Is Muni's Proof of Payment "Expired" Transfer Policy Fair?

SFMTA/Muni's "Proof of Payment" program is one of the more citizen hated Muni programs, especially the fare inspectors who just love to piss passengers off by checking you in some cases, twice, or even three times if you get lucky.

But while this program is supposed to catch the people who fail to pay for their train fare (in which I applaud), it also has a disturbing side to it as well, when it comes to the "validity" of the "proof of payment." More in particular, the Muni transfer, which is issued in a few ways: the tear-off that comes from the vehicle operators, the fare gates at metro stations, ticketing machines at platforms like S.F. State, and the Translink e-transfer.

----------

According to SFMTA/Muni's policy on POP in the metro, it states:

• "Don't get stuck entering with a transfer/fare receipt that will later expire while you are waiting on a platform or riding in a vehicle. If you are not sure your transfer/fare receipt will last, then pay for a fresh transfer/fare receipt on the surface or at a faregate in the subway."

This policy is not clearly noted on the metro vehicles. They say in a very bland manner that a transfer/pass must be valid at all times. To me, it sounds halfway legitimate, but I think it could be a little more clear.

Maybe Muni should add signage saying: "If your transfer is expiring, please buy a new one."

How about this one? "If your train is delayed, ask the operator for a FREE fresh transfer since you just been probed in the butt by our poorly maintained equipment." Actually, in Japan, if your train is late or delayed, you are given a little note about the delay to give to your supervisor at work so you don't get in trouble.

----------

An even more disturbing policy is highlighted here in their FAQ section of their website, where they answer the question on what to do when your transfer expires, in particular:

• "Don't try this (get a new transfer) if Proof of Payment enforcement officers are aboard the vehicle or present in the paid area of the station; it is too late to correct the problem."

Hey Muni, this quote is just really bad P.R. If your transfer just recently went invalid, how about giving the passenger a break, and encouraging him/her to obtain a new one? It's NEVER TOO LATE.

----------

In my point of view, the "expired" transfer policy doesn't even seem really that fair at all. Journeys can be longer than we may sometimes expect due to delays, incidents, etc., and people who ride Muni generally knows that once you enter a Muni vehicle with a valid transfer that has not expired, you will be allowed entry without question; even if a passenger has just 15 minutes left on the transfer; that's not a problem on the buses and historic streetcars, but will be a problem on the Metro 15 minutes later.

Here's a few situations that may happen to you:

• Say your train is stuck in the metro tunnel due to a train ahead that is disabled, or possibly an incident that occurred (which is more likely to happen today). Once the train finally enters the station and you exit, you get nailed by a fare inspector simply because your transfer was expired, but surely your transfer was valid while suffering in the tunnel.
• Your paper transfer issued by the operator was less than 90 minutes or the ticket machine at the metro platform cut it short (which happened here), how the hell do you contest that? Muni could argue that you didn't look at your transfer when it was issued. Yeah, tell that to a visually impaired guy appealing his ticket.
  

I say, wouldn't this way be more fair way to enforce validity?

• If the transfer is expired by no longer than one hour, then it is fine. Now, I'm saying just an hour because traveling on the Metro should not take more than an hour. It takes 45 minutes on the 38L-Geary Limited from end to end (Transbay to 48th/Pt. Lobos), so an hour is fair enough on a metro ride.
• But if it is more than an hour, then a citation should be issued, especially if it is by more than two hours, that's obviously a violation of someone trying to cheat the system.

So Muni, I encourage you to chase the folks who evade fares, not the recently expired transfers. At least the people who have recently expired transfers paid their $1.50.

Also while you are at it, how about reducing the number of fare inspectors at one station? Recently, I saw NINE at Powell (four at the main gate area, three at the secondary gates, and two on the platform). Even worse, three of them was harassing a family of Japanese tourists. Gees, that's a nice welcome mat we put out.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user: "rick" from a Creative Commons license.

Hey SF Muni - Where's my Translink Trial Group Confirmation?

On a previous post here at Akit's Complaint Department, I talked about having more trust in the Translink program on SF Muni after spending one day riding the trains and buses with my green colored card, and also mentioning that I may register for the test group.

I posted that on December 29, 2008, and now it's January 21, 2009. I registered online just a day after my previous posting (via Survey Monkey link on SFMTA/Muni and also on Translink's website), and I have heard NOTHING after 22 days from the folks at the SFMTA/Muni and Translink authorities who promised at the end of the registration to contact me no more than two weeks after submitting my request online.

I have learned that others who have registered for the program to test Muni received a letter (not sure if e-mail or snail mail) that states their participation in the program. I do not know if the person registered with an existing card with Translink or is a new user who had to be issued one. But from past experience, the document can be helpful in gaining leverage when confronted by Muni bus drivers, station agents, and fare inspectors when trying to prove that the Translink cardholder is testing out the program.

There have already been accusations by cardholders that when using the card to e-transfer to Muni metro, it doesn't show-up on the fare inspectors' card readers for "proof of payment" and if true, that's a serious flaw in the Translink software that can waste tax dollars when those inspectors have to issue tickets and the time wasted to appeal the citation which would include Translink staff conducting research on the past history of tagging the card.

For example: "David G." of Yelp posted this complaint about Translink:
"The bad news - Muni's utterly stupid fare policy. I got stopped by a Muni Cop a couple of days ago doing a routine fare check and she pulled out her little machine and read my card. Seems I was out of compliance - a fare cheat - and then proceeded to explain the policy. Apparently once you tag your card, you can ride for 90 minutes on the Muni system. After 90 minutes, you become a fare cheat - and subject to fines if you get caught - unless you re-tag the card. Now in this particular case, I tagged my card at Montgomery, went to Davies for a doctor's appointment, and took the N Judah back downtown. When I got on the N, I tagged the TransLink card a second time. The reader told me it wasn't decrementing anything from the balance, because I still had time left over from my initial tag. So even if I had only one minute left out of my initial ninety, the reader wouldn't re-tag the card. The cop checked my card something like 5 minutes into my ride. She told me I was technically out of compliance - but she didn't ticket me because Muni is still in the "adoption / passenger education phase" with TransLink."

(Please note: I only used the portion mentioning the confrontation between the card user and the Muni fare inspector)

During my run as a very early adopter of the Translink pilot program in 2002, I carried a letter in my wallet that came from Muni's revinue department that described my participation in the pilot program and that all vehicle drivers are ordered to accept the Muni monthly pass sticker on my Translink card when a Translink reader is not available. That letter alone saved by back a few times when confronted about the legitimacy.

But still (and to re-mention), there is no confirmation of my registration from SFMTA/Muni and Translink. They have not sent any e-mails to me, and have not invited me to take surveys that is promised on the SFMTA/Muni and Translink websites. Plus they are offering "prizes" which, with this budget situation, sounds a little odd. I never wanted the prizes, unless if Nat Ford wants me to meet with him and grant one wish, which would be, eliminate the CultureBus program!!!!

The question to the SFMTA/Muni and Translink authorities: do you feel that am I such a threat to this program for being an outspoken critic who posts on a blog, that you have quietly rejected my application? As an agency of the city government (Muni), and state government (Translink is part of the MTC), they are required to respond to all requests, no matter how much the agency doesn't like them. It is good business practice to reply to any requests or questions for all public/government agencies and private businesses. I work for the state government and if anyone leaves a voicemail or e-mail, I always call or write them back.

Here's an example: There's a guy who has been making numerous "Sunshine requests" for city government documents just to clog-up the system, but the city government still has a responsibility to obtain the documents he requests, no matter how much the government dislikes him.

Actually, I hope that Muni and Translink doesn't "dislike" me, I hope they can think of me as a person who knows the quirks of the Translink program (from a local citizen's POV) and accepts me as an citizen advisor to improving the program to make sure it works for everyone.

If you will accept my application, please write back. If you reject it, write back too, I'd like to learn more about why, then post it here for everyone to read.

SF Muni Scales Back 74X CultureBus Service

San Francisco's Muni, home of the useless 74X CultureBus... a.k.a. the bus program that wastes tax dollars. Unfortunately our dreams have not come true and it has not been eliminated, but has been trimmed back in an effort to save money.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports today that the empty CultureBus will be reduced to hourly service, instead of every 20 minutes. The savings for Muni will be about $620,000 with the reduction in service; only two bus drivers will be assigned to the route, and three vehicles will be available (one is a backup vehicle).

But in my opinion, I believe that Muni can save EVEN MORE MONEY is by simply eliminating the CultureBus service and simply move the drivers and vehicles to other lines in the city that needs the demand. The 38 Geary and 38L Geary Limited are the most heavily used bus lines in the city, with an average speed of 8 (yes... eight) miles per hour. Extra vehicles and drivers can help reduce the crowds.

Muni's existing bus lines serve the stops that the CultureBus makes, and transferring to another bus line is not that bad. The 5-Fulton serves the heart of downtown (a short walk to Union Square where the CultureBus stop is), stops nearby the Academy of Sciences and the De Young Museum, and makes a stop at Civic Center plaza where the Asian Art Museum is located. And for people wanting to go to the Legion of Honor (a non-CultureBus stop), the 5-Fulton's terminal at Ocean Beach (La Playa and Cabrillo) is a transfer point for the 18-46th Avenue, and the 18 line also serves the zoo.

So SFMTA, what's the real point of the CultureBus? Taxpayer money to serve a "tour bus" route? The private tour bus agencies already offer a "hop-on, hop-off" bus service and serves more areas than the CultureBus, and while the cost of the private tour bus is more, it's offset by the more areas they visit, the fast service, and the open top double deck vehicles, perfect for photos. SFMTA/Muni is supposed to serve the residents and commuters to get to where they are going. We are not a dedicated tour bus agency, we are a public transit agency. Tourists are surely welcome to use Muni, but please understand that you share it with the local residents and commuters who need to get to work and home. The bus and trains will stop in obscure neighborhoods that you tourists may never visit, but at least it will eventually stop at your tourist attraction.

More Stupidity on the Streets of San Francisco (Involving a Dog)

Remember watching Inspector Gadget and at the end of every episode, Gadget would always give one of those quick safety/common sense PSAs, just like what the GI Joe program would do?

There was this one particular PSA where Gadget talked about safety in the car, and particularly mentioned that dogs (in particular, the dog "Brain") should never stick their head out of the car.

Well... on the streets of San Francisco yesterday (Saturday), somebody didn't watch that particular Inspector Gadget episode. Dr. Claw strikes again. Or maybe the late George Carlin wanting to smack you in the back of the head.

Behind me was this SUV with a dog in the rear driver side window sticking out, with its front paws on the window edge. I was approaching a signal that turned yellow, and pressed my brakes to slow down since I did not want to risk running the red. But the SUV behind me with the dog sticking out did a sharp and speedy swerve into lane to the right of my car, ran the light, and the swerve forced the dog to fall out of the car.

I literally screamed, honked my horn like a maniac, and the lady stopped her SUV about 100 feet away. I thought the dog was messed up, but then it stood up and walked around like nothing ever happened.

Hours after this incident, I was thinking to myself... damn, are there people in my city truly deserves the idiot, stupid, and/or moron award? Buy one of those mesh cage things that most pet lovers put in their station wagon and SUV trunks. At least they won't fall out of the vehicle, unlike the dummy lady did yesterday.

So remember parents, make your kids watch cartoons, they tell important life lessons that you might forget to teach them, like how to hack the cable box to get HBO.

SF City ID Card - Not quite an ID, more like a discount card

Yesterday, the City and County of San Francisco's Clerk office started the "San Francisco City ID" program which is a city/county issued identification card. It is only used for a select number of services and purposes within the city borders, and has no practical use outside of city lines, State of California (such as a driver's license), other states, federal purposes/services, and nearly all private businesses requiring ID (such as accepting checks, credit card applications, etc.).


It looks like many of the commentators of the Chronicle's website, SFgate, thinks this is a really stupid idea:

In one (really stupid) comment, this was featured on the main page of SFgate:

• User "triplx" says: "Time for me to get in line to get my ID card with a fake name so I can speed, apply for a few credit cards, etc."

Sorry "triplx" the ID can't be used for applying for credit cards. State identification cards and passports are the legal proof for applying for something like that. And even then to get a municipal ID, people still have to prove their residency in San Francisco, with such items as a passport or state ID, and a utility bill (this is a really strict list of requirements here). Fake names? Low chance. Possibly the clerk's office checks the info on a national database, and that's why they can only produce 30 ID cards a day. As for the SFgate editor who posted that comment, you DID NOT READ THE ARTICLE.

A lot of other comments from SFgate on this story loves to target illegal immigration, for example:

• User "sockmoneyed" says: "Suckers. Now they have your name and picture. I hope ICE is paying attention."

Is it always that when the city is in a financial crisis or spends too much money on projects that our citizens always uses the "illegal immigrant" or "sanctuary city" scapegoat? Doesn't seem that we blame Muni as often anymore. Can't fill all the potholes? Some idiot SFgate commenter will just blame "illegal immigrants." Geesh. Not everyone who gets a city ID is an illegal immigrant, maybe it's just for some other practical reason, such as just another piece of plastic to stuff in your wallet, or maybe just some good old fashioned San Francisco pride showing that you are a "true" San Francisco resident.


So what's the practical use of the ID card anyway? Or maybe ask the question this way, why an ID card? Here's my take on this:

I don't really believe it is an ID card, I think it's more of a membership discount card. Think of it this way, the city makes $15 for each ID produced (reduced price for kids, adults, and the poor), with homosexual marriage temporarily blocked off due to Prop. 8 (which brought income through marriage licensing), the city needs to make some money, and the card comes with all kinds of city government benefits/services, plus discounts to a large list of local merchants and businesses:

• City government services accepts the "ID" as proof of identity and residency ONLY. It doesn't prove immigration status you fools. The city issues IDs only to people who show documentation from official government sources, so that's proof of identity. Same for banks too, they require ID, Social Security number, and other documents to prove your identity. The City is just following the same standards as banks, and even the DMV. With that in mind, even people who can't get a U.S. Passport or State ID (for I'm assuming immigration status), can still use local city government services, like if you were badly hurt, and SF General Hospital only have your city ID, they can use it to find out your emergency contact so that family members can be informed.
  
• SF Public Library access. Plain and simple, live in SF, you should have the privilege of borrowing books and videos. But still, I don't really see any purpose for a city sanctioned ID for this.
• Park and Rec services. Sure, I want to rent a picnic site, don't you? This is for sure one decent reason to have the city ID because even if you are an illegal immigrant, at least you can rent a picnic site, thereby the city makes even more money on rentals. Local residents also gets discounts on accessing the city owned swimming pools too, so the city makes more money that way. Libraries don't make money, at least that's what I know.
  
• Banks and credit unions. The city ID can start the process of opening an account, but federal law requires more identification due to terrorism laws so that money isn't funneled for the bad guys. Many credit unions require proof of residency in San Francisco because that's part of their requirements/charter rules (as per Federal law), thereby the SF ID can ONLY WORK AS PROOF OF RESIDENCY IN SF. You still may need to prove with a social security card, passport, etc. to pass muster for federal policies to establish an account.
  
• Goat Hill Pizza is one of the many businesses that accepts the SF ID card for discounts. 10% off everything is not a bad deal, especially in this economy. Combine that with other local merchant discounts, and you'll save more than the price you paid for that "ID." See merchant list here.

To summarize this list, the real purpose for the San Francisco ID is to grab the cool discounts from the local merchants, because your California ID won't get you that 10% discount on pizza, will it?

Really... it's more like a membership/discount card that is good for a few years and it's cheap in price. I say, if you are hungry for food or bargains, why not get a card? This economy sucks, so a $15 investment can go a long way. Sure beats that $35 "Entertainment" discount book that's only valid for one year.


Another way to think about the SF ID card is that it is like a college ID card. The college ID can't establish immigration status, and only proves that you attend the university. The SF ID only establishes identity and residency, not immigration status.

How about I compare the benefits of a SF ID card to a college ID, say the S.F. State University ID card (OneCard)?

1. Access to government services: SF ID: yes to city government services. SFSU ID: yes, access to SFSU services (registrar, medical clinic, etc.).
2. Library services: SF ID: all SF Public libraries. SFSU ID: SFSU library only.
3. Park and Rec: SF ID: Yes. SFSU ID: Yes, access to gym, pool, weight room, etc.
4. Banks and Credit Unions: SF ID: Yes to establishing SF residency. SFSU ID: Yes to credit unions on establishing membership (membership rules also note, you don't have to live in SF, but can attend college in SF).
5. Discounts: SF ID: Yes to specific places. SFSU ID: Yes to the entire food court at Westfield San Francisco mall, and AMC movie theaters.

Even for college students who moved into San Francisco for a couple of years who don't want to mess with changing their address with the DMV, getting an SF ID establishes proof of residency in the city, even if it is only temporary. You live in our city, but have a driver's license that says otherwise? You should get the same benefits that our local residents get.


Lastly, this is for SFgate commenter gojira who commented on my previous comment on the "Gate:"
"I'm off to the SFgov website right now to download that [discount merchant] list. Those merchants won't see a dime of my patronage."

My reaction: Yeah right. One of the best bakeries in the Mission is on that list. I don't think you can resist their freshly made and delicious pastries. Also, one of the nation's newest and best museums is on that list, the California Academy of Sciences. I guess you won't go to that as well. Do yourself a favor, go f*** yourself. Tell your kids that they can't go to the museum because the SF ID is accepted, they might just break your legs with a baseball bat. "Look daddy! I was trying to hit your baseballs (testicles), but I hit your leg instead!"

When pedestrian common sense goes out the window

Scariest thing happened today. It was just about 30 minutes ago where I stopped at an intersection, looked both ways, and here comes some jogger darting across the street while my car is in motion, and luckily I hit my brakes just in time to not hit the guy.

And I'm thinking to myself... where is your common sense? He was wearing iPod earphones, jogging down the street, AND wearing a dark red sweatshirt!

Come on folks, you need to use some common sense when running, jogging, or even walking at night in the city.

1. Don't run or jog while listening to your iPod when crossing the street. Remember the Muni advertisement campaign of listening for vehicle sounds before you cross the street?
2. Wear some damn bright colors at night! That guy was wearing a very dark red shirt, and that doesn't reflect well to light. Wear at least a white colored shirt or jacket, or even better, spend a few bucks for a bright orange safety vest. $3 for a vest, or a $5,000 hospital bill? Every Halloween, the news TV folks remind kids to carry a flashlight and wear bright colors, for adults, take the message SERIOUSLY 365 days a year.
   
3. WALK across the street, don't run. That's the same as starting to cross the street when the countdown clock is ticking away, you risk getting hit when you realize you have two seconds left and you dart across the rest of the intersection. If a pedestrian darts a crosswalk, and times it perfectly with a driver who very recently scanned the crosswalk and thought it was clear, BANG! This is similar bicyclists who think it's OK to run red lights and stop signs and the car driver thinks going through the intersection is OK, and then WHAM.
   
4. Make eye contact with the driver, if you don't make eye contact, don't risk it.
5. Lastly, just don't exercise outdoors at night. It's like that Simpson's Halloween episode when Ned Flanders was doing his night fog walk and Marge hit him with the car. I hear having sex is exercise, why not stick to that? And if you are single, get a fleshlight.
   

So basically, for you pedestrians, make yourself obvious. Drivers at night makes themselves obvious by turning on their headlights (in which we may get ticketed for a burned out bulb), so why don't you pedestrians do the same by making it easier for you to spot?

As for me, my lesson is to look more carefully for stupid pedestrians.

SFO Airport Incentives for Hybrids - Bad Idea Mayor Newsom

If you did not know, San Francisco International Airport is owned by the City and County of San Francisco, even though it is situated away from city borders and next door to South San Francisco and Millbrae.

Mayor Gavin Newsom announced today (courtesy of KPIX news) that alternative fuel and hybrid vehicles rented from the airport will receive a $15 incentive. The incentive is not per day, but just a one time offer regardless of length of rental.

But reporter Jeffrey Schaub noted that while the incentive will reduce the rental cost slightly, it still costs (on average) $15 more per day to rent one of the hybrids or alternative fuel vehicles. So basically... if you rent an AFV/hybrid for more than one day, you are not getting such a bargain after all. In fact, Schaub noted that a conventional fuel vehicle after a week of renting it, you would pay $75 less than getting the AFV/hybrid.

In my opinion... what a bad idea Newsom! Here's my reasons why:

• Mayor Newsom did it too late. If he offered the incentive during the high cost of fuel prices, people would pay more attention. If you rent a car, you will drive it around the Bay Area, and you can literally fry half a tank driving from SF to San Jose (round-trip) on a conventional vehicle with average gas economy. If Newsom offered the incentive during the rise in fuel prices, visitors and business people would rent the hybrid because of it's fuel savings, and after a lot of driving, that slightly higher cost for the car rental would reduce the amount you pay at the pump.
• If you are visiting San Francisco, have hotel accommodations in downtown, and don't plan to go outside of city borders (unless if you can access BART and the ferries) you don't need a rental car. Nothing against the rental agencies; let's all remember that parking your car at at downtown hotel's parking lot will cost you PLENTY. If you plan to rent a car, find a hotel or inn with free parking or street parking (without 2-hour parking zones and meters). Areas in the Sunset and Richmond districts that have inns and hotels offer free parking and usually next to a major Muni line. Seal Rock Inn on 48th and Pt. Lobos offers free parking, and you are just steps away from the 38L, 38AX, and the 18-46th Avenue.
• Smart tourists know the ways to save money on car rentals. You just don't pick-up your car from the airport. You go to one of the rental agencies (a.k.a. "local" centers) to get your car. Go to a fancy hotel, call Enterprise, and like they say, they'll pick you up.
  
• The economy is in a terrible state and people are trying to save money as much as they can. If they can find a cheaper car (a conventional fuel vehicle) and know about it's fuel efficiency, they'll rent it and say, "no thanks" to the hybrid.

So really Mayor Newsom... this is just a PR stunt. The news report states that a representative of one of the agencies said it is a better deal if the city did not enforce this $15 incentive. It looks like the city is not forking any money, just forcing the rental agencies to discount, even though the agencies can simply raise the price $15 to spare its losses.