. The other suggested using public affairs specialists to hold community outreach meetings rather than SFMTA staff, who are paid a higher premium.

“I believe it’s important that [the project managers] make the time available to spend engaging, to go to community meetings to understand what the concerns are, because ultimately, that person is going to be held accountable,” said Reiskin.

Reiskin also rebuffed some of the numbers in the report, arguing that some items categorized as “overruns” were actually project expansions, as in the case of the ongoing Duboce and Church rail replacement and streetscape project.

Still, the new transportation chief welcomed the audit as a guide for reform.

“It’s a great thing,” said Reiskin. “I’d be lying if I said we in departments love when folks come in and audit us, but often the results can be very helpful.”

Mayor Ed Lee with SFMTA Director of Transportation Ed Reiskin and Dept. of Public Works Head Mohammed Nuru on a tour of construction on Cesar Chavez. Photo: Aaron Bialick

With election day less than 24 hours away, it’s safe to say all the San Francisco mayoral candidate questionnaires are in.

But when Streetsblog recently posted excerpts from responses to the SF Transit Riders Union (SFTRU) mayoral candidate survey, readers pointed out a notable no-show. Mayor Ed Lee hadn’t filled out a survey, nor did he come to speak personally at the August SFTRU forum with five of the other top candidates. SF Public Press reporter Jerold Chinn said Lee also did not respond to repeated requests to be interviewed as part of his series on Muni issues.

We followed up with Lee’s campaign and asked about the lack of a response from the mayor to the SFTRU survey. Spokesperson Tony Winnicker sent this explanation:

First, I’m not aware that we received the Transit Riders questionnaire as we certainly would have responded. If we missed it that’s an oversight. I do know on Aug 17 we received an invitation to a meeting on Aug 22 but Mayor Lee was unable to attend due to a conflict with an official event. Mayor Lee has attended many forums where Muni and the SFMTA are issues, but he has not been able to attend all of them due to his responsibilities as Mayor.

In general, Mayor Lee is committed to making the changes necessary to improve MUNI service and fully realize our City’s Transit First Policy. He pushed hard for new leadership at SFMTA earlier this year that can bring a new vision, deep commitment and a can-do spirit to the agency that San Franciscans rely on every single day. Mayor Lee knows that for too many San Franciscans, getting around the City is all too often a frustrating experience. Muni riders deserve a system that’s affordable, accessible and reliable.

SFMTA’s new Director, Ed Reiskin is a highly effective and results-oriented leader who successfully oversaw the introduction of the City’s innovative 311 Customer Service Center and led our Public Works Agencies to greater efficiency and responsiveness. MUNI has already implemented service enhancements and reduced wait times on several lines and the improvements will continue. Mayor Lee is very encouraged by the success of the N-Express Bus from the Outer Sunset, which has reduced congestion on the N-Judah.

In the next four years, Mayor Lee will partner with Ed Reiskin and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) to boost Muni’s on-time performance and run it more efficiently with work rule reforms, new technologies and our Transit Effectiveness Project. We will invest in refurbishing tracks, buses and railcars. And we will expand the City’s public transit system for the future, with express bus lanes on Geary and Van Ness and the construction of the Central Subway to link jobs and housing in SoMa and Mission Bay to neighborhoods north and south.

A packed Muni bus navigates around a police car while officers enjoy a meal at Hayes and Divisadero. Photo: Aaron Bialick

San Francisco’s next mayor will wield immense influence over whether the city takes the necessary steps to reform its transit system and get Muni up to speed.

Which of the top candidates will be bold enough to support a truly transit-first city? Who actually rides Muni? Will any of them support extending parking meter hours?

If you haven’t cast your early vote yet, check out two recent candidate surveys from The San Francisco Transit Riders Union. Seven of the top candidates replied with their positions on some key transit issues.

One question asks: “As mayor of San Francisco, what three things will you do during your first year to remedy your neighbors’ concerns about MUNI?”

See excerpts from the candidates’ responses after the break.

Also, don’t miss the SF Public Press’ series of candidate video interviews as they roll out.

Jeff Adachi:

It is crucial that we start holding MUNI accountable to its promise of 85% reliability.   As Mayor, I will work with the MTA to implement a coherent, equitable and cost effective plan to increase the speed, reliability, and ridership of MUNI services.  Speed, reliability, and ridership can all be quickly improved by increasing the placement of “transit only” lanes in congested areas of our city during peak and “rush” hours.

Terry Baum: 

The concerns of my Upper Market and Noe Valley neighbors about Muni are mostly ones that need to be dealt with through traffic and transportation engineering decisions.  As, I am not an expert on these matters I would need to rely on the advice of people who are — but in favor of our Transit First principles.

Citywide, I am interested in pursuing the all-door boarding.  I understand that this is a campaign that SFTRU is working on now.  The other side of the coin is expanding the number of Proof-Of-Payment officers on the system which would give people jobs and ensure that Muni is collecting the fares that is should be collecting.I also understand that Geary BRT is in the EIR phase right now — but that it is years behind schedule.  I am concerned about this, as expanding service along the Geary corridor is vital to the people of the Richmond District.  They are one of the few neighborhoods without light rail, and something needs to be done about that.  I would look into this and find out what we can do to get this project up to speed.

John Avalos:

Muni is one of the oldest public transportation networks in the United States; the entire system is in need of a major overhaul. The TEP has the potential of saving the City millions of dollars and improving service. However, budget shortfalls have kept the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) from implementing the TEP recommendations.

As Mayor, I will make Muni a daily issue. I’m not going to make any false promises the way Willie Brown did about fixing Muni in 100 days. But I will pursue a local vehicle license fee or other ongoing source of revenue to fund infrastructure improvements. I will put a stop to unnecessary work orders, reduce overtime, and reverse the practice of cutting service and raising fares in lieu of implementing cost-saving alternatives. I will make Muni free for kids to get to school, to after-school programs, dance classes, jobs, or sports.

Dennis Herrera: 

There is much that can be done to improve upon the current state of MUNI, and I have a plan with specific solutions that will create the efficiency and ease that our city deserves when it comes to public transportation.

1. Institute Accountability

In November 2010, San Franciscans overwhelmingly passed Proposition G, a ballot measure which mandated that the Transportation Workers Union must participate in collective bargaining for their wages and benefits rather than having them set by the City Charter.  Before Prop G, because workers did not have to negotiate regarding salaries or working conditions, it was easy for Muni to have an organizational culture lacking accountability…

Leland Yee:

First, I will bring MUNI out the dark ages and implement industry standard technology improvements to improve efficiency.  Muni is the last major city transit operator in the country that has not implemented two key technologies that will improve on-time performance: a computer-aided dispatch system, and on-board technology that actively notifies the driver if they are running according to schedule.  Both technologies have become standard equipment in public transportation fleets across the country over the last 20 years, yet Muni is literally the last agency in America that still dispatches with paper and pencils.  These operational changes and technological upgrades even have funding already allocated from Proposition K dollars, yet Muni leadership still refuses to make them a priority and move forward. These changes will greatly improve efficiency without adding to MUNI’s deficit…

David Chiu:

While San Francisco has had a plan to improve Muni reliability and travel times – the Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP) — we need to stop talking and start acting. We have a real opportunity to improving speed, reliability, and capacity on the Muni rapid network. Implementing the recommendations in the TEP would help achieve 10 to 30 percent time travel savings, dramatically cut operating costs, and increase reliability on each line.

Specifically, in my first year I would:

• Fight for budget allocations particularly to allow for bus prioritization at traffic signals, implementation of all door boarding, bus stop consolidation and the development of long overdue Bus Rapid Transit on Geary and Van Ness.
• Accelerate the implementation of pilot projects on Market Street downtown – including further diversions of private car traffic – to improve transit on one of San Francisco’s busiest Muni corridors.
• Implement a Transportation CompStat program, similar to how police track and respond to crime hotspots, allowing the MTA and Muni riders to measure, publicize, and act on key transportation metrics.

Phil Ting:

1. I would allow all-door boarding. This is already a de-facto practice and buses are already equipped with Clipper Card readers at back doors. Allowing all-door boarding will help speed up Muni. Studies shows 25% of Muni delays are due to the boarding process. Currently, high traffic buses, such as the 1-California, 38-Geary, 14-Mission and 30-Stockton, spend about 20 percent of their operating time boarding at bus stops. If we could decrease boarding times and increase the speed of an average Muni bus from the current 8 mph to just 10 mph, SFMTA would save $40 million a year.

2. As mentioned above, I would decrease the use of work orders to deplete Muni’s budget by other city agencies and departments. Voters approved Muni funds should stay with Muni…

Be sure to check out the rest of the questionnaire.

Are there any other transit issues you would like to see addressed by the mayoral candidates?  Let us know in the comments.

Haight Street looking eastbound from Octavia to Gough. Image Courtesy of the SFMTA and the SF Planning Department

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) Board of Directors yesterday unanimously gave the green light to a project that will convert the easternmost block of Haight Street to two-way bus operation.

When constructed in 2014, the project is expected to improve transit reliability for the roughly 20,000 daily riders on the 6 and 71 Muni lines by eliminating unnecessary detours that delay buses behind congested car traffic.

The current experience on the 71, said SFMTA Director Joél Ramos, is a ”long and painful ride.”

“I take offense at people who have guffawed at the 3-minute savings,” he said. “When you’ve got a bus load of people, that’s 60 people times 3 minutes each. That turns into hours which quickly turns into days of time for people that are late to work, away from their families, and these are people that are doing the right thing by not driving and getting out of our cars in this transit-first city.”

Britt Tanner, the head of the project for the SFMTA, addressed fears voiced at the hearing by several committed detractors of the project who live on the affected blocks. They contended that the change will add danger to the intersection of Market, Haight, and Gough Streets, which buses will cross in the opposite direction under the redesign.

“This project actually has many safety improvements included in it,” said Tanner, citing sidewalk bulbs, pedestrian signals, pedestrian refuge islands, and crosswalk realignments. She also noted that vehicle crashes at the intersection have dropped 75 percent in recent years after traffic signal improvements were made.

The redesign will convert a car parking lane on the south side of the easternmost block of Haight to an eastbound bus-only lane. That arrangement was based on community concerns raised at workshops over inviting unwanted vehicle traffic to use the new cut-through to Market Street.

But removing one of the westbound traffic lanes instead would further improve safety, said Livable City Director Tom Radulovich and Walk SF Executive Director Elizabeth Stampe, who otherwise voiced their support for the project.

“The street actually has effectively been widened,” said Stampe. “It’s an interesting idea that that could be changed back – having parking along the south side can provide a buffer for pedestrians from moving traffic.”

The intersection of Market, Gough, and Haight Streets. Image Courtesy of the SFMTA and the SF Planning Department via Haighteration

I thought we’d get you in the mood for the weekend by leaving you with this fun video via Muni Diaries. Isn’t it sweet? From the YouTube description:

This is a collaboration between Neverstop and YAK FILMS to remix an old school black and white dance video from the Underground in London into a new TURF style video in the San Francisco BART and MUNI systems. Music remixed by Sammy Bananas of Fool’s Gold Records.

I’m off to enjoy the blazing sun and redwoods on the Russian River. Have a great weekend!

Bicyclists still have to contend with a mess of private auto traffic on Market Street, especially below 5th Street. Photo: Myleen Hollero/Orange Photography

In a unanimous vote, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors this week passed Supervisor and mayoral candidate David Chiu’s resolution calling on the SFMTA to initiate more pilot projects on Market Street to further restrict private auto traffic and make it car-free on a trial basis in advance of the 2015 redesign. The 11 votes were a strong message to the SFMTA that it needs to take more immediate steps to calm private auto traffic on parts of Market Street that are a mess for Muni, and a danger to bicyclists and pedestrians.

The vote comes at a time when a growing of number electeds and mayoral candidates are backing a car-free Market Street. Asked to respond to the passage of the resolution, SFMTA spokesperson Paul Rose said the agency “is committed to making Market Street more efficient for Muni, safer for pedestrians and even more user-friendly for cyclists.”

“We are currently exploring pilots that can be used to test concepts down the road,” he said. Those options include deploying a traffic control officer to New Montgomery to “help coordinate the flow of pedestrians and vehicles” and installing a green right-turn arrow signal at New Montgomery on eastbound Market Street “which alternate when cars and pedestrians have the right of way.”

Drivers turning left onto Market from Montgomery (which turns into New Montgomery) are an ongoing problem, because they use 2nd as a cut-through to the Bay Bridge, creating a backup on Market that sometimes delays Muni all the way up to 6th Street.

Yesterday, a number of parking control officers (PCOs) had already been deployed to Market Street, including the congested 3rd/Kearny/Geary and New Montgomery intersections. At New Montgomery, some drivers had trouble complying with the PCO’s orders. I witnessed an angry SUV driver hop out of his vehicle in the middle of the intersection, and confront the PCO in a threatening manner. He backed down after an SFPD unit pulled up, but then nearly ran over a cop, and was ordered to pull over. I wasn’t able to witness the conclusion.

On Third Street at Market, “drivers are constantly running the red light,” one of the PCOs told me. “This is one of the worst intersections on Market.”

The two back to back signal lights for northbound traffic crossing Market and then Geary are sometimes confusing for drivers. The first light for Market turns red, while the light for Geary just behind it remains green for a few seconds. Seeing only the green, drivers sometimes dart across Market when the signal they should be obeying is actually red.

While deploying PCOs may help, the SFMTA’s response thus far doesn’t fully address the resolution, which states: “Additional near-term pilot projects on Market Street should test further diversions of private automobiles from Market Street in both directions as well as other strategies to reduce Muni delays and improve the safety and attractiveness of Market Street for people walking and bicycling, while still supporting the business and cultural environment.”

The resolution also notes that other pilots the SFMTA is considering “are not poised to make significant impacts on Muni performance.”

“It’s good to see the SFMTA taking some steps, but we need to see more pilots more quickly,” said Judson True, an aide to Chiu.

In reality, it would seem that only Mayor Ed Lee has the power to make changes happen more quickly on Market. Without his support, the SFMTA lacks resources and political power. During last week’s question-and-answer period at the Board of Supervisors, Lee gave an ambiguous answer to a question by Chiu on whether he supports more private auto restrictions on Market.

Lee said he’s behind finding ways to improve Market “for all users” and “supportive of initial trials and pilots,” but skirted around the issue of more immediate private auto restrictions. A phone call and email to the Mayor’s Press Office were not returned.

A free Muni for youth rally drew more than 150 people to the steps of City Hall. Activists said students and working-class families shouldn't have to choose between buying groceries and a Muni pass. Photos by Bryan Goebel.

A broad coalition of community groups, youth leaders, transit advocates and elected officials called on the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency today to initiate a three-year pilot program to give young people ages 5 to 17 free Muni passes. The program would cost an estimated $7 million a year and result in a 4.6 percent increase in Muni ridership.

“We believe that transportation is a human right,” said Alicia Garza of People Organized to Win Employment Rights (POWER).  “What we’re seeing is that over the last few years the cost of (public) transportation has increased, and service and access is decreasing. Over the last two years, there’s been more than a 100 percent increase in the cost for Fast Passes for youth.”

“For families that are struggling to survive in San Francisco,” she continued, “that also means an increase in costs when wages are not increasing, when the number of jobs in San Francisco is not increasing, and when resources for public services, including schools, are not increasing. For families with more than one child this translates into an additional burden that’s being placed on working-class families and working-class communities of color in our city.”

Earlier this year, the city adopted a one-time program to give free Muni passes to 12,000 low-income students but supporters said the demand far exceeded the supply. A Muni Youth Pass currently costs $21 and is free for kids under 5. A recent survey showed that 70 percent of students in the San Francisco Unified School District rely on public transit at a time when school bus service has been dramatically cut. The number of low-income students in the district is also high, with an estimated 61 percent taking part in the school lunch program.

"It's one critical step we can take to improve the quality of life for all families in the city, and to support and encourage a new generation of transit riders for our future," said Supervisor David Campos, who added that New York City and Portland have similar programs.

"Back when I was in high school, I used to depend on the 19 bus line to get to school, and I also took the 30 Stockton to volunteer in Chinatown, where most of my friends are," said James Ng, a freshman at SF State who volunteers at the Chinatown Community Development Center. "Over the last two years, the price for bus passes has gone up 110 percent, and that has made it hard for my friends and family to find the money to get bus passes. I know some who aren't buying bus passes because it cost too much."

“Muni has become too expensive and the services that we depend on are becoming out of reach for us financially,” said Leah LaCroix, the chair of the San Francisco Youth Commission. “No matter what school you go to, and what your family’s income level is, or where you live, you should have access to transportation and it should be affordable and you should be able to go from your school to your after-school program to your game and wherever you want to go in the city. Free Muni does this for young people.”

The three-year pilot program, backed by six members of the Board of Supervisors, and SFMTA Board Director Joél Ramos, would be paid for “using a combination of private contributions,” “Muni efficiencies,” and “funds from several different public agencies.” While the pilot is running, those agencies would work to develop a long-term program.

Supervisor David Campos introduced a resolution [pdf] at the Board of Supervisors today calling on his colleagues to support the pilot. Ramos said he planned to get the matter agendized at an SFMTA Board meeting October 18th. He told Streetsblog one option to pay for the program could be extending parking meter hours.

“By actually generating revenues, the 7 million dollars that it might cost per year, we actually reinvest in the overall system and we make it so that parents don’t have to park anymore because their kids were on transit, so they can take transit,” he said. “That works for making parking available for people who really need it. That’s why this is a win-win.”

Paul Rose, a spokesperson for the SFMTA, said the agency is “working with the Budget Analyst to develop a comprehensive report that looks at not only what our revenue impact would be, but at what type of expenditures would be necessary to provide things like: additional vehicles, more graffiti abatement programs, or additional Clipper administrative costs, etc.”

The agency is currently facing a $23 million deficit, and recently scrapped a staff proposal to raise parking fines to help close the gap.

Thea Selby with the San Francisco Transit Riders Union said the pilot and long-term program would also include an education component for young people, and she praised POWER and other organizations working to make free Muni for youth a reality.

“They’re not just interested in giving a pass to youth. They want to train them and turn them into the transit first citizens of the next generation,” she said.

The pilot is being supported by a number of elected officials, including Supervisors Campos, John Avalos, Jane Kim, Malia Cohen, Eric Mar and Ross Mirkarimi. Organizations backing it include the Chinatown Community Development Center, Jamestown Community Center, Filipino Community Center, Public Advocates, POWER, the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, the Coalition on Homelessness, Urban Habitat, SF Transit Riders Union, MORE Public Transit Coalition and many others.

“If we believe, as a city, that public transportation is a right and not a privilege, today we take the first step in making that a reality for San Franciscans who need it the most,” said Garza.

Supervisor Jane Kim was the first to sign a petition to support free Muni passes for youth.

Photo: Bryan Goebel

Two important projects will get a hearing before an SFMTA engineering panel tomorrow, and advocates say a show of support is crucial.

First up is a hearing for the third set of 15mph school zones, championed by Walk San Francisco. More than 70 streets are on the latest list. As we’ve written, the 15mph school zone campaign is part of a groundbreaking citywide initiative pushed by Walk SF to implement safe speed zones around 200 schools, and comes just a few weeks before Walk to School Day on October 5.

The second item to convert Haight Street between Octavia and Market into a two-way street is a project that could face some opposition, but is being pushed by pedestrian, biking and transit advocates as a much-needed measure to calm traffic, improve walking conditions and speed up Muni service on the 6 and 71 lines. The plan would also give us San Francisco’s first red bus lane.

You can read the Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association’s letter of support here [pdf].

Tomorrow’s hearing starts at 10 a.m. in Room 416 at San Francisco City Hall.

Photo: Myleen Hollero/Orange Photography

SFMTA Director of Transportation Ed Reiskin told the agency’s board of directors yesterday that the earliest Muni could implement a system wide all-door boarding system would be sometime in the first half of next year.

For years, transit advocates have been encouraging the agency to extend its all-door boarding policy on the city’s light-rail fleet to all Muni buses to speed up service and save the agency money. It’s one of the many relatively simple solutions that have been talked about to make Muni faster and more reliable.

“Muni spends a whopping 20 percent of its time simply boarding passengers,” said Mario Tanev of the San Francisco Transit Riders Union (TRU). “If riders could legally board at all doors, travel times would be shorter.”

At the request of SFMTA Director Joél Ramos, Transit Director John Haley presented this report on all-door boarding [pdf] at the SFMTA Board meeting. It points out the benefits, including reduced travel times across the system, a more convenient boarding experience for the rider and it would help prevent fare conflicts between operators and riders.

“Most importantly for riders, it’s quicker trips. We can all shorten those travel times. That’s really important,” said Robert Boden of the TRU. “It saves dollars. When a bus is waiting in traffic, that is not only lost money for the agency, it is also poor service for the customers. It’s amazing that you can actually speed up service with quicker trips and also save the agency money.”

To implement the policy successfully, Haley said the agency would need to figure out the initial capital and operating costs, make sure the system has enough ticket machines, fare inspectors and reliable Clipper card readers. The agency would also launch a “comprehensive public campaign” to inform riders of the new policy.

One thing the agency wants to make sure it doesn’t do “is send the message that Muni is free now,” Reiskin told the directors. “The issue of how to do this with the right level of education and enforcement is the difficult part.”

Ramos said the agency can no longer afford to wait to implement the policy. The time to do it is now, he and other transit advocates stressed.

“It feels like we’re just burning money,” Ramos said. “I don’t think we have the luxury to delay this anymore than we have to. We’re constantly being burdened with shortcomings in terms of meeting our budget and attracting and increasing more revenues. This is one way that I feel we can save so much more money.”

SFMTA Citizen Advisory Committee Chair Dan Murphy told directors that all-door boarding should be implemented system wide, instead of on a piecemeal basis, and Haley agreed. Many riders, he said, are already confused by the policy, which allows them to board through any door on light-rail vehicles, but not buses.

“We hope if we go forward with all-door boarding that we do this in a system wide roll out so that everybody in San Francisco can understand what’s going on, what’s expected,” he said.

Haley said Muni would be the first transit system in North America to implement a system wide all-door boarding policy.

At yesterday’s meeting, directors also approved a $2 million contract with Turnstone Contracting to conduct “implementation consulting services” on the Transit Effectiveness Project.

Photo: Bryan Goebel

Last Saturday, a standing-room only audience of 750 people turned out at Trinity Presbyterian Church in Atlanta, Georgia to pay their respects to Emily Dunn, the 23-year-old woman killed by a Muni driver on August 19 while she was walking in the Castro. Dunn, who had just moved to San Francisco to start a new life, was just a step away from the curb when she was run over at Hartford and 18th streets.

The Muni driver, who hasn’t been identified, apparently violated protocol, and was driving on his own directions, according to the Chronicle, and several other reports. Muni buses don’t normally turn up Hartford from 18th. To date, neither the SFMTA or the District Attorney’s office has issued a public update on the investigation, but the operator has been placed on non-driving status.

“Emily was doing nothing wrong; no cell phone, no texting; middle of the day; observing the crosswalk,” her father, Chris Dunn, wrote in an email to Streetsblog. “She was only 12 inches from the curb. We will never understand God’s reasons. Obviously better training, procedures, instructions, fewer left turns, and a lot of other things can help to prevent anyone else from being taken.”

Dunn said he has not heard anything from Muni about the state of the investigation. A sidewalk memorial of flowers, candles and photos of Emily was still present at the corner of Hartford and 18th.

“My wife, daughter Amanda and I were so thankful for all the people who have reached out and shared memories with us,” Dunn wrote. “If you talked to people who knew Emily they would tell you she was full of life, always on a spiritual journey. She followed her own path but touched so many on her way.”

Dunn asked that we share the audio of the homily from his daughter’s memorial service. It was given by the Reverend Steve Allen, a chaplain at the Lovett School Emily attended from kindergarten through high school.

Download audio file (Emily-Dunn-Homily-Aug-27-2011-1.mp3)

Photos of Emily Dunn have been posted at the intersection where she was killed Friday. Photos: Bryan Goebel

Her name was Emily Dunn, and over the weekend, a steady stream of friends and people who never knew her brought flowers, candles and photos of her to the site in the Castro where the young woman was killed Friday afternoon by a Muni driver. A grief-stricken friend, who I met Saturday, said Dunn, who was only 23, had moved to San Francisco from Atlanta a month ago and was just beginning a new life.

According to the San Francisco Examiner, Dunn was in the crosswalk and “had crossed the street about 95 percent of the way” when she was run over and killed around 2:30 p.m. by a Muni F-line shuttle turning from 18th Street onto Hartford. “The driver is shaken up by this,” a police spokesperson told the Chronicle, adding that “at this point there is no reason to believe he was impaired.”

In the Castro neighborhood where the collision occurred, the sadness was palpable. On Saturday and Sunday, some neighbors and visitors who didn’t know Dunn brought flowers and paid their respects to grieving friends who gathered at the site. One woman who works nearby told me her friend saw the aftermath, was very traumatized and began noticing “all the drivers who speed on 18th and are on their cell phones.”

SFMTA Chied Ed Reiskin, who went to the scene of the crash Friday, issued a “statement of condolences” on behalf of the agency:

Speaking for the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) and its 5,000 employees, I express our deepest sympathy to the family and friends of the pedestrian killed in the tragic accident this afternoon involving a Muni bus.  Our condolences go out to all concerned during this difficult time. The SFMTA will continue to work with the SFPD as we undertake all necessary investigations of this matter.

Elizabeth Stampe, the executive director of Walk San Francisco, called it a “real tragedy,” and said it points to the need for additional attention “to the priority of pedestrian safety in the city.”

“This could have been anyone hit and killed by a bus. I think this also points to the need for better training for Muni drivers, to watch out for vulnerable users of the streets,” she said. “We’re going to have more and more people walking and biking around our city, and we really need to figure out how to make it safer. We need a lot more fixes to our streets to make them safer.”

The SFMTA has not released any information about the driver, although we do have a request in for more information. We’ll update the story as we get more.

Update, 4:45 p.m : SFMTA spokesperson Paul Rose said the unidentified driver has been with Muni since January, and that he shouldn’t have been driving on Hartford.

“Our policy is to operate buses on streets that have regular assigned service. Hartford does not have scheduled service, and our policy is it should not operate on streets like that,” Rose said. The SFMTA did not immediately know the age of the driver, or where he resides.

A spokesperson for SFPD would only say that the investigation is continuing, and the inspector who is working on the case would forward it to the District Attorney’s office to review if any charges would be filed against the driver.

A reader also tipped us off to this short film featuring Emily that is on YouTube:

The candidates at Monday night's mayoral forum. Photo: Luke Thomas, Fog City Journal

Monday night’s first major mayoral debate contained more political theater than substance, and it’s too bad, because the very first question posed to some of the candidates — who gave no real answers to it — was a critically important one. The moderator, with a list of questions compiled by the Castro/Eureka Valley and Duboce Triangle neighborhood associations, asked the following before a large crowd at the Castro Theatre:

The Market and Octavia area plan anticipates thousands of new housing units being developed in the Upper Market area over the next several years. Yet, our public transportation infrastructure frequently fails to meet even today’s needs. So, do you support requiring appropriate improvements in transit capacity and service before new development entitlements can be granted, and why or why not?

It’s complex, but it cuts to the heart of an issue that our city leaders haven’t been good at tackling. Sure, every candidate says they want Muni to be on time, and that it’s about time that happened, but those are easy platitudes. The real pressing question is: How do we pay for improved and expanded transit service? And why, in a Transit First city, are we approving new housing and commercial developments with added capacity for parking without adding transit capacity too? Those are the underlying issues behind the initial question given to 5 of the 10 mayoral candidates who were asked to take part in the forum.

None of the candidates who were asked to respond — Michela Alioto-Pier, David Chiu, Tony Hall, Joanna Rees and Leland Yee — addressed it in a substantive way.

“I would certainly like to know before we start some of these larger projects that we have an idea of how we’re going to get people to and from them,” said Alioto-Pier. Again, no real answer. But she admitted this much about her time on the Board of Supervisors: “We didn’t pay as much attention to the types of impacts on our neighborhoods and our communities as perhaps was needed.”

Chiu came the closest to directly responding, pointing out — to applause — that he is the only mayoral candidate who doesn’t own a car, but his answer was vague.

“We need to make sure that our city is investing in appropriate transit infrastructure. I think what’s appropriate is that we are paying as we go. If we are creating development, we need to make sure that there is transit and transit improvements related to that,” said Chiu, who then used the remainder of his time to attack Mayor Ed Lee, like many of the other candidates did, for jumping into the race when he said he wouldn’t.

Plenty of Ideas, Shortage of Political Will

The next mayor needs to figure out how to solve the SFMTA’s structural deficit. If we’re ever going to reach the on-time performance goals in the City Charter and achieve acceptable Muni reliability, quality and crowding standards, the SFMTA has estimated the agency needs to raise an additional $75 to $100 million a year. And that doesn’t cover transit capacity around new development.

“What’s very frustrating is that we’re not anywhere near prepared to expand transit capacity. All we’re doing is cutting right now, as a city,” said Jason Henderson, an SF State geography professor who heads up the transportation and planning committee for the Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association.

“Then,” he continued, “we’re letting these developments come in with parking, and it’s just perpetuating the vicious cycle because then you’re going to have people that are going to come in when the transit system’s bad, and they’re going to drive, and believe that they have to have their parking space because the transit system is not able to provide the adequate capacity.”

Development impact fees don’t solve the problem on their own, but there are funding ideas aplenty. Just not politically popular ones. SFMTA staff and a variety of revenue committees over the last few years have offered several proposals (some old, some new), and some would require state legislation and take a few years to implement. They include congestion pricing, a transit assessment district, extended parking meter hours, a transportation utility fee, a vehicle impact mitigation fee, and many more. For a detailed list, check out this presentation the SFMTA gave in February [pdf].

Everyone agrees we need better transit service and the city has recognized this for decades under many mayors without a concrete solution. The mayoral candidates need to start talking specifics about how we’re going to fund Muni, and for that matter, how we pay for future pedestrian safety and bikeway improvements, or we’ll never see the kind of Transit First city we deserve.

In the coming weeks, we’ll be interviewing the top mayoral candidates on transportation and land use issues, and we’ll put this question to them, pressing for a detailed answer.

McAllister Street looking west at Leavenworth Street. Flickr photo: geekstinkbreath

Two-way access on the east end of McAllister Street has been restored for Muni buses, bicycles, and commercial vehicles, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) announced last week.

The conversion, completed last Thursday, provides a more direct route to Market Street for the 5-Fulton Muni line, which has long been forced to detour off McAllister at Hyde Street. The bus line is expected to save three minutes on inbound trips for its nearly 16,000 annual riders and save the SFMTA an estimated $200,000 per year, the agency said.

“For folks that are riding the 5, it will really help with quicker trips and reliability and make sure that buses are more evenly spaced apart,” said San Francisco Transit Riders Union spokesperson Robert Boden. “One of our members rides it on a daily basis and she mentioned that sometimes that turn onto Market Street can be very difficult for drivers, and there were times when the trolley buses would become disconnected from the wires.”

Under the reconfiguration, three one-way lanes were converted to one through lane in each direction, bringing calmer and more inviting conditions for people walking and biking on the two blocks between Market and Hyde Streets.

McAllister, which serves as a relatively flat and direct link between the Civic Center and NoPa areas, is a popular route for bicycle commuters. The SFMTA painted sharrows in the westbound direction to connect with those installed in June.

Private automobiles are still prohibited from using McAllister as an eastbound through route. However, drivers can access street parking and drop-off zones in front of the Renoir Hotel from the end of 7th Street, also known as Charles J. Brenham Place, which was also converted to a two-way block. Private auto and delivery drivers are required to make a right turn onto Market Street at the east end of McAllister.

Two-waying McAllister was recommended in the SFMTA’sTransit Effectiveness Project as a way to improve bus service. The overhead wires were installed as part of the Capital Investment Program, which “includes the rehabilitation of the aging trolley bus Overhead Contact System in various parts of the city.”

The new overhead wires on McAllister are currently being tested, and SFMTA spokesperson Paul Rose said the 5-Fulton route change will take effect sometime this month.

Image: SFMTA

McAllister looking east toward Market, where drivers must make a right turn. Flickr photo:

Freshly painted sharrows set to dry. Flickr photo: geekstinkbreath

Flickr photo: Transit Nerds

The J-Church has emerged as the top candidate for Muni to test all-door boarding as a way to speed up service on its busiest and least reliable lines. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) Transit Director John Haley said today that it is being evaluated for a pilot program that could lead to a system-wide change in boarding policy.

“The single biggest delay in moving our service along is the fare transaction,” Haley said in a report to the SF Board of Supervisors Land Use and Economic Development Committee today. ”Going to all-door boarding would dramatically speed that up, so we’re taking a look at that.”

SFMTA spokesperson Paul Rose said the agency is evaluating the details of what the pilot would look like. He explained that although passengers holding proof of payment or a Clipper card can already board trains by any door, those paying by cash at street-level stops are still required to board at the front, leading to time-consuming queues.

Allowing passengers to board at any door, as well as providing ticket vending machines at street-level stops, could help speed up lines like the J, which has received extra attention since Supervisor Scott Wiener called for regular reports from the SFMTA on efforts to improve its reliability.

As a more immediate measure to improve service, Muni will adjust the J’s schedule next month from a variable 5 to 13-minute headway to a more consistent 9 minutes, said Haley.

“That will not just make it easier from an ‘understanding when the train is coming’ perspective, but also to balance the loads on the train,” he said.

The agency is also evaluating the stretch of Church Street between 24th and 30th Streets for opportunities to reduce the number of stops, said Haley. SFMTA staff are targeting a stop between 30th and Clipper Streets (which lies between 25th and 26th Streets) and will soon make presentations to the Accessibility Advisory Committee and Citizens Advisory Council on a proposal, he said.

The biggest cause for delay on the J-Church remains vehicle failures, said Haley, which make up nearly half of all delays 10 minutes or longer. The agency is still playing catch-up on overhauling the trains after the T-Third Street line was opened in 2007, adding 40 percent to the miles they travel, he said.

Double-parked cars are still the second-biggest cause of extended delays, and Haley said the agency plans to focus parking control officers on Church Street when nearby schools begin their sessions in the fall.

Rose said it isn’t known when riders could see all-door boarding or stop optimization, but both are in the works.

Ed Reiskin at today's press conference, surrounded by members of the SFMTA Board. Photo: Bryan Goebel

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) Board of Directors has appointed a regular bicycle and Muni rider to become its Chief Executive Officer, ushering in a new era of leadership that advocates hoped would dramatically improve sustainable transportation in the city.

Ed Reiskin, the current head of the Department of Public Works (DPW) who hasn’t owned a car since 1991, promised to make safety for all modes of transportation his top priority.

“I see transportation as essentially important to maintaining and enhancing the quality of life for the people of San Francisco,” Reiskin told a packed room of reporters, advocates and SFMTA and DPW staffers this morning. “I see no reason why we can’t have the world-class transportation system that this city deserves.”

Reiskin was chosen after an hour-long interview with the SFMTA Board of Directors Tuesday for his wide reputation as “a truly gifted leader” and “a fast learner,” said Board Chair Tom Nolan.

“That was the most important thing to us,” said Nolan. “We wanted somebody who knew San Francisco, who understood the politics here, the dynamics of city government, and was passionate about being a San Franciscan, and we found that, definitely, in Mr. Reiskin.”

The SFMTA would not confirm what salary Reiskin is being offered but the Chronicle reported he’s committed to a three-year contract, and will be paid an annual salary of $294,000, $15,000 less than his predecessor, Nathaniel Ford, who left July 1. The SFMTA Board will vote on the terms of his contract and the appointment on August 2.

Ed Reiskin takes the podium at this morning's press conference. Photo: Bryan Goebel

Advocates, Electeds Praise Reiskin

Sustainable transportation advocates roundly praised Reiskin’s demonstrated ability to engage staff and move projects forward that improve conditions for transit riders, pedestrians and bicyclists.

“He’s someone who rides the ride and walks the walk,” said car-free SF Board of Supervisors President David Chiu. “Today, the future of transportation in San Francisco is brighter.”

Reiskin, who lives with his family in a car-free household in the Lower Haight, was born in Chicago and gave up his car when he moved to New York City twenty years ago. He has since lived in Boston and Washington, D.C., before moving to Oakland in 1999 where he met his wife, a San Francisco native, and moved to the city nine years ago.

“I love cities,” said Reiskin. “I think cities are incredibly important and have the potential to enable people to access education, jobs, culture and diversity, interaction and innovation.”

Chiu said that when he began working with Reiskin years ago, he “was someone who was incredibly well respected by the neighborhood leaders not only in my district, but throughout the city as someone who not only understood detail, but someone who got the big picture of what we need to do to move things forward.”

San Francisco Bicycle Coalition Executive Director Leah Shahum said Reiskin “has the know-how and the proven leadership ability to take San Francisco where we want to go in terms of safe, accessible, inviting streets and neighborhoods for all.”

“At a time when people in San Francisco are eager for more options to move around our city in ways that are easy, affordable, healthy and good for the local economy, this is a great step forward,” said Shahum. “By choosing Ed Reiskin, the agency’s leaders are signaling their commitment to an even stronger, more innovative SFMTA that really can become a world-class transportation agency serving the needs of our diverse citizens and visitors.”

Gabrielf Metcalf, executive director of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Center (SPUR), said Reiskin is “a great manager and change agent, who knows how to work within government in a way that motivates and inspires staff, and he’s also someone who has a full appreciation of the multiple roles that streets play in city life.”

Reiskin’s colleagues said that his skills as an adaptive and competent leader should compensate for any lack of experience running a transit system. As a former director of 311 and now DPW, he manages $2 billion in capital projects.

“Governance of streets and transportation is very fragmented in San Francisco, and Ed is well-regarded by his colleagues in other agencies,” said Livable City Director Tom Radulovich, noting that Reiskin “has supported projects like the sidewalk widening on Valencia and Linden Alley, Pavement to Parks, parklet, and bike corral programs, and the re-think of Market Street.”

“I think it’s important to keep in mind that the MTA is not just about Muni,” said Supervisor Scott Wiener. “Muni is the 800-pound gorilla, but the MTA governs all transportation in San Francisco, from our roads to our taxi system, and of course Muni.”

“What we need is someone who has the vision to be able to integrate all of that and have a great global transportation system in San Francisco,” he said.

Reiskin said that his experience as DPW Director showed him that coming in as outsider has its advantages. ”I can ask a lot of questions and come in with a fresh perspective,” he said.

Supporters lauded his performance at DPW, where he quickly learned the ropes within months of starting the job in 2008 after being appointed by then-City Administrator Ed Lee.

“Just a few years before” Reiskin became the DPW director, the agency “had virtually declared war on public seating, so Ed has overseen quite a turn-around towards the idea of streets as public spaces,” said Radulovich.

“Give me a month, and I’ll be very versed in all this,” joked Reiskin.

Reiskin said he plans to “spend as little time in my office as I can and as much time in the field talking to folks so I can understand the organization so that I can engage the people in the department in making it work.”

His priorities range from improving safety for street users, to engaging Muni operators positively to implement the new labor contract, to implementing solutions to speed up Muni.

Here are his responses to questions on a number of issues:

• On the city’s Transit First Policy:“I think it’s really forward thinking and outstanding,” he told reporters. “There’s no question, with the Transit First Policy, we want to emphasize and shift people as much as possible to more sustainable modes of transportation, but it doesn’t mean cars are bad and people who drive cars are bad. I think we have to make it more convenient for people not to be in a car… and let the results speak to people in terms of whether or not they want to get out of their car. I think we have to earn it.”

  “I would like San Francisco to be a place where you don’t feel like you need to own a car.”

• On improving biking and walking conditions: ”The streets and sidewalks need to be safe, inviting and welcoming for people to want to” walk and bike. “It’s good for the city, it’s good for the climate and environment, it’s good for the health of the people, so it’s a win all around.”

  Funding bicycle and pedestrian improvements is “exceedingly important,” he said. “Every person that chooses to walk or ride a bike is potentially one less car that’s on the road.”

• On how to improve Muni reliability: “I don’t walk into this presuming to have all the answers for the MTA,” he said. But “just as a very frequent Muni rider, I believe there is some low-hanging fruit in efficiency to be found and conditions to be improved upon. I think some of the solutions to making Muni work better are with the operators. These are the folks who know it and do it every day. I think engaging them in a positive and constructive way, and not focusing on grievances and discipline, but focusing on how to make the system better, I think that’s the way to build morale.”

  “The idea that [the Transit Effectiveness Project] needs environmental review to make transit work better seems kind of absurd to me.”

• On negotiating with the Transit Workers Union to implement the new labor contract: “I don’t see this as management versus labor. I see this as MTA employees all working towards a common goal of improving delivery of service.”

  “I don’t want One Van Ness (the MTA building) to be seen as some ivory tower issuing edicts from afar.”

Timothy Papandreou, SFMTA Deputy Director of Transportation Planning, said he thinks Reiskin “has the temperament and the managerial skillset that can really help us, being multi-modal.”

“You don’t have to be an expert in every mode, but you have to know how to manage people,” said Papandreou. “We’re going to have a great opportunity to start translating the Transit First Policy into work.”

As the MTA updates its Strategic Plan, he thinks Reiskin can help “hold the [Board of Directors] and everyone else accountable to it.”

Streetsblog Editor Bryan Goebel contributed reporting.