RESPONSE TO THE TEP

CITIZENS
PHIL TING and RESET SAN FRANCISCO outreach to Muni riders about the SFMTAs Transit Effectiveness Project

www.ResetSanFrancisco.org

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Phil Ting and Reset San Francisco What is the Transit Effectiveness Project? Phil Ting and Reset San Franciscos Muni Town Halls San Franciscans Respond Community Response 38 GEARY N JUDAH L TARAVAL K INGLESIDE 30 STOCKTON M OCEAN VIEW 1 CALIFORNIA 5 FULTON T THIRD So what do we do next? Acknowledgments

3 4

5 7 7 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 20 22 24 24

PHIL TING AND RESET SAN FRANCISCO

Talking to San Franciscans About the Transit Effectiveness Project and Crowdsourcing Solutions for Improving Muni

ver the past few months, Phil Ting and Reset San Francisco have hosted ten Muni town hall meetings throughout the city to bring San Franciscans together to crowdsource solutions and ideas for improving the San Francisco Municipal Railway.

There is no singularly more important issue for any city than its transportation infrastruc-

ture. Whether its the expense of fuel, the reliability of the mass transit system, or the safety of cyclists, transportation issues affect every San Franciscan. In a city as dense as San Francisco, safe and reliable transportation is not a luxury it is a basic necessity. Over 200 million passengers a year rely on Muni to commute to work and get around our city. In fact, San Francisco residents depend on public transportation more than individuals from any other county in the Bay Area. A better Municipal Railway will improve our quality of life, the quality of our air, and it will be, interestingly, one of the quickest ways to stimulate our local economy and create jobs. According to AAA owning a car costs more than $8,487 per year money that goes to pay for gas, insurance and car costs. Almost all of this money leaves our local economy. By making it easier for San Francisco families with two cars to be a one-car family and making it possible for San Franciscans to sell their private autos and instead rely on mass transit, biking, walking and car-sharing, we will be creating a powerful local economic stimulus. According to a Brookings Institute Metropolitan Studies report released this past May, in San Francisco right now: About 92% of working-age San Franciscans live near a transit stop1 The median wait for any rush hour transit vehicle is 8.5 minutes Only around 240,000 jobs are accessible via our transit systems in 45 minutes compared to about 798,000 jobs (or 35%) that are accessible in double the time, 90 minutes San Francisco has the slowest transportation system in America and an on-time performance rate of only 71%2 Overall, the Brookings report ranks San Francisco 16th out of 100 U.S. cities for its transit systems. We are behind San Jose and Fresno as well as Honolulu (number one), Madison, WI, and Denver, CO. Number 16 isnt bad, but it isnt great and there are some obvious areas for improvement. If 92% of us live near a transit stop, why are a whopping 35% of the jobs

The Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP) is the first system-wide study to review Muni and recommend ways to make it faster and more reliable.

accessible after an hour and a half commute in a Transit First city? Muni is not just a commute system; its lines have high all-day demand not just during peak hours. Public transportation in San Francisco is vital for the entire city, and there are simple, cost effective solutions to make it better.

What is the Transit Effectiveness Project?

In 2008, the City and County of San Francisco completed a comprehensive transit study known as the Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP). The TEP was the first system-wide Muni study undertaken to make transit more convenient. Goals of the TEP are to improve the reliability and efficiency of Muni, reduce travel times and enhance the customer experience. The purpose of the TEP was to collect information about Muni and to create a list of recommendations for each line to make Muni faster and more reliable. For example, currently, high traffic buses such as the1 California,38 Geary, 14 Missionand 30 Stocktonspend about 20% of their operating time boarding at bus stops.3 The TEP has

BUSES CARRY 75% OF ALL MUNI RIDERS

AC Transit (East Bay) King County Metro (Seattle) LACMTA (Los Angeles) Muni (San Francisco) CTA (Chicago) SEPTA (Philadelphia) WMATA (Washington, DC) NYCT (New York City) MBTA (Boston)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percentage of passenger trips carried by each mode

Source: SFMTA, San Francisco Muni Unique Cost/ Operating Environment, originally presented to Muni Revenue Panel July 26, 2007.

Bus Light Rail

Heavy Rail Other

4

recommendations to address such problems, but it will take a minimum of 24 months before any of these recommendations can be addressed, as each recommendation has to undergo an environmental review required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The SFMTA now faced with a $22.8 million deficit cites the poor economy as the reason for not moving forward with the TEP recommendations. And yet the agency has been able to test pilot projects, such as the successful NX Express. Pilot projects offer an opportunity to improve Muni without having to navigate CEQAs complex approval process, and circumvent the complex process of multi-level decision makers encompassing the citys public transportation. In 2009, 41% of all trips made in San Francisco were made using public transportation. When it comes to public transportation, time is money. If we increase Munis average speed from 8mph to 10mph we could save the agency $40 million every year. The faster the vehicles, the fewer vehicles and service hours are required to provide the same level of service. Unlike transit systems in other peer urban cities, Muni consists of primarily bus lines operating in mixed flow traffic along dense urban corridors. Indeed, buses carry three-fourths of all Muni riders. San Franciscos dense and congested environment combined with Munis reliance on on-street mixed right of way traffic takes away any advantage Muni has over traffic. To combat this, the TEP recommended many transit priority measures, such as bus only lanes and traffic signal priority. While the TEP provides a wonderful source of data, whats missing is a process that enables more people to be heard. While apathy may be a major aspect of citizen involvement in most aspects of government, the same cannot be said about Muni. San Franciscans have a breadth of things to say about Muni good and bad. Residents and frequent transit riders often understand their bus line better than transit planners and elected officials. Reset San Francisco believes that fostering a more inclusive and informed public involvement process will help improve transportation services in San Francisco.

PHIL TING AND RESET SAN FRANCISCOS MUNI TOWN HALLS

es, the Transit Effectiveness Project is a detailed study with great data. Yet, who knows the bus lines better than the San Franciscans who ride Muni every day? Phil Ting launched Reset San Francisco to give San Franciscans a greater voice at City

Hall and to engage them to get involved. Shouldnt our city government be as innovative as the people of San Francisco? Thats why San Franciscans need to be part of the conversation on how to make our great city even better. Phil Tings campaign to Reset San Francisco held town halls throughout the city about the 38 Geary, 1 California, 30 Stockton, 5 Fulton, N Judah, L Taraval, K Ingleside, M Ocean View and T Third Street. At each event, Phil discussed the TEP line recommendations with riders, listened to
5

Phil Ting launched Reset San Francisco to give San Franciscans a greater voice at City Hall and to engage them to get involved. Shouldnt our city government be as innovative as the people of San Francisco?

their ideas and facilitated a conversation between members of the community. At the town halls, Phil discussed the TEP findings for each dedicated Muni line and provided riders with a forum for expressing their ideas; because we want to empower Muni riders to have a say in their transit system. The town halls were designed to encourage Muni riders to provide feedback and ideas on the TEP and their daily experiences riding Muni. San Franciscans historically value community input, and the SFMTA should too. We hope that the SFMTA will consider adopting ideas suggested by their customers. While there were specific concerns for each line, many of the lines shared reoccurring concerns like reliability, safety and overcrowding not a surprise since Muni averaged a 73.5% on-time performance for this quarter, far below the voter-mandated 85% target. On-time performance is measured by when vehicles run on time according to published schedules, no more than 4 minutes late or 1 minute early. (The K Ingleside even averages a 57.9% on-time performance rate.4) However, riders say they are less concerned with Munis adherence to schedules and most interested in improving reliability headway, which is the time interval between trains. While Munis on-time performance for FY2010 was 73.5%, the headway performance was only 60%.5 For example, if a train is scheduled to arrive every ten minutes and every train is five minutes late, the interval between trains would still be every ten minutes. Most riders do not carry Muni schedules in-hand and schedules are not posted at all bus stops. Most riders say they just want to be able to go to their bus stop, or train station, and know that they will not have to wait more than 15 minutes.
2004 2005 2006
Source: http://sfmta.com/cms/rstd/sstdindx.htm

MUNI COST AND SPEED

2007

2008

2009

2101

2011

Cost

System Speed
6

THIS BUS COULD BE A TRAIN

3800 3200

Washington, DC Metro (heavy rail) Los Angeles Metro (heavy rail) Muni 38/38L Geary

3000

3000

Muni 30 Stockton/45 Union-Stockton Chicago El (heavy rail) BART (heavy rail)

1700 1100 1100 500

Los Angeles Metro (light rail) Portland MAX (light rail) San Jose VTA (light rail)

Average weekday boardings per route mile (approx.)

Source: SFMTA, San Francisco Muni Unique Cost/Operating Environment, originally presented to Muni Revenue Panel July 26, 2007.

San Franciscans Respond to the Transit Effectiveness Project Recommendations

The following information was collected by Phil Tings campaign, Reset San Francisco, from September to October 2011 from thousands of San Franciscans at in-person community town halls, telephone town halls and organized online conversations.6 The maps included here are from the SFMTAs Transit Effectiveness Project. Each line has a route map with the TEP recommendations and a rider frequency map showing boarding data and passenger activity.

38 GEARY
COMMUNITY RESPONSE The 38 Geary is the most travelled Muni line in San Francisco with
over 50,000 daily boards and it travels down one of the busiest corridors of the city. The large number of passengers, combined with one of the busiest streets in the city, significantly reduces on-time performance and increases crowding of the 38 Geary. The 38/38L Geary carries daily passenger volumes similar to peer cities trains. Yet, 38 Geary buses have to compete with mixed-flow traffic along a busy corridor. To address these issues, the TEP is reviewing the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) study already underway as a means to combat poor on-time performance and increase service frequencies. The BRT study focuses on evaluating the impact of having a bus-only lane for Geary Boulevard to improve on-time performance. Gearys congested streets reduce 38 Geary bus speeds. BRT

The 38 Geary carries over 50,000 passengers a day and travels along one of the busiest streets in the city, significantly affecting its on-time performance.
7

Phil Ting engages with 38 Geary riders on how to improve this Muni line. Most riders had positive things to say about Muni, but they also had good ideas about how to make the 38 Geary faster and more reliable.

aims to increase speeds by addressing issues of double-parked cars that delay the 38 buses. The TEP did not recommend any route changes for the 38 Geary, but in our conversations with frequent riders during our telephone town hall and in-person town hall, riders say a top priority is to have Sunday service for the 38L. The 38L does not currently run on Sundays, so adding the additional service would constitute a route change. 38 Geary riders also suggested: Initiating dedicated bus lanes (BRT) Having better clarification or clearer naming systems for buses (to address confusion regarding the lines and the neighborhoods they service) Starting traffic light signal priority for buses Adding more limited bus service throughout the day, not just during peak hours Creating service to Ocean Beach and Kaiser Enforcing regulations against double-parked cars on Geary, which block bus routes Having better Muni security and cameras Increasing the number of 38L buses in service

N JUDAH
COMM U NI T Y RESPONSE Because much of Munis light rail trains operate on streets, train size
is limited. The citys short residential blocks prevent longer, higher capacity trains. This limitation adds to issues of speed and reliability. Adding to slow speeds is the frequency of the N Judahs

The NX Express has been an extremely successful and favorable Muni pilot project helping to alleviate many of the issues of crowding and infrequent service.

stops. West of Cole, the N Judah stops on average every 850 feet.7 Accordingly, Munis light rail trains operate slower than typical light rail in other cities. The NX Express pilot project was implemented in 2011 as a result of the TEP. It has been positively received by frequent N Judah riders and has helped to combat overcrowding and poor reliability top issues reported in the TEP. The NX offers supplemental

express bus service along a similar route to its parent route, servicing the same neighborhoods. Shortly after it was implemented, the Reset San Francisco team tested the NX against the N Judah and found the service to be equally fast as the N line without the issues of crowding and infrequent service. The need for additional pilot programs, modeled after the NX Express, was a recurring topic of conversation at all of our Muni town halls.
9

10

Other recommendations from riders for the N Judah include: Eliminating stops along the route, especially in the residential corridor Finding a solution between multi-modal competition on streets between street cars, pedestrians and cars  Addressing concerns that the N Judah will often drop riders off before reaching the end of the line Adding more ADA accessible stops along the route Continuing to add and improve the mobile real-time transit applications riders love

L TARAVAL
CO M M U N I T Y R ES P O N S E The L Taraval shares
many of the same problems as the N Judah with regard to train size limitation along residential corridors. This limitation undoubtedly impacts speed and reliability. Adding to slow speeds is the frequency of stops. Many stops are very closely spaced even along geographically flat corridors in low-density residential areas. The TEP did not propose any route changes

L Taraval riders want to test pilot their own express bus, like the NX Express. Rather than waiting for SFMTA, Phil Ting and Reset San Francisco performed a test run on November 1.

for the L Taraval, and the only recommendation related to the L line is to increase frequency. Riders, however, are primarily concerned with safety issues, including the speed of the trains on residential streets and

the poor and unsafe design of the boarding platforms that force passengers to exit directly into traffic, which are particularly dangerous for seniors and those with disabilities. Similar to frequent N Judah riders, L Taraval Muni riders have issues with how often the L Taraval trains terminate service before reaching the end of their assigned line. Riders of the L also want an express bus similar to the NX. Other concerns include: Addressing overcrowding Improving the infrequent service Adding a baseball game shuttle to assist with heavy traffic-flow days Adding additional signage to ensure riders are informed of train routes Adding an automated recording to inform riders of stops Starting traffic light signal priority for buses Creating transit-only lanes for safer boarding and exiting

11

12

K INGLESIDE
COMM U NI T Y RESPONSE Our conversations with K riders focused on safety issues and consistent, frequent service. K riders often wait upwards of twenty minutes for a train, and when it arrives, it is generally only a one-car train. Riders want more cars on the K line, particularly during peak service hours, to alleviate crowding. They believe that adding additional cars will also help improve the reliability of service. The TEP reported that the line would be improved if a one-car K Ingleside were through-routed with the T Third. Under the proposed through routing, the K Ingleside would not end inbound service at Embarcadero but rather continue along the T Third route to Sunnydale. K riders would also like to see on-board security improved, which

The K is the worst performing light rail train with only 57.9% on-time performance.

includes ensuring that existing security cameras on trains are operational. Since the SFMTA partners with NextBus, riders expressed issues with the unreliability of the NextBus predictions. Other concerns include: Adding additional cars especially during peak hours Creating better medians to aid in pedestrian and riders safety Having better communication if a train is not going the full duration of the route when trains are traveling outbound
K Ingleside riders look on as Phil Ting discusses the TEP recommendations for improving this line.

13

14

30 STOCKTON
COMM U NI T Y RESPONSE First and foremost, the most mentioned recommendation for riders of the 30 was the need for better fare collection. Beyond that issue, the attendees of the 30 Stockton town hall expressed many concerns, most of which are related to the heavy tourist traffic on the 30. Because the 30 is frequently used by tourists, who are unfamiliar with using Muni, many regular 30 riders expressed concern about tourists not knowing how to exit the bus correctly due to unclear step-down signage. Well-placed, well-designed signs can make a city faster, smarter and more efficient. And on Muni buses, they can help speed up boarding and off boarding times, while also teaching passengers the dos and donts of Muni riding (what many San Franciscans refer to as Muni Manners). This issue of inadequate signage on the 30 Stockton was also a major topic at our large community town hall when over 250 San Franciscans joined the conversation with expert guest panelists Tim Papandreou, Jol Ramos and N Judah Chronicles blogger Greg Dewar, with Phil Ting as moderator. In response, Reset created the step-down sign pictured here. 30 Stockton riders also mentioned that information on fare payment and ticket transfers is not clearly conveyed. They then brainstormed a number of ways to communicate the information by audio recordings, better signs, better technology and more. Riders also want more articulated buses, particularly during peak tourist season and peak hours to alleviate crowding, as recommended by the TEP. Bus overcrowding is so overwhelming that the drivers frequently fail to make all the stops needed along a line. Riders also want a 30L, not just a 30X, along the same line as the 30 Stockton, with fewer stops to improve frequency. Riders also expressed the need for more 30 buses that go all the way to Broderick and Beach during peak evening hours. Riders say two or three 30 buses to Van Ness and North Point come without any 30 buses to Broderick. Other ideas include: Implementing all-door boarding Decreasing the number of stops to speed up travel times Installing timed lights for buses The 30 competes for space on Stockton and at the stops along Stockton with several other bus lines Integrating audio announcements about stepping down to open door in different languages Changing line route names to end confusion about 30 versus 30X service

15

16

M Oceanview riders want more service during peak hours.

M OCEAN VIEW
COMM U NI T Y RESPONSE Riders on the M want reliable and more regular service along the
route, echoing many of the TEP recommendations for increasing service during peak hours downtown. The TEP also recommends decreased morning frequency of service between SFSU and Balboa Park, yet frequent M Ocean View riders were appalled by this idea. Riders are also concerned about the prevalence of fare evasion and the poor morale of drivers. The TEP also calls for extended service to Parkmerced, which would run with alternate peak period trips continuing to and from Balboa Park Station. A Parkmerced developer would fund this project. Other ideas include: Adding additional cars during peak hours Increasing safety at medians and street exits Linking up one-car M trains with one-car K trains through the tunnel Finding better ways to reduce competition with other train lines before entering West Portal station Improving safety in the West Portal tunnel station Changing the dangerous pedestrian area outside of West Portal station where several train lines depart and arrive along street tracks

17

18

1 CALIFORNIA
COMM U NI T Y RESPONSE 1 California riders are most frustrated with the lack of reliable and
efficient service along their route. Riders say unreliable service occurs most often after 7pm. Adding to issues of reliability, riders say the NextMuni predictions within the bus stop shelters are often incorrect. Riders also mentioned bus bunching as a recurring issue. 1 California riders also expressed difficulty getting to Baker Beach on Muni. Riders say that while they support the elimination of stops on the 1 California to help improve bus speed, they want to ensure that eliminated stops are not transfer points. Riders urged SFMTA to consider transfer stop proximity in considering which bus stops to eliminate. Even though riders want to travel to the Outer Richmond faster, a number of 1 California riders prefer eliminating bus stops rather than implementing BRT projects to improve bus speed. They also voiced safety concerns particularly surrounding dangerous traffic speeds around the Cable Cars on California and Clay. The TEP does not recommend any route changes for the 1 California, including the elimination of any bus stops, and focuses instead on increasing bus frequency. Of the TEP proposed changes, riders favor more express buses and timing stoplights with bus priority. Other concerns include: Starting traffic light signal priority for buses Adding more express service, including extended service in the evening Adding dedicated bus lanes Examining successful bus lines to copy what is working

19

5 FULTON
COMM U NI T Y RESPONSE 5 Fulton riders chiefly want additional limited buses with fewer stops
along the traditional route to improve timeliness of service. They are concerned with the irregularity of service and the bunching of buses. Riders desire for fewer stops along the 5 runs against TEP recommendations for increased local stops on the 5L at certain points along the route. The TEP recommends increasing frequencies at all hours of the day, and several route changes, including increasing service in the Western Addition of the short line, to meet the demand for service. Additionally, the TEP calls for local service between Ocean Beach and the TransBay Terminal on weekends. Other suggestions for improving the 5 Fulton include: Moving bus stops to the stop signs Implementing all-door boarding Starting traffic light signal priority for buses

20

21

T THIRD
COMM U NI T Y RESPONSE Due to the residential streets the T Third light rail runs along, train
size is limited. Adding to slow speeds is the frequency of stops. The T Third stops on average every 1,600 feet.8 T Third riders were primarily concerned with the lines safety and reliability. Many riders said that the infrequency of service, combined with too many stops, made it faster to walk to their destination than take the T. Riders also said that it is faster to take alternate bus transportation than rely on the T Third light rail. The riders had many safety concerns, including the muggings that have occurred in broad daylight on the train and at platform stops. Additionally, the lines switchbacks often drop off riders late at night, leaving them unsafe and vulnerable as they wait upwards of 20 minutes for another train. To address some of these safety concerns, riders would like more police presence on T Third trains. Many riders feel forced to buy a car because of the safety and reliability issues on the T line. During San Francisco Giants baseball games, riders would like SFMTA to communicate alternative routes to AT&T Park and to implement plans to reduce overcrowding before and after games. Riders also voiced safety concerns about pedestrians who cross

Many riders said that the infrequency of service, combined with too many stops, made it faster to walk to their destination rather than take the T.

and exit near the ballpark. Riders also wanted Muni trackers, not NextMuni, which show in real-time where a Muni bus is, rather then just the estimated arrivals of NextBus. This would help alleviate some of the safety concerns because riders would not have to wait for long periods of time for trains, especially at night. Riders say that better transportation to Bayview would help entice people from other neighborhoods to shop there. Riders also feel SFMTA could do more community outreach to

T Third riders to inform them about the 311 service. The T line is currently the least inquired about Muni line. Riders felt this was not due to lack of issues, but rather because many T Third riders are unaware that such a service exists. The TEP recommended increased T Third service frequency but no line changes. Other concerns include: Starting traffic light signal priority for buses Designing better pedestrian safety at exits near stadium Having better signage about ballpark transit Ending sudden switchbacks, especially in evening Adding increased security and police presence on the line

22

23

SO WHAT DO WE DO NEXT?

et engaged. Get involved. Join Reset San Francisco. Reset San Francisco was founded by Phil Ting to engage San Franciscans to get involved and to make their voices heard at City Hall. Were using web 2.0 tools to bring

San Franciscans together around real ideas and solutions to make our great city even better. City Hall should listen to us. If politicians could solve all our problems, we probably wouldnt have so many. We need more ideas and more voices at City Hall. Thats why Phil Ting and the Reset San Francisco team are working to bring residents and city officials together, so that they can dialogue and crowdsource ways for city government to be more efficient and more responsive and that starts by simply listening. Join the conversation on www.ResetSanFrancisco.org and Facebook, and help Phil Ting convince the SFMTA to start implementing the Transit Effectiveness Project, which will help make Muni faster and more reliable. We have the answers. We just need you to help us activate leadership inside City Hall.

Email us to learn more or to get involved today: info@resetsanfrancisco.org phil@resetsanfrancisco.org Please join us on Facebook & Twitter: www.facebook.com/resetsanfrancisco www.twitter.com/resetsf

Acknowledgments
A very big thank you to the following individuals or locations, who either helped us facilitate these town halls or have consulted on substantive Muni reform and information throughout this process. These efforts would not have been possible without your support. San Francisco Richmond Branch Library West Portal Community Meeting Room San Francisco Bayview Police Station BIN 38 Taraval Police Station Villa Romana Pizzeria and Restaurant San Francisco Richmond Branch Police Station Chris Waddling Lauren Isaac Victoria Holliday Greg Dewar The Reset San Francisco Team & Everyone who attended a Reset Muni Town Hall

PAID FOR BY PHIL TING FOR MAYOR 2011. FPPC ID# 1334205 24

Brookings Institute, Missed Opportunity: Transit and Jobs in Metropolitan America, May 12, 2011. SF Examiner, Report says Munis on-time performance down, operators unexplained absences up, April 4, 2011. SF Chronicle, Muni may open all doors on buses for boarding, August 29, 2011. SFMTA FY2011 Service Standard Report http://www.sfmta.com/cms/rstd/sstdindx.htm SFMTA FY2011 Service Standard Report http://www.sfmta.com/cms/rstd/sstdindx.htm

Although this information is not a scientifically representative sample, we believe that it accurately reflects the communitys ideas and utmost concerns and ideas for improving Muni. Each town hall was a constructive conversation, focused around real solutions. For the most part, San Franciscans love Muni, yet they know we can make it even better, faster and more reliable.
6

SFMTA, San Francisco Muni Unique Cost/Operating Environment. Originally presented to Muni Revenue Panel, July 26, 2007.
7 8

SFMTA, San Francisco Muni Unique Cost/Operating Environment.

Originally presented to Muni Revenue Panel, July 26, 2007.

25