Sweet Melissa

I just moved to SOMA where taxis apparently don't exist, so yes, I'm bitter...

“We all know that calling a taxicab dispatch is about as effective as calling Muni to pick you up,” said David Chiu in a rare moment of candor and gumption at last Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting. I nearly dropped my Red Bull in a rush to applaud his insult to both Muni and taxi service.

Chiu was actually chastising the taxi industry just as the board was about to pass legislation – a law that Chiu sponsored – that would help the Metropolitan Transportation Agency crack down on illegal cabs and limousines. The new law would actually help registered cab drivers, but the moment was far from a love-fest as Chiu acknowledged that illegal cabs are the result of a dysfunctional legal cab system.

Supervisor Wiener then proposed an amendment that stripped out severe penalties for illegal taxis because, “the only reason why these unpermitted cabs exist and flourish is because of the inadequacies in our system - to come down with very, very heavy penalties does not make sense from a policy perspective.”

He also added a provision that requires the MTA to report to the board every quarter with actual evidence that the agency is working on the problem of abysmal taxi service in our fair city. Wiener’s amendments passed unanimously. His resolution asking the agency to issue additional taxicab permits for use during peak-hours is up for a vote today.

I asked Wiener whether he’s worried that taking on the taxi industry will get him blacklisted from service. His response? “Well, since I usually can't get a cab anyway, that wouldn't be a particularly effective weapon.”

Everyone wants to be a hero.

Supervisor Sean Elsbernd’s drive to collect signatures for the Fix Muni Now initiative is in full swing. The point of the effort is to put a City Charter amendment on the November ballot requiring the transit operators union to actually negotiate wages instead of being guaranteed the second-highest hourly rate in the nation.

“We’re hitting all of our marks,” Elsbernd told me. “If we continue to do that, we will have enough signatures to make the ballot.” He also said the last 20,000 to 30,000 signatures are the hardest to get because “it’s hard to find anyone who hasn’t already signed.” I certainly don’t know anyone who hasn’t.

In the meantime, the mayor announced a deal with the Muni operators union last week. Sources tell me the deal would allow the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency to hire around 180 part-time workers and require that employees actually work 40 hours per week before getting overtime.

Note that the tentative agreement allows operators to get their charter-mandated annual pay increase at a cost of $9 million, or roughly what the “deal” would save The City this year.

Of course, all this assumes the rank-and-file actually approves the agreement. (Shakes head in side to side.) From what I hear, the executive board of the union hasn’t signed off on the package, much less the actual union members. Plus, an extremely good source tells me that executive board member Eric Williams, who narrowly lost a run for the presidency of the union last year, continues to angle for leadership and has been adamantly opposed to any deal. No one is saying when union members will vote.

Also seizing on the opportunity to save the day are supervisors David Campos, David Chiu, Eric Mar and Ross Mirkarimi, who are sponsoring a charter amendment of their own for the November ballot. Like Elsbernd’s Fix Muni Now initiative, this alternative amendment would eliminate the formula used to calculate operators’ wages.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the amendment is that it would create a $40 million set-aside for the SFMTA.

I call it “interesting” for two reasons: First, recall that last year Chiu and Mirkarimi sponsored a charter amendment that would gut all set-asides (I guess if you can’t beat ’em ...); and second, with city services being slashed left and right, I expect nonprofits and other labor groups to be furious at the prospect of an additional financial hogtie.

In the end, voters will likely be the ones sorting out the mess. Though at this point, I’m not sure I trust anyone else.

June 2010 Voter Guide: Prop G - One more time for the people in the cheap seats...

Proposition G on the June 8 ballot is a policy statement saying: “Dear Quentin Kopp, the San Francisco stop on the high-speed rail line is going to be that Transbay Terminal spot on Mission and First streets that we’ve had our heart set on for years. Seriously, stop mucking this up.”

You know that filthy and frightening bus station in the South of Market area? The one where you could film “Depressing Sights in Post-Communist Eastern Europe, Part Five”? That’s where we are going to build the Grand Central Station of the West. The project has been in the works since the days of disco and it’s called the Transbay Terminal.

The terminal is supposed to be the place where buses and trains, and unicorns, and Muni, converge. In November 1999, 70 percent of voters elected to make it city policy to extend the Caltrain station from Fourth and King streets up to the Transbay Terminal location on Mission and First streets. Then in 2003, voters agreed to assess ourselves a half-cent sales tax for 30 years to pay for lots of transportation-related stuff, including moving Caltrain up the street to the Transbay Terminal. Finally, almost 80 percent of San Franciscans endorsed Proposition 1A in 2008. That proposition called for the sale of bonds to fund “the construction of a high-speed train system that connects the San Francisco Transbay Terminal to Los Angeles Union Station.”

Despite all this, apparently there was still some confusion because within days of the 2008 election, Quentin Kopp, our delegate to the California High-Speed Rail Authority, said he had no intention of using high-speed rail money to move the Caltrain station. According to Kopp, if San Franciscans wanted to pay $2 billion to move the train station 1.4 miles north, we could go right ahead using our own money. What if other cities get jealous and demand the same treatment? Christmases are ruined this way all the time.

Luckily, the Caltrain station is barely able to handle Caltrain-related needs, so building that Grand Central of the West at King and Fourth was not an option. Next, Kopp proposed building a new terminal at Beale and Mission streets: the TransBeale proposal. That alternative was recently killed in a meeting of the state rail authority.

In an effort to (again) end the debate once and for all, Supervisor Chris Daly and some other supes put Prop. G on the ballot so we can renew our vows to the Transbay Terminal.

I don't usually talk to people with clipboards, but...

Back in February, when Muni drivers rejected a package of proposals that would have saved the transit agency $15 million, Supervisor Sean Elsbernd vowed to gather signatures and put a measure on the November ballot that would eliminate the scheme that guarantees Muni operators the second-highest salaries for transit operators in the nation.

On Monday, Elsbernd began making good on that promise when he dispatched signature-gatherers for just such a ballot measure.

Today, Elsbernd and a team of volunteers will be all over town getting people to sign on. According to Elsbernd: “To protect against unjust fare increases and unnecessary service cuts, San Franciscans are taking matters into their owns hands by gathering signatures to place a Muni reform measure on the ballot. … This measure does just that. I look forward to meeting with San Franciscans from one corner of The City to the other over the next few months in our quest to finally put Muni riders first.”

And just how will Elsbernd and his team of volunteers be getting around The City to gather signatures? By taking Muni, of course. Hey, if people rob banks because that’s where the money is, they ride Muni to find fed-up passengers.

QUOTE OF THE MEETING

“Some riders may experience claustrophobia or even nausea if they cannot see clearly out of the windows while in transit.”

- Supervisor Eric Mar stating his intent to introduce an ordinance will ban advertising on the windows of Muni buses. Riders might also experience claustrophobia or nausea if they are subject to increased fares and service cuts because Muni can’t maximize its ability to sell ad space.

(Photo: Laughing Squid)

Quote O' The Meeting

  “Thank goodness the Board of Supervisors is about to step up. Thank goodness so many other people are stepping up. One big important group has yet to step up. There’s still a group of employees that are in line to receive an $8 million to $12 million pay raise. They are not part of the public employee group that has agreed to [furlough days]. Our transit workers still have not given a penny. They need to step up, too.”

— Supervisor Sean Elsbernd, issuing a challenge to Muni operators at Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting right before the vote to reject proposed Muni fare changes.

Also a challenge to Muni operators: behaving pleasantly and not killing people.

Ross, WTF?

 

Constant Readers,

I’m watching today's Board of Supervisors meeting in preparation for Thursday’s column and something very common and mildly amusing just happened. I thought I'd share with you while I finish watching. When the motion to reject proposed MUNI fare changes came up today, bless his heart, Ross Mirkarimi launched into a speech that sounds like Poetry Magnets - San Francisco Legislative Edition. 

I appreciate the swift way that the Board of Supervisors is responding to the considerations and actions that are being forwarded by the MTA. In this case, they dodged a bullet simply because Governor Schwarzenegger saw within the infinite wisdom of signing the particular bill that allowed for the infusion to come back to San Francisco. What if he didn’t, though? And in that regard, this still would set up a tension base so that we would have to take a hard decision and have to then declare that this would still not be the right decision even though that that particular, um, supplement by the state would alleviate our current position. But what I fear is that we are going to be in this position again and we’re gonna have to do more resolutions and we’re going to have to be able to reflex so that MTA is not taking their deficit out on the population who can afford it least.

I think he’s saying: thank goodness for the $36 million from the state for Muni and let’s look at fair ways to avoid this deficit problem in the future. Or something like that. The whole thing is some sort of verbal Rorschach test.

--Melissa

Muni riders say they’re not gonna take it

Hours after Muni drivers rejected a package of proposals designed to save $15 million, I received an invitation to join a Facebook group called March Against Muni.

The group’s list of 10 demands appears freshly plucked from the minds of everyone I know. It includes “no more route cuts,” “no more fare hikes,” “no more rude drivers” and “no more excessive pay.” The group asks everyone who’s fed up with the state of affairs at Muni to boycott the transit agency for the month of March. This includes not buying a March Fast Pass. Because this boycott assumes that some segment of the population has a viable alternative and yet rides Muni by choice (really?), it will be interesting to see how well this works. For my part, I’ve been boycotting that fiasco flotilla since 2006.

You may recall that Supervisor Sean Elsbernd proposed a City Charter amendment for the June 8 ballot that would eliminate the guarantee that Muni drivers are at least the second-highest-paid in the nation. He withdrew that amendment Feb. 4 because, at the time, the drivers union was negotiating a deal that was supposed to save the city millions this fiscal year. But since union members rejected the deal, Elsbernd has vowed to collect signatures to put his amendment on the November ballot.

The March Against Muni kicks off with, you guessed it, a march! It’s set to start at 5 p.m. March 1 at the corner of Powell and Market streets and end at City Hall. Elsbernd would do well to have signature-gathering stations along the route.

Fun with the Muni Drivers Contract

Ever wonder why Muni is always one of the top users of overtime? Well, for one thing, it has a very special definition of overtime. According to the union contract, Muni drivers receive overtime for all hours worked in excess of eight hours a day and a minimum of eight hours if the employee works on his or her day off — even if the employee has not worked 40 hours that week due to vacation or sick leave. (Art. 17)

The deal Muni drivers rejected Tuesday would have changed those rules.

Other fun facts about the Muni drivers’ union contract:

- Drivers who work after 6 p.m. and before 6 a.m. earn 8 percent more for night duty. (Art.4(4)) Whose Peepaw decided 6 p.m. is nighttime?

- Drivers don’t contribute to their own retirement fund. The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency pays the mandatory contribution, to the tune of $9 million a year. (Art 8(4))(The deal drivers just rejected included a provision that they make their own payment for one year.)

- There are severe restrictions on the use of part-time workers. They can’t work on cable cars, they can’t fill in for regular operators and they have to wear a scarlet “P” on their uniforms. OK, I made that last one up, but just barely. (Art. 11)

The operators’ contract expires in June. Meanwhile, the cuts keep coming and the fares keep rising. The public’s patience for this (and other bloated compensation practices) has long since clocked out.

Website Bonus: Here's the contract Download TWU250a Contract

Lessons From The Muni Crime Hearing

Supervisor Bevan Dufty invited all persons who have been a victim of crime on Muni to speak at Monday’s meeting of the City Operations and Neighborhood Services Committee.

Eager to hear the sad yet fascinating stories of Muni crime victims, I hustled on down to City Hall to hear the testimony. Here is what I learned:

1. Teenage girls are the most fearsome creatures on Muni. Of the six stories of assault, three involved middle school to high school-age girls. My mother can verify that I, too, was possessed by the devil from the ages of 14 to 18. Incidentally, this phenomenon might explain the Salem witch trials.

2. Bus drivers will not stop the bus and help you. Take your pitiful pillaged pleas elsewhere. The most a driver can do is press a button to alert Central Command, an institution which is at worst, completely fake, and at best is a windowless room sporadically staffed by stuffed animals. But hey, the driver gets to say, “Central Command has been notified.” (Note that Central Command doesn’t help when drivers are attacked either, which may explain the antihero button policy.)

3. Police hate to ride Muni. Probably for the same reason I do: It’s dangerous! In an effort akin to forcing doctors to go to a hospital, district station captains are now requiring police to ride Muni bus and train lines where the most incidents occur and during peak crime times, like right after school lets out. (See Observation 1.)

At the hearing, new MTA Deputy Chief John Murphy explained a new policy of using statistics to make Muni patrolling efforts more effective. Of course, after years of nonexistent to lame law enforcement on Muni, crime is likely underreported, which affects the reliability of those statistics.

And so it is incumbent upon Muni riders to make a leap of faith and once again attempt to report crimes. Apparently, calling 911 from a cell phone in San Francisco gets you a police station in Vallejo (I’m not making this up) so program these SFPD numbers into your phone: (415) 575-4444 for calls and 847-411 for texts. (Type “SFPD” then the tip.)

MTA in a bind for already-spent cash

Back in high school, my friend Jason had a "parking angel" named Stacks that sat on his dashboard. Stacks was an Elvis doll wearing a jumpsuit which, as far as I could tell, completely lacked the talismanic ability to ensure Jason a decent parking spot. "I need all the help I can get," he would say, patting Stacks on the head, careful not to upset the sombrero perched precariously thereupon.

San Francisco could use an angel right about now, because we have a parking meter situation whose resolution will require some tough decisions.

In March, members of the Board of Directors of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency were presented with a teensy problem: The agency was about $129 million short of the full $856 million it needs for the 2009-2010 fiscal year. (.pdf of report here: Download Nonprofit Ord.) The board presented The City with a plan in April to balance its budget that was remarkable insofar as everyone could hate it. Muni service cuts and fare increases, and even taxi medallion sales were proposed to keep the agency afloat until July 2010.

Several members of the Board of Supervisors threatened to vote against the revised MTA budget, so double-secret negotiations ensued between supervisors David Chiu and John Avalos and representatives from the MTA and Mistermayor’s office. I imagine they looked under the couch cushions, consulted an astrologer (the MTA is a Scorpio) and bought more than one scratch-off lottery ticket.

In the end, more than half of the supes agreed to a deal which "found" $10.3 million dollars and then spent it — mostly on "service enhancements." At least $1 million of that new money was supposed to come from extended parking meter hours that were to be implemented after a feasibility study. (See bottom of post.)

In other words: we have already "spent" the $1 million of the money that we were supposed to get from extended parking meter hours.

The initial proposal was to extend the hours of all meters in The City from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. However, the feasibility study just released by the MTA proposes different hours for different parts of The City, depending on factors like scarcity of spaces. For example, on weekdays North Beach and Union Square would be metered until midnight, but there would be no change in the Bayview. This targeted proposal is expected to bring in about $6 million dollars this year. (.pdf of feasibility report here Download SFMTAExtendedParkingMeterHoursStudy10-13-09 .)

There will be an informational hearing before the MTA board on Oct. 20, but no actual vote on the parking meter proposal has been scheduled yet.

According to MTA spokesman Judson True, it is up to the MTA board to decide whether and how to alter The City’s parking meter systems. Note that members of the MTA board are all appointed by the mayor, who has made it clear that he opposes additional meter hours.

Ultimately, either the hours of some metered parking spaces will be extended to include nights and weekends, or $1 million needs to come from somewhere to make up for the assumed revenue in this year’s MTA budget.

Anyone got a "parking angel"? We need all the help we can get. 

OTHER GREAT COVERAGE OF THE PARKING METER ISSUE:

Joe Eskenazi at SFWeekly has great coverage here, here and here.

SF.Streetsblog is doing some excellent work on this issue, including coverage of Newsom talking trash about  bloggers who are covering this  story.

The full deal negotiated in May of this year:

Savings: Total 10.3 million

1 million - miscellaneous spending on parts and materials. Frankly, I'd like some clarification here. Are we talking about paint or screwdrivers? It matters.

2.5 million - freeze on hiring "proof of purchase" cops. No word on how much riders will save by having so few people around to check for proof of purchase.

3 million - "salary savings." Hey now! Is Nat giving back some of his $315,000 salary?

2.8 million - stiffing other departments on for bogus "work orders" (see above) 

1 million - first we'll do a study (cost undisclosed) on how much we can get for extending parking meter hours from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.. That should bring in oh...let's just say....a million. That number sounds totally un-arbitrary. Ahem.

Spending: Total 10.2 million (you know, give or take)

1.25 million - delay of $5 increase in fares for youth, senior, and disabled people that was set for Jan 1, 2010, until May 2010. Will not change the $5 planned on increase on July 1, 2009 for same people.

350 thousand - reduce cost of lifeline pass from $35 to $30

8.6 million - enhancing services in areas where service is being reduced or modified. As Paul Hogarth points out, this will be a boost for the Transit Effectiveness Project.