Free Muni Rides for SF's Youth is a Terrible Idea

In an editorial from the SF Chronicle, they are supporting the proposal to allow San Francisco's youth to be allowed to ride Muni for free. They feel it will make it easier for students to get to school, reduce congestion, and saves money for the parents who dishes out the $22 monthly pass.

I personally think it's a horrible idea.

There's a lot of problems that underlines the notion of being "free" to our city's youth:

One of the major problems is just the cost of running such a program. The Chronicle estimates the cost to be at least $4 million to as high as $7.9 million (let's just say eight). That's a lot of money for an agency that's been bleeding in the red ever since Nat Ford ruined the agency and took a nice 300K+ "up yours" package when he was fired. Four million, if properly spent, can be used for something better for EVERYONE, and not just for the kids.

A second problem is about Clipper cards. A lot of you know about my expertise in the Clipper program, and I can tell you, this will be a big problem to give out free passes on cards. Here's three key problems:

1. If the pass is implemented and they impose time restrictions or can't be used on certain days, the Clipper system cannot handle these types of restrictions. I forgot where I found that information, but I know that the pass system has to work 24-7, or the MTC and/or Muni will have to fork over a ton of money to modify the Clipper card software to handle that.
2. If Muni is permitted to do time restrictions, there will be a lot of time dedicated to being flexible to those students who have school sanctioned activities; say if the pass is invalid after 4PM and their football team practice goes until 6PM, there will be a lot of paperwork and exceptions made for the changes to happen. If a student goes to night school, then what's the restrictions for that? When the pass get's shut off, they'll argue with the driver about validity, and that they can't afford to pay the fare or add e-cash to their card; this means more phone calls with Clipper customer service.
3. One existing problem that will turn worse is the youth Clipper cards looks exactly like an adult Clipper card. Without a fare inspector's card reader, a bus driver cannot identify if the card is for a youth or adult. This means if a parent regularly drives their student to school or the student can easily walk to school, an adult family member could use the youth's card to score free rides on Muni until an inspector catches them. Muni's inspectors regularly targets the metro lines, so odds of getting caught on a bus is a long shot. The ways Muni can fix that is to make the card reader emit a different sound for youth cards, integrate their school ID with Clipper, or put a photo on the card. These are all expensive options, especially adding a photo because if AC Transit learned a lesson, it took a long time to get all the area's youth to get all their photos taken and make custom cards.

One bigger concern I have is conduct. Here's my two big issues:

1. Remember the "Spare the Air" program gave out free transit rides for everyone? It was a success for keeping the air cleaner and more people taking public transit, but it caused a bunch of other problems from transit agencies. People decided to take public transit to just get off at the next stop just because it was "free," this meant delays on transit lines because people are too lazy to just walk to the next stop. For BART, they hated it; youth passengers caused mayhem on the system and turned into a roving hangout (including homeless folks); it reached such a boiling point that BART decided at the next future "Spare the Air" to make people pay for their rides.
2. If Muni gives rides for "free" to the youth, it just lets them barge through the back door of buses and steal the seats from the rest of the honest people who boards through the front door.

Lastly, San Francisco's youth should be lucky they are paying drastically less for public transit. Here's a comparison of single ride fares for major agencies in the Bay Area:

• 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.

The city has no obligation to give discounts to youth, but in the name of tradition, they do. The law states that only seniors, people with disabilities, or medicare card are eligible for a discount fare.
For you youth advocates, be lucky Muni gives the steepest discount AND a free 90 minute transfer. Nothing is free; especially when Muni is already broke.

Get Your Calculators - Clipper Just Got More Expensive

Last Friday, the Operations Committee of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (or what I like to call, the defacto Clipper Board of Directors) had their monthly meeting to discuss about updates about Clipper, amending existing contracts, and change orders to increase funding for the program.

Item three of their agenda contains a memorandum from the Executive Director. Here's the highlights:

• As we all know, November was the big transition of Muni's "A" paper pass to Clipper (40,000 users). This is the biggest transition to date for the program and a month prior to the November switch, 40% of pass users already converted.
• Clipper has faced a big challenge in advertising and promoting to people with limited English proficiency (LEP). SF Supervisor Chiu was the one who lit a fire under Clipper's butt on the issue.
• Due to the lack of promoting to LEP communities, the Executive Director asked the Operations Committee to approve $500,000 (yep, half a million) for customer education and in-person outreach with Swirl Marketing. MTC and Clipper have already spent $900,000 and another $1,000,000 on marketing, but that budget included MTC's other services like FasTrak and 511 as well. Amazingly: "This amendment will bring the total contract amount to $16,398,475" (ouch).
  
• The MTC also proposed to amend a contract with Booz Allen Hamilton, a company that provides "technical oversight of the Clipper Contractor and coordination with transit operators and other consultants." The amount to amend: $950,000. The total contract with Booz Allen Hamilton would be $5,507,988 (if passed by the committee).
• It seems the demand for Clipper cards has skyrocketed and the MTC underestimated the demand by a a few million dollars. In a previous posting, I mentioned Clipper spent $1 million for 475,000 cards ($2.11 each), now Clipper wants to change the contract with Cubic by spending an extra $4 million to get nearly two million (actually it's 1.9 million cards, but those government folks thinks two million is a nice round number) additional cards in stock to meet demand.
• The Clipper employment program and customer service needs a boost as well with $1.05 million more on top of their existing contract with Cubic.
• Since VTA wants to adapt their ticketing machines to add Clipper value, that's another $550,000 in the bucket.
• The MTC wants to add a third in-person customer service center (the first two will be in SF) by placing one in Oakland. That'll cost $400,000.

If my math is correct, these contract changes, procurements, and/or adjustments is: $7,450,000.

I'd better pray this investment is going to pay off dividends in the coming years.


In other meeting news, the BART Board of Directors is meeting this week and will talk about the transition of EZ Rider card users to Clipper. Unfortunately, last week's meeting on the 10th was abruptly canceled, but I was fortunate enough to get a copy of the General Manager's memorandum before the webmaster deleted the agenda's PDF file. The PDF file I got is a lot more extensive than the presentation now being shown on the current agenda on page 16.

Here's the highlights:

• December 15th is the deadline for EZ Rider users to transition to Clipper. So if you have that EZ Rider card and try to use it on the day after... sorry!
• For those who carry two cards: One for EZ Rider parking and the Clipper card for transit, a solution has been found to make it one card for both parking fees and transit fares.
• There was an increase in the tagging error rate, up 1.7% from 5% reported in last July's meeting. This is due to a major increase from 14,000 trips to 45,000 trips every weekday. The cause of the increase in read errors is due to the inexperience of new users.
• At its peak, EZ Rider had 50,000 users, but the Clipper transition has reduced it to now 9,000 still using the EZ Rider card.
• Clipper increased their telephone customer service staff from 22 to 52 to meet demand of the transition of paper passes from other agencies.
• In the month of September, Clipper has processed over 4,000,000 "fee generating transactions." Another way to think about it, a 400% increase in just six months.
  

Muni Hates Commuter Benefits Users with Debit Cards

If you use a commuter benefits debit card like the Commuter Check Card, this may come to you as a surprise or maybe just a shrug, but I think you should be aware of it...

Just five days ago, the SFMTA decided to place a $2.50 surcharge for every time a customer purchases a Muni pass online.

That sucks, but I'm going to make it a lot worse...

Brittney Gilbert of Eye on Blogs reported in early March that SFMTA/Muni closed down their pass purchasing booth at Montgomery station, which was only one of two places in the city where people could buy a Muni monthly pass with a commuter benefits debit card. The other place to use a debit card was on SFMTA's online purchasing site.

--------------------

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Muni closes down the ever popular sales booth at Montgomery while the only alternative is to purchase it online through the SFMTA web portal; plus, charge $2.50 for every purchase? Why is Muni screwing their customers who have a commuter benefits debit card?

What makes it worse is some people have no choice but to accept a commuter benefits debit card as their employer does not give them the option to take alternatives, such as a voucher, or a pass snail mailed to them.

I know what you are thinking... the alternative is to get a TransLink/Clipper card and use a debit card to purchase the pass either their automated machines or website (surcharge free). The bad part about this is there are some people who are not confident enough in the program, especially since I've been blogging about the reliability of the program.

Someone call the orderly, Muni has gone insane and needs to get some shock therapy!

After the Muni Budget Deal - Fare Inspectors are Still a Major Waste of Taxpayer Money

In some developments last night, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved the revised budget for SF Muni. That means $2 cash fares, and the end or modification of many lines on the system.

This looks like the bad old days when Mayor Frank Jordan got hated upon for hiking fares and wiping out transfers. In just a matter of months, the fares were back to normal and transfers flowed freely once again.

--------------------

But what caught my eye this morning while eating my breakfast at home: The Muni Fare Inspectors we all dislike.

In this CBS5/KPIX video, Phil Matier reports that Muni currently has a 46 member fare inspector force and wanted to hire an additional 47 more. After Muni did some deal making with the Board of Supervisors, Muni is now permitted to only hire 14 people.

So let me get this right, you are keeping the 46 people already hired and only cut back on hiring more people? Where does the keyword BUDGET come into mind for Muni? Muni should be doing a HIRING FREEZE on fare inspectors, not hiring more (regardless if it is a reduced number).

Even with 46 full-time fare inspectors right now, what a joke! They don't ride the buses, and all they do is monitor the metro system. 90% of their force are watching over the 9 subway stations and some of the outdoor platform stations. The remaining are typically at AT&T Park after the baseball games.

If Muni is deciding to cut bus lines that will impact the poor and the disabled, why the hell would you keep hiring more fare inspectors and retain your current staff?

Here's a short list of wasteful things our tax dollars spend on fare inspectors:

• I've seen four fare inspectors gang-up on a family of Japanese tourists at Powell Station.
• I've seen six inspectors at one metro platform.
  
• Working in pairs when really one person is just needed to issue the ticket.
  
• Fare inspectors just chit chatting on a metro platform.
• Fare inspectors like employee #32 threatening a photographer.
• Playing with their cell phones.
• Getting AT&T ballgame fans checked before boarding the platform, and getting checked AGAIN when leaving Embarcadero station. Once is fine enough.
  

I've mentioned it many times, Muni does not need fare inspectors to work in pairs; or, If they really want to make a useful force in pairs, they need to lay-off at least half of their force and replenish the loss with people without ticket issuing authority and willing to work for a simple wage without benefits (college students are perfect). An inspection of a metro train does not require two ticket issuing people, just one person who writes the tickets and the other non-ticket issuing authority person who simply checks on people.

Let's do some simple math:

• In one of my earlier postings, I calculated that an average each fare inspector writes in tickets is $9,844.64 in one year. Their annual salary is at least $30,000+ and does not include benefits. Actually, I was incorrect about their salary, they actually make between $52,000 and $64,000.
• If Muni cut half of its force and hired low wage college students to be non-ticket writing inspectors, the average for ticket writing fare inspectors would likely double, making each dollar Muni spends on fare enforcement worthwhile.

We the citizens always joke about Muni on a daily basis, but we would not be joking around if Muni took themselves much more seriously than the crap we the passengers face every single day. If we hired a general manager or CEO with some real street smarts for less than what Nat Ford makes ($300,000+), we'd have a much better transit system with a much smaller deficit.

$2 for Muni is Done, and Not Laying-Off Fare Inspectors?

Mornings on Two and SFgate reports that Muni has found a way to magically save $10.5 million from their original proposed cuts to the public transit service. The Board of Supervisors had the cards in their favor to possibly reject the SFMTA Board's proposal, but with some dealmaking behind closed doors, there is some glimmer of hope for Muni.

What sounds definite now after all this haggling at City Hall is we the passengers will still be paying the $2 adult cash fare effective July 1, 2009. For you people still carrying Muni token tickets, it's time to start frying them as fast as you can.

The adult fast pass will be raised to $55 on July 1st, and to $60 on January 1st (as originally proposed). Muni will terminate BART usage on January 1st, unless if passengers purchase the "premium" pass starting January 1st for an extra surcharge of $10.


On the really negative end...
SFMTA has agreed to increase parking enforcement hours that would normally end at 6PM and will now terminate at 8PM everyday. This is not a good thing for the local restaurants trying to stay afloat in this bad economy. Plus, will the meter maid's union agree to work this late? And just food for thought (sounds yummy!)... how much of a difference would 2 hours extra on the meter really make? Do the math: The number of meter maids on the street from 6PM to 8PM, multiply by two hours of their hourly wage, and subtract the revenue and extra maintenance costs on the meters (i.e. the change removal folks, battery replacement, etc.).

Route changes and cuts will still happen. SAVE THE 38-GEARY OCEAN BEACH BRANCH and DON'T CHANGE the 18-46th AVENUE.

Reducing the number of fare inspectors they were planning to hire. What kind of CRAP is this? How about don't hire any, and start laying-off half of that force? For the salary they make, they sure can't write enough tickets to make it a benefit to our city.

SFgate user ender_of_sf makes a good point about the fare inspectors:
"From what I've seen the fare inspectors are a joke. They roam in packs of two and three, and are more likely to be seen chatting together on Metro platforms (especially on rainy days) than issuing citations. It's not a bad concepts, but as usual with MUNI, poorly implemented."

SFgate user selwynator also makes a good argument:
"Wait a minute here.....how can NOT hiring more fare inspectors after this save MUNI money?"

This is a deal? Bull**** Board of Supervisors. I expected better.

Paying BART with a Cell Phone? Translink DOES THE JOB

Fresh from the stupid files...

After reading an "Eye on Blogs" posting, I learned that BART is planning to allow certain cell phones to be allowed to open faregates on the the system. Also during a segment on today's "Mornings on Two" program, Ross McGowan was speaking to the head public relations man of BART about future train cars, and McGowan mentioned about cell phones acting as fare cards.

And I had to think to myself... RFID technology... don't we already have a planned solution coming soon for BART that will eliminate the use of the magnetic stripe tickets?

TRANSLINK

Oh my gosh, you wonder why BART is planning to raise fares and their deficit is so large. They can't realize that Translink on BART is coming within the next month, and in this PR statement from BART (yes, I said, FROM BART), they clearly admit the universal farecard will be coming very soon. Getting cell phone companies to play along with this costs plenty of money.

So why are they deciding to get cell phones to access BART faregates only? What is the purpose of that when a plastic RFID farecard will be able to not just access BART, but also Muni, AC Transit, Golden Gate Transit, and coming soon... Caltrain. And think about it, only select cell phones and select wireless phone companies will agree to participate in this program, but Translink is just a plastic card that anyone could carry in their wallet or purse.

I even questioned BART on one of my old postings about why this transit agency keeps pushing their EZ Rider card when Translink is just right over the horizon. I keep saying this over and over... BART needs to think smarter when it comes to spending money. Having cell phones and their own RFID card is a waste of their own time because Translink can do the same job of passengers accessing the system and many other transit agencies.

Look at Hong Kong, their Octopus Card is extremely successful. They use the same exact operating equipment and technology from Motorola ERG on Translink. The Octopus Card allows access to literally all public transit, pays for food and restaurants and convenience stores, and is even used to keep attendance at public schools. In Japan, RFID transit fare cards can even access vending machines. Some unique products RFID cards have made for the public includes a mini sized card that is perfect for keychains, a watch with the RFID chip, and special wallets and purses with a special sleeve to make easy contact with cardreaders.

Maybe in the future, Translink will make a special sticker chip that people can put underneath their cell phone battery cover so that your phone can now access all public transit. Take that BART, with your cell phones that can only access your own agency's gates.

SF 311 Costs Muni $6.2 MILLION?

And you think the Muni budget nightmare can't get any worse, until now...

Word from SF Appeal is that the SF 311 program costs Muni $6.2 million for their operators to provide Muni and NextBus (or so-called "NextMuni") information. Based on all that math, each phone call costs Muni $1.92.

And I have to ask myself... is this some kind of stupid joke? This was Newsom's pet project, but while the operators are helpful in most occasions, help with Muni questions is not their best field.

Remember the days when you could call "6-SF-MUNI" and you quickly get a person on the phone who will help you? In those days, they knew Muni like the back of their hand; quick to give you an answer and give you the correct routes to take where ever you needed to go in the city. They can also look-up time schedules for you in a mere matter of seconds.

Unfortunately, 311 are not well equipped to take-on Muni questions. In my last few experiences, they take minutes, unlike Muni's phone center taking just seconds. They heavily depend on their computer workstations to find the information, and a lot of times, they provide the wrong information. I think they depend on the 511 Trip Planner program, and I honestly feel that program has been flawed ever since 511 started using it.

Here's a quick example. You need to get from the Cliff House to Pier 39.

• 311: They will ask you where is the Cliff House (I'M NOT KIDDING), and using their computer, tell you all the options to get to your final destination. Time taken: 2-4 minutes.
  
• Muni info line: Will immediately tell you to take the 38L, and transfer to the 47. They won't ask you where the Cliff House is located. Time taken: 30 seconds.

Winner: Muni information line.

Also, since it take Muni info folks much less time to answer questions, there is less need for Muni phone operators. Since it takes 311 much longer to answer Muni related questions, they need more people to take the brunt of phone calls, which means each person equals at least a $30,000+ salary (not including benefits).


As for NextBus information:
311 should work with TellMe networks to make an automated voice command system. Several years back, a random user of the "TellMe extensions" program wrote a program that used the tacky voice speaking program (similar to BART's train arrival voices), used voice commands for people to name addresses, intersections, and major train stations, and used the data directly from the NextBus website to communicate back the next arrival times. And IT WORKED.

But I also don't understand... why do people call for NextBus info when literally every stop with a shelter has a Nextbus sign installed? People with data plans on their cell phone can easily get their NextBus info and even bookmark their usual routes (I do that), and even using the NextBus website at work and bookmarking the Google Map on where the vehicles are (I use this too).

I'm able to time when I should leave my home and office so I never wait for a bus for more than five minutes. Even if I need to transfer to another bus, just a couple of minutes of using the mobile NextBus will help me on how long I have to wait for the next vehicle to take me to my destination is very helpful.

San Francisco Government Broke? Take a pay cut city officials!

As many San Franciscans know, our city government is not doing so great after learning there is a budget shortfall, and it looks like a lot of our city paid services is going to get a nasty cut in funding that will always attack something important, the lower paid employees of those services.

But when you think about this, if for example, the Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) takes a 10% cut in city funding to operate, who would you think they would let go? It won't be the administrative or high ranking manager positions, it seems easy for the people in power to cut out the easy people, the hard working wage donkeys that makes about $10 to $15 an hour (not including benefits).

Instead of letting go of the people that make lower salaries, why not chip off the high paid officials, such as elected officials of the Board of Supervisors or the high paid administrative level folks like Police Chief Heather Fong? Why does our tax money fund such HUGE salaries in this city? $100,000 a year salary is plenty to support at least a couple of families who are middle class.

Here's another thing that will piss you off. Why does the Board of Supervisors have the ability to vote for a raise in salary? Most of us have to meet with our supervisor to ask for a raise, all you have to do is just get a damn majority of your own peers. And in the name of greed, I don't think anyone would say "nay." I think it's best to do it the other way: Let the VOTERS vote to elect if the Board of Supervisors deserve a pay raise. If the Supervisor's performance sucks, then NO RAISE.

My solution: Every San Francisco government employee and elected official that makes more than $80,000 a year must take a MINIMUM 10% PAY CUT.

Maybe all the money they collect from kicking that out of their salaries can be infused in a helpful program like FIXING MUNI. Take a pay cut, go scrap your $50,000 luxury cars and use that pay cut money to fix Muni and take the fucking bus like us wage donkeys do on a daily basis.

Or do it the other way, become like ex-supervisor Ed Jew and extort tapioca drink shops.

SF Muni's Woes... I'm Not Forking Over $$

In the news today, San Francisco Muni is desperate for more money, blaming that they need more money to improve their awful on-time performance and really bad reputation at this point.

Here's an article from the Chronicle. For the entire story, click here.

Here's a list on the article of Muni's "wishes" to raise more money, and my thoughts about it in italics below.

-- Imposing automatic 5 percent fare increases every two years
Are you just fucking stupid? We pay $1.50 for real crappy service. Fare evaders are the big problem, and when they commit the problem, average "I follow the law" Joe who rides the bus gets nailed with the penalty of an increase.

If it did happen: In 2 years: $1.57, another 2 years: $1.65, another 2 years: $1.73. NO CITIZEN PAYS IN PENNIES. Try putting 150 pennies down a fare machine and getting it constantly jammed in front of a pissed-off driver.

-- Charging for transfers
Hmm, stupid idea. Not a lot of great help for our low-income residents that already depend on Muni and gets a $10 discount on a pass from city social services. You really expect them to pay more?

Anyone remember when they took away transfers, had special prices for express buses and a pass that costs more to ride the express, and how much it pissed off the people? They were back on transfers in six months and dumped the special fares and passes!

-- Raising local taxes
We already pay 8.5% in sales taxes, how much more do we need to fork?

-- Adding a surcharge to tickets for professional sporting events
We already pay a heavy surcharge for buying tickets for Giants games online and at ticket retailers. Example: An additional $5 for the Giants Double Play window with free will call pick-up. Plus, Muni brought the metro to the Giants stadium to relieve traffic and parking issues, makes me want to drive now!

-- Raising the cost of parking citations
Let me scratch my butt on this one, nope!

-- Selling soft drinks and snacks at rail stations and boarding platforms
It's against Muni policy to eat and drink on rail vehicles. Same for BART, especially that any trash can ignite a fire in the BART tunnels because of the 3rd rail.

-- Extending parking meter operations
Many meters are not enforced past 6PM, and yeah, I really think that DPT officers will not be patrolling after six, they would be happy eating dinner with their family.

-- Plastering more advertising on everything from the printed bus schedules to the light-rail tunnels
Not a bad idea, just don't put any annoying ass "Got Milk" commercials about aliens abducting cows by calling them "Da-Iry," or that family getting that glass of milk under tight security (shit, haven't you heard of a frickin grocery store?).

Has anyone seen a new bus schedule? Not me! You can just find it online, ADVERTISEMENT FREE.

-- Selling naming rights on rail stations and other Muni properties
Yeah, I like that. Let me buy one and call it: "Akit's FUCK MUNI Embarcadero station."

My answer to the problem, start catching the bad folks that evade the fares, our government needs to put in more money, and stop wasting money too. That 3rd street light rail project had too much expenditures!

Let's summarize my rants:
Lots of stupid ideas to find solutions.
I'll buy naming rights to get my message across.
I drive, what the hell is Muni again?