Setting Up the Switch Hit

Supervisor Alioto Pier who represents Northern San Francisco asked in the July 14th Finance Committee meeting for TA staff to start thinking about an extension of the Central Subway to the Presidio under Lombard Street. (You can watch the video where she makes her request at 54:45 here).

It's an interesting proposal to say the least but how much of this is really driven by a want to kill the Market Street Railway extension for Fort Mason and beyond with its "visually polluting" overhead wires?

The second phase of the extension will take the streetcar down Beach Street, Cervantes and Marina Boulevard. That will involve erecting overhead power lines, putting rail tracks in the street and removing a lane of traffic. Putting overhead power lines down Marina Boulevard is contrary to Section 101.1 (b) (8) of the City Master Plan, City Urban Design Plan Element Policy 1.1, , and is contrary to the City Transportation Plan. Yet the City Planning Department states that it does not have to be involved with these plans!

The Marina Community Association is working with Supervisor Alioto-Pier and taking other steps to require the City Planning Department to accept its responsibility.

The neighborhood suggestion? Bring back the water taxi idea! If she really wanted better commute service to her district, an inexpensive option would be supporting the extension to the Presidio via the MSR extension. However in discussions with folks who live in the area, they want nothing to do with it. "It'll just bring all the tourists and riff raff and the wires are ugly" I've heard before. Again, my lungs don't care about your aesthetic. So what makes the subway expansion different? Well for one thing it's easier to kill than more inexpensive incremental MSR extensions.

Before this goes any further, I'd really like to know where she stands on the MSR extension already planned for her district and if the idea of a subway extension to the Presidio via Lombard is an honest one. Personally, I like the idea in the long term (Geary subway first ALWAYS) but I question her motives based on previous votes and a lack of understanding from her and her constituents to what transit-first really means. Alioto Pier has been pro commuter transit but not big on the transit "lifestyle".

While she supports the Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP), and wants more people to ride Muni, she doesn't necessarily feel the City should be encouraging people to get rid of their cars.

No one I know wants people to get rid of their cars, we just want the option of getting around without them. It would be nice to have a subway to the Presidio. I imagine a lot of people would use it, especialy people who come from Marin and want to skip the city drive to downtown. But Geary is first, and the MSR extension is an easy way to expand that direction with dedicated lanes. Let's see where this goes shall we?

A Day in the Life

Today I had a cinco. I was on three different transit systems and on five different transport modes. This morning I woke up realizing that I needed to take my car in after the check engine light had been flashing at me lately and the throttle just wasn't acting right. Since I drive to my Grammas each week (because the bus line used to stop running at 3:30pm and is now gone) it's nice to have my car to get too and from her house.

But today I took my car to Broadway in Oakland and dropped it off. "Can I get you a courtesy Shuttle?" says the service manager. "No thanks, I'll take the bus". I walked through the showroom where everyone else was waiting for thier shuttle to take them to thier car needy areas and stepped out to the 51 bus stop. I hopped on and waited five minutes for the driver to load a wheelchair customer who almost ran him over. "Whoa, slow down man" he said to the motorized wheelchair owner who wanted to back over his feet while he held the seatbelt up for him. The rest of the trip to 14th and Broadway took about 6 minutes. Not long at all.

Later that evening when I got off work, I hopped on BART and rode to Powell. I got off and walked up stairs to the Muni Metro and hopped on the J Church LRV. I hopped off at Church and Market and walked into Safeway to buy groceries for the next few days. I walked back out and back onto the J to go home to 24th street.

That's pretty cool. I drove, took the bus, took the subway, took the Muni Metro and walked today while running a number of different errands that were on the way to my final destination. All possible because I live in a place that gives me options. I wish more people could do it this way and I know there are plenty of people out there who wish they could have the opportunity, but our leaders are denying them the option on the false premise of car superiority and lame numbers.

Hunters Point Subway

I like it. Heck, give Lennar a density bonus if they help fund it. The line looks awfully familiar. Like something out of a fantasy map...

Redundancy

State Street in Salt Lake is looking to bring a better place making game to the city. Though when comments about rapid transit along the street state that its not needed because of an existing parallel line, I worry about not seeing the need for redundancies at different scales. There is a need for quality transit, perhaps it's BRT, on parallel streets. Especially if its a shorter stop than the line a few blocks over.

So far, "high-capacity transit" means bus rapid transit. Anything else, such as streetcars, makes no sense, since most of the 16 miles of State in the study run parallel to, and only a few blocks from, the existing TRAX line.

Thinking of Market Street, there is BART, Muni Metro, Buses, and the F Line. Certainly one of those is not needed right? Wrong. All of these lines serve a different travel function. I'm surprised at how much this is misunderstood when you talk about transit in other cities. But there you have it. On the major streets in a region, redundant service types are necessary to get people where they want to go.

Routesy 2.0

I have to agree with Greg on this one, Routsey 2.o for the iPhone is a brilliant application. It melds together real time BART information with Muni making it really easy to get around the city. The best thing in my mind is the ability to bookmark stops you visit often. That is worth the $2.99 right there.

One of the things that we found out BART does better than anyone else is releasing thier real time data into space. Anyone can have access to it which is rare for transit agencies to be that transparent. Kudos to the team there for such excellent foresight that other agencies don't even want to even think about.

On the Coalition of Sustainable Transport

We're all in this together, us transit riders and bikers. We're in a fierce fight against the car and the its superior attitude out there that pervades our national psyche. Of course I believe that cars are necessary at some times (I drive one once a week to visit family) and we shouldn't completely rid ourselves of them. I also believe that bikes are real transportation and perhaps would be used more if infrastructure was built more for beginners who are truly scared for their lives when biking on the mean streets. But I can't get on board with comments like those written by Stephen Jones in his bikes article in the Guardian:

For the rest of you: what's your excuse? Why would you continue to rely on such wasteful and expensive transportation options — a label that applies to both cars and buses — when you could use the most efficient vehicle ever invented?

First off, a bus is nowhere near as wasteful as a car, especially here in San Francisco where many of our transit lines are electric and powered by hydro plants as well as packed to the brim with riders. Second, while I really love the fog in San Francisco, it's like the humidity in Houston that uses moisture to boil you alive, but instead chills you to the bone. It's not hard to wonder on a cold rainy day why someone might want to have the option of taking Muni. Transportation should be multi-modal to give people options. If we start to think our mode is the best for everything, we're no better than highway engineers and the sprawlagists.

I understand that it was probably supposed to be a rhetorical question, but I'd like to think we're in this together against the car culture that keeps modes of more efficient transportation from thriving. Perhaps many cyclists share this feeling, that Muni is not needed, however I believe that would be a dangerous mistake to make, and bust up a winning coalition that seems to have cars on the ropes, even if we do suffer setbacks such as today's budget fail.

Calling Shennanigans on The Emerald Aristocracy

Looks like the Muni budget crisis isn't just a function of the economy, but a reshuffling of the deck in order to keep other budgets running without as many cuts. In fact, according to Beyond Chron, $80 million dollars is work orders from other agencies within the city.

Muni’s $129 million deficit means the MTA Board is exploring painful choices that would cripple service, but $80 million of the problem is “work orders” from other City Departments. Newsom directed every agency to trim its budget, and some unloaded it on Muni by charging for services done for free.

Some of these include millions for 311, which apparently charges $1.96 every time you call and ask them to look up next muni for you. That is almost 50 cents more than a muni fare meaning that when those people who called step on the bus, they are actually adding $2 to the trip. Another issue that annoys me is that I have never seen a police officer on the bus, yet SFPD is looking for $12 million out of the budget.

What are we going to find tomorrow from the emerald aristocracy and thier gizmo green? You know, the ones that think electric cars are the answer in a city that couldn't park them anyways.

H/T Transbay & NJC

Philanthropy Intersecting Transit

I just had a wild and crazy idea. Much of the capital fundraising for philanthropy seems geared towards building new museums and other major pieces of infrastructure. In particular I was thinking about how Gap money man Don "More Parking" Fischer is looking to spend millions of dollars to build a new museum in the Presidio. The approximate $100 million could also be used to build a subway station along a Geary subway line.

But I wouldn't say that we shouldn't build the museum. I think the Museum should be attached to or at least part of the Subway station. In this way, new subway lines would be strings of culture funded in part by the philanthropic minded of the city while also providing a public good in transportation.

While we are always saying that we need to keep land use and transportation in one mindset, it seems that we could be thinking of better ideas of how to keep the large amount of donations that come from philanthropic interests moving towards not only the public good of increasing culture, but the public good of reducing emissions and improving movement and air quality for all citizens of the city. I would donate money to these causes and I believe others would as well for the double benefit that comes from it. I know I'm crazy but sometimes you just gotta throw ideas out there.

"This City is Supposed to Be Green"

Yes it is. But we have a fake green mayor. So this argument falls on deaf ears at city hall.

"I get that times are tough," Shelley Keith, 19, said as she waited for either a 14-Mission or a 26-Valencia for her trip home to Bernal Heights on Friday afternoon. "What I don't get is why cut public transportation. This is supposed to be a green city."

Transit riders get it. It's San Francisco's leadership that can't get their heads around that idea. Wake up you emerald aristocracy. It's times like these we need transit most. Congestion pricing for carbon cars anyone?

The Others

John over at RT Rider has an interesting post about his observations of a lady who clearly didn't feel comfortable at the bus stop with folks that weren't like her. This comes on the same day that I have a discussion with a person I had invited to a concert next week. Since the show is downtown, I asked if we could meet somewhere off of Muni so she didn't have to walk through a somewhat seedy part of Market Street by herself. She responded that she didn't take transit. Oh she'd tried it a few times but transit had always let her down.

The first thing that came to mind was oh man, we are not going to get along, the second was, how much different is the transit riding experience to females than it is to someone such as me who is somewhat tall, somewhat driven to take transit, and can be a bit scary myself when I haven't shaved in a bit? Would ridership go up if the situation were improved such that females felt safer and more comfortable on transit? I know many girls that are pretty hardcore about transit and aren't worried at all. But then there are those that I know that don't like to take it, especially alone. I think improving it for those types would improve it for everyone. Is that a standard to meet?

Muni History - Video of Twin Peaks Tunnel Opening

George B sent this to one of my email lists and if you're from San Francisco you'll appreciate it for sure.

So Basically...

the TEP was just a way to figure out which routes to cut. Awesome. You know, more people would take transit if you weren't always screwing them over. Though its not just Muni. You can give a big kiss to your state legislature for giving transit the bird over the next five years. And Gavin, you can take your Gubernatorial run and shove it down your fake green... anyone else angry?

Central Subway Further

Eric talks up the next phases of the Central Subway project. This got me thinking about the process the CS went through to get where it is today and all the dumb federal mandates that require Muni not to talk about anything outside of the scope of the project they are applying federal funding to. It's ridiculous really. I understand why they do it, so that the process is fair and all modes get a fair shake, but I wish they wouldn't pretend like one project is what a region needs. Extended network planning is important and waiting to talk about this expansion until a paper is signed is just silly.

Just Like the S.L.U.T., It's Now the T-Willie

Look, if something sticks it sticks. I hate the SLUT moniker in Seattle but it's never going away. Now that people are starting to call the T-Third the T-Willie, It won't go away just because the MTA says so. Sorry, the T-Brown just isn't catchy.

Now that is all besides the point. They shouldn't rename streets after living people. I personally think that in of itself is gross. It's Third Street.

Service Levels & Income

How about this cliche fest. The Examiner writes about how San Franciscans are tougher than the rest of the bay area when it comes to walking to transit through high crime areas. But in reading it, some of the writing made me skeptical that this was a real study or whether people didn't just take stereotypes into the paper:

In places like Oakland, Berkeley and Sunnyvale, the high-crime neighborhoods tend to scare people away from using nearby transit services, the study found. Folks had a tendency to walk less in those neighborhoods, choosing to drive instead, according to a new study from the Mineta Transportation Institute.
...
“In [San Francisco] neighborhoods where there was more crime, people were most likely to use transit,” said Dr. Christopher Ferrell, one of the study’s principal authors.
...
He added that The City’s transit services tend to be located in high-density areas, which invariably attract crime.
...
As expected, those who chose to live in suburban areas were more inclined to avoid walking in high-crime areas and using transit hubs within those areas. But even in a dense urban city such as Oakland, folks had a propensity to avoid public-transit hubs in high-crime neighborhoods.

Seems to me that this has nothing to do with crime but rather to do with transit service levels & income levels & self selection. What am I missing?

Transit in Trouble - Bay Area Profile

PBS has this video. I don't quite like the focus on subsidy, especially since they don't point out how much all other modes are subsidized as well, but I like that they are shining a light on the issue of operating rather than capital.

H/T Robert

Have You Heard of the N Judah Heist?

This was the story back in 1955. Can you imagine a bunch of high school kids hoping on an N and going for a ride, picking up passengers and evading the Muni Managers today?

H/T SF Muni History List

MTC Meeting Tonight

It might still be possible to get more money to bikes and transit projects from MTC. Check out Transbay Blog's post about tomorrow's meeting. If you go, tell them to shove the road money.

My annoyance goes far. They have done no modeling to see what would happen with Oakland or San Francisco core BART expansions in terms of land use and green house gas changes. There's no real true modeling as the Streetsblog post mentions to real bike infrastructure and improvements to Muni and other agency bus movement would go a long way as well. Curbing cars with congestion pricing downtown would be good, but only if they improve transit capacity and speeds into downtown and the areas within the cordon. As I always say, it shouldn't take me an hour to go three miles on the bus. That should be the goal, better transit service, not better car service during peak hours.

Pushing Hard or Hardly Pushing?

Where was Gavin during the campaign? I know a lot of people like Gavin, but I can't stand his moves on transit. It just seems like he's never pushed very hard for big ideas and he's always kind of floated in the wind when it comes to them, waiting till the last minute to voice the right answer. Sometimes he's all wrong on auto issues like allowing cars into Golden Gate park on the weekends.

Why isn't the TEP getting a French push like HSR? How come its not getting hammered in right now? He could be a real leader on that. I'm glad to see he's behind HSR. But it would have been nice to hear him scream about it during the campaign.

Mental Block Hop

On a loop around from our post on transit and energy usage, Matt discusses the issues of fares and the thought that transit should have little or no cost to use, just like empty roads. BUT, only if they are not crowded. That is time for congestion pricing. Empty buses, as that study showed do us no good. Heck I wouldn't mind if Muni were free during off periods. I was talking to a friend today who mentioned when he has his Muni pass, it makes him take transit more, because all he has to do is hop on. I would do the same thing, not worrying about getting quarters out of my bag. As he said, it's just enough of a mental block to discourage it, just like losing my parking spot discourages me from driving.