Category Archives: Transportation

Transportation

Tumlin reflects on his tenure leading the SFMTA

KTVU

SFMTA Executive Director Jeff Tumlin reflects on the time he spent leading the agency… Direct of MUNI,  Julie Kirschbaum will take over the department until Lurie chooses a new director.

For those of us who did not appreciate Tumlin, here is a little history.

Déjà vu:  Tumlin out as city consultant
by Ashley Archibald – March 15, 2013 : smdp – excerpt

CITY HALL — City officials confirmed Wednesday that they would no longer work with traffic and circulation consultant Jeffrey Tumlin after comments on an online biography proved even more controversial than the parking policies he espoused.

In the bio, Tumlin wrote that Santa Monica politics “had been dominated by NIMBYs who used traffic fear as their primary tool for stopping development.” The reference, indeed the entire section on Santa Monica, had been removed as of Wednesday.

The comment spurred outrage amongst residents, who called for Tumlin’s dismissal. Additionally, Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City, or SMCLC, wrote an adjoining letter expressing distaste for Tumlin’s parking policies, which involve building less parking than currently required for new development and opening up existing lots to increase supply in some areas.

The net effect would be to drive down costs of development, and therefore the price of housing, and ostensibly cause fewer car trips by attracting fewer cars based on the premise that you will not drive where you cannot park.
The theory is embraced by planning professionals, although it constitutes “a huge transition,” said Juan Matute, of the UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies, in January when Tumlin’s proposal first ricocheted through Santa Monica.
That holds little water for Santa Monicans aghast that large amounts of new development could ever result in the “no new net PM trips” promise enshrined in the 2010 Land Use and Circulation Element, a planning document that is supposed to dictate development in Santa Monica for decades to come.
“Mr. Tumlin’s central premise — that new development would yield no additional traffic — is an unsound prediction without basis,” SMCLC wrote. “It is fanciful social experimentation, embraced only by developers.”
It’s unclear if those unpopular ideas will exit along with Tumlin.… (more)

Look at the date on this article. We were cubically warned about him about the time this article came out. He claimed his firm had done some work in San Francisco that was not done by anyone. The product did not exist. So much for the wasted years and millions of dollars spent fulfilling his dreams on our streets. This document partially edited by Tumlin, because the treatise of sorts for those exposing his beliefs in a lifestyle for special interests. How many people and city authorities have been hoodwinked by this guy and his ideas on how to control the masses? How many cities have seen rents go down as promised when they were densified? And how many people have given up the privacy and freedom of owning their owning a car?

path-to-a-livable-city-1-pdf.jpg

The Path to a livable City, published in 2002 by such luminaries as  Gabriel Metcalf, edited by Steven Bodzin of the Congress for New Urbanism, Jeffrey Tumlin of Nelson\Nygaard Consulting, and Shannon Dodge and Doug Shoemaker of the Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California. Lydia Tan of Bridge Housing helped the group gain perspective on housing issues. And thanks to the Bay Area Transportation and Land Use Coalition, on whose regional leadership Transportation for a Livable City (TLC) will rely heavily.

 

CEQA, Politics, Transportation

Sloat Street Quickbuild gives neighbors another reason to Recall Engardio

Who dreamed up this Sloat project and when was it first announced to the neighbors? The lack of transparency is one of the reasons Engardio is being recalled.

This project was sprung on us at the very last minute and passed by the SFMTA Board at a meeting under questionable  procedures. Director Heminger who voted to oppose the approval, questioned the wisdom of rushing this through.

Isn’t Sloat the preferred route for the cars to take to get to the beach and zoo now the Great Highway is going to be off-limits? Or is the plan to limit public access to Ocean Beach to bikers and walkers? No more families loading up the beach and picnic supplies for a beach day?

deregulated housing bills, Housing, Politics, Transportation

Bay Area Housing Finance Authority Pulls Regional Measure 4 from the November Ballot

For Immediate  Release:

San Francisco – This morning, the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA) voted to pull Regional Measure 4, the $20 billion dollar regional bond measure, off the November ballot. Gus Mattammal, President of the 20 Billion Reasons campaign to defeat the bond measure in November, hailed the move.

Said Mattammal, “This decision is a win for Bay Area taxpayers, and a win for affordable housing. To address housing affordability in a meaningful way, we have to address root causes, not soak taxpayers for billions of dollars at a time using bonds that would waste two thirds of the revenue on interest and overhead while barely making a dent in the issue.”

The 20 Billion Reasons campaign brought together Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents in a single campaign, a rarity in recent times, but a necessity. Said Mattammal, “Actually working on the root causes of the housing crisis in California, a crisis created by our legislature and the corporate interests to which they are beholden, is politically difficult. It’s much easier to simply raise taxes. That’s why it’s so important for voters to say ‘no’ to deeply flawed proposals such as Regional Measure 4: every time we do say no, it helps create the political conditions to work on the problem in a meaningful way.”

Though Regional Measure 4 is off the ballot for now, many other expensive proposals remain on the ballot, and the $20 Billion Reasons campaign team is excited to regroup and consider the best way forward to help ensure that Bay Area taxpayers are getting real solutions for the taxes they pay.

About Gus Mattammal – Gus is an entrepreneur and educator who has lived and worked in the Bay Area for over 17 years. He is proud to work with the committed Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents who seek to ensure that the public’s money is wisely spent. Learn more at: 20billionreasons.com

CEQA, Politics, Transportation

The new road rage: ‘Disrespect’ to drivers fuels an angry political movement

By Han Lee : sfstandard – excerpt

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

State assembly candidate Manuel Noris-Barrera was among a number of candidates who spoke in opposition to the initiative before joining the car parade to protest the ballot measure proposed by Supervisors Joel Engardio, that would permanently close the Great Highway to cars. The event was organized by the Chinese Community that has been overwhelmed by street project and parking restrictions all over the city

It was a chilly, windy Thursday morning — good weather for getting mad. Denise Selleck drove to a parking lot near Ocean Beach to meet up with other motorists who had gathered to fume before forming a protest caravan that would take over the Great Highway.

Selleck was one of dozens of protesters opposing the potential permanent closure of the Great Highway and its transformation into a park. Located on the west end of the Outer Sunset, the coastal road is open to cars during weekdays and closed on weekends.

“I’ve never felt as dismissed and disrespected as I did,” Selleck, a 67-year-old retired teacher at City College, told The Standard. She said keeping the Great Highway open to cars is safer than rerouting them to other roads in the Sunset. ..(more)

RELATED:

Seven-story building on the Great Highway to house homeless people. Neighbors are pissed

Chinatown merchants say parking restrictions hurt businesses.

Chinatown leaders say bike-lane idea ‘blindsided’ them

Voters feel that SFMTA and Rec and Park projects that re-direct traffic are  largely to blame for SFMTA’s financial woes. Everything they do to diminish traffic on major thorough-fares creates a need to spend more money on mitigations on the side streets that would be not be necessary if SFMTA just managed MUNI instead of working to remove cars.

As the streets become more difficult to navigate residents and businesses leave. The destroy to “build back better” theme has lost whatever luster it once had. City Hall needs to stop the destruction and maintain what is left for those who are still here.

The Chinese community leaders and merchants have so far taken a lead in the fight to keep the Great Highway open. They have been  battling for parking in Chinatown. And now they are being threatened by bike lanes.

We expect many more to follow if Engardio does not withdraw his ballot initiative.

Politics, Transportation

How to Fund Road Maintenance

By Phil Ting : richmondsunsetnews – excerpt

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has been exploring alternatives to the state gas tax that will finance the road work we need. Fewer drivers are paying this fuel tax, as they ditch their combustion engines in favor of cleaner cars. The problem will worsen as California closes in on the year 2035 when a ban on the sale of new gas-powered vehicles takes effect.

On average, Californians shell out about $300 a year in state gas taxes, raising about $8 billion annually to support 80% of road repair and maintenance. By comparison, zero-emission vehicle drivers like me pay a $100 annual DMV fee to help make up for not paying into the road fund. Estimates show there could be a $4.4 billion shortfall in a decade because of dwindling gas tax revenue.

The good news is, we see this coming and we have time to find a solution. There have already been two pilot programs trying out some ideas, but a third one is about to get under way, and Caltrans needs 800 volunteers statewide to be part of it. Road Charge Program participants will be compensated up to $400 in gift cards. Sign up now through the end of June at caroadcharge.com.

The road charge is an innovative funding mechanism allowing drivers to support road and highway maintenance based on how many miles they drive instead of how many gallons of gas they use. The more they drive, the more they pay. It’s just like electricity bills, which are calculated by how much power is used. A “user pay” system for transportation funding ensures that all drivers pay their fair share of keeping our streets in good condition…(more)

Phil Ting represents the 19th Assembly District, which includes the west side of San Francisco along with the communities of Broadmoor, Colma and Daly City as well as part of South San Francisco.

CEQA, Politics, Transportation

State Attorney General’s Office Joins the Fight Against the Pro-Parking Group ‘Citizens for a Better Eureka’

We will be targeting all coastal towns in CA with Wiener’s SB951 crazy ass law. So yes we will try to send to these folks too!

On 02/02/2024 11:31 AM PST zrants <zrants@gmail.com> wrote:

By Ray Burns : lostcoastoutpost – excerpt
The State of California wants in on the City of Eureka’s fight against the Security National-funded Citizens for a Better Eureka.

The Office of Attorney General Rob Bonta today submitted a request to file amicus curiae or “friend of the court” briefs in support of the City of Eureka and the Eureka City Council, and it says the court should reject the Citizens for a Better Eureka’s efforts to thwart affordable housing developments downtown.

Last month, Citizens for a Better Eureka filed a series of motions seeking preliminary injunctions that would immediately block the city and its partners, including Linc Housing and the Wiyot Tribe’s Dishgamu Humboldt Community Land Trust, from breaking ground on affordable housing and transportation projects slated for development on municipal parking lots downtown.

The motions – five, in all – allege violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), arguing that the city failed to conduct legally required environmental review not only for the elimination of public parking spaces but also for the various planned redevelopment projects, which the group says will impact traffic and air quality…(more)

RELATED:

Eureka Planning Commission Chair Jeff Ragan Abruptly Resigns, Citing ‘Grave Concerns’ Over City’s Approval of Housing Projects on Three City-Owned Parking Lots

We keep warning the Democrats that they are risking losing support in communities that are barely on their side to begin with and these efforts to reign them is is stupid and irresponsible. They stand the possibly of losing seats in the House if they continue to attack the less urban communities. Where are the jobs and where is the need for housing in Eureka? Must contact them regarding ourneighborhoodvoices.com and other state organizations who are fighting their battles with them.

Politics, Transportation

Cruise Car hits Fire Truck

VIDEO: SF fire truck, driverless Cruise car collide, injuring passenger, company says.

By Gloria Rodriguez : abc7news – excerpt (includes video)

SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) — A driverless Cruise car and a fire truck collided in San Francisco late Thursday night, sending one passenger to the hospital.

The crash happened at the intersection of Turk and Polk in the city’s Tenderloin district after 10 p.m.

Video shows the Cruise car with its passenger side doors smashed in after the collision with a San Francisco Fire Department truck responding to a call nearby… If you have been following the Autonomous Vehicle saga waiting for the shoe to drop. It finally has. A Cruise car hit an emergency vehicle and injured a passenger. . .

VIDEO: Driverless Cruise car struck by SF fire truck, injuring passenger, company says
abc7news.com

https://abc7news.com/cruise-driverless-car-sffd-fire-truck-accident/13666936/#:~:text=Cruise%20says%20that%20one%20of,one%20passenger%20to%20the%20hospital.

We should take this opportunity to request an audit of the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC). In their zeal to thrust the state into high growth, forced density and future technologies, the CPUC has removed important safety guardrails that protected the public. Our their health, safety, and economic well-being have given way to the demands of corporate investors. Many of the recent CPUC decisions have come in spite of requests and warnings from the public that were backed by scientific and expert opinions that the changes were not in the publics’ interest.

Who does the CPUC work for? Why do they ignore experts on subjects they are clearly not prepared to judge? Why are they forcing us to rush into a dubious future with products and services that we do not need or trust and many will not use? Why are they setting up job cutting technologies that are unproven, untrusted against the public’s will?

They clearly blew it with robotaxis that have been nothing but trouble since they were given the green light to expand. What else are they getting wrong and who are the people that are making major decisions re: public health, safety and the economy?

How honest and competent is the state system that oversees people who have such a heavy hand on our lives? Where does their money come from and what is their incentive for raising the cost of living by forcing the public to foot higher energy bills? First they cut the payments to the solar producers who are feeding the grid to lower the costs of producing energy. Now they want to raise the cost to consumers by adding “taxes” onto the bills they just claimed to have lowered. How dumb do they think we are?

What is the end game and who is pulling the strings? Why is our governor appointing these people to oversee these important decisions that affect most aspects of our lives, from jobs, to housing and transportation, to energy and the economy. Who will step up to take control of conditions that have banks and insurance companies fleeing the state? What do they know that we don’t?

Housing, Planning, Politics, Transportation

Can Bay Area Political Leaders Solve Climate Change?

By Marc Joffe : cato – excerpt

Passing laws, adopting regulations, and spending money to fight climate change are popular activities for both elected and unelected officials in the San Francisco Bay Area. But since they only govern 2.3 percent of the U.S. population, their ability to turn the tide on greenhouse gas emissions is limited. Instead, their costly and coercive policies drive up the area’s cost of living and help drive out residents.

In a previous post I described some of the high cost, low ridership Bay Area transit projects that raise local sales taxes while replacing only a handful of car trips. Since I last wrote, we have learned that San Francisco’s new $2,000,000,000 Central Subway is afflicted by serious water intrusion issues, making the travel experience less appealing for the roughly 1,000 passengers that use the Chinatown station each day.

More recently, local lawmakers have declared war on natural gas, an energy source that used to be popular with some environmentalists because it burns more cleanly than other fossil fuels. But now the intention is to fully embrace electricity even though California is unwilling to add nuclear generating capacity and lacks the enormous number of solar panels and windmills needed to fully power the state…(more)

Transportation

SF’s street barriers to curb alleged sex work could be violating state, city law

… The fire department is worried about delayed emergency response times, but that’s not the only reason the plan is drawing controversy. Both purchases may not be tax money well spent. Public safety advocates are concerned the barriers may be in violation of state statute and city ordinance.

According to the California Vehicle Code, cities can only block streets in counties with more than 6 million people. San Francisco has just over 800,000 residents.

The state’s fire code also puts restrictions on where barriers can be placed to ensure fire trucks can turn around and respond to emergencies.

“The fire code specifies the type of access that fire trucks need to have for public safety,” said attorney Chris Dolan. “The vehicle code allows local governments to put limitations on traffic movement based on crime. So both of these have an effect. They need to be balanced.”

Dolan says the state’s vehicle code allows cities to block of streets because of criminal activity but says in order to do that, a public hearing must be held.

“That involves a public process including consultation with the fire department and other safety forces,” Dolan said. “Many of the residents may have unique needs, for example, a resident may be disabled and may need access to their garage.”

But aside from a private community meeting, it’s unclear if a public hearing was ever held.

“The mayor made the ultimate decision and she overrode the concerns of the fire department, and I understand why she did that,” said Ronen.

Ronen says the mayor made it clear they had to weigh all the options and determined the danger impacting the neighborhood took priority over response times. This brought welcomed relief to residents in the area who say the barriers limit prostitution and reduce violence on the streets.

“So the fact that you’re bringing this to light at this point is a really an important thing,” said Dolan. “These departments need to sit down now before a fire occurs.”

The I-Team reached out to the mayor’s office for an interview, but have yet to hear back. We’ve also contacted the State Fire Marshal, the San Francisco Fire Dept., and the Department of Motor Vehicles for further comment and clarification on current enforcement measures… (more)

The Fire Department is worried about delayed emergency response times… .purchases may not be tax payer money well spent… It may be in violation of State Statute and City Ordinance to place any barrier on this street…

2022 California Vehicle Code
Vehicle Code – VEH
Division 11 – Rules of the Road
Chapter 1 – Obedience to and Effect of Traffic Laws
Article 3 – Local Regulation
Section 21102.

Dolan: Cities can only block streets in counties with over 6 million people. SF has just over 800,000 residents.

The State’s fire code puts restrictions on where barriers can be placed to ensure fire trucks can turn around and respond to emergencies.

“The fire code specifies the type of access that fire trucks need to have for public safety. The vehicle code allows local governments to put limitations on traffic movement based on crime. So, both of these have an effect need to be balanced.” In order to do that a public hearing must be held.“

That requires a public process, including a consultation with the fire department and other safety forces. Many of the residents may have unique needs… a resident may be disabled and may need to have access to their garage 24 hours a day.” The Mayor made the ultimate decision.

“These departments need to sit down now before a fire occurs.”

Transportation

Public transit death spiral

First, I’m far from convinced that the emphasis on electric vehicles is going to be “the answer” – among other things, where is the electrical power going to come from?

BUT, it is far from clear that transit, overall, can make any contribution to GHG reduction. Here’s a graph that I spent a lot of time putting together ten years ago – that shows, for the nation, a passenger-mile traveled on transit creates more GHG than a passenger-mile on a light-duty vehicle (LDV) – which includes passenger cars, minivans, pickup trucks, SUVs, and vans, except for the largest of the last three categories.

While LDV’s had a clear advantage for 2010, since then, I’m confident that transit was falling further behind through 2019, the last pre-COVID year, because:

  1. LDV fuel economy continued to improve after 2010 because the U.S. had been significantly increasing MPG requirements over a period of many years. Since the AVERAGE LDV registered in the U.S. was 12 years old pre-COVID, it takes a long time for older vehicles, which did not get the better milage, and we’ve had more than a decade since then where older, lower-MPG vehicles were replaced with higher-MPG vehicles – and this was more than enough to offset the more recent trend to larger LDVs that are not a fuel efficient.
  2. In transit, the name of the game is average occupancy. There are several large transit agencies in the U.S. that get very favorable GHG ratings because they are so highly used that each vehicle is moving a whole lot of people, including the MTA-NYCT subway and bus system and, in the Bay Area, BART and Caltrain. However, most of the other Bay Area transit systems (with the exceptions of Muni and ACE) have very poor average passenger loads.

Of course, that was before COVID. Right now, auto utilization is pretty much back to what it was pre-COVID, but transit utilization has fallen off the edge of the cliff, particularly BART and Caltrain. We all hope that people will return to transit, but no one knows how long this will take. BART’s “FY23 Reimagined Short-Range Transit Plan,” presented to the Board 12/1/22, has “stabilize at 80% of pre-COVID forecast” – and that’s the UPSIDE projection. Caltrain has even further to go playing catch-up.

One central problem is that, to simplify, the number of people who were using transit pre-COVID appears to be roughly equal to those that have shifted to remote work. It most certainly isn’t that simple – I’m saying that the NUMBERS are comparable, not that those that used to take transit are all staying at home; obviously, a lot of former transit riders are now driving to work. The article doesn’t mention remote work (or education, or other activities) at all – and, while the headline is “public transit” and the (buried) lead is “public transportation,” there is more discussion about intercity rail than about what transportation professionals call transit. (By the way, intercity bus can be VERY competitive with intercity rail on GHG.)

Another problem is, people don’t like to hear this, but, for the most part, the best transit routes are already taken. Adding more service on existing routes, extending existing routes, and staring new routes are likely to be, for the most part, far less productive than the overall poorly performing existing routes (there are, of course, exceptions to every general rule.)

To put it another way, as we have learned very well over the last century-plus, if you want to make transit more competitive with driving for most US urban travelers, making transit more competitive simply doesn’t work very well and is EXTREMELY expensive, and takes a lot of time to implement, for, at best, relatively minor ridership increases. So, by default, what is left is to spend a lot less time, trouble, and money trying to make transit better and, instead, make driving worse.

Well, this has been a major part of the strategy and tactics in the U.S., and particularly California, and even more particularly the Bay Area, for many decades, and what we have learned is, so far, it has not been working very well to move transportation modal splits. At some point, even California politicos may begin to ask, in reference to a familiar transportation saying, “how long are we going to continue to continue to physically abuse this deceased equine?” (Of course, I have great confidence in the ability of our government leadership to never a learn a thing from past failures.)

Tom Rubin