November 14, 2007

Transportation Focus Group

Meeting Notes by Charles Rivasplata

This meeting, which was chaired by Tom Radulovich, covered transportation issues not previously covered at prior Transportation Focus Group meetings. At the outset of the process, it was agreed that November's meeting would rehash transit issues and review other transportation themes, such as parking.

An announcement was made at the beginning of the meeting. The parking district measure (Peskin) was withdrawn from the February ballot and will not likely be an issue in the future.

The following points summarize the central topics and concerns discussed at the meeting:

· Tom Radulovich brought up the question of curb cuts and whether you put them on major streets or not. Maps will need to look at General Plan amendments to bring back.

· As far as the Community Plan is concerned, it was suggested that we look at bringing everything together, taking into account how we want to organize the report and plan. What changes need to be made to what is already in the General Plan? For example, what is presently in the SOMA Plan component of that document?

· Marc Salomon presented the concept of aChurch Street to surface rail line from the Church Street Muni Metro Station (Church/Market) to the Caltrain Station (Fourth/King), via Market, Duboce/Division and Townsend Streets. This line would more directly link Caltrain to the Upper Market rail corridor, and would serve the  box stores along the way. He suggested that it be proposed for consideration in the Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP), and that Julie Kirschbaum of MTA be invited to return. Jim Meko mentioned that it would have to be noticed.

· Tom recapped past discussions with MTA regarding Folsom Street and the one-way streets/mid-block crossing issues. He mentioned that the response from the MTA engineers was that switching to two-way traffic was problematic, and that mid-block crossings would be more easily implemented with one-way streets. The engineers brought up issues with street widths and the fact that two-way streets would provide no additional benefit, i.e., less space and sidewalks that are no wider.

· The counter-proposal would be to have three lanes in each direction on Folsom and Howard Streets, with wider sidewalks. Toby Levy asked about Bryant and Harrison and voiced the possibility of reconfiguring the road space from four to three lanes, with wider sidewalks and a possible contra-flow lane.

· Tom favored looking at Folsom and Howard first, mentioning that many parallel streets in the area have the same width. He mentioned the possibility of proposing the elimination of peak period tow away regulations to MTA.

· Jim questioned the benefit to commuters of reconfiguring Folsom from four to three lanes. He argued that this option would provide a wider transit lane, but little else.

· Toby favored a greener Folsom, with green medians, and perhaps, better sidewalks on one side of the street. Jim advocated rerouting the 47 Line to Folsom, as far as Fourth Street , and then, down this street to the Caltrain Station.

· Tom explained that there is an advantage to designing far side stops (with bus bulbs), as it can be instrumental in the improvement of transit vehicle boarding. The 12 Line uses Folsom and Harrison and there is a debate surrounding the provision of frequent service on a small number of equally spaced, parallel streets (as opposed to less frequent service on numerous streets). He mentioned that the MTA was asked to look at the possibility of tailoring transit to serve land use rather than vice versa.

· Toby mentioned the possibility of having an urban designer redesign Folsom, so that it not only has wider sidewalks, but also is planned more tastefully. She also mentioned that in the SLI it may be possible to use one lane for loading, thereby complementing the proposed use of the street.

· Tom pointed out that pedestrian traffic on the sidewalks is not analogous to vehicle traffic on streets, since people on the sidewalk often stop and talk, in a less constrained environment. He advocates a strong implementation plan for the area.

· Marc and Jim brought up the fact that Folsom is not currently at full capacity. Marc would like to have the MTA consider a contra-flow lane and entertains the idea of purchasing transit vehicles that have doors on both sides of the vehicle, i.e., for easier boarding. He says that it is possible to increase the capacity of Folsom to Valencia Street 's present level.

· Jim supported locating transit services on Howard, due to its proximity to Mission (re-route the 12 Line). Tom contemplated placing transit on corridors that already have significant development. Toby made the point that there is not presently  much out there on Folsom between Seventh and Tenth Streets.

· Tom presented the idea of developing the right conditions for Folsom Street to be Neighborhood Commercial (NC)-oriented. He mentioned that the MTA needs to have two or three options. Toby favored  NC-lite on Ninth and Tenth Streets.

· Marc would like to see existing volumes on Folsom to see what capacity remains. Paul identified the need to set up a meeting with representatives of the MTA to discuss this topic (e.g., TEP staff could come to next month's meeting).

· Toby discussed past experiences with the provision of  U residential permit parking in metered areas of the Western SoMa. The MTA claims that it is too confusing to allow U permit holders to park in metered spaces. She identified the need to preserve parking for longer stays and older residents.

· Tom presented some possible options to consider for residential parking control:

- let the market decide

- only provide as many permits as there are spaces

· Tom brought up the possibility of getting rid of one or two-hour metered parking in favor of longer term (four-hour) parking at night. In addition, he is interested in exploring a dynamic pricing system on Folsom.

· Tom argued that planning is often controlled by zoning, and in public areas, parking is often not priced. Paul responded that one of the things driving parking is new development and people in these areas. He mentioned that standards for new development need to be coordinated with land use, i.e., development fuels greater demand for off-street parking.

· Paul pointed out that the high rate of parking turnover could cater to the local entertainment district. Subsequently, there would be a need for loading and parking would not accommodate commuters.

· Tom suggested setting up loading to coordinate it with local businesses and their schedules, as well as neighborhood needs. Marc would like to consider different delivery times, according to type of business (e.g., delivery from 8:00 to 9:00 a.m.).

· Paul mentioned ways of thinking about curb cuts on streets in the Western SoMa. He proposed keeping curb cuts on certain streets, such as Ninth, Tenth, Harrison and Bryant, but keeping them off alleyways in the area.

· Tom suggested that we look at avoiding curb cuts on the following streets

- transit streets

- pedestrian streets

- bicycle streets

· Toby would like to see us look at curb cut options on different streets. She said that alleyways should have as much weight as the major residential streets do. Paul also considered the possibility of spacing curb cuts to allow for parking spaces on alleyways, effectively reducing the density of curb cuts on these alleys (as opposed to some streets).

· Toby is interested in establishing a solid policy for curb cuts as well as spacing, supporting Tom's priorities

- keeping curb cuts off of TPS and alleyways;

- keep frontages from being dominated by auto access and egress.

· Paul suggested promoting shared parking facilities, with some form of ground floor commercial included. Tom floated the idea of instituting an off-site parking-by-right scheme in order to pool parking facilities. Toby also supported the policy of charging a construction fee as well as a user fee for parking in off-site locations (residential). She went on to bring up the possibility of developing an ongoing plan to tailor zoning to streets.

· Tom brought up the idea of developing a pedestrian network that satisfies the need for pedestrian movement in the Western SoMa. He specifically mentioned that Eleventh Street could be part of this network.

· Paul pointed to the future transportation options map developed by AND. He mentioned that Seventh, Twelfth, and Folsom are depicted as green streets. He suggested a tiering of street types, according to function. For example, everyone understands the roles of Ninth, Tenth, Harrison and Bryant as regional streets, but what of the remaining streets? Marc asked whether there should be transit on Eleventh Street.

The next Group meeting is to be held on Thursday, Dec. 6 at the same location. It is slated to cover other mobility topics and aspects of the transport component of the Community Plan.