You are way off base. SFMTA (which is more than just Muni) only gets 200M from the general fund. While Muni farebox recovery is low, even if it were higher it wouldn't make that much of a difference in relation to the operating expense of 800M needed to satisfy a reduced level of service (relative to 2010, service is reduced by 5%).
Also, the 10B discussed here are majorly for infrastructure maintenance and upgrades. Without them Muni will deteriorate further.
Stealing lanes from traffic? Bus passengers account for significantly more than 1/3rd of all PEOPLE who travel on Van Ness. So frankly, they deserve more than 1/3rd of the road. Drivers are still getting a good deal, keeping 2/3rd of the road (if you don't count parking, and if you did it would be even more).
Efficiency is not bad, per se. However, we're considering accepting a really low level of service here. This proposal brings down weekday service down to the already poor evening and weekend service level. And remember that after some of the 2010 service cuts were restored, they were mostly restored on peak service, and off-peak service has remained at a poor level ever since. This proposal is like saying that cutting out your liver is more efficient than cutting out your heart. And if want Muni to be a world-class transit system, it needs to have a decent off-peak service, otherwise it becomes a commuter service and many will avoid it altogether.
The only real solution is to fund Muni and San Francisco Transit Riders is working on that.
Efficient is not bad per se, but we're settling for a very low level of service here. Even evening and weekend service is poor right now, and this cut brings down weekday service down to the weekend service level. And remember that in 2010 when some of the cuts were restored - they were mostly restored for peak service, and off-peak has remained poor ever since. There may be fewer people riding off-peak, but in a first-world transit system there needs to be a decent level of service any time of day, or else it just becomes a commuter system and people won't rely on it. It's like saying it's more efficient to cut out the liver than the heart.
The only real answer is to have a funding measure to properly fund Muni, and San Francisco Transit Riders is working on that. Please find out more about us and help us at http://www.sftru.org
@Prinzrob: Actually, the state implemented an exemption regarding bike lanes that only require restriping and no other changes (e.g. removal of parking disqualifies it).
One more thing. Erin Sherbert's stance contradicts the stance by SF Examiner last year: http://www.sfexaminer.com/opin... which stated:If implemented wisely, charging for parking on Sunday is a smart idea.
Nothing personal against Erin Sherbert, but she disqualified herself in my opinion with the following piece: http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thes...
It heavily biased (the author aggressively advocated for the free-parking petition and an opposing petition that was not even mentioned), and was just completely unprofessional.
All Comments »
The San Francisco Examiner
Website powered by Foundation