Skip to content.

City and County of San Francisco
Municipal Transportation Agency
Citizens’ Advisory Council (MTA CAC)

Planning and Marketing Committee (PMC)

Regular Meeting Minutes

Thursday, October 25, 2007 at 4:00 p.m.
1 South Van Ness Avenue, Conference Room 3075
San Francisco, California

1. Call to Order / Roll Call
Chairman Jamison Wieser called the meeting to order at 4:02 pm

PMC Members present at Roll Call: Jamison Wieser (Chair), Emily Drennen and Norman Rolfe.

PMC Members present, but absent at Roll Call: Bruce Oka (arrived at 4:06 pm)

MTA staff and other city departments present: Frank Markowitz (MTA – Sr. Transportation Planner), Darton Ito (MTA- Manager, Capital Systems Planning) and Debra Reed (MTA CAC Secretary).

2. Public Comment concerning any issue within the jurisdiction of the Council and not noted on the agenda: None

3. Report of the Chairman: Jamison Wieser

No Report.

4. Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP): (Discussion/Action) Frank Markowitz and Darton Ito

Mr. Markowitz reviewed the SRTP.

Questions and Comments

Emily Drennen asked what was new about the SRTP. Mr. Markowitz stated that the key portions were the 20-year operating and capital financial plans.

Page 1 - 4 Ms. Drennen and Bruce Oka said that they could not recall a formal introduction of the Strategic Plan goals and objectives to the CAC for input. Mr. Ito noted that they had been adopted by the MTA Board of Directors in June 2007.

Page 3 The consensus of the PMC was to review the Central Subway Environmental Impact Report at the next meeting. Ms. Drennen wanted to see additional information on the challenges and not just the benefits of the project.

Jamison Wieser commented that he did not see anything in the SRTP about on-going work or projects such as the Central Subway Project that would address problems at the Fourth and King Streets intersection.

Ms. Drennen asked about Central Subway funding sources including committed funding. Mr. Markowitz stated that funding information was included in the long CIP (Capital Investment Program) tables on page 11-7-87.

Page 3-12 Jamison Wieser stated that the T-Third line would discontinue service to the financial district once the Central Subway re-directs the T-Third line along Fourth and Stockton Streets to Chinatown.

Page 4 Norman Rolfe asked if the ridership dropped during the years 2000 to 2003 because of the bust. He also wanted to know if other transit systems experienced a similar drop in ridership. Chairman Wieser commented that Caltrain experienced a dramatic drop. Mr. Markowitz indicated that during those years other regional transit systems lost ridership. Mr. Rolfe asked why no data was available for the years 1978 through 1983, which might indicate the effect of the economy. Mr. Ito stated that there was a change in methodology during that time period. Chairman Wieser asked for more discussion about bikes on Muni vehicles.

Page 4-31 Chairman Wieser asked about the T-Third being referred to as the SFMTA service and not as Muni service. Mr. Markowitz stated that there is an agency effort to emphasize the SFMTA identity.

Page 4-14 Ms. Drennen stated that the comparison of estimated travel time figures being similar to those of other transit agencies was misleading because Muni trips are shorter than trips of peer transit agencies and Muni speeds are slower (which is itself a major issue). Mr. Ito stated that the information was based on reporting survey data.

Page 5-28 Mr. Rolfe asked about timetables regarding route changes and service additions at Mission Bay. He requested a more explicit discussion in the SRTP. Mr. Markowitz directed the PMC to pages 5-28 in year 2010, when the SFMTA would begin work on trolley extensions and pages 6-32 for FY2012 as the trolley extension in service.

Page 4-23 Ms. Drennen asked for a more balanced presentation of survey results that would also include negative findings.

Page 4-25 Ms. Drennen pointed out that security for the SFMTA was among the lowest Police/Rider ratios when compared to other transit agencies.

Page 5 Ms. Drennen felt that the SRTP should include historical points that would clarify why the SFMTA chose bus rapid transit over light rail. Mr. Markowitz pointed out that the CIP included both bus rapid transit and light rail projects for Van Ness and Geary corridors, and that there has been no decision made to drop LRT from consideration.

Page 5-12 Ms. Drennen asked for an update on BART’s consideration of a Geary extension.

Page 5-16 Ms. Drennen asked for a history of abolished Muni rail lines that serviced San Francisco until the 1940s and 1950s.

Page 5-17 Ms. Drennen asked when the decision was made that there would be no current activity to look at a rail extension for Van Ness Avenue. Mr. Ito stated that the Transit Effectiveness Project was reviewing such issues including revisiting the consistency of corridor upgrades with the vision for rapid transit.

Page 5-23 Ms. Drennen commented regarding the Market Street study, that the SRTP should report on the status of recommendations especially short-term improvements.

Page 5-30 Ms. Drennen asked about re-defining the definition for on-time performance. Mr. Ito said that the current standard for on-time performance was spelled out in Proposition E.

Page 6-5 #3 Mr. Rolfe stated that congestion pricing revenue should be applied to transit in order to help Muni.

Chairman Wieser asked for information regarding what would be done for the Market Street Subway to increase throughput given that the Embarcadero’s train turn-around failed during the T-Third start-up.,

Page 6-10 Ms. Drennen asked about the State and regional revenue share. Since the SRTP reported that 51% of regional transit rides were provided by Muni, what would be Muni’s share of the State and regional transit assistance?

Page 6-21 Ms. Drennen suggested that the projected ridership chart should include recent ridership. The text should explain why ridership was forecasted to increase when ridership had dropped in recent years. Also, it should list the source of ridership forecasts. Mr. Ito stated that the increase in ridership forecasted over the next several years was mainly related to new service but after the opening of the Central Subway ridership growth would level off.

Page 6-22 Ms. Drennen suggested that previous years should be reflected on the projected fare revenue chart.

Page 6-34. Chairman Wieser stated that peak vehicle assumptions did not take into account the growth of the fleet as discussed in Ch. 7 Fleet Program. Mr. Ito stated that the Fleet Plan identified potential future growth needs, but these were not definite enough to be reflected in the detailed operating and capital plans.

Chairman Wieser said that the 20 year revenue forecasts were speculative and should thus be clearly stated.

Chairman Wieser said that the SRTP would be presented to the SFMTA CAC.

5. Committee Members’ Questions/Information Requests: (Discussion)

No questions.

6. Agenda Planning for the Next Regular Meeting Tentatively Scheduled:

Next regular meeting: November 15, 2007, at 1 South Van Ness Avenue, Conference Room 3075, at 3:30 p.m.

¨ Central Subway – Environmental Impact Report

7. Adjournment: 5:27 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by:
Debra J. Reed
MTA CAC - Secretary

Accessible meeting policy – One South Van Ness Avenue

telephone311 Free language assistance / 免費語言協助 / Ayuda gratuita con el idioma / Бесплатная помощь переводчиков / Trợ giúp Thông dịch Miễn phí / Assistance linguistique gratuite / 無料の言語支援 / 무료 언어 지원 / Libreng tulong para sa wikang Tagalog / คว“มช่วยเหลือท“งภ“ษ“โดยไม่เส’ยค่าใช้จ่าย


©2000-2013 San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. All rights reserved.