Supervisor Mark Farrell. Photo: Jennifer Low/Flickr

The committee was expected to approve recommendation of the proposal today, sending it to the full board for a vote next Tuesday. However, Farrell said that it was “absolutely inappropriate” for him vote on it today without feeling adequately informed, and that he still wouldn’t be ready in a week. Although the proposal received unanimous approval from the SFMTA Board of Directors today, the SFCTA committee decided to postpone its vote until its next meeting, in one month.

Staying updated on the project, said Farrell, “is a responsibility of mine, for sure, but it’s also a responsibility of the TA [staff].”

“In my opinion, it is very appropriate and, I think, necessary for all the supervisors and commissioners who get affected by this in their districts to be fully briefed on this before we’re asked to vote on any portion of this, even if it might be non-binding,” he said.

The Van Ness BRT design proposal would preserve the center median while allowing the use of right-door buses. Image: SFCTA

The proposal, widely praised by officials and advocates for combining the best features of two design alternatives, was publicly announced on April 27. Responding to Farrell’s complaints, SFCTA Deputy Director of Planning Tilly Chang said agency staff offered to brief the board members at their previous meeting on April 24. “Some did take us up, and some didn’t take us up,” she said.

She also noted that the project “has been out there” in the media, and staff made a presentation on the proposal to the committee today which they’ve given to neighborhood groups and at other public meetings. Today’s committee meeting agenda also included a report [PDF] on the design proposal and a memo [PDF], dated last Thursday, which provides background information.

Postponing the vote could potentially set the entire project back a month, as Chang said agency staff needs board approval before completing the remaining analysis needed on the proposal. She said the vote would not bind the agency to the design.

The project, currently expected to be completed by fall 2016, has seen numerous delays since it was first conceived in 2004. “The Federal Transit Administration, in particular, is very keen for us to essentially catch up, as we are behind on our schedule,” said Chang. “However, they do understand the need for a strong local process.”

Image: SFCTA

Planners have settled on a design for San Francisco’s first Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route on Van Ness Avenue. The result is a plan that combines the benefits of both proposed center-running options to keep construction costs relatively low while allowing Muni flexible use of its bus fleet to serve the line.

In this design, buses would run along either side of a center median, but converge near intersections to load at right-side boarding platforms. That should assuage concerns from Muni management about requiring special buses for the route with doors on both sides to load passengers on a left-side median. It would also forego the expense and disruption of removing the existing planted median while mitigating safety concerns about buses passing each other within a pair of enclosed lanes. The plan would also likely include slightly raised bus lanes and will ban all but one left turn along the corridor between Mission and Lombard Streets.

Some more analysis and planning needs to be done before the final environmental impact report is presented in September and approved by the end of the year, but SF County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) planner Michael Schwartz said the environmental impacts should “fall within the bookends of what’s already been analyzed.”

The line is expected to be up and running in 2016 (here’s why it’s taken so long).

Check out more details on the proposal from the SF Examiner, Transbay Blog, and in this SFCTA Powerpoint presentation [PDF].

Streetsblog readers had a lot to say about the two options presented last time around — what do you think of this hybrid design?

Photo: torbakhopper/Flickr

Detailed plans for proposed improvements on eight Muni routes are now available for viewing on the SFMTA’s Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP) website. Head over for a block-by-block breakdown of proposed street changes like transit-only lanes, sidewalk extensions, boarding islands, relocated or consolidated stops, replacing stop signs with traffic signals or traffic-calming measures, and more to help keep Muni vehicles moving quickly and reliably.

To help ensure the SFMTA implements the most effective improvements as quickly as possible, it’s crucial for supporters to attend one of the five remaining TEP workshops and weigh in on the eight priority routes: the 28-19th Avenue, the N-Judah, the 30-Stockton, the 8x-Bayshore Express, the J-Church, the 14-Mission, the 5-Fulton, and the 22-Fillmore.

A recent workshop on the 14 and 22 lines in the Mission was derailed by a small but vocal group who dominated the discussion with unrelated complaints, according to reports from some who attended. To help provide a more balanced and constructive conversation at future workshops, riders eager to see more reliable Muni service on these corridors must be well represented.

The SFMTA will hold two more workshops this week. Tomorrow, the 28-19th Avenue‘s second workshop will take place at Lakeside Presbyterian Church (201 Eucalyptus Drive at 19th Ave.) at 6 p.m. The proposals for the route include extending sidewalks to ease boardings and shorten pedestrian crossings at over 20 intersections along 19th Avenue as well as removing excessive stops at seven intersections.

On Saturday, a workshop on the 5-Fulton, and 22-Fillmore routes will be held at 10 a.m. at the Ella Hill Hutch Community Center (1050 McAllister Street at Webster).

Proposals for the 5-Fulton include extending sidewalks at 11 intersections, moving stops across 11 intersections, removing stops at nine intersections, replacing stop signs with traffic signals or traffic-calming measures at nine intersections, a road diet on Fulton Street between Stanyan and Central Streets, and more.

For the 22-Fillmore, proposals include “median bus lanes” between Bryant and Third Streets, seven boarding islands and roughly two dozen sidewalk extensions along 16th Street, and restricting left turns at most intersections along 16th.

SFMTA staff said it is also working on maps and renderings to help the public visualize the proposed plans. The final workshop on May 5 will include a review of proposals for all eight routes.

See the entire schedule of workshops on the TEP website, and also be sure to weigh in on an online poll.

9th Ave. and Lincoln Way. Photos: Aaron Bialick

This week, I stumbled upon a heartwarming moment for the folks out on the streets every day working to keep things moving along.

A 44-O’haughnessy driver pulled up to a bus stop blocked by a scofflaw driver just as a parking control officer (PCO) was issuing a ticket. In a pleasant show of camaraderie, the driver took a moment to thank the officer for her work.

No doubt, our Muni operators and PCOs both deal with more than their fair share of aggravation on the job – let’s hope they see far more moments of appreciation like these than we can catch on our radar.

Photo: Myleen Hollero / Orange Photography

The SFMTA Board of Directors yesterday approved a two-year budget that calls for parking meter enforcement on Sundays and free Muni passes for low-income youth. The budget must still be approved by the Board of Supervisors before it goes into effect on July 1.

As Streetsblog reported yesterday, the SFMTA Board approved a free youth pass program for low-income students but didn’t extend it to all students. With agency staff saying that free Muni for everyone under 17 would trigger maintenance cuts, board members didn’t think that expanding the free rides for student was worth the trade-off. However, advocates from POWER, the organization leading the free Muni for youth campaign, argued that the board was presented with a false choice.

“Making bus maintenance a trade-off with free Muni for all youth is a false, random and last-minute attempt to limit the board’s choice to free Muni for low-income youth,” said a statement released by POWER the day before the meeting. The organization contended that the SFMTA overlooked opportunities to use available regional funds dedicated to programs for low-income riders and improving air quality. Free Muni for all youth, they argued, would get more middle- and upper-income students to take Muni instead of being driven by their parents.

SFMTA Director of Transportation Ed Reiskin “respectfully disagreed” with POWER’s assertion, arguing that finding additional funds for an all-youth program would come with “real trade-offs.” The $6.6 million in proposed cuts would have come from $3.8 million in maintenance, $2.1 million in state funds for “transit projects in low-income neighborhoods,” and $700,000 to help fund Department of Public Works projects that would include bike and pedestrian improvements. Those funds were “the lowest priority” available, he said.

The $9.6 million for the low-income-only program, which is projected to be open to half of San Francisco students (based on SFUSD’s free and reduced lunch program), will not come out of maintenance funds, said Reiskin, but mostly from $5 million in outside grants that the SFMTA would not have otherwise received. The remaining $4.3 million will come from “general operating funds,” according to an SFMTA document [PDF].

The board passed an amendment to assure advocates of its commitment to seek funding for an all-youth program in the next budget cycle. Upon approval of the low-income program, advocates expressed neither cheers nor jeers.

As for Sunday parking meters, all of the roughly two dozen opponents repeated claims that having to feed meters during church services would repel people from worship. Pastor Amos Brown of Third Baptist Church, who is no stranger to using incendiary rhetoric on the matter, said charging for parking on Sundays was sexist since, he claimed, most churchgoers are women.

Board member Joél Ramos rebuffed opponents’ accusations by appealing to the very religious teachings they claimed to defend. “I’ve been called a lot of things in my life, but never the devil,” said Ramos. “It’s shocking to have heard that coming from a community that lives by, ‘Judge not, lest ye be judged.’”

“The reason why I’m here on this board is because of my Christian teachings, particularly my Catholic teachings, saying that we should look out for those that are the least among us,” he said. “People that don’t have a car, or can’t afford a car, are being pushed out of this city because they can’t even take the bus.”

“We are jam-packed to the gills” with car traffic circling for parking, added Ramos. “On Sundays, it’s just as bad as it ever is, and that affects our transit, making it even more expensive to run.”

Reiskin also pointed out that curb parking can be pre-paid prior to the onset of metered hours at noon, that drivers can pay meters by phone, and that time limits would be four hours long.

Also scrutinized was the SFMTA’s $9 million in annual work orders to the SFPD’s motorcycle traffic enforcement unit, which was once again included in the budget despite criticism in recent years that the SFMTA is footing an unjustified bill while making cuts in other areas. Reiskin defended the practice by arguing that ending it would only shove the problem to the city’s shortfall.

“I don’t think that it’s fair for the ridership of Muni to pay for the entirety of that program,” said Supervisor David Campos, who has led the charge for free Muni for youth at City Hall.

“I think it’s appropriate for some of that money to be paid by other people who drive, other people in the city,” he added. “So if you have the opportunity, at a minimum, to reduce that amount by half, that’s four and a half million dollars that you can get back into the system so that you address issues like maintenance, so that you address issues like on-time performance.”

Image: SFgovtv.org

The board favored a free youth pass program for low-income students, but members weren’t convinced that expanding the proposal to include anyone under 17 would be worth the trade-offs in cuts to Muni maintenance that staff presented to the board — at least in this budget cycle. Advocates rebutted agency staff on this point, arguing that the board was presented with a false choice.

Sunday parking meter enforcement was also opposed by roughly two dozen speakers, all of whom defended the entitlement to free car parking for churchgoers. However, board members saw past the rhetoric and argued that parking must be managed on Sundays as it is on any other day of the week.

We’ll have more on the meeting tomorrow.

Stockton Street. Photo: geekstinkbreath/Flickr

Before you head off to one of the SFMTA’s ten public workshops on how to make your Muni route faster and more reliable, first you can take a peek at the proposed plans on the agency’s website.

The SFMTA’s Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP) web page now features a route-by-route summary of the proposals tailored to each of its eight priority “rapid” lines: the 28-19th Avenue, the N-Judah, the 30-Stockton, the 8x-Bayshore Express, the J-Church, the 14-Mission, the 5-Fulton, and the 22-Fillmore. Although the website doesn’t provide maps or detailed designs, it features a rough look at the street changes proposed for each line, including new transit-only lanes, extending transit bulbs and boarding islands, moving stops across intersections, removing stop signs or adding transit-priority traffic signals, increasing stop spacing, and widening narrow lanes to fit buses.

If you want to see Muni move more efficiently, it’s especially important to show up and support proposals to increase stop spacing to speed up trips (or, in other words, remove stops). At the first of these TEP workshops, which focused on the 28 and N-Judah lines, attendees generally voiced mixed feelings about removing stops, according to agency staff.

Overall, the idea of setting stops farther apart is popular: A 2010 survey found that 61 percent of riders would consider walking longer distances if it would speed up their trip. And once stop spacing is optimized and riders can experience the difference, the changes seem to be appreciated. SFMTA staff said the agency has received mostly positive feedback from riders on the 28-Limited line after the agency removed several stops last fall.

Seventy percent of Muni stops are closer than Muni’s own guidelines call for, according to the SFMTA. With stops as frequent as one (or more) per block, it’s a top complaint among riders. In a 2010 Streetfilm, SFMTA TEP Project Manager Julie Kirschbaum explained that “over time, bus stops have sort of creeped in for various reasons” in “places that aren’t necessarily optimal.”

The SFMTA also held a workshop last weekend on the 8x and 30 lines in Chinatown and will hold two more this week. Tonight’s workshop will focus on the J-Church and 14-Mission (south of Cesar Chavez), and tomorrow’s will look at the 22-Fillmore and 14-Mission (in the Inner Mission). The final workshop on May 5 will address all of the proposals.

See the entire schedule of workshops on the TEP website. You can also weigh in on an online poll.

Photo: THE Holy Hand Grenade!/Flickr

The proposed budget would have included free Muni for low-income youth, but that measure failed after dozens of proponents argued that it should be expanded to include anyone under 17. The SFMTA estimates that doing so would cost about $9 million per year, roughly double the cost of the low-income-only proposal, which the agency has secured regional funds for. The board asked staff to return to the next meeting with a refined proposal that lays out a funding plan for an all-youth program.

Sunday parking metering saw opposition from religious institutions, but on the board the only skepticism came from Leona Bridges, who voiced concerns about car-owning residents who live above businesses with parking meters. SFMTA Director Ed Reiskin pointed out that those spots already aren’t free for residents during business hours the rest of the week.

Sunday metering may also see little opposition from the Board of Supervisors. In an article in the SF Examiner this week, Supervisor Sean Elsbernd said that West Portal residents “should be ready for Sunday enforcement.” At a recent SFMTA presentation to the Board of Supervisors Budget and Finance Committee, members also voiced very little criticism for the proposal.

The budget will be up for approval again at the SFMTA Board’s April 17 meeting. It must be adopted by May 1 before heading to the Board of Supervisors for final approval.

Photo: torbakhopper/Flickr

Two years from now, Muni buses will have traffic signal priority at 600 intersections throughout the city, SFMTA Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP) Manager Julie Kirschbaum told the agency’s board of directors today.

The signals will speed buses along all of Muni’s priority “rapid” route network, which encompasses half of San Francisco’s roughly 1,200 signalized intersections, she said.

Transit-priority traffic signals would substantially speed up Muni trips by “allow[ing] us to extend greens and reduce the amount of time buses spend sitting at signals,” said Kirschbaum in an update on the TEP [PDF] presented to the board.

The signals, which would use GPS to hold green lights for buses and trains as they approach an intersection, will be installed using $20.3 million from the Prop B street improvements bond measure approved by voters last November. “It really is a substantial investment,” said Kirschbaum.

Although staff is currently performing environmental review and public outreach on physical street improvements recommended in the TEP, other improvements are moving ahead, like signal priority and system-wide all-door boarding, which is expected to begin on July 1.

When the rest of the TEP is implemented by 2017, said Kirschbaum, it will add other street improvements to facilitate signal priority, including colored bus-only lanes, right-turn lanes for other vehicles, and bus stops moved to the far side of intersections.

Some intersections already have transit-priority signals, but staff said they use outdated technology, and many have been poorly maintained. The new signals will also replace stop signs on some routes.

[Updated 5:48 p.m.]

Starting July 1, feel free to board any Muni bus by the back door, as long as you pay.

The SFMTA says it will be the first transit agency in North America to implement all-door boarding on the entire Muni system, expanding the existing policy from light rail vehicles (and cable cars) as a simple, low-cost way to speed up boardings and reduce fare evasion on its buses.

“All-door boarding will have immediate positive impacts on the system, such as speeding up the boarding process, improving service reliability, and reducing travel time,” said SFMTA Director of Transportation Ed Reiskin. ”Additionally, faster service will result in savings that can be reinvested into the system through improved frequency and increased capacity, realizing long-term, sustainable benefits our customers deserve.”

To make the transition, the SFMTA plans to hire fare inspectors, launch a media campaign to inform riders, and potentially install ticket machines at bus stops. SFMTA spokesperson Paul Rose said the agency has installed Clipper Card readers on back doors in preparation for the change, and more details will be presented to the agency’s Board of Directors at a later meeting.

Making the switch could speed up Muni trips substantially. Muni buses currently spend an estimated 15 to 30 percent of their time letting customers get on and off the bus. On some of the most congested lines, many passengers already board on the back illegally, either to skip the long line or to avoid paying the fare.

An all-door boarding system, also known as proof-of-payment, decriminalizes that practice while using random fare inspections to eliminate the sense of security for fare evaders who’ve made it onto the bus, thereby encouraging them to pay.

“We want to have the right level of fare inspection so that we create an expectation for anybody riding on our system that any point, they may be asked to show proof that they’ve paid for their ride,” said Reiskin at a town hall meeting this week. “We don’t want to inadvertently send the signal that Muni’s free.”

The fare evasion rate on Muni’s light rail lines, which have used random fare inspections for more than a decade, is less than half the rate on buses, according to a 2009 study by the SFMTA. On some bus lines, more than 15 percent of riders don’t pay, and that number jumps to 55 percent for people who board on the back. Overall, Muni loses an estimated $19 million to fare evasion every year.

Expanding all-door boarding was a key recommendation from SFMTA staff in the Muni Transit Effectiveness Project.

“Fare inspection has worked well on Muni’s rail lines,” said Mario Tanev, coordinator for the San Francisco Transit Riders Union‘s (SFTRU) all-door boarding campaign, which launched last August. “Implementing inspections on buses will keep fares lower and will make trips faster, protecting San Francisco riders — many of whom are low-income — from increased fares or service cuts.”

With Muni operators relieved of fare inspection duties, the change could help them stay focused on driving, though they will still handle cash fares. Passengers who stay bunched at the front of the bus may also be more likely to sit in the back.

Robert Boden, a board member of SFTRU, said the organization is ”pleased that Muni is listening to riders” by implementing all-door boarding.

“When a bus is slow and late, it costs the agency money,” said Tanev, the campaign coordinator. “Muni can’t afford it, and the riders don’t deserve slow buses.”

Muni's eight priority routes for TEP improvements. Click to enlarge. Image: SFMTA

Starting March 31, the agency will hold nine workshops where the public can weigh in on how to improve these corridors. The toolkit includes bus lanes, bus bulbs, and stop consolidation, among other options. The TEP will also add transit-priority traffic signals at 600+ intersections along these routes. SFMTA staff says bus trips could be sped up by as much as 28 percent, and implementation could begin in late 2013.

To make Muni service on these routes as fast and reliable as possible, it’s crucial that the SFMTA hears public support for the most effective improvements on the table.

You can look up the schedule of workshops to see which lines will be discussed when. An overview of all eight corridors will be held at the SFMTA offices at 1 South Van Ness on Wednesday, April 14 at 10 a.m.

Photo: Myleen Hollero / Orange Photography

A picture is forming of how the SFMTA might address its budget shortfalls over the next two years. The SFMTA Board of Directors and an advisory panel of community leaders seem to oppose any further fare hikes or service cuts for Muni riders while mostly favoring extending parking meter hours to nights and Sundays — a politically challenging yet long-overdue measure.

Yesterday, board members voiced their positions on a list of proposed budget measures [PDF] after Director of Transportation Ed Reiskin reported which ones were generally supported by the advisory panel. The panel has met regularly over the past two months to develop recommendations for SFMTA staff about how to address the agency’s looming budget gap — $19.6 million over the next fiscal year and $33.6 million in the following year — as well as a $120 million backlog in Muni vehicle maintenance and infrastructure improvements.

The panel is expected to submit official budget recommendations to the board later this month, but consensus is starting to form on most fronts. The group is composed of roughly a dozen representatives from the SF Chamber of Commerce, People Organized to Win Employment Rights (POWER), labor organizations, the SF Planning and Urban Research Association, the SF Bicycle Coalition, the San Francisco Transit Riders Union, and other advocates. SFMTA representatives include Reiskin, Chief Financial Officer Sonali Bose, and Directors Cheryl Brinkman and Bruce Oka.

The panel generally favored proposals including an end to the MTA’s $9 million in annual payments to the SFPD for traffic enforcement (an arrangement which Chamber of Commerce President Jim Lazarus called “ridiculous,” according to the Chronicle), installing new car parking meters in high-demand areas, enforcing an existing regulation on downtown parking garage pricing, and a minor traffic fine increase to offset state-imposed fees.

The panel and most SFMTA directors also favor extending operating hours for car parking meters to Sundays and weeknights — a promising sign for proponents of the measure, which could reduce the number of drivers circling for parking. The board also favored it two years ago, but it was nixed by then-Mayor Gavin Newsom.

Letting the current dysfunctional schedule for metered parking continue costs the agency an estimated $11.8 million each year in lost revenue alone. In addition, excessive demand for free parking spots can lead frustrated drivers to double park — the top cause of Muni delays aside from maintenance and other internal agency issues. Given that pricing parking properly encourages turnover for businesses, Brinkman said she thinks “certain neighborhoods are going to embrace this.”

While Mayor Ed Lee and other officials have touted demand-based parking pricing under the groundbreaking SFPark program, they haven’t seemed willing to apply the same principle to price parking in busy districts during Sundays and weeknights after 6 p.m., as SFMTA staff recommended in a 2009 study.

“Last time, we got a lot of pressure from the supervisors to look at it, and when we put it to the supervisors to tell us which one of them wanted it in their district — guess what — nobody wanted it in their district,” said Director Malcom Heinicke. “I think we need to try a new approach to recognize that we don’t operate through the Board of Supervisors, we operate directly with the community… We need to identify some business corridors that would be willing to explore a pilot program.”

Though one reverend complained that paying for car parking on Sundays would be a burden for churchgoers who drive if they need to re-fill their meters, Brinkman pointed out that that’s an ease-of-payment issue, and that drivers would actually be able to find nearby parking more easily. Parking control officers have for decades looked the other way every Sunday when churchgoing drivers commandeer traffic lanes and bike lanes for double parking, despite the danger they pose to bicyclists.

Also favored by the panel was the installation of 500 to 1,000 new parking meters (estimated to bring in $1 million in revenue), with some members noting the need for outreach in implementation. The panel also supported a $5 increase for traffic citations to offset increases in state-imposed courthouse fees, as well as enforcing existing prohibitions on early-bird and monthly discounts at downtown parking garages built after 1984, which would recover an estimated $6 million per year in forfeited revenue. However, members stopped short of favoring extending that prohibition citywide because they didn’t think “it has a great chance of succeding,” said Brinkman.

The proposed revenue measures could help fund a program to provide free Muni for youth, which Reiskin said the panel also supported. That would require the agency to recoup an estimated $7.9 million in lost fare revenue, or $4 million if it is limited to low-income students. More than 100 proponents of that measure organized by POWER spoke for over four hours at yesterday’s board meeting.

Though directors roundly expressed their support for the endeavor, they differed on how to best implement it. Director Oka said he was concerned that if a pilot program started this year without a sustainable funding source, the agency may be forced to cut it in the future.

“If I’m going to start the program, I want us to be able to continue it,” said Oka. Director Joél Ramos disagreed, arguing that the pilot would “set the precedent as a value” and cause staff to prioritize its funding in future budgets.

Critics of free youth passes have voiced concern about where the money for the program would come from, but Director Leona Bridges, who was appointed largely for her financial background, pointed out that when students can’t afford to ride Muni, they are more likely to be truant at school and their education ultimately suffers.

“You save on one side, but you’re spending money on another side in the criminal justice system,” said Bridges. Ramos also argued that subsidizing free car parking on Sundays and weeknights while denying free Muni rides for low-income youth is “just backwards.”

Proposals taken off the table for panel recommendation include $0.25 increases for paper transfers or cash Muni fares, which all SFMTA board members seemed opposed to except for Heinicke, who argued it would encourage more use of the Clipper card, and therefore faster boardings. The panel also won’t recommend an increase in the developer fee for lost parking meter revenue during construction, which Reiskin and Brinkman said they agreed with because the Transportation Sustainability Fee should account for those costs when it’s expected to go into effect late next year.

The SFMTA is holding town hall meetings on the budget throughout March, and the Board of Directors is expected to vote on a budget on April 3.

A Muni bus navigates around a double-parked delivery truck. Photo: _carleton/Flickr

Although Director Bruce Oka said increasing fines without increasing enforcement would be “useless” as a deterrent, proponents like Director Joél Ramos stood behind increasing fines on double-parked vehicles, which have been reported as the number-one factor slowing down Muni buses and trains aside from vehicle breakdowns due to poor maintenance.

“When we make transit more efficient by getting rid of double-parked cars or whatever it might be, that translates to operations cost savings,” Ramos said at a board meeting in December. Double-parkers can also endanger people on bicycles, particularly if they are forced into lanes with moving vehicles or rail tracks.

According to the SF Public Press, San Francisco police issued 20,576 double-parking citations (through November 2011) and 372 citations for people riding bikes on sidewalks.

While sidewalk riding is a nuisance for pedestrians, some bike advocates have pointed out that the behavior is mostly a sign that the streets don’t feel safe enough to bike on and that more bicycling education is needed. The increased fines could be a heavy burden on low-income violators who depend on their bicycles but are unaware of the law.

The SFMTA’s 2011 Bicycle Count Report [PDF], released earlier this month, found only 5 percent of bicycle riders using sidewalks — the majority of them on streets with high-speed motor traffic like Lincoln Way, 19th Avenue, the intersection of 17th/Castro and Market, and San Bruno Avenue.

“SFMTA will work with our partners to improve the conditions that create high levels of wrong way and sidewalk riding (speed, lack of bike lanes or vehicle separation, safety, etc.),” the report states.

Although SFPD Commander Lea Militello said at a SFMTA board committee meeting last month that to curb sidewalk riding, “we have to make it hurt,” according to the Public Press, SFMTA Director Cheryl Brinkman told Streetsblog she felt assured by the commander that officers only issue the fines as a last resort after admonishing violators.

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.