DPT officers get a bad rap. Everyone seems to despise them, yet they are a crucial element necessary to help all of us to effectively share our City streets.

Here are a few of the ways they make our lives better:

• Parking meter enforcement: You think it’s hard enough to find parking now? Without meter enforcement you would never be able find a place to park in the City’s high demand commercial corridors.
• Neighborhood permit enforcement: If you work out of town, where do you park your car after work? In your neighborhood. Without neighborhood permitting you would never find a space. Enforcement is key.
• Transit revenue: Have you ever taken a bus in the City? A great deal of revenue for our public transit system comes from DPT parking fines. This is good.
• Curbed wheels: It’s not just a joke to squeeze money from you, parked cars without curbed wheels can and do injure people.
• Sidewalk blocking: Nobody wants to live in a city where anyone can park their car anywhere they please. Blocking sidewalks is rude to most pedestrians and a major challenge for the mobility impaired.

Frankly, most complaints about DPT tickets include silly disclaimers, such as, “I just double parked for just a second… I didn’t feed the meter, but I was just going in for a coffee… I know there was street cleaning, but…” We receive significantly below market cost parking on our City streets. The least people can do is follow simple rules to share our limited parking resources.

So, dear reader, please shake the hand of the next DPT officer you see and say, “Thank you.”

• I picked up a woman downtown who was heading out toward one of the hospitals in the outer neighborhoods. She was in her 30s with a spunky, outgoing nature.

  We talked about work and the healthcare system. She mentioned she was on disability. A few minutes later she revealed she had been diagnosed with breast cancer. She was in the late stages of treatment and everything was looking good. Her spirits were understandably high.

  She worked in an industry where she could have easily parted ways from a formal employment situation to become an independent contractor and would have made a great deal more money.

  Before her diagnosis she had planned on doing just that: starting her own consultancy, working 60 hour weeks, hiring a few others, making gobs of cash.

  After her ordeal she views things differently. She enjoyed the stability and flexibility offered to her by a formal employment agreement. She enjoyed the low pressure 40hrs/week work life. She enjoys going to work, working, and leaving work at work before coming home.

  I enjoyed her perspective.

• I picked up a lady from a housing center in the Western Addition. She was heading toward a hospital in one of the neighborhoods. Her husband was in the ICU. The doctors told her he was brain dead, but she was adamantly convinced this was not the case. A few days back she went to see him and said he raised his hand to her presence and in response to prayer.

  What brought him to the hospital in the first place? This was not clear.

  The best I could gather was that he entered the ER bleeding profusely from a gunshot, knife wound, or some sort of other violent altercation. He either assaulted the ER staff outright or did not cooperate and was sedated. She was under the impression that the staff had over-sedated him which caused his current comatose state.

  I had no idea what to take away from all her fervently shared data, but the one indisputable fact was this poor lady was not in a very happy state. I expressed my condolences and wished her the best as we arrived.

• I picked up a younger woman in the Mission around 5 or 6am Sunday morning. Given the chilly morning breeze, her clothing was nowhere near sufficient and her lady parts were prominently displayed. I took her to meet a man waiting in his car in the heart of the Bayview.
• Weekday mornings I hunt for street hails and radio fares around my home in Nob Hill in addition to Russian Hill, Pac Heights and the Marina. On one such lap I was cruising on Hyde street and saw two young SFPD officers standing smack dab on the double yellow lines at Jackson.

  A subsequent lap or two later they were still there. I pulled up and pleasantly said, “Hey what’s up? Are you guys looking for something?”

  Keep in mind the social dynamics: I am the same age, gender and race as the officers. So, the important variable under study here is profession to profession relations.

  They both had slicked back hair. One sported name brand sunglasses molded of plastic. The sun shaded officer caustically responded, “We’re looking for traffic violations. Sir, you have a green light.” Nobody was behind me. No other moving cars were, in fact, anywhere near this intersection. Their police vehicle was parked in front of a fire hydrant.

  Wow! What hostility! I was floored. What caused this profoundly negative reaction?

  This isn’t the first time I had such negative interactions with a San Francisco police officer. A few months back I was answering a radio call on the other side of Nob Hill. A police vehicle was behind me as I approached my destination block. I turned on my hazard signals. At this point any City driver instantly knows to pass a cab as it slows to a stop. Instead, this officer stops a foot behind me and starts honking his horn. Yes, he stopped to honk his horn. A few seconds later he passes me and yells, “What’s your problem? You gotta take up the whole road?”

  Oh wait, there’s more. A long while back I picked up a bunch of Canadian guys from a downtown hotel in a vancab. They were going to a 49ers game at Monster Park. After waiting in ridiculous traffic for a half hour, we finally approached the stadium and I asked traffic officers where I should drop the passengers. They directed me forward. When we came to what appeared to be an entrance suitable for my passengers’ needs I stopped, they paid, and I let them out.

  Two officers walked up to me and one started to write me a ticket. Woah there nelly, I said, “What’s going on, officers?” They said, “You’re not allowed to drop here. You’re a dangerous traffic hazard.” This statement was obviously false. I had pulled into a parking spot out of the flow of traffic. I continued with a clear explanation of the process by which I arrived here. “I was directed here by a traffic control officer.”

  “Can’t be. You’re not supposed to drop here.”

  Thank god for my friendly Canadian passengers. The group of six lobbied strong for my safe release, corroborating the tale of a traffic officer gone wrong.

  Wow. There are some major issues here.

  A number of reactions come to mind.

  • Look, I realize that being a cop is often a thankless job. But, come on, so is being a cab driver. Why is there such a prevalent attitude that we’re on different teams, playing against each other?

    Our jobs are very similar. We both cruise the streets for hours on end, judging each and every pedestrian. Yes, our end-goals are different — cab drivers judge pedestrians for likeliness to need a cab, while police officers judge pedestrians for likeliness to be a public nuisance. Regardless, our core activity is similar. At wee hours of the morning there are pretty much only these vehicles on the street: cabs, police cars, trash trucks, and newspaper delivery vehicles.

    Cabbies and police officers serve very complementary tasks.

  • A fleet of taxi vehicles driven by professional drivers roaming your streets 24/7 can provide a significant crime deterrent for your city.

    Most streets would see very little, if any, vehicular traffic in the middle of the night if it were not for cabs crawling for fares. Haight, Polk, O’Farrell, Geary, even Mission. What an amazing crime deterrent cabs are! They are equipped with drivers constantly scanning the streets, with cell phones and cab radios, many have zone-based GPS tracking, all have in-car security cameras.

    Sure, a cabbie isn’t about to get out of his car to break up a fight, but most if not all would be willing to serve their fellow citizens and testify as a witness to a murder.

  • If the City’s mission were to deter crime, they would view cab drivers as an essential component of a crime control strategy.

    Unfortunately, crime prevention is handled by a traditional bureaucratic unit (SFPD), and like all other non-profit bureaucratic units, it serves to forward its own existence.

    How does a bureaucratic unit do this? It silos its function such that only that bureaucratic unit can provide that function. Often this siloing isn’t a real silo (for comparison, water delivery IS a real silo) but is instead gained through evolution of policy and resource control, eventually giving this bureaucratic unit an effective monopoly of this function.

    In no way whatsoever would it be in the interest of the SFPD bureaucratic unit to explore (or even acknowledge the presence of existing) crime prevention duty sharing as this could reduce potential funding to that bureaucratic unit.

    This isn’t a knock on SFPD; this is a knock on non-profit bureaucratic units, of which SFPD is one of a large and esteemed lineage. Muni comes to mind too.

  • Let’s put aside the inherent flaws of non-profit bureaucratic units and attack this from a different angle.

    In my days of higher education student affairs life as a Resident Advisor for the dorms of Indiana University, I experienced an environment that was open and often very emotionally real. (I shall point out that although the IU dorm system was a non-profit bureaucratic unit, it was part of a larger non-profit bureaucratic unit that had profit and loss responsibility — it had to pay for itself.)

    In this HESA environment RAs and residents would talk about real issues they had with each other, their Graduate Supervisors or even full-time staff and even high level managers within the bureaucratic unit. Things were vetted. Issues were addressed. Emotional and real (mission-based) progress occurred.

    Why then, in the ‘real life’ game of taxi and police officers are these issues not addressed? This is silly. It affects everyone from the officers, to the taxi drivers, to the residents of our City. Unlike RA life which lasts at most a year, these issues persist year after year.

    Maybe we could arrange some sort of work exchange program. They can try being a cab driver for a week, and we’ll be cops for a week. (We won’t get guns, but we can write them tickets.)

• I picked up a “cigarette and candy girl” from a club one morning and took her to her home in the outer Richmond.

  We had a great conversation. She was from the Czech Republic. We talked a lot about the changing Czech identity as they joined the EU. I shared my stories of drinking with Czech women in Scotland who could drink us under the table any day of the week. We shared tales of showing up to banks in the City with fistfuls of cash to deposit in our accounts in order to cut rent checks. What must the tellers think we do? I shared my tale of paying for a dentist visit in $150 cash.

  The City has some neat folks.

• I picked up a guy from the Castro on a weekday morning and took him to work near Pac Heights. It turned out he was a former limo driver in the City but was still involved heavily in the business. We talked a lot about the gas prices, taxi gate fee increase, and impending doom coming this winter.

  I learned some useful things: he claimed limo/black cab drivers aim to make about the same as cab drivers. In fact, he said most driving jobs in the City approach $150 for 10-hour shifts.

  As gas prices continue to rise, this cost will be squeezed at all levels, from the owners, drivers and end-users.

• I picked up another limo driver the next morning. He had run out of gas. He was a character. We drove to his girlfriend’s Academy of Art dorm to pick up some cash, headed to a gas station to buy a canister and some fuel, and then back to his limo.

  He said that with my City knowledge I would be able to make a bunch more money driving a limo than a cab.

  “How would I get fares?” I naively asked.

  “Oh, you know, the same way you do now. You know way ahead of time if someone will hail.” (This is true.) “You just approach them and make a deal.” Okay, wow. “Of course, the best part is that you don’t have to pay gate anymore.”

  Hmm. I think I’ll stick with paying extra for a legal cab. But, thanks for the info.

• My therapist really likes my job. Not that she wants to do it, but she likes it for me.

  She’s really intrigued by the role I play in other people’s lives. (As am I.) Do I serve as a form of therapy for others? Often, yes. Often, no.

  If people really need someone to talk to, they make that very clear, and I am there. We talk. I do an okay job pulling out their fears, sadness, anger, excitement, joy, or whatever may be lurking underneath the surface. I like that. It’s very real.

• I consistently make the erroneous assumption that all other cab drivers are ‘lifers’, having always been and always will be a cab driver.

  Of course, this is not true. This is most clearly brought to my attention when I pick up or drop off other cab drivers from my company heading to or from work. It is fun to see who they are, why they drive a cab, and what they do with their non-cab driving time.

  Our City is blessed to have such a dynamic and diverse taxi workforce.

• While driving Tuesday morning, I heard a great segment on KQED’s forum about Buddhism. The whole thing is worth a listen; the first 15-20 minutes are the most juicy.

  My takeaway: it is important to feel and recognize your emotions, but not let them control you. Use the energy toward a productive output.

  This is clearly represented with my cab driving. From poorly timed red lights, to grumpy customers, angry cops, dangerous drivers, low earnings, graveyard shifts, poor tippers, and crazy coworkers stealing orders, I can create an endless list of potential negative influences to bring me down, angry and frustrated. The only thing I can really control is myself and my reaction to these influences.

  Lest you be worried, most of the time the positives significantly outweigh the negatives. Life is good.

I am so fond of ragging on San Francisco’s poorly managed Municipal Railway that I often overlook Muni’s remarkable, world-class achievements. (Yes, they really do have some remarkable, world-class achievements.) This post is a first attempt at fixing my glaring oversight.

Muni’s extensive trolleybus system is a modern treasure. Muni claims to hold the largest trolley-bus fleet in the US and Canada. Trolleybusses are efficient, consume little fuel, recharge via regenerative braking, require little maintenance, are quiet, and produce zero localized pollution.

• Electric motors are more efficient than diesel motors, especially climbing steep grades.
• Trolleybusses offer ZERO local emissions. Diesel fuel engines on the other hand, the most common local locomotive for municipal transit busses nationwide, produce a fine particulate matter byproduct that may be a health risk.
• Trolleybusses are not tied to any particular energy generation source. The local transit agency can purchase power from private generators, government-owned generators, create their own local power plant, use solely green power, etc.
  • San Francisco Muni’s trolley busses are powered exclusively by the City controlled Hetch Hetchy Reservoir O’Shaughnessy Dam. (Source)

Keep up the good work, Muni. Maybe the 38-Geary, the highest ridership bus line east of the Mississippi, can convert to a trolleybus when it hatches from its BRT cocoon.

Links

• Trolleybus Wikipedia entry
• SFMTA/Muni trolleybus information page
• This crazy electric bus page has more than you could ever want to know about electric busses.
• Check out this YouTube video of Chinese super-capacitor bus that charges at each stop instead of requiring trolley power lines all along route.

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) is a bureaucratic whale, containing, in separate stomachs, the Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) and the San Francisco Municipal Railway (Muni) public transit system.

Recently, the SFMTA crunched some numbers and said, “Uh oh, we won’t have enough money to cover our costs over the next two years.” Fair enough. Next step, “We need more money.”

Ideas? The Examiner and the Chronicle report the SFMTA has publicly discussed two classes of options: increasing transit fees and increasing parking fees.

Are these ideas justified? Most definitely yes — these fee increases are justified and necessary.

But, I believe the SFMTA needs to increase some fees significantly MORE than has been suggested. If we’re smart and look at the dirty details (below) we can find some fees that we can significantly increase. This has a multiple benefits — controlling traffic congestion, reducing total personal vehicle miles driven and rationing limited road real estate while ALSO generating significant revenue for the cash-strapped SFMTA. Win, win, win?

• Increasing transit fees: Monthly Fast Pass (unlimited bus pass) cards cost $45 per month and are priced below market. $1.50 each way to work plus 2 weekend trips per day makes a frequent Muni rider pay $90 per month if they pay per trip. The SFMTA’s analysis of neighboring communities’ monthly pass prices is wise and on par. An increase to $60 per month is more than reasonable given the value offered by the pass. At $60, the Fast Pass is still a bargain for regular transit users.
• Increasing parking fees:
  • Parking meters are priced at $.25/10 minutes = $1.25/hour = $12.50/day. This is below market value compared to garages. This could be increased.

    Idea: Why is Sunday meter collection or extended metered hours not discussed? Meters are not collected on Sundays. Meters are not collected after 6pm. Not only is this lost revenue but it causes inconvenience for City residents struggling to find spaces in highly trafficked commercial corridors at peak times. (This is the reason we have meters in the first place — to ration limited spaces. These spaces are still in high demand after 6pm and on Sundays in many metered commercial corridors. Just look at the Mission on Sunday afternoons; it’s a zoo.)

    Idea: Why aren’t meters priced based on demand? If meters had variable pricing, the City could collect significantly more revenue on Friday and Saturday nights, in addition to busy Saturday and Sunday shopping times on commercial corridors. This is a significant revenue opportunity lost that also serves City residents and visitors who are more than willing to pay market price for convenient parking.

  • Yearly residential permits are priced at $60/year = $5/month. Residential City parking permits are SEVERELY undervalued and could easily be doubled without approaching the true market cost of parking. Yearly residential permits should be priced $120/year immediately, with a yearly increase after that.

    At $120/year this is still an amazing bargain: I can park in my neighborhood ALL YEAR LONG for only $120? Remember, monthly private spaces cost as much as $250 per MONTH.

    People may complain, but even at $120/year this would result in no fewer permits purchased. Not until we pass $200/year will quantity demanded of yearly permits even begin to see a dent. Assuming about half of SF has a residential parking permit, just doubling this permit results in about $30 million incremental revenue per year.

• Congestion fees: Why is this not discussed as a revenue source? (Answer: The City can’t implement fast enough to be included as a revenue source for this 2-year projected shortfall.)

  Let’s change this. The City should implement congestion pricing within the next year.

  Variable City congestion pricing serves double duty as a significant revenue generator for the SFMTA AND as a traffic and transit speed increaser. It increases the speed of its public surface street-shared transit system and increases the convenience and utility of currently congested streets for frequent City street ‘power-users’ like delivery vehicles, taxis and persons with an absolute need for personal vehicle use.

So, SFMTA, go along with your plan, but let’s instead double yearly residential parking permits and let’s introduce congestion pricing immediately.

A week ago the Chronicle reported on some promising preliminary recommendations based on findings from the Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP).

These recommendations are great. In many ways they are in line with common sense: improve highly used lines using BRT, ditch under-used lines.

Aside from the frustrating fact that it took Muni 40 years to figure this out, let’s focus on the positive: at least someone realizes what to do next.

But, I have a hard time being excited about these proposals. I cannot hide my fear that Muni is barely capable of managing its own operations, let alone managing a system-wide overhaul. They just can’t do things right.

This is an agency that claims multiple times in press releases and at public information events that they can’t seem to hire enough bus drivers. Yet, they don’t post bus operators as an available job on their website. (I would know too — I’ve looked many times, pushed by a perverse desire to drive a bus in the City.)

This is an agency that spent nearly a billion dollars to replace a bus line (the 15) with a light rail system (T-Third) that offered barely any noticeable improvement in service quality, or, by many accounts, a decrease in service quality.

This is an agency that has virtually zero accountability over its ground-level workforce due to extremely onerous union negotiated contracts. They can’t even immediately fire operators after they’ve killed innocent pedestrians.

This is an agency that, to operate most efficiently and implement changes suggested by the TEP, needs absolute access priority over roadway design and right-of-way for its transit vehicles. So far, no evidence has been shown that Muni’s merger with DPT has provided this level of absolute priority. Nor have the actions of the Mayor nor the Board of Supervisors shown that they have the interest or even the ability to offer such priority for our dear Municipal Railway.

So, rock on TEP. Just don’t write checks you can’t cash.

Link

Wow, it looks like Nat Ford might actually know how to run a municipal transit agency.

Let’s hope the Board of Supervisors gets off his back and lets him do it right.

Link

Dear Mayor Newsom

You didn’t have to spend City taxpayer money on private consultants. Anyone could have told you: Just like any other shared and limited public resource, public transit needs user fees.

Offering ‘free’ Muni is a destructive proposal. Muni rolling stock is not unlimited. Removing user fees distorts a natural and effective form of limiting the number of people that use Muni resources.

Muni needs to increase its quality of service. Removing user fees would decrease the quality of service. It would result in more crowded buses, leading to lower frequency and lower average system speeds.

Here’s the real Muni solution: increase quality (frequency, speed, reliability, cleanliness) on critical lines such as 38-Geary, N-Judah, or 14-Mission. Enforce real transit-only lanes that enable high speeds with true signal pre-emption. Prepare Muni to operate faster than a personal vehicle for trips on these ‘primary’ lines. Then, the City can increase user fees to $2 or even $2.50 for these primary lines.

Our residents don’t want free Muni. City residents are more than willing to pay for an effective transit system. It’s up to the City to provide an effective transit system and price it properly, not make a crappy transit system free.

Don’t get me wrong — I’m happy you’ve figured this out by now. It’s just silly that this advice cost tax payers $20,000+. I would have been glad to provide this advice for a bit less. Let’s say $10,000.

Let’s look on the bright side. At least you’re open to new ideas. Just talk to me next time and I’ll charge you half the rate of the consultants, and I’ll give you better ideas faster.

kfarr

Just one day before, Muni Executive Director Nat Ford expressed his desire at MTA’s January 15th meeting to address the dire pedestrian problems facing Muni.

In conjunction with Local 250A we are implementing a proactive comprehensive safety educational program regarding our pedestrians and pedestrian safety throughout the City. We will leverage a host of communication outlets and we are developing specific details that will be finalized in the near future and I’ll keep you apprised as they evolve.

One of the activities which we need to have you place on your calendar is a first ever pedestrian safety summit that will be held Thursday, February 28. We are attempting to provide a forum for stakeholders, members of the community, and industry experts to examine and discuss the status of, one, our pedestrian masterplan, pedestrian safety, and recent safety incidents in and around the City as well as other programs promoting walkability in the City. So we’d like for you to please save that date and additional information on all of our programs to enhance pedestrian safety will be underway.

We have a host of capital projects to improve pedestrian signals, countdown signals that are being installed and enhanced. We have operator training that is occurring with both our bus and LRV operators, and we are coordinating all of these activities with the SFPD and there is more to come so I’ll keep you advised as that program progresses.

Municipal Transportation Agency Meeting, January 15, 2008 [21m:33s]
(Agenda) (Video) (Audio RSS)

Nat Ford is taking a step in the right direction. But, let’s hope these planned meetings will have some teeth. What is teeth?

Teeth would be changing Muni employment contracts so that there is an immediate, financial repercussion for operators involved in pedestrian injury or deaths. For example, a one-week UNPAID leave during an investigation of fault.

Teeth would be creating true transit-only lanes on our City streets so our City transit no longer has to weave in and out of pedestrian and personal vehicle traffic. Bus lanes don’t work. Grade separated lanes with curb boundaries and rumble strips, those used for true BRT implementation, DO work. Transit, pedestrian and vehicle traffic do not mix well. We need to separate them as much as possible.

Mr. Ford is taking a step in the right direction. Keep going.

UPDATE: The N-Judah Chronicles blog has good coverage and discussion as usual.

Kudos to Muni for trying to address one of the two main causes of Muni’s notoriously low system-wide average speed: DWELL. (Dwell is a geek transit term for the time for loading and unloading of passengers.) The other cause? Busses receive lowest priority for signal timing and lane placement.

Muni’s dwell time is excessively high — higher than any transit system I ever saw outside of the US. There are a few causes of Muni’s horrid dwell:

• Non-level boarding: elderly or disabled passengers have difficulty navigating the high stairwells found in the majority of Muni’s rolling stock. We’ve all watched the old guy with a cane taking 30 seconds to walk up the stairs. Muni’s new hybrid busses feature a nice low floor. Not quite level, like a subway system, but it is a good start.
• Post board payment: queues always develop for passengers waiting to insert money into the machine.
• Excessive stops: Muni has about twice as many bus stops as necessary. This significantly increases dwell. I laugh every time when the 1-California stops TWICE on Sacramento between Polk and Van Ness. Ridiculous.

Allowing rear boarding is an excellent step forward. The article wasn’t clear about the specifics, but I assume this will allow FastPass and Muni transfer holders to board in the rear, while customers that need to pay for a transfer will still enter in front. Muni inspectors will enforce the requirement to have a proof of payment at random.

Keep up the good work, Muni. You too, Examiner. The Chronicle seems to forget that issues affecting our daily lives are the most important to report.

Link

KQED’s amazing community affairs program “Forum” featured Muni Chief Nat Ford Thursday. Michael Krasny asks some hard questions but didn’t always get great answers.

Some observations:

• Mr. Ford seems to have a good grasp of Muni operations but presents no vision for improvement of the system. His ‘back to basics’ rhetoric seems like a cop out. Of course we need to have basic services, but where is the vision? Where is strategic leadership for one of the oldest and most used transit systems in the United States?
• I was impressed by Mr. Ford’s frank understanding of Muni’s frustrating labor union agreements. He spoke eloquently and politely about labor issues, but seemed to present an underlying feeling that these labor agreements are roadblock to true Muni progress.
• I was also impressed by Mr. Ford’s support of the Geary/Van Ness BRT lines. But, again, the real issue with BRT is Muni’s inability to implement, not whether or not they are necessary. I would like to have heard Mr. Krasny take Mr. Ford to task on why the T-Third was/is such a disaster and what Muni’s doing to prevent another implementation disaster with the BRT lines.
• Mr. Ford was grilled a few times by callers and Mr. Krasny for his salary increase. It was a little heavy on the criticism. Face it: high level, CEO-like positions such as this need adequate compensation. The issue shouldn’t necessarily be with the amount but the lack of ties to performance. That’s just bad oversight by the City.
• It was particularly amusing that Mr. Krasny announced that Muni is always a contentious issue that brings a massive amount of callers and email to the program. I’ll admit, as I was listening in my cab I tried calling for about 10 minutes but was never able to get through.

Link to Program Page (Direct MP3 Link) (Podcast Link)