"Akit is the man. He knows Clipper." (spenta)
"It’s a fantastic blog for any San Franciscan."
"Your blog is always on point, and well researched!" (Nina Decker)
"Everyone's favorite volunteer public policy consultant..." (Eve Batey, SF Appeal)
"You are doing a great job keeping on top of Translink stuff. Keep up the good work!"
(Greg Dewar, N Judah Chronicles)
"...I don't even bother subscribing anywhere else for my local public transportation info. You have it all..."
(Empowered Follower)
"If anyone at City Hall wants to make public transit better for all San Franciscans, it would be wise to follow Akit religiously...
or, better yet, give him a job."
(Brock Keeling, SFist)

Monday, July 30, 2012

Did the SF Marathon Violate City Law Regarding Public Notices?

When Tour Buses are Rude - Blocking Traffic

Are athletic events in the city giving proper notice to people in affected communities about road closures?  The answer is yes and no

In the San Francisco Transportation Code, Division I, Article 6 (Temporary Use or Occupancy of Public Streets), section 6.12 (b) states the following:

If the temporary street closing is approved, the applicant shall cause notices of the event to be conspicuously posted on both sides of the street along the entire route, at not more than 300 feet in distance apart on each street so posted, but not less than three notices on each street forming part of the route. The notices shall be posted not less than 72 hours prior to the scheduled start of the event. The applicant shall remove the notices within 48 hours after the completion of the event, or be liable for the costs of removal by the City pursuant to Article 10 of the San Francisco Police Code.

Each notice shall be headed "STREET CLOSED FOR ATHLETIC EVENT" in letters not less than one inch in height, and shall in legible characters (1) briefly describe the event to be held; (2) identify the date and time the event is to take place; and, (3) warn that the street will be closed to traffic at that time.

Some events have followed 6.12 very carefully by putting them on lamp posts and in areas lacking lamp posts (such as in Golden Gate Park) on temporary construction work A-frames every few hundred feet.  The AIDS Walk in Golden Gate Park also put additional signage at main entrances to the park where closures will happen in very large metal signage at least a week in advance.

But I'm very disappointed at the SF Marathon's organizers.  I regularly drive through Golden Gate Park on a daily basis and all I've noticed was just temporary barrier fencing laying down on the ground at every intersection.  On Saturday, less than 24 hours before the race, I drove on eastbound Fulton to 25th Avenue, and drove through the park to the Sunset district and also noticed just barricades.  There was no "STREET CLOSED FOR ATHLETIC EVENT" signage anywhere.  I had to find out about road closures by reading the Chronicle and looking at the marathon's website.

Why is the city lacking the proper enforcement of posting the signage around the marathon/race routes?  I feel the notices are helpful, and it's not just for people who live on the streets.  When I drive by and notice the signs saying the road is closed, it makes me curious to do a little research to find out for myself.  And the 72 hour policy works well, giving people at least three days advance notice to be warned to alter their route.  If I didn't tell my parents to take Great Highway to get around, they'd be stuck driving in circles or fighting through the traffic valve going eastbound/westbound between 26th and 27th Avenues.

The city and athletic event organizers can do better.  I know they can.

Thursday, July 26, 2012

MTC Votes: No Funding for Free Youth Passes for Muni

Free Muni Rides for Kids? For many months, the battle of youth Muni passengers getting free passes for rides has been a hot topic.  While many youth and low income advocates are pushing hard for it, and the SFMTA and SFUSD has put their support towards it, I've noticed a lot of other people feel they don't like the idea.

The epic battle raged on yesterday at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's meeting where they decided on the fate of giving $5 million in funding, which will cover over half of the $9 million needed for the 22 month project.

The vote was close and it failed with only seven commissioners saying yes, and eight commissioners saying no.  Majority ruled and the attendees was angry because all the work they've done just went down the toilet in a very close vote.

Akit's Opinion:
I can sympathize the fact that the people who have been hard at advocating for the free passes are both upset and depressed.  When you fight hard for a cause and it can be taken away with a simple vote, things can go from bright to dark in a flash.  But just because the MTC voted against giving $5 million for the project doesn't mean you should get full blown emotional with anger and crying (as shown by the Chronicle), will not being able to get free passes affect your grades?  I've seen people with much more difficult financial situations and those in foster care beat the odds.

I have to look at the whole picture.  What can five million dollars be used for and how can it benefit everyone?  It doesn't make practical sense to give the youth of SF free rides.  I believe money should be invested in something that can benefit EVERYONE and would be a long term benefit versus a 22 month pass pilot project.  For five million, it could partially pay for a new bus which can last at least 10-15 years and serve hundreds of thousands of passengers in its lifetime, rehabbing transit vehicles so they can operate longer with fewer breakdowns, fund transit routes to areas neglected with lack of transit, and plenty more.

There can also be the argument of discrimination; why should the MTC, a regional authority regarding transportation would give Muni a huge chunk of money for free passes, when other agencies such as AC Transit and VTA would only get some funding for a reduction in fares or passes?  It could be argued that others that live in Marin County (which is under the MTC's jurisdiction) and San Mateo County can also demand for it too.  So truly the project will be more than just several million, because other counties and their advocates will demand they should get free passes too; therefore a chain reaction will start.  Even if the pilot program is successful, continued investment into it will be extremely expensive, and what will happen if the MTC decides to kill funding to it?  I feel the youth of the Bay Area will revolt.

If there's a middle ground to all of this, I'd consider an option to only give the youth of San Francisco two rides per school day with the usual 90 minute electronic transfers on their Clipper card.   This keeps both the costs lower and would supplement the years of neglect from the SFUSD for not funding school buses to get students to and from school.  Having free rides on weekends, holidays, and non-school hours is a big no-no.

As I mentioned in my blog in March, the youth of San Francisco should be grateful of Muni's contribution to keep fares low.  When comparing transit agencies within the region, Muni gives both the steepest discount (in comparison to the adult fare) and free transfers valid for 90 minutes to get to where they need to go.  Other agencies gives a discount, but doesn't come with transfer privileges:
  • Muni: $2 adult, $0.75 youth (62.5% discount) with free transfer.
  • Samtrans: $2 adult, $1.25 youth (37.5% discount) with no transfer.
  • VTA: $2 adult, $1.75 youth (12.5% discount) with no transfer.
  • AC Transit: $2.10 adult, $1.05 youth (50% discount) with additional $0.25 for one ride transfer.
Lastly, cheers to the MTC for doing the right thing.  Kids, stop crying and getting angry, it makes you look like fools in the Chronicle.

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Why a Senior Muni Rider Was Fined $100 for Fare Evasion

 Three Generations of Transit Cards (TransLink Pilot, TransLink, and Clipper)

KPIX (CBS San Francisco) and the Consumerist reported about a senior Muni passenger who was fined $100 for fare evasion and also lost his appeal which cost him an extra $25.

Read articles from KPIX and the Consumerist.

The senior claimed he boarded a crowded metro train and had to get his hand through the crowd to tag his senior Clipper card.  When he exited the train, fare inspectors was waiting to check passengers and when scanning his card with their reader, they noticed he didn't tag his card and had a balance of 70 cents remaining.

Both the Consumerist and KPIX are giving sides towards the senior passenger saying a rule in Clipper's policy allows the card to go into the negative balance if the card has at least one cent on the card.

And while there's a lot of people siding with the passenger, when I read the stories, there's some missing details and that needs to be addressed.

Here's what I see to be problems:

Low Balance Means Different Clipper Vehicle Reader Reaction
If you have a Clipper card with a low balance, the Clipper card reader will give two beeps in different tones and the reader's color lights will illuminate the yellow and green lights.  The problem is the story reported that the passenger claims he tagged his card and "heard a beep."

But here's the clue there's a problem, he only heard a "beep" not "two beeps" as per policy.  With only 70 cents left on the card, the two beeps indicates valid fare transaction, but needs to replenish the card.

The Negative Balance Policy
The articles claim his card had 70 cents, five cents short of the 75 cent fare.  But if the passenger tagged his card, it should have deducted it from his card and left him with a negative five cent balance.  The fare inspector's reader would have said "YES" because even though the card was in the negative, the purchased ride is still valid.

But, the fare inspector wrote the citation because it wasn't due his card was five cents short, it was because the inspector's card reader said "NO" indicating he never tagged his Clipper card.

How the inspector's reader works:
When an inspector scans a card, the first thing that shows up on his/her screen is the words "yes" or "no."  When it says "yes" the card was scanned (even if it went negative).  When it says "NO" it shows up as suspect and the inspector does a further review of the card's history and determines if the passenger has some valid use of the card (e.g. Muni pass loaded) or not valid (e.g. not paying).

He Didn't Truly Confirm His Card Was Scanned
The KPIX story states he had to "reach between people" to get to the card reader and believed he tagged his card and heard the beep sound.  The problem with this is, he didn't visually confirm it.  Maybe another passenger was tagging his card while he was doing the reach around.

When the inspector checked his card, the senior said to the reporter that the inspector told him the card did not have any money deducted.  Inspectors have readers that can read the history/data on the card, such as when was it last used, the balance left, any passes on the card, etc.

You should only be confident that your Clipper card was tagged properly when you visually and hear the following:
  1. See the green light (or green and yellow when low balance)
  2. Read the text in the screen confirming the tag.
  3. Hear the single beep (or two beeps if low balance)
The passenger didn't see it, so he assumed.

His Appeal Failed, Where's the Evidence?
He appealed to Muni to cancel his $100 fare evasion citation and lost, but the article never mentioned if he ever reviewed his Clipper card transaction/history report.  This report is available to each registered cardholder that logs into the Clipper card's website.  It's one of the nice perks about Clipper, if you truly believe you tagged your card and you get accused of not doing so, that transaction report will save your butt.  It's unlike parking tickets because a corrupt parking cop can claim you parked a foot in the red zone, but you don't have decent evidence that you didn't; taking a photo of your car would not work that well because it could be assumed you backed the car out of the red zone and snapped the photo.

If the history report showed he did properly tag his Clipper card at that time and date, that is sufficient evidence for Muni to admit to the error on their end and void the citation.

Akit's Opinion
The last statement about the history report would have solved everything.  KPIX and the Consumerist should have asked the elderly passenger to show them his transaction report to prove he actually did tag his card.  But without providing that documentation, we are left to assume that Muni is the bad guys based on the way the article was written and broadcasted on TV.

Being that I'm one of the foremost experts regarding Clipper and doesn't work for any public transportation agency, I can tell you that while there's a sobbing story of a senior citizen getting a $100 ticket, I've poked a bunch of holes into the situation.  Until proven otherwise with a history report, he's responsible for paying the fine.

Next time news agencies, DO A BETTER JOB and gather the facts.

Monday, July 16, 2012

Updates: Daly City BART to Muni Transfer and The E-Line Pilot May Fail

F-Market Muni Milan

I thought I'd spend some time and provide updates on two of my past blog entries.

The Daly City free Muni transfers:
Originally, passengers who exited the Daly City BART station with their Clipper card was given an electronic transfer encoded on their card for two free Muni rides.  The first ride must be claimed within one hour of exiting the station, and therefore the second ride is validated.  The spirit of the rule is the passenger will receive the free ride for the return back to the station; but due to Muni's lack of inputting data into each vehicle console, if a passenger took the 28-19th Avenue away from Daly City, the next Muni ride, regardless of route is free (such as transferring to the 38-Geary).

But now the second ride fun is over.  Muni has now instructed operators to input into their Clipper console the route number, therefore the two way electronic transfer from Daly City BART is now only valid on the 14L, 28, 28L and 54.  The only little problem, if the operator doesn't input the bus route number, the transfer might not go through.

Take a look at your Muni card history report.  For nearly all the Muni rides, it will say "MTANONE" indicating no route information was inputted.  But when I rode the 28 line, I noticed it say "28" as the route, therefore the e-transfers issued from Daly City is only good on the routes that goes to and from Daly City BART.

I should note, a change in the transfer policy will start August 1st when the e-transfer rule of exiting BART and taking Muni within one hour will be changed to 23 hours.  Read more about the change.

The E-Line May Fail
After publishing my blog entry about the exciting news regarding the E-Line pilot project going from Caltrain to Fisherman's Wharf, the project might not even happen.

While Muni's report acknowledged that staffing levels and equipment may be a problem, the Market Street Railway notes that things are bleak.  The big problem Muni and MTR will face is the lack of double ended PCC streetcars that are required for the route.  There's barely enough of these rare cars, and it depends if all of them are street worthy and safe to operate.  If one breaks down, the pilot project can either die or will run at more than a 15 minute headway.

The Market Street Railway does not recommend the pilot program to start unless if Muni can provide ample staffing and streetcars to run the program.

Friday, July 13, 2012

Ride Muni's E-Line from Caltrain to Fisherman's Wharf on August 25 and 26

Muni Brannon Platform

At today's SFMTA Policy and Governance Committee meeting, a little hidden secret is hiding in their agenda documents... it's about the E-Line route.

If you are not familiar with the E-Line, it was originally the route used prior to the N-Judah and K/T Ingleside-Third taking the route to Caltrain and AT&T Park.  The E-Line ran between Embarcadero station and 4th/King (Caltrain).

Muni has been in the works for years to run a line to go from Fort Mason to 4th/King/Caltrain, and has built curbside platforms that have been unused for years along the route between the Ferry Building and 4th/King.  Now they will be used for just two days to test the waters.

The new E-Line is planned to operate from 4th/King to Jones/Beach for a pilot program in preparation for the America's Cup sailing race.  This pilot program is scheduled for the weekend of August 25th and 26th for eight hours per day with 15 minute headways.

Muni will be operating the double-headed PCC historic streetcars along the route.  Although the E-Line will be on pilot, it will not affect operations of Muni metro's N and K/T lines, and the F-Market.

I shall note, this is currently planned for.  If Muni can't get the equipment or staff ready to run this, expect the pilot test to not happen.  But odds are, Muni will run the pilot program.

To review the announcement, click here to read the PDF document.  It's located on page 25.

Thursday, July 12, 2012

Is Muni's All-Door Boarding Policy Working and Big Mistakes the Agency Made

These #muni all door boarding stickers are so small. The length of your hand.

It's been twelve days, and now it's time to ask the big question...

Is Muni's new all-door boarding policy actually working?

In my opinion, the answer would be both yes and no.

Why no?
For Muni lines where rear-door boarding was happening all the time prior to the change in policy, I don't see much of a difference.  For example, I rode the 38L Geary Limited in both directions from 48th Avenue & Point Lobos to Geary & Park Presidio and things just seemed the same.  At the stops deep in the avenues where the bus would only pick up less than a few people, everyone still boarded the front door, regardless if they had a Clipper card or paper transfer in hand.  At the "major" stops like 25th & Geary and 20th & Geary, people boarded the rear doors as they did prior to July 1st.

Why yes?
For Muni lines that are not heavily used, the boarding process was much quicker.  Less people had to wait in line to board the front door, so the rear doors became the quick way to get on the bus and help reduce the dwell time.

One good example was on July 5th when I was at the Golden Gate Bridge on the San Francisco side.  I was waiting for the 28-19th Avenue bus and saw a group of ladies in a tour group with Clipper cards in hand waiting for the bus.  Instead of that mob boarding the front door, about three-fourths of them boarded the rear door and sat on the back half of the bus.  As you may know, a lot of tourists like boarding the front door and never moving to the back (thank you F-Market tourists), but boarding the rear doors encouraged them to take the seats in the back.

Some big mistakes Muni did:
  1. They made the announcement too late about rear door boarding, they only gave the public five days notice.  When Muni informs the public about service cuts and fare hikes, they do it MONTHS in advance.
  2. There's a lack of advertising.  With only five days notice, all they did was put information on their website, and some signage in the buses.  Some of us bloggers help spread the word, but having full page ads in newspapers and extra time to announce the program would have benefited Muni much more.
  3. The all-door boarding stickers are so small.  The one you see on the top of this blog entry is for Muni metro.  The sticker is about the length of your hand.  I would have expected something a bit bigger for people to see and read.  The universal images help a little, but maybe a few words in English may make it easier for people to inform them that boarding the rear is okay.

Friday, July 6, 2012

Muni Passenger Confronts Driver for Deliberately Skipping Passenger on 28-19th Avenue Line

With the advent of smart phone cameras means that the actions you do, may get you caught by a person you don't even know.  It's being used more regularly these days to capture memorable moments and when the stuff 'hits the fan.'

What happens when a Muni operator does something totally inappropriate by doing it on purpose?  Most of the time, it is ignored or nobody reports it to 311, even if passengers knows what the operator did was totally inappropriate and deliberate.

Earlier today, I received an e-mail from Tiffany, a long time of my blog.  She gave me the link to the video (as seen on the top of this blog entry) and asked for my thoughts.

From reviewing the video, it shows a passenger confronting a Muni operator on why he could not stop for an extra five seconds to pick-up an older lady passenger whom was running for the bus.  From what is shown in the description of the video (below), the driver skipped the elderly passenger with deliberate intent, and therefore the young man confronting the driver must have ticked the driver so much he pulled over and shut-off the engine.
Video description from YouTube: "On July 2nd, 2012, As I was taking the bus home on the 28 line, San Francisco Muni, a lady was running to catch that bus. As soon as the bus stopped, the lady was still running and approaching near it. But the driver did not stay stopped for her and then sped off. At all the assumptions of the passengers on that bus, the driver did that on purpose and arrogantly. This is not the only time I see this kind of action of a Muni driver. However, this time, the passenger in front of me has finally stepped up and actually ran to the door for that lady. The driver then was displeased and began arguing with him. Then the driver stopped the bus on all of us, and this is where I started video taping as they began a shouting match. I'm pleased to see that someone has finally have the guts to confront the arrogance among Muni drivers. And it's also nice to know now that Muni drivers views us riders as "peons" after all its complete lack of friendly customer services and employee bonuses during financial deficit?"
From viewing the video, the driver pulled over on the northeast corner of 19th Avenue and Irving (the Chevron gas station), therefore it seems the driver must have intentionally skipped the elderly passenger at the Irving bus stop.  Based on the location, this incident happened on the 28-19th Avenue line going northbound to Fort Mason.

Akit's Opinions
While I'm not a fan of the heavy swearing from the passenger, I commend him for being brave and sticking up for the female passenger whom was skipped.  Muni passengers needs to stand-up for injustice, instead of staying silent.  So what if the driver pulls over and refuses to continue on with the journey?  Might make some fellow passengers frustrated, but will further humiliate the operator whose "on-time" window is ticking away.

My method isn't to do a face to face confrontation, but to use the power of my blog to tell the story, such as when I had a problem with the same 18-46th Avenue bus driver who kept driving to the far front end of the bus stop when all the passengers was waiting in the middle of the stop, at least 40 feet away from the front door.  A year later, I caught the same driver continuing to not give courtesy at the same bus stop.

I know Muni installed the DriveCam system on their buses to record the front of the bus, what does the video show on Muni's end, or is this going to be some kind of "internal investigation" where the public will never see the footage from the bus?

Lastly, what action is going to be taken on Muni operators who continue to deliberately skip passengers?  It's a public service folks; heck, let's remember the bus can be up to 4 minutes and 59 seconds behind schedule and still be "on-time."  An extra five seconds wouldn't hurt.

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

Recent Changes to the Clipper Card for Caltrain, VTA, and South SF Ferry

Clipper Monster Reader FAIL

There's been some new changes with the Clipper card that just started a couple of days ago on July 1st.  I'm skipping on all the fare and pass hikes, and going on the changes in rules governing Clipper.

Here's a summary of what's going on and how it may affect you:

The rail agency raised fares 25 cents per zone, but if you are a one-way fare passenger, you can be immune to the fare hike by simply using the Clipper card to pay for your rides.  If you use it for two rides, you'll save, but if you need a day pass to take three or more rides, you are better off by paying the paper ticket fare as the day pass program is unavailable through Clipper.

For those using 8-ride tickets on Clipper, the expiration has now been reduced to 30 days.

Lastly, passengers can now purchase monthly passes up until the 15th of the month; it used to be the 9th.  For example, for the July pass, you can buy up until July 15th.   Once it's July 16th, the August pass is available.

The agency has gone full blown Clipper by eliminating all paper monthly passes and going electronic only.  For those who have a local monthly pass and wants to ride an express bus, the passenger must have enough e-cash on their card to pay the difference.  Bus drivers cannot accept a cash payment substitute to compensate for the upgrade.

Day passes can now be earned using Clipper.  When a passenger uses their Clipper card to pay the e-cash fares, once it hits a threshold, the rest of the rides on the agency is free.  One bad problem: If you earn a day pass for local routes, but want to take an express, you don't pay the upgrade fee from your Clipper e-cash purse, you pay the FULL price of the express fare.  My tip: Continue to buy paper local day passes from the driver if you plan to take an express bus later on.

SF Bay Ferry
Formerly known as WETA, the agency recently permitted Clipper card use for the brand new South San Francisco Ferry route.  Passengers will need to tag-on and tag-off on this route because the agency is going to expand Clipper to other routes based out of Oakland and Alameda, and by tagging-off, the fare will be properly calculated.

Refunds for Caltrain passengers:
If you rode Caltrain between April 10th to the 16th and used Clipper card readers at San Francisco's 4th & King, or the San Mateo stations, you may be obligated to receive a refund.  The card readers overcharged passengers using the system.

Clipper should have issued refunds starting June 22nd, and the refunds are done by tagging your card.  Check your online records via the Clipper website for more information.  For more information about the refunds being issued, click here.

Monday, July 2, 2012

A List of Bad Manners by Giants Fans

I personally love going to Giants games.  It's a time for me to unwind at a night game after a tough day at work, or spend time with my dad at Sunday afternoon games.

Because of the way the ticketing system works, I don't get a choice in what row to sit in; I sometimes get the choice of what specific section.  One of the more annoying seats I get assigned to is the first row in the upper reserved section.  About half of the time I get assigned the first row, I always get some kind of obstructed view and as you see in the photo, I get a clear view of home plate, but have to view the outfield through the plexiglass while seated.

I'll tell you, there's a lot of fans at AT&T Park that needs a lesson in proper manners.  Here's my list of the most annoying things fans do:

Standing for way too long:  Unless if you are in the very last row in the super nosebleed seats, don't stand-up for too long when there's a spectacular defensive play or a great offensive play like a home run.  Standing-up and cheering at sports games is a tradition, but do it for too long and you become a thorn for fans sitting behind you.  When I stand-up and cheer at an important moment of the game and I know I've been standing longer than I should, I turn around and check the fans behind me; if they are standing and cheering too, I'm okay to continue doing so, but if nearly all of them are sitting, it's time for me to sit.  I haven't noticed this in a few years, but in some cases, if you stand too long or stick out like a thorn too often, I've seen the cops escort the person out because they are too drunk.

Not making room when going through the row:  I hate those moments when you are trying to get to your seat located in the middle of the row and you have to get through about a dozen people.  There's always those people who refuse to stand-up and sometimes will just scoot their legs one way so you don't trip and fall.  Reality check folks, be nice and just please stand-up and shove your calves into the seat as far as you can so you can help your fellow fan get to their seat as quickly as possible.

Using a seat as a step to the next row:  I don't see it that often anymore; there's those fans who puts their feet on a seat to get into the next row.  As I like to say to those who likes to put their feet on seats, "I don't want your foot on my ass, get your feet off the seat!"  The floor is a nasty place, and all I don't want is a nasty beer soaked shoeprint on the rear end of my pants.

Drinking way too much: Stadiums makes handfuls of money selling overpriced little cups of beer, but when people drink way too much, they get on my nerves.  To the fans who drink, beer is treated as liquid gold, and to me, I'll stick to my 75 cent bottled sodas I bought at the grocery store.  When some fans drink too much, they can become belligerent and I've seen my share of fans being arrested for acting like jackasses.

Those who leave their seats in the middle of the inning: Sitting in the first row has its perks and weaknesses.  I don't understand why people have to leave their seats right in the middle of an inning, especially when the batter is in the box or the ball is still in play.  Is it that important to grab a hot dog or go to the bathroom at that moment during the game?  Why can't you at least wait until the inning is over to leave your seat and go handle your business?  Sometimes it's okay to leave your seat after an out, but only if a fan is sitting close to the aisle, and can make it to the bottom of the steps before the next pitch.  But if you can't make it, then just wait.

While I'm talking about people who leave their seats at the middle of an inning, I'm going to talk about the most annoying fans EVER.

Those who block the views of the front row people:  Yeah, I know you fans, the ones who tries to go to their seats during the middle of a game.  The ushers can only do so much to tell fans to wait until the play is completed to return to your seats.  As I said before, sitting in the front row has its disadvantages and this is one of them.  I'm sitting there watching pitch-by-pitch and you have those fools who walks right into the my view in the middle of a pitch, and sometimes I miss a key play.  I've even had to tell people starting to walk up the stairs to: "please wait, as you are blocking my view of the game."  Sometimes that technique works, other times, they are totally oblivious and just going up the stairs or gives a rude "excuse me."  Other times, there's the fans that goes up the stairs and instead of keep walking, they stand at the step totally blocking my view, while the fan thinks they have a totally unobstructed view of the game.  I usually give them the hand waiving motion to get the hell out of the way, otherwise I start to get verbal.  Here's my tip on when it's the right time to return to your seats: Wait until the inning is over.  Unless if you can run up the stairs and get into your seat from the time the out is declared and the next pitch, JUST WAIT UNTIL THE INNING ENDS.

In summary:
  1. Respect others
  2. Give courtesy to your fellow fans
  3. And have some patience!
I'm probably missing a few items on the list of bad manners.  What's your list of your peeves while at the ballgame?  Leave your comments.