> If the MTC ran Muni, for instance, what might we expect? On the plus
> side, we might see more willingness to cut schedules to levels that can
> reliably be provided given the resources and environment available. The
> MTC, being more distant from city voters would probably have the
> backbone to acknowledge reality and move from unplanned service cuts
> (which we have now) to planned service cuts.
>
> On the minus side, Muni's priorities would become regional (read:
> suburban), not local. Getting people in and out of San Francisco would
> overtake moving people from place to place within San Francisco. This
> might be good news for people living in suburban areas not served by
> BART, but I can't see how it would be good for much of anyone else.
> Right now, relieving freeway congestion isn't a major function of Muni.
> Freeways in San Francisco don't provide a whole lot in the way of
> intracity functionality. They're designed to get people in and out of
> the city. Muni focuses on getting city dwellers where they're going.
Some time ago I wrote an article on spec (something I rarely do these
days) for the Examiner's op ed page on this subject. It was losely
based on a note I wrote for this list. To the best of my knowledge,
they never ran it, so here it is. (Warning: this is long.)
Mayor Brown's plan to create a regional public transit "super-agency"
has engendered remarkably little comment. This is unfortunate.
In the famously balkanized Bay Area, there is little near-term prospect
of such a super-agency actually appearing, but if anyone can make it
happen it is probably Mayor Brown. In principle, I am not opposed to
the idea, but I am very concerned about what a regional transportation
agency could do to an already troubled MUNI. While riders rightly
complain about the current MUNI service, we should not forget that it
could easily get a whole lot worse.
Whatever Mayor Brown says today, any super-agency would certainly be
based in Oakland. There is just about zero political chance of moving
BART and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission across the Bay. If
putting government jobs where they are most needed is the only criteria,
Oakland probably is where the super-agency should be -- which is why
BART and the MTC were located there.
If we think MUNI service is bad now, just wait until it is run from
Oakland. A transit super-agency in Oakland is hardly likely to put San
Francisco's interests first. Yet, in reality, San Francisco's interests
and public transit's interests largely overlap: the vast majority of the
Bay Area's existing and potential public transit users live or work in
the city, and that is unlikely to change any time soon. Any
super-agency should be based here, where it can best cater to those
riders. Solving Oakland's problems should be paid for by the wealthy
East Bay suburbs, not by moving the management of MUNI away from its
riders.
A transit super-agency would also create a more important, and
insidious, threat to MUNI. Once most the Bay Area's public transit is
run from a single office, it will become very difficult to fight the
"averaging" of service and funding. Each of the Bay Area's many towns
will insist on getting what they will see as "their share" of the
"regional" money and service. Yet, it is far more expensive to provide
a given level of service in a spread out town like, say, Pleasanton,
than it is in San Francisco's forty-nine square miles.
This will almost inevitably result in money being pulled from MUNI to
improve East Bay service.
It sounds selfish and unfair for San Francisco to insist on maintaining
her relatively comprehensive service, while the East Bay drowns in cars
and their already-inadequate bus service withers in the face of
relentless Federal cutbacks.
The East Bay as a whole is far richer than San Francisco is today.
Including road subsidies, the East Bay towns collectively have far more
to spend on transportation. Much the same is true of the South Bay.
These communities freely chose to encourage spread-out development and
to fund new roads over the operation of existing public transportation,
while San Francisco fought desperately to hold the line on decent rail
and bus service. There is no reason for San Francisco to help pay for
suburban public transportation. There is even less reason to take funds
from MUNI which, for all its problems, boards almost three quarters of a
million people each day, and waste it trying to move a few thousand
reluctant suburbanites.
These issues go beyond San Francisco's selfish interests. If the long
term result of establishing a regional transit super-agency really is to
move funding to the suburbs and to gut MUNI, the Bay Area could end up
with far fewer riders of public transit than we have today. That would
cause dramatic increases in gridlock and pollution throughout the
region.
On its face, a regional transit super-agency is obviously a good idea.
But San Francisco should only support it if it is headquartered where
most of the public transit riders are, and if there are iron-clad
guarantees that, at minimum, San Francisco's current level of service is
maintained.
-- _________________________ Donald F. Robertson San Franciscodonaldrf@hooked.net 76217.2066@CompuServe.com
Donald's Space Exploration page: http://www.hooked.net/~donaldrf/index.html
The known is finite, the unknown is infinite; intellectually we stand on an islet in the midst of an illimitable ocean of inexplicability. Our business in every generation is to reclaim a little more land. -- Thomas Huxley.