April 25, 2007
Mr. Ford Assesses
It's kind of entertaining sometimes to have two daily newspapers around covering the same beat because you often get differing accounts of the same story. Like today. In a story about Nathaniel Ford's comments about the State of Muni after the recent debacle, the Chron paints a rosy picture of Ford's assessment. The Examiner-- not so much.
So let's start with the story in the Chron, the main gist of which is "happy days are here again." Or, as they call it "Transit chief upbeat on Muni." The story is basically about how Ford says they've figured out all the problems and bugs involved with the launching of the T-Third and how he thinks they're getting more and more of a handle on it. The story then gives a laundry list of improvements he's been implementing to make Muni better, like paying out overtime to make sure there are drivers around or having supervisors at various stations overseeing things. The story, however, briefly glosses over Ford's detailed description of "institutional" problems with Muni and kind of glosses over interviews with riders complaining about the current crappiness of the system.
So let's go to the Examiner's story, which wasn't so rosy. Or, as they put it: "Muni issues are ‘institutional’". No, that doesn't sound that dreary, but whenever you hear somebody say "institutional" it's always kind of a shrug of the shoulders and acknowledgement that the problems are deep and wide (that's what she said). The story barely mentions improvements to the T-Third line but mainly deals with all the problems Muni faces, things like not enough staff or aging equipment and their being too much radio traffic to hear what's going on. We would go through the whole list of things, but you know them already.
Now the point of the post isn't to compare the two stories, although we find it hilarious, but more like to say it's hard for us to judge what Ford actually said as we got two accounts of it. So, in other words, we leave it up to you to figure out what's what.
|
From the Examiner article:
There are, however, 240 drivers also out on long-term leave and a large number of other absent drivers each weekday, officials said. According to the MTA, 16.5 percent of drivers are absent each weekday.
16.5%!!!
My favorite part of the Examiner story:
According to the MTA, 16.5 percent of drivers are absent each weekday.
Damn! Time for a new union contract. Go Peskin go.
I'm kinda glad the Chron was charitable to poor Ford, who inherited a flawed institution nearing the end of an idiotic capital project, and who has had to try to put the best possible spin on a debacle. He seems to have pulled out most of the stops last week (though still no signalling priority) and it's at least helped a bit. But the Ex found the right lede.
Hey, if there are any TEP people here - maybe less absent drivers would make a bigger difference to Muni than the Geary bus corridor?
I hope the Central Subway idea is nixed sooner rather than later.
Fewer absent drivers would help. Actually a rapid bus system like Geary would help MORE, because it would allow the same service to be provided with fewer drivers, thus reducing the impact of absenteeism.
adding the preceding comment: not only would bus rapid transit allow the same service to be provided with fewer drivers, it would also (in theory) be more efficient than rail. The local bus can make a stop while the express whizzes by.
There. T-h-e-r-e.
Third graf, second-to-last sentence: "their being too much radio traffic."
I will now remove my cranky pants.
It amazes me that car-friendly Santa Clara County gives signal priority to its light rail lines, but supposedly transit-first San Francisco won't do the same for its new line.
The VTA light rail is usually on schedule or very close because it doesn't have to wait at signals on First St. and Tasman. People write to Mr. Roadshow in the Mercury News complaining about it (there is definitely room for improving the way the signals reset after the train passes through).
We have now seen first hand what happens to transit lines when they are not given signaling priority.
San Jose has more space between stops
SF does give transit priority on Third Street. The problem is the bottleneck at Fourth and King and parts of the Embarcadero.
And yes, SF should IMMEDIATELY give Muni priority at all those intersections!
16.5% daily absenteeism is HIGH!!! Maybe the Union reps could be asked for a comment about why this is acceptable? All the drivers willingly applyed for & accepted a job with Muni, but they don't seem to like to actually GO to work... perhaps because their union protects them so nicely?
Wow!
Great somebody else said too, referencing the T-Line..."idiotic capital project". What a boondoggle, what an absolute waste.
maybe they could save the money (and headache) needed to build the geary rapid transit system and improve on-time and speed by not stopping every other block.
or maybe they could save money by not having the 1 california, 2 clement, 38 geary, 31 balboa and 5 fulton all performing the exact same function. if you're keeping score, that's five east west bus lines in an area with only seven east west streets.
you never need to walk more than a block in any direction to get a bus in the richmond. that was real convenient when i lived out there, but a total waste of money.
The last guy said ,"or maybe they could save money by not having the 1 california, 2 clement, 38 geary, 31 balboa and 5 fulton all performing the exact same function."
---------
ARE YOU INSANE??? You want to eliminate the most popular routes on MUNI? What would all the passengers do that regularly cram onto these buses each day? Have you ever been on any of these buses? Both the 1 and the 38 routinely run back to back buses packed beyond capacity.
We need more bus service and BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) service, not less. Eliminating any of these bus lines is the absolute stupidest Muni idea i've ever heard.
You think these bus lines are a waste of money? Try imagining the amount of money wasted when 100,000+ bus passengers on these lines are forced to drive cars causing total gridlock.
What the city needs is BRT. It needs to start taking serious steps to make this a transit-first city, like closing streets and turning them into busways for BRT. We need to speed up our buses and give them total right-of-ways at every intersection.
Chinatown is a good example of how people in their personal cars ruin it for everyone else. Tens of thousands of bus passengers in Chinatown are delayed each hour every day because a few hundred cars are circling around looking for non-existent parking. This makes no sense. In order to move the most number of people the fastest, we have to give priority to mass transit.
-Ziggy Tomcich