Re: the whole taxi thing – we’d need enough cabs for peak usage. On Geary? Fahgettaboutit!

These aren’t full track replacment projects as many might think. They are localized at intersections of heavy auto traffic (19th and Taraval, etc).

This begs the question: if automobiles cause damamge to the rail system, should not those costs be recouped through additional fees on said automobiles?

For all the popular outrage of “using parking fees to fund transit” there lies the scandal of automobiles causing fiscal damamge to the transit system. When you see a car rear end a MUNI bus, who pays for the damage to the bus?

Fixie Hipsters buying a can or 6-pack of PBR can fit a car spot,
That might otherwise have a car buying a case of Pacifico,
Or a resident car buying nothing?

I wager the first two are about even value for a local business.

Also, remember that Muni diesel buses use 20% biodiesel. While I’m not a big fan of using farmland to produce fuel (I hate,hate,hate subsidized corn going into ethanol), some of the biodiesel is from the SF Greasecycle program which diverts grease that otherwise would have gone down the drain and interfered with our sewage processing system and turns it into fuel for our bus fleet. This further reduces the net CO2 that our fleet produces.

As far as empty buses go, the bus schedule backs off considerably at night, so even if those buses tend to be emptier, there are a lot fewer of them running. Where Muni really screws up is when two buses come along in a row, the first packed to the gills, the second empty. Very annoying. Of course this is anecdotal, but of the last fifty or so times I’ve taken Muni, only once or twice were there no people standing in the aisles. The more frequent problem for me is that no bus is coming for fifteen minutes so I give up and walk the last half mile home. (All uphill, but perhaps I should thank Muni because the exercise is good for me.)

To get people out of their cars, public transit must be frequent and pleasant to use. The trick is to get utilization up while not cramming people in like sardines and making everyone miserable.

In fifty miles the taxi has used one gallon of gas (50mi/50mpg) to transport three people. Each person has just used one third of a gallon of gas (1gal/3ppl), no?

In fifty miles the bus has used 16.67 gallons of gas (50mi/3mpg) to transport about eighty people (figures are available on the MTA’s site, but their goal is about 86% of capacity and the 40ft buses hold about 100 people). Each person has just used (16.67/3) about one fifth of a gallon of gas (about 40% — 0.20/0.33 less).

Of course some buses use more gas (the 60ft buses which hold more people) and some use less (the hybrids). Some are less heavily loaded. Some are more. I’d be hard pressed to believe that a cabbie would get anywhere near 50mpg in a hybrid SUV like most of them drive.

The Escape hybrid is rated at 34mpg in the city. In fifty miles the taxi has used about one and a half gallons of gas (50mi/34mpg) to transport three people. Each person has just used about one half of a gallon of gas (1.47gal/3ppl), no? That’s twice what a person on a bus would use. What about if you’re the only person in the tax? The only person in your car that’s likely to get about 20mpg in the city? How about an SUV that’s lucky to break 12mpg city?

The lighter loaded buses mean that I can use the bus whenever – not just during rush hour, enabling me to use the rush hour bus even if my return is off hour.

Wikipedia says buses on routes in Santa Barbara average around 27 mpg per passenger under typical (9 passenger) load. In my experience buses in Santa Barbara, even in the downtown, make fewer stops (counting traffic lights) than San Francisco MUNI lines.

Electric buses do better with regenerative braking.

So you’re partially right: my comments really apply only to the diesel bus fleet.

The concept of free parking on Sunday reflects a time when there were no businesses open on Sundays, and therefore no need to regulate parking. This is clearly no longer the case. Rather than looking at extending parking meters to match demand as a penalty on drivers, the concept needs to be re-framed to reflect the benefits of this practice- outside of additional revenue- higher parking turnover in busy areas, resulting in more parking for those willing to pay for it.

You are very much mistaken. Perhaps you are unaware that “Muni” means all street cars and buses in the city, not just the buses. Furthermore, fully half of the MUNI transit system is electric with the electricity supplied by Hetch Hetchy hydroelectric. (Perhaps you haven’t noticed all the overhead wires that many bus lines travel connected to?) While there are certainly arguments that the Hetch Hetchy valley shouldn’t have been dammed 80-some years ago, it is where we get our drinking water and provides San Francisco public entities with power. So please calculate that there are zero carbon emissions for half the Muni system. Only bicycles and walking beat it. Your taxi example does not.

For the other half of MUNI–the diesel buses–check out the charts here:

http://www.sightline.org/maps/charts/climate-CO2byMode

Pounds of CO2 per passenger mile
SUV (solo driver) 1.6
Car (solo driver) 1.2
Diesel bus (1/4th full) .8
Prius (solo driver) .6
Diesel bus (3/4th full) .3

I realize there are a scattering of Prius taxis around, but in general hybrid SUVs don’t do much better than the average car and must be considered as such CO2-wise. Even if you put three passengers in the average taxi, it doesn’t beat a diesel bus 3/4th full. (A Prius taxi with two passengers would equal a 3/4th full diesel bus.)

Now I don’t argue that taking the occasional taxi is better than owning car. But the emissions of your taxi are very likely worse than even a 1/4th full bus, and that doesn’t count the emissions created when the taxi roams the streets looking for fares. In addition there is no way the taxis of San Francisco could come anywhere near to transporting half a million people day. Furthermore if Muni didn’t exist, no one would get anywhere at all because gridlock would result. Muni reduces our congestion, improves our air quality, and reduces our city’s carbon emissions, giving future generations at least a slim chance at a tenable future. It fully deserves your support.

The whole bus infrastructure is, as it has always been, wrong. It was used as an excuse to rip up a far more extensive network of street rail. There’s nothing green about MUNI other than the budget.

(a) The Agency shall manage the functions of the Department of Parking and Traffic
so that the department:

1. Provides priority to transit services in the utilization of streets, particularly during commute hours;

If you ask me, that pretty much says – if it’s MUNI or parking, parking takes it on the chin. That hasn’t been the case at all. And someone needs to say to Newsom’s face that the Oakland situation does not apply here cause I’m sure the Chron reporter didn’t say anything, probably just nodded and got back into her car.

Can we get a call back from the reality-based community before we stumble blindly down the same path?

The Mayor needs to believe that if these service cuts go through, there will be half a million upset Muni riders that will pale in comparison to the Oakland “revolt.” I sent my letter to him. Please call, email or send yours ASAP.