August 2005 - Transpo - list.sfgreens.org

Re: [Transpo] Blue Angels and MUNI Strike
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 09 Aug '05

09 Aug '05

CHristine, my remarks are below your paragraphs which are between the <>. You could post this to the staff list also. Micheas Herman is on the staff list. SUe <Hi, Fellow Transpo Folks! First - does anyone know about the "Social Strike" that Mark is talking about on the staff list? Did I nod off at a Transpo meeting? I don't remember him asking the transpo group about it - but I might have missed something. I'm not even really clear on what it is - is it MUNI workers striking or MUNI riders striking. If it's either of these options, I really don't see how it would be effective - the people with the option will just drive and the rest of us might just be screwed. But this might not be the case at all... can someone clarify?> Hi CHristine, No, the transit strike didn't come up at our last meeting in that our last meeting was held before the last COalition for Transit Justiec meeting in which the strike was discussed. Marc Salomon has asked that the social strike be agendized for the next meeting (which already has a very full schedule). THe Coalition for Transit Justice is abstaining from a YES endorsement or a NO endorsement of the strike because we are a coalition and there isn't time to get all our endorsing organizations to go to their boards and endorse the strike and then tell us. As to the Green Party, I have already heard objections to endorsing the strike. I'm on the fence and will not be at the next CC or the next GM. <Also, I really want to do something about the Blue Angels. Namely, I want them to go away. To do this, though, I know I need to do research, but I have no idea where to start. Does anyone know how I would go about finding out about the contract the city has with them? Specifically - how long is this contract? I remember reading something last year about it when they decided to bring them back. How much is the city getting out of this, and why is it so essential that they fly over the actual city? I'd also like to see the contract to see what it has in there about the practice that they do that week before. Mostly I think there three reasons that we could/should get them out of San Francisco 1) The waste of gas, fuel, energy in general 2) The unnessecary danger to the city 3) The militarism of the event. I know that the defense is the old "It bring additional revenue into the city" - but does it really? And to whom does this go? At the very least, why aren't they doing these little tricks out over the ocean where they can't hurt the population?> Talk to Micheas Herman. He says that Matt's office dod a lot of work on trying to get rid of the Blue Angels while Matt was in office and were not successful. It's basically up to Feinstein and Pelosi. <Ok - so seriously - any help is greatly appreciated. I really don't know where to start, but I really think they need to go. On a related note - is there any way to find out if any San Jose greens are working to get rid of the Grand Prix ridiculousness that's going on now and for the next five years?> As to the Grand Prix, I would talk to Dave Snyder and people in the Bike Coalition to find out if they are supporters of having the Grand Prix here and if so, why. My main objection to the Grand Prix is the reduced fees for city services that they have finagled. Sue Thanks! Christine _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo

1 0

Re: [Transpo] Meeting w/Ross (RE: MLK Drive Initiative)
by Stephen Willis 09 Aug '05

09 Aug '05

Dear Jym, How are things in New York City at your Trees Not Cars board meeting? You two must be having fun kicking up dust from a distance. Here in the Bay Area, I received your fearful and misinformed note, and can assure you that the City attorney long ago provided ROSS HIMSELF with the language of the settlement agreement negotiated by the Alliance for Golden Gate Park! Chris Duderstadt has since forwarded the relevant settlement language for all concerned. Our interest is in stopping the increase of traffic lanes on MLK Drive. Not everyone is going to support this initiative, but defeating it means we will get what Judge Warren ordered: four traffic lanes on MLK Drive, AND a second garage entrance inside the Park. Since last September, Trees Not Cars did nothing, not one thing, to cooperate with The Alliance for Golden Gate Park, or our lead attorneys, or the grass roots MLK Coalition which we helped build and which Trees confronted and alienated with several demands for funding. Now you pose as one of us who is looking out for our community, while perpetrating a virtual fraud all the way from New York City. If given a choice, I'll trust our attorneys interpretation of of the MLK Initiative over any version emanating from New York City or Trees Not Cars. Give us a break. Stephen Willis Save Golden Gate Park! Katherine Roberts <grrlfriday(a)scorcher.org> wrote: Dear D-5ers, SFBCers, Alliance people, et al.: Overall, a good meeting, and a good effort on everyone's part. I have one final concern, which I was just able to put my finger on. "Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now." - Goethe __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Carrying Water for the MCCP
by Katherine Roberts 09 Aug '05

09 Aug '05

Dear D-5 and SFBCers, Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi is holding a meeting today at 11 a.m. to discuss whether he should sign off on the ballot measure proposed by John Rizzo of the Sierra Club and Susan King of the Green Party. Although the genesis of this proposed initiative is shrouded in secrecy (which is its own issue), it appears that Mary Hughes of Warren Hellman's front group, the MCCP, and possibly the Museum trustees' legal team had a hand in writing it. The initiative purports to extract a promise not to widen MLK Jr. Drive in "exchange" for adding an amendment to Prop J which legalizes having an entrance inside the Park. Prop J clearly states that such an entrance is illegal. That means we would be taking an already horribly flawed and problematic document (Prop J) and making it worse instead of better. The second thing this initiative does wrong is that it _doesn't_ prohibit turning MLK into a four-lane road -- which is supposedly the "concession" _we_ got. Instead, it only prohibits widening MLK to accommodate "privately-owned vehicles". Nothing would stop them from building dedicated lanes for taxis, limos, and tour buses -- the only vehicular traffic the museums really care about. Shades of Prop J -- voting in an initiative that allows them to roll all over us and get exactly what they want -- and this time we would be working to help them get it. Another classic bait-and-switch -- which is why I'm calling this one "Prop J Redux". I'm leaving out arguments about the legality of all this -- i.e. the fact that the MCCP violated Prop J by siting an entrance inside the Park, got caught by citizen watchdogs, responded by coming back with something even worse, found a corrupt judge to validate that, and are now forcing all of us to bust our butts to implement the plan they wanted in the first place -- while conveniently allowing Mike Ellzey to scapegoat the watchdogs for causing all this trouble in the first place. For the record, Judge Warren's validation on the project is _not_ a final ruling, and Trees Not Cars is appealing it in its entirety. No polls were done by either side to determine the so-called "winnability" of any proposal. I've got an idea: why don't we do something truly shocking and try to create what we really want -- no entrance inside the Park and no widening of MLK -- or else step aside, stop wasting our energy on all of this, and let them stew in their own juices. In a democracy, people have the power to vote for anything they want. Why waste this awesome power on something this mediocre? Please call Ross at 554-7630 and tell him _DO_NOT_ sign off on this initiative. We need one more bit of flawed legislation like we need a hole in the head. If we haven't learned this from Prop J, we haven't learned anything. Peace, Katherine Roberts

2 1

Re: MUNI socialstrike
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 09 Aug '05

09 Aug '05

I think it's fine to agendize it as a discussion item. I will not be at the next CC or the next GM. Sue A few weeks back, I sent out a link to the MUNI Social Strike: http://www.socialstrike.net/ I've asked the Transportation Working Group for their thoughts on whether the GM should endorse the Social Strike.Â If it is okay with them, I would like to agendize an endorsement on the GM agenda for 10 min or so. We've worked through the system in good faith, won some concessions and lost on many.Â Having laid that groundwork, it would be good for the SFGP to differentiate itself from the liberal democrats by endorsing direct action. -marc What We're About A MUNI fare hike is an attack on every working person in San Francisco, including MUNI employees; a new fare increase will add to the already high stress levels faced on the job by MUNI operators. And after the hike takes effect, MUNI employees' health and retirement benefits will be under the gun. MUNI management is also planning other schemes aimed against MUNI drivers. But large-scale collective action, with MUNI riders and drivers acting together, can stop the fare hike -- and derail subsequent schemes by management and their big business backers to attack MUNI workers. CORPORATE AMERICA IN DOWNTOWN SF -- THE REAL FARE EVADER... It sounds impressive when MUNI bureaucrat Michael Burns announces that MUNI has a $57.3 million deficit. But this figure is presented in a vacuum, divorced from it's social context, as if salary increases and petty fare evasion were the cause. The real problem is that mass transit is a jumbo-sized free ride for bosses and billion-dollar corporations. San Francisco's private sector elite refuses to pay for what it squeezes out of MUNI. Running MUNI on the backs of its working class ridership guarantees a permanent fiscal crisis for MUNI -- and an endless series of demands from MUNI bureaucrats for fare hikes, service cuts, and contract concessions from MUNI operators. If MUNI riders go along with a fare hike, it will mean that the fare has gone up 50% in two years. A victory for management in this will open the way for a new round of attacks on MUNI employees. A permanent fiscal crisis is built into the system. And the erosion of working people's conditions of work and life will go on and on if it isn't stopped by mass resistance. Collective action, on the job, outside of and against the control of the union, is the only way to stop MUNI management's rip-off of riders and drivers. We can all act together against our common enemies, MUNI management, City Hall, and their downtown pals. WE CAN'T PAY, WE WON'T PAY In Italy in the 1970's, wage earners and poor people fought back against wildly-inflated prices for goods and services in what became known as the "self-reduction" movement. Whole cities saw a mass refusal to pay increased prices. Bus and streetcar operators in many cities staged on the job wildcat strikes, where they kept transit rolling, but "forgot" to collect any fares. The same has been done in Nantes, France; Hanover, Germany; and Montreal, Quebec. Wildcats of this sort have been called "social strikes;" by avoiding hardship for working people, a social strike creates an immediate bond of solidarity between riders and drivers, often forcing management and politicians to beat a hasty retreat. A threat of immediate, massive economic damage to the major corporations that own this city will bring attacks on riders and MUNI workers to a screeching halt. In the face of a big action the rich will back down fast. Let's look at what happened recently in Chicago. In July 2004, the Chicage Transit Authority (CTA) announced plans to impose major service cutbacks, beginning at the start of this year. The CTA was also going to jack up fares from $1.75 to $2.00, after the fare had just been increased in Jan. 2004 from $1.50 to $1.75 (does that sound familiar?) Bureaucrats gave the usual lame excuse -- a budget crisis. A group called Midwest Unrest began to organize a city-wide fare strike, calling on drivers and riders to act together. They said, "If drivers stopped collecting fares and riders stopped paying them we would have the economic power to pressure the transit agency without disrupting the daily commutes of all of us who depend on transit service. "...we started to flyer the eight bus garages in town, and talk to workers more about a fare strike...the drivers were all pretty pissed and stressed out. They had plenty to tell us about CTA management as well as their union reps...many workers were now telling us we should help them fight the CTA and the union (ATU local 241) at the same time because the union was a part of the company. Of the hundreds of CTA employees we have talked to at bus garages in the past six months, not one of them had anything but contempt for the union. When we brought up the idea for a fare strike, the response was usually quite positive..." Fight or Walk: the Chicago Transit Fare Strike at www.midwestunrest.net/fightorwalk On Dec.15th, the day the fare strike was to begin, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that a deal had been struck with state legislators, and that any further decisions affecting service cuts and fare hikes would be delayed for six months. The simple threat of a fare strike appears to have played a role in making politicians back off. This is a precedent in San Francisco as well. Recently in Italy, a fare strike has been staged against the rail company Trenitalia: "In Bologna, engineers and conductors have grasped the link between the fare strike and the ongoing labor disputes of the railway workers, speaking about it in assemblies and distributing the flyer... "This society runs on two tracks: one for the rich and one for the poor. While the trains are not adequate for commuters, stops are discontinued and discomfort increases...they would like to reduce us to nothing more than voters and consumers, but a great force is in our hands. It is up to us to use it. "The fare strike is spreading to various cities. Let's all participate...the more widespread the strike, the more reasonable the managers will be about the demands and labor disputes of the workers."

1 0

Meeting w/Ross
by Katherine Roberts 09 Aug '05

09 Aug '05

Dear D-5ers, SFBCers, Alliance people, et al.: Overall, a good meeting, and a good effort on everyone's part. I have one final concern, which I was just able to put my finger on. Ross has stated many times that he feels "handcuffed" (or other imagery of extreme limitation) by the terms of the settlement agreement between Chris Duderstadt, Steve Willis, Janice Rothstein, the city and the MCCP. The problem I have with this is that, as far as I know, no one outside of these parties, INCLUDING ROSS HIMSELF, knows exactly what these terms are. This is obviously a VERY dangerous position for us all to be in. Basically, the people who are telling us "You can't do that" or "You can only do this" are the people who agreed to that settlement. That list comprises Michael Martin, the city atty. Trees Not Cars has been fighting the whole time, MCCP's lawyers, and an attorney for Chris, Steve, and Janice. Without any -- I repeat, ANY -- impartial eyes on the terms of that settlement and the actual constraints it imposes (or not), we are taking those guys' word for what it says and what we can and can't do in response to it. This, to me, is asking the fox to guard the henhouse. We can see how well that strategy has worked so far. I'm not sure if, or how, this can be rectified, especially in such a short time frame. But the current situation -- trust but verify (only don't verify) -- is a disaster waiting to happen. Is there any way for us to find out the terms of this settlement so that we can make up our own minds as to what its implications are? Katherine

1 0

Re: [Transpo] We're Better Off Without the MLK Initiative
by Jym Dyer 09 Aug '05

09 Aug '05

=v= Well, swat my hind, you're right and I'm wrong. <_Jym_>

2 1

Re: [Transpo] We're Better Off Without the MLK Initiative
by Jym Dyer 09 Aug '05

09 Aug '05

> Could you please elaborate on one of your points below: >> =v= I notice also that this slips in on-street parking for >> private automobiles, which Prop J currently disallows. Why? =v= Here's the language I saw (modulo markup). Notice the last line about permitted purposes. <_Jym_> SEC. 6.01.1 LIMITATION ON TRAVEL LANES FOR PRIVATELY-OWNED AUTOMOBILES OVER PORTIONS OF MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. DRIVE AND NINTH AVENUE IN GOLDEN GATE PARK. The portions of the streets in Golden Gate Park, now known as Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive and Ninth Avenue, commencing at the entrance to Golden Gate Park at Ninth Avenue and Lincoln Way and extending to the intersection of Martin Luther King Jr. Drive and Concourse Drive in the vicinity of the Music Concourse, shall not provide for more than one lane in each direction for privately-owned automobile traffic. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prohibit the use of the remainder of such street for any purpose other than privately-owned automobile through traffic; such permitted purposes include, parking for privately-owned automobiles and bicycle- or transit-only through traffic.

2 1

We're Better Off Without the MLK Initiative
by Jym Dyer 09 Aug '05

09 Aug '05

=v= I've read through this initiative. It's useless. Bottom line: it doesn't guarantee what we want from it. We might *hope* that Dede Wilsey et al will behave, but there are no guarantees here and the track record shows the opposite: their promises and assurances are reliably unreliable. It's long past time we kept that in mind and vote accordingly. =v= Policy is far more malleable than infrastructure. This initiative seems designed to entrench car infrastructure (a car lane that cars supposedly won't use) while enacting an ill-defined, and unenforced, policy. This is a recipe for failure. =v= Infrastructure has more influence than policy: it tells people what to do. Mike Ellzey tries to spin it so that those who recognize this fact are unkind to assume that people won't follow the rules, but this is nonsense. Every urban planner knows about "the three Es" -- that Environment tells people what to do, followed by Education, and as a last resort, Enforcement. Here the Environment is a driving lane, and neither Education nor Enforcement are provided for. (Even if they were, it would be at YET MORE hidden public expense.) =v= Plus, people aren't following car-restricting policies in Golden Gate Park right now. So, it's not an unkind assumption at work, it's a recognition of reality. =v= I notice also that this slips in on-street parking for private automobiles, which Prop J currently disallows. Why? =v= Finally, while it's all well in good to assert in email that taxis are "privately-owned automobiles," the law doesn't make that distinction in that way. 1999's Prop E made the mistake of defining taxis as "transit." Limos are just glorified taxis. =v= Tell your Supe we do *not* want yet another sneaky avenue for the de Young crowd to drive over us on. <_Jym_>

2 1

Re: [Transpo] MUNI Strike
by Matt Spencer 09 Aug '05

09 Aug '05

If I can chime in here, I have my own concerns about the "social strike" as follows: I think that we as progressives should be promoting a positive, solution-oriented agenda for transportation. The solutions are out there, but they need to be proposed and implemented, and as a political organization I feel that we should be at the forefront of advancing new proposals for public transit which is a government-run transportation system. As I see it, the social strike is a reaction to the rise in Muni fares, but it does not address the root-cause issue of the Muni budget (which is in a nutshell inadequate funding to pay for the robust public transportation system that we all would probably like to see). Instead of the strike, I would love to see a ballot initiative that called for a new source of funding that would replace or supplement the income generated by fares. However, I don't believe that there is any funding component to the social strike - correct me if I'm wrong. I also disagree with the general statement that Muni fares are too high or that they restrict access to public transit. The average person can afford to ride Muni and could afford to pay $2+ in fares - particularly if they are a regular rider and purchase the Fast Pass. For those who can't afford to pay the full fare, there are existing discount programs (for seniors, youth, etc.) which could be tweaked or expanded to meet the needs of the low-income population. Even if we were to double Muni fares to $2.50, my understanding is that fares would still only account for a fraction of the budget - the rest of which comes from other sources. While you could argue that this means that fares are not important to Muni's overall budget and thus could be cut or dropped entirely, I think it also shows that riders are not being charged very much proportionally compared to the cost of the service of which they are the primary benefactors. I actually think that many people, like myself, would be happy to pay more for Muni if there were a more effective system in place with shorter wait times, more express bus options, less crowding, increased off-peak service, etc. One more point on the topic of fares - I think that people in general show greater respect for things when they have to pay for them compared to when they are "free" or nearly free. Having lived near and with people who enjoy public housing or section 8 housing, I have limitless evidence that many of that population disrespect the property that is provided to them. My concern is that "free Muni" would be similarly disrespected, leading to a fall-off in ridership which is the opposite of what we all have as our goal. As great as free Muni sounds as a concept, I fear that people would abuse the service making it much more ghetto-ized than it already is. Anyway, I would be enthusiastic about the Green Party and transportation activists making a positive contribution to the debate about Muni where we propose both increased funding for Muni and corresponding increased service such as substantial BRT or other programs that would make Muni better. I don't see the social strike as being a positive contribution to the dialog around Muni so I'm not in favor of it. I know that the TWG has been largely against all of the various Muni fare increases over the last couple of years, so perhaps there are some good arguments that can be made, but I am not sure what they are. If you want to clue me in, feel free send me your opinions. Regards, Matt (lurking on the mailing list) -----Original Message----- From: Eric Brooks <brookse32(a)netscape.net> Sent: Aug 8, 2005 2:45 PM To: transpo(a)sfgreens.org Subject: Re: [Transpo] Blue Angels and MUNI Strike Hi all, I've gotten a handful of emails about participating in a Muni fare strike starting September 1st (when the fare hike goes into effect). My concern about this plan is two fold; 1) All of us as organizers, groups and coalitions simply haven't done the broad and deep ground work needed to light up the whole community on this issue. If we had done, we would have likely succeeded in blocking the Muni budget out right. If we are going to prevail, we need to make Muni reform one of San Francisco's top two or three campaigns and do a lot more grassroots outreach on it. (A great organizing focal point for such an effort will be Ammiano's Charter amendment to reform the MTA appointment process.) 2) Largely because of point one, I don't get the sense that nearly enough people know about the fare strike to make it effective and city wide in scope. The Coalition for Transit Justice should have an organizing meeting soon to hammer out a plan of action, and perhaps kick a good fare strike into motion. As to the Blue Angels, by all means, let's get rid of them. We gained some traction when the Supervisors rejected the USS Iowa berthing in SF; many of them citing either SF's anti-war climate, and the military's lack of equal respect for the entire gender spectrum as reasons for the rejection. Perhaps someone could contact Ammiano, McGoldrick, et al, about the obvious connection to ending the Blue Angels displays for the same reasons. Peace, Eric chrismcclintock(a)hotmail.com wrote: > > Hi, Fellow Transpo Folks! > > First - does anyone know about the "Social Strike" that Mark is > talking about on the staff list? Did I nod off at a Transpo meeting? I > don't remember him asking the transpo group about it - but I might > have missed something. I'm not even really clear on what it is - is it > MUNI workers striking or MUNI riders striking. If it's either of these > options, I really don't see how it would be effective - the people > with the option will just drive and the rest of us might just be > screwed. But this might not be the case at all... can someone clarify? > > Also, I really want to do something about the Blue Angels. Namely, I > want them to go away. To do this, though, I know I need to do > research, but I have no idea where to start. Does anyone know how I > would go about finding out about the contract the city has with them? > Specifically - how long is this contract? I remember reading something > last year about it when they decided to bring them back. How much is > the city getting out of this, and why is it so essential that they fly > over the actual city? I'd also like to see the contract to see what it > has in there about the practice that they do that week before. Mostly > I think there three reasons that we could/should get them out of San > Francisco 1) The waste of gas, fuel, energy in general 2) The > unnessecary danger to the city 3) The militarism of the event. I know > that the defense is the old "It bring additional revenue into the > city" - but does it really? And to whom does this go? At the very > least, why aren't they doing these little tricks out over the ocean > where they can't hurt the population? > > Ok - so seriously - any help is greatly appreciated. I really don't > know where to start, but I really think they need to go. On a related > note - is there any way to find out if any San Jose greens are working > to get rid of the Grand Prix ridiculousness that's going on now and > for the next five years? > > Thanks! > Christine > _______________________________________________ > Transpo mailing list > Transpo(a)sfgreens.org > https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo

2 1

FW: [sfaction] Examiner: Muni Activists Urge Commuters Not to Pay
by Susan King 08 Aug '05

08 Aug '05

---------- From: Marc Norton <nortonsf(a)ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: Marc Norton <nortonsf(a)ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 06:53:02 -0700 (GMT-07:00) To: sfaction(a)yahoogroups.com Subject: [sfaction] Examiner: Muni Activists Urge Commuters Not to Pay MUNI ACTIVISTS URGE COMMUTERS NOT TO PAY: GROUP OPPOSED TO FARE INCREASE, SERVICE CUTS San Francisco Examiner By Marisa Lagos, Staff Writer Wednesday, August 3, 2005 http://www.sfexaminer.com/articles/2005/08/03//news//20050803_ne10_muni.txt On a recent foggy morning, four men stood on the corner of 16th and Mission streets, armed with colorful fliers for commuters huddled at bus stops. Some riders wave them off, but the majority this Tuesday morning accept the handouts, emblazoned with words such as, "Starting September 1... Riders Don't Pay, Drivers Don't Collect." They are part of a small, loose-knit movement determined to fight Muni's plan to close about $20 million of its $57 million budget gap by raising fares and cutting service this fall. The activists plan to protest by simply boarding buses without paying. Muni will raise fares by 25 cents in September and has sent off layoff notices to about 200 drivers in anticipation of service cuts, though some officials say that it is unlikely any employees will be forced out. Monthly passes, as well as fares for disabled riders, seniors and students will remain at the same level. [In fact, the fare for disabled riders, seniors and youth is scheduled to increase from 35 cents to 50 cents.-MN] "We shouldn't be paying more to wait longer," said flier distributor Marc Norton. "In a $5 billion [City] budget, if they really want to find the money, they can." The 20-odd volunteers organizing the protest, many from the progressive group Social Strike -- formed to fight the fare hike -- have been on corners since June, handing fliers to riders and drivers alike. After months of meetings, rallies and protests failed to convince city and transit officials to halt the service cuts and fare increases, the protesters argue that must take the fight directly to riders. They cite successful "fare strikes," in other cities including Chicago, where a fare strike and protests led to a postponement of the fare hikes and encouraged the state legislature to step in with additional funds. The San Francisco group says it is unsure how many of Muni's approximately 700,000 daily riders it will convince to participate in the strike -- and for how long -- but hopes that a critical mass could ultimately force The City to reverse its plans. At the very least, organizer Ian McLeod said, they want to raise awareness about the decisions. Muni spokesman Alan Siegel said the agency "feel it's a minority of our ridership," that would participate in a fare strike and that most understand why the changes are necessary. The agency concedes that the industry average for fare evasion is six percent and could be even higher. Many of the people approached on 16th and Mission streets, however, said they had not even heard of the 25 cent fare hike, the second since 2003. Before then, the agency had not raised prices in almost a decade. "It wouldn't be so bad if they upped prices and increased service," said homeless shelter case worker Jerrie Crane. "Sure I would do it," said one rider, Rob Guiton, who takes the 14-Mission daily. "I'm glad they're out here, making people aware." Another man waiting for the bus, however, waved off the flier. "I don't really care -- I have a Fast Pass anyway," he explained. E-mail: mlagos(a)examiner.com ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> <font face=arial size=-1><a href="http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12h9n2e1b/M=362329.6886306.7839369.3040540 /D=groups/S=1705365370:TM/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1123084411/A=2894321/R=0/SIG=11dvsfulr /*http://youthnoise.com/page.php?page_id=1992 ">Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!</a>.</font> --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sfaction/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: sfaction-unsubscribe(a)yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

1 0