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.
Transbay Blog 
As a point of environmental justice, I think it’s super lame that all but one of the eliminated lines are in the “eastern neighborhoods.” Not laying blame on anyone in particular, but the bias stand out in the end result.
It also seems short-sighted to do this huge reevaluation without comprehensive consideration of all the changes that we can be sure will happen under the Eastern Neighborhood rezoning.
And I wish we didn’t have to operate under this foolish zero-sum premise. There may be waste in Muni but if you want real improvement in the system you have to REALLY invest in the system. Capital improvements that I’m glad you mentioned are at least being considered.
That said, I look forward to service improving on the core lines. :-/
Posted by Josh | 22 October 2008, 1:07 pmJosh: I agree we need more capital investment, ideally, far more than that prescribed here. But TEP is essentially a more short-term five-year plan that sets important basic issues in place that have been lacking, a necessary foundation. Just because we don’t have the necessary funds now for capital improvements doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to make more efficient use of current resources. In fact, it’s an argument that that is basically what we should be doing.
EN rezoning discussion has not been thoroughly integrated with transit discussion to date, though it needs to be and it will (this is another topic I’ve been meaning to get to, hopefully post-election). The Ad Hoc Committee specifically requested coordination between EN and SFMTA with respect to improvements on Folsom. But I do appreciate your point: it’s an important discussion to have.
Posted by Eric | 22 October 2008, 1:27 pmwould they rip down the overhead for the 3 jackson? or just mothball it?
Posted by Jon | 23 October 2008, 2:01 pmAh, yes the official plan pretending”a few low ridership” adjustments will somehow magicly transform perrenial understaffing/overtime excess will turn into express buses on the trunks and on=time service everywhere else. May I sell anyone a bridge? How many months of papershuffling effort has it taken to achieve this disaster?
Nowhere in TEP is there ironclad commitment to signal preemots, gutting four way stop signs on transit arterials, or serious changes to the MOU . As long as drivers can stop to pick up junk food in mid run, skip route segments to make up time, Muni will continue to suck.
As to specifics, the wires will probably come down on Jackson unless BOS wakes up. Shifting the 54 to skip Balboa Park where the bulk of riders board/alight on 6the fantasy that some day the BART station will be reconfigured just screws riders until that prohect is done.
Apologies if I sound bitter, but I truly believe TEP is a bad deal all around.
Posted by david vartanoff | 26 October 2008, 1:49 pm