How Central Subway was Deceptively Sold to Chinatown and the rest of San Francisco

See: Deceptive Marketing

Updated April 28, 2013:  The Central Subway project remains vulnerable to litigation.

 

At least one pending action against the California High Speed Rail Authority would deny the Central Subway project $61.3 million in State Proposition 1A high speed rail funding.    

 

SaveMuni's North Beach Action:  On February 5, 2013, a letter from Lippe Gaffney and Wagner LLP, SaveMuni.com's attorneys, was delivered to the SFMTA.  The letter raised substantive concerns and legal objections to the SFMTA's plan to extract its tunnel boring machines (TBM's) at the recently-selected Pagoda Theater site, located on Powell Street near Filbert.  For a variety of reasons, including potential geotechnical and ground water problems, potential ground subsidence, threatened historic structures and threatened incursions into public parks, SaveMuni.com believes that before disrupting and otherwise affecting North Beach in order to extract its TBM's, the City should prepare and certify a subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Report.  The funds needed to pursue this valid case also appear to be lacking. 

 

 

June 29, 2012:  Congressman Tom McClintock's Amendment denying all federal funds to the Central Subway boondoggle passes the U.S. House of Representatives 235 to 186.   (The amendment was later sidelined by the Democratically-controlled Senate).

 

 

 

View Editorial in PDF format

Or read at the Wall Street Journal Online

 

  

 

 

 

Click on "2010 Milestones"

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

September 16, 2013

Dear Mr. Reiskin

SaveSFMuni is an organization dedicated to raising Muni to its highest potential in order to best serve the people of San Francisco. Please consider the following comments in that light.

The Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP) clearly represents a great deal of investigation and hard work. Those who put their time and energy into trying to deal with and incorporate a multitude of Muni improvement ideas and proposals are commended for their efforts. Some real advances have been made. For example, the acknowledgment that nearside bus stops are better at stop signs and unsynchronized traffic lights (to save riders the agony of stopping at both sides of a cross street), and far-side stops are better at synchronized traffic lights (where the lights can be timed to let the buses through the intersection without stopping) is a real advance. To our knowledge this is the first time this refinement has ever been acknowledged and clearly articulated in a SFMTA document.

1.)  Meeting TEP Objectives:  At the beginning of the report the TEP lists some well-stated general objectives. However, when developing the detailed improvements that comprise the essence of the TEP, it appears that the planners paid little attention to these goals. There is a need to evaluate each TEP proposal in order to ascertain the degree to which it conforms to the important objectives set forth in the Policy Framework (Pages 2-19 to 2-23).

2.)  Longer Term Need:  The TEP unfortunately has a very short time horizon. In view of the major demographic changes that are projected to significantly alter San Francisco by 2040, a short term plan such as the TEP is simply not adequate. ABAG projects that by 2040 San Francisco’s population will increase by at least 25%. Moreover, if current trends continue, most of the new residents and employees will be living and working in either the downtown area or southeast San Francisco. The TEP completely fails to address these projected demographic changes and what Muni changes would be required to accommodate it.

Some have characterized the Central Subway as providing adequately for these many tens of thousands of new residents and office workers. Not a chance. A 25% increase in San Francisco’s population would bring in about 200,000 new residents and tens of thousands of new employees. Yet the SFMTA projects that only 5,000 new riders a day — equivalent to 2,500 people a day — will be riding the Central Subway by 2035. In other words there is a huge disparity between the new riders to be served and the Central Subway’s potential for fulfilling even a small portion of this new demand for service. Much more is needed to serve a growing San Francisco population. The TEP should take into account the anticipated regional growth and its inevitable effect on San Francisco’s public transit system.

3.)  Realistic Transit First:  The TEP rightfully includes a strong element devoted to transit preferential streets featuring Muni buses and light rail vehicles operating in their own exclusive lanes. The basic principle here is that it is inappropriate and counter-productive to permit buses jammed with commuters get mired down in ordinary traffic congestion. To guarantee the free and reliable flow of Muni vehicles, it is important that the lanes set aside for Muni-only travel be kept clear of other traffic. Some say that this will occur through “self-enforcement”. We strongly doubt this. When the competition for street space gets tight, a certain amount of determined police action will be required to keep the LRVs and buses moving. For this reason an early-action element of the TEP should be to provide for the police enforcement needed to make Transit First work.

It should also be noted that an effective Transit First operation will attract more riders. Accommodating these new riders will require more vehicles. For this reason another early-action element of the TEP should be to provide for the enlargement of Muni’s fleet of buses and LRV’s as required.

4.)  Stop Spacing:  We agonized over the stop spacing as we imagine your planners also did. Too many stops would unduly impede and slow down service thereby deter people from riding, and that’s a problem. On the other hand, an inadequate number of stops slows down loading, and that’s also a problem. And of course, there are the needs of the elderly and infirm, handicapped to be considered. .

In sum, most of us feel that along Muni line sections of light to moderate patronage in level parts of the city, it might make sense to lengthen the distances between stops. On hills and where the ridership is heavy we doubt that longer stop spacing would be either acceptable or desirable.

5.)  Lack of Ridership Data:  There is no indication of how the changes or “service policy framework” of the TEP would affect overall Muni ridership or, for that matter, the riderships of the affected lines. This is a serious defect for two reasons. First, it precludes an independent evaluation of the claimed benefits of the proposed changes. Second, it denies the SFMTA the knowledge needed to appropriately augment the fleet of LRV’s and buses to accommodate the incoming new riders.

6.)  Lack of Capital Costs:  In order to evaluate the validity of the proposed changes there should be a detailed breakdown of capital costs. It does no good to prepare an elaborate document detailing environmental impacts unless the information needed to evaluate the financial and operating feasibility of the project is also available.

7.)  Loss of Muni Comprehensiveness:  We have a real concern over the degree to which the TEP concentrates Muni service in certain selected major corridors. One of the reasons that Muni has been so useful to San Franciscans for so long is its comprehensiveness. Because of the amount of service Muni provides and its well-developed grid system, most San Franciscans can move around the city without their automobiles. Compared to systems in other cities, Muni provides a relatively large amount of its service along routes that are straight and easy to understand.  Moreover these routes and the Muni network in general serve virtually every neighborhood in San Francisco. It is important not to lose sight of these important values. “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it”.

8.)  Stockton Street Overlooked:   There are a number of important improvements listed in the Travel Time Reduction Program (TTRP). However, measures designed to speed up the flow of buses along heavily-congested Stockton Street are not included. This oversight must be corrected. In addition to the deployment of articulated vehicles there are a number of other steps that can and should be taken to make certain that the Stockton Street bus service is brought up to standard, with respect to both crowding and bus flow. In its report (attached) entitled “Stockton Surface Improvements”, last updated on May 26, 2013, SaveMuni has identified and proposed several key improvements that would materially improve service on this heavily traveled street. According to the SFMTA’s own projections, 85% of the users of the three Stockton Street bus lines will continue as bus riders even after the advent of the Central Subway.  It is therefore essential that steps be taken to improve the bus lines.

9.) Overhead Wire Tangles:  There are quite a few proposals for expanding the trolley bus system. In proceeding with more electrification, great care should be taken to avoid tangling too much overhead wiring at any one location. Concentrations of overhead wire are unsightly. More importantly, they slow down service, cause operating problems and increase maintenance costs.

10.)    Importance of Muni:   It is emphasized that the backbone of San Francisco’s transportation system is Muni, not bicycling. For that reason 99% or more of the transportation money available to the            

SFMTA should be spent on Muni. Moreover, it is critically important that improvements designed to encourage more bicycle use do NOT interfere with or make less safe the basic Muni function of serving everyone at all times in all kinds of                  weather in all parts of the city.

     11.)  Muni's Special Role in Times of Crisis:   The TEP fails to address any of the natural and man-caused disasters that could place special demands on San Francisco’s public transit system.

We hope that these 11 comments will lead to an improved TEP for the benefit of Muni riders and would-be riders. If you have questions or wish to discuss any of these matters, please do not                        hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,  SaveSFMuni

     

The following 18 Muni Improvement proposals are divided into six categories: Management, Maintenance, Capital Improvements, Operations, Traffic Management and Coordination:

1.)  Management 1:  Every member of the SFMTA Board must be committed to optimizing Muni's existing 75-line operation.

2.)  Management 2:  The second and third tier SFMTA managers reporting to the Director of Transportation must be both qualified and dedicated.

3.)  Maintenance 1:  Create a dedicated reserve fund sufficient to replace worn out transit vehicles and other equipment on a timely basis.  

4.)  Maintenance 2:  Each year, include in the SFMTA budget an amount sufficient to maintain all Muni vehicles in a State of Good Repair at all times. 

5.)  Capital Improvement 1:  Before promoting a capital improvement idea, determine both its cost- effectiveness and its effect on Muni’s annual operating and maintenance budget.  Publish these figures. 

6.)  Capital Improvement 2:  Before adopting a capital improvement idea, conduct and publish a bona fide Alternative Analysis inclusive of all potentially viable alternatives.  Publish this analysis.

7.) Capital Improvement 3:  Return the peak-period carrying capacity of the Market Street subway to the level at which it was designed to operate.  That would double today's capacity.

8.)  Capital Improvement 4:   Take the steps necessary to provide effective K and M line service between West Portal Avenue and the medians of Junipero Serra and 19th Avenue.  

9.)  Capital Improvement 5:  To facilitate better Muni bus service, use bulb-out stops where possible.

10.)  Operations 1:  To help maintain regular service and respond to driver problems, deploy at least 50 line supervisors. 

11.)  Operations 2:  Charge a carefully-selected and dedicated in-house task force with an 18-month assignment of identifying and where possible eliminating the obstacles that prevent optimal service along Muni’s 75 existing bus and rail lines.  This program should be phased to:

          o  address the worst problems first,

          o  include appropriate outreach,

          o  lead directly to near-term operational changes.                            

12.)  Operations 3:  Publish and make available to all riders a one-page schedule showing Muni line frequencies throughout the day.

13.)  Operations 4:  Charge a carefully-selected and dedicated in-house team with making all Muni transfers as convenient for riders as possible.  This program should be completed in six months and should lead directly to near-term operational changes.

 14.)  Operations 5: On flat ground along moderately patronized line sections, look for opportunities to increasing stop spacing.  Closer spacing should be maintained where and as necessary to serve hilly areas, facilitate bus-to-bus and bus-to-rail transfers and accommodate the elderly, disabled and others with walking difficulties.   

15.)  Traffic Management 1:  Change state and local traffic laws as required to give buses pulling away from stops the right-of-way.

16.)  Traffic Management 2:  Enact congestion pricing to facilitate the efficient flow of public transit vehicles along congested streets.   Allocate the revenues collected from drivers living in a given county to public transit improvement in that county. 

17.)  Traffic Management 3:  Place transit vehicles traveling through congested areas in transit-only lanes during at least the morning peak period and, to the extent necessary, during the afternoon peak period as well.  To be effective, the transit-only lanes would have to be strictly enforced.

18.)  Coordination 1:  Establish close and continuous cooperation with BART, Caltrain, AC Transit, Golden Gate Transit, Samtrans and other Westbay public transit operators....with respect to routing, scheduling, maintenance, vehicle storage, transfer stops, transit information and marketing.      

Unlike an outlying suburban area, San Francisco is a densely built-up city requiring a highly efficient public transit system. When Muni falters, the lives of its 700,000 daily riders and 60,000 reliant small businesses are immediately impacted.

Because of its fiscal and operational problems, Muni is
currently unable to provide an adequate amount of reliable
service to the riders of its 70 existing bus and rail lines.

Until something changes, beleaguered Muni riders can
look forward to a system continually plagued
by poor maintenance, inadequate reliability and excessive crowding. 

Given these factors, there is an immediate need to change the SFMTA's current way of doing things. As indicated above, fixing the system will take operations and maintenance improvements, working rule changes and capital priority adjustments.  Here's a summary:

    1  Operations and Maintenance Improvements: There are literally dozens of ways of improving service and therefore attracting new fare-paying riders without significantly raising costs. Many good ideas evolved from SaveMuni's March 6, 2010 Transportation Summit and its August 18, 2012 Transportation Forum. For a list of 18 critically important improvement items, see above.   

    2  Working Rule Changes: A Muni driver has a difficult and stressful job. In addition, as the operator of an expensive vehicle filled with human beings, he or she has an important responsibility.  A qualified driver deserves to be well paid. However, certain of the working rules interfere with Muni's ability to provide excellent service to its riders in a cost-effective manner. These rules need to change. It continues to be our hope that the SFMTA and the Muni employee unions can together bring about the needed changes without undue hardship or hard feelings. 

    3  Capital Funding Priorities: Capital improvement priorities must be carefully determined based upon a thorough and objective analysis of "candidate" projects.  Only projects of true and cost-effective benefit to Muni and its riders should make the cut. 

The current situation at the SFMTA is not reassuring. $638 million in local and State funds that could have been used to improve Muni are being squandered on a short "Central Subway" of marginal usefulness.  To make matters worse, the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR) is pushing to divert another $1.5 billion or more of badly needed transportation funds to extend the subway unnecessarily to Fisherman's Wharf.

To anyone who has watched the Central Subway debacle unfold, the reason behind the recent push for a "Phase 3" extension to the Wharf is not hard to fathom. Central Subway promoters know that because of its high operating costs and low projected ridership, the Phase 2 Chinatown subway is going to be a turkey. The promoters apparently hope that adding a Phase 3 will divert attention from the embarassment of Phases 1 and 2. And this might be acceptible, were it not for the fact that pouring more money into the Central Subway diverts still more needed capital from other San Francisco transit improvements of much greater need and utility.  

Sufficient funds to pay for needed Muni improvements are available but they have to be allocated prudently. To bring Muni up to standard, the SFMTA must stop letting its scarce capital and operating funds get siphoned off by the promoters of wasteful and ill-conceived pet projects.