Muni's poor performance and its economic impact

[SunDevil1212]

Originally Posted by mayorhaggar

It's the responsibility of the whole Bay Area to provide people with a reliable way to get to work. The government, tech companies, non-tech companies, voters, etc. But politics in the Bay Area is just completely dysfunctional. When I lived in Chicago, not only was the CTA way more reliable than Muni, but there was a sense that the city as a whole took pride in making sure the CTA was reliable in the first place. In the Bay Area people ***** and moan about Muni but never actually do anything about it, but it's completely understandable. Nobody wants to give Muni more money because Muni already has a pretty huge budget and does a completely crap job of providing service. Why throw more money at it?

And the IT industry has a lot of clout...probably too much clout, really, considering how few people each tech firm employs. If Twitter can, on its own, get a big sweetheart tax deal from SF, you'd think all the big tech firms in and around SF could band together to pressure Muni to stop being lame. But they're smarter than that and did an end run with their shuttles...but do firms in SF provide shuttles from the burbs into SF? Or do their employees have to sweat and suffer on the 14L just like all the Salvadoreans riding to work at tacquerias? Probably the latter.

IMO just burn Muni to the ground, sell off all its buses and crappy light rail trains to the third world where they belong, and build a totally new organization that isn't just an employment scheme. Until that happens, the Bay Area will resemble LA more and more.

Okay, yeah I think we agree a lot on this. Regarding the "burn Muni to the ground", what I'd love to see is this: Outsource MUNI entirely to a private operator. Competitively bid the operation of the MUNI system, and set-up a contract with minimum service-level requirements that exceed MUNI's current performance. Set up an incentive contract where every dollar saved for the city of SF (compared to old muni budgets) is a dollar of profit for the contractor. Win-win-win. Win for the city, win for the contractor, and more importantly - win for the people of San Francisco. The only people that would lose here are the current MUNI employees that have been overpaid/under-performing and living off of our tax dollars.

It would never happen in this town, but I can dream, can't I?

[SunDevil1212]

Here are some examples of what I'm talking about.

Strapped Cities Outsource Transit Lines - WSJ.com

Mr. Marsella's agency outsources about 47% of its fixed-route bus service to Veolia and Ohio-based First Transit Inc. Buses operated by the companies are on time at roughly the same rate as the buses driven by RTD employees, Mr. Marsella said, but the privately run buses produce cost savings of roughly $30 an hour. Among the reasons: Starting pay for bus drivers employed by RTD is $15.49 per hour, versus $12.25 for ones the companies hire.

All you have to do is set the contract up right from the start - set strict performance requirements to ensure services to the commuters don't slip.

To me, saving money and offering better service seems like "progress." But again, I just can't see privatization happening in "progressive" San Francisco. Although, they outsourced trash to Recology so perhaps there is a sliver of hope....

[mayorhaggar]

I don't really see privatization as the silver bullet. Transit isn't really something that easily works as a free market because you can't really have true competition. Either you assign different routes to different companies which isn't true competition and is basically a monopoly, or they compete on the same route which is confusing as hell. Transit should be considered more like a regulated utility like water and roads, because it provides a benefit to society as a whole by providing people with a way to simply get to work, and by keeping cars off the road. And keep in mind in the Bay Area EVERYONE takes public transit, rich and poor alike, so it's not like other cities like LA where it's easy to demonize or neglect public transit as basically welfare for "lazy poor people."

I wouldn't have any problem with contracting out service to a private company if it worked out well, but a lot of times when stuff like that is outsourced it just ends up costing way more money than if it was a public service, precisely because it's basically a monopoly. When you've signed the contract and start providing service, it's easy to start getting lazy or cutting corners or spending too much money. Happens time and time again with outsourced projects.

And, again, the CTA provides way the hell better service than Muni, and it's a governmental entity too. And I don't think unions are the villain at all, they are part of the problem but CTA is just as unionized and again provides way the hell better service.

Again I think the main problem is the Bay Area is just super dysfunctional in general, especially when it comes to public services.

[SunDevil1212]

Originally Posted by mayorhaggar

I don't really see privatization as the silver bullet. Transit isn't really something that easily works as a free market because you can't really have true competition. Either you assign different routes to different companies which isn't true competition and is basically a monopoly, or they compete on the same route which is confusing as hell. Transit should be considered more like a regulated utility like water and roads, because it provides a benefit to society as a whole by providing people with a way to simply get to work, and by keeping cars off the road. And keep in mind in the Bay Area EVERYONE takes public transit, rich and poor alike, so it's not like other cities like LA where it's easy to demonize or neglect public transit as basically welfare for "lazy poor people."

I wouldn't have any problem with contracting out service to a private company if it worked out well, but a lot of times when stuff like that is outsourced it just ends up costing way more money than if it was a public service, precisely because it's basically a monopoly. When you've signed the contract and start providing service, it's easy to start getting lazy or cutting corners or spending too much money. Happens time and time again with outsourced projects.

And, again, the CTA provides way the hell better service than Muni, and it's a governmental entity too. And I don't think unions are the villain at all, they are part of the problem but CTA is just as unionized and again provides way the hell better service.

Again I think the main problem is the Bay Area is just super dysfunctional in general, especially when it comes to public services.

Well, obviously once you award a contract to a private company for transit services you are stuck with them for a period of time. But that doesn't mean you can take advantage of competitively bidding the project out ahead of time, and then re-opening the services for competitive bidding every few years. Cities have had plenty of success outsourcing transit, its just a matter of setting up the contract right, re-opening it every few years, setting strict performance targets and structuring incentives into the contract.

[Malloric]

Originally Posted by SunDevil1212

Here are some examples of what I'm talking about.

Strapped Cities Outsource Transit Lines - WSJ.com



All you have to do is set the contract up right from the start - set strict performance requirements to ensure services to the commuters don't slip.

To me, saving money and offering better service seems like "progress." But again, I just can't see privatization happening in "progressive" San Francisco. Although, they outsourced trash to Recology so perhaps there is a sliver of hope....

Actually, that's an excellent example.

The buses are $30/hour less to operate and the rank and file employ makes up just 10% of the savings. It's really not "the union," it's SF Muni management.