Photo: Anomalous_A/Flickr

Improving transit by changing financing, fares, speeds, metrics, territory and maps.

[Editor's note: This article is re-published with permission from the transit-themed March issue of The Urbanist, the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association's (SPUR) monthly member magazine. The article, written by SPUR Regional Planning Director Egon Terplan, is based on a discussion paper developed by the SPUR Transportation Policy Board. Read the full paper at spur.org/tsp.]

Every day, Bay Area residents and visitors take more than 1.4 million trips on one of 27 different public transit operators. But for more than a decade, the costs to operate these transit systems have been increasing far faster than any improvements in the service. Unless we make changes now, the system will not be sustainable in the future.

Regionwide, transit carries one in ten people to work. It costs more than $2.2 billion to run these 27 transit systems each year. More than $700 million comes from fares and $1.5 billion is a direct subsidy from a hodgepodge of sources (sales taxes, federal funds, state gas tax revenues). By looking out to 2035, these systems will face a combined $17 billion capital deficit and an $8 billion operating deficit.

In recent years, the costs of running these transit systems have increased far faster than inflation, even as ridership on some bus systems has declined. About 14,000 people work full time for the region’s public transit systems. Wages and fringe benefits account for more than three-quarters of the operating and maintenance costs of transit, and the cost of fringe benefits in particular is rising fast. At the same time, budget shortfalls, unpredictable revenues and service cuts are degrading the quality of public transportation. Transit systems face competition from an underpriced alternative — driving — and often operate in low-density and auto-oriented environments that are not conducive to growing ridership.

Unless there is some change to costs and revenues, with corresponding improvements in service, the viability of transit in the Bay Area is at risk. Recognizing this looming crisis, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the regional agency that funds transportation, launched the Transit Sustainability Project (TSP).

At its most basic level, the goal of the TSP is to highlight the challenges facing Bay Area transit and propose solutions. The fixes would include controlling the rapidly rising cost of running the Bay Area’s buses and trains as well as restructuring the types of service offered. In short, the Bay Area cannot remain economically competitive, nor meet its goals of cutting greenhouse gas emissions, without a transit system that does a better job of getting people where they need to go in a cost-effective and efficient manner. Much of our new investment in transit is quite simply not resulting in better service. This has to change.

SPUR interprets the key findings of the TSP report and offers six suggestions for how to save our transit system.

What Does the Transit Sustainability Project Tell Us About Bay Area Transit?

The TSP made four important findings about cost and service delivery of Bay Area transit.

• Finding 1: Costs are increasing faster than inflation

While inflation increased by 39% from 1996 to 2010, unit costs (the cost to operate a transit vehicle for one hour) grew by more than double that for Muni, SamTrans, Golden Gate and AC Transit and faster than inflation for all other major transit operators except Caltrain.

Unit costs — what it costs to operate a bus or train for one hour — are increasing at almost twice the rate of inflation for most operators (See Fig. 1). In the 14-year period from 1996 to 2010, Muni’s diesel bus unit costs increased from $92 to about $170 (an 86 percent increase). Over that time period, Muni’s trolley costs increased from $73 to $155 (a 111 percent increase). By way of comparison, the consumer price index (CPI)increased only 39 percent during this period. Among Bay Area transit operators, only Caltrain’s unit costs were lower (20 percent). Almost all of these unit cost increases are attributable to ineffective management. Among the most striking causes of cost increase are soaring pension and retirement costs, increases in health care premiums, and work rules that negatively affect productivity but do little to improve the working environment.

If costs had grown in line with inflation, Muni would now have an extra $156 million per year, AC Transit $86 million and SamTrans $30 million. These savings equate to as much as one-fifth of the entire operating budget. There is no way to maintain a viable regional transit system without greater control of this cost inflation.

• Finding 2: Increases in productivity are not sufficient to match cost increases

This chart reflects the overall trend that ridership and service are not keeping pace with costs.

Increases in unit cost are not compensated by corresponding increases in productivity (measured in total passengers, passengers per hour or passengers per mile). In fact, in many cases — passengers per hour, for example — productivity has declined. The productivity trends also reflect real and difficult decisions facing agencies. For several agencies, the rise in costs and decline in ridership reflect policy decisions to continue very slow service in neighborhoods and put little priority on suburban arterials. Overall, this results in slower services carrying fewer people per hour of service.

• Finding 3: Transit speeds are declining, which further exacerbates cost and productivity issues

As the cost to provide an hour of service has increased, the number of miles that hour can deliver (and the number of trips a bus can make in a day) has declined. Traffic congestion results in either service decreases or more costly service.

Among regional operators, Muni averages 8 miles per hour (8.6 for diesel buses and 6.6 for trolley coaches), AC Transit 10 miles per hour, SamTrans 12 and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) 14. Over the last 15 years, speeds have dropped about seven percent. If the Muni trolley coach system’s average speed increased by just one mile per hour, Muni would save about $19 million dollars annually without any service decrease, just by making the buses go faster.

Operating buses and light rail in mixed traffic means that traffic increases and congestion have very real impacts on transit speeds. And slower service means less service or significant increases in costs to maintain the same service.

If an entire bus route normally takes 40 minutes and slows to 44 minutes, it means a single operator can only make 10 one-way trips a day instead of 11. So in order to maintain the same level of service, the agency must put additional buses on the road, which increases costs. It will be difficult to either increase service or hold operating costs steady if transit speeds continue to slow.

• Finding 4: There is no single factor causing these inefficiencies in transit operations

Many parties are responsible for the inefficiency of local transit operations. Transit agencies have not done enough to control the rise in unit costs. Recent contract negotiations at AC Transit (and to a lesser extent Muni) reflect partial savings. But the agencies argue they are not likely to achieve such savings in the near term. Cities too often harm transit by not giving sufficient dedicated space in the streets for buses to operate efficiently. Finally, funding agencies select poor transit investments, which also harms transit efficiencies over time.

Six Ways to Fix Bay Area Transit

Having taken on a study of the issues with the TSP, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission should now take ownership over implementing many of the good ideas to come out of the process. The following suggestions show how to fix transit by improving funding, speeds, fares, competition, information and maps.

• 1. Change the funding of transit operations from guaranteed revenue to incentive pay for more riders

Transit operations should be funded in ways that create an incentive for adding riders, as well as for making the most cost-effective improvements. For example, if the MTC offered to pay transit operators a $1 incentive (or bounty) per new rider, an agency that increased ridership by 1 million trips in a year would get an additional $1 million from the MTC. This would encourage transit operators to consider the immediate impact on ridership when allocating service.

• 2. Establish a regional fare policy that does not penalize customers who transfer between systems

By shifting from a guaranteed funding stream to a bounty paid by the MTC, operators will have a direct financial incentive to increase ridership. Growing ridership is one of the key goals for improving Bay Area transit.

When passengers transfer between BART or Caltrain and a local bus, they almost always pay two fares (there are a few exceptions, such as free transfers from Caltrain to Muni). In general, bus systems have little financial incentive to coordinate schedules with train systems. And the rail systems have no requirement to help pay for the local bus systems, even though they are getting additional riders and fares from these bus systems. This doesn’t make sense. The Bay Area needs a regional fare policy. This is complicated but certainly possible to implement with the Clipper Card as it is rolled out to all agencies. One approach would be for regional rail agencies like BART and Caltrain to pay a bounty to the local operators who deliver passengers to their systems. For example, if a passenger takes a local bus from Martinez to the Concord BART station, BART should share some of the paid fare with County Connection, the local operator. The end result could be better service to passengers, because the local agencies will benefit if they do the right thing — like coordinate schedules, adopt reasonable transfer tariffs and extend their hours of service.

• 3. Establish a new regional capital investment program that invests in speed improvements on key transit corridors

Improving transit speed and service requires investments in things like dedicated lanes for buses, signal priority and other operational improvements. When streets are designed for auto speeds, transit suffers and costs go up. MTC is already proposing a new $30 million pilot program for prioritizing transit on existing city streets to speed service. This annual program is a good start and should be expanded.

• 4. Create a tenured, independent regional transit analysis office to collect and distribute objective information and performance metrics

Just as we have a legislative analyst in Sacramento and San Francisco, we need an independent transit analysis office to both improve the public’s comprehension of the challenges facing transit systems and provide transit operators with clearer information on how and where their particular system should improve. There is already a lot of transit information out there. But there is no office with tenure and structural improving Bay Area transit.

• 5. Allow transit operators to pick up and drop off passengers within each others’ service territories

Today, transit bus operators all have distinct service territories. These territories are monopolies to the extent that one operator cannot pick up or drop off passengers in a territory controlled by another. Operators should be able to pick up and drop off passengers in each other’s service territories. (This would, however, require changes to state law.)

• 6. Produce a single transit map for the Bay Area and move toward common branding

While merging many of the Bay Area’s transit systems is impractical and not likely to achieve significant cost savings, making the entire region feel more like a single system could achieve many of the same results. The Clipper card is one step in the right direction. Creating a single transit map for the region would be another. A further step would be to move toward common marketing and branding. This approach has been taken in Melbourne, Australia, where there are numerous transit operators but the public face of transit is a single brand: Metlink.

What’s Next for Transit?

Bay Area transit systems, while operated separately, are owned by the same shareholders: the people. That simple fact should make improving transit for its owners (i.e., its customers) a top priority. To get the Bay Area’s $1.5 billion in annual transit system investments to produce better results requires much more transparency and direct and accountable financial incentives. These are not revolutionary concepts — in fact, they are the basis of all democratic systems. The system will not get better on its own. It will start to unravel unless we make needed changes. A better and sustainable transit system for the region will make a better Bay Area.

New York City's Prospect Park West parking-protected bike path. Photo copyright Dmitry Gudkov

New York City has raised the bar in recent years for rolling out bicycle improvements and reclaiming public space from automobiles. While San Franciscans have come to expect major delays for bike projects as the norm in their city, New York, the only American city more dense than SF, has zoomed ahead by adding roughly 20 miles of protected bike lanes since 2007, with more on the way. After each new NYC bikeway is built, injuries to all users decline and bicycling increases along the corridor.

How can San Francisco emulate New York’s success? In short: San Francisco’s public officials need to exert bold leadership to hasten a painstakingly slow planning process intended not so much to achieve specific goals, but to avoid rocking the boat. That was the general sentiment at a recent forum where local bike advocates popped questions at Paul Steely White, the executive director of Transportation Alternatives, New York’s leading advocacy organization for bicycling, walking, and transit.

“New York’s success, tenaciousness, vision, and drive have been guiding the way for other American cities,” San Francisco Bicycle Coalition (SFBC) Executive Director Leah Shahum told an audience at the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association last Thursday, where she and White discussed the state of the bicycling movement in the two cities.

“We all know that we talk about Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Berlin, and Barcelona as being these wonderful bicycling cities, and many getting better and better, but [with] that European model, you really lose people,” said Shahum. ”To have a great American city guiding the way in being a great bicycling space, and really reclaiming space from the automobile and creating public space for people, frankly, is making our job a lot easier in San Francisco.”

NYC DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan has earned a reputation for pursuing groundbreaking projects like the two-way bikeway on Prospect Park West, which produced major benefits and, despite high-profile resistance from a small group of politically-connected NIMBYs, has been largely embraced by the public.

“We’ve been very lucky to have such great leadership that has managed, nevertheless, to involve communities and be very democratic while at the same time acting swiftly and decisively to implement safer streets,” said White. “I think one way to cut through the red tape, and maybe some of the needless process, is to appeal to safety, and say that every day that a street goes without pedestrian or bike infrastructure is putting people in danger.”

“There’s enough data now to show that it’s simply inhumane not to add bike lanes and pedestrian infrastructure when there’s an opportunity,” he added.

One of the main barriers preventing San Francisco from experiencing the same “impressive explosion” of visible change, said Shahum, is that SF transportation officials and politicians like Mayor Ed Lee haven’t been as willing to commit to completing bike projects, and that New York planners don’t have “to go through as much process as we do in San Francisco.”

Mayor Ed Lee shows up to the press events, but how long will he let San Francisco fall behind on improving safety on its streets? Photo: Bryan Goebel

San Francisco’s “consensus-democracy style” is “fantastic,” Shahum said, eliciting some appreciative chuckles in the audience. “But it slows things down quite a bit.”

In the SFMTA’s most recent bikeway project delay on three critical blocks of Fell and Oak Streets, the agency abandoned their initial approach — building it as a trial project that staff said could be implemented within a year (by this June). Instead, they tried to appease car owners upset over the loss of 80 curbside car parking spots, adding nearly a year to the project timeline (construction has since been moved up to next winter). In NYC, protected bike lanes on some corridors have re-purposed hundreds of on-street parking spaces without replacing a single one. While NYC DOT has looked to offset the parking loss for some bike projects, the agency has never delayed a safety project solely to blunt complaints from car owners.

New York’s leaders have shown that progress ultimately depends on the willingness of transportation officials and politicians to stand behind the proven safety and mobility benefits of improvements like protected bike lanes. ”The leadership they have at the Department of Transportation and the higher level of political leadership has meant they have been able to move faster,” said Shahum.

While San Francisco’s leaders haven’t stepped up for safer streets in the same way New York’s have, it’s not for any lack of popularity with the public. The SFBC has recently touted its findings that 7 in 10 San Franciscans rode a bike in 2009, and the SFMTA announced last month that bicycling rates have jumped 71 percent in the last five years. Comparing membership rates alone, White pointed out that San Francisco’s bicycling movement is actually larger than New York’s — in fact, the SFBC has more members than Transportation Alternatives, despite New York being 10 times bigger.

San Francisco also has the advantage of a driving culture that’s more respectful towards bicyclists than New York’s, said White.

“I’m jealous of the humanity that I see here in your ‘little seaside village,’” remarked White, adopting a characterization proffered by Jeffrey Tumlin, the forum’s moderator. “It looks like sort of Portland and New York together here, in a way.”

Demonstrating existing community support and the documented benefits of street improvements, White said, has been a successful strategy for Transportation Alternatives in dispelling myths about street redesigns. To counter opposition spouting doomsday predictions of traffic congestion, failing businesses, and increased danger, TA has promoted findings that bikeway projects in New York have consistently made streets safer for all users, with decreases in traffic injuries as high as 56 percent.

“Our job at TA has increasingly been to show that that support exists, going out there, collecting letters, collecting signatures, convincing the politicians to stand up and be vocal, getting positive media for them,” said White. “Because of initiatives like this, we are seeing a new generation of these protected lanes and other facilities expanded into new neighborhoods.”

The SFBC has employed a similar tactic, promoting findings like the demonstrated boon for bicycling and transit speeds on Market Street since the SFMTA began diverting car traffic off the street and painted the city’s first physically-separated bike lane.

San Francisco planners often point to bureaucratic obstacles and a lack of street space as barriers to street improvements, but White said such excuses were ultimately shown to be invalid in New York. A major lesson advocates there have learned, he said, is “not taking ‘No’ for an answer.”

“One thing that Jan Gehl said when he came to New York, because we were throwing up all the reasons why we had heard we couldn’t do what they did in Copenhagen, or Paris or wherever — he says, ‘What the hell are you talking about? You have these enormous, wide streets,’” said White.

In San Francisco, he pointed out, the streets are even wider.

“I come here, and see all this real estate,” he said.

The SFMTA has released a preliminary map of potential bike-share station locations (H/T Cyclelicious for inputting them into Google).

San Franciscans are burning with curiosity about the imminent arrival of bike share this summer. At a forum held by the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Center yesterday, participants wanted to know details like where the stations will be located and what color the bikes will be.

Officials working on the project say they can’t provide answers until the vendor is selected (expected by April), but Cyclelicious provides an early map of stations proposed by the SFMTA. Project manager Heath Maddox said that while the pilot’s 50 downtown stations won’t serve as wide an area as the world’s leading systems, the stations will be close enough together to achieve a similar “blanket-style” coverage within the service zone.

“The most important thing is to have a density of coverage that works,” Maddox told Streetsblog after the presentation [PDF] yesterday. “The regional system is really set up — and it makes sense — to be the first and last mile for regional transit, but the nature of what we’re doing in San Francisco is very different. It’ll be [for] anybody and everybody who wants to make a short trip via bicycle.”

Maddox said the station proposals are still very premature, and that the SFMTA will collect feedback on them through public hearings, an online map, and a possible town hall-style meeting.

As far as the potential for expansion after the pilot, planners couldn’t say much, but Maddox did present a citywide map of areas that are “ripe” for bike share, mainly featuring transit-accessible commercial corridors. Karen Schkolnick, the program manager for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, said planners hope to use the information gathered from the regional 1,000-bike pilot to develop a ”seamless transition to the next system.”

Crossing the Bay from SPUR on Vimeo.

SPUR has produced a new video that asks: How will 1.7 million more people cross the Bay? From the SPUR blog:

In the last century, visionary planners made major investments linking San Francisco and the East Bay. When the 20th century dawned, the only way to get from San Francisco to Oakland was by ferry. We built the Bay Bridge during the Great Depression and the BART tunnel in the early 1970s. It’s been nearly 40 years since then, and the Bay Area has grown by 2.7 million people. Yet we’ve added no new capacity. Even the new Bay Bridge, currently under construction, won’t help: It will be much more resilient to earthquakes, yet no bigger than the bridge it replaces.

SPUR’s first recommendation is to get more people on buses by building what would be a relatively cheap short-term solution: a contra-flow westbound bus lane on the Bay Bridge that would accommodate up to 10,000 new passengers an hour. Its second recommendation calls for incremental improvements to BART, including a better train control system along with trains that have more doors. The third is a long-term recommendation that would require big capital dollars: constructing a second transbay tube to boost BART’s capacity, and potentially accommodate high-speed rail.

The video is SPUR’s first entry into animation and video making. It’s a product of the organization’s 2009 project and report, “The Future of Downtown,” which focused on reducing job sprawl and strategies to expand job growth in San Francisco’s transit-rich downtown. It argued that downtown SF, namely SoMa, has “by far the greatest near-term potential to accommodate regional employment growth with a low carbon footprint.”

That means creating the right infrastructure for a mode shift that would get more Bay Area residents out of their cars, and commuting to work on transit. Of course, the big question is, how to you pay for this kind of new transportation infrastructure? SPUR says a future downtown with more jobs, especially “knowledge jobs,” would bring in more revenue streams for transit.

“We’re talking about facilitating the continued development of one of the most important economic nodes in the world, where future businesses are being created and where a lot of really important economic innovation is happening,” said SPUR Executive Director Gabriel Metcalf. “If you put it in that perspective, this is about wealth enabling infrastructure and there should be any number of ways into tapping into that wealth to pay for the infrastructure.”

The extension of the historic F-line streetcar to Fort Mason would serve the anticipated spectator venues from Crissy Field to Aquatic Park. Image: Rick Laubscher

Editor’s note: The following is being republished from SPUR, the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association. Visit their blog at SPUR.org.

When it comes to global sporting events, almost as intense as the competition between star athletes is the competition between cities to play host.

That’s because hosting a major international sporting event presents a unique opportunity for a city to redefine its development goals, stimulate investment and boost tourism.

Just last month it was decided that San Francisco would host the 34th America’s Cup. There is no doubt that the San Francisco Bay will provide a breathtaking venue for yacht racing, and no doubt that there will be an infusion of spending in the city tied to the event.

But the real opportunity comes from leveraging the America’s Cup to make some major long-term investments in our city.

SPUR calls for the City to come together to make some important public realm improvements before the race happens; and to make sure we get high-quality private development that will stand the test of time.

Some specific ideas:

1. Build the F-Line extension to Fort Mason. Cup organizers expect 200,000 to a million visitors per day to the events. To deliver effective public transportation services to the on-shore spectator areas, we must invest in rail. There simply is no way to add enough vehicle volume to accommodate those numbers. The extension of the historic F-line streetcar to Fort Mason would serve the anticipated spectator venues from Crissy Field to Aquatic Park. With support, creative financing, and expedient action, it is entirely possible for the project to be completed in time. For proof, one need only look to Seattle, whose streetcar line went from a policy decision to construction to operation in less than two and a half years. And it covers four times the distance of the proposed San Francisco extension.

2. Implement the “Embikeadero” plan proposed by SPUR in the 2009 Piero Patri design competition. Creation of a separated two-way bike path alongside the Embarcadero would enhance the safety of cyclists, pedestrians and motorists alike. Promoting multi-modal connectivity along the Embarcadero will help ensure that the public can access and enjoy its waterfront for the duration of the America’s Cup and beyond.

Image: Carrie Nielson

3. Build out the Jefferson Street public realm improvements to “Europeanize” Fisherman’s Wharf. The Jefferson Street redesign will transform an aging destination into a place that San Franciscans and visitors alike will find beautiful and compelling, while investing in the one of the city’s most important economic generators. In place of the current auto-centric street will be a shared space that will feel more like a public plaza, with outdoor cafes, space for strolling, and places to enjoy the dramatic views of the Bay, tied together by a quality of design unique in San Francisco. And while this will be the place where more race spectators will visit before and after events than any other along the waterfront, the Jefferson Street redesign also offers us the opportunity to create an exciting destination for San Franciscans.

4. Work with the Blue Greenway blueprint to link existing open spaces in the south waterfront. This project aims to make green infrastructure more accessible for exercise, recreation and enjoyment of art and open space in the City’s park-poor Southeastern Corridor. The final America’s Cup deal shifted focus to the northern waterfront, yet Larry Ellison has made it a goal of the 34th Cup to expand interest in sailing. Let’s broaden the appeal of sailing by funding swimming lessons, keeping rec centers with swimming pools open on weekends, and taking seriously the opportunity to invest in water-based recreation opportunities, as the Neighborhood Parks Council has called for. The Blue-Greenway already has some GO bond funding, which should be fast-tracked.

Image: America's Cup Media: AECOM

5. Start the conversation now about achieving excellence in the private development that happens after the race. The Event plans call for the team bases at Piers 30/32, team support uses at Seawall Lot 330, Piers 26 and 28, the public Race Village at Piers 27/29, regatta operations on Pier 23, and the media center at Pier 19.  The Host and Venue Agreement calls for private development at Seawall Lot 330, Piers 30/32, with options at Piers 26 and 28. The final blueprints have yet to take shape, but development must be conducted with an eye to long-term sustainability and public usability.

Conclusion

In a 2007 report, SPUR noted that the major obstacles to saving the waterfront are money and time. The America’s Cup has delivered the boon of major investment and sense of urgency. But we must ensure this dividend is spent in the short term in ways that enhance long-term usability for San Franciscans and future visitors.

There are many options for funding the public improvements, from the F-line extension to the Embikeadero. But time is of the essence.

Photo: foonus

Editor’s note: On Friday, we presented an op-ed opposing Prop G. Today, Gillian Gillett, a transit advocate who is the chair of SPUR’s Transportation Committee, explains why she’s voting for Prop G.

Living in San Francisco provides families with many unique opportunities for learning, entertainment, and other benefits of a diverse, urban environment. However, families also face some unique challenges, as San Francisco has the lowest percentage of children of any American city, and parents like me with children in San Francisco’s public school system face additional challenges day to day. That’s why a well run Muni is absolutely critical for both working families, and for San Francisco as a whole – without it, San Francisco doesn’t function. That’s why my working family is supporting Muni reform.

Let’s look at some of the challenges kids in public school face right now.

The San Francisco Unified School District is considering cutting 57 percent of its transportation budget. That means 900 more kids won’t have a way to get to school, and at least 950 won’t be able to attend after school programs, which we know are vital for working families. 
 
This is especially troubling considering the fact that in many neighborhoods, kids outnumber [pdf] the available desks at school facilities. For example, in my neighborhood, the Mission, there are 2000 elementary school students, but only 1100 spaces in the elementary schools, and 40 percent of households do not own a car. 
 
Thus, when people suggest that parents of public school kids don’t send their kids to local schools because they “don’t like them,” they do not understand how the public school system sometimes works. This is also why a functioning Muni is absolutely critical for these families to succeed at work and at school.

In a time of economic crisis, we have to spend every dollar as effectively as possible to get the most benefit, and Muni is no exception. For the last several years, Muni has been making significant cuts to service. Even with the minor restoration of service, many families, particularly those who depend on Muni, are having a harder time juggling school, after school activities and work, when they have to wait longer and longer for a bus that may never arrive, or find themselves stranded when a connecting bus is late, or cannot get on a bus because it is overcrowded. If the current Muni trend of cutting service and charging more for it continues, people will choose cars over a slow, expensive transit system or decide to move out of San Francisco. I’d love to think everyone would switch to bicycles, but that’s not an option everyone can enjoy.

That’s why my family is firmly behind Proposition G, the “Fix Muni Now” charter amendment. As SPUR’s Transportation Committee chair, I’m well aware of how complex the MTA and Muni are, and that this is only one of many things we need to fix to make Muni run properly. It is, however, a critical step towards improving the Muni system. 
 
At a time when we are cutting service, we can no longer afford to be paying out uncontrolled overtime and various types of premium pay. We can no longer afford work rules that drive up the cost of running Muni and make it less efficient – we need to modernize them so that we can get the most for our money and put the savings back into running Muni as efficiently as we can. 
 
I’m more than happy to advocate that our Muni operators are paid professionally and get benefits that ensure their safety – I just want to see Muni spend its dollars wisely and not waste it on anything, including excessive overtime.  I want Muni to be as flexible as possible in providing service, fleet usage, staffing needs, schedules and operations; and with the current language in the charter and the MOU this flexibility is not possible.

That’s not “class warfare” – that’s common sense that helps us all.  Let’s not lose sight of who really depends on Muni – SF’s working families. Let’s not forget about them when we vote next week. Vote Yes on Proposition G to reform Muni now.

People catching Muni near West Portal station this morning were greeted by an unusual sight: Supervisor Sean Elsbernd, SPUR Executive Director Gabriel Metcalf, and a team of volunteers were out canvassing the avenue to gather signatures for a ballot measure that would change the way the city sets Muni operator salaries.

Elsbernd, who first introduced the measure late last year only to see it receive an icy reception in a Board of Supervisors committee, said getting it on the ballot through a signature campaign was a daunting task, but so far people are receptive.

"If they give you that two seconds to talk to you about it, they'll sign it," he said. "It's just whether or not they'll give you that two seconds."

After twenty minutes of standing out on West Portal Avenue, Elsbernd said he'd collected about 15 signatures. To get on the November ballot, 70,000 of San Francisco's half-a-million registered voters must sign a petition in support of putting the measure on the ballot.

"We've got a lot of signatures we've got to collect in the next few months," Elsbernd acknowledged.

The measure would remove language from the City Charter that currently sets Muni operator salaries and benefits at the average of the two highest-paying large transit agencies in the country, instead of through a collective bargaining process. The measure's supporters argue that the charter provision has been too costly for Muni and has given management less flexibility to negotiate better work rules.

One woman who signed the petition, Melainie Hedani, said she did so out of frustration with how poor Muni service has been recently. "I hope something comes from it," she said while waiting at the inbound West Portal platform. Trains have been increasingly crowded and unpredictable in the last two months, she added.

Most of the voters who signed the petition shared Hedani's interest in fixing Muni, even if they didn't have time to hear the full details of the proposal. But a San Francisco firefighter named Mark said it was wrong to target workers for the city's budget problems.

"It's an attack on city workers," he said. "We're not the ones breaking the city budget."

The operators union has also strongly opposed the measure, though union representatives couldn't be reached for comment today. In the past, Transport Workers Union Local 250-A President Irwin Lum has defended the current Charter provision, which he said has ensured decades of labor peace.

SPUR's Metcalf, however, called the measure a "small but practical" way to improve Muni by ultimately reducing costs and giving the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, which runs Muni, more leverage to negotiate operator work rules that he hopes will reduce absenteeism and make Muni more efficient.

Of course, the petition's supporters aren't likely to get 70,000 signatures just by hanging out on West Portal Avenue: they're also directing people to a website, fixmuninow.com, where voters can get a signature form, and SPUR is organizing volunteers to canvass for the measure. Elsbernd said he hopes more groups will join SPUR in supporting the measure in the comings weeks.

"I think you're going to see some other interesting groups coming on board," he said. "We're going to build a very broad coalition around this."

They've also got a Facebook group and Twitter feed, though it appears both sides of the campaign have grown savvy to social media: TWU has a Facebook page now as well, and it's clear the measure won't go unopposed.

"Elsbernd's Charter Amendment is not MUNI reform," reads a recent note on the TWU Facebook page. "It is plain and simply focused on attacking the Operator."

While this may be the first Muni charter amendment measure debate to take place in the age of social media, for this morning at least, the work took place out on the street.

Could the bleakest budget in the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency's history force its directors to finally get creative in funding Muni?

The answer, judging from Tuesday's MTA Board meeting, is yes. Fresh off approving a 10 percent cut to Muni service to balance this year's budget, MTA directors appeared eager to close the agency's massive budget gap in the upcoming two years without cutting more service or raising fares.

MTA staff presented $75 million in solutions that the agency could enact without going to the ballot box, but more than a third of that would come from charging for transfers and cutting even more service -- ideas quickly shot down by the board.

The remaining solutions, including a plan to extend parking meter enforcement hours, add up to about $40 million annually. That's far less than the $56.4 million shortfall the agency is projected to face next year, or the $45 million shortfall projected for the year after that.

But for the first time in the MTA's ten-year history, the board seems serious about going to the ballot box to stave off further service cuts. Transit supporters say it's a noteworthy shift.

"It is a really good sign to see the MTA trying to get ahead of things now and come up with a long-term revenue strategy so they're not facing a crisis every single year," said Gabriel Metcalf, Executive Director of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR), an urban planning think tank.

Tom Radulovich, Executive Director of Livable City and a member of the BART Board, also called it a welcome development. "This would be the MTA Board for the first time not being totally passive about creating new revenue and actually being proactive," he said. "It's late, but it's progress."

The directors will have to maintain their resolve during what is certain to be an uphill battle. MTA staff presented five potential ballot measures to the board on Tuesday, and the directors themselves suggested two more. Each of the seven faces formidable hurdles.

Any measure would need two-thirds approval from voters to be dedicated to the MTA, instead of going to the city's general fund. That's a tall order in any year, but especially in a recession.

Two of the proposals -- a parcel tax and an increase in the hotel occupancy tax -- are heavily opposed by the city's business interests while promising relatively small financial returns (the taxes are projected to bring in $15 million and $20 million, respectively). That could quickly scuttle both ideas.

Another measure -- a one-half percent increase in the city's sales tax -- could bring in more than $70 million annually, but is likewise bound to meet strong opposition (60 percent of respondents opposed the idea in a poll released yesterday [PDF]). It may be a large enough sum to justify the struggle, and the Bay Area has a history of supporting sales tax measures for transit funding. But it's a very tough sell in the midst of a recession that has already decimated retail sales.

A Tie to Transportation

Some transit supporters say the focus should be on measures that have an obvious tie to transportation.

"The CAC (MTA Citizens' Advisory Council) has given me pretty clear direction that they prefer taxes that have some direct linkage to transportation," said Daniel Murphy, chair of the CAC. "Vehicle license fees, parking fees, extending parking meter hours, things like that are things the CAC has generally been supportive of."

The advantage of measures that generate revenue from parking, said SPUR's Metcalf, is that they increase the price of driving while funneling money to transit, which is in line with the city's Transit First policy.

MTA staff presented two measures that meet that criteria: an increase in the vehicle license fee (VLF) from the current 1.15 percent to 2 percent of the vehicle purchase price, and raising the commercial off-street parking tax from 25 percent to 35 percent. The VLF could generate $33 million annually, while the parking tax could bring in $20 million, according to the MTA.

"I would observe that there is a really clear nexus between the vehicle license fee and the commercial off-street parking tax and Muni," said Metcalf. "So, I would think that from a tax policy perspective, those would be the two most logical places to look."

In fact, of all the measures the MTA is considering, the VLF has by far the strongest support within San Francisco. It has the endorsement of transit advocates, most of the Board of Supervisors, the city's state representatives, and even the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce.

Supported Everywhere Except at the Top

But the VLF increase doesn't have the support of Governor Schwarzenegger -- a potential deal breaker because state law sets the maximum VLF rate.

Senator Mark Leno is working to change the law, and has introduced legislation in the past that would allow San Francisco to raise its VLF locally. The last time he tried, the bill cleared the state Assembly, but the governor vetoed it. At the time, Schwarzenegger said it was unfair for the bill to only apply to San Francisco. This time, Leno is calling his bluff by reintroducing the bill as a statewide measure, giving any county the authority to charge a VLF as high as two percent if voters approve it.

But will the governor simply veto the bill again?

"It's a mystery," said Leno. "You never know. I would like to think with the business voice of San Francisco urging him to sign this bill," he'll pass it.

The San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, which is rarely keen on new taxes, has strongly supported the bill, said Leno. "We've supported it," confirmed the chamber's public policy director Jim Lazarus. "We've been a co-sponsor along with the San Francisco Labor Council."

"We believe it's one of those fees that are shared. When residents pay and businesses pay, it's a type of revenue stream we could support."

According to a poll released yesterday, which was commissioned by the chamber, a majority of residents agree: 54 percent said they'd support an increase in the VLF to two percent, even without being told what the money would be used for. (A dedicated Muni revenue stream might appeal to even more voters.)

Representatives from state Assemblymember Fiona Ma's office and state Senator Leland Yee's office said they also strongly supported VLF legislation.

"The senator would certainly support the increase in the VLF," said Yee spokesman Adam Keigwin. "In fact, he has authored legislation to do so in the past."

MTA Executive Director Nat Ford said Tuesday that MTA management would meet with the city's state representatives on March 10 to discuss the legislation.

Muni's Not Alone in Seeking VLF Money

There's a wrinkle in the VLF plan: The Board of Supervisors already intends to introduce a separate VLF measure on the ballot. That measure would direct money to the general fund, with Muni sharing the new revenue with other city agencies. This measure would be much easier to pass, since it would only require a simple majority of voters to approve it -- but also not as lucrative for Muni as a dedicated MTA measure.

Board of Supervisors President David Chiu was the lead sponsor of a local VLF bill last year, which failed because it needed unanimous approval of the supervisors (an odd rule requires that such measures have unanimous support from the supervisors in years when supervisors are not up for election). It had the votes of nine of 11 supervisors, which will be plenty to get it through this year, a supervisorial election year. The measure would increase the city's VLF to two percent, pending approval from the state.

The money wouldn't be dedicated to the MTA, but Chiu said the MTA would benefit from it.

"As we're talking about cutting the huge amount we cut this and last year at the MTA, it's important we think about revenue options," he said. "We'll be working in the next couple of months to work on which ideas would get the most support.

The TA's VLF Ballot Measure

Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, who chairs the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (TA), a source of some MTA funding, is far from optimistic that VLF legislation will be passed at the state level any time soon. "Leno's bill is not going anywhere," he said.

The TA is working on sponsoring another ballot measure this year that would actually allow a modest increase in the local VLF without additional state legislation, he said. Under SB 83, the city has some leeway to charge a higher VLF, bringing in $5 million instead of $33 million. That money would go straight to the TA, which often sends the MTA funds with conditions.

"I highly recommend we stick with this legal framework," Mirkarimi said. "It's the only strategy that has already been allowed by the state on the vehicle license fee."

Mirkarimi said any ballot measure put forward by the MTA would need to be backed up by a demonstration of much greater accountability on the agency's part.

"I think we all have to account for what improvements there's going to be in performance and efficiency," he said. "I'm all about conditions attached to try to instill a new level of confidence in MTA's ridership."

A 'Hail Mary Pass' Worth Throwing

For all the complication of moving forward with the VLF, former SPUR transportation director and current Muni riders union organizer Dave Snyder said it's a good policy, and well worth pursuing.

"The VLF is the most progressive tax we could possibly come up with because it actually tracks better with income as a tax than even the income tax," he said. "So if your theory is, tax the rich to pay for transit, then VLF is about the only way we can do that locally."

"But," he added dourly, "it's probably not going to happen."

Livable City's Radulovich agrees, calling the VLF a "Hail Mary pass" in Sacramento. But locally, he said, voters get it.

"I think the voters do understand the fee for service, that really direct relationship," Radulovich said. "You create an impact on the transportation system by driving more, you're asked to pay more."

To get any measure on the November ballot, the MTA needs to nominate it by June 15. Senator Leno said he's pushing his colleagues in the Assembly to pass the VLF legislation as soon as possible, and the Chamber of Commerce will then lobby the governor to finally sign the bill.

"You hear, so often, cities and counties outraged that the state continues to raid their money," said Leno, who called the bill a tool to give localities more flexibility to raise money.

Besides, he said, a two percent VLF wouldn't exactly be a new idea in California.

"The tax was in place during the golden years of the state of California, 1958 to 1998," said Leno. "It's not that new, it served the state well, it's equitable, and it's progressive by design."

Next week, Streetsblog will look at another potential source of transit revenue: the off-street commercial parking tax.

Widespread outrage at the MTA Board, so visibly on display at today's meeting on Muni service cuts and fare increases, appears to be driving a growing surge of organizing that transit supporters hope might finally create a sustained movement with the potential to pressure the MTA into developing long-term fixes for Muni.

Most members of the public testifying at the meeting today were livid about the MTA's approach to the budget, illustrated by loud outbursts from speakers and thunderous applause by the more than 200 people who filled the overflow South Light Court at City Hall.

Long-time Muni organizers and transit wonks were hopeful the momentum that helped turn out so many people would continue beyond today.

"I'm thrilled. I think it's word of mouth, it's gotten around," said Sue Vaughan, a member of the MTA Citizens' Advisory Council and an organizer with Transit Not Traffic. "It's got a life of its own and it's gaining momentum."

Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, who roamed the overflow room and spoke with a number of people who gave public testimony, was awed by the turnout. "I'm incredibly impressed about the volume of people that have come out. They're well organized, and their passion is right on and felt by many of us."

"As far as I'm concerned, you've got a mini-movement that's not going to fade away."

An abundance of different groups were represented at the meeting, including advocates for improved transit, affordable housing, people with disabilities, youth, seniors, and more, as well as plenty of unaffiliated Muni riders who were deeply concerned about the MTA's proposals for balancing its budget.

Some of the testimony took on a distinctly populist tone: A number of people were angry with the recent hiring of John J. Haley as Director of Transit at a salary of more than $225,000, even as Muni operators are being asked to give concessions.

"We're saying, 'Chop from the top,'" said the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition's Frank Lara. "The problem is, this is mismanagement from these administrators. If they want to start criticizing over [operator] salaries then they should start with themselves."

Beatriz Herrera, an advocate with People Organized to Win Employment Rights (POWER), agreed that management at the MTA was creating a long-term problem that would exacerbate deficits.

"They should look at themselves before they start picking on the elderly and disability groups and people of color," said Herrera. "Working class communities here in San Francisco who ride the bus every day, who work and drive the bus every day, who clean the buses" were the people who make "mobility possible in the city," she said.

Amid Public Frustration, SPUR Presents Alternative Budget

Anticipating the need to present viable long-term solutions for Muni riders to support -- beyond simply cutting MTA Executive Director Nat Ford's salary -- SPUR brought out a budget plan of its own today.

Though the Board didn't have time to thoroughly analyze an alternative budget proposal presented at the meeting by SPUR Executive Director Gabriel Metcalf, the long list of measures in SPUR's proposal promised to fix the budget without service cuts or labor concessions [PDF].

"The message is that they have options," said Metcalf, who believes that if the MTA made some of the politically difficult decisions proposed by SPUR, they would run a surplus over the next two years, rather than the projected $100 million shortfall. "Our expectation is that some of these will go away, will prove politically infeasible, but they could reject a bunch of these and still balance the budget."

Along with proposals to stop paying work orders to the SFPD and redirecting 311 calls to 511 -- measures estimated to save the agency nearly $18 million annually -- SPUR also highlighted numerous glaring deficiencies in the MTA's handling of the parking assets it controls, which would generate more than $20 million annually.

According to SPUR's alternative budget, the MTA doesn't enforce an existing garage pricing ordinance that prohibits daily and early bird rates; the agency could enhance its existing garage ordinance citywide; it should enforce parking violations around City Hall and the Department of Justice; and it should extend metering to Sundays and add new meters around City Hall and MTA controlled facilities.

MTA's Judson True hadn't had the time to thoroughly analyze the proposals and said they would be taken to Chief Financial Officer Sonali Bose for further review, but acknowledged that "the people at SPUR have years and years of looking at Muni budgets and I think there are good ideas in there."

Metcalf shared the exasperation of many who gave public testimony, though he focused on the MTA Board, which he said was failing at its mandate to develop solutions like the proposals he put together. "What you do is ask staff to bring you proposals that are good," said Metcalf, who spent two months preparing the SPUR report. "That's the most minimal interpretation of your job as a Board member. You ask staff to bring you options that do the trick."

"Muni effects people's lives in a very immediate way every single day," added Metcalf. "When Muni doesn't work, San Francisco doesn't work."

Michael Rhodes contributed reporting for this story.

Flickr photo: tehf0x

But SPUR Executive Director Gabriel Metcalf, who's drafting the amendment along with Supervisor Sean Elsbernd, said the point isn't to scapegoat drivers, but to fix some of Muni's most persistent service problems, like the high rate of absenteeism that leads to frequent missed runs.

Operators, said Metcalf, have a hard job and deserve to be fairly compensated. For many drivers, the job is a hard-earned but solid path to the middle class. But by setting transit operator salaries automatically at the second-highest rate in the country, MTA management has removed any incentive for operators to allow revisions to work rules that hobble Muni performance, said Metcalf. A November ballot measure would revise the City Charter so salaries and benefits are set entirely through collective bargaining.

"We want to write a squeaky-clean good-government charter provision that does not go after any specific work rules, but rather sets up conditions for fair collective bargaining," Metcalf said. "It puts a lot of sunshine around it. Voters get to understand what is being negotiated. The hope is that, over time, labor and management can work out a better way to run Muni."

Metcalf insisted that the measure is not intended to be punitive against drivers. "Being a driver is a really hard job," he said. "In the end, what we've got to get to is a culture where people are happy to go to work and people feel taken care of and work hard and they get paid well for working hard."

"It is basically the same system virtually every other union and city government has," he added. "There is no way anyone in good faith can say that is anti-labor."

So far, said Metcalf, SPUR and Elsbernd are the only parties working on the measure, but that may soon change. Plenty of transit advocates support setting Muni operator salaries entirely through collective bargaining -- in part to improve work rules that lead to high absenteeism rates and missed runs -- though publicly supporting a measure doggedly opposed by the operators union is a tough choice for some. The Board of Supervisors Rules Committee, aside from Elsbernd, also gave the measure a chilly response.

What's more, Transport Workers Union Local 250-A, which represents Muni operators, is getting much of the heat for the current budget mess, after members rejected a concessions package that would have saved the MTA $15 million over two years. Metcalf said that, though operator concessions would help with this year's $16.9 million budget shortfall and the cumulative $100 million projected shortfall for the next two years, he doesn't propose that operator salaries alone should be targeted as a solution.

Much of the MTA's budget deficit is due to the state's pillaging of $179 million in transit assistance funds over the past three years, so rising driver salaries alone did not plunge the agency into its current state. A new Muni rider coalition is also striving to stop the portrayal of drivers as the problem. In balancing the current budget, Metcalf agrees, and points out that SPUR is working on an "alternative budget" to the one MTA staff is presenting that would look hard at other solutions.

"These two issues should be totally separated," he said. "We've got to balance this year's budget, we've got to balance next year's budget, and we've got to come up with a structure that's going to work in the long run."

The measure's language will likely be finalized within the next few weeks. Once it's ready, its supporters will be collecting signatures to try to get it on the November ballot.

Update: At least one local transit advocacy organization is publicly on-board with the proposal. That's Rescue Muni, which helped write the charter provision creating the MTA in 1999. "We support it," wrote Rescue Muni's Andrew Sullivan in an email. "As part of Prop. A in 2007, we were promised that the union would bargain work rules for the additional pay required by the new formula. This has not happened, so the only alternative is to do away with the formula and require Muni operators to collectively bargain like all other city workers."

Photo: Troy Holden

In San Francisco it's almost as cliche to kvetch about Muni as it is to misquote Mark Twain about chilly summers, but what can possibly be done to fix a transit system that seems to have so many problems and almost no solutions that everyone can agree upon?

The city's sitting mayor and several former mayors have vowed change for the better, but in just the last year the city has seen fare increases, service cuts, and layoffs of maintenance and cleaning personnel that make riding Muni less attractive, less reliable, and more expensive. What gains may have been made in the past decade since restructuring Muni and the Department of Parking and Traffic into the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) are arguably slipping away amid budget cuts, which are forcing cutbacks that the agency and the riding public will feel for years.

Getting concessions from Transport Workers Union (TWU) 250 will stave off the worst of the budget shortfall for the next six months, but large deficits loom, with an expected gap of more than $100 million over the next two years. While members of the Board of Supervisors toy with the idea of changing appointment criteria for the MTA Board of Directors and some advocates are working in Sacramento to stop the governor's raids on transit funds, many people are trying to figure out a local solution that might have traction.

"It is an extraordinary crisis. Ideally it would be great to see everyone come together," said Tom Radulovich, Executive Director of Livable City, a transit advocacy organization. "We all want a functioning transit agency in town."

As the MTA holds a series of town hall meetings that have elicited the expected anger of riders who are already feeling the burden of cuts and hikes and who can read the writing on the wall, another group is organizing what it expects to be a large Muni Summit in early March. The summit is being coordinated by members of San Francisco Tomorrow, whose long-time Muni champion and critic Norm Rolfe passed away recently, members of Savemuni.com, who have long opposed building the Central Subway, and members of the MTA's Citizens Advisory Council (CAC).

"There’s definitely anger," said Gerald Cauthen, a civil engineer and former employee of Muni who helped found Savemuni.com. Cauthen has attended numerous MTA Board meetings and the two recent town hall meetings, where he said some of the testimony is hopeful, despite the frustration riders feel. "Many people don’t know what’s wrong with Muni, what it will take to make Muni better, but a lot of people are throwing out ideas."

The Muni Summit organizers have reached out to numerous groups around the city and have more than 40 confirmed, including the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods, which represents most of the city's community organizations, the Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council, The Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association, Telegrah Hill Dwellers and regional transit advocacy group TransForm.

Cauthen and other Muni Summit organizers hope the focus of the event will be broad, without getting bogged down in minutia of individual lines or stops. Though Cauthen said he didn't want to prejudice the discussion before it started, he offered several topics that he assumed would be debated.

One issue routinely lost in the MTA's and the press' obsession with on-time performance is the declining overall speed of Muni buses, which Cauthen said has diminished significantly in the last twenty years. "20 years ago, the average speed was 9 mph, now it’s down to about 8 mph," said Cauthen, who noted that what appears to be a small reduction on paper has huge impacts to ridership and the agency's business model. The reduction, he said, "makes service less attractive to people and makes it more expensive because you have to put out more buses to improve service."

Another issue likely to come up at the summit is prioritization of capital improvements, which Cauthen says is way off base. "The Muni hierarchy has neglected badly needed capital improvements. I don’t think [the Transit Effectiveness Project] even noticed them," he said, noting that the agency is scrambling to get federal funding for the Central Subway while maintenance and fleet improvements go nowhere. "All they can think to do is cut service, raise fares, and lay off people. That’s not very creative."

Acknowledging that the Central Subway is a contentious issue for many, including organizations in Chinatown that Muni Summit organizers would want to participate, Cauthen said the issue will not predominate the discussions. The bigger concern of losing the ability to travel in San Francisco on a functional public transit system takes precedence. "San Francisco is a unique place because it has very comprehensive service that allows people to live without a car. Now people are in a place where they will have to buy a bike or buy a car because they can’t rely on Muni," he said.

A Muni Riders Union

A frequently discussed option among transit advocates for improving Muni is to directly organize riders as they commute. Unlike organizations like the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition (SFBC), which counts over 11,000 members, there is no effective member organization dedicated exclusively to making Muni better.

Without the kind of political pressure from an SFBC or the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR), the political class in the city and management at MTA don't feel enough heat to take the actions that are mandated of them in the City Charter. Hundreds of Muni riders may come out after service cuts and fare increases, but affirmative pressure to reorganize the agency or to demand substantive revenue sources like increased parking meter hours or residential parking permit fee increases never gets backing beyond the transportation wonks who routinely read Streetsblog.

Although the SFBC recently added a Muni organizing page on their website to encourage members to write the Mayor and urge action on Muni, which generated hundreds of emails in a matter of days, transit advocacy is not the core mission of the SFBC and won't be in the near future.

For SPUR, Executive Director Gabriel Metcalf said, "We are going to be working hard on Muni, but there still needs to be a riders union."

As it happens, Metcalf's former Transportation Policy Director, Dave Snyder, is organizing just such a riders union. With experience building up the SFBC to become a political force and work on numerous political campaigns, Snyder says he is ready to step into this void and hopeful the effort becomes a permanent organization that represents diverse riders across the system.

"I want an organization that inspires riders and is a bonafide representative of riders, respected by riders and policy makers alike," said Snyder, who cautioned that the initiative is still early in forming and that he hasn't selected a name. Still, he said, he has two-thirds of the organizations he'd like on his steering committee signed on. Though he wouldn't name groups, he said they would include a mix of neighborhood organizations, transit advocacy groups, unions, and other advocates whose interests dovetail with the MTA's mission.

Though Snyder has written numerous policy papers for SPUR on the MTA's concerns, he said he didn't want to determine the issues or the agenda of the group. That is up to the steering committee, he said.

"We will have bold policies in the future, but I can’t say what that is right now. I want all the goals to be determined by the steering committee," he said. Unlike many of the transit, bicycle and pedestrian groups that meet with MTA Executive Director Nat Ford on a regular basis, Snyder said, "I don’t want to be behind the scenes. There are plenty of organizations that meet with Nat Ford and the Mayor."

Organizing a riders union would require the help of all of those organizations, and Snyder expects they will participate, given how important Muni is to the health of the city.

"I think there’s enough excitement and import that a lot of organizations will participate," he said.

As for bridging the gaps between the disparate interests of Muni's constituencies and coming up with meaningful solutions? "I foresee disagreement and debate, but I don’t foresee conflict."

The Muni Summit will be held at the Women's Building at 3543 18th Street, between Valencia and Guerrero on Saturday, March 6th, from 9:00 am - 1:00 pm. The new Muni riders union is in formation, but a Google Group has been set up under the name "Muni Riders."

For decades, planners and transportation specialists have debated how San Francisco's most important street could be re-visioned to  make it work better for transit, pedestrians, cyclists, shoppers, and those living on or near it. Now, as the Better Market Street Project moves forward with trial traffic diversions, the Art in Storefronts project, music and programming in public spaces, greening along sidewalks, and pedestrian safety improvements, San Francisco's political class is intent on revitalizing the street for the long haul. Though the concrete vision for what Market Street will eventually look like is some ways off, there is more effort now than in many years to improve the public realm and ensure the street lives up to its great potential.

City planners have been on the hook for some of the last century's greatest metropolitan mishaps: urban freeways and "slum clearance," arbitrary minimum parking requirements, and land use laws that have left little room for the mingling of uses. Understandably, today's planners are a bit humbled. But when planning directors from some of North America's most progressive cities spoke at City Hall this week about the political challenges that face urban planners, several of them said the field needs to move beyond worrying about past mistakes.

"Because of the failure of the planning profession in the past, we've gotten quiet, we've gotten a little too meek," said Brent Toderian, Vancouver's planning director. "We serve at the will of politicians, and are often unwilling to speak truth to power loudly and persuasively and in public. I think that's really been an absolving of our leadership responsibilities in the profession."

SPUR and the San Francisco Planning Department hosted the discussion with planning heads from SF, New York, Portland, Seattle, Vancouver, Minneapolis and San Diego, who were all in town for the Urban Land Institute's annual expo.

Minneapolis planning chief Barbara Sporlein echoed that concern. "So much of planning is making up for past mistakes," she said. "It just feels like every time something happens, [we say,] 'That can't happen again.'"

In Vancouver, planning directors do not serve at the will of the mayor, and are appointed through a selection committee process and approved by the city council. As a result, said Toderian, the discussion about planning is much more vigorous and productive.

"In the absence of that willingness to have those kinds of tough, tense conversations, sometimes the best answers, the best options, are never put on the table," he said. "If Planning's not putting those options and issues on the table, then it's our fault that politicians aren't making better decisions."

From left to right: SPUR Executive Director Gabriel Metcalf (standing), and planning directors from San Francisco, Seattle, New York, Vancouver, San Diego, Minneapolis, and Portland. Photo: Michael Rhodes

San Francisco's planning director, John Rahaim, said he thinks planning staff should be more up front with the public about their objectives. "We have to build some civility. I think the way to do that is, frankly, brutal honesty," said Rahaim. "We have to be absolutely up front and honest about what we're doing and what we're not doing."

Rahaim also described a vision to greatly expand the number of open spaces in the city.

New York's planning director, Amanda Burden, also argued strongly for expanding open spaces. "Great public open spaces - and that means public open spaces that are used intensively and are magnets for people - are the great mixing chambers of cities," said Burden. "It's where all classes, all ethnicities, all economic strata, come together and really create energy that makes the cities we want to be in."

"When you have a small amount of public resources, put them in great public open spaces, because they will trigger private investment."

Many of the directors cited Portland as their model for increasing bicycling (which, as Streetsblog's CNU summit coverage mentioned, is itself still dealing with the effects of Robert Moses-era planning.) Portland planning head Susan Anderson said the origin of her city's success extends beyond infrastructure. "In Portland now, seven to eight percent of the people are biking all the time to work, everywhere," she said. "That happened partly because of infrastructure, all of the good planning stuff, but what really made it jump in the last two years is because it became cool. It became cool because we did all of these different things about press, about working with kids and biking to school."

It would someday rank among the world's most beautiful bike paths. Imagine a separated, 2.5-mile bicycle path between the northbound traffic lanes of the Embarcadero and the pedestrian promenade from AT&T Park to Fisherman's Wharf. Not only would it provide a safe and dignified passage for cyclists, it would cut down on bike and pedestrian conflicts that occur on the shared sidewalk. Sound like a fantasy? Not so, according to a study sponsored by SPUR, which suggests that not only would the path serve an important transportation function, it would attract tourists and locals alike.

The study's goal was to examine the feasibility of a wide, comfortable, car-free facility capable of serving cyclists well enough to attract bicyclists away from the pedestrians on the promenade and provide safe and convenient bicycling to fast and slow riders alike. The path would eventually connect to other links in the Bay Trail, providing a car-free beltway, so to speak, around the city on the shores of San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean.

The plan was crafted by a summertime fellow sponsored by the Patri family of architects and urban designers. The Patri Fellow, Carrie Nielson, with the help of staff from the design firm EDAW/AECOM and the Port of San Francisco, looked at various alternatives and settled on the idea of a two-way, 15-foot wide cycle track using space captured from the northbound bicycle lane, parking, and the sidewalk. Her research found that it's feasible, simple in some places, complicated and expensive in others. Total cost is estimated at $10-20 million.

Gabriel Metcalf, SPUR Executive Director, was enthusiastic about the potential of the path. "This is potentially one of the most transformative ideas out there for making the bicycle a primary mode for more trips in San Francisco. Compared to building infrastructure for cars or trains, bike infrastructure is cheap." He called for a more serious planning effort to nail down the cost and ensure there are no fatal flaws.

The Hudson River Greenway provides a glorious 15.5-ft. wide path (with 3 foot shoulders) the length of Manhattan.

Times have changed. The Embarcadero Promenade/Herb Caen Way is crowded with pedestrians and bicycling on it has become less tenable. Planners, meanwhile, have improved sidepath design and bicycle advocacy has become more inclusive of people who seek pathways as refuge from cars and as a necessary facility to attract seniors and children to routine urban bicycling.

Nielson's work has sparked a welcome public debate about the alternatives for improving bicycle transit and safety along the Embarcadero, according to the Port's David Beaupre, who said he applauded her efforts to identify issues and alternatives for creating a bicycle path along the Embarcadero.

The pathway seems like a real possibility, but there are plenty of challenges.

The design presumes the loss of the northbound bike lane, increasing the importance of the 15-foot width so that fast-moving cyclists can pass meandering tourists. The southbound bike lane will be preserved, and fast recreational cyclists will of course be permitted to use the roadway, which could be adorned with stencils to remind motorists that bicyclists may be expected in the roadway despite the path.

The Embarcadero today, and what it would look like after.

A railing between the southbound half of the bike path and the roadway will have to be designed to protect bicycle riders while not blocking the views of Embarcadero motorists.

Politically, the challenge is finding the funding and compensating for the loss of parking entailed with the proposal. Nielson's analysis indicated the need to remove 145 parking spaces on the northbound roadway, but found where 178 parking spaces could be added by converting the parallel parking on the adjacent streets to back-in angle parking. Unless a citywide leader (say, a Mayor) brokered a deal, the Port would lose substantial meter revenue which the MTA would gain by this transfer of parking location.

Despite the challenges, Nielson's proposal makes it clear that a wide, comfortable, car-free bike path is feasible, provided it gets the necessary funding and political support.

Photo: plug1

"I look to the left, I look to the right, all I see is opposition and criticism," says Joel Ramos, a member of the Geary BRT Citizens Advisory Committee and a staffer for Transform who has experience in the battle for Berkeley BRT.

Richmond Supervisor Eric Mar, who is in favor of BRT on Geary, said he expected more support from transit advocates.  The project gets little but tough love from its allies in the transportation reform movement, who complain alternately that the plan should be for rail instead of buses and that it ignores the needs of bicycle users in the corridor. From the anti-transit side, there are still dozens of Richmond residents who reliably show up to complain about the minor impediments to car traffic and parking that Geary BRT will impose. Indeed, without the enthusiastic support of transit advocates, Geary BRT public meetings get overrun by opponents.

Geary BRT would create a new exclusive busway in the center of the street from just east of Gough Street to 33^rd Avenue in the outer Richmond. With pre-paid and three-door boarding, bypass lanes for express buses, and car-free lanes, the Transportation Authority expects to shave from five to nine minutes off the typical trip, as much as 30% of the travel time between those points. With stations instead of stops and low-floor buses with multiple doors operating in straight lines with no swerving for traffic, Geary BRT will feel like a train on rubber wheels. The dimensions of the center lane are planned to be able to accommodate trains if desirable in the future. The agency is currently completing its environmental impact report, which is expected to be ready for certification within the next few months. The project will cost approximately $200 million. 

Ramos, a resident of the Richmond and a staffer beneficiary of the project, is worried enough that he and Sarah Karlinsky of SPUR recently called a meeting to discuss what it will take to bring more support to the project.

One of the two full-fledged BRT alternatives under consideration. Neither adds bike lanes.

Another explanation for limited public support is that there is no effective transit advocacy organization in San Francisco. Rescue Muni counts a handful of people among its hardcore reliable membership. Neither Livable City nor SPUR emphasize grassroots organizing as a political tactic. Only the SFBC does good grassroots organizing, and, naturally, they're focused on bicycling.

If the project improved bicycle safety, it might get more interest, but as it stands there is no intention to make significant improvements for bicycle travel. It could arguably be worse, with more intense car traffic in the rightmost lane. Bicycle parking will probably improve with the construction of new transit stations. Leah Shahum, SFBC Executive Director, said in an email that the current plan poses "big problems for bikes."

The Transportation Authority's project leader Zabe Bent has agreed to look more closely at bicycle access, especially along the section between Arguello and Presidio where there is no good adjacent route. An initial analysis shows that adding bike lanes would remove parking in some locations and increase the crossing distance for pedestrians. Bent has made no commitment to design bike lanes into the project as an option for policy makers to consider or reject. "We need to push harder on this," Shahum said.

If the project were a light rail extension, it would get more transit advocates' support. Geary light rail is the project most transit experts preferred over the Third Street/Chinatown light rail and subway project. However, while that project had the ardent support of community leaders, Geary light rail never did. BRT is a kind of compromise that, in the eyes of its main proponents at the Transportation Authority, represents the middle ground between the expensive rail project that faces neighborhood opposition and comes with a prohibitively expensive price tag, and the status quo of minor changes that won't help to transform Muni service.

This compromise is important to Supervisor Mar, who says that the city planners have apparently learned from the mistakes of Third Street light-rail construction that so severely hurt businesses. He is confident they won't repeat the mistake with BRT construction on Geary.

Without a group that can bring even a significant fraction of the grassroots support for transit that the SFBC brings for bikes, projects like these are never going to get the support they need to experience smooth sailing.

"Every transit project could of course be better," said Sarah Karlinsky of SPUR, but "Geary BRT is a good project and it should be supported." She, along with Supervisor Eric Mar and Joel Ramos of Transform, are hoping that transit advocates will start showing up at Geary BRT citizen advisory committee meetings, and that proponents of the project will outnumber the opponents when the Environmental Impact Report is completed.

San Francisco and New York were blessed with gorgeous weather Friday, which made for glorious PARK(ing) days in both cities.

In San Francisco, upwards of 34 metered parking spots were transformed into temporary parks, on-street bike parking demonstrations, cafe seating and other public space reimaginings. New York, writes Streetfilms director Clarence Eckerson, had about 50 spaces "filled to the gills with people, sod, chairs, food, fun, games, and in one case - bubbles galore!"

In his latest Streetfilm, John Hamilton, using images submitted to our Flickr pool, features some great San Francisco moments in SoMa, the Mission, and North Beach, and takes us for a brief photo tour of PARK(ing) Day events around the world. Clarence opted to "take it down a notch," and spent more time relaxing in the spaces rather than trying to document as many as possible. The result is two inspiring PARK(ing) Day Streetfilms!

Host Joseph Pace will be joined by Marc Caswell, the program manager for the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, Manish Champsee, the president of Walk SF, and Gabriel Metcalf, the executive director of SPUR.

The program will explore the Bike Plan and improvements envisioned for the pedestrian realm: "What does the plan have in store to improve and expand San Francisco's bike network, as well as make the streets safer for bicyclists? How will this be balanced with pedestrian safety and improvements to the city's walkability?"

Catch the program tonight at 7 p.m. on 91.7 FM or listen live at KALW.org.

Photo: Matthew Roth

"I don't say this as a car-hater--I have a car, I think cars can be wonderful to go to the countryside--but clearly the faster cars go in a city, the wider the roads are, the less pleasant is it to be around. The narrower the street, the slower the speeds, the wider the sidewalks, the better you can feel. High-velocity urban roads are sort of fences in a cow pasture."

Road space, he argued, is the most valuable asset in a city and it is a resource that society can use as it pleases, distributing it between all transportation modes or only one. He stated what is obvious, but what seems to rarely be acknowledged by traffic engineers and politicians in San Francisco: less space for cars will mean less cars. "There is no such thing as a 'natural' level of car use in a city. There is nothing technical about how much space you should give to cars or to pedestrians. It's not like you have to ask a transport engineer permission. What is clear is this is a political decision."

Peñalosa's trip was underwritten by the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) and was part of the kick-off of the Great Streets Project, a join initiative between the SFBC, SPUR, Project for Public Spaces, and The Livable Streets Initiative (parent company of Streetsblog). Peñalosa earlier in the day met with Mayor Gavin Newsom, which he said went quite well.

"I think [Newsom] was very sensitive to all these issues and he even told some of his people to look into how these things are being used in other cities, the designs that are being used to improve the pedestrian and bicycle spaces there," he said.

In a nod to San Francisco's Freeway Revolts, Peñalosa argued that one of the most important citizen movements in the last fifty years has been the slow reclamation of cities from private cars and freeways. He also stated emphatically that there is no reason that we have to be inured to the number of people who die from cars, particularly children. Citing the statistic that 250,000 children die on streets every year worldwide, he said we should rethink our fairy tales where the big bad wolf is actually a wolf.

"We are living in an environment where our children are constantly in danger of being killed, but what is shocking is that we think this is normal," he said. "A good city is good for children, for the handicapped, for low-income people, for the elderly, for the most vulnerable citizens."

In addition to changing the physical boundaries of streets and sidewalks to privilege vulnerable populations, Peñalosa spent a good deal of his discussion on the need to remove parking at curbside to open up the space for other users and to make transit as convenient and cheap as possible, two issues particularly relevant in San Francisco.

"All constitutions have many rights, pages and pages of rights. With so many rights, I've never found that any constitution includes the right to park," he said. "Governments have the obligation to provide health, to provide education, to provide housing, but not necessarily to provide parking. This is a private problem."

Instead of providing so much curbside parking, Peñalosa suggested that sidewalks should be widened as much as possible, that sidewalks are extensions of parks and public space that should be treated with the same regard as actual parks. "People tend to think sidewalks are relatives of streets, because they live next to each other," he said. "But in fact, sidewalks are not for getting from one place to another. Sidewalks are for talking, for doing business, for playing, for kissing. Sidewalks really are relatives of parks."

As for transit, he clearly sees public mobility as a public right that trumps the right to private mobility and he believes that car drivers should pay more to subsidize transit.

"Whenever people use public transit, it's not because they love the environment. In advanced cities in Zurich or in London, most people use public transit, even the rich. Why do they use it? Because they have to. If we want people to use public transport, we have to improve transit but we also need to restrict car use, a little bit of the carrot, a little bit of the stick."

The easiest way to restrict car use is to restrict parking, he said. "Most cities in the world where people use public transit it's difficult to park." Other strategies he liked were charging for car use, such as congestion pricing and higher gas taxes, provided that money is used to subsidize transit.

In closing his presentation, Peñalosa urged the audience to set its sights as high as possible to completely re-imagine cities so that not only "those who have a private motorcar have the right to safe mobility. People in government will have to take a risk, they will have to make decisions that are unpopular to at least some people. You have to do uncomfortable things."

"If we're going to talk about transport, I would say that the great city is not the one that has highways, but one where a child on a tricycle or bicycle can go safely everywhere."

Photo by Dustin Jensen.

I'm happy to announce today that Dave Snyder, the former transportation director at SPUR, will join Streetsblog San Francisco as a regular contributor.

Snyder, who was recently appointed to a position on the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District Board of Directors, is a longtime advocate for socially just transportation and land-use policies. He is the founder of the modern day San Francisco Bicycle Coalition and also of Transportation for a Livable City, the organization now headed by Tom Radulovich.

Snyder's inside knowledge and comprehensive analyses of the transportation sector will greatly enhance our coverage of transit issues in the Bay Area: 

I'm excited about this opportunity because I've always loved both journalism and transportation activism, and Streetsblog is both! The SFBC got started in 1991, really, as a vehicle for the publication of a newsletter to connect various elements of the bicycle activist community. Streetsblog can do the same thing for the broader livable streets movement: connect the dots between the bicycle activists and the neighborhood activists and the social justice activists. I hope that I can learn from the different perspectives and help educate folks who see transportation from those different perspectives about how by working together we can create a more livable city for everyone.

Welcome Dave! We're thrilled to have you.