[Carfreeliving] SPUR and Transportation Reform

[Dave Snyder]

SPUR's position on the Muni fares is more nuanced than Jim was able 
to communicate through the newspaper. I've attached the letter below.

Also, SPUR's January newsletter published their official position 
that automobile parking downtown should be capped after a study of 
the amount of traffic downtown streets could handle considering a 
substantial conversion of traffic lanes to bus lanes, bike lanes, and 
wider sidewalks. In my opinion, as a Board member, SPUR represents 
the liberal side of the San Francisco business establishment, and as 
such, recognizes that transit-first policies, including restrictions 
on car use, are necessary for economic growth. I think the staff and 
most of its Board are solidly transit-first, although all its members 
don't get that, with some advocating on behalf of SPUR for more 
parking as part of the mid-Market redevelopment plan. SPUR has yet to 
resolve the contradictions in the advocacy of its members.

Attached is the letter Jim wrote, below:

February 28, 2005
Commissioners of the Municipal Transportation Authority
401 Van Ness Avenue # 334
San Francisco, CA 94102

Re: The MTA's Fiscal Year 2006 Budget

Dear Commissioners:

As you know, SPUR is a strong supporter of San Francisco's "transit 
first" policy. We know that
San Francisco's economic growth and accessibility depends upon an 
efficient transportation
system. The only way we can make the city more livable and the only 
way we can accommodate
the increased number of trips that will accompany growth is to 
capture a greater proportion of
those trips with transit.

Therefore, as you tackle the difficult task of addressing the $24.1 
million FY 2005 shortfall and
balancing the FY 2006 budget deficit of $52.5 million, measures that 
preserve or increase transit
ridership should be your foremost priority. Specifically, we suggest 
the following steps to balance
the FY 2006 budget, applied in this order:

1. Cost savings due to service efficiencies - providing the same 
level of service with
fewer service hours.
2. Increase revenue by increasing the cost of car use. This revenue 
source will also
benefit Muni in a second way, by potentially decreasing the 
congestion that degrades
the quality of transit service.
3. Increase revenue through fare increases, while mitigating the 
impacts on low-income
residents.
4. Cost savings due to service cuts.

We are proud that voters reaffirmed our city's commitment to transit 
first with passage of
Proposition E, and gave the MTA greater authority to manage 
transportation free from political
influence. We encourage you to use that independence to fashion a 
budget that relies mainly on
the first and second strategies mentioned above, limiting the need to 
raise fares and, if possible,
eliminating the need for service cuts.

Steps to address FY2006 budget shortfall

To address the FY 2006 budget gap, the MTA Board is likely to have no 
choice but to reduce the
number of service hours that Muni provides. Muni can reduce the 
number of service hours it
provides (and therefore costs) while maintaining or improving current 
levels of service. This
is a critical point. If service hours are reduced in the wrong way, 
ridership will decrease, which
will increase the cost per rider and reduce Muni's ability to provide 
attractive transit service. If
service hours are reduced in the right way, ridership can be 
maintained or increased, decreasing
the cost per rider while continuing to provide the same or better 
transit service.

What is the right way to reduce service hours? In essence, basic 
transit service coverage
is maintained while service frequency is focused on transit corridors 
that have the highest
ridership by consolidating duplicative service. The efficiency of 
transit operating on these
transit corridors can be quickly and inexpensively improved by taking 
steps to reduce
transit delay. If efficiencies gained by consolidating service on 
core routes do not reduce
costs enough, to reduce the impact of cuts to service frequency or 
span (eg, 6 am - 11
pm) further cuts should be focused on routes that have the lowest 
patronage and highest
per rider costs.

If Muni consolidates service in the name of efficiency and providing 
better service, it
must be done in a manner that is effective, consistent, and fair. 
SPUR would support
Muni in this effort if service efficiencies and improvements were 
pursued according to
the following principles:

* Reduce transit service in a way that impacts as few people as 
possible, and does
not disproportionately impact low income, senior, disabled, or youth riders.
* Maintain some transit service within a quarter mile of all residents.
* Maintain frequent, all-day, seven-day-a-week service within a half 
mile of all
residents.
* Invest remaining service hours equitably by where people are, with 
more service
in denser neighborhoods, with special consideration for disadvantaged 
residents.
* Consolidate duplicative routes and stops as necessary in order to maintain or
improve service on the City's primary transit corridors as identified 
in the General
Plan and Muni's Vision Plan. This would slightly increase the average walking
distance for some Muni riders, but would offer more frequent service and lower
trip time, the most important aspects of service quality.
* Provide quantitative analysis of how various service cut scenarios meet these
principles and affect operating costs.

For service changes that will impact the upcoming fiscal year, in the 
next few months
Muni could quickly do a comprehensive system-wide stop consolidation to improve
service efficiency, the easiest and no-cost way to improve 
efficiency, and consolidate the
most obviously duplicative routes. If service hours must be reduced, 
we urge you to
first consider how the Muni route network could be adjusted to increase the
efficiency of the system, rather than make "across the board" cuts 
that would have
an unnecessarily large and inequitable impact on transit service.

For the FY 2006 budget, after these initial service efficiencies are 
taken into account, we
believe that the MTA should next look to revenue enhancements from 
fees on automobile
use, particularly those that impact transit efficiency. The MTA was 
created to manage the
streets; using instruments to discourage the ownership and use of 
automobiles as a way to
manage the impacts of automobile use on transit service quality and 
other modes is a
crucial tool at the MTA's disposal. It is particularly effective as a 
means to increase
transit's share of all trips made in the City, the only way San 
Francisco will be able to
continue to grow.

If these measures are not enough to balance the FY 2006 budget, we 
would support fare
increases as a way to avoid the option of last resort-service cuts 
that actually reduce
ridership in areas that today have high ridership. Across the board 
service cuts, while
appearing "fair," are in fact a less equitable option that reduce 
transit service for those
who depend upon it the most and move the City in a direction in which 
fewer people ride
transit, which means we will provide less transit service for everyone.

Steps to increase Muni's long term efficiency: FYs 2007, 2008, and 2009

It has been over 25 years since Muni has comprehensively reevaluated 
its routings.
Though reevaluating the system could be done relatively quickly, it 
is unlikely that the
necessary analysis and approvals could happen quickly enough to 
significantly reduce FY
2006 costs. However, if pursued aggressively, a thorough reevaluation could be
accomplished and implemented before the start of FY2007.

Muni should take steps to increase its long term financial viability 
so that in FY 2007 and
FY 2008 the MTA Board does not face the same difficult decisions. To 
reduce the cost of
operating Muni, the first priority should be to complete and 
implement a comprehensive
reevaluation of Muni's transit network; how can the transit network 
be adjusted to
provide the same or better service for less money? The principles 
outlined above could be
used to guide this process.

Muni should also immediately and aggressively invest Prop. K Transit 
Preferential Street
(TPS) funding to make TPS improvements on core Muni corridors. TPS improvements
can simultaneously improve service while reducing operating costs. After route
consolidations, TPS improvements offer the best opportunity to reduce 
Muni's annual
operating costs. For example, as originally proposed the recent Inner 
Geary TPS project
would have cost $2.1 million in capital funding and saved Muni $1.0 
million annually in
operating costs (approximately 7% of the annual cost of operating 
buses on Geary) while
significantly improving service for riders.

Thank you for considering our comments on this important matter.

Sincerely,

Jim Chappell
President
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/carfreeliving_livablecity.org/attachments/20050301/24ee5497/attachment-0001.htm