2000 Muni Ridersí Survey Results
Introduction
Since 1997, Rescue Muni has conducted an annual survey of the San Francisco Municipal Railway (Muni) to determine its on-time performance. In this time, the state of Muni has been a very high-profile issue in City politics, playing an important role in elections for Supervisor and Mayor, and leading to one successful ballot initiative (1999ís Proposition E). In addition, Muniís budget has been increased substantially since 1996, after many years of small or zero increases.
Has all of this attention paid off? It appears that the answer is yes. Our 2000 Muni Ridersí Survey has found a substantial improvement in Muni performance since 1999, with this improvement at a faster rate than in the previous year. On average, Muni riders were delayed 18.9% of the time, earning the system a grade of B-minus and representing a 5.6 percentage point improvement from 1999. Other measures of Muni performance improved, but only slightly: average waiting time declined from seven to six minutes, and the average rider waited 74% of the posted frequency, down from 76 percent in 1999.
Improvement was fairly consistent: the reliability of most (but not all) measured lines improved, some quite substantially, and service was better for all modes except historic streetcar. Most improved was the K-Ingleside, which was graded "A" this year (4% of riders delayed) after being graded "F" (41% delayed) just two years ago. This year, only 4 of 24 lines with sufficient data were graded "D" or "F", a lower ratio of failing grades (17%) than last year.
This survey, designed to measure Muniís performance from the riderís perspective, was conducted in the same way as in previous years. 74 volunteers recorded their experiences while using Muni in February 2000, recording how long they waited for their buses and streetcars, and how long their trips took. This year, our volunteers recorded 2,123 separate rides. We compared ridersí actual experiences with the frequencies advertised in Muniís Street and Transit Map, posted at bus shelters and available widely in the city.
We have listed here Muniís five best and worst lines, and its systemwide score. (This table includes only lines with over 20 responses.) Later in this paper, we will provide a list of all measured routes and analyses by mode and time of day.
Table 1: Best and worst lines; systemwide performance
| route | % riders late |
Grade | 1999 % late |
change 2000-1999 | 1998 % late |
1997 % late |
Total responses |
| Grand Total | 18.86% | B- | 25% | -6% | 28% | 25% | 2123 |
Best five lines: |
|||||||
| K |
4% |
A |
32% |
-28% |
27% |
53 |
|
| 9 |
5% |
A |
31% |
-26% |
20 |
||
| 28 |
8% |
A- |
21% |
-13% |
25 |
||
| 33 |
8% |
A- |
12% |
-4% |
|||
| 44 |
10% |
B+ |
25% |
-15% |
9% |
31% |
|
Worst five lines: |
|||||||
| L |
28% |
C- |
26% |
+2% |
53% |
22% |
127 |
| 42 |
30% |
D+ |
36% |
-6% |
25% |
33 |
|
| 14 |
32% |
D+ |
47% |
-15% |
51% |
31 |
|
| 30 |
50% |
F |
26% |
+24% |
21% |
33% |
40 |
| 38 |
52% |
F |
33% |
+19% |
26% |
27% |
27 |
* Line has fewer than 20 responses; measurement is not as accurate.
Methodology
This survey attempts to measure Muniís reliability from the riderís perspective, with a methodology that has not significantly changed since we began in 1997. For the entire month of February 2000, volunteers recorded how long they waited for the buses and streetcars that they used every day, and a few watched vehicles go by and recorded the headways. This year, 74 volunteers recorded 2,123 separate rides, or 73 per day; this was unfortunately a lower response rate than in 1999, when 3,995 data points were submitted.
For each ride, we calculated waiting time and compared it to the frequency advertised on Muniís Street and Transit Map, posted at most stops. We calculated the percentage of riders delayed, the average waiting time, and the average normalized waiting time - waiting time over advertised frequency - for each line. For data collected by watching vehicles go by (329 observations, more than in 1999), we used a system of weighted averages to calculate these metrics for a hypothetical rider arriving at random.
This year, because both bus and streetcar riders reported their destinations, we were able to measure trip times and draw some conclusions about the probability of delays. In addition, we were also able to assign riders to groups of lines, which more accurately reflects their experience; a rider from Powell Street to Haight and Masonic, for example, has a choice of four lines (6, 7, 66, 71). For riders who could choose from groups of lines, we calculated a "segment headway" reflecting the frequency of all vehicles passing the stop, assuming even distribution, subject to a minimum headway of three minutes.
Based on these data, we calculated results for the system as a whole and the 39 lines for which we had 10 or more data points. (Due to the lower response rate, we are reporting results for lines with 10 or more data points, but we are marking those with fewer than 20 in the list of lines as "less accurate.") In addition, we calculated the results for each mode (streetcar, metro, diesel, electric) of service and for various times of day. We assigned our letter grades based on the percentage of riders delayed, and we compared these with survey results from previous years.
We also asked riders to record their destinations and the time they arrived there, and to measure maximum crowding on their ride based on a scale of 1 (empty) to 5 (crush-loaded). With the arrival data, we measured travel times for all trips taken and were able to do some basic analysis of the probability of enroute delays.
Key Findings
Systemwide Performance
Muniís systemwide performance improved significantly from 1999 to 2000. As noted above, 18.9% of riders experienced a delay in the 2000 survey, an improvement of 5.6 percentage points from 1999. In addition, when compared to previous years, Muniís performance continues to improve; this yearís score is almost 10 percentage points (a full letter grade) better than it was in 1998. This earned Muni a B-minus for overall performance, its first grade other than C in the history of the survey. (See Chart 1 for results since 1997.)
Even with this level of performance, however, Muni riders can still expect to be late more than one time in six, and those who transfer will be delayed on average once every other day. While this is an improved reliability score, it does not yet come up to the level of a world-class transit system; however, if this pattern continues, it is now possible to envision a highly reliable Muni in only a few years.
Waiting times also decreased slightly. Riders waited on average six minutes, one minute less than in 1999, but more interesting is normalized waiting time. This score improved to 74% of posted frequency this year, not an excellent score but much better than it was at Muniís worst point in1998, 85% of posted frequency. (See Chart 2 for results since 1997.)
Systemwide crowding, however, did not improve since 1999. Muniís score for 2000, an average of 2.8 on a five-point scale, was essentially the same as its score in 1999. Slightly fewer vehicles were crush-loaded this year (12%), but as in 1999, over half of vehicles (53%) were standing-room only.
Table 2: Crowding (systemwide)
crowding level |
% of total (2000) | % of total (1999) |
| 1 (empty) |
15% |
17% |
| 2 (seats) |
32% |
31% |
| 3 (standing room only) |
22% |
23% |
| 4 (crowded) |
19% |
15% |
| 5 (crush loaded) |
12% |
14% |
It appears that Muni is still having difficulty providing sufficient vehicles to meet demand, and this of course means that customers must endure crowded, uncomfortable conditions more often than necessary. As noted previously, customers currently experience unacceptable crowding more than one time in four, or every other day on a normal commute schedule.
Performance by mode and time of day
Muniís performance continued to vary by mode (route type) and time of day, but less than it had in previous years. This continues a trend that began last year of more consistent service; Muni is clearly less random in its performance than it has been. Motorcoach (diesel) lines showed the most improvement over 1999, with particularly strong improvements in express service (12 percentage points) and limited-stop service (26 percentage points, but small sample size). This may be a result of Muniís purchase of new motorcoaches, which should have much higher reliability than the 1980s-vintage buses being replaced.
Other modes improved as well. Although it did not quite get a B grade, the Muni Metro is clearly on a positive trajectory, with an improvement of four percentage points over 1999. Trolley (electric) coach service also improved, but the F-Market historic streetcar, was less reliable this year. However, this year at least, Muni riders would do well to take the bus for better service. (We did not receive any cable car data this year.)
Table 3: Performance by mode
| mode | Total responses | % late | Grade | change 2000-1999 | Avg wait time | Norm. wait time | Avg crowding | 1999 % late | Fall 1998 % late |
1998 % late | 1997 % late |
| diesel |
441 |
15% |
B |
-7% |
0:08 |
70% |
2.43 |
22% |
23% |
24% |
|
| electric |
528 |
21% |
C+ |
-7% |
0:06 |
72% |
2.59 |
27% |
27% |
26% |
|
| express |
79 |
9% |
A- |
-12% |
0:03 |
42% |
3.42 |
20% |
28% |
29% |
|
| limited |
15 |
13% |
B |
-26% |
0:02 |
45% |
4.00 |
40% |
28% |
||
| metro |
997 |
20% |
C+ |
-4% |
0:06 |
82% |
3.03 |
25% |
28% |
35% |
24% |
| streetcar |
63 |
21% |
C+ |
+10% |
0:07 |
54% |
2.13 |
11% |
13% |
39% |
|
| Grand Total |
2123 |
18.9% |
B- |
-6% |
0:06 |
74% |
2.81 |
24.51% |
28% |
25% |
Customers are also getting more consistent performance from Muni regardless of the time of day. This year, only service in the evening rush was graded C (25% of riders delayed); all other service was graded B with chances of delays in the 13%-19% range. Significantly, performance in all time slots improved over 1999, with all but PM rush service improving from a C to a B. Since 1998, rush-hour service in particular has improved: both AM and PM rush hours were graded D that year.
Table 4: Performance by time of day
| time slot | Total responses | % late | Grade | change 2000-1999 | Avg wait time | Norm. wait time | Avg crowding | 1999 % late | Fall 1998 % late |
1998 % late | 1997 % late |
| AM rush |
463 |
18% |
B- |
-8% |
0:04 |
63% |
3.10 |
26% |
31% |
30% |
27% |
| evening |
407 |
16% |
B |
-6% |
0:06 |
58% |
2.58 |
22% |
19% |
21% |
25% |
| holiday |
23 |
13% |
B |
-11% |
0:07 |
57% |
2.04 |
24% |
|||
| midday |
590 |
19% |
B- |
-5% |
0:08 |
82% |
2.59 |
24% |
25% |
22% |
21% |
| owl |
2 |
0% |
A |
-20% |
0:05 |
28% |
1.50 |
20% |
|||
| PM rush |
345 |
25% |
C |
-3% |
0:06 |
87% |
3.10 |
28% |
39% |
38% |
29% |
| weekend |
293 |
18% |
B- |
-5% |
0:09 |
86% |
2.69 |
23% |
18% |
22% |
28% |
| Grand Total |
2123 |
18.9% |
B- |
-6% |
0:06 |
74% |
2.81 |
24.51% |
27% |
28% |
25% |
Performance of Specific Lines
Unlike in previous years, Muniís reliability improved across almost all lines surveyed. Only a small number of lines got worse; significantly, two of these lines (38-Geary and 30-Stockton) are candidates for subway or streetcar service in the coming years. Of the 24 lines for which we received over 20 responses, 20 lines got better and only 4 got worse. The most-improved line was the K-Ingleside, which was graded A this year (4% of riders delayed) after being graded D last year (32% delayed). Other improved lines include the 9-San Bruno and 47-Van Ness, each of which improved by 26 percentage points over 1999; the 9 was graded A and the 47 was graded B this year.
However, the 30-Stockton was much worse than last year, despite the installation of transit-only lanes; it was graded F (50% delayed) after losing 24 percentage points. Close behind it was the 38-Geary, which lost 19 percentage points from 1999 and was also graded F.
Many lines continued on their path toward improvement from 1997-98. The N-Judah, our most heavily reported line, showed a slight improvement from 1999 (2 percentage points), but this was after a major improvement from 1998 to 1999. Similarly, the 5-Fulton improved from 21% to 18% delayed (earning a B grade), after improving significantly from 1998ís 28% late. The 14-Mission, still one of Muniís least reliable lines, has improved by 19 percentage points since 1998 but still has a long way to go (it was graded D).
Table 5: Most and least improved lines
route |
% riders delayed | Grade | Change 2000-1999 | 1999 % late | Fall 98 % late | 1998 % late | 1997 % late | Total responses |
Most improved: |
||||||||
| K |
4% |
A | -28% |
32% |
33% |
41% |
27% |
53 |
| 9 |
5% |
A | -26% |
31% |
27% |
20 |
||
| 47 |
14% |
B | -26% |
40% |
21 |
|||
| 14 |
32% |
D+ | -15% |
47% |
51% |
31 |
||
| 43 |
12% |
B+ | -15% |
26% |
23% |
23% |
100 |
|
Least improved: |
||||||||
| 22 |
21% |
C+ | -1% |
22% |
29% |
55% |
33 |
|
| L |
28% |
C- | +2% |
26% |
47% |
53% |
22% |
127 |
| F |
21% |
C+ | +10% |
11% |
13% |
39% |
63 |
|
| 38 |
52% |
F | +19% |
33% |
26% |
27% |
27 |
|
| 30 |
50% |
F | +24% |
26% |
21% |
33% |
40 |
Overall, however, Muniís performance became more consistent over the lines surveyed. The majority of lines surveyed had passing grades, and as noted only a small number declined significantly in reliability. This may be due to new equipment, better supervision, and better accountability systemwide (see discussion at end of paper).
In Table 6, we provide a complete list of lines studied, ranked from best to worst performance. This table includes our standard measurements for each line and the percentage of riders delayed from all previous surveys.
Table 6: Complete Results
| route | Total responses | % late | Grade | change 2000-1999 | Avg wait time | Normal -ized wait time | Avg crowding | 1999 % late | Fall 98 % late | 1998 % late | 1997 % late | * |
| 38AX | 15 | 0% | A | 0:02 | 17% | 3.80 | * | |||||
| 108 | 10 | 0% | A | 0:04 | 9% | 2.20 | * | |||||
| 30X | 10 | 0% | A | 0:02 | 46% | 1.60 | 20% | * | ||||
| K |
53 |
4% |
A |
-28% |
0:07 |
66% |
2.92 |
32% |
33% |
41% |
27% |
|
| 9 |
20 |
5% |
A |
-26% |
0:03 |
36% |
3.45 |
31% |
27% |
|||
| 16BX | 16 | 6% | A | -12% | 0:04 | 40% | 3.38 | 19% | * | |||
| 28 |
25 |
8% |
A- |
-13% |
0:05 |
41% |
2.36 |
21% |
14% |
|||
| 33 |
49 |
8% |
A- |
-4% |
0:06 |
36% |
2.25 |
12% |
||||
| 71L | 12 | 8% | A- | 0:03 | 38% | 2.58 | * | |||||
| 31BX | 10 | 10% | A- | 0:04 | 40% | 4.10 | * | |||||
| 44 |
84 |
10% |
B+ |
-15% |
0:11 |
81% |
2.72 |
25% |
9% |
31% |
||
| 18 | 19 | 11% | B+ | 0% | 0:09 | 54% | 2.56 | 10% | * | |||
| 43 |
100 |
12% |
B+ |
-15% |
0:10 |
83% |
1.73 |
26% |
23% |
23% |
||
| 5 |
66 |
12% |
B+ |
-3% |
0:04 |
53% |
2.92 |
16% |
28% |
16% |
||
| 38L | 15 | 13% | B | -21% | 0:02 | 45% | 4.00 | 35% | 29% | * | ||
| 21 |
35 |
14% |
B |
-11% |
0:08 |
52% |
2.29 |
26% |
30% |
22% |
||
| 47 |
21 |
14% |
B |
-26% |
0:02 |
55% |
2.75 |
40% |
||||
| JKLMN |
55 |
15% |
B |
-5% |
0:01 |
57% |
2.92 |
20% |
1% |
|||
| 24 |
95 |
17% |
B- |
-5% |
0:07 |
62% |
2.73 |
22% |
30% |
23% |
||
| KLM |
222 |
18% |
B- |
-5% |
0:03 |
69% |
3.38 |
22% |
22% |
14% |
7% |
|
| 6 |
73 |
18% |
B- |
-3% |
0:11 |
103% |
2.56 |
21% |
21% |
9% |
||
| 29 | 11 | 18% | B- | -22% | 0:13 | 81% | 2.36 | 40% | * | |||
| N |
386 |
20% |
C+ |
-2% |
0:06 |
88% |
3.03 |
23% |
35% |
42% |
33% |
|
| F |
63 |
21% |
C+ |
10% |
0:07 |
54% |
2.13 |
11% |
13% |
39% |
||
| 22 |
33 |
21% |
C+ |
-1% |
0:04 |
51% |
2.50 |
22% |
29% |
55% |
||
| 1 |
33 |
24% |
C |
-3% |
0:06 |
72% |
2.13 |
28% |
23% |
43% |
||
| M |
72 |
25% |
C |
-1% |
0:10 |
94% |
2.79 |
26% |
38% |
31% |
30% |
|
| J |
82 |
25% |
C |
-11% |
0:10 |
90% |
2.70 |
36% |
33% |
42% |
22% |
|
| L |
127 |
28% |
C- |
2% |
0:07 |
88% |
2.84 |
26% |
47% |
53% |
22% |
|
| 49 | 14 | 29% | C- | 6% | 0:05 | 108% | 2.29 | 23% | 29% | * | ||
| 71 | 17 | 29% | C- | 7% | 0:07 | 77% | 2.71 | 23% | 31% | 25% | * | |
| 42 |
33 |
30% |
D+ |
-6% |
0:07 |
91% |
2.64 |
36% |
25% |
|||
| 14 |
31 |
32% |
D+ |
-15% |
0:03 |
89% |
2.45 |
47% |
51% |
|||
| 45 | 14 | 36% | D | 12% | 0:02 | 80% | 3.31 | 23% | 16% | * | ||
| 7 | 13 | 38% | D- | -12% | 0:04 | 107% | 1.85 | 50% | 19% | * | ||
| 19 | 12 | 42% | F | 27% | 0:13 | 85% | 2.00 | 15% | 22% | 42% | * | |
| 30 |
40 |
50% |
F |
24% |
0:06 |
135% |
3.14 |
26% |
21% |
33% |
||
| 38 |
27 |
52% |
F |
19% |
0:04 |
115% |
3.00 |
33% |
26% |
27% |
||
| Grand Total | 2123 | 18.86% | B- | -6% | 0:06 | 74% | 2.81 | 25% | 28% | 25% |
Note: Routes with an asterisk (*) in the right column had fewer than 20 responses; we are reporting them here for completeness, but these results should be considered less accurate than those in roman type.
Line Profiles
To understand how Muni is running, it is also useful to understand the performance of specific lines. The following are commonly used lines that are representative of Muniís overall reliability.
28-19th Avenue (Graded A): This is a line that has been mediocre over the years but is now performing very well. This year the line, which runs from the Golden Gate Bridge to Daly City on a crowded state highway, was graded A with only 8% of riders experiencing a delay; in1999 it was much less reliable, earning a C with 21% of riders delayed. (This was in turn a decline in reliability from 1998, when 14% of riders were delayed.) It is not an extremely frequent line, as service runs only once every 10 minutes at the peak, but customers routinely wait only half this on average and only 41% of the posted frequency. Average crowding (2.4) is not severe; only rarely was it above 3 (standing room only).
43-Masonic (Graded B): This line is also doing better than Muniís systemwide average. Customers of the 43-Masonic, which passes by Presidio Division and Muniís Planning Department before running to West Portal, should expect a delay only 12 percent of the time. However, riders generally waited longer than on the 28; average waiting time was 83% of the posted frequency, suggesting that buses may run a few minutes late often, but will not run so late that the typical rider is delayed. This score was substantially better than the 1999 score (26% delayed) and scores from 1998 and 1997 (both 23% delayed). Muni often uses new motorcoaches on this route, which is almost certainly making service more reliable.
N-Judah (Graded C): If San Francisco is "Everyoneís Favorite City," this must be "Everyoneís Favorite Streetcar," at least to complain about. It was trouble on the N-Judah that began the Muni Meltdown in 1997; the N is the main line to Pacific Bell Park; and it has certainly gotten more press and attention than other LRV lines. So also with the survey; we received 386 responses for the N-Judah, more than any other line.
The Nís performance is definitely improving, perhaps based on the high level of attention it has received. However, improvement has not been as dramatic as on other lines; on-time service only improved less than three percentage points this year (22% late to 20% late, after rounding). Customers still wait more than the Muni average for their streetcars, 88% of posted frequency, and this has actually worsened since last year (77%). Average crowding is slightly over 3 (standing room), worse than last year. However, the N is much more reliable now than it was in 1998, when 42% of riders were delayed and customers waited 123% posted frequency for every streetcar. So while itís mediocre now, itís not as dismal as it was a few years ago ó and the cars are all air-conditioned.
L-Taraval (Graded C): The "L-Terrible" may be reverting to old form, unfortunately. This year it got slightly worse, with 28% of riders delayed and normalized wait time at 88% posted frequency. (A perfectly running system would score 50% normalized wait time, because the typical passenger would wait half the posted headway at all times.) However, crowding is better (2.84 in 2000 vs. 3.25 in 1999 and 3.59 in fall 1998), so L customers are more likely to get a seat than before. On-time service is nowhere near as bad as it was in 1998, when 53% of riders were delayed in February and 47% in October. Still, service is not where it needs to be, particularly given that a route like the K can earn an A with similar equipment and routing.
14-Mission (Graded D): This heavily-traveled line remains one of the least reliable in the City, though it too has improved in the past two years. Graded F in 1998 and 1999 with 51% and 47% of riders delayed (respectively), it has definitely improved to the point that "only" 32 percent of riders experience a delay. Normalized waiting time is much better than before: riders wait a near-perfect 47% of posted frequency on average, much improved from 121% in 1999, but of course this does not take into account bunching. Crowding is better than Muniís systemwide score (and slightly better than last year) at 2.45.
The 14 shares a corridor with the 49-Van Ness/Mission, and we adjusted posted headways to reflect the presence of these two bus lines for customers traveling on this segment. We did the same for the 47-Van Ness and 42-Downtown Loop, which share the Van Ness corridor with the 49; it is worth noting that the 47 line did much better, grading a strong B.
38-Geary (Graded F): The 38-Geary, one of the most heavily used motorcoach lines in the world, was a big disappointment, continuing its downward trend from 1998, when it was graded C. This year the 38 came in dead last, with 52 percent of riders experiencing a delay, up 19 percentage points from 1998. Customers waited well over the posted frequency on average (115 percent), a significant decline in reliability from last year when they waited only 78 percent. Crowding was a standing-room-only 3.0 on average.
This route shares a corridor with the 38L-Geary Limited, which did much better (13% of riders delayed). Perhaps the 38L is getting most of the attention of Muniís supervisors on the route, and the 38 is allowed to bunch; or the 38L is not dispatched properly to alternate with the 38. In any case, service on this route has gotten worse for several years, so it should be a top priority for improvements in fiscal 2001.
Rider Comments
As usual, survey participants were liberal with their comments on Muni performance. Riders commented on a wide range of issues, mainly concerning the reliability, crowding, and cleanliness of the buses and streetcars they took. Many riders commented on crowding:
Some commented on the cleanliness of their vehicles:
Others commented on their peers on the bus:
And others commented on overall service quality:
Policy Implications
This survey clearly shows that Muni service has improved, though it has a long way to go before Muni can be considered a world-class transit system. The following are some factors that we think have contributed to Muniís increasing reliability, and also that may be in the way of truly reliable service by the Municipal Railway.
Budget: Muniís budget has increased steadily over the past four years, and this year it appears that the increased funding is finally producing results. After many years of low or zero budget increases, some of which were reductions when adjusted for inflation, Mayor Brown and the Board of Supervisors began increasing Muniís budget substantially beginning in fiscal1997. It is quite clear that some of the improvement in reliability has resulted from these budget increases ó though itís also worth noting that the budget has increased more quickly than has reliability. (See figure 3 for the growth in Muniís budget since 1990, and figure 4 to consider the impact of recent budget increased on reliability.)
Chart 3: Muniís budget (FY 1991-2000)
Chart 4: Muniís budget (FY 1997-2000) and service reliability (% of passengers delayed)
While Muniís budget problems are by no means solved, the creation of a protected Municipal Transportation Fund in 1999ís Proposition E will help reduce the severity of budget cuts that can occur during difficult economic times. Increased service will require new sources of funding, which Muni now has the power to seek under Proposition E.
Equipment: Since we began conducting this survey in 1997, Muni has replaced the majority of its light rail vehicles, and it has also ordered a series of new motor and trolley coaches. As one might expect, this new equipment seems to have improved reliability. Lines using new motorcoaches, such as the 43-Masonic and 108-Treasure Island, did fairly well in this yearís survey; in contrast, lines using some of Muniís oldest motor and trolley coaches, such as the 38-Geary and 30-Stockton, did poorly. While new vehicles donít always do well (consider the trouble the Breda streetcars have had), the reduction in breakdowns from having new vehicles is certainly good for service.
One of the major benefits of Proposition E (1999) and the Municipal Transportation Fund is that Muni can now make more accurate long-term financial plans. This should help reduce the chance that the railway will be forced to keep its next round of buses as long as the current trolley coaches have been in service (24 years!) and should therefore improve fleet reliability.
Traffic: This problem has gotten worse, not better, over the years as San Francisco has become a high-tech boom town and the number of auto drivers has increased, particularly at rush hour. Many of the lines that did poorly are in heavy-traffic areas, including the 14-Mission, 38-Geary, 30-Stockton, 42-Downtown Loop, and others. Bus service can be helped by adding transit-only lanes, but what is really needed is enforcement of these lanes; all four of these lines have transit lanes, but these lanes are routinely blocked by cars ignoring the regulations.
Part of the problem is that transit lane violations are moving violations, enforceable only by the police; if parking control officers (or Muni drivers) could issue tickets to drivers blocking the lanes, we would see a rapid change in compliance. Alternatively, photo enforcement could be used.
Management: Muni has had its current director, Michael Burns, for just over a year, so this is his first Ridersí Survey. While it is difficult to tie results to one person, it is worth pointing out that Mr. Burns has significantly more transit experience than did his predecessors. Thus far, his record is strong; we shall see whether his team is able to continue to improve service in the next couple of years ó and how well his team does if the economy turns down and Muniís budget does not increase as rapidly.
An additional management issue worth noting is the problem of unscheduled and unexcused absences, a problem that has contributed significantly to unreliability. As part of Proposition E, Muni is required to develop programs to reduce unscheduled absences, and it is not allowed to tolerate "miss-outs," or unexcused absences. While we have not seen this yearís numbers, a lower absentee rate would certainly make a difference for service.
Service Standards: A critical element in Proposition E was the establishment of enforceable service standards, including a requirement that Muni run on time 85 percent of the time by 2004. Muni admits that it does not come close to this number today. With the establishment of pay for performance based on this standard, however, Muni employees from the car cleaner to the general manager will finally be held accountable for service delivered. We think that this will lead to more reliable service, as it has in other public-sector organizations such as the U.S. Postal Service.
Conclusions
The results of the 2000 Muni Ridersí Survey, conducted by 74 volunteers in February 2000, are encouraging. While Muni is by no means running perfectly, service has improved; this year, it was graded B-minus, with riders experiencing delays on average 18.9 percent of the time. This was 5.6 percentage points better than in 1999, and almost 10 percentage points better than Muniís worst score in 1998. Customers experienced fewer delays and waited on average shorter times for their buses or streetcars. However, crowding did not improve, as Muni struggled to meet increasing demand for service. Also, many heavily traveled lines such as the 38-Geary were graded poorly.
Muni is to be commended for improving service, but it still has a long way to go before we can declare it "rescued." While it is clear that increased funding, new equipment, and stronger accountability have helped, significant additional effort will be required to make Muni the world-class transit operator that it aspires to be. Last yearís Proposition E has helped in important ways, but ultimately the responsibility is that of management and the Municipal Transportation Agency Board of Directors. Muni may have worked hard for its B-minus, but it should not rest until it earns a solid A.
[ RM Home Page ]
Copyright © 2000 RESCUE MUNI. All
rights reserved.
This page was posted by Andrew Sullivan.
Questions? Send us email.
Last updated 10/13/00.