$2.4M for accident cams?

"Under the plan, DriveCam Inc. would install the equipment for $2 million and then monitor and analyze the videos for $400,000 a year. Although Muni faces a $129 million deficit in the next fiscal year, officials hope the system ultimately would save money by reducing accidents."

I understand the logic here, make an up front and reoccurring investment to pinpoint, refute, and reduce accidents, but is this really the fiscal year to do this? Cutting this program would put a 2% dent in the budget deficit, is Muni management expecting to get at least 10% of that claim money they have budgeted back?

"Additionally, videos could be used to verify or refute legal claims connected to Muni-related collisions. The agency has budgeted about $20 million in the upcoming fiscal year to pay out such claims."

Note that all of the daily run reports that I post are available to the public in pdf format on SFMTA’s website.

1×38 4×9X 4×14 2×10

1×2 1×16X 1×30X 1×44

1×6 2×24 1×22 2×30

2×41 2×49 2xM

Note that the most runs missed come from the Potrero Division.

PM missed runs:

5×9X 2×14L 2×38 1×19

1×10 1×108 1×18 1×26

1×29 1×30X 1×36 1×37

3×48 1×53 1×71 1×88X

1×6 3×14 2×22 2×30

2×41 3×49 1xJ 2xKT

3xN

Note that both Woods and Potrero tied for most runs missed at 13 each.

The current Muni driver absentee rate, which includes vacation and sick leave, is 23.9%.

6 x 14 1 x 49 5 x 22 5 x 30

April 13th AM, the Potrero branch was missing 7 runs out of 18 missed runs.

3 x 14L

4 x 14

5 x 49

Note that historically most missing runs are on the 14 line, Mission Street’s busiest Muni route.

Service cuts are coming to Muni, and don’t let them catch you by surprise. The MTA is having a series of meetings to discuss the issue, and if the attendance over 100 people is any indication, people are interested in finding a solution to this problem.

Transit is at the heart of the city’s commerce, and if service is cut even from it’s current levels, the city will be impacting it’s own source of revenues: the tax base. If the bus doesn’t arrive, that’s 100 people that are late for work, that could be fired, or just give up and decide not to do that shopping trip today. A missed run means missed opportunuties, so the MTA needs to be reasonable and cut excess, not runs, and raise revenue where reasonable.

If the MTA goes with fare increases, then they also have to increase service. Value has to match price, otherwise ridership will drop off. Cleaner buses, friendlier drivers, and more a more visable security presence are examples of how to expand service for price without more wheels and irons on the road.

Where are the street supervisors? What happened that required the diesel coaches to be ran? Of course, the last 5 22’s were completely empty.

NYC’s Mayor Bloomberg attempted to be the first city in American to introduce congestion pricing, only to be defeated today at the hands of the NY legislature. This, normally, would result in a bitter blog rant on my part, but the upshot is that San Francisco is likely to be next in line for a slice of the estimated $1.2b in federal funding aimed at this project:

SPUR’s Dave Snyder writes:

What the NY legislature failed to support was a grant application by the city of New York for most of the $1.2 billion the U.S. DOT has budgeted to support implementation of a congestion pricing pilot project. The money would buy the technology, pay for the outreach, the whole deal. After originally intending to dole out the money to many areas, they recently decided to give it out in one or a couple more huge grants. SF has already applied for the grant, and New York’s failure to get it really strengthens our application!

And so, it is only a question of if the city and county of San Francisco will gain for a share of this cash, and beat NYC to what the other side of the pond already has: fairly sharing public infrastructure.

Art Curtis writes in the RescueMuni list:

3. MOU WITH THE TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION: This MOU, in effect through 30 June
2008, DOES NOT ALLOW the operation of two-car trains in revenue service OUTSIDE of the subway,
believe it or not. The wording is as follows from Section 16.5 - Multiple Car Trains:

183. “Multiple car trains are two or three cars coupled for lead car
control. During the terms of this MOU, LRV operators may be assigned to operate
two or three car trains while the cars are in operation between West Portal or
Church-Duboce and Embarcadero Stations. An LRV operator may be assigned to
operate two car trains for pull out and pull in movements on the street,
provided that the second car is not in service and its doors are not operated.”

There must be a side letter somewhere in the MOU that allows the operation of
two-car trains on the street on the L, M and N lines, but we’ve all seen two car trains on the
J or on the K where the second car is signed as “Not-In-Service” because of
this MOU restriction.

When I was still at MUNI, the union was always saying that, for safety reasons,
every car should have an operator, no matter what. One of the reasons was so
that if someone did fall between the first and second car, the second car
operator could prevent the train from starting or stop the train.

So even if the “T” had “between car barriers” in place, the current MOU would not allow
for operation of two-car trains on the “T”, no matter how heavy the service demand.

As noted, the MOU is up for renewal in June 2008. I think it’s time that
changes are made prior to implementation of the next MOU.

The cost of a gallon of Biofuel Oasis in Berkeley costs $3.65, compared to the current lowest price of $3.01 for petrol in San Francisco. In the long run this program might be a smart move considering the ever increasing price of oil and Muni’s plans of expanding diesel service via BRT deployments over much more pollution-friendly light rail and electric trolleys.