Elevated Transbay Park. Images: Planning Department

The Planning Department's Joshua Switzky, one of the lead authors, said like any draft plan this one will fluctuate based on the public and the Planning Commission's feedback, but the principles espoused in it should remain intact.

"The plan that we put out is clearly the one we think is the best plan. Depending on what the Commission wants to do, we will potentially make changes. It's kind of really open to the process," said Switzky.

Switzky pointed to several key recommendations, ones that could prove contentious several years down the line when more detailed proposals are hammered out. One is assuring the quality of pedestrian accessibility with the objective in the plan to maintain, on average, 21-foot sidewalks, 15 feet for circulation and 6 feet of curbside amenities, such as bike racks, benches, street trees, or news boxes.

"That will mean different things on different streets," said Switzky. "On some streets, the only way to achieve that will be to eliminate on-street parking. Sometimes it might mean eliminating a travel lane." Sometimes, he said, it could be a combination of both. "The future of this area is probably a lot less on-street parking than there is today."

Click to enlarge: A conceptual image of a new San Francisco skyline.

"The Plan's emphasis on creating a pedestrian-oriented Transit Center District is very encouraging. Attention will be paid to making the area safe for people of all ages and mobility challenges to get around on foot," said Whitacker. "The Association will be vigilant about trying mitigate 'dangerous by design' elements that detract from the pedestrian experience along our residential core on Harrison Street."

Manish Champsee, Executive Director of Walk San Francisco, also praised the plan. "The thing that I really like about this plan is that it considers the pedestrian first. Usually when there is a plan to greatly increase the usage of a particular area, the first thought is to create more auto capacity to deal with extra traffic in the area," said Champsee. "This plan takes a completely different approach: it says there will be lots more people in this area, lets increase the sidewalk space to accommodate them. A stark difference."

Another plan objective likely to inspire debate is the proposal to reduce maximum parking allowances in the plan area by half. Currently, said Switzky, commercial space in the downtown core allows 7 percent of gross floor area to be parking, which works out to about one parking space for every 5,000 square feet of office space, or one car for every 20 workers. If the plan's objectives are adopted, the limit of one car for every 40 workers in the plan area would put San Francisco close to the limits set in Manhattan, the strictest anywhere in the country (In Manhattan below 60th Street, commercial developments have to cap the total new parking spaces to 100, no matter the size of the building).

The final plan objectives guaranteed to bring about disagreement are travel demand management proposals, including congestion pricing and other restrictions on personal automobiles into the plan area. In addition to pricing private driving into the downtown, the plan proposes mandating mode-split targets by requiring commercial property owners and managers to keep records of how their employees traveled to work. If the split didn't meet overall travel targets, property owners and businesses would have to provide incentives to employees to reduce overall driving into the area.

Whitaker looked at the long view of the neighborhood. "I believe it is a good reflection of San Francisco's aspirations to continue to be a jobs center, the hub for regional transit, and a model for sustainable urban planning, [while] minimizing air pollution and other negative impacts on our environment," he said.

Click to Enlarge.

Pedestrians and the Public Realm

"To create a public realm worthy of a great city, as well as accommodate the increased number of pedestrians and transit users, the balance of space must shift more toward people on the street. Unavoidably, this step involves certain tradeoffs between pedestrian improvements and space for automobiles.... Giving priority to pedestrians and the Transit Center District’s place in the city means difficult choices in view of space limitations in the rights-of-way."

• Policy 3.8 - Designate Plan Area streets where no curb cuts are allowed or are discouraged. Where curb cuts are necessary, they should be limited in number and designed to avoid maneuvering on sidewalks or in street traffic. When crossing sidewalks, driveways should be only as wide as necessary to accomplish this function.
• Policy 3.14 - Convert the western portion of Natoma Street between First and Second streets on the south side of the Transit Center to a primarily pedestrian-only street.
• Policy 3.13 - Close Shaw Alley permanently to vehicles and design it as a pedestrian-only open space for thru-connection to the Transit Center.
• Objective 3.6 - Enhance the pedestrian network with new linkages to provide direct and varied pathways , to shorten walking distances, and to relieve congestion at major street corners.
• Objective 3.8 - Ensure that new development enhances the pedestrian network and reduces the scale of long blocks by maintaining and improving public access along existing alleys and creating new through-block pedestrian connections where none exist.
  
• Objective 3.9 - Ensure that mid-block crosswalks and through-block passageways are convenient, safe, and inviting.

Encourage Transit and Limit Automobile Congestion

"Data compiled from the 2000 Census by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for the broader downtown, encompassing the entire C-3 zone and adjacent areas showed that 49 percent of workers took transit, 41 percent of commuters came by auto (including 29 percent who drove alone to work) and about 10 percent took other means (primarily walking and bicycling).... Moreover, vehicle occupancy trends (i.e. number of people per vehicle) also appear counter to the intentions of the Downtown Plan.... Evidence reviewed in the 2004 Downtown Monitoring Report indicate that vehicle occupancy on both major bridges into the City have declined since 1985."

• Policy 4.11 - Study the feasibility of and implement, as feasibility and necessity determines, congestion pricing of roadways as a primary tool to reduce overall traffic levels in the Plan area, particularly peak-hour bridge and freeway queues.
• Objective 4.1 - The district’s transportation system will prioritize and incentivize the use of transit. Public transportation will be the main, non-pedestrian mode for moving into and between destinations in the transit center district.
• Objective 4.2 - The district’s transportation system will implement and require transportation demand management strategies to minimize growth in auto trips and reduce volumes as necessary. Actively manage the transportation system to optimize person-carrying capacity. 
• Objective 4.4 - The district’s transportation system will prioritize pedestrian amenity and safety. Invest in circulation modifications and urban design measures that support the creation of an attractive and memorable public realm.
• Objective 4.5 - The district’s transportation system will build on successful traffic and parking management programs and policies that are in place. Expand and strengthen existing adopted policies (e.g. Downtown Plan, C-3 parking controls) and current planning initiatives (e.g. Transit Effectiveness Project, SFPark).
• Objective 4.6 - The district’s transportation system will require management of bay bridge queues to reduce and mitigate impacts of regional traffic on transit circulation and the public realm in the district.
• Objective 4.9 - Prioritize transit movements through and within the district over all other transportation modes.

Flickr photo: Jeremy Brooks

Safety on Muni has become a hot issue in the mainstream press after several horrific and widely publicized attacks, as well as a fight that was videotaped and posted on YouTube. That's brought extra attention to an issue that surfaced during the MTA's budget crisis this spring: the agency is paying the police department for officers to ride Muni, but riders rarely see police onboard.

The SFPD's Bus Inspection Program requires each sergeant in a patrol division and each officer "assigned to a radio car" to make two transit inspections per shift. Officers on foot patrol are required to make at least four inspections per shift. Even though the MTA was paying for the service, officers have been a rare sight on Muni.

In June, the SFPD and the MTA announced a trial program to record and track officers on the city's buses and trains by requiring them to tag TransLink cards when they enter and exit, and 1,300 cards were issued to officers in September as part of the pilot. SFPD has also conducted several high-profile "Operation Safe Muni" stings, first out of its Ingleside Station and then, recently, citywide. Each District Station has also developed and submitted its own transit security plan.

Supervisor Bevan Dufty called the hearing to determine if officers are regularly riding Muni now and to get a full update on SFPD's Muni safety plans. "While we're happy, certainly, that mainstream media have taken the gauntlet up of Muni crime, it's been recent, but Muni crime has been a reality for folks who ride the system for years," said Boe Hayward, Dufty's legislative aide. "Muni is a major lifeblood of this city, and our citizens should be protected on Muni just like they should be at their homes or walking the street."

Hayward said he's looking forward to the update, but he's equally interested in what Muni riders are seeing on the system. He said Dufty would like to hear from anyone "who would like to come and testify to their experience, whether they be a victim, whether they have witnessed it on a regular basis, or on a sporadic basis, for that matter, or, if people are like, 'I've been happy with the supposed recent influx of police on buses,' we'd like to hear that, too."

"This hearing is going to be far more powerful if we're able to reach out to folks who are riders, rather than just have Muni and cops provide a PowerPoint," added Hayward.

Rumors have circulated of individual officers tagging multiple TransLink cards, earning credit for colleagues who aren't actually riding Muni. Members of the public may have insight into whether this is really happening as well.

The hearing will be the first item the Supes committee addresses Monday, and public comment will come before presentations by the SFPD and MTA, so Muni riders can show up by 11 a.m. and leave as soon as they're done speaking. Hayward encouraged anyone who can't make it to email him with any stories.

Monday will also mark the public debut of the new SFPD deputy chief in charge of safety operations on Muni, John Murphy, who is taking over for Tony Parra. "Murphy now to some extent has a clean slate, and can really let us know what his strategy and plans are," said Hayward. "Monday will be sort of his coming out party, if you will."

Hearing on Muni safety at the Board of Supervisors City Operations and Neighborhood Services Committee: Monday, November 23, San Francisco City Hall, Room 250. The public comment period will begin shortly after 11 a.m., followed by presentations by the MTA and SFPD. Muni riders with tales to tell, positive or negative, about safety on Muni, should email Boe Hayward, legislative aide to Supervisor Bevan Dufty.

(Photo: Richard Masoner of Cyclelicious)

Send your JPEGs to sarah [@] streetsblog [dot] org, or tag them with "kidbikes" and "streetsblog" in Flickr. Your deadline is next Tuesday, November 24.

Our past slide shows have been on bike traffic, space hogs, work bikes and crummy transit conditions. Check them out if you haven't already.

The future of public-private partnerships? Hopefully not. (Photo: Time Out NY)

[T]he agreement ... will include putting Subway restaurants as well as Dunkin' Donuts locations in the centers, according to a Carlyle spokesman. Dunkin' Donuts is owned by Carlyle.

Meanwhile, the same Connecticut governor who called Carlyle's donut investment "an unprecedented commitment to ... meeting the needs of the traveling public" recently vetoed legislation that would have eliminated the need for significant transit fare hikes.

Is this what President Obama meant when he called for "more creative, new approaches" to fixing "infrastructure that is falling apart"? Let's hope not.

Given that government audits have found existing federal transit regulations riddled with obstacles to attracting successful PPPs, perhaps it's not surprising that Carlyle chose to go the donuts route rather than collaborating on Connecticut transit-oriented development projects in the vein of the New York MTA's Beacon Station revitalization.

But that's no reason for Carlyle to take a victory lap while plans for a National Infrastructure Bank (NIB) remain frustratingly unclear. If the administration follows through on its NIB plans, information-sharing and incentives will be needed to prod private capital into genuinely beneficial projects rather than new fast food joints.

City parking meters are a gold mine, and in Chicago, Morgan Stanley is rolling in parking riches. Secret company documents leaked to reporters show the company will rake in a 70 percent profit margin this year from its $1.15 billion, 75-year lease of Chicago's parking meters. This profit is on top of the millions Morgan paid to buy new, high-tech meters. The good times will keep on rolling for investors: In 2010, after another meter price hike, Morgan expects to make monthly profits of $4.8 million, roughly 55 percent higher than in 2009.

Graphic: New York Times/Chicago News Cooperative.

Streetsblog has been following the Chicago parking privatization closely because it is the poster child for all that can go wrong with Public Private Partnerships, or PPPs. The basic idea behind a PPP is that the government leases public transportation infrastructure -- say a bridge, highway, airport, or parking meters -- that can generate user fees. In exchange for the fees, a private investor pays the government a large upfront fee or assumes the cost of improving the infrastructure. PPPs are popular in Europe, especially at airports.

Sustainable transportation advocates should care about PPPs for a number of reasons. First, politicians and bureaucrats are captivated by the fantasy that PPPs are the ultimate free lunch, generating billions in transportation investment at no cost to the taxpayer. President Obama's euphemism for PPPs is "creative financing."

In New York, state officials have repeatedly presented a PPP as the way to raise billions for the astronomical cost of replacing the Tappan Zee Bridge. This is dangerous thinking. PPPs do inflict a cost, and it's a big one. Huge amounts of revenue that could be directed to public transit, or crucial road and bridge repair, is instead going to Wall Street.

The second concern is that PPPs allow public officials to skew the public planning and review process and put private profit before public benefit. A private investor has tremendous leverage over what gets built if they are the government's main financing option. The investor's goal is to make money, not to produce the greatest public benefit over many decades.

Despite the latest revelation, Chicago is only beginning to recognize the inherent problems with privatizations. According to the Times, Alderman Scott Waguespack introduced a measure that would require an "independent third-party valuation" of major asset lease proposals before any future privatization deal is completed. The legislation would require "a comparison of public retention and private leasing over the life cycle of the agreement." This could serve as an important safeguard, but so far, the measure only has 12 co-sponsors among the council's 49 other members.

The piece, by Haya el Nasser, starts out talking about how population is falling in many of the suburbs that grew most quickly over the last few decades -- places like Bellevue, Washington. These communities have become known as "boomburbs." But their boom days are past -- for now. Some have begun losing population.

Will light rail pave the way to a different future in Irving, Texas? Photo: pinecone.

Robert Lang, a professor of sociology at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas who coined the term "boomburbs," put it this way: "The irony is that if they want to keep growing, they must grow as cities, which is diametrically opposite of how they got so big in the first place."

And transit will be key to that transformation:

Population has declined since 2006 in Irving, Texas, but the city is prepared for healthy growth as soon as a light-rail line to Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport is completed. "Eventually, you have to shift your focus to not just booming growth but redevelopment," Mayor Herbert Gears says. "That (rail) line is what's given us the opportunity to create an urban center."

Condominiums, apartments and retail are planned along the transit line. The city projects a 240,000 population by 2015, an 11% jump.

Growth in Henderson, Nev., near Las Vegas, has slowed but not stopped. "With the slowdown we've seen, it gives us an opportunity to take a breath," says city spokesman Bud Cranor. Henderson is focused on creating "green" jobs and a more sustainable urban environment, he says.

The article highlights what is emerging as a powerful unifying argument for smarter development: economics. It's an approach that could bring conservatives and liberals together. And it will certainly be part of Transportation for America's upcoming discussion on conservatives and public transportation.

Flickr photo: Aimee Ellis, 2Girls1Queen

Elaine Santore from 2 Girls, 1 Queen sent in the above photo, which Aimee Ellis took shortly after the crash.

Alex Caroll, who works nearby at Burger Joint, witnessed the crash and was among the first to call for an ambulance. The bicyclist appeared to have suffered a broken leg or ankle, as well as a possible broken shoulder or collarbone, said Caroll. The bicyclist was traveling southbound on Pierce, and the SUV was traveling eastbound on Haight when it struck him. An SFPD officer was first to arrive on the scene, followed by the fire department, according to Caroll. Officers were still speaking to the driver when Caroll left a half hour later.

Ellis reports that the injured man was missing a shoe and was taken to the hospital in a fire truck.

SFPD spokesperson Sgt. Lyn Tomioka said the bicyclist remained conscious and breathing, and was not bleeding.

We will update with more details as they're available.

The San Francisco Planning Department will release the Draft Plan for the new Transbay Terminal and development project after the Planning Commission meeting tonight at 5:30 p.m. According to Planning's Joshua Switzky, the plan will be presented to the commission but there will not be extensive discussion about its details until future public hearings.

In a press release sent out moments ago, Mayor Gavin Newsom called the project a lynchpin of the city's future growth, "one that is based in sustainability and channeling growth around major investments in public  transit.” 

“This plan takes a very comprehensive approach to sustainability, looking at everything from land use to transportation patterns to energy systems in order to reduce the ecological footprint of growth,” Newsom said in the release.

John Rahaim, the Planning Director, said San Francisco's downtown has added "over 20 million square feet of office space, hotels and thousands of housing units since the 1985 Downtown Plan. This growth was possible due to excellent transit, resulting in little appreciable increase in auto congestion on downtown streets."

This plan will continue this tradition of success, creating a dynamic district appropriate to the multi-billion dollar public infrastructure  investment  of the Transit Center Project. We look forward to hearing comments from the Planning Commission and the public in the coming months.”

The Draft Plan intends to meet the following objectives, according to the Planning Department release:

• Increase capacity to help accommodate San Francisco’s share of job growth for the next 25 years by eliminating density caps and increasing some height limits above the current 550-foot maximum in the area around the new Transbay Transit Center.
• Create gracious public spaces and accommodate higher pedestrian volumes by widening sidewalks and adding substantial amenities and infrastructure, such as seating, landscaping, kiosks, and bicycle parking.
• Create a new plaza at the northeast corner of Howard and 2nd Streets and support the creation of a park on the 5.5-acre roof of the Transit Center.
• Manage  travel demand and reduce auto traffic to facilitate growth by limiting increases in parking, providing incentives, and pursing congestion pricing if necessary.
• Expand  the  existing New Montgomery-2nd Street Conservation District to preserve numerous historic resources, as well as recommend protection of many additional individual buildings.
  
• Pursue the creation of district-based resource systems to reduce consumption of energy and water by new development.
• Consider the implementation of multiple new funding mechanisms to generate funds from new development for the Transit Center and other necessary infrastructure and improvements to support growth, including a Mello-Roos special tax district and new impact fees.

Click to enlarge: Annual household transportation costs in the Bay Area.

In the Bay Area, where annual car ownership costs on average over $8,000 per person, individuals spend roughly $34 billion every year on personal transportation costs, compared to only $4.6 billion spent by public agencies on transit and roads combined. Households with poor access to public transit not only spend double the amount per year on transportation when compared to those with good access to transit, they produce more than double the amount of CO2, a greenhouse gas.

"The most astounding thing is that agencies pinch their pennies on transit and cut back and we feel like we can't afford not to save that service," said Stuart Cohen, Executive Director of TransForm. "We're already spending more than seven times as much as our agencies spend on public transit and roads just on buying and operating our vehicles."

What's more, the report points out that fuel costs represent a small minority of the cost of owning a car, so the craze for electric and other low-emission vehicles will not dramatically reduce the transportation costs for those living far from their jobs and far from transit. The best solution to combating climate change, the report notes, is to build walkable, vibrant communities where residences are situated close to job centers. 

Click to enlarge: household CO2 from transportation in the Bay Area.

"By reducing public and private transportation costs and increasing revenues to local governments, SB 375 can help put dollars back in the pockets of consumers and local governments," said Cohen.

Windfall for All counters the claim that SB 375 will be too costly to implement during the current economic crisis with several examples of how planning denser cities and offering alternatives to private car travel can save money.

First, in Sacramento, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) created a 2050 development blueprint that forecasts current development patterns and compared them to smart growth patterns. SACOG found that Sacramento would save $9.4 billion in public infrastructure costs (transportation, utilities, water, etc), $655 million in annual residents' fuel costs and $8.4 billion less for land purchases to offset environmental degradation from sprawl. The city would also see a 300 percent increase in public transit use if the city clustered development around transit within an urban growth boundary.

Benefits of public transportation for household costs and pollution. Image: TransForm.

In the Bay Area, parking regulations are a significant impediment to dense development. In San Leandro, parking minimums of more than two parking spaces for each new home made dense development a planning impossibility. When San Leandro re-wrote its downtown plan, it rezoned to allow 3,400 new homes, more than seven times the limit under the old zoning laws. The first development in the new Downtown Transit-Oriented Development Strategy, The Alameda, designed by San Francisco Architect David Baker, saves $3.9 million by eliminating a level of parking and produces 30 more affordable units, according to the report.

Based on these and other case studies, Cohen suggested California should consider levying a climate impact fee on gasoline to generate enough money to expand public transit options and expand walkable communities while improving the economy and meeting ambitious greenhouse gas targets.

"Building our communities with the expectation that every driver in a family is going to have to own their own car is part of what is part of what is bankrupting families," said Cohen. "The infrastructure for the... roads and those patterns of growth is part of what is bankrupting our public agencies."

Windfall for All Critical Recommendations

• Integrate full economic analysis into planning. The huge dividends from efficient land use become evident once personal costs, not just public budgets, are considered. Without such analysis, we will continue to promote plans and policies that cost too much for families, businesses, and local governments.
• Provide cities and counties with an infusion of funds to engage the community in planning. The state should make funds available for updating zoning codes and parking policies to make more efficient use of land and resources. Identifying strategies to maintain and expand the number of affordable homes is also critical.
• Fund cost-effective public transportation. The state needs to provide leadership and restore funds for public transit, as well as make it easier for regions to raise new revenues with climate-impact fees. Economic analysis could determine whether such fees, if spent in ways that promote more efficient communities, can reduce our overall costs.
• Innovate, evaluate and replicate. There are dozens of innovative strategies – whether an individual program such as car-sharing, or a comprehensive rewards approach such as UC San Diego’s. MTC, the Bay Area’s transportation agency, will soon launch the first “Transportation Climate Action Program.” This program will seed, evaluate and replicate innovative programs. Other regions should follow suit.
• New development should minimize pollution from new residents – or pay to mitigate it. The San Joaquin Valley is encouraging efficient development from the start. New developments that don’t provide walkable communities with convenient transportation choices must mitigate the costs of the air pollution that will be generated by future residents. The state and regional air districts should encourage this same system for mitigating the costs of greenhouse gases.
  

Marlene Tran speaks with MTA Board Vice Chairman Rev. Dr. James McCray, Jr. Photo: Sasanna Yee

When the MTA Board approved wide-ranging changes to Muni service at its meetings this fall, most of the public comment was from residents who didn't want rerouted bus lines to pass by their homes, and merchants who opposed articulated buses running in front of their shops. As Streetsblog's coverage noted at the time, the absence of Muni riders at the meeting was striking, perhaps indicating a lack of proper notice.

At Tuesday's MTA Board meeting, dozens of Chinatown and Visitacion Valley residents showed up to tell the MTA that they had not, in fact, received proper notice about changes to the 9X-Bayshore Express lines that run between their neighborhoods, including renumbering and a several-block rerouting in Visitacion Valley. Most said they only heard about the proposed service changes this week - from an article in the Chinese-language newspaper Sing Tao.

The MTA plans to actually increase service on the 9X lines, which will soon be renamed the 8X, but the gap in their outreach left some advocates wondering: if Muni can't do proper outreach on service changes to the 9X, how does it expect to sell broader initiatives like bus stop consolidation and parking reform?

The MTA conducted extensive outreach in preparation for the December 5th changes, and will distribute a detailed brochure [PDF] on Muni buses this Friday, which outlines the changes in Chinese, English and Spanish. Several of the speakers at Tuesday's meeting questioned the agency's cultural competency, however, charging that most 9X riders were not properly notified about proposed changes to the route and line numbering.

"A group of Chinatown and Visitacion Valley residents is here to protest Muni for your top-down decision regarding our transportation system, because we have not been previously informed or had any direct community input," said Marlene Tran, a spokesperson for the Visitacion Valley Asians Alliance.

"For the Chinatown side, they all feel disrespected by the MTA because they feel like there wasn't enough outreach or engagement for the community to have input in the public process," said Tammy Huang, an organizer with the Community Tenants Association. "In fact, we don't even know if there were any community meetings for any of these route changes."

Signs were posted at bus stops instructing riders to visit the MTA's website for more information on route changes, which many of the 9X's riders don't have access to, said Huang. "I was just told by the MTA that these booklets are only going to be passed out on Friday, and if we're waiting until Friday to notify our public on the changes... I mean, seniors, some of them don't even know how to read Chinese."

Many of the residents were particularly concerned that they weren't notified about the elimination of the 9X bus stop at Rutland Street and Arleta Avenue in Visitacion Valley. That segment of the line will be rerouted along Visitacion Avenue and Bayshore Boulevard.

Several dozen residents of Chinatown and Visitacion Valley showed up to Tuesday's meeting. Photo: Michael Rhodes

"Residents will have to walk farther to and from the bus stops, which increases the probability of the residents being crime victims, given the high crime rate in the Visitacion Valley neighborhood," said Sasanna Yee, a Visitacion Valley resident. "The City Controller's office recently released statistics [PDF chart] indicating that the 9X and the 9 lines in my neighborhood have the most security incidents. How will MTA address our safety concerns?"

Recently, when the MTA proposed straightening a segment of the 48-Quintara through Potrero Hill to speed up travel times, neighbors showed up to MTA Board meetings to offer refinements, but generally supported the plan. If Visitacion Valley residents had been similarly aware of the plans for the 9X, the MTA and residents might have found a solution that saves travel time while addressing community concerns. Instead, the bus stop consolidation on the 48 and 9X serve as contrasting examples of how Muni should and shouldn't approach outreach on a future citywide effort to consolidate bus stops to speed service.

The MTA Board and staff appeared surprised by the outpouring of concern. Board Chairman Tom Nolan said the extent of staff's outreach and the quality of the route changes brochure had greatly impressed him, but acknowledged that the public participation process was "clearly not perfect."

"When we institute these changes, we will be evaluating it, we will be watching them, to see what kind of effects they have and, if necessary, alter based on the results of what were doing," said Nolan. "We're trying to figure out a way to serve the entire city while being sensitive to various communities and we will definitely keep watching that."

Julie Kirschbaum, the MTA's Transit Effectiveness Project project manger, said she regretted that the agency hadn't done a better job of reaching out to riders from Chinatown and Visitacion Valley. "I am very apologetic because we try as hard as possible to engage with all of our customers," said Kirschbaum. "We really focus on multilingual outreach for that reason."

"The proposal to run two-way on Visitacion was first introduced during the Transit Effectiveness Project, and at those community meetings we've had very heavy participation by monolingual speakers," she said. "At the time, we were looking at a whole series of changes and it may be that this one specific route issue was overlooked."

Kirschbaum added that she hoped to emphasize that 9X riders will actually see an increase in bus service on December 5th. "One of the things we're most proud of in these changes is that we're increasing service on the 9X, soon to be 8X, routes," said Kirschbaum. "We'll have 25 percent more service than we do today. So, even in a time of service reductions, we are fortunate to be able to address the heavy crowding that we're experiencing on this route. So, while some of our customers may have to walk farther, there will be shorter wait times, and they will have more space on the vehicles."

For many of the residents who spoke, it wasn't so much the specific service changes, but the gap in public outreach that concerned them.

"Fair transit is a fundamental social justice matter, and the community wants to be included in the decision-making process," said Wing Hoo Leung, vice present of the Community Tenants Association, speaking through a translator. "We demand respect from MTA."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Photo: MoniqueMonicat)

As House Democrats weigh their options for a new job-creation plan, slated for a vote before year's end, infrastructure spending is attracting new support from party leaders. But the question of how much to spend, and whether a new six-year transportation measure could be presented as a jobs bill, is tied up in ongoing uncertainty over where the necessary funding would come from.

DeFazio's recommendation to impose a small per-trade tax on the Wall Street oil futures market has picked up endorsements from progressive economists and writers as well as 29 of his fellow Democrats. Pelosi, however, was cautious in addressing its prospects today during her weekly press briefing.

"One of the concerns that some of us have about it," the Speaker said, "is what it [might do] to us in terms of transactions going offshore."

Emphasizing that the idea "is just something that is on the table," Pelosi added that passing a tax proposal such as DeFazio's would require consultation with and buy-in from other nations: "It would have to be an international rule, not just a U.S. rule."

Barney Frank (D-MA), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, is among those who have expressed concerns that a Wall Street transaction tax, unless properly structured, would drive financial activity onto foreign commodity exchanges, thus generating lower-than-expected revenues.

Imposing a transaction tax "country by country ... would be a problem," Frank told the Wall Street Journal last month.

Pelosi's response today does not signal a decline in House-side momentum for DeFazio's proposal; she noted that financial regulators in the United Kingdom and elsewhere have spoken favorably of transaction taxes (also known as "Tobin" taxes).

President Obama may be optimistic about continued U.S. economic growth as 2009 ends, but the reality on the ground in urban America -- which an estimated two-thirds of the population calls home -- is undeniably, disturbingly bleak.

Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter (Photo: PennLive)

That was the message delivered today by two economists and a bipartisan quartet of U.S. mayors at the Brookings Institution in Washington. Michael Nutter, Philadelphia's Democratic mayor, seemed to sum up the mood as he mused aloud that the federal government had seen fit to deliver no-strings-attached cash to financial and auto companies deemed "too big to fail."

"Cities and metro areas are too important to fail," Nutter said, adding that successful urban government is "equally or, I'd suggest, more important than anything that's going on in industries."

Unfortunately, economic data suggests that cities are only just beginning to bear the brunt of what some have christened "The Great Recession." Steve Cochrane, managing director of Moody's Analytics, showed today's Brookings audience a map of the nation with states where employment could be expected to rebound the quickest.

A dozen states, including urban-dominant economic powerhouses such as New York, California, and Illinois, were colored bright red -- meaning that their employment recovery could be expected after 2013, or even later. A city-by-city map of housing price declines had more bad news for northeastern and West coast cities, showing that the foreclosure crisis has yet to hit bottom in those areas.

What does this mean for urban priorities, particularly transportation and infrastructure? The percentage of city officials reporting to the National League of Cities (NLC) that they are "less able" to meet financial needs jumped from 3 percent in 2007 to 88 percent in 2009, the highest number in the 26 years the NLC has measured metro fiscal health.

When the NLC asked urban officials to describe where they were cutting spending, 62 percent said capital infrastructure projects were being delayed or canceled. That high number suggests sustained, intense cuts in cities' ability to work on their built environments, NLC research director Chris Hoene said today. "[Cities] are going to be in trouble for years," he predicted.

How is the economic downturn affecting city services? Transit riders in many areas are sadly familiar with service cuts caused by budget austerity, but other aspects of urban community maintenance are dying out.

Nutter was forced to cut residential street cleaning and shutter nearly half of Philadelphia's public pools to help close his billion-dollar fiscal shortfall. Elaine Walker, mayor of Bowling Green, Kentucky, noted that "we were building sidewalks to the tune of $1 million a year. We're not doing that anymore."

The mayors had much more to say about how federal and state governments could begin repairing relations with local leaders that have been "irreparably damaged," as Scott Smith, mayor of Mesa, Arizona, put it. (Stay tuned for more coverage.)

But Walker suggested that the solution to the nation's urban budget crisis would have to begin with a fundamental shift in what Americans expect from -- and how they think about -- their elected government. Bolstering her theory, David Wessel of the Wall Street Journal (who led the mayors' debate) quoted a recent observation from Congress' chief budget adviser:

The country faces a fundamental disconnect between the services the people expect the government to provide, particularly in the form of benefits for older Americans, and the tax revenues that people are willing to send to the government to finance those services.

Deputy U.S. Transportation Secretary John Porcari (Photo: DayLife.com)

Roy Kienitz, U.S. DOT's undersecretary for policy, told Boxer that the cancellation of $8.7 billion in contracting authority -- which took effect when Congress passed the first of two stopgap federal transport law extensions in September -- is forcing a 30 percent cut in local spending power, although each state will feel the effects at a different pace.

"It's pretty important when we see that we're giving the states 30 percent less than they should be getting," Boxer replied, asking the administration for help in marshaling support for a six-month extension of the 2005 transport law.

She added that senators would appreciate White House assistance in ending "the standoff" with the House, where transportation committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) continues to call for passage of his new six-year transport bill.

Boxer described the House approach as: "Let's just bring it to a crisis point, then we'll go double the gas tax and solve the whole problem." She noted that Democrats lack the votes for that strategy in the Senate (and likely the House as well).

But the administration gave a fairly lukewarm answer to Boxer's urging. Deputy Transportation Secretary John Porcari restated the White House's endorsement of an 18-month extension before conceding that a six-month window is "better than a 30-day."

In a startling tonal contrast, Porcari acknowledged minutes later that America is dangerously "behind the curve" on infrastructure investment.

"We're clearly not doing right by the next generation with what we're doing now," he said.

The lack of sustainable funding remains the biggest obstacle to taking up a new long-term transportation bill, and Boxer nodded to that fact by asking the administration to begin working on alternatives to the federal gas tax -- which has remained at 18.3 cents per gallon since 1993 and lost value as fuel-efficient cars become more popular.

"[A]t the end of the day, we need to think outside of the old ways," she said. "So far, there hasn't been a lot of ideas forthcoming [from the White House], because there are a few other things on the plate -- and I get it. But this needs attention."

Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), a member of the environment panel, asked Kienitz whether the administration was planning for a new transportation funding mechanism. "We're working hard to prepare internally," Kienitz replied, before adding that "none of that" is close to the form of an official proposal. 

When Carper asked if Congress should do more to press Obama aides into action, Kienitz's response was palpably deliberate. "We ... always appreciate your wise direction," the U.S. DOT official said.

The White House's rationale for its proposed 18-month delay has long been that officials need time and space to craft a sweeping, reform-minded transportation bill. Kienitz gave a hint as to what such legislation might look like when he told Carper that it would be appropriate for Washington to set national performance targets for roads, transit, and ports -- an issue that remains controversial for some industries but has support in the Senate.

Of course, progress on the next bill will be difficult to achieve without putting an end to the recent run of stopgap extensions of the 2005 transportation law, which was heavily tilted in favor of new highway projects and has lost purchasing power as the cost of construction materials swells along with inflation.

Photo: hebedesign via Flickr

While researching a recent pedestrian death in Savannah, I ran across this television news report, which I think deserves to be examined on its own. If I’m hearing him correctly, this is the message delivered by a Savannah Chatham Metropolitan Police officer:

"Someone could be looking down at their cellphone. Next thing they know they look up and there’s a kid in the road or a person in the road where they are not supposed to be at. And they don’t have time to stop. And like I said, pedestrians will lose that battle every time."

Perhaps this short comment from the officer was taken from a longer segment in which he railed against distracted driving. I hope that’s the case and if so, I commend him for it. But if not, it suggests a terribly casual attitude toward an awfully dangerous practice.

Sustainable Savannah links to Tom Vanderbilt's recent excellent essay on Slate, "In Defense of Jaywalking." Read it if you haven't already. It is a concise and well-researched examination of the biases against pedestrians -- biases that are reflected in media coverage and law enforcement, but most importantly, in street design.

In a presentation to the agency's board yesterday, MTA chief of staff Debra Johnson said that bicycles now make up 75 percent of the morning peak traffic on eastbound Market approaching 6th Street, compared to 60 percent before the trail traffic diversions, an even greater mode share than Streetsblog originally reported. Muni vehicles saved an average of 50 seconds on eastbound Market during the morning peak and midday compared to before the trial.

Based on manual counts, Johnson said average hourly traffic volume on eastbound Market Street, east of 8th Street, declined by approximately 130 vehicles per hour, or 54 percent. On eastbound Market Street approaching Montgomery Street, the decline was much less, at approximately five percent.

With cars diverted from Market, total traffic on Mission Street increased by 15 percent, and some counts of traffic on Folsom Street showed on increase, while other counts showed a decrease, leading the MTA to call the effects of the change inconclusive.

"I think it's an interesting, promising start to the trial," said Kit Hodge, director of the Great Streets Project. "Obviously there is a lot more analysis to be done, collecting all the feedback from different folks."

"One minute transit savings time is especially interesting. It sort of begs the question of how you could do even more to expand transit savings time."

Johnson pointed to concerns with the current diversions on eastbound Market Street at 6th and 8th Streets. For one, many vehicles are violating the right turn only restriction after officers leave their posts at 7 p.m. Some cars turning at 8th Street are also posing a hazard for bicycles, she said. "Right turns made from the center lane of eastbound Market Street at 8th Street create a safety issue for bicyclists as they are in a lane that is to the right of these right-turning motor vehicles."

The MTA is considering moving the forced right turn from 8th Street to 10th Street, which has fewer pedestrians, no Muni boarding island, and a continuous separated bike lane. The MTA also believes a forced turn at 10th Street could be easier to enforce. Currently, eastbound vehicles are advised, but not required, to turn off Market Street at that point.

With her presentation to the MTA Board yesterday, Johnson indicated that the agency plans to extend the traffic diversion pilot beyond its initial six-week term. "SFMTA staff is working on continuing a pilot project to collect more data and to observe the impacts of moving the forced right turn to 10th Street," said Johnson.

The data update comes shortly after the MTA began painting advanced stop bars at Market Street intersections, the first treatment in its Calm the Safety Zone project and another component of the Better Market Street vision to revitalize Mid-Market.

Have you encountered the bicycle/automobile crunch on eastbound Market at 8th Street? Does your Muni commute seem improved by more than 50 seconds? Let us know your experience with the Market Street traffic diversion pilot in the comments below.

America's transportation and infrastructure policies affect literally everyone who moves from place to place in the country, but often they are under-discussed and over-simplified by the mainstream media. To help broaden the debate, Streetsblog Capitol Hill is kicking off a new Q&A series called "The Four Questions."

Robert Puentes, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution's Metropolitan Policy Program (Photo: Brookings)

The goal is simple: Every week, a different person will weigh in on the same four queries about the future of the nation's built environment. The questions will remain the same, in order to provoke a thoughtful exchange of views on the biggest challenges facing transportation policymakers -- but the range of participants will be limitless.

Our guest for the inaugural Four Questions is Robert Puentes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution's Metropolitan Policy Program (MPP) and a prolific analyst of growth and development issues. (Check out more from the MPP at its blog, The Avenue.)

Any suggestions for future participants in The Four Questions? Let us know in the comments.

1. Transportation planning -- the evaluation and construction of transit, road, and bridge projects -- is often considered primarily a state and local issue. What specific type of role should the federal government should have in the mix?

We've actually proposed a three-pronged strategy for our national transportation program.

First, the federal government should lead in those areas where there are clear demands for national uniformity, or else to match the scale and geographic reach of certain problems. We must define, design, and embrace a new, unified vision for transportation policy. Its focus should be on infrastructure investments that support the competitiveness and environmental sustainability of the nation rather than on funding individual states or spending on singular needs.

The federal government should create a National Infrastructure Bank (NIB) able to select and finance large, multi-modal and multi-jurisdictional infrastructure projects on a merit basis. The NIB would be the window through which states, groups of states, and metropolitan areas would request financing or grants for a range of infrastructure projects -- from road and rails to ports and pipes. The federal government would provide initial capital that NIB would use to issue bonds. The Treasury would pay the interest on the bonds and it would act as a lender of last resort for the principal of the NIB loans. The proceeds from the bonds would be used to finance major projects proposed by public entities (states, municipalities, agencies).

Yet while there are clearly areas of physical infrastructure development where the federal government needs to lead, Washington also needs to put itself squarely in the service of state, local, and business leaders whose knack for solving problems has always driven this country forward.

2. As the gas tax loses some of its value in an era of more fuel-efficient vehicles, should it be increased or abandoned in favor of a new system of transportation financing? Or should both options be in play?

Just as transportation is not an end in and of itself, neither is increasing funding the primary solution to the nation's transportation problems. However, because of the short term conundrum of the federal government obligating more federal money for transportation than it has to spend and the disdain for the annual rescissions, many are calling for the next Congress and the new President to increase the federal gas tax. This puts the cart before the horse.

Simply put: we should not continue to pour more money into a dysfunctional system before serious attempts at significant policy reform. In other words, the federal transportation program is not just broke; it is broken. The funding debate needs to shift from spending more and more taxpayer dollars on the same product to where, what, and how to spend that money better. So in addition to just focusing on increasing revenues for the existing program the nation deserves a real conversation about curbing the demand for transportation spending. It is impossible to start with a funding solution or what the optimal level of investment should be when there is no agreement about what the federal role should be, what problems we are trying to solve, or what questions we are trying to answer.

[Former deputy Transportation Secretary] Mort Downey has pointed out that no major federal transportation reform has ever occurred without a major increase in revenues. This should be another one of those times.

We need a clear articulation of the goals and objectives of the federal program, and the desired outcomes. The program should then be structured to get to those outcomes. At that time, all options toward reinvigorating transportation funding should be on the table to meet the transportation challenges of the future while also ensuring financial revenues will be available.

3. The lion's share of federal transportation funding is sent through state DOTs that then pass aid on to major cities. Do you think this approach allows urban, suburban, and rural needs to be fully met?

The intent established in the ISTEA legislation of 1991 to elevate the importance of metropolitan decision-making to better align with the geography of regional economies, commuting patterns, and social reality has largely been subverted. Federal transportation policy has only haltingly recognized metros' centrality to transportation outcomes, and continues to assign states the primary role in transportation planning and programming.

Left to their own devices, most states have not embraced the intent of federal law and have not devolved sufficient powers and responsibilities to their metropolitan areas. They remain the principal decision-makers on transportation projects, including those within metropolitan areas. Many state DOTs still wield considerable formal and informal power and retain authority over substantial state transportation funds.

One positive step to enhance metropolitan decision making was the sub-allocation of funds directly to the regional and local government structures initiated by ISTEA. This helped strengthen metropolitan areas by changing the decision-making body for a portion of the overall funding, giving local officials the ability to spend federal transportation funds based on the unique needs of their region. However, the reality is that these funds still make up only a very small share of the overall funding pie. Taken together, federal law only gives metropolitan areas direct control over a small share of road and bridge funding under SAFETEA-LU. This misalignment has led to a dramatic shift in the way funds are raised in major metropolitan areas as these places are increasingly turning to voter-approved “local option taxes” to pay for certain metropolitan-scale projects.

Funding analyses in several states show how these biases harm metropolitan areas. These areas contribute significantly more in tax receipts than they receive in allocations from their state’s highway fund or through direct local transfers. In other words, although the donor/donee debate is alive and well on the national level between states, that same rationale -- logical or otherwise -- does not appear to have had anywhere near the same impact on spatial funding allocation within states.

4. Transportation contributes 30 percent of America's total CO2 emissions. Do you think a national cap-and-trade system should proportionally address this problem? If not, how should it be addressed?

To improve the environment, several states as well as the federal government have already articulated a desire to reduce transportation-related mobile source emissions in order to confirm with the transportation provisions of the Clean Air Act. We should go further and in addition to a net reduction in carbon dioxide emissions a reduced dependence on foreign oil is also critical (which is a clear benefit to the national economy). To that end, the federal program should support all three legs of the stool—vehicle efficiency, fuels standards and alternatives, as well as demand reduction strategies promoting efficient development patterns, telecommuting, and increasing travel options for people and goods. Related to the above question, a carbon tax is a good idea as an environmentally-motivated tax that could potentially generate revenues for a range of transportation choices such as transit.

Houston has long enjoyed its status as America's oil capital, the type of city where the local Petroleum Club threw a $100,000 gala during a period of then-record high gas prices. But things are changing, thanks to a light rail system that is exceeding ridership predictions and encouraging pedestrian-friendly development.

One of Houston's new charging stations for plug-in hybrid vehicles. (Photo: Chronicle)

The city's latest attempt to break from its oil-centric culture: charging stations for plug-in hybrid vehicles. Houston Mayor Bill White yesterday announced a partnership with utility Reliant Energy to convert 10 Toyota Priuses from the city's vehicle fleet into plug-in hybrids, while installing 10 electric charging stations that would be open to the public at a small cost.

“We're committed to making Houston the nation's green energy capital,” White said in a statement on the Reliant deal. “That commitment begins at City Hall and these clean-running electric cars and the charging stations that will be available to all Houstonians will get us farther down that road.”

The Wall Street Journal was elated by the city's small-scale move, writing:

Unlike in green urbs like San Francisco or Seattle, it’s all but impossible to live here without wheels -- so they might as well be electric. It will probably be cheaper and easier to electrify urban sprawl than rein it in altogether.

Houston's electrified light rail got no mention in the piece, though the Journal did call the city's power network "fairly clean." Indeed, Texas has seen some growth in wind and other clean energy sources -- the federal government recently ranked it No. 5 for state renewable power generation -- but Reliant's record is hardly spotless.

In 2007, the same year that Texas got its No. 5 ranking, the state of New Jersey filed a lawsuit against Reliant's mid-Atlantic division, charging the company with violating the Clean Air Act by modifying a coal-fired power plant in Pennsylvania to increase its pollution levels.

“It seems that we cannot rely on Reliant, except to put the public in harm’s way," Lisa Jackson, then New Jersey's environmental protection chief, said at the time of the lawsuit. Jackson has since become the chief of the Obama administration's Environmental Protection Agency.

Click image to enlarge: Leland Avenue intersection overview.

The Planning Department's Andres Power lauded the Leland Avenue improvements, and said the reconstruction of the street was the first step in a process the city hopes will become codified in every street redesign moving forward through the Better Streets Plan. He pointed to a new project, however, in neighboring Bayview as the benchmark for how San Francisco is innovating street design. Power is the project manager for the Model Block pilot on Newcomb Avenue in the Bayview, a project designed around stormwater treatment. The Newcomb project is situated on the 1700 block, just off of 3rd Street between Newhall and Phelps, and will employ a cocktail of street treatments, including stormwater planters and bulbouts, planted traffic calming chicanes, permeable pavement at on-street parking spaces, landscaped sidewalks that absorb runoff, raised crosswalks, and new street trees.

"Newcomb will be the first true green street in San Francisco," said Power, who noted that over the last few years movement from within the city on these matters has been quite positive. "From a policy and design perspective, there has been a sea change; it is infinitely easier to be able to talk about this stuff. Good design feels much less like an impossibility."

The cost to remake the Newcomb is $1,251,421, half of which comes from the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, nearly $500,000 from the U.S. EPA, and the remainder from San Francisco Mayor's Office of Housing Community Challenge Grants. The Redevelopment Agency, as part of the expansion of its Model Block single-family home rehabilitation program, will provide financial assistance to low-income families on Newcomb in conjunction with the renovation to refurbish their dwellings.

Click image to enlarge: Newcomb Avenue overhead with stormwater and traffic calming treatments

"Our drivers are different," said Jencks, referring to the Clean Water Act lawsuit that compelled Portland to clean up the Willamette River. "We don't have rivers with Salmon in them and we addressed the Clean Water Act with storage facilities.  We're in full regulatory compliance."

Jencks said the storage facilities brought raw sewage overflows into the bay and ocean down from an average of more than 80 per year before adding the tanks to fewer than 10 a year currently, most of those small. But, she acknowledged, "The public is not happy with combined sewage overflows any time," so her agency is working with Planning, the Department of Public Works, and the MTA to address upstream storm water through street design. Jencks noted that any reduction in storm water entering their facilities saves the city money by reducing pumping and processing volumes.

Looking forward, Planning's Power highlighted the Cesar Chavez Street redesign, which is slated to begin construction in 2010. Power said Caltrans awarded a $250,000 grant to the Planning Department to begin planning charettes for the Highway 101 interchange at Cesar Chavez, commonly known as the "Hairball," and the portion of Cesar Chavez that stretches from 101 east to 3rd Street. Furthermore, the U.S. EPA just awarded the $6 million project an additional $1.2 million for greenstreet treatments from the Hairball west to Guerrero Street. The EPA grant doubled the funding that had been planned for greenstreet facilities and gives the project leaders the opportunity to make the street the showcase for green design citywide.

"From a planning perspective we're moving to make sure all street projects have these treatments," said Power. "It hasn't been part of the standard approach in the city, but the Better Streets Plan will change that."

UPDATED: 11/19, 9:43 a.m.