Horrible Budget Ideas from the Geniuses at Muni (SFMTA)

On February 4th, the SFMTA Board of Directors had a special meeting covering various issues and topics.  One of the topics they covered is the upcoming fiscal year budget by showing a PowerPoint presentation.  Thanks to the public disclosure laws, we are able to view the materials the board gets to see.

To view the budget presentation, click here.

A lot of the material was all blah blah blah that wouldn't matter to me, but I found a chunk of information that made me quite frustrated that SFMTA employees would try to make the Board even think about accepting.

If anyone recalled the Mayor Frank Jordan era, Muni decided to implement a new fare structure where passengers had to pay an extra 50 cent fee to ride express buses or pay for a premium Muni pass, and eliminated all transfers.  The citizens hated it so much that Muni decided months later to restore transfers and kill the premium fees for all express buses.

So here's the stuff that made me go nuts:

Page 10: Automatic Indexing
The SFMTA is going to raise the price of its fare products by 3% for the 2015 and 2016 fiscal years.  What this basically means is your Muni fare will increase from $2 to $2.25 ($0.75 to $1 for youth, seniors, and disabled), and monthly passes will rise two dollars for adults and one dollar for discount passes.  Some of the fare products like visitor passports and cable car fares will remain the same.

#Muni wants to consider making the F-Market equal to the Cable Car single ride fare ($6). Are you FUCKING NUTS?
— Akit (@AgentAkit) February 5, 2014

Pages: 15 and 16: Possible Revenue Sources
I thought they've gone insane by proposing these ideas to generate extra money:

1. They want to raise the price of riding the F-Market historic streetcar line.  On top of the regular Muni fare, a premium surcharge will be $1 per adult, and $0.50 discount for eligible people.
2. Or instead of a surcharge, one idea is to charge passengers the equivalent fare that Cable Car passengers pay at $6 per single ride on the F-Market.
3. For passengers who ride the limited lines and peak express bus lines, a surcharge on top of the regular single ride Muni fare of $1 for adults and $0.50 discount for eligible passengers.
4. A policy to ban "M" Muni Only adult passes to ride the limited and express bus lines, therefore forcing those passengers to either pay for a "A" Muni premium pass or pay the FULL MUNI FARE + SURCHARGE if they only have the "M" pass.
5. A plan to increase visitor passport fares by $1 or $5.
6. A plan to increase the "A" pass $2 above indexed price due to BART's increased cost for rides within San Francisco.

However, since the Clipper card would be responsible for many of the fare and pass transactions, it will come at a big cost to Muni to modify the fare structure.  They estimate it will cost more than $250,000 to have the Clipper software rewritten with the new rules, but also have to tackle the Title VI equity analysis.

#Muni also wants to charge extra fare for express buses & limited lines? Or if you have "M" pass, pay FULL FARE?  Are you FUCKING HIGH?
— Akit (@AgentAkit) February 5, 2014

Pages 17 to 20: Possible Revenue Reductions
So by raising money (as seen above), the agency also wants to lose money in their real stupid ideas:

1. The SFMTA wants to continue the free Muni for youth program at an expense of $2.7 million for the 2015 fiscal year, and $2.8 million for the 2016 fiscal year.
2. The agency also wants to extend the free Muni for youth program to include 18 year olds which will balloon the program's expenses to $3.6 million for 2015 FY, and $3.7 million for 2016 FY.
3. If the agency considers number two, they will also have to rewrite what "youth fare" means for passengers.  By redefining it to say it's good for 18 year old passengers, Muni is expected to lose up to $2.1 million in fare revenue.
4. If the agency decides to eliminate Sunday meter parking fees, the loss would be about $9.3 to $9.5 million a year in revenue.  This takes into account the agency's estimated 'cost savings' for killing the Sunday meter program.
5. If a proposal to give free Muni to seniors and disabled passengers is approved, upon the assumption that 50% of citizens are eligible, Muni is going to lose at least $4 million in revenue, and if it's increased to 67% are eligible, Muni is going to lose at least $6 million.

Free #Muni for seniors where up to 50 to 60% would qualify?  You got to be kidding.  75 cents a ride is damn cheap. Cost program: $4M to 6M.
— Akit (@AgentAkit) February 5, 2014

Akit's Angry Opinions
I've never seen such stupid ideas in my life.  So let's go down the list of their bad ideas.

1. New adult fare at $2.25 a ride will definitely slow down the system for passengers paying the farebox; although, the agency would consider giving passengers who pay with Clipper a fare discount as a way to encourage more usage and speed boarding times.
2. I really don't like the idea of charging any premium fee for the F-Market route, especially for those who live near the F-Market line along the Embarcadero.  Why punish the average citizen who can't afford the parking rates and make them pay extra to get to their house or workplace?  The F-Market has been the perfect alternative for visitors and citizens to get to Fisherman's Wharf without paying the insane Cable Car single fare fee of $6 a ride.
3. What I hate even more is if Muni charges a $6 fee for the F-Market, equal to the Cable Car fare.  If anyone recalls the 74X CultureBus, a premium Muni bus service, they were charging a very high premium fare of $7 a ride (went up to $10), and because of the high fare for passengers, died a horrible death because of severe lack of ridership.
4. I am very against the idea of making all limited lines and peak express lines a premium fare service.  If anyone recalls this, I reported back in 2010 that Muni attempted to make the express lines a premium fare service and rejecting "M" passes, but finally decided in September 2010 to not go forward with the idea.  Some people have to commute long distances on Muni, and the limited and peak express buses helps get them to their destination in a respective amount of time.  If there's a premium fee, it will force people who can't afford the extra cost to take the much slower local buses.  But how about the people who live west of 43rd Avenue and Geary?  The only bus line from 48th Avenue to 43rd is the 38L-Geary Limited inbound line, and will you force the elderly and disabled who live deep in the Outer Richmond district to walk several blocks just to save money?
5. If Muni says okay to a premium fare for limited or express buses, I'm very against having "M" pass passengers get their passes rejected and being forced to pay the regular fare PLUS the premium fee.  At least give these people some respect by either honoring the pass and charging a small surcharge or honor the pass as full fare with premium.
6. I've never liked the idea of giving out free passes to kids.  I applauded the MTC board for saying screw you to the kids on the idea of spending public money for free rides for the youth, only to have the SFMTA board decide to spend its own cash for the pilot program.  And the youth responded by humiliating themselves in the news media by getting angry (here, take a look at a Chronicle picture of a kid so upset he's not getting free rides on the bus).  Renewing the program comes at a huge expense to us taxpayers.  Remember kids, the price you pay for Muni rides today is the best offer versus all the other major transit agencies in the Bay Area.  And, you get a FREE TRANSFER.
7. Oh, and let's not forget the idea to give seniors and disabled passengers free rides too.  Where do you think that money comes from?  The public's pockets.  I wonder how many people will try to fraud Muni and the MTC who issues the disabled IDs.  Get a crooked doctor to sign-off paperwork and why not apply for a shot a free rides on Muni for life?  Sounds similar to people who cheat the disabled parking placard system.
8. Last but not least, let's talk about the end of the Sunday meter fees.  I think charging for Sunday meters is a great idea because business districts gets more turnover (more customers), there's more available parking, and for anyone who doesn't want to pay the meter fees, can opt to ride Muni as an alternative.  When Sunday meters was free, visiting neighborhoods with major parking issues like Irving Street from 19th to 27th Avenue was horrible; cars wouldn't move for hours and some people would double park forever waiting like a vulture for an open space.  So keep the Sunday meters running.

A lot of times, Muni's 'smart people' likes to rattle the cage and think of these harebrained ideas, including restoring programs like charging a premium fee for express buses when it utterly failed in mere months over 20 years ago.  Some of these ideas won't likely be implemented because it will anger the public, but some might fly without a doubt like continuing to give the kids free rides.

When Muni pulls these ideas out of their ass, I'm very grumpy.  I would spit on their grave if there was one (can anyone find the CultureBus gravestone?), but for now, it's just ranting on this blog.

If you feel the need to express your opinions about Muni's ideas to raise money and give out more free crap, contact your city supervisor.

I am a Terrible Human Being - I Paid for Paper Grocery Bags

Remember that time I said I hated San Francisco's new paper bag law that banned plastic bags, and forces all customers to pay ten cents for each paper bag when checking-out?

Since October 1, 2012, I've been a good puppy, obeying my government masters by bringing my own reusable grocery bags to the store.

Bad Akit!  Bad!

Now it's June 2nd, 2013 (eight months later) and I've been a bad dog; I pooped on the Mayor Ed Lee's carpet and got hit with a newspaper.

I finally had to cave in and purchase not just one... but three paper grocery bags at ten cents a piece.  I usually have tons of bags in my trunk, but I emptied my trunk so I can pick-up my co-workers from the airport, and they have a lot of luggage.

Mother Nature is pissed and it looks like I'm going to hell.

Hello, Board of Supervisors? I think your 10 cent bag fee is stupid.

Now that I have three paper bags that I can't return to get back my 30 cents, what am I going to do with them?  I could punch a few holes and put a frowny face on it... perfect!  I'll wear it at the next Board of Supervisors meeting.

Paper bag head photo by Mark Sebastian, using a Creative Commons License.

People Like TransLink (Clipper) on BART - How about Muni?

Not long ago, the SF Examiner published a brief article stating in a recent survey of BART passengers holding a TransLink card, 88% are satisfied with the card, an improvement of 6% when it was 82% a year ago.

As for recommending the card to someone else, the results show 93% would, while last year was 89%.

But problems are still quite high with 28% stating they had some type of problem; while down from last year (33%). One of the issues is the does not explain what the problem is with the program, so if they experienced even a minor problem (even if it's the user's fault) or a problem outside of the BART agency, it would still count as a problem.

The BART Board of Directors will hear about the survey results in their meeting this Thursday.

Akit's opinions:

1. It's a good sign that people are taking TransLink/Clipper more seriously, and BART's cooperation in the program is much better than the days when they screwed the MTC over with their EZ Rider card and James Fang on a tirade about cell phones to pay for BART rides (and wasting $350K of our tax money).
2. 28% experiencing a problem is still too high for this program. If I was surveyed, I'd have to agree that I've had some problems where the gates would reject the card and not open, and there's about a 5 second delay until I can try again on the same gate.
3. If we were to compare BART's survey results to other transit agencies, I would think Muni would be on the bottom. Just within the last few days, I've already noticed the card readers on vehicles having problems.
4. I'm curious to know how many did the survey and if it was available to all participants, or a restricted few who voluntarily transitioned from EZ Rider to TransLink/Clipper.
5. Lastly, if things are improving and Clipper becomes popular, will BART ever consider converting some of their gates at the busiest stations to the electronic card only to help make a speedy exit?
   

$550 Million for a BART Oakland Airport People Mover?

$550 million, that's the approximate price tag from BART officials who just yesterday approved to start the bidding process for this massive project. This planned project is to link the Coliseum BART station with the Oakland airport with a people mover.

That sounds really expensive, and is it the right idea for this transit agency to invest this much money for this kind of service?

Let's take a look at the BART extension that connected the system to the San Francisco International Airport, that is right now a big failure. BART has built extra tracks to support the newest terminal stops at SFO and Millbrae, but they are so underutilized at this time that the tracks are being used as a defacto storage yard for trains. BART also trimmed train service to the area where many still end their route at Daly City, while only one dedicated line serves the airport (full-time) while two other lines switch around to serve Millbrae.

I still see passengers take the train to SFO, but not in the greater numbers the public would expect.

BART expects a huge boom in service by building a people mover to serve Oakland Airport, but is this a good investment? In my opinion, the answer is absolutely not. The current AirBART bus program works great and is really affordable.

One of the best "airport to train" people mover systems is the AirTrain program at JFK airport. They have trains that serves the terminals, but also have branch lines that reaches the New York Subway system (known as the best subway in the world), and the Long Island Railroad (the most heavily used commuter rail service in the USA). Their investment is totally worthwhile because the trains have to go longer distances to reach the heavily used network of subway and commuter rail, and the price cannot be beat. It only costs $5 to take the AirTrain and $2 to $5 for the subway or commuter rail to get into Manhattan. A taxicab costs at least $50 and even takes longer than just riding the train. The Port Authority may consider extending the AirTrain to Penn Station due to its huge success.

When comparing JFK to Oakland, it's a big difference. BART is quite expensive to ride on, and the BART Board wants you to also pay a $6 fee each-way to ride the people mover. For the price you pay, you might take advantage of the good rates on those shared ride vans like Super Shuttle or split a taxicab fare.

Here are my alternative options to save hundreds and millions of dollars:

• Build a bus rapid transit line using existing streets. Signal priority lights can make the journey even faster. Look at AC Transit, their "rapid" lines are very successful.
• If BART still wants a rail system linking the airport to the station, how about a monorail? Conventional rail and people movers make huge shadows and makes it look ugly. Monorails make smaller shadows and makes a smaller footprint. Plus, the rails and support beams can be fabricated at an off-site location and they simply dig a hole and plop it right in. Lastly, Monorails are extremely quiet because they use rubber tires instead of steel wheels. We all know what can happen to BART trains when they don't grind the rails (SCREEEECH!!!), so why not invest in a quiet monorail to not piss-off the neighbors? This is way cheaper.

Will someone please knock some common sense into the BART Board? And have them call Disneyland, they'll give you all the info you need.

Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP): SF Muni's Bad Ideas for 38 and 18 Lines

Many people may or may not know that I live in the Outer Richmond District. I noticed a little while back that San Francisco Muni had released these new proposals to modify many of the transit lines that we are so used to. But two of my local lines really started to hurt.

Since I cannot go to the hearing on Tuesday the 16th because I'm stuck at work, I e-mailed the SFMTA Board of Directors as requested by the TEP representatives, but I don't even know if they will even read my lengthy comments. So I'm going to post my ideas here:

For the 38-Geary line, the proposal by Muni will eliminate the Ocean Beach branch of the line. Currently the three major branches is: Ft. Miley (38 regular), Ocean Beach (38 regular), and 48th Avenue and Pt. Lobos (38 limited). I really think they are going in the wrong direction with this and should plan to restore service to the Ocean Beach terminal. I can understand that having huge articulated vehicles running on Balboa Street is not the best idea due to bus noise and the narrow lanes in certain sections, so it might work best if the line runs the 38-Limited route, but goes down Pt. Lobos past the Cliff House to the Great Highway and turns at Fulton to the Ocean Beach terminal. The inbound route will follow the opposite direction, but stop at the 38-Limited terminal for an easy transfer to the limited line.

(Inbound daytime service starting from Ocean Beach Terminal)

(Outbound daytime service to Ocean Beach terminal)

Muni's TEP people also proposed changing the 38-Geary Owl service to not terminate at the Ocean Beach terminal, but to stop at the Fort Miley terminal. I think Muni should take an opportunity to increase their coverage on the owl service line by serving all three terminals. People are used to taking the 38 Owl to Ocean Beach, so why not restore it and also serve the neglected areas like 48th & Point Lobos, and Fort Miley hospital? The area around here is very hilly, and for people who live north of the Ocean Beach terminal live on an extremely steep hill. Still, it follows my proposed route modifications, but will eliminate the loud noise on Balboa street since that line runs 24-hours a day in a neighborhood. Passengers who live on Balboa can easily take the 5-Fulton owl service and walk two blocks on a usually flat or slightly pitched sidewalk.

(CORRECTION: The 38-Owl service is proposed to terminate at 48th Avenue and Pt. Lobos, however this error still does not change my argument to serve all three terminals)


(Inbound 38-Geary Owl service route serving all three terminals)

(Outbound 38-Geary Owl Service route serving all three terminals)

Lastly, the 18-46th Avenue line's modifications are not really acceptable. While I did not make any maps, I'll point out the changes that might take place. To give some background on the 18-line, the bus line is one of the best lines in the entire city, easily accessible route to SFSU, and only the most senior operators with the best reputations get to drive this line (because everyone wants to drive it).

1. In the northern section (above Golden Gate Park) of the route, it is proposed to remove the route going around the Cliff House by having the line actually drive through Balboa and turn North to serve 33rd Avenue and Geary. This route will slow down the line's current efficient route because Balboa is a "stop and go" type of road, and I think in the best interest of the neighborhood, eliminating the noisy gas powered buses will be a real help. And the people at Balboa can ride on the quiet 31-Balboa line to the Ocean Beach terminal to ride my proposed modified 38-Geary Ocean Beach branch line or the 18, or can even walk two block to ride the new proposed 5L-Fulton Limited line.
2. In the area around Lake Merced, the TEP proposal will not go around John Muir Drive (the southern edge road of Lake Merced) and will run on the northern end of Lake Merced. It is true that it will make the ride faster, but it has a major disadvantage. If you have ever driven the south edge of Lake Merced, John Muir drive has this big apartment complex, and when I ride this bus, a lot of SFSU students, staff, and faculty board the bus for a direct ride to SFSU. The TEP proposal eliminates this and moves the 17-Parkmerced line to serve this area. However, this change will nearly triple the time it takes to get to SFSU because the eastbound bus will go into Daly City to pick-up Daly City BART passengers, and wind through the road maze known as Parkmerced. If the 18-line stays the way it is, it is only adding a five minutes to the route, and just that few minutes can bring in extra money to Muni since SFSU folks at John Muir drive depends on this route for direct service to campus.
   
3. Also noted about the route change on Lake Merced, there is no easy to access bus stop for SFSU students at all. All SFSU affiliates get-off on the current route at Lake Merced and Font Blvd. (the dorms) and take a short walk to their classrooms. The new route will make people walk a longer route to make it to campus since it does not make a direct stop at campus, thereby may not make the line suitible for SFSU affiliates. This is especially discouraging for SFSU people who attend or work on the west end (lower end) of campus versus the east end ("up-campus") of campus. I use the 18 for a direct ride to SFSU, and if this route goes into effect, I might just drive to campus.

Thanks for reading. Below is the original letter I sent to the SFMTA Board of Directors:
--------------------------------------------------
Dear SFMTA Board of Directors,

I am e-mailing the SFMTA Board of Directors today to post my comments on some of the proposed changes to the lines serving the Outer Richmond district.

In regards to the proposed removal of the 38-Geary Ocean Beach branch line, I believe that this line is still very useful during its daytime operations as it also is part of the late night owl service used in today's Muni service.

--First of all, I believe the daytime route should be modified outbound to go straight down Geary and down Pt. Lobos on the road towards the Great Highway (passing the Cliff House) and going directly to the bus terminal. For the downtown trip, it would start at the Ocean Beach terminal, go up Pt. Lobos past the Cliff House, right turn at 48th Avenue to drop-off/transfer passengers for the 38-Limited for a faster ride (this will be a popular option for passengers!), and continue on Geary on the normal route. This alternate route is faster, gives easy access for tourists to visit the Cliff House, eliminates the "stop and go" driving on Balboa, use of noisy motorized buses on Balboa, and 38-Ocean Beach branch line passengers can still get to their destination on Balboa by simply transferring to the 31-Balboa line.

--The Owl line route should also help out more residents of the Outer Richmond too. Currently, the only 38-Geary route Owl service is the Ocean Beach branch. However the proposed modification would remove the route and terminate at the Ft. Miley hospital for owl service. Since the 38 line is one of the main lifelines of this city, I feel it best if the line should serve all three major terminals in one route so that it can accomodate everyone, espeically the very hilly parts of the Outer Richmond that makes it a challenge for older passengers (this is especially true in the 40th-48th avenues where the hills are steep between Cabrillo and Geary). My suggestion is to have the outbound owl buses serve in this order: Ft. Miley (by request), the bus stop at 48th Avenue and Pt. Lobos (northwest corner stop, diagonally opposite of the Seal Rock Inn), and terminate at Ocean Beach terminal (by driving on Pt. Lobos (going past the Cliff House). For the downtown route: Ocean Beach Terminal, 48th Ave. and Pt. Lobos terminal, and Ft. Miley by request of activation of the signal at Ft. Miley. If there is a concern about regular Owl passengers losing their service on Balboa, it should be noted that the 5-Fulton is an owl service line and Balboa is only two blocks away with little or no hills to climb and could calm the motorized bus noise problem dramatically.

I also disagree with the proposed changes to the 18-46th Avenue line. The current route of the line is very efficient, fast, and is considered one of the best bus lines in the entire city; even to the point where Muni operators highly desire to drive on this route.

--The modified route on the northern sector of the city will cause much longer driving times and does not serve any real convienence. Balboa is a very "stop and go" street and I believe that not using Balboa for this modified route will reduce the vehicle noise and help out the neighborhood at large since the 31-Balboa is a trolley bus line. If you are wondering if this will cause any problems for Balboa St. passengers, they can easily ride the 31 to the Ocean Beach terminal for the 18 or ride my proposed modified 38 Ocean Beach branch. Also, removing the 18-46th Avenue's service area covering the Cliff House and 48th Avenue/Geary to 33rd Avenue/Geary will hurt tourism for the Cliff House and the many residents who rely on an easy and direct route for many services (SFSU, SF Zoo, Stonestown, etc.) and connections to other major Muni lines.

--I am also aware of the removal of 18 service on the south end of Lake Merced (John Muir Drive), where it is proposed to be more efficient to run on the nothern rim of Lake Merced. I do agree that this route modification will improve service, however this does cause problems for students and employees of SFSU. The new proposed change will make it much harder to access SFSU as there is much more walking involved. Many SFSU students and staff exit on the current route at Lake Merced and Font, next door to the residence halls (dormitories) and most SFSU students to not exit at the end of the line (Stonestown) to walk half a mile to campus. There are also many SFSU students and employees who live at the apartments on John Muir Drive, and if the proposal goes through and the 17 line serves this route, there will be no fast direct access to SFSU for these people. The 17's modified route serving the John Muir Drive apartments would have to go through a dizzy maze serving other parts of Park Merced and Daly City BART, and that would really add much more time to their already simple commute. Now surely the modified route would cut the bus ride by five minutes, but that five minutes can also rake in more passengers and financial income if Muni does not modify this line.

In summary, I believe the proposed changes to the 38-Geary lines can be adjusted to still serve Ocean Beach terminal, there can be an easy change to adjust the 38-Geary owl service to serve more than one terminal, and the 18-46th Avenue line should not be changed for efficiency purposes and to keep its service on John Muir Drive for SFSU affiliates.

Thank you.