Hello, Tom,
I agree almost entirely with your symptoms, but I disagree
with your "free MUNI" solution, not least, because taxing
"downtown" to free MUNI does not address the real problem,
which is the redistribution of transportation funding to the
suburbs. All taxing "downtown" will do is move more
businesses and middle class residents to said suburbs, which
is self-defeating as a way to fund MUNI. For "free MUNI" to
work, some way must be found for the suburbs to pay their
fair share of the transport bill -- i.e., to get the suburbs
to pay for your free MUNI. Good luck!
A better way to argue this, which fits in with the
prevailing ideology, is to remove and / or equalize
transportation subsidies, creating a free market in
transportation. That is, an inner city MUNI rider should
get the same subsidy as a suburban BART rider or road user.
You might even get some suburbanites -- who are blissfully
ignorant of their subsidies -- to vote for something like
this on ideological grounds.
You say,
> There are two main ways to address problem (2):
No, there are three,
> (a) Institute high user fees (vehicle mile tax, large gas tax increases)
> for cars
> (b) Make public transit virtually a free good (and various other meastures
> designed to encourage public transit use and walking and bicycling)
(c) Equalize transportation subsidies. On the surface, this
looks the same as your choice B, and its practical effect
would be much the same. (If subsidies were equalized, MUNI
would look very close to free compared to BART or
freeways.) However, everything is in the presentation.
This way, you can argue that nobody is getting anything for
free, but everyone is paying their fair share, while your
pitch lets downtown and the suburbs argue that they are
giving away something free.
> Another problem is that it would be inequitable since it would amount
> to forcing lower-income segments of the workforce off the road, in a
> situation where there are poor alternatives.
I'm not sure I buy this. There is no "Constitutional right"
to drive a car, and if you cannot afford to drive a car you
should not be driving one. Certainly not in the Bay Area,
where there is almost always at least some alternative.
Since all of us pay the same infrastructure taxes, yet the
suburbs get all the infrastructure, the current situation
amounts to inner city poor subsidising suburbs for the
rich. The transition to a "free market" in transportation
will inevitably hurt the poor more than the rich, but in the
long term the former will benefit far more. The way it is
today, nothing is cheap -- either you must operate a car
which by definition is expensive, or you must tolerate poor
and inadequate public transit. If everyone paid what it
really cost, at least inner city public transit would be
cheap -- by today's standards, extremely cheap.
> I would expect that, if we were to compare
> the current subsidy per ride in S.F. to (say), Golden Gate Transit, Caltrain
> or VTA, we'd find that the subsidy is far higher for the outlying transit
> operations than for Muni.
I don't know what the figure is for the others, but for
BART, and counting only operating subsidy (not construction
costs, et cetera), BART riders get about three times the
per-passenger subsidy per ride that MUNI riders get. In
other words, if subsidies were equalized, a MUNI fare would
be one-third of its current value, or BART fares would be
three times what they are now, and / or MUNI could provide
better service at their current fares. Put roads into the
picture, and all of these numbers become far more extreme.
> I personally think a
> downtown transit assessment district is the best idea, because the
> downtown-centric structure of Muni and BART gives huge locational
> advantages to downtown property owners and businesses.
All that this would do is further increase the advantages
for businesses to be located in the suburbs. This solves
none of the city's transit funding problems, although it
would be fairer for individual riders. But, only if their
jobs don't move the Pleasanton to take advantage of
Pleasanton's unfair transportation subsidies. In other
words, this strategy will only work to San Francisco's
benefit if it is implemented over the entire region.
> 3) Make some dramatic drop in the fare, i.e. to a merely nominal charge,
> say 50 cents. Making a dramatic price drop would have the maximum
> impact on public consciousness. A small fare decrease is not as likely
> to encourage a large increase in usage.
As pointed out by others, MUNI cannot tolerate an increase
in main line ridership without significant investment in
infrastructure and / or removal of traffic competition.
> If anything, the problem of gentrification is an argument for a reduced
> fare or no fare, to make it more affordable for people of modest means
> to live in S.F.
No, why give the gentry a subsidy? If we are going to
further subsidize MUNI ridership, those subsidies should be
targeted to those who need them. That is, the cost of my
Fast Pass should be closer to its real cost, while the poor
should get the _full_ benefit of any increase in subsidy.
Needless to say, this will only work if we also remove
subsidies to car use, e.g., start charging for roads and
stop providing parking subsidies.
> Maybe there needs to be some dedicated force of "transit
> guards" to ride the buses.
Maybe so, but recall that you have just given away all of
the money that might pay for improvements in the form of
free fares.
> If it is suggested that free transit would lead to people riding around
> all day on buses, I would ask: Why? What would be their motivation?
Because they are homeless and the bus is a sheltered place.
We do need to solve the homeless problem, but MUNI is not
the place to do it.
-- Donald
_________________________
Donald F. Robertson
San Francisco
donaldrf@hooked.net
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.