San Francisco Transit Effectiveness Project (SFTEP)

SUMMARY

SFTEP Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) Meeting

Thursday, April 11, 2007

One South Van Ness, Room 3074 (3^rd Floor)

Following is a summary of the eighth meeting of the SFTEP Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) for the Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP). It included an update on project activities and presentation on the service assessment.  Comments (C) are captured below, as well as responses (R) from TEP staff.  The meeting concluded with an opportunity for public comment.

PARTICIPANTS

CAC Members/Alternates	Public	Project Team
Joan Downey, SFMTA Citizen Advisory Committee Bert Hill, Bicycle Advisory Committee Brian Larkin, SFMTA CAC Jim Lazarus, Chamber of Commerce Daniel Murphy, SFMTA Citizen Advisory Committee Bruce Oka, SFMTA Accessibility Advisory Committee Bob Planthold, Senior Action Network David Pilpel, Sierra Club Tom Radulovich, Livable City Norman Rolfe, SF Tomorrow Dave Snyder, SPUR Mark Soloman, Coalition for Transit Justice Howard Strassner, Pedestrian Safety Advisory Committee Jordanna Thigpen, Small Business Commission	Six members of the public attended	SFMTA Peter Albert Julie Kirschbaum Carl Natvig Britt Tanner Controller�s Office Sally Allen TEP Consultant Team Russ Chisholm Julie Ortiz

PROJECT UPDATE

TEP Program Manager Julie Kirschbaum reviewed the status of key TEP project activities.  The Market Research is near completion as the team wraps up analysis of competitiveness factors.  Findings will be presented at future meetings. The Service Assessment is well underway.  This meeting�s presentation highlights some of the data collected by the Automatic Passenger Counters (APC).  Once this data is collected and verified, the TEP team will share the analysis with the CAC to inform future discussions to develop service concepts.  These discussions may take place over a series of sessions focused on different geographic areas, however, once the data collection period is completed, we may find that the volume of data warrants a different approach.  

Two Early Action Pilots are underway.  A Lifeline Grant from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission has been secured for operator overtime to help fill runs and address operational issues on the 29-Sunset cross-town bus route.  The second pilot is an on-time performance study focusing on incremental improvements made to the J-Church.  A major part of the effort is to control trains that depart early by mentoring inspectors to take a more active role in interacting with drivers to manage departure time. SFMTA encourages more people who ride the J-Church at least four times a week to observe and report their experiences. The progress of these pilots will be shared at upcoming meetings.

Sally Allen, of the Controller�s Office, listed the outreach efforts expanding existing communications with the public.  The March youth and family forums was the first step to move beyond the briefings, mailing list, website, and surveys. The TEP team is working with the Mayor�s Office on Disability to make the TEP public participation processes more accessible to seniors and people with disabilities.  CAC members are encouraged support these communication efforts, by posting articles about the TEP in their newsletters or have a TEP team member speak at their membership meetings. The TEP team held recent briefings with the Board of Supervisors aides and Mayor�s staff. Finally, a press conference for local media was held to clarify the scope of the TEP and distinguish it from other efforts happening concurrently at SFMTA.

The anticipated schedule for the following two rounds of public workshops is fall 2007 and winter 2008.  The fall 2007 series will present draft service concepts to the public.  The service concepts will build on the findings of market research, service assessment and operations review. The winter 2008 series will present the final service plan concept with the operations/financial plan.  

The TEP team will be presenting an overview presentation of the Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Cost Model to TEP committees in May.

CAC Member Comments

• SFMTA should have a plan for maintaining the improvements achieved through these pilot projects. The public wants SFMTA to keep up the improvements achieved through the pilots, e.g., the California-1 pilot. 
• SFMTA should consider placing inspectors at both ends of the J-Church line. 
• If drivers have a schedule, inspectors should not be needed to enforce departure time.  
• Involve union representatives in the discussion of workplace behaviors and performance issues, though this may lead to some challenging interaction.
• Consider renaming inspectors as �supervisors� and help them understand what is expected of them. Inspectors may simply be inspecting and not supervising.  In the 1980s, inspectors were known as �transit-line coordinators� which implies the expectation that they have a responsibility and authority to management drivers.
• SFMTA should post the commute hours for the J-Church. Riders don�t appear to know this information.
• Bunching and not rerouting lines is a major problem with service, and the J-Church pilot should examine rerouting.
• Ensure that full support for the $900,000 Lifeline grant toward the route 29 bus exists; there�s been talk of changing this at other meetings.
• While additional public outreach is good, balance it so that it doesn�t draw resources away from other elements of the TEP.

SERVICE EVALUATION OVERIVEW

Russ Chisholm from TMD provided an overview of the service evaluation in progress, the mechanics of the APCs and some preliminary findings based on APC data from 24 lines completed to date and data from other sources.  Service evaluation is a critical part of identifying ways to improve performance and financial stability, and make service faster and more convenient in a way that reflects current and future travel patterns.  The ultimate outcome will be an action plan that helps SFMTA move forward with improvements over the next five to seven years. Russ reviewed a number of maps and findings that show a �snap shot� of how the network functions now based on data collected to date.  More findings will be presented this summer.  SFMTA will be exploring ways to make this data more available to the public such as through the web site, and welcomes CAC member suggestions.  

CAC Member Comments

• The APC data should cover all street cars.  [APCs are collecting data on trolley coach and motor coach vehicles. Data on rail lines, including cable cars are being collected through manual checks.  The San Francisco Transportation Authority�s 2005 onboard survey of about 13,000 riders will provide data on transfers and other topics.]
• Please provide updates at CAC meetings so members know where the TEP team is in the overall process, what products we can expect to see and when.
• Regarding the APCs ability to only measure the number of times a rack is pulled down and not the boarding/alighting of the cyclists, there should be a way to account for the number of times a cyclist would like to board, but can�t because the bus rack is full.
• Similarly, as wheelchair user, I would also like to board a bus, but often can�t due to overcrowded buses. 
• Consider using the wheelchair loading and bunching data as a driving force to get low-floor buses.
• The TEP should assess changes in travel patterns that result in wider use of NextBus technology.
• Look at the lines with the highest number of transit dependent riders; those tend to be the ones with 15 to 30-minute waits, not 5-minute waits.
• Considering the collection of weekday data only, the TEP should also consider some analysis of weekend use on some key lines, as usage can be quite different on weekends.
• Wayfinding and signage improvements should be part of TEP.  Other major cities do a much better job than San Francisco, which helps attract new riders.
• The LA12 map is great example of effective user interface.
• Consider color coding shelters for heavily used lines that help riders understand the frequency of service.
• Consider two types of shelters:  basic and deluxe and each would signal how much and what kind of service is provided.
• Stress the importance of timing and transfer points, as many lines are feeders to trunk lines.  If the feeder lines don�t function well, they affect the trunk lines.   Leaving early along feeder lines increases the chances of people missing connections.  SFMTA should establish and enforce a zero tolerance policy.
• Please look closely at points where Muni and BART connect to better time transfers.  For example, when exiting BART to catch the 67 Bernal line, if you miss the bus, you have to wait 20 minutes.  Perhaps putting symbols on all service maps that mark �timed transfer� locations would help.  
• It appears as though an area where frequency is lower results in a higher percentage of transfers, suggesting that reliability is much worse in that area.  
• I look forward to learning more about the movement of people between points such as Ingleside and SFSU and what could be driving that movement, such as schools or shopping.
• Look at the study done in New York of travel time between neighborhoods and downtown. A similar study was done in London.  SF may want to do the same to show riders what they can expect.
• A long slow ride with a transfer from outer neighborhoods to downtown makes transit uncompetitive with car use.  
• Drivers often complain that not enough time is allowed to pick up passengers who use wheelchairs. As a result of picking up wheelchair users, they are penalized for running late.
• Sometimes on-time arrival is not as important as the headway.  Focus on frequency rather than schedule reliance.
• I don�t care what the schedule says if I can walk out the door and know it will be three minutes until the next bus. Consider a system that allows the rider to just walk to the closest stop, and throw out the schedules.
• SFMTA should promote the long-term plan for improving access to schedule info.   
• It would be ideal to communicate the travel or speed time of cars on transit routes to give the public an idea of whether it is Muni or something else that�s causing traffic to slow.  For example, if transit along Geneva is slow, it may be due to lots of stop signs or bus stops.
• Consider looking at capital needs.
• Improvements on the street are one area; another big one is maintenance facilities, shops and yards.  It seems like the TEP focuses entirely on operational issues, but we can�t make a lot of changes without capital investment.
• Consider doing a fare analysis.
• For people with visibility challenges, consider providing color handouts in a format other than black and white copies where the colors green and red show up as gray scale, and making maps more accessible. 

PUBLIC COMMENT

• The 10 line, which is supposed to replace the 15 and serve to the edge of the financial district, should run on nights and weekends. I live in North Beach and can�t get to the ballpark on it.
• SFMTA management should ride the buses and trains to truly experience what the public does.
• Recommend reading should be an analysis of VTA that showed how political decisions drive service. It is available on VTA�s web site, and was discussed at a special March 23 meeting.   
• I question if makes sense to only have one transfer as a goal.  Transfers are not intrinsically a bad thing unless it is raining.