Others are noticing, as well.

Stamen Design of San Francisco recently completed a project called, “Visualizing the Private Bus Networks of Silicon Valley.” They surveyed the buses serving six major employers, determined their routes and stops and counted passengers. Then they mapped the data to create a beautiful, intuitive representation of the flow.
stamen.com/zero1/

Meanwhile, Supervisor John Avalos has drafted legislation for a permit system for shuttle operators. The plan is to reduce the shuttles’ negative impacts on traffic and quality of life in residential neighborhood by creating designated stops. Policies are currently being developed with roll out scheduled for next year
cbslocal.com

Hackathon teams in action. Image courtesy Summer of Smart

A grown man napping on his laptop case. Daily visits from SF mayoral candidates. Keynote addresses from the Wigg Party, MIT’s SENSEable Cities Lab, the Rebar Group, and the San Francisco Department of the Environment. Cold pizza after midnight. More than a hundred adults sitting around tables on the 5th floor of a Mid-Market office building on a Friday night. This is what ground zero of the open government movement looks like.

From July 22 through 24, the Gray AreaFoundation for the Arts hosted Urban Innovation Weekend 2: Sustainability, Energy and Transportation, the second “hackathon” in its Summer of Smart series, sponsored by SPUR and other local organizations. The hackathons are an open casting call for ideas on how technology and digital information can help government work better. Respondents ranged in age from their 20s to mid 50s, with specialities in everything from architecture to speech software. Think Wikipedia, only the authors are in the same room and are working on an entry for a concept that doesn’t yet exist. And they have 48 hours to develop a prototype. The first event focused on Community Development and Public Art, and the last, on August 19 through 21, will focus on Public Health and Nutrition.

Your correspondent arrived Friday evening as teams were forming. I made a beeline for Emily, a Muni employee who shared an idea that caught my fancy: using NextMuni data to improve Muni’s internal communication and response time to line management issues. Our team also included Judy, an architect; Eden, a “code monkey”; Zach, a programmer/geographer; and Winnie, an urban planning grad student. On Saturday afternoon, we picked up Matt, an undergrad, urbanist and Bevan Dufty volunteer.

Our session had its particular rhythms: surges of information from our Muni insider, rounds of discussion to make sense of said information, revisions of initial ideas, repeat. We hit a wall at about 11:45 on Friday night when we realized we were trying to design a product for Muni employees about whose duties and difficulties we knew relatively little.

The following morning we took a fact-finding field trip to the Embarcadero Muni station, where we struck paydirt. Deneisha, a line supervisor, spent 20 minutes answering questions and discussing some of the recurring inefficiencies she encounters in her work.

We came away with a photograph and a cohesive vision. Where Muni currently relies on a single frequency radio, telephones and handwritten reports to communicate and log line-management issues, we envisioned a kind of Google doc: what if the detailed map visible to employees in the Office of Central Control and Line Management was interactive? What if anyone within the Muni intranet could a) open a trouble ticket by clicking on the real-time location of a light rail or bus vehicle, and b) close out a trouble ticket if the problem was within their power to resolve? What if the software could automatically generate trouble tickets if buses bunched too close together, or if station dwell time exceeded a certain limit? Such software could obviate the need for repeating the same message to multiple parties via time consuming voice-based communication.

On Saturday and Sunday, we created screenshots of a hypothetical user interface. On Sunday afternoon, our efforts were deemed worthy of a three-way tie for first place (check out the other Urban Innovation projects, too). Perhaps more importantly, on Wednesday July 27, Emily presented the idea to her supervisors at Muni. Who knows what will come next?

Regardless of whether any projects are adopted, the Summer of Smart achieves a kind of success by recognizing the ability of motivated citizens to address problems they encounter everyday. Who better to address those challenges than the community of people who face them?

Learn more about Summer of Smart >>

Existing conditions (Google Earth image)

In Spring 2010, a group of Noe Valley residents and business owners proposed a plan to create a plaza in Noe Valley. The plaza would be created adjacent to 24^th Street – the neighborhood shopping strip – by closing Noe Street to all except emergency vehicles. http://sf.streetsblog.org/2010/04/06/a-tale-of-two-plazas/

The proposal to close Noe Street – a heavily-used car route and an integral part of the street grid – would be ambitious and not just from a design standpoint. During contentious public outreach meetings, Pavement to Parks program staff and the District Supervisor discovered a deep schism among the residents and the trial plaza project was abandoned. Instead, two trial Parklets would be constructed on 24th Street. http://noevalleysf.blogspot.com/2010/03/plaza-vs-parklet-your-voice-has-been.html

Watching the arc of this ongoing story, I am struck by the number of missed opportunities. Drama aside, the Pavement to Parks public meeting process revealed a constituency that recognizes the rich fabric of 24th Street and is passionate about protecting and improving it for everyone. And it highlighted some of the potential of the 24th & Noe intersection as a site to support those goals.

Competition for sidewalk real estate on the 24th Street commercial strip is fierce. Stereotypical “Stroller Valley” pedestrian traffic threads its way past well-used benches and merchant displays. Dogs are tied to parking meters and full bike racks occupy the curbside “door zone”, hampering access to parked cars.

At the same time, the intersection of 24^th and Noe Streets produces pedestrian/car conflicts, resulting in near-gridlock on sunny weekends. Reallocating the Noe Street right-of-way on the block between 24th and Jersey Streets could reduce these conflicts while relieving some of the congestion on 24th Street’s sidewalks.

The existing 44’-long crosswalk on the south side of 24th Street means pedestrians are essentially crossing four lanes of asphalt. Introducing curb bulbs would shorten the crosswalk and reduce pedestrian/car conflicts, maintain full vehicle access and motorcycle parking, while sacrificing just a few car parking spaces.

Crosswalk bulb, motorcycle and bicycle parking

This concept has considerable advantages over the options presented at the April 8^th 2010 community meeting:

1. Maintains two-way vehicular through traffic
2. Maintains service access to businesses
3. Retains convenient motorcycle parking location
4. Provides bicycle parking without impeding pedestrian flow
5. Reduces crosswalk length

Crosswalk bulb, motorcycle and bicycle parking

Extending the sidewalk on the southeast corner into the intersection reduces pedestrian exposure and shortens the crosswalk. The curb radii are tighter, as well – a proven method of slowing car speed while turning.

Perpendicular vehicle parking on East side of Noe Street

If we reconfigure Noe Street to better accommodate the mix of car, motorcycle, bike and pedestrian demands, we can take advantage of the unbroken 60’ right of way just south of 24th Street along both curbs. By shifting the vehicle traffic lanes to the west for the block of Noe between 24th and Jersey, the existing parallel parking can be changed to a perpendicular on the east resulting in no net loss of spaces.

Convenient bicycle and motorcycle parking

Consolidating bicycle parking here will discourage bikers from locking up to trees or signs on 24^thStreet and keep the bikes out of the cars’ door zone. It’s close to the businesses and highly visible, features that make it attractive to cyclists.

Crosswalk bulb

Benefits

This alternative offers many of the same benefits as the Noe Plaza scheme without closing the street to through traffic.

1. It decreases pedestrian/vehicle conflicts by reducing the length of the crosswalk, and slowing vehicle turning speeds.
2. It maintains the current parking space count for cars and motorcycles.
3. It does not affect delivery access to adjacent businesses.
4. It provides needed convenient, high-visibility bicycle parking.
5. It will discourage bicyclists from locking up to meters on 24th Street, freeing sidewalk width and easing access to parked cars.
6. Special events can be accommodated by the temporary closure of Noe Street, in the vein of the Block Party or the recurring seasonal events that occasionally close 24th Street to vehicular traffic.

Coupled with the proposed 24th Street Parklets, this proposal will support the stated needs of merchants and residents in this neighborhood hub.

Noe Street proposal from 24th to Jersey Streets

Update: June 2011

San Francisco’s Pavement to Parks program has completed the construction of two parklets on the North side of 24^th Street. Each is comprised of two spaces and configured for café-style seating. They are well-used, especially on sunny weekends.

http://sfpavementtoparks.sfplanning.org/noe_valley_parklets.html

24th Street western Parklet (San Francisco Planning Department image)

Meanwhile, the plaza proposal has been renamed and relocated to a privately-owned mid-block parking lot on the South side of 24^th Street. Design alternatives for the Town Square have been prepared by CMG Landscape Architecture. Funding sources for purchase of the property and design implementation are uncertain. http://www.noevalleytownsquare.com/

The services fall into two categories. Modern, 45-passenger motor coaches – often equipped with power outlets and wireless data connections – run regional service between several San Francisco neighborhoods and campuses on the Peninsula and in the South Bay. Local circulator shuttles, typically 25-passenger vans, operate within the city carrying employees to and from BART and Muni hubs. The buses run on regular routes and follow schedules during the workweek.

Opposition to the service has arisen from neighborhood residents who object to the increased traffic, often on streets not designed to accommodate the larger vehicles. Limited curb space in the dense neighborhoods compels the private bus operators to use Muni stops, a violation of state law and a practice that interferes with public transportation operations. Other common objections are related to double parking and idling.

Proponents point to decreased use of single-occupant vehicles as the service has been enthusiastically embraced. Of the regional service commuters, 28% do not own personal vehicles. It is touted as a recruiting tool: corporations have a larger pool of candidates if potential employees know they can work during their commute times.

A report^[2] authorized by Commissioner Dufty delves into both sides of the issue, summarizes the findings, and proposes regulations.

The Report’s Key Findings and Recommendations

1. When sharing stops with Muni, the shuttle buses have a significant negative impact on Muni’s on-time performance. With high floors and a single door, dwell times frequently exceed 5 minutes during peak hours.
2. Except for the peak hour runs, the private buses frequently do not run at capacity. The regional shuttles are often between 20-70% occupied, while local circulator vans average just 18-42% occupancy.
3. Regional shuttle routes should be limited to streets designed to withstand the loads of large motor coaches.
4. Active management is required to coordinate current service, resolve conflicts and design for growth.

The Report’s Proposed Financing Strategies

1. MTA staff should be responsible for consolidating local circulator service and should be compensated by the private firms being served.
2. Implement a one-time fee collection for dedicated painted curbs (about $1,800 for 66’ to accommodate a motor coach).
3. “Other fees” based on vehicle size and weight, or demand pricing.
4. Voluntary tiered “Muni Partners” sticker/certification program.
5. Public funding coupled with public access.

Shortcomings of the Report

The report overstates the benefits of private shuttles. One can argue that without the option of the shuttle, many employees would find their own alternatives. They would form carpools, which would also reduce the number of single-occupant vehicles on the road. Some would choose to live closer to work; others would change jobs and work closer to their residences. Any of these options reduces the environmental impact of an individual’s commute. In fact, private shuttles may contribute to sprawl by encouraging people to live farther from their workplaces.

The fees identified in Commissioner Dufty’s program don’t begin to cover costs of increased road maintenance, program administration and regulation enforcement.

The largest cost – lost time and inconvenience as the shuttle buses interfere with public transit service – will be borne by the public transportation users, often those with no other transit option. At the same time they are asked to accommodate the private service, they are not permitted to use it themselves, unless they work for the sponsoring corporations.

Alternatives and Considerations

The emergence of private corporate shuttle services demonstrates a clear demand and an unmistakable gap in the public transportation network. Rather than removing paying customers from MTA’s base, Commissioner Dufty should be looking for ways to serve them within the public system – and increase transit options for the rest of us.

The report suggests consolidations of redundant service that duplicates Muni service or other private shuttles. Taking this approach a step further, MTA could itself run frequent service in 25-passenger vehicles from the neighborhoods currently served by the corporate shuttles directly (express) to the Caltrain station at 22^nd Street. Commuters bound for the Peninsula and points south could transfer to the Bullet Train Service.MTA could also partner with Samtrans, supplementing the existing express service on US 101 with modern motor coaches equipped with power and data connections. Corporate or public circulator shuttles would connect with Samtrans and Caltrain at the station nearest their respective campuses.^[3]

The corporations could choose to subsidize their employees’ public transit fares rather than an exclusive transportation network, a solution having a positive revenue impact on Caltrain as well as on Muni.

If the private motor coach strategy is retained, we’ve got to develop a more robust means of addressing the funding and social justice gap. And that requires understanding the true market value of the service being provided.

To get an idea of the public transportation revenue lost to the private shuttles, here’s a quick back-of-the envelop calculation: a monthly Caltrain pass from San Francisco to Mountain View, a destination in Zone 3, costs $159; a 4 Zone pass to San Jose costs $205.50^[4]. Add in the cost of a $60 monthly FastPass for each employee to get to the train and it adds up quickly. If each bus can carry 45 passengers and we assume an efficiency rate of 70%, each round trip route is then worth between $84,096 and $101,952^[5] per year in revenue lost to the public transportation agencies!

Travelling by single-occupant vehicle provides another perspective on the market value of transportation. A trip from the Marina neighborhood to Adobe Systems HQ in San Jose, for example – 59 miles each way at 50 cents a mile^[6] – works out to over $14,000 per year per employee!

A more equitable fee structure is based on number of stops and number of trips per route per year. Additionally, each shuttle vehicle would be required to register with the city, similar to the taxi medallion concept. In exchange, the shuttle operators could opt to sell tickets to non-employees during non-peak hours to help offset their costs while offering another car-free choice to the general public. Net income is allocated to improving Muni service, acknowledging the negative impact a supplemental service has on local public transit. This free market approach lets the value of access set the price of the service.

In implementing a private shuttle service, firms have discovered the value of something transportation planners have long touted: high-quality, car-free transportation. In its current form, this exclusive service relies on exploiting existing public infrastructure – without contributing to its creation or maintenance and without increasing transportation options for the public. A comprehensive cost-benefit analysis – one that acknowledges economic, environmental and social justice impacts – will yield a more accurate picture.

Commissioner Dufty should not be willing to part with our shared resources so easily.

[2] Draft SAR 08/09-2 Strategic Analysis Report, “The Role of Shuttle Services in San Francisco’s Transportation System” 17 November 2009

[3] This system is comparable to the Emeryville-Go-Round shuttle service, which connects the McArthur BART Station in Oakland with major employers and shopping destinations in Emeryville and is privately funded by local businesses. A slightly different version has been implemented at Stanford with the Marguerite Shuttle, connecting the campus with the University Avenue and California Avenue Stations. The service is funded by the university and is free to users, whether or not they are affiliated with the university.

[4] Caltrain fares as of June 2010

[5] 45 x 70% = 32 passengers average per trip. Annual cost of an Adult M FastPass is $60 x 12 = $720. Annual cost of Caltrain monthly 3-zone pass is $159 x 12 = $1908. $720 + $1908 x 32 passengers = $84,096. A 4-zone round trip route is then worth $101,952 annually.

[6] 2010 IRS standard deduction

While LEED, for instance, does not explicitly discuss the 3Es of Environment, Economy, and Equity in the context of one another, it is possible to evaluate each credit’s requirements for their impacts on one or more of the 3Es. Through their simplicity alone, rating systems promote the 3Es of Sustainability, whether or not the user of the checklist is aware of it.

The LEED system groups credits into four categories – Site, Water, Energy, and Materials. This promotes the concept of Green Building as multifaceted: a building with even a minimum LEED rating indicates a project achieves prerequisite credits across the categories.

There have been unintended consequences, however. Politicians who advocate for municipal ordinances that require proprietary certification for projects in their jurisdiction may not understand that a particular rating system may not be appropriate for all project types.

As an example: by any conventional measure, a new metro line in a dense urban environment is Green. It takes vehicles off the roadways, reducing pollution and easing congestion on the surface, while speeding passengers along in a dedicated right-of-way. But it is difficult to achieve LEED prerequisite credits in the Site category when, by definition, tunneling requires the disturbance, removal and disposal of tons of material.

Designers, too, get caught up in meeting point or credit requirements while losing sight of the Big Picture. For instance, architects urge their mechanical consultants to design systems that will achieve LEED Energy and Atmosphere points though those solutions may require a more robust structural system or greater floor-to-floor heights than another option. This, in turn, means more steel or concrete is used to build the structure and more material is needed to clad the building. Yet the LEED system currently does not account for the resulting increase in the building’s embodied energy.

Community college projects are often designed to a Green checklist, with poor overall results. The design of college facilities is defined as “successful” when they come in on time, under budget, and achieve the required Green project rating. College financial resources are Balkanized into Construction, Maintenance and Operations, and Staffing budgets. If systems selected during the building’s design require training or additional monitoring, those costs will have an impact on the O&M budget for the life of the building. Though larger facilities are physically more efficient on a cost-per-student basis, a laboratory may be designed for 24 students because the staffing budget doesn’t permit hiring a teaching assistant and one instructor can safely oversee just 24 students. Instructors are reluctant to endorse larger labs because they fear the administration will fill the “empty” seats, even if additional staff is not allocated.

A holistic philosophy of sustainability demands that the all affected systems and their interconnections be understood. Project leaders with a Sustainable Agenda must consider building systems, ecologic conditions, political environments and financial resources before making alterations – essentially, the 3Es. By constraining the assessment of a project’s Green potential to a checklist, we can miss opportunities to understand synergistic systems and inadvertently create disincentives to innovation.

Environment, Economy, Equity – let’s add a fourth E: Experience.