We intended to enjoy the day at Fisherman’s Wharf. It was Sunday, and we parked in front of a meter. The meter had no instructions on it. No indication of the fee, no information about a card, No mention of weekends or holidays. NO INFORMATION PERIOD. WTF?!?! Every other meter on the block was flashing expired. We had no idea whether or not to put money in, and if we did, how much? So, we assumed that like other states, weekends might be exempt.

We were treated to a $55 ticket, which is absolutely criminal on your part. But wait! That’s not all. We just received a little note from you a-holes that you already sent it to collections and for some reason, you feel you are entitled to another $30 for your trouble. Really, collections? In 30 days? Good God… I weep for your miserable souls. Such dutiful effort on your part… Such devotion to duty…
(lord, I’m about to tear up on your behalf).

What a bunch of crooks! You are worse then NYC. (or maybe as bad as…)

For a city that whines about being green so much, you sure waste a lot of paper.

Here are just some of the ways cars are subsidized:

The gas tax does not completely pay for the Interstate Highway System (only about 70%), so funds are transfered from the general fund. The IHS is not being properly maintened, so even though it is mostly funded with the gas tax, it would be massively underfunded if fully maintained.
The IHS is only about a quarter of the National Highway System (although IHS roads have more lanes than NHS), which is, as far as I can tell, from general funds.
Local roads are generally funded by property taxes (i.e. even if you don’t own a car, you pay for roads)
We pay police to enforce the rules for drivers.
We pay Caltrans to clear accidents.
We pay emergency response to help people in accidents.
We pay to have the mess left behind by accidents cleaned up.
Cars kill about 40,000 people a year and injur millions a year, some of whom have no insurance or are under insured, so we pay for their medical care.
Cars pollute the air, water & soil, so we pay for the cleanup of such pollution.

Those are just some of the subsidies that drivers receive.

Now I don’t think cars are evil, or that nobody should drive. Cars are very useful for some tasks, but they also have a downside that most people either ignore, or are completely unaware of. I think drivers should pay their fair share of the costs involved in using these vehicles. I also don’t think we should orient our entire society around the car.

It strikes me as ridiculous to say that the city is “endlessly fleec[ing] private individuals” right after you say that there is “no free lunch” for renters. You cannot own street parking–only rent it. It really looks to me like those rents should go up. Autos are heavily subsidized already (how much do you think a gallon of gas really costs). We should all pay our FAIR share.

I’m not anti-car, I’m just anti-destroy everything to make way for the car. Cars need to pay more to park. Simple as that. Plus it will help with turn over for local businesses increasing sales.

And, one way or another, the costs of them gets passed onto renters, either directly via a pass-thru in the proposal itself. Or indirectly, through higher rents. Any renter who thinks he is getting “something for nothing” is deluded. There’s no free lunch.

And if you have been following the last couple of years, property values have been very volatile, in a downward direction. So homeowners are asking for downward assessments. Or being forced to sell at lower prices. Either way, the property tax take declines – in Oakland it has become critical.

Jospeph, “Transit First” does not mean “Transit Only”. It means that, when other things being equal, you favor transit. It doesn’t mean you can endlessly fleece private individuals to bail out those who use muni. We need to support ALL modes of transportation including private vehicle use. The pro-muni crowd get the least sympathy from me when they are blatantly anti-car. The bike crowd have already gone down that sad route and lost my support.

Does that funding even currently exist? Funny if the injunction were to end, but there was no money to build it out.

We have a problem because the state has raided transit funds for the last 3 years. They have been charge by the courts to return those funds, but it’ll never happen because it probably went to building a prison somewhere. Hopefully, the gov doesn’t get his way and the legislature stops his attempt to swap out the gas tax.

And a parcel tax would pass because, let’s face it, most people in SF rent so don’t kid yourself JohnB. And if we really wanted it to pass, we could just say that it’ll also help continue the funneling of money to the police and fire. Everyone loves to fund those guys.

I was going to say earlier and forgot, John Murphy, want to make a guess at the next ploy they’ll use to pass through more cuts? First, F-line. Second, SYD fare increase. Third, Transfer charge. Fourth? A surcharge for an aisle seat?

Any law-oriented people out there want to speculate whether there are grounds to sue the City regarding its deviance from the Transit First Policy in the City Charter? Is there a precedent for lawsuits with respect to deviance from policies?

The SFMTA has struggled with “difficult choices” in the recent budget processes. These choices should not be so “difficult” when you have a Transit First Policy since the 70s.

Our elected leaders seem more interested in playing the political game than following City policy and I think in this case, if possible, they should be shown that there are consequences. Clearly no lawyer here, but I’m getting frustrated.

All forms of taxation fluctuate and fall in times of recession. That is why CA is suffering so much right now. There is no way around that. I agree a 1/2 percent sales tax would be horrendous but I also think there is zero chance of the voters approving that. Ditto for a parcel tax.

I think you are right that transit funding issues are just one example of the more general public sector deficits we have at the Federal, State and Local levels. We are in a general funding crisis. And “taxing the rich” isn’t going to solve that, no matter how well it plays with certain sF activists.

You can not continue to attack the TWU without looking at the police and fire unions. This getting to be a really bad joke. The MTA is subsidizing the police budget at the cost of providing the service they are charged with. The police and fire unions are much much more ruthless then the TWU. Yes, work rule changes need to occur, but you are beating a dead horse. Let’s talk about revenue sources.

Speaking of, I don’t like another increase to the sales tax because it fluctuates way too much. One reason our state is in dire financial straights is because we rely on sales and pay roll tax to fund our gov’t. Both are extremely volatile during times of recession.

Although, whatever it is, I’m pretty sure I don’t like it.

Peter S, residents parking fees have increased massively in the last few years. Muni already gets more money from parking than it does from operations. At some point, it needs to be able to fund itself and not gorge on the backs of those residents who don’t use it.

The one thing not on the agenda that should be is a rollback of operator pay and benefits. For as long as that is out of control, we will have this problem every year.

Aside from weather, let’s consider the threat of drunk driving in party-prone SF. If you ever needed more than 1 taxi ride in a year, that’s the $ premium worth paying on your resident car to keep MUNI there (and the drunks out of their cars) after midnight. Hey, those drunks might even be you and I!

How about a $100 fast pass and get it over with? That seems to be the direction they are going in. Who cares about the ridership.

*With an acceptable ‘loss’ rate. All systems have loss, just ask any retailer.

It seems to me that there are two valid approaches to fare control:

1. Technology:

Translink approach, with a digital timestamp for free transfers (within 30 minutes, for example), and deducting $ if the rider is late. In fairness to the reality of MUNI service, either the driver or a central system operator could electronically authorize an extension to the ‘free’ ride at the point of entry to that vehicle.

As for the equity issue for poorer riders, either set up a parallel Translink card that is visually and electronically distinctive for students, mobility-challenged, fixed income, etc. OR do away with a parallel reduced fare schedule completely and reconcile the fare difference and send monthly reimbursements to the registered Translink rider (their riding data could be collected by the systems).

2. Keeping What Works, Scrap the Rest:

MUNI is an open system, and the digital approach needs an effective way to mark riders exiting the system without a lot of leak or error. Instead, keep a high single-ride fare for all trips, and a fixed set of discount-rate passes for time (1 day, 3 day, 1 week, 1 month) & rider type (student, fixed income, etc.). Scrap free transfers for single-ride fares, and build the incentive towards buying the day(s) passes instead. Increase their availability with registered merchants.

Elsewhere around the world, Copenhagen has had great success with their 100% vehicle licence fee. Yes, 100%. An additional 0.85% is easily worth it compared to further reducing service or eliminating transfers.

Did I miss this in the pdf?

Yes, JohnB is John. I changed it because I was being confused with JohnM

An annual fastpass is used in various other cities. People fund it as long as it gives them a decent discount. But you’d need photo id with it.

JohnM, I might be more willing to consider cross-subsidies for muni IF the pay and benefit of muni operators was not so outrageous. But as it is, I want to see employee concessions before either fare increases or cross-subsidies. If we bail out muni once more, you and I just know that they will be back next year for even more money