John Avalos Rides SF from John Avalos on Vimeo.

The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition announced today that it is endorsing John Avalos as its number one pick for mayor, followed by David Chiu and Ed Lee. Avalos, the District 11 supervisor, has been especially aggressive about courting the bicycle vote, showing up at bike events, and spreading the word about his campaign in bike shops.

Chiu, the car-free District 3 supervisor who is board president, has also been reaching out to bicyclists, and the SFBC said the ranked-choice endorsements reflect the three candidates “who are mostly actively supporting a better city through bicycling.”

In an email sent out to its members, the SFBC outlines why it’s supporting each candidate:

Our #1 mayoral endorsement is John Avalos. In his role as the District 11 representative of the SF Board of Supervisors, Avalos has been a strong voice for better bicycling and livable streets. He has worked with the SF Bicycle Coalition to advance bike improvements, including essential funding for those projects. Avalos, who is a regular bike rider, has also been a steady supporter of Sunday Streets, Bike to School Day, our Connecting the City vision, and transit and public realm improvements. Avalos is currently drafting legislation to increase bicycle access to commercial buildings. Find out more about John Avalos, including his bike video, here.

Our #2 mayoral endorsement is David Chiu. Chiu serves as the President of the SF Board of Supervisors and represents District 3. He doesn’t own a car and has helped to raise the visibility of biking by executing his Board duties by bike, by transit, and on foot. He has worked with the SF Bicycle Coalition to advance bike improvements, including Market Street trials for better biking, walking, and transit, as well as supporting Sunday Streets and Connecting the City. Chiu sponsored an important policy statement to reach 20% of trips in SF by bicycle by 2020. Find out more about David Chiu here.

Our #3 mayoral endorsement is Ed Lee. Lee has been a vocal supporter of the SF Bicycle Coalition’s goals since his appointment to Mayor in January. His support for better bicycling, especially our Connecting the City initiative, has moved our vision substantially toward action by prioritizing these projects among City staff and helping to find funding. Lee has been a strong supporter of Sunday Streets and has leveraged his many years of experience in city government to prioritize and expedite bike-positive work on the streets. Find out more about Ed Lee here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flickr photo: Brandon Doran

Riders of the J-Church know all too well what it’s like to wait for a packed peak-hour train without any guarantee they’ll be able to squeeze on board. If you look at the data, though, the SFMTA says the picture isn’t as bad as it’s been made out to be. Still, two city supervisors aren’t buying it.

The J-line has recorded a 76.8 on-time performance rate since January, according to SFMTA Transit Director John Haley, but Supervisor Scott Wiener wonders whether that statistic reflects the reality of the daily riding experience.

“I think a lot of people who use it regularly would look at that number and laugh,” he said.

Supervisors Wiener and John Avalos held a hearing yesterday to address frequent rider complaints about poor reliability on the J-Church and switchbacks on the 14-Mission line at a City Operations and Neighborhood Services Committee meeting. Haley came to the table with statistical data highlighting Muni’s recent progress, but the numbers were cold comfort to supervisors and riders.

“In a system where [switchbacks are] a common occurrence, I have no real leverage in my district to encourage people to get out of their cars and use Muni. I want to do that desperately,” said Avalos, who admonished the disproportionate impacts of switchbacks felt by those living in the outer neighborhoods. “But…it’s impossible for me to speak about Muni being a reliable service that people should use rather than their cars. The reality does not meet their needs.”

Although Haley included a wish list of potential strategies to improve service, he defended the agency’s progress. Trends are reportedly looking positive since the last hearing, with switchbacks on the 14-mission declining from 180 in January to 116 in March up to the 25th, most of which are done just after peak hours, said Haley. On the J-Church, only 0.38 percent of trips were reportedly turned around early this year, and operator absenteeism has improved.

However, Wiener and riders who spoke at the hearing referred to commonly heard stories of regular extensive delays and wildly inaccurate NextBus predictions. Roughly a dozen students from Mission High School who came to the hearing said having to rely on the J-Church means high truancy rates.

Speakers also bemoaned switchbacks for the lack of communication to riders and long wait times, as well as their particularly harsh impacts on the disabled at non-accessible stops and confusion for residents who don’t speak English.

Haley said the discrepancy between anecdotes and data on the J could be partly due to confusion with an irregularly scheduled 7 to 13-minute headway, coupled with poor NextBus feedback for arrival times. As one solution, he recommended setting an easily expectable 10-minute headway.

“I think the data shows what it shows, but I think there’s also a big concern with the way people perceive how long they’re waiting, and I think we’ve contributed to that,” he said.

The most frequent cause for delays on both the J and 14 lines continues to be problems with poorly maintained Muni vehicles, while double-parked private automobiles remain at the top of non Muni-related causes. Increased parking enforcement, Muni signal priority, stop consolidation, and faster boarding, including ticket machines at J-Church stops, remain among Haley’s top priorities for strategies yet to be used.

The continued use of switchbacks as a technique to manage Muni service has yet to gain much tolerance from Avalos, but Wiener showed relative patience with the issue.

“I understand that Muni needs to use switchbacks periodically to re-balance the system,” said Wiener. “I also understand Muni would like to reduce the number, and that’ll be a good thing, but they’ll only be reduced as we improve the overall flow of the system, so that gives us extra incentive [to do that].”

With the MTA proposing deep service cuts to Muni and $5 fares on historic streetcars, transit advocates are concerned about where the city's transit system is headed. Flickr photo: Thomas Hawk.

One proposal would address that very issue. Supervisor David Campos told the Chronicle he hopes to put a measure on the November ballot that would give the Board of Supervisors control over three of the seats on the seven-member MTA Board, which is currently appointed entirely by the Mayor. The proposal is similar to one suggested by Supervisor John Avalos last year, which would have given the Board of Supervisors say over three MTA Board members, with the Mayor retaining control over three members. Voters would elect the seventh member.

Campos has not offered details of his plan yet, including whether the public might elect one member, but he said the proposed service cuts reflect deeper problems with the agency. "There appears to be a systematic problem with Muni and change has to begin at the top with the MTA Board," Campos told the Chronicle.

Susan King, a transit advocate who works at Livable City, said changing the way the MTA Board is chosen is part of the solution. While the current system was intended to "depoliticize" the MTA, said King, transportation shouldn't be removed from the political process. "Transportation should be a political issue. It affects the very core of people's ability to survive," she said. "The voters and the people who use the roads in San Francisco, who also vote, need to have a bigger voice."

The MTA's recurring budget crises have highlighted the agency's long-term need for more stable funding sources, but the current focus is on finding a way to avert this round of cuts. As a near-term solution, King and Walk SF President Manish Champsee both think extended parking meter hours should be part of the equation. "I understand the Mayor is opposed to that, but I think he also has to understand the devastating impact the existing service cuts and existing fare increases have had on a lot of people," said Champsee.

"They need to phase that in," said King. "Maybe not some of the things like enforcing parking until midnight, but they need to do parking on Sundays and they need to do that immediately and say 'our backs are against the wall, we don't have any other choices. It's either you guys or the transit riders.'"

King would also like to see the MTA revise its policies on free disabled parking placards, free parking in parks, the price structure of residential parking permits, and citations for people who illegally drive in transit-only lanes. Another option is to add a tax to downtown parking garages to make up the cost of PCOs who routinely are forced to direct traffic at rush hour.

Supervisor Bevan Dufty, who chairs the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (TA), said he's already directed TA staff to move quickly to assess another part of the MTA's proposal to close its deficit, which would entail the TA transferring $7 million in funds directly to the MTA. "My goal is to try to be as supportive as possible," said Dufty. "Obviously, Muni is hemorrhaging. If we can help fund some of the maintenance, some of the large supplies, some of the hard costs in the maintenance, that's something we need to step up to do. That's kind of the top priority."

Dufty also would like to see a more nuanced approach to the service cuts. "Maybe we should look at the low-performing lines and focus the cuts there rather than the key lines that are carrying the overwhelming majority of riders every day."

As for averting the cuts, Dufty, citing the city's Transit First policy, said he thinks it's time for the MTA to revisit the proposal to sell taxi medallions, which could bring in millions for the agency. Would Dufty now support extending parking meter hours? "Where I'm open to it is, I think the MTA is saying there may be neighborhoods that actually want it, and I would be more comfortable with that," Dufty said.

Though the December 2009 service changes went relatively smoothly, and may have given the MTA Board a false sense of confidence about future service cuts, there are plenty of signs that riders and activists don't see this round of cuts the same way. "I think a lot of people are angry and they're going to show up and tell the MTA Board that," said Champsee.

In a comment on Streetsblog's original story on the proposed cuts, Fran Taylor of the community group CC Puede warned that angry riders and activists should focus on the real forces behind service cuts as they gear up for this afternoon's MTA Board meeting. "The only way to fight this latest assault on public transportation is to work with the union, include all the riders, and develop strategies that transform the disruption these proposals represent to us as individuals into disruptions to business as usual for our attackers," wrote Taylor. "We need sit-ins, pickets, serious actions, and we need the Muni workers acting with us. Stop insulting them -- they've got a tough job and deserve every penny they get."

Livable City's King also thinks a collaborative approach is the best bet for saving Muni from a deep gutting of service. "I think it needs to be a really strong and united force of progressives, social justice advocates, alternative transportation advocates, labor - because the bus drivers are going to get more abuse - and everyone pulling together and saying no, this is not acceptable."

MTA Board meeting, Tuesday, at 2 p.m. in San Francisco City Hall, Room 400. The budget discussion is Item 11 on the agenda, and there will be a chance for the public to comment.

Photos: San Francisco Department of Sidewalk Parking

Now, an enterprising resident of the Excelsior, who wishes to remain anonymous, has created a website to publicize the abuse and advocate for comprehensive enforcement. The San Francisco Department of Sidewalk Parking website went live last week with numerous photos from the neighborhood, and while Commissioner Concrete admits that he doesn't occupy an office in City Hall and doesn't have the power to issue tickets, he advises you and all your friends to help populate the website and memorize the Department of Parking and Traffic's parking hotline: 415-553-1200.

Read our interview with the commish below the break.

Matthew Roth: How did your concern with sidewalk parking develop?

Commissioner Concrete: My wife and I are new homeowners in District 11. One of the worst things about this area is seeing all the cars in a neighborhood that was designed for a much lower number of them. I am particularly mortified by how widespread and accepted sidewalk parking is. We own one car and we actually use our garage for storing it (we mostly bike), but we're absolutely the exception.

"I perceive sidewalk parking as an incredibly rude thing to do that I take great exception to. The sidewalk, to me, is for the people, and parking a car there is completely sacrilegious."

MR: What prompted you to create a website like this?

Commish: The site is new, but in a way I have been developing it inside my head for a while. I guess one of the things prompting me to finally do it was when someone on my block, who's selling their house, very recently ripped out their front yard and concreted it over, no doubt to please some buyer who requested sidewalk parking spots. That was one of the last front yards on the block... though we are now in the process of installing a front yard as large as the Planning Department will approve, in front of our own house.

This is a collective failure: somewhere along the way we stopped being civilized and started accepting this as the norm. I'm not a sleuth, all pictures on the site were very easy to get and the problem is everywhere and out in the open. The site's concept is still evolving, but I mainly see it as an entertaining albeit shocking "from the trenches" kind of report (a real-world look of where car culture and growth-based ownership economies in a finite world get you), with a sprinkling of information, analysis and tips (since I feel I have a lot to say about the issues). I also want to feature other familiar types of sidewalk blight such as tree removals and car alarms. It all really depends on how the site is received and my perception of its effectiveness in exposing the problems.

MR: Have you tried to get the MTA's parking control officers to ticket sidewalk parking?

Commish: Oh yes, of course. Infuriatingly, you can't flat-out say that the MTA doesn't ever ticket sidewalk parking. They do -- if you call them up. But in general they simply don't ticket sidewalk parking on sight. Not even during street cleaning. The meter maid comes out and tickets cars parked on the street, but NOT those parked on the sidewalk. Hellooo? In fact, what I have noticed is that this means that the DPT tacitly condones moving even MORE cars onto the sidewalk on street cleaning days, which of course is what ends up happening.

I have written to my supervisor, John Avalos, and also to Carmen Chu, since I know that she has has made noises against sidewalk parking (she was coming from the Americans with Disabilities Act angle). I received positive, but toothless replies. Chu basically told me to talk to the ADA people directly - which to me implies that she has no further interest in this issue. She closed with: "Meanwhile, DPT also enforces blocked public right of ways. You can call 311 to report those instances." To which I replied, "You and I both know that the DPT does *not* enforce the law, which is exactly why this problem exists. They really only do it when called to a specific block. So should I call them every time I see it? That's going to be a lot of calls... I wish the Board would show leadership on this issue." which pretty much sums it up.

Streetsblog reached out to the MTA press office for comment on the new website and the problem of parking abuse, but they didn't respond.

A generation ago, nearly half of all U.S. kids walked or bicycled to school. Today, less than fifteen percent do, with the majority arriving at school in private automobiles. It’s no coincidence, then, that studies show more than a quarter of San Francisco’s children are overweight. But a new program hopes to change that trend, while reducing greenhouse gas pollution and increasing fun.

With the help of a $500,000 grant from the federal government, San Francisco has launched its own “Safe Routes to Schools” program, aimed at encouraging students and parents to walk or bike to school.

At Longfellow Elementary last Wednesday, October 7th, students joined parents on a “walking school bus.” Although the date was part of International Walk to School Day, organizers plan group walks to school every Wednesday—with the ultimate goal of walking to school every day.

By a unanimous vote, the Board indicated its support for the ordinance, though the supervisors reasons differed. The vote only authorizes creating a parking plan for Golden Gate Park, not its implementation, which the MTA will need to seek later.

The Recreation and Park Department, the MTA, Board of Supervisors President David Chiu, and Supervisors John Avalos and David Campos have expressed strong support for the measure in the past, since it will generate funds for the MTA and the Rec and Park Department, and is consistent with the city's Transit First policy.

After yesterday's vote, Supervisor Sean Elsbernd said he still has "major reservations" about installing meters in Golden Gate Park, including the meters' aesthetic impact on the park. Elsbernd also expressed concern about whether the meters would "create residual parking problems" in surrounding neighborhoods, such as the Inner Sunset, the Richmond, and Haight-Ashbury.

Elsbernd said he also worried that charging for parking could drive park users away. "We want to encourage people to go to parks, we don't want to discourage," said Elsbernd. "I wonder if meters are going to do that."

Supervisor Carmen Chu, who represents the Sunset, also was concerned about parking spillover. Asked whether she could potentially support installing meters, Chu said, "to me there's still a lot of unknowns about what that would look like, what the meters would look like, what the rates would look like, how are we going to deal with disability issues, and also what the surrounding impact on the communities would be. So these would all be the things that I would take a look at when we have the report."

Chu did acknowledge that "there are some individuals who are unfortunately taking advantage of the park," and said the city "should think about what things we can do, what strategies when can do to address that issue."

She remained concerned about neighborhood impact regardless, however. "Whether it is a parker who is parking all day or a parker who is parking there for an hour," said Chu, "the impact of having parking meters installed inside the park will be that there will be an impact on the neighboring community."

Supervisor Eric Mar, while also sensitive to neighborhood concerns with parking spillover, called installing parking meters "a good way to insure that we have more promotion of the Transit First policy for the city," and said he's "open to parking meters in the park."

"I know that the pushback will come heavily in districts like mine, the Richmond District, and the Sunset, and a little bit in parts of District Five, so I'm going to be listening to residents, and trying to minimize the harm to the neighborhoods," said Mar. "But I think that in general, parking in a reasonable part of the park will insure that we have more public transit use. But I don't want to see kind of ugly meters in the park that destroy the environment for people too."

To limit the visual impact, the MTA has said it will use meters that cover 10-15 spaces each, with about 130 meters total.

The Board also gave final approval to putting the Safe Streets and Road Repair General Obligation Bond on the ballot for November. As we've written before, the bond measure would direct $368 million towards rehabilitating the city's aging streets and sidewalks, and would pay for streetscape enhancements, including enhancements to sidewalks and bicycle infrastructure. If voters support the measure in November, funding would be distributed over the next five years, with each issuance requiring Board of Supervisors approval.

Drivers often take advantage of Golden Gate Park's free on-street parking. Flickr photo: morganthemoth

The first is a measure to begin charging for on-street parking in the eastern half of Golden Gate Park, where many of the park's most popular attractions are located. The plan will turn over responsibility for on-street parking in Golden Gate Park from the Recreation and Park Department to the MTA, which will install meters and charge for some street parking in the park for the first time.

The Rec and Park department, the MTA, Board of Supervisors President David Chiu, and Supervisors John Avalos and David Campos expressed support for the measure on public policy grounds, since charging for parking may lead to reduced driving and increased walking and biking in the park, and is consistent with the city's transit first policy.

Given the impact on transit riders of recent Muni fair hikes, Campos said drivers should "share the pain" of balancing the budget.

The meters will be a financial boon for the MTA and the park department, with the MTA collecting citation revenue and the park department collecting meter fare revenue. Once the meters are installed, as early as next April, they're projected to bring in $500,000 in the fiscal year ending June 30 and $1.4 million in the second year for the park department. The MTA will bring in a net profit of about $379,000 per year.

The area affected is bounded by Stanyan Street, Crossover Drive, Lincoln Way, and Fulton Street, and includes just over 1,800 spots. To limit the visual impact of the new meters, the MTA will use meters that cover 10-15 spaces each, with about 130 meters total.

The mayor has expressed more qualified support, reversing his previous opposition to charging for parking in Golden Gate Park only recently, in light of the budget crisis. Supervisor Carmen Chu, who supported the measure, also expressed reservations, especially regarding parking pricing, and the installation of the meters.

The parking measure ultimately gained the support of the full committee, and appears to have most of the full Board of Supervisors' support, and the support of the mayor.

The second proposal, which Streetsblog San Francisco wrote about last month, is a $368 million bond measure to create a one-time fund to pay for streetscape enhancements, including enhancements to sidewalks and bicycle infrastructure. This measure also had the strong support of the full committee, and Supervisor Avalos was confident it would pass next week at the full Board of Supervisors meeting. If it does pass, it will go before voters in November, and funding would be distributed over the next five years, with each issuance requiring Board of Supervisors approval.

Next of up for both measures: Board of Supervisors meeting, Tuesday, July 14, San Francisco City Hall, Room 250.

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."

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."

Supervisor John Avalos at Transit Justice rally. Photos by Bryan Goebel.

Supervisor John Avalos, leading the charge for a Muni budget that is more equitably balanced between drivers and transit riders, was joined Monday by a broad coalition of advocates, including groups representing seniors and youth, in a rally designed to pressure the MTA into restoring about $15 million in revenue measures carved out of the original plan. It preceded a march to the MTA where Avalos and advocates demanded and got a meeting with MTA Chief Nat Ford (hear the audio below) on the eve of a Board of Supervisors meeting to consider another rejection motion.

It remained uncertain, though, whether Avalos had the seven required votes to reject the MTA's budget, and advocates were urging citizens to put the heat on Board President David Chiu and Supervisor Sophie Maxwell, considered a swing, by calling and emailing them.

Avalos spoke to a large crowd on the steps of City Hall, calling for a balanced Muni budget that doesn't fall on the backs of riders: "When it's budget season we don't come with our hat in our hand but our fists raised to win a better budget."

Also in attendance were Supervisors David Campos and Ross Mirkarimi, both of whom voted last week with Avalos on the Budget and Finance Committee to reject the MTA budget a second time, a move all three hoped would get the MTA to budge.

"In a city like ours that professes to be green, well, almost green, and professes to be aggressive in tackling global warming, this could be one of the most counter intuitive actions we could take in terms of trying to get people out of their cars and riding Muni," Mirkarimi said of the current MTA budget.

Campos said the "Transit Justice Package" proposed by Avalos represents an effort on the part of the progressive members of the Board to work with the MTA.

"I think that anyone who cares about making the city true to the principal of Transit First would jump at the opportunity of supporting something that simply gives 15 million dollars back to the system. That is not a radical proposal at all," said Campos. "It recognizes that we should not be balancing the MTA's budget on the backs of the poor."

Avalos proposed the changes to the MTA budget following a series of meetings with transit advocates. The package calls for reducing fare increases from $2.00 to $1.75 (or delaying the hike until January instead of July) and reducing the Lifeline Pass for low-income riders from the current $35 to $20. It also puts Sunday and evening downtown parking enforcement back on the table. Critics had charged the budget unfairly forces Muni riders to shoulder more than drivers by a 4-to-1 ratio. See the complete list of proposed changes here (PDF).

Avalos' plan would also hold the rate for a Fast Pass at $55. Addressing a question from a reporter about whether a Fast Pass hike is fair considering transit riders in some other major cities are paying far more, Avalos said: "I think we have different ways of doing things in San Francisco and I think it's worthy to consider that we would have the most economical and equitable type of Fast Pass in the country. And given that we are a Transit First city it would be a Transit First policy to have a very affordable Fast Pass."

Supervisor David Campos addresses the rally.

"We as a city have twice in the past ten years written into our city charter, which is the constitution of San Francisco, that San Franciscans have a right to a transit system which is safe, which is reliable, which serves every neighborhood and which they can afford," he said. "The current budget that we have from MTA does not do that."

Rev. Arnold Townsend of the Western Addition Citizens Advisory Commission said the issue of a fair Muni budget shouldn't have any type of political label on it.

"This is not a progressive issue and it shouldn't be a regressive issue," he said. "It's an issue dealing with the question of need and the most illogical thing I can think of is raising the fares for seniors and young people, students."

Avalos has also proposed a charter amendment that would reform the MTA Board of Directors, calling for three of them to be appointed by the Board of Supervisors, three by the Mayor and one by a government body yet to be determined, or elected. All seven members are currently appointed by the Mayor, who advocates complain wields too much control over the agency, and has hamstrung it in many ways. Avalos plans to introduce the measure Tuesday, the last day supervisors can introduce measures for the November ballot.

"Ultimately, we need to have an independent MTA Board, one that doesn't cowtow to the Mayor, but is actually directly responsible to drivers, riders, people who care about pedestrian safety, and cyclists in San Francisco, to all of us," said Avalos.

Avalos and advocates meet with Nat Ford following rally.

After the rally at City Hall, Avalos lead a march to the MTA building at One South Van Ness Avenue where he and about thirty advocates met with Ford in a seventh floor conference room. In the 15-minute meeting Avalos laid out his demands. Hear the full audio here:

Avalos pressed Ford to make his proposed revenue changes in the budget by using his authority as executive director to rejigger 5 percent, or about $40 million. Ford responded that even though he has that discretion, he still has to consult with the MTA Board. He refused to make any changes or promises but said he is committed "to continue looking at options to reduce the impact of fares on these citizens."

Avalos' call for a new MTA budget comes after the Board of Supervisors earlier this month, in a 6-5 vote, agreed to table a rejection motion originally proposed by Chiu.  The District 3 supervisor led the original charge to reject the budget but rescinded the resolution after agreeing to last-minute negotiations with the Mayor via Supervisor Chu. The last-minute "compromise" happened after Chiu realized he couldn't secure Maxwell's vote despite an intense lobbying effort. The deal resulted in about $10.3 million in changes, including some yet-to-be announced service enhancements, which critics -- including Supervisors Avalos, Campos and Mirkimiri -- say still falls short.

Advocates spent the afternoon Monday lobbying Chiu to support a rejection, but it was unclear whether he was willing to change his position.

See more pictures on our Flickr page.  We'll be tweeting from today's Board of Supervisors meeting, which begins at 2 p.m.

Members of the MTA Board, who are appointed by the Mayor. Photo by Bryan Goebel.

The proposed Transit Justice Package proposes increased parking fees in certain parts of the City on Sundays and evenings, eliminating public subsidy in the City’s parking garages, rolling back some fare increases and safe guarding access for low income MUNI riders. 

Avalos and Supervisors Campos and Mirkarimi, sitting on the Budget and Finance Committee, voted again this week to reject the MTA budget, which calls for fare hikes and service reductions to deal with a $129 million deficit. Avalos sent a letter to the MTA Board late Friday explaining his proposed charter amendment:

I have asked the City Attorney to draft a Charter Amendment that would allow for a more balanced approach to appointing members of the MTA board.  The amendment provides the mayor with three appointments, the [Board of Supervisors] with three appointments and a yet to be determined independent government entity with one appointment to the MTA board. I know this may cause you some alarm, but the true nature of the proposals is to ensure that MTA has greater independence to make budgetary and policy decisions on this very important city department.

Budget and Finance Committee file photo by Bryan Goebel

The 3-2 vote, with Supervisors Bevan Dufty and Carmen Chu dissenting, followed a lengthy discussion in which Supervisors John Avalos, David Campos and Ross Mirkirami argued that the MTA budget was still woefully unacceptable, with all agreeing the rejection motion was the only way to get the MTA to budge some more. A procedural move at the last meeting allowed members to consider the motion again.

"We were able to get to where we got to yesterday because we had a measure before us calling for the rejection of the MTA budget," said Avalos. "I do think that we live in a political world and need to have this rejection measure before us in order to be able build the kind of pressure we might need to get some more changes."

Avalos said if there was anything flawed about the process over the last week it was that supervisors weren't being specific enough about changes and ideas they wanted to see in the budget, instead only criticizing what they thought was wrong with it. 

"I think if we have a process where we can come to some agreements that are specific and take those to the MTA and the Mayor and use the next week to discuss that somewhat further, we might be able to make a few other changes that can alleviate perhaps fare increases [and] service cuts that are alarming.”

Dufty, however, warned that continuing the debate over the MTA budget would unravel the Board of Supervisor's ability to reach an agreement on the city's budget. He refused to call the result of Chiu's negotiations with the MTA and the Mayor's office a compromise, instead referring to it as "adjustments in the budget." 

“There is a lot of anger out here, but let’s be real about it. We can’t make everyone happy," he said. "There’s no way you can cobble together the discontent across this city with our budget, specifically about the Muni budget, which frankly is in better shape than the city budget is."

After the budget committee's vote, Chiu told Streetsblog San Francisco he doesn't "expect any movement on this. I mean, we voted on exactly the same item yesterday."

In an interview shortly before the vote, he said: “I think the agreement that was reached was the best possible deal we could have gotten given the enormous financial and budgetary constraints that we’re under right now. $10.3 million dollars for Muni riders, I think, is a really good thing.”

Rather than caving in to the Mayor's office, as some advocates have suggested, City Hall sources say Chiu failed to secure Supervisor Sophie Maxwell's vote on the rejection motion, despite an intense lobbying effort, and felt the 11th hour compromise was second best.

Mirkarimi told Streetsblog he understands the politics behind the move but added: “I think that when we look at the aggregate budget deficit before us I think it would be highly premature for us to close the case on the MTA.”

Campos agreed that given the harsh feedback he's hearing from his constituents he feels compelled to do everything he can to force more changes in the MTA budget.

“There are still a lot of outstanding issues and I think that the people of my district, that the people who ride Muni on a daily basis, expect us to do better and I think that we have an obligation to do our best.”

Under the city charter, the Board of Supes has the power to accept or reject the MTA budget, but not to make line item changes. The rejection motion is expected to be considered again at next Tuesday's meeting, which is also the first time the MTA Board will meet since it passed its $778 million budget.

Updated 10:50 a.m.