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

Supervisor Elsbernd displays his abundance of signatures. Photo: Matt Baume.

Elsbernd's drop-off date was no coincidence: on the same day, he pointed out, Muni operators received a 5.5 percent pay raise, costing the city about $9 million. Elsbernd's legislation would enable the city to set operator wages though collective bargaining, rather than through an averaging of the country's top-paying transit systems.

The Elsbernd/SPUR measure will compete with a measure introduced in May by Supervisors Chiu, Campos, Mar, and Mirkarimi. While both measures would eliminate the automatic pay hikes for operators, Elsbernd's would also eliminate "side-letter" agreements that, an audit recently showed, cost the city millions.

In addition, the Chiu/Campos/Mar/Mirkarimi measure would allow the Board of Supervisors to appoint members to the MTA board, a power currently reserved exclusively for the Mayor. It would also allow the Supervisors to veto Muni service reductions.

Comparing the two measures, Elsbernd said, "one is about empowering the Board of Supervisors," while his "is about empowering riders of Muni."

To qualify, the measure needed 47,000 valid signatures. A cushion of over 20,000 additional signatures was thought necessary to make up for any found to be ineligible.

By July first, the campaign had collected 74,887 signatures and was ready to submit them to the Department of Elections, days ahead of the drop-off deadline.

The campaign recruited volunteer signature-gatherers though a website at FixMuniNow.com, a Facebook group, and a Twitter feed, and Elsbernd recognized their hard work. "We couldn't have done this without tremendous volunteer effort," he said.

Of course, money helped, too. Elsbernd estimated that the campaign had raised about $325,000 for signature gathering. As the SF Appeal pointed out, that equates to $4.27 per signature -- far higher than the average of $2.50 to $3.

The additional funding may have been necessary to overcome stiff opposition from the drivers' union, which was joined by unions representing hotel workers and firefighters, as well as Supervisor Eric Mar.

Last month, Newsom criticized both efforts, calling Mar's measure a "bailout" of the transit agency since it would divert $40 million to Muni from the city's general fund. Newsom claimed that both attempts at legislative reform were partly to blame for Muni drivers' rejection of concessions that would have reversed service cuts.

Others went even further. Gillian Gillett, Chair of SPUR's Transportation Committee, recounted warnings that Elsbernd received after proposing the legislation. At one point, she recalled, "he got a call saying his political career was over."

SPUR was a critical ally in supporting the legislation and in collecting signatures. At Thursday's news conference, Elsbernd credited Gillett as being the top signature-gatherer.

Depending on how you count it, the sweeping Muni ballot measure that four members of the Board of Supervisors introduced earlier this week has at least six major components, ranging from the governance of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency to how Muni operator wages are set.

That last piece is similar -- not identical -- to a measure that Supervisor Sean Elsbernd and the San Francisco Urban Planning and Research Association (SPUR) already hope to put on the ballot, and those key details are splitting the sponsors of the rival measures.

At the heart of Elsbernd's ballot measure and the corresponding piece of the separate ballot measure introduced this week is a change to the way Muni operator salaries are set. For now, the city charter requires their salaries and benefits to be set through a "salary survey" of the nation's other transit agencies "in comparable jurisdictions," with Muni operators getting paid the average of the "two highest wage schedules for transit operators."

Both Elsbernd's measure and the new measure would do away with that practice, instead setting the salaries through a collective bargaining process -- much the same as nearly any other city employee union.

Board of Supervisors President David Chiu and Supervisors David Campos, Eric Mar and Ross Mirkarimi included that provision in their ballot measure despite initial wariness of Elsbernd's measure, since it would give SFMTA management leverage to renegotiate operator work rules that a recent audit found are costly and create problems for Muni service.

Both measures would also eliminate the transit operator trust fund and any city payments into it, and would make incentive bonuses for the SFMTA Director and "service critical" managers and employees optional instead of required. (Elsbernd and the Muni operators union sparred over the trust fund in February.)

Elsbernd praised the measure for eliminating the salary survey, but said it doesn't do enough to address the current agreements that are in place. "The simple way to say it is that our measure not only eliminates the salary survey but it also presses the reset button on the MOU" -- the memorandum of understanding between the SFMTA and the operators. "They don't come anywhere near that."

"Our measure sunsets and eliminates all previous side letters that have been agreed to," Elsbernd continued. "We have the Harvey Rose audit from a week ago that demonstrates that the side letters have cost us millions of dollars over the years."

Elsbernd's amendment, which he's still gathering signatures for to place on the November ballot, also includes specific terms of binding arbitration, if the operators and management need to enter into it. It would require arbitrators to consider the impact of disputed proposals on Muni fares and services, and on the ability of SFMTA management to schedule operators according to service needs.

More contentiously, it would require the operators union "to justify any proposal that would restrict the MTA's flexibility in deciding schedules, staffing, assignments or the number of part-time personnel," according to the City Attorney's Office's summary of the measure.

Some supporters of the opposing measure have called that requirement an unnecessary and unfair burden on the operators, as well as questioning whether it could be enforced. Elsbernd and SPUR say the measure strives to be a squeaky-clean, airtight good government measure. Either way, that provision is one of the major fault lines.

One other major difference between the measures is that while Esbernd's is finalized, the competing, much broader measure put forward by President Chiu and his colleagues still has over a month of debate and discussion ahead over its final details.

One party that didn't weigh in is the SFMTA itself, which has instructions from the City Attorney's Office not to discuss ballot measures that could affect it. While it's hard to imagine the agency wouldn't welcome the $40 million cash infusion the more sweeping amendment would offer, the agency's opinion on whether one measure or the other better addresses the work rules issue will remain under wraps.

Flickr photo: tehf0x

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supervisor Sean Elsbernd. Photo courtesy the City of San Francisco.

Elsbernd originally introduced the ballot measure late last year, with hopes of bringing the proposal through the Rules Committee and Board of Supervisors. That plan was scuttled two weeks ago when the Mayor, deep in negotiations over a concessions plan with the operators union, asked Elsbernd to back off.

Asked whether the operators union vote to reject the concessions meant he'd bring the ballot measure back, Elsbernd eagerly affirmed. "The answer is an emphatic 'yes,'" Elsbernd wrote in an email to Streetsblog. "June is not possible, but I will certainly make every effort to get the proposal on the November ballot."

Elsbernd said he now plans to collect signatures for a petition campaign to get the measure on the November ballot. The plan received a cool response from union officials and fellow supervisors when Elsbernd introduced it on the Rules Committee last month. It was roundly opposed at the hearings by the Transport Workers Union, which represents Muni operators, as well as by representatives of the firefighters and hotel workers unions.

If the measure were to pass, it would amend the City Charter so that operator salary and benefit negotiations would occur entirely through the collective bargaining process. Since 1967, Muni operators have generally had their salaries set at the average of the two highest-paying transit agencies nationally, a practice that was formally enshrined in the City Charter with Proposition A in 2007.

An operator in training. Flickr photo: Troy Holden

As the SF Appeal reported, the measure was roundly opposed by the Transit Workers Union, which represents Muni operators, as well as by representatives of the firefighters and hotel workers unions. They urged the measure's sponsor, Supervisor Sean Elsbernd, to kill the proposal. Both Elsbernd and the other supervisors on the Rules Committee agreed the item should be continued for discussion at the committee's next meeting.

"It is my hope that in that next week TWU will attempt to sit down with me again," said Elsbernd. "Attempts have recently been rebuffed. We do have a tentative meeting scheduled on Monday."

Things frequently got testy between Elsbernd and union representatives, who said they were being unfairly targeted. In return, Elsbernd accused union representatives of avoiding scheduling meetings with him.

Elsbernd's proposed measure would remove a provision in the city charter that sets Muni operator base wages and benefits at the average of the two highest-paying transit systems in the country. Instead, wages would be decided entirely through a collective bargaining process, as most city employee wages are. Most recently, the base wage was set to $27.91 an hour in 2008, the average of wages at Montgomery County Transit in Maryland and at the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.

Muni operators start earning that wage after 19 months on the job. For the first 19 months, their wages gradually increase from a trainee rate of $17.58. That means a Muni operator who works 46 weeks in a year makes about $51,350 in annual base pay.

Most operators earn a significant amount of overtime and premium pay as well: the current MTA budget builds in premium and overtime pay that averages out to 30 percent of base pay per employee. The bulk of that comes from scheduled overtime. On average, that would add up to an annual income around $66,760.

Elsbernd also argued that removing the salary schedule from the charter would give the MTA's management more latitude to negotiate changes to work rules and reduce absenteeism. Supervisor Eric Mar, however, said he believes the legislation is a political move, not one designed to benefit transit riders. "Let me just say that I see this as a politically-motivated attack on the TWU and this is a measure that I don't think should be on the ballot," said Mar.

"I … appreciate that Mr. Lum and others have shown an openness to work with the MTA, Nat Ford and the MTA Board on revenue proposals and dealing with the budget crisis, but also, especially, givebacks, in this difficult budget season. I appreciate that openness and also the efforts to meet with Supervisor Elsbernd, which I hope will continue."

Rules Committee Chair David Campos also hoped discussions would continue, especially on revenue-generating proposals. His stance on the ballot measure was less clear, though he supported a move to continue discussion next week. "I do have questions about putting this on the ballot," Campos said on several occasions.

"I personally think when you look at Muni, and the issues around Muni, which are many, issues of labor are always something that you have to look at. But I don't think that that's the issue with Muni. I think the issue is much larger, which is why this Tuesday I introduced at the Board a request for a management audit of Muni," said Campos.

"You have to look structurally at the agency and ask yourself, 'Is this agency being run as efficiently, as effectively as it should be? Is this agency following best practices?'"

Elsbernd and union representatives are set to meet again on Monday to hash out details of a proposal, though Thursday's meeting didn't leave much indication of where they would find common ground.

Flickr photo: Thomas Hawk.

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

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

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

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

A Forty-Two Year Precedent

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

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

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

The Price of Labor Peace

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

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

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

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

The Hardest Transit Operator Job in the Country?

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

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

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

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

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

It was the second time this month that Muni officials have been publicly grilled on safety issues. The hearing covered much of the same ground as the August 4th MTA board meeting, but it included testimony from the driver of the Nissan Pathfinder that was crushed by the historic streetcars and a man who said he was chatting with the F-line driver several minutes before the crash.

It felt like being "crushed in a trash compactor," said Chris Ward, the driver of the SUV. "My life was involved and the life of my partner."

Ward said he has supported the F-line since its inception, but is disturbed that "there may have been some negligence involved" on the part of the operator. "We need to make sure that cutbacks and adjustments are made in a way that doesn't imperil the safety of the city," said Ward.

Supervisors Chris Daly, Bevan Dufty, and Sean Elsbernd sought answers on Muni's safety procedures. Photo: Michael Rhodes

Dufty noted his appreciation that Ward is only seeking a replacement for his vehicle, which was totaled in the collision, and is not pursuing further damage compensation from the city.

Another person involved in the collision, a passenger on the streetcar, defended the operator and said he was not talking to a passenger at the time of the crash. 

"When I got home and listened to the news, I was outraged how people were saying that the driver was talking to someone from blocks away, and he was distracted, and that's the reason the accident happened. That is not true. I'm here to set the record straight," Norman Tanner said during the public comment period. "I am the gentleman that was talking to the driver for a short period of time. Before he ran into the SUV, I had already sat down about five minutes prior to that, and I know that he was not talking to no one."

"How he got distracted, I don't know," he added.

The hearing was one of the first public introductions of new Muni safety head Jim Dougherty, who was appointed in March. "I was at both the accidents scenes to see what happened and why it happened," said Dougherty, who gave an updated account of the July 18th West Portal crash as well.

MTA chief Nat Ford was not present at the meeting for "family reasons," Dufty said.

The "striking LRV was traveling at 23 miles per hour at the point of impact," said Dougherty. The "on-scene investigation did not reveal any mechanical problems," and the "operator told the NTSB during an interview he blacked out and was awoken by the crash."

Dougherty defended Muni's safety record over the last several years, citing declines in overall collisions, but Dufty questioned whether the number of severe crashes has actually decreased. Dougherty did not have a direct answer, but said the MTA is "looking to improve on our data gathering, so we have meaningful data." In a later exchange, outgoing Muni Chief Operator Officer Ken McDonald said pedestrian collisions are down from 65 total in 2008 to 19 through July of this year. "Collisions and pedestrian accidents are two of the major focuses we have on reducing accidents and improving safety," said McDonald.

Dufty also cited concerns about having the same safety manual for rail and bus operators. Dougherty said that will soon change. "We are planning to have a new rail rulebook out in September," Dougherty said, and "a new bus rulebook out by the end of the year."

Dougherty  addressed various other concerns, including cell phone use by drivers, which he said the agency is working to crack down on.

He also discussed retraining for operators who have been in multiple unavoidable crashes. In the past, Muni has not required additional training for drivers with such a record, which Dufty said "didn't make sense." Dougherty said Muni is looking at changing this.

Responding to Supervisor Sean Elsbernd's questions, Dougherty also reassured the Supervisors that the MTA would not sacrifice safety for on-time performance.

"This has been framed as between on-time performance and safety," said Elsbernd. "By far, the number one priority is safety. No one is going to get a citation for not being on time, correct?"

"That is correct, sir," said Dougherty.

Debra Johnson, chief of staff at the MTA, later clarified that "no one has been terminated solely for not adhering to the schedule," though it was a factor in the termination of nine people last year.

That's a point the operators and unions have protested. "That's where we kind of disagree," said Rafael Cabrera, vice president of the Transport Workers Union Local 250-A. "A lot of times we sacrifice performance for safety."

In another ongoing controversy, Dufty said he hopes to see "regular riding by police officers" on buses and trains, referring to the MOU signed between the MTA and the SFPD recently. "That is not just about fare evasion and safety on the vehicles, it helps to provide oversight and accountability."

Though he said he was "impressed" by Dougherty so far, Dufty said he found it concerning that the chief safety officer position had gone unfilled for 18 months prior to Dougherty's arrival.

Supervisor Chris Daly was largely detached from the meeting, saying he had "mixed feelings" about it. He chided Dufty early on for not using his control of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority board to "pull the purse strings" at the MTA.

"It's a bigger issue than two accidents. We have just come through a budget where we've seen significant service cuts" and fare increases, said Daly. "Now you've got to pay $2 to get in an accident on Muni."

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."