The following is a summary of the thirteenth meeting of the SFTEP Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) for the Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP). The meeting included an update on project activities and a presentation of key findings from the service evaluation. Future agenda items were discussed and the meeting concluded with an opportunity for public comment. �Handouts for this meeting included a TEP staff report of activities since the last meeting, a list of community briefings, and a summary of the TEP Survey for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities.��

 

PARTICIPANTS

CAC Members/Alternates	PUBLIC	PROJECT TEAM
Bert Hill, Bicycle Advisory Committee Steve Ferrario, MTA CAC Brain Larkin, SFMTA CAC Jim Lazarus, Chamber of Commerce Daniel Murphy, SFMTA CAC Gary Noguera, CSFN David Pilpel, Sierra Club Tom Radulovich, Livable City Norman Rolfe, SF Tomorrow Marc Salomon, CTC Dave Snyder, SPUR Howard Strassner, Pedestrian Safety Advisory Committee Andrew Sullivan, Rescue MUNI Jordanna Thigpen, Small Business Commission Heather World, Parents for Public Schools	Liam Campbell, Student, SFSU Scott Ellis, SPUR Crisiano Facanha, Senior Associate, ICF Frank Gallivan, ICF International Alex Prodan, SPUR Greg Riessen, MTA CAC Eric P. Scott Pat Siefers, City Planning Rachelle Sonneborn, Student, SFSU	SFMTA Sonali Bose Julie Kirschbaum Peter Straus Judy Tam Britt Tanner   Controllers Office Sally Allen   TEP Consultant Team Russ Chisholm Laura McVittie

 

 

        I.      TEP Project Update

 

Status of Key Activities

The project team is planning a series of community meetings in October to share key findings and solicit structured feedback from the public to help shape draft recommendations (see http://www.sftep.com/ for details). CAC members are encouraged to invite community members through email and personal phone calls. �Bus data from the TEP service evaluation will be available to CAC members before these meetings, with a disclaimer and a user manual. �CAC members were sent an email on 9/21/07 requesting feedback on the manual. The rail data is under review and should be available in four to eight weeks.�

 

The following comments were made by CAC members regarding activity in progress:

�         Are we getting Automated Passenger Counters (APCs) for the community service lines? R: At this time, SFMTA has APCs to collect data on any bus routes; this would involve strategically deploying the APC-equipped vehicles on the routes where data is desired.

�         Are there impediments to equipping the Light Rail Vehicles �with APCs? R: Vendors are being researched.�

 

      II.      Service Evaluation – Presentation of Key Findings

 

Russ Chisholm presented key findings from the service evaluation and answered clarifying questions from CAC members and the public.� Following is a summary of the key topics addressed and comments made (R: denotes replies from the project team).

 

Policies

�         Availability of SFMTA policies

�         The influence of old policies vs. industry standards

��� Headways

�         Passenger frustration with long headways

�         How do 15-20 minute headways evolve?

 

Ridership

�         Radial (i.e. travel toward downtown core) vs. neighborhood routes

�         Reevaluate Castro line data; ridership appears small in slide

�         Clarify size and definition of a segment and divisions along routes that appear on maps

 

Wheelchairs

�         What is the proxy measurement for wheelchair use with rail?

�         Wheelchairs are often on main lines and get passed up

�         Interested in wheelchair data for gross ridership, articulated trolleys, 38 Geary, and trains; also good to look at paratransit data

�

Bike

�         Bike data includes articulated trolleys and excludes rail

�         The small number of bikes using Muni could be used to encourage better bike access on the system

�         What is bike access on trains?

�         Provide bike racks and lockers at stops.� R: They can be planned but not implemented now due to the environmental review process; there are plans at 4^th and King).

 

Regional Services

�         Check SamTrans numbers in comparison with Caltrain; seem high

�         Regional trips included only those with either an origin or destination outside of San Francisco

 

Transit Stop Coverage

�         How are stops defined? R: As stopping area rather than per line.

�         Percentage of trips that used Fast Pass? R: We have it.

 

Transfers

�         The data on transfers was based on the SFCTA’s 2004-05 Rider Survey that participants completed once during their trip. All transfers from Muni counted as regional transfers.�

�         Please provide a list of the 27 top transfer locations (i.e., those with 500+ transfers/day) to aid in outreach with community merchants. Note: this was emailed to CAC members on 10/4/07.

�         Many key transfer hubs have accessibility challenges. Projects are underway to improve hubs in the Glen Park area.

 

Service Reliability

�         Improving reliability on top 10 bus line corridors and rail lines would affect 75% of riders.

�         While it may be tempting to focus on the top 10 corridors, we can implement more creative solutions on the top corridors that will improve all routes.

�         There are two transit systems: one to do errands and one to get to work. Both are important to invest in.

 

Speed

�         The slower the route, the more buses are needed to deliver the service, and the higher the cost. When you slow down, you lose riders.

�         Double parking was the main cause of delays on the 1 California test route? R: It is one of several causes.�

�         On-time performance and reliability may be more important on community routes than radial routes.

�         Add limited lines. Consider changing the name “limited” to “express” to better capture type of service.

�         Determine lines with greatest dwell time and reduce them. R: Dwell time is only available for bus, not rail.

�         Extend the 14 to John Daly Blvd. for better regional connections. Extend T-Third. Install more sidewalk bulbs.

 

    III.      Next Steps

 

Julie Kirschbaum noted that the TEP will develop three levels of recommendations:

• Recommendations within SFMTA’s existing resources

• Resource-constrained scenario
• Resource-enhanced scenario

 

Presentations from the CAC meetings will be made available on the website.

 

Future Meeting Topics:

�         Disability survey

�         October public meetings

�         Coordination of Better Streets with SFMTA TEP (a presentation)

�         Low floor vehicles

�         Proof of payment update

�         How the CAC can help expedite the planning processes at the SFMTA

�         Law enforcement issues and front facing cameras

 

   IV.      Public Comment

�         Do we have information on hybrid speeds in comparison with standard vehicles? R: Not now.

�         How could Prop. A affect the TEP? R: The charter amendment would provide more funding for SFMTA and more decision-making power to its Board.�

�         Julie encouraged graduate students to help with research aspects of the project, since there are many questions and issues outside the scope that would make for compelling theses. �Interested students should contact Julie at Julie.kirschbaum@sfmta.com. �