Comments on: Where is the MTA Board’s Leadership on the Budget Crisis? http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/04/22/where-is-the-mta-boards-leadership-on-the-budget-crisis/ Covering San Francisco's livable streets movement Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:15:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: MPetrelis http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/04/22/where-is-the-mta-boards-leadership-on-the-budget-crisis/comment-page-1/#comment-10071 MPetrelis Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:23:51 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1996#comment-10071 i'm trying to determine an estimate for how many hours a week tom nolan and other board members put in, carrying out their official SFMTA duties. do you have such an estimate? i’m trying to determine an estimate for how many hours a week tom nolan and other board members put in, carrying out their official SFMTA duties. do you have such an estimate?

]]> By: Jamison Wieser http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/04/22/where-is-the-mta-boards-leadership-on-the-budget-crisis/comment-page-1/#comment-4919 Jamison Wieser Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:21:42 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1996#comment-4919 We have negatives with the current appointment system, I worry that in reaction we'd go to another extreme and the conversation will become polarized. I'm very curious about how different arrangements have worked out. The LAMTA has adjusted their board makeup at least once since the merger, but I also find them appealing because they put a strong emphasis on customer service and the customer experience and seem willing to make the expensive investments up front that take a while to pay off. Just look at any of the Streetfilms about LA, but that board setup may not be the right one for us. We have negatives with the current appointment system, I worry that in reaction we’d go to another extreme and the conversation will become polarized.

I’m very curious about how different arrangements have worked out. The LAMTA has adjusted their board makeup at least once since the merger, but I also find them appealing because they put a strong emphasis on customer service and the customer experience and seem willing to make the expensive investments up front that take a while to pay off. Just look at any of the Streetfilms about LA, but that board setup may not be the right one for us.

]]> By: rzu http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/04/22/where-is-the-mta-boards-leadership-on-the-budget-crisis/comment-page-1/#comment-4916 rzu Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:16:41 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1996#comment-4916 I agree that there are a lot of potential negatives with an elected board. All I'm saying is that the current set up is not working particularly well and we need to start talking alternatives. I agree that there are a lot of potential negatives with an elected board. All I’m saying is that the current set up is not working particularly well and we need to start talking alternatives.

]]> By: Jamison Wieser http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/04/22/where-is-the-mta-boards-leadership-on-the-budget-crisis/comment-page-1/#comment-4908 Jamison Wieser Thu, 23 Apr 2009 06:29:56 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1996#comment-4908 So before this talk of electing the MTA board goes too far, there are alternatives that combine elections and appointments. In New York, the MTA board has several non-voting members including the Citizens Advisory Council and label. Down south, Los Angeles' MTA board is made up of 14 members including 5 members of the board of supervisors, the LA city mayor, 2 LA city council members, 4 representatives selected from different sectors of the county excluding the city of LA itself, and one non-voting member appointed by the governor. They also make $150 pre meeting, but have also merged their funding authority with the transit agency to cut out a lot of wasted time, energy and money taken in the back and forth. Here, the SFMTA is separate from the County Transit Authority (CTA, or TA, our <i>other</i> transit agency) which has a board made up of the SF board of Supervisors and takes away a lot of funding that could go to Muni and f MTA projects like the bike program in order to fund their own projects (like Geary and Van Ness BRT, those endless studies of Market Street, etc.) or the money just gets sucked up by all the time, staff, outside consultants, and all the other resources it takes on both sides to actually get the money directed to the SFMTA to them. So before this talk of electing the MTA board goes too far, there are alternatives that combine elections and appointments. In New York, the MTA board has several non-voting members including the Citizens Advisory Council and label.

Down south, Los Angeles’ MTA board is made up of 14 members including 5 members of the board of supervisors, the LA city mayor, 2 LA city council members, 4 representatives selected from different sectors of the county excluding the city of LA itself, and one non-voting member appointed by the governor. They also make $150 pre meeting, but have also merged their funding authority with the transit agency to cut out a lot of wasted time, energy and money taken in the back and forth.

Here, the SFMTA is separate from the County Transit Authority (CTA, or TA, our other transit agency) which has a board made up of the SF board of Supervisors and takes away a lot of funding that could go to Muni and f MTA projects like the bike program in order to fund their own projects (like Geary and Van Ness BRT, those endless studies of Market Street, etc.) or the money just gets sucked up by all the time, staff, outside consultants, and all the other resources it takes on both sides to actually get the money directed to the SFMTA to them.

]]> By: marcos http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/04/22/where-is-the-mta-boards-leadership-on-the-budget-crisis/comment-page-1/#comment-4899 marcos Thu, 23 Apr 2009 01:23:21 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1996#comment-4899 Progressives are good at winning district supervisor elections in progressive districts with good candidates. Some progressives and environmentalists are good at winning citywide ballot measure campaigns sometimes. Any ballot measure needs to be well thought out beforehand and have a substantial coalition behind it with a proven track record of winning elections. Cobbling crap together during the contrived Charter Amendment process that gave us Prop A is not a good idea if we want to win. IIRC Prop A started at 55% +-2.5% and ended up at 55% with no significant campaign against it. -marc Progressives are good at winning district supervisor elections in progressive districts with good candidates.

Some progressives and environmentalists are good at winning citywide ballot measure campaigns sometimes.

Any ballot measure needs to be well thought out beforehand and have a substantial coalition behind it with a proven track record of winning elections.

Cobbling crap together during the contrived Charter Amendment process that gave us Prop A is not a good idea if we want to win.

IIRC Prop A started at 55% +-2.5% and ended up at 55% with no significant campaign against it.

-marc

]]> By: rzu http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/04/22/where-is-the-mta-boards-leadership-on-the-budget-crisis/comment-page-1/#comment-4896 rzu Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:08:32 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1996#comment-4896 You are right that the MTA board is no stranger to the issues of underfunded transit. Unfortunately, the so-called "Blue Ribbon" panel that the mayor convened way back in 2007 to examine MUNI's funding problems failed to come up with any solutions. In fact, they did little other than take options that were politically unpalatable to the mayor's allies off the table. I attended a few of the panel's meetings toward the end of their process and was appaled by the lack of vision. I wrote this article about it over a year ago and am sad to see that little has changed: http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=5458 Except one thing ... amid the balloning city-wide (indeed state- and nation-wide as well) budget crisis, activists have lost their focus on MUNI issues and have been unable to articulate a way forward independent of the MTA. The idea of an elected MTA body is a good one, as activists seem to be better at focusing on winning elections, and an elected body is much easier to keep accountable. You are right that the MTA board is no stranger to the issues of underfunded transit. Unfortunately, the so-called “Blue Ribbon” panel that the mayor convened way back in 2007 to examine MUNI’s funding problems failed to come up with any solutions. In fact, they did little other than take options that were politically unpalatable to the mayor’s allies off the table.

I attended a few of the panel’s meetings toward the end of their process and was appaled by the lack of vision. I wrote this article about it over a year ago and am sad to see that little has changed:

http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=5458

Except one thing … amid the balloning city-wide (indeed state- and nation-wide as well) budget crisis, activists have lost their focus on MUNI issues and have been unable to articulate a way forward independent of the MTA. The idea of an elected MTA body is a good one, as activists seem to be better at focusing on winning elections, and an elected body is much easier to keep accountable.

]]>