A week ago the Chronicle reported on some promising preliminary recommendations based on findings from the Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP).

These recommendations are great. In many ways they are in line with common sense: improve highly used lines using BRT, ditch under-used lines.

Aside from the frustrating fact that it took Muni 40 years to figure this out, let’s focus on the positive: at least someone realizes what to do next.

But, I have a hard time being excited about these proposals. I cannot hide my fear that Muni is barely capable of managing its own operations, let alone managing a system-wide overhaul. They just can’t do things right.

This is an agency that claims multiple times in press releases and at public information events that they can’t seem to hire enough bus drivers. Yet, they don’t post bus operators as an available job on their website. (I would know too — I’ve looked many times, pushed by a perverse desire to drive a bus in the City.)

This is an agency that spent nearly a billion dollars to replace a bus line (the 15) with a light rail system (T-Third) that offered barely any noticeable improvement in service quality, or, by many accounts, a decrease in service quality.

This is an agency that has virtually zero accountability over its ground-level workforce due to extremely onerous union negotiated contracts. They can’t even immediately fire operators after they’ve killed innocent pedestrians.

This is an agency that, to operate most efficiently and implement changes suggested by the TEP, needs absolute access priority over roadway design and right-of-way for its transit vehicles. So far, no evidence has been shown that Muni’s merger with DPT has provided this level of absolute priority. Nor have the actions of the Mayor nor the Board of Supervisors shown that they have the interest or even the ability to offer such priority for our dear Municipal Railway.

So, rock on TEP. Just don’t write checks you can’t cash.

Link

Driving so many hours in the City offers a lot of time for thinking, especially thinking about driving.

I put a lot of thought toward the question: How can I reach a destination most quickly?

The answer is rather complicated, much more so than it may appear at first glance. It’s not just about distance. It’s about traffic. It’s about roadway capacities. It’s about speed limits. But, often the most important factor is traffic signal timing.

When I drive between midnight and the morning rush, which starts around 5 am, there is virtually no traffic. Or, to be more specific, traffic congestion is beneath a threshold such that all traffic signals in the City will completely clear within one signal cycle.

It is during this phase between midnight and the morning rush where you can explore the naked signal cycles with the traffic variable removed. It is great fun.

I start to develop intuitive (implicitly memorized) and non-intuitive (explicitly memorized routes) maps of signal timing, especially on frequently used routes. And, soon, I began to develop traffic signal ‘hacks’, ways to slip through long strings of intersections.

The first ‘hack’ I found is when I’m driving south on 8th St to get to the 6th St 280 on-ramp. Heading south on 8th St, most people would turn left at Bryant to get to 6th St for the 280 on-ramp. But, you’ll get stuck on at least one light (7th/Bryant) and maybe another (6th/Bryant). Instead, while you’re on 8th St as soon as Harrison turns green, gun it and pass through Bryant. You’ll just barely make the green to make a left on Brannan, head through a green that turns at just the right time at 7th/Brannan and hit another green to make a right on 6th. (Just watch out for the Highway Patrol station at 8th/Bryant.)

[EDIT 6/10/08: This doesn't seem to work anymore. The light at 8th at Folsom stays red longer now, making it impossible to reach a green light at 8th and Brannan unless you had a Ferrari and floored it.]

My friend Steve showed me a nice ‘hack’ to get on 101 from Gough. If you’re heading South on Gough, most people take Fell to Octavia to the 101 on-ramp. But, during the morning rush you can bypass a signal cycle or two if you continue on Gough past Fell and instead take a right on Haight which is the last street from which you can turn onto Octavia and the 101 onramp, bypassing a few blocks of heavy traffic.

Signal knowledge combined with estimates of traffic congestion make the acquired knowledge of City taxi drivers rather valuable. Which calls into question this story I found about F1 driver Michael Schumacher taking the wheel of a taxi in Deustchland to make a flight on time. It may work between these small villages where speed is the primary factor. But, it would never work in the City where the key to the fastest time between point A and point B is not pure acceleration, but instead requires an intimate knowledge of signal timing and traffic congestion.

Do you have any other City signal hacks?

Dear Mayor Newsom

You didn’t have to spend City taxpayer money on private consultants. Anyone could have told you: Just like any other shared and limited public resource, public transit needs user fees.

Offering ‘free’ Muni is a destructive proposal. Muni rolling stock is not unlimited. Removing user fees distorts a natural and effective form of limiting the number of people that use Muni resources.

Muni needs to increase its quality of service. Removing user fees would decrease the quality of service. It would result in more crowded buses, leading to lower frequency and lower average system speeds.

Here’s the real Muni solution: increase quality (frequency, speed, reliability, cleanliness) on critical lines such as 38-Geary, N-Judah, or 14-Mission. Enforce real transit-only lanes that enable high speeds with true signal pre-emption. Prepare Muni to operate faster than a personal vehicle for trips on these ‘primary’ lines. Then, the City can increase user fees to $2 or even $2.50 for these primary lines.

Our residents don’t want free Muni. City residents are more than willing to pay for an effective transit system. It’s up to the City to provide an effective transit system and price it properly, not make a crappy transit system free.

Don’t get me wrong — I’m happy you’ve figured this out by now. It’s just silly that this advice cost tax payers $20,000+. I would have been glad to provide this advice for a bit less. Let’s say $10,000.

Let’s look on the bright side. At least you’re open to new ideas. Just talk to me next time and I’ll charge you half the rate of the consultants, and I’ll give you better ideas faster.

kfarr

This time the N-Judah tries to slice off an old lady’s foot.

Links:

• Nice coverage in Metroblog
• SF Gate
• N-Judah Chronicles blog eats this up.

This is getting ridiculous. Rant.

Link (Examiner)
Link (SF Gate)

Some drivers try to hide dashboard console warning lights with Post-It Notes. Sometimes, I’ll fold a receipt and stick it between the dashboard plastic cover and the dashboard bevel. Most drivers don’t give a crap and let their amber lights shine with pride.

Why do cabs always have warning lights? Should you be worried? Short answer: don’t worry about it.

Almost every cab I’ve driven has at least one warning light. The most common culprit: the alternator warning light. The alternator converts electricity from the mechanical motion of the engine to charge the car’s battery, which powers everything from the CD player to power steering and even the automatic transmission.

In most cabs, the alternator warning light triggers because the alternator is working super-duty to power all the extra electronic accessories in a taxi: the (sometimes functioning) security camera and hard-drive based recording equipment, a high power radio receiver and transmitter, the taximeter with battery backup (so it won’t lose the fare amount if you need to shut off the engine for a bit), the taxi top light, and additional computer or GPS equipment. That’s a lot of juice. The warning light trips because the alternator can’t keep the proper amount of voltage — at least not the expected voltage if it weren’t powering all this extra stuff.

The second most common culprit: low windshield fluid.

Nothing to worry about.

Two world-class cities. Two new light rail lines.

Who will take all in the LIGHT RAIL SMACKDOWN?

Meet the contenders:

LUAS

Meet LUAS. This Irish studmuffin started service in 2004 as the cornerstone of Dublin’s and Ireland’s comprehensive transit strategy.

MUNI’s T-Third Line

Meet the MUNI Metro. The T-Third line was completed and began service to much City fanfare in early 2007. It serves as the outer leg of a proposed Central Subway system which would burrow directly underneath the City center. This competition ranks just the recent T-Third extension.

The Competition

It’s a head to head contest. How does each rank on reasonable measurements of success of a light rail transit project? cost per mile, speed, frequency, reliability, public reaction, etc.

• Total Project Cost

  • LUAS: $1.1 billion (EUR 800 million) (Source)
  • T-Third: $648 million (EUR 436 million) (Source)
  • Note: LUAS total cost includes rolling stock and two storage depots, T-Third includes only one storage depot and no rolling stock.
  • 

  • Wow. The T-Third cost almost half as much as the LUAS. Was that a good deal? Let’s find out…

• Total Length

  • LUAS: 15 miles (24 km) (Source)
  • T-Third: 5.4 miles (8.7 km)(Source)

• Cost Per Mile

  • LUAS: $66.7 million per mile (calculated from above)
  • T-Third: $120 million per mile (calculated from above)
  • 

  • Hmm. Even though the overall LUAS project was more expensive, the per mile cost is about HALF as much as the T-Third.

• Average Speed

  • LUAS: 22 minutes for 6 miles (Source) :: v = d/t = 6 mi / 22 min = 6 mi / .37 hr = 16.21 mph
  • T-Third: Embarcadero Station to Sunnydale/Bayshore is 36 minutes over 6.73 miles (Source) :: v = d/t = 6.73 mi / 36 min = 6.73 mi / .6 hr = 11.2 mph
  • Note: These are from self-published schedules. Experience shows T-Third lags significantly behind schedule. LUAS does not.
  • 

  • Wow, the LUAS is almost 50% faster than the T-Third! Maybe we didn’t get such a good deal after all. But speed isn’t everything, is it?

• Frequency

  • LUAS: Morning (6:30a-10a) 5 min or less; midday (10a-3:30p) 7.5 min; evening (3:30p-7p) 5 min or less; all other times 15 min or less. (Source)
  • T-Third: Morning (7a-9a) 10 min; midday (9a-4p) 10 min; evening (4p-7p) 8 min; all other times 20 min or less. (Source)
  • Note: Self-published data.
  • 

  • Oh, and the LUAS comes about twice as often as the T-Third. So it’s faster AND it comes more frequently. Perhaps it was worth the pricetag?

• Ridership

  • LUAS: 80,000 average daily passengers (Source)
  • T-Third: Unavailable at present. Bus line 15 (replaced by T-Third) reported 29,524 average daily passengers. For comparison, N-Judah reports 31,381 average daily riders. (Source)
  • 

  • The LUAS has amazing ridership figures. I wonder — do people like it because it’s fast? Or, maybe because it has a very high frequency of trains?

• Farebox Recovery Ratio (Profitability)

  • LUAS: Operates at a profit (EUR 5.6 million in 2006) by a private French corporation through a franchise agreement. Actual farebox recovery unavailable. Of course, report of an operating surplus does not subtract any sort of amortized capital construction costs.
  • T-Third: Individual line operating cost information unavailable. Overall MUNI system operates at a significant loss. Farebox recovery ratio is about 25% (Source).
  • 

  • Go figure, if you build a transit line that actually serves people’s needs, you can have an operating SURPLUS! Who knew!?

• Public Reaction

  • LUAS: Overwhelmingly positive. Significantly reduces vehicle use along corridor. Youth even rap about it.
  • T-Third: Overwhelmingly negative. City residents complain. And complain. It really sucks.
  • 

  • People can’t be fooled by fancy parties or famous politicians. They know a stinker when they see it.

It looks like San Francisco sure got screwed. And it seems like we just can’t wait to get screwed again!