Transbay Blog

The SFCTA recently released a report (PDF), which, to no one’s surprise, affirmed the agency’s desire to pursue bus rapid transit on Geary instead of light rail. The BRT route would feature dedicated bus lanes and platforms on wide Geary Boulevard, but no dedicated lanes in the downtown segment of the route east of Gough. The report studied several alternatives to evaluate which should be forwarded into the EIR/EIS process. The recommended choices were BRT running in center lanes (considering both side and island platforms, although the latter would require vehicles with left and right doors), along with a less effective side-running alternative that was also moved forward. East of Gough, different versions of a two-way Geary Street (including a transit mall) were rejected; however, transit preferential treatment was moved forward for EIR/EIS purposes. These are the basic design standards that have already been contemplated in connnection with this project, and really the only potentially tricky section to design will be the configuration of the intersections at Fillmore and Masonic. No light rail alternative was recommended for further environmental review.

Those who dream of one day rebuilding the B-Geary line, figuring that it would be worth the investment, might not be swayed by the TA’s stated excuses for not pursuing light rail: the increased expense and complexity (see this memo or presentation, PDFs), and tight competition for considerable extra funding. From the cost persepctive, something does not quite add up. The TA may have escalated its cost figures based on the astronomically high costs of the Central Subway, because even using the numbers cited by the TA in its report, a six-mile Geary line — including a downtown subway terminating at Montgomery Station, with a west portal at Laguna — should cost something in the ballpark of $1.2-$2 billion, not $5 billion as claimed. Even on the basis of existing ridership (to say nothing of the new riders it would attract), rail would certainly be suitable for the Geary corridor. But there are also good arguments that favor moving forward with BRT at this time.  Corridor improvements (increased ridership, ride quality, and so forth) are diluted for the BRT project as compared to LRT, but those improvements would be implemented faster, and at lower cost ($150-$200 million) — and similar improvements could then be carried out more quickly on other major transit corridors throughout the city, as well. Disruptions associated with light rail construction were opposed by neighborhood merchants. Moreover, the T-Third and Central Subway contain a host of diverse planning infelicities that, to be frank, call into question the SFMTA’s ability to oversee additional major capital projects. The current design and alignment of the Central Subway damages a potential B-Geary/T-Third transfer station at Union Square (just as the T-Third transfer to Market Street will be inadequate) — and in the long term, it may make more sense to include Geary in the regional rail network with a BART line instead of Muni Metro. I suspect that there will be strong views on both sides as to whether the SFCTA is making the correct decision by pursuing BRT rather than LRT. I certainly do not want to discourage debate on this topic, since Geary is an important corridor that has been unwisely neglected, and it is worthy of the discussion. But BRT remains the mode of choice going forward.

In the spirit of Tom Prete’s reposted tweets from SPUR’s Central Subway talk, I collected the series of Twitter messages I posted during the April 7 SFMTA budget hearing. I missed the first part, so it’s not a complete transcript, but it gives a pretty good idea about how transit riders and the MTA Board feel about the proposed fare hikes and service cuts. Now that the MTA has absorbed the Taxi Commission, the colorful testimony that characterized the Taxi Commission has now moved in on the MTA board meetings; as such, most of the commentary at the hearing actually came from cab drivers angry about the possibility of medallion transfers, and I did not tweet quotes from that testimony. With regard to the transit parts of the hearing, we know that multiple directors (including Beach, Oka, and Heinicke) oppose charging for transfers, a policy that I have specifically highlighted as being inconsistent with Muni’s existing route layout. Director Heinicke supported price increases on fares and passports only, and that idea was not really opposed. The directors did not explain their opinions on the service cuts in great detail, and readers are encouraged to continue writing in to the MTA, to caution against implementing the most problematic cuts. Some combination of fare hikes and service cuts will ultimately have to be implemented to balance the budget. But new sources of long-term revenue will also be needed to offset the decline in TDA funds, as well as the State’s outright removal of STA funds. It is this new long-term revenue that still remains to be fleshed out; Heinicke suggested a tax for car rental at San Francisco International Airport, both to generate revenue and encourage use of taxis. Another major component of the discussion that will get hashed out are the work orders that are diverting 2007 Prop A funds away from Muni to other City departments, against the will of the voters. The work orders will be discussed at the April 8 meeting of the Board of Supervisors Budget & Finance Committee, at 1:30 pm.

And now, onto the tweet transcript:

Read the rest of this entry »

There is a lot that we might say about the fare hikes and service cuts that the SFMTA has proposed to close its $128.9 million budget deficit for the upcoming fiscal year. The 74X Culture Bus, which rarely carries more than a couple riders and largely duplicates the 5-Fulton, ought to be cut. But seeing as the core section of the Geary route is already inundated with riders, the Ocean Beach branch of the 38-Geary should not be cut, particularly when we ought to take measures to grow ridership on this workhorse Muni corridor. Many agencies do charge for transfers, so adding a 50-cent charge for a transfer might not seem like scraping the bottom of the barrel — but that, too, would be an unjust move, considering that the entire system layout, attuned as it is to the street grid, is predicated on the availability of a free transfer. The SFMTA could redesign many routes to take on an angular shape that eliminates the transfer (and in the process, potentially further damage headway consistency on some corridors); but charging for a transfer is inconsistent with the existing route alignments. The proposed changes consist largely of service cuts that are informed by data from the Transit Effectiveness Project, but without implementing the increased service to core routes that the TEP also envisioned. There is much more that we could say about those cuts; those thoughts are indeed being voiced, and we would certainly encourage you to do so as well directly to the SFMTA, if you can — either by attending today’s hearing at City Hall (Room 400 at 2:00 pm), or by contacting the MTA through other means. At today’s hearing, the MTA will also consider declaring a fiscal emergency to exempt its proposed changes from CEQA review.

Read the rest of this entry »

First, A Few Numbers (and Acronyms)

Regular readers may recall our previous discussion of Transportation 2035, the latest update to MTC’s ongoing efforts on the Regional Transportation Plan. Earlier this year, we wrote a special feature that describes the multifaceted plan, fleshing out how MTC has proposed to allocate $226 billion of local, state, and federal transportation funding that was expected to become available to the Bay Area over the next quarter century. However, changes in the economy and funding climate have necessitated that MTC revise a few aspects of the RTP. The State of California yanked away STA money that funds transit operations; in the Bay Area, this means that local transit operators will lose access to over $55 million that they were relying upon for the remainder of this fiscal year, and no STA funding at all will be provided in upcoming years. Assuming that the state reinstates STA funding in five years, the Bay Area will have lost $1.2 billion of STA and spillover funds in the interim; MTC also projected a $4.5 billion loss in TDA revenue over the 25-year RTP timeline. Another change is VTA’s recent announcement that it can only afford to build the BART extension to San Jose as far as Berryessa Station, postponing the construction of the downtown subway alignment. This, in turn, is connected to the issue of declining transportation sales tax revenue; this is potentially problematic throughout the region, not just in Santa Clara County, although it is not yet clear just how problematic. Considering the new forecasts for transit revenue, the region’s transit operation shortfall will increase from $3.2 to $8.5 billion. This includes a $283 million shortfall for AC Transit, a $442 million shortfall for Golden Gate Transit, a $1.6 billion shortfall for SamTrans, a $1.9 billion shortfall for Muni, and a whopping $3.2 billion shortfall for VTA, which is the worst operation shortfall in the region. Meanwhile, the transit capital shortfall will increase from $16.1 to $17.1 billion. It also takes into consideration that the cost of the BART extension to San Jose has increased from $6.1 billion to $7.6 billion (year of expenditure). Overall, the $226 billion plan has been reduced in size to a $218 billion plan. The plan adds $1.3 billion of revenue: about $280 million in connection with AC Transit’s Measure VV parcel tax, and $1 billion of VTA joint development revenue. It also anticipates $3 billion of funds for high-speed rail, with half coming from Proposition 1A, and the other half coming from the federal stimulus package’s $8 billion allocation to high-speed rail.

Read the rest of this entry »

Washington Square: next stop on the line? Top image courtesy of House of Orion; bottom image courtesy of Streetsblog.

There have been two flavors of discussion lately about the Central Subway — one, which exposes the unsurprising revelation that this exercise in burrowing underground is already going over budget; and the other, as at SPUR’s recent forum on the Central Subway, which pushes forward, dreaming for a bigger, and hopefully better line. (By the way: many thanks to Tom Prete for his Twitter coverage of the SPUR event, and be sure to also check out his excellent recent piece on Muni’s express buses.) Is bigger always best, or is it better to be short and sweet? Thanks to the subway’s somewhat awkward stub end at Chinatown, both might be partially true. That we would expand rail to Chinatown, daylight the tunnel-boring machines near Washington Square, and then not bring rail service to North Beach would indeed seem to be a missed opportunity, even for Central Subway skeptics like yours truly. But then, where to extend the tracks? To Fisherman’s Wharf, as some suggest — or to Fort Mason, the Marina District, the Presidio, and even the Golden Gate Bridge, as others have suggested? Surface light rail through North Beach might be more than Columbus Avenue streetscape planners have bargained for, but our hunch is to side with the Fisherman’s Wharf supporters on this one. Not because we feel a pressing need to add a third track connection between Union Square and the Wharf, on top of cable cars and the F-line — but because it is a natural point of extension that would add value without requiring too lengthy an extension; we might dare even to call it “damage control.” Van Ness will have dedicated bus lanes by this point in time, and terminating the rail extension there near North Point would facilitate a transfer to more robust service on that corridor. Besides, we would rather see historic streetcars go to Fort Mason, and we’re not convinced that both services are needed. As for the Presidio, an extension of the 30-Stockton trolley — and perhaps, eventually, historic streetcars as well — to the Presidio Transit Center strikes us as the more reasonable plan. The benefit gained by extending the Central Subway from Chinatown to Washington Square is considerable; but a westward extension, into the Marina and beyond, seems to carry much less benefit per dollar spent. For one, try convincing certain Marina folk that, really, more overhead wires might not reduce their property values. Okay, we jest (sort of), but setting that aside, ridership in the northwest corner of town is less than well-demonstrated: the 30 and 45 buses are not thoroughly used in the Marina and Cow Hollow. They sometimes run largely empty until they arrive at crowded Chinatown stops on Stockton Street, which suggests that building such an extension would not yield the best bang for buck. The peak hour 30X Marina Express buses to the Financial District are well-used, but — short of the SFMTA cutting popular express bus routes to increase Central Subway ridership — why would downtown-bound Marina commuters choose to ride the Central Subway and then execute a several-minute transfer at the inexpertly designed Union Square/Market Street station, when a one-seat express bus ride could take them directly downtown? We don’t know, either. And, to be frank, there are other corridors where the transit capital dollars would be a better investment.

Transit ridership has reached a 52-year high, reports APTA, with 10.7 billion transit trips taken in the year 2008. This represent a 4% increase over 2007, and vehicle miles traveled decreased 3.6% nationwide during the same period of time; it also represents a 38% increase since 1995, a rate that outpaces growth in both population and VMT. APTA’s data indicates that light rail systems enjoyed the largest ridership jump (8.3% increase), followed by paratransit (5.9% increase), commuter rail (4.7% increase), buses (3.9% increase), and heavy rail subways (3.5% increase). Although the Overhead Wire cautions us with a reality check, it is so encouraging to see that interest in transit nationwide survived both job losses and the decline in gas prices from a high near $5/gallon earlier in 2008.

With the notable exceptions of VTA’s light rail system and San Francisco Muni generally (both of whose ridership growth per mode fell behind the national average), ridership increases for major Bay Area transit operators not only reflect, but in most instances actually outpace, the national trend. Our commuter rail operators (ACE, Caltrain, and Capitol Corridor) significantly outpaced the national average, as did bus ridership for AC Transit and VTA:

APTA’s statistics also noted that some of the largest jumps in bus ridership occurred in cities with population under 100,000 (9.3% increase for smaller communities, compared to a 3.9% average increase across all bus operators). This trend was also reflected in the Bay Area. Some of our smaller bus-only transit operators enjoyed comparable increases in ridership, e.g. Fairfield-Suisin Transit (9.73% increase), Tri Delta (9.91% increase), and Rio Vista Delta Breeze, whose 3,400 daily bus riders in 2007 jumped to 8,400 in 2008. WHEELS ridership increased just 5.35%.

This evening, the SFMTA Board endorsed 7-0 the latest set of revisions of the Transit Effectiveness Project, which was the subject of rather extensive public hearing last month. The Board’s unanimous vote effectively closes the planning phase and moves the project forward into the environmental assessment and implementation phase. Rollouts of specific recommendations are anticipated to begin in July 2009, to be preceded by pilot projects during the first half of 2009. The Board also approved a $1.2 million contract with PB Americas (division of Parsons Brinckerhoff), who will act as consultants for the implementation phase of TEP.

The recommendations endorsed by the Board include both the TEP staff proposals and further changes from the Ad Hoc Committee. The Ad Hoc Committee revised the latest reincarnation of proposals, particularly the route realignments that instigated the most controversy. The Committee largely supported TEP staff proposals, including: (1) complete elimination of the 3-Jackson, 10-Townsend, 26-Valencia, and 53-Southern Heights; (2) elimination of segments of the 2-Clement and 37-Corbett, as well as the Ocean Beach branch of the 38-Geary; and (3) the longer-term plan to further study reallocating single-car J-Church service to the lightly-used segment of the M-Oceanview west of Balboa Park, a recommendation that proved controversial for residents who enjoy direct M service to West Portal. However, the Ad Hoc Committee set forth certain changes, including: (1) for the 39-Coit, restoring the controversial Union Street deletion as a pilot project to observe if ridership increases would justify permanently retaining that segment; (2) retaining 66-Quintara service on 30th Avenue; and (3) retaining the controversial 36-Teresita segment between Monterey and Portola. The committee also recommended further study in the environmental assessment of proposed changes to the 6-Parnassus and 7-Haight.

Several capital investments are packaged into a more long-term enhanced plan, but they are not part of the budget neutral plan, because of the additional funding needed to build them. The enhanced plan establishes as a future priority projects like the 30-Stockton extension to the Presidio Transit Center, and the historic streetcar extension to Fort Mason — as well as expansions that would enhance Muni connections to regional rail service, notably the M-Oceanview extension to Daly City BART, and T-Third extension from Sunnydale to Bayshore Caltrain.

Courtesy Market Street Railway/ Clark Frazier.

If you’re a transit geek (you know who you are) who cannot get enough of the transit history of Geary Street, you’re in luck: the Market Street Railway has published an excellent piece that discusses both streetcar operations on Geary and the unfortunate demise of the B-Geary streetcar line. The post also includes some seriously sweet images (including the one at right) of cars at various points along the Geary route. And on a side note: I have not forgotten my promise to write one more post to close off the Geary series. Things are incredibly busy right now, which means that posting, in general, will be on the slow side; but that last promised section is in progress and will be posted sooner or later. In the meantime, visit the Market Street Railway blog to quench your thirst for material on Geary transit.

There are two notable Muni events happening tomorrow, Saturday, September 20. First is the debut of the Muni Metro East light rail maintenance and storage facility. Located on Illinois Street between 25th Street and Cesar Chavez, the new facility is more convenient to the T-Third terminus at Sunnydale. LRVs can access the complex using two wyes south of the 23rd Street T-Third station. The $204 million facility will store 80 LRVs, thus providing relief to the overburdened Green Division at Balboa Park.

The other piece of news is the start of service on the new 74X line, a.k.a. CultureBus, a special service line that will link museums and other cultural institutions that are dispersed across San Francisco. The line will be introduced this week in order to usher in the opening of the new Academy of Sciences next week, on September 27. Fare — which is valid on the 74X for one full day — is $7 for adults, $5 for youth and seniors, and $3 with a Fast Pass. Service runs between about 8:40 am and 5:50 pm, on 20-minute headways. The line travels between Howard & New Montgomery and Golden Gate Park; along the way, it stops at the cluster of museums in the Yerba Buena District, at Union Square, and at the Asian Art Museum. Outbound buses then express to Golden Gate Park. The bus does not serve the more remotely-located Legion of Honor. Click here to see a list of inbound and outbound stops on the 74X.

Service will be run on special, branded vehicles — yellow, no less, so they will probably be difficult to miss. SFMTA anticipates pretty light ridership: about 20-30 riders per bus.  The success of the new line is premised on the assumption that enough people are visiting multiple museums in a single day, in order to make the expensive fare worthwhile — and perhaps it is also premised on the assumption that riders are not sufficiently familiar with Muni to realize that the cultural institutions along the route are already well-served by much less expensive (although locally-serving) transit. It would be interesting to investigate the extent to which ridership would increase by anchoring this line at a regional rail node. One nice service option might be to coordinate service with the hourly northbound Caltrain arrivals on the weekend, depending on how many riders that connection would attract. Also: while the 74X route waffles within a few blocks of the BART subway, it does not actually stop directly at a station.

If you have an opportunity to ride the CultureBus this weekend, please write back with your experience!

Let’s not fool ourselves — there was really no chance that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors would not certify the Final Supplemental EIR (FEIR/FEIS) for the Central Subway project. Yesterday, the Board did exactly that; the vote was 10-0, with Sandoval absent. The Central Subway, which will extend the T-Third light rail line north from Caltrain to Chinatown, would add one surface station at Brannan, and three subway stations at Moscone, Union Square/Market Street, and Chinatown along the 4th/Stockton alignment. In recent months, this long-planned project has come under increased criticism from North Beach residents, who have protested the plan to have the tunnel boring machines resurface at Washington Square. The legendary neighborhood opposition in North Beach to, well, just about anything, could prove to be an obstacle to eventually extend the T-Third into North Beach and Fisherman’s Wharf. However, given that the subway only serves a portion of this corridor (terminating as it does at an unnatural point in Chinatown), the long-term viability of the project demands that just such a northward extension be constructed. Meanwhile, BART has expressed much more serious concern that boring the deep subway crossing under Market Street could damage the existing Powell Street Station.

The Board’s vote to certify the EIR overrided an appeal that pointed out some key flaws we have previously discussed, including the EIR’s misleadingly stated travel time improvements and inflated ridership estimates. It is abundantly clear that Chinatown would benefit immensely from a commitment to embrace robust transit solutions for the Stockton Street corridor, and a better planned subway tunnel could well be worth the investment. But, as proposed, there is a large proportionality disconnect between the project’s extreme cost — $1.4 billion now, but almost certain to go over budget — and its actual benefits. Just as frustrating is the EIR’s willingness to either dismiss or ignore compelling project alternatives, such as building a tunnel that could accommodate joint bus and light rail service, similar to that in downtown Seattle. Such an alternative would divert more transit operations to the tunnel, thereby reducing operating costs and allowing thousands of daily bus riders to benefit from the tunnel by avoiding surface street congestion. But in the end, attempts to displace the flawed analysis in the EIR were overshadowed by the iron strong political motivations underpinning the Central Subway.