RESCUE MUNI

Transfer No. 21,Winter 2005

Inside:Rescue Muni's Vision for GearyCorridor Rapid Transit.................2Inner Geary ImprovementsWatered Down............................15Central Subway Update..............15Muni's Budget Crisis....................162004 Riders' Survey Results -Part II (Line by Line Results).....18Nov. Election - Wins & Losses...20New Membership & FundraisingCommittee....................................20T-Shirt Redesign Contest............21Rescue Muni Calendar.................22

RESCUE MUNI'S PLAN FORGEARY RAPID TRANSIT

COME TO OUR NEXTGENERAL MEETING!

TOPIC: MUNI'S BUDGETCRISIS

WHEN: Wed., February 16thWHERE: 312 Sutter, Room 402

TIME: 6:00 pm

GUEST: Stuart Sunshine, Muni'sDeputy Executive Director

Come take part in a discussionon how to deal with budget crisis(see article on pg. 16 for details).

ALSO: INNER GEARY BUS IMPROVEMENTS WATERED DOWN - BUTSUPERVISOR ELSBERND STANDS UP FOR MUNI RIDERS

Page 24

P.O. Box 190966

San Francisco, CA

94119-0966415-273-1558 • w

ww

.rescuemuni.org

PlaceStam

pH

ere

RET

UR

N SER

VIC

E REQ

UEST

EDW

inter 2005

TransferT

he New

sletter ofR

ESCU

E MU

NI

Geary R

apidT

ransit Vision

More 2004 S

urvey Results

Muni's B

udget Crisis

Election W

ins & L

ossesT

-Shirt R

edesign Contest

Page 2

TransferThe newsletter of RESCUE MUNIWinter 2005 - No. 21Editor: Dan KrauseDesigners: Dan Krause, AndrewSullivanContributing Writers: Daniel Murphy,

Andrew Sullivan, Dan Krause

Transfer is published (roughly) quarterlyby RESCUE MUNI, P.O. Box 190966,San Francisco, CA 94119-0966. Yearlymembership dues are $15 ($5 for lim-ited income). First-class postage paidat San Francisco, Calif.

POSTMASTER: Send all addresschanges to Transfer, RESCUE MUNI,P.O. Box 190966, San Francisco, CA94119-0966.© 2005 RESCUE MUNI

RESCUE MUNI (Riders for an Efficient,Safe, Consistent, Utilized, and Expedi-tious Muni), founded 1996, is a volun-teer-run, not-for-profit transit riders’association.

Hotline: 415-273-1558www.rescuemuni.orgtransit1@rescuemuni.org

Rescue Muni's Vision for GearyCorridor Rapid Transit - "Rail-Ready"BRT & Light RailBy Dan Krause, Rescue Muni Steercommittee Member

The Geary Corridor is one of the busytransit corridors in the nation.Unfortunately, transit service iswoefully inadequate. Now the SanFrancisco County TransportationAuthority (SFCTA) is studying ways tobring Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) toGeary, which it hopes will improveservice tremendously. The questionis, what is the best way to implementBRT on Geary? Rescue Muni is astrong advocate for BRT on Geary, butwe are also in support of light rail inthe future as well. Therefore, wesupport a BRT project that is “Rail-Ready” or ready for easy conversionto rail when funding for that projectcan be secured. We also supportaggressively pursuing rail along theGeary Corridor.

Rescue Muni’s Strategy for GearyCorridor Transit Improvements– A Phased ApproachDue to budgetary concerns at all levelsof government, Rescue Muniunfortunately has come to theconclusion that constructing a light-railproject straight away is not possibleat this time, though desirable. A fewyears back San Francisco prioritizedthe 3rd Street Corridor (including theCentral Subway) over Geary, NorthBeach and Van Ness corridors for newlight-rail service. Unfortunately, sincethat decision, federal and state fundshave become more scarce. Now thereis only enough money to finish the 3rd

St. Corridor light-rail project with nomore money for other light-railprojects for a decade or more.

Page 23

Membership FormWe need YOU to help us Rescue Muni.Join us by mailing this form to P.O. Box 190966, San Francisco, CA 94119-0966. You can also join online at www.rescuemuni.org.Name:

Address:

Phone:Fax:Email:

Muni lines you ride:

# riders in your household:

I would like to volunteer! Y NMembership category:

__ $5 Student / Limited Income__ $15 Basic__ $40 Sustaining__ $100 Contributing__ Other: $_______

Rescue Muni may from time to timepublish membership lists with namesonly. May we publish your name onlyas a member? Y N

Signature:____________________________

Steering CommitteeChair: Andrew SullivanVice-Chair: Daniel MurphyOther Members: Eric Carlson, JoanDowney, Dan Krause, RichardMlynarik, David Pilpel, HowardStrassner, David Vasquez

Executive CommitteeChair: Andrew Sullivan (acting)Vice-Chair: Richard MlynarikMembership Sec'y: Daniel MurphyRecording Sec'y: Howard StrassnerCorresponding Sec'y: Eric CarlsonTreasurer: Dan KrauseCoordinators: David Pilpel, AndrewSullivan, Dan Krause, David Vasquez

Standing CommitteesMuni Metro: Addresses schedulingand reliability of Muni's light rail lines.Meets second Wednesday of everymonth, 6 p.m., at SPUR, 312 Sutter,5th floor (chair: Howard Strassner,415-

661-8786, ruthow@juno.com)

Service Expansion Committee:Discusses ways Muni can add service.Meets first Wednesday of each monthat SPUR, 6:30 PM; see calendar at leftor contact the chair. (chair: EricCarlson, 415-863-5578, ericrescue@yahoo.com)

Other Rescue Muni InitiativesMembership (coordinator: DanielMurphy, 665-4074, daniel@well.com)Surveys - Coordinator needed! (in-terim coordinator: Andrew Sullivan,survey@rescuemuni.org)

Form a committee! Any membermay form a committee. If it meets atleast four times per year, the commit-tee may request appointment of a rep-resentative to the Steering Commit-tee, Rescue Muni's policy-making body.

Page 3

(continue on following page)

With decisions of the past and currentfunding constraints, the only way toget improvements to the GearyCorridor in a reasonable time is todevelop a multi-phased approach.Rescue Muni’s Steering Committee hasrecently approved a proposal for athree-phase upgrade program done insegments of the Corridor. Phase 1will take place on Geary and O’Farrellalong the Inner Geary segment (VanNess to Market St.). Note the GearyCorridor includes Post, Geary andO’Farrell streets along the Inner Gearysegment. Phase 2 will take place onGeary Blvd. between 33rd Ave. andaround Collins (just west of Masonic).Phase 3 will run under Post St. fromMontgomery to Van Ness and then cut

PHASE 2 PROJECT AREA & WESTERN SEGMENT OFPHASE 3

over to Geary and continue to aroundCollins. Exclusive transit lanes will alsobe extended from 33rd west to the endof the line.

Phase 1 - Inner Geary TransitPreferential Streets (TPS)Improvements to Existing Bus LanesThis TPS project is already beingplanned by Muni and is close tocompleting the approvals process. Theproject will speed bus service alongGeary & O’Farrell by widening theexisting transit lane, building bus bulbs,adding right-turn pocket lanes forautos and eliminating some stops thatare very close together. We anticipatethe completion of this project

PHASE 3 PROJECT AREA (SEGMENT FROM MASONICAREA TO MONTGOMERY STATION)

Page 22

RESCUE MUNI CalendarMark your calendar now for these events! Updates are on www.rescuemuni.org.

date event locationJANUARY 20051/27, 6:00PM TA's Geary Corridor Transit Study CAC 100 Van Ness,

25th FloorFEBRUARY 20052/1, 4:00PM Municipal Transportation Agency Board City Hall, Rm. 4002/2, 6:30PM RM Service Expansion Committee SPUR, 5th Floor2/3, 5:30PM MTA Citizens' Advisory Council 1145 Market Street

5th Floor2/14, RM STEERING COMMITTEE CANCELLED FOR VALENTINE'S DAY2/15, 4:00PM Municipal Transportation Agency Board City Hall, Rm. 4002/16, 6:00PM General Membership Meeting SPUR, Rm 4022/24, 6:00PM TA's Geary Corridor Transit Study CAC 100 Van Ness,

25th FloorMARCH 20053/1, 4:00PM Municipal Transportation Agency Board City Hall, Rm. 4003/2, 6:30PM RM Service Expansion Committee SPUR, 5th Floor3/3, 5:30PM MTA Citizens' Advisory Council 1145 Market Street,

5th Floor3/14, 6:00PM RM Executive & Steering Committees SPUR, 5th Floor3/15, 4:00PM Municipal Transportation Agency Board City Hall, Rm. 400TBA, 6:00PM TA's Geary Corridor Transit Study CAC 100 Van Ness,

25th FloorAPRIL 20054/1, Rescue Muni's Riders' Survey Begins - Watch forforms in the mail!4/5, 4:00PM Municipal Transportation Agency Board City Hall, Rm. 4004/6, 6:30PM RM Service Expansion Committee SPUR, 5th Floor4/7, 5:30PM MTA Citizens' Advisory Council 1145 Market Street,

5th Floor4/11, 6:00PM RM Executive & Steering Committees SPUR, 5th Floor4/19, 4:00PM Municipal Transportation Agency Board City Hall, Rm. 400TBA, 6:00PM TA's Geary Corridor Transit Study CAC 100 Van Ness,

25th Floor4/30, Rescue Muni's Riders' Survey ends.

NOTE: All dates and times for meetings are subject to change. Check Muniand Rescue Muni websites for confirmation of schedules.NOTE: Rescue Muni's Metro Committee is currently not meeting but willlikely resume in the near future. Check the web site at www.rescuemuni.orgfor updates.

Page 4

sometime in the first half of 2005.Please see the article by AndrewSullivan in September’s issue of theTransfer and Daniel Murphy's articleon Page 15 of this issue for moredetails.

Phase 2 - Outer Geary “Rail-Ready”BRTRescue Muni is advocating for a “Rail-Ready" BRT project along the 2.6 milestretch of Geary Blvd. from 33rd toaround Collins (just west of Masonic).This segment of Geary is beingtargeted due to high-level of crosstraffic and congestion. A longersegment is not realistic for this phasebecause of funding constraints.

This project will upgrade the Corridorto Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service, ahigher level of improvement compared

to the Transit Preferential Streets(TPS) project taking place in the InnerGeary. In addition, Rescue Muni isdeeply commited to the concept of“Rail-Ready” BRT, which allows for anefficient conversion to light rail withminimal disruption to the street or toexisting transit service. Thephilosophy being, tear up Geary onlyonce. It will also be cheaper becausethere is no need to demolish theexisting BRT system and start over -instead, Muni would make smallchanges to the existing infrastructure.Rescue Muni has a goal to completethe BRT project no later than 2010.

Elements of a “Rail-Ready” Geary BRTProject1) Continuous exclusive transitlanes along the ENTIRE 2.6 milesegment. With the goal of converting

IMAGE OF HOW BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT) WILL OPERATE INEXCLUSIVE TRANSIT LANES ALONG GEARY BLVD.

(Image by David Vasquez)

Page 21

to three. Instead of having stations atMarket and Post/Stockton, one stationwould be placed at O’Farrell/Stockton.Muni officials are suggesting that thisstation will be adequate to access bothUnion Square and the Powell St.Station due to the depth of the stationplatform. Deep stations requirepeople to ascend up very longescalators, covering significantdistances. With long escalators goingboth north and south from the stationplatform, people will be delivered toPowell St. on the southbound escalatorand to Union Square on thenorthbound escalator. The other

Central Subway Update(continue from page 15)

benefit of eliminating a station isfurther cost savings.

If Muni decides to pursue a change inalignment to 4th St., a SupplementalEnvironmental Impact Report/Statement will be required. This studywill delay the project by roughly oneyear. Rescue Muni members need tostay active in this process to make surethe changes we are advocating foractually happen. If you would like toget involved, please attend a ServiceExpansion Committee meeting, whichare usually held the first Wednesdayof each month.

Take Part in Contest to RedesignRescue Muni's T-Shirt!

It is time for a new T-Shirt design. Welove our current “Don’t Be Late”T-shirts but we feel it is time for achange. We are asking any interestedmembers to help in designing the newT-shirt as part of a design contest. Wewill keep our same logo, but all otherdesign elements are up for grabs.

If your design is chosen or partiallyincorporated into the new design, youwill win a free t-shirt as well as gethonored in our newsletter.

Please send images of your designvia a pdf f i le to dankrause

@rescuemuni.org or mail in yourdesign to: Rescue Muni, P.O. Box190966, San Francisco, CA 94119-0966.

Send an e-mail to address above orleave a message on our voice mail at415-273-1558 if you have anyquestions.

Please send in no later thanMarch 31st, 2005.

Good Luck!

Page 5

to light rail in the near future, we mustmaintain complete separation of transitlanes from automobile lanes whereverBRT construction takes place. If weconstruct mix flow lanes (cars andbuses sharing the same lane) on anyblocks where BRT is constructed, acomplete re-construction will berequired for conversion to rail or theremight be the temptation to run trainsin mix flow. We are categoricallyopposed to running BRT or light railin mixed flow because of detrimentaleffect on reliability and speed. Wedon’t want a repeat of the 3rd StreetLight Rail Project, where Muni isconstructing 10 blocks of mixed-flowlanes right in the heart of the BayviewCommercial core. Muni will regret thisdecision when reliability on their brandnew rail line is poor because trains willbe stuck in heavy automobile traffic.To create the two exclusive bus-onlylanes required for “Rail-Ready” BRT,

the elimination of one lane ofautomobile traffic in each direction isnecessary as well as the elimination ofangled parking on certain blocks.Automobile users will also benefitbecause most buses will be removedfrom car lanes, reducing traffic andother bus-auto conflicts caused bybuses pulling in and out of stations andhogging two lanes at times becausethey are too wide.

2) Close access to cross trafficon lightly-used roads thatcurrently cross through Geary.Currently there are a high number ofintersections with cross traffic alongGeary between 33th and Masonic. Byblocking traffic from crossing Geary onselected streets, interference to transitvehicles will be reduced, improvingspeed and reliability.

STREET LAYOUT FOR "RAIL-READY" BRT ALLOWS FOR TWOEXCLUSIVE TRANSIT LANES, TWO AUTO LANES IN EACHDIRECTION & PARALLEL PARKING ON BOTH SIDES OF GEARY.

(continued on following page)

(Image by David Vasquez)

Page 20

In the political arena, November’selection represented a mix of wins andlosses for Rescue Muni. Four of sixRescue Muni-supported candidateswon seats on the Board of Supervisors.RM-backed candidates JakeMcGoldrick, Aaron Peskin, SeanElsbernd, and Tom Ammiano all wontheir races; Andrew Sullivan lost toRoss Mirkarimi in District 5, andRebecca Silverberg lost to GerardoSandoval in District 11. Rescue Muni

November '04 Elections: Rescue MuniWins and LossesBy Daniel Murphy

made no endorsement in District 2.BART Director Tom Radulovich,endorsed by Rescue Muni for the thirdtime, won re-election unopposed.

Many Rescue Muni memberscontributed to or volunteered for theSullivan campaign; on behalf of RescueMuni, Andrew pledged to work closelywith Supervisor-elect Mirkarimi inpromoting better mass transit in SanFrancisco.

At the last Steering Committeemeeting on January 10th, it was decidedto form a Membership andFundraising Committee. Thepurpose of this committee will be toenlarge Rescue Muni’s membershipand to raise additional funds so wehave the resources to expand theactivities of the organization.

In the coming years, Rescue Muni isplanning a very ambitious agenda,including advocacy for Geary BRT andRail, numerous other BRT/TPSprojects around San Francisco, as wellas continuing our annual Rider’s Surveyand the monitoring of the day-to-dayof Muni operations. To be effective inaccomplishing all these priorities,Rescue Muni's Steering Committee ischarging the new committee with the

Join The New Membership andFundraising Committee

task of raising the funds necessary tohire Dan Krause on as a half-timeManaging Director. Currently, Dan isworking 15 hours a month for theorganization. By bring him on for 20hours a week, Rescue Muni will havethe resources to lobby more effectivelyfor our priorities as well as reach outto the public much more extensively.

We need your help! If you areinterested in helping Rescue Muniexpand its membership and raise funds,please attend a Membership andFundraising Committee Meeting. Tostart off, we will be meeting on the 4th

Tuesday of every month, with our 1st

meeting being Tuesday, January 25th at6:30 pm. We will meet at 312 SutterSt., 5th floor at the SPUR offices.

By Andrew Sullivan

(continue on following page 8)

3) Construct the concrete bedof the transit lanes with enoughstrength for Light Rail Vehicles(LRV). A “Rail-Ready” BRT projectdemands we pour a concrete substratethat can support full rail operations.Otherwise when we convert to rail,we will have to stop bus service forseveral years, jackhammer the buslanes and redo the bed of the road tosupport rail. Not only would this beimmensely more expensive, it wouldthrow buses back into mixed flowtraffic for several years. In other wordsit would be a complete mess.

4) Put the rails in now! Anotherrequirement of “Rail-Ready” BRT is tolay the rails now. It is ourunderstanding that rails can sit formany years without harm to theirfunctionality. And when it comes torapid transit projects, the rails aren’tthe main cost of the project. Again, ifwe don’t put rails in now, the bus laneswill have to be torn out andreconstructed, creating a mess.

5) Construct stations with sideplatforms as oppose to centerplatforms. The main benefit ofstations with side-platforms for BRTis we can use standard buses withright-side doors. If we constructcenter platforms, either buses have torun contra-flow to automobile trafficcreating safety issues or we have toorder special buses with left sidedoors, driving up the cost of the Phase2 project. With an opening date of2010 in Rescue Muni’s plan, weenvision utilizing existing buses for acouple of years, until Muni’s scheduledreplacement of the buses takes placein 2012. If Muni has to buy buses two

years early, they have to use local fundsfor the purchase without help fromother funding sources. Side platformsalso allows for two landscaped mediansin the street which creates a moredistinct and separate transit right-of-way from auto traffic as well as creatinga more pleasant urban design. Thesetwo medians can then give way for leftturn lanes for cars and stationplatforms.

6) Include station amenities suchas quality shelters and real timeinformation systems. Technologythat allows people to know when thenext bus is coming by displaying GPSinformation at the station and on theinternet and mobile phones willencourage additional ridership.Comfortable stations that shelterpeople from the wind and noise of autotraffic will also encourage ridership.

Phase 3 – Convert Entire GearyCorridor to Light RailConverting the Geary Corridor to lightrail will begin by constructing a subwaytunnel under Post St. (Van Ness toMarket) over a number of years whilemaintaining BRT service in OuterGeary and enhanced bus service alongGeary and O’Farrell streets along theInner Geary. See article in theSeptember 2004 issue of Transfer titled“Rescue Muni’s Vision – CentralSubway and Geary Rail” for a detaileddescription. Simultaneous to subwayconstruction, Outer Geary gradeseparations will be constructed at keyintersections, especially betweenMasonic and Laguna. As completionof the tunnel and grade separationsnears, overhead electric wires suitable

Page 19

not as reliable as those from previousyears. Rescue Muni needs your helpin 2005 to make the survey moreaccurate and useful for Muni riders and

Change %Total in % Late- Avg. CleanData % late ness Wait Crowd (Clean

Route Pts. Late from '03 Grade Time Score Grade)

1 39 13% -30% B 0:05 3.51 92% (A)5 105 10% -6.1% A 0:03 2.73 90% (A)6 21 5% -8.7% A 0:05 1.58 100% (A)7 20 1% -20.9% A 0:05 2.70 100% (A)14 86 30% +14.8% D 0:07 3.15 66% (D)19 15 19% +11.6% B 0:09 2.80 60% (D)21 73 19% +4.0% B 0:05 3.13 77% (C)22 25 12% +0.1% B 0:04 3.10 79% (C)24 39 16% -5.1% B 0:06 2.61 52% (F)26 19 14% -7.0% B 0:16 2.00 50% (F)30 15 4% -27.9% A 0:03 1.89 78% (C)33 29 10% -1.5% B 0:05 1.78 56% (F)37 38 5% -2.6% A 0:07 2.21 88% (B)38 15 7% 0.0% A 0:03 3.38 64% (D)38L 12 25% +25.0% C 0:04 2.83 92% (A)43 47 15% -6.6% B 0:11 2.17 60% (D)44 17 18% +2.3% B 0:10 2.76 79% (C)45 19 9% +3.8% A 0:09 2.33 67% (D)47 59 9% +3.2% A 0:04 2.97 81% (B)48 15 13% +13.3% B 0:09 2.21 92% (A)49 36 8% +7.6% A 0:04 2.83 65% (D)71 18 9% +3.0% A 0:05 2.92 92% (A)F 29 24% -1.7% C 0:08 2.59 100% (A)J 45 18% -0.4% B 0:07 2.71 96% (A)JKLMN 34 3% -10.0% A 0:01 2.94 91% (A)K 31 23% +22.6% C 0:07 2.48 61% (D)KLM 104 8% -14.1% A 0:02 3.07 70% (C)L 41 5% -1.8% A 0:05 3.23 64% (D)N 92 9% -3.3% A 0:04 3.05 88% (B)Grand Total

1234 12.29% -1.5% B 0:05 2.81 79% (C)

service planners! Please email us attransit1@rescuemuni.org if you’d liketo participate in 2005.

Results By Line(Note: Fewer lines are listed than in previous years because of the lower responserate this year. We need you to help reverse this trend in 2005!)

Page 6

A VISION OF A RECONFIGURED MASONIC HILL. TRAINS WOULDOCCUPY THE CURRENT AUTO TUNNEL BY MOVING CARS TOTHE SURFACE BY DECKING OVER AND NARROWING THEENTRANCES TO TUNNEL.

EXISTING STREET CONFIGURATION APPOACHING MASONICHILL AUTO TUNNEL.

(Image by David Vasquez)

Page 18

2004 Muni Riders' Survey Results-Part II

In April 2004, Rescue Muni conductedits annual survey of Municipal Railwayservice reliability. This survey is donefrom the rider’s perspective andattempts to show the chances that anindividual rider will be delayed or ridingan overcrowded or dirty bus orstreetcar. In 2004, Muni continuedalong the path of improvement thatbegan in 1999, reducing delays over2003 substantially.

In 2004, volunteers submitted data for1234 rides on Muni during the monthof April . (1009 were taken byvolunteers riding the bus; theremaining were vehicles observedgoing by a fixed point by volunteers.)Volunteers also recorded direction,destination, time of arrival, crowding,and cleanliness.

Our volunteers found that riders weredelayed 12.3% of the time, a significantimprovement over last year’s score of13.8% delayed, and continuing toreflect a major improvement over theworst years of 1997-99. Since the“Metro Meltdown” year of 1998,delays have been cut by well over half.As a percentage of advertisedheadway, waiting time also declined to62% of posted frequency; this alsoreflects improved reliability. This year,service improved over 2003 for mostmodes (except diesel and limited-stop),but the low number of total responsesmay make this a less reliable figure.

Not all metrics improved. Systemwidecleanliness worsened this year from84% to 79% clean, with diesel, electric,and light rail vehicles all reported dirty

more often. Average crowding alsoworsened for the second straight year,with an average crowding level of 2.8on a scale of 1 to 5, up from 2.7 lastyear.

The best lines in this year’s surveywere the 7-Haight, JKLMN streetcar(from Embarcadero to Van Ness), 30-Stockton, 6-Parnassus, and 37-Corbett. All of these got “A” gradeswith fewer than 10% of riders delayed.In all, 13 lines with sufficient data (min.15 responses) were graded “A.”

Lines that performed poorly this yearincluded the 14-Mission, graded “D”with 30% of riders delayed, and the38L-Geary Limited, graded “C” with25% of riders delayed. Other lines thatdid poorly included the F-Markethistoric streetcar, and K-Ingleside,both graded “C.” It is notable thatmany fewer lines were graded poorlythis year than in previous years. Mostimproved in 2004 was the 1-California,which was the least improved in 2003.

This year’s survey showed anotherimprovement in service reliability. Muniis to be commended for continuing toreduce delays. Problems withcleanliness and crowding arecontinuing to get worse, however - thisis probably due to budget cuts andservice reductions, but it is importantthat Muni management keep the focuson maintaining a quality customerexperience.

It’s also worth noting that there was asharp decline in participation in thisyear’s survey. As a result, the data are

Compiled by Andrew Sullivan

Page 7

Page 8

FILLMORE TRENCH EXTENSION FOR TRANSIT UNDER WEBSTER

for light-rail vehicles will be installedalong the entire length of the Corridor.Once the tunnel and electric wires arecomplete, conversion to light rail willbe relatively fast. Some smallmodifications may be needed to OuterGeary, but the large infrastructurework will have already been completedduring construction of the Rail-ReadyBRT phase. The goal will be to haveminimum disruption of rapid-transitservice during the conversion process.Rescue Muni has a goal of completingthe light-rail project by 2020.

Elements of a Geary Corridor Light-RailProject1) Take over the Masonic autotunnel for Light Rail. We areproposing to reconfigure the Masonic/Geary intersection to allow for light-

rail vehicles to be the sole occupantof the tunnel under Geary andMasonic. To accomplish this, we areadvocating for a design which adds twoauto lanes at the street level by deckingover the entrances to the tunnel,causing them to narrow so that justenough space remains for light-railvehicles to enter the tunnel in bothdirections. This scenario will allow forfour auto lanes of through traffic atthe surface on the west side of thetunnel and potentially six auto laneson the east side of the tunnel at rushhour (see before & after images onpage 7). Rescue Muni is totallycommitted to keeping transit lanesgrade separated at this intersection;otherwise service will be slow andunreliable. A viaduct over theMasonic/Geary intersection is not

(Image by David Vasquez)

Page 17

people. A $100 per parcel tax couldbring in $1.8 million annually. It’spossible to base parcel taxes on thesize of a parcel, but not on the valueof the parcel, so some might argue thatthis constitutes a somewhat regressivetax, falling disproportionately on smallproperty owners and, possibly,renters.

Local gasoline tax. State lawpermits a local tax of 1¢ per gallon ofgas, but l imits its use to theconstruction and maintenance ofpublic transit guideways, not operatingcosts. Such a tax would raise $2million per year and require a two-thirds vote of the people. Onepotential problem with such a tax isthat some people might simply chooseto buy gas in San Mateo County, thuscreating some additional traffic andpollution, and cutting into SanFrancisco’s gas tax revenue.

Local vehicle environmentalimpact fee. A fee charged againstregistered vehicles in San Franciscowould require authorization from thestate legislature and the governor, andwould take at least two years toimplement. How much money such afee could raise is still unknown, andwould depend both on how much wasauthorized by the state and howlawmakers split the revenue betweenMTA and the City.

Discontinuing Fast Pass use onBART. Currently, Muni Fast Passesare good on BART for trips that begin

and end within San Francisco; Munireimburses BART 87¢ for each FastPass ride. Ending this practice wouldsave Muni about $9 million per year,but that would be offset in two ways:first, some Fast Pass users would stopbuying passes and pay BART directlyfor their ride; second, Muni might haveto provide new service, particularly inthe Mission corridor, to people whoswitched from BART to Muni.Currently, the marginal cost of newMuni service is well above 87¢ per ride.Rescue Muni opposes ending Fast Passuse on BART, and believes the currentpolicy is good for Muni riders (becauseit provides them more choices), forMuni (because it’s a relativelyinexpensive way to provide service),and for BART (because manycommuters ride trains that are lessthan full, allowing BART to collectrevenue without the cost of additionalservice).

While not all of these proposals areequally good or equally viable, this yearMTA is making a much greater effortthan before to expand the debate overrevenue and present options otherthan the usual litany of fare increasesand service cuts. The projected deficitfor the next eighteen months is solarge that it’s very likely MTA will putforward a package containing a mix offare increases, service cuts, and otherrevenue options. Rescue Muni willfight to ensure that other revenueoptions are maximized before any fareincreases or service cuts areconsidered.

Page 9

FILLMORE TRENCH EXTENSION FOR TRANSIT UNDER STEINER

desirable because of urban designissues and certain strong oppositionfrom residents and merchants in thearea.

2) Construct other key gradeseparation projects at thefollowing streets that intersectGeary:–Webster, Fillmore & Steiner (byextending the center portion of thetrench under Fillmore for light-railvehicles, allowing them to go underWebster to the east and Steiner tothe west).–Scott & Divisidero (by constructinga short viaduct over the two streets -see images on page 10).–Park Presidio (most likely by dippingPark Presidio under Geary).

There is no point in investing largesums of money in rapid transit projectsif they are not very “rapid.” Gradeseparations at congested intersectionscan really speed up service. If wecomplete the grade separationsdescribed above as well as closing theBaker/Geary intersection, we lay thegroundwork for a faster light-rail line,which will encounter no cross trafficwhatsoever all the way from theterminal station at Post andMontgomery to a few blocks west ofMasonic. In addition, the trains won’tbe slowed at the intersection of Gearyand Park Presidio.

3) Construct stations with sideplatforms as oppose to centerplatforms. With an upgrade to rail,

(continued on following page)

(Image by David Vasquez)

Page 16

Tough Budget Year Ahead for MuniBy Daniel Murphy

The defeat of two tax measures onthe November ballot—Propositions Jand K—along with soaring health careand retirement costs mean that Muniis facing a budget deficit of between$49 million and $70 million over thenext eighteen months. Fare increasesand service reductions are among theoptions contemplated for closing thisunusually wide gap.

This year, however, the MunicipalTransportation Agency (MTA), whichruns both Muni and the Departmentof Parking and Traffic, included otheroptions in their budget presentationto the MTA Board. These include:

Parking taxes. Right now, the taxon commercial parking spaces is 25%;an increase to 35% could raise anadditional $8.6 million per year, halfof which would go to Muni. Thiswould require a two-thirds vote of thepeople, but other cities have voted toraise parking taxes to pay for transit,and revenue measures for transit havefared well in the last several electioncycles, so this seems viable. The nextscheduled election is November 2005,however, meaning the change couldn’tgo into effect until early 2006.

Parking meter increases. Meterrate increases would require only avote of the Board of Supervisors, andcould go into effect a few months afterapproval. MTA estimates that anincrease could bring in $2-4 millionannually. The MTA Citizens Advisory

Council also recommended expandingmeter hours in selected locations.

Parking fine increases. Parking fineincreases are another revenuemeasure which requires only a voteof the Board of Supervisors, and couldraise an additional $2-10 million peryear, half of which would effectivelygo to the MTA. One problem withfine increases is that, in the long run,they change behavior—far fewerpeople violate the law when the finesget sufficiently steep—so it’s difficultto raise fines in way that maximizesrevenue. But many parking offenses—particularly sidewalk and bus stopparking—interfere with Muni ridersand should, for that alone, be penalizedheavily.

Parking garage rate increases.The MTA Board can raise parkinggarage rates by itself, andimplementation would take just a fewmonths. Market rates limit how highparking garage rates can go, however,since the city competes with privategarages which can adjust their ratesto meet market demand. Rescue Munisupports raising all garage rates tomarket level, however, and it’s possiblethe market rate would increase if thevoters also approve a higher parkingtax, some of which would be passedon to private garage customers.

Parcel tax. Because of state law,raising property taxes is difficult, but aflat parcel tax for transit could beapproved by a two-thirds vote of the

Page 10

additional stations will be constructedto the Outer Geary. These stationsshould have side platforms to matchthe BRT stations built in Phase 2. Theexception to this rule are grade-separated stations, where centerplatforms will be required because ofspatial constriants related to stairs,elevators, and escalators. Divisideroand Fillmore stations are likely to havecenter platforms.

Next StepsThe Current SituationMuni and the San Francisco CountyTransportation (SFCTA) are currentlyplanning to construct Inner Geary TPSin 2005 and Outer Geary BRT withinthe next five to seven years. Currently,

A SHORT VIADUCT OVER SCOTT AND DIVISIDERO ELIMINATESTHE NEED FOR TRAINS TO CROSS TWO BUSY INTERSECTIONS

they are not seriously planning toimplement light-rail service. Inaddition, it is not clear what type ofBRT project we are going to getbecause the SFCTA is heavily involvedin the conceptual design of the BRTproject. There may be philosophicaldifferences between Muni and theSFCTA on how to design andconstruct BRT along Geary. RescueMuni is very concerned about thepotential to get a mediocre BRTproject that is not “Rail-Ready”, orsomething done on the cheap.

The SFCTA, not Muni, is currentlyrunning a Geary Corridor Citizen’sAdvisory Committee and producing aGeary Corridor Study. The Citizen’s

(Image by David Vasquez)

(Image by David Vasquez)

Page 15

Muni’s plans to speed up the 38-Gearyline hit a major snag in Decemberwhen supervisors voted to gut a keyelement of the plan: re-spacing stopsalong Geary and O’Farrell streets eastof Van Ness. Despite support for theplan from Rescue Muni, the BicycleCoalition, Transportation for a LivableCity, and other pro-transit groups, thesupervisors made funding for the plancontingent on Muni giving up part ofthe respacing plan. The vote, on anamendment from Supervisor ChrisDaly, was 9-1, with Supervisor SeanElsbernd casting the lone vote onbehalf of Muni riders and wethank him for that.

Currently bus stops in the inner Gearycorridor are spaced much closertogether than is normal for Muni. Atone point, there are even two stopson one short block. These force busesto slow down, pull into the bus zone,open the doors, and load and unloadpassengers at each stop. Muni’sproposal would space the stops abouttwo blocks apart in each direction, wellwithin the standard citywide. RescueMuni supports the plan and argues thatit provides faster and more reliable

service, not just for residents in theouter Geary corridor, but forTenderloin residents as well.

Unfortunately, as a results of theBoard of Supervisors' vote, two busstops that were to be eliminated inMuni's plan will now remain. This factwill reduce effectiveness of the projectby reducing time savings and reliabilty.

Rescue Muni chair Andrew Sullivancalled the vote “just appalling” and said“Having the Board of Supervisorsdebate the specific location of stops—arbitrarily restoring and removingsome—is exactly what Proposition Ewas intended to avoid. It’s a shame tosee the supervisors leverage theircontrol over money approved by thevoters to kill good, low-cost, pro-transit planning initiatives from Muni.”He thanked Supervisor Elsbernd forhaving the guts to stand up for Muniriders.

Supervisors didn’t even bother to voteon a compromise proposal, backed bySupervisor Jake McGoldrick, whichwould have done less damage toMuni’s plan.

Supervisors Vote to Water Down Plan forImprovements to Inner GearyBy Daniel Murphy

Central Subway UpdateBy Dan KrauseRescue Muni’s ongoing efforts toconvince Muni officials to re-think howto construct the Central Subwayappears to be making progress. Muniofficials have recently presented a newoption for the alignment of the Central

Subway, which would move thecurrent alignment from 3rd St. to 4th

St., as advocated for by Rescue Muni.Under this option, Muni would alsoeliminate one station, bring the total

(continued on page 21)

Page 11

(continued on following page)

Advisory Committee will be creatingrecommendations on how to proceedwith the development of a BRT (andpotentially light rail) project alongOuter Geary. After taking input fromthe community via this Citizen’sAdvisory Committee, the SFCTA willproduce the Geary Corridor Study,which will likely produce the preferredproject alternatives for inclusion in afuture Environmental Impact Report(EIR) for Phase 2 work only.

Proposal to Implement and FundRescue Muni's Vision for GearyAs described above, Rescue Muni hasa much more ambitious agenda for theCorridor. Rescue Muni is veryconcerned about how the SFCTA andMuni are going about planning for BusRapid Transit along Geary and certainlyare distressed that light rail hasdropped out of all planning efforts.How can we achieve Rescue Muni’sbold vision to construct both “Rail-Ready” BRT and light rail for the GearyCorridor in light of the currentplanning efforts and the fiscallyconstrained times we live in?

Below is a proposal for funding RescueMuni's vision for Geary Rapid Transit.The this proposal has NOT yet beenapproved by the Rescue Muni SteeringCommittee, but it will be broughtbefore the Service Expansion andSteering Committtees in the nearfuture. We need YOUR input on whatwe should ultimately recommend toMuni and the SFCTA on financing thiscrucial project.

Strong VisionThe reason to have a BRT phase isbecause we want faster and more re-

liable service as soon as possible, wellbefore light rail can be completed.Therefore, we must avoid the typicalfederal funding process, which is verylong and laborious. If we went throughthe federal funding process, the fast-est we could have BRT would be 2015.Therefore, we strongly encourage theusage of Proposition K funds immedi-ately to produce all environmental andengineering studies for the project.Construction of BRT should utilizeboth Proposition K BRT funds andbond money (if approved by voters).This strategy should get us a com-pleted project by 2010. Other mis-cellaneous sources of funds should beexplored regionally. State fundingshould be explored but not countedon due to the current budget crisis,but this could improve in a couple ofyears or so. There is a slight possibil-ity of obtaining a federal earmark, butwe don’t to slow the project down,so this option is highly unlikely.

Begin Official Federal Process Now forGeary Corridor Light RailA significant level of federal funding willbe required to construct light rail alongthe Geary Corridor. To receive thisfunding, projects have to follow afederal process. We are stronglyadvocating that the current planninggoing on at the Geary CorridorCitizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC)and the SFCTA should result in thecommencement of this federalprocess, which requires the followingstudies be undertaken: 1) SystemsPlanning Study; 2) Corridor Study;3) Alternate Analysis Study; 4)Environmental Impact Report/

Page 14

the system we will need in the comingdecades.

There are three main ways to raiseadditional local money for Geary aswell as other capital transit expansionprojects:

1) General Obligation Bonds – SanFrancisco residents frequently havepassed local bonds for capital projectsof all kinds such as Laguna Honda. SanFrancisco currently has some room toincrease its bond debt and remainfinancially healthy. Rescue Muni iscurrently studying two bond proposalsthat could be allocated for transitimprovements citywide, with thecenterpiece of both being the GearyRapid Transit Corridor. The first bondwould be put on the ballot in the nearfuture and provide funds for Phase 2(BRT) and studies for Phase 3 (lightrail) and the second bond would beplaced on the ballot in 5-8 years andprovide funds for the construction ofPhase 3 (light rail).

2) Joint Development at the PresidioMaintenance Yard – This strategyinvolves taking Muni-owned land andworking with a developer to constructa project there. Revenues from thesale or lease of the land or air rightscan go to Muni, which can then usethe money for light-rail work andoperations along Geary. Due to thelong lead time of such development,funds raised will go to Phase 3 (lightrail), not BRT. Rescue Muni sees thePresidio yard at Masonic and Geary asa huge opportunity for jointdevelopment by selling the air rightsof the site to construct a developmentover the existing bus yard while

continuing operations there. Wewould like to see this process beginimmediately by having Muni and theGeary Corridor Citizen’s AdvisoryCommittee start planning fordevelopment of this site.

3) Redevelopment Tax-IncrementFunding at the Masonic and GearyArea – Money can also be raised tofund a project by designating aRedevelopment Area. After theredevelopment as taken place, anyadditional property tax raised abovetoday’s current level can be applieddirectly to projects within the ProjectArea rather than going the City’sgeneral fund. These funds pay backbonds that are issued for construction.This process is called tax-incrementfinancing. We see a huge opportunityaround the Masonic and Gearyintersection to intensify land-uses,especially the moribund shoppingcenter and the Presidio MaintenanceYard sites just to the South and Northof Geary respectively. Again, themoney raised would be applied onlyto light rail, not BRT.

ConclusionA significant upgrade of transit for theGeary Corridor is long overdue. Publicofficials have put it off before and it islikely that they will only pursue minorimprovements this time around unlesswe the citizens demand higherstandards. Yes it will take longer andcost more money. But doesn’t one ofthe busy transit corridors in the entirenation deserve a major investment? Ofcourse it does and now is the time tobegin.

Page 12

Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS); 5) Preliminary Engineering.

Fortunately, Muni has a head start onthis process because of previousstudies. Muni has done much systemsplanning work which can be used inproducing a “Systems Planning Study.”Both the required “Corridor Study”and Alternate Analysis Study” canutilize detailed information from largestudy Muni produced named the“Geary Corridor System PlanningStudy”, which was completed byMerrill and Associates in 1995. Ofcourse parts the Merrill and Associatesreport are clearly out of date and needupdating.

Muni should quickly produce the firstthree studies in the process and moveonto an EIR/EIS and then PreliminaryEngineering without hesitation. Again,funding these studies can be includedin a transit bond. However, we urgeMuni to begin some of the low-coststudies immediately.

Develop Two Separate Funding Plans &Begin Lobbying for Funds NowThe first step to developing a fundingplan is to estimate the costs of theproject first. We have done someresearch on potential costs of bothPhases 2 and 3 (BRT and light rail) byextrapolating numbers from othersimilar transit projects. Please notethe following items will have to bepriced out in great detail and thenumbers represent a ballpark forplanning and advocacy purposes. Onthe revenue side, the numbers for jointdevelopment and redevelopment tax-increment financing are very rough andbased on extrapolations from other

redevelopment projects such as theTransbay Terminal. In other words,please don’t hold us to these numbers.These funding plans should be vieweda potential scenarios only,understanding that the numbers belowmay vary significantly and that thereare other ways to creatively fund theseprojects.

Funding Scenario #1 – Phase 2:Rail-Ready” Bus Rapid TransitEstimated (Rough) Costs ofPhase 2 – “Rail Ready” BRT1. $200M – Construction of 2.6miles of exclusive transit lanes,including tracks and stations fromaround Collins (just West ofMasonic) to 33rd Ave.2. TOTAL ESTIMATED COST FORGEARY RAIL-READY BRT - $200M

Funding Scenario for Phase 2 – “RailReady” BRT1. $50M – Prop K BRT/TPS CategoryMoney2. $110M – Local Transit Bond #13. $40M – Misc. Regional/StateSources (MTC Discretionary, Prop. 42,etc.)4. TOTAL REVENUE PRODUCEDBY FUNDING SCENARIO - $200M

Funding Scenario #2 – Phase 3:Light RailEstimated (Rough) Costs of Phase 3 –Conversion of “Rail Ready” BRT to Light-Rail Service1. $1B – 1.7 miles of SubwayConstruction (Portal just West ofLaguna to downtown, stub-endterminus station at Montgomery andPost); This cost estimate includes 4subway stations (Van Ness/Post;Leavenworth/Post; Stockton/Post;

Page 13

Montgomery/Post), the purchase oflight-rail vehicles, the expansion ofMetro East and engineering. This lumpsum was extrapolated based on thecurrent cost estimates of the CentralSubway.2. $60M – Masonic/Geary Intersectionreconfiguration to allow for BRT totake over the auto tunnel.3. $50M – Short viaduct going overDivisadero and Scott streets.4. $50M – Extention of trench underFillmore to allow train to go underSteiner and Webster.5. $15M – Widen trench underFillmore to allow for two auto lanesin each direction (in addition to onefrongtage lane in each direction).6. $50M – Grade separation of ParkPresidio under Geary Blvd.7. $50M – Overhead electric wireson the Outer Geary portion of thecorridor (from Laguna Portal to theocean).8. $100M – Financing Costs (to payfor interest for cash flow shortfalls dueto long schedule in receiving all Federal& State contributions).9. TOTAL ESTIMATED COST FORUPGRADE TO LIGHT RAIL FROM"RAIL-READY" BRT - $1.35 BILLION

Funding Scenario for Phase 3 –Conversion of “Rail Ready” BRT to Light-Rail Service1. $25M – Joint Development atMuni’s Presidio Maintenance Yard2. $75M – Regional Money (Flexiblemoney from the Feds but run thoughMTC)3. $100M – Masonic Area Transit-Oriented Development4. $175M – Local Transit Bond #25. $300M – State Funding (assuminga better economy, Prop 42 funds, &

possibly a statewide rail bond forvarious transit projects statewide)6. $675M – Federal New-Starts -50/50 Matching.7. TOTAL REVENUE PRODUCEDBY FUNDING SCENARIO - $1.35BILLION

Description of Funding SourcesDue to underinvestment in transitprojects both nationally and at thestate level, all proposed projects arein high-level of competition with oneanother. If we are to be successful inobtaining matching funds from stateand federal sources for both Phases 2and 3, it requires a high level of localfunding.

Currently we have very little localfunding committed for Muni transitexpansion projects after we completethe 3rd Street Light-Rail and the CentralSubway. There is only one pot ofmoney that is designated for othertransit expansion projects.Proposition K, which passed inNovember of 2003 set aside $110Mfor BRT and TPS (Transit PreferentialStreets – things like bus bulbs whichenhance regular bus service) projectscitywide over the next 30 years. Thisis a deplorable amount of local moneyfor Muni transit expansion projects forsuch a long period of time. Most ofProposition K’s money for Muni wasdesignated for maintenance and vehiclepurchases. While Rescue Munisupports maintaining the system wehave before we expand the system, thefact remains that the ½ cent sales taxextension that Proposition K providedwas simply not enough money to build

(continued on following page)