[Sustain] [SFGP-A] Important! Joint Transpo/Sustainability Working Group, Thu June 26, 6:30pm, p.s.

[Dave Snyder]

Here's the email I promised to send earlier, on the TA and MTA. I  
originally sent if Feb 14.

> 4. Understanding the distinction between the SFCTA and the SFMTA.
>
> Nat Ford, the SFMTA’s executive director, made the news this week  
> with a call for a merger of his agency and the County Transportation  
> Authority. The articles, here and here, generated a great deal of  
> comments. For your benefit, here’s a little history of the two  
> agencies and some insight into how they work together, or not.
>
> The San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) was  
> established in 1989 to administer San Francisco’s half-cent sales  
> tax for transportation. By state law, a Commission charged with  
> administering a local sales tax must consist of elected officials.  
> The SFCTA’s Board is the same as the Board of Supervisors; Jake  
> McGoldrick is its President. In 1990, it was also designated by the  
> state to be the county’s congestion management agency, and it also  
> administers funds generated by the Bay Area Air Quality Management  
> District. It’s considered by many to be one of the most nimble and  
> effective city agencies. Its small staff, led by Executive Director  
> Jose Luis Moscovich, is exempt from civil service regulations that  
> govern most other city agencies.
>
> The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), on the  
> other hand, is a huge agency.  Created by Proposition E in 2000 as a  
> merger of the Municipal Railway and the Department of Parking &  
> Traffic, the SFMTA is responsible for transit (many kinds of buses,  
> trains, cable cars, and paratransit), traffic (cars and trucks),  
> bicycling, walking, and parking (public garages, metered parking,  
> neighborhood parking permits). It has enforcement powers to cite  
> illegal parking, fare evasion. It administers the camera enforcement  
> program, with the cooperation of the police department, catching red  
> light runners and illegal parking. Its transit system, our beloved  
> Muni, carries about 700,000 trips every day, more than any other  
> agency in the Bay Area and with one of the lowest subsidies per trip  
> in the Bay Area.
>
> The SFMTA is a unique beast. No other agency near its size  
> incorporates a department of transportation and transit system in a  
> single agency. While most departments of transportation are wholly  
> subsidiary to their political leadership, most transit agencies are  
> wholly independent. The SFMTA is a hybrid: it makes transit,  
> traffic, and parking decisions independently of political  
> interference, but the Mayor nominates its Commissioners, its budget  
> may be rejected by the Board of Supervisors (with a supermajority of  
> seven votes). All but 3% of the MTA's roughtly 5,000 employees are  
> subject to the city’s civil service system.
>
> There are many areas where better cooperation between the agencies  
> would help. For example, while the SFCTA is planning bus rapid  
> transit on Geary and Van Ness, the SFMTA has a line item in its 20- 
> year budget for light rail on Geary and Van Ness. The SFCTA is very  
> adept at planning, and responds nimbly to Supervisors' requests to  
> consider a transportation innovation. Its plans, though, often just  
> sit on a shelf because the agency lacks implementation powers. The  
> Market Street Study Action Plan approved four years ago has seen no  
> action on any of its modest recommendations for improving transit,  
> walking, and bicycling conditions. A recent plan to improve the  
> Tenderloin neighborhood studied changes to improve traffic and  
> transit. Approved by the SFCTA in March 2007, the plan is currently  
> being restudied by the implementing agency, the SFMTA.
>
> Would it be more efficient for just one agency to do all the  
> planning and implementation? Maybe. It might also be less efficient,  
> because the SFCTA can and does use its control of some purse strings  
> to hold agencies accountable to high levels of productivity. There  
> is also plenty of evidence that the working relationship between the  
> agencies, from the executive directors to the mid-level planners, is  
> a healthy one, not without tension but with respect, cooperation,  
> and effectiveness. The check and balance provides for better public  
> debate. For example, the SFMTA’s inclusion of Geary and Van Ness  
> light rail in its long-term budget ensures that those options are  
> seriously considered at the appropriate time after the rail-ready  
> BRT is built.
>
> I hope this article cleared up some of the confusion about these two  
> agencies. SPUR has not formally addressed the topic and has no plans  
> to do so any time soon. If you have any questions or comments,  
> please call me.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.sfgreens.org/pipermail/sustainability/attachments/20080624/06843e7f/attachment.htm