Photo: Frank Chan/Flickr

What would happen if, one day, the city decided to make better use of the car parking on a commercial corridor like Stockton Street in Chinatown?

“What about the businesses?” opponents might exclaim. “Where would their customers park?”

The myth of the urban driving shoppers was debunked again over the past week or so, when community leaders in Chinatown repurposed parking lanes on the most crowded blocks of Stockton to make more room for merchants and shoppers during the busy Lunar New Year season. If the still-overcrowded sidewalks were any indication, the parking didn’t seem to be missed.

“If anything, we’ve benefited from it,” said Brian Kan of Pacific Seafood Trading Company, who was selling groceries from a stand off the curb like many other merchants. “We think it’s brought us a lot of business, actually, instead of losing business. And it’s a great way for us to interact with the people walking around, too.”

While giving public parking spaces to private businesses may not necessarily achieve the same goals sought by public space expansions like parklets and plazas, the experiment highlighted the competing demands for street space in the densest neighborhood west of the Mississippi. In Chinatown, a disproportionate amount of real estate is devoted to moving and storing cars despite having the city’s lowest car ownership rate of 17 percent. According to a Department of Public Works press release, a study by the SFMTA estimated the corridor sees about 2,000 pedestrians per hour — and that’s on an average day.

The temporary transfer of space was a coordinated effort between Chinatown neighborhood and merchant associations, the mayor’s office, and a slew of city departments “to enhance and improve the experience in Chinatown during this peak holiday time,” said D3 Supervisor David Chiu in a statement. “Chinese New Year is celebrated by thousands and we want to provide an environment that supports the small business community and improves pedestrian flow along Stockton and connecting streets. We are creating a public space that meets the growing needs of this community and beyond.”

Cindy Wu of the Chinatown Community Development Center said that drawing shoppers to linger on already congested sidewalks didn’t necessarily help the crowding problem, but she believes the street needs some changes. She wants to explore how to allocate more space on Stockton for merchants and pedestrians in a way that is most beneficial to the neighborhood.

“There are so many competing uses of the street, and parking plays a role in that,” said Wu, “but we need to figure out, for however many feet from storefront to storefront — Stockton Street is wide — what is the use that benefits the most people at one time, or what is the right balance of use?”

See more photos after the break.

Photo: Frank Chan/Flickr

Photo: Aaron Bialick

Photo: Aaron Bialick

"No door zone." Photo: Frank Chan/Flickr

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.

John Avalos Rides SF from John Avalos on Vimeo.

The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition announced today that it is endorsing John Avalos as its number one pick for mayor, followed by David Chiu and Ed Lee. Avalos, the District 11 supervisor, has been especially aggressive about courting the bicycle vote, showing up at bike events, and spreading the word about his campaign in bike shops.

Chiu, the car-free District 3 supervisor who is board president, has also been reaching out to bicyclists, and the SFBC said the ranked-choice endorsements reflect the three candidates “who are mostly actively supporting a better city through bicycling.”

In an email sent out to its members, the SFBC outlines why it’s supporting each candidate:

Our #1 mayoral endorsement is John Avalos. In his role as the District 11 representative of the SF Board of Supervisors, Avalos has been a strong voice for better bicycling and livable streets. He has worked with the SF Bicycle Coalition to advance bike improvements, including essential funding for those projects. Avalos, who is a regular bike rider, has also been a steady supporter of Sunday Streets, Bike to School Day, our Connecting the City vision, and transit and public realm improvements. Avalos is currently drafting legislation to increase bicycle access to commercial buildings. Find out more about John Avalos, including his bike video, here.

Our #2 mayoral endorsement is David Chiu. Chiu serves as the President of the SF Board of Supervisors and represents District 3. He doesn’t own a car and has helped to raise the visibility of biking by executing his Board duties by bike, by transit, and on foot. He has worked with the SF Bicycle Coalition to advance bike improvements, including Market Street trials for better biking, walking, and transit, as well as supporting Sunday Streets and Connecting the City. Chiu sponsored an important policy statement to reach 20% of trips in SF by bicycle by 2020. Find out more about David Chiu here.

Our #3 mayoral endorsement is Ed Lee. Lee has been a vocal supporter of the SF Bicycle Coalition’s goals since his appointment to Mayor in January. His support for better bicycling, especially our Connecting the City initiative, has moved our vision substantially toward action by prioritizing these projects among City staff and helping to find funding. Lee has been a strong supporter of Sunday Streets and has leveraged his many years of experience in city government to prioritize and expedite bike-positive work on the streets. Find out more about Ed Lee here.

Photo: Myleen Hollero/Orange Photography

An unprecedented planning effort is currently underway to redesign Market Street, and transform it into a grand car-free thoroughfare in 2015, when it’s scheduled to be repaved. But why should we have to wait that long for a car-free Market Street? There is a growing momentum to do more aggressive trials that would inform the Better Market Street planning process, and divert more private automobiles off Market to improve conditions for people who ride transit, walk or bike.

“I do think that now is the time to accelerate our efforts to improve Market Street,” said Board of Supervisors President David Chiu.

The District 3 supervisor and mayoral candidate introduced a resolution [pdf] yesterday that calls on the SFMTA to implement more “near-term pilot projects, including increased private automobile diversions, to speed up transit along Market Street while improving the safety and comfort of people walking and biking, and supporting the local commercial and cultural function of the street.”

His comments at Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting followed a q-and-a session with Mayor Ed Lee, who was asked by Chiu if he supports more trials to improve Market, and specifically what “on the ground pilot programs should happen soon while the long-term planning process goes on.”

Third Street and Kearny is often congested with private auto traffic during peak hours, delaying Muni and creating unsafe conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians. Drivers, fresh from the Bay Bridge, continue to drive like they're on a freeway, instead of an urban street. Photo: Bryan Goebel

A frustrated 30-Stockton driver gets stuck in the intersection at 3rd/Market behind private auto traffic. Photo: Bryan Goebel

Lee said he is “supportive of initial trials and projects” and that the SFMTA is working on more experiments, including allowing all-door boarding on surface transit vehicles from Van Ness to Market (50 percent of Muni delays on Market are due to slow boarding), “new and expanded bicycle treatments,” and “improved crosswalk conditions” for pedestrians, especially at 6th Street, which has been identified as one of the city’s most dangerous intersections for walking.

“The staff of the MTA is getting a real important message from both the leadership of City Hall and the leadership of MTA that it’s time to move forward more creatively and in a timely way,” said Leah Shahum, the executive director of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. “I think this is pretty significant.”

Further details and a timeline for more improvements were not released, but Lee said any new trials would have to involve “input from multiple stakeholders.” The talk concerning reducing more private autos centers mostly around preventing turns onto Market Street, and not the cross traffic, which accounts for 85 percent of the private auto traffic on Market. Calming the cross traffic is definitely another concern among advocates, though.

Since the SFMTA implemented the required right turns at 10th and 6th streets, which are now permanent, conditions for transit, pedestrians and bicyclists have improved. The green protected bike lanes along stretches of Market also provide bicyclists with some dignified space, but it certainly isn’t enough.

The initial trials have also helped lead to a shift in public opinion about Market Street. A majority of the top mayoral candidates now support a car-free Market Street, and many residents and merchants who were originally opposed to the trials have come around to supporting them.

“I’ve not heard a lot of negative feedback to date, so that’s a good sign,” said Ken Cleaveland of the Building Owners and Managers Association of San Francisco, who supports more trials on Market Street, as long as people are allowed “to get accustomed to it gradually.”

While the two required right turns “did reduce traffic a little bit, they haven’t fixed the problems that I see every day on Market Street,” said Tom Radulovich, the executive director of Livable City. “There is a fairly small number of autos, and especially autos trying to turn right on Market Street, that plug up that right lane for buses and bicyclists trying to move through.”

Fifth, 4th and 3rd Streets and New Montgomery are congested during peak hours and Radulovich suggested prohibiting turns at those intersections, or “just making them free of private cars.”

At Montgomery, frustrated afternoon drivers will often turn left, and get onto 2nd Street to cut over to the Bay Bridge. That often creates a line of cars stuck at the intersection, bringing Muni traffic to a halt in both directions (sometimes all the way to 6th Street), and making conditions difficult for bicyclists and pedestrians.

One solution being talked about is to deploy a team of traffic control officers to the intersection to prevent cars from blocking the box, or to just ban the turn entirely, and make the last block of 2nd Street at Market open to northbound cars only.

Aside from reducing more private auto traffic, other ideas for speeding Muni include painting the transit lanes red, and extending the transit-only lane eastbound beyond 5th Street.

“Given these opportunities, we need more pilots now,” said Chiu. “I believe a viable vision for the future of Market Street is a world class avenue that draws its success from the huge number of people it attracts through transit and taxis, on foot and on bicycle, and without private automobiles except for delivery vehicles.”

David Chiu surrounded by supporters on the steps of City Hall. Some were waving "Bicyclists for David Chiu" signs. Photo: Bryan Goebel.

David Chiu, the car-free President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, declared his candidacy for mayor on the steps of City Hall this morning, promising to make sustainable transportation one of the cornerstones of his campaign.

“We’re the city that invented the cable car, but while we call ourselves a Transit-First city, we are sick of gridlock, we are sick of potholes and we’re sick of Muni,” Chiu told a crowd of more than 100 supporters. “As your candidate for mayor who doesn’t own a car, who gets to City Hall either on the number 49 or on my bicycle, I think we can do better.”

Chiu’s entry into the mayor’s race is expected to substantially raise the profile of sustainable transportation. Although many of the other major candidates have transportation listed as an issue of importance on their websites, Chiu is the only candidate (that we know of) who doesn’t own a car and gets around mostly on his electric bicycle.

Cheryl Brinkman, a transit advocate who sits on the SFMTA Board of Directors, gave a rousing endorsement for Chiu at today’s campaign kick-off, along with Supervisor Eric Mar.

“David’s a true leader on transit issues, and he understands that San Francisco must be a world-class transit city,” Brinkman said. “He’s really willing to take bold moves to make sure that Muni continues to improve, and that the city is more accessible not only to transit users, but for pedestrians and cyclists as well.”

Chiu joins a crowded field of mayoral candidates, including State Senator Leland Yee, City Attorney Dennis Herrera, former Supervisors Bevan Dufty and Michela Alioto-Pier and Assessor-Recorder Phil Ting.

Streetsblog plans coverage of the race leading up to the November election and we hope to have an opportunity to quiz all the major candidates on sustainable transportation.

Chiu files papers with the clerk's office. Photos: Bryan Goebel

Board of Supervisors Prez and Acting Mayor David Chiu took a bike ride to City Hall with some advocates this morning. On right is SFBC Executive Director Leah Shahum, back from her sabbatical in Amsterdam. Photo: Bryan Goebel

Board of Supervisors President David Chiu, who for the past 24 hours has served as Acting Mayor of San Francisco, said expanding the city’s bike network will be his number one transportation priority in the coming year, along with pedestrian safety and improving Muni’s reliability and performance.

“First and foremost, as someone who bikes every day, is ensuring that we’re expanding our bike network, starting with Market Street, but through all of the major thoroughfares in San Francisco, creating what I think of as bike thoroughfares that we can use to easily get folks around the city,” said Chiu, standing outside It’s a Grind coffee house on Polk Street, where he led a ride to City Hall with bicycle advocates this morning.

Leah Shahum, the executive director of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, was among those taking part in the ride and said as a bicyclist Chiu understands the importance of physically-separated green bike lanes, like the ones on Market Street.

“It is going to be an important year for San Francisco to build on its recent successes for better bicycling,” said Shahum. “City Hall leaders have the opportunity to make the city easier to move around with relatively low-cost, quick improvements, such as more physically separated bikeways on key routes like Market Street and Fell Street along the popular Wiggle route.”

Photo: Bryan Goebel

Chiu, who represents District 3 and last year hired former SFMTA spokesperson Judson True as his top aide, also said pedestrian safety is a priority, and later at the Transportation Authority’s plans and programs committee meeting called on TA staff to conduct a study on pedestrian safety

“Every day, on average, there are two or more pedestrians that are injured on San Francisco’s streets. Pedestrians account for half of the people who are killed in traffic collisions in San Francisco, while overall fatal collisions have actually declined since the 1960s,” Chiu told the committee.  “New York City, Seattle, Boston, London, Paris, Hong Kong, and Amsterdam all have fewer fatalities per 100,000 residents than we do.”

In addition to the enormous human toll, Chiu also pointed to the amount of money the city spends on pedestrian fatalities, about $3.5 million per death, and more than $280 million annually.

“The city pays a significant amount of money every year settling lawsuits and dealing with the emergency care and other first-responder costs to accidents so it makes perfect sense to incorporate that information into the prioritization of infrastructure funding to get to a system that has a lower risk profile,” TA Executive Director Jose Luis Moskovich told Streetsblog.

Chiu said the study, which he would like to see completed by March, should have two purposes: to identify city agencies and departments that are working on pedestrian issues and then to find funding sources for current and future pedestrian projects.

David Chiu trying out an electric bike around City Hall last year. Photo: Bryan Goebel

If you see a guy in a suit pedaling up Polk Street or around City Hall in the next 24 hours on an electric bike, just know that it might be your mayor. Today at 1 p.m., as Gavin Newsom was finally sworn in as lieutenant governor, Board of Supervisors President David Chiu became the acting mayor and will remain so until City Administrator Ed Lee is confirmed as interim mayor tomorrow.

We don’t expect Acting Mayor Chiu to order green protected bike lanes throughout the city but it is cool that — at least for the next day — our mayor is setting an example and not traveling around in an SUV. Chiu is considering a run for mayor.

Update: Chiu’s aide, Judson True, says he will be leading a bike ride to City Hall tomorrow morning at 8:30 a.m. The ride will begin at It’s a Grind coffee house on Polk Street and Washington. The public is invited.

Board of Supervisors President David Chiu at today's meeting. Photo: Luke Thomas, Fog City Journal

Supervisor David Chiu, a key player in the city’s sustainable transportation movement who gets around on his electric bicycle, was reelected president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors this afternoon on an 8-3 vote.  The 40-year-old District 3 supervisor called on his colleagues to “move beyond the past oppositional politics of personality” and build consensus to tackle some of the city’s most pressing problems.

“None of us were voted into office to take positions. We were voted into office to get things done. We were voted into office to create jobs, to make sure Muni runs on time, to make sure our streets are safe and clean and to make sure…that the least fortunate among us is taken care of,” said Chiu, referring to past positions supervisors have taken against the Mayor or other supervisors.

The vote to reelect Chiu came after four new members elected to the board — Jane Kim, Malia Cohen, Scott Wiener and Mark Farrell — were sworn into office along with Supervisor Carmen Chu, who ran unopposed for her District 4 seat.

In the first round of voting for president, Chiu, who was nominated by Kim, and Supervisor Sean Elsbernd (nominated by Chu) both got four votes each with Supervisor John Avalos (nominated by Supervisor David Campos) garnering three. All three supervisors were allowed to vote for themselves.

After the initial vote, Elsbernd stood up and noted how multiple rounds of voting can result in long-term elements of discord and distrust, and decided to withdraw his name “in the spirit of moving this meeting forward.” On the second round, Chiu’s nomination got the support of every new member, along with Supervisors Eric Mar, Chu and Elsbernd. Avalos was supported by Campos and Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi.

Chiu is widely rumored to be exploring a run for mayor. Just yesterday, it was publicly unclear whether he had enough votes to remain board president. Earlier this week, he was blasted by now former Supervisor Chris Daly, who pledged to “politically haunt” the former prosecutor and civil rights attorney after he announced his support of City Administrator Ed Lee for interim mayor with the eventual backing of six other supervisors.

Supervisors Mark Farrell, Scott Wiener, Jane Kim, Malia Cohen and Carmen Chu are sworn into office. Photo: Luke Thomas, Fog City Journal

Daly, along with Campos, Avalos, and Mirkirimi, said they didn’t so much have an issue with Lee, who is often praised as an efficient public servant, as they did the back room politics in which he was chosen, even though his name has been circulating for awhile. At their continued board meeting yesterday, tensions had simmered and Campos, Avalos and Mirkarimi were part of the 10-1 vote to nominate Lee as successor mayor, with Daly casting the lone dissent.

Lee, who has more than two decades of experience in city government and as managing attorney of the Asian Law Caucus took on tenant, employment discrimination and workers rights cases, is set to become San Francisco’s first Asian American mayor. The Board of Supervisors is expected to ratify his nomination Tuesday.

Chiu, who recently championed a citywide bicycle mode share goal of 20 percent by 2020, has been an ally of transit advocates and was endorsed by the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition when he ran for office in 2008.

“President David Chiu is an everyday bike commuter and has been a leader in transportation over the last two years in office and I’m very happy to continue to see him as board president,” said Marc Caswell, the program manager at the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, who was at City Hall for today’s meeting.

Earlier this week, Chiu’s aide, Judson True, said that he would work with Lee’s administration to pursue Transit First policies. While it remains unclear what Lee’s transportation priorities would be as mayor, several City Hall insiders have told Streetsblog that he does ride a bicycle but his dominant mode is reportedly a Toyota Camry. Those same people pointed out that he understands streets management as a former DPW director and would likely look at the issues from a transit justice perspective.

Until today, Chiu was the only car-free member of the Board of Supervisors. Cohen, who replaced Sophie Maxwell today as District 10 supervisor, currently doesn’t own a car. When asked by Streetsblog whether she planned to remain car-free, she replied: “Are you kidding? Not until we get better transportation. It’s hard to get from the southeast into the city. I’ve been late every single day.”

Cohen did say sustainability is a priority for her and she supports Connecting the City, the SFBC’s bold vision for the future of bicycling in San Francisco, and would specifically like to improve conditions for bicyclists on 3rd Street in her district.

Although Supervisor Malia Cohen does not plan on remaining car-free, she supports sustainable transportation and the SFBC's Connecting the City vision. Photo: Luke Thomas, Fog City Journal

What the view of CityPlace would look like from Mason Street. Image: Market Street Holdings LLC

At the heart of the San Francisco Planning Department’s 328-page Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for CityPlace, sustainable transportation advocates have pinpointed one glaring flaw. In assessing the impacts of new off-street retail parking, the environmental analysis [pdf] concludes that building a 167-space garage will have the same effect on traffic as building no garage at all.

“This environmental analysis has really pitted this project against pedestrian safety and the livability of this neighborhood,” said Tom Radulovich, the executive director of Livable City.

CityPlace is a 250,000 square foot retail project planned for Market Street that the Mayor has trumpeted as essential for the area, “a key pillar in the continuing revitalization of Mid-Market that will bring hundreds of jobs and new revenues to boost our City’s economy and thousands of new pedestrians and shoppers to activate one of the most blighted blocks of Market Street.”

Radulovich along with attorney Arthur Levy and Walk SF had filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s certification of the DEIR, arguing that it failed to adequately address and mitigate the dangers to pedestrians and bicyclists. Levy was also concerned the St. Francis Theater, designed by architect John Galen Howard, will be demolished and that the glass structure won’t fit in with the visual and historic character of Market Street.

Supporting the appeal seemed politically impossible for the Board of Supervisors. Instead, Supervisor Chris Daly, who represents the area, with help from Judson True, an aide to Supervisor David Chiu, brokered a deal [pdf] before the supervisors meeting Tuesday.  Market Street Holdings LLC (Urban Realty), the project’s sponsor, agreed to charge a 20 cent per vehicle exit fee at the CityPlace garage that would eventually add up to $1.8 million for “bicycle and/or pedestrian and/or transit improvements.” That pleased the supervisors and the DEIR was certified on a 9-0 vote, giving the final clearance.

The rejection of the appeal followed a public hearing in which the advocates laid out their case, and the project’s sponsors were allowed a rebuttal.

"We need to be a city that does everything it can to ensure the livability of neighborhoods and to ensure pedestrian and bicycle safety ," said Tom Radulovich of Livable City.

“What we are talking about today are really issues of life and death. The fact that this project and this EIR are not mitigating the impacts that they’ll have on this community,” Radulovich told the supervisors.

The neighborhood, he argued, which houses many low-income residents, seniors and children, is dangerous enough and doesn’t need any more auto traffic spilling into the six affected intersections. Sixth Street, immediately adjacent to the project, is one of the city’s worst streets for pedestrian fatalities and injuries.

“In helping Market Street we can’t make 6th Street even worse,” Manish Champsee, the president of Walk San Francisco, testified. “Three of the top five intersections for pedestrian safety are on 6th Street.”

The DEIR analysis, instead of looking at automobiles as the real danger to pedestrians, assessed the impacts to pedestrians based on increased foot traffic and conflicts with other pedestrians.

Radulovich said the analysis flew in the face of the Planning Department’s own parking code, Section 150 [pdf], and the city’s General Plan, “which states that if you have a short-term parking need in the downtown, don’t add more parking, convert long-term parking to short-term parking because adding more parking creates more automobile trips.”

“We do not want to stop the project. We want to improve environmental analysis in this city.” –Andy Thornley, SFBC

“The notion that providing 200 more parking spaces will not create more [automobile] trips is ludicrous, frankly,” said Andy Thornley, the program manager of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, whose offices along with Livable City and Walk SF have been been located in the Mid-Market area for many years.  “We do not want to stop the project. We want to improve environmental analysis in this city.”

Thornley said as San Francisco moves away from using intersection Level of Service (LOS) to analyze transportation impacts and toward evaluating automobile trip generation (ATG) “it’s very troubling to see an environmental document come forward that makes such a flimsy estimate of auto trip generation.”

The advocates argue that allowing CityPlace and other projects excessive parking sets a bad precedent and runs afoul of a Transit First policy and neighborhood plans that are supposed to guide transportation and land use decisions.

CityPlace’s sponsor argues that despite the 4,500 spaces in more than a dozen nearby city-owned garages, parking in the building is needed for the project to succeed because of the type of value-based “household goods, electronics and sports equipment” stores they are seeking. Drivers, they argue, need to transport large purchases. According to the San Francisco Business Times, the stores being sought include TJ Maxx, JCPenney, Ross, Dick’s Sporting Goods and Big 5 Sporting Goods.

Jim Abrams, who presented the CityPlace transportation plan to the Planning Commission, argued the parking in the building would be much less than similar retail spaces in dense, urban areas such as Brooklyn and Queens, and would be setting an example by providing “the lowest amount of parking of any comparable center in the country.”

By contrast, though, some nearby stores including Macy’s, Bloomingdales, Barneys and Nieman Marcus offer no parking in the building for their driving customers. The San Francisco Examiner recently reported that Target wanted to move into the Metreon where there is no on-site parking.

The project rendering of Stevenson Street, where drivers will enter and exit the parking garage. Image: Market Street Holdings LLC

“I think the fundamental decision to drive or not is whether you have a prospect of finding parking,” said Bill Wycko, the head of Major Environmental Analysis for the San Francisco Planning Department.

Wycko, responding to a question from Supervisor Daly, said his office is not able to effectively analyze ATG for shopping trips because there has been no research and surveys conducted on retail auto trips, which would offer some evidence for how retail parking affects driver behavior. Instead, the analysis is based on commuter surveys.

“Intuitive or not, the relationship between supply in parking and how people travel, other than the obvious situation where you don’t have a car, you don’t drive, is not as obvious as you would think and for shopping trips the substantial evidence, the real evidence, is largely non-existent,” said Wycko. “We can all have our hunches and our intuition but that’s kind of not what we use in [California Environmental Quality Act analysis].”

Wycko did acknowledge the city is engaged in a monumental process to overhaul LOS and replace it with ATG, which will presumably require planners to analyze trip generation associated with parking spaces.

“There is an effort to take a different approach and as part of that approach one of the things we’ve been urging is that there does need to be follow-up monitoring because one reason there isn’t data, especially local data, is that there hasn’t been this sort of, okay, if you do this, what’s the behavior pattern? If you do that, what’s the behavior pattern?”

In an interview with Streetsblog, John Rahaim, the Planning Department Director, said he supports eventually transitioning to ATG but feels the issues raised by transit advocates in the appeal probably don’t belong in the CEQA process.

“Whether we should be looking at the safety issues, and the pedestrian and vehicular conflicts is an important question. I don’t think it’s a CEQA issue, however. I would love to figure out a way to get at those issues outside of the CEQA process, which is a cumbersome process, frankly.”

Both Livable City and Levy are considering a lawsuit.

“I think that EIR is a very poor document. I think it’s legally defective. I feel that the Board of Supervisors was under a lot of political pressure to move this project along. That part of Market Street has been neglected and been a problem for a long time,” said Levy, who added that he would like to see the project move forward, but not it until it fully addresses the issues raised in the appeal.

The project is now scheduled to break ground in 2011 and despite the surcharge that will be directed toward bicycle, pedestrian and transit improvements advocates are skeptical they’ll happen quickly.

Radulovich said he was disappointed the letter outlining the compromise “wasn’t water tight” and didn’t include language guaranteeing the money and the improvements would come immediately. True later tried to assure him that the money paid to the SFMTA would secure improvements sooner rather than later.

“We feel strongly that the MTA is well positioned to use the money for this parking surcharge to in some way finance up front improvements for bicyclists, pedestrians and transit riders. So we feel confident that while it’s untested, the parking surcharge is a mechanism that will not just give money over time but provide for some up front money and that’s really up to the MTA to figure out the best way to do that,” said True.

SFMTA spokesperson Paul Rose said CityPlace had already separately paid $200,000 to the agency, $50,000 of which will be used for a study to see what improvements are needed, and the rest will be put toward implementation.

“The full scope will of course need to be developed based on the initial study,” said Rose.

Radulovich said transit advocates were an influential force in getting the sponsor to commit the money, and hoped that mid-block crosswalks — where a majority of pedestrian injuries and fatalities occur in the area — bulbouts and protected bike lanes would be included.

In a move to gain the support of Supervisor Bevan Dufty, Board of Supervisors President David Chiu has stripped language from his proposed garage legislation that would have ensured all new garage additions to existing buildings in Chinatown, North Beach and Telegraph Hill conform with Better Streets Plan (BSP) guidelines.

The original legislation, which Chiu sponsored, would have required garage additions in sections of those neighborhoods to receive a conditional use authorization from the Planning Commission. Garages would be blocked if they had been built following no-fault evictions or didn't meet the design guidelines in the BSP.

At Tuesday's Board of Supervisors meeting, Chiu announced that the BSP provision would be removed, and only buildings with four units or more would need to go through a full discretionary review process at Planning -- significantly lowering the bar for adding new garages compared to the original proposal.

Chiu said the revised legislation would return to the Board of Supervisors Land Use Committee for a public hearing on Monday. The revised legislation, he said, "would really help to protect the core purpose of why we're moving this legislation," while dealing with the concerns raised by Dufty and others.

That's still an important victory for protecting housing, said Livable City's Tom Radulovich, but a setback in terms of ensuring better conditions for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders.

"The consolation is we've got the Planning Department talking about it for the first time," said Radulovich, a principal supporter of the BSP provision. "It's been a big loophole in the Planning Code because the addition of a non-required garage has a big impact."

Revised legislation hasn't made its way to the public yet, but it will likely still include restrictions on driveways on portions of major commercial streets like Broadway and Columbus, and could still remove parking minimums in the affected neighborhoods.

Garage addition companies, landlords and condo conversion supporters who oppose the measure have heavily lobbied Dufty, who could provide a critical override vote in case Mayor Newsom vetoes the legislation. Dufty has said he supports legislation to limit no-fault Ellis Act evictions, but has been cool on further restrictions to new garage additions in Chinatown, North Beach and Telegraph Hill.

You can contact Supervisor Dufty's office about the legislation by email at Bevan.Dufty@sfgov.org or by phone at (415) 554-6968.

For a second time in two weeks, the Board of Supervisors today delayed a final vote on legislation that would impose stricter rules on the construction of new garages in Chinatown, North Beach and Telegraph Hill. Unlike the first delay, however, the Board voted to make a small amendment to the measure today, passing the amended bill on first reading. It will be back next week for a final vote.

The amendment today fixed an initial error in the drafting of the legislation, said its sponsor, Board of Supervisors President David Chiu. The portion of Broadway included in the measure would stretch from the Embarcadero to Mason Street, not all the way to Polk Street, as the initial legislation had it.

After initially approving the legislation on first reading by a 7-2 vote on February 9, the supervisors voted on February 23 to continue the measure until today. Supervisor Bevan Dufty, whose vote would be crucial to override a potential veto from the Mayor, has asked for more time to talk to people on both sides of the debate before taking a final vote.

Garage addition companies, landlords and condo conversion supporters are reportedly pressuring Dufty to vote down the measure, while affordable housing, transit, pedestrian and bicycle advocates are rallying behind the garage legislation.

From left: MTA Board Vice Chairman Rev. Dr. James McCray, Jr., Chairman Tom Nolan and Director Shirley Breyer Black. Photo: Michael Rhodes

With the MTA facing massive budget shortfalls in the coming years on top of a mid-year budget crisis, a progressive majority controlling the Board of Supervisors, and a Mayor in his final two years in office, transit advocates and many supervisors are looking for appointees who will be independent-minded and engaged members of the MTA Board.

"In general, I think that the MTA commission has not been examining all options available to the MTA in the context of our budget crisis," said Board of Supervisors President David Chiu. "I think it's fair to say a majority of the Board of Supervisors believes we need commissioners who are independent enough to consider all options on the table."

For her part, Black is happy to continue serving, but hasn't heard what the Mayor is planning. "No one has told me anything," she said last week.

That may in part be because the Mayor is waiting to hear from the City Attorney's office on whether Black and McCray are eligible to serve additional terms. Proposition E, which created the MTA in 1999, set director term limits at three, but it's not clear whether Black and McCray's first terms counted, since both were shorter than the regular four years. Black was a member of the original MTA Board, which had staggered term lengths. Her first term, beginning in March 2000, was only two years long. McCray's first term, which began in 2002, was barely a month long, since he filled in the end of another director's term.

"Those are pending determinations made by the City Attorney's office that will be part of the Mayor's review of many upcoming Commission appointments," wrote mayoral spokesperson Tony Winnicker in an email.

"The Mayor is reviewing but has not yet made a decision on several dozen appointments to Boards and Commissions coming up soon, including these two important MTA appointments," said Winnicker.

Note: In several cases, directors were appointed to serve out the end of another director's term. Those terms weren't included in the counts above if they were less than a year. The City Attorney's office has not yet said whether those terms count towards the three-term limit. Graphic: Sean Reynolds

The Mayor's Transportation Agency

Though the MTA Board is ostensibly independent, in practice it answers first and foremost to the Mayor. Under the City Charter, the Mayor has authority over all MTA Board appointments, but supervisors can reject those picks by a majority vote - a lever of influence over the agency they've only exercised once.

This time around, the prospect of deep Muni service cuts and fare hikes has left the supervisors searching for options to wrangle more control over the MTA's policies.

Supervisor David Campos has proposed a ballot measure that would give the supervisors power to nominate three of the MTA Board's seven members. Campos has also requested an audit of the agency's management, and Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi has vowed to use his new position as chair of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority to sway Muni by attaching more conditions to money it transfers to the MTA.

But the director appointment process could provide the supervisors with a more immediate opportunity to show constituents they're not taking devastating Muni cuts sitting down.

"I'll keep an open mind in terms of the reappointment of them," said Mirkarimi. "But I believe we need MTA commissioners that are not just parroting what Mayor Newsom wants, but what's best for the MTA."

Grading the Directors

Transit advocates generally gave Black and McCray - who served as Board chairman from 2006 until last February - middling grades as directors. Black, a former SEIU president, "has been a solid pro-labor vote, but I don't really feel like she's engaged much on the budget or Transit First," said Tom Radulovich, Executive Director of Livable City and a BART director who is often the lone dissenting voice on that board.

Jason Henderson, a geography professor at San Francisco State University, had a similar take. "They don't really seem to be pursuing the mandate to aggressively pursue creative and innovative ways to finance Muni."

Henderson, Radulovich and other transit advocates noted that criticism is applicable to most of the MTA Board and hardly limited to Black and McCray. "I always look at all of them and think, 'You could be a bit more proactive,'" said Radulovich.

But could the upcoming appointment process be an opportunity to push for directors who are more independent and advocate aggressively for transit?

Dan Murphy, head of the MTA's Citizens Advisory Council, declined to evaluate Black and McCray, but said the Board of Supervisors and advocates should closely scrutinize all MTA Board nominees.

Several transit advocates said they see the nomination process as an opportunity, but one that may only have a positive outcome if the Mayor is willing to try something bold. "Does the Mayor really want engaged, independent minds on that board?" asked Radulovich. "The answer from the evidence is no."

Still, Radulovich and Henderson both hoped the current crisis would propel the Mayor to consider candidates who are on the ball and engaged. "The calculus is different," said Henderson. "I actually think Newsom is capable of appointing some more outside-of-the-box people as a gesture, knowing with a wink and a nod that they're not going to get very far."

"To be bold like that would be great, especially as he's exiting out of office," said Mirkarimi. "It would really be inspired if he showed he's making those less partisan decisions and being more visionary and innovative, working with people he may not necessarily agree with and looking toward the future."

An 'Independent' Board

As the nominations from the Mayor loom, independence has been a key concern for advocates and the Board of Supervisors.

"Certainly, in recent months there have been many questions raised about the role of the MTA commission in independently reviewing the critical policy decisions," said Chiu.

"They have to reflect independence and critical thinking, and that might mean departing from those who you've benefited from," said Mirkarimi. Supervisor John Avalos called independence "a key litmus test."

By most measures, none of the current directors would pass that test. Over the past five years, 94 percent of the votes the MTA Board has taken have been unanimous. By a rough count, only 35 of those 582 votes had dissenting directors, and directors almost always approved MTA staff proposals - many of which are vetted by the Mayor before reaching the Board. That tally only counts procedural calendar items as one vote total per meeting, though, of course, many of the items the Board votes on are not controversial, even among transit advocates. The more telling fact may be that the Board virtually never votes against the privately expressed wishes of the Mayor.

McCray has actually shown more independence than many of the directors, finding himself in the minority on 3.6 percent of votes taken in the past five years. Black has been in the minority just nine times in that period, concurring with the majority on 98.5 percent of votes, with many of her dissents coming on labor issues.

By a great margin, all of the MTA directors vote according to the Mayor's wishes, especially on the most important matters, calling into question the notion of the Board's independence. The great exception to that rule was the Mayor's appointment of SFBC Executive Director Leah Shahum in 2006. But when the Mayor was reelected in 2008 and asked all commissioners to hand in their resignations, Shahum's was among the three on the MTA Board he accepted.

A Greater Say for the Supervisors and Voters? 

While the CAC's Murphy thinks the need for independence is all the more reason for the supervisors to look closely at nominees, he's leery of proposals to give the supervisors control over three Board members - or to let voters elect some of the members.

"I am really skeptical of the idea, 'if we just figure the process for selecting the Board in just the right way, somehow we're going to end up with good policy,'" said Murphy, citing elected transit boards for BART, AC Transit, and the Denver Regional Transit District that he said are deeply dysfunctional. "The answer is to elect a Mayor who's committed to transit and who will appoint transit advocates to the Board."

Murphy also thinks the MTA Board has shown more willingness to make tough decisions - for better and worse - than the supervisors would be. "I think it's absolutely insane" to consider changing the nomination process, said Murphy. "What we have seen so far is elected officials have been much more reluctant to raise parking prices than the MTA Board has."

Even if the Mayor does nominate independent-minded transit advocates to the Board, he'll still have a five-to-two majority, assuming his other appointees remain loyal. (There is some evidence Director Bruce Oka may be asserting his own independence in light of the current budget crisis.) With increasing pressure to show he's working to save Muni, and just two years left in office, the Mayor may not have that much to lose by appointing a visionary director.

"My expectations are low," said Radulovich. "But sometimes, if your expectations are low, you'll be pleasantly surprised."

While expectations may be low, the stakes are higher than ever.

"In many ways, who's in charge is [MTA Executive Director Nat Ford, a mayoral appointee] and senior staff," said Mirkarimi. "But the MTA commissioners are in an important position, and not one to be squandered."

A study on the parking management and revenue implications of expanded meter enforcement, which Ford promised within 90 days, was initiated as part of a "compromise" in late May to prevent the Board of Supervisors from rejecting the MTA's 2009-10 budget. It has now been more than 120 days and the study has not been made public, although Streetsblog has spoken to sources who have seen a summary of the draft.

"The Mayor thinks it's the wrong time to make these moves," said Nathan Ballard, Newsom's communications director. "Right now, with the economy where it is, the burden on ordinary people for city services is already stretched to the max, and so he hasn't seen anything that convinces him otherwise. He's open to arguments, but he's still where he was."

Ballard said the study "is nearing completion" and would eventually be made available to the public. Judson True, the MTA spokesperson, said the agency is working to finalize it. "[It] will be a thorough effort based on sound parking-management ideas and extensive stakeholder outreach. We hope that it will elevate some of the recent discussions on parking."

The delay, however, is troubling, considering the pledge made to the Board of Supervisors, particularly BOS Prez David Chiu, who rescinded his motion to reject the MTA budget after receiving assurances from the Mayor the study would be forthcoming.

In an interview, Chiu pointed out, as he did during the budget crisis, that working class families and Muni riders were forced to bear four times the burden of what drivers were asked, in the way of fare increases and service cuts.

"Everyone agreed that a parking study would be done to figure out the fairest way to have car owners carry their fair share," said Chiu. "Given that it is highly likely there will be a more significant mid-year budget deficit, we need to consider all options before we consider service cuts to Muni and other public transit options."

After that exhaustive supervisors meeting May 27, Ford was asked by Streetsblog how he could promise serious consideration of extended meters given Newsom's adamant opposition. His response?

"I think that's premature at this point to assume that. I think, if we have a reasonable plan that takes into account all the impacts, I have found with the Mayor, as well as the Board of Supervisors, that they've been supportive of some of those suggestions we've made and in this case we need a little bit of time."

According to our sources who've seen the summary, the study affirms that extending meter hours is good parking management that will improve driver convenience and create turnover for businesses. The agency is said to have compared more than twenty commercial streets on Wednesday and Friday nights, and Sunday during the day, and apparently found that commercial districts across the city are seeing occupancy rates near 100 percent not long after meters are turned off. Streetsblog has been informed that the study found the problem is especially acute on Sundays, when commercial streets in the study areas see near total occupancy while the majority of the businesses on those streets on average are still open.

Cities all across the country leave their meters on much later than 6 p.m., regardless of the current state of the economy. Take Los Angeles: Santa Monica, Old Pasadena, and West Hollywood leave meters on until 2 a.m. New York City, Milwaukee, and Miami Beach, run meters until midnight. Denver, Las Vegas, and Washington, DC, run meters until 10 p.m. How is San Francisco going to be the most innovative parking demand-management city and implement SFpark if it can't even get the nerve to keep meters on as long as Bethesda, Maryland (10 p.m.) or Park City, Utah (8 p.m.)?

In a city with a stated Transit First policy and an MTA with the power to apply parking revenue directly to transit operations, there is no excuse to throw good money down the drain. According to our sources who have seen the MTA study's summary, increasing parking meter hours in targeted commercial districts would generate a significant amount of money for an agency that desperately needs any source of revenue it has available for transit operations.

Not only would killing the proposals amount to bad parking management, it wouldn't be responsive to the public's stated priorities. According to surveys from the recently finished SFCTA On-Street Parking Management and Pricing Study, respondents ranked price of parking spaces behind parking availability, flexibility, proximity and safety. While the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce has not been supportive of extending meters on weekdays, they would like the city to extend meter hours on Sundays. The Port recently extended meter hours until 11 p.m. and there is no indication businesses are hurting.

If the Mayor is nervous about a fallout similar to what has happened in parts of Oakland around parking meter times and fee increases, he should take the lead on the issue by brandishing a study based on substantial data and make the argument that increasing meter hours will free up parking spaces in commercial districts to improve business. What's more, unlike Oakland, the MTA would not lump the increased parking meter revenue into a general fund as a budget stop-gap, but would use the money to improve transit.

Mayor Newsom should embrace the MTA's study, let Ford and the MTA Board implement extended metering and help the agency find additional new sources of revenue instead of trying to quash some of the most important, sensible options on the table.

Flickr photo: ehoyer

With support for bus stop consolidation building, local leaders are starting to weigh in on political strategies for implementing a new stop spacing policy.

For Pi Ra of the Senior Action Network, the best political strategy is to start with a good policy, before recommendations to eliminate specific stops are out. The MTA has been working on a revised stop spacing policy, but Ra said the draft revised policy isn't adequate.

"So far, it's based solely about if it's flat or not flat, what degree of slope it is, and if it's a transfer or not," said Ra. "But they haven't really put in consideration the demographics of who uses that particular bus stop, and if it's a destination or not. So they should...do all their research and then come up with a criteria to judge whether or not that bus stop should be there."

Ra said he "does think we have too many bus stops, especially in areas where it's really flat," but he thinks the MTA needs to start with a solid policy before it makes specific proposals. "Do you want to go through this again every time you're going to eliminate a bus stop? It'd be best to come up with a criteria that everybody accepts, or closely accepts, so when you decide to eliminate a bus stop, you say, 'here's the criteria, it fits that criteria,' and since this is what we accepted, then you won't have such a big fight over it each time. And they seem like they still haven't learned that particular lesson."

In a presentation on stop spacing in June, the MTA recommended that the revised stop spacing policy should give consideration to "destinations such as schools, hospitals, and other community facilities," though it didn't mention senior centers or similar demographic considerations specifically. The MTA has resisted doing broad demographic surveys, but Ra said taking important institutions into consideration "will be fine," instead of trying to survey demographics at every stop.

Former Mayor Willie Brown, in a recent interview with Streetsblog, said the MTA should craft the best policy it can, and stand behind it. "They ought to make the decision on what's in the public interest and let that be what the supes fight. If the supes fight it the supes fight it. But they cannot and should not have their judgment warped on what's in the best public interest by its possible failure before the board."

The 75-year-old Brown also doesn't think the MTA should be overly concerned with accommodating all riders:

You're never ever going to have a public transportation system that is boutique to riders. Forget it, don't even apologize for the fact that some elderly person's gotta walk two blocks. That's one rider out of 500. In this day and age, with the scooter system and the availability of paratransit vouchers and a paratransit system that eliminates the need for you, who may legitimately not be able to go for two blocks - you are eligible for paratransit, which means that component of Muni, you can call and the paratransit equipment has to come and pick you up. So I wouldn't apologize for the consolidation for efficiency and for cost-effectiveness. I wouldn't apologize at all.

But Ra contests the notion that paratransit is adequate for seniors. Moreover, from a cost standpoint, switching a significant number of riders to paratransit could wipe out much of stop consolidation's savings, so the MTA may be less inclined to simply ignore the needs of riders who are unable to walk several blocks to stops. Brown's point, however, that the MTA needs to stand up for the best policy possible, is common ground with Ra and other advocates.

For now, the Board of Supervisors isn't showing an inclination to fight stop consolidation. That could change, of course, if their constituents aren't sold on the policy.

"I think in general we need to do anything we can to speed up our buses," said Board of Supervisors President David Chiu, a frequent Muni rider. "I am hoping, but again without having seen it I really can't comment on it, that the MTA's figured out how to do this in a way that's not going to significantly inconvenience folks, and will provide access to our seniors and our disabled folks, and people who would have difficulties getting to more-distanced stops, be sensitive to that."

The MTA won't be holding public meetings on bus stop consolidation until November at the earliest, a month after it presents detailed proposals for stop consolidation to the MTA board. The most important date for the public, however, could be September 15. That's when the MTA is tentatively planning to present its revised Stop Spacing Policy to its board for approval. The content of that policy may determine whether the proposals are judged as fair and necessary, or fizzle like past attempts at stop consolidation have in the face of community opposition and political ambivalence.

By a unanimous vote, the Board indicated its support for the ordinance, though the supervisors reasons differed. The vote only authorizes creating a parking plan for Golden Gate Park, not its implementation, which the MTA will need to seek later.

The Recreation and Park Department, the MTA, Board of Supervisors President David Chiu, and Supervisors John Avalos and David Campos have expressed strong support for the measure in the past, since it will generate funds for the MTA and the Rec and Park Department, and is consistent with the city's Transit First policy.

After yesterday's vote, Supervisor Sean Elsbernd said he still has "major reservations" about installing meters in Golden Gate Park, including the meters' aesthetic impact on the park. Elsbernd also expressed concern about whether the meters would "create residual parking problems" in surrounding neighborhoods, such as the Inner Sunset, the Richmond, and Haight-Ashbury.

Elsbernd said he also worried that charging for parking could drive park users away. "We want to encourage people to go to parks, we don't want to discourage," said Elsbernd. "I wonder if meters are going to do that."

Supervisor Carmen Chu, who represents the Sunset, also was concerned about parking spillover. Asked whether she could potentially support installing meters, Chu said, "to me there's still a lot of unknowns about what that would look like, what the meters would look like, what the rates would look like, how are we going to deal with disability issues, and also what the surrounding impact on the communities would be. So these would all be the things that I would take a look at when we have the report."

Chu did acknowledge that "there are some individuals who are unfortunately taking advantage of the park," and said the city "should think about what things we can do, what strategies when can do to address that issue."

She remained concerned about neighborhood impact regardless, however. "Whether it is a parker who is parking all day or a parker who is parking there for an hour," said Chu, "the impact of having parking meters installed inside the park will be that there will be an impact on the neighboring community."

Supervisor Eric Mar, while also sensitive to neighborhood concerns with parking spillover, called installing parking meters "a good way to insure that we have more promotion of the Transit First policy for the city," and said he's "open to parking meters in the park."

"I know that the pushback will come heavily in districts like mine, the Richmond District, and the Sunset, and a little bit in parts of District Five, so I'm going to be listening to residents, and trying to minimize the harm to the neighborhoods," said Mar. "But I think that in general, parking in a reasonable part of the park will insure that we have more public transit use. But I don't want to see kind of ugly meters in the park that destroy the environment for people too."

To limit the visual impact, the MTA has said it will use meters that cover 10-15 spaces each, with about 130 meters total.

The Board also gave final approval to putting the Safe Streets and Road Repair General Obligation Bond on the ballot for November. As we've written before, the bond measure would direct $368 million towards rehabilitating the city's aging streets and sidewalks, and would pay for streetscape enhancements, including enhancements to sidewalks and bicycle infrastructure. If voters support the measure in November, funding would be distributed over the next five years, with each issuance requiring Board of Supervisors approval.

BOS Prez David Chiu tries out a new electric bike. Photos by Bryan Goebel

"I have anywhere from 8 to 15 events every day, sometimes more than that, and to get to different places is incredibly difficult. My district also has some of the most intense hills. So I’ve got Nob Hill, Telegraph Hill, Russian Hill, and to hit the hills with the suit that I’m usually in is extremely difficult."

But now, thanks to bicycling pioneer Gary Fisher, problem solved. Fisher arrived at City Hall yesterday with two of Trek's sleek new electric bikes (not yet available in the U.S.), which he is loaning to Chiu and Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi.

"It's a styling bike," said Mirkarimi after a spin around City Hall. “This is good for guys in suits.”

The 45-pound bikes, which don't look at all like electric bikes, run on a lithium-ion battery, and can send you up some of San Francisco's steepest hills at 14 miles an hour. Fisher said it's the fastest way to get around the city, bar none.

"It uses the pedalic system from Panasonic and they’ve had that for over 20 years. It’s a really great, intuitive system for an electric bike because you still have to ride it. You know, you don’t get any energy out of it unless you put energy into the pedals, which is sort of a beautiful thing," said Fisher. "In addition, the motor on this has the capability of developing energy too so it turns into a generator when you want it to."

Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi after taking a spin: "This is so cool."

"I think the bike industry is looking at this and going okay, it’s good, and we as bike people, we’re trying to make this as much a bike as we can, and not such a motor bike," said Fisher.

Fisher said the bikes on loan to Chiu and Mirkarimi cost around $2,200 and Trek plans on rolling out a small inventory of them sometime in August.

Both Chiu and Mirkarimi were thrilled, and said they are definitely thinking about purchasing them.

“It’s pretty amazing. It looks like a typical bike but it’s sort of like a bionic bike. You still have to pedal but when you pedal to get up the hills there’s an electric assist and it’s a pretty neat feeling," said Chiu.

Mirkarimi said he could see the bikes becoming very popular, adding: "It's so cool to kind of be the prototype dude here."

Gary Fisher and David Chiu.

A rare sighting of an SFPD officer on Muni. Flickr photo: moppet65535

For the first time, the MTA will deploy officers assigned to the Traffic Company, and name a Security and Enforcement Director, a position that will most likely be taken by Tony Parra, the SFPD Deputy Chief, who already holds a similar title:

The Traffic Company will provide law enforcement services to support the SFMTA’s public safety and policing priorities.  These services are intended to supplement existing general law enforcement services already provided by the SFPD to ensure public safety.  During the term of the MOU, the SFPD will assign one captain, four lieutenants, 12 sergeants and 85 police officers to the Traffic Division.  The SFMTA will pay the salary and benefits of these police officers through interdepartmental work orders.

The SFPD has been under fire for raiding Muni's budget, charging the agency more than $83 million in work orders, including services not related to Muni. BOS Prez David Chiu said it was "befuddling" the two agencies never had any kind of written agreement -- providing no accountability of the process -- but announced at a May 12th supervisors meeting that the agencies would produce an MOU "within 24 hours."

The MOU also calls for SFPD officers to cease providing protection for city-owned garages -- which amounted to a $300,000 work order -- but allows them to continue some parking enforcement at night, mostly blocked driveways.

The MOU will be considered at Tuesday's MTA Board meeting.

Flickr photo: pbo31

"This is really to put us on record as saying we really think the funding ought to be used in different ways," said Chiu, who plans to ask the two MTC Commissioners representing San Francsico, Supervisor Chris Daly and Jon Rubin, to "take this up as their issue at the MTC."

The resolution points to the MTC's Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) proposal for $6.4 billion in highway expansion projects over the next 25 years, which "will encourage sprawl and increase greenhouse gas emissions," while public transit agencies are projected to have shortfalls for capital needs: a $4.5 billion deficit for Muni and $7 billion for BART.

"We wanted to talk about some of the trade offs of investing in highways, particularly highways where you have public transit corridors that ride alongside," said Chiu. The resolution acknowledges how "poorly-designed highways often serve as barriers to the movement of sustainable transportation modes."

Tom Radulovich, the executive director of Livable City who sits on the BART Board of Directors, helped craft the resolution:

MTC's regional transportation plan makes it abundantly clear: the region must choose between highways and transit, because there is nowhere near enough money to fund both. Unless we choose to stop pouring money into highway expansion, transit will get more crowded and unreliable, our local streets will continue to fall apart, and transit fares will go up and service will get cut. Unless we stop building highways, we will not be able to meet our environmental goals, protect the climate, or preserve our greenbelt.

In response, Randy Rentschler, a spokesperson for the MTC, called the RTP "the most transit-friendly plan of any metro area in the entire country." He said that many of the decisions the MTC has made about highway expansion have been at the voters request, including Proposition 1B in 2006.

“This notion that my agency is so powerful that we’re able to essentially bend every decision is just simply not the case. The fact that the Board of Supervisors wants to make this statement, look, that’s just fair game. I get that. That makes perfect sense, that given where we are with transit, whatever we can, let’s do more of it.  But it also doesn’t reflect basic factual points that are out there that the voters have spoken on and there’s little to do about changing that.”

But Radulovich said he hopes San Francisco will "start a regional movement to pull the plug on freeway expansion, and fund a linked-up regional transit network instead," and he noted the groundbreaking movement that stopped seven freeways from being built in the city in 1959:

2009 is the 50th anniversary of San Francisco's Freeway revolt. San Franciscans realized back then that freeway building was ruining the city's environment and destroying its livability, and set itself on a different path. Despite the wavering political support for transit over the years, San Francisco is a success story – we invested in transit, and added tens of thousands of jobs to the city without adding any new freeways – in fact, we removed a few. San Francisco set an example that cities around the world are now following. Now it's time for the rest of the region to choose the path towards a sustainable and livable future.

Updated 4:20 p.m.

BOS Prez David Chiu, who voted not to reject: "It is time for us to move forward." Photo by Bryan Goebel.

Transit advocates, frustrated over the decision, said they are planning to rally behind Avalos' proposed charter amendment to reform the MTA Board, which is appointed by the Mayor. They felt a rejection of the budget was the only way to force a better plan, which they say is unfairly balanced, with riders taking a bigger hit than drivers. 

But Chiu, who pointed out that he rides Muni more than any other supervisor and is the only member of the Board who doesn't own a car, said "we have come quite a ways" since the first MTA budget was proposed. He said the upcoming debate over the city budget is going to "make this debate look like child's play."

"In fact, as I've done the math, we've come about 30 million dollars from where the original budget was," said Chiu, who proposed the original rejection motion. "It is time for us to move forward."

Chiu's office said the $30 million he was referring to is a $15 million reduction in work orders, the $10.3 million worked out in a compromise, and $5 million in anticipated parking revenues, assuming the MTA moves forward with stronger parking enforcement. 

Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, in an interview after the vote, said he believed it was still possible to get the MTA to make more concessions because "a strong message has been sent," but said he is going to back Avalos' charter amendment, which could appear before voters as soon as November, assuming there are six votes on the Board to place it on the ballot. The amendment would see three members of the MTA Board appointed by the Board of Supervisors, three by the Mayor and one elected.

Supervisor David Campos, who criticized the MTA and its Chief Nat Ford for not following through on any of the recommendations in the proposed "Transit Justice Package," called today's vote a loss for Muni riders.

"I think while this budget is better than the original budget it is one that can be much better and I'm disappointed in the Board of Supervisors for not pushing the envelope to push Muni to do the right thing," he said, adding that he feels the one good thing that came out of the process was Avalos' proposed charter amendment.

"I don't think this would have happened if we had a truly independent MTA Board that deliberated without any political pressure, so it points for the need to move forward on that as quick as we can."

Ford pledged during testimony before the Board that the MTA would not make any further service cuts or fare increases other than what's been proposed. He said he would need 90 days to study the possibility of beefing up parking enforcement on Sundays and evenings before taking a plan to the MTA Board.

Asked by Streetsblog whether putting parking enforcement back on the table was a real possibility considering opposition from the Mayor (even if a study were to favor it), Ford responded: "I think that's premature at this point to assume that. I think, if we have a reasonable plan that takes into account all the impacts, I have found with the Mayor as well as the Board of Supervisors that they've been supportive of some of those suggestions we've made and in this case we need a little bit of time."

Tom Radulovich, the executive director of Livable City, said today's decision continues to raise questions in his mind about whether the MTA, as it exists, is really working.

"They're not delivering any of the service they've promised to, in terms of on-time performance. There's a provision of the charter which says the MTA Board shall deligently seek new revenue sources, not just fare increases, but new revenue sources to support Muni operations. We've not seen them act very deligently in the 10 year history of the MTA. They've been pretty chicken and more often than not have gone to the riders."