SFMTA Under Investigation for Multiple Muni Safety Violations

In response to The California Public Utilities Commission's allegation of Muni's safety hazards, SFMTA spokesperson Nathaniel Ford had this to say: "We have a very safe system. We've had our challenges over the years...but we have a good track record. It could always be better, but more recently over the past few years we've been slowly but surely improving our safety record."

While the SFMTA's optimism plays on and on like a broken record, everyone has gotten sick of hearing the same old tune. Luckily, there's some good news for those of us who have been waiting far too long for someone to change the song.

During 20 inspections conducted between July 2009 and January of this year, The CPUC discovered repeated safety violations that might potentially endanger Muni's passengers. In their official press release, the CPUC said that they are particularly concerned with "the material condition of the light rail system, SFMTA's failure to initiate or complete Corrective Action Plans to address known problems, late reporting or non-reporting of incidents, and failure to respond to CPUC inspection findings."

As a result, the CPUC has voted to open penalty clauses, meaning an Administrative Law Judge will listen to the testimony regarding these safety violations and rule whether or not the SFMTA will incur a fine for their conduct.

The CPUC has listed 8 safety violations as strong evidence for why they have taken these punitive measures:

• The track at Church and Duboce Streets has deteriorated and has numerous defects. The track was inspected on August 12, 2009, and re-inspected on October 20, 2009. CPUC staff have yet to receive any plan for correction.
• Sunset Tunnel has numerous violations including that the Automatic Train Control System (ATCS) is not operating in the tunnel. The SFMTA is not following its own regulations regarding speed restrictions in a non-functioning ATCS area. The SFMTA responded to a CPUC staff inquiry stating that the ATCS never functioned in the tunnel; however, the SFMTA did not provide any documentation to verify the claim. The SFMTA has yet to provide a plan for restoration of the ATCS.
• A June 3-4, 2010 inspection of the Church Portal noted numerous deficiencies including induction damaged loop cable supports, cable not properly supported, cables rubbing switch rods, junction box problems, and others. A follow-up inspection on January 7, 2011, noted the same deficiencies.
• The ATCS functions poorly in the Market Street Tunnel and appears not to operate at the Embarcadero Station. The SFMTA continues to delay replacing the induction loop cable. The situation may have contributed to an incident on October 1, 2010, in which one Light Rail Vehicle (LRV) hit another LRV at the Embarcadero Station. This accident caused major damage to both LRVs. Both train operators had minor injuries and were transported to a hospital.
• SFMTA did not have a blue flag/blue light procedure in place until January 2011. This is a safety procedure required to prevent injury to personnel working underneath or around LRVs. Despite a May 12, 2010 SFMTA bulletin and a December 7, 2010 SFMTA memorandum requiring this procedure, on December 14, 2010, CPUC staff witnessed Muni employees working without a blue flag or blue light.
• The last Triennial Audit of the SFMTA occurred in October 2008. Of the 49 Corrective Action Plans created by the SFMTA, 17 remain open. Several of these are significant and relate to the SFMTA's track inspection program and the documentation of that program. In several recent meetings with CPUC staff, the SFMTA has not been able to provide a status report on the open Corrective Action Plans.
• In the CPUC staff inspections of SFMTA from July 17, 2009 through January 2011, numerous material problems with SFMTA are documented. Of the 29 inspections, 26 required responses and Corrective Action Plans, which have not yet been received. The inspection reports required a response within 30 days.
• SFMTA must submit final accident investigation reports within 60 calendar days of the accident. The SFMTA has eight accident investigation reports still outstanding for 2009 (some 13 months late) and 25 accident reports from 2010. Each of these late reports is a separate violation.

Despite these penalty threats, the SFMTA is optimistic and have expressed their confidence in being exonerated of all accusations.

And while it would be a great step forward to have the SFMTA take responsibility for their mistakes, if they are fined a large sum of money, they might make this another excuse for budget cuts and fare hikes, even if a large part of their financial woes is due to the ever-increasing pay checks the higher-ups receive. Even if the CPUC forces the SFMTA to assume responsibility for their sins in safety violations, it won't guarantee that the SFMTA will also own up for their fiscal incompetence.

(Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/02/25/MNU81HU8S2.DTL)

A Rising Problem In Need of a Speedier Solution

The Bay Citizen recently reported on rising bike accidents and their leading causes and locations, using data reported to the SFPD within the last two years. With helpful infographics, the article provides statistics and viewpoints both bicyclists and drivers should be aware of.

Accident Hot Spots

For 2009-2010, these most dangerous neighborhoods averaged the following number of accidents:

The Mission: 96 accidents

South of Market: 85 accidents

Downtown: 68 accidents

Western Addition: 41 accidents

Financial District: 34 accidents

Inner Richmond: 27 accidents

Castro-Upper Market: 27 accidents

Haight-Ashbury: 22 accidents

Outer Mission: 16 accidents

North Beach: 15 accidents

Bernal Heights: 13 accidents

Lakeshore: 12 accidents

Bayview: 11 accidents

Outer Sunset: 11 accidents

...while the most dangerous streets and intersections were:

1. Market and Octavia: 14 accidents
2. Market and 5th: 14 accidents
3. Market and New Montgomery: 8 accidents
4. Geary and Polk: 8 accidents
5. Powell and Masonic: 8 accidents

Reported accidents increased from 554 in 2009 to 593 in 2010.

One suggested explanation is that there is an ever-increasing number of riders. According to the SFMTA, the number of cyclists increased 70% (from the count in 2006) at the 5th and Market intersection, 75% at 17th and Valencia, and more than 100% at Fell and Scott.

However, between 2009-2010, the increase in cyclists was only 3% while the increase in accidents went up by 8%, showing that accidents are, in fact, climbing at a faster rate than ridership.

Assigning Fault

According to these graphs (created by The Bay Citizen) a shocking 50% of accidents are the fault of the cyclist, with cars in a close second at 40% of the time.
However, it is important to keep in mind that it's the SFPD that "determines fault", and that cyclists feel very strongly that the cops often favor the drivers. Take for example, Kate McCarthy's story:

Kate McCarthy, 31, was biking up Mission Street in February 2009 when a recreational vehicle going the opposite direction made an illegal left turn right in front of her. She swerved, but still collided with the giant vehicle, crashing her bike and cutting her face. After a police officer showed up to take the report, he refused to cite the driver, even though there were several witnesses, according to McCarthy. The officer would not write up a police report assigning fault.
McCarthy filed a complaint with the city's Office of Citizen Complaints. Three months later, the body ruled that the police department should have issued a report.

Measures for Safety and Prevention?A situation like Ms. McCarthy's is concerning for cyclists because it raises the question, "Who is protecting me from being run down on the streets?" If not the cops, then who?
In response to this important question, cyclists and organizations like the SF Bike Coalition have successfully lobbied for protection in street medians and more bike lanes. But these small successes have not been enough.
Take, for instance, the Market and Octavia streets:

While six accidents happened in 2009, eight occurred in 2010 -- all of them taking place after the improvements were made. Almost every crash here is caused by cars making illegal right turns.
"The more things they try there, it doesn't really help," said Shaana Rahman, a lawyer who has represented two cyclists in Market/Octavia crashes. "I feel like the answer is to let the cars go right and move the bike lane to a mid-bike lane."

It is clear from this data--which does not include unreported accidents--that the danger is very much real and very steadily building. So the only question that remains is: How much longer do we have to wait for the city to catch up with these dangers and provide reliable solutions?

Danger Aboard AC Transit Buses

On Wednesday night, AC Transit's 72-line bus was shot at multiple times with one bullet breaking a rear window. One passenger was injured by the shattering glass and police are still investigating the circumstances and motives behind the shooting.

The incident occurred at 9:50 P.M. at Third St. and Grove Ave. According to AC Transit's spokesperson Clarence Johnson, the bus had stopped to let a passenger off when a group of 8 young males in their late teens/early 20s approached the bus. One of them stepped onto the bus, looked towards the back of the bus, and got back off. Seconds later, someone, presumably from the group of 8, fired multiple shots at the bus.

Since the shooting, AC Transit bus drivers have been reluctant to drive through this area, demanding better protection and assurance of their safety. According to this article, this shooting was the 5th violent incident this year, following last year's 10. Even with so many disturbances, AC Transit has not installed security cameras on all buses because, according to Johnson, each camera costs $14,000, and with their budget woes, many of these buses are going to stay camera-less. So as a temporary security measure, AC Transit arranged for deputy police officers to escort the 72-line in north Richmond on Thursday evening.

But without a permanent fix that assures safety of the drivers and passengers, drivers warn that they will abandon this route in the near future.

Sources:

http://www.ktvu.com/news/26829370/detail.html

http://www.ktvu.com/news/26819358/detail.html

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/02/10/gunman-shoot-up-ac-transit-bus-1-hurt/

Redesigning the Embarcadero Promenade

For many years, the pier has been the site of much public activity beyond shipping and unloading cargo. If you bike, walk, or jog regularly on the Embarcadero Promenade, you probably have a good sense of what it is like to try and navigate the chaos of tenets, tourists, sidewalk restaurants, and maritime businesses.

With so many different people fighting for space on the Promenade, the Port of San Francisco is trying to solve this problem by officially outlining and 3 specific zones of activity:

The Building Edge - "a space to transition between the building and the Promenade, where people enter and exit the building and where retail tenets can establish street-level identity."

The Circulation Corridor - "the central space of the Promenade where people traverse the length of the wavefront."

The Curb Area - "a transition zone between the roadway and the Promenade where street lights, roadway signs and pedestrian furnishings will be placed."

For further details, the Port of S.F. has their Design Criteria up online for public review so you can know just exactly where to bike and walk safely.