Comments on: Why we support the Elsbernd Amendment

By: Rescue Muni » Blog Archive » SF Weekly on “Muni’s Death Spiral”

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 16:07:11 +0000

[...] is the provision that the Elsbernd amendment (now at Fix Muni Now) attempts to [...]

By: Rescue Muni » Blog Archive » Elsbernd Amendment hits the streets; general meeting 4/27 to discuss it

Thu, 08 Apr 2010 16:57:31 +0000

[...] the wage floor for MTA operators and make some additional work rule changes is now on the streets. (Our board has voted to support it.) Supervisor Elsbernd was out at West Portal to collect signatures [...]

By: Muni Diaries » Blog Archive » Elsbernd collects signatures for Muni operator resolution

Thu, 08 Apr 2010 16:33:32 +0000

[...] see a lot of strong feelings about Muni operators here at Muni Diaries. Rescue Muni has come out for the amendment, while SF firefighters (via SF Appeal), for one, are against the [...]

By: Rescue Muni » Blog Archive » Governor signs gas tas bill, state aid likely to increase for SFMTA

Tue, 23 Mar 2010 15:25:21 +0000

[...] Policy « Why we support the Elsbernd Amendment [...]

By: Don

Don — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:01:42 +0000

Andrew Said â€œWeâ€™ve consistently voted to support keeping fares low in order to promote ridership.â€

There are two hypotheses: Low fares cause more riders. More riders cause better service. The fares have been kept low for 40 years but the percent of SF residents who use pubic transportation to get to work has declined. And I doubt more low-fare customers would create better service. Low fares may simply mean less money to improve service.

I am sure that the fare is a factor, but I suspect that fast, reliable, comfortable service would do more to increase ridership than low fares. My suggestion is to stop voting to keep fares low and focus on improving service to increase ridership.

By: Khalid

Khalid — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 19:54:15 +0000

I agree with david vartanoff- RM members have repeatedly suggested various low cost efficiency upgrades at muni; the most recent example being lots of time participating in TEP meetings.
ynamic re sequencing of outbound LRVs @ Embarcadero- happened for a while, the man passed away, someone new coming up to speed.
the unforgivable practice of inbound trains waiting with doors shut in subway stations. the failure to use signal priority on the South Embarcadero rail extension (MMX).
The 38 stop consolidation boondoggle…..

By: david vartanoff

david vartanoff — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:58:46 +0000

Undoing the mistake of the Charter wage giveaway is certainly a good move. As to fares, they are a VERY small part of the service ##, all raising them will do is discourage a few more discretionary trips. The real issues remain, workers actually showing up, enforcing transit first by forcing traffic to yield to Muni –West Portal, 4th & King as examples –, gutting the Stop signs on transit arterials, AND dynamic re sequencing of outbound LRVs @ Embarcadero. As RM has pointed out for years, there is much that can be done on the cheap, IF MGMT GAVE A DAMN. Mr Ford and most of his minions go through the motions and service still sucks. Muni spends months and years on elaborate plans rather than simple changes that can benefit riders immediately. The 38 local stop debacle wasted several employee-months of research to discover previously known data and then proposed changes requiring political approval rather than simply tweaking schedules which would have achieved more at less effort.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:36:01 +0000

We’ve consistently voted to support keeping fares low in order to promote ridership. In my opinion there is no inconsistency at all in supporting lower fares and ALSO supporting controlling costs.

By: Don

Don — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:37:09 +0000

It is interesting that Rescue Muni considered it necessary to provide a longwinded justification for taking a position that seems contrary to its customary politically progressive philosophy. That philosophy has not and will not Rescue Muni.

There is a possible inconsistency in what I just read. The singular focus should be to make Muni better. But what is in the interest of Muni riders? Rescue Muni has routinely seen that interest to keep the fares low. That focus has not and will not Rescue Muni.

Guaranteed driver high pay has not provided us with happy Muni drivers motivated to provide good service. Something else is wrong. Management does need tools to manage. This proposal will remove one excuse they have not to manage.

By the way, it is in the financial self interest of downtown interests, employers, merchants, and even automobile drivers to have a good Muni. The problem is no one wants to pay for it.

Finally, is it just me or does Elsbernd remind anyone else of Phil Burton?