MTA: Muni Can Meet 85% Standard … By 2012
The MTA gave a briefing yesterday morning to its Board of Directors on what would need to be done to meet the Prop E mandated 85% on time standard, and it wasn’t pretty. According to staff, Muni would need an additional $150 million per year to achieve the standard mandated by voters in 1999, and it won’t happen until 2012, five years from now and thirteen years after it was passed.
Update: Detailed powerpoint on On Time Performance is at the MTA website. (pdf)
Couldn’t it happen faster than that, particularly if basic steps like expanding and enforcing transit lanes, consolidating stops, implementing Proof of Payment systemwide, using already installed signal pre-empts, and dispatching trains in order from Embarcadero were taken? The SF Transit Effectiveness Project is studying these proposals and others.
Spending more money on MUNI is a bad thing. Funding cheaper cars and more lanes for driving would alleviate congestion on MUNI until they can use EXISTING funds to improve service. Voting YES on proposal H will light a fire under MUNI and get them to improve without any extra taxpayer money. Transit is needed, but oil and auto companies create jobs.
Enforcing transit-first lanes is an excellent idea. But wouldn’t consolidating stops mean eliminating stops? Eliminating stops is one of the arguments against prop H, even though there is no evidence that would be the result.
I am not sure how passing prop H will light a fire under MUNI. Passing Prop H along with Prop A will provide additional needed revenue for MUNI; assuming that the parking under Prop H will be commercial and not residential. Vote yes on H and save MUNI!
One of the many problems with H is that (in residential areas) it would allow residents to add garages anywhere, whether or not there is any interference with bus stops or street trees.
It’s also true that consolidating stops will help improve service, but that needs to be done where SERVICE requirements warrant (e.g. where there are two stops on one block) rather than where a resident happens to have $100K to spend on Add-A-Garage.
Passing Prop A will provide additional funding but will also light a fire under Muni becasue now all managers will be required to have pay for performance, a stricter standard than in the past.
Prop H on the other hand will lead to big increases in congestion as more people switch from transit to driving.
There is a lot of speculation going on. Facts would be nice.
It is more likely that garages will be converted to living space than living space to garages. That is true in my neighborhood. Even if garages are added it is unlikely that many will be in bus stops. But even if they are, it is unlikely they will hamper MUNI. Bus stops and garages coexist now and there is not a problem. Trees have nothing to do with MUNI. And trees can be replanted.
Prop H can add more money for MUNI from parking fees. More building and more people will add more cars and more transit riders. It is conjecture that more people will switch from transit. If they did switch it could help MUNI by relieving pressure (overcrowding) and help performance. Congestion could also help MUNI. Transit-first lanes will be faster than driving.
Pay for performance in the public sector may be a bad idea and lead to strange behavior. Most public servants are not motivated by money unless corrupt in the first place.
LatteLiberal has got to be cool!
If I read it correctly in the Chron, the MTA did not say 5 years, but said “at least 5 years.”