Board affirms Central Subway supplemental EIR after lengthy hearing; opponents urged expanded alternatives study

The Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on appeals to the Planning Commission’s August 7, 2008, certification of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Central Subway project and then voted to affirm the certification.

Appellants raised multiple technical objections. Transportation consultant Jerry Cawthon, a former Muni manager, argued the SEIR understated total trip times because it focused on “in‑vehicle” times rather than “total trip” times (which include walking and waiting). He said that omission made the subway appear faster than it would be for many riders and challenged Muni operating‑savings and ridership projections. Several appellants also urged the Board to examine alternatives the SEIR treated briefly or rejected, including bus rapid transit on Stockton, a bus‑and‑light‑rail shared tunnel, or a shallow tunnel that would connect more directly to Market Street.

Planning staff and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) responded that the SEIR and technical appendices used accepted travel‑demand models (CHAMP 3) that account for total travel time in ridership modeling and that operating and maintenance cost estimates had been prepared for the Federal Transit Administration New Starts submittal and included in the project file. John Fungi of the SFMTA told the Board the project had an unusually favorable federal rating and noted that the project corridor has high transit dependence: “Current surface transit service is … one of the slowest operating lines in the Muni system for over 45,000 riders per day,” he said, and warned that delay could jeopardize federal funding.

Speakers on both sides toured technical matters: Howard Strassner and Howard Wong presented route‑by‑route comparisons showing representative trips in the record where surface bus service could be faster on some origin–destination pairs; neighborhood speakers and small‑business owners raised construction impacts in North Beach and Columbus Avenue and cautioned about disruption to wineries, shops and small merchants. Supporters of the SEIR—community groups, Chinatown organizations and tenant associations—urged the Board to uphold certification, saying the project would relieve chronic congestion on Stockton and serve transit‑dependent riders.

After public testimony the Board voted on a motion by Supervisor Elsburn to affirm the Planning Commission’s certification (Item 21) and to table related motions (Items 22 and 23). The roll call recorded 10 ayes, 0 noes, with one supervisor absent; the motion carried and the SEIR certification was affirmed. The Board’s action keeps the project in the federal New Starts pipeline and allows the SFMTA to continue preliminary engineering activities pending funding steps.

What was not changed at the hearing: appellants sought a remand for additional study of alternatives (including bus‑subway hybrid operations and bus rapid transit), more detailed breakdowns of operating‑cost savings, and clearer documentation of how ridership estimates translate to transfers from Caltrain and other regional modes. Planning staff said backup materials, model runs and federal submissions were in the project record; appellants countered they had not found all supporting files at the planning desk and urged further review.

Why it matters: the Central Subway is a high‑cost, high‑visibility transit investment that SFMTA and supporters say will aid heavily transit‑dependent neighborhoods and reduce surface overcrowding. Opponents urged the Board to insist on clearer total trip‑time comparisons and fuller treatment of alternatives. The Board’s vote affirms the environmental review as adequate for now and keeps the project eligible for federal New Starts funding.