This Could Be Our Skyline, In a Couple of Decades
-thumb-110x110-460161.jpg)
Cops Get Tough With UC Berkeley Protesters
Photo du Jour 512
Truffle Season, It Is Here
SFist Tonight
Photo by Thomas Hawk on Flickr
In related news, BART announced the success of a pilot program in which passengers could pay fares just by passing their cellphone through the turnstile, Fastrak-style. The test run included 240 passengers who tried the technology during a four-month period last year, and it brings the thirty-five-year-old transit system one step closer to going paperless, and one giant leap into the 21st Century.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Muni got kicked in the balls!
As for BART, they are totally stupid for letting people use cell phones for accessing BART gates. And they publicly said that Translink will be coming within the next MONTH. So what the f- is the point? Just some ooohs and ahhs for a wasteful cell phone RFID program.
I just posted this on my blog:
http://www.akit.org/2009/05/paying-bart-with-cell-phone-translink.html
I like David Chiu more every day.
Ditto, glad I voted for him!
And what the hell do those agents who sit in the boxes at the underground stations do other than check transfers and read the newspaper? At least they could give them a roll of quarters and let them make change. Or maybe even sell Fast Passes.
Fare inspectors shouldn't have to earn their salary in fines. How much did Muni make in fares from people who decided to pay after seeing fare inspectors around a time or two?
You're right, the logic doesn't pan out. First of all, we don't know what that $700k figure represents. Is it gross or net? And net means those that actually paid, or didn't win an appeal, and produced an income. So until that's clarified, it's a fake number.
At any rate, the income can't compare to the salaries in any logical fashion. Sure, they only make back a small percentage of their salary actually writing tickets, but how much income are they generating just by being a deterrent?
I agree and disagree. Although fare inspectors should not have to pay their own salaries through citations, I do think that we could do without a few of them to get the desired effect--fear that one might be inspected at any given time, and that this should cause one to purchase a ticket. However, we have too many fare inspectors as it is. I've been checked multiple times on the same line in the same day (while on the train AND at the muni station exit). Furthermore, they are uniformed, so any idiot who is about to hop on MUNI and sees a uniform, hops right off again. That's not how an efficient fare inspection system works. Go to Berlin and ride the S-bahn. That's efficiency. Plain-clothes fare inspectors, usually just 4 of them, randomly boarding various trains, and in the middle of the route, they show their badges and inspect everyone's ticket. I guarantee Berlin, a much larger city than San Francisco, doesn't need to employ as many of them per capita as we do.
We do not need to be spending this much money on fare inspection if we are only trying to achieve the effect of striking fear into people. However, if we are trying to get every single fare evader using fare inspectors, then the benefits are definitely outweighed by the costs. And that is what we are doing.
Do the Math: Muni fare inspectors would probably make about $350,000 per year (including benefits), the fine is $50, assuming the inspector worked 50 days during a year, they would need to write 140 tickets each day for the program to pay for itself. No way I could do that job.
@wsanders: Sadly, given the efficiency with which Muni operates, your math is probably correct. I think we should just privatize the operation. Maybe bring Blackwater in or something and see if they don't do a better job.
The point of the ticket enforcement officers is not to generate revenue directly, but to minimize fare-evasion generally, especially as the city moves to a POP system. Just totalling how much they cost vs. how much they bring in via fares is not a legitimate comparison.
I'm not saying that the fare enforcemnt officers are or are not costing more than they are worth, but the data presented is not meaningful.
There's nothing special about the card part of translink/ezpass. They could just as easily stick a chip on your phone or embed it in the palm of your hand; one less thing to carry around.
The way I read it, as long as the fare readers are on the left, Muni is not going to lead the world to hell.
Rejecting fare inspection is just moronic. The value of fare inspection is faster boarding via proof of payment, not the fines.
Be_Devine is right about the station agents, though. In NYC they took them out of the booths.
Maybe NYC has more reliable entry/exit equipment.
The gates of hell have more reliable entry/exit equipment.
Entry yes, exit no.
Removing station agents was not well-received by New Yorkers, at least the ones in my family and my friends, who worry more than we do (with reason) about crime in the subways. More reliable equipment? I ride Muni trains maybe once a month, so I'm no expert, but it seems both systems' entry-exit equipment work fine.
The point of the ticket enforcement officers is not to generate revenue directly, but to minimize fare-evasion generally, especially as the city moves to a POP system. Just totalling how much they cost vs. how much they bring in via fares is not a legitimate comparison.
I'm not saying that the fare enforcemnt officers are or are not costing more than they are worth, but the data presented is not meaningful.
I'd like to see the ticket enforcement officers more often on Van Ness, Mission, and Geary buses rather than on the train going downtown in 8:30 in the morning.
I wonder if David Chiu has ever ridden Muni before.
I have seen him on both the 20 and the 30. Granted, this was during campaign season, but still. I get the sense that he walks the walk more than most supervisors.
David Chiu is one of the very few public officials to be car free. That's right, he doesn't own a car. He rides MUNI, uses car-sharing or cabs and occasionally bikes. He does indeed walk the walk and I'm grateful that him and the other supes are taking an interest in this MUNI mess.
Well, consider me an idiot, and my apologies to Supe Chiu.
But if he doesn't have a problem with fare evaders cheating the system daily, then why should I bother paying my fare? Why should any of us?
I can't believe (either because I'm either stupid or close-minded, or both) that there is not a way to make these cheapskate fucks either pay up or walk.
Three questions...no Google or other search engines allowed on #1:
1) How much is the fine for fare evasion?
2) Have you ever seen a fare inspector on a bus?
3) If so, have they ever asked to see your pass/transfer?
I can tell you my answers are no clue, no, and not applicable.
1. I have no idea.
2. On a bus? Yes. On a train? Yes. In a station? Almost every day.
3. Yes, at least 2-3 times a week.
We must not ride the same lines.
31, 21, 5, 38, 24, and 43. Never seen one. Don't even know what they look like. Imagining brown and luminous orange color scheme(Oompa Loompa-like).
1. $100?
2. Once or twice, but they were chatting with the driver, not checking transfers. Probably on their way to/from work or something.
3. No.
Why should they be on the buses? They catch more fish on trains (and at stations).
Last time I checked, the fine was $75 first time, $150 second time, $200 third time.
A LOT of fare evaders (mainly kids) board via the back door without paying. On many of the lines you describe they could write millions in annual tickets. Of course the kids won't pay, and there will be no consequences, but at least tickets will be written.
Not necessarily to collect fines, but to put the fear of fines into people. Kind of like the "little devil cars" rolling around issuing parking tickets. If they weren't around, people would never fill the meter.
1) $50, the time I got one
2) Never on a bus, no. On trains, and in stations, all the time.
3) Frequently multiple times at the very same stop, on the train, on the platform and upon exiting the paid area.
Strike #2, I have seen them on buses before. But it's a rare event.
1)$50. My girlfriend was let in by a station agent on her transfer and getting off at the next station she was ticketed in a rather lengthy process by a fairly gruff and unpleasant agent.
2)Never on a bus, but occasionally on trains or platforms. Maybe four or five times over the past couple years.
3)Yes, but they've almost never done a very thorough job. The above was the only time I ever saw them actually inspect a transfer to see if it was valid. It had expired 10 minutes prior so they really wanted to get that ticket. I have never yet had someone actually scan my Translink card. I have, however, since the latest Muni trial period (though I was using it well before then) seen a large increase in the number of non-functional Translink readers on buses and trains.
$8.8M out in costs. $700,000 in revenue. Net loss of $8.1M (and I am not even sure that the $8.8M in costs figures the long term retirement benefit liabilities for MUNI from the fare inspectors)
So, is the value add from the hard-to-quantify intangibles (like "faster boarding" and the amount of fare evasion that was reduced) equal to or greater than $8.1M? I doubt it.
I commend you. Grover Norquist would have just stopped at the first paragraph.
Perhaps it is time to consider a fareless MUNI. Of course, MUNI will have to be funded in another way -- no doubt higher property taxes. But the $1.50 fare we pay when we board is just another form of tax. You would eliminate all the costly apparatus for collecting fares, checking passes, enforcing tickets, etc.
There is, of course, the argument that those that use MUNI should pay for it. But one of the prime benefits of public transit is that it increases property values. So funding it through property taxes actually might do a somewhat reasonable job of imposing the costs on those that benefit.
I would also advocate eliminating the people in the fare booths. The only justification I have heard is that people are afraid of crime on MUNI. But I doubt that a person sitting in a booth is the most cost efficient method of fighting crime on MUNI. I am, however, no crime prevention expert.
Revenue from fares: about $120M
Cost of fare inspectors: about $8M
Where do you get the rest? Not to mention pay for the additional cops needed to wake up the homeless at the end of each run?
My bad, I see now that you recommended property taxes. Do you think the voters would approve a $112M (and more each year) increase in property tax, just so homeowners and non-homeowners alike can ride the bus for free? I can already imagine the campaign agianst that one (which would require a 2/3 vote per Prop 218).
I don't really have an opinion about how politically feasible it would be. But I think a large part of the city would get behind not having to buy a $50 fast pass every month. It's also not really a tax increase. A bus fare is just as much a "tax" as a property assessment. It's just changing the way the tax is levied.
My comment does not suggest that by eliminating fare inspectors, you could thereby fund MUNI on the savings. Instead, it suggests funding MUNI through property taxes instead.
I'm not really convinced that the homeless are kept off MUNI by chargin a fare. Anybody who wants to get on without paying does anyway.
Piratesnack, are you suggesting that I could fund *your* muni pass just by raising my own property taxes? Wow! Sign me up!!
Actually yes. Just as my taxes no doubt pay for plenty of services that you use.
Piratesnack, Ha!!!
You have no idea how much homeowners pay in property taxes, do you.
Very funny.
They actually did a study on that within the last year or so an concluded that the amount they make from fares with a whole lot more than the cost of the fare collection infrastructure.
Not to mention if the got rid of fares then they would need to put a bouncer on every bus anyway to keep them from turning into rolling homeless shelters.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/29/MNFQUNU4C.DTL
Gavin looked into eliminating fares, was told it was make things a lot worse.
Your comment suggests that the goal of the city should be to maximize revenue as if it were a private business, which it is not. If it costs the city $99 to collect $100 in revenue, that would be logical if the city's goal were to maximize revenue. But from a public policy perspective, it would be inefficient.
As it stands, nobody kicks the homeless off now and they easily get on without paying. So I don't see your second point at all.
I know nothing--this, I freely acknowledge. That being said...
I like the no fare thing. I kinda like the tax thing. But 2/3 of this City being renters, and it being more likely than not that the owners don't take MUNI, seems a bit unfair (I know, I know, stick it to the Man! and Drivers!). So, how's about this: tax every resident of the City who rents or owns here. Add a hundred bucks or so to property tax bills and tack on a few bucks to every rent check where the landlord would have to take on the burden of handing that "MUNI tax" over to the City. Then, everyone with an SF address, and therefore handed money over, would get a monthly pass or annual pass. Out-of-towners would still pay with cash or coin. This would also mean that homeless folks wouldn't be able to board for free because they didn't pay through thier rent or property checks. Hell, you could even opt-out of this tax system, but that would mean no MUNI pass.
I have no idea how this would work or if it would work or what the proper amount the tax would be (it would have to be enough to pay for shiznits but low enough to be a bargain for those who do take MUNI). But then again, I know nothing and I'm not getting paid $300K+ to think about these things. Though if I did get paid that much--hell, half that much!!!--I'd be thinking long and I'd be thinking hard. Uhhhh...no, I'm not gay. ;)
I ride the 38 on a regular basis across the city and see kids come in the back almost every trip. MUNI shouldn't be issuing tickets, they should be suspending driver's licenses and permits for these kids. That's a much better deterrent than a $50-$150 fine. If someone can't get their license until they're 17, or they lose it for six months, because they don't want to pay $1.50, they'll be much more likely to pay. Hit 'em where it hurts. For kids and young thugs, that's the privilege to drive.
I see people come in the back and out the front on almost every trip even when they obviously have passes or transfers. Not to mention the number that just grab the first seat available in the front or stand around in a cluster with their friends right in the front of the bus so nobody can move back.
It's not always fare evasion, a lot of the time it's people who have absolutely no idea how to behave properly on public transit and repeatedly ignore the many signs and warnings from Muni about how to act. Hell, the other day I actually had some guy loudly playing his boom box on the 43 while the driver did absolutely nothing. Not even when a cluster of equally douchey frat boys apparently on their way to the Marina got in a fight with him about it.
A big part of the problem is that drivers absolutely refuse to do anything to enforce even the most basic level of order on buses.
Unrelated to all of this, but why do we keep giving money to NextBus when it is so frequently wrong? I'll often see signs in the morning that ignore about two out of every three buses and this past Saturday I sat around for a bus, watched as the sign turned to "Arriving", a bus passed in the opposite direction, and then the sign turned back to 18 minutes. It again turned to "Arriving" as the bus was still a good two minutes and one stop away. They're a local company and their product can almost never be relied upon. Not just that it's off by a minute or two, but that it shows phantom buses that never exist or arrive and often fails to show information on buses that are on their way. It's never fun to stay inside because the next bus is supposed to be 20 minutes away only to hear one whiz past after 5 minutes and catch another one only 8 minutes later that you also almost missed.
If they want to cut down on costs they could also reduce some of the stops. I know that at the end of Hayes by the park we certainly don't need to have a stop every single block. If you only cut it down to every other block you'd still only have to walk, at most, one block in either direction to get to a stop.