|
City and County of San Francisco
Municipal Transportation Agency
Citizens’ Advisory Council (MTA CAC)
Planning, Marketing Committee (PMC)
FINAL MINUTES
of
Regular Meeting
Monday, March 21, 2005 at 5:30 p.m.
401 Van Ness Avenue, Room 334 (Conference Room 335)
San Francisco, California
1. Call to Order / Roll Call (Agenda Item 1). The regular meeting of the Planning and Marketing Committee (PMC) was called to order at 5:32 p.m., Monday, March 21, 2005. Bruce Oka (Chair) presided. A quorum was present including the following:
PMC Members Present at Roll Call: Bruce Oka (Chair), Emily Drennen, and Norman Rolfe.
PMC Members Present, but absent at Roll Call: Dorris Vincent.
PMC Absent: Dorris Vincent.
MTA CAC Members, not on this committee, but also present: Daniel Murphy (mta cac chair), and Steve Ferrario.
MTA Staff (San Francisco Municipal Railway [Muni] and Department of Parking and Traffic [DPT]) Present: Debra Reed (MTA CAC Secretary), Peter Straus (MUNI Manager of Service Planning), and Suany Chough (MUNI Transit Planner).
Community Representatives Present: None
2. Adopt Minutes of November 15 2004:
Motion to adopt the February minutes by Norman Rolfe, with spelling corrections.
2nd by Emily Drennen
CAC passed unanimously
3. Public Comment – Concerning any issue within the jurisdiction of the Council and not noted on the agenda: None
4. Report of the Chair: Bruce Oka (PMC Chair)
MUNI’s policy on boarding through the front door to pay fare versus the popular practice by operators to allow boarding through the rear due to crowding, assuming that those patrons already have their proof of payment, has also given rise to fare dodgers using rear door boarding opportunities for fare evasion purposes. Enforcing front door boarding will be difficult. Daniel Murphy responded that the basic concern from last week’s Finance meeting was on the size of this problem, i.e. a 3% problem versus a 20% problem. In cases of MUNI employees (working in pairs) on limited duty given the assignment to redirect boarders coming through the rear door to board from the front, there has been noted an increase in revenue from those lines.
In view of MUNI’s current budget situation this issue needs to be looked into. MUNI has been considering whether to use MUNI’s fare checkers or use SFPD for enforcement purposes as fare checkers. Funding is a concern as SFPD are on a different pay scale than MUNI’s fare checkers. Fare evasion will be further discussed in April’s MTA CAC meeting.
5. “Yield to Bus” Law – What would it take to enact law in SF: (Discussion/Action)
Peter Straus (Manager of Service Planning)
State legislation passed the “Yield to Bus” Law in California for various counties. While there is legislation formally before the Legislature which allows any county to add themselves for this law, current information from our Legislative Liaison, was that with politics as such, there would be “0” chance for San Francisco.
Emily Drennen commented that Santa Cruz posted “Yield to Bus” signage on the back of their buses. Mr. Straus responded that illuminated signs on the back of the buses would be a requirement for “Yield to Bus”. He further pointed out funding, as there also is an associated cost for installing illuminated signs.
Ms. Drennen saw “Yield to Bus” as a significant time saver on some routes. Mr. Straus and Suany Chough recalled that there was a small study on the Van Ness lines that may give some insight as to average merge time for buses reentering into traffic from bus stops. He will forward the data by April 2, 2005, to Ms. Drennen for her meeting with Mark Lenno. Mr. Murphy suggested that with the use of educational materials about the theory of “Yield to Bus” possibly available on the WWW network that was applied by various states and counties, added with the limited data available in the Van Ness report from Mr. Straus as to how much time is being burned waiting for clearance to get back into a lane, also combined with how much time savings we get out of BRT, and what we gain from “Yield to Bus”, all may help sell the idea of substantial running time gains.
6. Pedestrian Countdown Signals on Van Ness Avenue: (Discussion/Action)
No one was available for this topic.
7. Service Planning: (Discussion/Action) Peter Straus (Manager Service Planning)
Mr. Oka wanted to consider the Budget, Service Adjustments and the results.
Mr. Straus gave a status of Service Planning since the action of the MTA Board, in discernment of where things are going:
Discussion with transport workers has not resolved itself yet. The major issue is what MUNI can do in terms of the labor side.
Relatively modest headway adjustments approved in 2004 for implementation in 2004 of $2 ½ million a year versus the budget’s call for $13 million, fall far short. It is essentially too late to do anything for FY05.
MUNI services as currently provided are actually in excess of the formal Service Standards. Reduction in these excess services would not propose overcrowding. Many of these services are currently on the table for consideration.
Daniel Murphy explained that while the budget calls for service cuts that the BOS is asking for even additional cuts to MUNI services while on the other hand asking the MTA to ease up on proposed parking changes. The CAC would like to have a good deal of involvement and input in MUNI’s budget adjustment process. If the proposed parking changes of $20 million revenue were to be voted down by the BOS, how would MUNI compensate in view of Proposition E? The scope of the cuts will be presented before the BOS in May 2005.
Bruce Oka expressed concerns about Para transit in view of increasing wait time and its impact on seniors and disabled.
Mr. Straus was expecting to present the Board something in 60 days from the time the Budget was approved February 27, 2005.
Daniel Murphy suggested that the PMC reconvene in April ‘05 to discuss service cuts issues. Bruce Oka and Mr. Straus should stay in constant dialog as to what is going on in the process, including proposed service cuts.
Emily Drennen suggested inviting Labor Representation to express their view of the Service Plan and the General Signup.
Mr. Straus would be available to give status on the proposal or options for the MTA CAC meeting on April 7, 2005.
8. BRT Geary Corridor & Van Ness Avenue: (Discussion/Action) Suany Chough (Transit Planner)
Ms. Chough began by distributing and reviewing the “Update on Bus Rapid Transit: Geary and Van Ness” and the “Van Ness BRT Study” handouts. (See handouts)
Questions and Comments from PMC
a) From Emily Drennen:
How was Potrero identified to be a BRT corridor over the highly utilized Mission Street corridor? Answer: Potrero is a much wider street to accommodate BRT. Potrero was also part of the original corridor vision plan of Proposition K as a north south corridor between 3rd Street and Mission Street. Also the 9 San Bruno line itself carries a high ridership.
An example of MUNI and DPT not working together was in terms of alternative transportation such as bike lane versus transit right-of-way situations, and MUNI’s fears that bike lanes would take away from MUNI. Answer: Mr. Straus responded that there was never a bike lane problem recalling that there was one alternative that they abandoned which was bikes verses MUNI, but the alternative that he felt was worth pursuing was not the bike lanes versus MUNI, but rather left turn pockets versus MUNI.
Any plans for a bike lane on Van Ness? Answer: Ms. Chough responded that while the current conceptual design does not include a bike lane due to the Polk Street bike lane serving the network area, however the plan does include bike racks and other bike amenities. With the 2 bus lanes, room for platforms, 2 travel lanes in both directions, and maintain parking; there is really no more space.
b) Daniel Murphy asked that in view of upcoming Potrero Street reorganization projects, such as bike lanes, repaving, increasing pedestrian safety, as discussed at the MTA Board was that the BRT project was projected in the far future, perhaps 20 years from now? Answer: Mr. Straus responded that the repaving project had been projected into the next 5 years with the idea that the repaving would be well along the way toward full BRT. Proposition K would not be able to cover everything, as additional funding from the MTA would need to be identified towards the BRT project in the next 10 years.
c) Bruce Oka asked about status on Geary Street bus stops being removed and moved. Answer: Ms Chough responded that when presented at the TA meeting for capital funding request, the Board recommended a different set of stops removed other than the original proposed stop configuration, which intermittently deleted 5 stops between Powell and Van Ness Streets. The new stop reconfiguration was presented before the MTA Board and approved in February 2005. Implementation is expected to be in place in April 2005.
A good deal of positive support for the Van Ness project was received from a public workshop that had been advertised on buses and at bus shelters which was well attended by a variety of representation across our diversified city. The Geary Street project has scheduled a one-day public workshop to be held at 3 different locations for April 13, 14, and 16, 2005.
9. Committee Members’ Questions / Information Requests: (Discussion/Action)
None.
10. Schedule Upcoming Meetings and Agenda Items: (Discussion/Action)
Next regular meeting tentatively scheduled for April 18, 2005, located at 401 Van Ness, Room 334 (Conference Room 335), at 5:30 p.m.
a) Service Plan, what cuts are being proposed.
b) Van Ness BRT.
c) Yield to the Bus, the outcome of the meeting between Emily Drennen and Mark Lenno.
d) Pedestrian Countdown Signals, proposed to be renamed Pedestrian Count Down Signals at Dangerous Intersections.
11. Adjournment: 7:23 p.m.
Explore:
|
