Some of the most important changes for Muni are also the simplest ones.

That's the message of a five-part Streetfilms series on ways to speed up and enhance Muni service that we'll be presenting in the coming weeks, and it's certainly true of the first film, on speeding up boarding, which we're presenting today. The film was shot and edited by Streetfilms' John Hamilton.

The most immediate thing Muni could do to speed up boarding on its buses is switch to a system called proof-of-payment, which allows riders who have a monthly Fast Pass, a transfer, or a TransLink card to board through any door on the bus. Instead of showing the driver proof-of-payment, passengers just hold on to their transfer, and fare inspectors randomly board vehicles to check for payment. That's already how it works on Muni's light rail vehicles when they run on the street, where it has led to faster boarding times and lower fare evasion rates.

In fact, the Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA), which operates Muni, is already studying the idea and hopes to move forward with it eventually, according to Julie Kirschbaum, project manager for the MTA's Transit Effectiveness Project. Kirschbaum explains the idea in the film, and we also hear from SPUR Executive Director Gabriel Metcalf, Livable City's Tom Radulovich, and San Francisco Transit Riders Union organizer Dave Snyder.

Switching to proof-of-payment and all-door boarding isn't the only way to speed up boarding: moving to low-floor buses is a big part of the long-term solution, and the film looks at it as well.

The great thing about moving to all-door boarding is Muni could do it almost immediately. Now it's up to riders and policymakers to get excited about the idea and make it happen.

Some of the most important changes for Muni are also the simplest ones and there are a number of relatively basic adjustments the MTA could make that would improve service and speed up the city's buses.

Much of the debate on improving overall Muni speed revolves around how to move buses through intersections faster or give them priority lanes. It's almost as important, however, to consider how long buses spend not moving: Between 15 and 30 percent of travel time on Muni lines throughout the city is taken up by customers getting on and off the bus.

That's why speeding up boarding is one of the most important things Muni can do to improve service, which we detail at length in our new Streetfilm, the first in a series of five.

Right now, boarding the bus is a slow process, where every passenger must board through the same door. If one person is fumbling for change, it can back up a long line of riders who already have a Fast Pass or other payment ready to go.

Without any major technological upgrades, Muni could switch to a much faster system of boarding. It's called proof-of-payment (also known as POP), and it allows riders to enter through any door on the bus as long as they have a Fast Pass or transfer, or if they tag their TransLink card at the rear card readers.

Switching to proof-of-payment and all-door boarding would require more fare inspectors for the buses, and some relearning of old routines for passengers, but it's hardly a radical idea. In fact, it's already in place on Muni's light-rail vehicles when they're running on the street, where they operate almost identically to buses. Passengers can board through any door -- no need to flash the driver any proof you've paid -- and MTA inspectors make random inspections to stop fare evasion. You still have to pay for a pass at the front of the vehicle, but frequent riders can skip the line and board through other doors.

It works pretty well, too: fare evasion rates are 50 percent lower on Muni's light rail vehicles than they are on the buses.

Muni's longest buses are similar to the light rail vehicles in that they have more than two doors. Riders seem to already grasp the similarity: many board through rear doors even now, though it's still illegal. While that has inspired a lot of frustration from riders who don't appreciate freeloaders, the reality is that many back-door boarders -- about 45 percent, according to an MTA study [PDF] -- do have valid fares, and if Muni were to crack down on all back-door boarding, it would likely seriously impact boarding speeds. An "immediate shift to exclusive front-door boarding could result in longer times at stops and slower travel times," that same study notes.

At present, Muni has the highest rate of bus boardings per hour in the country, at 70 per hour, beating out New York by a nose. By switching to all-door boarding, that rate could go even higher, at significant benefit to Muni's speed.

But all-door boarding isn't the only solution. Ideally, major stops would have ticket vending machines, allowing riders who don't have a monthly Fast Pass to pay their fare without holding up the bus. An example of this already exists for the light rail vehicles at the 4th and King Caltrain station, but it has yet to roll out for any bus stops.

"We're currently researching different options for our ticket vending machines," said Julie Kirschbaum, Project Manager for the MTA's Transit Effectiveness Project. "The equipment that we have now is very expensive to maintain, which is why we're also researching things like the TransLink Add Payment machines, because those can be easier to maintain. We're currently working on getting more of them in at light rail stations and eventually on the surface as well."

In the long term, the MTA also hopes to switch over its entire Muni fleet to low-floor buses. With bus floors that are nearly flush with the curb, they're much quicker and easier for all passengers to board, but especially those who are mobility-impaired. Muni has about 80 of these vehicles now, out of a total bus fleet of over 900.

Converting the whole bus fleet to low-floor vehicles will take a while. Switching to proof-of-payment and all-door boarding could happen much sooner, but not happen overnight -- the MTA needs to retrain operators and riders, and hire enough fare inspectors to cover its buses as well. The agency hasn't offered a time frame for switching yet, perhaps because staff members are tied-up dealing with the current budget crisis and service cuts, but it could be done relatively quickly, with great benefit to its riders and maybe even its budget.

The City Attorney's office has determined that the short first terms of MTA Board members Shirley Breyer Black and James McCray do count towards the three-term limit for directors, meaning both are termed out as of May 1. That answers an open question about the seats that Streetsblog first raised last month.

As a result, Mayor Newsom has two spots to fill, and with his recent announcement that he's accepting resumes for positions on the MTA Board, transit advocates and community group leaders are starting to develop wish lists of traits for new Board members.

The top item on most of those lists, it seems, is that the new directors be regular Muni riders.

"The new MTA Board Member should be one from the community, an actual frequent Muni rider," said Wing Hoo Leung, Vice President of the Community Tenants Association. "He or she should be an experienced community leader that knows and understands the needs of the public."

Bradley Angel, Executive Director of the environmental justice group Greenaction, had the same request. "That's the expertise they really need and agencies like the MTA don't take into account," he said.

Marlene Tran, spokesperson for the Visitacion Valley Asian Alliance and herself a Muni rider for 40 years, said she's been making suggestions to Muni for improvements for so long that a friend tried to nominate her for the position. She's not interested, she said, though she'd also like to see a regular Muni rider nominated to the Board.

Given that Muni's riders are as diverse as the city itself, Angel, Leung and Tran all feel the new Board appointments should continue to reflect that.

"Clearly, a lot of the proposed Muni cutbacks would definitely disproportionately harm lower-income residents and people of color," said Angel. "It would be very timely and long-overdue to have better representation of not only people sympathetic and aware of those impacts, but actually representative of the communities who use and need public transportation the most."

Fluency with multiple languages would be a plus as well, said Tran.

Jason Henderson, a geography professor at San Francisco State University, said his wish list includes someone who is a visionary about long-term transportation improvements and supporting the city's Transit First policy, but who is also ready to face the immediate crisis.

On the long-term issues, said Henderson, that means thinking about the link between transportation and land use in the city. "We need someone who is aggressive on the issue of matching urban infill development with expanding transit capacity," he said. "We cannot add all the new condos the Mayor's people are pursuing without expanded transit capacity."

He'd also prefer a new director who can take the lead on advocating for congestion pricing, parking reform, a tax assessment district, and a transition to system-wide proof-of-payment. "Some of this no doubt requires state legislative changes, but the board needs to actively push it," said Henderson.

The MTA is also in charge of the city's bike infrastructure, and Henderson said new directors would need to be able to navigate the challenge of successfully expanding the bike lane network in a way that doesn't slow down Muni.

Most of the director appointments in the MTA's ten-year history have been people strongly loyal to the Mayor, with few exceptions. Tran said that shouldn't be the case this time around. The new appointment "should not continue the trend to rubber-stamp Muni management's proposals, but to challenge this public agency to be more fiscally responsible," she said. "So, related background experiences is a plus."

"Hopefully, this appointment is for the most suitable candidate and not simply as a payback political appointment," she added.

The Mayor has said he's looking for someone who rides Muni regularly. He may also be looking for women, given that Shirley Breyer Black is the only woman on the seven-member Board. (Muni's ridership is nearly 50 percent female, after all, according to a 2006 Metropolitan Transportation Commission survey.)

Whoever is appointed will not start until May 1, too late to be present for the Board's key vote on the budget for the next two fiscal years -- though perhaps in time to take heat in the aftermath. They'll also face confirmation by the Board of Supervisors, and will then serve a four-year term.

With a three-term limit, that means a director nominated now who stays in the good graces of future mayors and supervisors just might be around until 2022.

Who would you nominate for the MTA Board? Let us know in the comments section below. And if you're interested in applying, send a resume to the Mayor at gavin.newsom@sfgov.org.

Susan King of Livable City flanked by beautiful bikes. Photos: Michael Rhodes

The six Sunday Streets events last year managed to attract between 16,000 and 20,000 people each, and the biggest complaint was that there weren't enough of them, said MTA Executive Director Nat Ford.

"Last year, we checked with all the participants and they said they wanted more Sunday Streets. We're delivering that," said Ford. "They said that they wanted to have more activities. We've provided that. And they wanted it to be diverse around the city, so I think we've answered all of the requests by our citizens."

On top of that, they'll be longer: each event will run from 10 a.m. until 3 p.m. this year.

Sunday Streets is a chance to walk, bicycle, and generally play in the streets, all for free - but merchants have embraced the events as a welcome economic boost as well. "We're really excited this year because we're going to be able to welcome everyone into the heart of Fisherman's Wharf for a Family Fitness Fair," said Kevin Caroll, Executive Director of the Fisherman's Wharf Community Benefit District.

Sustainable transportation advocates are geared up too: the tag line for Sunday Streets this year is "No Sunday Drivers. Guaranteed," and Ford made it clear that he's serious about that. "We expect everyone who will be joining us on these Sundays to use Muni, to walk or to take their bike to get to these Sunday Streets venues," said Ford.

The events take a lot of coordination between partners in the city's government, non-profits and businesses; it also takes a lot of volunteers.

"One of the most important elements of Sunday Streets is our volunteers," said Susan King of Livable City, the non-profit that has led organizing for Sunday Streets. "We had over 1,000 volunteers over the last two years give up part of their day, instead of having fun, making sure that everybody stays safe."

If you're able to help out at one or more of the events, head over to the Sunday Streets website to sign up. The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition coordinates the volunteer program, meaning you'll get to work with Kate McCarthey, who just received the 2010 Susie Stephens Joyful Enthusiasm Award from The Alliance for Biking and Walking for her "tireless enthusiasm to harness the power of individuals to better bicycling."

As for this Sunday, the forecast calls for 60-degree weather and clear skies: all the more reason to come out and enjoy San Francisco's own ciclovía.

A very satisfied attendee of Sunday Streets in the Mission last year.

Could rounds of Muni service cuts and fare hikes push more people to start cycling in San Francisco?

The MTA, which operates Muni, doesn't have data on the phenomenon, but anecdotally, it's already happening.

For Christopher Janson, it wasn't the fare hikes last year or the service changes last December that nudged him towards commuting by bike: it was his daily ride three years ago on the 41-Union or the 45-Union-Stockton from Russian Hill to the Powell Street BART station.

"In the morning, the 41 would often be too full to stop and the 45 would be packed within three stops in Chinatown," Janson said. "In the evening, by the time I got back to the city ... again, both would be packed."

"It really was just not enjoyable riding Muni as a commuter," he added.

That daily frustration eventually helped him overcome nervousness about bicycling in the hills and on bustling streets. "Getting off of the bus and onto a bicycle has been incredible," said Janson. "I really think it is somewhat similar to learning how to drive a car. You just have to take it slow and easy at first and you gradually build up experience and become more confident."

Sean Rea, an Outer Sunset resident who commutes to a start-up in SOMA, began his transition from Muni to two-wheeled transportation last spring. He tired of waiting a half hour on occasion for the N-Judah, often finding it "packed like a sardine can" when it did arrive.

He describes himself as a "fair-weather, daylight cyclist," and on days when it's raining or he's in a hurry, he takes a scooter he purchased last May. "Working at a startup in SOMA has its perks, but a shower isn't one of them," said Rea. "Going from the Inner Sunset to SOMA isn't a trivial distance, and if it is wet and/or dark, or I'm on a time crunch, then there are parts of the route home that don't feel terribly safe."

He's open to biking even more if the MTA continues to make bicycling infrastructure upgrades that address his safety concerns.

For Jamie Whitaker, President of the Rincon Hill Neighborhood Association and a Harrison Street resident, it was when the price of the monthly Adult Fast Pass was raised from $45 to $60, and N-Judah service past Embarcadero station and 12-Folsom bus service east of 2nd Street were nixed last December.

"I stopped buying Muni Fast Passes and began using my flexible spending account's transit dollars to buy $60 of TransLink credit each month," said Whitaker. "I do not travel as much to other neighborhoods like Castro, Mission, and Bernal Heights as I used to, mainly because the lack of a Muni Fast Pass makes it -- psychologically, at least -- more expensive."

Whitaker said he actually biked more when he first moved to the city in 2004. At the time, he lived in Potrero Hill, and quickly found the 10-Townsend bus "wasn't terribly reliable for pick-ups at 17th and DeHaro at 6:30 in the morning for my commute over to 2nd Street and Brannan."

He soon bought a bicycle and rain or shine would bike to work downtown, where his office had a bike storage room and a shower. But when a new job came with a more formal dress code, a less-secure bike rack, and more flexibility about when he arrived, he made the switch back to the 10-Townsend.

Now that he lives in Rincon Hill, he's a full-time walker. Without a monthly pass, he's not riding Muni as much, and Rincon Hill hasn't upgraded its bike infrastructure to catch up with its flood of new residents yet, so he's not comfortable biking too often.

"I do hope to get into a habit of riding my bike more, just to expand my typical experiences once again beyond mid-Market/Civic Center, Fisherman's Wharf, and Mission Creek Park in Mission Bay," said Whitaker.

The cuts to the N-Judah and 12-Folsom have pushed a lot of his wealthier neighbors to drive more, Whitaker said.

That's why the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition (SFBC) is encouraging its members to protest Muni service cuts and fare hikes: some disgruntled Muni riders may switch to cycling, but plenty might switch to driving as well, creating more inhospitable conditions for bicycling and walking.

For Janson, who'd previously only biked in a tranquil college environment in less-hilly Indiana, the SFBC also helped make the transition to bicycling in the city easier.

"San Francisco is also a great place to learn because there are a ton of resources and a great cycling community," he said. "The single most important resource I own is the Bike Map that I got from the SFBC."

Neither Janson nor Rea give much thought to returning to Muni now, unless service is dramatically improved: both love the freedom and the affordability of bicycling. But Whitaker said he misses owning a monthly pass.

"I love to walk," he said, "but I do miss the freedom of the Muni Fast Pass to take me to other wonderful parts of San Francisco that I just don't feel like I can afford to see as often nowadays."

A ten-percent increase in the commercial off-street parking tax, from 25 percent to 35 percent of gross receipts, could bring in $20 million for Muni and reduce congestion by nudging downtown commuters towards transit, all without requiring any statewide legislative changes. But the proposal faces an uphill battle: A recent poll showed just 38 percent of respondents support even a 5 percent increase in the tax, and a similar measure gained even less support in 2006.

Still, it just might be the MTA's best hope for new revenue via the ballot box this November, given the obstacles the vehicle license fee faces at the state level.

Of the five ballot measure ideas presented by MTA staff last week, "it seems like it's the most achievable politically," said Livable City's Tom Radulovich. It's also a means to charge people who don't live in the city, and thus don't pay city taxes, for the congestion impact they create. "The parking tax is a way to even out the imbalance of not getting money from people who commute in," Radulovich said.

That's backed up by a study that found 62 percent of monthly parkers in city-owned garages downtown reside outside of San Francisco.

San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR), an urban planning think tank, proposed such an increase for similar reasons in its 2006 Muni funding policy paper, "Muni's Billion Dollar Problem." SPUR Executive Director Gabriel Metcalf said he stands behind the paper's recommendations and favors taxes that encourage a shift from driving to transit, like the parking tax, over a parcel tax or a hotel occupancy tax, which he said have less of a direct tie to transportation.

Even so, there's no guarantee SPUR would officially endorse an increase in the parking tax if it makes it to the ballot. In 2006, a 10 percent increase in the parking tax was on the ballot, but SPUR took no position on it. That's because the measure, Proposition E, would not have specifically dedicated the funds to the MTA, and instead would have sent them to the city's general fund.

Any tax dedicated to the MTA would require a two-thirds majority vote, while a general tax needs just a simple majority. MTA Chief Financial Officer Sonali Bose said during a presentation last week that it might be possible to make the measure a general tax, with an agreement from the city that the MTA would still receive most of the money, similar to how the current parking tax works.

Given the economic climate, it might be nearly impossible for any tax to get a two-thirds majority. Chamber of Commerce public policy director Jim Lazarus doubts the commercial off-street parking tax would even garner a simple majority. "It's been defeated before," he said, referring to 2006's Proposition E. Exit polls at the time showed that "even the bicyclists voted against it," said Lazarus.

Indeed, it received just 33 percent of the vote, but Dave Snyder, SPUR's former Transportation Policy Director and the lead force behind a new Muni riders union, said virtually no campaigning was done for that measure. "It was on the ballot along with tons of other stuff," said Snyder. He supports the increase, arguing it would have a desirable effect on transportation and land use behavior. (He'd also like for such a measure to close a loophole for valet parking, which the 2006 measure wouldn't have done.)

Daniel Murphy, chair of the MTA's Citizens' Advisory Council, said the CAC has supported a parking tax increase in the past, but he remains unconvinced of its political viability. "That kind of thing has been in front of voters before and didn't fare well," he said.

Moreover, "the revenue you get from that is not huge," said Murphy.

$20 million in new revenue could mean the difference between a 3 percent cut in Muni service instead of a 10 percent cut, not exactly unsubstantial. Still, it would require a tough campaign, and would not be a budget panacea.

MTA CFO Bose said an alternate idea would be to apply the higher tax rate only to garages that don't conform with the Planning Code's requirement that downtown garages only charge hourly rates - no daily rates, monthly rates, or early bird specials allowed. That would bring in a lot less money, but would still generate revenue just by forcing garages to do what Sec. 155 (g) in the Planning Code calls for.

SPUR supports greater enforcement of that rule as well, since it encourages the use of downtown parking garages for short shopping trips instead of all-day commuter parking.

As for the poll numbers, there may be a slim silver lining: while just 38 percent support a 5 percent increase in the parking tax, a crucial 12 percent remain undecided. And that's without any campaigning or mention of sending part of the funds to Muni. It's the kind of measure that isn't likely to go far without strong backing, but just might have a shot with the support of a well-organized constituency of Muni riders.

One lesson from Saturday's Save Muni Summit and from MTA Board hearings jam-packed with Muni supporters in the past two weeks is that Muni riders are not an apathetic bunch. But if riders are willing to go to City Hall and to grassroots meetings, why isn't there already a politically powerful transit constituency in San Francisco?

The answer may lie in the sheer diversity of Muni's ridership, which is hardly less heterogeneous than the city itself. While everyone wants better Muni service, Muni riders disagree -- often vehemently -- on how to accomplish that. The Save Muni Summit sought to figure out which causes unite riders, and in the end it was a first step towards that goal.

Sarah Sherburn-Zimmer, a tenants' rights organizer who is part of the ad-hoc Transit Not Traffic (TNT) coalition that helped pass Proposition A in 2007, told the assembly at the Save Muni Summit that organizing the groups comprising TNT could be exasperating, but is the only way to develop political influence.

"We weren't going to agree on everything, but we needed each other," she said. "We could work on things we agreed on, and work separately on things we didn't agree on. But we agreed on funding."

Sherburn-Zimmer's speech was one of several that kicked off the summit with lofty and conciliatory messages. When the introductory speeches gave way to a public comment period, the fissures and distrust that have made organizing so difficult came back into plain view.

Perhaps the greatest rift is over the Central Subway. The summit's organizers sought to avoid focusing on the subway since it has strong support in Chinatown and from some transit advocacy groups, including Rescue Muni, but is bitterly opposed by many other transit advocates, including the group Save Muni, one of the summit's organizers. (Another summit organizer, TransForm, has not taken a position, citing allies on both sides of the debate.)

While there were plenty of great ideas presented during the Muni Summit's public comment period, there were also some harsh tirades cast at fellow groups in the room. "How can we offer solutions when we're trying to build a community between passengers and drivers but oftentimes we're at war with each other?" asked Nora Calderon of the group People Organized to Win Employment Rights.

As a result of this lack of unity, Muni riders often present a voice at City Hall that is loud but not clear.

But if the public comment period was a messy extension of an MTA Board meeting, the session that followed seemed to offer a lot more hope. Summit attendees split into nine groups organized by issue, like how to find more funding for Muni, how to improve bus service, and -- a last-minute addition -- how to reach out to more Muni riders in the future.

The result, compared to the public comment period, was a bit like witnessing a leap from one stage in biological evolution to the next: though there was vigorous debate and disagreement at the tables, people interacted, shared ideas, and ultimately focused on the actions that had broad support. When a representative from each group stood up and spoke before the full assembly, there were even hints of nuance and collaboration.

It wasn't perfect, but it was a mark of the approach that will need to define any successful coalition of transit riders.

Dave Snyder, who's organizing a nascent San Francisco Transit Riders Union, summed up the challenge at the end of the summit. "Just one of the conflicts that came up in people's comments today is that it is important that everyone pay their fare and that people don't get on the bus through the back door because that means Muni is losing money; but (people also said) it's important people don't get harassed if they can't afford Muni."

Some ideas, however, like an increased vehicle license fee and all-door boarding through a proof-of-payment system, showed wide support at the summit. Snyder said those were the kinds of issues the Transit Riders Union could focus on. "These are big things ... and I don't think we can win them unless there is a sense among public transit riders that we are in this together," he said.

Of course, Snyder will also need to help organize a more diverse group than attended the Muni Summit -- not for the sake of political correctness, but by political necessity. Snyder said he hopes to have a balance of organizations on the steering committee, including policy organizations, such as SPUR, Livable City, and Rescue Muni, community based organizations like the Chinatown Community Development Center, the Mission SRO Collaborative, and the Senior Action Network, as well as participation by the Muni operators union.

Though the summit didn't accomplish broad representation of Muni's ridership (for the most part, the room didn't resemble the diversity of ridership on a Muni bus), its format of educating riders on the issues and then having them sit down face-to-face to work out consensus positions might be the template that will define a politically powerful Muni constituency.

About 100 transit supporters gathered for a summit at the Women's Building this morning to discuss Muni's future, settle on issues that have broad support, and build a movement to lobby for a better Municipal Railway.

Many of the solutions that were popular with participants today have been widely discussed before, and some are moving forward, but there has not been the political will or funding to make them all happen. The newly formed San Francisco Transit Riders Union hopes to change that by taking ideas that most Muni riders support and building political momentum around campaigns to implement them.

We'll take a more in-depth look at today's Muni Summit on Monday, but for those who couldn't make it, here are some of the ideas that were endorsed by most participants.

• Build bus rapid transit on Geary and Van Ness
  
• Switch to a proof-of-payment system on buses, with all-door boarding
• Exert political force to get transit preferential streets implemented
• Push for small incremental improvements that could be tested immediately, like new transit-only lanes
  
• Focus on headway adherence rather than schedule adherence
  
• Create a cheaper day pass that's valid on all vehicles except the cable cars
• Enforce parking meters on Sundays and possibly evenings
  
• Increase meter and parking garage rates downtown and eliminate discount all-day parking
  
• Increase the residential parking permit fee
• Implement congestion pricing (this had mixed support, with some participants concerned about feasibility, equity and economic impacts)
• Increase the vehicle license fee
  
• Reduce work orders
• Improve the accuracy of NextBus displays
• Look at cost saving measures proposed by the various MTA unions and involve Muni drivers in the conversation on how to improve Muni
  
• Enforce payment but don't overly criminalize fare evaders who can't afford to pay
• Make sure Muni informational pamphlets are available in multiple languages
• Reach out to people who were missing from today's meeting, especially people of color and younger people
  

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.

Transit supporters and representatives from over 60 organizations from across the city will gather tomorrow to discuss Muni's future, and try to identify solutions and strategies to improve the city's transit system and help it survive the current budget crisis.

The idea, two of its organizers wrote in Beyond Chron this morning, is "to foster a community-based discussion of Muni's worsening problems," and start a "citywide movement required to address and resolve San Francisco's critical public transit needs."

With a 10 percent cut to Muni service approved last Friday, and even larger budget deficits looming for the next two fiscal years, the summit is certainly timely.

Save Muni Summit: Saturday, March 6 at Women's Building, 3543 18th Street (bt Valencia and Guerrero)

8:15 AM: Registration and Coffee/Continental Breakfast; 9 a.m.-1 p.m.: Solving Muni's Problems: A Fresh Look

A partial list of the summit's sponsors is included after the break:

· ABCT (A Better Chinatown Tomorrow)
· Planning Association for the Richmond
· Barbary Coast Neighborhood Association
· Potrero Boosters Neighborhood Association,
· Cathedral Hill Neighborhood Association
· POWER
· Coalition for SF Neighborhoods
· RAFT (Regional Alliance For Transportation)
· CLAER-Comm. Leadership Acad./ Emerg.
· Recreation & Open Space on the Waterfront
· Cole Valley Improvement Association
· Rescue Muni
· Cow Hollow Association
· Rincon Hill Neighbors Association
· Dogpatch Neighborhood Association
· Russian Hill Neighbors
· East Mission Improvement Association
· SaveMuni.com
· Excelsior District Improvement Association
· SEIU 1021
· Fair Oaks Community Association
· Senior Action Network
· FOGG-Friends of Golden Gateway
· SF League of Conservation Voters
· Forest Knolls Neighborhood Organization
· SF Living Wage Coalition
· Golden Gate Heights Neighborhood Assoc.
· SF Neighborhood Network
· Golden Gateway Tenants Association
· SF Republican Party
· Good Neighbors of Treasure/YB Island
· SF Tenants Union
· Haight-Ashbury Neighborhood Council
· SF Tomorrow
· India Basin Neighborhood Association
· SHARP--Sunset Hts. Assoc. of Resp. People
· La Raza Centro Legal
· Sierra Club
· Livable City
· CC Puede
· Marina/Cow Hollow Neighbors and Merchants
· SOMCAN-South of Market Comm. Action
· Marina Merchants Association
· SPEAK-Sunset Parkside Education Comm.
· Miraloma Park Improvement Club
· Telegraph Hill Dwellers
· North Beach Neighbors
· Train Riders Association of California
· North Mission Neighborhood Alliance
· TRANSDEF
· North of Panhandle Neighborhood Assoc.
· TransForm
· OMI Neighbors in Action
· Twin Peaks Improvement Association
· Pacific Heights Residents Association
· Urban Habitat
· Parkmerced Residents Organization
· West of Twin Peaks Central Council
· Planning and Conservation League

Last minute legislation to send some State Transit Assistance (STA) funds back to local transit agencies could prove a huge boon for Muni if Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger approves it.

The bill, ABX8 9, was approved by the California State Legislature today, and would provide a total of $36 million to the MTA, with $7.2 million coming in for this fiscal year and the rest in the next. A second bill approved today, ABX8 6, would partially restore continuous STA funding to local agencies beginning in fiscal year 2011-12 through a gas tax swap.

The measure includes $400 million in STA funding for transit operators statewide and a $350 million per year starting in fiscal year 2011-12. In light of the $28.5 million annually the MTA expects to save from recent service cuts, it's clear that such a windfall would be a great help to the cash-strapped agency.

"While today's vote does not restore all of the revenue we have lost from the state in recent years, the funding would clearly help us provide more reliable transit service to our customers," said MTA Executive Director Nat Ford, who thanked State Senators Leland Yee and Mark Leno, and Assemblymembers Fiona Ma and Tom Ammiano for their support of the bill.

The MTA has lost $179 million in STA funding over the last three years.

But don't uncork the champagne bottles yet: the governor's signature is far from guaranteed. It was Schwarzenegger, after all, who illegally raided the STA funds in the first place. He has 12 days to act on the measures, and could veto parts or all of the bills.

"For once, this looks like good news from Sacramento but now we need the Governor's support to make it real," Mayor Newsom said in a release.

According to the MTA release, the agency will be actively lobbying the governor to support the measure.

Update: TransForm's Transportation Program Director, Carli Paine, has the following comments on the bill:

"We are disappointed with the package, but understand that it represents the best package that legislators were able to develop given the state budget crisis. Together, the bills strip public transportation of potentially billions of dollars of funding that advocates have been fighting to protect, and replace them with limited funding that remains vulnerable to raids. This proposal will result in an annual budget battle to ensure that the funding dedicated to public transit actually gets allocated to our buses, trains, and ferries.

"It is imperative that the State give local agencies the ability to raise new revenues with voter approval. Authority to allow this was a silver lining in an earlier version of this proposal, but has been stripped out. TransForm encourages legislators to fight to give regions the ability to help themselves since the State is clearly not able to provide the extent of support that's needed to keep our buses and trains running and affordable."

Photo: Joe Eskenazi/SF Weekly

The collision occurred at 8:30 a.m., with the rear tires of the bus rolling over the front tires of the bicycle, according to MTA spokesperson Judson True. The cyclist was transported to SF General, though True clarified that she was not run over by the bus.

He said it was still unclear how the cyclist and the bus collided, if the cyclist fell on her own and then her bicycle was run over, or if another scenario occurred. He did make clear that the driver should have stopped and remained on the scene if he had been warned of the crash. "The Muni driver did not stop, but was identified by eyewitnesses and another Muni bus that was trailing the first one," said True.

The driver was placed on standard leave to undergo drug and alcohol testing, per agency protocol.

Photo: Joe Eskenazi/SF Weekly

Transfers aren't going anywhere (though they'll soon all be done by TransLink.) Flickr photo: Rubin 110

MTA staff had included both ideas among about a dozen options to close the coming $56.4 million and $45 million budget gaps in the next two fiscal years. MTA Executive Director Nat Ford said staff had intentionally included additional service cuts (on top of a 10 percent cut approved last Friday) at the end of the list, as an option the agency would do everything in its power to avoid. But the MTA Board told him to strike it from consideration, and most of the directors seemed eager to explore other options.

"I like the idea, metaphorically, of taking the service cuts idea off the list," said MTA Board member Malcolm Heinicke. "The last round was cutting past inefficiencies and really just cutting to save money."

Director Cameron Beach asked Ford to nix the option to charge for transfers as well. "I'm not interested in paid transfers or elimination of transfers," Beach said, citing the layout of the Muni system, which is designed to require transfers for many trips.

That message apparently got through to Ford, who said MTA staff "heard transfers are off the table and service reductions are off the table."

The directors showed the most enthusiasm for extending parking meter enforcement hours and pursuing one of several ballot measures that could bring in new revenue. Two communities have written letters expressing interest in being part of a pilot parking meter hour extension program, said Ford, but Director Heinicke said it was time to move past waiting for volunteers.

"My wife couldn't find parking on Sunday in West Portal," said Heinicke, referring to the difficulty of finding a parking spot when parking meters are turned off - a benefit of extending parking meter hours on top of the new revenue for Muni. Ford said he'd have an update on a pilot program for extending parking meter hours before the Board's next meeting on March 30.

After shying away from extending parking meter hours to cover the last budget deficit, the directors seemed eager to implement several new parking fees that could be funneled towards Muni service.

Director Cameron Beach said he supports not just extending parking meter hours but also raising the commercial off-street parking tax from 25 to 35 percent and pursuing an increased vehicle license fee.

Heinicke pushed for an increase in the price of residential parking permits and disabled placards. Both would require changes to state law; Ford said he would push local representatives to lobby for that.

The MTA could also add 1,000 new meters to parts of the city that don't already have them, especially newly bustling commercial areas south of Market. Heinicke gave an impassioned plea to MTA staff to continue with that idea.

But the most impassioned speech of the meeting came from Director Bruce Oka, who called on his fellow directors to stand up to the Mayor on tough choices like extending parking meter hours. Oka lent his vote to the 10 percent service cut approved on Friday, but said he wouldn't approve any more with other options still on the table. "If the Mayor's office tells us not to, and we don't stay with what we want, then we're not really independent," he told his colleagues. "Let's do our jobs."

The Board has just over one month before it has to vote on the measures. Director Beach said that tight timeline might make it difficult to vote on a proposal to consolidate some bus stops that are too close. It's an idea that's popular with transit advocates, since it could speed up service and save money, but the MTA's staff is apparently still far from having a final proposal ready.

"It sounds great on paper, but without some level of analysis, we're not in a position to even continue with it," said Beach.

The directors also requested that MTA staff bring back more information on reducing work orders, reforming operator work rules, and potential ballot initiatives to bring in new revenue.

On March 30, the Board will vote on whether to declare a fiscal emergency so it can begin enacting cost-saving changes for the next two years. Public comment on the matter will be open until March 12.

Earlier in the meeting, the Board decided to put off a decision on approving a TransLink implementation timeline until its next meeting. The directors also finalized their decision from Friday to cut service, require a premium pass on cable cars and some express bus routes, and implement various new fees to cover a budget deficit for the remainder of the current fiscal year.

In total, the proposals [PDF] could bring in $75 million annually, enough to wipe out the projected deficits and provide a cushion. On top of that, MTA staff included five potential ballot measures that could bring in revenues ranging from $15 million and $75 million apiece.

But it's far from certain that the MTA will actually be able to execute all of the revenue ideas it's proposing. Nearly all of them have already proven to be politically difficult, and one - eliminating free transfers - is almost certain to be stopped in its tracks.

Eliminating free transfers would save Muni about $20 million annually, but the last time the agency tried the idea it spurred a rider revolt. The staff proposals also include a less-drastic version of the idea, which would charge $0.50 per transfer, bringing in $7.5 million annually. About 15 percent of all Muni boardings are transfers, but transferring lines is thoroughly built into the transit system's layout, so even a smaller fee could meet a lot of resistance.

Extending parking meter hours to evenings and Sundays would also be contentious, but it has strong support from transit advocates as well as some business owners, who want to see increased turnover. Enacting the recommendations in the MTA's parking meter study from last year could bring in $9 million annually; extending hours only to Sunday, leaving weekday evenings as is, could bring in $2.8 million.

Another proposal that's popular with transit advocates - consolidating some bus stops that are closer together than the MTA's own guidelines recommend - could bring in $3 million annually, according to the MTA presentation. It's not clear from the presentation how extensive such an optimization program would be, but the $3 million figure is identical to what SPUR proposed in its "alternative budget" [PDF] presented to the MTA last week.

Several other SPUR recommendations made it into the staff presentation, including reducing work orders and wrapping vehicles in advertising. SPUR called for eliminating up to $14 million in work orders, but the MTA proposal calls for just a $6.5 million reduction, or about a tenth of the total amount the MTA pays out to other city agencies. Wrapping the vehicles in ads could bring in $1 million, according to SPUR's projections and the MTA presentation. The MTA also included SPUR proposals to better enforce and expand existing parking garage pricing ordinances, which it hopes could bring in over $8 million annually.

Even with 10 percent service cuts on the way, the MTA presentation still contemplates the possibility of an additional 5 percent cut, saving $14.4 annually but potentially reducing Muni service to a shell of what it currently provides.

None of the ideas is set in stone, as the MTA Board won't take a vote on the two-year budget until next month. But having lost $230 million in revenues over the past two years because of the economic downturn, the agency will have to continue making difficult choices. Perhaps the greatest hope for averting drastic service cuts would be a ballot measure to bring in new revenue. The MTA presentation includes five such ideas, including a ½ percent sales tax increase (netting $70-$75 million annually), an increase in the vehicle license fee back up to 1998 levels ($33 million), a tax on residential and commercial parcels ($20 million), an increase in the commercial off-street parking tax from 25 to 35 percent ($20 million), and a 1 percent increase in the hotel occupancy tax ($15 million).

The MTA Board will discuss the proposed solutions at its meeting today, and Executive Director Nat Ford is expected to present a pilot program to extend parking meter hours in some commercial areas. To start to make such drastic changes, the MTA will also need to hold a hearing today to extend its declaration of fiscal emergency.

While AC Transit, BART, Caltrain, Golden Gate Transit and transbay ferries already accept Translink, in the coming years, nearly every Bay Area transit agency is expected to adopt the payment cards.

That means TransLink could soon be more than just a curious novelty to most Muni riders, especially if the MTA Board votes tomorrow on a plan to transition all Muni fare media to the green plastic smart card within the next year or so, starting with the "premium" Adult "A" monthly Fast Pass this June. Given the variety of vehicle-types and fare media at the MTA and the size of the transit system (more than twice as many daily trips as BART), Muni could have the biggest problem of any local agency in making the complete transition.

The first challenge is general acceptance by the public: Fewer than two percent of Muni rides were paid for using the smart card as of October 2009, despite the fact that TransLink works on all Muni vehicles aside from cable cars. Switching hundreds of thousands of people over to an unfamiliar fare media, and actually getting the card into their hands, will likely prove daunting to the agency. Despite this challenge, the MTA hopes it can accomplish its goal in part by handing out thousands of the cards at locations across the city in the coming months.

Rescue Muni's Andrew Sullivan said the agency should make sure it's easy to get a TransLink card before it requires anyone to use it. "Before requiring anything, they really need to expand availability at the vendors and the vending machines," said Sullivan. "I would ask them to do that before requiring it for anything."

Another difficulty is the capital conversion: The MTA must replace all of its Muni Metro station fare gates with TransLink-only gates. Right now, there simply aren't enough TransLink readers to handle a full transition to the smart card. But that's visibly changing already, as Cubic, the contractor that's installing the TransLink system for Muni, is currently tearing up old fare boxes in the Metro stations and new TransLink-only turnstiles are supposed to be in place by December.

Cable cars are another obstacle. A staff report says Muni now has hand-held TransLink readers on the cable cars, but they are read-only: They'll be able to handle monthly passes, but won't be able to charge a fare. Eventually, cable car operators will need handheld card readers that can charge for fares too, especially the daily and weekly passports popular with tourists.

To meet these challenges, the MTA says it will spend approximately $16.5 million in the next two fiscal years on the plan, with just over $2 million of that cost reimbursed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Of course, for that kind of money, riders will be expecting results, especially as the monthly passes and single-ride fares they load onto the cards continue to escalate in price.

Sullivan said the MTA Board should consider deferring the program until better financial times if the money will come from the agency's operating budget, which already faces a $100 million shortfall over the next two years. MTA spokesperson Judson True was still looking into a request for further information about the budget implications of the plan this afternoon. But Sullivan said speeding up fare collection and enabling all-door boarding could make TransLink a net-positive for the agency's budget in the long term.

"They really need to take advantage of that to enable rear-door boarding on any bus that has it, because that actually saves time," he said.

Regardless, necessity may compel change. Assuming the MTA Board sticks to its decision last Friday to require a premium monthly pass for express routes and cable cars (in addition to the existing premium monthly pass requirement for BART within the city), riders will likely shift their behavior as early as June and use TransLink more often.

Further changes will arrive in relatively short order. By January 31 of next year, almost every monthly pass, including the senior, youth and disabled Fast Pass, will be transitioned to TransLink, according to the timeline in the plan. The basic Muni monthly Fast Pass, which is $10 cheaper than the premium pass and is limited to Muni (no BART rides within the city and, soon, no express routes or cable cars) will transition to TransLink-only by April 2011.

Even the most basic Muni fare -- the adult single token -- will transition to TransLink by spring of next year, once Muni has installed machines that dispense limited-use paper TransLink tickets. Even tourists will get to know the limited use tickets well, given that one-day, three-day, and seven-day passports will switch over to the temporary TransLink cards, though the MTA staff report on the plan doesn't include a date for that yet.

That means TransLink, which has taken well over a decade to put in place (and is soon to be re-branded as Clipper,) will finally be a major part of daily life on San Francisco's transit system.

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.

Muni riders packed the overflow room at the South Light Court in City Hall, waiting to speak to the MTA Board. Photo: Matthew Roth

At one of the most heavily attended MTA Board meetings in recent memory, the MTA's directors voted 4-3 today to cut Muni service by 10 percent and require $70 premium Fast Passes for express routes and cable cars, but jettisoned a proposal to increase the price of the senior, youth and disabled discount Fast Pass to $30.

Hundreds of people showed up to speak at the meeting, many of them protesting the discount Fast Pass increase. The Board voted on the measures after over three hours of testimony, but even before public comment began, MTA Board Chairman Tom Nolan made it clear the discount Fast Pass increase was off the table.

Nolan framed the reprieve as conditional upon the Muni operators union accepting salary and benefits concessions, which they previously rejected.

"I am proposing eliminating increases for seniors, youth, and disabled based on my confidence the union will step up to the plate and offer their fare share," said Nolan.

He told fellow Board members he was confident the union would do so, but comments from Transport Workers Union Local 250-A President Irwin Lum today suggested just the opposite.

Lum told Streetsblog that operators would not be re-voting on the concessions, and that the MTA needs to rethink its strategy. "They're trying to put the burden on operators," he said. "We do not make the budget. There's ways that they could find wasteful spending in management, there's $65 million in work orders. We're not the problem."

The MTA's deficit is actually slightly less dire than originally projected: A windfall of ARRA funds redirected from the Oakland Airport Connector helped bump the end-of-year deficit down to $12.1 million from an original projection of $16.9 million.

MTA Board Chairman Tom Nolan and Director Shirley Breyer Black. The directors listened to several hours of public testimony from over 100 people today.

The measures approved today will make up $14.4 million, leaving a small surplus. But many of the funding sources could yield less than expected, said MTA spokesperson Judson True, so the surplus provides a needed buffer.

After an impressive outpouring of public testimony, the MTA Board followed through with Nolan's suggestion to remove the discount passes from the agenda, by a 6-1 vote, with only Cameron Beach offering an unexplained dissenting vote.

On both of the two separate items to implement the largest service cuts in Muni's history and require premium Fast Passes for express routes and cable cars, Directors Shirley Breyer Black, Malcolm Heinicke, Bruce Oka and Tom Nolan voted yes and Directors Cameron Beach, Jerry Lee and James McCray voted no.

Though the discount monthly Fast Passes were spared from a $10 increase, a special premium discount Fast Pass, costing $5 extra, will be required for express routes, cable cars and BART within the city, similar to the tiered adult Fast Pass. The directors also approved increases to various fees. The Muni service cuts are scheduled to go into effect on May 1.

During the public comment period, TWU President Lum pushed back on the idea that operators were to blame for the budget shortfall, and suggested the MTA look harder at costly work orders from other city departments. "I would just like to express our outrage that transit operators, our members, have been consistently blamed for the mess the MTA is in," said Lum. "We believe the MTA has been used as cash cow for other city departments."

Heinicke, while calling for a hearing on operator work rules if the union doesn't approve concessions, also said union concessions alone won't make up the budget gap. "Let's make no mistake that this is not all about the drivers," he said. "Union concessions and fed money alone won't solve our problems. We need to look at other sources of revenue."

Citizens' Advisory Counsel Chair Daniel Murphy told the MTA Board the service cuts would "decimate Muni service," and that the loss of $179 million in state transit aid over the last three years doesn't absolve the MTA Board from its duty to search for revenue.

"The service proposal before you does a lot of violence to mass transit in this city," said Murphy. The best option, he told the Board, was to increase parking meter rates and extend enforcement hours. "We know that you don't want to go there and a lot of people don't want to go there, but that's what's left."

To that end, there was a call from several of the directors to start a pilot program extending parking meter hours to Sunday, and possibly evenings. "We are clearly moving in the direction of extending parking meter hours to Sunday and will look at that more next week," said Nolan, who had previously expressed support for such a plan last year before becoming less vocal on the plan at recent meetings.

Heinicke called for MTA Executive Director Nat Ford to immediately implement extended parking meter hours on Sundays in four or five business corridors where the lack of parking turnover is hurting businesses, as well as in one corridor during weekday evenings.

Directors Beach, Lee and Oka echoed that. "We need to ask the Mayor to consider this," Oka said. "I support Sunday and nighttime enforcement: We need to do that everyday."

"I know the mayor is not going to support this," he added, "but we need to put it out there that this has to be tried at last as a pilot project."

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."

Mayor Newsom fields questions from reporters today at Showplace Triangle. Streetsblog reporter Michael Rhodes in foreground. Photo by Bryan Goebel.

MTA Board Director Bruce Oka has confirmed to Streetsblog that a proposal to increase monthly Fast Pass prices for seniors, youth and the disabled will not be considered to help solve the MTA's budget crisis after the outcry from those communities.

"If push comes to shove I would rather do fare hikes in a way that will hurt the least number of people. But we heard from the public that seniors, disabled and youth cannot afford what they’re paying now," said Oka, a longtime disabled rights advocate, who added that he would rather see a hike in the monthly Fast Pass price for adults than service cuts. The proposal was to raise the discount Fast Pass prices by $10. They are already scheduled to go up to $20 in May from the current $15.

Streetsblog has learned that the fare hikes proposal has actually been unofficially off the table for a few weeks, but as Oka explained, the Mayor's Office still wanted it on tomorrow's MTA Board agenda. The Board will vote on a series of proposals to bridge the agency's $16.9 million budget gap, including a ten percent cut to Muni service and various monthly Fast Pass increases. A broad coalition of groups is expected to turn out to oppose the measures.

Oka said he will not vote in favor of service cuts tomorrow, and believes there might be enough votes on the MTA Board to reject them. He added that he plans to continue pressing for extending parking meter enforcement, but might be the lone director to support it.

Mayor Gavin Newsom confirmed as much about the fare hikes this afternoon while speaking to reporters after the Pavement to Parks announcement at Showplace Triangle. Newsom, responding to a question from Streetsblog, said it's possible $1.7 million of the $17.5 million the MTA is expected to receive in redirected Oakland Airport Connector (OAC) funds could be used to fill the gap left by eliminating that proposal.

"We could use that, but that would be a temporary reprieve, because it doesn't annualize to address that concern next year," he said. "But it doesn't take TWU off the hook to step up and do the right thing."

Newsom said that of all the proposals to reduce the MTA deficit, the proposed Fast Pass hike for seniors, youth and the disabled "is the one thing I want off the table, and I'm confident we'll get there." He said he had a meeting planned on the issue later this afternoon, presumably with MTA Chief Nat Ford.

Earlier this week, Ford told supervisors, acting in their role as the board of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, that the $1.7 million would be used for operations, mostly for maintenance. The MTA has not officially clarified whether that money could alleviate fare hikes.

In his remarks to reporters, Newsom, while acknowledging the drastic statewide cuts to transit, said service cuts and other painful budget remedies before the MTA Board tomorrow rests on whether Muni operators are willing to give up a raise.

"We've asked the labor union, the Muni drivers, the Muni operators, to step up. They're due a raise and we're saying, please don't take a raise in this environment, don't make things worse, help us out, help the riders out. Help seniors, youth and disabled out. If you do, we won't raise the fare for seniors, youth and disabled, we won't make the service cuts as acute as we otherwise would."

Newsom said the choices the MTA Board makes tomorrow will be "conditional choices, subject to what the union does next week." Transit Workers Union members rejected a recent package of concessions, with many operators saying they weren't properly informed about the proposal. Newsom, as he has before, vowed to press ahead with Supervisor Sean Elsbernd's proposed charter amendment if drivers don't agree to concessions.

Newsom said extending parking meter enforcement to Sundays was still under consideration, but that it wouldn't happen anytime soon.

"What I am adamantly, vehemently against, is extending the parking meter hours in this economy, and hurting small businesses. For those who are eager to do it, take a look at what happened in the East Bay, and how that was received," he said, prompting cackles from some reporters and TV photographers. "Meters have been increased over the last number of years, people forget that, substantially increased since 2004. It's not as if parking has not become more punitive."

Still, Newsom admitted that some businesses have contacted him, urging him to do it because it would actually be favorable for business, with higher turnaround.

Oka said the Mayor is so opposed to extending parking meter hours that Newsom refused a request to do it downtown where Oka believed he could get support from merchants.

Update: In response to this story, MTA spokesperson Judson True called to clarify Oka's remarks, and said the discount Fast Pass proposal is not off the table, and will be decided by the MTA Board tomorrow. "Clearly, this is a painful proposal and we want to find another alternative but the proposal is very much on the table until our board decides otherwise in public, and there is no guarantee that will happen tomorrow.”

Click for full-size PDF: The Transit Not Traffic coalition is distributing flyers to transit supporters.

A broad coalition of groups is coming together to oppose the measures, including Livable City, Walk SF, Chinatown Community Development Center, Visitacion Valley Asian Alliance, Urban Habitat, SFBC, MUNI First!, the Central City SRO Collaborative, SEIU 1021, and others, said the SFBC's Marc Caswell. It's a temporary revival of the Transit Not Traffic coalition that helped pass Proposition A and defeat Proposition H in 2007.

The coalition's purpose, said Caswell, is to push for a five-point plan that includes stopping service cuts and fare hikes, charging city employees to park at work, extending parking meter enforcement hours, and not scapegoating riders or bus drivers.

"We're saying there are revenue sources and there is a good way to make this work, but we're trying to make sure we don't instead pass the buck onto riders and continue to raise fares while cutting service," he said.

More than 700 people have sent letters to the Mayor and MTA Board through the SFBC's website opposing service cuts. The bike organization is encouraging members to show up to the meeting as well.

Dave Snyder, who's organizing a more permanent Muni riders coalition, said the new group will likely have a name by the end of the day Friday. The group's steering committee, made up of representatives from numerous groups that support progressive transportation policy in the city, will be have its first meeting on Friday, and choosing a name is on the agenda.

In the meantime, Snyder is encouraging Muni supporters to visit the nascent organization's temporary home on the web at muniriders.org. It's not a permanent web site, said Snyder, but people interested in joining the group can sign up now.

"It's not just for people who ride Muni regularly, but anyone who wants to see a robust transit service in San Francisco," said Snyder.

The MTA Board will vote on the measures at its meeting Friday, at City Hall in Room 400. The meeting starts at 9 a.m. You can also easily email the MTA Board and the Mayor through SFBC's transit page.