EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SFCTA, #S-1

Agency

S-3

Why does TEP refer to 2004 trip and operating cost data?

The text has been changed to add FY 2006 data  for passengers per vehicle revenue hour, plus operating cost per passenger and farebox recovery ratio.

SFCTA, #S-2

Agency

S-4

Discuss the "higher than average" ratio of labor hours to revenue service hours of Muni

We appreciate the data provided by the SFCTA on operator and mechanic productivity.  Issues of Muni scheduling and labor productivity are being addressed by the TEP, but are beyond the scope of this SRTP. 

SFCTA,  #S-3

Agency

S-5

19th Avenue is not a "prime candidate" for BRT.

Wording changed to indicate that 19th Avenue is a candidate for high levels of transit preferential streets treatment, including elements of BRT.

SFCTA,  #S-4

Agency

S-8

Explain basis for assumption that parking revenues triple under Prop A.

Language was added explaining the addition of funds from incremental parking tax revenue and enhanced parking related revenue.

SFCTA,  #S-5

Agency

S-11

It seems inappropriate to include some unapproved light rail projects (e.g., Van Ness Avenue) in CIP cost estimate.

Language added that  this $9.0 billion deficit includes $7.3 billion for  three light rail projects that have not been through planning and environmental review and are programmed for construction after 2020: Van Ness Avenue, Geary Boulevard, and Chinatown/North Beach.  The Countywide Transportation Plan does not include the Van Ness and Chinatown/North Beach light rail projects, based on funding anticipated when that Plan was prepared. While funding has not been identified for these projects that are included in the Muni Rapid Transit Vision Plan, the SFMTA can explore innovative funding potentials if these projects are eventually supported by the planning and policy making process.  The CIP is undergoing intensive review as part of the Capital Asset Management Program (and with input from the Transit Effectiveness Project) and will be substantially revised in the next 1-2 years.

SFCTA, # S-6

Agency

Unit operating costs for LRT are considerably higher than bus modes.   Has this been reflected in priorities setting?

As indicated in Figure 11-7, the Chinatown/North Beach Extension scored 35 points out of 100.  The other two light rail projects described above scored 18 points.  These are all lower scores and indicate lower priority than the BRT projects proposed in these corridors.  The higher capital costs are a major reason for this ranking.  The somewhat higher light rail operating costs reflect a higher quality of service provided (e.g., stations).  The improved connectivity (i.e., seamless connection of rail lines in a network) is another potential benefit of rail projects.

SFCTA, # S-7

Agency

 Need clearer sense of priorities throughout SRTP.

 Some text has been added in Chapter 11, that gives a greater sense of the prioritization process.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

SFCTA,  #1-1

Agency

1-2, 1-3

Discuss that SRTP feeds into Prop K Strategic Plan Update which is an input into RTP.  Also adjust graphic.

Text and graphic adjusted.

CHAPTER 2 SYSTEM ORGANIZATION

SFCTA,  #2-1

Agency

2-5

Clarify that reauthorization of half-cent sales tax required the adoption of a new 30-year expenditure plan.  Also increase detail about SFCTA's responsibilities for Prop K.

Text adjusted to reflect SFCTA recommendations.

CHAPTER 3 THIRD STREET LIGHT RAIL

Emily Drennen, SFMTA-CAC,  #3-1

Public

The chapter should have more on the challenges the project faces, not just accomplishments and benefits (e.g., the service problems at the start of revenue service)

Text added to address the service problems after 3^rd Street start-up, the responses, and the extent to which problems remain.

Jamison Wieser, SFMTA-CAC,  #3-1

Public

Address the problems at 4^th & King with difficult transfers.  Is the Central Subway project or other initiative going to help with these?

With the start of the Central Subway, the T-line will no longer turn between 4^th and King at this intersection, which should help reduce traffic congestion and confusion.  The SFMTA is studying other potential improvements at this intersection to make passenger transfers between Caltrain and light rail more convenient.   This is being addressed outside the Central Subway project since it deals with an existing issue.

SFCTA,  #3-1

Agency

3-1

Clarify that 3^rd St Light Rail terminus is at Jackson Street with  a station at Washington or Clay

Text adjusted to reflect SFCTA recommendations.

Directors, pre-meeting,  #3-1

Agency

3-3

Provide figure for Central Subway operating cost

The New Starts funding report forecasts a $1.6 million savings annually by 2030 in 2007 dollars.  This is primarily due to the more direct connection between the Caltrain Terminal, 3^rd Street stations, and Chinatown (rather than using the Embarcadero section), plus reduction in trolley coach service on the 30 line.

Emily Drennen, SFMTA-CAC,  #3-2

Public

3-3

The funding plan for Central Subway needs more detail.  For example, it does not indicate what is committed funding and what is not.

More information is provided in the CIP table ( p. 11-7-87), and text has been added to this section.

SFCTA,  #3-2

Agency

3-3

Reword second from last paragraph to read “The Central Subway will reduce…”, and expected operating cost reduction is approximately $1.5 million/yr

Text changed to state that the Central Subway “is forecast to reduce operating costs by $1.5 million/year…”, and a sentence  added to explain that the number is based on projections based on AECOM’s operating cost model.

SFCTA,  #3-3

Agency

3-3

Revise “STIP (State STIP)” in funding source column to “STIP (RIP)”

Table adjusted to reflect SFCTA recommendations.

SFCTA,  #3-4

Agency

3-4

Clarify statements to explain whether Third Street streetscape improvements are ongoing or already concluded.

Paragraph adjusted to reflect that streetscape improvements have been completed on the Phase 1 IOS.

SFCTA,  #3-5

Agency

3-5

Are 170 vehicles really necessary?  Also, clarify that parking lot is for employees and non-revenue vehicles.

The 170 spots are for employees, non-revenue support and shop vehicles, ADA accessible parking, and for visitors, and this has been clarified in the text.  The number was established early during public meetings and conceptual design.  The facility can have a staff of 200 people, including operators arriving around 3 AM, and neighbors don’t want on-street parking taken up by those using the facility.

SFCTA,  #3-6

Agency

3-5

Don’t all hires come from community-based organizations?

The text has been reviewed by project management staff, and is still believed to be accurate.

SFCTA,  #3-7

Agency

3-5

Correct location of terminus and projected daily ridership for Central Subway.

Text adjusted to reflect SFCTA recommendations.

SFCTA,  #3-8a

Agency

3-6

Deleted that MUNI will review vehicle demand, as it has determined that 4 LRVs are needed.  Clarify that supplement to EIS/EIR was issued on 10/17/07.

Text adjusted to reflect SFCTA recommendations.

SFCTA,  #3-8b

Agency

3-6

SFMTA has hosted many more than six community meetings to date on Third Street Project.

The sentence referred to community workshops, not to all meetings in the community.  Text changed to “numerous.”

SFCTA, Comment #3-9

Agency

3-8

Why is MTA installing fare gates and other barriers in the new underground Muni Metro stations?  This seems to be an unneeded expense and at odds with POP policy.

Draft SRTP stated that the reason fare gates were included were due to concerns about safety, security, and platform access.

Norm Rolfe, SFMTA-CAC, #3-1

Public

3-9

The elimination of the 15-Third Street bus line has not been adequately covered by the service changes, such as the 9X and 10-Townsend.  The NE quadrant has lost service coverage.

While the new service does not exactly duplicate the 15-Third Street bus line, overall service coverage and service levels in the Financial District,  North Beach, and Fisherman’s Whaf areas are essentially unchanged, and increased at some locations.  The 9X was extended north on Columbus Avenue to Fisherman’s Wharf and was extended west along Geneva Avenue to City College to replace service on the 15-Third.   (This change also responds to multiple past requests by providing more convenient service from North Beach and Fisherman’s Wharf to Geneva Avenue and City College.)
Peak service on the 10-Townsend was increased and the route was modified in downtown to partially off-set service loss along Sansome and 2^nd Streets.
The 20-Columbus was started in response to loss of direct service between the North Beach area along Columbus and the Financial District and to alleviate overcrowding on the 41-Union during the AM peak.
 

Jamison Wieser, SFMTA-CAC,  #3-2

Public

3-12

It is a stretch to say that the Central Subway will serve the Financial District, as the alignment uses Stockton Street, which does not go through the Financial District.  The Central Subway project will actually reduce direct rail service to Embarcadero and Montgomery stations from Third Street and the Caltrain Terminal.

Stockton Street runs two blocks (about 800 feet) from Kearny Street, the western border of the Financial District, and three blocks (about 1200 feet) from Montomery Street, the Financial District spine.  This is considered reasonable walking distance by national transit planning guidelines and Muni service standards.  However, a sentence will be added to make this clear.

CHAPTER 4.  CURRENT SERVICE AND SERVICE EVALUATION

Jamison Wieser, SFMTA-CAC, #4-1

Public

There should be more discussion of issues regarding bikes on Muni

Text in Chapter 5 on the Bicycle Plan revised to note objectives and planned actions in the Bicycle Plan that relate to this topic.

SFCTA,  # 4-1

Agency

4-6

Change title to "Reliability."  Discuss the many factors that contribute to reliability problems, as well as planned strategies to address these (or provide cross reference)

The text has been changed to list the issues that affect operating speed and reliability.  The TEP will address these in much more detail.

SFCTA,  # 4-2

Agency

4-10

Were Figure 4-6 ridership numbers collected by new Automatic Passenger Counters?  How do the old and new methodologies differ?

The ridership figures were collected before APC data were available.  They are based on manual checks, with detailed counts from previous years factored by recent point load checks.  While the Federal Transit Administration will accept APC data for for use in the National Transit Database, this must be accompanied by manual checks, and FTA must approve the APC sampling plan.  Given that both the manual monitoring method and the APC method involve sampling only a small percentage of all trips, there is bound to be variation between the two approaches.  The differences in results between the two methods has been relatively small.  When the ridership of all motor coach and trolley coach lines was added togethter, the monitoring data and APC data differed by 1.5%.

Norman Rolfe, SFMTA-CAC, #4-1

Public

4-10, 4-14

Did other regional transit systems experience the same drop in ridership around 2000-2003?

As stated in the Draft SRTP, there was a drop in Bay Area transit ridership of 8% between 2001-02 and 2005-06, compared to about a 10% drop for Muni.  This is the most recent data available from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.

Norman Rolfe, SFMTA-CAC, #4-2

Public

4-10

Why are "reliable ridership figures not available" for the period of about 1978-1983?

There was a change in the ridership data collection methods, making the statistics not comparable to other years.

Staff initiated, #4-1

Agency

4-13

Add FY 07 ridership to table.

Text adjusted.

Staff initiated, #4-2

Agency

4-14

Change figure (graph) for Annual Ridership to make it clearer (one axis)

Figure changed.

SFCTA,  # 4-3

Agency

4-14

Please provide Onboard Transit Survey.  How are findings being used in service planning?

Survey report has been sent.  The information is high-level and systemwide focused mainly on gathering demographic information, and therefore has limited value for service planning.  It should be more useful in marketing and strategic planning.  It is required by the MTC.

Emily Drennen, SFMTA-CAC, #4-1

Public

4-14

Saying that average passenger trip travel time on Muni is similar to regional averages is misleading because the trips are shorter.  That slow speed is itself a major issue.

Text added to acknowledge the point.  The travel time data are from a survey sponsored by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, which did not directly address travel distances or speeds.  However, the general issues of speed and reliability are addressed, in describing the TEP preliminary findings,  especially on pp. S-4 and 5-3.

Staff initiated, #4-3

Agency

4-16

Delete references to 41-Union line not being accessible, as this is outdated.

Text revised.

SFCTA,  #4-4

Agency

4-19

Add fiscal metrics to Fig. 4-10 or reference where they are elsewhere in SRTP.

Fig. 4-10 only includes those measures that were required by Prop E explicitly in the measure or added by the Agency in following the Prop E mandate.   The TEP is focusing on selected service performance measures that include: operating cost per vehicle revenue hour, passengers per vehicle revenue hour, farebox recovery ratio, and net subsidy per passenger boarding.  These have not been tracked on an annual basis previously.  Passengers per vehicle revenue hour and farebox recovery ratio are discussed on p. S-3 and S-4 and in Chapter 5. 

SFCTA,  #4-5

Agency

4-21

New goals should include specific targets  like for other Prop E goals.

Some of the new goals were adopted by the SFMTA Board initially without the specific targets of previous goals.  These will be developed as the SFMTA researches and understands these metrics further.  Others actually do have specific targets.

Emily Drennen, SFMTA-CAC, #4-2

Public

4-23

The ridership and employee survey summary should be more balanced and include more on the negative results

Text has been added to address concerns with passengers and employees. 

Emily Drennen, SFMTA-CAC, #4-3

Public

4-25

Should point out that police/passenger ratio for the SFMTA is among lowest among comparable transit agencies nationally.

Text added to address this general topic.

SFCTA, Comment # 4-6

Agency

4-26

Specify that SFCTA has led and completed three planning efforts in Community Based Transportation Planning Program.

Text adjusted to reflect SFCTA recommendations.

CHAPTER 5.  PLANNING AND EXPANSION

Emily Drennen, SFMTA-CAC, #5-1

Public

Clarify when and why SFMTA chose bus rapid transit over  rail for Van Ness and Geary corridors.  BART was recently studying an extension along Geary.

Rail service in these corridors is still a possibility as described in the extensive treatment of Rail Transit Expansion issues citywide  (pp. 5-15 through 5-17).   Also, the 20-year Capital Investment Program includes SFMTA light rail projects in both corridors (following bus rapid transit projects tentatively planned to be constructed within the next several years). However, in the mid-range, BRT is considered much more likely and reasonable because the cost of light rail or rail rapid transit is so much greater than BRT.  Prop K set aside funding for the Geary, Van Ness, and Potrero corridors for BRT treatment over the next 30 years, and (as the text now mentions) the Countywide Transportation Plan concluded that funding for rail transit in that timeframe was unlikely.  While ridership in both corridors is very high,  it is relatively dispersed among many stops, which also would be challenging to serve via rail.   BART has not been actively studying a Geary extension in recent years, and the MTC/BART/Caltrain 2007 Regional Rail Plan does not explicitly include a Geary BART extension.

Jamison Wieser, SFMTA-CAC, #5-1

Public

Since the Embarcadero turn-around reached capacity with additional T-line service, what can be done for the Market St. subway to increase throughput?

With the post-service change in service plans, continuing the N-Judah to the Caltrain Terminal and interlining (joining) the K and T lines, this capacity limitation is not an issue now.

SFMTA-CAC member (unidentified), #5-1

Agency

There seem to be fewer system expansion projects in this Update, compared to previous year, e.g., Mission Bay.

Mission Bay trolley extension projects were described on Public Draft pp. 5-28 through 5-29.  There has not been a change in the number of Mission Bay projects.

SFCTA, #5-1

Agency

5-3

Has Muni evaluated an increase to dwell time due to service cuts in 2005 as a possible major contributor to slower operating speeds?  List other causes for delays.

 A detailed analysis was not conducted to determine the relationship of service cuts to operating speeds.  The text refers to other causes of delays.

SFCTA,  #5-2

Agency

5-3

Show evidence that transit preferential streets (especially with exclusive transit lanes) carry more reliable service.

A recent analysis of the Potrero Avenue transit bypass lane and transit signal priority devices indicated these produced a reduction in Muni travel times.  An evaluation of the Inner Geary Transit Project (which included exclusive transit lanes for several blocks) is being prepared.  This will be addressed in future SRTP updates.

SFCTA, #5-3

Agency

5-4

Clarify that Geary BRT Fact Track Projects are planned for Spring 2008.

Date changed from “fall 2007” to “2008.”   Text also changed to indicate that fast track projects are completely separate from the BRT project. 

SFCTA,  #5-4

Agency

5-6

The discussion of the Muni Vision Plan should refer to the update of the transit priority network  in the Countywide Transportation Plan, the Prop K Expenditure Plan, and Prop K 5 Year Prioritization Program, and the FTA Small Starts priorities.

The text has been changed to include a discussion of the planning documents as requested.  TEP will provide updated recommendations based on these plans.

SFCTA,  #5-5

Agency

5-8

Correct description of 19^th Avenue in Prop K  Expenditure Plan.

Adjusted wording to reflect comment, noting that 19^th Avenue transit preferential treatment was included in the Expenditure Plan.

SFCTA, #5-6

Agency

5-9

15 minute headways and 16 hour service span should not be considered adequate for BRT.

The definition of BRT was intended as a general description of characteristics,  based on national references from the Transit Cooperative Research Project.  Specific BRT projects in San Francisco have adopted more specific definitions.  The Van Ness and Geary  BRT service will likely have shorter headways and longer service span hours than in the definition.

SFCTA,  #5-7

Agency

5-11

Correct language about Geary BRT and accomodation for LRT conversion.

Adopted wording recommended by SFCTA.

SFCTA, #5-8

Agency

5-12

Refer to project as the Inner Geary Transit Preferential Streets Project.  Report on performance improvements resulting from implementing the project.

Adopted wording recommended by SFCTA.  The project evaluation is being prepared.

SFCTA, #5-9

Agency

5-12

Make Geary BRT main questions consistent with CAC approved study goals.

Adopted wording recommended by SFCTA.

Emily Drennen, SFMTA-CAC, #5-1

Public

5-12

Provide an update on BART consideration of Geary extension.

BART has not actively worked on planning a Geary extension in recent years, nor is this explicitly included in the 2007 MTC/BART/Caltrain Regional Rail Plan.  This was added to the text.

SFCTA,  #5-10

Agency

5-14

Geary BRT Project – Clarify that parking loss is minimized in all alternatives, and center-running alternatives could increase parking spaces.  State that the added costs of the more extensive rail-ready design elements were nearly equal to the overall basic BRT project costs, and therefore the regular, less extensive rail-ready plan was recommended.

Additional detail about parking loss is added.  Included is a clarification that parking loss is minimized in all alternatives, with most alternatives having less than a 5% loss.  Language recommended by SFCTA about the possible increase of 160 spaces with center-running alternatives is added as well.   Text is also changed to note that the added costs of the more extensive rail-ready design elements were nearly equal to the overall basic BRT project costs, and therefore the regular, less extensive rail-ready plan was recommended.

SFCTA, #5-11

Agency

5-15

Don’t believe that BRT is feasible on 19^th Avenue, rather should be TPS.  Prioritize Potrero Avenue over 19^th Avenue for BRT improvements.

SFMTA agrees that corridor-long exclusive lanes are likely not feasible for 19^th Avenue, but that some elements of BRT, such as special vehicles and stations,   could be adopted.  The text has been changed to note this.

Emily Drennen, SFMTA-CAC, #5-2

Public

5-16

Provide a history of rail lines existing in the 1940s and 1950s that had been abolished.

While the history of rail lines in San Francisco is interesting and can be useful in understanding today’s transit network, it is not central to the issues in the SRTP.  Readers can find more information on this topic at streetcar.org.

SFCTA, #5-12

Agency

5-17

Acknowledge that while there are stakeholders interested in rail on Geary, there is also community opposition.  Underscore the main barrier to rail is the high cost of building LRT.

Adjusted wording to reflect recommendations by SFCTA.

Emily Drennen, SFMTA-CAC, #5-3

Public

5-17

When was the decision made not to actively study rail extension on Van Ness Ave.?

Prop K provided funding for BRT on Van Ness Ave., but not for light rail.  Accordingly, light rail options are not being actively studied.  However, as stated in the Draft SRTP, the Vision Plan for Rapid Transit does consider light rail as a possible third phase of transit improvements in this corridor, following electrification of the 47-line and implementation of a BRT project.

SFCTA, #5-13

Agency

5-18

How soon will “limited E-line service” be initiated?  Please clarify scope of E-line service.

The text has been changed to be clearer.   The current plan is, as indicated, to initiate 20-hour per day service in 2010, using existing double-ended vehicles plus  double-ended vehicles expected to be rehabilitated by then, running on 15-minute headways.  The “limited service” is mentioned as a theoretical option, but is not being pursued.

SFCTA, #5-14

Agency

5-18

Given that F-line ridership to Ft. Mason projected to be greater than extending E-line, is F-line extension considered?

The extension to Fort Mason may be on either the E or F historic streetcar lines.  No decision has been made based on the preliminary ridership forecasts already modeled.  The recreational ridership has yet to be forecast by the project team.  The decision on how to provide Fort Mason service will be determined based on a variety of factors, not just ridership.

SFCTA, #5-15

Agency

5-19

Is a G-line to Golden Gate Park still considered?  If so, how is it prioritized?

This project is included in the CIP (p. 11-7-79) , but with low priority (18 points of 100 possible).  There is no schedule or cost estimate.  This is not being actively analyzed.  If this project is planned further, SFMTA will address any concerns about needed ADA improvements and their cost.

SFCTA, #5-16

Agency

5-20

Have all TSP controllers been activated on Mission, Geary, and Potrero?  Please provide TPS impacts evaluation.

Yes, all the TSP controllers have been activated.  Regarding the TPS impacts evaluation, please see the response to SFCTA Comment #5-2 in this Chapter.

SFCTA, #5-17

Agency

5-22

Add sentence about MTA developing the five year program of TPS projects for FY08/09 through 12/13 for adoption by Authority in May 2008.

Adopted wording recommended by SFCTA.

SFCTA, #5-18

Agency

5-23

Indicate that the potential turn restriction on Market at 8^th Street has not yet been implemented.

The text has been changed to indicate that the peak period turn restriction at 8^th Street was tentatively recommended in the Market Street Study, pending the evaluation of the actual effectiveness of other short-term recommendations, plus additional analysis of this option.

SFCTA, #5-19

Agency

5-23

Explain that Better Streets Plan also aims to reduce cost of projects and to expedite their delivery.

Adjusted wording to reflect comment.

Emily Drennen, SFMTA-CAC, #5-4

Public

5-23

Report on the status of implementing the recommendations of the Market Street Study, especially the short-term improvements.

Text added on the status of Market Street Study recommendations.  This indicates that the early action recommendations are generally implemented or nearly implemented.

SFCTA, #5-20

Agency

5-25

List SFCTA as one of the participating agencies, acknowledge Prop K funding, provide estimated timeline for study

Adjusted wording to reflect comment.

SFCTA, #5-21

Agency

5-26

How is SFMTA evaluating the need for additional service to the city’s planned high-growth areas, such as the Eastern Neighborhoods?

Figure 7-8 provides an  initial list of vehicle requiremets for future developments, but much more intensive study is needed.  A scope of services is being developed by late December 2007 for extensive transportation analysis for Eastern Neighborhoods.   Funding for the analysis is pending authorization by the Board of Supervisors. In addition, Very Small Starts funding is being sought to design a 16^th Street TPS project ( 22-Fillmore TPS & Extension to Mission Bay) and a Geneva Avenue Transit Preferential Street and Station Access project.  Both of these would directly meet the needs for service to high-growth areas in or near the SE quadrant.

Staff initiated, #5-1

Agency

5-25

Add to end of first bullet: “…including possible terminal relocations to reduce congestion and increase safety, capacity, and reliability.”  Related to possible changes in M-line stub terminal.

Text added.

Norman Rolfe, SFMTA-CAC, #5-1

Public

5-28

The schedule for additional service to Mission Bay is not clear.

The information was provided in the Draft SRTP  (p. 5-28) indicating that in FY 2010 SFMTA expects to begin work on trolley extensions to Mission Bay.  Also, p. 6-32, the table footnote shows the assumption that this Mission Bay trolley service will start operations in FY 2012.  However, the text on p. 5-28 was clarified to give the overall tentative schedule for Mission Bay extensions.

SFCTA, #5-22

Agency

5-29

When did Muni conduct its Schedule and Headway Adherence study?  Would the recommendations from this study be an appropriate early action TEP recommendation?

The study is outdated and is being replaced by TEP data.  The text has been adjusted.

Emily Drennen, SFMTA-CAC, #5-5

Public

5-29, 5-30

Has there been consideration of re-defining the on-time definition?

Prop E spells out the definition of on-time service as “no more than one minute early or four minutes late as measured against a published schedule that includes time points.”  This is included in the Appendix B.

SFCTA, #5-23

Agency

5-30

Analysis of increased Metro LRT service to meet future demand needed.

The SFMTA is analyzing the future transit needs, including those for planned growth areas.  The initial results are presented in Figure 7-8.  This will be refined, based on TEP findings and the Eastern Neighborhoods study, among other efforts, and presented in future SRTP revisions, and incorporated into the fleet, operating financial, and capital plans.

CHAPTER 6.  OPERATING FINANCIAL PLAN

SFMTA-CAC, #6-1 (resolution)

Agency

Amend the 20-year OFP and CIP to document financial assumptions used to develop the budget..

   The assumptions are described in detail in the section from p. 6-18 through 6-36, but more information has been provided on the sources. 

SFMTA-CAC, #6-2 (resolution)

Agency

Amend the 20-year OFP and CIP to change to annual forecasts only for years 1-10 and then multi-year after that

The MTC requires annual forecasts for a 10-year planning horizon.  The 20-year Operating Financial Plan and Capital Investment Plan are intended to show trends not precise budgets for each year. Text has been added that it is helpful to show the information on an annual basis to reflect the proposed implementation of service and revenue changes, as well as a general timeframe for the capital projects that are proposed in the second half of the 20-year plan.

SFMTA-CAC, #6-3 (resolution)

Agency

Amend the 20-year OFP and CIP to include adequate funding to implement recommendations of the Transit Effectiveness Project

Since the SRTP needs to be finalized before the TEP can even provide preliminary recommendations, this will be addressed in the next update in approximately one year.

Norman Rolfe, SFMTA-CAC, #6-1

Public

6-5

Congestion pricing for private vehicles should be used to provide additional revenue for Muni.

That concept is envisioned in the current planning for the Urban Partners pilot project.  Additional explanation  added.

Pam Herhold, BART, #6-1

Agency

6-7

SFMTA only reimburses BART for part of the difference between Fast Pass and BART fare, with a 31-33% discount (97 cent reimbursement vs. $1.40 to $1.45 fare)

Text changed.

Emily Drennen, SFMTA-CAC

p. 6-10

Since the SRTP reports that 51% of the regional transit rides are provided by Muni, it would be valuable to see what percentage of regional transit funding goes to Muni.

Will provide.  There are multiple factors that determine regional transit funding shares, including ridership, trip length, quantity and quality of service provided, population of service area, etc.

Pam Herhold, BART, #6-2

Agency

6-14

BART feeder revenue should be listed as “Other Operating Revenue.”

Text changed.

Pam Herhold, BART, #6-3

Agency

6-21

The last fare increase was 20%, not 12%.

The base fare increased 20%.  However,  because some categories did not increase, the average fare only increased 12%.

SFCTA, #6-1

Agency

6-30

Mission Bay extensions should list either the 30 or 45 (not both) and the 22 line. 

The text was changed to clarify that the 22-Fillmore, 45-Union/Stockton, and N Judah lines will be extended.    

SFCTA, #6-2

Agency

6-30

What about the 20-Columbus line?

 Overhead wires do not allow the connection to Mission Bay from the Main/Beale terminus of the 20-Columbus line at this point.

SFCTA,  #6-2

Agency

6-30

Why is bus service expected to remain at FY 2008 levels for the operating budget despite forecast population and employment growth?

The Operating Financial Plan uses a conservative financial forecast that only includes committed or very likely new service. Service levels have been quite stable over the last several years.   As discussed above, intensive study is underway to estimate the amount of new service needed to meet future growth and special needs.  This will be addressed in future revisions of the SRTP.

SFCTA, #6-3

Agency

6-30

Why has the E-line debut been delayed until 2010?  What is increased service?

The delay is due to unforeseen complications in providing the historic streetcars in suitable condition.  Fig. 6-13 shows an increase of 5 historic peak vehicles, and an increase of around 35,000 annual revenue vehicle hours.  

Directors, pre-meet, #6-1

Agency

6-32

Fig. 13 revenue miles for light rail are not shown as changing in FY 2016, despite Central Subway start-up.

Has been corrected.

SFCTA, #6-4

Agency

6-32

Why doesn’t the OFP include the cost of extending the N-line to Mission Bay?

Revenue hours and peak vehicle changes associated with the N-line extension were included.  There was a typo in the revenue miles figures that has been corrected.   Added text to notes to clarify.

Jamison Wieser, SFMTA-CAC, #6-1

Public

6-34

Peak vehicle assumptions don’t take into account the potential growth in the fleet needed to accommodate planned population and employment growth, as discussed in ch. 7. 

While Ch. 7 calls attention to the potential fleet increases needed to accommmodate planned population and employment growth, more analysis is needed before these can be reflected in the detailed fleet operating and capital plans.  This can be accomplished in annual updates of the SRTP (major updates every 4 years, and mini updates annually in between). .  

Jamison Wieser, SFMTA-CAC, #6-2

Public

6-34

Also revenue forecasts 20 years into the future are very speculative, and should be so labeled.

 The 20-year Operating Financial Plan and Capital Investment Plan are intended to show trends, not precise budgets for each year. Text has been added that it is helpful to show the information on an annual basis to reflect the proposed implementation of service and revenue changes, as well as a general timeframe for the capital projects that are proposed in the second half of the 20-year plan

SFCTA, #6-5

Agency

6-35

Are unit costs from new TEP cost model?  Why is the motor coach unit cost more expensive than other modes?

Yes, the unit costs shown are from a new operating cost model developed by AECOM Consult for the TEP, which is much more sophisticated than the previous SFMTA version.  Motorcoach unit costs are not more than other modes.  Perhaps the comment refers to the slightly higher motor coach cost associated with the single cost “driver” (or factor) of peak vehicles.  In reality, the total costs estimated for any mode are the result of adding several different cost drivers, and other drivers typically are higher for other modes than for motor coach.

CHAPTER 7 FLEET PLAN

Directors, pre-meeting, #7-1

SFMTA

Change "Historic Light Rail" references to "Historic Streetcar."

All references to Historic LRVs have been changed to Historic Streetcar.

SFCTA, #7-1

Agency

What is the plan for Van Ness and Geary BRT vehicles?  Should be ready for possible revenue service on Van Ness by 2011.

Vehicle options are actively being studied, in cooperation with the SFCTA, but the final choice should be defered until the selection of a preferred alternative.  Options include double decker buses being tested in December 2007 and January 2008.  Text added about double decker buses.

Bruce Bernhard (FTA), #7-1

Agency

For consistency Define Fleet Size as of Jan 1, 2008.

Change Made

SFCTA, #7-2

Agency

7-2

Is the Breda LRV design obsolete?  If so, what is the replacement?

The Breda design is not obsolete.  Rather the text refers to the need to consider the possibility that it will become obsolete, therefore the SFMTA should make fleet plan decisions in the mid-term to avoid having a fleet with different vehicles that would be difficult to maintain over the long term.

SFCTA, #7-3

Agency

7-3

Fig. 7-2 shows a spike in no. of lines with greater than 85% load factor for FY 2006--a result of the 2005 service cuts?

Please see response to SFCTA comment regarding p. 5-3.

SFCTA, #7-4

Agency

7-4

How is Automated Passenger Counters (APC) data being used?  Will be used for National Transit Database (NTD)?  Want to get data.

APC-equipped coaches are used in service every day and are gathering data on all motor coach and trolley coach lines.  Each quarter they sample about 78-80% of all trips several times.  The data they gather can be used for a variety of analyses, including running time, stop and line ridership, on-time performance, productivity measures, and load factors.  The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requires APC data submitted for NTD purposes to be accompanied by manual checks, in accordance with an approved sampling plan.  The SFMTA is working to develop an acceptable sampling plan that could allow APCs to be used for NTD ridership estimates as early as FY 2008-09.  We are providing data to the SFCTA.  Text was added in Chapter 4.

SFCTA, #7-5

Agency

7-5, 7-29

How many additional LRVs funded to support Central Subway extension?

The project is purchasing three LRVs for peak revenue service plus one spare, for a total of four LRVs. 

SFCTA, #7-6

Agency

7-9

Ridership appears below, not at, pre-2000 levels.  TEP needs to address structural problems that contribute to reduced ridership.

Ridership for FY 2006 and unaudited ridership for FY 2007 are slightly lower than ridership figures for the FY 1997 through FY 1999 period.  The wording has been changed.  The TEP is discussing potential structural changes.

SFCTA, #7-7

Agency

7-9

Regional commuter needs should be a priority and don't necessarily need to lose mode share.

The text did not mean to imply that Muni will lose mode share or gives regional commuter needs lower priority.  It has been rewritten.

SFCTA, #7-8

Agency

7-10

Comprehensive fleet and facility plan needed to address anticipated city growth and potential new BRT vehicles

Significant work has been made (and presented) toward a comprehensive fleet and facility plan.  This is actively being developed, using the findings of the TEP and intensive analysis of growth trends and plans.    New BRT vehicle needs will be taken into account, and these are actively being assessed, but cannot be finalized until the preferred alternatives are selected and the Van Ness and Geary projects approved.  Mini-SRTP Updates to be prepared annually will address these issues more definitively within the next 1-2 years.

Bruce Bernhard (FTA), #7-2

Agency

7-12

Would SFCTA travel demand model be able to provide additional support for a  20 year transit demand forecast?

SFMTA staff has been working closely with SFCTA planners and modelers on the on-going Van Ness and Geary BRT projects and are helping the SFCTA incorporate new transit ridership and performance data in their CHAMP regional travel demand model.  This should improve the ability of the SFCTA travel demand model to forecast transit demand up to 20 years into the future.
 

SFCTA, #7-9

Agency

7-13 etc.

Spare ratios - clarify/correct.

Spare ratios reviewed and edited, primarily to use a consistent "as of" date of January 1, 2008.

Dale Duncan, #7-1

Public

7-13, 7-24

Trolley coach spare ratios inconsistent.  Different dates and numbers are presented.

Trolley coach spare ratios revised.

SFCTA, #7-10

Agency

7-14

Are seven additional streetcars for additional service on E and F lines funded?  What amount of service will they provide?

Yes, the additional streetcars are funded.   This section has been rewritten to be clearer.   No change in the F line is currently planned.  The E-line would operate 20 hours per day on roughly 15-minute headways, as noted in Chapter 5. 

Bruce Bernhard (FTA), #7-3

Agency

7-18, etc.

Need to develop maintenance demand projections for all modes for the duration of the plan (20 Years) that are based on documented rationale, though the values used at this time will be somewhat subjective.

It is Muni’s intention to perform an aggressive preventive maintenance program to meet the increased maintenance requirements generated by increased revenue mileage due to increased passenger service demand.  In addition, Muni continuously works to works to improve preventive maintenance programs, to achieve greater Mean Distance Between Failure.   Part of this effort will be to establish maintenance demand projections.  The SHOPS software is being used to analyze past maintenance needs as a basis for these projections. 

Bruce Bernhard (FTA), #7-4

Agency

7-18, etc.

Need to explain variations in overhauls and retrofits in the maintenance demand summary.

Overhaul and retrofit schedules primarily reflected aging vehicle subfleets.  With the procurement of new vehicles, these needs have changed.  The SHOPS software is being used to analyze past maintenance needs to adjust future projecttions.

Bruce Bernhard (FTA),#7-5

Agency

7-24

Discuss excess number of Trolley Coaches in Fleet

Trolley bus extensions and conversions could use some vehicles currently considered spares.  Spare ratio guidelines are not well established for trolley coaches.  The TEP will revisit recommendations from a  2002 route electrification study on this issue.

SFCTA, #7-11

Agency

7-29

Very short line still planned for Central Subway?

Yes, it's assumed that some peak-hour  trains will likely operate between Chinatown and the Caltrain Terminal, as demand warrants. Text changed.

Bruce Bernhard (FTA), #7-6

Agency

7-29

Need to establish a reasoned and rational projection of LRV peak service demand, which requires clarification of the Central Subway operating plan outputs and development of a plausible projection of patronage and required service increases necessary to accommodate it on the current light rail system.

The Central Subway operating plan was based on forecasts from the SFCTA travel demand model.  The SFMTA and the SFCTA are now reviewing the extent to which this model needs to include a higher level of growth, especially in the SE quadrant of the City, to reflect proposed developments.  Chapter 7 raises the issue and began to quantify the potential transit demand impacts.  But the very extensive analysis required and the uncertainty of some of the development proposals made it impossible to revise the LRV peak needs to confidently accommodate future growth within this SRTP.

SFCTA, #7-12

Agency

7-32

Double-ended PCCs - when ready for E line? 

There are four double-ended Torpedoes ready for service now.  The rehabbed double-ended streetcars will be ready by 2010.  

SFCTA, #7-13

Agency

7-32

Will Muni still need Mission Bay loop for streetcars?

The Mission Bay loop is needed for the proposed extension of the N Judah line.

SFCTA, #7-14

Agency

7-33

Comprehensive historic streetcar fleet plan to be completed when?

The historic streetcar fleet plan will be completed after the TEP recommendations are finalized.

SFCTA, #7-15

Agency

7-41

How will SFMTA  cover increased vehicle costs for alternative fuel vehicles?

The MTC is updating a vehicle price list for federal pass-through grants used as the primary funding source for vehicle purchases, to include alternative fuel vehicles.  This should result in additional funding available to cover such increased costs.  However, Prop K programming documents also need to change to cover a portion of the potential increased local match costs.  Unit costs for alternative fuel vehicles should tend to drop over time, as more manufacturers enter the market and compete.  This has been added to the text.

SFCTA, #7-16

Agency

7-42

Why isn't Islais Creek being built to accommodate articulated vehicles?

It is more cost-effective to design the Islais Creek site for standard-size coaches and to accommodate possible increased articulated needs at other locations.  With double-decker buses under study, as of January 2008, the needs for an expanded articulated fleet are not yet defined.

SFCTA, #7-17

Agency

7-43

Excessive spare ratio allows adding a trolley coach line without new facilities, but which one will be prioritized?

The 47-Van Ness was listed as the most cost-effective for trolley conversion in the 2002 Route Electrification Study, as discussed in Chapter 8.  The 22-Fillmore is actually a higher priority than the 47.  A comprehensive prioritization for trolley coaches needs to await the TEP and BRT study recommendations.  

Bruce Bernhard (FTA), #7-7

Agency

7-51 Roster

What is the status of the two 60' New Flyer Artics (1992). Purchased 60 but only 58 on roster.

Two trolley coaches that were scrapped have been identified with a footnote, and account for the difference.

CHAPTER 8 INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN

SFCTA,  #8-1

Agency

8-1

Update no. of surface light rail stations to include Third Street stations.

Text was changed to show 24 surface stations.

Norm Rolfe, SFMTA-CAC, #8-1

Public

Fig. 8-3 , p. 8-4

This map does not show such existing trolley lines as Van Ness Avenue.

The map is incomplete and has been corrected.

SFCTA, #8-2

Agency

8-4

Is 47-Van Ness line the top candidate for conversion to a trolley bus line?  Fig. 8-6 does not include it?

The 47-Van Ness line was found the most cost effective conversion project in a 2002 route electrification study.  However, the 22-Filmore is higher priority for conversion.  Fig. 8-6 has been corrected.

Norm Rolfe, SFMTA-CAC, #8-2

Public

Fig. 8-6, p. 8-8

The map does not show such proposed trolley line extensions as the 47-Van Ness project.

The map shows potential extensions, and not potential conversions such as the 47-Van Ness project.

Dan Weaver, SFMTA-CAC, #8-1

Agency

8-6

Route electrification projects could be accompanied by undergrounding of utilities to make them more acceptable.

Such joint construction projects are considered, but beyond the scope of the SRTP to discuss in any detail.

CHAPTER 9 FACILITIES PROGRAM

SFCTA,  #9-1

Agency

A comprehensive fleet and facilities plan is imperative. (Same comment as the SFCTA comment on p. 7-10.)

See response above to SFCTA comment regarding p. 7-10.

SFCTA, #9-2

Agency

9-4

Consider long-term facilities need before giving any current facilities (e.g., Kirkland)  for redevelopment or joint development.

Long-term facilities needs are being carefully considered as part of facilities planning.  Text has been changed to make this even clearer.

Dan Weaver, SFMTA-CAC, #9-1

Public

9-4

Kirkland could be used for historic streetcar storage and/or trolley storage, along with joint development.

This will be considered as part of the overall facility planning effort.

SFCTA, #9-3

Agency

9-9

Prop K funding has been available to MTA for Balboa Park feasibility and conceptual engineering studies.  Please update on the status of this important work.

Adjusted wording to reflect comment, similar changes as on page 5-25.

Staff initiated, #9-1

Agency

9-11

Transit Shelter Replacement outdated.

Text updated.

CHAPTER 10 EQUIPMENT PROGRAM AND OTHER PROJECTS

SFCTA, #10-1

Agency

10-1

Is the “Trapeze Operator Scheduling Software” now being used for developing Muni’s schedules?

Trapeze is in use with the scheduling department, and we are hoping to roll it out to the dispatchers eventually. It is currently  in use at one division for dispatching.  (Text did not need to change.)

SFCTA, #10-2

Agency

10-2

Is Muni using AVL for line management and schedule adherence management?  If not, how soon?

Text was revised to indicate that: As of early December 2007, the AVL project is in the final stages of  completion, including use for line and schedule management.  For example, laptop computers are being installed in inspectors’ vehicles.  All internal users, like inspectors, have been trained.  Schedule adherence reports are fully available to SFMTA staff.

SFCTA, #10-2

Agency

10-4

Provide more information on the US Department of Transportation Urban Partnership Program and include a fuller description of the Sfgo program.

Text was revised to provide additional details on the scope of the project and the Authority’s role.

Staff initiated, #10-1

Agency

10-5

Interim software solution would be valuable before expansion or relocation of the Central Control Facility can be accomplished.

This is an operational issue probably too detailed for SRTP treatment.  However, text added to state that interim improvements, such as software changes, are being considered.

Staff initiated, #10-2

Agency

10-6

Bus simulator – Computer , Video and GPS technology can be used for a more realistic bus simulator.  Also want to pursue Rail Simulator development to reduce costly on-vehicle training

Text revised to add a section on Vehicle Training Simulator.   A bus simulator (“360 degree computer based graphic training stations”) and a rail training simulator (with 5 classrooms virtual learning environments) are included in the CIP, scored the maximum 100 points, but unfunded. 

CHAPTER 11 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

SFMTA-CAC, #11-1

Public

Amend the 20-year OFP and CIP to: (1) document financial assumptions used to develop the budget, (2) change to annual forecasts only for years 1-10 and then multi-year after that and (3) include adequate funding to implement recommendations of the Transit Effectiveness Project.

See response to the same comments at the beginning of the Chapter 6 comments above.

Caltrain Joint Policy Board Staff, #11-1

Agency

Would like the CIP to include funding for Caltrain systemwide rehabilitation projects, especially for costs related to electrification program.

Prop K provides funding for San Francisco's share of Caltrain capital needs.   (Capital costs are shared among San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties.)   The SFMTA is actively working with Caltrain and Transportation Authority staff to identify additional funding to support Caltrain needs, but these issues will be addressed outside the framework of the Muni SRTP .

SFCTA,  #11-1

Agency

11-1

Provide more information on how SFMTA intends to use its guaranteed share of Prop 1B bond funds beyond the $100 million commitment to the Central Subway project, and assumptions about discretionary bond funds.

SFMTA does not have a prioritization yet of uses for the Prop 1 B bond funds beyond the $100 million for the Central Subway project.  The state must first issue guidelines before a priority list can be presented.

SFCTA, #11-2

Agency

11-5

Correct text on Van Ness BRT project to clarify roles of SFMTA and the Authority and the next steps.

Text revised.

SFCTA, #11-3

Agency

11-6

What is the basis for generally assuming a 4% annual cost escalation factor for the CIP?

While the 4% escalation rate is low based on recent experience, it is an acceptable rate to use for this long range document.  We will continue to monitor the construction standard index and cost of living index to ensure that the escalation rate in future SRTP Updates is reasonable.

SFCTA, #11-4

Agency

11-10

The Authority prioritizes San Francisco projects for RIP and TE funds, subject to concurrence by the MTC.

Text revised.

SFCTA,  #11-5

Agency

11-12

Clarify Prop K uses and availability.

Text revised

SFCTA, #11-6

Agency

11-13, 11-14

Include Prop K Strategic Plan in the table and note that RTP is now updated every four years.

Text and table revised as the SFCTA recommends.

SFCTA, #11-7

Agency

Fig. 11-6

The fund source information was cut off in some cases and also inconsistent.

Table has been revised to provide more consistent and thorough information.

SFCTA, #11-8

Agency

Fig. 11-6, row 14

Clarify which portion of Prop 42 funds the data in this row.

Text only refers to a past allocation, so additional information not needed.

SFCTA, #11-9

Agency

Fig. 11-6, row 21

Delete "reserve" from the name, Transportation Enhancement (TE) Reserve.

Text revised.

SFCTA, #11-10

Agency

Fig. 11-6, row 28

Note that the TA administers TFCA funds, and revise reference to project management costs, as only up to 5% may be used for program management.

Text added stating that SFCTA administers TFCA Program Manager funds while BAAQMD administers TFCA Regional funds.

MISCELLANEOUS

Directors pre-meet, M-1

Agency

What is the plan to meet greenhouse gas reduction provision of Prop. A if it passes?

Prop. A requires a Biennial Climate Action Plan by January 2009 that will address the City's goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80% of 1990 levels by 2012.  If it passes, SFMTA will build on the 2004 SFMTA Clean Air Plan for Muni and the Dept. of the Environment Strategic Plan.  Chapter 7 already discusses actions undertaken to meet Clean Air Plan goals, such as a zero emissions fleet by 2020.  The Muni fleet recently added 86 hybrids.  Islais Creek maintenance facility is being designed with capability of conversion to natural gas/hydrogen fuel.  Other short-term elements of the Clean Air Plan include trolley coach expansion, experiments with alternative fuels, and participation in a regional fuel cell bus demonstration.  Future updates will incorporate this and other provisions of Prop. A.

SFMTA-CAC (multiple members), M-1

Public

Include a section on enhancing passenger amenities and necessities, such as: escalator and accessibility enhancement; rehabiliation of aging subway stations, signage and wayfinding (including full Next Muni roll-out); safety enhancements; new seating and shelter; and other issues.

Some of these items are addressed, e.g., NextMuni is discussed on p. 10-2.  The new shelter contract is discussed on p. 9-11, and is being updated.  Additional text will be provided on rail stations that will address other issues raised.

SFMTA-CAC (multiple members), M-2

Public

Edit the draft to include areas of concern, criticisms, and shortfalls, and how the agency plans to address them.

There are numerous sections that deal with issues and problems.  For example, reliability and speed issues are addressed through a discussion of TEP preliminary findings on p. S-3 through S-4.  The CIP shortfall is discussed throughout Chapter 11.  The passenger and employee survey section on p. 4-23 was also revised to address their key concerns as well.

Dan Weaver, SFMTA-CAC, M-1

Public

The SRTP availability should be publicized more, as it is a valuable information source.

The Draft SRTP was included in its entirety on the SFMTA web site.  Nearly 500 individuals and organizations were notified by postcard, e-mail, or bound report copy.  A similar distribution and notification effort will be used for the adopted plan early in 2008.