|
City and County of San Francisco
Municipal Transportation Agency
Citizens’ Advisory Council
Operations & Customer Service Committee (OCSC)
FINAL MINUTES
of
Regular Meeting
Monday, March 21, 2005 at 3:00 p.m.
401 Van Ness Avenue, Room 308 (Main Conference Room 312)
San Francisco, California
1. Call to Order / Roll Call (Agenda Item 1). The regular meeting of the Operations & Customer Service Committee (OCSC) was called to order at 3:07 p.m., Monday, March 21, 2005. Joan Downey (Chair) presided. A quorum was present including the following:
OCSC Members Present at Roll Call: Joan Downey (Chair), Mary Burns, Sue Cauthen, and Norman Rolfe.
OCSC Members Present, but absent at Roll Call: Daniel Murphy.
OCSC Members absent: None.
MTA CAC Members, not on this committee, but also present: None.
MTA Staff
MUNI Present (San Francisco Municipal Railway): Debra Reed (MTA CAC Secretary), Jim Kelly (Senior Operations Manager), Susan Chelone (Scheduling), and Deborah W. Denison (MUNI IT Project Director).
DPT Present (Department of Parking and Traffic): None.
Community Representatives Present: Rosie West.
2. Public Comment – Concerning any issue within the jurisdiction of the Committee and not noted on the agenda:
Rosie West reported concerns about the missed schedules on various days during March 2005 with the M Ocean View lines. Jim Kelly offered to send the headway report for the days in question with the record of delay reasons. (Jim Kelly’s Excel report, received 3-23-05 attached)
3. MUNI and DPT Service Standards: (Discussion / Action) Jim Kelly (MUNI Senior Operations Manager), Susan Chelone (MUNI Scheduling), and Deborah W. Denison (MUNI IT Project Director).
Ms. Denison distributed and reviewed copies of the “Actual Proposed to the FY06 Service Standards,” the “Auditor’s Recommendations” with MUNI’s Response/Action taken, and the Nelson Nygaard Report at website http://www.sfmuni.com/cms/rptpub/tqrrindx.htm
Questions and Comments from the OCSC committee:
a) Norman Rolfe:
Operators are still being written up for “early arrival time.” Mr. Kelly responded that the waiting of 5 minutes or more for time at one stop is an indication that the operator was aware that he or she was accumulating time all along from previous stops. Operators should be mindful of time at ALL the time points. They are responsible for the accumulation of that much time.
If a run is missing, can an inspector split the headway without falling short of Service Standards? Ms. Chelone responded that the goal is 85% for occasional problems, but there is not a way for adjustments due to missed schedules.
b) Mary Burns:
Are reports available on specific transit lines, such as the headway of the 23 Monterey line? Ms. Chelone responded that at the beginning of the fiscal year, there are reports showing which lines were checked during which months.
When and how are the annual passenger survey’s conducted? Ms. Denison responded that she knew of phone-called surveys made in the past, but that she would make some inquiries to better answer the question.
c) Rosie West: (Observation comment/complaint, unrelated to the reports for discussion)
There are no inspectors from West Portal to Balboa Park. The streetcars are, not only late, but they then arrive in groups of 3s. Also the Marques at the stations have been showing incorrect expected-arrival times, resulting in people just waiting around without any reliable information.
d) Sue Cauthen:
On page 17 of the “Proposed Changes to the FY06 Service Standards” what is meant by the “Brown Eyes, Blue Eyes Linking Perception & Performance?” Ms. Denison responded that is a training class put out by EEO focusing on perception diversity.
e) Joan Downey:
Questions and comments based on the Auditor’s Recommendations with MUNI’s Response/Action taken, and the Nelson Nygaard Report:
Looking at page 2, 1a, what recommendation is meant by “Coordinate 1a goal with other goals and objectives, particularly those for 2a, 6a and 6d?” Ms. Denison, uncertain, responded that she would have to research the exact language from the actual audit report.
Page 3, 4a, on passenger pass-ups, what is meant by “Coordinate with 5a so that all lines identified as exceeding 85% capacity during peak periods are monitored as part of 4a?” Ms. Chelone responded that at commute peak periods on average, any bus identified as 85% of capacity, that the following bus would give passage.
On 6a, can “Headway and Time-Points Service Standards” be split out into less than 10 min or greater than 10 min? Ms. Denison responded that MUNI would have to confer with the City Attorney since any changes to the mandated goals and Service Standards would require a charter amendment.
On 7a, there is a complex formula from the Nelson Nygaard Report pages 30 and 31, to calculate reliability, which seems to yield more useful information. Mr. Murphy responded that it might give more meaningful information. Subject may be further considered at the April 7, 2005, MTA CAC meeting. Ms. Downey suggested using the complex formula for headways that are less than 6 minutes. However, Ms. Chelone suggested researching the feasibility of the formula for such a study before the OCSC committee moves to make any recommendations on the formula’s use.
Page 8, under 2c, “If possible, use available information to report on reasons for voluntary separations,” MUNI rejected this recommendation of an Exit Interview process. Ms. Downey expressed that it seemed that with so few leaving after serving a year of employment, that MUNI should have an Exit process as it appears be a small yet significant task.
Page 10, under 6d, “Efforts to improve driver training, technical as well as accident follow-up,” why did MUNI reject the recommendation to report types of accidents by revenue vs. non-revenue hours and preventable vs. non-preventable? Ms. Denison responded that preventable verses non-preventable has been already factored, however Transit Safe, a system developed specifically for MUNI, can be used for that information which at this time is not currently tracked.
Ms. Downey suggested recording grievances by type. Mr. Murphy’s concern was that grievances possibly are not categorized like PSRs.
Ms. Downey observed that there was no NextBus used data and asked would it eventually be made available? Ms. Chelone responded that once NextBus data is fully rolled out for all the various transit services, MUNI is expecting to have NextBus data available for the next fiscal year, FY06, so that all the data for the year is through the same process.
Ms. Downey and Mr. Murphy initiated the following recommendation:
Recommendation from the MTA CAC, that statistics for headway compliance for headways 10 minutes or less, be broken out separately from statistics for headway compliance for headways equal to or greater than 10 minutes. On-Time Performance to be measured for lines with greater than a 10 minute headway. These measures will be in addition to the measurements currently taken in Service Standards 1a and 6a.
Motion: Sue Cauthen moved that the MTA CAC make the following 5 changes:
2nd by Norman Rolfe
OCSC passed unanimously
(1) NextBus data should be included in reports wherever possible.
(2) Add additional measurements to separate out Headway and On-Time Performance. Measure OTP for lines with greater than a 10-minute headway and measure headway for lines with a 10 minute or less headway.
(3) Using the standard deviation, adding a column for the coefficient of variation of headways that are 10 minutes or less. (Ms. Chelone and Ms. Denison will make a report to the MTA CAC regarding the feasibility of the formula.)
(4) Categorize and record employee grievances by type.
(5) MUNI should conduct Exit Interviews for employees who leave within a year of being hired, specifying their reasons for dissatisfaction.
4. Adopt Minutes of February 14, 2005: (Discussion/Action)
Motion to adopt the February minutes by Daniel Murphy, with word change from Sue Cauthen on Item 7.
2nd by Mary Burns
OCSC passed unanimously
5. Report of the Chair: Joan Downey (OCSC Chair)
a) Ms. Downey received an E-mail from Steve Patrinick (MUNI) outlining suggestions and changes to the Rescue Muni Matrix (attached).
b) The DPW trashcan relocation issue between Willard Street and Carl Street bus stops was finally resolved with a call placed to Daniel Homsey with the Mayor’s Office of Neighborhood Services.
6. Sidewalk Parking Policy: [Attachment of the Sidewalk Violations 01-05 Training Bulletin] (Discussion/Action) Joan Downey
Ms. Downey also distributed her own draft of an enforcement priorities list that addressed sidewalk parking violations coverage during PCO “waiting time” during enforcement assignments (see handout entitled “DRAFT” Instructions to Parking Control Officers in setting priorities). The following recommendation was drafted.
Motion: Daniel Murphy moved that whereas Sidewalk parking represents a major mobility obstacle and safety hazard for pedestrians:
(1) The MTA CAC recommends that PCOs deployed for RPP enforcement be instructed to ticket Sidewalk parking violation without telephone complaint to the understood detriment of RPP enforcement.
(2) The MTA CAC recommends that PCOs deployed for Street Cleaning be instructed to ticket sidewalk parking violations without telephone complaint if time remains at the end of their Street Sweeper assignment.
(3) The MTA CAC recommends that PCOs deployed for Tow Away Beats, while waiting for a tow truck to arrive, that those PCOs ticket Sidewalk parking without telephone complaint among other violations on the same block.
2nd by Sue Cauthen
OCSC passed unanimously
This Motion passed the OCSC and will be presented before the MTA CAC on April 7, 2005.
7. 39 Coit Update: (Discussion/Action) Sue Cauthen
Update on the elimination of parking at Coit Tower during peak hours, except for handicapped and residential parking (regular RPP type A sticker). The problem has been that the 39 Coit line had been reduced to a non-performing asset because of being stuck in long lines of congested traffic waiting for parking spots at Coit Tower. Elimination parking would thus eliminate the long line of cars waiting for parking, allowing the 39 Coit to maintain headway.
Efforts to establish RPP for the Coit Tower area supported by Bond Yee and Jack Fleck has gained new support from Supervisor Aaron Peskin (District 3) who will also be introducing a resolution on the Consent Calendar. Supervisor Peskin suggested to get approvals from groups such as, Tom Radulovich’s Transportation for a Livable City, Rescue MUNI, San Francisco Tomorrow, and Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods. Daniel Murphy will be meeting with Michael T. Burns about getting copies of the City Attorney’s statement regarding this effort.
8. Committee Members’ Questions/Information Requests: (Discussion/Action)
a) Norman Rolfe sent a letter dated March 14, 2005, regarding the Cable Car issue to the MTA Board, which had been edited for publishing for at least 2 local newspapers. Mr. Rolfe distributed a copy of his original text since the newspapers carried the edited version of his letter. His will letter will be further considered during April 2005’s MTA CAC Council and Committee meetings.
b) Mr. Rolfe still doubts that cable cars run 60% to 70% of the scheduled headways. Ms. Denison responded that Susan Chelone (Scheduling) has the raw data available for further examination.
9. Schedule Upcoming Meetings and Agenda Items: (Discussion/Action) Next regular meeting: April 15, 2005, at 401 Van Ness Avenue, Room 308 (Conference Room 312), at 3:00 p.m.
a) Cable Car Update – Suggested speaker would be Brendon Scanlan
b) Cable Car – Suggested speaker from the Cable Car Union
c) Communication Matrix Update – Suggested speaker would be Mark Kapasino
d) Norman Rolfe’s March 14, 2005, letter regarding the Cable Car issue to the MTA Board
10. Adjournment: 4:56 p.m.
|
