|
|
|
|
  |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
| SFMTA home > About Us > Meetings > SFMTA Citizens Advisory Council (CAC) > October 6, 2005, minutes | |||
|
City and County of San Francisco FINAL MINUTES Thursday, October 6, 2005 at 5:30 p.m. San Francisco City Hall 1. Call to Order / Roll Call (Agenda Item 1). The regular meeting of the Municipal Transportation Agency Citizens’ Advisory Council (MTA CAC) was called to order at 5:32 p.m., Thursday, October 6, 2005. Daniel Murphy (chair) presided. A quorum was present including the following: MTA CAC Members Present at Roll Call: Daniel Murphy (Chair), Steve Ferrario (Vice Chair), Sue Cauthen, Joan Downey, Emily Drennen, Griffith Humphrey, Bruce Oka, Cesar Perez, Norman Rolfe, and Daniel Weaver. MTA CAC Members absent at Roll Call: Art Cimento (arrived at 5:35 p.m.), and Dorris Vincent (arrived at 5:50 p.m.) MTA CAC Absent: Mary Burns. MTA Staff (San Francisco Municipal Railway [MUNI] and Department of Parking and Traffic [DPT]) Present: Deborah W. Denison (MTA CAC Liaison), William Lieberman (MTA – Deputy Director - Planning), Peter Straus (MUNI Manager of Service Planning), Duncan Watry (MUNI Mgr, Capital Planning, Capital Planning & External Affairs). San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR) Representatives: Sarah Karlinski (Policy Director), Jay Primus (primary arthur of the SPUR report and Project Manager with Nelson/Nygaard) Community Representatives Present: Francisco DeCosta, Director of Environment Justice Advocacy 2. Adopt the MTA CAC Minutes of September 1, 2005: Motion to adopt the MTA CAC minutes for September 2005 by Sue Cauthen. 2nd by Dan Weaver CAC passed unanimously (Ayes - Murphy (Chair), Ferrario (Vice Chair), Cauthen, Cimento, Downey, Drennen, Humphrey, Oka, Perez, Rolfe, and Weaver). 3. Public Comment – Concerning any issue within the jurisdiction of the Council and not noted on the agenda: No one available from the public 4. Report of the Chair: Daniel Murphy (MTA CAC Chair) · William Lieberman expressed interest in working with the CAC on issues such as, Route planning within the City, 39 Coit issues, Balboa Park and Glenn Park area studies, and bus-stop spacing. · The Executive Director search was still on track. · There would be a 30-Stockton line pilot project on back door boarding to study the scope of fare evasion. · Per Stuart Sunshine, the permanent meeting facility at the new location 1 South Van Ness has been cleared for all future CAC meetings starting November 2005. Brown Act requirements would be resolved with CAC members using badge IDs for access while visitors would be issued numbered passes. 5. Staff Report: Debra W. Denison CAC members were provided with copies of the staff report. Emily Drennen expressed concerns, regarding the Staff Report - fare increase, that there were 100 DPT high-level staff used to distribute MUNI literature. Using light-duty staff would have been more cost effective for brochure distribution while allowing DPT staff to continue important DPT programmatic work. Answer: MUNI’s Service Quality teams are usually made up of management, which usually are responsible for responding with new changes or addressing problems. Staff-Initiated Items6. SPUR: (Discussion/Action) Sarah Karlinski, and Jay Primus from SPUR Mr. Primus opened by explaining his view of San Francisco’s projected trip growth over the next 10 years, also his view of MUNI’s fiscal situation referring to MUNI’s structural deficit as the gap grows between costs and revenues. He commended MUNI as a wonderful transit system with room for improvement. SPUR ideas for improvements focused on the goal of faster service by 25% resulting in improved productivity and financial stability. As representative of SPUR, Ms. Karlinski presented a letter she had drafted for MTA CAC signatures to be forwarded to Ed Harrington (Controllers’ Office) and Stuart Sunshine (Acting MTA Executive Director). She stressed that in considering MUNI as a whole, keep in mind MUNI’s problems, loss of revenue, and diminishing resources to grapple with issues such as bus accessibility and efficient routes. The CAC discussed the SPUR draft and made 3 changes to redrafted for CAC letterhead. If there were no objections, Daniel Murphy, CAC Chair, would have the letter changed and would sign on behalf of the full CAC. Motion to make 3 changes to the SPUR drafted for CAC signature. CAC passed unanimously (Ayes - Murphy (Chair), Ferrario (Vice Chair), Cauthen, Cimento, Downey, Drennen, Humphrey, Oka, Perez, Rolfe, Vincent, and Weaver). Questions and Comments from the MTA CAC Sue Cauthen supported the Transit Impact fee, enforcing Transit Only lanes, and seeking ways to include input from Labor. Griffith Humphrey expressed concerns citing that it takes more time to dealing with wheelchair, elderly and mobility impaired passengers, also spelled out in ADA laws. In the call for faster service he felt that the SPUR report did not consider accommodations for the disabled? Answer: MUNI already had policies in place to accommodate mobility-impaired passengers. Looking at inner Geary project, solutions could include different types of services, such as Geary’s local stop services combined with perhaps other truly rapid solutions. Art Ciminto: In understanding customer behavior, Mr. Ciminto pointed out that while the City population remained stable over the past 20 years, ridership had decreased pointing to a change in preferences. It had been reported that a third of residents never use MUNI. Why would that be? What customer proof/research had been available that would indicate that by speeding up MUNI that ridership would actually improve? Answer: People are rational and we all value our time. If transit were more efficient than personal automobiles, especially during peak commute hours, MUNI could become the transportation of choice. Many reports were available on elasticity, costs, frequency and speed, which supported the 25% faster concept. The SPUR report seemed to have overlooked the cost structure of MUNI, such as the cost per service hour, what was structurally built into MUNI from a variety of sources, driving the structural deficit. Merely speeding up transit and increasing ridership, in itself would not be the solution to keep up with built in cost structures and those sources driving the deficit. Also, a large portion of the City, including members of SPUR would not support subsidizing the cost structure. Answer: While the SPUR report did not address the structural cost, there still were a lot of side benefits, potential to reduce cost, and service would get better. Norman Rolfe: One-way street patterns, implemented during the 1950s and 1960s to speed automobile traffic, could be restored to two-way street patterns to simplify transit services for riders navigating through transit routes and transfer points. Fare box recovery was not a good measure of the system’s efficiency. The Agency may have other sources of revenue to make up the difference, such as transit impact fees based on square footage on certain commercial properties. Light-traveled service lines must be maintained, as they are essential to feeding ridership to major line trunks. Joan Downey: Ms. Downey supported enforcing Transit Only lanes, which was not included in the SPUR report. She also supported enforcing double-parking laws and other behaviors that would slow down transit. Ms. Downey asked to consider ideas to address bunching of busses; reducing the time it takes MUNI to respond to such changes. Dan Weaver: Mr. Weaver referring to the productivity chart felt that the downfall of the .COM era had significantly affected productivity. In view of the economy Mr. Weaver asked for ideas to address recovery. Answer: Mr. Primus felt that the gradual erosion of service quality was a real issue. He cited ridership decrease resulting from the sluggish economy, should have sped up transit, however the opposite had been the outcome, perhaps due to traffic congestion. His vision to increase productivity would include aggressive direct intervention. Daniel Murphy: Mr. Murphy asked had there been any data that commiserated traffic density with the economy, since ridership seemed to have decrease with the economy? Answer: Mr. Primus felt that William Lieberman (MTA – Deputy Director - Planning), and Peter Straus (MUNI Manager of Service Planning) would be a better source for traffic patterns. Griffith Humphrey expressed concerns citing that it takes more time to deal with wheelchair, elderly and mobility impaired passengers, also spelled out in ADA laws. In the call for faster service he felt that the SPUR report did not consider accommodations for the disabled? Answer: MUNI already had policies in place to accommodate mobility-impaired passengers. Looking at inner Geary project, solutions could include different types of services, such as Geary’s local stop services combined with perhaps other truly rapid solutions. Caesar Perez: The Half-Cent Sales tax renewed for the next 30 years could be a potential source of revenue. Answer: The Half-Cent Sales tax was dedicated for Capitol improvements but not available for the Operating funds needed as a source to address the fiscal shortfall. Response to the SPUR Report from MTA Staff: William Lieberman (MTA – Deputy Director - Planning), and Peter Straus (MTA Manager of Service Planning) Mr. Lieberman welcomed the SPUR report. The Controller had begun a 2-year audit of MUNI operations. MUNI’s 30-year-old structure was due for a change. Up-coming changes include bus stop spacing to be applied uniformly as a solution for faster service. Mr. Lieberman expressed interest in small market segmentation studies how to attract ridership from groups that avoid riding MUNI, such as travel patterns, shopping opportunities, coach features/design, etc. Requisitions for Consultants were expected to be filled by January 2, 2006. Better service and increase ridership could be realized with the compliment of the SPUR report along with the Controllers’ Office taking the lead. Public Comment: Francisco DeCosta, Director of Environment Justice Advocacy expressed that the CAC should demand a Transportation document from Planning Department. The Transportation document from Planning would be in sync with the housing element, cars and other issues not addressed by SPUR. He suggested improving safety by studies of Police incidents, and outreach by query of City residents for opinions and suggestions. He felt that Operators were stressed by the plethora of route schedules that bound them to slow headways, with new upcoming changes to go faster. 7. STRP (Short Range Transit Plan): (Discussion/Action) Duncan Watry (MUNI Mgr, Capital Planning, Capital Planning & External Affairs, Marguerite Fuller Mr. Duncan distributed and reviewed the matrix “Public Comments to Draft FY2006 SRTP and Staff Responses” based on July 2005’s CAC discussion, public comments, and correspondence. The final draft of the STRP will go before the Commission for adoption November 1, 2005. Questions and Comments from the CAC Emily Drennen: What benefits would be gained by the Central Subway project? Answer: Service north of 4th and King streets could realize a significant 14-minute timesavings. The Central Subway was originally to be the core for both the 3rd Street and the Geary Boulevard Light Rail line. Was the Public involved in wanting the Central Subway? Answer: Peter Straus reported that hundreds of people from Bayview and Visitation Valley attended several of the meetings. Dorris Vincent: The Bayview/Hunters Point community wanted the 3rd Street light rail to be designated as the “T” line when traveling in the area. Answer: The solution was that the sign would change from “K” to “T” at the West portal. Council-Initiated Items8. Committee Reports Sue Cauthen on 39 Coit Ms. Cauthen, working with the Telegraph Hill Dwellers (THD), reported that the goal was to limit parking to neighbors during peak periods. After 5 years of working on the project MUNI/DPT withdrew their support of the preferential parking plan. Ms. Cauthen filed a Sunshine request for an informal legal opinion from 2 years ago, however the request was refused on the bases of Attorney/Client privilege. Ms. Cauthen’s next recourse would be a Sunshine complaint on behalf of THD. Ms. Cauthen asked for the MTA CAC’s endorsement for the complaint. Daniel Murphy responded that according to John Kennedy (City Attorney - MTA) there was no formal opinion, but rather a discussion between the agency and the City Attorney’s office. Michael Burns was not actually sure there was an opinion and the City Attorney’s office had asserted that this legal opinion did not exist. Ms. Cauthen believed that a document existed, therefore in view of the law since she was requesting CAC action, Steve Ferrario suggested to agendize the 39 Coit item for discussion and action at the next full CAC meeting. Joan Downey: Ms. Downey had a number of parking suggestions from residents. Mr. Murphy suggested forwarding those suggestions to the Planning and Marketing Committee (PMC), chaired by Bruce Oka, for review. Emily Drennen also suggested sending a formal letter to Department of Parking and Traffic for a quick response to also be discussed at the PMC meeting. 9. Recommendation from the CAC Committee (Discussion/Action) Motion: The MTA CAC recommends that the MTA expand the Embarcadero station’s LRV Alcatel monitors to all subway stations. CAC passed unanimously (Ayes - Murphy (Chair), Ferrario (Vice Chair), Cauthen, Cimento, Downey, Drennen, Oka, Perez, Rolfe, Vincent, and Weaver). 10. Recommendation from the CAC Committee (Discussion/Action) Motion: The MTA CAC recommends that as technology permits, wait times at the Citations Division (1380 Howard Street) be measured by the average of the maximum daily wait in addition to the average wait time. CAC passed unanimously (Ayes - Murphy (Chair), Ferrario (Vice Chair), Cauthen, Cimento, Downey, Drennen, Oka, Perez, Rolfe, Vincent, and Weaver). 11. Recommendation from the CAC Committee (Discussion/Action) Motion: WHEREAS San Francisco is one of the most expensive cities to live in; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the MTA CAC urges the MTA to investigate reducing the cost of the Lifeline Pass including an estimate of the revenue impact of such a change to the same level as Senior, Disabled, and Youth fast passes. CAC passed unanimously (Ayes - Murphy (Chair), Ferrario (Vice Chair), Cauthen, Cimento, Downey, Drennen, Oka, Perez, Rolfe, Vincent, and Weaver). 12. Council Members’ Questions and Comments: · Emily Drennen wanted a report on how service changes have impacted transit service. · Bruce Oka asked about new IDs for CAC members. · Joan Downey reported that merchants in the Cole Valley area sold out of fast passes by the 3rd of 4th of the month. Since the fare had increased, had MUNI considered increasing the supply of passes for distribution? Answer: Ms. Denison would forward the concern to Revenue. · Bruce Oka reported that Para transit qualified members requested to sell passes and stickers at the Para transit office. Senior and disability members had found it difficult to walk from the Para transit to get their passes. Also Para transit would benefit from the extra revenue. 13. Agenda Planning for November 3, 2005 Meeting: · 39 Coit · Dan Weaver wanted an update on alternative pay implements for parking meters other than pocket change. 14. Adjournment: 8:05 p.m. Attachments: Agenda Item 2 – Minutes from the September 1, 2005 MTA CAC meeting Agenda Item 6– Letter drafted by SPUR addressed to Stuart Sunshine (MTA Acting Executive Director) and Edward Harrington (Controller’s Office) to be signed by the MTA CAC Agenda Item 7 – Excel Spreadsheet: “Public Comments to Draft FY2006 SRTP and Staff Responses” Explore: |
|
|
The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) manages transportation in San Francisco, California. Copyright © 2000-2010 SFMTA. All rights reserved. Updated June 3, 2010
|
|
