Employee bike parking at San Francisco City Hall. Photo: Aaron Bialick

“Today’s vote is another way that San Francisco is proving itself to be a great place to do business and to bicycle,” said Leah Shahum, executive director of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. ”The city took a significant step forward today in recognizing that more people bicycling benefits our city’s economy.”

“An impressive number of businesses ranging from law firms to tech companies to real estate firms are already making it easier for more of their employees to bike to work, and this legislation will help even more companies become more bike-friendly,” she added.

Supervisor John Avalos, who introduced the legislation, noted the broad support it enjoys, particularly from the Building Owners and Management Association (BOMA), which was involved early on in its development. All supervisors except for Carmen Chu and Sean Elsbernd voted in favor of the proposal.

“With many companies expressing the desire for bicycle parking and storage, BOMA recognizes the need to provide safe, secure parking for bicycling employees,” said BOMA President Meade Boutwell in a statement. ”Members of [BOMA] are concerned about the environment and promote the use of sustainable transportation options, including bicycles.”

BOMA’s support, noted Avalos, “says a lot about where we’ve come from in terms of how much cycling is accepted as a means of commuting in San Francisco.”

At a recent hearing on the proposal, SFBC Program Manager Marc Caswell pointed out that it will benefit far more than the “hundreds of thousands” of San Franciscans who already bike to work. It will also provide incentive for “the thousands of other people who are interested in biking to work, but are discouraged because they do not have a secure place to park their bike right now,” he said.

Mayor Lee speaking at an SFPark press conference. Photo: Mayor's Press Office/Flickr

During the mayor’s regular question-and-answer session with the board, D10 Supervisor Malia Cohen asked the mayor “how this program can be adapted and improved in order to better fit these areas.”

In his prepared response, Lee defended the program, noting that “the world is watching our efforts in parking management.”

“I know firsthand that the Obama administration and the Department of Transportation are paying close attention to SFPark,” he said.

While the Dogpatch, Potrero, and North Mission neighborhoods include businesses that are “more industrial and have few clients and customers visiting during the day,” said Lee, he pointed out that “they are interspersed with businesses that have more daytime activity and need open parking spaces so it’s easy for customers to find a place to park.”

“To really thrive and generate job growth, we need businesses in those areas that need great access. It needs to be easy for people to get there, as well as for goods to be delivered,” he said. ”Areas that don’t have access cannot thrive. Good transit is part of that equation, whether BART, Muni, or the city’s investment in Third Street light-rail line. This transit carries a lot of people in those areas. But for those who have to drive to make pickups and deliveries, it can be hard to find a space during the day. SFPark aims to make it easier to find a spot close to a destination.”

Cohen also asked whether the mayor would “be supportive of evaluating the use of parking passes for employees,” to which he responded: “I will direct the Office of Economic Development to work with employers, particularly PDR [production, distribution and repair] businesses, regarding ways to alleviate financial burden on low-income employees. I know that the SFMTA is already working with the community to develop a sound proposal, and any parking management strategy like SFPark should have ample community buy-in before it’s rolled out.”

New District 5 Supervisor Christina Olague greets merchants on Haight Street yesterday. Photos: Aaron Bialick

District 5′s newest representative is Christina Olague, the car-free president of the SF Planning Commission and noted progressive activist. Advocates say she holds promise as a champion of livable streets and sustainable transportation on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

“Her values and expertise are going to be invaluable as we transition into San Francisco’s post-redevelopment era, and in our continued quest to make San Francisco more affordable, equitable, and sustainable,” said Tom Radulovich, the executive director of Livable City.

San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee announced the appointment Monday morning before joining Olague on a merchant walk along upper Haight Street, where she told Streetsblog that she would make pedestrian and bicycle improvements in her district a priority, along with extending parking meter hours.

“I want to start talking about all those issues right away,” she said.

Olague will join her first Board of Supervisors meeting this afternoon, representing District 5, which is comprised of neighborhoods including the Western Addition, Hayes Valley, the Fillmore, Haight-Ashbury, Inner Sunset, and NoPa. She succeeds former Supervisor Ross Mikarimi, a strong advocate for livable streets who left his seat vacant after being sworn in as sheriff on Saturday.

“As happy as I was to see Supervisor Mirkarimi elected to sheriff,” said Radulovich, “I was sad to see such a strong advocate for sustainable transportation, affordable housing, walkable neighborhoods, community benefits from development, and accountable planning leave the Board of Supervisors. Fortunately for us, Christina has been a leader in all those areas as a planning commissioner.”

In a statement, Mayor Lee praised Olague for “spearheading plans for growth and development in San Francisco and developed policies related to land use, transportation and neighborhood planning.” Some reports have pointed out that she co-chaired the “Run, Ed, Run” campaign, though Lee claimed that it “clearly” wasn’t just that which influenced his decision to appoint her.

Mayor Ed Lee and Supervisor Olague walk down Haight Street.

D8 Supervisor and transit advocate Scott Wiener, who has “worked closely with Christina on land use and transportation issues,” described her as “thoughtful, pragmatic, and independent.”

“I look forward to working with her to ensure that our transit policies move the city in the right direction,” he said.

San Francisco Bicycle Coalition Executive Director Leah Shahum said Olague’s appointment “installs a strong voice for making our streets safer and more accessible for everyone.”

“This is a critical time to continue strong leadership in District 5 as long-awaited improvements for safer streets and better neighborhood connections move forward, including the Fell and Oak Streets separated bikeways, the Masonic Avenue redesign, and traffic calming in the Lower Haight’s Wiggle route,” she added.

Olague said she would prioritize those projects as well as extending parking meter hours, which she noted would encourage parking turnover and provide revenue for transportation improvements. “It’s something we really need to engage people in, because it’s one of those really heated issues,” she said.

Olague, who lives in NoPa without a car, is a regular Muni rider and has firsthand experience with pedestrian and bicycle conditions in her district like those on Fell and Oak Streets.

“If you cycle, walk, or take Muni, your perspective on a lot of these issues takes on a different light,” she said.

"Bike parking for Alta office. We replaced a parking spot with this wall-mounted rack." Flickr photo: Lauren Buckland

Commercial buildings in downtown San Francisco could be required to provide indoor bicycle parking accommodations under a proposal introduced at last week’s Board of Supervisors meeting.

“One of the ways that we can really assure our bikes are safe from theft is to be able to bring them into our buildings,” said Supervisor John Avalos, who has asked the City Attorney’s Office to draft the legislation.

Providing secure parking would encourage would-be bicycle commuters deterred by the prospect of leaving their bicycle locked to on-street poles and bike racks for hours, where they could be vulnerable to theft. In 2007, police estimated 2,000 to 3,000 bikes are stolen in the city every year, according to the Bay Guardian.

“For many existing commercial buildings, there isn’t bike access,” said Avalos, “and we want to be able to provide that access in the future for cyclists in San Francisco.”

“It’s the last major gap in solving the commuter bike parking problem,” said Dave Snyder, executive director of the California Bicycle Coalition. Many office buildings, he noted, have room for bike parking but don’t allow access.

“If you’ve got a car parking garage, it’s easy to convert enough space to provide secure bicycle parking,” he said, “and a lot of people already work in situations where their company doesn’t mind if they bring their bikes in as long as they stash it out of the way.”

The legislation would “either require commercial buildings to provide space, locker rooms for cycles, or to allow workers to bring bicycles into the buildings,” said Avalos, and would be modeled after a New York City law which yielded an estimated 1,764 indoor parking spots just five months after being enacted in 2010.

“It’s good that San Francisco is serving as a best practices city,” said Snyder.

It is not known when the legislation will be officially introduced, but Avalos said he intends “to be working with bike advocates as well as the building owners and managers associations and related unions that do work in the buildings to make sure that we have a plan that can move forward and be successful.”

Mayor Lee and Leah Shahum bike the Wiggle to City Hall. Photo: Aaron Bialick

In the strongest showing of political support ever for bicycling in San Francisco, Mayor Ed Lee, ten of the eleven members of the Board of Supervisors, and a range of city officials pedaled to City Hall with advocates and thousands of commuters on the 17th Annual Bike to Work Day. Commuters pedaling along the city’s most important route, Market Street, were greeted with new green paint and protected bike lanes thanks to SFMTA crews who have been racing to fill in the gaps.

“We have more to celebrate than ever before in the history of Bike to Work Day,” said San Francisco Bicycle Coalition (SFBC) Executive Director Leah Shahum, “from the beautiful new green separated bikeways on Market Street, to dozens of new bike lanes in every neighborhood throughout the city, to hundreds of new bike racks, to dozens of new on-street bike parking corrals.”

Riding in on some of the city’s major routes, supervisors proclaimed their support for safer streets and expanding the city’s bikeway network. Mayor Lee announced that a separated bikeway would be in place on John F. Kennedy Drive by the end of the year, filling a crucial segment on the popular Bay to Beach Connecting the City route being pushed by the SFBC.

“I want to see that 100 miles from the Bay to the ocean, north and south, painted by the year 2020 to see everybody ride the whole city and connect up either way using their bikes,” said Mayor Lee, who rode to City Hall from Golden Gate Park via the Wiggle with Shahum, SFMTA Board Chair Tom Nolan, and a convoy of others.

Photo: Bryan Goebel

Board of Supervisors President and mayoral candidate David Chiu cheered the city’s continuing boom in cycling over the past few years.

“Fifteen years ago, I started to bike to work for the very first time, and I have to admit, it was a lonely experience,” he said. “I don’t feel alone anymore.”

But, he said, if the city is to reach its declared goal of 20 percent bike trips by 2020, it needs to continue vastly improving its bicycle infrastructure.

“In order to do this, we need to imagine. We have to imagine separated bike lanes, finally getting enough bike parking for all of us, finally having bike signals. We have to imagine safe enough conditions for our eight-year-olds and our eighty-year-olds.”

Photo: Bryan Goebel

While some supervisors are known to ride a bike and have publicly backed the SFBC’s efforts, today’s experience was something new for at least four of them.

“This is my first Bike to Work Day,” said Supervisor Jane Kim, who cycled for the first time in her district, which includes notoriously dangerous streets in the Tenderloin and South of Market areas.

“I got to feel how unsafe it was to trucks and cars kind of trying to jostle around you, and I definitely want to work towards getting bike lanes that would make someone like me feeling safe enough to ride to work,” she said.

“Improving the infrastructure of our bike lanes, whether it be for the America’s Cup or our daily lives here in San Francisco, is so critical to our future,” said D2 Supervisor Mark Farrell. “I simply look forward to working with everyone here to make that a daily part of our reality.”

"We have to change many minds about biking in San Francisco," said D11 Supervisor John Avalos. "I live in a district where cars are more king than bikes, and we want to change that." Photo: Bryan Goebel

The Civic Center area was booming with bike traffic during the morning commute, and Market Street was dominated by bicycles. Commuters filled the sidewalks at SFBC energizer stations, including a very popular one at Market and 12th Streets.

“We all know there was a 58 percent increase in bicycling in San Francisco over the last four years,” said SFMTA Board Director Cheryl Brinkman. “That’s an impressive number, but it’s even more impressive if you put it in context.”

“Could we have handled a 58 percent increase in Muni riders at rush hour? You’d never get on a bus or train. Could we have handled a 58 percent increase in car traffic at rush hour? It’d be terminal gridlock, no one would be going anywhere.”

“We have some ambitious goals, but I know we can do it.”

Mayor Lee takes the daunting Oak Street, where the SFBC hopes to implement a separated bikeway. Photo: Aaron Bialick

The Mayor and convoy leave the Wiggle and enter Market Street. Photo: Aaron Bialick

SFMTA Board of Directors Chair Tom Nolan was along for the ride. Photo: Aaron Bialick

Photo courtesy of Marta Lindsey

The SF Board of Supervisors Rules Committee approved the nomination of transit advocate Joél Ramos to the SFMTA Board of Directors today without deliberation, and his final confirmation is expected by the full board on Tuesday.

“Joél is the real deal,” said Andy Thornley, the policy director of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, who turned out with fellow advocates in uniform support of Ramos’ confirmation. “He is a transit advocate, a transit lover, and a champion for equity and social justice. He’s very qualified to join this important body and lend his intelligence and energy to it.”

Advocates roundly praised the Mayor’s nomination of the TransForm community planner to the board in April after a seat was left vacant by the passing of Cameron Beach, a veteran transportation professional who was being considered for reappointment.

“The appointment of Joél Ramos to this board could be a step forward in actually making the real change we need on our streets,” said Walk SF Executive Director Elizabeth Stampe. “Joél Ramos will speak up for sustainable streets, and we also know that he will speak up for the underserved communities who face a disproportionate risk of being hit by cars on our streets while walking and who depend the most on public transportation.”

Chinatown Community Development Center Community Planning Manager Cindy Wu praised the nomination for Ramos’ ability to reach out to underrepresented communities.

Among his goals as a member of the board, Ramos stressed the need to keep Muni fares affordable.

“Frankly, I think transit riders are paying too much as it is,” he said. “I’ll be doing everything that I possibly can as a member of the board to make sure we avoid [raising fares] at all possible costs.”

He also pointed out the need for simple measures to make streets safer, such as his own street in the Inner Sunset.

“Frequently, car accidents happen that could’ve been easily prevented with a few traffic calming measures, better left-hand turns, just better regulations that would actually make the street safer for drivers as well,” he said.

“A street that’s safe enough for a senior or a child that’s eight years old is safe enough for everyone.”

If confirmed, Ramos would serve a four-year term as a member.

Board of Supervisors President David Chiu at today's meeting. Photo: Luke Thomas, Fog City Journal

Supervisor David Chiu, a key player in the city’s sustainable transportation movement who gets around on his electric bicycle, was reelected president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors this afternoon on an 8-3 vote.  The 40-year-old District 3 supervisor called on his colleagues to “move beyond the past oppositional politics of personality” and build consensus to tackle some of the city’s most pressing problems.

“None of us were voted into office to take positions. We were voted into office to get things done. We were voted into office to create jobs, to make sure Muni runs on time, to make sure our streets are safe and clean and to make sure…that the least fortunate among us is taken care of,” said Chiu, referring to past positions supervisors have taken against the Mayor or other supervisors.

The vote to reelect Chiu came after four new members elected to the board — Jane Kim, Malia Cohen, Scott Wiener and Mark Farrell — were sworn into office along with Supervisor Carmen Chu, who ran unopposed for her District 4 seat.

In the first round of voting for president, Chiu, who was nominated by Kim, and Supervisor Sean Elsbernd (nominated by Chu) both got four votes each with Supervisor John Avalos (nominated by Supervisor David Campos) garnering three. All three supervisors were allowed to vote for themselves.

After the initial vote, Elsbernd stood up and noted how multiple rounds of voting can result in long-term elements of discord and distrust, and decided to withdraw his name “in the spirit of moving this meeting forward.” On the second round, Chiu’s nomination got the support of every new member, along with Supervisors Eric Mar, Chu and Elsbernd. Avalos was supported by Campos and Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi.

Chiu is widely rumored to be exploring a run for mayor. Just yesterday, it was publicly unclear whether he had enough votes to remain board president. Earlier this week, he was blasted by now former Supervisor Chris Daly, who pledged to “politically haunt” the former prosecutor and civil rights attorney after he announced his support of City Administrator Ed Lee for interim mayor with the eventual backing of six other supervisors.

Supervisors Mark Farrell, Scott Wiener, Jane Kim, Malia Cohen and Carmen Chu are sworn into office. Photo: Luke Thomas, Fog City Journal

Daly, along with Campos, Avalos, and Mirkirimi, said they didn’t so much have an issue with Lee, who is often praised as an efficient public servant, as they did the back room politics in which he was chosen, even though his name has been circulating for awhile. At their continued board meeting yesterday, tensions had simmered and Campos, Avalos and Mirkarimi were part of the 10-1 vote to nominate Lee as successor mayor, with Daly casting the lone dissent.

Lee, who has more than two decades of experience in city government and as managing attorney of the Asian Law Caucus took on tenant, employment discrimination and workers rights cases, is set to become San Francisco’s first Asian American mayor. The Board of Supervisors is expected to ratify his nomination Tuesday.

Chiu, who recently championed a citywide bicycle mode share goal of 20 percent by 2020, has been an ally of transit advocates and was endorsed by the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition when he ran for office in 2008.

“President David Chiu is an everyday bike commuter and has been a leader in transportation over the last two years in office and I’m very happy to continue to see him as board president,” said Marc Caswell, the program manager at the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, who was at City Hall for today’s meeting.

Earlier this week, Chiu’s aide, Judson True, said that he would work with Lee’s administration to pursue Transit First policies. While it remains unclear what Lee’s transportation priorities would be as mayor, several City Hall insiders have told Streetsblog that he does ride a bicycle but his dominant mode is reportedly a Toyota Camry. Those same people pointed out that he understands streets management as a former DPW director and would likely look at the issues from a transit justice perspective.

Until today, Chiu was the only car-free member of the Board of Supervisors. Cohen, who replaced Sophie Maxwell today as District 10 supervisor, currently doesn’t own a car. When asked by Streetsblog whether she planned to remain car-free, she replied: “Are you kidding? Not until we get better transportation. It’s hard to get from the southeast into the city. I’ve been late every single day.”

Cohen did say sustainability is a priority for her and she supports Connecting the City, the SFBC’s bold vision for the future of bicycling in San Francisco, and would specifically like to improve conditions for bicyclists on 3rd Street in her district.

Although Supervisor Malia Cohen does not plan on remaining car-free, she supports sustainable transportation and the SFBC's Connecting the City vision. Photo: Luke Thomas, Fog City Journal

Ed Lee with Human Rights Commissioner Zula Jones. Photo: Luke Thomas, Fog City Journal

During a dramatic eight-hour Board of Supervisors meeting last night, seven supervisors, including President David Chiu, Bevan Dufty, Eric Mar and Sophie Maxwell, lined up late in the session to support City Administrator Ed Lee for interim mayor. It prompted an angry outburst from outgoing Supervisor Chris Daly, who declared that it would be “the biggest fumble in the history of progressive politics in San Francisco.”

In the end, the supervisors agreed to continue the meeting and a decision on appointing a successor mayor to Friday at 3 p.m. Whoever the current board appoints (it requires six votes) would have to be confirmed by the new board. Four new supervisors are being sworn in Saturday. Even then, all the cards, at this point, seemed to be stacked to favor Lee, who was in Hong Kong and not available for comment.

In several interviews, some transit advocates and others who have worked with the former Asian Law Caucus managing attorney over the years offered nothing but praise, saying that even though some of outgoing Mayor Gavin Newsom’s staff might remain in place — something Daly and other progressives predict would mean more of the “same ole’, same ole‘” — Lee would set a different tone and get work done.

“He comes out of a strong civil rights background so I think he would look at transportation from an equity point of view and a transportation justice perspective,” said Supervisor Mar, who is supporting Lee. “Even though he has been a bit distant, in city government, from civil rights or community organizations that’s where his values are in supporting a better transportation system, especially for lower-income people and working families.”

Lee, who would become the city’s first Asian American mayor, has more than two decades of experience in city government, serving as the city’s first Whisteblower Ordinance investigator, executive director of the Human Rights Commission, the director of City Purchasing, and before his current job, was director of the Department of Public Works. When he was reappointed City Administrator in October, the Mayor’s Office praised him for “reducing the size and cost of city government and reducing the vehicle fleet.”

Malcolm Yeung, the public policy director at the Chinatown Community Development Center, knows Lee through his many years of work at the Asian Law Caucus.

“His time at the Asian Law Caucus really launched, I think, what is now the progressive movement in Chinatown,” said Yeung, who has worked as a tenants rights attorney and credited Lee with starting a housing rights position in addition to taking on cases involving employment discrimination and workers rights.

“I feel incredibly confident that Ed Lee is going to work with every element of this city, including the Board of Supervisors,” said Yeung. “Ed knows the city like no one else. He knows it better than (former Board President) Aaron Peskin, he knows it better than the Board of Supervisors, and having someone with that kind of knowledge in the mayor’s seat is going to be another incredible benefit.”

Yeung credited Lee with helping to champion the Chinatown Alleyway Master Plan, saying he used his position at DPW to secure funding.

Tom Radulovich, the executor director of Livable City, described Lee as “a really good public servant” and said he’s been a big supporter of Sunday Streets, helping to make introductions in Chinatown. He said Lee has always been great to work with and is very “professional, even personable.”

“He’ll be more focused on service delivery and fixing problems in government instead of running a press release factory,” said Radulovich. “He’s self-deprecating and he’s easy to work with and it’ll be very different than what we’ve had coming from the Mayor’s Office for awhile.”

The big downside could be that Lee may be hesitant to do anything bold on the sustainable transportation front. Daly’s concerns, along with some other progressive supervisors, are that Lee’s staff would reflect downtown interests and that little would change in the Mayor’s Office.

“He would be the quintessential caretaker mayor. He would keep every old Willie Brown and Gavin Newsom staffer from the Mayor’s Office and would run the exact same agenda as Newsom,” Daly told reporters after last night’s meeting.

He added: “This Board of Supervisors ostensibly has a majority of members from the progressive camp. That means on the tenant side of landlord-tenant issues. That means on the neighborhood side of major development issues. That means on the green side of environmental issues whereas the Newsom administration has been on the other side and that’s where Ed Lee’s caretaker administration would have stayed.”

Daly, who is ending his career as District 6 supervisor this week, pointed much of the blame on Chiu, calling him a traitor to progressives and promising to “politically haunt” the Board of Supervisors President.

Chiu has not responded to requests for interviews but his aide, Judson True, said the District 3 supervisor would continue to aggressively pursue Transit First policies and work with Lee to advocate for sustainable transportation. Chiu, however, is still rumored to be on the short list of candidates to replace Kamala Harris as District Attorney.

Flickr photo: Thomas Hawk

Though the dust is far from settled in the elections from Tuesday, some results will have a noted impact on transit in the Bay Area and the state. We’ll have more coverage of the election results on smart growth in a future installment

San Francisco Proposition G

San Francisco voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition G, stripping the City Charter of the clause guaranteeing Muni operators the second highest salary and benefits package of any transit operator in the nation. The final vote was 64 percent for, 36 percent against. The Transport Workers Union (TWU) 250-A, the union that represents Muni operators, will now have to negotiate wages and benefits with the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) through collective bargaining, a maneuver Prop G supporters hoped would compel the union to ditch some of its work rules deemed to be inefficient and outdated.

While the SFMTA declined to discuss its bargaining strategies before it sits down with TWU to negotiate a new contract to replace the one that expires on June 30, 2011, SFMTA CEO Nat Ford released a statement about the results.

“Proposition G gives the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency more flexibility to improve the work we do for San Francisco residents, visitors and the business community,” said Ford. “It will allow us to be more creative in our efforts to improve service and expand our programs for our customers, while at the same time respecting the hard but vital work of our operators and the other employee units covered by the proposition. We look forward to working cooperatively with the unions.”

According to the SFMTA, negotiations with TWU will likely begin shortly in the hopes they are able to negotiate a new contract before next summer and avoid an impasse. Representatives for the TWU did not return repeated requests for comment.

BART Elections

At BART, 20-year incumbent James Fang easily beat back challenges from two insurgents and received 49 percent of the vote. Bert Hill and Brian Larkin finished behind with 26 percent and 25 percent of the vote, respectively. Fang told Streetsblog he won because the public in his district was impressed with BART’s 96 percent on-time performance and the many expansions he has helped shepherd during his tenure, including the San Francisco Airport and Oakland Airport connections, eBART and Warm Springs.

“I think the voters of San Francisco understand and appreciate the hard work that has made BART the number one transit agency in the Bay Area, if not the nation,” said Fang. He also said the vote contradicted the argument made by his opponents that he was too focused on extensions to the detriment of the core system. Noting BART’s $1.5 billion seismic retrofit and $3.5 billion car replacement programs, Fang said, “people who say we’re not spending on the core system are frankly wrong.”

In the next breath, he said one of the campaign discussions that resonated most powerfully with voters was the idea of resurrecting BART to the Beach, a subterranean extension from the Civic Center station to the Outer Richmond District under Geary Boulevard. Fang said BART had initially planned to build such an extension and had revisited the idea several times over the years, but had never delivered service to a large segment of taxpayers who had been paying BART sales tax for decades.

Fang said he was convening a committee of the board to push for the extension and said it would be a priority for him in the coming years. He argued the latent ridership for such an extension would easily make it worth the high price tag, which he estimated to be at least $8-10 billion.

“There’s an old saying at BART,” said Fang, “It’s quicker to get from Richmond City to downtown San Francisco than it is to get from the Richmond District to downtown San Francisco.”

In the other hotly contested BART election, long-time bicycle and transit advocate Robert Raburn upset incumbent Carole Ward Allen, receiving 46 percent of the vote. Ward Allen got 35 percent, followed by Monique Rivera, who received 17 percent.

Raburn said the result was a referendum on the Oakland Airport Connector (OAC) and the role of the BART Police in the killing of Oscar Grant nearly two years ago on the Fruitvale Station platform. Both the OAC and the Oscar Grant shooting thrust Ward Allen into the spotlight, given her pivotal role in pushing for the connector and her role in reforming oversight of the BART Police.

Raburn said there wasn’t much hope of stopping the OAC now, but he hoped to prevent the agency from spending money on other projects he deemed “wasteful.”

“I’ve long wanted to see BART provide better service and instead I’ve watched them deteriorate to spend money they don’t have,” he said. “We can turn BART around by building passenger appeal, providing better service, restoring the jobs that were eliminated when they worked. Let’s stop balancing the budget on the backs of passengers.”

Among Raburn’s ideas for augmenting ridership were efforts to increase access to BART stations, notably by coordinating better with private shuttle services and funding BART shuttles around stations. In Alameda, where Raburn campaigned on a platform of better connections to the island with shuttles, he said BART could dramatically increase its ridership if they made it more convenient to get to the stations without having to drive.

He also stressed the need for better and safer pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to BART stations throughout the system, something he worked on as an advocate with the East Bay Bicycle Coalition.

On oversight of BART police, Raburn said he would pick up the work that Ward Allen started, of particular significance given the sentencing of former BART police officer Johannes Mehserle on Friday and any civil unrest that might result.

San Francisco District 10 and BART

One of the more interesting election questions that remains is how the results of the supervisor race in San Francisco’s District 10 will impact the make-up of the BART board of directors. Currently, Lynette Sweet, who represents BART’s District 7, is trailing Tony Kelly by 119 votes. Because of the massive field of candidates in the district, Kelly only has 13 percent of the vote and Sweet 12 percent, with 50 percent needed to win. Because of the nature of San Francisco’s ranked choice voting, the outcome could take several weeks. As political consultant David Latterman said in The Bay Citizen today, “Ten is a clusterfuck.”

If Sweet were to win the election for supervisor, her seat would be filled by a person chosen by James Fang, who, as president of the board, has the power to appoint a replacement to an outgoing board director. Though little can be said about who Fang would select if the situation were to occur and how that would change the votes on the board, the politics of the selection process will likely be fascinating. At a minimum, if Sweet were to leave and with Ward Allen’s departure, the BART board theoretically could have only one woman and one minority representative, hardly reflective of the make-up of BART’s ridership.

Proposition 22

California voters across the state affirmed their commitment to isolate local funding for municipal services from the Legislature and the Governor during budget season by passing Proposition 22, which guarantees that local or regional sales tax revenues dedicated to police, fire, libraries, transit and other municipal services cannot be shifted to pay down deficits in the state’s general fund. If the proposition makes it through court challenges, it could restore nearly $2 billion dollars per year that lawmakers and Governor Schwarzenneger had diverted to the general fund the past few years.

Jeff Wagner, a representative from the California Transit Association, a lobbying group representing transit operators across the state and a significant supporter of Prop 22, said the results demonstrated the public’s resolve for preserving quality of life and mobility funding that make communities livable. On the transit side, Wagner said the vote should ensure that at least in FY 2011-12 transit operators would receive a share of the state diesel tax, which should top $400 million, coupled with restoration of the $1.4 billion yearly from the Transportation Development Act (TDA), a 1/4 cent county sales tax for transportation funds established in 1971.

“We’ve got constitutional protections that ensure that transit revenues are spent on transit going forward,” said Wagner. “The passage of this not only preserves the funding already on the books, but it reduces” the risk of transit funding raids.

“We definitely have some protections against the kinds of yearly shell games that have been going on with the budget and the diversions of transit funding,” he added.

Wagner said despite the positive news, the CTA was prepared to continue its fight to preserve transit funding and he wouldn’t rule out legislative maneuvering to change the funding schemes for transit, akin to the gas tax swap earlier this year. On the other hand, he was optimistic that the majority vote budget requirement in Proposition 25 would make it slightly easier to get more funding for transit.

“There is a sense of accountability by having majority budget vote,” he said. “Future budgets will probably be more reflective of the majority party and in some ways that is beneficial for transit. The fact of the matter is, most of the key legislators we’ve been dealing with on addressing the transit funding crisis have been Democrats.”

Photo: Bringo.

The Board of Supervisors, acting as directors of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA), voted 8-3 yesterday to put a $10 vehicle registration fee increase on the November ballot, a measure that would raise $5 million yearly for congestion mitigation, street and road resurfacing, pedestrian safety and improved transit.

The fee increase was made possible when the governor signed SB 83 (Hancock) in late October, which has compelled county congestion management agencies to debate the merits of an increase. According to SB 83, any county could raise the vehicle registration fee by $10 dollars, so long as the money was spent on programs for congestion and pollution mitigation. The SFCTA's expenditure plan would allocate the $5 million to street resurfacing (50 percent), pedestrian safety (25 percent) and transit technology improvements (25 percent).

Surprisingly, the three "no" votes were from supervisors traditionally very supportive of transit: David Chiu, John Avalos and Eric Mar. Those supervisors raised numerous concerns about the measure, most notably that it would not raise much money and that it would compete with other significant tax measures that might be on the ballot. $5 million is a drop in the bucket compared to the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency's more than $700 million annual budget, they argued, and would amount to few improvements on the street.

"I personally think this is the wrong time to do it," said Chiu. "We only have a few shots at new revenue. I think if we're going to place anything on the ballot, we have to put on tax measures that result in real revenues for the general fund needs, not a measure that will provide us pennies on the dollar for congestion and pollution mitigation projects."

Chiu said the ballot was already crowded and adding another tax measure with limited impact could make it harder to pass the other measures, such as his small business payroll tax initiative. Chiu also pointed to a bill State Senator Mark Leno is pushing in Sacramento that would raise the vehicle licensing fee to 2 percent and would likely bring in an excess of $30 million per year to San Francisco coffers starting in 2012.

John Avalos concurred with Chiu's policy analysis and said this fee increase could poison the well for the other measures, including his property transfer tax initiative. "It seems like a little bit of money that could sour the greater need to have other sources of revenue pass on the ballot," he said. "If we have five tax measures there's a chance they may all go down."

A portion of the anger expressed by the dissenting supervisors likely had to do with how the SFCTA staff had proceeded with a poll to gauge public support for the measure, which showed a 62 percent favorable rating. Supervisor Chiu was angry the poll, conducted by EMC Research, compared the registration fee to his measure and the other potential measures and, in his estimation, asked slanted questions.

"I think most of these questions are incredibly biased," said Chiu. "The poll was frankly looking for results before they got them."

"It's clear this was an instrument that had a specific design in mind and I don't think it furthers what we want to further in the city," he added.

Jose Luis Moscovich defended the SFCTA's approach and said similar polls in the other eight Bay Area counties considering a vehicle registration fee compared the fee measure against other potential ballot initiatives. SFCTA's legal council also put to rest the contention that polling with public money was illegal, saying instead the action had distinct legal precedence.

Moscovich said Napa County was the only Bay Area county to opt out of considering the measure, but the unified focus from the other county congestion management agencies was significant. Moscovich noted that Santa Clara, Alameda, Marin and San Mateo counties had already voted to put the measure on the ballot and Contra Costa County would be voting on it next week.

"The benefit of having the transportation community focused on this in this manner and in a joint effort is that it takes away any consideration of competitive advantage from one county to another for not having this thing permanently imposed," he said. "The other big benefit is that there would be an awareness around the region about this being the first transportation revenue source authorized by the state in almost 20 years."

Supervisor Bevan Dufty gave a ringing endorsement of the fee increase and focused his comments on the impacts of poor paving on the city's bottom line. "We know that every year our city pays enormous claims to people who are injured because of the conditions on our streets and roadways, bicyclists and others who are injured because the state has taken away so much of the resources that we have traditionally had to improve our roadways," he said.

"This is the first time in a decade we've had an opportunity to dedicate a funding source for the programs we work so hard and our staff works so hard to implement and oversee."

Muni will be center stage at City Hall today. Photo: Michael Rhodes

Follow Streetsblog SF's Twitter feed for news of major developments at the meeting, or come down to City Hall in person at 1:30 p.m. to speak during the public comment period. In addition to discussing the budget, the supervisors will be talking to the city's budget analyst, Harvey Rose, about the results of an SFMTA management audit released yesterday.

The Board of Supervisors rejected an appeal today that would have halted the 10 percent cut in Muni service that's set to go into effect May 1.

By a 7-4 vote, the supervisors affirmed the Planning Department's determination that the service cuts are statutorily exempt from environmental review since they're covered by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency's declaration of fiscal emergency.

David Pilpel, a regular at SFMTA Board meetings, had appealed the service cuts' exemption from environmental review, arguing that the SFMTA isn't a publicly owned transit agency but a city department, that the service reductions did not receive public hearings and that the SFMTA's budget shortfall is a chronic problem and not a short-term crisis.

"This is a known, predictable and preventable problem. This is not brand new," Pilpel told the supervisors during a hearing today.

The Planning Department responded that the SFMTA had met all the criteria for exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act, and that the decision wasn't on the merits of cutting service, but on whether the SFMTA had followed procedure.

"For the Planning Department this is very much a black-and-white issue: you either meet the statutory exemption requirements or you don't," said the Planning Department's Viktoriya Wise.

Sonali Bose, the SFMTA's Chief Financial Officer, said the law allowing exemptions from environmental review was created for just such an occasion. "We believe it's very clear the MTA met the standard," said Bose. "We did not have enough revenue to meet our expenses."

Supervisor Sean Elsbernd ardently supported that position. "Does it make sense for a city to have to spend 6-8 months and million of dollars on an [environmental impact report] every time they have to make service cuts?" asked Elsbernd.

Most of the supervisors agreed with that conclusion, with John Avalos, David Campos, Chris Daly and Eric Mar dissenting. After directing an intense line of questions at Planning Department and SFMTA staff, Campos said he wasn't satisfied that the SFMTA had held proper public hearings for the cuts.

Supervisor Daly argued that the Board of Supervisors should do everything in its power to stop transit cuts, given the environmental impact of cutting transit service. "If we cut transit, we're cutting everything that is environmental about us," said Daly. "If I'm wrong on the law, fine, I'd rather go to court and get sued and lose."

But Campos and Daly failed to muster the six votes needed to support the appeal, with Board of Supervisors President David Chiu breaking from his progressive allies on the vote. "It would be the easy thing to do, but I think our job is to follow the law and call the balls and strikes as we see them," said Chiu. "I think in this case the law is clear and it makes sense."

In the end, the supervisors gave kudos to Pilpel's meticulous appeal for its "extreme creativity" (as Chiu phrased it) and to Pilpel for his dedication to transit, but it wasn't enough to stop what Pilpel called the deepest Muni service cuts in modern history. The agency's board voted in February to enact the cuts to help balance its budget through the end of the current fiscal year.

Still, while Chiu opposed using the appeal process to block the current round of cuts, he told his colleagues he'd oppose the SFMTA's budget for the coming two fiscal years if the SFMTA Board doesn't vote to return some of the service to the streets.

"I certainly expect that the MTA is going to roll back in a significant way the 10 percent service cuts that are proposed [for the next two fiscal years,] and if they don't, I won't support the budget," said Chiu.

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.

DPW Director Ed Reiskin, Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, and Mayor Gavin Newsom standing in what used to be two parking spaces. Photos: Matthew Roth

"This is a change in philosophy and how we think of the public rights-of-way," said Department of Public Works Director Ed Reiskin, who noted that approximately 25 percent of the public space in San Francisco is taken up by streets.

"There's an extraordinary amount of the public realm that is not park space, that's actually in the public rights-of-way, that's actually the streets," said Reiskin. "Unfortunately most of it is covered with concrete and asphalt and it was designed for cars and not for people."

The Mojo Cafe parklet is the first of several forthcoming parklets, which are technically part of the Pavement to Parks initiative spearheaded by Mayor Newsom. Though the projects are pilots, they have proven very successful and have quieted some of the early critics in neighborhoods where they've been implemented.

Newsom prefaced his remarks by assuring those critical of the parklet that Divisadero and the North of Panhandle neighborhood had not in fact lost any parking because an old bus stop that was removed nearby is now parking for two cars.

"This is all about taking the narrative of the 25 percent of our land mass that [is] streets, and begin to take a little bit of that back and open that up for the community and create a framework where there is a stronger community connection, a stronger sense of place and a better community environment as well," said Newsom.

District 5 Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi said that the parklet and the greater reconstruction of the Divisadero Street corridor were finally realizing a pledge he made when he became a supervisor: "When I came into office in 2005, I declared that Divisadero would be one of our comeback corridors."

"This parklet right here, this 44 feet, is really the first template that is going to have a citywide impact," said Mirkarimi. "It's an exciting 44 feet."

Reiskin thanked a host of advocates for their hard work, such as the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition (SFBC) and the San Francisco Great Streets Project, as well as city, regional, and federal agencies for their fiscal sponsorship of both the larger Divisadero project and the parklet, including the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the San Francisco County Transportation Authority. 

A special acknowledgment went to Riyad Ghannam, principal of RG Architecture, who donated his design services to create the parklet. Ghannam, who thanked the many volunteers from the Great Streets Project and SFBC, said parklets were both community amenities and challenges to the design community to get involved in innovative projects.

"I want to congratulate the city on taking a chance on something like this," said Ghannam, who explained that they had turned "two anonymous parking spaces" into a destination. Previously, said Ghannam, you couldn't have said to a friend, "meet me at these parking spaces."

Representing the North of Panhandle Neighborhood Association, Leela Gill praised the Divisadero reconstruction project for helping to bring the Alamo Square neighborhood closer to the North of Panhandle neighborhood, and with inspiring the creation of the Divisadero Merchants Association. Gill said the rapid turnaround of the street and the commercial corridor had improved safety.

"Twenty years ago, you wouldn't catch me walking down Divisadero, and now I would bring both of my children anytime, any day, down Divisadero," said Gill.

DPW's Reiskin, who noted that his daughter goes to school two blocks from the Mojo parklet, said he walks, rides his bike and takes the 24 down Divisadero almost daily, so the improvements had personal significance.

"This is part of a trend, this is not a one-off episode," Reiskin assured the crowd. "We really do see it as emblematic of a lot more to come."

 Future Pavement to Parks Plazas and Parklets

In order to keep the momentum going, Andres Power, Pavement to Parks project manager for the Planning Department, said they hope to have the next parklet at 22nd and Bartlett in the Mission built in early April.

"My goal is to get a project on the ground every three to four weeks," said Power, a schedule necessary to meet the Mayor's pledge to create twelve plazas and parklets in 2010.

Following the installation of the Mission parklet, planners will turn to the Inner Richmond, where they will install a parklet in front of Toy Boat Cafe on Clement Street, near 4th Avenue. Power said the Planning Department had just selected a pro-bono designer for the project, which could be in the ground by early to mid-May.

Unlike the initial Pavement to Parks Plaza at Castro and Market Street, where the novelty of the project left other city departments skeptical, Power said there was no resistance whatsoever to the new projects, in part because of the positive publicity they have engendered.

"At the end of the day, in the scheme of things, they are cheap. You get a lot of bang for the buck," said Power, who noted that the Mayor's presence at recent press events raised the profile of the work.

By this summer, Power and other project managers hope to move on two more parklets on Columbus Avenue, possibly in front of Caffe Roma and Caffe Greco as well as another plaza in Noe Valley on Noe Street near 24th Street, though Power said that still depends on community negotiations.

Funding for the plazas is coming from a combination of private donations and a large pot of economic development money assembled by the Mayor's Office of Workforce and Economic Development (MOEWD). According to Power, each plaza cost approximately $30,000 to construct and each parklet is less than $15,000.

"$30,000 is leveraging a bunch of resources," he said "Because we're able to leverage the good business savvy of local businesses and local project developers, we get these at much lower prices than say, New York City."

Power was quite proud to note that, rather than following the livable streets lead of cities like New York and Portland, Oregon, planners in those cities were consulting him.

"We've gotten calls from New York City, Portland, Boston, Seattle, and Washington DC inquiring about how we are making these happen."

The view of the parklet from the street, showing painted black planter boxes, shrubbery and bike parking.

Mayor Newsom enjoying the new seating.

For a second time in two weeks, the Board of Supervisors today delayed a final vote on legislation that would impose stricter rules on the construction of new garages in Chinatown, North Beach and Telegraph Hill. Unlike the first delay, however, the Board voted to make a small amendment to the measure today, passing the amended bill on first reading. It will be back next week for a final vote.

The amendment today fixed an initial error in the drafting of the legislation, said its sponsor, Board of Supervisors President David Chiu. The portion of Broadway included in the measure would stretch from the Embarcadero to Mason Street, not all the way to Polk Street, as the initial legislation had it.

After initially approving the legislation on first reading by a 7-2 vote on February 9, the supervisors voted on February 23 to continue the measure until today. Supervisor Bevan Dufty, whose vote would be crucial to override a potential veto from the Mayor, has asked for more time to talk to people on both sides of the debate before taking a final vote.

Garage addition companies, landlords and condo conversion supporters are reportedly pressuring Dufty to vote down the measure, while affordable housing, transit, pedestrian and bicycle advocates are rallying behind the garage legislation.

After approving the legislation on first reading by a 7-2 vote on February 9, the supervisors voted on February 23 to continue the measure until tomorrow. Supervisor Bevan Dufty, whose vote would be crucial to override a potential veto from the Mayor, has wavered in his position on the legislation, saying the measure moved through the legislative process too quickly for him and his constituents to give it a close enough look.

Garage addition companies, landlords and condo conversion supporters are reportedly pressuring Dufty to vote down the measure, while affordable housing, transit, pedestrian and bicycle advocates are rallying behind the garage legislation.

You can let Supervisor Dufty know your thoughts on the legislation by emailing him at bevan.dufty@sfgov.org or by calling his office at 415-554-5184.

Supervisor Bevan Dufty.

After approving the legislation on first reading by a 7-2 vote on February 9, the supervisors voted today to continue the measure until March 9, a move designed to give the measure's authors time to court Supervisor Bevan Dufty's vote, which would be crucial to override a potential veto from the Mayor.

Dufty reiterated a point today that he made to Streetsblog yesterday: The measure moved through the legislative process too quickly for him and his constituents to give it an adequate review. Supervisor Chris Daly questioned why Dufty was now hesitant to support the legislation after initially voting for it, but Dufty said his initial vote was intended to provide additional time to study the measure.

Garage addition companies, landlords and condo conversion supporters are reportedly pressuring Dufty to vote down the measure, while affordable housing, transit, pedestrian and bicycle advocates are rallying behind the garage legislation.

Supervisor David Campos at a recent gathering outside City Hall.

Campos has inserted himself into the debate by leading the charge on a charter amendment to change how the MTA Board is appointed. He has also requested an audit of the MTA's management practices. Results should be ready in time to inform the supervisors' vote in May on the MTA's budget for the next two years.

On the unplanned side, Campos will be leading the confirmation process for two MTA Board members this month. He's the chair of the Board of Supervisors Rules Committee, the first stop for Mayor Newsom's MTA Board nominations before they reach the full Board of Supervisors.

There's uncertainty on all three fronts at the moment. Details of the audit and the charter amendment measure are still being hammered out, and Mayor Newsom hasn't said whom he'll appoint to fill two MTA Board seats that will open on March 1.

After a press event for the Central Subway yesterday, the Mayor said he's still figuring out his appointments to many of the city's commissions, including the MTA. "I have about 45 appointments that we'll be making in the next few weeks," he said.

With any shot at broader reforms still half a year away, Campos said the Board of Supervisors will be making the most of its confirmation power over mayoral appointees to the MTA Board. "If we put a measure on the ballot, it wouldn't go on the ballot until November," he said. "In the meantime, we want to make sure that, within the current governing structure, Muni is in the best hands possible."

Like many of his colleagues on the Board of Supervisors, Campos said the keyword for directors is independence.

"What I look for is someone who is truly independent of not just the Mayor but also the Board, and who's going to ask the right questions, who's going to be engaged, who understands what it's like to ride Muni, who is responsive to the needs of the ridership, who holds Muni accountable. That kind of independence, in my humble opinion, has not been demonstrated by some members of this MTA Board."

Audit Could Shape Budget Decisions and Charter Amendment Measure

Despite a tight timeline, Campos is adamant that the audit will help inform both the supervisors' MTA budget decisions in early May and the charter amendment proposal. The picture is already looking grim, with deficits of about $50 million for each of the next two fiscal years

"It would really address a larger question that is in the minds of everyone who rides Muni: Is Muni being run properly? It would look at basic best practices around management. It's not just mid-level management or upper-level management, it's management, period."

That could include any level of management, from Executive Director Nat Ford to line supervisors, Campos said. In addition to making sure operations are run in a way that makes sense, the audit will look at how the MTA spends its money, and will almost certainly look at work orders from other city departments.

On the governance side, Campos' charter amendment proposal would include splitting appointments to the MTA Board between the Mayor and the supervisors, something Supervisor John Avalos had proposed last year. The Mayor currently appoints all seven Board members, who are confirmed by a majority vote of the supervisors.

"I think there has to be some form of a split appointment between the Mayor and the Board," said Campos. "Then we need to look at other things to consider. There are some agencies, like the Department of Elections commission, that are appointed by other city officials. There are a number of possibilities. So, I don't want to say that we're looking at one over the other."

Campos has ruled out the prospect of having a voter-elected MTA Board member.

"I think that makes it a political fight that is predicated on who runs the most effective campaign," he said. "Money could be a big part of that. We ultimately want something that's going to provide accountability and transparency for the ridership."

In addition to studying the city's other commissions, Campos said he would draw on the results of the audit in shaping his governance reform proposal. "Any time you look a management audit, you look at the oversight that's provided - or not provided, for that matter."

Initial reports on the ballot measure focused on the call for split MTA Board appointments, but Campos said the measure would include structural reforms as well. "By that I mean rules that govern the day-to-day structure and the operations of Muni in such a way that they're counterproductive," he said.

"I don't know that simply changing the governance structure will get you to the result you want, which is having the most effective public transportation system in the country. I think the governance structure is part of it, but not the only thing."

Once again, the results of the audit could play a key role in shaping that proposal. The city's transit advocates no doubt will wish to have a voice as well. Campos said he's listening. "I don't want it to be something that just comes out of the Board of Supervisors. I think it has to be a grassroots effort."

Flickr photo: Thomas Hawk.

The initiative comes amidst a worsening budget crisis, but the merits of such a measure may lie as much in its broader bargaining value as in its cost-savings potential. "The city really has no position, because if the salary is already set, what ability do we have to negotiate any changes to, say, work rules that we believe are outdated, work rules that we'd like to improve," asked Elsbernd at last week's Rules Committee meeting. "There is no incentive on the other side to give anything, because they already know what they're going to get as a salary."

Last month, SPUR head Gabriel Metcalf told the Chronicle he backs Elsbernd's proposal for just that reason. "It sets up the ability for management to bargain for work-rule changes in exchange for pay and benefits," Metcalf said.

With operator salaries comprising about $212 million of the MTA's $765 million budget, and with operators making up over 2,000 of the MTA's 4,600 employees (before a recent round of layoffs,) Elsbernd has argued that the MTA effectively has no leeway over a huge chunk of its budget. "We are shackled to the charter, shackled to whatever number comes out, and here we are listening to discussions of Muni fare increases, parking meter increases and of course, massive service reductions," he said.

Muni operators haven't been exempt from the budget pain: 170 operator positions may be on the chopping block as part of a huge set of service cuts the MTA Board is currently mulling over, part of a plan to cut Muni's annual service hours by a whopping ten percent.

A Forty-Two Year Precedent

Click to view PDF. Proposition G, a 1967 ballot measure, was passed in the wake of a strike to improve labor relations and raise employee moral.

Evidence that the Municipal Railway has been facing some of the same problems for a very long time, the official argument in support of Proposition G cited the need to reduce missed runs. "In the year ending May 1, 1967, there was an average of 86 vacancies on the Municipal Railway. These vacant jobs had to be covered by other operators working overtime," it reads. "This cost the City thousands of dollars in overtime pay, and, in many cases, cut the service offered to the public when runs could not he manned. With fair terms of employment more operators will be recruited and fewer will leave."

The provision in Prop. G was actually strengthened and its de facto salary minimum codified in 2007 by Proposition A (PDF), which, among other changes, amended the charter to officially set operator salaries at the average of the nation's two highest-paying transit agencies (Elsbernd supported the proposal.)

The Price of Labor Peace

Employee moral - not to mention the aversion of strikes - remains a key factor in why the current wage system shouldn't change, said Irwin Lum, president of Transport Workers Union Local 250-A. "San Francisco voters are going to want all the relevant facts before allowing ambitious politicians to trash a city charter provision responsible for 42 years of labor peace," Lum wrote in an opinion piece in the San Francisco Chronicle on January 6.

Not coincidentally, 1967 was also the year of the last operator strike. The official argument for Proposition G cites the relatively lower pay and benefit standards for Muni operators compared to other city employees at the time. "Bus and trolley operators and other platform personnel of the Municipal Railway have fallen behind most other City Employees in their fringe benefits, such as shift differentials, paid holidays and health and welfare," it reads. "They have also fallen behind in fringe benefits as compared to operators in other large cities with whom their basic wage rate is compared. The result is that the bus and trolley operators jobs, recognized as hard and demanding, are not getting their fair terms of employment."

Today, operators' jobs remain demanding as ever, though they no longer lag behind peer agencies in pay. Elsbernd said he's confident the collective bargaining process has come along far enough in California that labor and the MTA's management would no longer have irresolvable differences that would lead to a strike.

"It works for everyone else," he said. "I have complete faith that it will work for them."

The Hardest Transit Operator Job in the Country?

But Lum criticized Elsbernd's proposal again today, calling their Monday meeting unproductive, and said that Muni operators manifestly have a harder job than operators at most agencies, in addition to living in the high-cost Bay Area. "We have one of the hardest jobs," said Lum. "You can't compare our job to VTA," another of the top-paying agencies, which Lum said operates in far less congested conditions, carrying fewer riders per vehicle.

Lum said drivers are being unfairly picked on. "They're trying to portray us as being unreasonable and self-serving and selfish, which is anything but the case," said Lum. He places the blame for the agency's current financial woes on the Governor's repeated raiding of transit assistance funds, which has cost the MTA $152 million over the past three years.

Supervisor David Campos, the Rules Committee's chair, supported continued discussion of the measure, as did Supervisors Chris Daly and Eric Mar. Daly said he'd be open to including most of the provisions in a bigger package of charter amendments.

As the MTA stares down a mid-year deficit that of $16.9 million and a $70 million projected deficit for the next budget cycle, Elsbernd is not alone in proposing amendments to how the agency operates. Campos is working on a proposed ballot initiative to give the Board of Supervisors control over three MTA Board seats (moving away from the increased independence of the MTA created by Proposition A in 2007,) and has formally requested an audit of some portions of the MTA's operations.

The proposed ballot initiative is Item 2 at tomorrow's Board of Supervisors Rules Committee meeting, which will be held at 10 a.m. at San Francisco City Hall, Committee Room 263.

Campos' call for an audit came during a special hearing before a Board of Supervisors Budget and Finance Committee on the Muni budget situation. After the supervisors questioned MTA spokesperson Judson True on the layoffs, most of which are effective Friday, Campos said he wasn't certain the MTA had fully considered concerns brought up by representatives of SEIU, the union hit hardest by the cuts.

"What troubles me about where we are with respect to what SEIU has proposed is that, with all due respect, I'm not fully convinced that enough consideration was given to many of these points before you came to the MTA Board or to this Board to talk about some of the very drastic things that we're talking about," Campos told True.

In a press conference before the hearing and during the hearing's public comment period, members of SEIU questioned whether laying off parking control officers (PCOs) was economical, and expressed concerns about public health impacts that could result from laying off 10 car cleaners. During the meeting, Supervisor Chris Daly screened a video of the insides of Muni buses covered in graffiti and strewn with vomit and needles to emphasize the importance of the car cleaners' work.

SEIU organizer Robert Haaland pointed to the MTA's plan to spend $6 million on budget consultants as an example of the agency's mismanagement. "Last month at the Civil Service Commission, MTA asked for $6 million to hire a firm to help them with budgeting," Haaland told the supervisors. "[If the MTA] can't plan their own budget, maybe we should be laying off managers who do the planning around the budget and just hire this other firm."

As the MTA has previously maintained, True said the agency had actually seen a decline in parking citation revenue even as more PCOs were hired in recent years, prompting the agency to cut 24 positions and bank on higher citation rates from the remaining PCOs. The agency recently implemented a 30-day moratorium on the PCO layoffs to take a harder look at PCO deployment strategies.

Not fully satisfied with the MTA's responses, Campos asked the Board of Supervisors' budget analyst, Harvey Rose, when the MTA had last been audited. Aside from a Proof of Payment audit requested by Supervisor Bevan Dufty last year, Rose said the MTA had never been audited. The last comprehensive audit of Muni was in 1996, before the MTA existed.

Supervisor Chris Daly. Photo: Michael Rhodes

Such an audit would likely focus on staffing issues. "That not only deals with overtime but also the appropriate level of staffing in terms of layoffs, in terms of who you want to layoff," said Campos. "Is it appropriate to focus on front line workers being laid off, what about the level of management staffing?"

"If we're laying-off PCOs that actually lead to less revenue coming into the system, that's not a good thing. ... If we're laying off people who keep the buses clean, and our buses are in the condition that some claim they are, ridership is going to go down. You already have riders who are paying a lot more and if we're laying off people who maintain the buses, that ridership could potentially go down, which could only exacerbate the problem."

With Muni facing its second budget crisis in one year, and future budget shortfalls a near certainty, the Board of Supervisors is struggling to exert influence on an agency almost entirely controlled by the Mayor, who appoints the MTA's entire Board. (The supervisors do vote on the agency's two-year budgets as well as fare increases, but not on mid-year budget measures.) Campos is also working on a ballot proposal to give the Board of Supervisors control over three of the seven MTA Board seats.

Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi suggested that the MTA might exercise some influence via its control of the San Francisco Country Transportation Authority. "There needs to be larger reforms on the MTA," Mirkarimi said at the press conference this morning. "I hope that the Transportation Authority here in San Francisco, which is influenced by the Board of Supervisors, makes those reforms happen to the best of our ability."

Along with many of the supervisors, Mirkarimi said he doesn't like the direction the budget is headed. "I share in the solidarity of saying that we will not tolerate these unfair and not sensible cuts the MTA is proposing."

Of course, if the supervisors do find a way to influence Muni's budget, they'll have to decide what alternatives they'd prefer for balancing it. Supervisor Daly called on the MTA to take a look at a "more progressive parking tax in San Francisco," while Board President David Chiu said he doesn't care how the budget is balanced, as long as it doesn't involve further service cuts and fare increases. "I know that there were a lot of proposals in a lot of different areas, and I am probably agnostic on everything outside of service cuts and fare increases," said Chiu. "As far as I'm concerned, everything else is on the table and should be looked at pretty closely."