My Suggestions to Improve the Process after Workshop 1

Hi Rick,

Thanks for coming to the workshop and helping our group to have a constructive discussion.  Here at the MTA, we had a discussion on Friday about ways to improve our next workshop.  We hit on a lot of the points you mentioned, including more discussion in advance of the work sessions, better balancing of the groups (we had hoped the numbers on the name tags would have done a better job of this), and variable travel lane widths.  I’ll circulate your comments and we’ll try tighten up what we thought was a pretty productive process.

Thanks, Dan

Dan Provence
Livable Streets Subdivision
SFMTA | Municipal Transportation Agency
Sustainable Streets Division

1 South Van Ness Ave, 7th floor
San Francisco, CA 94103
Phone: 415.701.4448

Fax: 415.701.4343

email: Dan.Provence@sfmta.com

From: Rick
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 1:06 AM
To: Provence, Dan
Cc: Oshima, Diane
Subject: Embarcadero Enhancement Project Public Meeting of 11/6/14

I attended the Public Meeting of 11/6/14.  I have a few suggestions to improve the process:

  1. The charts that were in the hallway contain useful information that should be considered during the work sessions. Before breaking into small groups, the attendees should review them and have and have a full group discuss regarding questions and major points. For example the safety chart has specific collision type and location information that should be discussed and used during breakout sessions.  Also prioritizing the needs of commercial buses, tour buses, and other commercial vehicles serving the port should be discussed.
  2. The group I was in benefited from having a balanced mix of pedestrians, bicyclists, tour bus drivers, and auto drivers. Other groups had only single mode representatives. An effort should be made to identify primary mode representatives and have as much of a mix in each group as possible, rather than the random group assignments used.
  3. It would also be useful to have representatives from adjacent port businesses available to inform groups of operational needs.  Traffic engineering should present “capacity” information for lanes, bikeways, and sidewalks in order to better select widths that match needs. These experts should rove among groups to answer questions during the process.
  4. All lane width cut outs  should have variable widths (bicycle cut outs were variable 8-12 ft. , Traffic lanes were fixed at 10 ft. but should have been variable 10-12).  At least 2 of the groups recognized that lanes wider than 10 ft. were needed due to bus and commercial needs, along with driver comfort adjacent to large vehicles.
  5. Post breakout after individual group presentations, there should be time allowed for a full group discussion to allow attendees and staff better assimilate and reconcile the results.
  6. Detailed and summary results and comments turned in from each workshop should be posted on the website at least 4 days prior to the next workshop so that the next set of attendees can benefit from the prior workshop.

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *