san franciscans repond to the sfmta's transit effectiveness project

PHIL TING and RESET SAN FRANCISCO outreach to Muni riders about the SFMTA’s Transit Effectiveness Project

CITIZENS’ RESPONSE TO THE TEP

www.ResetSanFrancisco.org

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Phil Ting and Reset San Francisco 3

What is the Transit Effectiveness Project? 4

Phil Ting and Reset San Francisco’s

Muni Town Halls 5

San Franciscans Respond 7

Community Response 7

38 GEARY 7

N JUDAH 9

L TARAVAL 11

K INGLESIDE 13

30 STOCKTON 15

M OCEAN VIEW 17

1 CALIFORNIA 19

5 FULTON 20

T THIRD 22

So — what do we do next? 24

Acknowledgments 24

3

PHIL TING AND RESET SAN FRANCISCO Talking to San Franciscans About the Transit Effectiveness Project and Crowdsourcing Solutions for Improving Muni

Over the past few months, Phil Ting and Reset San Francisco have hosted ten Muni town

hall meetings throughout the city to bring San Franciscans together to crowdsource

solutions and ideas for improving the San Francisco Municipal Railway.

There is no singularly more important issue for any city than its transportation infrastruc-

ture. Whether it’s the expense of fuel, the reliability of the mass transit system, or the safety of

cyclists, transportation issues affect every San Franciscan.

In a city as dense as San Francisco, safe and reliable transportation is

not a luxury — it is a basic necessity. Over 200 million passengers a year

rely on Muni to commute to work and get around our city. In fact, San

Francisco residents depend on public transportation more than individuals

from any other county in the Bay Area.

A better Municipal Railway will improve our quality of life, the quality

of our air, and it will be, interestingly, one of the quickest ways to stimu-

late our local economy and create jobs.

According to AAA owning a car costs more than $8,487 per year —

money that goes to pay for gas, insurance and car costs. Almost all of this

money leaves our local economy. By making it easier for San Francisco

families with two cars to be a one-car family and making it possible for

San Franciscans to sell their private autos and instead rely on mass transit, biking, walking and

car-sharing, we will be creating a powerful local economic stimulus.

According to a Brookings Institute Metropolitan Studies report released this past May, in San

Francisco right now:

About 92% of working-age San Franciscans live near a transit stop1

The median wait for any rush hour transit vehicle is 8.5 minutes

Only around 240,000 jobs are accessible via our transit systems in 45 minutes compared

to about 798,000 jobs (or 35%) that are accessible in double the time, 90 minutes

San Francisco has the slowest transportation system in America and an on-time

performance rate of only 71%2

Overall, the Brookings report ranks San Francisco 16th out of 100 U.S. cities for its transit

systems. We are behind San Jose and Fresno as well as Honolulu (number one), Madison, WI,

and Denver, CO. Number 16 isn’t bad, but it isn’t great — and there are some obvious areas

for improvement. If 92% of us live near a transit stop, why are a whopping 35% of the jobs

The Transit

Effectiveness Project

(TEP) is the first

system-wide study

to review Muni and

recommend ways to

make it faster and

more reliable.

4

accessible after an hour and a half commute in a “Transit First” city?

Muni is not just a commute system; its lines have high all-day demand — not just during

peak hours. Public transportation in San Francisco is vital for the entire city, and there are

simple, cost effective solutions to make it better.

What is the Transit Effectiveness Project?

In 2008, the City and County of San Francisco completed a comprehensive transit study

known as the Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP). The TEP was the first system-wide Muni study

undertaken to make transit more convenient. Goals of the TEP are to improve the reliability and

efficiency of Muni, reduce travel times and enhance the customer experience. The purpose of

the TEP was to collect information about Muni and to create a list of recommendations for each

line to make Muni faster and more reliable.

For example, currently, high traffic buses such as the 1 California, 38 Geary, 14 Mission and

30 Stockton spend about 20% of their operating time boarding at bus stops.3 The TEP has

Bus

Light Rail

Heavy Rail

Other

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Source: SFMTA, San Francisco Muni Unique Cost/Operating Environment, originally presented to Muni Revenue Panel July 26, 2007.

BUSES CARRY 75% OF ALL MUNI RIDERS

Percentage of passenger trips carried by each mode

AC Transit (East Bay)

King County Metro (Seattle)

LACMTA (Los Angeles)

Muni (San Francisco)

CTA (Chicago)

SEPTA (Philadelphia)

WMATA (Washington, DC)

NYCT (New York City)

MBTA (Boston)

5

recommendations to address such problems, but it will take a minimum of 24 months before

any of these recommendations can be addressed, as each recommendation has to undergo an

environmental review required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The SFMTA — now faced with a $22.8 million deficit — cites the poor economy as the reason

for not moving forward with the TEP recommendations. And yet the agency has been able to test

“pilot projects,” such as the successful NX Express. Pilot projects offer an opportunity to im-

prove Muni without having to navigate CEQA’s complex approval process, and circumvent the

complex process of multi-level decision makers encompassing the city’s public transportation.

In 2009, 41% of all trips made in San Francisco were made using public transportation.

When it comes to public transportation, time is money. If we increase Muni’s average speed

from 8mph to 10mph we could save the agency $40 million every year. The faster the vehicles,

the fewer vehicles and service hours are required to provide the same level of service.

Unlike transit systems in other peer urban cities, Muni consists of primarily bus lines operat-

ing in mixed flow traffic along dense urban corridors. Indeed, buses carry three-fourths of all

Muni riders. San Francisco’s dense and congested environment combined with Muni’s reli-

ance on on-street mixed right of way traffic takes away any advantage Muni has over traffic. To

combat this, the TEP recommended many transit priority measures, such as bus only lanes and

traffic signal priority.

While the TEP provides a wonderful source of data, what’s missing is a process that enables

more people to be heard. While apathy may be a major aspect of citizen involvement in most

aspects of government, the same cannot be said about Muni. San Franciscans have a breadth

of things to say about Muni — good and bad. Residents and frequent transit riders often under-

stand their bus line better than transit planners and elected officials. Reset San Francisco be-

lieves that fostering a more inclusive and informed public involvement process will help improve

transportation services in San Francisco.

PHIL TING AND RESET SAN FRANCISCO’S MUNI TOWN HALLS

Yes, the Transit Effectiveness Project is a detailed study with great data. Yet, who knows

the bus lines better than the San Franciscans who ride Muni every day?

Phil Ting launched Reset San Francisco to give San Franciscans a greater voice at City

Hall and to engage them to get involved. Shouldn’t our city government be as innovative as the

people of San Francisco? That’s why San Franciscans need to be part of the conversation on how

to make our great city even better.

Phil Ting’s campaign to Reset San Francisco held town halls throughout the city about the 38

Geary, 1 California, 30 Stockton, 5 Fulton, N Judah, L Taraval, K Ingleside, M Ocean View and T

Third Street. At each event, Phil discussed the TEP line recommendations with riders, listened to

6

their ideas and facilitated a conversation be-

tween members of the community. At the town

halls, Phil discussed the TEP findings for each

dedicated Muni line and provided riders with

a forum for expressing their ideas; because we

want to empower Muni riders to have a say in

their transit system. The town halls were de-

signed to encourage Muni riders to provide feed-

back and ideas on the TEP and their daily experi-

ences riding Muni. San Franciscans historically

value community input, and the SFMTA should

too. We hope that the SFMTA will consider

adopting ideas suggested by their customers.

While there were specific concerns for each line, many of the lines shared reoccurring concerns

like reliability, safety and overcrowding — not a surprise since Muni averaged a 73.5% on-time

performance for this quarter, far below the voter-mandated 85% target. On-time performance is

measured by when vehicles run on time according to published schedules, no more than 4 min-

utes late or 1 minute early. (The K Ingleside even

averages a 57.9% on-time performance rate.4)

However, riders say they are less concerned

with Muni’s adherence to schedules and most

interested in improving reliability “headway,”

which is the time interval between trains. While

Muni’s on-time performance for FY2010 was

73.5%, the headway performance was only 60%.5

For example, if a train is scheduled to arrive

every ten minutes and every train is five minutes

late, the interval between trains would still be

every ten minutes. Most riders do not carry Muni

schedules in-hand and schedules are not posted

at all bus stops. Most riders say they just want to

be able to go to their bus stop, or train station,

and know that they will not have to wait more

than 15 minutes.

Phil Ting launched Reset San Francisco to

give San Franciscans a greater voice at City

Hall and to engage them to get involved.

Shouldn’t our city government be as

innovative as the people of San Francisco?

Source: http://sfmta.com/cms/rstd/sstdindx.htm

MUNI COST AND SPEED

Cost System Speed

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2101 2011

7

San Franciscans Respond to the Transit Effectiveness Project Recommendations

The following information was collected by Phil Ting’s campaign, Reset San Francisco, from Sep-

tember to October 2011 from thousands of San Franciscans at in-person community town halls,

telephone town halls and organized online conversations.6

The maps included here are from the SFMTA’s Transit Effectiveness Project. Each line has a

route map with the TEP recommendations and a rider frequency map showing boarding data

and passenger activity.

38 GEARY

COMMUNITY RESPONSE The 38 Geary is the most travelled Muni line in San Francisco with

over 50,000 daily boards — and it travels down one of the busiest corridors of the city. The large

number of passengers, combined with one of the busiest streets in the city, significantly reduces

on-time performance and increases crowding of the 38 Geary. The 38/38L Geary carries daily

passenger volumes similar to peer cities’ trains. Yet, 38 Geary buses have to

compete with mixed-flow traffic along a busy corridor.

To address these issues, the TEP is reviewing the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

study already underway as a means to combat poor on-time performance

and increase service frequencies. The BRT study focuses on evaluating the

impact of having a bus-only lane for Geary Boulevard to improve on-time

performance. Geary’s congested streets reduce 38 Geary bus speeds. BRT

3800

32003000 3000

1700

1100 1100

500

Washington, DC Metro (heavy rail)

Los Angeles Metro (heavy rail)

Muni 38/38L Geary

Muni 30 Stockton/45 Union-Stockton

Chicago El (heavy rail)

BART (heavy rail)

Los Angeles Metro (light rail)

Portland MAX (light rail)

San Jose VTA (light rail)

Source: SFMTA, San Francisco Muni Unique Cost/Operating Environment, originally presented to Muni Revenue Panel July 26, 2007.

THIS BUS COULD BE A TRAIN

Average weekday boardings per route mile (approx.)

The 38 Geary carries over 50,000 passengers a day and travels along one of the busiest streets in the city, significantly affecting its on-time performance.

9

aims to increase speeds by address-

ing issues of double-parked cars

that delay the 38 buses.

The TEP did not recommend any

route changes for the 38 Geary, but

in our conversations with frequent

riders during our telephone town

hall and in-person town hall, riders say a top priority is to have Sunday service for the 38L. The

38L does not currently run on Sundays, so adding the additional service would constitute a

route change. 38 Geary riders also suggested:

Initiating dedicated bus lanes (BRT)

Having better clarification or clearer naming systems for buses (to address confusion

regarding the lines and the neighborhoods they service)

Starting traffic light signal priority for buses

Adding more limited bus service throughout the day, not just during peak hours

Creating service to Ocean Beach and Kaiser

Enforcing regulations against double-parked cars on Geary, which block bus routes

Having better Muni security and cameras

Increasing the number of 38L buses in service

N JUDAH

COMMUNITY RESPONSE Because much of Muni’s light rail trains operate on streets, train size

is limited. The city’s short residential blocks prevent longer, higher capacity trains. This limita-

tion adds to issues of speed and reliability. Adding to slow speeds is the frequency of the N Judah’s

stops. West of Cole, the N Judah stops on average every 850 feet.7

Accordingly, Muni’s light rail trains operate slower than typical

light rail in other cities.

The NX Express pilot project was implemented in 2011 as a re-

sult of the TEP. It has been positively received by frequent N Judah

riders and has helped to combat overcrowding and poor reliabil-

ity — top issues reported in the TEP. The NX offers supplemental

express bus service along a similar route to its parent route, servicing the same neighborhoods.

Shortly after it was implemented, the Reset San Francisco team tested the NX against the N

Judah and found the service to be equally fast as the N line without the issues of crowding and

infrequent service. The need for additional pilot programs, modeled after the NX Express, was a

recurring topic of conversation at all of our Muni town halls.

Phil Ting engages with 38 Geary riders on how to im-prove this Muni line. Most riders had positive things to say about Muni, but they also had good ideas about how to make the 38 Geary faster and more reliable.

The NX Express has been an extremely successful and favorable Muni pilot project – helping to alleviate many of the issues of crowding and infrequent service.

11

Other recommendations from riders for the N Judah include:

Eliminating stops along the route, especially in the residential corridor

Finding a solution between multi-modal competition on streets — between street cars,

pedestrians and cars

�Addressing concerns that the N Judah will often drop riders off before reaching the end

of the line

Adding more ADA accessible stops along the route

Continuing to add and improve the mobile real-time transit applications riders love

L TARAVAL

COMMUNITY RESPONSE The L Taraval shares

many of the same problems as the N Judah

with regard to train size limitation along resi-

dential corridors. This limitation undoubtedly

impacts speed and reliability. Adding to slow

speeds is the frequency of stops. Many stops are

very closely spaced even along geographically

flat corridors in low-density residential areas.

The TEP did not propose any route changes

for the L Taraval, and the only recommenda-

tion related to the L line is to increase

frequency. Riders, however, are primarily

concerned with safety issues, including the

speed of the trains on residential streets and

the poor and unsafe design of the boarding platforms that force passengers to exit directly into

traffic, which are particularly dangerous for seniors and those with disabilities.

Similar to frequent N Judah riders, L Taraval Muni riders have issues with how often the L Tara-

val trains terminate service before reaching the end of their assigned line. Riders of the L also want

an express bus similar to the NX.

Other concerns include:

Addressing overcrowding

Improving the infrequent service

Adding a baseball game shuttle to assist with heavy traffic-flow days

Adding additional signage to ensure riders are informed of train routes

Adding an automated recording to inform riders of stops


Creating transit-only lanes for safer boarding and exiting

L Taraval riders want to test pilot their own express bus, like the NX Express. Rather than waiting for SFMTA, Phil Ting and Reset San Francisco performed a test run on November 1.

13

K INGLESIDE

COMMUNITY RESPONSE Our conversations with K riders focused on safety issues and con-

sistent, frequent service. K riders often wait upwards of twenty minutes for a train, and when

it arrives, it is generally only a one-car train. Riders want more cars on the K line, particularly

during peak service hours, to alleviate crowding. They believe that adding additional cars will

also help improve the reliability of service. The TEP reported that the line would be improved if a

one-car K Ingleside were through-routed with the T Third. Under the

proposed through routing, the K Ingleside would not end inbound

service at Embarcadero but rather continue along the T Third route

to Sunnydale.

K riders would also like to see on-board security improved, which

includes ensuring that existing security cameras on trains are operational.

Since the SFMTA partners with NextBus, riders expressed issues with the unreliability of the

NextBus predictions.


Adding additional cars especially during peak hours

Creating better medians to aid in pedestrian and riders’ safety

Having better communication if a train is not going the full duration of the route when

trains are traveling outbound

The K is the worst performing light rail train with only 57.9% on-time performance.

K Ingleside riders look on as Phil Ting discusses the TEP recommendations for improving this line.

15

30 STOCKTON

COMMUNITY RESPONSE First and foremost, the most mentioned recommenda-

tion for riders of the 30 was the need for better fare collection. Beyond that is-

sue, the attendees of the 30 Stockton town hall expressed many concerns,

most of which are related to the heavy tourist traffic on the 30. Because

the 30 is frequently used by tourists, who are unfamiliar with using

Muni, many regular 30 riders expressed concern about tourists not know-

ing how to exit the bus correctly due to unclear step-down signage.

Well-placed, well-designed signs can make a city faster, smarter and more ef-

ficient. And on Muni buses, they can help speed up boarding and off boarding times,

while also teaching passengers the do’s and don’ts of Muni riding (what many San Franciscans

refer to as “Muni Manners”).

This issue of inadequate signage on the 30 Stockton was also a major topic at our large

community town hall when over 250 San Franciscans joined the conversation with expert

guest panelists Tim Papandreou, Joél Ramos and N Judah Chronicles blogger Greg Dewar,

with Phil Ting as moderator. In response, Reset created the step-down sign pictured here.

30 Stockton riders also mentioned that information on fare payment and ticket transfers is

not clearly conveyed. They then brainstormed a number of ways to communicate the informa-

tion — by audio recordings, better signs, better technology and more.

Riders also want more articulated buses, particularly during peak tourist season and peak

hours to alleviate crowding, as recommended by the TEP. Bus overcrowding is so overwhelming

that the drivers frequently fail to make all the stops needed along a line. Riders also want a 30L,

not just a 30X, along the same line as the 30 Stockton, with fewer stops to improve frequency.

Riders also expressed the need for more 30 buses that go all the way to Broderick and Beach

during peak evening hours. Riders say two or three 30 buses to Van Ness and North Point come

without any 30 buses to Broderick.

Other ideas include:

Implementing all-door boarding

Decreasing the number of stops to speed up travel times

Installing timed lights for buses

The 30 competes for space on Stockton and at the stops along Stockton with several

other bus lines

Integrating audio announcements about stepping down to open door in different

languages

Changing line route names to end confusion about 30 versus 30X service

17

M OCEAN VIEW

COMMUNITY RESPONSE Riders on the M want reliable and more regular service along the

route, echoing many of the TEP recommendations for increasing service during peak hours

downtown. The TEP also recommends decreased morning frequency of service between SFSU and

Balboa Park, yet frequent M Ocean View riders were appalled by this idea. Riders are also con-

cerned about the prevalence of fare evasion and the poor morale of drivers.

The TEP also calls for extended service to Parkmerced, which would run with alternate peak

period trips continuing to and from Balboa Park Station. A Parkmerced developer would fund

this project.

Other ideas include:

Adding additional cars during peak hours

Increasing safety at medians and street exits

Linking up one-car M trains with one-car K trains through the tunnel

Finding better ways to reduce competition with other train lines before entering

West Portal station

Improving safety in the West Portal tunnel station

Changing the dangerous pedestrian area outside of West Portal station where

several train lines depart and arrive along street tracks

M Oceanview riders want more service during peak hours.

19

1 CALIFORNIA

COMMUNITY RESPONSE 1 California riders are most frustrated with the lack of reliable and

efficient service along their route. Riders say unreliable service occurs most often after 7pm.

Adding to issues of reliability, riders say the NextMuni predictions within the bus stop shelters

are often incorrect. Riders also mentioned bus bunching as a recurring issue. 1 California riders

also expressed difficulty getting to Baker Beach on Muni.

Riders say that while they support the elimination of stops on the 1 California to help improve

bus speed, they want to ensure that eliminated stops are not transfer points. Riders urged SFMTA

to consider transfer stop proximity in considering which bus stops to eliminate. Even though riders

want to travel to the Outer Richmond faster, a number of 1 California riders prefer eliminating bus

stops rather than implementing BRT projects to improve bus speed. They also voiced safety concerns

particularly surrounding dangerous traffic speeds around the Cable Cars on California and Clay.

The TEP does not recommend any route changes for the 1 California, including the elimina-

tion of any bus stops, and focuses instead on increasing bus frequency.

Of the TEP proposed changes, riders favor more express buses and timing stoplights with bus

priority. Other concerns include:


Adding more express service, including extended service in the evening

Adding dedicated bus lanes

Examining successful bus lines to copy what is working

20

5 FULTON

COMMUNITY RESPONSE 5 Fulton riders chiefly want additional limited buses with fewer stops

along the traditional route to improve timeliness of service. They are concerned with the irregular-

ity of service and the bunching of buses. Riders’ desire for fewer stops along the 5 runs against TEP

recommendations for increased local stops on the 5L at certain points along the route.

The TEP recommends increasing frequencies at all hours of the day, and several route chang-

es, including increasing service in the Western Addition of the short line, to meet the demand

for service. Additionally, the TEP calls for local service between Ocean Beach and the TransBay

Terminal on weekends.

Other suggestions for improving the 5 Fulton include:

Moving bus stops to the stop signs

Implementing all-door boarding


22

T THIRD

COMMUNITY RESPONSE Due to the residential streets the T Third light rail runs along, train

size is limited. Adding to slow speeds is the frequency of stops. The T Third stops on average

every 1,600 feet.8

T Third riders were primarily concerned with the line’s safety and reliability. Many riders said

that the infrequency of service, combined with too many stops, made it faster to walk to their

destination than take the T. Riders also said that it is faster to take alternate bus transportation

than rely on the T Third light rail.

The riders had many safety concerns, including the muggings that have occurred in broad

daylight on the train and at platform stops. Additionally, the line’s switchbacks often drop off

riders late at night, leaving them unsafe and vulnerable as they wait upwards of 20 minutes for

another train. To address some of these safety concerns, riders would like more police presence

on T Third trains. Many riders feel forced to buy a car because of the safety and reliability issues

on the T line.

During San Francisco Giants baseball games, riders would like SFMTA to communicate al-

ternative routes to AT&T Park and to implement plans to reduce overcrowding before and after

games. Riders also voiced safety concerns about pedestrians who cross

and exit near the ballpark.

Riders also wanted Muni trackers, not NextMuni, which show in

real-time where a Muni bus is, rather then just the estimated arrivals

of NextBus. This would help alleviate some of the safety concerns be-

cause riders would not have to wait for long periods of time for trains,

especially at night. Riders say that better transportation to Bayview

would help entice people from other neighborhoods to shop there.

Riders also feel SFMTA could do more community outreach to

T Third riders to inform them about the 311 service. The T line is currently the least inquired

about Muni line. Riders felt this was not due to lack of issues, but rather because many T Third

riders are unaware that such a service exists.

The TEP recommended increased T Third service frequency but no line changes.



Designing better pedestrian safety at exits near stadium

Having better signage about ballpark transit

Ending sudden switchbacks, especially in evening

Adding increased security and police presence on the line

Many riders said that the infrequency of service, combined with too many stops, made it faster to walk to their destination rather than take the T.

24

SO — WHAT DO WE DO NEXT?

Get engaged. Get involved. Join Reset San Francisco.

Reset San Francisco was founded by Phil Ting to engage San Franciscans to get in-

volved and to make their voices heard at City Hall. We’re using web 2.0 tools to bring

San Franciscans together around real ideas and solutions to make our great city even better.

City Hall should listen to us.

If politicians could solve all our problems, we probably wouldn’t have so many. We need

more ideas and more voices at City Hall. That’s why Phil Ting and the Reset San Francisco team

are working to bring residents and city officials together, so that they can dialogue and crowd-

source ways for city government to be more efficient and more responsive — and that starts by

simply listening.

Join the conversation on www.ResetSanFrancisco.org and Facebook, and help Phil Ting

convince the SFMTA to start implementing the Transit Effectiveness Project, which will help

make Muni faster and more reliable. We have the answers. We just need you to help us activate

leadership inside City Hall.

Email us to learn more or to get involved today:

[email protected]

[email protected]

Please join us on Facebook & Twitter:

www.facebook.com/resetsanfrancisco

www.twitter.com/resetsf

AcknowledgmentsA very big thank you to the following individuals or locations, who either helped us facilitate

these town halls or have consulted on substantive Muni reform and information throughout

this process. These efforts would not have been possible without your support.

San Francisco Richmond Branch Library

West Portal Community Meeting Room

San Francisco Bayview Police Station

BIN 38

Taraval Police Station

Villa Romana Pizzeria and Restaurant

San Francisco Richmond Branch Police Station

Chris Waddling

Lauren Isaac

Victoria Holliday

Greg Dewar

The Reset San Francisco Team

& Everyone who attended a Reset Muni Town Hall

PAID FOR BY PHIL TING FOR MAYOR 2011. FPPC ID# 1334205

25

1Brookings Institute, Missed Opportunity: Transit and Jobs in Metropolitan America, May 12, 2011.

2SF Examiner, Report says Muni’s on-time performance down, operators’ unexplained absences up, April 4, 2011.

3SF Chronicle, Muni may open all doors on buses for boarding, August 29, 2011.

4SFMTA FY2011 Service Standard Report http://www.sfmta.com/cms/rstd/sstdindx.htm

5SFMTA FY2011 Service Standard Report http://www.sfmta.com/cms/rstd/sstdindx.htm

6Although this information is not a scientifically representative sample, we believe that it accurately reflects the community’s ideas and utmost concerns and ideas for improving Muni. Each town hall was a constructive conversation, focused around real solutions. For the most part, San Franciscans love Muni, yet they know we can make it even better, faster and more reliable.

7SFMTA, San Francisco Muni Unique Cost/Operating Environment. Originally presented to Muni Revenue Panel, July 26, 2007.

8SFMTA, San Francisco Muni Unique Cost/Operating Environment. Originally presented to Muni Revenue Panel, July 26, 2007.

san franciscans repond to the sfmta's transit effectiveness project

Documents