Author: admin

The SFMTA must tighten its belt to keep buses and streetcars running while adding new sources of financial support.  Here is SaveMUNI’s proposal for doing just that…..

SaveMUNI Plan to Meet SFMTA Funding Gap

Date: June 20, 2025

SaveMuni recognizes that the SFMTA faces serious financial issues in the coming years. But it must not cut transit service in response to budget shortfalls, Instead we propose a strategy of shared sacrifice to meet the challenges ahead.

We urge the SFMTA to analyze each of our recommendations for cutting expenses and raising revenue. By showing a serious commitment to closing its budget gap, voters are likely to be much more receptive to transit tax measures on the 2026 ballot.

# 1 – SFMTA must commit to focusing its entire resources onto providing transit services in an efficient manner.

ACTION – Cut the SFMTA budget by 12 % from non-Muni operations

Potential savings: $ 180 million.

HOW –

a) Increase efficiency through red lanes, better scheduling, transit preferential signals and signal timing

b) Eliminate positions for planners and project managers working on projects unlikely to be funded in the near term. Use outside consultants only when absolutely necessary.

c) Eliminate street improvement projects unless they improve Muni service or can be proven to improve safety.

d) Evaluate the cost saving opportunities from consolidating vehicle storage and maintenance facilities

e) Redesign paratransit to reduce costs, ensure consistently excellent service and improve customer satisfaction. Look for funding support from agencies that provide disability services.

f) Reduce or eliminate service on the Central Subway at least until the fiscal crisis has ended and hold contractors liable for defects

g) Negotiate agreements with other bus operators to pick up riders at San Francisco stops to augment Muni service at no additional cost to the SFMTA

h) Adopt a more aggressive stance to shifting capital funds to Muni operations

I) Consider the cost implications of switching lightly used routes to shuttles or to on-demand service.

j) Lower cost of living adjustments, especially for employees with salaries over $ 150,000

k) Look for other opportunities to eliminate positions not related to providing Muni service in accordance with a thorough outside management audit.

# 2 – SFMTA must look for additional revenue

ACTION – Increase revenue from fares, parking and other sources.

Potential revenue: $ 40 million

HOW _

a) Eliminate discounted fares for higher income seniors and school aged riders. Look for support for free fares for school kids from the San Francisco Unified School District.

b) Vigorously enforce fare collection and rider behavior standards on buses and trains and at stations and bus stops. Look for support for homeless riders from the Department of Homeless Services.

c) Increase ridership resulting in increased fare revenue

d) Increase parking revenue through better enforcement and marketing of the downtown facilities. Adopt a discounted monthly parking fee for the Sutter-Stockton garage and for other facilities where nearby residents can make use of empty spaces

e) Plan for substantial increases in fines from daylighting and red light camera citations.

f) Increase revenue from advertising on vehicles and concessions at stations and bus stops

g) Increase fees on developers when they receive benefits from projects that claim to be transit dependent.

h) Institute a license fees for scooters and electric bicycles to help pay for maintaining bike lanes and related infrastructure

I) Restart efforts to institute congestion fees to provide funds for transit and reduce traffic for

buses

j) Explore selling naming rights to SFMTA properties

# 3 – Tax new modes of transportation to support Muni service

ACTION – Tax Avs, TNCs and Shuttle buses.

Revenue potential: $ 30 million

HOW

a) Revive Proposition L which created an additional tax on Autonomous Vehicles (Avs) and Transportation Network Companies (TNCs)

b) Charge additional fees for shuttle buses that use Muni bus stops or neighborhood parking spaces

# 4 – Develop a public private partnership to help pay for Muni service

ACTION – Create a non-profit, funded by downtown and tourist businesses to support the cable cars and historic streetcars

Revenue potential: $25 million

# 5 – Negotiate more flexible labor practices

ACTION – Meet and confer with labor unions to affect mutually beneficial solutions

Savings potential: $ 25 million

a) Allow existing bus operators to work part time and provide part time work for new operators

b) Change work rules to foster more efficient operations throughout the SFMTA, with a focus on reducing overtime

c) Lower negotiated cost of living adjustments and benefits

# 6 – Longer term actions to reduce expenses

ACTION – Consolidate shared functions (such as purchasing, driver training, human relations, information technology) under a regional authority to reduce costs and stop duplication. Savings potential: Unknown

# 7 – Approval of a regional sales tax to support transit

ACTION – 50 % plus one vote by the voters of San Francisco, Alameda and Contra Costa counties in November 2026.

Revenue potential: $ 80 million plus

Microtransit updates from TriMet, SFMTA, LADOT   https://www.masstransitmag.com/alt-mobility/shared-mobility/article/55298117/microtransit-updates-from-trimet-sfmta-ladot?o_eid=7737B9233056H5R&rdx.ident

SFMTA:  Community Involvement Drives Bayview Shuttle Updates: New Hours and Service Zone

https://www.sfmta.com/blog/community-involvement-drives-bayview-shuttle-updates-new-hours-and-service-zone

SFCTA:  District 4 Community Shuttle Study:  https://www.sfcta.org/blogs/share-your-input-and-learn-more-district-4-community-shuttle-virtual-town-hall?utm_source=Transportation+Authority+Communications&utm_campaign=a57bb83fe6-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2025_06_17_05_46&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-a57bb83fe6-55566493

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *  

Howard Wong

IN THE NEWS:  Muni fiscal crisis may be delayed into 2027—if the Governor keeps the Legislature’s budget proposal, which includes a $750 million no-interest loan to Bay Area transit agencies.  With signature-gathering for an initiative measure, which requires 50%+1 to pass, the November 2026d election would include a Regional Transportation Funding Measure (sales tax for 10-15 years).  ALSO, microtransit is making great strides—great potential for paratransit and underserved areas. .  KQED:  California Lawmakers’ Plan Would Help Bay Area Transit Avoid Fiscal Disaster — for Now  https://www.kqed.org/news/12043556/california-lawmakers-plan-would-help-bay-area-transit-avoid-fiscal-disaster-for-now

Howard Wong

SaveMUNI

P.O. Box 330282 San Francisco CA 94133

March 1, 2025

Janet Tarlov, President and Members of the

SFMTA Board of Directors

Dear President Tarlov and Members of the Board,

In light of the financial crisis facing the SFMTA, SaveMUNI strongly opposes any further funding of the Bicycle and Rolling Plan, or of any project recommended under that plan. We urge the Board to reject its findings and start an investigation into whether the $ 1.72 million in funding was properly spent.

This project represents a clumsy attempt at social engineering. It certainly did not arise from any clamor from what they call Equity Priority Communities . In fact those five areas of the city depend on Muni for getting around and they desperately want better Muni service.

The Bicycling and Rolling Plan started with pre-conceived ideas and spent $ 1.72 million

to shove them down the throats of San Franciscans. Of that amount, $ 712 million came directly out of the SFMTA budget and another $ 250 million came from city sales tax funds.

This report should be embarrassing to its authors and shocking to anyone who takes the time to read it. Among its many flaws:

1) Numerous projects are recommended but there are no costs associated with any of the work.

2) Meetings were held in 10 Supervisoral districts. Each was stacked to reflect the concerns of an elite special interest group that was paid to organize outreach.

3) Statistics presented in the report are dubious at best. In the 445 page Appendix, those conducting surveys failed to reveal the questions that were asked or the method for selection of respondents, which are normally presented as part of a legitimate study.

4) Outreach avoided contact with established neighborhood groups. We saw the outrage from the Chinatown community when merchants found out about a proposed bike lane and demanded that the mayor intervene.

5) Never once was the number of bicyclists using a proposed project ever considered. Lines on a map seemed to be the only concern for the study authors.

6) Since the Bicycle and Rolling Plan had its conclusions made up in advance, the staff never asked relevant questions such as:

a) Would people favor bike lanes if they took away parking in their neighborhood ?

b) Would people favor bike lanes if they removed a lane of traffic from a street in their neighborhood ?

Page (2)

c) Is all biking and rolling the same ? What are the implications of using heavier, faster electric vehicles ?

d) Shouldn’t bicycle and rolling infrastructure be subject to the same criteria as road or transit infrastructure ?

e) Their own statistics show that bicycle use for commuting is down. Is overall bicycle use down ? And, if not, are the needs of recreational bicycle users different than those of commuters ?

In view of the grave flaws in this report, the Board ought to reject its findings and initiate an investigation into whether the $ 1.72 million was properly spent. By doing so, the Board could show a break with past policies and help to revive public support for future funding requests that will come before the voters.

Sincerely,

Bob Feinbaum

President, SaveMUNI