AB X8 6 and AB X8 9 form the pair of budget bills (explained in more detail in this earlier post) executing a gas tax swap.  The Governor initially proposed a completely inadequate gas tax swap measure, which the Legislature then modified with these two bills.  The Legislature’s version allocates a one-time sum of $400 million of operating funds for transit agencies, and then generates about $350 million annually for agencies statewide, starting in FY12.

The initial allocation will provide critically-needed funding for the Bay Area’s transit agencies in these tough times — including $36 million for Muni, $26 million for BART, $15 million for VTA, and $13 million for AC Transit — to be put to use through the upcoming fiscal year.

As we have discussed before, that sum does not come close to restoring funding that the State has repeatedly appropriated in the past to balance its budget, and the bills do not accomplish all that they could.  Therefore, this legislation neither can nor should end the important conversation about how the State ought to fund transit operations in the future.  Still absent from the discussion are stable revenue streams that prioritize transit service in a way that is consistent with the State’s goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and encouraging smart growth. Nonetheless, this allocation is a small step in the right direction, in that it will provide transit agencies with some assistance to weather the budget deficits that loom in the upcoming fiscal year.

I would strongly encourage transit agencies to use this money in a way that preserves service for riders to the maximum extent feasible.  Transit-dependent riders have already experienced significant hardship during this economic downturn, having been obliged to pay higher fares for inferior service.  I particularly direct this comment to my home transit agency, the San Francisco MTA.  The MTA Board is once again discussing a possible declaration of fiscal emergency, which would allow the agency to cut service without preparing the environmental documentation that would otherwise be required under CEQA.  When given such a flexible tool, the MTA Board has historically demonstrated a willingness to put it to use, by cutting service and raising fares.

However, worth noting is that the initial $36 million allocation from the State, when combined with some of the FY11-12 revenue measures that the MTA Board has begun to evaluate, would be enough to obviate the need to declare fiscal emergency.  Obvious measures (PDF) to examine at this point include extended Sunday meters ($2.8 million), a general parking meter extension ($6.3 million in FY11), elimination of free reserved on-street spaces ($2.8 million), adding one thousand new metered spaces ($0.8 million for a half-year), enforcing existing laws regarding parking garage charges in the C-3 zone ($3 million for a half-year), a possible extension of that policy to garages citywide ($2.6 million for a half-year), and a reduction in work orders ($6.5 million).  Consolidation of transit stops, which would save about $3 million per year, is another measure that will be considered by the MTA Board.

There are good policy reasons to implement this suite of measures, quite apart from raising revenue.  But these measures are also necessary to close the gap between the State’s initial allocation and the MTA’s total FY11 budget deficit.  They should be evaluated thoroughly before riders are made to suffer any further cuts to service or increase in fares.

It is nice to see the Governor finally agree to give some money back to transit, and the Legislature should also be recognized for its work in pushing through a partial fix for transit agencies, in spite of the Governor’s reluctance to support a revenue-neutral piece of budget legislation.  Imperfect though it may be, this legislation and the funding it promises will be a welcome booster shot for California’s cash-strapped transit agencies.

The State Legislature, as part of the ongoing state budget effort, has passed a pair of bills, AB X8 6 and AB X8 9, which would establish a tax swap and restore State Transit Assistance (STA) funding, a critical source of money that transit agencies throughout California had previously relied on to fund operations until it was suspended by the State.  While there is no doubt that transit agencies across the nation are struggling, California’s transit agencies have been hit particularly hard, thanks to the elimination of the STA funds.  But relief may be on the way, if Governor Schwarzenegger cooperates.  This is a prime opportunity for the “Green Governor” to show his quality.

AB X8 6 makes various adjustments to the taxes that are assessed on motor vehicle fuel and diesel fuel.  Currently, gasoline is subject to both sales tax and per-gallon excise tax.  Article XIX of the California Constitution generally requires that the proceeds from the excise tax be applied to fund road maintenance, as well as the “research, planning, construction, and improvement” of transit guideways, streets, and highways.  The revenue may also be used to maintain physical transit guideways, but it may not be used for other transit operation and maintenance costs.  This constitutional provision was of interest to the Governor, because it would allow him to take a revenue stream technically dedicated to transit and replace it with an increased excise tax, the proceeds from which could instead be used to patch up the General Fund.

As set forth in the Revenue and Taxation Code, an excise tax of 18 cents is currently assessed per gallon of motor vehicle fuel (§ 7360) and diesel fuel (§ 60050).  Starting July 1, 2010, AB X8 6 would exempt motor vehicle fuel from the sales tax.  Also on July 1, 2010, the excise tax per gallon of motor vehicle fuel would be increased by 17.3 cents, and retailers would pay a 17.3-cent storage tax per gallon of motor vehicle fuel stored.  For diesel fuel, the per-gallon excise tax would decrease to 13.6 cents starting July 1, 2010; a 1.75% tax would also be imposed starting July 1, 2011.  Finally, the State Board of Equalization would be responsible for ensuring each year that these amendments remain revenue-neutral.  That is, the revenue gained by the motor vehicle excise tax increase should not exceed the revenue lost by eliminating the sales tax.  BOE would also be assigned an analogous task for diesel fuel.

The revenue generated from these adjustments would then be used in the gas tax swap mechanism.  I can explain this in more detail if someone is really fascinated, but to skip straight to the juicy part, AB X8 9 provides for an infusion of STA funding for transit operations.  Initially, the bill appropriates $400 million of STA funding statewide that would last through FY11.  An estimated $350 million would then be distributed by formula each year thereafter.

San Francisco MTA’s recent budget-balancing exercise helps demonstrate how this influx of funding will have a tangible effect.  The MTA Board recently approved a 10% system-wide service cut, expecting to save $4.8 million this fiscal year (accounting for the months of May and June).  Cutting 313,000 service hours each year was projected to save $28.5 million annually.  But MTA estimates it would initially receive $36 million of STA funding if these bills are passed — $7.2 million for the remainder of this fiscal year, $28.8 million in FY11, and $31.4 million in FY12.

In other words, San Francisco’s share of the proposed funding more than covers the money that the MTA expected to save by implementing the 10% service cut.  Although the $179 million of STA funds that the MTA has lost over the past three years would not be fully restored in the next three years, this legislation, if signed into law, will nonetheless make a valuable contribution.

But the Governor — naturally, being the Governor — is reluctant about signing these bills.  To justify his reluctance, he offered the nearly brain-dead explanation that the Legislature has “failed to address job creation,” overlooking that new STA funding will allow agencies to preserve service and thereby avoid laying off operators.  His lackluster response, while disappointing, is not surprising.  After all, this legislation aims to mitigate the damage that he is personally responsible for propagating — most recently when he flagrantly ignored state court decisions that invalidated transit funding raids.

But you, the transit-savvy reader, can still help the Governor see the light.  At least we can try.

Here’s where you come in: Please call the Governor’s office as soon as you can.  Urge him to sign these bills into law, so that agencies throughout the Bay Area and California can be provided with much-needed relief, and vital transit service can be preserved:

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-558-3160

Alternatively, you can email the Governor by clicking this link. Thanks in advance for your participation.

Muni’s departed 53 Southern Heights line. Photo taken on the 53′s last evening of service.

It is encouraging to see that the MTA Board appears to be more serious about increasing parking enforcement to help close the FY11-12 budget gap.  It is likewise encouraging that discussion about revenue-generating ballot measures has commenced.  But in spite of those preliminary positive developments, the MTA simultaneously seeks a way out — by announcing its intention to declare a fiscal emergency.  In light of the FY11-12 budget deficit, MTA projects negative working capital within the next year, which may trigger a finding of fiscal emergency.  By declaring fiscal emergency for this upcoming year, as it has done in some previous years, the MTA seeks a Section 21080.32 exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act.  This exemption allows the MTA to cut Muni service and increase fares without carrying out otherwise-required environmental review under CEQA.  

The MTA Board has confirmed its plan to move forward with the 10% service cut that was already approved in conjunction with the FY10 budget.  And yet, there remain unexplored options that could mitigate this painful 10% service cut and the need to declare fiscal emergency—all while ensuring that the MTA Board pursues a more sustainable path in the future.  Assumed in the FY10 year-end budget is that the Transportation Authority will approve a $7 million Proposition K allocation—in spite of the fact that certain Supervisors have indicated their distrust of MTA’s fiscal management.  Instead, MTA could investigate a larger request upfront, so that the amount in excess of $7 million could be used to offset some or all of the $4.8 million saved in this fiscal year from the service cuts.  But instead of having that money simply get sucked into a budgetary black hole, the allocation could be characterized as a loan, conditioned on eventual repayment with funds obtained through new revenue streams.  Meanwhile, SPUR’s budget proposal could be incorporated into the more robust budget fix needed for next fiscal year, covering deficits and obviating the need to declare fiscal emergency.  This strategy would, in turn, give the MTA Board an opportunity to pursue additional revenue streams, both to repay the loan and simply to operate the system in the coming years.  Exploring options of this nature would demonstrate, both to riders and to the Board of Supervisors, that the MTA Board is committed to balancing agency books in a way that looks out for Muni riders, rather than disenfranchising them.

The State has continually retreated from its transit funding obligations, raiding transit to close state budget deficits — this is hardly news.  One might have guessed even a couple years ago that State Transit Assistance funds would eventually be wholly eliminated.  At the very least, the trend indicated that the State would repeatedly dip into transit funding.  But where the federal government does not fund operations, and where the State has ceased to do so, it necessarily falls to local government to make up this difference.  During the period in which the State was withdrawing operations funds, the MTA did not diligently develop new revenue sources.  It did not plan for tough times.

In other words, the upcoming fiscal emergency is neither surprising nor unexpected.  It is certainly not the MTA’s fault that the State raided funds that rightfully belonged to transit agencies.  But the City Charter affirmatively obligates the MTA to do exactly that which the MTA has failed to do — mitigate an unfortunate situation by diligently pursuing funds needed to preserve service:

Charter, Section 8A.109(b): The Mayor, the Board of Supervisors, and the [Municipal Transportation] Agency diligently shall seek to develop new sources of funding for the Agency’s operations, including sources of funding dedicated to the support of such operations, which can be used to supplement or replace that portion of the Municipal Transportation Fund consisting of appropriations from the General Fund of the City and County. . . .

What we have seen, since the approval of the 10% service cut, is a perversion of the transit-first policy laid out in the Charter.  The current climate is one that places significant hurdles blocking the addition of transit service, while freely permitting the deletion of service.  The Transit Effectiveness Project, which aimed to strategically reallocate service and increase investment in core transit corridors, has stalled — but the TEP has provided a treasure trove of data informing what routes could be eliminated.  In other words, the portions of the TEP that proposed to boost service have been put on hold until after environmental review is complete.  But the portions of the TEP that proposed to eliminate service have already been partially implemented — without any environmental review, of course, courtesy of the previously declared fiscal emergency.

Much of the ongoing budget discussion at the Board suffers from a critical defect: it merely draws on existing tools, including service cuts and fare hikes.  Then, when those tools obviously and completely foreseeably fail to balance the budget, the Board essentially throws its hands into the air and readies MTA for yet another fiscal emergency.  To accomplish … what, exactly?  To facilitate the unimpeded decimation of yet more critical lifeline service, after having just signed off on a 10% system-wide cut that relegates many routes to sparse, quasi-suburban headways?  Yes, to their credit, both Nat Ford and the Board expressly disapproved of any further cut to service.  But both also allowed the 10% service cut to be implemented in the first place, without aggressively pursuing other options.  Neither Nat Ford nor the Board ultimately regarded this deep service cut as it should have been regarded — a last resort.  And so, in spite of recent discussion about parking and ballot measures, a new declaration of fiscal emergency for this upcoming fiscal year once again places in the hands of the Board a mechanism by which to desert the transit-first policy.  That has, after all, been a principal use of the fiscal emergency declaration.  The path to unsustainability would be left open and clear, should a new budget deficit come to light in the future — or should the Board decide once again to sidestep implementation of politically controversial budget solutions.

Dedicated sources of revenue are clearly needed to maintain a viable transit system into the future.  The Charter mandates that the MTA carry out the financial planning needed to ensure the succcessful operation of the robust transit system that San Francisco both requires and deserves.  But on some level, the intent to move forward with a declaration of fiscal emergency suggests that, in the Board’s view, there is something acceptable or inevitable about the status quo approach.  The challenge posed by upcoming budgets will not be met if there is only a weak commitment to think creatively and do the hard work that needs to be done.

SPUR’s Budget Proposal

At the February 26, 2010 special budget meeting, SPUR released its own budget proposal (PDF), offering 28 suggestions for MTA to increase revenue and realize additional savings.  The recommendations will be familiar to those who have spent time following Muni issues.  They include the reduction or elimination of department work orders, increased enforcement of parking meters, consolidation of bus stops where appropriate, advertising, reducing overtime, hiring part-time operators, and redirecting Muni-related 311 calls to 511 — among other recommendations.  If all the recommendations were to be implemented, SPUR estimated that its proposal would not just completely account for the budget deficit, but would actually result in a $2.1 million surplus in FY10, and a $9+ million surplus in FY11.

More noteworthy are the measures that SPUR did not call upon — those very measures that have occupied most of the MTA Board’s attention: discount pass hikes and service cuts.  Some of SPUR’s recommendations have more merit than others. Some are relatively straightforward to implement, while others, for all intents and purposes, are prohibitively difficult because they require a legislative adjustment at the State level.  But collectively, SPUR’s recommendations emphasize an important point.  Contrary to whatever the MTA Directors might believe, there are indeed stones that remain unturned.  SPUR has not recommended novel, long-term revenue streams.  Mostly, it has recommended that existing programs be made more efficient, and that existing laws be properly enforced.  Even limiting itself to those tools, SPUR’s proposal manages to emerge with a surplus, all while avoiding significant service cuts and other undesirable measures.  It is somewhat disconcerting that MTA did not pursue these measures in its own FY10 budget proposal.  Why should MTA need to rely on outside advocacy organizations to learn how to balance its own budget?

The FY11-12 Budget

With the FY10 budget process wrapped up, the MTA will now move forward to approve a two-year FY11-12 budget next month.  Existing sources of revenue — parking garage, meters, tax receipts, fares, parking citations, among others — fell short of expectations, opening new deficits to balance.  And among other expenditures, MTA also proposed a needed $10 million toward materials and parts.  When all is said and done, a $56.4 million deficit looms in FY11, which translates into a $45 million deficit in FY12.

MTA’s budget presentation (PDF, via Streetsblog) details some measures and their potential effects on the budget.  The proposed budget solutions draw on several SPUR suggestions:

• MTA is finally looking more carefully at parking.  Extending parking meter enforcement across-the-board could generate $6.3 million in the first year of implementation, and $9 million each year thereafter; Sunday parking meter charges, taken in isolation, would generate $2.8 million. Adding one thousand new metered parking spaces in areas of especially high parking demand would generate $0.8 million in a half year, or about $3 million annually in subsequent years.  Elimination of free, reserved, on-street spaces could generate $2.8 million.  Actually enforcing the requirement that garages zoned C-3 charge on an hourly basis would generate $3 million in the first half-year, and about $6 million annually in subsequent years.  Extending this C-3 policy citywide would almost double that revenue.  What we conclude is that if MTA were to implement the most robust parking proposal, about $26 million annually would be added to MTA coffers after the first year of implementation.
• A 10% reduction of work orders could add about $6.5 million.
• Raising fees to recover various costs could generate $1.5 million.
• Noting that about 15% of boardings are transfers, MTA proposed either charging 50 cents for a transfer (generating $7.5 million) or eliminating them altogether (possibly generating $20.4 million in annual revenue).
• Consolidation of transit stops would result in about $3 million.
• Regulatory penalty schedule for taxis would generate $0.1 million.
• Transit vehicle window advertising wrap would generate about $1 million.
• Indexing fare and pass increases could generate $3.5 million.
• Each additional 5% cut to service (reduction of 156,500 service hours annually) that is implemented would save $7.2 million.

The parking measures are not a panacea for the budget deficit; but when they are taken together, they represent a significant source of revenue that must be kept on the table.  There is simply no excuse for ignoring such an obvious and straightforward budget solution.

As for the proposed elimination of free transfers: this idea has been raised in the past and has been consistently rejected. It should be rejected once again.  The orientation of Muni service is a matrix of routes that fundamentally depends on free access to transfers.  Changing the transfer policy should ideally be accompanied by a reorientation of service to include more angular-shaped routes; but no such reorientation has been discussed.  Moreover, any additional cut to service, fast on the heels of the 10% cut, would render the Muni system increasingly unusable and is thus similarly unacceptable.  The MTA Board properly rejected both of these proposals.

The MTA has also begun to evaluate revenue-generating ballot measures, which require various degrees of government approval:

• The vehicle license fee proposal (restoring the additional 0.85% of vehicle purchase price) would generate about $33 million annually, but it would require authorization at the State level, in addition to the Board of Supervisors adding it to the ballot.  In terms of effort exerted per dollar of expected revenue, this measure would not provide the best bang for the buck, and thus would not be the most strategic choice for a ballot measure.
• There are a few smaller measures that the MTA Board has the authority to approve without approval at higher echelons of government.  These include a 1% increase in the hotel occupancy tax (generating $15 million), a 10% increase in the commercial off-street parking tax (generating $20 million), and a parcel tax (generating $20 million).
• The measure that could provide the most bang for the buck is a 0.5% increase in sales tax, which would be put on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors.  In light of the current economy, a sales tax is a hard sell to voters.  However, if passed, the sales tax measure could provide $70-75 million annually and would do the most to stabilize future MTA budgets without the need to pursue approval at the State level.

This post has gotten rather lengthy, so I’ll close it here for now.  Future posts will include further discussion of budget-related issues.

Included in the transit funding are the New and Small Starts grants, which set aside a total of over $1.8 billion for capital investments in transit around the nation. The bulk of the New Starts funding is proposed for major transit projects outside of California.  Three major projects serving New York City (Second Avenue Subway, East Side Access, and ARC) are allocated $612 million.  Other allocations include those for Salt Lake City projects ($180 million), Houston projects ($150 million), Denver projects ($120 million), Seattle University Link ($110 million), Dulles Metrorail ($96 million), Dallas Northwest/Southeast light rail ($86 million), Honolulu Rail Transit project ($55 million), Hartford busway ($45 million), Twin Cities Central Corridor ($45 million), and Orlando’s Central Florida Commuter Rail project ($40 million).  A total of $200 million of Small Starts funding is also included for distribution to several other projects, mostly bus rapid transit.

Although the Bay Area was not in a position this year to receive as much funding as some other parts of the country, the budget nonetheless recommends $50 million for use on three major Bay Area transit projects.  The Central Subway, Van Ness BRT, and East Bay BRT are all considered by FTA to be priorities for funding:

• Central Subway: The $20 million New Starts sum in this budget is a small portion of roughly $950 million in federal funding that the Central Subway is ultimately slated to receive, amounting to 60% of the $1.57 billion project cost.
• Van Ness BRT: The $15 million sum in this budget is a partial allocation of up to $75 million Small Starts for which this BRT corridor would be eligible, assuming that San Francisco opts to construct one of the two serious center lane BRT alternatives (rather than side lane BRT, which would be cheaper to build but would provide only diluted transit benefits).  The maximum $75 million federal contribution would represent 57-63% of the total capital cost of $118-132 million.
• East Bay BRT: The $15 million sum in this budget is a partial allocation of up to $75 million Small Starts for which this BRT corridor would be eligible.  The maximum $75 million federal contribution would represent about one-third of the total capital cost of $235 million.  The exact status of the project is uncertain, in light of a requested swap for operations money. Nonetheless, AC Transit continues to move forward with environmental work and has not abandoned the project.  A match of local funding has also been retained for the time being, so it is good to see that FTA has prioritized this BRT corridor.

The State of California’s continued theft of transit funding has kept the MTA perpetually occupied with budget discussion — lately, with a $16.9 million gap through the end of this fiscal year.  But the service changes that are now under consideration, while no less sweeping in the number of routes they touch, are of a quite different nature from the variety that were enacted in December 2009.  That is, the goal of the latest proposed changes is not to make the system more efficient, but rather, smaller.  Lines would retain their same routes, but service would run less frequently and end a little earlier.  Some monthly pass holders would have to pay more, as well, adversely affecting a cross-section of transit-dependent San Franciscans.  The total effect will, unfortunately, be to degrade the experience of riding transit in San Francisco, which will also likely chase away some choice riders.  Less frequent service will not only exacerbate vehicle overcrowding and increase pass-ups, but will also diminish what, to my mind, is the primary convenience of urban transit: the luxury of service that is meant to be used spontaneously, without dependence on a timetable.

The MTA Board has been picking apart the details of the proposal (PDF) to balance the FY10 budget, and the Board’s input has resulted in one notable change: nixing the previously suggested $5 fare for the F-Market & Wharves historic streetcar service.  Despite this change, the core of the budget proposal remains intact and, at this point, most of it looks likely to be approved.  But the proposal suffers from an all-too-familiar deficiency, in that it places a disproportionately high share of the burden on Muni riders, while largely shielding drivers from significantly increased fees.

MTA has several revenue-based and other proposed measures on the table (associated revenues in FY10 are indicated below):

• Continuing the tactic of “premium” fast pass packages.  As of January 2010, BART use within San Francisco was spun off onto its own premium $70 pass.  MTA is proposing to charge the same $70 premium for use of fast passes on cable cars and peak hour express bus routes.  The Board has, however, indicated some concern with the logistical details of the express bus premium pass.  For example: would riders that only ride the local section of an express line nonetheless be forced to pay the higher fare? ($0.9 million revenue in 3 months, with $0.5 million from express buses and $0.4 million from cable cars.)
• Doubling the price of the discount senior, youth, and disabled fast pass from $15 to $30 by April 1. ($1 million of revenue in 3 months.)
• Increase parking citation fines by $2. ($0.9 million of revenue in 4 months.)
• Increase annual fee for residential parking permits from $76 to $96. ($0.8 million of revenue in 4 months.)
• Labor concessions and elimination of free parking. ($1 million, with $0.7 million in labor concessions over 2 months and $0.3 million from SFTMA employee and garage parking over 4 months.)
• Charges and transaction fees. ($0.5 million in 2 months.)
• A crucial Prop K allocation from the SFCTA. ($7 million.)

Meanwhile, service cuts would be expected to save the remaining $4.8 million within two months, or about $28.5 million (313,000 service hours) on an annual basis.  Although the newest proposals do not add or eliminate route segments as the 2009 changes did, as remarked above, these proposals instead reduce service frequency on almost every route in the system.  For full details on how each individual line is proposed to be changed, please refer to this table (PDF).  Below is a summary of some highlights:

• Most major lines (J, K, L, M, N, T, 1, 5, 6, 8X/AX/BX, 9/9L, 14/14L/14X, 16X, 22, 28, 30 long, 38, 45, 47, 49, 71L, and 88) would see decreases in peak and/or midday frequencies of 1-3 minutes.  Most major routes would also see a 2-10 minute frequency reduction in evening and night service.
• Local lines could see as much as a 1-5 minute frequency reduction at peak, 1-10 minute reduction midday, and 5-10 minute reduction in the evening and night hours.
• Some community lines could see a 5-10 minute frequency reduction at peak or midday.
• Peak-hour short runs implemented on the M-Oceanview, which would slightly increase service to S.F. State while decreasing service to Balboa Park.
• Some lines will start later in the day, and many will end earlier at night than currently scheduled.
• Reduce owl service frequency from 2 buses/hour to 1 bus/hour.

The Board has expressed concern, in particular, with the reduction in owl service to 60-minute headways, so there still may be some further tweaks to the proposed cuts.  Nat Ford also correctly indicated that in light of the deepest reductions that are planned, the reliability of service — which has never been Muni’s strong suit — will be particularly important.  The MTA is thus even contemplating publishing timetables that would allow riders to plan their schedule if, for instance, they are traveling on a route operating on 30 or 60 minute headways.

These service reductions really do affect almost the entire Muni system.  Given the size of the budget deficit, the effect on service might have been even worse, since these cuts account for less than 30% of the total deficit.  But it’s also the case that riders are being made to absorb a significant burden relative to motorists.  Including the premium fast passes, the doubled discount pass price, and the expenditure saved from the service cuts, transit riders would fill $6.7 million of this budget gap in the last few months of the fiscal year.  By contrast, motorists, who are primarily affected by the increased citation fines and increased annual parking permit fee, would fill merely $1.7 million of the total.

At the Board’s January 29, 2010 special meeting, several directors expressed a desire to investigate parking meters as a source of more revenue, and even Mayor Newsom, a regular opponent of extending parking meter enforcement, claims to have had a change of heart on Sunday meters.  Increased parking meter revenue would, of course, be useful to close the budget gap and ease the burden placed on Muni riders; but this turnaround, to the extent it actually materializes, may be too lackadaisical to affect the current budget discussion.  Nor is it completely guaranteed yet that the proposed suite of measures will do the job.  As Sonali Bose put it, the $16.9 million deficit is based on “aggressive revenue assumptions.”  And of course, we still have the FY11 and FY12 budgets to look forward to — but more on that later.

MTA is looking for your input on the FY10 budget and will be offering two town halls on February 6 and 9, with expected Board action in mid-February.  You are encouraged to offer your comments and participate in the town halls.  Town Hall meetings take place on Saturday, Feb. 6, 10:00 am – 12 noon; and Tuesday, Feb. 9, 6:00-8:00 pm. Both meetings will be held at 1 South Van Ness Avenue, 2nd Floor Atrium, San Francisco.  Alternatively, you can email comments to sfmtabudget@sfmta.com.  Meeting information is also given in the “Upcoming” section of the sidebar (near the top of the page).

Install photovoltaic capacity to generate “green” hydrogen: Install multiple PV modules at its Central Maintenance Facility in Hayward. Combined with AC Transit’s already-installed solar capacity, this solar installation will produce the renewable electricity equivalent to what will be required to produce 180 kg/day of “green” hydrogen.

Separately, the FTA also announced that the Central Subway has received a $9.9 million grant, which will the SFMTA will apply toward carrying out further design of the T-Third Street light rail extension from 4th & King, through South of Market to Chinatown. The federal government will ultimately supply roughly $950 million toward this project (about 60% of  the $1.57 billion that is now believed will be the total cost). To date, the Central Subway has received $66 million of federal New Starts funding.

Finally, no hard cash, but some good news, for the Transbay Transit Center. The most recent dispute between the TJPA and the CHSRA about where high-speed rail should terminate in San Francisco may have jeopardized our chance to secure a $400 million high-speed rail discretionary grant to build to the Transbay subway station box, but that is not the only piece of federal funding that the TJPA has sought. Since long before the stimulus plan, the TJPA planned to pursue a Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan as one of many sources of money for the transit center. (The TIFIA loan is the same funding mechanism that BART will use so that it can build everyone’s favorite transit project, the Oakland Airport Connector. This recent post on the OAC is an illustrative cross-reference for those who delight in the minutiae of TIFIA.) Anyway, in October 2008, the TJPA applied for a $171 million TIFIA loan, which would cover a little over 14% of the capital costs for the first phase of this two-phase, $4.2 billion project. And just last week, the Credit Council unanimously recommended approval of the $171 million TIFIA loan. The Secretary of Transportation will produce a term sheet and loan agreement, which the TJPA Board is expected to approve this November.

This Saturday, a momentous event occurred — not just once, but twice: the number of riders on Muni’s 74X CultureBus reached double digits. No, really — we saw it with our own eyes. Of course, that’s only thanks to the party organized by the SF Appeal to honor the final passing of this noble bus route, a service in branded golden buses linking many of the city’s museums. Without the cluster of folks who showed up for the party, the bus would have been lucky to get up to even five riders. Launched to pomp and circumstance on September 20, 2008, any initial enthusiasm turned out to be much ado about nothing. The 74X was once predicted to have about 20-30 riders per bus. But 2 or 3 — and often, no one at all — was closer to the mark.

When it first launched, we counted ourselves among the skeptics. Visitors from around the Bay Area might well have appreciated the simplicity of a museum line with a single fare for the whole day. But the CultureBus route never made it to the Caltrain depot, and it floated around downtown BART stations without being marketed as directly serving any of them. The high fare (at that time, $7, or $3 with a Fast Pass) was not a bad deal if you really are going to visit several museums in one day — but does anyone actually do that? And even if they do, was the service so much better than the nearby 5-Fulton and N-Judah, which basically serve all the same destinations, but cost 78-80% less to ride and show up more often? Despite these imperfections, it was nice to see the SFMTA at least try something, anything, to innovate and think outside the box. But then the 20-minute headways degraded into hourly service; and the fare rose to $10, or $5 with a Fast Pass. Was a nail ever before driven so definitively into a coffin? With the SFMTA’s particularly troubling budget this year, the CultureBus was a luxury we simply could not afford. It was finally laid to rest on August 15, 2009, not even making it to its first anniversary. So long, CultureBus: we hardly knew ye.

Those who dream of one day rebuilding the B-Geary line, figuring that it would be worth the investment, might not be swayed by the TA’s stated excuses for not pursuing light rail: the increased expense and complexity (see this memo or presentation, PDFs), and tight competition for considerable extra funding. From the cost persepctive, something does not quite add up. The TA may have escalated its cost figures based on the astronomically high costs of the Central Subway, because even using the numbers cited by the TA in its report, a six-mile Geary line — including a downtown subway terminating at Montgomery Station, with a west portal at Laguna — should cost something in the ballpark of $1.2-$2 billion, not $5 billion as claimed. Even on the basis of existing ridership (to say nothing of the new riders it would attract), rail would certainly be suitable for the Geary corridor. But there are also good arguments that favor moving forward with BRT at this time.  Corridor improvements (increased ridership, ride quality, and so forth) are diluted for the BRT project as compared to LRT, but those improvements would be implemented faster, and at lower cost ($150-$200 million) — and similar improvements could then be carried out more quickly on other major transit corridors throughout the city, as well. Disruptions associated with light rail construction were opposed by neighborhood merchants. Moreover, the T-Third and Central Subway contain a host of diverse planning infelicities that, to be frank, call into question the SFMTA’s ability to oversee additional major capital projects. The current design and alignment of the Central Subway damages a potential B-Geary/T-Third transfer station at Union Square (just as the T-Third transfer to Market Street will be inadequate) — and in the long term, it may make more sense to include Geary in the regional rail network with a BART line instead of Muni Metro. I suspect that there will be strong views on both sides as to whether the SFCTA is making the correct decision by pursuing BRT rather than LRT. I certainly do not want to discourage debate on this topic, since Geary is an important corridor that has been unwisely neglected, and it is worthy of the discussion. But BRT remains the mode of choice going forward.

And now, onto the tweet transcript:

Selections from Public Comment (timestamps lost):

• From the MTA hearing: “Muni’s proposals are life-shortening and life-threatening.”
• “You’re proposing to eliminate positions that generate revenue. That’s insane. Why would you do that, when you need money?”
• “The Van Ness route — there are never buses there when I need them. When a bus comes, there are two.”
• “To cut back on the 27 is unfair. That bus is never on time.”
• “Take a bus route from end to the other and find out what’s really going on, instead of sitting behind a desk.”
• “This is a service, this is public transportation that thousands of people depend on everyday.”
• On work orders: “Muni is being robbed, and our transit-dependent riders are being robbed. Stand up for yourselves.”
• [SFMTA Hearing: short break]
• SFMTA hearing continues, with an endless procession of cab drivers.
• On the 39-Coit: “Many are disabled, one woman is 100 yrs old. I beg you to retain that bus line.”
• “Rather than exploring the matter of the subway, which many of us think is unnecessary, use the $10 million to bail yourself out now.”
• Howard Wong reminds us that 20-Columbus was created to mitigate the disappearance of the northern branch of the 15 bus when T service began.

6:46 pm Director Beach: “I don’t support charging for transfers. We designed this system for the requirement of transfers.”

6:50 Director Oka: “I will not support anything that involves paying for or elimination of transfers.”

6:50 Oka: “The main topic of tomorrow’s public hearing is the work orders. This is a major thing we need to make whole ….

6:51 … We should not be paying for services we are not getting.”

6:52 Oka: “We’re not getting our money’s worth from the PD. They want us to pay for the PD budget? Give us more police on our system.”

6:53 Oka: “We’re not balancing the budget on the back of our taxi drivers. I don’t know what we’re going to do, but we’re not doing that.”

6:54 Director Heinicke: “This Board is listening to the taxi industry. We need to put forward a more concrete proposal.”

6:56 Heinicke: “We should charge a tax on rental car establishments at the airport.”

6:56 Heinicke asks City Atty if MTA could go directly to ballot for rental car tax at SFO.

6:56 Heinicke: “Very much opposed to sale of transfers. Create administrative headaches for drivers, let alone transit problems.”

6:57 Heinicke complements Julie Kirschbaum’s presentation. Incremental savings in Option 3 are minimal, but it forces riders to take 2 routes.

6:58 Heinicke: we don’t control street cleaning, but we need to push it, and enjoy the associated revenue.

6:59 Heinicke supports increase to single-ride fares and passports, but not the BART/express premiums.

7:03 Ford: Paid for PD for years. Incremental increase due to extra T-Third security, and recent traffic division.

7:05 Nolan: need long-term revenue to put on the ballot. Need to look at regional transit issues for economies of scale.

7:08 Budget hearing complete. Next hearing: SFMTA declaration of fiscal emergency so that service cuts will be exempt from CEQA review.

7:37 SFMTA open session meeting is complete.

7:38 Tomorrow, April 8 at 1:30 pm — Board of Supervisors, Budget & Finance Comm hearing on the Muni work orders.