San Francisco Transit Effectiveness Project (SFTEP)



SFTEP Policy Advisory Group Meeting

May 16, 2007

9:00 AM � 11:00 AM

City Hall, Room 278


PAG Members

         Wil Din, SFMTA Board of Directors

         Ann Flemer (for Steve Heminger, MTC)

         Nathaniel P. Ford Sr., SFMTA

         Ed Harrington, Controller�s Office

         Boe Hayward (for Bevan Dufty, SF Board of Supervisors)

         Kevin Hughes, IBEW, Local 6

         Glenda Lavigne, TWU Local 200

         Peter Mezey, SFMTA Board of Directors

         Jose Luis  M�scovich SFCTA

         Dan Murphy, SFMTA CAC

         Tom Radulovich, TEP CAC

         Leah Shahum, SFMTA Board of Directors

         Stuart Sunshine, Mayor�s Office



Sonali Bose

Henry Li

Julie Kirschbaum

Peter Straus

Britt Tanner


Controller�s Office Staff

Sally Allen

Liz Garcia

Peg Stevenson


TEP Consultant Team

Bob Peskin, AECOM




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.  This analysis will be presented at future PAG meetings.  The Service Assessment will be completed this summer.  The analysis of the system performance data collected via Automatic Passenger Counters (APC) will be shared to inform draft service concept development discussions. These discussions are scheduled for August 2007 and may take place in lieu of formal TEP committee meetings.  The TEP team is working to develop the most productive meeting structure for these discussions to take place, (i.e., drop-in, large group discussion, etc).


Two Early Action pilots are currently active.  The first is an on-time performance study focusing on incremental improvements made to the J-Church.  This study has been extended by 60 days, until the end of August.  The second active pilot is a run time adjustment study of motor coach route 29.  �Run time� is the time in minutes that it takes for the transit vehicle to go from the start to the finish of its route and is a measure of the average speed of the vehicle on that route.  Funded by an MTC lifeline grant, this study will look at the scheduled run time of this route, fill each run as scheduled and then determine whether or not the scheduled run time needs to be increased.  This study will do something with the 29 that we would like to do with each line through the TEP, ultimately adjusting running time on all routes. 


In terms of public outreach, the TEP team is working with the Mayor�s Office on Disability (MOD) to make the TEP public participation processes more accessible to seniors and people with disabilities.  A survey focused on the needs of the disabled is being developed with MOD and will be hosted the SFMTA web site.[1]


The anticipated schedule for the next 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. 


PAG Member Comments


        With regards to the 29 pilot, let�s not get carried away and begin extending the schedules of all lines to accommodate other operational problems that impede efficiency.

        Consider the schools along the 29 bus route and be sure to coordinate with them.  Schedule information can be added to the information packets families receive with their school assignments.

        Integrate the �school trippers� with the 29 line so that students are moved efficiently and safely.  Work with the SFSU, private schools and relevant SFMTA staff members to make this happen.

        Look into funding available from the county earmarked for school bus transportation. Thirty-six bus trippers may qualify for these funds.    

        Mission High School competes for service with many middle schools along the same bus route. For safety reasons we may want to separate these age groups with different school trippers. 




Bob Peskin of AECOM Consult, a member of the Transportation Management and Design, Inc. (TMD) consultant team, presented an overview of the Operations & Maintenance (O&M) cost model, including approach, methodology, and examples of how the cost model could be applied.  The cost model will serve to support the TEP service planning efforts by estimating the route-level operating costs, evaluating performance of existing service and informing the development of TEP service concepts.  It will also assist during SFMTA�s annual budgeting process, support the agency�s long-term financial planning and estimate O&M costs for FTA New Starts submissions.


PAG Member Comments


        Please make it easier to understand what is included in �fixed costs.�

        To the extent possible include the cost facility constraints such as lack of storage space requiring employees to spend considerable amounts of time rearranging buses.

        It would be helpful to see the modes broken out by fleet type (historic, cable car, etc.) as we know that some demand more maintenance than others.

        Make sure the model takes into account the vehicle life cycle and warranties.

        It would be ideal if the model could also capture the type and degree of maintenance (i.e., light, heavy, preventative or corrective).

        This model should also help identify if the difficulty of procuring or obtaining necessary parts is driving up maintenance costs.

        The July figure for the �FY06 Monthly Spending on Salaries�� graph looks inaccurate.  Please double check the numbers.

        Please note clearly on the slide that this is only one year of data (FY06) and that this year was unique due to the build up for the T-Third line.

        Please also discuss these operation and maintenance costs in terms of cost per passenger, so that we can begin to tailor service to the demand found through the market research.

        Let�s use this information to make informed decisions substantiated by data, not assumptions.

        Let�s remember that our goal is to get people from point A to point B quickly. Let�s take these figures and apply it to the changes we need to make.

        We are looking forward to the service assessment results.









The next PAG meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, June 20, 2007 from 9am-11:00am in room 278 of City Hall.