tv [untitled] December 3, 2013 9:00pm-9:31pm PST
you have my commitment to work together inside of city hall, certainly now as chair of the budget and finance to find solutions to that. i agree with the sentiment of the task force and co-chair has it all san franciscans should be able to choose among many high-quality transportation options. so the tep's end, i want to speak about you today, because it affects the district that i represent in a large fashion is the elimination of the 3 jackson line. i am here to tell you as someone who was born and raised in district 2 and raising my children there, i have ridden the 3 jackson my entire life and i know so many countless others, many who are behind me today that depend upon it for their daily lives and that eliminating that line would have a disastrous effect on the neighborhoods that i represent and i urge you to consider that. the three jackson has served the neighborhoods for decades and includes a huge senior
population, a disabled population, that i have heard from and spent countless community meetings already on this topic since this idea was floated about last year. and i think as important for me, many students and staff that are part of the schools that are in that surrounding area, there are nine schools in that very close vicinity within the three jacks and they heavily dependent upon that line to serve the schools and educate our children. several of the schools i know have written letters to you, to the mta board as i have about the elimination of the 3 jacks line. and i hope you consider that as part of your deliberations. i will tell you that my office has been engaged and i will commit to continue to engage and outreach with the neighborhoods of district 2 and i am offering here to help engage in the community as i have done so far.
i know sfmta staff has done it to some degree, but as proposeded today with elimination of the 3 jacks line, the neighborhoods have not been listened to. the statistics that are in the books don't paint the full picture. this is not just about peak ridership times. this is about other populations in san francisco that ride our buses, and use our transportation system in no one peak times. you know, is there a cost-savings to this elimination? that hasn't been talked about yet and that has to be part of the process. and to me, as well, the alternatives that get proposed, simply to say go to the one california, take those. this is a steep area, you know? topographically, these are seniors and it's not so easy to walk a few blocks and we're
talking about vulnerable populations in a steep part of town. we love our city and our topography makes us who we are geographically, but we have to think about that with our transportation system. we know san francisco needs a reliable transportation system and i fully support the process that is happening, but with the 3 jacksons, at the expense of riders, many who are seniors, disabled and especially those who depend upon using the three jacksons to teach and go to school i don't think reflects the values of san francisco and i ask you to reconsider that. i commit to you my support to help engage with my community to help do that. thank you very much. >> thank you, supervisor. [ applause ] members, let's move to the
public hearing. we'll hear from the public at this point. mr. kennedy, i'm sure we'll be talking to you a little later on. miss boomer. >> we have members of the public here and also in 408. so if you hear your name in 408, if you would make you your way to this room to address the board. [ reading speakers' names ] >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon. >> i grew up on the 39. i rode the ecar, which was a streetcar the size of the cable
care. i'm a native and i ride the no. 3. i ride the no. 3 from one terminus to the other terminus. from walnut and california to bart or muni. and the california street doesn't do that. it doesn't stop at a connection. you have to walk a couple of blocks. and during the winter, during rain, and all of that kind
weather, but i have also rode the cable car when it went all the way to presidio, the california cable car. thank you >> thank you sir. [ reading speakers' names ]. >> mark christenson, third generation san franciscan. very simple put there are elements of the transit effectiveness project that need to be reevaluated before implementation. there are two elements that many believe are flawed. getting from point a to point b is the supposed time savings for the individual transit rider or for the muni vehicle? at appears that the proposal are for the vehicle to get to point a to point b at the sacrifice of the passenger to get from starting point a to
their final destination point b. elimination of stops. this means that the individual rider will have to walk a greater destination and the time it takes to walk from the discontinued stop -- this does not help the individual getting from point a to point b and this certainly hinders the elderly, the disabled and parents with small children by eliminating stops. one of the best features of muni it has convenient stops for its ridership, but yet, that seems to be in jeopardy. please note it will still take the same amount of time for a passenger to board and disembark a vehicle whether it's at one stop or another. so it's not a major savings by eliminating stops. the other element, stoping to
pick up passengers and blocking lanes. every time a bus stops -- it blocks a traffic lane and that will only further back up traffic along the busy lane and thus result in delaying the next bus -- how does this speed up service? on paper these issues may look fine. if practicality, it will only add to the frustration of the public. thank you. >> next speaker. >> alex long, anne long. wayne fong. >> my name is alex long and on behalf of the save no. 3 jackson committee i would like to express our appreciation to discuss why the 3 jackson means so much to our community. along with five other presenters we will describe our
community, introduce the various groups who are here today and were able to make the meeting and explain the impact of removing the no.. explore what we understand are the reasons for eliminating it and the resulting magnitude of the savings. ask whether this is consistent with the city goal of transit-first? and finally, request that you the board consider our information, as well as the significant public support for our position if we shouldn't rather be instead working together to save the no. 3 jackson and increase ridership? so let me describe our community of 60 square blocks, consisting of portions of pacific and presidio heights, transected by the no. 3 jackson. we are 1500 regular riders getting on and off the no. 3 jackson in this area.
we do 4,000 round-trips per week, 650 of these round-trips are within our community. 28% of our ridership is greater than 65 years of age. we have students and staff at nine local schools. we have tourists staying at three local hotels. we feel that it is important for us to all of us to use the no. 3. the level of importance is reflected by the petition and emails that you have received recently. all of us support muni and all of us would like to continue riding the no. 3 jackson. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> anne long. wayne fung. barbara bocce. john paxton. >> good morning, miss long. >> good afternoon. i simply wanted to introduce you to the people who have gone
to the trouble of coming to this meeting, but that is not really going to be possible, considering that we are split in two rooms. >> that is of course for safety reasons and fire reasons. >> i understand. >> good. >> maybe you could imagine double the number. there are quite a few elderly people, including one lady that i met who is over 85 who came down had this meeting today. if you are over 65 and you are here to support the no. 3 bus, would you please raise your hand? we also have students from university high, the san francisco ballet, scared heart, san francisco public montessori and the students mostly aren't here, but some of their representatives are here. if you are a student or representing students would you please raise your hands? we have professionals and patients from institutes such as the
smith eye institute. i'm not sure if any of them are here, but if you are -- please raise your hand. thank you. there were also a great number of other people that don't fall into these categories, but as one told me, i'm a marine major bus rider. so if you don't fall into these categories would you please raise your hand. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. [ reading speakers' names ]. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon directors. my name is dr. wayne fung. i am a retired ophthalmolgist, that is a retired eye surgeon. my office was and is still at the corner of webster and clay, so i know a little bit about
this neighborhood. i was at that position for 50 years. cpmc, the pacific campus has 400 nurses every shift. so that is 1200 people a day. there is a permanent staff of 300 and when it moves the building is going to stay there and it will be converted to outpatient services. the talk now is mainly cancer treatment and breast healthcare. on filmore street, close to cpmc, there is the eye institution, where josh millet, who is on the list, will address you and tell you what they do at smith keteral --
across there smith keteral is pets unlimited, only 24-hour pet hospital. there are 2500 students and 2,000 workers who rely on 3 jackson and i want to close just by saying for example, there is an abigail gould, who commutes from the east bay via bart, transfers to the 3 jackson five days a week. there is also a patricia monticello -- thank you. [ reading speakers' names ] >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon. i'm barbara bocce. if the no. 3 jackson is
eliminated it will have a major impact on our community. when we heard about it, we said what do we do? the muni said take a cross-town bus and then transfer. well, that is fine, but it's going to increase the average riding time by over 50% and it makes it a little unreliable getting to bart or getting to your job on time and people mentioned this is a very hilly area. no count was taken of the topography. so if you have elderly and disabled people and young students, can they walk a quarter of a mile to these bus stops? it will be very difficult, especially when it's raining and windy and it's not really safe to be standing on sutter street after the sun goes down and it's dark. so what is going to happen? well, we'll take our cars out and call taxis and increase the
greenhouse gas in san francisco. others will be stuck at home and won't be able to go to doctor's appointments or shopping. the muni is making it harder and harder to park a car, and -- i'm sorry, the city is making it harder and harder to park a car and muni is eliminating bus lines. this just doesn't work. so i'm here today to say please don't eliminate the 3 jackson, keep it running and provide safe and reliability transportation for the people of san francisco. thank you. [ reading speakers' names ] >> good afternoon commissioners, my name is john paxton for 40 years i have been using the 3 jackson, relying on the 3 jackson to get downtown to work. what is the san francisco sfmta trying to achieve? we in the community will be burdened if the 3 jackson were
eliminated and we would like to know why it's proposed for elimination? what is the mta trying to achieve? the tep documents do not show how the elimination of the three would benefit san francisco. all it has said as part of mta's plan to improve service. certainly those of us who are regular users of the 3 jackson question how eliminating the line will improve service? we thought that the mta would say there would be a significant cost-savings over other possible actions, but we're told by julie kirshbaum that eliminating the 3 would not save money. then what is the nexus between eliminating the 3 jackson and improving service? how does the balance of scales of cost and benefit favor of the elimination of the 3? if those of us who use the 3 were further burdened, we would like to understand the offsetting
benefits; which compelled the elimination of the line? we have searched for the answer and not found it. if there is no compelling benefit to the city, which offsets the significant costs to the neighborhood, then why is mta pursuing this action ? 1500 people signed the petition and a couple of hundred of people have sent in emails supporting the continuation of the line. there is nothing that demonstrates that this action would benefit the city, promote the city's transit-first policy and be worth the burden to those of us who use the bus. we have found no answers to justify this decrease in service. so we implore the board of directors to drop its plan to eliminate 39 jackson. thank you for your time. >> thank you. [ reading speakers' names ] >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon, sara nyman. just a couple of things that i would like to point out without
repeating what everybody else has already said. the no. 3 bus is the only bus that takes us back in the evening. the no. 2 bus stops running at 7:00 in the evening. if you took no. 1 you would end up on sutter and somebody who has to walk down the little to take the bus back. it's a real hardship for a lot of people to take the 1 back. the no. 2 as i said stops at 7:00. you took away the no. 4 bus, which used to work in our neighborhood and now the no. 2 bus doesn't go as far. so if i want to go to the legion of honor, for example, i have to climb up the hill and go down to go to the legion of honor. you are not making this easier for those who lives in the neighborhood who is perceived as affluent. not all in this neighborhood are affluent or have a car. i have a car and use it once a
week to go for groceries. from my perspective, this is an ill-thought out plan. thank you very much. >> thank you. [ reading speakers' names ] >> hi, good afternoon. i am christopher bender. i go to town school for boys. i'm 13 years old. and town school for boys is at jackson and scott, right on the corner. whenever i need to go down to my dad's office, which is on pine street. he works at first republic bank, i take the 3 jackson. it stops right in front of my school, which is very convenient. it's a five-block walk to the nearest one california stop. and way longer to get to sutter. so i don't know -- so i take the 3 jackson and i just want to say please don't
eliminate it. it is how i get downtown if i want to go to laurel village after school, i take the 3 jackson the other way to presidio and california. so the one california is like -- especially if i am coming from my dad's office back-to-school for some reason, i would end up walking up five blocks of steep hills instead of walking, like, no blocks, no streets. [ laughter ] so yeah, please don't eliminate it. thank you. >> thank you. [ reading speakers' names ] >> you will have a greater future in city hall, i can tell now. [ laughter ] >> is mr. schmidt here? laura stillman.
theresa oberzero. >> good afternoon. >> i'm on a different matter, which is the j church stop, but i'm really appreciative of all of these folks and their points, and i won't repeat them. a very, very steep hill and if our stop were eliminated, liberty street. if you walk in one direction, you have to go up-and-down and up in the other direction you have to go down and then up a very, very steep hill. so it's the same thing. we have a lot of elderly people in our area. and people who rely on it to get to work everyday. i really prefer to take the muni to several places going anywhere downtown, but for me, if i have to carry stuff up, it's a little bit of an effort to get up that steep hill and i would just as soon use the car. there is one other thing that
hasn't been mentioned that is particular to our area and that is a few years ago there was a real problem with the screeching of the jay church and it was mitigated by passing a law that they could only go 3 miles per hour. now they don't really keep to that, but it really did slowing down the train really did help with the sound. and if you eliminate that one stop that is in the middle, they will be going around behind those -- there is no reason to slow down, even, as much as what they do. that is it. thank you. >> thank you so much. next speaker >> [ reading speakers' names ] >> good afternoon. >> i'm theresa oberzer. the elimination of the stop on liberty is what i was going to
speak on. i think it would create inconvenience for many of the neighbors, many who are elderly as has already been mentioned. their mobility is limited and the nearest stop is two blocks away. it's really deceptive because of the way that the hills are cut. it look like the stop that would be eliminated -- next one look like it's only a block away, if you go through the cut, but actually you are not to walk through the cut. it's not designed for pediatrician access, but you are supposed to go down the hill, up a very steep hill and across another block 21st street. it's a little bit more than some of the elderly neighbors can manage. the other alternative is going down another steep hill and around and wait at dolores park, which for security reasons is a very exposed stop and there are a lot of muggings quite frankly and they would be easy prey and not one i would recommend. so the who options are not really palletable.
people walking distracted with smartphones and mp3 players, won't hear the streetcars and you have streetcars in both direction as you walk through the cut. the other issue that i want to raise say security -- excuse me a safety concern because the streetcars come barreling around the corner and liberty street is really a blind corner >> thank you >> next speaker. [ reading speakers' names ]
>> good afternoon. >> good afternoon. i am also here about the liberty street stop. i have live there -- lived there for 35 years. there is not a lot more i can add because it's a very hilly area. what last speaker and laura before said, i am 73 years old and innocent since i have been retired i have been trying to stop driving. it's flat at 30th and jersey. you can't eliminate a stop where there are hills. there are people that live there -- there are people as old as 90 that live on that
block that use muni. there is a woman that uses muni and can't come here today and she has to sit on a stool at the stop and how will she navigate it? it's impossible. my car has been broken into 15 times and at night-time, i'm not really thrilled about working around dolores park to get home, because there is a lot of -- you know, things that we don't want to happen, happen down. there and lastly, on the weekends, dolores park is so crowded. so i would urge you to reconsider this and i would like to say that the notice on this was not good and when i talked to people about this about a year-ago, when this first came up and they said what are you talking about? the notice was posted on a piece of paper on a chain
link fence setback from the muni stop. that was the only notice. so please reconsider. >> thank you. [ reading speakers' names ] >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon my name is mackalia cassidy, a good irish lass and i'm taking the subject back to the no. 3. i would like to ditto the comments already made. there are steep hills and walking up the hills at night by myself, i catch the no. 3 to get downtown for an early morning meeting and i routinely don't get home until 8:00 or 9:00 at night. point 1, time of day, hills. secondly, i spoke with muni people several years ago and described my route and they said oh, muni works better east and west. it doesn't go so well north and south. and that is very true. so the
frequency of the 22 and the 24, the 24 in particular, which would get me to the intersection closest to me is way less attractive than managing my life around the 3. thirdly, i happen to have an adult disabled daughter and my husband happens to be 81 years old and they use the no. 3 on a regular best of my basis. it's a huge advantage. a whole bunch of things that i don't have to worry about. please do not eliminate the no. 3, thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> bob planthold, linda kahn, daniella hirschbaum.
>> i'm bob plantboard and as a bit of history for the audience i was on the tep committee. when the subjects came to us, some of us objected. our group never took a position. the people on n our group who were for it are self-proclaimed visionaries, who don't raise children, who don't have a disability, who aren't seniors. you are already showing how out of touch has been there process. so ask yourself again, how many of these so-called community meetings were at nice, which mitigates against single parents and with people with disabilities and seniors, and people who have other difficulties in attending? it's an obvious problem when seniors are told of -e