A new video from People Organized to Win Employment Rights (POWER) highlights the impact of unreliable and unaffordable transit on low-income San Franciscans who rely on Muni.

In San Francisco, “transportation is a dividing line of access and opportunity for African American, Latino, Asian and Pacific Islander communities who have the highest transit dependency in the city,” writes POWER. The group is campaigning “to shift local, regional and national mass transit priorities towards the needs of working class communities of color and to bring an analysis of race, class, and gender to bear on transportation planning decisions.” They have also called on the SFMTA to distribute free Muni passes to low-income youth who lack transportation options to school.

While the SFMTA has struggled to find funding for such a program, SFMTA board member Joel Ramos has suggested that the revenue could be come from extending parking meter hours.

Thanks to Fran Taylor for the video.

Traffic is killing us. It eats up our time, it thins our wallets as our cars idly burn through expensive gasoline, and it spoils the air we breathe. We need a path to real public transportation alternatives in order to get out of our cars and on with our lives.

That’s why I have authored legislation calling for a group of experts to develop California’s first statewide public transit development and financing plan. And, ever mindful of our trying budget times, it will not cost our state’s besieged General Fund a dime.

Assembly Bill (AB) 650 establishes a blue ribbon task force to craft a public transportation development plan for California based on an assessment of what transit we have, what amount of transit we need, and how we can finance transit construction. The task force will be composed of 12 experts in finance, transit, the environment, and public health who must complete their plan by September 30, 2012. This work would be undertaken, in part, through workshops conducted across the state. And, it would be financed from existing transit moneys provided through California’s gas tax, specifically those devoted to transit planning.

The blue ribbon task force is a tried and true way to help California find solutions to complex and enduring problems, like public transportation. In recent years, task forces have helped California enact comprehensive fisheries protections off our coast and achieve breakthrough reforms that balance our state’s water supply needs with environmental protection.

I come from Los Angeles where traffic is a big part of life. While traffic congestion is a cause for consternation across California, it is particularly bad in Southern California where traffic delays have nearly tripled over the past twenty years.

Each commuter loses 63 hours of life to traveling by car at peak hours. This staggering statistic is a reflection that we do not have enough transit alternatives.

Last month, while work was being done to expand Los Angeles’ 405 freeway, Angelenos everywhere were warned of the coming Carmageddon – massive gridlock that would paralyze the city. It was a comical spectacle for everyone not living in Los Angeles. But, more than anything else, this episode shows why we need more transit.

The simple truth is that California’s population is expected to grow by more than four million people over the next 10 years. This will lead to more time wastefully spent in traffic congestion. In 2005, transit prevented 540 million hours of traffic around the country, saving us $10.2 billion in lost economic productivity.

Transit investment creates jobs and reduces our footprint on the environment. Every $1 billion invested in transportation infrastructure creates 47,500 jobs. Every $1 invested in transit generates $6 dollars in local economic activity. For each person taking transit instead of driving, 4,800 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions will be prevented per year. By 2025, an estimated 1 in 5 Californians will be over 65 and 20% percent of this demographic does not drive.

Unfortunately, funding for transit hasn’t kept pace with demand. While we have secured a more stable funding source for transit in recent years, the demand for transit services has increased around the state, especially as fuel prices have risen, traffic congestion has grown, and Californians look for ways to cut commuting expenses and their environmental impact.

Today, most long-term transit infrastructure development planning occurs in a series of patchwork measures. We need to think bigger. Building and maintaining an effective public transportation network requires a commitment and vision that makes transit an integral part of transportation in 21st Century California. AB 650 will help get us there.

Photo: friedmanlynn

There are a lot of disturbing numbers in Transportation for America’s new report, “Aging in Place, Stuck Without Options.” It says the Bay Area currently has the best transportation access for seniors, but points out that in the coming years a rising number of people over age 65 will live in neighborhoods where transit service is either poor or doesn’t exist.

“In just four years, 62 percent more seniors in the San Francisco metro area will live with poor transit compared to 2000, versus 56 percent more for Oakland metro area and 66 percent more for San Jose metro area,” notes a press release from TransForm, an Oakland-based non-profit advocating for transit and smart growth.

In San Mateo County, as an example, 1 out of 4 residents will be over the age of 65 by 2030, and the number of people over the age of 85 will increase to two and half times the current number, according to the San Mateo County Health System. Sixty percent of baby boomers are projected to have more than one chronic disease, while nearly a third will be obese, and 25 percent will have diabetes.

“If we want to have healthy seniors, we have to invest in reliable, frequent and safe public transportation systems so that people can get where they need to go without a car,” said Jean Fraser, the San Mateo County Health System Chief. “If we develop our communities using the 8-80 rule — so sidewalks, bike lanes, streets, buses and trains are safe and welcoming to kids aged 8 and seniors aged 80 — we will keep both our seniors and our children much healthier.”

As Congress prepares a long-term transportation bill, transit advocates say it’s important that residents urge their representatives to adopt policies to ensure that seniors “remain mobile, active and independent.”

“The situation is already acute in the Bay Area, with annual transit cuts and growing demand,” said Stuart Cohen, the executive director of TransForm. “But now Congress is threatening to further slash funding and take away our flexibility to spend it on our greatest needs; more than ever we need Senator Boxer’s leadership as her committee finalizes the six-year transportation bill.”

Following T4A’s easy link to send a letter to Senator Boxer. More coverage at Streetsblog Capitol Hill.

David Chiu surrounded by supporters on the steps of City Hall. Some were waving "Bicyclists for David Chiu" signs. Photo: Bryan Goebel.

David Chiu, the car-free President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, declared his candidacy for mayor on the steps of City Hall this morning, promising to make sustainable transportation one of the cornerstones of his campaign.

“We’re the city that invented the cable car, but while we call ourselves a Transit-First city, we are sick of gridlock, we are sick of potholes and we’re sick of Muni,” Chiu told a crowd of more than 100 supporters. “As your candidate for mayor who doesn’t own a car, who gets to City Hall either on the number 49 or on my bicycle, I think we can do better.”

Chiu’s entry into the mayor’s race is expected to substantially raise the profile of sustainable transportation. Although many of the other major candidates have transportation listed as an issue of importance on their websites, Chiu is the only candidate (that we know of) who doesn’t own a car and gets around mostly on his electric bicycle.

Cheryl Brinkman, a transit advocate who sits on the SFMTA Board of Directors, gave a rousing endorsement for Chiu at today’s campaign kick-off, along with Supervisor Eric Mar.

“David’s a true leader on transit issues, and he understands that San Francisco must be a world-class transit city,” Brinkman said. “He’s really willing to take bold moves to make sure that Muni continues to improve, and that the city is more accessible not only to transit users, but for pedestrians and cyclists as well.”

Chiu joins a crowded field of mayoral candidates, including State Senator Leland Yee, City Attorney Dennis Herrera, former Supervisors Bevan Dufty and Michela Alioto-Pier and Assessor-Recorder Phil Ting.

Streetsblog plans coverage of the race leading up to the November election and we hope to have an opportunity to quiz all the major candidates on sustainable transportation.

Chiu files papers with the clerk's office. Photos: Bryan Goebel

Flickr photo: catbagan

A growing number of low-income youth who depend on public transit in San Francisco are finding it harder to afford the trip to class, but a resolution introduced by Supervisor David Campos this week could pave the way toward providing free Muni passes for the rest of the school year to thousands of students who are regular Muni riders.

“For many poor families in San Francisco, public transportation is actually the only option,” said Mattias Mormino, the project coordinator at the Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Families United Collaborative, a community-based organization that partners with the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) to provide transportation for homeless and displaced students. ”It’s not like they can choose to leave the car in the garage.”

A survey [pdf] of SFUSD high school students showed nearly 70 percent commute by public transportation while the number of students who come from families with incomes low enough to qualify for free or discounted lunches is up to 61 percent this year.

Despite those numbers, last May the SFMTA Board  voted to increase the price of Youth Muni Fast Passes from $10 to $20. Recently, the SFUSD Board cut fifty percent of the district’s school buses, eliminating another transportation option for many students. As more families face economic hardships and federally-supported student transportation programs are cut, Mormino says the number of families struggling to afford transporting their children to school is growing by the month.

“Transit cost does impact low-income families in the city economically,” said Tan Chow, a parent who lives in North Beach public housing with his wife and daughter, who he walks to her first-grade class at Yick Wo Elementary School in Russian Hill.

“My wife and I share one Clipper, and I have to say, we always debate in Chinatown about whether we should pay $0.75 for the ride or force our daughter to walk,” he said.

Chow described another parent who is only able to take her daughter to school on the bus during the turn of the month grace period when they are able to borrow an unneeded Fast Pass from other parents. During the rest of the month, they walk across Russian Hill.

“The previous month’s Fast Pass is a well sought-after thing for parents in public school,” said Chow.

To address the issue, San Francisco Youth Commission Chair Leah LaCroix pushed a resolution [pdf] sponsored by Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi last January that urged the SFMTA to create a Youth Lifeline Discount Fast Pass program, which the Board of Supervisors passed unanimously. That led the SFMTA Board of Directors to earmark $1.4 million in fiscal year 2010-2011 to provide 12,000 of the monthly passes to low-income SFUSD students at a discounted $10 rate.

However, challenges in information disclosure, determining staffing needs, and secure payment collection at schools have thus far left the passes undistributed and the money unspent. Without an easy solution in sight, “people from the community said, ‘why not just give them away for free?” said Mormino.

Youth Commissioners LaCroix and Happy Yang proposed a new resolution [doc] introduced by Campos and five co-sponsors at Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting that calls for the SFMTA to use the money to provide free Lifeline Youth Muni Fast Passes to qualifying students for the remaining three months of the school year.

“This is a step in making sure that public transportation is accessible to students in our public school system,” said Campos, adding that he and other supervisors would like to see San Francisco follow in the footsteps of cities like New York, which provides free transit for its public school students.

Doing away with fee collection altogether would cut most of the administrative costs and allow more of the budgeted funds to go towards providing desperately needed transportation for disadvantaged students, said Mormino. It would also allow schools to distribute the passes sooner and the SFMTA to use the funds by their July fiscal year deadline.

“I feel really excited that the issue of transportation, especially in these hard times for low-income families, is put front and center,” he said.

While the numbers still have to be worked out, the program would benefit at least 10,000 students, according to Deland Chan, Senior Planner at the Chinatown Community Development Center, which helps distribute the roughly 2,000 passes provided by federal funds from the 1987 Mckinney-Vento Act aimed at assisting transitional homeless youth.

With “Chinatown being one of the transit-dependent neighborhoods in the city, with a large population of low-income families living in SROs, we completely support the creation of the Youth Lifeline Pass,” said Chan, although the $1.4 million still won’t be enough to serve all of the eligible students in the school district.

“The SFMTA is facing a budget deficit, but this money will directly benefit the city’s most vulnerable youth and thus will be well spent,” she said. “When implemented, the Youth Lifeline Pass will be an opportunity to collect data that can support the creation of a free lifeline pass – looking at truancy rates and other beneficial factors.”

A coalition of organizations including the SRO Families Collaborative and the Youth Commission have been advocating for free public transportation for all youth for some time. One leading member in that campaign has been POWER, an organization that works to empower disadvantaged communities and sees free public transit for youth as a “natural extension of the Youth Lifeline Pass,” according to Chan.

She said the SFMTA Board could take action on this week’s resolution as early as March. That’s welcome news to LaCroix, a recent high-school graduate herself.

“Friends of mine are saying the bus is getting too expensive – it’s a reality, young people having to hop on the back of the bus and not pay. My friends tell me they do that, and I encourage them not to,” she said. ”But this is real for a lot of families in San Francisco.”

Flickr Photo: Nick Fisher

The mobility of Caltrain’s 40,000 daily riders on the Peninsula and the South Bay could drastically suffer under deep service cuts being considered to close a $30 million budget gap, but a movement to get the commuter rail service agency out of the red and on a path toward long-term sustainability is gaining momentum.

“Everyone says it’s ironic, because it really is one of the best performing transit agencies in the whole Bay Area, but it’s the one potentially in the most trouble because we lack any dedicated funding,” said Yoriko Kishimoto, a Palo Alto councilmember and Friends of Caltrain organizer.

Last Friday, a summit brought together a number of transportation officials, advocates, neighborhood groups, riders and public officials hoping to rescue Caltrain. This Saturday, Friends of Caltrain, a “grassroots coalition of cities, neighborhood groups, employers, environmental groups, transit advocates and, most importantly, residents and transit riders” in the Bay Area, are helping to organize the “Save Our Caltrain!” Summit to address the agency’s lack of dedicated regional funding.

“Caltrain is threatened with bankruptcy, or just as bad, it could die a slow death by entering a downward spiral of reduced service and reduced ridership,” said Kishimoto. “Caltrain ridership is the equivalent of at least three full lanes of traffic on US 101…[It] is essential to the Peninsula’s quality of life, our commute alternatives, and economic vitality and the three counties must come together to work on solutions.”

The system relies heavily on support from the Metropolitan Transportation Commision and transit agencies in San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties to help cover its costs each year. However, with California transit agencies struggling across the board, those contributions have been slashed.

Without further help from regional elected officials, Caltrain is looking at “18 months of pretty devastating cuts,” said Kishimoto.

Caltrain Board Chair and San Francisco Supervisor Sean Elsbernd told the Mercury News that service could be curtailed to minimum peak hours, with weekday trains reduced from 86 to 48 along with the elimination of weekend trains and all service between Gilroy and San Jose Diridon Station.

Those service cuts will likely impose a hardship on the many commuters, businesses, and institutions who depend heavily upon Caltrain for transportation, and Friends of Caltrain is “looking to create a political movement across the three counties to protect the regional transit that links them,” said Kishimoto.

Aside from looking at ways to help Caltrain stave off immediate cuts, the group is eyeing long-term revenue sources. High-speed rail funds, for example, could become one light at the end of the tunnel.

Despite political difficulties in the past, Kishimoto hopes “the time has come” to raise the gas tax. She thinks a Bay Area-wide one-cent increase approved by voters in November 2012 would be the most realistic option to substantially bolster Caltrain’s reliable revenue. The 1.3 billion gallons of gas sold every year in the three counties served by Caltrain alone would bring in $13 million, almost half of the current deficit, she said.

Additionally, a tri-county payroll tax of just $20 per year could bring in $35 million, well over this year’s entire deficit, according to Kishimoto. She also thinks congestion pricing and high-occupancy toll lanes are “seriously worth considering.” They would relieve congestion on the 101 freeway, increase Caltrain ridership, and provide drivers the option of paying a premium for a predictable commute, which she said is what most people are really interested in.

But pricing on the 101 freeway alone could have the undesirable effect of  ”bumping” motor traffic onto local streets, and Kishimoto sees a Vehicle Miles Traveled tax “for wherever you’re travelling” as the ideal long-term solution.

Reduced reliability on Caltrain could potentially create a surge in driving and freeway congestion on the Peninsula as well as put a serious dent in the wallets of corridor residents who, according to TransForm Executive Director Stuart Cohen, own 0.7 fewer vehicles, emit 42 percent less greenhouse gases, and spend $550 less per year on transportation compared to the Bay Area average.

Stanford University student Tiffany Lau is able to travel independently without a car by depending on Caltrain. “[It]’s one of the best alternatives for getting around the Bay Area,” she said in a Friends of Caltrain press release. “It’s pretty easy to get from city to city.” In 2010, Stanford University reportedly relied on the trains to transport 19 percent of its employees.

UC Berkeley Professor of City and Regional Planning Elizabeth Deakin also pointed out the economic benefits of the compact, transit-oriented development that Caltrain encourages around its stations as well as the environmental and health benefits it provides.

“The idea that we would let a tremendous asset go to waste is a foolish mistake…the benefits certainly outweigh the costs,” she was quoted as saying in the Patch.

Given the immediate need to reduce driving to curb climate change and oil dependency, Kishimoto says Friends of Caltrain hopes “that we can turn this potential disaster into a transformation.”

“Save Our Caltrain!” Summit

Speakers at this weekend’s summit will include Executive Director of the Sierra Club Michael Brune, San Francisco Supervisor and Caltrain Joint Powers Board of Directors Chair Sean Elsbernd, as well as Congresswomen Anna Eshoo and Jackie Speier.

“Speakers and panels in the morning will tell the Caltrain story and explore a range of options. The afternoon will be devoted to workshops to solicit the public’s innovative ideas on supporting Caltrain at this time of general fiscal crisis.”

When: Saturday, January 29, 2011, 8:30 am to 2:30 pm.

Where: SamTrans Auditorium, 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos (near Caltrain).

Sign up: FriendsofCaltrain.com

This new rendering shows 9-foot instead of 5-foot sidewalk extensions. Image: SF Planning Department, City Design Group

A proposal [pdf] to significantly improve sidewalk conditions for N-Judah riders in Cole Valley is headed to the SFMTA Board for approval with some modifications. As we wrote in November, the current sidewalks on Carl Street at Cole and Stanyan can’t accommodate the thousands of passengers who use the stops daily, so riders waiting for trains often stand in the street, and are forced to weave through parked cars to board.

The proposal has been revised and would extend the sidewalks by 9 feet on all three proposed transit bulbs on Carl Street (see the photo below the break), which “allows seamless boarding of trains.”  On the southwest side of Carl and Cole, the inbound bulb would stretch for 113 feet instead of the original 165 feet. The entire length of a two-car train is about 150 feet.

The SFMTA said it reduced the length of the longer inbound bulb to alleviate concerns about the loss of parking, which will translate into giving back one parking space. As it stands now, four parking spaces on that section would be removed, and the proposal itself would allow for the removal of a total of eight spaces on Carl. Some neighbors remain concerned about removing those spaces and continue to oppose the plan.

Overall, though, the SFMTA said there is a lot of support for the proposal, and in an email to Streetsblog, outlined some of the many benefits:

Installing these transit bulbs will improve conditions for the nearly 6,000 daily passengers that use these transit stops by eliminating the need for passengers to weave between tightly-parked cars as they get on and off of N Judah trains.  They will also improve pedestrian visibility at the intersections, provide the train operators a clear view of boarding and alighting customers, and reduce train dwell times by encouraging passengers to board through all doors.  Furthermore, they will eliminate conflicts between trains and parked cars, particularly at the outbound stop on the northeast corner of the Carl/Cole intersection, where the N Judah tracks curve and illegally parked cars have caused numerous delays and several side-swipe collisions.

The proposal will go before the SFMTA Board for approval next Tuesday, January 18th, at 1 p.m. in Room 400 at City Hall. If you support the proposal, you’re encouraged to write the board at mtaboard@sfmta.com and tell them so.

Revised proposal. Image: SFMTA

California's lack of bold transportation policies and transit investment points to a failure in Sacramento. Photo: aquafornia

A new report from NRDC and Smart Growth America — which examines what all 50 states are doing to curb greenhouse gas emissions from transportation — lauds California as the most progressive state on policy, but points out that its transportation and spending priorities don’t match the bold blueprints, particularly as it relates to public transit.

It all points to Sacramento, where legislators have continuously raided the only dedicated fund for transit, leading to massive cuts statewide.

The report praises the state’s smart-growth law, SB375, as a model for other states, noting that “it puts in place a strong framework that can be used to drive better coordination between transportation and land use, and, of particular relevance to this analysis, to do so in a way that reduces GHGs.” It remains uncertain, however, “whether SB 375 will deliver results on the ground as opposed to just changes in planning documents.”

In September, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted ambitious targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and 2035, a move that will compel the state’s metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to better integrate land use and transportation planning. The real test for SB375 will come at the local level as MPOs draft plans to meet the targets.

Unless the state prioritizes investments in sustainable transportation, California’s progressive policies will continue to be undermined.

“Huge cuts to public transit threaten these (policy) gains and could lead to even more devastating consequences for California communities and the economy,” said a joint press release from Smart Growth California, NRDC, TransForm and the Sierra Club of California. “In California, transportation policies and spending decisions are not in line with the state’s bold commitments to reduce the amounts of carbon dioxide and other emissions being pumped into the air.”

Last year, TransForm released a study that found that good access to public transit in major metropolitan regions could save California residents $31 billion a year and reduce GHGs by 34 percent.

“By failing to increase investments in transit — and worse, by drastically cutting transit in recent years — California is working against its own interests and missing key opportunities to save money, rebuild the economy, create jobs, and build the transportation system needed for the next hundred years,” the joint statement said.

Graham Brownstein, TransForm’s statewide policy director, said it’s unclear what the upcoming legislative season holds for public transit. Considering the funding restraints imposed by Proposition 26, the coming year is going to be especially challenging as legislators attempt to lift the state out of its financial mess. Sustainable transportation advocates are hoping to work with legislators to craft a long-term funding solution for transit, as well as walking and biking infrastructure.

“This is not a mystery. People do understand this, but it’s such a big problem and the solutions are so politically and economically difficult that we just haven’t seen the leadership that I think is ultimately needed to really drive through the necessary reforms,” said Browstein, adding that he sees it as a “moral hazard” problem.

“Nobody wants to be the first legislator to stick out their neck, and so, it really does remain to be seen. We are hopeful that with the new governor, that with some of the new folks in the Legislature, the politics may shift a little bit in this session and we may see some leadership on transit funding issues.”

Colin Miller of Urban Habitat holds up gravestones in memory of bus lines that have been cut. Photo: Reginald James

Editor’s note: This story is being re-published from Race, Poverty and the Environment, a magazine produced by the social and environmental justice non-profit, Urban Habitat.

Fifty-five years to the month after the start of the Montgomery bus boycott, people of color can sit wherever they want on the bus—when and if one arrives. Bus operators all over the country are slashing routes in response to deepening deficits. This loss of service denies people who depend on transit their civil rights in deep, daily, grinding, unmistakable ways.

Bus riders in Oakland and throughout western Alameda and Contra Costa Counties have lost nearly 15 percent of their AC Transit routes in 2010. Deeper cuts were forestalled by the drivers’ union, Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Local 192, which refused to agree to a new contract unless the agency postponed further service reductions for at least three months. Now it looks like those cuts will be back on the table in January, and riders and drivers plan to protest at tomorrow’s AC Transit meeting.

“We are the heart throb of this city,” AC Transit driver Lorenzo Jacobs said, speaking at a May 2010 public hearing against the cuts. “When you start cutting service, you’re cutting opportunities out there for people who are doing whatever they’re doing in their lives. When you cut lines, you’re affecting people’s lives, their everyday lives,” he said.

The service cuts directly impact Oakland youth, who need AC Transit to get to school because the district doesn’t run yellow school buses; they hurt seniors and people with disabilities who can’t drive, and low-income families who can’t afford cars. Lack of mobility cuts off opportunities for work and education, enforces inequality and persistent segregation. African-Americans and Latinos are far less likely than whites to own cars. Nationally, around 62 percent of city bus riders are African American and Latino. Nearly 80 percent of AC Transit riders are people of color.

Bus riders and their allies who take on this 21st century civil rights fight confront institutional obstacles at every turn. In their efforts to protect and expand service, they contend with financing policies and decision-making structures that are stacked against them, and they lack access to the courts to seek redress. And few political leaders champion the needs of transit riders in general and bus riders in particular.

Funding priorities from the federal government on down shortchange bus riders while favoring drivers and rail passengers. Eighty percent of federal transportation funding goes to highways, and only 20 percent goes to transit. Virtually all of the  $500 billion in the Federal Surface Transportation Authorization goes to capital costs versus supporting day-to-day operations of buses.

On a regional level, the San Francisco Bay Area’s Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) privileges costly expansions over core urban operations. It consistently slights bus operators in favor of rail services such as CalTrain and BART that have a much higher proportion of white and wealthier riders. While AC Transit was looking at a $56 million deficit, the MTC was working hard to help BART find an additional $70 million to build  the Oakland Airport Connector (OAC) tram project. That $70 million was needed to replace federal stimulus funds BART lost by failing to follow proper civil rights guidelines when they approved the OAC.

The structure of the MTC itself disenfranchises city-dwellers and people of color. The 19-member commission controls transportation planning and funding for nine counties in the Bay Area. Because each county gets two seats at most, residents in large urban counties–like Santa Clara, which includes the 930,000-person city of San Jose–get far less representation than smaller and less diverse counties like Napa, with its 135,000 people.

Protestors at a Save Our Ride rally. Photo: Urban Habitat

Challenging the unfair distribution of transportation resources in court has been much harder since a 2001 Supreme Court decision barred individuals from filing lawsuits over transportation policies that have discriminatory impacts on the basis of race, color or national origin. By taking away the “private right to action,” the Alexander v. Sandoval decision deprived transit activists of a legal tool that has played a key part in civil rights cases.

After more than a year, the movement centered in Montgomery won the legal end to Alabama’s segregation laws. Today’s transportation justice advocates are pushing for civil rights in transit on many levels. Riders and drivers have joined forces to try save bus service in dozens of cities around the country, as they are doing in the East Bay. These efforts should gain fresh energy with the inauguration of the new national leadership of the ATU, which represents bus drivers in many U.S. cities.

A Bay Area coalition of civil rights, faith-based, community and environmental groups is pursuing legal challenges to discriminatory funding. The non-profit law firm Public Advocates filed the administrative complaint on behalf of Urban Habitat, TransForm and Genesis that cost BART the stimulus funds for the OAC. In a follow-up complaint, they have charged MTC with failing to ensure that agencies and programs it funds are respecting civil rights. In addition, Public Advocates has filed a class action suit against MTC’s funding practices, which is pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Undaunted by the hostile climate in the new Congress, the new national coalition called  “Transit Riders for Public Transportation” (TRPT) aims to flip federal transit funding priorities and secure legislation restoring individuals’ right to sue over discriminatory transit policies. TRPT draws together grassroots groups from all over the country who put transportation central to the fight for civil rights, recognizing that low-income communities and communities of color will remain trapped in second-class status until the transportation system serves everyone equally.

Bob Allen is the Transportation Justice Program Director at Urban Habitat. Marcy Rein is a freelance writer and frequent contributor to Race, Poverty & the Environment.

"The good news today is Muni riders will experience more frequent and reliable service starting on September 4th," Newsom said in a statement, which was released after he made the announcement on KCBS radio. "This represents real progress towards our shared goal of fully restoring Muni service by this time next year."

Early last month, the SFMTA Board voted to restore half of the 10 percent service cut it implemented in May. Since then, the Mayor's Office and the SFMTA said they identified additional funding sources from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the San Francisco County Transportation Authority. In addition, the SFMTA will initiate some "service efficiency" changes that would result in about $900,000 in savings. That allowed them to tack on 11.1 percent in additional restorations, and make today's announcement.

At the SFMTA Board meeting today Transit Director John Haley explained the changes in a presentation (PDF) titled "Service Restoration Plan." He said one of the agency's priorities was to make sure they could restore service while effectively managing it. He acknowledged that a lot of pieces need to fall in place to make the restoration a success.

"Over the last several months when it comes to schedules and service levels we've all become masters of the two minute drill. We are on a very tight and unforgiving schedule to get this to a successful level of execution on the 4th of September," he said, adding that for the first time in six months new operators are being trained and the agency recently implemented a new absentee policy that will help them better manage the day to day workforce.

SFMTA Transit Director John Haley gives his presentation to the SFMTA Board of Directors. Photos: Bryan Goebel.

Although Haley said it was important to keep the operators union "involved and engaged," leaders of TWU Local 250-A said the Mayor's announcement caught them by surprise. Acting TWU President Rafael Cabrera was informed by Streetsblog of the news, and said he would have a fuller response once he had time to review it.

"They're trying to fix Muni but they're fixing it the wrong way. They've got to look at the deficiencies from the top to the bottom. Don't start from the bottom to the top," said Cabrera, referring to the Mayor and Supervisor Sean Elsbernd, whose initiative to reform the way Muni operators are paid is on the November ballot.

Cabrera said the list of new schedules was presented to them by the SFMTA during an 11am meeting but the Mayor made the announcement just after 9am, and he was not told there would be any announcement.

"If you met with me at 11 o'clock and you had the Mayor speaking at 9 o'clock, that's a miscommunication there. Something is wrong there," Cabrera said. 

"Our biggest problem with the SFMTA is the politicians negotiating our contract in the media," said TWU's Michael Postell.

SFMTA Executive Director Nat Ford told Streetsblog that if the union doesn't agree to the 232 hours in reduced monthly stand-by time the agency would force them to adhere to the schedules.

"If they do not agree to do it we have the ability as management to impose a forced sign-up where we actually go through, by seniority, and sign those work programs to the operators. We began that process the last go around but we've never done a total forced sign-up," he said.

The Mayor's Office said the reduction in stand-by hours would reduce the number of drivers needed by 20 operators. 

Here are the other changes announced today:

• The restorations include the addition of seven trolley coaches and two LRVs back into the system.
  
• An average of 504 additional daily weekday service hours, 499 Saturday hours, and 421 Sunday hours.
• Restored Owl Service to every 30 minutes
• 
Restored night end times for Community
  
• Routes 
Restored night end times for many Local/Rapid Routes 

• Restored light rail vehicle (LRV) service 

• Added capacity back to 13 weekday routes and three Saturday/Sunday routes
  
• 
Restored evening or night frequency on nine routes
• 
F-Line historic service better integrated into schedule to increase headway efficiency

The Mayor's press release stressed that his office would work with Supervisor David Chiu, who announced a deal last week with Newsom instead of a Charter amendment, and the Controller's Office to identify the additional $6 to 7 million in "additional efficiency savings and revenues" that would be required to restore all of the service cuts. 

TWU President Rafael Cabrera and his union colleague Michael Postell read the Mayor's press release, which took them by surprise.

Photo: /\/\ichael Patric|{

"ATU's members will be subject to work schedules that require them to be behind the wheel for longer times, to be at work for lengthy hours, and to drive unfamiliar routes without training on those routes," Judge Judith D. Ford wrote. "All these factors not only disrupt the employees' lives and expectations, but also have the potential to result in conditions that are not safe for the drivers or the riding public."

The ruling followed a two-hour court hearing Friday in which lawyers for AC Transit and Amalgated Transit Union Local 192 locked horns over who is suffering the most irreparable harm. In her ruling, Ford called AC Transit's claims that it will be harmed "speculative."

"While it is clear that AC Transit is in financial straits, it is not apparent from the evidence that making immediate changes to employees' run schedules, and the other changes AC Transit has undertaken, are necessary to avoid service cuts, schedule changes or layoffs."

After more than three months of negotiations between ATU and AC Transit failed to produce a new contract (the old one expired June 30), union officials were successful in getting a judge to order both sides into binding arbitration. The dispute intensified when AC Transit's Board of Directors decided to go ahead and implement the new contract, which included changes to work rules and route assignments and a hike in health insurance contributions.

The agency, which is facing a two-year $56 million deficit, said it needs about $15.7 million in concessions from drivers, as labor costs account for 75 percent of its budget. It claims without the new work rules, the shortfall increases by $300,000 a week.

Last week, the transit agency said hundreds of drivers staged a sickout, disrupting service for riders, but some drivers have disputed that claim, accusing AC Transit of exaggerating the numbers. A union rep told the Chronicle that the drivers chose to stay home, rather than face dangerous conditions caused by new assignments which they had no training for.

Claudia Hudson, the president of ATU Local 192, said today's ruling means that AC Transit has until August 10th to restore the changes.

"I am just overwhelmed and glad that the judge ruled in our favor for the workers and the riding public," said Hudson. "Things will be restored and from day one I've been here, ready, able and willing to negotiate."

AC Transit, however, issued a press release saying the ruling could result in more service cuts and job losses, quoting General Manager Mary King as saying "the future sustainability of the district is in serious danger."

"Without the savings from the work rules, the district now must find $15.7 million from somewhere. We need to go back to the drawing table to see if we can sustain more layoffs and service cuts to address our deficit. The fear is that to close the gap the cuts will have to be draconian," said King.

The agency is already scheduled to implement service cuts August 29th and "with this new financial blow," King added, " the service levels could be disastrous for transit dependent populations."

AC Transit's Board of Directors was scheduled to meet this evening to consider an appeal. 

A parking tax increase that could send $19.2 million to the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency moved a step closer to the ballot Tuesday, as Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi introduced the measure before his colleagues on the Board of Supervisors.

Mirkarimi made the move at the behest of the SFMTA Board, which voted last week to request that the supervisors introduce the ballot measure on the agency's behalf. It would include a 10-percent increase in the commercial off-street parking tax -- that is, the tax on parking in commercial garages and lots -- and would also close a loophole that allows valet parking services to go untaxed.

"I think it's important in answering the question as to how we are able to generate revenue for the MTA," said Mirkarimi. "This is one consideration I would like us to seriously review. The last two years we have struggled to keep Muni running in the face of historic budget deficits."

Mirkarimi warned that the measure faces competition from other tax measures the supervisors are considering, the rest of which would not directly benefit the SFMTA. Not all of them will make it to the ballot. "I understand that a number of taxes potentially will be submitted for today," he said. "I also believe that in the menu of considerations for taxes, all may not make the final cut."

Several of the supervisors introduced a sweeping SFMTA reform ballot measure last month that would dedicate $40 million from the city's general fund to the SFMTA, but Mirkarimi and others have expressed reservations about that set-aside, so the parking tax could have a future as part of that reform measure as well.

As Streetsblog reported in March, the parking tax may be the most politically viable revenue ballot measure the SFMTA could pursue right now, and many of the city's transit advocates support it for its clear nexus between discouraging parking and increasing funding for Muni service.

"The SFMTA Board of Directors also considered other revenue options, but concurred with the SFMTA Citizens' Advisory Council in preferring measures that generate revenues with a strong nexus to transportation," wrote SFMTA Board Chairman Tom Nolan and Vice Chairman Jerry Lee in a letter to the supervisors [PDF].

But while an increase in the commercial off-street parking tax has the support of the SFMTA Board, some of the supervisors, and transit advocacy groups like Livable City and the San Francisco Transit Riders Union (SFTRU), the Mayor's office was quick to blast the proposal.

"It's another unnecessary tax that will cost the city jobs and hurt the city's businesses at the wrong time," said Tony Winnicker, a spokesperson for the Mayor. "We're already working to reverse the service cuts completely before next July so another November tax measure is unnecessary."

As for the nexus between reducing commuting by car and increasing transit ridership, Winnicker said transit is not an option for everyone. "We absolutely agree that commuters should be discouraged from driving to their jobs in the city and encouraged to take regional transit like BART, Caltrain, Samtrans and AC Transit instead," he said. "But the reality is not everyone who works in the City has that choice, especially when most of those transit agencies are cutting back service deeply."

That puts the Mayor in line with the Chamber of Commerce, which doubts the prospects for such an increase passing muster with voters, and at odds with the SFMTA Board, a body the Mayor's office is often accused of micromanaging.

While the SFMTA may be able to restore the Muni service it cut last month with the help of possible concessions from its unions and funds from the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, the letter from Nolan and Lee to the supervisors notes that the agency has also had to make one-time swaps from capital funding to its operating budget just to prevent further service cuts and fare increases. The current deficits arose in part from a downturn in revenue due to the economic crisis, and deep cuts in state funding for transit.

Even the measure's supporters acknowledge that it faces an uphill battle, as a similar initiative was defeated by a 40-percent margin in 2006 and a poll in March found that just 38 percent of respondents in the city supported even a five-percent increase in the tax, with 12 percent undecided (that poll didn't include any mention of Muni getting 80 percent of the funds, however.) SFTRU's Dave Snyder said the 2006 measure failed in part because it didn't have a strong campaign.

Another key group, SPUR, has endorsed increasing the commercial off-street parking tax to boost Muni funding, but took no position on the 2006 measure since it wasn't guaranteed to be dedicated to the SFMTA. While the SFMTA gets 80 percent of the city's commercial off-street parking tax revenue, the new measure is not fully dedicated to the agency either, so it's not clear if SPUR would ultimately endorse it this time around.

The upside to that, however, is that the measure would need just 50 percent of the vote instead of the two-thirds majority required for SFMTA-dedicated revenue measures. The SFMTA Board still has never introduced such a measure directly on the ballot, but the commercial off-street parking tax measure it's pushing through the Board of Supervisors marks its first foray into aggressively seeking new sources of funding, something the city's voters mandated when they approved 1999's Proposition E, which also created the SFMTA.

The $19 million the SFMTA would receive annually from the measure compares to the roughly $29 million it acted to save annually by cutting 10 percent of Muni service in May. The current commercial off-street parking tax rate of 25 percent would increase to 35 percent if the measure goes forward and is approved.

Cuts to transit funding could mean longer waits than ever. Photo: Michael Rhodes

At California State Assembly Committee on Transportation meetings this morning and Tuesday, the California Transit Association (CTA) and public transit agency representatives will discuss the challenges that state funding cuts have imposed on transit providers. Today's hearing is at the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Board Room. The Tuesday hearing takes place in the Sacramento Regional Transit District Board Room.

The CTA especially hopes to alert lawmakers to the reality that future cuts would undermine California's greenhouse gas reduction goals set out in the state's landmark greenhouse gas reduction bills, AB 32 and SB 375 - a disconnect that even some environmentally-conscious lawmakers seem to overlook.

"The Governor and the Legislature have received ample praise for adopting these measures to reduce emissions and promote smart-growth planning, and deservedly so," said CTA Executive Director Joshua Shaw in a prepared statement. "But the goals of these measures cannot be achieved without a commitment to stable funding for transit - the one program we have in place that is best-equipped to help meet these goals."

Locally, the MTA faces a $47 million mid-year budget deficit, which it has whittled down to $19 million by eliminating 250 positions and other cuts. "The siphoning-off of the state funding amounted to about $189 million to us for the last two or three years," MTA Executive Director Nat Ford said at a press event Wednesday. While Muni route changes going into effect Saturday will by and large avoid the kind of deep service cuts that other transit agencies have been forced to make, the mid-year budget gap, and any future funding shortfalls, will almost certainly mean more painful cuts.

"It's hard to overstate the impact that the state budget cuts have had on transit systems, including Muni," said MTA spokesperson Judson True. "The state cuts are the single biggest contributing factor to the deficits we've faced in recent years."

Jeff Wagner, a spokesperson for the CTA, said transit advocates need to make the legislature more aware of the harm that cuts to transit funding cause. "We're doing a lot to educate them on just how severe these things are," said Wagner.

Even with the court ruling that transit funding raids were illegal, Wagner said legislators could be tempted to try to circumvent the law if they don't understand the importance of transit. "Never say never," he said. "Our understanding is that the court ruling has declared that these are illegal going forward and cannot continue, but the fact that they were executed in the first place shows the ability to find ways around those laws."

Meanwhile, speaking at a press conference on the city's new bike lanes yesterday, Mayor Gavin Newsom said he's pushing the MTA to look at a wide range of options to deal with the budget gap, but he remains opposed to extending parking meter hours. "We're going to look at revenue, not necessarily tax increases. We're going to look at revenue, not necessarily parking meter increases," said Newsom. "Taxi medallion monetization, to me, makes more sense this year than ever. Looking at unique ways to leverage state and federal dollars makes obvious self-evident sense and after we go through that process over the next number of months through the MTA and the General Fund budget, if there is still a gap and we need to fill that gap, then we have to keep an open-mindedness to tax measures. But not until we exhaust other alternatives."

"We have a ... $47 million short-term issue we have to deal with. Over two years the challenge is bigger than that. We've dealt with $23 to $25 million of the easy solutions. Now I've got to figure out the hard ones with you guys."

Photo by Bryan Goebel.

"I’m not campaigning for anything. This is not a stepping stone to anything. I’m doing this because I was asked to do it, that’s all.  I didn’t campaign for it," said Nolan, in a recent hour-long interview with Streetsblog at the Polk Street office of Project Open Hand, where he is the executive director.

Nolan doesn't fudge at all around the issue of the MTA Board not being independent. All of its members are appointed by the Mayor, and they seem very reluctant to break from his wishes. "We’re just kidding ourselves if we think it's a totally independent body, it just isn’t.  The only way that would be the case really would be if we were all elected by the people." 

In our interview, Nolan tackles questions about the accountability of the MTA Board, his role as chair, the budget process, the Bike Plan and parking. Nolan seems to get parking issues, and he's a fan of Donald Shoup's book, "The High Cost of Free Parking." So why isn't he stronger on the issues?

"I would say watch over the next two or three months about what the real choices are going to be and I expect increasingly I’ll play a more active role." 

The interview was recorded on June 17th, 2009. Read highlights below the break.

Highlights:

• On his role as MTA Board chair: "I’m very interested in the notion of governance.  The organization I now work for, Project Open Hand, did a thing that most organizations never do, they took time out years ago to try to figure out what a board should do.  And just because, like in our case here, you're a very good peeler of vegetables or something, doesn’t mean you're going to be a great member of the board.  It's a distinct important function and boards almost never do that.  When you get appointed to this you get sworn in and you just start.  And since I’ve been on so many boards, non-profit boards as well as the transit boards, two years on the (MTC) commission, I have a good sense of that.  And so I think I’m trying to help my colleagues understand it's an important role, but it's limited.  And I think that the fact that I run pretty good meetings.  I think I give people enough chance to do what they want, but I don’t tend to just carry over things, let’s say."
• On Supervisor Avalos' proposed charter amendment to have half of the MTA Board appointed by supervisors, half by the Mayor and one elected: "I can’t imagine who would run for that one seat quite frankly.  Running a city wide election in San Francisco would be hugely expensive.  Maybe somebody could, I don’t know, it certainly wouldn’t be me, I'll tell you that.  And the way I see Supervisor Avalos’ thing, it really gives the board pretty much all the power, because even the Mayor’s appointees have to be approved by the full board.  So the only one that’s truly independent presumably is the elected one.  If people want a truly independent body, election is the way to do it, but it has to come with a revenue stream that’s guaranteed somehow, like in San Mateo County, SamTrans has two half cent sales tax measures". 
  
• On fixing Muni: "I think the big thing, we need a whole lot more money and the contribution I’m proudest of at Muni, being on the MTA board, is I have forced the agency to eventually say what would it take to achieve 85 percent on-time.  And the answer was $100 million to $150 million more a year.  And Prop A, as good as that was, gave us $26 million more a year, which was lost in work orders.  But even if we got all $26 million its nowhere near what we needed.  What I learned as a San Mateo County supervisor from observing things that worked and things that didn’t is a little formula.  And that is people have to appreciate and understand the value of the problem you’re trying to solve, number two you have to present a solution that makes sense to rational people, three you have to be candid about the cost both literally and figuratively.  And four you have to divide that cost as equitably as possible, both literally and figuratively and five you have to either develop, maintain or enhance confidence in the administering institution."
• How is San Francisco doing as a Transit First city? "Oh C+, B- maybe.  I wish we could have in the budget done more in terms of the parking, that balance between drivers and buses and everything.  We’ve got a long way to go there.  I’m very excited about the bike plan, by the way.  I just see anecdotally way more bicycles on the streets than before, it's growing.  And I think the number one problem that the bike coalition people tell us is that some people are not riding because they're afraid, they're scared out there, the dooring and all that stuff.  But if we can almost double the number of bike lanes and all these amenities for bicycles, I think that’ll help move us towards the transit first city.  And I know the argument is make Muni so dependable and reliable and cost effective that people want to ride it.  Well 700,000 people a day do already, so it's a good start, considering the population is about 765,000."
• On parking: "I think we’ll almost assuredly see weeknight parking extended to ten o’clock. If we aren’t able to do that, there are very few things that are really readily available to us without doing serious damage to the system.  And we had three options of service cuts and we only went to option two, option three is much more drastic.  And I say charging for parking during week day nights, as far as I’m concerned on Sunday as well, is a small price to pay for the overall good of the entire city.  So I’m very open to that, I appreciate the study and I know it's already ongoing."
  

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority's promotion of Dump the Pump Day 2008. Flickr photo: Metro Library and Archive

Muni and BART won’t be participating in National Dump the Pump Day today, an event sponsored by the American Public Transportation Association and intended to raise awareness of the economic and environmental benefits of riding transit.

Last year, BART drew a record number of riders on a combined Dump the Pump/Spare the Air free transit day. The 2007 Dump the Pump Day led to a more modest bump for BART, without the incentive of free trips.

Neither BART nor Muni disputed the inherent effectiveness of transit awareness campaigns, but each cited their own reasons for staying out this year.

Muni did participate in Dump the Pump Day in 2006, but the agency is now inclined to create its own campaign, said Murray Bond, the MTA’s deputy director of external affairs. “Instead of buying ads now to use what basically are canned national campaigns, we’re going to run our own campaign after the new fiscal year starts on July 1,” said Bond.

He said Muni would run ads it shot last fall, which are more provocative and eye-catching than those produced for Dump the Pump Day.

“This is San Francisco. When we do things here, we try to do things upbeat, to get people’s attention,” said Bond. “Not that Dump the Pump isn’t good, but we think this thing, it’s all visual.”

Though Bond wasn’t thrilled with the Dump the Pump visuals, Muni’s campaign shares very similar goals: “The point we’re making is how inexpensive it is to ride a bus to work, or streetcar, or light rail, as opposed to what it costs to operate a car,” said Bond. “And at the same time, it’s clean, it’s green.” Similarly, APTA President William Millar says the purpose of Dump the Pump Day is “to make a difference in their wallet, as well as in the environment.”

A 2006 VTA ad for Dump the Pump on the side of a light rail vehicle. Flickr photo: richardmasoner

Affirming BART’s support for the event in spite of its absence this year, BART spokesperson Linton Johnson wrote that BART was “stretched too thin this year” to participate, but noted that they had participated every other year since Dump the Pump Day’s inception, and would again next year.

Transit agencies across the country are promoting the event in diverse ways, which raises the question of whether in the future Muni could simply use its own, more provocative ads in conjunction with the existing Dump the Pump campaign, allowing for better regional coordination while not sacrificing style. Since that won’t be happening this year, let’s hope Muni’s ads are as provocative, interesting, and effective as promised.

A free parking meter in San Francisco. Flickr phto: .dru

"I don't support Sunday parking. I don't think that was part of the budget and...I support the budget as passed.  I don't believe in it," Newsom, a former parking and traffic commissioner, said yesterday following a press conference to unveil a new Muni bus shelter. 

Newsom's fervent opposition comes despite a change of heart by several politicians and organizations, including some that have traditionally opposed increasing parking enforcement. As Supervisor John Avalos explained at a recent BOS meeting "times have changed" and "there’s a different feeling about moving forward on revenue from parking that didn’t exist before." Except, of course, from the politician with the most power over the MTA.

Even the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce likes the idea of Sunday metering: "We favored Sunday enforcement because that will turn over parking for merchants just like it does on Saturday," said Jim Lazarus, the chamber's senior vice president.

As we've written, other cities that have managed street space with market-rate pricing and curbside vacancy targets, and have invested additional revenues in pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure improvements, have seen a rise in business, not a drop. There was further proof of that this week, with the release of a TA study noting that most shoppers in downtown San Francisco don't drive.

But with Newsom opposed, the Sunday measure is not likely to be added back in, even if a study favors it, because, as the MTA and its Board proved during this latest budget cycle, it is not independent, instead taking orders from the Mayor.

Ford told Streetsblog after this week's BOS meeting that "it would be premature" to assume the Mayor would oppose stronger parking enforcement after a study, but talk of penciling it in now seems like lip service or insincerity. Even if stronger parking enforcement is resurrected, such as evening metering, it will most likely be watered down.

Ford did indicate that the MTA's current 90-day study on parking enforcement might include outreach to merchants.

"My concern is it’s seen as simply automobile users versus transit users. That’s not the exact equation. There’s also the small businesses that are suffering out there, and we wanted an opportunity to go out there and explain to them that from a parking standpoint, it may mean more turnover, which may mean more business for them."

Supervisor Bevan Dufty, a likely mayoral candidate who is also opposed to Sunday and evening metering, said Castro merchants might be open to an experiment of either Sunday enforcement or evenings but they don't want both.

“Small business people are almost more passionate about parking than almost any issue but health care in this city, and so I just want to be sensitive to that and to talk to them and bring them into the process,” he said.

BOS Prez David Chiu, who voted not to reject: "It is time for us to move forward." Photo by Bryan Goebel.

Transit advocates, frustrated over the decision, said they are planning to rally behind Avalos' proposed charter amendment to reform the MTA Board, which is appointed by the Mayor. They felt a rejection of the budget was the only way to force a better plan, which they say is unfairly balanced, with riders taking a bigger hit than drivers. 

But Chiu, who pointed out that he rides Muni more than any other supervisor and is the only member of the Board who doesn't own a car, said "we have come quite a ways" since the first MTA budget was proposed. He said the upcoming debate over the city budget is going to "make this debate look like child's play."

"In fact, as I've done the math, we've come about 30 million dollars from where the original budget was," said Chiu, who proposed the original rejection motion. "It is time for us to move forward."

Chiu's office said the $30 million he was referring to is a $15 million reduction in work orders, the $10.3 million worked out in a compromise, and $5 million in anticipated parking revenues, assuming the MTA moves forward with stronger parking enforcement. 

Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, in an interview after the vote, said he believed it was still possible to get the MTA to make more concessions because "a strong message has been sent," but said he is going to back Avalos' charter amendment, which could appear before voters as soon as November, assuming there are six votes on the Board to place it on the ballot. The amendment would see three members of the MTA Board appointed by the Board of Supervisors, three by the Mayor and one elected.

Supervisor David Campos, who criticized the MTA and its Chief Nat Ford for not following through on any of the recommendations in the proposed "Transit Justice Package," called today's vote a loss for Muni riders.

"I think while this budget is better than the original budget it is one that can be much better and I'm disappointed in the Board of Supervisors for not pushing the envelope to push Muni to do the right thing," he said, adding that he feels the one good thing that came out of the process was Avalos' proposed charter amendment.

"I don't think this would have happened if we had a truly independent MTA Board that deliberated without any political pressure, so it points for the need to move forward on that as quick as we can."

Ford pledged during testimony before the Board that the MTA would not make any further service cuts or fare increases other than what's been proposed. He said he would need 90 days to study the possibility of beefing up parking enforcement on Sundays and evenings before taking a plan to the MTA Board.

Asked by Streetsblog whether putting parking enforcement back on the table was a real possibility considering opposition from the Mayor (even if a study were to favor it), Ford responded: "I think that's premature at this point to assume that. I think, if we have a reasonable plan that takes into account all the impacts, I have found with the Mayor as well as the Board of Supervisors that they've been supportive of some of those suggestions we've made and in this case we need a little bit of time."

Tom Radulovich, the executive director of Livable City, said today's decision continues to raise questions in his mind about whether the MTA, as it exists, is really working.

"They're not delivering any of the service they've promised to, in terms of on-time performance. There's a provision of the charter which says the MTA Board shall deligently seek new revenue sources, not just fare increases, but new revenue sources to support Muni operations. We've not seen them act very deligently in the 10 year history of the MTA. They've been pretty chicken and more often than not have gone to the riders."

Service on the 14 Limited would be expanded from mid days to 5:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. Flickr photo by Octoferret.

In a letter to the MTA Board of Directors Friday, Ford said his plan would tweak the schedules, creating better running times by investing "about 150 service hours per day to better match the scheduled running time with the actual time." He said the Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP) estimated the system needs about 230 hours of additional service per day to meet running times.

The lines slated for enhancements include the 9-San Bruno, 14-Mission (included the limited), 49-Van Ness/Mission, 4-Van Ness, 38-Geary Limited, 82X-Levi Plaza Express, 44-O'Shaughnessy, 5-Fulton, 10-Townsend, 48-Quintara, 39-Coit, the 1A-BX California Expresses and the J-Church. See the full list of here (PDF).

Ford made sure to include enhancements on a line in each supervisorial district.

The 14-Mission Limited would see some of the biggest enhancements. Currently, it only operates mid days and Saturdays, but service would be extended from 5:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. to "help absorb customers who switch to Muni because of the BART Premium Pass. It will also represent additional capacity on Mission Street, which will help ameliorate the proposal to discontinue the 26-Valencia."

The Board of Supervisors has scheduled a special meeting at noon tomorrow to again consider rejecting the budget. It was unclear whether Chiu and Supervisor Sophie Maxwell would be voting to reject, but Maxwell appeared willing to consider supporting adding Sunday and evening parking enforcement back in, something Supervisor John Avalos proposed in a "Transit Justice Package."

Flickr photo: andreil

Why is San Francisco -- considered by many around the world to be a “progressive” and “green" city with a Transit First policy -- still debating whether to extend meter hours and parking enforcement, even in the face of a crippling Muni budget deficit? Didn't we merge Muni with the Department of Parking and Traffic precisely so policy decisions about management of the streets would benefit the operations of transit, bicycling, and walking?

Some politicians, including the Mayor, apparently can't stop viewing these issues from behind the wheels of their SUVs. They can't see past the myth that raising parking fees will drive away business, thus perpetuating an erroneous stereotype that most urban shoppers drive. My colleague Matthew Roth wrote a great piece debunking that popular fallacy, noting that the majority of shoppers don't drive to shop in areas like North Beach and that in aggregate, transit riders, cyclists and walkers spend more than drivers. Other cities that have managed street space in accord with Shoupian market-rate pricing and curbside vacancy targets, and have invested additional revenues in pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure improvements, have seen a rise in business, not a drop.

San Francisco could and should do the same, but the MTA -- namely its chief, Nat Ford, and its Board, all appointees who rarely act independently -- has bowed to pressure from the Mayor, and Supervisors Carmen Chu and Bevan Dufty and taken Sunday and evening parking enforcement until 10 p.m. off the table as a much-needed revenue measure to fund Muni. Instead, the MTA is going to study extending it to 8 p.m. Supervisor John Avalos and four of his colleagues on the Board want it penciled back in the budget. Supervisor Sophie Maxwell, who was on the fence, is coming around and might join other members of the Board of Supervisors next week in rejecting the MTA budget if Ford doesn't follow the recommendations of a "Transit Justice Package," and make some changes. As Supervisor David Campos has noted, asking for a $15 million readjustment is not a radical proposal.

Mayor Gavin Newsom, responding to a question from Streetsblog last week, seemed stuck to his windshield perspective. When I asked him what he thinks about the fact that Muni riders are taking a much bigger hit than drivers in this year's budget, he responded: "Look at what we’ve done in the last few years. There have been dramatic increases in parking, fines and fees related to automobile use. So, you have to look at the totality of the last few years and I think assess it in proportion to what’s happened over the years."

Nonsense. How about the last decades? We've bent over backwards to accommodate cars and vehicle ownership while transit service has deteriorated calamitously.

We're supposed to be a Transit First city, but we're not taking advantage of the enormous revenue opportunities that options like metered enforcement represent, and we haven't raised meter rates since 2005. There are an estimated 320,000 on-street parking spaces, of which only 25,000 are metered, and those metered spaces are far from market-rate. If the average parking space is about 200 square feet, that amounts to roughly 60,000,000 square feet of real estate that we're giving away for free or next to nothing so people can store their private property in public. Of the 83,000 residential parking permits (RPP) doled out each year, we practically give them away for $74. How does that make any economic sense?  We need to change the vehicle code that prevents the MTA from raising RPP rates, which are only priced at cost recovery (the amount to administer the program), and we need to charge a fee that approximates private lots and garages.

While SFPark is a great start at better management of the curbside, it will apply to only 6,000 on-street spaces and is not meant primarily as a revenue generator.  The kind of change we need is sea change, a complete transition away from 60 years of externalizing the costs of car ownership.  This kind of political leadership isn't coming from the top and seems fleeting among the majority of supervisors.

Chu and Dufty won't give in on their reticence. Chu, who gets around mostly by car, said in an interview earlier this year that she believes San Francisco has a parking shortage. Dufty was also feeling heat from the Mayor, but said he was also taking into account concerns from some Castro merchants. But really, if Chu wants available parking, she should back stronger market-priced meter enforcement. If Dufty wants more business in the Castro, he should back extended meter enforcement.

From Donald Shoup's book, "The High Cost of Free Parking":

"Market-priced curb parking will reduce traffic congestion, air pollution, and energy consumption caused by cruising and also make curb parking more convenient. Eliminating the need for off-street parking requirements will, in turn, reduce development costs, make the land market more efficient, and improve urban design. Finally, the revenue from curb parking will either improve public services or reduce taxes that distort the economy, or both."

Other cities have already done what the MTA originally proposed last month. Los Angeles, Long Beach, Glendale, Pasadena, Montreal and Princeton, New Jersey are examples of cities that have implemented parking enforcement on Sundays. Pasadena extends its evening meters to 12 a.m. on weekends, and 10 p.m. during the week. But in San Francisco? Most metering ends at 6 p.m.

Source: SFMTA

If the MTA is going to truly be an independent agency, then Nat Ford needs to stand up to Gavin Newsom for once, putting aside his political loyalties. Don't study extending metering hours, just do it! Ford went along with these parking enforcement proposals in the first place. If he doesn't make these changes, we might have to go back to the voters and change the governing structure of the MTA to get the kind of Transit First city we all deserve.

Matthew Roth contributed to this piece.

Supervisor Avalos on parking enforcement: "The more I think about how we need to do what's best for the environment and what's best for riders my position has changed."

“I too have come to a different feeling about parking. I mean, I was one who said I don’t know about Sundays and I don’t know about 10 [p.m.] but I am reconsidering and I think a lot of other people could too, so I think it’s something that should really be put on the table.”

Maxwell asked MTA Chief Nat Ford how soon an MTA study on parking would take. As part of a "compromise" reached with Board President David Chiu last week, Ford agreed to study increasing parking enforcement downtown from 6 to 8 p.m. Advocates, however, have proposed that Ford's original plan to enforce parking until 10 p.m. be added back in.

“My concern is that without pressure maybe the discussion won’t happen because the parking issues are something that we need to look at and I want to look at it sooner rather than later," said Maxwell.

Ford indicated that more parking measures will be studied and brought before the MTA Board, especially in light of the fact that the agency is now facing an additional $13 million gap, due to the recent rejection of an SEIU contract and more state budget impacts.

While not giving a specific time line, Ford responded: “It will be something that we’re looking at very quickly.”  He had earlier indicated additional parking measures would not be added without consultation with the MTA Board and the Mayor's office, which is opposed to adding more parking revenue in the budget.

Maxwell's comments came after Avalos, who told Streetsblog San Francisco he gets around mostly by car but occasionally rides Muni and his bicycle, said he believes "times have changed" on parking enforcement.

"I think that there's a different feeling on moving forward on revenue from parking that didn't exist before. We have the Chamber of Commerce, which is actually supportive of Sunday and evening parking metering and enforcement," Avalos said. "I would say that my opinion has evolved as well. I actually saw some of these things as the third rail, which would never fly, but the more I think about how we need to do what's best for the environment and what's best for riders my position has changed and I think other colleagues have as well."

Supervisors Bevan Dufty, Carmen Chu, Michela Alioto-Pier and Sean Elsbernd voted against delaying the rejection motion.

Said Dufty: "Given the lack of investment that this city has made in its own transportation infrastructure over many years and many politicians using Muni as a whipping post to gain and score political points the reality is in this country there has never been the type of investment that we’ve seen in European countries.”

Chiu, meantime, responding to a question from Elsbernd, seemed to indicate support for his colleagues trying to force more changes in the MTA budget.

Elsbernd to Chiu: “We have four members of the Board who have already articulated they're supporting the budget. Supervisor Maxwell has indicated she is interested. This is only worth doing if you are interested in reopening this budget. You said you wanted to table the budget based on the compromise last week. Supervisor Maxwell said she's open to changing. If you are not interested the votes will not be there, we do not need to go through this exercise of scheduling a meeting."

Chiu responded: "I will tell you at this time I still think there is a lot of room for us to talk about where we can move things forward and like Supervisor Maxwell I do think there is additional information we can get from Mr. Ford to illuminate this and hopefully get us to a budget that we do not have to reject."