In response to SFMTA’s budget deficit and threatened service cuts and fare hikes, the Sierra Club San Francisco Group has some policy recommendations. Below is their letter by our board member, Howard Strassner. (Note: this is not Rescue Muni policy, though we are long-time proponents of expanded rapid bus service.)
From: SIERRA CLUB SAN FRANCISCO GROUP
85 Second Street, Box SFG, San Francisco, CA 94105
February 3, 2010
To: Board of Directors
Municipal Transportation Agency
One South Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94103
Re: 2009-10 Reduce Traffic by Using Transit Streets for Transit
Dear Directors,
Muni has budget shortfall problems that your forecaster can not predict will be eased soon. However, your Market Street experiment shows that even a small reduction in traffic helps increase Muni’s speed. On busy lines faster runs will provide better service while allowing a bus to be removed and reduce operating costs.
San Francisco drivers have long impaired Muni service. Average speed data prepared for the Transit Effectiveness Project Briefing Book shows that Muni’s systemspeed (Figure 6-8) slowed from 9.2 mph in 1975 to 8.1 mph in 2005, or 12%. During almost the same time census data shows that San Francisco’s automobile population increased from 212,000 in 1960 to 377,000 in 2000 or 77.9%. These cars did stay parked and their drivers added to the congestion which slows Muni. Your budget problems result from a transit system which costs more to operate each year, while operating at slower speeds and carrying fewer riders. This death spiral must be reversed. You took a unique step to reduce unnecessary auto traffic with the Market Street experiment. This shows that simple changes can increase operating speeds while reducing operating costs and improving the transit experience for riders.
The Sierra Club suggests the following:
Implement Forced Right Turns on more narrow transit streets (Divisadero, Fillmore, Stockton and others) with signs to direct auto traffic to turn right and cameras to aid police enforcement. A short “Jersey barrier†near a few intersections where Muni does not stop could force all traffic except buses, trucks and emergency vehicles to turn right. The latter would use the center lane to continue. Buses would use their current stops at the curb. It may be necessary to remove a few parking spaces to allow space for the right turn. The results, similar to Market, will be more walking, biking, Muni use and maybe more traffic on parallel streets. Unlike Market Street cars could still park at the curb. It should be clear that many narrow commercial neighborhood and transit streets cannot also be auto thoroughfares. Forced right turns are a major component of Transit First.
Study the more capital intensive version of the above with Muni operating in a dedicated center lane with adjacent boarding islands. No left turns would be allowed. Cars and trucks could park along side the Muni right-of-way except at the center boarding islands. Sidewalks would be removed with cars and trucks moving at pedestrian speeds. Drivers and merchants would have more parking because no space would be lost to fire hydrants or red corners. Through traffic would choose to use parallel streets and emergency vehicles could use the Muni lane.
Implement additional improvements not considered in 1975 which include: strict signal priorities; low floor buses; proof of payment and others in the TEP Briefing Book. Since the Metro subway was not in operation in 1975 Muni should be able achieve average speeds greater than the 9.1 mph recorded in 1975. We can no longer afford the status quo.
Urge the Federal Government to allow the Central Subway funds to be used for Bus Rapid Transit to speed Muni on the wider transit streets, and to convert narrow transit streets into Transit Preferential Streets. Muni can no longer afford a Central Subway that does not reduce operating costs. Our Federal, State and City governments all have financial problems requiring Muni to use capital for a permanent solution to Muni’s financial problems.
The Sierra Club and transit advocates are ready to help you make these changes. We will transmit our suggestions for revenue increases in a separate letter because you will need time and money to escape the status quo.
Very truly yours,
Howard Strassner, Emeritus Chair Transportation Committee
This entry was posted
on Thursday, February 4th, 2010 at 2:01 pm and is filed under Budget, Muni Service.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
I agree that the speed of Muni is critical. If the time it takes to get to work on Muni is similar to the time it takes to drive, more people will use Muni and be willing to pay higher fares.
I do not understand how Howard’s proposal will work. I would appreciate it if Rescue Muni would asses Howard’s proposal and make it more understandable to us civilians. Just how would the right turn thing work and what would be the impact on other streets?
Time is money, so making automobile and truck traffic more congested would have negative economic impacts. The idea of congestion pricing in other cities was to relieve congestion for all forms of transportation; to speed the movement of goods and services. Good traffic engineering can relieve congestion with the same number of vehicles. Is that the essence of Howard’s proposal?
It is true that between 1960 and 2000 fewer San Franciscans used transit and more drove to work, but many of those were reverse commuters. Since 2000 fewer San Franciscans are driving to work. The big increase is in telecommuting and walking.
The M-line and lines downtown are significantly slower consistently. Delays, and upcoming work on the St.Francis Circle rail will make things only worse. The proposed future routing of transit into Parkmerced allowing private development to step in to finance track and platform construction, vs. adequate direct routing of transit and assessing equitably the neighborhoods and institutions where transit occurs is a sincere issue lacking in the future proposed lines in our district. The SFSU/CSU MOU with the city and county of SF ignored joint impacts and “fair-share” payment in terms of the SFSU student ridership on the M-Line to downtown. Many students, seniors, disabled, and working class citizens in Parkmerced and outlying district 11 residents including METNA neighborhood areas are cut from the access due to these changes.
If muni has such a problem in terms of funding, develop alternative lines such as BRT along Sunset Blvd., along Juipero Serra Blvd. and the old St.Francis Circle Line, re-place the cut 88 bus around lake merced, and the 18 with a speedier designated local lane for transit or BRT, or future light-rail systems. Perhaps not even a MUNI train, but a newer green option that allows bike, pedestrian and rail to work as the primary routes, and placing car/auto traffic in restricted 1-2 lane max. systems.
Transit first policy, must not allow private development to dictate the routing of future transit. Federal Funding for direct linkage, tunneling, out along 19th ave, junipero serra blvd. to daly city bart or colma for auto traffic, and placing rail above ground or aerial systems is the best solution to the current blockage in district 7.
As an architect, and resident of this area, I am concerned that LRV speeds, still are a big concern when they are being proposed in very “tight” future lines in the Parkmerced areas “vision-plan” when SFPUC rail safety spokespersons indicated the MUTUAL and LARGER benefit to tunneling the systems and “LAYERING” in the needed changes regardless of cost… Its a safety issue that is primary and not a cost issue….