Sponsored link
Saturday, September 25, 2021

Sponsored link

News + PoliticsTransportationMuni director talks about cutting lines and changing focus

Muni director talks about cutting lines and changing focus

Post-COVID plans could alter the city's transportation policy in some profound ways.

-

Based on the information that came out of a long and detailed hearing July 23, Muni leadership is planning to use the pandemic crisis to push for changes that could fundamentally alter bus routes in San Francisco.

The hearing, called by Sups. Dean Preston and Connie Chan, was a remarkable opportunity for the public to understand what the top officials at Muni are thinking about.

Some bus lines may be eliminated in favor of “core” service

At issue, really, are two competing alternatives for transit systems: Ridership and coverage. And the competition is taking place at the same time that Muni’s entire financing system may be falling apart.

It’s also happening at a time when the city’s economy and transportation needs are rapidly—and unpredictably—changing.

Behind the scenes is a $185,000 consultant from Portland who is already arguing for service reductions on lines that serve vulnerable populations.

And almost everyone participating in public comment said that Muni is failing them.

San Francisco has long taken the position that the number of riders on a Muni line isn’t the only, or even the most important, consideration. Some lines that serve populations with significant needs have been maintained even if other nearby lines have more riders.

That’s now a matter for discussion. It’s possible that Muni will push to eliminate some lines that are close to other lines and put that money into a “core” system.

Which could leave a lot of people out.

Money was an issue for Muni even before COVID. The system relies on fares and parking fees for more than half of its revenue – and even before COVID, parking-meter and garage revenue was down. That, Muni Director Jeffrey Tumlin said, was largely because of Uber and Lyft – two companies that San Francisco allowed to grow and expend despite their complete violation of city laws for years.

In fact, Uber has made it clear that it wants to replace public transit with private Uber services. It seems to be moving in that direction, at least here in town.

It’s an odd situation: The better job Muni does getting people out of their cars, the less parking money it gets. And the higher the fares, the fewer people are likely to ride the buses and trains.

Tumlin made that point at the beginning of the hearing and a numerous points afterward. Muni, he said, can’t run a deficit – and there’s a structural gap of more than $85 million a year. That’s the money the system would need to restore service to something approaching pre-COVID levels.

Everyone at the hearing agreed that pre-COVID levels aren’t good enough.

Tumlin said it would take $150 million a year in new revenue to “get to where we need to be” and $268 million to eliminate fares and make Muni free.

That’s a lot of money. In a lot of other cities, which have done a much better job restoring service, transit systems are financed by sales taxes – which are regressive, just like bus fares.

On the other hand, San Francisco has never charged office developers anywhere near the real cost of their impact on the system. We’re talking about billions of dollars left on the table, enough to fill the entire Muni budget gap and more. Former Sup. John Avalos tried to change that—just a little bit—in 2016 but the allies of then-Mayor Ed Lee (including then-Sup. London Breed) rejected the idea.

Uber—which might not exist if SF hadn’t allowed it to start up with illegal taxis—collected $19.5 billion in the last quarter.

Just saying.

But back to line changes.

Tumlin hired a consultant named Jarrett Walker to help, in the words of his contract, “define and build consensus toward a post-COVID network.”

That means he’s getting paid to find ways to, as Preston said, “handle the agony when you eliminate lines.”

With the consultant’s help—and Tumlin couldn’t say exactly whose words these were—Muni is talking about three scenarios for the next three years. They could, of course, shape local transit for much longer—when you get rid of a Muni line, it’s really hard to bring it back.

The scenarios, as they are currently named, include “return the familiar network” (that is, restore Muni lines), “Build a high-access network” (get rid of some lines to make the other ones faster) and “Develop a hybrid network balancing the best features of the other two.”

There’s no question that Muni needs to be planning for a future that could fundamentally change the entire transit system. Tumlin freely admitted that Muni is set up now primarily to get people from the neighborhoods to downtown—and the jobs and transit needs of the next ten years may not involve downtown.

Under the City Charter, the MTA isn’t supposed to abandon Muni lines without the approval of the Board of Supes. A lot of lines that are now “suspended” may never be returned, Preston said – but Tumlin argued that simply eliminating, say, the 21-Hayes might not count as “abandoning” a line since the corridor has other service.

So the MTA might move toward ending some service without even a full supes hearing.

Restoring service to the projected 85 percent this fall or even 100 percent “doesn’t mean bringing back all the lines,” Tumlin said.

He said that restoring full service by the end of the year, as some supes have suggested, would be “profoundly irresponsible.” Since Muni has a structural deficit (despite $700 million in federal bailout money) restoring full service would deplete the reserves and leave the system broke by 2023.

Sup. Connie Chan dissented, saying that “the goal of the federal money is to restore service to pre-pandemic levels.” Or as Preston put it: “You are telling people that we are cutting your service now so that we won’t have to cut it in the future.”

The future might include, say, more buses on the 22 and the 38 and the 5, and fewer (or no) buses on the 21 and 2.

The consultant has already made his position clear. In a blog post on the SFMTA site, he argues that there’s little use for the 2 line:

When we calculate access from points along Clement, we find that the 2 Clement doesn’t add much, because the nearby service on Geary is so much faster and frequent.  Even if you walk (or roll) slowly at 2 miles per hour, it would take you 8 minutes to get from Clement to Geary.  But your wait would be 5 minutes shorter, on average, because the 38 Geary is so frequent. You may save even more time if you get a 38R Geary Rapid, which is faster. At most, the 2 Clement service only saves riders a minute or two. And if you walk at a more average pace, 3 miles per hour, it’s almost always faster to walk to Geary than wait for the bus on Clement.

That may make sense if you just look at the numbers – but if you actually visit the Richmond, or ride that line, you know there’s a serious problem with his approach.

As Preston noted, many of the people riding on the 2-Clement are Chinese seniors. The walk to the Geary bus isn’t only inconvenient – it’s dangerous, since they would have to cross a busy, fast-traffic street where the crossing time is only 30 seconds.

Public records obtained by Muni activists show that Walker was told not to spend too much time on scenario one—that is, restoring existing service, and to focus on the other options.

A spreadsheet he gave Muni leadership includes the idea of “21 gone–saves parklets!”

Tumlin said that no decisions had been made on any line’s future, and that Muni would always take priority over parklets. The consultant’s material, he said, was just preliminary drafts.

But it’s clear from the records that there are a number of lines that are being considered for elimination, including the 2, 3, 6, 21, and 47.

Redefining Muni for a new, post-COIVD (and I would argue, post-Downtown-centered) era is critical. It’s also critical to develop a financing system that will actually work in the future. Reliance on fares and parking is a model from another era.

But it seems to me the goal ought to be adding and improving service, not cutting. The ridership-first model is, frankly, a bit alarming.

And while Tumlin said, correctly, that every line change has been going before the MTA board, that’s hardly an accountable outfit, entirely appointed by the mayor.

“The takeaway,” Chan said, “doesn’t give us a lot of confidence in where we are heading.”

Tim Redmond
Tim Redmond has been a political and investigative reporter in San Francisco for more than 30 years. He spent much of that time as executive editor of the Bay Guardian. He is the founder of 48hills.
Sponsored link

2 COMMENTS

  1. I listened to the MTA board meeting on July 20th. They congratulated themselves five times in the first 20 minutes. Apparently doing your job is worth noting at the SFMTA.

    The board kept emphasizing that what they want is a no car, transit based city. Someone even said that getting to the ballpark is easy, even though there is no ballpark transit right now. Never mind that transit was awful before and worse now, forget that the plan is to cut lines and frequency. This is institutional greenwashing!

    Everything from Slow Streets to speed bumps to congestion pricing is supposed to reduce the number of cars. (I bet you didn’t know that 1/3 of the city from SF General to the North Beach is going to be zoned as a congestion area and it will cost $6 every time you drive through a zone border.) The MTA’s own study shows at at least 1/3 of the vehicles and almost all traffic congestion is caused by ride shares circling around and around, MUNI delays are caused by allowing private charter buses to use MUNI stops and lanes, and bicycle users are mostly weekend riders and almost all young, white males. At no point did they ask about the needs of low income residents and seniors – by far the greatest portion of riders of public transit.

    If there’s no transit line or it takes 90 minutes and $6 to get to the doctor’s office by filthy bus and revolting station, but 20 minutes and $7 parking to drive in my safe, clean car, I’m going to drive. I cannot use the bus to transport medical equipment, especially when I have to get from one side of town to the other. My wheelchair-bound friends cannot use transit to get to medical care appointments because paratransit is almost as unreliable as public transit.

    In a master stroke of bullshittery, the MTA hired a European consultant to design transit policies, then set forth a “plan” that is pure fantasy. Claiming that they are “building community” & saying SF is comparable to European cities that have 24/7 inter-country transit, low fares, and a wildly different taxation and funding system, the MTA throws around “solutions” to issues we do not have while ignoring those we do.

  2. Years ago, I commented in the Examiner that we should adopt “Muni” as slang for “poor device.” Like, that waiter really Munied my order. Or, don’t shop there, it is a total Muni. Muni, and the SFMTA seems to be determined to abuse seniors, the disabled, and especially the poor. They are finally restoring the 31 Balboa, which should have never been stopped. The Tenderloin has high numbers of elderly and disabled who depend on the 31 to shop, go to appointments, get prescriptions, attend church, and other trips. SFMTA decided that two trips a month was enough, and created the Essential Triips Card that allowed them to buy enough discounted cab fares for, on average, two trips. Seriously? They did have one bus, that was three blocks, up hill. A bit too far for me to walk. Getting anywhere from that line would be a nightmare. Of figuring out a route. I have not ridden Muni since they shut every thing down. I.have relied on Amazon Fresh, which is actually cheaper than most stores. And has excellent food. Some things are not as available, it is not critical. I miss being able to just get out and go. And now Muni wants to double on taking away people’s ability to travel. I have little doubt that cutting out the 31 was motivated by politics. A bit of pain for the poor, and a slap at Sup. Haney for not allowing Breed to run amuck.

    Muni once had an incredible transit system that has been slowly hurt by neglect and malice. As I have said before, it often is a rooling ADA violation that does not take the disabled into consideration. People need to rise up and demand better. You too will age, and wish you had spoken out sinner.

Comments are closed.

Sponsored link

Top reads

A car-free JFK Drive in Golden Gate Park is finally close to reality

But there are some complicated equity issues that will require a lot more discussion.

A new dark-money group with GOP support seeks to raise crime fears

A misleading mailer attacking the record of DA Chesa Boudin hits the streets—but who paid for it?

Robots in the crash pad: The twisted takeover of the Red Victorian Hotel

How Haight Ashbury countercultural ideals were distorted by a tech "co-living" experiment, and a trans performance community was displaced.

More by this author

A new dark-money group with GOP support seeks to raise crime fears

A misleading mailer attacking the record of DA Chesa Boudin hits the streets—but who paid for it?

While people sit in jail cells, SF courts delay criminal trials

Judges hear civil cases while violating the law and delaying the right to a speedy trial for criminal defendants, public defender says.

A car-free JFK Drive in Golden Gate Park is finally close to reality

But there are some complicated equity issues that will require a lot more discussion.
Sponsored link
Sponsored link

You might also likeRELATED