Welcome to Westside Observer
Is MUNI Subsidizing Auto Drivers?
The majority of San Franciscans are willing to extend themselves a little to help fund Muni, even if they rarely use the system. Others feel that Muni is overly subsidized. I suggest a study of Muni expenditures and sources of revenue, and comparison with expenditures and revenue sources to facilitate driving. I believe Muni riders, who can drive but choose to endure less than ideal transit, subsidize drivers by reducing traffic so that drivers can get close to their intended destination and then not have to pay even higher parking fees. But this does not measure funding. We should uncover all of the expenses and all of the funding sources, including City fees, fares and taxes and separately list the funds that come from the State and Federal Governments for transit and to facilitate driving and see they are appropriate. Numbers are important, but transit users subsidize drivers by reducing congestion, when they endure less then ideal service.
The study will require agreements on definitions and budget items.:
Subsidies (per dictionary) are monetary assistance granted by a government to a person or private commercial enterprise.
Taxes (per dictionary) are required contributions for support of government from persons, groups or businesses within the domain of that government. Taxes are required to be paid even if someone doesn't want or value all of the government services provided.
Public Service (not dictionary) is a service provided by the government because it is agreed that the service should be available regardless of ability to pay or because it is difficult for the government to collect funds for the service. In San Francisco some examples of public services are streets; schools; parks; police; fire; and part of Muni. The Park provides a portion of its public services from fees, which are voluntary and greater than the cost of the service purchased.
Parking fees (not dictionary) are the charge for a parking space that someone is willing to pay at a meter, or City or private parking garage; because they value convenience. They could have used transit or walked further.
Fines (per dictionary) are the sum of money imposed as a penalty for an offense. Parking fines are imposed to induce compliance in order to: provide turnover for merchants; preserve curb space for residents; move traffic or allow for efficient street cleaning. Fines are not taxes because they can be avoided. Fines are not imposed to provide a service or subsidy.
Parking Taxes are part of the voluntary parking charge paid to a garage or lot operator. Because parking fees are market rate removing the tax would not change the cost of parking. The parking tax is a reduction in the profit of the operator. The SF planning code and the parking tax limits the supply of new parking, which increases the profitability of existing parking.
Transit Impact Development Fees are collected in order to provide capital to provide transit service to new projects. This is a fee that may more properly be considered a tax, because it cannot be avoided.
Expenditures for Transit mostly come from the SFMTA Muni operations and capital budget. Transit should also be charged for a portion of street repair budget from Department of Public Works (DPW) based on streets used and bus weights. A portion of Prop 'K' funds (sales tax) and other bond issues will clearly be for transit, along with traffic signals.
Capital Expenditures included in a departmental budget should be separated by source, SF or State or Federal, and annualized.
Expenditures for Drivers and Trucks should include most of DPW street repair; Prop 'K' funds and other bond issues used to facilitate driving. A portion of police, court and jail costs are due to drivers. Muni pays for some police service as part of the SFMTA budget. Most traffic control signals and officers serve driving. Parks maintains roadways and free parking areas to facilitate driving. Street cleaning is a general public service and not a driving expense. A recent study accumulated SF General Hospital costs for pedestrians injured or killed by auto collisions. Most of this is a cost of driving, along with a portion of the SF Fire Department emergency response. Part of long term care costs resulting from auto collisions is a City cost of driving. Most of these costs are paid by State, Federal or families but should be mentioned in the study.
Some Prop 'K' funds and parts of bond issues are for bicycles, pedestrians or beautification. These amounts are not transit or driving.
The Muni budget includes para-transit and ADA provisions for regular transit. I suggest that these costs be considered as essential social welfare, similar to police and fire service and not a transit or driving expense. Discounted fares are also a social service and should be considered as fare revenue not collected and not a cost.
After we have the actual numbers we can decide if the amounts are appropriate. This study will provide a transparent overview for government and stakeholders. The determination will be partially subjective, and the breakdowns, reasoning and amounts should be available to all rather than remain in the fog as part of a $6 billion budget.
If you want to know more about how to make Muni work better go to my blog: http://bettermuni.wordpress.com/
Howard Strassner is former President of the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods and Transportation Chair for the Sierra Club
November 2011
MUNI Deserves Credit for Its Vision of the Future
By Howard Strassner
A few months ago I wrote of how to improve service on the Muni 28 line on Nineteenth Avenue. But improving Muni service is much more than something we do to make it easier for me or you to get around. A Muni that works is an important part of every level of San Francisco today, and a Muni that works well will be important for all of San Francisco, including the west side, in the near future. In the more distant future public transit, like Muni, will: save some of our limited reserves of oil for our grandchildren's children; preserve some dry land; provide food for people that we will never meet; and preserve habitat for creatures of which we never think.
Muni is part of our community and we, as a people, have uniquely voted to guarantee Muni a small portion of our City General Fund and almost all of our parking taxes, fees and fines so than Muni can provide a reasonable level of transit service, at a moderate fare. We have agreed to significantly reduce fares for: seniors, disabled and youth. Unlike many other parts of the world, or with other City services, our Muni community appreciates visitors, and you don't have to be a resident to qualify for a reduced fare. We also provide low-cost transit passes for those of limited means in our community. Muni draws us through our community and other parts of town as we walk to and from transit stops. No matter who we are; we typically share our transit vehicle with people who don't look like us and/or speak a different language. Muni riders range from those who can barely afford the daily fare to those who can afford to own one or even a fleet of buses. In San Francisco, unlike many other cities in the US, people of means ride Muni because it is often better and certainly less costly than driving.
Muni is restarting their Transit Effectiveness Program in order to improve service. But, unlike my low cost proposals, they will need serious funding which may not be available. They must also allow time for environmental study, because without a full study of all impacts, a driver or Muni rider could complain that their needs were not considered and this can delay any improvements. It is important to the economic survival of San Francisco that Muni and regional transit be improved because Bay Area growth projections, based on the usual traffic patterns, predict a level of congestion in downtown San Francisco through which no one will want to drive, which might be enough to stifle any growth. Just imagine a downtown with more people working. This will require more trucks to deliver supplies and more buses to move people. In an area which is already congested, the number of cars will have to decrease and so transit has to improve. Future growth will not impact the west side so much because, unlike downtown, we have ample street capacity. Of course, if more of us use the improved transit, the west side will not notice any congestion at all and we should support steps that will reduce even minimum traffic impacts on Muni.
As the cost of removing oil from the ground continues to increase, other components of public transit become more important. Bay Area studies show that the typical public transit bus moves a person at about 10% of the energy required to move a person in a private car, while well-used rail requires only 2%. Over time we hope that cars will be more efficient, but well-utilized transit will also improve. Thus, if more of us use more transit, this means that we will leave more oil in the ground for our grandchildren and their children. In a country that prides itself on our great progress of extending political and economic rights to all, isn't it time to extend some economic rights to our posterity? While it is not directly within Muni's scope, thinking even more broadly, we have to consider that the U.S. burns about 25% of all of the world's fossil fuels, and half of this is consumed in cars and trucks. So as more of us use transit we will consume less oil in our cars and leave more for our posterity and the rest of the world.
Whether your concern is to save your own time or money, or you want to help save the environment or the rest of the world, Muni is the way to go.
Howard Strassner is former President of the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods and Transportation Chair for the Sierra Club
July-August 2011
MUNI: Reducing Costs Can Increase Service
Almost every year Muni has another financial crisis. It's usual solution has been to either: cut service; raise fares; increase parking fees or all three. However if Muni can think a little harder and smarter it might be able to reduce costs and improve service at the same time. As an example let's try to improve our West side route, the 28 on 19th Avenue.
Consider some facts: If we can reduce the average running time, on every route, by one minute on a typical forty minute route, we will save about 2% or nearly $15 million a year for the entire system. This is our incentive. But saving a little time is not enough—we have to change enough route components to reduce running time enough to eliminate a whole bus on a route. If changes do not eliminate a whole bus there can be no actual cost reductions. This means Muni has to implement a number of small and large improvements on a route in order to reduce costs without reducing service. Almost all of the possible improvements are known to Muni from its own studies and worldwide good practice.
The 28 runs from Daly City BART to Fort Mason, a mostly low-density residential and park area. Unlike many Muni routes the 28 passes by, but not through, commercial areas. The core of the route from Holloway to California is largely scholastic with service to universities and high schools. The schools require peak service levels currently provided by a 28 Limited between California Street and BART. The 28 brings tourists and residents to the Golden Gate Bridge and Golden Gate and other Park events and attractions. The 28 is crossed by 17 other Muni transit lines (M, K, 23, L, 66, N, 29, 71, 5, 31, 38, 38L, 2, 1, 22, 43 and 30) and connects with BART and Golden Gate Transit. The 28 as it runs on Doyle Drive may have the world's best view, provided from a public transit bus.
The Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP) shows that 28 buses are lightly loaded outside the core, but often crowded and occasionally crush loaded within the core. This indicates a need for more service. TEP also shows that riders most desire greater speed and reliability. On- going Muni Bus Rapid Transit studies show that when you provide these benefits on a route, ridership on that route increases noticeably and ridership on the entire system increases a little. This will provide Muni with a little more income beyond fast passes. Muni will soon acquire low floor buses and the Clipper program will hopefully enable Muni to allow all door boarding (many riders, with Clipper Cards, already help speed up their route by using the rear doors). These improvements will help speed up service when they are fully implemented.
With this as a base we can suggest some quick low-cost improvements for Muni to consider:
First, increase the spacing between stops on 19th (and at a few other locations) to every two blocks, the same as on Presidio Drive. The 28 would then have a stop at each transfer point and one stop in between, reducing time lost to acceleration and deceleration. The TEP also shows that when more people board at the same stop, boarding time per person is reduced. Doubling the distance between almost a third of the stops will impact a small minority of 28 riders because transfer stops have proportionally more ridership. Walking a little has health benefits and the US Surgeon General recommends that we each walk 30 minutes per day to reduce obesity. For a few of us walking one more block, twice each day, will be only five to seven minutes. Muni should provide benches for those few who would have difficulty completing the extra walk without a rest.
Second, provide Bus Bulbs for the stops on 19th and Lombard. Bus bulbs have moderate cost but speed up boarding by helping the elderly and disabled to board. Bulbs also allow the bus to return to flowing traffic without being impeded by auto traffic, which too frequently does not allow the bus to reenter the traffic lane. Less swerving adds quality to a bus ride. Anecdotally, some Muni drivers do not pull into the bus stop when they are behind schedule. Buses on Presidio already enjoy this benefit because the stops are in a traffic lane similar to stopping at a bulb. Initially, because Muni has only limited funds, the bus bulbs can be delineated by a small piece of concrete divider or drivers can simply be instructed not to pull into these stops. Ultimately the bulbs should be designed to match driveways and low floor bus doors and make boarding as seamless as possible. As a bonus neighbors may benefit because the combination of bulbs and fewer stops may create a few additional parking spaces.
Third, control signal lights to allow right turning cars to clear out of Muni's way and to provide Muni a few extra seconds to make the light. Transit First can be facilitated because modern signal light controls can utilize algorithms to help Muni while enhancing pedestrian safety and keeping auto traffic moving.
Fourth, all of the above will not reduce running time enough to reduce costs. Muni will need to use the above time savings to provide a faster, more reliable ride, and add a little more service (a small reduction in the wait between buses) while continuing to provide bus drivers with essential catch-up time/break.
Last, convert peak hour Limited service to turn-back service to increase core service frequency between Holloway and California. Because of fewer stops, there would be little benefit from continuing Limited service. Not running the Limited to BART would save a few more minutes, helping to provide additional service, from BART during the scholastic peak times.
This example of the 28 line shows how difficult it will be for Muni service planners to reduce costs, but Muni can improve service.
If you would like a noticeably faster, smoother 28 ride, along with a slightly more frequent service and less crowding, tell Muni that you want fewer stops and other improvements. You can contact the Muni Board at MTABoard@sfmta.com.
Feedback to editor@westsideobserver.com
April 2011
Parking in the Park
A great City is more than a place with big buildings, wealthy people, perfect weather and fantastic views. A great City provides good services for all its residents and visitors. However, it does need the first in order to generate the revenues to provide the second. Because a great City has to provide so many services for so many different people it gathers revenues from many different sources. For years San Francisco has done a good job and the revenues were adequate for the services and we all took pleasure in paying our share and enjoying the services. More recently, essential services are beginning to disappear. We can probably suggest a lot of things that might be done better at lower cost but we also have to show a willingness to help cover the costs.
In November the Westside Observer published a heartfelt article about how our Recreation and Park Department has eliminated almost all of their local park recreational staff to reduce costs and is now privatizing public park buildings and leasing them to private businesses to scrape together some spare change. The RPD has to close our buildings to our children and older people because there is no staff. We paid to build these local facilities but they are closed to us. This is not the way to cover the costs of our parks.
I suggest that part of the better way to cover park costs will be to collect parking fees from within our parks and we should start this discussion now. First some history and examples of San Francisco and the ways in which our parks and other parks already charge for parking:
In 1940 the Union Square garage became the first public/private parking facility built in the country when RPD allowed the construction of a garage for downtown commuters and shoppers under Union Square. RPD was pleased when the construction bonds were paid off early, and the garage provided a revenue stream for our parks. When World War II ended and people purchased more cars, three more downtown parks were used to provide underground parking. Last year these parking fees provided RPD with over $8 million. RPD even has a history of meters in Golden Gate Park where they installed multiple place meters for the choice parking spaces around the Concourse. This provided about $100,000 a year but the metered parking was removed to allow construction of a garage under the Concourse for the museums in Golden Gate Park. RPD has some hope of future revenue from this garage when the bonds are paid off. This, however, will take over thirty years because the garage was so expensive to construct and must compete against free parking nearby. RPD also owns Kezar, a 300-place surface parking lot at the eastern end of Golden Gate Park which provides some revenue.
The SF Zoo charges for parking, and regularly increases the fee, while less convenient free parking is a few blocks away. Fort Mason charges for parking. The State Park on Mt. Tamalpais, and most State Parks, charge for parking. All of this shows that people are willing to pay for parking, even in parks, when they get some desirable convenience for their few dollars.
Suppose RPD implemented parking fees in the eastern half of Golden Gate Park for about 2,500 spaces, and in the Marina for about a 1,000 spaces. The average SF meter generates about $1,600 each per year for Muni, and park meters should each produce about same amount, or $5.5 million dollars a year, for our parks. These parks will use the same multiple spot unobtrusive meters and signs being installed on Van Ness. Each separate area would have a different fee schedule based on demand. The meters will conveniently accept payment in many forms. Drivers will pay a little for the part of the park they need for their car, our children and seniors will get their recreation services, and our parks will be maintained.
Some of the reasons that parking fees in Golden Gate Park are appropriate are: many park employees now have free parking while many other City employees and even Muni drivers have lost that privilege; many nearby hospital employees have free parking by moving their car once a day; there is ample nearby transit so people don't have to drive every day; many spots are near commercial areas and our local businesses need turnover more than they need free parking; those who feel that they cannot afford to pay for their parking can drop off their passengers near all attractions and enjoy a walk in the park. Many regular park users will be able to car pool to reduce their share of parking fees and their generation of global-warming gases. Studies show that appropriate parking fees reduce the cruising that drivers need to find a convenient parking space, and this further reduces driving and makes our park more park-like.
Some of the reasons that parking fees are appropriate in the Marina are: people with business in Fort Mason park there to avoid Fort Mason parking fees; commuters park there and get picked up by private buses and driven to their work site. RPD is actively studying implementing parking fees in the Marina but there is a problem: RPD is planning to use the fees to fund part of the cost of renovating the boat berths in the Marina. Yachting is an ideal use of our Bay and boats need access via berths in the Marina, but berthing fees should cover all of the costs of renovation. This would be an egregious example of privatizing public facilities by collecting fees from the public for the use of a public space and then using the fees to subsidize a private use. However, collecting fees from the public for the public use of a public space is an appropriate measure in lieu of taxes. Note the writer of this article has a boat in the Marina and he is willing to pay all of the costs of parking his boat.
If you want to help keep your parks available for public use and are and are willing to pay a few dollars for your parking, or if you can suggest a better way then this is the time to contact the RPD at recpark.commission@sfgov.org and say you are willing to pay for parking in the park if RPD will guarantee that all parking fees will be used for public recreational services and park maintenance, not Harbor renovation. Or, send them your better funding suggestion. When you demonstrate your support for your parks by your willingness to use some of your "green" to keep your park green, you obligate a contribution from many who use our parks for non-park purposes on a regular basis and are less willing to contribute.
Howard Strassner is former President of the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods, and Sierra Club , Transportation Chair.
March 2011
@WestS_Observer 
