The following is a summary
of the fifteenth meeting of the SFTEP Citizen Advisory Committee (
PARTICIPANTS
|
|
PUBLIC & OTHER |
PROJECT |
|
Joan Downey, SFMTA CAC Steve Ferrario, SFMTA Brain
Larkin, SFCTA Jim
Lazarus, SF Chamber of Commerce Daniel Murphy, SFMTA David Pilpel, Sierra Club Norman
Rolfe, SF Tomorrow Dave Snyder, SPUR Heather World, Parents for Public Schools |
Carl
Natvig � |
SFMTA Julie
Kirschbaum Peter
Straus Controller�s
Office Liz
Garcia Consultant
Team Russ Chisholm,TMD |
I.� PROJECT
UPDATE
Julie Kirschbaum provided a
summary of the series of citywide public workshops held in October to share key
findings and solicit structured feedback from the public to help shape draft
recommendations. �Data collected on
Muni�s weekday service bus fleet from Fall 2006 to Spring
2007 is available and posted on the SFMTA website, (see http://www.sfmta.com/cms/rtep/tepdataindx.htm).� Data collected on Muni rail (light rail and
historic trolley vehicles) is being processed and will be posted to this site as
soon as it is available.�
Several CAC members attended
the November 15th drop-in brainstorming session led by Russ Chisholm designed
to hear specific suggestions and discuss various service concepts. �SFMTA staff is currently engaged in the same
exercise.� These sessions will contribute
to the draft recommendations, to be available by February.� Sharing this draft plan with internal and
external stakeholders is expected to be a four- to six-month effort. �
Julie ended the update with
notice of two pilots.� The SFMTA will be testing
a double deck bus on select lines to determine how well it performs on busy
Comments from meeting
participants and responses (R) where available:
C.
Put out a press release when all of this data is available on the website.
C.
Institutionalize this sort of data collection so that the agency has regular
access to good and timely data. R: This will be built in to the TEP
implementation plan.� The goal is to
collect data on a quarterly basis.� The
agency is also hiring a statistician to look at the collection methodology.
C.
If the all-door boarding will only take place on a few corridors, more public
education about this and more proof of payment monitors will be needed so as
not to confuse riders.
C:
As we are nearing the deadline for submission of the FY08-09 budget, can the
full TEP plan including level of resources needed be included in time?� R: The TEP work to date has been informing
the FY09 budget.� TEP implementation will
require a scaling up of this program.
C.� With stop spacing such a divisive policy
issue, can more discussion take place at future CAC meetings?� Perhaps by extending the regular CAC meetings
by an hour?� R:� Perhaps the January or February meeting will
be extended by an hour.
C.� It would be helpful to have the policy
discussion and translate those policies into actual concrete changes.� For example, if the policy is a stop every
1200ft., which would disappear? Let�s not argue about each stop.
C.
Let�s work from the existing stop-spacing policy, which already isn�t being
implemented.
C.
The drop-in session, while helpful, would have been more productive if they had
been more structured and facilitated and had forced us to think about the real
tradeoffs.
C.
Are we really disbanding in February? �R:
If a meeting in March is merited we may have another meeting.
II. DRAFT SERVICE DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK PRESENTATION
Russ Chisholm presented the draft
framework, which matches service characteristics to markets and corridors, develops
transit tiers with specific service guidelines and ultimately aims to maximize
service efficiency and effectiveness.� The
service recommendations coming from this project will be tied to the operations
plan so that recommendations are feasible.�
The presentation will be posted at the project website once finalized.
Comments from meeting
participants and responses where provided (R):
C:
Don�t cut a line just because there doesn�t appear to be a lot of ridership. If
the line worked better more people would ride it.� Don�t discriminate the �loser� lines.
C.
Do we even know if we can increase ridership on the smaller, community
lines?� Will there be any return on any
investment made on those lines?
C.
Let�s consider if these are realistic goals to reach for. Is the SFMTA really
capable of implementing changes that would improve frequencies or speeds by
30%?
C.� Let�s take advantage of the electoral mandate
for transit and the momentum to aim high.�
Transit-only lanes may be a challenge but we should try and then back
peddle if needed.
C.
Design the new system so that local buses don�t get in the way of the rapid
service.
C.
The framework should also include guidance about facilities and boarding areas
being proportionate to the number of boardings. If
thousands are boarding at a particular stop, that is where the majority of
investments should go. Ticket machines could be located at boarding locations
of the main corridors to shorten dwell times.
C.
Can the majority of our investment occur on the larger lines that most people
ride?
C.
Bicycle stations or bicycle parking could also be located at these stops.
C.
Other innovations to add to stops include optical guidance assists.
C.
At some point we should revisit the stroller policy, as it is still unclear and
illogical.
C.
Can schedules be posted for lines with headways of 12 or 15 minutes? Schedules
aren�t really needed for lines with shorter headways.
C.
Peak service should always be demand based.
C. Can the next draft of the
framework include what each element is trying to accomplish so that
expectations are tailored?� For example,
the �rapid� network aims to increase speed, the �local� coverage, etc.
III. NEXT STEPS
The next CAC meeting will be
held on December 13th, 2007, from 5:00-7:00pm.
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.