It Should Be Free

A little late to the punch, the San Jose Mercury News published an article on SF's proposed congestion pricing plan.  The quoted reactions of Peninsula officials are predictable, but I love this one:

Where do you stop nickel-and-diming people? You should be able to travel from city to city without paying a toll.  -Assemblyman Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo

Sounds like an argument for free public transit to me.

Board of Supervisors Accepts Muni Fare Hikes

After negotiating with the Mayor's office, Supervisor David Chiu abandoned his objection to the SFMTA budget in exchange for a $10 million reduction in costs to riders, according to Stephen T. Jones. (Update: more detail from Paul Hogarth at Beyond Chron)

By a vote of 6-5 the Board voted to accept the SFMTA budget, which includes a 50¢ fare increase and a $10 increase in the cost of a Fast Pass. Chiu changed his position after SFMTA chief Nat Ford agreed to shift some of the budget pain by:

• Paying $2.8 million less in work orders to other departments (which have their own budgets)
• Avoiding $8.6 million in previously proposed cuts
• $6.5 million in salary reductions
• $1 million in new revenue from increased parking meter enforcement (after a 90 day study, naturally)
• Delaying Fast Pass increases for youth, disabled and seniors by six months

Chiu also supposedly got some promises that Ford and the MTA would "immediately complete MOU (Memorandum Of Understanding) negotiations with the SFPD to finally explain why the MTA is giving them millions of dollars every year."

His Kingdom for Some Ideas

According to Rachel Gordon, Gavin Newsom really just doesn't have any ideas to balance the SFMTA budget without raising fares and cutting service:

I hate the idea of raising fares. I don't want to cut Muni service. But I ask (critics), 'What ideas do you have that do not eviscerate public safety and health and human services?' -Gavin Newsom (via SF Chronicle)

Well, lay them on him. Let the mayor know what he and the SFMTA board should do to solve Muni's financial problems for good and without simply passing them on to riders.

I'll start with two really obvious ones:

Reign in the work orders that other departments are using to pass their cuts onto the MTA (saves around $60,000,000)

Implement congestion pricing in accordance with the study done wearlier this year (brings in $30,000,000 to $60,000,000 per year)

Budget hole closed. Muni service improved. Public Safety increased. HHS negligibly affected. That wasn't very hard.

Fingers Crossed, BOS Just Might Reject MTA Budget

Sources in-the-know say it looks likely that the SF Board of Supervisors will find enough votes to reject the SFMTA's budget, which is badly flawed. This as Beyond Chron reiterates its opposition to the current budget and new-and-already-awesome blog SwitchingModes.com adds its voice to team 'No.'

They should do just that and I'd like to encourage you to contact your supe of you haven't yet done so.

There are so many good reasons to reject this budget that have been put forth by so many sharp minds in the transit advocacy and progressive community:

• Raising fares and cutting service hurts ridership
• This budget balances the deficit on the backs of Muni's poorest users
• In creating this budget, the SFMTA board has shown an inclination to avoid making drivers pay their fair share of road costs
• This budget represents a sharp departure from the goals and promises of the much-touted TEP

Is There Such Thing as a Free Way?

Posted nearly side-by-side today on Planetizen's news feed are two articles which should be read as parts of the same story.

Why Is Fare-Free Transit The Exception Rather Than The Rule? explores the thoughts that go into transit planners' decisions to charge fares for their service. Congressman Revives Effort to Ban Freeway Tolls discusses the efforts of Pennsylvania Republican Glenn Thompson to make sure nobody is ever charged to use the Interstate freeways.

Freeways and public transit systems are both pieces of transportation infrastructure, which we depend on for our economic vitality

The Interstate Highway System -- the greatest public works project in history -- was built with federal funding to unite our nation. The Interstate Highway System's profound effect upon the American economy has contributed significantly to development and improved quality of life through increased economic efficiency and productivity. The Keeping Americas Freeways Free Act will preserve this notion and allow for the free flowing of commerce not only in Pennsylvania, but across the nation. -Glenn Thompson

And that statement is just as true if you replace "Interstate Highway" with "Municipal Railway." But we don't think that way, and Dave Olsen argues that it's to our detriment.

Now given that public transit is a public service, it could make sense to maximize the public good that that service brings, which is exactly what Island Transit and other Fare-Free systems have done. However, I'm writing "could" here because in the mad rush to privatize and maximize profit for anything that moves (including public services) this playing field has been fundamentally altered over the past few decades. -Dave Olsen

Transit operators have been asked to meet two goals: to locate revenue sources and to increase ridership. But increasing fares pits one of these goals against the other, often at the expense of both. Raising fare rates drives down ridership, thereby offsetting any potential revenue increase. What's more, the costs of collecting fares often approach or exceed the revenue they bring in.

No transit agency can run on fare revenue alone, and fare increases are a bad option for financially pinched transit operator. What fares and tolls do well, however, is suppress the demand for the transit service. Normally that's not something you'd want to encourage, but it can be a useful tool.

Congestion pricing on roads, higher bridge tolls at peak commute hours, and even variable fares for transit during peak commute hours can make a transportation network run more efficiently. Progressive funding strategies for New York's transit network include higher subway costs during commute hours to keep the system's capacity from being overwhelmed, but off-peak rates would go down to zero.

Here in SF, a study of the cost per revenue of Muni's fare collection pretty much killed any hopes of our largest transit agency going fare-free. Unlike most agencies, Muni collects significantly more in farebox revenue ($112 Million) than it spends on collection ($8.4 Million). Personally I wonder whether the latter number includes fare enforcement, but I doubt those inspectors cost $100 million per year.

But most of the argument provoked by that study revolved around the increased costs to Muni for the extra service it would have to provide. Which raises the question, shouldn't providing more service be a priority for Muni? I understand Nat Ford and the folks at the MTA lack the luxury of making that decision themselves - they're hamstrung by the hurdles that we in California have to go through to raise new revenues in this state. But maybe we're all too resigned to the status quo.

It's time for policy makers to get behind a real initiative to increase transit ridership and service levels. Yes, that will mean raising money. And yes, some of that should come from those who use the system at its peak load times. But we need to stop pitting the goal of raising revenue against the goal of increased ridership.

The Chronicle's Half-Baked Editorial Opinion

The Chronicle Comical's editorial against congestion pricing is the latest nonsensical opinion to dribble across that once-halfway-decent page. The irrational diatribe claims that the market-driven plan to charge cars to drive downtown (during rush hour only!) is a "half-baked" "eco-friendly idea" that "may be too much even for San Francisco."

One of San Francisco's "relatively unclogged city streets," according to Chronicle editors who apparently don't get out much

$30-60 million may be a relatively small amount of money to a business like The Chronicle that loses that much each year, but it is in fact a significant amount of money for the regions transit agencies. That's a full tenth of the SFMTA budget! But if it suits the accounting sensibilities of the Chron, I'd be perfectly happy setting the price by supply and demand, the way our parking meters soon will.

The clueless editorial writer guffaws, "The city's official slogan might as well be: Don't Drive Here," but "Don't drive" is indeed city policy. Section 8A.115 of our City Charter, our "Transit First" policy, specifically states that

Decisions regarding the use of limited public street and sidewalk space shall encourage the use of public rights of way by pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit, and shall strive to reduce traffic and improve public health and safety.

As I've said before, congestion pricing is not punitive! The fact of the matter is that motor vehicle drivers have been receiving a public subsidy for years. Congestion pricing plans are just a step toward presenting people with the true economic costs of their decisions. That most people would consider the costs of driving too much to make it worthwhile most of the time is not a reason to hide that cost from them, especially when the agreed-upon goal on both sides is to get them to stop driving.

The Silver Bullet or the Werewolf?

The line in support of congestion pricing starts here.

Think of Soviet shoppers spending their lives in endless queues to purchase artificially low-priced but exceedingly scarce goods. Then think of Americans who can fulfill nearly any consumerist fantasy quickly but at a monetary cost. Free but congested roads have left us shivering on the streets of Moscow.

I can't think of a single reason not to apply congestion pricing to San Francisco.

Congestion hooey?

Editor - As a former San Franciscan who now lives in the North Bay, my response to the proposed "congestion pricing" schemes is: "Are you kidding?"

For a city that fiscally depends on outsiders - tourists, commuters, shoppers and diners - congestion pricing is a really stupid idea. There is no good public transportation to get to San Francisco from the North Bay unless you are commuting to the downtown business district. Outside commute hours, the ferries and buses run infrequently, and after a late dinner, there is no way to get back to Marin. Even finding a taxi is practically impossible.

In addition, those proposing this idea might look at a map. Most of the time I'm driving through the "ring" I'm not driving to San Francisco, I'm driving through it to get to the airport or somewhere else on the Peninsula. Want to relieve congestion? Build a freeway from the Golden Gate Bridge to the intersection of 101 and 280 just south of Parkmerced, and you won't have to worry about us again.

SARAH CAMERON LERER

Inverness

Letters to the Editor, SF Chronicle, January 1, 2009

No, Ms. Lerer, we're not kidding. San Francisco, specifically the older, denser northeaster corner of the city, has been suffering under the burden of motor vehicle congestion for decades!

It's difficult to know where to begin tearing this letter apart, but her specific arguments don't even weigh against the specific plan for downtown San Francisco. She is worried that the only public transit options from the North Bay take you to the downtown, and are only reliable during commute hours. Fortunately, this is the only part of town, and the only time of day that will be affected by the congestion fee.

She also laments that the fee is unfair because she's only passing through the congestion zone, not visiting it. She even suggests that we build a freeway through our city to get her to I-280. This is exactly the kind of trip that worsens congestion without providing any benefits to the local economy, and it's exactly what congestion pricing is designed to prevent or move to off-peak hours.

If you want to push one of my hot buttons, try suggesting that the elevated freeways that scar our city are a good thing, or that we need more of them. Building a freeway the entire length of San Francisco won't mean we never have to worry about those cars or the people in them ever again, it will mean blight, crime, higher rates of asthma, heart disease and a slew of the other unarguable effects of high vehicle traffic volumes. What's more, California Highway 1 already runs the entire route she wants, via Park Presidio Blvd and 19th Ave. The status quo along that gem of a roadway is unacceptable exactly because it's overused by Ms. Lerer and her ilk.

The city of San Francisco doesn't owe suburban residents a free ride through our neighborhoods. Congestion pricing is not punitive, it offsets real costs that the city has been shouldering all these years. The plan is sound and serves to allow drivers, cyclists, and those who walk and take the bus to make more well-informed economic decisions about their transportation options.

From Congestion Pricing to the Geary Corridor

Wow, check out the comments below this Calitics post on the pre-premilinary congestion pricing plan for downtown SF. The topic quickly digresses to the Geary corridor, or rather what to do about transit along Geary St Blvd Expressway traffic sewer. Clearly this is a hot topic, in fact it's considered one of the regional corridors most in need of a good transit solution.

As I happened to mention in the previous post, Geary was the birthplace of Muni. The old A, B, C streetcar lines ran down Geary. These lines were ripped out, however, in part because the original BART plan had a line going under Geary:

Artist's conception of a proposed BART station below Geary and Park Presidio Blvds

The idea was that a streetcar line above ground provided redundant service to the rapid, heavy rail line below. In later years the entire Geary corridor was further redesigned to move motor traffic more quickly. The end result in 2008 2009 is that one of San Francisco's most dense neighborhoods, the Richmond District, is drastically under served by transit; most riders funnel onto the 38, which is the busiest single line in Muni's system. The entire Geary corridor is the second most heavily-traveled, with 56,473 daily boardings along its four bus lines.

There are plans in the works (though currently years away from implimentation) to remake Geary with a bus rapid transit (BRT) line down the middle. One of the alternatives discussed in the official plans is to build a BRT right of way that could be retrofitted in a few years to run light rail (a reborn B-line?) from downtown to Ocean Beach. But why wait? Are we suggesting that Geary, with 30,000 more daily riders that pre-T Third St or 5,000 more daily riders than the N-Judah (Muni's busiest extant rail line), is less deserving of full-blown light rail than those lines?

Geary needs light rail now! More than that, it needs comprehensive transit options, with convenient local service and rapid cross-town access. Geary needs what Market St. has right now: A streetcar on the surface (preferably in its own ROW) to move neighbors to shops and provide convenient access to local amenities, and a subway line below to get commuters across town quickly.

Arguments that demand for transit need to be proven before a system so robust is built are flawed to begin with, but in the case of Geary, the demand for ridership is already proven. Induced demand has been proven in road projects, and a similar results can happen along "overbuilt" transit lines. To give San Francisco a web of transit arteries would be to build a system that is capable of accomodating growth for the future.