Today’s Headlines

  • Make Muni Free to Offset Uber Impacts? (SFExaminer)
  • More on Muni Door Fix (NBCBayArea)
  • More on Ride of Silence, Vision Zero Failings (SFChron)
  • What Uber/Lyft are Really Doing to S.F. (SFGate)
  • Muni Calls for Artists (MissionLocal)
  • Update on Larkspur SMART Train Construction (MarinIJ)
  • Voters Back Delayed Transit Housing Bill (Curbed)
  • More on Increased Homelessness (Hoodline)
  • Divisadero Gas Station to be Razed for Housing (Socketsite)
  • Housing to Replace California Street Hospital (BizTimes)
  • New Pedestrian Overpass in East Palo Alto (CBSLocal)
  • Repeat DUI Motorists Still Drive, Crash Again (SFChron, Kron4)

Get state headlines at Streetsblog CA, national headlines at Streetsblog USA

Streetsblog San Francisco editor Roger Rudick will be on vacation starting tomorrow, Tuesday, May 21  through Monday, May 27. Another California editor will update headlines (notifications will go out via social media). And, of course, keep up with state stories at Streetsblog CAL and Streetsblog LA and national news at Streetsblog USAWe’ll be back at full-strength with all things Streetsie on Tuesday, May 28 .

  • How about make Muni WORK to offset Uber impacts. Making it free isn’t going to attract riders to an inefficient system that will become even more inefficient with absolutely ZERO fare box returns.

    The idiocy is simply amazing.

  • p_chazz

    What do you expect from a bunch of grad students.

  • John Murphy

    it will be a heck of a lot more efficient if people stop using Uber

  • p_chazz

    According to Curbed SF, Muni budgeted $208 million to come from the fare box in 2019. I wonder if that is gross or net the cost of fare collection: stopping fare evaders, maintaining fare collection devices, cash handling, accounting, auditing, etc. The more that I think about it, the better it sounds.

  • jonobate

    The issue isn’t just that you lose revenue, although as a third of the budget that’s not trivial. A lot of people are disincentivized from taking transit because there’s a cost involved, even if it’s just a nominal cost. If you remove that cost you flood the system with induced riders, and the system is already operating over capacity.

    Much better to spend any additional revenue on increasing service and making capital improvements. Better service will induce more riders just as fare elimination will, but also provide the capacity to handle them.

  • John Murphy

    SFMTA is not just the bus system.

    When you induce a rider to take transit instead of driving, that saves SFMTA money in other areas they maintain. Roads stay better, they have to provide less in terms of traffic control, the buses idle less and are more fuel efficient, there are fewer accidents to deal with. Heck, we could save money just by spending less time in planning meetings arguing over saving a parking space or worrying about how much to charge for meters because the parking spaces would be inherently underutilized. To be fair, most of the real savings if we reduced driving by a huge amount would accrue to SFPD and SFFD, but in an optimal world we could reprogram that money to SFMTA.

    Of course people will read that paragraph and say “MUNI will go broke because they will lose all their parking ticket revenue”

    Removing cars from the road has a STRONGER impact of capital improvement for MUNI than throwing money at the problem. With no cars in the way of the buses, service improves. Period.