Courtesy of SFMTA.

As one would expect in a market price experiment — as opposed to an exclusive revenue generation measure, or “stealth tax,” as it has been dubbed by the literati that haunt the SFGate comments section — the SFMTA both increased and decreased different meter rates depending on the level of demand for those parking spots.  In fact, for this first round of adjustments, most parking meters in pilot neighborhoods will be no more expensive to use than before.  Rates will decrease at 32 percent of meters within the pilot area, stay the same at 37 percent of meters, and increase at only 31 percent of meters.

Responding to the data (available as both PDF maps and an Excel spreadsheet) creates a fine-grained result in which one block may have higher rates, while a nearby or even directly adjacent block has lower rates.  Not surprisingly, there is a need to boost the price at many times of day on popular and walkable commercial segments (e.g. Hayes Street between Franklin and Laguna, Valencia Street, Fillmore Street between Bush and Jackson, Chestnut Street west of Fillmore, and the Financial District/Jackson Square).  In contrast, prices will stay the same or decrease on weekdays for high-volume traffic arteries like Geary Blvd., Van Ness, and Lombard, as well as significant portions of the Wharf, Civic Center, and South of Market pilot areas.  Although the SFMTA could have decreased rates this month by as much as 50 cents under its adopted policy, the data collected so far suggests that in three cases (Fillmore, Mission, and Marina), the rate should not be lowered more than 25 cents at any meter throughout the time period in which the meters operate, while in other pilot areas a 50-cent decrease is sometimes warranted.

If you have been reading this website for awhile, you might remember that a few years ago I used to maintain a fairly active Flickr account used in conjunction with the blog, uploading renderings and construction progress photos.  That Flickr account has been sitting dormant for the past few years, but the time has come to revive it.  My hope is to update it regularly, and while some photos will be connected to articles here, others will be posted there independently.  Click here to see the photostream, and for easy future access, a Flickr link has been added to the sidebar.

Since last summer I have dropped by the Transbay site to photograph various stages in the demolition of the old Terminal.  On the Flickr account, I have now uploaded a couple hundred Transbay-related photos, including one set of photos for the East Loop and temporary terminal, and another set of photos for the demolition of the main building.  The full Transbay Terminal collection includes photos from the final operating days of the Terminal and the groundbreaking ceremony, which were posted here last year in the form of slideshows.  There is also a set for the recently-opened West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station.  Finally, I posted urbanist-oriented photos from two recent visits to New York.

There should be more substantive content here next week, but in the meantime, I hope you enjoy these photo sets.

That’s one reason I was excited that SFpark launched this past week, generating a continuous open data feed that tracks the location and quantity of available parking in the handful of identified pilot neighborhoods. Consider the following maps of the Fillmore and Mission, screenshots from Friday night:

SFpark pilot areas: Fillmore (left) and Mission (right), on Friday night (April 22 at 10:15 p.m.). Red = 0-15 percent of parking available, light blue = 15-30 percent available, dark blue = more than 30 percent available.

(Links to all Friday maps: Financial District, South of Market, Civic Center/Hayes Valley, Fillmore, Mission, Wharf, Marina.)

And another set of screenshots for the Financial District and South of Market, taken at 12 noon on Sunday:

SFpark pilot area: Financial District, on Sunday (April 24 at 12 noon). Red = 0-15 percent of parking available, light blue = 15-30 percent available, dark blue = more than 30 percent available.

SFpark pilot area: South of Market, on Sunday (April 24 at 12 noon). Red = 0-15 percent of parking available, light blue = 15-30 percent available, dark blue = more than 30 percent available.

(Links to all Sunday maps: Financial District, South of Market, Civic Center/Hayes Valley, Fillmore, Mission, Wharf, Marina.)

The MTA will monitor occupancy on each block and adjust the parking meter rate periodically based on demand. To ensure that at least one parking spot is available per block for the most part, pilot blocks that are at least 85 percent occupied during certain periods of the day will be targeted for a rate increase during those time periods. In the screenshots above, stretches of block marked in red, with less than 15 percent of spots available, are those high-demand spots that would theoretically be targeted for a rate increase.

One conclusion that can be derived at a glance? That the market price for parking in the evenings and on Sundays in these pilot neighborhoods is higher than what is currently being charged (which is zilch).  When parking is free, motorists have little incentive to vacate parking spots in a timely fashion.  Another good reason to revisit extended parking meter hours?

(No, this is not a groundbreaking revelation.  Yes, there was already data supporting agency staff’s previous recommendation to extend meter hours.  Yes, that data was ignored by squirming politicians.)

SFpark meter in Hayes Valley, San Francisco. Image: courtesy of SFMTA.

Although programs like SFpark demonstrate progress and provide valuable case studies, opportunities abound to improve parking management in both major cities and suburbs throughout the United States.  But parking is also a touchy and controversial topic; proposals to increase parking fees are generally not greeted warmly and can be vociferously protested.

Learning from Mistakes

One barrier to implementing effective parking policy is the context in which government officials propose changes to parking fees.  Particularly during the recession, municipalities have been strapped for cash and seek to increase parking fees as a means of generating revenue to help balance the budget.  The result is that the sound policy reasons to raise the price of parking become drowned out by loud opposition from members of the public, who claim to be victims of an unfair budget that is balanced on the backs of citizens.  Cities that wait until a budget crisis knocks at their door to increase the price of parking are not doing themselves a favor because the underlying motivation for the adjustment will be transparent.  Moreover, the substance of the changes that are proposed may also reveal that underlying motivation, in that they involve simplistic blanket fee hikes — rather than a truly dynamic, market-based approach where the price of a particular parking spot changes with demand.  In short, it becomes all too clear that the purpose of the higher parking fees is not to enact sound policy, but to generate revenue.  When a city tries to do the right thing for the “wrong” reason — to the extent that increasing parking fees to avoid cutting municipal services can be deemed “wrong” — it makes it all the more difficult to try it again later for the right reason.

The marquee of the Grand Lake Theater in Oakland, which proudly displays progressive political messages, adopted a conservative stance on parking in 2009 -- an all-too-common knee-jerk reaction among many merchants. Image: courtesy of Fragmentary Evidence.

Another barrier to implementing effective parking policy is the perception that higher parking fees diminish a city’s competitiveness, as compared to nearby cities, by making it more difficult for merchants to attract customers.  This point emerged during the backlash in 2009, when the Oakland City Council considered higher fees and extended meter hours as one measure to address the city’s budget deficit.  The underlying assumption here is that the cost of parking is a significant, perhaps even the predominant, factor at play when someone is deciding where to eat dinner, see a movie, or go shopping.  And while this concern was perhaps an especially sensitive point in Oakland because of retail leakage, it overlooks several more important considerations, including: (1) that most people probably won’t travel long distances just to find cheaper parking, particularly when paying more for gas eliminates any potential savings; (2) that the increase in parking price is often minimal compared to the cost of a meal or movie; (3) that many customers seek a unique merchant, neighborhood, or experience that cannot be replicated elsewhere; and (4) that increasing the cost of parking does not necessarily make the city or neighborhood a less compelling destination, but rather, provides an incentive for customers to use transit to travel to neighborhoods they would otherwise access by car.

There are many reasons to question the assertion that higher parking fees make a city less competitive.  But whether or not this is true in fact, the mere existence of this perception suggests that rational parking reform will be an uphill battle — one in which common arguments opposing higher fees will be aired again and again, in city after city.  It is this situation that helps frame the role that regional governments can play in the conversation about parking.

A Role for Regional Participation

Involving regional entities in parking management may, at first glance, seem like a strange idea.  Traditionally, parking management has been left to cities.  Cities control how streets are used within their respective jurisdictions, and they retain the power to charge (or not) for public parking.  In California, regional entities like metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) cannot simply swoop in and force a city to change its parking policies.

And yet the above discussion suggests that a regional directive on parking could be beneficial.  An MPO can provide valuable direction by identifying best practices, assembling useful case studies, and establishing a policy framework that explains and justifies the benefits of parking demand management.  This readily available resource would provide cities with a more constructive way to frame the public discussion about parking, while educating citizens that parking reform has benefits beyond providing the city with more revenue.  Establishing a regional consensus on parking demand management could also help eliminate the popular perception that increasing the price of parking makes a city a less desirable place to do business when compared to nearby cities that retain low parking fees.  Geographically proximate cities, perhaps with the assistance of the MPO, could cooperate in developing harmonious parking policies.

MPOs can provide grants to cities that demonstrate interest in implementing smart parking demand management strategies, and in this respect, there is a useful precedent.  The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in the Bay Area has been able to take advantage of its control over funding to leverage improvements in land use — particularly in terms of planning transit-oriented development within walking distance of stations planned along new transit extensions.  Land use, like parking, is firmly within the dominion of local control.  And yet regional influence over land use is possible, despite the fact that MPOs like MTC have no statutory authority to make land use approval decisions.

A similar approach could be taken for parking reform, in which a regional policy directive both guides local planning efforts and provides the funding incentive needed to get the job done.  MTC has taken tentative initial steps to investigate what role regional governments should play in the parking arena, and in the future, I hope to discuss in more detail ways to improve regional oversight of parking.

Senate Bill 375 provides metropolitan regions in California with a compelling reason to do so now.  Parking — whether it is abundant or scarce, cheap or expensive — has tremendous influence on shaping travel choices.  Parking demand management could be an effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, both by (1) encouraging drivers to switch to transit, particularly for peak hour trips, and (2) reducing the emissions associated with drivers circling city blocks on the hunt for parking.  Rational parking policies, when combined with smart land use decisions, are a powerful tool for reducing vehicle miles traveled, and, in turn, for achieving SB 375′s regional emissions reductions targets.  One of the core lessons we take away from the Initial Vision Scenario prepared by MTC and ABAG for the Bay Area is that compact growth alone is not sufficient.  The Sustainable Communities Strategy will need to incorporate additional techniques in order to achieve the target.  A strong regional consensus on parking policy, coupled with robust implementation at the local level, could be just such a technique.

350 Mission Street. Courtesy of GLL Development and Mangement, Inc.

350 Mission Street is a 375-foot proposed office tower to be built at the corner of Mission and Fremont Streets in downtown San Francisco.  The site, which currently has a low-rise building occupied by Heald College, is catty-corner to the large construction site that will become the Transbay Transit Center.

Current building at 350 Mission project site.

350 Mission is a solid infill project in the growing canyon of high-rises along Mission Street.  It’s clearly a better use of space than current conditions, but as far as shaping the city skyline is concerned, it’s not a game-changer.  The tower will be dwarfed even by existing neighbors at 50 Fremont and the Millennium — not to mention a future neighbor, the Transbay tower, which will be the city’s tallest.  Given the project’s proximity to the Transit Center and its prime location, it’s hard not to be disappointed with the building height, particularly after the initial mention of an 850-foot tower.  But for an office building, the small project site (about 19,000 square feet) is a real constraint, and adding another elevator bank in a taller building would have reduced the amount of space that could be leased.

Besides, just because a tower is relatively short does not mean it is doomed to lack interesting design and sustainability features.  I will reserve judgment on the moving benches until actually seeing them, but if the constructed building looks like the renderings, it will be a worthy addition to this intersection in spite of its height. The tower’s interaction with the street at ground level is also promising, including eatery space and a lobby opening onto the corner of Mission and Fremont, accentuated by ampitheater-style seating.  The first floor of offices, located above the ground floor and mezzanine, is designed to be about 50 feet above grade, and the lobby’s spacious indoor gathering area will be a nice complement to the public space that will be built across the intersection at the Transit Center.

The owners of 50 Beale Street appealed the Planning Commission’s approval of 350 Mission on CEQA grounds, but the appeal really raised design issues that were framed in terms of CEQA catchphrases.  50 Beale is a 24-story office building located adjacent to the proposed tower and is probably quite sorry to lose its views to the west over the low-rise building that now occupies the 350 Mission site.  To create a CEQA argument, 50 Beale objected to the mechanical element at 350 Mission, which would extend to only about twelve feet from the 50 Beale building.  Even though tower separation was the real sticking point, the mechanical element served as a target on which to pin particular physical impacts like noise and air quality.  50 Beale also argued that the EIR should have analyzed a taller code-compliant alternative.  That’s right: It’s another round of “you should have picked my favorite alternative.”  But CEQA does not demand that an EIR analyze everyone’s favorite alternatives — only that it examine a reasonable range of alternatives that lessen a proposed project’s impacts.  More to the point, there is nothing especially magical about a code-compliant alternative in the abstract, unless not complying with the code exacerbates or introduces additional physical impacts that could be lessened or avoided by complying.  The non-compliant aspects of 350 Mission (bulk and setback) were not the source of the tower’s significant impacts.  The EIR actually did analyze a code-compliant alternative and determined that complying with the code would not lessen these already less-than-significant impacts.  This is not all that unexpected given the project’s nature and physical setting, and it makes this a less compelling alternative from a CEQA perspective.

The Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to certify the EIR, so the tower will move forward.

Originally introduced by Supervisor Daly, this ordinance is now sponsored by his successor in District 6, Supervisor Kim.  The zoning districts under consideration range considerably in character and include residential and industrial pockets.  The districts are colored various shades of yellow and orange in the maps below.  Between 4th and 8th Streets, there are several residential enclaves (RED) that are built on an intimate scale, largely lining the side streets that parse the South of Market superblocks. The SLR (service/light industrial/residential) and RSD (residential/services) districts currently feature a mix of housing and other uses but can accommodate infill housing:

South of Market zoning. Courtesy of SF Planning Department.

Moving toward The Embarcadero, service/light industrial (SLI) and service/secondary office (SSO) districts fill in the area between Harrison Street and Mission Bay.  They are characterized by commercial, light industrial, manufacturing and certain office uses:

South of Market zoning. Courtesy of SF Planning Department.

Residential developments in these South of Market mixed use districts are generally now required to provide one parking spot per dwelling unit, with square footage based requirements for other uses.  The legislation proposes to replace these old controls with new ones that more closely mirror those that apply to adjacent blocks under the Eastern Neighborhoods plan.  Minimum off-street residential parking requirements would be eliminated, and a maximum of 0.75 off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit would be put in place.  For office uses, the legislation proposes to import the C-3 (downtown) office parking cap: 7 percent of gross floor area.  Parking requirements for M-1 (light industrial) and C-M (heavy commercial) districts would be similarly revised.

The ordinance also proposes to amend parking controls for two important blocks in Mission Bay that are not under the purview of redevelopment: Block 8701, which is currently occupied by the Caltrain depot, and Block 8719, the Seawall Lot 337 development site.  For both Mission Bay blocks, the legislation proposes to adopt the more lenient Ocean Avenue NCT residential parking standard (a maximum of one spot per dwelling unit), along with the C-3 parking cap for office space.

Mission Bay zoning. Courtesy of SF Planning Department.

Finally, the ordinance includes an important amendment to how parking would be priced in these zoning districts.  Section 155(g) of the Planning Code requires that downtown parking garages establish a particular fee structure designed to encourage turnover and discourage commuting by automobile (it includes an exception for hotel and residential parking garages).  This fee structure currently applies only to C-3 districts, but the legislation proposes to extend it to several other zoning districts in Mission Bay and South of Market.

Although considerable growth is anticipated for these mixed use districts, it is worth mentioning that the legislation will likely not be the final word on the matter despite its compatibility with the principle of concentrating growth in this area.  Growth may be on the way: But in part because the nature of that growth has not yet been well-defined, other planning efforts — including for SWL 337, the railyards, and Western SoMa — will likely replace this legislation in the future.  In addition, the 4th Street/Central Subway corridor is slated for higher density, and a plan for that corridor would address the SLI districts lining both sides of 4th Street north of the Caltrain depot.  Until these efforts come to fruition, however, the ordinance offers a good opportunity to clean up South of Market parking controls, while implementing sound principles that in any case ought to be incorporated in some form into those future plans.

Location of parklet proposed for Post Street.

This Wednesday, December 15, 2010, the Department of Public Works (DPW) will hold a hearing (PDF) to gather public comment on two parklets — extensions of the sidewalk built in parking spots to make space for outdoor seating — that have been proposed in San Francisco.  One parklet would be installed on Post Street between Jones and Leavenworth, in front of farm:table, a popular cafe whose miniscule premises consist of just a common table and a few sidewalk seats.  The other parklet would be installed on Valencia Street between 21st and Hill, in front of Ritual Coffee Roasters, an establishment whose interest in parklets is not surprising in light of demonstrated enthusiasm for both Park(ing) Day and Sunday Streets. 

Of these two proposals, I am particularly excited about the Post Street parklet, in part because it’s in my own neighborhood — but also because this area is one of the densest quarters in the country outside of New York, and yet there is a lack of public open space to serve the dense population.  The neighborhood has largely been overlooked, even as livable streets-oriented upgrades have been installed in other parts of town.  Even a sliver of new community gathering space in the form of a parklet would be a welcome addition to this neighborhood.

That said, both parklets deserve your support.  If you happen to be available at the time, please drop by the hearing (Wed. Dec. 15 at 9:00 am, Room 400 in City Hall) to speak in favor of the proposals.  Or if you can’t attend in person, comments can be emailed to nick [dot] elsner [at] sfdpw [dot] org – directed to Nick Elsner at DPW.

Compelling candidates challenge incumbent BART directors in District 8 (San Francisco, left) and District 4 (Oakland/Alameda, right).

If there is a silver lining to be found in the protracted Oakland Airport Connector debate and other BART drama that has ensued over the past couple of years, it’s that BART’s Board of Directors and the agency generally have been subject to an extra measure of public scrutiny.  There’s a related silver lining: candidates emerging to challenge lackluster incumbent directors.  And not just any challengers, but serious, compelling challengers that deserve our attention.  This election, we’re talking about District 8 (the north and west side of  San Francisco) and District 4 (Oakland, east of Broadway, and Alameda).

Vigorous but misguided advocacy of the senseless Oakland Airport Connector, coupled with an insensitive brushing aside of well-reasoned opposition expressed by members of the public, is reason enough to unseat current District 4 director Carole Ward Allen.  Do we even need a clearer example showing her faulty grasp of riders’ true priorities? Insert a too little, too late approach to police reform, and one cannot help but draw the conclusion that Oakland and Alameda deserve better.

 Meanwhile, current District 8 director James Fang is a lonely Republican in San Francisco who has presided for far too long over a district that is gerrymandered if there ever was one (see above map).  He has pursued an approach that values flash over substance (cell phone fare payment), not to mention flash over basic common sense  (the infamous fare rollback, overwhelmingly disdained by rider surveys).  Okay, so he did recently express his support for a BART line to serve the Richmond District — that’s at least something we can agree would be a good thing.  But then again, given that he apparently sees BART as primarily a supplier of construction jobs (rather than, you know, a transit operator), Fang is happy to build BART anywhere and everywhere, indiscriminately.  So he was bound to come around to his own district sooner or later, and what better time to do so than during election season?

If the BART Board’s suburban tilt isn’t enough to contend with, what’s unforgivable is that even its urban directors (save one) aren’t true urbanists.  Like Carole Ward Allen and James Fang, they willingly sign off on ever more distant extensions that not only drain dollars and strain the system, but also lead to the deterioration of their own constituents’ experiences riding the train.

Bert Hill (left) and Robert Raburn (right). Images courtesy of their respective campaign websites.

Enter Bert Hill and Robert Raburn.  Personally, I am thrilled that both these candidates have stepped up to the plate to challenge the old guard.  I won’t repeat all their background information in this post, as you can read about it here and here.  Both bring years of valuable transportation advocacy experience, as well as relevant professional and academic expertise.  Bert Hill’s platform discusses local connectivity to BART stations; he also emphasizes that funds should be prioritized for maintaining existing track and stations and accommodating future capacity needs, rather than building unsustainable extensions to the hinterlands.  Meanwhile, Raburn vehemently criticizes the Oakland Airport Connector, which lies in his home district, and correctly reminds us that in relentlessly pursuing the OAC, the BART Board unnecessarily exposes the agency and its riders to the risks and consequences of taking out a federal TIFIA loan to finance the project.  I could not agree more on these points, and I believe both Hill and Raburn will bring perspectives that are underrepresented and sorely needed on the Board.

This is not to say there isn’t necessarily room for growth and improvement.  For example, at a candidate forum, Raburn was so insistent on the need to focus on maintaining the core system (instead of pursuing expensive capital projects) that his gut reaction to the idea of building infill stations was “Oh my gosh: another construction project.”  I cannot agree with the implication of that remark – that infill stations and suburban extensions belong to the same generic category of undesirable capital projects, and that infill stations “won’t pencil out.”  Rather, a few well-chosen urban infill stations are the exact type of capital project that likely will pencil out, by increasing ridership at a fraction of the cost of a new extension, while creating comfortably transit-dependent neighborhoods with denser land uses.  But despite that slip-up (in what was otherwise a series of solid, well-presented viewpoints), I didn’t get the sense that an insurmountable ideological barrier was reached.  Rather, the reaction seemed more like a vehicle for Raburn to contrast his own world view with that of the current Board, which has moved the OAC and other extensions forward in spite of deferred maintenance needs.  Perhaps more importantly, though, I sensed in him an intellectual curiosity and genuine interest in transportation issues, as well as a willingness to engage with details and facts.  Ever try to reason with Carole Ward Allen about the facts on the Oakland Airport Connector?

The bottom line is that both Bert Hill and Robert Raburn agree that it’s irresponsible to extend track into far-flung corners of the region when major investments are required to shore up the core system and accommodate future capacity needs.  Both candidates understand that BART’s role in the region is not to provide an endless stream of construction jobs and groundbreaking and ribbon-cutting ceremonies, but to operate an efficient, clean, functional system that fortifies our urban environment, ties together our region as the backbone of a multimodal network, and ultimately improves our quality of life. 

In short, both Hill and Raburn simply get it on so many issues.  Either one, and preferably both, would be a breath of fresh air on the Board.  With the Board’s current membership, Tom Radulovich too often speaks as the sole voice of reason drowned out by a chorus.  A Radulovich-Hill-Raburn trifecta would be a positive development, bringing to bear a team that could exert more influence on Board votes.

I am unfortunately not eligible to vote in either of these races, but I would strongly recommend that readers who live in BART districts 4 and 8 skip past the incumbents on their ballot, and instead cast a vote this time for Robert Raburn in District 4, and Bert Hill in District 8.  This November both sides of the Bay can stand together and vote for change at BART.  As BART continues to evolve beyond a commuter rail service into an urban metro, the composition of the Board should reflect the evolving nature of the system.  We stand to benefit from the expertise and passion that these candidates offer.

Top: 3rd St. and Mission St., site of the new bus stop, courtesy of Google. Bottom: map courtesy of SFMTA, via SF Appeal.

Yesterday, the Appeal published a weekend Muni update mentioning a permanent bus stop relocation that will go into effect starting this weekend.  The update is ostensibly sourced from the SFMTA, although the agency’s official transit updates page lacks any mention of this particular item.  The bus stop at issue — served by the 8X, 30, and 45 routes bound for Chinatown — is the 3rd/Market stop, located on 3rd just south of Market, between Stevenson and Jessie.  Although the bus stop is heavily used — it’s about as busy as an average BART station — stop relocation and associated traffic changes were slipped into the consent calendar of an MTA meeting about one year ago, where it was given only cursory consideration by the MTA Board.

The MTA plans to make the following changes.  The bus stop will be moved south of its current location, to the north corner of 3rd and Mission streets; and the lanes of 3rd between Market and Mission will be restriped.  A new right-turn lane will be established on 3rd just south of Market, marking where motorists should turn eastbound onto Market.  The transit-only zone north of the relocated bus stop will be eliminated — so buses departing from the new 3rd/Mission stop would have to merge into the next lane over.  That lane will be widened, giving buses more room to maneuver when 3rd Street angles northward toward Kearny.

The rationale for this new layout is to minimize collisions between cars and buses on 3rd, just south of the intersection with Market Street.  The redesign also benefits motorists to the extent it improves the flow of traffic on 3rd, but there are impacts to transit riders.  There is of course the issue of removing a necessary, albeit unenforced, transit-only lane on this heavily trafficked thoroughfare.  But there is also the issue of shifting the bus stop south, which takes what is currently a very useful bus stop and makes it less useful.

Third/Market is a major transfer point, as many riders either disembark at this stop to transfer to one of the many Market Street lines, or they board here to transfer to a Chinatown line.  MTA data indicates the relative popularity of 3rd/Market and adjacent stops:

The new 3rd/Mission stop would likely be busier than 3rd/Howard, and some riders will surely find the new 3rd/Mission stop to be more convenient.  All the same, the relocated stop lacks the same wealth of immediate transfer opportunities that are available at Market Street, and it seems strange on its face to move a stop that riders clearly find tremendously convenient, based on the data.

The Kearny/Geary stop is also very convenient to those transfer opportunities, and it basically functions as a second Market Street stop.  Riders boarding the Chinatown buses have naturally distributed themselves between the 3rd/Market and Kearny/Geary bus stops — and even with that redundancy, both stops can become quite crowded.  However, once the 3rd/Market stop is relocated, Kearny/Geary will be the only stop on the Chinatown line immediately convenient to Market Street.  The data shows that about 10,000 riders board or disembark at these stops each day.  That’s serious passenger volume for just one bus stop — and while it’s true that not every single 3rd/Market rider will elect to switch to the Kearny/Geary stop, many or most likely will.  Removing the two-stop redundancy could lead to further overcrowding and extended dwell at the Kearny/Geary stop, particularly at peak travel times.

If the issue really is primarily about safety and minimizing collisions between cars and buses at the intersection, then isn’t the better solution here not to create a wider mixed-flow lane, but to (1) maintain and actually enforce the transit-only lane, for a change, and (2) restrict right turns?  Perhaps the primary objective of the SFCTA’s Better Market Street plan is to remove at least some cars from inner Market, thereby improving the performance of surface transit.  Just how is that objective furthered by adding a dedicated right-turn lane on 3rd?  In fact, is it not an express goal of the Better Market Street plan to make this very route — 3rd Street to Kearny — a straight cross-through street, by prohibiting right turns from 3rd onto Market?  So why should we now invite motorists to make that very turn?

SFMTA, allow me to introduce you to the SFCTA.  You may want to get acquainted — or at least each acknowledge that the other exists.

News media writeups: KTVU, ABC, CBS, Examiner, and SF Gate blog posts here and here.