Maybe the next structural reform of the MTA ought to include mandatory standardized testing on the language of the Charter:

"New transportation investment should be allocated to meet the demand for:
(a)Private autos
(b)MTA board members
(c)public transit"

The answer is always (c)

And, of course, my favorite from the Charter:

SEC. 8A.109. ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF REVENUE.

(a) To the extent allowed by law, the Board of Supervisors may, by ordinance, dedicate to the Agency revenues from sources such as gas taxes, motor vehicle licensing taxes or other available motor vehicle-related revenue sources.

(b) The Mayor, the Board of Supervisors, and the Agency diligently shall seek to develop new sources of funding for the Agency's operations, including sources of funding dedicated to the support of such operations, which can be used to supplement or replace that portion of the Municipal Transportation Fund consisting of appropriations from the General Fund of the City and County. Unless prohibited by preemptive state law, the Agency may submit any proposal for increased or reallocated funding to support all or a portion of the operations of the Agency, including, without limitation, a tax or special assessment directly to the electorate for approval, or to the owners of property or businesses to be specially assessed, or to any other persons or entities whose approval may be legally required, without the further approval of the Mayor or the Board of Supervisors. The Agency shall be authorized to conduct any necessary studies in connection with considering, developing, or proposing such revenue sources.

-marc

This comes up again and again and is rarely pointed out, thank you Mr. Radulovich.

It's extremely frustrating (if not surprising) that this debate has been so skewed toward the interests of motorists. Our City Charter mandates that decisions like these be made in the interests of pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders, not cars (Section 8A.115):

"7. Parking policies for areas well served by public transit shall be designed to encourage travel by public transit and alternative transportation.

8. New transportation investment should be allocated to meet the demand for public transit generated by new public and private commercial and residential developments.

9. The ability of the City and County to reduce traffic congestion depends on the adequacy of regional public transportation. The City and County shall promote the use of regional mass transit and the continued development of an integrated, reliable, regional public transportation system."

The Charter is analogous to our Constitution as a city. This decision has already been made, it ought not to be a matter of finding the political will to touch the 'third rail.'

The current budget is in violation of the City Charter, and the Supes must reject it.

Alas, Supervisor Dufty brought little but tortured logic to the discussion. Our historic lack of investment in public transit has left us far behind our more urbane European (and Asian) peers. His solution? Promote an MTA budget that further disinvests in public transit. Whatever, Bevan...

Sounds like the Chamber of Commerce already read Donald Shoup.

@Marcos: I'll buy you a round of drinks if we see an MOA before this budget comes up for a vote. I just don't see it happening. . .

That's one of the major problems with places like Polk Gulch, the Haight, and the Mission. People get off work, get home at 6 or 8, and dump their cars in metered spaces. Meanwhile, no one who wants to go to a restaurant or club can find parking. It's one of the reasons the Haight is so derelict at night.

8 PM would be a good start. 10 PM would be better. Both would massively decrease congestion while also being good for business.

Although I'd also like to see it implemented with sensitivity to local parking conditions; I hope Ford's ready to take on that issue.

Since there may be local bus funding, including including operating expenses from the DOT, and since it's possible for Pelosi to introduce an omnibus public transit bailout bill, do you think our sometimes crack supervisors have done all they can to protect the public trust or are they taking us for a little ride?
Call them and tell them to reject the Muni budget when it comes up next Wednesday essentially preserving the status quo.

Why should Chiu be expected to keep to a deal when the Mayor did not? One might conclude from this that the Mayor had no intention of keeping his end of the deal and was waiting to run out the clock.

The Board should simply dispense with the SFPD work order nonsense and use those millions to keep fares down by $0.25.

-marc