Accessible text for Budget Outreach and Engagement Blog Post
Issue areas, of approximately 290 response via emails, phone calls, and social media.
Percentage of response per issue area:
- About fares, 28.2%;
- Against towing and fee increases, 18.2%;
- In support of more muni service, 15.9%;
- In support of extended meter hours, 15.6%;
- In support for taxis, 3.6%;
- In support of fare enforcement, 1.7%;
- Reducing citations for low-income individuals, 1.7%;
- Against extended meter hours 1.7%;
- In support of tenderloin vision zero efforts, 1.4%;
- About crossing guards, 1.4%;
- In support of congestion pricing, 0.8%;
- Against cutting the 83x, 0.6%;
- In support of seeking Federal funding, 0.6%;
- In support of the N Judah, 0.6%;
- About another issue area, 4.2%.
28.2 % of comments were about fare policy. In response to these comments we revamped fare structure for more equitable rates, while raising enough revenue to maintain current service levels. See more details at sfmta.com/budget
18.2% of comments were against towing and fee increases. In response to these comments we amended tow policy to focus on equity and efficiency. Eliminated or reduced some tow and boot fees for low income drivers and people experiencing homelessness.
15.9% of comments were in support of more Muni service. In response to these comments we will invest in capital improvements like a new Automated Train Control System and a new version of NextBus to help improve congestion in the tunnels and make your trips more reliable. However, additional Muni service is not in the budget because we cannot afford it.
15.6% of comments were supports. In response to these comments we proposed expanded meter enforcement to evenings and Sundays in select corridors. SFMTA will partner with local merchant associations to determine where extended meter hours make the most sense, analyze the results, and adjust our approach accordingly
3.6% of comments were in support of taxis. In response to these comments we are going to waive all taxi fees for the two-year budget cycle as well as the taxi driver renewal fees for the current fiscal year.
1.7% of comments were in support of fare enforcement. In response to these comments want to share that the Agency is in the process of re-examining its fare enforcement practices to improve system equity.
1.7% of comments were in support of reducing citations for low-income individuals. In response to these comments we proposed free Muni for individuals experiencing homelessness and maintained discount programs for low income individuals. Eliminated or reduced tow & boot fees for low-income drivers and individuals experiencing homelessness.
1.7% of comments were against extending meter hours. In response to these comments we want to reiterate that parking pricing is used to ensure space availability and manage demand, not maximize revenue. Any revenue collected goes back into the transportation system, specifically to fund transit. Our policies state that if there is high demand during a time period, we should raise prices to ensure a space or two is available when you go to your favorite restaurant. When demand is low, we lower prices. We’ve recently looked at our parking polices and realized that they are outdated when it comes to evening metering and Sunday metering. That’s why we’re proposing this change.
1.4% of comments were in support of Tenderloin Vision Zero. In response to these comments we want to reiterate that we are committed to Tenderloin neighborhood safety. We are fully funding the Taylor Street project, allocating money to create a new project for Signal Upgrades in the Tenderloin, and dedicating 25 percent of the quick build budget to be spent exclusively in the Tenderloin. The projects funded by this 25 percent allocation will be determined by working with the community, including the Tenderloin Taskforce.
1.4% of comments were about Crossing Guards. In response to these comments we want to acknowledge that with our constrained budget resources, particularly at this time, increasing hours for crossing guards would not be appropriate. Also, during the last budget cycle we decided that it was more beneficial to increase the number of guards rather than fund more hours for existing guards because it meant that we can serve more schools. As a result of that decision, the crossing guard program was increased by $220,000 and resulted in hiring of additional 20 staff (a 20 percent increase).
0.8% of comments were in support of congestion pricing. In response to these comments we want to share that the SFMTA partnered with the SFCTA to advance a study on congestion pricing. For more information visit SFCTA.org/downtown
0.6% of comments were against cutting the 83X. In response to these comments we believe that the maintenance of low-ridership lines runs contrary to the Agency’s goals. This is an example of where we’ve taken a look at our operations and figured out that we can use our limited funding differently. It allows us to spend this money in underserved neighborhoods where people are heavily reliant on transit. There are other lines that provide redundant service to the 83X.
0.6% of comments were in support of seeking Federal funding. In response to these comments we want to share that there has been successful advocacy to provide $1.3 billion to local Bay Area transit agencies. This funding will be critical in helping us get through this and next fiscal year.
0.6% of comments were in support of the N Judah. In response to these comments we want to emphasis that planning for N Judah improvements remains in the budget proposal.
4.2% of comments were about another issue. Please visit sfmta.com/budget for a broader list of questions and response.