March 12, 2008

Transportation Focus Group

Meeting Notes by Charles Rivasplata

Tom Radulovich again chaired the focus group meeting, requesting that participants introduce themselves (Calendar Item 1). A total of 11 individuals attended, many of them Western SoMa Task Force members.

The following bullets summarize many of the principal topics discussed at the meeting:

· Tom introduced Peter Straus and Britt Tanner of the Municipal Transportation Authority (MTA), announcing that they would be making a presentation on the Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP) and the recently released set of initial network recommendations (Calendar Item 2). Jim Meko had some issues with the fact that the MTA presentation was in Powerpoint, however Tom explained that there were important graphics that needed to be shown. Peter agreed to keeping his presentation somewhat brief, with a period for questions afterwards.

· Peter began the presentation with an overview of the process and the principal concerns that MTA had going into the project. He went over some of the project principles:

- reliability is key to system performance;

- frequency of service is an important aspect;

- the scenario is constrained, based on where the system is now;

- boardings are concentrated in certain areas more than others

In addition, Peter mentioned the three overriding TEP priorities:

- reducing travel time;

- updating Muni routes; and

- reliability (schedules, operator/vehicles, supervision, congestion mgmt.).

Peter explained the importance of a four-tiered network structure, consisting of rapid service (5-10 min. headway); local service (10-15 min.); community service (15- 30min.); and specialized services.

· Peter stressed that MTA is currently in the proposal stage and that changes will be made. He next went over some of the proposed routes crossing Western SoMa: 9, 47, 19, 27 and 12.

· During the 47 Line discussion, John Elberling asked why the route was not sent down Folsom, rather thanMission Street. Marc said that he would like to see overhead wires on Folsom. Peter responded that the proposed route would largely serve transfers at Van Ness Station.

· With respect to the 19 route, Jim commented that the blocks in the SoMa are long and that west of 8^th Street, service will not exist on Folsom. Tom remarked that the route does serve some of the objectives outlined in the overall TEP project even though it doesn't extend west of 8^th.

· Jim questioned the manner in which a user could effectively travel from the YMCA near the Embarcadero, down Folsom to Rainbow Grocery, and eventually 16^th Street. He argued that there are numerous important destinations along the way that depend on transit service, and said that the TEP did not provide connectivity.

· Marc argued that in addition, the TEP process had not yet fully taken into account community needs, including services to schools, recreation areas, etc.

· John emphasized the importance of Mission Street lines for travel between SoMa and both the Downtown and the Mission – he supported good service on that street.

· Marc expressed concern over placing the 27 on Harrison, since the street is fairly poorly lit. He pointed out that residents have to be able to travel to destinations within their neighborhood (e.g., work, shopping) and return home.

· Peter reconfirmed the routing that he understood to be important to the Western SoMa Task Force: Van Ness to Folsom to Second Street.

· Jim emphasized the point that the proposed network did not need to be drastically changed, but rather that resources needed to be shifted a few blocks. For example, service on Mission could be moved a few blocks south to operate on Folsom, between 7^th and 11^th Streets.

· Tom explained that there were a few points to emphasize:

- Harrison and Bryant are freeway frontage streets servicing the freeway;

- by moving the 27 south, the line could serve Bryant and Brannan, rather than Bryant and Harrison.

· Jim brought up the proposed new transit route circulated earlier by Marc that could connect Church St. Station and Caltrain, giving upper Market direct service to Caltrain and adjacent areas. He questioned why this service has yet to be included, and the very process that chose to exclude it from consideration altogether. Marc pointed out that a number of commercial uses lie along the proposed line, including construction centers, retail outlets, and other stores. Peter responded that he was not involved in the decision, but that there were constraints that prevented it from being taken forward.

· In response to a question from Marc concerning the inclusion of headway information on TEP graphics (e.g., higher frequency lines in darker colors), Peter responded that headways are listed on the TEP web page by interval lengths in minutes.

· Concerning reasons for not fully including future projects in the TEP, Peter responded that this project only has a 5-7 year horizon. However, he said that the MTA was also looking at 20-year plans, but not as a part of this TEP.

· Jim highlighted the fact that the Western SoMa Citizens Task Force has been working through City staff (e.g., Charles Rivasplata, Chester Fung, Megan Wier) on the Community Plan. Jim made it clear that he does not want this planning effort to be a short-term process.

· Tom posed a question concerning the manner in which investments are made to support the system. He emphasized the importance of improving neighborhood mobility.

· Megan asked about the CHAMP travel model and whether projected land use information will be factored into the proposal. Chester responded that the TA is working with the Planning Department to incorporate data on pipeline land use changes. Charles acknowledged that the Planning Department will continue to work with the MTA on studying the implications of upcoming plans.

· Jim pointed out that the Western SoMa Community Plan can't propose neighborhood commercial development on Folsom (8^th to 11^th Streets) if that stretch is not going to be adequately served by transit.

· Marc asked that a motion be introduced to recommend changes to the proposed TEP network in the Western SoMa area. These changes include:

- routing the 47 Line down Folsom rather than Mission;

- extending the reach of the 19 Line further east towards Rincon Hill

- switching the 27 Line (westbound) from Harrison to Brannan, while keeping it on Bryant (eastbound);

The motion was taken to a vote among participants at the meeting. Among task force members, 4 favored, 0 opposed and 1 abstained (4-0-1).

· Tom next addressed the revised Western SoMa Transportation Network Scenario Map (Calendar Item 3). Charles presented changes made to the map since the previous meeting, explaining that there needed to be more discussion on pedestrian crossings across 9^th and 10^th Streets. Marc recommended that more crossings ultimately be added, particularly on 9^th, between Mission and Howard. He again stressed the idea of developing a tiered list of priorities for pedestrian improvements (e.g., a pedestrian crossing at Dore could be on Tier 3)

· Finally, Charles distributed (to everyone present at the meeting) the latest draft Transportation Element of the Community Plan. He explained that it now includes three new network-oriented plan sections that were requested by the Focus Group: Alleys, Neighborhood-Oriented Streets and Regional Streets. He asked that the document be reviewed promptly and that comments be sent to him by 31 March. He emphasized the importance of having these comments prior to a 3 April deadline for completion, and well before the next meeting.

· Tom reminded the group of changes that needed to be made to the General Plan, namely, the freight map and the parking belt map.

All items on the calendar were covered. The next Transportation Focus Group meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, 9 April, at the same time and location. Next time, Julie Kirschbaum will answer questions concerning the TEP, and the draft Transportation Element will be more fully discussed.