To learn more about SaveMuni? READ HERE
(Exerpted from SF Bay January 21, 2015
Seniors and disabled Muni riders weren’t the only ones benefiting from a better financial picture for San Francisco’s transportation agency over the next two fiscal years.
The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency’s board of directors are moving ahead with a 7% Muni service increase, additional funding for cleaning Muni vehicles and eliminating telephone and online transaction fees charged for making a citation payment to the SFMTA.
The board last April included all of these programs in its two-year budget last year, which included free Muni for low-income seniors and people with disabilities, but was contingent on how the transit agency’s financial health looked like this month.
In a report (presented to the SFMTA Board at its regular meeting on January 20th), the transit agency said it would be able to financially support the increase in Muni service and the additional funding to hire more staff to clean Muni vehicles of graffiti and tagging.
The transit agency projects higher revenues (from) transit fares, parking fees and fines and also (from) more funds from The City because of current (improving) state of San Francisco's economy.
The 7% increase in Muni service approved Tuesday by the SFMTA Board follows a 3% increase approved last April.
Muni riders will begin seeing some of these service increases starting January 31st, including the launch of Muni’s new 55-16th Street route and increased frequency on the 44-O’Shaughnessy line. A soft launch of the new route is set for January 26th, according to SFMTA Director of Transportation Ed Reiskin.
The SFMTA said the rest of Muni 'new service will be phased in starting this Spring and continuing during next Fall and Winter.
Transit officials also approved an additional $1.8 million for the SFMTA to hire additional staff to increase the cleaning intervals of Muni vehicles. Of the $1.8 million, the transit agency dedicated $600,000 through the current fiscal year and $1.2 million for the 2015-2016 fiscal year.
The transit agency also got rid of its $2.50 transaction fee charged to people who pay their citations from the SFMTA online or by telephone, which will take effect on May 1.
19 Positive Steps
to a better Muni
(updated January 21, 2015)
Roundup of SFMTA Mistakes
March 5, 2015
Not everything the SFMTA does is wrong. In fact, within the staff there are some good people who are trying to do good things. However this agency regularly takes actions that make no sense. Here are three current examples of what happens when a bureaucracy is allowed to run amok:
I. SFMTA plans unnecessary second T-Line turnback loop. Turn backs are sometimes necessary to avoid sending too many Muni vehicles to parts of the city where they are only lightly patronized. Today's Third Street Line has the capability of turning back some of its southbound LRV's at an existing turnaround loop extending from Third via 25th, Illinois and Cesar Chavez back to Third. This loop is appropriately located and has been in place and in use since 2005. However in 1998, during the height of the Mission Bay fervor, a second turnaround loop was envisioned, this time extending from Third via 18th, Illinois and 19th back to Third. As was obvious from the outset, the second turnaround, called the Mission Bay Loop, was devised for the sole and exclusive benefit and convenience of Mission Bay. As the Potrero View puts it, the second loop proposal was "first floated more than a decade ago, when Dogpatch housed a large number of partially derelict lots and former industrial buildings. Today the neighborhood is one of the City’s hottest areas, ground zero for construction of thousands of new apartments, businesses and condominiums."
In other words the second loop might have made sense in the last century. But this is this century and things have changed. What seldom if ever changes regardless of circumstances is bureaucratic momentum....once cranked up. Despite all the changes, the focus at the SFMTA continues to be on the interests and desires of the Mission Bay developers, to the detriment of the vibrant and growing Dogpatch neighborhood located just south of Mission Bay.
As indicated, the Third Street line already has a turnaround loop at 25th Street. Extending all T-Line trains to 25th Street or beyond would afford Dogpatch the same Muni benefits as are to be afforded to Mission Bay residents and employees. Activating the 18th Street turnaround on the other hand would cut the T-Line service to Dogpatch by at least a third.
Janet Carpinelli, Dogpatch Neighborhood Association President, summed it up well when she said: "The investment of $10 Million, the SFMTA’s estimate to construct the Loop, would be better spent on a forward thinking plan, rather than on a proposal based on 10 to 15 year old data that’s no longer relevant".
Having their pleas for a more rational approach fall on deaf ears at the SFMTA, a group of Dogpatch neighbors, backed and supported by the Dogpatch and Potrero Hill Boosters Neighborhood Associations, have instituted legal proceedings against the SFMTA. On March 3, 2015, the California Court of Appeals issued a stay preventing any construction work on the turnaround from being done until the Court has had additional time to consider the matter.
Building a second T-Line turnback loop at 18th Street is an unnecessary waste of money and makes no sense.
II. SFMTA's Nonfunctional Bus Location System. "Next Bus" is an Ap with the technical ability of telling riders with cell phones exactly when their next bus will arrive. Under Next Bus the locations of buses are determined by triangulation from communications satellites. For this reason the system is capable of providing precise arrival times even if a bus is off schedule. But that's not the way the SFMTA system works. Much to the chagrin of waiting Muni riders the system now regularly "loses" buses or promises service from "phantom buses" that are in fact out of service. This puts hapless Muni riders right back where they were in the 1980's, never knowing when...or if...their buses would get there.
The SFMTA attempts to explain this away by blaming the problem on buses not leaving their terminals on time, bus diverted to other uses, bus breakdowns and "driver error". When buses are delayed or diverted it should be easy for a satellite-based communication system to keep up. As far as the so-called driver error is concerned, when the Central Computer directs a change that takes a bus out of service on a particular route it should be programmed to simultaneously inform the satellite communication system, thereby eliminating the possibility of driver error. The idea that in 2015 a GPS-based communications system should be losing buses and tracking "ghost buses" that are not in service is downright antediluvian.
Over in the East Bay, AC Transit's communication Ap works much better. Maybe SFMTA officials should go across the Bay and get some instruction from their little brother.
III. SFCTA's M-Line Mess. By far the biggest problem with the Market Street subway is its absurdly low, peak-period carrying capacity. It has been estimated that because of the obtuse way in which the SFMTA operates the subway, it currently carries less than half the number of peak-period riders it was designed to carry and less than a tenth the number that most modern subways carry.
One of the pre-requisites to using the subway to full advantage would be to eliminate the disruptive effects of the 13-phase St. Francis Circle traffic signal system on K and M line service. Achieving this objective would require that the K-Line section between the median of Junipero Serra and the southwest end of West Portal Avenue, and the M-Line section between the median of 19th Avenue and the southwest end of West Portal, be depressed. Placing the two lines beneath the St. Francis Circle would cut running times by several minutes and, more importantly, significantly improve the evenness and reliability of the service on both lines.
Unfortunately, instead of addressing this obvious problem of long standing, the SFCTA....with the SFMTA in tow....has veered wildly off course by opting for a scheme, apparently dreamed up by the Park Merced Developers, that would bring an M-Line subway directly into their Park Merced development. The $1.5 billion + Park Merced subway would remove the M-Line from its protected surface operation along the median of 19th Avenue in favor of tearing up the west side of 19th Avenue in order to extend subway M-Line service into Park Merced, then back to the west side of 19th and then via an elevated structure over 19th almost 400 feet long to Randolph Street.
The reason usually given for this scheme is that conditions at the surface M-Line stop at Holloway (opposite San Francisco State University) are crowded and unsafe. The obvious fix to the Holloway Station problem would be to leave the M-Line in the median of 19th Avenue where it operates today and simply depress the Station. With this vastly cheaper arrangement, riders from both sides of 19th Avenue would have full access to the platforms via underground walkways, thereby eliminating all conflicts between individuals rushing to catch M-Line LRV's and 19th Avenue traffic.
The SFCTA's cockamamie Park Merced Development Plan badly needs fresh thinking.
Need for Second Rail Tube
(Updated February 22, 2015)
Keeping the economies of the Central Bay Area viable will require that this matter be addressed with courage, wisdom and determination before any more time is lost. The fact that transportation officials are at last beginning to take the problem seriously comes as welcome news.
SF Proposition A
(updated February 22, 2015)
Heavily influenced by a massive pro-Prop A spending campaign, the San Francisco voters approved Prop A on November 4, 2014. Prop A authorizes San Francisco's government to sell $500 million in transportation General Obligation bonds. Including interest on the bonds, Prop A will cost the tax payers of San Francisco over a billion dollars.
According to Matier and Ross's pie chart, most of the proceeds of Prop A are destined to be spent on items having little to do with Muni or other public transit:
Moreover, virtually none of the $500 million in Prop. A funding is currently allocated to addressing San Francisco's most pressing transportation problems; namely
o positioning Muni to keep up with San Francisco's population (+34% projected by 2040) and employment growth (+ 29% projected by 2040). Source: Mayor's Transportation Task Force
o getting buses and LRV's jammed with riders out of traffic congestion
o easing the peak period crush in the Market Street subway
o extending Caltrain to the new Transbay Transit Center, therefore giving 280,000 daily Peninsula motorists a classier and less troublesome way of getting into San Francisco
o putting the SFMTA's financial house in order.
Given the vague language of Prop A, SFMTA still has a choice. It can continue to follow the lead of the Mayor's inexperienced Transportation Task Force of 2012/13 and consequently waste much of the $500 million raised by Proposition A.
Or it can tackle the major transportation problems facing San Francisco at this time. How SF's government responds to these challenges is crucial to the future of San Francisco.
A Critique of SFMTA's TEP
(Updated November 8, 2014)
According to the colored flyers and brochures hyping Prop A, most of the money that does go to Muni will be used to implement the SFMTA's Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP). While TEP is clearly the result of significant investigation and hard work, it unfortunately fails to address many of San Francisco's most critical transportation problems. For a summary of our findings READ HERE.
SF's Transportation Task Force Misses Mark
(Updated October 29, 2014)
Given Prop A's vague and noncomital language, about the only clue we have as to how $500 million might get spent is embodied in the Mayor's Transportation Task Force (TTF) report released in late 2013. The TTF was comprised of 46 individuals, 17 of whom were answerable to the Mayor and another 10 or more of whom represented downtown interests. Allegedly this group was going to develop a long range transportation plan for San Francisco, but things didn't turn out that way. Instead the group, only a tiny handful of whom had any discernible experience in either transportation or the problems of Muni, worked hard at spreading nice-sounding things around so as to pick up as many votes as possible. Lost in the shuffle was the attention that should have been paid to San Francisco's most critical oncoming transportation problems and what to do about them. Read more here.